The URL can be used to link to this page

PE-1414-92• North Idaho Engineering, Inc. 4200 Sehice Way, Suite 2 • Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83814 • Phone (208) 667 -1171 • Fax (208) 664 -3507 TRAFFIC IMPACT REPORT FOR THE RIVERNAY VILLA PROJECT APRIL 8, 1994 Prepared on behalf of: Wel Co Group, Inc. P.O. Box 2825 Redmond, WA. 98073 -2825 JOB # P1414 RECEIVED APR 19 1994 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER EXPIRES 09/23/ TRAFFIC REPORT FOR THE RIVERWAY VILLA PROJECT The RIVERWAY VILLA project is currently designed for 365 single family, or manufactured home lots. Since it has not been determined which type of homes will be utilized for the project this study will review both types of homes, and their impact. This report will first outline the existing traffic within the project area. For this we have used both Delta and Beta type traffic counters in conjunction with the JANUS traffic program software. The TIMEMARK DELTA I traffic counter was used for all traffic analysis in this report. This counter automatically analyzes the speed, gap, type of vehicle, and traffic counts, and stores the information in a detachable card for up to a 30 day period. The card is then removed and information automatically transferred to the computers to be deciphered by the JANUS program. We utilized a TIMEMARK BETA counter to verify any data which seemed suspect. The BETA counter only identifies strikes, or vehicle counts in each direction, and was therefor useful to verify suspect counts. For instance, the ratio of ADT's for the Interstate 90 Westbound on ramp to Westbound off ramp seemed out of order after the collected data was analyzed. The BETA counter was therefor placed a week after the DELTA counter was moved to verify the ratio, and the suspect counts were found to be in order. Once the existing traffic is analyzed we will add the additional traffic generated by the RIVERWAY VILLA project to determine the projected level of service impacts to Mission Avenue, Barker Road, the intersection of Barker Road at Mission Avenue, the East and West bound on and off ramps at Interstate 90 and Barker Road, and Barker Road at Trent Avenue. DESIGN AREAS BEING STUDIED 1. Intersection of Barker Road and Mission Avenue 2. I -90 On /Off Ramp West Bound from Barker Road On movements only MODEL: BARKER ROAD AND MISSION AVENUE 1. Existing Area Traffic 2. Anticipated Traffic Manufactured Homes 3. Anticipated Traffic Single - Family Detached Housing EXISTING AREA TRAFFIC Barker Rd. & Mission Ave. The Highway Capacity Software (HCS) was used to model Barker Road and Mission Avenue for existing traffic. The data collected shows the evening peak traffic between 3:15 P.M. and 5:00 P.M. Between these hours each lane movements peak hour volume was chosen. To establish lane movements, total daily trips were proportioned until input trips equaled output trips. This established left turn, right turn, and through trips for each lane. With both the lane total average daily trips and each lane movements individual average daily trips known, a percentage of the total average daily lane trips was calculated for each lane movement (appendix 1, pg 1). Now the lane movements have been identified and the percentage of total average daily trips known, the peak hourly volumes could be broken down into lane movements. This was accomplished by multiplying peak hourly lane volume by a corresponding lane movement percentage calculated in the previous step. Resulting in peak hourly volumes for each lane movement (appendix 1, pg #2). Next, the information calculated and gathered was entered into the HCS program for unsignalized intersections. The results of the HCS can be found in appendix 1. 4 n c F HZ ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC MANUFACTURED HOMES Barker Rd. & Mission Ave. Total average daily trips (ADT) for the Riverway Villa Project were established using ITE Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition for a mobile home park with 365 units. (365 units x 4.81 ADT /unit = 1756 ADT) Ten percent of the 1756 ADT depicts peak hour demand from the total Riverway Villa Project. Fifty five percent of the peak hour trips represents the north bound demand at the intersection of Barker Rd. and Mission Ave. from the Riverway Villa Project. (1756 ADT x 10% x 55% = 97 VPH) Of the 97 VPH 50% (48 VPH) will enter the intersection north bound during peak hour and travel straight through the intersection on Barker Road entering Riverway Villa Project at Villa Avenue. The other (48 VPH) will enter north bound then turn east onto Mission Avenue and enter Riverway Villa Project from one of three access roads. These volumes were added to the existing peak hour lane movement to assess a level of service. The HCS program calculates the future peak hour level of service (appendix 2). It is easy to show that the addition of the 365 manufactured home sites will not significantly impact the intersection. However, a four way stop sign would significantly improve left turn movement level of service. ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC SINGLE - FAMILY DETACHED HOUSING Barker Rd. & Mission Ave. The procedure for the single - family detached housing model was performed with the same steps as the manufactured home model. The total average daily trips from ITE Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition for single - family detached housing and 365 units with 9.55 ADT /units is 3486 ADT. (365 units x 9.55 ADT /unit = 3486 ADT) Ten percent of the 3486 ADT delineates peak hour demand from the total Riverway Villa Project. Fifty five percent of the peak hour trips represents the peak hour demand for north bound traffic at the intersection of Barker Rd. and Mission Ave. (3486 ADT x 10% x 55% = 192 VPH) Therefore 50% (96 VPH) will enter the intersection north bound traveling straight through the intersection on Barker Road entering Riverway Villa Project at Villa Avenue. The other 50% (96 VPH) will turn East onto Mission Avenue and enter the Riverway Villa Project from one of three access roads. These volumes were added to the existing peak hour lane movement to assess a level of service using the HCS program (appendix 3). Again the addition of 365 Single Family Homes will not Significantly impact the intersection of Barker Road at Mission Avenue. However a for way stop sign would improve left turn movement. Summary for Barker Road and Mission Avenue Intersection In appendix 4, there is a summary that shows reserve capacity and level of service for all three models for Barker Road and Mission Avenue. Included is Table 10.3. Level -Of- Service Critera For Unsignalized Intersections. One factor effecting these models was speed. With the existing model, a speed of 43 mph was used for Barker Rd. reflecting the data gathered. For the other two models, a speed of 35 mph was used to reflect the speed limit for Barker Rd. As the speed of major street traffic increases, drivers tend to require longer gaps. By reducing the speed to 35 mph, the critical gap size decreased improving the intersections level of service. The addition of four way stop signs will both reduce the average vehicle speed and control gap and improve left turn movement level of service for the intersection. b ti r APPENDIX 1 EXISTING AREA TRAFFIC Barker Road & Mission Avenue ti vt Barker Rd, 0 s P1 ( P9 1:k/ Barker Rd, bd fJ N co N' N E -i� T • • 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page -1 ************************************** * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 43 PEAR HOUR FACTOR .86 AREA POPULATION 150000 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET Mission Ave. NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET Barker Rd. NAME OF THE ANALYST G.E. Siegford DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd /yy) 03 -29 -1994 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED 3•15 - 5:00 OTHER INFORMATION... exis .qi g EA TR AFP INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: 4 -LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH /SOUTH 41 CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB SB LEFT 19 28 43 15 • THRU 10 7 282 262 RIGHT 39 14 32 17 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE LANES EB WB NB SB • • ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page -2 EASTBOUND 0.00 WESTBOUND 0.00 NORTHBOUND 0.00 SOUTHBOUND 0.00 VEHICLE COMPOSITION PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 93 6 WESTBOUND 85 15 NORTHBOUND 91 8 SOUTHBOUND 93 7 CRITICAL GAPS MINOR RIGHTS EB WB MAJOR LEFTS SB NB MINOR THROUGHS EB WB MINOR LEFTS EB WB • IDENTIFYING INFORMATION TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10 -2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP 6.02 6.02 5.26 5.26 6.78 6.78 7.28 7.28 90 25 N 90 25 N 90 20 N 90 20 N 6.02 6.02 5.26 5.26 6.78 6.78 7.28 7.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0 1 0 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET Mission Ave. NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET Barker Rd. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 03 -29 -1994 ; 3:15 - 5:00 OTHER INFORMATION.... 6.02 6.02 5.26 5.26 6.78 6.78 7.28 7.28 I CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE POTEN- FLOW- TIAL RATE CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) P MINOR STREET EB LEFT THROUGH RIGHT MINOR STREET WB LEFT THROUGH RIGHT MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 27 778 NB LEFT 77 815 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ACTUAL MOVEMENT CAPACITY c (pcph) M SHARED CAPACITY c (pcph) SH Page -3 RESERVE CAPACITY c = c - v LOS R SH 34 262 231 > 231 > 198 > D 18 314 290 > 393 290 > 273 272 >C C 69 694 694 > 694 > 625 > A 51 251 210 > 210 > 159 > D 13 319 294 > 275 294 > 186 282 >D C 26 665 665 > 665 > 640 > A 778 815 778 815 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET Mission Ave. NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET Barker Rd. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 03 -29 -1994 ; 3:15 - 5:00 OTHER INFORMATION.... 751 A 739 A APPENDIX 2 ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC MANUFACTURED HOMES Barker Road & Mission Avenue Number of Studies: 37 Average Number of Occupied Dwelling Units: 195 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per Occupied Dwelling Unit Range of Rates Standard Deviation 2.29 - 10.42 2.60 Average Rate 4.81 Data Plot and Equation 1 Mobile Home Park (240) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Occupied Dwelling Units On a: Weekday 4,000 3.000 2,000 1,000 0 0 X = Number of Occupied Dwelling Units Fitted Curve - Average Rate X Actual Data Points 0.890 Ln(X) + 2.162 R = 0.85 Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = � ) 800 900 Trip Generation, January 1991 427 Institute of Transportation Engineers 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page -1 ************************************** * ** * * * * * * * * * ** ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 35 PEAK HOUR FACTOR .86 AREA POPULATION 150000 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET Mission Ave. NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET Barker Rd. NAME OF THE ANALYST G.E. Siegford DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm /dd /yy) 03 -29 -1994 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED 3•15 - 5:00 OTHER INFORMATION.... 6/1.11-1•4.7-p474610 TKmFFre. , v0Alt= /fCT11KE© c ES INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: 4 -LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH /SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB SB 41 LEFT 19 28 43 15 THRU 10 7 330 262 RIGHT 39 14 80 17 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE LANES EB WB NB SB • EASTBOUND 0.00 • WESTBOUND 0.00 NORTHBOUND 0.00 SOUTHBOUND 0.00 • VEHICLE COMPOSITION • EASTBOUND 93 6 WESTBOUND 85 15 NORTHBOUND 91 8 • SOUTHBOUND 93 7 CRITICAL GAPS • • ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page -2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10 -2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.70 5.70 0.00 5.70 WB 5.70 5.70 0.00 5.70 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.10 5.10 0.00 5.10 NB 5.10 5.10 0.00 5.10 MINOR THROUGHS EB WB IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 6.30 6.30 90 25 N 90 25 N 90 20 N 90 20 N 6.30 6.30 0.00 0.00 1 0 1 0 MINOR LEFTS EB 6.80 6.80 0.00 6.80 WB 6.80 6.80 0.00 6.80 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET Mission Ave. NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET Barker Rd. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 03 -29 -1994 ; 3:15 - 5:00 OTHER INFORMATION.... 6.30 6.30 CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE POTEN- FLOW- TIAL RATE CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) P MINOR STREET EB LEFT THROUGH RIGHT MINOR STREET WB LEFT THROUGH RIGHT MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 27 714 NB LEFT IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ACTUAL MOVEMENT CAPACITY c (pcph) M 34 251 221 > 221 > 188 > D 18 307 284 > 392 284 > 272 266 >C C 69 745 745 > 745 > 676 > A 51 253 213 > 213 > 162 > D 13 323 298 > 277 298 > 188 285 >D C 26 646 646 > 646 > 621 > A 77 847 714 847 SHARED CAPACITY c (pcph) SH 714 847 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET Mission Ave. NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET Barker Rd. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 03 -29 -1994 ; 3:15 - 5:00 OTHER INFORMATION.... 687 771 Page -3 RESERVE CAPACITY c = c - v LOS R SH A APPENDIX 3 ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC SINGLE - FAMILY DETACHED HOUSING Barker Road & Mission Avenue Single Family Detached Housing (210) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday Number of Studies: 348 Average Number of Dwelling Units: 206 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate 9.55 Data Plat and Equation Range of Rates Standard Deviation 4.31 - 21.85 3.66 W 24,000 0, H 0 30,000 10,000 X Actual Data Points x x X 1000 2000 X = Number of Dwelling Units Fltted Curve - Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) 0.921 Ln(X) + 2.698 R = 0.96 3000 Trip Generation, January 1991 257 Institute of Transportation Engineers 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page -1 ************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 35 PEAK HOUR FACTOR .86 AREA POPULATION 150000 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET Mission Ave. NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET Barker Rd. NAME OF THE ANALYST G.E. Siegford DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm /dd /yy) 03 -29 -1994 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED 3:15 - 5:00 OTHER INFORMATION... . 3aNG - F�r per cNhv MoriPS.21 INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: 4 -LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH /SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB SB LEFT 19 28 43 15 THRU 10 7 378 262 RIGHT 39 14 128 17 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE LANES EB WB NB SB ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page -2 EASTBOUND 0.00 90 25 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 25 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION EASTBOUND 93 6 WESTBOUND 85 15 NORTHBOUND 91 8 SOUTHBOUND 93 7 CRITICAL GAPS MINOR RIGHTS EB WB MAJOR LEFTS SB NB MINOR THROUGHS EB WB MINOR LEFTS EB WB PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS IDENTIFYING INFORMATION % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10 -2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP 5.70 5.70 5.10 5.10 6.30 6.30 6.80 6.80 5.70 5.70 5.10 5.10 6.30 6.30 6.80 6.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0 1 0 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET Mission Ave. NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET Barker Rd. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 03 -29 -1994 ; 3:15 - 5:00 OTHER INFORMATION.... 5.70 5.70 5.10 5.10 6.30 6.30 6.80 6.80 CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE POTEN- FLOW- TIAL RATE CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) MINOR STREET EB LEFT THROUGH RIGHT MINOR STREET WB LEFT THROUGH RIGHT MAJOR STREET SB LEFT NB LEFT P 27 624 77 847 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ACTUAL MOVEMENT CAPACITY c (pcph) M 34 208 182 > 182 > 148 > D 18 259 238 > 342 238 > 222 221 >C C 69 745 745 > 745 > 676 > A 51 220 184 > 184 > 133 > D 13 287 264 > 242 264 > 152 251 >D C 26 587 587 > 587 > 561 > A 624 847 SHARED CAPACITY c (pcph) SH 624 847 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET Mission Ave. NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET Barker Rd. DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 03 -29 -1994 ; 3:15 - 5:00 OTHER INFORMATION.... RESERVE CAPACITY c = c - v LOS R SH 598 771 Page -3 A A b a APPENDIX 4 SUMMARY Barker Road & Mission Avenue • TABLE 10-3. LEVEL -OF- SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNAL- IZED INTERSECTIONS • RESERVE CAPACITY (PCPH) LEVEL OF SERVICE EXPECTED DELAY TO MINOR STREET TRAFFIC 400 A Little or no delay 300 -399 B Short traffic delays 200 -299 C Average traffic delays 100 -199 D Long traffic delays 0- 99 E Very long traffic delays F • When demand volume =coeds the capacity or the lane extreme delays will be encountered with doom. which may =we severe conseatwn aIfeetwg other mint movements in the intenecttan. This .ondtuon tonally warrants improvement to the intersection. • • • • • • :SINC3I: :TAMIL •:i:::: RESERVE LOS .1bEti..44:04 CAPACITY LOS INTERSECTION EXISTING (EB) LEFT 148 D THROUGH 221 C C • RIGHT 676 A • (SB) LEFT 598 A A (NB) LEFT 771 A A CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE BARKER RD. 8 MISSION AVE. MODELED BY HCS SOFTWARE RESERVE LOS CAPACITY LOS INTERSECTION (EB) LEFT 198 D THROUGH 272 C C RIGHT 625 A (WB) LEFT 159 D THROUGH 282 C D RIGHT 640 A (SB) LEFT 751 A A (NB) LEFT 739 A A :b'I1,141FACTURED -HOMES RESERVE LOS CAPACITY LOS INTERSECTION EXISTING (EB) LEFT 188 D THROUGH 266 C C RIGHT 676 A (WB) LEFT 162 D THROUGH 285 C D RIGHT 621 A (SB) LEFT 687 A A (NB) LEFT 771 A A (WB) LEFT 133 D THROUGH 251 C D RIGHT 561 A SUMMARY OF RESULTS FROM DATA COLLECTED LOCATION : BARKER RD.; 500 FT. SOUTH OF TRENT • DATE 03 -09 -94 DIRECTIO (NB) NORTH BOUND; (SB) SOUTH BOUND • REF. : TEST #1 (NB) 89 VPH @ 6:45 A.M. • (NB) 139 VPH @ 4:45 P.M. (SB) 119 VPH @ 7:00 A.M. (SB) 141 VPH @ 4:45 P.M. • • • • VEHICLE PER HOUR (VPH); PEAK VEHICLE PER DAY (VPD); WEEKDAY TOTAL (NB) 1369 VPD (SB) 1416 VPD AXLE CLASS (NB) BIKES 0.9% CARS & 2 AXLE 92.8% BUSES 0.3% TRUCKS 0.6% (SB) BIKES 0.9% CARS & 2 AXLE 90.6% BUSES 1.6% TRUCKS 6.7% LOCATION : BARKER RD.; 200 FT. NORTH OF MISSION AVE. • DATE 03 -02 -94 DIRECTIO (NB) NORTH BOUND; (SB) SOUTH BOUND REF. : TEST #2 • (NB) 181 VPH @ 11:45 A.M. • (NB) 287 VPH @ 4:15 P.M. (SB) 241 VPH @ 7:00 A.M. (SB) 294 VPH @ 3:15 P.M. • • • VEHICLE PER HOUR (VPH); PEAK VEHICLE PER DAY (VPD); WEEKDAY TOTAL (NB) 2725 VPD (SB) 2885 VPD AXLE CLASS (NB) BIKES 0.2% CARS & 2 AXLE 93.0% BUSES 0.7% TRUCKS 6.1% (SB) BIKES 0.3% CARS & 2 AXLE 91.2% • BUSES 1.0% TRUCKS 7.5% LOCATION : BARKER RD.; 50 FT. NORTH OF SHARP • DATE 03 -08 -94 DIRECTIO (NB) NORTH BOUND; (SB) SOUTH BOUND REF. : TEST #3 (NB) 203 VPH @ 11:30 A.M. • (NB) 357 VPH @ 4:45 P.M. (SB) 303 VPH @ 7:00 A.M. (SB) 277 VPH @ 3:15 P.M. • • • VEHICLE PER HOUR (VPH); PEAK VEHICLE PER DAY (VPD); WEEKDAY TOTAL (NB) 2887 VPD (SB) 3190 VPD AXLE CLASS (NB) BIKES 0.9% CARS & 2 AXLE 90.9% BUSES 1.9% TRUCKS 6.3% (SB) BIKES 1.0% CARS &2AXLE 90.2% BUSES 2.1% TRUCKS 6.7% LOCATION : MISSION AVE.; 200 FT. EAST OF BARKER RD. • DATE 03 -10 -94 DIRECTIO (EB) EAST BOUND; (WB) WEST BOUND REF. : TEST #4 (EB) 36 VPH @ 11:15 A.M. • (EB) 61 VPH @ 2:15 P.M. (WB) 49 VPH @ 6:30 A.M. (WB) 49 VPH @ 2:00 P.M. • • VEHICLE PER HOUR (VPH); PEAK VEHICLE PER DAY (VPD); WEEKDAY TOTAL (EB) 475 VPD (WB) 528 VPD AXLE CLASS (EB) BIKES 1.0% CARS & 2 AXLE 86.2% BUSES : 9.1% TRUCKS 3.7% (WB) BIKES 0.0 °'o CARS & 2 AXLE 84.8% BUSES 10.9% TRUCKS 4.3% MODEL: I -90 ON /OFF RAMP WEST HOUND FROM BARRER ROAD 1. Existing Area Traffic 2. Anticipated Traffic Manufactured Homes 3. Anticipated Traffic Single- Family Detached Housing • • All information calculated was gathered into the HCS program. The results of the HCS can be found in appendix A. EXISTING AREA TRAFFIC I -90 On /Off Ramp West Bound from Barker Road The Westbound I -90 on -ramp traffic movement possessed a threat of overburden and was chosen as the only necessary model. With the data gathered, the Highway Capacity Software (HCS) was used to model the existing system. The data shows a peak demand during the 6.45 A.M. to 7:45 A.M. hour of 361 vehicles. Additional information was obtained from Greg Figg (Washington DOT: Transportation Planner) about traffic volumes characteristics for I -90 both east and west of the ramp. This information can be found in appendix A. • Forty percent of the ten percent represents the I -90 west • bound on -ramp demand from the project. • This peak hourly volume was then added to the existing peak hour volume of 361 VPH. • ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC MANUFACTURED HOMES I -90 On /Off Ramp West Bound from Barker Road Total average daily trips (ADT) for the Riverway Villa Project were established using ITE Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition as shown previously for Barker Road and Mission Ave. (1756 ADT x 10% x 40% = 70 VPH) (361 VPH + 70 VPH = 431 VPH) With the new peak hour volume, the HCS software was applied and the results can be found in appendix B. • • • (361 VPH + 140 VPH = 501 VPH) • and the results can be found in appendix C. ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC SINGLE - FAMILY DETACHED HOUSING I -90 On /Off Ramp West Bound from Barker Road The procedure for the single- family detached housing model was performed with the same steps as the manufactured home model. The total average daily trips from ITE Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition for single - family detached housing was calculated for Barker Road and Mission Avenue to be 3486 ADT. Forty percent of the ten percent represents I -90 west bound on -ramp demand from the project. (3486 ADT x 10% x 40% = 140 VPH) This peak hourly volume was then added to the existing peak hour volume of 361 VPH. With the new peak hour volume, the HCS software was applied Summary for I -90 On /Off Ramp The results of each model and Table 5 -1 Level -of- Service Criteria for Checkpoint Flow Rates at Ramp- Freeway Terminals with a description of the different levels of service are included in appendix D. The added volume from single family or manufactured homes did not change the level of service from its existing level of service C. Therefore no additional improvements to the westbound on ramp are required. APPENDIX A EXISTING AREA TRAFFIC I -90 On /Off Ramp West Bound from Barker Road LOCATION : BARKER RD.; 1 -90 ON RAMP, NORTH SIDE • DATE 03 -23 -94 DIRECTIO (OR) ON RAMP; (OFR) OFF RAMP REF. : TEST #6 • (OR) 361 VPH Q 6:45 A.M. • (OR) 227 VPH @ 3:30 P.M. • • VEHICLE PER HOUR (VPH); PEAK VEHICLE PER DAY (VPD); WEEKDAY TOTAL (OR) 2933 VPD AXLE CLASS (OR) BIKES 1.8% CARS & 2 AXLE 87.6% BUSES 1.3% TRUCKS 9.3% �- 9 A,o,,DA'( 7 fiKo h Fn.11xv 6 9 3) 9 vpa) TDTr3L BOT/{ 1At Q. ) � /o ecek Hoot 300,4D " 7/tack ,s G� ST OUT L oVN o f r fi tz IT_ 7 2 U Z. Lire f o:1( }Hon >) k)- L< / 0JR our = 2 1 Ell 50)1(6: i.t.Crti Gng g Fi r WASH DoT nvwsr0enzo P c,4i ✓N !F (H #, CS69) 5i - 399 /✓; GNva Y T /x ti r=,uvAy C 3� y3 v � Torra c. 130TH v' Je 8. /c Pvvk HOo,L 17� 5 Ovr oouNu % 7K VC' S vpox . P/6 2C 960 Po V -Lane one volume V -Ramp volume V - Volume downstream of an on -ramp VPH - Vihicles Per Hour E - Passenger -car equivalents for trucks F -The adjustment factor for the combined effect of trucks, recreational vehicles, and buses on the traffic stream; PHF -Which is defined as the ratio of total hourly volume to the maximum 15 -min rate of flow within the hour. PCPH - Passenger cars per hour 1985 HCM:RAMP ANALYSIS PAGE 1 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FACILITY LOCATION. ANALYST TIME OF ANALYSIS DATE OF ANALYSIS OTHER INFORMATION. A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS 7 (Typical - 200 # /HP) PEAK HOUR FACTOR 9 HIGHWAY DESIGN SPEED (mph) 70 (BUSES AND RV'S ARE CONSIDERED AS TRUCKS) LEVEL TERRAIN B) INPUT INFORMATION NO. OF LANES ON FREEWAY : 2 (per direction) ANALYSIS RAMP CHARACTERISTICS: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** (1) RIGHT -HAND RAMP. (2) ONE LANE RAMP. VOLUME % TRUCKS RAMP TYPE DISTANCE ... arker Rd., I -90 Westbound On -Ramp G.E. Siegford 03 -30 -1994 ... EXTSTTNN C.7 UPSTREAM RAMP FREEWAY * * * * * * ** * * * * * ** N.A. 1816 N.A. 7 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. ANALYSIS RAMP * * * * * * ** 361 10 ON N.A. DOWNSTREAM RAMP * * * * * * * * ** N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 1985 HCM:RAMP ANALYSIS PAGE 2 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** C) RAMP ANALYSIS RESULTS TRUCK PRESENCE IN LANE 1: 66 % OF FREEWAY TRUCKS RAMP ANALYZED ALONE USING FIGURE I.5- 1 VPH 721 ET 1.7 Fhv 0.92 PHF 0.90 PCPH 871 V1 Vr Vf * * ** * * ** * * * ** IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 361 1.7 0.93 0.90 431 CHECKPOINT VOLUME LOS * * * * * * * * ** * * * * ** * ** FREEWAY: 2555 C MERGE: 1302 C 1816 1.7 0.95 0.90 2124 FACILITY LOCATION arker Rd., I -90 Westbound On -Ramp TIME AND DATE ; 03 -30 -1994 OTHER INFORMATION • APPENDIX B EXISTING AREA TRAFFIC I -90 On /Off Ramp West Bound from Barker Road • 1985 HCM:RAMP ANALYSIS PAGE 1 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** • FACILITY LOCATION arker Rd., I -90 Westbound On -Ramp ANALYST G.E. Siegford TIME OF ANALYSIS DATE OF ANALYSIS LEVEL TERRAIN B) INPUT INFORMATION VOLUME % TRUCKS RAMP TYPE DISTANCE N.A. 1816 N.A. 7 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 03 -30 -1994 OTHER INFORMATION.... .ITrG_reArp - rnRr.pz. / Neill A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS 7 (Typical - 200 # /HP) PEAK HOUR FACTOR 9 HIGHWAY DESIGN SPEED (mph) 70 (BUSES AND RV'S ARE CONSIDERED AS TRUCKS) NO. OF LANES ON FREEWAY : 2 (per direction) ANALYSIS RAMP CHARACTERISTICS: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** (1) RIGHT -HAND RAMP. (2) ONE LANE RAMP. UPSTREAM RAMP FREEWAY * * * * * * ** * * * * * ** ANALYSIS RAMP * * * * * * ** 431 10 ON N.A. DOWNSTREAM RAMP * * * * * * * * ** N.A. N.A. N .A. N.A. 4 1985 HCM:RAMP ANALYSIS PAGE 2 ********************************* * ** * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * ** C) RAMP ANALYSIS RESULTS TRUCK PRESENCE IN LANE 1: 66 % OF FREEWAY TRUCKS RAMP ANALYZED ALONE USING FIGURE I.5- 1 V 1 * * ** VPH 713 ET 1.7 Fhv 0.92 PHF 0.90 PCPH 861 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION Vr * * ** 431 1.7 0.93 0.90 515 CHECKPOINT VOLUME LOS * * * * * * * * ** * * * * ** * ** FREEWAY: 2639 C MERGE: 1376 C Vf * * * ** 1816 1.7 0.95 0.90 2124 FACILITY LOCATION arker Rd., I -90 Westbound On -Ramp TIME AND DATE ; 03 -30 -1994 OTHER INFORMATION APPENDIX C ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC SINGLE -FAMLY DETACHED HOUSING I -90 On /Off Ramp West Bound from Barker Road 1985 HCM:RAMP ANALYSIS PAGE 1 41 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** FACILITY LOCATION arker Rd., I -90 Westbound On -Ramp ANALYST G.E. Siegford TIME OF ANALYSIS DATE OF ANALYSIS 03 - - 1994 OTHER INFORMATION -d Ttt.#,:: Sr.+166 l= /y" isisi e b J i:oaSJNg A) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS 7 (Typical - 200 # /HP) PEAK HOUR FACTOR 9 HIGHWAY DESIGN SPEED (mph) 70 (BUSES AND RV'S ARE CONSIDERED AS TRUCKS) LEVEL TERRAIN B) INPUT INFORMATION NO. OF LANES ON FREEWAY : 2 (per direction) ANALYSIS RAMP CHARACTERISTICS: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** (1) RIGHT -HAND RAMP. (2) ONE LANE RAMP. UPSTREAM ANALYSIS DOWNSTREAM RAMP FREEWAY RAMP RAMP * * * * * * ** * * * * * ** * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * ** VOLUME N.A. 1816 501 N.A. % TRUCKS N.A. 7 10 N.A. RAMP TYPE N.A. N.A. ON N.A. DISTANCE N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. • • 1985 HCM:RAMP ANALYSIS PAGE 2 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** C) RAMP ANALYSIS RESULTS TRUCK PRESENCE IN LANE 1: 66 % OF FREEWAY TRUCKS RAMP ANALYZED ALONE USING FIGURE I.5- 1 V1 Vr Vf * * ** * * ** * * * ** VPH 705 501 1816 ET 1.7 1.7 1.7 Fhv 0.92 0.93 0.95 PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 PCPH 851 599 2124 CHECKPOINT VOLUME LOS * * * * * * * * ** * * * * ** * ** FREEWAY: 2723 C MERGE: 1450 C IDENTIFYING INFORMATION FACILITY LOCATION arker Rd., I -90 Westbound On -Ramp TIME AND DATE ; 03 -30 -1994 OTHER INFORMATION APPENDIX D SUMMARY I -90 On /Off Ramp West Bound From Barker Road • • FREEWAY: 2555 C • MERGE: 1302 C • • FREEWAY: 2723 C • MERGE: 1450 C MANUFACTURED HOMES RESULTS OF EACH MODEL FOR 1 -90 ON /OFF RAMP WESTBOUND FROM HCS PROGRAM CHECKPOINT VOLUME LOS EXISTING FREEWAY: 2639 C MERGE: 1376 C SINGLE- FAMILY DETACHED HOUSING • • • 1 1 5 -6 LEVEL OF SERVICE A B C D E TABLE 5 -1. LEVEL -OF- SERVICE CRITERIA FOR CHECKPOINT FLOW RATES AT RAMP - FREEWAY TERMINALS MERGE FLOW RATE (PCPH) s 600 < 1,000 < 1,450 < 1,750 S 2,000 DIVERGE FLOW RATE (PCPH) r, s 650 S 1.050 s 1.500 < 1,800 s 2.000 F WIDELY VARIABLE Lane -1 flow rate plus ramp flow rate for one -lane, right -side on- ramps. b Lane-1 flow rate immediately upstream of of .ramp for one -lane, net-side ramps. Total freeway flow rate m one direction upstream of off - ramp and /or downstream of on -ramp. ° Level of service not attainable due to design speed retractions. LEVEL -OF- SERVICE CRITERIA FREEWAYS Level -of- service criteria for merge, v, diverge, v„ and free- way, v flow rate checkpoints are given in Table 5 -1. The criteria for freeway flow rates are the same as those given in Chapter 3, but are repeated here for the convenience of the user. Note that criteria are stated in terms of flow rates As in Chapters 3 and 4, computational procedures include the con- • version of peak -hour volumes to equivalent hourly flow rates representing flow during the peak 15 -min interval. The criteria of Table 5 -1 are not specifically correlated to measures of operational quality. They are intended, however, to reflect flow rates which may be accommodated while per- mitting the freeway as a whole to operate at the designated level of service in the vicinity of the ramp. Thus, the quality of operations is expected to be as described in Chapter 3, with some local turbulence in lane 1. Level - of - service .! represents unrestricted operation. Merging and diverging vehicles have little effect on other freeway flows. Merging is smoothly accomplished with only minor speed ad- justments required to fill gaps; diverge movements encounter • no significant turbulence. At level - of - service B. merging vehicles have to adjust their speed slighlty to fill lane 1 gaps; diverging vehicles still do not experience any significant turbulence. Freeway vehicles not in- FREEWAY FLOW RATES (PCPH)`, o 70-MPH DESIGN SPEED 60 -MPH DESIGN SPEED 4-LANE 6-LANE S-1-ANE 4-LANE 6 -LANE < 1,400 s 2.100 S 2.800 ° d S 2,200 s 3,300 5 4,400 < 2,000 S 3,100 S 4,650 s 6,200 S 2,800 s 3,700 S 5,550 s 7,400 s 3,400 s 4,000 s 6,000 < 8,000 s 4,000 s 3,000 < 4,200 s 5.100 s 6,000 8 -L&NE 4-[ANE 6- d d S 4,000 S 5,600 s 6,800 S 8,000 d S 2,600 s 3.200 S 3,800 50 -.4PH DESIGN SPEED d d < 3,900 s 4.800 S 5,700 s 5,200 S 6,400 • 7,600 Level - of - service C though still stable, approaches the range in which small changes in flow result in large changes in op- erating quality. Both lane 1 and on -ramp vehicles must adjust their speed to accomplish smooth merging, and under heavy on -ramp flows, minor ramp queuing may occur, Some slowing may also occur in diverge areas. Turbulence from on- and off - ramp maneuvers is more widespread, and the effects of this turbulence may extend into freeway lanes adjacent to lane 1. Overall speed and density of freeway vehicles are not expected to be seriously deteriorated. At level - of - service D, smooth merging becomes difficult to achieve. Both entering and lane 1 vehicles must frequently adjust their speed to avoid conflicts in the merge area Slowing in the vicinity of diverge areas is also significant. Turbulence from merge and diverge movements will affect several freeway lanes. At heavily used on- ramps, ramp queues may become a disruptive factor. Level - of - service E represents capacity operation. Merge move- ments create significant turbulence, but continue without no- ticeable freeway queuing. On -ramp queues, however, may be significant. Diverge movements are significantly slowed, and some queuing may occur in the diverge area. All vehicles are affected by turbulence, and vehicles not involved in ramp move- ments attempt to avoid this turbulence by moving towards the median lanes. At level - of - service F all merging is on a stop - and -go basis, and ramp queues and lane 1 breakdowns are extensive. Much tur- bulence is created as vehicles attempt to change lanes to avoid :1 PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS, P RV'S, P,; or BUSES, P, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 20 2 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.89 0.88 0.86 0.85 0.83 3 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.93 0.91 0.89 0.88 0.86 0.85 0.83 0.81 0.78 0.76 0.74 0.71 4 0.97 0.94 0.92 0.89 0.87 0.85 0.83 0.81 0.79 0.77 0.74 0.70 0.68 0.65 0.63 5 0.96 0.93 0.89 0.86 0.83 0.81 0.78 0.76 0.74 0.71 0.68 0.64 0.61 0.58 0.56 6 0.95 0.91 0.87 0.83 0.80 0.77 0.74 0.71 0.69 0.67 0.63 0.59 0.56 0.53 0.50 7 0.94 0.89 0.85 0.81 0.77 0.74 0.70 0.68 0.65 0.63 0.58 0.54 0.51 0.48 0.45 8 0.93 0.88 0.83 0.78 0.74 0.70 0.67 0.64 0.61 0.59 0.54 0.51 0.47 0.44 0.42 9 0.93 0.86 0.81 0.76 0.71 0.68 0.64 0.61 0.58 0.56 0.51 0.47 0.44 0.41 0.38 10 0.92 0.85 0.79 0.74 0.69 0.65 0.61 0.58 0.55 0.53 0.48 0.44 0.41 0.38 0.36 11 0.91 0.83 0.77 0.71 0.67 0.63 0.59 0.56 0.53 0.50 0.45 0.42 0.38 0.36 0.33 12 0.90 0.82 0.75 0.69 0.65 0.60 0.57 0.53 0.50 0.48 0.43 0.39 0.36 0.34 0.31 13 0.89 0.81 0.74 0.68 0.63 0.58 0.54 0.51 0.48 0.45 0.41 0.37 0.34 0.32 0.29 14 0.88 0.79 0.72 0.66 0.61 0.56 0.52 0.49 0.46 0.43 0.39 0.35 0.32 0.30 0.28 15 0.88 0.78 0.70 0.64 0.59 0.54 0.51 0.47 0.44 0.42 0.37 0.34 0.31 0.28 0.26 16 0.87 0.77 0.69 0.63 0.57 0.53 0.49 0.45 0.43 0.40 0.36 0.32 0.29 0.27 0.25 17 0.86 0.76 0.68 0.61 0.56 0.51 0.47 0.44 0.41 0.38 0.34 0.31 0.28 0.26 0.24 18 0.85 0.75 0.66 0.60 0.54 0.49 0.46 0.42 0.40 0.37 0.33 0.30 0.27 0.25 0.23 19 0.85 0.74 0.65 0.58 0.53 0.48 0.44 0.41 0.38 0.36 0.32 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 20 0.84 0.72 0.64 0.57 0.51 0.47 0.42 0.40 0.37 0.34 0.30 0.27 0.25 0.23 0.21 21 0.83 0.71 0.63 0.56 0.50 0.45 0.41 0.38 0.36 0.33 0.29 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.20 22 0.83 0.70 0.61 0.54 0.49 0.44 0.40 0.37 0.35 0.32 0.28 0.25 0.23 0.21 0.19 23 0.82 0.69 0.60 0.53 0.48 0.43 0.39 0.36 0.34 0.3! 0.27 0.25 0.22 0.20 0.19 24 0.81 0.68 0.59 0.52 0.47 0.42 0.38 0.35 0.33 0.30 0.27 0.24 ' 0.21 0.19 0.18 25 0.80 0.67 0.58 0.51 0.46 0.41 0.37 0.34 0.32 0.29 0.26 0.23 0.20 0.18 0.17 • • • • FACTOR • E for Trucks E, for Buscs E„ for RV's TABLE 3 -9. ADJUSTMENT FACTOR FOR THE EFFECT OF TRUCKS, BUSES, OR RECREATIONAL VEHICLES IN THE TRAFFIC STREAM PCE' • Passenger-ear equivalent. obtained from Table 3 3, 3 3 - 5, or 3 NOTE: Thu table should not be used when the combined percentage of buses and RV's in the traffic stream is more than one•Hfth the percentage of trucks, TABLE 3 -3. PASSENGER -CAR EQUIVALENTS ON EXTENDED GENERAL FREEWAY SEGMENTS 1.7 1.5 1.6 TYPE OF TERRAIN LEVEL ROILING MOUNTAINOUS 4.0 8.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 BASIC FREEWAY SEGMENTS ADJUSTMENT FACTOR, f, 3 - 17 - po r G .�.� 1 Ua, .! t1 /..1 btLic) njs.4 1 -, ?e \ ( 112 - � mss S i) • • ' ._,-_ - - WO A. ' — 1 14 ^ QLAJ -t-1 stA_Q_ — /t-a v—_ r — 4 4200 Seltice Way, Suite 2 • Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83814 • Phone (208) 667 -1171 • Fax (208) 664 -3507 Prepared on behalf of: North Idaho Engineering, Inc. TRAFFIC IMPACT REPORT FOR THE RIVERWAY VILLA PROJECT JUNE 7, 1994 Wel Co Group, Inc. P.O. Box 2825 Redmond, WA 98073 -2825 J.N. 4004 r�• IF E JUL f $ 1994 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER SUMMARY • The added anticipated traffic from Riverway Villa project will not effect the two intersections included in this report beyond average traffic delays. • • ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC MANUFACTURED HOMES Intersection One: The results are still good. The worst case being the East bound left resulting in a LOS of C • • Intersection Two: • ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOUSING • Intersection One: The worst case being the East bound left resulting in a LOS of C (average traffic delays). There are still plenty of reserve capacity before the LOS turns to a B. • ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC RESULTS See appendix B for results. (average traffic delays). The worst case being the East bound left resulting in a LOS of B (short traffic delays). Intersection Two: • The worst case being the East bound left resulting in a LOS of C (average traffic delays). • • 90 51746LE FAinny Dffr HEO HaasTi✓6 ,+�Z5 5r0iA) AVE. 01 0 3° S/o PRorEc fl co •A TOTAL Fr or PE &K HOAR OR TRAVEL TR14JFL TOWAVZ05 prwA Ioy f}nr �o Ror cPtrA{.Do RVE. I - 90 MANOFACTUfEO l -/of55 r/TSSIc,JJ AVE. 3 ° c ah 1 PRoTEc r 5 r 1 \‘ Ce/0 5-p % Tort r}pr PEPri< ffovi OR TRA "EL ToWAROS S30; TithvEL mWAy 3s nor cmrA -DO AgVE. TRAFFIC ROUTE FROM PROJECT • Several deferent routs will be used to travel to and away from the project. It has been depicted that fifty percent of the peak hour ADTs will travel the route using the two intersections at • question. See the following two pages for route projection. The results of the expected peak hour traffic both to and from the project using this route are listed below. ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC MANUFACTURED HOMES Travel Towards (106 PH ADT x 50% = 53 PH ADT) Travel Away (70 PH ADT x 50% = 35 PH ADT) ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC SINGLE- FAMILY DETACHED HOUSING Travel Towards (209 PH ADT x 50% = 104 PH ADT) • Travel Away (140 PH ADT x 50% = 70 PH ADT) • Single- Family Detached Housing (210) • Number of Studies: 348 Average Number of Dwelling Units: 206 • Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting • • • • • • • ,verage Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 9.55 4.31 - 21.85 3.66 Data Plot and Equation 30,000 20,000 _ 10,000 » i x X Actual Data Pointe X•: X X X X X 1000 2000 3000 X = Number of Dwelling Units Fitted Curve Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.921 Ln(X) + 2.698 R = 0.96 X Trip Generation, January 1991 257 Institute of Transportation Engineers Mobile Home Park (240) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Oc e Y D welling Units On Number of Studies: 37 Average Number of Occupied Dwelling Units: 195 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per Occupied Dwelling Unit Range of Rates 2.29 - 10.42 Average Rate 4.81 Data Plot and Equation 4.000 3.000 C c C W 0. 0 m 2.000 7 0 0 0 r 0 II F Loco 0 0 X X X 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 X = Number of Occupied Dwelling Units Fitted Curve Standard Deviation 2.60 800 90.0 Average Rate X Actual Data paints Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) 0.390 Ln(X) + 2.162 R = 0.85 Trip Generation, Januar/ 1991 427 Institute of Transportation Engineers ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC MANUFACTURED HOMES • Total Average Daily Trips (ADT) for the Riverway Villa Project were established using ITE Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition for a mobile home park with 365 units. The ADT per unit is 4.81 resulting in 1756 ADTs for the project. Ten percent of the total ADT or 176 ADT were expected to accrue during the Peek Hour (PH) from the project. Sixty percent ( 106 PH ADT) will travel towards the project while the other forty percent (70 PH ADT) will be traveling away. ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC SINGLE - FAMILY DETACHED HOUSING Using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition for single- family detached housing with an average ADT per unit of 9.55 resulted in 3486 ADT. Again ten percent was estimated for peak hour ADTs or 349 ADTs occur during the peak hour. Sixty percent ( 209 PH ADT) will travel • towards the project while the other forty percent (140 PH ADT) will be traveling away. TABLE 10-3. LEVEL -OF- SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNAL• TED INTERSECTIONS RESERVE CAPACITY (ICPH) LEVEL CF SERVICE EXPECTED DELAY TO MINOR STREET TRAFFIC 2 IC0 A Little or no delay 303-399 B Shan traffic delays 200 -299 C Average ¢aIlic delays 100 -199 D Lang natfic delays 0- 99 E Vary long t aiic delays F • Nosey dmwd volume exceeds to spaary of the !me. extreme .1UJey+ nil Se mecums= nth queuing witch may aux IC !tit :onyeycon sTecnny atter vadlc m .aneyu in the imcncim. Toia a noioon aurally •vrenu impm•cmeyt :o the imcr_on. EXISTING AREA TRAFFIC • A model was made of the existing traffic for both intersection one and two. Inclosed in appendix A are the results of these models. Cataldo Ave. was omitted as a contributing factor because it is • not a through street. Cataldo is an access road to industrial entities such as United Paint and Coatings, Alpine Motel, and Progress tool & Die, Inc. • SUMMARY Both intersection one and two are operating at a worst case Level of Service (LOS) of B. • Enclosed on the following page is definitions defining the different LOS for unsignalized intersections. IN T riODUCTION This report is supplemental to the report dated April 8, 1994 and titled TRAFFIC IMPACT REPORT FOR 1'HE RIVERWAY VILLA PROJECT. OVERVIEW The Riverway villa project is currently designed for 365 single family, or manufactured home lots. Intersections of Barker Road and on / off ramps both North and South of Interstate I -90 will be looked at in this report. Intersection of Barker Road, West bound on/off ramp, and Cataldo Ave. North of I -90 will be refereed as intersection one. The other intersection South of I -90 will be refereed to as intersection two. To model the intersections performance both for existing an anticipated traffic, the Highway Capacity Software (HCS) was utilized. Traffic data was gathered using the Timemark Delta I traffic counter and then deciphered by the Janus computer program. The results from the Janus program may be found in appendix C. hri t • POTEN- FLOW- TIAL • RATE CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) • • • • CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE MINOR STREET EB LEFT THROUGH RIGHT MINOR STREET WB LEFT THROUGH RIGHT MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 37 NB LEFT 0 P IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 999 999 ACTUAL MOVEMENT CAPACITY c (pcph) M 999 999 SHARED CAPACITY c (pcph) SH 999 999 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET East -On, West -Off Ramp NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET Barker Road DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 07 -07 -1994 ; P.M. Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION.... Page -3 RESERVE CAPACITY c = c - v LOS R SH 325 684 669 > 669 > 344 > B 0 750 733 > 697 733 > 323 733 >B A 49 965 965 > 965 > 916 > A 1 661 627 627 626 A 0 767 750 > 750 > 750 > A 0 968 968 > 627 968 > 626 968 >A A 962 A 999 A • • EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 9 20 N • SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION • • • • • • ADJUSTMENT FACTORS MINOR RIGHTS EB WB MAJOR LEFTS SB NB MINOR THROUGHS EB WB PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS IDENTIFYING INFORMATION % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 • NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10 -2) ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP 5.70 5.70 5.10 5.10 6.30 6.30 5.70 5.7 5.10 5.10 6.30 6.30 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 Page -2 5.70 5.70 5.10 5.10 6.30 6.30 MINOR LEFTS 6.80 EB 6.80 6.80 0.00 WB 6.80 6.80 0.00 6.80 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET East -On, West -Off Ramp NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET Barker Road DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 07 -07 -1994 ; P.M. Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION.... 1 1 1 • • • • • IDENTIFYING INFORMATION TRAFFIC VOLUMES LANES 7ER 56c Tro Two 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page -1 AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 35 PEAK HOUR FACTOR • AREA POPULATION 150000 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET East -On, West -Off Ramp NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET Barker Road NAME OF THE ANALYST GES • DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm /dd /yy) 07 -07 -1994 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED P.M. Peak Hour • OTHER INFORMATION.... Exics72))6 'rYL*FFc t i71.6: 714/0 INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: 4 -LEG • MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH /SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN EB WE NB SB - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- LEFT 266 1 0 30 THRU 0 0 50 70 RIGHT 40 0 30 0 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE EB WB NB SB 1 0 1 1 • • • CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE POTEN- FLOW- TIAL RATE CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) • MINOR STREET EB LEFT RIGHT • MAJOR STREET p NB LEFT 61 821 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ACTUAL MOVEMENT CAPACITY c (pcph) M 49 407 389 > 389 > 340 > B > 435 > 374 >8 12 827 827 > 827 > 815 > A 821 SHARED CAPACITY c (pcph) SH 821 Page -3 RESERVE CAPACITY c = c - v LOS R SH NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET West -Bound On /Off Ramp NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET Barker Road DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 07 -07 -1994 ; P.M. Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION.... 760 A • • • • • ADJUSTMENT FACTORS . • EASTBOUND 0. WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND 0.00 SOUTHBOUND 0.00 • VEHICLE COMPOSITION EASTBOUND WESTBOUND • NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND CRITICAL GAPS MINOR RIGHTS MAJOR LEFTS PERCENT RIANGLEURN CURB ACCELERATION TURNS LANE % SU TRUCKS AND RV'S EB NB 0 0 0 90 90 5.70 90 TABULAR VALUES (Table 10 -2) 5.10 MINOR LEFTS EB 6.80 • IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 20 N 20 20 % COMBINATION VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.70 5.10 6.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 N N ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP 5.70 5.10 6.80 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET West -Bound On /Off Ramp NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET Barker Road DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 07 -07 -1994 ; P.M. Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION.... Page -2 • • • INTERSECTION TYPE: T- INTERSECTION • MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH /SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN rnuTErzSEgrton o&E 1985 ECM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page -1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 35 PEAK HOUR FACTOR .9 AREA POPULATION 150000 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET West -Bound On /Off Ramp NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET Barker Road NAME OF THE ANALYST GES DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm /dd /yy) 07 -07 -1994 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED P.M. Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION.... ECSJ2? , 71219FFrC ) FicL/_ 6.5)J6 01 /4 INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB SB LEFT 40 50 0 THRU 0 266 90 RIGHT 10 0 227 NUMBER OF LANES EB WB NB SB LANES 1 1 1 Exzs Q4 ply v • ,Lm- E , 1oVEr►E,vr • • • • • • • • • w65r EGUAJD GN 1orr RFrip TO 227 7 90 0 i 0 1 FPRHER IZD. .=LATER $ Ec Pro nJ 4 ` I cAT/+LDO AVE. ZNTEXS sc. rro,.) # 2, \ d 6 S l 30 ' EPST- sou lb or P efrip • POTEN- FLOW- TIAL • RATE CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) p • • • • y CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF SERVICE MINOR STREET EB LEFT 666 THROUGH 731 RIGHT 963 MINOR STREET WB LEFT THROUGH RIGHT MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 50 9 NB LEFT 0 999 363 0 49 1 0 . 0 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 643 745 965 ACTUAL MOVEMENT CAPACITY c (pcph) M 646 709 963 605 723 965 999 999 SHARED CAPACITY c (pcph) SH > 646 > 672 709 963 605 723 605 965 999 999 Page -3 RESERVE CAPACITY c = c - v LOS R SH > 283 > C > 260 709 >C A > 914 > A 603 A > 723 > A > 603 965 >A A NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET East -On, West -Off Ramp NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET Barker Ro4 P.M. Peak Hour DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS • OTHER INFORMATION.... 949 A 999 A • • ADJUSTMENT FACTORS EASTBOUND 0.00 • WESTBOUND 0.00 NORTHBOUND 0.00 SOUTHBOUND 0.00 • VEHICLE COMPOSITION • • • MINOR RIGHTS EB WB MAJOR LEFTS SB NB MINOR LEFTS EB WB PERCENT RIGHT CURB ACCELERATION FORLRIG LANE RIGHT TURNS 90 90 90 % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 • SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10 -2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP 5.70 5.70 5.10 5.10 90 MINOR THROUGHS 6.30 • EB 6.30 6.30 0.00 WB 6.30 6.30 0.00 6.30 6.80 6.80 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 5.70 5.70 5.10 5.10 6.80 6.80 20 N 20 N 20 N 20 N 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page -2 5.70 5.70 5.10 5.10 6.80 6.80 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET East -On, West -Off Ramp NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET Barker Road DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 07 -07 -1994 ; P.M. Peak Hour • OTHER INFORMATION.... 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page -1 41 • IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 35 PEAK HOUR FACTOR .9 AREA POPULATION 150000 • NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET East -On, West -Off Ramp NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET Barker Road NAME OF THE ANALYST GES • DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm /dd /yy) 07 -07 -1994 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED P.M. Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION.... t/JTLcreATto TK/1r !TG , 52 LE rfivi- 7' • PTtc ; Gewc Two INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: 4 -LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH /SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE =NTE25L c r 7'w0 EB WB NB SB • LEFT 297 1 0 41 THRU 0 0 55 74 RIGHT 40 0 30 0 LANES EB WB NB' SB 1 0 1 1 CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE POTEN- FLOW- TIAL RATE CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) P MINOR STREET EB LEFT 68 337 322 > 322 > 253 > C > 354 > 273 >C RIGHT 12 802 802 > 802 > 790 > A MAJOR STREET NB LEFT 61 784 784 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ACTUAL MOVEMENT CAPACITY c (pcph) M SHARED CAPACITY c (pcph) SH 784 723 A RESERVE CAPACITY c = c - v LOS R SH NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET West -Bound On /Off Ramp NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET Barker Road DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 07 -07 -199 ; P.M. Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION.... Page -3 • • • • • • ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page -2 EASTBOUND 0.00 WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND 0.00 SOUTHBOUND 0.00 VEHICLE COMPOSITION EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND CRITICAL GAPS MINOR RIGHTS • MAJOR LEFTS MINOR LEFTS PERCENT RIGHT TURN' CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES 0 0 0 • IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 90 90 90 EB 5.70 5.70 NB 5.10 5.10 EB 6.80 6.80 20 N 20 N 20 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10 -2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.70 5.10 6.80 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET West -Bound On /Off Ramp NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET... Barker Road DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 07 -07 -1994 ; P.M. Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION.... • • AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 35 PEAK HOUR FACTOR .9 AREA POPULATION 150000 • NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET West -Bound On /Off Ramp NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET Barker Road NAME OF THE ANALYST GES • DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm /dd /yy) 07 -07 -1994 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED P.M. Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION.... ANTT-cIPATE 77t& Ct ) SrNG' 'crazy • INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL FILE GENE O»S G INTERSECTION TYPE: T- INTERSECTION • MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH /SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN • EB WB NB SB LEFT 56 -- 50 0 • THRU 0 -- 352 104 RIGHT 10 -- 0 248 INTER sacrroM oAE 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page -1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION TRAFFIC VOLUMES NUMBER OF LANES EB WB NB SB LANES 1 1 1 • Prilri 'PAT° p • L.R E MOVE nENr srN &c.z - FA flirt. y DErs4tl'•0 Nou$TN& • 6G /0 � jCS - EGC,4t • p,c.r; c • • • • 331 • • G_i; - Bcc1 »D OFF RP, P Ana "I / '09 a9? ro px0TEC 50 n �a 352. rb.30 0 N T)■) -1R %ri c AJ 76 fi 2 EP5 - BaUri cfQ spz„v;p • CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE POTEN- FLOW TIAL • RATE CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) p • MINOR STREET EB LEFT THROUGH RIGHT • MINOR STREET WB LEFT THROUGH RIGHT • MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 43 999 NB LEFT 0 999 • • • • 345 0 49 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 676 742 964 ACTUAL MOVEMENT CAPACITY c (pcph) M 658 722 964 1 653 617 617 616 A 0 757 737 > 737 > 737 > A p 967 967 > 617 967 > 616 967 >A A 999 999 SHARED CAPACITY c (pcph) SH > 658 > 685 722 > 964 999 999 Page -3 RESERVE CAPACITY c = c - v LOS R SH > 314 > B > 292 722 >C A > 915 > A NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET East -On, West -Off Ramp NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET 0ar0er1 P.M. Peak Hour DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS OTHER INFORMATION.... 956 A 999 A • • • • • • • • ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page -2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20* N VEHICLE COMPOSITION % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS MINOR RIGHTS EB WB MAJOR LEFTS SB NB MINOR LEFTS EB WE TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10 -2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP 5.70 5.70 5.10 5.10 6.80 6.80 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 5.70 5.70 5.10 5.10 6.80 1. 6.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.70 5.70 5.10 5.10 MINOR THROUGHS • EB 6.30 6.30 0.00 6.30 WB 6.30 6.30 0.00 6.30 6.80 6.80 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET East -On, West -Off Ramp NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET Barker Road DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 07 -07 -1994 ; P.M. Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION.... • • AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET PEAK HOUR FACTOR .9 150000 • AREA POPULATION NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET East -On, NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET Barker Road GES (mm/dd /YY)•••••• 07 -07 -1994 P.M. Peak Hour 7t2PrFrDc - /4"),JUF$c • R g, L Fru; TWo G _� • NAME OF THE ANALYST DATE OF THE ANALYSIS TIME PERIOD ANALYZED OTHER INFORMATION.... ANcipATCD • IN 4 TWO Page -1 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS IDENTIFYING INFORMATION INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: 4 -LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH /SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES LANES EB WB 1 0 NB SB EB WB LEFT 282 - - -1 0 35 THRU 0 0 52 72 RIGHT 40 0 30 0 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE • 35 NB SB i -- -- 1 West -Off Ramp POTEN- FLOW- TIAL • RATE CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) MINOR STREET • EB LEFT RIGHT • MAJOR STREET CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE NB LEFT 59 356 339 > 339 > > 377 > > 814 > 12 p 61 802 • IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 814 ACTUAL MOVEMENT CAPACITY c (pcph) M 814 802 SHARED CAPACITY c (pcph) SH 802 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET West -Bound On /Off Ramp NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET Barker Road DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 07 -07 -1994 ; P.M. Peak OTHER INFORMATION.... RESERVE CAPACITY c = c - v LOS R SH 281 > C 306 >B 802 > A Hour Page - 3 741 A • EASTBOUND 0.00 • WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND 0.00 SOUTHBOUND 0.00 • VEHICLE COMPOSITION • • • ADJUSTMENT FACTORS EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND CRITICAL GAPS MINOR RIGHTS • MAJOR LEFTS MINOR LEFTS PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES 0 0 0 • IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 90 20 N 90 20 N 90 20 N EB 5.70 5.70 NB 5.10 5.10 EB 6.80 6.80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10 -2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP 5.70 5.10 6.80 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET West -Bound On /Off Ramp NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET Barker Road DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 07 -07 -1994 ; P.M. Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION.... Page -2 • • • INTERSECTION TYPE: T- INTERSECTION • MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH /SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN • EB WB NB SB LEFT 48 50 0 • THRU 0 334 9 RIGHT 10 0 238 • IDENTIFYING INFORMATION TRAFFIC VOLUMES NUMBER OF LANES =n1T5k5E0�9 0nle 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page -1 AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 35 PEAK HOUR FACTOR .9 AREA POPULATION 150000 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET West -Bound On /Off Ramp NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET Barker Road NAME OF THE ANALYST GES DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm /dd /yy) 07 -07 -1994 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED P.M. Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION.... APT= P4 TtZfFiXc - � MA » Up4LTU a ° INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL FL'LE ; 604 ONE B EB WB NB SB 1 1 1 LANES Soni • • • PrNTYc P ' ,ftmE rnovsMFNr AR) crag ED 1-10/16s • 11 ,$-r gib • 6-13 6-13 �(�((''1 I`r • � io t ro P'�OSi M MA '4,)k R) in/TER 55c.r-E-c Tio TEA .5 ic c ‘....._ rre,J T 2 70 Location : BARBER RD 50 NO OF SHARP Weather : DRS /SDNNy Counter : Delta 1 -TABUS Pile: 030894D1 Begin < Quarter Hour > Sour Time lst 2nd 3rd 4th Total 12:00 03/09 7 6 3 3 19 01:00 am 5 2 0 0 7 02:00 m 6 2 3 2 13 03:00 an 1 0 4 1 6 04:00 m 5 6 5 5 21 05:00 an 8 15 15 26 64 06:00 am 33 36 55 65 189 07:00 an 65 79 75 84 303 08:00 an 53 51 53 70 227 09:00 m 60 41 48 54 203 10:00 am 43 43 45 51 182 11:00 m 29 • / /T. 12:00 pm 01100 pm • ' 02:00 pm • • • 03:00 pm • 04:00 pm • 05:00 pm • 06:00 pm • • • 07:00 pm • * • 08:00 pm • • 09:00 pm • • • 10:00 pm • 11:00 pm • • Total 1234 • AM Peak The AM peak hour began 07:00. The peak volume was 303. The largest interval began 07:45, and contained 84 vehicles. The peak hour rector was .90 North Idaho Engineering, Inc. 4200 W. Seltice Way Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814 Initial Study Each • Equals 25 Vehicles • PM Peak There was not enough data to calculate the PM peak hour. Site Code : 4004 Start Date: 03/08/94 Pile I.D. Page z 2 Location : BARXER RD 50 NO OF SSARP Weather : DEF /SONNF � ountet : Delta 1 ..ANDS File: 03089401 North Idaho Engineering, Inc. 4200 W. Seltice Way Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814 Initial Study Begin < Quarter Bour - - ----' Hour Time 12:00 03/08 01:00 an • 02:00 am 03:00 am 04:00 am 05:00 am • • 06:00 an • • 07:00 am • • • 08:00 am • • • 09:00 am • • 10:00 am • • • 44 46 • . _.. li:00 am ......... _ _ . _..__ _ .._ —._ —_ 54 224 12:00 P 64 61 4 • 01:00 Fm ........ 36 60 47 53 196 63 47 52 48 190 •• 02:00 pm .. ........ 03:00 pm 58 61 82 60 261 04:00 pm 74 59 62 59 254 ......... 05:00 pa 56 55 53 59 223 06:00 pm 59 42 39 30 170 • 07:00 pm 33 27 20 26 106 ... 08:00 pm 24 20 20 20 84 6 50 09:00 pm 14 13 17 • 7 4 3 12 26 10:00 pm 11:00 pm 5 2 3 2 12 1796 Total • • AM Peak PM Peak let 2nd 3rd 4th Total The AM peak hour began 11:45. The peak volume was 216. The largest interval began 12:00, and contained 64 vehicles. The peak hour factor was .84 The PM peak hour began 03:15. The peak volume was 277. The largest interval began 03:30, and contained 82 vehicles. The peak hour factor van .84 Each • Douala 25 vehicles TO TAL VPb 3 19 0 PM riSAK hart Site Code 1 4004 Start Date: 03/08/9 File I.D. : Yn -e : 1 1.100 /5E vpo 277 P4v' • BARKER Rj 'SO NO OP SHARP Location : Sather s DRY /SOR Counter : Delta 1 JA NOS Pile: 030994D1 Begin Time •2:00 07/09 01:00 am 02:00 am 07:00 am 04:00 am 05:00 am • 06:00 am 07:00 am 00:00 am 09:00 am 10:00 am 11:00 am • 12 :00. �. 01:0 pm 02:00 pm 03:0 p 04:00 pm 05:00 pm • 06:00 pm 07:00 pm 08:00 pm 09:0 pm 10:00 pm 11:0 p • Total • 1e 25 Vehicles ------ (Water __ __Quarter flour ______ Hour 2nd 3rd 4th Total 1st 4 22 4 9 5 4 2 0 9 2 3 6 0 1 2 1 4 0 7 0 7 2 10 2 3 28 5 21 0 2 26 100 15 23 44 2 2] 23 29 94 15 29 134 74 26 45 32 30 127 77 28 46 148 41 24 37 r..Ti 42 A M Peak • • • • • 690 North Idaho Engineering, Inc. 4200 W. Seltice Nay Coeur d'Alene, ID 93814 Initial Study The AM peak hour began 10:15. The peak volume was 149. The largest interval beg an 10:45, and contained 46 vehicles The peak hour factor was .81 pM peak There was not enough data to calculate the PM peak hour. Site Code : 4004 Start Date: 03/00/94 Pile I.D. : Ya•e 2 • RD 50 NO OP SOAR" Location s SARSER Weather : DRY /SUNNY e nter : Delta 1 JANUS Pile: 03089401 Each • 8• ale 25 Vehicles Begin Time 12 :00 03/08 • 00 am 02:00 am 03:00 am 04:00 am 05:00 am 06:00 am .7:00 am 08:00 am 09:00 am 10:00 am 11:00 am 12:00 pm •01:00 pm 02 :00 pm 03:00 pm 04:00 pm 05:00 pm 06:00 pm . 07:00 pm 08:00 pm 09:00 pm 10:00 pm 11:00 pm Total • • AM Peak PM Peak • • 50 52 63 55 83 97 59 24 33 27 11 10 • • • • • • • • • • • • • 49 53 • ___ __. 51 ..._._ —_. 47 44 192 51 48 45 196 38 49 52 202 58 61 68 242 79 69 81 312 97 92 64 340 45 54 35 193 36 27 36 123 27 24 27 111 22 18 16 83 7 5 4 27 4 8 4 26 2047 The AM peak hour began 11:30. The peak volume was 203. The largest interval began 11:45, and contained 53 vehicles. The peak hour factor was .96 The PM peak hour began 04: The peak volume was 357. The largest interval began 05:00, and contained 97 vehicles. The peak hour factor was .92 North Idaho Engineering, Inc. 4200 W. Seltiee Way Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814 Initial Study R m Site Code : 4004 Start Date: 03/08/ Pile Z.D. Pa•e r07AL VP C) 283 96$K soc'K Voc9Mt 351 Pfriv' C; - NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING, INC. I • — { DE LTA I� SETA COUNTER PLACEMENT REPORT • • • • • • TUBE SPACING: SPECIAL GEOGRAPHIC FEATURES: DATE: TEMP: ICPR.WPFI START TIME: ROAD CONDITIONS: pr•L,% Wet, Snowy, Icy, WEATHER CONDITIONS: d Sunnyartly Cloudy, Cloudy, `Ra- inlrflg, Snowing, _— F LOCATION: Street: City: Nearest Cross Street: - -r- DISTANCE /DIRECTION FROM CROSS STREET: 10 Feet BY: Inches DATE: r y�.2Wet, Snowy, Icy. ' unn artly Cloudy, Cloudy, Raining, Snowing, STOP TIME: F • Location Weather Counter - Quarter Hour - - - ---> Hour 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total Each • E• ale 25 Vehicles JANUS Pile: 03239401 Begin Time 12:00 03/24 01:00 an 02:00 am ,3:00 am 04:00 am 05:00 am 06:00 am 07100 am 08:00 am •09:00 am 10:00 am 11:00 12:00 pm 01:00 pm 02:00 pm • 03:00 pm 04:00 pm 05:00 pm 06:00 pm 07:00 pm 08:00 pm • 09:00 pm 10:00 pm 11:00 pm Total • • • • AM Peak : I -90 ON /OPP RAMP NORTHSIDE 1 DRY /SONNY 46 : Delta 1 5 2 3 1 3 2 2 5 5 23 21 48 47 77 93 66 50 48 45 7 5 0 1 11 3 1 9 1 3 8 2 4 10 8 10 28 27 26 97 79 77 251 114 67 351 53 44 213 47 41 181 • • • • • • • • • • 1159 The AM peak hour began 06:45. The peak volume was 36 The largest into rva7 began 07:30, and contained 114 vehicles. The peak hour factor Was .79 North Idaho Engineering, Inc. 4200 W. Seltice Way Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814 Initial Study • • PM Peak There was not enough data to calculate the PM peak hour. Site Code : 4004 Start Date: 03/23/94 Pile I.D. : e Location a I -90 ON /OF? RUMP NORTHSIDE weather : DRY /SINES 46 Counter t Delta 1 - 3ANUS Pile: 0323940 ------ quarter Hour let 2nd 3rd > Hour 4th Total Each • E• ale 25 vehicles Begin Time 12:0 03/23 01:0 am 02:0 am 3:00 am 04:00 am 05:00 am 06:00 am 07:00 am 08:00 am 19:00 am 10:00 .m 11:0 em 12:00 pm 01:00 pm 02:00 pm 03:00 pm 04 :00 pm 05:00 pm 06:00 pm 07:00 pm 08:00 pm 09:00 pm 10:00 pm 11:00 pm Total • AM Peak • PM Peak • • • 28 48 49 27 56 37 72 50 48 26 23 13 6 7 43 39 31 25 31 35 48 35 42 24 14 16. 9 2 • • 19 33 41 49 39 34 58 53 39 43 19 13 8 7 0 • • • • • • • • 40 • 35 139 42 170 39 168 40 131 57 178 49 179 40 213 56 180 32 165 17 86 14 64 15 52 16 38 2 11 1774 The AM peak hour began 11:15. The peak volume was 171. The largest interval began 12:00, and contained 49 vehicles. The peak hour factor was .87 The PM peak hour began 03:30. The peak volume was 227. The largest interval began 04:00, and contained 72 vehicles. The peak hour factor was .79 North Idaho Engineering, Inc. 4200 18. seltice Way Coeur d'Alene, ID 8381 Initial study P Ton} L 2.933 \,,p° Ohl 7-0 r -90 Site Code : 4004 Start Date: 03/23/ Pile I.D. : • PM. PERK. µout , docuMt 227 Location t I-90 ON/-2T AAMP NOATESIDE Weather : DAY /SONNY 46 _Punter : Delta 1 JANDS Pile: 07239401 -- , Sour < ----- -Quarter Sour --' Begme 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total Time 12:00 0 0 2 3 :oo 03/24 0 3 4 1 0 01:00 m 0 1 3 2 0 02:00 m 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 m 2 1 6 3 0 04:00 m 4 4 12 4 0 05:00 m 8 10 7 29 3 4 Ofi :00 m 7 2 5 4 07:00 m 7 q 28 y 4 08:00 am 6 3 6 27 09:00 am 12 2 10 :80 m _. ._ • 11:00 m • • • 12:00 pm • . 01:00 pm • 02:00 pm • • 03:00 pm • 04:00 pm • • 05:00 pm • 06:00 pm 07:00 pm • 00:00 pm • 09:00 pm 10:00 pm • • 11:00 pm • • 125 Total AM Peak North Idaho Engineering, Inc. 42 00 W. seltice Way Coeur d'Alene: ID 83814 Initial Study Each • Eauals 25 Vehicles The AN peak hour began 08:70. The peak volume vas 37. The largest interval began 09:00, and contained 12 vehicles. The peak hour factor vas .69 PN Peak There was not enough data to calculate the PM peak hour. Site Code : 4004 Start Date: 03/23/94 Pile I.D. : : 2 P • Location : I -90 OE /OPP RAMP WOWTSSIDE Weather : DAY /SUWE= 16 Counter : Delta 1 400149108 Pile: 03239401 - Quartos Sour ------ Hour lst 2nd 3rd 4th Total Each • E- ale 25 Vehicles Begin Time 12:00 03/23 01:00 am .]2:00 am 33:00 am 34:00 an 35:00 am 06:00 am 07:00 am 4008:00 am 09:00 em 10:00 am 11:00 am 12:00 pm 01:00 pm 10 02:00 Pm 02:00 pm 34:00 pm 05:00 pm 06:00 pm 37:00 pm 38:00 pm 19:00 pm 10:00 pm 11 :00 pm Tctal AM Peak PM Peak • • • • • 11 7 9 10 37 7 7 7 7 28 5 10 9 8 32 10 9 5 6 30 7 6 10 8 31 8 9 9 6 32 17 8 7 18 50 9 1 4 9 23 a 5 5 3 21 2 7 2 1 12 1 4 6 0 11 1 3 2 6 12 4 2 1 4 11 The AM peak hour began 11:00. The peak volume was 37. The largest interval began 11:00, and contained 11 vehicles. The peak hour factor was .84 348 The PM peak hour began 05:00. The peak volume was 50. The largest interval began 05:45, and contained 18 vehicles. The peak hour factor was .69 Worth Idaho Engineering, Inc. 4200 W. Seltice Way Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814 Initial Study rorA LO 3 4) OM TO 814RK &2 to r40 Site Code : 4004 Start Date: 03/23/94 Pile I.D. : Pa•e : 1 p. PEAK Houk Vol uMF (so pNV • • DIS"TANCE/1>IRECTiON ERI.JM CROSS :TiREETI TUBE SPACiNC: _ ir:J.nes SPECIAL G=TOGRAPH:C FEATURES: • • • • • • • NORTH I DAHO ENG I NEER I NG , I NC . COUNTER PLACEMENT RE POR T DEL TA I / BETA LI:CATKIN: Street: City: .74D (CPR. STASI RDAD pry. Wet, Sw)wy. c7nP JOB NUMEbm SITE CODE. arv, Snowy, :c.v. WEATHES GONC Sunny, Pt/ Cif:uciv, Cloudy. Sunny. F-artLy Ciosiri.y. Cloudy, hT. Snowlfl.:. t c7.. SnwainT. __ . ,., ----, TEMP: ______ c- . ___. ____________ ■ _______________ North Idaho Engineering, Inc. 4200 W. Seltice Way Coeur d'Alene, ID 8381 Initial study Site Code : 4004 Start Date: 03/07/9 Pile I.D. : Paae 2 Location : I -9 OFF H OFF 1 EAAEEA RD Weather : DAY /SUNNY / Counter : BETA I •.]ANUS Pile: 03079481 Combined ---- - -> Begin <______ Ch 1 P.M. A P P.H. A.H. • .12 :0 0 22 A.M. • 22 0 • 12:0 \II" • 20 • 012:15 20 • 6 • 0 • 12:40 6 • • 14 62 12:45 14 62 • 0 • 4 01:00 4 0 20 01:15 20 0 2 • 01:30 2 0 4 30 • 01:45 4 30 0 12 • 4, 00 0 • 02:15 20 • 20 ` 0 02:15 20 6 02:30 6 • 0 • • 11 49 11 49 • 0 02:45 2 0 03:00 2 • 0 03:15 0 0 12 • • 0 03:30 12 • 10 24 03:45 10 24 0 • 6 6 0 4 • • 04:00 0 04:15 4 • 04:30 8 . 0 8 0 18 0 18 • 0 • 04:45 8 40 05:00 8 0 6 05:15 6 0 10 05:30 10 0 33 57 0 • 33 57 J 05:45 • 06:00 26 0 • 26 46 ` 06:15 66 0 • 39 • 06:30 J 0 51 162 • ` 06:45 51 162 0 0 46 07:00 66 • 58 • 07:15 58 ` 0 74 07:30 74 0 262 • 0 84 262 84 07:45 63 63 • 76 • 08:00 • 0 08:15 0 08:30 76 0 • 63 08:30 63 • 0 • 83 285 08:45 83 285 0 • 54 09:00 54 67 • 09:15 67 0 63 • • 09:30 63 • 0 • 76 260 • ` • 76 260 0 10:00 0 • 77 10:00 77 • • 91 10:15 91 • 0 • 95 10:30 95 • 0 • 263 10:45 • 11:00 . 11:15 11:30 • 11:45 0 ° 1472 ° Totals 1472 0 1472 Day Totals 1472 0 • split 4 100.0. 571 0 12 T17TA� —va� TOTAL- RXZRL COW//— / 2.1 peak Hcur 09:45 A j OR P N V 1 � z 3°6 I f: DAN PrzilK ifooft. 1 , 693 2.•71C • Location : 1 -90 OFF E OFF ! BARKER RD Weather : DRY /SUNNY / Counter : BETA I JANUS Pile: 03079481 • Begin < Time 12:00 12:15 12:30 •:2:45 01:00 01:15 01:30 01:45 02:00 •02:15 02:30 02:45 03:00 03:15 03:30 • 03:45 04:00 04:15 04:30 04:45 05:00 • 05:15 05:30 05:45 06:00 06:15 06:30 O 06:45 07:00 07:15 07 :30 07:45 08:00 • 00:15 08:30 08:45 09:00 09:15 09:30 • 09:45 10:00 10:15 10:30 10:45 11:00 • 11:15 11:30 11:45 Totals Day Totals 5 -Lit 1 100.01 • A.M. 58 95 153 Peak.Bour 10:45 Ch 1 P.M. • 81 • 101 • 86 • 93 Y 361 108 • 84 101 104 397 131 74 99 • 93 397 88 • 105 • 111 • • 148 452 • 163 • 176 • 127 • 177 643 167 201 136 115 619 108 118 • 75 • • 98 399 • 96 • 68 • 51 • 59 274 • 25 • 52 36 • 38 151 60 54 54 • • 43 211 • 37 • 22 • 21 • • 8 • 19 18 wir 15J 04:45 A.M 88 North Idaho Engineering, Inc. 4200 W. Seltice Way Coeur d'Alene, ID 83014 Initial Study Ch 2 P.M. 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 • 0 • 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 34 22 93 1 0 4085 0 4238 100.01 .01 .01 0 x Combined 81 101 86 93 361 108 84 101 • 104 397 131 74 99 93 397 BB 105 111 148 452 163 176 127 • 177 643 167 201 136 115 619 108 118 75 98 399 96 68 51 • 59 274 25 52 36 • • 38 151 60 54 54 43 211 37 22 21 8 88 19 18 34 95 153 22 93 153 4085 4238 58 04:45 Site Code : 4004 Start Date: 03/07/94 File I.D. Pa•e DATE: ' l TIME: • y AP CONDITIONS: Dr_y) Wet, Snowy, Icy, _ • • • START Nearest Cross Street: DISTANCE /DIRECTION FROM CROSS STREET: Y �1 Feet Inches • TUBE SPACING: — SPECIAL GEOGRAPHIC FEATURES: DATE: STOP - TIME :' Dry, 'Wet, Snowy, Icy, NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING, INC COUNTER PLACEMENT REPORT — DELTA I / SETA , LOCATION: Street: City: C ' = S WEA tgR CONDITIONS: Sunny ,Partly Cloudy, Cloudy, unny Partly Cloudy. Cloudy, — Sunning. Snowing. Raining, Snowing. • I TEMP: (CPR.WPF) A VIA C- LC BY: F • A 8 Location : I -90 Eastbound Ramp H Weather : Clear - 40 Counter : Delta 1 JAMBS Pile: 03079401 • Begin < Quarter Hour > Hour Time lst 2nd 3rd 4th Total Each • Equals 25 Vehicles 12:00 03/08 2 3 1 1 7 01:00 am' 0 2 0 2 4 02:00 am 0 3 1 0 4 •3:00 am 0 2 1 1 4 04:00 am 1 0 0 0 1 05:00 am 3 1 4 0 8 06:00 am 4 8 10 6 28 07:00 an 11 7 9 17 44 • 08:00 am 9 7 10 9 35 • •09:00 am 9 4 5 9 27 • 10:00 am 10 11 7 • 11:00 am 12:00 pm 01:00 pm 02:00 pm 4003:00 pm 04:00 pm 05:00 pm 06:00 pm 07:00 pm 08:00 pm • 09:00 pm 10:00 pm 11:00 pm Total • AM Peak 162 The AM peak hour began 07 :00. The peak volume was 44. The largest interval began 07:45, and contained 17 vehicles. The peak hour factor was .65 North Idaho Engineering, Inc. 4200 W. Seltice Way Coeur d'Alene, ID 83014 Initial Study • PM Peak There was not enough data to calculate the PM peak hour. Site Code : 4004 Start Date: 03/07/94 Pile I.D. : Page : 2 r0T19L 573 \iPP To Z y o FAST S F. M PERK court vocum1 im u r)o Location : I -90 Eastbound Ramp E Weather : Clear - 40 Counter t Delta 1 Piles 030794D1 Begin < Quarter Hour > Hour Time let 2nd 3rd '4th Total 12:00 03/07 • • 01,00 an • • • • .-- 02:00 am • • • 33:00 am • • 04:00 am • • • 05:00 am • • • 06:00 an • • • 07:00 am • 08:00 am • • • _09:00 an • • • • • 10:00 am • • 11:00 am 7 10 11 11 39 12:00 pm 7 6 5 8 26 01:00 pm 6 9 7 13 35 02:00 pm 12 13 8 11 44 • 03:00 pm 16 10 18 16 60 04:00 pm 13 18 12 11 54 05:00 pm 19 18 11 6 54 06:00 pm 11 8 8 9 36 07:00 pm 7 5 6 3 21 08:00 pm 9 0 2 0 11 09:00 pm 6 2 6 4 18 10:00 pm 3 5 1 2 11 11:00 pm 0 1 1 0 2 Total 411 0 AM Peak • PM Peak The AM peak hour began 11:00. The peak volume was 39. The largest interval began 11:30, and contained 11 vehicles. The peak hour factor was .89 The PM peak hour began 03:30. The peak volume was 65. The largest interval began 03:30, and contained 18 vehicles. The peak hour factor was .90 North Idaho Engineering, Inc. 4200 W. Seltice Way Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814 Initial Study Each • Equals 25 Vehicles • • e. Site Code : 3004 Start Date: 03/07/94 Pile I.D. Page : 1 --- COUNTER PLACEMENT REPORT — DELTA I J BETA LOCATION: Street: DISTANCE/DIRECTION FROM CROSS STREET: TUBE SPACING: Feet c- Inches SPECIAL GEOGRAPHIC FEATURES: DATE: TEMP: ICPR.WPF) NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING, INC. City: Nearest Cross Street:- START TIME: BY: DATE: — - -••. • 07'7-- • cc --cc- • yloAp CONDITIONS: "Dr ; Wet, Snowy, Icy, Dry. Wet, Snowy, ley, WEATKER CONDITIONS: Sunny, Partly Cloudy, Cloudy, Sunny, Partiy Cloudy, Cloudy, Ra Snowing, Raining, Snowing, F F STOP North Idaho Engineering, Inc. 4200 Seltice Way, Suite 2 • Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83814 • Phone (208) 667 -1171 • Fax (208) 664 -3507 Prepared on behalf of: ADDENDUM #3 TRAFFIC IMPACT REPORT FOR RIVERWAY VILLA PROJECT Edward Dean Dean Building Corp. 16720 N.E. 116 th Street Redmond, WA 98052 J.N. 4004 July 21, 1994 OVERVIEW The Riverway Villa Project is currently designed for 365 single family, or manufactured home Tots. This report will cover contributing traffic from the first phase which consists of 37 lots. Intersections of Barker Road and On / Off ramps both North and South of Interstate 1-90 will be looked at in this report. Intersection of Barker Road, West bound On / Off ramp, and Cataldo Avenue North of I -90 will be refereed to as intersection one. The other intersection South of I -90 will be referred to as intersection two. To model the intersections performance both for existing and anticipated traffic, the Highway Capacity Software (HCS) was utilized. All traffic counts were obtained from Inland Pacific Engineering. Permission was given by Ann Winkler to use those counts for this report. A copy of all information provided by Inland Pacific Engineering is provided in appendix A. EXISTING AREA TRAFFIC A model was made, of the existing traffic, reflecting the P.M. Peak Hour Traffic for both intersection one and two . Inclosed in appendix B are the results for these two models SUMMARY Both intersection one and two are operating poorly. Problems occur at the intersections minor street left turn movement. The worst case occurs, at intersection two, with an East bound LOS of an E. ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC AND ROUTE ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC MANUFACTURED HOMES Total Average Daily Trips (ADT) for the Riverway Villa Project, first phase, was established using ITE Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition for a mobile home park with 37 units. There are an average of 4.81 ADT per unit resulting in 178 average daily trips for the projects first phase. During the peak hour traffic, the ITE Trip Generation Manual referenced 0.56 trips per unit. This resulted in a Peak Hour Volume of21 which will be contributed by the first phase of Riverway Villa. The ITE Trip Generation Manual also provided a peak hour volume directional distribution of 62% (13) entering, and 38% (8) exiting. ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC SINGLE - FAMILY DETACHED HOUSING Total Average Daily Trips (ADT) for the Riverway Villa Project, first phase, was established using ITE Tnp Generation Manual, 5th Edition for Single - Family Detached Housing with 37 units. There are an average of 9.55 ADT per unit resulting in 353 average daily trips for the O projects first phase. During the peak hour traffic, the ITE Tnp Generation Manual referenced 1.01 trips per unit. This resulted in a Peak Hour Volume of 37. The ITE Trip Generation Manual also provided a peak hour volume directional distribution of 65% (24) entering, and 35% (13) exiting. (pages of ITE manual used may be found in appendix C) TRAFFIC ROUTE FROM PROJECT Several different routes will be used to travel to and away from the project. It has been depicted that 55% of the peak hour volume from phase one will travel the route using the two intersections at question. See the following pages for route projection. Percent represents amount of total peak hour volume expected entering or leaving project. 7TFFr6 Ro 0r qI 0 vc et' / i c< d rssioAJ /1-1/ ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC RESULTS See appendix D for results. ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC MANUFACTURED HOMES Intersection One: The results are still poor. The worst case being the East bound left resulting in a LOS of D. Intersection Two: The worst case being the East bound left resulting in a LOS of E. ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC SINGLE- RW:1LY DETACHED HOUSING Intersection One: The worst case being the East bound left resulting in a LOS of D. Intersection Two: The worst case being the East bound left resulting in a LOS of E. SUMMARY The added anticipated traffic from Riverway Villa Project, first phase will effect the two intersections very little. The added traffic does effect the minor street left turn movements, but not enough to change the LOS. iv t 4,. • • • • - c ik, •.ice �; C: -�1C- Iipn-L'S // v r Inland MEMO ❑ Pacific cAtc. ❑ - 1 ❑ Engineering MEETING West 70771h, uite 200 Spokane. Washington 99204 flTHFR n ; ! ^/ n ^ , , ` r a � ,c V ✓ %% 'o < „ A / / �.��. \ 1y • ' S N 4N 1t 41, 11 1‘,3 -Am Peat., Vyoor PROJECT JOB NO. SHE =T_OF. BY DATE ruin-) P`( fATF P.02 APPFIJ W./CEMENT 2n5 7:30 79: e ao 1 1 11t.3 r.ers In 1V e ru n ruts OF oars OA OrAI 9: p - I 4 zl F knc re 4h -. .. �. 3 33 2 u 163 12 V! 3 1 a 2 43 MI ® L _ Fa 19.61.3 26'. 4.70 I ' • i 5•3 a 1 ]'. I -_ ' a 1 19 u 1 e ' Let 1 37.1 5 Am. Total- ' 23- ..1. . 34 2 �!S ___ ' .f' :: b _. 3 :.'150 Fri 1 ructt 4.1; 1110 5.56 ur 507 S.0a 5.i91a f af,wrt Fl,nt 2 L---_ 11 Tleonah 44 1 42 1 1 21 :0 (♦h 1a 1 11 g .. 1f 1I 52 aun.rn14 60. .. 66: 0 • 51 2 ..62 • 3; I 266 Pei I tucks C.0C 3 . .. e7M I 203 I 1 e3 I 3 1MUUyh En a. 1 zo Left f 6 2 5 ]9 .1 key. fare ac o. i9 o. fm - Pei incl., 4 riln III 6.06 . 0.90 1.6415 -. 1001 YMry ice 4'0 un.e 174 in. 42 3.O5 162 P 1 • 609 a Fr eu, t,. Clpn F..l lrucit d,i9 LSr Gala 5.:33 043 Grit Ir4 EMI 6j_ TM e4 W.14111 Jl al p - 14 10 MEI • .. 70 000 z.7a meta ' =dal 10 MI ® L _ 3f 1. 26'. . ] 10.34 6.11 m 1.11 II I I I: 111 D 57: 1 37.1 _ 91; __ 591 2113 IMMII �!S ___ 1 43 6 158 IC 1110 5.35 M 0 07; T I F C F ChFF r: o0: `t 114 IFFISFCTI.7741 06711 6 5 wiuiR er _ _011 P M.F. 07779 AFPROA Ch 4JVEI4ENI 401 4:70 4511 r Id _ __ nut N: 51 10101 leg 4 5 B , 21 Nanhroend lbwpo 25 2 23 22. 1 27 2 1 104 1•11 9 7 13 13 42 App -Tar:. AD...; ::L. _ 38 ,. 0 .. W .. ... :. . . - t i R1 fnc1 9.61 0D7 2.44 CO 4 ..187. 2.294 if pH 45 1 39 2 43 1 .9 1 11 <n.bt<urd Inrup. 30 32 41 29 2 1 144 1e11 4 1 2 I t App. lalal 79 1 72 1 85 .I: 80. 3: 323 121 lruckr 125 2.70 1.15 3,11 1..1672 Feelacmd rhm e a lN9upl, 60 1 73 1 72 7 15 I 301 Lett —i` 11 37 1 34 :,0 - 1 135 410 1.2!¢3 pppaaM. 1 . 119 2 113 1.. IDI Pct lru[>s 071 1.e7 ole We 1537.4..5t1 pipit 2 - . ITmupc 15 it r 9C 1 9B 1 324 Lilt 4 1 7 .I 4 19 App. URA . BA . 1 87 1 95. , 1. 70 2 350 Act lruckr 1.t0 1.14 I04 2. 1.4.2311 'legal WA. Pa ion Volarne —_- 313 5 112 5 333 4 •9 P 1300 Iii1 aAV4 tcl 1Nc11 1 42 1.5: : 1 'Lb[ PF.rtpcl 102174 PHILP ,nr. 4(3 9,221 571E .$EC11OP BAE /.p: R B ^llN?L)E rEAA 11011E PII L I.9r'Noh • • • . 1.1C0EMPr71 — 7 0 14 r SS _ 1.515 5.50 WA!. 35 t.r -0 IA . al, :1; NIA; :6 IFL Fl1 pr 1: . _ 10 0-011120und 1 ■.2 I 5 1 is 2 104 Len v . PO ! » i 77 0 2 Pc! Inn-in -r---'----. 1.1.5 ----- 4171 C1 143 .22 .I....It 31577L9 EEC— Sf71111brAIFIA 511r_plep h Loft a 10Ln1 IA LS 2 57 i 11 I an 70 3 2? 77 ! 171 -----.. 04 2 :7. II 1 UT 27 5 3 0 rat lurk: _ 441 Y7. 7711 04v 0.94n ! t 10 -10 . 4; 155 IhrbtjIj Let I t 3 1 A5 ' 01 2 212 Attlretal Pet Inaths .4 - 20 5 08 ? Si . 2 MO 5.25. 4.95 LIZ 200 i 35171 , Mc:mph '3 1.4 0 P4401 0 0 : 0 0 I'd Trucks Pill 1311f1 EPP MP LIM Iola, Intne.n bn 2clui,. 2 45 12 245 1 - , 227 1 233 4 9 it Intrilector! PO bucks 4_52 - 4 .4! 1.7.4 i 5 111 PL I FIR II; IIMILIA . 11 2 15 FAQ AILIVI 1 /4 PA 5175 . 1171 ..11 IU.II. P1•11 1 ionri 1:1; ./40.47,07 APPICt0F. IAOVEMEti 190 '.,. 7:20 7.45 xcs 11. p,ss M. 114 F ok TMA3. ---__ N.+Mb91E 1 4 _��, 1 6 17 Fb Thrn pll 37' 4 26 2 21 2 40 4 141 Leh r. , 1 40 1 62 1 160 App. Total Ftl l.vcls 6,49 461 1.09 4-00 4.1096 Soutbat,l I9 1 - 49 7 45 1 43 1 32 1 118 111myh 23 1 35 4 22 45 5 1 135 Left 4 2 7 2 2 1 16 App.i'ulul 71 ' 5 ...ID. 5 5i .. ..1 ...u::is..:e I.' ',Me Pet 11LCk• 6.56 1.41 1,47 6.45 15.1637 Fester! HO( 1 1 - 3 3 Ihvu9h 4 3 3 2 3 t 16 Left 2 3 2 1 3 e Pct /nicks IIgFI - i 3' ' 1 1 2. . 1 1 3030 - 1: --_ - 50.00 -.,. _3 . 1590 21.3:N - 7 e 1oe0Woued !.bough 2 5 4 2 1 1 4 4 23 UM 6 3 1 3 21 App. Total . 10 - 5- .:. - -1]. ] :... .C. 2. Fcl bucks 33.11 14.29 2212 50.0 30 .760 l oral Ceneceen Volume __ 10 le 180 12 1:5 7 107 15I 775 537 Stemr.li,n P p m lcl:4 1C 5.47 3.35 i1 S rnpc CI: Nell F CRFF: !!F WC*. !•422• 031ERS8:11701.1 PARKER no, i• a PE 114.' RM.1PC PEAK k :1011 9FCA.I:nC34N PM F. 0.9023 645 13 u 30 r 29 53 . a 6 75 32 2 e0 5, 2.69 3 16.81 `S 1 22 N I:0 13 9.ne Ab 21 15 15.63 2 30 47 5 • 5 U7 e OC' el 7 2 4.36 16.61 909 It 9.92 3.05 6 1 0 • 2 • 0:1 2 62 17 19 t C1: II CFI L'N .AT. N0. 144:9; IM WRIEC1.p14 BANKER. RGFp 6 Y.c 193 II.slrs AP.PR04C1- 140 4£YENI NOMbound t 1.11 Lin Leh ra Ap r.-Tatra M irrxla _ . .. 2• 104. f:i. 'lay : C: d 4.00 227 264 234 29018 q 27 0 a 24 2 29 6 114 S448hbn nd 119, 24 1 61 b d0 a 49 as App. 2929 KR ~ 3 4 < 32 Ill tracks 87 5 .. y 7 -3 d .1r l.9 CM 5 5.4 CM 301P E lhrmal, 2 3 4 App. TP1•I Ill INCAS qif M` ti.sewna through A99.39141 PR Lucks lcbl Intrr rotli,'i o!une Inpr.44t, n pty lneh4 rEAb::ICl R BREAKDOWN 5:30 k 2 2 3 I2DI 14 1 12 .2.50 2 3 17.65 10 7!g 5 62 21 2 9 4 3 IL 186 4:45 2 16.15 12 6.00 2 2 7d 21 9 ID 4 1 [D 233 00 0 0.80 596 10 12 5:15 ail eh TOTAL 2 1 r le 100 2 338 21 12 18 13 235 D7 2 41 ! 57. 25.00 15.' 7 22 1 30 3 79 7.11 II. Z11 902 6.75 P)IC. 4711841 • • • • • • -i? _�c�Lu.'G{ c\ Ca }old c, c'> i�. z1. ° ./ / iv} i -i c). ( � �Uy •F oii PM r P. 0 :3 mc �• Inland IRAC=TINIC, mE"fo ❑ FROJEC Pacific ca�c ❑ Boa NO. Engineering n n n E -T OF— I nktorI n Tct,I I• p,1 Unn1btu Vol./w/o tunl SM 121i :1571 345 17.15 1.11(3 4.09 1530 I. 7E9 4:1f 10e 1.112 4 :U 1291 1.515 LL 7'10.13• !UIRII: CFA I l Orr Dm (:111!1!', SA[;hl.11 : :•I ;.:7.1•111 11.1 197• I•EAr I IUN16 4 t6 12:5 in Minute NI 1 43nn,n 110 de 1: 15 sal 3:05 5.00 5n5 524 51L5 000 6.'u' 111O011L3I MU 333 A..IC ono 111 405 1,1' 331[• lit. _ a1 III • •Oa 01 Ann IM III as 11 1 +eR tr ayv' ryt pc:[ 91 ryi reps 10 I:ghl r S _ ._. a _ S _. _ _ l .- 7 _ 5�.._.. _-. 3 _ _ .1- Nodhho0nd (hough 7 21 23 2 23 72 1 71 2 125 23 22 to 19 23 1 e 23 9 7 13 13 9 11 11 15 1 0 11 A9171o14 . . . 2.21 .2 ...]] - 2 . 39 . . 1 JS .:. 40 ..:.. I.....: 1 10.- i_:..2 .. 3S .0. .'.: .TI -.. ,:.0 .L 11:. 0 ::.: A2'...::: I. .. ]I Pct'bcta 373 5 .71 176 1203 7A9 - 79 . 409 i 22 DOD 2 21 0.01 21 DM 1 - n 233 f - Ef DOD 1 ---I 01.0 ._._'. IBSh :n . _ -_- - 7E - I =ii i - -I 4v61tswnd Iblolgh 32 1 37 24 22 41 33 2 45 43 36 2 31 ti 21 !An 2 - 4 1 I 2 1 1 1 1 . 13. Iola! Po01wck= 16 5 . 86 . .3 I9 1 72. 2 . 133 1 BO 3 79 1 .. 70 . 0 3 M:: I 32 1 40 1 1 .01 5.11 710 1.15 101 1,50 003 .78 3.70 ,. 152 109 2A4 Eastbound Through :3 1 ' RV e5 1 75 1 72 1 (4 56 1 (9 75 1 90 1 05 1 75 46 33 .3 23 1 30 37 118 1 2 24 1 1 3 I . :,(• .. 1 0 1 0 _ 2 39 I I t 20 2 40 1 32 34 1 •4 MD 19191 hl 0ns1:t. 100 . 4 3.57 01. 1 .122 . 1 . . . 7 1 1 1 .....2 . - - - - - - - - - -1 ) 9 ;. . . . 0 0 08 1 1.27 031 I.5. 435 1.91 2.01 /.72 1.57 . . . . .0. 0 . . . 1179 . . .0 017 Westbound "- IIonmin s0 1 m a1 20 1 92 1 00 I no la 59 53 51 1 la [ en 9 .1 1 i 2 A 5 9 5 4 App. tar 69 1 79 0 93 1 • 97 .1 95 1 ID Pcl Loa_ LH 0.[0 I,[0 L1.1 ISA 2.:6 CM 0.[O 2W 0.m 133 0.00 IoM Intro no int YClcnn 221 12 217 5 332 5 1:13 312 5 156 323 _ 4 4911 _ 9 7.92 331 5 311 2 31) 5 W 3 2.6 5 5 5 94 0.10 l,,Incelbn Pet II sets 3.113 2.37 1. 19 119 0.63 1.52 1.00 E(0 LL 7'10.13• !UIRII: CFA I l Orr Dm (:111!1!', SA[;hl.11 : :•I ;.:7.1•111 11.1 197• I•EAr I IUN16 4 t6 12:5 i a 9 U b3 91 1 + •.E z 1 90K CC 59 tr. e1 39'51 •IL' .,' .I 9 p 11 9 1 .3 CI 0 9 G 1e 1 l 50 ro 59 c 6r flea 14 :47c sP9 6: 31 51 TI UU3 pet It e 9z'6 9 tb 919 9 C UU3 995 :Et 960 '114'4 Nr.Y 01V 3U9 3fG'N MI3l :J•itl C69. i 9 1:13AUY9'N.L10 ?SI13jNI l<4.6 OH 3.4% ' A3.31:11 311.111' 133rO'bl VL'v 9a n1 •1 "E•t .S'S note. l>9 ♦attil.all 955.' 9 '.CI et 911 St :CI 9 .> . v.u nitq wta..wu0 upl MG UU3 UU3 YU3 U09 co+9:113 .JaocP•• a 111 0 I dnaaa 0 t9 6r-t 1 O'1 S1 ".1 e..9 I 3F< 9' Orel 1 ad' w"01eaa3 "I01.,:.: .L ... '3L " :" ::5 :9T -9 $ a .: 05 : 'TPml "ddp L9 01 6 9l. c eZ E C? 111 'txlu41 t - C5 n 9C E n 9t ,1 dnl_ 6995'1 S6'e se E1 I a GTE 9 1u.+ L IAA T✓ 051 - . . 9s '. 9t Lt : :v' .. 91 .' 'L. . ' 61 . :Ptoj tat I. 1 9 s ut if 2 urn hl 1 dL 1 2 L 3n 46+wW1, 0 .. we: SEC'S 607 695 _._ - I .. WI 9 Wrv11d31 bu voq 4.o L 1 I C= 2 to 5 3P 9 Sv ymm4ll 1v t01l s4 5 "..• 14 15* 14 331,3 331,3 n t .. 9t, R =C S I OV! 1fl9llaA1I11 I0Y^ISiaY i a 9 U b3 91 1 + •.E z 1 90K CC 59 tr. e1 39'51 •IL' .,' .I 9 p 11 9 1 .3 CI 0 9 G 1e 1 l 50 ro 59 c 6r flea 14 :47c sP9 6: 31 51 TI UU3 pet It e 9z'6 9 tb 919 9 C UU3 995 :Et 960 '114'4 Nr.Y 01V 3U9 3fG'N MI3l :J•itl C69. i 9 1:13AUY9'N.L10 ?SI13jNI l<4.6 OH 3.4% ' A3.31:11 311.111' 133rO'bl AFIIIOACII 1 405 EMLIJ1 21311 IS 1:3in.3 4.15 . I 'cm icd 1!..jh !Mr , ,p,. •10 4:15 4:13 1:45 5 LO 555 5512 5:45 6112 6:15 7/iti• 24 - la 7 _pass -_. 5/ '1 tea: no 144 ' aa..5 72 51. 5 Fetl . se 71. - 3 Jai: _-_ IP 01: 7ags 4 ._ '1 1/1t .........-.-- . 1..n r 81 Irk 1 Sett 45 ilk 3 ki.0 g 29 ilk pa 41 irk nil 13 57 51 1 Right 16/211.2ovnd Ilvot.12 1411 App..52141 6211/.21.3 651 Ole ---- 113 - - 5,11 061 220 115 5.56 000 020 1,41 D"6/eibovnd kW --- - - -- _ ______ 116 n ' 6 51 i 51 3 5 22 2 52 12 _ 1 1 41 15 12 0 4 1 33 5 2 25 7 t 71 3 1 1 41 4 .. 2 1 eft 11 19 . 6 10 SS . . o 17 so - Kt APP. ToOd ,. /0 .3 // . 1 . 64 . .2 . - 15 _ PO hue :- RT 7.14 _ , /1 003 '.45 o 1.11 - T' /5 3.15 I - 711 - 103 -- ,TT 0 00 at 0.58 - 13" 520 - 1 - 25 3.13 1 .2 5,55 .30 .3 655 light Ens/board -- Moue, - - - i Lt/1 45 5 155 1 1 3 55 1 58 _ 4 45 2 53 2 85 2 43 5 23 2 App..154of 05 .5 SS 0 73 3 sto 1 os 0 Fc1 tr1c1.7 5.62 0.00 3.(71 2.92 4.115 217 2.241 121 7.45 5.111 1A1 11.03 41152.,.0323/.1 through --------- .- -.-_ _ - -..- - _ - -- - 1611 - App. 7 cis 00 916 0 0 0 0 LIM . 0 iii 0 0 Enn 0 0 0 0 0 .D ERR o o 0 0 0 o I'd Innis Enn . Ean Enn -. . inn . 0' Enn EMI E11/1 Total Inirt wet 50 222/47/ fratneotfion -... '111 -__ -- - •- - ...---1 1 2 12 1 7411 11 215 1. 227 4 We 4 244 8 173 12 118 4 152 231 1 r t backs 0 /1 010 ;LW 1 .54 1,4.1 1:43 1_05 3.17 849 3.26 1.25 14.22 1 27.11on 121.1 (324 11/46 Colones 1w 11207 Intm••;■In.• 1 HOW 4 :45 Into Volisin 511 PO Iluel.s_ .7.074 3.15 921 4 .) e.1 1:45 [ .4117 7.2.13 5(1) 301 6.421 0:1177 516 1 117 ::‘5 711 3. 1:$5 5 n _ Ng 3.4 la 4:38 118511.61 24111.17 /11 1 .rft Li:, 91 1111717..C.110k UF,Ilkl 4 3 ; 11 1.: 1 1 c41 710111:1012E1 /212111,1101.1116 • • • • • el 0 195111 GP 1 011131'9 5111. dR Mir 64251 111199[ECIC): S, IIk41;I'c. rl f tt'o 1 I II640'5 Nerllbovr,d SeNebWlb pa Ls Ilk ki 116 1611 37 I 11FV:13161_ • /2 — 3 ht fndu 40C 33 Ibvvph I2 2 Leh 4 -, rota `83 3 M 7m4s 4,11 intrnu'Sai IICHEI7't1 /1 loUI IntornecUon vduu. 144 _ p Inbrneodtn rot dock, ` — 1 83 Pot 3:y.1 5:45 ?:Co 7:11 U5 rn665441ln IOUI Grit 1 1o,C Volvne• :II 747 :7v 751 Loom 8110 0.031 7.:z1 6.111 115 11 COMM 1:412rUC'1 CU a PM I'EA: 507115 Is Idinul. rel rod Grjln_�in 0p - --'— 063 750 7:15 — 0 715 sa _ 01. Irk - -e Irk »13 El prat 611 MAI 2) _ 03 _ 2 31 4 55 ____2 'rH 1 .y n0 5 2 20 '111 ... '3 :..: 71 _. 0Y_ W . V • . _ 2 . _ O . Al e . X 1 72 1 .13 6.4 17 1.50 145 9.5:0 0 JI 'Tf 2 45 I _aj 3 1 2 23 1 35 4 22 45 3 0 4 a v ___ 2 3 55 `2 ..7 .. . a B: s e1 - .5 i ` 8 16. 07 _ 10.51 - 0.03 2 1421 200 203 4 4I SO 10) 5.55 35.10 5 5 33.33 In Mrw•1: ne I( l'tl Cnn llmr Veturn 11u616 .195 On 10.540 500 04 10.50 5 ?` 515 lo120 eJC KII 6103 IS 1@ 10.11 .43 12 5.01 55 IV 0.4 le 8.37 191 5:15 •n al; .3;;31. 30 73 71 1 5 t DJ 21 141 13.53 ao ,414 trl 9 to 2-1715 .'ass Ok We Id. 1 1 27 1 3 18 1 ... -:4. _...54 528 5. — __ _ u•. 90.4,L lb9inn — a .'rllQ4c , ., .,.. ML l n1�ns _ J) t1! as f J_ IM qn 109 ma 115 Is 4 1 - @i e.0 4 ?0 IM 3 • a 1-45 — 11; t . 50) pl. _ • .s Iw 6:15 41, 5 ^0 • u bN imligial i 5 i 5 .w 16 04 5:45 1 � ' 1 _ • is .. 0' Itla 1 Iii 11:15 tl h p h Isnpboan • n ! 1 5 rnlr h l llucb 2 _ uc r. U 5/ f I I „ 1 0.69 I . ;_.. I 6.I3 a :: . :10) . � r � ....W I �(� Mitl�'.! 2.a1 1 los. : � 1 _ 5 1.19 � RFpll[A! _:: a 1.11 Sanhbynd 11 . / 5 © � 19 2 ]C ph Loh a ' F 1 _pp._gk r . v. 6 .. 101 .. 0 p 2 aka 1 2 18 B . I A! $ r htflucla telbony Through 667 . B1 1 1•1 - I CO O. 5 l.It I 1 El r 1 1M1 MEEIMIII1 S 11.71 ] MVO to 1 1 Ir I re 19191 IIIMO MI MEN O.SC Ftt truth[ gto VlwUa•md through tiff 5.]9 IM S,z 11 I"i 1 L�_I 1 rva M _ S 25.w _ UP 3 1 IBM :.. 3 IM :.. a. '. '. !a .. 1 71. :i: Mg • -.1 V • rt11r(cks _ Iola 2J0 O.w ].0± I; 15 15.5E Mil 111 ...1 / .. It II .... 11.11 I Iolala tb F<I 11oc lu l Vome rt lu 2 ^[p 2 092 ;a 1 5 5.14 IeJ __l S 19 11 016 4.12 6,.5 �� 414. I 5,51 t51 301 t0 10,092-, 11 pith ':I:11• .10 N') e42;1 PIIEr.ss cIICII 1!M.11'll r:1 .qP ['.Vl:i co IAA., ;. In&anotion total Gan (lour Valunea 3.30 15 410 1:15 130 Iruchv MI 6J v cat 4011 515 6.:19 9t5 92 952 0.22.1 Intert4w a^n 11141 Vrx 1Yan Volvo, aa5 997 5:w 9:9 115 961 5:30 313 1'[I 1901.4 5649 ] 4.1114 1911 lit. 11(9.915 • • • • • • • • • • • CL 'Prl F]1: 111111: r:RLll. . 94223 AJIr 1ISIrrICN: 0AR l:P. A ER I. 0 P<.4thbo9Ay Weedlnerd 7:33 1.9.111.131E131 mom _• _ 119596 Len I'ci Irtc1:9 Rrl Though Sort App. lot.l Pct ire -1:4 Iots1 InM39c Inn Velma InkIaKao.r 11e4.ks kn.n+nfnn 1 1.5 go 5 3) 6:45 1:20 7:15 a 29 9 .34 111 Inl Pe trots bucks 159 12.621 22] 1 0,300 17 :_166 431 ad59 536 0 .00 it 11 1199391 telt PEI rruck4 22 n E416»un• Through 141 total, toial, 12 r91 I 0 ERR we. 1 21 16AFI PC 6 O'hll IlLOUG1 CI; Ic011.5j11crs 15 Ilhrvre l•el led EP 't4.11 IN 1.45 T.N _7:r_ ek at IM 1' el: 36 0 C 1.69 12.70 FOR 1556 Lan OM. nn TOM (:np hes • 6olurn 45 555 O `, 6'15 nr9 6 =3 5 .P 1 005 100D Eon I 4 ball rel 1 ranks 7.303 655.4 39. 6.555 39 2 1 2 a 0.00 2 . 2 13.33 a m n 3._21 4 935 15.03 flirt 1429 vs3 34 . • 2II 0 .3 26 9 '.11•EA 1101.133 7:30 Ok 0 003 _ 3 12.53 0 0151 5 2 42 49 2t '39 13: ? :15 IR 73 3. C6 6 2 92 3 3 52 45 33 15 1 ?4 302 3 9,26 2 2 4 0.15 13.64 .0 Erin 15 50.22 5 JOSS ITS 1 50 .. 3 2? 1 0 m 23 566 13.95 15.15 EIIM 3 115 14 10.25 10 131 03 61 ID 5 1 a 30 2P9 Elm 43a 2 4.23 5:45 of IM 35 • 32 16 a 7 2 1262 -..31 3.13 ERR 97 I9 9.35 0:00 9.19 RT t1: oei sI 3 42 2 67 4.55 3.21 a 23 101 1 1.5 11 1 233 124 6 0.E9 Enn 4.75 17 33 153 a r:nn 4.40 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ttl Co • • • • • • • • ; Thr • 1 -■ Inland p Pacific I T. C .■,, '. . I 1 . 1 • ::;'• ,C.-- 7 ' ' •••■.. , i No 1 1 / I ..... . ..• i I V t i L-- . N. ' 4 - ' / , i t 1 / \ I if '4 ■ t I i 7 \•„c..... i i :•7•4 '77-.'. 71‘ . i . • .,,.. 7 • I I \ •-•'-. 7 '.7 . '.• 7 ":.,. // C-1 =-7C.:ECT 0 .JCR NO ■ yC) r r e-Ck k r P.G1E: • • • • INTERSECTION TYPE: 4 -LEG • MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH /SOUTH • E3 WE NE SE • LEFT 41 26 90 12 THRU 9 30 339 253 RIGHT 7 22 19 114 • • 1985 ECM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page -1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 35 PEAR FOUR FACTOR . 9 AREA POPULATION 150000 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET N. I -90 RAMP, CATALDO AVE NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET BARKER ROAD NAME OF THE ANALYST GES DATE OF TEE ANALYSIS (mm /dd /yy) 07 -07 -1994 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED P M. Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION. - 9 / INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE LANES -=JJ n 236 c T7. • o /1/4) EB WE NB SB ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page -2 EASTBOUND 0.00 WESTBOUND 0.00 NORTHBOUND 0.00 SOUTHBOUND 0.00 VEHICLE COMPOSITION MINOR RIGHTS EB WB IDENTIFYING INFORMATION PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIET. FINAL (Table 10 -2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL CAP 5.70 5.70 90 20 N 90 20 N 90 20 N 90 20 N 5.70 5.70 0.00 0.00 5.70 5.70 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.10 5.10 0.00 5.10 NB 5.10 5.10 0.00 5.10 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.30 6.30 0.00 6.30 WB 6.30 6.30 0.00 6.30 MINOR LEFTS EB 6.80 6.80 0.00 6.80 WB 6.80 6.80 0.00 6.80 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET N. I -90 RAMP, CATALDO AVE NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET BARKER ROAD DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 07 - 07 -1994 ; P.M. Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION.... CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE MOVEMENT MINOR STREET EB LEFT THROUGH RIGHT MINOR STREET WE LEFT THROUGH RIGHT MAJOR STREET POTEN- FLOW- TIAL RATE CAPACITY v(pcph) c (pcph) S3 LEFT 15 773 N3 LEFT 110 770 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ACTUAL MOVEMENT CAPACITY c (pcph) M SHAR=D CAPACITY c (pcph) SH Page -3 RESERVE CAPACITY c = c - v LOS R SH_ 50 239 192 > 192 > 142 > D 11 308 276 > 223 276 > 153 265 >D C 9 713 713 > 713 > 709 > A 32 234 204 > 204 > 172 > D 37 285 256 > 291 256 > 186 219 >D C 27 680 630 > 680 > 653 > A 778 770 778 770 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET N. I -90 RAMP, CATALDO AVE NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET BARKER ROAD DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 07 -07 -1994 ; P.M. Peak Hoc= OTHER INFORMATION.... 763 A 660 A • 1985 ECM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page -1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 35 PEAK HOUR FACTOR . AREA POPULATION 150000 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET S. I -90 RAMPS NAME OF TEE NORTH /SOUTE STR BARKER ROAD • NAME OF THE ANALYST GES DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm /dd /yy) 07 -07 -1994 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED P.M. Peak He = = • OTHER INFORMATION.... rP f1/2, CA-T; T, .OAJ INTERSECTION TY7E_ AND CONTROL • • • INTERSECTION TYPE: 4 -LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH /SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES E3 WB NB S3 - - -- ---- - - -- - - -- LEFT 228 0 0 67 THRU 1 0 293 208 RIGHT 158 1 35 0 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE LANES EB WB NB SB ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page -2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 VEHICLE COMPOSITION % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 0 0 0 0 N N N N TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10 -2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL, G P MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.70 5.70 0.00 5.70 W3 5.70 5.70 0.00 5.70 MAJOR LEFTS 53 5.10 5.10 0.00 5.10 NB 5.10 5.10 0.00 5.10 MINOR TEROUGHS EB 6.30 6.30 0.00 6.30 W3 6.30 6.30 0.00 6.30 MINOR LEFTS EB 6.80 6.80 0.00 6.90 WE 6.80 6.80 0.00 6.80 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET S. I -90 RAMPS NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET BARKER ROAD DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 07 -07 -1994 ; P.M. Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION.... • MINOR STREET E3 LEFT THROUGH RIGHT • MINOR STREET CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE POTEN- FLOW- TIAL RATE CAPACITY MOVrM.ENT v(pcph) c (pcph) WE LEFT 0 THROUGH 0 RIGHT 1 • MAJOR STREET S3 LEFT 82 N3 LEFT 0 P IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 273 213 > 213 > 213 > C 418 392 > 718 392 > 716 392 >A E 718 713 > 713 > 716 > A 809 279 353 331 > 331 > 53 >. E 1 407 382 > 433 332 > -35 381 >F E 193 823 823 > 823 > 630 > A 936 ACTUAL MOVEMENT CAPACITY c(pcph) M 809 936 SHARED CAPACITY c (pcph) SH 809 936 Page -3 RESERVE C ??ACITY c = c - v LOS R S NAME OF TEE EAST /WEST STREET S. 1-90 RAMPS NAME OF TEE NORTH /SOUTH STREET BARBER ROAD • DATE AND TIME OF TEE ANALYSIS 07 -07 -1994 ; P.M. Peak Hccr OTHER INFORMATION.... 728 A 936 A • • • • • • • • • • • Farce or Rates 2.29 - 10.42 Standard Deviation 2.60 Mobile Home Park (240) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Occupied Dwelling Units On a: Weekday Number ci Studies: 37 Average Number of Occupied Dwelling Units: 195 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per Occupied Dwelling Unit Data Plot and Equation 3.000 _ C 0 0 2.000 _ J 0 0 0 1_ 0 II : I— 1,000 4.000 0 >i 100 200 300 400 5C0 600 7C0 800 900 X = Number ci Occupied Dwelling Units X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Avenge Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.890 X Ln + 2.162 ( ) R =0.85 TriP Generation, January 1991 427 Institute of Transportation Engineers • ` Mobile Home Park (240) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Occupied Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 24 Average Number of Occupied Dwelling Units: 179 Directional Distribution: 62% entering, 38% exitinc Trip Generation per Occupied Dwelling Unit Average Rate Data Piot and Equation Trip Generation, January 1991 Range cf Rates Standard Deviaticn 0.33 - 1.04 0.76 300 n W 200 _ F CD L 0 0 P T 0 m Q 100 _ 0 X Actual Data Points 1C0 200 3CC X = Number cf Occupied Dwelling Units 400 500 Fitted Curie Average Rate Fitted Curie Equation: Ln(T) = 0.397 Ln(X) - 0.044 R = 0.92 429 Institute of Transportation Engineers Single- Family Detached Housing (210) • Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday • • • Number'of Studies: 34 Average Number of Dwelling Units: 206 Directional Distribution: 50% entering. 50% exitinc Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate 9.55 Data Plot and Equation Trip Generation, January 1991 • Range of Rates Standard Deviation 4.31 - 21.85 30.000 0 L 0 20.000 _ H 0 Q 0 0 F. > 10.0007 II Actual Data Points 1000 X = Number of Dwelling Units Fitted Curve 2000 3000 Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.921 Ln(X) + 2.698 R = 0.96 257 Institute of Transportation Engineers Single - Family Detached Housing (210) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 301 Average Number of Dwelling Units: 222 Directional Distribution: 65% entering. 35% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate 1.01 Data Plot and Equation Trip Generation, January 1991 Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.42 - 2.96 1.05 L r W 2.000 _ 0. F 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.000 1.000 - X Actual Data Points 1000 X = Number of Dwelling Units Fitted Curve 2000 Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.902 Ln(X) + 0.529 R = 0.92 X 3000 251 Institute of Transportation Engineers • • • • • • 7ThFFr6 rzoo 7 PROSEc /lRtJuFftc rlu!Eb 1,404F5 ENTERIN 0 3) L3 0 0 9 0 Cs) r SS "1 .2-75-5 10/u AWr. CAT4‘ 4V5. • JT,JTERS 6C N op-15 M ANOF &Grd12E /40ME 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS FELE SPECNEA.W15Page - IDENTIFYING INFORMATION • AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET PEAR HOUR FACTOR . 9 AREA POPULATION 150000 • NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET N. I -90 RAMP, CATALDO AVE NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET BARKER ROAD NAME OF THE ANALYST GES • DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm /dd /yy) 07 -07 -1994 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED P.M. Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION.... M .zzrpgrco MA,.JOFi1GTcRbO Nc'mr' • INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL P.Lt2Sr tfr+SE S INTERSECTION TYPE: 4 -LEG • MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH /SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN • TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB SB - --- - - -- - - -- • LEFT 42 26 90 12 THRU 9 30 345 255 RIGHT 7 22 19 117 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE LANES EB WB NB SB • • • • • • • ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page -2 EASTBOUND 0.00 WESTBOUND 0.00 NORTHBOUND 0.00 SOUTHBOUND 0.00 VEHICLE COMPOSITION EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND CRITICAL GAPS IDENTIFYING INFORMATION PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES 0 0 0 0 90 20 N 90 20 N 90 20 N 90 20 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10 -2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.70 5.70 0.00 5.70 WB 5.70 5.70 0.00 5.70 MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.10 5.10 0.00 5.10 NB 5.10 5.10 0.00 5.10 MINOR THROUGHS • EB 6.30 6.30 0.00 6.30 WB 6.30 6.30 0.00 6.30 MINOR LEFTS EB 6.80 6.80 0.00 6.80 WB 6.80 6.80 0.00 6.80 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET N. I -90 RAMP, CATALDO AVE NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET BARKER ROAD DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 07 - 07 -1994 ; P.M. Peak Hour • OTHER INFORMATION.... CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE POTEN- FLOW- TIAL RATE CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) MINOR STREET EH LEFT THROUGH RIGHT MINOR STREET WS LEFT THROUGH RIGHT MAJOR STREET p SB LEFT 15 772 NB LEFT 110 765 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ACTUAL MOVEMENT CAPACITY c (pcph) M 772 765 SHARED CAPACITY c (pcph) SH 51 235 188 > 188 > 137 > D 11 304 272 > 218 272 > 147 261 >D C 9 715 715 > 715 > 706 > A 32 230 200 > 200 > 168 > D 37 280 251 > 276 251 > 181 214 >D C 27 674 674 > 674 > 647 > A 772 765 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET N. I -90 RAMP, CATALDO AVE NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET BARKER ROAD DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 07 -07 -1994 ; P.M. Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION.... Page - 3 RESERVE CAPACITY c = c - v LOS R SH 758 A 655 A • LANES 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS '(S . rPETWO ?l. UPS Page -1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 35 PEAK HOUR FACTOR . 9 AREA POPULATION 150000 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET S. I790 RAMPS NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET BARKER ROAD NAME OF THE ANALYST GES DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm /dd /yy) 07 -07 -1994 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED P.M. Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION.... A'kfiThrpATIED 5 TA16L C - pt 77r6 Y INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: 4 -LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH /SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB SB 41 LEFT 233 0 0 68 THRU 1 0 294 209 RIGHT 158 1 35 0 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE TNre2SeG i J vivo /►1 f}NQFftcr7nE HOMES EB WB NB SB 1 1 1 1 rrf25T P 1 '+5 0 if 7744 E/P ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page -2 EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND CRITICAL GAPS MINOR RIGHTS EB WB MAJOR LEFTS SB NB MINOR THROUGHS EB WB MINOR LEFTS EB WB PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS 0 0 0 0 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10 -2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP 5.70 5.70 5.10 5.10 6.30 6.30 6.80 6.80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.70 5.70 5.10 5.10 6.30 6.30 6.80 6.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET S. I -90 RAMPS NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET BARKER ROAD DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 07 -07 -1994 ; P.M. Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION.... 5.70 5.70 5.10 5.10 6.30 6.30 6.80 6.80 CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE POTEN- FLOW- TIAL RATE CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) MINOR STREET EB LEFT THROUGH RIGHT MINOR STREET WB LEFT 0 THROUGH 0 RIGHT 1 MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 83 NB LEFT 0 p IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ACTUAL MOVEMENT CAPACITY c (pcph) M 285 351 329 > 329 > 44 > E 1 405 380 > 434 380 > -45 378 >F B 193 822 822 > 822 > 629 > A 271 211 > 211 > 211 > C 416 390 > 717 390 > 715 390 >A B 717 717 > 717 > 715 > A 808 935 808 935 SHARED RESERVE CAPACITY CAPACITY c (pcph) c = c - v LOS SH R SH 808 935 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET S. I -90 RAMPS NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET BARKER ROAD DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 07 -07 -1994 ; P.M. Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION.... Page -3 725 A 935 A ENTE.J6 (. ExTrI'NG ( / 3) C TRPTPC.E6 Romp 52NG LE- Fi3MTl y D5TAcHE4) (5 Sec vo L/o) C Q 1 0) PR SEci Q1 r'_-SS ,J Ayr G:wm. Ark/5. 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ; r` F +r`�F' g o4 E � , /J 5 Pa**** ge - 1 ♦****** * * *** * * **** ** *** * * ** * * * ** * * * * ** * ** , ** * *3 * * * ** IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 35 PEAK HOUR FACTOR .9 AREA POPULATION 150000 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET N. I -90 RAMP, CATALDO AVE NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET BARKER ROAD NAME OF THE ANALYST GES DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd /yy) 07 -07 -1994 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED P.M. Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION.... INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: 4 -LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH /SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB SB LEFT 42 26 90 12 THRU 9 30 351 255 RIGHT 7 22 19 119 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE LANES rNrE2 s Ec,7TON Ong L 5 FI frt& >/ u6Ti- chti --D 7t p PqZ sr ptiAse EB WE NB SB • SOUTHBOUND 0 0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page -2 EASTBOUND 0.00 WESTBOUND 0.00 NORTHBOUND 0.00 SOUTHBOUND 0.00 VEHICLE COMPOSITION EASTBOUND 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.70 5.70 0.00 5.70 WB 5.70 5.70 0.00 5.70 MAJOR LEFTS SS NB MINOR THROUGHS EB WB PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS IDENTIFYING INFORMATION % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10 -2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP 5.10 5.10 6.30 6.30 90 20 N 90 20 N 90 20 N 90 20 N 5.10 5.10 6.30 6.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET N. I -90 RAMP, CATALDO AVE NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET BARKER ROAD DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 07 -07 -1994 ; P.M. Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION.... 5.10 5.10 6.30 6.30 MINOR LEFTS EB 6.80 6.80 0.00 6.80 WB 6.80 6.80 0.00 6.80 CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE POTEN- FLOW- TIAL RATE CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) MINOR STREET EB LEFT THROUGH RIGHT MINOR STREET WB LEFT THROUGH RIGHT • MAJOR STREET SB LEFT NB LEFT p 51 232 185 > 185 > 134 > D 11 300 269 > 215 269 > 144 258 >D C 9 714 714 >. 714 > 705 > A 32 226 197 > 197 > 165 > D 37 276 247 > 272 247 > 177 210 >D C 27 668 668 > 668 > 641 > A 15 767 110 763 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ACTUAL MOVEMENT CAPACITY c (pcph) M 767 763 SHARED CAPACITY c (pcph) SH 767 763 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET N. I -90 RAMP, CATALDO AVE NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET BARKER ROAD DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 07 -07 -1994 ; P.M. Pcak Hour OTHER INFORMATION.... Page -3 RESERVE CAPACITY c = c - v LOS R SH 752 A 653 A • • 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS GTii'; f TZV 0 6.VQ. Page -1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION rtur5K s 5c7r,J Two STtJ6 E- F &AiL y Dg r »cfko AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 35 PEAK HOUR FACTOR .9 • AREA POPULATION 150000 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET S. I -90 RAMPS NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET BARKER ROAD • NAME OF THE ANALYST ' GES DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd /yy) 07 -07 -1994 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED P.M. Peak Hour • OTHER INFORMATION.... F7rJ�GZp,}r��Q i -.,� � INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL I � 1- �� INTERSECTION TYPE: 4 -LEG • MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH /SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB SB • LEFT 238 0 0 68 THRU 1 0 295 209 RIGHT 158 1 35 0 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE EB WB NB SB LANES 1 1 1 1 EASTBOUND 0.00 WESTBOUND 0.00 NORTHBOUND 0.00 SOUTHBOUND 0.00 • VEHICLE COMPOSITION • • ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page -2 EASTBOUND 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS MINOR RIGHTS EB WB PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10 -2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP 5.70 5.70 MAJOR LEFTS SE 5.10 5.10 0.00 5.10 NB 5.10 5.10 0.00 5.10 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.30 6.30 0.00 6.30 WB 6.30 6.30 0.00 6.30 MINOR LEFTS EB WE IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 6.80 6.80 90 20 N 90 20 N 90 20 N 90 20 N 5.70 5.70 6.80 6.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 5.70 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET S. I -90 RAMPS NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET BARKER ROAD DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 07 -07 -1994 ; P.M. Peak Hour OTHER INFORMATION.... 5.70 6.80 6.80 POTEN- FLOW- TIAL RATE CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) p CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE MINOR STREET • EB LEFT 291 351 THROUGH 1 404 RIGHT 193 822 MINOR STREET WB LEFT THROUGH RIGHT MAJOR STREET 0 271 0 415 1 716 SB LEFT 83 807 NB LEFT 0 935 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ACTUAL MOVEMENT CAPACITY c (pcph) M 329 379 822 211 389 716 807 935 SHARED CAPACITY c (pcph) SH > 329 > 432 379 > 822 > 211 > 716 389 > 716 807 935 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET S. 1 -90 RAMPS NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET BARKER ROAD DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 07 -07 -1994 ; P.M. OTHER INFORMATION.... Page -3 RESERVE CAPACITY c = c - v LOS R SH 38 > E > -53 378 >F B > 629 > A > 211 > C > 714 389 >A B > 714 > A Peak Hour 724 A 935 A • •• WIWI BM la •• • ■ ■a 11••1111 • Spokane River Sets Stage For New Subdivision River Walk is perfectly situated for those who love the great outdoors. If you enjoy running, hiking, fishing, golfing, snow or water skiing, you'll find the new homes at River Walk . are located nearby. Aepiue Hawse Ptaduch Awnings Roll-up & Stationary Patio Covers & Car Ports FABRIC AWNINGS Large Selection of Styles & Colors eicitEASF THE VALUE OF YOt,IR HOME TODAY!! • We install 'ors • Do: it Yourself Kits Available • Specialists in Aluminum • We Have Custom Sizes ee Styles Tool Call Today 467 -0600. 1- 800 -365 -3779 Visit our Showroom: N. 9300 Market, Spokane, WA 99207 #AL PINR P 225 4 D Subdivision Will Feature Affordable New Housing In A Waterfront Setting it's hard not to think of the Spokane River when thinking about the Spokane Valley. .Residents• of one of the Valley's newest subdivisions won't have far to go for a first- hand look at the waterway. River Walk is located on the south bank of the Spokane River just along the Centennial Trail east of Barker Road, Bill Graham of Castlewood Homes. said his firm will be breaking ground within the next month at River Walk, where homes Will start at about $109,000 and will to .out at about $128,000. What Graham likes about River Walk is that it's. "hands' down the • - 'plat- in. v And' while you' might expect -' him" IV say't]ict, €Se+ has this reasons. . PACWES Sel-v Inc Vi Home Loans • Free Pre-Approval Certificates • First Time Homebuyer programs ` FHA VA 8 Conventional loans ` Competitive rates and fees • Real Estate Closings ▪ Real Estate Department • Fast Approvals - In House Underwriting • Purchase, Finance and Close " All under one Roof." Locally owned and operated in the Spokane area for aver 1 yrs Call (509) 624 -4000 17S 5. Stevens Street Spokane. WA 99204 LICENSED MORTGAGE BROKER The area will Feature six parks, four walkways to the trail and the river. It will - include, a security gate, a waterfall] at the main entry, landscaped, boulevards and ro_1]erbladepaths. The _price range reflects a commitment, ,to ..offering..an - opportunity to ,lige r ill � „mire relaxed ,]ifestyle., providing homebuyers, quality, valise and affordability, according __to information prevtded by the Gq pony: - The-vast Rrvcr Walk.area is one - col, the last remaining Waterfront ptrcels•.inside the borders of the Spokane Valley. - Plans• show Rive( Walk eventually stretching our from the River to Mission Avenue, with room for more than 300 homes. . . Parks inside the plan are . planned to include playground equipment, horse shoe pits, sport courts, basketball, sitting . grounds and a • gazebo overlooking the river and the centennial trail_ A common area stretches along the river between the homes facing the water and the river_ Spokane County Engineer's Office 1026 West Broadway Avenue Spokane, Wa 99260 ATTN: EDWARD DEAN STRANTON SPOKANE 16720 NE 116TH REDMOND, WA 98052 c No: These charges are for map a.: plan review for Riverway Villa, per agreem nt P1414. Thes- charges include 4.5 hours of labor between 10/22 nd 11/21/94. 4572 November 30, 1994 Charges are for the current month only. (No Previous amounts are Included.) Payment is due upon receipt. $269.49 Amount Due: $269.49 Please return a copy of this bill with your check made payable to the County Treasurer at the above address. Page: 1 BALANCE \ r.0 -ea-y DEDUCTION 1 2 I INVOICE AM ƒ � . � \ : { : . DATE INVOICE NO. DESCRIP 2 -21 -94 4572 S50800 SPOKANE • / e3r�wnN \ Na3HO 4/ Et ) 'Nilson Jones • Stf L C I rs ( STANTON SPOKANE L P. April 7, 1995 W.O. No. 95527 Spokane County Department of Public Works 1026 W. Broadway Avenue Spokane, WA 99260 Attn: Pat Harper Dear Pat: teZ INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. RECEIVED APR 1 0 1995 Re: Riverwalk - a.k.a. Riverway Villa PE- 1414 -81 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER Per our meeting in your office on Monday, March 20th, 1995 regarding the above referenced project I would like to reiterate the outstanding road improvement and traffic issues which we feel need to be clarified and resolved for the time extension currently being considered by the County. These issues are as follows: • 1. As discussed we would like to prepare a single traffic impact study for entire 365 lot PUD. This traffic study would be similar in every way to other large project studies which we have prepared and would allow for mitigating measures to be implemented either by individual phase or number of lots. 2. As discussed we would like to have the offsite improvement requirements for Mission Avenue and Barker Road re- evaluated and /or restated for clarification. We have expanded upon these issues in the following text. We request that the requirement to obtain additional right of way from the private parties for the improvements of the east half of Barker Road from Indiana north to the river be deleted (Reference Condition No. 8 of the Findings and Order dated April 21, 1982 and Engineers Conditions No. 2 of the Staff Analysis dated March 30, 1982). We feel that the deletion is justified because: i. The Project has very little frontage on the section of Barker in question and the remaining frontage is not under control of the Sponsors. ii. A County road improvement project has already widened Barker in the area in question and significantly increased it's capacity (see attached,photo). iii. 80 to 90- percent of the traffic leaving /coming to the project can be expected to go /come from the south on Barker Road and not from /to the North (Trent). 707 West 7th • Suite 200 Spokane, Washington 99204 509 -458 -6840 FAX: 509- 458 -6844 Spokane County April 7, 1995 Page 2 iv. The Sponsors have agreed to make improvements on I -90 which were not required in previous conditions or time extensions and were in fact specifically excluded (Reference Condition No. 9 and Special Condition No. 4 of the Findings and Order dated April 21, 1982). v. An internal walkway system will route pedestrian traffic from this Project to the Centennial Trail. Therefore, sidewalks along Barker will have little use for the future residents of this plat. Additionally, they would be piecemeal until additional adjacent development occurs. 3. We request that Engineer Conditions No. 22 and 23 from the Staff Analysis dated March 30, 1982 be reiterated. These Conditions deal with the timing of required improvements to Mission Avenue and Barker adjacent to the 10 acres approved for Commercial zoning. 4. We would like the findings of fact to clearly state that in fact Indiana Avenue is a Collector and not an arterial roadway. This will be a restatement of several of the existing conditions as well as several of the proposed condition for the time extension. In this condition, please state the roadway section and expected paved width. (In particular Reference Engineers Conditions No. 16 and 17 of the Staff Analysis dated March 30, 1982.) 5. We are in the process of revising and submitting a new PUD Site Plan for the entire 365 lot project. The new plan will eliminate public landscaping along Indiana Avenue east of the first phase in order to provide for lots fronting on and taking access from Indiana. We request your approval of this new concept for Indiana. 6. We would like re- defined conditions from March, 1982 stating that only frontage improvements to Barker Road and Mission Avenue are required unless the traffic study indicates other offsite improvements. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding the above proposed plat conditions please feel free to call either Richard Mason or myself at 458 -6840. Sincerely, Inl d Pacif •ineering C. I I . a Todd R. Whipple, TRW /RLM /tw cc: Ed Dean file , Inc. North Idaho Engineering, Inc. 4200 Seltice Way, Suite 2 • Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83814 • Phone (208) 667 -1171 • Fax (208) 664 -3507 NARRATIVE FOR THE RIVERWAY VILLA FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN MARCH 23, 1994 The Riverway Villa Project Planned Unit Development was approved by the Hearing Examiner Committee on April 2, 1982. The Development consisted of a manufactured home subdivision on 118 acres for 365 lots, open space and one commercial lot. The proposed plat was accompanied by a rezone from agricultural (A) to residential manufactured home (RMH) with a planned unit overlay zone and one commercial (C) tract under the now expired, Spokane County Zoning Ordinance. The sponsor submitted a final development plan with a Change of Conditions for the southern portion of the site which was approved by the Hearing Examiner Committee on April 4, 1983. The approved final development plan for the southern portion of the site consisted of a maximum of 178 lots on approximately 50 acres. On January 1, 1991 the Riverway Villa Project was redesignated to Urban Residential - 3.5 (UR 3.5) consistent with the Program to Implement the Spokane County Zoning Code. The proposal also included a zone reclassification under the now expired Spokane County Zoning Ordinance which would correspond to the Urban Residential (UR -7) zone which encourages new single family dwellings, but allows Class A manufactured homes with a Planned Unit Development overlay. On August 5, 1993 the Riverway Villa Project received a time extension of the Planned Unit Development until September 1, 1994. The approval required a revised Final Planned Unit Development Site Plan for the South Half, and allowed the applicant \owner to submit a Final Planned Unit Development Plan for the North one half of the site. The reason a revised Planned Unit Development plan is required for the South half is that the original Planned Unit Development 1 of 4 Pages 94\GENE4004A.DOC as proposed for the Riverway Villa Project shows 60' wide lots for placement of manufactured homes, and the imposed UR -7 zone classification requires a minimum of 65' width at building setback to allow for single family dwellings. The revised Planned Unit Development Plan as designed complys with the imposed UR -7 standards which required the deletion of several lots in the South half in order to meet the wider lot requirements of the UR -7 zone. The Riverway Villa Project is located North of Mission Avenue and East of Barker Road and will create the opportunity for the elimination of septic sewer systems within this portion of the Spokane Valley region. The Riverway Villa Project will either extend sewer mains easterly from the sewer main located at Sullivan Road and the Spokane River existing to Mission Avenue at Flora Road, then North on Flora Road to Indiana Avenue, and East on Indiana Avenue to the Riverway Villa Project, or will build a sanitary sewer lift station and construct a force main across Interstate 90 and pump the sewage by the way of the existing East Valley Sanitary Sewer Intercepter Main located in Sprague Avenue. This interceptor main was designed to collect the sewage from this area. The sanitary sewer disposal method proposed by the Riverway Villa Project could also be used to collect sewage from existing and proposed developments North of the Spokane River as well. The project sponsor has already contacted several proposed development sponsors North of the Spokane River to initiate possible inclusion of their projects into this worthwhile endeavor. The benefits to the entire Spokane area by the Riverway Villa Project's bringing sanitary sewer service to this area of the Spokane Valley region is enormous. The downstream Water quality of the aquifer will be the recipient of this benefit due to the elimination of many existing and proposed septic tanks within the region. The Riverway Villa Project is proposed in five phases. The first 2 of 4 Pages 94\GENE4004A.DOC phase will be 37 lots, and is currently approved individual septic sewer. However, if timing allows there may not be a need for any individual septic sewer service. It is estimated that the project sponsor will be submitting final engineering drawings for the second phase, including any proposed off - project sanitary sewer extensions within 60 days of this narrative, if any unforseen delays do not occur. The following will outline the proposed phasing: PHASE NO. LOTS LOCATION I 37 Villa Avenue II 65 Villa Avenue III 67 Villa Avenue IV 122 Villa Avenue V 74 Villa Avenue TOTAL: 365 North & South A phasing map attached as Exhibit "A" is included further outlining said phasing. A traffic study is currently underway and any mitigation measures necessary due to this project will be outlined therein, will be based upon proposed phasing, and implemented accordingly. The proposed Riverway Villa Project is consistent with all requirements of the UR -7, and Planned Unit Development overlay zone, and is proposing 365 lots as originally approved. The revised Final Planned Unit Development (Exhibit "B ") for the area South of Villa Avenue is substantially the same as the previously submitted final Planned Unit Development Plan for that portion. The lot widths have been increased from 60' minimum frontage to 65' minimum frontage at the setback lines however, due to the newly imposed UR -7 standards which allow for single family dwellings. The final Planned Unit Development (Exhibit "B ") submitted herewith for the area North of Villa Avenue conforms to the UR -7 3 of 4 Pages 94 \GENE4004A.DOC standards, Planned Unit Development standards, and Manufactured Home Standards. The final plat map for Phase I has been revised and will be resubmitted to the planning department shortly. The improvement plans have been previously submitted to each agency as required and have been revised accordingly. The revised improvement plans will be resubmitted to each appropriate agency shortly. The Riverway Villa Project exceeds the 10% minimum open space requirement for the proposed project. The proposed open space allows for circulation of pedestrians and bicycle traffic throughout the project. The necessary Right of Way for the Centennial Trail as constructed was previously provided for. The purpose of this narrative is to request approval of the Final Planned Unit Development Plan for the area South of Villa Avenue and to request Administrative approval with comments for the final Planned Unit Development Plan for the area North of Villa Avenue, both as shown and submitted herewith on attached Exhibit " It is recognized by the project sponsor that Lot 1 Block 1 as shown on the Final Planned Unit Development is zoned B -2 commercial at this time. This site will be submitted concurrently with one of the future phases. At the time of Final Plat submittal all requirements of this parcel will be met at that time. Thank you for your time and consideration. This concludes this narrative. 4 of 4 Pages 94 \GENE4004A.DOC TO: Division of Engineering and Roads Division of Utilities Division of Buildings Spokane County Health District Spokane County Parks Fire Protection District No. 1 Consolidated Irrigation District Central Valley School District WA State Department of Transportation FROM: Thomas Veljic, Planner II J DATE: April 4, 1994 SUBJECT: Review of Final PUD for RIVERWAY VILLA, PE-1414-8 1/PUDE-1-82 Thank you. sans S f O K n N 13 a vii r' (, i �SE 1 9"sl ,i. C O tJ N `I' v PLANNING OE•PARTMEN'I' Enclosure MEMORANDUM WALLIS D. EIUI3IIARD, DIRECTOR RECEIVED APR 0 4 1994 SPOKANE COUNTY.ENG)NEE8. Enclosed find copies of the above referenced final planned unit development for the entire Riverway Villa development. Please note that the final PUD plan incorporates the previously approved final PUD for the south half and the newly designed north half as required by the conditions attached to the previous time extension. Please review and forward any comments by April 18,1994. If you have any questions you may contact Thomas Veljic at 456 -2205. c: North Idaho Engineering, 4200 Seltice Way, Suite 2, Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814 WEST 1026 BROADWAY AVENUE • SPOKANE, WASU!wcroN 99260 -0240 • (509) 456-2205 JUL - 24 - 95 MON 9:29 AM NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING FAX NO. 208 664 3507 North Idaho Engineering, Inc. 4200 Seitice Way, Suite 2 • Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83814 • Phone (208) 667 -1171 • Fax (208) 664 -3507 t$1111* ***####*##i###* ** ** ** *$$$1## * * *#*#i * * # * * * * **** M2** ** *### FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL Z####**######**######********112 2X 1Z *f * * * * * * ** * * **ztmss2 #s## *# *# PAGE: (1) OF DATE SEDGYs 7477/ J.N•_ L! [[ COMPANY s � t � ] � /�N yo ��11 1?I �i�Qi�r��i Hg ATTN: 1),4 [SC1tJd ,/ `J REFS �i [X]i [ 3 URGENT REGARDING: SENT BY: MESSAGE: [ ] PER YOUR REQUEST S INFORMATION C 3 REVIEW AND RESPOND [ 3 NORMAL /TODAY [ 3 APPROVAL [ 1 CONFIDENTIAL C 3 OTHER 4W - pke54 prep, ff,t a •etessewt, edA urrwAii ,fir NOTE: IF TRANSYIISSION IS UNCLEAR, OR INCOMPLETE PLEASE CALL THE ABOVE LISTED TELEPHONE NUMBER AND INFORM SENDER. JUL -24 -95 MON 9:29 AM NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING Prepared for: DKAN- HOU$LZY CO. ATTN: MARK HANCOCK 16720 NE 116TH STREET REDMOND, WA 99052 cc: Inland Pacific Engineers /Calkins cc: North Idaho Engineering Inc. /Morris Re: STANTON DEVELOPMENT Charge : $175.00 Sales Tax: 14.40 Total : $189.00 FAX NO. 208 664 3507 P 2 TRANSAMERICA TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY NOR ?H 720 A tooNNE SPC KANE, WASHINGTON 99212 L I M I T E D L I A B I L I T Y C E R T I F I C A T E This is a report as of July 13, 1995, at 8:00 A.M., covering property hereinafter described. The information contained herein is made solely for the purpose of determining the status of the property described herein, is restricted to the use of the addressee, and is not to be used as a basis for closing any transaction affecting title to said property. Liability is limited to the charge made for this certificate. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: VESTED IN: A portion of the Southwest quarter of Section 8, Township 25 North, Range 45 East, w.M., more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the Southwest corner of said Section 8; thence North 37 °28'22" East 1696.03 feet to the True Point of Beginning of the land hereinafter described; thence North 60 °00'02" East 123.50 feet; thence South 29 °59'58" East 160.00 feet; thence South 60 °00'02" West 123.50 feet; thence North 29 °59'58" West 160.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning; Situate in the County of Spokane, State of Washington. STANTON DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a Washington General Partnership, as nominee for Stanton Spokane Limited Partnership, a Washington Limited Partnership. EXCEPTIONS_ Page 1 of 4 Transamerica No. : MW194985 JUL - 24 - 95 MON 9:30 AM NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING FAX NO. 208 664 3507 Tax Account No. 55083.9010 55083.9052 7. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: PURPOSE: AREA AFFECTED: DATED: RECORDED: RECORDING NO.: Page 2 of 4 Order No. MW194985 1. General taxes, as follows, together with interest, penalty and statutory foreclosure costs, if any, after delinquency: (1st half delinquent on May 1; 2nd half delinquent on November 1) Year Amount Billed Amount Paid Principal Balance 1995 $651.21 $325.61 $325.60 1995 $4,134.58 $2,067.29 $2,067.29 2. The legal description of the land described herein is a portion of a County Tax Assessor's Parcel. Conveyance of a portion of said parcel may violate R.C.W. 58.17. Under Exclusions from Coverage, loss arising from such a violation is excluded from policy coverage. 3. Assessments levied by Consolidated Irrigation District No. 19, together with interest, penalty and statutory foreclosure costs, if any, after delinquency; (1st half delinquent on May 1; 2nd half delinquent on November 1) Tax Account No. Year Amount Billed Amount Paid Principal Balance 55083.9010 1995 $396.40 $198.20 $198.20 55083.9052 1995 $1,378.40 $689.20 $689.20 4. Liability to future assessments by Consolidated Irrigation District No. 19 5. Liability to future charges by Spokane County for Storm Water service. 6. Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions imposed by instrument recorded on May 20, 1994, under Recording No. 9405200420. Stanton Development Company, a Washington general partnership, on its own behalf and as nominee for Stanton- Spokane L.F., a Washington Limited Partnership Ingress and egress Riverway Villa Entrance May 19, 1994 May 20, 1994 9405200419 JUL - 24 - 95 MON 9:30 AM NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING 8. DEED OF TRUST AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTOR: TRUSTEE; BENEFICIARY: ORIGINAL AMOUNT: DATED: RECORDED: RECORDING NO.: Investigation should be made to determine the present balance owed by contacting the appropriate lender /agency /individual. 9. DEED OF TRUST AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTOR: TRUSTEE: BENEFICIARY: ORIGINAL AMOUNT: DATED: RECORDED: RECORDING NO.: FAX NO. 208 664 3507 Order No. MW194985 Stanton Development Company, a Washington General Partnership, as nominee for Stanton Spokane Limited Partnership, a Washington Limited Partnership Transamerica Title Insurance Company Timberland Savings Bank $850,000.00 October 12, 1994 October 17, 1994 9410170458 Stanton Development Company, a Washington General Partnership, as Nominee for Stanton Spokane Limited Partnership, a Washington Limited Partnership Transamerica Title Insurance Company Timberland Savings Bank $108,000.00 January 6, 1995 January 26, 1995 9501260003 Investigation should be made to determine the present balance owed by contacting the appropriate lender /agency /individual. SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: RECORDED: January 26, 1995 RECORDING NO.: 9501260004 The above deed of trust was made subordinate to the deed of trust recorded under Recording No. 9405120396, set forth at paragraph 10 herein. Page 3 of 4 JUL -24 -95 MON 9:31 AM NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING FAX NO. 208 664 3507 10. DEED OF TRUST AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTOR: TRUSTEE: BENEFICIARY: ORIGINAL AMOUNT: DATED: RECORDED: RECORDING NO.: Stanton Development Company, a Washington general partnership, on its own behalf and as nominee for Stanton- Spokane L.P., a Washington Limited Partnership Transamerica Title Insurance Company Morvest Capital Corporation, a British Columbia Corporation $500,000.00 May 10, 1994 May 12, 1994 9405120396 Investigation should be made to determine the present balance owed by contacting the appropriate lender /agency /individual. (Covers property herein described and other property) SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: BY AGREEMENT DATED: RECORDED: RECORDING NO.: October 17, 1994 9410170459 P Order No. MW194985 The above deed of trust was made subordinate to the deed of trust recorded under Recording No. 9410170458, set forth at paragraph 8 herein. 11. Potential liability for assessments levied by Spokane County Utility Department for the Aquifer Protection Area. To verify, call 458 -2538. In order to make payment, account number is necessary. Enclosures Sketch sac END OF EXCEPTIONS Page 4 of 4 TRANSAMERICA TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY BY )141-Vili-P-'/A.- (EL For service on this order call; (509) 922 -2222 (FAX) 926 -1519 Maureen wild, Title Officer JUL MON 9:32 AM NORTH IDAHO EMNEERING FAX NO. 28 664 3507 CRONK ADD P6 k. :..;i•-•• • - - •- V.) •• . x. ty ;.1=L:•ativi. r• • • • ••,• • ja „, • -LPN& IC kg gGi Of • ••• .•-••••■••••.... • ••• .;:*•• +i • ‘C.; .01.14.Quir41.4 4:40irty ior 11.0n( REVIEW #: 7 PROJECT NAME: Riverway Villa P.U.D. REVIEW COMMENTS SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF ENGINEERING & ROADS 1026 W BROADWAY. SPOKANE WA 99260 -0710 PHONE (509)456 -3600 FAX (509)324 -3478 PROJECT #: P1414 DATE: 29 June 95 REVIEW COMMENTS NOT ADDRESSED FROM PREVIOUS SUBMITTALS REVIEWER: Ed Parry 3rd Review: PLANS Sheet 8/10 (now sheet 7/9 - Mission Avenue) 11. Profile: b. Curb grade sheets are needed to verify that curbs are set to provide adequate cross - slope: see attached sample {still needed} (Curb grade calc sheets for Mission Avenue were riot received with this submittal)[Curb grades and elevations on the profile need to be coordinated with the grades and elevations on the calc sheet] 5th Review: CURB GRADE WORKSHEETS 1. Mission Avenue b. Coordinate resulting curb grades with the road plans (Revised curb grade worksheets for Mission Avenue were not received with this submittal)[Curb grades and elevations on the calc sheet need to be coordinated with the grades and elevations on the profile] 6th Review: GENERAL 1. Developer's signature will be needed prior to County approval CALCULATIONS 1. The calculations need to be stamped, signed, and dated by a Washington State - licensed Professional Engineer [need P.E. stamp for the off -site hydrology calcs for Basin 2. Calculations for the predeveloped basin to the commercial parcel were not received with this submittal [still not received with this submittal] 3. Pipe calculations: a. All pipes need to be evaluated at the design flow reaching the pipe; 4 fps is the minimum required velocity at the design flow. Design Deviation Requests for velocities less than 4 fps have been approved if some means of trapping out sediment is provided; flows in these cases have generally been REVIEW COMMENTS 29 June 95 PROJECT # P1414 REVIEW # 7 COMMENTS BASED ON REVISED PLANS & CALCULATIONS IN THIS SUBMITTAL GENERAL 1. 2 sets of the road and drainage plans are required for each submittal (lot plans included) LOT PLANS Page 2 of 2 in the range between 3 fps and 4 fps [Each pipe needs to be evaluated for the flow to be conveyed through the pipe; the "n " factor for pipe roughness should be coordinated with the pipe type (D.I.P.: .013; CMP:. 024. If a pipe has a velocity <4 fps, then a Design Deviation Request will be needed. The Design Deviation Request should address such mitigating measures as catch basin sumps to trap out sediment, etc., j 1. Lot 96: The plat should carry wording to the effect that the sale of this lot shall not close until McMillan Lane is extended and the temporary turnaround is removed it t Tract A: The drywell rim should be set a maximum of 0.5' above the swale floor Direction of flow in the ditches should be indicated 4. Please ensure that the 208 Lot Plans have all the information noted on the attached extract of our checklist, especially the section plan Please note that only the pipe calcs, pre - developed runoff calcs, and the Lot Plans need to be re- submitted. If there are any revisions to the road and drainage plans, only those sheets with revisions need to be re- submitted (2 copies). 1 complete copy of the road and drainage plans is still needed Yes NIA Ys ❑No 1. YuDNo❑N/AEJ 2. Ys❑No 3. v. rio 0 N/A 0 4. Yq �No�N /A� 5. Yef /A 6. Yn No 0 N /A 7. Yes ❑No ❑N /A Ye, N /A Ys N/A 0 Yee ❑No N/A 0 Yes El No N/A 0 Yes No ❑ N/A Ys ❑ Y/A ° YsNo Yet No ° N/A ° Yes 0 No ❑ N/A ° Yet ❑No °NfA° Yes No :1 (IA D 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Yes ❑ND N/A ❑ 1. Yes °No ❑ N/A 0 2. Yes 0 No a N/A ° 2a. Yes ❑No N/A D 2b. Yea No❑NU 2c. Yee ❑No ❑ N/A 0 2d. Yes ❑No ❑ N/A O 2e. Ys CI No N/A 2f. Yes ❑No ° N/A ❑ 2g. Ys 11 No ❑ N/A 0 2h. Yes ❑NoD N/A ❑ 2i. Yee ❑No ° N/A 0 2j. Yes ❑ No 0 N/A 0 2k. yes 0 No 0 N/A 0 3. Yes ❑No❑ N/A ° 4. Ye 0 No ❑ NIA 0 5. Yes 0 No ❑ NIA ° 6. Yes No N/A 7. UNDERGROUND GRAVEL GALLERIES CHECKLIST Is the site suitable for undergound gravel galleries based on the site screening criteria contained in the draft standards for gravel galleries. If no, an approved design deviation is required before future review. .3 void ratio for gravel free space volume is used or test information is provided to justify ratio used. Perc rate from field test is used to develop outflow rate 10-yr event volume is contained entirely underground 100 -yr event volume is contained by a combination of underground storage and above ground storage up to 8" depth Soil mixture is specified for water depth in pond exceeding 8" Entire gallery is wrapped in filter fabric An adequate freeboard is provided in any above ground storage pond. DETENTION POND Releases to a downstream channel or pipe system that is capable of properly conveying the proposed flows and does not cause downstream flooding. Contains 50 -yr developed. Releases at 50 -yr pre - developed. Secondary overflow to pipe in control structure for 50 -year developed. Emergency overflow weir for 100 -year developed. Sump prior to outlet to control structure. 1' min. freeboard at 50 -year design storm is provided. Lawn turf or hydro seeded sides and floor for publicly - maintained ponds or dryland grasses specified. Sprinkler system for publicly - maintained ponds or dryland grasses specified. Berm compaction and lift requirements specified where necessary. Is a 12' maintenance driv .r• • •• pon s ue a If so maximum grade is 6:1. The 208 lot plans show: The lot number, block number, subdivision name. date drawn, scale, north arrow and street name Easement dimensions in relation to property lines or corners. Location of curb, sidewalk or edge of asphalt as applicable. Setback requirements Swale floor elevation Swale floor dimensions are shown in relation to property lines or corners. Rim elevation drywell type, frame and grate type, centerline offset and station if drywells are present. Curb cut station, normal flowline invert. Any drainage ditches, their easements, flowline grade and other required improvements. Shows depth from the normal flowline to bottom of swale. An attached cross section of the swale or ditch. Existing easements. buildings. future set asides, and required building setback lines are shown. The section drawing shows the concrete apron, R.O.W. line, and grass sod or seeding if approved. Lot plans have been stamped by a professional engineer on all pages Lot plans are of sufficient scale to maximize the lot size to the 8 '/Z" x 11" paper size. (Drawings may be on plain white paper) 208 lot plans were approved on ckbev4.0/ta„95 8 REVIEW COMMENTS SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF ENGINEERING & ROADS 1026 W BROADWAY, SPOKANE WA 99260 -0710 PHONE (509)456 -3600 FAX (509)324 -3478 REVIEW #: 7 REVIEWER: Ed Parry PROJECT #: P1414 DATE: 29 June 95 PROJECT NAME: Riverway Villa P.U.D. REVIEW COMMENTS NOT ADDRESSED FROM PREVIOUS SUBMITTALS 3rd Review: PLANS Sheet 8/10 (now sheet 7/9 - Mission Avenue) 11. Profile: b. Curb grade sheets are needed to verify that curbs are set to provide adequate cross - slope; see attached sample {still needed} (Curb grade calc sheets for Mission Avenue were not received with this submittal)[Curb grades and elevations on the profile need to be coordinated with the grades and elevations on the calc sheet] 5th Review: CURB GRADE WORKSHEETS 1. Mission Avenue b. Coordinate resulting curb grades with the road plans (Revised curb grade worksheets for Mission Avenue were not received with this submittal)[Curb grades and elevations on the calc sheet need to be coordinated with the grades and elevations on the profile] 6th Review: GENERAL 1. Developer's signature will be needed prior to County approval CALCULATIONS 1. The calculations need to be stamped, signed, and dated by a Washington State - licensed Professional Engineer [need P. E. stamp for the off -site hydrology calcs for Basin- 1 -. Mcoalak- •54A4A4 s 2. Calculations for the predeveloped basin to the commercial parcel were not received with this submittal [still not received with this submittal] 3. Pipe calculations: a. All pipes need to be evaluated at the design flow reaching the pipe; 4 fps is the minimum required velocity at the design flow. Design Deviation Requests for velocities less than 4 fps have been approved if some means of trapping out sediment is provided; flows in these cases have generally been REVIEW COMMENTS 29 June 95 PROJECT It P1414 REVIEW # 7 in the range between 3 fps and 4 fps Each pipe needs to be evaluated for the flow to be conveyed through the pipe; the "n " factor for pipe roughness should be coordinated with the pipe type (D.1. P.: .013; CMP:.024. If a pipe has a velocity <4 fps, then a Design Deviation Request will be needed. The Design Deviation Request should address such mitigating measures as catch basin sumps to trap out sediment, etc.,J Page 2 of 2 COMMENTS BASED ON REVISED PLANS & CALCULATIONS IN THIS SUBMITTAL GENERAL 1. 2 sets of the road and drainage plaits are required for each submittal (lot plans included) LOT PLANS 1. Lot 96: The plat should carry wording to the effect that the sale of this lot shall not close until McMillan Lane is extended and the temporary turnaround is removed 2. Tract A: The drywell rim should be set a maximum of 0.5' above the swale floor 3. Direction of flow in the ditches should be indicated 4. Please ensure that the 208 Lot Plans have all the information noted on the attached extract of our checklist, especially the section plan Please note that only the pipe calcs, pre - developed runoff calcs, and the Lot Plans need to be re- submitted. If there are any revisions to the road and drainage plans, only those sheets with revisions need to be re- submitted (2 copies). 1 complete copy of the road and drainage plans is still needed • 1'es ❑N, N Yee ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NIA Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ .;.A Yex No N /A Yee ❑ No ❑ NIA ° 1 "es ° No ❑ N/A ° 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Yes O No ❑ N/A Ya ° No ° N/A El 1. Yes ❑No ° N/A 0 Yes No 1:i NIA Vt. ❑ No ❑ N/A D Yes 0 No ❑ N/A ° Yes No N/A Yes No El N' A Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A Yes O No ❑ N/A ❑ Yes No Nr4 Yes ❑ No N:A 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Yes ° No ❑ N/A 0 1. Yes ❑ No ° N/A ° 2,., Yee ❑ Nee ❑ N/A ° 2a. Yes N/A ° 2b. Yes ❑ No 0 N/A 0 2c. Yes ❑ No ❑ NIA 0 2d. Ye. 01 N. ° NJA 0 2e. Ya ° N/A 0 2f. Yee ° No 0 NrA 0 2g. vee EI N. wA 0 2h. Vas ❑tio N/A 0 2i. Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ 2j. Yee ❑ No ❑ NIA 0 2k. Yee 0 No 0 N /A Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A 4. Yes ° No E N/A ° 5. Yes O No ° N/A ° 6. 1es ° N/A ° 7. 3. UNDERGROUND GRAVEL GALLERIES CHECKLIST Is the site suitable for undergound gravel galleries based on the site screening criteria contained in the draft standards for gravel galleries. If no, an approved design deviation is required before future review. .3 void ratio for gravel free space volume is used or test information is provided to justify ratio used. Pero rate from field test is used to develop outflow rate 10 -yr event volume is contained entirely underground 100 -yr event volume is contained by a combination of underground storage and above ground storage up to 8" depth Soil mixture is specified for water depth in pond exceeding 8" Entire gallery is wrapped in filter fabric An adequate freeboard is provided in any above ground storage pond. DETENTION POND Releases to a downstream channel or pipe system that is capable of properly conveying the proposed flows and does not cause downstream flooding. Contains 50 -yr developed. Releases at 50 -yr pre - developed. Secondary overflow to pipe in control structure for 50 -year developed. Emergency overflow weir for 100 -year developed. Sump prior to outlet to control structure. 1' min. freeboard at 50 -year design storm is provided. Lawn turf or hydro seeded sides and floor for publicly - maintained ponds or dryland grasses specified. Sprinkler system for publicly - maintained ponds or dryland grasses specified. Berm compaction and lift requirements specified where necessary. Is a 12' maintenance dri If so maximum grade is 6:1. Lot plans are req The 208 lot plans show: The lot number, Klock number, subdivision name, date drawn, scale, north arrow and street name Easement dimensions in relation to property lines or corners. Location of curb, sidewalk or edge of asphalt as applicable. Setback requirements Swale floor elevation Swale floor dimensions are shown in relation to property lines or corners. Rim elevation drywell type, frame and grate type, centerline offset and station if drywells are present. Curb cut station, normal flowline invert. Any drainage ditches, their easements, flowline grade and other required improvements. Shows depth from the normal flowline to bottom of swale. An attached cross section of the swale or ditch. Existing easements, buildings, future set asides. and required building setback lines are shown. The section drawing shows the concrete apron, R.O.W. line, and grass sod or seeding if approved. Lot plans have been stamped by a professional engineer on all pages Lot plans are of sufficient scale to maximize the lot size to the 8 ' /z" x 1 1 " paper size. (Drawings may be on plain white paper) 208 lot plans were approved on cktistv4.0 /1an95 8 Circular Channel Analysis & Design Solved with Manning's Equation Worksheet Name: basin A Comment: 12" D.I.P. to Pond A Solve For Actual Depth Open Channel - Uniform flow Given Input Data: Diameter 1.00 ft Slope 0.0080 ft /ft Manning's n 0.013 Discharge 2.04 cfs Computed Results: Depth 0.58 ft n Velocity 4.30 fps At. Flow Area 0.47 sf Critical Depth 0.61 ft Critical Slope 0.0069 ft /ft Percent Full 58.16 0 Full Capacity 3.19 cfs QMAX @.94D 3.43 cfs Froude Number 1.09 (flow is Supercritical) Open Channel Flow Module, Version 3.21 (c) 1990 Haestad Methods, Inc. * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, Ct 06708 Circular Channel Analysis & Design Solved with Manning's Equation Open Channel - Uniform flow Worksheet Name: Basin D Comment: 12" CMP for pond D drywell Solve For Actual Depth Given Input Data: Diameter 1.00 ft Slope 0.0200 ft /ft Manning's n 0.024 Discharge 0.88 cfs Computed Results: Depth 0.39 ft , 4 Velocity 3.10 fps ( �� _ w Flow Area 0.28 sf c� V'^'• Critical Depth 0.39 ft Critical Slope 0.0195 ft /ft Percent Full 39.05 % Full Capacity 2.73 cfs QMAX @.94D 2.94 cfs Froude Number 1.01 (flow is Supercritical) Open Channel Flow Module, Version 3.21 (c) 1990 Haestad Methods, Inc. * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, Ct 06708 Circular Channel Analysis & Design Solved with Manning's Equation Given Input Data: Slope Manning's n Discharge Computed Results: Full Flow Diameter Full Flow Depth Velocity Flow Area Critical Depth Critical Slope Percent Full Full Capacity QMAX @.94D Froude Number Open Channel - Uniform flow Worksheet Name: basin E Comment: CMP to pond E drywell Solve For Full Flow Diameter 0.0200 ft /ft 0.024 2.94 cfs 1.03 ft 1.03 ft 3.54 fps 0.83 sf 0.73 ft 0.0275 ft /ft 100.00 % 2.94 cfs 3.16 cfs FULL auk 4x41 4112-9.64,4 Open Channel Flow Module, Version 3.21 (c) 1990 Haestad Methods, Inc. * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, Ct 06708 Circular Channel Analysis & Design Solved with Manning's Equation Open Channel - Uniform flow Worksheet Name: basin E Comment: CMP to pond E drywell Solve For Actual Depth Given Input Data: Diameter Slope Manning's n Discharge Computed Results: Depth Velocity Flow Area Critical Depth Critical Slope Percent Full Full Capacity QMAX @.94D Froude Number 1.25 ft 0.0200 ft /ft 0.024 2.94 cfs 0.69 ft ' 4.20 fps 0/1, q a r t ,` 0.70 sf 0.69 ft 0.0204 ft /ft 55.49 % 4.95 cfs 5.32 cfs 0.99 (flow is Subcritical) Open Channel Flow Module, Version 3.21 (c) 1990 Haestad Methods, Inc. * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, Ct 06708 Circular Channel Analysis & Design Solved with Manning's Equation Open Channel - Uniform flow Worksheet Name: basin E Comment: CPEP to pond E drywell Solve For Actual Depth Given Input Data: Diameter 1.00 ft Slope 0.0200 ft /ft Manning's n 0.012 Discharge 2.94 cfs Computed Results: Depth 0.52 ft Velocity 7.08 fps Flow Area 0.42 sf Critical Depth 0.74 ft Critical Slope 0.0073 ft /ft Percent Full 52.26 % Full Capacity 5.46 cfs QMAX @.94D 5.87 cfs Froude Number 1.93 (flow is Supercritical) Open Channel Flow Module, Version 3.21 (c) 1990 Haestad Methods, Inc. * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, Ct 06708 Circular Channel Analysis & Design Solved with Manning's Equation Open Channel - Uniform flow Worksheet Name: basin F Comment: 12" CMP to pond F Solve For Actual Depth pit<v/4400 Given Input Data: Diameter 1.00 ft Slope 0.0200 ft /ft Manning's n 0.024 Discharge 0.47 cfs Computed Results: 11�� Depth 0.28 ft . &✓. Velocity 2.60 fps Pot-0A fit Flow Area 0.18 sf Critical Depth 0.28 ft Critical Slope 0.0191 ft /ft Percent Full 28.08 % Full Capacity 2.73 cfs QMAX @.94D 2.94 cfs Froude Number 1.02 (flow is Supercritical) Open Channel Flow Module, Version 3.21 (c) 1990 Haestad Methods, Inc. * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, Ct 06708 Vet ❑No ❑ N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Ye, ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NIA ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NIA ❑ Y'es ❑ No ❑ N /A Yes ❑ So ❑ N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Yes ❑No ❑ N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NIA ❑ Ye. ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ WA Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ yes ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Yes ❑ Nn ❑ N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NIA ❑ Yes No N/A X1414 ��k Yes ❑ No ❑ N /A Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N /A Yee ❑ No ❑ NIA ❑ Yes No ❑ NIA ❑ Yes No ❑ N/A ❑ Yes No ❑ N/A ❑ Y'es No ❑ N /A Yes R No ❑ N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A Yes ❑ ❑ N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NIA❑ Yes ❑ No1A ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Yee ❑ NoXN /A ❑ Yes No ❑ N/A ❑ Yes No ❑ NIA ❑ Yee ❑ No ❑ NIA ck.listv4.0 /Jan95 UNDERGROUND GRAVEL GALLERIES CHECKLIST Is the site suitable for undergound gravel galleries based on the site screening criteria contained in the draft standards for gravel galleries. If no, an approved design deviation is required before future review. I. .3 void ratio for gravel free space volume is used or test information is provided to justify ratio used. 2. Perc rate from field test is used to develop outflow rate 3. 10 -yr event volume is contained entirely underground 4. 100 -yr event volume is contained by a combination of underground storage and above ground storage up to 8" depth 5. Soil mixture is specified for water depth in pond exceeding 8" 6. Entire gallery is wrapped in filter fabric 7. An adequate freeboard is provided in any above ground storage pond. DETENTION POND 1. Releases to a downstream channel or pipe system that is capable of properly conveying the proposed flows and does not cause downstream flooding. 2. Contains 50 -yr developed. 3. Releases at 50 -yr pre - developed. 4. Secondary overflow to pipe in control structure for 50 -year developed. 5. Emergency overflow weir for 100 -year developed. 6. Sump prior to outlet to control structure. 7. 1' min. freeboard at 50 -year design storm is provided. 8. Lawn turf or hydro seeded sides and floor for publicly- maintained ponds or dryland grasses specified. 9. Sprinkler system for publicly - maintained ponds or dryland grasses specified. 10. Berni compaction and lift requirements specified where necessary. 11. Is a 12' maintenance drive to the bottom of ponds needed'? If so maximum grade is 6:1. 1. 2. 2a. 2h. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f. 2g. 2h. 2i. 2j. 2k. 208 LOT PLANS CHECKLIST Lot plans are required; submitted on �`' i f s The 208 lot plans show: `'7,lr si KN � q Jew &t '` The lot number, block number, `subdivvision name, date drawn, scale, north arrow and street name Easement dimensions in relation to property lines or corners. Location of curb, sidewalk or edge of asphalt as applicable. Setback requirements Swale floor elevation Swale floor dimensions are shown in relation to property lines or Rim elevation drywell type, frame and grate type. centerlin .nd station if drywelis are present. Curb cut station, normal flowline invert. Any drainage ditches. their easements. flowline grade and other required improvements. Shows depth from the normal flowline to bottom of swale. An attached cross section of the swale or ditch. 3. Existing easements, buildings, future set asides, and required building setback lines are shown. 4. The section drawing shows the concrete apron, R.O.W. line, and grass sod or seeding if approved. 5. Lot plans have been stamped by a professional engineer on all pages 6. Lot plans are of sufficient scale to maximize the lot size to the 8 1/2" x 11" paper size. (Drawings may he on plain white paper) 7. 208 lot plans were approved on 8 SCALE: 1" = 20' RECEIVED JUN 2 9 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER TEI IFORARY TUFII -CUT EASEMENT PROFERT( LINE 533 N 20' SUILDIN1 SETBACK lb' DRAIWAtE, SLOPE, Al ID UTILITY EASEMENT 11 EPeE OF PAVEMENT -L, \ L E NE RIVERWALk FIRST ADDITION \GI T96.DWG LOT 96 i 6/26/9. North Iclaho Engineering 4200 West Seltice Way Coeur d'Alene. Idaho 83814 Phone: (208) 667 -1171 Fax: (208) 664 -3507 RECEIVED JUN 2 9 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER o \� 0 4'. 2 q RAt; t 4 EXPIRES: 9/23/95 U U Q rl io0'W .00I r In .00 f6 .w .0010n r 00'RL II I 1 I- [ 8 n O 1 ir I �r 1 1 - 2 L r -I I pot 0 w 0 142d6135 7N10111)6 •OZ IviCMILLANL.ANE ce Ce r ,r 4o ■ `m> POND BOTTOM ELEV. = 202645 Z A I±1 BERM ELEV. = 2027.45 L F N N — 0 0 SCALE: 1' = 20' / I- J irl J a . Q . Q, � � 1 I ; .0095 Q z RIVERWALK FIRST ADDITION GI- N103.DMG LOT 103 6/28/ .13 North Idaho Engineering 4200 West Seltice Way Coeur d'Alene. Idaho 83814 Phone; (208) 667 -1171 Fax: (208) 664 -3507 r Z \' \\ / P Ti�� ••. \\ v. ' oo •8Sb51 Fi.•LO.00,005 POND BOTTOM ELEV. = 2028.00 DEEM ELEV. = 2029.50 JUN 29 1993 p ko SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER n_ Q H T W ' 'r' Gw•w0 SCALE: 1' = 60' RIVERWALK FIRST ADDITION \G1- PCOM.DWG TRACT "A" 1B North Idaho Engineering 4200 West Saltine Way Coeur d'Alene. Idaho 83814 Phone: (200) 667 -1171 Fax (206) 664 -3507 O E tS1O Nzt 11 U w 0 /ARVIONt LAvNE _ _ .897 ' +I: - f 0 ___ _ - - - -=\ n r r - -yr �0 -20 eU1LDIt w r: � firy I 1 �} w ? E`r p rl i U w - a i / � � I --J w 2R 0 918 -r1'- lb 1 16:82 ' �o'� �a x ry 5C r c1 CC L035' c I a a� m� 1rl .,(Y`1 V > -t : a- .9i® DP W r 0 0.00' �� I -: -, ? w=. °� 134T' I -4, \ C1 S Wt W� � O C L `> _ w L N K i 4 = lDOja`� Jl 0)Z p. ( < :i *r a) 1 hl Q wri Ji •- ,r, t V I y PWN If, rl I L E< VWS FLuJ S - V J m T h- T O T 0 'D 0 7 � Im & l w O tr 1Q � 2 in S h fl 1r 1 Q m 1 � a W ' I l I (�1 i I E -t v r te - j 25 ____ I __ S ___ ________ R 1 __________ 102.58' RECEIVED JUN 29 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER POND BOTTOM ELEV. = 202213 BERM ELEV. = 2028.13 SCALE: I' a 20' RIVRRWALK FIRST ADDITION GI -FLDWG LOT 1 76/27/95 8 North Idaho Engineering 4200 West Seltice Way Coeur d'Alene. Idaho 8381.1 Phone: (208) 667 -1171 Fax (208) 664 -3507 o f o f WASH S :Qe it co ■ HARMONY LANE ,00'59 25' BUILDING SETBACK - \ 20 EUILDIIJG o B T &4GK OI IC s: ,p 21 O'Ol 00L 1 .00'0I POND BOTTOM ELEV. = 2027.09 BERM ELEV. = 2028.09 _00'1. T I �Ov01 En 0 L 0 O RECEIVED JUN 2 9 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER r SCALE: 1 = 20' RIVERWALK FIRST ADDITION G 1- 14.DWG LOT 4 JB North Iclaho En 4200 West Seltice Wav Coeur d'Alene. Idaho 83814 Phone: (208) 667 -1171 Fax (208) 664 -3507 fl Baa �o 1 E. H 4 - 9' � c of WAS ilib . oQ lif 9 G1 ' �O l P A ISI'EIt o ratI .00'01 .00'L s, ,00'01 T a ,00"59 20' BUILDIN5 SETBACK 25' 511LDINe SETBACK m 0 0' Q O Q V Q 0 a HARv1ONY LANE .00 POND B0110M ELEV. = 202209 BERM ELEV. = 2020.09 0 SCALE: 1" = 20' RIVERWALK FIRST ADDITION 01- IS.DWG LOT 5 j2B/97 JB North Idaho Engineering 4200 West Seltice Way Coeur d•Alene. Idaho 83814 Phone: (208) 667 -1171 Fax: (208) 664 -3307 a 1 0 s e E. Hq Sw P ARMONY LANE With I T 20' BUILPItle SETBACK 25 BUILDING; SETBACK 00' z 4 C. , 4 N 4 0' LA Q o v c i e l Fi W 0. N r,p ri f.;" 7 V T n i a.; _W W _, 4 w �2 0 e > N- N r N N \ \ of I? 'J'r cl �;i i I it1 I I rI 0- Q a a et:- ?; I Loo .00'LJ uC z ,00'01 .0001 m, w2 J K1 m m ra POND BOTTOM ELEV. = 2028.06 BERM ELEV, = 2029.06 RECEIVED JUN 2 9 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER SCALE: 1' = 20' RIVERWALK FIRST ADDITION GI- 16.DWG LOT 6 JB North Idaho Engineering 4200 West Seltice Way Coeur d'Alene. Idaho 83814 Phone; (206) 667 - Fax: (206) 66+ -3507 't0520 _ •6 EXPIRES: 9/23/95 H,ARMON)" LAME 20' BUILDII1v SETBACK w L 4 a 25' BUILOIPG SETBACK ,00'59 POND BOTTOM ELEV. = 2028.06 BERM ELEV. = 2029.06 4 LL Jl RECEIVED JUN 2 9 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER SCALE: 1" = 20' RIVERWALK FIRST ADDITION G 1- 17.DWG LOT 7 /C28. 95 J9 North Idaho Engineering 4200 West Seltice Way Coeur d'Alene. Idaho 83814 Phone: (206) 667 - 1171 Fax: (208) 664 -3507 E1-21_43/4 o „ st 1V /, << 6 /MO 1 A & • 20' BUILDING SETBACK 25' EUlLDINS SETBACK n o I N /1 'QI ,00L r U I� G 1 Loo L ,coo ioo'oI in J r S 0 EXPIRES: 9/23/95 HARVONY LANE quite En C. O POND BOTTOM ELEV. = 2030.01 BERM ELEV. = 2031.01 0°LJ RECEIVED JUN 2 9 5995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER SCALE: 1" = 20' RIVERWALK FIRST ADDITION G1- 19.D•G LOT 9 6/28/95 )B Yorth Idaho Engineering 4200 West Seltice Way Coeur d'Alene. Idaho 83814 Phone: (208) 867 -1171 Fax: (208) 664 -350% I t WAs SS;ea riP D ' ly D b O O -1 } 1 Lem.. oCLJ 1 �- - - -J ,OG'OI ,00'01 / HARMONY I L ANE L 0 nkr 00' 20' BUILDING SETBACK 25' EUILDIIJG SETEACK .0059 POND BOTTOM ELEV. = 2030.01 BERM ELEV. = 2031.01 RECEIVED JUN 2 9 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER `w Q w o a 0 O 9 0 w SCALE: 1" = 20 RIVERWALK FIRST ADDITION G I- I10.DWC LOT 10 /27/ JB North Iclaho Engineering 4200 West Seltice Way Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83814 Phone: (200) 667 -1171 Fax (208) 664 - 3507 Q z 1- 4 d N o't' E. H. 4� °e 9 =F o f tvas S >® u 1 "Iv ,00v I .00 o_ ,00' AUGUSTA, LANE F 20' BUILDING SETBACK I I 1= II I II � % i N 1 abI a l k p w . I o �u �W < � w z O JO I G T'. .O0 OL .cats POND BOTTOM ELEV. - 2027.83 BERM ELEV. = 2028.83 RECEIVED JUN 2 9 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER w l T in - a < 1- u a W ;T w o w OE e W O e SCALE: 1 = 20' • RIVERWALK FIRST ADDITION CI- K25.DWG LOT 25 JB North Idaho En &ineerirn- 4200 West Seltice Way Coeur d'Alene. Idaho 83814 Phone: (208) 667 -1171 Fax (208) 864 -3507 r J R =4 35.07 L=41.35 HARMONY LANE RECEIVED JUN 2 9 1995 POND BOTTOM ELEV. - 2020.10 BERM ELEV. = 2028.10 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER SCALE: r = 20' RIVERWALK FIRST ADDITION G1- H39.DWG LOT 39 6/2 North Idaho Engineering 4200 West Seltice Way Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83814 Phone: (208) 867 -1171 Fax: (208) 664 -3007 ECIE OF PAVENEIIT 5.68.51 CENTER POINT INV. ELEV. 202922 \ TYPE 2 CURB INLET J 0 „_0_Q o �^ o w4 St \ 4 4! v7 -, 6 L b eTEP-C 4c7 EXPIRES: 9/23/95 I INDIANA AVENUE R =745CC L =51.bd R= 149.0:" L= 43.93' O A COI AREA PROFERTY LINE N L d 'I I F =158LL L=1 4' L =40.31 a 1 V 1 R - 1 5B , • 5 O' ) Iv1 . -" 8 I I NI b I `J I I I L 1 4 _ 4391_ I _ _ f-I - 1_ L _ _ __ __ .7)_r_ —(— __ -� i I L5'MIN. TYF. SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD I I TYFE 'E' CRT HELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME ANC GRATE I STA. 19 HARMONY I @RATE ELEV. 2021.63 I OFFSET 11 RIGHT I I I I IN IP. 1 I 2 I r I I� I ' I11nn ir- l 1 1 7 I I 16' CR4INAGE, SLOPE, AIID UTILITY EASEMENT I • POND BOTTOM ELEV. = 2027.13 BERM ELEV. = 2026.13 cr 3 LEVEL, FLAT, FOND EOTTONI AREA DRAINAGE EASEMENT RECEIV JUN 2 9 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER @UTTER ��- CURS SIDEWALK RIGHT OF HAY SCALE: IT = 20' RIVERWALh FIRST ADDITION North Idaho Engineering 0 1- C.10.DWG LOT 40 6/27/935 B 4200 West Seltice Way Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83814 Phone: (208) 667 -1171 Fax: (208) 664 -3507 a G a t \ , \ t a w \ t\� Q \ A - \ t� J 0 p 2= o Q \ t t Q a al a i \ ,'q Q1 S, F J �T -I (3 1 > F 6 l JC r 3t Do \ \ �t /J w cti j � v5y \ \ y / �i� 4 s. VC. 1 w ""7 \ \\ t \ \� Z N r - \`S .) \ \`1 \5. 11 O \c f SB ) ' 1j r \ t\ V / Otlt x \P t \ *S r o oz, o . ,5 -15 --- \\ POND BOTTOM ELEV. - 2027.10 BER.t ELEV. = 2020.10 RECEIVED JUN 2 9 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER SCALE: r 20' RIVERWALK FIRST ADDITION G1- G41.DWG LOT 41 North Idaho Engineering 4200 West Seltice Way Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83814 Phone: (208) 867 -1171 Fax (208) 664 -3507 s CY V W 3 J1 q 6 � ag -4 EXPIRES: 9/23/95 i O uJ T O I rl (— .0011 . 0_74 I d a I .00'el a <" �s in a - 10 Mc Hi LAN LAND tu O 20' EUILDIIb SETBACK ,0099 POND BOTTOM ELEV. = 2026.47 BERM ELEV. = 2027.47 RECEIVg9 J&114i 29 1995 O SCALE: 1 = 20' RIVERWALK FIRST ADDITION GI -M48.DWG LOT 48 /j 6/28/9 JB North Idaho Engineering 4200 West Seltice Way Coeur d'Alene. Idaho 83814 Phone: (208) 667 -1171 Fax (208) 684 -3507 4 4 0 CD Q _G ? —Q S =w f _ r ❑ T 1 -ww 0± r� n � G ty N - UG -_ w . r W r 4 .. " ww oac4 ‘n vo 0 vo > - rt w W \-- .n- — — \ \ — — „ 9 --- _-- \ \:: 1 s G U1 1 1 1 POND BOTTOM ELEV. - 2028.83 BERM ELEV. = 2029.83 RECEIVED JUN 2 9 € sPogma =NW gr494E-C-R SCALE: 1” = 20' RIVERWALh FIRST ADDITION \GI- 049.DWC LOT 49 JB North Idaho Engineering 4200 West Seltice Way Coeur d'Alene. Idaho 83814 Phone: (208) 667 -1171 Fax: (208) 664 -3507 REVIEW COMMENTS SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF ENGINEERING & ROADS 1026 W BROADWAY, SPOKANE WA 99260 -0710 PHONE (509)456 -3600 FAX (509)324 -3478 REVIEW #: 6 REVIEWER: Ed Parry PROJECT #: P1414 DATE: 12 June 95 PROJECT NAME: Riverway Villa P.U.D. ** Due to the degree of revisions made in the drainage concept for this submittal, many of the previous comments are not now applicable, and have been deleted ** REVIEW COM1MENTS NOT ADDRESSED FROM PREVIOUS SUBMITTALS 2nd Review CALCULATIONS 3. Page 1: Runoff from portions of the parcel to the east appear to run onto the site (The calculations for Basin "P" were not received with this submittal. This off-site basin should be evaluated at the 50- year event) 3rd Review: PLANS Sheet 8/10 (now sheet 7/9 - Mission Avenue) 11. Profile: b. Curb grade sheets are needed to verify that curbs are set to provide adequate cross - slope; see attached sample {still needed} (Curb grade calc sheets for Mission Avenue were not received with this submittal) UTILITY PLANS 1. Coordinate drywell locations with road plans; many drywells are shown on the utility plans and not on the road plans {a copy of any revised utility plans should be provided} (a copy of any revised utility plans should be provided) 5th Review: 208 LOT PLANS: Not received with this submittal (208 lot plans are still pending submittal) CURB GRADE WORKSHEETS 4 9 , \ j fh �� 1. Mission Avenue 1 �� a. Revise elevations at stations 11+50, 11+75, 12 +25, 16 +00, and 17 +25 so that minimum /maximum elevations are not exceeded. These revisions are needed so that the pavement cross slope will fall within the 2% to 4.5% range allowed in the SCRS. b. Coordinate resulting curb grades with the road plans (Revised curb grade worksheets for Mission Avenue were not received with this submittal) COMMENTS BASED ON REVISED PLANS & CALCULATIONS IN THIS SUBMITTAL GENERAL 1. Developer's signature will be needed prior to County approval PLANS Sheet 2/9 1. Sheet 6/9 shows a drywell at the SW quadrant of Barker /Indiana. Drywell information (CL station, CL offset, and rim elevation) need to be indicated either on this plan sheet or on sheet 6/9 2. Grate elevation needs to be indicated for the catch basin at 1 +21 LT 3. Temporary turnaround a. Spot elevations should be provided at the locations noted b. Will the turnaround be paved or graveled? Surface type should be indicated 4. Retaining wall notes: Note 6 should be revised to indicate to whom the contractor should submit the retaining wall construction information REVIEW COMMENTS 12 June 95 PROJECT # P1414 REVIEW # 6 Page 2 of 3 5. The inlet and piping at station 1 +21 need to be shown in the profiles Sheet 3/9 1. Drywells at 16 +00 LT, 19 +40 LT: Drywell rims should be coordinated with the swale invert elevation at these locations. In order to provide the required water quality treatment, the drywell rims should either be raised 6" above the flowline (or above the normal flow depth a the design storm event), or the drywells should have a solid locking lid to keep the water from flowing directly into the drywell Sheet 5/9 1. Drywell at 22 +39 RT: Drywell rim should be coordinated with the swale invert elevation at these locations. In order to provide the required water quality treatment, the drywell rim should either be raised 6" above the flowline (or above the normal flow depth a the design storm event), or the drywell should have a solid locking lid to keep the water from flowing directly into the drywell REVIEW COMMENTS 12 June 95 PROJECT # P1414 REVIEW # 6 Page 3 of 3 2. The cross gutter at McMillan/Indiana needs to be clearly show in the plan and in the profiles. Spot elevations, and CL stations /offsets, are needed at the locations noted. The cross -gutter towline needs to align with the Indiana Ave gutter flowline. Sheet 6/9 1. The drywell at the SW quadrant of Barker /Indiana needs to be coordinated with Sheet 2/9 Sheet 8/9: Please indicate where the temporary silt fence is to be installed Sheets 9A/9, 9B/9 1. Floor dimensions of the 208 swales need to be indicated (typical - all swales) Basin I: Swale floor should be set at least 0.5' below the invert elevation of the lowest inlet, or calcs should lae provided to show that adequate 208 volume has been developed at this depth 3. Basin K: Rim elevation needs to be coordinated with the lowest invert - a minimum of 0.4' is needed between the rim and the invert so that the design outflow rate can be developed, with some safety factor for clogging 4. Basin M: "Harmony Lane" Should be "Indiana Ave" 5. Basin 0: Inlet invert elevation needs to be coordinated with the swale floor elevation and the drywell rim elevation - a minimum of 0.4' is needed between the rim and the invert so that the design outflow rate can be developed, with some safety factor for clogging CALCULATIONS 0 1. The calculations need to be stamped, signed, and dated by a Washington State - licensed Professional Engineer 2. Calculations for the predeveloped basin to the commercial parcel were not received with this submittal 3. Pipe calculations: a. All pipes need to be evaluated at the design flow reaching the pipe; 4 fps is the minimum required ,� velocity at the design flow. Design Deviation Requests for velocities less than 4 fps have been ` approved if some means of trapping out sediment is provided; flows in these cases have generally been in the range between 3 fps and 4 fps I-e b. Minimum slope for pipes in the public RJW is .005 ft/ft pit g _0 1 'AO Basin Maps (Predeveloped and Post - developed): The P.E. stamp needs to bear the Engineer's signature, the ate signed, and the date the license expires g P Gentlemen: OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER • Ronald C. Hormann, P.E., County Engineer June 12, 1995 Michael Hunt, P.E. North Idaho Engineering 4200 Seltice Way, Suite 2 Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814 SUBJECT: P1414 - Riverway Villa P.U.D. 6th Review A review of the road and drainage plans for this project has been accomplished. Areas of concern to us are indicated in red on the attached prints. Please make the corrections and resubmit them to this office in order that the review process may proceed. When the plans are resubmitted mark all changes on the revised print in color. If you have any questions about this review, please contact us at 456 -3600. Thank you. Very truly yours, Ronald C. Hormann, P. E. Spokane County Engineer Edward 0. Per y ( Jr., P.E. Plans Review Engineer encls: Plans (1 set) Calculations (1 copy) Comments (3 pages) cc: IPEC (Todd Whipple) ,{(roject file reviewer (comments only) C C) LJ N T Y A DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Dennis M. Scott, P.E., Director 1026 W. Broadway Ave. • Spokane, WA 99260 -0170 • (509) 456 -3600 FAX: (509) 324 -3478 TDD: (509) 324 -3166 REVIEW COMMENTS SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF ENGINEERING & ROADS 1026 W BROADWAY, SPOKANE WA 99260 -0710 PHONE (509)456 -3600 FAX (509)324 -3478 REVIEW #: 6 REVIEWER: Ed Parry PROJECT #: P1414 DATE: 12 .tune 95 PROJECT NAME: Riverway Villa P.U.D. ** Due to the degree of revisions made in the drainage concept for this submittal, many of the previous comments are not now applicable, and have been deleted ** REVIEW COMMENTS NOT ADDRESSED FROM PREVIOUS SUBMITTALS 2nd Review CALCULATIONS 3. Page 1: Runoff from portions of the parcel to the east appear to run onto the site (The calculations for Basin "P" were not received with this submittal. This off -site basin should be evaluated at the 50- year event) 3rd Review: PLANS Sheet 8/10 (now sheet 7/9 - Mission Avenue) 11. Profile: b. Curb grade sheets are needed to verify that curbs are set to provide adequate cross - slope; see attached sample {still needed} (Curb grade calc sheets for Mission Avenue were not received with this submittal) UTILITY PLANS 1. Coordinate drywell locations with road plans; many drywells are shown on the utility plans and not on the road plans {a copy of any revised utility plans should be provided} (a copy of any revised utility plans should be provided) 5th Review: 208 LOT PLANS: Not received with this submittal (208 lot plans are still pending submittal) REVIEW COMMENTS 12 June 95 PROJECT # P1414 REVIEW # 6 Page 2 of 3 CURB GRADE WORKSHEETS 1. Mission Avenue a. Revise elevations at stations 11+50, 11+75, 12 +25, 16 +00, and 17 +25 so that minimum /maximum elevations are not exceeded. These revisions are needed so that the pavement cross slope will fall within the 2% to 4.5% range allowed in the SCRS. b. Coordinate resulting curb grades with the road plans (Revised curb grade worksheets for Mission Avenue were not received with this submittal) COMMENTS BASED ON REVISED PLANS & CALCULATIONS IN THIS SUBMITTAL GENERAL 1. Developer's signature will be needed prior to County approval PLANS Sheet 2/9 1. Sheet 6/9 shows a drywell at the SW quadrant of Barker /Indiana. Drywell information (CL station, CL offset, and rim elevation) need to be indicated either on this plan sheet or on sheet 6/9 2. Grate elevation needs to be indicated for the catch basin at 1+21 LT 3. Temporary turnaround a. Spot elevations should be provided at the locations noted b. Will the turnaround be paved or graveled? Surface type should be indicated 4. Retaining wall notes: Note 6 should be revised to indicate to whom the contractor should submit the retaining wall construction information 5. The inlet and piping at station 1+21 need to be shown in the profiles Sheet 3/9 1. Drywells at 16 +00 LT, 19 +40 LT: Drywell rims should be coordinated with the swale invert elevation at these locations. In order to provide the required water quality treatment, the drywell rims should either be raised 6" above the flowline (or above the normal flow depth a the design storm event), or the drywells should have a solid locking lid to keep the water from flowing directly into the drywell Sheet 5/9 1. Drywell at 22 +39 RT: Drywell rim should be coordinated with the swale invert elevation at these locations. In order to provide the required water quality treatment, the drywell rim should either be raised 6" above the flowline (or above the normal flow depth a the design storm event), or the drywell should have a solid locking lid to keep the water from flowing directly into the drywell REVIEW COMMENTS 12 June 95 PROJECT # P1414 REVIEW # 6 Page 3 of 3 2. The cross gutter at McMillan /Indiana needs to be clearly show in the plan and in the profiles. Spot elevations, and CL stations /offsets, are needed at the locations noted. The cross- gutter flowline needs to align with the Indiana Ave gutter flowline. Sheet 6/9 1. The drywell at the SW quadrant of Barker /Indiana needs to be coordinated with Sheet 2/9 Sheet 8/9: Please indicate where the temporary silt fence is to be installed Sheets 9A/9, 9B/9 1. Floor dimensions of the 208 swales need to be indicated (typical - all swales) 2. Basin I: Swale floor should be set at least 0.5' below the invert elevation of the lowest inlet, or calcs should be provided to show that adequate 208 volume has been developed at this depth 3. Basin K: Rim elevation needs to be coordinated with the lowest invert - a minimum of 0.4' is needed between the rim and the invert so that the design outflow rate can be developed, with some safety factor for clogging 4. Basin M: "Harmony Lane" Should be "Indiana Ave" 5. Basin 0: Inlet invert elevation needs to be coordinated with the swale floor elevation and the drywell rim elevation - a minimum of 0.4' is needed between the rim and the invert so that the design outflow rate can be developed, with some safety factor for clogging CALCULATIONS 1. The calculations need to be stamped, signed, and dated by a Washington State - licensed Professional Engineer 2. Calculations for the predeveloped basin to the commercial parcel were not received with this submittal 3. Pipe calculations: a. All pipes need to be evaluated at the design flow reaching the pipe; 4 fps is the minimum required velocity at the design flow. Design Deviation Requests for velocities less than 4 fps have been approved if some means of trapping out sediment is provided; flows in these cases have generally been in the range between 3 fps and 4 fps b. Minimum slope for pipes in the public R/W is .005 ft /ft 4. Basin Maps (Predeveloped and Post - developed): The P.E. stamp needs to bear the Engineer's signature, the date signed, and the date the license expires r PROJECT # 1 REVIEW # PROJECT ` . ( At L PROJECT SPONSOR TEL # PROJECT ENGINEER TEL # (Road & Drainage Plans) PROJECT SURVEYOR: TEL # (Plat) Yes '/}-' .Nu ❑ N/A El Y. D N, fi LN!A 0 Yes DNoO N/A O Ye4 ❑ Na 0 NIA Y. 'No 0 N/A D Yes O No N/A Yes WINo O N/A O Yes 21No O N/A O Yes 0 No 0 N/A D Y. D NoY144/A D Yes No N/A O Yea4No 0 N/A 0 Yes 0 No ° N/A D 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Yes El No D N/A D 8. Locate the Findings and Order for the project and list any unusual conditions: Yes L No D N/A D 9. Yea N/A ° 1. Yes O No O NIA 2. Yes O No O N/A 3. 'S. O No El N/A 4. Yes O No D N/A 5. Yea .121'No D N/A D 6. cklistv4.0 /Jan95 SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST Street names are consistent with Plat. REVIEWER: ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS The $100.00 fee and Agreement to Pay Fees for plat review have been acc pted by Spokane County for this submittal. 11 The Review Fee Account is current (no invoices over 30 days outstandin P i 4 ' 15°75 C1/41// I have noted the plans in, plans out dates on the pink sheet in the file. If this is a mobile home park project, were plans routed through Planning? The file contains a Spokane County Engineers Section map, Assessors's map and aerial photo. Field review made. If yes, complete attached form "Field Review Report ". PLAN REVIEW REQUIREMENTS 1. 2 copies of the plans and a bound drainage report were submitted. 2. The plans are on 24" x 36" sheets. 3. The plans and calculations are stamped. Plans must be marked "Preliminary" or "Not for Construction" if they are not the final approved plans. Final plans must be signed and dated by the responsible Washington State Professional Engineer. mire- p.e, CA-cab. 106 c'v '7D itasrtC 407'e 4. The developer has signed and approved the Final Submittal of the road and drainage plans. r.G 5. The Standard Plan Notes have been included on the plans. 6. Is the project located in the Aquifer Sensitive Area? 7. List any design deviation requests and their status: rAmt, ` i Jbi 4A- — hf0wt FLOOD ZONES DATE: 8 June 1995 Does the entire plat lie outside of designated I00 -year Flood Plain Area? Does the entire plat lie outside of Zone "B" of the designated Flood Plain Area? Is the max. street ponding in any part of a Zone "B" less than 1'? Does the plat contain appropriate language limiting the lowermost opening in a structure located in a Zone "B" to not Tess than l' above the lowest road elevation? Is the entire project located outside of an identified Flood Plain Area? Is the entire project located outside of an identified Storniwater Management Problem Area? i (1)I INDEX: Yee F� .'io N/A 2. Ye, L O NIA O 3. e,V" N/A 5. Ye, 0 No 111 N/A ❑ 6. Ye, 0 No ❑ NIA 1=1 Ga. 1•., 0 No 0 N<A 0 6b. 0 so 0 NIA 0 7. Yes O No 0 N/A Ye, 1 1 O N/A 0 9. 1 e, LI No 0 NIA 10. Y„ NIA O 11. Yes (11 No N/A 111 12. ROAD PLANS 1. List any roads that must be designed and constructed on the project. ajor Anerta! 7; Secondary Arterial G; UoHector Artert ; L.ocal Access /Kes denttal J; t'nvate 4. Planning conditions require submission of a landscape plan. (NOTE: Usual y associated with PUD's). I have checked the landscape plan against the road and storm drainage design. If there are any conflicts, list them in space provided, or note that no conflicts were found. Ye, 0 N,. N/A 0 4. The following road plans have a bearing on the design of roads for this project and a copy is in the file: Vertical curves meet stopping sight distance requirements. An "R" Value Test is required for this project. For this project, for each soil group called out an "R" Value Test has been submitted. The pavement section is adequate for the "R" Value Test and required traffic index. Is the bench mark called out on the plans? 8.Are stationing equations shown? Is stationing correct (south to north, west to east, reading left to right on the plan)? Are existing utilities shown on the plans (or an information copy of the utility plans submitted)? Are proposed utilities shown on the plans (or an information copy of the utility plans submitted)? The project plan name matches the plat name. cklistv4.0 /1an95 2 ROAD NAME ROAD NAME ROAD NAME ROAD NAME ROAD NAMI: ROAD NAMI- j litANA - W Owl^ V t ( µCi 401 ROAD CLASSIFICATION eaterit f.tt D pp [ 4.0. P. .6 . 1RAFFIC INDEX (1) '5 4 4- 4 TERRAIN - (A -- PAVED WIDTH RAY WIDTH POSTED SPEED DESIGN SPEED MINIMUM GRADE MAXIMUM GRADE SLOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE MINIMUM 11OR7 CARVE TYPE OF CURB REQUIRED MIN ASPHALT SECTION MIN GRAVEL SECTION (1)I INDEX: Yee F� .'io N/A 2. Ye, L O NIA O 3. e,V" N/A 5. Ye, 0 No 111 N/A ❑ 6. Ye, 0 No ❑ NIA 1=1 Ga. 1•., 0 No 0 N<A 0 6b. 0 so 0 NIA 0 7. Yes O No 0 N/A Ye, 1 1 O N/A 0 9. 1 e, LI No 0 NIA 10. Y„ NIA O 11. Yes (11 No N/A 111 12. ROAD PLANS 1. List any roads that must be designed and constructed on the project. ajor Anerta! 7; Secondary Arterial G; UoHector Artert ; L.ocal Access /Kes denttal J; t'nvate 4. Planning conditions require submission of a landscape plan. (NOTE: Usual y associated with PUD's). I have checked the landscape plan against the road and storm drainage design. If there are any conflicts, list them in space provided, or note that no conflicts were found. Ye, 0 N,. N/A 0 4. The following road plans have a bearing on the design of roads for this project and a copy is in the file: Vertical curves meet stopping sight distance requirements. An "R" Value Test is required for this project. For this project, for each soil group called out an "R" Value Test has been submitted. The pavement section is adequate for the "R" Value Test and required traffic index. Is the bench mark called out on the plans? 8.Are stationing equations shown? Is stationing correct (south to north, west to east, reading left to right on the plan)? Are existing utilities shown on the plans (or an information copy of the utility plans submitted)? Are proposed utilities shown on the plans (or an information copy of the utility plans submitted)? The project plan name matches the plat name. cklistv4.0 /1an95 2 1'es❑No N /A Ye, t] No N/A Yes ❑ Nu El N/A El 1'e3 0 No N/A Y'a No ❑ N/A 0 Ye, L No 0 N,A Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A 0 Vet 0 No 0 N/A Yes 1=1 N/A LI Yes a No O NIA lies No N/A Yes 0 No N/A 0 %.“ so 0 V/A � Ye-3 No O NIA Yes ❑ No N /A� Yes❑ No LI N /A� Yes ❑ No ❑ NIA 0 Yes ❑ No ❑ N /A 1es ° No ❑ N/A 1cs ° Yes ❑No❑ N/A El Yes No ❑ NIA 0 Yes Yes 0 No 0 N/A Yes ❑ N ❑ N/A Vet 0 NoD N/A D lies ❑No N/A 0 1'es n No 0 N/A 13. STREET WIDENING /INTERSECTION WITH EXISTING COUNTY ROAD 1 3a. Are curb design sheets provided for widening of existing streets? 13h. Does the curb design conform to Spokane County Standards of section cross slope (Between 2% and 4.5%)? 13c. Is there a street cross section shown for widening existing streets? 13d. Does the proposed new width match the width required in the Findings and Order? 13e. The cross - section shows: Existing R/W, Proposed R /W, any required Future Setaside, and edge of existing and proposed pavement. 13f. 100' (min.) pavement taper into project is shown. (1) There is adequate R/W for the taper to extend from the new paving width to existing pavement. (2) There is inadequate R/W for the taper to extend from the new paving width to existing pavement: taper extends from existing paving to R /W. 13g. Length of pavement taper out of project meets AASHTO requirements: WS' =60 for design speeds <_ 40 mph. WS for design speeds > 45 mph, or feet has been approved by Spokane County Traffic Engineer. 13h. Transition from end of curb to existing paving is shown (curb should nose down in 12 "). 13i. Are the curb grades, for any required curbs, above the county minimum of 0.8%? 13j. The curb type meets Spokane County Standards. 14. NEW STREETS 14a. Does the proposed alignment meet Spokane County Standards? (1) Centerline slopes are within Spokane County Standards. (2) Vertical curve lengths are adequate for intersections and stopping sight distance. (3) Horizontal curve radius meets Spokane County standards. 14b. The plans show the typical cross section for streets. 14c. Does the proposed street width match the Findings and Order? 14d. The typical road cross - section shows: Existing R/W, Proposed R/W, any applicable Future Setaside, edge of new pavement and any other required improvements. 14e. The typical road section on the plans shows the cross slope and it is within the 2% to 4.5% standard. (1) The Cross Slope is correct when checked on the profile drawings. 14f. Curb type: Is shown and is the proper type for the road classification. (I) Meets Spokane County Road Standards for curbs within the public right -of -way. (2) Consistent with the curb type in the general area. 14g. Are the curb grades above the county minimum of 0.8%? 15. Has the Fire District approved all proposed private road turnarounds that are substandard according to Spokane County Road Standards? (A one lot stub Tess than 150' on a public road is allowed). cklistv4.0 /Jan95 3 our ve. 0 1%0 0 N,A 0 16. SIGNAGE PLAN vrs 0 No ❑ N/A ❑ 16a. Stop signs are shown for all streets which intersect an arterial (Check with County Traffic Engineer if there is a question). vr. 0 No 0 NIA 0 16b. Street name signs are shown at all intersecting streets. , ., ❑ ° N/A 0 16c. Is there a need for barriers at the end of dead end streets? r. 0 No 0 N/A 0 16d. Is there a need for other special signing? (Check with the County Traffic Engineer). Yes D NU ❑ N/A 0 17. CURB RETURNS v..iark, 0 N/A 0 17a. Are BCR, MCR, and ECR stations /elevations on curb returns shown in the plan view? v43N. 0 N/A 0 17b. Are the curb return elevations correct? vp.144o ❑ N/A 0 17e. Is there positive drainage from the road intersection to the MCR? If not, is design safe according to AASHTO standards? vcp 0 NA 0 17d. Curb return radius meets the Spokane County Standard minimum. (to back of curb for rolled /wedge curbs, to face for vertical curb face types)? Yes n., 0 NIA 0 17e. BCR, MCR, and ECR elevations are set to allow drainage from the centerline to the curbline? Yes :IN* 0 N/A 17f. The cross slope between the intersection and curbline meets AASHTO requirements: (ref. AASHTO) 10% (flat terrain); 8% (rolling terrain); 6% (mountainous terrain). yes 0 No 0 it 0 18. CUL-DE-SACS Y. 0 No 0 N/A 0 18a. The cul-de -sac grades (top of curb) meet county cul-de-sac standards (1% min.) v . 0 No 0 N/A 18b. The cul-de -sac curb is shown in profile. y,, 0 No ❑ N/A ❑ 1 8c. The cul-de-sac radius meet Spokane County Standards. yr.■ 0 Na 0 N/A 0 18d. The center of cul-de -sac Station is shown. Ye. 0 No 0 N/A 0 19. INTERSECTIONS v ., 0 ,,, 0 N/A 0 19a. Intersections meet AASHTO sight distance requirements for controlled and uncontrolled intersections. v.. 0 No ° N/A 0 1 9b. Intersection separation is greater than or equal to 150' on local access streets and 300' on arterials. lie. <] No 0 NJA 0 19c. Do the intersections meet the landing requirements? vr. 0 No 0 N/A 0 19b. Wheelchair ramps are provided at intersections with sidewalks. Vol N„ 0 N ;A 0 19c. The intersection horizontal sight distance analysis shows that sight triangle encroachment on private property is 2' or Tess for controlled intersections. Yes 0 No 0 N/A 0 20. Is there a need for slope easements? cklistv4.0/1an9S 4 Ya ❑ No ❑ MIA❑ Yea ❑ Flo D NA ❑ Ye ❑No❑NfA❑ YeP No 111 KIA Ye' ❑ No 'Y' N1A ❑ YePNo ❑ N /A XfA 1'e. ❑ No ❑ NAA^ Ya. ❑ No ❑ NAA L Ye ❑ MogNIA ❑ Yea LI No ❑ MA 21 Yd ❑No ❑ NIA.❑ Ya , ( ❑ lti�A YIZ No ❑ N7A ❑ 1. Has a plat map been submitted which shows lot dimensions, street widths, etc.? 2. BASIN MAP 2a. North arrow and scale is shown. 2b. Subbasins are labeled and correlated with calculations.' 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f. 3. 3a 313. 3c, 3d. Yo N. ❑ NAA ❑ 4. Ye ❑ No ❑ NIA Yee 1=1 No El NIA 6. Ye g N. ❑Nan 7. Yedg No❑ NIA ❑ 8. Ye ❑ N.N1A ❑ 9. v. magma 10. Y.. ❑N. krs1A 11. Yen ❑ N. ❑ SAO 12. Ye NO ❑ N1A ❑ 13. Y. N. ❑ 1UA ❑ 14. Ye! 12re WA 13 15. YaSi"❑ r ° 16. YeL NaD NIA 17. ee ❑ N. ❑ Weg 18. re. ❑ N. ❑ MO 19. DRAINAGE PLANS e j frt.. ' Was a map with contoutsfspot elevations submitted to properly determine drainage basins? Were the routes used to determine time of concentration shown? Were aH existing drainage courses shown? Were all the proposed drainage courses shown? Were Hydrologic alcu a rt. sub s toki each basin? (1 2ati r gpa l Formula f area S 10 acres, SCS TR -55 if area y > 10 acres }. �(t,♦/ �j }� 01.91 F Permission was given to use SCS TR -55 for basins s 10 acres. Basin includes offsite and onsite areas together (use 50 year analysis). f , *iZ ? i Basin is all (mite (use 10 year storm)_ Runoff rate for basin is compared to impervious road area runoff rate. The larger rate controls design, CONVEYANCE/DISPOSAL s C ve q If es, co = 1 e chee t coon for culverts and pipe - systems. c sa i enti i p F.r x .t,ra + ta1�ed. And have a minimum grade of 0.5%. Are there any conflicts between the proposed septic tank effluent drainage fields and any ditches on the drainage plan? Gutter flow depth is less than gutter height and allows for 6' non wetted area of each side of centerline for focal access or collector roads. Locations where water is intended to flow through an inlet or curb cut are at the Low point in vertical curve. Backwater - Analysis for any pipe and/or ditches was submitted. Headwater - Calculations for culverts were submitted for review. _ .5 te/rk +Curb droplcurb inlets are used in the conveyance and plan and calcula o w capaei tve n submitted, Is Erosion protection required and have calculations been submitted for review. Soils type is "pre - approved" (Garrison, etc.,) for drywells without percolation tests. Does the drainage report identify the SCS soil groups for the project area and for the proposed roads to be built in the project area? The drainage design maintains existing flow patterns in natural watercourses. The drainage design maintains existing sheet flow patterns without concentrating flows. The drainage concept is compatible with The Guideline for Stormwater Management. The difference between present and future flows is retained on the site. A detention basin concept is proposed for stormwater disposal. If, yes, use separate checklist for detention ponds. CULVERTS AND PIPE SYSTEMS The road culverts are at the low points of stream flow. The headwater was calculated for culvert entrances and is under 2 diameters for culverts under 18" in diameter and 1.5 diameters for culverts greater than 18 ". iv ofE Van 644e5 f+s:$/4"0'T G There is a minimum of 12" of cover for all culverts and storm sewer pipes. The designer has demonstrated that the proposed pipe is suitable for cover less than 2.5' (PVC), 1,5' (CMP), 1'(RCP) (HDPE/ADS) or the engineer has provided trench details for upgraded pipe bedding for these areas. The minimum velocity within the pipe system is 4 feettper second at design flow in a backwater condition. (Note: The bac�wFdtei' G��Ca�s 'ltvw y tns�ee� r t �'[il'1, t 7 ' . s ee t tor each eaten basin et manhole. The minimum culvert and pipe slope is 0.5% and all pipes meet or exceed this standard. All angle points in the storm sewer system have suitable access such as a manhole for cleaning. At locations where two different pipe sizes enter the same manhole the 0.8 diameter points of each pipe are at the same elevation. (Note: Exception allowed for drop manholes), Is there any downsizing of pipes in a systems of pipes that are 18" in diameter and smaller. cklistv4.0 /Jan95 5 Teo ° No ❑ NEAP. Y■r. L No ❑ N +A ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NIA V YeY ❑ NIA ❑ VCPN. ❑ N/A ❑ yin ❑ No ❑ ❑ N /A Ye ❑ Ne /A ❑ Ye ❑ No411 N/A ❑ ❑ No ❑ N r Y'e ❑ Y. ❑ N/A 0 Ye ❑ No ❑ N/ Yea ❑ No ❑ N/ Ye ❑ No ❑ N/A U Ye ❑ No ❑ N /As' Ye ❑ No ❑ N;A� 11. 12. 13. 14. Ye ❑ No,VN/A 15. YeON.❑ N/A ❑ 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. ❑ N/A ❑ 1. Yes ` 'No ❑ N/A ❑ 2. Ye 2 c. NA ❑ 3. v. 0 s/A D 3a. Ye ❑N.❑s/A❑ 3h. Y.. 3c. Ye P No O N/A ❑ 4. Y..14o ❑ N/A ❑ 5. Ye ONo ❑ N/A ❑ 6. Ye vNo ❑ N/A ❑ 7. 1'e No ❑ N /A0 8. Ye❑N.❑N4 9. Y e ❑ . ❑ NlA� 10. v e . ❑NJA 11. Ye ❑ No ❑ N`lA!" 12. ckl istv4.0 /Jan95 There is a downsizing of pipes in the amount of 3" for a minimum of 100 feet in a pipe system that contains pipes that over 18" in diameter. All pipes in the pipe system are 12" and larger as per Spokane County Standards; (10" pipe that is allowed for connection of inlets to catch basins or drywells, if the length does not exceed 44 LF and the velocity is at least 4 fps). All storm sewer pipes are located a minimum of 5 feet from a rear or side property line and have adequate easements for maintenance. Inlets on the same slope are located so that the maximum width of spread for the gutter flow does not exceed 6' (from curb face for Type "A" or "B ", from hack of curh for Type "R ") for major arterials; 12' for collector st e��4'pand local access roads. plans profiles show all culvert pipe types, stations, offsets, lengths, and inverts. Pipe materials meet county standards for systems that lie within county ROW. (Note: The type of pipe in private systems may be as specified by the design engineer). The culverts shown are properly stationed from centerline stationing. Does the drainage system configuration avoid conflicts with underground utilities? Is there a need for energy dissipation on any of the culvert outlets shown on the plans? Is there a need for rip rap around the culvert outlet at any of the culverts as proposed on the drainage plans. The rip rap that is shown for the drainage plans is adequate for the culverts where erosion is a concern and the engineer has submitted acceptable rip rap design calculations. Pipe anchors are shown for pipe grades greater than 15 %. There are no instances where water is trapped against a fill with no culvert shown. Profiles and cross sections are shown on the plans for all proposed channels and ditches. Ditches with eroding velocities have a proper lining for erosion protection. Water will properly tlow from an existing or proposed ditch onto the pavement as proposed on the drainage plans. Where the ditch profile passes from cut to fill the flow has been properly disposed of. INLETS The inlets shown are within the stream Clow. Wets are shown on the low side of a road or at the low point of a vertical curve Curb type metal inlets, if proposed, are shown at sags and are properly sizedt t _ /_ _ �- 0 Perimeter calculation does not include the side of the grate against curb fa a es "' � Perimeter is divided by 2 for calculations where no curb opening (Tye 1 see s "WB -10) t�ovided. Area = clear area + 2 for Type 1 grates) There are no vertical curves that produce areas of very fiat grades for extended areas which could pose a problem with ponding water in traffic lanes. The centerline road stations, offsets, and invert elevations for all inlets are shown in the plan views. Grate type is shown on the plan and is acceptable. (Spokane County Standard inlets or WSDOT standard inlets in county ROW, on private property other inlet type may be specified) (Type 1: D -2; Type 2: D-4 in old 1981 standards or type 1, sheet B- l0;type 2, sheet B-11 for 1995 standards). A detail drawing of the grate /curb installation is shown on the plans and includes a minimum 1" depression and transitions as per county standards for grates that are located within county ROW, or referenced to SCRS std. detail D -8 in 1981 standards or sheet B-18 in 1995 standards. A curb cut detail is shown on the plans with the new county back drop concrete apron with transitions and a 1" depression for curb cuts inside county ROW, or referenced to SCRS std. detail 8-8 of the 1995 standard drawings The plans shows acceptable curb cut details and grate details for installations which lie within private road easements. (For plans that are subject to Spokane County Review). If inlets are in a gravel road or a dirt ditch a 6' x 6' A.C. apron is shown around the inlet. Catch basin or special manhole details are shown or a standard drawing is referenced. Critical low points in the drainage system have been provided with overflow easements. (Where it is possible). Ref. Page 2 -1 of GSM. 6 Ye ° No ❑ N/A t'e ❑ °j No � N1A 0 N.DN /A 3. To. ° No ° N/A L 4. Ye 4 No ° N/A ° 5. Ys 0 N/A 6. Y.J" -' ■0 D N/A LJ 7. 11.0Ne ❑ N/A LI 8. 1'e ❑ No NrA 8a. Ye 9. NJ: koO NIA ° 10. YagiN. N/A ° 1 1 . Ye Ao ❑ N/A Li P. Yee No ° N/A t• Y Yeo A Ye No N/A Ye N. NIA Ye a No N/A YeNo ❑ N/A ❑ Ye❑ No D NIA El Y . Ne ❑ WAD Ye N. ❑ N/A D Ye °No ° 'V ° Ye, O No ° IVA 0 Ye+ ° No ❑ N/A tty Yee °No ❑ N/A ° Yse N/A� N o 0 N/A O No ° N/A No °N /A • ° NIA N3•' h/A 0 No NtA No N/A No ❑ NIA 1. 13. 14. 14a• 14b. 14c• 14d• 15. a. 15h• 16. 16a. 16b• 16c. 16d. 17. 1'y/f N. ❑ N/A 0 18. 21. 21a. 21b. cktistv4.0 /Jan95 208 SWALE SYSTEMS Is the swale located outside a future set aside area? See Findings and Order for where setasides are required. The swale bottom and sides have sod or grass turf specified. Swale side slopes do not exceed a 3:1 side slope. (A 2:1 side slope is allowed if swale depth is less than 12" deep. Should only he allowed where constrained by obstacles) If depth of water from bottom to drywell rim is between 6 and 8 inches, soil mixture has been specified which meets Spokane County Guidelines. Drywell is: Located within 8 feet of the curb line, or a maintenance access route and easement are provided. Drywell stationing is staggered from the inlet by at least 4'. Multiple drywells are located more than 30' (center- center) apart. Soil type is appropriate for drywells (perc rate >_ 72 " /hr), If not: Overflow from a swale at a low point will be directed away from building pads by an identified easement over improved ground or an existing natural drainage channel covered by an easement where an overflow is required. Drywell location does not conflict with underground utilities. Drywell type is specified. Drywell grate type is specified (Type 3 -std. detail D -7 For 1981 standards or type 4, sheet B -15 of 1995 standards.) Drywell grate elevation is: A minimum of 0.4' below the normal flow line at the curb inlet and is between 6" and 8" above the swale floor elevation. Does the note: "Wrap the drywell with a filter fabric (Amoco 4545 or equivalent)" appear on the plans? Swale floor elevation is: Shown on the drawing. Between 6" and 8" below the drywell grate elevation. At least 6" below the normal gutter flowline at the curb inlet for swale without a drywell. At least 10" below the normal gutter flowline at the curb inlet for swale with a drywell. Swale floor. Dimensions are shown. The area matches or is larger than the required area from the 208 calculation for impervio • • areas. Easements for the di (LV4e%A. _ Arr show o e shown on the drarainage plans. KI4w fp � � 7 Are shown on the subdivision plat and match the drainage plans. Are of adequate size to contain at least 6" freeboard above the max. water surface elevation for the design storm. Are tied to the lot corners. The side of the swale that is the furthest distance from the street should have a top of swale elevation that is 0.2' higher than the lowest top of curb elevation along the swale. The normal flow line at the curb inlet is at or above the max. water surface elevation for the design storm or the max. water surface will not pond water more than 12' in residential streets or 6' in arterials above collector classification. 208 SWALES 208 swale floor area, volume requirements sized properly to treat impervious surface areas. 208 swale volume provided in accordance with "Guidelines for Stormwater Management ". EASEMENTS 1. Adequate drainage easements are shown for maintenance of drainage ditches or pipe systems. 2. There are easements proposed or existing for natural channels which cross the property, and they are adequate to pass the 50 year storm plus a 30% added depth of Clow for a safety factor. 3. A public drainage easement was provided where public street drainage was diverted onto private property. 4. The perpetual maintenance of private systems has properly been provided for. 5. The maintenance of drainage systems within Spokane County ROW has been properly provided for. Appropriate drainage Ianuage has been provided by the reviewing engineer to the surveyor and/or engineer who is involved with the platting work. 7. Are pre - existing drainage easements on this parcel affected by this plat? 8. Overflow easements are provided from swales /ponds located in low points where it is possible. 7 Yaa ❑ NIA❑ Yes - Yoe ® No❑ NIA ©0 Y+i 0 N. 0 NFA ] Yes 0 No❑ NIA Yea 0 No 0 NIA Ycs ❑No` /A Yea ❑' No'- NIA Yes ❑Na ❑N/A Yes © No N/A Yes ❑ No ❑ NIA Yes ❑No ❑ N / Yes ❑No ❑ Yes ❑No ❑ N/A Yes No -" N/A Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A Yes ❑h(o ❑ NFA Y® ❑No 0 Yea ❑ No "�-^' N/A Ysa ❑ No ❑ N/A ° 1. 2. 3, 4. 5. 6. 7. DETENTION POND 1 Releases to a downstream channel or_pipe system that is capable of properly conveying the proposed flows and does not cause downstream flooding. 2. Contains 50-yr developed. 3. Releases at 50 -yr pre - developed. 4. Secondary overflow to pipe in control structure for 50 -year developed. 5. Emergency overflow weir for 100 -year developed. 6. Sump prior to outlet to control structure. 7. 1' min. freeboard at 50 -year design storm is provided. 8. Lawn turf or hydro seeded sides and floor for publicly - maintained ponds or dryland grasses specified. 9. Sprinkler system for publicly- maintained ponds or dryland grasses specified. 10. Berm compaction and lift requirements specified where necessary. 11. Is a 12' maintenance drive to the bottom of ponds needed? If so maximum grade is 6:1. iti6e6 w11l {5 946 D NIA ❑ 1. Lot plans are required; submitted on Yet 0 No❑ NIA ❑ Ye* No ❑ NIA ❑ Yes ❑NoI N/A ❑ Yes ❑Na ❑ N/A ❑ Yes ❑No ❑NIA❑ Yes ° No ° NIA 171 vJ Na ❑ NIA ° Yes 0 Na ❑ N/A { ° Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A '--" Yes ❑ Na ❑ NFA 1 IDNo IFA Yell Nu ❑ NIA 0 Yea ❑ No © N/A 7 Yes°No°N/A Yoe ° No 1=1 ° YalNo ❑ N /A° 2. The 208 lot plans show: 2a. The lot number, block number, subdivision name, date drawn, scale, north arrow and street name 2b. Easement dimensions in relation to property lines or corners. 2c. Location of curb, sidewalk or edge of asphalt as applicable. 2d. Setback requirements 2e, Swale floor elevation 2f. Swale floor dimensions are shown in relation to property lines or corners. 2g. Rim elevation drywell type, frame and grate type, centerline offset and station if drywells are present. 2h. Curb cut station, normal flowline invert. 2i. Any drainage ditches, their easements, flowline grade and other required improvements. 2j. Shows depth from the normal flowline to bottom of swale. 2k. An attached cross section of the Swale or ditch. 3. 4. 5. 6. Yes ❑Nu ❑NIA❑ 7. UNDERGROUND GRAVEL, GALLERIES CHECKLIST Is the site suitable for undergound gravel galleries based on the site screening criteria contained in the draft standards for gravel galleries. If no, an approved design deviation is required before future review. .3 void ratio for gravel free space volume is used or test information is provided to justify ratio used. Pere rate from field test is used to develop outflow rate 10-yr event volume is contained entirely underground 100 -yr event volume is contained by a combination of underground storage and above ground storage up to 8" depth Soil mixture is specified for water depth in pond exceeding 8" Entire gallery is wrapped in filter fabric An adequate freeboard is provided in any above ground storage pond. 208 LOT PLANS CHECKLIST Existing easements, buildings, future set asides, and required building setback lines are shown, The section drawing shows the concrete apron, R.O.W. line, and grass sod or seeding if approved. Lot plans have been stamped by a professional engineer on all pages Lot plans are of sufficient scale to maximize the lot size to the 8 1/2" x 11" paper size. (Drawings may be on plain white paper) 208 lot plans were approved on ckiistv4.0 /Jan95 8 Vas D No 0 NIA D 1. Identify the clearing and disturbed areas in the plan. This includes cuts and fills along slopes. Minimize the amount of cleared area. Yn°No°N/A 2. v.. 3. v..DNODNIAD 4. YnONo r,/A 5. YnDNo °N /AO 6. Y. DNoDN!AD 7. Yn DNoON /AD 8. YeD No 0 N/A 9. YnEl NoDN/AD 10. EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS Provide erosion control facilities which slow water velocities - through the use of check dams, debris basins, etc. Filter runoff from exposed areas prior to discharging into drainage ponds and particularly prior to directing runoff into drywells. Filtering measures included installing temporary silt traps, silt ponds, gravel cone filters, etc. In silt traps and ponds, size sediment storage volumes by determining the amount of silt material generated over a 6 month period, using the Flaxman Method. The silt traps and ponds are to provide a setting zone, and are to be sized in accordance with the method outlined in Section 1I -5.8.6 and 11 -5.8.7 of the WDOE Stormwater Management Manual. Stabilize exposed areas as soon as practical after grading work is complete, or when grading work will temporarily cease for more than . In wet winter months, temporary stabilization measures will be required throughout the duration of construction. Specify stabilization procedures, revegetation requirements, mulching, etc. Specify the maximum time that cleared areas are to be exposed without protection or stabilization and time of year. Stabilize drainage channels. Provide for temporary and permanent erosion protection measures. Provide for perimeter barriers around exposed areas through the use of silt fences, straw bales, temporary interceptor ditches, etc. Route runoff from unexposed areas around exposed areas wherever practical. List routine maintenance procedures to be implemented by the Contractor throughout the duration of construction. Silt traps, silt ponds, check dams, channel restoration, etc. All will require fairly constant maintenance, especially during and immediately following a rain storm event. Reduce the amount of mud, dirt and rocks transported onto public roadways by motor vehicles or runoff by constructing a stabilization pad of rock spalls at entrances to construction site. Provide special provisions for construction under we season conditions. Define the season. Provide final restoration procedures, site restoreation, access road cleanup, cleaning drainage structures and ponds, etc. Yes ❑ No D N/A 0 11. Include in the plans the standard Erosion and Sedimentation Control notes prepared by Spokane County. cttlistv4.0 /Jan95 9 Yes ❑ No❑ N/A 0 Yes❑No❑N/A Yes 0 No 0 N/A° Yes No 0 N/A ' Yes No NIA I:I yes ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ 10. Describe any existing channel conditions: Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ 1 1. Describe channel cross section: FIELD REVIEW REPORT Yes ❑ No ❑ NIA ❑ 1. Field investigation trip made on Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ 2. Date this field report was completed Yes ❑ No ❑ NIA ❑ 3. Are there any existing utilities on the project site? (Overhead power, fire hydrants, etc.) If yes, describe. 4. Are the drainage basins on the ground the same as those that are presented in the drainage report? 5. Are there any drainage channels directed toward property? 6. Are there any drainage channels directing water through the property? 7. Do County roads cut off drainage as per drainage calculations? 8. If there are culverts under county roads, does the flow go away from or toward the project? 9. What kind of ground cover exists? Yn ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ 12. Existing Curb Type. cklistv4.0 /1an95 10 POND -2 Version: 5.17 S /N: Executed 06 -12 -1995 13:48:38 >>>>>>» Summary of Hydrograph Volume «‹<‹«< Hydrograph: c: \p1414 \PPOST10R.HYD Volume = 6,156 cu.ft. 0.14 ac -ft POND -2 Version: 5.17 S /N: Executed 06 -12 -1995 13:48:48 >>>>>>» Summary of Hydrograph Volume «««« Hydrograph: c: \p1414 \PPOST50R.HYD Volume = 8,064 cu.ft. 0.19 ac -ft Quick TR -55 Version: 5.46 S /N: Page 1 Return Frequency: 10 years Subarea Description TR -55 TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Type II. Distribution (24 hr. Duration Storm) Executed: 06 -12 -1995 13:41:52 Watershed file: - -> C: \P1414 \P .MOP Hydrograph file: - -> C: \P1414 \PPOST10.HYD Post developed Basin P area * 10 >>» Input Parameters Used to Compute Hydrograph <‹‹< AREA CN Tc * Tt Precip. 1 Runoff Ia /p (acres) (hrs) (hrs) (in) (in) input /used 143.00 61.0 1.25 0.00 2.20 I 0.12 I.58 .50 * Travel time from subarea outfall to composite watershed outfall point. I -- Subarea where user specified interpolation between Ia /p tables. Total area = 143.00 acres or 0.2234 sq.mi Peak discharge = 4 cfs ›>» Computer Modifications of Input Parameters ««< Input Values Rounded Values Ia /p Subarea Tc * Tt Tc * Tt Interpolated Ia /p Description (hr) (hr) (hr) (hr) (Yes /No) Messages 1.13 0.00 1.25 0.00 No Computed Ia /p > .5 * Travel time from subarea outfall to composite watershed outfall point. Quick TR -55 Version: 5.46 S /N: Page 2 Return Frequency: 10 years TR -55 TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Type 1I. Distribution (24 hr. Duration Storm) Executed: 06 -12 -1995 13:41:52 Watershed file: - -> C: \P1414 \P .MOP Hydrograph file: - -> C: \P1414 \PPOST10.HYD Post developed Basin P area * 10 ›>» Summary of Subarea Times to Peak ‹c<‹ Subarea Composite Watershed Peak Discharge at Time to Peak at Composite Outfall Composite Outfall (cfs) (hrs) 4 13.2 4 13.2 Quick TR -55 Version: 5.46 S /N: Page 3 Return Frequency: 10 years Subarea Description Total (cfs) Subarea Description Total (cfs) Subarea Description Total (cfs) Description Total (cfs) TR -55 TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Type II. Distribution (24 hr. Duration Storm) Executed: 06 -12 -1995 13:41:52 Watershed file: - -> C: \P1414 \P .MOP Hydrograph file: - -> C: \P1414 \PPOST10.HYD Post developed Basin P area * 10 Composite Hydrograph Summary (cfs) 11.0 11.3 11.6 11.9 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.8 13.0 13.2 13.4 13.6 13.8 hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr 1 1 2 2 3 4 4 3 3 1 1 2 2 3 4 4 3 3 14.0 14.3 14.6 15.0 15.5 16.0 16.5 17.0 17.5 hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 Subarea 18.0 19.0 20.0 22.0 26.0 hr hr hr hr hr Quick TR -55 Version: 5.46 S /N: Page 4 Return Frequency: 10 years TR -55 TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Type II. Distribution (24 hr. Duration Storm) Executed: 06 -12 -1995 13:41:52 Watershed file: - -> C: \P1414 \P .MOP Hydrograph file: - -> C: \P1414 \PPOST10.HYD Post developed Basin P area * 10 Time Flow Time Flow (hrs) (cfs) (hrs) (cfs) 11.0 0 14.8 2 11.1 0 14.9 2 11.2 0 15.0 2 11.3 0 15.1 2 11.4 0 15.2 2 11.5 0 15.3 2 11.6 0 15.4 2 11.7 0 15.5 2 11.8 0 15.6 2 11.9 0 15.7 2 12.0 0 15.8 2 12.1 0 15.9 2 12.2 0 16.0 2 12.3 0 16.1 2 12.4 0 16.2 2 12.5 1 16.3 1 12.6 1 16.4 1 12.7 2 16.5 1 12.8 2 16.6 1 12.9 2 16.7 1 13.0 3 16.8 1 13.1 4 16.9 1 13.2 4 17.0 1 13.3 4 17.1 1 13.4 4 17.2 1 13.5 4 17.3 1 13.6 3 17.4 1 13.7 3 17.5 1 13.8 3 17.6 1 13.9 3 17.7 1 14.0 3 17.8 1 14.1 3 17.9 1 14.2 3 18.0 1 14.3 3 18.1 1 14.4 3 18.2 1 14.5 2 18.3 1 14.6 2 18.4 1 14.7 2 18.5 1 Quick TR -55 Version: 5.46 S /N: Page 5 Return Frequency: 10 years TR -55 TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Type II. Distribution (24 hr. Duration Storm) Executed: 06 -12 -1995 13:41:52 Watershed file: - -> C: \P1414 \P .MOP Hydrograph file: - -> C: \P1414 \PPOST10.HYD Post developed Basin P area * 10 Time Flow Time Flow (hrs) (cfs) (hrs) (cfs) 18.6 1 22.4 1 18.7 1 22.5 1 18.8 1 22.6 1 18.9 1 22.7 1 19.0 1 22.8 1 19.1 1 22.9 1 19.2 1 23.0 1 19.3 1 23.1 1 19.4 1 23.2 1 19.5 1 23.3 1 19.6 1 23.4 1 19.7 1 23.5 1 19.8 1 23.6 1 19.9 1 23.7 1 20.0 1 23.8 1 20.1 1 23.9 1 20.2 1 24.0 0 20.3 1 24.1 0 20.4 1 24.2 0 20.5 1 24.3 0 20.6 1 24.4 0 20.7 1 24.5 0 20.8 1 24.6 0 20.9 1 24.7 0 21.0 1 24.8 0 21.1 1 24.9 0 21.2 1 25.0 0 21.3 1 25.1 0 21.4 1 25.2 0 21.5 1 25.3 0 21.6 1 25.4 0 21.7 1 25.5 0 21.8 1 25.6 0 21.9 1 25.7 0 22.0 1 25.8 0 22.1 1 25.9 0 22.2 1 22.3 1 Quick TR -55 Version: 5.46 S /N: Page 1 Return Frequency: 50 years Subarea Description TR -55 TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Type II. Distribution (24 hr. Duration Storm) Executed: 06 -12 -1995 13:41:52 Watershed file: - -> C: \P1414 \P .MOP Hydrograph file: - -> C: \P1414 \PPOST50.HYD Post developed Basin P area * 10 ›>» Input Parameters Used to Compute Hydrograph « « AREA CN Tc * Tt Precip. I Runoff Ia /p (acres) (hrs) (hrs) (in) (in) input /used 143.00 61.0 1.25 0.00 2.40 I 0.17 I.53 .50 * Travel time from subarea outfall to composite watershed outfall point. I -- Subarea where user specified interpolation between Ia /p tables. Total area = 143.00 acres or 0.2234 sq.mi Peak discharge = 5 cfs »» Computer Modifications of Input Parameters «‹« Input Values Rounded Values Ia /p Subarea Tc * Tt Tc * Tt Interpolated Ia /p Description (hr) (hr) (hr) (hr) (Yes /No) Messages 1.13 0.00 1.25 0.00 No Computed Ia /p > .5 * Travel time from subarea outfall to composite watershed outfall point. Quick TR -55 Version: 5.46 S /N: Page 2 Return Frequency: 50 years TR -55 TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Type II. Distribution (24 hr. Duration Storm) Executed: 06 -12 -1995 13:41:52 Watershed file: - -> C: \P1414 \P .MOP Hydrograph file: - -> C: \P1414 \PPOST50.HYD Post developed Basin P area * 10 >>» Summary of Subarea Times to Peak «« Subarea Composite Watershed Peak Discharge at Time to Peak at Composite Outfall Composite Outfall (cfs) (hrs) 5 13.0 5 13.0 Quick TR -55 Version: 5.46 S /N: Page 3 Return Frequency: 50 years Subarea Description Total (cfs) Subarea Description Total (cfs) Subarea Description Total (cfs) Description Total (cfs) TR -55 TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Type II. Distribution (24 hr. Duration Storm) Executed: 06 -12 -1995 13:41:52 Watershed file: - -> C: \P1414 \P .MOP Hydrograph file: - -> C: \P1414 \PPOST50.HYD Post developed Basin P area * 10 Composite Hydrograph Summary (cfs) 11.0 11.3 11.6 11.9 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.8 13.0 13.2 13.4 13.6 13.8 hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr 1 2 3 3 5 5 5 5 4 1 2 3 3 5 5 5 5 4 14.0 14.3 14.6 15.0 15.5 16.0 16.5 17.0 17.5 hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 Subarea 18.0 19.0 20.0 22.0 26.0 hr hr hr hr hr 2 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 0 Quick TR -55 Version: 5.46 S /N: Page 4 Return Frequency: 50 years TR -55 TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Type II. Distribution (24 hr. Duration Storm) Executed: 06 -12 -1995 13:41:52 Watershed file: - -> C: \P1414 \P .MOP Hydrograph file: - -> C: \P1414 \PPOST50.HYD Post developed Basin P area * 10 Time Flow Time Flow (hrs) (cfs) (hrs) (cfs) 11.0 0 14.8 3 11.1 0 14.9 3 11.2 0 15.0 3 11.3 0 15.1 3 11.4 0 15.2 3 11.5 0 15.3 2 11.6 0 15.4 2 11.7 0 15.5 2 11.8 0 15.6 2 11.9 0 15.7 2 12.0 0 15.8 2 12.1 0 15.9 2 12.2 0 16.0 2 12.3 0 16.1 2 12.4 0 16.2 2 12.5 1 16.3 2 12.6 2 16.4 2 12.7 3 16.5 2 12.8 3 16.6 2 12.9 4 16.7 2 13.0 5 16.8 2 13.1 5 16.9 2 13.2 5 17.0 2 13.3 5 17.1 2 13.4 5 17.2 2 13.5 5 17.3 2 13.6 5 17.4 2 13.7 4 17.5 2 13.8 4 17.6 2 13.9 4 17.7 2 14.0 4 17.8 2 14.1 4 17.9 2 14.2 4 18.0 2 14.3 4 18.1 2 14.4 4 18.2 2 14.5 3 18.3 2 14.6 3 18.4 2 14.7 3 18.5 2 Quick TR -55 Version: 5.46 S /N: Page 5 Return Frequency: 50 years TR -55 TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Type II. Distribution (24 hr. Duration Storm) Executed: 06 -12 -1995 13:41:52 Watershed file: - -> C: \P1414 \P .MOP Hydrograph file: - -> C: \P1414 \PPOST50.HYD Post developed Basin P area * 10 Time Flow Time Flow (hrs) (cfs) (hrs) (cfs) 18.6 1 22.4 1 18.7 1 22.5 1 18.8 1 22.6 1 18.9 1 22.7 1 19.0 1 22.8 1 19.1 1 22.9 1 19.2 1 23.0 1 19.3 1 23.1 1 19.4 1 23.2 1 19.5 1 23.3 1 19.6 1 23.4 1 19.7 1 23.5 1 19.8 1 23.6 1 19.9 1 23.7 1 20.0 1 23.8 1 20.1 1 23.9 1 20.2 1 24.0 0 20.3 1 24.1 0 20.4 1 24.2 0 20.5 1 24.3 0 20.6 1 24.4 0 20.7 1 24.5 0 20.8 1 24.6 0 20.9 1 24.7 0 21.0 1 24.8 0 21.1 1 24.9 0 21.2 1 25.0 0 21.3 1 25.1 0 21.4 1 25.2 0 21.5 1 25.3 0 21.6 1 25.4 0 21.7 1 25.5 0 21.8 1 25.6 0 21.9 1 25.7 0 22.0 1 25.8 0 22.1 1 25.9 0 22.2 1 22.3 1 POND -2 Version: 5.17 S /N: Page 1 Executed 06 -12 -1995 13:44:04 * * * ** Multiply Hydrograph by Constant * * * ** Unit .HYD File: c: \p1414 \PPOST10.HYD Output Hydrograph: c: \p1414 \PPOST10R.HYD Multiplier Constant: .1 TIME Unit Multiplier Output Hydrograph (hrs) Ordinates Constant (cfs) 11.00 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 11.10 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 11.20 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 11.30 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 11.40 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 11.50 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 11.60 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 11.70 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 11.80 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 11.90 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 12.00 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 12.10 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 12.20 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 12.30 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 12.40 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 12.50 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 12.60 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 12.70 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 12.80 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 12.90 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 13.00 3.00 x 0.100 = 0.30 13.10 4.00 x 0.100 = 0.40 13.20 4.00 x 0.100 = 0.40 13.30 4.00 x 0.100 = 0.40 13.40 4.00 x 0.100 = 0.40 13.50 4.00 x 0.100 = 0.40 13.60 3.00 x 0.100 = 0.30 13.70 3.00 x 0.100 = 0.30 13.80 3.00 x 0.100 = 0.30 13.90 3.00 x 0.100 = 0.30 14.00 3.00 x 0.100 = 0.30 14.10 3.00 x 0.100 = 0.30 14.20 3.00 x 0.100 = 0.30 14.30 3.00 x 0.100 = 0.30 14.40 3.00 x 0.100 = 0.30 14.50 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 14.60 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 14.70 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 14.80 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 14.90 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 15.00 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 15.10 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 POND -2 Version: 5.17 S /N: Page 2 Executed 06 -12 -1995 13:44:04 * * * ** Multiply Hydrograph by Constant * * * ** Unit .HYD File: c: \p1414 \PPOST10.HYD Output Hydrograph: c: \p1414 \PPOST1OR.HYD Multiplier Constant: .1 TIME Unit Multiplier Output Hydrograph (hrs) Ordinates Constant (cfs) 15.20 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 15.30 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 15.40 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 15.50 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 15.60 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 15.70 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 15.80 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 15.90 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 16.00 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 16.10 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 16.20 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 16.30 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 16.40 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 16.50 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 16.60 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 16.70 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 16.80 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 16.90 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 17.00 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 17.10 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 17.20 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 17.30 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 17.40 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 17.50 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 17.60 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 17.70 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 17.80 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 17.90 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 18.00 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 18.10 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 18.20 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 18.30 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 18.40 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 18.50 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 18.60 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 18.70 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 18.80 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 18.90 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 19.00 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 19.10 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 19.20 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 POND -2 Version: 5.17 S /N: Page 3 Executed 06 -12 -1995 13:44:04 * * * ** Multiply Hydrograph by Constant * * * ** Unit .HYD File: c: \p1414 \PPOST10.HYD Output Hydrograph: c: \p1414 \PPOST1OR.HYD Multiplier Constant: .1 TIME Unit Multiplier Output Hydrograph (hrs) Ordinates Constant (cfs) 19.30 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 19.40 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 19.50 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 19.60 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 19.70 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 19.80 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 19.90 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 20.00 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 20.10 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 20.20 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 20.30 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 20.40 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 20.50 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 20.60 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 20.70 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 20.80 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 20.90 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 21.00 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 21.10 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 21.20 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 21.30 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 21.40 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 21.50 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 21.60 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 21.70 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 21.80 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 21.90 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 22.00 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 22.10 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 22.20 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 22.30 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 22.40 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 22.50 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 22.60 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 22.70 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 22.80 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 22.90 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 23.00 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 23.10 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 23.20 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 23.30 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 POND -2 Version: 5.17 S /N: Page 4 Executed 06 -12 -1995 13:44:04 * * * ** Multiply Hydrograph by Constant * * * ** Unit .HYD File: c: \p1414 \PPOST10.HYD Output Hydrograph: c: \p1414 \PPOST1OR.HYD Multiplier Constant: .1 TIME Unit Multiplier Output Hydrograph (hrs) Ordinates Constant (cfs) 23.40 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 23.50 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 23.60 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 23.70 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 23.80 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 23.90 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 24.00 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 24.10 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 24.20 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 24.30 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 24.40 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 24.50 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 24.60 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 24.70 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 24.80 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 24.90 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 25.00 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 25.10 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 25.20 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 25.30 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 25.40 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 25.50 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 25.60 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 25.70 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 25.80 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 25.90 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 POND -2 Version: 5.17 S /N: Page 1 Executed 06 -12 -1995 13:47:09 * * * ** Multiply Hydrograph by Constant * * * ** Unit .HYD File: c: \p1414 \PPOST50.HYD Output Hydrograph: c: \p1414 \PPOST5OR.HYD Multiplier Constant: .1 TIME Unit Multiplier Output Hydrograph (hrs) Ordinates Constant (cfs) 11.00 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 11.10 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 11.20 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 11.30 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 11.40 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 11.50 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 11.60 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 11.70 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 11.80 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 11.90 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 12.00 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 12.10 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 12.20 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 12.30 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 12.40 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 12.50 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 12.60 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 12.70 3.00 x 0.100 = 0.30 12.80 3.00 x 0.100 = 0.30 12.90 4.00 x 0.100 = 0.40 13.00 5.00 x 0.100 = 0.50 13.10 5.00 x 0.100 = 0.50 13.20 5.00 x 0.100 = 0.50 13.30 5.00 x 0.100 = 0.50 13.40 5.00 x 0.100 = 0.50 13.50 5.00 x 0.100 = 0.50 13.60 5.00 x 0.100 = 0.50 13.70 4.00 x 0.100 = 0.40 13.80 4.00 x 0.100 = 0.40 13.90 4.00 x 0.100 = 0.40 14.00 4.00 x 0.100 = 0.40 14.10 4.00 x 0.100 = 0.40 14.20 4.00 x 0.100 = 0.40 14.30 4.00 x 0.100 = 0.40 14.40 4.00 x 0.100 = 0.40 14.50 3.00 x 0.100 = 0.30 14.60 3.00 x 0.100 = 0.30 14.70 3.00 x 0.100 = 0.30 14.80 3.00 x 0.100 = 0.30 14.90 3.00 x 0.100 = 0.30 15.00 3.00 x 0.100 = 0.30 15.10 3.00 x 0.100 = 0.30 POND -2 Version: 5.17 S /N: Page 2 Executed 06 -12 -1995 13:47:09 * * * ** Multiply Hydrograph by Constant * * * ** Unit .HYD File: c: \p1414 \PPOST50.HYD Output Hydrograph: c: \p1414 \PPOST5OR.HYD Multiplier Constant: .1 TIME Unit Multiplier Output Hydrograph (hrs) Ordinates Constant (cfs) 15.20 3.00 x 0.100 = 0.30 15.30 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 15.40 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 15.50 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 15.60 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 15.70 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 15.80 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 15.90 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 16.00 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 16.10 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 16.20 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 16.30 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 16.40 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 16.50 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 16.60 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 16.70 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 16.80 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 16.90 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 17.00 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 17.10 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 17.20 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 17.30 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 17.40 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 17.50 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 17.60 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 17.70 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 17.80 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 17.90 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 18.00 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 18.10 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 18.20 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 18.30 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 18.40 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 18.50 2.00 x 0.100 = 0.20 18.60 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 18.70 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 18.80 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 18.90 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 19.00 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 19.10 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 19.20 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 POND -2 Version: 5.17 S /N: Page 3 Executed 06 -12 -1995 13:47:09 * * * ** Multiply Hydrograph by Constant * * * ** Unit .HYD File: c: \p1414 \PPOST50.HYD Output Hydrograph: c: \p1414 \PPOST5OR.HYD Multiplier Constant: .1 TIME Unit Multiplier Output Hydrograph (hrs) Ordinates Constant (cfs) 19.30 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 19.40 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 19.50 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 19.60 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 19.70 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 19.80 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 19.90 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 20.00 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 20.10 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 20.20 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 20.30 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 20.40 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 20.50 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 20.60 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 20.70 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 20.80 1.00 x 0.100 0.10 20.90 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 21.00 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 21.10 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 21.20 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 21.30 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 21.40 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 21.50 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 21.60 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 21.70 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 21.80 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 21.90 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 22.00 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 22.10 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 22.20 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 22.30 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 22.40 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 22.50 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 22.60 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 22.70 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 22.80 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 22.90 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 23.00 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 23.10 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 23.20 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 23.30 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 POND -2 Version: 5.17 S /N: Page 4 Executed 06 -12 -1995 13:47:09 * * * ** Multiply Hydrograph by Constant * * * ** 23.40 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 POND -2 Version: 5.17 S /N: Page 4 Executed 06 -12 -1995 13:47:09 * * * ** Multiply Hydrograph by Constant * * * ** Unit .HYD File: c: \p1414 \PPOST50.HYD Output Hydrograph: c: \p1414 \PPOST50R.HYD Multiplier Constant: .1 TIME Unit Multiplier Output Hydrograph (hrs) Ordinates Constant (cfs) 23.50 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 23.60 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 23.70 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 23.80 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 23.90 1.00 x 0.100 = 0.10 24.00 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 24.10 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 24.20 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 24.30 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 24.40 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 24.50 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 24.60 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 24.70 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 24.80 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 24.90 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 25.00 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 25.10 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 25.20 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 25.30 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 25.40 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 25.50 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 25.60 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 25.70 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 25.80 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 25.90 0.00 x 0.100 = 0.00 POND -2 Version: 5.17 S /N: Executed 06 -12 -1995 09:06:18 >>>>»» Summary of Hydrograph Volume «««« Hydrograph: c: \p1414 \PPOSTR .HYD Volume = 17,532 cu.ft. 0.40 ac -ft c0 A v kritko (0i -i Gikx • i ' . yo po4"A" d Cpl Quick TR -55 Version: 5.46 S /N: Page 1 Return Frequency: 10 years Subarea Description TR -55 TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Type II. Distribution (24 hr. Duration Storm) Executed: 06 -12 -1995 09:06:58 Watershed file: - -> C: \P1414 \P .MOP Hydrograph file: - -> C: \P1414 \PPOST.HYD Post developed Basin P area * 10 >>» Input Parameters Used to Compute Hydrograph «« AREA CN Tc * Tt Precip. (acres) (hrs) (hrs) (in) Runoff Ia /p (in) input /used 143.00 71.0 1.25 0.00 2.20 1 0.35 I.37 .37 * Travel time from subarea outfall to composite watershed outfall point. I -- Subarea where user specified interpolation between Ia /p tables. Total area = 143.00 acres or 0.2234 sq.mi Peak discharge = 16 cfs >>» Computer Modifications of Input Parameters ««< Input Values Rounded Values Ia /p Subarea Tc * Tt Tc * Tt Interpolated Ia /p Description (hr) (hr) (hr) (hr) (Yes /No) Messages 1.13 0.00 1.25 0.00 Yes * Travel time from subarea outfall to composite watershed outfall point. Quick TR -55 Version: 5.46 S /N: Page 2 Return Frequency: 10 years TR -55 TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Type II. Distribution (24 hr. Duration Storm) Executed: 06 -12 -1995 09:06:58 Watershed file: - -> C: \P1414 \P .MOP Hydrograph file: - -> C: \P1414 \PPOST.HYD Post developed Basin P area * 10 >>» Summary of Subarea Times to Peak « « Subarea Composite Watershed Peak Discharge at Time to Peak at Composite Outfall Composite Outfall (cfs) (hrs) 16 13.0 16 13.0 Quick TR -55 Version: 5.46 S /N: Page 3 Return Frequency: 10 years Subarea Description Total (cfs) Subarea Description Total (cfs) Subarea Description Total (cfs) Description Total (cfs) TR -55 TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Type II. Distribution (24 hr. Duration Storm) Executed: 06 -12 -1995 09:06:58 Watershed file: - -> C: \P1414 \P .MOP Hydrograph file: - -> C: \P1414 \PPOST.HYD Post developed Basin P area * 10 Composite Hydrograph Summary (cfs) 11.0 11.3 11.6 11.9 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.8 13.0 13.2 13.4 13.6 13.8 hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr 5 8 11 13 16 16 14 12 10 5 8 11 13 16 16 14 12 10 14.0 14.3 14.6 15.0 15.5 16.0 16.5 17.0 17.5 hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr 9 7 6 5 4 4 3 3 3 9 7 6 5 4 4 3 3 3 Subarea 18.0 19.0 20.0 22.0 26.0 hr hr hr hr hr 3 2 2 2 0 3 2 2 2 0 Quick TR -55 Version: 5.46 S /N: Page 4 Return Frequency: 10 years TR -55 TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Type II. Distribution (24 hr. Duration Storm) Executed: 06 -12 -1995 09:06:58 Watershed file: - -> C: \P1414 \P .MOP Hydrograph file: - -> C: \P1414 \PPOST.HYD Post developed Basin P area * 10 Time Flow Time Flow (hrs) (cfs) (hrs) (cfs) 11.0 0 14.8 6 11.1 0 14.9 5 11.2 0 15.0 5 11.3 0 15.1 5 11.4 0 15.2 5 11.5 0 15.3 4 11.6 0 15.4 4 11.7 0 15.5 4 11.8 0 15.6 4 11.9 0 15.7 4 12.0 0 15.8 4 12.1 0 15.9 4 12.2 0 16.0 4 12.3 1 16.1 4 12.4 3 16.2 4 12.5 5 16.3 3 12.6 8 16.4 3 12.7 11 16.5 3 12.8 13 16.6 3 12.9 14 16.7 3 13.0 16 16.8 3 13.1 16 16.9 3 13.2 16 17.0 3 13.3 15 17.1 3 13.4 14 17.2 3 13.5 13 17.3 3 13.6 12 17.4 3 13.7 11 17.5 3 13.8 10 17.6 3 13.9 9 17.7 3 14.0 9 17.8 3 14.1 8 17.9 3 14.2 8 18.0 3 14.3 7 18.1 3 14.4 7 18.2 3 14.5 6 18.3 3 14.6 6 14.7 6 18.4 3 18.5 2 Quick TR -55 Version: 5.46 S /N: Page 5 Return Frequency: 10 years TR -55 TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Type II. Distribution (24 hr. Duration Storm) Executed: 06 -12 -1995 09:06:58 Watershed file: - -> C: \P1414 \P .MOP Hydrograph file: - -> C: \P1414 \PPOST.HYD Post developed Basin P area * 10 Time Flow Time Flow (hrs) (cfs) (hrs) (cfs) 18.6 2 22.4 2 18.7 2 22.5 2 18.8 2 22.6 2 18.9 2 22.7 2 19.0 2 22.8 2 19.1 2 22.9 2 19.2 2 23.0 2 19.3 2 23.1 1 19.4 2 23.2 1 19.5 2 23.3 1 19.6 2 23.4 1 19.7 2 23.5 1 19.8 2 23.6 1 19.9 2 23.7 1 20.0 2 23.8 1 20.1 2 23.9 1 20.2 2 24.0 1 20.3 2 24.1 1 20.4 2 24.2 1 20.5 2 24.3 1 20.6 2 24.4 1 20.7 2 24.5 1 20.8 2 24.6 1 20.9 2 24.7 1 21.0 2 24.8 1 21.1 2 24.9 1 21.2 2 25.0 0 21.3 2 25.1 0 21.4 2 25.2 0 21.5 2 25.3 0 21.6 2 25.4 0 21.7 2 25.5 0 21.8 2 25.6 0 21.9 2 25.7 0 22.0 2 25.8 0 22.1 2 25.9 0 22.2 2 22.3 2 Circular Channel Analysis & Design Solved with Manning's Equation worksheet Name: indiana Comment: at Indiana low point Solve For Actual Depth Open Channel - Uniform flow 1-4)x Given Input Data: Diameter 1.00 ft Slope 0.0040 ft /ft Manning's n 0.013 Discharge 0.92 cfs Computed Results: Depth 0.44 ft Velocity 2.72 fps Flow Area 0.34 sf Critical Depth 0.40 ft Critical Slope 0.0058 ft /ft Percent Full 44.49 % Full Capacity 2.25 cfs QMAX @.94D 2.42 cfs Froude Number 0.82 (flow is Subcritical) Open Channel Flow Module, Version 3.21 (c) 1990 Haestad Methods, Inc. * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, Ct 06708 Circular Channel Analysis & Design Solved with Manning's Equation Worksheet Name: indiana Comment: at Indiana low point Solve For Actual Depth Given Input Data: Diameter Slope Manning's n Discharge Computed Results: Depth Velocity Flow Area Critical Depth Critical Slope Percent Full Full Capacity QMAX @.94D Froude Number Open Channel - Uniform flow 1.00 ft 0.0050 ft /ft 0.013 0.92 cfs fliJ toP6 0 4 2 /_, b �1L S'! ct w�/� 2 o . 96 "fps j` -, ,� : 3i s 0.40 ft S A-f. 0.0058 ft /ft 41.81 % 2.52 cfs 2.71 cfs 0.93 (flow is Subcritical) Open Channel Flow Module, Version 3.21 (c) 1990 Haestad Methods, Inc. * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, Ct 06708 ENTER OPTION 7 Stop - Program terminated. Returning to Point & Shoot... C: \PS >vp C: \PS >echo off PROJECT P1414r6 HEC12 Version: V2.91 INLET NUMBER al TOTAL PEAK DISCHARGE = 0.90 (cfs) GUTTER SLOPE = 0.0080 FT /FT PAVEMENT CROSS SLOPE = 0.0200 FT /FT SPREAD AT A SLOPE OF .008 (ft. /ft.) AND 0.70 (cfs) IS 5.70 (ft.) XXXXXXXXXX COMBINATION GRATE CURB INLET IN A SUMP XXXXXXXXXX DEPTH OF WATER (ft) = 0.15 SPREAD (ft) = 7.33 PERIMETER OF GRATE = 5.34 (ft.) AREA = 1.14 (sq.ft.) LENGTH OF INLET = 1.9 (ft.) H = 0.500 (ft.) INLET NUMBER a2 TOTAL PEAK DISCHARGE = 0.90 (cfs) BACKWATER ANALYSIS PROGRAM Version 4.22 1 - INFO ON THIS PROGRAM 2 - BWCHAN 3 - BWPIPE 4 - BWCULV 5 - BWBOX 6 - DATA -FILE ROUTINES 7 - RETURN TO DOS Accessing QHEC -12 ... Run Date: 06 -12 -1995 LENGTH 1.9 STATION 1 +21 LT India LENGTH 4.0 STATION 1 +21 RT India GUTTER SLOPE = 0.0080 FT /FT PAVEMENT CROSS SLOPE = 0.0200 FT /FT SPREAD AT A SLOPE OF .008 (ft. /ft.) AND 0.70 (cfs) IS 5.70 (ft.) XXXXXXXXXX CURB INLET IN A SUMP XXXXXXXXXX P EFFEC. LENGTH (ft) = 6.56 H (ft) = 0.330 C: \PS >vp DEPTH OF WATER (ft) = 0.15 SPREAD (ft) = 7.63 INLET NUMBER b1 TOTAL PEAK DISCHARGE = 0.29 (cfs) C: \PS >echo off LENGTH 4.0 STATION 5 +64 LT India GUTTER SLOPE = 0.0080 FT /FT PAVEMENT CROSS SLOPE = 0.0200 FT /FT SPREAD W W/T SW SW /SX Eo a S'W SE 3.42 1.4 0.42 0.0810 4.1 0.90 3.0 0.178 0.180 XXXXXXXXXX CURB INLET ON A CONTINUOUS GRADE XXXXXXXXXX REQUIRED LENGTH (ft) = 2.8 EFFICIENCY= 1.00 CFS INTERCEPTED= 0.29 CFS CARRYOVER= 0.00 Returning to Point & Shoot... Accessing Word Perfect 5.1 ... C: \PS >vp C: \PS >echo off C: \PS >vp C: \PS >echo off Returning to Point & Shoot... Accessing XTree Network ... Returning to Point & Shoot... Accessing Word Perfect 6.0 ... SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: '`1 6fz-A. 6 z-A. Project No.; (¢1� Galc. by: Date: Title: Checked by: Dote: Sheet of Notes: f c 4.1 -e CK5Jk_ "t) (J 11(4 ‘1y : /10 ? (ze) _ 7-D14(44,5 z( (f A ne.,) 116“fA ' 6( '' '.1 " --51 " - (1/bW) itat j 1 Z :; 76 /CO d v 4. 0 cam) = 032. ((65 f? Z21(i2) - 24+ )/2 t fi / 4047 sz•L 41 x ,67 . f, rG� "jW raw rt. 4 t�t 1(41/4/ 7G _ 43,10 1 b7 ZD2 . ¢3 Z023,7terr JZ" r1 ,i :.a3 U gyp' SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: Colc. by: Checked by: Notes : /J p 11/ ffevi ,4- /4.3 GN - 71 C = .9 Project No.: ((4 Date: Title: Date: Sheet of 4=1' e 1 2 Aft16 %4rd 4_ f eri r —,'M t L 1L GiI 7I kd,*)cV to Sit . G1 / Z5j ((161 caw frac /4 eraff,x6 ci ,9(3,().32 U,GIQX (l2` � ' -/6 c,4 Worksheet Name: Comment: 12" CMP Solve For Actual Depth Circular Channel Analysis & Design Solved with Manning's Equation Open Channel - Uniform flow Given Input Data: Diameter 1.00 ft Slope 0.0200 ft /ft Manning's n 0.024 Discharge 1.00 cfs Computed Results: Depth 0.42 ft Velocity 3.21 fps Flow Area 0.31 sf Critical Depth 0.42 ft Critical Slope 0.0198 ft /ft Percent Full 41.88 0 Full Capacity 2.73 cfs QMAX @.94D 2.94 cfs Froude Number 1.00 (flow is Critical) Open Channel Flow Module, Version 3.21 (c) 1990 Haestad Methods, Inc. * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, Ct 06708 Worksheet Name: Comment: 12" CMP Solve For Actual Depth Circular Channel Analysis & Design Solved with Manning's Equation Open Channel - Uniform flow Given Input Data: Diameter 1.00 ft Slope 0.0200 ft /ft Manning's n 0.024 Discharge 0.30 cfs Computed Results: Depth 0.22 ft Velocity 2.28 fps Flow Area 0.13 sf Critical Depth 0.23 ft Critical Slope 0.0194 ft /ft Percent Full 22.39 % Full Capacity 2.73 cfs QMAX @.94D 2.94 cfs Froude Number 1.01 (flow is Supercritical) Open Channel Flow Module, Version 3.21 (c) 1990 Haestad Methods, Inc. * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, Ct 06708 Worksheet Name: Comment: 12" CMP Solve For Actual Depth Circular Channel Analysis & Design Solved with Manning's Equation Open Channel - Uniform flow Given Input Data: Diameter 1.00 ft Slope 0.0370 ft /ft Manning's n 0.024 Discharge 1.00 cfs Computed Results: Depth 0.35 ft Velocity 4.01 fps Flow Area 0.25 sf Critical Depth 0.42 ft Critical Slope 0.0198 ft /ft Percent Full 35.45 % Full Capacity 3.71 cfs QMAX @.94D 3.99 cfs Froude Number 1.38 (flow is Supercritical) Open Channel Flow Module, Version 3.21 (c) 1990 Haestad Methods, Inc. * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, Ct 06708 Worksheet Name: Comment: 12" CMP Solve For Actual Depth Circular Channel Analysis & Design Solved with Manning's Equation Open Channel - Uniform flow Given Input Data: Diameter 1.00 ft Slope 0.1000 ft /ft Manning's n 0.024 Discharge 0.30 cfs Computed Results: Depth 0.15 ft Velocity 4.03 fps Flow Area 0.07 sf Critical Depth 0.23 ft Critical Slope 0.0194 ft /ft Percent Full 15.08 % Full Capacity 6.10 cfs QMAX @.94D 6.56 cfs Froude Number 2.20 (flow is Supercritical) Open Channel Flow Module, Version 3.21 (c) 1990 Haestad Methods, Inc. * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, Ct 06708 Worksheet Name: Conuuent: 12" di Solve For Actual Depth Circular Channel Analysis & Design Solved with Manning's Equation Open Channel - Uniform flow Given Input Data: Diameter 1.00 ft Slope 0.0050 ft /ft Manning's n 0.014 Discharge 1.90 cfs Computed Results: Depth 0.68 ft Velocity 3.32 fps Flow Area 0.57 sf Critical Depth 0.59 ft Critical Slope 0.0078 ft /ft Percent Full 68.42 % Full Capacity 2.34 cfs QMAX @.94D 2.52 cfs Froude Number 0.75 (flow is Subcritical) Open Channel Flow Module, Version 3.21 (c) 1990 Haestad Methods, Inc. * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, Ct 06708 ENTER OPTION 3 BACKWATER COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR PIPES k ENTER: NUMBER OF PIPES 1 KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Surface Water Management Division BACKWATER ANALYSIS PROGRAM Version 4.22 1 - INFO ON THIS PROGRAM 2 - BWCHAN 3 - BWPIPE 4 - BWCULV 5 - BWBOX 6 - DATA -FILE ROUTINES 7 - RETURN TO DOS SPECIFY TYPE OF PIPE -DATA INPUT: K - KEYBOARD F - FILE OUTFLOW CONDITIONS PIPE NO. 1 - TAILWATER DATA: 1) SPECIFY TYPE OF TAILWATER DATA INPUT: S - SINGLE TW -ELEV. F - TW /HW DATA FILE s 2) ENTER: TW -ELEV 2024.43 ROUND /ARCH PIPE INPUT CODING INFORMATION: PIPE TYPE CODING: 1 - CONC /SMOOTH BORE (n= 0.012) 2 - CORRUGATED METAL (n= 0.024) 3 - HELICAL CMP (n -fac varies) 4 - CMP ARCH (OLD GEOMETRY) ARCH PIPE CODING - EQUIVALENT ROUND EQUIV -DIAM. OLD -ARCH NEW -ARCH 15" 18 "X 11" 17 "X 13" 18" 22 "X 13" 21 "X 13" 21" 25 "X 16" 24 "X 18" A P 5 - CMP ARCH (NEW GEOMETRY) 6 - CONC /SMOOTH ARCH (OLD) 7 - CONC /SMOOTH ARCH (NEW) 8 - ROUND (user sets n -fac) SIZE MUST BE INPUTTED PER FOLLOWING TABLE: * EQUIV -DIAM. OLD -ARCH NEW -ARCH * 42" 50 "X 31" 49 "X 33" * 48" 58 "X 36" 57 "X 38" * 54" 65 "X 40" 64 "X 43" 24" 29 "X 18" 28 "X 20" * 60" 72 "X 44" 71 "X 47" 30" 36 "X 22" 35 "X 24" * 66" 79 "X 49" 77 "X 52" 36" 43 "X 27" 42 "X 29" * 72" 85 "X 54" 83 "X 57" INLET TYPE CODING: 1 - CMP /PROJ. 4 - CP SOCKET /PROJ. 7 - CMAP /PROJ. 2 - CMP /HDWALL 5 - CP SQ.EDGE /HDWALL 8 - CMAP /HDWALL 3 - CMP /MITER 6 - CP SOCKET /HDWALL 9 - CMAP /MITER ENTER PIPE # 1: LENGTH(ft), DIA(in), PIPE -TYPE, OUTLET -IE, INLET -IE, INLET -TYPE 60,12,8,2023.76,2024.00,2 ENTER N -VALUE FOR PIPE NO. 1 .013 10 - OTHER (SEE FHWA REPORT HDS NO.5) INFLOW CONDITIONS PIPE NO. 1 - OVERFLOW DATA AND UPSTREAM VELOCITY DATA: 1) ENTER: OVERFLOW -ELEV, OVERFLOW -TYPE (NONE =O, BROAD- WEIR =1, SHARP- WEIR =2) 2025.59,0 2) SPECIFY TYPE OF VELOCITY DATA INPUT: S - SINGLE VELOCITY UPSTREAM V - VARY VELOCITY ACCORDING TO V =Q /A s 3) ENTER: VELOCITY(fps) UPSTREAM 0 ENTER: QMIN, QMAX, QINCRE, PRINT- OPTION (STANDARD =1, CONDENSED =2, EXPANDED =3) .5,1.1,105,1 PIPE NO. 1: 60 LF - 12 "PIPE @ .40% OUTLET:2023.76 INLET:2024.00 INTYP: 2 Q(CFS) HW(FT) HW ELEV. * N -FAC DC DN TW DO DE HWO HWI ************************************************ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** .50 .51 2024.51 * .013 .30 .33 .67 .67 .46 .51 .40 .55 .52 2024.52 * .013 .31 .34 .67 .67 .46 .52 .42 .60 .53 2024.53 * .013 .33 .36 .67 .67 .47 .53 .44 .65 .54 2024.54 * .013 .34 .37 .67 .67 .47 .54 .46 .70 .56 2024.56 * .013 .35 .39 .67 .67 .48 .56 .48 .75 .57 2024.57 * .013 .37 .40 .67 .67 .48 .57 .50 .80 .59 2024.59 * .013 .38 .42 .67 .67 .49 .59 .52 .85 .61 2024.61 * .013 .39 .43 .67 .67 .49 .61 .54 .90 .62 2024.62 * .013 .40 .44 .67 .67 .50 .62 .55 .95 .64 2024.64 * .013 .41 .46 .67 .67 .51 .64 .57 1.00 .66 2024.66 * .013 .43 .47 .67 .67 .52 .66 .59 1.05 .67 2024.67 * .013 .44 .48 .67 .67 .52 .67 .61 1.10 .69 2024.69 * .013 .45 .50 .67 .67 .53 .69 .62 SPECIFY: R - REVISE, N - NEWJOB, F - FILE, S - STOP s KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Surface Water Management Division • North Idaho Engineering, Inc. e • X), = e040001 fifso • • • • 4200 Seltice Way, Suite 2 • Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83814 • Phone (208) 667 -1171 • Fax (208) 664 -3507 HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR RIVERWALK FIRST ADDITION PREPARED FOR: STANTON DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 16720 N.E. 116TH STREET REDMOND, WA 98052 RECEIVED JUN 291F5 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER 6/8/95 JN 4004 • remo sr Rim MI5 Vim`' RECEIVED JUN 0 8 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER OFFICIAL PU6LIC DOq k NT SPOKANE COUNTY ENGiNifingFFIcE QP . VAL PRoi cr : sumo, ii AL , . 6 - RETURN TO COUNTY ENGINEER • • • • • • INTRODUCTION This Hydrology Study includes all Drainage Basins within the Riverwalk First Addition Project, and all Off Project Existing Tributary Areas to said Project. Future phases of the Riverwalk Project may or may not contribute runoff to this First Phase but additional calculation and or Off - Project Storage will be provided with said future phases to prove • adequate provisions for said future runoff. For purposes of this study however runoff from future phases of this development are ignored. OVERVIEW Riverwalk First Addition is broken into Drainage Basins A through Q. Drainage Basins A through 0 are contained primarily within the Project Boundaries with Basin K & L having some Off - Project Tributary Runoff. Drainage Basin P contains approximately 13.1 acres of currently undeveloped farmland. Based upon the initial absorption for this area, no runoff will occur and no detention facilities will be required. Drainage Basin Q is runoff generated from the rear 1/2 of proposed lots adjacent to the Commercial Area. A Drainage Map provided showing the Historic Q 50 Tributary to the Commercial Site which is 24.4 cfs. The developed Q 50 from Drainage Basin A and Q are 2.53 cfs and 1.67 cfs respectively for a total of • 4.50 cfs, this is considerably less than the Historic Q 50 of 24.4 cfs, therefore the runoff from the Riverwalk First Addition is allowed. SOIL CLASSIFICATION BASIN CALCULATIONS - Total Tributary Area From Streets - Number of Lots Within the Basin - Portion of Impervious Area From Lot Included The existing soil is defined as sand and gravel, under approximately 18 inches of topsoil. Soil classification for this area is the Garrison Series GgA - Garrison gravelly loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes. This soil is somewhat excessively drained and has rapid permeability. Surface runoff is slow, and the hazard of erosion is slight. Basin calculations follow in this report. These calculations consist of the following: GEN4004D.LET - Impervious Area From Houses - Impervious Area From Driveways - Total Impervious Area From Streets & Driveways - "C" of Impervious Area - Non Impervious Area - "C" of Non Impervious Area - Total Area of Weighted "C - 208 Area - Weighted "C" - Overland Flow Length - Overland Slope - Ditch or Gutter Length - Ditch or Gutter Slope - 208 Area Required - 208 Area Provided - Q 50 Storage Required - Q 50 Storage Provided - Storm Intensity - Q 10 cfs - Q 50 cfs • • • 18 occupy rolling to hilly uplands. They formed in layered loess under coniferous forest. The annual precipitation is about 23 inches, and the frost -free season is about 125 days. Freeman soils are used for grain, peas, clover, alfalfa, and grass, and as woodland. Freeman silt loam, 5 to 20 percent slopes (foB). —This is the dominant soil on the silty upland north and east of Rockford. Most slopes are between S and 15 percent; a few small areas have slopes of more than 30 percent, and some of less than 5 percent. Slopes of more than 20 per- cent are short and are along the edges of the drninageways. Representative profile : 0 to 7 inches, very dark grayish - brown, friable silt loam ; granular structure; neutral. 7 to 17 inches, brown. friable silt loam. grayish brown at a depth of 12 inches: neutral. 17 to 9 -2 inches. grayish- brown. firm silt loam that breaks into 1- to 2 -inch prisms ; neutral. • 22 to 72 inches. dark - brown. Arm silty clay loam, almost silt loam; breaks into prisms 1 to 2 inches wide, and then into angular blocks 3f; inch to 1 inch wide ; neutral. The surface soil, when moist, ranges from very dark grayish brown to dark brown in color. The texture of the subsoil ranges from heavy silt loam to silty clay loam. As much as 7 percent of some areas consists of Larkin, 411 Dearyton, or severely eroded Freeman soils. This is a moderately well drained soil that has a very slowly permeable subsoil and is saturated for short periods in spring. It holds about 5 to 7 inches of water that plants can use. It is easy to work except when saturated. Roots penetrate the lower lavers mainly along ped faces. The fertility is medium. Surface runoff is medium, and the hazard of erosion is moderate. More than 95 percent of the acreage is cultivated; the rest is farm woodlots. Wheat is the chief cash crop. It is grown in rotation with peas and a green- manure crop or in n wheat- fallow rotation. Other crops grown are peas and barley; clover or alfalfa for hay or green manure; and grass for seed, bay, or pasture. All grain and grass crops respond to nitrogen. Legumes respond to sulfur. (Capa- • biliry unit IIIe -3; woodland group 3; not in a range site) Freeman silt loam, 5 to 20 percent slopes, severely eroded (F :B3). —More than 50 percent of the surface layer of this soil has been removed by erasion. Fertility is me- dium to low. Surface runoff is rapid. and the hazard of erosion is severe. As much as 10 percent of some areas consists of uneroded Freeman soils. • The same crops are grown as on Freeman silt loam, 5 to 211 percent slopes, but yields are lower. (Capability writ IVe --3; woodland group .i : nor in :n range site) Freeman silt loam, 20 to 30 percent slopes, severely eroded (FoC3). —More than 50 pe rcent of the surface layer of this soil has been removed by erosion. Surface runoff is rapid, and the erosion hazard is severe. Included in • mapping were a few areas of Dearyton soils. The same crops are grown as on Freeman silt loam, 5 to 20 percent slopes, but yields are lower. (Capability unit IVe-3; woodland group 5; not in hinge site) Fresh Water Marsh • Fresh water marsh (Fm) consists of shallow, swampy ponds and of fringes around lakes that have a fluctuating water level. The vegetation consists of toles, reeds, and rushes. These areas are of little value for grazing, but SOIL SURVEY they are excellent laces for hunting migratory waterfowl. (Capability unit IIIw -1; not in a woodland group or range site) Garfield Series The Garfield series consists of well - drained, severely eroded soils that formed in loess under grass and small shrubs. These soils occupy ridgetops, knobs, and the up- per slopes on rolling to hilly uplands. They have a surface layer of silty clay loam and a subsoil of silty clay that is very hard, sticky, and plastic. The annual precipitation is 18 to 22 inches, and the frost -free season is about 110 days. These soils are used mainly for grain, alfalfa, and grass. Garfield silty clay loam, 0 to 30 percent slopes, severe- ly eroded (GoC3). —This soil occupies the narrow ridgetops and upper slopes on loessal uplands in the southeastern part of the county. Most slopes are between 8 and 20 per- cent; a few small areas have slopes of more than 30 percent, and some narrow ridgetops have slopes of less than 5 per- cent. Representative profile : 0 to 8 inches, dark- brown, firm silty clay loam ; granular struc- ture; neutral. 8 to 48 inches, dark - brown, firm silty clay, yellowish -brown silty clay loam below a depth of 23 inches: breaks into prisms 1 inch to 2 inches wide and then Into angular blocks Ala to s inch thick ; clay films coat the prisms and angular blocks; neutral. 48 to 80 inches -{-, yellowish- brown. Arm heavy silt loam ; breaks into prisms 1 to 2 inches wide and then into angular blocks i to 1 inch thick; neutral. The texture of the upper subsoil is silty clay or clay. As much as 10 percent of some areas consists of Athena, Yaff, Nez Perce, or Palouse soils. This soil is well drained and slowly permeable. It holds 9 or 10 inches of water that plants can use. It is sticky and plastic when wet; consequently, it can be cultivated only within a rather narrow range of moisture content. Root penetration is very deep. T lie fertility is medium. Surface runoff is rapid, and the hazard of further erosion is severe. More than 95 percent of the acreage is cultivated; the rest is seeded to alfalfa or grass. Wheat is the chief crop. Other crops grown are barley and dry field peas. All crops respond to nitrogen, sulfur, and phosphorus. (Ca- pability unit IVe 3; not ui a woodlnnd group or range site) Garrison Series The Garrison series is made up of somewhat excessively drained, gravelly or stony soils that formed under grass in glacial outwash mixed in the upper paint with volcanic ash. These soils are on nearly level to moderately steep terraces. The annual precipitation is 18 to 22 inches, and the frost -free season is about 170 days. Soils of the Garrison series are used for a variety of crops and as farmsteads and suburban lots. Garrison gravelly loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes This is the dominant soil in the Spokane Valley east of the city of Spokane. Most slopes are between 2 and 5 percent. Representative profile: 0 to 13 inches. black. very friable gravelly loam; granular structure ; slightly acid. 15 to 44 Inches, dark - brown, friable very gravelly loam; neutral. 44 to 00 inches -4-, multicolored sand. gravel. and cobblestones. The surface color, when moist, ranges from very cluck brown to black. The texture of the surface layer is grav- elly or very gravelly loam or silt loaun. The subsoil ranges in color from dark brown to yellowish brown. Clay and Slime have accumulated on the bottom of the pebbles in the lower subsoil. The depth to the gravel substratum ranges from 30 to 55 inches. As much as 10 percent of some areas consists of Bong or Phoebe soils or of other Garrison soils. This soil is somewhat excessively drained and has mod- erately rapid permeability. It holds about 5 inches of water that plants can use. It. is easy to work. Roots •penetrate to the layer of sand, gravel, and cobblestones. The fertility is medium. Surface runoff is slow, and the hazard of erosion is slight. About 80 percent of the acreage is cultivated; the rest is used for grazing, and as farmsteads or suburban Tots. Most of the acreage is irrigated. Irrigated areas are used for orchard fruits and berries; cabbage, corn, cantaloup, •cucumbers, celery, and squash; wheat, oats and barley: alfalfa for hay; and grass for seed and pasture. Drylancl areas are used for wheat, barley, and native buncligra-ss. There is no difficulty in the use of machinery, but the .•ravel is hard on tillage implements. All crops except leuumes respond to nitrogen. Some crops respond to sulfur, boron, and phosphorus. (Capability unit III.s -2; Loamy range site; not in a woodland group) Garrison gravelly loam, 5 to 20 percent slopes (Gg81.— This soil has a surface layer 3 to 5 inches thinner than that of Garrison gravelly loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes. Runoff is medium, and the erosion hazard is moderate. This soil is used in much the same way as Garrison gravelly loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes. (Capability unit IIVe -5; Loamy range site; not in a woodland group) Garrison very gravelly loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes (GmB). — This soil has a thinner, more gravelly surface layer than Garrison gravelly loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes, and holds less than 5 inches of water that plants can use. The gravel causes extreme wear on tillage machinery. As much as 7 percent of some areas consists of other Garrison oils. (Capability unit IVe-5; Shallow range site; not in a woodland group) Garrison very stony loam, 0 to 20 percent slopes (GnBl. —This soil holds less than 5 inches of water that plants can use, and it is too stony to be cultivated. As much as 15 percent of some areas consists of other Garrison soils, and as much as 2 percent is made up of granite *putcrops. This soil is used for grazing. (Capability unit VIs-2; Shallow range site; not in a woodland group) Glenrose Series The Glenrose series consists of well- drained, mostly medium- textured soils. These soils formed under grass and scattered pine trees in glacial till mixed in the upper part with loess and volcanic ash. lria.ny areas are gravelly or stony. These soils are nearly level to very steep. The annual precipitation is about 21 inches, and the frost -free season is about 135 days. Glenrose soils are used for grain, peas, lentils, vegetables, alfalfa, and grass, and for grazing. Glenrose silt loam, 5 to 20 percent slopes (GpBI. —This soil occurs on glaciated uplands in the east - central part of SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON 19 the county. Most slopes are between 6 and 15 percent. Representative profile: 0 to 13 inches, black. very' friable :gilt loam ; granular structure; neutral. 13 to it: niche:+, dark - brown, arts loam that breaks into prisms 1 to 2 inches wide: alightic :acid. lf2 t o i2 -i-, Qnrk- brown, friable Dana; slightly' acid. In )laces the surface layer is very dark brown. It is 10 to 16 u thick. The texture of the subsoil somas from silt lot to light silt loans. From 5 to 2 percent Of the lower subsoil is composed of gravel and stones. As much as 5 percent of smie areas consists of Bernhill, I)earvton, oe Larkin soils. This soil is well drained and moderately I)ermcalde. It hulls 9 to 11 inches of water that plants can use. It. is easy to work. Root penetration is very sleep. The fer- tility is high. Surface runoff is medium, and the hazard of erosion is moderate. More than 90 percent of the a......:e is cultivated; t rest is grazed. Wheat is ncc chef crop. It is crown in rotation with barley, oats, peas, lentils, alfalfa, or grass. All grass and gram crops reslx►tal to nitrogen; legumes respond to sulfur. (Capability unit. IIIe -r?; Loamy ravage site; not in a woodland group) Glenrose silt loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes (GpA). —This soil has a surface laver 2 to 4 inches thicker than that of Glenrosc silt loan. 5 to 20 percent slopes. Surface runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is slight. Lacluded in map - ping were small areas of C hlig and Dearyton soils. The same crops are grown as 011 Glenrose silt loans, 5 to 20 percent slopes; in addition, vegetables are grown. (Capability unit IIe-2; Loamy range site; not in a wood- land group) Glenrose silt loam, 20 to 30 percent slopes (GpC). — This soil has a surface laver 3 to 5 inches thinner than that of Glenrose silt. loam, 5 to 20 percent. slopes. Surface runoff is rapid, and the erosion hazard is severe. About 5 percent of some areas consists of I3ernhill and Dearyton soils. The same crops are grown as on Glenrose silt loam, 5 to 20 percent slopes, but more of the acreage is in grass and legumes. (Capability unit IIIe -2; Loamy range site; not in a woodland group) Glenrose silt loam, 30 to 55 percent slopes (GpD). —This soil has a surface laver 3 to 5 inches thinner than that of Glenrose silt loam, 5 to 20 percent slopes. Surface run- off is rapid, and the erosion hazard is severe. About 3 percent of some areas consists of Bernthal or Dearyton soils. This soil is used only for grazing. (Capability unit VIe-1; North Exposure range site; not in a wood- land group) Glenrose gravelly silt loam, 5 to 20 percent slopes (GrB). —This soil holds from 7 to 9 inches of water that plants can use. Small areas of Bernhill and Dearyton soils were included in mapping. This soil is used in much the same way as Glenrose silt loam, 5 to 20 percent slopes, but yields are less. (Capa- bility unit I:Ve -4; Loamy range site; not in a woodland group) Glenrose gravelly silt loam, 20 to 55 percent slopes *O.—This soil holds 7 to 9 inches of water that plants can use. Surface runoff is rapid, and the erosion hazard is severe. Included in mapping were areas of I3ernhill silt loam, 30 to 55 percent slopes. _Lt rf) w z 0 a u) BASIN TOTAL AREA STREET NO. LOTS LOT USAGE HOUSE AT 2.6K DRIVE- WAYS TOTAL IMPERV C =0.9 At NON- IMPERV C =0.15 At TOTAL A'C C A 46500 27960 0 0 0 0 27960 25164 18540 2781 27945 0.60 B 10540 3600 0 0 0 0 3600 3240 6940 1041 4281 0.41 C 38330 4730 3 0 0 1800 6530 5877 31800 4770 10647 0.28 D 20210 12220 0 0 0 0 12220 10998 7990 1198.5 12196.5 0.60 E 146800 12220 11 1 28600 6600 47420 42678 99380 14907 57585 0.39 F 12710 4250 1 0.5 1300 600 6150 5535 6560 984 6519 0.51 G 12200 5560 0 0 0 0 5560 5004 6640 996 6000 0.49 H 12650 7000 0 0 0 0 7000 6300 5650 847.5 7147.5 0.57 I 59000 15700 5.5 0.5 7150 6600 29450 26505 29550 4432.5 30937.5 0.52 J 45260 6000 4 1 10400 2400 18800 16920 26460 3969 20889 0.46 K 81220 6020 2 1 5200 1200 12420 11178 68800 10320 21498 0.26 L 31150 2660 0 0 0 0 2660 2394 28490 4273.5 6667.5 0.21 M 30050 6150 3 1 7800 1800 15750 14175 14300 2145 16320 0.54 N 27000 11800 0 0 0 . - 0 11800 10620 15200 2280 12900 0.48 O 44180 6820 4 'l 10400 '2400 19620 17658 24560 3684 21342 0.48 P NOT USED 0 0 0 ' -0 '" ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 ERR Q 38600 0 6.5 0.5 16900 16900 15210 21700 3255 18465 0.48 0 • 2. . 0 0 0 0 0 0 ERR PRE- • 0 -'0 0 0 0 0 0 ERR DEVELOPED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ERR COMMERCIAL 1476200 51660 0 0 0 ' 0 51660 46494 1424540 213681 260175 0.18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ERR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ERR • • • • NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING DRAINAGE BASIN CALCULATION SHEET 1 • • • • BASIN TOTAL AREA (F AREA (ACRES) 208 AREA C OVRLND FLOW (F SLOPE ( /FT) GUTTER FLOW (F SLOPE ( /FT) OTHER A 46500 1.07 27960 0.60 23 0.005 160 0.008 CURB AND GUTTER B 10540 0.24 3600 0.41 30 0.005 240 0.008 SAME AS A C 38330 0.88 6530 0.28 220 0.008 140 0.017 C & G AND PRIVATE ROAD DITCH D 20210 0.46 12220 0.60 23 0.005 470 0.008 SAME AS A E 146800 3.37 18820 0.39 50 0.008 470 0.008 SAME AS A F 12710 0.29 4850 0.51 50 0.01 160 0.015 PRIVATE ROAD DITCH G 12200 0.28 5560 0.49 40 0.008 300 0.008 SAME AS F 11 12650 0.29 7000 0.57 50 0.01 260 0.008 SAME AS F 1 59000 1.35 22300 0.52 50 0.005 570 0.01 SAME AS F J 45260 1.04 8400 0.46 210 0.024 260 0.01 SAME AS F K 81220 1.86 7220 0.26 460 0.007 190 0.01 SAME AS F L 31150 0.72 2660 0.21 290 0.006 120 0.01 SAME AS F M 30050 0.69 7950 0.54 240 0.008 350 0.014 SAME AS F N 27000 0.62 11800 0.48 150 0.01 530 0:009 SAME AS F O 44180 1.01 9220 0.48 310 0.005 160 0.008 SAME AS F P NOT USED 0.00 0 ERR 1300 0.005 0 0 SAME AS F Q 38600 0.89 0 0.48 570 0.008 0 0 SAME AS F PRE - DEVELOPED COMMERCIAL 1476200 33.89 51660 0.18 2200 0.005 2780 0.005 EXISTING CONDITION • • • • • NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING PROJECT: Riverwalk First Addition DRAINAGE BASIN CALCULATION SHEET 2 • • • • • • • • • • PEAK FLOW CALCULATION PROJECT Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: A Tot. Area Imp. Area C= CASE 1 CASE 2 1.07 Acres 27960 SF 0.60 Tc = 2.78 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidelines 160 ft. Gutter flow Z1 = 50.0 For Z2 Z2= 1 TypeB =1.0 n = 0.016 Rolled = 3.5 S = 0.005 d = 0.228 ft. A R 0 Tc Tc total 1 Qc 1.33 0.11 2.04 1.73 5.00 3.18 2.04 O peak for Case 1 = 2.04 cfs Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the peak flow = .90(3.18)(Imp. Area) = 1.84 cfs So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater of the two flows, 2.04 cfs NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING z BOWSTRING METHOD DETENTION BASIN DESIGN Time Increment (min) 5 Time of Conc. (min) 5.00 Outflow (cfs) 1 23 ft. Overland Flow j _;. -:,? Design Year Flow 10 Area (acres) 1.07 Ct = 0,15 ) #; x'': Impervious Area (sq ft) 27960 L = 23 ft. ) D ,C Factor 0.6 n = 0.40 i ?� 208' Volume Provided 1180 S= 0.005 Z . >Area 'C 0,642 Time Time Inc. Intens. Q Devel. Vol.ln Vol.Out Storage (min) (sec) (iNhr) (cfs) (cu ft) (cu ft) (cu ft) 5.00 300 3,18 2.04 821 300 521 <__ 5 300 3.18 2.04 821 300 521 < == 10 600 2.24 1.44 1010 600 410 15 . 900 1.77 1.14 1139 900 239 20 1200 _ 1.45 0.93 1212 1200 12 ' 1500 1.21 0.78 1244 1500 -256 30 , 1800 . 1.04 0.67 1270 1800 -530 35 .2100 0.91 0.58 1286 2100 -814 ' 40 2400 0.82 0.53 1317 2400 -1083 " 45 ' 2700 0.74 0.48 1331 2700 -1369 ` 50 3000 0.68 0.44 1354 3000 -1646 55 3300 0.64 0.41 1398 3300 -1902 60 3600 0.61 0.39 1450 3600 -2150 65 3900 ' 0.60 0.39 1542 3900 -2358 70 4200 0.58 0.37 1602 4200 -2598 75 4500 0.56 0.36 1655 4500 -2845 80 4800 053 0.34 1668 4800 -3132 85 5100 0.52 0.33 1737 5100 -3363 90 5400 0.50 0.32 1766 5400 -3634 95 5700 0.49 0.31 1825 5700 -3875 100 6000 0.48 0.31 1880 6000 -4120 208' DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required '208' Storage Volume = Impervious Area x .5 In / 12 in/ft 208' Storage Volume Provided DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STOR Maximum Storage Required by Bowstring Number and Type of Dr wells Required • • • • PROJECT: Rive:walk First Addition BASIN: A DESIGNER: M.H. DATE: 06/07/95 1165 cult 1180 cult 521 cu ft 0 Single 1 Double • • • • BOWSTRING METHOD PEAK FLOW CALCULATION PROJECT Riverwalk First Addition i'fa>u�i ? <}f DETENTION BASIN DESIGN BASIN: B - Tot. Area Imp. Area C= 0.24 Acres 3600 SF 0.45 Time Increment (min) 5 CASE 1 Iz:;g, } Time of Conc: (thin) - - 6.82 Outflow (cfs) :'' ' 1 30 ft. Overland Flow :i;ta? Design Year Flow 10 Area (acres) - - - 0.24 Ct = 0.15 �:. '� i .:'I Impervious Area (sq 8) 3600 L = 30 ft. .. � 3'C' Factor 0.45 n = 0.40 1,* ?� 208' Volume Provided 205 S = 0.005 a:.'•i.r..'�;ii<;: Area' C 0.108 CASE 2 Tc = 3.27 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidelines 240 ft. Gutter flow Z1 = 50.0 For Z2 Z2= 1 Type B =1.0 n = 0.016 Rolled = 3.5 S = 0 008 d = 0.100 ft A R Q Tc Tc total 1 Oc 0.26 0.05 0.29 3.56 6.82 2.71 0.29 Qpeak for Case 1 = 0.29 cfs Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the peak flow = .90(3.18)(Imp. Area) = 0.24 cfs So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater of the tyro flows, 0.29 cfs NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING • • • • • • Time Time Inc. Intens. O Devel. Venn Vol.Out Storage (min) (sec) (In/hr) (cfs) (cu It) (cu ft) (cu ft) 6.82 409 2.71 0.29 161 409 -249 5 300 3.18 0.34 138 300 -162 < == 10 600 2.24 0.24 179 600 -421 15 900 1.77 0.19 199 900 -701 20 1200 1.45 0.16 210 1200 -990 25 1500 1.21 0.13 214 1500 -1286 30 1800 1.04 0.11 218 1800 -1582 35 2100 0.91 0.10 220 2100 -1880 40 2400 0.82 0.09 225 2400 -2175 45 2700 0.74 0.08 227 2700 -2473 50 3000 0.68 0.07 231 3000 -2769 55 3300 0.64 0.07 238 3300 -3062 60 3600 0.61 0.07 246 3600 -3354 65 3900 0.60 0.06 262 3900 -3638 70 4200 0.58 0.06 272 4200 -3928 75 4500 0.56 0.06 281 4500 -4219 , 80 4800 0.53 0.08 283 4800 -4517 -. 85 5100 0.52 0.06 294 5100 -4806 90 5400 0.50 0.05 299 5400 -5101 95 5700 0 :49 0.05 309 5700 -5391 . 100 .6000- • 0.48 0.05 318 6000 -5682 208' DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required' 208' Storage Volume = Impervious Area x .5 in / 12 in/ft 208' Storage Volume Provided DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STOR Maximum Storage Required by Bowstring Number and Type of Drywelis Required PROJECT: Rive:walk First Addition BASIN: B DESIGNER: M.H. DATE: 06/07/95 150 cu ft 205 cu ft -162 cu ft 0 Single 1 Double • Tot. Area Imp. Area C= CASE 1 PEAK FLOW CALCULATION PROJECT Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: C 0.88 Acres 6530 SF 0.32 220 ft. Overland Flow Ct = L= n= S= 0.15 220 ft. 0.40 0.008 • • Tc = 9.37 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidelines 140 ft. Gutter flow NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING • • • • • • • BOWSTRING METHOD DETENTION BASIN DESIGN I Time Increment (min) 5 Time of Conc. (min) 10.67 l Outflow (cfs) 1 Design Year Flow 10 Area (acres) - 0.88 Impervious Area (sq ft) 6530 C' Factor • • • - 0.32 208' Volume Provided' - 595 Area • C - - 0.282 Time Time Inc. Intens. Q Devel. Vol.ln Vol.Out Storage (min) . (sec) (in/hr) (cfs) (cu ft) (cu ft) (cu ft) Z17- 50.0 For Z2 i? `: % ?? „: 10.67 . 640 2.16 0.61 523 640 -118 Z2 = 1 Type B = 1.0 n = 0.016 Rolled = 3.5 tt 5 300 3.18 0.90 360 300 60 c == S = 0.017 1`r „>ar.kwy 10 600 224 0.63 507 600 -93 15 900 1.77 0.50 557 900 -343 d = 0.115 11. 20 1200 1.45 0.41 579 1200 -621 25 1500 121 0.34 585 1500 -915 A R Q Tc Tc total I Qc 73sd:").f 30 1800 1.04 0.29 591 1800 -1209 35 2100 0.91 0.26 594 2100 -1506 0.34 0.06 0.61 1.30 10.67 2.16 0 81 40 2400 0.82 0.23 604 2400 -1796 45 2700 0.74 0.21 608 2700 -2092 ()peak for Case 1 = 0.61 cfs 1:4 ( 50 3000 0.68 0.19 616 3000 -2384 55 3300 0.64 0.18 634 3300 -2666 60 3600 0.61 0.17 656 3600 -2944 CASE 2 f 65 3900 0.60 0.17 696 3900 -3204 70 4200 0.58 0.16 722 4200 -3478 Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the i 75 4500 0.56 0.16 744 4500 -3756 peak flow = .90(3.18)(Imp. Area) = 0.43 cfs , N<r �?�? 80 4800 0.53 0.15 749 4800 -4051 85 5100 0.52 0.15 779 5100 -4321 90 5400 0.50 0.14 791 5400 -4609 So, the Peak flow for the Basin Is the greater of the two flows, ^: a 95 5700 0.49 0.14 817 5700 -4883 0.61 cfs 100 6000 0.48 0.14 840 6000 -5160 208' DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required' 208' Storage Volume = Impervious Area x .5 in / 12 In/ft 208' Storage Volume Provided DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STOR Maximum Storage Required by Bowstring Number and Type of Drywells Required PROJECT: Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: C DESIGNER: M.H. DATE: 06/07/95 272 cu ft 595 cu ft 60 cu ft 0 Single 1 Double • • • • • • ' • • • • • PEAK FLOW CALCULATION PROJECT Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: D Tot. Area Imp. Area C= Time Increment (min) 5 CASE 1 Time of Conc. (min) 841 4 Outflow (cfs) 1 23 ft. Overland Flow „x Design Year Flow 10 Area (acres) 0.46 Ct = 0.15 p! 1 Impervious Area (sq ft) 12220 L = 23 ft. m. 9 s' "s'C' Factor 0.6 n = 0.40 . x( ::j '208' Volume Provided 2030 S= 0.005 :z'.._s.... - ; Area' C 0.276 CASE 2 0.46 Acres 12220 SF 0.60 Tc = 2.78 min., by Equation 3 -2 of Guidelines 470 ft. Gutter flow Z1 = 50.0 For Z2 Z2= 1 Type B =1.0 n = 0.016 Rolled = 3.5 S = 0.008 d = 0.138 ft A R Q Tc Tc total 1 Qc 0.49 0.07 0.68 5.62 8.41 2.45 0.68 ()peak for Case 1 = 0.68 cfs Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the peak flow = .90(3.18)(Imp. Area) = 0.80 cfs So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater of the two flows, 0.80 cfs NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING BOWSTRING METHOD DETENTION BASIN DESIGN 208' DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required '208' Storage Volume = Impervious Area x .5 in / 12 in/ft PROJECT: Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: D DESIGNER: M.H. DATE: 06/06/95 Time Time Inc. Intens. Q Devel. Vol.ln Vol.Out Storage (min) (sec) (in/hr) (cfs) (cu ft) (cu ft) (cu ft) 8.41 504 2.45 0.68 458 504 47 5 300 3.18 0.88 353 300 53 <__ 10 600 2.24 0.62 477 600 -123 15 900 1.77 0.49 523 900 -377 20 ' ' 1200 . 1.45 0.40 549 1200 -651 25 •' 1500 1.21 0.33 558 1500 -942 "'30 1800 1.04 0.29 566. 1800 -1234 35 2100 0.91 0.25 571 2100 -1529 40 2400 0.82 0.23 582 2400 -1818 45 ' 2700 _ 0.74 0.20 586 2700 -2114 50 3000 0.68 0.19 595 3000 - 2405 55 3300 0.64 0.18 613 3300 -2687 60 3600 0.61 0.17 635 3600 -2965 65 3900 0.60 0.17 674 3900 -3226 70 4200 0.58 0.16 700 4200 -3500 75 4500 0.56 0.15 722 4500 -3778 80 4800 0.53 0.15 727 4800 -4073 85 5100 0.52 0.14 757 5100 -4343 90 5400 0.50 0.14 769 5400 -.4631 95 5700 0.49 0.14 794 5700 -4906 100 6000 0.48 . 0.13 818 6000 -5182 509 cu ft 208' Storage Volume Provided 2030 cu ft DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STOR Maximum Storage Required by Bowstring 53 cu ft ' Number and Type of Drywells Required 0 Single 1 Double • • • • • • • • • • • PEAK FLOW CALCULATION PROJECT Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: E Tot. Area Imp. Area C= 3.37 Acres 18820 SF 0.39 Tc = 3.85 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidelines 470 It Gutter flow 21 = Z2 = n= S= NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING 50.0 1 0.016 0 008 For Z2 Type B = 1.0 Rolled = 3.5 BOWSTRING METHOD PROJECT: Rivenvalk First Addition DETENTION BASIN'DESIGN BASIN: E , DESIGNER: M.H. DATE: 06/07/95 Time Increment (min). 5 CASE 1 £;"':? ? ) Time of Conc. (min) • - 7.61 . , Outflow (cfs)' • 1 50 ft. Overland Flow Design Year Flow 10 Area (acres) 3.37 Ct = 0.15 t < "::u€ Impervious Area (sq ft) 18820 )':xi..; L = 50 ft. ;, - �i'C' Factor (139 n = 0.40 j . G K';;'208 Volume Provided 2030 S = 0.008 3:.1..,:.�;.,:s'1 Area • C 1.314 Time Time Inc. Intens. Q Devel. Vol.ln VoI.Out Storage (min) (sec) (in/hr) (cfs) (cu ft) (cu ft) (cu ft) 7.61 457 2.58 3.39 2075 457 1618 5 300 3.18 4.18 1680 300 1380 10 600 2.24 2.94 2223 600 1623 <__ 15 900 1.77 2.33 • 2455 900 1555 d = 0.253 ft. 1 " >rc:a?aaH; 20 1200 1.45 1.91 2583 1200 1383 25 1500 1.21 1.59 2632 1500 1132 A R Q Tc Tc total I Oc : 30 1800 1.04 1.37 2673 1800 873 35 2100 191 1.20 2697 2100 597 1.63 0.13 139 316 7.61 2.58 3.39 #,'s2 40 2400 0.82 1.08 2754 2400 354 45 2700 0.74 0.97 2777 2700 77 Qpeak for Case 1 = 3.39 cfs u2; {aa'mgn 50 3000 0.68 0.89 2820 3000 -180 55 3300 0.64 0.84 2906 3300 -394 60 3600 0.61 0.80 3011 3600 -589 CASE 2 65 3900 0.60 0.79 3198 3900 402 _ 70 4200 0.58 0.76 3320 4200 -880 Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the ' 4500 0.56 0.74 3426 4500 -1074 peak flow = .90(3.18)(Imp. Area) = 1.24 cfs g ;; „;' > : 80 4800 0.53 0.70 3452 4800 -1348 85 5100 0.52 0.68 3592 5100 -1508 ' 90 5400 ' 0.50 0.66 3651 5400 -1749 So, the Peak flow for the Basin Is the greater of the two flows, -'E 95 5700 0.49 0 3771 5700 -1929 3.39 cfs ' 100 6000 0.48 0.63 3883 6000 -2117 208 DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required' 208' Storage Volume = Impervious Area x .5 in / 12 in/ft 208 Storage Volume Provided DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STOR Maximum Storage Required by Bowstring Number and Type of Drywells Required 784 cu ft 2030 cu fl 1623 cu ft 0 Single 1 Double • • • • PEAK FLOW CALCULATION PROJECT Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: F Tot. Area Imp. Area C= CASE 1 CASE 2 0.29 Acres 4850 SF 0.51 50 ft. Overland Flow CI = L= n= S= 0.15 50 ft. 0.40 0.010 Tc = 3.60 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidelines 160 ft. Gutter flow Zt = 3.0 For Z2 Z2= 3 TypeB =1.0 n = 0.016 Rolled = 3.5 S = 0.015 d = 0.242 ft. A R O Tc Tc total 1 Qc 0.18 0.11 0.47 0.99 5.00 3.18 0.47 Qpeak for Case 1 = 0.47 cfs Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the peak flow = .90(3.18)(Imp. Area) = 0.32 cfs So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater of the two flows, 0.47 cfs NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING • • BOWSTRING METHOD DETENTION BASIN DESIGN Time Increment (min) • 5 Time of Conc. (min) 5.00 Outflow (cfs) 0.33 Design Year Flow.' 10 Area (acres) • • •' . 0.29 Impervious Area (sq ft) 4850 Factor :., 0.51 '208' Volume Provided ' 450 Area' C 0.148 • • • • • PROJECT: Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: F DESIGNER: M.H. DATE: 06/07/95 Time Time Inc. Intens. Q Devel. Vol.ln Vol.Out Storage (min) (sec) (In/hr) (cfs) (cu ft) (cu ft) (cu ft) 5.00 300 3.18 0.47 189 99 90 <__ 5 300 3.18 0.47 189 99 90 < == 10 600 2.24. 0.33 233 198 35 15 900 1.77 0.26 262 297 -35 20 1200 1.45 0.21 279 396 -117 25 1500 1.21 0.18 287 495 -208 30 1800 ' 1.04 0.15 293 594 -301 35 2100 0.91 0.13 296 693 -397 40 2400 0.82 0.12 303 792 -489 45 2700 0.74 0.11 307 891 -584 50 3000 0.68 0.10 312 990 -678 55 3300 0.64 0.09 322 1089 -767 60 3600 0.61 0.09 334 1188 -854 65 3900 0.60 0.09 355 1287 -932 70 4200 0.58 0.09 369 1386 -1017 75 4500 0.56 0.08 381 1485 -1104 80 4800 0.53 0.08 384 1584 -1200 85 5100 0.52 0.08 400 1683 -1283 90 5400 0.50 0.07 407 1782 -1375 95 5700 0.49 0.07 420 1881 -1461 100 6000 0.48 0.07 433 1980 -1547 208' DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required '208' Storage Volume = Impervious Area x .5 in / 12 in/ft • 208' Storage Volume Provided DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STOR • Maximum Storage Required by Bowstring Number and Type of Drywells Required • 202 cu ft 450 cu ft 90 cu It 1 Single 0 Double • • • • • • • • • • • PEAK FLOW CALCULATION PROJECT Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: G Tot. Area Imp. Area C= CASE 1 0.28 Acres 5560 SF 0.51 40 0. Overland Flow Ct = L= n= S= 300 ft. Gutter flow NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING 0.15 40 ft. 0.40 0.008 Tc = 3.37 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidelines Z1 = 3.0 For Z2 n; ' ?,: 5.79 348 2.96 0.42 197 348 -151 Z2= 3 TypeB =1.0 n = 0.016 Rolled = 3.5 US 5 .300 3.18 0.45 183 300 -117 c == S = 0.008 Rte;; r 10 600 2.24 0.32 230 600 -370 1.77 0.25 257 900 -643 d = 0.260 ft. I '?> 3 §'g " ' 20 1200 . 1.45 0.21 273 1200 -927 25 15002 ' 1.21 0.17 280 1500 -1220 A R 0 Tc Tc total I Qc ;'(< 30 1800 ' 1.04 0.15 285 1800 -1515 35 2100 0.91 0.13 288 2100 -1812 0.20 0.12 0.42 2.42 5.79 2.96 0.42( -; - 40 2400 0.82 0.12 295 2400 -2105 45 2700' 0.74 0.11 298 2700 -2402 Qpeak for Case 1 = 0.42 cfs °;3: '? - ' 50 3000 0.68 0.10 303 3000 -2697 '55 3300 0.64 0.09 312 3300 -2988 60 3600 0.61 0.09 324 3600 -3276 CASE 2 i > n':} 65 3900 0.60 0.09 344 3900 -3556 70 4200 0.58 0.08 358 4200 -3842 Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the " ; q 75 4500 0.56 0.08 369 4500 -4131 peak flow = .90(3.18)(Imp. Area) = 0.37 cfs ; 80 4800 0.53 0.08 372 4800 -4428 85 5100 0.52 0.07 387 5100 -4713 90 5400 0.50 0.07 394 5400 -5006 So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater of the two flows, + ^I =I 95 5700 0.49 0.07 407 5700 -5293 0.42 cfs �aex:); »i 100 6000 0.48 0.07 419 6000 -5581 BOWSTRING METHOD DETENTION BASIN DESIGN Time Increment (min) 5 Time of Conc. (min) 5.79 Outflow (cfs) 1 Design Year Flow 10 Area (acres) 0.28 Impervious Area (sq ft) 5560 'C' Factor 0.51 208' Volume Provided 675 Area • C 0.143 208' DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required' 208' Storage Volume = Impervious Area x .5 in / 12 in/ft 208' Storage Volume Provided ORYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STOR Maximum Storage Required by Bowstring Number and Type of Drywells Required PROJECT: ,Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: G DESIGNER: M.H. DATE: 06/07/95 Time Time Inc. Intens. 0 Devel. Vol.ln Vol :Out Storage (min) (sec) (iiVhr) (cfs) (cu ft) (cu ft) (cu ft) 232 cu ft 675 cu ft -117 tuft 0 Single 1 Double • • • • PEAK FLOW CALCULATION PROJECT Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: H Tot. Area Imp. Area C= CASE 1 CASE 2 0.29 Acres 7000 SF 0.57 50 ft. Overland Flow Ct = L n= S= Tc = 3.60 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidelines 260 ft. Gutter flow 0.15 50 ft. 0.40 0.010 Z1 = 3.0 For Z2 Z2= 3 Type B =1.0 n = 0.016 Rolled = 3.5 S = 0.008 d = 0.277 ft A R O Tc Tc total 1 Oc 0.23 0.13 0.50 2.01 5.62 3.01 0.50 ()peak for Case 1 = 0.50 cfs Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the peak flow = .90(3.18)(Imp. Area) = 0.46 cfs So, the Peak flow for the Basin Is the greater of the two flows, 0.50 cfs NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING BOWSTRING METHOD DETENTION BASIN DESIGN' Time Increment (min)' 5 Time of Conc. (min) 5.62 Outflow (cfs) 1 Design Year Flow 10 Area (acres) 0.29 Impervious Area (sq ft) 7000 'C' Factor 0.57 '208' Volume Provided 650 Area' C 0.165 • PROJECT: Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: H DESIGNER: M.H. DATE: 06/07/95 Time Time Inc. Intens. O Devel. Vol.ln Vol.Out Storage (min) (sec) (in hr) (cfs) (cu ft) (cu ft) (cu ft) 5.62 337 3.01 0.50 225 337 -112 5 300 3.18 0.53 211 300 -89 < == 10 600 2.24 0.37 265 600 -335 15 900 1.77 0.29 297 900 -603 20 1200 1.45 0.24 315 1200 -885 25 1500 121 0.20 323 1500 -1177 30 1800 1.04 0.17 329 1800 -1471 35 2100 0.91 0.15 333 2100 -1767 40 2400 0.82 0.14 341 2400 -2059 45 2700 0.74 0.12 344 2700 -2356 50 3000 0.68 0.11 350 3000 -2650 55 '3300 0.64 0.11 361 3300 -2939 60 3600 0.61 0.10 375 3600 -3225 65 3900 0.60 0.10 398 3900 -3502 70 r 4200 0.58 0.10 414 4200 -3786 '75 . ' 4500, '0.56 0.09 427 4500 -4073 80 _ 4800 0.53 0.09 431 4800 -4369 '85 5100 ' 0.52 009 448 5100 -4652 '90 5400 0.50 0.08 456 5400 -4944 95 5700 0.49 0.08 471 5700 -5229 100 . - 6000 • 0.48 0.08 485 6000 -5515 206' DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required '208' Storage Volume = Impervious Area x .5 In / 12 in/ft 292 cu ft 208' Storage Volume Provided 650 cu ft DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STOR Maximum Storage Required by Bowstring -89 cu ft Number and Type of Drywells Required 0 Single 1 Double • • • • • • • PEAK FLOW CALCULATION PROJECT Rivenvalk First Addition BASIN: I Tot. Area Imp. Area C= CASE 1 CASE 2 1.35 Acres 22300 SF 0.52 50 ft. Overland Flow Ct = L= n= S= Tc = 4.44 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidelines 570 ft. Gutter flow 0.15 50 ft. 0.40 0.005 Z1 = 3.0 For Z2 Z2= 3 Type B =1.0 n= 0.016 Rolled = 3.5 S = 0.010 d = 0.435 ft. A R Q Tc Tc total 1 Qc 0.57 0.21 1.84 2.92 7.36 2.62 1.84 Qpeak for Case 1 = 1.84 cfs Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the peak flow = .90(3.18)(Imp. Area) = 1.47 cfs So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater of the two flows, 1.84 cfs NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING 3i • • • • • •' • BOWSTRING METHOD DETENTION BASIN DESIGN Time Increment (min) 5 Time of Conc. (min) 7.36 Outflow (cfs) - 1 Design Year Flow 10 Area (acres) - 1.35 Impervious Area (sq ft) , 22300 'C' Factor 0.52 '208' Volume Provided - 1030 Area • C 0.702 Time Time Inc. Intens. O Devel. Vol.ln Vol.Out Storage (min) (sec) (in/hr) (cfs) (cu ft) (cu ft) (cu ft) 7.36 442 2.62 1.84 1089 442 648 < == 5 300 3.18 2.23 897 300 597 10 600 2.24 1.57 1180 600 580 15 900 1.77 1.24 1305 900 405 20 1200 1.45 1.02 1374 1200 . 174 25 1500 1.21 0.85 1402 1500 -96 30 1800 1.04 0.73 1424 1800 -376 35 2100 0.91 0.64 1437 2100 -663 40 2400 0.82 0.58 1468 2400 -932 45 2700 0.74 0.52 1481 2700 -1219 50 3000 0.68 0.48 1504 3000 -1496 55 3300 0.64 0.45 1550 3300 -1750 60 3600 0.61 0.43 1606 3600 -1994 65 3900 0.60 0.42 1706 3900 -2194 70 4200 0.58 0.41 1771 4200 -2429 75 4500 0.56 0.39 1828 4500 -2672 80 4800 0.53 0.37 1842 4800 -2958 85 5100 0.52 0.37 1917 5100 -3183 90 5400 0.50 0.35 1948 5400 -3452 95 5700 0.49 0.34 2012 5700 -3688 100 6000 0.48 0.34 2072 6000 -3928 208' DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required 208' Storage Volume = Impervious Area x .5 in / 12 in/ft 208' Storage Volume Provided DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STOR Maximum Storage. Required by Bowstring Number and Type of Drywells Required PROJECT: Rivenvalk First Addition BASIN: 1 DESIGNER: M.H. DATE: 06/07/95 929 cu ft 1030 cu ft 648 cu It 0 Single 1 Double • • • • • • • • • • • BOWSTRING METHOD PEAK FLOW CALCULATION PROJECT Riverwalk First Addition , ......:...... > ?) DETENTION BASIN DESIGN BASIN: J Tot. Area Imp. Area C= 1.04 Acres 8400 SF 0.46 Time Increment (min) 5 CASE 1 :?s Time of Conc. (min) 8.04 Outflow (cis) 3 210 ft. Overland Flow s'"et „ Design Year Flow 10 Area (acres) 1.04 Ct = 0.15 t:; . • Impervious Area (sq ft) 8400 L = 210 ft. ?1i ? ?( ; ;1;1i'C' Factor 0.46 n= 0.40 „208' Volume Provided 585 S= 0.024 >...,,:a'::ol Area' C 0.478 Tc = 6.56 min., by Equation 3 -2 of Guidelines 260 ft. Gutter flow Z1 = 3.0 For Z2 .'i. _. _.....:..: ' ' 8.04 482 2.50 1.20 774 1447 -673 Z2= 3 Type B =1.0 n = 0.016 Rolled = 15 5 300 3.18 1.52 612 900 -288 < == S = 0.010 .......,., . 10 600 2.24 1.07 819 1800 -981 ,. 15 . 900 1.77 0.85 901 2700 -1799 d = 0.370 ft. s£ . 20 1200 1.45 0.69 946 3600 -2654 25 1500 1.21 0.58 963 4500 -3537 A R 0 Tc Tc total I Qc ?rb.; y , .. 30 1800 ' 1.04 0.50 977 5400 -4423 ' 35 ' 2100 0.91 0.44 986 6300 -5314 0.41 0.18 1.20 1.48 8.04 2.50 1.201:';11 ?eT' • 40 2400 0.82 0.39 1006 7200 -6194 45 - 2700 0.74 0.35 1014 8100 -7086 Qpeak for Case 1 = 1.20 cfs ;,:; ;_ 50 3000 0.68 0,33 1029 9000 -7971 55 3300 0.64 0.31 1061 9900 -8839 60 3600 0.61 0.29 1098 10800 -9702 CASE 2 65 3900 0.60 0.29 1167 11700 -10533 70 4200 0.58 0.28 1211 12600 -11389 Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the i ` , 75 4500 0.56 0.27 1250 13500 -12250 peak flow = .90(3.18)(Imp. Area) = 0.55 cfs;; ..: 80 4800 0.53 0.25 1259 14400 -13141 85 5100 0.52 0.25 1310 15300 -13990 90 5400 0.50 0.24 1331 16200 -14869 So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater of the two flows, :j 95 5700 0.49 0.23 1375 17100 -15725 1.20 cfs ?;H;1' ^'Irt1 100 6000 0.48 0.23 1415 18000 -16585 NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING Time Time Inc. Intens. O Devel. Vol.ln Vol.Out Storage (min) (sec) (iNhr) (cfs) (cu ft) (cu ft) (cu ft) 208' DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required' 208' Storage Volume = Impervious Area x .5 in / 12 iNft 208' Storage Volume Provided DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STOR Maximum Storage Required by Bowstring Number and Type of Drywells Required PROJECT: Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: J DESIGNER: M.H. DATE: 06/07/95 350 cu ft 585 cu It -288 cu It 0 Single 3 Double • • • • PEAK FLOW CALCULATION PROJECT Rive: walk First Addition BASIN: K Tot. Area Imp. Area C= 1.86 Acres 7220 SF 0.26 Time Increment (min) 5 CASE 1 ?,3 »t's d. :' Time of Conc. (min) 16.38 Outflow (cfs) 1 460 ft. Overland Flow ira' ;;j;;i Design Year Flow 10 Area (acres) 1.86 Ct = 0.15 ii''? Impervious Area (sq ft) 7220 L = 460 ft. 'C' Factor 0.26 n = 0.40 : 208' Volume Provided 1140 S = 0007 E ;(: '' Area ' C 0.484 CASE 2 Tc = 15.19 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidelines 190 ft. Gutter flow 21 = 3.0 For Z2 Z2= 3 Type B =1.0 n = 0.016 Rolled = 3.5 S = 0.010 d = 0.319 ft A R Q Tc Tc total I Qc 0.31 0.15 0.81 1.20 16.38 1.67 0.81 Qpeak for Case 1 = 0.81 cfs Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the peak flow = .90(3.18)(Imp. Area) = 0.47 cfs So, the Peak flow for the Basin Is the greater of the two flows, 0.81 cfs NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING BOWSTRING METHOD DETENTION BASIN DESIGN PROJECT: Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: K DESIGNER: M.H. DATE: 06/07/95 Time Time Inc. Intens. Q Devel. Vol.ln Vol.Out Storage (min) (sec) (in/hr) (cfs) (cu ft) (cu ft) (cu ft) 16.38 983 1.67 0.81 1066 983 83 5 300 3.18 1.54 618 300 318 < == 10 600 2.24 1.08 871 600 271 15 900 1.77 0.86 1032 900 132 20 1200 1.45 0.70 1076 1200 -124 25 1500 1.21 0.59 1073 1500 -427 30 1800 1.04 0.50 1073 1800 -727 35 2100 0.91 0.44 1071 2100 -1029 40 2400 0.82 0.40 1084 2400 -1316 45 2700 0.74 0.36 1086 2700 -1614 50 3000 0.68 0.33 1096 3000 -1904 55 • 3300 0.64 0.31 1125 3300 -2175 60 3600 0.61 0.29 1161 3600 -2439 65 3900 0.60 0.29 1229 3900 -2671 70 4200 0.58 ' 0.28 1272 4200 -2928 75 4500 0.56 0.27 1309 4500 -3191 80 4800 0.53 0.26 1316 4800 -3484 85 5100 0.52 0.25 1367 5100 -3733 90 - 5400 0.50 0.24 1387 5400 -4013 95 5700 0.49 0.24 1430 5700 -4270 100 6000 0.48 0.23 1470 6000 -4530 208' DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required '208' Storage Volume = Impervious Area x .5 in / 12 in/ft 301 cu ft 208' Storage Volume Provided 1140 cu ft DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STOR Maximum Storage Required by Bowstring 318 cu ft Number and Type of Drywells Required 0 Single 1 Double • • • • • • • • • • • • •, • • PEAK FLOW CALCULATION PROJECT Riverwalk First Addition .. -;`' DETENTION BASIN DESIGN BASIN: L Tot. Area Imp. Area C= CASE 1 CASE 2 0.72 Acres 2660 SF 0.24 290 ft. Overland Flow Ct = L= n= S= Tc = 12.06 min., by Equation 3 -2 of Guidelines 120 ft. Gutter flow Time Inarement (min)' " 5 Time of Conc. (min) 13.01 Outflow (cfs) 1 Design Year Flow •- 10 Area (acres) - - _• - 0.72 0.15 Z' Impervious Area (sq ft) 2660 290 ft. r; {ice ; , ::;; I3 C Factor • - .a-.. - :: r 0.24 0.40 a >; . :,i! 208' Volume Provided : 1270 0.006 Area • C 0.173 Z1 = 3.0 For Z2 Z2 = 3 Type B = 1.0 n = 0.016 Rolled = 3.5 S = 0.010 d = 0.228 ft. A R Q Tc Tc total 1 Qc 0.16 0.11 0.33 0.95 13.01 1.93 0.33: Qpeak for Case 1 = 0.33 cfs Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the peak flow = .90(3.18)(Imp. Area) = 0.17 cfs So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater of the two flows, 0.33 cfs NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING BOWSTRING METHOD PROJECT: Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: L DESIGNER: M.H. DATE: 06/07/95 Time Time Inc. Intens. Q Devel. Vol.ln Vo1.0ut Storage (min) (sec) (irvhr) (cfs) (cu ft) (curl) (cu ft) 13.01 780 1.93 0.33 349 780 -432 5 300 3.18 0.55 221 300 -79 <__ 10 600 224 0.39 311 600 -289 15 900 1.77 0.31 356 900 -544 20 1200 1.45 0.25 367 1200 -833 25 1500 1.21 0.21 369 1500 -1131 30 1800 1.04 0.18 371 1800 -1429 35 2100 0.91 0.16 372 2100 -1728 40 2400 0.82 0.14 378 2400 -2022 45 2700 0.74 0.13 379 2700 -2321 50 3000 0.68 0.12 384 3000 -2616 55 3300 0.64 0.11 394 3300 -2906 60 3600 0.61 0.11 407 3600 -3193 65 3900 0.60 0.10 432 3900 -3468 70 4200 0.58 0.10 448 4200 -3752 75 4500 0.56 0.10 461 4500 -4039 80 4800 0.53 0.09 464 4800 -4336 85 5100 0.52 0.09 482 5100 -4618 90 5400 0.50 0.09 489 5400 -4911 95 5700 0.49 0.08 505 5700 -5195 100 6000 0.48 0.08 520 6000 -5480 208' DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required '206 Storage Volume = Impervious Area x .5 in / 12 in/ft 111 cult • 208' Storage Volume. Provided 1270 cu ft • DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STOR Maximum Storage Required by Bowstring -79 cu fl Number and Type of Drywells Required 0 Single 1 Double • • BOWSTRING METHOD PEAK FLOW CALCULATION PROJECT Riverwalk First Addition ,.....:._... :: i; DETENTION BASIN DESIGN BASIN: M Tot. Area Imp. Area C= Time Increment (min) 5 CASE 1 `.`.� _:;Time of Conc. (min) 11.85 Outflow (cfs) 1 240 ft. Overland Flow €; -�: .;F Design Year Flow 10 Area (acres) 0.69 Ct = 0.15 ;3i ; Impervious Area (sq ft) 7950 L = 240 ft. 'C' Factor 0.54 n = 0.40 ", ;'208' Volume Provided • 460 S = 0.008 :3 Area ' C 0.373 CASE 2 0.69 Acres 7950 SF 0.54 Tc = 9.87 min., by Equation 3 -2 of Guidelines 350 ft . Gutter flow A R Q Tc Tc total 1 Qc 0.26 0.14 0.76 1.97 11.85 2.04 0.76 ()peak for Case 1 = 0.76 cfs Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the peak flow = .90(3.18)(Imp. Area) = 0.52 cfs So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater of the two Cows, 0.76 cfs NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING Z1 = 3.0 For Z2 Z2= 3 Type B =1.0 n = 0.016 Rolled = 3.5 S = 0.014 d = 0.293 ft. • • • • • t • • Time Time Inc. Intens. Q Devel. Vol.ln Vol.Out Storage (min) • (sec) • (in/hr) (cfs) (cu ft) (cu ft) (cu ft) 11.85 ' 711 2.04 0.76 723 711 12 5 300 3.18 1.18 476 300 176 <__ 10 600 2.24 0.83 671 600 71 15 • 900 1.77 0.66 753 900 -147 20 . '1200 1.45 0.54 779 1200 -421 25 1500 1.21 0.45 785 1500 -715 30 1800 1.04 0.39 791 1800 -1009 35 2100 0.91 0.34 794 2100 -1306 40 2400 0.82 0.31 807 2400 -1593 45 2700 0.74 0.28 811 2700 -1889 50 3000 0.68 0.25 821 3000 -2179 55 3300 0.64 0.24 845 3300 -2455 60 3600 0.61 0.23 873 3600 -2727 65 3900 0.60 0.22 926 3900 -2974 70 4200 0.58 0.22 960 4200 -3240 75 4500 0.56 0.21 989 4500 -3511 80 4800 0.53 0.20 996 4800 -3804 85 5100 0.52 0.19 1035 5100 -4065 90 5400 0.50 0.19 1051 5400 -4349 95 5700 0.49 0.18 1085 5700 -4615 100 6000 0.48 0.18 1116 6000 -4884 208' DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required '208' Storage Volume = Impervious Area x .5 in / 12 in/ft PROJECT: Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: M DESIGNER: M.H. DATE: 06/07/95 331 cu ft 208' Storage Volume Provided 460 cu ft DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STOR Maximum Storage Required by Bowstring 176 cu ft Number and Type of Drywells Required 0 Single 1 Double • • • • PEAK FLOW CALCULATION PROJECT Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: N Tot. Area Imp. Area C= CASE 1 0.62 Acres 11800 SF 0.48 150 ft. Overland Flow Ct = L= n= S= 530 ft. Gutter flow NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING 0.15 150 ft. 0.40 0.010 Tc = 6.97 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidelines BOWSTRING METHOD DETENTION BASIN DESIGN Time Increment (min) 5 Time of Conc. (min) 10.65 Outflow (cfs) 0.33 Design Year Flow 10 Area (acres) 0.62 Impervious Area (sq ft) 11800 C Factor 0.48 208' Volume Provided 5.40 Area' C 0.298 Time Time Inc. Intens. 0 Devel. Vol.tn Vol.Out Storage (min) (sec) (in/hr) (cfs) (cu ft) (cu ft) (cu ft) Z1 = 3.0 For Z2 "!i3 10.65 639 2.16 0.64 552 211 341 <_= Z2 = 3 Type B = 1.0 n = 0.016 Rolled = 3.5 5 300 3.18 0.95 380 99 281 S = 0.009 10 600 2.24 0.67 536 198 338 15 900 1.77 0.53 589 297 292 d = 0.298 ft. z :i , 20 1200 1.45 0.43 612 396 216 25 1500 1.21 0.36 618 495 123 A R 0 Tc Tc total I 0c 30 1800 1.04 0.31 624 594 30 35 2100 0.91 0.27 628 693 -65 0.27 0.14 0.64 3.68 10.65 2.16 0.64 ':l 40 2400 0.82 0.24 639 792 -153 _ 45 2700 0.74 0.22 642 891 -249 ()peak for Case 1 = 0.64 cfs 50 . 3000 0.68 0.20 651 990 -339 55 3300 0.64 0.19 670 1089 -419 60 .3600 0.61 0.18 693 1188 -495 CASE 2 rot i( 65 3900 0.60 0.18 735 1287 -552 70 . 4200 0.58 0.17 762 1386 -624 Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the ; a 75 4500 0.56 0.17 786 1485 -699 peak flow= .90(3.18)(Imp. Area) = 0.78 cfs 80 4800 0.53 0.16 791 1584 -793 85 ' 5100 " 0.52 0.15 823 1683' -860 90 5400 0.50 0.15 836 1782 -946 So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater of the two flows, z z'"?6 95 5700 0.49 0.15 863 1881 -1018 0.78 cfs `;:::>2`:x.*'... 100 6000 0.48 0.14 888 1980 -1092 208' DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required '208' Storage Volume = Impervious Area x .5 in / 12 irVft 208' Storage Volume Provided DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STOR Maximum Storage Required by Bowstring Number and Type of Drywells Required • PROJECT: Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: N DESIGNER: M.H. DATE: 06/07/95 492 cu ft 540 cu ft 341 cu ft 1 Single 0 Double • • • • • • • PEAK FLOW CALCULATION PROJECT Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: 0 Tot. Area Imp. Area C= CASE 1 1.01 Acres 9220 SF 0.48 310 ft. Overland Flow Ct = L= n= S= 160 ft. Gutter flow NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING 0.15 310 ft. 0.40 0.005 Tc = 13.26 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidelines • • • • • • • BOWSTRING METHOD DETENTION BASIN DESIGN Time Increment (niinY- : - ' 5 Time of Conc. (min) • . ' • 14.33 Outflow (ors) 1 • Design Year Flow . 10 Area (acres) 1.01 Impervious Area (sq ft) 9220 'C' Factor , ' 0.48 '208' Volume Provided 870 Area' C 0.485 Time Time Inc. Intens. Q Devel. Vol.ln Vol.Out Storage (min) (sec) (in/hr) (cfs) (cu ft) (cu ft) (cu ft) Z1 = 3.0 For Z2 14.33 860 1.83 0.89 1020 860 161 Z2= 3 Type B =1.0 n = 11016 Rolled = 3.5 r3 ?j83!!? ;'a ^' 5 300 3.18 1.54 620 300 320 c == S = 0.008 [:::S.,.., >::�3 10 600 2.24 1.09 873 600 273 15 900 1.77 186 1023 900 123 d = 0.345 ft . ,, . , �:z; : :':;F¢`:i }w, > ., ; , 20 1200 1.45 0.70 1049 1200 -151 25 1500 1.21 0.59 1051 1500 -449 A R 0 Tc Tc total I Qc a <i 30 1800 1.04 0.50 1055 1800 -745 35 2100 0.91 0.44 1055 2100 -1045 0.36 0.16 0.89 1.07 14.33 1.83 0.89§ w;`= 40 2400 0.82 0.40 1070 2400 -1330 45 2700 0,74 0.36 1073 2700 -1627 Qpeak for Case 1 = 0.89 cfs ; ,':?,? <4 -; 50 3000 0.68 0.33 1085 3000 -1915 55 3300 0.64 0.31 1115 3300 -2185 60 3600 0.61 0.30 1151 3600 -2449 CASE 2 ' �t 65 3900 0.60 0.29 1219 3900 -2681 70 4200 0.58 0.28 1263 4200 -2937 Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the -- - 75 4500 0.56 0.27 1301 4500 -3199 peak flow =.90 3.18 Im Area) 0.61 cfs ( )( p. ) = s� >..,.,zr=�w 80 4800 ' 0.53 0.26 1308 4800 -3492 85 5100 0.52 0.25 1359 5100 -3741 90 5400 0.50 0.24 1380 5400 -4020 So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater of the tyro flows, i. - : j 95 5700 0.49 0.24 1423 5700 -4277 089 cfs _`.. w..lv .100 6000 0.48 0.23 1464 6000 -4536 208' DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required' 208' Storage Volume = Impervious Area x .5 in / 12 in/ft 208' Storage Volume Provided DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STOR Maximum Storage Required by Bowstring Number and Type of Drywells Required PROJECT: Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: 0 DESIGNER: M.H. DATE: 06/07/95 384 cu ft 870 cu ft 320 cull 0 Single 1 Double • • • • PEAK FLOW CALCULATION PROJECT Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: O Tot. Area Imp. Area C= 0.87 Acres 0 SF 0.48 • • • • • • BOWSTRING METHOD DETENTION BASIN DESIGN Time Increment (min) 5 CASE 1 s? Time of Canc. (min) 19.56 Outflow (cfs) 0 750 ft. Overland Flow Design Year Flow 10 Area (acres) 0.87 Ct = 0.15 Impervious Area (sq ft) 0 L = 750 ft. °` C' Factor - ' 0.48 n = 0.40 1 ;,' 208' Volume Provided 0 S= 0.008 Area 'C 0.418 Tc = 19.56 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidelines 0 ft. Gutter flow Z1 = 3.0 For Z2 Z2= 3 Type B =1.0 n = 0.016 Rolled = 3.5 S = 0.010 d 0289It A R O Tc Tc total 1 Oc 025 0.14 162 0.00 19.56 1.48 0.62) Opeak for Case 1 = 0.62 cfs CASE 2 Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the peak flow = .90(3.18)(Imp. Area) = 0.00 cfs So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater of the two flows, 0.62 cfs NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING Time Time Inc. Intens. 0 Devel. Vol.tn Vol.Out Storage (min) (sec) (in/hr) . (cfs) (cu ft) (cu ft ) (cu ft) 19.56 1174 1.48 0.62 970 5 300 3.18 1.33 534 10 600 2.24 0.94 752 15 900 1.77 0.74 891 20 1200 1.45 0.61 968 25 1500 1.21 0.51 960 30 1800 1.04 0.43 955 35 2100 0.91 0.38 950 40 2400 0.82 0.34 958 45 2700 0.74 0.31 958 50 3000 0.68 0.28 965 55 3300 0.64 0.27 989 60 3600 0.61 0.25 1019 65 3900 0.60 0.25 1077 70 4200 0.58 024 1114 75 4500 0.56 0.23 1146 80 4800 0.53 0.22 1151 85 5100 0.52 0.22 1194 90 5400 0.50 021 1211 95 5700 0.49 0.20 1248 100 6000 0.48 0.20 1283 208' DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required' 208' Storage Volume = Impervious Area x .5 in / 12 iNft 208' Storage Volume Provided DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STOR Maximum Storage Required by Bowstring Number and Type of Drywells Required PROJECT: Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: Q DESIGNER: M.H. DATE: 06/08/95 0 cult 0 cu 1194 cu ft 0 Single ERR Double 970 534 752 891 968 960 955 950 958 958 965 989 1019 1077 1114 1146 1151 1194 c == 1211 1248 1283 • • • • PEAK FLOW CALCULATION Tot. Area 1.07 Acres Imp. Area 27960 SF C= 0.60 CASE 1 Qpeak for Case 1 = 2.57 cfs CASE 2 50-yew STORM PROJECT Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: A Tc = 2.78 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidelines 160 ft. Gutter flow Z2 = 1 n = 0.016 S = 0.008 d = 0.228 ft A R Q Tc Tc total 1 Qc 1.32 0.11 2.57 1.37 5.00 4.00 2.57 Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the peak flow =.90(4.00)(Imp. Area) = 2.31 cfs So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater of the two flows, 2.57 cfs NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING BOWSTRING METHOD • f!7 DETENTION BASIN DESIGN Time Increment (min)" 5 I Time of Conc. (min) ' " . - 5.00 Outflow (cfs) ` "' - . , , 1 23 ft. Overland Flow j _; Design Year Flow . _ 50 Area (acres). v 1.07 Ct = 0.15 +Impervious Area (sq ft) 27960 L = 23 fl. 'C' Factor 0.6 n = 0.40 '206 Volume Provided 1180 S = 0.005 3q ;ai:;ii == =:: Area' C 0.642 Time Time Inc. trawls. Q Devel. VoLln Vol.Out Storage (min) (sec) (in/hr) (cfs) (cu ft) (cu ft) (cu ft) Z1 = 50.0 #ai# # „ii;it ":!iii 5.00 300 4.00 2.57 1032 300 732 < == 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 • 80 - 85 . so 95 100 • • • • • • 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 . ■ 4.00 2.88 2.20 1.75 1.67 1.56 1.28 1.19 1.08 0.99 0.92 0.87 0.82 0.80 0.77 0.75 0.72 0.71 0.69 0.67 2.57 1.85 1.41 1.12 1.07 1.00 0.82 0.76 0.69 0.64 0.59 0.56 0.53 0.51 0.49 0.48 0.46 0.46 0.44 0.43 208' DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required' 208' Storage Volume = Impervious Area x .5 in / 12 in /ft 208' Storage Volume Provided DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STOR Maximum Storage Required by Bowstring Number and Type of Drywells Required PROJECT: River walk First Addition BASIN: A DESIGNER: M.H. DATE: 06/07/95 1032 1298 1415 1463 1718 1905 1810 1903 1943 1972 2009 2068 2107 2210 2275 2360 2405 2508 2570 2625 300 732 <_= 600 698 900 515 1200 263 1500 218 1800 105 2100 -290 2400 -497 2700 -757 3000 -1028 3300 -1291 3600 -1532 3900 -1793 4200 -1990 4500 -2225 4800 -2440 5100 -2695 5400 -2892 5700 -3130 6000 -3375 1165 cu ft 1180 cuff 732 cu ft 0 Single 1 Double • • • • PEAK FLOW CALCULATION Tot. Area Imp. Area C= CASE 1 CASE 2 0.24 Acres 3600 SF 0.45 30 ft. Overland Flow Ct = L= n= S= 240 ft. Gutter flow NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING 0.15 30 ft. 0.40 0.005 50 -year STORM PROJECT Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: 8 Tc = 3.27 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidelines Z1 = 50.0 Z2 = 1 n = 0.016 S = 0.008 d = 0.116 ft A R Q Tc Tc total I Qc 0.34 0.06 0.43 3.22 6.49 4.00 0.43 Qpeak for Case 1 = 0.43 cis Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the peak flow = .90(4.00)(Imp. Area) = 0.30 cfs So, the Peak lbw for the Basin is the greater of the two flows, 0.43 cfs • • • • • • • 4 BOW STRING METHOD DETENTION BASIN DESIGN PROJECT: Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: 8 DESIGNER: M.H. DATE: 06/07/95 Time Increment (min) 5 Time of Conc. (min) - 6.49 Outflow (cfs) • 1 Design Year Flow 50 Area (acres) - 0.24 Impervious Area (sq ft) 3600 Factor 0.45 '208' Volume Provided 205 Area' C. 0.108 Time Time Inc. Intens. O Devel. Vol.ln Vol.Out Storage (min) (sec) (In/hr) (cfs) (cu ft) (cu ft) (cu ft) 6.49 • • 389 4.00 0.43 225 389 -164 5 300 4.00 0.43 174 300 -126 <__ 10 600 2.88 0.31 228 600 -372 15 900 2.20 0.24 245 900 4 -655 20 1200 1.75 0.19 252 1200 -948 25 1500 1.67 0.18 294 1500 -1206 30 1800 1.56 0.17 326 1800 -1474 35 2100 1.28 0.14 309 2100 -1791 40 2400 1.19 0.13 324 2400 -2076 45 2700 1.08 0.12 330 2700 -2370 50 3000 0.99 0.11 335 3000 -2665 55 3300 0.92 0.10 341 3300 -2959 60 3600 0.87 0.09 351 3600 -3249 65 3900 0.82 0.09 357 3900 -3543 70 4200 0.80 0.09 374 4200 -3826 75 4500 0.77 0.08 385 4500 -4115 80 4800 0.75 0.08 400 4800 -4400 85 5100 0.72 0.08 407 5100 -4693 90 5400 0.71 0.08 424 5400 -4976 95 5700 0.69 0.07 435 5700 -5265 100 6000 0.67 0.07 444 6000 -5556 208' DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required '208' Storage Volume = Impervious Area x .5 in / 12 in/ft 150 cu 11 208' Storage Volume Provided 205 cu ft DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STOR Maximum Storage Required by Bowstring -126 cu ft Number and Type of Drywells Required 0 Single 1 Double • • • • PEAK FLOW CALCULATION Tot. Area Imp. Area C= CASE 1 CASE 2 0.88 Acres 6530 SF 0.32 220 ft. Overland Flaw Ct = L= n= S= Tc = 9.37 min., by Equation 3 -2 of Guidelines 140 ft. Gutter flow 0.15 220 ft. 0.40 0.008 Z1 = 50.0 Z2 = 1 n = 0.016 5 = 0.017 d= 0.145 ft 50 -year STORM PROJECT Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: C A R O Tc Tc total 1 Qc 0.54 0.07 1.13 1.11 10.48 4.00 1.13 Qpeak for Case 1 = 1.13 cfs Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the peak flow = .90(4.00)(Imp. Area) = 0.54 cfs So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater of the two flows, 1.13 cfs NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING • BOWSTRING METHOD DETENTION BASIN DESIGN Time Increment (min) 5 Time of Conc. (min) 10.48 Outflow (cfs) 1 Design Year Flow 50 Area (acres) 0.88 Impervious Area (sq ft) 6530 Factor 0.32 ('208' Volume Provided 595 Area • C 0.282 Time Time Inc. Intens. Q Devel. Vol.ln Vol.Out Storage (min) (sec) (in/hr) (cfs) (cu ft) (cu ft) (cu ft) 10.48 629 4.00 1.13 949 629 320 <__ 5 300 4.00 1.13 453 300 153 10 600 2.88 0.81 652 600 52 .15 900 2.20 0.62 690 900 -210 ' 20 ' 1200 1.75 0.49 697 1200 -503 25 1500 1.67 0.47 806 1500 -694 ' 30 1800 1.56 0.44 885 1800 -915 ' 35 ' 2100 1.28 0.36 834 2100 -1266 40 2400' 1.19 0.33 872 2400 -1528 45 ' 2700. 1.08 0.30 886 2700 -1814 50 . 3000 0.99 0.28 896 3000 -2104 55 3300 0.92 0.26 910 3300 -2390 60 3600 0.87 0.24 934 3600 -2666 65 . 3900 0.82 0.23 950 3900 -2950 70 4200 0.80 0.23 994 4200 -3206 75 4500 0.77 0.22 1022 4500 -3478 80 4800 0.75 0.21 1059 4800 -3741 85 5100 0.72 0.20 1077 5100 -4023 90 5400 0.71 0.20 1122 5400 -4278 95 5700 0.69 0.19 1149 5700 -4551 100 6000 0.67 0.19 1172 6000 -4828 208' DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required '208' Storage Volume = Impervious Area x .5 in / 12 in/ft 208' Storage Volume Provided DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STOR Maximum Storage Required by Bowstring Number and Type of Drywells Required • • • • PROJECT: Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: C DESIGNER: M.H. DATE: 06/07/95 272 cu ft 595 cu ft 320 cu ft 0 Single 1 Double • • • • • • • • • • • 50 -year STORM PEAK FLOW CALCULATION PROJECT Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: D Tot. Area Imp. Area C= CASE 1 CASE 2 0.46 Acres 12220 SF 0.60 23 ft. Overland Flow Ct = L= n= S= Tc = 2.78 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidelines 470 ft. Gutter flow 0.15 23 ft. 0.40 0 005 21 = 50.0 Z2 = 1 n = 0.016 S = 0.008 d = 0.166 fl A R Q To Tc total 1 Qc 0.70 0.08 1.10 4.98 7.76 4.00 1.10 Opeak for Case 1 = 1.10 cfs Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the peak flow = .90(4.00)(Imp. Area) = 1.01 cfs So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater of the two flows, 1.10 cfs NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING BOWSTRING METHOD ' DETENTION BASIN DESIGN Time increment (min) ' r 5 Time of boric. (min) • • 7.76 Outflow (cfs) • - 1 Design Year Flaw • 50 Area (acres) 0.46 Impervious Area (sq ft) 12220 'C' Factor 0.6 '208' Volume Provided 2030 Area • C 0.276 208' DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required '208' Storage Volume = Impervious Area x .5 in / 12 in/ft 208' Storage Volume Provided DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STOR Maximum Storage Required by Bowstring Number and Type of Drywells Required PROJECT: Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: D DESIGNER: M.H. DATE: 06/06/95 Time Time Inc. Intens. Q Devel. Vol.ln Vol.Out Storage (min) (sec) (in/hr) (cfs) (cu ft) (cu ft) (cu ft) 7.76 468 4.00 1.10 689 466 223 < == 5 300 4.00 1.10 444 300 144 10 600 2.88 0.79 603 600 3 15 900 2.20 0.61 643 900 -257 20 1200 1.75 0.48 656 1200 -544 25 1500 1.67 0.46 764 1500 -736 30 1800 1.56 0.43 843 1800 -957 35 2100 1.28 0.35 798 2100 -1302 40 2400 1.19 0.33 837 2400 -1563 45 2700 1.08 0.30 852 2700 -1848 50 3000 0.99 0.27 863 3000 -2137 55 3300 0.92 0.25 878 3300 -2422 60 3600 0.87 0.24 902 3600 -2698 65 3900 0.82 0.23 918 3900 -2982 70 4200 0.80 0.22 962 4200 -3238 " 75 4500 0.77 0.21 990 4500 -3510 '• 80 4800 0.75 0.21 1026 4800 -3774 85 ' 5100 0.72 0.20 1045 5100 -4055 • 90 5400 0.71 0.20 1089 5400 -4311 • - 95 5700 0.69 019 1116 5700 -4584 100 6000 0.67 0.18 1139 6000 -4861 509 cu ft 2030 cu ft 223 cu ft 0 Single 1 Double • • • • PEAK FLOW CALCULATION Tot. Area Imp. Area C= 3.37 Acres 18820 SF 0.39 50 -year STORM PROJECT Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: E Tc = 3.65 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidelines 470 ft. Gutter flow Z1 = 50.0 Z2 = 1 n = 0.016 S = 0.008 d = 0.298 ft . A R Q Tc Tc total I Qc 2.26 0.15 5.26 3.37 7.22 4.00 5.26 ()peak for Case 1 = 5.26 cfs CASE 2 Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the peak flow = .90(4.00)(Imp. Area) = 1.56 cis So, the Peak Clow for the Basin Is the greater of the two flows, 5.26 cfs NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING • • • • • • BOWSTRING METHOD DETENTION BASIN DESIGN Time Increment (min) ' 5 CASE 1 ^" i" "` '{ Time of Conc. (min) 7.22 Outflow (cfs) • 1 50 ft. Overland Flay ;: - Design Year Flow • 50 Area (acres) b t ". '.':. 3.37 Ct = 0.15 A n �� ' Impervious Area (sq ft) 18820 L = 50 ft. t -s- : 'C'. Factor "' ' ' 0.39 n = 0.40 ;� ? > 208' Volume Provided - • 2030 3 = 0.008 r a Area • C 1.314 .,' z ., ;3208' DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required '208' Storage Volume = Impervious Area x .5 In / 12 in/ft . 208' Storage Volume Provided DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - YEAR DESIGN STOR Maximum Storage Required by Bowstring Number and Type of Drywells Required PROJECT: Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: E DESIGNER: M.H. DATE: 06/07/95 Time Time Inc. Intens. 0 Devel. Vol.ln Vol.Out Storage (min) (sec) (in/hr) (cfs) (cu ft) (cu ft) (cu ft) 7.22 433 4.00 5.26 3052 433 2618 < == 5 300 4.00 5.26 2113 300 1813 10 600 2.88 3.79 2829 600 2229 15 900 2.20 2.89 3028 900 2128 20 1200 1.75 2.30 3099 1200 1899 25 1500 1.67 2.19 3616 1500 2116 30 1800 1.56 2.05 3993 1800 2193 35 2100 1.28 1.68 3781 2100 1681 40 2400 1.19 1.56 3967 2400 1567 45 2700 1.08 1.42 4042 2700 1342 50 3000 0.99 1.30 4095 3000 1095 55 3300 0.92 1.21 4168 3300 868 60 3600 0.87 1.14 4285 3600 685 65 3900 0.82 . 1.08 4362 3900 462 70 4200 0.80 1.05 4571 4200 371 75 4500 0.77 1.01 4703 4500 203 80 4800 0.75 0.99 4877 4800 77 85 5100 0.72 0.95 4965 5100 -135 90 5400 0.71 0.93 5176 5400 -224 95 5700 0.69 0.91 5303 5700 -397 100 6000 0.67 0.88 5413 6000 -587 784 cu ft 2030 cu It 2618 cu It 0 Single 1 Double • • • • PEAK FLOW CALCULATION Tot. Area Imp. Area C= 0.29 Acres 4850 SF 0.51 50 -year STORM PROJECT Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: F Time Increment (min) 5 CASE 1 Time of Conc. (min) 5.00 Outflow (cfs) 0.33 50 ft. Overland Flow t:49 ^_?S ?imh„ Design Year Flow 50 Area (acres) - 0.29 Ct = 0.15 Impervious Area (sq It) 4850 L = 50 fL - C' Factor 0.51 n = 0.40 i x'208' Volume Provided - 450 S = 0.010 :; ::; .,";..Area ' C 0.148 CASE 2 Tc = 3.60 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidelines 160 ft. Gutter flow Z1 = 3.0 Z2 = 3 n = 0.016 S = 0.015 d = 0.263 ft A R O Tc Tc total 1 Qc 0.21 0.12 0.59 0.94 5.00 4.00 0.59 Qpeak for Case 1 = 0.59 cfs Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the peak flow = .90(4.00)(Imp. Area) = 0.40 cfs So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater of the two flows, 0.59 cfs NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING • • • • • • • BOWSTRING METHOD DETENTION BASIN DESIGN Time Time Inc. Intens. Q Devel. Vol.ln Vol.Out Storage (min) (sec) (irimr) (cfs) (cu ft) (cu ft) (cu ft) 5,00 300 4.00 0.59 238 99 139 < == 5 300 4.00 0.59 238 99 139 < == 10 600 2.88 0.43 299 198 101 15 - 900 . 2.20 033 326 297 29 20 .1200 1.75 0.26 337 396 -59 25 1500 1.67 0.25 396 495 -99 30 1800 1.56 0.23 439 594 -155 35 . 2100 1.28 0.19 417 693 -276 40 _2400 1.19 0.18 439 792 -353 45 2700 1.08 0.16 448 891 -443 50 3000 0.99 0.15 454 990 -536 55 3300 0.92 0.14 463 1089 -626 60 3600 0.87 0.13 476 1188 -712 65 3900 0.82 0.12 485 1287 -802 70 4200 0.80 0.12 509 1386 -877 75 4500 0.77 0.11 524 1485 -961 80 4800 0.75 0.11 544 1584 -1040 85 5100 0.72 0.11 554 1683 -1129 90 5400 0.71 0.11 578 1782 -1204 95 5700 0.69 0.10 592 1881 -1289 100 6000 0.67 0.10 605 1980 -1375 208' DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required '208' Storage Volume = Impervious Area x .5 in / 12 in/ft 208' Storage Volume Provided DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STOR Maximum Storage Required by Bowstring Number and Type of Drywells Required PROJECT: Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: F DESIGNER: M.H. DATE: 06/07/95 202 cu ft 450 cu ft 139 cu ft 1 Single 0 Double • • • • • - • • • • • • PEAK FLOW CALCULATION Tot. Area Imp. Area C= CASE 1 CASE 2 0.28 Acres 5560 SF 0.51 50 -year STORM PROJECT Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: G Time Increment (min) 5 Time of Conc. (min) ' ' 5.62 Outflow (cis) 1 40 ft. Overland Flow Design Year Flow 50 Area (acres) 0.28 CI = 0.15 ' , y •. Impervious Area (sq ft) 5560 L = 40 ft. fs ;'C' Factor 0.51 n = 0.40 ;'208' Volume Provided 675 S = 0.008 € € €3 Area ' C 0.143 Tc = 3.37 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidelines 300 ft. Gutter flow Z1 = 3.0 Z2 = 3 n = 0.016 S = 0.008 d = 0.291 ft A R 0 Tc Tc total 1 Qc 0.25 0.14 0.57 2.25 5.62 4.00 0.57 Opeak for Case 1 = 0.57 cfs Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the peak flow = .90(4.00)(Imp. Area) = 0.46 cfs So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater of the two flows, 0.57 cfs NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING BOWSTRING METHOD DETENTION BASIN DESIGN Time Time Inc. Intens. Q Devel. Vol.ln Vol.Out Storage (min) (sec) (in/hr) (cfs) (cu ft) (cu ft) (cu ft) 5.62 337 4.00 0.57 258 337 -79 5 300 4.00 0.57 230 300 -70 < == 10 600 2.88 0.41 294 600 -306 15 900 2.20 0.31 319 900 -581 20 1200 1.75 0.25 329 1200 -871 25 1500 1.67 0.24 385 1500 -1115 30 1800 1.56 0.22 427 1800 -1373 35 2100 1.28 0.18 405 2100 -1695 40 2400 1.19 0.17 426 2400 -1974 45 2700 1.08 0.15 434 2700 -2266 50 3000 0.99 0.14 440 3000 -2560 55 3300 0.92 0.13 449 3300 -2851 60 3600 0.87 0.12 461 3600 -3139 65 3900 ' 0.82 0.12 470 3900 -3430 70 4200 0.80 0.11 493 4200 -3707 75 4500 0.77 0.11 507 4500 -3993 .: 80 4800 .0.75 0.11 526 4800 -4274 • 85 5100 -• 0.72 0.10 536 5100 -4564 90 5400 0.71 0.10 559 5400 -4841 95 5700 0.69 0.10 573 5700 -5127 100 6000 0.67 0.10 585 6000 -5415 208' DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required' 208' Storage Volume = Impervious Area x .5 in / 12 in/ft 208' Storage Volume Provided DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STOR Maximum Storage Required by Bowstring Number and Type of Drywells Required PROJECT: Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: G DESIGNER: M.H. DATE: 06/07/95 232 cu ft 675 cu ft -70 cu ft 0 Single 1 Double • • • • • 50 -year STORM PEAK FLOW CALCULATION PROJECT Rive:walk First Addition BASIN: H Tot. Area Imp. Area C= CASE 1 CASE 2 0.29 Acres 7000 SF 0.57 50 ft. Overland Flow Ct = L= n= 5= Tc = 3.60 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidelines 260 ft. Gutter flow 0.15 50 ft. 0.40 0.010 Z1 = 3.0 Z2 = 3 n = 0.016 5 = 0.008 d = 0.308 ft. A R Q Tc Tc total 1 Oc 0.28 0.15 0.66 1.88 5.48 4.00 0.66' Qpeak for Case 1 = 0.66 cfs Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the peak flow = .90(4.00)(Imp. Area) = 0.58 cls So, the Peak flow for the Basin Is the greater of the two flows, 0.66 cfs NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING • • BOWSTRING METHOD DETENTION BASIN DESIGN PROJECT: Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: H DESIGNER: M.H. DATE: 06/07/95 Time Increment (inin) - 5 Time of Conc. (min) 5.48 Outflow (cls) ' • - 1 Design Year Flow - 50 Area (acres) • - •'-4 .. 0.29 Impervious Area(sq ft) 7000 'C' Factor • 'r: . . 0.57 708' Volume Provided • 650 Area - C 0.165 Time Time Inc. Intens. Q Devel. Vol.ln VoI.Out Storage (min) (sec) (in/hr) (cfs) (cu ft) (cu ft) (cu ft) 5.48 329 4.00 0.66 291 329 -37 5 300 4.00 0.66 266 300 -34 c == 10 600 2.88 0.48 339 600 -261 15 900 2.20 0.36 368 900 -532 20 1200 1.75 0.29 379 1200 -821 25 1500 1.67 0.28 445 1500 -1055 30 1800 1.56 0.26 493 1800 -1307 35 2100 1.28 0.21 468 2100 -1632 40 2400 1.19 0.20 492 2400 -1908 45 2700 1.08 0.18 502 2700 -2198 50 3000 0.99 0.16 509 3000 -2491 55 3300 0.92 0.15 519 3300 -2781 60 3600 0.87 0.14 534 3600 -3066 65 3900 0.82 0.14 544 3900 -3356 70 4200 0.80 0.13 570 4200 -3630 75 4500 0.77 0.13 587 4500 -3913 80 4800 0.75 0.12 609 4800 -4191 85 5100 0.72 0.12 620 5100 -4480 90 5400 0.71 0.12 647 5400 -4753 95 5700 0.69 0.11 663 5700 -5037 100 6000 0.67 0.11 677 6000 -5323 208' DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required' 208' Storage Volume = Impervious Area x .5 in / 12 in/ft 208' Storage Volume Provided • DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STOR ' • Maximum Storage Required by Bowstring Number and Type of Drywells Required • • • • 292 cu ft 650 cu ft -34 cu ft 0 Single 1 Double • • • • PEAK FLOW CALCULATION Tot. Area Imp. Area C= CASE 2 1.35 Acres 22300 SF 0.52 Tc = 4.44 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidelines 570 ft. Gutter flow Z1 = 3.0 Z2 = 3 n = 0.016 S = 0.010 d = 0.509 ft. Qpeak for Case 1 = 2.81 cfs 50 -year STORM PROJECT Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: I A R Q Tc Tc total 1 Oc 0.78 0.24 2.81 2.63 7.07 4.00 2.81 Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the peak flow = .90(4.00)(Imp. Area) = . 1.84 cts So, the Peak flow for the Basin Is the greater of the two flows, 2.81 cfs NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING • • BOWSTRING METHOD DETENTION BASIN DESIGN t Time Increment (min) 5 CASE 1 rez ' x4 Time of Conc. (min) 7.07 Outflow (cis) 1 50 ft. Overland Flow E`I:w,'3'?i4 Design Year Flow 50 Area (acres) 1.35 Ct = 0.15 ; -. Impervious Area (sq ft) 22300 L= 50 ft. 'C' Factor 0.52 n = 0.40 r:: : ?? 208' Volume Provided 1030 S = 0 005 a:z : = . a _., : : Area ' C 0.702 Time Time Inc. Intens. Q Devel. Vol.ln Vol.Out Storage (min) (sec) (in/hr) (cts) (cu ft) (cu ft) (curt) 7.07 , 424' 4.00 2.81 1596 424 1171 <_= 5 300 4.00 2.81 1129 300 829 10 600 2.88 2.02 1505 600 905 15 900 2.20 1.54 1613 900 713 20 '' 1200. 1.75 1.23 1651 1200 451 25 '1 sop 1.67 1.17 1928 1500 428 30 1800 1.56 1.10 2129 1800 329 35 2100 1.28 0.90 2017 2100 -83 40 2400 1.19 0.83 2116 2400 -284 45 2700 1.08 0.76 2156 2700 -544 50 3000 0.99 0.69 2185 • 3000 -815 55 '3300 0.92 0.65 2224 3300 -1076 60 3600 0.87 0.61 2287 3800 -1313 65 3900 0.82 0.58 2328 3900 -1572 70 4200 0.80 0.56 2440 4200 -1760 75 4500 0.77 0.54 2510 4500 -1990 80 4800 0.75 0.53 2603 4800 -2197 85 5100 0.72 0.51 2651 5100 -2449 90 5400 0.71 0.50 2763 5400 -2637 95 5700 0.69 0.48 2831 5700 -2869 100 6000 0.67 0.47 2890 6000 -3110 208' DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required' 208' Storage Volume = Impervious Area x .5 in / 12 in/ft 208' Storage Volume Provided DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STOR Maximum Storage Required by Bowstring Number and Type of Drywells Required • • • • PROJECT: Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: I DESIGNER: M.H. DATE: 06/07/95 929 cu ft 1030 cu ft 1171 cu ft 0 Single 1 Double • • • • 50 -year STORM PEAK FLOW CALCULATION PROJECT RNerwalk First Addition BASIN: J Tot. Area Imp. Area C= 1.04 Acres 8400 SF 0.46 Time Increment (min) 5 CASE 1 %. -'- „ - Time of Conc. (min) 7.88 - Outflow (cfs) 3 210 ft. Overland Flow : j Design Year Flow 50 Area (acres) 1.04 Ct = 0.15 t.;.x')` y': Impervious Area (sq ft) 8400 L = 210 ft. 3 . „l'C' Factor 0.46 n = 0.40 i 1'208' Volume Provided 585 S = 0.024 Area ' C 0.478 To = 6.56 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidelines 260 ft. Gutter flow Z1 = Z2 = n= S= NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING 3.0 3 0.016 0.010 BOWSTRING METHOD DETENTION BASIN DESIGN • • • • PROJECT: Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: J DESIGNER: M.H. DATE: 06/07/95 Time Time Inc. Intens. 0 Devel. Vol.ln Vol.Out Storage (min) (sec) (irtmr) (cfs) (cult) (cu ft) (cu ft) 7.88 473 4.00 1.91 1212 1418 -206 5 300 4.00 1.91 769 900 -131 < == 10 600 2.88 1.38 1048 1800 -752 15 900 2.20 1.05 1116 2700 -1584 d = 0.441 8.;Y ?? 20 1200 1.75 0.84 1139 3600 -2461 25 1500 1.67 0.80 1327 4500 -3173 A R 0 Tc Tc total I Qc 30 1800 1.56 0.75 1463 5400 -3937 35 2100 1.28 0.61 1384 6300 -4916 0.58 0.21 1.91 1.32 7.88 4.00 1.91 E "'ry;:";-•'' 40 2400 1.19 057 1452 7200 -5748 45 2700 1.08 0.52 1478 8100 -6622 Qpeak for Case 1 = 1.91 cfs r „ x? . 50 3000 0.99 0.47 1497 9000 -7503 55 3300 0.92 0.44 1523 9900 -8377 60 . 3600 0.87 0.42 1565 10800 -9235 CASE 2 ii 65 3900 ' 0.82 0.39 1593 11700 -10107 - 70 4200 0.80 0.38 1669 12600 -10931 Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less Than 5 minutes so that the x'd? `x` ai 75 4500 0.77 0.37 1717 13500 -11783 peak flow = .90(4.00)(Imp. Area) = 0.69 cfs x . 80 4800 0.75 0.36 1780 14400 -12620 85 5100 . 0.72 0.34 1812 15300 -13488 90 5400 0.71 0.34 1889 16200 -14311 So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater of the two flows,:; =i 95 5700 0.69 0.33 1935 17100 -15165 1.91 cfs x `a ` -. 100 6000 0.67 032 1975 18000 -16025 208 DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required' 208' Storage Volume = Impervious Area x .5 in / 12 in/ft 208' Storage Volume Provided DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STOR Maximum Storage Required by Bowstring Number and Type of Drywells Required 350 cu ft 585 cu ft -131 cu ft 0 Single 3 Double • • • • • • • • • • • PEAK FLOW CALCULATION Tot. Area Imp. Area C= CASE 2 1.86 Acres 7220 SF 0.26 Time Increment (min) ' • 5 CASE 1 - Time of Conc. (min) , . 16.15 Outflow (cis) - -' 1 460 ft. Overland Flow ; _:?p Design Year Flow. 50 g Area (acres) - - 1.86 Ct = 0.15 4s E Impervious Area (sq ft) 7220 L = 460 fl. �''� } C' Factor I , 0.26 n = 0.40 z;as'. {.'.ax. j 208' Volume Provided . . 1140 S = 0.007 f�' ?; Area • C 0.484 Tc = 15.19 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidelines 190 ft. Gutter flow Z1 = 3.0 Z2 = 3 n = 0.016 S = 0.010 NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING d = 0.442 ft 0.59 0.21 1.93 0.96 16.15 4.00 1.93 A R 0 Tc Tc total 1 Qc Qpeak for Case 1 = 1.93 cfs 50 -year STORM PROJECT Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: K Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the peak flow = .90(4.00)(Imp. Area) = 0.60 cfs So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater of the two flows, 1.93 cfs BOWSTRING METHOD DETENTION BASIN DESIGN PROJECT: Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: K DESIGNER: M.H. DATE: 06/07/95 Time Time Inc. Intens. Q Devel. Vot.ln Vol.Out _ Storage (min) (sec) (inmr) (cfs) (cu ft) (cu ft) (cu f1) 16.15 969 4.00 1.93 2512 969 1543 < == 5 300 4.00 1.93 778 300 478 10 600 2.88 1.39 1120 600 520 15 900 2.20 1.06 1283 900 383 20 1200 1.75 0.85 1294 1200 94 25 1500 1.67 0.81 1477 1500 -23 30 1800 1.56 0.75 1606 1800 -194 35 2100 1.28 0.62 1504 2100 -596 40 2400 1.19 0.57 1564 2400 -836 45 2700 1.08 0.52 1582 2700 -1118 50 3000 0.99 0.48 1594 3000 -1406 55 3300 0.92 0.44 1615 3300 -1685 60 3600 0.87 0.42 1653 3600 -1947 65 3900 0.82 0.40 1677 3900 -2223 70 4200 0.80 0.39 1752 4200 -2448 75 4500 0.77 0.37 1798 4500 -2702 80 4800 0.75 0.36 1860 4800 -2940 85 5100 0.72 0.35 1890 5100 -3210 90 5400 0.71 0.34 1967 5400 -3433 95 5700 0.69 0.33 2012 5700 -3688 100 6000 0.67 0.32 2051 6000 . -3949 208 DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required 208 Storage Volume = Impervious Area x .5 In / 12 in/ft 301 cu ft 208' Storage Volume Provided 1140 cu ft DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STOR Maximum Storage Required by Bowstring 1543 cu ft Number and Type of Drywelis Required 0 Single 1 Double • • • • PEAK FLOW CALCULATION Tot. Area Imp. Area C= CASE 1 CASE 2 0.72 Acres 2660 SF 0.24 290 ft. Overland Flow Ct = L= n= S= To = 12.06 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidelines 120 ft. Gutter flow 0.15 290 ft. 0.40 0.006 Z1 = 3.0 Z2 = 3 n = 0.016 S = 0.010 d= 0.3000 50 -year STORM PROJECT Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: L A R Q Tc Tc total 1 Qc 0.27 0.14 0.69 0.79 12.85 4.00 0.69 Qpeak for Case 1 = 0.69 cfs Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the peak flow = .90(4.00)(Imp. Area) = 0.22 cfs So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater of the two flows, 0.69 cfs NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING • • • • • • • BOWSTRING METHOD DETENTION BASIN DESIGN Time Increment (min) 5 Time of Conc. (min) • 12.85 Outflow (cfs) - 1 Design Year Flow 50 Area (acres) 0.72 Impervious Area (sq ft) 2660 'C' Factor 0.24 208 Volume Provided 1270 Area' C 0.173 Time Time Inc. Intens. Q Devel. Vol.ln Vo1.0ut Storage . (min) (sec) (in/hr) (cfs) (cu ft) (cu ft) (cu 0) 12.85 771 4.00 0.69 714 771 -57 5 300 4.00 0.69 278 300 -22 •== 10 600 2.88 0.50 400 600 -200 15 900 2.20 0.38 442 900 -458 20 1200 1.75 0.30 442 1200 -758 25 1500 1.67 0.29 508 1500 -992 30 1800 1.56 0.27 556 1800 -1244 35 2100 1.28 0.22 522 2100 -1578 40 2400 1.19 0.20 545 2400 -1855 45 2700 1.08 0.19 553 2700 -2147 50 3000 0.99 0.17 558 3000 -2442 55 3300 0.92 0.16 566 3300 -2734 60 3600 0.87 0.15 581 3600 -3019 65 3900 0.82 0.14 590 3900 -3310 70 4200 0.80 0.14 617 4200 -3583 75 4500 0.77 0.13 634 4500 -3866 80 4800 0.75 0.13 656 4800 -4144 85 5100 0.72 0.12 667 5100 -4433 90 5400 0.71 0.12 695 5400 -4705 95 5700 0.69 0.12 711 5700 -4989 100 6000 0.67 0.12 725 6000 -5275 208' DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required' 208' Storage Volume = Impervious Area x .5 In / 12 in/ft 208' Storage Volume Provided DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STOR Maximum Storage Required by Bowstring Number and Type of Dryvells Required PROJECT: Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: L DESIGNER: M.H. DATE: 06/07/95 111 cult 1270 cu ft -22 cu ft 0 Single 1 Double • • • • • . • • • • • • PEAK FLOW CALCULATION Tot. Area Imp. Area C= CASE 1 CASE 2 0.69 Acres 7950 SF 0.54 240 ft. Overland Flow Ct = L= n= S= 0.15 240 ft. 0.40 0.008 50 -year STORM PROJECT Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: M Tc = 9.87 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidelines 350 ft. Gutter flow Z1 = 3.0 Z2= 3 n = 0.016 S = 0.014 d = 0.377 ft. A R O Tc Tc total 1 Qc 0.43 0.18 1.49 1.67 11.5-4 4.00 1.49 Qpeak for Case 1 = 1.49 cfs Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the peak flow = .90(4.00)(Imp. Area) = 0.66 cfs So, the Peak flow for the Basin Is the greater of the two flows, 1.49 cfs NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING '`; BOWSTRING METHOD DETENTION BASIN DESIGN Time Increment (min) 5 Time of Conc. (min) 11.54 Outflow (cfs) 1 Design Year Flow 50 Area (acres) 0.69 Impervious Area (sq ft) 7950 'C' Factor 0.54 708' Volume Provided 460 Area C 0.373 208' DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required '208' Storage Volume = Impervious Area x .5 In / 12 in/ft 208' Storage Volume Provided DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STOR Maximum Storage Required by Bowstring Number and Type of Drywells Required PROJECT: Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: M DESIGNER: M.H. DATE: 06/07/95 Time Time Inc. Intens. 0 Devel. Vol.ln Vol.Out Storage (min) (sec) (in/hr) (cfs) (cu ft) (cu ft) (cu ft) 11.54 693 4.00 1.49 1383 693 691 <__ 5 300 4.00 1.49 599 300 299 10 600 2.88 1.07 863 600 263 15 900 2.20 0.82 931 900 31 20 1200 175 0.65 936 1200 -264 25 1500 1.67 0.62 1080 1500 -420 30 1800 1.56 0.58 1183 1800 -617 35 2100 1.28 0.48 1114 2100 -986 40 2400 1.19 0.44 1164 2400 -1236 45 2700 1.08 0.40 1181 2700 -1519 50 3000 0.99 . 0.37 1193 3000 -1807 55 3300 0.92 0.34 1212 3300 -2088 60 3600 . 0.87 0.32 1243 3600 -2357 65 3900 0.82 0.31 1264 3900 -2636 70 4200 0.80 0.30 1322 4200 -2878 75 4500 0.77 0.29 1359 4500 -3141 80 4800 0.75 0.28 1407 4800 -3393 - 85 5100 0.72 0.27 1431 5100 -3669 90 5400 0.71 0.26 . 1491 5400 -3909 95 5700 0.69 0.26 1526 5700 -4174 100 6000 0.67 0.25 1557 6000 -4443 331 cu ft 460 cu ft 691 cu ft 0 Single 1 Double • 50 -year STORM PEAK FLOW CALCULATION PROJECT Riveiwalk First Addition BASIN: N Tot. Area Imp. Area C= CASE 1 CASE 2 150 ft. Overland Flow Ct = L= n= 5= Tc = 6.97 min., by Equation 3 -2 of Guidelines 530 ft. Gutter flow A R 0 Tc Tc total 1 Qc 0.42 0.18 0.62 Acres 11800 SF 0.48 Z1 = 3.0 Z2 = 3 n = 0.016 S = 0.009 NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING d= 0.376ft 0.15 Impervious Area (sq ft) 11800 150 ft. ' `: 'C' Factor 0.48 0.40 ". ;'208' Volume Provided 540 0.010 ;? ; Area ' C 0.298 1.19 3.16 Qpeak for Case 1 = 1.19 cfs 10.12 4.00 1.19 Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the peak flow = .90(4.00)(Imp. Area) = 0.98 cfs So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater of the two flows, 1.19 cfs • • • • • • BOWSTRING METHOD DETENTION BASIN DESIGN Time Increment (min)' ' 5 Time of Conc• (min) 10.12 Outflow (cfs) : • • 0.33 Design Year Flow 50 Area (acres) • ' 0.62 Time Time Inc. Intens. Q Devel. VoI.In Vol.Out Storage (min) (sec) (in/hr) (cfs) (cu ft) (cu ft) (cu ft) 10.12 607 4.00 1.19 969 200 768 <__ 5 300 4.00 1.19 479 99 380 10 600 2.88 0.86 689 198 491 15 900 2.20 0.65 724 297 427 20 1200 1.75 0.52 732 396 336 25 1500 1.67 0.50 848 495 353 30 1800 1.56 0.46 932 594 338 35 2100 1.28 0.38 879 693 186 40 2400 1.19 0.35 919 792 127 45 2700 1.08 0.32 934 891 43 50 3000 0.99 0.29 945 990 -45 55 3300 0.92 0.27 960 1089 -129 60 3600 0.87 0.26 986 1188 -202 65 3900 0.82 0.24 1002 1287 -285 70 4200 0.80 0.24 1049 1386 -337 75 4500 0.77 0.23 1078 1485 -407 80 4800 0.75 0.22 1117 1584 -467 85 5100 0.72 0.21 1137 1683 -546 90 5400 0.71 0.21 1185 1782 -597 95 5700 0.69 0.21 1213 1881 -668 100 6000 0.67 0.20 1238 1980 -742 208' DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required' 208' Storage Volume = Impervious Area x .5 in / 12 in/ft 208' Storage Volume Provided DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STOR Maximum Storage Required by Bowstring Number and Type of Drywells Required PROJECT: Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: N DESIGNER: M.H. DATE: 06/07/95 492 cu ft 540 cu ft 768 cu ft 1 Single 0 Double • • PEAK FLOW CALCULATION Tot. Area Imp. Area C= CASE 2 1.01 Acres 9220 SF . 0.48 Time Increment (min) 5 CASE 1 ( Time of Conc. (min) 14.14 Outflow (cfs) 1 310 ft. Overland Flow Design Year Flow 50 _ Area (acres) - 1.01 Ct = 0.15 Impervious Area (sq ft) 9220 L = 310 ft. r : 1 'C' Factor 0.48 n = 0.40 . 708' Volume Provided 870 S = 0.005 :s;R>ssR:;:;;:: Area ' C 0.485 Tc = 13.26 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidelines 160 ft. Gutter flow Z1 = 3.0 a..' i,'*M 14.14 848 4.00 1.94 2204 848 1356 <__ Z2 = 3 n = 0.016 S = 0.008 d = 0.462 ft A R Q Tc Tc total 1 Qc 0.64 0.22 1.94 0.88 14.14 4.00 1.94 Qpeak for Case 1 = 1.94 cfs 50 -year STORM PROJECT Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: 0 Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the peak flow = .90(4.00)(Imp. Area) = 0.76 cfs So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater of the Iwo flows, 1.94 cfs NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING • • s • s • • • BOWSTRING METHOD DETENTION BASIN DESIGN Time Time Inc.' Intens. Q Devel. Vol.ln VolOut Storage (min) (sec) (in/hr) (cfs) (cu ft) (cu ft) (cu ft) 5 300 4.00 1.94 10 600 2.88 1.40 15 900 2.20 1.07 20 1200 1.75 0.85 25 1500 1.67 - 0.81 30 1800 1.56 0.76 35 2100 1.28 0.62 40 2400 1.19 0.57 45 2700 1.08 0.52 50 3000 0.99 0.48 55 3300 0.92 0.45 60 3600 0.87 0.42 65 3900 0.82 0.40 70 4200 0.80 0.39 75 4500 0.77 0.37 80 4800 0.75 0.36 85 5100 0.72 0.35 90 5400 0.71 0.34 95 5700 0.69 0.33 100 6000 0.67 0.32 PROJECT: Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: 0 DESIGNER: M.H. DATE: 06/07/95 780 1123 1268 1263 1448 1579 1482 1544 1565 1578 1600 1640 1665 1741 1787 1850 1881 1958 2003 2043 300 480 600 523 900 368 1200 63 1500 -52 1800 -221 2100 -618 2400 -856 2700 -1135 3000 -1422 3300 -1700 3600 -1960 3900 -2235 4200 -2459 4500 -2713 4800 -2950 5100 -3219 5400 -3442 5700 -3697 6000 -3957 208' DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required' 208' Storage Volume = Impervious Area x .5 in / 12 in/ft 384 cu ft 208' Storage Volume Provided 870 cu ft DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STOR Maximum Storage Required by Bowstring 1356 cu ft Number and Type of Drywells Required 0 Single 1 Double • • • • PEAK FLOW CALCULATION Tot. Area Imp. Area C= CASE 2 0.87 Acres 0 SF 0.48 Tc = 16.59 min., by Equation 3-2 of Guidelines 0 ft. Gutter flow Z1 = 3.0 Z2 = 3 n = 0.016 S = 0.010 Qpeak for Case 1 = 1.67 cfs NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING d = 0.419 ft. 50 -year STORM PROJECT Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: 0 A R Q Tc Tc total 1 Qc 0.53 0.20 1.67 0.00 16.59 4.00 1.67 Case 2 assumes a Time of Concentration less than 5 minutes so that the peak flow = .90(4.00)(Imp. Area) = 0.00 cis So, the Peak flow for the Basin is the greater of the two flows, 1.67 cfs • BOWSTRING METHOD DETENTION BASIN DESIGN Time Increment (min) 5 CASE 1 ::?j Time of Conc. (min) 16.59 Outflow (cfs) 0 570 ft. Overland Flow ; x'i Design Year Flow 50 Area (acres) 0.87 Ct = 0.15 . a€': Impervious Area (sq ft) 0 L = 570 ft. _ C' Factor 0.48 n = 0.40 ,� _:: 208' Volume Provided 0 S = 0.008 q?;, ?,,,,,.,,,.; Area • C 0.418 • • • • • Time Time Inc. Intens. Q Devet. Vol.ln Vol.Out Storage (min) (sec) (in/hr) (cfs) (cu ft) (cu ft) (cu ft) 16.59 996 4.00 1.67 2228 5 300 4.00 1.67 672 10 600 2.88 1.20 967 15 900 2.20 0.92 1108 20 1200 1.75 073 1124 25 1500 1.67 0.70 1282 30 1800 1.56 0.65 1393 35 2100 1.28 0.53 1303 40 2400 1.19 0.49 1355 45 2700 1.08 0.45 1370 50 3000 0.99 0.41 1380 55 3300 0.92 0.38 1398 60 3600 0.87 0.36 1431 65 3900 0.82 0.34 1451 70 4200 0.80 0.33 1516 75 4500 0.77 0.32 1556 80 4800 0.75 0.31 1609 85 5100 0.72 0.30 1635 90 5400 0.71 0.30 1701 95 5700 0.69 0.29 1740 100 6000 0.67 0.28 1773 208' DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required '208' Storage Volume = Impervious Area x .5 in / 12 in/ft 208' Storage Volume Provided DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STOR Maximum Storage Required by Bowstring Number and Type of Drywells Required PROJECT: Riverwalk First Addition BASIN: 0 DESIGNER: M.H. DATE: 06/08/95 0 cult 0 cu ft 2228 cu ft 0 Single ERR Double 2228 <__ 672 967 1108 1124 1282 1393 1303 1355 1370 1380 1398 1431 1451 1516 1556 1609 1635 1701 1740 1773 103 j NORTH IDAHO ENGngEERNG Sri:::, No. / OF 2 4200 W. SELTIC2 WAY SUM'' 2 aALCIIU s tt r Jr- , DA'r COEUTR D'ALZNE. ID 83814 PE (208)887 -1171 FAX (208)884 -3507 c=cD BY DATZ SCAT DAT' R1VE'.GLC)Fr - Sc 0 /., xi/ z � . _ l La_ /G S . 4 1 .. ( O ns '1oY . L,[.; U? Cr 2 rh / 4 o j'` . 8a9r -4?r . 400 . J. /' '. - i ■ ... (/5 _ do- " ( g ,.o er:c ) .'_ " " ' :: 1 =:5. . . . . 1,'_ f. -: ../7: 0, (o. / 3 ? S 1 s: 21./ 3 ? 19 eicS O.G.. 1 • ., L / z c/ :/ / /O %l : 42 :' . �.,i . ✓ ✓ .... ,. . . . /ic• ref c-/ n :. ��r.,✓ . . . . . . . . EXPIRES . 09/23 / S ': G a 9/L1 use :. tZ :/), I. . . . KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL FIGURE 4.3.4A NOMOGRAPH FOR SIZING CIRCULAR DRAINS FLOWING FULL -1000 -900 -800 • 700 • 400 _- - 300 120 108 200 96 90 84 78 72 66 - 100 60 90 54 BO 48 - 70 42 - 60 - 50 U Z - 40 Lu C3 C F 30 2 cn p -- -10 9 8 -7 -- - = 3 600 500 • • • • • 41, • , t (- 6 1 SAMPLE USE 24" dia. CMP © 2% slope yields 17cfs @ 5.2 FPS velocity (n = 0.024) Values per Manning's Equation This table can be converted to other "n" values by applying formula: 01 = n1 02 n2 4.3.4 -13 .0001- Minimum Allowable Velocity (Flowing Full) i /0" O t Use. /Z 2.0 .00021 .0003 .0004 5 .0001 .000 .0006 .0008 = .0002 .001 -.0003 =.0004 .002 --.0005 / - 4.0 .0006 .003 = 0008 .004 _=_--;=.0000018 .001 005-t - 5.0 .006 - / ` r .008 .00 o p _ .01 03 11 u = 5.0 c .004 .005 p w - 7.0 =_.006 - 3 x. a w -8.0 .04 --.010 p w - .05-c to Z --9.0 .O6 - - .08 -.020 > -10.0 .10� - -.030 U -.040 - -.050 =.060 > _ - F.080 =.100 3.0 - 20.0 O = 1.49 AR % n -30.0 - 40.0 r• /? 1/90 A PORTION OF TH H: SOUTHWEST ON N; QUART KR OF S F CTION 8, TOWNSHIP 25 NORTH, RANGE 45 EAST, W.M. SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON (2028) MMERG 1 AL .P - 1;11110 -4 1 Ic: 0 i 100 101 : 342 i7∎1m II► 304 305 281 286 285 284 283 280 27q 211 21E 241 r• `17 — (2025) (20 351 - ( 2029) 360 —141P _J J RI ER 100 0 50 100 GRAPHIC SCALE 200 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 100 ft. i EXPIRES: $ BENCH MARK -SOUTH EAST CORNER BRID6E OVER SPOKANE RIVER AT SULLIVAN ROAD. ELEV. 1x86.16 r — / North Ida =zo Engineering 4200 West Coeur d'Alene, Phone: (208) 667 - 171 a SPOKANE RIVER .! N ,� • BALDWIN AVE. : OV A • A �� AUGUSTA AVE. _• �j ~I��i � /� `V 0 LL INDIANA AVE. MISSION AVE. VICINITY MAP (NO SCALE) RIVERWALK THIRD ADDITION on (SW 1/4 SECTION 8,T 25 N., R 45 E W.M.) Seltice Way Idaho 83814 Fax: (208) 664 -3507 140 12p 7 .91 � ( 2p31) ( 2p32) 20 30 ) (2033)— ( — / RIVERWALK HYDROLOGY STUDY 7 / / 7 / / / / / / y (2005) I / 355 1 (202 5 ) 356 58 361 362 365 164 161 (2020) D (2022) ( 2p23) (202 202 (2020 (202 FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SOUTH OF INDIANA AVENUE COUNTY OF SPOKANE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN NORTH OF INDIANA AVENUE 5/25/45 DRAWN BY: JOM/MBM CHECKED BY: DATE: 03/04/44 J.N. 4004 WellelAappie BASIN TOTAL AREA STREET NO. LOTS LOT USAGE HOUSE AT 2.6K DRIVE- WAYS TOTAL IMPERV C =0.9 A *C NON- IMPERV C =0.15 A *C TOTAL A *C C TOTAL AREA (F AREA (ACRES) 208 AREA C OVRLND FLOW (F SLOPE (' /FT) GUTTER FLOW (F SLOPE (' /FT), OTHER A 46500 27960 0 0 0 0 27960 25164 18540 2781 27945 0.60 46500 1.07 27960 0.60 23 0.005 160 0.008 CURB AND GUTTER B 10540 3600 0 0 0 0 3600 3240 6940 1041 4281 0.41 10540 0.24 3600 0.41 30 0.005 240 0.008 SAME AS A C 38330 4730 3 0 0 1800 6530 . 5877 31800 4770 10647 0.28 38330 0.88 6530 0.28 220 0.008 140 0.017 C & G AND PRIVATE ROAD DITCH D 20210 12220 0 0 0 0 12220 10998 7990 1198.5 12196.5 0.60 20210 0.46 12220 0.60 23 0.005 470 0.008 SAME AS A E 146800 12220 11 1 28600 6600 47420 42678 99380 14907 57585 0.39 146800 3.37 18820 0.39 50 0.008 470 0.008 SAME AS A F 12710 4250 1 0.5 1300 600 6150 5535 6560 984 6519 0.51 12710 0.29 4850 0.51 50 0.01 160 0.015 PRIVATE ROAD DITCH G 12200 5560 0 0 0 0 5560 5004 6640 996 6000 0.49 12200 _ 0.28 5560 0.49 40 0.008 300 0.008 SAME AS F H 12650 7000 0 0 0 0 7000 6300 5650 847.5 7147.5 0.57 12650 0.29 7000 0.57 50 0.01 260 0.008 SAME AS F I 59000 15700 5.5 0.5 7150 6600 -29450 26505 29550 4432.5 30937.5 0.52 59000 1.35 22300 0.52 50 0.005 570 0.01 SAME AS F J 45260 6000 4 1 10400 2400 18800 16920 26460 3969 20889 0.46 45260 1.04 8400 0.46 210 0.024 260 0.01 SAME AS F K 81220 6020 2 1 5200 1200 12420 11178 68800 10320 21498 0.26 81220 1.86 7220 0.26 460 0.007 19,0 0.01 SAME AS F L 31150 2660 0 0 0 0 2660 2394 28490 4273.5 6667.5 0.21 31150 0.72 2660 0.21 290 0.006 120 0.01 SAME AS F M 30050 6150 3 1 7800 1800 15750 14175 14300 2145 16320 0.54 30050 0.69 7950 0.54 240 0.008 3510 0.014 SAME AS F N 27000 11800 0 0 0 0 11800 10620 15200 2280 12900 0.48 27000 0.62 11800 0.48 150 0.01 5%O 0.009 SAME AS F 0 44180 6820 4 1 10400 2400 19620 17658 24560 3684 21342 0.48 44180 1.01 9220 0.48 310 0.005 1.60 0.008 SAME AS F P NOT USED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ERR NOT USED 0.00 0 ERR 1300 - 0.005 L 0 SAME AS F Q 38600 0 6.5 0.5 16900 0 - 16900 15210 21700 3255 18465 0.48 38600 0.89 0 0.48 570 0.008 OD O SAME AS F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ERR PRE- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ERR DEVELOPED 0 0 .. 0 0 0 0 0 ERR COMMERCIAL 1476200 51660 0 0 0 . 0 51660 46494 1424540 213681 260175 0.181 1476200 33.89 51660 0.18 2200 0.005 2700 0.005 EXISTING CONDITION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ERR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ERR 1111 AUSUS -TA J -ANA A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 25 N ORT �, RANG H; 45 EAST, W M., SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON 188 1117111111 255 2q3 2q4 281 286 285 266 267 2q1 2q 2qq 300 210 271 280 27q 218 1=11111=M1 =NZ' (2021) (2022) (2 02 3 (2026) - (2028) (2024) MMERGIAL (2032) (2033) (2030) (2029) - 1 GRAPHIC SCALE 0, ICA N E ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 100 ft. � •••••... MISSION AVENUE EMPIRES: i • ENCH MARK -SOUTH EAST CORNER BRIDE OVER SPOKANE RIVER AT SULLIVAN ROAD. ELEV. Ic186.16 I - - A z J J a SPOKANE RIVER QC 0 I AVE. BALDWIN AVE. AUGUSTA AVE. MISSION AVE. VICINITY MAP (NO SCALE) / 7 North Idaho - Coeur d'Alene, Phone: 4200 West Seltice Way (208) 667-1171 Idaho 83814 Fax: (208) 664 -3507 pL RIVERHALK THIRD I4DDITION m (SW 1/4 SECTION 8,T 25 N., R 45 E W.M.) 1 I (2 0 32) 2030) ( 2p31) (2033)- (203 - / 01 Z7 / / RIVERWALK 31 Lo"C c - ? \RST NNYO T 1 oN HYDROLOGY STUDY / / / / )-(2005) / ::///' 154 i (2029) 360 / 359 361 167 7 ( 20 1 0) (2015) ( 2 0 20 ) (2022) ( 2p23) (2 024) - i ( 20 25) 356 20 26) (202 58 ( 2028) COUNTY OF SPOKANE 5/25/15 DRAWN BY: JO CHECKED BY: DATE: 03/09/14 J.N. 4004 WENEMASDN8 BASIN # 208 REQUIRED 208 PROVIDED Q 50 STORAGE REQUIRED Q 50 STORAGE PROVIDED Q 10 Q 50 A 1,165 1,180 732 1,888+ 2.04 2.57 B 150 205 -126 328+ 0.29 0.43 C 272 595 320 952+ 0.61 1.13 D 509 2,030 223 3,248+ 0.68 1.10 E 784 2,030 2,618 3,248+ 3.39 5.26 F 202 450 139 720+ 0.47 0.59 G 232 675 -70 1,080+ 0.42 0.57 H 292 650 -34 1,040+ 0.50 0.66 1 929 1,030 1,171 1,648+ 1.84 2.81 J 350 585 -131 936+ • 1.20 1.91 K 301 1,140 1,543 1,824+ 0.81 1.93 L 111 1,270 -22 2,032+ 0.33 0.69 M 331 460 691_ 736+ 0.76 1.49 N 492 540 768 864+ 0.64 1.19 0 384 870 1,356 1,392+ 0.89 1.94 P 0 0 Q 0 0 1111 AUSUS -TA J -ANA A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 25 N ORT �, RANG H; 45 EAST, W M., SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON 188 1117111111 255 2q3 2q4 281 286 285 266 267 2q1 2q 2qq 300 210 271 280 27q 218 1=11111=M1 =NZ' (2021) (2022) (2 02 3 (2026) - (2028) (2024) MMERGIAL (2032) (2033) (2030) (2029) - 1 GRAPHIC SCALE 0, ICA N E ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 100 ft. � •••••... MISSION AVENUE EMPIRES: i • ENCH MARK -SOUTH EAST CORNER BRIDE OVER SPOKANE RIVER AT SULLIVAN ROAD. ELEV. Ic186.16 I - - A z J J a SPOKANE RIVER QC 0 I AVE. BALDWIN AVE. AUGUSTA AVE. MISSION AVE. VICINITY MAP (NO SCALE) / 7 North Idaho - Coeur d'Alene, Phone: 4200 West Seltice Way (208) 667-1171 Idaho 83814 Fax: (208) 664 -3507 pL RIVERHALK THIRD I4DDITION m (SW 1/4 SECTION 8,T 25 N., R 45 E W.M.) 1 I (2 0 32) 2030) ( 2p31) (2033)- (203 - / 01 Z7 / / RIVERWALK 31 Lo"C c - ? \RST NNYO T 1 oN HYDROLOGY STUDY / / / / )-(2005) / ::///' 154 i (2029) 360 / 359 361 167 7 ( 20 1 0) (2015) ( 2 0 20 ) (2022) ( 2p23) (2 024) - i ( 20 25) 356 20 26) (202 58 ( 2028) COUNTY OF SPOKANE 5/25/15 DRAWN BY: JO CHECKED BY: DATE: 03/09/14 J.N. 4004 WENEMASDN8 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER Ronald C. Hormann, P.E., County Engineer April 11, 1995 Michael Hunt, P.E. North Idaho Engineering 4200 Seltice Way, Suite 2 Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814 SUBJECT: P1414 - Riverway Villa P.U.D. 5th Review Gentlemen: Very truly yours, Ronald C. Hormann, P. E. Spokane County Engineer Edward J. Pt$,'Jr., P.E. Plans Review Engineer encls: Plans (1 set) Calculations (1 copy) Comments (18 pages) cc: IPEC (Todd Whipple) /project file reviewer (comments only) A DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Dennis M. Scott, P.E., Director A review of the road and drainage plans for this project has been accomplished. Areas of concern to us are indicated in red on the attached prints. Please make the corrections and resubmit them to this office in order that the review process may proceed. When the plans are resubmitted, mark all changes on the revised print in color. If you have any questions about this review, please contact us at 456 -3600. Thank you. 1026W Broadway Ave. • Spokane, WA 99260 -0170 • (509) 456 -3600 FAX: (509) 324 -3478 TDD: (509) 324 -3166 REVIEW COMMENTS SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF ENGINEERING & ROADS 1026 W BROADWAY, SPOKANE WA 99260 -0710 PHONE (509)456 -3600 FAX (509)324 -3478 REVIEW #: 5 REVIEWER: Ed Parry PROJECT #: P1414 DATE: 10 April 95 PROJECT NAME: Riverway Villa P.U.D. REVIEW COMMENTS NOT ADDRESSED FROM PREVIOUS SUBMITTALS 1st Review: PLANS: 20. Provide intersection sight distance analysis for all intersections with County roads, and for all lots where the horizontal sight triangle encroaches onto private property (Intersection sight distance easements were not indicated on this submittal) [Sight distance easements are still needed at Barker /Indiana, Mission /Harmony, and Baldwin /McMillan] {Indicate easements on plat map, and on Lot Plans} 32. Traffic impact analysis submittal and approval is required (per Findings and Conditions) prior to any further plan review (Definition of mitigation measures pending by DOT) [Resolution of mitigation measures pending by Developer and WSDOT; plans will not be approved until mitigation issues are resolved] {pending WSDOT review of Barker Interchange plans} 2nd Review CALCULATIONS 3. Page 1: Runoff from portions of the parcel to the east appear to run onto the site [Need to design for the worst of two cases: (1) future phases are not constructed to curt off drainage from area outside of phase limits; and (2) future phases are constructed which change the surface characteristics and flow patterns] {Basin calculations & I' 'ts need to consider what will be constructed in this phase. If a final basin limit (as shown on the basin map) won't actually be provided until a future phase, then either the facilities to be constructed in this phase need to be sized for the true area draining to the facilities, or some sort of structures are needed to isolate facilities in this phase for the off -site area reaching them If interceptor swales /berms are constructed, then runoff cannot be transferred to another basin not currently receiving this runoff; interception /bypass structures need to be shown on a plan sheet included as part of the road plans} [Due to the degree of revisions in calculations included in the 3rd submittal, remainder of comments from 2nd review are deleted] REVIEW COMMENTS 10 April 95 PROJECT # P1414 REVIEW # 5 Page 2 of 18 3rd Review: PLANS Sheet 2/10 11. Provide facilities at the plat boundary to manage stormwater runoff from lots and paving east of McMillan Lane {still need some temporary swales and easements for small areas draining to outside the project limits} Sheet 5/10 3. Provide a sight distance easement over Lot 46; dimension easement limits from property corners{ is the 13.04' dimension measured along the lot line, or parallel to Baldwin Lane R /W ?} Sheet 6/10 (Barker Road 10 +00 to 23 +00) 13. Profile: b. Curb grade sheets are needed to verify that curbs are set to provide adequate cross - slope; see attached sample {still needed - should be submitted with plans for the appropriate future phase} Sheet 7/10 (Barker Road 23 +00 to 32 +00) 1. Comments will be forthcoming; coordination with County Traffic Engineer regarding taper location is pending. Plan sheet from this submittal and review comments will be forwarded under separate cover (ADDENDUM): Page 7 (Barker Road north of Indiana to the Spokane River) {not all elements reviewed due to problems with drainage basin layout} 1. Address how runoff in the swale will pass through or over the driveways 2. Label contours - should match the road profile {need to clearly show contours} 5. Provide swale profile, with existing contours 6. Swale will need check dams, since either the uninterrupted length exceeds 100', or the slope exceeds 1% (anticipated slope, based on T/C slope). See GSM pg 5 -4. 7. Note top of berm elevation at drywell location 8. Top of swale elevation at the lots should be at least T/C + 0.2' 9. Provide a maintenance access route to the drywell REVIEW COMMENTS 10 April 95 PROJECT # P1414 REVIEW # 5 Page 3 of 18 11. "End taper" station should occur at 31 +00; this will allow the traffic to complete the merging maneuver before reaching the bridge. Taper length = WS, where S = 45 mph for a Principal Arterial 12. Provide roadside safety elements at the bridge per WSDOT Design Manual. Coordinate with the County Traffic Engineer 13. Provide Erosion Prevention /Sediment Control measures to prevent sediment -laden runoff from flowing over the bank and in the river; coordinate with WSDOE as needed 14. Profile: a. Indicating the inlet stations would be helpful b. T/C elevations should be noted at 25' stations, especially on flatter grades (<1%). Curb grade worksheets are needed c. Clearly indicate grade break stations {these comments should be addressed in submittals for the appropriate future phase} Sheet 8 /10 8. Provide sight distance easement at Harmony Lane intersection; indicate dimensions from property corners {still need to dimension easement limits from property corners} 11. Profile: b. Curb grade sheets are needed to verify that curbs are set to provide adequate cross - slope; see attached sample {still needed} Sheet 9/10 5. Mission Avenue section a. Note CSTC depth {minimum CSTC depth is 6 ", regardless of R- value} CALCULATIONS Due to the consistency of the discrepancies noted the following general comments are provided. Calculations for each basin are to be revised as necessary I. "C" factor calculation For those basins containing only roads and swales, "C" factors based on the assumption that the impervious area (C = 0.9) and the pervious area (C = 0.3) are equal are not valid when the basins are examined. Given that the road and sidewalk area is 20' to 26' wide and the grassy swale area is 11' to 13.5' wide, the impervious area will be considerably greater than the pervious area given equal lengths REVIEW COMMENTS 10 April 95 PROJECT if P1414 REVIEW if 5 Page 4 of 18 of both. Where a basin consists of more than 1 surface type, weighted "C" factors are given by: C' = [E(A, * C,)] - EA,; where C' = the weighted "C" factor for the basin A = the surface area of surface #i, and C = the "C" factor of surface Ili For those basins containing lots, in addition to the roads, the impervious area of the lots may be taken as 3200 ft /lot, based on the Equivalent Residential Unit used by the County Stormwater Utility. The Bowstring spreadsheet will automatically calculate the weighted "C: factor when the various areas and their associated "C" factors are entered. {not all basins checked due to problems with basin limits} 2. T path lengths The calculations need to accurately reflect the distance from the hydraulically farthest point of the basin to the discharge point of the basin; e.g., in Basin D, the spreadsheet notes that the T path through the swale is 630'. When the calculations are compared to the road plans, it can be seen that T path for this basin not only includes some overland flow on the Harmony Lane pavement to the swale, but also runs from the sidewalk limit at ±station 10 +65 to the low point at station 16 +05 - a distance of only 530 feet. This shorter flow path results in a higher storm intensity and increased runoff over that shown in the calculations {not all basins checked due to problems with basin Waits} 3. Volumes provided for Water Quality Treatment ( "208 ") Swale volumes for 208 do not need to be adjusted for the slope of the swale when both Length <_ 100'; and Slope 5 I% are true. When either of these conditions is not true, then the swale volume must be adjusted. Equation 5.6 in "Spokane County Guidelines for Stormwater Management" is used to adjust the 208 volume for slope. The adjustment process also needs to consider whether or not adequate length, given by L= (100 *D) =(3 *S) is available. As an example, consider the swale in Basin E from Harmony Lane station 19 +24LT (the swale low point) to ±station 19 +49LT (the edge of the sidewalk). The maximum length for a depth of .5' and a slope of 1.5% is 33.3 feet from the low point, but only 25 feet of swale length is available. When the available swale length is less than the maximum length to develop the volume given by equation 5.6, the available volume should be calculated using a method such as the average end -area REVIEW COMMENTS 10 April 95 PROJECT # P1414 REVIEW # 5 Page 5 of 18 method. {maximum allowable depth for 208 treatment is 6 ", unless soil amendments are specified to increase the organic carbon content. Swale slopes generally' follow the slope of the gutter line, unless specified otherwise (using spot elevations) on the plans: e.g., Basin A : at .5' depth, top width = 5.75'; A, = ((2.75 + 5.75) +2) *.5'depth = 2.13 ft V = 2.13(100 *.5) + (3 *.8) Vgpa = 44.3 ft 4. Storm storage volumes: Storm storage volume needs to be calculated based on the actual volume provided, regardless of the slope or length of the swale involved. Where prismatic - section swales with sloping floors are provided, the average end -area method is typically used to calculate the volume provided between 2 points in the swale. {stone storage volume must be adjusted for slope and length - only 208 volume is exempted from adjustment if certain conditions are met} 5. Basin Limits: The basin limits need to be coordinated with the contours and spot elevations on both the basin map and the road plans, for the worst -case (current or future phase) conditions to be expected. As examples: (1) Basin B limits for the configuration to be constructed in this phase will extend downstation from the inlet at 6+ I5LT (Indiana) - the basin limit for Basin Q cannot be located downstream of the basin discharge point. When Harmony Lane north of Indiana is constructed, the runoff for the area between the inlet at 6+15 and the SI can be expected to flow around the curb return and then northerly along Harmony Lane; the runoff cannot be expected to flow uphill from the SI to the inlet. The configuration shown on this plan submittal will result in a more severe condition than will the future construction of Harmony Lane, if and when that phase is constructed. The controlling basin limits for Basin B should therefore be considered as occurring in this phase. (2) Although runoff for Barker road will not likely reach the Swale serving Basin C in this phase, the construction of curbing on Barker north of Mission will divert runoff occurring north of the last inlet at station 14 +50LT (Barker) around the curb return and then easterly along Indiana to the inlet at station 1+21 RT (Indiana). The Basin C limits therefore need to consider the future construction along Barker {problem still occurs with Basins A, B, L, N, and V, as examples} 6. Storm Facilities: a. Drywells are provided in each swale which serves as the final collection point for the basin it serves; the basin outflow (based on the number and type of Drywells provided) is sized to REVIEW COMMENTS 10 April 95 PROJECT # P1414 REVIEW # 5 Page 6 of 18 develop a single peak storage volume requirement within the 100- minute family of storms shown on the Bowstring spreadsheet. Swales without drywells are designed as "flow - through" swales, which typically collect a 6 -inch depth of runoff from the impervious area draining to the swale; any excess volume overflows along a defined pathway to a swale containing a drywell for the bas i n. As an alternative, basins without a drywell may be collected at a low point and piped to a basin with has excess drywell capacity. The combined basins are then typically analyzed as a single basin, using the longest T of the basins involved to determine storm intensity {Harmony Lane between Sandusky and Mission is an example of how this has not been addressed: no drrrywell is proivded for the basin formed by the curb ramp} b. The effect of basins flowing to areas outside the basin limits needs to be analyzed. Consider the lots on the west side of Harmony Lane; given the expected grading, runoff from these lots will flow to the area to be developed in phase VI, which contains an apparent low point. An analysis of the effect on this low point is needed, and mitigating measures as necessary (such as easements, interceptor ditches, etc.,) are to be provided. {need to look at pre - developed vs. post- developed conditions} c. Sizing calculations for the culvert at the NE corner of Barker /Indiana are needed. The designer should also consider how any storage volume will be developed when (a) the culvert provides an outlet from the swale, and (b) the culvert inlet elevation is lower than the rim of the drywell grate. {culvert along McMillan Lane not checked due to problems with basin layout} d. Inlets on a continuous grade: Flow reaching inlets upstream of the basin discharge point are typically pro -rated based on the proportion of the area reaching the inlet to the total basin area (Q'). The flow depth in the gutter is based on this Q', and any bypassing flows are then added to the flow reaching the next inlet, in a network -style analysis. A program such as HEC -12 provides a relatively quick analysis of inlet sizing, bypassing flows, and ponding at inlets on grade and in sumps. {sizing the curb inlets for the peak flow from the basin will be acceptable; ponding analysis is needed only if the inlet is shorter than needed to intercept 100% of the flow} (Addendum): CALCULATIONS: Need to evaluate Q peak from road surfaces only for each basin (as opposed to Q for all the surfaces in the entire basin {still needed} R -VALUE REPORT 1. Geotechnical reports which provide design information or recommendations (such as pavement section configurations) must be stamped, signed, and dated by a Washington State - licensed Professional REVIEW COMMENTS 10 April 95 PROJECT # P1414 REVIEW # 5 Page 7 of 18 Engineer experienced in Geotechnical Engineering. Reports which provide only lab test result data do not need to be stamped by a P.E. {WSDOT Design Manual figure 520 -la is typically used to determine pavement section requirements. Minimum depth of CSTC material is 6 ", regardless of R -value test results} UTILITY PLANS 1. Coordinate drywell locations with road plans; many drywells are shown on the utility plans and not on the road plans {a copy of any revised utility plans should be provided} LANDSCAPING PLAN I. Plans for interior roads are needed, as sight distances over Lot 46 may be affected {landscape plans not received with this submittal} 2. Coordinate plans with sight distance easements indicated in these review comments {landscape plans not received with this submittal} COMMENTS BASED ON REVISED PLANS & CALCULATIONS IN THIS SUBMITTAL Sheet 2/10 1. Alignment and extent of retaining wall need to be clearly shown 2. Spot elevations at the top of the retaining wall (ends & middle, as a minimum) are needed 3. Drywells at 1 +16 RT & LT: based on the road section detail, the swale floor elevation at the low point = 24.96; this provides a 208 depth of .41 ". The rims should be set to provide the 208 depth noted in the calculations, or the calculations should be revised to consider the actual depth provided. 4. A spot elevation is needed in the swale at 4 +00LT± to show whether the swale slopes back to the drywell, or whether the swale slope continues to the west. 5. The drywell grate elevation at 0 +62RT appears to be set higher than the berm elevation at 17 +50 Barker 6. Since a portion of the north half of the Indiana /Harmony Lane intersection drains to an area outside of the project boundary, a drainage swale sized for 208 treatment of the contributing pavement area will be needed at the north end of Harmony lane, north of Indiana. This swale would be established in a temporary easement until Harmony Lane is extended to the north. REVIEW COMMENTS 10 April 95 PROJECT # P1414 REVIEW # 5 7. Curb Inlets at station 6 +50 RT & LT: a. Coordinate station with profile b. Coordinate i.e.'s - how can there be a .2' difference in elevations for the same station on a symmetric section? 8. Curb Inlets at station 7 +50 RT & LT: a. Coordinate station with profile Page 8 of 18 9. Since a portion of the east end of Indiana drains to an area outside of the project boundary, a drainage swale sized for 208 treatment of the contributing pavement area will be needed at the east end of Indiana. This swale would be established in a temporary easement until Indiana is extended to the east. 10. Retaining wall detail: a. Top of footing needs to be set at or below the frost line (Spokane County Building Dept. uses 36" from lowest ground elevation) b. Coordinate soil backslope with calcs c. Coordinate number of CMU courses with calcs d. Details and calcs for the bond beams are needed e. Calculations should demonstrate that no tension steel is needed in the footing 11. LT profile: Coordinate curb inlets at 6 +25, 7 +25 with plan 12. CL profile: No comments at this time 13. RT profile: Coordinate curb inlets at 6 +25, 7 +25 with plan Sheet 3/10 1. Drywells at 15 +75RT, 16 +05RT, 16 +70 RT a. Drywells need to be piped together, and rims need to be set at the same elevation in order to ensure that the design outflow rate is developed b. Check rim elevations vs. highest elevation on the swale floor. Riins need to be set so that at least 0.4' of head is provided from the lowest overflow point (in the swale or on the street) to the grate in order to develop the design outflow rate. These rims appear to be set above the swale floor elevation at the basin break point, if the road section is fully developed at the basin break point. The rim elevation at 16 +70 RT does not provide 0.4' from the edge of pavement. 2. Drywell at 16 +26 LT: a. Coordinate rim elevation with road section detail b. Drywell should be located closer to the low point in the vertical curve - this location provides a 208 depth greater than .5, and topsoil characteristics will need to be specified. REVIEW COMMENTS 10 April 95 PROJECT N P1414 REVIEW # 5 Page 9 of 18 3. The curb ramp at the SE quadrant of Sandusky /Harmony Lane blocks the swale flow and creates a separate basin - coordinate with the calculations 4. Drywell at 19 +40 LT: a. Drywell should be located closer to the low point in the vertical curve - this location provides a 208 depth greater than .5, and topsoil characteristics will need to be specified. 5. CMP table: Coordinate swale floor elevations with the road section detail 6. Berm table: Coordinate elevations with the road section detail 7. Since a portion of the east end of Sandusky Lane drains to an area outside of the project boundary, a drainage swale sized for 208 treatment of the contributing pavement area will be needed at the east end of Sandusky Lane. This swale would be established in a temporary easement until Sandusky Lane is extended to the east. 8. LT /CL /RT Profiles: No comments at this time Sheet 4/10 I. Baldwin Lane 1. Check rim elevations vs. highest elevation on the swale floor. Rims need to be set so that at least 0.4' of head is provided from the lowest overflow point (in the swale or on the street) to the grate in order to develop the design outflow rate. These rims appear to be set above the swale floor elevation at the basin break point, if the road section is fully developed at the basin break point. 2. A spot elevation on the swale floor should be provided at the basin break line 3. LT /CL /RT Profiles: No comments at this time II. Augusta Lane 1. Check rim elevations vs. highest elevation on the swale floor. Rims need to be set so that at least 0.4' of head is provided from the lowest overflow point (in the swale or on the street) to the grate in order to develop the design outflow rate. These rims appear to be set above the swale floor elevation at the basin break point, if the road section is fully developed at the basin break point. 2. A spot elevation on the swale floor should be provided at the basin break line 3. Multiple drywells need to have the rims set at the same elevation and need to be piped together in order to develop the design outflow rate. REVIEW COMMENTS 10 April 95 PROJECT # P1414 REVIEW # 5 4. LT /CL /RT Profiles: No comments at this tune Page 10 of 18 Sheet 5/10 1. Check rim elevations vs. highest elevation on the swale floor. Rims need to be set so that at least 0.4' of head is provided from the lowest overflow point (in the swale or on the street) to the grate in order to develop the design outflow rate. These rims appear to be set above the swale floor elevation at the basin break point, if the road section is fully developed at the basin break point. 2. A spot elevation on the swale floor should be provided at the basin break line 3. Indicate radius at temporary cu -de -sac 4. LT /CL /RT Profiles: No comments at this time 5. M Mr* h+/Pam to Sheet 6/10 1. Receipt acknowledged for analysis of R/W needs & pavement tapers; detailed analysis will be conducted as part of the submittal for phase 2 or phase 6, whichever comes first 2. The drywell at 18 +66 should be piped to the drywell at 0 +62RT Indiana, and the rims set at the same elevations in order to develop the design outflow rate Sheet 7/10 1. Receipt acknowledged for analysis of R/W needs & pavement tapers; detailed analysis will be conducted as part of the submittal for phase 2 or phase 6, whichever comes first Sheet 8/10 1. Coordinate spot elevation at 10 +75 with toe elevation at berm 8A - how does water flow uphill? 2. Coordinate spot elevations with flow direction arrows and road section. If the swale is intended to have a level floor, are the berms really needed? Sheet 9/10 1. Coordinate road & swale sections with elevation noted on the plans. Spot elevations are needed where the intended plan elevations differ from those indicated by the section REVIEW COMMENTS 10 April 95 PROJECT H P1414 REVIEW # 5 Sheet 10 /10: No comments at this time Page 11 of 18 CALCULATIONS I. Drainage 1. Report needs to include an extract of the SCS soils survey map showing soils which underlie the project area 2. Page 2: a. 208 depth needs to be coordinated with the plans at each berm & drywell location; there are several locations where the depth below the drywell rim is 8" - soil meeting the specifications noted in section 5 of the GSM will be needed, or the elevations on the plans should be revised b. Storm depth (on Indiana Ave. and on Barker Rd.) needs to provide at least 0.4' of depth above the drywell rim in order to develop the design outflow through the grate c. Private road 208 area is given by the formula for the area of a trapezoid. For 3:1 sideslopes, .5' 'depth, and 4.4' bottom width: A = 1/2(L1 + L2)d = 1/2(4.4 + 7.4)(5) A = 2.95 ft d. Indiana Ave. 208 area is given by the formula for the area of a trapezoid. For 3:1 sideslopes, .5' depth, and 2.75' bottom width: A = 1/2(L1 + L2)d = 1/2(2.75 + 5.75)(5) A = 2.12 ft this area needs to be adjusted in the vicinity of the retaining wall, where the floor width is 2.5 (max.), and the sideslopes are 2:1 and 3:1 3. Page 6 (Basin A): a. Coordinate swale floor width with the plan detail b. Check the impervious and pervious areas - our analysis indicates .37 and .57 acres, respectively c. Volume calculations for storm volume need to consider swale floor slope and length d. Volume calculations for 208 volume need to consider swale floor slope (2.02% > 1%) and length (120' > 100') 4. Page 11 (Basin B): a. Coordinate swale floor width with the plan detail b. Check the impervious and pervious areas - our analysis indicates .28 and .19 acres, respectively c. Volume calculations for storm volume need to consider swale floor slope and length d. Volume calculations for 208 volume need to consider swale floor slope (1.60 %± upstream of 22 +38 > I %, 1.7% upstream of berm 5C > 1 %) and length (> 100' upstream of berm 5C) REVIEW COMMENTS 10 April 95 PROJECT # P1414 REVIEW # 5 Page 12 of 18 e. When stepped 208 swales are provided, the 208 sizing calcs need to consider whether or not the available volume is sufficient for the contributing pavement subbasin, and whether or not the swale volume needs to be adjusted due to excessive slope and /or length. If the drainage concept provides a large treatment volume upstream of the contributing pavement area, the 208 system will be ineffective. In this case, the area from station 21 +50 (McMillan) to 22 +38 (McMillan) requires 51.3 cf for 208 (88.5 LF * 14 ft wide -24); 32.6 cf is provided (when adjusted using the method indicated in the GSM). The area upstation of 21 +50 requires 425.8 of (478 LF * 16 ft wide + 3526 ft in cul -de -sac, all divided by 24); due to the slope, 56.3 cf is provided at 8" depth (or 38.8 of at 6" depth), when adjusted using the method indicated in the GSM. The low end of the swale is not adequate to treat its own basin, much less the overflow from the upstream basin. 5. Page 13 (Basin C): a. Coordinate swale floor width with the plan detail b. Coordinate the basin limits shown on the Basin Map plan with the grading and improvements shown on the road plans - the sidewalk ramp at the SW corner of Baldwin & McMillan divides this into tow basins c. Volume calculations for storm volume need to consider swale floor slope and length d. Volume calculations for 208 volume need to consider adjustments for swale floor length e. When stepped 208 swales are provided, the 208 sizing calcs need to consider whether or not the available volume is sufficient for the contributing pavement subbasin, and whether or not the swale volume needs to be adjusted due to excessive slope and /or length. If the drainage concept provides a large treatment volume upstream of the contributing pavement area, the 208 system will be ineffective. See comments for Basin B 6. Page 18 (Basin D): a. Coordinate swale floor width with the plan detail b. Coordinate the basin limits shown on the Basin Map plan with the grading and improvements shown on the road plans c. Volume calculations for storm volume need to consider swale floor slope and length d. Volume calculations for 208 volume need to consider adjustments for swale floor length e. Volume calculations for 208 volume need to consider swale floor slope (1.60 %± upstream of 22 +38 > 1%, 1.7% upstream of berm 5C > 1 %) and length (> 100' upstream of berm 5C) f. When stepped 208 swales are provided, the 208 sizing calcs need to consider whether or not the available volume is sufficient for the contributing pavement subbasin, and whether or not the swale volume needs to be adjusted due to excessive slope and /or length. If the drainage concept provides a large treatment volume upstream of the contributing pavement area, the 208 system will be ineffective. In this case, the area from station 10 +27 to 13 +44 (Baldwin) requires 51.3 cf for 208 (336.5 LF * 14 ft wide, + 890 ft at pavement return, all - 24); 81 of is provided (when adjusted using the method indicated in the GSM). REVIEW COMMENTS 10 April 95 PROJECT # P1414 REVIEW # 5 Page 13 of 18 7. Page 20 (Basin E): a. Coordinate swale floor width with the plan detail b. The swale slope and volumes will need to be coordinated with the grading revisions needed to ensure that the high point in the swale provides at least 0.4' depth over the drywell rim 8. Page 22 (Basin F): a. Coordinate swale floor width with the plan detail b. The floor and rim elevations yield a 208 depth of .41'; volume calculations need to consider this, or the plans need to be revised to provide the desired 208 depth c. Volume calculations for storm volume need to consider swale floor slope and length d. Volume calculations for 208 volume need to consider adjustments for swale floor slope e. Volume calculations for 208 volume need to consider swale floor slope (1.27% (avg. - if swale elevations are not adjusted to provide adequate depth over the drywell rim) >1% f. When stepped 208 swales are provided, the 208 sizing calcs need to consider whether or not the available volume is sufficient for the contributing pavement subbasin, and whether or not the swale volume needs to be adjusted due to excessive slope and /or length. In this case, the area from station 10 +27 to 13 +44 (Baldwin) requires 213.25 cf for 208 (313 LF * 14 ft wide, + 736 ft at pavement return, all - 24); 24.8 cf is provided (when adjusted using the method indicated in the GSM). 9. Page 24 (Basin G): a. Coordinate swale floor width with the plan detail b. Coordinate the basin limits shown on the Basin Map plan with the grading and improvements shown on the road plans - the sidewalk ramp at the SW corner of Indiana & McMillan divides this into two basins 10. Page 29 (Basin 1-1): No comments at this time 11. Page 32 (Basin I): No comments at this time 12. Page 37 (Basin J): a. The swale length needs to be supported by some spot elevations on the road plans, since the R/W line encroaches into the swale area. The swale should be graded so that either the swale floor slopes back to the drywell, or so that adequate depth over the drywell rim is provided (0.4' minimum) 13. Page 42 (Basin K): a. Check the impervious and pervious areas - our analysis indicates .24 and .05 acres, respectively b. Volume calculations for storm volume need to consider swale floor slope and length c. Volume calculations for 208 volume need to consider adjustments for swale floor slope d. Volume calculations for 208 volume need to consider swale floor slope (1.27% (avg. - if swale elevations are not adjusted to provide adequate depth over the drywell rim) > I%) REVIEW COMMENTS 10 April 95 PROJECT # P1414 REVIEW # 5 Page 14 of 18 e. When stepped 208 swales are provided, the 208 sizing calcs need to consider whether or not the available volume is sufficient for the contributing pavement subbasin, and whether or not the swale volume needs to be adjusted due to excessive slope and /or length. In this case, the area from station 10 +27 to 13 +44 (Baldwin) requires 213.25 of for 208 (313 LF * 14 ft wide, + 736 ft at pavement return, all - 24); 24.8 cf is provided (when adjusted using the method indicated in the GSM). 14. Page 46 (Basin L): a. Volume calculations for storm volume need to consider swale floor slope and length b. Volume calculations for 208 volume need to consider adjustments for swale floor length c. Volume calculations for 208 volume need to consider swale floor slope (±1.5% (avg. - if swale elevations are adjusted to provide adequate depth over the drywell rim) >1%) d. Coordinate basin limits with the contours; these limits won't occur until phase 3 is built out . In phase 1 this basin will include portions of what are shown as Basins N, P, & Q, as well as a portion of Mission Avenue; the area to the south and east of the McMillan Lane cul -de -sac will also contribute until phase 3 is constructed. e. Coordinate swale floor width with the plan detail 15. Page 48 (Basin M): a. Check the impervious area - our analysis indicates 6820 ft due to the contribution from the cul -de- sac and the pavement return at the intersection of Harmony /Augusta b. Volume calculations for 208 volume need to consider adjustments for swale floor length c. Volume calculations for 208 volume need to consider swale floor slope (±2.5% (avg. - if swale elevations are adjusted to provide adequate depth over the drywell rim) >1%) d. The end area of the 208 volume occurs at a depth of .67'. When the 208 depth exceeds .50', a topsoil containing a minimum of 2% organic carbon must be specified, and test reports showing compliance must be submitted to the County prior to construction of the swale. e. Coordinate swale floor width with the plan detail 16. Page 50 (Basin N): a. Coordinate swale floor width with the plan detail b. Coordinate the basin limits shown on the Basin Map plan with the grading and improvements shown on the road plans - the sidewalk ramp at the SE corner of Harmony & Augusta divides this into two basins c. Coordinate basin limits with the contours; these limits won't occur until Mission is built out as part of phase 3. In phase 1 this basin will include portions of what are shown as Basins P & Q, as well as a portion of Mission Avenue 17. Page 52 (Basin 0): a. Check the impervious area - our analysis indicates ±5470 ft due to the contribution from the cul -de- sac and the pavement return at the intersection of Harmony /Augusta b. Volume calculations for 208 volume need to consider adjustments for swale floor length REVIEW COMMENTS 10 April 95 PROJECT # P1414 REVIEW // 5 Page 15 of 18 c. Volume calculations for 208 volume need to consider swale floor slope ( ±2.5% (avg. - if swale elevations are adjusted to provide adequate depth over the drywell rim) >I%) d. The end area of the 208 volume occurs at a depth of .67'. When the 208 depth exceeds .50', a topsoil containing a minimum of 2% organic carbon must be specified, and test reports showing compliance must be submitted to the County prior to construction of the swale. e. Coordinate swale floor width with the plan detail 18. Page 54 (Basin P): a. Check the impervious area - In Phase 1, this basin will include Mission Avenue, since Sandusky River Lane will only be constructed to the pavement return. The 208 b. Volume calculations for 208 volume need to consider adjustments for swale floor length c. Volume calculations for 208 volume need to consider swale floor slope ( ±2.5% (avg. - if swale elevations are adjusted to provide adequate depth over the drywell rim) >1%) d. The end area of the 208 volume occurs at a depth of .67'. When the 208 depth exceeds .50', a topsoil containing a minimum of 2% organic carbon must be specified, and test reports showing compliance must be submitted to the County prior to construction of the swale. e. Coordinate swale floor width with the plan detail f. Coordinate basin limits with the contours; these limits won't occur until Mission is built out as part of phase 3. In phase 1 this basin will include a portions of what is shown as Basin Q, as well as a portion of Mission Avenue 19. Page 56 (Basin Q): a. This basin will be reviewed as part of phase 3, when the plans for Mission Avenue east of Harmony Lane are submitted 20. Page 60 (Basin R): a. Check the impervious and pervious areas - our review indicates .37 and .25 acres, respectively b. Volume calculations for 208 volume need to consider adjustments for swale floor length c. Volume calculations for 208 volume need to consider swale floor slope ( ±1.17% (avg. - if swale elevations are adjusted to provide adequate depth from the high point to berm 2E) >1%) d. Coordinate swale floor width with the plan detail e. Coordinate gutter flow length (600') with available length (550') 21. Page 62 (Basin S): a. Check the impervious and pervious areas - our review indicates ±3980 ft 22. Page 64 (Basin T): a. When stepped 208 swales are provided, the 208 sizing calcs need to consider whether or not the available volume is sufficient for the contributing pavement subbasin, and whether or not the swale volume needs to be adjusted due to excessive slope and /or length. In this case, the area from the basin break at station 10 +58 to 13 +75 requires 369 cf for 208; 163 cf is provided REVIEW COMMENTS 10 April 95 PROJECT # P1414 REVIEW # 5 Page 16 of 18 b. Coordinate T, length (470') with available length (394') 23. Page 67 (Basin U): a. Check the impervious area - our review indicates that the area around the curb return to the break point on Mission may not have been considered b. When stepped 208 swales are provided, the 208 sizing calcs need to consider whether or not the available volume is sufficient for the contributing pavement subbasin, and whether or not the swale volume needs to be adjusted due to excessive slope and /or length. In this case, the area from the break point on Mission Ave to the curb inlet at 10 +51 requires 116.2 cf for 208; 60.1 cf is provided, 56.1 cf overflows. The area from 10 +51 to 11+53 requires 135.6 cf + 56.1 (overflow); 90.1 cf is provided, 90.6 cf overflows. This continues until a deficit of ±420 cf is reached at the lower end of the basin. As a minimum, adequate 208 volume needs to be provided for the improvements to be constructed in this phase. c. Inlet calcs for this basin will be needed in the drainage report for phase 2 or phase 6, whichever occurs first d. Is page 67 or page 69 to used for Basin U? 24. Page 70 (Basin V): a. Coordinate T length (1100') with available length (1030') b. Coordinate slope with contours and spot elevations c. Flow depth in gutter needs to be adjusted until Q =CIA and Q(est.) balance d. Coordinate "C" factor for pervious area with actual conditions - this area is primarily cultivated or pasture, so a "C" for those conditions would be more appropriate e. Inlet calcs for this basin will be needed in the drainage report for phase 2 or phase 6, whichever 25. Page 73 (Basin W): a. Coordinate swale floor width with the plan detail b. Coordinate the basin limits shown on the Basin Map plan with the grading and improvements shown on the road plans - the sidewalk ramp at the SE corner of Harmony & Indiana divides this area into two basins 26. Page 77 (Basin X): a. Check pond areas - our review shows only .17 acres of low areas (the contours at 2026 and 2028 elevation) b. CN calcs are needed c. 2 -yr, 24 -hour event is 1.4" d. This method only generates runoff to the nearest whole cfs. When this method is used, the area needs to be manipulated to result in a runoff value readable to at least 0.1 cfs REVIEW COMMENTS 10 April 95 PROJECT # P1414 REVIEW # 5 Page 17 of 18 27. Page 79 (Basin Y): a. Flow depth in gutter needs to be adjusted until Q =CIA and Q(est.) balance b. When stepped 208 swales are provided, the 208 sizing calcs need to consider whether or not the available volume is sufficient for the contributing pavement subbasin, and whether or not the swale volume needs to be adjusted due to excessive slope and /or length. In this case, the area from the break point on Barker to 2 +25 requires 403 cf for 208; 44.5 cf is provided (when adjusted using the method indicated in the GSM). c. Volume calculations for 208 volume need to consider swale floor slope (±1.42% upstation of low point, ±4% downstation of low point; >1%) d. Coordinate swale floor width with the plan detail 28. Basin Map: a. Coordinate basin limits with contours, spot elevations, improvements built in this phase, and limits of work in this phase 11. Retaining wall: 1. Where does this allowable soil bearing pressure come from? Garrison soils appear to be USCS type SW; UBC (1991), Table 29 -B allows 1500 psf for SW soils. Bearing pressure needs to be reduced to account for saturated condition that will result from water infiltrating from the pond. A Geotechnical Engineer should be contacted to resolve the bearing pressure to be used for design 2. Wall should be designed to allow for no passive pressure contribution, since a considerable amount of wall movement is needed in order to develop passive soil pressure 3.Calcs should show how the equivalent tluid pressure was determined 4.Calcs should show how the soil unit weight was determined 5.Coordinate the soil backslope with the plan detail 6. Coordinate the CMU height with the plan detail 7. Minimum Factor of Safety vs. sliding is 1.5 8. Concrete weight is typically taken as 150 to 155 pcf 9. The configuration shown on the plans has effectively no soil over the footing 10. Soil shear is appropriate for sheet pile bulkheads, not for full - grouted CMU 11. Need to provide calcs for footing design. REVIEW COMMENTS 11 April 95 PROJECT # P1414 REVIEW # 5 208 LOT PLANS: Not received with this submittal Page 18 of 18 CURB GRADE WORKSHEETS 1. Mission Avenue a. Revise elevations at stations I1 +50, 11 +75, 12 +25, 16 +00, and 17 +25 so that minimum /maximum elevations are not exceeded. These revisions are needed so that the pavement cross slope will fall within the 2% to 4.5% range allowed in the SCRS. b. Coordinate resulting curb grades with the road plans 2. Barker Road - Receipt acknowledged; detailed review will be conducted when Barker Road plans are submitted with the appropriate phase. PROJECT # 144 ( REVIEW # REVIEWER: PROJECT: PROJECT SPONSOR TEL # PROJECT ENGINEER• TEL # (Road & Drainage Plans) PROJECT SURVEYOR TEL # (Plat) Ye, 13 41 °NSA ° 1 . Yes ❑ ;b 1 4/A E 2. Yes ❑No ❑ N/A ❑ 3. Y..� N.D wA ci 4. Yes4o ° N/A ° 5. NolDN/AD 6. YcX No ❑ N Yes 'F No 0 M.% Yto N/A ❑ Yes °. No °N /An 4. Yea ❑'W, ❑ WA 0 5. Yes M No ❑ NIA El 6. Y.. sop N/A 0 7. Ye, 0 No O N/A ❑ 8. Locate the Findings and Order for the project and list any unusual conditions: Ye, 0 No 0 N/A E 9. Street names are consistent with Plat. Yn 1. 2. 3. ° N/A Ei 1. No ❑ NIA El 2. NoD N/A D 3. N.❑N/AO 4. No 5. No ° N;A ° 6. SUBMI1"1'AL CHECKLIST aU WAvt P -L. L- ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS The $100.00 fee and Agreement to Pay Fees for plat review have been accepted by Spokane County for this submittal. The Review Fee Account is current (no invoices over 30 days outstanding). fb.V) cagait t5 ilt 4f,D I have noted the tins in, plans out dates on the pink sheet in the file. If this is a nmbile home park project, were plans routed through Planning? The file contains a Spokane County Engineers Section neap, Assessors's map and aerial photo. Field review made. If yes, complete attached form "Field Review Report ". 5 -12 v A41. *- FLAN REVIEW REQUIREMENTS 2 copies of the plans and a bound drainage report were submitted. The plans are on 24" x 36" sheets. The plans and calculations are stamped. Plans must be marked "Preliminary" or "Not for Construction" if they are not the final approved a Ftt� must be sisgned and dated by the responsible Washington State Professional Engineer. gad AR •4.4. llsC.GS The developer has signed and approved the Final Submittal of the road and drainage plans. The Standard Plan Notes have been included on the plans. Is the project located in the Aquifer Sensitive Area? List any design deviation requests and their status: 4,4s/rum i fceikt rAJMAM - $64.3 D6h¢o' i/r4 Af91 . FLOOD ZONES Does the entire plat lie outside of designated 100 -year Flood Plain Area? Does the entire plat lie outside of Zone "B" of the designated Flood Plain Area? Is the max. street ponding in any part of a Zone "B" Tess than 1'? Does the plat contain appropriate language limiting the lowermost opening in a structure located in a Zone "B" to not less than 1' above the lowest road elevation? Is the entire project located outside of an identified Flood Plain Area? Is the entire project located outside of an identified Stormwater Management Problem Area? ck tist v4. 0/ Jan 95 1 DATE: 9 March 1995 vc. No 2. 1n❑Na❑N /A 3. v. .,D N1AD 5. ve.IllN„ON/A 6. 1 N. ❑WAEl 6a. ve. E No EI N/A EI 6h. ,'e. N/A El 7. Yes El NoLIN/A vn ❑ No N/A 9. Yes ,., N/A El 10. Yen 0 No ° NIA I:1 11. ves ❑No N/A 1=1 12. ROAD PLANS 1. List any roads that must be designed al d constructed on the project. c t IxAPEIC INDEX: Major Arterial 7; Secondary Arterial 6; Collector Arterial 5; Local Access /Res dential 5; Pnvate 4. Planning conditions require submission of a landscape plan. (NOTE: Usually associated with PUD's). I have checked the landscape plan against the road and storm drainage design. If there are any conflicts, list them in space provided, or note that no conflicts were found. ►e, 0 ." 0 N/ ❑ 4. The following road plans have a bearing on the design of roads for this project and a copy is in the file: Vertical curves meet stopping sight distance requirements. An "R" Value Test is required for this project. For this project, for each soil group called out an "R" Value Test has been submitted. The pavement section is adequate for the "R" Value Test and required traffic index. Is the bench mark called out on the plans? 8.Are stationing equations shown? Is stationing correct (south to north, west to east, reading left to right on the plan)? Are existing utilities shown on the plans (or an information copy of the utility plans submitted)? Are proposed utilities shown on the plans (or an information copy of the utility plans submitted)? The project plan name matches the plat name. cklistv4.0 /Jan95 2 ROAD NAME ROAD NAME ROAD NAME ROAD NAME ROAD NAME ROAD NAMI ROAD CLASSIFICATION TRAFFIC INDEX (1) •II.RRAIN PAVED WIDTH RiW WID11I POSTED SPEED DESIGN SPEED MINIMUM GRADE MAXIMUM GRADE STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE MINIMUM HORZ CURVE TYPE OF CURB REQUIRED MIN ASPHALT SECTION MIN GRAVEL SECTION vc. No 2. 1n❑Na❑N /A 3. v. .,D N1AD 5. ve.IllN„ON/A 6. 1 N. ❑WAEl 6a. ve. E No EI N/A EI 6h. ,'e. N/A El 7. Yes El NoLIN/A vn ❑ No N/A 9. Yes ,., N/A El 10. Yen 0 No ° NIA I:1 11. ves ❑No N/A 1=1 12. ROAD PLANS 1. List any roads that must be designed al d constructed on the project. c t IxAPEIC INDEX: Major Arterial 7; Secondary Arterial 6; Collector Arterial 5; Local Access /Res dential 5; Pnvate 4. Planning conditions require submission of a landscape plan. (NOTE: Usually associated with PUD's). I have checked the landscape plan against the road and storm drainage design. If there are any conflicts, list them in space provided, or note that no conflicts were found. ►e, 0 ." 0 N/ ❑ 4. The following road plans have a bearing on the design of roads for this project and a copy is in the file: Vertical curves meet stopping sight distance requirements. An "R" Value Test is required for this project. For this project, for each soil group called out an "R" Value Test has been submitted. The pavement section is adequate for the "R" Value Test and required traffic index. Is the bench mark called out on the plans? 8.Are stationing equations shown? Is stationing correct (south to north, west to east, reading left to right on the plan)? Are existing utilities shown on the plans (or an information copy of the utility plans submitted)? Are proposed utilities shown on the plans (or an information copy of the utility plans submitted)? The project plan name matches the plat name. cklistv4.0 /Jan95 2 Yes ❑ No ❑ NfA ❑ Y . ❑ No ❑ NIA ❑ Yes ❑No ❑ N/A ❑ Ye. ❑tin ❑ N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Yes ❑ Nn ❑ NIA ❑ Ye. ❑ Nn ❑NIA Yet ❑ No ❑ NIA ❑ Ve . 0 No ❑ N ., A III Ye. ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Yn❑tio ❑N,A❑ 13h. Yes [ LEI NrA❑ Ye. ❑ND ❑N/A❑ 13j. Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Ye. ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Yrs ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Yee ❑ No ❑ NIA ❑ Ye. ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Ye. ❑ No ❑ N /A Yes ❑ No ❑ N /A In Nn ❑ NIA ❑ ye, ❑No ❑ N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Yee ❑ No ❑ NIA ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Ye. ❑ No ❑ N1A ❑ Ye. ❑ Nn ❑ N /A cklistv4.0/Jan45 13. STREET WIDENING /INTERSECTION WITH EXISTING COUNTY ROAD 13a. Are curh design sheets provided for widening of existing streets? 13h. Does the curb design conform to Spokane County Standards of section cross slope (Between 2% and 4.5%)? 13c. Is there a street cross section shown for widening existing streets? 13d. Does the proposed new width match the width required in the Findings and Order? 13e. The cross- section shows: Existing R/W, Proposed R/W, any required Future Setaside, and edge of existing and proposed pavement. 13f. 100' (min.) pavement taper into project is shown. (1) There is adequate R/W for the taper to extend from the new paving width to existing pavement. (2) There is inadequate R/W for the taper to extend from the new paving width to existing pavement; taper extends from existing paving to R /W. 13g. Length of pavement taper out of project meets AASHTO requirements: WS for design speeds <_ 40 mph, WS for design speeds > 45 mph, or feet has been approved by Spokane County Traffic Engi neer. Transition from end of curb to existing paving is shown (curb should nose down in 12 "). 13i.Are the curb grades, for any required curbs, above the county minimum of 0.8 %? The curb type meets Spokane County Standards. 14. NEW STREETS 14a. Does the proposed alignment meet Spokane County Standards.' (1) Centerline slopes are within Spokane County Standards. (2) Vertical curve lengths are adequate for intersections and stopping sight distance. (3) Horizontal curve radius meets Spokane County standards. 14b. The plans show the typical cross section for streets. 14c. Does the proposed street width match the Findings and Order? 14d. The typical road cross - section shows: Existing R/W, Proposed R/W, any applicable Future Setaside, edge of new pavement and any other required improvements. 14e. The typical road section on the plans shows the cross slope and it is within the 2% to 4.55 standard. (I) The Cross Slope is correct when checked on the profile drawings. 14f. Curb type: Is shown and is the proper type for the road classification. (1) Meets Spokane County Road Standards tor curbs within the public right -of -way. (2) Consistent with the curh type in the general area. 14g. Are the curb grades above the county minimum of 0.8 %? 15. Has the Fire District approved all proposed private road turnarounds that are substandard according to our Spokane County Road Standards? (A one lot stub less than 150' on a public road is allowed). 3 v., O No 0 SfA 0 16. SIGNAGE PLAN 16a. Stop signs are shown for all streets which intersect an arterial (Check with County Traffic Engineer if there is a question). Ye, 0 No 0 N/A 0 16b. Street name signs are shown at all intersecting streets. v.. 0 So 0 N/A 0 16c. Is there a need for barriers at the end of dead end streets? �.. 0 se 0 N/A 0 1 6d. Is there a need for other special signing? (Check with the County Traffic Engineer). v., 0 No 0 N/A 0 17. CURB RETURNS r., ❑ NO Li N/A ❑ 17a. Are BCR, MCR, and ECR stations /elevations on curb returns shown in the plan view? v., 0 No 0 N/A 0 17b. Are the curb return elevations correct? y. No 0 N/A 0 I7c. Is there positive drainage from the road intersection to the MCR? If not, is design safe according to AASHTO standards? 17d. Curb return radius meets the Spokane County Standard minimum. (to back of curb for rolled /wedge curbs, to face for vertical curb face types)? v. 0 No 0 N/A 0 17e. BCR, MCR, and ECR elevations are set to allow drainage from the centerline to the curhline? V. 0 No 0 NrA 0 17f. The cross slope between the intersection and curbline meets AASHTO requirements: (ref. AASHTO) 10% (flat terrain); 8% (rolling terrain); 6% (mountainous terrain). r., 0 N, 0 N 'A 0 Yes 0 No 0 N/A 0 18. CUL-DE -SACS v.. 0 No 0 N,A 18a. The cul -de -sac grades (top of curb) meet county cul-de -sac standards (1% min.) v., O N „ 0 NM 18b. The cul -de -sac curb is shown in profile. v., ❑ No ❑ N/A 0 18c. The cul-de -sac radius meet Spokane County Standards. v., 0 No 0 N/A 0 18d. The center of cul-de -sac Station is shown. v., ❑ No 0 N/A 0 19. INTERSECTIONS y$ 0 No 0 N/A 0 19a. Intersections meet AASHTO sight distance requirements for controlled and uncontrolled intersections. v., 0 No 0 N/A 0 19b. Intersection separation is greater than or equal to 150' on local access streets and 300' on arterials. r., 0 :w. ❑ N/A 0 19c. Do the intersections meet the landing requirements? Yes 0 No ❑ NA 0 19b. Wheelchair ramps are provided at intersections with sidewalks. r . Q , N 0 N/A 0 I9c. The intersection horizontal sight distance analysis shows that sight triangle encroachment on private property is 2' or Tess for controlled intersections. v., 0 No 0 14.% 0 20. Is there a need tor slope easements? cklistv4.0 /Jan95 4 ❑ N. ❑ N/A El 1'e ❑ No ❑ N /A 1. I'm ❑ No ❑ NIA ❑ 2. 1'n ❑ N. ❑ NIA ❑ 2a. Yes ❑ No ❑ N!A ❑ 2b. Yn ❑No ❑ /A ❑ 2e. 1'n❑.. 0 NIA 2d. e. ❑.e ❑ NIA ❑ 2e. Yn 2f. ,n ❑.. ❑NIA 3. 1'n ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ 3a Yo ❑No ❑NU❑ 3b. le. ❑ No ❑ NIA ❑ 3c. Yes N. ❑ NIA ❑ 3d. 1e. ❑ No 0 NIA 4. 1a 0 No ❑N /A 5. 1n ❑No ❑N /A 6. 1'e❑ ❑ NIA ❑ 7. Yes ❑ Ne ❑ N'A 15. Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ 16. Yo ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ 17. 1'o ❑No ❑N /A❑ 18. Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ 19. Yes ❑No NiA Ye. ❑ N'e ❑ NIA ❑ Ya ❑ N /A❑ 3. Vt. ❑ No ❑ NIA ❑ 4. 1'o❑Ne❑N'A❑ 5. Y•❑N. ❑N/A❑ 6. ve. /A❑ 7. Yes ❑ No ❑ N /A 8. 1'n ❑No ❑NIA❑ 9. 1'n Ne ❑N!A❑ 10. DRAINAGE PLANS Has a plat map been submitted which shows lot dimensions, street widths, etc.? BASIN MAP North arrow and scale is shown. Subbasins are labeled and correlated with calculations. Was a map with contours/spot elevations submitted to properly determine drainage basins? Were the routes used to determine time of concentration shown? Were all existing drainage courses shown? Were all the proposed drainage courses shown? Were Hydrologic calculations submitted for each basin? (Rational Formula if area S 10 acres, SCS TR -55 if area > 10 acres). Permission was given to use SCS TR -55 for basins 5 10 acres. Basin includes offsite and onsite areas together (use 50 year analysis). Basin is all onsite (use 10 year storm). Runoff rate for basin is compared to impervious road area runoff rate. The larger rate controls design. CONVEYANCE /DISPOSAL Pipes/ Culverts - If, yes, complete checklist section for culverts and pipe - systems. Ditches are identified in plans and details provided. And have a minimum grade of 0.5%. Are there any conflicts between the proposed septic tank effluent drainage fields and any ditches on the drainage plan? Gutter flow depth is less than gutter height and allows for 6' non wetted area of each side of centerline for local access or collector roads. Locations where water is intended to flow through an inlet or curb cut are at the low point in vertical curve. Backwater - Analysis for any pipe and/or ditches was submitted. Headwater - Calculations for culverts were submitted for review. Curb drop /curb inlets are used in the conveyance and plan and calculations for flow capacity have been submitted. Is Erosion protection required and have calculations been submitted for review. Soils type is "pre - approved" (Garrison. etc.,) for drywells without percolation tests. Does the drainage report identify the SCS soil groups for the project area and for the proposed roads to he built in the project area? The drainage design maintains existing flow patterns in natural watercourses. The drainage design maintains existing sheet flow patterns without concentrating flows. The drainage concept is compatible with The Guideline for Stormwater Management. The difference between present and future flows is retained on the site. A detention basin concept is proposed for stormwater disposal. If, yes, use separate checklist for detention ponds. CULVERTS AND PIPE SYSTEMS The road culverts are at the low points of stream flow. The headwater was calculated for culvert entrances and is under 2 diameters for culverts under 18" in diameter and 1.5 diameters for culverts greater than 18 ". There is a minimum of 12" of cover for all culverts and storm sewer pipes. The designer has demonstrated that the proposed pipe is suitable for cover less than 2.5' (PVC), 1.5' (CMP). 1 '(RCP) (HDPE /ADS) or the engineer has provided trench details for upgraded pipe bedding for these areas. The minimum velocity within the pipe system is 4 feet per second at design flow in a backwater condition. (Note: The County Engineer may permit lower velocities). The backwater calculations show a minimum freeboard of 0.75 feet for each catch basin or manhole. The minimum culvert and pipe slope is 0.5% and all pipes meet or exceed this standard. All angle points in the storm sewer system have suitable access such as a manhole for cleaning. At locations where two different pipe sizes enter the same manhole the 0.8 diameter points of each pipe are at the same elevation. (Note: Exception allowed for drop manholes). Is there any downsizing of pipes in a systems of pipes that are 18" in diameter and smaller. cklistv4.0 /Jan95 5 Ye. 0 N. 0 Nu 11. There is a downsizing of pipes in the amount of 3" for a minimum of 100 feet in a pipe system that contains pipes that over 18" in diameter. v 1 N. ❑NIA 0 12. All pipes in the pipe system are 12" and larger as per Spokane County Standards; 10" pipe that is allowed for connection of inlets to catch basins or drywells, if the length does not exceed 44 LF and the velocity is at least 4 fps). Ye. ❑ N. El NrA 13. All storm sewer pipes are located a minimum of 5 feet from a rear or side property line and have adequate easements for maintenance. Ye.O N. 0 NU 0 14. Inlets on the same slope are located so that the maximum width of spread for the gutter flow does not exceed 6' (from curb face for Type "A" or "B ", from back of curb for Type "R ") for major arterials; 12' for collector streets and local access roads. ye. ❑ N. ❑ N,A 0 15. The plans profiles show all culvert pipe types, stations, offsets. lengths, and inverts. ye. 0 N. Nu 0 16. Pipe materials meet county standards for systems that lie within county ROW. (Note: The type of pipe in private systems may he as specified by the design engineer). Ye. ❑ N. ❑ N/A ❑ 17. The culverts shown are properly stationed from centerline stationing. Yes ❑ N. ❑ NIA D 18. Does the drainage system configuration avoid conflicts with underground utilities? Ye. 0 N. NIA ❑ 19. is there a need for energy dissipation on any of the culvert outlets shown on the plans? Ye. 0 N. ,LA 0 20. Is there a need for rip rap around the culvert outlet at any of the culverts as proposed on the drainage plans. Yee 0 N. N/A 0 21. The rip rap that is shown for the drainage plans is adequate for the culverts where erosion is a concern and the engineer has submitted acceptable rip rap design calculations. Ye. ° N. N/A O 22. Pipe anchors are shown for pipe grades greater than 15%. ye. 0 N. N/A 0 23. There are no instances where water is trapped against a till with no culvert shown. ye. O N. 0 N/A 0 24. Profiles and cross sections are shown on the plans for all proposed channels and ditches. ,•e. N0 N/A 0 25. Ditches with eroding velocities have a proper lining for erosion protection. Ye. N. Nu 0 26. Water will properly flow from an existing or proposed ditch onto the pavement as proposed on the drainage plans. ye. N. NU 27. Where the ditch profile passes from cut to fill the flow has been properly disposed of. INLETS Ye. N. 0 Nu 0 1. The inlets shown are within the stream flow. Ya 0 N. 0 Nu 0 2. inlets are shown on the low side of a road or at the low point of a vertical curve ye. 0 N. N/A 0 3. Curb type metal inlets, if proposed, are shown at sags and are properly sized. Yes 11 N. N/A 0 3a. Perimeter calculation does not include the side of the grate against the curb face (all grate types). Ye. N. NIA 3b. Perimeter is divided by 2 for calculations where no curb opening (Type 1 see standard DRWG B -10) is provided. Ye. 0 N. 0 NSA 0 3c. Area = clear area _ 2 for Type 1 grates) y0 No N/A 0 4. There are no vertical curves that produce areas of very flat grades for extended areas which could pose a problem with ponding water in traftic lanes. Ye 0 1s. NIA 0 5. The centerline road stations, offsets, and invert elevations for all inlets are shown in the plan views. Y., ❑ N. ❑ NIA ❑ 6. Grate type is shown on the plan and is acceptable. (Spokane County Standard inlets or WSDOT standard inlets in county ROW, on private property other inlet type may be specified) (Type 1: D -2; Type 2: D-4 in old 1981 standards or type 1, sheet B- 10;type 2, sheet B-11 for 1995 standards). Ye. 0 N. 1=1 N/A 0 7. A detail drawing of the grate /curb installation is shown on the plans and includes a minimum 1" depression and transitions as per county standards for grates that are located within county ROW, or referenced to SCRS std. detail D -8 in 1981 standards or sheet B -18 in 1995 standards. 0 N. ❑ NIA 0 8. A curb cut detail is shown on the plans with the new county back drop concrete apron with transitions and a 1" depression for curb cuts inside county ROW, or referenced to SCRS std. detail B -8 of the 1995 standard drawings Ye. 0 N. ❑ N'A 0 9. The plans shows acceptable curb cut details and grate details for installations which lie within private road easements. (For plans that are subject to Spokane County Review). Ye. 0 N. 0 N'A 0 10. If inlets are in a gravel road or a dirt ditch a 6' x 6' A.C. apron is shown around the inlet. Ye. 0 s. 0 N'A 0 11. Catch basin or special manhole details are shown or a standard drawing is referenced. Ye, Es. N -A 0 12. Critical low points in the drainage system have been provided with overflow easements. (Where it is possible). Ref. Page 2 -1 of GSM. cklistv4.0 /Jan95 6 veo ❑ No 1= 4/A ❑ 1•o ❑ N. ❑ N/A ❑ Ye 3. Ye ❑N. ❑N.A� 4. Ye. ❑ Ne ❑ N ;A 5. 1'aa ❑ No 0 N /A❑ 6. Y,"❑N'n ❑N /A❑ 7. ve ❑N. ❑N/A❑ 8. 1•<. 0 N. ❑ NIA 8a. t'e ❑ ,. ❑ N/A ❑ 9. Yb ❑N. ❑N /A❑ 10. Ye+ ❑No ❑N/A❑ 11. 1'e. N'o'N /A 12. Yo- ❑ No ❑ N /A Yo ❑ N'. ❑NIA Yn ❑ho ❑NM❑ 1•e. ❑N.. ❑ N /A 'its III Nu ❑ N/A 1=1 l.n ❑No❑ N'A❑ Ins 111 ❑ N'A111 1'o 111 No N/A 1=1 1•o ❑ N. ❑ N/A ❑ I'o ❑ Na N/A ❑ 1's 111 No 111 NIA❑ Ye ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Yo ❑ No N/A ❑ Yo ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ 1'e. ❑ No ❑ NA 0 13. Y<. ❑NoDNU 1. 1'ea DNo ❑ NSA III 1. Yo p Nn ll/ N , A 1=1 3. 1 e. O N. ❑ NA ❑ 4. 1'n ❑ Ne ❑ N:A ❑ 5. Ye, ❑ N. ❑ NA ❑ 6. o Ell NO ❑ NIA ❑ 7. 1'cr 111 No ❑NiA 8. 14. 14a. 14b. 14c. 14d. 15. 15a. 15b. 16. 16a. 16b. 16c. 16d. 17. 1'e+ ❑ No ❑ N /A ❑ 18. 21. 21a. 21b • 208 SWALE SYSTEMS Is the swale located outside a future set aside area? See Findings and Order for where setasides are required. The swale bottom and sides have sod or grass turf specified. Swale side slopes do not exceed a 3:1 side slope. (A 2:1 side slope is allowed if swale depth is less than 12" deep. Should only be allowed where constrained by obstacles) If depth of water from bottom to drywell rim is between 6 and 8 inches, soil mixture has been specified which meets Spokane County Guidelines. Drywell is: Located within 8 feet of the curb line, or a maintenance access route and easement are provided. Drywell stationing is staggered from the inlet by at least 4'. Multiple drywells are located more than 30' (center - center) apart. Soil type is appropriate for drywells (perc rate a 72 " /hr), If not: Overflow from a swale at a low point will be directed away from building pads by an identified easement over improved ground or an existing natural drainage channel covered by an easement where an overflow is required. Drywell location does not conflict with underground utilities. Drywell type is specified. Drywell grate type is specified (Type 3 -std. detail D -7 For 1981 standards or type 4, sheet B -15 of 1995 standards.) Drywell grate elevation is: A minimum of 0.4' below the normal flow line at the curb inlet and is between 6" and 8" above the swale floor elevation. Does the note: "Wrap the drywell with a filter fabric (Amoco 4545 or equivalent)" appear on the plans? Swale floor elevation is: Shown on the drawing. Between 6" and 8" below the drywell grate elevation. At least 6" below the normal gutter flowline at the curb inlet for swale without a drywell. At least 10" below the normal gutter flowline at the curb inlet for swale with a drywell. Swale floor. Dimensions are shown. The area matches or is larger than the required area from the 208 calculation for impervious areas. Easements for the 208: Are shown on the drainage plans. Are shown on the subdivision plat and match the drainage plans. Are of adequate size to contain at least 6" freeboard above the max. water surface elevation for the design storm. Are tied to the lot corners. The side of the swale that is the furthest distance from the street should have a top of swale elevation that is 0.2' higher than the lowest top of curb elevation along the swale. The normal flow line at the curb inlet is at or above the max. water surface elevation for the design storm or the max. water surface will not pond water more than 12' in residential streets or 6' in arterials above collector classification. 208 SWALES 208 swale floor area, volume requirements sized properly to treat impervious surface areas. 208 Swale volume provided in accordance with "Guidelines for Stormwater Management ". EASEMENTS Adequate drainage easements are shown for maintenance of drainage ditches or pipe systems. There are easements proposed or existing for natural channels which cross the property, and they are adequate to pass the 50 year storm plus a 30% added depth of flow for a safety factor. A public drainage easement was provided where public street drainage was diverted onto private property. The perpetual maintenance of private systems has properly been provided for. The maintenance of drainage systems within Spokane County ROW has been properly provided for. Appropriate drainage language has been provided by the reviewing engineer to the surveyor and/or engineer who is involved with the platting work. Are pre - existing drainage easements on this parcel affected by this plat? Overflow easements are provided from swales /ponds located in low points where it is possible. cklistv4.0 /Jan95 7 es ❑ No ❑ WA ❑ Yes ❑No ❑ N/A ❑ Yes ❑No ❑ NIA ❑ Yes❑ No ❑ N/A ° Yes ❑ 10 ❑ N/A ❑ Ye, .No ❑ N/A ❑ Yes ❑No❑ N/A Yes No ❑ NIA ❑ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Ye, ❑ No ❑ N /A Ye, ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ 1. Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ 2. Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ 3. Yes ❑No ❑ N/A ❑ 4. ,'es ❑ Nu ❑ N/A ❑ 5. ,•., ❑No ❑N/A❑ 6. Yes ❑No ❑ N/A ❑ 7. ❑No❑N/A 8. ❑No ❑ N/A ❑ 9. Ye, ❑No ❑N/A❑ 10. Yes ❑No ❑ NIA ❑ 11. ,•e, ❑No ❑ N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Yes ❑ w, ❑ N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ VP, ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Yes ❑No ❑ N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NIA ❑ Yes No ❑ N/A ❑ Vas N NM Yes ❑ No ❑ NIA ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Yes ❑No ❑ N/A ❑ 3. Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ 4. 1'es ❑No ❑ N/A ❑ 5. ,e, ❑ ❑ N/A ❑ 6. ves ❑ NI) ❑ N/A ❑ 7. UNDERGROUND GRAVEL GALLERIES CHECKLIST Is the site suitable for undergound gravel galleries based on the site screening criteria contained in the draft standards for gravel galleries. If no, an approved design deviation is required before future review. .3 void ratio for gravel free space volume is used or test information is provided to justify ratio used. Perc rate from field test is used to develop outflow rate 10 -yr event volume is contained entirely underground 100 -yr event volume is contained by a combination of underground storage and above ground storage up to 8" depth Soil mixture is specified for water depth in pond exceeding 8" Entire gallery is wrapped in filter fabric An adequate freeboard is provided in any above ground storage pond. DETENTION POND Releases to a downstream channel or pipe system that is capable of properly conveying the proposed flows and does not cause downstream flooding. Contains 50 -yr developed. Releases at 50 -yr pre - developed. Secondary overflow to pipe in control structure for 50 -year developed. Emergency overflow weir for 100 -year developed. Sump prior to outlet to control structure. 1' min. freeboard at 50 -year design storm is provided. Lawn turf or hydro seeded sides and floor for publicly- maintained ponds or dryland grasses specified. Sprinkler system for publicly- maintained ponds or dryland grasses specified. Berm compaction and lift requirements specified where necessary. Is a 12' maintenance drive to the bottom of ponds needed? If so maximum grade is 6:1. 208 LOT PLANS CHECKLIST 1. Lot plans are required; submitted on 2. The 208 lot plans show: 2a. The lot number, block number, subdivision name, date drawn, scale, north arrow and street name. 2b. Easement dimensions in relation to property lines or corners. 2c. Location of curb, sidewalk or edge of asphalt as applicable. 2d. Setback requirements 2e. Swale floor elevation 2f. Swale floor dimensions are shown in relation to property lines or corners. 2g. Rim elevation drywell type, frame and grate type, centerline offset and station if drywells are present. 2h. Curb cut station, normal flowline invert. 2i. Any drainage ditches, their easements, flowline grade and other required improvements. 2j. Shows depth from the normal flowline to bottom of swale. 2k. An attached cross section of the swale or ditch. Existing easements, The section drawing shows the concrete apron, R.O.W. line, and grass sod or seeding if approved. Lot plans have been stamped by a professional engineer on all pages Lot plans are of sufficient scale to maximize the lot size to the 8 1/2" x 11" paper size. (Drawings may be on plain white paper) 208 lot plans were approved on cklistv4.0 /Jan95 8 buildings, future set asides, and required building setback lines are shown. Yes ❑ No ❑ NIA 11 2. Yes LI No f=i N/A 0 lit, No El N/A ve. 0 N., 0 NIA 5. Yet n N/A ° 6. Yes No N/A 7. vd 0 so 0 sm 0 9. Yes ❑ No 0 N/A 0 10. Yes No NIA 1 I. EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS vee 0 No O N/A ❑ 1. Identify the clearing and disturbed areas in the plan. This includes cuts and tills along slopes. Minimize the amount of cleared area. Provide erosion control facilities which slow water velocities - through the use of check dams, debris basins, etc. 3. Filter runoff from exposed areas prior to discharging into drainage ponds and particularly prior to directing runoff into drywells. Filtering measures included installing temporary silt traps, silt ponds, gravel cone filters, etc. In silt traps and ponds, size sediment storage volumes by determining the amount of silt material generated over a 6 month period, using the Flaxman Method. The silt traps and ponds are to provide a setting zone, and are to he sized in accordance with the method outlined in Section 1I -5.8.6 and I1 -5.8.7 of the WDOE Stormwater Management Manual. 4. Stabilize exposed areas as soon as practical after grading work is complete, or when grading work will temporarily cease for more than . In wet winter months, temporary stabilization measures will be required throughout the duration of construction. Specify stabilization procedures, revegetation requirements, mulching, etc. Specify the maximum time that cleared areas are to be exposed without protection or stabilization and time of year. Stabilize drainage channels. Provide for temporary and permanent erosion protection measures. Provide for perimeter barriers around exposed areas through the use of silt fences, straw hales, temporary interceptor ditches, etc. Route runoff from unexposed areas around exposed areas wherever practical. List routine maintenance procedures to be implemented by the Contractor throughout the duration of construction. Silt traps, silt ponds, check dams, channel restoration, etc. All will require fairly constant maintenance, especially during and immediately following a rain storm event. No 0 N/A 0 8. Reduce the amount of niud, dirt and rocks transported onto public roadways by motor vehicles or runotT by constructing a stabilization pad of rock spalls at entrances to construction site. Provide special provisions for construction under wet season conditions. Define the season. Provide final restoration procedures, site restoreation, access road cleanup, cleaning drainage structures and ponds. etc. Include in the plans the standard Erosion and Sedimentation Control notes prepared by Spokane County. cklistv4.0 /Jan95 9 FIELD REVIEW REPORT ti« 0,„, ❑ N/A 0 1. Field investigation trip made on �.. , NSA 0 2. Date this field report was completed Ye, D No 0 N/A D 3. Are there any existing utilities on the project site? (Overhead power, fire hydrants, etc.) If yes, describe. Yee ❑ No ❑ N!A 11 4. Are the drainage basins on the ground the same as those that are presented in the drainage report? Yes 0 No El N,A 0 5. Are there any drainage channels directed toward property? ve, so 0 wA 0 6. Are there any drainage channels directing water through the property? Yep ° No ❑ N/A 0 7. Do County roads cut off drainage as per drainage calculations? ye, 0 No 0 N/A 0 8. If there are culverts under county roads, does the flow go away from or toward the project? Ye, No 0 N/A 0 9. What kind of ground cover exists? Yes ❑ No ❑ NIA 0 10. Describe any existing channel conditions: 0 . 0 N/A 0 11. Describe channel cross section: Yee D.o 1 N/A 0 12. Existing Curb Type• cklistv4.0 /Jan95 10 REVIEW #: PROJECT #: P1414 PROJECT NAME: Riverway Villa P.U.D. 3 (back check) 2nd Review PLANS Sheet 6 of 6 [now sheet 10/10] 5. Sidewalk Detail a. Plan view REVIEW COMMENTS SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF ENGINEERING & ROADS 1026 W BROADWAY. SPOKANE WA 99260 -0710 PHONE (509)456 -3600 FAX (509)324 -3478 410 REVIEWER: DATE: REVIEW COMMENTS NOT ADDRESSED FROM PREVIOUS SUBMITTALS Ed Parry 9 March 95 1st Review: PLANS: 20. Provide intersection sight distance analysis for all intersections with County roads, and for all Tots where the horizontal sight triangle encroaches onto private property (Intersection sight distance easements were not indicated on this submittal) [Sight distance easements are still needed at Barker /Indiana, Mission /Harmony, and Baldwin /McMillan] {Indicate easements on plat map, and on Lot Plans} 32. Traffic impact analysis submittal and approval is required (per Findings and Conditions) prior to any further plan review (Definition of mitigation measures pending by DOT) [Resolution of mitigation measures pending by Developer and WSDOT; plans will not be approved until mitigation issues are resolved] {pending WSDOT review of Barker Interchange plans} (2) Ramp needs to be configured so that a 5' x 5' landing zone at the base of the ramp is located behind a line 1' behind the extended curb face line of the adjacent street. This is typically accomplished by (a) orienting the ramp on an angle other than the half - delta, (b) providing a ramp for each direction of the crossing, or (c) adjusting the radius to pull the ramp, as shown, back from the traveled way of the street [see comments for 3rd review & attached sketches] CALCULATIONS 3. Page 1: Runoff from portions of the parcel to the east appear to run onto the site [Need to design for the worst of two cases: (1) future phases are not constructed to cut off drainage from area outside of phase limits; and (2) future phases are constructed which change the surface characteristics and flow patterns] REVIEW COMMENTS 9 March 95 PROJECT # P1414 REVIEW # 4 [Due to the degree of revisions in calculations included in the 3rd submittal, remainder of comments fkrn 2nd review are deleted] 3rd Review: PLANS Sheet 2/10 5. Note invert elevation of all inlets (typically the normal gutter flowline elevation) 6. Coordinate drywell rim elevation with the swale floor elevation (typically CL - 0.88') at a 1+27LT b. 1 +27RT c. 5 +59LT d. 5 +69RT r 4 `T e. 9 +65 RT 8. The disabled access ramp configuration at Indiana/Harmony Lane (SW) does not appear to provide a 5' x 5' landing zone at the toe of the ramp which is located out of the adjacent travel lane. Check and adjust ramp location as needed [see attached sheets[ 10. The disabled access ramp configuration at Indiana /McMillan Lane (SW & SE) does not appear to provide a 5' x 5' landing zone at the toe of the ramp which is located out of the adjacent travel lane. Check and adjust ramp locations as needed Q Mill an Lane liter : a -( Provide facil' 'es at the plat boundary to manage stormwater runoff from lots and paving east of cMillan Lane liter : a 7L .a. v1 r..".e S.s�( v ? f •Q ++ta J Page 2 of 10 Sheet 3/10 5. The configuration of the disabled access ramp to sidewalks at Baldwin Lane and Augusta Lane does not appear to provide a 5' x 5' landing zone at the toe of the ramp which is located behind a line 1' behind the extended curb face or pavement edge line of the adjacent streets. Verify and adjust the ramp and /or curb radius configuration as necessary [see attached sketches] Sheet 4/10 1. Baldwin Lane 1 2. ovide a means for the runoff from McMillan to bypass the sidewalk ramp at Baldwin /McMillan, to reach the low point at 14 +25 RT (Baldwin), or provide a drywell rdinate drywell ring elevation (28.45) with swale floor elevation (27.66) at station 10 +53RT. The muni rim elevation should be 0.5' (preferred) above the swale floor in order to provide 208 treatment. The swale rim may located as high as 0.67' above the swale floor (where space is limited) if topsoil meeting certain cationic exchange parameters is specified and provided REVIEW COMMENTS 9 March 95 PROJECT # P1414 REVIEW # 4 Page 3 of 10 4. The configuration of the disabled access ramp to sidewalks at Harmony Lane and McMillan Lane does not appear to provide a 5' x 5' landing zone at the toe of the ramp which is located behind a line I' behind the extended curb face or pavement edge line of the adjacent streets. Verify and adjust the ramp and /or curb radius configuration as necessary [see attached sketches] II. Augusta Lane 1. Coordinate BCR elevation at 10 +33.97LT with road section; need to provide a minimum 2% cross - slope from CL to e/p outside of the curb return area 2. The configuration of the disabled access ramp to sidewalks at Harmony Lane does not appear to provide a 5' x 5' landing zone at the toe of the ramp which is located behind a line 1' behind the extended curb face or pavement edge line of the adjacent streets. Verify and adjust the ramp and /or curb radius configuration as necessary (see attached sketches( Sheet 5/10 3. Provide a sight distance easement over Lot 46; dimension easement limits from property corners{ is the 13.04' dimension measured along the lot line, or parallel to Baldwin Lane R /W ?} 4. Coordinate drywell offset at 22 +39 RT with road sections; drywell CL may he located up to 8' from the e/p or curb face without special maintenance access provisions 6. The configuration of the disabled access ramps to sidewalks at Baldwin Lane and Indiana Avenue do not appear to provide a 5' x 5' landing zone at the toe of the ramp which is located behind a line 1' behind the extended curb face or pavement edge line of the adjacent streets. Verify and adjust the ramp and /or curb radius configuration as necessary (see attached sketches] Sheet 6/10 (Barker Road 10 +00 to 23 +00) 1. The configuration of the disabled access ramp to the sidewalks at Mission Avenue does not appear to provide a 5' x 5' landing zone at the toe of the ramp which is located behind a line 1' behind the extended curb face or pavement edge line of the adjacent streets. Verify and adjust the ramp and/or curb radius configuration as necessary (see attached sketches] 2. Build out the Mission Avenue curbline to the CR point on Barker, and provide a taper length equal to I WS (where W = width of added paving, S = design speed (45 mph for Principal Arterials)) in this phase. Curb should nose down in 12" beyond the CR. Note "start taper' and "end taper" stations 4. Consider installing an additional inlet (or inlets) between 14 +50 RT and the Barker / lndiana CR (SE). Without additional inlets, the runoff rom the area north of 14 +50 flows around the curb return and into the swale serving basin C; Basin C area needs to be revised if additional inlets are not provided REVIEW COMMENTS 9 March 95 PROJECT # P1414 REVIEW # 4 Page 4 of 10 6. Build out Indiana RT curbline to CR point on Barker, and provide an inbound taper length equal to IOW, where W = width of added pavement. Note "start taper" and "end taper" stations. Curb should nose down in 12" beyond the CR. 9. A sight distance easement will be needed over the adjacent parcel to the north 12. A slope easement back of the sidewalk may be needed for a 5:1 slope to catch the existing grade; coordinate with road section. A profile at the back of sidewalk would be helpful for these separated sections (Barker, Mission, and Interior Roads with sidewalks), or sections at even stations. Contours need to be clearly labeled 13. Profile: b. Curb grade sheets are needed to v ' • that curbs are set to provide adequate cross - slope; see attached sample Sheet 7/10 (Barker Road 23 +00 to 32 +00) 1. Comments will be forthcoming; coordination with County Traffic Engineer regarding taper location is pending. Plan sheet from this submittal and review comments will be forwarded under separate cover (ADDENDUM): Page 7 (Barker Road north of Indiana to the Spokane River) {not all elements reviewed due to problems with drainage basin layout} 1. Address how runoff in the swale will pass through or over the driveways 0 Label contours should match the road profile {need to clearly show contours} 5. Provide swale profile, with existing contours wale will need check dams, since either the uninterrupted length exce : �00' th Flo ee % (anticipated slope, based on T/C slope). See GSM pg 5-4. 5• top of berm elevation at drywell location 8. Top of swale elevation at the lots should be at least T/C + 0.2' &Provide a maintenance access route to the drywell f . "End taper" station should occur at 31 +00; this will allow the traffic to complete the merging ` maneuver before reaching the bridge. Taper length = WS, where S = 45 mph for a Principal Arterial 12. Provide roadside safety elements at the bridge per WSDOT Design Manual. Coordinate with the County Traffic Engineer l r Owitifrogitut 1/9444 00414 REVIEW COMMENTS 9 March 95 PROJECT # P1414 REVIEW # 4 Page 5 of 10 rovide Erosion Prevention /Sediment Control measures to prevent sediment -laden runoff from ing over the bank and in the river; coordinate with WSDOE as needed 14. Profile: fit. Indicating the inlet stations would be helpful 4 51.TX elevations should be noted at 25' stations, especially on flatter grades (<1%). Curb &grade worksheets are needed . Clearly indicate grade break stations J Sheet 8/10 4. The configuration of the disabled access ramp to the sidewalks at Barker Road Avenue does not appear to provide a 5' x 5' landing zone at the toe of the ramp which is located behind a line 1' behind the extended curb face or pavement edge line of the adjacent streets. Verify and adjust the ramp and /or curb radius configuration as necessary [see attached sketches] 7. Provide 6" -high check darns at 100' (max.) toe -to -toe spacing in order to develop 208 volume 8. Provide sight distance easement at Harmony Lane intersection; indicate dimensions from property corners {still need to dimension easement limits from property corners} 11 Profile b. Curb grade sheets are needed to verify that curbs are set to provide adequate cross - slope; see attached sample Sheet 9/10 661 ol4 thab ` 2. Barker Road section � � ot ' • e. Provide 5:1 back slope from curb per r oad section provided by the County {pending Design Deviation} f. Coordinate swale dimensions & slopes with the drywell location at 18 +95 RT g. Slope easement should extend to 25' or to catch point on existing grade, whichever is greater h. Coordinate T/C + 0.2' (yields CL - 0.51') with swale dimensions and grading (yields CL - 0.81') {need to show existing topography and finished grade contours in order to establish slope easement limits} 4. Grassy swale: a. Note that the CL of the drywell is located 8' (max.) from the e/p or curb face 5. Mission Avenue section a. Note CSTC depth {minimum CSTC depth is 6 ", regardless of R- value} REVIEW COMMENTS 9 March 95 PROJECT # P1414 REVIEW # 4 e. Provide 5:1 back slope from curb per the road section provided by the County {pending Design Deviation} Sheet 10 /10 1. Wheelchair ramp detail: Need to consider how runoff from swales will be routed around the ramps without overflowing the ramps. Current configuration will block runoff from reaching the drywell serving the basin {Delete note 7: The designer, not the builder, is responsible to determine location and sizing of drainage system components} 2. Driveway detail: Need to consider how runoff from swales will be routed to the drywell serving the drainage basin without developing excessive depth for 208 treatment. Current configuration will block runoff from reaching the drywell serving the basin ,M Page 6 of 10 1$ +3 Do bri • CALCULATIONS Due to the consistency of the discrepancies noted the following general comments are provided. Calculations for each basin are to be revised as necessary 1. "C" factor calculation For those basins containing only roads and swales, "C" factors based on the assumption that the impervious area (C = 0.9) and the pervious area (C = 0.3) are equal are not valid when the basins are examined. Given that the road and sidewalk area is 20' to 26' wide and the grassy swale area is 11' to 13.5' wide, the impervious area will be considerably greater than the pervious area given equal lengths of both. Where a basin consists of more than 1 surface type, weighted "C" factors are given by: C' = [E(A * C,)] _ EA,; where C' = the weighted "C" factor for the basin A = the surface area of surface #i, and C = the "C" factor of surface #i For those basins containing lots, in addition to the roads, the impervious area of the Tots may be taken as 3200 ft /lot, based on the Equivalent Residential Unit used by the County Stormwater Utility. The Bowstring spreadsheet will automatically calculate the weighted "C: factor when the various areas and their associated "C" factors are entered. {not all basins checked due to problems with basin limits} 2. T, path lengths The calculations need to accurately reflect the distance from the hydraulically farthest point of REVIEW COMMENTS 9 March 95 PROJECT # P1414 REVIEW # 4 Page 7 of 10 the basin to the discharge point of the basin; e.g., in Basin D, the spreadsheet notes that the T, path through the swale is 630'. When the calculations are compared to the road plans, it can be seen that T, path for this basin not only includes some overland flow on the Harmony Lane pavement to the swale, but also runs from the sidewalk limit at ±station 10 +65 to the low point at station 16 +05 - a distance of only 530 feet. This shorter flow path results in a higher storm intensity and increased runoff over that shown in the calculations {not all basins checked due to problems with basin limits} 3. Volumes provided for Water Quality Treatment ( "208 ") Swale volumes for 208 do not need to be adjusted for the slope of the swale when both Length <_ 100'; and Slope <_ 1% are true. When either of these conditions is not true, then the swale volume must be adjusted. Equation 5.6 in "Spokane County Guidelines for Stormwater Management" is used to adjust the 208 volume for slope. The adjustment process also needs to consider whether or not adequate length, given by is available. As an example, consider the swale in Basin E from Harmony Lane station 19 +24LT (the swale low point) to ±station 19 +49LT (the edge of the sidewalk). The maximum length for a depth of .5' and a slope of 1.5% is 33.3 feet from the low point, but only 25 feet of Swale length is available. When the available swale length is less than the maximum length to develop the volume given by equation 5.6, the available volume should be calculated using a method such as the average end -area method. {maximum allowable depth for 208 treatment is 6 ", unless soil amendments are specified to increase the organic carbon content. Swale slopes generally follow the slope of the gutter line, unless specified otherwise on the plans: e.g., Basin A : at .5' depth, top width = 5.75'; A, = ((2.75 + 5.75) +2) *.5'depth = 2.13 ft V gpa = 2.13(100 *.5) _ (3 *.8) V = 44.3 ft 4. Storm storage volumes: Storm storage volume needs to be calculated based on the actual volume provided, regardless of the slope or length of the swale involved. Where prismatic- section swales with sloping floors are provided, the average end -area method is typically used to calculate the volume provided between 2 points in the swale. {since the drywell inverts are generally above the curb inlet inverts, the required storm storage volume is not developed in the swale - runoff ponds in the street} 5. Basin Limits: L= (100 *D)_(3 *S) REVIEW COMMENTS 9 March 95 PROJECT ff P1414 REVIEW # 4 Page 8 of 10 The basin limits need to be coordinated with the contours and spot elevations on both the basin map and the road plans, for the worst -case (current or future phase) conditions to be expected. As examples: (1) Basin B limits for the configuration to be constructed in this phase will extend downstation from the inlet at 6+ 15LT (Indiana) - the basin limit for Basin Q cannot be located downstream of the basin discharge point. When Harmony Lane north of Indiana is constructed, the runoff for the area between the inlet at 6+ 15 and the SI can be expected to flow around the curb return and then northerly along Harmony Lane; the runoff cannot be expected to flow uphill from the SI to the inlet. The configuration shown on this plan submittal will result in a more severe condition than will the future construction of Harmony Lane, if and when that phase is constructed. The controlling basin limits for Basin B should therefore be considered as occurring in this phase. (2) Although runoff for Barker road will not likely reach the Swale serving Basin C in this phase, the construction of curbing on Barker north of Mission will divert runoff occurring north of the last inlet at station 14 +50LT (Barker) around the curb return and then easterly along Indiana to the inlet at station 1+21 RT (Indiana). The Basin C limits therefore need to consider the future construction along Barker {problem still occurs with Basins A, B, L, N, and V, as examples} 6. Storm Facilities: a. Drywells are provided in each swale which serves as the final collection point for the basin it serves; the basin outflow (based on the number and type of Drywells provided) is sized to develop a single peak storage volume requirement within the 100 - minute family of storms shown on the Bowstring spreadsheet. Swales without drywells are designed as "flow - through" swales, which typically collect a 6 -inch depth of runoff from the impervious area draining to the swale; any excess volume overflows along a defined pathway to a swale containing a drywell for the basin. As an alternative, basins without a drywell may be collected at a low point and piped to a basin with has excess drywell capacity. The combined basins are then typically analyzed as a single basin, using the longest T, of the basins involved to determine storm intensity {Mission Ave. at Harmony is an example of how this has not been addressed: also, multiple drywells in a single drainage basin need to have their rims set to the same elevation and /or should be piped together in order to develop the design outflow rate} b. The effect of basins flowing to areas outside the basin limits needs to be analyzed. Consider REVIEW COMMENTS 9 March 95 PROJECT # P1414 REVIEW # 4 Page 9 of 10 the lots on the west side of Harmony Lane; given the expected grading, runoff from these lots will flow to the area to be developed in phase VI, which contains an apparent low point. An analysis of the effect on this low point is needed, and mitigating measures as necessary (such as easements, interceptor ditches, etc.,) are to be provided. {need to look at pre - developed vs. post - developed conditions} c. Sizing calculations for the culvert at the NE corner of Barker /Indiana are needed. The designer should also consider how any storage volume will be developed when (a) the culvert provides an outlet from the swale, and (b) the culvert inlet elevation is lower than the rim of the drywell grate. {culvert along McMillan Lane not checked dire to problems with basin layout} d. Inlets on a continuous grade: Flow reaching inlets upstream of the basin discharge point are typically pro -rated based on the proportion of the area reaching the inlet to the total basin area (Q'). The flow depth in the gutter is based on this Q'. and any bypassing flows are then added to the flow reaching the next inlet, in a network -style analysis. A program such as I- IEC -12 provides a relatively quick analysis of inlet sizing, bypassing flows, and ponding at inlets on grade and in sumps. {sizing the curb inlets for the peak flow from the basin will be acceptable; ponding analysis is needed only if the inlet is shorter than needed to intercept 104% of the flow} (Addendum): CALCULATIONS: Need to evaluate Q from road surfaces only for each basin (as opposed to () for all the surfaces in the entire basin {still needed} R -VALUE REPORT 1. Geotechnical reports which provide design information or recommendations (such as pavement section configurations) must be stamped, signed, and dated by a Washington State - licensed Professional Engineer experienced in Geotechnical Engineering. Reports which provide only lab test result data do not need to be stamped by a P.E. {WSDOT Design Manual figure 520 -la is typically used to determine pavement section requirements. Minimum depth of CSTC material is 6 ", regardless of R -value test results} UTILITY PLANS 1. Coordinate drywell locations with road plans: many drywells are shown on the utility plans and not on the road plans LANDSCAPING PLAN 1. Plans for interior roads are needed, as sight distances over Lot 46 may be affected {landscape plans not received with this submittal} REVIEW COMMENTS 9 March 95 PROJECT # P1414 REVIEW # 4 Page 10 of 10 2. Coordinate plans with sight distance easements indicated in these review comments {landscape plans not received with this submittal} SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEERS STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE CALCULATIONS Date: 13— Mar -95 SAG VERTICAL CURVE Project #:P1414 Terrain: x ROAD TYPE: Urban /Suburban Public Check S<L: L2 = A(S* *2)!(400 +3.5S) L2 = 55.5046 Project name: Riverwalk P.U.D. Flat (General land slope 0% to 8 %) Rolling (General land slope >8% to 15 %) Mountains (General and slope >15 %) Private Review*: 5 Reviewer: Parry Semi —rural /Rural Public Local Access Local Access Arterial ADT <100 x Collector 100> ADT >400 Secondary Major County Arterial ADT <400 400 <ADT <750 Extension to 8 or fewer lots ADT>750 Tract "X' Road name: Indiana Ave PVI station: 1+00 Length of vertical curve provided: 100 Design Speed: 40 Min. Stopping Sight Distance: 275 Entering slope (G1, %): —2.00 Exiting Slope (G2, %) : —1.00 IG2 —G1I= A= 1 Check S >L: L1 = 2S — ((400 +3.5S) /A) L1 = —8125 note: use min curve length = 0. Required minimum curve length: 0 Curve provided is Adequate Private Extension to 8 or fewer lots Tract 'X' STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE CALCULATIONS Date: 13— Mar -95 CREST VERTICAL CURVE Project #:P1 414 Terrain: x ROAD TYPE: Urban /Suburban Public wuNL I'Au& { Private Check S >L: L1 = 2S— (1329/A) Check S <L: L2 = A(S* *2)11329 L2 = 91.0459 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEERS Review #: 5 Reviewer: Parry Project name: Riverwalk P.U.D. Flat (General land slope 0% to 8 %) Rolling (General land slope >8 %to 15 %) Mountains (General land slope >15%) Semi —rural /Rural Public Local Access Local Access Arterial ADT < 100 x Collector 100 >ADT >400 Secondary Major County Arterial ADT <400 400< ADT<750 Extension to 8 or fewer lots ADT >750 Tract "X' Road name: Indiana Ave PVI station: 7 +00 Length of vertical curve provided: 100 Design Speed: 40 Min. Stopping Sight Distance: 275 Entering slope (G1, %): 0.80 Exiting Slope (G2, %): 0.80 (G2 —G1 I. A= 1.6 L1 = — 280.63 note: use min curve length = 0. Required minimum curve length 0 Curve provided is Adequate Private Extension to 8 or fewer lots Tract 'X' STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE CALCULATIONS Date: 13— Mar -95 SAG VERTICAL CURVE Project #:P1414 Terrain: x ROAD TYPE: L2 = 17.561 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEERS Project name: Riverwalk P.U.D. Fiat (General land slope 0% to 8 %) Rolling (General and slope >8 %to 15 %) Mountains (General land slope >15 %) Urban /Suburban Semi — rural /Rural Public Public Local Access Local Access Arterial ADT <100 Collector 100> ADT >400 Secondary Major County Arterial ADT<400 Private 400<ADT <750 x Extension to 8 or fewer lots ADT> 750 Tract "X" L2 = A(S* *2)!(400 +3.5S) Review #: 5 Reviewer: Parry Road name: Harmony Lane PVI station: 7 +00 Length of vertical curve provided: 50 Design Speed: 20 Min. Stopping Sight Distance: 120 Entering slope (01, %): —2.00 Exiting Slope (G2, %): —1.00 IG2 —G1I= A= 1 Check S >L: L1 = 2S — ((400 +3 5S)/A) L1 = —580 note: use min curve length = 0. Required minimum curve length. 0 Check S<L: Curve provided is Adequate Private Extension to 8 or fewer lots Tract "X" SAG VERTICAL CURVE Project #:P1414 Terrain: x ROAD TYPE: vcurvl I!Aug93 L2 = A(S•'2) /(400+3.5S) L2 = 31.6098 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEERS STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE CALCULATIONS Date: 13— Mar -95 Review #: 5 Reviewer: Parry Project name: Riverwalk P.U.D. Flat (General and slope 0% to 8 %) Rolling (General land slope >8 %to 15 %) Mountains (General land slope >15 %) Urban /Suburban Semi — rural /Rural Public Public Local Access Local Access Arterial ADT <100 Collector 100> ADT >400 Secondary Major County Arterial ADT<400 Private 400 <ADT<750 x Extension to 8 or fewer lots ADT >750 Tract "X" Road name: Harmony Lane PVI station: 16 +00 Length of vertical curve provided: 100 Design Speed: 20 Min. Stopping Sight Distance: 120 Entering slope (01, %): —1.00 Exiting Slope (02, %)- 0.80 IG2 —G1 A= 1.8 Check S >L: L1 = 2S — ((400 +3.55) /A) L1 = — 215.56 note: use min curve length = 0. Required minimum curve length: 0 Check S<L: Curve provided is Adequate Private Extension to 8 or fewer lots Tract 'X' STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE CALCULATIONS Date: 13— Mar -95 CREST VERTICAL CURVE Projoct #:P1414 ROAD TYPE: Check S >L: L1 = 2S— (13291A) Check S <L: L2 = A(S* *2)/1329 vcixv . UAug93 L2 = 24.4876 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEERS Review* 5 Reviewer: Parry Project name: Riverwalk P.U.D. Terrain: x Flat (General land slope 0% to 8 %) Rolling (General land slope >8 %to 15 %) Mountains (General land slope >15 %) Urban /Suburban Semi — rural /Rural Public Public Local Access Local Access Arterial ADT <100 Collector 100> ADT >400 Secondary Major County Arterial ADT <400 Private 400 <ADT <750 x Extension to 8 or fewer lots ADT >750 Tract 'X' Road name: Harmony Lane PVI station: 18 +00 Length of vertical curve provided: 100 Design Speed: 20 Min. Stopping Sight Distance: 120 Entoring slope (G1, %): 0.80 Exiting Slope (G2, %): —1.46 iG2 —G1 A= 2.26 L1 = — 348.05 note: use min curve length = 0. Required minimum curve length: 0 Curve provided is Adequate Private Extension to 8 or fewer lots Tract 'X' STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE CALCULATIONS Date: 13— Mar -95 CREST VERTICAL CURVE Project #:P1414 ROAD TYPE: Check S >L: L1 =2S — (1329/A) v WV 1 /Auj93 L1 = Chock S <L: L2 = A(S* *2)/1329 12 = 24.4876 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEERS Review #: 5 Reviewer: Parry Project name: Riverwalk P.U.D. Terrain: x Flat ( General land slope 0% to 8 %) Rolling (General and slope >8 %to 15 %) Mountains (General land slope >15 %) Urban/ Suburban Semi —rural /Rural Public Public Local Access Local Access Arterial ADT< 100 Collector 100> ADT >400 Secondary Major County Arterial ADT<400 Private 400<ADT<750 x Extension to 8 or fewer lots ADT> 750 Tract 'V Road name: Harmony Lane PVI station: 18 +00 Length of vertical curve provided: 100 Design Speed: 20 Min. Stopping Sight Distance: 120 Entering slope (G1, %): 0.80 Exiting Slope (G2, %): —1.46 (G2 —G11. A= 2.26 — 348.05 note: use min curve length = 0. Required minimum curve length: 0 Curve provided is Adequate Private Extension to 8 or fewer lots Tract "X" STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE CALCULATIONS Date: 13- Mar -95 SAG VERTICAL CURVE Project #:P1414 Terrain: x ROAD TYPE: Check S <L: L2 = A(S* *2)/(400 +3.5S) VVVJ, IiA. L2 = 51.9805 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEERS Review #: 5 Reviewer: Parry Project name: Riverwalk P.U.D. Flat (General land slope 0% to 8 %) Rolling (General land slope >8 %to 15 %) Mountains (General land slope >15 %) Urban /Suburban Semi - ruralrRural Public Public Local Access Local Access Arterial ADT< 100 Collector 100> ADT>400 Secondary Major County Arterial ADT<400 Private 400 <ADT <750 x Extension to 8 or fewer lots ADT >750 Tract 'X' Road name: Harmony Lane PVI station: 19 -25 Length of vertical curve provided: 50 Design Speed: 20 Min. Stopping Sight Distance: 120 Entering slope (G1, %): -1.46 Exiting Slope (G2. %): 1.50 IG2 -G1I= A= 2.96 Check S>L: L1 = 2S - ((400+3.5S) /A) L1 = - 37.027 note: use min curve length = 0. Required minimum curve length: 0 Curve provided is Adequate Private Extension to 8 or fewer lots Tract "X" SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEERS STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE CALCULATIONS Date: 14 — Mar -95 SAG VERTICAL CURVE Project #:P1414 Terrain: x ROAD TYPE: Urban /Suburban Public Review #: 5 Reviewer: Parry Project name: Riverwalk P.U.D. Flat (General land slope 0% to 8 %) Rolling (General land slope >8% to 15 %) Mountains (General land slope >15 %) Semi — rural /Rural Public Local Access Local Access Arterial ADT<100 Collector 100>ADT >400 Secondary Major County Arterial ADT <400 Private 400<ADT<750 x Extension to 8 or fewer lots ADT >750 Tract "X' Road name: Balswin Lane PVI station 10 +50 Length of vertical curve provided: 50 Design Speed: 20 Min. Stopping Sight Distance: 120 Entering slope (G1, %): —1.07 Exiting Slope (G2, %) : 0.80 IG2 —G11= A= 1.87 Check S >L: L1 = 2S — ((400 +35S) /A) Check S <L: L2 = A(S• *2) /(400 +3.5S) ;Aug.) L1 = —198.5 note: use min curve length = 0. Required minimum curve length: 0 L2 = 32.839 Curve provided is Adequate Private Extension to 8 or fewer lots Tract 'X' SAG VERTICAL CURVE Project #: P1414 Terrain: x ROAD TYPE: Urban /Suburban Public .cuv''_ 1 /Aue : L2 = A(S••2)/(400 +3.5S) L2 = 32.839 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEERS STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE CALCULATIONS Date: 14- Mar -95 Flat (General land slope 0% to 8 %) Rolling (General and slope >8% to 15 %) Mountains (General land slope >15 %) Review #: 5 Reviewer: Parry Project name: Riverwalk P.U.D. Semi -rural /Rural Public Local Access Local Access Arterial ADT<100 Collector 100> ADT >400 Secondary Major County Arterial ADT <400 Private 400<ADT <750 x Extension to 8 or fewer lots ADT> 750 Tract 'X' Road name: Baldwin Lane PVI station: 10 +50 Length of vertical curve provided: 50 Design Speed: 20 Min. Stopping Sight Distance: 120 Entering slope (G1, %): -1.07 Exiting Slope (G2, %): 0.80 IG2 -G1Ir A= 1.87 Check S>L: L1 = 2S -((400-1-3 5S)/A) 1.1 = -198.5 note: use min curve length = 0, Required minimum curve length 0 Check S <L: Curve provided is Adequate Private Extension to 8 or fewer lots Tract 'X' CREST VERTICAL CURVE Project #:P1414 Terrain: x ROAD TYPE: Urban /Suburban Public Check S >L: Li =2S — (1329/A) Check S <L: L2 = A(S••2)11329 vcW 1 /Aug43 L2 = 19.5034 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEERS STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE CALCULATIONS Date: 14- Mar -95 Flat (General land slope 0% to 8 %) Rolling (General land slope >8 %to 15 %) Mountains (General land slope >15 %) Review #: 5 Reviewer: Parry Project name: Riverwalk P.U.D. Semi — rural /Rural Public Local Access Local Access Arterial ADT <100 Collector 100> ADT>400 Secondary Major County Arterial ADT < 400 Private 400 <ADT <750 x Extension to 8 or fewer lots ADT >750 Tract 'X' Road name: Baldwin Lane PVI station: 13 +50 Length of vertical curve provided: 100 Design Speed: 20 Min. Stopping Sight Distance: 120 Entering slope (G1, %): 0.80 Exiting Slope (G2, %): —1.00 IG2 —G1I. A= 1.8 L1 = — 498.33 note: use min curve length = 0. Required minimum curve length: 0 Curve provided is Adequate Private Extension to 8 or fewer Tots Tract 'X' STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE CALCULATIONS Date: 14— Mar -95 SAG VERTICAL CURVE Project #:P1414 Terrain: x ROAD TYPE: Urban /Suburban Public vcurv:: I IAug93 L1 = Check S <L: L2 = A(S "'2)/(400 +3.5S) L2 = 35.122 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEERS Project name: Riverwalk P.U.D. Flat (General land slope 0% to 8 %) Rolling (General land slope >8% to 15 %) Mountains (General land slope >15 %) Review #: 5 Reviewer: Parry Semi —rural /Rural Public Local Access Local Access Arterial ADT <100 Collector 100> ADT >400 Secondary Major County Arterial ADT <400 Private 400 < ADT <750 x Extension to 8 or fewer lots ADT> 750 Tract 'X' Road name: Baldwin Lane PVI station: 14 +25 Length of vertical curve provided: 50 Design Speed: 20 Min. Stopping Sight Distance: 120 Entering slope (G1, %): —1.00 Exiting Slope (G2, %): 1.00 IG2 —G1 1= A= 2 Chock S >L: L1 = 2S — ((400 +3.5S) /A) —170 note: u se min curvo length = 0. Required minimum curve length: 0 Curve provided is Adequate Private Extension to 8 or fewer lots Tract 'X' STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE CALCULATIONS Date: 14 - Mar -95 SAG VERTICAL CURVE Project #:P1414 Terrain: x ROAD TYPE: Urban /Suburban Public Road name: Augusta Lane PVI station: 10 +50 Length of vertical curve provided: 50 Design Speed: 20 Min. Stopping Sight Distance: 120 Entering slope (G1, %): —1.00 Exiting Slope (G2, %): 1.50 IG2 —G1 I= A= 2.5 Check S >L: L1 = 2S — ((400 +3.5S) /A) L1 = —88 note: use min curve length = 0. Required minimum curve length 0 Check S<L: Curve provided is Adequate v, urv;. I fAu(9 t L2 — A(S* *2)/(400 +3.5S) L2 = 43.9024 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEERS Review #: 5 Reviewer: Parry Project name: Riverwalk P.U.D. Flat (General land slope 0% to 8 %) Rolling (General land slope >8% to 15 %) Mountains (General land slope >15 %) Semi — rural /Rural Public Local Access Local Access Arterial ADT<100 Collector 100> ADT >400 Secondary Major County Arterial ADT<400 Private 400< ADT <750 x Extension to 8 or fewer lots ADT >750 Tract "X' Private Extension to 8 or fewer lots Tract 'X' File name is INDIANA5.COR FILE NAME: INDIANA5.COR GRADE Station Grade Distance 0 +00.00 0 +25.00 0 +50.00 0 +75.00 1 +00.00 Elevation - 2.00000 100.00 2027.95 2027.45 2026.95 2026.45 2025.95 VERTICAL CURVE Station Elevation PI Station PI Elevation Entry Grade - Exit Grade Length PC 0 +50.00 0 +75.00 1 +00.00 1 +25.00 PT 1 +50.00 100.00 2025.95 2.00000% 0.80000% 100.00 2026.95 2026.54 2026.30 2026.24 2026.35 High /Low point is: 1 +21.43 2026.24 0 +56.48 0 +56.42 0 +68.99 0 +69.01 0 +75.00 1 +16.00 1 +46.01 2026.83 2026.83 2026.62 2026.62 2026.54 2026.24 2026.32 VERTICAL CURVE Station Elevation PI Station 100.00 PI Elevation 2025.95 Entry Grade 0.80000% Exit Grade 0.80000% Length 100.00 PC 0 +50.00 1 +00.00 PT 1 +50.00 Grade Distance 2025.55 2025.95 2026.35 GRADE Station Elevation 0.80000 600.00 DATE: 3/13/1995 (ALL to RT 7 . u 1 a. 2I• ?5 so i wAi 25.3, zA- �;ft? R4 tuaij i tcrit f Ut t .t/s (r (Z i•' rre ej v . le( r RA/k) Dlh*1k fcEkda ��V•GN� A LtA S < / tea � ct/I f G1� � L //v' �ryJ�� vv! 6' 1 +00.00 2025.95 1 +25.00 2026.15 1 +50.00 2026.35 fib r 1 +75.00 2026.55 gr1•r2G•ZA - 2+00.00 2026.75 a 24,•2 7 -*/7 p, / 2 +25.00 2026.95 g riT a 2 +50.00 2027.15 4 , rt9 2 +75.00 2027.35 j q ``21.oP 3 +00.00 2027.55 71 -20 21.17 3 +25.00 2027.75 rsR.- rt ✓ 3 +50.00 2027.95 zL �p 27_'77 3 +75.00 2028.15 b� Rfi a 4 +00.00 2028.35 4 +25.00 2028.55 2 6.2 7 v 4 +50.00 2028.75 CI Rr 477 4 +75.00 2028.95 5 +00.00 2029.15 5 +25.00 2029.35 5 +50.00 2029.55 5 +75.00 2029.75 6+00.00 5.00 2030.15 2 et 77 r 6 +2 6 +50.00 2030.35 C1njt �� `“ 6 +75.00 2030.55 7 +00.00 2030.75 Wot K 2¢-f° 2+21.00 2026.92r+- G 'Z 41-9 2 +88.00 2027.45C1 LT zrv.97 zt,.f7 4 +29.00 2028.58.0/r- 4 +35.00 2028 . 63 O LT x .i5 2L• 4 +79.29 2028 . 98 EGZ LT Ly.w5v Z1.1) 4 +90.78 2029.08 S . ' O 5 +29.55 2029.39 5z 2 " ' 5 +59.16 2029.62 Owa 5+62.42 2029.65 cULT V -14)7 x 4.71 5 +64.47 2029.67(10 29. 2418 I 5 +67.95 2029.696 5 +66.56 2029 . 680 ET L9-70 5 +68.51 2029.70 a frr 1.22. '2 )( VERTICAL CURVE Station Elevation PI Station 700.00 PI Elevation 2030.75 Entry Grade 0.80000% Exit Grade -0.80000% Length 100.00 PC 6 +50.00 2030.35 6 +75.00 2030.50 7 +00.00 2030.55 7 +25.00 2030.50 PT 7 +50.00 2030.35 High /Low point is: 7 +00.00 2030.55 GRAD E pkd Station Elevation Grade - 0.80000 Distance 466.21 7 +00.00 2030.75 7 +25.00 2030.55 7 +50.00 2030.35 cr Ma 207 7 +75.00 2030.15 Et 1. 21.e° z' 8 +00.00 2029.95 , 8+25.00 2029 .75 a Via z`1•21 z4 f 8 +7 2029.35 - too , , 1 -T r1 Z3 •f7 9 +00.00 2029.15 9 +25.00 2028.95 C er)C 43 A'7 /f;' 9 +50.00 2028.75 9 +75.00 2028.55 10 +00.00 2028.35 10 +25.00 2028.15 10 +50.00 2027.95 10 +75.00 2027.75 oat* 2` 11 +00.00 2027.55 11 +25.00 2027.35 11 +50.00 2027.15 a trio. 67 11 +66.21 2027.02 ? 9+63.70 2028.64 a qtr 7.Y 9 +65.21 2028.63nw 10+01.20 2028.34 51 14-3* 10 +21.06 2028.18 PA? 11 +61.20 2027.06 ecxm, f`r 2h• File name is HARMONY5.COR FILE NAME: HARMONY5.COR DATE: 3/13/1995 GRADE Station Elevation Grade - 2.00000 Distance 50.00 VERTICAL CURVE Station Elevation PI Station 1050.00 PI Elevation 2033.95 Entry Grade - 2.00000% Exit Grade - 1.00000% Length 50.00 PC 10 +25.00 10 +50.00 PT 10 +75.00 10 +51.46 10 +51.53 GRADE Station Grade Distance 10 +00.00 2034.90 10 +25.00 2034.40 10 +50.00 2033.90 10 +50.00 2033.95 11 +00.00 2033.45 11 +50.00 2032.95 12 +00.00 2032.45 12 +50.00 2031.95 13 +00.00 2031.45 13 +50.00 2030.95 14 +00.00 2030.45 14 +50.00 2029.95 15 +00.00 2029.45 15 +50.00 2028.95 16 +00.00 2028.45 63 X 11 +53.97 2032.91% 11 +62.62 2032.82 GUVVOT 11 +77.62 2032.67 011/ 1.4 11 +90.00 2032.55 SI y' ?'se, 3Z•5 12 +25.97 2032.19 ctir ;Lit 31. 13 +97.98 2030.47 DART 4 04 7 13 +98.97 2030.46 Cq ' . 50 • f8 w°g r 14 +07.62 2030.37410/LT I. °° �9? 14 +22.62 2030.22 ULVt -t 45Rr y � 14 +35.00 2030.10 $i 742.1D 14 +70.97 2029.74 c1M 01.4$ t VERTICAL CURVE Elevation - 1.00000 550.00 2034.45 2034.01 2033.70 2033.99 GQ. r 'I :1.4.r° 2033.99 C4 LT -� :'49 Station. Elevation PI Station 1050.00 PI Elevation 2033.95 Entry Grade - 1.00000% Exit Grade - 8.00000% Length 550.00 PC 7 +75.00 10 +00.00 PT 13 +25.00 VERTICAL CURVE Station Elevation PI Station 1600.00 PI Elevation, 2028.45 Entry Grade - 1.00000% Exit Grade -0.80000% Length 1 00 PC 15 +50.00 202 ,455/ 15 +75.00 202 /.71 i0 k1 16 +00.00 2028.4714)0 028 .47 1,J 0� 16 +25.00 2028.26 PT 16 +50.00 2028.05 VERTICAL CURVE Station Elevation PI Station 1600.00 PI Elevation 2028.45 Entry Grade - 1.00000% Exit Grade 0.80000% Length 100.00 PC 15 +50.00 15 +75.00 16 +00.00 16 +25.00 PT 16 +50.00 High /Low point is: 16 +05.56 2028.67 W Zte 16 +25.00 16 +26.00 2036.70 2031.23 2011.95 2028.67 2028.71 2028.85 GRADE Station Elevation Grade 0.80000 Distance 200.00 16 +00.00 2028.45 16 +25.00 2028.65 16 +50.00 2028.85 16 +75.00 2029.05 17 +00.00 2029.25 17 +25.00 2029.45 iliha 2028.95 2028.76P. ZIT 2028.71 2028.71 bud LT 21 h'o 27 93 -17+50.001 17 +754'0 18 +00/00 16 +70.00 17 +04.11 -% 2029.28 i File name is HARMONY5.COR FILE NAME: HARMONY5.COR GRADE Station Grade Distance VERTICAL CURVE Station PI Station PI Elevation Entry Grade Exit Grade Length PC 17 +50.00 17 +75.00 18 +00.00 18 +25.00 PT 18 +50.00 17 +74.55 18 +28.58 2029.65 2029.85 2}30 .05 029.01 Elevation 0.80000 200.00 16 +00.00 2028.45 16 +25.00 2028.65 16 +50.00 2028.85 16 +75.00 2029.05 17 +00.00 2029.25 17 +25.00 2029.45 17 +50.00 2029.65 17 +75.00 2029.85 CMG 18 +00.00 2030.05 2$'� 16 +70.00 2029.01 Doti- ✓ 17+04.11 2029.28(162T �`� 0.4," 17 +10.60 2029.33 6 W V5.,g 27.RX 17 +26.34 2029.46 0,4 LT 28.15 2 ?.$6K 17 +38.00 2029.55 51. Z? 55 er S1 Elevation 1800.00 2030.05 0.80000% - 1.46000% 100.00 2029.65 2029.78 2029.77 2029.61 2029.32 High /Low point is: 17 +85.40 2029.79 GRADE Station Elevation Grade - 1.46000 Distance 125.00 18 +00.00 2030.05 18 +25.00 2029.68 18 +50.00 2029.32 2029.78 (4.kr zti 0 2029.58 04A3f -iT z0• DATE: 3/13/1995 -18+75.00 19 +00.00 19 +25.00 18 +61.13 18 +70.14 VERTICAL CURVE Station Elevation PI Station 1925.00 PI Elevation 2028.22 Entry Grade - 1.46000% Exit Grade 1.50000% Length 50.00 PC 19 +00.00 19 +25.00 PT 19 +50.00 High /Low point is: 19 +24.66 2028.40 Ott--C- 19+02.13 2028.56 6r'Q.0 6 1l 17'75 GRADE Station Grade Distance 19 +25 . * 19 +30.00 19 +40.00 19:51.00 19.00 19 70.00 19 +74.07 GRADE Station Grade Distance GRADE Station Grade Distance 19 +25.00 19 +30.00 19 +40.00 19 +50.00 19 +60.00 19 +70.00 19 +74.07 19 +47.97 19 +52.65 2028.95 2028.59 C 0- 2028.22 2029.16 ea 3 DL x3 2029.03 6c4 - 09. 21 2028.58 2028.40 2028.59 Elevation 1.50000 49.07 2028.22 2028.29 2028.44 2028.59 2028.74 2028.89 2028.96 Elevation 1.50000 49.07 2028.22 2028.29 2028.44 vd 2028.59 2028.74 2028.89 2028.96 6+3 2028.56 cell 2028.63 et Elevation 2.00000 20.00 u,.35 zelriX -19+74.07 19 +80.00 19 +90.00 19 +94.07 2028.96 2029.08 2029.28 2029.36 File name is BALDWIN5.COR FILE NAME: BALDWIN5.COR DATE: 3/14/1995 GRADE Station Grade Distance GRADE Station Grade Distance Elevation - 2.00000 14.02 9 +94.13 2029.56 10 +00.00 2029.44 10 +08.15 2029.28 PC 10 +25.00 10 +30.00 10 +40.00 10 +50.00 10 +60.00 10 +70.00 PT 10 +75.00 10 +30.11 10 +31.80 Elevation - 1.07000 41.85 10 +08.15 2029.28 10 +10.00 2029.26 10 +20.00 2029.15 10 +30.00 2029.05 10 +40.00 2028.94 10 +50.00 2028.83 10 +50.00 2028.83 VERTICAL CURVE Station Elevation PI Station 1050.00 PI Elevation 2028.83 Entry Grade - 1.07000% Exit Grade 0.80000% Length 50.00 2029.10 2029.05 2028.98 2028.95 2028.95 2028.99 2029.03 High /Low point is: 10 +53.61 2028.94 011/0 GRADE Station Elevation Grade 0.80000 Distance 300.00 10 +50.00 2028.83 10 +75.00 2029.03 11 +00.00 2029.23 2029.05 Vet 2029.03 rill P ti.3. 1C" tP.t7 ✓ ?g.i7 z5.17 ✓ Z2'7 2». ✓ 11 +25.00 2029.43 11 +50.00 2029.63 11 +75.00 2029.83 12 +00.00 2030.03 12 +25.00 2030.23 12 +50.00 2030.43 12 +75.00 2030.63 13 +00.00 2030.83 13 +25.00 2031.03 13 +50.00 2031.23 VERTICAL CURVE Station Elevation PI Station 1350.00 PI Elevation 2031.23 Entry Grade 0.80000% Exit Grade - 1.00000% Length 100.00 PC 13 +00.00 13 +25.00 13 +50.00 13 +75.00 PT 14 +00.00 High /Low point is: 13 +44.44 2031.01+P 201-?• GRADE Station Grade Distance 13 +50.00 2031.23 13 +75.00 2030.98 14 +00.00 2030.73 14 +25.00 2030.48 VERTICAL CURVE Station Elevation PI Station 1425.00 PI Elevation 2030.48 Entry Grade - 1.00000% Exit Grade 1.00000% Length 50.00 PC 14 +00.00 14 +10.00 14 +20.00 14 +30.00 14 +40.00 PT 14 +50.00 2030.83 2030.97 2031.00 2030.92 2030.73 Elevation - 1.00000 75.00 2030.73 2030.65 2030.61 2030.61 2030.65 2030.73 High /Low point is: - It. 14 +25.00 2030.60 24&3 V GRADE Station Grade Distance 14 +39.67 14 +49.94 14 +25.00 14 +30.00 14 +40.00 14 +50.00 14 +60.00 14 +64.71 Elevation 1.00000 39.71 2030.48 2030.53 2030.63 2030.73 2030.83 2030.88 GRADE Station Elevation Grade Distance 2.00000 17.00 14 +64.71 2030.88 14 +70.00 2030.99 14 +80.00 2031.19 14 +81.71 2031.22 2030.65 « 3° 7 2030.73 Ce GT ` 3J.4� 3°' 'i 5 `' File name is AUGUSTA5.COR FILE NAME: AUGUSTA5.COR DATE: 3/14/1995 GRADE Station Grade Distance GRADE Station Grade Distance 10 +00.00 2030.10 10 +10.00 2029.90 10 +14.00 2029.82 10 +14.00 10 +20.00 10 +30.00 10 +40.00 10 +50.00 VERTICAL CURVE Station Elevation PI Station 1050.00 PI Elevation 2029.46 Entry Grade - 1.00000% Exit Grade 1.50000% Length 50.00 PC 10 +25.00 10 +50.00 PT 10 +75.00 High /Low point is: 10 +45.00 2029.61 Grade Distance 10 +35.97 10 +36.03 Elevation - 2.00000 14.00 Elevation - 1.00000 36.00 2029.82 2029.76 2029.66 2029.56 2029.46 2029.71 2029.62 2029.83 2029.63 2029.63 GRADE Station Elevation 1.50000 75.00 10 +50.00 2029.46 10 +75.00 2029.83 11 +00.00 2030.21 11 +25.00 2030.58 IO�b0 Zo2L7Z 4 .. jD Z4. 44 (04 (°b BOWSTRING METHOD (TEN YEAR STORM DESIGN) PROJECT' P1414 TIME OF CONCENTRATION (minuses) DETENTION BASIN DESIGN BASIN' V REVIEWER Parry Tc (overland) Tc (gjtter) Area • C' A•C NUMBER OF DRYWELLS PROPOSED DATE: 06- Apr -95 0 Single (type A) 4 Double (type 8) Ct = 0.15 L2 = 0 0.90 0.90 0.808099 Total Area (talc ) (see H1) 5.67 Z1 = 3 4.77 0.30 1.431 Time ofConc. (talc.) (see H1) 19,89 L1(A) = 1030 Z2 = 3 0,00 0.00 0 Compoatle (s ee H1) 0.40 N(A) = 0,4 B = 2.75 0.00 0.00 0 Time ofConc. ruin) 19.89 S(A) = 0.0148 n = 0.023 000 0.00 0 Area (Acres) 5.667888 s = 0.008 0.00 0.00 0 C' Factor 0.40 T c (A) = 19.69 d = 023 000 0.00 0 Impervious Area (sq ft) 29512 Total A Comp •C' Vo lume Provided 208' 26.4 s torm 11_19 L1(5) = 0 Tc (g.r) = 0.00 5.07 0.40 Out)low (cfs) 4 N(B) = 0 Tc(A +8) = 19.69 Area • C' Factor 2.24 S(B) = 0 O =C•1 3.29 ` - _________= Tc(bt)= 1969 O(est)= 0.00 N1 #2 N3 M4 #5 M6 07 Tc (8) = 0.0 Intensity = 1.47 Tine T me Intensity 0 dev V In V out Storage A = 0.7912 Inc Inc. High pL dcv. 2029.5 High pr. tics. WP - 4.2046 (min .) (sec.) (in .,hr.) (cfS) (w. ft) (w. ft) (w. ft) Low pt. dcv. 2014.30 Lowpr.dcv. R = 0.1882 (01 * 60) (A (Out • #2) (05 -08) Tc iengsh 1030 Tc Icngrb V = 1.90 _____________________________ _______. Tc(total) =Tc(overland) +Tc(gutter) Tc(gu)= 0.00 19.69 1181.62 1.47 3.29 5210 4728.49 484 Tc (overland) = Ct•(L1 ^ 0.5) ^ 0.6) O(est) = 1.50 Ct = 0 16 5 300 3.18 7.12 2862 1200 1882 L1 = Lengh of Overland Flow Holding = 0.00 1 0 600 2.24 5.02 4033 2400 1833 N = frtetbn factor of overland lbw (.4 b r average grass cover) 15 900 1.77 198 4780 3600 1180 S = average slope of over) and flow 20 1200 1.45 325 5200 4800 400 Tc (gutter) = Lengti (1t.)/Velocity (ft4sec.)/8C 25 1500 121 2.71 5152 8000 -848 B = Bottom width of grtter or ditch 30 1800 1.04 2.33 5127 7200 -2073 Z1 = inverse of cross sbpe one of ditch 35 2100 0.91 2.04 5098 8400 -3302 Z2 = Inverse of cross sbpe two of ditch 40 2400 0.82 1.84 5144 9800 -4456 d = dep1h of lbw In gutter (estimate, check estimate with Fbw) 45 2700 0.74 1.66 5139 10800 -5681 Area = d•B +d ^ 212'(21 + 22) 50 3000 0.68 1.52 5179 12000 -8821 Wetted perimeter = 8 +(1/ sin (a41(1(Z1)) +1f51n(ath(1 /Z2))) 55 3300 0.64 1 43 5305 13200 -7895 Hydraulic Radius = R = AreaJWetted Perimeter 80 3800 0.81 1 37 5466 14400 -8934 Vebcity = 1 486,11•R ^ .887•s " .5 85 3900 0.80 1.34 5779 15600 -9821 Row = Veloclt•Area 70 4200 0.58 1.30 5976 18800 -10824 n = 0.016 br asphalt 75 4600 0.58 1.25 6146 18000 -11854 s = bnglbdhatsbpeof gutter 80 4800 0.53 1.19 6173 19200 -13027 85 5100 0.62 1.18 6406 20400 -13994 90 5400 050 1 12 6495 21600 -15105 95 5700 0.49 1.10 6895 22800 -18105 100 6000 0 48 1 07 6880 24000 -17120 DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required grassy swale pond storage volume = Impervious Area x.5h.f 12 In /ft = DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STORM Maxknum storage required by Bowstring = 1230 w h. provided 28.4 cu. ft. 1882 w. ft provided 109 w ft. No Good Number and type of Drywelts Required = 0 Sh gle No Good 4 Double BOWSTRING METHOD (TEN YEAR STORM DESIGN) PROJECT P1414 TIME OF CONCENTRATION (minutes) DETENTION BASIN DESIGN BASIN. A REVIEWER Perry Tc (overland) Tc (gutter) Areas A'C NUMBER OF DRYELLS PROPOSED DATE 03- Apr -95 W 0 Single (type A 1 Double (type Bj Ct = 0 15 L2 = 2 0 37 0 90 0 333 Total Area (talc) (see H1) 0 94 Z1 = 3 0.57 0 25 0 1425 Time of Conc (talc.) (see HI) 14 02 L1(A) = 480 Z2 = 3 0 00 0 00 0 Composite "C' (talc) (see HI) 0 51 N(A) = 0 4 B = 2.75 0 00 0.00 0 Time of Conc (min) 14.02 S(A) = 0.01 n = 0 023 0.00 0 00 0 Area (Acres) 0 94 s = 0.008 0 00 0 00 0 C Factor 0 51 Tc (A) = 14.00 d = 0 23 0.00 000 0 Impervious Area (sq ft ) 2600 Total A Comp "C' Volume Provided 208 26 4 storm 109 L1(B) = 0 Tc (gu) = 0.02 0.94 0 51 Outflow (cis) 1 N(B) = 0 Tc(A +B) = 14 00 Area ' C' Factor 0 48 S(B) = 0 Q= C'I'A= 0 89 _ _____ - -- __ - Tc(tot) = 14.02 Q(est.) = 1 50 #1 #2 #3 #4 85 46 47 Tc (B) = 0 0 Intensity = 1 86 Time Time Intensity Q dev V in V out Storage A = 0 7912 Inc. Inc. 1hRh p r1,yt p ele.* WP = 4.2046 (min) (sec.) (in /hr) (cis) (cu. f%) (cu. ft.) (cu ft ) l.ow p eln Low p ales R = 0 1882 ( #1'60) (A'CW3) (Outf. Yf2) (45 -#6) Tc length 480 Tc WW1 V = 1.90 = ----------=-.===== _ - - --- -- -- Tc (total) = Tc (overland) + Tc (gutter) Tc(gu) = 0.02 14.02 840 95 1 86 0.89 998 840.95 - 157 Tc (overland) = Ct'(L1'NFS "0.5) 6) Q(est) = 1.50 Ct = 0 15 5 300 3 18 1 51 608 300 308 L1 = Length of Overland Flow Holding = 0 03 10 600 2 24 1 07 856 600 256 N = friction factor of overland flow (4 for average grass cover) 15 900 1 77 0 84 998 900 98 S = average slope of overland flow 20 1200 1 45 0.69 1025 1200 Tc (gutter) = Length (ft )Nelocrty (ft. /sec.((60 25 1500 1 21 0.58 1028 1500 -472 B =Bottom width of gutter or ditch 30 1800 1 04 0 49 1032 1800 -768 Z1 = inverse of cross slope one of ditch 35 2100 0 91 0 43 1032 2100 -1068 Z2 = inverse of cross slope two of ditch 40 2400 0 82 0 39 1047 2400 -1353 d = depth of flow in gutter (estimate, check estimate with Flow) 45 2700 0.74 0 35 1051 2700 -1649 Area = d'B+d ^2/2'(Z1 +Z2) 50 3000 0.68 0.32 1062 3000 -1938 Wetted perimeter = B' d+( 1 /stn(atn(121)) +11srn(atn(122))) 55 3300 0.64 0 30 1091 3300 -2209 Hydraulic Radius = R = Are&Wetted Perimeter 60 3600 0.61 0.29 1127 3600 -2473 Velocity = 1 4861n•R^ 667 5 65 3900 0 60 0.29 1194 3900 -2706 Flow = Velocity'Area 70 4200 0.58 0.28 1237 4200 -2963 n = 0 016 for asphalt 75 4500 0.56 0.27 1274 4500 -3226 s = longdudlnal slope of gutter 80 4800 0.53 0.25 1282 4800 85 5100 0.52 0.25 1332 5100 -3768 90 5400 0.50 0 24 1352 5400 -4048 95 5700 0.49 0.23 1395 5700 -4305 100 6000 0.48 023 1435 6000 -4565 DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required grassy swage pond storage volume = Impervious Area x .5 in / 12 in /ft = 108 cu. ft proided 26 4 cu ft No Good DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STORM Maximum storage required by Bowstring = 308 cu. ft provided 109 cu R No Good Number and type of Dryvwells Required = 0 Single 1 Double BOWSTRING METHOD (TEN YEAR STORM DESIGN) PROJECT: P1414 TIME OF CONCENTRATION Qnlnu DETENTION BASIN DESIGN BASIN B REVIEWER Party Tc (overland) Tc (fluter) Areas A•C NUMBER OF DRYWELLS PROPOSED DATE' 04- Apr -85 1 Single (type A) 0 Dou ole (type B) Ct - 0 15 L2 = 650 0.28 0.90 0 252 Total Area (talc.) (see H1) 0.47 21 = 3 0.19 0.25 0.0475 Time of Conc. (talc.) (see Ht) 8.03 L1(A) = 22 = 3 0.00 0.00 0 Composite V (talc.) (see H1) 0.84 N(A) - 0.4 B = 4.4 0.00 0.00 0 Time ofConc. (rnn) 8.03 S(A) = n = 0.023 0.00 0.00 0 Area Acres) 0.47 s = 0.0081 0.00 0.00 0 C Factor 0.84 Tc (A) = 0.00 d = 0 1 0.00 0.00 0 Impervbus Area (se 6) 12150 Total A Comp V Volume Provided 208' 78.5 storm. 482 L1(5) = 0 Tc (flu) = 8.03 0.47 0.84 Outtiow Os) 0.3 N(B) = 0 Tc(A +B) = 0.00 Area • C' Factor 0 30 5(B) = 0 Q- C•I•A= 0.78 ______'________________ _____ = Tc(bt.)= 8.03 O(est.)= 0.78 *1 *2 *3 *4 *5 *6 *7 Tc (B) - 0.0 Intensity = 2.81 Time '. me Irlhrslty 0 dev. V In V out Storage A = 0.578323 Inc Irc tlighpielcv. Higb pt. dev. 2033.09 WP = 5.1853 (min.) (sec ) (n.A1r ) (cis) (a. R) (cu. ft) (a ft) Los pidev. t.os pi d.. 2027.81 R = 0.1118 ( *1 • 60) (A *3) (Out? • *2) (#5- #6) Tc length Tc tenph 850 V = 1 35 _____ ... ______ _ .... __� ________- ___- ________= Tc(total) =Tc (overland) +Tc(gutter) Tc(gs)= 8.03 8.03 48198 2.81 078 505 144.59 380 Tc(overland)= Ct•(L1•N/S ^ 0.5)"0.8) Q(est)= 0.78 Ct = 0 15 6 300 3 18 0.95 383 90 293 L1 = Len ph of Overland Flow Holding = 9.45 10 800 2.24 0.87 512 180 332 N = friction factor of overlaid flow (4 br average grasp cover) 15 900 1.77 0.53 584 270 294 S= average slope ofoverl End flow 20 1200 1.45 043 592 380 232 Tc (gutter) = Lengh ft.)/Velocity Gt./sec.)180 25 1500 1.21 0.36 603 450 153 B = Bottom wldh of gutter or ditch 30 /800 1.04 0.31 812 540 72 Zt = Inverse of cross slope one of ditch 35 2100 0.91 0.27 817 630 -13 22 • inverse of cross slope two of ditch 40 2400 0,82 025 830 720 -90 d = dept of tow In gutter (estimate. check estimate with Fbw) 45 2700 0.74 0.22 835 810 -175 Area = d +d 2!2'(21+22) 50 3000 0.68 020 844 900 -256 Wetted perimeter = B• d+( 1(sln(afi +1 /sm(atn /22))) 55 3300 0.64 0.19 864 990 -326 Hydraulic Radius = R = Area/Wetted Perimeter 80 3800 0.81 0.18 888 1080 -392 Velocity = 1 488,8 R" 867's " 5 135 3900 0.80 0.18 730 1170 -440 Fbw = Vobcity•Area 70 4200 0.58 0.17 758 1260 -502 n - 0.016 br asphalt 75 4500 0.58 0.17 782 1350 -588 s = longifudhal slope of gutter 80 4800 0.53 0.18 788 1440 -852 65 5100 0.52 0.18 620 1530 -710 90 5400 0.50 0.15 833 1820 -787 95 5700 0.48 015 801 1710 -849 100 8000 0.48 0.14 886 1800 -914 DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required grassy s wale pond n b rage , vo L m e = Impervious Area x 5 in 112 In /ft. = 508 a ft provided 78.5 a ft No Good DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STORM Maximum storage required by Bowstring = 360 a It provided 482 a ft. OK! Number end type of Drywalls Required = 1 Single 0 Double BOWSTRING METHOD (TEN YEAR STORM DESIGN) PROJECT P1414 TIME OF CONCENTRATION tninutes) DETENTION BASIN DESIGN BASIN: M REVIEWER Parry Tc (overland) Tc (gutter) Arras "C• A•C NUMBER OF DRYWELLS PROPOSED DATE: 04 -Apr -95 1 Single (type A) 0 Double (type B) Ct = 0.15 L2 = 270 0.10 0.90 0.09 Total Area (talc.) (see 111) 0.19 Z1 = 3 0.09 0.25 0.0225 Time ofConc. (talc.) (see H1) 5.00 L1(A) = Z2 = 3 000 0.00 0 Composite CC' (taut) (see H1) 0.59 N(A) = 0.4 8 = 4.4 0.00 0.00 0 TlmeofConc. (rnr) 500 S(A) = n = 0.023 0.00 0.00 0 Area (Acres) 0 19 s = 0.0136 0.00 0.00 0 C' Factor 0.59 Tc (A) = 0.00 d = 0.07 0.00 0.00 0 Impervbus Area bq 5) 7200 Total A Comp •C` Vo imePrrnnded 208 38 sto rm 392 L1(8) = 0 Tc (gu) = 3 78 0.19 0.59 Outflow (cis) 0.3 N(8) = 0 Tc(A +B) - 0.00 Area • C' Factor 0 11 S(B) - 0 Q =C 0.36 _ =_ ______= Tc(bt.) = 500 Q(ast.) = 0.36 01 #2 #3 04 05 06 07 Tc (B) = 0.0 Intensity = 3.18 Time Time Inensity Q dev V in V out Storage A = 0.303488 Inc Inc. High pt. eke. High pt. cln. 2032.00 WP = 4.8174 (mh.) (sec.) (n.t r.) (cis) (a ft) (a. ft) (a. ft) LowpLdev. Low pt. elev. 2028.33 R= 0.0630 (01 • 60) (A•C'03) (Ot.rif • 02) (#5 - 06) Tc kngth T: length 270 V = 1 19 _____________ _ ___ _______________________ ____= Tc (btai) =Tc(overland) +Tc(gitter) Tc(gJ)= 3.78 5.00 300.00 3.18 0.36 144 90.00 54 Tc (overland) = Ct•(L1 •NuS ^ 0.5) Q(est) = 0.36 Ct = 0 15 5 300 3.18 0.36 144 90 54 L1 = Lengh of Overland Flow Holding = 3.92 10 600 2.24 0.25 177 180 -3 N = friction facbr of overlaid flow (4 br average grass cover) 15 900 1.77 0.20 200 270 -70 S = average slope of overlaid flow 20 1200 1.45 0 16 212 360 -148 Tc (gutter) = Lengh (t )Netoclty et isec.) /60 25 1500 1.21 0.14 218 450 -232 8 = Bottom width of gutter or ditch 30 1800 1,04 0.12 223 540 -317 21 = hverse of cross sbpe one of ditch 35 2100 0.91 0.10 225 830 -405 Z2 = inverse of ages slope two of ditch 40 2400 0.82 0.09 231 720 -489 d = dept of bw h Gutter (estimate. check estimate with Fbw) 45 2700 074 0.08 233 810 -577 Area = d +d ^ 2f2 • (Zt +Z2) 50 3000 0.86 0.08 237 900 -863 Wetted perimeter = B• d+( 1 /5In (eh (1i21)) +11sin Tab (1 /22))) 55 3300 084 0.07 245 990 -745 Hydraulic Radius = R = Area/Wetted Perimeter 60 3800 0.61 0.07 254 1080 -826 Vebcrty = 1.48641'R".667•5 - 5 65 3900 0.60 0.07 270 1170 -900 Fbw = Vebcit•Area 70 4200 0.58 0.07 281 1260 -979 n = 0.016 br asph aft 75 4500 0.58 0.06 290 1350 -1060 s = Ion grludn ei sbpe of gutter 80 4800 0.53 0.06 292 1440 -1148 85 5100 0.52 0.06 304 1530 -1228 90 5400 0,50 0.06 309 1820 -1311 95 5700 0.49 0.06 320 1710 -1390 100 6000 0.48 0.05 330 1800 -1470 DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required grassy swale pond storage volume = Impervious Area x .5 h.1 12 In fft. DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10YEAR DESIGN STORM Maximum storage required by Bavvtrtng = 300 a It provided 38 a ft No Good 54 a ft. provided 392 a ft. OKI Number End type of Drywells Required = 1 Sn gle 0 Double BOWSTRING METHOD (TEN YEAR STORM DESIGN) PROJECT P1414 TIME OF CONCENTRATION (Minutes) DETENTION BASIN DESIGN BASIN P (phase 3) REVIEWER Parry Tc (overland) Tc ( gutter) Areas A•C NUMBER OF DRYWELLS PROPOSED DATE 04 -Apr -96 0 Single (type A) 1 Double (type B) Ct = 0.15 L2 = 200 0.57 0.90 0.511157 Total Area (talc) (see H1) 1.01 21 = 3 0.44 0.25 0 110652 Time ofConc. (talc) (see H1) 5.00 L1(A) = Z2 = 3 0.00 0.00 0 Composite 'C' (talc.) (see H1) 0.62 N(A) = 0.4 B = 4.4 0.00 0.00 0 TimeofConc prth) 5.00 S(A) = n = 0.023 0.00 0.00 0 Area (Acres) 1 0105801 5 = 0.0164 0.00 0.00 0 C' Facbr 0.62 Tc (A) = 0.00 d = 0.17 0.00 0.00 0 Impervious Area (5 q fl.) 10540 Total A Comp 'C' WUmeProvided 209 0 $loan 0 Lt(8) = 0 lc (9) = 1.41 1.01 0.02 Outflow (cb) 1 N(B) = 0 Tc(A +8) = 0.00 Area • C' Facbr 0.62 S(B) = 0 O =C•I•A= 1.98 ---- Tc(bt.)= 6.00 O(est.) 197 *1 *2 *3 1 *5 06 07 Tc (6) = 0.0 Intensity = 3.18 Time Time Intensity 0 day V n Vout Storage A = 0.8347 Inc Inc. High pt.cies 0.0 High pt.elev. 2034.00 WP = 54752 (rah.) (sec) (n.Rhr.) (A) (cu. ft) (cu. ft) (oi ft.) Low pt.dcv. 000 Lew pt.elev. 2030.73 R = 0 1525 (*1 '60) (A 3) (Otnf.' (Jt5 - 06) Tc knph U Tc length 200 V = 2.36 ___ = =__ =__________ =___ =__ =_ =___ =____ == Tc (btal)= Tc(overland) +Tc(grtter) Tc(g1)= 141 5 DO 300.00 3.18 1.98 795 300.00 495 Tc (overland) = Ct•(L1•N/S ^ 05) "0.6) C(est) = 1.97 Ct = 0 16 5 300 3.18 1.98 795 300 495 11 = Lan gh of Overland Flow Holding = 2.91 10 600 2.24 1.39 978 600 378 N = friction facbr of overland fbw (.4 br average grass cover) 15 900 1 77 1.10 1103 900 203 S = aver age slope of overland flow 20 1200 1.45 0.90 1174 1200 -26 Tc (gutter) - Len Qt.)Nelocity Qt ec.j/60 25 1500 1.21 0.75 1205 1500 -295 0 = Botbm width of gutter or ditch 30 1800 1.04 0.85 1230 1800 -570 21 = Inverse of cross slope one of ditch 35 2100 0.91 0.57 12x6 2100 -854 Z2 = Inverse of noes slope two of ditch 40 2400 082 0.51 1276 2400 -1124 d = depth of lbw in gutter (estimate, check estimate with Fbw) 45 2700 0.74 048 1260 2700 -1411 Area =d'B +d ^ 2/2•(21 +Z2) 50 3000 0.68 042 1312 300 -1688 Wetted perimeter = B•d +(1/ 51n (atn(1 /Z1)) +1 /sin(act(11Z2))) 55 3300 0.84 0 40 1354 3300 - 1946 Hydraulic Radius = R = AreamNetted Perimeter 80 360 0.61 038 1404 3800 -2198 Velocity = 1.488b •R ^ 867•s " 5 65 3900 0.80 0.37 1493 3900 -2407 Fbw = VebcityArea 70 4200 0.58 0.38 1552 4200 -2648 n = 0.016 br asphalt 75 4500 0.58 0.35 1602 4500 -2896 s = bngitidnalsbpeofgutter 80 4800 0.53 033 1615 4800 -3165 85 5100 0.52 0.32 1662 5100 -3418 90 5400 0.50 0.31 1 711 5400 -3889 95 5700 0.49 0.30 1768 5700 -3932 100 6000 0.48 0.30 1821 6000 - 4179 MMMMM DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Rewired grassy swats pond s b rage vo V m e = Impervious Area x .5 n./ 12 Initt. = DRYWELL REQUIREMENT S - 10 YEAR DESIGN STORM Maximum sbrage required by Bowstring = Number and type of Drywelts Required = provided provided 439 a1 ft 0cu ft. 495 cv. ft 0 cu ft. 0 Sngle No Good No Good 1 Double BOWSTRING METHOD (TEN YEAR STORM DESIGN) PRQIECT: P1414 TIME OF CONCENTRATION (minutes) DETENTION BASIN DESIGN BASIN: P Obese t) REVIEWER Parry Tc (overland) Tc (gutter) Areas 'C' A•C NUMBER OF DRYWELLS PROPOSED DATE 04 -Apr -95 0 Single (type A) 1 Double (type 8) CT = 0 15 L2 = 0.21 0.90 0 185744. Total Area (calc.) (see H1) 1.14 ZI = 3 0.93 0.30 0.279863 Time ofConc. (cafe) (see H1) 8.06 Ll(A) = 250 Z2 = 3 0.00 0.00 0 Com posits • C'(calc.) (see 1-1 1) 0.41 N(A) = 0.4 8= 44 0.00 0.00 0 TlmeatConc. (min) 8.06 S(A) = 0.0171 n = 0.023 0.00 0.00 0 Area (Acres) 1.14 s = 0.00 0.00 0 C' Factor 0.41 Tc (A) = 8.06 d = 0.17 0.00 0.00 0 Impervious Area tiq. ft) 7188 Total A Comp 'C" Volume Provided 208: 0 storm. 0 L1(B) = 0 lc 0;01= 0.00 1 14 0.41 Outflow (cis) 1 N(B) = 0 Tc(A +8) = 808 Area •C Factor 0.47 S(B) = 0 O =C•I•A= 1.21 __ ____ = =__ = == Tc(bt)= 8.06 O(eat) = 0.00 *1 N2 4' 3 *4 05 *8 07 Tc (8) = 0. Intensity = 2.60 Time Time Intensity 0 dev. V V out Storage A = 0.8347 Inc Inc. High pt. ekv. 20350 High pt.elcv. 0.00 WP = 5.4752 (mn 1 (Sec -) (it.,hr.) (cts) (cu ft) (at tt) (au. tot) Low pi. dev. 2030.73 Low pt.elev. 0.00 R = 0.1525 (*1 (A ( Out 's2) (its -SC Tc leas* 250 rc kntth 0 V = 0.00 _____ ________________ Tc (bra)) =Tc(overland) +Tc(gitter) Tc(gr)= ERR 0.06 483.81 2.80 1.21 786 483.61 302 Tc(overtand) = Ct•(L1•N/S ^ 0.5)" 0.6) O(eet) = 0.00 Ct = 0.15 5 300 3.16 1 48 595 300 296 11 = Lang' of Overland Flow Holding = 0.00 10 800 2.24 1.04 797 600 197 N - friction facer of overland flow (4 br average grass cover) 15 900 1.77 0.82 877 900 -23 S = average slope of overland flow 20 1200 1.45 0.67 921 1200 -279 Tc (gutter) = Length Qt.)Nelocity Qtbec.)160 25 1500 1.21 0.58 937 1500 -563 8 - 8otbm wldti of glitter ditch 30 1800 1.04 0.48 951 1800 -849 Zt = Inverse of cross slope one of ditch 35 2100 0.91 0.42 959 2100 -1141 22 • inverse of cross sbpe two of ditch 40 2400 0.82 0.38 979 2400 -1421 d = dept of lbw In gutter (estimate, check estimate with Fbw) 45 2700 0.74 0.34 987 2700 -1713 Area = d +d ^ 212 (Z1 + Z2) 50 3000 0.88 0.32 1002 3000 -1998 Wetted perimeter = B• d+( 11 s1n(atn(121)) +1 /ein(a1n(1 /Z2))) 55 3300 0.84 0.30 1032 3300 -2288 Hydraulic Radius = R = AreartNotted Perimeter 60 3600 0.81 0.28 1069 3800 -2531 Veloctty = 1.4868'R" 667•s ".5 65 3900 0.60 0.28 1135 3900 -2765 Fbw = Vebcity*Area 70 4200 0.58 0.27 1178 4200 -3022 n = 0.016 br asphalt 75 4500 0.58 0.28 1218 4500 -3284 5 = Ion gib dual slope of gutter 80 4800 0.53 0.25 1225 4800 -3575 85 5100 0.52 0.24 1274 5100 -3828 90 5400 050 0.23 1295 5400 -4105 95 5700 0.49 0.23 1337 5700 -4383 100 8000 0.48 0.22 1377 8000 -4623 DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required grassy swale pond storage vorume = Impervious Area 5 n ! 12 In /ft = DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STORM Maximum storage required by Bowotnng 299 cu. ft. provided 0 cu, }t. No Good 302 co ft. provided 0 a. ft. No Good Number and type of Drywells Reo.i Ire° = 0 Single 1 Double BOWSTRING METHOD (TEN YEAR STORM DESIGN) PROJECT P1414 TIME OF CONCENTRATION tri Inules) DETENTION BASIN DESIGN BASIN S REVIEWER Parry Tc (overland) Tc (gutter) Areas • C" A•C NUMBER OF DRYWELLS PROPOSED DATE 03- Apr -95 1 Single (type A) 0 Double (type 8) Ct = 0.15 12 = 138 0.09 0.90 0.082128 Total Area (talc) (see H1) 0.15 Z1 = 3 0.08 0.25 0.015006 Time ofConc. (talc.) pee H1) 5.00 L1(A) = 0 Z2 - 3 0.00 0.00 0 Com posits •C" (talc.) (see H1) 0.64 N(A) - 0.4 B = 4 4 0,00 0.00 0 Time of Conc. Quin) 5.00 S(A) = 0 n - 0.023 0.00 0.00 0 Area (Acres) 0 1512858 e - 0.0146 0.00 0.00 0 C' Facbr 0.84 Tc (A) = 0.00 d = 0.06 0.00 0.00 0 Impervious Area (5a. ft.) 2985 Total A Comp '0" Volume Provided 208: 175 storm: 387 L1(B) = 0 1c Mu) = 1.95 0 15 0,04 Cudaw(cis) 03 N(B) = 0 Tc(A +8)= 000 Area • C Facbr 0.10 S(B) = 0 O- C•I•A= 0.31 _ ° Tc(b1.) = 5.00 Q(e51)= 0.32 Y1 02 03 M4 05 08 07 Tc (B) = 0.0 Intensity = 3 18 Tine Tine Intensity 0 dev V in Vat Storage A = 0.2748 Inc. Inc. High pt. tin.. Hisb pt. cicv. WP = 4.7795 (m r. ) (s ec) (1141r 1 (cts) (nu tt) (cu ft) (cu. tt) Low pt. dcv. law pt. de, R - 0.0575 (01 • 60) (A•C•13) (Out '02) (05 -06) Tc knell Tc knstb V = 1.16 = == = =_______ ______ =_= _______= Tc (total)= Tc(overland) +Tc(gitter) Tc(gu)= 1.95 5.00 300.00 3.18 0.31 124 90 00 34 Tc (overland) = CV` (L1•N/S ^ 0.5)"0.6) Q(51) = 0.32 Ct = 0 16 5 300 3 16 0.31 124 90 34 L1 = Lengh of Overland Flow Holding = 1.98 10 600 2.24 0.22 153 180 -27 N - frlctbn factor ofoverlend lbw (,4 br average grass cover) 15 900 1.77 0.17 172 270 -96 S = averages:ape of overl End flow 20 1200 1.45 0.14 183 380 -177 Tc ( getter) = Lengtl Ct.)Nelocfty (fteec.) /60 25 1500 1.21 0.12 186 450 -262 B = Bottom width of gutter or ditch 30 1800 1.04 0.10 192 540 -348 Z1 = Inverse of Dross slope one of ditch 35 2100 0.91 0.09 195 530 -435 Z2 - hverse of cross sbpe two of ditdi 40 2400 0.82 0.08 199 720 -521 d = depth of tow h gutter (estimate, check es timate with Fbw) 45 2700 0.74 0.07 201 810 -609 Area = d +d ^ 2/2 +Z2) 50 3000 0.68 0.07 205 B00 -895 Wetted perimeter = B• d+( 1/ sin(atn(121)) +11sin(atn(1 /Z2))) 55 3300 0.84 0.06 211 990 -779 Hydraulic Radius = R = Area/Wetted Perimeter 80 3800 0.81 0.08 219 1080 -881 Vebclty - 1.488,41 •R ^ .687•s ^ .5 65 3900 0.60 0.06 233 1170 -937 Fbw = Vebcity'Area 70 4200 0.58 0.06 242 1280 -1018 n = 0.018 br asphalt 75 4500 0.58 0.05 250 1350 -1100 5 = bn gnu dhal slope of gutter 80 4800 0.53 005 252 1440 -1188 65 5100 0.52 0.05 263 1530 -1267 90 5400 050 005 267 1620 -1353 95 5700 0 49 0.05 276 1710 -1434 100 8000 0 48 0.05 265 1800 -1515 DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required grassyswale pond storage volume = impervious Area 5 n.; 12 in.11 = DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STORM Maximum storage required by Bowstring = 124 cu. ft. provided 175 cu. ft. OKI 34 cu. fL provided 387 a. ft. OK1 Number end type of Drywalls Required = 1 Single 0 Double BOWSTRING METHOD (TEN YEAR STORM DESIGN) PROJECT P1414 TIME OF CONCENTRATION hi mu DETENTION BASIN DESIGN BASIN R REVIEWER Parry Tc (overland) Tc (getter) Areas 'C' A•C NUMBER OF DRYWELLS PROPOSED DATE 05 -Apr -95 0 Single (type A) 1 Double (type 8) C1 = 0.15 L2 = 554 0.37 0.90 0.333 Total Area (calc.) (see H1) 0.62 Z1 = 3 0.25 0.25 0.0625 Time of Conc. (calc.) (see H1) 5.85 LI(A)= Z2= 3 000 0.00 0 Composite "C' (talc) (see Ht) 0.84 N(A) = 0.4 B = 4.4 0.00 0.00 0 TimeolConc (min) 5.85 S(A) = n = 0.023 000 0.00 0 Area (Acres) 0.62 5 = 00090 0.00 0.00 0 C' Factor 064 Tc (A) = 0.00 d = 0.15 0.00 0.00 0 Impervbus Area (s q. C) 11805 Total A Comp 'C" Volume Provided 208. 124 storm: 888 L1(B) - 0 Tc (gu) = 5.85 0.82 0.84 Outflow (cis) 1 N(B) = 0 Tc(A+B) = 0.00 Area • C" Fact 0.40 S(B) = 0 Q =C 1.21 = = = = = = =_ __°______'____= Tc(bt.) = 5.65 Q( ®t.)= 1.21 *1 *2 *3 *4 *5 *6 *7 Tc (B) = 0.0 Intensity = 3.06 Tine Tire Intensity Q dev V in V out Storage A = 0.738112 me. Inc High pt. elec. High pt. ckv. 21332.42 WP = 5.3613 (con ) (sec.) (h.hr.) (cb) (a. ft) (a. ft) (a. ft) Low pt. dcc. Low pt. cIc'. 2027 R = 0.1377 (*1'80) (A (Oust • • *2) (S`5 -*8) Tc Icagth Tc length 554 V = 1 83 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Tc (total) = Tc ( overland) + Tc (getter) Tc((p) = 5.65 565 339.09 3.06 1.21 549 339.09 210 Tc( overland)= Ct'(L1•N/S 0.5) ^ 0.6) C(ot)= 1.21 Ct = 0 16 5 300 3 18 1.26 506 300 208 L1 = Len 9h of Overland Flow Holding = 8.05 10 800 2.24 0 89 634 600 34 N = friction facbr of overlie d lbw (.4 br average grass cover) 15 900 1.77 0.70 711 900 -189 S = average slope of overland Flow 20 1200 1.45 0.57 754 1200 -448 To (getter) = Length (11.)NelocIty Qtbec.) /80 25 1500 1.21 048 773 1500 -727 5 - Bottom width or ardor or ditch 30 1800 1.04 0.41 768 1800 -1012 21 = inverse of toss sbpe one of ditch 35 2100 0.91 0.36 797 2100 -1303 Z2 = inverse of cross sbpe two of ditch 40 2400 0.62 0.32 818 2400 -1584 d = dept of lbw In gutter (estimate. check estimate with Flow) 45 2700 0.74 0.29 824 2700 -1876 Area = d'B +d ^ 2/2' (Z1 + Z2) 50 3000 0.88 0.27 838 3000 -2162 Wetted perimeter = B' d+( 1/ eIn(a41(1;Z1)) +1 /con(atr(122))) 55 3300 0.84 0.25 884 3300 -2436 Hydraulic Radius = R = Area/Wetted Perimeter 60 3800 0.61 0 24 898 3600 -2704 Vebclty = 1 48811' •R ^ .667•s " 5 65 3900 0.60 0.24 953 3900 -2947 Fbw = Vebcrty•Area 70 4200 0.58 0.23 990 4200 -3210 n = 0.016 br asphalt 75 4500 0.56 0.22 1022 4500 -3478 s =bngltidhalsboeofwhet 80 4800 0.53 0.21 1030 4800 -3770 85 5100 0.52 0.21 1073 5100 -4027 90 5400 0.50 0.20 1091 5400 -4309 95 5700 0 49 0.19 1127 5700 -4573 100 6000 0 48 0 19 1181 6000 -4839 DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Regi !red grmis y swale pond sbrage volu m e = Impervious Area x 5 h./ 12 In /ft = ORYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STORM Maximum sbrage required by Bombing = Number and type of Drywalls Regalred = 492 a. It provided 124 a. IL No God 210 a. It provided 888 W. ft. OKI OSingle 1 Double BOWSTRING METHOD (TEN YEAR STORM DESIGN) PROJECT P1414 TIME OF CONCENTRATION $nlnutrs) DETENTION BASIN DESIGN BASIN T REVIEWER Parry Tc (overland) Tc (gutter) Areas 'C" A•C NUMBER OFDRVWELLSPROPOSED DATE 05 -Apr -95 0 Single (type A) 1 Double (type B) CI = 0.15 L2 = 394 0.44 0.90 0.398 Total Area (talc) (see H1) 0.75 Z1 = 5 0.31 0.25 0.0775 Time ofConc. (talc) (see H1) 8.10 L1(A) = Z2 = 4 0.00 0.00 0 Composite 'C' (talc.) (see H1) 0.83 N(A) = 0.4 8 = 1 0 0.00 0.00 0 Time ofConc. (min) 8.10 S(A) = n = 0.023 0.00 0.00 0 Area (Acres) 0 75 a = 0.0009 0,00 0.00 0 C' Factor 0.63 Tc (A) = 0.00 d = 0.48 0.00 000 0 Impervbus Area tq. ft.) 18140 Total A Comp 'C' WilmeProvided 208, 326 storm 688 L1(B) = 0 tc (g1) = 5.10 0.75 063 OuMow (cis) 1 N(B) = 0 Tc(A +B) = 000 Area • C' Factor 0.47 S(B) = 0 Q- C•I•A= 1 23 ________•_-__ °_______________ °______________ _= Tc(bt.)= 810 Q(est.)= 1.23 k1 *2 *3 4 *5 *8 *7 Tc (8) = 0 0 Intensity = 2.60 Tme Time Intensity Qdev Vin V out Storage A= 1.5168 Inc Inc High pt. elm High pu ckv. 2032.67 WP = 5.4266 (m in ) (sec.) (in Air) (cis) (W ft) (w. It) (cu ft) LowpL elev. Low pr. elev. 2032.33 R= 0.2795 (01 • 60) (A•C•ar3) (0utE •art) (*5 -06) Tc lcnitb Tr kind:. 394 V = 0.81 __ a = = = = == Tc (total) =Tc(overland) +Tc(gutter) Tc(g1)u• 8.10 8.10 485 51 280 1.23 801 485.81 315 Tc (overland) = CN(L 1 •N/S "0.5) ^ 0.6) Q(est) = 1.23 Ct = 0.15 5 300 3 18 1 51 805 300 305 L1 = Len gti of Overland Flow Holding = 8.26 10 600 2.24 1.06 812 800 212 N = friction tacbr of overland fbw (4 br average grass cover) 15 900 1.77 0.84 693 900 -7 S = average slope of overland How 20 1200 1.45 0.69 937 1200 -263 Tc (gutter) = Lengh at )/Velocity (ft.Asec.)!60 25 1500 1.21 0.57 954 1500 -546 B = Bottom width of cutter or ditch 30 1800 1 04 0.48 968 1800 -8.32 Z1 = inverse of cross slope one of ditdl 35 2100 0.91 0.43 976 2100 -1124 22 = Inverse of cross sb two of ditch 40 2400 0.82 0.39 996 2400 -1404 d = deph of lbw h gu tter (estimate, check Es timate with Fbw) 45 2700 0.74 0.35 1004 2700 -1898 Area = d•8 +d ^ 212 (21 + 22) 50 3000 0.88 0.32 1019 3000 -1981 Wetted perimeter = B•d+( lisin (atn(1'Z1)) +1 /srn(at1(1!Z2))) 55 3300 0.64 0.30 1050 3300 -2250 Hydraulic Radius = R = Area/Wetted Perimeter 60 3800 0.81 0.29 1085 3800 -2512 Vebclty = 1.486fr •R " 657's " 5 65 3900 0.50 0.28 1155 3900 -2745 Fbw = Vebcit•Aree 70 4200 0.58 0.27 1199 4200 -3001 n = 0.018 br asphalt 75 4500 0.58 0.27 1237 4500 -3263 s = bngrtadnalsbpeof weer 80 4800 0.53 0.25 1246 4800 -3554 85 5100 0.52 0.25 1296 5100 -3804 90 5400 0.50 0.24 1318 5400 -4082 95 5700 0.49 0,23 1361 5700 -4339 100 6000 0.48 0.23 1401 6000 -4599 DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Requ ire d grrss y s wale pond storage volume Impervious Area x .5 i1,/ 12 in lft = DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STORM Maximum storage required by Bowatring - Num an d type of Drywells Required = provided provided 873 cu. ft. 328 cu. ft. No Good 316 cu. ft. 889 cu, f1. OKI ()Single 1 Double BOWSTRING METHOD (FIFTY YEAR STORM DESIGN) PROJECT. P1689 TIME OF CONCENTRATION (minutes) DETENTION BASIN DESIGN BASIN post - dev REVIEWER: Parry Tc (overland) Tc (gutter) Areas A'C NUMBER OF DRYWELLS PROPOSED DATE: 06- Apr -95 0 Single (type A) 2.3 Double (type B) Ct = 0.15 L2 = 700 3.20 0.10 0 32 Total Area (calc.) (see H1) 4.56 for Tc only Z1 = 50 1,36 0.90 1.224 Time of Conc. (calc.) (see H1) 5.00 Lt (A) = 0 Z2 = 0.167 0.00 0.00 0 Composite "C' (talc,) (see H1) 0.34 N(A) = 0.016 B = 0 0.00 0.00 0 Time of Conc. (min) 5.00 S(A) = 0 n = 0.016 0.00 0.00 0 Area (Acres) 4.58 s = 0.0102 0.00 0.00 0 C Factor 0.34 Tc (A) = 0.00 d = 0.321 0.00 0.00 0 Impervious Area (sq. tt.) 30476 Total A Comp "C" Volume Provided 208: 0 storm: 0 L1(B) = 0 Tc (gu) = 4.26 4.56 0.34 Outflow (cts) 2.3 N(B) = 0.4 Tc(A+B)= 0.00 Area • C'' Factor 1.54 S(B) = 0 Q= C•I•A= 7.07 Tc(tot.) = 5.00 Q(est.) = 7.08 #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 Tc (B) = 0.00 Intensity = 4.58 Time Time Intensity 0 dev. V in V out Storage A = 2.584829 Inc. Inc. WP = 16.3787 (mil,) (sec.) (n fir.) (cfs) (w. ft.) (w. tt.) (w. ft.) R = 0.1578 ( #1 (4 C' #3) (Outf.•#2) ( #5 - #6) V = 2.74 Tc (total) = Tc (overland) + Tc (gutter) Tc(gu) = 4.26 5.00 300.00 4.58 7.07 2843 690.00 2153 Tc (overland) = Ct• (L1 • N/S - 0.5) ^ 0.6) Q (est) = 7.08 C1= 0.15 5 300 4.58 7.07 2843 690 2153 L1 = Lengh of Overland Flow Holding = 24.94 10 600 3.20 4.94 3468 1380 2088 N = friction factor of overland lbw (.4 for average grass cover) 15 900 2.47 3,81 3821 2070 1751 S = average slope of overland lbw 20 1200 1.98 3.06 3980 2760 1220 Tc (gutter) = Lengh (ft)Nebcity (It. /sec.)160 25 1500 1.67 2.58 4131 3450 681 B = Bottom width of gutter or ditch 30 1800 1.46 2.25 4288 4140 148 Z1 = inverse of cross sbpe one of ditch 35 2100 1.30 2.01 4420 4830 - 410 Z2 = ilverseof cross sbpe two of ditch 40 2400 1.18 1.82 4558 5520 - 982 d = depth of fbw to gutter (estimate, check estimate with Flow) 45 2700 1.07 1.65 4629 6210 -1581 Area = d•B +d"2/2•(Z1 +Z2) 50 3000 1.00 1.54 4789 6900 -2111 Wetter perineter= B• d+( 1 /sin (art (1/Z1)) +1lsv(atn(1222))) 55 3300 0.92 1.42 4832 7590 -2758 Iiydrayllc Radius = R = ArcauWetted Perimeter 60 3600 0.87 1.34 4973 8280 -3307 Velocity = 1.4866' R ^ .667's " .5 65 3900 0.82 1.27 5067 8970 -3903 Flow= Vebcity•Area 70 4200 0.80 1.24 5314 9660 - 4346 n = 0.016 for asphalt 75 4500 0.77 1.19 5471 10350 -4879 s = longitudinal slope of gutter 80 4800 0.75 1.16 5677 11040 - 5363 85 5100 0.72 1 .1 1 5783 11730 - 5947 90 5400 0.70 1.08 5947 12420 - 6473 95 5700 0.69 1 07 6181 13110 -6929 100 6000 0.67 1 .03 6312 13800 - 7488 DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required grassy Swale pond sbrage volume = Impervious Area x .5 n ./ 12 n .lit. = DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 50 YEAR DESIGN STORK Maximum storage required by Bowstring = provided: Number and type of Drywalls Rewired = provided: 1270 cu. ft. 0 w. tt. 2153 w. f1 0 0 Single 2.3 Double No Good No Good BOWSTRNG METHOD (TEN YEAR STORM DESIGN) PRO,ECT P1689 TIME OF CONCENTRATION (minutes) DETENTION BASIN DESIGN BASIN. post -dev REVIEWER: Parry Tc (overland) Tc ( gutter) Areas "C' A•C NUMBER OF DRYWELLS PROPOSED DATE: 06- Apr -95 0 Singe (type A) 2.3 Double (type 8) Ct = 0.15 L2 = 700 1.36 0.90 1.220579 Total Area (talc.) (see H1) 4.56 Z1 = 50 3.20 0.10 0.320478 Time of Conc. (Cale.) (see 111) 5.85 L1(A) = 0 Z2 = 167 0.00 0.00 0 Composite "C' (Cale) (see 111) 0.34 N(A) = 0.4 8 = 0 0.00 0.00 0 Time of Conc. (min) 5.85 S(A) = 0 n = 0.016 0.00 0.00 0 Area (Acres) 4.56 s = 0.015 0.00 0.00 0 C' Factor 0.34 Tc (A) = 0.00 d = 0.147 0.00 0.00 0 I mpe rviou s Area (eq. ft.) 30476 Total A Comp 'C' Volume Provided 208: 3610 storm: 4969 Li (B) = 0 Tc (gu) = 5.85 4.56 0.34 Outflow (cf5) 2.3 N(B) = 0 Tc(A +B) = 0.00 Ar ea • C' Factor 1.54 S(B) = 0 0= C•I•A= 4.65 Tc(tot) = 5.85 Q(est.) = 4.68 #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 Tc ( = 0.0 Intensity = 3.02 Time Time Intensity O dev V in V out Starage A = 2.344576 Inc. Inc. High Ft. elev. High pt. eicv. WP = 31.9009 (min) (sec.) On /hr.) (cfs) (cu. ft) (cu. ft) (cu ft) Low pt. elev. Low pt. ekv. R = 0.0735 (0 (A•C' #3) (0111• #2) ( #5 - #6) Tcieugth 0 Tc length 700 V = 1.99 Tc (total) = Tc (overland) + Tc (gutter) Tc(gu) = 5.65 5.85 351.04 3.02 4.65 2189 807.39 1382 Tc (overland) = Cr (L1'N/S ^ a.5) ^0.6) O(est) = 4.88 Ct = 0.15 5 300 3.18 4.90 1970 690 1280 Li = Length of Overland Flow Holding = 24.94 10 600 2.24 3.45 2483 1380 1103 N = 'lotion factor of overland flow (.4 for average lass cover) 15 900 1.77 2.73 2780 2070 710 S = average slope of overland flow 20 1200 1.45 2.23 2948 2760 188 Tc (g.Jtier) = Length (R. )/ elocity (1t. /sec.)16C 25 1500 1.21 1.86 3020 3450 -430 8 = Bottom wlcth of gutter or triton 30 1800 1.04 1.60 3076 4140 -1064 Z1 = irwerse of cross slope one of ditch 35 2100 0.91 1.40 3112 4830 -1718 Z2 = irwerse of crass sk pe two of latch 40 2400 0.82 1.26 3184 5520 -2336 d = depth of flow in gutter (estimate, check estimate with Flow) 45 2700 0.74 1.14 3215 6210 -2995 Area = 0•B+d ^ 2/2'(Z1 +Z2) 50 3000 0.68 1.05 3269 6900 -3631 Wetted pen meter = B'd +(1/sln(atn (121))+1 /sin(atn(1/22))) 55 3300 0.64 0.99 3372 7590 -4218 Hyd Radius = R = Area /Wetted Perimeter 60 3600 0.61 0.94 3496 8280 -4784 Velocrty = 1.486 /n•R 667's 5 65 3900 0.60 0.92 3716 8970 -5254 Flow = Velocrty'Area 70 4200 0.58 0.89 3861 9660 -5799 n = 0.016 for asphalt 75 4500 0.56 0.86 3986 10350 -6364 5 = longitudinal slope of gutter 80 4800 0.53 0.82 4018 11040 -7022 85 5100 0.52 0.80 4 183 11730 -7547 90 5400 0.50 0.77 4253 12420 -8167 95 5700 0.49 0.76 4394 13110 -8716 100 6000 0.48 0.74 4527 13800 -9273 DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Req.nred gassy swele pond storage volume = Impervious Area x .5 In./ 12 in./R = Nu Inner and type of Drywess Reputed = 1270 cu. It Prowled. 3610 cu. ft OK' DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STORM Maximum storage required by Bowstring = 1382 cu ft provided 4969 cu ft OK 0 Single 2.3 Double BOWSTRING METHOD (TEN YEAR STORM DESIGN) PRO.ECT: P1 TIME OF CONCENTRATION (minutes) DETENTION BASIN DESIGN BASIN: site REVIEWER: Parry Tc (overland) Tc (gutter) Areas "C A' NUMBER OF ORYWELLS PROPOSED DATE: 06- Apr -95 0 Single (type A) 0 Doube (type 8 ) Ct = 0.15 L2 = 0 4.56 0.25 1.14 Total Area (tale.) (see HI) 4.56 Z1 = 50 0.00 0.00 0 Time 0f Conc. (rare.) (sea H1) 5.00 L1(A) = 700 22 = 167 0.00 0.00 0 Composite • C • (talc.) (sea H1) 0.25 N(A) = 0.4 5 = 0 0.00 0.00 0 Time of Conc. (min) 5.00 S(A) = 0.86 n = 0.016 0.00 0.00 0 Area (Acres) 4.56 s = 0 0.00 0.00 0 C' Factor 0.25 Tc (A) = 4.61 d = 0.1616 0.00 0.00 0 impervious Area (sq. R.) 81854 Total A Comp ''C'' Volume Provided 200: 3610 storm: 4969 Li(B) = 0 Tc (g.l) = 0.00 4.56 0.25 Outflow (cfs) 0 N(B) = 0 Tc(A+B) = 4.61 Area • C" Factor 1.14 S(B) = 0 Q= C'I•A= 3.63 Tc(toL) = 5.00 Q(est.) = 0.00 #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 Tc (B) = 0.0 Intensity = 3.18 Time Time Intensity 0 dev. V in V out Storage A = 2.83343 Inc. Inc High p.elev. High it. elev. WP = 35.0693 (min) (sec.) (in/hr.) (Cis) (cu. ft) (cu. ft) (cu. ft) Low pLekv. Low pl. ekv. R = 0.0808 ( #1'60) (A•C• #3) (0ti11 •#2) ( #5 - #6) Tc knoll 700 Tc length V = 0.00 Tc (total) = Tc (overland + Tc (gutter) Tc(gu) = ERR 5.00 300.00 3.18 3.63 1457 0.00 1457 Tc (overland) = Ct• (L1 •N /S ^ 0.5) ^ 0.6) Q(est) = 0.00 Ct = 0.15 5 300 3.18 3.63 1457 0 1457 Li = Length of Overland Flow Holding = 0.00 10 600 2.24 2.55 1793 0 1793 N = tirzon factor at overland flow (.4 for average grass cover) 15 900 1.77 2.02 2022 0 2022 S = average slope of overland flow 20 1200 1.45 1.65 2152 0 2152 Tc (gutter) = Length (R.)/Vetoclty (R./sec.)60 25 1500 1.21 1.38 2210 0 2210 8 = Bottom vattn of gutter or ditch 30 1800 1.04 1.19 2255 0 2255 Z1 = in./erse of cross slope one of ditch 35 2100 0.91 1.04 2284 0 2284 72 = inverse of crass slope two of ditch 40 2400 0.82 0.93 2339 0 2339 d = depth of flow in guner (estimate, check estimate with Flow) 45 2700 0.74 0.84 2364 0 2364 Area = tl'8 +d ^ 22•(Z1 +Z2) 50 3000 0.68 0.78 2405 0 2405 Wetted pen meter = 8' d+( 1 /sin(atn(1R1)) +1 /em(atn(1 55 3300 0.64 0.73 2482 0 2482 Hydraulic Radius = R = Area/Wetted Perimeter 60 3600 0.61 0.70 2574 0 2574 Velocity = 1.436 /n•R ^.667•5 ^.5 65 3900 0.60 0.68 2737 0 2737 Flow = Vetoctty'Area 70 4200 0.58 0.66 2844 0 2844 n = 0.018 for asphalt 75 4500 0.56 0.64 2938 0 2938 s = longitudinal slope of gutter 80 4800 0.53 0.60 2962 0 2962 85 5100 0.52 0.59 3084 0 3084 90 5400 0.50 0.57 3136 0 3136 95 5700 0.49 0.56 3241 0 3241 100 6000 0.48 0.55 3339 0 3339 DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required grassy swage pond storage volume = Impervious Area x .5 In./ 12 in./ft. = DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STORM Maximum storage required by Bowstring = Number and type of Drywalls Requred = 3411 cu. rt. provided: 3810 cu R OKI 3339 cu. ft provided: 4969 cu. R OK! 0 Singe 0 Double Quick TR-55 Ver.5.46 S/N: Executed: 12:38:52 04-06-1995 Subarea Description 9 - Basin X predeveloped RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER SUMMARY Area CN (acres) (weighted) 10.75 76 Quick TR -55 Ver.5.46 S /N: Executed: 12:38:52 04 -06 -1995 Composite Area: P1689 - Basin X predeveloped RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER DATA AREA CN SURFACE DESCRIPTION (acres) Cultivated, "B" soils 10.75 76 COMPOSITE AREA - - -> 10.75 76.0 ( 76 ) Quick TR -55 Ver.5.46 S /N: Executed: 12:40:40 04 -06 -1995 Subarea Description P1689 - Basin X Developed RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER SUMMARY Area CN (acres) (weighted) 10.75 76 Quick TR -55 Ver.5.46 S /N: Executed: 12:40:40 04 -06 -1995 Composite Area: P1689 - Basin X Developed RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER DATA 'SURFACE DESCRIPTION AREA CN (acres) Cultivated, "B" soils 8.62 76 Lawns, "B" soils 1.17 61 Roads 0.96 98 COMPOSITE AREA - - -> 10.75 76.3 ( 76 ) Quick TR -55 Ver.5.46 S /N: Executed: 12:42:53 04 -06 -1995 c: \pondpack \P1689X.TCT T = V = 0.5 0.4 P2 * s T = L / (3600 *V) Flow length, L n T = L / (3600 *V) P1689 - Basin X Tc COMPUTATIONS FOR: SHEET FLOW (Applicable to Tc only) Segment ID Surface description Manning's roughness coeff., n Flow length, L (total < or = 300) Two -yr 24 -hr rainfall, P2 Land slope, s 0.8 .007 * (n *L) SHALLOW CONCENTRATED FLOW Segment ID Surface (paved or unpaved)? Flow length, L Watercourse slope, s 0.5 Avg.V = Csf * (s) where: Unpaved Csf = 16.1345 Paved Csf = 20.3282 CHANNEL FLOW Segment ID Cross Sectional Flow Area, a Wetted perimeter, Pw Hydraulic radius, r = a /Pw Channel slope, s Manning's roughness coeff., n 2/3 1/2 1.49 * r * s cultivated 0.1000 ft 80.0 in 1.400 ft /ft 0.0167 hrs Unpaved ft 800.0 ft /ft 0.0100 ft /s 1.6135 hrs 0.16 0.14 sq.ft 0.00 ft 0.00 ft 0.000 ft /ft 0.0000 0.0000 ft /s 0.0000 ft 0 hrs 0.00 = 0.16 = 0.14 = 0.00 TOTAL TIME (hrs) 0.30 Quick TR -55 Ver.5.46 S /N: Executed: 12:42:53 04 -06 -1995 c: \pondpack \P1689X.TCT SUMMARY SHEET FOR Tc or Tt COMPUTATIONS (Solved for Time using TR -55 Methods) P1689 - Basin X Subarea descr. Tc or Tt Time (hrs) Tc 0.30 Quick TR -55 Ver.5.46 S /N: Executed: 12:47:21 04 -06 -1995 Subarea Description P1689 - Basin X predeveloped RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER SUMMARY Area CN (acres) (weighted) 107.50 60 Quick TR -55 Ver.5.46 S /N: Executed: 12:47:21 04 -06 -1995 Composite Area: P1689 - Basin X predeveloped RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER DATA AREA CN SURFACE DESCRIPTION (acres) Cultivated, "B" soils 107.50 60 COMPOSITE AREA - - -> 107.50 60.0 ( 60 ) Quick TR -55 Version: 5.46 S /N: Page 1 Return Frequency: 10 years Subarea Description Subarea Description TR -55 TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Type II. Distribution (24 hr. Duration Storm) Executed: 04 -06 -1995 12:51:03 Watershed file: - -> C: \PONDPACK \P1689PRE.MOP Hydrograph file: - -> C: \PONDPACK \1689XPRE.HYD P1689 - Basin X predeveloped Area * 100 >>» Input Parameters Used to Compute Hydrograph cccc AREA CN Tc * Tt Precip. (acres) (hrs) (hrs) (in) 1075.00 60.0 0.30 0.00 2.20 1 0.10 I.61 .50 * Travel time from subarea outfall to composite watershed outfall point. I -- Subarea where user specified interpolation between Ia /p tables. Total area = 1075.00 acres or 1.6797 sq.mi Peak discharge = 50 cfs >>» Computer Modifications of Input Parameters « «< Input Values Rounded Values Ia /p Tc * Tt Tc * Tt Interpolated Ia /p (hr) (hr) (hr) (hr) (Yes /No) Messages 0.30 0.00 ** ** Runoff Ia /p (in) input /used No Computed Ia /p > .5 * Travel time from subarea outfall to composite watershed outfall point. ** Tc & Tt are available in the hydrograph tables. Quick TR -55 Version: 5.46 S /N: Page 2 Return Frequency: 10 years TR -55 TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Type II. Distribution (24 hr. Duration Storm) Executed: 04 -06 -1995 12:51:03 Watershed file: - -> C: \PONDPACK \P1689PRE.MOP Hydrograph file: - -> C: \PONDPACK \1689XPRE.HYD P1689 - Basin X predeveloped Area * 100 >>» Summary of Subarea Times to Peak cccc Subarea Composite Watershed Peak Discharge at Time to Peak at Composite Outfall Composite Outfall (cfs) (hrs) 50 12.3 50 12.3 Quick TR -55 Version: 5.46 S /N: Page 3 Return Frequency: 10 years Subarea Description Total (cfs) Subarea Description Total (cfs) Subarea Description Total (cfs) Description Total (cfs) TR -55 TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Type II. Distribution (24 hr. Duration Storm) Executed: 04 -06 -1995 12:51:03 Watershed file: - -> C: \PONDPACK \P1689PRE.MOP Hydrograph file: - -> C: \PONDPACK \1689XPRE.HYD P1689 - Basin X predeveloped Area * 100 Composite Hydrograph Summary (cfs) 11.0 11.3 11.6 11.9 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr 0 0 0 0 0 4 25 50 47 0 0 0 0 0 4 25 50 47 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.8 13.0 13.2 13.4 13.6 13.8 hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr 37 31 27 24 19 17 15 14 13 37 31 27 24 19 17 15 14 13 14.0 14.3 14.6 15.0 15.5 16.0 16.5 17.0 17.5 hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr 12 11 10 10 9 8 7 7 7 12 11 10 10 9 8 7 7 7 Subarea 18.0 19.0 20.0 22.0 26.0 hr hr hr hr hr 7 6 5 5 0 7 6 5 5 0 Quick TR -55 Version: 5.46 S /N: Page 4 Return Frequency: 10 years TR -55 TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Type II. Distribution (24 hr. Duration Storm) Executed: 04 -06 -1995 12:51:03 Watershed file: - -> C: \PONDPACK \P1689PRE.MOP Hydrograph file: - -> C: \PONDPACK \1689XPRE.HYD P1689 - Basin X predeveloped Area * 100 Time Flow Time Flow (hrs) (cfs) (hrs) (cfs) 11.0 0 14.8 10 11.1 0 14.9 10 11.2 0 15.0 10 11.3 0 15.1 10 11.4 0 15.2 10 11.5 0 15.3 9 11.6 0 15.4 9 11.7 0 15.5 9 11.8 0 15.6 9 11.9 0 15.7 9 12.0 0 15.8 8 12.1 4 15.9 8 12.2 25 16.0 8 12.3 50 16.1 8 12.4 47 16.2 8 12.5 37 16.3 7 12.6 31 16.4 7 12.7 27 16.5 7 12.8 24 16.6 7 12.9 22 16.7 7 13.0 19 16.8 7 13.1 18 16.9 7 13.2 17 17.0 7 13.3 16 17.1 7 13.4 15 17.2 7 13.5 14 17.3 7 13.6 14 17.4 7 13.7 14 17.5 7 13.8 13 17.6 7 13.9 12 17.7 7 14.0 12 17.8 7 14.1 12 17.9 7 14.2 11 18.0 7 14.3 11 18.1 7 14.4 11 18.2 7 14.5 10 18.3 7 14.6 10 18.4 7 14.7 10 18.5 6 Quick TR -55 Version: 5.46 S /N: Page 5 Return Frequency: 10 years TR -55 TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Type II. Distribution (24 hr. Duration Storm) Executed: 04 -06 -1995 12:51:03 Watershed file: - -> C: \PONDPACK \P1689PRE.MOP Hydrograph file: - -> C: \PONDPACK \1689XPRE.HYD P1689 - Basin X predeveloped Area * 100 Time Flow Time Flow (hrs) (cfs) (hrs) (cfs) 18.6 6 22.4 4 18.7 6 22.5 4 18.8 6 22.6 4 18.9 6 22.7 4 19.0 6 22.8 4 19.1 6 22.9 4 19.2 6 23.0 4 19.3 6 23.1 4 19.4 6 23.2 4 19.5 6 23.3 3 19.6 5 23.4 3 19.7 5 23.5 3 19.8 5 23.6 3 19.9 5 23.7 3 20.0 5 23.8 3 20.1 5 23.9 3 20.2 5 24.0 2 20.3 5 24.1 2 20.4 5 24.2 2 20.5 5 24.3 2 20.6 5 24.4 2 20.7 5 24.5 2 20.8 5 24.6 2 20.9 5 24.7 2 21.0 5 24.8 2 21.1 5 24.9 1 21.2 5 25.0 1 21.3 5 25.1 1 21.4 5 25.2 1 21.5 5 25.3 1 21.6 5 25.4 1 21.7 5 25.5 1 21.8 5 25.6 0 21.9 5 25.7 0 22.0 5 25.8 0 22.1 5 25.9 0 22.2 5 22.3 5 Quick TR -55 Ver.5.46 S /N: Executed: 12:53:23 04 -06 -1995 Subarea Description P1689 - Basin X Developed RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER SUMMARY Area CN (acres) (weighted) 10.75 64 Quick TR -55 Ver.5.46 S /N: Executed: 12:53:23 04 -06 -1995 Composite Area: Cultivated, "B" soils Lawns, "B" soils Lot impervious P1689 - Basin X Developed RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER DATA SURFACE DESCRIPTION AREA (acres) 8.62 1.17 0.96 CN 60 61 98 COMPOSITE AREA - - -> 10.75 63.5 ( 64 ) Quick TR -55 Version: 5.46 S /N: Page 1 Return Frequency: 10 years Subarea Description 0.30 0.00 TR -55 TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Type II. Distribution (24 hr. Duration Storm) Executed: 04 -06 -1995 12:54:41 Watershed file: - -> C: \PONDPACK \P1689 .MOP Hydrograph file: - -> C: \PONDPACK \1689XPST.HYD P1689 - Basin X predeveloped Area * 100 >›,» Input Parameters Used to Compute Hydrograph c «< AREA CN Tc * Tt Precip. I Runoff Ia /p (acres) (hrs) (hrs) (in) I (in) input /used 1075.00 64.0 0.30 0.00 2.20 I 0.17 I.51 .50 * Travel time from subarea outfall to composite watershed outfall point. I -- Subarea where user specified interpolation between Ia /p tables. Total area = 1075.00 acres or 1.6797 sq.mi Peak discharge = 85 cfs >>» Computer Modifications of Input Parameters «c« Input Values Rounded Values Ia /p Subarea Tc * Tt Tc * Tt Interpolated Ia /p Description (hr) (hr) (hr) (hr) (Yes /No) Messages ** ** No Computed Ia /p > .5 * Travel time from subarea outfall to composite watershed outfall point. ** Tc & Tt are available in the hydrograph tables. Quick TR -55 Version: 5.46 S /N: Page 2 Return Frequency: 10 years TR -55 TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Type II. Distribution (24 hr. Duration Storm) Executed: 04 -06 -1995 12:54:41 Watershed file: - -> C: \PONDPACK \P1689 .MOP Hydrograph file: - -> C: \PONDPACK \1689XPST.HYD P1689 - Basin X predeveloped Area * 100 >>» Sutunary of Subarea Times to Peak «« Subarea Composite Watershed Peak Discharge at Time to Peak at Composite Outfall Composite Outfall (cfs) (hrs) 85 12.3 85 12.3 Quick TR -55 Version: 5.46 S /N: Page 3 Return Frequency: 10 years Subarea Description Total (cfs) Subarea Description Total (cfs) Subarea Description Total (cfs) Description Total (cfs) TR -55 TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Type II. Distribution (24 hr. Duration Storm) Executed: 04 -06 -1995 12:54:41 Watershed file: - -> C: \PONDPACK \P1689 .MOP Hydrograph file: - -> C: \PONDPACK \1689XPST.HYD P1689 - Basin X predeveloped Area * 100 Composite Hydrograph Summary (cfs) 11.0 11.3 11.6 11.9 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr 0 0 0 0 0 7 43 85 79 0 0 0 0 0 7 43 85 79 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.8 13.0 13.2 13.4 13.6 13.8 hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr 63 53 46 40 32 29 26 24 22 63 53 46 40 32 29 26 24 22 14.0 14.3 14.6 15.0 15.5 16.0 16.5 17.0 17.5 hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr 21 19 17 17 15 14 13 12 12 21 19 17 17 15 14 13 12 12 Subarea 18.0 19.0 20.0 22.0 26.0 hr hr hr hr hr 11 10 9 8 0 11 10 9 8 0 Quick TR -55 Version: 5.46 S /N: Page 4 Return Frequency: 10 years TR -55 TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Type II. Distribution (24 hr. Duration Storm) Executed: 04 -06 -1995 12:54:41 Watershed file: - -> C: \PONDPACK \P1689 .MOP Hydrograph file: - -> C: \PONDPACK \1689XPST.HYD P1689 - Basin X predeveloped Area * 100 Time Flow Time Flow (hrs) (cfs) (hrs) (cfs) 11.0 0 14.8 17 11.1 0 14.9 17 11.2 0 15.0 17 11.3 0 15.1 17 11.4 0 15.2 16 11.5 0 15.3 16 11.6 0 15.4 15 11.7 0 15.5 15 11.8 0 15.6 15 11.9 0 15.7 15 12.0 0 15.8 14 12.1 7 15.9 14 12.2 43 16.0 14 12.3 85 16.1 14 12.4 79 16.2 14 12.5 63 16.3 13 12.6 53 16.4 13 12.7 46 16.5 13 12.8 40 16.6 13 12.9 36 16.7 13 13.0 32 16.8 12 13.1 30 16.9 12 13.2 29 17.0 12 13.3 28 17.1 12 13.4 26 17.2 12 13.5 25 17.3 12 13.6 24 17.4 12 13.7 23 17.5 12 13.8 22 17.6 12 13.9 22 17.7 12 14.0 21 17.8 11 14.1 20 17.9 11 14.2 20 18.0 11 14.3 19 18.1 11 14.4 18 18.2 11 14.5 18 18.3 11 14.6 17 18.4 11 14.7 17 18.5 10 Quick TR -55 Version: 5.46 S /N: Page 5 Return Frequency: 10 years TR -55 TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Type II. Distribution (24 hr. Duration Storm) Executed: 04 -06 -1995 12:54:41 Watershed file: - -> C: \PONDPACK \P1689 .MOP Hydrograph file: - -> C: \PONDPACK \1689XPST.HYD P1689 - Basin X predeveloped Area * 100 Time Flow Time Flow (hrs) (cfs) (hrs) (cfs) 18.6 10 22.4 7 18.7 10 22.5 7 18.8 10 22.6 7 18.9 10 22.7 7 19.0 10 22.8 6 19.1 10 22.9 6 19.2 10 23.0 6 19.3 10 23.1 6 19.4 10 23.2 6 19.5 10 23.3 5 19.6 9 23.4 5 19.7 9 23.5 5 19.8 9 23.6 5 19.9 9 23.7 5 20.0 9 23.8 4 20.1 9 23.9 4 20.2 9 24.0 4 20.3 9 24.1 4 20.4 9 24.2 4 20.5 9 24.3 3 20.6 9 24.4 3 20.7 9 24.5 3 20.8 9 24.6 3 20.9 9 24.7 3 21.0 8 24.8 2 21.1 8 24.9 2 21.2 8 25.0 2 21.3 8 25.1 2 21.4 8 25.2 2 21.5 8 25.3 1 21.6 8 25.4 1 21.7 8 25.5 1 21.8 8 25.6 1 21.9 8 25.7 1 22.0 8 25.8 0 22.1 8 25.9 0 22.2 8 22.3 7 Quick TR -55 Version: 5.46 S /N: Page 1 Return Frequency: 10 years Subarea Description TR -55 TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Type II. Distribution (24 hr. Duration Storm) Executed: 04 -06 -1995 12:57:46 Watershed file: - -> C: \PONDPACK \P1689REV.MOP Hydrograph file: - -> C: \PONDPACK \1689XREV.HYD P1689 - Basin X developed Area * 100 >>» Input Parameters Used to Compute Hydrograph <‹‹‹ AREA CN Tc * Tt Precip. (acres) (hrs) (hrs) (in) Runoff Ia /p (in) input /used 1075.00 76.0 0.30 0.00 2.20 1 0.52 I.29 .29 * Travel time from subarea outfall to composite watershed outfall point. I -- Subarea where user specified interpolation between Ia /p tables. Total area = 1075.00 acres or 1.6797 sq.mi Peak discharge = 506 cfs >>» Computer Modifications of Input Parameters «‹« Input Values Rounded Values Ia /p Subarea Tc * Tt Tc * Tt Interpolated Ia /p Description (hr) (hr) (hr) (hr) (Yes /No) Messages 0.30 0.00 ** ** Yes * Travel time from subarea outfall to composite watershed outfall point. ** Tc & Tt are available in the hydrograph tables. Quick TR -55 Version: 5.46 S /N: Page 2 Return Frequency: 10 years TR -55 TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Type II. Distribution (24 hr. Duration Storm) Executed: 04 -06 -1995 12:57:46 Watershed file: - -> C: \PONDPACK \P1689REV.MOP Hydrograph file: - -> C: \PONDPACK \1689XREV.HYD P1689 - Basin X developed Area * 100 »» Summary of Subarea Times to Peak «‹< Subarea Composite Watershed Peak Discharge at Time to Peak at Composite Outfall Composite Outfall (cfs) (hrs) 506 12.3 506 12.3 Quick TR -55 Version: 5.46 S /N: Page 3 Return Frequency: 10 years Subarea Description Total (cfs) Subarea Description Total (cfs) Subarea Description Total (cfs) Description Total (cfs) TR -55 TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Type II. Distribution (24 hr. Duration Storm) Executed: 04 -06 -1995 12:57:46 Watershed file: - -> C: \PONDPACK \P1689REV.MOP Hydrograph file: - -> C: \PONDPACK \1689XREV.HYD P1689 - Basin X developed Area * 100 Composite Hydrograph Summary (cfs) 11.0 11.3 11.6 11.9 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr 1 1 2 14 63 228 465 506 397 1 1 2 14 63 228 465 506 397 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.8 13.0 13.2 13.4 13.6 13.8 hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr 264 192 150 121 90 76 66 60 55 264 192 150 121 90 76 66 60 55 14.0 14.3 14.6 15.0 15.5 16.0 16.5 17.0 17.5 hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr 50 44 40 38 34 31 28 27 25 50 44 40 38 34 31 28 27 25 Subarea 18.0 19.0 20.0 22.0 26.0 hr hr hr hr hr 24 21 18 16 0 24 21 18 16 0 Quick TR -55 Version: 5.46 S /N: Page 4 Return Frequency: 10 years TR -55 TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Type II. Distribution (24 hr. Duration Storm) Executed: 04 -06 -1995 12:57:46 Watershed file: - -> C: \PONDPACK \P1689REV.MOP Hydrograph file: - -> C: \PONDPACK \1689XREV.HYD P1689 - Basin X developed Area * 100 Time Flow Time Flow (hrs) (cfs) (hrs) (cfs) 11.0 1 14.8 39 11.1 1 14.9 38 11.2 1 15.0 38 11.3 1 15.1 37 11.4 1 15.2 36 11.5 2 15.3 36 11.6 2 15.4 35 11.7 6 15.5 34 11.8 10 15.6 33 11.9 14 15.7 33 12.0 63 15.8 32 12.1 228 15.9 32 12.2 465 16.0 31 12.3 506 16.1 30 12.4 397 16.2 30 12.5 264 16.3 29 12.6 192 16.4 29 12.7 150 16.5 28 12.8 121 16.6 28 12.9 106 16.7 28 13.0 90 16.8 27 13.1 83 16.9 27 13.2 76 17.0 27 13.3 71 17.1 27 13.4 66 17.2 26 13.5 63 17.3 26 13.6 60 17.4 25 13.7 58 17.5 25 13.8 55 17.6 25 13.9 52 17.7 25 14.0 50 17.8 24 14.1 48 17.9 24 14.2 46 18.0 24 14.3 44 18.1 24 14.4 43 18.2 23 14.5 41 18.3 23 14.6 40 18.4 23 14.7 40 18.5 22 Quick TR -55 Version: 5.46 S /N: Page 5 Return Frequency: 10 years TR -55 TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Type II. Distribution (24 hr. Duration Storm) Executed: 04 -06 -1995 12:57:46 Watershed file: - -> C: \PONDPACK \P1689REV.MOP Hydrograph file: - -> C: \PONDPACK \1689XREV.HYD P1689 - Basin X developed Area * 100 Time Flow Time Flow (hrs) (cfs) (hrs) (cfs) 18.6 22 22.4 14 18.7 22 22.5 14 18.8 22 22.6 14 18.9 21 22.7 13 19.0 21 22.8 13 19.1 21 22.9 12 19.2 20 23.0 12 19.3 20 23.1 12 19.4 20 23.2 11 19.5 20 23.3 11 19.6 19 23.4 10 19.7 19 23.5 10 19.8 19 23.6 10 19.9 18 23.7 9 20.0 18 23.8 9 20.1 18 23.9 8 20.2 18 24.0 8 20.3 18 24.1 8 20.4 18 24.2 7 20.5 18 24.3 7 20.6 17 24.4 6 20.7 17 24.5 6 20.8 17 24.6 6 20.9 17 24.7 5 21.0 17 24.8 5 21.1 17 24.9 4 21.2 17 25.0 4 21.3 17 25.1 4 21.4 17 25.2 3 21.5 16 25.3 3 21.6 16 25.4 2 21.7 16 25.5 2 21.8 16 25.6 2 21.9 16 25.7 1 22.0 16 25.8 1 22.1 16 25.9 0 22.2 15 22.3 15 Quick TR -55 Version: 5.46 S /N: ›.»» GRAPHICAL PEAK DISCHARGE METHOD ««< P1689 - Basin X NIE CN's CALCULATED DISK FILE: c: \pondpack \P1689X .GPD Drainage Area (acres) 1075 - - -> 1.6797 sq.mi. Runoff Curve Number (CN) 60 Time of Concentration,Tc (hrs) .3 Rainfall Distribution (Type) II Pond and Swamp Areas (s) 1 - - -> 10.8 acres Frequency (years) 10 Rainfall, P, 24 -hr (in) 2.2 Storm #1 Storm #2 Storm #3 Initial Abstraction, Ia (in) 1.333 1.333 1.333 Ia /p Ratio 0.606 0.000 0.000 Unit Discharge, * qu (csm /in) 295 0 0 Runoff, Q (in) 0.10 0.00 0.00 Pond & Swamp Adjustment Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 PEAK DISCHARGE, qp (cfs) 43 0 0 Summary of Computations for qu Ia /p #1 0.500 0.000 0.000 CO #1 2.203 0.000 0.000 C1 #1 -0.516 0.000 0.000 C2 #1 -0.013 0.000 0.000 qu (csm) #1 294.563 0.000 0.000 Ia /p #2 0.500 0.000 0.000 CO #2 2.203 0.000 0.000 C1 #2 -0.516 0.000 0.000 C2 #2 -0.013 0.000 0.000 qu (csm) #2 294.563 0.000 0.000 * qu (csm) 295 0 0 * Interpolated for computed Ia /p ratio (between Ia /p #1 & Ia /p #2) If computed Ia /p exceeds Ia /p limits, bounding limit for Ia /p is used. 2 log(qu) = CO + ( C1 * log(Tc) ) + ( C2 * (log(Tc)) ) qp (cfs) = qu(csm) * Area(sq.mi.) * Q(in.) * (Pond & Swamp Adj.) Quick TR -55 Version: 5.46 S /N: >»» GRAPHICAL PEAK DISCHARGE METHOD ««< P1689 - Basin X Real CN's Area * 100 CALCULATED DISK FILE: c: \pondpack \P1689X .GPD Drainage Area (acres) 1075 - - -> 1.6797 sq.mi. Runoff Curve Number (CN) 76 Time of Concentration,Tc (hrs) .3 Rainfall Distribution (Type) II Pond and Swamp Areas (%) 1 - - -> 10.8 acres Frequency (years) 10 Rainfall, P, 24 -hr (in) 2.2 Storm #1 Storm #2 Storm #3 Initial Abstraction, Ia (in) 0.632 0.632 0.632 Ia /p Ratio 0.287 0.000 0.000 Unit Discharge, * qu (csm /in) 581 0 0 Runoff, Q (in) 0.52 0.00 0.00 Pond & Swamp Adjustment Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 PEAK DISCHARGE, qp (cfs) 442 0 0 Summary of Computations for qu Ia /p #1 0.100 0.000 0.000 CO #1 2.553 0.000 0.000 C1 #1 -0.615 0.000 0.000 C2 #1 -0.164 0.000 0.000 qu (csm) #1 676.110 0.000 0.000 Ia /p #2 0.300 0.000 0.000 CO #2 2.465 0.000 0.000 C1 #2 -0.623 0.000 0.000 C2 #2 -0.117 0.000 0.000 qu (csm) #2 574.088 0.000 0.000 * qu (csm) 581 0 0 * Interpolated for computed Ia /p ratio (between Ia /p #1 & Ia /p #2) If computed Ia /p exceeds Ia /p limits, bounding limit for Ia /p is used. 2 log(qu) = CO + ( C1 * log(Tc) ) + ( C2 * (log(Tc)) ) qp (cfs) = qu(csm) * Area(sq.mi.) * Q(in.) * (Pond & Swamp Adj.) Quick TR -55 Version: 5.46 S /N: >»» GRAPHICAL PEAK DISCHARGE METHOD ««< P1689 - Basin X NIE CN's & swamp factor Area * 100 CALCULATED DISK FILE: c: \pondpack \P1689X .GPD Drainage Area (acres) 1075 - - -> 1.6797 sq.mi. Runoff Curve Number (CN) 60 Time of Concentration,Tc (hrs) .3 Rainfall Distribution (Type) II Pond and Swamp Areas (%) 5 - - -> 53.8 acres Frequency (years) 10 Rainfall, P, 24 -hr (in) 2.2 Storm #1 Storm #2 Storm #3 Initial Abstraction, Ia (in) 1.333 1.333 1.333 Ia /p Ratio 0.606 0.000 0.000 Unit Discharge, * qu (csm /in) 295 0 0 Runoff, Q (in) 0.10 0.00 0.00 Pond & Swamp Adjustment Factor 0.72 0.72 0.72 PEAK DISCHARGE, qp (cfs) 36 0 0 Summary of Computations for qu Ia /p #1 0.500 0.000 0.000 CO *1 2.203 0.000 0.000 C1 #1 - 0.516 0.000 0.000 C2 #1 -0.013 0.000 0.000 qu (csm) #1 294.563 0.000 0.000 Ia /p #2 0.500 0.000 0.000 CO #2 2.203 0.000 0.000 C1 #2 -0.516 0.000 0.000 C2 #2 -0.013 0.000 0.000 qu (csm) #2 294.563 0.000 0.000 * qu (csm) 295 0 0 * Interpolated for computed Ia /p ratio (between Ia /p #1 & Ia /p #2) If computed Ia /p exceeds Ia /p limits, bounding limit for Ia /p is used. 2 log(qu) = CO + ( C1 * log(Tc) ) + ( C2 * (log(Tc)) ) qp (cfs) = qu (csm) * Area (sq . mi .) * Q (in .) * (Pond & Swamp Adj.) Quick TR -55 Version: 5.46 S /N: >»» GRAPHICAL PEAK DISCHARGE METHOD ««< P1689 - Basin X NIE CN's Area * 100 CALCULATED DISK FILE: c: \pondpack \P1689X .GPD Drainage Area (acres) 1075 - - -> 1.6797 sq.mi. Runoff Curve Number (CN) 60 Time of Concentration,Tc (hrs) .3 Rainfall Distribution (Type) II Pond and Swamp Areas ( %) 1 - - -> 10.8 acres Frequency (years) 10 Rainfall, P, 24 -hr (in) 2.2 PEAK DISCHARGE, qp (cfs) Summary of Computations for qu Storm #1 43- (o0 =•4 0 Storm #2 Storm #3 Initial Abstraction, Ia (in) 1.333 1.333 1.333 Ia /p Ratio 0.606 0.000 0.000 Unit Discharge, * qu (csm /in) 295 0 0 Runoff, Q (in) 0.10 0.00 0.00 Pond & Swamp Adjustment Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 2 log (qu) = CO + ( C1 * log(Tc) ) + ( C2 * (log(Tc)) ) qp (cfs) = qu(csm) * Area(sq.mi.) * Q(in.) * (Pond & Swamp Adj.) 0 Ia /p #1 0.500 0.000 0.000 CO #1 2.203 0.000 0.000 C1 #1 -0.516 0.000 0.000 C2 #1 -0.013 0.000 0.000 qu (csm) #1 294.563 0.000 0.000 Ia /p #2 0.500 0.000 0.000 CO #2 2.203 0.000 0.000 C1 #2 -0.516 0.000 0.000 C2 #2 -0.013 0.000 0.000 qu (csm) #2 294.563 0.000 0.000 * qu (csm) 295 0 0 * Interpolated for computed Ia /p ratio (between Ia /p #1 & Ia /p #2) If computed Ia /p exceeds Ia /p limits, bounding limit for Ia /p is used. RETAINING WALL DESIGN MASONRY STEM WALL RETAINED SOIL IS NOT OVER THE FOOTING DESIGN INPUT - STEM HT. = 3 FT ALLOWABLE SOIL PRESS. = ALLOWABLE PASS. PRESS. = WEIGHT OF RET'ND SOIL = SURCHARGE LOAD = 0 PSF AX LOAD = 0 #/F LOPE OF RET ND SOIL EQUIVALENT FLUID HEIGHT OF 8 in BLOCK HEIGHT OF 12 in BLOCK = 0 F HEIGHT - CONCRETE STEM = 0 FT WIDTH OF CONCRETE STEM = 0 IN FOOTING THICKNESS STEM SET BACK NO FTG KEY KEY WIDTH X DEPTH FTG KEY SET BACK KEY WIDTH X DEPTH CHECK FOR SLIDING SOIL FRICTION FACTOR = .4 PART OF WALL j. LOAD VERTICAL MOMENT OR LOAD CALL. LOAD -LBS DIST. F 8 in BLOCK --��32X 92 � = 276 1.33 CONCRETE FTG `Y� 66 X = 208.33 .833 SOIL ON FTG AD 8.33X3X 100 = .0025 1.66 SOIL @ 8in BL .33 X 3 X 100 = 0 0 SLOPED SOIL 8.33X 100(1.66)/2= 6.944 1.66 SOIL SHEAt7 ' ,32(3 ^2) /3 = 48 1.66 r = 532.33 # TOTAL VERTICAL LOADLAstaftt NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING COMPANY 4200 WEST SELTICE WAY, COEUR D'ALENE, IDAHO. = 10 IN = .0001 IN FT = 0 X 0 FT = 0 FT = 0 X 0 FT DESIGN CALCULATIONS EQUIVALENT HEIGHT OF RETAINED SOIL LATERAL FORCE = 3.8333 ^2 X 32/2 OVERTURNING MOMENT = 3.8333 ^3 X32/6 NET MOMENT = 621.617 - 300.419 c ` % F9 ' E T URN TO COUNTY ENG NEE? ctwe PROJECT: RIVERWALK WALL No. 32" NO SURCHARGE' DESIGN OUTPUT FOOTING LENGTH = 1'- 8" LATERAL FORCE = 235.1 LBS STEM VERTICAL SHEAR= 48 LBS TOTAL WEIGHT = 532.33 LBS OVERTURNING MOM. = 300.419 FT # RESISTING MOMENT = 621.617 FT # NET MOMENT = 321.197 FT # OVERTURNING RATIO = 2.06/ X -BAR DISTANCE = 0'- 6" FOOTING AREA = 1'- 8" SQ FT FTG SECT. MODULUS = .4629 FT3 FTG ECCENTRICITY = .229 FT ECCENTRIC MOMENT = 122.419 FT # MAX. SOIL PRESSURE = 583.8 PSF MIN. SOIL PRESSURE = 54.97 PSF MAX. SOIL PRESSURE = 583.8 PSF MIN. SOIL PRESSURE = 54.97 PSF SLIDING RESISTANCE = 334 BS SLID RESIST RATIO MOMENT MOMENT 32 10 t{ X BAR DISTANCE = 321.197/532.33 " FOOTING ECCENTRICITY = ( 1.666/2) - Lit o ' 0. 0 AVOOTING F 3AC'�$j�jt:'iC1C11T= 532.33 X .229 = 122.419 FT, . �� _ „•• NE COUNTY ENGINEER'S �c`� � 1 � i �� N PAGE �. � 9 � 4 _ _ p ..L Cc* `` KL NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING COMPANY RETAINING WALL DESIGN PROJECT: RIVERWALK MASONRY STEM WALL WALL No. 32" NO SURCHARGE RETAINED SOIL IS NOT OVER THE FOOTING HT from top -ft 1 2 3 DIST. ft. * * STEM WALL DESIGN FOR MOMENT, SHEAR AND REINFORCEMENT * * F'c = 2500 p.s.i. Fy = 40 k.s.i. F'm = 1350 p.s.i. LATERAL FORCE lbs 16 144 SHEAR FORCE lbs MOMENT ft lbs 5 64 42 1 .110 I# 4 @ 16 in oc 9 144 Al is ((p = , 145 t.:, 6 _ NO CONTINUOUS FIELD INSPECTION OF MASONRY SHALL BE REQUIRED FOOTING DESIGN - DESIGN DISTANC' ARE MEASURED FROM THE FACE OF THE STEM WALL MOMENT ft lbs STEM SHEAR psi 0 2 .110 I# 4 @ 16 in oc) 29 UNIT SHEAR psi T H E E N D As REQ'D sq in /ft .110 As REQ'D sq in /ft PUBLIC 0000MENT '^uNTY ENGINEER'S OFFICE REINFORCEMENT size & spacing # 4 @ 16 in oc REINFORCEMENT size & spacing RECEIVED 1' FEB 231995 -- ..,. • SPOKANE WORM E s urn q N 0 COUNTY ENG ;'' c COMPRESS fc - psi 1 SHEAR TOO HIGH LANDEV1.WK4 Spreadsheet to look at retaining walls for the land development section. NOTES: LATERAL LOADS: Earth Pressure (Rankine) Footing material Wall material = 1) Spreadsheet does NOT include the vertical componant of sloped backfill in stability calculations and takes height . of soil wedge at back face of wall NOT back of heel. 2) Footing can be sloped to help resist sliding. 3) Surcharge is included in stability calculations. 4) Resultant must be within middle third. 5) Can include passive soil acting on toe VERTICAL LOADS: 0.00 lb soil (active) 120.00 pcf EFP (active) 33.93 pcf soil (passive) 0.00 pcf EFP (rest) 52.90 pcf phi 34.00 deg EFP (passive 0.00 pcf beta (active) = 0 deg beta (passive) = 0 deg Ka 0.28 Ko 0.44 Kp 3.54 slide coef. 0.40 Do you want to include passive soil in sliding calc.? (1= yes,0 =no) 0 Barrier Load 0.00 Ibs * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** WALL AND FOOTING DATA: Surcharge depth = 0.00 ft. Cover OVER toe = 0.00 ft. Wall height H = 2.67 ft. K1 = Wall thickness T1 = 0.67 ft. K2 = Footing Width B = 1.67 ft. Footing thickness T2 = 0.83 ft. Footing slope factor , K = 100,000.00 (ie 1: K) Footing thickness C = 0.00 ft. * * * ********* * * * * * * * * * * * * ** (heel) (toe) K1 *B = 0.00 K2 *B = * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ****** **** * **** 1) Backfill angle, beta is input seperately for the active and passive casses. 2) Neglects 1' -0" of cover over toe when computing passive soil. 150 pcf Soil = 120 pcf 125 pcf 0.000 0.60 1.00 Sum = 1.67 a 1) Wall 2a) Footing 2b) Footing 3) Heel OB 4) Toe OB 5) Surcharge 6) Roof Reaction Sum 7) Lateral Earth on Toe 8) Lateral Earth on Back of Wall 9) Surcharge 10) Barrier load * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** STABILITY: SOIL PRESSURE: Q toe = Q heel = K1 = 0 F'ting Width B = 1.67 ft. LOADS ARM MOMENT 223.6 1.3 298.5 207.9 0.8 173.6 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 431.5 0.0 -0.1 0.0 472.1 ft-lb/ft 207.8 0.0 0.0 207.8 1.2 1.8 3.5 Load Factors to be used: Gamma = B(e) for lateral Earth = B(U) for surcharge = Wall thickness 6 fc = 4.00 Mu stem = b= 12.00 a= d= 2.88 As= 1.2Mcr = a= As = 242.4 0.0 0.0 242.4 ft -lb /ft overturning sliding FS 1.95 0.83 arm 0.53 e = 0.30 U6 = 0.28 * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * *** * * ** 539.43 psf -22.62 psf WALL REINFORCING: Gamma( B(e) *M(earth) + B(II) *M(surcharge)) 1.3 1.3 1.3 *** * * *** * * ** 0.18 ft-kip/ft 0.02 0.01 inA2 /ft 5.31 ft- kip /ft 0.69 0.47 inA2 /ft * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * *** ** DEFLECTION: E = 3,834,253.5 psi I = 519.7 inA4 delta = 0.00 in L = 32.0 in bi u Z 0 0 0 0 7" 0 (111 0 0 0 0 0 0 T1 "5 m 0 z -4 m m m r T i pg____44_ v2.c la..08 4 wit_ acq il , I I —1 J ¶ ( 4 !tf __11 Te.,_ - t- El Alia . k 1 i , : C 1 I Ji eim 40 , _it voo Ai -* i 7 ' ? - 4 if • , , 1 ' Colcutotions gel . .P "46 A I iUI 116 L IP LI l�ry� • g r., **14 11 : 111 i - I• i ,../ , ` pl r il INI 1 i r1� 1 z ki. . ( • _ _ , - ji i I - 1 - • P- OEM PIN 'FE, 71111 gg ‘447z. 4, - _ k lia - - - - - - __ _ r bi u Z 0 0 0 0 7" 0 (111 0 0 0 0 0 0 T1 "5 m 0 z -4 m m m iL_ 1 *WOO 1 Cal __ t xv 4 • fivrryitn,rwor•eirm.ff....1.ftry- 13311S NO11:11-noin • 11 1 ______i MeV WS - r ,____ I lli ___ _ . i',.. _ _ ,., in 2 10,Feitfa. ___, __Wt i L. i -1Akepti . We i (. 4 1 ,- . 1 , o. t.i YetA, — _ . , _ .4 _ P ' Is - c.,aecutc on ! . 40 , , /9 ir -• id _ ii II I. ,yk, • • , Pl . A ii 444 / ll 0 .- '=., .„,.......m. „.., , 4: .' r.,,f f ' lil i 0 Ai' , . (, 1,,, , Ar ,' 1 MN& La ,., . lid ' , 21 3 ,,, ' ; r ... ROI ri • EN A_ • — - MI 41_, i • 1 1 1 NE Nig • . 4111 i ROE mil ili 7 LI .4- t - i 1 / ill a • - .., • FY •tt • 'IfTJ 17: SRI .F1 • , c i . ) ENE 1 ' . • ...0 A • Ein . - r 0.-.A.1 il 0' RI i MN 11, r i NEU 1 Ad __ _ 4, -, : , , 7 ,„.._ ,,,,, ;;;.11- 1 • . 1 l • .,rf, • / .. ci... raw atm _ a 111 4 r 1" nu rt EMI • 1 ;# :' • III rilln3 ni 1 • • • __ o . • I 111 MI /* 111 i a II , Ill if _ 9 . . I , • fivrryitn,rwor•eirm.ff....1.ftry- 13311S NO11:11-noin 1 -..4 0v--- 11 • 1 1 Refertr JT L_ I.. ---. _ m„...,40-. • I ' ' .= 14 ■ Da R Z _J i t' ' ,ffl _ -70 . , f`•,_ ._ — --i, 11 fr: .. , '.% _ii I LPL. NE a I IL ( 7d3 . 5"-- , 0 r 0 IcWolioos , ,7 At* .. . • 7 1 at roam w 111 I . I 0 t 0 ' I_ —,_ I 1 . . ,. %pie i R66i lir* ___ sivaA . iiioJOe , , _ "Klucius MO _ ilohte0 _ ! . _-. co. 1DcI Desk l__ 1 -7 '7: -- ( - 111 fr _ __ ' ', 1 i A 6 et A I a El are irr j . I Fri IV _ 3, to ; :.:M zire) *A IN als • • 4-‘__ H • ± • •• lq.4- ' 4 _ 1(k 3 _ t - 0 . i14 1, 1 , , L __ ... __. ii p liplprop7rOrprellkTrOvinvirlt r . • • 1414 125 2. o. ...mr.•••■•••••••••s . . . File name is MISSION5.COR FILE NAME: MISSION5.COR DATE: 3/20/1995 VERTICAL CURVE Station Elevation PI Station 0.00 PI Elevation 247.47 Entry Grade 0.00001% Exit Grade - 0.00104% Length 0.00 PC 0 +0,0.00 0+ 0.00 PT 0 00.00 High'Low point is: 0 +00.00 247.47 GRADE Station Grade Distance GRADE Station Grade Distance GRADE Station Grade Distance GRADE Elevation - 0.35000 141.93 10 +58.07 2034.53 11 +00.00 2034.38 11 +50.00 2034.21 12 +00.00 2034.03 10 +75.00 2034.47 11 +45.00 2034.23 11 +96.00 2034.05 Elevation 0.40000 150.00 12 +00.00 2034.05 12 +50.00 2034.25 13 +00.00 2034.45 13 +50.00 2034.65 12 +45.00 2034.23 13 +45.00 2034.63 Elevation - 0.44000 100.00 247.47 243.97 247.47 13 +50.00 2034.65 14 +00.00 2034.43 14 +50.00 2034.21 14 +40.00 2034.25 Station Grade Distance GRADE Station Grade Distance Grade Distance Elevation 0.46000 140.00 14 +50.00 2034.21 15 +00.00 2034.44 15 +50.00 2034.67 15 +90.00 2034.85 15 +40.00 2034.62 Elevation - 0.20000 134.92 16 +65.08 2034.77 17 +00.00 2034.70 17 +50.00 2034.60 18 +00.00 2034.50 17 +60.00 2034.58 GRADE Station Elevation 0.35000 100.00 18 +00.00 2034.50 18 +50.00 2034.67 19 +00.00 2034.85 18 +60.00 2034.71 File name is AUG FILE NAME: A GRADE Station Grade Distance 5.COR STA5.COR DATE: 3/15/1995 Elevation - 0.80000 535.78 4- 15 +64.22 2034.37 16 +00.00 2034.08 16 +50.00 2033.68 17 +00.00 2033.28 17 +50.00 2032.88 18 +00.00 2032.48 18 +50.00 2032.08 19 +00.00 2031.68 19 +50.00 2031.28 20 +00.00 2030.88 20 +50.00 2030.48 2030.08 2033.51 3n23 2032.28 F:A.54 LT 1.g 2031.55 Cc“i St.? 2031.54 DN'LT 30;Im 2031.47 x,14 2031.35cuavRT 3.0'7 2031.21 51 % 21 +00.00 16 +72.21 18 +25.00 19 +17.18 19 +17.62 19 +26.19 19 +41.59 19 +58.83 2� ° 0 .4 5 ( 7 3947 VERTICAL CURVE Station Elevation PI Station 2100.00 PI Elevation 2030.09 Entry Grade - 0.80000% Exit Grade - 2.00000% Length 100.00 PC 20 +50.00 20 +75.00 21 +00.00 21 +25.00 PT 21 +50.00 GRADE Station Grade Distance 21 +00.00 21 +25.00 21 +50.00 21 +75.00 22 +00.00 22 +25.00 VERTICAL CURVE Elevation - 2.00000 125.00 2030.49 2030.25 2029.94 2029.55 2029.09 & f 28 ;t Q1 2030.09 2029.59 2029.09 2028.59 2028.09 2027.59 31.41 31.2? J lei ✓ 21. q X "q-9(-2 X ,..x 4)P Station Elevation PI Station 2225.00 PI Elevation 2027.59 Entry Grade - 2.00000% Exit Grade 1.00000% Length 50.00 PC 22 +00.00 22 +10.00 22 +20.00 22 +30.00 22 +40.00 PT 22 +50.00 High /Low point is: 22 +33.33 2027.76 GRADE Station Grade Distance 2028.09 2027.92 2027.81 2027.76 jf►,'PP ,x: �. 6 2027.77 I 2027.84 22 +34.00 2027.76 ).L1- 265 22 +38.36 ,' -•c 2027.76 aL7g 2.1157 22 +39.76 2027.77 OW Ef 7,x.91 GRADE Station Elevation Grade 1.00000 Distance 35.36 22 +25.00 22 +30.00 22 +40.00 22 +50.00 22 +60.00 22 +60.36 22 +60.36 22 +65.00 22 +70.00 22 +75.00 22 +80.00 22 +80.36 2027.59 2027.64 2027.74 2027.84 2027.94 2027.94 Elevation 2.00000 20.00 2027.94 2028.03 2028.13 2028.23 2028.33 2028.34 File name is BARKER5.COR FILE NAME: BARKER5.COR DATE: 3/15/1995 GRADE Station Elevation Grade - 1.00000 Distance 349.01 10 +50.99 11 +00.00 11 +50.00 12 +00.00 12 +50.00 13 +00.00 13 +50.00 14 +00.00 10 +75.00 11 +53.28 11 +60.00 12 +43.44 12 +50.00 13 +36.96 13 +46.57 dot GRADE Station Grade Distance GRADE Station Grade Distance 15 +25.00 15 +50.00 15 +75.00 16 +00.00 16 +25.00 16 +50.00 15 +40.00 15 +50.00 16 +40.00 2034.29 CL. 2033.80 2033.30 2032.80 2032.30 2031.80 2031.30 2030.80 2034.05C1 :.5 2033.27 r'41M 3 2033.20(1 3 2032.37 caw - 1404 2032.30 y 3t•O 2031.43 e*N' 2031.33 a1 30 a : iZ Elevation - 1.18000 125.00 14 +00.00 2030.79 14 +25.00 2030.49 14 +50.00 2030.20 14 +75.00 2029.90 15 +00.00 2029.61 15 +25.00 2029.31 14 +38.74 2030.33 ttr4.4 °"7° 14 +50.00 2030.20 c2 /47° Elevation - 0.73000 125.00 GRADE Station Elevation 2029.31 2029.13 2028.94 2028.76 2028.58 2028.40 2029.20 " 1.1.57 2029.13 ca MA 2028.47 :X .v-AA 24Z4 . 0+ - ,o 1,4914 06- Grade Distance GRADE Station Grade Distance Grade Distance Grade Distance 16 +50.00 16 +75.00 17 +00.00 17 +25.00 17 +50.00 17 +75.00 18 +00.00 18 +25.00 17 +50.05 17 +60.00 18 +25.00 18 +30.00 18 +40.00 18 +50.00 18 +60.00 18 +70.00 18 +80.00 18 +84.10 18 +66.12 - 0.43000 175.00 GRADE Station Elevation 2028.40 2028.29 2028.18 2028.08 2027.97 2027.86 2027.75 2027.65 2027.97 2027.93 Elevation - 0.33000 59.10 -0.3 2027.25 2027.23 2027.20 2027.17 2027.13 2027.10 2027.07 2027.05 GZZ' (Le15- 2027.11 Nd 0 0 10.86 19+6 14 2027.20 19 0.00 2027.18 9 +75.00 2027.16 GRADE Station Elevation - 0.35000 300.00 19 +75.00 272.16 20 +00.00 2 0.07 20 +25.00 719.98 20+50.00/2719.90 20 +75.0,0 2719.81 21+00/00 2719.72 21 +25.00 2719.63 21+50.00 2719.55 2 +75.00 2719.46 22+00.00 2719.37 22 +25.00 2719.28 22 +50.00 2719.20 22 +75.00 2719.11 GRADE Station Grade Distance G E Station Grade Distance G 22+75.00 2719. 23 +00.00 2718 23 +25.00 271 79 23 +50.00 27 8.63 23 +75.00 18.47 24 +00.00 718.31 24 +25.00 2718.15 24 +50.0 2717.99 24 +75. 0 2717.83 25 +00.00 2717.67 25 +20.00 2717.51 23 +,52.00 2718.62 p 2 450.00 2717.99 52.00 2717.98 5 +00.00 2717.67 + Elevation - 0.64000 250.00 Elevation - 0.80000 275.00 25 +25.00 2717.51 25 +50.00 2717.3 25 +75.00 2717 1 26 +00.00 27 ..91 26 +25.00 2 6.71 26 +50.00 716.51 26 +75.00 2716.31 27 +00.'8 2716.11 27 +25.00 2715.91 27+ '.00 2715.71 27 75.00 2715.51 +00.00 2715.31 Station Elevation Grade Distance GRADE Station Grade Distance -0.330 86 19 +64. 2027.20 19+ e.00 2027.18 +75.00 2027.16 File name is BARKER5.COR FILE NAME: BARKER5.COR DATE: 3/15/1995 Elevation - 0.33000 10.86 GRADE Station Grade Distance GRADE Station Grade Distance GRADE Station Grade Distance 19 +64.14 2027.20 '- 19 +70.00 2027.18 19 +75.00 2027.16 46 19 +75.00 20 +00.00 20 +50.00 21 +00.00 21 +50.00 22 +00.00 22 +50.00 22 +75.00 22 +75.00 23 +00.00 23 +25.00 23 +50.00 23 +75.00 24 +00.00 24 +25.00 24 +50.00 24 +75.00 25 +00.00 25 +25.00 23 +52.00 24 +52.00 25 +25.00 25 +50.00 25 +75.00 26 +00.00 26 +25.00 26 +50.00 26 +75.00 27 +00.00 27 +25.00 27 +50.00 27 +75.00 28 +00.00 25 +69.00 26 +69.00 Elevation - 0.35000 300.00 2027.16 2027.07 2026.90 2026.72 2026.55 2026.37 2026.20 2026.11 Elevation - 0.64000 250.00 2026.11 2025.95 2025.79 2025.63 2025.47 2025.31 2025.15 2024.99c 2024.83 2024.67 (E 2024.51 2025.62 A 2024.98X"' Elevation - 0.80000 275.00 2 2.3 1 23.E z3 . 55 2024.51 2024.31 2024.11 2023.91 2023.71 2023.51 2023.31 2023.11 GL 2022.91 2022.71 2022.51 2022.31 2024.16 6 .5� 2023.36 67:1MA 7113 n VERTICAL CURVE Station Elevation PI Station 2800.00 PI Elevation 2022.31 Entry Grade - 0.80000% Exit Grade -2.72000% Length 200.00 PC 27 +00.00 27 +25.00 27 +50.00 27 +75.00 28 +00.00 28 +25.00 28 +50.00 28 +75.00 PT 29 +00.00 28 +55.00 28 +65.00 28 +85.00 28 +95.00 GRADE Station Grade Distance 28 +00.00 28 +50.00 29 +00.00 29 +50.00 30 +00.00 30 +50.00 31 +00.00 31 +50.00 32 +00.00 32 +08.75 29 +15.00 29 +28.00 29 +45.00 29 +60.00 29 +75.00 29 +86.54 Elevation - 2.72000 408.75 2023.11 2022.88 2022.59 '`- 2022.24 2021.83 2021.36 2020.83 2020.24 2019.59 eD 2020.72 tmi 2020 .48 2019.99'^ 2019.72 2022.31 2020.95 2019.59 2018.23 2016.87 2015.51 2014.15 2012.79 2011 .43 2011.19‘k 2019.181) 2018.83''.eW 2018.374 2017.96 0 -A 2017.55 60 2017.24 ¢f Icim SPOKANE COUNTY Description: l 6i/i►lA VIE Project No: 7)/¢/4 1) ' Colc. by: Date: Title: Checked by: f t D 9te: Sheet 1 of Notes: .Yrnc 0tf1 ;k',. { ;2(bytt,>f- /141i � ted , t *t zr1 cflr) to '' 414— _:_ - -1- 1:rf , J (� Yi ( 1V 22.72' .cam thi6o tt (oak. 144 2.2if 1 2 1 4. 4 a Cr 'to 2 -f 21 CT I- ( fr' t.:4 i —4\ ' . ' . . — ik ,U t 7.5 ( f) . 4145- L - 4 .r,b - t sta:�a. CALCULATION SHEET 2-5.7 • -4 -E 74 �.r. cJ I. go Atli. I 06 2-,7 f:., 4- ((Le G= 70 5 ei ? 107,a,d k- , ,e,,,c.. I1 r,' t i jt�u4ird 1.h_ r414 -2_'3.4& _ roa '' 70' IJ 1 rc.75. - 1-146 ¢ ` 1 V.- � R - 420 d o ( - •12-) t . ?. 5 4: 4.4 + z 5 ( .�:l 14 L . 4.2g41.c5(o) OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS 4.1 .1.45 --2 -S 4.`14 . -5 2 0Z+ 6= A o v = A tr 1.15+0 (r„0 2. 47 > 3v -•1 • 1. 05 ` 2. SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: /AM/ /IAA /lit Project No.: ?I kg Colc. by: Date: Title: Checked by: Dote: Sheet of Notes: ':1,0 t U44 0- S 6c1 213 ( f24.00 fp iiuE14t ZG (Ac0 ea I t Lti Li/4 416 je 1 4 t61 /GL ; GR. :4J 4-4 4ifi F z. Q 4.14 c.> (4i%) - 1,78 2 C v 53 A= 2347. TA L= f.Df0(r4.45) 2 SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: JAYNf'.JA Aft Project No.: ff4fit e- CoIc. by: _ Date: Title: Checked by: ' y � Dote: Sheet 3 of Notes: 51/J.V lr #( (,Y4 L fr01l1AeZ ?t,(A) e' to « 75 if 141"/(1 24 Jr- 74.1 4-3 tov,14t4 �«�1& . 0406 . •(•4 0 -75. — A• 7.942 -75 (.q) q. (1- 43 25.0- l4.' 0 4 c •s V'15: z J 44 - 24 1.4 - a6 /v514' Juasl "PIK : ZS:IS 2#.es �3.4 % %7,..5 e 1+ as..76 d'6.93,o` At o e 14 72 2 5mss *a U ?kL 4. i + ' (6(--5) = Ind 4r ' 3.6 . 5 r v : f g7e 3 5'rcia«� SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: NO that hat ►Ur Project No.: t1 i`t e S Calc. by: Dote: Title: Checked by: Dote: Sheet '" of Notes: i o/ I(,t 3 1 Ies I-17 ; ( 7J) 0 Zf75PT(LFV „( 141 24 75 itTTLS y 0:,45 4 , L/Iva = Zti (7 - (vo Ct 1 4 -11 (5-- - - _ - x 43' . -- ti- 1 'C 'l_4 31. COS 4 4 5. 49j 21 '� 2•. Z Z Z r (114eortii,141 ; rco 14,ir SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: bat MA /NC Project No.: p kit 4 A'S Colc. by: Dote: Title: Checked by: Date: Sheet of Notes: i(.a,A(.E f -CU.CS X tk4 Lt 4 7C PI (( ut 2 k) r '31 Ter (6 ZL) 2{75 7 r7.2q - 2t, , cxDEA Qvw � lt i Ca = `4.17 - t Y -,-(11.6 i- ••• - 7.7S p� 4 - 1`>t h 3 �/�8) 2 ft z 0-15 c_c16 31-15 °T ( 91121) 7 44'O,7& (GR ) U 1V .Z 5= I.74 LA, ' Z 1 1T 27. . .00 4 (5r�.4c c�) 3+77- : A = 2,4 2- (Sze (t frr s - c a- o V= SAL = o _T 27.6S)4 0 4 . 77S) ¢Fro 2.; ;j • = 21 2 U - r.7i 3� (14""(1!l j 6 tit 111 /0E4 14 SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: Calc. by: Checked by: Notes: _ to (NU//t` Date: Dote: tt- tl S k Ikx-u 17 Cr oa SeE 51.1744 CFP- L' K+- e N 41e25 &25 i�2Z -5 - 551 - V; -5 g - Z t.6 (03 -S Nkk ii NC < Z�I f - 7E 2t3 .(RI 3 4 -5 C610 PA= o V r ` {- - 4 . (a2 Project Nat ?1474 l2.� Title: Sheet of h J; to 8 3 , s ,ot+1 N Lc V = (47-7 4 = 4 Z. 33 -tri (0, &+d. 33) SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: L F A F A A Project No.: F1¢ 14 125 Colc. by: Dote: _ Title: Checked by: te: Sheet 7 of Notes: _ 1,. i ,t t up it' { i.c . - tovv` 69i ( r e 2 j3) -to . /p:.:9 L'ef'; H (■l'> wi.5 ii- I�1 ti e a . c f Mt, /r Lth r/o6ovie, 21.Zy u114 S- ,00tt L A t4 , j 1 Y 7� d= 5 °5 ? i 2 z d- Z { 00 A : 0 U-: J(57) _ 57 3 fd . 14 (0 /I a 2- f t41t' 1. SPOKANE COUNTY Description: /' "'` Project No. iflikii Calc. by: Dote: Title: Checked by: Date: Sheet 6 of Notes: pac-(LES4 etax 3 Psrr -J p.! v: A c.-I -t Tt lcF2 . r ( frt. aot J N 6ttz.5 Gie;" sr`7.s /T - 2q,2.3 - ��. �L � 0570 CClycc t cr 6.r)-12:1r- ( ) : 4 !?! 2 4- 22 A= o CALCULATION SHEET G , zo 32. - s4 3� (64 2Z.P ) , 1 de P. Thy - 4.9141 (a.4) L Vz 133,43 OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: LA. r ft*- 1 A Ak Project No.: 1 Colc. by:. Date: Title: Checked by: Date: Sheet q of Notes: `kI'" ?tarth5 i Iiadiftits /0 - R((8cym 2 1 ;' ?f(L 64243 61,7j.5 �° O ;,(5 /141tr( j/c fOJ % Lr (ec &,u z N 1110 ' {6 it f It ti �� clw -1 -(7 4.:Au 1, J ltd D r<' tv : , (a 1 _ . Cl e f!o AU corn eih - 6z l s 72,e, itudtI w K32_ -Ear 51124 vf 0 104 /0 c = Z _ - zr2.77 = 1 4120 cctacf ti 1,-/u .115d - r077s ,or¢i , — 6.rt —r 2:7 .612.75(() s 4.//A- A Z U= r 4(4o() = (6,. ; ,,43 SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: _ liklibt.tie kic Project No f'l+K � S Calc. by: Date: Title: Checked by: Date: Sheet "-' of Notes; ' 3� 10E i A t c.cw 1oiy;L (.(.itr►.' al) to qq 7 :56. 4t ., A - , ) 5a I 042.5 j - - 6b' - -- —+ \ {"` Imo+ , j. / r e*r A-= 2 fr 4 r ' 1 L lGL7- U tkof 075( It z') ¢o e-11; r ( )2.' ?F ) 4/- e 7 . pa.✓i �t f�- •1 ' 'aK'N s tr 1 1 r . 45 - 2 7.6) 51> ". Aa vo C6-rf.Qc' '15 SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: fN60+0 rift Project No : R¢g ' e5) Colc. by: _ Date: Title: Checked by: Dqte: Sheet y of Notes: 9,4 I (t C5 4f 1,t1.ltx1-63 a bI75 (f > 0) fo 7i7.0 ( ,etZE) F 25 J� s 77 o,eo = Ze.57 -ze - && (7 i2.5) ao� 7f75 Oen" X) 1a ?7c:0 (yj _ � t�lti ) ea N 21.21 5 U rc> 5(--pc (t tt/i44 '7fQ) 5' z7,90 - 21. t9 _ , ot,Pfl Iv , : sear rs�r�tc u• Avutid 5eC peze fiy j.gt.te tield 0.46sA V 75) :/57 # �ilyrkl'r7u��l SPOKANE COUNTY CALCULATION SHEET Description: W6011.0 AfE Project No.: Calc. by: Date: Title: Checked by: Date: Sheet /'— of Notes: bt Pt 4.14 & I II 4 e 7r) 7 35 cti(Eck Ti 14'1 'I +18.5 cS cerr -Eli" V fc4 56.- e. Sy 28 1 -2177 - 2_2"ib / ZD z• V.47- Z5 7 7 44.b ( 114 f • e r _ 1 .`1 2'1 A .( L "b (,r) = 4.9/4 Z �f /f//3.f 4 o V = g;1-1 =d,9f'. (46) U' tog ? OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS SPOKANE COUNTY a 1'43 . -27.57 : ;7.4 . CALCULATION SHEET Description: IWIAPcn+P: it Project No.: Md f Calc. by: Date: Title: Checked by: e: Sheet a of Notes: 4Ckt4G Pecirll_tS CL(I'l( )06 fia,,, 'f r N7s t' zr) 0 3 €3:1 — gf2l.Z '?�"' eject: 2 Y . 4 5 - 77. `> 1 _ 1.03% ccka- V fry dre, -.s 5.5 — r . I`+ t5 2.15)(q) =4.9tiQ c ;.{ 7 .c, 4 p V ` fi+L 4- ( &7 2 6f'! t gar z ?J A, 705 iri ZN ) (% e 47s. (...) OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS *2 l4 .to 4- i- -4 Z -q•Z`) - ` 0,6310 - l(a bblltnu fr ez64" Aada s ' w 10 `1 SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: lt (k of h Project No.: 4f4 ,�� Colc. by: Dote: Title: Checked by : Sheet 1 of I ¢ Notes: s Aka, j,eLUkiC t:l 11. • Cl /c.t In -71 "' 75 kr (412.4%. z,J) * 1 +w Vt (14.:; ?t /2. 7 NJ 2 c 7 �" 141k{1 fl 45 SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: IIA 10' Lit Project No.: PH( 4 I? 5 Calc. by: Title: Checked by: Da e: Sheet 1 of __ Notes; "L- tLL l/CYUf'ES Fit 4.4 1, LI; 5 wit v U :v I. I -790 = V5.41 2 1,43 E53,& ('T . 021.2) e-< ' »4 .0(17 18 • fi (6'.4-4--1 44 (,qq) _ - t, OA?" V : 6 (54-212 A v U= it 7i'(t3.t) 30r,:f 43 LZ' t Crr(a-t U p St p., 52 28 ` r 43 = .60 = 25.4 2 ±.¢3 , OiFib f i f7 -168 ii) W's , Q lf�ff�� f i = x, 11(: (5e ,t(i arkiio.-% AL C? fZ 1 Vzs iAtz = 7 IT-#0 (63,33 = s 2 v= -4 12 71.-ES SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: HAMCnly 1— Calc. by: Checked by: Notes: c !1(f! 14,AUM (ft 25 to Pt 85 ecrz o� Date: Date: 5! ZI — ZZ.e2 - . Jf 1 f�: +y.. Gj/k .'. t e : 6.4% 142.5 15' c ( 9f , 5 a = 44 1 2 /1,{ 70 2 z 04 4=o Project No.: /' 0 � Title: Sheet of A 6 - e ‘ z - >I1 to 1 30,S er)00+5m e 11,14 pc c -f 34 -) ;' 54- IL4e1"i.2s {rc z.a 3; 4 .d - f 1i , 5, `llt </ l� :ui:•< .triti.�iwll (`& 244 ) ( L r'1 Lz) 5 A/ /aLt TA-L- - 7.4-+2 -3 x,75 1t I 2 = t'717) . co-' V ft~ 511c- 1 - L" .2 -.� 7. - b * %X V IN (G /.5 : AO , d'l A: 7.22 2.7z. 2 < 4 - 4 -4 c1. . ?e `f[ V .C� , SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: WirPKti We Project No.: T1444 ! Colc. by: Dote: _ Title: Checked by: pate: Sheet 4- of Notes: 51IIL f'?cft it,E i ucwitk;5 fierytJ 0151 RI' /(,f,( Cr Gto PT(ECi2) 13111 Ter t. c4 «!, Vc'I l y — � '1 7 r N L I%) ieZeY Vic. !»' ye) e-cyl.ce,f ) J' Najd L� (72 ,c{ 11(2`,.,7 U t2- (72' � 4r Jw7" V 1 ' 5 = I.r ) S (,�, = 3 .18 - ?q. r✓r5,� 0,1367 'lb Ar to .'.4 2 I2a2�•p =o 4¢ _ 1.3-,x' • 7.3f (C249 2 �22F� 4t (9A /3.Y5.4) SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: +9%/4 Cyq L Project No.: Pf4 (4 as Colt. by: Date: Title: Checked by: Dgte: Sheet -, of Notes: .aAekm pc -►t 5 Attic, M5111 L fi' l j44-7 1(`E e) ' MOO 1244 too I i C � _ -4 L1 = 135 L-61- 1.4 4; Iv . 2.r 4.4 (I .c'z) 2 a i. , Z 40 Le,- L g .4I- 21.3, - (otc' (;74r543e ) Q Lam l5 •S ' D • V= .(iw )(rG,r. l 2. G. I(0 -ffl i A-= TO A ( nUmco.) t(4- ?.o.25 h = o r U- ;TA-t, = 6,1+0(6,5.25 J = Z 2 r ird Lz L.2.- I t) 24•x ZI.3 I. !.k - �"�I a + 3� 6G.z5' (i2. ►�� `Toa�) 103 .m;4. SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: 1 kOk/(8 L Project No.; P(44 Calc. by: Date: Title: Checked by: Date : Sheet 49 of Notes: U ,( o LE @ 14425 Al #441 / - / 4 7. V ��te) fqr' Y LI \ uu/. Uo51 Q LP IU•4- Mgf N t ?x'..1.•. ;G w- f!- L I = .23 sl = zszi - z7.13 = r,b7io —2b,13-21, = I4 -55 k (//4f.6) Z3 ,04 ¢ �+ = � ' _ .+ ,(i.�) - 7.4 4 z ci t'?i V. 5 t- n V= C . 7.4.1 :104.5 l({4-2S 4; 7 Z (ex, et4QA: a 174 0.7S /1-=" V = £nG LZ - frp pie — zl;;l3' - I\ �z~ tfit 52- 0,922P L-2 13 ZB.4I _2�. i3 _ q , 2 A T Stt p 7,� 14y ,ceiz i ig v r -4t SPOKANE COUNTY Description: MU -'lA A,C Project Not t(4 ( i S Caic. by: Date: Title: Checked by: Date: Sheet of Notes: -- Wes (,C� 4ruotl $ (gip) Pi -/N 1(.1 6) 39 4t;ul+ (.yF 44 .4 cr r O w1,4 (J? O ) whinv1 bdu4,..) ICtr1i 5 J'1f .31 PP j �� r9lru� tA4 �� t 31 $ 1 P (44e)VS A,1 c k‘: tlie.*3 51 • Z7 r 4 215 85 43 PY 1 M rivet CALCULATION SHEET ft r er:, u d hap*, si C? 17e5 fiat l yr t ` v � - daageStq iiy uNA .4 d' ' CI ra !4i►n 9 ;41K /O#2 ( r) to 11 44 IZTAPJ Y fze., 7 - i - /y' 54` 3m Z z8.6 ,z7. (0.4 tt ¢ (I) = 7.4 2 10.130 .1* - o • 11= 7c7 ,c4i -5 25. - 3A-7 67-4 OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS 15t4 . z= - >' (AA = .+3c),cci 4. 4= 7a4 ,0425 ✓ : / 2 / 4.45 3.44:,4+ t i - A-47. 0 1(.‘4 G SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: Ty t2004 t-Aae Project No.: " - 41 T. Calc. by: Date: Title Checked by: e: _ _ Sheet of Notes: _ - :-G4i - e Hfi`+1,r., ifvockt Zy.• 27 iD (3(41 QT twit L Z= q :.f� . £ dJ ( V/, A r_ r 3 - ci.4.7 - a TCf t 45_ —zr_b7 - (4 !, e 14 (IpprZ 2 .cn1o3 4 C � �:• i " : 7. /ff t (sic Aelute ) L u,r L# Il l • 75 = c ` v= pl,e = ' 7 .f, 0) ". .1.5zz_ s: 7f ( z , r _' j 11.94.`+4 LT (H P TO of ?/, j4 F ,lfrtt,.. LL /� ITS ► I44 41 r , 74 eg 0 /0-153 4 2rf5 ft LI 4 a ty 01 r b 14-f 43 , L! = , 5 ,cb7t,Y� f v61.000,0= 104.- z iV : fr /,4 3 r7di� SPOKANE COUNTY Description: . /4t141e,TA "E Calc. by: _ - Date: Checked by: Notes: zf L Title: Date: Sheet / of �& a= .0/10 1M +70,470 t / L,?, (rCU) /() 0401! g7 4+(.041'.1 pa 35i / (.c, H 1n • . ►v 1, N rft it /�7rl � tit �� t, -41+1 ( : aN /) 0 �taOrr (/. t'0A4 fp'?u' k1"(“Z i) l( tu(& tt ;h�t1H •4 3. ?4 l z �.� 1,4't CALCULATION SHEET //1 ( ,v, rr t4 = 21.3; -x,. r. 6�. v r47 OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS Project No: P('14 !L% thir rta 04 car 4. 1 ZrYtLA`'ci 16.444t 11 mat sidic-fr SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: Rtallt t.1`Pk Project No.: 1 "'(4 ( ¢ k Calc. by: _ _ Date: Title: Checked by: Date: Sheet a of Notes : ‘Ak t.E t'k- } (.E5 A VCLLW( 00(07] it c) 1.? 11 z5 izr (tii CitY(s iz411014t ;t.z) f (L2 - ?c ;f(L3 (IbLuga LI) r - - �►U, z�' - 1 -4- - 33 1(,)t-h, IV 4.4. 10 'f.) _ 7,rk (/4).141; L1 t , A = 7,l9 4 (Stc atOPAc ) AK- a (+4`, A Vet(kgt, 1241.3 (01 4 5 A= 7,4 h-k! aun sCc, I/ r; 1.tifo(s ) mil 10.4 131 4 4' le.414.4(il - 7.4 -1 l Z fie{ t = 1.1`t { 14 (g) ¢.4 • i= gad 44 (.4) - b.z/ - 4.. 2. — �. 4.5.74 v4- = 1.4429 (e) =1 Vo1'a+we e 1C A = al, c �' ?1Z 4' SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: A/(ILL NJ LAric Project No.: ?t4 k' Caic. by: __ Date: _ Title: Checked by: POO: Sheet / of Notes: OAL (Cf (AVM( e /5.1 2 .5 I!e �72.7I (c /6 t' f 25 ( 6:tof 54) ti-412.7( /Vs i 1/A L 1 51) =, c2sJ:.07 5. r . ;3 -31 -oZ iJ – — - r 2.8 v7_ 3►.5v 1 � \• 31.ce 4 - �= �. •r'F 4 (.4E) = z. z i& @ (1i' 7.5 ,4 =p ci Z co87 ;1.25 4.1,,, I 2.) tr ( -cs�), to 1 g 1 zo C tr S r :GS -.51. .00E 5' :=7 ((C) U1 ,,IW(hv.11 5' DOD L4' 3f. ? fz3 i f:1 ca-z. o k ("4.2, (i +67 i) z..oz ( &) > z2 4$2 0 (414.0 : Q IN V-‘ (r-c - 4 �# ;z7 r P7 i ' z_ 4= G- oz44 �7J=- r,40 7.6e (Cie; tA 7 ,(4S,5) 7_ U-- g-1,- 1•q of7, r9 (eq.;1 = :i:4 4 4T3 _ - 4( r 4 Z (� yit., 7, tif 661.5)2 u,-5t3 r SPOKANE COUNTY 11 CALCULATION SHEET Description: Mt/kart,/ /AAt . Project No.: Pl¢ be.. Colc. by: Date: Title: Checked by: Date: Sheet of Notes : 5 Mint t$vi i L E ` UG , .( O 4 4 l q1 9/. f1 trod fio LT ( 1 .gip) tff4t 21-150 zC 3o r. 2t4 et �N ez W W, L' i%.4 (cnecf VA Slyx 5- z/.0�- . : ,OII ? = z:9,31 - z 1.E3 = �v,g (% 4 Zio 2 1 .0( a 2E441.5 Z�. 4- 4 ‘4 - 1-. r 4.4- ( 4 <- 2 -Eo • ' qq T� 2 If Chi 2 4 G V o gA"1 : G .en (4 J 1-7 z . T L. 4 "44. a'.1•}. X'-' (;ni•Pfl+ r4) Ti. 1 +:Z ` � 3.;3 7 L w31. Pia o Zza 33.33 N • St N. a ;z L� 60.5' .0162. L o 77,4 - . .7 1- ; (5 G I 476 6) \r - yd' Y - - zG. -2 OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS 071 4'0 v - TA ( r 0 / ^rJ:c1 sa jie.o.f Li 2 SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: 4 11 1 ' Project No.: f Colc. by: _ Date: Title: Checked by: Date: Sheet of Notes ` 616 4L e- ff ?/cT 12) 21 t56 &- - uuc. sectua 6 prll,U if 4641 qC — ?ri' Rr sex_ 2f-1.501-r Tv 22r501.7 fx-ci �`GY Cc 6.1. 5 27. - - 4 7 . . - it- (47 f/ - ,sZ (�Ias ,ma _ 152.4- '� % Acid Q4(44,0 V- 99( (-..,1) = 'z? 2. 4. 2- = ...„.. 4 r ?.51X1.4 `51) ?.ar 2 SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: 4 ovitt Yit) Project No: fl' :Y Calc. by: Date: Title: Checked by: Date: Sheet — _/ of _ Notes: '''0 T iiLt 4 vciwkL - - -- lr ,,M /Q,f-io f4(erR) 4 'l�r .29 (414'4) , of-xtSto 1 z Scl , rofra 1 lifla: ' ;-• f2,8 )1.12 - [ /D 92 (4 j1+5D.b 'c r' �• ,es+- 1 (4)S=223 .a b , ' .I/ ` � - .2.2340(4E1) '15;-4- - 1t z - �j? M P53,75 /&e , ) 10 I043,44 Yezw) =3I�, E: ( b LA = 3/.47 - 2, 04 - 4b' (510. (I4-b2. ') • ot p1 n Ir t4I I. col. cc = 7 _ E1' 5 11+74: 1�,t4I A z 23' tx si; 0 11 il4fi d r. 0 • v= fl�l., 2�2o3 o ( -r) ^41 -1 -43 12 -/o 4- - it v 4* 4k rit yi c r 3'w SPOKANE COUNTY CALCULATION SHEET Description: feek, ow Project No.: + Calc. by: Date: Title: Checked by: Date: Sheet Notes: a PPLfilt Vt!Ul i""" 12 .44 !" j ah 13i3 ► (eme) 1 42+44. e 14-& : Li 2 .l p,-: o /- / zj. to - 2 f. t5 = CO. Z t (gR (P70.3) solo' e J t, &s IS 6 •t✓5+ 1 (.(. . Z -rr"i 2 d / `j (24y. 3 / D ) �` ��I t. �� #o 6-. 2 ' 2 ~ I j e..40 4 6ilpfx4) r/4-' 't,5.74 .E —1 `SI, ,vl:Sj (&) ' (134-b1.7 OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS 0461 - z87 14 2 - r 63/1 Z a. 14403 A-- :5 ! ) v= f4A 1 4 . l 35.24-), .3 -- v SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: Vitt t am) Project No: Calc. by: Date: Title: Checked by:_ Date: Sheet - of Notes: tJ) J4 M f. 74. toil 114E -74- I 4 f2.a4 f 1, I 02.7 5 � . 28.03- 77 a) .. 1.240 (5 25: f E - L tj . � ► � (54,) - ).97 - (t 2 z /5, 'la (4 Chi: +l) 46 (` - It , ), 1 l , — 144 = o �� fL = f. 0 (4 54 ) *1.7 41 �► (yidC: A: jq7 ' ( Q�OfGc) 65 , x27.57-2'10) q5.4 (5 14471,61 ,a23 GG 17_ t I L 1 e.55 L 7; - L 1. 4 1 2 (n,;) _ . gV = 10 7: • SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: -M-i.,..,0-1- ..,;'G Project No.: ?(¢14 k5 Calc. by: Dote: Title: Checked by: Dote: Sheet of of Notes: Swfta 4,..)1 a Vt it +4 (5+ 40.04 (‘A (E; -t40.0i (4vs'J I:4 c4 4 y411- L' ( r3.,t) g= - z(c 10 G.E.,e( 2 a()? 4 4; 0 11 = 444 /&4 1 0 ,( 4 t./ 4 o4- Rog c. (& 4 43. Z.11 .; 1 (4 2 It A alt 4.N-74.1 1,6.I V = 1 = 2. � ( 7 ) 4 > - ( - , ( e =1 1(2.3 ( 0 AL (( 66)= t7rrv,df (5t `(6•4-} tt ( .46 LIfLL = 103 5 - 26.15 _ 6 t i a tk 2rr. zb. t o 31 > G °b - c L ("1- t`k(o.sS 4 (.cal = 2 . Z jf.4 3 SPOKANE COUNTY CALCULATION SHEET Description: _ 1 1 ; ; '! t ✓ Project No.: M444125 25 Colc. by: Dote: Title: Checked by: Dote: Sheet 5 of Notes: __ P f wolves 171 0.c j TO fW04.ry ( 64 ) iliso. 111 f 7 ( ,$Z / -l0 /1 �'G1. f j ,T, LI = (IZ,c 7 ?let t i v r l a - e t V ( 4 4. - Si tc (sr —zi I r , GO7(o f Z.5 , I(v` A- 4114 I (o3) - t2.06 4 e 114-53.Y. x — l -24 (a I A = 7.t2 +c ( .� z VZ ISfW,42 4 IZ4 Sce (,7G I - -• ,7a I _ Q' VI( -41 (,L4) - 2,04z- U" -� 12.a.c-t L'(3o) = ZIB. ( Z z V L3° � e> Q, tP%'1O A =2 -JC I4t03.15 A- o l,a - tk.;4 -2;c 74; l (fit 75) 1425 1.64 - 34- xece iEty ( 7 4 5) 2 OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS z 1 TmAri 7 a4414 =tolol.43 SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: Wet Pc4440 Project No.: 1 45 Calc. by: Date: Title: Checked by: - ppate: Sheet �' of G Notes: ;L 2kZ4 �'i art 5 1 1141 4441 / ,/o e<ze ::?3t 2(C ) 1‘l ; (0 2ztlo n 9 / 40,1 .- �i d `� S//� Alt 44' `' �f/Cr:c -Ct�I / �' f k / . ` ,i ( T(e r�hl / i / t7r et G-'> L( ;;Gry c41 To t etivol 7i/e, SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: //Kt -4V A Project No.: t/'/ Colc. by: Date: Title: Checked by: Date: Sheet / of Notes: U1W s -' Fru - I'v Uiat- SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS .� CALCULATION SHEET Description: t i rivr IPo' Project No.: Colc. by: Dote: Title: Checked by: Dote: Sheet of Notes: r 6r if - f QtSZ i = 28 : 26.77-77.13 N 1 • YJ 4 As 4444A1). 7. 11 ( *5L A= O V 7.¢iy(Z„ , °'% r & ‘bity SY` - 4:73 r3 - jo.3 VA8, LL s r4 -6r X70 4.4 7. d•4 ( 7) - a 1,1 3 Q °O t \ li124. -, 14 " Urtii I v. lto jwcfm VLyt3 c' Calfi�l 4- ;,�.;, fitsto ice `jj � C 1`I461 : { � S � II f _ 4 / :4 zf ,3 \„ ` — r=--fj,,_ :. i�lr! -4 4 � 4 . 4 .¢ tv /,. - if A: 7.i4.4 : 2 o A a.f f (;44 .7.71? V' 3.4s -o.b (1.5:!'7) 1 >' . jl�f .` (off'`scd - 7 4 4 2:::7 CA) - 2L3.79 fit' ffe I p ✓Z ' /t12: . `7:. 3 l 3 47 ✓ (4.) SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: ?iiihtlefq kk*4 Project No: Colc. by: - Dote: Title: Checked by: Date: Sheet of Notes: rA / L ! P.* iLzs e414.3 \ti 7.1'. 3e..„ 44 A 7. rC-4 44-(46) PAL- u , kf t s� iHt 3e � . G7 J,d 9 2- V ?. {-0 27 1 • as 44- ; ¢h 20 2c.b by 3 le=4 zP.5Sis 1 l% ) tep 1v4K dd IV d1, 4 4 Jd 4 4A 6 <,01 1 I JJ tt74 2.19 4-4 A j4 4 -`F(' 1) = ,9d C Rfm 4- a V ./‘47..)(41) = 1/.364 v > a `I (4. Q)f t.4 1110 6t 1$ 5( k feov SPOKANE COUNTY CALCULATION SHEET Description: MifidiA Mkt Project No.-. R,Piets Co lc. by: Checked by: Date: Title: Notes : --------C617 11: Sheet of frtits (6) z 2_4 - 3f3 (ec) -175 7.1151" 2 J& "N. a.49 7 7, 5f3 t4ra.h■ 0 6 4(cf:-- 2.74-7.441 4/./ (i 211-To) az24 r .11 T - • • 4 A; 4.4k -4 t/-• (4 U. ,c›IT e.22-(-32s 4- A 7.40,4 2- 1/ 2 -cZ k Cl/5 ID 4 .01 OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS 700 ?0,(. •ta SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: _ 1/164/4/.,AA Lr 1 Project No.: • : :.. (._:-:, Ca lc. by: Dote: Title: Checked by: Date: Sheet of Notes: 4rirf 6t4b k ,71-150 ro • F4 32 7 , 047 g A I SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: Project No.: l'(41¢ Calc. by: Date: Title: Checked by: Date: Sheet of Notes : k u moat einfe. L} Io ! It 9 7 IC 15 10 ' /0 5?� -- X 77 1 ` /(o x ?q 7c f o .i7 270 /(? v2: z f/l lob 1 ' (•9r llA Y. A kti _ 2 '�ll. j 4 (/ 7) 26 2 //.2 , ;. LIZ kfird . •=,e`; -- / - o� -I`i I . (91.7 fi) f -1-43 1? 3t /37h-f- rio----------:-1/4:i ,. wh ki . x V9 2 )' 22k' -0 71!.7...; `f 4270 /l'I 1 tV U 2790 ) y�f 7 .�7 L"lQ - ,fir SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: Project No.: Calc. by: Date: Title: Checked by: Date: Sheet Notes: U3 5taa << t3E3. tr id* it7 - h 3 Vqi 1513' t 2x - (le ): s 3 ) 3 ,or TA-t- ' ¶c . / -P 2 fQaA S 'A 2 (42, V2 s>110 .1 c� kftif5 Tic - -20, - 14 zz6 7 r< 773i = L e46 (i# o), bir= Ye- Cub '5 a 263 - 2 ( -- r/ rf A-`j4 L ✓ 6#3 2.c4 1,5o. 3 .2Z of 2.16 I 4 7.f8 .1( (,2z1 = 2 SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description:_ Calc. by: Date: Checked by: Date: Notes: 5at4 14-t 3b tc 1:t40 u7 49,40- Iwo 7p (766 [pet- -i640 f z /547-/:(3-q6,1) 1 ! : ' a ( V s - rte r 1 a.f ! 77G 77,57 s 7 /r3 .rM l. s50-- s ;K.it . 7 6 .` 09.31 - 2. 61 -flew e. 1>a-31 r 2 ! Z.33 ,q1 tlb rcpt , f- !4f > t' V0.06 1t''b Project No.: Title: Sheet 12 A 475 4G -5 - 74 4 1 ? Ao 11ij„forl k... 44e( 2 - 6°°) «9 . " J f 3 ti - ?. 4 /7 0 (91.5 ) _ (23.3 t 2- 3 43 rrog7 CS Tk -- tgAS 24,6 V= k .iS (t64) = rr.6. (3 of C(2 1' 1-7-5 oftb 1.1 ;. I <f,a � , a . g Oz s �� r ,L 7.44(5‘, /.1 2 r _f SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: Project No.: Colc. by: Dote: Title: Checked by: Date: Sheet Notes: .1w at A /ad - A51) A5'- 1 -1 W $I 1 41cda r1.0 �o 1q o4 trorta4 - if .1 diertide .5 �l= ..-af (.5) = fai(46): TC z 27,4:6 33 CL 1163 z7.g 2.3 44 ft_e 1 a 2ri- - l 33 j 0 7 (i7 - 4-) ,06433 - 5„.m .S5, A(7. ; ) Q �} V 1,43 f..:t 4( %.3 (.0 ,C3 72- 3 . 0 1 0 I Na/ eU Z 7 72 (.36 Fit 25.2z 461 of r4=(4• 5I tt)(s'f) - t.o a SPOKANE COUNTY CALCULATION SHEET Description: Project No Co lc. by: Date: Title: Checked by: Dote: Sheet of Notes: vz-q3 7 :) - ' e 32er :" 4(V- l'! ae rxet.,; /1,3" (/25-5 t 1. - 4((ror 757 . .14 g - 7 5 1.( 117 e 'f16-7 e 7 OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: Project No.: �� k5 Calc. by: _ Date: Title' Checked by: Date: Sheet of Notes: V - : / E. t1, / t t z 4 .'J frie 0(, j) 313G 7 V f oo -70 { 3 5 ) 760 1 5c 2 p SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: Project No.: Colc_ by: _ Date: Title: Checked by : Date: Sheet __ _ of Notes: u / 11 612 t 35• b !Q� .4- f0.6 144- (¢z.I /7/ / /t go,/ , ! &1,7 go,1 23 I /71 313, 4(49 .0 2"1,( 19 l 22. `, /4v -- 7 5 g /'qU SPOKANE COUNTY CALCULATION SHEET Description: Project No. 014" ,,C Ca lc. by: Date: Title: Checked by : Date: Sheet of Notes: r; 03, (C% 61PA : (,6 i# IAVE4 ti 1 016 -4( Lc. /2 r iz /0 j7 17164 en (N) if 10 #47( 060 /7 /7-1 to ( s 43 /' q5 4 Lt. 32.7' -AA-v.24 V- z.ei- (:-.2.7-1 32 ) 706 2.. (icc 2. 3 .7.7; tic6C,r;/ (1 -7777-(f73 44,74,1 OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS rf2. (i i ce 7_ At, T Vzce /A 3 .4 ityW 5 124-Zi&* SPOKANE COUNTY CALCULATION SHEET Description: Project No.: /4-; Calc. by:.__ — Date: Title: Checked by: t Date: Sheet. of Notes: r j •a >r� !(<4 g M Ada pinn46 ezewa...eitt•J Li A r-- T,/ - Crf -Z5.33 / 6 ,! aaei I.� ��ff Li 8 I LI= L I = 2 6 _ 1,2 2.1e; J (! 48 0.7 rp 32 L 2 itiqj r f3 er.f 14' (14 :64 /° %3 - w i t-11kt Thb tf%ctis Occf 1 es4.4. OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS j !a / (4 *± e/i) SPOKANE COUNTY CALCULATION SHEET Description: _ Project No.: rri Co lc. by:. Date: Title: Checked by: Date: Sheet of Notes 154 7: fie 4 V16 cistA)ie k k yAi ' A/44 4ele4wif,„) 77 G i ri if1/1 ' . -;; • plc- PA) /1O-'-' zce ;giro (pt :10 24 WO hid 1p 54)11 7e; 2 0)5 1. *t ? t .."(47 1 1/4 1 freta4-a- / Ca (of t L t •-/ tY 16501,4t 614 0 - e5Z- b 5a 114 U5 f Ilf b 14/41;e: ■ Tf. riztv OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS P , 4a(01 Az( m wo e _ ted ••••> (4 ) fre-f4 SPOKANE COUNTY Description: Project No.: Colc. by: Date: Title: Checked by: Date: Sheet Notes : rr� - fit ,9 - Zit 7S ,6 > fd, 3 ,`, 4" f ew .)(T am z l',6/1.1 - plutx_ l ac £ 11(e: fai !,4b'14 R lfi ri/ /Of-57 to 045 et L� = 3 ' ((P t,, LIP �t = /. (7 i.1/ t.: 5 _ 42-7' ,G1j7 Ac 7.4-1 4 .+ (.5)" 2 V- 245t'(42.'i)= •4 L-= ,CT' lily 2q 3)= ( 2 CALCULATION SHEET ir ptic i/ for sizo ) =14 4te (Vi r OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS U = .Aitdv(i) 3 t <t r_ 73! (/ Iv2S,) re t5rs ll 4qe 4 1 405 65P A 040 - '= 2.15 4v(l 1 - {t 3 3 '' (3jVi z. rs6cp"( r 1 ft << 412 � 3 , rc0 SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET p Description: Project No.: P/¢! Calc. by: Date: Title Checked by: pate: Sheet of Notes: I- / 4ier T lew /00? iadzwti 43 J = /& fqo ;315 (6) = 52e /936- 4:.c 1, {Yv e' () '?4 `:0 ,R lC Tl fZtoo -tom (' f. i 1l Lv fL? /4.13o 3I 2 x30 = // f{ PO ‘ 1: ' it,.._:: .... i I A- 6.5-f- (L f) • I, b 'R s C < 0 i fro ocik, -6,4 x% d ,£ M r 11, �/ 1a' ►. t' (icz)- 10- -4- CC 4 (i ,f 7i. y t 'V � AA. 3.. r s t (J" - 5223 1 T� (4-+`,0 -ta L- (60' � o `j ► 5 Q. a a,) ; LI '• )4b , ?1 ' U p , 4 p, tt TI U = (63 LF t /75' Ali/ 4P-Lif5 7 g, 13.f as ?'i SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET � Description: Project No.: �f��¢ d ''`-' Calc. by: Date: _ Title: Checked by: Date: Sheet of Notes: L. I = Op rtx - iZ- 33 .Utz , r3a 0/3? . Obi L r - 2 -S5 - 32$3 = /W ei ,344/' 0.4614 -a 32. 33 V = 7,5? 40 (t i. B 4 _ pa 1 )? 15' nAclLcr SPOKANE COUNTY CALCULATION SHEET Description: Project No.: Pq(4 IC; Co lc, by: Dote. Title: Checked by: . 1491e: Sheet of Notes: Vi.c19, ' 4741! Gtt zIC'< lArut N .A0.. 141:4 ;1 fit a7 7-r5 /rt.:- a 7 C I c.08 flf`i 4-76 715. - ot,74 p / (zf)) 24 .5 s / ?.7c ru.7 71:2.a OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS SPOKANE COUNTY CALCULATION SHEET Description: Project No.: / / Calc. by:. Date: Title: Checked by: �,/, Date: Sheet of Notes: vat , j4J /4 «. lr ,Piebik A- ',J Gp Ir. (ii 6 L':`;. , i/- ( 4 L 4x.21 25.77 = Gd ( 114 3 74 . c-ev 5 `�. : 242Z7 l ` . f it 'r-- . 2& 77 2.75 ! .r . $ P (G P) 7-3 Q //f 2 :'5 4; D V- 1. 1z fo64 -75) r z6 F 3 f „ 151 2 (.5 2 k ,Jtit.7z'10 375 (471 .74 e) Ma ,) 720 OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS are' Jc ;.a > 4-.3 z (A 3,1r - 71 ,i.✓ ,3,.1 p'441 _ SPOKANE COUNTY Description: Project No: 714 Co lc. by: Dote: Title: Checked by : Date: v Sheet of Notes: elue4..3 A I y 1,42 • - t 30. 4 D 2_24?e. w.tf• x(4-- 'fr C'tb ,k 71 z - fi244 ,y4.4 L': 4- ) c 2 544 iiVe) 01- N• - St CALCULATION SHEET fd phee. to 214 5T /9 OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS • 41....t 4:0.647=07 • :F. 4537 ) 2 T. 4' ( ,O( 7 • 5A) f54) 1 tz'clail fa- r Of 7 / if 4.05 VeIefft‘ (L4).'"1 'ZB- ) 1.4' ( •617 a 2 ti 47.p art lex.# 7,-4 . _ ._ , -t.il 1 ,(4 - c't . i t r.,. .40 - -- , , .- -c7-' 4•-2-11 .1 tr ' • IL r - 5 4.`f 44 -1 - (, -.- 2 .1 "fr z fif 8 . 4°1 4= 1 (411' 4,011 4 ti --- 2.'53c 7 . ) 1- yf.7-k (): q.alio('7,4,4 - . (VA %.3) 421,7e.4'? SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: Project No: ?f4[Q Colc. by: Date: Title: Checked by: ,Date: Sheet of Notes: h (64•G- TA5 p C6 -101ti pLrt /&ttoo 1 1. 1:4'04) 14 f / () r =lL 15 arc 57. 3 � L� = I ' 51 ' -�: t i e o! 75 / -(a.) - . 3c, 24t) fif 24. 3 SeP ,423 4. t. 5 . I.2 733 i3 1 4.4 \t -(±° ' ' (cfi. 6 f 2(.?) � : � ' V rr � 2S 4, 2 IMP SPOKANE COUNTY Description: Calc. by: Date: Checked by: pate: Notes : ' �� '5Avg F I ZIe 4 (105 r,9° ll a < -q.7 .1a it - 2.63.E7 52 e,() 70' CALCULATION SHEET LI=lo' (2 °3d,f L3= 21.'1`3 S I -- ID`s . ,OZ23 = , — - - _ 14 1 C 28�� fetM 28.!7 F c Q 71.6 Title: Sheet VAL. GttuF, = 28 �- 1^7.710 Ig.tl. G�; oz23 Vat (D- (31.>� : Q�- .r 4 4- �= 6.e4.4 (4(11) _ 2 Fq .{ C r6 ;), L2= 2.31toCl�. '_ 01.2 _ _- Z 4. 1 :- .19 2 v 1c`7 L , c4 J rLot ,ke (O.0 - 3, 6 . 5 2 1 Prolect No.: Pry 1¢ _ t - 2 3 146e : Z.Yo. �4 = ,010 = vs +0(47.0) = 2.43 ‘ v OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS of re 4 (f <r x.73 0q �7 l y, V= 2.';A /►rxY, ` - �{ -b SPOKANE COUNTY Description: Project No.: Calc. by: Date: Title: Checked by: Date: Sheet of Notes: al- Awl() ' f�+ �GAJ ! Hi= 4. LX t• (. Vic"- ZS b7 - 2 ; '- - r /D A3 44- 0 Z (Y 1o+r3.c, 644141.t r0.4- D d = (0.4-44 .1-6) 7,44 2 x.67 CALCULATION SHEET _ OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS SPOKANE COUNTY CALCULATION SHEET Description: 'f' r 34i_L Project No.: rl(1/4 Ca Ic. by: Date: Title: Checked by: Date: Sheet of Notes: V /I fAiLor., cf fica 1 U = L, Tf rr+t : '. (_ i cj) (B3) bc? k/h. (t ac,Q,TE- OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS �' SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: c.i. ii_Vti_ Fi tA'. Project No : 1- 4N - Calc. by: Dote: Title Checked by: Date: Sheet of Notes: Y— - "fiDk qz-gfaig • 1(5 1.ta i0E4 •6.1a ij ( Om: d Os- - -2_5" = S /010>v7 4-X, /44,f41 ikt A , reutk 0-4 . &I 4' 5c I pkge.te.A- • 1:4) 14 . 650) /ZS pp 141:46 r go14.46‘. 0E / 41,4-( . 6 , 1 0 . 4t : 0 lb z 7! 1 .1t/A - ax 7 ."( f:h..:1 SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: Project No.: Calc. by:_ Date: Title: Checked by: Date: Sheet of Notes: 1. ) r1c� rya kf I( 4.44-1/ m 1 V e 10' ty4 r d /s(uu ia2 f' Z.Q ,,-,1(11.,0 f % J 3 d: t. Z rt ,1 k iY flu ,614 (eej5 ) t ,775 (‘:7> fi l :GG1 - k i h 46.7 _ ass f [ = J2(7) , _ _ .0i4; f ci�i No 7t �N f d 7 iP(47 ppa/ ia14a lJ �� r d ft - 3-.S1 -(r75 [ 31,37 ott, . 2- z 6.7c, 6. "15 - ;►.z�(.7f)1 5C(2-j ,0 5 A .E5(.e�) 6.° a t ,oil/ 04)- ,(/Dli3 (2 (Io' _ •3, -it 4 d 7 • , ) . r 1�� Rt) c.. a 2' 4 (A:36, SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: Project No: Calc. by: Date: Title: Checked by: Date: Sheet of Notes: ?f 444 /.4 �fu 43 (r-qtr) 3)4/i ) 3 ZO k bd. I67) 0733(!246 75) ,20 .f4'o f.7 SPOKANE COUNTY Description: Project No: Colc. by: Date: Title: Checked b Date: Sheet of Notes: t.ft- e ic .t .83 (047 }(I5) ' Z10 c144 Z-Z?e tl 'ZfC_ FJ CY ^M+ <cu- 0/64 (rt) 20, 1.t3 z � acohNuntit Sot eiH =?.!E . 56 -_ 147 <Z N I Z9 i p«t ' ,acv 29f o - tot. soo bet I et'5y CALCULATION SHEET 3 S ' 1, br .276 e I. 3 3 1, oq -- 1.k , 24 ' it/Oft4tiv4t- 7( 04- fat -- t1/4i / I t be): 4 5 (li 66 P'I- • ( L lob s r OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS l i-�� ) : 4 ((- �) ?7 < 600 4c.. SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: Colc. by: Checked by: Notes: ,Iff6 (H6 to N f�•Vcl.u�; �� / AVE Date: Dote: C• ; 1I; Zr I C' 1146 4 T � ..;.•. 21ir* el. C1 TM.,�MM v ' L " .•�5 1.. . 1 � r / to 7 ,d -o • z :L#�L 0((2 %) - I1` s (1-1 i= f -=-7 0. Ian A= / rY j f N A 11 2 _ 2;. 35 -�.°5 x31 1c2!9 / -lo 7-+c:r CT , - 124 �S V= /.‘" - . 0 (21p5 f/ P'4.7 2 it/ ( - (4. (tom - -/ )- 74' 21,e, ., . +4Z, ) = ? Ao le) 1/03 /r/ 41 = 74 V` / - 1,7q74) OOP Project No.: Title: Sheet of I (v2)F,) ( „14 tJ , f4,({61± a, zt foe ,S At e l zs. -55 /C:4- / .'• /t' f!L:c� •frr 4`` fist lz 5114- 425 1 t0 o z Z A - 16 1 (6ttL, 4,4 . f /, fit, 2 f 'v 2t t g X2d = Ljl 2 ad 2 0.35 kr /' K ?o 14o SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Project No.; '' .4( Date: Title: Sheet of Description: Calc. by: Checked by: Notes: i!!' 1 L= G > - 2¢L5 tz .3 . (Imo) 1.° EA46 k) u) X cik , Date: slit {6 r(?' ei2c7: 7 = 7(4D ,t'• 4G ' 072 5 I ,42 • �rk•eE Lgiu 25.35 1Lk z4-t6 1.5 - r ' R 2. lf� fo R AA044 Ike L= ,5 35,2 - t (451, c itjb ,4 ; 1. E7%- y= - = r.ri5(5.z) Q jf ;L t — o f y►i ti t � to it ?S " • 00b (Ka g.6 v2af5 J S I�rrw� 05 % 511; i f 5 ,06 it 2G 4 ( (17.)a ei' V= 6 � L= (41P hv6 . g r../2.2O :93.() _'7 ice^ 44 , mirk. 2 + 40 3if 2S 0245'= CU t'f prb WO 041 - j cL 24- -+-4(__ CY41 SPOKANE COUNTY Description: Project No.: P(414 Caic. by: _ Dote: Title: Checked by: Date: Sheet of Notes: DNS jahfh .._ or '-,''O 4tf44T L� 114 ? l2 J ua7 t i, 4 J Q(/lia1 ; l " ( - c1 i3 7•13 (4 +o -) 3{1C V= (z7,(,) a q{-oz I 0 2 CALCULATION SHEET 4- • w 41 stt f 4 /� �. i /.�l�R14( - /dad `�jc: � / 1f / OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS fiwpd. Este/. 4 71)620 -- 19343 VLPE:;- l � `� �Z7.L :.k a Y3 SPOKANE COUNTY OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEERS CALCULATION SHEET Description: Project No.: f ¢ Colt. by: Date: Title: Checked by: Date: Sheet of Notes: G.<l.s 9,) .07 i' 4,1 4.40 12- i adktIi4r t� '.i✓9 9 0 5 r. /r -t f r r� .r , 4 o zZ J 4.7 ,5 ($ ,c1 13 5 f7 �' 1 :! r A' -4Z o , v= L' "Z-f? 2' i S . ( ?9 f-2# 7; Ai /iy ,.) .cam • r. f x ^ ,tic i i, 2/ 24 �- 2 # 1" s V = Z r!f5 9 4T ,6.41"I et 1 • • OFFICIAL PU8LIC F OFFICE • SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINE PROJECT" SUBMITTAL RETURN TO COUNTY ENGINEEr Prepared on behalf of: HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR RIVERWALK SUBDIVISION FIRST PHASE REVISION 2/21/95 J.N. 4004 Edward Dean Dean Building Corp. 16720 N.E. 116th Street Redmond, WA 98052 R ECEIVED FEB 2 3 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER • North Idaho Engineering, Inc. • • • • 4200 Seltice Way, Suite 2 • Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 838141 • Phone (208) 667 -1171 • Fax (208) 664 -3507 February 21, 1995 J.N. 4004 Dean Building Corporation. 16720 N.E. 116th Street Redmond, WA 98052 • ATTN: Edward Dean RE: Riverwalk, Hydrology Study Dear Mr. Dean The revised Hydrology Study for phase one has been completed and will be submitted along with the Improvement plans. Due to comments provided by Spokane County regarding the previous Hydrology study, some additional drywells have been added. These drywells were added to accommodate increased flow and decreased storage volumes. There will be an additional two double depth drywells added and one of the proposed single depth drywells will be increased to a double depth drywell to provide the single peak storage volume requirement within the 100- minute family of storms. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call Very Truly Yours, North Idaho Engineering, Inc. James 0. Morris cc: file OVERVIEW Phase one has been divided into several small basins labeled A through Y. For each basin both Grassed Percolation Area (GPA) and storm volume was calculated along with peak flow, ditch velocity, drywell requirements, and curb inlet capacity. • Curb notches will be provided on Indiana Avenue (Curb Inlet Type 2). these will channel water to the GPA. Curb notch • calculations may be found in the corresponding basin section. For private roads inside the project, runoff will flow directly to the GPA at any point. • • • • RUNOFF COEFFICIENT INTRODUCTION This Hydrology Study includes all tributary areas for phase one. SOIL CLASSIFICATION The existing soil is defined as sand and gravel, under approximately 18 inches of topsoil. Soil classification for this area is type 'B'. Refer to the book GUIDELINES FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, Table 1. • • Cross- sectional area for private roads. • • • • • • SLOPE CALCULATIONS All slopes were established directly from the improvement plans except where the critical path did not follow directly along the road. In this case, the difference in contours from the beginning to the end of the critical path was divided by the length to establish slope. CROSS - SECTIONAL AREA - 205 Depth = 1/2 foot Area = 3.25 SQ.FT. - Storm Depth = 1 foot Cross - sectional area for Indiana Avenue. - 205 Depth = 1/2 foot Area = 2.25 SQ.FT. - Storm Depth = 1/2 foot Cross - sectional area for Barker Road. - 205 Depth = 1/2 foot Area = 1.63 SQ.FT. - Storm Depth = 1 foot Cross - sectional area for Mission Avenue. - 205 Depth = 1/2 foot Area = 1.63 SQ.FT. - Storm Depth = 1 foot 7 Area = 8.0 SQ.FT. Area = 2.25 SQ.FT. Area = 1.63 SQ.FT. Area = 1.63 SQ.FT. c) BASIN CALCULATIONS • Basin calculations may be found in appendix A. These calculations consist of the following: - Impervious Area • -Q from Impervious Area and Basin - Required and Provided 208 Ponding Volume 40 - Required and Provided Storm Volume - Velocity - Number /Type of Drywells Required 41 -Curb Inlets where appropriate. • • INLET C ONTROLE Q= CDxgXD 2x32.2X(HW - D) Co = Discharge coefficient for the entrance. D = Diameter of pipe. OUTLET C NO TROL HW +So- D =(CL+ C = Intrance Toss N = mannings N R = Hydraulic radius 32.2xN2xL 8xQ2 1 + • R 2 x32.2xD 4 1.11xR 3 ft 8 evt.v R' 0.17 Q (,z _ O . Z G c.F. G QT. 1,24—cps CULVERT CALCULATIONS nz'. (It = l , o 3 wt Q= 0 ►n. /1SSVe o L- 1s'� N= 0►C2? ct =a6 4 Q4C 5=0. r OEPrN Cr t z It 0.13 INLET Q = o. 82.4 s ooresr Q= 4•si .114:61 1.41 cis • 10 [ocveur ft = O.L / TrJ Q I. 2,c cps Dor Q = 1.3 C.F. (SIR hfl`ri-1 cuwEE rS �o r'�`.' US t D cfr 0 - 0 = C., r i Cuc» &T C. 4- I ' vse 6 ° $4w RASIN 11(a) v Nla) V L1 \Lr S(a) 1.1.V .7-.0 Lift) N(b) S(b) L2 7.1 Z2 8 n S (N - tt. 7 208 VOLUME PROV. (m .lt.I STORM VO1VMP. PROV. (tuft .1 1MPERV AREA O.N. SINGLE 0.W. DOUBLE Al A 460 0.4 0.01 2 3 3 3 0.023 0.008 2255 375 13575 1 1.5 R 650 3 3 5 0.023 0.01 677 403 9800 1 0.47 C 400 3 3 5 0.023 0.008 650 558 11400 1 .072 11 130 0.4 0.008 150 3 3 5 0.023 0.008 325 500 6600 1 .044 R 80 3 3 5 0.023 0.005 325 500 1820 1 0.09 P 280 3 3 5 0.023 0.008 325 500 5320 1 0.23 0 270 0.4 0.007 150 3 3 3 0.023 0.009 775 777 30650 2 2.06 11 450 6 12.4 0 0.016 0.008 900 547 12190 1 0.46 1 130 6 12.4 0 0.016 0.008 225 336 3975 1 0.14 .7 100 6 12.4 0 0.016 0.008 158 70 3160 1 0.11 300 6 12.4 0 0.016 0.000 506 211 8215 1 0.35 L 560 0.4 0.009 2 3 3 5 0.023 0.008 813 779 45520 3 3.9 M 270 3 3 5 0.023 0.008 181 271 4200 1 0.23 N 440 0.4 0.007 220 3 3 5 0.023 0.008 542 987 47340 1 2 3.05 0 200 3 3 5 0.023 0.008 325 102 3360 1 0.17 P 750 0.4 0.006 200 3 3 5 0.023 0.008 325 500 19160 1 0.96 Q 500 5 4 1 0.023 0.003 652 466 1800 1 0.57 R 600 3 3 5 0.023 0.01 650 602 14680 1 0.52 S 136 3 3 5 0.023 0.0146 149 228 3300 1 0.14 T 470 5 4 1 0.023 0.002 978 707 21600 l 0.67 t1 850 5 4 1 0.023 0.008 1304 408 31175 2 .74 V 1900 0.4 0.01 2 4 5 1 0.023 0.012 2143 535 50310 5 6 N 210 0.4 0.01 150 3 3 3 0.023 0.08 412 728 16345 1 0.86 x 850 10.7 Y 100 3 3 5 0.023 0.009 900 281 19045 1 0.48 GUTTER AREA • • • • • • • • • • • Impervious Area (Amp) X50 @ b -s 3V 5Q. • 311573 @, 3.t 9 G a 0 s4. Fr • A ,a r X /a0 = gZ 2S" r!{. F17 • (fsc—+ W 42 ! • Slone: 41, 0.(78 Volume of Grassed Percolation Area Vgpa (corrected) = As x (100 x D) 1 (3 x S) + V,.3 STORM STORAGE VOLUME. 208thre.t.sam BASIN A = 375 cu. F 7, 7 44/411111 , 514pfi, step, • BOWSTRII) ± METTIOO (TFN YEM ST 011M DESKGN1 DETENTION BASIN DESIGN NUMBER OF DRYVVFLLS PROPOSF.0 0 Single (type A) TOMI Ann) le. (••• 1 Time of Cent. Cole) Con oe% ..c (4.tc.) I.e. N1) Time nl Conc. (men) Ana (A 1.$) C' Factor Impervious Men isq Volume Provided OuMow (elel Area • C ( 11) •1 •2 11me Time Inc. Inc. (men.) (see.) (•1 ' •.•• ° .. .. •520.01 • 1 Double (4yp• B) 150 19 67 0.31 •1 Intenaty feu. 11) feu. KT Ico. (1.1 (In flv) (1..l.) (Wd •421 (813.110) - _,_..- ... <:a. =na <. 82001 133 190 0.67 - -- - 1t)0 205 600 224 55 3 3 111 00 5 2.24 1 02 10 000 1.77 0 61 1 0 000 1200 145 0.65 25 1500 1.21 0 0 55 5 30 IMO f 042 2 1115 4S 0.02 018 40 2400 014 0.34 50 40 3 3 3 100 005 0. 66 O 11 3300 0.64 0. 0.61 0.26 00 31100 0.80 0 27 70 4200 0 3000 0. 08 077 7 066 0. 50 4500 0 53 0.24 50 5000 0.52 0.24 85 5400 050 0.23 04 5405 5 5700 0.49 022 100 0000 0 411 D RAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required green swot. pood •vunge volt mw • Impervious Ares it 51n 1 12 M . DRYWELL REd-41RFMFNTS • 10 YEAR DESIGN SIO M M.almum storage required 'W13 - Number end type al Dryweets Hogvered . • 13.67 15 03 3075 375 206_ 225 swim: 0.40 :.= .a •4 •5 V out SIOr.9. Ode V. VIn - sirs 014 055 900 951 1?no 065 1500 P0 9 1000 940 2100 1005 2400 1006 7700 1020 3000 1046 3300 1062 3600 1147 3400 1165 4200 1224 4500 1231 4000 1780 5100 1200 5400 1340 5700 1379 . ......... ..._..■ • PROJECT: 4004 BASIN. A REVIEWER: O. 91.9 DATE: 31.044.4 provided: provided 168 cu n. 225 eu. e. 265 cu. e. 375 cu. It 0 Single • -219 -515 a/1 .1110 .1306 -1692 -1900 .n,2 .2516 -2753 -3012 .3276 .3550 .3620 .410 -4380 .4521 OKI OKI TIME OF CCNCENIRATION (n4nul 1) Tc lvulNrl 4.e (overland) 0.15 L2 . Ct • Z1 . •60 22. 1.144.4 Hilt) • B • NIA) 0 4 0 SIAI • 0.0t • " 0.005 d > 0.16 1e(Al• 13.65 1 11 1c Nu) = 002 NM) • 0 . 0 IelA+81' 13 65 SIB) = 0 Tclpl l < Inten.11y - 1 00 Te (B) 00 1 Double • 2 Ana. A•C 031 1.10 0 000 0. 00 0.00 000 Totnl A 1 50 0=C0 087 (Kest l • 0.00 WP • R• V= Tc(gv) • al..)) - 0 00 0 15 0 00 0.00 000 0.00 000 C04n - C • 031 0 5580 4 011 0.1966 1.56 0.02 0.00 Tc pout)) • lc (ov'dnnd) 6. lc (gutlwr) Tc (ow lend) - CI•IL1•14 /5. 051" 0.8) 00.7 Cl . 0 15 Holding L1 • Length of Overland Flow 1.11.11 cove!) N • 1NcOnn t.ln cr of overland 6nw (.4 for eyeing. 9 9 • ever•9• 3I0pemlloverla d flow /.1111.1060 Tc 1941140 • L.ng g . Bolton width al goner or ono of ditch o Zt • Inverse of cross .lop. ono n1 ditch 22 • Inverse of non. .tope eeUmele w161 Flow) d - depth of now In guner (weUmete. cheek Nee = d'B 4r1 2!2 721 W11n.d pwrlrrwler . 13.o / 1I /11n(em f 12 * 10.01e1n(1221)1 lIydr nollc Redlus - R . Arw.IW.11e13 Prlmeler V•lacify - 1 465/n 007•5^ 5 Flow • V.IOdtY n e 0 0151nt ..phwIl • - 10C1•11111.1,11•1 •10110 01 q Vt1.r • 0.270 0.17115 0 0 0 0 0 • • 1 3.833 B'rsf'J f+ N = 0.333 zo rt13 o p�,�crNG • 4= sIV. GILL tvLA T2'4 gq 0 Le • • • Q Doc Y Lit = 1r 6 2 Q _ c,1 q a4 I. it O. I ?. w foul z- t ire icci;,ors0r) = L PxG 0Kr ( to 0) . 1 2 txr sec EP7" Act. 0, 048 II .OZ .03 .04 .00 .sae .v ' - I I I 1 I 1 - I I I I I I I 11 I 1 1 1 1: Z. , 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ; 1 1 I I I I I f ' 1 1 I : 1 1 i I 1 1 1 I 11 I ; I i I � I i I � I I I 1 I ' L; i 1 1 ; I I -- T- - -.i- T ; I T . . - - - T 7 1 1 1 / I I 1 1 I 1-1 LZL- �._._, 1 I 1 I 1 1 j 1 s l j; I � I_� I , i 1 1_ _ 1 1 1 �.� 1 I I 1 _ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 11 0 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 i I i ' 1 ' i I 1 1 _/,:.3,/ _ I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 °t I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 F� 1 l 1 1 1 � 0` I I I I I 1 I I 1 1 I , I I I 1 I I i 1 I )- „g 45F �� 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 V� I I �1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1{ 1 1 1 1 . 1 i I I 1 1 I� 4 g tar-/�l•'a1 , 1, 1 i . . I .�.,__. -L.�L L_i_.r1 ►ii I 1 I t I l 1 I I I I I 1 � 1 1 I 1 I I I I I 11 I I I f i i f 1 1 1 I I 1! 1, J I (� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 � I t 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 �� - I i 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 i I j TMT- I Iii I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 I I I , 1X11 , 11 . X111II. 1 I I 1 1 1 , I j I I 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 I 1 t H 1 i I I I I I i 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 / I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1,. , I . O �� 1 I ' I 1 1', I I �, i 1 1 1 1 1 1: Z. , 1 I I : 1 i 1 ye 1 I 1ay� 1 I �, : 1 1 - 1.- '} 1L-- -.- - , 4 4 L -H-- j '1 , 1 H i (t - �� _ • 1 e LZL- �._._, 1 I. 0 1 i-4.111_i_i_ _/,:.3,/ _ r F rT TT — 4- - -- — I 0 I\ of I 0 • • • (b) PARTIAL INTERCEPTION RATIO FOR INL_ITS OF LENGTH LESS THAN L • (a) DISCHARGE PER FOOT OF LENGTH OF CURS OPENING INLETS WHEN INTERCEPTING 100% OF GUTTER FLOW DEPTH OF FLOW - y - FEET 2 .4 .6 .T .4 .3 .6 .03 .06 .06 J0 .2 L/ CAPACITY OF CURS OPENING INLETS ON CONTINUOUS GRADE g FIGURE 16 .6 40 1.0 6 6 .3 .4 .2 .10 .06 .06 .05 .04 .03 .02 .01 1.0 • 6 .4 .3 - C .2 .10 Ca L 1 t rt U r t C t 1 • • Ft+ce G!^ cak b l 0 i r2oM F , t • z' ° 2, os cp • • D • o ico 1 / 2 trg / D.YO O►(2. o .28 /9-Lcoe_ 4 r.roN / wrO V e /'Z 't( LI9 6 piece, (0 G& 214 "/2 0 Ss' / 7N OP d TC fr pool✓ C6'9,v 8 • NO 1...4 -4 ca: y- ',L N 7 4 A A'f It I /Jcc: 0 .1 4. 0.2$ • • • • • 10 1 Slone: 1% Volume of Grassed Percolation 100x D �(3 x S) + V;pa Vgpa (corrected) = • 3. AS X /00 X 2 = GS'° ctl. FT" 3.$5 X G too X as') /C 3 x.1.40) _ X CO. F1 BASIN C3 Impervious Area (Amp)* 9800 s4.FT: 677 c 14F r. STORM STORAGE VOLUME: (11"—t2) so aQ o c11. F CO X — X 62.5 X P. AO 3 G th FT: .40 cd -FT; q DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required enmity swats pond a.wnae volume . impervious Area . 5 in l 12 In 111 . DRYWELL REOUIREMF.NTS • 10 YEAR DESIGN STORM Maximum .longs metered by Bow.king . Number and type of Drywalls Required 406 w. h provided: 877 cu. 11 OKI 296 cu. fl. prodded: 403 cu. It OKI 1 Single 0 Double TIME OF CONCENTRATION (newts* BOWSTRING METHOD (TEN TEAR STORM DESIGN) PROJECT 4004 DETENTION BASIN DESIGN BASIN. 5 A rra C A'C REVIEWER: 0. Sl.glord Te Iowdend) Te (putter) NUMBER OF ORYYVFLLS PROPOSED DAZE: 01 Nov.94 0 �J raj p pp O 106 1 Shpt. (type A) 0 Dnuble (type R) CI a 0.15 L = 88 ` 0 2 21 a . 3 0.23 0.0525 Toll Ana Isar 1 (.ea 01) 0 47 3 000 0.00 0 Time of Cone (cak) 1.•• H1) 8 11 LI(A) a 0 72 a NIA) a 0 B. 000 0.00 0 T) n 01Conr (c.k.) I.aa H1) 0.55 0 000 0.00 0 Ar. 01 Cone (min) 5.11 SW ' 0 • a 0.01 000 0.00 0 Cn• clo 0'45 le ( . 0 d a 0.1 000 0.00 0 In Factor 0.50 Total A Comp •C" Volume Pr Area (q. 5 1 Tc (pu) . 8.11 0.47 066 Yofun+. Pmvfd•d 200 877 • STORMS 403 LIB) a 0 Outflow (cl.1 0 3 14(8) a 0 Te(A +B) . 0.00 Q. C • I •A. 0.68 Ate.. • C F.cW. 0.26 8(B) a 0 Te(lol 1 555 8.11 O(..1.) . 0.71 •1 •2 ▪ - =03 . ••• 44 .. ••` 45 •6 47 Tc (0) a 0.0 Intensity a 2.00 A - O S3 Ti TIm. Inlenmly Od.v. V M V out Sbt•ga . 6. Inc . Inc. R .4 021941 (ndn.) (..c. 4 (1n. Mr) (cis) (cu. h.) (cu. h) (cu. 111 V . 1. (51560) (A•C•I (Out • r2) 1.5-4.1 Tc (10141 = Te (overland) e Te Nutted Te(9u( a 8.11 a Tc (nvr)endl - C1•(L1•N18 ^0.5) ^0.5) 01•01 - 0.71 $.11 188.08 2.80 0.88 441 t b.00 295 C1 . 0.15 5 300 2.24 0.55 333 90 243 L1 . Length of Orrl.nd Flow Holding . 5.23 10 600 228 0.30 447 150 267 N - Irlc6on factor of overland flow (.4 tor average craw .ovate) IS 900 1.77 0.45 491 270 221 S a •v..g. o1 oved.nd bow 20 1200 1.45 038 515 303 158 Tc (0ut a 1.nge, (ft.)1Vel0cety 11t/rre.1760 25 1500 1.21 0 32 525 450 75 B a Bottom weigh of gutter or ditch 30 1800 1.04 0 27 532 540 -8 21 . Myer., 01 Cron atop. one of dllch 35 2100 0.91 024 537 830 -93 Z2 . lnv.ne of cro...lop. Iwo of ditch 40 2400 0.82 0.21 546 720 .172 d . depth of flow In gullet (..dente, check esllrnaw will Flow) 45 2700 0.78 0.19 552 810 -256 Ara. . d•B +d ^ 2/2•(21 +Z2) 50 3000 0.58 0.18 551 000 -330 Wetted owirrobr . B• d+ 011ini.b(t1Z SS 3300 0.64 0.17 578 990 .412 Hydr.ullc Radius n 5 • Al .AV.eted Parlrret*r 60 3500 0.61 0.15 5911 1050 -452 Velocity a 1.456/n•R ^ .067 • . ^ 5 55 3900 0.00 0 15 535 1170 -535 Flow a V.IoNf•Al.. 70 4200 058 0 15 65 1350 .659 n- 001510 d1 651 5350 -efl9 • a eorguudln•l slope of gullet n +500 6 x o le all 00 4500 0 53 0 14 586 1440 • 754 65 5100 0.5? 0.14 713 1530 -617 00 5400 0 SO 0.13 725 1020 -695 05 5700 0 49 0. 740 1710 -051 lop 6000 0.45 0.13 771 1500 -109 • • • • • • • • • • • • Imcervious Area (Amp) � = 7a8 0 )[6T 3A.00 = 694 • • • • STORM STORAGE VOLUME: t 1•12. ioo = 4/6 • io e: Volume of Grassed Percolation Area Vgpa (corrected) = As x (100 x D) / (3 x S) + Vgpa 20gsbeetsam 3. = 6sa Cu. i7 3_ X 42 Paz BASIN C I 3 S-3 ca. FIT BOWS TRING METIIOO (TEN YEAR STORM DESIGN) PROJECT 4004 DETENTION BASIN DESIGN BASIN' C M 'C' VC G. Skpford Tc (o,.rland) Tc (gutter) NUMBER OF on YWELLS PROPOSED DATE: 31.00.94 400 O 0. 0.207 0 Single hypo A) 1 Double (type 8) Ct = 0.16 L • . 030 0 23 00075 Z1 . 3 T ime Area (sett -1 1 (41 HI) 0.72 0 ZY • 0.00 0.00 0 Ceo of Cone V (eels.) ).. e 111) 11 60 11) 055 0 t (A) N(q = O B . 0.00 0.00 0 Compodt'C' (tale.) (ew 1 •• 0p 000 000 0 WI • 0 n 0 0 Time of cr..7 (min) 000 000 0.00 • • Area Factor 0 52 Tc (A) • 0.00 d • 0.15 000 0.00 0 C' Fecta 0 55 T ConMr'C Impervious Area fog h) 14400 1 0.72 ' C 5 00 11(0) = 0 To Iqu) Outflow (el) Provided 550 storm NIB) = 0 Te(A +B) = 0.00 A r . . • Fe 1 0 O•C •1•A. 1.25 0.30 9082 • 1.24 Arse • C' Ferrier _ = 'repot) • 5.00 00111) • 5 ' _ ... - __.. .. = 00 In*ndfy. 3.16 444, °• 22 '• 53 24 .. ... a4.. ._= A5 26 17 Tc(BI= 06175 Time Tiros Mn a. laeily 0 dev. V In V out Stang. WP • S 0467 Inc Inc. R = 0.1974 (min.1 (ear ) On./hr.) (cle) (cu h.) (cu h) (cu. h) V = 374 (21'00) (A•C•23) (Oud. (25 261 TV • 4.34 _ ..... .. Tr 14.11 = Tr (overland) a Tc Note,) 1 -20 '••• = 500 •• � • 30 0 .00 3.16 1.25 ==== =5 4 == 30 0 . 10 (?204 Tc (overlandl= C1•h l 'N/S ^ 0.5)'051 O(Nt)= CI • 0 11 6.66 2 5 300 3.18 1.25 504 300 - -_� 204 L1 = Lennn1 nl Overland Flow lidding 10 600 2.24 0.66 620 20 • 000 20 N • hlcllon New of overland Mw (,4 Inc average greet cover) 15 900 1.71 0.70 700 000 -200 S = average elope of overland flow 30 1200 1.43 0.57 743 1200 -455 To (cult.) = Length (h )/Velocity dl, /sec.)/60 25 1500 1 21 0 46 751 1500 - 735 B 4 Bottom width of gun« or ditch ✓ 30 1600 1.04 0 41 0.'86 780 1000 1020 71 InInvert* of ..roes elope one of climb 3S 21013 0.91 701 2100 •1:100 72 - Inver.* nl ..1144 0)00. Me of dllth 40 2400 0.1 lnq 2 0 32 I 2400 .1551 d •- depth nI flow In quIMl (e.t5mat► cc . che eelin'lc •4171 Flow) 49 2700 0 74 070 6111 2700 • 11102 Area = d'8 4 d ^ 27747 ' Vi SO 55 6p 3000 p,g11 027 537 30 -2700 Wooed parlm.le4.B•d ♦it /eln(aln( tat))♦ llatn)atnl1 :MO 3600 -2441 2700 Hydraulic Praline . R • Area.iWd Perk, 6)11 3100 3000 0 64 0.111 0.75 p.a4 099 00 MIl Velocity .1.486/n11 ,057•e ^ 5 6S 3000 000 0.24 047 3900 -7053 Flow = V+4acity•#0 70 79 4200 0 311 0.73 9114 4200 •3216 w 4 n - 0.010 tor 4500 0.50 022 1017 4600 •3403 • = longitudinal slope of goner 80 4860 0.53 0 21 1025 4000 -3775 85 5100 0.52 0 21 1017 5100 •4033 90 5400 0.50 020 1/865 5400 .4315 05 5700 0.40 0.19 1 172 5700 -4575 100 444. = =.. 0. • 0.45 =_'. 0.10 =__-_' 4 _ -- ^ -°I 1 0 = 444. DRAINAGE POND CAI CM. ATIONS R.rpdred ;patsy ewele pond ttnrnge volume . Impervious Ares a S In./ 12 In /t1 • 000 cu 5 provide 550 Cu h OKI DRYWELL RE( iIRFMENTS - 10 YE 01.91(114 5Tr21M Maalnrum stornge required by (towslrl q = Number and type of Drywalls Required - 204 cu h. provided 550 eu h OKI 0 Single 1 Double TIME CF CONCENTRATION (nenulee) • • . • • 3 • • • s • L 3.833 • 1+ s 0,333 t, = D. 6G7 • Q, = 1. y = 0, 2 7 • • • • • 144.) 0.1 :47 6. `2- 7 °i27 o.i FLOW fir+ 1 O( ' b, rT70 / Q Qw - /4 Et) C. 1• , o -zeRor 0 14yutta• o 9)&1L o 1,41 = C.32 4 IQr3 D P6t4t 4 6 G14L GvG14 rJS DEPTH OF FLOW - Y - FEET .os .o• .oe .oa .oa .lo � � �■� /1111♦ �/: AIWA OrAl .02 ,�/ I I � 1 j j1 �!= 1 1 I l 11 1 c) DISCHARGE PER FOCI OF LENGTH OF CURS O NG INLETS WHEN INTERCEPT 100% OF GUTTER FLOW () PARTIAL INTERCEPTION RATIO FOR INLETS OF LENGTH LESS THAN L 05 .04 - 6-29 f( .2 a .7 .• .! 1.0 , j ! I l 1 ; I I 1 1 4 1.0 .10 .0• .04 .05 .03 L / CAPACITY CF CURS OPEN p INLET'S ON CONTINUOUS FIGURE 16 G .02 L0 01 1.0 1.0 .10 4a = X1&4 1.0 12 0 .9:7 .! h = Q i 333 r-r 10 J erg?? t 9 ` w 1 � 7 = J G �3 1 W W z 1_ co .7 • 7.3 s 7 CS .3 a 3.3 3 4.5 • .4 O 3 // 2 z 3.3 / • / W / o. 0 ' ti 0 .25 ' 3 .2 .15 2.3 2 1.3 $NR[AU /LIC ROADS 01YIS1ON TWO, WASHINGTON, 0.0. 1.2 (} = .1 G / ' 1 2 c... .9 u .0. s ' o 0 0 11. CC 0. 1 a 1 . 0 u. G) Z 6 -41 1t. 0 1", .0• .0 .04 .01 LOCAL D[*RESSION ( / 1 1 1 W 1.3 1 / / 1.0 .„ • / per/ 1` �� Z e NT. CURS FIGURE 17 .2S .2 .15 NOMOGRAPH FOR CAPACITY OF CURB OPENING INLETS AT LOW POINTS 0.1 Slone: s , = = 0.77 130 3j 0,8 0 /0 Impervious Area (Aimpl 3 3 _ 330 g _ l 9 BD Volume of Grassed Percolation Area Vgpa (corrected) = As x (100 x D) / (3 x S) + Vgpa 34A5— X / 3� cu. Fr. STORM STORAGE VOLUME: 2ogshcet.sam Gro BASIN D X I - • = So o cu .FT. BOWSTRING METHOD (TEN YEAR STORM DESIGN) PROJECT: 4004 TIME CF CONCENTRATION (minuNte) DETENTION BASIN DESIGN BASIN' D RENEWER: G. Sanford le (ovrtand) Tc (guilty) Anise V A•C NUMBER OF DRVWELLS PROPOSED DATE: 31.0c1 -94 1 Double (type BI 160 0.15 0.00 0.135 0 Single (type A) Ct • 0.15 12 = Total Area (cork) (roe HIT 0.44 21 . 3 029 0.25 0.0725 Irmo of Cone (edc-) (we H I) 0 07 1 I (A) . 130 Z2 . 0.00 0.00 0 Compodb'C' (talc) pee HI) 0 47 NIA) . 0.4 B • 5 0.00 0.00 0 nine of Conc. (man) 067 SCAT - 0 n • 0. 000 0.00 0 Ana (Acres) 0.44 • . 0.006 C' Factor 0 47 Tc IA) .. 8 84 d • 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Impervious Area (sq h.) 6600 OT Com p Volume Provided 206 325 Warn' 500 1.101) - 0 Te (gut • 2.24 � 0 0.47 Ou10m. (era) 1 1 = 0 Tc(A+B) • 0.84 Ate. • C Factor 0.21 5(51 = 0 O•C9•A• 0.50 ......• ...... • . • ... • • • ...... J (bl.) . 9.07 0(.e1) a 0.53 •1 172 •3 04 05 I8 97 Tc (8) • 0.0 Inlsnslty • 241 A . 0 4743 TIn Time !Moonily O dw. V In V out Sio ag. WP • 0.4 Inc. Inc. (min.) (..ac.) (In./hr.) (cis) (cu. h.) (cu. 11.) (cu. h.) R' . (0140) (A•C•631 (O01.•02) (05 -161 V • 1.12 Tc (total) . To (overland' + To Igudarl Tc(gu) • 2.2 907 544.33 2.41 0.50 365 544.33 -179 To (overaand) • Ct•(1-1•N/S °0.51"0 04..0 • 0.53 CI • 0.16 5 300 3.10 066 265 300 -35 1.1 • Length of Overland Flow HoidIng • 2.13 10 000 2.24 0 46 365 600 -235 N • MkSOn laclor of overland lbw (.4 for ...rage grime cowl.) 16 900 1.77 0 37 309 000 .601 6 • ■•rage slope of owdand flow 20 1200 1.15 0 30 417 1200 •783 To (guIter1 • Length (h ItVelocIty (h./see (100 25 1500 1.21 025 473 1500 •1077 8 • Bottom width 01 guru or ditch 30 1800 1.04 022 420 1800 •1372 21 . Inn •• of cro• Mope one 01 ditch 35 7100 0.01 0.19 431 2100 -1069 Z2 • Inwrw of now slope Mod ditch 40 2400 0.62 0.17 440 2400 .1000 d • depth of flow In gutter (.*brute, chock ewirnate with Flow' 45 2700 0 74 0.15 443 2700 -2257 Arse - 4•8 +12) 50 3000 068 0.14 440 3000 -2551 Wettedp.nmeler . 13• d+( 1 /aanfotn(112 /7n( 55 3300 004 0.13 463 3.100 4037 Hydr.ullc Radius . R . A...Melted Pednoter 80 3600 0.51 0.13 479 3600 -3121 Velocity • 1 418/n1) " 667.4".5 85 3900 0.110 0.12 509 3900 -3391 Flow • V.loclt 70 4200 0.66 0.12 520 4200 -3072 n • 0 016 for aaph.11 75 4500 0.56 0.12 544 4300 -3066 • . Ionglludlnal elope of gutter 60 4600 0.53 0.11 545 4000 -4252 85 5100 082 0.11 570 5100 .4530 00 5400 0.50 0.10 579 5400 .4621 95 5700 0.40 0.10 SA6 5700 .5102 100 0000 0.48 0.10 616 6000 -5384 DRAINAGE POND CALCUI ATIONS Required gr..sny awnse pond ulor•ge volume . Impervious Mae a S In./ 121n10. DRYWELL RFOUIREMENTS • 10 YEAR DESIGN STORM Maximum ebre9e requited by Bowstring Number end type of Drywalls Required . prow ded • provided'' • • • • 275 cu. h. 373 cu. 11. OKI O cu 6 500 cm ft OI(l O Single 1 Douba• • • • • • • • Volume of Grassed Percolation Area + V Vgpa (corrected) = As x (100 x D) / (3 x S) • 3,3-5 X /a a = 3 S cu.F7 STORM STORAGE VOLUME. • -� x SIoPe: 5= °.5 el Imcervious Area (rump) 130 @ / = /9.1.o BASIN E C±� C�+ BOWSTRING METHOD (TEN YEAR STCRM DESIGN; PROJECT 4004 DETENTION BASIN DESIGN BASIN E Anee •C• A•C RE VIEWER 0. Sl.glord Tc (0Wli.nd) Tc (gutter) NUMBER OF DRYWEI.LS PROPOSED DATE 31.0c•04 p OS 010 0.045 1 Single (tr. A) 0 Double (type B) Cl is 0.15 L2 = p 21 = 3 0.04 0.25 0.01 T ime Ann I (e.I )we 1) 500 1115). 0 72- �� 0.00 000 0 T Composite m. of e (mac.) (see 1111 01x1 B . 02S 0.00 0.00 0 i n 'C' (min; (w Hi) 081 NIA) n 0 n 0 0 \2'SJ SIAI • . 0. 0.00 000 0 A se of Cam. 1^+I ^) 5 000 0 -00 0 � � 0.005 C' F ctor 0,51 T (A) = 000 d . 005 0.00 0.00 0 C' Factor 0.61 TOW A Comp 'C' Imp.rvbu. Am. leg. h.) 1620 0 lc (go) . 2.23 0.00 0.01 Volume Provided . 325 storm' 500 L1(B) - 0 Tc1A +B) ■ 0.00 Outflow (efs) 0.3 NIB) 0 O -CM•A. 0.17 Area • C F.cb( 0.06 SIB) ■ Tc1101.1 • 5.60 O(••tl • 0.10 Tc (B) . 0.0 Intensify . .1 / 1 92 /3 94 15 10 17 A • 0.2575 Time Tlnte Intensity 0 044. V In V oul Slorege A -. 0.2172 Inc. Inc. R . 5.3 (Min./ (sec) (In ./hr.) kNl (cu h.) feu. h) (cu 11.) V . 0.61 (I1 •0► (A•G•/3) (OuN.•12) (93-90) Tc (total) = Tc ov. Ind) f is Wun.r) Tc(qui • 2.20 5.00 300.00 3.16 0.17 70 90.00 •20 Tc au.d.nd). C1.6. I *NM • 0b)" 0.6) 00■1) . 0.16 _ Cl . 0.15 5 300 2.14 0.17 70 90 -20 L.1 . Length of Overland Flow tloba+q . 1.14 10 600 2.24 012 66 160 -04 N is friction lector of owdend flow (.1 for eretspe gnu covert 1.77 0.10 96 270 •172 5 . average elope of o .rt.nd flow 20 12200 1.46 006 104 360 15 00 -256 Tc (gullet) . Length (11 )/V.loc)ty (IL /..c (/60 25 1500 1.21 0.07 107 450 -343 B is notion. wider 04 gutter or ditch 30 1600 1 04 006 109 540 -431 21 • Invert ol crow slope on11 of ditch 35 2100 0 91 005 110 630 -520 22 • Inverse of crow dope two of ditch 40 2400 0 62 0 O 113 720 .007 d • depth 0l pow In gun's (.sdmel., check ..11m.N with Flow) 45 2700 0 74 0.04 114 610 -606 Area . d "B ♦ d • 2/2'12 50 3000 0 611 0.04 118 900 .754 W. t1. dp. dm ete r. B• d4( 1ldn (.M)1I7.1))4.100Meln(1/72))) 55 3300 0.64 0.04 120 090 -870 Hydr.ulle Radius . R . ArM/Wetted P.rM»1ur 60 3000 0.61 0.03 124 1060 -950 Velocity • 1.466/n MT^ .667•e" .5 65 390 010 0.03 132 1170 •1036 Flow . Velocil•Are. 70 4 200 0 56 0.03 137 1200 -1123 n . 0 010 for asphalt 75 4500 056 0.03 142 1350 •1206 • • longsIodlrwl dope ol gutter 60 4800 0.53 0.03 143 1440 -1207 55 5100 0.52 0.03 140 1530 -1361 90 5400 0.50 0.03 151 1820 -1469 95 5700 0.49 0.1X1 156 1710 •1554 100 6000 0 46 0.03 181 11100 .1539 DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Requited grassy swain pond .loreg• wAanw Impervious Ares n .5 In / 12 DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS • 10 YEAR DESIGN STORM M.dmum storage required by BoweVing Number and type of Drywalls Required = 7A cu h provld.d• 3113 cu h. CKI 0 cu. ft provided 500 cu. 11 OKI 1 Single 0 Double TIME OF CONCENTRATION (minutes) • • • • Volume of Grassed Percolation Area + Vgpa (corrected) = As x (100 x D) / (3 x S) Spa • 3.z5 x lao = 3A.-S 414. AT: 4, 1 D ( 4.0 • • • Slooe: S = °•S* ImcervicLs Area (Amp) 380 / 5' 3a0 STORM STORAGE VOLUME. 208shect tam BASIN fo x l�S = S c q2 +� TIME C� CpNGENTRA119N Iminu1a11 11.0 PROJECT: Amor "� BOWSTRING ME ROD DEN YEAR 9TO�M DESIGN) AS E Ts 19,..11110 Te Ia y.rlend7 1W Q 104 DETENTION BASIN DESIGN BIN: 6. 91AeyKArd 2r 0,12 0. DA1F' 3Y- Oc1.g4 0.15 �` �\ 6.11 0 00 0.0274 D ' I1 • 3 0.00 0 NUMBER tel Alen celc.) 0LL414R1'11"Dt3£ 0 Double 1 0.91 0) o 0 0 ° 1hPa A) 72 + S.a4 0.00 0. 11100 " o Z2 0 bcta. Intel Ar. leslc.) 044 044 Ht} 4 rt0 4)A - o p 40 0.00 lane ^ = ae 0.00 v00 n TIma al Co . {ante.) l 1159 A} . 0 1 . 0.045 0 Corr+it ) leak.) 1114 HI) 3.40 8I 000 0.00 Tlrna ai Cone. Wan) Ste To IA1 = 0.00 d A• 0.05 Tarot A Comp 'C" 1,23 059 Imp rMoua 1429 4•Sn 5320 To 1926 Vlore a vId .4•9. 11.1 323 Munn' 500 NCR) = 0 ToU + • 4 .51 q G' 0,23 m ( O u tflow I 20 0.43 YaF1^ra 'Eaclo 0.3 9071 3 o Tel = 600 9 {t�r..l > Outflow {0141 0.14 3,11 _..: _ - 0 0 Im1r^*hY ' n = 0.4193 Ana•CE•e ��. 414 __.._._ .. = ==a. ft Tc {tt) - 5.6060 R4 s3 ,14 Y out Monde 6.0761 Ina. TkC, lntamdllr Oder. Y In 0 Ilene Timm - 1.04 a ` 1e0, 5.1 feu, It.) Irmo. I1.) Te,Cau) - 751 Vain.) 1110:) An�Jhr.) •C' 066.• ,12) 1,15''5) Ts pate.') = Ts laverlandl a Tc lqurtrl .. 0.43 1f 1'60) �A : • +r 131 = as =.. 1111..: Tc.0.1 glr.lp endl. ct•{L1•f4J6 Obl -0 - ..a = =ss 0173 00.00 03 01.0.15 H ^IdIA.q. 5 .. 3 75 0.43 6411 000.00 _ , 10 . Length rd Oval !and Pao* r�neawrl 3.44 0 +t0 173 N Mr4044 1.0534 or overload Pa'. { la' average 9 9 90 2.24 213 154 manage 'lope m4 madam' bow 40 554 0. 240 270 10 4 Tc iainnar) =',math 01 01 l6Jene.)J40 15 900 1 5 24 q -104 0 . warn w o of qu17+e or filch 0.20 70 7250 t 2 1 0.10. 267 450 • - 278 71 a (.1611 al stove slap* one et ditch 95 24 001 0,14 272 530 356 22 . Imrsrs el cro.a *op, 1010 04 di aNkn4N1 rite Fbwl 30 1800 0.01 0.12 276 836 -442 d = dapdr al Now In /tuner {esRm. 35 270 002 0.11 208 720 -622 Are*•d"B +d- ?12.971 +771 40 8444 0,40 261 510 1.e = 6'd +11l9nhw111Z141 +1Jdn 410,11fL231) OW- 3 2700 0.74 0 pg 205 aa0 Hydeaul Radiu..li.Ar..IWm•dp04150 r • v 50 0,09 2 Ys1ocM = 1,.55rn11" :557•4 .5 S!9 Satan 004 0.05 3(14. 1050 -714 V!10 = wll 54 3000 0,0 0.05 325 1170 405 n . 4414 lot 1.•4. 59 3000 0.914 0 .00 335 1700 . 021 r re 0.0 l .ta4a o1 pun., 70 4200 0.55 349 1300 0140 70 1 0.53 0,01 352 4440 - 1058 3500 0.53 4 530 -1163 60 0.52 0.07 907 -1247 0 0 5400 0.07 313 1520 51.00 0.54 17'10 -1375 004 5700 0.49 0.47 307 1400 .1403 e�00 0.45 0.01 8.R = a.a == 03 100 DRAINAGE POND CALC111_A110140 volume Beau's. ramp wads panted aroma. 701 013 it. . Impa1'ylqu. Arad : 3 An,/ 421n.111. = 325 en, 6. 'SKI p� 1,14,1 DRYw7ELL I1EpVIp53402173 - 10 YEAR DESIGN STORM e 1 en). h. Mmahnum 4torag0 tigldred ! 7 $°wa{+tna = provided: 500 co. IL OA1 Number end type e.1 Drywall* BaquIred = SM01• 0 Double. Shore; = _ .754 a 7 _ °• °'a Impervious Area (Rump): 30 26.5 = 7q5 s, 1 - 3560 6Lo,s 3aac 11 Volume of Grassed Percolation Area V9pa (corrected) = As x (1 10 x D) f (3 x S) + V;pa x /Do )C = ys`C3 3. X /oo aC1 = 3A5 STORM STORAGE VOLUME: �� # , 00 = X36 � s z2.6—= 7 20gaineuturn BASIN 6 775' Cu. F,,- _ 70 2 oc,Z. - 10 77 <d1 Fr • FRO JECT. 4004 TIME OF CONCENTRATION (n*IuI O BOWSTRING METHOD (TFN YEAH STORM DESIGN) BASIN, � DETENTION BASIN DESIGN lend) Tc (WW1 Hems A•C REVIEWER G. Sle9lord le )o .r NUMBER OF DRYWELLS PROPOSED DATE: 31-Oct -91 0.15 12 . 100 0.70 0.00 0 0 Single (type Al 2 Double ;type B) CI 71 . 0 1 70 0 9 0 0263 T ime o C (. fcaI (• HI) HI) 2 05 Z = 3 000 0.00 t7 ?13 L1141` 270 � 0.00 000 0 Tim• Composing O Con (twice) (••e H 1 NI - 0 4 B of Co.. •C (min) (... H I l 0 40 n mi 0 0.00 0.00 0 12 74 SIN • 0.007 0.00 000 0 Asia of C) (min) 200 .. 0.000 O1m 0.00 0.00 0 An. Factor Tc IA) = 11,03 d C' Fnetor 0 40 chi A Con' •C Vo1u v.. P . Mee I.Q. It) 203 11 776 Mom. 777 11(8) • O Tc Igu) • 1.91 0.40 Vulumw (cis) d 2 NO3) • 0 Te(A + B) • 11.00 O•G�•A• 1 63 Outflow (cis) 0 53 S(BI . 0 Arse • C rector: Tc(Iola 1 • 1934 O(.d.) . 1.09 Tc (B1 • 0.0 Mlenaty • 204 It *2 •3 *4 05 *5 17 A. O.e1e7 lima lima Intensely d.v. V M V 04.1i Sl Morals A . 0.44 Inc. Inc R • 0.1905 (min .) (..e) (in fir.) (c1.) (eu. R) (cu. h.) (eu. I1) V • 9 (0 1.00) (A•C•03) 10.01 (05.00) To pond) . Te (overland) a Te (gutter) Tc 1 (9v) • 1.31.31 19.34 740.30 9.04 1.46 1071 1100.00 791 Tc lovpl.rtd) • Ct .1•4IS "0.51 ^0.6) 0(.40 • CI .0.14 Holding . 234 245 9040 000 4e6 L1 . Long*, of Overland Flow 5 300 9.10 10 000 11-24 .» 1.47 1702 IMO 302 N • Inchon factor of overland Sow (.4 for .verge gran cover) 1.77 15 000 1 1 46 9700 7000 •900 S ..v.rtq.slops of overland Sow e 2400 .644 Tc (9u1wr) • Length (h)IV•lody (Rle.c.)/130 20 1200 1.40 9.21 1 20 1500 1.04 1 01 1760 3000 -1232 R . m Botlo wdih of putts ot Mich 30 1000 104 0.e7 2700 3600 •9020 Zt .Invre•of croon atop. on. of dl9ch 35 7100 0.91 0 7e 1705 4200 -2415 12 • Iowa= 01 eroa atop. two oI ditch 40 2400 0.02 050 1013 4000 -2907 d . d.plh oI Sow In gullet (mellows, eh.cil .060.1• whh Flow) 3000 0.74 002 00 0.64 0.57 1613, 5000 1622 5400 -3574 Area . d " 212'(7 a 221 50 0 40 3 00 -4150 W. n. dp. rlmN. r. 13• da (1(dnlatnll/7n)*trrnfatn(1/ZZ)11 0.04 0.53 1e9e 6000 .4704 I{ydrw t6 llc Rau. • R . A ».AN•1Nd P.ilm•Mr 50 3300 7700 - -5240 Velocity • 1.4581 ^ .007`.". 5 eo 3000 051 051 2070 Flow . V.Iocl Ara. 0100 -6247 OS 3900 0.00 0.50 2073 7400 -5722 n . 0 016 let .plan 0.40 2153 70 4500 0.56 -6761 .. longitudinal .lope of gutter M 4500 0.50 0.4T 2219 9000 50 4800 0,53 0.44 2233 9000 •7367 45 5100 0.52 0.43 2321 10200 -7670 90 5400 0.60 0.42 2757 10600 .8443 05 5700 0.49 0.41 2432 11400 -6054 100 0000 0.48 0,40 2503 12000 -0497 DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required gt.esy *wale pond storage vo4um• Impervious Mn x 5 In 112 in /11 DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 90 YEAR OF SIGN ST p11M M..Lnum .forage nequlr.d by Bowstring NurnbM • type 01 Dtywelle Required 477 cu. h. provided: 775 eu. 11. 01(1 458 cu. h. provided: 777 cu. h. OKI 0 Sbpla 2 Double • • • Z.= 3i 5333 i O33 3 + d. 2 c f 2,6 L r 3 LS 3 3 (5,/447 0.(3 Q t .. / ) _ TacEprrQAd 19-1- L tt. sr") G II .Yi .w •V. Yi •.-- I 1 I I I i 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 /. 1 i I 1 ; . 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 . II 1 ^.: +J- _-- � - � I I I , ! I 1 1 !' 1 1; 1 f 1 1 1 1 . 1 I 11 I 1 1 1 i I 1 it 1 ' II 1 1 1 1 ; I I I 1 �� 1 , , , I , i I - i-- 1 I , _l I I 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , -� —1— 1 I 1 1 I --I I L I I I I 1 I 1, Ti 1 L.L !_ i! I I ___ —y... ♦ 1 1 1 J__ - I I 1; 1 I!!; I 1 1 1 ► ; 1 I i i LI I I 1 I I 1 1 t I 1 I /f ' I 1 �— 1 1 I 1 ! !i 1 I l I I 1 1 j 1 I 1 I 1 1 7 / ! 1 I 1 , I , j l l l II I I I 1 • , I1 I I � , 1 1 o 1 1 1 I f I I I F I I I 1 1 I I ,c J c o y I I' I f I I I I 1 l 1 1 1 I I - L1 I , 1 1 1 11 • ' 1, 1 l �. _i i . 1, 1 1 1 �' �y ' I ; I 1 1 1 1 r , �$ 1 I 1 1 I 1 ' I ; I I I r \+� ! 1 I I I l l l i I i I' 111 Il � ,. 1 ° l 1 ► 1; 1 1 1 1 . - I 1 i i• "I . , .j . I I ' 1 11 ♦ I , I' 1 I I , 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I' l l I' I �._ I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 • i i' I , 1 I 11 I II 1 l, I T I I' 1 1 ! I 1 1 1 1 II 1 II 1 1 1 i � / " , 1 1 1 ( I 11 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 I 1 1 I I I I 1 I i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 / 1 1 1 I I 1 1• I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I 1 1 � i 1 1. I . 1 I I . I � i iili Il 11 i 1 l I ii // / l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I r I ( I I I , I I I. 1' %e 1 1 1 ! I I; %. 1 t I a�Y� ' l I i ^.: +J- _-- � - � - - -_t-- -- • 1 . LI - i-- - - o' 1 1 , - - -- `, �, I I Ti 1 i i LI _i_l_L 1 1 /�/ ! !i I 1 44 4 //� `� I 1 1 - I ' - L1 i �. _i I • • • • • • (c) DISCHARGE PER FOOT OF LENGTH OF CURS OPENING INLETS WHEN INTERCEPTING 100% OF GUTTER FLOW • (b) PARTIAL INTERCEPTION RATIO FOR INLETS OF LENGTH LESS THAN L • • DEPTH OF FLOW - y - FEET 14 - 9 6 .4 .5 .6 .4 .3 .! .r . .05 .06 .06 JO 2 L, CAPACITY OF CURB OPENING INLETS ON CONTINUOUS GRADE FIGURE 16 a LO 1.0 .3 . 1 .5 .4 .10 .06 .0 .04 .03 .02 LO .01 .0 3 6 .5 c� L 4 3 C .2 .1 r i C i • Li E G''3L 4.•19N Glg} C G c 1 _ , r 2 G A ) , - w 7:11)6 r S 0 g 4,9413 .p.-$ z 0 Frt ter' Zo Q 2 °l _ a.1 1 FOK i 2 L /9.4F j L /cta„, 6 2 9v o. i D en-ii Q/f OJ TGhr F-440440 ci9,,, 6 ru p Lae) a x'12 7riki9w 7-1,1: 13.2%,-9=6):A.1./c,." a, ys G, /2 G.2$ g 0. 13< 6.2* d • Slope: Imcervicus Area (Arno): 2 16 6 a4.6" = sq F7 STORM STORAGE VOLUME: 6 - t a:n � /c 2 336 zoo BASIN H Volume of Grassed Percolation Area Vgpa corrected)= Asx(100xD) /(3xS) + Vspa i.as X No aC y = 900 CU. FT. S97 cu. FT; BOWSTRING ME (TEN YEAR STORM DESIGN) PROJECT: 4004 TIME OF CONCENTRATION (rnlnules) DETENTION BASIN DESIGN BASIN: H REVIEWER: O. S.gio d Tc (oven and) Tc (gullet) Amo s 'C A•C NUMBER OF DRYWELl3 PROPOSED GATE' 31- 0e1-04 0 Single (type A) 1 Double (type 8) CI . 0.15 1.2. 450 0.28 0.90 0.252 Total Area (oak.) (fee 1111 0.48 21 . 3 0.18 025 0.045 Time of Cone fade.) (rose HI) 5.00 11)A). 0 Z2 . 124 0.00 000 0 Compodfe'0' (vile.) (w HI) 0.65 N(A) . 0 B . 0 000 000 0 Time of Cone, Orin) S 00 S(A) . 0 n . 0 018 0.00 000 0 Are* (Acme, 0 46 a . 0 016 0.00 000 0 C' rector 085 Tc(A)= 000 d . 0.M 0.00 0.00 0 Impervious Area (p. (3) 12190 Total A Conp'C' Volume Provided 206: 900 norm, 547 1.1(8) • 0 Te )gu) • 364 0.46 0.66 Out$ow (cis) 1 N83) • 0 Tc(A +B) . 0.00 Area • C Factor 030 S(B) . 0 O.C•I•A. 004 = aa.aw .m. = =a= = a_ = = == _ = = = = =a .. , Tc(tot) 5 C 0(..1.)- 098 •t 92 93 •4 95 96 •7 lc (BI = 0.0 intensity • 3.18 Time Tlme Inlenry 0 des. V In V out Sbuge A . 0.48666 Inc. Inc WP . 4.2803 (min.) Iwc_) (nJhr.) (cfa) (cu. h.) (cu h.) Icu h) R . 0.1142 (91'80) (A (Out, • 02) (05.96) V . 1.95 Te (total) . Tc (ovedend) • Tc (gutter) Tc(gul . 3.34 5.00 300.00 3.18 0.94 360 300 00 80 Tc (overland) . CI•(L 1'616 ^0.51^ 0.0) O(.e1) . 0.06 Ct . 0.15 5 300 3.18 0.94 380 300 60 L1 . Length of Oved•nd Flow Holding . 10.03 10 600 2.24 0.87 487 000 -133 N . IdclIon Wolof of overland flow (.4 Ior scarp* gram, cover) 15 900 1,77 0.53 527 000 -373 8 . Average elope of overland flow 20 1200 1,45 0.43 561 1700 -039 le (guts.) . Length 91.INeiocly (11. /ee0/60 25 1500 1.21 0.38 576 1500 •924 B . Bottom wM1h of ;Mew or dltit 30 1800 1.04 021 587 1800 -1213 21 at king N of note rope one of ditch as 2100 0.01 0.27 595 2100 •1505 22 . Inverse of cross rope two of ditch 40 2400 0 82 0.24 600 2400 -1791 d . depth of flow In guile* (..8rn.i. check •strnale with Flow) 45 2700 0.74 0.22 818 2700 -21)64 Area . d'8 +4 ' 2/2•(Z1 +22) 50 3000 0.08 0.20 626 3000 -2374 yelled perim.Iar a 13• d+ (1 /rn(Hn(1fl11)+t/rn(atnll(2))1 55 3300 0.64 0.19 847 3300 -2653 Hydnuilc Radius . R . Area/Waned Pedmeter 80 3600 0.81 0.18 871 3800 • 2919 Velocity a 1486 /M3 ^ .857 ^.5 85 3900 0.80 0.18 713 3900 .3167 Flow . V.)ocn•Area 70 4200 0 0.17 741 4200 3159 n a 0.016 for .aph.11 75 4500 0.58 0.17 765 4500 -3735 a . longitudinal rope of gutter 60 4500 0.53 0.16 772 4800 -4028 65 5100 0.52 0.15 803 5100 -4207 90 5400 0.50 015 817 5400 -4583 05 5700 0.49 0.15 544 5700 -4856 100 8000 048 0.14 870 8000 -6130 DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required glossy "wale pond storage volume Irnperviou• Area • 5 In / 12 In /ft . DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STORM Mssimum storage required by Bowatr)ng = Number and type of Orywelle Required = provided provided. 505 cu 11. 000 cu.)L OKI 80 cu. h, 547 cu. n, OKI 0 Single 1 Double • • • • • • • • • • L = 3.833 1 H - y _ 0 . 333 ' z 0,40 44 = 4.45 CPS y- 0.23 = L 3433 (.33 (3,5•5 - 0,6S 1 62)=G. �� = 0,40 y — = a ?z O. C,2.3 Q 4 r,i ref ci pr�a C Gl vrt )5 46 kg) a, Qs- ,0, 72 = o, g crs ci4xrt t o vbn • gp sr/ c(»eo c AS,iz'•G GAtzeic. A Ito S Slope: o.S (go Imcervious Area (Am 1S'o a Zb, s = 3'175 BASIN Z Volume of Grassed Percolation Area Vgpa (corrected) = As x (100 x D) / (3 x S) f Vgpa 2.16 /00 STORM STORAGE VOLUME: �7 5' Co, PT, X /00 71 33 6 cv. PT, BOWSTRING METHOD (TEN YEAR STORM DESIGN) PROJECT: 4004 11148 OF CONCENTRATION (mouee( DETENTION BASIN DESIGN BASIN: RE VIEWER: G. SIegord le Overland) Te )gutMO Arne. V A•C NUMBER OF DRYVVELLS PROPOSED DATE' 31.0cl•94 0 Singe (type A) I Double (type 8) Cl . 0.15 12 . 130 0.00 0.90 0.0111 Total Arne (talc.) foe HI) 0 14 zl . 6 0.05 0.25 9.0125 Time of Cone (rale I hem Ht) S 00 LI (A) • 0 22 . 12.4 0.00 0.00 0 Compoele •C• kale.) (.w 111) 0.97 N(A) . 0 B . 0 0.00 0.00 0 Time of COne. )min) 500 5(A) . 0 n . 0018 0.00 0.00 0 Am. (Acne) 0.14 e . 0 006 0.00 0.00 0 C F10o1' a 87 Tc (A) = 0.00 d . 0.15 0.00 0.00 0 I np.rvlous Am (.q. ft.) 3075 Total A Comp 0 - Volume Provided 206: 225 norm 336 11(B) . 0 Tc Ott) . 1.47 0.14 0.17 Oul$ow (c4) 1 14(13) . 0 Te(A+8) . 0.00 An. • C• Factor 009 6(8). 0 O.C•1•A. 0.30 Tc(lot) . 5.00 0(.et.) • 0.30 /1 /2 f3 /4 /S /6 •7 Te (B) . 00 Inienel ry . 3.16 Time Time Inen.ty Odev. V In V out Sorry. A . 0.207 Inc. Inc. VVP . 2.7795 (min.) (sec) On /lir) fah) ICY. N.) (Cu n) feu. h) R . 0.0746 (/1'160) (A'C (Outl.Y2) (/3 -/(1) V • 1.47 To IoW) • Tc (overrnndl • Tc (guitar) Tc(gu) . 1.47 5.00 300.00 3.16 0.70 120 300.00 •160 Tc (overland) . C1•)3. t •N/5 ^ 0.51^ 0.6) O(..1) • 0.30 C1 . 015 5 300 3.16 0.30 120 300 -150 LI . Length of Overland Flow Holding . 4.63 10 600 2.24 0.21 147 600 -45.3 N . Mellon boot of overland how (.4 for samosa pram cover) 15 900 1.77 0.17 166 000 -734 S ..v.rags Mop. 04 overland Sow 20 1200 1.45 0.14 177 1200 -1023 Te (gums) . Length (h )/V.Ioclry (fiJwe.)/00 25 1500 1.21 0.11 151 1506 -1319 8 . Bottom width of guitar or ditch 30 11199 1.04 0.10 MS 1600 -2505 21 . Insane of Cron M ne op. o of ditch Overlie !Ly 35 2100 0.91 0.00 1117 2100 -1913 22 . Over of cro.e slope two of Mtn 40 2400 0.92 0.011 0.011 192 2400 -2309 d . dVl of Now In gu drum 1111111111111 tter (.. check 1111111111111 Flow) 45 2700 0.74 0.07 194 2700 -2506 Are.. d +d ^ 2/2(21+Z2) Cr 50 3000 0.65 006 107 3000 -2903 Waned perimeter . B• d+( 1I Mn(a5r(+ /Z1))+1 /sln(.tn(1/223)) ill 55 3300 0.54 0.05 204 3300 -3009 Hydreulic Redline . R , . A marNered Psrkn.er 90 3900 0.01 0.00 211 3500 -1354 Veiocfiy . 1.496/n•R ^ 997 .5 65 3400 0.00 0.00 220 3900 -3675 Flow . Valocll7Are. 70 4200 0.55 0.06 23.1 4200 -3007 n . 0 018 lot asphalt 75 4500 0.55 0.05 241 4500 -4754 a . ongtrodlnal sope of gutter 50 4800 013 0.05 243 4100 -4557 85 5100 0.52 0.05 253 5100 -4947 00 5403 0.50 0,05 257 5400 -5143 05 5700 0.49 0.06 256 5700 -5434 100 5000 0 48 0.04 274 5000 -5729 DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Requited greasy wattle frond .kxage volume . Imp.rMOU• Area . S In./ 12ln /I1 = ORYWELL REQUIREMENTS • 10 YEAR DESIGN STORM M.drnum scrap molted by Bowstring . Number and type of Drywetle Required • provided' pro.id.d tee cu. h. 225 cu. 11. OI(I O cu. h. 338 cu h. 01(I O Shpt. 1 Double • • • • • • • • • • • B AST N 1 1 L= 3,X33 GuKl3 0�°rN1'm& Y; O.1 Y , /4= 6.33.3 C64.cvcrg T?oN S z 0,34 • Qe (� 1 � �6 0"12 e L Q = 3 .'Z 5 _ 3.833 r. b e C • FLO w 4� - CF.rauff 1' 15) _ zwPit /,o ?wept cEPT ,-c c. ' 1 I I I I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 ./ l! 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I /. 1 j i ' 1 1` 1 1 1 ' I 1 6 I 1 I 1; I -- 11 1 t ia /y;� I I .( r 1 4 6 � 4 o- L I 1 ,L I 1 II I 11 .--ii — - -) / ` o / I 7 C - IN , i II / ' � ; ` I i I i , -� - - -�+I 1 I 1 -,- 7 -7/ I / / i . f i I 1 1 .1 • • • 0 • (c) DISCHARGE PER FOOT OF LENGTH OF CURB OPENING INLETS W INTERCEPTING 100 % OF GUTTER FLOW () PARTIAL INTERCEPTION RATIO FOR INLETS OF LENGTH LESS THAN L DEPTH TH OF FLOW - y - Er. 0 .10 .011 .10 6-39 .3 5 .I'1\ 1 T .4 .5 .6 .5 .1 .7 .6 9 I.0 .5 .03 .04 2 .3 L� CAPAC: T Y OF CURB OPENING INLETS ON CONTINUOUS GRADE FIGURE 16 1.0 6 .s .3 .4 .3 .2 1Q .10 .06 .06 .05 0 .03 .02 . 0 0 G o L 0 0 0 t t r t t t t e 1 .■ . .. - I . I I I I I I I ! 1 I. 1 f f I I I i I I 1 I' I I l i 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1� I s I ; I I I ;; I I I i t h: I I I ■•■■• I I .4.. .÷. h 'i ; ; HH Mt '"L'L ir' ■ - . .Lr� r rTII I I I i I I / 1 I I �! 1 I t l I I 1 1-- 1 1 1 1 i� I I! I I I 1 I I I i 11; 1 1 1 1 1, I I I I I 1/./ I I I � I I 1 I I I I , I I 1 , � � Al -71 I 1 I I i 1 ; I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 ( ; ' A I I i I I i 1 1 i I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I ' I l I/ I I 1 I I I I; I 1 I I I ' I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I � ' I I , I I I � III I I, 1 r I I I ' I I I I I I i I I I I I I I i I I � I 1 i i Imo - I I I I I I I I , , I I I I I ! i t I I I I III 1 1 1 1 1 ' ' _ I ( ; ; II I I I I I�1 1 il I 1 I 1 I I /. 1 j i ' 1 1` 1 1 1 ' I 1 6 I 1 I 1; I -- 11 1 t ia /y;� I I .( r 1 4 6 � 4 o- L I 1 ,L I 1 II I 11 .--ii — - -) / ` o / I 7 C - IN , i II / ' � ; ` I i I i , -� - - -�+I 1 I 1 -,- 7 -7/ I / / i . f i I 1 1 .1 • • • 0 • (c) DISCHARGE PER FOOT OF LENGTH OF CURB OPENING INLETS W INTERCEPTING 100 % OF GUTTER FLOW () PARTIAL INTERCEPTION RATIO FOR INLETS OF LENGTH LESS THAN L DEPTH TH OF FLOW - y - Er. 0 .10 .011 .10 6-39 .3 5 .I'1\ 1 T .4 .5 .6 .5 .1 .7 .6 9 I.0 .5 .03 .04 2 .3 L� CAPAC: T Y OF CURB OPENING INLETS ON CONTINUOUS GRADE FIGURE 16 1.0 6 .s .3 .4 .3 .2 1Q .10 .06 .06 .05 0 .03 .02 . 0 0 G o L 0 0 0 t t r t t t t e 1 • • • 0 • (c) DISCHARGE PER FOOT OF LENGTH OF CURB OPENING INLETS W INTERCEPTING 100 % OF GUTTER FLOW () PARTIAL INTERCEPTION RATIO FOR INLETS OF LENGTH LESS THAN L DEPTH TH OF FLOW - y - Er. 0 .10 .011 .10 6-39 .3 5 .I'1\ 1 T .4 .5 .6 .5 .1 .7 .6 9 I.0 .5 .03 .04 2 .3 L� CAPAC: T Y OF CURB OPENING INLETS ON CONTINUOUS GRADE FIGURE 16 1.0 6 .s .3 .4 .3 .2 1Q .10 .06 .06 .05 0 .03 .02 . 0 0 G o L 0 0 0 t t r t t t t e 1 Fes OF Cuicts z S 2O r‘44/v1 t % - a. ya f Flee /t• G Q 2% _ 0, 12. D 6pH •F 7-4 ti ♦'LOW ti CS AvO 4 ,,r2GC'I Ff4 oil 0 0 /2 0.2.1 GA� ��q ' U Tr J /� - GvXO i_ VcNrc h 44,4 0.15 < 0•418 Slope: g= o.8% Impervious Area (Amp): / 20 ( 4 . S = 3180 ,Z. 2S 0 zoo BASIN T Volume of Grassed Percolation Area Vgpa (corrected) = As x (100 x D) 1(3 x S) + Vgpa 70 X a. 2s = /5 cu, FT, STORM STORAGE VOLUME: X 4.1. s ; - 7 0 31 t i PROJECT: 4004 TIME OF CONCENTRATION (o4nuIsal BOWSIRINFi METHOD (TEN YEAR STORM DESIGN) BAStN• .1 S4 Aram •C A� DETENTION BASIN DESIGN REVIEWER: O. gbrd Tc lovrl•nd) To (guns) DATE. 31-0c1.94 L2 .90 0.063 HUMBER OF DRYWEL (type PROPOSED Ct . 0.15 100 0.07 0 0 .07 0 0.0175 1 Ic) ( e H) 0 Double Ow* B) 71 • 6 0 T hew Area kale) )). H H 0.14 0 Z • 12,4 000 0.00 500 Lt(A) • 0 0.00 0.00 0 Thew 01 le Conc. laic.) (me 111 14(A) • 0 8 .. 0 TIn oI n ne (mile -) l•aa N t l 0.56 0 n • 0.018 0.00 0.00 5 00 S(A) • D.1706 0.00 0.00 0 Arne )A Cone. (min) • 0 Arse (Mona) 0 0.00 0.00 Total A Cat impervious F 3160 Te tqu7 • 1 56 Tc (A) . 0.00 d • 014 t0 0.14 0.96 Volum. P Area (Rte h) 158 storm: 70 L 101) • 0 1 19 Outfo (ct.) NM • 0 Tc(A se) • OuMow kl•! 0 3 5(A) 1?. CI•A. 0.26 M.. •CF.cta 0.06 0 Tcltot. 1 • 5.00 0(.1.) • 0.26 • Tc (B) • in • 3.16 Time 11 12 f3 14 IS IO 17 O 0 A • 0.16032 TInMn Mry Ode". V In V oW Swage Inc. • 2.5432 Inc. 41e. tc. (min.) ((me) (In. IN.) Icls) (cu. h.) (cu h 1 (cu. 11.1 q • 0.0696 .) y • 1.40 (11'601 (A•C•13) (Outf. (15.96) 0 l • 1. u 1 Tc I(total) • To (ov.d•nd) + To (gunge) Tclg Tclg • 0.19 f_• 103 00.00 13 To (overland) • CI•(L1 " 0.6) 6.00 900.00 3.14 0 CI • 0.15 Holding • 3.56 3.18 026 103 00 13 LI • L.ngItt of Owd.nd Flow eoverl 300 160 -53 N • Inetlon bcWx of oved.nd Ilow (.4 lot •vge.g• grass 10 900 2.24 0.18 143 d of bv.#Md lbw 1.77 0.14 143 270 -177 5 • avr.Te(7• rope 15 900 20 1500 1. 0 12 152 360 -206 To (pater) • Longtlt (h.)/Veloelty (hJ•ec 1190 25 21 t900 1 21 0.70 1511 450 .794 8 • Bottom wfdF of gutter or ditch 25 ,381 71 • Inverse of crows .top. one of ditch 35 7 35 7100 1.01 0.07 15 00 0.41 0.07 161 1 5 20 30 -469 Z2 . in* of cm*. Novo two of ditch 40 0 62 0 07 165 720 555 d -. dog*, of Now In outlet (eatlmaN. check wstlmsss veldt Flow) 45 27400 720 -843 An. . d•B+d "2/29Z1 55 3000 0 45 2700 0 e a 006 167 -730 wattsd p.rinrrr • 8'd +It /tlnl•tr2(12t)1 +tlrnpin {I )) 6 4 0.05 170 0 90 0 ..hM +815 Hydraulic Radius • R • Ar.tIed P.71rrowe 55 3300 0. 0.05 175 1060 -0D9 V.loclry • 1 486/n ^.067 n0 3900 0.081 1 005 162 7 0 3900 0 56 0.05 207 1170 -1577 Row • Valaciry 0.36 O.OS 201 1260 -1050 n • 0016 ker •rphwlt 70 4200 207 1350 -1143 • • bngltudtn.l elope oI gunge 75 4500 0 0.66 0.05 004 200 1440 .1231 80 61 00 0.53 65 5100 052 0.04 218 1530 •1312 00 5400 050 0.04 221 1620 -1309 95 5700 0 49 0.04 279 1710 -1481 100 6000 0 46 004 236 1600 .1564 DRAINAGE POF40 CALCULATIONS Required greasy swine pond Novao• wow,. • Impervious Ana x 5 in / 121n. 1)1. • DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS • 10 YEAR OFSIGN STURM Madmum mange required by Bow.trin9 Number and type of Drywalls Required a provided: provided: 173 cu 11 158 cu. h. OKI 13 0.1 h. 70 cu. h OKI 1 Single 0 Douai • • • • • • • a • L= 3,833' • H = o, 3 =3' G I • g ' C.24 41:s y = ail F r • • L - 3.833 • 3:2S Y • • �, Fz'sa�ce /6 a) = 1 Ca 1 -4t fL UV c FrcoKE 14 4.) 3.2 0 !► /2. Mb illt IN rcxct pr-G B t5rN S Gu46 af'Au LNG Dien. Grx.$TTceJ S N .03 .04 :5 . .w •'� ' .02 ` I 1 1 1 1 , I 1 ( 1 1 1 1 11 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 l i I I I 1 1 1 1 I I { • 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 i I 1 1 I { ,I // - - -- - I•- -r --1 - -7 _L • -I-7T ' !1 ' L. ' . x: 1 1. -.t -L 4 - -?._ 1 1 I I i -k I � 1 I i ( 1 ` T- I 1 1 1 ' I I i 1 1 Are - �. ' T I I I I 1 , ' ' . I I _i_ f • Q • i Lf i 1 oiIII t l I 111 l i i i i i l i I i i ti �I I II II . I I I I i S I I ♦ r I 1 , I, 1 I 1 1 1 1 I - r -- 1 I I ,, 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 ; 1 1 I 4 1 1 1 1 ;l I I I I i low 4f 7 ■ 1 1 f , I 1 1 0 1 --� / ♦ I -I 1 --.-� I ' I T Y , 1 y 1 - I L i I ! ^-- , r I I I ,/ I` ( I I !III 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 � � I I i :H i!. 1 1 ii i I 1 i 1 1 1 -1 7 - i 1i 1; I IIII I i i I I I ii 1 1 I s. Lr I 1 1 1 I i I �1 ( I i i I I I i ! ! I I I I� 1 it 1 /� :III!' I I // . , 1 i i I I 1" I I ' 1 • 1 1 1. 1 1 ■ I ; c - % 1 1 x: 1 1. -.t -L -?._ - 4'o / L I t i 1 _i_ f • Q • i HH r . 4 I r i I o� I - r -- 1 I I I I L:.-+. 1 ; I 1 • j DEPTH OF FLOW - y - FEET • • • • • • • (a) DISCHARGE PER FOOT OF LENGTH OF CURS OPENING INLETS WHEN INTERCEPTING 100% OF GUTTER FLOW • (o) PARTIAL INTERCEPTION RATIO FOR INLETS OF LENGTH LESS THAN L • • .05 .01 .06 .10 4 .5 . 6 .7 .6 .! LO L/ CAPACITY OF CURB OPENING INLETS ON CONTINUOUS GRADE erg c FIGURE 16 .0 6 1 5 4 2 .10 .06 .05 .04 .03 .02 . 1.0 .6 .6 .3 Q .3 Q a .2 Oa L r i t t t 1 t F ick € o o: • 29. 7:-. a, yo — Fort 11 1 6 C n ors o 2 /a 0.28 e GUG1}r -to Al 12 _ ib1 V 6NSc »L LAwE CG tL �S C. 2 0 f=iler DEPTH °f" pr /-mow 716iil r FR n,QAic �. .R1 4 0.2 g • Slope: S =0,8 Impervious Area (Amp). STORM STORAGE VOLUME: 2•425 tb • BASIN K 3/0, �� _ = 84 5 sq. Fr Volume of Grassed Percolation Area Vpa corrected )= Asx(100xD) /(3xS) + VgPa 75")(2..25 = s c4.FT, f Ga. S f- 3 = cu. Fr U ( BOWSTRING METHOD (TEN YEAR STORM DESIGN) PROJECT: 4004 TIME CF CONCENTRATION (minutes) DETENTION BASIN DESIGN BASIN' K REVIEWER; 0. MegTord Tc (overland) Tc (guitar) \ 3)An. 'C A'S NUMBER OF DRYWELLS PROPOSED DATE: 31- 0cl-04 I Single (Type A) 0 Double (type (5) Ct . 0.15 12 = 300 ( 0.90 0.171 Total Ara. (calc.) Ise, NI) 035 71 • 6 \ 0.10 0.26 0.04 Tim. of Cone (Cale) (see tfi) 5.00 (.1)A) . 0 Z2 . 12.4 0.00 0 ConpoUl. 'C• (c &C.) Ise. HI) 060 NIA) = 0 8 • 0 0.00 0.00 0 Tim, of Conc. (man) 5.00 S(A) . 0 n n 0.018 0.00 0.00 0 Are. (Acre.) 0.35 . . 0.006 0.00 0.00 0 C Factor 0 00 To (A) . 0.00 d . 0.2 0.00 0.00 0 Impervious Arse Iq_ h.) 8215 Tom) A Comp C' Volume Provided 206' 506 .1otm 211 1.1)8) = 0 Tc Igul • 2 n1 0.35 0.00 Outflow (cf.) 0 3 NCO) • 0 Tc(A +8) . 000 Area •C' Favor 0.21 5(3) • 0 O.C•1•A• 057 n. =.= ...>., .__ ....... .•saws_ w = Te(lo•)v 500 (Newt). 0.60 •1 92 93 94 •S 96 17 Tc (8) . 0.0 Ins.nelly • 3 19 Tarn. Tlrne Intensity O d.v Vin V oul Stang. A . 0.306 Inc. Inc WP . 3.7016 pnlnd (sec.) OnJM.) (cls) (cu. h.) (cu. ft.) lcu. 8.) R . 0.0903 (91'60) IA•C•13) (C.11f 921 (95 -06) V . 1.78 - - Tc (101.1) . Tc (overland) + Te (gutter) Tcf9 4 . 2. 6.00 300.00 3.18 087 270 90.00 160 Te (overland) • C1•(L1 •N7S ^ 0.5) ^ 0.6) O(en) • 050 CI - 0.15 3 300 3.10 0.67 270 90 190 11 . length of Overland Flow Holding . 10.00 10 000 2.24 0 47 332 100 152 N = Irkton factor of overland Now (.4 for 'versus grass covet) 15 000 1.77 0 37 374 270 104 6 . average .lope of overland flow 20 1200 1.45 0.3t 390 380 38 Te (gulrr) • Lengeh 111 )N.Iochy (tl.hsc.)/60 25 1800 1 21 0 26 400 450 .41 0 • Bottom width of guter o ditch 30 1800 304 0.22 417 540 -173 Z1 . Inverse of cross elope one 01 ditch 35 2100 0.91 0.19 473 630 •207 72 . Inverse of er0se Mot 0 lwh of dllrh 40 2400 0.02 0.17 433 720 -287 d . depth of I)ow M aulrr (*tamale, check •alrnrIs *Oh Flow) 45 7700 0,74 018 436 810 .372 Ana . d13+d ^2!2 +72) 50 3000 0.68 0.14 445 000 .455 Ward perMler . B•d +111aIn(.tn11 /ZI))+ 1 /.an(.e1 55 3300 0.84 0.14 450 9110 .331 Hydraulic Radius . R . Area/Wetted Petlmsrr 00 3000 0.61 0.13 476 1060 .604 Velocity . 1.4807011^ .667"s" .5 e5 3000 060 0.13 507 1170 -663 Flow . V.locat•Are. TO 4200 0.50 0.12 526 1260 •734 0 . 0 018 for esphalt 75 4500 0.56 0.12 544 1350 .806 .. longlsadln4) elope of putter 60 4000 0.53 0.11 548 1440 -892 e5 5100 0.52 0.11 571 1530 -050 90 5400 0.50 0.11 580 1620 -1040 05 5700 0.40 0.10 600 1710 -1110 100 8000 0.46 0.10 815 1800 .1192 MMMMMMMMM DRAINAGE PCNO CALCULATIONS Required grassy sw.ls pond slang. velum. . Irnpervfous Ana a .5 in 12 DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS • 10 YEAR DESIGN STORM M.alrnum .brag. tequlr.d by Bowstring . Nurabet end typo of Drywall. Required . provided provided 342 cu h. 500 cu. IL OKI 180 cu. fl, 211 cu. fl. OKI 1 Single 0 Double • • • • • • • • • • • W 2 1.0 12 • - -11 a 10 9 —a —7.3 —7 L 4.5 INM 5.5 4= 0•6, cFs 1 o•Z h- 0.333 Fr L = 3,833 ▪ 0 ? 6 .3 •— t 3.3 / / — 1.3 1.2 •1.111E•U OF FVCLIC IIOA03 DIVISION TW0, NA3NINOTON, D. C. 6-41 10 •= s 4 2 .0 N _ I !? • L .4 .I — .0S = .04 — • ti- 2.3 - 2 0. } .02 } L- 2 - c� .01— LOCAL OEPRESSI0N (s) se /1 O I / i ce •. HT. CUR$ W u FIGURE 17 ` — 4 � — • _ 1.3 X 1.0 .9 — .9 1- .7 M .3 — .4 —.23 — • .2 — 0. NOMOGRAPH FOR CAPACITY OF CURS OPENING INLETS AT LOW POINTS C r - - c c u t A x / 2 - E 4 , 1 „,. 06 FA'- o F tend 15 20 • / P1 '•' 4‘. Fon 1 2 CM/4 1 , 2 V a , ' 6, 12 6 EP TA OF a pre H FG Gil Ai i- N o •4a 1 0.12. i 1:2,144 40 AGE -n p`I4AN r1,16_ Di:Acegeidee C 26 0 L. 0,29 Slope: 5= = a, a? 6 0 Imcervious Area (Ar p) o / / . = 372.0 sR , Fr ' j3 L o p s e 3o _ Lf / 600 SQ. F7; Volume of Grassed Percolation Area Vgva (corrected) = As x (100 x D) / (3 x S) + Vypa 3. 5 x/oo x = GS'O 3 as -- SO = /63 STORM STORAGE VOLUME. e • AS 0.S3 + LIA8 x Sa z 8 4- sa 77 ? cu. FT 208uteet.sam BASIN 813 CO, FT; = 9S 28I o 0 BOWSTRING MFTHC3D (TEN YEAR STORM DES1(24) PROJECT: 4004 TIME OF CONCEN1 RATION (rnlnu os) DETENTION BASIN DESIGN BASIN' L REVIEWER: G. SNpled le (ov.rl•ndl lc (gutted NUMBER OF DRYWELLS PROPOSED DATE! 01•No.•94 0 Single (Type A) 3 Double (type 6) CI - 0.15 12 - 2 1 04 0.00 0.936 Total Are. kale ) (sae H1) 300 71 • 3 266 0.10 0.266 Time of Conc. (eerie.) (ewe 1111 15.67 L NM = 5811 72 = 3 0.00 0.00 0 Cornposlle L (cafe.) (se• 111) 0 31 N16) = n 4 0 = © 000 0.00 0 T Inn. 0l Conc. (min) 15 67 9(A) = 0.009 n • 0 071 000 000 0 Area (Acre.) 39 e - 0.006 0.00 0.00 0 C• Feeler 0 11 Tr (A) • 15 60 d - 0 7 0.00 0.00 0 hnp..Mou. Are. (en h.) 3970 Comp K• Volume Provided 206. 813 160161: 779 LI(B) = 0 Te caul = 002 0.31 Outflow (el.) 3 N(B) = 0 Tc(A+8) - 15.65 Area • C Factor 1,22 S(B) - 0 O.C 2.10 - - - - - - - - Tr fIni 1 . 15.67 0(.st) • 2.05 /1 •7 43 14 45 IC 117 Tc p0) - 0.0 !Menslly - 1.71 Time Time InInsity 0 d.v. Vin V out Stamp A = 1.12 Inc. Inc. WP • 0 2049 (min.) (Inc.) (In./h1.) (ers) (cu. h.) feu. 11) (eu h.) 8 . 0 1766 (01 (A•C•f31 (Out.'112) (4596) V is 1.63 ...._ -- .__•.•• •...._< _..•_.• MMMMMMMMMMMMMM Te (MIaI) Te ( ov.land) 1 Te (gutter) Te(oul - 002 16.47 951 06 1.71 210 2073 2856 87 •163 Te Ioverl.nd) - CI9Ll'N/S ^ 0.5) ^ 091 O(esr) • 2.05 Cl • 0.15 5 300 3.10 3.69 1562 900 662 LI . Length of Overland Flow holding = 0.03 10 600 121 214 2731 1600 101 N . Mc60n lector 01 overland Sow (.4 for omega gr... mewl 15 000 1.77 2.16 7009 2700 Al 9 - •••••ge M.P. of overland flow 70 1200 1 45 1.77 7700 3000 -900 Te (genre) • Length (h )(Velocity (ItJsec.1160 25 1500 1.21 1.46 2097 46130 •1603 B - Bottom width of gutter Or filth 30 1600 1.04 1.27 2699 5400 •2701 71 • inverse of cross slops one of ditch 35 2100 0.91 1.11 2697 63(10 4005 12 u Inv.ree of crows slop. two OI ditch 40 7410 0.82 1.00 2729 7200 •4471 d = depth of flow In q (*.Ornate, cheek estimate with Flow) 40 7700 0 74 090 2734 6100 -5366 Area • 1.13+d "2/7"(714-771 50 3000 0.68 0.83 2762 9000 -8238 Wetted perimeter • 0•d+(I /1hh(e6r)I /7.))) +1 /tio stn(1 /ZZI) 55 3300 0 64 0.78 2834 9000 -7000 Hydraulic Redlu% = R • Avert/Welted Perimeter 00 3600 061 0,7S 2075 10600 -7875 Velocity - 1.466/n•R ^.667 ^.5 65 3900 0.00 0.73 3097 11700 -6603 Flow a VeMelry•Ame 70 4200 0.56 0.71 3206 12600 •9304 n - 0018 for aeph.Il 75 4500 0.66 098 3301 13500 •10199 • • longitudinal slope of gutter 80 4600 0.63 0.85 3318 14400 -11087 85 5100 0.52 0.64 3446 15300 •11654 90 5400 0.50 0.61 3407 16700 -12703 95 5700 0.49 0.60 3607 17108 •13493 100 6000 0 48 059 3700 10000 14791 DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required rummy .wale pond corium volume Impervious Area a S In / 17 In 711 ORYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STORM M..hnum .forage requhed by Bow-suing . 103 cu 11. provided: 813 cu. h. 862 cu. ft. provided: 779 cu. h. Number and type of Drywr bi Required . 0 Single OKI OKI 3 Double Antos C A C s s • a • a r • • • Slone: 5= s% Impervious Area (Amp) 3o o X /L{ = 14 zoo s4 FT. Volume of Grassed Percolation Area Vgpa (corrected) = As x (100 x D) / (3 x S) + Vgpa X 0 0 0Xo.$) / Ask) xs = J8 ( CO,F7` STORM STORAGE VOLUME: BASIN f� 3 33.3 x x7 1 cu. FI . 2 BOWSTRING METHOD (TEN YEAR STORM DESIGN) PROJECT: 4004 DUE OF CONCENTRATION (minutes) DETENTION BASIN DESIGN BASIN M REVIEWER: G. Slag/owl is ftwedend) To (gutter) \t An.. •C A•C NUMBER OF DRYWELLS PROPOSED DATE: 31-Oct-04 0 Single (type A) 1 Double (typo 8) CI . 0,15 L2 • 270 0.10 0.90 009 Total Ai•• (talc 1 (wee HI) 0 23 21 • 3 els- 0.26 0.0325 Time of Cone. Icelc.) (see H1) 500 L1 (A) . 0 22 • 3 W 1\ 0.00 0.00 0 Composite V' )eak.) (s.. 111) 0 53 N(A) • 0 8 . • 0.00 0.00 0 Tlrn. of Cori. (min) 5.00 6(A) • 0 n • 0023 000 0.00 0 Area (Acres) 021 • . 0.000 0.00 0.00 0 C' Feet , 0 51 Tc (A) • 0.00 d • 0.07 0.00 0.00 0 Yolum. Provided 200 161 dorm: 271 11(8) . 0 Tc 1pul • 4.72 23 0.53 Outflow Cots) 1 N(B) . 0 1c(A4-e1 • 000 Mw • C F•clor 0 12 S(B) • 0 O•C••A. 0.39 ___ -_ .si•_••. •.• - Tcllol.) • 500 O(.eL) • 0.35 •1 •2 03 0 4 •5 16 07 Tc (8) • 0.0 Intensity . 3.15 Time Time inl.naity O chi Vin V out Storage A • 0.3747 Inc, Inc, WP . 5 4427 177411.1 (sec.) (in 71u 1 Icle) feu. 4.) (cu. h T 4cu. 6.) R . 0.0070 (11 (A•C••3) (Dud.•02) (05 -06) V . 095 - - -- - Tc (local) • Tc (overt.ndl ♦ Te (gutter) Telgu) • 4 72 5.00 300.00 3 46 0.39 157 300.00 -143 Tc )ov.r4rnd) • Ct 'NM ^ 0b) ^ 0.6) O4..O • 0.35 CI • 0.15 5 300 3 15 039 157 300 .143 L1 . L4ngth 01 Overland Flow HnyIng . 3 53 10 000 2.74 0 77 193 600 •407 N • friction lector of overland flow 4.4 tor entra94 grain cover) 15 000 t 77 0.22 217 900 -063 5 • ...ripe 'lope of overland flow 20 1200 1.45 0. t0 23* 1200 -000 Tc (gulls) • length I6 )N.bchy Ih.7e.cJ760 25 1500 t 21 0 15 237 1500 4283 8 . Boren width of Quiver or ditch 30 1600 104 0 13 242 1600 -1566 Z1 • Inverss of cross 'bps 01111 of ditch 35 2100 0 91 0.11 245 2100 •4555 22 • MVO. I* of doss slope two of ditch 40 2400 0 62 0 10 251 2400 -2149 d • depth of flow in g nor 14 Renew. check *rime with Flow) 45 7700 0 74 000 254 2700 -2446 Area = d•9 ad • 212•(21+ 12) 50 3000 006 0.06 256 3030 -2742 Wetted psdnwM • B•d4(l /in(en(t /71)1+ 11dnianil12))) 55 3300 0 64 006 267 7300 -3033 Hydraulic Redhrs = R = Arse7W.n.d Peri nsM 00 3000 061 001 277 3600 -3313 Velocity • 14661n11^ .567•. ^.5 03 3900 0 60 0.07 794 31100 -3876 flow = V.loclt 70 4200 0.55 0.07 106 4200 -3594 n • 0.016 for ■sphalt 75 4500 0.56 0.07 318 4500 4)54 s . longitudinal Yaps of gutter 60 4600 0.53 0.06 318 4500 -4462 55 5100 0.52 0.06 334 5100 -4709 90 5400 0.50 0.06 337 5400 .5093 95 5700 0.40 0.06 348 5700 -5352 100 0000 0.46 0.00 359 0000 -5641 DRAINAGE POND CALCULA T IONS Requh.d glossy .wile pond storage volume . Imp.rvlou. Aron it S In/ 121n./01. • DRYWELL REL7(ffEMENT9 - 10 YEAR DESIGN STORM Maximum storage r.quIr.d by Bowstring . 175 cu. h provided. 161 cu. It CKI 0 cu. 11 provided. 271 ou. R OKI Number end type of Drywall. Required = 0 Single 1 Double • . • • • • • Yy0 • s2- /•s'0 Impervious Area (Amp): 32c / 4 _ Li8 o • "Jo Lp = /240 • • • 5L/ Co. FT. • STORM STORAGE VOLUME. • C.3,2..S" 30 X 33.3 a. <<) X so = X3 • Slope: 3.zsx /0o 2O 3 ZS 4 /0 0 BASIN /\ ;307 E = '! l oo SQ, F?` Volume of Grassed Percolation Area Vgpa (corrected) = As x (100 x D) / (3 x S) + Vgpa 3.zs?C X SO) / X /S) 2 17 �7 r ?V cu, F7 Xs -o= BOWSTRING ME1 H(X) (TEN YEAR STORM DE GN) PRO CT: 4004 TIME OF CONCENTRATION pnlnuba) DETENTION BASIN DESIGN BASM: N REVIEWER; O. Shplord Tc (overland) Te (gutsy) Ate... V A NUMBER OF DRYWELLS PROPOSED DATE: 01 -Nov44 1 Singh Oyp. A) 2 Double (hype 0) Ct n 0.16 L2 . 226 109 0.90 0.961 Total Arm (c&c) (n.. HI) 3.05 Z1 • 3 1.96 0.10 0.19E Tins of Conc. (talc.) (s.. H1) 10 79 l_1(A) • 440 Z2 • 3 0.00 0.00 0 Composite Cnposll. •C' (c•c) (...Hl) 0.39 N(A) • 0 4 B • 0. 5 0.00 0,00 0 ns Ti of Conc. (min) 16.79 S(A) . 0.007 n • 0.00 0.00 0 Ana /Acres) 3.05 • ` 0.006 0.00 000 0 C' Factor 0.39 Te (A) • 14.79 d • 0.2 0.00 0.00 0 • Impervious Area (sq. h) 5740 To/a1 A Comp ^C• Volume Provided 208: 542 .soon: 961 LI(B) • 0 Tc (girl • - 2.00 0.39 Outflow (Or) 2.3 N(B) - 0 Tc(M B) • 14.79 An. • 17 lector 1.16 9(B) • 0 CNC'1•A. 1.06 •1• - -.. ••.•:__•Z .- -11.1 . -11.1• .. -...• Tc(tol)• 18.19 01• Ow Zoe •1 •2 03 04 05 46 47 Tc (B) - 0.0 Intensity - 1.50 Tim. Time Intensity O day_ V In V out Skip. A • 1.12 Inc. Inc. WP . 8.2849 (min.) feet 1 (ln1M.1 (ch) (cu. h) (cu 01 (cu. h) R - 0.1766 (f 1'80) IA•C•93) (Duff ..02) (•0- 48) V • 1.83 Tc (total) - Tc (ov.d.nd) ♦ Tc (gutter) Tc(9u) • 2.00 18.79 1007.23 1.80 195 2630 231663 313 Tc (overland) • CI•(Lt•Nr$ ^D.5) ^0.6) 0(.10 • 2.08 Ct - 0.15 5 300 ._ - 3.10 3.74 1505 090 515 L1 • Length o4 Ov■rinnd Flow Folding - 3.12 10 600 2.24 2.64 2120 1380 740 N • friction lector oI overland Row (4 for ammo. grata cover) 16 900 1.77 209 2512 2070 442 5 • average elope of owd■nd Row 20 1200 1.45 1.71 2632 2760 •126 Tc 19 • 1/ 113 0 111 (h )/V.4oclry (ft /sec .1160 25 1500 1.21 1.42 2624 3450 6201 8 - Bottom width of gutter or ditch 30 1800 1.04 1.22 2623 4140 •1517 Z1 • loverse of cross elope one of ditch 35 2100 0.91 1.07 2610 48.10 •221 22 . Invitee of vows .lom two of ditch 40 2400 0.82 0.97 2647 6520 -2673 d . depth el I1ow In gutsy (.sdmas. cMck ..dnsls w4e1 Flow) 45 2700 0.74 087 2650 0210 -3560 Ar.. - d•B +d ^2/2'9Z1+421 50 3000 0.66 060 2675 6900 -4225 W•Red p.rinsl.r • 135d411IMn(sm(1/Z1))+ 1/Nn(a 91(1/Z2))) 55 3300 0.64 0.75 2744 75'30 .4840 Hydraulic Redlu■ . R - Ares/W.1sd P.dnster 80 3600 0.61 0.72 2831 8260 ' -5449 Velocity • 1 488/n93" .667's" .5 65 3900 000 0 71 2996 6970 •5974 Flow • V.oclry•A.N 70 4200 0.50 060 )tot 90 •0559 n • 0.016 for asphstt 75 4300 0-56 066 3102 10350 156 •7156 • - onglurdinel slope of gutter 60 4800 0 53 0 62 3206 11040 ••7832 55 5100 0.52 0 61 3331 11730 -6399 90 5400 0.50 059 3370 12420 .0041 05 5700 0 4'3 058 3485 131 10 .9625 100 6000 0 48 0 511 3583 13000 - 1021 7 DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS R.qu gniny .wale pond stom a volume • Imp.rvlou• Area x .5 In./ 121n /h. DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STORM M..imum atorpe required by Bow.tring Number and type of Orywells R.guir.d • 739 cu. h. provided. 542 cu. h. OK I 815 cu. provided: 907 cu. h. OKI 1 Singh 2 Double • • • • • • • • • • Slone: S — o . 8 cY Imcervious Area (Aims) Ay o f /9 7= F3 6 o sq FT Volume of Grassed Percolation Area Vgpa (corrected) = As x (100 x D) 1 (3 x S) + V;pa , X /' STORM STORAGE VOLUME: 3,25 16) Z BASIN () 3. CU. FT, �.. = l ox 40. F% BOWSTRING METHOD (TFN YEAR STORM DESIGN) PROJECT: 4004 TIME OF CONCENTRATION (minute') DETENTION BASIN DESIGN BASIN• O REVIEWER G SI.gbM Tc (Ow/ lend) (putts) - Ar.es 'C A NUMBER OF ORYWEI.LS PROPOSED DAVE 31- Oct -04 �� 1 Single (type A) 0 Double Ilyp• B) CI er 0.15 1..2 . 200 ` 0.08 0.90 0.072 Total Area (c.k.) (ee. Ht) 0 17 Z1 = 3 0.25 0.0235 Tim. o/ Conc. (cake) (me H1) 5.00 LI(A) = 0 Z2 • '�'� 3 0.00 0.00 0 Conpo6l.'C (able.) (.e. H1) 0.36 N(A) . 0 B . � 0.00 0.00 0 Tin.. W Conn. (mitt) 5.00 S(A) . 0 n . 0.0 0.00 000 0 Ana (Acne) 0.17 . • 0.005 0.00 0.00 0 C' lector 0.58 TC IA) a 0.00 d . 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Impervious A/06 (eq. h.) 3350 70tw1 A Corry •C Velum. Provided 208: 325 dome 102 L1(R) . 0 Te (gut 358 0.17 0.58 Qrtflow (chi) 0 3 4483) 0 Tc(A +81 0.00 Mee • C Factor 0.00 5(8) 0 O•C'1•A. 0.30 _ _ _ _ _ - _. � _ Tclrot l • 3.00 D(en.) . 0.27 Al •2 • 3 /4 I5 /e •7 T c B) • 00 lnl•n.lty a 3.10 Time Tim. 'Monody O d.v. V M V out Storage A . 0.3100 Inc. Inc WP . 5 . 3735 (min.) (sec.) (cu. h.) Icy h.) Icu. h) A • 0.0875 (I1'60) (A ( 01 / 11 . •0 21 I(/5"-.•"6)) Y . 0 Tc (bud) a Tc (overland) + Tc (grater) Tc(gu) . 3185 5.00 300.00 318 0.30 121 00.00 31 Tc (overland) • C1 ^0.5) ^0.8) 04•I ■ 0.27 CI . 0.15 5 300 3.18 0.30 121 90 31 11 . Length of Overlord Flow Holding . 284 10 800 2.24 0.21 140 160 .31 N • friction Iect 4 01 overland Now (.4 for average prows cover) 15 000 1 77 0.17 188 270 -102 5 . average slope of overland Now 20 1200 1.45 0.14 178 380 -182 Te Muriel) • 1 - 45 9 1 b (1LI/Vebciry (h. /sec )700 25 1500 1 21 0.11 18.3 450 .267 8 • Bottom width of gutter or ditch 30 1800 1 04 0.10 167 540 -353 21 • Inverse of cro.e slope one of ditch 35 2100 001 000 189 830 -441 22 • Inverse of cruse Mope two of ditch 40 2400 0 82 0.08 194 720 -526 d er depth of Now In gutter 0,911mmte, check eedrn.t. with Flow) 45 2700 074 0.07 190 810 .814 Ares . d•B +d ^2/2•(Z I +72) SO 3000 060 0.06 100 900 •701 Wa ned perlrn. M. B•d+(t /sln {ran f1 /Z1II +t /Mnlatn(t /221)) 55 3300 064 0 06 206 990 -754 Hydraulic Radius • R . AntadW.INd Perimeter 00 3600 061 006 213 1060 .667 Velocity 4.488/n•7) .6679 ^.S 85 3000 0.80 006 227 11)0 -043 Flow • Valoclty•Ai.. 70 4200 0.56 005 236 1260 - 1024 n • 0016 kw asphalt 75 4500 0.58 0.05 244 1350 -1106 . . k ng)Iudlnel Mope of puller 80 4600 0.53 0.05 248 1440 .1194 65 5100 0.52 0.06 256 1530 .1274 90 5400 050 0.05 2110 1620 .1360 05 5700 0 49 0.05 259 1710 •1441 100 6000 0 48 0.05 777 1800 -1573 DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required gra•.y Swale pond storage volume Mtpervtou■ Area z 5 in / 12 )n,/8 • DRYWELL REOUIREMENIS • 10 YEAR DESIGN STORM Maximum scrage requh.d by Bowebing • 140 eu. h. provided: 325 cu. h. OKI 31 cu. h. provided: 102 Cu. 5. OKI Nunitb.r and type of Dry..1M Required . 1 Single 0 Double • Slope: S I 1 O - D.s9% S, =o,g% Impervious Area (Amp) 350 E SY 40 .5k. F1 156 c (o = goo 54F7 , i/LGT$ € 32x = 12-8 o sq BASIN P Volume of Grassed Percolation Area Vgpa (corrected) = As x (100 x D) / (3 x S) + V;pa 20 8shcetsarn 8f X /°c = 3Zs co. FT. STORM STORAGE VOLUME: X{ /7.5 = Soo cu. 4?-' BOWSTRING METHOD (TEN YEAR SIO1M DESIGN) PRCZIECT• 4004 TIME OF CONCENTRATION (minutes) DETENTION BASIN DESIGN BASIN' P REVIEWER. G. Slegford Tc (ovsrf.rwll Tc (gutter) NUMBER OF DRYWELLS PROPQSED DATE 31- 0c1 -04 0 Single (type A) 1 Double (IyM B) Ct . 0.15 L = 200 Total Are. (uk.) (Mee H11 095 Z1 = a lime of Cone. (colic.) (see HI) 10.49 1.1(A) . 150 22 . Composite C' (e.le.l (sea HI) 0 49 N(A) . 0.4 8 . Time of Conc. Inin) ID 44 S(A/ = 0.000 n . 0 Ares (Acres) 0110 e . 0008 C Fedor 0.49 lc (A) • 5.12 d . 0.13 Impervious Area Isq. h) 0.950 Volume Provided 208. 325 Morn: 500 1.1(R) . Cartttow (cis) 1 N(B) . Ares • C Facia 0 47 S(BI . ..... ...n74. Te11nt). 10.49 0l . :,. �2... ss. 03 _> a.. 04 .. ... .5 z. :: •6 07 Tc (B) • 0.0 In*4nsit7 • 2.19 Tints Time Intensity 0 der. V In V out Storage Inc. Inc (m$1.) (sea) 00190 (cInl (cu. 11) (cu ft 1 icu. ft.) (01'00) 1A•C (OuM •S2) (05•I5( = WW n _ exam . _ .. .„... W . Te lotel( . 10 (ov.dend) 4- Te (gutter) 10.49 029. 2.19 1.04 877 529.25 248 To (overland) . CI I•M'S' 0.5)' 0.6) CI a 0.15 5 300 3.15 1.51 0n5 900 306 1.1 = length of Olv.dwnd Flow /� 10 000 2.24 1 00 554 500 254 N . IrtclMn Moor of ovartend flow (4 for swung* press cover) Q .- 15 900 1.77 0.04 913 000 :15 5 . average slope of overtend flow 20 1200 1.45 009 972 1200 .225 To (99 • Length I1.)/Velocity 111/s.c. 1100 25 (500 1 21 0.57 963 1500 -517 B • Botom width of gutter a Mtnh 30 1000 1 M 0 49 093 11100 -507 Z1 . Invenee of cross dope one of dl1rh 35 2100 0 01 0 43 906 2100 -1102 72 • Inver of cm's Ilepe two nl ditch 40 24(10 0 02 030 1010 2400 -1364 d =depth of Sow In gufMr l.iI(m4N, check eHinata with Fowl 45 2700 0 74 0 95 1022 2700 -1070 Area - 4•844 ' 217•(71477) SO 3000 0.55 0.32 1035 3000 •1064 Welt.( p.drnele.. R•d+( Itlln (eIn11 /Z1)) +tAO(e.e( OD 55 3300 0 64 0.30 1055 3300 -2234 Hydraulic Radius . R . Arne/Wetted Pedmslet eo 3010 0 61 0.20 1103 3500 -2497 Velocity . 1 4/Min./I"' .567 5 65 3900 0.00 0.26 1170 3000 -2730 now • Veloclly'An. 70 4200 0.50 027 1213 4700 -7097 n - 0.010 lot asphalt 75 4500 0.50 0.27 1251 4500 -3240 • . longitudinal slope of gutter 50 4000 053 075 1250 4800 -3540 65 5100 0.52 0.25 1310 5100 .3790 911 5400 0.50 0.24 1331 5400 -41109 95 5700 0 40 0.23 1374 5700 43213 10n 0000 0.40 0.23 1414 0000 -4566 DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS R.7tdred 9ress7 swat. pond store,. volume . Impervious Areas .5 in./ 12 In /h DRYWFLI RFOIHRFMFN IS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STORM MasImum slotege required by Bowstring -• Numb.+ end type of Drywalls (Inquired = 7115 ell h peovlded: 325 eu. 11. OKI 309 cu. h provided. 500 cu. h. 0 Singh' 1 11ouh1. Tc (gu) . 237 Tc(A+8) > 8.12 0.90 0.395 $2 0.15 0.078 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 000 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 000 0 0.00 000 0 Corrq •C 0.40 o. C9•A. 104 C ONI) • 0.00 A . 0.7007 YIP . 5.5222 1 . 0.1203 V . 1.41 Te 4u) . 2.37 oles0 • 0.00 Holding • 2.64 • • • • • • • • • • Slone: 5 0. Imcervicus Area (Arnp): 500 3' / 8 404 SQ . F, BASIN R Volume of Grassed Percolation Area Vgpa (corrected) = As x (100 x D) / (3 x S) + Vgpa 1,63 X !Oo (S,z cu. FT. STORM STORAGE VOLUME: /. G 3 +0.7 X loo >C L4- = y44coeg7; (rig& • PROJECT: 4004 TIME OF CONCENTRATION IminuN.) pgWSTRM3 METHOD (TEN YEAR STORM DE511�1) pASIN' 0 ▪ A•C 0ElEN110N BASIN DESIGN Tc (putts) Ati.s REVIEWER: O. 3feplord Tc loven.ndl DAZE: 31.Oc104 �� 500 O.a 0 00 0.360 NUMBER OF DR In 1. (t PROPOSED CI • 0 15 0 31np1. (type A) 1 Double Hype 0) I 1 v 5 O 16 0.25 0.04 0.57 4 0.00 0.25 0 Total 0t C (cek.) Iwo HI L1(AI = 0 Z2 ` 090 0 TNT* of Cane. (colt.) (are H) 0.72 NIA) .. 0 B n 1 0.00 0.72 0 qy� 0.00 000 0 T( C' ( n*0) I (••• HI) 6.50 SON = 0 n • 0.00 0.00 0 A nr. (Ae nee (min) • . 0003 0 0.57 0 00 0.00 C . olO5. 0.72 Tc (Al • 0 00 d . 096 To 0 Corn Vel 0.00 O' Factor 100f0 0 Tr- (qu! • 650 0 57 0.72 um. Impervious Are. I•q. 111 400 11(R) 206: eS2 *tom Tc {A a•01 • 000 Ou tflo w Provided 1 NOV . 0 Ante *Fit 041 500) . 0 Tc(k+ll° 650 O- C•I•A. 1.10 Ar•. • C' F.rta • _ .... ... Onto ) _ - 1/3 ..• •_=: ... _ > :. . - 07 Tc IR) • 00 Intensity: 2.90 - 004'12 Inc. TIm. In5101•4•0 A ty 0 dev. V In V oul St0,. • 8 . 0.3402 Tim. R 0.2103 . 1 (min n Inc a) (..c 1 On Mr 1 IU4 (cal h.) (cu. ft) (tile 4. V .- 1.26 (01•60) (A•C•0]) (0101. (.5 -I6) Tcluul = 6 SO Ic Itnl•l) - Ic (nvwd.nrll • Tc 100060 Tc.•f) • 1.21 .... •_• a•v`_ - 1.16 610 360.67 220 Tc (ow.l.nd)•CI•(L1•N!S"0.5) - 0.e) 0.50 36067 2.00 Cl . 0 15 5 6/01 • .24 1.92 573 Holding . 1o.t6 300 223 11 • Length of (5v.rt.nd Flow ran cow) ) 800 2 22• 0 67 t e00 71 N . hlclbn lector of nMA.nd Sow ( tar rooms)* 9 10 IS 900 1.77 0.72 7 47 000 -151 3 . .w•r•q• •laps 01 ov•rl.nd kw 7c Iq ng (6 1500 1.024 4 0 A0 006 1500 . Leth .)IV0loclly (1110.c.1(60 20 1500 1. 0 44 7M 1500 - 410 1300 -y 0 . Bottom width of putts+ a d11ch 3 0 O.t3 652 1600 '076 71 .. Invrr d cross dope one of ditch 30 21 00 0 .04 Z2 . Inv .I of trees slope two of ditch 40 2400 40 2100 0.11 4 0.30 65 0.34 641 24 2 00 -1551 d • depth of flow In pu1Nt (.aHrtNN• check estimate with Flow) 2 0 7 0.74 010 657 7 10 27 •1641 M•• • A•Btd ^212 SO 45 37700 3000 0.64 0 26 075 3000 .217a Wetted p. 1•r r1m.1= 5d4 It /slnl.,n11(Z1)1• I/ n(•u+(1 //211) 55 6 130D , ?401 Hydr.u0e Radius . R . Are.MletW P.rlmear 55 3300 0.14 0.56 • 3600 0.61 0.25 071 3600 -2800 V.IncIty • 141161n•0 .667 - . 5 05 200 0.517 0.25 900 3900 -7410 now . VeocltyAre. 7 4200 0 50 O 24 1076 47/10 •3172 n . 0 016 for 4.003.0 70 0 4200 t1M1 4500 .3431 ■ . lorglhldinll Mope of gu5er 75 400 0.56 O.?3 60 4800 053 0 22 1000 4601 -3731 65 5100 0 52 0.21 1113 5100 -3067 60 5400 0.50 0 1131 5400 -4209 1160 5700 •4531 0!f 5700 0.40 O 70 .4796 _ .. - _ _ _ 100 0000 0 46 0.20 _ 124 )0 MY• _ DRAINAGE POND CA( c111 A11< Regnlie4 grassy .w.f* pond storage volume lmp.rvlous Moe x 5 In./ 12 MA. • DRYWELL REOUIREME.NTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STORM M.dmum Waage require! by Bowen • Numbs and type 01 Dry-wells Required . provided 750 a. 11 852 N. M No Good 229 cu. h. prnvlded: 406 cu. h. Ohl 0 S 1 Double • • • • • • L 3.931 • t3'Pp • • L= 3.83 3 I N-= 0,333 t= CIAO �lq 12G Y= Q,34 T e r'-7Gaye ' ' 141.) _ (4 ' 2 " Let. 9 y Y y 011447 6.34 ets YG T NT4e ctrzpjrG- �r��vnr_= a. a) = Q. , 1. )• O. 1.0$ ielt1 00 0 Vi rl .to - l,�3 = Q , _ GF$ cole,3 opE•al.4 404L c uG 4 TroN S .01 .02 .03 1 . c . . 0s I i 1 2 .3 ! � I -I .6 .' .8 s t-0 • 1 l i ( I z i 1 1 I I' I l i t • - I 1 1 1 ; 1 1 1 i! 1 1 i 1 11 11 i1 I 1 I I I i i (1 ' s — — ."-- ; . 1 +:1141-7-1..-t ff. ! I 7 .1... —17 „ 1 1 ' ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ 1 -r--r 1 1 1 1 1 - �--- -1 1 � I i i l l! l 11, I ! 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 _ �.- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 11' oY I 1! 1 1 1 11 1 1 I (a) DISCHARGE PER FOCT OF LENGTH OF CURB OPENING INLETS WHEN INTERCEPTING 100% OF GUTTER FLOW (b) PARTIAL INTERCEPTION RAT10 FOR INLETS OF LENGTH LESS THAN L DE 1 OF FLOW - y - FEET .0s .06 .06 .10 L / La CAPACITY OF CURB OPENING INLETS ON CONTINUOUS GRADE 6,39 - 4 FIGURE 16 .2 , .l0 .0 6 .s j O Oa .2 .10 Ca L t e r E l F k 1 1 1 1. i I i s 1 a/ ..11 .Ii�Jrd f 1 - - - - - -- i L i i l l - II 1 .. ! 11# Ogg - I t 1 1- I l- -- I1 1 - 1 - 111/4 i i - r , —L_ ! 1 � ILI i rte .01 .02 .03 1 . c . . 0s I i 1 2 .3 ! � I -I .6 .' .8 s t-0 • 1 l i ( I z i 1 1 I I' I l i t • - I 1 1 1 ; 1 1 1 i! 1 1 i 1 11 11 i1 I 1 I I I i i (1 ' s — — ."-- ; . 1 +:1141-7-1..-t ff. ! I 7 .1... —17 „ 1 1 ' ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ 1 -r--r 1 1 1 1 1 - �--- -1 1 � I i i l l! l 11, I ! 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 _ �.- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 11' oY I 1! 1 1 1 11 1 1 I (a) DISCHARGE PER FOCT OF LENGTH OF CURB OPENING INLETS WHEN INTERCEPTING 100% OF GUTTER FLOW (b) PARTIAL INTERCEPTION RAT10 FOR INLETS OF LENGTH LESS THAN L DE 1 OF FLOW - y - FEET .0s .06 .06 .10 L / La CAPACITY OF CURB OPENING INLETS ON CONTINUOUS GRADE 6,39 - 4 FIGURE 16 .2 , .l0 .0 6 .s j O Oa .2 .10 Ca L t e r E l F k 1 1 1 Slope: Impervious Area (Amp) 7 e / = /D 3 GO SCR: - �o@ 6 I# 3z0 s4. Volume of Grassed Percolation Area V9pi ( corrected)= Asx(100x ID) /(3xS) + ;a 2.xl X3,zS = 65 cu.P STORM STORAGE VOLUME: BASIN fk x /2s- = sb o cu, FT; 3 #2s z 2osshca.sazn $$4a,,5'= low cv: 602._ cv. Fr_ BOWSTRING METHOD (TEN YEAR STORM DESI(IN) PROJECT: 4004 TIME OF CONCENTRATION (minule.) DETENTION BASIN DESIGN BASIN 3 REVIEWER: G. SMglord lc (overland) Tc (gtrner) R A.i.la 'C A•C NUMBER OF DRYWELLS PROPOSED DATE: 3l- Oc1•94 0 p0 0.]06 0 Sing% (type A) 1 Double (type 81 Ct • 0.15 12 • . �! Total Area Kirk 1 (111e 111) 0.52 It • 025 0.045 TIM, of Cane. lcalc.) (see Ht) 6.35 L1IA)3 0 22• 000 0 Co.npo *l.•Cfc.kc.) (...H1) 0.66 14(A) . 0 8• `d S MJ \ 0.00 000 0 Time of Cone. Imin) 6.35 5(A) = 0 n . 0.00 0.00 0 An. 1Acr..) 052 • • 0.01 0.00 0.00 0 C Factor 066 Tc (A) • 0.00 d • 0.13 0.00 0.00 0 Impervious Ares logs h.) 14600 Total A Comp V Volume Provided 206: 060 storm: 602 11(8) e 0 lc (Sul • 6.35 0.52 0.60 Oulllow. (ele) 1 N(8) • 0 Tc(A +BI • 0.00 Area •CFeeler 035 518) • 0 O•C••A. 1.03 .•..••• ••s•w.. slaw. •.. . == =•s• ••a••.• Tc(lol)• 635 Q(..1)• 1.10 01 •2 03 •4 •5 66 •7 Tc (B) • 0.0 Intensity • 293 Tiro rime InienUy Oder. V In V out Sewage A • 0.7007 Inc. Ina. WP • 5.6222 (min) (u.c.) p6Jh..) (N.) (cu. n.) )cu 11) (cu. h.) R • 0.1203 (11'60) (A )Out).• (65.60) V • 1.57 Tc (Iola!) • Tc lowland) + Tc (goner) Tclgu) • 0.35 0.35 361.24 2.93 1.03 525 361.24 143 To (overland) • CI•(LI•N/6 ^0.5) ^ 0.6) O(.st) • 1.10 CI • 0.15 5 300 3,10 1.12 440 300 -- - 140 11 • Length al Overland Flow Holding • 052 10 600 2.24 0.79 574 600 -20 N . 1tic6on factor 01 overland flow (4 br sworn. grass cover) 15 900 1.77 0.62 040 900 -200 5 . ••e»g• .Topm of ov.rl•nd flow 20 1200 1.45 0.51 077 1200 -523 7c (clung.) • Length (111/Velocity (h /sec 1160 23 1500 1.21 0 42 602 1500 -606 B • Bonom width of gutter of ditch 30 1600 1.04 0.37 704 1500 -1006 11 • inverse of crow. *Lope one of dllch 35 2100 0.91 0.32 712 2100 -1386 22 • Inverse of Craw Mope two of ditch 40 2400 0.62 0.29 726 2400 -1677 d • depth of Saw In Sutler ).Mlmal., check .114rnar *Ath Flow) 45 2700 0.74 0.20 735 7700 -1065 Am . 608 +d ^2/2•(Z1 +12) 50 3000 0.66 0.24 747 3000 .2253 Wetted perimeter • 13• d•( 111M)a1n(12111 +t /.ln(atn) 55 3300 0 64 0.72 no 3300 .2530 Hydnuse R.dlu• • R w A..a(W•ned Perinrl.f 00 3600 owes 0.21 700 3000 -2001 Velocity • 1. 465 /n•3" .657•. ^.5 05 3900 0.60 0.71 649 3900 .3061 Flow = V.locl•Arel 70 4200 0 56 0 20 561 •200 -3314 n . 0 016 for esphah 15 4500 056 0.20 910 4530 -3590 • . LonglIudln.l .lop. of puller 00 4500 0.53 0.10 017 4000 .3603 65 5100 0.52 0 15 055 5100 -4145 90 5400 0.50 0.16 970 3400 -4430 95 5700 0 49 0.17 1003 5700 -4637 100 6000 0.46 0.17 1033 0000 -4967 DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required grassy .ware pond storage volume . In3.rvloue Area a .5 In/ 121n/h. • ORYWELL REOUIREMEN TS • 10 YEAR DESIGN STORM Ma.imum storage rpulr.d by Bow.5Ing Number and type of Drywelle Required = 612 cu 11 provided • 650 cu. 11 149 cu. h. provld•d: 602 cu. h. ONI 0 Single 1 Double OKI • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • k e: Impervious Area (Amp): zo STORM STORAGE VOLUME: Sao, cu.AT, BASIN S Volume of Grassed Percolation Area Vgpa corrected)= Asx(100xD) /(3xS) + Vgpa if x3. Gifts X6•s) /CSXMIS..) = I`/cl c). r7% • - X I = z2 8 G v. FT: 2 r� DRAINAGE POND CAI CULA T ION S Required grassy seal. pond orange volume • ImpelVlous Arse a 5 M./ 121n. /It DRYWELL REWIRFMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STORM M.zlmum Norag. (squired by Bowstring = Number and lyp. of Drywalls Required = a provided' Provided: 135 Cu. h 149 cu. 11. OKI 21 cu h. 226 cu. 11 OKI 1 Single 0 Double • TIME CF CONCENTTRAIION (minulesl BOWSTRING METHOD (TEN YEAR STORM DESIGN) PROJECT: 4 DEIENTICN BASIN DESIGN BASIN• 5 Area • A REVIEWER! G. S1.glord Tc (overland) Tc (gutter) NUMBER OF (RYWELLS PROPOSED DATE: 31.0c194 t36 \ '+ - 1 0.05 • 0 YO 0.072 1 Single (type A) 0 Double (type B) CI a 0.15 L 3 ( 005 0.75 0015 Total Aloe (cale 1 (w H11 014 000 020 0 1 Time of Cone. kale.) (•es 111) 5.00 L1(A) - 0 22 a J N(A) a 0 8= 5 000 0.00 0 Compo C •c. (male) (w Al) 0.82 • ^ - 0 023 000 0 00 0 Ante of Cone. (Mn) 6.00 5(0) 0 s a 0.0146 0.00 0.00 0 Ante U1er.s1 0.11 0 D.6? Te (A) = 0.00 d a 0.06 0.00 000 C' Flocks, 00 A Comp •C• Vohnn loue Ann Iq. h.) 206 3310409 Mom: 226 0 Tc (qut = 2 10 0.14 0.62 Volu (01.) sd 11(13) = 0 Te(A +8) a 0.00 NIB) • Area • "Fa 0.3 0- C•1 026 6(B) • 0 Area • C' lector 0 _ _ _ = Tchot.) • 500 0(.N.) • 0.27 ... . >_-.. __. -- _ _ =_,+. . =-. 13 ....... 96 -- = se l c( 8 1= 00 Intensity. 3.16 91 n •� A = a.a575 Time Time Inlen.ly 0 d.v. VM A ag V Oul Store WP = . 0.3575 Inc Inc. R ' 5. (min.) (sec (In. /hr.) Icls) (cu h.) (Cu. IL) (cu. fl) y "j (01.60) (A•C•13( (Outl.•9Z (1 V - 1 84 ..... 5.96) c u) a 1 4 To (toM11 • Tc tov.rl.ndl + Tc (puller) 1 9 Tc (overland) a CI•(LI•N/9- 05)"0.6) O4s0 .. . 027 5.00 300.00 a.TS 0.?e 111 00.00 21 CI a 0.15 5 300 2.14 0.20 111 90 21 11 a Length of Overlord Row Holing - 1.03 10 800 2.24 0.19 137 160 •43 N . Iricson Mc br of overland flow (.4 for average Oren cover) 15 000 1.77 0.15 154 770 -116 9 a ■v.re9e slope of overland now 20 1200 1.41 0.13 164 360 •106 Tc (gull.() a I.enpth (h 1N.IocIIy (h. /..c 1/60 75 1500 1 21 0.11 160 450 -461 8 a Bottom rebid, ts of put or ditch '3D t600 1 1N 0.01 172 540 -306 71 . Inverse of cross .lope one of ditch 0 2400 0 91 0.06 174 530 .456 22 a Inverse of Cross slops two of ditch 40 2400 0 62 0.01 176 720 -542 d = dep(h of lbw In gutter 1aNlm.le, Check .etlmale with Flow) •'� 45 2700 074 0.06 150 610 -130 Area = d•11rd"212 121422) 44 (� 50 3000 • 3300 0.66 0.61 0.00 0.06 184 160 000 000 •716 rfm -601 Waded p..ler a Re d+( 1 /sln(aln(1/ZI)) +1 /sln(atn( Hydraulic Pedlu.. R . AreaN/snW Psrinetsr V/ 00 3600 0.61 0.05 196 1000 -184 V.IOcIty - 1.486/5 ".067 ". 65 3900 060 0.05 209 1170 •901 Flow a Vetoclt•Aree 70 4200 0 0.05 217 1280 •1043 n - 0 016 for alp4,.h ��//�� 75 4500 0.56 0 05 224 1150 .1126 • • longitudinal slope of gutter I ZO 00 4800 0.57 0.05 226 1440 .1214 65 5100 0.52 005 235 1530 •1285 00 5400 030 0.04 239 1620 •1361 05 5700 049 0.04 247 1710 •1463 100 6000 0 46 004 255 1500 •1545 eMIS V r • • • • • • • Slope: 5 = o, 2. °lo Imoervious Area (Aims) BASIN 7 Goo Zoo sq, FT; Volume of Grassed Percolation Area Vg (ccrrected) = As x (100 x D) / (3 x S) + Vgpa 6x 1.43 X loo = 978 as AT STORM STORAGE VOLUME: 63 - t - OJj • ?C �G l 0 0 70 2. co. rr 1, u BOWSTRING METHOD (1EN YEAR STORM DESIGN) DETENTION BASIN DESIGN NUMBER OF ORYWELLS PROPOSED 0 SMgls (typo A) Total Aran (talc.) (see 111) Time of Cenc. kale.) (vas 111) Comp0 I, •C (edk) Cory 111 Time of Cnnc. (min) Area (Acres) C' Fadnr knpsrvlous Ar.a (sq. 5.) Volume Provided Oullow (cle) Ares • C Facto( PI Time Inc. (min.) 066 5 10 15 20 25 30 as 40 45 50 55 80 65 70 75 60 85 00 08 100 12 Time Inc. (sec (A1 .60) 411.10 300 600 000 1200 1500 1600 2100 2400 7700 3000 3300 3600 3000 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 8000 s3 64 Inl.n.)ty Od.v. On./311 1 1 Double (typo B) 067 e. 85 0.14 2.83 3.16 2 24 1.71 1.45 1.21 1.04 091 0 62 0.74 0.68 0.64 081 0.60 0.58 0.56 0.51 0 52 050 0 49 0 48 ti ?ne (el a) (cu. ft.) (A•C•e3( 1.30 1.57 1.10 087 0.71 0 80 0SI 045 040 036 0.33 0.32 0.30 0 30 0 29 0.26 0 20 0.213 0 25 04 0.24 DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Requh.d grassy swell pond *brags volume . Impervious N.a a .6 In./ 12 In./h. - 0RYWELL REOU IRE MEN TS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STORM M•rlrnum song. required by Bowsling - Number and typo of Orywufs Required • PACMECT BASIN REVIEWER DATE' 4004 0 S1.glofd 31.0c1 -94 5 55 007 0 74 21600 976 storm' 702 1 0.40 IS ... •. 16 ••• •7 V In V out Storage 768 630 1316 906 557 022 994 1004 1026 1035 1052 1064 1124 1194 1240 1250 1269 13.2 1364 1400 1451 provided provided: r (cu 1t1 (Cut. •e 2) 411.10 300 600 900 1200 1500 1600 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4600 5100 5400 5700 0000 (cu (11 (M6-56) 900 cu. ft. 970 cu. n. 357 cu. N. 702 Cu 5. 1 357 330 216 e .243 .573 -808 •1000 .1374 •1665 •1946 •2216 4475 •7708 -25160 .3220 •3511 -3750 -4036 .4291 -4549 OKI OK I 0 Single 1 Double TIME CF CONCENTRATION (minutes) Tc (Gym-land) Tc (guns') CI- 015 11(A). NIA) S(A) • n 0 0 Tc (A) - 000 1 I(R) - NIB) • 5(B) - 0 0 Tc (B) • 00 12 - 71 - Z2 = B- n = d = lc (pu) _ Tc(A•81 - 4 0.023 0.002 0.42 6.65 0 00 Tcnot)• 6.135 InMnify • 263 Te (10151) a 7c (overland) 4 Te 19u71•l) Tc (overland) • Ct•0.1 0.5) ^ 0.6) CI . 0.15 11 • Length of Overland now 14 . IrIc8on factor 01 overland low (.4 log average grass town) 5 - average slope oI overland flow Tc (9011. • Length (n )Nalodry (11/1.0.)/130 B - Bnners width of qunar a dhch It • Yowls 01 cross Mope one of ditch Z2 - Inverse of cross Mops two of dhch d • depth of Sow In gutter (e.Anvata, check ..nmal. with Flow) Area . d•B +d ^ 2/29Z1 +221 Waned Parinr4r - B` d+ (1l.n(am(1t7 + /Mn(aln( Hydraulic Radius = 11 a Are./wetlad PMrnst.r Velocity - 1 456/n .867•• ^ 5 Flow - Veloc1Py •Afea n = 0.016 ter asphalt a - longitudinal slope 01 gutter ■ r Ais.s •C A•C 050 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total A 0.07 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Comp "C" 0.74 O•Ch 1.30 0(sa1.) • 130 1.2136 4.6733 0.2401 1.14 8.65 1.30 Holding • 0073 0.46 0.0425 0 0 O 0 0 1 a = /.39 cis 1.0 12 h � 11 Q ,333 1 .T h - • T .S 3. 833 1 L T 3 4 L '.' 3,0 .25 .2 .15 3.3 / 3 2.3 2 1.5 1 BUREAU OF rvSLUC ROAOS DIVISION TWO, WASHINGTON, D.C. 6 -41 L 10 / - 4 2 1.0— a` w .1 I ,4 �. . .4 — H W 4.3 , la. . 15 Z /' • 2 .0s . 0S .04 — .02 — . 01-• LOCAL 0[PRt3310N 1181 64 : / V G; .. 1 / MT. CURS 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 ORO NOMOGRAPH FOR CAPACITY OF CURS OPENING INLETS AT LOW POINTS FIGURE 17 .1 1.3 .25 .2 .15 0.1 • • • • • • Sloce: 5= 1.0% Impervious Area (AH g e L/3 = 366-6- 0 4/ C &• /1926- BASIN r 92 s- BASIN V Volume of Grassed Percolation Area V,Fa (corrected) = As x (100 x D) / (3 x S) + Vgpa X /C =, Q OU cU. S x J.63 x lap = 130L/ STORM STORAGE VOLUME e :÷1X/00 = 3 • 62.s 5 = • Ch3.__±.____-6\ Se) 3 2 _ ACS 208shect sam 220 cu. F7; g73 cu. Fr: BOWSTRING METHOD (TEN YEAR STORM DESIGN) DETENTION BASIN DESIGN NUMBER OF DRYWELLS PROPOSED 0 Single (type 2 Double (typo B) Ct = 0.15 L2 = 850 '`/(0.7 0.90 0.666 Total Area (talc.) (see HI) 0.74 Z1 ■ 5 0.00 0 Time of Conc. (talc.) (see H1) 5.95 L 1(A) = 0 22 = 4 0.00 0.00 0 Composite 'C' (talc.) (see HI) 0.90 N(A) = 0 B = 1 0.00 0.00 0 Time of Conc. (min) 5.95 S(A) = 0 n = 0.023 0.00 0.00 0 Area (Acres) 0.74 s = 0.008 0.00 0.00 0 C' Factor 0.90 Tc (A) = 0.00 d = 0.45 0,00 0.00 0 Impervious Area (sq. ft.) 31175 Total A Comp 'C' Volume Provided 208: 1304 storm: 408 L1(B) = 0 Tc (gu) = 5.95 0.74 0.90 Outflow (cfs) 2 N(8) • 0 Tc(A +B) 000 Area ' C' Factor 0.67 S(B) = 0 Q =C'I'A= 2.00 = = = =z == _______ ___.___.. ____ ____..= Tc(tot.) = 5 95 Q(est.) = 3.24 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Tc (8) = 0.0 Intensity 3.00 Time Time Intensity Q dev. Vin V out Storage A = 1.36125 Inc. Inc. WP = 5.1500 (min.) (sec.) (in./hr,) (cfs) (cu. 11.) (cu. fl.) (cu. ft.) R = 0.2643 (11'60) (A'C'/3) (Outf.'12) (1546) V = 2.38 . - _________= Tc (total) = Tc (overland) + Tc (gutter) Tc(gu) - 5.95 5 95 357.29 3.00 2.00 957 714.58 242 Tc (overland) = Ct'(L1'N/S"0.5)"0.6) Q(est) = 3.24 Ct =0.15 5 300 3.18 2.12 851 600 251 L1 = Longth of Overland Flow Holding = 17.81 10 600 2.24 1.49 1076 1200 -124 N = friction factor of overland flow ( 4 for average grass cover) 15 900 1.77 1.18 1204 1800 -596 S = average slope of overland flow 20 1200 1.45 0.97 1276 2400 -1124 Tc (gutter) = Length (fl.)Nelocity (fllsec.) /60 25 1500 1.21 0.81 1307 3000 -1693 B = Bottom width of gutter or ditch 30 1800 1.04 0.69 1331 3600 -2269 Z1 = Inverse of cross slope ono of ditch 35 2100 0.91 0.81 1346 4200 -2854 Z2 = Inverse of cross slope two of ditch 40 2400 0.82 0.55 1377 4800 -3423 d = depth of flow in gutter (estimate. check estimate with Flow) 45 2700 0.74 0.49 1391 5400 -4009 Area = d'B +d "212'(21 +22) 50 3000 0.68 0.45 1414 6000 -4586 Wetted perimeter = B' d+( 1/ sin(atn(1 /Z1))41 /srn(atn(122))) 55 3300 0.64 0.43 1458 6600 -5142 Hydraulic Radius - R = Aree/Wetted Penmeter 60 3600 0.61 0.41 1512 7200 -5688 Velocity = 1.486/n'R ".667's ".5 65 3900 0.60 0.40 1607 7800 -6193 Flow = Velocity'Area 70 4200 0.58 0.39 1669 8400 -6731 n = 0.016 for asphalt 75 4500 0.58 0.37 1724 9000 -7276 a = longitudinal slope of gutter 80 4800 0.53 0.35 1737 9600 -7863 85 5100 0.52 0.35 1808 10200 -8392 90 5400 0.50 0.33 1839 10800 -8961 95 5700 0.49 0.33 1900 11400 -9500 100 6000 0.48 0.32 1957 12000 -10043 DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required grassy swate pond storage volume = Impervious Area x .5 in. 12 in. /ft. = 1299 cu. O. provided: 1304 cu. fl. OK! DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STORM Maximum storage required by Bowstring = 251.38776 cu. R. provided: 408 cu. ft OK! PROJECT: 4004 TIME OF CONCENTRATION (minutes) BASIN: U REVIEWER: J.O.M. Tc (overland) TC(gutter) DATE: 17- Feb-95 Number and type of Drywalls Required = 'C' A 0 Single 2 Double • • • • • • • • • • • 1 m dope j 2 0.00 8 S50 Impervious Area (Aimp) : 725 CI W3 = 31, 17,E St. Fe. Volume of Grassed Percolation Area VQpa (corrected) = As x (100 x D) / (3 x S) + VQpa g /.63x = /,30y cu.rt. ,STORM STORAGE VOLUME: • BASIN () I . 6 3fo )( 6 2. cX S = Aro g Cu. Ft. 2 BOWSTRING METHOD (TEN YEAR STORM DESIGN) \) PROJECT: 4004 DETENTION BASIN DESIGN BASIN V REVIEWER: J.O M. NUMBER OF DRYWELLS PROPOSED DATE 0 Single (type 5 Double (type 8) Ct = 0.15 Total Area (calc.) (see HI) 6.00 \3 Time of Conc. (talc.) (see H1) 21.81 L1(A) = Composite "C (calc.) (see H1) 0.25 N(A) _ Time of Conc. (min) 21.81 S(A) _ Area (Arses) 6 C' Factor 0.25 Impervious Area (sq. ft) 50310 Volume Provided 208. 2143 storm: 535 L1(B) Outflow (cfs) 5 N(B) = Area • C' Factor 1 52 S(B) = *1 12 *3 14 15 f6 *7 Tc (B) = Time Time Intensity 0 dov. V in V out Storage Inc. Inc. (min.) (sec.) (in./hr.) (cfs) (cu ft.) (cu. ft.) (cu. ft.) (11'60) (A'C'13) (Outf.'*2) (*546) - --- ---- -= ____ -___ = s_:= = =_ =a = == =•=s - -= _ - - -- Tc (total) = Tc (overland) + Tc (gutter) 21 81 1308.74 1.36 2.07 3633 6543.68 -2910 Tc (overland) = Ct'(L1 "N/S"0.5)"0.6) Ct - 0.15 5 300 3.18 4.83 1943 1500 443 L1 ■ Length of Overland Flow 10 600 2.24 3.40 2737 3000 -263 N = friction factor of overland flow (.4 for average grass cover) 15 900 1.77 2.69 3245 4500 -1255 S = average slope of overland flow 20 1200 1.45 2.20 3544 6000 -2456 Tc (gutter) = Length (ft.)Neloclty (It /soc.) /60 25 1500 1.21 1.84 3577 7500 -3923 B = Bottom width of gutter or ditch 30 1800 1.04 1.58 3549 9000 -5451 Z1 = Inverse of cross slope one of ditch 35 2100 0.91 1.38 3520 10500 -6980 Z2 : Inverse of cross slope two of ditch 40 2400 0.82 1.25 3546 12000 -8454 d = depth of flow in guter (estimate, check estimate with Flow) 45 2700 0.74 1.12 3537 13500 -9963 Area = d'13+d "212 "(21 +22) 50 3000 0.68 1.03 3561 15000 -11439 Wetted perimeter = B'd +(1/ sin (atn(1 /Z1)) +l /sin(atn(1 /Z2))) 55 3300 0.64 0.97 3643 16500 -12857 Hydraulic Radius - R - Area/Wetted Perimeter 60 3600 0.61 0.93 3750 18000 -14250 Velocity = 1.486/n'R ".667's ".5 65 3900 0.60 0 91 3963 19500 -15537 Flow = Velocity'Area 70 4200 0.58 0.88 4095 21000 -16905 n = 0.016 for asphalt 75 4500 0.56 0.85 4209 22500 -18291 s = longitudinal slope of gutter 80 4800 0.53 0.81 4225 24000 -19775 85 5100 0.52 0.79 4383 25500 -21117 90 5400 0.50 0.76 4442 27000 -22558 95 5700 0.49 0.74 4577 28500 -23923 100 6000 0.48 0.73 4702 30000 -25298 DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required grassy swale pond storage volume = Impervious Area x .5 in / 12 in /f1 = 2098 cu. ft. provided 2143 cu. ft. DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STORM Maximum storage required by Bowstring = 443.1072 cu. ft. provided: 535 cu. ft. OK' OK! TIME OF CONCENTRATION (minutes) Tc (overland) Tc (A) = 21.80 Number and type of Drywalls Required = Tc (gutter) Areas L2 = 2 1.15 0.90 1.035 Z1 = 4 4.85 0.1 0.485 Z2 - 5 0.00 0 B = 1 0.00 0.00 0 n = 0.023 000 0.00 0 s - 0 r 12 0.00 0.00 0 d= 0. 0.00 000 0 Total A Comp "C" O Tc (gu) = 0.01 6.00 0.25 O Tc(A +B) 21.80 O Q=•I' 2.07 Tc(tot.) - 21.81 (Nest.) ■ ._ 1.52 1 i 0.0 Intensity 1.36 A = 0.66845 WP - 3.6744 R - 0.1819 V = 2.27 Tc(gu) - 0.01 Q(est) - 1.52 Holding = 004 0 Single 5 Double • • • • • • • • • • • S lope 13.5 _ . 1,100 Impervious Area (Ai.mp) : 1)70 S S3. Volume of Grassed Percolation Area Vgpa (corrected) = As x (100 x D) / (3 x S) + Vgpa 10 X 1.63x /00 = 1, 630 Cu. Pi. z X Sao = s / Z • 5 Cp. Fi STORM STORAGE VOLUME: 1.63 + - 6xto = X107,3 ck.Fe. 1 Zg Cv•Ft• t o x 5`o 20BSHEET. WPD 20 she-et_ sam Z BASIN ✓ r l 1 X 68 _ Z'z 2 -/3 CL.Ct. 535 C . "z8 co. Fr-. BOWSTRING ME 71100 (TEN YEAR SICMIM DESIGN) PRO.IECT: 4004 TIME OF CONCENTRATION (minutes) OEIENIION BASIN DESIGN BASIN- W REVIEWER: G SI.glord Tc (overland) is (gutter) Areas V A•C. NUMBER OF ORYWELL.S PROPOSED DAZE: 0I- Ncw.94 0 Slot* (type A) 1 Double Itype BI Ct . 0 15 L2 . 150 0.36 0.90 0.342 Total Area Nolo I Ise* HI) 011 71 = 3 0.4E 0.15 0.072 11me of Conc. leak) (one 341) 10 74 l 1(Al = 210 72 - 7 0.00 0.00 0 CornposlM V fete.) (one Hl) 0 40 N(A1 a 0 4 R = •V� 0.00 0.00 0 TIntt of Conc. (min) 1006 S(A) - 001 n e 0023 0.00 0.00 0 Area (Acres) 0 01 e . 0.008 0.00 0.00 0 C' Factor 0 44 Tc (A) • 552 d = 0.17 000 0.00 0 Impervious Area reg. It 1 8745 O T gy./1 Cam 'C' ov Volum* Prided 205 412 clam: 728 L CBI . 0 Tc lout = 156 �O.EE 0.4E Outflow (cis) 1 NMI = 0 Tc(A.B) = 8.52 Ares • C' Facto. 0 41 5(3) = 0 O =C9•A. 0.02 ... _ -___ __- - - Tcl One )= 10.08 O(est.l= 0.98 01 •2 0 •4 •5 06 117 1e (R) . 0.0 lnlenely = 2.21 Time l lm+ Nlenely Odes. Vin V out Stomps A . 0.5087 Inc Inc WP . 4. 0752 (min.) (w 1 hn,/tx ) (elel (cu. fl.) feu. h I (cu. ft) R - 0.1484 (01 I*•0,•411 (Ou11. (*SIG) V. 160 _ _ _ _ _ 7 _ _ = Te gon d) = le fns*rlen4l r Tc (9utlo0 Tc(qul • 1 58 10.08 00495 2 . 2 3 0.92 749 604.05 144 Tc (overlend) . CI•IL 1 •N/S^ 0.5) ^0.6) 0(ss0 • 0.98 CI • 0 15 5 300 3.111 1.32 520 774 229 1.1 rr L.ng1h n1 Overland FInw Holding . 206 10 600 224 003 748 800 148 N = friction fecinr of overland flow (.4 lo. •vcr.ge gin,. coV.rl 1S 900 1.77 0.73 810 000 -90 S . ese.wge slop. of overland Dow 20 1200 1.45 0.60 744 1200 •350 Tc (gullorl - 1.*nglh (h )Nelneiy (11.lsac.)F60 23 1500 1.71 050 A44 1400 .640 R s flotsam width of gutter or ditch 30 1800 1 04 041 414 1740 .036 71 . Invener of cross .Mpe one of ditch 35 7100 001 0.36 589 2100 -1211 72 - Insets. of cress slope rwn of ditch 40 7400 062 0.34 1161 2400 -1515 A - dabIlli of now In putts (.qdn aM, cheek •llim4M with Flow) 45 2700 0 74 011 890 2700 -1410 Aron . d•71 ♦A ^ 2/2•(71 753 50 3000 086 078 902 3000 -7096 W.md moan/raw . B d +11 /e1n(etn(1(71)) +1 /e,n(.tn(1 /22)1) 55 3100 0 84 025 929 3300 -2371 H ,4l*ufk R.diue . R = Ar.a/W.0ed PMhneter e0 3800 0 61 0.25 961 3800 -2639 Velocity = 1 4607n ^ .667•e" .5 65 3900 0 60 073 1020 3900 ' -2660 Flow . Velncly•Arrre 70 4200 0 46 0 -24 10511 4200 7142 n . 0.010 4.-..a1,hdl 75 4500 056 023 1001 4Y10 3400 • . longitudinal elope of gone. 60 48110 0 51 022 1096 4900 .1707 85 5100 052 077 1142 5300 •10'.6 90 5400 0 S0 0 71 1110 8400 •4240 05 5700 0 49 0 20 1148 5700 .4502 100 6000 044 020 1733 6000 .4767 DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS R.quk.A gr.aay .wale pond towage volume hnpervbue Area It 5 In.! 12 ln,7h. DRYWELL REOLIHIEMFNT S • 10 YEAR DESIGN STORM Maslrnurn 1lmepe requlrnd by Bowstring = Nurnber end typo of Drywnll. Required provided provided 261 cu h 412 Co. h. OKI 229 cu. h. 776 cu. ft 01(1 1 Double • • • • • • • • • . • • 6 u or or M L= 3.833 I p = 0,313' 4, = o11f42 Q4 S •, 5 c f=S y_ c,13 z rr7.Ga L e /, t) = O, 6? g L4' 2. - 3 , 933 1 '' 4 o,ti4 Y 0 Q4, 0. 11 /,2 $ FLOld Xt.1ri I2 CCIT770 1 C 9 = lGt.) 14 8 Q ST� w « /L>3 oP *STN d en-Le uL r rr o I' S It . ._a . .- .Y- .-- - . -- - - 1 1 o 1\ o f ISM 1 I 1 1 1 i I I t 1 - A r_ 1 — - - - 4 -- rL t 1 — "i •■ MED •••= •■■ 1 / I I I 1 0 I -_ I — �/ i fl I 1 , I I I II iII I I — . _ 1 - -_ I L_ I z 1 1 1 ! I 1 1 o 1\ o f ISM (a) DISCHARGE PER FOOT OF LENGTH OF CURS OPENING INLETS WHEN INTERCEPTING 100% OF GUTTER FLOW (b) PARTIAL INTEE:RCEPTI ON RATIO FOR IN N LETS OF LENGTH LESS THAN L DEPTH OF FLOW - y - FEET .05 .04 Ai JO CAPA CITY 6 -39 7g .3 .. .5 2 L/ OF CURS OPENING ON CONTINUOUS GRADE .1 FIGURE 16 .r .1 INLETS .1 l0 a 1.0 1.0 .1 .1 .5 .4 .3 G L .10 .04 .05 .04 .03 .02 . 1.0 .1 .• .s .3 Q a .2 .10 0 1 r r r t • Fir 4 ce,ae 2 s 2.0 pr /q di._ 20 2? 014 G 1 12 1_190-'6" ' L )its, 4 ... z el 24 D L pTN Cr Ot r 4' „ N° iR Gr'p2 7 r #a B PlsrIQ w IGULr'}I'2 i . r- W115 VEN re. itc t4PJ4 c r r 8): vtrf5 eZ I "13< o.ag Project : RIVERWALK County : SPOKANE Subtitle: BASIN X Data: Drainage Area • 10.E Acres Runoff Curve Number . Time of Concentration: `0.30 Hours Rainfall Type • Pond and Swamp Area ( 4.7 % of Drainage Area Storm Number Frequency (yrs) 24 -Hr Rainfall (in) Ia /P Ratio Runoff (in) Used Unit Peak Discharge (cfs /acre /in) Pond and Swamp Factor 5.0% Ponds Used Peak Discharge (cfs) GRAPHICAL PEAK DISCHARGE METHOD Version 2.00 1 1 0 (r 0.67 0.50 0.06 0.468 0.72 User: GES Date: 11 -01 -94 State: ID Checked: Date: 10,000 5,000 1,000 --i 500-- 100 - P R 50 — 10 — 5 -8-- — (L) (1) L -I-5 (2) I - 2 - 1 (3) 6, TIME OF CONCENTRATION T 2 C t (L /-0") 0.6 Example L = 1,000' s = 0.01 n = 0.5 C = 0.3 T = 49.7 minutes 0.0001 -- 0.001 0.0005 - 0.05 0.1 (S1 0.01 0.05 (2) ■ N TYPE OF AREA AVERAGE GRASS COVER .4 POOR GRASS COVER .3 VALUES OF Ct NATURAL DRAINAGE AREA .4 OVERLAND FLOW .15 100 - f 50 ti /^ / / / •0 / / (3), / 30 / / ,� ./ ./ — Lo � ___ (2) ...... 20 — .... - ... • 0.5 0.01 f (7 FIGURE 3 1 BOWSTRING METHOD (TEN YEAR STORM DESIGN) DETENTION BASIN DESIGN NUMBER OF DRYWELLS PROPOSED PROJECT: 4004 BASIN: Y REVIEWER: J.0 M. DATE: 17- Feb-95 DRAINAGE POND CALCULATIONS Required grassy swale pond storage volume = Impervious Area x .5 in./ 12 in /R. = 794 cu. R provided: 900 cu. R. OK' DRYWELL REQUIREMENTS - 10 YEAR DESIGN STORM Maximum storage required by Bowstring = 252.25152 cu. 11. provided: 281 cu. R. OKr TIME OF CONCENTRATION (minutes) Tc (overland) Tc (gutter) 0 Single (type 1 Double (typo B) Ct = 0.15 L2 = 400 0.48 090 0.432 Total Area (calc.) (see H1) 0.48 Z1 = 3 000 0.00 0 Time of Conc (calc.) (see H1) 5.00 L1(A) = 0 Z2 = 0.00 0.00 0 Composite "C" (talc.) (see H1) 0.90 N(A) = 0 B = 5 0.00 0.00 0 Time of Conc. (min) 5.00 S(A) = 0 n = 0.02 0.00 0.00 0 Area (Acres) 0.48 s = 0 0.00 0 00 0 C' Factor 0.90 Tc (A) = 0.00 d = 0.2 0.00 0.00 0 Impervious Area (sq. R.) 19045 Total A Comp 'C" Volume Provided 208 900 storm: 281 11(8) = 0 Tc (gu) = 3.64 0.48 0.90 Outflow (cfs) 1 N(B) = 0 Tc(A +B) 0.00 Area ' C' Factor 0,43 S(B) = 0 Q•C'1'A= _- -______ _________ ___ _____ --___ __ == --- _-= -- = Tc(tot ) = 5.00 Q(est.) • 11 12 *3 *4 *5 *6 *7 Tc (B) = 0 0 Intensity 3.18 Time Time Intensity 0 dev. V in V out Storage A - Inc. Inc. WP = (min.) (sec.) (in. /hr.) (cfs) (cu. R.) (cu. R.) (cu R ) R = ( *1'60) (A'C' *3) (Outf.' *2) (0546) V = = = =_ ___ _ - - - - -_ •-.....============ _ = == Tc (total) = Tc (overland) + Tc (gutter) Tc(gu) = 500 300.00 3.18 1.37 552 300.00 252 Tc (overland) = Ct'(L1'N /S"0.5)"0.6) Q(est) _ Ct =0.15 5 300 3.18 1.37 552 300 252 11 = Length of Overland Flow Holding = 5.68 10 600 2.24 0.97 679 600 79 N = friction factor of overland flow (.4 for average grass cover) 15 900 1.77 0.76 766 900 -134 S = average slope of overland Row 20 1200 1.45 0.63 816 1200 -384 Tc (gutter) = Length (R.)Nelocity (RJsec.) /60 25 1500 1.21 0 52 837 1500 -663 B = Bottom width of gutter or ditch 30 1800 1.04 0 45 855 1800 -945 21 = inverse of cross slope ono of ditch 35 2100 0.91 0.39 866 2100 -1234 22 = inverse of cross slope two of ditch 40 2400 0.82 0.35 886 2400 -1514 d = depth of flow in gutter (estimate. check estimate with Flow) 45 2700 0.74 0.32 896 2700 -1804 Area = d•B +d "2/21 +Z2) 50 3000 0.68 0.29 911 3000 -2089 Wetted perimeter= B'd+(1/ sin (atn(1 /ZI)) +11sin(atn(1 /22))) 55 3300 0.64 0.28 941 3300 -2359 Hydraulic Radius = R = Area/Wetted Perimeter 60 3600 0.61 0.26 976 3600 -2624 Velocity = 1.486/n'R".667'5".5 65 3900 0.60 0.26 1037 3900 -2863 Flow = Velocity'Area 70 4200 0.58 0.25 1078 4200 3122 n = 0.016 for asphalt 75 4500 0.56 0.24 1113 4500 -3387 s = longitudinal slope of gutter 80 4800 0.53 0.23 1122 4800 -3678 85 5100 0.52 0.22 1169 5100 -3931 90 5400 0.50 0.22 1188 5400 -4212 95 5700 0.49 0.21 1228 5700 -4472 100 6000 0. 48 0.21 1265 8000 -4735 Number and type of Drywells Required = • • • • • Areas 'C' A'C 1.12 6.2649 0.1788 1.83 3.64 2.05 0 Single 1 Double Slope s = o. , o Impervious Area (Aimp): 1/so - 1 75 e y3 BASIN Y ll sg.Ft. 7, ,-25 F t . 1 9,dy5 Volume of Grassed Percolation Area Vgpa (corrected) = As x (100 x D) / (3 x S) + Vgpa � X 2.2 5 x 7- IOo Co. R. NORM STORAGE VOLUME: 2.Z�t0 x . 6z Xzf= ZS'I c Fe. ROAD NAME Indiana - Avenue- NAME -OF PLAT -Rivervalk P.U.D. - - ADDRESS OF -BLDG N/A - - - 'SUBMITTED BY Inland Pacific Engineering Company, rlyltdagodew 8s97 forr,• 'nc ST:SICTQ REQUEST FOR DESIGN DEVIATION 330.00 Inc rr: . DATE August '3;, EXISTING CONDITIONS: PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS: ROAD WIDTH - 40' -- 40' - ROAD SURFACE - - Asphalt - - Asphalt AVG. -DAILY TRAFFIC - - - • N/A - - N/A ' DATE August 3, 1995 ADDRESS 707 West 7th Avenue, Suite 200, Spokane, Washington -- - ZIP•CODE 99204 -- PHONE # (509) 458 -6840 "'•••• ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE FEE OF $30.00 PAID TO SPOKANE COUNTY ••" "• 1026 W BROADWAY, SPOKANE WA 99260 -0170 PHO (5509)456 -360) FAX (509)324-3478 - REQUEST WILL NOT BE REVIEWED WITHIO FUNDS - CASH/CHECK — RECEIVED BY DATE c j Is' FUDt -1 -8L Plat # ZE 92 -81 - - Yh -1414 -81 NAME OF BLDG PROJECT N/A '` BLDG* B9 s 8 T25N..R 45E. .FEDERAL/STATE -PROJECT # N/A - - - - PROJECT LIMITS •N /A Current Traffic Count Design Year Traffic Count PROJECT DESCRIPTION Riverwalk Phase 2 and 3 is a 90 lot PUB with private interior streets with access to the project from Indiana Avenue, a public local access street. Improvements include public sewer, water, street, and drainage improvements. PROPOSED DESIGN DEVIATION To construct the temporary turn - around at the end of Indiana Avenue with Hammerhead configuration as shown on Attachment "A ". JUSTIFICATION: Spokane Valley Fire Department, District #1 has approved the configuration as shown on Attachment "A" (copy of letter attached as reference), and in accordance with Section 3.22 of Spokane County Standards adopted January 1995, and previous design deviation approved 7/21/95 that provisions are made for the roads to be open for emergency and public service vehicle use. An easement will be granted for public and emergency vehicle use of Snake -River Lane as necessary to use the Hammerhead configuration. The public and private street intersection provides more than the required Hammerhead minimum .standards . as required by Section 10.204 of the 1991 .Uniform 'Fire •Code for -dead .end roads over 150'. -" "' "' Gentlemen: S P O K A N E ., u - ' "�W C 0 U N - I - July 6, 1994 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER • Ronald C. Hormann, P.E., County Engineer Michael Hum North Idaho Engineering 4200 Seltice Way, Suite 2 Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814 SUBJECT: P1414 - Riverway Villa P.U.D. NIE letter dated 29 Jun 94 A DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Dennis M. Scott, P.E., Director RECEIVED JUL 061994 OP9kANll COUNTY ENGINEER 1 have reviewed your letter of 29 Jun 94. I am providing this response to your allegations in order to set the record straight. 1. Traffic Impact Analysis: a. The Conditions of Approval from the Division of Engineering and Roads from the most recent time extension reads (please refer also to attachment 1): "1. All previously imposed conditions are still applicable. "2. The County Arterial Road Plan identifies Barker Road as a Principle (sic) Arterial and Mission Avenue as a Minor Arterial. The existing right -of -way widths are not consistent with those specified in the Plan. In order to implement the Arterial Road Plan, in addition to the required right -of -way dedication, a strip of property 5 feet in width along Barker Road and 10 feet in width along Mission Avenue shall be set aside in reserve. This property may be acquired by Spokane County at the time when improvements are made to Barker Road and Mission Avenue. "3. As per the original conditions of approval: "A traffic analysis will be required of the developer and reviewed by Spokane County prior to plat finalization. This analysis will be coordinated with the Washington State Department of Transportation. A traffic analysis for each phase will serve as a basis for the evaluation of the need for traffic control devices at Barker Road and Mission Avenue. Should the analysis determine a need for intersection upgrading, the developer will be assessed a proportionate share for the required improvements. 1026 W. Broadway Ave. • Spokane, WA 99260 -0170 • (509) 456 -3600 FAX: (509) 324 -3478 TDD: (509) 324 -3166 P1414 - Riverway Villa P.U.D. Re: NIE letter dtd 29 Jun 94 Page 2 of 7 "4. Prior to any plat checking of Riverway Villa for phased finalization of the plat the aforementioned analysis shall be completed." (emphasis ours) It is quite clear that the Conditions of Approval require the Traffic Impact Analysis to be coordinated with WSDOT; further reading of the original conditions indicates that WSDOT will have the final say as to the adequacy of the analysis and any required mitigation on the part of the developer. The coordination of any work submitted to multiple reviewing agencies is traditionally (and rightly so) the responsibility of the developer, or the developer's agent. The role of the reviewing agencies is to ensure that other interested agencies have reviewed the appropriate portions of a project proposal prior to approval of a project, or prior to any other defined milestone activities related to project approval. It is not the responsibility of any reviewing agency to ensure the physical delivery of any portion of a proposed project's documents to any other reviewing agency, nor are reviewing agencies generally staffed to ensure this aspect of the coordination. As you have been informed by Mr. Parry of our office, the term "completed" means that the submitted work meets the requirements of the agencies having jurisdiction, and that no further revisions to the submitted work are necessary; "completed" does not mean that the required work has been merely submitted to the reviewing agency (or agencies). If that were the case, then any submittal to our office could be considered "complete ". b. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was not received with the 1st plan submittal for this project on 11 May 1993. You were notified in our review comments dated 26 Aug 1993 that the T1A must be submitted and approved "prior to any further plan review." (please refer to attachment 2). c. The most recent submittal of plans for this project was received in our office on 19 Apr 1994, nearly eight months after the previous review comments were returned to you (please refer to attachment 3). The TIA included in this submittal was bundled up with the rest of the road /drainage plans and drainage report; no special indication to deliver the TIA to any other department was indicated, or requested on the transmittal form. There was no contact for your office to ensure that we had even received the TIA, much less to inquire as to its review status. P1414 - Riverway Villa P.U.D. Re: NIE letter dtd 29 Jun 94 Page 3 of 7 d. Mr. Parry started his review of the most recent submittal for this project on 24 May 94. It was at that time that we discovered that the ownership of this project had changed, rendering the fee agreement invalid. At this time Mr. Parry informed your Mr. Joe Hassell that a fee agreement from the current owner would be needed, and the appropriate forms were mailed (as requested by Mr. Hassell) to your office. The fee agreement from the current owner was received at the County on 6 Jun 94. e. Even though the fee agreement from the previous owner was invalid, the County maintained your project at its place in the system for review sequence, based on its 19 Apr 94 receipt date; other projects requiring new or revised fee agreements are typically assigned a place in the review sequence based on the date of receipt of the new /revised fee agreement. In spite of the intense workload in our office, Mr. Parry was able to start the review of this most recent submittal on 8 Jun 94, and completed his review on 15 Jun 94. This review revealed that the vast majority of the previous comments on the plans (nearly two - thirds) were inadequately addressed, if addressed at all. In addition, the eight pages of new comments (based on the revised plans) indicates that the current submittal is woefully out of compliance with the current County Road Standards and Guidelines for Stormwater Management. It is quite clear that we have gone above and beyond a reasonable effort to demonstrate our good faith in keeping this project moving. We would be well within our rights to have not even yet reviewed the 1st submittal of the plans for this project until the TIA is completed; yet we have {1) conducted a cursory review of the 1st submittal, and provided comments; and (2) conducted a second review, and have prepared comments so they may be issued, pending other comments related to the TIA, virtually upon the completion of the TIA. f. You yourself stated to Mr. Parry, in your meeting of the morning of 23 Jun 94, that "the TIA was sent to WSDOT on 18 Apr 94 ", or words to that effect. You also made this same statement to Mr. Pat Harper of our office later that same morning. Upon your departure from our office, Mr. Harper called Mr. Greg Figg of WSDOT to determine the status of their review; Mr. Figg informed Mr. Harper that the TIA had not yet been received by WSDOT. We contacted Mr. Figg on 5 July 94; he informs us that the TIA was not received by WSDOT until sometime during the week of 27 June 94. P1414 - Riverway Villa P.U.D. Re: NEE letter dtd 29 Jun 94 Page 4 of 7 From the timeline and actions by you and your office to date on this project, it appears to me that any responsibility for delays due to the review of the TIA lies squarely with you. Our project file indicates that your firm has failed to: (1) kept the fee agreement current on this project; (2) performed the coordination of the TIA in a responsible fashion; (3) responded to the review comments in a timely fashion. 2. Sanitary Sewer Permit: Our Permit Technician received a request on the morning of 23 Jun 94 to issue a sewer construction permit for this project. 1 reviewed the status of the project plans and TIA with Mr. Parry. On the basis of the incomplete plans and uncompleted TIA, this request for a permit was denied. The approval of any underground utility plans by the County Utilities Department is contingent upon approval of the road and drainage plans, as Mr. Parry explained to Mr. Hassell. Given that there are significant unresolved issues related to the road alignment (e.g., the access location on Barker Road, and significantly substandard horizontal curves on Indiana (indicated as Villa Avenue) and Clark Fork Street), the County would be foolish to allow the construction of the sewers at this point in time. As was explained to Mr. Hassell, the County's experience has been that a contractor or developer applying for a sewer construction permit will make great promises that any problems with utility locations relative to the road alignment will be fixed, if only the County would issue a sewer construction permit in advance (usually considerably in advance) of the road plan approval; when a conflict develops, the contractor or developer experiences an amazing loss of memory and refuses to fix the problem. As a result, according to the County's acting Utility Director, the County winds up with not only a substandard, non - compliant installation, but also the concomitant long -term maintenance and operation problems. Based on the current status of the road and drainage plans, and the TIA approval, I can see no sensible reason to allow any construction permits on this site at this point in time. P1414 - Riverway Villa P.U.D. Re: NIE letter dtd 29 Jun 94 Page 5 of 7 3. Indiana Avenue intersection location: a. The preliminary plat is merely that - preliminary. It is developed to show on a conceptual level that some configuration of a proposed project will meet the underlying zoning and land -use requirements; approval of this concept does not constitute establishment or approval, in any way, shape, or form, of the preliminary layout as the final configuration from which no peregrinations may be made, nor is it intended to. The Preliminary Plat approval is contingent upon demonstration of compliance with the Standards in effect at the time of submittal for Final Plat approval. b. The intersection separation distances noted in the current edition of the County Road Standards (effective 1981) were established to provide for the safety of the general public, based on nationally- recognized engineering standards. c. Your office was informed of this deficiency in our review comments of 26 Aug 1993. No contact was made with our office on this issue until the last week of June 1994, nearly ten months after we returned the previous review comments to you. d. Mr. Parry has informed Mr. Hassell that several options exist to resolve the intersection separation issue: (1) move the Indiana/Barker intersection to the north to Provide adequate separation; (2) move the intersection to the south to align with the intersection of Baldwin to the west of Barker; or (3) if the proposed access point does not meet the requirements of the County Road Standards, then a Design Deviation Request, with justification for the deviation, is to submitted to the County. e. Mr. Parry suggested that Mr. Hassell initiate coordination on this matter with Mr. Bob Breuggeman, the County Traffic Engineer, in order to ascertain whether submittal of a Design Deviation might be productive to your design effort. Mr. Parry also indicated to Mr. Hassell that the appropriate forms would be left for NIE at our pick -up counter. Mr. Hassell left Mr. Parry with the impression that NIE would pick up these forms. Until a Design Deviation request is submitted and approved by the County Engineer, the requirements of the County Road Standards govern. To date, we have not received a Design Deviation request for the Indiana /Barker intersection location. P1414 - Riverway Villa P.U.D. Re: NIE letter dtd 29 Jun 94 Page 6 of 7 In short, the developer is responsible for demonstrating compliance to the appropriate standards prior to Final Plat approval, regardless of any conceptual configuration indicated on the Preliminary Plat documents. If there is some overriding constraint which precludes compliance with the standards, a mechanism exists to allow the County to accept particular non - compliant situations. In summary, our department in general, and Mr. Parry in particular, has been more than reasonable in dealing with you and your company on this project. In response to the actions requested on the last page of your letter: 1. No other plan reviewer will be assigned to this project; Mr. Parry will remain assigned to this project. 2. Plan review comments, and plat review comments will not be released until such time as the Traffic Impact Analysis is completed; that is, until all reviewing agencies are satisfied that the TIA adequately addresses this project's impact on the surrounding road network, and any required mitigating measures have been determined for incorporation into the plans for this project. 3. No permits for any construction on this site will be issued until the Road and Drainage Plans appear to be nearly ready for approval. P1414 - Riverway Villa P.U.D. Re: ME letter dtd 29 Jun 94 Page 7 of 7 Finally, it is our position that any alleged delays on this project are the direct result of actions and /or omissions by you and your firm, and the responsibility for these alleged delays lies solely within the purview of the Developer and /or your office. If you have any other questions in these matters, please contact us at 456 -3600. Thank you. Very truly yours, William H. Hemmings, P. E. Development Services Administrator cc: project file reviewer Spokane County Public Works Director - Dennis Scott, P.E. Spokane County Engineer - Ron Hormann, P.E. Spokane County Engineer's Office - Gary Kennaly, P.E. Bob Breuggeman, P.E. Spokane County Planning Department - Wally Hubbard Jon Peterson Spokane County Prosecutor's Office - Mike Dempsey Developer: Stanton Spokane Limited Partnership, ATTN: Edward Dean, 16720 NE 116th, Redmond WA 98052 ATTACHMENT 1 Extension of "I'inie Findings e 1EActiP fi6111 zc iql'( R3 aril( ?? PE- 1414 -81 Page 8 SPOKANE COUNTY DIV,iSiON OF ENGINEERING ANi) ROADS (UPDATED) Prior To Issuance Of A Building Permit Or Ilse Of The Property As Proposed: 1. All previously imposed conditions are still applicable. 2. The County Arterial Road Plan identifies Barker Road as a Principle Arterial and Mission Avenue as a Minor Arterial. The existing right -of-way widths are not consistent with those specified in the Plan. in order to implement the Arterial Road Plan, in addition to the required right -of -way dedication, a strip of property 5 feet in width along Barker Road and 10 feet in width along Mission Avenue shall be set aside in reserve. This property may be acquired by Spokane County at the time when arterial improvements are made to Barker Road and Mission Avenue. 3. As per the original conditions of approval: " A traffic analysis of each phase will be required of the developer and reviewed by Spokane County prior to plat finalization. This analysis will be coordinated with the State of Washington Department of Transportation. A traffic analysis for each phase will serve as a basis for the evaluation of the need for traffic control devices at Barker Road and Mission Avenue. Should the analysis determine a need for intersection upgrading, the developer will be assessed a proportionate share for the required improvements. 4. Prior to any plat checking of Riverway Villa for phased finalization of the plat the aforementioned analysis shall be completed. SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF U'T'ILITIES (UPDATED) 1. Pursuant to the Board of County Commissioners Resolution No. 80 -0418, the use of on- site sewer disposal systems is hereby authorized. This authorization is conditioned on compliance with all rules and regulations of the Spokane County Health District and is further conditioned and subject to specific application approval and issuance of permits by the Health District. The dedication shall state: "The owner(s) or successor(s) in interest agree to authorize the County to place their name(s) on a petition for the formation of ULID by petition method pursuant to RCW 36.94, which petition includes the owner(s)' property; and further not to object by the signing of a protest petition against the formation of a ULiD by resolution method pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.94 which includes the owner(s)' property. PROVIDED, this condition shall not prohibit the owner(s) or successor(s) from objecting to any assessment(s) on the property as a result of improvements called for in conjunction with the formation of a ULID by either petition or resolution method under RCW Chapter 36.94." 3. Any water service for this project shall be provided in accordance with the Coordinated Water System Plan for Spokane County, as amended. 4. The dedication shall state: "Each new dwelling unit shall be double - plumbed for connection to future areawide collection systems." 5. A dry sewer connection to the future areawide sewerage system shall be constructed. Plans and specifications for the dry sewer connection shall be reviewed and approved by the Utilities Department. 6. Applicant shall make connection to public sewer system. Sewer connection permit is required. Plans and specifications are to be reviewed and approved by the Utilities Department. 7. The 37 lots proposed for Riverway Villa First Addition is authorized for the use of on site disposal systems.and shall provide double plumbing and a dry sewer. Any future phases of Riverway Villa shall connect to an interim public system or connect to a permanent public sewer facility. Riverway Villa First Addition shall connect to the interim facility or public sewer when available. ATTACHMENT 2 S P O K .4 N C. OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER Ronald C. Hormann, P.E., County Engineer Michael Hunt North Idaho Engineering 4200 Seltice Way, Suite 2 Coeur d'Alene- ID 83814 SUBJECT: P1414 - Riverway Villa P.U.D. 1st Review Gentlemen: encls: Plans (1 set) Calculations (1 copy) Comments (3 pages) cc: project file «reviewer (comments only) W. 1026 Broadway Ave. C o A DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC Dennis M. August 26, 1993 Edward P r y! Jr -, P.E. Plans Review Engineer. U i✓ T Y WORKS DEPARTMENT Scott, P.E., Director Due to the requirements for a completed Traffic Impact Analysis for this project, a cursory review of the road and drainage plans for this project has been accomplished. Areas of concern to us are noted on the attached review comments. Please make the corrections and resubmit them to this office in order that the review process may proceed. When the plans are resubmitted, mark all changes on the revised print in color. In addition. please provide an information copy of any utility plans for this project. If you have any questions about this review, please contact us at 456 -3600. Thank you. Very truly yours, Ronald C. Hormann, P. E. Spokane County Engineer Spokane, WA 99260 -0170 (509) 456 -3600 FAX (509) 456 -4715 REVIEW #: REVIEW COMMENTS SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF ENGINEERING S ROADS 1026 W BROADWAY, SPOKANE WA 99260-0710 PHONE (509)456 -3600 FAX (509)324 -3478 i REVIEWER: Ed Parry PROJECT #: P1414 DATE: 2 6 August 93 PROJECT NAME: Riverwav Villa P.U.D. PLANS: 1. Each submittal must be stamped, signed and dated by a Washington State - licensed Professional Engineer 2. Developer's approval signature will be needed prior to plan approvals 3. Evidence that the layout has been coordinated with the electric utility serving the site will be needed 4. Title Block: a. Indicate County project # (PI414) b. Indicate street name (not "A ", "B ", etc.) c. Indicate stationing limits of the road shown on the plan 5. Indicate CL bearings on all roads shown on the plan sheet 6. Indicate delta angle, radius, arc length. and tangent length (for centerline) on all horizontal curves 7. Indicate delta angle, radius, arc length. and tangent length (back of curb) on all curb returns 8. Barker Road: a. Indicate existing R/W, new R/W, future setaside b. Provide plans for Barker Road improvements 9. Indicate topography within the R/W, and to a sufficient distance beyond the R/W to resolve questions of setback, slope easements, drainage, road continuations, etc. 10. Indicate existing and proposed utilities, or provide an information copy of the utility plans for this project 11. Indicate Block & Lot ;r's north of Indiana REVIEW' COMMENTS 26 August 93 PROJECT # P1414 REVIEW f 1 Page 2 of 3 12. Indicate Section, Range. Township on each plan sheet 13. Indicate BCR, MCR. ECR elevations in plan S. profile 14. Indicate ECR stations on plan 15. Indicate BCR, ECR stations in profile 16. Label all PC's and PT's on horizontal curves (CL); curbline also if radius is different from CL curve 17. Provide profile elevation scale line at left 8: right sides of profiles; elevations should match vertical scale indicated on plans 18. Indicate datum 19. Indicate Benchmark 20. Provide intersection sight distance analysis for all intersections with County roads. and for all lots where the horizontal sight triangle encroaches onto private property 21. Provide "R" -value test results to validate pavement section 22. Indicate curb cut CL station, length. invert elevation 23. Indicate Drvwell CL station. offset, grate elevation, grate type 24. Provide 30' (min.) separation between drywells 25. Drywell should be offset from curb cut by 4' min. 26. Curb cut detail: a. Needs back apron b. 2" depression at flowline is required 27. Indiana Street detail: Indicate sidewalks 28. Drywell detail: Needs to comply with SCRS std det. B -1 29. Rural road approach detail: Not applicable since this is an Urban density development. Coordinate with the County Traffic Engineer for required pavement transition lengths in and out of the site REVIEW COMMENTS 26 August 93 PROJECT # P1414 REVIEW # 1 4. Include slope calculations for T, path 5. All nomographs should be readable; right -hand scale is cut off 6. Provide curb inlet capacity calculations 7. Provide Bowstring calculations: required volume, provided volume 30. Type "B" curb: Coordinate with current SCRS 31. 300' minimum intersection separation is required on arterials (Barker Rd) 32. Traffic impact analysis submittal and approval is required (per Findings and Conditions) prior to any further plan review Page 3of3 CALCULATIONS: 1. Each submittal must be stamped, signed and dated by a Washington State - licensed Professional Engineer 2. Basin Map: a. Show offsite topography b. Coordinate Basin Map with project phasing 3. Must use SCS TR -55 (June 86) for basins > 10 acres; must use Bowstring method for basins < 10 acres • 8. Provide 208 calculations: a. Required, provided area b. Required. provided volume ATTACHMENT 3 North Idaho Engineering 4200'Seltice Way, Suite 2 • Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83814 • Phone (208) 667 -1171 • Fax (208) 664 -3507 To: County of Spokane Engineering Dept. Attn: Bill Hemmings Ref: Riverway Villa TRANSMITTAL We are transmitting *Status* X Herewith Proposed For Information Separate Cover Preliminary As requested Via Mail In Progress Your Files Delivery X Revised Your Submittal Personal Pickup X Final Checking Fedex As -built X Approval UPS For Payment Your Use Other Partial Other b.h 1 1994 i. , %J'ER 1 The Following X Drawings Calculations X Report Letter Maps Check $ Plans X See at Right Please Message: Call immediately Call after review X Call, if questions Respond in writing Process your end Forward as Reqd. Review /Comment No action Reqd. Specific Items: Redline Comments 2 - Hydrology Study 2 - Traffic Impact Report 2 - Street & Storm Drainage Improvement Plans Date: 4/18/94 Job no. 4004 From: James 0. Morris 4200 Seltice Way, Suite 2 • Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83814 • Phone (208) 667 -1171 • Fax (208) 664 -3507 June 29, 1994 North Idaho Engineering, Inc. County of Spokane Division of Engineering and Roads 1026 W. Broadway Avenue Spokane, Washington 99260 Attn: Mr. Bill Hemmings The Riverway Villa project was 1982, as an affordable housing time extensions of the project J.N.4004 RECEIVED JUN 2 91994 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER Ref: Riverway Villa PE- 1414 -81, ZE- 92 -81, PUDE -1 -82 Dear Mr. Hemmings, It is time to make you aware of a situation which exists, and continues to exist, within your department and has quite simply become intolerable. originally approved on April 2, project. Since then subsequent were granted. The most recent, and final granting of a time extension was granted on August 5, 1993, and expires on September 1, 1994. As a condition of this extension the Division of Engineering and Roads continued previous conditions, and specifically states: 3. As per original conditions of approval: "A traffic analysis of each phase will be required of the developer and reviewed by Spokane County prior to plat finalization ". 4. Prior to any plat checking of Riverway Villa for phased finalization of the of the plat the aforementioned analysis shall be completed. (Please note that I underlined portions of the excerpt) On April 8, 1994 the aforementioned traffic analysis for the entire Riverway Villa was completed, and on April 18, 1994 it was submitted to your department for review. The Street and Storm Drain Improvement Plans for the first phase and hydrology study was previously submitted to your department on May 11, 1993, and we received written comments from Mr. Edward Parry on August 26, 1993. It is my belief that since your department had not received. the aforementioned traffic analysis with the May 11, 1993 submittal, that this prompted you to add condition # 4 above to the time June 29, 1994 Mr. Bill Hemmings Page 2 extension request by our client. Please correct me if this is not the case. I do not know how to state the rest of this nicely, so I will just state the facts. On April 18, 1994 we submitted the revised street and storm drain improvement plans, the revised hydrology study, the completed traffic analysis, and the previous plan checking comments from the P1414 - Riverway Villa P.U.D. 1st review. It is my guess that shortly thereafter these documents were forwarded to Mr. Edward Parry for processing. The traffic analysis was not forwarded by Mr. Parry to the County Traffic Engineer until last Friday, June 24th. This action, in and of itself, is not as significant to the project as the fact that, according to Mr. Parry, some time ago he, in fact, completed his plan review of the improvement plans, and received the checking comments from the County Surveyor's office (which I have looked at in Mr. Parry's office briefly). Mr. Parry refuses to release those comments to us until the traffic analysis has been reviewed by both the County Traffic Engineer, and the Washington State Department of Transportation! At the same time he was refusing to release the plan checking comments for lack of review of the Traffic Analysis, he propitiated the lack of review by not forwarding the traffic analysis to your County Traffic Engineer. In addition, Mr. Parry has stopped the progress of the project in other areas as well. The Sanitary Sewer and Water Improvement Plans have been signed by all necessary agencies, and a Construction Permit has been applied for. Mr. Parry stopped the progress of that permit, citing a possible relocation of the intersection of Villa Avenue (formerly Indiana Avenue), due to its closeness to Baldwin Avenue, citing the county standard of a 300' minimum spacing between street centerlines on Arterial Roads (Barker Road is designated as a Principal Arterial). On March 15, 1983 a Preliminary Plat of Record was approved by Spokane County for the South 1/2 of this project. This Preliminary Plat Map scales approximately 260 linear feet between the centerlines'of Baldwin Avenue and Villa Avenue (Indiana Ave). The recently approved time extension conditions of approval clearly states from the Spokane County Planning Department June 29, 1994 Mr. Bill Hemmings Page 3 condition #7 7. The final plat shall be designed substantially in conformance with the preliminary plat of record approved by the Spokane County Hearing Examiner Committee on April 14 1983. . We measure approximately 277 linear feet in the field between the existing centerline extension of Baldwin Avenue and to proposed future centerline of Villa Avenue (Indiana Avenue). When my partner Joseph Hassell spoke to Mr. Parry regarding this information, Mr. Parry suggested an option was to redesign Villa Avenue to meet in a cross type intersection with Baldwin Avenue! This would obviously constitute a nearly complete redesign of the Approved Preliminary Plat of Record, and force the project back to square one. Joe also asked Mr. Parry to release the completed plan checking comments from your office, and the County Surveyor's Office. Mr. Parry refused. Joe offered to write a letter to Mr. Parry stating that we understand that the comments are Preliminary in nature and subject to change, so that we could go forward with non related comments to the Traffic Analysis. Again Mr. Parry refused. Subsequent to this Joe and I had a telephone conversation with John Pederson, the Senior Planner, and told him some of the above circumstances, it was apparent from that conversation that John wanted to see the project go forward, and said he would speak to Mr. Parry or his supervisor to help the situation. We did not disclose all the problems we are encountering to John Pederson, because we did not want to embarrass, or create a problem for Mr. Parry. Subsequent to the conversation with John Pederson, Joe Hassell had a very nice telephone conversation with Mr. Bob Brueggeman, the County Traffic Engineer. It was actually at this time that we learned that Mr. Parry had not forwarded the traffic analysis to Bob Brueggeman until last Friday, June 24, over two months after we submitted it. Subsequent to that telephone conversation Joe Hassell again telephoned Mr. Parry, who indicated he had spoken to Mr. Pederson, but not to Mr. Brueggeman and that there was no change in the status of the project, as far as he was concerned. June 29, 1994 Mr. Bill Hemmings Page 4 This was the final attempt to reason with Mr. Parry. This letter has already taken up much of your time, and I apologize for that, but I must formally request that we be assigned a different plan checker for this, and future projects. I must also formally request the release of the plan checking comments from your department, and the County Surveyor's office. I must also request permission to proceed with the construction of the Sanitary Sewer and subsequently the Domestic Water for the Riverway Villa First Addition. The time extension for this project expires on September 1st, which is just around the corner, and the time delays being experienced by these incidents may already have made it impossible to make this deadline. Please understand, we harbor no ill feelings about Mr. Parry's actions, however the project needs to proceed. Again I apologize for being forced into this situation which now will demand your time and effort. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Please feel free to call me if you have a question regarding any of the above. Best Regards, • i y, Michael A. Hunt Principal gen4004x. ltr cc: John Pederson - Spokane County Planning Dept. Bob Brueggeman - Spokane County. Traffic Engineer Wally Hubbard - Spokane County Planning Dept. Gene Martin - Welco Inc. Ed Dean - Dean Homes TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS for the RIVERWALK PUD RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Prepared for: Ed Dean 16720 N.E. 116th St. Redmond, WA 98052 MAY 1995 Prepared By: Pful On-ft- Inland Pacific Engineering Company 707 West 7th Suite 200 Spokane, WA 99204 (509)458 -6840 swum 'JUN 1 z 799b Spoi(ANE COIINTT MANNING DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS for the RIVERWALK PUD RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Prepared for: Ed Dean 16720 N.E. 116th St. Redmond, WA 98052 MAY 1995 Prepared By: Inland Pacific Engineering Company 707 West 7th Suite 200 Spokane, WA 99204 (509)458 -6840 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS for the Proposed Riverwalk PUD Residential Development Barker & Mission Vicinity Spokane County, Washington June 1995 Prepared by: Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. West 707 7th Avenue Spokane, WA 99204 (509) 458 -6840 This report has been prepared by the staff of Inland Pacific Engineering Company under the direction of the undersigned professional engineer whose seal and signature appear hereon. Ann L. Winkler, P.E. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 TIA - DOCUMENT SCOPE 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 CONCLUSIONS 5 RECOMMENDATIONS 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS 6 EXISTING CONDITIONS 6 Land Use 6 Existing Roadways 6 Barker Road 6 Mission Avenue 6 Indiana Avenue 6 Trent Avenue (SR 290) 6 Westbound 1 -90 Ramps 8 Eastbound 1 -90 Ramps 8 Project Study Area Intersections and Traffic Control 8 Traffic Volumes and Peak Hours of Operation 8 LEVEL OF SERVICE 11 Unsignalized Intersections 11 Existing Level of Service and Traffic Analysis 11 Traffic Safety 13 Other Anticipated Developments (Background projects) 13 Turtle Creek 13 Trip Generation and Distribution 14 FUTURE YEAR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 18 BUILD OUT YEAR LEVFI OF SERVICE 18 CONCLUSIONS 552 RECOMMENDATIONS 552 TABLE OF CONTENTS. continued LIST OF FIGURES Figure I - Vicinity Map 3 Figure 2 - Site Map 4 Figure 3 - Zoning Map 7 Figure 4 - AM Peak Hour Existing Traffic Volumes 9 Figure 5 - PM Peak Hour Existing Traffic Volumes 10 Figure 6 - AM Peak Hour Site Generated Traffic Volumes 16 Figure 7 - PM Peak Hour Site Generated Traffic Volumes 17 Figure 8 - AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes without Project 547 Figure 9 - PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes without Project 548 Figure 10 - AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes with Project 550 Figure 11 - PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes with Project 551 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 - Existing Level of Service 12 Table 2 - Accident History 1991 -1993 13 Table 3 - Trip Generation Rates for Single Family Homes - Rivenvalk 14 Table 4 - 2005 (Build Out Year) Traffic Without Rivenvalk 545 Table 5 - 2005 (Build Out Year) Traffic With Rivenvalk 549 TABLE OF CONTENTS. continued TECHNICAL APPENDIX Level of Service - Methods, Criteria and Tables Existing Level of Service Build out year level of service without project Build out year level of service including project TIA - DOCUMENT SCOPE INTRODUCTION This Traffic Impact Analysis is being provided to Spokane County and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to document the analysis and findings of a traffic impact assessment conducted for the proposed development of Riverwalk, a proposed residential planned unit development (PUD) in the eastern portion of Spokane County. This property lies east of Barker Road and north of Mission Avenue as shown on Figure 1, the Vicinity Map. The proposed project will develop 107.3 acres of generally flat agricultural land into 365 new single family homes. The purpose of this analysis is to identify, review and assess potential traffic related impacts which this development may have on the transportation system and where possible minimize these impacts. This TIA will be completed in accordance with the current traffic guidelines available from Spokane County, WSDOT and the Institute of Traffic Engineers (A Recommended Practice - Traffic Access and Impact Studies for Site Development, 1991). The project study area for this Traffic Impact Analysis was determined through conversations with Spokane County and WSDOT to include the following intersections: • Barker Road & the eastbound I -90 ramp terminals • Barker Road & the westbound I -90 ramp terminals • Barker Road & Mission Avenue • Barker Road & Indiana Avenue • Barker Road & Trent Avenue (SR -290) Specific traffic impact related issues to be addressed within this report will include: • Existing traffic conditions within the project study area. • Trip generation characteristics related to the proposed development for the existing and future transportation system. • The anticipated trip distribution expected for the new trips to /from the site at full build out. • The affects of the trip generation and distribution to the existing and future transportation system. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 1 Riverwalk TIA • Traffic impacts within the project study area due either to traffic growth or other background projects which are separate from the addition of Riverwalk. • Separately identify the traffic impacts which are due to the additional traffic from Riverwalk. • Analysis and recommended mitigation for the affects of the trips generated by Riverwalk on the transportation system. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This property is located in Spokane County, Washington, approximately 20 miles east of the City of Spokane's central business district. The property is presently being used for growing alfalfa and has been used for various agricultural purposes for many years. The project develops the whole site into single family homes. Two major access points will be available for this plat. On the southern edge of the plat is Mission Avenue which connects to Barker Road. In the middle of the plat is Indiana Avenue, a new street which will connect to Barker also. North of this site is the Spokane River and the Centennial Trail follows Riverwalk's northern boundary Across Barker Road to the west of this project is a mix of single family residential units and trailer parks. To the south, the land has also been developed into single family homes with a mix of "stick- built" and manufactured homes. East of the development is more undeveloped land, zoned UR -3.5 but no houses have been built. Within the larger surrounding area are a few other land uses such as a church, elementary school and the Spokane Industrial Park to the northwest. Existing zoning of this parcel is UR -3.5, however, a zone change has been approved to UR -7. Therefore this TIA is being prepared in conjunction with an application for final platting of the land. A preliminary site plan of this development is shown in Figure 2. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 2 Riverwalk TIA ire 707 west w, • Sufic Spokane, WA 90204 INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING 200 (509) 458 -8840 FAX: (509) 438 -6644 FIGURE 1 RIVERWALK VICINITY MAP TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS r S vg `° - tit �► INLAND I ENGIN PACIFIC ERING 707 West 7111 • Suds 200 (509) 458 -6840 Spokane, WA 99204 FM: (509) 458-6844 FIGURE 2 SITE PLAN RIVERWALK TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Based upon the analysis, field observations, provided in the body of this document, it transportation system from developing this reached and is documented within the body • The four existing intersections within the project area are presently functioning at levels of service C or better. Therefore, all of these intersections are functioning at acceptable levels of service. assumptions, methodologies and results which are is concluded that the impacts to the overall area property can be mitigated. This conclusion was of this report. • The background traffic increases expected over the next 10 years, plus the projected build out of this project, will lower the level of service at Barker & Trent to unacceptable levels of service during the PM peak hour. Turtle Creek, a residential subdivision considered here as a background project will signalize the intersection of Barker and the eastbound I -90 ramp terminals As a result, this intersection will function at acceptable levels of service for many years. • The addition of the traffic anticipated from the Riverwalk project will lower the level of service at the intersection of the westbound I -90 ramp terminal and Barker to an unacceptable level of service. It will also contribute to the level of service deficiencies at Barker & Trent. RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon the analysis presented, the proposed development of Riverwalk will have an impact on the transportation . system within the general geographic area. In order to implement this project and provide the safest possible transportation system; not only for this proposed development, but also to the surrounding area, the following recommendations should be incorporated into the project: • Install a traffic signal at the intersection of the westbound I -90 ramp terminals & Barker when four warrants (including either Warrant 1 or Warrant 2) from the MUTCD are met. To facilitate this, a traffic count and warrant analysis should be done for each phase after the 260th lot is platted. • Participate in a fair share way in the design and /or installation of a traffic signal at Barker & Trent when four warrants (including either Warrant 1 or Warrant 2) from the MUTCD are met. Based upon this analysis for our fair share, we propose that this project provide the survey and design of the required traffic signal improvements. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 5 Riverwalk TIA EXISTING CONDITIONS Land Use EXISTING CONDITIONS At the present time the land for this plat is in use as an alfalfa field and phase 1 of the plat has begun with one structure present. Present zoning is UR -3.5, but a zone change to UR -7 has been approved. The area around the proposed development is a mix of UR -3.5, UR -7 and I -2. The land south of Mission and west of Barker has been platted as residential. Existing zoning is shown on Figure 3. Other uses within the surrounding area include an elementary school, a church, a truck servicing facility near I -90 and the Spokane Industrial Park. The proposed project will develop 107.3 acres into a PUD plat of 365 single family homes. Development in the larger area has been ongoing for many years. Existing Roadways Barker Road is a two lane principal arterial within Spokane County. The lanes are generally 12' in width with shoulders on either side. The primary function of Barker Road is to provide a north /south connection for the surrounding residential areas with either Trent Avenue or I -90. Access to this facility is by either public street or private driveway. All cross traffic is at grade and stop sign controlled. The speed limit on Barker is 35 mph between I -90 and the Spokane River and increases to 45 mph north of the Spokane River to Trent. Mission Avenue is on Spokane County's Arterial Road Plan as a major collector. It serves to collect and distribute the east/west traffic from the neighborhood around Mission Avenue to Barker Road, the nearest principal arterial. It also connects Flora Road, a minor arterial which crosses I -90 with Barker Road. The general cross - section of this facility consists of two travel lanes with a ditch section on either side. The speed limit is posted at 35 mph. Indiana Avenue within the plat will be developed as a collector street which proceeds east from Barker Road into the Riverwalk subdivision. It will serve to collect and distribute the traffic from the neighborhood with the arterial system. The speed limit on it will be posted at 25 mph and it will have curbs; and sidewalk on both sides along it's length. Trent Avenue (SR 290) is an east/west four lane principal arterial on both the Spokane County and Washington State Department of Transportation systems. It connects parts of the State of Idaho north of Post Falls with SR 2 and SR 395 within the City of Spokane. The speed limit at Barker Road is 50 mph. Trent Avenue was the subject of a corridor safety improvement project, and now has abundant advanced signing for cross - streets and several new left turn pockets for intersections in the more rural areas including the Barker Road intersection. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 6 Riverwalk TIA =VIP 0 r _r `T71K1 NL}bUMi w r:e../ ■w• ■••• v. ..- ...ww.w' -- MAXWELL Av[ I-'/on RI } 5503 37. 194 95 PROJECT LOCATION NOT TO SCALE 1 97 198 199 INLAND IC PACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 west 7th • Sults 200 (509) 458 -6840 Spoken. WA 99204 FAX: (509) 455 -6844 FIGURE 3 ZONING PLAN RNERWALI( TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Westbound 1 Ramps each have a single lane. At the offramp intersection with Barker Road, there is room for two cars abreast, therefore the right turning vehicles and left turning vehicles separate themselves to some extent. However, as the lane is technically a one lane ramp, it was modelled as a one lane ramp. The westbound off ramp is a loop ramp which brings the westbound traffic around to face east at the intersection of Barker Road, Cataldo Avenue and the ramp. The on ramp for westbound traffic is laid out in a diamond shape, bringing traffic from Barker Road onto the freeway without much of a horizontal curve. Eastbound 1 Ramps are single lane on and off ramps. At the off - ramp's intersection with Barker Road, there is room for two cars abreast, so that the right turning vehicles and the left turning vehicles currently separate themselves here. This approach has been scheduled for widening to make formal right and left turn lanes as a part of the mitigation for Phase 1 of Riverwalk As a part of the mitigation for Turtle Creek (a residential development south of the interchange) a signal is be installed at this intersection also. The eastbound I -90 ramps are laid out in the typical diamond configuration. Project Study Area Intersections and Traffic Control Project study area intersections in the site vicinity were identified through discussions with Spokane County and WSDOT. The intersections identified for further analysis were: • Barker Road & the eastbound I -90 ramp terminals • Barker Road & the westbound I -90 ramp terminals • Barker Road & Mission Avenue • Barker Road & Indiana Avenue • Barker Road & Trent Avenue (SR -290) These intersections have been analyzed for level of service (LOS) and form the basis of this document. All of these intersections are controlled with the minor street stopping for the traffic on Barker Road. Traffic Volumes and Peak Hours of Operation Existing turning traffic movement volumes at all project study area intersections were determined from traffic counts taken by the staff of Inland Pacific Engineering (IPE) during either the summer of 1994 or the spring of 1995. The traffic information gathered in 1994 was compared with the information collected in 1995, and no adjustments were needed. ADT volume information was provided by Spokane County for Barker Road. Since the weekday AM and PM peak hours have been identified as the time period when the greatest traffic demands are placed on the transportation system, this will be the time period utilized by this study for analyzing affects on the transportation system by the proposed action. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 8 Rivenvalk TIA TRENT AVENUE (SR290) 193-0 55 1 7 61,E 1—O. 23 847 ? 62 INDIANA AVENUE N N Nta b 17, 9 6 —0 8 36 29 '%4P N N co MISSION AVENUE mn 6 ,9 `,b%6 16 24 6 �� 4 4-22 en n WB 1 -90 RAMPS 4, EB 1 -90 RAMPS INLAND 1 I i MC PACIFIC RING ENGINEE 7 07 West 7th • SuRs 200 (509) 458-6840 Spokane, WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458 -6844 0 0 ct W cK m SPOKANE RIVER PROJECT SITE CATALDO AVENUE FIGURE 4 A.M. PEAK HOUR 1995 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES NOT TO SCALE RIVERWALK TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 1 TRENT AVENUE (SR290) 818 ■ 388 104 51 e' 235 d 1 —p 163' a 0 INDIANA AVENUE 29 J � � 5 Q 15 5. X13 2051 f2 41 N CO M MISSION AVENUE 2JJ� 23 9—> o-31 75\ 27 q a N WB 1-90 RAMPS N n � O 4 V EB 1 -90 RAMPS 5 , 00 14E RNER PROJECT SITE CATALDO AVENUE NOT TO SCALE INLAND I 11.1. � PACIFIC ENGINEERING I [ 0 7 W est 7th • Sulte 200 (509) 458 -8840 Falcone. WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458 -8844 FIGURE 5 P.M. PEAK HOUR 1995 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES IL RIVERWALK TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE Unsignalized Intersections The calculation of level of service (LOS) at an unsignalized one /two -way stop - controlled intersection is examined in the Transportation Research Board's 1994 Special Report 209, The Highway Capacity Manual. It includes a method for calculating the LOS at one/two way stop - controlled intersections in Chapter 10. For these unsignalized intersections, LOS is based on total intersection delay. The total delay in the intersection is based upon the delay experienced by each turning movement segment and assumes no delay for the through and right turning vehicle on the major street. Under certain conditions, there will be some delay experienced by the major street traffic, and if suspected, can be accounted for. If these conditions exist, mitigation is usually required anyway. The concept of delay is based on the amount of time a vehicle must spend in the intersection. Vehicles passing straight through the intersection experience no delay at the intersection. Vehicles which are turning left from the minor street, because they must yield the right of way to all right turning vehicles, all left turning vehicle from the major street and all through vehicles on both the minor and major street, must spend more time at the intersection. Overall level of service at the intersection is based on an average for all the vehicles which enter the intersection. The Transportation Research Board has determined what levels of service for all intersection should be by designating LOS levels of A through F, where an LOS of A represents a free flowing facility where no vehicle is delay very long and an LOS of F which represents a facility where there is excessive delay for the average vehicle in the intersection. The delay concept can be applied to an individual traffic movement or to shared lane movements whether on the major or minor street. Once the delay of all the individual movements or approaches has been calculated and their individual levels of service have been determined, an overall evaluation of the intersection can be made. An LOS of E has been defined as the minimum acceptable LOS for Spokane County. All LOS analyses described in this report were performed in accordance with the procedures described above. As a final note, the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) analysis and procedures are based upon worst case conditions. Therefore, most of each weekday and the weekends will experience traffic conditions better than those described within this document, which are only for the peak hours of operation. Existing Level of Service and Traffic Analysis As outlined above, the LOS techniques used for this study will follow those outlined in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual; TRB Special Report 209. The scope of this study will include those intersections within the project study area, namely the intersections of Barker Road & Trent Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 11 Rivenvalk TIA Avenue (SR 290), Barker Road & Indiana Avenue (when constructed), Barker Road & Mission Avenue, Barker Road & the westbound I -90 ramp terminals and Barker Road & the eastbound I -90 ramp terminals. These intersections were chosen by Spokane County or WSDOT as intersections which could experience impacts from Riverwalk. As determined during scoping of this TIA, the greatest impacts to the transportation system for this type of development would occur during the AM and PM peak hours when the home -based to work (AM peak hour) and work to home -base (PM peak hour) commuters are on the transportation system. Based upon requirements of Spokane County and WSDOT for this analysis, the lowest acceptable level of service for an unsignalized intersection will be an LOS of E. Intersections with levels of service lower than that are candidates for mitigation to provide acceptable levels of service. Table 1, which follows, summarizes the current levels of service for the existing AM and PM peak hour at both intersections. These LOS results are based on the traffic counts shown in Figures 4 and 5. Highway Capacity Manual Software (HCS) data used to generate all levels of service shown in this document are in the Technical Appendix which follows the report section of this document. Table 1 - Existing Level of Service EXISTING ' DELAV #; PT4 DELAY LOS Barker & Trent Barker & Mission Barker & WB I -90 Ramps Barker & EB I -90 Ramps ' 1.6 sec 1.1 sec 2.0 sec 1.6 sec A A A A 2.9 sec 1.4 sec 2.5 sec 13.4 sec A A A C 1 - unssignalisad intersection As can be seen from the above table, the existing levels of service at all intersections in the project study area are within the acceptable range for unsignalized intersections within Spokane County. All of the levels of service are very good with the intersection of Barker Road & the eastbound I -90 ramp terminals during the PM peak hour having the lowest existing level of service, C. All other intersections are functioning at levels of service A, therefore they should not currently be considered operational problems. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 12 Riverwalk TIA Traffic Safety Accident summaries available for the past three years from Spokane County and WSDOT files for the Barker Road intersections were assembled. Generally, accidents are documented by type of occurrence, such as property damage only (PDO), injury accident (INJ), and fatality accident (FAT). Accident frequency is measured per million entering vehicles (MEV) entering the intersection. Accident rates higher than 2 accidents per MEV are considered to have safety issues attached to them. Table 2 shows that all of the intersections analyzed as a part of this study have accident rates far below the 2 accidents per million entering vehicles which is considered the threshold for safety improvements. Table 2 - Accident History 1991 -1993 ACC STATIST Intersection of Barker &: eastbound I- 90 ramps westbound 1- 90 ramps Mission Ave Trent Ave (SR 290) PDO 0 0 0 1 INJ 0 0 1 1 PDO 0 0 4 0 INJ 0 0 2 0 PDO 0 0 0 3 INJ 1 0 0 1 0. 10 0.00 0.90 0.36 Other Anticipated Developments (Background projects) For this report, one other development was identified for inclusion as a background project, Turtle Creek. Turtle Creek South of Sprague Avenue on Barker Road is a proposed development of single family homes called Turtle Creek. It is located on the southwest corner of 8th & Barker. This project has applied for a preliminary plat approval, and has conducted a threshold traffic study as a part of SEPA checklist required for the preliminary plat approval. It will be included in the background traffic for this TIA at the intersection where the two studies overlay, namely Barker & the eastbound I -90 ramp terminals and at Barker & the westbound I -90 ramp terminals. Traffic Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 13 Riverwalk TIA generated from that site will assume to be distributed as in the original threshold study of August, 1994. At this time, Turtle Creek has been remanded back to the responsible SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) official in the Spokane County Planning Department for preparation of an EIS. This delay will not impact the analysis provided for Turtle Creek and therefore, all documentation and analysis should be considered valid. Trip Generation and Distribution Using the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition, the anticipated number of trips to be generated on adjacent streets by the proposed project was determined. The Trip Generation Manual (TGM) provides empirical data, based upon actual field observations for trip generation characteristics of similar residential developments throughout the United States. The proposed project has a total of 365 single family homes. The TGM provides trip generation data for single family homes under land use # 210, Single Family Dwelling Units. The trips expected to be generated by the Riverwalk development are shown in Table 3 which follows. Table 3 - Trip Generation Rates for Single Family Homes - Riverwalk AM Peak Hour;; Voles: 0 76 trips per lot ` Directional Dlstrll)UtWn 26% In g74 %,Out < 365 277 72 205 Average D aily Trip lands (AI)1) 365 1 Tota1ADT 4,256 PM Peak, Hour Vol @ 1.02 itrips, ' per!Iots' DirectionalF Distribution 35% Out`!' 372 242 130 * - Based on information from SRTC.• ITE recommends 9.55 trips per day per SFDU. Based upon existing ADT's along the adjacent roadways, the peak hours' directional and turning volumes at each intersection and field observations of primary driver characteristics determined during actual field observations and intersection counts, the anticipated trip distribution and assignment within the general area was determined for the proposed project. Actual traffic volume assignments are shown in Figures 6 & 7. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 14 Riverwalk TIA Approximately two- thirds of the traffic from Riverwalk is expected to use Indiana Avenue for access, while one -third will use Mission Avenue. During the peak hours, traffic generated by the homes in Riverwalk is expected to distribute itself 70% south on Barker Road and 30% north on Barker Road. Of the traffic going north on Barker, 20% was estimated to go to the Spokane Industrial Park, and therefore does not continue all the way to Trent & Barker, but turns off at Euclid Avenue. Other trip distribution scenarios are possible for the traffic from Riverwalk, however, this scenario was chosen based upon field observations of existing traffic, and because it best illustrates the abilities of the existing transportation system, and shows what improvements to the transportation system will be needed to accommodate the traffic from general growth and from Riverwalk specifically. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 15 Riverwalk TIA 1 r INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 West 7th • Suite 200 (509) 458 -8840 Spokane, WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458 -8844 TRENT AVENUE (SR290) 29� en9 INDIANA AVENUE MISSION AVENUE WB I -90 RAMPS � N ba EB 1 -90 RAMPS FIGURE 6 SP A.M. PEAK HOUR SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES PROJECT SITE INDIANA AVENUE CATALDO AVENUE 4 41 98 NOT TO SCALE RIVERWALK TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 9 1 TRENT AVENUE (SR290) 38 e• 20 N INDIANA AVENUE / 4t 13 31 n MISSION AVENUE 0 0 24J 98 J WB 1 -90 RAMPS CO PI N b a 4 m EB 1 -90 RAMPS P INLAND FIGURE 7 I � � PACIFIC P .M. PEAK HOUR EN GINEERING SITE GENERATED 707 West 7th • Suite 200 (509) 458 -6840 Spokane, WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458_6844 TRAFFIC VOLUMES A RNE PROJECT SITE INDIANA AVENUE CATALDO AVENUE ba % 26 61 NOT TO SCALE RIVERWALK TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FUTURE YEAR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS BUILD OUT YEAR LEVEL OF SERVICE Level of service calculations were made for build out, anticipated to be ten years away (2005), with and without Riverwalk It showed how the traffic volumes will be handled by the existing facilities or what new elements will be needed for the traffic system to continue working. The background traffic volume includes the existing traffic, considers a compounded growth rate of 3% per year on all streets and includes the Turtle Creek project at the I -90 ramp terminal intersections. As a part of the traffic mitigation associated with Turtle Creek, a signal will b e installed at the intersection of the eastbound I -90 ramp terminals & Barker. The build out f or Turtle Creek is expected to be three years, much less than the 10 year build out expected for Riverwalk. Therefore, this improvement is expected to be in place before the completion of Riverwalk. Also as traffic mitigation for the first phase of Riverwalk, the eastbound I -90 off ramp will be widened out to separate the northbound and southbound traffic. This improvement was also assumed to be in place with the completion of Riverwalk. See Figures 8 & 9 for the background traffic volumes anticipated in 2005. A summary of th e HCS results are shown on Table 4 which follows. Two of the intersections experience drops in level of service; Barker & Trent and Barker & the westbound I -90 ramp terminals. At Barker Road and Mission Avenue, the level of service remains at A. Barker Road & Indiana Avenue is assumed not to be present without the Riverwalk PUD. The signal at Barker & the eastbound 1 -90 ramps will provide acceptable levels of service at build out of this project. Table 4 - 2005 (Build Out Year) Traffic Without Riverwalk 2005 (BUILD 01 T BAC3{GROUND "TRAFEIC ., DELAY IOS Barker & Trent Barker & Mission Barker & WB I -90 Ramps Barker & EB I -90 Ramps (Signalized) 9.6 sec 1.4 sec 5.6 sec 6.2 sec B A B B 99.5 sec 2.1 sec 11.7 sec 8.0 sec F A C B 1 - =signalized intersection Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 18 Rivenvalk TL4 TRENT AVENUE (SR290) 259 74� c tr INDIANA AVENUE 23 12 12 8-0 o-„ 48 '39 r-m:- MISSION AVENUE t1 11 22-0 o- 32 P F, N 2 N WB 1 -90 RAMPS , J b � 32 EB 1 -90 RAMPS /111--- S P OKANE R= PROJECT SITE INDIANA AVENUE CATALDO AVENUE NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 8 INLAND PACIFIC A.M. PEAK HOUR ENGINEERING 2005 TRAFFIC VOLUMES 707 West 711, • Su00 (509) 458 88 Spokane, WA 99204 its 2 FA(: (so9) - 45e - 40 e844 WITHOUT PROJECT RIVERWALK TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TRENT AVENUE (SR290) INDIANA AVENUE gin y 20 7--> — 17 27‘ `Q 53 N m N n n 316e9 231 MISSION AVENUE 57,9 Q 30 12� 4 42 11c r a4� \ CO N N WB 1 -90 RAMPS 1c> I rr 707 West 7th • Suite Spokane, WA 99204 INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING 200 (509) 458 -6840 FAX: (509) 458 -6844 EB 1 -90 RAMPS FIGURE 9 PROJECT SITE INDIANA AVENUE CATALDO AVENUE P.M. PEAK HOUR 2005 TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT NOT TO SCALE RIVERWALK TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS J Using the number of generated trips shown on Table 3 and estimated trip distribution shown on Figures 6 & 7 and adding it to the background traffic, the total number of trips projected to use the transportation system at build out is obtained. Figures 10 & 11 show the future traffic volumes under these conditions. Using these future traffic volumes, build out year level of service calculations are performed and the results are displayed in Table 5. Table 5 - 2005 (Build Out Year) Traffic With Riverwalk :INTERSECTION Barker & Trent 1 Barker & Indiana ' Barker & Mission l Barker & WB I -90 Ramps l Barker & EB I -90 Ramps (Signalized) 2095.(BUILD; OUT,•YEAR) TRAFFIC. WITH ' PROJECT PM •- °DELAY ';- 82.7 sec 1.7 sec 2.4 sec 40.2 sec 6.6 sec F A A E B 209.0 sec 1.4 sec 4.5 sec 123.2 sec 9.8 sec F A >F B 1- unsignslized intersection The addition of Riverwalk lowers the level of service at Barker & the westbound 1 -90 ramp terminal intersection. It also further lowers into LOS F the level of service at Barker & Trent during the AM peak hour. The signal at Barker Road & the eastbound 1 -90 ramp terminal intersection, which is already scheduled to as a part of the Turtle Creek project will provide adequate level of service with the additional traffic from Riverwalk. The intersections of Mission Avenue & Barker Road and Indiana Avenue & Barker Road are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service for many years into the future. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 21 Riverwalk TIA Ir .,. INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING 707 West 7th • Suite 200 (509) 458 -8840 Spokane. WA 99204 FAX: (509) 458_ TRENT AVENUE (SR290) 259 =I> ¢}1138 82 /x+92 - N INDIANA AVENUE 1 nv 23c 4, 33 8-4 4= 11 48 � /. 87 a1 n W co MISSION AVENUE h N ) 18 n 11 22 <=, 32 8 ^y 31 138,P WB 1 -90 RAMPS 1a 32 4P nn EB 1 -90 RAMPS FIGURE 10 A.M. PEAK HOUR 2005 TRAFFIC VOLUMES 5544 WITH PROJECT SPOKANE RNER PROJECT SITE INDIANA AVENUE CATALDO AVENUE 441 96 NOT TO SCALE RIVERWALK TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 2 TRENT AVENUE (SR290) 099.> 178 tn INDIANA AVENUE Set b� 433 7..9> 17 27% / 88 MISSION AVENUE 414_ 1 a 2315 � INLAND Ia IC PACIFIC ENGINEERING 07 We 7th • Suite 200 (509) 458 -6840 okane, WA 99204 . FM: (509) 458 -8844 WB 1 -90 RAMPS < 3 = 495 '93 EB 1 -90 RAMPS FIGURE 11 PROJECT SITE INDIANA AVENUE CATALDO AVENUE R N ER 26 ev e 61 Fa NOT TO SCALE RIVERWALK P.M. PEAK HOUR 2005 TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS Based upon the analysis, field observations, assumptions, methodologies and results which are provided in the body of this document, it is concluded that the impacts to the overall area transportation system from developing this property can be mitigated. This conclusion was reached and is documented within the body of this report. • The four existing intersections within the project area are presently functioning at levels of service C or better. Therefore, all of these intersections are functioning at acceptable levels of service. • The background traffic increases expected over the next 10 years, plus the projected build out of this project, will lower the level of service at Barker & Trent to unacceptable levels of service during the PM peak hour. Turtle Creek, a residential subdivision considered here as a background project will signalize the intersection of Barker and the eastbound I -90 ramp terminals. As a result, this intersection will function at acceptable levels of service for many years. • The addition of the traffic anticipated from the Riverwalk project will lower the level of service at the intersection of the westbound I -90 ramp terminal and Barker to an unacceptable level of service. It will also contribute to the level of service deficiencies at Barker & Trent. RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon the analysis presented, the proposed development of Riverwalk will have an impact on the transportation system within the general geographic area. In order to implement this project and provide the safest possible transportation system; not only for this proposed development, but also to the surrounding area, the following recommendations should be incorporated into the project: • Install a traffic signal at the intersection of the westbound I -90 ramp terminals & Barker when four warrants (including either Warrant 1 or Warrant 2) from the MUTCD are met. To facilitate this, a traffic count and warrant analysis should be done for each phase after the 260th lot is platted. • Participate in a fair share way in the design and /or installation of a traffic signal at Barker & Trent when four warrants (including either Warrant 1 or Warrant 2) from the MUTCD are met. Based upon this analysis for our fair share, we propose that this project provide the survey and design of the required traffic signal improvements. Inland Pacific Engineering, Inc. 24 Riverwalk TIA TECHNICAL APPENDIX SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION: LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODS AND CRITERIA Level of Service (LOS) is a qualifiable premise developed by the transportation profession to quantify driver perception for such elements as travel time, number of stops, total amount of stopped delay, and impediments caused by other vehicles afforded to drivers who utilize the transportation network. As defined by the Transportation Research Board in Special Report No. 209, the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. This document has quantified level of service into ranging from "A" which indicates little, if any, vehicle delay, to "F" which indicates significant vehicle delay and traffic congestion and system breakdown due to volumes far exceeding capacity. For signalized intersections recent research has determined that average stopped delay per vehicle is the best available measure of LOS. This is shown on the tables which follow. The tables on page 3 identify the relationships per level of service and average stopped delay per vehicle. Using this definition as presented in the Highway Capacity Manuals an LOS of "D" is generally considered to represent the minimum acceptable design standard for signalized intersections. UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION: The calculation of level of service (LOS) at an unsignalized one /two -way stop - controlled intersection is examined in the Transportation Research Board's 1994 Special Report 209, The Highway Capacity Manual. It includes a method for calculating the LOS at one /two way stop - controlled intersections in Chapter 10. For these unsignalized intersections, LOS is based on total intersection delay. The total delay in the intersection is based upon the delay experienced by each turning movement segment and assumes no delay for the through and right turning vehicle on the major street. Under certain conditions, there will be some delay experienced by the major street traffic, and if suspected, can be accounted for. If these conditions exist, mitigation is usually required anyway. The concept of delay is based on the amount of time a vehicle must spend in the intersection. Vehicles passing straight through the intersection experience no delay at the intersection. Vehicles which are turning left from the minor street, because they must yield the right of way to all right turning vehicles, all left turning vehicle from the major street and all through vehicles on both the minor and major street, must spend more time at the intersection. Overall level of service at the intersection is based on an average for all the vehicles which enter the intersection. The Transportation Research Board has determined what levels of service for all intersection should be by designating LOS levels of A through F, where an LOS of A represents a free flowing facility where no vehicle is delay very long and an LOS of F which represents a facility where there is excessive delay for the average vehicle in the intersection. The delay concept can be applied to an individual traffic movement or to shared lane movements whether on the major or minor street. Once the delay of all the individual movements or approaches has been calculated and their individual levels of service have been determined, an overall evaluation of the intersection can be made. An LOS of E has been defined as the minimum acceptable LOS for Spokane County. All LOS analyses described in this report were performed in accordance with the procedures described above. As a final note, the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) analysis and procedures are based upon worst case conditions. Therefore, most of each weekday and the weekends will experience traffic conditions better than those described within this document, which are only for the peak hours of operation. LOS. : te r General DescnpuOn A - More than adequate gaps available to proceed. - Very seldom is there more than one vehicle in the queue. B - Little delay encountered with adequate gaps available. - Occasionally there is more than one vehicle in the queue. C - Delays are short but persistent as the number of gaps reduce and driver comfort drops. - Usually there is more than one vehicle in the queue. D - Always at least one vehicle in the queue. - Drivers feel quite restricted due to the few gaps available in which to make a safe turning movement. E - Delays are long and at this los drivers may begin looking for alternative routes nor to entering the queue. - Represents a condition in which the demand equals or exceeds the safe movement of vehicles through the intersection. - Always more than one vehicle in the queue. F - Delays are long, driver frustration is high and it is not unusual to see drivers in the queue turn around to find alternative routes. - Forced flow; little to no available gaps. - Represents an intersection at failure condition. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA Delay (sec) Level of Service xpected .Delay to irior Street; - Traffics < =5 5 -10 > 10 -20 > 20 - 30 > 30 - 45 > 45 A B C D E F Little of No Delay Short Traffic Delays Average Traffic Delays Long Traffic Delays Very Long Traffic Delays Progression Breakdown Stopped Condition Level of Ser•Vide:-.:.: :Traffi c : • - •::•:• :-.:-..:',.--:::::-.... . A Little to no average stopped delay, average is less than five seconds per vehicle. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. 13 Average stop delay is in the range of 5.1 to 15.0 seconds per vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. C Average stopped delay is in the range of 15.1 to 25.0 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level. D Average stopped delays are in the range of 25.1 to 40.0 seconds per vehicle. The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle length, or high volume/capacity ratios. Most, if not all, vehicles stop. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. E Average stopped delays are in the range of 40.1 to 60.0 seconds per vehicle. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume/capacity ratios. F Average stop delay is in excess of 60 seconds per vehicle. This condition often occurs with over saturation of the intersection. It may also occur with volume/capacity ratios of 1.0 or above. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Source: Transportation (1994). SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS INDIVIDUAL LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA Service A 13 D E F Stopped Delay per Vehicle •.:'(sec) <= 5.0 5.1 to 15.0 15.1 to 25.0 25.1 to 40.0 40.0 to 60.0 > 60.0 Research Board; "Highway Capacity Manual," Special Report 209 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** File Name TRENAMEX.HCO Streets: (N -S) BARKER ROAD (E -W) TRENT AVE Major Street Direction EW Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min) Analyst ALW Date of Analysis 5/1/95 Other Information EXISTING AM CONDITIONS Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection No. Lanes Stop /Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's ( %) SU /RV's ( %) CV's ( %) PCE's Vehicle Maneuver Eastbound L T R O 2< 0 N 193 55 .969 .969 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 1.1 1.1 Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road Westbound L T R 1 2 0 62 847 .969 .969 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 1.1 1.1 57 29 .969 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 1.1 1.1 .969 Northbound L T R 0> 0< 0 Southbound L T R O 0 0 0 Adjustment Factors Critical Follow -up Gap (tg) Time (tf) 5.50 2.10 5.50 2.60 6.50 3.30 7.00 3.40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 2: LT from Major Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 4: LT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) 124 1198 1198 0.97 NB SB WB EB 248 1262 1262 0.94 1130 NB SB 201 0.94 0.94 0.94 190 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App NB L 65 190 > > > 265 21.5 D 21.5 NB R 33 1198 > > > WB L 70 1262 3.0 A 0.2 Intersection Delay = 1.6 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** File Name MISSAMEX.HCO Streets: (N -S) BARKER ROAD (E -W) MISSION AVE Major Street Direction NS Length of Time Analyzed : 60 (min) Analyst ALW Date of Analysis 5/1/95 Other Information EXISTING AM CONDITIONS Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection No. Lanes Stop /Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's ( %) SU /RV's ( %) CV's ( %) PCE's Vehicle Maneuver Northbound L T R 0> 1< 0 N 5 120 8 .969 .969 .969 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 1.1 1.1 1.1 Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road Southbound L T R 0> 1< 0 N 6 267 24 .969 .969 .969 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 1.1 1.1 1.1 Adjustment Factors Eastbound L T R 0> 1< 0 17 6 36 .969 .969 .969 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 1.1 1.1 1.1 5.00 2.10 5.50 2.60 6.00 3.30 6.50 3.40 Westbound L T R 0> 1< 0 29 8 9 .969 .969 .969 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 1.1 1.1 1.1 Critical Follow -up Gap (tg) Time (tf) Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 2: LT from Major Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) 128 291 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1490 1246 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1490 1246 Prob. of Queue -free State: 1.00 1.00 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.99 0.99 Step 3: TH from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 4: LT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) WB EB 124 279 1198 1000 1198 1000 0.99 0.96 SB NB WB EB 426 652 0.99 0.99 645 651 0.99 0.99 WB EB 435 593 0.98 0.98 0.94 418 658 422 603 0.98 0.98 0.97 559 587 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App EB L 20 587 > > > EB T 7 651 > 792 > 5.0 > A 5.0 EB R 41 1000 > > > WB L 33 559 > > > WB T 9 645 > 639 > 6.1 > B 6.1 WB R 10 1198 > > > NB L 6 1246 2.9 A 0.1 SB L 7 1490 2.4 A 0.0 Intersection Delay = 1.1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 ** ter*** * * * * **** ** * * * * * * ***rrr:** * *** * ** * *i:*** * * * * **** * * * * * * * * ** File Name WBAMEX.HCO Streets: (N -S) BARKER RAOD Major Street Direction NS Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min) Analyst ALW Date of Analysis 5/2/95 Other Information EXISTING AM CONDITIONS Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection No. Lanes Stop /Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's ('c) SU /RV's ( %) CV's (%) PCE's Vehicle Maneuver Northbound L T R 0> 1< 0 N 174 145 57 .902 .902 .902 - 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 3 3 .9 .9 .9 Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road Southbound 0> 1< 0 N 19 138 181 .902 .902 .902 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 4 4 4 1 1 1 Adjustment Factors (E -W) WESTBOUND 1 -90 RAMPS Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R Critical Follow - up Gap (tg) Time (tf) 5.00 2.10 5.50 2.60 6.00 3.30 6.50 3.40 0> 1< O i 0> 1< 0 8 16 6 22 24 8 .902 .902 .902 .902 .902 .902 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 18 18 18 25 25 25 1.2 1.2 1.2 2.6 2.6 2.6 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 2: LT from Major Street Step 3: TH from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 4: LT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) WB EB 174 228 1130 1061 1130 1061 0.98 0.99 SB NB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 202 319 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1373 1208 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1373 1208 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.98 0.86 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.98 0.84 WB EB 686 476 0.82 390 0.82 WB 606 472 0.78 0.83 0.82 624 513 0.82 421 0.95 EB 611 469 0.67 0.75 0.73 388 343 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App EB L 11 343 > > > EB T 22 421 > 446 > 8.9 > B 8.9 EB R 8 1061 > > > WB L 62 388 > > > WB T 70 390 > 431 > 13.0 > C 13.0 WB R 23 1130 > > > NB L 174 1208 3.5 A 1.6 SB L 21 1373 2.7 A 0.1 Intersection Delay = 2.0 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** File Name EBAMEX.HCO Streets: (N -S) BARKER ROAD (E -W) EB I -90 RAMPS Major Street Direction NS Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min) Analyst ALW Date of Analysis 5/2/95 Other Information EXISTING AM CONDITIONS Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection No. Lanes Stop /Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's ( %) SU /RV's ( %) CV's ( %) PCE's Vehicle Maneuver Northbound L T R O 1< 0 N 345 9 .95 .95 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 1.6 1.4 Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road Southbound L T R 0> 1 0 N 46 100 .95 .95 2 O 0 O 3 O 4 1.4 1.6 Adjustment Factors Eastbound L T R 0> 1< 0 81 1 23 .95 .95 .95 1 0 0 0 4 0 4 7 0 7 1.1 1.1 1.1 5.00 2.10 5.50 2.60 6.00 3.30 6.50 3.40 Westbound L T R O 0 0 0 Critical Follow -up Gap (tg) Time (tf) Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 2: LT from Major Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 3: TH from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) WB EB 354 1163 1163 0.94 1700 0.94 100 1232 1232 0.98 SB NB WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 500 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 596 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.94 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 558 Prob. of Queue -free State: 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB 496 547 0.94 0.94 0.94 512 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay Delay LOS By App EB L 94 512 > > > EB T 1 558 > 586 > 7.7 > B 7.7 EB R 26 1232 > > > SB L 67 1163 3.3 A 1.0 Intersection Delay = 1.6 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** File Name TRENPMEX.HCO Streets: (N -S) BARKER ROAD Major Street Direction EW Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min) Analyst ALW Date of Analysis 5/1/95 Other Information EXISTING AM CONDITIONS Two -way Stop - controlled No. Lanes Stop /Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's ( %) SU /RV's ( %) CV's ( %) PCE's Vehicle Maneuver Eastbound L T R O 2< 0 N 818 104 .914 .914 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 1.1 1.1 Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road. Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road Intersection Westbound L T R 1 2 54 368 .914 .914 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 1.1 1.1 0 Y Adjustment Factors 5.50 5.50 6.50 7.00 Northbound L T R 49 .914 0 0 0 1.1 Critical Gap (tg) (E -W) TRENT AVE 0> 0< 0 101 .914 0 0 0 0 1.1 Southbound L T R O 0 0 Follow -up Time (tf) 2.10 2.60 3.30 3.40 0 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) 461 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 809 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 809 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.85 Step 2: LT from Major Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) 922 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 548 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 548 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.88 Step 4: LT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) NB SB WB EB NB SB 1292 158 0.88 0.88 0.88 139 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App NB L 59. 139 > > > 315 26.6 D 26.6 NB R 122 809 > > > WB L 65 548 7.5 B 1.0 Intersection Delay = 2.9 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** File Name MISSPMEX.HCO Streets: (N -S) BARKER ROAD (E -W) MISSION AVE Major Street Direction NS Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min) Analyst ALW Date of Analysis 5/1/95 Other Information EXISTING PM CONDITIONS Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection No. Lanes Stop /Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's ( %) SU /RV's ( %) CV's ( %) PCE's Vehicle Maneuver Northbound L T R 0> 1< 0 N 20 289 39 .914 .914 .914 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 1.1 1.1 1.1 Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road Southbound L T R 0> 1< 0 N 16 236 22 .914 .914 .914 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 1.1 1.1 1.1 Adjustment Factors Eastbound L T R 0> 1< 29 5 20 .914 .914 .914 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 1.1 1.1 1.1 5.00 2.10 5.50 2.60 6.00 3.30 6.50 3.40 Westbound L T R 0> 1< 0 41 13 15 .914 .914 .914 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 1.1 1.1 1.1 Critical Follow -up Gap (tg) Time (tf) Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 2: LT from Major Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) 328 258 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1196 1292 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1196 1292 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.98 0.98 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.98 0.98 Step 3: TH from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 4: LT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) WB EB 308 247 967 1038 967 1038 0.98 0.98 SB NB WB EB 602 527 0.96 504 0.97 WB 604 473 0.94 0.96 611 521 0.96 498 0.99 EB 606 472 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.93 442 437 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App EB L 35 437 > > > EB T 6 498 > 564 > 7.2 > B 7.2 EB R 24 1038 > > > WB L 50 442 > > > WB T 15 504 > 514 > 8.4 > B 8.4 WB R 18 967 > > > NB L 24 1292 2.8 A 0.2 SB L 20 1196 3.1 A 0.2 Intersection Delay = 1.4 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 File Name WBPMEX.HCO Streets: (N -S) BARKER ROAD (E -W) WB I -90 RAMPS Major Street Direction NS Length of Time Analyzed 60. (min) Analyst ALW Date of Analysis 5/2/95 Other Information EXISTING PM CONDITIONS Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection No. Lanes Stop /Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's ( %) SU /RV's ( %) CV's ( %) PCE's Vehicle Maneuver Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 N N 93 349 20 12 261 117 42 9 7 27 31 23 .894 .894 .894 .894 .894 .894 .894 .894 .894 .894 .894 .894 -1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 5 5 5 3 3 3 2 2 2 5 5 5 10 10 10 7 7 7 1 1 1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.8 1.8 1.8 Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road Adjustment Factors Critical Gap (tg) 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 Follow -up Time (tf) 2.10 2.60 3.30 3.40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 2: LT from Major Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 3: TH from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 4: LT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) 359 911 911 0.95 WB EB SB 369 1144 1144 0.99 1700 1700 0.98 WB EB 842 394 0.86 340 0.81 WB 792 368 0.84 0.88 0.87 320 953 953 0.99 NB 378 1132 1132 0.91 1700 1700 0.88 794 418 0.86 361 0.97 EB 810 360 0.70 0.77 0.73 319 263 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Intersection Performance Summary' FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App EB L 52 263 > > > EB T 11 361 > 303 > 15.6 > C 15.6 EB R 9 953 > > > WB L 54 319 > > > WB T 63 340 > 404 > 15.0 > C 15.0 WB R 47 911 > > > NB L 104 1132 3.5 A 0.7 SB L 14 1144 3.2 A 0.1 Intersection Delay = 2.5 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** File Name EBPMEX.HCO Streets: (N -S) BARKER ROAD (E -W) EB I -90 RAMPS Major Street Direction NS Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min) Analyst ALW Date of Analysis 5/2/95 Other Information EXISTING PM CONDITIONS Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection No. Lanes Stop /Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's ( %) SU /RV's ( %) CV's ( %) PCE's Vehicle Maneuver Northbound L T R O 1< 0 N 302 36 .95 .95 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 1.6 1.4 Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road Southbound L T R 0> 1 0 N 69 214 .95 .95 2 O 0 O 3 O 4 1.4 1.6 Adjustment Factors Critical Gap (tg) 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 Eastbound L T R 0> 1< 0 235 1 163 .95 .95 .95 1 0 0 0 4 0 4 7 0 7 1.1 1.1 1.1 O 0 0 Westbound L T R 0 Follow -up Time (tf) 2.10 2.60 3.30 3.40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 2: LT from Major Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 3: TH from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 4: LT from Minor Street 338 1183 1183 0.91 1700 0.89 WB EB SB NB WB EB WB 214 1079 1079 0.82 621 515 0.89 459 1.00 EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 603 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 474 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.89 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.89 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.89 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 422 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 1 Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay 1 Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App EB L 272 422 > > > EB T 1 459 > 562 > 33.7 > E 33.7 I EB R 189 1079 > > > SB L 102 1183 3.3 A 0.8 1 Intersection Delay = 13.4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BUILD OUT YEAR LEVELS OF SERVICE WITHOUT PROJECT Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** File Name TRENABO.HCO Streets: (N -S) BARKER ROAD (E -W) TRENT AVE Major Street Direction EW Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min) Analyst ALW Date of Analysis 5/2/95 Other Information BUILD OUT AM CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection No. Lanes Stop /Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's ( %) SU /RV's ( %) CV's ( %) PCE's Vehicle Maneuver Eastbound L T R O 2< 0 N 259 74 .969 .969 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 1.1 1.1 Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road Westbound L T R 1 2 0 Y 83 1138 .969 .969 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 1.1 1.1 Adjustment Factors Northbound L T R 0> 0< 0 77 39 .969 .969 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 1.1 1.1 5.50 2.10 5.50 2.60 6.50 3.30 7.00 3.40 Southbound L T R O 0 0 0 Critical Follow -up Gap (tg) Time (tf) Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 2: LT from Major Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 4: LT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) 166 1141 1141 0.96 WB EB 333 1136 1136 0.92 1517 NB SB NB SB 113 0.92 0.92 0.92 104 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App NB L 87 104 > > > 150 135.2 F 135.2 NB R 44 1141 > > > WB L 95 1136 3.5 A 0.2 Intersection Delay = 9.6 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** File Name MISSABO.HCO Streets: (N -S) BARKER ROAD (E -W) MISSION AVE Major Street Direction NS Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min) Analyst ALW Date of Analysis 5/2/95 Other Information BUILD OUT AM CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection No. Lanes Stop /Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's ( %) SU /RV's ( %) CV's ( %) PCE's Vehicle Maneuver Northbound L T R Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road Southbound L T R Adjustment Factors Critical Gap (tg) 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 Eastbound L T R Westbound L T R 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 N N 7 161 11 8 359 32 23 8 48 39 11 12 .969 .969 .969 .969 .969 .969 .969 .969 .969 .969 .969 .969 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 Follow -up Time (tf) 2.10 2.60 3.30 3.40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 2: LT from Major Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 3: TH from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 4: LT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) 166 375 1141 894 1141 894 0.99 0.94 172 1419 1419 0.99 1700 1700 0.99 WE EB SB NB WB EB 572 547 0.98 538 0.98 WB 584 486 0.97 0.97 0.91 445 391 1116 1116 0.99 1700 1700 0.99 562 553 0.98 544 0.98 EB 568 496 0.96 0.97 0.96 476 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App EB L 26 476 > > > EB T 9 544 > 678 > 6.1 > B 6.1 EB R 55 894 > > > WB L 44 445 > > > WB T 12 538 > 520 > 8.0 > B 8.0 WB R 13 1141 > > > NB L 8 1116 3.2 A 0.1 SB L 9 1419 2.6 A 0.1 Intersection Delay = 1.4 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** File Name Streets: (N -S) BARKER RAOD Major Street Direction Length of Time Analyzed Analyst Date of Analysis WBABO.HCO NS 60 (min) ALW 5/10/95 Other Information BUILD OUT AM CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection No. Lanes Stop /Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's ( %) SU /RV's ( %) CV's ( %) PCE's Vehicle Maneuver Northbound L T R 0> 1< 0 0 > 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 N N 248 212 83 25 194 244 11 22 8 31 32 11 .902 .902 .902 .902 .902 .902 .902 .902 .902 .902 .902 .902 -2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 4 4 4 18 18 18 25 25 25 .9 .9 .9 1 1 1 1.2 1.2 1.2 2.6 2.6 2.6 Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road Southbound L T R Adjustment Factors Critical Gap (tg) 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 (E -W) WESTBOUND I -90 RAMPS Eastbound L T R Westbound L T R Follow -up Time (tf) 2.10 2.60 3.30 3.40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor. Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 2: LT from Major Street Step 3: TH from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 4: LT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) 254 1030 1030 0.97 WB EB SB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 295 438 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1240 1060 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1240 1060 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.98 0.77 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.97 0.72 WB EB 964 340 0.70 0.70 236 261 0.61 0.89 WB EB 858 337 0.62 0.70 0.69 316 958 958 0.99 NB 884 375 864 335 0.43 0.55 0.53 234 177 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App EB L 14 177 > > > EB T 29 261 > 268 > 16.8 > C 16.8 EB R 11 958 > > > WB L 88 234 > > > WB T 91 236 > 265 > 59.7 > F 59.7 WB R 31 1030 > > > NB L 247 1060 4.4 A 2.0 SB L 28 1240 3.0 A 0.2 Intersection Delay = 5.6 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 05 -22 -1995 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E -W) WB I -90 RAMPS Analyst: ALW Area Type: Other Comment: BUILD OUT WITHOUT PROJECT No. Lanes Volumes Lane Width RTOR Vols Lost Time Eastbound L T R > 1 < 11 22 8 12.0 0 3.00 3.00 3.00 Westbound L T R > 1 < 31 32 11 12.0 0 3.00 3.00 3.00 Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 EB Left Thru Right Peds WB Left * Thru Right Peds NB Right SB Right Green 15.OA (N -S) BARKER ROAD File Name: WBABO.HC9 5 -10 -95 AM PEAK Northbound L T R > 1 < 248 212 83 12.0 0 3.00 3.00 3.00 5 6 7 8 NB Left Thru Right Peds SB Left Thru Right Peds EB Right WB Right Green 10.OA 35.OP Yellow /AR 3.0 Yellow /AR 4.0 4.0 Cycle Length: 71 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6 Southbound L T R > 1 < 25 194 244 12.0 0 3.00 3.00 3.00 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB LTR 323 1529 0.139 0.211 17.3 C 17.3 C WB LTR 319 1510 0.254 0.211 17.8 C 17.8 C NB LTR 943 1339 0.638 0.704 5.3 B 5.3 B SB LTR 632 1247 0.813 0.507 16.7 C 16.7 C Intersection Delay = 11.3 sec /veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time /Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v /c(x) = 0.550 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 File Name EBABO.HCO Streets: (N -S) BARKER ROAD (E -W) EB I -90 RAMPS Major Street Direction NS Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min) Analyst ALW Date of Analysis 5/2/95 Other Information BUILD OUT AM CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection No. Lanes Stop /Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's ( %) SU /RV's ( %) CV's ( %) PCE's Vehicle Maneuver Northbound L T R Southbound L T R O 1< 0 0> 1 N 502 13 62 143 .95 .95 .95 .95 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 4 0 0 4 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.6 Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road 0 N Adjustment Factors Eastbound L T R 0> 1< 0 109 1 32 .95 .95 .95 1 0 0 0 4 0 4 7 0 7 1.1 1.1 1.1 5.00 2.10 5.50 2.60 6.00 3.30 6.50 3.40 Westbound L T R O 0 0 0 Critical Follow -up Gap (tg) Time (tf) Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 2: LT from Major Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) 515 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 974 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 974 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.91 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate: ( pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.89 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB 143 1172 1172 0.97 SB NB WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 720 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 457 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.89 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 407 Prob. of Queue -free State: 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 714 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 409 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.89 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.89 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.89 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 364 1 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 I ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 1 Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay 1 Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App EB L 127 364 > > > I EB T 1 407 > 431 > 13.5 > C 13.5 EB R 37 1172 > > > SB L 91 974 4.1 A 1.2 1 Intersection Delay = 2.5 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 05 -22 -1995 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E -W) EB I -90 RAMPS Analyst: ALW Area Type: Other Comment: BUILD OUT WITHOUT PROJECT No. Lanes Volumes Lane Width RTOR Vols Lost Time Eastbound L T R 1 1 < 109 1 32 12.0 12.0 0 3.00 3.00 3.00 Westbound L T R Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 EB Left Thru Right Peds WB Left Thru Right Peds NB Right SB Right Green 20.OA (N -S) BARKER ROAD File Name: EBABO.HC9 5 -4 -95 AM PEAK Northbound L T • R 1 < 502 13 12.0 0 3.00 3.00 NB Left Thru Right Peds SB Left Thru Right Peds EB Right WB Right Green 33.OA Yellow /AR 3.0 Yellow /AR 4.0 Cycle Length: 60 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 Southbound L T R > 1 62 143 12.0 3.00 3.00 0 5 6 7 8 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 584 1752 0.197 0.333 9.2 B 9.1 B TR 525 1575 0.067 0.333 8.8 B NB TR 937 1653 0.579 0.567 6.1 B 6.1 B SB LT 637 1124 0.339 0.567 4.6 A 4.6 A Intersection Delay = 6.2 sec /veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time /Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v /c(x) = 0.437 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 File Name TRENPBO.HCO Streets: (N -S) BARKER ROAD (E -W) TRENT AVE Major Street Direction EW Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min) Analyst ALW Date of Analysis 5/2/95 Other Information BUILD OUT AM CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection No. Lanes Stop /Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's (%) SU /RV's ( %) CV's ( %) PCE's Vehicle Maneuver Eastbound L T R O 2< 0 N 1099 140 .914 .914 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 1.1 1.1 Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road Westbound L T R 1 2 0 Y 73 495 .914 .914 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 1.1 1.1 Adjustment Factors Northbound L T R 0> 0< 0 66 136 .914 .914 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 1.1 1.1 5.50 2.10 5.50 2.60 6.50 3.30 7.00 3.40 Southbound L T R O 0 0 0 Critical Follow -up Gap (tg) Time (tf) Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 2: LT from Major Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 4: LT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) 620 672 672 0.76 WB EB 1239 371 371 0.76 1737 NB SB NB SB 82 0.76 0.76 0.76 63 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App NB L 79 63 > > > 162 984.6 F 984.6 NB R 164 672 > > > WB L 88 371 12.7 C 1.6 Intersection Delay = 99.5 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 ********************************* * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** *** File Name MISSPBO.HCO Streets: (N -S) BARKER ROAD (E -W) MISSION AVE Major Street Direction NS Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min) Analyst ALW Date of Analysis 5/2/95 Other Information BUILD OUT PM CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection No. Lanes Stop /Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's ( %) SU /RV's ( %) CV's ( %) PCE's Vehicle Maneuver Northbound L T R 0> 1< 0 N 27 388 52 .914 .914 .914 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 1.1 1.1 1.1 Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road Southbound L T R 0> 1< 0 N 22 317 30 .914 .914 .914 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 1.1 1.1 1.1 Adjustment Factors Eastbound L T R 0> 1< 0 39 7 27 .914 .914 .914 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 1.1 1.1 1.1 5.00 2.10 5.50 2.60 6.00 3.30 6.50 3.40 Westbound L T R 0> 1< 0 55 17 20 .914 .914 .914 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 1.1 1.1 1.1 Critical Follow -up Gap (tg) Time (tf) Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 2: LT from Major Street Step 3: TH from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 4: LT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) WB EB 414 332 854 940 854 940 0.97 0.96 SS NB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 440 347 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1058 1171 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1058 1171 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.98 0.97 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.97 0.96 WB EB 810 410 0.93 380 0.94 WB 812 359 0.91 0.93 0.90 821 405 0.93 376 0.98 EB 814 358 0.88 0.91 0.88 321 315 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App EB L 47 315 > > > EB T 9 376 > 427 > 10.6 > C 10.6 EB R 33 940 > > > WB L 66 321 > > > WB T 21 380 > 384 > 13.2 > C 13.2 WB R 24 854 > > > NB L 33 1171 3.2 A 0.2 SB L 26 1058 3.5 A 0.2 Intersection Delay = 2.1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** File Name WBPBO.HCO Streets:. (N -S) BARKER ROAD (E -W) WB I -90 RAMPS Major Street Direction NS Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min) Analyst ALW Date of Analysis 5/2/95 Other Information BUILD OUT PM CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection No. Lanes Stop /Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's ( %) SU /RV's ( %) CV's ( %) PCE's Vehicle Maneuver Northbound L T R Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road Southbound L T R Eastbound L T R Westbound L T R 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 N N 126 475 26 17 363 158 57 12 11 37 42 30 .894 .894 .894 .894 .894 .894 .894 .894 .894 .894 .894 .894 -1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 5 5 5 3 3 3 2 2 2 5 5 5 10 10 10 7 7 7 1 1 1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.8 1.8 1.8 Adjustment Factors Critical Gap (tg) 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 Follow -up Time (tf) 2.10 2.60 3.30 3.40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 2: LT from Major Street Step 3: TH from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 4: LT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) 488 784 784 0.92 WB EB SB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 501 521 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 989 968 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 989 968 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.98 0.85 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.97 0.78 WB EB 1152 271 0.76 0.76 205 222 0.59 0.94 1084 WB EB 250 0.71 0.77 0.76 191 442 827 827 0.98 NB 1086 294 1109 241 0.44 0.56 0.51 124 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App EB L 70 124 > > > EB T 14 222 > 151 > 64.1 > F 64.1 EB R 13 827 > > > WB L 74 191 > > > WB T 85 205 > 250 > 92.1 > F 92.1 WB R 61 784 > > > NB L 141 968 4.4 A 0.9 SB L 21 989 3.7 A 0.1 Intersection Delay = 11.7 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 05 -22 -1995 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E -W) WB I -90 RAMPS Analyst: ALW Area Type: Other Comment: BUILD OUT WITHOUT PROJECT No. Lanes Volumes Lane Width RTOR Vols Lost Time Eastbound L T R > 1 < 57 12 11 12.0 0 3.00 3.00 3.00 Westbound L T R > 1 < 37 42 30 12.0 0 3.00 3.00 3.00 Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 EB Left Thru Right Peds WB Left Thru Right Peds NB Right SB Right Green 15.OA (N -S) BARKER ROAD File Name: WBPBO.HC9 5 -11 -95 PM PEAK Northbound L T R > 1 < 126 475 26 12.0 0 3.00 3.00 3.00 5 6 7 8 NB Left Thru Right Peds SB Left Thru Right Peds EB Right WB Right Green 8.OA 40.OP Yellow /AR 3.0 Yellow /AR 4.0 4.0 Cycle Length: 74 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6 Southbound L T R > 1• < 17 363 211 12.0 0 3.00 3.00 3.00 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB LTR 248 1223 0.359 0.203 19.7 C 19.7 C WE LTR 287 1418 0.424 0.203 20.2 C 20.2 C NB LTR 1050 1466 0.668 0.716 5.5 B 5.5 B SB LTR 787 1421 0.840 0.554 16.1 C 16.1 C Intersection Delay = 11.9 sec /veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time /Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v /c(x) = 0.614 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page l File Name EBPBO.HCO Streets: (N -S) BARKER ROAD (E -W) EB I -90 RAMPS Major Street Direction NS Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min) Analyst ALW Date of Analysis 5/2/95 Other Information BUILD OUT PM CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection No. Lanes Stop /Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's (%) SU /RV's ( %) CV's ( %) PCE's Vehicle Maneuver Northbound L T R Southbound L T R O 1< 0 0> 1 N 413 49 93 303 .95 .95 .95 .95 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 4 0 0 4 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.6 Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road 0 N Adjustment Factors Critical Gap (tg) 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 Eastbound L T R 0> 1< 0 316 1 231 .95 .95 .95 1 0 0 0 4 0 4 7 0 7 1.1 1.1 1.1 Westbound L T R O 0 0 0 Follow -up Time (tf) 2.10 2.60 3.30 3.40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 2: LT from Major Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 3: TH from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 4: LT from Minor Street 462 1033 1033 0.87 1700 0.81 WB EB SB NB WB EB WB 303 972 972 0.73 858 387 0.81 314 1.00 EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 834 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 348 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.81 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.81 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.81 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 282 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App EB L 366 282 > > > EB T 1 314 > 402 > * > F * EB R 267 972 > > > SB L 137 1033 4.0 A 0.9 Intersection Delay = 418.0 * The calculated delay was greater than 999.9 sec. HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 05 -22 -1995 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E -W) EB I -90 RAMPS Analyst: ALW Area Type: Other Comment: BUILD OUT WITHOUT PROJECT No. Lanes Volumes Lane Width RTOR Vols Lost Time Eastbound L T R 1 1 < 316 1 231 12.0 12.0 50 3.00 3.00 3.00 Westbound L T R (N -S) BARKER ROAD File Name: EBPBO.HC9 5 -4 -95 PM PEAK Northbound L T R 1 413 49 12.0 0 3.00 3.00 Southbound L T R > 1 93 303 12.0 3.00 3.00 0 Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left * NB Left Thru * Thru * Right * Right * Peds * Peds * WB Left SB Left * Thru Thru * Right Right Peds * Peds * NB Right EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 20.OA Green 33.OA Yellow /AR 3.0 Yellow /AR 4.0 Cycle Length: 60 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 584 1752 0.570 0.333 11.6 B 11.0 B TR 523 1569 0.365 0.333 10.0 B NB TR 925 1633 0.526 0.567 5.6 B 5.6 B SB LT 676 1193 0.617 0.567 6.8 B 6.8 B Intersection Delay = 8.0 sec /veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time /Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v /c(x) = 0.600 BUILD OUT YEAR LEVELS OF SERVICE INCLUDING PROJECT Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** File Name TRENABW.HCO Streets: (N -S) BARKER ROAD (E -W) TRENT AVE Major Street Direction EW Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min) Analyst ALW Date of Analysis 5/11/95 Other Information BUILD OUT AM CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection No. Lanes Stop /Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's ( %) SU /RV's ( %) CV's ( %) PCE's Vehicle Maneuver Eastbound L T R O 2< 0 N 259 82 .969 .969 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 1.1 1.1 Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road Westbound L T R 1 2 0 Y 92 1138 .969 .969 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 1.1 1.1 Adjustment Factors Northbound L T R 1 0 1 110 56 .969 .969 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 1.1 1.1 5.50 2.10 5.50 2.60 6.50 3.30 7.00 3.40 Southbound L T R O 0 0 0 Critical Follow -up Gap (tg) Time (tf) Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 2: LT from Major Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 4: LT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) 170 1136 1136 0.94 NB SB WB EB 341 1125 1125 0.91 NB SB 1530 111 0.91 0.91 0.91 101 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App NB L 125 101 603.3 F 863.9 NB R 64 1136 3.4 A WB L 105 1125 3.5 A 0.3 Intersection Delay = 82.7 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** File Name INDIABW.HCO Streets: (N -S) BARKER ROAD (E -W) INDIANA Major Street Direction NS Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min) Analyst ALW Date of Analysis 5/11/95 Other Information BUILD OUT AM CONDITION WITH PROJECT Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection No. Lanes Stop /Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's ( %) SU /RV's ( %) CV's ( %) PCE's Vehicle Maneuver Northbound L T R O 1< 0 N 217 34 .969 .969 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 1.1 1.1 Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road Southbound L T R 0> 1 0 N 14 406 .969 .969 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 1.1 1.1 Adjustment Factors Eastbound L T R O 0 0 0 5.00 2.10 5.50 2.60 6.00 3.30 6.50 3.40 Westbound L T R .969 0> 0< 0 96 41 .969 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 1.1 1.1 Critical Follow -up Gap (tg) Time (tf) Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) 234 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1054 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1054 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.96 Step 2: LT from Major Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) RT Saturation Flow Rate: ( pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 4: LT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) 251 1302 1302 0.99 1700 0.98 654 WB EB 443 0.98 0.98 0.98 WB EB SB NB 436 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay WB L 109 436 > 528 WB R 46 1054 > SB L 15 1302 Intersection Delay = 2.8 1.7 9.6 Delay LOS By App B 9.6 A 0.1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** File Name MISSABW.HCO Streets: (N -S) BARKER ROAD (E -W) MISSION AVE Major Street Direction NS Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min) Analyst ALW Date of Analysis 5/11/95 Other Information BUILD OUT AM CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection No. Lanes Stop /Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's ( %) SU /RV's ( %) CV's ( %) PCE's Northbound L T R Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road Southbound L T R Eastbound L T R Westbound L T R 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 N N 7 195 28 15 455 32 23 8 48 87 11 33 .969 .969 .969 .969 .969 .969 .969 .969 .969 .969 .969 .969 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow -up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 2.10 2.60 3.30 3.40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 2: LT from Major Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 3: TH from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 4: LT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) 209 1085 1085 0.97 SB 223 1342 1342 0.99 1700 1700 0.98 WB EB 718 458 0.97 445 0.97 WB EB WB 730 400 0.95 0.96 0.90 359 471 799 799 0.93 NB 487 1005 1005 0.99 1700 1700 0.99 716 459 0.97 446 0.98 EB 724 403 0.95 0.96 0.93 373 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App EB L 26 373 > > > EB T 9 446 > ' 567 > 7.5 > B 7.5 EB R 55 799 > > . > WB L 99 359 > > > WB T 12 445 > 439 > 12.4 > C 12.4 WB R 37 1085 > > > NB L 8 1005 3.6 A 0.1 SB L 17 1342 2.7 A 0.1 Intersection Delay = 2.4 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** File Name WBABW.HCO Streets: (N -S) BARKER RAOD (E -W) WESTBOUND I -90 RAMPS Major Street Direction NS Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min) Analyst ALW Date of Analysis 5/10/95 Other Information BUILD OUT AM CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection No. Lanes Stop /Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's ( %) SU /RV's ( %) CV's ( %) PCE's Northbound L T R 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 N N 248 256 83 25 256 326 18 22 8 43 32 11 .902 .902 .902 .902 .902 .902 .902 .902 .902 .902 .902 .902 -2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 4 4 4 18 18 18 25 25 25 .9 .9 .9 1 1 1 1.2 1.2 1.2 2.6 2.6 2.6 Vehicle Critical Follow -up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road Southbound L T R Adjustment Factors 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 Eastbound L T R Westbound L T R 2.10 2.60 3.30 3.40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 2: LT from Major Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) 339 582 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1182 905 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1182 905 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.98 0.73 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.96 0.66 Step 3: TH from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 4: LT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential. Capacity: (pcph) Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) 298 978 978 0.97 SB 1152 271 0.63 172 0.47 WB 1004 278 0.54 0.64 0.63 WB EB 176 419 849 849 0.99 NB WB EB 1031 314 0.63 199 0.85 EB 1011 275 0.30 0.43 0.42 115 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App EB L 24 115 > > > EB T 29 199 > 174 > 32.6 > E 32.6 EB R 11 849 > > > WB L 125 176 > > > WB T 91 172 > 194 > 585.3 > F 585.3 WB R 31 978 > > > NB L 247 905 5.5 B 2.3 SB L 28 1182 3.1 A 0.1 Intersection Delay = 40.2 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 05 -22 -1995 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E -W) WB I -90 RAMPS Analyst: ALW Area Type: Other Comment: BUILD OUT WITH PROJECT No. Lanes Volumes Lane Width RTOR Vols Lost Time Eastbound L T R > 1 < 18 22 8 12.0 0 3.00 3.00 3.00 Westbound L T R > 1 < 31 32 11 12.0 0 3.00 3.00 3.00 Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 EB Left Thru Right Peds WB Left Thru Right Peds NB Right SB Right Green 15.OA (N -S) BARKER ROAD File Name: WBABW.HC9 5 -10 -95 AM PEAK Northbound L T R > 1 < 248 256 83 12.0 0 3.00 3.00 3.00 Yellow /AR 3.0 Yellow /AR 4.0 4.0 Cycle Length: 74 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6 Southbound L T R > 1 < 25 256 326 12.0 0 3.00 3.00 3.00 5 6 7 8 NB Left Thru Right Peds SB Left Thru Right Peds EB Right WB Right Green 8.OA 40.OP Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB LTR 299 1477 0.177 0.203 18.6 C 18.6 C WO LTR 302 1491 0.268 0.203 19.0 C 19.0 C NB LTR 912 1274 0.713 0.716 6.5 B 6.5 B SB LTR 718 1296 0.937 0.554 26.0 D 26.0 D Intersection Delay = 16.6 sec /veh Intersection LOS = C Lost Time /Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v /c(x) = 0.615 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** File Name EBABW.HCO Streets: (N -S) BARKER ROAD Major Street Direction NS Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min) Analyst ALW Date of Analysis 5/2/95 Other Information BUILD OUT AM CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection No. Lanes Stop /Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's ( %) SU /RV's ( %) CV's ( %) PCE's Vehicle Maneuver Northbound L T R Southbound L T R O 1< 0 0> 1 N 508 13 97 161 .95 .95 .95 .95 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 4 0 0 4 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.6 Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road 0 N Adjustment Factors (E -W) EB I -90 RAMPS Eastbound L T R 0> 1< 0 134 1 32 .95 .95 .95 1 0 0 0 4 0 4 7 0 7 1.1 1.1 1.1 5.00 2.10 5.50 2.60 6.00 3.30 6.50 3.40 Westbound L T R O 0 0 0 Critical Follow -up Gap (tg) Time (tf) Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 2: LT from Major Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) 521 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 968 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 968 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.85 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.82 Step 3: TH from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 4: LT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) WB EB WB 161 1148 1148 0.97 SB NB WB EB 779 426 0.82 351 1.00 EB 772 378 0.82 0.82 0.82 312 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App EB L 155 312 > > > EB T 1 351 > 363 > 21.0 > D 21.0 EB R 37 1148 > > > SB L 143 968 4.4 A 1.6 Intersection Delay = 4.2 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 05 -22 -1995 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E -W) EB I -90 RAMPS Analyst: ALW Area Type: Other Comment: BUILD OUT WITH PROJECT No. Lanes Volumes Lane Width RTOR Vols Lost Time Eastbound L T . R 1 1 < 138 1 32 12.0 12.0 0 3.00 3.00 3.00 EB Left Thru Right Peds WB Left Thru Right Peds NB Right SB Right Green 20.OA Westbound L T R Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 (N -S) BARKER ROAD File Name: EBABW.HC9 5 -11 -95 AM PEAK Northbound L T R 1 517 13 12.0 0 3.00 3.00 NB Left Thru Right Peds SE Left Thru Right Peds EB Right WB Right Green 33.OA Yellow/AR 3.0 Yellow /AR 4.0 Cycle Length: 60 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 Southbound L T R > 1 83 184 12.0 3.00 3.00 0 5 6 7 8 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 584 1752 0.248 0.333 9.4 B 9.3 B TR 525 1575 0.067 0.333 8.8 B NB TR 937 1653 0.596 0.567 6.3 B 6.3 B SB LT 580 1024 0.484 0.567 5.5, B 5.5 B Intersection Delay = 6.6 sec /veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time /Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v /c(x) = 0.467 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** File Name TRENPBW.HCO Streets: (N -S) BARKER ROAD (E -W) TRENT AVE Major Street Direction EW Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min) Analyst ALW Date of Analysis 5/11/95 Other Information BUILD OUT AM CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection Vehicle Maneuver Eastbound L T R No. Lanes 0 2< 0 1 2 Stop /Yield N Volumes 1099 178 93 495 PHF .914 .914 .914 .914 Grade 0 0 MC's ( %) 0 0 0 0 SU /RV's ( %) 0 0 0 0 CV's ( %) 0 0 0 0 PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road Westbound L T R 0 Y Adjustment Factors 5.50 5.50 6.50 7.00 .914 0 0 0 1.1 Critical Gap (tg) Northbound L T R 76 0> 0< 0 157 .914 0 0 0 0 1.1 Southbound L T R 0 0 0 0 Follow -up Time (tf) 2.10 2.60 3.30 3.40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 2: LT from Major Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 4: LT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) 638 658 658 0.71 WB EB 1277 354 354 0.68 NB SB NB SB 1776 77 0.68 0.68 0.68 53 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App NB L 91 53 > > > 140 * F * NB R 189 658 > > > WB L 112 354 14.9 C 2.4 Intersection Delay = 209.0 * The calculated delay was greater than 999.9 sec. Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** File Name INDIPBW.HCO Streets: (N -S) BARKER ROAD (E -W) INDIANA Major Street Direction NS Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min) Analyst ALW Date of Analysis 5/11/95 Other Information BUILD OUT PM CONDITION WITH PROJECT Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection No. Lanes Stop /Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's ( %) SU /RV's ( %) CV's ( %) PCE's Northbound L T R O 1< 0 N 456 113 .969 .969 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 1.1 1.1 Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road Southbound L T R 0> 1 0 N 48 392 .969 .969 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 1.1 1.1 Adjustment Factors 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 Eastbound L T R 0 0 0 Westbound L T R 0> 0< 0 61 26 .969 .969 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 1.1 1.1 Vehicle Critical Follow -up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) 2.10 2.60 3.30 3.40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 2: LT from Major Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 4: LT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) WB EB 512 762 762 0.96 569 918 918 0.94 1700 SB NB 0.92 WB EB 952 298 0.92 0.92 0.92 274 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App WB L 69 274 > > > 340 14.9 C 14.9 WB R 30 762 > > > SB L 55 918 4.2 A 0.5 Intersection Delay = 1.4 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 t******************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * **** * ***** * *** File Name MISSPBW.HCO Streets: (N -S) BARKER ROAD (E -W) MISSION AVE Major Street Direction NS Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min) Analyst ALW Date of Analysis 5/11/95 Other Information BUILD OUT PM CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection No. Lanes Stop /Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's ( %) SU /RV's ( %) CV's ( %) PCE's Vehicle Maneuver Northbound L T R Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road Southbound L T R Eastbound L T R 5.00 2.10 5.50 2.60 6.00 3.30 6.50 3.40 Adjustment Factors Westbound L T R 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 N N 27 501 109 46 378 30 39 7 27 86 17 33 .914 .914 .914 .914 .914 .914 .914 .914 .914 .914 .914 .914 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 Critical Follow -up Gap (tg) Time (tf) Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 2: LT from Major Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) 610 408 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 878 1096 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 878 1096 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.94 0.97 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.91 0.95 Step. 3: TH from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 4: LT from Minor Street 'WB EB 556 724 724 0.94 SB WB EB 1036 312 0.86 269 0.92 WB 393 875 875 0.96 NB 1076 297 0.86 256 0.96 EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1038 1046 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 265 262 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.83 0.80 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.87 0.84 Capacity Adjustment Factor i due to Impeding Movements 0.84 0.80 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 222 209 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App EB L 47 209 > > > EB T 9 256 > 299 > 17.1 > C 17.1 EB R 33 875 > > > WB L 103 222 > > > WB T 21 269 > 275 > 31.9 > E 31.9 WB R 40 724 > > > NB L 33 1096 3.4 A 0.1 SB L 55 878 4.4 A 0.4 Intersection Delay = 4.5 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** File Name WBPBW.HCO Streets: (N -S) BARKER ROAD (E -W) WB I -90 RAMPS Major Street Direction NS Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min) Analyst ALW Date of Analysis 5/10/95 Other Information BUILD OUT PM CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection No. Lanes Stop /Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's ( %) SU /RV's ( %) CV's ( %) PCE's Vehicle Maneuver Northbound L T R 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 0> 1< 0 N N 126 621 26 17 402 211 81 12 11 37 42 30 .894 .894 .894 .894 .894 .894 .894 .894 .894 .894 .894 .894 -1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 5 5 5 3 3 3 2 2 2 5 5 5 10 10 10 7 7 7 1 1 1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.8 1.8 1.8 Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road Southbound L T R Adjustment Factors Eastbound L T R 5.00 2.10 5.50 2.60 6.00 3.30 6.50 3.40 Westbound L T R Critical Follow -up Gap (tg) Time (tf) Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street Step 2: LT from Major Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 3: TH from Minor Street Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 634 508 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 661 765 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 661 765 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.91 0.98 SB NB 647 613 843 875 843 875 0.98 0.84 1700 1700 1700 1700 0.96 0.72 WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1390 1298 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 203 227 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.69 0.69 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 139 156 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.39 0.91 WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1296 1320 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 188 182 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.63 0.27 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.71 0.40 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.70 0.36 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 131 66 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App EB L 100 66 > > > EB T 14 156 > 78 > * > F * EB R 13 765 > > > WB L 74 131 > > > WB T 85 139 > 173 > 593.1 > F 593.1 WB R 61 661 > > > NB L 141 875 4.9 A 0.8 SB L 21 843 4.4 A 0.1 Intersection Delay = 123.2 * The calculated delay was greater than 999.9 sec. HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 05 -22 -1995 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E -W) WB I -90 RAMPS Analyst: ALW Area Type: Other Comment: BUILD OUT WITH PROJECT No. Lanes Volumes Lane Width RTOR Vols Lost Time Eastbound L T R > 1 < 81 12 11 12.0 ' 0 3.00 3.00 3.00 Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 EB Left Thru * Right Peds WB Left Thru * Right Peds * NB Right SB Right Green 15.OA Westbound L T R > 1 < 37 42 30 12.0 0 3.00 3.00 3.00 (N -S) BARKER ROAD File Name: WBPBW.HC9 5 -11 -95 PM PEAK Northbound L T R > 1 < 126 621 26 12.0 0 3.00 3.00 3.00 Yellow /AR 3.0 Yellow /AR 4.0 4.0 Cycle Length: 74 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6 Southbound L T R > 1 < 17 402 211 12.0 0 3.00 3.00 3.00 5 6 7 8 NB Left Thru Right Peds SB Left Thru Right Peds EB Right WB Right Green 8.OA 40.OP Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS EB LTR 226 1113 0.514 0.203 21.6 C 21.6 C WB LTR 284 1403 0.429 0.203 20.2 C 20.2 C NB LTR 1065 1487 0.812 0.716 8.8 B 8.8 B SB LTR 795 1434 0.887 0.554 19.5 C 19.5 C Intersection Delay = 14.6 sec /veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time /Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v /c(x) = 0.746 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** File Name EBPBW.HCO Streets: (N -S) BARKER ROAD (E -W) EB I -90 RAMPS Major Street Direction NS Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min) Analyst ALW Date of Analysis 5/2/95 Other Information BUILD OUT PM CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection No. Lanes Stop /Yield Volumes PHF Grade MC's ( %) SU /RV's (%) CV's ( %) PCE's Vehicle Maneuver Northbound L T R Southbound L T R O 1< 0 0> 1 N 438 49 105 327 .95 .95 .95 .95 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 4 0 0 4 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.6 Left Turn Major Road Right Turn Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road Left Turn Minor Road 0 N Adjustment Factors Critical Gap (tg) 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 Eastbound L T R 0> 1< 0 416 1 231 .95 .95 .95 1 0 0 0 4 0 4 7 0 7 1.1 1.1 1.1 Westbound L T R O 0 0 2.10 2.60 3.30 3.40 0 Follow -up Time (tf) Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) Potential Capacity: (pcph) Movement Capacity: (pcph) Prob. of Queue -free State: Step 2: LT from Major Street Conflicting Flows: (vph) 487 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1005 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1005 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.85 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.77 Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB EB 327 945 945 0.72 SB NB WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 919 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 359 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.77 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 277 Prob. of Queue -free State: 1.00 Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 894 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 321 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.77 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.77 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.77 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 248 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 ********************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App EB L 482 248 > > > EB T 1 277 > 336 > * > F * EB R 267 945 > > > SB L 155 1005 4.2 A 1.0 Intersection Delay = 929.8 * The calculated delay was greater than 999.9 sec. HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4 05 -22 -1995 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Streets: (E -W) EB I -90 RAMPS Analyst: ALW Area Type: Other Comment: BUILD OUT WITH PROJECT ----------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- No. Lanes Volumes Lane Width RTOR Vols Lost Time Phase Combination 1 EB Left * Thru Right * Peds WB Left Thru Right Peds NB Right SB Right Green 20.OA Yellow /AR 3.0 NB Left Thru Right Peds SE Left Thru Right Peds EB Right WB Right Green 33.OA Yellow /AR 4.0 Cycle Length: 60 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio EB L 584 TR 523 NB TR 926 (N -S) BARKER ROAD File Name: EBPBW.HC9 5 -11 -95 PM PEAK Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R 1 1 < 414 1 231 12.0 12.0 50 3.00 3.00 3.00 Signal Operations 2 3 4 1752 0.747 1570 0.365 1635 0.580 0.333 0.333 0.567 1 461 49 12.0 0 3.00 3.00 5 * * * * * > 1 106 329 12.0 3.00 3.00 6 7 0 8 Approach: Delay LOS Delay LOS 15.1 C 13.5 B 10.0 B 6.1 B 6.1 B SB LT 636 1123 0.720 0.567 8.9 B 8.9 B Intersection Delay = 9.8 sec /veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time /Cycle, L - 6.0 sec Critical v /c(x) = 0.730 h I. � • i.. : .a. - � ■'.; - S P O K A N E ; •;, _; '.' —� C O U N T Y OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER • Ronald C. Hormann, P.E., County Engineer Dennis M. Scott, P.E., Director Michael Hunt North Idaho Engineering 4200 Seltice Way, Suite 2 Coeur d'Alene, ID 83814 SUBJECT: P1414 - Riverway Villa P.U.D. 1st Review Gentlemen: Due to the requirements for a completed Traffic Impact Analysis for this project, a cursory review of the road and drainage plans for this project has been accomplished. Areas of concern to us are noted on the attached review comments. Please make the corrections and resubmit them to this office in order that the review process may proceed. When the plans are resubmitted. mark all changes on the revised print in color. In addition, please provide an information copy of any utility plans for this project. If you have any questions about this review, please contact us at 456 -3600. Thank you. Very truly yours, Ronald C. Hormann, P. E. Spokane County Engineer ends: Plans (1 set) Calculations (1 copy) Comments (3 pages) cc:iroject file reviewer (comments only) W. 1026 Broadway Ave. A DIVISION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT August 26, 1993 4 Juiq Edward Jr. P.E. Plans Review Engineer Spokane, WA 99260 -0170 (509) 456 -3600 FAX (509) 456 -4715 REVIEW COMMENTS SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION OF ENGINEERING & ROADS 1026 W BROADWAY, SPOKANE WA 99260 -0710 PHONE (509)456 -3600 FAX (509)324 -3478 REVIEW #: 1 REVIEWER: Ed Parry PROJECT #: P1414 DATE: 26 August 93 PROJECT NAME: Riverway Villa P.U.D. PLANS: 1. Each submittal must be stamped, signed and dated by a Washington State - licensed Professional Engineer 2. Developer's approval signature will be needed prior to plan approvals 3. Evidence that the layout has been coordinated with the electric utility serving the site will be needed 4. Title Block: a. Indicate County project # (P1414) b. Indicate street name (not "A ", "B ", etc.) c. Indicate stationing limits of the road shown on the plan 5. Indicate CL bearings on all roads shown on the plan sheet 6. Indicate delta angle, radius, arc length, and tangent length (for centerline) on all horizontal curves 7. Indicate delta angle, radius, arc length, and tangent length (back of curb) on all curb returns 8. Barker Road: a. Indicate existing R/W, new R/W, future setaside b. Provide plans for Barker Road improvements 9. Indicate topography within the R/W, and to a sufficient distance beyond the R/W to resolve questions of setback, slope easements, drainage, road continuations, etc. 10. Indicate existing and proposed utilities, or provide an information copy of the utility plans for this project 11. Indicate Block & Lot ##'s north of Indiana REVIEW COMMENTS 26 August 93 PROJECT # P1414 REVIEW # 1 Page 2 of 3 12. Indicate Section, Range, Township on each plan sheet 13. Indicate BCR, MCR, ECR elevations in plan & profile 14. Indicate ECR stations on plan 15. Indicate BCR, ECR stations in profile 16. Label all PC's and PT's on horizontal curves (CL); curbline also if radius curve 17. Provide profile elevation scale line at left & right sides of profiles; elevations scale indicated on plans is different from CL should match vertical 18. Indicate datum 19. Indicate Benchmark 20. Provide intersection sight distance analysis for all intersections with County roads, and for all lots where the horizontal sight triangle encroaches onto private property 21. Provide "R" -value test results to validate pavement section 22. Indicate curb cut CL station, length, invert elevation 23. Indicate Drywell CL station, offset, grate elevation, grate type 24. Provide 30' (min.) separation between drywells 25. Drywell should be offset from curb cut by 4' min. 26. Curb cut detail: a. Needs back apron b. 2" depression at flowline is required 27. Indiana Street detail: Indicate sidewalks 28. Drywell detail: Needs to comply with SCRS std det. B -1 29. Rural road approach detail: Not applicable since this is an Urban density development. Coordinate with the County Traffic Engineer for required pavement transition lengths in and out of the site REVIEW COMMENTS 26 August 93 PROJECT # P1414 REVIEW # 1 Page 3 of 3 30. Type "B" curb: Coordinate with current SCRS 31. 300' minimum intersection separation is required on arterials (Barker Rd) 32. Traffic impact analysis submittal and approval is required (per Findings and Conditions) prior to any further plan review CALCULATIONS: 1. Each submittal must be stamped, signed and dated by a Washington State - licensed Professional Engineer 2. Basin Map: a. Show offsite topography b. Coordinate Basin Map with project phasing 3. Must use SCS TR -55 (June 86) for basins > 10 acres; must use Bowstring method for basins < 10 acres 4. Include slope calculations for T path 5. All nomographs should be readable; right -hand scale is cut off 6. Provide curb inlet capacity calculations 7. Provide Bowstring calculations: required volume, provided volume 8. Provide 208 calculations: a. Required, provided area b. Required, provided volume DATE: August 25, 1993 PRESUBMITTAL CHECKLIST PROJECT: Riverway Villa P.U.D. County Project #: P1414 PROJECT SPONSOR: Trinity Enterprises TEL# 928 -9645 PROJECT ENGINEER (Road & Drainage Plans) North Idaho Engrg TEL# 208/667 -1171 PROJECT SURVEYOR (Plat) Dick Mason TEL# 535 -1410 YES NO N/A GENERAL ITEMS 1. I have had a preliminary plan submittal conference with Development Engineering Services staff 2. I have a copy of, and have reviewed the most recent conditions of approval and have incorporated them in this plan submittal 3. An agreement to pay fees has been submitted to Development Engineering Services 4. The $100.00 fee for plans review has been paid to Spokane County for this submittal 5. The account is current (there are no unpaid invoices over 30 days) 6. Any design configurations or details out of compliance with Spokane County Road Standards or Stormwater management Guidelines have been addressed in a design deviation request submitted to Spokane County Engineers for approval. If you answer yes to #6, list design deviation requests and whether or not they have been approved. PRESIIBMITTAL CHECKLIST Project Name: 0/e¢4- IRGL/f �u17 County Project #: P104 Date: August 25, 1993 GENERAL ITEMS (cont'd) 7. The plans are legible 8. I have shown all lettering in a readable size preoubvl /Auguot 93 9. I have provided a complete new submittal, and have returned the red -lined previous submittal to the County 10 I have included both horizontal and vertical engineering scales 11. I have included a north arrow 12. I have included a drawing title block and sheet number in the lower right hand corner. The title block contains: ✓ a. Project name Pb. Project number (can be obtained from Development Services) c. Sheet number NO d. Street name or type of details Atal(A, 1,41 ° 06,e. Work limits stationing 2 PRESUBMITTAL CHECKLIST Project Name: Vic-LA ,1d County Project #: Pl414 Date: August 25, 1993 ROAD PLAN SUBMITTAL YES TO N A '1i, St 1 My road plans match the proposed plat layout. -A 2 Street names are designated on the plans. preeubvl /kugunt 93 3. I have included road alignments with a. 100' CL stationing, reading from left to right, south to north b. Stationing at points of horizontal curve and tangent c. Stationing at road intersections as per the latest edition of the Spokane County Road Standards. 4. I have included the bearings on the roads centerline, keyed to the associated plat map. 5. I have.,included the bearings on the roads centerline, keyed to the associated plat map. 6 I have included curve data on all horizontal curves a. radius b. delta c, arc length d. tangent length 7. I have included curve data on all vertical curves a. entering grade slope b. station at PVC c. elevation at PVC d. curve length e. station at PVI f. elevation at PVI g. station at PVT h. elevation at PVT i. exiting grade slope 8. I have shown the right -of -way lines and width for all proposed roads and tintersecting roads, together with ')'existing road improvement dimensions. 9. I have shown all topographic features within the right -of -way limits or future right -of -way limits, and sufficient area beyond to resolve questions of setback, slope, drainage, access onto abutting property, and road continuations (25' min.) 3 PRESUBMITTAL CHECKLIST Project Name: / (44.4 fr County Project #: A4! Date: August 25, 1993 ROAD PLANS (cont'd) presubv1 /August 93 10. I have a. Shown all existing and proposed utilities; OR b. Provided an information copy of the utility plans 11. I have included both horizontal and vertical engineering scales 12. I have included a north arrow 13. I have included a drawing title block and sheet number in the lower right hand corner. The title block contains: a. Project name b. Project number (can be obtained from Development Services) c. Sheet number d. Street name or type of details e. Work limits stationing 14. I have included cross - sections of: a. All proposed widenings of existing roads b. Proposed new roads 15. I have included a designation of the project start and project stop stations 16. I have included section lines and lot lines of all lots within the proposed subdivision or short plat 17. I have shown the profiles for the left curbline (top of curb), centerline, and right curbline (top of curb) 18 I have shown the beginning, middle, and end of curb return elevations on the plans and profiles for all roads in the project 19. I have shown the beginning and end of curb return stations on the plans and profiles for all roads in the project 20. I have shown all plan elements as defined in the Spokane County Road Standards (1981 edition) for all roads in the project 4 PRESUBMITTAL CHECKLIST Project Name: V(1/40 oak /J County Project #: Nf Date: August 25, 1993 ROAD PLANS (cont'd) preeubvl /August 93 21. I have shown all profile elements as defined in the Spokane County Road Standards (1981 edition) for all roads in the project 22. I have shown all other data necessary for this project 23. I have, or the owner has initiated "R" -value testing for each soil group located on the project site, for all road improvements in the project 24. I have submitted an intersection sight distance analysis for: a. All roads connecting to County roads b. All interior roads: (1) which have sight triangles which cross private property (2) where sight is obscured by the existing topography 25. I have checked the required curve lengths for all vertical curves and find that they meet County requirements for vertical stopping sight distance 5 PRESUBMITTAL CHECKLI Project Name: KAI Vu-A- PU4 County Project #: E4 Date: August 25, 1993 2. I have included in a bound report: a. Hydrology calculations which include (1) the time of concentration (2) flow path, with elevations, length, and slope 1/(3) surface cover description b. Soils map clearly showing the project limits / and soils types c. Inlet capacity calculations / d. Culvert capacity and velocity calculations e. Pipe conveyance capacity and velocity calculations f. Ditch capacity and velocity calculations g. Culvert backwater calculations h. Pipe backwater calculations i. Ditch backwater calculations j. Bowstring calculations for 208 swale designs (required and provided volumes) k. 208 swale sizing calculations (required and provided areas and volumes) 1. Detention /retention storage capacity calculations (required and provided volumes; allowable and actual outflow rates) 3. I have included the information required for construction plans as described in Section 2.3 of the Spokane County Stormwater Management Guidelines / 4. I have stamped, signed, and dated the drainage report and construction plans for stormwater management presubvl /August 93 DRAINAGE REPORT 1. I have included topographic information on a map which clearly defines: a. The proposed development b. All existing drainage courses upstream, through, and downstream of the development c. All existing improved and unimproved areas upstream, on, and downstream of the development d. All proposed drainage courses upstream, through, and downstream of the development e. All proposed improved and unimproved areas upstream, on, and downstream of the development 6 PRESUBMITTAL CHECKLIST Project Name: County Project #: Date: August 25, 1993 I understand that the requirements noted above are the minimum requirements necessary to perform a review of the project plans, that additional information should be submitted with this submittal as necessary, and that the County may require additional information upon completion of the plans and calculations review. I understand that this submittal will be checked for completeness prior to review, and that it will be returned for further information if it is found to be incomplete. I understand that this submittal will not be accepted for review until all required information has been submitted. Form completed by: (Firm) returned to: (Firm) by: Spokane County Public Works Development Services Submittal accepted for review presubv1 /August 93 Date Date returned for submittal of the following: General Item #: Road Item #: Drainage Item #: 7 • North Idaho Engineering, Inc. 4200 Seltice Way, Suite 2 • Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83814 • Phone (208) 667 -1171 • Fax (208) 664 -3507 HYDROLOGY STUDY FOR RIVERWAY VILLA SUBDIVISION PREPARED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COUNTY OF SPOKANE ON BEHALF OF- TRINITY ENTERPRISES, INC. APRIL 28,1993 f (444- RECEIVED MAY 1 1 1993 &Om COUNTY MEER Est £UY PJ z INTRODUCTION This hydrology study includes all tributary areas which total 62.1 Acres and which include runoff from the immediate project as well as runoff from future project areas. The existing terrain drains from a high point at the Mission Avenue approximately 1900± linear feet East of the intersection of Mission Avenue and Barker Road. From this area the runoff generally sheet flows in a northerly and westerly direction to the Spokane River, although there are several small natural channels, one in particular flows in a northwesterly direction to a low point just Easterly of Barker Road approximately 870 linear feet North of the intersection of Mission Avenue and Barker Road. The soil is described as sand and gravel, under approximately 18" of topsoil. The topsoil is planned to be cleared from the roadway section, and used elsewhere on the project, or removed from the site. Once this is accomplished the soil will be very porus. The existing soil classification for this area is type "B ", per the Spokane County Guidelines for Stormwater Management Manual. The basic design criteria used in this study is the SPOKANE COUNTY GUIDELINES FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, as well as generally accepted engineering principals. 2 er • Map symbol DsC DsD Dv D EkB EIC EID Em Fa6 Fa 83 FaC3 Fm GaC3 GgA GgB • GmB GnB • GpA GpB GpC GpD Dragoon stony silt loam, 0 to 30 percent slopes. Dragoon stony silt lu:uu, 30 to 55 per- emit slopes. Dragoon very rocky complex, 21) lo peach ti slopes. ]•:loika silt loan), 0 to 20 percent slopes. F,loil:a very stony silt loam, 1) to :30 per- emit slope's. Eloika very stony silt 10a11, 30 to 55 percent. slopes. ) :i silt. loam. Fresh w:lcr marsh. Soil 11:u n0 Freeman silt loran, 5 to 211 percent slopes. )rrecnl :um silt loam, 5 to 21) pet ce slopes, severely eroded. Fireman sill. loam, 20 lu :11) percent, slopes, severely eroded. Garfield silly clay loam, 0 to 30 percent, slopes, severely eroded. Garrison gravelly loam, 0 to 5 peke; t Sl opus. ' Garrison gravelly loam, 5, to 20 percent slopes. Garrison very gravelly loam, 0 to S percent slopes. G arrison very stony 10:111, 0 to 20 percent slopes. Clenrosc silt loam, 0 to 5 percent. slopl,s. Glenrosc silt loam, 5 to 20 pereentslopes. Glenrosn silt 'WWI, 20 to :30 percent slopes. ( Ileuruse sill. lua :30 L) 55 p•et'rol. slopes. Description of soil and site Similar to Dragoon silt loan), 0 to 30 percent slopes, except that the surf)ee layer is stony. Dragoon part similar to lagoon silt loam, 0 to 311 percent slopes, except that depth Lo bed- rock rouges from 10 to 20 inches. lt.ock out- crop incl iu this complex. \ ledinm- textured, troll - drained soil 1'01380(1 from glacial Lill containing a large :un01111t of vol- e11111e SSIt in tle SlIrfa:c ptycr; u)derlaiu lc gravel at depth of all to lid) inches; occupies undulating, nor :inclikc topography. Similar to JloikasilL loam, 0 to 20 percent slopes, except that they arc very stony throughout. A tedium- textured, somewhat poorly drained, alkaline soil formed in allnviinn from calcar- eous silt, volcanic :1511, and dialonte; depth to tvaler table fluctuates from near the surface to :Wont II feet. • Very deep, moderately well drained upla soils Ivit.h )medium - textured surface. lacer and medi- um or moderately fine textured subsoil; formed from sill on rolling to (hilly npl :uuls. Shallow, swampy, intermittent ponds and fringes around lakes that have a fluctuating water bible. Engineering data is not given, as land type is too v :ri:Ible. Very deep, well- drained soil (developed in loess 381 ritlgctops and knobs on the rolling to hilly uplands in the II:louse soil area. Gravelly, medium- icxtured, somewhat, exl.'e5_ sit'cly drained soils formed in gravelly glacial 011 Lwas1 material from a variety of acid, igucons parent rock; on nearly. level to mod- erately sloping terraces; depth to mixture of — sand, grovel, nod cobblestones ranges from 2;G to 5 feet. f Similar to Garrison gravelly loom, except that the sulfate Inver is very gravelly. Similar to Garrison gravelly loam), except that the surface layer is very stony. \ y deep, 111etliem1- texl. well - drained soils formed from acid igneous glacial fill; surface layer influenced by 10(55 and volcanic ash; 011 gently rolling t.11 sleep uplands. ' 1 ' .v)1,r. (3. I3rieJ descripttols of soils and their In. O to 24 24 to 41 44 to .5:3 53 t u 60 0 to 2); 26 1 o 1 1 41 to 60 I) to 22 22 to 72 O to8 S to 23 23 to 61) Al to'15 •' 15 to 4.1 •14 to 61) O to 15 15 to 44 44 to 60 0 to 72 Classification USDA texture Sill. loam ( :rattily loam Very gravelly sandy loam. (travel Sill. lum1 ' Very line s:uuly loam. Sandy clay loam_ _ _ _ Silt loam • Silly clay loam Silly clay loam Silly clay . Silty cloy loam •(Iravelly loan) Very gravelly loam Saud, gravel, and cobblestones. . Very gravelly loam _ _ Very gravelly loam__ Sand, gravel, and cobblestones. Silt loam • DRAINAGE: HYDROLOGY STUDY The project is currently bounded to the South by Mission Road, to the West By Barker Road, to the North by future areas to be developed by this project which are currently being used as agricultural farmland, and to the East by agricultural farmland, and single family homes. No significant runoff is being contributed from areas South of the proposed project, since generally the areas South of Mission Avenue drain to the South. There is some contribution of runoff from the West via Mission Avenue West of the project, however this runoff is diverted to the North by Barker Road, and therefore does not actually effect the project. All other areas West of the project drain Westerly, away from the project. Runoff to the East of this study, as well as some of the project area also drains away from the project. The Project historically drains in a Northwesterly direction to the Spokane River. According to Section 3 -1 of the above referenced manual, it was determined that a 10 year design storm is to be utilized for this project. This report is further divided into several sections for presentation, as follows: HYDROLOGY MAP • RUNOFF COEFFICIENT TIME OF CONCENTRATION CHARTS RAINFALL INTENSITY /DURATION CHARTS • • • F. 'TABLE 1 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR STORM SEWERS ROLLING HILLY FLAT 27. - 10% OVER 10% Pavement and Roofs 0 90 0.90 0.90 Earth Shoulders 0 50 0.50 0.50 Drives and Walks 0 75 0.80 0.85 Gravel Pavement 0 50 0.55 0.60 City Business Areas 0 80 0.85 0.85 Lawns, Sandy Soil 0 10 0.15 0.20 Lawn, Heavy Soil 0 17 0.22 0.35 Grass Shoulders 0 25 0.25 0:25 Side Slopes, Earth 0 60 0.60 0.60 Side Slopes, Turf 0 30 0.30 0.30 Median Areas, Turf 0 25 0.30 0.30 Cultivated Land, Clay and Loam 0 50 0.55 0.60 Cultivated Land, Sand and Gravel U 25 0.30 0.35 Industrial Areas, Light 0 50 0.70 0.80 Industrial Areas, Heavy 0 60 0.80 - 0.90 Parks and Cemetaries 0 10 0.15 0.25 _ i Playgrounds 0 20 0.25 0.30 Woodland and Forests 0 10 0.15 0.20 Meadows and Pasture Land 0 25 0.30 0.35 J 1 * Assumes flat lot plus one -half width of abutting street. Other configurations should be checked by combining individual runoff factors for each various surface. Date 4/4/84 *SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (Dwelling Unit /Gross Acre) (Sandy and Gravelly Soil) 0 -1.0 DU /GA 0.15 1.0 -1.5 DU /GA 0.20 1.5 -3.0 DU /GA 0.25 3.0 -3.5 DU%GA 0.30 3.5 -4.0 DU /GA 0.35 4.0 -6.0 DU /GA 0.40 6.0 -9.0 DU /GA 0.60 9.0 -15.0 DU /GA 0.70 6 -2 TABLE 1 _j 4 1 1 it 10,000 - 5,000 - 1,000 -s 500 -- 100 10 • 50 5 - (L) Example: . L = 1,000 s = 0.01 n = 0.5 C ( ) (I/ L - 1 - 5 (2) (3) C 2 - T, TIME OF CONCENTRATION .Tc= Ct (Ln /-/s) 0.6 T = 49.7 minutes 0.0001 - 0.0005 - 0.001 --^ • -- -- --. O.I • , - N 0 \ 0.005 \ 0 0.05 0.1 - (5) to • — 0.05 - 0.5 - 1.0 (CO 0 - TYPE OF AREA '. AVERAGE GRASS COVER POOR GRASS COVER VALUES OF • 0.3 NATURAL DRAINAGE AREA OVERLAND FLOW (2) FIGURE 3 • 100 50 • / 40 30 .20 10 - ° n' .4 .3 Ct .4 .15 - 1.0 0.5 0.0: 0.01 (n) 1 r 1 10,000 -- 5,000 1,000 500 100 — n - 50 }. 10 — TIME OF CONCENTRATION 5 — (L) T = C t (Ln /-J) 0.6 Example: • L = 1,000 s = 0.01 . n = 0.5 C = 0.3 • -- ....... () (21 (E1 C 2 7, T = 49.7 minutes 0.0001 - 0.0005 — 0.001 — \ 0.005 \ \ \ ■ —0.5 0.01 — 0.05 — 0.1 — (S — 0.01 0.05 • —1.0 (C,) 6-5 (2) 50 - / / 4 0 / / / 30 - FIGURE 3 10 — 5 — ::-'t TYPE OF AREA „ AVERAGE GRASS COVER .4 POOR GRASS COVER ' .3 VALUES OF • .Ct‘ NATURAL DRAINAGE AREA , .4 OVERLAND FLOW .15 Co 2 mw 1.01 0.5 0.1 —, 0.0, 0.01 (n) 10,000 — 5,000 — 10 5 (L) ilaRsaR TYPE OF AREA " . • AVERAGE GRASS COVER .4 POOR GRASS COVER • .3 Exam le: VALUES OF • - _ C v L = 1,000 s = 0.01 n = 0.5 C, = 0.3 NATURAL DRAINAGE AREA .4 OVERLAND FLOW .15 TIME OF CONCENTRATION T = C t (L /-/S-) 0.6 T = 49.7 minutes 0.0001 — 0.05 0.1 (5) 6 - 5 (2) • 100 FIGURE 3 5 — (T 0.0 (n) • • Y 10,000 — 5,000 — 1,000 I•tr \ 500 — 10 — 5 --- (L) • TIME OF CONCENTRATION TYPE OF AREA AVERAGE GRASS COVER .4 T = C (L / -) 0.6 POOR GRASS COVER .3 Exam le' VALUES OF • . Ct P L = 1,000' s = 0.01 n = 0.5 C, = 0.3 NATURAL DRAINAGE AREA .4 () ( 1 ) L - I - S (2) 1 - 2 - n (3) c 2 - .T c \ T = 49.7 minutes O.0001 — 0.0005 — 0.001 -- 5 - 8 \ — 0.01 0.05 0.1 — (S) — 0.01 — 0.05 — 0.5 6-5 (2) OVERLAND FLOW - . .15 • • 100 — / / 30 — (2) --- _ - -20 FIGURE 3 , 4 / 1 TA ‘1 40 — / 10 — 5 — n — I -O _ 0.1 — ,0_05 0 -01 (n) r i' 1' •t 10,000 • 5,000 1,000 50 100 • 50 (L) AVERAGE GRASS COVER .4 - I n = C a /-VS 0.6 POOR :GRASS COVER ' . _ .3 Ezompler • . VALUES OF • . _ . Ct L = 1,000' s = 0.01 n = 0.5 C = 0.3 NATURAL DRAINAGE AREA .4 OVERLAND FLOW .15 T = 49.7 minutes (() (/) (2) I - 2 - n (J) 01. 2 - Tc TYPE OF AREA TIME OF GONCENTRATIO'N 0.0001 0.0005 0.901 0.05 0.1 (S) 0.01 0.1 / (2) / / / / 7 7 7 . / FIGURE 3 • 100 50 40 (T 35 m ti-t (n) 0.5 10 0.1 0.0' 0.01 1 2CcO' 10,000 -•- 5,000 — 1; -+s \ 500 — 100 50 — ' 10 — 5 — ( L) – TIME OF CONCENTRATION T C (L /–ji") 0.6 Eilample • L = 1,000 s = 0.01 n r 0.5 C = 0.0001 — 0.0005 — (1) \ 0.005 = 49.7 minutes 0.05 — 0.1 — (I) (2) I - 2 - n - (J) C 2 .T (5) 0.001 — - \ — 0.5 0.01 --- d " 1.0 ( — 0.01 — 0.05 R TYPE OF AREA ..: -'" AVERAGE GRASS COVER POOR GRASS COVER VALUES OF • 0.3 NATURAL DRAINAGE AREA OVERLAND FLOW (2) FIGURE 3 50 / / 0 10 — 5 — / / / / (3) / 30 – // / / / — I.0' 7 -- -(2) - - - 20 `1n1)a — 0.1 — '0.0'. • 44 0.01 (n) 11 .t -ar • " n TIME OF CONCENTRATIO TYPE 0FAREA'Th N 10,000 5,000 5 — (L) AVERAGE GRASS COVER .4 -I C r C t (L /-V 0.6 POOR GRASS COVER ' • .3 Example: ' VALUES OF - - - . C ' , . ' L r 1,000' s = 0.01 , n = 0.5 C = 0.3 NATURAL DRAINAGE AREA . .4 ' OVERLAND FLOW . • . T = 49.7 minutes • ' ( ) 0.0001 -- (1) (2) -z- n (3) C 2 - (S) R-S FIGURE 3 • 100 — (T ) 2 - Tl r r 1 7 H .3 �1 . 1 _ L • L-: Le lj LS L 4_1 L_1 • I _I ■ m ■u ■u i ■u . ■u Asa resat NMI WI • ■ ■HMHH E■u■ E■ HM■■M■. f f ■uEEH mum RWMISMOMMIONWAP M il ■■■■■H ■ uu •■ u M■ 11111 L H ■ ME ■E■. I ■■ H ■. mum mire mom lint a molar-a i ts ■ ■■■■ I mo ■ ■ m■■ OM Min uu.■■■■■■■■■■■■■ .ice■■ .W�■ /�..■■■.•■■ p ■EEE BH ■� EM.■.■.IE■H.M■■IMH■AI %73y■■�H� H .N■ HH■■ ■t■■ A•••••••••••••••••••• ■u■. ■ ■.W■ •■H ■■u. ■M■ono i■Ti u ... � RE MUM MENUMMEN • .�...� MM.n .■.N %E 4111111 All EMM MOM l KM NNE WEEMS � EE p NE.EH !Mann■ •.H•i.■■ZN■ .BH.■nuM• EN MEM MN n. °�a��■� 1 _H� ■■ ■ u ■ . m ■.H■.. ■ .. • EMMM NMEMEE■■■E.E t ■. . � H■H.. ■■■.u ■II ■ .a. ..■■ � ■ .uH..■.■..■.H■ u■ ■■■■a.■.�i.■■..i ■ mrsj mammosimmanummummi ■ r' ■EM■■■ •M■■■u m _ ■ I . ■ .EMWME•••••■ ■ iii ■ iE �aiieiii tim■■■■■`■■ ■EUC ■ ■C ■H ■ ■■■ ■■ EM■■._uuH■.0 ■■ ■ H■■■t■ t..■ ` ■■.■. HM■ IMHM ■M MIME AI . I :: , - 11-77 ■■H Ot E ■H■■■ HM romormrrammummes im IMMO ii 11, Q' � ••ii • •iMH UE U iEiu MEiu�.••�iu �u r L nom guru is man milmi. AS-.0111E. a . . . Tt IMHM ka 1 M - I - '-' 1 o f ;� J.' J. M■ a d �1r :�M-- r ommaq'T■.CI�,' _" ■■ IMr�i � lt r MEN 1 irsidocIal ' �w ■IMIM■ ■IM. mmE YIN■ � ! � ! ■ IMt HH■ �� L °L�I► II B 20 30 . • 40 50 . 60 ;n Rr on inn • 1 • -- Err • I - - , - 1 - Ti .r1= ► - /2 • 4 • • ' ° ROM N REREEMERMISL • UA -, r■ 1 n■ ■ ■n �■■■ °n■n■u • ■■ W n n . n ■y■■■■■ ■n m I ■�■ ■ ■■i■■ ■ ■n■■ ■■ u ° ■ ■ ■n ■■■ n■n■■ Q■■■ ■■■�■ ■ n T ' ■ Wn ■ ■ ■■■■ N■■u u n : .n► .■ ■■■ �- m U ■■■NIp:GU:GUG: °■°■■R I II k _ rt f • ■■ 11.1 I I j II: ■■1■Gn� IT is 1 ■ • M N (0_ • • • II er • Nunn■■ . • nnwu n MAN • n ten- ■ . U fliP & AR AMMO QQ :G: ■■MINN 1 , • . - " - Tr -I r _ L • ■ n ■ ■ ■ ■U ■ ■ n ° 1�7t O ■ ■ ■ ■ ■n ■ ■n ■■W n ■nl l tOm ■■m■■■■n■■■■� nmom � W • °■■a:::■G■o■n :m°■■:: n■ u: °G:ama ■ n ■ n n um m u ■ ■n■■■■■■■n■ C ■■n■O■■:## Nn nn■ n ■■■■ ■■ W ■ Wn ■ ■■ Nunn. ■■ MR I I e r4/....-; 1 I I Lj • U n■■■■■ ■N■ MN ROMMIROMERRE • W ■■ ■u■ u■■ ■nor I 'mil -' -T - -,-,�- _ _ RRN ■n■ UN:GG.. � �■■v ma n■ Y sy , � °: Q;u�G■■, ■n■i°W. ■ -�i' n� ■■:: : ■ 'G Gs " w■:a : '■°' .■SaM ■6n . n ■W■■NW■■■■ IUMIM ■ ■n ■ 111 ■■•`° ■ i y�' ■ ■ ■ G ■ ■ n� mom mom ■ ■n■ � ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ • lamp i ■` v. II MIMQn■■ ■ERM ■GGQu■ r r _ ■ �■ III iii iginellist matt.- Amma. 1 5111111 log n - �i■■i �a1■■ ■ ■min r .��Ni� _ -� -� -� _'-� � � a _ =iiiiG -' J- ■ 1:1111 ■ nW ' mat T ■n ry� IT. Oran 1 i n n ■ � nniQ i ■ • ■ �� mom mono W WWQ■■■ Ain ■ ■W■ W .G■�G G G■ W '�G, , . �' �:GME eras !■■ ° PQ _mom ma ma ROFMRRUM mm mammon.. :UG �i'■ n■■ ■ G : ill.1111110:111.1di . d u nW �!� °N■■an Frain NM Immummo malinammonmum n■■■■W■n■■■■ mi'uM�eU L1 ■s.= ". ■J.1 =39.=Makal :�■� ■Mule raa■■ ■ °\° ■ .■■, p, "\ !mamma ER k n ■n■� ■G■ p w a i' ma■■ 1 �_ 'i■°b° n■■ IIIIImmsamonnanomm h- ■ :G■■■■■.U:■ :000nn.. Smommmmommmummammommommm ■te amomm ■■■u■■■u■nW■u■■ ■ p W■■■■ n o■w W ■■.■W■W nn■ ■n■■l■■ ° ° a i ■■.°°° n■G ■■ mum n ' 1 : ■ ym°■p ■ n■ n■ ■■ o � ■, ■■■■mm.■NBON ■ W ■■■■W ■■ ■ ■■■ ■°■a ■■ G ■■nn■G■ ■.. ■.L.o:QG ■■ W • IIRMI■.■■■°W■■■■■■oun w .�9 20 30 • 40 . . 5 0 _ . 60 G') nnrra 77' n 0 . • i nn rn w I ... Lt �--'� i - -'- ' . �� • L. �J y LJ �I L_1 • I , n � •• • un iii I , r - t - smounanunas am num 4f ■earl/ /v= /�tanstr I � WM ■■■ m ■N/ n!!!n■ ■Y! T •••••••••• , ,��■ n Y ■ ■!■ �i '■ nii/m am 'n , -r: n rry.■■Er .2:1" �• n . . .. er r.. . r �i =i ° 11 OWE •111•116 ■ ■ ■ ■ ln1S/ garazu ■nn C = / �■■ ■ ■� ■ m / � A ■ ■ _pn .. ■■!n!N■■!m ■ ■ . °° ' a • ••■■ ■YU■/■■!!Y■!N 1 1 Ii j II IL :I tj ff. S l piI I S ! ■W ■ !! - SEipffluIHi,sIr '' ■"�' !■'' p ■i' ■a./n ■ ii1 '' n■ . N! :iii ! y:. nnn !! p�lYl� ■!n n!! ■•/n•••/n WN••••••••WM n•••••••• f l in ■■■!n■■ ■n N ■ ■!■ ■ n • Y " niN■ii i n !■ !Winn jj� ■ ' "T - 7 n! ■ W 'aani !!■/Y■! ■ ■N!!a . ■■ Y l �n T ''■N! ��W .■■ ■■pi MIN n u•n•••�pnn !Y■p!!!■■n!!!!■Y■!!■! n/ ■■!lN1�'i■'i�/■uHN ■ ■N n■N •••n•••m •• N■n!!!Y ■N■■!Y ■!■!!■■/■!!/■ !!m 1■ ■/■■! ■ �• ■YN nn!■Y ■Yn■! ■mnu /■■ ■NNW ■nw ■! / ■Y ■N ■!n! ■ ■■ 0n■ n �' - • ; : !! ■ ■ ■ / nw/■!u•• pp•••••••n•••un� •••••N• WI n � � - r; ■ NNU ■ ■ ■ ■NnnlNNU! ■ ■ ■ ■N . .�d■ ■ ' •• ••••••••1111•11 7,-1-7 ■ N Er••M11111••••••••••1111111111••••11iii ■ ■n ■ -� N ■ / ■N1■!■ ■■ ■per NN■ !■ YY■mnNi !■ ! /i/iQ'■i■m■/'mii°■■11i •• ■iinn •■ ■! ■n �ua�� + ' ■ ■■�� T nnln■■■ ■N1!■! ■n ■.■N1 �'■t ■ ■■■mmu r - t' ;-' NN ; -1T__ •••••••i •••••••WWY •••• !■ �p ■ , - - Y ■■i■ ■Y ■!!■■■i 11•2511911. �c ■■■�' � ,_'_1;_' 1.11•111•11.1•••••• !■■■! O! ■ ■NiNT_ . • N■ ■ !u■■/■N! 1111• IIMILW ■ ■ nsua m!■m ■■ ! ■ ■■ •wo . r■ �� .•n.raNwYmwm■mm■ i YO � �i � '■■ p i■■ v. bn+ �. ■ . ■ ■ ■ ■ ►.Y■ p i■■ 1 ■1■ # ■!/ .:-. ow t__ !■N ■ii' 1 .nn iin ` ■�i'. " ii nii ■n"Q■n■i ' '■■■ ' ' n■ ! ' N■■r�p�■ a "_ .pia. -I-•- mums NI Lirtill: phibittaltkratintrarl _titritHrs mu in ��...QO ..tea. 4 �:CG:wL.■ ■■ ranee ■ N ■ _� • l. 7 4 __, i ■ ■ ■■ ■ � =� ■h��■ ■� �a�i:,;i�i�i ■■.■/ ® /Yaai■■N■s�..a v . _f_ I:.. �■ ■ ■C� ■■ ■ii■ QCCp- ■;�i� ■�ee�ee °eei:�aYS.■ '■°'..., 1_ - .. rt i ■ ■■■11 /■ /! ■■■■ I rf I Gi ■liui!■!■ L : . } I � - i'- I- 1 11 � _..- -- _ I :: .. ` �_ - _ �. � ■N O /0 20 30 40 7,1 .n S• 0 /0 - . 20 30 • 40 A hemn:50 60 n • LJ L i EMIL • :d ■ V■11 ■'N■ • ■ - _ �■. ■11■ N ■ ■■■ ■■■■ ' I I I 1 Tm I ■ SOMERM mum su - G�i W I gm M II M MISI M 1■■N■1 1■nN MEMEMMNMONSERE • :::adE ,,;,n�8:=■1y'::'::' 'W:■..:: ■N. ■1 nn ■ ■ ■N ■■■ I I TIT , • fy T mom • _t (- - • ■-` .E ■ • N ' :I ; ■ I . •e nn.■ r 1 .■ .n:::: N !N •I • .I1 • I 1 • Cry MESEMEMIN nu: :T ' • '• I n. • : : N■■ .-- • ■9i • a ►�■► r. ':: • onsets ,n■ , N1W • • •: In■1. I.■■ ■1a■■ ►ri u�1►An • •■U� ■ ■1 r __ �' • u■va: fr a S : r m ;014;11■ elli utlikilftam fibs. knob. at, la � = smiluipar ■ ■i�■ ■�. i�r■�.� ■ ems 1 ■.■■r... 1. :::n �� • 11.111iiiiiiiiiiiiii. INN�1■1iuN■ mum ME 4111111111.111 ■1:■N 1 . ■ R ■No■n■■■■ „� ,N, ■OlNu ■nl■1 ■■ ■ W u ■■■■■1■■NN N1■ • • • . .■ 2TMZ• • a ■ ' : ::■1■1N■W. ■■N■ ■NN■ : • :: "':1 NM ■ „■ ■DN■ S M1■ �■v, ■POOMN■ ■■■■ 3 NM 0p0? • I ■N n■NW■:�■■ u ■. ■Nl N: ■■■■■■ ■.■■■■ 1 ; ■ al � ■■ ■' + 4-4 ■ ■ ■ �'■�■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ �WWY ■ ■ 1W■ N T „ 1 ■1 N jN::N ' ■ ■ ■�1 ■■■N ::: �.� :■■"".■■:■ONnN ■n:�n■. ■:'i'■'■ J I ■� ■■ ■��p� ■ ■ ■ ■nn■ ■■■■nn ■N■ • • ■■n■N■W■.1■■: ■n■::: NUM NMOM .■■■■ ■■■■ MMIU■■W n■■■ ■ W■ ■■■WN■ n: ■N■n■Wn■■■■■■■■■■n ■ ■ ■ . W ■■■ ■n■■ ■■■■■■■■■ ■.■W N n 1■■ ■ ■■ ■■■ ■■■ ■ ■■■ N ■ :ri:�„::: 1'■ s■■1Q1 g■g■:mons■■■O�■■gm • N • V: - ma N■NN WN■■■■n■■■ Nl■■N ■ 1 ■...■ 1N ■■■■■■1■� •N ■N •■■ 11■11 m 1 _ m:N n 1 m mo � �..N :: "' , ■ ■■■p 1 ■■ � ■■ p 1■ ss:s: ' i ' NS°■ ''' :: ' :: s:■■e :: I ■■•�Nn■■ I ' 4 ■ n■■ ■1■ 1 ■,C■NNN1■n•• r �;� -' 11 N N■■Nl ■ ■ ■1 ■1 -r r ■ ■■■ ■1 ■ ■■N • .:W .■ ■ ■ ■n moos T IT _ i ■u■nnn.N! ••• n ■1 ■N ■n 4 • N■NN■■■■■ ■■ le p p ■ ■W!N■■■■ N11■Nn■. 111■ ■■ .i iN 1orno ,n■m � ■n ■N ■nN�■!! Bnl■ �:: : JJ ■ •� ■ uC■ • 1 t..L1J L ::: ■ ■NN ■ -L 1 !1 1■ m •n nn w 0 KM • MEN ME MEEMEMMAI sal Hi 11 i4 ■N CB ■■ ■■..■;N ; ■ / ■ mmy N mai ■.N s:■ ■ :� :e so .: . us=I:e: °I 'M ■ ■1 � ■ ■1nN■ ■■■ • 1111 ■i I : u■ - '7 1 .�� N ■N :N. / ■■ . T ■ ■N ■■■■ ■�■■ all _ ■■■N ■■ ■■■ m i .u■■s Z271m f l u: ■ n■ ■ .n n ■ ■ �/� �■ ■■■N■■■■ /N■■■ mom ■ miummummanamm No Giaii'Nii ■■ 1111111" p�■■ ■ ■■■� .. ■n■ ■ l�� j .�o n _ m i ■ isi■ ■■ i�u n ■ NuNU ■ ■ ■ „. ■N�: ■N n■■W ■■ ■■n /W ■■ /■■ N /■ n H ■ ■NON■■n �' Y /■.■■: ■■�� / ■/ N ■■N■N■ ■ ■ ■ ■N � / ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ 1 111■■ ■■N■ ■■N■■ . N O■ ■■N■ ■ ■u■■N■■■u■■■■■■ N nw N / /■■ n■■■ ■ ■■■■ ■ �■■N■■■■■■■■■■ �■ �'` � N�n__ / ■ N ■ UM M IN a o_ ■ ■■ ■■■ ■■ i i ii■iiu.A ■ N ■■n 0 a. ■■■■■ ■■■■ NN = ■n ■■■■�■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■ n 11F••• •••••= 1 %•••••• ■■N■■■■■■■■■N..■■■■■N_ O ■■/N■■■ ■■ ■u •••••••••••••••••••••••••• maniN ■ / NN N■a ■ n:.mnniin■ ■ ■ ■nni ° ini ■q N■■ N■■■u■■n0■uu■■■iN /N■ pp■■ - `T ■NN■ ■■■�■iniiommummaimi■■■■■■i i li (T� ' I ' ■N� - . i ■ N■■ ■■ ■N■n■■■N■ ■■N■ ■■u■■■ /■■■■■■■�• - ■ N mommu ■ ettr,� { — ;� mom ■■ q■ 11.....11 • ■ ■■ N■Nini NNNNN ■ ■N■ T ^T ■ 1111 -GZ ' ■NON ■ ■■■■ ■ p ■ � ■ Om mn ■■ONO ■NON ■u /ONE' • aim ■ O� ■■ ■■ � 9�.. N ■N ■■■O ■O N■ ii1nE■■/■■ ■ a u Or■■r■ ■■■ ■ N■ -! 111111114 ■ ■ ■ 1 ■■■1■ 1 11$ .�:s ■ i ■ T -rt i ■ ■1111 • il L vd■ N_� � a _ ■ • , . ■■1■ �■► \ ■WI■■■ ■N■ ■ Mahn EFUNMELmammwrma � 3 i\41ei ■■' ai ■ L u■ j O I-!'- I �N ■■ manu■ u. ■■i■o■■■■■■uranni e. ■ ■■■■ ■■ ■■mo N■!!isa °wa.■N■ma1 Cni+ner ■� ■ /m � ■ ■p aser ■� � �G■■�r a Ri mumaiCiii�irii■■/f�.■■■ ■ tt II mm ■ � ■ ve ' 34�� = I m■■■ -■ ■■ C ■.ANN■ AE I .. ■■I ... 1 ._..} ; I I ; i /0 - • 20 • 30 3Sit _ 30 . . # r2 7/7 . A /1 0 n 1, u . • L �-� � Lei "S • IJ • �---� ATP ■ T C■■ /C■C°■ /mCnu.n • ■■■■ n�� : ■:■■■■■CCC■nCC■��■■CCC..CC�p�■■■ ■■p / /■ ■ K EEN ��uE�n�• °mC m ■■CC■ iEi■ 5 ■ n ■ CC ■ai ■ ■ mmn ■ ■■ imam ■ eilmonargan om ■gN■ Ca ate = . uqu■■■■■n M ■■N■■ /Nq _ qqu ■NC ...C :4 ;;NO } ■ --4--t--+-144 _, u u ■■N ■ ■C Ni Cn CCU mummla■ 1■ ■ ■ N N N ■ ■CCCCCC■■u q■■■■ ■■■ ■q■ ■■n ■ ■ ■■■N■ il i n ■ ■C■■■ u /■C■Nq■NCnnun�■■:■ugpp■ W C■■. ■n■■■■■■■■■ uu mmpuC:■.■■■ ■■■u■ N // ■N /pp� mu■■■■■`■ N■p /■■ //■/ ■■■N /■///■■.. ■N ■/■ ■nnNn■■Nnm■rCri■u� ■ /n■/ ■■n■! /•■ ■••Um• /n■ /• { Cn O■ N E i•�i O ■N C •/■N//■N/■N/NN / // /NN m _.. /// /•n/ n• so■//■■/ ■■ q /■• /■ /■■monommma //q //• imam •une / ■N/■�C • /■N/N /■ /•p■ •■•/ n• : ' ! m /■•• /N■ ■■.m / ■N■ ■■•CC /N/ ■•C /••/ -i = .�N■;:;CC■■ CS�C /■ppm�ammmopmm C/■ W ;A ■ /■/ / .mme IIHn ■NC Ammon minlpp�� ■ ■1■■ ■n /■ m■ ■�� q ■n /■■ /N• ■C�N •••N• AIIIIROME mmess �� p�� ■ MA E E . SOMEONE' •/■N// per m■• mum ■■■G MEMS � V■I pi // / /!_ /4 .T n ■NMMY. WN■•■ ■Nn /■ • �■• -� ■n■■■►�/■/ � _ CC■ ■ t ■CC ■ ►�■C �■nn■■■■ ■■/ u■ ■■■■■ ■ r ma ... q ■q f ■ n ■ /q/ IIB C E CC'C S C N / � CC / C T �- mCCCi 47 ■■////n /i/u// /CCm mum : ■ ��:°C ■� ■■ ■ C■ ■■ nim ■ C■ ■ :: ammo /■/N� /■ CC ■/■■n ■//N / ■■■ T �C C.N�1■ CCu C q n ! of W a :� • s►�� a irman w 30 • 40 _6/7 Cn 9n n LS > y -je5 /O ZO 30 40___.. SO h� Ls 1 L_ Ls L_1 iJ �._ ■■ UMW t■t■■ ■ t■t NOM . ■ Mann N ■ !R n■ m 1 - 7 - • Jr.. Y l�,■ ■t■■ tlt _T-r.TiT J� � f'� A� ° ° ° a �/ ? �I � R� ' ■iit � �� R Iw ° %I,R t I ■ 1 _h i i Nt !tt ■ ■� tN■ ■■ n ■ ■ ■ ■ttnnY 1 Wt • i .-Fin R■ ■ ■N ■ t ttt■ -[ ■� R i 1 m■.!� ■■t■mW! ■!NN!■■ ■ UMMINE ■■M 1 1 T" ■ 1 ■!!! ■■I ■ ■N EN lHt!! ■ !N!!n!H! ■RnlN T = Yit■!m! n !■� ■■ sn t� Y H!N'N ° t■■ ! RR l t�! !■ ■NU�lm! • !!! N ■ ■ __ W■ I.'�M'�IJ J:'Ji'I■ 9 ■ � ��y.�. -■ r sa At !Hn Ynt NN■ m • tttn! ■ ■ tttmt■!t■t • lYtWnt ■WW ■m�! ■ NW mu • s som Rn ■■snn ■ man n ! ■ ltt ■R ■•— . - ' n mH NI ■ ■1! n!!R!n! n • .. • !t ■!N Nm � 5 nn n• N u 1 Ntt ■!! t■ " - I ■ !N n!!NR NWIt ■■ -Cr T ! I ■ N Z} ` i ■ f I ! N!!H!! t■■ ME • T �Y �t i ' 44-4-44- . N t■!■ t■ C t MANN WM N!■ -NY .N ■■ Nm N!H ■!!!R n ■N!!!!!RR H 1 !■ . - 7 - i i , , i : r : J .I ltYW!! �lR Nm !� N f ice- I �1 , 1 _ T ` mu _ r ■ ! ■ ' iiR.H t t mmlRN R ' utitt■ - u ffl 1 N1 1 ■ n �! ' i' Y .l nsn n ! RR ' �■!N!! ■ttR ■ ■ ■m MOM NEN ■ ! ■ ! � p NENN ! IRR RR!! 1H lnl ?� n!■ MINN N! ■ !!! W N!t■!!!■!!■!!t!!WH■ t� °nv ' ' ' L ■YN mmEMMEiti IMMilo■iH1iRR °lI BIII■uuRRRRRRRRRR ■ �l�l� ■ tW■ N > _ �N ■W■■■NN t■R■m EMMA t Ettlt WNW ' , ■■ - i ' - : N nG MEW e n mtntut■■■ ■t ■ ■\:a1 ■!� _ - ttt ■■ ■ ■. N = t■RRtt N��IR ■ R ■ H tt t R■ tR 1■ N t AR �..! ■ MAIMS ,- ■ 4444.. , - _-! �__:-. - ■N n !■■N!!t ■■ t mnit R !! M■ , ■ ! : .. m , _ , . ■ut■ N! 1'N■■t ■■■!■ntt •tt • R■ ■■tt• ' , a�� I I I I ■■ t■B (,. , i = — !!sown ■mummum ■!� IN \- ■fit _ _ m , 1 uffuiiiiIII1ffuffuffI mlt! ■ tt■!u■■ t r tT, • !t■■ i NM -Annum 1 an Yi . I 1 m ! -� ', a- _- NNnmltN■ Nn ■nn m!■■!t■O Ma ■ t t ■E ■■ mt RR■lR �► mtt■ rri■n t!■!■! ■ m i MOON Pi■!►m�t►�■°R��u�s� iR�■viH ■ ice �� e n iR ■■ ! u■ ■ R !ft■■■lta ■ ` ■r !' !N■■ ■t■ ■! ■ ■■■s, N awn p pN !! ! 1■ !.\ � Ii !■ ■�N.■ ' HO N RRR R �!■ • RR l• Mi , mull N ■ ■. St ■ 1 I H ■ !. ! ►i ■r. ■u■m RRR ■I■ ■ ■ ' I C. RNR R■ ■.� � �� J�� W � � ■ !! Rn! ■ R 1 , 1 ITT _ �_. t■ ■t �!■ i !a- t■ ce - �.° t-.. 7 -� m ! R �} 1 ■, II" � ■:�atrall tat VII !! Lt - .i_ R RR ■ T tNNR■ • i _ N 1� ■■ ■W■T r 7 a vilep� er �•aat�t��g n�RRRRRR■ ��s � ■emu -- . RR .641u,'RRRR= t G--a S =CQQI�I�i lam' GGGCCQ7iGGV�R ■ ;' ; RR i_ _ �_ RC Ot ■ R.R R` ' R .�_( I i • t : III R ■tR ■!R!■R!l=J! W • I .v i ! tRR _ . . 1 _ .- . . 7/7 - <t/: an inn Lead Agency Spokane County 76 2 co c E c c> LI� . Lcu Lead Agency: Spokane County Date of Issue: March 19, 1982 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RIVERWAY VILLA Project Sponsors H & E James Etter Walter Hedlund Route 4, P. 0. Box 768 Spokane, Washington 99218 (509) 747 -0303 INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. East 12720 Nora Avenue Spokane, Washington 99216 INTRODUCTION The proposed action under review is a request for a Subdivision Planned Unit Development for Riverway Villa, a site for 365 manufactured homes and a neighborhood commercial center. This center would possibly include a super- market, drug store, hardware store, bowling alley and a mini - storage facility. The proposal would be phased over an eight year period. The applications for this proposal are on file at the Spokane County Planning Department, file No. PE- 1414 -81. The proposed action was initiated by H &E. The 118 acre site is located in the Spokane Valley south of the Spokane River, east of Barker Road, and north of Mission Avenue in the west half of Section 8, Township 25 North, Range 45 EWM. The lead agency for this proposal is Spokane County and the responsible official is Wally Hubbard, Director of the Spokane County Planning Department, North 721 Jefferson, Spokane, Washington 99260; telephone (509) 456 -2274. The proposed action may require the following legal actions and permits: 1. Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements; 2. Preliminary and Final Plat approval; 3. Zone reclassification approval; 4. Approval or permits from the Spokane County Health District, the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services and the Washington State Department of Ecology for design and operation of a sewage disposal system; 5. The obtaining of all required building permits, inspections and approvals; 6. A Substantial Development Permit (RCW 90.58); and 7. Binding Site Plan and Storm Water Management Plan. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement was issued on December 15, 1981 and the review and comment period ended January 19, 1982. The issue date of the Final EIS (FEIS) is March 19, 1982. The circulation of this document is prescribed in the SEPA Guidelines (WAC 197 -10 -600) which directs that the FEIS must go to "the Department of Ecology, Office of the Governor or the Governor's designee, the Ecological Commission, agencies of jurisdiction, and federal agencies with jurisdiction, which received the Draft EIS." Copies of this document may be obtained from the Spokane County Planning Department for the cost of reproduction and mailing. 1 IA The Final EIS contains a Glossary, a revised Site Plan indicating the Spokane River Floodplain and the Inland Paper Company ownership, Lead Agency Notes, letters from reviewing agencies, and responses to their comments. This Final Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by Inland Pacific Engi- neering Company. Data required to produce this document may be obtained at the following address: Inland Pacific Engineering Company, East 12720 Nora Avenue, Spokane, Washington 99216 (509) 922 -1300. 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Introduction i Distribution List iv Addendum to the Draft EIS, Presented in the Final EIS 1 Glossary 2 Lead Agency Notes 4 Revised Site Plan 6 Comments and Responses 8 c TABLE OF CONTENTS 111 Federal Agencies Soil Conservation Service, Spokane State Agencies Office of the Governor, Olympia Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia Ecological Commission, Department of Ecology, Olympia Department of Ecology, Olympia Department of Ecology, Spokane Department of Natural Resources, Colville Department of Game, Olympia Department of Game, Spokane Department of Social and Health Services, Olympia Department of Social and Health Services, Spokane Department of Transportation, Olympia Department of Transportation, Spokane Clearinghouses Spokane County Regional Planning Conference, Spokane (2) Spokane County Board of County Commissioners (3) Boundary Review Board • Building Codes Department Engineering Department (3) Health District (2) Parks and Recreation Department Planning Commission (7) Planning Department (20) Prosecuting Attorney (2) Air Pollution Control Authority Utilities Department Sheriff's Office Central Valley School District #356 Neighboring Cities and Counties City of Spokane Plan Commission (2) Libraries Spokane County Public Library (2) City of Spokane Public Library DISTRIBUTION LIST iv Media The Spokesman- Review Spokane Daily Chronicle The Valley Herald KHQ TV KREM TV KXLY TV Others Spokane Audubon Society H &E (2) Arger /Wright & Associates Consulting Engineers Century West Engineering Corp. Gary A. Meyers and Company Anderson, Evans, Craven, Lackie and Henderson v ADDENDUMS TO THE DRAFT EIS PRESENTED IN THE FINAL EIS Please add the following changes, revised pages, and addendums to the Draft EIS. 1 GLOSSARY 2 PUD - Planned Unit Development. Glossary dBA - Decibels abbreviated dB is a unit of measurement for the loudness of sound. Normally, loudness is measured with a sound -level meter incorporating an "A" weighted electronic network. The resulting measure is called dBA. GPA - Grass Percolation Areas, used in treatment of stormwater runoff. GSSA - General Sewer Service Area. The area having the potential for regional wastewater collection and treatment within the Comprehensive Wastewater Manage- ment Plan's (201) 20 -year study program. PSSA - Priority Sewer Service Area. Areas having sewer service or planned for sewer service within ten years, as designated by the '201' Comprehensive Waste- water Management Plan. '208' Study - Spokane Aquifer Water Quality Management Plan, April, 1979. Study to identify cause and effect relationships for water quality, and to develop a water quality. management plan. 3 LEAD AGENCY NOTES 4 Lead Agency Notes 1. Please change the third paragraph under 4.1 a. on page 29 of the Draft EIS to read ". . .fall of 1981, none of which are classified as Federal or State endangered species, is contained. . .." 2. Please change the last sentence of the paragraph under 5.1 a. on page 31 of the Draft EIS to read: "No endangered species are known to occur. . .." 3. Please change the second sentence of the second paragraph under 6. b. on page 34 of the Draft EIS to read: "Approximately 3,650 vehicular trips per day would be . . .." 4. Approximately 39 percent of the lots (143) are oriented to permit maximum use (passive) of solar energy. The Spokane County Planning Department is presently considering various recommendations which would enhance solar access on these lots. One potential recommendation is for zero lot line setbacks, which would also provide a larger usable yard area. 5. As discussed in the Draft EIS, the additional traffic generated by both this proposal and other planned development could significantly affect traffic flows in the area. In order to mitigate potential impacts the Lead Agency will recommend several conditions of approval: a. In conjunction with development of the proposed commercial area, the proponents will be responsible for the cost of improvements to those portions of Barker Road and Mission Avenue which lie adjacent to the commercial area including additional lanes for vehicles, bicycle lanes, and sidewalks. Barker Road may also require left turn channelization. b. The proponents may be responsible for the cost of improvements to Mission Avenue adjacent to the residential section of the proposal. The need for such improvements will be assessed in conjunction with each phase of the development. 0. If, during development of the proposal, major improvements are required on the Barker Road /I -90 overpass, the proponents may be required to finance a proportionate share of the cost of such improvements. 5 REVISED SITE PLAN (Depicting floodplain, passive recreation area, and Inland Paper Company ownership) 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Development Plan Fort Baldwin e..lon lnd — .-- - -1 =�' £02. a a RIVERWAY VILLA Inland Paper Company Ownershi p • 200'Setback • Je34 RMH — Proposed RESIDENTIAL MANUFACTURED HOME ZONE C — Proposed COMMERCIAL ZONE .r *O ano - nor d too • wo' 000' too ARGER /WRIGHT and ASSOCIATES (MODIFIED) 1034 034 Loeend r..pfri1/444 D1LjA.gn Arran. oksI mp amv-ma rsL 1 JMa mars V01141116.-1.1. tars z0 2410 Nf ltft resale DRAINFIELD AREA w /FUTURE "LOTS FLOOD PLAIN 4424 -J.u. r- 2010 1a. ". C O 0 a H114 MCfM ADDENDUM FINAL EIS COMMENTS AND RESPONSES The following pages contain the comments received on the Riverway Villa Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The written comments are reproduced in the actual form in which they were received. The letters are broken down to individual comments designated as C -1 (Comment One). The response to each comment is designated as R -1 (Response to Comment One). 1 ;\ United States Soil WI, Department of Conservation ' Agriculture Service C - Mr. Wally Hubbard, Director. Spokane County Planning Department North 721 Jefferson Spokane, Washington 99260 Dear Mr. Hubbard: before this project is implemented. Thank you for the opportunity to review your draft. Sincerely, LYNN A. BROWN State Conservationist cc: J. Melton, DC, SCS, Spokane FO O U The Soil Conservation Service is an agency of the Department of Agriculture 9 Room 360 U.S. Courthouse Spokane, Washington 99201 January 12, 1982 We have reviewed your draft environmental impact statement for the Riverway Villa project and offer the following comments. Page 16, Site Topography /Soils Map: The soils for the entire site is classified by the Soil Conservation Service as prime farmland. It is the policy of SCS to recommend development of areas not considered to be prime farmland. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 C -3 Page 28, d: These adverse impacts could be avoided if a sewer system was constructed C -2 Page 28, c: The third word of the first sentence should be changed from "should" to "will ". n r ti tr 8 4 2 1: A. 1.i t! ,,, 9r A. r �p � 1� JAN 18 13 Si'URiAl'vt COUNT)" PLANNING DEPARTMEN1 SCS -AS1 10 -79 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 R -1 Comment noted. The Comprehensive Plan has designated this area as Urban, which is intended to provide the opportunity for intensive resi- dential development and public services. Agricultural activities will be limited and considered as a secondary use. The Plan notes that intensive farming would not be compatible within Urban areas. R -2 Please amend the paragraph under 3.8 c. on page 28 of the Draft EIS to read: The project will be connected . . .." R -3 The cumulative impacts of all development in the Spokane Valley could be significantly reduced if a sewer system was initially constructed to serve the Spokane Valley; however, the '201' wastewater facilities plan does not place a moratorium on development in the Spokane Valley pending installation of a centralized sewer system. (Please refer to Section 3.8 on page 27 and Section 6.4 on page 59 of the Draft EIS.) 10 JOHN SPELL\ Governor DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY ma: Slop PV - 11 o Olympia. l.liarzhingion 9b504 . (21K,) 459 -bL)4Y Mr. Wally Hubbard Spokane County Planning Department North 721 Jefferson Spokane, Washington 99260 Dear Mr. Hubbard: Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft environmental C _ 4 impact statement for Riverway Villa. Department staff have reviewed the document and have no comments to offer. If you have any questions, please call me at 206/459 -6026. Sincerely, DP :lc S F. -AIt C)F 1K 1SIlIVCTON January 15, 1952 J E JOIN 19 7982 PLAN\i7NG DEPARTMENT 11 Debbie Fristoe Environmental Review Section V .19 i9' Siju CC ;NING OEPS,..:. _ 1 D. ,NALO Lv ,vjC-S DireUor 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 R -4 No response required. 12 STATE OF WASHINGTON ' John' Spellman Governor T {, F tid 1 P . 5.V .y F '. 6 t C� January 13, 1982 Spokane County Planning Department N. 721 Jefferson St. Spokane, Wa. 99260 DEPARTiviEi-•T OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES West 924 Sinto Aven . L 32.4, Spokane. Washington 99201 509/456.3115 JA1 15 1382 SPU ;- ANL ''.TY LVti� PLANNING DEPARTMENT Attention: Wally Hubbard Subject: Draft E.I.S. for Riverway Villa, PE- 1414 -81 Dear Mr. Hubbard: I have reviewed the subject E.I.S. and have the following comments to make: 1. On Page 14, b - The statement is made regarding grading of the site. The first paragraph indicates grading will be limited 8 to 12 feet. The predominant soil in this site and soil that will receive the drainfield effluent is Garrison gravelly loam. If this soil is left undisturbed it can be, for the most part, very suitable for on -site sewage disposal. Grading the upper horizons of this soil exposes the coarser soils that extend into gravels C -5 at depths of 3 to 5 feet. These coarser soils are designated by the State Board of Health's regulations under WAC 248 -96 -090 as Type 1. Type 1 soils have recommended density of 1 unit per acre. Larger densities can be accomplished with special design and analysis of groundwater conditions in the area. It should be noted that C.I.D. has a well field directly across Mission Ave. and depth to groundwater is approximately 78 feet. This department requests the drainfield site remain ungraded to utilize the upper soil horizon for better treatment of the effluent. 2. On Pages 26 and 27 -The anticipated amount of water to be used is stated at 250,000 gallons per day. This figure is extremely C -6 low. Utilizing figures of existing water use taken from the cur- rent C.I.D. #19 Water System Plan, the water usage per acre based on domestic use is: .(1) Average 3.04 gpm /acre /day (2) Maximum daily 10.69 /acre /day This would compute to 118 x 3.04 = 358.72 gpm (516,556.8 GPD Average) and 118 x 10.69 = 1261.42 gpm (1,816,444.8 GPD Maximum) daily. 3. On Page 27; 3.8 b - The design quantity listed may increase due to DSHS guidelines requiring 350 GPO per unit design. In addition to C -7 this slight increase, backwash water from the swimming pool will add to the wastewater allocation. 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 R -5 Comment Noted. This could be a condition of approval. R -6 Amended water quantity usage estimates for Riverway Villa are as follows: 109,500 gallons /day residential - without irrigation; October - May 730,000 gallons /day residential - with irrigation; June - September 15,000 gallons /day commercial - limited landscaping; 12 month average These estimates are based on the following assumptions: 300 gallons /day /lot - October through May 2,000 gallons /day /lot - June through September 1,500 gallons /day /acre - Commercial land use 365 total developed lots 10 acres commercial use Total water requirements: 124,000 gallons /day - October through May 745,000 gallons /day - June through September 330,000 gallons /day - 12 month average Consolidated Irrigation District No. 19's water consumption figures are based on low density development requiring large amounts of irrigation water. This type of development is common in this service area. Riverway Villa is a higher density development with a commercial area. Approximately 38 percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces, thereby reducing the irrigation requirements. R -7 The sewage treatment requirements for a manufactured home development are less than for a conventional single family development with an equal number of units. This assumption is based on the fact that the average household size for manufactured homes is between 2.0 and 2.5 persons, whereas conventional single family homes have an average household size of 3.0 to 3.5 persons. Design and construction of sewage treatment facilities will comply with guidelines of the"Department of Social and Health Services, Department of Ecology and the Spokane County Health District. 14 To: Spokane County Planning Department Page 2 January 13, 1982 C -8 In accordance with the County Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan, the project should agree to, not oppose, UUID formation to connection to the county interceptor and agree to connect as soon as possible. This is the extent of our comments. Should you have any questions feel free to call. Since ely, , George B/)Scr�lnder cnviron. ntalist GBS:ei cc: Spokane C.H.Q. Spokane Co. Utilities - Bill Dobratz State Health 15 R -8 Comment Noted. This could be a condition of approval. 16 JOHN SPELLMAN Governor to S ,Ufia + R NOW STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION 171 West Twenty -First Avenue, KL-11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (206) 753-4011 Spokane County Planning Department North 721 Jefferson Spokane, Washington 99260 Dear Applicant: C -9 We have reviewed your draft environmental impact statement and find there are no historic or archaeological properties on the State or National Register of Historic Places, or the Washington State Inventory of Historic Places, that will be impacted by the project. In the event that unknown archaeological resources are inadvert- ently unearthed during construction activities, please notify the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in Olympia, and the Washington Archaeological Research Center in Pullman, Washington. Sincerely, . C�\ Sheila Stum db Archaeologist Form AHP R -6 (2/81) 17 Date: January 15, 1982 Log Reference: 285- C -SP -08 Project Title: DEIS - Riverway Villa JACOB THOMAS Director 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 R -9 Comment Noted. 18 JOHN SPELLMAN Governor C- II Wally Hubbard, Director Spokane County Planning Department North 721 Jefferson Spokane, Washington 99260 Mr. Hubbard, STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF GAME sr„ 600 North Capitol Way, G/ - 77 • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (206) 753 -5700 , C `` 9 9 Q9 3 '•]' “ p4,r�;Qt Le 1 EN Qt�NN �tiG D4. January 14, 1982 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: Riverway Villa Manufactured Home Site and Commercial Center Your document has been reviewed by our staff as requested; comments follow. As the impact statement acknowledged, the main impacts on wildlife as a result of this proposal will be the deterioration of the Spokane River and associated C -10 riparian habitats. However, potential impacts may be more severe than discussed. In the discussion of impacts �n fish and wildlife habitat, it mentions a reduction in the value of riparian habitat in the project area. It is very likely that corridors and riparian habitats up and downstream will also be impacted. Reserving habitat along the river as undeveloped open space would help reduce potential impacts. However, from the project description, it is clear it will not remain undeveloped. Hiking trails, picnic sites, outdoor recreation shelters, and exercise stations are potential developments- These types of developments would serve to attract people to this sensitive area. The most severe impacts would likely be from human disturbance and pets. The impact statement should discuss ways to reduce these impacts. We do not agree the proposed open space would "enhance the river - associated habitat" as mentioned on page 33. A reduction in the quality of riparian wildlife habitat should he expected. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. Sincerely, THE DEPARTMENT OF GAME MHG :cv cc: Agencies Region 19 74tz Wter.ne&V Mark H. Grandstaff, Applied Ecologist Environmental Affairs Program Habitat Management Division 1 FRANK LOCKARD Director R - Comment noted. Because of the diverse ownerships along the Spokane River and the lack of a comprehensive open space plan for the river, a discussion of the potential impacts of future development and other land uses on areas upstream and downstream would merely be conjecture. R -11 Any development along the river for recreational uses will be strictly controlled by Spokane County under the Spokane County Shorelines Pro- gram, which contains the following policies for the Pastoral classifica- tion: Policy 1: Only passive recreational uses are permitted. Policy 2: The design and development of recreational areas, whether public or private, shall protect and preserve the natural features of the land and its vegetation and the quality of the water for recreational use and natural habitat. Policy 3: The scenic quality of the area, both views of the water and from the water, must be preserved or enhanced to the maximum possible extent. 20 JOHN SPELLti1AN Governor Mr. Wally Hubbard, Director Spokane County Planning Department N. 721 Jefferson Street Spokane, WA 99260 Dear Mr. Hubbard: WRH:sw cc: R. Albert D. Walther Record Control STATE OF WASHNGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of District Administrator • North 2714 Mayfair Street, Box 5299, North Central Station • Spokane, Washington 99205 January 5, 1982 According to the EIS on page 47 approximately 6500 additional trips per day on Barker Road will be generated by this proposal. Approxi- mately 70% (4,550) of these trips will be between the Barker Road - C -12 I 90 Interchange and Mission Avenue. This additional traffic will cause a severe impact on the Barker Road -I 90 Interchange. The pre - sent structure over 190 is a two lane structure. Should the inter- change become severely impacted our department would look to Spokane County to share in the costs of modifying the structure and /or ramps to accommodate the additional traffic generated by this proposal. 21 ter / /tie 1 ( WALTER R. District truly yours, n r" em. HORNING, P. E. Administrator n, � 0 Ja rr 0 6 19 SPOh4 E COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT DUANE BERENTSON Secretary R -12 Comment Noted. The Riverway Villa project would add to the cumulative traffic impacts on the Barker Road interchange. Project phasing of ap- proximately eight years would allow sufficient time to evaluate the need and scheduling of interchange improvements. 22 1 iLt;SOU_':;:.'j BRIAN J. BOYLE Camniisaaner of Public Lan &.+ DATE: December 17, 1981 TO: Spokane County Planning Department North 721 Jefferson Spokane, WA 99260 1 Attn: Wally Hubbard, Director FROM: NAME Walt Wruble , TITLE Spokane Local Manager ADDRESS P.O. Box 190, Colville, WA 99114 SUBJECT: REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 11 ACTION SPONSOR Spokane County Planning Department PROJECT Riverway Villa, PE- 1414 -81 Section 8, Township 25 North, Range 45 EWM 1 We do not have an interest in. the above project and have no coniients on the proposal. XX We do have an interest in the above project and wish to , make the following comments: C -13 1. A surface land mine reclamation permit and reclama- 11 tion plan shall be required if more than two acres of contiguous land is to be disturbed or more than 10,000 yards of mineral is removed in any type mining operation. (For example, the removal of top soil or any other aggregate type of material to be sold or used for construction off the proposed development 1 site.) 23 DEC ., i F : '" '" 'G DEPARTMENT cc: DNR SEPA Center ' Philip Hildebrand, Area Manager Ross Hesseltine, Arcadia District Manager File ' 1 II R -13 Construction of the project will require limited grading and excavation to accommodate streets, utilities, parking areas, drainage and struc- tures. These type of excavation and grading activities will be confined to the site, with no commercial removal of topsoil or aggregate mate- rials. 24 January 11, 1982 Wally Hubbard, Director Spokane County Planning Dept. North 721 Jefferson Spokane, WA 99260 Re: Draft EIS on Riverway Villa Dear Mr. Hubbard: I have reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Riverway Villa Mobile Home Park and Shopping Center and I do question one paragraph in the air quality section. On page 21, the last paragraph, where it is stated "...project development would remove approximately 100 acres of dryland and irrigated farming...(reducing approximately 69 tons (of particulates) annually..." This figure is excessively high. From the reference material available to me, emissions from agricultural activity equal C -14 only about .03 ton /acre /year. For the 100 acre parcel this would amount to only 3 tons /year. This will not offset the estimated 10 tons/ year of particulates that will be generated from vehicle related activities. While these emission levels are relatively minor, I feel the correction should be made in the final statement. C -15 The Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority further requires that means be taken to avoid deposition of mud and dirt from unpaved surfaces onto paved surfaces during the construction phase of this project. Thank you for inviting our commentst and if I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, L AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY SPOKANE COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY () A Christopher J. McEnany Field Representative ADDRESS REPLY TO: SPOKANE COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL. AUTHORITY WEST 1101 COLLEGE, ROOM 230 SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99201 25 ''n. E 0 4ni JAN 15 198? SPOKANE COUt`17Y PLANNING DEPARTMENT R -14 Based on EPA emission factors, the "approximately 69 tons" referred to in the Draft EIS appears to be correct: Plowing generates .03 ton of particulates /acre x 100 acres = 3 tons /year Fertilizing generates .01 ton of particulates /acre x 100 acres = 1 ton /year Harvesting generates .04 ton of particulates /acre x 100 acres = 4 tons /year Wind Erosion, depending on the soils, silt content, number of dry days, wind speed, etc. will generate approximately .6 ton of particulates/ acre x 100 acres = 60 tons /year Total particulates generated by farming operation /year = 68 tons /year. R -15 Comment noted. Adequate means will be taken. 26 n .✓ r; \ N. 811 Jefferson Spokane, Washington December 10, 1981 Wally Hubbard, Director Spokane County Planning Department N. 721 Jefferson Spokane, WA 99260 Dear Mr. Hubbard: Sincerely, jeer (de Dean Blount, Administrator Water. Quality Programs DB /set / Newman n / Lake 1; ■C ( liberty Lake Spokane Aquifer Study 99260 ' 27 lake Coeur d' Alene (509) 456• DEC 10 1981 SPOKANE GOD PLANNING DEPARIMEN E C Hayden Lake 22 Coeur ' Alene RE: Review of DEIS "Riverway Villa" Q2 In the process of reviewing the DEIS for accord with the "208" Plan, I noted several admirable statements and two relatively minor errors. The latter include: C -16 - page 3, item 3.b. under the heading "Unavoidable Adverse Impacts," the entry should read "Reduction of contaminants" instead of "none ". GPA systems do markedly reduce the level of contaminants reaching the aquifer, but the system is not perfect. Therefore, the comment "none" is not totally accurate. C -17 - Appendix "C" page 3, Sec. V.I. The second sentence is incorrect in that the "208" Plan does not require a 50% larger drainfield over the aquifer. The admirable aspects of the DEIS are several references which indicate sensitivity to the ease with which the aquifer can be contaminated. Specifically, the DEIS C-18 suggests integral GPA's to clean stormwater runoff. The document also suggests prohibition of hazardous materials in the mini - warehouse portion of the proposed development. The authors of the DEIS are to be congratulated for including these suggestions. If these become conditions of project approval, the DEIS will have served its purpose. Thank you for the opportunity to review this DEIS. If you have need of clarifica -' tion, please contact me. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 E C E 6 V G i• C C 1 0 1981 I SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, 1 R -16 Although some level of contaminants would reach the aquifer, it is unlikely that the impact from this proposal would be adverse. This proposal would, however, add to the cumulative impact from all devel- opment in the Spokane Valley. Please delete the word "None" from both 3. b. on page 3 and 3.2 d. on page 24 of the Draft EIS, and add the following: "Cumulative impact on ground water quality ". R -17 Please delete "The '208' Study and" under V. 1. on page C -4 of the Draft EIS. R -18 Comment noted. These are mitigating measures recognized by the Lead Agency. 28 s =t-p ari I li Mr. Wallis Hubbard, Director Spokane County Planning Dept. Spokane, Washington 99260 Dear Mr. Hubbard, In reviewing Riverway Villa Draft Environmental Impact State- ment, I have the following comments to. make as it relates to this agency: C 1. The 200' foot set back should be donated to Spokane County Park to provide additional public access to the Spokane River. C -20 2. The Plan doesn't mention the proposed Bikeway down the river. While not a specific adopted plan it has long been planned to build a trail down the Spokane River and we may be able to use the proposed Riverway Road to our advantage. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. S t t. AA: dg SVO+A•( COUNTY COV4T MOUSE ely, ri D. g. Parks & Recreation P 'ector 9 7� / T7,� !' ;�C 1 .!1' �(,)'.II1� E - -q l (( `c[� "S.�_1\ :y DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION 29 TELEPHONE 456 -4730 WEST 1115 BROADWAY AVENUE SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260 December 17, 1981 '4/7/t/ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 R -19 Since publication of the Draft EIS, the proponents and their represen- tatives have met with Mr. Angove. The proponents are willing to enter into agreement with Spokane County to provide easement or right of way for a bike trail (refer to R -20). They do, however, prefer to turn over the 200 foot setback to a Homeowner's Association comprised of residents of the development, and will contribute approximately $50.00 per lot to this Association to aid in limited recreational development of the area. R -20 The proponents are willing to enter into agreement with Spokane County to provide easement or right of way for a bike trail. They would enter into this agreement prior to recording the first final plat. Prelimi- nary discussions with Mr. Angove indicate that an agreement delaying actual conveyance of the easement or right of way until either the County has a specific adopted plan and funding for an area -wide bike trail program or 10 years has passed, would probably be satisfactory. 30 OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEER SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON Date JANUARY 18 19 82 Inter - officc Communication To SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT. N. 721 JEflU SON From G. NELSON Subject RIVERNAY VILLA E.I.S. C -21 THE SECTION ON TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION DOES NOT ADDRESS THE IMPACT OR MITIGATING MEASURES TO MISSION AVENUE. . 1 ECE JAN 18 1982 1 • SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Form 327 -C.R. 1 1 1 1 1 1 31 1 R -21 Please delete the first paragraph under 3.1 b. on page 47 of the Draft EIS and add the following paragraph: The 365 new home sites would generate approximately 3,600 trip movements per day, primarily on Barker Road. Depending on final design, between 30 and 40 percent of the traffic generated by the proposal would use Mission Avenue for access to the shopping center site and Barker and Harvard Roads, adding approximately 1,200 cars to Mission Avenue. Shopping center access to Mission Avenue would add approximately 1,000 trip movements, 20 to 25 percent of the shopping center traffic, to Mission Avenue. Traffic on Mission Avenue would increase from the current 900 cars per day to 3,100 cars after comple- tion of the project. Please add the following paragraph under 3.1 c. on page 47 of the Draft EIS: To mitigate impacts upon Mission Avenue, it is antici- pated that improvements to Mission Avenue would include addition of a parking strip, curb and sidewalk to the north side of Mission Avenue, or participation in a Road Improvement District to improve the entire Mission Avenue right of way adjoining the project. 32 SPO COVNIV COURT .OUSC Spokane County Planning Department North 721 Jefferson Broadway Centre Building Spokane, ak ,9260 RE: Environmental Impact Statement on Riverway Villa Gentlemen: (continued) 33 LARRY V. ERICKSON SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF COUNTY - CITY PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260 Telephone 1 :54 -4739 January 12, 19 DEAN A. LYDIG, Undersheriff TERRY D. SNEDDEN, Inspector DONALD R. MANNING, Chief Jailer ECH VF. 'AV 1A 1982 PLANNING DEPARTMENT The Riverway.irilla located on the northeast corner of Barker and Mission Avenue will cover 113 acres, it will have 365 new homes, three stores, C -22 one bowling alley, and also some mini storage facilities. Estimates are that it will increase the po of that area 700 -900 people; 200 of these would be younger children. It will bring about 3;,r miles of new roads which would consist of residential streets. Also, it will cause the widening and reconstruction of some of the older roads. This is the area that is covered by our District 6 car and, at this time,' it is 'an area of low residents; however, it is now starting to be one of our fastest growing areas as it encompasses the East Farms /Otis Orchards area. According to the figures in the Environmental Impact Statement, the area of East Farms has increased 123% in the last 10 years population -wise. The area where the new proposed site is has increased 78% in the last 10 years. As you know, people art, our :Rain concP=:i - where there are no people, we have no problems. With the increase of 365 new homes, 3 stores and a bowling alley, we are going to find a lsrge increase in residents, shoppers; the bowling alley itself will attract young people. With the beginning of the construction, you will find that we will be responding to job-related injuries, thefts of building equipment and /or materials, vandalism to the equipment, plus considerable heavy equipment traffic, and the always pos- sible problem of labor - management disputes, strikes, etc.. The area is now old, established homes and farms and this will be a blend- ing of the country living with new people moving in who are normally city oriented. I am sure this is going to be a difficult adjustment for the people who have lived and grown up in that area. R -22 Comment noted. 34 Page Two To: Spokane County Planning Department January 12, 1982 One of the problems that is going to occur is that there will be a large residential area built on the banks of the Spokane River. The plan is to place picnic areas, jogging areas and bicycling areas along the river. The river, which we know is a treacherous stretch of water, is bound to account for drownings as its use increases greatly with the new residents. Also, as that area is opened up, we will find that the river is used for keggers, assaults, rapes and other things that normally occur in that type of area. Also, the area is now used by motorcyclists and snowmobilers. As the residents move in, this will become an increasing problem and one that cannot be accepted in a high - population area. The parking lot for the shopping area will have spaces for 375 cars; from this we will inherit the theft of autos, thefts from autos, vandalisms, and accidents in the parking lot. Also inherent with large shopping areas are thefts of bicycles and shoplifting. The stores themselves are suscep- tible to armed robberies, and burglaries. The area itself is located fairly close to Newman Lake. We would find that the residents there will use Newman Lake, Sullivan Park and Walk in the Wild as their immediate recreational areas. As the houses are completed and the families move in, we feel that the families will be the young married cou- ples and the older retired people, which again will be a difficult blend of people, and you will find that we will have family fights, burglaries, and neighborhood disputes as we do in all of our populated areas. When the complex is completed, we will have the increased traffic of delivery trucks, school buses and motorcycles, snow plows, etc.. These are going to be problems that we always find when we find people. I feel that it would probably need heavier patrolling than we are now giving it; that it will attract other businesses to build in that area because of the increase in population and that we will need an increase of three patrolmen to give the new homeowners adequate protection and police services. This, of course, is going to necessitate that we increase our prowl car mileage and use. The incidents that are covered by the patrolmen of course will be, in many cases, forwarded to the Investigative Division and will cause an increase in caseload for detectives and our service units. I do feel that the Riverway Villa is well laid out and well thought out and we cannot totally say that it alone will necessitate the need for more patrolmen. However, coupling it with the growth in that area, I feel that that will be the immediate impact on law enforcement in the Sheriff's Office. LVE /kmw Sincerely, LARRY V. ERICKSON, Sheriff Spokane County 35 a 36 i SPOKANE tIcOngl ALL-AMERICA 11 11 +I F 1 11111 1 - s Mr. Wally Hubbard, Director Spokane County Planning Department North 721 Jefferson Spokane, Washington 99260 Dear Mr. Hubbard: RE: RIVERWAY VILLA EIS January 4, 1982' We have reviewed the draft EIS for the proposed 118 acre, 365 unit development and have no particular problem with this proposal. C -23 It is noted that a number of sewage disposal alternatives are discussed with no statement as to the final method of disposal being chosen. The amount of potential impact to the aquifer can not be determined. A discussion takes place on page 67 with respect to desirable service C -24 areas for neighborhood commercial activity. It is noted that a one mile service area is suggested and that existing commercial activity apparently takes.place within approximately one mile from the site. ETC:DLC:gam Veryru1y yours, 37 t;, a� 7 01 t E. 'Gerry Clcl'n ., , Zoning, Subdivision and Environmental Services Director CITY ZONING BOARD 309 City Hall — (509) 456.4375 CARROLL MARTELL, Chairman VAUGHN P. CALL, AICP Manager — Planning E. TERRY CLEGG, AICP, MCIP Director — Zoning. Subdivision and Environmental Services P T/" AIE C'ulh 1, Lti,;; ; ,r, 1+ r r DEPAigici/,r R -23 The recommended sewage disposal system is discussed on pages C -11 and C -13 of the Draft EIS. It is concluded that the most feasible method of wastewater management would be to install sewer lines, make these active instead of dry lines, and utilize community septic tanks and drainfields for treatment. R -24 Existing and somewhat limited commercial facilities for the area are located at Greenacres Road and Appleway Avenue, approximately one mile south of the proposal. Access to this area is limited to the Barker Road /I -90 interchange. Few neighborhood or community shopping facilities have been established north of I -90 along Barker Road, except for a truck stop, a restaurant, and a small convenience store which is part of a campground. 38 rIZIDEgl ALL-AMERICA tat 11 Mr. Wallis Hubbard, Director Spokane County Planning Department North 721 Jefferson Spokane, Washington 99260 Dear Mr. r SPOKANE December 23, 1981 RE: DRAFT EN. IRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT - RIVERWAY VILLA I have reviewed this impact statement and have the following comments: C - 1. The riverbank natural area along the river is proposed to contain trails, picnic sites and exercise stations. Who will be responsible for making these improvements? C - 2. On page 52 the statement is made that Central Valley High School now has 1,271 students in a facility with a capacity of 1,161. Will this project along with other development within the Central Valley School district further contribute to this overcrowded situation? C - 3. The proposal will provide substantial areas for passive recreation. As far as we can determine, there are no park facilities for active recreation within walking distance or even bicycling distrance of this project. At the densities being proposed, active park facili- ties would seem to be an essential public service. Are future park sites planned in the near vicinity of this proposal? C - 4. We agree with the note on page 56 stating that the placement of units on lots, revised yard requirements and restrictions on covenants re- lating to solar access easements should be considered. The arrangement and orientation of the lots at the time of platting is essential to the most efficient use of both passive and active solar systems. Has solar access been a consideration in this orientation of the lots? In summary, we support the provision of lower income housing, however, essential public facilities should be available or planned that will support the proposal. LEB:GOZ:elt 39 Sincerely, Lyle E. Balderson, Planning Director CITY PLAN COM..M:S_.:J`l 309 City Hall JEAN BESCHEL. President VAUGHN P. CALL. A.I.P. Manager — Planning Lyle E. Balderson Planning Director ' R -25 Please refer to R -19. R -26 As stated in the Draft EIS, Riverway Villa will attract either retired persons or young couples. It is anticipated that the number of resi- dents of high school age would be very small. The project will be phased over an eight -year period to allow time for •Central Valley School District to make the necessary adjustments. R -27 Sullivan Park, which lies approximately two miles west of the site, is the closest developed public park. School sites in the area also pro- vide some areas for active recreation. Harvard Park lies approximately 1 -1/2 miles east of the site. However, at the present this site is undeveloped. The future of Harvard Park is uncertain due to recent Spokane County Parks Department budget cuts. R -28 Please refer to Lead Agency Notes. 40 _ ,,4�,,Cental ' . Vall y 8 `V ®® 5on,h I:3 linwuish. SIyrkane. lV.,hinti: nn au 2Oc (SIIJ 0 22-p700 Dr. Richard C. Langton January 19, 1982 Charles (L Stocker Wn.r..r.rry u.r Sem., Neil D. I'rescott. Jr. kbrrurer++, >.r.r. r. Edwin i Mikesell Janet E. Kwitny M1.,rJnrr Dr. li, us L. Cehm.u, Darrell A. Thompson Sheryl L. MtC orm.ak Dr. Herbert H. Osborn District WALLY HUBBARD, DIRECTOR SPOKANE COUNTY PLANiNING DEPARTMENT N. 721 JEFFERSON SPOKANE, 'WASHINGTON 99260 1 tho Dear Mr. Hubbard: We have received the Draft EIS for Riverway Villa. We have reviewed pertinent' portions of this document. Our comments are as follows: C -29 1. On page 5 the author states that there will be no in- crease in school -aged children due to the proposal. On page 52, after acknowledging that the project is designed to serve young families (P.9,43), the State- ment indicates that 200 public school students are likely to reside within the development. The author may wish to reconcile these two assertions. C -30 2. On pages 8 and 62 the author suggests that "lack of interest" makes it "unlikely" that a public or non profit agency would elect to purchase the site. To our knowledge no part of the site has been off- ered for purchase by Central Valley School District, a public agency. Were part of the property to be made available to the District, the District may, in fact, be interested in considering its acquisition. C -31 3. On pages 39 and 52 the author notes that the School District's Barker Center facility is used strictly as an administrative center. Aside from presence of periodic night classes at this facility, these statements are correct at present. Until recently, however, the District housed sev- eral kindergarten classes in this building. It is quite possible that it will again be used in the future for classroom space. 41 R -29 The summary on page 5 indicates that there will be an increase in the number of children attending public schools but that this increase would not be mitigated as an adverse impact. The increase of students attending public schools was not determined to be adverse. R -30 The statement regarding public acquisition of the project site was confined to the evaluation of the entire ownership and not a portion thereof. Acquisition of a portion of the site would still mandate development of the remainder of the ownership. R -31 Comment noted. 42 WALLY HUBBARD, DIRECTOR JANUARY 19, 1982 PAGE 2 C -32 .4. On page 47 the author suggests that the proposed 10 acre commercial center will generate 4500 ve- hicle trips per day in addition to 3600 vehicle trips anticipated from the 365 living units. The Draft EIS suggests that the largest share of these are likely to utilize Barker Road. This added traffic will not enhance Barker Center's already limited potential as an Elementary School Site. C -33 5. On page 52 the author indicates that most of the anticipated 200 students residing within the pro- posed development will be elementary -aged students. On the same page he notes that the Greenacres Ele- mentary School, which serves this area, is within 27 students of capacity. Greenacres Elementary must serve the entire East- ern portion of the School District for the fore- seeable future. Since 1) it lacks capacity to serve projected enrollment from the proposal, 2) it is located some distance from the proposal, and 3) bus transportation for pupils represents a substantial, rapidly growing School District obligation, the District is not now well equipped to conveniently handle up to 200 additional ele- mentary students anticipated as a result of this proposal. C -34 6. On page 52 the author suggests that there are no adverse impacts from introduction of 200 students near Barker & Mission. The School District will be pleaseito serve these students. We note, however, that the proposed 200 new students represent 40 percent of an entire elementary school's enrollment and that no school facility capable of handling these youngsters exists nearby. C -35 7. The author states on page 67 that the anticipated 10 acre commercial development could be set aside in favor of more housing units within the proposal. We note that this sane acreage would provide two - thirds of an elementary school site. 43 R -32 Comment noted. R -33 It is anticipated that phasing of the project, in conjunction with the time required for marketing, will introduce the 200 new students over a period of eight years or more, allowing necessary adjustments to be made. R -34 Refer to R -33. R -35 Proponents of Riverway Villa have since had several meetings with Central Valley School District Director of Facilities and Planning, Mr. Dave Jackman. Further discussions will be held concerning a new school site in the vicinity of Riverway Villa. 44 WALLY HUBBARD, DIRECTOR • JANUARY 19, 1982 PAGE We would be pleased to talk with the proponents of Riverway Villa about securing adequate shcool facilities to serve youngsters resi- ding•within the proposed development. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Riverway Villa Draft EIS. We found it generally clear and well organized. Sincerely, Dave J c!Iman Directdr Facilities and Planning DJ /gg 45 Lead Agency: Spokane County Date of Issue: March , 1982 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RIVERWAY VILLA Prepared for H & E James Etter Walter Hedlund Route 4, P. 0. Box 768 Spokane, Washington 99218 (509) 747 -0303 INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. East 12720 Nora Avenue Spokane, Washington 99216 s?oiANb ffiNN11 tWhikt MARO4 `82 INTRODUCTION The proposed action under review is a request for a Subdivision Planned Unit Development for Riverway Villa, a site for 365 manufactured homes and a neighborhood commercial center. This center would possibly include a super- market, drug store, hardware store, bowling alley and a mini- storage facility. The proposal would be phased over an eight year period. The request for a zone reclassification is on file at the Spokane County Planning Department, file No. PE- 1414 -81. The proposed action was initiated by H &E. The 118 acre site is located in the Spokane Valley south of the Spokane River, east of Barker Road, and north of Mission Avenue in the west half of Section 8, Township 25 North, Range 45 EWM. The lead agency for this proposal is Spokane County and the responsible official is Wally Hubbard, Director of the Spokane County Planning Department, North 721 Jefferson, Spokane, Washington 99260; telephone (509) 456 -2274. The proposed action may require the following legal actions and permits: 1. Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements; 2. Preliminary and Final Plat approval; 3. Zone reclassification approval; 4. Approval or permits from the Spokane County Health District, the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services and the Washington State Department of Ecology for design and operation of a sewage disposal system; 5. The obtaining of all required building permits, inspections and approvals; 6. A Substantial Development Permit (RCW 90.58); and 7. Binding Site Plan. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement was issued on December 15, 1981 and the review and comment period ended January 19, 1982. The issue date of the Final EIS (FEIS) is March , 1982. The circulation of this document is prescribed in the SEPA Guidelines (WAC 197 -10 -600) which directs that the FEIS must go to "the Department of Ecology, Office of the Governor or the Governor's designee, the Ecological Commission, agencies of jurisdiction, and federal agencies with jurisdiction, which received the Draft EIS." Copies of this document may be obtained from the Spokane County Planning Department for the cost of reproduction and mailing. The Final EIS contains a Glossary, a revised Site Plan indicating the Spokane River Floodplain and the Inland Paper Company ownership, Lead Agency Notes, letters from reviewing agencies, and responses to their comments. This Final Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by Inland Pacific Engi- neering Company. Data required to produce this document may be obtained at the following address: Inland Pacific Engineering Company, East 12720 Nora Avenue, Spokane, Washington 99216 (509) 922 - 1300. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction List of Maps and Illustrations Distribution List Glossary Lead Agency Notes Comments and Responses LIST OF MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS Revised Site Plan DISTRIBUTION LIST Federal Agencies Soil Conservation Service, Spokane &nv-ironmentsl- Fretee ion Agency -Se Gle- • Depar meat- of- Transportat4onrSeabB}e. Statei Office of the Governor, Olympia Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia r Ecological Commission, Department of Ecology, Olympia Department of Ecology, Olympia r: Department of Ecology, Spokane Department of Natural Resources, Colville - Department- of- gtsberies Olympia_ Department of Game, Olympia Department of Came, Spokane Department of Social and Health Services, Olympia Department of Social and Health Services, Spokane •'Dpartment of Transportation, Olympia Department of Transportation, Spokane -U-ttli fires -and Trans portation - Commissi -on Oly -. -Eaen 0f-f-i-oe-,-Olympia- ' ; i - e -o i-nanciee-l- Hanagement - Olympi:e- P lanning- and- Commonit y- A -f-f-a i r.e-A gencyrOlympi-a, Cleari� nvh Spokane County Regional Planning Conference, Spokane (2) Spokan� Board of County Commissioners (3) Boundary Review Board Building Codes Department Engineering Department (3) Health District (2) Parks and Recreation Department Planning Commission (7) Planning Department (20) Prosecuting Attorney (2) Air Pollution Control Authority Utilities Department Sheriff's Office - Conser- vatl . on- DIstr4ot. -Fire Distric ¢ -,--. Central Valley School District 0356 vi TOM -- '9 Pao/one »s %. bisr Fe f3+ FW4L. 1 Neighboring Cities and Counties City of Spokane Plan Commission (2) - 61 - of - Spokane- Trenoit yst-em - y- afSpokane- 91 of -tho Mayon Utilities Services - Pae 4 e-Noethwe&L- Sell - Telephone- Company- '- Washington -Watcr Power - Company- • _V4 t_-___Gai- bags- SAFu16E- Gene ©lidated- lrrigati.on- Districr• Libraries Spokane County Public Library (2) City of Spokane Public Library Media The Spokesman - Review Spokane Daily Chronicle The Valley Herald KHQ TV KREM TV KXLY TV Others Spokane Audubon Society - -Va -ney chamber—of Commences. -Spokane-Chamber-of-Commence H 6 E (2) Arger /Wright & Associates Consulting Engineers Century West Engineering Corp. Gary A. Meyers and Company Anderson, Evans, Craven, Lackie and Henderson - 84 .r-14.- ng-ton- Northern -Re 41 -reed' vii ADDENDUMS TO THE DRAFT EIS PRESENTED IN THE FINAL EIS Please add the following changes, revised pages, and addendums to the Draft EIS. GLOSSARY PSSA - Priority Sewer Service Area. This area will receive first consideration for the installation of sewer lines and connection to a regional sewage treat- ment facility. Glossary dBA - Decibels abbreviated dB is a unit of measurement for the loudness of sound. Normally, loudness is measured with a sound -level meter incorporating an "A" weighted electronic network. The resulting measure is called dBA. GPA - Grass Percolation Areas, used in treatment of stormwater runoff. GSSA - General Sewer Service Area. This area lies outside the Priority Sewer Service Area but is still considered to be an aquifer sensitive area. PUD - Planned Unit Development. '208' Study - Study to identify cause and effect relationships for water quality, and to develop a water quality management plan. LEAD AGENCY NOTES Lead Agency Notes 1. The Spokane County Parks and Recreation Department has requested that the 200 foot setback along the Spokane River be donated to Spokane County to provide additional public access to the river. It is the desire of the proponents to turn this area over to a Homeowner's Association. The Washington State Department of Game suggests that any amenities in this area which would attract people and pets would reduce the quality of riparian wildlife habitat. Recognizing such a potential conflict, the Draft EIS suggested that a program for the development and use of this area should be initiated to minimize or confine the disruption from people and pets. As part of a program for the development and use of this privately owned area, considerations of the Spokane County Parks and Recreation Department, the Washington State Department of Game, and the proponents should be examined. 2. Please change the third paragraph under 4.1 a. on page 29 of the Draft EIS to read: ". . . fall of 1981, none of which are classified as Federal or State endangered species, is contained. . .." 3. Please change the last sentence of the paragraph under 5.1 a. on page 31 of the Draft EIS to read: "No endangered species are known to occur. . .." 4. Please change the second sentence of the second paragraph under 6. b. on page 34 of the Draft EIS to read: "Approximately 3,650 vehicular trips per day would be . . .." REVISED SITE PLAN (Depicting floodplain and Inland Paper Company ownership) •V011.1, Minion o t t : • a 1 Oft a 1011 _ IIIn1,11,,.1�N ,� _ ! :! T ■ M ‘'L cti 17 1 1 NM II MN 19'J' P .' µ9 J7° .. > r- E 0® t 'V )i r L Mit ■ g l a Mamas e NI NI D«alopmant Plan For' 4 • Inland RIVERWAY VILLA Paper Ownership — Company ad led ma eoo' d '00 no' 400 aad ARGER /WRIGHTand ASSOCIATES (MODIFIED ) 13 200'Setback • .,f 7 1034. North 1034 ,., „a,af, e p MJIMM144 pet- dew. wars '°1.7..11 ears .'T....'.a r,n I.m+V49., t Muu N010 VIWI7Fr. riesei DRAINFIELD AREA w /FUTURE'LOTS FLOODPLAIN 1.000 _ 2010 1.010 -alb 10 SO 1031 Legend O MM 0 nln ADDENDUM FINAL EIS COMMENTS AND RESPONSES The following pages contain the comments received on the Riverway Villa Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The written comments are reproduced in the actual form in which they were received. The letters are broken down to individual comments designated as C -1 (Comment One). The response to each comment is designated as R -1 (Response to Comment One). United States Soil ® 1 Department of Conservation % Agriculture Service C - 1 Mr. Wally Hubbard, Director. Spokane County Planning Department North 721 Jefferson Spokane, Washington 99260 Dear Mr. Hubbard: We have reviewed your draft environmental impact statement for the Riverway Villa project and offer the following con Page 16, Site Topography /Soils Map: The soils for the entire site is classified by the Soil Conservation Service as prime farmland. It is the policy of SCS to recommend development of areas not considered to be prime farmland. C - Page 28, c: The third word of the first sentence should be changed from "should" to "will ". C - Page 28, d: These adverse impacts could be avoided if a sewer system was constructed before this project is implemented. Thank you for the opportunity to review your draft. Sincerely, LYNN A. BROWN State Conservationist .cc: J. Melton, DC, SCS, Spokane FO O The Soil Conservation Service is an agency of the Deoarlmenf of Agriculture Room 360 U.S. Courthouse Spokane, Washington 99201 E Cr !r ‘I j :. JAN 18 1:182 Sr UK.MNL CUiRM PLANNING DEPARTMEN1 January 12, 1982 SCS -A5 -1 10 -79 R -1 Comment noted. R -2 Please amend the paragraph under 3.8 c. on page 28 of the Draft EIS to read: "The project will be connected . . .." R -3 The cumulative impacts of all development in the Spokane Valley could be significantly reduced if a sewer system was initially constructed to serve the Spokane Valley; however, the '201' wastewater facilities plan does not place a moratorium on development in the Spokane Valley pending installation of a centralized sewer system. JOHN SPELLMAN Governor Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft environmental C - impact statement for Rivcrway Villa. Department staff have reviewed the document and have no comments to offer. DF:lc Hr. Wally Hubbard Spokane County Planning Department North 721 Jefferson Spokane, Washington 99260 Dear Mr. Hubbard: SIAN: OI AA IING[1)N DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AWiI tilup PV- 11 o 04717» 4V::hingtun 93504 • ((K,) 159 -b(f) January 15, 1932 If you have any questions, please call me at 206 /459 -6026. Sincerely, ,zfi L' E JAN 9 ' . SPOKANE COUNTY P LANNING DEPARTMENT >015-6cA mil/) 1<v_ Debbie Fristoe Environmental Review Section sr- 19 19n Si i(hiNE CC s;wING DEP;,.. . IIUNAIm \V. MOOS I)irec.lor R -4 No response required. STATE OP DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES WASHINGTON West 92.1 Sinio Avenue. L 32.4. Spokane, Washinyion 99201 509/4563115 r'JohnrSpel loran Governor January 13, 1982 Spokane County Planning Department N. 721 Jefferson St. Spokane, Wa. 99260 S r �, � n er r t" JAII1 ;38? SPuA C' Ilti J„�,IY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Attention: Wally Hubbard Subject: Draft E.I.S. for Riverway Villa, PE- 1414 -81 Dear Mr. Hubbard: I have reviewed the subject E.I.S. and have the following comments to make: 1. On Page 14, b - The statement is made regarding grading of the site. The first paragraph indicates grading will be limited 8 to 12 feet. The predominant soil in this site and soil that will receive the drainfield effluent is Garrison gravelly loam. If this soil is left undisturbed it can be, for the most part, very suitable for on -site sewage disposal. Grading the upper horizons of this soil exposes the coarser soils that extend into gravels C -5 at depths of 3 to 5 feet. These coarser soils are designated by the State Board of Health's regulations under WAC 248 -96 -090 as Type 1. Type 1 soils have recommended density of 1 unit per acre. Larger densities can be accomplished with special design and analysis of groundwater conditions in the area. It should be noted that C.I.D. has a well field directly across Mission Ave. and depth to groundwater is approximately 78 feet. This department requests the drainfield site remain.ungraded to utilize the upper soil horizon for better treatment of the effluent. 2. On Pages 26 and 27 - The anticipated amount of water to be used is stated at 250,000 gallons per day. This figure is extremely C -6 low. Utilizing figures of existing water use taken from the cur- rent C.I.D. #19 Water System Plan, the water usage per acre based on domestic use is: (1) Average 3.04 gpm /acre /day (2) Maximum daily 10.69 /acre /day This would compute to 118 x 3.04 = 358.72 gpm (516,556.8 GPD Average) and 118 x 10.69 = 1261.42 gpm (1,816,444.8 GPD Maximum) daily. 3. On Page 27, 3.8 b - The design quantity listed may increase due to DSHS guidelines requiring 350 GPD per unit design. Li addition to C -7 this slight increase, backwash water from the swimming pool will add to the wastewater allocation. R -5 Comment Noted. R -6 Amended water quantity usage estimates for Riverway Villa are as follows: 109,500 gallons /day residential - without irrigation; October - May 730,000 gallons /day residential - with irrigation; June - September 15,000 gallons /day commercial - limited landsacping; 12 month average These estimates are based on the following assumptions: 300 gallons /day /lot - October through May 2,000 gallons /day /lot - June through September 1,500 gallons /day /acre - Commercial land use 365 total developed lots 10 acres commercial use Total water requirements: 124,000 gallons /day - October through May 745,000 gallons /day - June through September 330,000 gallons /day - 12 month average Consolidated Irrigation District No. 19's water consumption figures are based on low density development requiring large amounts of irrigation water. This type of development is common in this service area. Riverway Villa is a higher density development with commercial areas. Approximately 38 percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces, thereby reducing the irrigation requirements. R -7 The sewage treatment requirements for a manufactured home development are less than for a conventional single family development with an equal number of units. This assumption is based on the fact that the average household size for manufactured homes is between 2.0 and 2.5 persons, whereas conventional single family homes have an average household size of 3.0 to 3.5 persons. Design and construction of sewage treatment facilities will comply with guidelines of the Department of Social and Health Services, Department of Ecology and the Spokane County Health District. To: Spokane County Planning Department Page 2 January 13, 1982 C -8 In accordance with the County Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan, the project should agree to, not oppose, ULID formation to connection to the county interceptor and agree to connect as soon as possible. This is the extent of our comments. Should you have any questions feel free to call. Since_ely, George B ScYtender Envi ronntental i st GBS:ei cc: Spokane C.H.D. Spokane Co. Utilities - Bill Dobratz State Health R -8 Comment Noted. JOHN SPELLMAN Governor STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION 17 West Twenty-First Avenue, KL 11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (206) 753 -4011 o:r ji\F1 1`) � a,at �� t,Ei�� n)2 13 - pR Spokane County Planning Department North 721 Jefferson Spokane, Washington 99260 Dear Applicant: C -9 We have reviewed your draft environmental impact statement and find there are no historic or archaeological properties on the State or National Register of Historic Places, or the Washington State Inventory of Historic Places, that will be impacted by the project. In the event that unknown archaeological resources are inadvert- ently unearthed during construction activities, please notify the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in Olympia, and the Washington Archaeological Research Center in Pullman, Washington. Sh ``la Stum db Archaeologist Form AHP R -6 (2/81) Date: January 15, 1982 Log Reference: 285- C -SP -08 Project Title: DEIS - Riverway Villa Sincerely, IACOB THOMAS Director R -9 Comment Noted. JOHN SPELLMAN Governor Wally Hubbard, Director Spokane County Planning Department North 721 Jefferson Spokane, Washington 99260 Mr. Hubbard, STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF GAME 6()O North Capitol Way, 01.11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (200 753 -5700 r41 January 14, 1982 � e ‘g G,t jkVl1% otposys DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: Riverway Villa Manufactured Home Site and Commercial Center Your document has been reviewed by our staff as requested; comments follow. As the impact statement acknowledged, the main impacts on wildlife as a result of this proposal will be the deterioration of the Spokane River and associated 0 -10 riparian habitats. However, potential impacts may be more severe than discussed. In the discussion of impacts on fish and wildlife habitat, it mentions a reduction in the value of riparian habitat in the project area. It is very likely that corridors and riparian habitats up and downstream will also be impacted. Reserving habitat along the river as undeveloped open space would help reduce potential impacts. However, from the project description, it is clear it will not remain undeveloped. Hiking trails, picnic sites, outdoor recreation shelters, and exercise stations are potential developments. These types of developments C -11 would serve to attract people to this sensitive area. The most severe impacts would likely be from human disturbance and pets. The impact statement should discuss ways to reduce these impacts. We do not agree the proposed open space would "enhance the river- associated habitat" as mentioned on page 33. A reduction in the quality of riparian wildlife habitat should be expected. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. Sincerely, THE DEPARTMENT OF GAME MHG:cv cc: Agencies Region Mark H. Grandstaff, Applied Ecologist Environmental Affairs Program Habitat Management Division FRANK LOCKARD Director R -10 Comment noted. Because of the diverse ownerships along the Spokane River and the lack of a comprehensive open space plan for the river, a discussion of the potential impacts of future development and other land uses on areas upstream and downstream would merely be conjecture. R -11 Any development along the river for recreational uses will be strictly controlled by Spokane County under the Spokane County Shorelines Pro- gram, which contains the following policies for the Pastoral classifica- tion: Policy 1: Only passive recreational uses are permitted. Policy 2: The design and development of recreational areas, whether public or private, shall protect and preserve the natural features of the land and its vegetation and the quality of the water for recreational use and natural habitat. Policy 3: The scenic quality of the area, both views of the water and from the water, must be preserved or enhanced to the maximum possible extent. JOHN SPEL MAN Governor Si ATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of District Administrator • North 2714 Aiaytair Street, Boy 5299, North Central Station • .Spokane, Lt'ashington 99205 Mr. Wally Hubbard, Director Spokane County Planning Department N. 721 Jefferson Street Spokane, WA 99260 Dear Mr. Hubbard: January 5, 1982 According to the CIS on page 47 approximately 6500 additional trips per day on Barker Road will be generated by this proposal. Approxi- mately 70% (4,550) of these trips will be between the Barker Road- C-12 I 90 Interchange and Mission Avenue. This additional traffic will cause a severe impact on the Barker Road -I 90 Interchange. The pre- sent structure over I 90 is a two lane structure. Should the inter- change become severely impacted our department would look to Spokane County to share in the costs of modifying the structure and /or ramps to accommodate the additional traffic generated by this proposal. l ery) truly yours, WALTER R.'HORNING, P. E. District Administrator WRH:sw cc: R. Albert D. Walther Record Control SP(M4i4 C0[1Nis. PLANNING DEPARTMENT DUANE UERENTSON Secretary R -12 Comment Noted. The Riverway Villa project would add to the cumulative traffic impacts on the Barker Road interchange. Project phasing will allow sufficient time to evaluate the need and scheduling of interchange improvements. TO: FROM: uJepaItIi1C17L U' 1" 21LL!1'ir1 1teSULIIteS Spokane County Planning Department North 721 Jefferson Spokane, WA 99260 Attn: Wally Hubbard, Director NAME Walt Wruble TITLE Spokane Local Manager ADDRESS P.O. Box 190, Colville, WA 99114 SUBJECT: REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ACTION SPONSOR PROJECT Spokane County Planning Department Riverway Villa, PE- 1414 -81 Section 8, Township 25 North, Range 45 EWM make the following comments: cc: DNR SEPA Center Philip Hildebrand, Area Manager Ross Hesseltine, Arcadia District Manager File BRIAN J. BOYLE C nniuisann,r 01 Public t.:,nd. DATE: December 17, 1981 We do not have an interest in the above project and have no comments on the proposal. XX We do have an interest in the above project and wish to C - 1. A surface land mine reclamation permit and reclama- tion plan shall be required if more than two acres of contiguous land is to be disturbed or more than 10,000 yards of mineral is removed in any type mining operation. (For example, the removal of top soil or any other aggregate type of material to be sold or used for construction off the proposed development site.) pC EA 1 198/ S'Qi�Aid� CUur; „ PLifnING DEPARTMENT R =13 Construction of the project will require limited grading and excavation to accommodate streets, utilities, parking areas, drainage and struc- tures. These type of excavation and grading activities will be confined to the site, with no commercial removal of topsoil or aggregate mate- rials. I have reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Riverway Villa Mobile Home Park and Shopping Center and I do question one paragraph in the air quality section. On page 21, the last paragraph, where it is stated "...project development would reprove approximately 100 acres of dryland and irrigated farming...(reducing approximately 69 tons (of particulates) annually..." This figure is excessively high. From the reference material available to me, emissions from agricultural activity equal C -14 only about .03 ton /acre /year. For the 100 acre parcel this would amount to only 3 tons /year. This will not offset the estimated 10 tons/ year of particulates that will be generated from vehicle related activities. While these emission levels are relatively minor, I feel the correction should be made in the final statement. C -15 The Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority further requires that .means be taken to avoid deposition of mud and dirt from unpaved surfaces onto paved surfaces during the construction phase of this project. Thank you for inviting our comments and if I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, SPOKANE COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY Christopher J. McEnany Field Representative L AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY January 11, 1962 Wally Hubbard, Director Spokane County Planning Dept. North 721 Jefferson Spokane, WA 99260 Re: Draft EIS on Riverway Villa Dear Mr. Hubbard: ADDRESS REPLY TO: SPOKANE COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY WEST 1101 COLLEGE, ROOM 230 SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99201 P FCF1V F' r JAt'J 15 ;A.'l SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT R -14 Based on EPA emission factors, the "approximately 69 tons" referred to in the Draft EIS appears to be correct: Plowing generates .03 ton of particulates /acre x 100 acres = 3 ton /year Fertilizing generates .01 ton of particulate /acre x 100 acres = 1 ton /year Harvesting generates .04 ton of particulates /acre x 100 acres = 4 ton /year Wind Erosion, depending on the soils, silt content, number of dry days, wind speed, etc. will generate approximately .6 ton of particulates/ acre x 100 acres = 60 ton /year Total particulates generated by farming operation /year = 68 ton /year. R -15 Comment noted. N.811 leflerson Spokane, Washington 99260 December 10, 1981 Wally Hubbard, Director Spokane County Planning Department N. 721 Jefferson Spokane, WA 99260 Dear Mr. Hubbard: Si cerely, DB /set Y c Dean Blount, Administrator Water Quality Programs ) .;Yk t l ( .4 ) Newman 13 / lake 1 •+ ) i \( E 1. f liberty -"— lake LI- O ..Jllllli Spokane Aquifer Study lake Coeur d'Alene ( Hayden lake 22 8 -- -- ( Coeur 'Alene (509) 156- r , ECG 1V DEC 10 1981 SPaAHE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: Review of DEIS "Riverway Villa" In the process of reviewing the DEIS for accord with the "208" Plan, I noted several admirable statements and two relatively minor errors. The latter include: C -16 = page 3, item 3.b. under the heading "Unavoidable Adverse Impacts," the entry should read "Reduction of contaminants" instead of "none ". GPA systems do markedly reduce the level of contaminants reaching the aquifer, but the system is not perfect. Therefore, the comment "none" is not totally accurate. 1./ C -17 - Appendix "C" page 3, Sec. V.I. The second sentence is incorrect in that the "208" Plan does not require a 50% larger drainfield over the aquifer. The admirable aspects of the DEIS are several references which indicate sensitivity to the ease with which the aquifer can be contaminated. Specifically, the DEIS C-18 suggests integral GPA's to clean stormwater runoff. The document also suggests prohibition of hazardous materials in the mini- warehouse portion of the proposed development. The authors of the DEIS are to be congratulated for including these suggestions. If these become conditions of project approval, the DEIS will have served its purpose. Thank you for the opportunity to review this DEIS. If you have need of clarifica- tion, please contact me. RECEIVED `C 101981 SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT R -16 Although some level of contaminants would reach the aquifer, it 1s unlikely that the impact from this proposal would be adverse. This proposal would, however, add to the cumulative impact from all devel- opment in the Spokane Valley. Please delete the word "None" from both 3. b. on page 3 and 3.2 d. on page 24 of the Draft EIS, and add the following: "Cumulative impact on ground water quality ". R -17 Please delete "The '208' Study and" under V. 1. on page C -4 of the Draft EIS. R -18 Comment noted. 5PO..AnC (Gunn' COU4: NOVSC Mr..WWallis Hubbard, Director Spokane County Planning Dept. Spokane, Washington 99260 Dear Mr. Hubbard, In reviewing Riverway Villa Draft Environmental Irnpact State- ment, I have the following comments to make as it relates to this agency: C 1. The 200' foot set back should be donated to Spokane County Park to provide additional public access to the Spokane River. C -20 2 . The Plan doesn't mention the proposed Bikeway down the river. While not a specific adopted plan it has long been planned to build a trail down the Spokane River and we may be able to use the proposed Riverway Road to our advantage. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. D. ug Parks & Recreation AA: dg ector p.c( :T tee \'. ?I?; `!;�. co T.:W`'115r DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION TELEPHONE 456 -4730 WEST 1115 BROADWAY AVENUE SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260 December 17, 1981 R -19 Since publication of the Draft EIS, the proponents and their represen- tatives have met with Mr. Angove. The proponents are willing to enter into agreement with Spokane County to provide easement or right of way for a bike trail (refer to R -20). They do, however, prefer to turn over the 200 foot setback to a Homeowner's Association comprised of residents of the development, and will contribute approximately $50.00 per lot to this Association to aid in limited recreational development of the area. R -20 The proponents are willing to enter into agreement with Spokane County to provide easement or right of way for a bike trail. They would enter into this agreement prior to recording the first final plat. Prelimi- nary discussions with Mr. Angove indicate that an agreement delaying actual conveyance of the easement or right of way until either the County has a specific adopted plan and funding for an area -wide bike trail program or 10 years has passed, would probably be satisfactory. G. NELSON From Form 377 -C.R. OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEER Inter - office Communication To SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT. N. 721 JEFFERSON SPOKANE COUNTY; WASHINGTON Date JANUARY 1 8 19 82 Subject RIVERWAY VILLA E.I.S. C -21 THE SECTION ON TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION DOES NOT ADDRESS THE IMPACT OP, MITIGATING MEASURES TO MISSION AVENUE. ECEIVED JAN 1S 1982 SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT R -21 Please delete the first paragraph under 3.1 b. on page 47 of the Draft EIS and add the following paragraph: f The (365 new home)sites would generate approximately 3,600 trip movements per day,e primarily on Barker Road. Depending on final design, between 30 and 40 percent of the traffic generated by the proposal would use Mission. Avenue for access to the shopping center site and Barker and Harvard Roads, adding approximately 1,200 cars to Mission Avenue. Shopping center access to Mission Avenue would add approximately 1,000 trip movements; 20 to 25 percent of the shopping center traffic; to Mission Avenue. Traffic on Mission Avenue would increase from the current 900 cars per day to 3,100 cars after comple- tion of the project. Please add the following paragraph under 3.1 c. on page 47 of the Draft EIS: To mitigate impacts upon Mission Avenue, it is antici- pated that improvements to Mission Avenue would include addition of a parking strip, curb and sidewalk to the north side of Mission Avenue, or participation in a Road Improvement District to improve the entire Mission Avenue right of way adjoining the project. Spokane County Planning Department North 721 Jefferson bycadway Centre Lui!din Spokane, tdA ',;9260 January 12, 1952 RE: Environmental Impact Statement: on Riverway Villa Gentlemen: LARRY V. ERICKSON SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF DEAN A, LYDIG, Undorshoriff TERRY D. SNEDDEN, Inspector DONALD R. MANNING, Chief Jailor COUNTY - CITY PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260 Telephone )156_4739 RECEiVED '%.V 1st 1982 SP hANR CU:! Ti PLANNING DEPARTMENT T The River: :ay Villa located on the northeast corner of darker and Nissicn Avenue will cover 115 acres, it will have 365 new hones, three stores, C-22 one bowfin_ alley, and also some mini storage facilities. Estimates are that it will increase the population of that area 700 - 900 people: 200 of these would be younger children. It will bring about 3t miles of new roads which would consist of residential streets. Also, it will cause tae widening and reconstruction of some of the older roads. This is the area that is covered by our District 6 car and, at this time, - it is an area of lord residents: however, it is now starting to be one of our fastest growing areas as it encompasses the East Farms /Otis Orchards area. According to the figures in the Environmental Impact Statement, the area of East :arms has increased 123% in the last 10 years population -wise. The area where the new proposed site is has increased 78% in the last 10 years. As you Lncw, neouio a. "it: our :Pain concern - `.:Isere there are no people, we have no nrobler•.. :. With the _-crease of 36 nee.! stores - i hon 3 ;�ores and a bowling alley, we are going to find a lsrge increase in residents, shoopers; the bowling alley itself will attract young: people. With the beginning of the construction, you will find that we will be responding to job-- rolatod injuries, thefts of building equipment and/or materials, vandalism to the equipment, plus considerable heavy equipment traffic, and the always pos- sible problem of labor- management disputes, strikes, etc.. The area is now old, estab]ished honios and farms and this will be a blend- ing of the country living with new people moving in who are normally city oriented. 1 an surf, this is going to be a difficult adjustment for the people who have lived and grown up in that area. (continued) R -22 Comment noted. Page Two To: Spokane County Planning Department January 12, 1982 One of the problems that is going to occur is that there will be a large residential area built on the banks of the Spokane River. The plan is to place picnic areas, jogging areas and bicycling areas along the river. The river, which we know is a treacherous stretch of water, is bound to account for drownings as its use increases greatly with the new residents. Also, as that area is opened up, we will find that the river is used for keggers, assaults, rapes and other things that normally occur in that type of area. Also, the area is now used by motorcyclists and snowmobilers. As the residents move in, this will become an increasing problem and one that cannot be accepted in a high - population area. The parking lot for the shopping area will have spaces for 375 cars; from this we will inherit the theft of autos, thefts from autos, vandalisms, and accidents in the parking lot. Also inherent with large shopping areas are thefts of bicycles and shoplifting. The stores themselves are suscep- tible to armed robberies and burglaries. The area itself is located fairly close to Newman Lake. We would find that the residents there will use Newman Lake, Sullivan Park and Walk in the Wild as their immediate recreational areas. As the houses are completed and the families move in, we feel that the families will be the young married cou- ples and the older retired people, which again will be a difficult blend of people, and you will find that we will have family fights, burglaries, and neighborhood disputes as we do in all of our populated areas. When the complex is completed, we will have the increased traffic of delivery trucks, school buses and motorcycles, snow plows, etc.. These are going to be problems that we always find when we find people. I feel that it would probably need heavier patrolling than we are now giving it; that it will attract other businesses to build in that area because of the increase in population and that we will need an increase of three patrolmen to give the new homeowners adequate protection and police services. This, of course, is going to necessitate that we increase our prowl car mileage and use. The incidents that are covered by the patrolmen of course will be, in many cases, forwarded to the Investigative Division and will cause an increase in caseload for detectives and our service units. I do feel that the Riverway Villa is well laid out and well thought out and we cannot totally say that it alone will necessitate the need for more patrolmen. However, coupling it with the growth in that area, I feel that that will be the immediate impact on law enforcement in the Sheriff's Office. LVE /kmw Sincerely, // � �� /f r2 c c�s LARRY V. ERICKSON, Sheriff Spokane County 0 5 COunl. COu4, .OUSC pm (1 icrvirr MEMO To: Thomas L. Davis, Special Programs Administrator From: Thomas G. Mosher, AICP, Long Range AdministratorT Date: December 28, 1981 Subj: Riverway Villa Riparian Area - DEIS Comment PLANNING DEPARTMENT UROAOWAY CENTRE BUILDING N 721 JEFFERSON STREET PHONE 4 56 - 2205 SPOKANE, 'WASHINGTON 99260 I have examined the Riverway Villa Proposal with regard to potential future public trail uses along the south side of the Spokane River. An objective of the Spokane County Shoreline Program is to provide public access to the riparian areas of shoreline jurisdiction wherever possible. It is also a worthy Long Range Planning objective to estab- C-23 lish, wherever possible, public access to the water front environment. It is also apparently a long range objective of the Parks and Recreation Department to achieve a system of walking and bicycling trails along the banks of the Spokane River. With the above principals in mind, it seems that it would be very prudent to renuire the establishment of an easement as a condition of any approval for Riverway Villa, to.be officially filed in the Auditor's Office prior to final plat approval. I suggest something to the effect of an unspeci- fied 15 foot wide easement for future use as a public trail system es- tablished in the name of Spokane County, at a location to be determined in the future, across the northerly portion of the subject property from west to east in the vicinity of the shoreline environment. I have spoken with Mr. Angove, the Parks and Recreation Director, and believe he would heart - edly support something to this effect. I suggest that a firm contact be made with hint regarding this natter. He may be able to help secure a more definitive location of such an easement and /or have comments regarding how it is specifically described. cc: Wallis Hubbard, Planning Director John Nunnery, Subdivision Administrator Sam Angove, Director of Parks and Recreation Dent. R -23 Please refer to R -20. All -AMC ICA C Nir. Wally Hubbard, Director Spokane County Planning Department North 721 Jefferson Spokane, Washington 992611 Dear Mr. Hubbard: IiI'C:DLC:gain RE: R1VERWAY VILLA EIS January 4, 1982 Very ■ruly yours, �V r I:. Tcrry Clegg, Zoning, Subdivision and Environmental. Services Director CITY ZONING BOARD 309 City Hall — (509) 456.4375 CARROLL MARTELL, Chairman VAUGHN P. CALL, AICP Manager — Planning E. TERRY CLECG, Alen, MCIP Director — Zoning, Subdivision and Environmental Services ka etP y d fir Mari o � i; 9) q PLeh'IN of tl, ; We have reviewed the draft EIS for the proposed 118 acre, 365 unit development and have no particular problem with this proposal. C -24 It is noted that a number of sewage disposal alternatives are discussed with no statement as to the final method of disposal being chosen. The amount off potential impact to the aquifer can not be determined. A discussion takes place on page 67 with respect to desirable service C -25 areas for neighborhood connnerci.al. activity. it is noted that a one mile service area is suggested and that existing comnerci.al. activity apparently takes.place within approximately one mile from the site. R -24 The recommended sewage disposal system is discussed on pages C -11 and C -13 of the Draft EIS. It is concluded that the most feasible method of wastewater management would be to install sewer lines, make these active instead of dry lines, and utilize community septic tanks and drainfields for treatment. R -25 Existing and somewhat limited commercial facilities for the area are located at Greenacres Road and Appleway Avenue, approximately one mile south of the proposal. Access to this area is limited to the Barker Road /I -90 interchange. Few neighborhood or community shopping facilities have been established north of I -90 along Barker Road, except for a truck stop, a restaurant, and a small convenience store which is part of a campground. LE.13:GOZ:elt December 23, 1981 Mr. Wallis Hubbard, Director Spokane County Planning Department North 721 Jefferson Spokane, Washington 99260 Dear Mr. 11/4W1 \ RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT - RIVERWAY VILLA I have reviewed this impact statement and have the following comments: Sincerely Lyle E. I3alderson, Planning Director CITY PLAN COMM;ss;0N 309 City 1-1411 - JEAN SESCHEL, President VAUGHN P. CALL, A.I.P. Manager — Planning Lyle E. 6alderson Planning Director C - 1. The riverbank natural area. along the river is proposed to contain trails, picnic sites and exercise stations. Who will be responsible for making these improvements? C - 2. On page 52 the statement is made that Central Valley High School now has 1,271 students in a facility with a capacity of 1,161. Will this project along with other development within the Central Valley School district further contribute to this overcrowded situation? C - 3. The proposal will provide substantial areas for passive recreation. As far as we can determine, there arc no park facilities for active recreation within walking distahce or even bicycling distrance of this project. At the densities being proposed, active park facili- ties would seem to be an essential public service. Are future park sites planned in the near vicinity of this proposal? C - 4. We agree with the note on page 56 stating that the placement of units on lots, revised yard requirements and restrictions on covenants re- lating to solar access easements should be considered. The arrangement and orientation of the lots at the time of platting is essential to the most efficient use of both passive and active solar systems. Has solar access been a consideration i.n this orientation of the lots? In summary, we support the provision of lower income housing, however, essential public facilities should be available or planned that will support the proposal. R -26 Please refer to R -19. R -27 As stated in the Draft EIS, Riverway Villa will attract either retired persons or young couples. It is anticipated that the number of resi- dents of high school age would be very small. The project will be phased over an eight -year period to allow time for Central Valley School District to make the necessary adjustments. R -28 Sullivan Park, which lies approximately two miles west of the site, is the closest developed public park. School sites in the area also pro- vide some areas for active recreation. Harvard Park lies approximately 1 -1/2 miles east of the site. However, at the present this site is undeveloped. The future of Harvard Park is uncertain due to recent Spokane County Parks Department budget cuts. R -29 Solar access has been considered but does not appear to be significant- ly applicable to this specific proposal. Although solar can be used in this geographic area, its use is economically limited, primarily to that of a supplemental system. Other considerations were the limited number of solar.systems which would be adaptable to manufactured housing and the income levels of those who would most probably reside in the proposal. It should be noted, however, that approximately 30 percent of the lots are oriented for solar. Additionally, manufactured housing.is generally of uniform height, permitting use of roofs for smaller, lighter weight systems. Central V.t y Sch = t , CIF Dr. Richard C. L Chart � l:. Stocker January 19, 1982 Neil D. I're>cou. Jr .. n. 'ur.. ,.i.I.J. No ?So in the Spu..mr \alloy South 123 HuoVJi.h. Sib ISJ,hingi 00 20L. 150 O istrict WALLY HUBBARD, DIRECTOR Edwin I SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT N. 721 JEFFERSON "" SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260 Dear Mr. Hubbard: We have received the Draft EIS for Riverway Villa. Dan11 A. 1'hrngpan SIwr "c ` "n " We have reviewed pertinent portions of this document. Our comments Dr. Herbed rr. o,hunl are as follows: C -30 1. On page 5 the author states that there will be no in- crease in school -aged children due to the proposal. On page 52, after acknowledging that the project is designed to serve young families (P.9,43), the State- ment indicates that 200 public school students are likely to reside within the development. The author may wish to reconcile these two assertions. C -31 2. On pages 8 and 62 the author suggests that "lack of interest" Drakes it "unlikely" that a public or non profit agency would elect to purchase the site. To our knowledge no part of the site has been off- ered for purchase by Central Valley School District, a public agency. Were part of the property to be made available to the District, the District Dray, in fact, be interested in considering its acquisition. C -32 3. On pages 39 and 52 the author notes that the School District's Barker Center facility is used strictly as an administrative center. Aside from presence of periodic night classes at this facility, these statements are correct at present. Until recently, however, the District housed sev- eral kindergarten classes in this building. It is quite possible that it will again be used in the future for classroom space. R -30 The summary on page 5 indicates that there will be an increase in the number of children attending public schools but that this increase would not be mitigated as an adverse impact. The increase of students attending public schools was not determined to be adverse. R -31 The statement regarding public acquisition of the project site was confined to the evaluation of the entire ownership and not a portion thereof. Acquisition of a portion of the site would still mandate development of the remainder of the ownership. R -32 Comment noted. 1 WALLY HUBBARD, DIRECTOR JANUARY 19, 1982 PAGE 2 C -33 4. On page 47 the author suggests that the proposed 10 acre commercial center will generate 4500 ve- hicle trips per day in addition to 3600 vehicle trips anticipated from the 365 living units. The Draft EIS suggests that the largest share of these are likely to utilize Barker Road. This added traffic will not enhance Barker Center's already limited potential as an Elementary School Site. C -34 5. On page 52 the author indicates that most of the anticipated 200 students residing within the pro- posed development will be elementary -aged students. On the same page he notes that the Greenacres Ele- mentary School, which serves this area, is within 27 students of capacity. Greenacres Elementary must serve the entire East- ern portion of the School District for the fore- seeable future. Since 1) it lacks capacity to serve projected enrollment from the proposal, 2) it is located some distance from the proposal, and 3) bus transportation for pupils represents a substantial, rapidly growing School District obligation, the District is not now well equipped to conveniently handle up to 200 additional ele- nrentary students anticipated as a result of this proposal. C -35 6. On page 52 the author suggests that there are no adverse impacts from introduction of 200 students near Barker u Mission. The School District will be pleased to serve these students. We note, however, that the proposed 200 new students represent 40 percent of an entire elementary school's enrollment and that no school facility capable of handling these youngsters exists nearby. C -36 7. The author states on page 67 that the anticipated 10 acre commercial development could be set aside in favor of more housing units within the proposal. We note that this same acreage would provide two - thirds of an elementary school site. R -33 Comment noted. R -34 It is anticipated that phasing of the project, in conjunction with the time required for marketing, will introduce the 200 new students over a period of eight years or more, allowing necessary adjustments to be made. R -35 Refer to R -34. R -36 Proponents of Riverway Villa have since had several meetings with Central Valley School District Director of Facilities and Planning, Mr. Dave Jackman. Further discussions will be held concerning a new school site in the vicinity of Riverway Villa. WALLY HUBBARD, DIRECTOR JANUARY 19, 1932 PAGE # We would be pleased to talk with the proponents of Riverway Villa about securing adequate shcool facilities to serve youngsters resi- ding within the proposed development. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Riverway Villa Draft EIS. We found it generally clear and well organized. Sincerely, Dave JJc!h'ar Direct Facilities and Planning DJ /99 9 TO: FROG: c c: iJt)Jcll't.11lellL 0: I \aLL11 ill 1'teSOL1rce> Spokane County Planning Department North 721 Jefferson Spokane, WA 99260 Attn: Wally Hubbard, Director NAME Walt Wruble TITLE Spokane Local Manager ADDRESS P.O. Box 190, Colville, WA 99114 SUBJECT: REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ACTION SPONSOR Spokane County Planning Department PROJECT Riverway Villa, PE- 1414 -8I Section 8, Township 25 North, Range 45 EWM make the following comments: DNR SERA Center Philip Hildebrand, Area Manager Ross Hesseltine, Arcadia District Manager File BRIAN J. BOYLE Conmii “ienor of Public Lands DATE: December 17, 1981 We do not have an interest in the above project and have no continents on the proposal. XX We do have an interest in the above project and wish to C -13 1. A surface land mine reclamation permit and reclama- tion plan shall be required if more than two acres of contiguous land is to be disturbed or more than 10,000 yards of mineral is removed in any type mining operation. (For example, the removal of top soil or any other aggregate type of material to be sold or used for construction off the proposed development site.) rk 199; :10 fi� C OuI�;7Y r ltG DEPARTMENT R-13 Construction of the project will require limited grading and excavation to accommodate streets, utilities, parking areas, drainage and struc- tures. These type of excavation and grading activities will be confined to the site, with no commercial removal of topsoil or aggregate mate- rials. L AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY January 11, 1982 Wally Hubbard, Director Spokane County Planning Dept. North 721 Jefferson Spokane, WA 99260 Re: Draft EIS on Riverway Villa Dear Mr. Hubbard: Sincerely, SPOKANE COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY _ (: Christopher J. PicEnany Field Representative ADDRESS REPLY TO: SPOKANE COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY WEST 1101 COLLEGE, ROOM 230 SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99201 h k'� J /IN 15 j96 SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT I have reviewed the draft Environmehtal Impact Statement for the Riverway Villa Mobile Home Park and Shopping Center and I do question one paragraph in the air quality section. On page 21, the last paragraph, where it is stated "...project development would remove approximately 100 acres of dryland and irrigated farming...(reducing approximately 69 tons (of particulates) annually..." This figure is excessively high. From the reference material available to me, emissions from agricultural activity equal C -14 only about .03 ton /acre /year. For the 100 acre parcel this would amount to only 3 tons /year. This will not offset the estimated 10 tons/ year of particulates that will be generated from vehicle related activities. While these emission levels are relatively minor, I feel the correction should be made in the final statement. C -15 The Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority further requires that means be taken to avoid deposition of mud and dirt from unpaved surfaces' onto paved surfaces during the construction phase of this project. Thank you for inviting our comments and if I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. R -14 Based on EPA emission factors, the "approximately 69 tons" referred to in the Draft EIS appears to be correct: Plowing generates .03 ton of particulates /acre x 100 acres = 3 ton /year Fertilizing generates .01 ton of particulate /acre x 100 acres = 1 ton /year Harvesting generates .04 ton of particulates /acre x 100 acres = 4 ton /year Wind Erosion, depending on the soils, silt content, number of dry days, wind speed, etc. will generate approximately .6 ton of particulates/ acre x 100 acres = 60 ton /year Total particulates generated by farming operation /year = 68 ton /year. R -15 Comment noted. DB /set December 10, 1981 Dear Mr. Hubbard: Wally Hubbard, Director Spokane County Planning Department N. 721 Jefferson Spokane, WA 99260 Si cerely, Dean Blount, Administrator Water Quality Programs qM � Lake ")„1 —I r f✓ � • r Newman Liberty v — Lake l \S Spokane Aquifer Study N. 811 lelIerson Spokane, Washington 99260 a t8 - Lake Coeur d•Alene 'Hayden take ( C oeur %Alene pEu c (509) 4 t, 2 1) \t, DEC 10 1981 SPUy,ANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: Review of DEIS "Riverway Villa" In the process of reviewing the DEIS for accord with the "208" Plan, I noted several admirable statements and two relatively minor errors. The latter include: C -16 - page 3, item 3.b. under the heading "Unavoidable Adverse Impacts," the entry should read "Reduction of contaminants" instead of "none ". GPA systems do markedly reduce the level of contaminants reaching the aquifer, but the system is not perfect. Therefore, the continent "none" is not totally accurate. C -17 - Appendix "C" page 3, Sec. V.I. The second sentence is incorrect in that the "208" Plan does not require a 50% larger drainfield over the aquifer. The admirable aspects of the DEIS are several references which indicate sensitivity to the ease with which the aquifer can be contaminated. Specifically, the DEIS C-18 suggests integral GPA's to clean stormwater runoff. The document also suggests prohibition of hazardous materials in the mini - warehouse portion of the proposed development. The authors of the DEIS are to be congratulated for including these suggestions. If these become conditions of project approval, the DEIS will have served its purpose. Thank you for the opportunity to review this DEIS. If you have need of clarifica- tion, please contact me. RECEIVED EEG 1 0 1981 SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT R -16 Although some level of contaminants would reach the aquifer, it is unlikely that the impact from this proposal would be adverse. This proposal would, however, add to the cumulative impact from all devel- opment in the Spokane Valley. Please delete the word "None" from both 3. b. on page 3 and 3.2 d. on page 24 of the Draft EIS, and add the following: "Cumulative impact on ground water quality ". R -17 Please delete "The '208' Study and" under V. 1. on page C -4 of the Draft EIS. R -18 Comment noted. S AA: dg •ely, , Mr. .Wallis Hubbard, Director Spokane County Planning Dept. Spokane, Washington 99260 Dear Mr. Hubbard, D. ig Parks & Recreation ector SD<(D ■1\5\j�'!i '�l ril7Yr DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION TELEPHONE 456 -4730 WEST 1115 BROADWAY AVENUE SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260 December 17, 1981 In reviewing Riverway Villa Draft Environmental Irnpact State- ment, I have the following comments to make as it relates to this agency: C 1. The 200' foot set back should be donated to Spokane County Park to provide additional public access to the Spokane River. C -20 2 . The Plan doesn't mention the proposed Bikeway down the river. While not a specific adopted plan it has long been planned to build a trail down the Spokane River and we may be able to use the proposed Riverway Road to our advantage. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. R -19 Since publication of the Draft EIS, the proponents and their represen- tatives have met with Mr. Angove. The proponents are willing to enter into agreement with Spokane County to provide easement or right of way for a bike trail (refer to R -20). They do, however, prefer to turn over the 200 foot setback to a Homeowner's Association comprised of residents of the development, and will contribute approximately $50.00 per lot to this Association to aid in limited recreational development of the area. R -20 The proponents are willing to enter into agreement with Spokane County to provide easement or right of way for a bike trail. They would enter into this agreement prior to recording the first final plat. Prelimi- nary discussions with Mr. Angove indicate that an agreement delaying actual conveyance of the easement or right of way until either the County has a specific adopted plan and funding for an area -wide bike trail program or 10 years has passed, would probably be satisfactory. Form 327 -C.R. G. NELSON OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEER SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON Date JANUARY 1 19 $2 Inter-officc Communication To SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT. N. 721 JEFFERSON From Subject RIVERWAY VILLA E.I.S. • C-21 THE SECTION ON TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION DOES NOT ADDRESS TIE IMPACT CiR MITIGATING MEASURES TO MISSION AVENUE. ECEIVED JAN 1 s 1982 SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Lead Agency: Spokane County Date of Issue: November 1981 Date Comments Due:' December 1981 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RIVERWAY VILLA Prepared for H& E INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. East 12720 Nora Avenue Spokane, Washington 99216 INTRODUCTION The proposed action under review is a request for a zone reclassification from the Agricultural zone to the Residential Manufactured Home zone and Commercial zone for the development of Riverway Villa, a site for 365 manufactured homes and & neighborhood commercial center. This center would possibly include a supermarket, drug store, hardware store, bowling alley and a mini - storage facility. The request for zone reclassification is on file at the Spokane County Planning Department, file No. PE- 144- 14 -81. The proposed action was initiated by H &E. The 118 acre site is located in the Spokane Valley south of the Spokane River, west of Barker Road, and north of Mission Avenue in the West half of Section 8, Township 25 North, Range 45 EWM. The lead agency for this proposal is Spokane County and the responsible offi- cial is Wally Hubbard, Director of the Spokane County Planning Department, North 721 Jefferson, Spokane, Washington 99260; telephone (509) 456 -2274. The proposed action may require the following legal actions and permits: 1. Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements; 2. Zone reclassification approval; 3. Approval or permits from the Spokane County Health District, the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services and the Washington State Department of Ecology for design and operation of a sewage disposal system; and 4. The obtaining of all required building permits, inspections and approvals. Copies of this document may be obtained frm the Spokane County Planning Depart- ment for the cost of reproduction and mailing. This Draft Environmental Impact Statement was issued on November , 1981. In order to be incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact Statement, public comments and remarks by consulted agencies or individuals must be received by the Spokane County Planning Department, North 721 Jefferson, Spokane, Washington 99260, on or before January , 1982. This Draft Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by Inland Pacific Engi- neering Company. Data required to produce this document may be obtained at the following. address: Inland Pacific Engineering Company, East 12720 Nora Avenue, Spokane, Washington 99216 (509) 922 -1300. Several firms and individuals conducted major categorical research and analysis and provided the data necessary to prepare specific sections of this Draft EIS, as follows: Arger /Wright & Associates Consulting Engineers West 1625 4th Spokane, WA 99204 Century West Engineering Corp. North 1010 Washington Suite A Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 326 -4227 Thomas H. Rogers East 10820 Maxwell Avenue Spokane, WA 99206 (509) 926 -7949 Eugene H. Welborn Professional Land Surveyor East 7011 Second Avenue Spokane, WA 99206 (509) 926 -5959 Development Plan Wastewater Collection/ Treatment Flora; Fauna Legal Description TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ,X LIST OF MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS LIST OF TABLES AND GRAPHS ca DISTRIBUTION LIST - err SUMMARY OF THE CONTENTS OF THE DRAFT EIS 1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL q ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT 4 Elements of the Physical Environment 1. Earth 14 2. Air 20 3. Water 4. Flora �9 5. Fauna 3 1 6. Noise 7. Light and Glare + 8. Land Use yo 9. Natural Resources 40 10. Risk of Explosion or Hazardous Emissions Elements of the Human Environment H 1. Population 9� 2. Housing 4 3 3. Transportation /Circulation 45 4. Public Services SS io 5. Energy 6. Utilities i 7. Human Health Sy 8. Aesthetics 59 9. Recreation 10. Archaeological /Historical 4 11. Additional Population Characteristics 4'0 12. Economics 4c 13. Shoreline Management Act 14. Open Space Land Classification 4/ THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT -TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG -TERM PRODUCTIVITY 1. 2 IRREVERSIBLE AND /OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES . . . 6,3 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSAL tot/ CITATIONS 68 APPENDIX A: List of Elements of the Environment q_I APPENDIX B: Legal Description APPENDIX C: Wastewater Collection /Treatment Engineering Analysis Q* APPENDIX D: Flora /Fauna Report P -I 1. Vicinity Map it 2. Area Map 12 3. Site Plan 13 4. Soils /Topography Map 1 L 5. Air Quality Map 21 6. Zoning Map 7. Land Use Map 3 8. Census Tracts yZ 9. Average Daily Traffic Map 44 10. Public Services Map y 11. Utilities Map S74 LIST OF MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS LIST OF TABLES AND GRAPHICS Table I Soils 1 ) Table II Population Growth Trends ' Table III Growth in Total Housing Units, 1971 -1980 y y Federal Agencies DISTRIBUTION LIST Soil Conservation Service, Spokane Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle Postal Service, Spokane Department of Transportation, Seattle State Agencies Office of the Governor, Olympia Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia Ecological Commission, Department of Ecology, Olympia Department of Ecology, Olympia Department of Ecology, Spokane Department of Natural Resources, Colville Department of Fisheries, Olympia Department of Game, Olympia Department of Game, Spokane Department of Social and Health Services, Olympia Department of Social and Health Services, Spokane Department of Transportation, Olympia Department of Transportation, Spokane Utilities and Transportation Commission, Olympia Energy Office, Olympia Office of Financial Management, Olympia Planning and Community Affairs Agency, Olympia Clearinghouses Spokane County Regional Planning Conference, Spokane (2) Spokane County Board of County Commissioners (3) Boundary Review Board Building Codes Department Engineering Department (3) Health District (2) Parks and Recreation Department Planning Commission (7) Planning Department (20) Prosecuting Attorney (2) Air Pollution Control Authority Utilities Department Sheriff's Office Conservation District Fire District #1 Central Valley School District #356 Neighboring Cities and Counties City of Spokane Plan Commission City of Spokane Planning Department (2) City of Spokane Transit System City of Spokane Office of the City Manager Utilities Services Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company Washington Water Power Company Valley Garbage Service Consolidated Irrigation District Libraries Spokane County Public Library (2) City of Spokane Public Library Media The Spokesman- Review Spokane Daily Chronicle The Valley Herald KHQ TV KREM TV KXLY TV Others Spokane Audubon Society Save Agriculture Valley Environment Association (SAVE) Valley Chamber of Commerce Spokane Chamber of Commerce H & E (2) Arger /Wright & Associates Consulting Engineers Century West Engineering Corp. Gary A. Meyers and Company Anderson, Evans, Craven, Leckie and Henderson SUMMARY OF THE CONTENTS OF THE DRAFT EIS Purpose and Objectives The intent of the proposal is to provide a manufactured home residential area for sale and rental complete with recreation facilities, open space amenities, full utilities, and the availability of mini - storage and shopping facilities. Project Description The proposal is a 365 unit manufactured housing P.U.D. with a supplemental shopping center, on a 118 acre site on the northeast corner of Barker Road and Mission Avenue in the Spokane Valley. A portion of the site near the Spokane River will be retained in open space in accordance with the guidelines of the Shoreline Management Act. The shopping center will be neighborhood /community oriented with a supermarket, drug store, hardware store, and mini - storage facilities. Development will provide for public water; interim on -site sewage disposal until public sewers are available to the proposal; a public street system; storm water disposal facilities; underground utilities; and adequate parking facilities. The analysis, immediately following, summarizes the probable impacts of the proposal on the environment, adverse environmental impacts which may be miti- gated, and unavoidable adverse impacts; all of which are discussed in detail throughout this document. IMPACT SUMMARY The Impact of the Proposal Adverse Environmental Impacts Unavoidable on the Environment Which May Be Mitigated Adverse Impacts a. Excavations & grading None for foundations, utili- ties, roadways, drainage b. Disruption, displacement None & compaction of soils; permanent overcovering of soils a. Short -term increase in None TSP, CO, nitrous oxides, & hydrocarbons during construction ELEMENTS OF THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 1. Earth c. Localized changes to None None surrounding topography d. Increased wind & None None water erosion potential during construction 2. Air b. Slight increase in CO None Increase in and nitrous oxide vehicle emis- during project life sions & air pollutants 3. Water a. Slight alteration of None None surface water movement None None None The Impact of the Proposal Adverse Environmental Impacts Unavoidable on the Environment Which May Be Mitigated Adverse Impacts b. Introduction of imper- Install GPA system vious surfaces altering absorption rates; in- creased runoff b. Traffic noise generated None by the completed pro - ject 4. "Flora 5. Fauna 6. Noise 3 None c. Increased use of ground None None water (aquifer) d. Reduction of ground Connection to central sewer Cumulative water quality from on- collection system when avail- impact on ground site sewage disposal able water quality a. Introduction of Retention, management of natu- None non - native vegetation ral area along riverbank b. Pre - emption of future None Reduction of agricultural options farmland a. .Reduction in number of Retention, management of natu- None wildlife residing on- ral area along riverbank site; human activity b. Elimination of secondary None None habitat c. Infringement on Spokane Retention, management of natu- Infringement on River ecosystem as cur- ral area along riverbank Spokane River rently defined ecosystem a. Increased noise levels None None during construction Traffic noise generation The Impact of the Proposal Adverse Environmental Impacts Unavoidable on the Environment a. Increased light a. Use change from agricultural & vacant to residential and commercial 10. Risk of a. Potential storage of hazardous, flammable materials in mini - storage area a. Increase in population None of area by 700 to 900 persons a. Increase in available supply of manufactured housing Which May Be Mitigated Adverse Impacts 7. Light and Glare None None 8. Land Use Provisions for review of specific site plans and details of shopping center 9. Natural Resources Refer to Section 4. Flora Explosion or Hazardous Emissions None Regulation prohibiting storage None of flammable or hazardous materials ELEMENTS OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 1. Population 2. Housing None None None The Impact of the Proposal Adverse Environmental Impacts Unavoidable on the Environment Which May Be Mitigated Adverse Impacts a. Generation of addi- tional vehicular traffic; transit service extension b. Provision for adequate off - street parking c. Increased movement of passenger, service vehicles, bicycles, walking /jogging d. Increase in traffic accident potential a. Increased responsibi- lity for fire and police protection b. Increase in children attending public schools c. Increased demand for community park and recreation facilities d. Increased maintenance for roads & utilities e. Increased demand on governmental agencies a. Increased demand for electriety & natural gas to serve residen- tial & commercial areas 3. Transportation Improvement of Barker Road arterial, extension of transit service None None Improvement of Barker Road arterial 4. Public Services None None Extension of paths, outdoor shelters, picnic sites None None None 5. Energy None None None None None None Increased use of community facilities None None None The Impact of the Proposal Adverse Environmental Impacts Unavoidable on the Environment Which May Be Mitigated Adverse Impacts a. Increased demand for telephone, water & power services b. Development of interim sewerage system. De- velopment of on -site storm water system c. Increased disposal at Mica landfill a. Potential to uncover/ disrupt items of his- torical or archaeolo- gical significance None None None 6. Utilities 7. Human Health N/A 8. Aesthetics N/A 9. Recreation Refer to Section 4. Public Services 10. Archaeological /Historical Notify officials upon discovery �. None Operation of interim system until regional system is developed None Potential for destruction of historical/ archaeological artifacts The Impact of the Proposal. Adverse Environmental Impacts Unavoidable on the Environment a. Generation of addi- tional tax revenues Which May Be Mitigated Adverse Impacts 11. Additional Population Characteristics N/A 12. Economics None None 13. Shoreline Management Act a. Preservation of 200 Confine use to paths, feet setback along picnic areas, outdoor Spokane River shelters 14. Open Space Land Classification N/A Limited,disrup- tion of habitat SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES If the proponents took no action, the site would remain vacant, functioning as open space and wildlife habitat; and providing some agricultural potential. It appears unlikely that the proposed site would remain undeveloped because of eco- nomic pressures and the lack of interest for purchase of the site by a public or non - profit agency. The site is designated on the comprehensive plan as ap- propriate for urban development and it is anticipated that the property will eventually develop into a residential area at urban densities. Alternative locations for manufactured housing developments are limited within the metropolitan area. Properties north and west of the City of Spokane lack certain utilities and transportation services while other Spokane Valley loca- tions either lack sufficient size for such a development or are more remote from essential urban services and transportation systems. The ten acre shopping center site which includes mini- storage facilities would provide convenient shopping and other services to the project and the adjoining residential neighborhood. The proposed shopping center would increase activity in the immediate area, inconveniencing owners of existing adjacent residential properties. Currently, neighborhood and community shopping facilities are lacking for the immediate area. Evaluation of future shopping needs of the area and potential commercial sites available to serve the area is required to deter- mine the appropriate size and location of the proposed shopping center. The reduction in size or elimination of the proposed shopping center would allow the area to be used for additional manufactured housing sites or multiple fami- ly development. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL River way Villa is a planned unit development to be located east of Barker Road and north of Mission Avenue in the Spokane Valley, County of Spokane, State of Washington. The PUD Plat is located 200 feet from the high water mark of the Spokane River. The applicant also owns the land from this point to a private strip of land which abuts the Spokane River. The project consists of 118 acres, 108 of which will be developed as residen- tial and 10 which will be developed as commercial. The zoning request will be Residential Manufactured Home (ME) for the 108 acres mentioned above and Commercial for the commercial area. The project will be phased with final completion to be determined by market and economic conditions. Approximately 365 residential lots will be developed for manufactured homes to house 700 to 900 people. It is anticipated that a majority of the residents will be young couples or retired individuals. A suitable mix of rental and owned spaces for manufactured homes will be pro- vided. Housing types will be manufactured home units ranging from 1,000 to 1,800 square feet in size and containing two to three bedrooms. The antici- pated price range will be between $35,000 to $60,000. In order to enhance the aesthetics of the project, amenities such as tennis courts, volleyball courts, outdoor shelters and picnic sites will be provided and maintained by a homeowners association. A ten acre parcel located in the southwest corner of the PUD plat will be developed as a commercial use. Expected uses include a self- service storage facility, a service very consistent with the needs of manufactured home residents, and substantial parking and general commercial uses consistent with a neighborhood shopping area and the surrounding land uses. This commercial area is designated to serve the needs of both the PUD plat residents, and residents of the surrounding area. At present, the nearest shopping facility is located approximately three miles away. Sewage for the manufactured home units will be provided by a community septic tank and drainfield. This sewer system will be engineered to facilitate .hookup with the City of Spokane's sewer system as soon as a trunk line is extended to the property. This trunk line is now a part of the County's wastewater manage- ment program. The property located over the drainfields will not be used for manufactured home units until after this hookup with the City sewer is com- pleted. During the interim, the drainfield will remain open space. Sewer disposal for the commercial site will be interconnected with that of the resi- dential site and have a maximum allowable flow of that required for 20 residen- tial units. 9 Drainage for the residential site area will be done through the extensive use of grassy swales in order to provide proper percolation of water runoff in ac- cordance with "208" standards. Drainage in the commercial area will also be facilitated with the use of similar grassy areas for percolation. The area will be served by the arterials of Barker Road, Mission, and the newly constructed arterial of Indiana Avenue, bisecting the project. Secondary streets are provided throughout the remainder of the site. Portions of the site lie within 200 feet of the Spokane River, an area that is under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, and is designated as a shoreline of state -wide significance. There will be no construction within 200 feet of the high water mark of the Spokane River, with the possible exception of trails, picnic sites and /or exercise stations to enhance the use of -th riverbank and preserve as much as possible in its natural state. The project site is under the jurisdiction of the generalized Spokane County Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1980 and the current Spokane County Zoning Ordi- nance. The comprehensive plan has designated this area in the urban category and the manufactured homes are consistent with the bounding areas to the north, east and south. The commercial area is not specifically designated in the com- prehensive plan, although it provides availability of neighborhood commercial services as stated in the goals and objectives statements. The proposed site would change from vacant agricultural ground (zoned Agricultural) to a medium density residential neighborhood (zoned Residential Manufactured Housing) with associated commercial facilities (zoned Commercial). 1O. IDmmtnij1J Gar., 1 1 Lil �'� a I 1 1 T 1 =:.. Lan Alva? 6r — — Indlfns Augusta — — Da.abpinant %an For. RIVER AY VILLA •90 1.6.• d CO tau w0 ARGER /WRIGHT and ASSOCIATES Lan .01. Laguna itsrean taxa". -tunas ants voLL* .4.1 da . 144 Mfl NOF.VIL 20,0 L 8 0 O a 1 a 1.1 Geology ELEMENTS OF THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 1. EARTH a. Existing Environmental Conditions The proposed project is situated on the floor of the Spokane Valley which was created by an extensive glaciofluvial deposit of sand and gravel during the last ice age. These deposits also contain boulders and cobblestones, and are mostly open- textured, very coarse and poorly sorted. The surface was probably reworked by streams, including the Spokane River to the north of the project, during the last 12,000 to 20,000 years. The Spokane River has created a channel 30 to 50 feet deep into the valley floor. The Pleistocene flood deposits extend approximately 300 feet below the surface. Below this, the Latah formation consists of various colored flat horizontal beds of siltstone, claystone, and sandstone.(1) (2) There are no apparent geologic hazards associated with the proposed site. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment Excavations and grading will be required for the installation of founda- tions, roadways, utilities; and surface drainage. These activities will be confined to the surface levels and will not extend more than 8 to 12 feet deep. No construction activity is anticipated within 200 feet of the Spokane River reserved by the Shoreline Management Act. There are no anticipated construction impacts on the geologic structure, and excavations will terminate well above the underlying aquifer. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 1.2 Soils a. Existing Environmental Conditions Soils of the Garrison Series cover the proposed site. Garrison soils are included within the Garrison - Marble - Springdale association; soils ranging from somewhat excessively to excessively drained, sandy and gravelly, and formed in glacial outwash. Garrison gravelly loam (0 -5 percent slopes) is the dominant soil in the Spokane Valley and comprises approximately 99 percent (115 acres) of the on -site soils. GgA is somewhat excessively drained, has a moderate- ly rapid permeability and is of medium fertility. Garrison gravelly loam, 0 -5 percent slopes is classified as Prime Farmland by U.S.D.A. with the criteria that irrigation would increase the production potential of agricultural crops. The other Garrison soil, "gravelly loam," 5 -20 percent slopes (GgB) occupies the steeper areas of the site near the Spokane River. This soil is similar to GgA, but is thinner and of lower fertility. (3) The engineering properties of the on -site soils indicate that the soils are suitable to support construction of the proposal. (Please refer to the Soils /Topography Map and Soils Table on the following pages.) b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment Construction activities associated with the proposal would disrupt, displace, compact, uncover and overcover the on -site soils. Upon project completion, approximately 38 percent of the site (48 acres) would be permanently covered with streets, parking areas, and buildings. Approximately 70 acres (62 percent of the site) would be specifically retained by covenant and designed as open space, including the more fragile GgB soils near the Spokane River. These areas would be land- scaped, planted and maintained in vegetation to improve aesthetics, provide proper drainage, and reduce erosion from water and wind. The tillable portions of the site would change in use from dryland and irrigated cropland to urban uses, including reserved open space areas. All soils would be retained on -site and later used in landscaping and in open areas. Although the site has prime farmland potentials, the econo- mics of the continued urbanization of the Spokane Valley including taxa- tion policies, upgrading of utility and roadway systems, population growth, and increased land values preclude continued agricultural usage of the site. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. 5, 2000 -_ 2010' 2024' 2028 2032 SITE TOPOGRAPY/ SOULS GgA Garrison gravelly loam 0 - 5% slopes GgB Garrison gravelly loam 5 - 20% slopes • 0 Y L O m • i r ",.\ r N. / 4 ) ® . G A a M ission 50' 170' 800' 800' 0' IOC/ 200' 400 000' ortt 2032 , 2036 / .7 2010 T 2020 _2024 -2028 -- 2032 2032 TABLE 1 - SOILS GgA GAB Percent of Site 98 2 Fertility Medium Low - Medium A.G. Class III -2 IV -5 Runoff Slow Medium Permeability Moderate -Rapid .Moderate -Rapid Susceptibility to Frost None - Slight None - Slight Shrink -Swell Potential Low Low Stability Moderate Moderate Shear Strength High High Load - Carrying Capacity High High Erosion Potential Slight Moderate SOURCE: SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE 1 d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 1.3 Topography a. Existing Environmental Conditions The topography of the site is relatively flat, gently sloping from the southeast boundary (elevation 2,036 feet) to the northwest boundary near the Spokane River (elevation 2,000 feet). Slopes range from one to two percent for the development portion of the site with up to 40 percent slopes within the undevelopable portion near the Spokane River. Surface drainage flows from the southeast to the northwest; however, only one small drainage course has been established. (Please refer to the Soils /Topography Map on page 116.) The site is separated from the Spokane River by an Inland Empire Paper Company ownership, which was established at the turn of the century to accommodate an unconstructed dam and reservoir. During flood stage, the Spokane River could abut a small portion of the site's northernmost boundary with no flooding of the development portion of the project. Generally, the Spokane River flows in a channel approximately 40 to 50 feet north of the ownership at an elevation 28 to 34 feet below the developable portion of the site. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The construction of the project would result in minor localized changes in surface relief features to accommodate streets, parking, drainage, and structures. The steeper portion of the site near the Spokane River would not be disturbed except to accommodate supplemental landscaping, walkways, and outdoor recreation shelters in accordance with the Shoreline Management Act. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 1.4 Unique Physical Features N/A 1.5 Erosion a. Existing Environmental Conditions Due to the texture and permeability of the Garrison soils and the relatively flat slope of the proposed site, the erosion hazard is generally slight throughout the site. The steeper portion of the site near the Spokane River with somewhat higher erosion potentials will not be disturbed except to accommodate supplemental landscaping, walkways, and outdoor recreation shelters. Cultivation of the site exposes the soils to wind and water erosion, although the steeper portion of the site near the river is in pastureland. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment Construction activities would require the removal of existing vegeta- tion exposing on -site soils and increasing wind and water erosion potential during the construction period. Construction activities could also compact much of the soils, reducing absorption capabilities and increasing runoff. New impervious surface areas on the site would increase the peak rate of runoff flow onto some areas. The phasing of the project and retention of ground cover on undeveloped and reserved open space areas would reduce the area of exposed soils and allow re- tention areas for runoff. Spokane County Air Pollution Control Author- ity requirements for dust control during construction would also mini- mize wind erosion. The establishment of a drainage plan for the project conforming to "208" Study guidelines and the installation of permanent ground covers within improved and reserved open space areas would minimize the ero- sion potential of the site over the long term. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 1.6 Accretion /Avulsion N/A 9 2.1 Air Quality 2. AIR a. Existing Environmental Conditions The project area lies within a lower air basin extending from downtown Spokane east towards the Rathdrum Prairie. The proposed site is approximately five miles east of the outer boundary of an E.P.A. designated non - attainment area for total suspended particulates (TSP). The nearest permanent TSP monitoring station is at East Valley High School, approximately 2 -1/2 miles northwest of the site. During 1980 this station registered TSP levels averaging 53.0 micrograms per cubic meter, which is 22 percent below the Washington State standard of 60 micrograms per cubic meter. (The 1980 average includes the particu- lates generated by Mt. St. Helens). Based on Spokane County Air Pol- lution Control Authority (SCAPCA) data, the site is estimated to be well within applicable standards for suspended particulates. (4) Existing ambient air quality conditions were monitored near the I -90/ Sullivan Road overpass approximately 2 miles west of the project from February 19, 1979 to April 19, 1979, with technical assistance of SCAPCA. Carbon monoxide (CO) levels were found to be relatively low with a maximum level of 2.5 ppm; 8 hour average. (Federal and State standards for CO levels are 9 ppm; 8 -hour average.) Because the proposed site is well removed from the higher concentra- tions of carbon monoxide found within the City of Spokane, is situated in a portion of the Spokane Valley with lower density arterials and less vehicular traffic and is located easterly of areas complying with Federal and State standards, it is assumed that carbon monoxide levels within the project area are less than 2.5 ppm (8 hour average). The site is located outside of the SCAPCA designated "no burn" area. (Please refer to the Air Quality Map on the following page.) b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment Short term increases in TSP, CO, nitrous oxides and hydrocarbons would result from the operation and movement of construction equipment. Dust (TSP) would be the primary pollutant associated with the construction phase of the project. The use of water sprays and dust palliatives per SCAPCA requirements during construction would minimize fugitive dust problems. Paving and landscaping of completed areas would also reduce dust emissions. After the project is completed, ambient particle concentrations in the area would return to pre - development levels. The project development would remove approximately 100 acres of dryland and irrigated farming, resulting in a reduction of agricultural related particulate emissions P • es ItPORA118 • MITURISTICMIAL AlapOat peos• MOO -J NON ATTAINMENT ABEAM --8 so - CO BOUNDARY " MP BOUNDARY LSONITOOING STATION SITES Clan Video/ HI00 etsbool 1 SITE AJALOTY e 7; ; :::1 ■ ' "el s, • " ry i i " g...; _ et -41 • • - a lSr ". v i'q t • • -- . atate • . •-rd - • At- " - —44 • r: • t_t" , • „ of approximately 69 tons annually, which offsets the particulate emis- sions anticipated from such urban sources as roadway dust from paved surfaces. The increased use of automobiles and space heating /cooling throughout the completed project area would increase carbon monoxide and nitrous oxide emissions, although not to levels approaching or exceeding State and Federal standards. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 2.2 Odor The proposed project would unavoidably bring minor increases in the vehicle - related emissions and air - pollutant concentrations to the vicinity of the site. The cumulative impacts of the continued urbani- zation of the Spokane Valley may require the implementation of an approved vehicle inspection and maintenance program by Spokane County to reduce carbon monoxide levels. N/A 2.3 Climate N/A 3. WATER Note: A complete "Wastewater Collection /Treatment Engineering Analysis" is contained in the appendix. This special study contains various recommendations and alternatives to treat wastewater and stormwater. The following section provides a general discussion of the recommended methods for the proposed project. For further review of the proposed alternatives, please reference the alternatives section and the appendix. 3.1 Surface Water Movement a. Existing Environmental Conditions The Spokane River is located within a well- defined riverbed approximate- ly 50 feet north of the ownership. The north 150 feet of the ownership 22 forms part of the upper riverbank of the Spokane River, with only the lowest portion of the ownership within the 100 -year flood plain. There is no surface water movement associated with the proposed site except for occasional storm and melt waters. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The developable portion of the project would be set back 200 feet from the Spokane River in accordance with the Shoreline Management Act and well above the 100 -year flood plain. Surface water movement from oc- casional storm and melt waters would be confined within the develop- able area in accordance with "208" Study recommendations. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Se Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 3.2 Runoff /Absorption a. Existing Environmental Conditions The Garrison series of soils comprising the site are somewhat exces- sively to excessively drained and possess slow to moderate runoff characteristics. These factors, combined with the relatively flat topography, limit runoff from the proposed site. The site does lie within the Spokane River drainage basin and any runoff which might occur once soil moisture capacities are exceeded or during frozen ground conditions could possibly contact surface water associated with the Spokane River, although such instances are rare. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The development of the project site would result in the removal of the existing agricultural cropland and pasture. Construction and develop- ment will create impervious surfaces such as roads, buildings and parking lots, altering the site's absorption capacity. The Spokane County Water Quality Management Plan ( "208" Plan) recom- mends that surface water runoff from all impervious surfaces be di- verted into grass percolation areas. This method of stormwater runoff disposal would help protect the aquifer and the Spokane River through the percolation and filtration of stormwaters through biologically '2- 3 active surface soils. The method utilizes the uppermost biologically active layer of the soil to significantly reduce the levels of organic and inorganic contaminants reaching the groundwater. Overflows to dry- wells would be constructed to dispose of runoff in excess of .5 inches for a single event. The proposed project would have 22.53 acres of impermeable surfaces requiring 2.81 acres for grass percolation for runoff absorption. The proposed open space area is 38.12 acres of which 14.6 acres is to be used for wastewater treatment (refer to Ap- pendix C), leaving 23.52 awe GPA. Runoff from the commercial area would be £1Lect d n . y wel d run by pipeto the CPAs. Run- off from streets would d be se — gh breaks in the curbing to the GPAs The GPAs would requir 2 drywells for the-.10 year flood plan and drywells for the 50 year lood plan to handlee any water in excess of .5 i ches. Design compliance ith the '208' study recommendations, in conjunction with the reserved open space areas and the setback from the Spokane River, would confine surface runoff to the site and protect the ground waterNquality of the Spok ne Aquifer. c. Adverse Environment \Impacts Which Ma Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 3.3 Floods a. Existing Environmental Conditions According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the proposed site is outside of the 100-year flood plain of the Spokane River. The site experiences no known flooding or ponding zones due to its elevation of 28 to 34 feet above the river. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The project is not expected to cause flooding of the proposed site nor alter the 100 -year flood plain of the Spokane River. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 241 3.4 Surface Water Quantity N/A 3.5 Surface Water Quality a. Existing Environmental Conditions The Spokane River is designated as Class A in the reach bordering the project site. Water quality is excellent and is suitable for domestic, commercial, industrial, recreational, and wildlife uses as well as aesthetic enjoyment. At present, the only pollutants which would enter the river from the site during runoff periods are those associated with farming practices including pesticides, fertilizers, and slight amounts of sediment. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The project's "208" Study stormwater drainage system would be designed to filter at least the first one -half inch of runoff, which contains the greatest amount of surface pollutants, from roofs (airborne particu- lates), paved areas, and other impervious surfaces. Runoff in excess of one -half inch would be contained in drywells located within the grassy percolation areas. An unusually heavy storm event could create an overflow which could run into the Spokane River; however, that overflow would be relatively free of nutrients, heavy metals, clay type particulates, and various organic materials because of the filtration characteristics of the initial stormwater system. Such an overflow would not significantly impact the surface water quality of the Spokane River. Scheduled sweeping of parking lots and streets, regular maintenance of the stormwater drainage system (including gutters, drywells, and vegetation), and retention of open space areas should insure quality treatment of storm water runoff. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 3.6 Groundwater Movement a. Existing Environmental Conditions 25 The project site is located over the Spokane - Rathdrum Aquifer. Ground- water movement in this area is from east to west. The high permeability of the aquifer materials, the aquifer depth, and the hydraulic gradient result in calculated velocities in the aquifer of 64 to 90 feet per day at the state line and 41 to 47 feet per day in the Hillyard Trough. (5) (6) The total flow of water at the state line and in the Hillyard Trough was estimated at 480 and 350 cubic feet per second respectively. (7) The estimated elevation of the water table under the developable por- tion of the site is 1,940 feet, or approximately 50 to 70 feet below the surface. The aquifer experiences seasonal water table fluctuation averaging five to ten feet in the Spokane Valley. The Spokane River at Barker Road interchanges water with the aquifer varying with the season and the height of the river. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment Development of the project would not significantly disrupt the overall water movement in the site area. Water percolated from the sewage treatment system(s), the storm water drainage system, and the irriga- tion of landscape areas would be insignificant in comparison to the volume of the aquifer, with no measurable effect on the water table elevation or the established flow patterns. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 3.7 Groundwater Quantity a. Existing Environmental Conditions The site lies over the Spokane - Rathdrum Aquifer which is the "sole source" water supply for the Spokane -Coeur d'Alene area. The aquifer flows through glacial sands and gravels at approximately 480 cubic feet per second at the state line. It extends from Lake Pend Oreille in northern Idaho to the north and west of Spokane. Wells tapping the aquifer yield 600 gallons per minute and greater. Irrigation water for the site is currently provided for approximately 100 acres of cropland and pasture by Consolidated Irrigation District from off -site wells and reservoirs. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment Water to meet domestic and irrigation needs of the project would be provided by Consolidated Irrigation District from existing facilities ZL which draw water from the Spokane - Rathdrum Aquifer. The phased devel- opment would contain365 residential lots for manufactured homes and a 10 acre commercial site which would include a self- storage facility and a neighborhood shop ng center (which are expected to have low water demands except for Yfire protection). The completed project would con- sume approximately 250,000 gallons of water per day, which is approxi- mately 0.03 percent of the aquifer flow. Current withdrawals in Washington are approaching 50 percent of the aquifer flow at the state line. (8) The increased withdrawal of water from the Spokane Aquifer as a result of cumulative growth and demand for water in Washington and Idaho may reduce available supply, causing utility districts to implement water conservation measures. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 3.8 Groundwater Quality a. Existing Environmental Conditions The project area is located near the central axis of the aquifer. Water quality has been monitored through various studies by Washington State University, United States Geological Survey, and more recently the "208" Water Quality Management program. The groundwater quality of the aquifer is suitable for domestic, municipal, and agricultural uses, although total dissolved solids (conductivity), chlorine and nitrate nitrogen concentrations did increase in the aquifer samples from the state line to the east city limits. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The project would use interim on -site sewage disposal systems for wastewater treatment of approximately 110,000 gallons per day until such time as central sewage collection systems are available for this portion of the Spokane Valley. (See appendix "Wastewater Collection/ Treatment Engineering Analysis" for detailed analysis of alternatives for w& stc4a r cli.sposat) In order to provide an interim wastewater system which can De most easily connected to future trunk lines, be functional, and allow suitable treatment of wastewater with control of pollution and nuisance, the following alternative system designs have been suggested: (1) on -site septic tanks and individual drainfields with dry sewer lines installed; (2) conventional gravity sewer lines with community 2-) septic tanks and drainfields; and (3) conventional gravity sewer lines with community plant and drainfields. A fourth alternative of indivi- dual septic tanks, conventional gravity sewer lines and community drainfields was rejected in this report. To facilitate on -site interim systems, the submitted plan indicates that the commmercial area and 317 lots would be initially developed, reserving 38.12 acres for dedicated open space and 48 undeveloped lots from which 14.6 acres would be allocated for on -site wastewater treat- ment and disposal. The 48 undeveloped lots would become available for development when a central sewage collection trunk5Qryi&s the area eliminating the need for on -site treatment and drainfield systems. Public sewer systems are not presently available to this portion of the Spokane Valley, although the Spokane "201" wastewater facilities plan has generally included this area to be sewered in the future. Future policies of Spokane County and sources of funding will determine the priority of trunk line extensions throughout the Spokane Valley. The quality of the groundwater may be reduced by the cumulative impacts of wastewater and stormwater disposal as the Spokane Valley continues to develop. Potential groundwater pollution can be reduced by the proper location, installation and maintenance of sewage and wastewater runoff systems as required by the Spokane County Utilities Department, the Spokane County Health District, the Department of Ecology, and the Department of Social and Health Services. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated The project should be connected to a central sewage collection system as'soon as it can be made available, to mitigate the cumulative adverse impacts of on -site sewage treatment systems throughout the Spokane Valley. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The cumulative adverse impacts of sewage disposal systems and waste- water systems over the aquifer throughout the Spokane Valley may reduce the groundwater quality of the aquifer to some degree. 3.9 Public Water Supplies a. Existing Environmental Conditions The project is within the service boundaries of Consolidated Irrigation District. Crops on -site are irrigated from District water mains with off -site wells obtaining water from the aquifer. A 21 -inch transmission zg main extends along the south side of the site in Mission Avenue. Another 21 -inch main extends north of Mission in Barker Road, but tapers down to a 16 -inch main before reaching Riverway. Six -inch mains extend into the property to provide irrigation water. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The proposed project would require approximately 250,000 gallons of water per day for domestic use and irrigation, which is within the capability of existing installations. Water lines within the project would need to be relocated and expanded to accommodate the project design. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 4. FLORA 4.1 Numbers or Diversity of Species a. Existing Environmental Conditions Approximately 12 acres of the site on the slopes overloking the Spokane River are uncultivated with scattered shrubs, mostly Mock Orange, Chokeberry, Ninebark and Serviceberry, between which grow native herbs including Bluebunch Wheatgrass, rough fescue, Prairie Smoke, Cinque- foil, Balsam Root, and Gaillardia. The edges of the field next to the uncultivated area are dominated by a large variety of introduced weedy herbs. The cultivated area of approximat4ky 100+ acres is served by irrigation from Consolidated Irrigation District. A listing of the plant species observed on -site during the early fall of 1981 is contained in the appendix. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment Most of the construction and development activity would be confined to the cultivated portion of the site. A 200 -foot wide buffer strip would be retained along the Spokane River in compliance with the Spokane County Shorelines Program as defined in RCW 90.58. The site plan 2? allocates a 200 to 300 foot wide strip for retention in natural area. This area would be used for hiking trails, picnic sites, outdoor recreation shelters and /or exercise stationb to enhance the use of the riverbank and to preserve as much as possible the natural character of the riverbank. The developable area would incorporate landscaping, primarily turf, shrubs, and trees which could spread to adjacent areas, increasing competition between species. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated A program for the development and utilization of the riverbank natural area should be initiated to minimize or confine the disruption to the area from people and pets. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 4.2 Unique Species N/A 4.3 Barriers and /or Corridors N/A 4.4 Agricultural Crops a. Existing Environmental Conditions The proposed site lies within an area designated by the Soil Conserva- tion Service (SCS) as "Prime" Farmlands. Approximately 100+ acres of the site consist of Garrison gravelly loam 0 -5 percent slopes (GgA). SCS rates this particular soil as Agriculture Class III, which is capable of providing an annual average yield of 30 bushels of wheat per acre using irrigation available to the site. The cultivated portion of the site was planted in barley, beans and irrigated pasture during the 1981 season. Increased urbanization of surrounding parcels has reduced the potential for continued agricul- tural production of the site because of increased taxes, limitations 3� on use of insecticides and herbicides, and small agricultural parcel size. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The development of the site would permanently remove 100+ acres of farmland from agricultural production. Individual sites may be avail- able for gardening, berry and fruit tree production. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Development of the site would permanently remove 100+ acres of farmland from agricultural production. 5. FAUNA 5.1 Numbers or Diversity of Species a. Existing Environmental Conditions A field survey was conducted on the site during the late summer /early fall of 1981. Nine species of birds and 12 species of insects (in- cluding butterflies) were observed on the site. A listing of these wildlife species is contained in the appendix. No species of mammals were observed. No unique species are known to occur on the proposed site, nor were any observed during field surveys. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The proposal would reduce the total numbers of on -site wildlife. Human activity and development would further impact wildlife -- especially those species which cannot live in close proximity to man. Agricul- tural activities and the urbanization of adjoining properties have already significantly reduced native animal habitats and allowed introduced species such as starlings, house sparrows, and house finches to become established. The undeveloped 200 -300 foot wide strip along the Spokane River would retain some of the remaining habitat, although human activity and pets would cause deterioration of this remaining habitat. 31 c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated A program for the riverbank natural area should be developed or ini- tiated to minimize or confine the disruption to the area from people and pets. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 5.2 Unique Species N/A 5.3 Barriers and /or Corridors N/A 5.4 Fish or Wildlife Habitat a. Existing Conditions The most significant habitat associated with the proposed site is the 200 to 300 foot wide strip lying adjacent to the Spokane River and the river itself. Due to the site's close proximity to the Spokane River, portions of the site lie within an area designated by Spokane County as a unique environmental feature; a critical wildlife habitat. The remainder of the site is in cultivation and provides a limited habitat. Wildlife habitats are considered significant if there is (1) a large variety of animals in an area; (2) a large concentration of a single species in an area; (3) a singularly unique variety of species of animal in an area. (9) Wildlife habitats associated with surface water bodies usually involve a large variety of species in an area. This "area" was initially determined by including all lands lying within one - eighth mile of applicable surface water bodies; then adjusted for terrain features, vegetation, land use, etc., or as determined by special field surveys. The environmentally unique wildlife habitat associated with the Spokane River near the site has not been adjusted; the outer -most boundaries are determined by the general "one- eighth mile" criteria. 31. Field surveys did not reveal a singularly unique variety or species, nor a large concentration of a single species on the proposed site. A relatively large variety of species do, however, use the Spokane River as a habitat and /or corridor. Some of these same species could also use the site as either a portion of their total habitat or as a portion of the corridor along the Spokane River. Field surveys did reveal that the habitat adjacent to the Spokane River is suitable for a large variety of species. However, cultivation of the fields approximately 200 to 300 feet south of the river has ef- fectively reduced this critical wildlife habitat from the one - eighth mile criteria. ' b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The proposal would alter the habitats associated with the cultivated portion of the site through human activities (including their animals) and extensive landscaping and construction. The significant habitat along the Spokane River would remain as undevel- oped open space. The design of the proposal would prohibit or restrict vehicular access to this portion of the Spokane River. The retention of a natural buffer strip along the site's northern boundary would both protect and enhance the river - associated habitat. Although the devel- opable portion of the proposal would not extend into the significant habitat area adjacent to the river, human activities from the develop- able area could impact this habitat -- somewhat reducing its total value/ desirability for some species. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated A program for the development and utilization of the riverbank natural area sh *d be initiated to minimize or confine the disruption to the area from people and pets. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Although the buffer strip would protect the shoreline, the proposal's infringement upon the Spokane River Ecosystem, as currently defined, is unavoidable. 6. NOISE a. Existing Environmental Conditions Noise emitted from the vacant site is low, with the exception of the occasional operation of farm machinery which may generate 70 to 90 dBA at 50 feet. 33 Although a noise survey was not conducted on -site, findings for a similarly situated parcel at Sullivan Road and the Spokane River suggest the following: traffic noise from Mission and Barker Roads could be as high as 70 to 80 dBA at 50 feet, and aircraft noise at 60 to 66 dBA. The Spokane River is also a steady noise source. Because the property is more removed from the freeway than the Sullivan site, ambient noise levels throughout the site should average less than 50 dBA. Except for three residences on the east side of Barker Road adjoining the project area, residential development is confined to a single family neighborhood to the west of Barker, a mobile home court to the south of Mission, and a mobile home plat and trailer court north of the Spokane River. Properties to the east of the project are in agri- cultural production. Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173 -60, "Maximum Environmental Noise Levels," identifies permissible noise levels in specific environments and provides standards for noise reception. Spokane County has not adopted WAC 173 -60, but treats noise as a nuisance which is enforced by the Sheriff's Department. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The proposal would increase noise levels both on and off -site during the construction period. The most significant "short- term" noise would be generated during ground clearing, excavation, and site preparation, with noise levels from machinery ranging from 72 to 96 dBA at 50 feet. Since the manufactured housing would be constructed off -site, noise should be limited to installation and setup of the units. Noise from construction of commercial buildings should range between 70 and 88 dBA at 50 feet. Noise from construction activities would be temporary and confined to normal working hours. Sound muffling devices are available for much of the equipment used for construction. Occupancy of residences within the project area would raise ambient noise levels 5 to 10 dBA on - site, which is comparable to established residential areas to the south and west. Approximately 3,650 vehicular trips would be generated by the residential portion of the project. The commercial portion of the project would generate 4,500 trip move- ments per day depending on the type of neighborhood facilities con- templated. These additional traffic movements would increase noise levels along Barker Road and along M/ 55)oh ,Avenue by approximately two dBA. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. 3y d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Traffic noise generated by the proposal on the arterials of Barker Road and Mission Avenue may raise noise levels along these roads by approximately 2 dBA. a. Existing Conditions 7. LIGHT AND GLARE The site is in agricultural production with no emission of light or glare. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The proposal would generate increased light in varying degrees through- out the site. Residential areas would require security and street lighting, while the shopping area would require security and parking lot lighting. Light would also be emitted by vehicular traffic traveling through the site. The use of "downlighting" for parking lots, and low intensity lighting standards within residential' areas would reduce the horizontal disper- sion of the light. The use of shrubs and trees throughout the project would also reduce light and glare. Security lighting should be con- fined to necessary areas. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 8. LAND USE a. Existing Environmental Conditions The proposed site lies east of Barker Road and north of Mission Avenue in the Spokane Valley. The 118 acre site is currently in agricultural production with the exception of a strip of pasture along the Spokane River. The ownership , abUM • three residences along the east side of Barker Road. Other surrounding land uses include: the Spokane River and a manufactured home plat to the north; agricultural parcels and a 35 manufactured home plat to the east; manufactured home plats to the ' southeast; scattered residences, a water pum ing Bpd storage facility, �1 m n .:. k n mobile homes, and a small school4to the e south; b souk ; a ceveloped single family neighborhood to the southwest and west; the Spokane River and a mobile home court to the northwest. The site is currently zoned Agricultural along with other properties to the east. Surrounding residential areas are in the Agricultural, Resi- dential Manufactured Home, and Other residential categories. (Please refer to the Zoning and Land Use maps on the following pages.) The generalized comprehensive plan adopted in 1980 indicates that the properties south of the Spokane River and east of Flora Road are appro- priate for urban type development, with areas along the freeway east of Barker Road appropriate for industrial type uses. The proposed Waste- water Management Plan indicates that the southerly portion of the pro- posed property is within the priority sewer service area while the northerly portion of the property is within the general sewer system area. Because of certain conflicts between density objectives in the Wastewater Management Plan and the Spokane County Generalized Compre- hensive Plan, certain urban categories in the'comprehensive plan which are not within the priority sewer service area are being studied by the Spokane County Planning Commission staff for additional density limi- tations. The proposed site will be completely within the priority sewerage system by December 1981. (20) The Goals and Objectives of the Generalized Comprehensive Plan of Spokane County state that the Urban category (1) offers a "city like" environment with urban services; (2) provides a range of densities from 1 to 17 units per acre; (3) allocates more intensive land use activities along heavily traveled streets; (4) emphasizes man -made aesthetics and the retention of natural features; (5) promotes innovation and cluster developments with open space allocations; (6) provides for an orderly pattern of development; and (7) indicates that a variety of residential options should be made available. The plan also indicates that neigh- borhood shopping facilities can also be accommodated in the urban category. The northerly portion of the site lies within 200 feet of the Spokane River, an area designated as a shoreline of state -wide significance. This part has been designated "Pastoral Area" by the Spokane Committee of the Shoreline Management Act to "protect and maintain those shorelines which have historically been subject to limited interference and have preserved their natural quality as wildlife habitat and places of scenic beagh1. These areas are appropriate for passive agricultural and recreational uses." (10) A Shoreline Management Substantial Devel- opment Permit would be required for development within this area, if contemplated. The Riverway Villa project may -f9 UyTe:Q substantial development in this area. 36 _ A a E Z _ /V MAP A Agriculture C Commercial AS Agriculture Suburban RI Restricted Industrial M Manufacturing FC Freeway Commercial fentlel /�/�� RMH M / :..._ - �� a RMH °,t m Ir R - 1 Single Family Residential RO Residential Office LB Residential tile Home B Local Bus ine s Spokane County Planning Dept. � I. A„ - .1 ..r..a� RMH • 1 R 1J�R , A tt Z 0 A In tMAM � OVnh I R 1 AS s r R1 RMH t) cs 9 r 1 1 �Barkel' Center RMH RI . � 1 A 1 .. RI AS ®i _ • N ` � �..r. RI .- R1 �. ( �• 4.V ` IRS. wII ..... FC AS 4' A �... .... fl rNt V :.,• Pr I n!nnd Pnrif!r Pnninnnrinn rnm nn nu In lnn.l Dnrifir Fnninnnrinn r :mmnnnv 0 z a J 2 E LAND MAP __---;"7..--- USE Agriculture AVE H -� i . �.yy ✓4.1+; - �. j,. •• 1 L •, �� O R ` T► (n . _ 4 ,,,,.,.,,, � � 0 0 --, Agriculture Manufactured Housing 2 �_.__ Single FamilyResldonc` AVE . i pl[kA4A Q tr Restaurant "Green Val lay 0 Estates" 0 Mt4stgw, • .. AXE _ � j l MHI .� { H ti I MH t "Green Valley Inn" pee!_ Barker I At 1 1 Center i PM r i • c, rates Crillgt 0 .•ANI ens ..... w N° 90 •1 - - w f . , j•.n... R f In lnn.l Dnrifir Fnninnnrinn r :mmnnnv b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The proposed site would change from vacant agricultural ground to a medium density residential neighborhood with associated commercial facilities. The natural area along the Spokane River would be retained. Approximately 108 acres of the project area would be developed by phases into 365 manufactured housing sites at a gross density of 3.38 dwelling units per acre and would require a change in zoning from Agricultural to Residential Manufactured Housing. Ten acres of the site would be developed into neighborhood commercial uses including possibly a mini - storage facility, a grocery store, a hardware store, a drug store, and a bowling alley. These uses would require Commercial zoning. The residential portion of the project is in harmony with similar manufactured home developments to the north, east, and south, with only a small portion of the residential are Q of the project exposed to the single family neighborhood to the west. The manufactured housing project conforms with the Urban category of.the comprehensive plan and can make provisions for sewering in accordance with the Wastewater Management Plan, even though a portion of the project is now outside of the priority service area. It will be included in December. (20) The comprehensive plan does not specifically designate the northeast corner of Barker and Mission as appropriate for commercial development, al- though the goals and objectives statements of the comprehensive plan provide for the availability of neighborhood commercial services. This 10 acre portion of the project area abuts a e tablished residential area to the west and 2 S2(0 (ad +t n ° tS`the "south. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May He Mitigated Specific plans of the commercial site have not elevations and profiles, landscaping, lighting, loading areas and other features which address project with adjoining residential areas. The uses within the center may promote evening and alter traffic patterns. been submitted; building signing, vehicular the compatibility of a nature of commercial off -hour activities, and Approval of the commercial site should contain adequate provisions to enhance the visual appeal of the project through quality building design and landscaping, restrict lighting and signing to reduce glare on adjoining properties, site buildings and loading areas to reduce noise and traffic on residential areas, and evaluate potential uses to determine the levels of evening activity. 39 d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 9.1 Rate of Use N/A 9.2 Nonrenewable Resources Refer to 4.4 Agricultural Crops a. Existing Conditions 9. NATURAL RESOURCES 10. RISK OF EXPLOSION OR HAZARDOUS EMISSIONS Farming activities on the proposed site may use agricultural chemicals in conjunction with fertilizer application for control of weeds and in- sect pests. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The mini - storage facilities proposed on the site may provide the oppor- tunity for individuals to store hazardous materials or substances. Such facilities are constructed with concrete floors with adequate ven- tilation and no direct sources of heat. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated Storage regulating of the mini warehouse should prohibit the storage of flammable or hazardous material. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. II. ELEMENTS OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 1. POPULATION a. Existing Environmental Conditions The proposed site lies within the East Valley Metropolitan Area within Census Tract 131 (please refer to Census Tract Map on the following page). Table II illustrates the rate of population growth within the East Valley Metropolitan Area and other sectors of the Spokane Metro- politan Area from 1970 to 1980. Population Growth Location 1970 1980 # Persons % Change *Includes incorporated population. TABLE II POPULATION C.T. 114 2,793 4,177 C.T. 130 1,214 2,619 C.T. 131 2,926 4,366 C.T. 132 2,303 7,488 yI 1,384 1,405 1,440 5,185 + 50.0 + 1 1 5.7 + 49.2 +22 E. Valley Metro 6,443 14,473 8,020 +124.5 W. Valley Metro 47,821 65,546 17,725 + 37.0 N. Metro Area 18,922 27,107 8,185 + 43.3 W. Metro Area 3,721 4,384 633 + 17.8 S. Metro Area 2,298 5,557 3,259 +141.8 Spokane County* 287,487 341,835 54,348 + 18.9 SOURCE: SPOKANE COUNTY POPULATION REPORT 1980 The East Valley Metropolitan Area has been one of the fastest growing portions of Spokane County during recent years. The East Valley Metro- politan Area registered 15 percent of the total county growth between 1970 and 1980. By comparison, the City of Spokane's share of total county growth was only one percent. This conforms to the national trend of population shift from cities to suburban areas. Increased transportation costs due to rising oil prices may modify this trend in the future. (Spokane County Population Report 1980) O S9 38 rot O009 JWama 118 113 277 186 280 35 • 119 186 284 307 nos mamaaaleasaaaa»sa 279 306 117 40 • • • I a97p11i Ili a0 = alaa4aalafaalaa111ua,IV 1111•• - • 5 118 •+1 •• +,ej't4j•8 i 888118888 274 BreaOma, ti 276 111. 302 V•0s7 Rq 321 275 m i l 278 1 S Bor•0•e Ann* 1. ••. 283 • 21 Treat R••6 • • 114 305 127 i 129 282 281 = 322 `s 1 • o. 4 20 11611: 303 - r. tuaC� ®t • •i tit I 8 i • 323 Wet Inter Avesta A smmaam 42 CS SUS TRACTS SOUBC8: Spo&aaeo Arco Dove4 aoaa Co acil, Ian • 6 *Ps 304 99 9s"8• sss 60 88888 7 saa1sssss S90 40.00 41 0 272 0 6 a99 9 �, • k eno • C tstsc -- 14 • _ 1119 1 .. • SITE 300 131 273 e g s OM '. i�� 1j1j1 jj,1j1j11 130 300 324 326 9 132 325 L 1b rt1 Lake 130 CENSUS TRACT ICO. CENSUS TRACT BOUDSDAQY BDNUM€RATION DISTRICT BOUNDARY b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The completed project would increase the resident population of the area by 700 to 900 persons, as well as increase the "temporary" popu- lationiemployees, shoppers, and visitors. The residential portion of the project will provide 365 spaces for manufactured housing. River - way Villa would accommodate manufactured housing in the $35,000 to $60,000 range, which would cater to retired persons or young families with few children. These demographic characteristics should result in a fairly low average household size of approximately 2.0 to 2.5. Commercial center employees and shoppers would vary depending on the mix of commercial uses to be established. Current plans may include, but are not limited to a supermarket, a hardware store, a drug store, a bowling alley, and a mini - storage facility. According to information developed by the Arizona Department of Transportation, a mixed use shopping center of 10 acres in size could generate approximately 4,348 employees and shoppers per day. According to the Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce, one -third of all new valley residents come from the City of Spokane, one -third from the rest of Washington State, and the remaining third from the rest of the United States, particularly California, Montana, and Oregon. Future residents of Riverway Villa would probably follow these trends. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 2. HOUSING a. Existing Environmental Conditions The proposed site is currently vacant. The site lies within the East Valley Metroplitan Area and within Census Tract 131. The adjoining areas to the west and south are dominated by single family housing on large lots normally ranging from one -third to 10 acres in size. Manu- factured housing on one - quarter acre lots has been developed to the north and southeast of the proposed project. The East Valley area has developed with a mixture of standard construction and manufactured housing; however, the area contains few high density projects such as condominiums or apartments. t/3 Data from the preliminary 1980 census indicates that 3fi87 housing units have been constructed in the East Valley Metropolitan Area since 1970. Current high interest lending rates for real estate, limited new em- ployment opportunities, and other economic factors have appreciably slowed recent demand for single family housing. The average price for a home sold in the Spokane market in 1980 was $52,062.00, according to the Housing Market Report compiled by the Spokane Board of Realtors, Multiple Listing Service, Spokane Home Builders Association, and the Federal Housing Administration. The following table indicates growth trends in housing during the last 10 years with comparisons of the immediate vicinity of the site with the rest of Spokane County. (Please refer to Census Map.) p <i 2 TABLE II GROWTH IN LOCAL HOUSING UNITS 1970 -1979 Housing Units Housing Units Percent Location Total 1970 Total 1980 Increase C.T. 114 928 1,574 69.6 C.T. 130 368 874 137.5 C.T. 131 922 1,641 78.0 C.T. 132 810 2,672 229.9 Combined Above 3,038 6,761 123.3 Spokane County* 99,879 137,673 37.9 *Includes incorporated areas. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The proposal is for 365 single family lots developed for manufactured homes. The average price per lot complete with manufactured home would be approximately $40,000 in 1981 dollars. The project would supply a less expensive and affordable alternative to conventional housing, and would be developed in accordance with market demand, with limited impact on the local housing market. The project would satisfy the continual demand of quality affordable housing for the older age groups in our society. The commercial portion of the project would employ approximately 100 persons. Most of these employees are expected to come from the Spokane area and no significant demand for their housing is antici- pated. Improved shopping facilities for the neighborhood may increase the appeal of the area, especially for retired persons, and create some additional demand for housing. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 3. TRANSPORTATION 3.1 Vehicular Transportation Generated a. Existing Environmental Conditions The site is situated on the east side of Barker Road, a major north - south arterial, and north of Mission Avenue, an emerging east -west arterial. The site is one -half mile north of the Barker Road inter- change of Interstate 90, the freeway system connecting the Spokane Valley with the City of Spokane. Other east -west arterials which are of significance to the project are Appleway /Sprague Avenue approxi- mately one mile south, and Trent Road (SSH 290) approximately 1 -1/2 miles to the north. Barker Road serves established residential areas in Greenacres and Otis Orchards, and some industrial traffic to the Spokane Industrial Park. Barker Road will require widening from the present two lanes to four lanes, including another bridge across the Spokane River, as development in the Greenacres and Otis Orchards areas increases traffic, according to the Spokane County Engineer's Office. Mission Avenue may change from a arter al to a co ector if a new east -west arterial is constructed near - "r --way o serve emerging industrial properties in that area. (11) A traffic count by the Spokane County Engineer's Office at Barker and Misson during the spring of 1981 indicated 4,500 trip movements per day north of Mission on Barker and 5,300 trip movements per day south of Mission on Barker. Mission Avenue west of Barker registered 700 trips per day and Mission Avenue east of Barker registered 900 trips per day. This traffic is within the current two lane design criteria of Barker and Mission. (12) (Please refer to the ADT Map on the fol- lowing page.) Traffic speeds on Barker Road are restricted by a school zone south of Mission Avenue and three unprotected railroad crossings between the freeway and Trent Avenue. 4•IS €4 ..7•••"5, : •.• allERIIiit 'STRICT .. • s, STATIONy .1 ‘•-•• a% Z./ ii•• mz.11 a In.:Ay .mu. " Fl pLuno, M 1 L MIRABIAU PARK ":Nortner,n.., ••:. , • • ''' : - SPOKAN E 4. • ,6 1NDLISTRIAL.PAlit, EucIi� ' !Avenue • FIRE5TATI�N '146 5 .4 :4 • Mit **** limmtnitinumainlinapiSian#In .,2200.N fie!, :415 S.-• flow Mon I porno _ 4 •" . SULLIvAN,PARK„ • VALLEY ' • '4: LIONS •CLUB. RECREATION nrititsramn • Greenacres , '— • . • • • • » • d -:,• 2400 Leto,. Sc hoo I 1 • . • Greenacres - E I e rn en tory" . . . • - • • • • t'School • . ' .A • ...It 5 ' 21'160 flare . • •- 17 !.; M' kAR.71.:1: L ?:# . 't*I ' vt7 Nt'LV Zte • :?• •!: • le;..,. . . V : r 41 Czc. . . r-z 4 -,.., . . • • 1 .... - .a..t. ■ - - ' ,- .■-• ,$,:- ry ti .. ttt,t-i e .. %.,'•' — t .'• 1 • • a •‘• i V .. 4r:^^k: ' . ' , 1: `.: .• : • '• ;:'• 7 ': ." "•• :' ; :•.':" :4 • ••••". e ' I " :1, • 1.•4 '• ' i 4 j '!"r'' • ' a 4 .4.. .44e N ... ilL'•:‘ '' 4 1/24. .'.' l -•‘ C. • 4 4 ' 4 4 ."4 • .' • n • • • 4 ••• - ' r.,'"--:44,44-m4fl,',■iSktoraf.rear: tw-• • • ' - "T it ; al/CAW ' CIZ S - '4"'" , ""Orrafre • , sitt 4 F- 4 4N: - 4 14 1 4‘... 7 ,: 1 1: 4 4t 4 ( 4 4-4 1 . 1 :Z?Z' - • 77.7 1 7 • hteet4v4 z• • 1 b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment When completed, the proposal would be the major traffic generator for the immediate area. The 365 new homesites would generate approximately 3,600 trip movements per day, primarily on Barker Road. The shopping center could produce 4,500 additional trip movements per day depending on the size of the center and the nature of the tenants. A neighbor- hood oriented center would tend to produce fewer traffic movements while a community oriented center would increase traffic movements, especially from Otis Orchards. The proposal would produce approximately 6,500 additional trip move- ments on Barker Road, of which 70 percent would be south of Mission Avenue toward the freeway and 30 percent would be north of the project. It is anticipated that the expansion of transit service to the area would reduce traffic generation. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated The anticipated increase in vehicular traffic on Barker Road, especial- ly from the proposed shopping center, is a major potential adverse impact. Such traffic represents an 85 percent increase for traffic south of the site on Barker, increasing traffic to 9,850 trips per day. This approaches the upper design limitations of a two lane bidirec- tional traffic highway. A 43 percent increase for traffic north of the site is anticipated, or 6,450 trip movements per day, which is still within the design criteria for a two lane bidirectional traffic highway. To mitigate the traffic impacts of the development, especially from the shopping center portion and to provide for the continued development of the general area, Barker Road from the Spokane River south to Inter- state 90 will need to be widened to four lanes in accordance with ' Spokane County Roadway Standards. Such standards now include provi- sions for drainage in accordance with "208" Study recommendations, and bicycle paths. The applicant and the Spokane County Engineer's Office should develop an equitable program for the widening of Barker Road from the Spokane River to Interstate 90, including scheduling, funding, access provisions, and additional right of way. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. y 7 3.2 Parking Facilities a. Existing Environmental Conditions The site is in agricultural production with no parking facilities. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The shopping center development, including the mini - storage facility, would require approximately 375 stalls including driveways, creating 7.2 acres of impervious surface areas. The residential portion of the project would have garages and driveways as well as approximately 172 clustered guest parking areas scattered throughout the site. The new parking facilities would be adequate to accommodate the projected uses on the site. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 3.3 Transportation Systems a. Existing Environmental Conditions Transportation systems in the Spokane Valley are vehicular traffic sys- tems including bus service through the recently formed Metropolitan Transit District. Railway and air service terminals are located in the City of Spokane and at Spokane International Airport, respectively. Commercial bus service is provided to the City of Spokane by Greyhound and Empire Bus Lines, with a substation in the Spokane Valley on Argonne Road. Freight services are offered by two railroads serving the East Spokane Area, and numerous truck transport firms. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment Development of the site would create additional opportunities to expand transit service to the area, including possible park and ride facili- ties. The shopping center would require deliveries by truck and service vehicles through established carriers. The proposal, in con- junction with other developments in the area, would advance the need for a four lane road section for Barker Road including, at some future date, additional bridges ^cross the Spokane River, . c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 3.4 Movement /Circulation of People and Goods a. Existing Environmental Conditions Agricultural production from the site is currently hauled to agricul- tural warehouses by truck. This movement is nominal and has minimal impact on traffic movement in the area. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The project would increase the movement of passenger and service vehi- cles in the area, as well as bicycling and walking /jogging. Installa- tion of sidewalks along major roadways and arterials and the construc- tion of a bicycle path along Barker Road would provide separation from vehicles. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 3.5 Waterborne, Rail, and Air Transportation (Refer to Section 3.3, Transportation Systems) 3.6 Traffic Hazards a. Existing Environmental Conditions Traffic hazards in the vicinity consist of the three unprotected rail- way crossings on Barker Road between the freeway and Trent Road. 11 9 4.1 Fire The two lane roadways in the area are suf- ficient to accommodate traffic safely. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The increase in traffic volumes on Barker Road would increase the po- tential for accidents, especially as traffic levels reach the upper design capacities. The internal roadway design of the project, in- cluding the shopping center, would conform to Spokane County standards. The Spokane County Engineer's Office must also approve vehicular access points from the site onto the adjoining arterials. Bicycle and pedes- trian traffic would also be, generated by the project. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated Increased traffic hazards can be mitigated by improving Barker Road to a four lane section complete with a bicycle path and sidewalks, in accordance with an equitable improvement program between the applicant and Spokane County. Cumulative traffic increases would ultimately . regnirethe construction of additional bridges on Barker Road over the ______and Interstate 90,and the need to protect railroad grade ossings. . d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 4. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Existing Environmental Conditions There are no structures currently on the proposed site. The primary fire potential is from stubble and grass fires. The project is within the boundaries of Spokane Valley Fire District No. 1. Station No. 3 at East 19205 Appleway (Appleway and Michigan) serves the area with one pumper. Estimated response time to the site is two minutes. (Please refer to the Public Services Map on page 4 •) b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The proposal would increase both the amount of property and the number of people potentially requiring fire protection. No additional sta- tions would be required as a result of the development of this site, SO or surrounding vicinity; however, such development would undoubtedly increase the number of service calls to the area. The development would have convenient access through street design as well as adequate mains and hydrants for fire protection. The shopping center would be constructed in accordance with applicable building and fire codes. The manufactured housing to be installed on the site would be of new or recent construction complying with national fire codes developed espe- cially for manufactured housing. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 4.2 Police a. Existing Environmental Conditions Law enforcement services for the area are provided by the Spokane County Sheriff's Office. The site is within Patrol District No. 4 with a response time of three to five minutes, depending on the position of the patrol car and the seriousness of the emergency. The Washington State Patrol provides backup traffic assistance for the Sheriff's Office. Because of budget cutbacks, the frequency of patrols as well as the operation of the Spokane Valley substation may be reduced. (13) b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The proposal will increase both the amount of property and the number of people potentially requiring protection by the Spokane County Sheriff's Department -- especially Patrol District No. 4. The proposal will also generate additional amounts of traffic near the site. Ade- quate street and security lighting would be incorporated into the design to increase traffic safety and security. The new 911 emergency telephone system would also assist evaluation of situations with appropriate responses to emergencies. The density of the project, in conjunction with increased tax revenues, would partially offset some of the additional costs related to law enforcement. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. S d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 4.3 Schools a. Existing Environmental Conditions The proposed site is located within the Central Valley School District adjacent to the East Valley School District. The former Greenacres Elementary School site on the southeast corner of Barker and Mission adjoining the project site (now called Barker Center) currently is used strictly as an administration center. (14) This site is currently too small to meet state guidelines for an elementary school. Area students attend the'new Greenacres Elementary School at 4th and Long which has a current enrollment of 635 students with a capacity of 662 students by state guidelines, the Greenacres Junior High School at Sprague and Appleway with a current enrollment of 610 students and a capacity of 780 students, and Central Valley High School at 8th and Sullivan which has 1,271 students in a facility with capacity of 1,161. (15) b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The project, when fully developed, would generate approximately 200 additional school age children. Because it is projected that residents of the manufactured home subdivision would generally be either younger families or senior citizens, most of the students anticipated would be of elementary school or kindergarten age. In very recent years, Central Valley School District had a net reduction in students, especially in the elementary schools. This has reduced total state supported funding for the District. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 4.4 Parks and Other Recreational Facilities a. Existing Environmental Conditions Z b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated 4.5 Maintenance Public recreation facilities in the area include Sullivan Park, a 10.2 acre picnic and recreation area at Sullivan Road north of the Spokane River and Harvard Park, a 2.0 acre undeveloped facility at Harvard Road and the Spokane River. These facilities, as well as a regional park at the south end of Liberty Lake, are maintained by the Spokane County Parks and Recreation Department. The Department has experienced severe budget cuts effectively reducing the summer recreation program and placing the future of some acquired undeveloped park sites in jeopardy (16). (Please refer to the Public Services Map.) The Walk in the Wild Zoo lies south of the Spokane River, east of Pines Road and requires public support for continued growth and operation. The Riverway Villa project would have approximately 38.6 acres in common area open space, or approximately 44.4 percent of the project area. Projected recreation facilities include indoor recreation facilities, a swimming pool, tennis courts, volleyball courts, picnic sites, trails, and other recreation facilities. These facilities would provide most of the neighborhood -type recreation needs of the project. In addition, a natural area along the Spokane River would be retained for more passive activities. The project would not satisfy certain community recrea- tional needs for baseball diamonds, soccer fields, passive open space, summer programs and large picnic areas normally provided by the Spokane County Parks and Recreation Department. Such community facilities may be reduced because of budget cutbacks in the Parks and Recreation Department. The project would place additional demands on these type of facilities. (17) The planned passive open space and the natural area along the Spokane River would allow residents some area for recreation, lessening the demand on existing park facilities, created by the increase in popula- tion. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The proposed project would increase the use of existing community park facilities, which is unavoidable. a. Existing Environmental Conditions 53 The proposed site is currently in agricultural production with limited demands on public facilities. Maintenance of adjoining streets is provided by the Spokane County Engineer's Office. The water system, including provision for irrigation water to the project site is main- tained by Consolidated Irrigation District. Other perimeter services include natural gas and electricity by Washington Water Power Co. and telephone by Pacific Northwest Bell. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The proposal would create an additional road system of approximately 3 -1/2 miles as well as requiring the upgrading of Barker Road and M155fo Avenue to appropriate standards. Spokane County would be responsible for the maintenance of these road systems, along with sig- nalization if required. The community water systems would be maintained by Consolidated Irri- gation District. The maintenance and operation of the sewage treatment facilities would be required of the project sponsors, who would enter into appropriate agreements with the Spokane County Utilities Depart- ment. Maintenance of other on -site utility systems would be the responsibility of Washington Water Power Co. (electricity and natural gas) and Pacific Northwest Bell (telephone). The maintenance costs for the utility facilities would be paid through user fees. Stormwater systems within the public rights of way would be maintained by the Spokane County Engineer's Office, while on -site drainage systems would be maintained by the property owners or a maintenance associa- tion. On -site recreation facilities would be maintained by the property owners through a maintenance association. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 4.6 Other Governmental Agencies a. Existing Environmental Conditions No governmental services are presently received on the project site. sy b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The proposal would create additional needs for postal service as well as additional demands for local and state social and health services, and other governmental services commonly available to communities. 0. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 5.1 Amount Required 5. ENERGY a. Existing Environmental Conditions Current energy use on the project is minimal. Farming activities use diesel and gasoline for cultivation and harvesting, as well as electricity for the delivery of irrigation water. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The proposed project would increase energy consumption on -site, although it would not represent a significant increase on the regional scale. Because of emerging local energy policies for electricity conservation and use of natural gas for space heating, the following energy uses are anticipated: Natural Gas for Space Heating: Manufactured Homes Commercial Facilities Manufactured Homes 5 1,600 therms /yr x 365 = 584,000 therms /year 47,375 sq.ft. x 2.0 therms /yr = 94,750 therms /year Electricity for Lighting, Security, Appliances: 24,640 kwh /home /year x 365 = 8,993,600 kwh /year Manufactured housing is constructed in compliance with a national stan- dard for insulation and energy efficiency. Manufactured homes are usu- ally somewhat smaller and have lower ceilings than standard construc- tion homes, which results in additional energy savings. The avail- ability of natural gas within the project would help reduce additional electrical demands. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The increased use of energy for transportation, lighting, and space heating is unavoidable. 5.2 Source Availability Totals Electrical Approximately 10.5 million kwh /year Natural Gas Approximately 680,000 therms /year a. Existing Conditions Commercial Facilities 47,375 sq.ft. x 30 kwh /yr 1,421,250 kwh /year Washington Water Power Company provides electrical and natural gas service to the perimeter of the site. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment Electrical and natural gas service could be extended to the residential portion of the site, although extension to the commercial portion of the site would depend on availability of supplies. Advocated rate schedules would encourage the use of natural gas for space heating. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 5 69 6.2 Communications 6. UTILITIES 6.1 Energy N /A. Refer to Section II, 5, E/ERCY, a. Existing Environmental Conditions Pacific Northwest Bell provides telephone service to the area. Postal service, telegraph, teletype, radio and television communications are also available to area residents. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment Telephone service would require extension to each lot. The exchange in the area is sufficient to handle the increased demand for service. (18) Individual postal boxes or a community postal station would need to be installed in accordance with Postal Service guidelines. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 6.3 Water (Refer to Section I, 3.9 Public Water Supplies) a. Existing Environmental Conditions A pump house and storage faoility is located south of the project on Mission Avenue with transmission mains installed in Mission Avenue. Mains extend along Barker Road and within the project area (for irri- gation). The project is within the service area of Consolidated Irri- gation District, which has ample capacity to serve agricultural, resi- dential and commercial projects in the area. (19) b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The proposal would require relocation of mains currently installed to serve the agricultural portion of the project. Adequate mains in- cluding fire hydrants would need to be extended throughout the street system of the project and perhaps into the open space /recreation areas. The cost of new water facilities would be paid in the development cost and through user fees. S 7 — eT � SITE UTILITIES LEGEND —W— Water Main —G— Gas Main — ET-- Electric / Telephone (overhead) WG O T IMP .1 MEI P. SPOKA E Consolidated Irrigation District Washington Water Power Co. Washington Water Power Co. Pacific Northwest Bell Mission Avenue 50' 150' 300 600' a' io 2 400 800' ti 7,i w ET J North c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 6.4 Sewer a. Existing Environmental Conditions The project site is in agricultural production with no sanitary sewer facilities installed. Surrounding homes in the area use septic tank and drainfield systems for sewage disposal. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment An interim sewerage system would need to be installed to serve the proposed project (refer to appendix). The Wastewater Collection /Treat- ment Engineering Analysis indicates that approximately 110,000 gallons of sewage would be generated by the project on a daily basis. The southern half of the proposed project is in a Priority Sewer Service Area. The northern half is in the General Service Area, however the Spokane County Commissioners are expected to change this designation to Priority Sewer Service in December 1981. (20) Sewer service will be extended to this area in the future. Therefore the design of the sys- tem should allow connection to this future interceptor line. The de- veloper has submitted an interim plan to the Spokane County Utilities Department for compatible design of the system and interim operation of the facility. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 6.5 Storm Water An interim sewage treatment facility would need to be operated until such time as interceptor lines are installed in the area to handle the sewage at a regional plant. Please reference Section 3.2 Runoff /Absorption. sg 6.6 Solid Waste a. Existing Environmental Conditions The subject property is in agricultural production with no solid waste disposal needs. Valley Garbage Service supplies pick -up service to the surrounding area on a daily or weekly basis, depending on individual demand. Refuse is disposed at the Mica Landfill which currently accepts about 1,500 cubic yards (200 tons) per day. According to the Spokane County Health Dis- trict, the life expectancy of this landfill is ten years. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment a The project, when completed, 1s expected to generate approximately 2 -1/2 tons of solid waste per day (based on 5.5 pounds per day per person). It is anticipated that the solid waste would be collected by the Valley Garbage Service and disposed of at the Mica Landfill. The additional waste generated by the proposal would increase the tonnage hauled to the landfill by one percent. Recycling certain materials such as aluminum, glass, and paper would reduce solid waste material. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 7. HUMAN HEALTH (INCLUDING MENTAL HEALTH) N/A 8. AESTHETICS N/A 9. RECREATION Refer to Section II., 4.4 Parks and Other Recreational Facilities. 10. ARCHAEOLOGICAL /HISTORICAL a. Existing Environmental Conditions Although the site enjoys proximity to the Spokane River, it is not within a designated archaeologically sensitive area. Agricultural production on the site has removed surface traces, if any, of archaeo- logically significant features. No structures exist on the site except for the apparent ruins of a former agricultural warehouse at the north- west corner of the property. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment That portion of the project adjoining the Spokane River would remain as undeveloped open space. During the construction phases of the proposal, activities could possibly uncover or disrupt items of historical or archaeological significance. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated Spokane County would condition the proposal to insure that the proper government officials are notified if items of potential archaeological or historical interest are discovered. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Construction activities could possibly destroy items of archaeological or historical importance. 11. ADDITIONAL POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS N/A 12. ECONOMICS a. Existing Environmental Conditions The current assessed value of the agricultural land is $2,000 per acre for a total value of $236,000. (Current Assessor's parcels include land and improvements outside of project area.) Taxes generated by the agricultural ownership would be $3,532.45, assuming a 20.792 mill tax rate. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment When completed, the project would contain 365 manufactured homes and a ten acre commercial center. The value of the improvements would be (,o approximately $20,000,000 with property tax revenues of approximately $299,360 per year. State sales tax generated by the commercial center would be approxi- mately $200,000 per year. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 13. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT a. Existing Environmental Conditions r9 A portion of the north 200 feet of the proposed property is within the Pastoral classification of the Shoreline Management Act. The area is generally retained as grassland and riverbank along the Spokane River, although a portion of the agricultural ground encroaches upon the 200 feet setback line near the northwest corner of the ownership. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment Limited development would occur within the prescribed 200 foot setback area defined in the Shoreline Management Act. To enhance and preserve the natural area along the river, jogging trails, exercise stations, picnic areas and outdoor shelters may be installed within the area. A Substantial Development Permit will be needed. All such enhancements should comply with a program to be developed with the applicant and Spokane County for the natural area. (Refer to Section I. 4. Flora and 5. Fauna.) c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated The creation of trails, picnic areas, exercise stations, and outdoor shelters would tend to confine humans and pets to developed areas, minimizing the disruption of flora and wildlife habitat. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 14. OPEN SPACE LAND CLASSIFICATION N/A THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT -TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG -TERM PRODUCTIVITY The proposed site is vacant and appears to provide limited potential for agri- cultural production. The site functions as open space and a secondary wildlife habitat, especially along the Spokane River. The site is zoned Agricultural, and lies within an area designated by the Comprehensive Plan Map as suitable for urban uses. It is adjacent to Barker Road, a major arterial and is vir- tually surrounded by established residential areas. The proposal is compatible with the majority of the applicable goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan of Spokane County, the Shorelines Management Act, and the Wastewater Management Plan. The site is situated within an area which has provided much of the growth of the metropolitan area during the last 10 years, and may be considered as appropriate for urban development. Because most of the adjoining ownerships have been developed, pressures to develop this site will continue even if this specific proposal is disapproved. Development of the site will pre -empt open space, wildlife habitat and agricultural options. Development, although it will impact the proposed site, will conform to the development needs and trends of the surrounding area. The potential will impact, somewhat, the shorelines of the Spokane River -- primarily through the potential of increased human activity in this area. How- ever, a buffer strip of retained natural vegetation will provide additional protection for the shoreline. A management program for the natural area will reduce the impact of human activity along the river. L z IRREVERSIBLE AND /OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES The proposed site is currently vacant and possesses no known significant re- sources. Most of the site contains agriculture class III soils, which have a medium productivity even with irrigation. The site overlies sand and gravel deposits of unknown quality, and current policies restrict the depth of excava- tion due to the "sole source" designation of the aquifer which flows through these deposits. The proposal will irreversibly commit resources -- primarily energy and con- struction materials. Energy in the form of electricity, natural gas, and other fossil fuels will be consumed during the construction and operational phases of the proposal -- an irretrievable commitment for vehicles, space heating, air conditioning, etc. The commitment of some, but not all, of the construction materials is irre- trievable. 43 ALTERNATIVES three There arefreasonable major alternatives to the proposed project: (1) No Action; (2) Alternate Location; and (3) Reduction or Elimination of Commercial Area. 1. No Action If the proposal is not developed, the site will remain vacant for the present- - functioning as open space and secondary wildlife habitat and providing some agricultural production. If the site remains under private ownership, it ap- pears likely that the limited agricultural productivity of the site, in con- junction with economic pressures to utilize the site, would result in some form of development. It is unlikely that a public or non - profit agency or organiza- tion would elect to purchase the site. Under the present agricultural zoning, a variety of uses are permitted: various forms of agricultural production, single - family dwellings, churches, schools, libraries, sanitariums, processing and packing plants, feed mills, etc. Numerous other uses could be permitted within a conditional use permit; such as a gun club, auto - wrecking yard and a race track. The range of poten- tial impacts would vary considerably under this existing zoning, dependent upon the specific use. The most likely, eventual, use of the site would appear to be some form of residential development; considering adjacent land uses, the comprehensive plan, the wastewater management plan and the proximity of the project to transpor- tation systems, urban services, and employment opportunities. The range of potential impacts would also vary considerably with specific types of uses and densities in future residential projects. The "No- Action" alternative appears to be functional for the short -term, but as long as the proposed site remains under private ownership, the demand for the locational advantages offered by the site and economic necessity will probably result in some form of residential development -- perhaps at a much higher density than the current proposal. 2. Alternate Location The selection of a potential site for a manufactured home project of this nature requires the consideration of numerous factors such as: proximity to services and employment, availability of utilities, transportation, and commu- nity facilities such as medical care, shopping, churches, schools, etc., and compatibility with the comprehensive plan and adjoining land use activities. Such requirements limit the range of potential sites and must be considered in the search for suitable alternative sites. Potential locations west of Spokane lack the necessary utilities (such as water and sewer) and community facilities to adequately accommodate a manufactured The map portion of the comprehensive plan does not indicate that the proposed site is appropriate for commercial development; however, the map portion of the comprehensive plan attempts to address general commercial areas and major shopping centers rather than neighborhood centers. The text portion of the comprehensive plan indicates that the urban category can accommodate neighborhood and perhaps community commercial centers which serve the urban area. In accordance with the neighborhood and community design concept, the services offered should be neighborhood (usually a supermarket or convenience store which serves residents within the immediate area) or community oriented (may include a drug store, hardware store, service station, barber, etc. which generally serves residents within one mile of the center). Existing community shopping facilities are offered at Greenacres Road and Appleway approximately one mile south. Additional commercial services are available at Sprague and Sullivan with regional shopping centers proposed at the Sullivan Road interchange of Interstate 90 approximately two miles west. Few shopping facilities exist north of the project in the Otis Orchards area or east of the project in the Liberty Lake area. The proposed shopping center site adjoins an established single family neighbor- hood to the west and a potential (if more area is acquired) elementary school site to the south. A small restaurant has remained in business on the southwest corner of Mission and Barker. Although landscaping, proper signing and lighting, and building location can mitigate much of the impact of a community shopping center on an established residential neighborhood, owners of adjoining residences will be inconvenienced by increased activity in the area. Although the proposed shopping center would occupy less than 10 percent of the project area it would generate more than 50 percent of the traffic. Because of limited shopping facilities currently existing in the immediate area and the high number of retired persons living in existing manufactured housing projects to the north and east, a properly sized shopping center may actually reduce the number of traffic movements from the community to more remote shopping loca- tions. The shopping center site would benefit a community bounded by the freeway to the south, Flora Road to the west, Euclid Road to the north, and Campbell Road to the east if properly designed to serve such an area. If the center is too large, it will attract customers and traffic from the Otis Orchards community where shopping facilities are currently limited and may actually postpone the development of appropriate community shopping facilities for that area. Reduction or elimination of shopping center site would allow the 10 acre site to be utilized for continued manufactured home development (approximately 34 units) or multiple family development (100 to 200 units). LG CITATIONS 1. U. S. Department of the Interior. U.S. Geological Survey. Recon- naissance Geologic Map of the West Half of the Spokane Quadrangle, Washington and Idaho, 1966, Map I -464 by Allan B. Griggs. 2. U. S. Department of the Interior. U. S. Geological Survey. Geologic Map of the Greenacres Quadrangle, Washington and Idaho, 1968, Maps GQ-734 by P. L. Weiss. 3. U. S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey Spokane County, Washington. Washington, D. C.; U. S. Government Printing Office, 1967. 4. Edgar, Ronald J. Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority. Inter- view, September 1.981. 5. Drost, B. W. and Seitz, H. R. Spokane Valley- Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer- - Washington and Idaho. U. S. Geological Survey; Open File Report 72 -829. Tacoma, Washington, 1978. 6. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Metropolitan Spokane Regional Water Resource Study. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers; Seattle, Washington, 1976. 7. Spokane County, Washington "208" Program. Spokane Engineer's Office. April, 1979. 8. Ibid. 9. Spokane County Planning Department. Unique Environmental and Cultural Features Report, Suitability Phase for Update of Spokane County Compre- hensive Plan. April, 1978. 10. Spokane County Planning Department. Spokane County Shoreline Program. June, 1979. 11. ,Brugerman, Robert F. Spokane County Engineers. Interview, October, 1981. 12. Ibid. 13. Treefry, Sgt. Spokane County Sheriff's Department. Interview, October 1981. 14. Harper, Mrs. Central Valley School District. Interview, October, 1981. 15. Jackman, Dave. Central Valley School District. Interview, October, 1981. 16. Angove, Sam. Spokane County Parks Department. Interview, October, 1981. 17. Ibid. 18. Service Representatives. Pacific Northwest Bell. Interviews, October, 1981. 19. Trull, James. Consolidated Irrigation District. Interview, October, 1981. 20. Liggett, Gene. Spokane County Utilities Department. Interview, November, 1981. C APPENDIX "A" LIST OF ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT LIST OF ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT The following is a list of those elements of the environment which may be required to be addressed as per WAC 197 -10 -444. The elements noted as "N /A" (not applicable) have been deemed as areas the proposed action will not signif- icantly affect, and are not addressed, in the Impact Analysis. Those elements noted with "x" have been deemed as areas less significantly affected; those designated "xx" are deemed to be significantly affected by the proposed action. The Impact Analysis is a detailed discussion of each category and addresses the following: (a) Existing Environmental Conditions; (b) The Impact of the Pro - Proposal on the Environment; (c) Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated; and (d) Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. I. ELEMENTS OF THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 1. EARTH x 1.1 Geology x 1.2 Soils x 1.3 Topography N/A 1.4 Unique physical features x 1.5 Erosion N/A 1.6 Accretion /avulsion 2. AIR xx 2.1 Air quality N/A 2.2 Odor N/A 2.3 Climate 3. WATER x 3.1 Surface water movement (if subject property abuts river) xx 3.2 Runoff /absorption x 3.3 Floods N/A 3.4 Surface water quantity x 3.5 Surface water quality x 3.6 Ground water movement x 3.7 Ground water quantity xx 3.8 Ground water quality x 3.9 Public water supplies 4. FLORA x 11.1 Numbers or diversity of species N/A 4.2 Unique species N/A 4.3 Barriers and /or corridors x 4.4 Agricultural crops A - I 5. FAUNA x 5.1 Numbers or diversity of species N/A 5.2 Unique species N/A 5.3 Barriers and /or corridors x 5.4 Fish or wildlife habitat x 6. NOISE x 7. LIGHT AND GLARE xx 8. LAND USE 9. NATURAL RESOURCES N/A 9.1 Rate of use x 9.2 Nonrenewable resources (limit to agricultural lands) 10. RISK OF EXPLOSION OR HAZARDOUS EMISSIONS II. ELEMENTS OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT x 1. POPULATION x 2. HOUSING 3. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION xx 3.1 Vehicular transportation generated x 3.2 Parking facilities xx 3.2 Transportation systems xx 3.4 Movement /circulation of people or goods x 3.5 Waterborne, rail and air traffic x 3.6 Traffic hazards 4. PUBLIC SERVICES x 4.1 Fire x 4.2 Police x 4.3 Schools x 4.4 Parks or other recreational facilities x 4.5 Maintenance x 4.6 Other governmental services x x 5. ENERGY 5.1 Amount required 5.2 Source /availability 6. UTILITIES N/A 6.1 Energy (refer to 5. Energy) x 6.2 Communications x 6.3 Water xx 6.4 Sewer xx 6.5 Storm water x 6.6 Solid waste N/A 7. HUMAN HEALTH (including mental health) N/A 8. AESTHETICS x 9. RECREATION • 10.. ARCHAEOLOGICAL /HISTORICAL N/A 11. ADDITIONAL POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS • 12. ECONOMIC IMPACT • 13. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT N/A 14. OPEN SPACE LAND CLASSIFICATION APPENDIX "B" LEGAL DESCRIPTION LEGAL AL DESCRIPTION A portion of land South of the Spokane River'in the West half of Section 8 T25N R45E'WM., in Spokane County, State of Washington being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point 20 feet North of the Southwest corner of said Section 8 and 30 feet East of the cleat line of said Section, thence North 939.33 feet, thence East 370.00 feet, thence North 650.00 feet, thence ;lest 210,00 feet, thence North 100 feet, thence East 40 feet, thence North 100 feet, thence West 200.00 feet, thence North 383.62 feet, thence East 300 feet, thence North 81 °16' East 990.50 feet, thence North 63 ° 49' East 685.80 feet, thence North 55'52' East 772.64 feet, thence South 00 °56'58" East 1784.50 feet, thence North 89'25' West 648.41 feet, thence South 00 ° 42'44" East 1303.43 feet, thence North 89 ° 21 1 46" West 1931.50 feet to the point of beginning. 8 - 1 EUGENE H. WELBORN PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR E. 7011 SECOND AVE. SPOKANE, WASH. 99206 • APPENDIX "C" WASTEWATER COLLECTION /TREATMENT ENGINEERING ANALYSIS WASTEWATER COLLECTION /TREATMENT ENGINEERING ANALYSIS FOR RIVERWAY VILLA A MODULAR HOME SUBDIVISION NOVEMBER, 1981 r�' 1LLINCsti; aa ` sjoNm. f' �cvN1� CENTURY WEST ENGINEERING CORPORATION N. 1010 Washington - Suite A Spokane, WA 99201 Phone (509) 326 -4227 Job #3082.001.A1 r CENTUR 1 4 1% , EST ENONEERI Nq CORPORAT November 5, 1981 Spokane County Planning Department N. 701 Jefferson Street Spokane, Washington 99201 ATTENTION: Mr. John.Nunnery Re: Wastewater Collection (Treatment Engineering Analysis) Riverway Villa Dear Mr. Nunnery: This report superscedes my letter to you dated June. 15, 1981, describing various alternatives for management of wastewater generated by the above noted proposed subdivision. The purpose of this report is to assure that various alternatives for wastewater collection and treatment have been duly considered and the most appropriate method is selected. I. BACKGROUND The proposed subdivision, Riverway Villa, is a portion of the 118 acres under one ownership, is located in the Spokane valley bordered on the south by Mission Avenue, the west by Barker. Road and the north by the 1 Spokane River. More particularly, the parcel is located in the WZ of Section 8, Range 45 East, Township 25 North, of the Willammete Meridan. The site is quite flat with a slight downward slope toward the northwest (Barker Road and the Spokane River). There is approximately 18 feet fall from the southeast corner of the property to the northwest . corner (excluding the bank of the Spokane River) for a lineal distance of 2,500 feet, the average grade along this line is 0.7 percent. The soils in the area are glaciofluvial sands and gravels underlain with . pretertiary basement rock. The Glaciofluvial Formation is typically overlain in this area with loessial silts. The area is fairly well drained and is presently partially under cultivation. The entire area is suitable for subsurface leaching of wastewater effluent. It may be generally classified under soil type 2 under the D.S.H.S. Design and Management Guidelines for larger on -site sewage systems. PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ECONOMISTS • SCIENTISTS North 1010 Washington • Spokane, Washington 99201 • Phone (509) 326 -4227 Page Two The subdivision consists of 317 lots with a provision for an additional 46 lots in an area initially designated for wastewater disposal. There is. a 10 acre commercial area as a part of this subdivision. ,Based upon a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) design, the average size of a residential lot is 5,744 square feet. As a P.U.D., the site can be creatively developed, optimizing open space utilization and allowing for positive circulation within the site. There is presently no public sewage system in the area of this proposed subdivision. Although the Spokane 201 wastewater facilities plan has generally included this area to be sewered in the future, it was not so designated as a priority sewer service area. It has been the recommenda- tion of the Spokane County Utilities Department that this project be included within the boundary of a priority sewer service area. The 201 study has not been adopted at the time of this writing. The Spokane Aquifer Water. Quality Management Plan (208 study) included this area for priority designation for sewers. Based upon the suitable topography and the potential and probability for this and other developments, this site is'a prime candidate for future public sewers. II. NATURE OF DEVELOPMENT The proposed planned unit development is directed toward young families and retired couples. With 317 lots over an area of 108 acres, the over- all density is 2.94 lots /acre. With 38.12 acres of open space, approxi- mately 14.6 acres has been reserved for an on -site wastewater treatment and disposal. The attached drawing shows the proposed layout with the recommended wastewater management alternative. The 10 acre commercial area is expected to accommodate a grocery super- market, department /hardware store, pharmacy, office space and a separate area will be dedicated to mini warehouses. Although the wasteload generated from the commercial area is expected to.be quite low, we have allocated 20 residential equivalents which is more than adequate for the type of development expected. III. DESIGN CRITERIA Number of resident lots = 317 Number of people 159. lots @ = 3.5 158 lots @ = 2.0 Wastewater flow per lot GPD = 325 BOD5 ( #PCPD) = 0.20 Suspended Solids ( #PCPD) = 0.21 Page Three IV. ALTERNATIVES TO BE CONSIDERED It is desired to provide an interim wastewater system which can be most easily connected to future trunk lines when they are constructed. The system should be functional, provide suitable treatment of the wastewater generated in this development and not cause a pollution nor nuisance. The alternative methods of wastewater management are therefore as follows: o Alternative A: o Alternative B: o Alternative.C: On -site septic tanks and individual drainfields with dry sewer lines installed. Individual septic tanks, conventional gravity sewer lines and community drainfields. ' Conventional gravity sewer lines with community septic tanks and drainfields. o Alternative D: Conventional gravity sewer lines with community plant and drainfields. V. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 1. Alternative A On Site Septic Tanks and Drainfields This alternative utilizes one standard 1,000 gallon septic tank and a drainfield for each lot. The 208 Study and the Department of Social and . Health Services requires that the drainfield be designed 50 percent larger than for a normal drainfield for installation over the Spokane Aquifer. It is the policy of the Spokane County to require that dry gravity sewer lines also be constructed so that they can be easily put into service when a central sewer system becomes available. The dry sewer lines are to be.designed and constructed as are conventional municipal sewage collection lines in accordance with the design stardards set forth by the Washington State Department of Ecology. The minimum sewer main size is to be 8 -inch pipe constructed at a minimal slope of 0.4 percent with manholes approximately every 400 feet or at direction changes in the main. 2. Alternative B Individual Septic Tanks, Conventional Gravity Sewers and Community Drainfields. This alternative uses one standard 1,000 gallon septic tank at each residential dwelling unity. Instead of having on -site drainfield, the septic tank effluent is discharged to a conventional gravity sewer system. Community drainfields at strategic points provide for the disposal of effluent. At a time when a central sewer system becomes available, the individual septic tanks and community drainfields can be removed and the system converted to a conventional raw wastewater gravity system. Page Four Although this alternative shows some economic benefit to the developer, there are some inherent problems of importance. A septic tank does not treat the wastewater, it simply liquifies the waste.' Using anaerobic micro - organisms (those which do not require oxygen for metabolism) the solids are converted to a liquid form. Denitrification occurs in a septic tank, i.e., complex nitrogen forms such as amino acids and pro- tein are converted into less complex forms such as nitrites, nitrates, ammonia and elemental nitrogen. One part of this biological cycle is putrifaction or the breaking down of protein material. Although this is an important part of the septic tank system, it is where strong and obnoxious odors are produced. An individual septic tank system is designed such that these obnoxious gasses can be vented to the atmosphere through the household plumbing vents. Since these vents are at rooftop level, the gasses dissipate quickly and odors are generally not noticed. In the scheme of this alternative, the gravity sewer becomes a part of the septic tank. Anaerobic biological activity continues along the sewer lines, producing obnoxious odors throughout the system. In addi- tion to producing obnoxious odors these gasses are explosive. Under certain conditions a spark could cause a major explosion which could tear up the entire sewer line and the streets above them. Conventional gravity sewer construction requires a minimum of 8 -inch sewer pipe with manholes every 400 feet or where the sewer line changes direction. Manhole covers generally have 3 to 7 holes in them to allow for ventilation of the sewers. It is obvious that to introduce an anaerobic wastestream in such a conveyance would distribute noisome odors throughout the development, creating numerous opportunities for illness caused by the odors or explosion of the sewer system. Based upon the foregoing rationale, this alternative will not be con - sidered further. 3. Altern C - Community Septic Tanks and Drainfields This alternative incorporates a conventional active raw wastewater collection system which causes the wastewater to flow by gravity to one or more centralized community septic tanks and drainfields. The Washington State Department of Social and Health Services have pre- pared specific design and management guidelines for larger on -site systems. Those guidelines have been incorporated in this alternative evaluation. "The Manual of Septic Tank Practices" prepared by the U.S. Public Health Service is also used.as a reference. Page Five a. Septic Tanks The community septic tanks would be.designed as follows: Daily flow Residential: 317 lots @ 325 gal /day Community: 20 residential equivalents @ 325 gal /day Total daily flow b. Drainfields The drainfield design is also dictated by the D.S.H.S. guidelines. Those guidelines require the following: = 103,025 = 6,500 = 109,525 gals. Community septic tanks must be designated to contain 36 hours or 1.5 of daily volume. In this case the total tankage required would be 164,288 gallons. To assure ease in maintenance and operation, it is proposed to use 6 septic tanks of 27,381 gallons each (3660 cubic feet). Three tanks would be in a module at each of two sites using common walls to reduce construction cost. A proposed sketch of a three tank model is show in Figure 2. Each tank would have compartments. The first compartment twice as large as the second. There is to be a suitable number of manholes for each cell and an inspection port at the inlet and outlet of each compartment for clearing.any occlusions which may block flow. A dosing chamber is to be constructed to allowing the drainfield to be dosed four times per day. The volume of the dosing tank is as follows: V D.T. = 109,525 gals. = 13,690 gallons /site 4 (2 sites) In order to prevent the discharge of odors while pumping or inspecting , the septic tank, a positive - ventilated blower system is to be designed and constructed. Gasses from the septic tanks will be routed into a special drainfield to dissipate those gasses into the soils. Although there are no design standards for such special purpose drainfields, it is my personal experience that a single methane /sulfide gas drainfield should incorporate approximately 100 linear feet of laterals per site. This drainfield should be separate from the wastewater leaching area. Dosing will be accomplished by pumping to specfic distribution boxes within the drainfield as dictated by the disposal management plan dis- cussed later. o Drainfield to be divided into two 50% areas. o A third 50% drainfield area to be also constructed. o An additional 50% reserve area be set aside in a contiguous area. o Lateral lines not to exceed 100 feet in length. DESIGN BY 1 - 1 ; 7 'K CHECKED BY GC) irk muNn - , y O E - r• TI C, rr` Moc'J!- APPROVED � ENTURY EST EN INEERIN aoapo.,ifon SURVEY BY SCALE NTg R p okanc.. BR�AJ °may V I W A 5 p V , \h7 =t DATE At" . ` 01 �f , `DRAWN BY ' DWG NO . .MOTE: 1. AO-7U . 15 TANK 4JAL -t, ro rs , A&12 poTTanls 1. AL-t, P1mEl lOIO/Js A{Z _ NOPT1I Nth L-. N7W 1 D ESIGN BY '-2 K CHECKED BY v 12/lt ht p1E 1_p LAyoU APPROVED t+ ENTURy N � / / Fe EST ENC twont°. SURVEY BY SCALE s"�- D ATE f�) 6 1 DRAWN BY C O DWG. NO. R.tVap.skJ�y v11—LA J`po%cant Udtl<y, Wq, W gill 50 L. gE:n.i;r;:w,;:.,.^;.__�,..�,,. TI(rHT t_I ES pED ' L ' 5O% £ bole >bown) 111111111111111L ' %6D 'Id 40% 'E4 'fsj' 'o70 U N�� y ul _i11 $111 ell EIII3111°UI J116II E uw v I e I 11111111111111111111111111111111111111 .1" _ • 111111111111111811111111111111111111111 ea 111I1111111111111111111111111111111111111 al ' U. 11 1111111111111111111111111111111111111 h_ mr ---CS it0.1.1 N 0 III 7111° I-11I =III = Ill ' = III Ill UN vuTLI RpEp 5O % U 7(v I 'o mt III Er II rte.. 3 N)U71 Page Six Allowable drainfield depth 18 to 36 inches from ground surface to trench bottom. Allowable trench widths from 1 to 3 feet. Minimum trench separation of 41/2 to 5 feet of undisturbed soil. Drainfield to be planted with a low root and high evapotranspiration rate. Based upon those and other criteria the area required for the drainfield area is as follows: The soils are a soil type 2 which is medium sand and would be expected to accommodate a loading rate of 1.20 gallons per day per square foot. With a trench width of 3 feet, this would allow disposal of 3.6 gallons per lineal foot of drainfield. Based upon a 317 residential lots and a residential equivalent (R.E.) of 20 residential lots from the commercial area for a total of 337 R.E., the following is a computation of drainfield length: • Length = Gallons per day per R.E. = x 150% Application rate for L.F. Length R.E. = 325 x 150 = 135 lineal feet /lot 3.6 Total length of drainfield required = 337 R.E. x 135 Lf /RE + .45,495 lineal feet. Figure 3 shows how a typical drainfield will be designed and constructed to accomodate the 3 -50% fields. (An additional 50% active field is shown.) The basic layout has a separation of 15 feet between laterals with the spare 50% drainfield located midway between laterals. With this arrangement, each residential equivalent uses 1163 square feet (including a 15% safety factor). The total required area to support 337 RE would be approximately 9 acres plus an additional 3 acres held in reserve making a total land requirement of 12 acres. We have reserved 14.6 acres which will accommodate all septic tanks, dosing tanks and allow suitable separation between drainfields. 4. Alternative D - Community Package Plant and Drainfield In this alternative, the wastewater collection and community drainfield would be as described in Alternative C above. 'In this case there would be only one site for disposal and a package treatment plant would replace the community septic tanks. A package treatment plant is a method of biologically stabilizing the wastewater. The process generally used is the extended aeration modifi- cation of the activated sludge process. Mixed liquor, which is activated Page Seven by aeration, is allowed to settle in a clarifier. The sediment or sludge is then reintroduced to the raw wastewater where it accelerates the stabilization of the oxidizable carbonaceous materials. The clarified effluent can be disposed through the drainfield as discussed previously in this report. Package plants provide excellent and reliable treatment of wastewater from residential sources and if designed and operated properly, produce a minimal amount of sludge to be wasted. Disinfection of 'the effluent is generally not practiced because of the potential of clogging drainfields with the addition of sodium or clacium. It is therefore generally not the practice to chlorinate treated effluent if it is to be disposed by leaching. AYpackage treatment plant is designed to accommodate 100 percent of the wastewater flow for a period of 24 hours. The tankage required for this facility would be 337 x 325 = 109,525 gallons. It would be most prudent to use two 55,000GPD units side -by -side to assure reliability and to provide ease in maintenance and operation. Package plants, when properly operated; do not produce obnoxious odors. VI. COST ESTIMATE 1. Alternative A. On -site Septic Tanks and Drainfields A. Capital Costs Double Plumbing 317x$100 /ea Septic 'Tanks 317 @325/ea Drainfields 317 @ $850 /ea Permits 317 @ $60 /ea 8 -inch sewer pipe 15,570 LF Standard manholes 50 ea @ $1 Service yes 317,@ $30 /ea 4 -inch service lines 15,850 Subtotal Contingency, Engineer's Inspection @ 20% Total Capital Costs B. Annual 0 & P1 Costs Pump each tank every 3 'Pumping 110/3x317 Drainfield replacement $850 x 317x0.10 Conversion to Permanent (after 10 years) Pumping and abandonment Plumbing reversal $100. Total Annual 0 & M costs @ $14 /LF ,000 /ea LF @ $6.00 /LF years @ $110 for @ 10% /year System of septic tank : = $350 $450x317/10 = $ 31,700 = 103,025 = 269,450 = 19,020 = 217,980 = 58,000 29;510 = 95;100 5803,785 "160;757 = $964,542 = $ 11,623 = : 26,945 _ .$ 14,265 _ $ 52,833 Page Eight 2. Alternative B. Individual Septic Tanks, Gravity Sewer and Community Drainfields This alternative was eliminated because of potential damage to aesthe- tics, safety and high liability. 3. Alternative C. Community Septic Tanks and Drainfields. ' A. Capital Costs Triple septic /dosing tank module • . 3 tanks @27,380 gallons with 1 ea 13,690 gal. dosing tank (153 CY Concrete) 2 ea required @65,000 /ea = $130,000 Effluent dosing pumps.4 ea @$2,000 /ea = 8,000 Drainfield 45,5000 LF @$4.75/LF • = 216,125 (including tight lines and gas drainfields) Landscaping - lump sum = 18,000 8 -inch sewer pipe 15,570 LF @$14 /LF = 217,980 Standard manholes 58 ea @ $1,000 /ea = 58,000 Service wyes 317 @ $30 /ea = 9,510 4 -inch service lines 15,850 LF @•$6.00 /LF = 95,100 Dupl'x pump station . = 35,000 4 -inch force main 750 LF @ $8.50 /LF = 6,375 Subtotal $794,090 Contingency, Egnineering & Inspection @ 20% $158,818 Total Capital Costs $952,808 B. Annual 0 & M Costs Pumping septic tanks 100,000 gallons /year @ $.13 /gallon = 13,000 Cleaning sewers each five years @ $.60 /LF 13,850 LF x $0.60 5 • = 1,662 Replacement of drainfield @ 10 % /yr 45,500 LF x $4.50 x 0.10 = 20,475 Operator @ 1 hr /day @ $15 /hr = 4,000 Billing 4 hrs /qtr @ $10 /hr + postage, etc. = 520 Mowing, weeding, cleanup, etc. = 1,200 Administration 1 hr /wk @ $15 /hr = 780 Total Annual 0 & M Costs = $41,637 4. Alternative D. Package Plant - Drainfields • A. Capital Costs Package Plants - 55,000 GPD 2 ea @ $120,000 $240,000 Operation and lab building Landscaping - lump sum = 10,000".• 300 SF @ $50 /SF = 15,000 • L • 11 Page Nine Drainfield 45,500 LF .@ $4.75/LF = $216,125 Fencing, roads, water, power - lump sum = 18,000 8 -inch sewer pipe 15,570 LF @ $14 /LF = 217,950 Standard manholes 58 ea @ $1,000 /ea = 58,000 Service wyes 317 @ $30 /ea = 9,510 4 -inch service lines 15,850 LF @ $6.00 /LF = 95,100 Duplex pump station = 35,000 4 -inch force main 750 LF @ $8.50 /LF = 6,375 Subtotal $921,090 Contingency, Engineering & Inspection @ 20% 184,218 Total Capital Costs $1,105,308 B. Annual 0 & M Costs Power. = 3,500 Labor 4 hrs /day x $15 /yr x 260 days /yr = 15,600 Repairs and testing = 3,000 Sludge disposal 50,000 gal @ 0.13 /gal = 6,500 Cleaning sewer lines each five years @ $0.60/LF:13,850 LF x $0.60 5 = 1,662 Replacement of drainfield @ 10 % /yr 45,500 LF x $4.50 x 0.10 = 20,475 Billing 4 hrs /qtr @ $10 /hr + postage & bills = 520 Mowing, weeding, cleanup = _ 1,200 Administration 1 hr /wk @ $15 /hr = 780 Total Annual 0 & M Costs $53,237 5. SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATES 'Alternative Capital Costs 0 & M Costs A • $ 964,542 $ 52,833 B Deleted Deleted C 952,908 41,637 D 1,105,308 53,237 Alternative C, Community septic tanks and drainfields, show the least capital cost:cas well as operation and maintenance costs. Page Ten VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION It is the conclusion of this study that the most feasible method of wastewater management would be to install sewer lines; make them active instead of dry; and utilize community septic tanks and drainfields for treatment. This is the recommendation of this report. A preliminary sewer layout showing the line location, manholes, cleanouts, community septic tanks and drainfield sites is described in the attached drawing. (Figure 1). Respectfully submitted, CENTURY Wcp176€RING CORPORATION ■‘' O OF %,C4 y �Cf 0 0� lP` . y ce 1 4 Leslie$F , P.E. Principa "b o ! ector LDK:mv Attachment cc: Jim Craven Gary Meyers Dean Logston APPENDIX "D" FLORA /FAUNA REPORT PROPOSED "RIVERWAY VILLA" DEVELOPMENT, BARKER ROAD AND INDIANA AVENUE, SPOKANE. PLANTS AND ANIMALS OBSERVED IN THE AREA, SEPTEMBER 9, 1981 Most of the area proposed for development was cropped with barley this summer and was occupied by the stubble, with a few weeds, notably bindweed, intermixed. The barley crop apparently was sub— stantial. One part of the area was devoted to irrigated pasture, which appeared quite productive. The remainder of the land had been planted to beans, which were doing poorly. North of the area, between it and the Spokane River were scattered shrubs, mostly mock orange, chokecherry, ninebark and serviceberry, between which were growing native•herbs including bluebunch wheatgrass, rough fescue, prairie smoke, cinquefoil, balsamroot and gaillardia. The portion nearest to the field was dominated by a large variety of introduced weedy herbs. In the area proposed for development the following birds were observed: gray partridge, ring — necked pheasant, water pipit (a migrant), savannah sparrow and vesper sparrow. In the shrubs between the area and the river were observed Audubon's warbler (migrant), house finch and white - crowned sparrow (migrant). The field area probably has very few more species of birds in summer but the area to the north along the river probably has several additional species in summer. California quail, heard across the river, probably also occupy that area. Six species of butterflies were observed in the field and in the area to the north. In the field two species of grasshoppers and a preying mantis were observed. No endangered or threatened species of plants or animals were observed. Development of the field area for residential use would remove the land from agricultural production. The birds now living there would be driven out and very likely be replaced by robins, starlings,, house sparrows and house finches and possibly a few other species, depending upon what vegetation was planted. The area adjacent on the north would undoubtedly be affected by people and pets, both of which should be controlled to minimize adverse effects. A list of species observed follows. 0 t ■y PLANTS AND ANIMALS OBSERVED ON AREA OF PROPOSED "RIVERWAY VILLA" Shrubs and vines Mulberry (Morus sp.) I - Oregon grape (Berberis aquifolium) Clematis (Clematis l.igusticifolia) Mock orange (Philadelphus lewisii) Serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia) Hawthorn (Crataegus spp.) Ninebark (Physocarpus malvaceus) Mahaleb cherry (Prunus mahaleb) I Chokecherry,(Prunus virginiana) Wild rose (Rosa sp.) Buckthorn (Rhamnus purshiana) Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus sp.) I Herbs Quqckgrass (Agropyron repens) I Bluebunch lheatgrass (Agropyron spicatum) Tall oatgrass (Arrheriatherum elatius) I Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) I Orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata) I Rough fescue (Festuca scabrella) Timothy (Phleum pratense) I Bulbous bluegrass (Poa bulbosa) I Canada bluegrass (Poa compressa) I (Ventenata dubia) I Asparagus (Asparagus officinalis) I Lambsquarter (Chenopodium album) I Amaranth (Amaranthus retroflexus) I White campion (Lychnis alba) I Jim Hill mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum) I Fanweed (Thlaspi arvense) I Prairie smoke (Geum triflorum) Cinquefoil (Potentilla gracilis) Buttonweed (Malva neglecta) I Goatweed (Hypericum perforatum) I Cottonweed (Epilobium sp.) Purple milkweed (Asclepius fascicularis) Milkweed (Asclepias speciosa) Bindweed (Convolvulus arvense) I Butter— and —eggs (Linaria vulgarie) I Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatiaa) I Moth mullein (Verbascum blattaria) I Mullein (Verbascum thapsus) I Bedstraw (Galium sp.) Balsamroot (Balsamorhiza sagittata) Bachelor's button (Centaurea cyanus) I Russian knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) I Skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea) I Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) I Gaillardia (Gaillardia aristata) Prickly lettuce (Lactuca pulchella) I Sow thistle (Sonchus sp.) I Oysterplant (Tragopogon sp.) I' I indicates introduced species) 0 -2 i Xrii �.s >/ Es, Thomas H. Rogers E. 10820 Maxwell Ave. Spokane, WA 99206 Sept. 17, 1981 PLANTS AND ANIMALS OBSERVED ON AREA OF PROPOSED "RIVERWAY VILLA" (cont.) Birds California quail'(across the river) I Gray partridge I Ring - necked pheasant I Water pipit Starling I Yellow - rumped (Audubon's) Warbler House Finch Savannah sparrow White - crowned sparrow Insects Field cricket (Nemobius assimilis) Carolina locust (Dissosteira carolina) Lesser migratory locust (Melanoplus mexicanus) Preying mantis (Genus sp.) Fall webworms (Genus sp.) Clouded sulfur butterfly (Colias sp.) Cabbage butterfly .( Pieris rapae) I Western white (Pieris occidentalis) Crescentspot (Phyciodes mylitta) West coast lady (Vanessa caryae) Skipper (Genus sp.) Bumblebee (Bombus sp.) I indicates introduced species Thomas H. Rogers E. 10820 Maxwell Ave. Spokane, WA 99206 Sept. 17, 1981 D -3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lead Agency Spokane County tai c 4) E c } , O ' .L ow Lead Agency: Spokane County Date of Issue: December 15, 1981 Date Comments Due: January 19, 1982 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RIVERWAY VILLA Prepared for H & E INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. East 12720 Nora Avenue Spokane, Washington 99216 INTRODUCTION The proposed action under review is a request for a zone reclassification from the Agricultural zone to the Residential Manufactured Home zone and Commercial zones for the development of Riverway Villa, a site for 365 manufactured homes and a neighborhood commercial center. This center would possibly include a supermarket, drug store, hardware store, bowling alley and a mini - storage facility. The request for zone reclassification is on file at the Spokane County Planning Department, file No. PE- 1414 -81. The proposed action was initiated by H &E. The 118 acre site is located in the Spokane Valley south of the Spokane River, east of Barker Road, and north of Mission Avenue in the west half of Section 8, Township 25 North, Range 45 EWM. The lead agency for this proposal is Spokane County and the responsible offi- cial is Wally Hubbard, Director of the Spokane County Planning Department, North 721 Jefferson, Spokane, Washington 99260; telephone (509) 456 -2274. The proposed action may require the following legal actions and permits: 1. Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements; 2. Zone reclassification approval; 3. Approval or permits from the Spokane County Health District, the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services and the Washington State Department of Ecology for design and operation of a sewage disposal system; 4. The obtaining of all required building permits, inspections and approvals; and 5. A Substantial Development Permit (RCW 90.58). Copies of this document may be obtained from the Spokane County Planning Depart- ment for the cost of reproduction and mailing. This Draft Environmental Impact Statement was issued on December 15, 1981. In order to be incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact Statement, public comments and remarks by consulted agencies or individuals must be received by the Spokane County Planning Department, North 721 Jefferson, Spokane, Washington 99260, on or before January 19, 1982. This Draft Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by Inland Pacific Engi- neering Company. Data required to produce this document may be obtained at the following address: Inland Pacific Engineering Company, East 12720 Nora Avenue, Spokane, Washington 99216 (509) 922 -1300. 1 Several firms and individuals conducted major categorical research and analysis and provided the data necessary to prepare specific sections of this Draft EIS, as follows: Arger /Wright & Associates Consulting Engineers West 1625 4th Spokane, WA 99204 Century West Engineering Corp. North 1010 Washington Suite A Spokane, WA 99201 (509) 326 -4227 Thomas H. Rogers East 10820 Maxwell Avenue Spokane, WA 99206 (509) 926 -7949 Eugene H. Welborn Professional Land Surveyor East 7011 Second Avenue Spokane, WA 99206 (509) 926 -5959 Development Plan Wastewater Collection/ Treatment Flora; Fauna Legal Description INTRODUCTION LIST OF MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS iv LIST OF TABLES AND GRAPHS DISTRIBUTION LIST vi SUMMARY OF THE CONTENTS OF THE DRAFT EIS 1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL 9 ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT 14 Elements of the Physical Environment 14 1. Earth 14 2. Air 20 3. Water 22 4. Flora 29 5. Fauna 31 6. Noise 33 7. Light and Glare 35 8. Land Use 35 9. Natural Resources 40 10. Risk of Explosion or Hazardous Emissions 40 Elements of the Human Environment 41 1. Population 41 2. Housing 43 3. Transportation /Circulation 45 4. Public Services 50 5. Energy 55 6. Utilities 57 7. Human Health 60 8. Aesthetics 60 9. Recreation 60 10. Archaeological /Historical 61 11. Additional Population Characteristics 61 12. Economics 61 13. Shoreline Management Act 62 14. Open Space Land Classification 62 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT -TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG -TERM PRODUCTIVITY 63 IRREVERSIBLE AND /OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES . . . 64 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSAL 65 CITATIONS APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: APPENDIX D: TABLE OF CONTENTS 68 List of Elements of the Environment A -1 Legal Description B -1 Wastewater Collection /Treatment Engineering Analysis C -1 Flora /Fauna Report D -1 LIST OF MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS 1. Vicinity Map .11 2. Area Map 12 3. Site Plan 13 4. Soils /Topography Map 16 5. Air Quality Map 21 6. Zoning Map 37 7. Existing Land Use Map 38 8. Census Tracts 42 9. Public Services /Average Daily Traffic 46 10. Utilities Map 58 iv 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LIST OF TABLES AND GRAPHICS Table I Soils 17 Table II Population Growth Trends 41 Table III Growth in Total Housing Units, 1970 -1980 44 Federal Agencies DISTRIBUTION LIST Soil Conservation Service, Spokane Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle Department of Transportation, Seattle State Agencies Office of the Governor, Olympia Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia Ecological Commission, Department of Ecology, Olympia Department of Ecology, Olympia Department of Ecology, Spokane Department of Natural Resources, Colville Department of Fisheries, Olympia Department of Game, Olympia Department of Game, Spokane Department of Social and Health Services, Olympia Department of Social and Health Services, Spokane Department of Transportation, Olympia Department of Transportation, Spokane Utilities and Transportation Commission, Olympia Energy Office, Olympia Office of Financial Management, Olympia Planning and Community Affairs Agency, Olympia Clearinghouses Spokane County Regional Planning Conference, Spokane (2) Spokane County Board of County Commissioners (3) Boundary Review Board Building Codes Department Engineering Department (3) Health District (2) Parks and Recreation Department Planning Commission (7) Planning Department (20) Prosecuting Attorney (2) Air Pollution Control Authority Utilities Department Sheriff's Office Conservation District Fire District #1 Central Valley School District 0356 vi Neighboring Cities and Counties City of Spokane Plan Commission (2) City of Spokane Transit System City of Spokane Office of the Mayor Utilities Services Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company Washington Water Power Company • Valley Garbage Service Consolidated Irrigation District Libraries Spokane County Public Library (2) City of Spokane Public Library Media The Spokesman - Review Spokane Daily Chronicle The Valley Herald KHQ TV KREM TV KXLY TV Others Spokane Audubon Society Valley Chamber of Commerce Spokane Chamber of Commerce H & E (2) Arger /Wright & Associates Consulting Engineers Century West Engineering Corp. Gary A. Meyers and Company Anderson, Evans, Craven; Lackie and Henderson Burlington Northern Railroad vii SUMMARY OF THE CONTENTS OF THE DRAFT EIS Purpose and Obiectives The intent of the proposal is to provide a'manufactured home residential area for sale and rental complete with recreation facilities, open space amenities, full utilities, and the availability of mini - storage and shopping facilities. Project Description The proposal is a 365 unit manufactured housing P.U.D. with a supplemental shopping center, on a 118 acre site on the northeast corner of Barker Road and Mission Avenue in the Spokane Valley. A portion of the site near the Spokane River will be retained in open space in accordance with the guidelines of the Master Shoreline Act. The shopping center will be neighborhood /community oriented with a supermarket, drug store, hardware store, and mini - storage facilities. Development will provide for public water; interim on -site sewage disposal until public sewers are available to the proposal; a public street system; storm water disposal facilities; underground utilities; and adequate parking facilities. The analysis, immediately following, summarizes the probable impacts of the proposal on the environment, adverse environmental impacts which may be miti- gated, and unavoidable adverse impacts; all of which are discussed in detail throughout this document. 1 IMPACT SUMMARY The Impact of the Proposal Adverse Environmental Impacts Unavoidable on the Environment a. Excavations & grading None for foundations, utili- ties, roadways, drainage b. Disruption, displacement None & compaction of soils; permanent overcovering of soils a. Short -term increase in None TSP, CO, nitrous oxides, & hydrocarbons during construction a. Slight alteration of None surface water movement Which May Be Mitigated Adverse Impacts ELEMENTS OF THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 1. Earth o. Localized changes to None None surrounding topography d. Increased wind & None None water erosion potential during construction 2. Air b. Slight increase in CO None Increase in and nitrous oxide vehicle emis- during project life sions & air pollutants 3. Water 2 None None None None The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment b. Introduction of imper- Install GPA system vious surfaces altering absorption rates; in- creased runoff c. Increased use of ground None water (aquifer) d. Reduction of ground water quality from on- site sewage disposal a. Introduction of non - native vegetation b. Pre - emption of future agricultural options a. Reduction in number of wildlife residing on- site; human activity None. b. Elimination of secondary None habitat Adverse Environmental Impacts Unavoidable Which May Be Mitigated Adverse Impacts Connection to central sewer collection system when avail- able 4.. Flora None None Retention, management of natu- None ral area along riverbank 5. Fauna Retention, management of natu- None ral area along riverbank Cumulative impact on ground water quality Reduction of farmland None c. Infringement on Spokane Retention, management of natu- Infringement on River ecosystem as cur- ral area along riverbank Spokane River rently defined ecosystem a. Increased noise levels during construction None b. Traffic noise.generated None by the completed pro - ject 6. Noise 3 None Traffic noise generation The Impact of the Proposal Adverse Environmental Impacts Unavoidable on the Environment a. Increased light None a. Use change from agricultural & vacant to residential and commercial 10. Risk of Explosion or Hazardous Emissions a. Potential storage of Regulation prohibiting storage None hazardous, flammable of flammable or hazardous materials in mini- materials storage area a. Increase in population None of area by 700 to 900 persons a. Increase in available None supply of manufactured housing Which Mav Be Mitigated Adverse Impacts 7. Light and Glare 8. Land Use Provisions for review of specific site plans and details of shopping center 9. Natural Resources Refer to Section 4. Flora ELEMENTS OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 1. Population 2. Housing 4 None None None None The Impact of the Proposal Adverse Environmental Impacts Unavoidable on the Environment a. Generation of addi- tional vehicular traffic; transit service extension b. Provision for adequate off - street parking c. Increased movement of passenger, service vehicles, bicycles, walking /jogging d. Increase in traffic accident potential a. Increased responsibi- lity for fire and police protection b. Increase in children attending public schools c. Increased demand for community park and recreation facilities d. Increased maintenance for roads & utilities e. Increased demand on governmental agencies a. Increased demand for electricty & natural gas to serve residen- tial & commercial areas 3. Transportation Improvement of Barker Road arterial, extension of transit service None None Improvement of Barker Road arterial 4. Public Services None None Extension of paths, outdoor shelters, picnic sites None None None Which May Be Mitigated Adverse Impacts 5. Energy 5 None None None None None None Increased use of community facilities None None None The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment a. Increased demand for telephone, water & power services b. Development of interim sewerage system. De- velopment of on -site storm water system c. Increased disposal at Mica landfill a. Potential to uncover/ disrupt items of his- torical or archaeolo- gical significance Adverse Environmental Impacts Unavoidable Which May Be Mitigated Adverse Impacts None None None 6.. Utilities 7. Human Health 6 N/A 8. Aesthetics N/A 9. Recreation Refer to Section 4. Public Services 10. Archaeological /Historical Notify officials upon discovery None Operation of interim system until regional system is developed None Potential for destruction of historical/ archaeological artifacts The Impact of the Proposal Adverse Environmental Impacts Unavoidable on the Environment a. Generation of addi- tional tax revenues Which May Be Mitigated Adverse Impacts 11. Additional Population Characteristics N/A 12. Economics None None 13. Shoreline Management Act a. Preservation of 200 Confine use to paths, foot setback along picnic areas, outdoor Spokane River shelters 14. Open Space Land Classification N/A 7 Limited disrup- tion of habitat SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES If the proponents took no action, the site would remain vacant, functioning as open space and wildlife habitat; and providing some agricultural potential. It appears unlikely that the proposed site would remain undeveloped because of eco- nomic pressures and the lack of interest for purchase of the site by a public or non - profit agency. The site is designated on the comprehensive plan as ap- propriate for urban development and it is anticipated that the property will eventually develop into a residential area at urban densities. Alternative locations for manufactured housing developments are limited within the metropolitan area. Properties north and west of the City of Spokane lack certain utilities and transportation services while other Spokane Valley loca- tions either lack sufficient size for such a development or are more remote from essential urban services and transportation systems. The ten acre shopping center site which includes mini- storage facilities would provide convenient shopping and other services to the project and the adjoining residential neighborhood. The proposed shopping center would increase activity in the immediate area, inconveniencing owners of existing adjacent residential properties. Currently, neighborhood and community shopping facilities are lacking for the immediate area. Evaluation of future shopping needs of the area and potential commercial sites available to serve the area is required to deter- mine the appropriate size and location of the proposed shopping center. The reduction in size or elimination of the proposed shopping center would allow the area to be used for additional manufactured housing sites or multiple fami- ly development. 8 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL Riverway Villa is a planned unit development to be located east of Barker Road and north of Mission Avenue in the Spokane Valley, County of Spokane, State of Washington. The project consists of 118 acres, 108 of which will be developed as residential and 10 which will be developed as commercial. The zoning request will be Residential Manufactured Home (RMH) for the 108 acres mentioned above and Commercial for the commercial area. The project will be phased with final completion to be determined by market and economic conditions. Approximately 365 residential lots will be developed for manufactured homes to house 700 to 900 people. It is anticipated that a majority of the residents will be young couples or retired individuals. A suitable mix of rental and owned spaces for manufactured homes will be pro- vided. Housing types will be manufactured home units ranging from 1,000 to 1,800 square feet in size and containing two to three bedrooms. The antici- pated price range will be between $35,000 to $60,000. In order to enhance the aesthetics of the project, amenities such as tennis courts, volleyball courts, outdoor shelters and picnic sites will be provided and maintained by a homeowners association. A ten acre parcel located in the southwest corner of the PUD plat will be developed as a commercial use. Expected uses include a self- service storage facility, a service very consistent with the needs of manufactured home residents, and substantial parking and general commercial uses consistent with a neighborhood shopping area and the surrounding land uses. This commercial area is designated to serve the needs of both the PUD plat residents, and residents of the surrounding area. At present, the nearest shopping facility is located approximately three miles away. Sewage for the manufactured home units will be provided by community septic tanks and drainfields. This sewer system will be engineered to facilitate hookup with the area -wide public sewer system as soon as a trunk line is extended. to the property. This trunk line is now a part of the County's wastewater manage- ment program. The property located over the drainfields will not be used for manufactured home units until after this hookup with the public sewer is com- pleted. During the interim, the drainfield will remain open space. Sewer disposal for the commercial site will be interconnected with that of the resi- dential site and have a maximum allowable flow of that required for 20 residen- tial units. 9 Drainage for the residential site area will be done through the extensive use of grassy swales in order to provide proper percolation of water runoff in ac- cordance with "208" standards. Drainage in the commercial area will also be facilitated with the use of similar grassy areas for percolation. The area will be served by the arterials of Barker Road, Mission, and the newly constructed arterial of Indiana Avenue, bisecting the project. Secondary streets are provided throughout the remainder of the site. Portions of the site lie within 200 feet of the Spokane River, an area that is under the jurisdiction of the Master Shoreline Act, and is designated as a shoreline of state -wide significance. (The site does not abut on the Spokane River. A three -acre strip of land owned by Inland Empire Paper Company lies between the site and the river.) There will be no construction within 200 feet of the high water mark of the Spokane , River, with the possible exception of .trails, picnic sites and /or exercise stations to enhance the use of the river- bank and preserve as much as possible in its natural. state. The project site is under the jurisdiction of the generalized Spokane County Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1980 and the current Spokane County Zoning Ordi- nance. The comprehensive plan has designated this area in the urban category and the manufactured homes are consistent with the bounding areas to the north, east and south. The commercial area is not specifically designated in the com- prehensive plan, but the plan does provide for the availability of neighborhood commercial services as stated in the goals and objectives statements. The proposed site would change from vacant agricultural ground (zoned Agricultural) to a medium density residential neighborhood (zoned Residential Manufactured Housing) with associated commercial facilities (zoned Commercial). 10 VICINITY MAP INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING COMPANY LIBERTY LAKE Mission Avenue 5. Wellesly Avenue • Broadway Sprague Avenue .ad tinter •luminum AREA MAP Shelley lake INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING COMPANY • Euclid Avenue :.' SITE Mission Avenue 0 1/2 10AIiE Liberty lake J SIMMIN1011M111111101•11111111111011111POINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIM Rlwrvr 242: Iadl. IYMSIn Yea Augusta Development Plan For' aso 200' Setback RIVERWAY VILLA sen Y.n. w tea MO a 200' euo' 400 1 n A ARGER /WRIGHT and ASSOCIATES 2014 200'Setback 3wm1-1'1.,.l p.L tauFS e Is td AREA w/FUTURE LOTS 1000 Saab 2b,. - 2.444 2430 fara.. epLemdo B ^t G :4 24 y1(ReF ,Hq,r0f, I2 IMH 4 Has •IVILMIL —17_ Vitter- 1.1 Geology ELEMENTS OF THE .PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 1. EARTH a. Existing Environmental Conditions The proposed project is situated on the floor of the Spokane Valley which was created by an extensive glaciofluvial deposit of sand and gravel during the last ice age. These deposits also contain boulders and cobblestones, and are mostly open- textured, very coarse and poorly sorted. The surface was probably reworked by streams, including the ' Spokane River to the north of the project, during the last 12,000 to 20,000 years. The Spokane River has created a channel 30 to 50 feet deep into the valley floor. The Pleistocene flood deposits extend approximately 300 feet below the surface. Below this, the Latah formation consists of various colored flat horizontal beds of siltstone, claystone, and sandstone.(1) (2) There are no apparent geologic hazards associated with the proposed site. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment Excavations and grading will be required for the installation of founda- tions, roadways, utilities, and surface drainage. These activities will be confined to the surface levels and will not extend more than 8 to 12 feet deep. No construction activity is anticipated within 200 feet of the Spokane River reserved by the Master Shoreline Act. There are no anticipated construction impacts on the geologic structure, and excavations will terminate well above the underlying aquifer. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 14 1.2 Soils a. Existing Environmental Conditions Soils of the Garrison Series cover the proposed site. Garrison soils are included within the Garrison - Marble- Springdale association; soils ranging from somewhat excessively to excessively drained, sandy and gravelly, and formed in glacial outwash. Garrison gravelly loam (0 -5 percent slopes) is the dominant soil in the Spokane Valley and comprises approximately 99 percent (115 acres) of the on -site soils. GgA is somewhat excessively drained, has a moderate- ly rapid permeability and is of medium fertility. Garrison gravelly loam, 0 -5 percent slopes is classified as Prime Farmland by U.S.D.A. with the criteria that irrigation would increase the production potential of agricultural crops. The other Garrison soil, "gravelly loam," 5 -20 percent slopes (GgB) occupies the steeper areas of the site near the Spokane River. This soil is similar to GgA, but is thinner and of lower fertility. (3) The engineering properties of the on -site soils indicate that the soils are suitable to support construction of the proposal. (Please refer to the Site Topography /Soils Map and Soils Table on the following pages.) b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment Construction activities associated with the proposal would disrupt, displace, compact, uncover and overcover the on -site soils. Upon project completion, approximately 38 percent of the site (48 acres) would be permanently covered with streets, parking areas, and buildings. Approximately 70 acres (62 percent of the site) would be specifically retained by covenant and designed as open space, including the more fragile GgB soils near the Spokane River. These areas would be land- scaped, planted and maintained in vegetation to improve aesthetics, provide proper drainage, and reduce erosion from water and wind. The tillable portions of the site would change in use from dryland and irrigated cropland to urban uses, including reserved open space areas. All soils would be retained on -site and later used in landscaping and in open areas. Although the site has prime farmland potentials, the econo- mics of the continued urbanization of the Spokane Valley including taxa- tion policies, upgrading of utility and roadway systems, population growth, and increased land values preclude continued agricultural usage of the site. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. 15 2000•= 2010 2024 "V 2026 2032 SITE TOPOGRAPY / SOI LS GgA Garrison gravelly loam 0 - 5% slopes GgB Garrison gravelly loam 5 - 20% slopes v 0 o: m D i -- • ♦ / .... N. / \\ / • 1 - GgA Mission Avenue 30 IDO' 300' 0' 100 200' 400 600' 900' INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING COMPANY 16 - - - -- - - - - -- - --2024 2032 , 2036 / North /2000 2010 . j -2020 • , • / • "--2028 -2032 ---- 2032 2032 TABLE 1 - SOILS GgA GgB Percent of Site 98 2 Fertility Medium Low - Medium A.G. Class I11 -2 IV -5 Runoff Slow Medium Permeability Moderate -Rapid Moderate -Rapid Susceptibility to Frost None- Slight None - Slight Shrink -Swell Potential Low Low Stability Moderate Moderate Shear Strength High High Load - Carrying Capacity High High Erosion Potential Slight Moderate SOURCE: SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE 17 d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 1.3 Topography a. Existing Environmental Conditions The topography of the site is relatively flat, gently sloping from the southeast boundary (elevation 2,036 feet) to the northwest boundary near the Spokane River (elevation 2,000 feet). Slopes range from one to two percent for the development portion of the site with up to 40 percent slopes within the undevelopable portion near the Spokane River. Surface drainage flows from the southeast to the northwest; however, only one small drainage course has been established. (Please refer to the Site Topography /Soils Map on page 16.) The site is separated from the Spokane River by a three acre Inland Empire Paper Company ownership, which was established at the turn of the century to accommodate an unconstructed dam and reservoir. During flood stage, the Spokane River could abut a small portion of the site's northernmost boundary with no flooding of the development portion of the project.. Generally, the Spokane River flows in a channel approxi- mately 40 to 50 feet north of the ownership at an elevation 28 to 34 feet below the developable portion of the site. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The construction of the project would result in minor localized changes in surface relief features to accommodate streets, parking, drainage, and structures. The steeper portion of the site near the Spokane River would not be disturbed except to accommodate supplemental landscaping, walkways, and outdoor recreation shelters in accordance with the Master Shoreline Act. e. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 1.4 Unique Physical Features N/A 18 1.5 Erosion a. Existing Environmental Conditions Due to the texture and permeability of the Garrison soils and the relatively flat slope of the proposed site, the erosion hazard is generally slight throughout the site. The steeper portion of the site near the Spokane River with somewhat higher erosion potentials will not be disturbed except to accommodate supplemental landscaping, walkways, and outdoor recreation shelters. Cultivation of the site exposes the soils to wind and water erosion, although the steeper portion of the site near the river is in pastureland. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment Construction activities would require the removal of existing vegeta- tion exposing on -site soils and increasing wind and water erosion potential during the construction period. Construction activities could also compact much of the soils, reducing absorption capabilities and increasing runoff. New impervious surface areas on the site would increase the peak rate of runoff flow onto some areas. The phasing of the project and retention of ground cover on undeveloped and reserved open space areas would reduce the area of exposed soils and allow re- tention areas for runoff. Spokane County Air Pollution Control Author- ity requirements for dust control during construction would also mini- mize wind erosion. The establishment of a drainage plan for the project conforming to "208" Study guidelines and the installation of permanent ground covers within improved and reserved open space areas would minimize the ero- sion potential of the site over the long term. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 1.6 Accretion /Avulsion N/A 19 2.1 Air Quality 2. AIR a. Existing Environmental Conditions The project area lies within a lower air basin extending from downtown Spokane east towards the Rathdrum Prairie. The proposed site is approximately five miles east of the outer boundary of an E.P.A. designated non - attainment area for total suspended particulates (TSP). The nearest permanent TSP monitoring station is at East Valley High School, approximately 2 -1/2 miles northwest of the site. During 1980 this station registered TSP levels averaging 53.0 micrograms per cubic meter, which is 22 percent below the Washington State standard of 60 micrograms per cubic meter. (The 1980 average includes the particu- lates generated by Mt. St. Helens). Based on Spokane County Air Pol- lution Control Authority (SCAPCA) data, the site is estimated to be well within applicable standards for suspended particulates. (4) Existing ambient air quality conditions were monitored near the I -90/ Sullivan Road overpass approximately 2 miles west of the project from February 19, 1979 to April 19, 1979, with technical assistance of SCAPCA. Carbon monoxide (CO) levels were found to be relatively low with a maximum level of 2.5 ppm; 8 hour average. (Federal and State standards for CO levels are 9 ppm; 8 -hour average.) Because the proposed site is well removed from the higher concentra- tions of carbon monoxide found within the City of Spokane, is situated in a portion of the Spokane Valley with lower density arterials and less vehicular traffic and is located easterly of areas complying with Federal and State standards, it is assumed that carbon monoxide levels within the project area are less than 2.5 ppm (8 hour average). The site is located outside of the SCAPCA designated "no burn" area. (Please refer to the Air Quality Map on the following page.) b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment Short term increases in TSP, CO, nitrous oxides and hydrocarbons would result from the operation and movement of construction equipment. Dust (TSP) would be the primary pollutant associated with the construction phase of the project. The use of water sprays and dust palliatives per SCAPCA requirements during construction would minimize fugitive dust problems. Paving and landscaping of completed areas would also reduce dust emissions. After the project 1s completed, ambient particle concentrations in the area would return to pre - development levels. The project development would remove approximately 100 acres of dryland and irrigated farming, resulting in a reduction of agricultural related particulate emissions 20 - _ _ _ _ _ - r a r s - _ • - _ - r r 4 0. • FIVE MILE • PRAIRIE 0 1 cis • . MEAD OUNTRY HOMES -- _ / - Moran P•Irl• 1 1 gleams' Dr•Irl• td P ••• •r.. •o V r•d•1• 0 • n m SPOKANE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT • • ' ' Millwood V E..1 .IISY HI 5.11.01 • sp AN ` SITE a del ekl •Dnpu• •Y•• Y I J o Unl mit Clfy `r p 7 Opporlunll i Gbnro.• • • • Peons road 3 r. _I NON ATTAINMENT AREAS •• •• CO BOUNDARY —•• TSPBOUNDARY • MONITORING STATION SITES 0 v o a 0 AIR . QUALITY MAP SOURCE: SPOKANE COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING COMPANY The increased use of automobiles and space heating /cooling throughout the completed project area would increase carbon monoxide and nitrous oxide emissions, although not to levels approaching or exceeding State and Federal standards. 2.2 Odor 2.3 Climate of approximately 69 tons annually, which offsets the particulate emis- sions anticipated from such urban sources as roadway dust from paved - surfaces. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The proposed project would unavoidably bring minor increases in the vehicle - related emissions and air- pollutant concentrations to the vicinity of the site. The cumulative impacts of the continued urbani- zation of the Spokane Valley may require the implementation of an approved vehicle inspection and maintenance program by Spokane County to reduce carbon monoxide levels. N/A N/A 3. WATER Note: A complete "Wastewater Collection /Treatment Engineering Analysis" is contained in the appendix. This special study contains various recommendations and alternatives to treat wastewater and stormwater. The following section provides a general discussion of the recommended methods for the proposed project. For further review of the proposed alternatives, please reference the alternatives section and the appendix. 3.1 Surface Water Movement a. Existing Environmental Conditions The Spokane River is located within a well- defined riverbed approximate- ly 50 feet north of the ownership. The north 150 feet of the ownership 22 forms part of the upper riverbank of the Spokane River, with only the lowest portion of the ownership within the 100 -year flood plain. There is no surface water movement associated with the proposed site except for occasional storm and melt waters. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The developable portion of the project would be set back 200 feet from the Spokane River in accordance with the Shoreline Management Act and well above the 100 -year flood plain. Surface water movement from oc- casional storm and melt waters would be confined within the develop- able area in accordance with "208" Study recommendations. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 3.2 Runoff /Absorption a. Existing Environmental Conditions The Garrison series of soils comprising the site are somewhat exces- sively to excessively drained and possess slow to moderate runoff characteristics. These factors, combined with the relatively flat topography, limit runoff from the proposed site. The site does lie within the Spokane River drainage basin and any runoff which might occur once soil moisture capacities are exceeded or during frozen ground conditions could possibly contact surface water associated with the Spokane River, although such instances are rare. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The development of the project site would result in the removal of the existing agricultural cropland and pasture. Construction and develop- ment will create impervious surfaces such as roads, buildings and parking lots, altering the site's absorption capacity. The Spokane County Water Quality Management Plan ( "208" Plan) recom- mends that surface water runoff from all impervious surfaces be di- verted into grass percolation areas. This method of stormwater runoff disposal would help protect the aquifer and the Spokane River through the percolation and filtration of stormwaters through biologically 23 3.3 Floods active surface soils. The method utilizes the uppermost biologically active layer of the soil to significantly reduce the levels of organic and inorganic contaminants reaching the groundwater. Overflows to dry - wells would be constructed to dispose of runoff in excess of .5 inches for a single event. The proposed project would have 22.53 acres of impermeable surfaces requiring 2.81 acres for grass percolation for runoff absorption. The proposed open space area is 38.12 acres of which 14.6 acres is to be used for wastewater treatment (refer to Ap- pendix C), leaving 23.52 acres for GPA. Runoff from the commercial area would be collected in catch basins and run by pipe to the GPAs. Run -off from streets would be sent through breaks in the curbing to the GPAs. Initial engineering studies indicate that the GPAs would require approximately 21 drywells for the 10 year flood plan and 42 drywells for the 50 year flood plan to handle any water in excess of .5 inches. Design compliance with the '208' study recommendations, in conjunction with the reserved open space areas and the setback from the Spokane River, would confine surface runoff to the site and protect the ground water quality of the Spokane Aquifer. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. a. Existing Environmental Conditions According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the proposed site is outside of the 100 -year flood plain of the Spokane River. The site experiences no known flooding or ponding zones due to its elevation of 28 to 34 feet above the river. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The project is not expected to cause flooding of the proposed site nor alter the 100 -year flood plain of the Spokane River. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 24 3.4 Surface Water Quantity N/A 3.5 Surface Water Quality a. Existing Environmental Conditions The Spokane River is designated as Class A in the reach bordering the project site. Water quality is excellent and is suitable for domestic, commercial, industrial, recreational, and wildlife uses as well as aesthetic enjoyment. At present, the only pollutants which would enter the river from the site during runoff periods are those associated with farming practices including pesticides, fertilizers, and slight amounts of sediment. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The project's "208" Study stormwater drainage system would be designed to filter at least the first one -half inch of runoff, which contains the greatest amount of surface pollutants, from roofs (airborne particu- lates), paved areas, and other impervious surfaces. Runoff in excess of one -half inch would be contained in drywells located within the grassy percolation areas. An unusually heavy storm event could create an overflow which could run into the Spokane River; however, that overflow would be relatively free of nutrients, heavy metals, clay type particulates, and various organic materials because of the filtration characteristics of the initial stormwater system. Such an overflow would not significantly impact the surface water quality of the Spokane River. Scheduled sweeping of parking lots and streets, regular maintenance of the stormwater drainage system (including gutters, drywells, and vegetation), and retention of open space areas should insure quality treatment of storm water runoff. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 3.6 Groundwater Movement a. Existing Environmental Conditions 25 The project site is located over the Spokane - Rathdrum Aquifer. Ground- water movement in this area is from east to west. The high permeability of the aquifer materials, the aquifer depth, and the hydraulic gradient result in calculated velocities in the aquifer of 64 to 90 feet per day at the state line and 41 to 47 feet per day in the Hillyard Trough. (5) (6) The total flow of water at the state line and in the Hillyard Trough was estimated at 480 and 350 cubic feet per second respectively. (7) The estimated elevation of the water table under the developable por- tion of the site is 1,940 feet, or approximately 50 to 70 feet below the surface. The aquifer experiences seasonal water table fluctuation averaging five to ten feet in the Spokane Valley. The Spokane River at Barker Road interchanges water with the aquifer varying with the season and the height of the river. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment Development of the project would not significantly disrupt the overall water movement in the site area. Water percolated from the sewage treatment system(s), the storm water drainage system, and the irriga- tion of landscape areas would be insignificant in comparison to the volume of the aquifer, with no measurable effect on the water table elevation or the established flow patterns. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 3.7 Groundwater Quantity a. Existing Environmental Conditions The site lies over the Spokane- Rathdrum Aquifer which is the "sole source" water supply for the Spokane -Coeur d'Alene area. The aquifer flows through glacial sands and gravels at approximately 480 cubic feet per second at the state line. It extends from Lake Pend Oreille in northern Idaho to the north and west of Spokane. Wells tapping the aquifer yield 600 gallons per minute and greater. Irrigation water for the site is currently provided for approximately 100 acres of cropland and pasture by Consolidated Irrigation District from off -site wells and reservoirs. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment Water to meet domestic and irrigation needs of the project would be provided by Consolidated Irrigation District from existing facilities 26 which draw water from the Spokane - Rathdrum Aquifer. The phased devel- opment would contain 365 residential lots for manufactured homes and a 10 acre commercial site which would include a self - storage facility and a neighborhood shopping center (which are expected to have low water demands except for fire protection). The completed project would con- sume approximately 250,000 gallons of water per day, which is approxi- mately 0.03 percent of the aquifer flow. Current withdrawals in Washington are approaching 50 percent of the aquifer flow at the state line. (8) The increased withdrawal of water from the Spokane Aquifer as a result of cumulative growth and demand for water in Washington and Idaho may reduce available supply, causing utility districts to implement water conservation measures. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 3.8 Groundwater Quality a. Existing Environmental Conditions The project area is located near the central axis of the aquifer. Water quality has been monitored through various studies by Washington State University, United States Geological Survey, and more recently the "208" Water Quality Management program. The groundwater quality of the aquifer is suitable for domestic, municipal, and agricultural uses, although total dissolved solids (conductivity), chlorine and nitrate nitrogen concentrations did increase in the aquifer samples from the state line to the east city limits. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The project would use interim on -site sewage disposal systems for wastewater treatment of approximately 110,000 gallons per day until such time as central sewage collection systems are available for this portion of the Spokane Valley. (See appendix "Wastewater Collection/ Treatment Engineering Analysis" for detailed analysis of alternatives for wastewater disposal.) In order to provide an interim wastewater system which can be most easily connected to future trunk lines, be functional, and allow suitable treatment of wastewater with control of pollution and nuisance, the following alternative system designs have been suggested: (1) on -site septic tanks and individual drainfields with dry sewer lines installed; (2) conventional gravity sewer lines with community septic tanks and drainfields; and (3) conventional 27 gravity sewer lines with community plant and drainfields. A fourth alternative of individual septic tanks, conventional gravity sewer lines and community drainfields was rejected in this report. To facilitate on -site interim systems, the submitted plan indicates that the commmercial area and 317 lots would be initially developed, reserving 38.12 acres for dedicated open space and 48 undeveloped lots from which 14.6 acres would be allocated for on -site wastewater treat- ment and disposal. The 48 undeveloped lots would become available for development when a central sewage collection trunk services the area eliminating the need for on -site treatment and drainfield systems. Public sewer systems are not presently available to this portion of the Spokane Valley, although the Spokane "201" wastewater facilities plan has generally included this area to be sewered in the future. Future policies of Spokane County and sources of funding will determine the priority of trunk line extensions throughout the Spokane Valley. The quality of the groundwater may be reduced by the cumulative impacts of wastewater and stormwater disposal as the Spokane Valley continues to develop. Potential groundwater pollution can be reduced by the proper location, installation and maintenance of sewage and wastewater runoff systems as required by the Spokane County Utilities Department, the Spokane County Health District, the Department of Ecology, and the Department of Social and Health Services. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated The project should be connected to a central sewage collection system as soon as it can be made available, to mitigate the cumulative adverse impacts of on -site sewage treatment systems throughout the Spokane Valley. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The cumulative adverse impacts of sewage disposal systems and waste- water systems over the aquifer throughout the Spokane Valley may reduce the groundwater quality of the aquifer to some degree. 3.9 Public Water Supplies a. Existing Environmental Conditions The project is within the service boundaries of Consolidated Irrigation District. Crops on -site are irrigated from District water mains with off -site wells obtaining water from the aquifer. A 21 -inch transmission 28 main extends along the south side of the site in Mission Avenue. Another 21 -inch main extends north of Mission in Barker Road, but tapers down to a 16 -inch main before reaching Riverway. Six -inch mains extend into the property to provide irrigation water. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The proposed project would require approximately 250,000 gallons of water per day for domestic use and irrigation, which is within the capability of existing installations. Water lines within the project would need to be relocated and expanded to accommodate the project design. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 4. FLORA 4.1 Numbers or Diversity of Species a. Existing Environmental Conditions Approximately 12 acres of the site on the slopes overloking the Spokane River are uncultivated with scattered shrubs, mostly Mock Orange, Chokeberry, Ninebark and Serviceberry, between which grow native herbs including Bluebunoh Wheatgrass, rough fescue, Prairie Smoke, Cinque- foil, Balsam Root, and Gaillardia. The edges of the field next to the uncultivated area are dominated by a large variety of introduced weedy herbs. The cultivated area of approximately 100+ acres is served by irrigation from Consolidated Irrigation District. A listing of the plant species observed on -site during the early fall of 1981 is contained in the appendix. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment Most of the construction and development activity would be confined to the cultivated portion of the site. A 200 -foot wide buffer strip would be retained along the Spokane River in compliance with the Spokane County Shorelines Program as defined in RCW 90.58. The site plan 29 allocates a 200 to 300 foot wide strip for retention in natural area. This'area would be used for hiking trails, picnic sites, outdoor recreation shelters and/or exercise stations to enhance the use of the riverbank and to preserve as much as possible the natural character of the riverbank. The developable area would incorporate landscaping, primarily turf, shrubs, and trees which could spread to adjacent areas, increasing competition between species. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated A program for the development and utilization of the riverbank natural area should be initiated to minimize or confine the disruption to the area from people and pets. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 4.2 Unique Species N/A 4.3 Barriers and /or Corridors N/A 4.4 Agricultural Crops a. Existing Environmental Conditions The proposed site lies within an area designated by the Soil Conserva- tion Service (SCS) as "Prime" Farmlands. Approximately 100+ acres of the site consist of Garrison gravelly loam 0 -5 percent slopes (GgA). SCS rates this particular soil as Agriculture Class III, and states that it is capable of providing an annual average yield of 30 bushels of wheat per acre using irrigation available to the site. The cultivated portion of the site was planted in barley, beans and irrigated pasture during the 1981 season. Increased urbanization of surrounding parcels has reduced the potential for continued agricul- tural production of the site because of increased taxes, limitations 30 on use of insecticides and herbicides, and small agricultural parcel size. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The development of the site would permanently remove 100+ acres of prime farmland from agricultural production. Individual sites may be avail- able for gardening, berry and fruit tree production. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Development of the site would permanently remove 100+ acres of farmland from agricultural production. 5. FAUNA 5.1 Numbers or Diversity of Species a. Existing Environmental Conditions A field survey was conducted on the site during the late summer /early fall of 1981. Nine species of birds and 12 species of insects (in- cluding butterflies) were observed on the site. A listing of these wildlife species is contained in the appendix. No species of mammals were observed. No unique species are known to occur on the proposed site, nor were any observed during field surveys. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The proposal would reduce the total numbers of on -site wildlife. Human activity and development would further impact wildlife -- especially those species which cannot live in close proximity to man. Agricul- tural activities and the urbanization of adjoining properties have already significantly reduced native animal habitats and allowed introduced species such as starlings, house sparrows, and house finches to become established. The undeveloped 200 -300 foot wide strip along the Spokane River would retain some of the remaining habitat, although human activity and pets would cause deterioration of this remaining habitat. 31 c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated A program for the riverbank natural area should be developed or ini- tiated to minimize or confine the disruption to the area from people and pets. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 5.2 Unique Species N/A 5.3 Barriers and /or Corridors N/A 5.4 Fish or Wildlife Habitat a. Existing Conditions The most significant habitat associated with the proposed site is the 200 to 300 foot wide strip lying adjacent to the Spokane River and the river itself. Due to the site's close proximity to the Spokane River, portions of the site lie within an area designated by Spokane County as a unique environmental feature; a critical wildlife habitat. The remainder of the site is in cultivation and provides a limited habitat. Wildlife habitats are considered significant if there is (1) a large variety of animals in an area; (2) a large concentration of a single species in an area; (3) a singularly unique variety of species of animal in an area. (9) Wildlife habitats associated with surface water bodies usually involve a large variety of species in an area. This "area" was initially determined by including all lands lying within one - eighth mile of applicable surface water bodies; then adjusted for terrain features, vegetation, land use, etc., or as determined by special field surveys. The environmentally unique wildlife habitat associated with the Spokane River near the site has not been adjusted; the outer -most boundaries are determined by the general "one- eighth mile" criteria. 32 Field surveys did not reveal a singularly unique variety or species, nor a large concentration of a single species on the proposed site. A relatively large variety of .species do, however, use the Spokane River as a habitat and /or corridor. Some of these same species could also use the site as either a portion of their total habitat or as a portion of the corridor along the Spokane River. Field surveys did reveal that the habitat adjacent to the Spokane River is suitable for a large variety of species. However, cultivation of the fields approximately 200 to 300 feet south of the river has ef- fectively reduced this critical wildlife habitat from the one - eighth mile criteria. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The proposal would alter the habitats associated with the cultivated portion of the site through human activities (including their animals) and extensive landscaping and construction. The significant habitat along the Spokane River would remain as undevel- oped open space. The design of the proposal would prohibit or restrict vehicular access to this portion of the Spokane River. The retention of a natural buffer strip along the site's northern boundary would both protect and enhance the river- associated habitat. Although the devel- opable portion of the proposal would not extend into the significant habitat area adjacent to the river, human activities from the develop- able area could impact this habitat -- somewhat reducing its total value/ desirability for some species. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated A program for the development and utilization of the riverbank natural area should be initiated to minimize or confine the disruption to the area from people and pets. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Although the buffer strip would protect the shoreline, the proposal's infringement upon the Spokane River Ecosystem, as currently defined, is unavoidable. 6. NOISE a. Existing Environmental Conditions Noise emitted from the vacant site is low, with the exception of the occasional operation of farm machinery which may generate 70 to 90 dBA at 50 feet. 33 Although a noise survey was not conducted on -site, findings for a similarly situated parcel at Sullivan Road and the Spokane River suggest the following: traffic noise from Mission and Barker Roads could be as high as 70 to 80 dBA at 50 feet, and aircraft noise at 60 to 66 dBA. The Spokane River is also a steady noise source. Because the property is more removed from the freeway than the Sullivan site, ambient noise levels throughout the site should average less than 50 dBA. Except for three residences on the east side of Barker Road adjoining the project area, residential development is confined to a single family neighborhood to the west of Barker, a mobile home court to the south of Mission, and a mobile home plat and trailer court north of the Spokane River. Properties to the east of the project are in agri- cultural production. Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173 -60, "Maximum Environmental Noise Levels," identifies permissible noise levels in specific environments and provides standards for noise reception. Spokane County has not adopted WAC 173 -60, but treats noise as a nuisance which is enforced by the Sheriff's Department. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The proposal would increase noise levels both on and off -site during the construction period. The most significant "short- term" noise would be generated during ground clearing, excavation, and site preparation, with noise levels from machinery ranging from 72 to 96 dBA at 50 feet. Since the manufactured housing would be constructed off -site, noise should be limited to installation and setup of the units. Noise from construction of commercial buildings should range between 70 and 88 dBA at 50 feet. Noise from construction activities would be temporary and confined to normal working hours. Sound muffling devices are available for much of the equipment used for construction. Occupancy of residences within the project area would raise ambient noise levels 5 to 10 dBA on -site, which is comparable to established residential areas to the south and west. Approximately 3,650 vehicular trips would be generated by the residential portion of the project. The commercial portion of the project would generate 4,500 trip move- ments per day depending on the type of neighborhood facilities con- templated. These additional traffic movements would increase noise levels along Barker Road and along Mission Avenue by approximately two dBA. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated' None. 34 d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Traffic noise generated by the proposal on the arterials of Barker Road and Mission Avenue may raise noise levels along these roads by approximately 2 dBA. a. Existing Conditions 7-. LIGHT AND GLARE The site is in agricultural production with no emission of light or glare. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The proposal would generate increased light in varying degrees through- out the site. Residential areas would require security and street lighting, while the shopping area would require security and parking lot lighting. Light would also be emitted by vehicular traffic traveling through the site. The use of "downlighting" for parking lots, and low intensity lighting standards within residential areas would reduce the horizontal disper- sion of the light. The use of shrubs and trees throughout the project would also reduce light and glare. Security lighting should be con- fined to necessary areas. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 8. LAND USE a. Existing Environmental Conditions The proposed site lies east of Barker Road and north of Mission Avenue in the Spokane Valley. The 118 acre site is currently in agricultural production with the exception of a strip of pasture along the Spokane River. The ownership abuts three residences along the east side of Barker Road. Other surrounding land uses include: the Spokane River and a manufactured home plat to the north of the river; agricultural parcels and a manufactured home plat to the east; manufactured home plats to the southeast; scattered residences, a water pumping and stor- age facility, mobile homes, and a small school administration building 35 to the south; a developed single family neighborhood to the southwest, and west; the Spokane River and a mobile home court to the northwest. The site is currently zoned Agricultural along with other properties to the east. Surrounding residential areas are in the Agricultural, Resi- dential Manufactured Home, and other residential categories. (Please refer to the Zoning and Land Use maps on the following pages.) The generalized comprehensive plan adopted in 1980 indicates that the properties south of the Spokane River and east of Flora Road are appro- priate for urban type development, with areas along the freeway east of Barker Road appropriate for industrial type uses. The proposed Waste- water Management Plan indicates that the southerly portion of the pro- posed property is within the Priority Sewer Service Area (PSSA) while the northerly portion of the property lies outside of the PSSA, but in- side the General Sewer System Area (GSSA). The site will, however, be treated as if all of it exists within the PSSA.(10) Note: Spokane County is presently considering a revision to the PSSA which would extend its northern boundary north to the Spokane River in this vicinity. A decision is expected in 1982. The Goals and Objectives of the Generalized Comprehensive Plan of Spokane County state that the Urban category (1) offers a "city like" environment with urban services; (2) provides a range of densities from 1 to 17 units per acre; (3) allocates more intensive land use activities along heavily traveled streets; (4) emphasizes man -made aesthetics and the retention of natural features; (5) promotes innovation and cluster developments with open space allocations; (6) provides for an orderly pattern of development; and (7) indicates that a variety of residential options should be made available. The plan also indicates that neigh- borhood shopping facilities can also be accommodated in the urban category. The northerly portion of the site lies within 200 feet of the Spokane River, an area designated as a shoreline of state -wide significance. This part has been designated "Pastoral Area" by the Spokane County Shoreline Program to "protect and maintain those shorelines which have historically been subject to limited interference and have preserved their natural quality as wildlife habitat and places of scenic beauty. These areas are appropriate for passive agricultural and recreational uses." (11) Should development be contemplated within the defined shorelines area, a Substantial Development Permit would be required in accordance with the provisions of the Master Shoreline Program for Spokane County; Pastoral Classification. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The proposed site would change from vacant agricultural ground to a medium density residential neighborhood with associated commercial 36 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Inland Pacific Engineering Company — • _ A ZONING MAP A Agriculture C Commercial AS Agriculture Suburban RI Restricted Industrial • M Manufacturing -•^ •• - • • • FC Freeway Commercial R Single Family Residential RO Residential Office RMH Residential Mobile Home LB Local Business Spokane County Planning Dept. nlHati 5 9 0 R g,∎,,,_, rii A t te,c'�v JI. AVC 3 RMH JE N . _- Q 0 V CI pi Q AS A.:R1: MIS310ti... - . AV.E RI 5 RMH 0454 8”+0111 i r 8arkel - Center RMH R 1 A Z [ __. 1 A _J VE R I AS RI B O NE a = • or X CVVALDO..4'CS 50o 1.4t WI I• ' AS � , Q ,4 f N' 90 �kOA eNV�t Ms ' • .Clew . w+PIMMININI■•■ - - • ;•, a FC 1 FREEWAY — an 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Inland Pacific Engineering Company Restaurant "Green Valley Inn 600 N[ r1 cute srf HF'SIOH•••• AV Agriculture Agriculture anufactured Housing N= 90 - 3a0ADb1AY AyE 1 Inland Pacific Engineering Company 32 FREE wA r 7 /' facilities. The natural area along the Spokane River would be retained, but possibly altered for passive recreation in accordance with the policies stated in Section 3.14 of the Master Shoreline Act for Spokane County. Approximately 108 acres of the project area would be developed by phases into 365 manufactured housing sites at a gross density of 3.38 dwelling units per acre and would require a change in zoning from Agricultural to Residential Manufactured Housing. Ten acres of the site would be developed into a neighborhood shopping center providing various goods and services including possibly a mini - storage facility, a supermarket, a hardware store, a drug store, and a bowling alley. These uses would require Commercial zoning. (The commercial area will be subject to detailed and binding site plan review at a later date by the Spokane County Zoning Administrator.) The residential portion of the project is in harmony with similar manufactured home developments to the north, east, and south, with only a small portion of the residential area of the project exposed to the single family neighborhood to the west. The manufactured housing pro- ject conforms with the Urban category of the comprehensive plan and can make provisions for sewering in accordance with the Wastewater Management Plan, even though a portion of the project is now outside of the Priority Sewer Service Area. The comprehensive plan does not specifically designate the northeast corner of Barker and Mission as appropriate for commercial development, although the goals and objec- tives statements of the comprehensive plan provide for the availability of neighborhood commercial services. This 10 acre portion of the pro- ject area abuts an established residential area to the west and a school administration building to the south. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated Specific plans of the commercial site have not been submitted; building elevations and profiles, landscaping, lighting, signing, vehicular loading areas and other features which address the compatibility of a project with adjoining residential areas. The nature of commercial uses within the center may promote evening and off -hour activities, and alter traffic patterns. Approval of the commercial site should contain adequate provisions to enhance the visual appeal of the project through quality building design and landscaping, restrict lighting and signing to reduce glare on adjoining properties, site buildings and loading areas to reduce noise and traffic on residential areas, and evaluate potential uses to determine the levels of evening activity. 39 d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 9.1 Rate of Use N/A a. Existing Conditions 9. NATURAL RESOURCES 9.2 Nonrenewable Resources Refer to 4.4 Agricultural Crops. 10. RISK OF EXPLOSION OR HAZARDOUS EMISSIONS Farming activities on the proposed site may use agricultural chemicals in conjunction with fertilizer application for control of weeds and in- sect pests. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The mini - storage facilities proposed on the site may provide the oppor- tunity for individuals to store hazardous materials or substances. Such facilities are constructed with concrete floors with adequate ven- tilation and no direct sources of heat. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated Storage regulating of the mini warehouse should prohibit the storage of flammable or hazardous material. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 40 a. Existing Environmental Conditions The proposed site lies within the East Valley Metropolitan Area within Census Tract 131 (please refer to Census Tract Map on the following page). Table II illustrates the rate of population growth within the East Valley Metropolitan Area and other sectors of the Spokane Metro- politan Area from 1970 to 1980. Location 1970 1980 0 Persons % Change C.T. 114 2,793 C.T. 130 1,214 C.T. 131 2,926 C.T. 132 2,303 *Includes incorporated population. II. ELEMENTS OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 1. POPULATION TABLE II POPULATION GROWTH TRENDS Population Growth 4,177 2,619 4,366 7,488 E. Valley Metro 6,443 14,473 8,020 +124.5 W. Valley Metro 47,821 65,546 17,725 + 37.0 N. Metro Area 18,922 27,107 8,185 + 43.3 W. Metro Area 3,721 4,384 633 + 17.8 S. Metro Area 2,298 5,557 3,259 +141.8 Spokane County' 287,487 341,835 54,348 + 18.9 The East Valley Metropolitan Area has been one of the fastest growing portions of Spokane County during recent years. The East Valley Metro- politan Area registered 15 percent of the total county growth between 1970 and 1980. By comparison, the City of Spokane's share of total county growth was only one percent. This conforms to the national trend of population shift from cities to suburban areas. Increased transportation costs due to rising oil prices may modify this trend in the future. (Spokane County Population Report 1980) 1,384 1,405 1,440 5,185 SOURCE: SPOKANE COUNTY POPULATION REPORT 1980 41 + 50.0 +115.7 + 49.2 +225.1 res 113 S 40 ......u.ru....ar.1r SSSSSSSS 2 vl. SSSSSSSSSSSSSS 35 7 W•lle.LY venue SSS S S S S SSSS S J9 ,, - Jac ui ± 39 11 _I • , I I' I I I o� ui n.r B . uu n n.u., uumu11uuuun 111111 324 IIt% ♦ I . ♦•• 0 38 ....r "1 306 .0 ••'• I: . 114 41 a 01 Ii n pd III o i " "••••n • ` e 118 i i ' •••a III 42 n 0 • u. J`IIIII ♦I S SS in st • ♦. o kane ♦ sQ 1 14 307 305 SSSSSSS ...011 N,,i4 • 111.` I, I,, e 1 111 • 277 126 280 119 0 1 a 0 1 . 1 0 L 278 12B 284 276 279 0 c a 116 274 Satiny War SOU 275 Sprague l••nu• 1111 a • • • 0 . x.11"1 W 127 282 281 I • ♦i♦ 783 • • n . 1a ,,• ♦ ♦ fv 4 772 g11i411 '' I11411 N`$44: 111..1 320 . N Broadway - , "•I ,•I /e y.u.ranuur l u e u ur.w 1111.....0.""0"........ "1111".. 302 C 4 101111 321 129 322 " "unm11" ".. "nu 323 303 0 I ,, • I . ,273 • ' II I4 1 I L.R. r 130 I1,II11I 304 131 SSS SS X 132 325 326 LIb.rlr i Lak• rr CENSUS TRACTS SOURCE: Spokane Area Development Council, Inc. INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING COMPANY. 130 CENSUS TRACT 140. CENSUS TRACT BOUNDARY un "..unn.wuuu ENUMERATION DISTRICT BOUNDARY i s - M _ - ! M NM M MI I= MN I= 1 0 OM II b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The completed project would increase the resident population of the area by 700 to 900 persons, as well as increase the "temporary" popu- lation; employees, shoppers, and visitors. The residential portion of the project will provide 365 spaces for manufactured housing. River - way Villa would accommodate manufactured housing in the $35,000 to $60,000 range, which would cater to retired persons or young families with few children. These demographic characteristics should result in a fairly low average household size of approximately 2.0 to 2.5. Commercial center employees and shoppers would vary depending on the mix of commercial uses to be established. Current plans include, but are not limited to a supermarket, a hardware store, a drug store, a bowling alley, and a mini - storage facility. According to information developed by the Arizona Department of Transportation, a mixed use shopping center of 10 acres in size could generate approximately 4,348 employees and shoppers per day. According to the Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce, one -third of all new valley residents come from the City of Spokane, one -third from the rest of Washington State, and the remaining third from the rest of the United States, particularly California, Montana, and Oregon. Future residents of Riverway Villa would probably follow these trends. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 2. HOUSING a. Existing Environmental Conditions The proposed site is currently vacant. The site lies within the East Valley Metroplitan Area and within Census Tract 131. The adjoining areas to the west and south are dominated by single family housing on large lots normally ranging from one -third to 10 acres in size. Manu- factured housing on one - quarter acre lots has been developed to the north and southeast of the proposed project. The East Valley area has developed with a mixture of standard construction and manufactured housing; however, the area contains few high density projects such as condominiums or apartments. 43 Data from the preliminary 1980 census indicates that 3,087 housing units have been constructed in the East Valley Metropolitan Area since 1970. Current high interest lending rates for real estate, limited new em- ployment opportunities, and other economic factors have appreciably slowed recent demand for single family housing. The average price for a home sold in the Spokane market in 1980 was $52,062.00, according to the Housing Market Report compiled by the Spokane Board of Realtors, Multiple Listing Service, Spokane Home Builders Association, and the Federal Housing Administration. The following table indicates growth trends in housing during the last 10 years with comparisons of the immediate vicinity of the site with the rest of Spokane County. (Please refer to Census Map.) TABLE III GROWTH IN TOTAL HOUSING UNITS 1970 -1980 Housing Units Housing Units Percent Location ' Total 1970 Total 1980 Increase • C.T. 114 928 1,574 69.6 C.T. 130 368 874 137.5 C.T. 131 922 1,641 78.0 C.T. 132 810 2,672 229.9 Combined Above 3,038 6,761 123.3 Spokane County' 99,879 137,673 37.9 *Includes incorporated areas. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The proposal is for 365 single family lots developed for manufactured homes. The average price per lot complete with manufactured home would be approximately $40,000 in 1981 dollars. The project would supply a less expensive and affordable alternative to conventional housing, and would be developed in accordance with market demand, with limited impact on the local housing market. The project would satisfy the continual demand of quality affordable housing for the older age groups in our society. The commercial portion of the project would employ approximately 100 persons. Most of these employees are expected to come from the Spokane area and no significant demand for their housing is antici- pated. Improved shopping facilities for the neighborhood may increase 44 the appeal of the area, especially for retired persons, and create some additional demand for housing. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 3. TRANSPORTATION 3.1 Vehicular Transportation Generated a. Existing Environmental Conditions The site is situated on the east side of Barker Road, a major north - south arterial, and north of Mission Avenue, an emerging east -west arterial. The site is one -half mile north of the Barker Road inter- change of Interstate 90, the freeway system connecting the Spokane Valley with the City of Spokane. Other east -west arterials which are of significance to the project are Appleway /Sprague Avenue approxi- mately one mile south, and Trent Road (SSH 290) approximately 1 -1/2 miles to the north. Barker Road serves established residential areas in Greenacres and Otis Orchards, and some industrial traffic to the Spokane Industrial Park. Barker Road will require widening from the present two lanes to four lanes, including another bridge across the Spokane River, as development in the Greenacres and Otis Orchards areas increases traffic, according to the Spokane County Engineer's Office. Mission Avenue may change from an arterial to a collector if a new east -west arterial is constructed near the freeway to serve emerging industrial properties in that area. (12) A traffic count by the Spokane County Engineer's Office at Barker and Misson during the spring of 1981 indicated14,500 trip movements per day north of Mission on Barker and 5.,300 trip movements per day south of Mission on Barker. Mission Avenue west of Barker registered�700 trips per day and Mission Avenue east of Barker registered 900 -trips per day. This traffic is within the current two lane design criteria of Barker and Mission. (13) (Please refer to the Public Services/Ave- rage Daily Traffic Map on the following page.) /Y , Traffic speeds on Barker Road are 'restricted by a school zo south of Mission Avenue and-three \\ * unprotected ?railroad crossings between the freeway and Trent Avenue. l � A � _^ S 7 P 9. -r-a. S r e e x-g4/0� - -I�, 2 -. on ,----03--1---; 45 9 1 1 gerc -A $ a3 1✓ .e, -Sect" URrl••• Drive PINES EXPRESS BUS SATELLITE PARKING Indiana • VALLEY 9 0 MISSION PA K —. i � ... n 111014,1111411111 •U41111111 ....... n... SHERIFF NO.6 SU x Minn Avenue P AN A P:146 S RO FIRE STATION NO I 0 !STRICT STATION u....I. m.n. n........... T PLANTE FERRY PARK Eoelia Avenue MIRABEAU PA M.n (6.•n,.e E EAST SPRAQUE BUS ROUTg N0.9 x f x t l v Sp r.“2”. a.• nui........ . ...nw.u.o•nu.uu...meounn..neuu. mn. 0 ~ POST OFFICE (Opportunity SOURCE - INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING. COMPANY P 0 branch) el.e•le• Av•nu• T Rv•II K ALUMINUM ROLLING MILL t I DST OFFIC /eradale branch) Burlindllan- Northern RR O SPOKANE INDUSTRIAL PARK Euclid Avenue SULLIVAN PARK CENTRAL VALLEY LIONS CLUB RECREATION AREA `FIRE STATION NO.S Central Valley High School • Rich Dalton Euclid m ......nn„n..n .............. I.nn................. m..nl..n.. Greenacres Junior High Shelley School L.b PUBLIC SERVICES / AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC Ave. 8600 .W 2200 N. New 3500 S. Mew Avenue Mnn1 0merY • 4500 N. Now 5300 S. flew Av enu• - Avenue ��2400 S. flow G rE acres Elementary School Garland 00 E W Re3e- 91 7000 00 E. W. Maw I21 f j 7 000 .000E.t4o w lew Sr x 9700 W.24as. 5300 E -14oww Avenue Euclid Avenue SITE r Barker Center A.•nue 90 R FIRE STATION NO, 3 t POST OFFICE (Greif/nacres bronchi Wellesley Avenu• • FIRE STATION . — HARVARD PARK-1+7. NO. 4 2 f 11'2 i x v a -7/ 'IM ILE b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment When completed, the _proposal would he the maior traffic generator for 3024'? the immediate area. The 365 new homesites would generate approximately .2-9_¢.037690 trip movements per davt._primarily on Barker Road. (the shopping center could produce 4.500 additional trip movements per day depending on the size of the center and the nature of the tenants) A neighbor- hood oriented center would tend to produce fewer traffic movements while a community oriented center would increase traffic movements, especially from Otis Orchards. ,CIF The proposal would produce approximately 6 0500 additional trip move- ments on Barker Road, of which 70 percent would be south of Mission Avenue toward the freeway and 30 percent would be north of the project. It is anticipated that the expansion of transit service to the area would reduce traffic generation. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated The anticipated increase in vehicular traffic on Barker Road, especial- ly from the proposed shopping center, is a major potential adverse impact. Such traffic represents an 85 percent increase for traffic south of the site on Barker, increasing_traffic to 9,850 trin_�c nP_day. (This approaches the upper design limitations of a two lane bidirec- tional traffic highway.) A 43 percent increase for traffic north of the site is anticipated, or per day. which 1s still within the design criteria for a two lane bidirectional traffic highway. Note: This EIS addresses only the impact from this specific proposal. Several other proposals within the vicinity are also in various stages of planning and predevelopment. This proposal, in conjunction with others in the area, could significantly affect traffic flow on Barker Road, requiring Cimost)immediate improvements.,.:.... ._to �Y�wa urn 4 To mitigate the traffic impe"ets of the development, especially from the shopping center portion and to provide for the continued development of the general area, Barker Road from the Spokane River south to Inter- state 90 will need to be widened to four lanes in accordance. with Spokane County Roadway Standards. Such standards now include provi- sions for drainage in accordance with "208" Study recommendations, and bicycle paths. The Spokane County Engineer's Office will require that the applicant develop an equitable program for the widening of Barker Road where it lies adjacent to the site, including scheduling, funding, access provisions, and additional right of way. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. re hax:. . ,,. P PArectwaarneti P�-.� - ,..rs cr -• ,I� 3.2 Parking Facilities a. Existing Environmental Conditions The site is in agricultural production with no parking facilities. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The shopping center development, including the mini - storage facility, would require approximately 375 stalls including driveways, creating 7.2 acres of impervious surface areas. The residential portion of the project would have garages and driveways as well as approximately 172 clustered guest parking areas scattered throughout the site. The new parking facilities would be adequate to accommodate the projected uses on the site. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 3.3 Transportation Systems a. Existing Environmental Conditions Transportation systems in the Spokane Valley are vehicular traffic sys- tems including bus service through the recently formed Metropolitan Transit District. Railway and air service terminals are located in the City of Spokane and at Spokane International Airport, respectively. Commercial bus service is provided to the City of Spokane by Greyhound and Empire Bus Lines, with a substation in the Spokane Valley on Argonne Road. Freight services are offered by two railroads serving the East Spokane Area, and numerous truck transport firms. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment Development of the site would create additional opportunities to expand transit service to the area, including possible park and ride facili- ties. The shopping center would require deliveries by truck and service vehicles through established carriers. The proposal, in con - junction with other developments in the area, would advance the need for a four lane road section for Barker Road including, at some future date, an additional bridge across the Spokane River. 48 c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 3.4 Movement /Circulation of People and Goods a. Existing Environmental Conditions Agricultural production from the site is currently hauled to agricul- tural warehouses by truck. This movement is nominal and has minimal impact on traffic movement in the area. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The project would increase the movement of passenger and service vehi- cles in the area as well as bicycling and walking /jogging. Installa- tion of sidewalks along major roadways and arterials and the construc- tion of a bicycle path along Barker Road would provide separation from vehicles. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 3.5 Waterborne, Rail, and Air Transportation (Refer to Section 3.3, Transportation Systems.) 3.6 Traffic Hazards a. Existing Environmental Conditions Traffic hazards in the vicinity consist of the three unprotected rail- way crossings on Barker Road between I -90 and Trent Road. The two 49 lane roadways in the area are sufficient to accommodate traffic safely. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The increase in traffic volumes on Barker Road would increase the po- tential for accidents, especially as traffic levels reach the upper design capacities. The internal roadway design of the project, in- cluding the shopping center, would conform to Spokane County standards. The Spokane County Engineer's Office must also approve vehicular access points from the site onto the adjoining arterials. Bicycle and pedes- trian traffic would also be generated by the project. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated Increased traffic hazards can be mitigated by improving Barker Road to a four lane section complete with a bicycle path sidewalks iTi� r--., , accordance with an equitable improvement program between the applictt""t and Spokane County. Cumulative traffic increases would ultimately require the construction of additional bridges on Barker Road over II 90 and the need to protect railroad grade crossings. d 1�� •, d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 4. PUBLIC SERVICES 4.1 Fire a. Existing Environmental Conditions There are no structures currently on the proposed site. The primary fire potential is from stubble and grass fires. The project is within the boundaries of Spokane Valley Fire District No. 1. Station No. 3 at East 19205 Appleway (Appleway and Michigan) serves the area with one pumper. Estimated response time to the site is two minutes. (Please refer to the Public Services /Average Daily Traffic Map.) b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The proposal would increase both the amount of property and the number of people potentially requiring fire protection. No additional sta- tions would be required as a result of the development of this site, 50 or surrounding vicinity; however, such development would undoubtedly increase the number of service calls to the area. The development would have convenient access through street design as well as adequate mains and hydrants for fire protection. The shopping center would be constructed in accordance with applicable building and fire codes. The manufactured housing to be installed on the site would be of new or recent construction complying with national fire codes developed espe- cially for manufactured housing. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 4.2 Police a. Existing Environmental Conditions Law enforcement services for the area are provided by the Spokane County Sheriff's Office. The site is within Patrol District No. 4 with a normal response time of three to five minutes, depending on the position of the patrol car and the seriousness of the emergency. (This normal response time could increase somewhat during patrol changeovers, which occur three times per day.) The Washington State Patrol provides backup traffic assistance for the Sheriff's Office. (14) b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The proposal will increase both the amount of property and the number of people potentially requiring protection by the Spokane County Sheriff's Department -- especially Patrol District No. 4. The proposal will also generate additional amounts of traffic near the site. Ade- quate street and security lighting would be incorporated into the design to increase traffic safety and security. The new 911 emergency telephone system would also assist evaluation of situations with appropriate responses to emergencies. The density of the project, in conjunction with increased tax revenues, would partially offset some of the additional costs related to law enforcement. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. 51 d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 4.3 Schools a. Existing Environmental Conditions The proposed site is located within the Central Valley School District adjacent to the East Valley School District. The former Greenacres Elementary School site on the southeast corner of Barker and Mission adjoining the project site (now called Barker Center) currently is used strictly as an administration center. (15) This site is currently too small to meet state guidelines for an elementary school. Area students attend the new Greenacres Elementary School at 4th and Long which has a current enrollment of 635 students with a capacity of 662 students by state guidelines, the Greenacres Junior High School at Sprague and Appleway with a current enrollment of 610 students and a capacity of 780 students, and Central Valley High School at 8th and Sullivan which has 1,271 students in a facility with capacity' of 1,161. (16) b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The project, when fully developed, would generate approximately 200 additional school age children. Because it is projected that residents of the manufactured home subdivision would generally be either younger families or senior citizens, most of the students anticipated would be of elementary school or kindergarten age. In very recent years, Central Valley School District had a net reduction in students, especially in the elementary schools. This has reduced total state supported funding for the District. e. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 4.4 Parks and Other Recreational Facilities a. Existing Environmental Conditions 52 b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment 4.5 Maintenance Public recreation facilities in the area include Sullivan Park, a 10.2 acre picnic and recreation area at Sullivan Road north of the Spokane River and Harvard Park, a 2.0 acre undeveloped facility at Harvard Road and the Spokane River. These facilities, as well as a regional park at the south end of Liberty Lake, are maintained by the Spokane County Parks and Recreation Department. The Department has experienced severe budget cuts effectively reducing the summer recreation program and placing the future of some acquired undeveloped park sites in jeopardy. (17) (Please refer to the Public Services /Average Daily Traffic Map.) The Walk in the Wild Zoo lies south of the Spokane River, east of Pines Road and requires public support for continued growth and operation. The Riverway Villa project would have approximately 38.6 acres in common area open space, or approximately 44.4 percent of the project area. Projected recreation facilities include indoor recreation facilities, a swimming pool, tennis courts, volleyball courts, picnic sites, trails, and other recreation facilities. These facilities would provide most of the neighborhood -type recreation needs of the project. In addition, a natural area along the Spokane River would be retained for more pas- sive activities. The project would not satisfy certain community recrea- tional needs for baseball diamonds, soccer fields, passive open space, summer programs and large picnic areas normally provided by the Spokane County Parks and Recreation Department. Such community facilities may be reduced because of budget cutbacks in the Parks and Recreation Department. The project would place additional demands on these type of facilities. (18) The planned passive open space and the natural area along the Spokane River would allow residents some area for recreation, lessening the demand on existing park facilities, created by the increase in popula- tion. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The proposed project would increase the use of existing community park facilities, which is unavoidable. a. Existing Environmental Conditions 53 The proposed site is currently in agricultural production with limited demands on public facilities. Maintenance of adjoining streets is provided by the Spokane County Engineer's Office. The water system, including provision for irrigation water to the project site is main- tained by Consolidated Irrigation District. Other perimeter services include natural gas and electricity by Washington Water Power Co. and telephone by Pacific Northwest Bell. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The proposal would create an additional road system of approximately 3 -1/2 miles as well as requiring the upgrading of Barker Road and Mission Avenue to appropriate standards. Spokane County would be responsible for the maintenance of these road systems, along with sig- nalization if required. The community water systems would be maintained by Consolidated Irri- gation District. The maintenance and operation of the sewage treatment facilities would be required of the project sponsors, who would enter into appropriate agreements with the Spokane County Utilities Depart- ment. Maintenance of other on -site utility systems would be the responsibility of Washington Water Power Co. (electricity and natural gas) and Pacific Northwest Bell (telephone). The maintenance costs for the utility facilities would be paid through user fees. Stormwater systems within the public rights of way would be maintained by the Spokane County Engineer's Office, while on -site drainage systems would be maintained by the property owners or a maintenance associa- tion. On -site recreation facilities would be maintained by the property . owners through a maintenance association. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 4.6 Other Governmental Agencies a. Existing Environmental Conditions No governmental services are presently received on the project site. 54 b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The proposal would create additional needs for postal service as well as additional demands for local and state social and health services, and other governmental services commonly available to communities. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 5.1 Amount Required 5. ENERGY a. Existing Environmental Conditions Current energy use on the project is minimal. Farming activities use diesel and gasoline for cultivation and harvesting, as well as electricity for the delivery of irrigation water. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The proposed project would increase energy consumption on -site, although it would not represent a significant increase on the regional scale. Because of emerging local energy policies for electricity conservation and use of natural gas for space heating, the following energy uses are anticipated: Natural Gas for Space Heating: Manufactured Homes 47,375 sq.ft. x 2.0 therms /yr = 94,750 therms /year Electricity for Lighting, Security, Appliances: Manufactured Homes 24,640 kwh /home /year x 365 = 8,993,600 kwh /year Commercial Facilities 55 1,600 therms /yr x 365 = 584,000 therms /year Manufactured housing is constructed in compliance with a national stan- dard for insulation and energy efficiency. Manufactured homes are usu- ally somewhat smaller and have lower ceilings than standard construc- tion homes, which results in additional energy savings. The avail- ability of natural gas within the project would help reduce additional electrical demands. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The increased use of energy for transportation, lighting, and space heating is unavoidable. 5.2 Source Availability Totals Electrical Approximately 10.5 million kwh /year Natural Gas Approximately 680,000 therms /year a. Existing Conditions Commercial Facilities 47,375 sq.ft. x 30 kwh /yr = 1,421,250 kwh /year Washington Water Power Company provides electrical and natural gas service to the perimeter of the site. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment Electrical and natural gas service could be extended to the residential portion of the site, although extension to the commercial portion of the site would depend on availability of supplies. Advocated rate schedules would encourage the use of natural gas for space heating. Note: The use of solar energy systems is rapidly increasing, making direct access to sunlight vital. Placement of units on lots, revised yard requirements and restrictions or covenants relating to solar access easements should be considered. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 56 6.1 Energy N /A. Refer to Section II, 5. Energy. 6.2 Communications 6. UTILITIES a. Existing Environmental Conditions Pacific Northwest Bell provides telephone service to the area. Postal service, telegraph, teletype, radio and television communications are also available to area residents. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment Telephone service would require extension to each lot. The exchange in the area is sufficient to handle the increased demand for service. (19) Individual postal boxes or a community postal station would need to be installed in accordance with Postal Service guidelines. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 6.3 Water (Refer to Section I, 3.9 Public Water Supplies) a. Existing Environmental Conditions A pump house and storage facility is located south of the project on Mission Avenue with transmission mains installed in Mission Avenue. Mains extend along Barker Road and within the project area (for irri- gation). The project is within the service area of Consolidated Irri- gation District, which has ample capacity to serve agricultural, resi- dential and commercial projects in the area. (20) b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The proposal would require relocation of mains currently installed to serve the agricultural portion of the project. Adequate mains in- cluding fire hydrants would need to be extended throughout the street system of the project and perhaps into the open space /recreation areas. The cost of new water facilities would be paid in the development cost and through user fees. 57 16 21 r 4�'Gas ETA{ SITE UTI LITI ES LEGEND —W— Water Main —G— Gas Main —ET— Electric / Telephone (overhead) G 0 Zs 1 1 E 2 "Gas J • • a 212Water ET Consolidated Irrigation District Washington Water Power Co. Washington Water Power Co. Pacific Northwest Bel. sPOK' • G � 5‘e Qr o\e Mission Avenue 0' 100' 200' 400' WO IMP 50' 150' 300' 600' 800' INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING COMPANY 58 ET J 0 North c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 6.4 Sewer a. Existing Environmental Conditions 6.5 Storm Water The project site is in agricultural production with no sanitary sewer facilities installed. Surrounding homes in the area use septic tank and drainfield systems for sewage disposal. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment An interim sewerage system would need to be installed to serve the proposed project (refer to appendix). The Wastewater Collection /Treat- ment Engineering Analysis indicates that approximately 110,000 gallons of sewage would be generated by the project on a daily basis. The southern half of the proposed project is in a Priority Sewer Service Area (PSSA), and the northern half is outside; but the entire site would be considered as lying within the PSSA. (21) Sewer service is planned to be extended to this area in the foreseeable future. There- fore the design of the system will allow connection to this future public system line. The developer has submitted an interim plan to the Spokane County Utilities Department for compatible design of the system and interim operation of the facility. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts An interim sewage treatment facility would need to be operated until such time as interceptor lines are installed in the area to handle the sewage at a regional plant. Please reference Section 3.2 Runoff /Absorption. 59 6.6 Solid Waste a. Existing Environmental Conditions The subject property is in agricultural production with no solid waste disposal needs. Valley Garbage Service supplies pick -up service to the surrounding area on a daily or weekly basis, depending on individual demand. Refuse is disposed at the Mica Landfill which currently accepts about 1,500 cubic yards (200 tons) per day. According to the Spokane County Health Dis- trict, the life expectancy of this landfill is ten years. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment The project, when completed, is expected to generate approximately 2 -1/2 tons of solid waste per day (based on 5.5 pounds per day per person). It is anticipated that the solid waste would be collected by the Valley Garbage Service and disposed of at the Mica Landfill. The additional waste generated by the proposal would increase the tonnage hauled to the landfill by one percent. Recycling certain materials such as aluminum, glass, and paper would reduce solid waste material. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 7. HUMAN HEALTH (INCLUDING MENTAL HEALTH) N/A 8. AESTHETICS N/A 9. RECREATION Refer to Section II., 4.4 Parks and Other Recreational Facilities. 60 10. ARCHAEOLOGICAL /HISTORICAL a. Existing Environmental Conditions Although the site enjoys.proximity to the Spokane River, it is not within a designated archaeologically sensitive area. Agricultural • production on the site has removed surface traces, if any, of archaeo- logically significant features. No structures exist on the site except for the apparent ruins of a former agricultural warehouse at the north- west corner of the property. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment That portion of the project adjoining the Spokane River would remain as undeveloped open space. During the construction phases of the proposal, activities could possibly uncover or disrupt items of historical or archaeological significance. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated Spokane County would condition the proposal to insure that the proper government officials are notified if items of potential archaeological or historical interest'are discovered. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Construction activities could possibly destroy items of archaeological or historical importance. 11. ADDITIONAL POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS N/A 12. ECONOMICS a. Existing Environmental Conditions The current assessed value of the agricultural land is $2,000 per acre for a total value of $236,000. (Current Assessor's parcels include land and improvements outside of project area.) Taxes generated by the agricultural ownership would be $3, 532.45, assuming,a 20.792 mill tax rate. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment When completed, the project would contain 365 manufactured homes and a ten acre commercial center. The value of the improvements would be 61 approximately $20,000,000 with property tax revenues of approximately $299,360 per year. State sales tax generated by the commercial center would be approxi- mately $200,000 per year. c. Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated None. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 13. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT a. Existing Environmental Conditions A portion of the north 200 feet of the proposed property is within the Pastoral classification of the Shoreline Management Act. The area is generally retained as grassland and riverbank along the Spokane River, although a portion of the agricultural ground encroaches upon the 200 foot setback line near the northwest corner of the ownership. b. The Impact of the Proposal on the Environment Limited development would occur within the prescribed 200 foot setback area defined in the Shoreline Management Act. To enhance and preserve the natural area along the river, jogging trails, exercise stations, picnic areas and outdoor shelters may be installed within the area. A Substantial Development Permit will be needed. All such enhancements should comply with a program to be developed with the applicant and Spokane County for the natural area. (Refer to Section I. 4. Flora and 5. Fauna.) c. Adverse Environmental Impacts. Which May Be Mitigated The creation of trails, picnic areas, exercise stations, and outdoor shelters would tend to confine humans and pets to developed areas, minimizing the disruption of flora and wildlife habitat. d. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts None. 14. OPEN SPACE LAND CLASSIFICATION N/A 62 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT -TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG -TERM PRODUCTIVITY The proposed site is vacant and appears to provide limited potential for agri- cultural production. The site functions as open space and a secondary wildlife habitat, especially along the Spokane River. The site is zoned Agricultural, and lies within an area designated by the Comprehensive Plan Map as suitable for urban uses. It is adjacent to Barker Road, a major arterial and is vir- tually surrounded by established residential areas. The proposal is compatible with the majority of the applicable goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan of Spokane County, the Shorelines Management Act, and the Wastewater Management Plan. The site is situated within an area which has provided much of the growth of the metropolitan area during the last 10 years, and may be considered as appropriate for urban development. Because most of the adjoining ownerships have been developed, pressures to develop this site will continue even if this specific proposal is disapproved. Development of the site will pre -empt open space, wildlife habitat and agricultural options. Development, although it will impact the proposed site, will conform to the development needs and trends of the surrounding area. The proposal will impact, somewhat, the shorelines of the Spokane River -- primarily through the potential of increased human activity in this area. How- ever, a buffer strip of retained natural vegetation will provide additional protection for the shoreline. 63 IRREVERSIBLE AND /OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES The proposed site is currently vacant and possesses no known significant re- sources. Most of the site contains agriculture class III soils which, although classified as "Prime ", have a medium productivity even with irrigation. The site overlies sand and gravel deposits of unknown quality, and current policies restrict the depth of excavation due to the "sole source" designation of the aquifer which flows through these deposits. The proposal will irreversibly commit resources -- primarily energy and con- struction materials. Energy in the form of electricity, natural gas, and other fossil fuels will be consumed during the construction and operational phases of the proposal -- an irretrievable commitment for vehicles, space heating, air conditioning, etc. The commitment of some, but not all, of the construction materials 1s irre- trievable. 64 There are three reasonable major alternatives to the proposed project: (1) No Action; (2) Alternate Location; and (3) Reduction or Elimination of Commercial Area. 1. No Action If the proposal is not developed, the site will remain vacant for the present- - functioning as open space and secondary wildlife habitat and providing some agricultural production. If the site remains under private ownership, it ap- pears likely that the limited agricultural productivity of the site, in con- junction with economic pressures to utilize the site, would result in some form of development. It is unlikely that a public or non - profit agency or organiza- tion would elect to purchase the site. Under the present agricultural zoning, a variety of uses are permitted: various forms of . agricultural production, single- family dwellings, churches, schools, libraries, sanitariums, processing and packing plants, feed mills, etc. Numerous other uses could be permitted within a conditional use permit; such as a gun club, auto - wrecking yard and a race track. The range of poten- tial impacts would vary considerably under this existing zoning, dependent upon the specific use. The most likely, eventual, use of the site would appear to be some form of residential development; considering adjacent land uses, the comprehensive plan, the wastewater management plan and the proximity of the project to transpor- tation systems, urban services, and employment opportunities. The range of potential impacts would also vary considerably with specific types of uses and densities in future residential projects. The "No- Action" alternative appears to be functional for the short -term, but as long as the proposed site remains under private ownership, the demand for the locational advantages offered by the site and economic necessity will probably result in some form of residential development -- perhaps at a much higher density than the current proposal. 2. Alternate Location ALTERNATIVES The selection of a potential site for a manufactured home project of this nature requires the consideration of numerous factors such as: proximity to services and employment, availability of utilities, transportation, and commu- nity facilities such as medical care, shopping, churches, schools, etc., and compatibility with the comprehensive plan and adjoining land use activities. Such requirements limit the range of potential sites and must be considered in the search for suitable alternative sites. Potential locations west of Spokane appear to have insufficient water, are not within a PSSA, and lack community facilities to adequately accommodate a manu- 65 factured housing development of this scale. Airport operations and overlay zones preclude residential development options for many areas. Potential locations south of Spokane lack available sewer systems. Residents have demonstrated severe community opposition to the establishment of manu- factured housing in their area. Potential locations north of Spokane lack available sewer systems and do not have a freeway system offering convenient and safe transportation to downtown Spokane. Available sites near the city limits are in non - amenity areas ad- joining existing or proposed industrial or manufacturing facilities. Few undeveloped parcels of sufficient size to accommodate a manufactured home development exist between the project site and the City of Spokane. Alterna- tive Spokane Valley sites lie east of the proposal further removed from the City of Spokane and community services. Rural locations are generally unsuit- able for such a manufactured housing project. The most practical alternative locations lie in the vicinity of Barker Road north of the Spokane River, and Barker Road south of Sprague Avenue, presuming that sufficient land were available for purchase. Unfortunately, the sites north of the Spokane River do not lie within the Priority Sewer Service Area and the sites south of Sprague Avenue are at the edge of the Spokane aquifer which, according to the "208" Study, is more sensitive to on -site disposal of effluent from drainfield systems. The subject property enjoys proximity to the freeway system, the amenity value of the Spokane River, and conforms to the comprehensive plan and neighborhood development patterns. 3. Reduction or Elimination of Commercial Area A ten acre commercial center including mini- storage facilities is planned for the southwest corner of the site at Barker Road and Mission Avenue. Although detailed plans of the project have not been developed (and usually cannot be fully developed until specific tenant needs are identified), the preliminary plan suggests approximately 45,000 sq.ft. of retail space accommodating a supermarket, a drug store, a hardware store, and perhaps other commercial uses. The following considerations generally dictate the location and size of poten- tial neighborhood shopping center sites: (1) Does the size and location of the shopping center conform to the map or text portion of the comprehensive plan? (2) Is the project compatible with existing or proposed land use acti- vities in the surrounding area? (3) How large is the service area of the proposed center relative to neighborhood or community needs? 66 The map portion of the comprehensive plan does not indicate that the proposed site is appropriate for commercial development; however, the map portion of the comprehensive plan attempts to address general commercial areas and major shopping centers rather than neighborhood centers. The text portion of the comprehensive plan indicates that the urban category can accommodate neighbor- hood and perhaps community commercial centers which serve the urban area. In accordance with the neighborhood and community design concept, the services offered should be neighborhood (usually a supermarket or convenience store which serves residents within the immediate area) or community oriented (may include a drug store, hardware store, service station, barber, etc. which generally serves residents within one mile of the center). Existing community shopping facilities are offered at.Greenacres Road and Appleway approximately one mile south. Additional commercial services are available at Sprague and Sullivan with regional shopping centers proposed at the Sullivan Road inter- change of Interstate 90 approximately two miles west. Few shopping facilities exist north of the project in the Otis Orchards area or east of the project in the Liberty Lake area. The proposed shopping center site adjoins an established single family neighbor- hood to the west and a potential (if more area is acquired) elementary school site to the south. A small restaurant has remained in business on the southwest corner of Mission and Barker. Although landscaping, proper signing and lighting, and building location can mitigate much of the impact of a community shopping center on an established residential neighborhood, owners of adjoining residences will be inconvenienced by increased activity in the area. Although the proposed shopping center would occupy less than 10 percent of the project area it would generate more than 50 percent of the traffic. Because of limited shopping facilities currently existing in the immediate area and the high number of retired persons living in existing manufactured housing projects to the north and east, a properly sized shopping center may actually reduce the number of traffic movements from the community to more remote shopping loca- tions. The shopping center site would benefit a community bounded by the freeway to the south, Flora Road to the west, Euclid Road to the north, and Campbell Road to the east if properly designed to serve such an area. If the center is too large, it will attract customers and traffic from the Otis Orchards community where shopping facilities are currently limited and may actually postpone the development of appropriate community shopping facilities for that area. Reduction or elimination of shopping center site would allow the 10 acre site to be utilized for continued manufactured home development (approximately 34 units) or multiple family development (100 to 200 units). 67 CITATIONS 1. U. S. Department of the Interior. U.S. Geological Survey. Recon- naissance Geologic Map of the West Half of the Spokane Quadrangle, Washington and Idaho, 1966, Map I -464 by Allan B. Griggs. 2. U. S. Department of the Interior. U. S. Geological Survey. Geologic Map of the Greenacres Quadrangle, Washington and Idaho, 1968, Maps GQ -734 by P. L. Weiss. 3. U. S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey Spokane County, Washington. Washington, D. C.; U. S. Government Printing Office, 1967. 4. Edgar, Ronald J. Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority. Inter- view, September 1981. 5. Drost, B. W. and Seitz, H. R. Spokane Valley - Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer- - Washington and Idaho. U. S. Geological Survey; Open File Report 72 -829. Tacoma, Washington, 1978. 6. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Metropolitan Spokane Regional Water Resource Study. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers; Seattle, Washington, 1976. 7. Spokane County, Washington "208" Program. Spokane Engineer's Office. April, 1979. 8. Ibid. 9. Spokane County Planning Department. Unique Environmental and Cultural Features Report, Suitability Phase for Update of Spokane County Compre- hensive Plan. April, 1978. 10. Dobratz, William R.. Spokane County Engineers, Memo, November 24, 1981. 11. Spokane County Planning Department. Spokane County Shoreline Program. June, 1979. 12. Brugerman, Robert F. Spokane County Engineers. Interview, October, 1981. 13. Ibid. 14. Treefry, Sgt. Spokane County Sheriff's Department. Interview, November 1981. 15. Harper, Mrs. Central Valley School District. Interview, October, 1981. 16. Jackman, Dave. Central Valley School District. Interview, October, 1981. 17. Angove, Sam. Spokane County Parks Department. Interview, October, 1981. 68 18. Ibid. 19. Service Representatives. Pacific Northwest Bell. Interviews, October, 1981. 20. Trull, James. Consolidated Irrigation District. Interview, October, 1981. 21. Dobratz, William R., op. cit. 22. Spokane County Planning Department. Spokane County Shoreline Program, June, 1979. 69 APPENDIX "A" LIST OF ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT The following is a list of those elements of the environment which may be required to.be addressed as per WAC 197 -10 -444. The elements noted as "N /A" (not applicable) have been deemed as areas the proposed action will not signif- icantly affect, and are not addressed in the Impact Analysis. Those elements noted with "x" have been deemed as areas less significantly affected; those designated "xx" are deemed to be significantly affected by the proposed action. The Impact Analysis is a detailed discussion of each category and addresses the following: (a) Existing Environmental Conditions; (b) The Impact of the Pro - Proposal on the Environment; (c) Adverse Environmental Impacts Which May Be Mitigated; and (d) Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. I. ELEMENTS OF THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 1. EARTH x 1.1.' Geology 1.2 Soils x 1.3 Topography N/A 1.4 Unique physical features x 1.5 Erosion N/A 1.6 Accretion /avulsion 2. AIR xx 2.1 Air quality N/A 2.2 Odor N/A 2.3 Climate LIST OF ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT A -1 3. WATER x 3.1 Surface water movement (if subject property abuts river) xx 3.2 Runoff /absorption x 3.3 Floods N/A 3.4 Surface water quantity x 3.5 Surface water quality x 3.6 Ground water movement x 3.7 Ground water quantity xx 3.8 Ground water quality x 3.9 Public water supplies 4. FLORA x 4.1 Numbers or diversity of species N/A 4.2 Unique species N/A 4.3 Barriers and /or corridors x 4.4 Agricultural crops 5. FAUNA x 5.1 Numbers or diversity of species N/A 5.2 Unique species N/A 5.3 Barriers and /or corridors x 5.4 Fish or wildlife habitat x 6. NOISE x 7. LIGHT AND GLARE xx 8. LAND USE 9. NATURAL RESOURCES N/A 9.1 Rate of use x 9.2 Nonrenewable resources (limit to agricultural lands) x 10. RISK OF EXPLOSION OR HAZARDOUS EMISSIONS II. ELEMENTS OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT x 1. POPULATION x 2. HOUSING 3. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION xx 3.1 Vehicular transportation generated x 3.2 Parking facilities xx 3.2 Transportation systems xx 3.4 Movement /circulation of people or goods x 3.5 Waterborne, rail and air traffic x 3.6 Traffic hazards 4. PUBLIC SERVICES 4.1 Fire x 4.2 Police x 4.3 Schools x 4.4 Parks or other recreational facilities x 4.5 Maintenance x 4.6 Other governmental services 5. ENERGY x 5.1 Amount required x 5.2 Source /availability 6. UTILITIES N/A 6.1 Energy (refer to 5. Energy) x 6.2 Communications x 6.3 Water xx 6.4 Sewer xx 6.5 Storm water x 6.6 Solid waste A -2 N/A 7. HUMAN HEALTH (including mental health) N/A 8. AESTHETICS x 9. RECREATION • 10. ARCHAEOLOGICAL /HISTORICAL N/A 11. ADDITIONAL POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS • 12. ECONOMIC IMPACT • 13. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT N/A 14. OPEN SPACE LAND CLASSIFICATION A -3 APPENDIX "B" LEGAL DESCRIPTION 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1EGAL DGSCRI?fI0e1 A portion of land South of the Spokane River in the West half of Section 3 T254 R45EM, , in Spokane County, State of Washington being more particularly described as follows. Beginning at a point 20 feet North of the Southwest corner of said Section 8 and 30 feet East of the West line of said Section, thence North 939.33 feet, thence East 370.00 feet, thence North 650,00 feet, - thence /rest 210,00 feet, thence North 100 feet, thence East'40 feet, thence North 100 feet, thence West 200.00 feet, thence North 383.62 feet, thence East 300 feet, thence North 81 °16' East 990.50 feet, thence North 63 East 685.80 feet, thence North 55'52' East 772.64 feet, thence South 00'56 East 1784.50 feet, thence North 89'25 West 648.41 feet, thence South 00 ° 42'44" East 1303.43 feet, thence North 89'21 West 1931.50 feet to the point of beginning. B -1 EUGENE H. WELBORN PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR E. 7011 SECOND AVE. SPOKANE, WASH. 99206 APPENDIX "C" WASTEWATER COLLECTION /TREATMENT ENGINEERING ANALYSIS WASTEWATER COLLECTION /TREATMENT ENGINEERING ANALYSIS FOR ' RIVERWAY VILLA A MODULAR HOME SUBDIVISION NOVEMBER; 1981 b, m e GIS1E P � C i eS Sfo$AI f ' 0 CENTURY WEST ENGINEERING CORPORATION N. 1010 Washington - Suite A Spokane, WA 99201 Phone (509) 326 -4227 C -1 Job #3082.O01.A1 CENTUR Pil EST ENCjINEERINC� conpoRAT November 5, 1981 Spokane County Planning Department N. 701 Jefferson Street Spokane, Washington 99201 ATTENTION: Mr. John Nunnery Re: Wastewater Collection (Treatment Engineering Analysis) Riverway Villa Dear Mr. Nunnery: This report superscedes my letter to you dated June. 15, 1981, describing various alternatives for management of wastewater generated by the above noted proposed subdivision. The purpose of this report is to assure that various alternatives for wastewater collection and treatment have been duly considered and the most appropriate method is selected. I. BACKGROUND The proposed subdivision, Riverway Villa, is a portion of the 118 acres under one ownership, is located in the Spokane valley bordered on the south by Mission Avenue, the west by Barker Road and the north by the Spokane River. More particularly, the parcel is located in the W; of Section 8, Range 45 East, Township 25 North, of the Willammete Meridan. The site is quite flat with a slight downward slope toward the northwest (Barker Road and the Spokane River). There is approximately 18 feet fall from the southeast corner of the property to the northwest corner (excluding the bank of the Spokane River) for a lineal distance of 2,500 feet, the average grade along this line is 0.7 percent. The soils in the area are glaciofluvial sands and gravels underlain with pretertiary basement rock. The Glaciofluvial Formation is typically overlain in this area with loessial silts. The area is fairly well drained and is presently partially under cultivation. The entire area is suitable for subsurface leaching of wastewater effluent. It may be generally classified under soil type 2 under the D.S.H.S. Design and Management Guidelines for larger on -site sewage systems. C -2 PLANNERS • ENGINEERS • ECONOMISTS • SCIENTISTS North 1010 Washington • Spokane, Washington 99201 • Phone (509) 326 -4227 1 Page Two The subdivision consists of 317 lots with a provision for an additional 46 lots in an area initially designated for wastewater disposal. There is a 10 acre commercial area as a part of this subdivision. Based upon a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D:) design, the average size of a residential lot is 5,744 square feet. As a P.U.D., the site can be creatively developed, ooptimizing open space utilization and allowing for positive circulation within the site. There is presently no public sewage system in the area of this proposed subdivision. Although the Spokane 201 wastewater facilities plan has generally included this area to be sewered in the future, it was not so designated as a priority sewer service area. It has been the recommenda- tion of the staff of Spokane County Utilities Department that this project be included within the boundary of a priority sewer service area. The 201 study has not been adopted at the time of this writing. The Spokane Aquifer Water Quality Management Plan (208 study) included this area for priority designation for sewers. It is hopeful that the PSSA Boundary will be moved to the Spokane. River in the vicinity of Riverway Villa. II. NATURE OF DEVELOPMENT" The proposed planned unit development is directed toward young families and retired couples. With 317 lots over an area of 108 acres, the over- all density is 2.94 lots /acre. With 38.12 acres of open space, approxi- mately 14.6 acres has been reserved for an on -site wastewater treatment and disposal... The attached drawing shows the proposed layout with the recommended wastewater management. alternative. The 10 acre commercial area is expected to accommodate a grocery super- market, department /hardware store, pharmacy, office space and a separate area will be dedicated to mini warehouses. Although the wasteload generated from the commercial area is expected to be quite low, we have allocated 20 residential equivalents which is more that adequate for the type of development expected. III. DESIGN CRITERIA Number of resident lots = 317 Number of people 159 lots @ = 3.5 158 lots @ = 2.0 Wastewater flow per lot GPD = 325 BOD5 ( #PCPD) = 0.20 Suspended Solids ( #PCPD) = 0.21 C -3 Page Three IV. ALTERNATIVES TO BE CONSIDERED It is desired to provide an interim wastewater system which can be most easily connected to future trunk lines when they are constructed. The system should be functional, provide suitable treatment of the wastewater generated in this development and not cause a pollution nor nuisance. The alternative methods of wastewater management are therefore as follows: o Alternative o Alternative B: o Alternative C: o Alternative D: A: On -site septic tanks and individual drainfields with dry sewer lines installed. Individual septic tanks, conventional lines and community drainfields. gravity sewer Conventional gravity sewer lines with community septic . tanks and drainfields.. Conventional gravity sewer lines with community plant and drainfields: V. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 1. Alternative A On Site Septic Tanks and Drainfields This alternative utilizes one standard 1,000 gallon septic-tank and a drainfield for each lot. The 208 Study and the Department of Social and Health Services requires that the drainfield be designed 50 percent larger than for a normal drainfield for installation over the Spokane Aquifer. It is the policy of the Spokane County to require that dry gravity sewer lines also be constructed so that they can be easily put into service when a central sewer system becomes available. The dry sewer lines are to be designed and constructed as are conventional municipal sewage collection lines in accordance with the design stardards set forth by the Washington State Department of Ecology. The minimum sewer main size is to be 8 -inch pipe constructed at a minimal slope of 0.4 percent with manholes approximately every 400 feet or at direction changes in the main. 2. Alternative B Individual Septic Tanks, Conventional Gravity Sewers and Community Drainfields. This alternative uses one standard 1,000 gallon septic tank at each residential dwelling unity. Instead of having on -site drainfield, the septic tank effluent is discharged to a conventional gravity sewer system. Community drainfields at strategic points provide for the disposal of effluent. At a time when a central sewer system becomes available, the individual septic tanks and community drainfields can be removed and the system converted to a conventional raw wastewater gravity system. C -4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t Page Four Although this alternative shows some economic benefit to the developer, there are some inherent problems of importance. A septic tank does not treat the wastewater, it simply liquifies the waste. Using anaerobic micro- organisms (those which do not require oxygen for metabolism) the solids are converted to a liquid form. Denitrification occurs in a septic tank, i.e., complex nitrogen forms such as amino acids and pro- tein are converted into less complex forms such as nitrites, nitrates, ammonia and elemental nitrogen. One part of this biological cycle is putrifaction or the breaking down of protein material. Although this is an important part of the septic tank system, it is where strong and obnoxious odors are produced. An individual septic tank system is designed such that these obnoxious gasses can be vented to the atmosphere through the household plumbing vents. Since these vents are at rooftop level, the gasses dissipate quickly and odors are generally not noticed. , In the scheme of this alternative, the gravity sewer becomes a part of the septic tank. Anaerobic biological activity continues along the sewer lines, producing obnoxious odors throughout the system. In addi- tion to producing obnoxious odors these gasses are explosive. Under certain conditions a spark could cause a major explosion which could tear up the entire sewer line and the streets above them. Conventional gravity sewer construction requires a minimum of 8 -inch sewer pipe with manholes every 400 feet or where the sewer line changes direction. Manhole covers generally have 3 to 7 holes in them to allow for ventilation of the sewers. It is obvious that to introduce an anaerobic wastestream in such a conveyance would distribute noisome odors throughout the development, creating numerous opportunities for illness caused by the odors or explosion of the sewer system. Based upon the foregoing rationale, this alternative will not be con- sidered further. 3. Alternative C - Community Septic Tanks and Drainfields This alternative incorporates a conventional active raw wastewater collection system which causes the wastewater to flow by gravity to one or more centralized community septic tanks and drainfields. The Washington State Department of Social and Health Services have pre- pared specific design and management guidelines for larger on -site systems. Those guidelines have been incorporated in this alternative evaluation. "The Manual of Septic Tank Practices" prepared by the U.S. Public Health Service is also used as a reference. C -5 Page Five a. Septic Tanks The community septic tanks would be designed as follows: Daily flow Residential: 317 lots @ 325 gal /day Community: 20 residential equivalents @ 325 gal /day b. Drainfields Total daily flow = 109,525 gals. Community septic tanks must be designated to contain 36 hours or 1.5 of daily volume. In this case the total tankage required would be 164,288 gallons. To assure ease in maintenance and operation, it is proposed to use 6 septic tanks of 27,381 gallons each (3660 cubic feet). Three tanks would be in a module at each of two sites using common walls to reduce construction cost. A proposed sketch of a three tank model is show in Figure 2. Each tank would have compartments. The first compartment twice as large as the second. There is to be a suitable number of manholes for each cell and an inspection port at the inlet and outlet of each compartment for clearing any occlusions which may block flow. A dosing chamber is to be constructed to allowing the drainfield to be dosed four times per day. The volume of the dosing tank is as follows: V D.T. = 109,525 gals. = 13,690 gallons /site 4 (2 sites) In order to prevent the discharge of odors while pumping or inspecting the septic tank, a positive - ventilated blower system is to be designed and constructed. Gasses from the septic tanks will be routed into a special drainfield to dissipate those gasses into the soils. Although there are no design standards for such special purpose drainfields, it is my personal experience that a single methane /sulfide gas drainfield should incorporate approximately 100 linear feet of laterals per site. This drainfield should be separate from the wastewater leaching area. Dosing will be accomplished by pumping to specfic distribution boxes within the drainfield as dictated by the disposal management plan dis- cussed later. The drainfield design is also dictated by the D.S.H.S. guidelines. Those guidelines require the following: = 103,025 6,500 o Drainfield to be divided into two 50% areas. o A third 50% drainfield area to be also constructed. o An additional 50% reserve area be set aside in a contiguous area. o Lateral lines not to exceed 100 feet in length. C -6 DI ESIGN BY 1_v K. CHECKED BY LC) IR IRLAM 1 t at. r's`h MoDUuE A . C ENTURY . 1 EST Ei ICICiEERi.`tC� .0.1n•/••• SURVEY BY SCALE N -rs DATE ^� i 8% (DRAWN BY "fi DWG. NO. TZlV B2--N.)Ay. VIL.1,A ll .Spokan e.. .i e../ , Val t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 "301 . Aa5LlM 8" rANK WALLS, ro AV. -12 EsorTrvvs Z. ALA, 2Irr16.1 10∎V.s " ".10/TI INh L. N)y}1 DESIGN BY 1 -D 1c. CHECKED BY 7 R�%N FIE-L-0 L.A../CUT APPROVED C EN TURY / �I •4 EST ENC�;`IE INC SURVEY BY SCALE 2 4 \5 ol „,, � DATE ��1 ell (DRA BY K DWG. NO. IL-.� RVVEIZIV.sy VL - J pok -anc. VAOlc. Viet r - F iiii1u illiti nuuu mn111111111111 W iL. y' . a IL - F IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIlIIIIII1111111111111 IL n 111111111111111111111111111111111111111 m • 1111I11111111IML • 3 1 100' 100' 1'0 "`' 111111111111111111111111 lllll 1111111111 • T151T LINES DEC' . G . 50% (loofa jholun) pl7 ca.' 50% EBE-9 ' ,' 50 % Ro Ll In= III=111I II c111 3111 3 1I1 �IISII II ll l U4 ILDED I is 3/45 = • del G. !tO 11 A 111 111 =-III 5111 111111 - ill III Ill UN 7 3O% L- 7 iv 1 • 111 F- le. 'S N 74 31 C -8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Page Six Allowable drainfield depth. 18 to 36 inches from ground surface to trench bottom. Allowable trench widths from 1 to 3 feet. Minimum trench separation of 41 to 5 feet of undisturbed soil. Drainfield to be planted with a low root and high evapotranspiration rate. Based upon those and other criteria the area required for the drainfield area is as follows: The soils are a soil type 2 which is medium sand and would be expected to accommodate a loading rate of 1.20 gallons per day per square foot. With a trench width of 3 feet, this would allow disposal of 3.6 gallons per lineal foot of drainfield. Based upon a 317 residential lots and a residential equivalent (R.E.) of 20 residential lots from the commercial area for a total of 337 R.E., the following is a computation of drainfield length: Length = Gallons per day per R.E. = x 150% Application rate for L.F. Length R.E. = 325 x 150 = 135 lineal feet /lot 3.6 Total length of drainfield required = 337 R.E. x 135 Lf /RE + 45,495 lineal feet. Figure 3 shows how a typical drainfield will be designed and constructed to accomodate the 3 -50% fields. (An additional 50% active field is shown.) The basic layout has a separation of 15 feet between laterals with the spare 50% drainfield located midway between laterals. With this arrangement, each residential equivalent uses 1163 square feet (including a 15% safety factor). The total required area to support 337 RE would be approximately 9 acres plus an additional 3 acres held in reserve making a total land requirement of 12 acres. We have reserved 14.6 acres which will accommodate all septic tanks, dosing tanks and allow suitable separation between drainfields. 4. Alternative D - Community Package Plant and Drainfield In this alternative, the wastewater collection and community drainfield would be as described in Alternative C above. In this case there would be only one site for disposal and a package treatment plant would replace the community septic tanks. A package treatment plant is a method of biologically stabilizing the wastewater. The process generally used is the extended aeration modifi- cation of the activated sludge process. Mixed liquor, which is activated C -9 Page Seven by aeration, is allowed to settle in a clarifier. The sediment or sludge is then reintroduced to the raw wastewater where it accelerates the stabilization of the oxidizable carbonaceous materials. The clarified effluent can be disposed through the drainfield as discussed previously in this report. Package plants provide excellent and reliable treatment of wastewater from residential sources and if designed and operated properly, produce a minimal amount of sludge to be wasted. Disinfection writhe effluent is generally not practiced because of the potential of clogging drainfields with the addition of sodium or clacium. It is therefore generally not the practice to chlorinate treated effluent if it is to be disposed by leaching. A.package treatment plant is designed to accommodate 100 percent of the wastewater flow for a period of 24 hours. The tankage required for this facility would be 337 x 325 = 109,525 gallons. It would be most prudent to use two 55,000 GPD units side -by -side to assure reliability and to provide ease in maintenance and operation. Package plants, when properly operated, do not produce obnoxious odors. VI. COST ESTIMATE 1. Alternative A. On -site Septic Tanks and Drainfields A. Capital Costs Double Plumbing 317x$100 /ea Septic Tanks 317 @325/ea Drainfields 317 @ $850 /ea Permits 317 @ $60 /ea 8 -inch sewer pipe 15,570 LF Standard manholes 50 ea @ $1 Service wyes 317 @ $30 /ea 4 -inch service lines 15,850 B. Annual 0 & M Costs @ $14 /LF ,000 /ea LF @ $6.00 /LF Subtotal Contingency, Engineer's Inspection @ 20% Total Capital Costs Pump each tank every 3 years @ $110 for Pumping 110/3x317 Drainfield replacement @ 10% /year $850 x 317x0.10 Conversion to Permanent System (after 10 years) Pumping and abandonment of septic tank = $350 Plumbing reversal $100. $450x317/10 Total Annual 0 & M costs C -10 $ 31,700 = 103,025 269,450 19,020 = 217,980 = 58,000 = 9,510 = 95,100 $803,785 160,757 = $964,542 = $ 11,623 = 26,945 = $ 14,265 $ 52,833 Page Eight 2. Alternative B. Individual Septic Tanks, Gravity Sewer and Community Drainfields This alternative was eliminated because of potential damage to aesthe- tics, safety and high liability. 3. Alternative C. Community Septic Tanks and Drainfields. A. Capital Costs Triple septic /dosing tank module 3 tanks @27,380 gallons with 1 ea 13,690 gal. dosing tank (153 CY Concrete) 2 ea required @65,000 /ea = $130,000 Effluent dosing pumps 4 ea @$2,000 /ea = 8,000 Drainfield 45,5000 LF @$4.75/LF 216,125 (including tight lines and gas drainfields) Landscaping - lump sum = 18,000 8 -inch sewer pipe 15,570 LF @$14 /LF = . 217,980 Standard manholes 58 ea @ $1,000 /ea = 58,000 Service wyes 317 @ $30 /ea = 9,510 4 -inch service lines 15,850 LF @ $6.00 /LF = 95,100 Duplex pump station = 35,000 4 -inch force main 750 LF @ $8.50 /LF = • 6,375 Subtotal $794,090 Contingency, Egnineering & Inspection @ 20% $158,818 Total Capital Costs $952,808 B. Annual 0 & M Costs Pumping septic tanks. 100,000 gallons /year @ $.13 /gallon = 13,000 Cleaning sewers each five years @ $.60 /LF 13,850 LF x $0.60 5 = 1,662 Replacement of drainfield @ 10 % /yr 45,500 LF x $4.50 x 0.10 = 20,475 Operator @ 1 hr /day @ $15 /hr = 4,000 Billing 4 hrs /qtr @ $10 /hr + postage, etc. = 520 Mowing, weeding, cleanup, etc. = 1,200 Administration 1 hr /wk @ $15 /hr = 780 Total Annual 0 & M Costs = $41,637 4. Alternative D. Package Plant - Drainfields A. Capital Costs Package Plants - 55,000 GPD 2 ea @ $120,000 Operation and lab building Landscaping - lump sum 300 SF @ $50 /SF C -11 $240,000 = 10,000 15,000 Page Nine 1 Drainfield 45,500 LF @ $4.75/LF = 5216,125 Fencing, roads, water, power - lump sum = 18,000 8 -inch sewer pipe 15,570 LF @ $14 /LF = 217,950 Standard manholes 58 ea @ $1,000 /ea = 58,000 Service wyes 317 @ $30 /ea = 9,510 4 -inch service lines 15,850 LF @ $6.00 /LF = 95,100 Duplex pump station = 35,000 4 -inch force main 750 LF @ $8.50 /LF = 6,375 Subtotal $921,090 Contingency, Engineering .& Inspection @ 20% 184,218 Total Capital Costs $1,105,308 B. Annual 0 & M Costs Power Labor 4 hrs /day x $15 /yr x 260 days /yr Repairs and testing Sludge disposal 50,000 gal @ 0.13 /gal Cleaning sewer lines each five years @ $0.60/LF:13,850 LF x $0.60 5 Replacement of drainfield @ 10 % /yr 45,500 LF x $4.50 x 0.10 Billing 4 hrs /qtr @ $10 /hr + postage & bills Mowing, weeding, cleanup Administration 1 hr /wk @ $15 /hr Total Annual 0 & M Costs c 3,500 15,600 3,000 6,500 1,662 20,475 520 1,200 780 A $ 964,542 $ 52,833 B Deleted Deleted C 952,908 41,637 D 1,105,308 53,237 C -12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $53,237 1 5. SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATES Alternative Capital Costs 0 & M Costs 1 1 Alternative C, Community septic tanks and drainfields, show the least capital cost as well as operation and maintenance costs. 1 1 1 Page Ten VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION It is the conclusion of this study that the most feasible method of wastewater management would be to install sewer lines; make them active instead of dry; and utilize community septic tanks and drainfields for treatment. This is the recommendation of this report. A preliminary sewer layout showing the line location, manholes, cleanouts, community septic tanks and drainfield sites is described in the attached drawing. (Figure 1). Respectfully submitted,. CENTURY Wc$A' BERING CORPORATION 0 k . W ,HNC�6L V W b r Leslie (' .•: , P.E. Principa CdecElt LDK:mv Attachment cc: Jim Craven Gary Meyers Dean Logston C -13 APPENDIX The Wastewater /Treatment Engineering Analysis was based upon a number of assumptions as to the specific nature of the development. These as- sumptions reflect the anticipated wastewater flow which would be generated by the developed project. The plan for Riverway Villa was to market tow- ard an equal mixture of retired couples and small families. For a devel- opment composed entirely of retired couples, the acceptable anticipated wastewater flow would be 300 gallons per lot per day. For a three bed- room home that flow would increase to 350 gallons per lot per day. Since we are anticipating an equal mixture, we have assumed an overall average flow of 325 gallons per lot per day. This figure was used in the comp- utation of the size of the community septic tanks, dosing tanks and pumps, length of subsurface drainfield and the area accupied by the drainfield. In the event that the nature of the development changes to an entire or major population of young or large families, all of the above factors must be resized of accomodate the increased flows. The same is true for the commercial area. We have allocated an equiv- alent. of 20 residential equivalents (R.E.) to that area. That would be equivalent to the following: Daily Flow = 6500 GPD B0D5 = 4 pounds /day Suspended Solids = 4.2 pounds /day In the event that the flow from the commercial area exceeds those design factors, additional capacity in the community septic tanks, dosing tanks, dosing pumps and drainfield will have to be developed. A specific agreement between the owners of the property and Spokane County Utilities Department could be drawn up to provide assurance of compliance with the design standards of both the commercial and residential components of this development. C -14 APPENDIX "D" FLORA /FAUNA REPORT PROPOSED "RIVERY VILlt" LI ROZ,D AND IRDI' STC PIA:TS o:SL2TLD aR Ar.as, da.:- 9, 1931 cf the area proposed far development was cropbed parley this summer and was occupied by the stubble, with a few weeds, notably bindweed, intermixed. The barlby °bop bpperently was sub— stantial. One part pf the area was devoted to irrigated paature, which appeared quite productive. The remainder of the land had been planted to beans, which were doing . poorly. Rorth of the area, between it eild the n .:-Aver were ttebed shrubs, mostly mock orange, chokecherry, ninebark and serviceberry, be'tween which were growing native.heros including. blusbunch wheaUrass, rough fescue, prairie smoke, cinquefoil, balsamroot and Aaillaruia. The portion nearest to the field was dominated by a large variety of introduced weedy herbs.. In the area proposed for development the following birds were observed: gray partridge, ring—necked pheasant, water pipit (a migrant), savannah sparrow and vesper sparrow. In the shrubs between the area and the river were observed Audubon's warbler (migrant), house finch and white—crowned sparrow (migrant). The field area probably has very few more species of birds in summer but the area to the north along the river probably has several additional species in summer. California quail, heard across the river, probably also occupy that area. Six species of butterflies were observed in the field and in the area. to the north. In the field two species of g rasshoppers and a preying mantis ware observed. No endangered or threatened species of plants Or animals were observed. Development of the field area for residential use would remove th. land from agricultural production. The birds now livina there would be driven out and very likely be replaced by robins, starling's, house sparrows and house finches and ppssibly a few other species, depending upon what vegetation was planted. The area adjacent on the north would undoubtedly be affected by people and :pets, both of which should be controlled to minimize adverse effects. A list al species observed follows. D-1 PRsJfi n.4s a Cd'hERVSD CE AHEA VILE," :nrsbs anO. vines :u1Serry (h:rus. sp.) Cee&oh ,qrape (Iarbsris oliu aquifq) 3 kCle:eatis jlook oranae (i Berviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia) :::wthcrn (Crataezus spp.) Zinebark (Thysocarpus malvacaus) ahaleb cherry (Prunus maRaleb) I Chokeoherry (Prunus virginiana) rose (aosa sp.) Tuckthorn (Rhamnus nurshi.m creeter (Parthenocissss so.) I Herbs ,ucckrass (a&roPyron reoens) I aluebunch Theatrass (Agrosyron spicatum) Tall oatErass (arrhenatherum elatius) I Cheata (iromus tectorum) I 'rchard;itss (Dactylic. clomerata) tough fescue (Festuca soabrella) Timothy (Phleum sratense) I ulbous bluegrass (Poa bulbosa) I Canada bluegrass (Poa compressa) I (Ventenata dubia) I Asparagus (Asparagus officinalis) I Lambsquarter (Chenopedium album) I Amaranth (Amaranthus retroflexus) I White campion (Lychnis alba) I Jim Hill mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum) I Fanweed (fhlaspi arvense) I Prairie smoke (Geum triflorum) Cinquefoil (Potentilla gracilis) 3uttonweed (alva neglecta) I Goatweed (Hypericum perforatum) I Cottonweed (Epilobium sp.) Purple milkweed (Asclenias fasciculavis) Milkweed (Asclepias speciosa) Sindweed Convolvulus arvense) I Sutter-and-eggs (Linaria vulgaris) I Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica) I Moth mullein (Verbascum blattaria) I Mullein (Verbascum thapsus) I Bedstraw (Callum s:..) (gaisamorniza saLittata) Bachelor's button (Centaurea cyanus) I Russian knanweed (Centaurea maculosa) I Skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea) I Eull thistle (3irsium vulgare) I Gaillardia (Gailiardia aristata) Prickly lettuce (Lactuca pulchella) I Sow thistle (Sonchus sp.) I Oysterplant (Trag000gon sp.) 1 indicates introduced species) D-2 - Thomas H. Rogers E. 10E20 :Caxwell ave. .3pckans, wa 9:1206 Sept. 17, 1981 _ lIrds ,.ili'o.r :ia_ ,J (.:cross ths river) I Ls'c:__.. asant I n.tC:. pi.'.1b Starling I :el' -oa ed (Audubon ';arcler HOUSE :inch Savannah sparrow ., rite- cro::ned sparrow Insects Field cricket (.‘emcbius assimil ) iii Carolina locust (Dissosteira carolina) Lesser migratory locust (;elanoplus me xicanus) Preying mantis (Genus sp.) Fall webworms (Genus sp.) Clouded sulfur butterfly (Callas sp.) Ca'obage butterfly (Pieris rapae) I :estern white (>ieris occidentaiis) .Crescentsuot (rhyciodes mylitta) .meet coast lady (Vanessa caryae) Skipper (Genus sp.) Sumblebee {_ombus sp.) 1 indicates introduced species D -3 Thomas H. Rogers ' E. 10820 !':ax;,ell nve. Spokane, 9 Sept. 17, 1981 Lead Agency Spokane County Lead Agency: Spokane County Date of Issue: March 19, 1982 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RIVERWAY VILLA Project Sponsors H & E James Etter Walter Hedlund Route 4, P. 0. Box 768 Spokane, Washington 99218 (509) 747 -0303 INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. East 12720 Nora Avenue Spokane, Washington 99216 INTRODUCTION The proposed action under review is a request for a Subdivision Planned Unit Development for Riverway Villa, a site for 365 manufactured homes and a neighborhood commercial center. This center would possibly include a super- market, drug store, hardware store, bowling alley and a mini - storage facility. The proposal would be phased over an eight year period. The applications for this proposal are on file at the Spokane County Planning Department, file No. PE- 1414 -81. The proposed action was initiated by H &E. The 118 acre site is located in the Spokane Valley south of the Spokane River, east of Barker Road, and north of Mission Avenue in the west half of Section 8, Township 25 North, Range 45 EWM. The lead agency for this proposal is Spokane County and the responsible official is Wally Hubbard, Director of the Spokane County Planning Department, North 721 Jefferson, Spokane, Washington 99260; telephone (509) 456 -2274. The proposed action may require the following legal actions and permits: 1. Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements; 2. Preliminary and Final Plat approval; 3. Zone reclassification approval; 4. Approval or permits from the Spokane County Health District, the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services and the Washington State Department of Ecology for design and operation of a sewage disposal system; 5. The obtaining of all required building permits, inspections and approvals; 6. A Substantial Development Permit (RCW 90.58); and • 7. Binding Site Plan and Storm Water Management Plan. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement was issued on December 15, 1981 and the review and comment period ended January 19, 1982. The issue date of the Final EIS (FEIS) is March 19, 1982. The circulation of this document is prescribed in the SEPA Guidelines (WAC 197 -10 -600) which directs that the FEIS must go to "the Department of Ecology, Office of the Governor or the Governor's designee, the Ecological Commission, agencies of jurisdiction, and federal agencies with jurisdiction, which received the Draft EIS." Copies of this document may be obtained from the Spokane County Planning Department for the cost of reproduction and mailing. The Final EIS contains a Glossary, a revised Site Plan indicating the Spokane River Floodplain and the Inland Paper Company ownership, Lead Agency Notes, letters from reviewing agencies, and responses to their comments. This Final Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by Inland Pacific Engi- neering Company. Data required to produce this document may be obtained at the following address: Inland Pacific Engineering Company, East 12720 Nora Avenue, Spokane, Washington 99216 (509) 922-1300. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Distribution List iv Addendum to the Draft EIS, Presented in the Final EIS 1 Glossary 2 Lead Agency Notes 4 Revised Site Plan 6 Comments and Responses 8 iii Federal Agencies Soil Conservation Service, Spokane State Agencies Office of the Governor, Olympia Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia Ecological Commission, Department of Ecology, Olympia Department of Ecology, Olympia Department of Ecology, Spokane Department of Natural Resources, Colville Department of Game, Olympia Department of Game, Spokane Department of Social and Health Services, Olympia Department of Social and Health Services, Spokane Department of Transportation, Olympia Department of Transportation, Spokane Clearinghouses Spokane County Regional Planning Conference, Spokane (2) Spokane County Board of County Commissioners (3) Boundary Review Board Building Codes Department Engineering Department (3) Health District (2) Parks and Recreation Department Planning Commission (7) Planning Department (20) Prosecuting Attorney (2) Air Pollution Control Authority Utilities Department Sheriff's Office Central Valley School District #356 Neighboring Cities and Counties City of Spokane Plan Commission (2) Libraries Spokane County Public Library (2) City of Spokane Public Library DISTRIBUTION LIST iv Media The Spokesman - Review Spokane Daily Chronicle. The Valley Herald KHQ TV KREM TV KXLY TV Others Spokane Audubon Society H &E (2) Arger /Wright & Associates Consulting Engineers Century West Engineering Corp. Gary A. Meyers and Company Anderson, Evans, Craven, Leckie and Henderson v ADDENDUMS TO THE DRAFT EIS PRESENTED IN THE FINAL EIS Please add the following changes, revised pages, and addendums to the Draft EIS. 1 GLOSSARY 2 PUD - Planned Unit Development. Glossary dBA - Decibels abbreviated dB is a unit of measurement for the loudness of sound. Normally, loudness is measured with a sound -level meter incorporating an "A" weighted electronic network. The resulting measure is called dBA. GPA - Grass Percolation Areas, used in treatment of stormwater runoff. GSSA - General Sewer Service Area. The area having the potential for regional wastewater collection and treatment within the Comprehensive Wastewater Manage- ment Plan's (201) 20 -year study program. PSSA - Priority Sewer Service Area. Areas having sewer service or planned for sewer service within ten years, as designated by the '201' Comprehensive Waste- water Management Plan. '208' Study - Spokane Aquifer Water Quality Management Plan, April, 1979. Study to identify cause and effect relationships for water quality, and to develop a water quality. management plan. 3 LEAD AGENCY NOTES 4 Lead Agency Notes 1. Please change the third paragraph under 4.1 a. on page 29 of the Draft EIS to read ". . .fall of 1981, none of which are classified as Federal or State endangered species, is contained. . .." 2. Please change the last sentence of the paragraph under 5.1 a. on page 31 of the Draft EIS to read: "No endangered species are known to occur. . .." 3. Please change the second sentence of the second paragraph under 6. b. on page 34 of the Draft EIS to read: "Approximately 3,650 vehicular trips per day would be . . .." 4. Approximately 39 percent of the lots (143) are oriented to permit maximum use (passive) of solar energy. The Spokane County Planning Department is presently considering various recommendations which would enhance solar access on these lots. One potential recommendation is for zero lot line setbacks, which would also provide a larger usable yard area. 5. As discussed in the Draft EIS, the additional traffic generated by both this proposal and other planned development could significantly affect traffic flows in the area. In order to mitigate potential impacts the Lead Agency will recommend several conditions of approval: a. In conjunction with development of the proposed commercial area, the proponents will be responsible for the cost of improvements to those portions of Barker Road and Mission Avenue which lie adjacent to the commercial area including additional lanes for vehicles, bicycle lanes, and sidewalks. Barker Road may also require left turn channelization. b. The proponents may be responsible for the cost of improvements to Mission Avenue adjacent to the residential section of the proposal. The need for such improvements will be assessed in conjunction with each phase of the development. c. If, during development of the proposal, major improvements are required on the Barker Road /I -90 overpass, the proponents may be required to finance a proportionate share of the cost of such improvements. 5 REVISED SITE PLAN (Depicting floodplain, passive recreation area, and Inland Paper Company ownership) 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 RIvnrwry — Indiana Development Plan For. 2000 AOs 1020 b.. Lu Mawln Augusts — — YI..Ion RIVERWAY VILLA Inland Paper Company Ownershi p 1\ fel RMH — Proposed RESIDENTIAL MANUFACTURED HOME ZONE C — Proposed COMMERCIAL ZONE u ma eoa m »a ua sod ' ARGER /WRIGHTand ASSOCIATES (MODIFIED) 200'Setback 303 s laaand zao - 1010 pfwalcu e1c«gs garage_ vnLrtp svnwny rot- 1.4.116 unrn wU.Y.. L tars . r ° 1 6 4 W ^ T S } fi' L. NM antrsIs weer. ritiuwat DRAINFIELD AREA w /FUTURE 'LOTS FLOOD RLAI MW 0 MN 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ADDENDUM FINAL EIS COMMENTS AND RESPONSES The following pages contain the comments received on the Riverway Villa Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The written comments are reproduced in the actual form in which they were received. The letters are broken down to individual comments designated as C -1 (Comment One). The response to each comment is designated as R -1 (Response to Comment One). 8 • United States Soil Department of Conservation Agriculture Service C - Mr. Wally Hubbard, Director Spokane County Planning Department North 721 Jefferson Spokane, Washington 99260 Dear Mr. Hubbard: We have reviewed your draft environmental impact statement for the Riverway Villa project and offer the following continents. Thank you for the opportunity to review your draft. Sincerely, LYNN A. BROWN State Conservationist cc: J. Melton, DC, SCS, Spokane FO O The Soil Conservation Service U is an agency of Ine Department of Agriculture 9 Room 360 U.S. Courthouse Spokane, Washington 99201 •r+ C� a a a:, ins VE f,.' JAN 18 1332 Si WONT) PLANNING DEPARTMENT SCS -AS1 10 -79 1 1 January 12, 1982 , 1 1 1 Page 16, Site Topography /Soils Map: The soils for the entire site is classified ' by the Soil Conservation Service as prime farmland. It is the policy of SCS to recommend development of areas not considered to be prime farmland. C -2 Page 28, c: The third word of the first sentence should be changed from "should" to "will C -3 Page 28, d: These adverse impacts could be avoided if a sewer system was constructed before this project is implemented. 1 1 dr,r, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 R -1 Comment noted. The Comprehensive Plan has designated this area as Urban, which is intended to provide the opportunity for intensive resi- dential development and public services. Agricultural activities will be limited and considered as a secondary use. The Plan notes that intensive farming would not be compatible within Urban areas. R -2 Please amend the paragraph under 3.8 c. on page 28 of the Draft EIS to read: "The project will be. connected . . .." R -3 The cumulative impacts of all development in the Spokane Valley could be significantly reduced if a sewer system was initially constructed to serve the Spokane Valley; however, the '201' wastewater facilities plan does not place a moratorium on development in the Spokane Valley pending installation of a centralized sewer system. (Please refer to Section 3.8 on page 27 and Section 6.4 on page 59 of the Draft EIS.) 10 JOHN SPELL \IAN Governor . C -4 Dear Mr. Hubbard: DP:lc Vii: \rE (lF \v-\SIIING(ON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY \ all Stop PV- 1 1 • . Olympia. t Va,hinglnn 985(4 • (2061159-64A! Mr. Wally Hubbard Spokane County Planning Department North 721 Jefferson Spokane, Washington 99260 January 15, 1982 Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft environmental impact statement for Riverway Villa. Department staff have reviewed the document and have no comments to offer. If you have any questions, please call me at 206/459 -6026. Sincerely, Debbie Fristoe Environmental Review Section IP el JAPE � 1 9 i y 1 D 79 SPDKiwe COUNTV PLA !MING DEPARTMENT 11 SP■\ANE CC: • `::KING DEN, 1 I n l":1Ll) \ OOS D euur 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 R -4 No response required. 12 STATE OF WASHINGTON •Johnrspellman Governor January 13, 1982 Spokane County Planning Department N. 721 Jefferson St. Spokane, Wa. 99260 DEPARTMEi -1 OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES West 924 Sinto Aven :. L 32 -4, Spokane. Washington 99201 509/456-3115 13 i+ ir(e fr- Attention: Wally Hubbard Subject: Draft E.I.S. for Riverway Villa, PE- 1414 -81 Dear Mr. Hubbard: I have reviewed the subject E.I.S. and have the following comments to make: 1. On Page 14, b - The statement is made regarding grading of the site. The first paragraph indicates grading will be limited 8 to 12 feet. The predominant soil in this site and soil that will receive the drainfield effluent is Garrison gravelly loam. If this soil is left undisturbed it can be, for the most part, very suitable for on -site sewage disposal. Grading the upper horizons of this soil exposes the coarser soils that extend into gravels C -5 at depths of 3 to 5 feet. These coarser soils are designated by the State Board of Health's regulations under WAC 248 -96 -090 as Type 1. Type 1 soils have recommended density of 1 unit per acre. Larger densities can be accomplished with special design and analysis of groundwater conditions in the area. It should be noted that C.I.D. has a well field directly across Mission Ave. and depth to groundwater is approximately 78 feet. This department requests the drainfield site remain ungraded to utilize the upper soil horizon for better treatment of the effluent. 2. On Pages 26 and 27 - The anticipated amount of water to be used is stated at 250,000 gallons per day. This figure is extremely C - low. Utilizing figures of existing water use taken from the cur- rent C.I.D. #19 Water System Plan, the water usage per acre based on domestic use is: P PP t II PoPo t!, it JAN 15 -3s? • SPO AivL COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT (1) Average 3.04 gpm /acre /day (2) Maximum daily 10.69 /acre /day This would compute to 118 x 3.04 = 358.72 gpm (516,556.8 GPD Average) and 118 x 10.69 = 1261.42 gpm (1,816,444.8 GPD Maximum) daily. 3. On Page 27, 3.8 b - The design quantity listed may increase due to DSHS guidelines requiring 350 GPD per unit design. In addition to C - this slight increase, backwash water from the swimming pool will add to the wastewater allocation. R -5 Comment Noted. This could be a condition of approval. R -6 Amended water quantity usage estimates.for Riverway Villa are as follows: 109,500 gallons /day residential - without irrigation; October - May 730,000 gallons /day residential - with irrigation; June - September 15,000 gallons /day commercial - limited landscaping; 12 month average These estimates are based on the following assumptions: 300 gallons /day /lot - October through May 2,000 gallons /day /lot - June through September 1,500 gallons /day /acre - Commercial land use 365 total developed lots 10 acres commercial use Total water requirements: 124,000 gallons /day - October through May 745,000 gallons /day - June through September 330,000 gallons /day - 12 month average Consolidated Irrigation District No. 19's water consumption figures are based on low density development requiring large amounts of irrigation water. This type of development is common in this service area. Riverway Villa is a higher density development with a commercial area. Approximately 38 percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces, thereby reducing the irrigation requirements. R -7 The sewage treatment requirements for a manufactured home development are less than for a conventional single family development with an equal number of units. This assumption is based on the fact that the average household size for manufactured homes is between 2.0 and 2.5 persons, whereas conventional single family homes have an average household size of 3.0 to 3.5 persons. Design and construction of sewage treatment facilities will comply with guidelines of the Department of Social and Health Services, Department of Ecology and the Spokane County Health District. 14 To: Spokane County Planning Department Page 2 January 13, 1982 • C -8 In accordance with the County Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan, the project should agree to, not oppose, ULID formation to connection to the county interceptor and agree to connect as soon as possible. This is the extent of our comments. Should you have any questions feel free to call. Since ely, George B,/)Scfftender Environ sntalist GBS:ei cc: Spokane C.H.D. Spokane Co. Utilities - Bill Dobratz State Health 15 R -8 Comment Noted. This could be a condition of approval. 16 JOHN SPELLMAN Governor STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION 711 West Twenty -First Avenue, KL -11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (206) 753-4017 Spokane County Planning Department North 721 Jefferson Spokane, Washington 99260 Dear Applicant: C -9 We have reviewed your draft environmental impact statement and find there are no historic or archaeological properties on the State or National Register of Historic Places, or the Washington State Inventory of Historic Places, that will be impacted by the project. In the event that unknown archaeological resources are inadvert- ently unearthed during construction activities, please notify the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in Olympia, and the Washington Archaeological Research Center in Pullman, Washington. Form AHP R -6 (2/81) 17 Date: January 15, 1982 Log Reference: 285- C -SP -08 Project Title: DEIS - Riverway Villa Sincerely, JACOB THOMAS Director 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Sheila Stum 1 1 db Archaeologist 1 1 1 1 1 R -9 Comment Noted. 18 JOHN SPELLMAN Governor Wally Hubbard, Director Spokane County Planning Department North 721 Jefferson Spokane, Washington 99260 Mr. Hubbard, STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF GAME 600 North Capitol Way, C4-11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 . (206)753- 5700, 4 5 j � C, w January 14, 1982 c¢� ,d O ,Pt1 • } `� 5 3d2 sv o 4 . 021 � EN5 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: Riverway Villa Manufactured Home Site and Commercial Center Your document has been reviewed by our staff as requested; comments follow. As the impact statement acknowledged, the main impacts on wildlife as a result of this proposal will be the deterioration of the Spokane River and associated C -10 riparian habitats. However, potential impacts may be more severe than discussed. In the discussion of impacts on fish and wildlife habitat, it mentions a reduction in the value of riparian habitat in the project area. It is very likely that corridors and riparian habitats up and dowmstream will also be impacted. Reserving habitat along the river as undeveloped open space would help reduce potential impacts. However, from the project description, it is clear it will not remain undeveloped. Hiking trails, picnic sites, outdoor recreation shelters, and exercise stations are potential developments. These types of developments C-11 would serve to attract people to this sensitive area. The most severe impacts would likely be from human disturbance and pets. The impact statement should discuss ways to reduce these impacts. We do not agree the proposed open space would "enhance'the river - associated habitat" as mentioned on page 33. A reduction in the quality of riparian wildlife habitat should he expected. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. Sincerely, THE DEPARTMENT OF GAME MHG:cv cc: Agencies Region 19 Mark H. Grandstaff, Applied Ecologist Environmental Affairs Program Habitat Management Division FRANK LOCKA Director 1 1 1 1 ' R -10 Comment noted. Because of the diverse ownerships along the Spokane River and the lack of a comprehensive open space plan for the river, a discussion of the potential impacts of future development and other land 1 uses on areas upstream and downstream would merely be conjecture. 1 R -11 Any development along the river for recreational uses will be strictly controlled by Spokane County under the Spokane County Shorelines Pro- gram, which contains the following policies for the Pastoral classifica- ' tion: Policy 1: Only passive recreational uses are permitted. Policy 2: The design and development of recreational areas, whether public or private, shall protect and preserve the natural features of the land and its vegetation and the quality of the water for recreational use and natural habitat. Policy 3: The scenic quality of the area, both views of the water and from the water, must be preserved or enhanced to the maximum possible extent. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 JOHN SPELIMAN DUANE BERENTSON \`' Governor . E BERENTSON STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of District Administrator • North 2714 Mayfair Street, Box 5299, North Central Station • Spokane, Washington 99205 Mr. Wally Hubbard, Director Spokane County Planning Department N. 721 Jefferson Street Spokane, WA 99260 Dear Mr. Hubbard: January 5, 1982 According to the EIS on page 47 approximately 6500 additional trips per day on Barker Road will be generated by this proposal. Approxi- mately 70% (4,550) of these trips will be between the Barker Road - C-12 190 Interchange and Mission Avenue. This additional traffic will cause a severe impact on the Barker Road -I 90 Interchange. The pre- sent structure over I 90 is a two lane structure. Should the inter- change become severely impacted our department would look to Spokane County to share in the costs of modifying the structure and /or ramps to accommodate the additional traffic generated by this proposal. truly yours, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 / �., WALTER R.`HORNING, P. E. District Administrator , WRH:sw• cc: R. Albert D. Walther Record Control JA(.108 i�5 SPOe(Ri4E COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1 21 1 R -12 Comment Noted. The Riverway Villa project would add to the cumulative traffic impacts on the Barker Road interchange. Project phasing of ap- proximately eight years would allow sufficient time to evaluate the need and scheduling of interchange improvements. 22 Depa1 uiie111 BRIAN J. BOYLE 23 Cmnnusvaner of Public Lands DATE: December 17, 1981 , TO: Spokane County Planning Department North 721 Jefferson Spokane, WA 99260 1 Attn: Wally Hubbard, Director FROM: NAME Walt Wruble , TITLE Spokane Local Manager ADDRESS P.O. Box 190, Colville, NA 99114 ' SUBJECT: REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 11 ACTION SPONSOR Spokane County Planning Department , PROJECT Riverway Villa, PE- 1414 -81 Section 8, Township 25 North, Range 45 EWM ' We do not have an interest in the above project and have no comments on the proposal. XX We do have an interest in the above project and wish to I make the following comments: C -13 1. A surface land mine reclamation permit and reclama- • 11 tion plan shall be required if more than two acres of contiguous land is to be disturbed or more than 10,000 yards of mineral is removed in any type mining 11 operation. (For example, the removal of top soil or any other aggregate type of material to be sold or used for construction off the proposed development site.) tjr tl DE G ; w PL4tdp' ;. DEPARTMENT cc: DNR SEPA Center Philip Hildebrand, Area Manager Ross Hesseltine, Arcadia District Manager File 1 1 24 R -13 Construction of the project will require limited grading and excavation to accommodate streets, utilities, parking areas, drainage and struc- tures. These type of excavation and grading activities will be confined to the site, with no commercial removal of topsoil or aggregate mate- rials. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY January 11, 1982 Wally Hubbard, Director Spokane County Planning Dept. North 721 Jefferson Spokane, WA 99260 Re: Draft EIS on Riverway Villa Dear Mr. Hubbard: I have reviewed the draft Environmehtal Impact Statement for the Riverway Villa Mobile Home Park and Shopping Center and I do question one paragraph in the air quality section. On page 21, the last paragraph, where it is stated "...project development would remove approximately 100 acres of dryland and irrigated farming...(reducing approximately 69 tons (of particulates) annually..." This figure is excessively high. From the reference material available to me, emissions from agricultural activity equal C -14 only about .03 ton /acre /year. For the 100 acre parcel this would amount to only 3 tons /year. This will not offset the estimated 10 tons/ year of particulates that will be generated from vehicle related activities. While these emission levels are relatively minor, I feel the correction should be made in the final statement. C -15 The Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority further requires that means be taken to avoid deposition of mud and dirt from unpaved surfaces onto paved surfaces during the construction phase of this project. Thank you for inviting our comments and if I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, SPOKANE COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY Christopher J. McEnany Field Representative L ADDRESS REPLY TO: SPOKANE COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY WEST 1101 COLLEGE, ROOM 230 SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99201 25 � ;: A 1 L QI 7 e% it I `1 Y14J AP 511" Is, � b 6„ V JAN 15 1982 I SPOKANE CDUNIY , PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 R -14 Based on EPA emission factors, the "approximately 69 tons" referred to in the Draft EIS appears to be correct: Plowing generates .03 ton of particulates /acre x 100 acres = 3 tons /year Fertilizing generates .01 ton of particulates /acre x 100 acres = 1 ton /year Harvesting generates .04 ton of particulates /acre x 100 acres = 4 tons /year Wind Erosion, depending on the soils, silt content, number of dry days, wind speed, etc. will generate approximately .6 ton of particulates/ acre x 100 acres = 60 tons /year Total particulates generated by farming operation /year = 68 tons /year. R -15 Comment noted. Adequate means will be taken. 26 DB /set December 10, 1981 Dear Mr. Hubbard: Si cerely, _e'ezt-62d-at Dean Blount, Administrator Water Quality Programs Wally Hubbard, Director Spokane County Planning Department N. 721 Jefferson Spokane, WA 99260 C N v C / Newmann ZM Lake �� ✓ � 'r r *I1 liberty Lake I l \S Spokane Aquifer Study N.811 Jefferson Spokane, Washington 99260 27 :16 p..Jiuu: u.•• lake Coeur d'Alene Hayden lake ( 'Alene (509) 456. 02 CE EU DEC 10 1981 SPDWE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: Review of DEIS "Riverway Villa" In the process of reviewing the DEIS for accord with the "208" Plan, I noted several admirable statements and two relatively minor errors. The latter include: C - - page 3, item 3.b. under the heading "Unavoidable Adverse Impacts," the entry should read "Reduction of contaminants" instead of "none ". GPA systems do markedly reduce the level of contaminants reaching the aquifer, but the system is not perfect. Therefore, the comment "none" is not totally accurate. C -17 - Appendix "C" page 3, Sec. V.I. The second sentence is incorrect in that the "208" Plan does not require a 50% larger drainfield over the aquifer. The admirable aspects of the DEIS are several references which indicate sensitivity to the ease with which the aquifer can be contaminated. Specifically, the DEIS C -18 suggests integral GPA's to clean stormwater runoff. The document also suggests prohibition of hazardous materials in the mini - warehouse portion of the proposed development. The authors of the DEIS are to be congratulated for including these suggestions. If these become conditions of project approval, the DEIS will have served its purpose. Thank you for the opportunity to review this DEIS. If you have need of clarifica- tion, please contact me. RECEevEd 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 EC 101981 1 SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, 1 R -16 Although some level of contaminants would reach the aquifer, it is unlikely that the impact from this proposal would be adverse. This proposal would, however, add to the cumulative impact from all devel- opment in the Spokane Valley. Please delete the word "None" from both 3. b. on page 3 and 3.2 d. on page 24 of the Draft EIS, and add the following: "Cumulative impact on ground water quality ". R -17 Please delete "The '208' Study and" under V. 1. on page C -4 of the Draft EIS. R -18 Comment noted. These are mitigating measures recognized by the Lead Agency. 28 SPOnAnL COUnTY COUP: HOUSE Mr. Wallis Hubbard, Director Spokane County Planning Dept. Spokane, Washington 99260 Dear Mr. Hubbard, ' In reviewing Riverway Villa Draft Environmental Impact State- ment, I have the following comments to make as it relates to this agency: C 1. The 200' foot set back should be donated to Spokane County Park to provide additional public access to the Spokane River. C -20 2 . The Plan doesn't mention the proposed Bikeway down the river. While not a specific adopted plan it has long been planned to build a trail down the Spokane River and we may be able to use the proposed Riverway Road to our advantage. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. S g Parks & Recreation AA: dg ely, CCD 717:Xfit tar DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION ector 29 TELEPHONE 456 -4730 WEST 1115 BROADWAYAVENUE SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260 December 17, 1981 ze, R -19 Since publication of the Draft EIS, the proponents and their represen- tatives have met with Mr. Angove. The proponents are willing to enter into agreement with Spokane County to provide easement or right of way for a bike trail (refer to R -20). They do, however, prefer to turn over the 200 foot setback to a Homeowner's Association comprised of residents of the development, and will contribute approximately $50.00 per lot to this Association to aid in limited recreational development of the area. R -20 The proponents are willing to enter into agreement with Spokane County to provide easement or right of way for a bike trail. They would enter into this agreement prior to recording the first final plat. Prelimi- nary discussions with Mr. Angove indicate that an agreement delaying actual conveyance of the easement or right of way until either the County has a specific adopted plan and funding for an area -wide bike trail program or 10 years has passed, would probably be satisfactory. 30 Inter - officc Communication 1 1 -- 1 OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEER SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON Date JANUARY 18 19 82 , To SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT. N. 721 JEFFERSON From G. NELSON 1 Subject RIVER'rlAY VILLA E.I.S. 1 C -21 THE SECTION ON TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION DOES NOT ADDRESS TIE IMPACT CR 1 MITIGATING MEASURES TO MISSION AVENUE. ECEIVED JAN i8 ma SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Form 327 -C.R. - 1 1 1 1 1 1 31 1 R -21 Please delete the first paragraph under 3.1 b. on page 47 of the Draft EIS and add the following paragraph: The 365 new home sites would generate approximately 3,600 trip movements per day, primarily on Barker Road. Depending on final design, between 30 and 40 percent of the traffic generated by the proposal would use Mission Avenue for access to the shopping center site and Barker and Harvard Roads, adding approximately 1,200 cars to Mission Avenue. Shopping center access to Mission Avenue would add approximately 1,000 trip movements, 20 to 25 percent of the shopping center traffic, to Mission Avenue. Traffic on Mission Avenue would increase from the current 900 cars per day to 3,100 cars after comple- tion of the project. Please add the following paragraph under 3.1 c. on page 47 of the Draft EIS: To mitigate impacts upon Mission Avenue, it is antici- pated that improvements to Mission Avenue would include addition of a parking strip, curb and sidewalk to the north side of Mission Avenue, or participation in a Road Improvement District to improve the entire Mission Avenue right of way adjoining the project. 32 IMP- Ai-I! >• �•. SPO.Ah1 CouM1n CQ UFr HOU Sc Spokane County Planning Department North 721 Jefferson !roadway Ventre :Li ui l ci ing Spokane, WA c:9260 RE: Environmental Impact Statement on Riveraay •Villa Gentlemen: (continued) 33 LARRY V. ERICKSON SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF DEAN A. LYDIG, Undersheriff TERRY D. SNEDDEN, Inspector DONALD R. MANNING, Chief Jailer COUNTY - CITY PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING SPOKANE. WASHINGTON 99260 Telephone !;56_4'(39 January 12, 1982 R E C E I V E D ..`:;V l:1 1502 SPOKANE COUNT? °LANN!NS DEPARTMENT The Riverway Villa located on the northeast corner of Barker and Hissicn Avenue will cover 118 acres, it will have 365 new homes, three stores, C -22 one bowling alley, and also some min' storage facilities. Estimates are that it will increase the population of that area 700 -900 people; 200 of these would be younger children. It will bring about 3t miles of new roads which would consist of residential streets. Also, it will cause the widening and reconstruction of some cf the older roads. This is the area that is covered by our District 6 car and, at this tiiiie, it is an area of low residents; however, it is now starting to be one of our fastest growing areas as it encompasses the East Farms /Otis Orchards area. According to the figures in the Environmental Impact Statement, the area of East Farms has increased 123% in the last 10 years population -wise. The area where the new proposed site is has increased 78% in the last 10 years. As you b .c]w, people Grip our main ccnee.r;; - where there pre no people, we have no problems. With the increase of =165 new hones, 3 stores and a bowling alley, we are going to find a large increase in residents, shoppers; the bowling alley itself will attract young people. With the beginning of the construction, you will find that we will be responding to job - related injuries, thefts of building equipment and /or materials, vanaalis::2 to the equipment, plus considerable heavy equipment traffic, and the always pos- sible problem of labor - management disputes, strikes, etc.. The area is now old, established homes and farms and this will be a blend- ing of the country living with new people moving in who are normally city oriented. I 231 sure this is going to be a difficult adjustment for the people who have lived and grown up in that area. R -22 Comment noted. 34 Page Two To: Spokane County Planning Department January 12, 1982 One of the problems that is going to occur is that there will be a large residential area built on the banks of the Spokane River. The plan is to place picnic areas, jogging areas and bicycling areas along the river. The river, which we know is a treacherous stretch of water, is bound to account for drownings as its use increases greatly with the new residents. Also, as that area is opened up, we will find that the river is used for keggers, assaults, rapes and other things that normally occur in that type of area. Also, the area is now used by motorcyclists and snowmobilero. As the residents move in, this will become an increasing problem and one that cannot be accepted in a high- population area. The parking lot for the shopping area will have spaces for 375 cars; from this we will inherit the theft of autos, thefts from autos, vandalisms, and accidents in the parking lot. Also inherent with large shopping areas are thefts of bicycles and shoplifting The stores themselves are suscep- tible to armed robberies and burglaries. The area itself is located fairly close to Newman Lake. We would find that the residents there will use Newman Lake, Sullivan Park and Walk in the Wild as their immediate recreational areas. As the houses are completed and the families move in, we feel that the families will be the young married cou- ples and the older retired people, which again will be a difficult blend of people, and you will find that we will have family fights, burglaries, and neighborhood disputes as we do in all of our populated areas. When the complex is completed, we will have the increased traffic of delivery trucks, school buses and motorcycles, snow plows, etc.. These are going to be problems that we always find when we find people. I feel that it would probably need heavier patrolling than we are now giving it; that it will attract other businesses to build in that area because of the increase in population and that we will need an increase of three patrolmen to give the new homeowners adequate protection and police services. This, of course,. is going to necessitate that we increase our prowl car mileage and use. The incidents that are covered by the patrolmen of course will be, in many cases, forwarded to the Investigative Division and will cause an increase in caseload for detectives and our service units. I do feel that the Riverway Villa is well laid out and well thought out and we cannot totally say that it alone will necessitate the need for more patrolmen. However, coupling it with the growth in that area, I feel that that will be the immediate impact on law enforcement in the Sheriff's Office. LVE /kmw 35 Sincerely, LA V. ERICKSON, Sheriff Spokane County e 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 36 SPOKANE ALL - AMERICA CITY Mt n t Mr. Wally Hubbard, Director Spokane County Planning Department North 721 Jefferson Spokane, Washington 99260 Dear Mr. Hubbard: We have reviewed the draft EIS for the proposed 118 acre, 365 unit development and have no particular problem with this proposal. C - It is noted that a number of sewage disposal alternatives are discussed with no statement as to the final method of disposal being chosen. The amount of potential impact to the aquifer can not be determined. A discussion takes place on page 67 with respect to desirable service C - areas for neighborhood commercial activity. It is noted that a one mile service area is suggested and that existing commercial activity apparently takes.place within approximately one mile from the site. ETC:DLC:gam RE: RIVERWAY VILLA EIS January 4, 1982 Very' ru1y yours, E. 'Gerry Clegg, Zoning, Subdivision and Environmental Services Director 37 CITY ZONING BOARD 309 City Hall — (509) 456 -4375 CARROLL MARTELL, Chairman VAUGHN P. CALL, AICP Manager — Planning E. TERRY CLEGG, AICP, MCIP Director — Zoning, Subdivision and Environmental Services R -23 The recommended sewage disposal system is discussed on pages C -11 and C -13 of the Draft EIS. It is concluded that the most feasible method of wastewater management would be to install sewer lines, make these active instead of dry lines, and utilize community septic tanks and drainfields for treatment. R -24 Existing and somewhat limited commercial facilities for the area are located at Greenacres Road and Appleway Avenue, approximately one mile south of the proposal. Access to this area is limited to the Barker Road /I -90 interchange. Few neighborhood or community shopping facilities have been established north of 1 -90 along Barker Road, except for a truck stop, a restaurant, and a small convenience store which is part of a campground. 38 SPOKANE ALL-AMERICA ll tl r 111 ��I `d Mr. Wallis Hubbard, Director Spokane County Planning Department North 721 Jefferson Spokane, Washington 99260 Dear Mr. Hglttj1 December 23, 1981 RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT - RIVERWAY VILLA I have reviewed this impact statement and have the following comments: CITY PLAN 309 City Halt JEAN BESCHEL, P'rosident VAUGHN P. CALL. A.I.P. Manager — Planning Lyle E. Balderson Planning Director C - 1. The riverbank natural area along the river is proposed to contain trails, picnic sites and exercise stations. Who will be responsible for making these improvements? C 2. On page 52 the statement is made that Central Valley High School now has 1,271 students in a facility with a capacity of 1,161. Will this project along with other development within the Central Valley School district further contribute to this overcrowded situation? C - 3. The proposal will provide substantial areas for passive recreation. As far as we can determine, there are no park facilities for active recreation within walking distance or even bicycling distrance of this project. At the densities being proposed, active park facili- ties would seem to be an essential public service. Are future park sites planned in the near vicinity of this proposal? C - 4. We agree with the note on page 56 stating that the placement of units on lots, revised yard requirements and restrictions on covenants re- lating to solar access easements should be considered. The arrangement and orientation of the lots at the time of platting is essential to the most efficient use of both passive and active solar systems. Has solar access been a consideration in this orientation of the lots? In summary, we support the provision of lower income housing, however, essential public facilities should be available or planned that will support the proposal. LEB:GOZ:elt 39 Sincerely, Lyle E. Balderson, Planning Director R -25 Please refer to R -19. R -26 As stated in the Draft EIS, Riverway Villa will attract either retired persons or young couples. It is anticipated that the number of resi- dents of high school age would be very small. The project will be phased over an eight -year period to allow time for Central Valley School District to make the necessary adjustments. R -27 Sullivan Park, which lies approximately two miles west of the site, is the closest developed public park. School sites in the area also pro- vide some areas for active recreation. Harvard Park lies approximately 1 -1/2 miles east of the site. However, at the present this site is undeveloped. The future of Harvard Park is uncertain due to recent Spokane County Parks Department budget cuts. R -28 Please refer to Lead Agency Notes. 40 C e n tra1 V il p ® /�� .. \'� .rin the Sp, d,vu• \',iileT S `ty/ ®® hr .In Howdbh Spokenr Washington 001 0o I<oui 0 22.e700 Dr. Richard C. Langton >w.nrnrnJ.m Charles r. Stocker January 19, 1982 1..•.u ..m'nm•rW.n Nell D Prescott. Jr. him am..n f.r.•... Edwin i Mikesell !)!P.P. WS lamer E. Bastille Dr. Bi the L. Gehman Darrell A. Thomps,n, Sheryl L. McCorma,'4 Dr. Herbert H. Osborn District WALLY HUBBARD, DIRECTOR SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT N. 721 JEFFERSON SPOKANE, 'WASHINGTON 99260 Dear Mr. Hubbard: We have received the Draft EIS for Riverway Villa. We have reviewed pertinent portions of this document. Our comments are as follows: C -29 1. On page 5 the author states that there will be no in- crease in school -aged children due to the proposal. On page 52, after acknowledging that the project is designed to serve young families (P.9,43), the State- ment indicates that 200 public school students are likely to reside within the development. The author may wish to reconcile these two assertions. C -30 2. On pages 8 and 62 the author suggests that "lack of interest" makes it "unlikely" that a public or non profit agency would elect to purchase the site To our knowledge no part of the site has been off- ered for purchase by Central Valley School District, a public agency. Were part of the property to be made available to the District, the District may, in fact, be interested in considering its acquisition. C -31 3. On pages 39 and 52 the author notes that the School District's Barker Center facility is used strictly as an administrative center. Aside from presence of periodic night classes at this facility, these statements are correct at present. Until recently, however, the District housed sev- eral kindergarten classes in this building. It is quite.possible that it will again be used in the future for classroom space. 41 R -29 The summary on page 5 indicates that there will be an increase in the number of children attending public schools but that this increase would not be mitigated as an adverse impact. The increase of students attending public schools was not determined to be adverse. R -30 The statement regarding public acquisition of the project site was confined to the evaluation of the entire ownership and not a portion thereof. Acquisition of a portion of the site would still mandate development of the remainder of the ownership. R -31 Comment noted. 42 WALLY HUBBARD, DIRECTOR JANUARY 19, 1982 PAGE 2 C -32 4. On page 47 the author suggests that the proposed 10 acre commercial center will generate 4500 ve- hicle trips per day in addition to 3600 vehicle trips anticipated from the 365 living units. The Draft EIS suggests that the largest share of these are likely to utilize Barker Road. This added traffic will not enhance Barker Center's already limited potential as an Elementary School Site. C -33 5. On page 52 the author indicates that most of the anticipated 200 students residing within the pro - posed development will be elementary -aged students. On the same page he notes that the Greenacres Ele- mentary School, which serves this area, is within 27 students of capacity. Greenacres Elementary must serve the entire East- ern portion of the School District for the fore- seeable future. Since 1) it lacks capacity to serve projected enrollment from the proposal, 2) it is located some distance from the proposal, and 3) bus transportation for pupils represents a substantial, rapidly growing School District obligation, the District is not now well equipped to conveniently handle up to 200 additional ele- mentary students anticipated as a result of this proposal. C -34 6. . On page 52 the author suggests that there are no adverse impacts from introduction of 200 students near Barker & Mission. The School District will be pleasaito serve these students. We note, however, that the proposed 200 new students represent 40 percent of an entire elementary school's enrollment and that no school facility capable of handling these youngsters exists nearby. C -35 7. The author states on page 67 that the anticipated 10 acre commercial development could be set aside in favor of more housing units within the proposal. We note that this same acreage would provide two - thirds of an elementary school site. 43 1 1 R -32 1 R -33 1 1 R -34 1 R -35 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Comment noted. It is anticipated that phasing of the project, in conjunction with the time required for marketing, will introduce the 200 new students over a period of eight years or more, allowing necessary adjustments to be made. Refer to R -33. Proponents of Riverway Villa have since had several meetings with Central Valley School District Director of Facilities and Planning, Mr. Dave Jackman. Further discussions will be held concerning a new school site in the vicinity of Riverway Villa. 44 WALLY HUBBARD, DIRECTOR JANUARY 19, 1982 PAGE We would be pleased to talk with the proponents of Riverway Villa about securing adequate shcooi facilities to serve youngsters resi- ding within the proposed development. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Rivenaay Villa Draft EIS. We found it generally clear and well organized. Sincerely, / �yVIArI -- Davo !man Direct&r Facilities and Planning DJ /gg 45 Lead Agency Spokane County <es" co v/ 76 E c > LL Lead Agency: Spokane County Date of Issue: March 19, 1982 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RIVERWAY VILLA Project Sponsors H & E James Etter Walter Hedlund Route 4, P. 0. Box 768 Spokane, Washington 99218 (509) 747 -0303 INLAND PACIFIC ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. East 12720 Nora Avenue Spokane, Washington 99216 INTRODUCTION The proposed action under review is a request for a Subdivision Planned Unit Development for Riverway Villa, a site for 365 manufactured homes and a neighborhood commercial center. This center would possibly include a super- market, drug store, hardware store, bowling alley and a mini - storage facility. The proposal would be phased over an eight year period. The applications for this proposal are on file at the Spokane County Planning Department, file No. PE- 1414 -81. The proposed action was initiated by H &E. The 118 acre site is located in the Spokane Valley south of the Spokane River, east of Barker Road, and north of Mission Avenue in the west half of Section 8, Township 25 North, Range 45 EWM. The lead agency for this proposal is Spokane County and the responsible official is Wally Hubbard, Director of the Spokane County Planning Department, North 721 Jefferson, Spokane, Washington 99260; telephone (509) 456 -2274. The proposed action may require the following legal actions and permits: 1. Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements; 2. Preliminary and Final Plat approval; 3. Zone reclassification approval; 4. Approval or permits from the Spokane County Health District, the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services and the Washington State Department of Ecology for design and operation of a sewage disposal system; 5. The obtaining of all required building permits, inspections and approvals; 6. A Substantial Development Permit (RCW 90.58); and 7. Binding Site Plan and Storm Water Management Plan. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement was issued on December 15, 1981 and the review and comment period ended January 19, 1982. The issue date of the Final EIS (FEIS) is March 19, 1982. The circulation of this document is prescribed in the SEPA Guidelines (WAC 197 -10 -600) which directs that the FEIS must go to "the Department of Ecology, Office of the Governor or the Governor's designee, the Ecological Commission, agencies of ,jurisdiction, and federal agencies with jurisdiction, which received the Draft EIS." Copies of this document may be obtained from the Spokane County Planning Department for the cost of reproduction and mailing. The Final EIS contains a Glossary, a revised Site Plan indicating the Spokane River Floodplain and the Inland Paper Company ownership, Lead Agency Notes, letters from reviewing agencies, and responses to their comments. This Final Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by Inland Pacific Engi- neering Company. Data required to produce this document may be obtained at the following address: Inland Pacific Engineering Company, East 12720 Nora Avenue, Spokane, Washington 99216 (509) 922 -1300. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $ 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Distribution List iv Addendum to the Draft EIS, Presented in the Final EIS 1 Glossary 2 Lead Agency Notes 4 Revised Site Plan 6 Comments and Responses 8 iii Federal Agencies Soil Conservation Service, Spokane State Agencies Office of the Governor, Olympia Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia Ecological Commission, Department of Ecology, Olympia Department of Ecology, Olympia Department of Ecology, Spokane Department of Natural Resources, Colville Department of Game, Olympia Department of Game, Spokane Department of Social and Health Services, Olympia Department of Social and Health Services, Spokane Department of Transportation, Olympia Department of Transportation, Spokane Clearinghouses Spokane County Regional Planning Conference, Spokane (2) Spokane County Board of County Commissioners (3) Boundary Review Board Building Codes Department Engineering Department (3) Health District (2) Parks and Recreation Department Planning Commission (7) Planning Department (20) Prosecuting Attorney (2) Air Pollution Control Authority Utilities Department Sheriff's Office Central Valley School District #356 Neighboring Cities and Counties City of Spokane Plan Commission (2) Libraries Spokane County Public Library (2) City of Spokane Public Library DISTRIBUTION LIST iv Media The Spokesman- Review Spokane Daily Chronicle The Valley Herald KHQ TV KREM TV KXLY TV Others Spokane Audubon Society H & E (2) Arger /Wright & Associates Consulting Engineers Century West Engineering Corp. Gary A. Meyers and Company Anderson, Evans, Craven, Lackie and Henderson 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 ADDENDUMS TO THE DRAFT EIS PRESENTED IN THE FINAL EIS Please add the following changes, revised pages, and addendums to the Draft EIS. GLOSSARY 2 PUD - Planned Unit Development. Glossary dBA - Decibels abbreviated dB is a unit of measurement for the loudness of sound. Normally, loudness is measured with a sound -level meter incorporating an "A" weighted electronic network. The resulting measure is called dBA. GPA - Grass Percolation Areas, used in treatment of stormwater runoff. GSSA - General Sewer Service Area. The area having the potential for regional wastewater collection and treatment within the Comprehensive Wastewater Manage- ment Plan's (201) 20 -year study program. PSSA - Priority Sewer Service Area. Areas having sewer service or planned for sewer service within ten years, as designated by the '201' Comprehensive Waste- water Management Plan. '208' Study - Spokane Aquifer Water Quality Management Plan, April, 1979. Study to identify cause and effect relationships for water quality, and to develop a water quality management plan. 3 LEAD AGENCY NOTES 4 Lead Agency Notes 1. Please change the third paragraph under 4.1 a. on page 29 of the Draft EIS to read ". . .fall of 1981, none of which are classified as Federal or State endangered species, is contained. . .." 2. Please change the last sentence of the paragraph under 5.1 a. on page 31 of the Draft EIS to read: "No endangered species are known to occur. . .." 3. Please change the second sentence of the second paragraph under 6. b. on page 34 of the Draft EIS to read: "Approximately 3,650 vehicular trips per day would be . . .." 4. Approximately 39 percent of the lots (143) are oriented to permit maximum use (passive) of solar energy. The Spokane County Planning Department is presently considering various recommendations which would enhance solar access on these lots. One potential recommendation is for zero lot line setbacks, which would also provide a larger usable yard area. 5. As discussed in the Draft EIS, the additional traffic generated by both this proposal and other planned development could significantly affect traffic flows in the area. In order to mitigate potential impacts the Lead Agency will recommend several conditions of approval: a. In conjunction with development of the proposed commercial area, the proponents will be responsible for the cost of improvements to those portions of Barker Road and Mission Avenue which lie adjacent to the commercial area including additional lanes for vehicles, bicycle lanes, and sidewalks. Barker Road may also require left turn channelization. b. The proponents may be responsible for the cost of improvements to Mission Avenue adjacent to the residential section of the proposal. The need for such improvements will be assessed in conjunction with each phase of the development. c. If, during development of the proposal, major improvements are required on the Barker Road /I -90 overpass, the proponents may be required to finance a proportionate share of the cost of such improvements. 5 REVISED SITE PLAN (Depicting floodplain, passive recreation area, and Inland Paper Company ownership) 6 Rlnrny — Intaans Augusta M IS l nn lettO 1 111111 ! MEMM _ II _ Development Plan For. .'O,0 sou soar - e Ittenn -- a al RIVERWAY VILLA Zao'Setback <\ �4 Inland Paper Company Ownership ' "./ . / Q `,Wt; p EIE .,sett :o ]el4 RMH — Proposed RESIDENTIAL MANUFACTURED HOME ZONE C — Proposed COMMERCIAL ZONE a , a 0004 • 0004 o 100 200 aar nod ARGER /WRIGHTand ASSOCIATES (MODIFIED) Leaend f me4410' nuliswra soarer. awMep 444,www1 root- 111.1111> uef• vskLarall. +s r0. MM MLflwl/. voted. n4400441 24 0 DRAINFIELD AREA r /FUTURE :LOTS' FLOOD PLAIN -f0,. = 0 0 9 ra...T >f'ir^t- -704 \• ADDENDUM FINAL EIS COMMENTS AND RESPONSES The following pages contain the comments received on the Riverway Villa Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The written comments are reproduced in the actual form in which they were received. The letters are broken down to individual comments designated as C -1 (Comment One). The response to each comment is designated as R -1 (Response to Comment One). 8 ;".\ United States Soil (.��s Department of Conservation de<>% Agriculture Service Mr. Wally Hubbard, Director Spokane County Planning Department North 721 Jefferson Spokane, Washington 99260 Dear Mr. Hubbard: We have reviewed your draft environmental impact statement for the Riverway Villa project and offer the following comments. Page 16, Site Topography /Soils Map: The soils for the entire site is classified by the Soil Conservation Service as prime farmland. It is the policy of SCS to recommend development of areas not considered to be prime farmland. C -2 Page 28, c: The third word of the first sentence should be changed from "should" to "will ". C -1 C -3 Page 28, d: These adverse impacts could be avoided if a sewer system was constructed before this project is implemented. Thank you for the opportunity to review your draft. Sincerely, LYNN A. BROWN State Conservationist cc: J. Melton, DC, SCS, Spokane FO Al The Soil Conservation Service is an agency 01 the Department of Agriculture 9 Room 360 U.S. Courthouse Spokane, Washington 99201 4 C ' V E �r, a JAN 18 iJ82 $t'UI {AiiE L;UiRITY PLANNING DEPARTMEN1 1 1 January 12, 1982 1 SCS-AS-11 10 -79 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 R -1 Comment noted. The Comprehensive Plan has designated this area as Urban, which is intended to provide the opportunity for intensive resi- dential development and public services. Agricultural activities will be limited and considered as a secondary use. The Plan notes that intensive farming would not be compatible within Urban areas. R -2 Please amend the paragraph under 3.8 c. on page 28 of the Draft EIS to read: "The project will be connected . . .." R -3 The cumulative impacts of all development in the Spokane Valley could be significantly reduced if a sewer system was initially constructed to serve the Spokane Valley; however, the '201' wastewater facilities plan does not place a moratorium on development in the Spokane Valley pending installation of a centralized sewer system. (Please refer to Section 3.8 on page 27 and Section 6.4 on page 59 of the Draft EIS.) 10 JOHN SPELLA • Governor DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY A all Slop PV -1) • Olympia, Washington 98504 • ( ?LW) 459 -9(XX) Mr. Wally Hubbard Spokane County Planning Department North 721 Jefferson Spokane, Washington 99260 Dear Mr. Hubbard: Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft environmental C -4 impact statement for Riverway Villa. Department staff have reviewed the document and have no comments to offer. If you have any questions, please call me at 206/459 -6026. Sincerely, // DP: le [.Vr[ OF IA :ASHINC January 15, 1982 ,1 Fa t1 JAN SPDKAi�E CiiU "Ty PIANA;�NC DEPAR Debbie Fristoe Environmental Review Section 91 sPoik.vNE CC" `NNING 1 In )NACU \V MOOS at et 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 R -4 No response required. 12 STATE OF DEPARTiviti 1 OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES WASHINGTON West 924 Sinto Aven' L 32.4. Spokane. lVashington 99201 509/4563115 'John'Spellman Governor January 13, 1982 Spokane County Planning Department N. 721 Jefferson St. Spokane, Wa. 99260 13 bt r t i'' P .a B ' , JAfjj 798?_ Attention: Wally Hubbard Subject: Draft E.I.S. for Riverway Villa, PE- 1414 -81 Dear Mr. Hubbard: I have reviewed the subject E.I.S. and have the following comments to make: 1 On Page 14, b - The statement is made regarding grading of the site. The first paragraph indicates grading will be limited 8 to 12 feet. The predominant soil in this site and soil that will receive the drainfield effluent is Garrison gravelly loam. If this soil is left undisturbed it can be, for the most part, very suitable for on -site sewage disposal. Grading the upper horizons of this soil exposes the coarser soils that extend into gravels C -5 at depths of 3 to 5 feet. These coarser soils are designated by the State Board of Health's regulations under WAC 248 -96 -090 as Type 1. Type 1 soils have recommended density of 1 unit per acre. Larger densities can be accomplished with special design and analysis of groundwater conditions in the area. It should be noted that C.I.D. has a well field directly across Mission Ave. and depth to groundwater is approximately 78 feet. This department requests the drainfield site remain ungraded to utilize the upper soil horizon for better treatment of the effluent. 2. On Pages 26 and 27 - The anticipated amount of water to be used is stated at 250,000 gallons per day. This figure is extremely C -6 low. Utilizing figures of existing water use taken from the cur- rent C.I.D. #19 Water System Plan, the water usage per acre based on domestic use is: (1) Average 3.04 gpm /acre /day (2) Maximum daily 10.69 /acre /day This would compute to 118 x 3.04 = 358.72 gpm (516,556.8 GPD Average) and 118 x 10.69 = 1261.42 gpm (1,816,444.8 GPD Maximum) daily. 3. On Page 27, 3.8 b - The design quantity listed may increase due to DSHS guidelines requiring 350 GPD per unit design. In addition to C -7 this slight increase, backwash water from the swimming pool will add to the wastewater allocation. •f., . COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTENT t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 R -5 Comment Noted. This could be a condition of approval. R -6 Amended water quantity usage estimates for Riverway Villa are as follows: 109,500 gallons /day residential - without irrigation; October - May 730,000 gallons /day residential - with irrigation; June - September 15,000 gallons /day commercial - limited landscaping; 12 month average These estimates are based on the following assumptions: 300 gallons /day /lot - October through May 2,000 gallons /day /lot - June through September 1,500 gallons /day /acre - Commercial land use 365 total developed lots 10 acres commercial use Total water requirements: 124,000 gallons /day - October through May 745,000 gallons /day - June through September 330,000 gallons /day - 12 month average Consolidated Irrigation District No. 19's water consumption figures are based on low density development requiring large amounts of irrigation water. This type of development is common in this service area. Riverway Villa is a higher density development with a commercial area. Approximately 38 percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces, thereby reducing the irrigation requirements. R -7 The sewage treatment requirements for a manufactured home development are less than for a conventional single family development with an equal number of units. This assumption is based on the fact that the average household size for manufactured homes is between 2.0 and 2.5 persons, whereas conventional single family homes have an average household size of 3.0 to 3.5 persons. Design and construction of sewage treatment facilities will comply with guidelines of the Department of Social and Health Services, Department of Ecology and the Spokane County Health District. 14 To: Spokane County Planning Department Page 2 January 13, 1982 C_8 In accordance with the County Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan, the project should agree to, not oppose, ULID formation to connection to the county interceptor and agree to connect as soon as possible. This is the extent of our comments. Should you have any questions feel free to call. Sincerely, George 8 Environeentalist GBS:ei cc: Spokane C.H.D. Spokane Co. Utilities - Bill Dobratz State Health 15 R -8 Comment Noted. This could be a condition of approval. 16 JOHN SPELLMAN Governor STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION 711 West Twenty -First Avenue, KL -11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (206) 753 -4011 ci k r 4; ;t- 3W W 'O N ny pR;I,E taS ?t0 D Date: January 15, 1982 Log Reference: 285- C -SP -08 Project Title: DEIS - Riverway Villa Spokane County Planning Department North 721 Jefferson Spokane, Washington 99260 Dear Applicant: C -9 We have reviewed your draft environmental impact statement and find there are no historic or archaeological properties on the State or National Register of Historic Places, or the Washington State Inventory of Historic Places, that will be impacted by the project. In the event that unknown archaeological resources are inadvert- ently unearthed during construction activities, please notify the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in Olympia, and the Washington Archaeological Research Center in Pullman, Washington. Form AHP R -6 (2/81) 17 Sincerely, Sheila Stum db Archaeologist IACOB THOMAS Director 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 R -9 Comment Noted. 18 JOHN SPELLMAN Governor C -11 Wally Hubbard, Director Spokane County Planning Department North 721 Jefferson Spokane, Washington 99260 Mr. Hubbard, STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF GAME 600 North Capitol Way, 0-11 . Olympia, Washington 98504 . (206) 753 -57 ,P , �R 4 January 14, 1982ti, G« 'tl 3W go t DEPT 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: Riverway Villa Manufactured Home Site and Commercial Center Your document has been reviewed by our staff as requested; comments follow. As the impact statement acknowledged, the main impacts on wildlife as a result of this proposal will be the deterioration of the Spokane River and associated C -10 riparian habitats. However, potential impacts may be more severe than discussed. In the discussion of impacts on fish and wildlife habitat, it mentions a reduction in the value of riparian habitat in the project area. It is very likely that corridors and riparian habitats up and downstream will also be impacted. Reserving habitat along the river as undeveloped open space would help reduce potential impacts. However, from the project description, it is clear it will not remain undeveloped. Hiking trails, picnic sites, outdoor recreation shelters, and exercise stations are potential developments. These types of developments would serve to attract people to this sensitive area. The most severe impacts would likely be from human disturbance and pets. The impact statement should discuss ways to reduce these impacts. We do not agree the proposed open space would "enhance the river - associated habitat" as mentioned on page 33. A reduction in the quality of riparian wildlife habitat should he expected. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. Sincerely, THE DEPARTMENT OF GAME MHG:cv cc: Agencies Region 19 74,i xi Mark H. Grandstaff, Applied Ecologist Environmental Affairs Program Habitat Management Division FRANK LOCKAI Director 1 R -10 Comment noted. Because of the diverse ownerships along the Spokane River and the lack of a comprehensive open space plan for the river, a discussion of the potential impacts of future development and other land uses on areas upstream and downstream would merely be conjecture. R -11 Any development along the river for recreational uses will be strictly controlled by Spokane County under the Spokane County Shorelines Pro- gram, which contains the following policies for the Pastoral classifica- tion: Policy 1: Only passive recreational uses are permitted. Policy 2: The design and development of recreational areas, whether public or private, shall protect and preserve the natural features of the land and its vegetation and the quality of the water for recreational use and natural habitat. Policy 3: The scenic quality of the area, both views of the water and from the water, must be preserved or enhanced to the maximum possible extent. 20 JOHN SPELLMAN Governor Mr. Wally Hubbard, Director Spokane County Planning Department N. 721 Jefferson Street Spokane, WA 99260 Dear Mr. Hubbard: WRH:sw cc: R. Albert D. Walther Record Control KLP STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Quite of District Administrator • North 2714 Mayfair Street, Box 5299, North Central Station • Spokane, tt ashington 99205 January 5, 1982 According to the EIS on page 47 approximately 6500 additional trips per day on Barker Road will be generated by this proposal. Approxi- mately 70% (4,550) of these trips will be between the Barker Road - C -12 I 90 Interchange and Mission Avenue. This additional traffic will cause a severe impact on the Barker Road -I 90 Interchange. The pre - sent structure over 190 is a two lane structure. Should the inter- change become severely impacted our department would look to Spokane County to share in the costs of modifying the structure and /or ramps to accommodate the additional traffic generated by this proposal. 21 ery truly yours, WALTER R.‘HORNING, P. E. District Administrator JAN 0 8 i98? SPPOikArjE COUNTY DEPART ;ENT 1 DUANE BERENTSON 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Secretary 9 t ell Li 1 R -12 Comment Noted. The Riverway Villa project would add to the cumulative traffic impacts on the Barker Road interchange. Project phasing of ap- proximately eight years would allow sufficient time to evaluate the need and scheduling of interchange improvements. 22 C -13 TO: Spokane County Planning Department North 721 Jefferson Spokane, WA 99260 FROM: NAME Walt Wruble SUBJECT: XX i)epannie:nl, 0"_ f, aatUrL,l itesoul';:es Attn: Wally Hubbard, Director TITLE Spokane Local Manager ADDRESS P.0. Box 190, Colville, WA 99114 DATE: December 17, 1981 REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ACTION SPONSOR Spokane County Planning Department PROJECT Riverway Villa, PE- 1414 -81 Section 8, Township 25 North, Range 45 EWM We do not have an interest in the above project and have no conments on the proposal. We do have an interest in the above project and wish to make the following comments: 1 A surface land mine reclamation permit and.reclama- tion plan shall be required if more than two acres of contiguous land is to be disturbed or more than 10,000 yards of mineral is removed in any type mining operation. (For example, the removal of top soil or any other aggregate type of material to be sold or used for construction off the proposed development site.) cc: DNR SEPA Center Philip Hildebrand, Area Manager Ross Hesseltine, Arcadia District Manager File 23 _� BRIAN J. BOYLE 11 Conunissianur of Public Lunds 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 R -13 Construction of the project will require limited grading and excavation to accommodate streets, utilities, parking areas, drainage and struc- tures. These type of excavation and grading activities will be confined to the site, with no commercial removal of topsoil or aggregate mate- rials. 24 January 11, 1982 Wally Hubbard, Director Spokane County Planning Dept. North 721 Jefferson Spokane, WA 99260 Re: Draft EIS on Riverway Villa Dear Mr. Hubbard: I have reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Riverway Villa Mobile Home Park and Shopping Center and I do question one paragraph in the air quality section. On page 21, the last paragraph, where it is stated "...project development would remove approximately 100 acres of dryland and irrigated farming...(reducing approximately 69 tons (of particulates) annually..." This figure is excessively high. From the reference material available to me, emissions from agricultural activity equal C -14 only about .03 ton /acre /year. For the 100 acre parcel this would amount to only 3 tons /year. This will not offset the estimated 10 tons/ year of particulates that will be generated from vehicle related activities. While these emission levels are relatively minor, I feel the correction should be made in the final statement. C -15 The Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority further requires that means be taken to avoid deposition of mud and dirt from unpaved surfaces onto paved surfaces during the construction phase of this project. Thank you for inviting our comments and if I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, L AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY SPOKANE COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY . Christopher J. McEnany Field Representative ADDRESS REPLY TO: SPOKANE COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY WEST 1101 COLLEGE, ROOM 230 SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99201 25 1 1 ,g E C to knsa d JAN 15 ;at._, , SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 R -14 Based on EPA emission factors, the "approximately 69 tons" referred to in the Draft EIS appears to be correct: Plowing generates .03 ton of particulates /acre x 100 acres ='3 tons /year Fertilizing generates .01 ton of particulates /acre x 100 acres = 1 ton /year Harvesting generates .04 ton of particulates /acre x 100 acres = 4 tons /year Wind Erosion, depending on the soils, silt content, number of dry days, wind speed, etc. will generate approximately .6 ton of particulates/ acre x 100 acres = 60 tons /year Total particulates generated by farming operation /year = 68 tons /year. R -15 Comment noted. Adequate means will be taken. 26 ( N.811 Jefferson Spokane, Washington December 10, 1981 Wally Hubbard, Director Spokane County Planning Department N. 721 Jefferson Spokane, WA 99260 Dear Mr. Hubbard: Sincerely, Dean Blount, Administrator Water Quality Programs DB /set C N r Liberty Lake C A / Newmann M / lake 11 Spokane Aquifer Study 99260 (55009) 450 - FEcEivt DEC 10 .1981 SPOKANE CDDNIY PLANNING DEPARTMEN 27 Hayden lake ( ' Alene Lake Coeur d'Alene RE: Review of DEIS "Riverway Villa" In the process of reviewing the DEIS for accord with the "208" Plan, I noted several admirable statements and two relatively minor errors. The latter include: C -16 = page 3, item 3.b. under the heading "Unavoidable Adverse Impacts," the entry should read "Reduction of contaminants" instead of "none ". GPA systems do markedly reduce the level of contaminants reaching the aquifer, but the system is not perfect. Therefore, the comment "none" is not totally accurate. 4 C -17 - Appendix "C" page 3, Sec. V.I. The second sentence is incorrect in that the "208" Plan does not require a 50% larger drainfield over the aquifer. The admirable aspects of the DEIS are several references which indicate sensitivity to the ease with which the aquifer can be contaminated. Specifically, the DEIS C-18 suggests integral GPA's to clean stormwater runoff. The document also suggests prohibition of hazardous materials in the mini - warehouse portion of the proposed development. The authors of the DEIS are to be congratulated for including these suggestions. If these become conditions of project approval, the DEIS will have served its purpose. Thank you for the opportunity to review this DEIS. If you have need of clarifica- tion, please contact me. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ECE8 E EEC 1 0 1981 1 SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT' 1 R -16 Although some level of contaminants would reach the aquifer, it is unlikely that the impact from this proposal would be adverse. This proposal would, however, add to the cumulative impact from all devel- opment in the Spokane Valley. Please delete the word "None" from both 3. b. on page 3 and 3.2 d. on page 24 of the Draft EIS, and add the following: "Cumulative impact on ground water quality ". R -17 Please delete "The '208' Study and" under V. 1. on page C -4 of the Draft EIS. R -18 Comment noted. These are mitigating measures recognized by the Lead Agency. 28 SPOaA C COOni♦ COVa: HOu5C Mr. Wallis Hubbard, Director Spokane County Planning Dept. Spokane, Washington 99260 Dear Mr. Hubbard, r DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION TELEPHONE 456 -4730 WEST 1115 BROADWAY AVENUE SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260 December 17, 1981 In reviewing Riverway Villa Draft Environmental Irnpact State- ment, I have the following comments to make as it relates to this agency: C -19 1 . The 200' foot set back should be donated to Spokane County Park to provide additional public access to the Spokane River. C -20 2. The Plan doesn't mention the proposed Bikeway down the river. While not a specific adopted plan it has long been planned to build a trail down the Spokane River and we may be able to use the proposed Riverway Road to our advantage. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. S AA: dg ely, D. g Parks & Recreation ector 29 R -19 Since publication of the Draft EIS, the proponents and their represen- tatives have met with Mr. Angove. The proponents are willing to enter into agreement with Spokane County to provide easement or right of way for a bike trail (refer to R -20). They do, however, prefer to turn over the 200 foot setback to a Homeowner's Association comprised of residents of the development, and will contribute approximately $50.00 per lot to this Association to aid in limited recreational development of the area. R -20 The proponents are willing to enter into agreement with Spokane County to provide easement or right of way for a bike trail. They would enter into this agreement prior to recording the first final plat. Prelimi- nary discussions with Mr. Angove indicate that an agreement delaying actual conveyance of the easement or right of way until either the County has a specific adopted plan and funding for an area -wide bike trail program or 10 years has passed, would probably be satisfactory. 30 Form 327 -C.R. OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEER SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON Date JANUARY 18 19 82 Inter - office Communication To SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT. N. 721 JEFFMSON From G. NELSON Subject RIVERWAY VILLA E.I.S. C-21 THE SECTION ON TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION DOES NOT ADDRESS THE IMPACT OP. MITIGATING MEASURES TO MISSION AVENUE. 31 1 1 1 1 1 1 ECEIVE D 1 JAN 18 1982 1 SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1 1 1 1 1 1 R -21 Please delete the first paragraph under 3.1 b. on page 47 of the Draft EIS and add the following paragraph: The 365 new home sites would generate approximately 3,600 trip movements per day, primarily on Barker Road. Depending on final design, between 30 and 40 percent of the traffic generated by the proposal would use Mission Avenue for access to the shopping center site and Barker and Harvard Roads, adding approximately 1,200 cars to Mission Avenue. Shopping center access to Mission Avenue would add approximately 1,000 trip movements, 20 to 25 percent of the shopping center traffic, to Mission Avenue. Traffic on Mission Avenue would increase from the current 900 cars per day to 3,100 cars after comple- tion of the project. Please add the following paragraph under 3.1 c. on page 47 of the Draft EIS: To mitigate impacts upon Mission Avenue, it is antici- pated that improvements to Mission Avenue would include addition of a parking strip, curb and sidewalk to the north side of Mission Avenue, or participation in a Road Improvement District to improve the entire Mission Avenue right of way adjoining the project. 32 t . 1 11 LARRY V. ERICKSON 1 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF 1 ` ` j I 1 y - _ 7 DEAN A. LYDIG, Undersheriff TERRY D. SNEDDEN. Inspector DONALD R. MANNING, Chief Jailer .o .. qq11 i1L w t4� COUNTY-CITY PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 1 } W h _O i!_ SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260 Telephone 456 -473o January 12, 1982 , 9 � ECEPIE :aV 1 -rt 1982 SPOKANE COUNTY ' PLANNING 4ENRINlEill • 5POHAME CoQHrr COURr HOUSE Spokane County Planning Department North 721 Jefferson Broadway Centre 2uilci ±;':g Spokane, WA ; :926G HE: Environmental Impact Statement on Riverway Villa Gentlemen: The Riverway Villa located on the northeast corner of Barker and ilissicn ' Avenue will cover 116 acres, it will have 365 new homes, three stores, C - one bowling alley, and also some mini storage facilities. Estimates are that it will increase the population of that area 700 -900 people; 200 of these would be younger children. It will bring about 3•' miles of 1ew roads which would consist of residential streets. Also, it will cause t1e widening and reconstruction of some of the older roads. This is the area that is covered by our District 6 car and, at this time,' it is an area of low residents; however, it is now starting to be one of our fastest growing areas as it encompasses the East Farms /Otis Orchards 1 • area. According to the figures in the Environmental Impact Statement, the area of East Farms has increased 123% in the last 10 years population -wise. The area where the new proposed site is has increased 78% in the last 10 years. As you I_IOw, people arc our main ccnc &r;; - where there are no people, we 11 have no problems. With the increase of •65 neu homes, 3 stores and a bowling alley, we are goin g to find a large increase in residents, shoppers; the bowling alley itself will attract young people. With the beginning of the construction, you will find that we will be responding to job- related injuries, thefts of building equipment and /or materials, vandalism to the equipment, plus considerable heavy equipment traffic, and the always pos- sible problem of labor - management disputes, strikes, etc.. 1 The area is now old, established homes and farms and this will be a blend- ing of the country living with new people moving in who are normally city oriented. I am sure this is going to be a difficult adjustment fcr the people who have lived and grown up in that area. (continued) 33 , ' R -22 Comment noted. 34 Page Two To: Spokane County Planning Department January 12, 1982 One of the problems that is going to occur is that there will be a large residential area built on the banks of the Spokane River. The plan is to place picnic areas, jogging areas and bicycling areas along the river. The river, which we know is a treacherous stretch of water, is bound to account for drowrings as its use increases greatly with the new residents. Also, as that area is opened up, we will find that the river is used for keggers, assaults, rapes and other things that normally occur in that type of area. Also, the area is now used by motorcyclists and snowmobilers. As the residents move in, this will become an increasing problem and one that cannot be accepted in a high - population area. The parking lot for the shopping area will have spaces for 375 cars; from this we will inherit the theft of autos, thefts from autos, vandalisms, and accidents in the parking lot. Also inherent with large shopping areas are thefts of bicycles and shopliftirg The stores themselves are suscep- tible to armed robberies and burglaries. The area itself is located fairly close to Newman Lake. We would find that the residents there will use Newman Lake, Sullivan Park and Walk in the Wild as their immediate recreational areas. As the houses are completed and the families move in, we feel that the families will be the young married cou- ples and the older retired people, which again will be a difficult blend of people, and you will find that we will have family fights, burglaries, and neighborhood disputes as we do in all of our populated areas. When the complex is completed, we will have the increased traffic of delivery trucks, school buses and motorcycles, snow plows, etc.. These are going to be problems that we always find when we find people. I feel that it would probably need heavier patrolling than we are now giving it; that it will attract other businesses to build in that area because of the increase in population and that we will need an increase of three patrolmen to give the new homeowners adegivate protection and police services. This, of course, is going to necessitate that we increase our prowl car mileage and use. The incidents that are covered by the patrolmen of course will be, in many cases, forwarded to the Investigative Division and will cause an increase in caseload for detectives and our service units. I do feel that the Riverway Villa is well laid out and well thought out and we cannot totally say that it alone will necessitate the need for more patrolmen. However, coupling it with the growth in that area, I feel that that will be the immediate impact on law enforcement in the Sheriff's Office. LVE /kmw Sincerely, � 2 ,/ LARRY V. ERICKSON, Sheriff Spokane County 35 t i SPOKANE All - AMERICA CITY 11 1 1 11 t Mr. Wally Hubbard, Director Spokane County Planning Department North 721 Jefferson Spokane, Washington 99260 ETC:DLC:gam January 4, 1982 37 CITY ZONING BOARD 309 City Hall — (509) 456-4375 CARROLL MARTELL, Chairman VAUGHN P. CALL, AICP Manager — Planning E. TERRY CLEGG, AICP, MCIP Director — Zoning, Subdivision and Environmental Services PLINNIt SPOKANE Cul; O EPARNE N Dear Mr. Hubbard: RE: RIVERWAY VILLA EIS We have reviewed the draft EIS for the proposed 118 acre, 365 unit development and have no particular problem with this proposal. C -23 It is noted that a number of sewage disposal alternatives are discussed with no statement as to the final method of disposal being chosen. The amount of potential impact to the aquifer can not be determined. A discussion takes place on page 67 with respect to desirable service C -P4 areas for neighborhood commercial activity. It is noted that a one mile service area is suggested and that existing commercial activity apparently takes place within approximately one mile from the site. Very kruly yours, C E. Terry Clegg, Zoning, Subdivision and Environmental Services Director R -23 The recommended sewage disposal system is discussed on pages C -11 and C -13 of the Draft EIS. It 1s concluded that the most feasible method' of wastewater management would be to install sewer lines, make these active instead of dry lines, and utilize community septic tanks and drainfields for treatment. R -24 Existing and somewhat limited commercial facilities for the area are located at Greenacres Road and Appleway Avenue, approximately one mile south of the proposal. Access to this area is limited to the Barker Road /I -90 interchange. Few neighborhood or community shopping facilities have been established north of I -90 along Barker Road, except for a truck stop, a restaurant, and a small convenience store which is part of a campground. 38 r SPOKANE ALL-AMERICA II 11 'I ; Mr. Wallis Hubbard, Director Spokane County Planning Department North 721 Jefferson Spokane, Washington 99260 Dear Mr. RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT - RIVERWAY VILLA December 23, 1981 I have reviewed this impact statement and have the following comments: C - 1. The riverbank natural area along the river is proposed to contain trails, picnic sites and exercise stations. Who will be responsible for making these improvements? C - 2. On page 52 the statement is made that Central Valley High School now has 1,271 students in a facility with a capacity of 1,161. Will this project along with other development within the Central Valley School district further contribute to this overcrowded situation? C - 3. The proposal will provide substantial areas for passive recreation. As far as we can determine, there are no park facilities for active recreation within walking distance or even bicycling distrance of this project. At the densities being proposed, active park facili- ties would seem to be an essential public service. Are future park sites planned in the near vicinity of this proposal? C - 4. We agree with the note on page 56 stating that the placement of units on lots, revised yard requirements and restrictions on covenants re- lating to solar access easements should be considered. The arrangement and orientation of the lots at the time of platting is essential to the most efficient use of both passive and active solar systems. Has solar access been a consideration in this orientation of the lots? In summary, we support the provision of Lower income housing, however, essential public facilities should be available or planned that will support the proposal. LEB:GOZ:elt 39 Lyle E. Balderson, Planning Director CITY KLAN 309 City Hall JEAN BESCHEL, President VAUGHN P. CALL, A.I.P. ' Manager — Planning Lyle E. Balderson Planning Director R -25 Please refer to R -19. R -26 As stated in the Draft EIS, Riverway Villa will attract either retired persons or young couples. It is anticipated that the number of resi- dents of high school age would be very small. The project will be phased over an eight -year period to allow time for Central Valley School District to make the necessary adjustments. R -27 Sullivan Park, which lies approximately two miles west of the site, is the closest developed public park. School sites in the area also pro- vide some areas for active recreation. Harvard Park lies approximately 1 -1/2 miles east of the site. However, at the present this site is undeveloped. The future of Harvard Park is uncertain due to recent Spokane County Parks Department budget cuts. R -28 Please refer to Lead Agency Notes. 40 0 Neil D. Prescott. Ir. N. min'14 Sri Janet E. Bastille Central Va1l� Ko. JF`• in the 5Cola ne• \'alley �� ®® South 123 H0,cdi, h Stn,ka ne lv,a hing mn au 20o 150 0 224 , 700 District Dr. Richard C. Langton Charlet C. Stocker January 19, 1982 WALLY HUBBARD, DIRECTOR Edwin i Mikescll M.nu.n,a nu„ >.,.... SPOKANE COUNTY PLANiNING DEPARTMENT N. 721 JEFFERSON SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260 Dr. Hi u.r L. clrhn,en Darrell A. Thompson Sheryl L. McComas :. Dr. Herbert H. Osborn Dear Mr. Hubbard: We have received the Draft EIS for Rivengay Villa. Li. LPN ��\ t pp , At t 4 \ NN\N We have reviewed,pertinent portions of this document. Our comments are as follows: C -29 1. On page 5 the author states that there will be no in- crease in school -aged children due to the proposal. On page 52, after acknowledging that the project is designed to serve young families (P.9,43), the State - ment indicates that 200 public school students are likely to reside within the development. The author may wish to reconcile these two assertions. C -30 2. On pages 8 and 62 the author suggests that "lack of interest" makes it "unlikely" that a public or non profit agency would elect to purchase the site. To our knowledge no part of the site has been off- ered for purchase by Central Valley School District, a public agency. Were part of the property to be made available to the District, the District may, in fact, be interested in considering its acquisition. C -31 3. On pages 39 and 52 the author notes that the School District's Barker Center facility is used strictly as an administrative center. Aside from presence of periodic night classes at this facility, these statements are correct at present. Until recently, however, the District housed sev- eral kindergarten classes in this building. It is quite possible that it will again be used in the future for classroom space. 41 1 1 R -29 The summary on page 5 indicates that there will be an increase in the number of children attending public schools but that this increase would not be mitigated as an adverse impact. The increase of students attending public schools was not determined to be adverse. R -30 The statement regarding public acquisition of the project site was confined to the evaluation of the entire ownership and not a portion thereof. Acquisition of a portion of the site would still mandate development of the remainder of the ownership. R -31 Comment noted. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 42 WALLY HUBBARD, DIRECTOR JANUARY 19, 1982 PAGE 2 C -32 4. On page 47 the author suggests that the proposed 10 acre commercial center will generate 4500 ve- hicle trips per day in addition to 3600 vehicle trips anticipated from the 365 living units. The Draft EIS suggests that the largest share of these are likely to utilize Barker Road. This added traffic will not enhance Barker Center's already limited potential as an Elementary School Site. C -33 5. On page 52 the author indicates that most of the anticipated 200 students residing within the pro- posed development will be elementary -aged students. On the same page he notes that the Greenacres Ele- mentary School, which serves this area, is within 27 students of capacity. Greenacres Elementary must serve the entire East- ern portion of the School District for the fore- seeable future. Since 1) it lacks capacity to serve projected enrollment from the proposal, 2) it is located some distance from the proposal, and 3) bus transportation for pupils represents a substantial, rapidly growing School District obligation, the District is not now well equipped to conveniently handle up to 200 additional ele- mentary students anticipated as a result of this proposal. C -34 6. . On page 52 the author suggests that there are no adverse impacts from introduction of 200 students near Barker & Mission. The School District will be pleaseito serve these students. We note, however, that the proposed 200 new students represent 40 percent of an entire elementary school's enrollment and that no school facility capable of handling these youngsters exists nearby. C -35 7. The author states on page 67 that the anticipated 10 acre commercial development could be set aside in favor of more housing units within the proposal. We note that this same acreage would provide two - thirds of an elementary school site. 43 R -32 Comment noted. R -33 It is anticipated that phasing of the project, in conjunction with the time required for marketing, will introduce the 200 new students over a period of eight years or more, allowing necessary adjustments to be made. R -34 Refer to R -33. R -35 Proponents of Riverway Villa have since had several meetings with Central Valley School District Director of Facilities and Planning, Mr. Dave Jackman. Further discussions will be held concerning a new school site in the vicinity of Riverway Villa. 44 WALLY HUBBARD, DIRECTOR JANUARY 19, 1982 PAGE # We would be pleased to talk with the proponents of Riverway Villa about securing adequate shcooi facilities to serve youngsters resi- ding within the proposed development. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Riverway Villa Draft EIS. We found it generally clear and well organized. Sincerely, Da•'e Jac!imar. Directdr' Facilities and Planning DJ /gg 45 rn 0 0 U.1 d 2 C 0 Ct 18 0 Z a_ 0 532 784c_ OM NO %US tinta" 4,35ffir :Iran 17 2EVI3E1') M%SSi0 7 DATE EUCLID ;Vac was MN On NON amo amo NOBS NIEN zaa A,- 23 3 9 25 - 45 2o Dc SCR /PT/ON i4 PLAT N0.1%1 /6'E - 5 90 . ARIETTA 2 3. T. • b a > ' /5 - 72 7-I -1 /S 5E CT: O R E PROD UC ED FROM LI NEN TO ;✓ y L.AR AVE /V U E No. 1660 - 40' NO AIM NES MAW m117% 5 4 No. 57 —40' B Y ✓ER/ RA • `d 133 1 Gu a m "•.: 6ALO W iN -AVc: L0 3`F 9 r o ` 17 1c, 9 • ice T No.1%1 •• A . 0 • .4 Ar 'a , a N /v A 8 4' 8 20' 50' • f t r ,a 13 0 r1; 6100 WSW 11101F ,y E z +o, 10 11 CRr. r 'R.)Jo.5503 3 41 a-gent 140 ;0B16 ' 761 15Y2t F/It IEW JIVE. • S� lean ft; al .R ' 4 ,0 4 01E ' MINE ° ON i ARIETTA _ AR E �► 4 AD ,41111;108 7.3 3-_00 ,E 533f4c 5 21 41 M /SS /O/7 9 8 DRIVE b 22 NOM= r 2T6 2:54c 4t .30114.. t1 G 5/4c �. 23 r 39 6 S' 2 TES 37 38 No. 14. • I y 49 j4 C 6/Hc 25 36 • ,5 8 7 97, 1 /6 HE r Ac 49 1• 2 ; r. a. 2,G 9 - E6 : C 4• '.30.0 v �? 20 2,54c G N. 7J7 — 40' 4 S 7 BF F69 1 8 2S al 1.. gnu K N. pvt. 50 8-0941 1 � z . 2.3 (1) 0 L9 ° - 1' AVE :O— 64 2 27 Dw1N -AV-: u 3 U7 9 AK 5 0P 7 IS O Z 11 U 17 REVISED 'L/CLiD - 25 AVE N E 20' ._ 45 166 -40 Dc SCR /PT/O/V 7'H /5 SECTION REPRODUCED ,;.F LINEN TO A-y,LAR. DATE 6- /5 -72 BY 7ER/ R '0 4 CO N 9 17 )' • ./.? ,-,0 x-- 1/ Q. \- o *kiV a 6 9 . 6- 'A al .--.7.-:. 111116F No. 168960' Vair Pr... CO ,‘• r... / < ,_-•••• '7 , \ \ ..F 0 \ . ?•••:. !! i i , r .... 8•••s I '" 1 i•"*"... t. • : ° ......• •.- 1 I Faliktt2.- N '=' I 6 89 - 4 0 CATALDO 1 • • • • . • . t o i i '..! ••••• • t. N! c l i • .,.: Lt: C cd id& \... ( CA LTALDO AVg7.2 2 ?AO 'c \ t5- ...? - --- - 40 161, o .. P S. H. No. 2 1 , 3 89 —60 • •• :••'• : ..• • : 0 - K 0 M 20 No.1689+ 5"'„, ek) o „ a) 4- 0 czt 4 0 O- P [20' .9 4 , 1 , , iron pipe s 79. 53 / 7;6 -5 ZS -9 c 4/ .5011c. zG 2 5. 28 48 n u , _ A 0 PROPERTY OF SPOKANE COUNTY ASSESSOR 5713854e. 592.784c. 0 45 0T6 - 5 _ - 71 4/30/9c. 06 /Ac 0 f GREEMACRES 1 1 ESTATE.S / $r I ADDI rIoN 1 GREE NACRES 1 1 ESTATES I IIIIILAIMAIntjapoumaguniamman umummummmin j / S OTH L /NE TRACT 2 r 35 ■ 1 a EB 1 -10 OFF RAMP XISTING SIGN XISTINS STRIPING XISTINS FENCE °!°!°! ;r w00111 °! • 4 ee ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT �- GSBG * P.M. PEAK HOUR DHV (11% BUILDOUT YEAR) BALLAST OR NATURAL GROUND DESIGN DATA EXISTINS WIDTH 26' FUNCTIONAL CLASS DESIGN CLASS ACCESS CONTROL LAND USE TERRAIN DESIGN VEHICLE ADT K (% ADT FOR DHV) D (DIRECTIONAL SPLIT) T (TRUCK PERCENT) EXISTINS LANE 14' - EXISTING SHOULDER EAST BOUND I -10 OFF RAMP INTERSTATE FULL RURAL ROLLINS NB-50 3,1 (RAMP) I0% N/A BARKER ROAD COUNTY ARTERIAL N/A NONE RURAL ROLLINS 5U 1,000 SOUTHBOUND 4 NORTHBOUND 53% -�- EXISTING STOP SIGN OO EX'S POWER POLE A EXISTINS MONUMENT BOX EXISTINS STREET LIGHT SIGN POST EXISTING TOP GRATE, DRAINAGE INLET EXISTINS DRAINAGE OUTLET PROPOSED RAMP XISTINS SIGN UND O RAfrip LEGEND \ EXISTING PAVEMENT MARKING EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT EXISTINS FENCE -- FILL SLOPE TO BE 6:1 OR FLATTER ON NEW SECTION - 125' STORAGE POCKET - DEPTH OF BASE AND BALLAST TO CONFORM TO W.S.D.O.T.. RECOMMENDATIONS - INSTALL 18" THERMALPLASTIG STOP BAR - ALL TRAFFIC . ARROWS SHALL BE THERMALPLASTIC OTHER. PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE PAIN I LD. PROJECT 1 -10 EAST BOUND INDIANA AVE. XISTINS SIGNS 1 -10, E.B. OFF RAMP MP 213.16 XISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT JAN 1 7 1995 EXPIRES: 9/23/95 GRAPHIC SCALE C^ II-...M ..-4 k1 ='fir 120 END EXISTING CURB AND GU 1 I f=R END EXISTING SUARDRAIL-� EXISTING SIG EXISTING FOG LINE 8' X 50' TAPER LANE EXISTING GE TERLINE G' • DE SCALE: I INCH = 50 FEET 14 +22.00 BEGIN 25:I TRANSITION LANE 11 +47.00 13E61 N GORE STRIPE 8" WHITE GORE STRIPE 4" WHITE EDGE STRIP '`� ►` ,.EXISTING EDGE 0 PAVEMENT NEW EVSE OF PAVEMENT STOP SIGN -� 8' X 50' TAPER LANE I -90 EAST BOUND OAF -RAMP EXISTING FOG LINE 4" WHITE EDGE STRIPE NEW EDGE OF PAVEMENT EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT EXISTING POlAIER POLE 10 +00.00 I -c10 OFF- RAMP = 10 +00.00 BARKER ROAD P.S. = 2044.1 a ` - 10 +00.00 BARKER ROAD = 10 +00.00 RAMP F5= 2044.1'1 BARKER RQAE7 SPOKANE C001471' E NG iNEER RECD..:'; 3� JAN 1 FOR AGENCY REVIEW ONLY HORIZONTAL: I " =50' VERTl GAL: I " =5' BENCH MARK -SOUTH EAST CORNER BRIDGE OVER SPOKANE RIVER AT SULLIVAN ROAD. ELEV. Ig86.16 INDIANA, AVE. MISSION AVE. VICINITY MAP (NO SCALE) PROJECT AREA v (Ski/4 SECTION 8, T 25 N., R 45 E W.M.) CLEAR VIEW TRIANGLE EXISTING ROW E 1 i 1•q•7." :-1 ^1h,ZL_:• 0357 iaY. iY.^.. I•{' 3LE!` -Rhe. rri.4trki_r.+^_'e._+nki". :, i!!' 40 • 9,382 SF r 3," 4 6,683 SF 5 6136 SF 104' ^ I 10 6;136 5F 6,136 SF 104' 24,820 SF 057 AG 5, 3ci 983 SF 37 6 ,521 SF 9,335 SF L = TF CLEAR VI \ kk qq iW 1,181 SF TRIANGLEN i.4.."+ -rrY_a �.�LY? .1 f' «_'"r�_r► 1kY. ..:+�n..f.'!'�•.'��.+ GLEA'�' Wi''IANSLE (20 (2026) PRIVATE OWNERSHIP NOT A PART PPROX. LOC TO BE SET AS (2028) OMMERGIAL 682,131 SF 8:79 AC (2037) TEMPORARY SILTATION F NGE TBM: SPIKE IN POWER POLE ELEV. 2033.51 10' FUTURE AG SHEET 3/8" ' : • R M PRIOR TRUGTI 25 BLD (2029) (2030) ATION FENCE � — EXISTING ROW 5.W. 1/4 SECTION & STREET LOCATION INDEX STREET 24 6,137 5F m` TITLE SHEET INDIANA AVENUE HARMONY LANE BALDWIN LANE AUSUSTA LANE MGMILLAN LANE BARKER ROAD STA. 14 +50.00 24 +00.00 MISSION AVENUE STA. 10 +00.00 — I ci +00.00 DETAIL SHEET DETAIL SHEET BASIN SHEET BASIN SHEET SIGHT TRIANSLE DETAILS TEMPORARY CUL -DE -SAG APPROX. LOCATION 318" REBAR TO BE SET AS TBM PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CLEAR VIEW TRIANGLE CLEAR VIEW TRIANGLE i30X. LOCATION 3/8" REBAR O'BE SET AS TBM PRIOR TO 'CONSTRUC ION. i GLEA' VIEI^I TRIANGLE N 53 ;t \ APPROX. LOCATION 3/8 REBAR TO BE SET AS TBM PRIOR TO ONSTRUGTI ON. NE _ L NOTES S SPECIFICATIONS AND GENERAL_ PROVISIONS THE CONTRACTOR SHALL GUARANTEE ALL MA I tRIALS AND WORKMANSHIP FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING FINAL APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER. IT WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO CONTACT ALL APPLICABLE UTILITY COMPANIES AND HAVE THEM FIELD LOCATE THEIR UNDERGROUND LINES. ANY DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY REPAIRED BY HIM AT HIS EXPENSE. THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 15 HEREBY AD01'- I tD FOR THIS PROJECT. A. ANY CONFLICTING UTILITIES SHALL BE RELOCATED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ROAD OR DRAINAGE FACILITIES. B FOR CURB GRADES LESS THAN 0.8% (0.008 FT/FT), A WASHINGTON STATE - LICENSED PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR SHALL VERIFY THAT THE CURB FORMS ARE AT THE CORRECT DESIGN GRADE AND ELEVATION PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF CURBING MATERIAL. FINAL GUARANTEE: ALL WORK SHALL BE AND 15 HEREAd- I tR GUARANTEED BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM AND AFTER THE DATE OF FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF ALL THE WORK BY THE OWNER IF, WITHIN SAID GUARAN I tt PERIOD, REPAIRS OR CHANGES ARE REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE GUARANTEED WORK, WHICH IN THE OPINION OF THE ENGINEER, 15 RENDERED NECESSARY AS THE RESULT OF THE USE OF MATEP.!AL S, EQUIPMENT, OR WORKMANSHIP WHICH ARE INFERIOR, DEFECTIVE, OR NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL, PROMPTLY UPON RECEIPT OF NOTICE FROM THE OWNER, AND WITHOUT EXPENSE TO THE OWNER, (A) PLACE IN SATISFACTORY CONDITION IN EVERY PARTICULAR ALL OF SUCH GUARANTEED WORK, CORRECT ALL DEFECTS THEREIN; (B) MAKE GOOD ALL DAMAGE TO THE SITE, OR EQUIPMENT' THEREON, WHICH IN THE OPINION OF THE ENGINEER, 15 THE RESULT OF THE USE OF MA I tKIALS, FO11IPMENT OR WORKMANSHIP WHICH ARE INFERIOR, DEFECTIVE, OR NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE T GkMS OF THIS CONTRACT; AND (G) MAKE GOOD ANY WORK OR MATERIAL ON THE SITE DISTURBED IN FULFILLING ANY SUCH GUARANTEE. IF THE CONTRACTOR, AFTER NOTICE, FAILS WITHIN TEN (10) PAYE TO PROCEED TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THIS GUARANTEE, THE OWNER MAY HAVE THE DEFECTS CORRECTED, AND THE CONTRACTOR AND H1`- SURETY SHALL BE LIABLE FOR ALL EXPENSE INCURRED; PROVIDED, HOVER THAT IN CASE OF ANY EMERGENCY REPAIRS MAY BE MADE WITHOUT NOTICE BEING, GIVEN TO THE CONTRACTOR AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PAY THE COST THEREOF. SUCH EMERGENCY REPAIRS SHALL BE MADE BY OTHE?S ONLY IN THE EVENT THAT THE CONTRACTOR CANNOT BE LOA I w. 50 100 200 (IN FEET) 1 'inch = 100 ft. EXPIRES: 9/23/95 DATUM: BRASS GAP AT SOUTH EAST CORNER OF BRIO `3E OVER SPOKANE RIVER ON SULLIVAN ROAD. ELEV. = Ig86.16 THE CONTRACTOR I5 RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING ALL UTILITY COMPANIES BEFORE ANY CONSTRUCTION. ANY DAMAGE TO UTILITIES CAUSED BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REPAIRED AT HIS EXPENSE. ONE-GALL (50 -8000 6/14/95 MCH^I DRYINFI STOP AND STREET 516N EI PERIMETER FENCE LEFT (T.F.G) E.GR 19+63.44 BARKER ROAD F.S. 2027.4#1 M.G.R. F5. 2027.13 0 +00.0 INDIANA AVENUE 11 +23.1 BARKER ROAD F.S. 20 1.15 B.C.R. 0+39.02 F.S. 2026.77 GENTERL I NE 2030 RIGHT (T.F. B.G.R. 18 +83. BARKER ROAD F.S. 202750 0W POINT LOW POINT P.I .V.G. 5 Pi.V.G STA. 0 +15.00 F.S. 202654 100. P.I.V.G. S P.I.V.G. EL E.G.R. 0 +3898 F.S. 2026.15 tITIMB =22 +8036 N{IG MILLAN LA F.S. 2025.34 EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY 0 +00.00 INDIANA AVENUE 11 +23.92 BARKER ROAD F.S. 2021.15 (STATIONING ON BARKER ROAD BEGINS AT THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 CORNER OF S. 8, T25N, R4514, W.M. AT STATION 10+00.00) 0 +11.00 JOIN EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS EXISTINS EDGE OF PAVEMENT NOTE: FOR SIS TRIANGLE INFORMATION SEE SHEET 1G. M.G.R. F.S. 2021.12 B.C.R. 18 +8394 BARKER ROAD F5. 202150 E.G.R. 0+38.98 F5. 202615 END CURB AND &UTTER TAPER CURB STA. 0 +56.48 25 SIDEWALK, DRAINAGE, SLOPE AND UTILITY EASEMENT (TYP) STA. 0 OFFSET 2650' ELEV. 202616 P.I.V.G. 5 P.I.V.G. ELE IOO.0 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD/ TYPE 'B' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND 6RATE STA. 1+16.00 GRATE ELEV. 2024132. OFFSET 28' R161-17* A = I +00 = 2025.1 7' VC V = 2026.2/ - TA = 1 +21.43 A = 1+00 ' = 2025.15 7' VG A = 1 +00 , = 2025.11 F5. 2026..71 END CURB AND 6UTTER TAPER CURB STA. 0 +5652 r5 0+64D1 0 +15.00 BEGIN F.6. / 024.00 2028.00 G.. WLL A IDA 2024.00 $ / NOT A PART E.G.R. I9 +63.94 BARKER ROAD 1 +21.43 CATCH 5) AND INLET TYPE &RATE ELEV. 20 12` INV. ELEV. 2024.1 STA. 1+25 .00 F.S. 202624 '1 +15.00 CENTER POINT INV. ELEV. 2026.04 TYPE 2 CURB INLET , STA. I+60.00 ELEV. 202554 I ►! L8' T ; . 023 _ 1+21.43 CENTER POINT INV. ELEV. 202515 / TYPE 2 CURB INLET FLAT BOTTOM ELEV. 2025.04 NOT A PART / INV. ELEV. 2026.61 TYPE 2 CURB INLET TOP BERM STA. 2 +25.00 ELEV. 2026.11 FLAT BOTTOM/ ELEV. 2025.67 I • INV. ELEV. 2023. STA. 1+45.45 OFFSET 36.24 R1.7 2 +50.00 STEP 2029.61 T.O.W. - 2026.00 F.6. s WALL BAR 2024.00 BR EXISTING &ROUND FINISHED GRAPE EXISTING &ROUND FINISHED GRADE 1 +21.43 CATCH BASIN RIGHT OF WAY AND INLET TYPE 2 WITH 60' OF 12' D.I.P. CULVERT &RATE ELEV. 2025.15 INVERT ELEV. 2024.00 SLOPE = .008 2030.34 T.0.1^1. 2028.00 F.G. a WALL 202333 5.0.1^1. 3+00.00 STEP 203034 2028.00 F.6. G WALL 2024.00 8.0.1^1. / STA. 3+00 .00 END POND 2+50.00 INV. ELEV. 2026 TYPE 2 CURB INUIT: 4.0452 CORNER 2030.34 T.O.W. 202850 TOP OF CONCRETE WALK • HALL 2025.00 13.0.W. 3+50 .00 STEP FOOTING PG =2 +11.4 6' SIDEWALK (SEC DETAILS) b' UNDERDRAIN FROM KEYSTONE HALL TO CATCH BASIN o STA. DESIGN DEVIATION 1 +21.43 CONCERNING IRREGULAR RETAINING \ NALL ENCROACHES ON SIDEWALK - ■ . O. 0% ..._. E.C.R. 4+1929 T.F.G. 2024.00 M.C.R. TF.G. 2028.86 5 +2155 INDIANA AVENUE =11 +14.01 HARMONY LANE F.S. 2021.38 T.F.G. 2028.T1 IM DETAIL 'A" FOR KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL (SEE RIGHT) 4+01D6 END WALL 203034 T.O.W. 202850 TOP OF CONCRETE a WALL 1202450 B.O.W. . B.C.R. 20+40.61 HARMONY LANE TP.G. 202811 M.G.R. T.F.G. 2028.86 L= 23.36' E.GR. 4+19.24 T.F.C. 2029.00\ B.C.R. 4+4018 • TF.G.2029.09 9 I M.GR T.F.C. 202893 F.G. 2027.13 ILIK ' L= 24.02' CONCRETE IN ET TYPE 2 4 WITH METAL GRATE TYPE 2 / STA. 4140.00 1 F.G. 2027.15 / GRATE ELEV. 2021.63 L =2 73'-� OFFSET 52' RIGHT WITH t 28 1..F. I2' G.MP. 0 ±2% GRADE E.CR 19 +52.65 HARMONY LANE, T.F.C. 2028. 1 END CURB AND &LITTER SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'A' DRYWELL WITH SCU LOC./KIWI LID HARMONY LANE B.G.R. 20+40 .61 FARMONY LANE T.F.C. 2028.11 BAR. 4440.18 T.F.C. 2024.09 MLR T.F.C. 2028.43 E.G.R. I4 +52.65 HARMONY SECTION A -A (NOT TO SCALE) LP. 14 +24 .67 5+64.41 CENTER 0I INV. ELEV. 2029.1 TYPE 2 CURB I 5+6851 CENTER POINT INV. ELEV. 20292 TYPE 2 CURB INLE l\ E.G.R. 20+37.08 I T.F.G. 2028.16 M.G.R. 5 +21.55 INDIANA AVENUE =11 +14.01 HARMONY LANE F.S. 202135 E.C.R. 20+37.08 HARMONY LANE T.F.C. 202816 M.GR T.F.G. 202922 ' L =2457' BL.R 5+ 2.42 T.F.G. 20 4.61 T.F.C. 202922 M.G.R. T.F.C. 202921 B �- TYPE "• CURB SIDEWALK E.GR 5+6656 TF..C. 2029.70 B.G.R. 19+41.47 NY LANE T.F.C. 2028.11 B.G.R. 5+62.42 1 T.F.G. 2024.61 1 5+64.41 CENTER POINT INV. ELEV. 2024.18 TYPE 2 CURB INLET POND B SEE-SHEET 9A STA. 6 +15.00 F.S. 203050 L =qbe' TEL. 202421 ' \ STREET AND 40 STOP 5I6N B.G.R I9 +47.97 HARMONY LANE TEL. 202811 BEGIN CURB AND &LITTER SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE "B' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE HARMONY LANE INPIANA AV INI6H POINT ELUEV = 2030.5 100.0 ' VG P.I.V.G. S A = 1 +00 P.I.V.G. EL = 2030.14 HIGH POINT STA = 1 +00 P.I .V.G. S A = 1 +00 P.I.V.G. ELE = 2030.15 100. ' VG -*- 6+00 STANDARD KEYSTONE UNIT (M') COMPACTED NATIVE SOIL GRAVEL BAGKFILL FOR DRAIN PER KEYSTONE SPECS 6' DRAIN, ELEV. VARIES P.I.V.G. S A = 1 +00 P.I.V.C. EL = 2030.14 100. ' VG POND A SEE SHEET 4A A. 0+15.00 ART POND . RAMP 8.44 If 2021.16 b' MIN.-.1 6" MIN. GRANULAR FILL (CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE) DETAIL A NOT TO SCALE) SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'B" DRYWELL WITH 1 T rE 4 METAL FRAME AND &RATE STA. 5 +59.16 GRATE ELEV. 202868 OFFSET 25' LEFT 1 -- I i :'3 PT =6 +58.16 INV. ELEV. 2024.22 TYPE 2 CURB INLET E.C.R. 5+6656 T.F.C. 2029.10 202451 F.S. H.P. 203055 STA. 1 +25.00 F.S. 203050 6" MIN. STORAGE AREA COMPACTED FILL MATERIAL /� V � KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL NOTE5, I. COMPACTED &RAVEL FOUNDATION, 45% STANDARD PROCTOR 2. MIN. I' DRAINAGE FILL BEHIND WALL 3. PROVIDE LATERAL DRAINAGE AND DRAIN TO CATCH BASIN o STA. 1 +21.43 4. FOLLOW APPLICABLE BUILDING. GODES 5. CONSTRUCT PER MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS 6. CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT CONSTRUCTION, SEQUENCING. PLAN, AND COPY OF MANUFACTURERS CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES TO THE SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPT. AND NORTH IDAHO EN&INEERIN6 FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 13' RASE, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT. (SEE LANDSCAPED PLAN BY THE BERSER PARTNERSHIP, P.S) I 1 .:6 SPOKANE COUNTY STANT TYPE 's DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME , McMILLAN LANE B.G.R. 4+63.10 / - T.F.C. 2028.66 M.C.R. 8 TF.G. 20282 LP. 202115 STA. g +8120 1 2021.98 l. GR S?. &UTTER STA. 10+C I.20 CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT DELTA RI 20.00' 31.43' 20.01' 40 R2 20.00' 31.41' Iq.g4' 89 ° 58'08' R3 30.00' .40.10' 23.69' 16 R4 22.00' 3158' 2525' 4.752'01" R5 25.00' 3853' 24.21' 88 °18'00' Rb 20.00' 33.g8' 22.14' 41 R7 22.00' 3456' 22.00' 90 °00'00° R8 22.00' 3456' 22.00' 90'00'00' • EDGE OF PAVEMENT 10 +01.20 INDIANA AVENUE =22 +8036 MGM ILLAN LANE F.S. 202534 2021.81 CROSS GUTTER STA. 10+1520 2021.16 f. GROSS L=24.26' M.G.R. T.F.G. 2021.98 - L =1.15' STREET AND STOP SIeN E.G.R 10 +38.70 TF.G. 2028.06 TP.G. 2021.98 B.G.R1 22 +3836 McMILLAN LANE TP.0. 2021:90 10 +01.2 INDIIANA AVENUE SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE "A" PRYWELL WITH SOLI- LOCK.t 2t UD McMILLAN LANE 103 \ BAR. 22 +38.36 MCMILLAN LANE STA. 11+66.21 T.G. ELEV. 2021 STA. 11+6621 T.G. ELEV. 2021 ACC SHEET q E.G.R. 10 +38.10 T.F.G. 2028.06 INLET TYPE 2 WITH STA. 22 +39.16 Mct1TCLAN GRATE ELEV. 202695 OFFSET 60' RIGHT WITH 140 L.F. 12" G.MP. A t2% SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD 1 T rt " DRYWELL WITH SOLID LOGKIN6 LID STA. 11 +54.00 GRATE ELEV. 202621 OFFSET 28' LEFT 1 =11 +13.44 F.S. 202659 OFFSET 1850' H =1I +86.60 F5. 2026.43 OFFSET 21.28' CURVE DATA FOR TOP FACE OF CURB A =11 +73. 'FS. 202659 OFFSET 1850' 5 =11 +86.60 'F.S. 2026.43 OFFSET 2128' C=11+ E =12 +1620 F5. 2026.20 /FS. 2026.14 OFFSET 24.10' 9 - 23 - 95 D =12 +31.20 F.S. 2025.60 OFFSET 45' LEFT I I +66.21 PROLIEGT BOUNDARY F =12 +31.20 F.S. 2025.60 OFFSET 45' LEFT SGALE : I I NGH = 30 FEET SEG. 8, T25N, 1245E, KM. CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL GRATE TYPE 2 STA. I1 +95.00 GRATE ELEV. 2026.00 OFFSET 52' LEFT WITH ±44 L.F. IT G.M.P. ® t2% GRADE POND D SEE SHEET IA POND E GLE SHEET IA 6 /I9 /q5 JB 6= 1I +46.B8 I E =12 +1620 F.S. 2026.20 /F5. 2026.14 OFFSET 24.10' TEMPORARY TURN AROUND RADIUS POINT 12 +31.21 1(T.F.G.) GENTERL I NE1 (T.F.G.) PROFILE SCALE: HORIZONTAL: I " =50 VERTICAL: I " =5 11+6121 END CONSTRUCTION F.S. 2021.02 BEGIN TEMPORARY PAVED TURN AROUND CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL GRATE TYPE 2 STA. 11+95.00 GRATE ELEV. 2026.00 OFFSET 52' RIGHT WITH 144 LP. 15 G.M.P. ®t2% 6RADE SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'B" DRYWELL WITH SOLID LOCKING LID STA. 11 +54.00 &RATE ELEV. 202621 OFFSET 28' RIGHT LESEND STOP AND STREET SIGN PEDESTRIAN RAMP CHECK DAM CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT DELTA HI 22.00' 34.58' 22.02' • 90'03'08' H2 22.00' 3454' 2198' 81'5652 H3 22.00' 3458' 22.02' 90•03'08' H4 22.00' 34.54' 2198' 89'5652' H5 26 00' 31.04' 2245' 81'37'05' H6 23 .00' 35.56' 22.44' 88'3561' M2 22.00' 3458' 22 .02' 90•03'08' 113 20.00' 31.40' (9.98' 89'5652' R3 30.00' 40J0' 23.69' 16'35'13' R4 22.00' 3158' 25.25' 97'52'01' R5 25.00' 3853' 24.21' 88•18'00' R6 20 .00' 3398' 2214' 91'20'24' DAM STA. TOP BERM ELEV. UPSTREAM TOE OF BERM PO 4 5TREAM TOE OF BERM 3A 15 +25.10 2028.12 2021.12 2021.39 313 16+20.10 202821 202141 2027.31 3G 10+36.06 AUGUSTA 2021.13 2028.33 2021.12 CULVERT STA. IN STA. OUT OFFSET IN OFFSET OUT ELEV. IN ELEV. OUT GI II +62b2 II +77b2 1650' LEFT 16.50' LEFT 203131 2031.41 G2 14+07.62 14+22.62 1650' LEFT 1650' LEFT 2021.26 2028.16 G3 11 +2628 r1+10b6 16.43' LEFT 16.43' LEFT 202835 2028.05 • EDGE OF PAVEMENT •• TOP FADE OF CURB CURB DATA FOR EDGE OF PAVEMENT AND TOP FACE OF CURB SAWGUT I' OF EXISTING PAVEMENT TO FAC PAVEMENT INSTALLATION 10 +00.00 HARMONY LANE =16 +2162 MISSION AVENUE F.5. 2034. NOTE: FOR SIGHT TRIANGLE INFORMATION SEE SHEET 1G. 65.00' ILITY EASEMENT POND J-3 SEE SHEET 15 STA. 13+11.46 INV. ELEV. 2030.51 STA. 13+16.41 OP BERM 2031.01 STA. 13 +21.42 INV. ELEV. 2• .•. E.G.R. 14+10.91 F.S. 2021.46 L= 31.40' M.C.R. F.5. 2021.41 STREET SI6N F.G. 2021.4 H . 17 +85 39 F.S. 2029. H6 SWALE +14.07 PO F.5 2028.16 .2028)3 R4 +14.07 2028.16 W6521' T.F.C. 2034.85 M.GR T.F.C. 2034.41 L= 31.43' B.C.R. 10+51.53 T.F.C. 2034.01 POND L SEE SHEET 45 I4 STANDARD LL WITH FRAME: AND GRATE B.C.R. 11+53.17 GRADE TO DRAI 77.45' 1 E.G.R. 12 +25.91 FS. 2031.91 L= 31.40' POND K M.G.R. SEE SHEET F5. 203124 500'00'02'W 4. i 1 656.86' 2033 0 F.5. LP 2021.61 IIIH7Wr••••••.••••••Liraii A Ayr /� i B.C.R. 13+98.97 413 F.S. 2030.18 =10 +00.0 F.5. 2030. 0 2031 6. 2028.06 65.00' :Yr F.6. 2027.92 65.00' 65.00' i�a� SWALE LOW - • INT 2021.89 STA. 15+0646 INV. ELEV. 028$6 STA. 15+11.4 TOP BERM 2021.06 STA. 15 +16.4 INV. ELEV. .028515 K STA 16+4143 INV. ELEV. 2 F.S. 2021.35 C ONCRETE I TYPE 2 STA. 16 +41.43 F.G. 2021.3 q +g4.I3 BALPI N LANE F.5. 20�g56 � 02q 4 POND J-I SEE SHEET 9B F.S. 2027.09 -PC =16 +56.86 GRADE TO DRAIN 1 +18.41 L =46.00' L =1.35' B.C.R. 11+0 FS. 20 ' .00 L= 28.2 M.G F.S. •2899 POND H SEE SHEET 9A H.'. I1 +8539 20 9.00 LK AILS) = 8+71.54 F HAY .5. 202816 L =213' E.C.R. 14 +52.65 TF.G. 2028:71 SID K UNDERDRAIN STA. 11+42.11 INV. ELEV. 2028.1 L =968' STREET T.F.C. 2021 .00 M.G.R. EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY-\ C rn rn B.G.R. 16+6154 MISSION AVENUE FS. 2034.63 FUTURE RIGHT OF WAY NOTE: PLACE PIPE WITH HOLES DOWN RIGHT OF WAY SPOKANE TYPE B' TYPE 4 MET STA. 11+45.00 GRATE ELEV. OFFSET 14.5' FUTURE " 11+00 12+00 DATA FOR 4'A PERFORATED PIPE, 15' L&. 7- FUTURE ACQUISITION E.C.R. 15+90.0 MISS 014 AVENUE F5. 2032.63 .O.c LENTS F5. 203 2064 • E.G.R. 10+36.03 FUTURE SANDUSKY RIVER LANE F.S. 203117 i 11 F.5. 2031. 1 13+00 II +g0.00 HARMONY LANE EDGE OF PP. MENT 2032 ' ' INAGE SLOPE TYPE B' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND 24 STA. 13+97.98 GRATE ELEV. 2028.33 L= OFFSET 195' RIGHT 25 ML B.GR 10+35.97 FUTURE SANDUSKY RIVER LANE F5. 2 PROJECT BOUNDARY SIDEWALK UND E.C.R. 10+36 F5.202435 14400 STATION AND ELEVATION FOR CHECK DAM =10 +00.00 FUTURE SANDUSKY RIVER LANE F.S. 2032.55 2032 8 GRADE TO DRA 14+15.12 G2 65.00' L.0 650' . - SHE w 1__ A \I__ 15+00 CONCRETE INLET TYP 2 WITH METAL GRATE TYPE 2 STA. 16 +41.43 ORATE ELEV. 2021.51 OFFSET 55' LEFT WITH t 38 L.F. 12' G.MP. • t2% GRADE SPOKANE • STANDARD B TYPE ' DRYWELL WITH SOLID LOCKING LID STA. 16 +26.00 &RATE ELEV. 202143 OFFSET IT LEFT 2 14 +35.00 \HARMONY LANE WITH MET STA. 15+11. GRATE &RATE TYPE 2 . 2028.42 OFFSET 19 '' R16141 WITH t 125 LP. 12' G.M.P. • t2% GRADE 16400 2029 SPOKANE • STANDARD TYPE 8' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 15 +15.00 GRATE ELEV. 202769 OFFSE f 14.5' R16HT SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD B TYPE ' DRYWFI 1 WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND &RATE STA. 16+05.00 GRATE ELEV. 202169 OFFSET 14.5' RIGHT 11+00 11 +38.78 HARMONY LANE CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL GRATE TYPE 2 BALDWIN LANE F.6.2021 GO SPOKANE UN'1Y STANDARD TYPE DRYWELL ' DRYWE WITH TYPE 4 NITAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 16+55.00 GRATE ELEV. 2021.91 OFFSET 145' RIGHT SPOKANE COUNTY TANDARD TYPE 'A' DR WITH SOLID LOCKING LID STA. 19+40 .00 GRATE ELEV. 02130 17 OFFSET ' 9 3 PT RIGHT 6' SID (zT: 18+00 F.S. 2021.5 POND 6 SEE SHEET IA L =3065' M.GR P.S. 2021.13 41 STREET SIGN B.G.R. 10 +3190 BALDWIN LANE SPOKANE GOUNTY STANDARD TYPE 8' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE BALDWIN LANE E.C.R. 10+30.11 BALDWIN LANE F.S. 2028.17 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE B' DRYWELL BALDWIN LANE SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN B.G.R. 4+1018 INDIANA AVENUE T.F.C. 2029.09 \ M.G.R. T.F.C. 2026 L= 24.02' 2050 L=24.02' 2021)3 CONCRETE INLET bYPE 2 WITH METAL INDIANA A / POND F SEE SHEET 9A F.6. 202713 +1455 TYPE 2 SPOKANE COUNTY STAND TYPE "B' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND &RA STA. 19+25.00 GRATE ELEV. 2027.63 F.G. 202113 OFFSET r R1&HT 14+00 POND SEE SHEET 9A 2030 STOP 516N 40 B.0 +41.91 T.F.C. 202811 RIGHT OF WAY PROJECT BOUNDARY E.O.R. 4+1929 INDIANA AVENUE T.F.C. 2028.86 B.G.R. 20 +40.61 T.F.C. 2028. / ..••••• E.C.R. 5+6656 INDIANA AVENUE T.F.O. 2029.10 T.F.C. 202921 L =24.02' P.G. 11 +c14.01 I61 +614.07 HARMONY LANE =5 +2q.55 INDIANA AVENUE F.S. 2021.38 E.C.R. C 2028.16 8 28 68 ��;TUR : nIP'.R'.0 v LENTS M.G.R T.F.C. 202922 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'B" DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE INDIANA AVENUE POND B SEE SHEET 9A B.G.R. 5+62.42 INDIANA AVENUE T.F.C. 2029.61 6' SIDEWALK (SEE DETAILS) 13' DRAINAGE SLOPE UTILITY EASEMENT. (SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN BY THE EERIER PARTNERSHIP, P.S.) JUN 26 19 EXPIRES: 9 -23 -95 SCALE: I INCH _ 50 FEET SEG. 8, T25N, R45E, H.M. LESEND C/) 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 2030b1 (2032.6) 2030.11 (2031.1) (Z'Ieo ) L9'1 ZOZ (ONIIGD ) T ... - mo t` . `t- m m p m p m O � t `.N Or m m co O O �N O ("6 m 0 �N t- ry� N m� 0 O N �N O N N O O �N • ^ u? N � N o O N N � 0 O N N o m m(`r O 0 N �N m N 0 O N �-N O� (n o O �N O ciJ mN O o0 �N O CO o tO z 1L z Q 1- �, IX N -Z. d- mm • m mm 0 o fl: N r ^ CO m m p 0 N N A H A A P.1.V.G. STA = 10 +50 I V G ELEV = 203367 50. 07' VG EXISTING GROUND 0 P.I.V.G. STA P.I.V.G. ELEV 100.07 = 16 +00 8.11 8..11 = 202 VC------ • r cif N ljTI U • V > C Q P.I.V.G. STA P.I.V.G. ELEV = I8 +00 = 202q.T1 P.I.V.G. P.I.V.. -"` d . O p N V > STA = Iq ELEV = 2o27.g4 50.00' VG e +25 "- N' O a Z 0 _ �+ � E.GR 15+90.08 MISSION W E' A d W A (� `- tt , o ' TFG. 203455 2035 r 100 m N ON IU > u VG � = t + .. cp v FINISHED GRADE + U) U > m N N w U > I n swALE Low POI STA. 16+4 to + i 0) v �. NT 2021.81 w I+ l fl j U v > dJ O N v B.G.R. 4410.18 INDIANA TFG.2029.09 AVENUE E.C.R. 4 }19.29 IND ANA AVENUE LEFT LEFT 2030 M.C.R. - T.F.G. 2034.41 B.G.R. 10 +5153 TFG.2c 4.01 N + p -• N - 1 . 0 05}5 0 re O N 0 al m 18 U �I TF.G.202900 2030 • �r 11 +38.`18 HARMONY LAi` E 6� SWALE LOW POINT STA. 11+40 .0o • AA 2028.13 0 .G.R 14 +5265 LL 2025 1 �--�/ nn M.G.R. TFL. 202896 B.G.R. 20+40.61 TF G. 2028.M Ul =61 +614.13 BALDWIN F.S. 20261 LANE 56 T F.G. 20 28.93 T.F.C. 2028.17 0 II +610.00 HARMONY LANE _ O LOW POINT ELEV LOW POINT S P.I.V.G. STA; P.I.V.G. ELEV 100.00' ON v > � = 2028.67 - A = I6 +05.56 = I6 +00 = 2028.45 VG - n t + yv Jf l to O HIGH POINT ELEV HIGH POINT STA P.I.V.G. 5T P.I.V.G. ELEV - 100.00' = 202 = 17 +853q 4 .% =15+00 = 2030.05 LOW POINT LOW POINT P.I. V.G. P.I.V.G. N is 0 N ON 11-1 v ? ELEV = 2028.41 STA = IC STA = 1 ELEV = 2028.22 X0.00' VG +24.67 0 - 10 +00.00 =16 -27.62 F.S. HARMONY MISSIO\I 2034.610 2035 LANE AVENUE '.�- � tri 0 co � O N O w to y U U - T- m N f:I•r In O H Z o U % a a a 1 =I0 +00.00 FUTURE F.S. 2032.55 SANDU5KY RIVER LANE 14 +35 HARMONY LANE =10 +00 F.S. 2030.IG AUGUSTA LANE VG - Cu EXISTINE, GROUND FINISHED 6RACJE tt? ^ '4? q ts N t•• m p O . N EXISTING 6R0UND in ^ mrt ma- N O p N (N •-TN i+'N ? > m Q N 0Q N co p O N STA. 15 +1500 Q N v �+ t- N > pa (N 0 N v > U7 v d) IA N ' Lu v > �J N ON Lu 0 1X96 gi�25� O Z N � (N X ? emu- &.B. 19 +14.07 161 +614.0 HARMO =5 +2 IND IANA F.S. 20261.38 LANE AVENUE 2030 G�NT�RL 1 N GNTRL I N 2030 _ - j1„1 r. - .4 50.00' P.I.V.G. STA P .1 V.G. ELEV ■ •- --.__ F.S. 2028.96 VG 1-- 10 +50 = 2033. -i.lo� ^ ry to t p O �N A is 0 o N GJ - 1.46% N SJ m 0� N O 0 N LI ^ o s m0 m, p O N .NN U1 ^ - 4 Np m p O �N ►n ,- d? i ts N N p O NN •��n:� In Ti'), (` 0� N m p O e ----- In ^ 4 N p L is N u? O � N O O N N -I.S% w 2025 I'D I- tn_ X ' � c d-.. m in z 0 IL - ^ ,u' co m p o �N '1 R. ts0N m p o it) `� N � • cO 2 co p O CN ^ o ,n m Rs min p 0 N N 9 o t r �dJ N N p O N SQL P.I•V.G. STA P.I.V.G. EL • I � cr N N p O .N (N F5.202596 w �� B.GR 16 +6151 MI°_SION W AVENUE A NN P.1.V.G. STA P.I.V.G. ELEV 50.0 - 10 +50 = 2033.6'1 VG . NN M.C.R. = 16 +00 � = 2028.11 STA. 16 +2500 57.0. 11+75.0 P.I.V.G. 5T P.I.V.G. EL& A, = IS +00 202 STA- 18 +25D P,1.V.G. STA = (61 ELEV 2027. 50.00 VG m O N N l+ o SE .. V v , +25 ` N O N •• V EL.R 5+6656 IND T.F.C. 2021.10 ANA AVENUE B.C.R. BG 5+62.42 IND T.F.C. 202961 AN A AVENUE 2030 FS. 2031.84 E. 12+25.97 F. 202876 O F.5. 2028:11 F5. 2021.18 0 FS 202961 P.I.V.... 'r N O + O ts" N 0 0 0 P.5. 2034.63 2035 1 100.07 VG - p -• t ._ 100.00' m. VG F.5. 2031.91 �� z I-1 t--� , � i �y J '1"-"-"I Q 'Z /1 '1 F-'1 �..� 0 H Z FINISHED GRADE in V > 63 N N O Ilj l) v N v B.G.R- '` in t± N U >� N N O N w ai C - m B.G.R. 10 +31.80 f i+ s• �-- E.C.R. EG 11+1455 F.S. 202950 M.G.R. F.5. 2021.13 BALDWIN LANE RISHT RI SHT (EDP) MGR - Z ~ t N Z W F.S. 2034.33 E.GR 10+32.97 F.S. 2034.02 2030 B.G.R 10 +35.�fi1 F5.2031.77 FUTURE SANDUSKY _1 O RIVER LANE E.GR. 10+36.03 B G.R 13 FS. 2030.18 LA di U co m 0 N 0 0 > co 1-4: o 0 0 N m O N w 5.° iu B.O.R. 11 +53.47 FS. 203263 M / FS. 2032.20 SANDUSKY RVER C ` B.G.R. 19+41.91 LANE ® 0 bo j , / � / -1.46 ' _ • •A M.G.R. 2025 (EDP) e (9-""'" 0 MM.0.12. T.F.C. 202922 E.C.R. 20+37.08 E.G.R. 14+10.97 M.C.R. -` _ -- i F.S. 2029.46 M.C.R. FS. 2029.41 - -...._ E.G.R. 10+30.11 F. 2028.89 3ALDWIN LANE F5. 2 P. 2 029. TT AUGUSTA LAr1E TF.G. 2028:16 E.O.R. 10+63.03 FUTURE F.S. 203177 T.F.C. 2029.21 . FS. 2029.35 F5.2028.TT FS. 2028:76 TF.G.2028.11 - w N <t m 0 N �' c m lYj m m o p �N r c in mm o p .NN r' () N m m_ m m O o0 L .NN '� m - = m mm O N O ` t-- O m m p p p 41`. r t N m m 0 (NI O cv m 0 N MGR 10+35.91 AUGUSTA F.S. 2029.35 m mtr p N (N O ._ N LANE N O� m(.I O p ANN Q N IT' N cN O p • N N ts � NN Op �N N O CO p dO pp NN - LT r O m O . N O Cr) Np .. N d� o� N m 0 �N Q 0 mN 00 ._ (� N 0 m 0 N z t= N _ X z ufl PROF I L SCALE: CD 0 ry W „- HORIZONTAL: I -50 VERTICAL: 1"=5' • EDGE OF PAVEMENT •• TOP FADE OF CURB CURB DATA FOR EDGE OF PAVEMENT AND TOP FACE OF CURB SAWGUT I' OF EXISTING PAVEMENT TO FAC PAVEMENT INSTALLATION 10 +00.00 HARMONY LANE =16 +2162 MISSION AVENUE F.5. 2034. NOTE: FOR SIGHT TRIANGLE INFORMATION SEE SHEET 1G. 65.00' ILITY EASEMENT POND J-3 SEE SHEET 15 STA. 13+11.46 INV. ELEV. 2030.51 STA. 13+16.41 OP BERM 2031.01 STA. 13 +21.42 INV. ELEV. 2• .•. E.G.R. 14+10.91 F.S. 2021.46 L= 31.40' M.C.R. F.5. 2021.41 STREET SI6N F.G. 2021.4 H . 17 +85 39 F.S. 2029. H6 SWALE +14.07 PO F.5 2028.16 .2028)3 R4 +14.07 2028.16 W6521' T.F.C. 2034.85 M.GR T.F.C. 2034.41 L= 31.43' B.C.R. 10+51.53 T.F.C. 2034.01 POND L SEE SHEET 45 I4 STANDARD LL WITH FRAME: AND GRATE B.C.R. 11+53.17 GRADE TO DRAI 77.45' 1 E.G.R. 12 +25.91 FS. 2031.91 L= 31.40' POND K M.G.R. SEE SHEET F5. 203124 500'00'02'W 4. i 1 656.86' 2033 0 F.5. LP 2021.61 IIIH7Wr••••••.••••••Liraii A Ayr /� i B.C.R. 13+98.97 413 F.S. 2030.18 =10 +00.0 F.5. 2030. 0 2031 6. 2028.06 65.00' :Yr F.6. 2027.92 65.00' 65.00' i�a� SWALE LOW - • INT 2021.89 STA. 15+0646 INV. ELEV. 028$6 STA. 15+11.4 TOP BERM 2021.06 STA. 15 +16.4 INV. ELEV. .028515 K STA 16+4143 INV. ELEV. 2 F.S. 2021.35 C ONCRETE I TYPE 2 STA. 16 +41.43 F.G. 2021.3 q +g4.I3 BALPI N LANE F.5. 20�g56 � 02q 4 POND J-I SEE SHEET 9B F.S. 2027.09 -PC =16 +56.86 GRADE TO DRAIN 1 +18.41 L =46.00' L =1.35' B.C.R. 11+0 FS. 20 ' .00 L= 28.2 M.G F.S. •2899 POND H SEE SHEET 9A H.'. I1 +8539 20 9.00 LK AILS) = 8+71.54 F HAY .5. 202816 L =213' E.C.R. 14 +52.65 TF.G. 2028:71 SID K UNDERDRAIN STA. 11+42.11 INV. ELEV. 2028.1 L =968' STREET T.F.C. 2021 .00 M.G.R. EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY-\ C rn rn B.G.R. 16+6154 MISSION AVENUE FS. 2034.63 FUTURE RIGHT OF WAY NOTE: PLACE PIPE WITH HOLES DOWN RIGHT OF WAY SPOKANE TYPE B' TYPE 4 MET STA. 11+45.00 GRATE ELEV. OFFSET 14.5' FUTURE " 11+00 12+00 DATA FOR 4'A PERFORATED PIPE, 15' L&. 7- FUTURE ACQUISITION E.C.R. 15+90.0 MISS 014 AVENUE F5. 2032.63 .O.c LENTS F5. 203 2064 • E.G.R. 10+36.03 FUTURE SANDUSKY RIVER LANE F.S. 203117 i 11 F.5. 2031. 1 13+00 II +g0.00 HARMONY LANE EDGE OF PP. MENT 2032 ' ' INAGE SLOPE TYPE B' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND 24 STA. 13+97.98 GRATE ELEV. 2028.33 L= OFFSET 195' RIGHT 25 ML B.GR 10+35.97 FUTURE SANDUSKY RIVER LANE F5. 2 PROJECT BOUNDARY SIDEWALK UND E.C.R. 10+36 F5.202435 14400 STATION AND ELEVATION FOR CHECK DAM =10 +00.00 FUTURE SANDUSKY RIVER LANE F.S. 2032.55 2032 8 GRADE TO DRA 14+15.12 G2 65.00' L.0 650' . - SHE w 1__ A \I__ 15+00 CONCRETE INLET TYP 2 WITH METAL GRATE TYPE 2 STA. 16 +41.43 ORATE ELEV. 2021.51 OFFSET 55' LEFT WITH t 38 L.F. 12' G.MP. • t2% GRADE SPOKANE • STANDARD B TYPE ' DRYWELL WITH SOLID LOCKING LID STA. 16 +26.00 &RATE ELEV. 202143 OFFSET IT LEFT 2 14 +35.00 \HARMONY LANE WITH MET STA. 15+11. GRATE &RATE TYPE 2 . 2028.42 OFFSET 19 '' R16141 WITH t 125 LP. 12' G.M.P. • t2% GRADE 16400 2029 SPOKANE • STANDARD TYPE 8' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 15 +15.00 GRATE ELEV. 202769 OFFSE f 14.5' R16HT SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD B TYPE ' DRYWFI 1 WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND &RATE STA. 16+05.00 GRATE ELEV. 202169 OFFSET 14.5' RIGHT 11+00 11 +38.78 HARMONY LANE CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL GRATE TYPE 2 BALDWIN LANE F.6.2021 GO SPOKANE UN'1Y STANDARD TYPE DRYWELL ' DRYWE WITH TYPE 4 NITAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 16+55.00 GRATE ELEV. 2021.91 OFFSET 145' RIGHT SPOKANE COUNTY TANDARD TYPE 'A' DR WITH SOLID LOCKING LID STA. 19+40 .00 GRATE ELEV. 02130 17 OFFSET ' 9 3 PT RIGHT 6' SID (zT: 18+00 F.S. 2021.5 POND 6 SEE SHEET IA L =3065' M.GR P.S. 2021.13 41 STREET SIGN B.G.R. 10 +3190 BALDWIN LANE SPOKANE GOUNTY STANDARD TYPE 8' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE BALDWIN LANE E.C.R. 10+30.11 BALDWIN LANE F.S. 2028.17 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE B' DRYWELL BALDWIN LANE SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN B.G.R. 4+1018 INDIANA AVENUE T.F.C. 2029.09 \ M.G.R. T.F.C. 2026 L= 24.02' 2050 L=24.02' 2021)3 CONCRETE INLET bYPE 2 WITH METAL INDIANA A / POND F SEE SHEET 9A F.6. 202713 +1455 TYPE 2 SPOKANE COUNTY STAND TYPE "B' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND &RA STA. 19+25.00 GRATE ELEV. 2027.63 F.G. 202113 OFFSET r R1&HT 14+00 POND SEE SHEET 9A 2030 STOP 516N 40 B.0 +41.91 T.F.C. 202811 RIGHT OF WAY PROJECT BOUNDARY E.O.R. 4+1929 INDIANA AVENUE T.F.C. 2028.86 B.G.R. 20 +40.61 T.F.C. 2028. / ..••••• E.C.R. 5+6656 INDIANA AVENUE T.F.O. 2029.10 T.F.C. 202921 L =24.02' P.G. 11 +c14.01 I61 +614.07 HARMONY LANE =5 +2q.55 INDIANA AVENUE F.S. 2021.38 E.C.R. C 2028.16 8 28 68 ��;TUR : nIP'.R'.0 v LENTS M.G.R T.F.C. 202922 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'B" DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE INDIANA AVENUE POND B SEE SHEET 9A B.G.R. 5+62.42 INDIANA AVENUE T.F.C. 2029.61 6' SIDEWALK (SEE DETAILS) 13' DRAINAGE SLOPE UTILITY EASEMENT. (SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN BY THE EERIER PARTNERSHIP, P.S.) JUN 26 19 EXPIRES: 9 -23 -95 SCALE: I INCH _ 50 FEET SEG. 8, T25N, R45E, H.M. LESEND C/) 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 22.00' 22.00' 26.00' 23 .00' 3556' 84 °04'44 97•34 81°31'05` 88•35'01" 1 +14.13 BA =17 +38.78 1 F.S. 2021. E.C.R. 17 +7455 HARMONY LANE F.S. 202950 PG = q+14.13 CURVE DATA FOR EDGE OF PAVEMENT ONY LANE 17 +18.47 HARMONY LANE .5. 2029.13 F.6 oi A r�.�._MVA A 10+65.00 ST , W. ELEV. 2028.00 SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN tr R 10 +30.11 154 F.S. 02871 M.C.R. \ ! S im■ Aga B.C.R. 17+04.11 HARMONY F.5. 2024.00 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD �- 44 RIGHT OF WAY 43 10' DRAINAGE, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT TYPE `A DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND &RATE STA. 10+5358 TOP OF 6RATE ELEV. 2028.17 OFFSET 193' LEFT EDGE OF PAVEMENT co .- I NLET Trtt 2 WITH ' &RATE TYPE 2 STA 10 +89 6RATE ELEV. 20 - - • OFFSET 46.42' RIGHT t 43 L.F. 12 G.M.P. • t2% SRAM., POND 14 SEE SHEET qA • DRYWELL WITH SOLID L• • IN6 LID STA 10+5358 TOP OF &RATE/ 2028.17 OFFSET 17' RIGHT \ FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS 35 34 I.G. 202E10 POND P SEE SHEET 95 B.GR. 19+91.14 MGMILLAN LANE F5. 2030.68 COMMON AREA 46 M.G.R F.S. 2030 L =29.67' E.G.R. I4+49.94 F.S. 2030.45 .5. 2030.31 L =3366' M.G.R. F5. 2030 .82 44 POND 0 SEE SHEET 95 PT = 14+81.11 qq NOTE: FOR SIGHT TRIANGLE INFORMATION 14 +8131 BALDWIN LANE czEE SHEET 1G. =1(1+58.83 MGMILLAN LANE F.S. 2031.22 E.G.R. iq +n.ib MGMILLAN LANE 5. 2031.21 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE •B' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND 6RATE MGMILLAN LANE STATION AND ELEVATION FOR GHEGK DAM 10 +36.06 2028 .85 UPSTREAM TOE OF BERM 202836 DOWNSTREAM TOE OF BERM 202834 1 10 +00.00 AUGUSTA LANE =14 +35.00 HARMONY LANE F.S. 2030.10 4 10' DRAINAGE SLOPE AND UTILITY EASEMENT TYP) 6.B. 10 +14.00 F.S. 2029.82 14+15.12 HARMONY LANE EDGE OF PAVEMENT CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL 6RATE TYPE 2 HARMONY LANE F.S. 2024.46 F.6. 2027.83 24 RIGHT OF HAY E.G.R. 14+70.97 HARMONY F5. 2029.41 L= 31.40' STREET SIGN B G.. 10 +35.97 F5. 2029.35 80.02' • M.G.R. F.S. 2029.71 L =31.43' B.G.R. 25 13+98.97 F.S. 2030.18 AUSUSTA LA SPOKANE G TY STANDARD TYPE "B" DR E LL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE HARMONY LAI E 22.00' 22.02' 21.98' DELTA 90 °03'08" 89 °56'52" F.S. 202935 SIDEWALK UNDER9RAIN - s7'A : .82 INV. ELEV. 202883 11 +25.00 END CONSTRUCTION EREGT TEMPORARY TYPE III W.S.D.O.T. BARRIER F.S. 2030.51 GURVE DATA FOR EDGE OF PAVEMENT RPROVEMENTS EXPIRES: 9/23/95 6/21/95 JOM PROF I LE SCALE: HORIZONTAL: I " =50 VERTICAL: 1 " =5' STREET 516N STOP AND STREET 516N DRYWELL PEDESTRIAN RAMP LEFT GENTS 1 +14.13 B =11 +38.1 F.S. 202 E.C.R. I7 +7455 FS. 2029.50 2025 DWIN LANE HARMONY 56 M.G.R. F.S. 2029.13 B.G.R. 10 +31.80 F.S. 20243.16 L014 POINT LOW POINT 5 PJ V G. 5 Pi V.G. IQ a 6 0 6 = 2028.95 A = 10+5358 = 10+50 = 2028.83 VG r No (E.oP) RIGHT (EAP) z W 2030 INE 2030 z 2025 - 2030 0 N. z X W O N O N cv cv O O N EXISTING GROUND 11111111111029 FINISHED GRADE 0»0% ININENFAINI ,„ tr. N 0 N 10 O 0 m 0 EXISTING 6R0UND FINISHED GRADE m 6.8. 10+08.15 F5. 2029.28 P.I.V.G. 5 PJ.V.G. 50 44 6 a N O 0 = 10+50 = 202855 ' VG r 0 tV N 0 O cNi m O EXISTING &ROUND FINISHED GRADE 0 N m O m 0 m 0 0 cNi m O N m O N m O N m 0 0 O P.I.V.G. 5 P.IN.G. 100 141614 POINT 141644 POINT 5 P.I.V.G. 5 PJ V.G. 100 V -I% GRADE 6 = 13+50 = 2030.95 Pi ' VG O = 2031.01 LO A = 13+44.44 = 13+50 = 2031.23 Pi ' VG • J.Y.G. STA = 14+ VL. ELEV = 2030 50.00' VG O • POINT ELEV = 2 W POINT STA = 14+ J.V.G. STA = 14+ V.G. ELEV = 2030 50.00' VG 0 E.G.R. 14+49.94 F.S. 2030.45 0.6l 0 B.G.R. 19+91.14 M.G.R. F.5. 205051 14 +81.71 B =11 +58.83 F.S. 2031.2 6.6. 14+64.71 F.S. 2025 .88 Z > cMILLAN LANE 2030 0 lt) O O N m O ■ • 6 (V m r. 0 O r m 0 6 ' STA. 13 +25.00 FS. 2030.48 PJVG.5 P.i V.G. 100. = 13+50 = 2030.93 ' VG STA. 13 +75.00 F.S. 2030.43 .I.V.G. STA = 14+ V.G. ELEV = 2030 50.00' VG M.G.R. F5. 2030.82 B.G.R. 14+39.61 F5. 2030.37 0 m O O m O m O N v 6 ° IU z c!1 F5. 2030be, E.G.R. 19 +17.18 Mc F.S. 203127 2025 DWIN LANE cMILLAN LAN 2030 2025 2025 LEFT (EAPJ GENTS RIGHT (E.OP) INE LEFT (E.o.P) RIGHT (EDP) 10 +00.00 =14 +35.00 F.S. 2030. E.G.R. 14+70.47 P.S. 2024.46 USUSTA LA HARMONY L 0 B.G.R. 13+98.47 F.S. 2030.18 M.G.R. F.S. 2029.41 B.G.R. 10 +3547 FS. 202935 M.G.R. F.S. 2029.77 E.G.R. 10 +36.03 F.S. 202935 F.S. 2029.82 P.I.V.G. 5 P.V.C. 50. N = 10+50 = 202918 ' VG = 10+50 = 2029.18 'VG EXISTING 6 FINISHED GRAD EXISTING GR EXISTIN6 6 FINISHED 11 +25.00 E ERECT TE W.S.D.O.T. F.S. 2030. D GONSTRUG PORARY TY ARRIER 2030 INE 2030 z 1- N 2025 2030 Q 1: HARMONY LANE Q z_ LL HARMONY LANE w >L 6 h U 6 o • N N m O 6 z N W 2030 •EOUT 2025 •EOUT 2025 2030 •EOUT 2025 LEFT ((D.P.) RIGHT (E.OP) INE CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT DELTA BI 22.00' 32.23' 19.84' 84•04'44" B2 22.00' 31.46' 25.12' 91'34'03" R7 22.00' 34.56' 22.00' 90 RS 22.00' 3436' 2200' 90•00'00" LEFT (E.OPJ RIGHT (EDP.) • INE 2035 2030 2035 2030 2025 2035 2030 2025 z N W m 0 to 0 rm m 0 0 win N CO 0 N m m 0 m to O N N m 0 O m 0 N O N 0 N to 0 N 0 0 .n? N to 0 N 0 M.G.R. F.S. 2030.82 B.C.R. 14+39.7 F.5. 2030.37 F.S. 20 ALDWIN LANE FS. 2030. M.L.R. F.S. 203057 q4 BALDWIN LANE Iq +58.83 Mc P.i V.G. S P.I V.G. 100 ILLAN LANE ANA AVENUE P.I V.G. 5 P.I.V.G. 100. = 2I+00 = 2029.81 ' VG = 21+00 = 2030.04 ' VG 22 +3836 MGMI . 2027.90 .I.V.C. STA = 22+ I V.G. ELEV = 2021 POINT ELEV = 20 POINT STA = 22 .I.V.G. STA = 22+ .V.G. ELEV = 2021 M.G.R. T.F.C. 202828 B.G.R. 9 +63.10 IND STA. 22 +5136 OFFSET 14' Ltt 2021.98 I't. CROSS 6.13. 22 +60.36 fS. 2021.q4 22 +8036 M =10 +01.20 1 F.5. 20283 202137 GROSS MILLAN LAN DIANA AVEN 0 tr N m 0 to cNi O 0 m 0 F 0 STING GROUND ISHED GRADE 11111111111111111111161111111111111 m 0 m 0 STING &ROUND 'SHED GRADE O m 0 0 O 0 O co 0 =14+81. IND F.S. 2031.22 tr 0 to N O co O O 0 N N m 0 O 0 N 0 0 N 0 co O • 0 to O N cs N O 0 N cs- N O N O '3 N 0 P r N tic 6 '3 O N O N CN N O P.I.V.G. 5 P.IV.G. 100 = 21+00 = 202931 ' VC B.G T.F .I V.G. STA = 22+ I.V.G. ELEV = 2021 .G.R. TF.G. 202198 E.C.R. 10 +38.10 1 T.F.G. 2028.06 STA. 22 +51.36 OFFSET 14' RIGHT 2021.16 IL CROSS P 0 6 A . 2021.90 N O N 0 ezi N O v 0 N N O N O cl d N O z N O z 1- N T.F.C. 2028.66 STA. 22 +5136 N z_ LL. z LL. 2035 2025 2035 E LEFT (T.F.C.) GENTS RIGHT (r.F.G) INE PROFILE SCALE: HORIZONTAL: 1"=50' VERTICAL: l " =5' a • as • ED6E of PAVEMENT •• TOP FACE OF CURB CURVE DATA FOR TOP FACE OF CURB AND EDGE OF PAVEMENT B.G.R. 14+3961 BALDWIN LANE FS. 203037 F.6. 2030.21 44 UNDERDRAIN -L =2961' B.G.R. 19+9 14 Iq +5 =14+ F.5. TYPE "B" DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND 6RA STA. 22 +34.00 &RATE ELEV. 2026'71 OFFSET IT LEFT T.F.C. • 48 E.C.R. T.F.G. 2 A UTILITY EASEMENT (TYP) 52 RIGHT OF WAY 16 +72.21 PROJECT BOUNDARY F.S. 2033.51 PCC = 16 +72.21 PROJECT BOUNDARY STA. 19 +17.62 / 51 &RATE ELEV. 2030.71 OFFSET 11' RIGHT 1 10' DRAINAGE, SLOPE I7+00 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE "B" DRYWELL ' ITH TYPE 4 METAL I8+00 50 \ POND 0 SEE SHEET AND GRATE L 416 E.GR (9 +11.16 F5. 2031.21 F.S. NOTE: 6' SIDEWALK (SEE DETAIL) 203350 2033 PAVED TURN- AROUND TURN- AROUND INTERSECTION \ STA. 11+45.00 I'3+00 FOR SIGHT TRIANGLE INFORMATION SEE SHEET qG 48 4 INCH STA IN INV IN STA � PT = 21 +13.15 46 - PRG = 1q +40.16 E.G.R. 14+49.94 BALDWI F.S. 2030.45 M.G.R. F.S. 2030.51 19 +33.93 GRADE TO DRAIN PERFORATED PIPE 15' 26.2q, OFFSET 16' RT 2030.01 +41.62, OFFSET 16' RT 202'111 2032 20+00 T.F.C. 2026.66 POND SEE 47 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD SleHT DIST • GE EASEMENT 10I .83 McMILLAN LANE 1.71 BALDWIN LANE 031.22 100 2031 21+00 B.C.R. 9 +63.10 1 AVENUE 4cMILLA L= M.C.R. POND N SEE SHEET EDGE OF PAVEMENT 102 SPO COUNTY STAND TYPE "A DRYWELL WITH SOLID KING LID STA. 22 39.16 McMILLAN LANE GRATE .2026.49 OFFSET 11' RIGHT LA L =1.15' L =24.26 22+00 103 202 / ff.2021.98 176 SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN STA. 22+38.86 INV. ELEV. 2021.25 .6 10+21.06 INDIANA AVENUE / E 202121 lf. 2021.16 � -- RIGHT OF WAY 6' SIDEWALK (SEE DETAILS) E.G.R. 10+3810 INDIANA AVENUE T.F.C. 2026.06 M.G.R. T.F.C. 2021.18 CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL GRATE TYPE 2 STA. 22 +39.76 GRATE ELEV. 2026.15 OFFSET 60' R16HT WITH t 40 L.F. 12" G.M.P. ® ±2% GRADE PROJECT BOUNDARY ♦22 +80.36 McMILLAN LANE =10 +01.20 INDIANA AVENUE F.S. 2028.34 S •'' FUTURE :ARE PROVE INS 13' DRAINAGE, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT (SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN BY THE BERGER PARTNERSHIP, P.S.) F.D. No. 1 APPROVAL IY Ulltit L1 L 4 a SGALE: 1 INGH = 50 FEET SEG. 8, T25N, R45E, KM. 6/19/15 JB LESEND STOP AND STREET SIGN ® DRYWELL PEDESTRIAN RAMP 0 rn W 0 0 pa 0 C) r 6 0 z 0 0 t- O 6 m tr -t4 w 0 0 • 0 ti co co w o z co 4 r, 4 U N QD r1 0 Q) 0 0 C\2 0 n 0 W 0 U 0 w 0 v a) 0 S -ET GENTS RIGHT (E.O.P.) INE 2030 2025 2030 2025 0 O O 0 m O N O N O t3 N O m '3: N O N N O 0• t5" 0 N N O N I N O N O •UND N O N O N N O N EXISTING GE N O N • • 1 N O 0 N N 0 N u N O 0 N 'd: O N I1 +23.12 BA 0 +00.00 IN F.5. 2021.15 N O KER ROAD IANA AVENUE M.G.R. F5. 2021.13 B.C.R. 0+59 .02 IN P5. 2026.11 E.G.R. 19+63.94 .5. 2021.49 IANA AVENUE O r- N O N N O N N O N m 0 0 z 0 1• W 0 0 v 0 O z 0 U tU M co 0, C/) V1 0 O O to co to 1 0 as w ui 0 S T N O N N O N N O N N O N O N O N O N N O N N O N O N t N O t!1 N O 1f1 N O N 2030 2025 2030 2025 RIGHT (E.O.P.) INE PROF SGALE: HORIZONTAL: I " =50' VERTIGAL: I " =5' CURVE DATA FOR TOP FADE OF CURB CURVE 1 RADIUS LENGTH 1 TANGENT 1 DELTA RI 20.00' 31.43' 20.01' 90'01 '52 R2 20.00' 31.41' 14.99' 8 ATtT UNDERGROUND CABLE AND FIBER OPTIC 5I6N OFFSET 223' R1614T ATiT FIBER OPTIC LINE 5' ACQUISITION AREA RI&HT OF WAY�� POWER POLE AND BELL PHONE PEDESTAL. STA. I5 +1050 OFFSET 263' RIGHT 2030 2024 7 I 15+00 16+00 &ATE VALVE SECTION AND CENTER LINE EXISTING EDGE EXISTING OF PAVEMENT RIGHT -OF -WAY Q� UTILITY POLE W/ STREET LI&HT AND BELL PHONE PEDESTAL. STA. 16+5220 OFFSET 27.1' RIGHT I4ATER VALVE SHUT -OFF NOT A PART • NOTE GRADE ROADSIDE DITCH 114 PHASE 1 TO DRAIN TO DRYWE LL AT STA 18+90.00 STA. 0+61.78 INDIANA AVENUE crj dI z 1'1+00 V BRASSY SWALE 202 ` 2028 2027 POWER POLE STA. 16+5220 OFFSET 21.1' RIGHT F.S. OM' OW 1111= 2026.15 18+00 :n G ' PRO __•_?t: IS'. ._...,, .:� ti :Fri: : �.: `:._.:3:_: UTILITY AND PHONE PEDESTAL B.G.R. OM OM OM* 18 +83.94 BA I .6"1' 19+00 DESIGN DEVIATION FOR NON - CONFORMING INTERSECTION SEPARATION DISTANCE 1 a 0 �� I _ _ _ = 21:1$' RI A _ u army NOTE: 20+00 FOR SIGHT TRIANGLE INFORMATION SEE 51 IEET 1G. 11 +23.12 BARKER ROAD 0 +00.00 I ND IANA AVENUE F.5. 2021.15 e F.5. 2021.50 M.G.R. F.S. 2027.12 E.GR 0+33.96 INDIANA AVENUE .41/41 5 will WATER ELBOW 293' 3635' N 0 E .R. 19+63.94 F.S. 0 a . 49 M.G.R. P5. 2021.13 STREET AND 2028 STOP 516N B.GR 0 +39.02 INDIANA AVENUE F5. 2026.11 ROAD 21+00 N 0 UTILITY AND PHON€ PEDESTALS AT* FIBER 20+50.00 OFFSET 285' R16HT POWER POLE #81 O'I &Q25 - 1 NOT A PAT 22+00 12' PRIVATE DIRT ROAD STA. 22+6850 MIDPOINT OF DRIVE N a 0 16' PRIVATE DIRT ROAD STA. 23+32.50 OFFSET 15' RIGHT 23+00 POWER POLE W/ STREET LIGHT STA. 23+1120 OFFSET 21' RIGHT POWER POLE W/ TRANSFORMER STA. 23+35.60 OITOET 21' RIGHT IMO COW am* 24+00 N 0 0 FIRE HYDRANT STA. 23 +50.42 OFFSET 35' RIGHT SCALE: 1 NCH = 50 FEET SEC 8, T25N, R45E, KM. 6/19/95 .1B LE SEND STOP AND STREET 5I6N PEDESTRIAN RAMP DRYWFI1 CURB INLET LEFT T.F.G. 2035 2030 GENTh 2035 2030 1— w 111 0 2 S m ■ d m O I d 0 EXISTING 6 OUND 1-- tn XISTING ASP 0 o . B.G.R. 10 +5153 EC IF 0 N ALT M.G.R. F.G. 2034.41 15+80.0 .203485 ONY LANE T.F.G. 2034.04 0 N 0 - 0 0 0 6 MLR FS. 203433 16 +27. 10 +00 1 HARMONY LANE 2 MISSION A 0 HARMON 34.9 NUE LANE 0 1 m CNI CNI O O N Jr; O LEFT T.F.G. 2035 2030 INE PROFILE SCALE: HORIZONTAL: I " =50' VERTICAL: I " =5' CURVE TABLE FOR EDGE OF PAVEMENT CURVE 1 RADIUS I LENGTH TANGENT DELTA M2 2Z00' 3458' 22.02' 80•03'08' M3 20.00' 31.40' 14.88' 84'56'52' SW 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 8 ATLT FIBER OPTIC MAN HOLE PAINT L'INE'TRANSITION 185.83' 10 +00 11 +00 0 0 EXI5TIN6 •RY WELL EXISTING POWER POLE WITH TRANSFORMER (TYPICAL) 12 +00 FIRE HYDRANT $ GATE VALVE FUTURE 10' ACQUISITION AREA FUTURE RIGHT -OF -WAY LIMITS 13 +00 NOT A PART • (203 STA 14+12.64 START TAPER 14 +00 NOTE: SAWGUT 1' OF EXISTING PAVEMENT ON NORTH SIDE TO FACILITATE PAVEMENT INSTALLATION SIDEWALK, DRAINAGE, SLOPE AND UTILITY EASEMENT STA: 14+88.47 END TAPER SIDEWALK N0R H SG UTTER ONLY 15 +00 B.G.R. 10 +5153 HARMONY LANE T.F.C. 2034.04 M.G.R. TF.C. 2034.41 EXISTING RIGHT -OF -WAY 6' SIDEWALK 15+8 0.08 2034 EXISTING PAVEMENT 16 +21.62 MISSION AVENUE MISSION AVE 16 +00 HARMONY LANE SEE SHEET #3 10 +00.00 HARMONY LANE F.S. 2034.90 \1 17 +00 E.C.R. STA: IO +32.47 HARMONY LANE F.S. 2034.Q2 M.G.R P.S. 203434 L=31.40' T FS. 20341663 mg Emma wire - PHONE PED. SECTION AND CENTER LINE 18 +00 NOT A PAT FUTURE 10' AG\2UISITI AREA FUTURE RIGHT -OF -WAY LIMITS 1 . T$T FIBER OPTIG LINE PROTECT IN PLAGE 19 +0 0 NOTE: SEE SHEET 9G FOR SIGHT TRIANGLE DIMENSIONS. SGALE: 1 INCH = 50' SEG 8 T25N, R4SE, KM. 6/20/45 ,IOM LEGEND STOP AND STREET 516N PEDESTRIAN RAMP M 2 -O" GENERAL NOTES I. GRAVEL BACKFILL QUANTITY FOR DRYWELLS: TYPE "A" - 30 CUBIC YARDS MINIMUM / 42 TONS. TYPE "B" - 40 CUBIC YARDS MINIMUM / 56 TONS. 2. SPECIAL BACKFILL MA I tRIAL FOR DRYHELLS SHALL CONSIST OF WASHED GRAVEL FROM I" TO 3" WITH A MAXIMUM OF 5% PA5f CS THE U.S. NO. 200 SCREEN, AS MEASURED BY HEIGHT, MAY BE CRUSHED OR FRACTURED ROCK. THE REMAINING q0% SHALL BE A MAXIMUM OF 10% NATURALLY OCCURRING UNFRACTURED MATERIAL. 3. CONCRETE SLAB SHALL BE GLASS 3000 CONCRETE. 4I-4 SEE GEN. NOTE IE2 BA L 6 10' EASEMENT FOR UTILITIES, AND SLOPE O' SECTION LINE MISSION AVENUE (SYM) TYPE 4 GRATE COVER TRAFFIC 20' ISTURBED SOIL pRYWELL - TYPE 'A' 30' 2' TRAFFIC 2% MIN. 0 SCAL STANDARD PREGAST DRYI LL 0 4' BIKE LANE 6' SIDEWALK ONE SIDE ONLY EXISTING PAVEMENT tl21-1 EXISTIN6 FUTURE ACQUISITION R.M 10:1 MIN. SLOPE TO FARE ACQ. B OUNDARY , TYPE "5■ CURB TO - 1.00' - ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT GL "A" 4" (MIN) 6" CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE T= MORTOR IN PLACE 10' 5 ' ABRIC LINER. FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 1 B-1 SIDEWALK ELEVATION = E/P +02' 10' 25' OR SLOPE GATGH POINT WHICHEVER IS GREATER 15' 21' 208 TREATMENT AND SNOW STORAGE Actk / MISSION AVENUE -D I 14' 2% MIN 10' LANDSGALED TRACT SIDE 2% MIN. T /G + 0.2' 4. 'LEE STANDARD PLANS FOR PRECAST CONCRETE DETAILS. 5. ADJUSTMENT BLOCKS SHALL BE GEMENT CONCRETE. 6. PRECAST RISER MAY BE USED IN COMBINATION WITH OR IN LIEU OF ADXSTIN6 BLOCKS. �. SEE "TYPICAL GRASSY SWALE DESIGN" 8. GCC "TEMPORARY EROSION/SEDIMENT CONROL" TYPE 4 6RATE COVER -\ P s 4 CO GEN ERAL NOTE 3 50 6EN. NOTE 14 2 GRAVEL BACKFILL. 28' 4' 5:1 T tjs1 TO 0 TYPICAL ROADIAIAY SECTION FROM STATION I3 +I3. '16 TO STATION I6 +65.08 -2% J MIN. SHALE DEPTH = TO - 2.00' EXISTING 'GROUND N v)+- MORTARED ADJUSTMENT RINGS SEEPAGE FORTS r :CC DETAIL 2'-O 0 o o 1 1 • • • • . • 111 M • ∎• ∎/ / • I ' • ' ISTURBED SOIL DRYHELL - TYPE '5' 14' L. 2 ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT - 6" CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE INTERIOR STREET SEGTION FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET A -I 25' SIDEWALK, SLOPE, DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT. 2% MIN. MORTOR IN PLACE SEE NOTE 2 SHOULDER EDGE PAVEMENT OR TOP FACE OF CURB ABRIC LINER 5' I I 3 ' MIN. SASE DRAIN HOLE DETAIL 4 -4" z 0 a• D BARREL FL AN 4' -8" i P-Y l I il=1 2= ®L= ; :®a-qGt=" ; 17 =R I= F -, p V=1 f 1- r r ti ELEVATION .DRYWELL BARREL 15 10' EASEMENT FOR UTILITIES, AND SLOPE 1,0 10 0.6 I3, / HA". TO 6 , DITCH BANK ELEVATION = E/P+0.2' ® R/W BOTTOM DITCH = EJP - 0.5' _GENERA NO TE S I. DITCH SLOPES AND SIDE SLOPES SHALL BE NO STEEPER THAN RATIOS SHOWN UNLESS RECOMMENDED BY A SOILS REPORT AND APPROVED BY THE COUNTY ENGINEER. LIMITS OF EXCAVATION SLOPES HICI ER THAN 5' SHALL BE DETERMINED BY SOILS TESTING. 2. DRAINAGE SHALES SHALL BE HYDROSEEDED PER TYPICAL GRASSY SWALE DETAIL. 11' 10' DRAIN HOLES = (TYP) HARMONY LANE EAST SECTION D -D 6" 1 1/2" CLEARANCE #4 BARS ® 10" EACH WAY DRYWELL BASE ELEVATION 4' -4" SECTION G -G 4/ 40r STA. 11+053q TO STA. 16 +20.10 GENERAL NOTE: I. CONCRETE DRYWELL ITEMS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH THE BARRELS AND CONES REINFORCED WITH 0.12 SQ. IN. STEEL GRADE 40, PER LINEAL FOOT WALL. 2. TOLERANCE OF DIMENSIONS FOR DRAINAGE PORTS SHALL BE ±1/2" 3. EACH BARREL SECTION SHALL A MINIMUM OF 6 ROWS OF DRAINAGE PORTS VERTICAL AND MINIMUM OF 10 DRAINAGE PORTS AROUND THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE BARREL. FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS :",MEET B -2 HYDRO MULCH WITH HYDROSEED MIXTURE 60% BLUEGRASS 20% PERENNIAL RYE 20% FESCUE SEE NOTE. 4' -8" It DRAINA6E PORT STANDARD 'REGAST DRY1hhELL DETAILS SWALE BANK ELEVATION = E/P + 0.2' ® R.O.W. 3" (TYP) 5" (' YP) = (TYP) DRAINAGE PORT 1 S; METAL FENCE POST (TYP) TRENCH L NE B .i NEP 13' E.6. \:\ M 6 GCC DETAIL "A" FOR 0• KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL BEGIN STA. 0 +75.00 TO END STA. 4+0452 (SEE SHEET 2) A DRAINAGE SLOPE AND UTILITIES EASEMENT BEGIN STA 4+0452 GENERAL_ NOTES I. THE TOP OF GRATE SHALL BE INSTAI 1 FD I" LOWER THAN THE PROJECTED GUTTER GRADE. 2. THE PRECAST CONCRETE INLET SHALL BE PLACED ON THE SAME GRADE AS THE CURB. 3, RISER TYPE 2 TO BE USED WITH GATGH BASIN. 4. IN STREET WITH TYPE B CURB USE FRAME TYPE 2 5. 114 PONDS USE FRAME TYPE I GATGH BASIN INLET TYPE 2 STANDARD GATGH E3ASIN INLET INSTALLATION FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CA ICCT B -1 2 INCH X 2 INCH -14 SA. WELDED "HOG WIRE" FENCING BEHIND FABRIC (TYP) 48 INCH WIDE FIL 1tR FABRIC MIFAFI 100 X TM OR EQUAL (FULL LENGTH) FASTEN TO H06 WIRE WM06 RINGS OR STAPLES. LAY FIL I tR FABRIC IN TRENCH, BACKFILL WITH EXISTING SOIL (TYP) SEE SHEET #1 FOR FENCE LOCATION TEMPORARY SILTATION FENCE TEMPORARY EROSION / SEDIMENT CONTROL I. WHERE POSSIBLE, MAINTAIN NATURAL VEGETATION FOR SILT CONTROL. 2. TEMPORARY SILTATION FENCE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AROUND DRYWELL INLETS AND AT MAJOR INLETS TO SHALES. 3. ALL SILTATION FENCES SHALE BE MAINTAINED IN A SATISFACTORY CONDITION UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT GLEANING AND /OR CONSTRUCTION 15 COMPLETED AND THE PERMANENT DRAINAGE FACILITIES ARE OPERATIONAL. 4. PLACE ADDITIONAL HYDROSEEDIN6 AS REQUIRED. ca b ALA EXISTING SOIL BACKFILL SEE NOTES BEGIN STA. 4+0452 10' END STA. 4+04.52 RO.H. VARIES . ° O URI CEMENT CONCRETE CURB, TYPE "6" GONG. SIDEWALK (TYPICAL) GENERAL NOTES 1. DITCH SLOPES AND SIDE SLOPES SHALL BE NO STEEPER THAN RATIOS SHOWN UNLESS RECOMMENDED BY A SOILS REPORT AND APPROVED BY THE COUNTY ENGINEER. LIMITS OF EXCAVATION SLOPES HIGHER THAN 5' SHALL BE DETERMINED BY SOILS TESTING. 2. DRAINAGE SHALES SHALL BE HYDROSEEDED PER TYPICAL GRASSY SWALE DETAIL. Ai PROJECTED ROAD GROSS SLOPE MORTARED CONCRETE ADJUSTMENT RISERS (MINIh111 ONE RISER, SEE NOTE 3) 2.5' 1 .5' .5 SECTION H5-13" 20' 2% MIN v EDGE PAVEMENT OR TOP FACE OF CURB 40' 31169-1 5Q. COVER SKID DESIGN DETAIL 21 5/8" 26 3/8" 24" G.O. 3/4" 20' 2% MIN. -1/4" SQ. 26 3/4" 34 I/8" SECTION A -A 26 3/16" 8 3/4° in In �2 1/32" WIPAIVI%OWNIIMPSIWOM%■ 94210 - - 1 L -- I/2" 3/8"41:-7,- I ---i -1 I/8" SECTION J -J STANDARD METAL FRAME CRATE COVER - TYPE 4 SECTION A -A INDIANA STREET SECTION FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET A -I FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET B -15 TOP OF RETENSION DAM TOP OF GRASSY SHALE 6" (TYP) t T YP I GAL SHALE JAIATER RETENTION DAM VARIES 8' MAX ¢ 0.4 M /,`/ BASE `!/ I' MIN. �'� � /% BASE AREA --05' 6' 2% MIN SHALE BANK ELEVATION = T /G+0.2' 1 - 3" ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT SEE NOTE 2 - 6" CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE MIN. WEIGHT 118 LBS. GRATE - TYPE 4 LOCATE DRYWFI 15 AS SHOWN ON PLANS 6" 17/8 " ---j f--- DRYWELL PLACEMENT PER PLANS TYP I GAL C RASSY SHALE DES 1 C N NOTE: THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE EROSION PREVENTION/SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES IN 6OOD WORKING CONDITION UNTIL THE VEGETATION 15 ESTABLISHED AND DRAINAGE FACILITIES ADJACENT TO THE PUBLIC R/ 4 ARE ACCEPTED BY THE COUNTY; AND THAT THE DEVELOPER SHALL THOROUGHLY GLEAN THE DRYWFI 1 5 PRIOR TO THE COUNTY'S AGGtt'rANGE OF THE DRAINAGE FACILITIES ADJACENT TO THE PUBLIC RM. 13' DRAINAGE, SLOPE, AND UTILITIES EASEMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 - O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0�0�000 0 0 0 000000 000000 000000 0000013 000000 000000 0000000 00000E 000000 000000 000000 000000 • 15 1 1 MAX. TO 0. P � ALTNATIVE NO POND STA. 3+00.00 TO STA. 11+6121 0.51 3 \. \ \ '(O .6• 0' 13' 3.5' GENERAL NOTES 1. FRAME SHALL BE GRAY IRON CONFORMING TO A.S.T.M. A48 - G10, GRADE 30. THE GRATE SHALL BE DUCTILE IRON CONFORMING TO A.S.T.M. A536 -84. GLASS 80- 55 --06. 2. METAL FRAME AND GRATE TYPE 4 SHALL ONLY BE USED WHERE SHOWN ON THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS. IT SHALL NOT BE USED AT A CURB LINE. 3. DRAINAGE SLOTS SHALL BE PLACED PARALLEL TO THE DIRECTION OF FLOW. 4. FIT TOLERANCE SHALL BE 1/8" ± 5. WELDING 15 NOT PERMI i I t17. FTYP) SECTION 5-5 SHALE BANK ELEVATION = E/P + 0.2' OR T/G + 0.2' HYDRO MULCH WITH HYDROSEED MIXTURE 60% BLUEGRASS 20% PERENNIAL RYE 20% FESCUE SEE NOTE. r- 1/2" MIN. WEIGHT 168 LBS. FRAME - TYPE 4 8" MIN. (1YP) ALTERNATIVE POND STA. 0 +15.00 TO STA. 3+00.00 6/21/g5 MGW 4' b" DISTANCES GC JC r i 4" 3' -10" . q." li r TYPE MIN. MAX. RES. 5 " 16' 30' 4' b" GC JC r i 4" 3' -10" . q." r 5 " 4 " _ l 5" k- 'd- R TEXTURE " CHORD LE6THS AT BACK OF CURB. BACK OF WALK 6' CURB FACE BACK OF WALK 6' r CURB FACE 0 SCA RP. / 1 .0'3.0' '3.0 Ls. A DESIGN "A" 12d SLOPE 12:I SLOPE 0. 12'— SECTION 5-8 3' SECTION D -D b' 6' DESIGN "C" WARNING STRIP TEXTURE (rm.) PLAN PROJECTED BACK TO BACK 2' FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET A -5 12:1 SLOPE --- 6" (TYR) 12:1 SLOPE D * CHORD LEGTHS AT BACK OF CURB. 6" (TYR) ` DESIGN "5" SECTION A -A SS' SECTION G -G STANDARD fr IHEELGHA I R RAMP * CHORD LEGTHS AT BACK OF CURB. NOTES: 1/2" I. DRAINAGE INLETS SHALL BE OUTSIDE THE WI ICELGHAIR RAMP. 2. TEXTURE FOR THE RAMP AND ADVANCE WARNING PANELS SHALL BE CREATED BY INSERTING A METAL GRID INTO THE WET CONCRETE. THE GRID SHALL NOT EXCEED A WIDTH OF I /2 ". 3. CURB RAMP DESIGN SHALL BE SPECIFIED IN THE CONTRACT PLANS OR SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 4. CURB RAMPS SHALL BE POURED INTEGRALLY WITH SIDEWALK AND SHALL BE ISOLATED BY EXPANSION JOINT MA I tRIAL ON ALL SIDES, EXCEPT AT THE SIDE ADJACENT TO THE ROADWAY. 5. WHERE CONSTRUCTED ON STRAIGHT CURB, DESIGN "A" DIMENSION REMAIN THE SAME AS SHOWN. 6. TOP OF CURB ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON PLANS ARE PROJECTED TOP OF CURB ELEVATIONS THROUGH WHEELCHAIR RAMP AREA. 1. DRYWELLS OR CULVERTS TO BE PLACED AS NEEDED TO PREVENT RUNOFF FROM OVERFLOWING PEDESTRIAN RAMP NEEDED. 40 / / /4 LV l RAMP TEXTURE DETAIL SIDEWALK q "-I/2" PRE MOLD JOINT FILLER A -6 " i TROWEL FINISH I" SECTION A -A SLOPE I /4 "/FT SLOPE I /4 "/FT SECTION B -B REBAR PLACEMENT SPECIAL CURB INLET CURB LINE GUTTER FLOW LINE I" RADIUS m SPECIAL CURB INLET 12 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE #4 REBAR ® IO "O /G E.W. TYPICAL -TOP 4 BOTTOM SEE SECTION B-B TYPICAL BOTH SIDES CONSTRUCTION JOINT SHEAR KEY TYPE 2 SIDEWALK PAY LIMITS TOP OF CURB OR BACK • WALK 11 ._.. TYPE B CURB STANDARD GURS3 INLET FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET B -q FINISH GRADE e 2 ` " �I 17" 1" RADIUS "TYPE "B° QUANITY = 0.041651 C.Y./L.F. CONCRETE CURB INLET PAY LIMITS SECTION G —G CU 1 1 tR DEPRESSION DETAIL N OUTLET SHALE GRADING DETAIL GENERAL NOTES SIDEWALK PAY LIMITS 3 " -8" INT N I/2 PRE MOLD JOINT FILLER GENERAL NOTES NSTRUCTION I. CURB INLET SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM G 418 (ASSHTO M1 8 ASTM G 840 UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON PLANS OR NOTED ON THE PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 2. TOP SURFACE TO BE BROOM FINISHED. 3. ALL EXTERNAL ED6E5 NOT LABF1 PD SHALL BE TROWELLED WITH 1/4" RADIUS EDGER 4. SEE "TEMPORARY EROSIOWSEDIMENT CONTROL" 51ICCT q OF 10 FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET A -3 I. PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SHALL BE GLASS 3000 CONFORMING TO THE STANDARD SPEGIFICATI ONS. 2. WEAKENED PLANE JOINTS FOR PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SHALL BE PLACED AT 15' INTERVALS. 3. 3/8" EXPANSION JOINTS IN PORTLAND GEMENT CONCRETE SHALL BE PLACED AT CURB RETURNS. 4. TO BE USED IN SPECIAL GASES WITH APPROVED OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER. 5 CURBS SHALL HAVE A LIGHT GROOMED FINISH. GUTTERS SHALL BE FINISHED WITH A STEEL TROWEL. STANDARD GURSS GUTTERS EASEMENT R.O.W. 1' SWALE AREA 8� /„ / 2" DEPRESSION AT FLOWLINE r - &RABE— ekn NEP 4" PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE 6' 1/4" PER FOOT SWALE AREA 6" PORTLAND GEMENT CONCRETE A SECTION B -B STANDARD PR I VE 44AYS FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET A-4 - SHALE DRAINAGE CURB DROP 3' SECTION B -B 3/8" EXPANSION JOINT SIDEWALK EDGE OF PAVEMENT EASEMENT (∎" N . : . 4" PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE 1' HIGH SIDE OF DRIVE 2% CL DRAINAGE SWALE FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET B -8 GENERAL NOTES I. EXPANSION JOINT MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED IN THE GENTER OF ALL COMMERGIAL DRIVEWAYS OVER 20' IN WIDTH. 2. EXPANSION JOINT REQUIRED IF POUR INCLUDES ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY AREA. 3. CONCRETE FOR DRIVEWAYS SHALL BE GLASS 300 AIR ENTRAINED. 4. ALL EXTERNAL EDGES TO BE TROWELLED WITH I/4" RADIUS EDGER 5. SIDEWALK TO BE SCORED EVERY 5'. 3/8, EXPANSION JOINT TO BE INSTALLED EACH SIDE OF A CURB RETURN AND AT LOCATIONS WHERE SIDEWALK INTERSECTS OTHER SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, AND CURBS. 6. THE WIDTH OF COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAYS MAY BE WIDER THAN SHOWN, IF APPROVED BY THE COUNTY ENGINEER. 10' 6' 1/4" PER FOOT 2% SHALE AREA CURB INLET TYPE 1 ROW GENERAL NOTES 11' SECTION A -A (DRAINAGE SHALE) I. CURB INLET SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM G 418 (AASHTO M Iqq) ASTM G Bq0 UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON PLANS OR NOTED IN THE PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 2. TOP SURFACE TO BE BROOM FINISHED. 3. ALL EXTERNAL EDGES NOT LABELED SHAI 1 BE TROWELLED WITH 1/4" RADIUS EDGER. 4. DIMENSION "L" SHALL BE 3'-0" 5. SEE "TEMPORARY EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL" SHEET B OF '1 EXPIRES: 9/23/95 5 /14 /q5 3 0 cS TN 0 0 1-; F.4 z 0 p-r 0 z 0 U w w a a H 0 L z 0 r � V1 z 0 0 0 0 0 U 1 op 0 C\1 w �-1 I.` O O 0 0 0 s IT STA. 0+15.00 START POND FLAT BOTTOM ELEV. 202352 SPOKANE GOMM' STANDARD TYPE "B“ DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND 6RATE STA. 1+16.00 &RATE ELEV. 2024.02 OFFSET 28 RI6HT SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD 'TYPE 1 13* DRYWELL ITh SOLID LOCKING LID STA. 11+54.00 6RATE ELEV. 2026.21 OFFSET 28' LE-1-T PLAT BOUNDARY RI6HT OF KAY SIDEWALK CURB GUTTER 1+21.43 CENTER POINT INV. ELEV. 2025.15 TYPE 2 CURB INLET N\ AN AVENUE 6" UNDERDRAIN FROM KEYSTONE WALL TO CATCH BASIN e STA. 1+21.43 INV. ELEV. 2023.52 TOP BERM STA. 1+60.00 ELEV. 2025.54 1+15.00 CENTER POINT INV. ELEv. 2026.04 TYPE 2 CURB INLET BASIN A POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 2023.16/2025.04/2025.61 VOLUME REWIRED = 1165 cult. VOLUME PROVIDED = 1180 wit. .6. 202550 123.6d 110.60' FLAT BOTTOM ELEV. 2025.04 F13. CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 202550 STA. 11+45.00 WITH METAL &RATE TYPE 2 6RATE ELEV. 2026.00 OFFSET 52' LEFT WITH 144 L.F. IV G.M.P. o 12% GRADE R=50.00' BASIN D POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 202550 VOLUME REWIRED = 509 cult. VOLUME PROVIDED = 2030 cult. SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'A* DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND &RATE STA. 10+5359 &RATE ELEV. 2028.11 OFFSET KV R16HT BASIN 6 1+21.43 CATCH BASIN AND INLET TYPE 2 WITH 60' OF D.I.P. CULVERT INVERT ELEV. 2024.00 SLOPE = 0.008 POND BOTTOM ELEVATION =2021.61 VOLUME REQUIRED = 232 cu.ft. VOLUME PROVIDED = 675 cult. TOP BERM STA. 2+25.00 ELEV. 2026.11 34 EP6E OF PAVEMENT R16 OF WAY ........... ..- 2+50.00 CENTER POI INV. ELEV. 2026.61 TYPE 2 CURB INLET 55' FLAT BOTTOM ELEV. 202541 EASEMENT : • STA. 3+00.00 END POND CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 GUTTER CURB F.6. 2021.10 WITH METAL &RATE TYPE 2 STA. 10+84.24 6RATE ELEV. 202140 OFFSET 46.42' LEFT WITH /43 L.F. IV G.M.P. e 2% 6RADE SIDEWALK RI6HT OF HAY PLAT BOUNDARY HARM ON( LANE •■••••••■•■••., BASIN H 5.0d L=34 4' SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE '13 DRYWELL WITH SOLID LOCKING LID STA. 11+54.00 CRATE ELEV. 20262.1 OFFSET 28' RI6HT RI6HT OF WAY POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 2021.10 VOLUME REQUIRED = 242 cult. VOLUME PROVIDED = 650 Gat SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 13 DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND ORATE STA. 5+54.16 RATE ELEV. 202846 OFFSET 28' LEFT I ND I ANA AVENUE E3ASIN POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 2028.18 VOLUME REQUIRED = 150 c4.0.ft.. VOLUME PROVIDED = 205 cult. CURB SIDEWALK RI6HT OF WAY PLAT BOUNDARY SIDEWALK GUTTER SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE '13' DRYWELL WITH SOLID LOCKING LID STA. 10+5358 &RATE ELEV. 2028.11 OFFSET 11' RIGHT EDGE OF PAVEMENT 5+64.41 CENTER POINT INV. ELEV. 2024.18 TYPE 2 CURB INLET L=45D3' F.6. 2028.18 INV I ANA AVENUE 1 2.08 L. STA. 13+11.46 INV. ELEV. 203051 STA. 13+16.41 .411111111111111111111111111111111111111•111111, PLAT BOUNDARY RIGHT OF NAY SIDEWALK CURB GUTTER F 6. 2030.01 F.G. 202530 TOP BERM 2031.01 POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 202550 VOUJME REQUIRED = 184 e,ult. VOUJME PROVIDED = 2030 c,ult. 10 ct 200 V 14.00' 14.00' r - LOT LINE gr-50 CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL 6RATE TYPE 2 STA. 11+15.00 RATE ELEV. 2026.00 OFFSET 52' J•kIGHT WITH 144 L.F.e o ±2% GRADE 110.60' 123.60' BASIN E STA. 13+21.42 INV. ELEV. 203031 3a1 F.6. 202550 5+6551 CENTER POINT INV. ELEV. 2024.22 TYPE 2 CURB INLET STA. 15+06.46 INV. ELEV. 202856 156' F.G. 2028.06 10.46' STA. 15+11.41 AV L=43.43' \/ TOP BERM 2024.06 LOT LINE 6 200' v 14.00' 14.00 ) 1 A51 '1 1 xr. tr) I ND I ANA AVENUE arrTER GURB STA. 15+16.42 INV. ELEV. 202856 --FARMONY LAN-2 POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 2 030.01/2023.0612021.04 VOLUME REQUIRED = 424 wit- VOLUME PROVIDED = 1030 as.ft. 43.41' 52.20' SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'Er DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 14+25.00 HARMONY 6RATE ELEV. 2027.63 OFFSET 11' RIGHT F.G. 2021.13 BASIN G PON17 BOTTOM ELEVATION = 2021.13 VOLUME REQUIRED = 212 cu.ft. VOLUME PROVIDED = 545 cult. CURB SIDEWALK RIGHT OF WAY GUTTER F.G. 2027.09 CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL &RATE TYPE 2 STA. 4 1+40.00 6RATE ELEV. 2021.63 OFFSET 52' RIGHT WITH ± 28 L.F. l2 C.M.P. *2% 6RADE CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 1411-1 METAL 6RATE TYPE 2 STA. 16+41.43 6RATE ELEV. 202734 OFFSET 55' LEFT WITH ± 38 L.F. I2 G.M.P. 0 1.2% 6RADE `zr. E3ASIN F POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 2027.13 VOLUME REQUIRED = 202 cat. VOW-1E PROVIDED = 450 cult. 5 20. 14' 4 LOT LINE tr SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE *B" DRYWELL WITH SOLID LOCKING LID STA. 16+26.00 6RATE ELEV. 2021.93 OFFSET TT' LEFT SIDEWALK RIGHT OF HAY INDIANA AVENUE 40.0 SCALE: 1 INCH = 20 FEET */ SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN SPOKANE COUNTY STAND 'TYPE *A" DRYWELL WITH SOLID LOGIN 6 LID STA. 14+40.00 HARMONY 6RATE ELEV. 2021.10 OFFSET 11' LEFT RIGHT OF WAY \SHAL L.01^1 POINT 2021.84 SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN S INV TA . ELEV STA. 16+41.43 EXPIRES: 9/23/95 / SIDEWALK EDGE OF PAVEMENT Pa r 0 ca P■4 rL1 0 z › 0 0 0 cd 1-1 0 0 C\2 0 to co co 0 0 T EPEE OF PAVEMENT RI6HT OF WAY 0 HARMONY LANE L F.e. 2021.63 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE •A'' DRYNIF1 I 1 SOLID LOCKING LID CRATE ELEV 202644 4155' SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE "13 PRY-ELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND &RATE STA. 13+41.48 6RATE ELEV. 202E3..13 OFFSET 14.5' RIGHT POND BOTTOM ELEVATION I 2021.63 VOLUME REQUIRED = 301 cu.ft. VOLUME PROVIDED = 1140 cult. INDIANA AVENUE ASIN K BASIN N POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 2026.45 VOLUME REQUIRED = 442 cult. VOLUME PROVIDED = 540 cult. UTTER CURB SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN INV. 202543 51125^1ALK RIGHT OF HAY LOT LINE CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL &RATE TYPE 2 STA. 22+34. McMILLAN LANE 6RATE ELEV. 2026.45 OFFSET 60 RIGHT WITH *40 LP. 12" C.MP. o *256 GRADE EDGE OF PAVEMENT F.6. 202 CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL RATE TYPE 2 STA. 15+14.10 6RATE ELEV. 202E5.42 OFFSET 14.5' RIGHT WITH 125 LF. 12" C.M.P. e t2515 GRADE GRADE FLAT 2021.42 TOP CENTER OF INLET STA. 15+1q.10 HARMONY 202542 STA. 14+10.q1 E.O.R. HARMONY 05' END POND EDGE OF PAVEMENT PROJECT BOUNDARY STA. 14+24.44 114V. ELEV. 2024.83 SIDEWALK UNDERDRAI CHECK DAM 3A SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE "13' DRYHELL H1111 TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND CRATE STA. 15+15.00 6RATE ELEV. 2021.84 OFFSET icisg mew TOP CENTER OF BERM 3A STA. 15+25.10 HARMONY 202532 STA. 15+15.00 GRATE ELEV. 20212q \ 45.00' 0 45.00' 51.00' HARMO HARMONY LANE PROFILE NOT TO SCALE POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 2021.42/2021.34/2021.41 VOLUME REQUIRED = 350 cat VOLUME PROVIDED = 585 cult. F.6. 202134 rib,cro. 112.56' 116$40' BASIN 0 POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 2024.83 VOLUME REQUIRED = 384 cult. VOLUME PROVIDED = 810 cult. \1Y LANE GRADE FLAT 202134 BASIN J 5453' R.22,00 .6. 2031.12 POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 2031.12 VOLUME REQUIRED = 111 cult. VOLUME PROVIDED = 112 cult. 3' 1 k r VAIiii CHECK DAM 35 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE "EV DRYHELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND CRATE STA. 16+05.00 CRATE ELEV. 2027.64 OFFSET 143' RIGHT TOP CENTER OF BERM 3E3 STA. 16+20.10 HARMONY 2026.21 STA. 16+05.00 GRATE ELEV. 2021.84 < ■ SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD 'TYPE 'A" DRYNEU_ 14111-1 TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND CRATE STA. 11+4500 CRATE ELEV. 2032.22 OFFSET 14.5' RIGHT SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE W DRY-ELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND CRATE STA. 14+11.62 CRATE ELEV. 202433 OFFSET IT RIGHT 021.41 R-42400' L=48.661 R=421.00' L=44.11', R=432.00 L=50.12 - R=435.00' L. SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 13' DRYHELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND CRATE STA. 16+55.00 GRATE ELEV. 2021.41 OFFSET 145' R11-fl GRADE FLAT 2027.41 STA. 16+55.00 GRATE ELEV. 2021.11 0.5' rSTA. 11+0131 HARMONY END POND 55 31 33.00' 1 50.00' 35 INDIANA AVENUE BASIN P POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 2028.00 VOLUME REQUIRED = 0 cult. VOLUME PROVIDED = 345 cult. SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 13" DRYNIELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND RATE 6RATE ELEV 2026.47 E3AS I N M POND BOTTOM ELEVATION =2026.47 VOLUME REQUIRED = 331 cult. VOLUME PROVIDED = 460 cult. C OM FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS ON AREA PROJECT BOUNDARY SCALE: 1 INCH = 20 FEET a. ri 0 0 0 0 z 7A co co co rd 1-1 0 a) 0 O 4 C\2 0 -P ■•••■• ET to (r) 1 0 io 0 CURVE 1 RADIUS 1 LENGTH 1 TANGENT 1 GHORD 1 BEARIN6 ] DELTA GI 20.00' 1.14' 361' 7.10' 509 °3834'14 20 °27'23" G3 20.00' 31.43' 20.02' 2830' N45 °01'36°E 10 °03'08" C4 20.00' 31.40' 11.18' 2821' 544 "E 81 G8 20.00' 14.45' 156' 14.14' 569 ° 54'31"E 41 °24'35" 01 725.00' 18.67' 1.34' 18.7' N17 01'2832" C11 125.00' 154.32' T1.45' 154.03' N23 °54'06'14 12 °11'44° G31 20.00' 2426' 1388' 22.80' 554'31'43 "W 61 °30'46" Gab 20.00' 24.26' 13 .88' 22.80' 525'14'31'W 69'30'46° C39 20.00' 7.15' 361' 7.11' 519 °45'21'E 20 °24'14' G40 20.00' 1.15' 3 .61' 7.11' N40'14'36'14 20 C41 20.00' 24.26' 1388' 2280' N85 °1436 69 °30'46" C44 600.00' 21.88' 10.14' 21.88' 517'22'24 °E 02 °05'24" G45 150.00' 43.12' 2157' 43.12' N11'58'32'14 03 °17'40° C46 20.00' 2967' 1832' 27.02' N21 °27'08"E 84 °51'16° C41 20.00' 33b6' 2238' 2(4.82' N61 °31'1914 16'25'23' LINE 1 DIRECTION 1 DISTANCE LI 581•24'51'W 15.00' L3 5 00'00'04" W 10.00' L5 500'03'10 °W 10.00' III N8q •23'06'E 21.19' L12 500 °3524'E 84.18' Lig 584'24'57 "W 30 .00' L43 5 81'24'57° W 1.61' L44 5 03'48'01" W 21.82' L45 N 00 °35'03 "' 21.15' L46 N 84•23'06" E 2.83' L41 5 04 °58'08" E 36.16' L48 N 00'35'03" W 36.85' R5 N25'44'011W 1890' R6 N26'03'141W 11.10' R1 N1211'46 "E 22.00' RI1 534 °30'47'14 2537' RI2 521'59'58'E 2051' R13 N80'29`I6'E 26 .01' RI4 521'5158"E 2337' R21 N40•47'40'E 31.44' R28 570'01'40'E 2734' N d N u.1 uJ mm 0 0 m m 00 0 U> t11 L48 L19 L45 30.00' 0 CU J = 11 °30 R = 20.00' T = 2.01' L 4.02' i DETAIL "A" L11 CLEAR VIEW TRIANGLE FD. 1/2 INCH REAR W/SURGAP MARKED 'WELBORN PLS 15043' 581 °23'06'14 t 32229' t EASEMENT FOR CLEAR VIEW TRIANGLE 5 25' SIDEWALK, DRAINAGE, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT INDIANA AVENUE 3 581 °23'06114 241.47' _ 22650' 1 TRACT "G' 13' f 13' DRAINAGE, SLOPE AND EASEMENT L43 � 25' t N84 °23'06'E 245.23' 25' SIDEWALK, DRAINAGE, SLOPE AND UTILITY EASEMENT 5' FUTURE ACQUISITION AREA CLEAR VIEW TRIANGLE (NOT A PART) UNPLATTD (NOT A PART) A = 40•21'00' R = 20.00' T = 7.38' L =14.13' 226.45' 40 5' DRAINAGE, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT �S♦ (NOT A PART) 13' DRAINAGE, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT fsk 48 0 13' DRAINAGE, SLOPE AND UTILITY EASEMENT ° 0 0 , o A = 41'44'43' R = 20.00' T =763' L = 1451' R3 DETAIL "G " C% \ 3 103 EASEMENT FOR CLEAR VIEW TRIANGLE 13' DRAINAGE, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT A 8 la 17 (NOT A PART) CLEAR VIEW TRIANGLE EASEMENT FOR CLEAR VIEW TRIANGLE 5 83'45'00" 1"1 25' SIDEWALK, SLOPE, DRAINAGE AND, UTILITY EASEMENT (rip) 5 00'00'04' W 1.29' 10213 10227' 5 81 E N89 °56'50114 10' RIGHT -OF -WAY DEDICATION EASEMENT FOR CLEAR VIEW 'TRIANGLE 16' SIDEWALK, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT (TYP) 16' SIDEWALK, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT (7YP) A = 21°49'39" R = 20.00' T = 386' L = 162' 5 83'45'00' 1"I 627.62' 83.61' - 5 84'56 5 84'56'50' E 46 cc� 4q f 20.00' 50.00' 30.00' 102.8 0 = 02 R = 100.00' < T= 11.21' L = 34.41' +o 16' SIDEWALK, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT (7YP) A = 36'56'05' R = 20.00' T = 668' 1 - = 12.89' MISSION AVENUE 5 89 °56'44" E 2615.18' (RLI) N &'1°5b'50" W 2615.18' (M) C3 45.05' DETAIL "13" • N 113.60' _. 100 C4 44.15' qq DETAIL "D" 16' SIDEWALK, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT (TYP) 98 = 21 R = 20.00' T = 384' L = 7.58' N 83'38'45" W N 81•56'50° H (NOT A PART) CLEAR VIEW TRIANGLE 20 5.75' 18593' 1988.16' LINE TABLE CURVE TABLE SCALE: I I NGH - 40 FEET '/ONAL .63 1 EXPIRES 09/23/`fj 6/21/15 JOM W W ria N N tIO O r -- d 4 1 1: , "; 0 5 A (1� co 'n 0 0 0 62 0 0 r-i 0 0 v 1` O 10 co co to n 0 a) x S ET A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF SECT TOWNSHIP 25 NORTH, RANGE 45 EAST, W.M° , SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON . ,153 SF 2 ,600 SF 15,615 SF 6,136 SF N I 6;13bSF 1 14,411 SF 8,450 N 5,450 SF 881 SF 8,450 5 8,115 SF 3 os 6,500 SF 150 SF 1,800 SF 1,113 SF 1,000 SF 6 ; 131 SF v 4 1,401 5F 11 6,336 5F 14 8 ,042 SF 15 13,380 SF 105' 16 6,501 SF cu 105' 6,500 SF I-1 6 ,500 SF 105' 22 6,500 SP 21 1321 SF 18 ,500 SF 105' 135' 4 8,450 SF 8,450 SF 20 1,411 5F 5 1,610 SF "STOR SE AREA" 3 1;731 SF 10,161 SF - 10 6,332 SF s l,000 SF 1561 SF 1,611 SF O 1,000 SF 10 26 10,021 SF ! 8 8,415 13,646 SF 1,383 SF 1,535 SF 14,153 SF 1,101 SF 1,100 SF • 2 1,136 SF 4 is 1,800 SF 1,800 5F -/2- 32 1 -n4 SF L =3 1,236 SF 6 8;185 SF 62,032 42 1.42 AG AREA" COMMO4REA E55 1,441 2 10,351 SF 8' 2q BSgI SF 8,451 SF 6,825 SF 5' 7 °' 6,825 5 N 4 00 SF 0 8,314 SF 1,800 SF 31 1,136 SF 1,064 SF 21 8,801 5F 10,256 5F 8,561 SF 1,614 5F 2 8,450 SF 130' Aj 110' 112' N 10 °00'00" E 65' • 65' 35' 30' 18' 1314 SF 11,036 it 1,800 5F 25 Io,O7q 5 10,140 SF 3 5,111 SF 4 q,06 SF 8,'32 SF 1,155 SF x ,50 8,254 SF �N 10,553 SF 3 8,125 F 1,150 SF 1 0 6,500 SF c'? 6 6,500 SF ,000 SF O D. 3 - woo SF 1,454 SF 21 1,188 SF cc s 0 15 10,112 SF 14 225F 6,500 SF 11 0, 6,500 SF 6 ,500 SF 2 8,450 SF 130' 1,352 SF O 0 4 1,000 SF 6,500 SF 65' •65' 65' 6,505 SF 6,500 SF 38' 65' 5 1,811 5F 16 6,148 SF 22 1;118 SF 10,201 SF I 1,250 SF 11 1,631 SF 1,451 SF N 8q °56'5 3 1,802 SF L =30' 20 q,14o 5F 1,100 SF Iq 6,611 SF 1,243 SF 14,531 6,131 SF 120' 1 ,000 SF 6,500 SF 65' Iq 1,641 SF 8;138 5F 1,281 SF 0' 1 0 - 6,611 SF O 0 8 1 p0o SF 1013' N 10°00'00" E 65' '&351 SF 13,043 SF 7 y; 54' 11' 60' 5 65' 9 ,3 6,500 SF 65' 6 ,500 SF 65' 21 m 8,614 SF 6,500 SF 13 6,488 SF 115' q0 °00'00" H J_ -1poo loo' 3 1,114 SF 10 ° o _ 11 6,500 SF 6,500 SF 65' 65' 65' 65' 65' ' 65' 65' I • . ._.11>. 100 0 50 25' BLDS. SETBAG< 8q °23'06 W ENTENNIAL TRAIL 400' 81 °23'48" 1 6` W (2028) 5 5' RESERVED. COUISITION AREA 561.8 (203 j) PERIMETER FE GE GRAPHIC SCALE -- (2025) 111114&1111a (IN FEET ) 1. inch = 100 ft. (2032) (2033) L =37' L= 61 ' _..� EDGE OF PAVEMENT SARASE SARASE 20' PARK AREA N.T.S. - --- *57STORY SIDE YARD N 81 °24'58" E 135' 6 6,154 SF m it 6,136 SF 6;736 SF 104' 12 I 6,141 SF KY RI 5 81 °56'52" E O 8,663 SF 5' 61' GRASSY SHALE AREA 11' EXPIRES: 1 15,116 SF 5 8q °56 O' E 2% MIN. N.T.S. 316,081 SF 130 AG 1,171 SF 1,100 SF 1 2% MIN. 2" ASPHALT PLAN11.1IX 4" 3/4 "( -) CRUSHED ROOK BASE 4 "( -) BALLAST -DEPTH BY SOILS TEST 16,348 SF SPOKANE RIVER =I\.G MAR < -SOUT- EAST CORN =R BRIDGE OVER SFO <ANE R I V=R. EL=V . 1°06.16 Phone: (208) 667-1171 GRASSY SHALE AREA 11' INDIANA AVE. SALDHIN AVE. AUSUSTA AVE. MISSION AVE. EXISTINS R.O. 4200 West Seltice Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 0 0 -. ° 0 0 000oo00•0 • 0 000000••0 . 000000•. 0 0o00ootl•. 0 0000000 0 O 000000 •• 0 0 000000 •. 0 Ooa00000 0 •0OOtl000• O 0000000 O . OoOtltltltltl N �� %iii is % %iSi!i!i!i!i!i!i! ` �� VIGINITY MAP (NO SCALE) 15 Way 83814 2.05 AG COMMON AREA ACCESS 2615:18 PROJECT AREA "COMMON AREA" 4 a 5 7 g q 10 ,6,1,6,6 SF 6,I 12 6 ,0 sF � 6,266 SF 6 • 63 SF 6,24 - 6,231 SF 6,215 SF 6 g oo SF ,6,184 SF , 3 61' •1' 6T 61' 61' 61' 61 6T 61' 48' �� 2 11,158 SF 12 10,630 5 6,356 SF 4 5,541 SF 10' R.O.H. DEDICATION TIP. 1' M 13' GRASSY SHALE AREA 12.5' II - 6 ,525 SF (2033)- (2034) - 112' 5 q0 °00'00" 1^I 6,525 SF 15' 15' 81 °48'00' E DEVELOPMENT PLAN RIVERWAY VILLA N.T.S. 5 1,803 SF 15' 15' 648.40' 1,803 SF q 1,803 SF . (20 5) I,1 (2020) 10 z 1,803 SF 1,803 SF 116' a• I S s 8,206 SF = 14' 103 I - 0p1 SF 3 1115 SF lOq' AVENUE SEGT I ON (2022) CENTER 1/4 SECTION 8 � 51 TE DATA GROSS PROPERTY 51 ZE NET DEVELOPED AREA RI OK OF HAY DEDI GAT ION COMMON AREA STORAC E AREA LOT INFORMATION TOTAL NO. LOTS: NORTH OF VILLA AVE. SOUTH OF VILLA AVE. TOTAL MAXI MUM NUMBER LOTS ALLOHED BY P.U.E. CROSS LOT DEN51 TY NET LOT DENS I TY ERAA" D UNIT EVELQ COMMON AREA REQU I RED BY P.U.D. 107.E ACRES 75.5 ACRES 18.2 ACRES 11.8 AGRES(II%) 2 ACRES Iq6 I6 365 3.40 DU /AG 4.41 DU /AG 10.8 AGRES(I SITE GOYERASE ACTUAL BUILDING 51TE GOVERASE 16 AGRES(15%) BUILDING SITE GOVERACE PERMITTED 37.6 AGRFS(35%) ----- 2q MIN. all i atr 112811 1114 11 ac si:%iSiiSSI! RMIR MI v /� �, J '1i 2" ASPHALT PLANTMIX 4" 5/4 "( -) CRUSHED ROCK BASE 4 "( -) BALLAST -DEPTH BY 501LS TEST 25' BLDG. SETBACK 15' GRASSY SHALE AREA 125' 1.5, 1MAx 0013000 000000 00000 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000 O 00000 000000 000000 O 00000 PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN NORTH OF VILLA AVENUE NOTE: FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SEE SUBMITTED NARRATIVE. CHECKED BY: DATE: J.N. 4004 \GENEMAS.DNG DEDICATION KNOW BY ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, THAT TRINITY ENTERPRISES, INC. HAS CAUSED TO BE PLA 1 I ED INTO LOTS, BLOCKS AND STREETS, THE LAND SHOWN HEREON, TO BE KNOWN AS RIVERWAY VILLA FIRST ADDITION, BEING A PARCEL OF LAND IN THE COUNTY OF SPOKANE, STATE OF WASHINGTON DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER AND THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER AND GOVERNMENT LOTS 5 AND 6 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 25 NORTH, RANGE 45 EAST, RR,: EXCEPTING COUNTY ROADS ON THE WEST 30 FEET AND SOUTH 20 FEET; AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING 4 TRACTS: (I OF 4) THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOTS 5 AND 6 LYING NORTHERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 5, 450 FEET SOUTH OF THE WEST GUAR i tR CORNER OF SAID SECTION 8; THENCE EAST AT RIGHT ANGLES WITH THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION, 330 FEET; THENCE NORTH 81°16' EAST, 3305 FEET; THENCE NORTH 63 °43' EAST, 685.8 FEET; THENCE NORTH 55 °52' EAST, 162.2 FEET MORE OR LESS TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 6, SAID POINT BEING 4253 FEET NORTH OF THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION 8; (2 OF 4) THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 25 NORTH, RANGE 45 EAST, W.M., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: RIVERWAY VILLA FIRST ADDITION A PORTION OF THE SW 1/4, SECTION 8, T 25 N, R 45 E, W.M., SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON SHEET 1 OF 3 JANUARY, 1993 COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 8; THENCE NORTH 00 °00'43 EAST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 8, A DISTANCE OF 353.00 FEET; THE NNGE SOUTH 83 ° 53' I I" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION, SAID POINT BEINc5 THE EAST LINE OF BAKER ROAD; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 83 °53 EAST, A DISTANCE OF 310.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00%000'43" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 650.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 81°5(4'11" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 310.00 FEET EAST LINE OF BAKER ROAD; THENCE SOUTH 00%1700'4 WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF MP BARKER ROAD, A DISTANCE OF 650.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SPOKANE, STATE OF WASHINGTON. (3 OF 4) BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 5, I803 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 8; THENCE EAST FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE EAST 200 FEET; THENCE SOUTH PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 5, 200 FEET; THENCE WEST 200 FEET TO A POINT 30 FEET EAST OF THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE NORTH PARALLEL WITH SAID WEST LINE AND 30 FEET EAST THEREOF 200 FEET TO THE TRUE" POINT OF BEGINNING; SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SPOKANE, STATE OF WASHINGTON. (4 OF 4) A PORTION OF SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 25 NORTH, RANGE 45 EAST OF THE W I LLAME I 1 t MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST ONE - QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 25 NORTH, RANGE 45 EAST; THENCE SOUTH 00 °35 EAST, ON THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8, A DISTANCE OF 450.00 FEET; THENCE PERPENDICULAR TO SAID WEST LINE NORTH 8'1°2451" EAST A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO THE EAST RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF BARKER ROAD THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE SOUTH LINE OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND AS CONVEYED TO WASHINGTON STATE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION, BY STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED RECORDED AUGUST 25, 1388 UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 8808250252, THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE NORTH 83 °24'51 " EAST A D I STANdE OF 300.00 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE NORTH 80 °40'51" EAST A DISTANCE OF 43435 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH LINE, `SOUTH 66°24'51" WEST A DISTANCE OF 343.24 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 34°24'51" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1 30.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 85°35'03" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 300.00 FEET TO THE EAST R1 GHT -OF -WAY LINE OF BARKER ROAD; THENCE NORTH 00 °35'03" HEST ALONG SAID RIGHT - OF -WAY A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SPOKANE, STATE OF WASHINGTON. AND THEY HEREBY DEDICATE TO PUBLIG USE FOREVER THE STREETS AND ROADS SHOWN WITHIN THIS PLAT. FINAL PLAT OF NO MORE THAN ONE (I) DWELLING STRUCTURE SHALL BE PLACED ON ANY ONE LOT; NOR SHALL ANY LOT BE FURTHER SUBDIVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CREATING ADDITIONAL LOTS, OWNERSHIP OR BUILDING SITES WITHOUT FIRST FILING AND RECEIVING APPROVAL OF REPLAT. SIDE YARD AND REAR YARD SETBACKS SHALL BE DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMITS ARE REQUESTED. THE SETBACKS INDICATED ON THIS SUBDIVISION MAY BE VARIED FROM IF PROPER ZONING APPROVALS ARE OBTAINED. USE OF PRIVATE WELLS AND WATER SYSTEMS 15 PROHIBITED. THE PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM, PURSUANT THE WATER PLAN APPROVAL BY COUNTY AND STATE HEALTH AUTHORITIES, THE LOCAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, COUNTY BUILDING SAFETY DEPARTMENT, AND WATER PURVEYOR, SHALL BE INSTALLED WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION, AND THE SUBDIVIDER/SPONSOR SHALL PROVIDE FOR INDIVIDUAL DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE AS HELL AS FIRE PROTECTION TO EACH LOT/TRACT PRIOR TO SALE OF EACH LOT AND PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR EACH LOT. THE OWNERS) OR SUGGESSOR(S) IN INTEREST AGREE TO JOIN IN ANY COUNTY- APPROVED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND PAY SUCH RATES AND CHARGE AS MAY BE FIXED THROUGH PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR SERVICES OR BENEFIT OBTAINING BY THE PLANNING, DESIGN, CONSTRUCTING, MAINTAINING OR OPERATION OF STORMWATER CONTROL FACILITIES. THE OWNER(S) OR SUGGESSOR(S) IN INTEREST AGREE TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY TO PLAGE THEIR NAME(S) ON PETITION FOR THE FORMATION OF ULID BY PETITION METHOD PURSUANT TO RGW 36.'14, WHICH THE PETITION INCLUDES THE OWNER(S) PROPERTY; AND FURTHER NOT TO OBJECT BY THE SIGNING OF A PROTEST PETITION AGAINST THE FORMATION OF ULID BY RESOLUTION METHOD PURSUANT TO RGW CHAPTER 36.34 WHICH INCLUDES THE OWNER(S) PROPERTY. PROVIDED THIS CONDITION SHALL NOT PROHIBIT THE OWNERS) OR SUGGESSOR(S) FORM OBJECTING TO ANY ASSESSMENT(5) ON THE PROPERTY AS A RESULT OF IMPROVEMENT GALLED FOR IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE FORMATION OF A ULID BY EITHER PETITION OR RESOLUTION METHOD UNDER RGW CHAPTER 36.34. EACH NEW DWELLING UNIT SHALL BE DOUBLE- PLUMBED FOR CONNECTION TO FUTURE AREAW I DE COLLECTION SYSTEMS. SUBJECT TO SPECIFY APPLICATION APPROVAL AND ISSUANCE OF PERMITS BY THE HEALTH OFFICER, THE USE OF INDIVIDUAL ON -SITE SEWERAGE SYSTEM(S) MAY BE AUTHORIZED. NOTE: SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE INSTALLATION OF THE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM. A TEN FOOT (109 WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT GRANTED TO THE SERVING UTILITIES OVER THE LOTS ADJOINING THE PUBLIC ROAD RIGHT OF WAY AS SHOWN HEREON. STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF SPOKANE ON THIS DAY OF I3, BEFORE ME PERSONALLY APPEARED DON J. BODENMAN TO ME KNOWN TO BE INDIVIDUAL DESCRIBED IN AND WHO EXECUTED THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT FOR TRINITY ENTERPRISES, INC., ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE SIGNED AND SEALED THE SAME AS HI5 FREE AND VOLUNTARY ACT AND DEED FOR HIMSELF AND ALSO AS HIS FREE AND VOLUNTARY ACT AND DEED AS ATTORNEY IN FACT FOR SAID PRINCIPAL FOR USES AND PURPOSES THERE I N MENTIONED, AND ON OATH STATED THAT THE POWER OF ATTORNEY AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF THIS INSTRUMENT HAS NOT BEEN REVOKED AND THAT THE SAID PRINCIPAL 15 NOW LIVING. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL. SEAL THE DAY AND YEAR LAST ABOVE WRI I 1 tN. NOTARY PUBLIG IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, RESIDING IN SPOKANE SPOKANE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EXAMINED AND APPROVED THIS DAY OF IQ . CHAIRMAN, SPOKANE S OKANE GOON COMMISSIONERS MMISSI ONERS AUDITOR'S CERTIFICATE FILED FOR RECORD THIS DAY OF , iq AT M. 1 N BOOK OF PLATS AT PAGE AT THE REQUEST OF DEPUTY SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE THIS MAP CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A SURVEY MADE BY ME OR UNDER Mi DIRECTION IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPOKANE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. DAVID E. SCHUMANN, FLS CERTIFICATE NUMBER 4321 SPOKANE COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT EXAMINED AND APPROVED THIS DAY OF DIRECTOR, SPOKANE COUNTY UTILITIES SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER EXAMINED AND APPROVED THIS _ DAY OF i3 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT EXAMINED AND APPROVED THIS DAY OF DIRECTOR, SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT SPOKANE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT EXAMINED AND APPROVED THIS 13 FOR SPOKANE COUNTY HEALTH OFF I GER SPOKANE COUNTY ASSESSOR DAY OF EXAMINED AND APPROVED THIS DAY OF IQ . SPOKANE COUNTY ASSESSOR Bt DEPUTY SPOKANE COUNTY TREASURER I DO " HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL TAXES WHICH HAVE BEEN LEVIED AND BECOME CHARGEABLE`, AGAINST THE LAND` SHOWN WITH THIS MAP HAVE BEEN FULLY PAID THIS DAY OF . Iq SPOKANE COUNTY TREASURER BY DEPUTY N orth Ldar �a ineerin 4200 W. SELTICE WAY, SUITE 2, - COEUR D'ALENE, IDAHO 83814 • (208) 667- 1171 FAX 664 -3507 FAX SHEET SHEETS FD. 5/8 INCH REBAR' W/SURGAP MARKED "VALENTINE PLS 18141" FD. 3/8 INCH REBAR W\ SURGAP MARKED "ADAMS PL5 18141" FD. 3/8 INCH REBAR W/SURGAP MARKED "WELBORN PLS 15043" FD. RE -STEEL PIN AS PER SPOKANE COUNTY CORNER RECORD #4331 FOR W 1/4 CORNER Zo e 20 (R) N 8q °23'21" E 310.14 (MEAS) N 89°5q'II" W (REG) 310.00' (REG. N Sa °23'48" E (MEAS.) 310:03' (MEAS) 5 Sq °5q'11" E (REG) 370.00' (REG) FD. 5/8 INCH REBAR W/SURGAP MARKED 'VALENTINE PLS 18141" FD. 1/2 INGH I.P. FD. 3/8 INCH REBAR W/SURGAP MARKED "WELBORN PL5 15043" FD. 3/8 INCH REBAR W/SURCAP MARKED "WELBORN PL5 15043" FD. 5/8 INCH REBAR W/SURGAP 'MARKED "VALENTINE" PLS 18141" MISSION AVE. (50' Row N 89 °32'9' E 2511.4q' (MEAS.) 5 8q °32'31" W 2511.48' (REC) FD. 4 INCH X 4 INCH CONG. POST VI/BRASS GAP MARKED I.E.P. N 8q °56'52" W 2615.75' (MEAS.) 5 8q °56'44" E 2615.18' (REG) SHEET 2 OF 3 JANUARY, 1993 5 8q °48'0 FD. 4 INCH X 4 INCH GONG. POST VI/BRASS GAP MARKED I.E.P. 648.40 (REG) " • NOT �A T 5 81 °56'44" E 653.'15'(REC) FD. 3/8 INCH REBAR W/SURGAP MARKED ABC ING. /311/13315 AS INDICATED ON INSTRUMENT # 8205030155 FD. 4 INCH X 4 INCH GONG. POST VI/BRASS GAP MARKED I.E.P. FP. 4 INCH X 4 INCH GONG. POST VI/BRASS GAP MARKED I.E.P. ON NORTH SIDE OF THIS POINT (SEE DETAIL AT RIGHT) FD. SPOKANE COUNTY BRASS GAP WITH X ON CENTERLINE OF MISSION AVENUE AS INDICATED ON SPOKANE COUNTY CORNER RECORD *2454 FOR 5 1/4 CORNER 4 "X4" GONG. POST VI/BRASS GAP MARKED I.E.P. SURVEYOR'S NOTES THE RECORD INFORMATION ON THIS MAP WAS TAKEN FROM SPOKANE COUNTY RECORDS AS FOLLOWS: BOOKS OF SURVEYS: BOOK 25, PAGE 83 BOOK 21, PAGE 42 BOOK q, PAGE 1q AND SPOKANE COUNTY CORNER RECORDS: #4331 #2455 #2454 BASIS OF BEARIN65 THE BA5I5 OF BEARING FOR THIS MAP 15 THE WEST LINE OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 8 TAKEN AS 5 OO °35'O3" E, TAKEN FROM R.O.S. FILED AT BOOK 21, PASE42, OF SURVEYS, SPOKANE COUNTY WASHINGTON. ACCURACY STATEMENT THIS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED USING A PENTAX PXIOD 10 SECOND THEODOLITE WITH ON BOARD ELECTRONIC DISTANCE ME I LR. FIELD TRAVERSE METHODS WERE USED IN ACCORDANCE WITH WAG 332-130- SECTION "G ". SET 3/8 INCH REBAR W/SURGAP ® FD. MONUMENT AS DESCRIBED 1 ) - OR rte• FD. CONTROLLING SECTION CORNER r OR 1/4 CORNER AS DESCRIBED gineering ................. ............................... 4200 W. SELTICE WAY, SUITE 2, COEUR D'ALENE, IDAHO 83814 North Ida (208) 667 -1171 FAX 664 -3507 FAX GRAPHIC SCALE 100 200 400 800 PD. RE =STEEL PIN AS PER SPOKANE COUNTY CORNER RECORD - ` *4331 F012 W` 1/4 CORNER ►ALnhtIN A oe 00 to F12. /b INCH REBAR W/SURGAP MARKED °WELBORN PL515043 "- N 8q °23'48" E s 8q °54'11" E 370.00' (REGa 584 ° 23'48 "W 355.05' -FD. SPOKANE COUNTY BRASS GAP A5 PER SPOKANE COUNTY CORNER RECORD #2455. G12 _ NSq °56'52 "W_' 0 0 5 0 0 � . .103.00' in 1.,. 103.00' ij IO 0 11 ' IO.00' ` il N84 °56'52 0 0 ) RIVERWAY VILLA FIRST ADDITION A P OF THE SW 1 /4, SECTION 8, T 25 N, R 45 E, W.M., SPOKANE COUNTY, SHEET 3 OF 3 JANUARY, 1993 0 v N84°56'521 0 _ m ` 100.00_ 0 0 � aL 2 0 100.00' Z N 100.06' _ ' q . th 4 N 80.02' m ,118q°56 "W 'S -1.11(4 \� O 25.00 in c1 ( -1q a8' N O o 0 ' !..7 1 0 pIga 0100.14 • Z O � o Z ^ i MM L 0 L3 100 00' NSq °56'52 "W t MISSION AVE. (50' R.O.W ; 20'/30 M "COMMON AREA N Sq °56'52" W 2615.15'; (MEAS.) 5 Sq °56'44" E 2615:78' (REG.) -FD. SPOKANE COUNTY BRASS CAP WITH X ON CENTERLINE OF MISSION AVENUE AS INDICATED ON SPOKANE COUNTY CORNER RECORD #2454 FOR 5 1/4 WASHINGTON LINE 1 DIRECTION 1 DISTANCE LI 584 °23'48 "W 45.04' L2 N00 °00 "E 50.00' L3 587°34'26 "E 50.04' L4 N36°15'3Th 34.26' L5 S63 50.43' CURVE 1 RADIUS 1 LENGTH 1 TANGENT 1 CHORD 1 BEARING 1 DELTA GI 20.00' 31.42' 20.00' 2828' 515 ° 00'00 "W g0 °00'00° G2 20.00' 2756' 16.48 25.43' N6q °28'48 "W 78 °5"1'36" 03 20.00' 3 20.00' 2828' 515 °00'00 °W 40 ° 00'00" C4 20.00' 31.42' 20.00' 2828' N75 °00'00 14 q0 ° 00'00° G5 20.00' 33b6' 22.38' 24.82' N67 °31'20 "W 46 °25'23" C6 20.00' 24. 18.32' 21.02' N2I °2"1'06 °E 84°54'16" C7 20.00' 26.12' 1530' 2430' 537'24'54 14 74 °44'58" 08 20.00' 30.13' 18.15' 2736' 962°15'38 86 °18'25° Gq 20.00' 31.43' 20.02' 2830' 545 °0134 "W g0 °03'08" CIO 20.00' 31.40' 14.18' 26.21' 544 °58'26 "E 84°56'52" GII 20.00' 31.41' 14.44' 28.26' 544 °24'22 "W 8q °58'53" GI2 300.00' 130.42' 6652 124.88' N76 °53'42 °E 25 °00'I3" 013 30000' 23.00' 11.51' 23.00' N62 °E 04 °2335" GI4 250.00' 1.34' 310 '134' N2q°0q'10 14 0I °41'40" G15 225.00' 3335' 16.11' N04°14'441^1 2' N04 °14'44 " 08 °243'1" 016 225.00' 84.46' 42.13' 83.46' N14 °14'49 "W 21 °30'23" 017 250.00' 40.14•' 20.11' 40.04' N23°42'231 04°11'54" Gib 2124.86' 4&i -ir 241.8q' 480.8' N6' °20 "E I2 °57'31° Glq 125.00' 18bi" 434' 18.61' N17°04'00 °W 01 020 '125.00 154.32' 11.45' 154.03' N23°54'08 I"! 12 °11'44" 021 625.00' 146.1 - 7 1 48.40' 14536' 525 °14'14 "E 17 °58'54° 4 G22 600.00' 34' • 1'1.46' 34.41' 532 ° 57'21"E 03°20'03" G23 600.00' 18.66' 4.34' I8b8 Si7 °13'14 °E 01 °41'00" G24 750.00' 50.32' 25.17' 5031' N18°15'041 03°50'40" G25 265.00' 135.46' 6451' 134.48' N74 °41'54 °E 24 °23'48 SURVEYOR'S NOTES THE RECORD INFORMATION ON THIS MAP WAS TAKEN FROM SPOKANE COUNTY RECORDS AS FOLLOWS: BOOKS OF SURVEYS: BOOK 25, PAGE 83 BOOK 27, PAGE 42 BOOK q, PAGE 7 AND SPOKANE COUNTY CORNER RECORDS: #433'1 #2455 #2454 BASIS OF BEARINGS THE BASIS OF BEARING FOR THIS MAP 15 THE WEST LINE OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 8 TAKEN AS 5 00 °35'03 ". E, TAKEN FROM R.05. FILED AT BOOK 27, PAGE42, OF SURVEYS, SPOKANE COUNTY WASHINGTON. SET 3/8 INCH REBAR W/SURCAP FD. MONUMENT AS DESCRIBED GRAPHIC SCALE ongsigosimpasionismateguaii4 North Idaho (208) 667 -1171 FAX 664 -3507 FAX COEUR D'ALENE, IDAHO a ine:ering GENERAL: ALL MATERIALS SHALL BE NEW, NSF APPROVED AND INSTALLED ACCORDING TO THE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN THE CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION DISTRICT NO. IQ "STANDARDS, CONDITIONS d SPECIFICATIONS FOR WATER MAIN INSTALLATIONS" AND STANDARDS SET FORTH BY THE A.W.WA. AND SPOKANE COUNTY. CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION DISTRICT SHALL HENCEFORTH BE REFERRED TO AS "C.I D." THE CONTRACTOR SHALL GUARANTEE ALL MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING FINAL WRITTEN APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING ALL UTILITIES COMPANIES TO DETERMINE THE LOCATIONS OF UNDERGROUND SERVICES. IF THE CONTRACTOR DAMAGES ANY UTILITY, HE SHALL IMMEDIATELY REPAIR THE UTILITY AT HIS EXPENSE. CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM TO THE PREVIOUSLY NAMED STANDARDS AT THE TIME SUCH REPAIRS ARE MADE. NO DEVIATIONS FROM THE PLANS WILL BE ALLOWED UNLESS APPROVED IN ADVANCE AND IN WRITING BY THE ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM ALL WORK IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH THE PREVIOUSLY NAMED STANDARDS AND SHALL ADHERE TO THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: PIS ALL MAIN LINES SHALL BE 0100 GLASS 150 EIGHT INCHES IN DIAMETER INSTALLED IN THE LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND ACCORDING TO THE SPECIFICATIONS NAMED ABOVE. PLAGE MAIN AT A DEPTH OF 5 FEET BENEATH THE PAVEMENT (PAVING SURFACE TO TOP OF PIPE MINIMUM OF 5 FEET) IN PEA GRAVEL AS SPECIFIED IN THE DETAILS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARDS MENTIONED IN THE GENERA!... NOTES ABOVE. ?ITTINSS AND THRUST BLOCKING FITTINGS SHALL BE CAST IRON FLANGE OR MECHANICAL JOINT. ALL FITTINGS SHALL BE THRUST BLOCKED TO THE SIZE AND LOCATION SHOWN ON THE PLANS, AND BLOCK SHALL BE WRAPPED IN VISQUEEN AND EQUIPPED WITH PICK EYES. FIRE FfYPR NTS FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE MUELLER OR M S J BRAND AND SHALL BE INSTALLED AT LOGATIO,NS AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND ACCORDING TO THE DETAILS. FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE SET 50 THAT THE CENTERLINE OF THE LARGEST DIAMETER OUTLET 15 SITUATED 1.5 FEET ABOVE TOP FACE OF CURB ON STREETS WITH CURBS OR 2 FEET. ABOVE THE EDGE OF PAVING AT THE ROADWAY SHOULDER ON STREETS THAT DO NOT REQUIRE CURB INSTALLATION. FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE INSPECTED BY THE SPOKANE FIRE DISTRICT NO. 1. VALVES VALVES SHALL BE MUELLER OR WATEROUS RESILIENT SEAT GATE VALVES AND MUST MEET OR EXCEED THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED STANDARDS. ALL VALVES SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH AN ADJUSTABLE CAST IRON VALVE BOX, TWO PIECE, SLIP TYPE, FOR A 5 FOOT WRENCH AND SHALL BE MARKED WATER. VALVES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN LOCATIONS AS SHOWN IN THE PLANS AND ACCORDING TO THE DETAILS. HATER AND SEVIER LINE GROSS :NBS AT LEAST 18 INCHES OF VERTICAL SEPARATION SHALL BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN THE WATER AND SEWER MAINS. IF THE WATER MAIN 15 BELOW THE SEWER, THE SEWER SHALL BE SUPPORTED TO PREVENT EXCESSIVE DEFECTION OR BREAKAGE OF THE WATER MAIN. IF THE 18 INCHES OF VERTICAL SEPARATION BETWEEN THE BOTTOM OF THE WATER LINE AND THE TOP OF THE SEWER LINE CANNOT BE MAINTAINED, THE SEWER LINES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH PIPE WHICH CONFORMS TO WA 1 tK MAIN STANDARD FOR AT LEAST 10 FEET HORIZONTALLY IN EACH DIRECTION FROM THE WATERMAIN. THE WATER MAIN SHALL BE CENTERED AT THE GROSSING 50 THAT JOINTS WILL BE AS FAR AS POSSIBLE FROM THE SEWER. TESTING AND DISINFECTION( ALL PRESSURE AND LEAKAGE TESTING SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BEFORE COMPLETION OF BACKFILLING AND WITH THE PIPE JOINTS ACCESSIBLE FOR EXAMINATION. SUFFICIENT BAGKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED OVER THE PIPE BARREL BETWEEN JOINTS TO PREVENT MOVEMENT (SEE SECTION 1, ITEM 11 " M OF "STANDARDS, CONDITIONS 4 SPECIFICATIONS FOR ,WATER MAIN CONSTRUCTION" BY G.I,D.). THE MAINS AND SERVICE LINES SHALL BE PRESSURE TESTED TO 150 POUNDS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ENGINEER. WATER SAMPLES SHALL BE TAKEN AND SUPPLIED TO THE SPOKANE COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT FOR APPROVAL. ,ANAL 6UARA1 ALL . WORK SHALL BE AND 15 GUARANTEED BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM AND AFTER THE DATE OF FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF ALL THE WORK BY THE OWNER IF, WITHIN SAID GUARANTEE PERIOD, REPAIRS OR CHANGES ARE REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH GUARANTEED WORK, WHICH, IN THE OPINION OF THE ENGINEER, IS RENDERED NECESSARY AS THE RESULT OF THE USE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT OR WORKMANSHIP WHICH ARE INFERIOR DETECTIVE, OR NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL, PROMPTLY UPON RECEIPT OF NOTICE FROM THE OWNER, AND WITHOUT EXPENSE TO THE OWNER, (A) PLACE IN SATISFACTORY CONDITION IN EVERY PARTICULAR ALL OF SUCH GUARANTEED WORK, CORRECT ALL Dtt THEREIN; AND (B) MAKE GOOD ALL DAMAGE TO THE SITE OR EQUIPMENT THEREON, WHICH IN THE OPINION OF THE ENGINEER, 15 THE RESULT OF THE USE OF MAT tKIALS, EQUIPMENT OR WORKMANSHIP WHICH ARE INFERIOR, DEFECTIVE, OR NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT; AND (G) MAKE 6OOD ANY WORK OR MATERIALS ON THE SITE DISTURBED IN FULFILLING ANY SUCH GUARANTEE. IF THE CONTRACTOR, AFTER NOTICE, FAILS WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS TO PROCEED TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THIS GUARANTEE, THE OWNER MAY HAVE THE DEFECTS CORRECTED, AND THE CONTRACTOR AND HI5 SURETY SHALL BE LIABLE FOR ALL EXPENSE INCURRED PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT IN CASE OF ANY EMERGENCY WHERE, IN THE OPINION OF THE ENGINEER, DELAY WOULD CAUSE SERIOUS LOSS OR DAMAGE, REPAIRS MAY BE MADE WITHOUT NOTICE BEING GIVEN TO THE CONTRACTOR AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PAY THE COST THEREOF. ENGINEER STAMPED AS- GUILTS SHALL BE SUPPLIED TO THE COUNTY AND WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WITHIN 30 DAYS OF WATER SYSTEM COMPLETION. STREET LOCATION INDEX SHEET STREET 1 TITLE SHEET 2 VILLA AVENUE 3 CLARK FORK STREET 4 KLAMATH RIVER STREET ALLESHENY . AVENUE 5 COLORADO RIVER STREET 6 DETAIL SHEET DETAIL SHEET GENERAL NOTES -- SEWER SPECIFICATIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS THE CONTRACTOR SHALL GUARANTEE ALL MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING FINAL APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER, IT WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO CONTACT ALL APPLICABLE UTILITY COMPANIES AND HAVE THEM FIELD LOCATE THEIR UNDERGROUND LINES. ANY DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY REPAIRED BY HIM AT HIS EXPENSE. THE STANDARDS OF SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 15 HEREBY ADOH 1 tD FOR THIS PROJECT. PIPE: PIPE SHALL CONFORM TO A.S.T.M. D3034 - 13 SDR 35. JOINTING MATERIALS: JOINTING MATERIALS SHALL BE RUBBER GASKETS. FITTIN6S: INLET CONNECTIONS SHALL BE TEES AS SPECIFIED AND SHALL BE 4" MINIMUM INSIDE DIAMETER PLACED ON A 2% MINIMUM SLOPE (I" PER. 4' LENGTH). TRENCH EXCAVATION ANP BAGKFILL: TYPE 'A' SHALL BE USED. THE DISPOSAL OF LARGE BOULDERS AND OTHER MATERIALS THAT WOULD BE UNDESIRABLE AND POTENTIALLY HARMFUL TO THE SEWER PIPELINE SHALL BE MADE BY THE CONTRACTOR TO A LOCATION OF 1415 RESPONSIBILITY OFF THE PROJECT AREA AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER. BEDDING: TYPE I BEDDING SHALL BE USED, WITH NO ROCK LARGER THEN I" IN GREATEST DIMENSION ALL AROUND 4 TO A POINT 6" ABOVE THE TOP OF THE PIPE. COMPACTION OF BAGKFILL THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EMPLOY MECHANICAL COMPACTION. BAGKFILL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 15% OF MAXIMUM DENSITY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL GUARANTEE THE BAGKFILL FREE FROM ANY SETTLEMENT FOR YEAR FOLLOWING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT BY THE ENGINEER. ANY DAMAGES FROM SETTLEMENT SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY REPAIRED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT HIS EXPENSE. NO ADDITIONAL PAYMENT SHALL BE MADE FOR THIS ITEM. TESTING FOR ACCEPTANCE: THE LOW PRESSURE AIR TEST METHOD SHALL BE USED. ALL LINES SHALL BE GLEANED AND TV INSPECTED WITH GOP( OF VIDEO TAPES AND WRITTEN COMMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE COUNTY OF SPOKANE. MANHOLES FOR SANITARY SEWERS: MANHOLES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF PRECAST CONCRETE SECTIONS AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. SEE SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD PLAN U -14 FOR MANHOLE LID AND RING COVER. SEE DETAILS NOTE #8. MANHOLES AND SEWERS SHALL SE, GLEANED BY HYDRO- JETTING OR JET - BALLING. • SIDE SEWERS: SIDE SEWERS SHALL BE PVC PIPE, AND SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 4" INSIDE DIAMETER. ALL SIDE SEWERS SHAI 1 END WITHIN 5' OF THE RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE (INSIDE LOTS) AND SHALL BE PLUGGED WITH A PVC PLUG AND TEMPORARY BLOCKING 50 THAT THE SYSTEM WILL PASS THE TESTING. THE END SHALL BE MARKED WITH A 2" X 4" X 8' BOARD BURIED ON END 50 12" PROJECTS ABOVE THE GROUND - PAINTED WHITE AND SHALL HAVE A 18" LENGTH 1/2" REBAR (SEE DETAILS). THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MA1'<K HIS PLANS TO SHOW STATIONING ON MAIN LINE OF SAID SIDE SEWERS. THIS INFORMATION SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE ENGINEER. GUARANTEE: THE SYSTEM SHALL BE GUARANTEED AS SPECIFIED IN THE FOLLOWING "FINAL GUARANTEE ": FINAL GUARANTEE: ALL WORK SHALL BE AND IS HEREAH tR GUARANTEED BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM AND Ah I EK THE DATE OF FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF ALL THE WORK BY THE OWNER. IF, WITHIN SAID GUARANTEE PERIOD, REPAIRS OR CHANGES ARE REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE GUARANTEED WORK, WHICH IN THE OPINION OF THE ENGINEER, 15 RENDERED NECESSARY AS THE RESULT OF THE USE OF MA 1 tKIALS, EQUIPMENT, OR WORKMANSHIP WHICH ARE INFERIOR, DL tGTIVE, OR NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL, PROMPTLY UPON RECEIPT OF NOTICE FROM THE OWNER, AND WITHOUT EXPENSE TO THE OWNER, (A) PLACE IN SATISFACTORY CONDITION IN EVERY PARTICULAR ALL OF SUCH GUARANTEED WORK, CORRECT ALL DEFECTS THEREIN (B) MAKE GOOD ALL DAMAGE TO THE SITE, OR EQUIPMENT THEREON, WHICH! IN THE OPINION OF THE ENGINEER, 15 THE RESULT OF THE U5E OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT OR. WORKMANSHIP WHICH ARE INFERIOR, DEt tGTIVE, OR NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THIS CONTRACT; AND (C) MAKE 60OD ANY WORK OR MA 1 tKIAL ON THE SITE DISTURBED IN FULFILLING ANY SUCH GUARANTEE. IF THE CONTRACTOR, AFTER NOTICE, FAILS WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS TO PROCEED TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THIS GUARANTEE, THE OWNER MAY HAVE THE DEFECTS CORRECTED, AND THE CONTRACTOR AND HI5 SURETY SHALL BE LIABLE FOR ALL EXPENSE INCURRED; PROVIDED, HOWEVER THAT IN CASE OF ANY EMERGENCY REPAIRS MAY BE MADE WITHOUT NOTICE BEING GIVEN TO THE CONTRACTOR AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PAY THE COST THEREOF. SUCH EMERGENCY REPAIRS SHALL BE MADE BY OTHERS ONLY IN THE EVENT THAT THE CONTRACTOR CANNOT BE LOCATED. CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION DISTRICT WATER SUPPLIER CERTIFICATION STATEMENT A. CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION DISTRICT NO. IQ WITH STATE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 10220T HAS APPROVED THIS WATER PLAN FOR RIVERWAY VILLA. THIS WATER PLAN WILL SATISFY OUR NEEDS IN PROVIDING ON ADEQUATE WATER SYSTEM AND FACILITIES FOR DOMESTIC AND FIRE PROTECTION FOR ALL PARCELS IN THE ABOVE NAMED PLAN. B. APPROPRIATE CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS OR AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE WITH CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION DISTRICT NO. 19 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE WATER SYSTEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS APPROVED WATER PLAN. SAID CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS INCLUDE A TIME SCHEDULE AGGEY 1 ABLE TO CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION DISTRICT NO. 11 AND COMMIT THE SPONSOR TO INSTALLATION OF INSPECTED SERVICE LINES TO EACH LOT PRIOR TO ANY APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMITS FOR SUCH LOTS. SIGNATURE TITLE DATE FIRE DISTRICT CERTIFICATION STATEMENT FIRE DISTRICT NO. I HAS APPROVED THIS WATER PLAN FOR RIVERWAY. VILLA. THE PLAN 15 IN CONFORMANCE WITH OUR REQUIREMENTS AND WILL SATISFY OUR NEEDS IN PROVIDING AN ADEQUATE WATER SYSTEM AND FACILITIES FOR PROTECTION PURPOSES TO AL I SITES IN THE ABOVE PROJECT. SIGNATURE TITLE PATE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH STATEMENT THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH HAS APPROVED THIS WATER PLAN AS HAVING MET ALL APPLICABLE STATE REQUIREMENTS. SIGNATURE TITLE DATE SPOKANE COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT STATEMENT THE SPOKANE COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT HAS APPROVED THIS WATER PLAN AS HAVING MET ALL APPLICABLE COUNTY DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS. SIGNATURE TITLE DATE SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF BUILDIN65 THE SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS HAS APPROVED THIS WATER PLAN AS HAVING MET ALL APPLICABLE COUNTY BUILDING AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS. SIGNATURE TITLE DATE E3ALDlt1I N AVENUE AUSUSTA AVENUE - — SPOKANE RIVER tY CZ BALDWIN AVE. l j AUSUSTA AVE. INDIANA AVE. MISSION AVE. VICINITY MAP (NO SCALE) PROJECT AREA TRACT I V "STORAGE AREA" 26,540 ,SF 88.4 E/183 N 6,521 SF 0 652 5F ,, 6,431 SF " AOI 4 1,404 5F 6 1583 5F 1,335 SF 2 1,925 SF 1903E/18:IN 1905E/182N 885 E/19.0 190.6E/ID.IN N 81 °23'48" E (MEAS.) 310.03' (MEAS.) S 81°51'11" E (REG.) 310.00' (REG.) 15' R.O.W. DEDICATION 5' RESERVED ACQUISITION AREA ON AVENUE - 1,591 2 SF 6;13 SF 104' 6,136 SF 48q E/16;1 N PLUG SOUTH AND EAST INV. AS REQUIRED 51' 6,136 SF ., 104' a 15 6,131 5F 89.8 E/19b N TRACT "A" "COMMON AREA" 62,032 5F 9,136 SF 10,062 5F 10,5 SF 10,031 SF \ 50 6 8,185 5F 8,822 5F \5` 5,10 5F J / 11 100 GRAPHIC SCALE 100 200 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 100 ft. 400 ' EXPIRES: 9/Z5/11_ 3/14/94 LL e• ISN I'IN I6N # o D THRUST BLOCK 0 GATE VALVE D FIRE HYDRANT 1 SERVICE DRYWFI �-- SEWER SERVICE STOP AND STREET 516N g 0 v A 5 W H V1 HOT TAP MAIN BY AT XISTIN6 21" NSOLIDATED DEVELOPE PLUG 10" AS REQUI EWER MAIN D 2040 2035 2030 2025 2015 2010 um is mum= MEM. I 11111111111 • I MEN 2111 • 025 GONSTRU' G SEWER MA s =0.0' " DIA. PVC S MAIN '25 3.50 L.F. 10" DIA. N O O O II 111111111 S 0.00 .F. AIN G400 GL15 E . SHEET #5) WATER MAIN ' GO STRUGT 178..0 L,F. O N n 0 N EXTEND MAIN 10' BOUNDA (SEE DE " 0100 GLI BEYOND PR Y. GAP AS AILS) 2020 2040 2035 2030 2025 2015 2010 0 WATER EGT OUIRED. PROFILE SCALE: HORIZONTAL: I " =50' VERTICAL: 1"=5' HOT TAP EXISTING 21" A.G. WATER MAIN BY CONSOLIDATED IRR. DIST. AT DEVELOPERS EXPENSE. 0 +25.04 OFFSET 5' RIGHT 10' SANITARY SEWER AS REQUIRED. (SEE DETAILS) INV. ELEV 0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 187.5 E/18.8 N 55 05' 88.5 E /14.0 N 4 ti r S��.� 188.6 E /18.(4 N CURB AND GUTTER RIGHT OF WAY - WATER SERVICES AT SIDE LOT LINES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED EXTEND SERVICE 5' BEYOND RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, INSIDE LOTS EXTEND ALL SIDE SEWER LINES 5' BEYOND RIGHT OF WAY LINE, INSIDE LOTS CM. SEE DETAILS) 18(4.8 E/II.6 N 11 EDGE OF PAVING 110.3 161 W18.8 N / •0 EDGE EXISTING PAVING 10" SANITARY SEWER (TYP) O 2 3 M �4 G 8 OFF• �'� D 4 / F w� - 4 /z VILLA PTV EDGE OF PAVING �IU • 1 1+00 llk, BL o' frVLS) 4 T, L L 10+00 fi L/ 0 A 11+00 EXTEND 8" Ga00 GLISO WATER MAIN 10' BEYOND PROJECT BOUNDARY GAP AS REQD. MARK W/ 2 "X4" PLANK BURIED ON END (SEE DETAILS) MARK W/ 2 "X4" PLANK BURIED ON END (SEE DETAILS). SGALE EXPIRES' g/23/!'T PLAT BOUNDARY 1 INCH = 50 FEET LES END THRUST BLOCK ® GATE VALVE D FIRE HYDRANT WATER SERVICE ® DRYWELL )--- SEWER SERVICE 0 H 'Q A a 0 0 co co O rd H 0 0 0 0 0 e-I 0 0 0 U 0 co 0 ei r-I CO CO bi 0 t1 I, SH T �r XT E No'd'N O N n N - N • -.-. Z. N L ttEi zz O 2035 g 11 O 0 tri • 0O O N N NN 11 11 ZZ N 11 EXISTING GROUND AT CENTERLINE EXTEND 8" G900 GLI50 WATER MAIN 1 BEYOND PROJECT BOUNDARY. GAP AS REGD. MAR: 1"1/ 2 "X4" PLANK BURIED ON END. (SEE DETAILS) 2025 T2P 8" C400 GLI50 WATER MAIN 5 0.0 04 . 8" Gg00 GL 150 WATER M PLUS SOUTH AND EAST INV. AS REQUIRED 2020 SEE SHEET 4t4 S= 0.00} N 11 OOO `fl rr_ 0 0 0 N - Oho% 2 8" Cg00 GL15O HATER " (SEE SHEE #4) 2015 CONSTRUCT 231.06 L.F. 8" DIA. P.V.G. SEWER MAIN 231.06' CONSTRUCT 2g L.F. 8 INCH DIA, P.V.G. SEWER MAIN 2gg.46' CONSTRUCT 150.82 L.F. 8 " DIA. P.V.G. SEWEZ MAIN 237.21 1 4c1.54'•—*- GONS1RUGT 48.5 L.F. • 8" Ggoo (SEE SHE t • • • V SEWER MAIN 2035 2030 L 2) WATER MAIN 2020 2015 8" Gg00 GLI50 WATER AIN OND PROJECT BOUNDARY GAP D. MARK W/ 2 "X4" PLANK BURIED . (SEE DETAILS) EXTEND 8' SEWER MAIN 10' BEYOND PROJECT BOU DARY. PLUS AS REGD. (SEE D: TAILS) INV. ELEV. = 2018.14 PROFILE SCALE: HORIZONTAL: 1 " =50' VERTICAL: I"=5' 1 +36.00 BEGIN CONSTRUCTION (SEE ERECT D� TEMP. BARRICADE EXTEND 8" WATER MAIN 10' BEYOND PROJECT BOUNDARY, GAP AND MARK END OF LINE 1^1/2" X 4" PLANK BURIED ON END (SEE DETAILS FOR MARKINS REQUIREMENTS). g +00 10 + 00 11 +00 12 +00 13 +00 14+00 15 +00 16 +00 I1 +00 88.ci E/16.7 N PROJECT BOUNDARY PLUG SOUTH AND EAST INV. AS REQUIRED 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' 65.00' / 6500' , MINI Tr 6521' 6521' 65.00' V 50,06' ORK STR 88. E/IB.'N 188.5 E/I'N 11+51,61 PLUS 5 " SEWER MAIN OFFSET 5.00' LEFT EXTEND 8" SEWER MAIN 10' BEYOND PROJECT BOUNDARY. PLUS AS READ. (SEE DETAILS) EXTEND 8" WATER MAIN 10' BEYOND PROJECT BOUNDARY, GAP AND MARK END OF LINE 14/2" X 4" PLANK BURIED ON END (SEE DETAILS FOR MARKINS REQUIREMENTS). PROJECT BOUNDARY SCALE: 1 INCH EXPIRES: / / , /qL 50 FEET 8/9/94 LEGEND D THRUST BLOCK • GATE VALVE • FIRE HYDRANT WATER SERVICE • DRYWELL }--- SEWER SERVICE a NM o ti 5�= -T 2035 O 2030 2025 N O N It FINI AT TRADE INE 2020 � - 8" 0100 GLI50 HATER MAIN. (SEE SHEET #3) 2015 S =0.004 CONSTRUCT 341.00 L.P. 8" DIA. PVG SEWER MAIN 0 Lf r N EXISTING &ROUND AT CENTERLINE OP 8" G100 GLI50 WATER MAIN B" 0100 GLI WATER MAIN. (SEE SHEET # 2035 2030 2025 0 .) 2020 2015 0 O u� 0 O O 2035 2030 ZZZ 2025 2020 2015 8" PV N 11 •11 0 z 2035 2030 C100 GLI50 TER MAIN. E SHEET #3) 2025 2020 2015 PROFILE SGALE: HORIZONTAL: I " =50' VERTICAL: l " =5' 3 - 0+05. 021-4.0.0s + pS.B �� R IGHT OFF' 4 0 +00.00 KLAMATH RIVER AVE = 14 +60.80 CLARK FORK ST 0 +00 1 +00 2 +00 LA 3 +00 188.1 E /I8.3 N EXTEND ALL SIDE SEWER LINES 5' BEYOND RIGHT OF WAY LINE INSIDE LOTS -. SEE DETAILS) 181.3 E /18.3 N COMMON AREA TRACT "A" 110.3 E /18.7'∎ AT 4 +00 vE AV ONIONIMININO . • • a. _ • E/11.4N 0 . • P. 3 5.V.(13"/.5"/E39 Q_ T.B. � , • i' o • T u I w AO o n W F.H. RIGHT OF WAY CONSTRUCT 125 L.F. 8" Ggoo GLI50 HATER MAIN 4 ' • 8OA2' BLOWOFF VALVE 49.98' 4 30.00 181.3 E/17.3 N SGALE: 1 INGH = 50 FEET 0' RAG 0 +00.00 ALLEGHENY AVE = 11456.01 CLARK FORK ST PROJECT BOUNDARY A LL -C-f= 0 +00 1+00 \[Nr AVENU ®100. PROJECT BOUNDARY EXP IRES: 9/Z)/94 L ESEND D THRUST BLOCK ® SATE VALVE D FIRE HYDRANT WATER SERVICE • DRYWELL �. SEWER SERVICE 0 0 r:c1 0 z 0 U cia 0 0 exi tr A 0 O 71 co CO CO 00 0 N . 0 4 M CO • d 54 O N 0 0 0 S = N Im o O • O 0 Y! ± /4- Z>: k ▪ A- EXTEND 8" 0100 GLI5 WATER MAIN IO' BEYO D PROJECT BOUNDARY GAP AS REQUIRED 2020 5 =0.004 5 = O.CO4 ONSTRUGT 88.61 L.F. DIA. P.V.C. SEWER MAI CONSTRUCT 115.28 L.F. 8 INCH D A. P.V.G. SEWER MAIN 1 0 4.1 e r ` . tr k.t1 kA LA u_ i u 0 O � 000N N NN 4 a it ❑ -. • TOP 8" C10G GLISO WATER MAIN 8" 0100 GLI50 WATER MAIN (SEE SHEET #2) CONSTRUCT 32053 L.F. 8 INCH DIA. P.V G. SEWER MA N 320.53' PROFILE SCALE: HORIZONTAL: I " =5O' VERTI GAL: 1 " =5' I10bE /I8.IN 1610.5E/15.2N I610.3E/I8.1 3 -WATER RVIGES AT 5117E L LINES UNLESS 0 ERWISE NOTED. STUB SERVICE 5' :EYON17 RIGHT OF WAY LINE INSIDE LOTS E • ND ALL SIPE SEWER INES 5' B ' OND RIGHT OF WAY INE INSID LOTS (TYP. SEE DET ILS) C8Q.8E/I1.61D SCALE 1 INC 50 FEET P ROJECT BOU NDARY STRUCTI ON 14 +65.51 B ERECT TEMPORARY BARRIER (SEE DETAIL) 14 +55.66 8" GLEANOUT OFFSET 2.42' LEFT 15 +00 16 +00 17 +00 COLO I8 +00 ADO q +00 r STRE 20 +00 T 20 +13.73 COLORADO RIVER ST = 10 +06.02 VILLA AVENUE PROJECT BOUNDARY EXPMS: 9/y, /q1 3/9/44 LESENt ID THRUST $LOCK GATE VALVE EIRE HYDRANT WATER SERVICE DRYWEL L }•� SEWER SERVICE A o kb o ti 771 W z H di 0 to c0 t0 co co ▪ cC V1 Vl ▪ W q r 1 r• 0 0 N 0 0 O x Q► 5 E -T 45 BEND 221/2° BEND PV CONNECTION V PIPE (lYP SEWER SIDE SERVICE O SCAL GAST IRON RING r GOVER (FOR GLEANOUT) n- n - n n `• nn b" MIN. 8" 4" MIN. -, b" MIN, - SECTION B-B GRAVEL BED PER TRENCHING DETAIL '` 24" r• • o oa - 15" lI I/2" 3 COVER ASSY. SPACED - 3 4' I� HEIGHT p ia" 11 A `III 1 's �� " RAISE •{" WIDE BORDER GAST IRON RING 4 COVER (FOR GLEANOUT) PIPE MA I t<1AL AS SPEGIFIED, SANITARY "WYE" GRAVEL BED PER TRENCHING DETAIL 5' GLEAN -OUT FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET U -13 FINISHED MIN. 12" 4' ADJUST. SECTION FIBER JOINT PACKING OR EQUAL. Vs BEND PLUG TO BE SEALED IN SAME MANNER. A5 MAIN SEWER JOINTS. 1--.6" MIN. GAST RING 4 COVER 4" MIN. CONCRETE GL. 5 (I I/2) POURED IN PLACE. SERVICE TEE TYPE "A" TERMINATE AS SPECIFIED BY BY COUNTY UTILITIES ENGINEER. b" DEEP (MAX.) OWNER INSTALLED SIDE SEWER. "MINIMUM SLOPE 2% PLUG PER SPECIFICATIONS. SERVICE TEE TYPE "B" 0 NOTES I. EXTEND CONNECTIONS 5" BEYOND TO THE PROPERTY LINE INSIDE LOTS. 2. INSTALL PIPE ZONE MA I tRIAL (BEDDING) PER SPECIFICATIONS. 3. ALL CONNECTIONS SHALL BE TYPE "A" UNLESS NOTED. 4. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE RECORD DRAWINGS LOCATIONS WITH TWO (2) HORIZONTAL TIES AND ONE (I) VERTICAL TIE TO STUB OR SEWER LINE AND STATION c10° OFFSET DISTANCE TO STUB • DEPTH OF STUB, AND INVERT ELEVATION OF STUB. • INCLUDE STATION OF NEAREST MANHOLE . RECORD DRAWING SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE, STANDARD SERVICE GONNEGTION PROPERTY LINE - -EQUAL J 5 EQUAL (10' MIN.) SEWER LINE FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIG WORKS SHEET U -I5 PROPERTY LINE RIGHT OF WAY LINE NOTE: ALL SEWER SERVICES TO BE LOCATED A MINIMUM OF 10' FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND SHALL EXTEND 5' PAST THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE INTO THE LOT, SEVER SIDE SERV I GE LOGAT I ON SEWER LINE— TYPE "G" EXISTING GROUND 2" x 4" BOARD SET AT INVERT OF 511JB WITH 18" LENGTH OF I/2" REBAR SECURED TO THE TOP PORTION OF BOARD 4 SET AT A MAX, OF 6" BELOW EXIST GROUND. * THE MINIMUM SLOPE MAY BE REDUCED TO I% IF A SURVEYORS LEVEL 15 USED. - -EQUAL EQUAL- - (10' MIN.) . 5' i SEWER SIDE SERVICE MATCH NOTES I. MANHOLES TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AASHTO M -Iq1 (ASTM G 418) UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON PLANS OR NOTED IN THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT SEG. 6 -023. ALL REINFORCED CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE SHALL BE GLASS A. NON - REINFORCED CONCRETE IN CHANNEL AND SHELF SHALL BE GLASS G, ALL PRECAST CONCRETE SHALL BE GLASS AX. 3. PRECAST BASES SHALL BE FURNISHED NTH CUTOUTS OR KNOCKOUTS, KNOCKOUTS SHALL HAVE A WALL THICKNESS OF 2" MINIMUM. 4. KNOCKOUT OR CUTOUT HOLE SIZE 15 EQUAL TO PIPE OUTER DIAMETER PLUS MANHOLE WALL THICKNESS. MAXIMUM PIPE SIZE IS 21" FOR 48 MANHOLE. (MAX. PIPE SIZE MAY BE LIMITED BY PIPE CONFIGURATION.) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN HOLE 15 8 °. . ALL BASE REINFORCING SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM YIELD STRENGTH OF 60p00 P51 AND BE PLACED IN THE UPPER HALF OF THE BASE WITH I" MINIMUM CLEARANCE. NO STEPS SHALL BE PLACED IF THE DEPTH FROM THE TOP OF THE MANHOLE TO THE TOP OF THE BASE SLAB 15 LESS THAN 15 FEET. 1. NO STEPS SHALL BE PLACED IN THE ADJUSTMENT SECTION. 8. THE MANHOLE OPENING SHALL BE ORIENTED DIRECTLY OVER THE INVERT OF THE LARGEST INLET PIPE, 'LAN 6" MIN!' F-- 6" MIN. * FOR SEPERATE GAST IN PLACE ONLY, MORTAR Ina 11111111 FILL "0" RING PRECAST BASE JOINT SECTION A-A MANHOLE TYPE I -4817 FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET U -2 RING AND COVER SEE U -14 (SEE RIGHT) ADJUSTMENT SECTION/CONCRETE - BRICK OR CONCRETE GRADE RINGS NONSHRINK WATERPROOF GROUT BETWEEN ALL RINGS 4 FRAME, STRIKE OFF EXCESS MORTAR, SMOOTH ON INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF ADJUSTMENT SECTION. • --- GASKETED PRECAST CONE ECCENTRIC UNLESS OTHERWISE SPEGIFIED 5 I tPS (SEE NOTE 446) • GASKET PRECAST RISER SECTION CONSTRUCT IN FIELD CHANNEL 4 SHELF TO THE GROWN OF THE PIPE. REINFORCING STEEL (FOR PRECAST BASE WITH INTEGRAL RISER) 0.15 SQ. IN./FT. IN EACH DIRECTION FOR 48" DIA. .. PRE -CAST BASE WITH INTEGRAL RISER GRAVEL BAGKFILL FOR PIPE BEDDING. b" MIN. COMPACTED DEPTH FOR PRECAST BASE, SEPARATE CAST IN PLACE OR SEPARATE PRECAST BASE REINFORCING STEEL (FOR SERATATE BASE ONLY) 023 50.. IN/FT. IN EACH DIRECTION FOR 48 DIA. DESIGN ASSUMPTI ©NS HEIGHT: OVER 12' TO 25': SOIL BEARING VALUE EQUALS 3800 4t/FT (MIN.) REINFORCING STEEL (FOR SEPARATE BASE ONLY) 0.23 SQ.. IN/FT. IN EACH DIRECTION FOR 48" DIA. A.S.T.M. A48 CL. 40 GRAY IRON r 1/2" DIGTILE IRON FRAME MIN. WEIGHT 168 LBS. 27 5/8" 26 3/8" 24" G.O. 34 I /8" SECTION A -A VARIES PER TRENCH DEPTH I/4 4' -O" LIMITS of PIPE COMPACTION GRAVEL BAGKFILL FOR PIPE BEDDING. LEGEND: PIPE COMPACTION AND BAGKF I L.L. NON -SKID PATTERN TO BE GAST INTEGRAL ON TO OF COVER. B L 26 3/16" 2 '7/8" NATURAL GROUND I'-o" �ob5" RAVEL BAGKFILL OR FOUNDATIONS WHEN SPEGIFIED. DE "B" (FOR F.V.G. AND P.E. INSTALLATION) 5/8" SECTION B-B FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC. WORKS SHEET U -I4 GRAVEL FOR PIPE BEDDING METHOD B OR G COMPACTION BAGKFILL MATERIAL PLACED IN 0.5" LOOSE LAYERS AND COMPACTION TO c15% MAXIMUM DENSITY FROM OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEER. COUNTY OF SPOKANE SHEET 5 -11 DIGTILE IRON COVER MIN. WEIGHT IIb LBS. F 5/8" 2 1/8" 3/18" NOTES: MANHOLE RING AND GOVER I. THE WORD SANITRAY SHALL BE EMOSSED ON EACH SANITARY MANHOLE COVER WITH 3/16" RAISED LEI I FRS. 2. MANHOLE RINGS AND COVERS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND MEET THE STRENGTH REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL SPECIFICATION RR- F -62ID. 3. MATING SURFACES SHALL BE FINISHED TO ASSURE NON- ROCKING FIT WITH ANY COVER POSITION. / / \)7 N TRENCH BAGKSLOPE js PER 0.S.H.A. LIMITS OF PIPE COMPACTION l' -O" f 0.17. MIN. O.SO° VERTICAL TRENCH WALLS REQUIRE SHORING BY 0.S.H.A. A.S.T.M• 5536 GL. 80- -55 -06 DICTILE IRON I/4" 5Q. 3/16" -I i /2" SQ. -•.1 COVER SKID DESIGN DETAIL 0 • 0 2 z ti 5 A CO 0 r -1 U) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 r S -T ITEM NO. NO. REGI. DEGRIPTION I - Nm'N• a = I 1" BRONZE CORPORATION COCK OR TAPPING SERVICE SADDLE. 2 I" PACK JOINT ASSEMBLY. 1 I" x REG. LENGTH - USE PIPE SIZE POLYETHLENE. I I" x REG. LENGTH - USE GALVANIZED IRON PIPE. I" GALVANIZED IRON PIPE, APPDXIMATELY 34" 4 # 31 BROOKS CONCRETE BOXES - 3 REG. PLUS 1 WITH LID. 1 METER 3/4" ROCKWELL OR BADGER PLASTICS U.S. GALLON FROST PROTECTED. TAPPING SADDLE OR SELF TAPPING SADDLE. I 1" BRONZE METER ANGLE STOP KVP -3W AND I" BRONZE ANGLE METER COUPLING RP -3 OR APPOVED EQUAL. I 1" GALVANIZED q0 °L. I I" METER ANGLE COUPLING. 2 #24 ADAPTERS -SEE NOTE. PAVEMENT BRONZE SERVICE CLAMP UNDISTURBED GROUND 2" eALV. STEEL PIPE ELEVATION VIEW PLAN VIEH I I 51111111117, i i - - / / . "" 6" GONG. TILE 2" GATE VALVE it OPERATING NUT U w : ts N. TYPICAL METER SETTING � 2 - 2" STREET ELBOWS ALL FITTINGS TO BE GALV. STD METER BOX AND COVER 2" UNION (COVER NOT SHOWN) 2" NIPPLE - 6" LONG 2" ELBOW 2" CORP WITH 11/2" TAP INTO MAIN BLANK PWG STEEL SHIM PLATE CONCRETE BLOCKING \ \� GLASS B 2'1 5LOVI -OFF ASSEMBLY FROM WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARD PLAN 8 -21 6:1 \ / /\ // CURE} It GUTTER n .. /6 • v.. • �. , \ I\ \/ v y ./ v \ / \/, 2" 6ALV. GAP `% 2" GALV. STEEL PIPE DRILL I/8" HOLE • 2" GALV. ELBOW 2" GALV. NIPPLE NOTE: STANDARD PIT SETTING ASPHALT IAgie I .I,I.IiI.��o/ 6. — 3" -PORT M.J. FIRE HYDRANT WITH DUE -LUG GLAND WHERE BASEMENT FLOOR ELEVATION 15 HIGHER THAN WATER MAIN A FORD I" ANGLE CHECK VALVE SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR NO. 11. l ' TYPICAL 3 CU. Ft I DRAIN ROCK ., I 0 0 ,000;e; °` III d ) 1 \ 12" x 12" X 14 CONCRETE PAP MEGA -LUG GLAND GRASSY SWALE - 6" DUCT IRON PIPE GL 50 NOTES: 1. HYDRANT SHALL BE TRAFFIC MODEL. 2. ALL VALVES SHALL OPEN COUNTER - CLOCKWISE 3. HYDRANT BRAND MUST BE APPROVED BY G.I.D. 4. ANY DEVIATIONS MUST BE APPROVED BY 6,1.12. 5. GONG. BLOCKING READ IF MORE THAN ONE SECTION OF PIPE USED. FROM CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION DISTRICT MEGA -LUG GLAND CURB AND GUTTER 5' -O" 6" FLG x M RS6V WITH MEGA -LUG GLAND 2" OPER. NUT TYP I GAL. FIRE HYDRANT SETTING CAST IRON VALVE BOX 8" 0100 GL 150 WATER MAIN MJ x MJ x FLO. TEE OR TAP. SLEEVE (55) 5' MIN. 10' rI; I r . Zr CIMINO r.. &Urr:I_I:mw . r;1i;� , Ill" IIIIIIIII 1.16 END VIEH • .1 -0" 1" 4, 11/2" x 1 1/2" x 1 1/2" TEE o spa_ T e FLAN / 1AST—WEST 5IEEET5 1 - FINISH GRADE -ROAD 3" MIN-I HATE MAIN TYPICAL SECTION WATER MAIN 1 i ROAD ( � I 1 12" BAGKFILL CHARACTERISTICS NO ROCKS LARGER — THAN 4" DIAMETER _ NO ROCKS LARGER THAN 4" DIAMh I Lt< BEDDING- GLEAN, ROUND, GRANULAR SAND OR GRAVEL 3/4" MINUS OR SMALLER. HATER MAIN TRENGH DETAIL FROM CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION DISTRICT DRAWING STANDARD 4" NIPPLE TER MAIN 11/2" 4) WING JOINT 6" NIPPLE t oUBlTP J PEP PLAN VIEH 1 1/2" SAVANIZED IRON PIPE ELEVATION NOTES: ALL PIPEING TO BE GALVANIZED IRON PIPE. 2. SINGLE SERVICE LINE ALL I" PIPEING $ FITTINGS 3. ZOO # P.E MAY BE USED FOR PIPE RUN - SALV. FOR STUB LINES. 3' -0 ' • HATER SER"V I GE DETAIL FROM CONSOLIDATED 1RRIGATION DISTRICT DRAWING STANDARD 2'-0 /PROPERTY LINE 1 "811 SOTH SIDESP Emus: 9/z 3/9,1. U O P-1 P:1 O to 0 4.0 W E-a a w 0 tit 0 E w V1 S CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION DISTRICT DEVELOPER APPROVAL: ■ 1 Riverway Indiana Baldwin Augusta Mission Develop' - 117, 0 ; 1 7 5 ' 1.j11111111H1111 11111111111111 F11111111 7v \ 103 2 3 4 5 (9 7 8 4 11111 1111 - - - 11111 24 23 . 22. - 2f 20 19 /8 17 /(' 15 /4 /3 J 2, _I 1111 3 4 S 8 9 ,O I I l I l I I /Z Indiana 2000 2.010 _ 2-02_4 2_0 2.028 2-030 --' 2032 zo34 L L t0 RIVERWAY VILLA 1111 II IIIIJ 50' 100' 200' Spoka Scale: 1": 200' 150' 300' 400' 600' INNII— — f I I I 10 800' �-_- - .- -_ -_-J \ 203co North 20 32 z o34 i .203 to >1- " 2000 20 t o 202.0 2_022- -- 202.4 - 2026 ZD 30 Zo28 - .2032_ _ - - -2032. 5 Legend I-4 11,J1 s(01E-A,tiE„ vim-(0r_ r KJNt 5' -f D.' Lt7'(. � 13Lo Ie- 15 Lo 1- 41 - rfl-(4_ 41 L05 Floe-1<j 6 131-06- k_ 7 13LOG K a r3Loo K 9 B LOCK. 10 t3Lou< 11 (IL 12. 11..0(--K, 13 13L04 14 - i0-(4- 172 1..o'13 !0 or- 0 I r A 1_41 38 -510 Loi 1 -2Z4 2.9 -31 1.015 I -23 LOTS 1 IS Lori I -4 LD-(5 1 - is Lo-r. -2.5 Ler0 26; 32 3 9, 46,, 47, 5:4, - 5 4 ('Z - (09 L71`' 1,8 -lI le W Typical Lot Layout With Respective Blocks & Lots suit I" = so' 1� par- LD-r rII-'Ig.t.1610143 rLA-1 - SHAT No. 1 z) ALL '(FAIL. t1 -10W14 Af 24 x(00 o 1,440 5.r. 3) ALL 1 i�`�- &I- Atx- 2.5 oiz 646 - 5.F. Aud S Lo-r6 1 -17 Lo-T 1 - 17 LD'r3 I- II, 13- 31 33-36, (08 Lo (e 5' -.a 6OMM6r..4.-IAL.. riz°ror-v UPS Site Data N111.11 o j (✓.: 5' K Io' /-I !+l t fs 40 1 -i.5 j7 v 34 ro'(AL F rAN'ucj E30 Lr �.ic� '4 l lIL1'It -46 '1, r 11-1 T--V106.1.5 5U AL- te.A5 . A A 1 -- p\vA.l LA5L 1r4 5 Apo, r y, n .1 : . (LYGr 6 u1Ldlk195: 114 t7.0012 yf�uO�u�Es nwi:i � 011117001_ SWI MMIL11 i T OOL 2o'X u G 15 oy r.- -(5 \./0 LLI✓ 64.1- 6.061r..-15 HolZ, -5Ho� '11 1 rIc 14 IL S I -f rf�H wA`�$ visvro� � wN� I .ulfZ 1-1 U- I 5 - (o 6 Io'x Io' /JI4T I S rb-Nd-i kJ 41 L - - 15' - rX ' n' Lo-r5 EA -06,K 3 L o5 1-z4 2.4 1,0-16 l0' Arnim r /Wright sea 1 11 Imriz "11111511111111 vert .3,15-E, 13+ 6oWLIlJI AL - HA' 134 cJ1.11-T: 7 .SpcC 34, 375 5.P. 1 3,000 5.F 357 5- rAl.LS 3 74 �tal.L s 313, Co 95 4.I= o 39,ZIZ 5.!- 0E- 73, 85o5. F or. 40'x50' 30 x 40 30' x 30 10 7.2 o . 90 .46.E3 1. 7o 1 r544IL4711.14 z 13alLPIJ.k (v SHI✓I,�f2,S 1 (o 5 37 6,100 L. 6, ZOOL.I= c' S'(ALLS 17z sT�LLs 4c u�1K5 s LLS RIVERWAY ` VILLA Development Plan ,..OGK. 7 Lo-rs z3 -2.8 &-oc k_ 13 Lo-(5 2 - 7 lo -JS, 18 -23 26 -31, 40 - 45, 48 -53+ 6, -6I 0-06K 14 L■•r5 2 -7 4 IL- 17 '(0 04- 6o0 & Associates Consulting Engineers prof, ; no. .2‘7.0 -at Indiana Baldwin Augusta Mission ''\ 1 -) 1z9 L. 5s, 5 z , Scale: 89 ° -2 ' 1 1 G_" pasta 1,931.50' . ' ai ) \ 1 _ 1(o-- — - \ 11 IS 1 2. 3 4 5 CP T 8 9 24 23 _ .2_,1__ ,2G� - t9 - I� 17 Ilo IS 14_ 13` i 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to 11 12, North N 34 L. 37;g, 35 11- 11 \j 3C0 _ _, 1, 1 19,6 .9 1 - /7 s' 1 L1�i 1 � 5 �if�AG.K -- 2,034 o' --fr. r DrpIGOC> ioLi 2r0' - 30' 648. 4! .Zo2 2 . - aozc L. Ito 6.11 County Engineers County Health County Utilities Goo 11T ' 1Ai L0-r ,L„,,,k 15 1.0'C6 1- 41 - ro-rAL Lo-(o Site Data ..)C rr_O ror2 : : �MM u AL 'M SID�N�If�I p� 1---I Imo( M yr- Lori- 4E1.I -r Lo :15 : Lo-r raokvi E, MAx 1M 1.41-4 \NO. Nul✓i op Lai As r - - 4I IAL I M ALLo v L . 1.1 L.LM isriz. or I.oTS a5 rFr . Fes►. N zo G��ZO55 I �lsIlT 1-i --1 pit 151 TY c� -ruAL 1 rIL,t211_1Lt cove- AI LL7wA t6zi 11_121 1zi s 1-r GOV ,fig. 7Gk to 1✓Lot -K 7 t✓(_L2 _ 8 13Loc K. 9 5Lo K 10 BL0e., 11 /3LooK 1 2, BLOCK 1 3 25 3Z 3 9,4-6, 47,54 , 554. lot -log Lo-f 1 8 -11 18-28 172..L0-6 Lo-r r 15 - HE- G&kl L1 fZLIAL Lo-r Lo-r� Lo'( 18 1E5L04.K 3 Lois z5- 2_9 1 S 151-oGK S Lot' i j 101 37, 57 Ss IeLo614.. 7 Lo 32; Lo 24 -) ,LOCK 9 Lo-( 19 ; Lo-( 5 ; 61-0e-K. 1 I Lo-r 14, ; Lo-r 260 151-06g-13 Lo 70; Lo-r 29 ; 151464 I S Lo-( 4z; Lo-r 1 -r AL 2_1 LO-(5 Lc- IZ 32 ISL.o RFr .5 . !Z.v. rAr1V),161 Vofz. 1 - r9 or 6- Ul-k.2 151.-0L44. 3 1 e - `I 4 Lm3 I - I I 13 -31 Y 32. •34 or 151_0 64_6 471 Lo-r.. !o 7Z Lo 3. 9 Lo't's /& r 3. 3 S Lo- is /Ar. 16. Col AGS or- 15,31% 35 2.1. 24 AGES of 14, 55 % 70. 9 A9 ss 012. e 2 04% 56.5 •ro 38.6 4 /GAS 44.4 1 % :GK 2 LoT 1 - 17 i.c 4 Lo t; I - 17 13L04,K_ !o Lo 1 -11, 13- 31 4 33 -3<o dsgn PEAL 5, Soo 5.r (0,5100 3•F. BLo6 -K 51.06 -k. 13 Lo 2 18- 23,Z.& 3), 40 - 45, 48 -53 . 5. - l01 14 L o - ( T 2 -7 4 12 - 17 (4 Lo-r5 RIVERWAY ILL Preliminary Plat 1 ,Lc+r1 3 Lo-r5 1 -24 - (o-fAL 24 Li F3 o' 5, 000 5.r. 0' 67,5 6. P. Arger/Wright & Associates Consulting Engineers 1 "- 200 horiz mprovement of the 93rd fencing.'. fRA to Mission SUPERICR REPROGRAPHICS TB -344 2030 Zo e, zoz Cr* �► r 4� �'� i C* 9°w'e Ong': ' s 0' ' Y ' • 9 -e l s ems ei 4 o 1 1 1 1 \ 1 1 13 Utility and Drainage 1 — Easement R/W *3' Large Lot 62' /- / / , : , ; • � /, /V4v /i /r " / i // � / / // / 1 i / / , 28' 0 W cc W D W 1- Z a0 S / 40 i 20' PARK. AREA O 5' 25' 5 Typical Lot Site Plan *3' Small Lot 60' H 20' PARK. AREA O ti 28' O W f- v W Z < 0 2S * 5' - M /lV /MUM SETBACK D /STANCE 25' 5'* R/W /3' Landscaped Buffer Strip Deciduous Trees (30' 0.C.) Sponsor's Minimum Development Requirements Amenity Description 1. Installation of grass turf, trees System along Mission and Indiana. r i•gation Dedication to the Homeowners'Association and improve - ment of first common area {Developer's choice). Improvement to be limited to installation of grass turf and irrigation system. Dedication to the Homeowners Association of storage area. Dedication to the r-Iomec Association of the Second Common Area. Improvement to be limited to installation of grass :turf and irrigation system. meter Fencing along west boundary of PUD. Deciduous Trees (30' 0. C.) Concurrent with any r > he in question but limited ',o the applicable boundary of a particular phase. Concurrent with improvement of 61st lot. /3' Landscaped Buffer Strip 25 \8 /dg. Setback ■ 1 / 2036 PUD Bau dor NOTE: Bi ock °14 and 15 and a portion of the common area immediately' south of Block 14 will be retained by the sponsor /developer via title and /or easement for use as a community drainfield until such time as an area wide public sewer system is available to intercept sewage flows from this project, and the community drainfields can be abandoned. At this time the sponsor /developer will,formally offer at the then current 5 professionally appraised and value, said Blocks 14 and 15 for purchase by the Homeowners Association for the sole ur ose of expanding the Association's common open space. If the Homeowners Association rejects p P P 9 the sponsor /developer's offer to sell, or neglects to respond within 60 days of said offer, the sponsor/ developer may proceed to finalize the development of 8 lots in Block 14 and 11 lots in Bock 15. 69 6o 0 13 60 10' Landscaped SITE COVERAGE Buffer Strip . ,y /0' R/W ■ ■ 9 e 4 ?Kiel rDedication -a 14 63 63 63 Maximum r Lots . Common Area Required I ( o /0 3 0' 0 — — 2030 50 100 200 300 400 500 This .plan originally was drawn using a scaled 36' typical street right -of- way. The lot dimensions shown reflect the now proposed 50' typical street right -of -way , though will scale for a 36' right-of -way 4- 0 SCALE I" = 100' 2' CONT. INT. Final Deve/opment P/an for R/VERWAY /LLA A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SITE DATA Gross Property Size - SPECIAL NOTE- Mission Large Lot 62' 20' PARK. AREA Typical Lot Site Plan Small Lot 60' 20' PARK AREA * MINIMUM SETBACK DISTANCE Deciduous Trees (30'0.C.) /0 0 BAR -B -0' TENNIS Imo Arca JOB No. /4 /00 + �._...� Ash. �40 I 3�0L islLO zW �s�eL�� Wr s /1/ U Dar o �es11 a � s s 11 ® ►' i e s a ® oeec��se�• N - ®bi e ' e s s N ® f . �i " � X10 6 62 62 �s-c' •r 6 v ' 6 b 6 � 6 � t O O' i /4 //10 40 /4. — — 2036 /03 \ Perimeher Fence 25 .\ 1 3cz L 0 50 100 200 300 400 500 / / SCALE I 100' 2' CONT. I NT. r Optimun7 Development Design This plan originaliy was drawn -using -a scaled 36' typical street - right -of way".' The lot dimensions shown reflect the now, - proposed 50', typical street right -of -way , though will .scale for a 36' right -of -way - SUPERICR REPROGRAPHICS TB -344 M ission Easemettt. N Typical Lot Site Plan Small Lot 60' 20' PARK. AREA - X - MINIMUM SETBACK DISTANCE Deciduous Trees (30'0.C.) 25' Bldg.- Setback 14 /03 15 ■ fall Nkir Amenity Description Installation of grass turf, trees -and irrigation g � system along Mission and Indiana. Dedication to the Homeowners Association and improve- ment of.' first common area ''(Developer's choice). Improvement to be limited to installation of grass turf and irrigation system. Dedication to the Homeowners Association of the Concur storage area Dedication to the Homeowners Association of the Second Common Area. Improvement to be limited to installation of grass turf and 'irrigation system. Perimeter Fencing along west boundary of PUD. Concurrent Schedule Cc' "r:rent with any la rticular phase in Question but limited to the •applicable boundary of a particular phase. ent s with 'improvement of the 125th lot en /46 /a 3 rat+sarslistsionstoior[ ®irZEIa• �� Mei ®raa��etasirs�s�s � `78 61 6Z 62 s ,.s 62 ' 6 �� 6 - '. 60 .� lo 6 o � � Comma. Common Area Access /40 PUD Bou dar /0' Landscaped Buffer Strip /O' R/ tN _ „JO' ' of the common area immediately south of Block 14 will be retained Block -14. and `l 15 and a portion o t Y NOTE P . for use as a community drainfield_ until such time as sponsor/developer v� a tl e and /ar easement o _u y by the :ect y _, e flows this ro and the community sewer system is available to intercept sewag p J an area wide 'public se y drainfields can be `abandoned'. At this time the sponsor /developer will formally offer at the then current 15 for purchase by the Homeowners Association for ' " appraised >land' value said Blocks 14 and 1 p Y professionally 5 x n en space.. If the Homeowners Association rejects the sole purpose of expanding the - Assoc�at�on s comma op p p p p g -to respond within 60 days said offer, the sponsor/ the sponsor/developer's offer'to sell, or neglects p Y : d lopnent of 8 lots in Block 14 and 11 lots in Block 15. developer �r�ay proceed to. finalize � �e the eve p at ®i�aae /03 /03 50 100 200 300 400 500 SCALE 1 = 100' 2' CONT. 1 NT. This plan originally was drawn using a scaled 36' ;typical street' right -of- wa Y . The lot dimensions shown reflect the now proposed 50' typical. street right-of ay , though will scale for a 35' right -of -way . SUPERICR REPROGRAPHICS TB -344 Riverway Indiana Augusta Mission Baldwin 2_00o RIVERWAY VILLA Avg ust�a Spofford h Scale: 1 "= 200" 24 23 Zf�- -t9 - - I� 17 1( IS r 210 27 © — r 2.5 I 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 naiana I s 17 ; f l - -- 2.034 North L. �B. to 35, , 89 °2.s'od `W (,48. 4/ L. Ifo, it SS G. B (z5{J., r_ County Engineers County Utilities EcFiuEp NOV 12 1981 SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT skirt T.Mbcriou : I '-0 r 1`( 6oMMc,1 P.L 51T. �G5117�F 1') IPcL. tic, N Efr vr-vr;L -orMK -iii A .P : Lo-' 5I Lo-r 1 1--14-11-4 Alto WA51._g NUM O� L.O'(3 As f f r U.1 . MAI Mu M ALLow to5L _ 1`I L:1-M isr Lo - i'S AS rF F . k1. H Z.01JE. : l�iZOS� t 4 I moral fY 4.6- tAL �ILdiuc 51-f� c-ov e- AL.- owAPLE. oov A9r., ris,VE.1 be-.1 = Site Data 15 L� EJL-OGk. Co L-oi 38 - 5(2 �I OL K 7 Lo—r: ?. 4 ,Z9 - 31 LoG . 8 Lo 1 -1.3 E3LocK. 9 Lo-r5 1 - 18 5L.OGK 1 O - 4 6L.OGK I I L.o'i 1 - 15 t3LOGK I Z L.D'13 I t s 1310 K 1 3 L - &1 - I 8, 9, I (o, 17, 24, z5, 32- 39,46,, 47 54,554. 2 - 9 gLoc-k 14 1, 8 -11 18 -28 40 - r.L. 1 L.0-05 Loi r 15 THE GAM 1.4ELZG,IAL Lo-( LO-( I S i BL..oGIL 3 Lars 25-- 2.`t ; Loi 1 S 6Lou4. s Lo-( 1 L.of 37, 57 5S; 13L.oU.c. 7 Lo 32; L.0 2-4 ; 5LouK 9 Lod 19 ; Loif 5 ; t3L.rx 11 L01 142 ; LA-( 2!0 ; 6L.oX 13 L.0-( 70 ; Lo-r 29 ; E L -1'- 1 S L. 2-r L-o-r '(o-i L Z 1 Lo-r5 Lo 12. 32, 6L0C For- I r n-i-rs Or t3 -o-K. 2 15LOGK 3 � ff 4 L.oTl l- I I, 13 -31 2.1. z4 AG- -5 0F. IQ, 55 , 70. 94 sk.G S 0r- BO. s�. ss,A.c s 0r �s °lo 38. & 4 'p25 or_ 44.41 % 4, Soo 5. i= 5, 10 5"!00 5.F. BLo -K E5L.ao 5, 800 5. F (.,40o �. if7L -cx-it 3 Lo 1- 24 - fv -,'AL L s o , 5, Soo S.F. 9 0' Za,5_o S.P.. 23 -28 13 Lo 2 1D- IS, IS 23 -3 40 -45, 48 - 53 "601 pL 14 Loi 2 7 4 12 - 17 1 4.L- (o o Lo-(5 D3C- purr rp Arger /Wright & Associates Consulting Engineers 1 drwn tom!_ scale - - ) dsgn 1 '° ZO O' RIVERWAY VILLA chkd hors: Preliminary Plat 1 appr vert Mission SUPERIOR REPROGRAPHICS TB -344 �'7 tfl AD //, /. ., // 28' cc • W - M/N /MUM SETBACK D /STANCE /3' Landscaped Buffer Strip Storage Area //a /07 Deciduous Trees (30' 0.C.) Sponsor's: "rnninum Developmen Amenity Description and irrigation f. trees. grass turf, Installation of > g perimeter and Indiana; and system along Mission p fence n 9 ._ Dedication to the Homeowners Association and improve- ment of first common area (developer's choice). Improvement to be limited to installation of grass turf and irrigation system Dedication to the Homeowners Association of the storage area. Dedication to the Hoineowners Association of the Second Common Area. Improvement to be limited to installation of grass turf and irrigation system. - Schedule in particular phase in question Concurrent with any arty p g J'p but limited to the applicable boundary of a p ar i t cular phase. Concurrent with improvement Concurrent with improvement of the 93rd lot. Concurrent with improvement of the 125th lot. fission 15 . of the common area i south of Block 14 will be retained ned NOTE: Block 14 and l� and a portion via such time as for use as a community drainfield until e.and'or easement u Y vra t7tl / b " the sponsor/developer n a d t e commune t Y to as available to intercept sewage flows from this project n h an area wide public sewer system _ p drainfields can be abandoned. At this time the sponsor /developer will formally offer at the then current Homeowners Association for s aid Blocks 14 and 15 for purchase by the appraised land value, P professionally Pp . ndin the Association's - common open space. If the Homeowners Association rejects the sole purpose of expanding the sponsor/developer's offer to sell, or neglects to respond within 60 days of said offer, the sponsor/ developer may proceed to finalize the development. lots in Block 14 and 11 lots in Block 15. , os' ®'rss ®ice * ®aos ®e ®>t®'ICZgsirVIR!_B! I I s ivar1 1i li i R Iis> �` , 7e 6 62 62 . r e b _�. , 6 60 bo w � ON 5 6 Q ° 7 8 ON 9 o I 0 m 11 12 a.. 13 0 14 ( ■ /Y7 16 /47 17 147 18 1 19 20 /3' Landscaped Buffer Strip )47 147 Pl1D Bou SCALE I" = 100' 10 Landscaped SITE COVERAGE Buffer Strip /0' R/W FDedication //O 200 300 400 2030 2' CONT. INT. 2030 SUFPERICR- REPROGRAPHICS TB 344 * MINIMUM - ` SET C DISTANCE /3' Landscaped Buffer Strip //6 8AR -84: /6'1 /0 /L/7 • 1 ■s tsesaseosoit®■esesecJIRS iemP _ ime _ sierlsaoi�®oi®mselam®awe>s • / i 16 7 8 A 9 Io a II 12 0 13 \ rIO i ' _ 62 62 \( 61 62 62 60 60 60 60 1 /4/7 16 /47 17 /47 18 /47 19 -- / - 7 — — 20 - C /0' Landscaped Buffer Strip co. � /0' R/W Q - -O s.o_0 04, f Dedication SCALE I" = 100 a I4 70 1 '70 14 7 50 100 200 300 400 500 fry' -0-70HT ro 0 X00 A®O' 4,0 te ' sle j , = z ° gi 1/ -irWy de ..Xi'10 4 4 9zI4 /14 f 4;4 u5t4 Ge , ®®Taylor Engineering, Inc. Civil Design and Land Planning (509) 328 -3371 s c o w a 2 c:0 rr ' =.. ( t 0. m2 M /SS /0,7 uCL T O N' Y L A, R. D. SPOKANE COUNTY BRASS CAP AS PER COUNTY RECORD #2455 FD. 3/8 INGH REBAR W/SURGAP MARKED "WELBORN PLS 15043 FD. 3/8 INGH REBAR W/SURGAP MARKED "WELBORN PLS 15043" MISSION AVE. FD. 5/8 INGH REBAR W/SURCAP MARKED "VALENTINE" PLS 18141" N 89 ° 32'19' E 2511.4q' (MEAS.) 5 8q °32'31" W 2511.48' (REC.) N 8q °56'52" W 2615.75' <MEAS.) 5 8g °56'44" E 2615.78' (REC.) PD. 4 INGH X 4 INGH CONC. POST W/BRASS GAP MARKED I.E.P. SHEET 2 OF 3 JANUARY, 1993 FD. 4 INGH X 4 INCH GONG. POST W/BRASS GAP MARKED 1.E.P. 5 8c1°56'44" E 653.g5'(REG.) -FD. 3/8 INGH REBAR W/SURGAP MARKED ABC INC. 1311/13315 AS INDICATED ON INSTRUMENT # 8205030155 FD. 4 INCH X 4 INGH CONC. POST W/BRASS GAP MARKED I.E.P. PD. 4 INGH X 4 INGH GONG. POST W/BRASS GAP MARKED I.E.P. ON NORTH SIDE OF THIS POINT (SEE DETAIL AT RIGHT) FD. SPOKANE COUNTY BRASS GAP WITH X ON CENTERLINE OF MISSION AVENUE AS INDICATED ON SPOKANE COUNTY CORNER RECORD *2454 FOR 5 1/4 CORNER FD. 5/8 INGH REBAR W/SURGAP MARKED "VALENTINE PLS 18741" FD. 3/8 INGH REBAR W/SURGAP MARKED "WELBORN PL5 15043" F17. 3/8 INGH REBAR W\ SURGAP MARKED "ADAMS PLS 18141" 1 INDIANA SALDWIN AVE. AUGUSTA N 85° 35'03" W z sz, 300.00' (REG.) u) t o rn ° m ay 0 • N89 °26'E Z 200.06' (MEP.51 2 00.00 ( o 00 O ry N /p' 200.00 (W La N � o 0 w 3r m0 mo 0 • 0 O z N 84°23'21" E 370.14 (MEAS.) N 81 °5q'II" W (REC.) 310.00' (REG. zz 0 00 0 #8I94I &251 rn I NOT A PART) 0 0 o FD. 1/2 INGH I.P. N 8q °23'48" E (MEAS.) 310.03' (MEAS.) 5 8q °5'1'II" E (REG,) 370.00' (REG.) FP. RE -STEEL PIN AS PER SPOKANE COUNTY CORNER RECORD #4337 FOR W 1/4 CORNER D. 5/8 INCH REBAR W/SURGAP MARKED "VALENTINE PLS 18741" PD. 1/2 INGH I.P. 4 "X4" GONG. POST W/BRASS GAP MARKED I.E.P. SURVEYOR'S NOTES THE RECORD INFORMATION ON THIS MAP HAS TAKEN FROM SPOKANE COUNTY RECORDS AS FOLLOWS: BOOKS OF SURVEYS: BOOK 25, PAGE 83 BOOK 21, PAGE 42 BOOK q, PAGE 7q AND SPOKANE COUNTY CORNER RECORDS: #4337 #2455 #2454 BASIS OF BEARINGS THE BASIS -0F BEARING FOR THIS MAP 15 THE WEST LINE OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 8 TAKEN AS 5 00 °35'03" E, TAKEN FROM R.O.S. FILED AT BOOK 21, PAGE42, OF SURVEYS, SPOKANE COUNTY WASHI NSTON. GRAPHIC SCALE ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 200' ft. RECEIVED AUG 1 6 1993 KA COUNTY ENGINEER 1 SHEETS ACCURACY STATEMENT THIS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED USING A PENTAX PXIOD 10 SECOND THEODOLITE WITH ON BOARD FI FGTRONIG DISTANCE ME I tK. FIELD TRAVERSE METHODS WERE USED IN ACCORDANCE WITH WAG 332 - 130 -q0 SECTION "G ". LEGEND • SET 3/8 INGH REBAR W/SURGAP ® FD. MONUMENT AS DESCRIBED A +c��•- OR �•�C PD. CONTROLLING SECTION CORNER I.- A OR 1/4 CORNER AS DESCRIBED 200 lt■ro 1,4 r/cWTo kt4 orth Idaho Engineerin anglegigi 4200 W. SELTICE WAY, SUITE 2, COEUR D'ALENE, IDAHO 83814 (208) 667 -1171 FAX 664 - 3507 FAX SHEET FD. RE -STEEL PIN AS PER SPOKANE COUNTY CORNER RECORD *4337 FOR W 1/4 CORNER INDIANA AVE. AUGUSTA #81 Oa 1 80251 (NOT A PART) FD. 3/8 INCH REBAR W/SURGAP MARKED "WELBORN PLSI5043" N 81 °23'48" E S 81 °51'11" E N 103.00' 5541°23 355.04' FUTURE PLAT AREA (NOT A PART) N 8q °56'52' W 41162' 103.00' ' N8q ° 56'52 "W N51 °56'5214 NMI °56'00' 52°W i N 25. ' u� N w GqN 74.18' o 0 r- 1 O ° I - `t 100 4 ° 0 o Z $ 2 0 1-3 100.00' r 10000' N8q ° 56'52 "W RIVERWAY VILLA FIRST ADDITION A PORTION OF THE SW 1/4, SECTION 8, T 25 N, R 45 E, W.M., SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON SHEET 3 OF 3 JANUARY, 1993 11) ii 'MMON NSq °56'52 "W 268.2 N Sq °56'52" W 2615. (MEAS.) S 8 E 2615. i8' (REG.) "FUTURE PLAT AREA (NOT A PART) FINAL PLAT "FUTURE PLAT AREA" (NOT A PART) LINE ( DIRECTION 1 DISTANCE LI 584 °23'48 "W 45.04' L2 N00 ° 00'00 "E 50.00' L3 58"1 °34'26'E 50.04' L4 N36°15'3714 3426' L5 563 °08'21 "W 50.43' A CURVE 1 RDIUS 1 LENGTH 1 TANGENT 1 CHORD 1 BEARING 1 DELTA GI 20.00' 31.42' 20.00' 2828' S15 °00'0014 10 °00'00° G2 20.00' 2'156' 16.48' 25.43' N61°28'48 14 78 °5"1'36° G3 20.00' 31.42' 20.00' 28.28' 515 °00'00 1W q0 ° 00'00 ° G4 20.00' 31.42' 20.00' 2828' N7 14 G5 20.00' 33.66' 22.38' 21.82' N67°31 14 16°25'23" G6 20.00' 21.67' 18.32' 2'702' N21 °2TOb °E 84 °5q'I6" G7 20.00' 26.12' 15.30' 2430' 537 °24'51 "4 74 °41'58° 08 20.00' 30.13' 18:15' 9 2736' 562 °15'38'E 86 ° 18'25" Gq 20.00' 31.43' 20.02' 2830' 545 °0134 "W 40 ° 03'08° GIO 20.00' 31.40' 14.18' 2827' 544 ° 58'26"E 81°56'52" GII 2000' 31.41' 11.11' 2828' 544 °24'2214 51°55 G12 300.00' 130.g2' 6652' 121.88' Nib °93'42 "E 25 °00'13° G13 30000' 2300' 1151' 23.00' N62 °11 °E 04°23'35" G14 250.00' 7.31' 3.70' 731' N21°01 14 01 °41'40" C15 225.00' 33.35' 16:11' 33.32' N04 08 °21'31° GI6 225.00' 84.48' 42.73' 83.16' NIq °14'4' 4 2I °30'23" 0I7 25000' 40.14' 20.11' 40.04' N23 °42'23 14 01°II'54" GI8 2121.86' 481:71' 241.51' 48068' N6q °20'46 °E I2 °5731° GIg 72500' 186'1' 4.34' 1861 N17 01 °2832" G20 125.00' 15432' 77.45' • 15403' N23 °54'0814 12 °11'44" 021 625.00' 146.11' 18.10' 14536' 52514'14 "E 11°58'54" G22 600.00' 34.19' 17.46' 34.41' 532 °57'27'E 03 °20'03" 023 600.00' 16.68' 3 q4' 1868' SI7 °13'14 °E 01 C24 750.00' 5032' 25.17' 5031' N1895'04 "W 03 °50'40" G25 265.00' 135.36' 6451' 134.48' 1114 21°23'48" FD. SPOKANE COUNTY BRASS GAP WITH X ON CENTERLINE OF MISSION AVENUE AS INDICATED ON SPOKANE COUNTY CORNER RECORD *2454 FOR 5 I/4 SURVEYOR'S NOTES THE RECORD INFORMATION ON THIS MAP WAS TAKEN FROM SPOKANE COUNTY RECORDS AS FOLLOWS: BOOKS OF SURVEYS: BOOK 25, PAGE 83 BOOK 27, PAGE 42 BOOK q, PAGE 71 BASIS OF BEARINGS THE BASIS OF BEARING FOR THIS MAP 15 THE WEST LINE OF 'THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 8 TAKEN AS 5 00 ° 35'05" E, TAKEN FROM R.05. FILED AT BOOK 77, PAGE42, OF SURVEYS, SPOKANE COUNTY WASHINGTON. LEGEND • SET 3/8 INCH REBAR W/SURGAP ® FD. MONUMENT AS DESCRIBED GRAPHIC SCALE (NZ *wk kv6kx kook go North Id ' ; aho Engineering 11111 (208) 667 -1171 FAX 664 -3507 FAX 4200 W. SELTICE WAY, SUITE 2, COEUR D'ALENE, IDAHO 83814 SHEETS 6.E-9W DRIVE ELJCL /D 1 4 L:15 4cs AVENUE 25 - 45 / $o - 4o / / ' 2 J ' i , /6 1 077 - 8 '1 ?p /`�C . D ESCR /PT /ON Ti-//5 SECTION REPRODUCED FROM L /NEN TO M, yt—A R. DATE 6- /.5 -7Z BY JER/ Ray HEE? 9E11. JISR1 ARM 7 ME YER S RANCH r 7 to ,734' BUCKEYE LN.•vt. 50 8 27 _NOr4 R 2(105 EST. Reg, nb. 8c1t9's n I 2 axz� uGUSrq 5 4 8 da , 2A 9 17 l6 Indiana 53\ \ ® i 25 zI l 7o 2 ' -I 4, 204- r - .2 32 10 i 1 16A -110 .t r L �rr G, 8 Lo-r" N t� Le71" T1 2-4 Lo - L 4o0 5. S J i rrt 11 �. e.„o 0 , iF t4 S9' 25 Q" VV f: ' .4I 4 t--,. (, \ ,� 4 5 t . �. •-... _..- 203 Z 10' 1 r a/i b,- .1 2044 North 50 150 300 &00 9o' dsgn v rtL horiz vent prof. no. RIVERWAY VILLA „2.70 Preliminary .. Plait Mission 20' PARK. AREA - X - MINIMUM SETBACK DISTANCE Small Lot 60' 20' PARK. AREA Deciduous Trees (30'O.C.) Deciduous Trees (30' 0.C.) Installation of grass turf, trees and irrigation system along Mission and Indiana. Dedication to the Homeowners Association and improve- ment of first common area (Developer's choice) Improvement to be limited to installation of grass turf and irrigation system. Dedication to the Homeowners Association of the storage area Dedication to the Homeowners Assoc iation`of the Second Common Area. improvement to be limited to installation of gras>.turf and irrigation system: erimeter Fencing ai'ng west boundar of iUD. Concurrent with any rs Question but limited boundary of a particul Concurrent with improvement of 61st lot. Concurrent with improvement of the .93rd i Concurrent with improvement of. the 125th lot Concurs titular phase in the applicable' it phase- PUD Bou dar iiitsnra>•s sz®uo sia *rn - iumsennorwasiss 1 umname1aiU Ii i I u. `7 62 62 61 s� . b c� ■■ 6 ...or so, eon bo. es � Commc Common Area Access 6z .......................... ......................... 9 1 - - -- 2036 /0' Landscaped q I - rr I0 Buffer Strip /0' R/W !Dedication n d at 1 south of Block 14 will be reta7 e NOTE. Block 14 and 15 and a ; artion of the common area i e 1 e y p n for use as a community drainfield until such time a by the sponsor/developer vi a title ...and /or easement y y Y project ` ' an area wide public sewer system is available to sewage flows from this p ro � and the community Y drainfields can be abandoned. At this time the sponsor /developer will formally offer at the then current for ner Association Homeowners by the o� G for purchase t nd 5 fo k 14 and i said Blocks land value, � 1 appraised lan v u Y rofessa oval 5 professionally PP n rejects to e rs Assacia � o en space. If the Homeowners � the sole purpose of expanding `the 'Association's common p p p p f said offer, the sponsor/ f to sell, or. neglects 1 ects to respond within n 60 days o da s the ponsor /developer s offer , g p .� l oc in Block 15, developer may proceed to f i n a l i z e the development of 3 {,, 1 o t Ls in Block 14 11 lots n . o l a 50 100 200 300 400 2' CONT. INT. This plan originally was drawn using` scaled 36' .typical street right -of- tai}. The lot diMension.s shown. reflect eflect the now proposed 50' :typical street aht - of - way , though will scale for SUPERICR REPROGRAPHICS TB -344 RIVERWAY VILLA PRELIMINARY PLAT SHORELINE SETBACK 200 FEET ZONING. LOCAL BUSSINESS AND AG. SUBURBAN 398 LOTS (70x120) 8,400P EXISTING BUILDINGS TO BE REMOVED 17� 11515 I I 14 450 36 23 24 24 33 SCALE 1:100 DIVERSIFIED PLANNING and DEVELOPMENT INC. THE SW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 AND THE W 1/2 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 AND GOVT LOTS 5 AND 6 ALL IN SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 25 N. RANGE 45 E., W.M. SPOKANE COUNTY WA. EXCEPT THE N. 100' OF THE S. 1809'0F THE W 205' AND EXCEPT THE N.100 OF THE S. 1709 OF THE W. 190 THE SW 1/4 AND EXCEPT COUNTY ROADS. LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS PER QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED IN VOL. 383 PAGE 857 AND PER RECORD CF ; SURVEY IN SURVEY BOOK 9, PAGE 79 AS RECORDED IN SPOKANE COUNTY AUDITORS OFFICE. MIN. 15 LANDSCAPE AREA 24 ,35 COUNTY ENGINEER UTILITIES ENGINEER HEALTH DISTRICT SITE SIZE 4.75 A. BUILDING SIZE 55,200` SITE COVERAGE 27% PARKING REQUIRED 276 PROVIDED 284 LANDSCAPE AREA 32,000 REVISIONS BY Date 6/15/81 Scale 1.200 RIVES • Y V� A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE — QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 25 NORTH, RANGE 45 EAST, W.M., SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON 51-EET X orth 15' R.O.W. DEDICATION PHASE LOTS PHASE I 37 LOTS PHASE II 65 LOTS PHASE 1 1 1 61 LOTS PHASE IV. 122 LOTS PHASE V 74 LOTS SIN T,AN 25' BLDG. SETBACK #8I0a180257 (NOT A PART) 15 R.O.W. DEDICATION ENTENNIAL TRAIL 100 200 400 1073 AG. NDUSKY RIVER AVE, GROSS/NET DU /AG 2.ao/4.26 DU /AG 3:71/435 DU /AG 330/4.61 DU /AG 3.86/4.76 DU /AG 2.g5/3.64 DU /AG 3.40/4.41 DU /AG 4200 West Seltice Way Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83814 Phone: (208) 667 -1171 Fax: (208) 664 -3507 5 84•5630' E MISSION AVENUE N 5°' W (EXISTINe 50' R.O.W. 2O93O'F 1 1/4) 0 'rr L G l Uvo EXISTING R.O.W. PHASING PLAN SPOKANE RIVER * 4 r AV' f� �/�I�4��/�I�i�I��. � /O ii / t// 0 BALDWIN AVE. __.. _ - : ,T! AUGUSTA AVE. �� / /��1�� /`0�� /� `/ /// %. 0. //�! INDIANA AVE. MISSION AVE. VICINITY MAP (NO SCALE) PROJECT AREA RIVERWAY VILLA 2615.38 IO' R.O.H. DEDICATION GROSS PROPERTY SIZE NET DEVELOPED AREA RIGHT OF HAY DEDICATION COMMON AREA STORAGE AREA LOT INFORMATION 51TE GOVERASE 25' BLDG. SETBACK 10 RESERVED ACQUISITION AREA "- TORAGE AREA' O — AVENUE SOUTH U4 SECTION b TOTAL NO. LOTS: NORTH OF VILLA A SOUTH OF VILLA TOTAL MAXIMUM NUMBER LOTS ALLOlAIED BY - 76" 00 p-V-6(A GROSS LOT DENSITY NET LOT DENSITY GOMMON AREA REQUIRED BY P.U.D ACTUAL BUILDING SITE COVERAGE BUILDING SITE COVERAGE PERMI ItD CENTER 114 SECTION 8 2.5' BLDG. SETBACK l�•.L N(/ 1.c.0 Cori (cte '4 N 4-n) o di 0-4 call? VE. 1c16 AVE. 164 365 P.U.D. 365 3.40 DU /AG 4.41 DU /AG 10.8 AGRES(l0 %) AS BUILT DATE: REVISION BLOCK: BY, DESC, DATE DRAWN BY: JOM DATE: 03/08/44 J.N. 3065 6.ENEPHAS.D14IG touidfib 1 Y- - ?(,44 t(V 14QA- 7iiqf e2croJste"1 it/5 A/ea° TO 1A(6catt7W, agertriArc Arcm ie4 actsto 4 AzA6 ATZWA(4 kerd,44i4 //0 -irg 40'145 baiLD -atT, i 1 ide 4 m5 7b £e TA O2 ca\tn-pi Amo vd kivw &Walk& A- A luvttr4 7D 76 0% Pkir L ' A- asti91.M0 712Mc /11 RC5-01-1430.1 iftlzkeifir Vitft APA r 411:11441-nos of ) d 4i S-u8sKarrtu Pik kjJ WAA4/445 017,044-Tial,s Fb2 M M7144 kitYKul.4 t I 'errk'E- 1/36 or it TO SPO10-4 - i/>tovi 1 .e... T,',7:11 ,, ':-,W , ';-;'..`A ,, XPVC !iv 5) e7 2:f-' oy ,., 'L--i-4t ' Al l 6 see—ievt-p k ?,-A140(0 ofrifreaL 6. (i_ , •.' ' ''''' '1' r !,t 1 1M-1)16476 1(41- ' " 0 vpit Al 7 i g rAfe &diouie,4f-- 6pfm--7- t i . 15 .775 — ithkrhitto Wats 4,-.I -?ackt7-6 /kr/A-49g ts tV. dive- mg" AlifiAti gpho .i tieez-ift&09 iv orr ___g46, Voitae ay,Le- ft/fw Ag ? mzeutikell kai9cut fiteess, lukoot 6t9tik5 0F' igi L a2eAtto •fr / August 4, 1994 MEMORANDUM TO: 'File FROM: Ed Parry - SUBJECT: P1414 Riverway Villa P.U.D. Barker Rd., Mission Ave. Improvements & Phasing 1. I met with North Idaho Engineering (Michael Hunt) today to discuss what intersection & road improvements needed to be constructed along Barker Road and Mission Avenue as part of this project, and the phasing for these improvements. 2. The following understanding was reached, based on the revised phasing plans: a. Barker Road Phase I: Construct Barker /Indiana intersection'(Barker Road to be a 5 -lane section per the County's Special section for Barker Road). Provide acceleration /deceleration lanes (sized per WSDOT Design manual), as well as inbound and outbound tapers Phase II: Construct Barker Road north to the Spokane River, and south to Mission Avenue, unless built out sooner as part of Phase VI. Phase III: No construction on Barker Road needed Phase IV: No construction on Barker Road needed Phase V: No construction on Barker Road needed Phase VI: Construct Barker Road north to the Spokane River, and south to Mission Avenue, unless built out sooner as part of Phase II. N.B.: Conditions of Approval require that Barker and Mission Road improvements adjacent to Phase VI are to be completed prior to issuance of a building permit for any projects on that parcel b. Mission Avenue: Phase I: Construct Mission /Clark Fork (Harmony Lane) intersection. Construct north side of Mission Avenue (per the County's Special Section for Mission Avenue) from Clark Fork (Harmony Lane) to Barker. Provide inbound taper to Clark Fork (Harmony Lane) intersection. 1 4,(440.4-tha4e4t �'1 A {,�;Rd,�Ka01 464.1etloia n taltAdAt 3C it,A( ;64 r fcc August 4, 1994 P1414 Barker Road, Mission Avenue Improvements /Phasing Page 2 of 2 f Phase II: No construction on Mission Avenue needed Phase III: Construct Mission /Potomac and Mission /Yukon intersections. Construct north side of Mission Ave (per the County's Special Section for Mission Avenue) along the Mission Ave. frontage from the easterly plat boundary to Mission /Clark Fork (Harmony Lane). Provide inbound taper to the widened Mission /Yukon intersection from east of the easterly plat boundary Phase IV: No construction on Mission Avenue needed Phase V: No construction on Mission Avenue needed REVISION BLOCK: DRAWN BY: .IOM 1 BY, DESC, DATE AF'PVI7 CHECKED BY: DATE: 03/08/94 ?z J.N. 3065 GENEPHAS OHO AS BUILT DATE: im ' ''� '•'a.- v^w^.�' 'r�t°.,�� , a- w'��s� -Xha` , ::s»� �ir -,, �+: yr .nom`^+' «v`, ..� & i n5�'� 4200 West Seltice Way Coeur. d'AleAe, Idaho 83814 Phone: (208) 667 -- 1171 Fax: 208 664 -3507 PHASING PLAN e #Lv_. }`r?X -^vs ^t„-2+`'.' - -.fY• !L:t?uh.�`- RIVE VIT 1LA PHASING PT1AN EXFIIBIrI' „ A „ A PORTION OF TI-IE SOUTHWEST ONE— QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 25 NORTH, RANGE 45 EAST, tiWr.M., SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON COMMON AREA COMMON AREA COMMON AREA 290. I 291 242 COMMON AREA COMMON AREA . 322 i 323 324 ..A .. -.:. -r-^ L• rr 150 151 N 8 CO' 1 COMMON AREA PHASE PHASE 1 PHASE 1I PHASE 111 PHASE IV PHASE V 15' RO.1 -1. DED!GATONI 1 43ALPHIN AIJGU&TA 1 $ a 3 1 r r orth Ida . i II L11 1 4o II 'I 12. q: I , 1 1 I ` i \ -5.14: . 114 SECTIOND 200 0 1 C t ' 2C0 80 LOI S 0, -A NE 5' !91TL' ACQUISITION ARE 'N # ESIOci 180257 (NOT A PART) GCr'T'z?�LIAL — -CENTENNIAL TRAIL- 207 206 - F -4 "irYirZMITM73 25' E3LD6. SETBACK \ -15' R.O.N. DEDICATION 25' BLD6.L_ 5 , E :CTBAGK FIEUR ACQUISITION AREA PHASE VI 400 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 200 ft. I •• LII L (� E —WOOD LAND 204 4 2O3 3 COMMERCIAL PHASING PHASE VI 1 LOT q.2 AG. 1 RI 219 191 "\ 192 _ MISSION AVENUE 14 64.56569:1 64 — (EXT riN6 50' R.D.W. 2 67307 800 RESIDENTIAL PHASING LOTS ACREAGE G 4 ROSS/NET DU /AG 31 LOTS 13.3 AG. 2.7g /4.00 DU /AG 116 L0115 33.g AG. 3.42/550 DU /AG 78 L0125 22.4 AC. 3.48/4.28 DU /AG 54 LOTS 12.8 AG. 4.23/5.28 DU /AG 25D AG. 3.20/3.q5 ICU /AG TOTAL 365 LO1k5 IO7.3 AG. 3.40/4.30 DU /AG o Engineering 53 • SPOKANE RIVER 0 LL INDIANA AVE. BALDWIN AVE. AUGUSTA AVE. MISSION AVE. VICINITY MAP (NO SCALE; 90 0' • \ 261516' — IO R.O.W. DEDICATION EXISTING ■ 10 FUTURE ACQUISITION AREA GROSS PROPERTY SIZE NET DEVELOPED AREA RIGHT OF WC( DEDICATION COMMON AREA LOT INFORMATION TOTAL NO. LOTS: NORTH OF VILLA AVi . SOUTH OF VILLA AVr. TOTAL MAXIMUM NUMBER LOTS ALLOHED BY GROSS LOT DENSITY NET LOT DENSITY COMMON AREA REQUIRED BY P.U.D. SI 1 E COVERAGE v 25' BLDG. SETBACK - 4-I6.W ScviH 1/.4 S1=Gr..cH b ACTUAL BUILDING 51 i E COVERAGE BUILDING 51 I t COVERAGE PERMI i I tD '7GENTER 1/4 SECTION 8 0 um - 25' BLDE. SETBACK RIV VILLA P� PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 51 I E DATA 107.5 ACRES T1.2 ACRES 18.2 ACRES 14.8 ACRES(13.8 %) 1'16 16g 365 .U.D. 365 3.40 DU /AG 4.73 DU /AG 10.8 AGRES(IO %) 16.4 AGRES(I5%) 37.6 AGRES(35 %) -O- BENCH MARK -SOUTH EAST CORNER BRIDGE OVER SPOKANE RIVER AT SULLIVAN ROAD. ELEV. 1486.16 SPOKANE RIVER INDIANA AVE. BALDWIN AVE. AUGUSTA AVE. MISSION AVE. VICINITY MAP (NO SCALE) CLEAR VIEW TRIANGLE EXISTING ROW 173 `, \ E 4 6,683 5F 1 24,820 SF 0.51 AG �• 3c1 983 5F 38 21 5F N 89•56'51` W GLEAR VI \ Ar 102 9,100 SF Lo 41 ,489 5F 1 ,383 5F 101 9,888 SF 1,925 SF 8,191 SF \5 5 � 8,81 1 i:lxt -71�:. ii ^i-f∎F :t ..tsK. O: ii !:.I•f4t.1:RAt+.T..:�71:r_1Y: —.}'_.','Ar:' -`= ilhPI (2026 PRIVATE OI^INERSHIP NOT A PART PPROX. TO BE SET AS (2028) 5' FUTURE CQUISITION AREA OMMERGIAL 682,131 SF 9.74 AG (2031) TEMPORARY SILTATION F NGE TBM: SPIKE IN POWER POLE ELEV. 2033.51 �- EXISTING ROW S.W. I/4 SECTION S. STREET LOGATI ON INDEX IANGLE 3/8" - : • R M PRIOR TRUGTI ON. (2030) MPORARY - ATION FENCE {2029) — STREET M155ION AVENUE (EXISTING 50' R.O.H. 20'/5O9 APPROX. LOCATION 3/8" REBAR TO BE SET AS TBM PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. TITLE SHEET INDIANA AVENUE HARMONY LANE BALDWIN LANE AUGUSTA LANE MGMILLAN LANE BARKER ROAD STA. 14+50.00 - 24 +00.00 MISSION AVENUE STA. 10 +00.00 - 11+00.00 DETAIL SHEET DETAIL SHEET BASIN SHEET BASIN SHEET SIGHT TRIANGLE DETAILS TEMPORARY GUL -12E-SAG CLEAR VIEW TRIANGLE GLEAR VIEW TRIANGLE i0X. LOCATION 3/8 REBAR 043E SET AS TBM PRIOR TO 'CONSTRUG ION. ( 107 .- GLEA VtEji TRIANGLE ! LIPROV "E ENTS PAVED TURNAROUND 95 �-_ APPROX. LOCATION 3/8" REBAR TO BE SET AS TBM PRIOR TO ONSTRUGTI ON. GENERAL NOTES - STREET SPECIFICATIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS THE CONTRACTOR SHALL GUARANTEE ALL MA i tKIALS AND WORKMANSHIP FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING FINAL APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER. IT WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO GONTAOT ALL APPLICABLE UTILITY COMPANIES AND HAVE THEM FIELD LOCATE THEIR UNDERGROUND LINES. ANY DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY REPAIRED BY HIM AT HIS EXPENSE. THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 15 HEREBY ADOY I tD FOR THIS PROJECT. A. ANY CONFLICTING UTILITIES SHALL. BE RELOCATED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ROAD OR DRAINAGE FACILITIES. B FOR CURB GRADES LESS THAN O.B% (0.008 FT/FT), A WASHINGTON STATE - LICENSED PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR SHALL VERIFY THAT THE CURB FORMS ARE AT THE CORRECT DE GRADE AND ELEVATION PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF CURBING MATERIAL. ALL WORK SHALL BE AND 15 HEREAt- 1 tK GU,ARANTEED BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM AND AFTER THE DATE OF FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF ALL THE WORK BY THE OWNER IF, WITHIN SAID GUARAN 1 tt PERIOD, REPAIRS OR CHANGES ARE REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE GUARANTEED WORK, WHICH IN THE OPINION OF THE ENGINEER, 15 RENDERED NECESSARY AS THE RESULT OF THE USE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, OR WORKMANSHIP WHICH ARE INFERIOR, DEFECTIVE, OR NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL, PROMPTLY UPON RECEIPT OF NOTICE FROM THE OWNER, AND WITHOUT EXPENSE TO THE OWNER, (A) PLACE IN SATISFACTORY CONDITION IN EVERY PARTICULAR ALL OF SUCH GUARANTEED WORK, CORRECT ALL DEFECTS THEREIN; (B) MAKE GOOD ALL DAMAGE TO THE SITE, OR EQUIPMENT THEREON, WHICH IN THE OPINION OF THE ENGINEER, 15 THE RESULT OF THE USE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT OR WORKMANSHIP WHICH ARE INFERIOR, DEFECTIVE, OR NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THIS CONTRACT; AND (G) MAKE GOOD ANY WORK OR MATERIAL ON THE SITE DISTURBED IN FULFILLING ANY SUCH GUARAN IF THE CONTRACTOR, AFTER NOTICE, FAILS WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS TO PROCEED TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THIS GUARANI tt, THE OWNER MAY HAVE THE DEFECTS CORRECTED, AND THE CONTRACTOR AND HIS SURETY SHALL BE LIABLE FOR ALL EXPENSE INCURRED; PROVIDED, HOWEVER THAT IN CASE OF ANY EMERGENCY REPAIRS MAY BE MADE WITHOUT NOTICE BEING GIVEN TO THE CONTRACTOR AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PAY THE COST THEREOF. SUCH EMERGENCY REPAIRS SHALL BE MADE BY OTHERS ONLY IN THE EVENT THAT THE CONTRACTOR CANNOT BE LOCA i tV. DA11JM: BRASS GAP AT SOUTH EAST CORNER OF BRIDGE OVER SPOKANE RIVER ON SULLIVAN ROAD. ELEV. = 1486.16 THE GONTRAGTOR 15 RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING , LL UTILITY COMPANIES BEFORE ANY CONSTRUCTION. ANY DAMA.: = TO UTILITIES CAUSED BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REPAIRED A HIS EXPENSE. oNE -GALL (504)456 -8000 GRAPHIC SCAT,F, 50 10D 200 ( IN FEET) 1 inch = 100 ft. EXPIRE:, 9/23/95 OFFICIAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFICE RETURN TO COUNTY ENGINEER RECEIVED JUN 29 1925 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER 6/14/95 MG1^1 tESE 0 DR•WFII STOP AND STREET SIGN ❑— -- PERIMETER FENCE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY 0 +00.00 INDIANA AVENUE I4+23.42 BARKER ROAD F.S. 2021.45 (STATIONING ON BARKER ROAD BEGINS AT THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 CORNER OF SEC. 8, T25N, R451 t W AT STATION 10+00.00) 0 +14.00 JOIN EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS FOR SIGHT TRIANGLE INFORMATION SEE �I ICET 46. BLR 18+83 F5. 202150 EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT- POKANE COUNTY STANDARD WAND MLR F5. 2021.12 E.C.R. 0+38.98 F5.202675 BID GINS AND &UTTER TAPER GUM STA. 0+56.48 RAMP ST 844 1 ELEV. 20235 -POND A ' SEE SHEET qA 0+15:00 ART FOND ELR 14463.94 BARKER ROAD F5. 2021x49 H.G.R. / F5. 2071.13 STREET AND /STOP STOP SION B 0+39.02 F.S. 2026.T7 EN CURB AND &U TAPER CUM STA. 0+5652 NOT A PART + 1, POI NV. 2026.04 TYPE 2 Wan INLET NOT A PART 6' UNDERDRAIN FROM KEYSTONE /WALL TO GATGH BASIN • STA. D�A'naj 1 +21.43 GAMIC N• 1 +21.43 GATGH BASIN AND INLET TYPE 2 •Y WITH 60' OF 12' 12.1P. CULVERT SRAM ELEV. 2025:75 INVERT ELEV. 2024.00 SLOPE = 008 2+50.00 STEP 2029.61 T.0.W.\ 2028.00 F.6. • WALL 2024.00 110.R / INV. ELEV. CURB INLET /�� L- • TOP BERM PG =2 +41.4 STA 2 +25.00 ELEV. 2026.11 FLAT BOTTOM ELEV. 2025.61 4+0452 CORNER 203034 Mt TOP OF CONCRETE WALK K 1 WALL 2025.00 BOA. 3+50.00 STEP FOOTING 203034 T.O.W. 2028.00 F.6. • WALL 202333 B.0.11. A 3+00.00 51W t.441. 203034 T.O.W. 2028.00 F.S. • WALL 20 24.00 B.O.W. 6' SIDEWALK (SEE DETAILS) RETAINING WALL ENCROACHES ON SIDEWALK -- `-SEE DETAIL 'A' FOR KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL (5EE RIGHT) 4+01.06 END WALL 203034 T.O.N. 202850 TOP OF CONCRETE • WALL 202450 BOA , B.G.R 2 TFL. 2p2LT �itSHEET 4A-� B.GR 449S../if TFL. 2024.09 M.C.R. TFL. 2028.43 L =24 .02' MLR TFL. 202896 L L L =2336' E.G.R. 4+1 L=2336'- \ 429 . 2024.00\ CONCRETE INLET WITH TYPE 2 / 1 TH METAL ORATE TE TYPE 2 STA. 44000 GRATE ELEV. 202'1.63 , J OFFSET 52' RIGHT WM L =2.13 t 28 LF. 12' G.M.P. • 1:25* GRADE E.C.R. 19+52.65 HARMONY LANE, TFL. 202871 END C AND 6UTT6R SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN / TYPE 'A' DRYWE1 l WITH SOLID LOGKIN6 LID HARMONY LANE TAWS 5EGTION A -A aJ5GT 801 +C PAY 5 +2455 INDIANA AVENUE =14+44.01 HARMONY LANE F.S. 202q.38 E.C.R. 20431.08 HARMONY LANE + TFL. 2028:16 MLR Tr.G. 2029.22 ' L =2451' 1 Ys1 LP. 19 +2451 P.S. 2028.41 - TYPE 'B' CURB SIDEWALK B.C.R. 5+62.42 TFL. 202451 L =24.02' MLR `\--S L =968' T.F. L 202421 ' AND 40. STOP SIGN BL.R 14+47.97 HARMONY LANE TFL. 2028:11 BE61N CURB AND GUTTER SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD -PT =6 +58.16 5+6851 CENTER POINT INV. ELEV. 2024.22 TYPE 2 CURB INLET F.G.R. 546656 T.F.C. 2024.10 F5. H.P. 055 202951 6' MIN. 28' MAX. OV 1*N STORAGE AREA 13' DRAINAGE, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT. (SEE LANDSCAPED PLAN BY THE BERGER PARTNERSHIP, P.5,) !;5 1 176 I 1 1 1 1 I S.GR 4463:10 ,TFL. 2028.66 SPOKANE COUNTY STAN' TYPE '3' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME P McMILLAN LANE EL.R. 22 +3836 McMILLAN LANE TFL. 2021.40 END CURB AND GUTTER 10 +01.20 INDIANA AVENUE =22 +80.36 McMILLAN LANE F.S. 202834 P 1 TBONDARY' PEP RAMP 1 STA . 10+21.061 178 LP. 2027.15 SEE � SHEET .... 21 ,.,.: EL.R 10+38.10 TFL. 2028.06 INLET TYPE 2 TFL. 20214 STA 8 L ■1.15' 22 M M c. _ _ 6RATE ELEV. 202695 STREET AND OFFSET 60' R16141 WITH t40 LP. 12' G.MP. • t25 STOP 5I6N ,SPOKANE TYPE 'A' DRYWELL WITH SOLID LOCKING LID McMILLAN LANE jog B.C.R. 22+3856 McMILLAN LANE TFL. 2021.40 BEGIN CUR LR2 B AND 6UTT 30520 TEMPORARY TURN AROUND RADIUS POINT 12+31.21 6' DRAIN, ELEV. VARIES NATIVE SOIL 6' MIN. COMPACTED F111. MATERIAL KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL NOTES, I. COMPACTED GRAVEL. FOUNDATION, 95% STANDARD PROCTOR 2. MIN. I' DRAINA6E PILL BEHIND WALL 3. PROVIDE LATERAL DRAINAGE AND DRAIN TO CATCH BASIN • STA. 1 +21.43 4. FOLLOW APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES 5. CONSTRUCT PER MAMFACTURER5 RECOMMENDATIONS 6. CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT CONSTRUCTION, SEQUENCING PLAN, AND COPY OF MAM/FAGNRERS CONSTRUCTION 6UIDELIt S TO THE SPOKANE COUNTY EN6INEERIN6 DEPT. AND NORTH IDAHO EN61NEERIN6 FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 1 EDGE OF PAVEMENT SCALE: SEC. & SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'B' DRY1ELL WITH SOLID LOOMS LID STA 11+54.00 ORATE ELEV. 202621 OFT 28' LEFT / 1 INCH 50 FEET . I - . I . . PROJE T25N, R45E, hl.M. SUB AL # PET RN TO COUNTY ENGI GONGRETE INLET TYPE 2 /WITH METAL &RATE TYPE 2 c S 6RATE ELEV. 2026.00 rl 1 V Li OFFSET 52' LEFT WITH t44 LF. 12' G.M.P. 0 t2% GRADE U 3 0 1995 SPO COUNTY ENGINEER 11+61.21 END GONSTRU F.S. 202102 BEGIN TEMPORARY PAVED TURN AROUND POND 17 SEE SHEET 4A POND E SEE SHEET 9A SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'B' DRYWELL WITH SOLID LOCKING LID STA 11+54.00 GRATE ELEV. 202621 OFFSET 28' R16HT 6/30/45 JB CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL CRATE TYPE 2 2 STA 11+9540 6RATE ELEV. 24::26.00 T OF 52' RI H WITH t44 LF. 15' 0.M P. o t2% GRADE CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT DELTA RI 20.00' 31.43' 2001' 40 R2 20.00' 31.41' 14.99' 89 R3 30.00' 40.10' 2359' 16 R4 22.00' 3158' 25.25' 9'1 R5 25.00' 3853' 2421' 88'18'00' Rb 20 .00' 33.08' 22.14' 47'20'24' R1 22.00' 3456' 22.00' 40 . 00'00' R8 22.00' 34.56' 22.00' 90 STOP AND STREET SIGN DRYWE L co 0 rci LEFT RI& 4T 2030 0 +00.0 14 +23.4: F.5. 20: E.G.R. 19 F5. 2077: INDIANA A BARKER 1.45 2030 BLR 18+63. F5. 202750 MLR F5. 2027.13 BLR 0+39.02 F5. 2026:T7 MLR 5.2027.12 ELR 0+38.48 FS. 2026.15 STA. 0+15 F5. 202654 OW POINT LOW POINT P.I.V.G. 5 P.I.V.G. F..LE STA 1 +25.00 F5.202624 INV. ELEV. 20235 STA. 1+45.45 OFFSET 3624 RI 2025 2030 44 BARKER ROAD BARKER ROAD N N O O O b 0 1 +21.43 CATCH B/ l!; 0 N m N N o .� /___- _Ioo.o VG 1 +15.00 c434TER POINT �2+5oE �/. �OINr INV. _ 2026.P4 INV 2 026 \ P.I V.G. STA = 1+00 TYPE 2 CURB INLET TYPE 2 C M P.1 VL. ELEV = 2025.41 AND INLET TYPE RATE ELEV. 20 12' DIP. INV. ELEV. 2024. Strintr IA EXISTING GROUND u A ± N . FINISHED GRADE All _ ______ O lb O N 0 V N O N N CT (Ni CA O EXISTING &ROUND FINISHED GRADE EXISTING GROUND FINISHED GRADE E.C.R. 4+19.29 TFL. 2024.00 MLR TFL. 2028 R 20+4061 TFL. 2028.11 5 +2455 INDI =14+44. F.5. 2024.3 NA AVENUE 5+64.41 INV. ELEV. 2024 TYPE 2 CURB I M.GR TFL. 2029.22 E.C.R. 20+31.0 T.F.C. 2020.16 STA. 6 +15.00 F.S. 2030.50 100.0 P.I.V.G. 5 P.I.V.G. EL 16H POINT HI6H POINT P.I.V.G. 5' P.I.V.G. EL 100.0 ' VG A = 1+00 = 2030.74 = 20305 TA = 1+00 A = 1+00 = 2030.75 ' VC-- O N N N m 0 RMONY LANE 0 m O 0 N 0 m N 5+6851 CENTER Pd O N 0 0 ho ------4 STA .00 F.S. 1 +25 2030 0 m 0 m O - N 0 0 m 0 N N v' O N N 0 • :.Ii . STA. 11+6621 T.G. ELEV. 2027 • • m N 0 N CI O r N 0 (V 0 O r N 0 t N O ( 0 crJ 0 MILLAN LANE N 0 A =II +13.94 F.S. 202659 OFFSET 1850' B =11 +86.60 /F5. 2026.43 OFFSET 2128' G= 11+4688 F5. 202620 OFFSET 24.10' I1 +66.21 PRO D= 12431.20 F.S. 2025.60 OFFSET 45' LEFT EGT BOUND E =12 +16.20 F.S. 2026.14 2030 N N in O N N 0 N 0 N 0 10 +01.20 I ND =22 +8036 MGMILLAN LA 2 F.5. 2028.34 STA. 4+8120 21.48 IE, CR( STA 10 202151 1.20 CROSS 6UT1ER STA. 10+1520 L. ELEV. 2021 1 iii MMEMWAIIMP r p!iIr . ELR 10+38.10 .0. TFL. 2028.06 2021.16 It GROSS 2021.90 O N N O N N 0 IANA AVENUE N N N O O N 1 N O z N in N z ! W a 11- 2030 ELR 194 TFL. 20 BLR 44018i TFL. 2029.09 MLR TFL. 2028.93 INV. ELEV. 2024 TYPE 2 CURB I M.GR TFL. 202921 .R. 5+66.56 . 202410 PJ.V.G. 5 100.0 A = 1 +00 = 2030.74 ' VC- B.C.R. 4+6310 TFL. 202866 M_G T.F.G. 202828 E.C.R. 22+3836 TFL. 2021.40 T.F.C. 2021.48 1 =11 +13.49 F5. 202659 OFFSET 1850' H =11+8660 F5.2026.43 OFFSET 21.28' 6 =11+9658 F.S. 2026.20 OFFSET 29.10' F =12 +31.20 F5. 2025.60 OFFSET 45' LEFT E =12 +16.20 F.S. 2026.14 2030 LEFT (T.F.G.) RIGHT (T.F.G.) PROFILE SCALE: HORIZONTAL: I " =50' VERTICAL: 1 " =5' 4 V W A 6 1 a 0 1 tr 6 CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT DELTA RI 20.00' . 31.43" 20.01' g0'0152' R2 20.00' 31.41' 11.99' 89 °58'08' R3 30 .00' 40.10' 23.61' 16'35'13" R4 22.00' 3158' 2525' ‘1752'01" R5 25.00' 3853' 2421' 88 °18'00' R6 20.00' 53.98' 22.14' j 91'20'24" R1 22.00' 3456' 22.00' 10 °00'00° R8 22.00' 34.56' 22.00' 90'00'00" LEFT (T.F.G.) RISHT (T.F.G.) z N 2030 2025 z X 2030 z N X W .94 BARKER ROAD w z c0 O O N O O 1 O 111 O N O N O N O N N O N O N m N O 0 +00.0 I1 +23.1 F.S. 20 E.C.R. 19+6 F5. 2027. INDIANA A BARKER R 7.15 B.G.R. 18 +83. F.S. 202750 M.C.R. F.S. 2021.13 B.C.R. 0 +39.02 F.5. 2026.11 M.C.R. F.S. 2021.12 E.G.R. 0 +38.98 F.S. 2026.15 STA. 0 +15.00 F5. 202654 P.I.V.G. 5 P.LV.G. ELE 100. 0W POINT LOW POINT P.I.V.G. 5 P.I.V.G. 100. P.I.V.G. 5 P.I.V.G. EL A = 1 +00 = 2025.17 ' VG = 2026.2 TA = 1 +21.43 A = 1+00 = 2025.15 STA. 1+25 .00 FS. 202624 rfl 0 N O • = MIN r • -WJE re "I am I I I I I I I 1+21.43 CATCH B AND INLET TYPE GRATE ELEV. 20 12' D.I.P. INV. ELEV. 2024. L m N O N m N O N O N N O 1 N O EXISTING 6ROUND FINISHED 6RAl2E N O N 1 N O O N O EXISTING, 6ROUND FINISHED GRADE N O N O EXI5TIN6 GROUND FINICI ED GRADE in N O m N O grj " Atd 0 '0% 0 • I' VG , •SH►1f331r `�dS.7•Zi_•Z•S�`uf?" '01 INV. ELEV. 2026 • INV. ELEV. 2026 - E . . R 1 9+ A = 1 +00 TYPE 2 CURB 1 TYPE 2 CURS 114 2 = 2025.11 (Y O N N O O N O u N O 0 O Vs N O 1!1 m N 0 O O cN N O 0 O RMONY LANE O O O E.C.R. 4+1129 T.F.G. 2029.00 M.G.R. T.F.C. 2028.86 B.GR 20•40b1 T.F.G. 2028.11 5 +21.55 INDI =11 +14.07 H F.S. 2021.38 NA AVENUE 5 +64.41 CENTER 1NY. ELEV. 2029.1 TYPE 2 CURB INL T.F.C. 20 M.G.R. T.F.G. 202922 T.F.G. 2028.16 E.G.R. 20 +31.08 STA. 6 +15.00 F.S. 203050 16E1 POINT HIGH POINT P.I.V.G. 5 P. ELE 100. ' vc A = 1+00 = 2030.14 EV = 20305 STA = 7 +00 A = 1 +00 = 2030.15 'V0 N 0 O O 0 O N O O 0 5 +6851 CENTER F• O O O m 0 cy • O O O c tr N O 0 O li ...441 c.........._ in STA. 1+25.00 F.S. 203050 1!1 0 N O O m O 1 O O N O O O u) O O N is N O INV. ELEV. 2023: STA. 1+45.45 oFFsET 3624 RI B.G.R. 4+90.18 T.F.C. 2024.01 M.GR. T.F.G. 2028.13 2.65 HARMONY INV. ELEV. 20292 TYPE 2 CURB 1 M.C.R. T.F.C. 202921 B.C.R. 11+41.97 T.F.G. 202811 .R. 5+6656 . 2021.10 P.I.V.G. 5 P.I.V.G. EL 100.0 A = 1 +00 = 2030.14 ' VG O co m L(1 m O O '3- N cN O is N O '3 N O (V 0 missame •42:111111 - STA 11 +66.21 - ELEV. 2021.0 11 O t5 N O LA N O N O MILLAN LANE N O r� N O cfl O N In m cN O N O 10 +01.20 IND N O N O 2021.90 N O IAN. AVENUE =22 +8036 MILLAN LA F.S. 202534 mniumor II u) 1 N O N O ti STA. 1 +8120 2021.18 E GROS ' - GUTTER STA. 11+6621 1/ STA. 10 +• 120 T.G. ELEV. 202 L0 2021.81 ' GROSS GUI I tK STA. 10 +1520 ii 2021.16 IL GROSS GUTTE Jaw E.G.R. 10 +38: 0 T.F.C. 2028.06 B.G.R. 9+63:10 T.F.G. 2028.66 M.G.R. T.F.G. 2028.28 E.G.R. 22+3836 TF.G. 2021.' O G T.F.C. 2021.18 22 +38.36 McMI - 0.8096 1 N O m N O N O z H W 1_ N O 1- N X 1 N lL A =11 +13.99 F5.202659 OFFSET 1850' B =11 +86.60 F.S. 2026A3 OFFSET 2128' G =11 +96.88 F5. 2026.20 OFFSET 21.10' 11 +66.21 PRO F.S. 2021.0 D =12 +31.20 F.S. 2025.60 OFFSET 45' LEFT TURNAROUND GRADE 2025 111 1 N z E.. N z 11. tixOISZ•1 �irlr� 2030 I =11 +13.91 F.S. 20265'1 OFFSET 1850' H =11 +86.60 F.S. 2026.43 OFFSET 21.26' F =12 +3120 FS. 2025.60 OFFSET 45' LEFT E =12 +1620 F.S. 2026.14 2030 EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY 0 +00.00 INDIANA AVENUE 11 +23.12 BARKER ROAD F.5. 2021.15 (STATIONING ON BARKER ROAD BEGINS AT THE SOUTH1 i/4 CORNER OF SEC. 8, T25N, 8451.1, W.M. AT STATION 10+00.00) 0 +11.00 JOIN EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT NOTE: FOR SIGHT TRIANGLE INFORMATION SEE SHEET 1G. B.C.R. 18 +83.94 BARKER RO F.S. 202150 M.C.R. F.S. 2021.12 0+00 E.C.R. 0 +38.98 F.S. 2026.15 END CURB AND GUTTER TAPER CURB STA. 0+56.48 25' SIDEWALK DRAINAGE SLOPE AND UTILITY EASEMENT (TYP) I+00 TYPE 'B" DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 1 +16.00 GRATE ELEV. 2024132 OFFSET 28' RIGHT E.G.R. I9 +63.94 BARKER ROAD F.S. 2021.49 M.G.R F.S. 2021.13 STREET AND STOP SIGN B.G.R 0 +31.02 F.S. 202611 END CURB AND GUTTER TAPER CURB STA. 0 +5652 PED. RAMP STA. 0+64.01 0 +15.00 BEGIN 2029 .00 2028.00 F.6. 2024.00 B INV ELEV 2025.15 2+00 3+00 i‘ FLAT BOTT ELEV. 20235 POND A SEE SHE 9A A. 0+15.00 ART POND . RAMP S.qq STA. 0+68.99 OFFSET 2650' ELEV. 2026.16 SPOKANE COUNTY STAND RD NOT A PART +15 00 0 POINT INV. ELEV. 2026.04 TYPE 2 CURB INLET NOT A PART 6' UNDERDRAIN FROM KEYSTONE WALL TO CATCH BASIN • STA. DESI 1 DEV1A ON 1 +21.43 1 +21.43 CATCH BASIN AND INLET TYPE 2 WITH 60' OF 12' DIP. CULVERT GRATE ELEV. 202515 INVERT ELEV. 2024.00 SLOPE = .0043 2 +50.00 STEP 2021 .61 T.O.W. 2026.00 F.6. to WALL 2024.00 B.O.W. CONGERNINO IRREGULAR 4+0452 CORNER 203034 T.O.W. 202850 TOP OF CONCRETE WALK • WALL 2025.00 3+50 .00 STEP FOOTING 203034 T.O.W. 2028.00 F.G. • WALL 202333 BD.W. 3+00.00 STEP 2030.34 T.0.1,4. 2028.00 F.6. • HALL 2024.00 S.U.W. STA. 1+60.00 ELEV. 2025.54 +50.00 CENTER - DINT INV. ELEV. 2026.61 INVERT ELEV. 2023.52 TYPE 2 CURB INLET 21.43 CENTER POINT Top BERM PG = 2 +q 1.4 TYPE 2 CURS INLET STA. 2 +2560 ELEV. 2026.11 FLAT BOTTOM FLAT BOTTOM ELEV. 2025.04 ELEV. 2025.61 STA. 3+00 .00 END POND 6' SIDEWALK (DEC DETAILS) RETAINING, HALL ENCROACHES ON SIDEWALK 4+01.06 END WALL 203034 T.O.H. 2028.50 TOP OF GoNGRETE • WALL 2024.50 B.O.W. B.G.R 2d+40.61 HARMONY LANE T.F.C. •2811 M.G.R. T.F.G. 2028.86 L =2336' E.C.R. 4+1129 TFL. 2029.00 L - 'O 441 Cn P OND ,. .-• .. SHEET gA B.GR. 4+4018 ��► TF.G.2021.09 � J 1 M.C.R 1 1 r V TF.G. 202 �,� F.6 2027.13 4. 1 L= 24.02' CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL GRATE TYPE 2 STA. 4+90.00 1 F.6 2027.3 GRATE ELEV. 2021.63 L =213, OIT S 52 RI WITH t 28 L.F. 12" G.M.P. • ±2%6 GRADE E.C.R. 19 +52.65 HARMONY LANE TF.G. 202811 END CURB AND GUTTER SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE "A" DRYMLL WITH SOLID itS46 -' HARMONY LANE =11 +14.01 HARMONY LANE F.5. 202138 E.G.R. 20 +31.8 HARMONY LANE T.F.C. 202616 M.G.R. TF.G. 2021.22 I L =2451' L =24.02' .6. 02113 POND G SEE SHEE 203055 5 +6851 CENTER POINT INV. ELEV. 2o2g22 TYPE 2 CURB INLET E.C.R. 5 +6656 1 ,'3 STORAGE AREA 13' DRAINASE, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT. (SEE LANDSCAPED PLAN BY THE BERGER PARTNERSHIP, P.S,) 75 176 ' SPOKANE COUNTY STAN TYPE B DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME - MGMILLAN LANE LP. 2021.15 L=24.26' M.G.R. T.F.G. 2021.98 L =1.15' STREET AND STOP 516N 1 r: SHEET qB r ■ E.C.R. 10 +3810 26.45 T.F.G. 2028.06 INLET TYPE 2 WITH i -3 - • TE TYPE 2 STA. 22 +3q.16 McM ■ • N - 6 d GRATE ELEV. 2026.15 OFFSET 60' RIGHT WITH t40 L.F. 12' G.M.P. • ±2% 6R SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE "A" PRYWFI 1 WITH McMILLANLANE 103 B.G.R. 22 +3836 MGMILLAN LANE T 0. 2027.80 BE CURB AND GUTTER PROJECT BOUNDARY TEMPORARY TURN AROUND RADIUS POINT 12 +31.21 VARIES SEE DETAIL "A' FOR KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL (0L RIGHT) SECTION A -A NOT TO SCALE,) 5 +00 65' 6' --5' TYPE 'B' CURB SIDEWALK ,EGT BOUNDARY 5 +21.55 INDIANA AVENUE ti 6 +00 STANDARD KEYSTONE UNIT (TYP) COMPACTED NATIVE SOIL GRAVEL BAGKFILL FOR DRAIN PER KEYSTONE SPECS B.G.R. 5+62.42 L =9bb' TFL.2021.21 STREET AND 40 6' DRAIN, ELEV. VARIES NATIVE SOIL SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TTrt "B" DRYWELL WITH j TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 5 +59.16 6RATE ELEV. 2028.68 OFFSET 28' LEFT TFL. 2021.61 1 5+64.41 CENTER POINT INV. ELEV. 2029.18 TYPE 2 CURB INLET 1 3 STOP SIGN B.G.R. 19 +41.47 HARMONY LANE T.F.G. 202811 8E61N CURB AND GUTTER SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE "B' DRYWFI 1 WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE HARMONY LANE INDIANA AV 6' MIN. 6" MIN. GRANULAR FILL -- (CRUSHED SURFAGIN6 TOP COURSE) PT =6 +58.16 9A TFL.2021.10 1+00 DETAIL A (NOT TO SCALE) 202151 6" MIN. 8400 COMPACTED FILL MATERIAL q +00 KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL_ NOTES, I. COMPACTED &RAVEL FOUNDATION, 95% STANDARD PROCTOR 2. MIN. 1' DRAINAGE FILL BEHIND WALL 3. PROVIDE LATERAL DRAINAGE AND DRAIN TO CATCH BASIN A STA. 1 +21.43 4. FOLLOW APPLICABLE BUILDING, CODES 5. CONSTRUCT PER MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS 6. CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT CONSTRUCTION, SEQUENGIN6 PLAN, AND DOPY OF MANIFAGTURERS CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES TO THE SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPT. AND NORTH IDAHO EN6INEERIN6 FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 10+00 • EDGE OF PAVEMENT 10 +01.20 INDIANA AVENUE =22 +8036 MGMILLAN LANE F.S. 202834 1 PROJEIT BOUNDARY PEP. RAMP I STA. 10+21.061 NNV/InEllaWSEMSTMtagg" F.S. H.P. AaR'5-'1""ffilmaRalvbal't AI FE 2021.16 -1 ;_i_kr- 03: kit POND B 202q51 1\1 111 SHEET qA CURVE DATA FOR TOP FAGE OF GURB 11+00 TYPE S' DRY14ELL HITH SOLID LocKING LID STA. 11+54.00 ORATE ELEV. 202621 oFFSET 28' LL-1-1 SCALE: 1 INGH 50 FEET 5EG 5 T25N, R45E ( SpoKANE COUNTY STANDARD CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL GRATE TYPE 2 STA. 11+15.00 6RATE ELEV. 2026.00 OFFSET 52' LL WITH WIRES: 9-29-95 OFFICIAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFA ORIpINAL PROJECT 1 SUBMITTAL # Poll, 12 SEE SHEET c1A VERTICAL: 1"=5' RETURN TO COUNTY NEER RECEIVED JUN 2 9 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER 11+61.21 END CONSTRUCTION F.S. 2021.02 BEGIN TEMPORARY PAVED TURN AROUND TEMPORARY AOOESS AND DRAINASE EASEMENT POND E 5= SHEET qA coNCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL &RATE TYPE 2 STA. 11+q5.00 6RATE ELEV. 2026.00 OFFSET 52' RIGHT INITH SPOKANE COUNTT' STANDARD TYPE "El" DRYHELL HITH SOLID LOCKING LID STA. 11+54.00 &RATE ELEV. 202621 OFFSET 28' RI&HT 6/11/15 Ji3 LEFT RISHT (T.F.G.) PROF I LE SCALE: CQ rzl 0 0 es o o 0 CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT DELTA HI 22.00' 3458' 22.02' 90•03'08' 142 22.00' 3454' 21.98' 89•5652" FS 22.00' 3458' 22.02' 90•03'08' 1 22.00' 3454' 21.1/3' 89 145 26.00' 37.04' 22.45' 81 146 23.00' 3556' 22.44' 88•35'01' M2 22.00' 3458' 22.02' 90•03 143 20.00' 31.40' KIM,' 89•5652' R3 30.00' 40J0' 2361' 16 R4 22.00' 3155' 2525' 9752'01' R5 25D0' 3853' 24.27' 88•18'00' Rb 20.00' 33.15' 22.14' 1720 DAM STA. TOP BERM ELEV. UPSTREAM TOE OF BERM DOWNSTREAM TOE OF BERM E.GR 10+63.03 F5. 203177 CULVERT STA. IN STA. OUT OFFSET IN OFFSET OUT ELEV. IN ELEV. OUT GI 11 +62.62 II +11b2 16.50' LEFT 16.50' LEFT 203131 2031.41 C2 14+0762 14+2262 1650' LEFT 1650' LEFT 202826 202816 G3 r1 +2628 r+10.66 r+10.66 16.43 LEFT 16.43' LEFT 2028.35 2028.05 B.C.R. 1341.5.11 F5. 2030.18 M.C.R. F5. 2021.T1 E.C.R. I4+10.17 F.S. 2024.46 M.G.R F.S. 2029.41 3A 15 +25.10 202812 202712 202739 3B 16+20.10 2028.21 202141 2027.39 3C 10+36.06 AUGUSTA 2024.13 202833 2027.42 _OW POINT E LOW POINT 5 P.I.V.C. 5 P.I.V.G. EL 100. = 16 +00 = 2028.17 ' VG =16+00 = 2028.1 ' VG E.C.R. 10+30.11 FS. 202871 M.GR FS. 2028.84 ALDWIN LANE B.G.R. 10 +31.8 F.S. 2028.16 IGH POINT HIGH POINT 5 P.I.V.G. ST P.LV.G. EL 100. E.C.R. 11 +1455 F.S. 2024.50 MLR F.S. 2029.13 BALDWIN LANE INT ELEV = INT STA = 1 .G. STA = i(4 . ELEV = 20 50.00' VG IS M.G.R. TEL. 202,586 B.C.R. 20+40.61 T.F.G. 2028.11 SAWGUT I' OF EXISTINS PAVEMENT TO FACILITATE PAVEMENT INSTALLATI =16 +2162 MISSION AVENUE F.S. 2034.80 FOR SISHT TRIANSLE INFORMATION SEE 51IEET C. 6521' INV. ELEV. 203051 STA. 13 +16.41 TOP BERM 2031.01 STA. 13+21.42 INV. ELEV. 200.51 45.14' E.C.R. 14+10.47 FS. 2024.46 - L= 31.40' M.C.R. F.S. 2024.41 - STREET SIGN B.GR. 10+35.41 �'� INV. ELEV. 2o2H, 1 ∎ i► •157.0.15+11.4 ► , TOP BERM 2024.06 6R 1 S TA. 15 +16.4 I . TO ► INV ELEV._ A l r - ' f INV ELEV 2• 51 0285 K c• RAI STA Ih+4i43 . . g oo, /. '1 . 1 6 5."00' ��. /� • 65.00' f 65.00' L= ,i"; . , 7 ,:..I :•t .:. ''.•. l :lF,& _- 'IMANIROMI'7474:774::EMEWIENZONINPad 1 no - SHALE LOW Ps INT 9O71 AO q+ (44.13 BALDiN LANE F.5. 20.(1.56 2424 4 I POND J-I SEE SHEET 9B 7;.e. 2027.04 L=46.00' L =1.35' S.G.R. 11+0 .II F.S. 20 . 00 / L =28.2 -/ 11.6 F.S. 28.89 F.G. 2021.10 CONCRETE INLET 2 WITH METAL TYPE INDIANA A POND F 1 /CCC .'.I )CET 4A-'. F.G. 2021.13 L= 2.13' -� E.G.R 6 T.F.G 202877 +525 SID K UNDERDRAIN STA. 14+42.17 INV. ELEV. 2029.13/ E.C.R. 4+14.29 INDIANA AVENUE T.F.G. 2024.00 MLR /--R1SHT OF WAY /-FUT ACQUISITION URE i I 13 DATA FOR 44) PERFORATED PIPE, 15' L6. F.S. 2031.11 =10 +00.00 FUTURE SANDUSKY RIVER LANE F.S. 2032.55 \ELR 12 +25.17 FS. 2031.41 L= 31.40' POND K-- M.C.R. SEE SHEET P.S. 203484 X21.83 TYPE B' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND STA. 13+91.45 GRATE ELEV. 2025.33 L =. OFFSET 145' RIGHT 25 ML.R FUTURE SANDUSKY RIVER LANE FS. 2 SIDEWALK UNDEI ELR 10+36. F6.202435 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE B' DRYWEL.L WITH SOLID LOGKIN6 LID STA. 16 +26.00 GRATE ELEV. 20 713 OFFSET 11' LEFT. 14 +35.00 \HARMONY LANE CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL GRATE TYPE 2 \ STA. 16 +41.43 GRATE ELEV. 202154 OFFSET 55' LEFT 141TH ± 38 L.F. 12' 0.1 • ±2% GRADE I F.S. 202435 \ CONCRETE 1 TYPE 2 WITH MET • 6RATE TYPE 2 STA. 15+14.1 4' GRATE = . 2028.42 OFFSET 14 '' RIGHT WITH ± 125 L.F. I2' G.M.P. 0 ±2% GRADE SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD \ TYPE B" PRYWFL 1 WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 15 +15.00 6RATE ELEV. 202789 OFFSET 193' RIGHT TYPE B' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 16+05.00 GRATE ELEV. 202181 OFFSET 145' RIGHT CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL GRATE TYPE 2 BALDWIN LANE F.G. 202740 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE B' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 16+55.00 GRATE ELEV. 2027.91 OFFSET 145' RIGHT SPOKANE COUNlYiSTANDARD TYPE `A' DRY14E1 WITH SOLID LOGKIN6 LID STA. 19+40.0 OFFSET 7' 021.10 - POND 6 SEE SHEET IA - L =30.65' 2 M-GR F.S. 2029.13 - STREET SIGN B.C.R 10 +31.80 BALDWIN LANE F.S. 202816 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE B' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE BALDWIN LANE \ELR 10+30.11 BALDWIN LANE F.S. 202871 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE •B" DRYWELL -''- BALDWIN LANE SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN B.G.R. 4+1018 INDIANA AVENUE T.F.C. 2029.01 \ T.F.C. 2028. TJ=.G - L 24.02' 2050 L=24.02' 2027J3 +7455 POND G- SHEET 9A SPOKANE COUNTY STAND TYPE 'B' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 19 +25.00 GRATE ELEV. 2021.63 F.6. 2027.13 OFFSET Ti' RIGHT =5 +2(4.55 INDIANA AVENUE F.5. 2021.38 i EL.R. 20+31.08 T.F.C. 2028.16 FUTURE ,t o...0 y 1. ITS M.G.R. T.F.G. 2021.22 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE "B" DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE INDIANA AVENUE POND B SEE SHEET qA B.C.R. 5+62.42 INDIANA AVENUE T.FL. 2024.61 (SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN BY THE BERSER PARTNERSHIP, PS.) SCALE: I INGH _ 50 FEET SEG. 8, T25N, R4SE, KM. OFRC +Ai. PLIBL4C DOCIMENt SPOKANE COMITY ENGINEER'S OF RPTIJAI TO AI . MTY.ENGINEE RECEIVED JUN 29 1995 M.C.R. T.F.G. 2034.41 B.C.R. 10 +5153 TEL. 2034.04 KY RIVER L 14 +35.00 H =10 +00.00 E.S. 2030.1 CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT DELTA Fe 22.00' 3458' 22.02' 90•03 H4 22.00' 3454' 21.48' 89 CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT DELTA BI 22.00' 32.28' 1994' 84•04'44' B2 22.00' 3146' 25.12' 97•34'x' HH 26.00' 3704' . 22.45' 81'51 Hb 23.00' 35.56' 2244' 88'35101' (LOP) m: RIGHT tLoPJ z N 2030 INE 2030 2025 -g 2030 CNI 11. Ffmr fr. " I I I ENN I I I I I I I I II . 11111 rd N N 0 O N ollimmiram 0 0 N tr O N EXI5TIN6 GROUND FINISHED GRADE EXISTING GROUND FINISHED 6RADE EXI5TIN6 6ROUND FINISHED GRADE 0 N N 0 N 09016 q +84.13 B =11+38.1 F.5. 202 E.G.R. 11+1455 FS. 202950 LDWIN LANE HARMONY 56 M R F.S. 2029.13 H.C.R. 10+3140 .5. 2028.1 LOW POINT LOW Pour 5 N.Y.C.. 5 PJ.VG. 50 • W F5. 2029 PJV..5 PJ.VL. • 202895 A • 10138 • 10+50 • 24#1.0$ VG 0 N 2 O N N O • • PJ.VG. 5 100 NISH POW - 1101 POINT 5 PJ.VG. 5 PJ.VG. 100 • 203101 A • 13+4444 • 13+50 • 20313 ' VG J.V.C. 5TA • 14r V.C. !LEV • 2030 E CR 14+49.94 F5. 2030.45 • B.G - 19+9114 M.GR F.S. 203051 14+81.71 B =14 +58.83 F.S. 2031.2 WIN LANE GMILLAN • • STA. 13+25.00 F.S. 2030.98 PJ.VG. 5 PJ.VG. 100 • 0450 • 2030.9'!. ' VG STA. 13+15.00 F.S. 2030.43 M.G F5. 205092 SLR. 14+3981 FS. 203031 m O O 0 N N I, 0 m N 0 m z to z N a z 1L FS. 203048 E.C.R. 19 +11.18 Mc U- 2025 2025 2025 LEFT QwPJ RIGHT (EDP.) INE LEFT E.O.PJ RIGHT (E.O.P.) 10 +00.00 =14 +35.00 F.5. 2030. E.C.R. 14+10.91 .5. 2024.46 GUSTA LA HARMONY L 0 B.G.R. 13+48.41 FS. 2030.18 M.C.R. F.S. 2024.41 B.C.R. 10435.41 .5. 202935 M.GR F.S. 202971 E.G.R 10+36.03 F.S. 202435 LOW POINT LOW POINT PJ VG. 5 P V.G. 50 A 2 3•I•irF !J EXISTING FINISHED EXI5TIN6 EXISTING FINISHED 11 +25.00 E ERECT TE W.S.D.O.T. F.5. 2030 D GONSTRUG PORARY TY ARRIER 2030 INE 2030 2025 2030 z N w O N O HARMONY LANE ry m HARMONY LANE tV 0 v 6 h cV O 6 I Y m N N m O z N W N z W 2030 2030 •EOUT 2025 LEFT (.o pJ RIGHT (E.oP) INE PROFILE SCALE: HORIZONTAL: I " =50' VERTICAL: 1"=5' I N LANE MONY LANE 44 RIGHT OF WAY 10' DRAINAGE, SLOPE, 6.5. 14«6411 F 2025.88 B2 13..R 14+34.61 L•33.66' M.G.R q +44.13 BAL =11 +38.78 F.5. 2024 20 ‘4 CURVE DATA FOR ED6E OF PAVEMENT E.C.R. T1+1455 HARMONY LANE F5. 202950 N PG= 4+ 11 +18.41 HARMONY LANE 10+00 POND 6 SEE SHEET 9A 41 M.C.R. 42 11+00 STA. 10+65.00 INV. ELEV. 2028.00 51P84ALIC U 02139DRAIN J. 10430.116q F5. •2871 L•28.2b M.G.R. I .1 A P° B GR 17+04.11 HARMONY I �J . F5. 202900 12400 AND UTILITY EASEMENT T NTH SKATE TYPE 2 STA. 10+89 ORATE ELEV. OFFSET 46.42' RI6HT P4H'& 1 43 L.F. 12 C.M.P. • VA 6RA FOND 14 SEE SHEET 9A COUNTY STANDARD • DRYWELL WITH 1146 LID SOLID L STA. 10+53 TOP OF 6RATE OFFSET 17' RIGHT 57 +i Y EDGE OF PAVEMENT 2 2028.11 2091 i j► , 5 F.6.2Q2Agtp J POND P SEE SHEET 95 6' SIDEWALPi (SEE PETALS) FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS . 35 34 46 STA. 14+24.9 INV. ELEV. 202943 COMMON AREA H.CR. 19+9114 McMILLAN LANE «5. 203048 46 2032 N 33 5ALPHIN LANE MG FS. 2030 L =24.61' E.GR 14+44.94 F.S. 2030.45 F.5. 203032 44 POND 0 SEE SHEET 90 100 PT = 14+81.11 q NOTE: 14 +81.71 BALDWIN LANE FOR SIGHT TRIANGLE INFORMATION =1 McMILLAN LAN SHEET qG. F.S. 2031.22 19+33.93 McMILLAN LANE 6' SIDEWALK (SEE DETAILS) 9 +17.18 McMILLAN LANE SPOKANE COUNTY STAND TYPE 'H' DRYNB_L. NTH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE McMILLAN LANE 10' DRAINAGE, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT (TYP) SCALE: 1 INCH = 50 FEET SEG. 8, T25N, R45E, KM. STATION AND ELEVATION FOR CHECK DAM DAM 4A STA. TOP BERM ELEV. UPSTREAM TOE OF BERM 10+36 202885 I 202836 DOWNSTREAM TOE OF BERM 202834 ISSN! ow 4 H4 H3 F.5. 2029.46 2031 589•5651'E 125.40' 111 N F 0 ;'hrwA T 10 +00.00 AUGUSTA LANE = 14+35.00 HARMONY LANE F.S. 2030.10 14+15.12 HARMONY LANE q 10' DRAINAGE, SLOPE AND UTILITY EASEMENT TYP 10 6' SIDEWALK (SEE DETAILS) 10+00 EDGE OF PAVEMENT CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL &RATE TYPE 2 HARMONY LANE ■% � GR F5. 2029.41 L =31.40' 310 STREET 51614 B.G.R. 10+35.97 24 RIGHT OF WAY 31 E.C.R. 14+10.97 HARMONY F5. 2029.35 25 B.G.R 13+4891 F.6. 202183 80.02' F.S. VIM ale IM 2030.18 11+00 PROJECT BOUNDARY .414E / 6' SIDEWALK E.GR 10 +36.03 (SEE DETAILS) M C.R. «.5.202935 SIDEWALK . • =- - -. IN F5. 2029.71 • -2 L= 31.43' ' INV. ELEV. 202883 SPOKANE STANDARD TYPE 'H' DR14.3. L HUTH+ TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE HARMONY LAME HARMONY LANE PROJECT BOUNDARY 10' DRAINAGE, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT (1 YP) 11 +25.00 END CONSTRUCTION ERECT TEMPORARY TYPE III W.5.D.0.T. BARRIER F.5. 2030.5q AUSUSTA LA'1E : CURVE DATA FOR ED6E OF P FUTURE U.RE EXPIRES: 9/23/96 OFFICIAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT L.POKANE COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFICE '•- '.i:':?0v:: tv; S ORIGIN, AL S < SUBMITTAL Sii R= Tii N TO COUNTY ENGINEER 6/21/95 JOM RECEIVED JUN 301995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER LEGEND STREET 51614 STOP AND STREET 5I6N DRYWELL PEDESTRIAN RAMP LEFT 2030 F5. 202150 1+14.13 BALDWIN LANE =114-38. HARMONY LANE F.5. 2021.56 GENTERLINE RIGHT 2030 F.S. 2021.13 F.S. 2028.16 B.C.R 17+04.11 HARMONY LANE F.5. 2021.00 F.S. 2028.81 F.S. 2028.T1 LEFT (EAP) RIGHT (EDP.) LEFT (E.O.P.) RI GAIT E.G.R. 14+70.41 FS. 2024.46 AUGUSTA LANE HARMONY LANE Y_--E M.GR. F.S. 2029.71 E.C.R. 10 +36.03 F.S. 202q.35 P.I.V.G. ST • = 10+50 P.I.V.C. ELE" = 2024.18 50.00' VG --y- cg r N _ n � f EXISTING EXISTING 6ROU FINISHED FINISHED GRADE. EXISTING GROUND 11 +25.00 END CONSTRUCTION ERECT TEMPORARY TYPE III F.S. W.S.D.O.T. BRIER CENTER.._ I NE 2030 RIGHT PROFILE SCALE: HORIZONTAL: I " =50 VERTICAL: I " = IN LANE 'T ONY LANE F.5. 2029 R. 10+30.11 34 FS. 2024.00 TYPE 'A" DRYWEU. WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 10+5358 TOP OF &RATE ELEV. 2028.17 OFFSET 14.5 LEFT 6.B. 14+6471 F -. 2025.88 52 CURVE BI B2 H5 H6 RADIUS 22.00' 22.00' 26.00' 23.00' LENGTH 32.28' 31.46' 31.04' 3556' TANGENT 14.84' 25 .12' 22.45' 22.44' DELTA 84 °04'44' 97'34'03' 81'3''05' 88'35'01" 1 +14.13 BA =11 +38. H F.5. 20215 E.C.R. 17 +1455 HARMONY LANE FS. 202450 N PG = 1+14.13 7 17 +18.47 HARMONY LANE 2 4 10+00 CURVE DATA FOR EDGE OF PAVEMENT POND 6 SEE SHEET 1A 41 M.G.R etz cy N O 42 .5. 2029.13 , F.6 2021.61 L =30.65' ! 1 B.C.R. .G. 10+3 80 ' t/ / F.S. 20287 6N STR EET 5 .4 ._____ 1� . 1 400 4I -, 2, J'1 11+00 43 10' DRAINAGE, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT (TYP) SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD 12+00 WITH • ORATE TYPE 2 STA. 10+84 &RATE ELEV. 20 ' - OFFSET 46.42' RIGHT PSITIL t 43 L.F. 12" G.MP. 0 ±2% GRAPE„, POND 14 SEE SFEEET 9A • • COUNTY STANDARD DRYWELL WITH SOLID L•- IN6 LID STA. 10+5358 TOP OF 6RATE 2028.17 OFFSET 17' RIGHT F.6. 2028.0 44 RIGHT of WAY 6' SIDEWAL (SEE DE r4LS) EDGE OF PAVEMENT INLET I TF't 2 2031 POND P SEE SHEET 95 GOMMON AREA FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS 35 :34 13+00 B.GR. I4+91J4 MGMILLAN LANE FS. 2030.68 46 45 STA. 14424.1 INV. ELEV. 2024.83 • j.� • 2032 33 5ALPHI4 LAN 2030.21 M.C.R. FS. 2030 L =24.61' E.GR. 14+44.94 FS. 2030.45 �b 14+00 1 516N B.C.R. 14+39.61 F5. 203031 L =33.66' M.G.R. F.5. 2030.82 44 POND 0 SEE SHEET 15 F.S. 2030.68 M.C.R. .14 F5. 203051 .45 6.5. 14+6411 E.G.R. 19 +17.18 MGMILLAN LANE FS. 203121 0.82 . 61 Q FS. 2025.88 z 1=- N � v Z 1L. B.GR. 14+41.14 h GMILLAN LANE 14 +81.11 BAL DWI N LANE =11 +58.83 MCMILLAN LANE F.S. 2031.22 CENTER_ I NE 100 EC.R. 19 +11.18 MGMILLAN LANE 5. 2031.27 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'B' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE MGMILLAN LANE 2030 2025 2030 2025 2030 2025 PT = 14+8131 44 NOTE: FOR SIGHT TRIANGLE INFORMATION 14 +81.71 BALDWIN LANE SEE SHEET 1G. =I1 +58.83 McM ILLAN LANE F.S. 2031.22 19 +3393 MGMILLAN LANE 6 SIDEWALK (SEE DETAILS) 98 10' DRAINAGE, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT (TYP) SCALE: 1 NCH = 50 FEET SEG. 8, T25N, R4SE, H.M. 10 + 00.00 =14 +35.00 F.S. 2030. STATION AND ELEVATION FOR CHECK DAM GENTER I NE 2030 DAM 4A STA. 10 +36.06 TOP BERM ELEV. 2028.85 UPSTREAM TOE OF BERM 2028.36 DOWNSTREAM TOE OF BERM 202834 10 +00.00 AUGUSTA LANE =14 +35.00 HARMONY LANE F.5. 2030.10 4+15.12 HARMONY LANE 4 10' DRAINAGE SLOPE AND UTILITY EASEMENT TYP 10 HARMONY LANE 0 6 SIDEWALK (SEC DETAILS) S.B. 10 +1400 FS. 2024.82 M.C.R. F.S. 2024.41 B.G.R. 10 +35.41 F.S. 2029.35 N t 10+00 rn W W 144 LOW POINT ELEV = 2029.61 LOH POINT 3TA = 10+45 P.I V.G. 5T • = 10+50 P.I V.G. ELEV = 2024.46 50.00' VG t O 31 F5. 2021.41 L= 31.40' q N EDGE OF PAVEMENT CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL &RATE TYPE 2 HARMONY LANE F5. 2029.46 2031- STREET 5I &N B.C.R. 10 +35.91 F.S. 2024.35 584'56'S1'E t 125.00' U1 N E.GR. 14+10.47 HARMONY LANE M.G. F.S. 2024.11 TYPE 'B' DR TYPE 4 METAL HARMONY B.C.R. 25 13+18.41 F5. 2030.18 F.6. 2027.83 24 8002' L= 31.43' SPOKANE C RIGHT OF WAY 11+00 36 TY STANDARD E L WITH FRAME AND 6RATE ONY LANE FINISHED GRAD= AUSLSTA LA\ PROJECT BOUNDARY 10 DRAINAGE, SLOPE r _ AND UTILITY EASEMENT (TYP) EREGT TEMPORARY TYPE III W.S.D.O.T. BARRIER ---1 F.5. 203051 6' SIDEWALK E.GR. 10 +36 .03 (OCC DETAILS) F.S. 2024.35 SIDEWALK UN12ERIPRAIN 4 A :10431,52 INV. ELEV. 2028.83 6RADEOUT 2025 (E.O.P.) CURVE 143 144 RADIUS 22.00' 22.00' LENGTH 3458' 3454' TANGENT 22.02' 21.18' DELTA 40 °03'08' 89 °56'52" 11 +25.00 END CONSTRUCTION PROJECT BOUNDARY J U N 2 CURVE DATA FOR ED6E OF PAVEMENT ;' I : t;R.'_ :: RO' }.!: N 5 EXPIRES: 9/23/95 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFICE O PROJECT, R IGINAL ¢ I 4 SUBM1 TTAL - RETURN TO COUNTY ENGINEER RECEIVED JUN 2 9 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER 1 1 1 O N 'D hh r n 11 N _ ' -Ni A n O . i (2031.x) (O'ZGOZ) GZ'bZOZ (O'ZGOZ) G9'bZOZ 2030.03 (2032.0) 2030.43 (2032.1) 2030.83 (2032.0) 2031.01 (2031.q) 2030.13 \ (2031.8) 2030. ?3 i 1 I , 1 , , ! 1 LEFT 2030 F5. 202150 1+14.13 BALDWIN LANE =114-38. HARMONY LANE F.5. 2021.56 GENTERLINE RIGHT 2030 F.S. 2021.13 F.S. 2028.16 B.C.R 17+04.11 HARMONY LANE F.5. 2021.00 F.S. 2028.81 F.S. 2028.T1 LEFT (EAP) RIGHT (EDP.) LEFT (E.O.P.) RI GAIT E.G.R. 14+70.41 FS. 2024.46 AUGUSTA LANE HARMONY LANE Y_--E M.GR. F.S. 2029.71 E.C.R. 10 +36.03 F.S. 202q.35 P.I.V.G. ST • = 10+50 P.I.V.C. ELE" = 2024.18 50.00' VG --y- cg r N _ n � f EXISTING EXISTING 6ROU FINISHED FINISHED GRADE. EXISTING GROUND 11 +25.00 END CONSTRUCTION ERECT TEMPORARY TYPE III F.S. W.S.D.O.T. BRIER CENTER.._ I NE 2030 RIGHT PROFILE SCALE: HORIZONTAL: I " =50 VERTICAL: I " = IN LANE 'T ONY LANE F.5. 2029 R. 10+30.11 34 FS. 2024.00 TYPE 'A" DRYWEU. WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 10+5358 TOP OF &RATE ELEV. 2028.17 OFFSET 14.5 LEFT 6.B. 14+6471 F -. 2025.88 52 CURVE BI B2 H5 H6 RADIUS 22.00' 22.00' 26.00' 23.00' LENGTH 32.28' 31.46' 31.04' 3556' TANGENT 14.84' 25 .12' 22.45' 22.44' DELTA 84 °04'44' 97'34'03' 81'3''05' 88'35'01" 1 +14.13 BA =11 +38. H F.5. 20215 E.C.R. 17 +1455 HARMONY LANE FS. 202450 N PG = 1+14.13 7 17 +18.47 HARMONY LANE 2 4 10+00 CURVE DATA FOR EDGE OF PAVEMENT POND 6 SEE SHEET 1A 41 M.G.R etz cy N O 42 .5. 2029.13 , F.6 2021.61 L =30.65' ! 1 B.C.R. .G. 10+3 80 ' t/ / F.S. 20287 6N STR EET 5 .4 ._____ 1� . 1 400 4I -, 2, J'1 11+00 43 10' DRAINAGE, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT (TYP) SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD 12+00 WITH • ORATE TYPE 2 STA. 10+84 &RATE ELEV. 20 ' - OFFSET 46.42' RIGHT PSITIL t 43 L.F. 12" G.MP. 0 ±2% GRAPE„, POND 14 SEE SFEEET 9A • • COUNTY STANDARD DRYWELL WITH SOLID L•- IN6 LID STA. 10+5358 TOP OF 6RATE 2028.17 OFFSET 17' RIGHT F.6. 2028.0 44 RIGHT of WAY 6' SIDEWAL (SEE DE r4LS) EDGE OF PAVEMENT INLET I TF't 2 2031 POND P SEE SHEET 95 GOMMON AREA FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS 35 :34 13+00 B.GR. I4+91J4 MGMILLAN LANE FS. 2030.68 46 45 STA. 14424.1 INV. ELEV. 2024.83 • j.� • 2032 33 5ALPHI4 LAN 2030.21 M.C.R. FS. 2030 L =24.61' E.GR. 14+44.94 FS. 2030.45 �b 14+00 1 516N B.C.R. 14+39.61 F5. 203031 L =33.66' M.G.R. F.5. 2030.82 44 POND 0 SEE SHEET 15 F.S. 2030.68 M.C.R. .14 F5. 203051 .45 6.5. 14+6411 E.G.R. 19 +17.18 MGMILLAN LANE FS. 203121 0.82 . 61 Q FS. 2025.88 z 1=- N � v Z 1L. B.GR. 14+41.14 h GMILLAN LANE 14 +81.11 BAL DWI N LANE =11 +58.83 MCMILLAN LANE F.S. 2031.22 CENTER_ I NE 100 EC.R. 19 +11.18 MGMILLAN LANE 5. 2031.27 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'B' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE MGMILLAN LANE 2030 2025 2030 2025 2030 2025 PT = 14+8131 44 NOTE: FOR SIGHT TRIANGLE INFORMATION 14 +81.71 BALDWIN LANE SEE SHEET 1G. =I1 +58.83 McM ILLAN LANE F.S. 2031.22 19 +3393 MGMILLAN LANE 6 SIDEWALK (SEE DETAILS) 98 10' DRAINAGE, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT (TYP) SCALE: 1 NCH = 50 FEET SEG. 8, T25N, R4SE, H.M. 10 + 00.00 =14 +35.00 F.S. 2030. STATION AND ELEVATION FOR CHECK DAM GENTER I NE 2030 DAM 4A STA. 10 +36.06 TOP BERM ELEV. 2028.85 UPSTREAM TOE OF BERM 2028.36 DOWNSTREAM TOE OF BERM 202834 10 +00.00 AUGUSTA LANE =14 +35.00 HARMONY LANE F.5. 2030.10 4+15.12 HARMONY LANE 4 10' DRAINAGE SLOPE AND UTILITY EASEMENT TYP 10 HARMONY LANE 0 6 SIDEWALK (SEC DETAILS) S.B. 10 +1400 FS. 2024.82 M.C.R. F.S. 2024.41 B.G.R. 10 +35.41 F.S. 2029.35 N t 10+00 rn W W 144 LOW POINT ELEV = 2029.61 LOH POINT 3TA = 10+45 P.I V.G. 5T • = 10+50 P.I V.G. ELEV = 2024.46 50.00' VG t O 31 F5. 2021.41 L= 31.40' q N EDGE OF PAVEMENT CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL &RATE TYPE 2 HARMONY LANE F5. 2029.46 2031- STREET 5I &N B.C.R. 10 +35.91 F.S. 2024.35 584'56'S1'E t 125.00' U1 N E.GR. 14+10.47 HARMONY LANE M.G. F.S. 2024.11 TYPE 'B' DR TYPE 4 METAL HARMONY B.C.R. 25 13+18.41 F5. 2030.18 F.6. 2027.83 24 8002' L= 31.43' SPOKANE C RIGHT OF WAY 11+00 36 TY STANDARD E L WITH FRAME AND 6RATE ONY LANE FINISHED GRAD= AUSLSTA LA\ PROJECT BOUNDARY 10 DRAINAGE, SLOPE r _ AND UTILITY EASEMENT (TYP) EREGT TEMPORARY TYPE III W.S.D.O.T. BARRIER ---1 F.5. 203051 6' SIDEWALK E.GR. 10 +36 .03 (OCC DETAILS) F.S. 2024.35 SIDEWALK UN12ERIPRAIN 4 A :10431,52 INV. ELEV. 2028.83 6RADEOUT 2025 (E.O.P.) CURVE 143 144 RADIUS 22.00' 22.00' LENGTH 3458' 3454' TANGENT 22.02' 21.18' DELTA 40 °03'08' 89 °56'52" 11 +25.00 END CONSTRUCTION PROJECT BOUNDARY J U N 2 CURVE DATA FOR ED6E OF PAVEMENT ;' I : t;R.'_ :: RO' }.!: N 5 EXPIRES: 9/23/95 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFICE O PROJECT, R IGINAL ¢ I 4 SUBM1 TTAL - RETURN TO COUNTY ENGINEER RECEIVED JUN 2 9 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT DELTA BI 22.00' 32.28' Iq.&4' 84 °04'44" B2 22.00' 3146' 25.12' 4734'03" R1 22.00' 34.56' 22.00' 40•00'00' RB 22.00' 34.56' 22.00' 40'00'00' 111 LEFT ((.OP) 111 RI&FIT (E.O Pa ■ INE 2035 . 2030 2035 2030 2025 2035 2030 2025 Z N X O cv ry m cv O IFILTLIE N to O 0 m O z X m m O O N m cv O m O m O N cr O N 0 O N O N m O N cv to O N m cv O m O N N m O to O N O v M.G.R F.S. 2030.82 B.G.R. 14+3461 F5. 2030.37 ALDWIN LANE F.S. 2030. M.CR F.5 203051 94 BALDWIN LANE Ic1+58.83 Mc =14 +81.'71 IND F.S. 203122 P.I.V.C. 5 P.I.V.C. 100 ILLAN LANE ANA AVENUE P.I.V.C. 5 P.I.V.C. 100. = 21+00 = 2024.81 ' VG = 21+00 = 2030.04 ' VG 22 +3536 MGMI . 2021.40 � m a' (V N .I V.G. STA = 22+ I.V.C. ELEV = 2021 POINT ELEV = 20 POINT STA = 22 .I V.G. STA = 22+ V.G. ELEV = 2021 M.G.R. T.F.C. 202828 B.G.R. 9 +63.10 lND 6.B. 22 +6036 F5. 2021.44 22 +80.36 M =10 +01.20 F.S. 2028 2027.81 ' GROSS M I LLAN LAN DIANA AVEN m O N m O STIN6 &ROUND ISHED SRAM ■ t5' O CV O N N m O 0 N N O 0 cv O N O O cv _fie m O 0 O O m cv O 0 cv O N tV m O O O O 0 N 0 O N O O N 0 N '3 N O lT 0 N O Q' N O N N 0 N 0 P l N ut ffa P . 2021.40 N O N aS cy O N 1 N O N O N N O O cI z Nt cO N O N N O N X tu TF.G. 2028b6 STA. 22 +5736 it N 1.L 2035 2025 P.I.V.C. 5 P.I.V.G. 100 = 21+00 = 2024.81 ' VG 22 +38.36 MOM! .IV.C. STA = 22+ I.V.G. ELEV = 2021 .G.R T.F.C. 2021.48 E.C.R. 10 +35.10 1 T.F.G. 2028.06 STA. 22 +5136 OFFSET 14' RIGHT 2021.16 fir_ GROSS IANA AVENUE 2030 2035 E LEFT RISHT (T.F.G.) INE PROFILE SCALE: HORIZONTAL: I " =50' VERTICAL: 1"=5' ' EDGE OF PAVEMENT •w TOP FACE OF CURB CURVE DATA FOR TOP FACE OF CURB AND ED6E OF PAVEMENT B STREET 5I6N M.G.R. F.S. 203092 L =33.66' F.S. 2030.45 M.O.R. 4.26' 028.28 L =1.15' 2+38.36 B.G.R. 14+3461 BALDWIN LANE F.S. 203031 F.6. 2030.21 44 U DERDRAIN E.C.R. 19 +11.18 F.S. 2031.21 STA. 11+8 6' SIDEWALK (SEE DETAIL 4 INCH .i STA IN I INV IN E SMA� F.S. 203051 -L =29.61' B.G.R. 19+9 14 1G +5 =14+ F.5. 41 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 18' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND 6RA STA. 22 +34.00 GRATE ELEV. 2026.91 Of9=5Ft IT LEFT SIISHT DIST T.F.C. 2 EDGE OF PAVEMENT 102 COUNTY STAND L =1.15 L =24.26 A 52 RIGHT OF WAY � , 7, � X 16 +12.21 PROJECT BOUNDARY F.S. 2033.51 PGC = 16 +12.21 PROJECT BOUNDARY 1 7400 2033 51 10' DRAINAGE, SLOPE UTILITY EASEMENT (TYP) 18+00 / 50 \ POND 0 5EE SHEET SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'B' DRYWELL ' ITN TYPE 4 METAL AND &RATE STA. 19 +1162 &RATE ELEV. 2030.17 OFFSET 11' RIGHT F.S. . 2033.50 NOTE: 2033 PAVED TURN- AROUND TURN- AROUND INTERSECTION STA. 11+45.00 19+00 FOR SIGHT TRIANGLE INFORMATION SEE SHEET ciG PT = 21 +13.15 46 - PRG = Ia +40.16 E.G.R. 14+49.94 BALDW 19+33.93 GRAPE TO DRAIN PERFORATED PIPE, 15' 2629, OFFSET 16' RT 2030.01 +41.62, OFFSET 16' RT 2029.11 2032 20+00 205 1 21+00 B.G.R. 1 +63.10 INDIANA AVENUE 101 OFFFSET 11' RIGHT .83 McMILLAN LANE 2030 \ 1.11 BALDWIN LANE 031.22 100 T.F.C. 2026.66 F .. 2026 POND SEE SPO TYPE 'A CE EASEMENT `''OLIO STA. 22 McVILLA L= M.G.R. T.F.C. 46 E.G.R. DRYWELL WITH KIN'S LID 39.16 McMILLAN LANE . 2026.99 LAN 22+00 / ff.,2021.48 • =; SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN STA. 22+38.86 INV. ELEV. 2021.25 E.G.R. 10 +38.10 INDIANA AVENUE TF.G. 2028.06 M.C.R. T.F.G. 2021.98 6 2 CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL 6RATE TYPE 2 STA. 22 +34.16 &RATE ELEV. 2026.45 OFFSET 60' R16HT WITH t 40 L.F. 12' O.M.P. ® t2% GRADE PROJECT BOUNDARY ■22+ +80.36 McMILLAN LANE =10 +01.20 INDIANA AVENUE F.S. 2028.34 10+21.06 INDIANA AVENUE FL 2021.61 YE. 2021.16 RIGHT OF WAY 6' SIDEWALK (JCL DETAILS) FUTUR ROYE?, NiS 3' DRAINAGE, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT (SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN BY THE BERGER PARTNERSHIP, P5.) FD. No. 1 APPROVAL SCALE: I INCH = 50 FEET SEC. S, T25N, R45E, l/4.M. 6/14/45 JB OFFICIAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFIC ORI INAL PROJECT k (¢14 SUBMITTAL # 7 RETURN TO COUNTY ENGINEER RECEIVED JUN 2 9 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER LES END STOP AND STREET SIGN ® DRYY -.LL PEDESTRIAN RAMP U A rn m w s 0 z 0 0 0 w A z 0 z H Cf) o o 0 ti 0 0 G) 0 0 S � -T GENTS RIGHT (E. INS 2030 2025 2030 2025 M.G.R F.S. 2021.13 B.C.R. 0 +39.02 IN FS. 2026.17 E.C.R. 19+63.94 5. 2027.44 IANA AVENUE CURVE DATA FOR TOP FACE OF CURB CURVE 1 RADIUS 1 LENGTH 1 TANGENT 1 DELTA RI 20.00' 31.43' 20.01' go•0I'52' R2 20.00' 31.41' 14.44' 89'58'08' ATIT UNDERGROUND GABLE AND FIBER OPTIC 516N OFFSET 22.3' RIGHT ATIT FIBER OPTIC LINE RIGHT OF 5' AGG.UISITION AREA POWER POLE AND BELL PHONE PEDESTAL STA 15 +1050 OFFSET 262 RIGHT 2030 2024 1 1 15+00 16+00 GATE VALVE SECTION AND CENTER LINE EXISTING EDGE EXISTING OF PAVEMENT RIGHT -OF -WAY UTILITY POLE W/ STREET LIGHT AND BELL PHONE PEDESTAL STA 16+52.20 OFFSET 21.1' RIGHT WATER VALVE SHUT -OFF NOT A PART .NOS GRADE ROADSIDE DITCH 114 PHASE 1 TO DRAIN TO DRY1451 L AT STA 18+40.00 STA. 0+61.'18 INDIANA AVENJE 11+00 V GRASSY 51^1ALE - 2029 2028 2021 POWER POLE STA. 12+52.20 OFFSET 21.1' RIGHT 18+00 :: STING/ :: ^� •:» . «NT EXISTING .:StV SITS: ilVL �: :is »:vS UTILITY AND PHONE PEDESTAL F.5. 202 E.G.R. 0 +38.98 INDIANA AVENUE FS. 2026.15 14+00 rti (N v N ✓ N N O O N 20+00 21+00 DESIGN DEVIATION FOR NON - CONFORMING INTERSECTION SEPARATION DISTANCE e 1 B.G.R. 18+83.94 F.5. 202750 M.G.R l F5. .44 A NOTE: 1.61' o ° 293 I FOR SIGHT TRIANGLE INFORMATION SEE SHEET ciG. 19 +23.'12 BARKER ROAD 0 +00.00 INDIANA AVENUE F.S. 2021.g5 WATER ELBOW BARK ROAD R.19+63. N 1 0 21.15' 36.85' fi RI rr � = �v v im . A MP �� I N I r ArA L1 • i I f '' j I M.G.R. ' ' I # F S. 2027.13 28 STREET AND STOP SIGN B.G.R. 0+3'.02 INDIANA AVENUE F5. 2026.11 UTILITY AND PHONE_ PEDESTALS ATIT FIBER 2050 .00 OFFSET 285' RIGHT POWER POLE N N #8IO'sfI&Q25 1 NOT A PAS 22+00 12' PRIVATE DIRT ROAD STA. 22+6850 MIDPOINT OF DRIVE 16' PRIVATE DIRT ROAD STA 73+3250 OFFSET 15' RIGHT 23+00 POWER POLE W/ STREET LIGHT STA. 23+1120 OFFSET 21' RIGHT POWER POLE W/ TRAN5FORMER STA 23+3520 OFFSET 21' RIGHT z z N 24+00 FIRE HYDRANT STA. 23 +50.42 OFFSET 35' RIGHT JUN 2G SCALE: I INCH = 50 FEET SEG 8 T25N, R45E, KM. 6/19/95 OFFICIAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER'SOFFIC ORIDNAL PROJECT # ri414 SUBMITTAL # _ 7 RETURN TO COUNTY ENGINEER RECEIVED JUN 29 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER O N 0 m 0 N O N N N O 0 N O N 1 CV N 0 0 0 N N N O N • •UND N O N N O CV N O EXISTING GE N O N tti O N N O O N o � A' I 1 n "4 1 N 0 N Ig +23.G12 BA 0 +00.00 IN F.S. 2027.'15 KER ROAD IANA AVENUE 0 0 0 0 N N O N O N O r N O N r O N O N N O N N O N O N O N O CV N O m N O N 0 2030 2025 2030 2025 RIGHT (E.O PROFILE SCALE: HORIZONTAL: I " = 50' VERTICAL: I " =5' L E END STOP AND STREET SIGN PEDESTRIAN RAMP e DRYWELL GURB INLET g m w 0 E-+ z 0 0 -N 0 0 0 0 a tr) H R { MM to o 0 I� f� rr0 rd V1 A 0 ' � C12 0 !~ 0 Sf- T • • LEFT TF.G. 2035 2030 GENTE 2035 2030 ■ z X m O • • 111 O O EXISTING 6 1- O O cNi O XISTING ASP M.G.R. F.G. 2034.41 I5+4O.0 . 203495 ONY LANE T.F.C. 2034.04 M.G.R. FS. 2034.33 E.G.R. 10 +32. FS. 2034.12 16 +27. 10 +00 2 MISSION A 0 HARMON 34.90 NUE LANE EC TF B.G.R. 10+51.53 H m 0 1 tri 0 z N LEFT T.P.G. 2035 2030 GENTE 2035 2030 PROFILE SGALE: HORIZONTAL: 1 " =50' VERTICAL: 1"=5' CURVE TABLE FOR ED6E OF PAVEMENT CURVE 1 RADIUS 1 LENGTH 1 TANGENT 1 DELTA M2 22.00' 3458' 22.02' 80 M3 20.00' 31.40' 14.49' 84•5652` 51 CORNER OF SECTION B ATtT FIBER OPTIC MAN HOLE 10 +00 11 +00 EXISTING 'RY WELL EXISTING POHER POLE KITH TRANSFORMER (TYPICAL) 12 +00 FIRE HYDRANT 4 GATE VALVE FUTURE 10' ACQUISITION AREA FUTURE RIGHT- OF-WAY LIMITS NOT A PART 13 +00 ( 2034) STA I4+I2.4 START TAPER 14 +00 NOTE: SAWGUT 1' OF EXISTING PAVEMENT ON NORTH SIDE TO FACILITATE PAVEMENT INSTALLATION SIDEWALK, DRAINAGE, SLOPE AND UTILITY EASEMENT STA: 14+48.41 END TAPER SIDEW Noterw 5 AND 15 +00 B.G.R. 10 +5153 HARMONY LANE T.F.C. 2034.04 cz M.G.R. 1 0 IL m TF G. 2034.41 EXISTING RIGHT -OF -WAY 6' SIDEWALK E.G.R. 15+40.09 T.F.C. 2034.95 16 +00 HARMONY LANE SEE SHEET *3 EXISTING PAVEMENT 16 +27.62 MISSION AVENUE 10 +00.00 HARMONY LANE F.5. 2034.(40 \1U 17 +00 E.C.R. STA: 10 +32.41 HARMONY LANE FS. 20341)2 M.G.R. F.S. 203434 G.R. 61 16+6154 FS. 2034163 L -153' J. 4 PHONE PED. SECTION AND CENTER LINE I8 +00 5 O O NOT A PART FUTURE 10' A4ISITION AREA FUTURE RIGHT -OF -WAY LIMITS \, T *T FIBER OPTIG LINE PROTEGT IN PLAGE Iq +00 O 0 NOTE: SEE SHEET 9G FOR SIGHT TRIANGLE DIMENSIONS. SCALE: 1 INGH = 50 SEG 8 T25N, R45E, H.M. 6/20145 .IOM RECEIVED JUN 29 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER OFFICIAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEERS OFFICE ORI9INAL PROJECT �( SUBMITTAL RETURN TO COUNTY ENGINEER LEGEND STOP AND STREET 516N PEDESTRIAN RAMP at 2 O a 0 E-i z 0 lam H A 0 0 o • y a O W O � O O —F- � Z O 0 0 t~n o 10 ;F .I 0 0 CD tO 0 a S T GENERAL NOTES I. GRAVEL BACKFILL QUANTITY FOR DRYWFI 1 S. TYPE "A" - 30 CUBIC YARDS MINIMUM / 42 TONS. TYPE "B" - 40 CUBIC YARDS MINIMUM / 56 TONS. 2. SPECIAL BAGKFILL MAItktIAL FOR PRYWEI I S SHALL CONSIST OF WASHED GRAVEL FROM I" TO 3" WITH A MAXIMUM OF 5% PRZE5 THE U.S. NO. 200 SCREEN, AS MEASURED BY WEIGHT, MAY BE CRUSHED OR FRACTURED ROCK. THE REMAINING q0% SHALL BE A MAXIMUM OF 10% NATURALLY OCCURRING UNFRAGTURED MATERIAL. 3. CONCRETE SLAB SHALL BE GLASS 3000 CONCRETE. 2'-O" 4 ' -4 " SEE GEN. NOTE Irk2 BA GRAVEL GONG. SAAB. � . EE 6EN NOTE 3 o' SECTION LINE TYPE 4 GRATE COVER -\ 'TRAFFIC 20' -2% 10' EASEMENT FOR UTILITIES, AND SLOPE Jam• , T, EXISTING PAVEMENT - ► t12'• --1 ISTURBED SOIL DRYWELL - TYPE W EXISTING TI a 111 6' 5' 2 % H SIDEWALK (� ONE SIDE ONLY FUTURE ACt 1JISITION MISSION AVENUE (SYM,) ¢. R/W 30' 2' TRAFFIC 2% MIN. 0 SCAL STANDARD PRECAST DRYIALL 4' BIKE LANE $ 11' MORTARED fr ADJUSTMENT NI -2% 10' TYPE ,- E 0 6 . CURB TG - 1.00 ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT GL "A" 4" (MIN.) 6" GRID E5 SURFACING TOP COURSE MORTOR IN PLACE ABRIC LINER I0:I MIN. TO ca. 5 / BOJNDAR Y f & SIDEWALK ELEVATION = E/P+02' 2 1' 208 TREATMENT AND SNOW STORAGE 15' MI 55 I ON AVENUE T D -D tn X FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET 5-I 10' j 25 OR SLOPE CATCH POINT WHICHEVER IS 4. SEE STANDARD PLANS FOR PRECAST CONCRETE DETAILS. 5. ADJUSTMENT BLOCKS SHALL BE CEMENT CONCRETE. 6. PRECAST RISER MAY BE USED IN COMBINATION WITH OR IN LIEU OF ADJUSTING BLOCKS. 1. SEE "TYPICAL GRASSY SWALE DESIGN" 8. frCC "TEMPORARY EROSION/SEDIMENT GONROL" TYPE 4 GRATE COVER 4 MEE MINN Tifr CZ Q pl - 14' 2% MIN ACC 6EN. NOTE I t 2 BALL 1 TRACT SIDEWALK 2% MIN. T/G + 0.2' 5a 4 A C C 6E IERAL NOTE 3 -2% 4' L . 28' ✓IT 0 .e• MIN. SWALE DEPTH = TG - 2.00' TYPICAL. ROADWAY SECTION FROM STATION I3 +I3.Q6 TO STATION I6 +65.08 EXISTING GROUND f :' AD RINGS 2'-O 0 0 0 1 5EEPA6E PORTS SEE DETAIL r 0 0 14' I5111RBED SOIL Dame 2% MIN. � - 2 ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT - 6" CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE I NThR I OR STREET SEGT I ON FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET A -I 25' SIDEWALK, SLOPE, DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT. I' MI I MORTOR IN PLACE SEE NOTE 2 SHOULDER EDGE PAVEMENT OR TOP FACE OF CURB ABRIG LINER 5' 3�\ 4' - 0 10' EASEMENT FOR • UTILITIES, AND SLOPE I I' 10' �. 15:1 M IS,/ TO s DITCH BANK ELEVATION = E/P+0.2' ®R/W BOTTOM DITCH = E/P - 0.5' ArAnilrar 3 ;/ I' MIN. J3ASE DRAIN HOLE DETAIL ELAN 4' -8" DIA. DRYWELL BARREL ;DRYhIELL BARREL PLAN GENERAL NOTES 11' i ® ® ®` .-•+ =1 = r•.. 1--3 P r 7 1,=== 17=Q F=li :117=1 D=am P=1 7 2=1 =1 /. ELEVATION DRAIN HOLES 5' 1 I. DITCH SLOPES AND SIDE SLOPES SHALL BE NO STEEPER THAN RATIOS SHOWN UNLESS RECOMMENDED BY A SOILS REPORT AND APPROVED BY THE COUNTY ENGINEER LIMITS OF EXCAVATION SLOPES HIGHER 'THAN 5' SHALL BE DETERMINED BY SOILS TESTING. 2 . DRAINAGE SHALES SHALL BE HYDROSEEDED PER TYPICAL GRASSY SWALE DETAIL. HARMONY LANE EAST SECTION D -D SECTION G -G GENERAL NOTE: 6 ' 1 4' - DIA. FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 51 ICET B -2 STA. 11+053q TO STA. 16+20.10 I. CONCRETE DRYWELL ITEMS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH THE BARRELS AND CONES REINFORCED WITH 0.12 S. IN. STEEL GRADE 40, PER LINEAL FOOT WALL. 2. TOLERANCE OF DIMENSIONS FOR DRAINAGE PORTS SHALL BE ±I/2' 3. EACH BARREL SECTION SHALL A MINIMUM OF 6 ROWS OF DRAINAGE PORTS VERTICAL AND MINIMUM OF 10 DRAINAGE PORTS AROUND THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE BARREL HYDRO MULCH WITH HYDROSEED MIXTURE 60% BLUEGRASS 20% PERENNIAL RYE 20% FESCUE NOTE. __ F � ®•� - ✓=q ® =1 =1 4'-4" 17=9 p - 5" (TYP 17=1 p =q ®� =I -� 3 " (TYPE f2 P '_� 112111_Iw►�: 1 1/2" CLEARANCE #4 BARS ® 10' EACH HAY DRYIFLL BASE ELEVATION STANDARD PRECAST DRY!AIELL DETA I LS SHALE BANK ELEVATION = E/P + 0.2' 0 RDA. DRAINAGE PORT 3" (TYP ) DRAINAGE PORT METAL FENCE POST (TYP.) 2 INCH X 2 INCH -14 6A. WELDED "1-106 WIRE" FENCING BEHIND FABRIC (TYP.) TRENCH LINE t B� • STANDARD GATGH BAS N INLET INSTALLATION SEE T *1 FOR FENCE LOCATION TEMPORARY SILTATION FENCE TEMPORARY EROSION / SEDIMENT CONTROL I. ' WHERE POSSIBLE, MAINTAIN NATURAL VEGETATION FOR SILT CONTROL. 2. TEMPORARY SILTATION FENCE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AROUND DRYWFI 1 INLETS AND AT MAJOR INLETS TO SHALES. 3. ALL SILTATION FENCES SHALE BE MAINTAINED IN A SATISFACTORY CONDITION UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT GLEANING AND /OR CONSTRUCTION 15 COMPLETED AND THE PERMANENT DRAINAGE FACILITIES ARE OPERATIONAL. 4. PLACE ADDITIONAL HYDROSEEDIN6 AS REQUIRED. DRAINAGE SLOPE AND UTILITIES EASEMENT BEGIN STA 4+0452 13' SCC DETAIL 'A" FOR -(O 0, 6 KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL BEGIN STA. 0 + TO END STA. 4+0452 (SEE SHEET 2) GENERAL NOTES I. THE TOP OF GRATE SHALL BE INSTALLED 1" LOWER THAN THE PROJECTED GUTTER GRADE. 2. THE PRECAST CONCRETE INLET SHALL BE PLACED ON THE SAME GRADE AS THE CURB. 3. RISER TYPE 2 TO BE USED WITH CATCH BASIN. 4. IN STREET WITH TYPE B CURB USE FRAME TYPE 2 5. IN PONDS USE FRAME TYPE I - 1.11111MMEM . • • SEE NOTES CATCH BASIN * INLET TYPE 2 E.G. FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET B -1 48 INCH WIDE FIL 1 tK FABRIC MIFAFI 100 X TM OR EQUAL (FULL LENGTH) FASTEN TO HOS WIRE W/1-106 RINGS OR STAPLES. LAY FILTER FABRIC IN TRENCH, BAGKFILL WITH EXISTING SOIL (TIP.) EXISTING SOIL BAGKFILL tL ca NMI BEGIN STA. 4+0452 10' END STA. 4+04.52 R.O.H. VARIES fr . 1 CEMENT CONCRETE CURB, TYPE "B" CONC. SIDEWALK (TYPICAL) GENERAL NOTES I. DITCH SLOPES AND SIDE SLOPES SHALL BE NO STEEPER THAN RATIOS SHOWN UNLESS RECOMMENDED BY A SOILS REPORT AND APPROVED BY THE COUNTY ENGINEER. LIMITS OF EXCAVATION SLOPES HIGHER THAN 5' SHALL BE DETERMINED BY SOILS TESTING. 2. DRAINAGE SHALES SHALL BE HYDROSEEDED PER TYPICAL GRASSY SWALE DETAIL. PROJECTED ROAD GROSS SLOPE MORTARED CONCRETE ADJUSTMENT RISERS (1111 ONE RISER, SEE NOTE 3) 12' PIPE .5 SECTION "B-B" 20' 2% MIN. 6" 3/4" -� 40' 3/4"1 H EDGE PAVEMENT OR TOP FACE OF CURB 20' 2% MIN I /4" SO. 3/1691 SQ. --I ice- � - T COVER SKID DESIGN DETAIL 26 3/4" 34 I/8" SECTION A -A 26 3/16" '- 3" ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT - 6" CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE 8 3/4' I" 3/an----11- 3/8" --1{- 7 SECTION A -A INDIANA STREET SECT ON FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET A -I "-2 7/32' '� If SECTION J -J 8' MAX. 6" (TYP,) -05' 6' 0.4' MIN. \ \� /% \\ I' MIN, 0 2% MIN SWALE BANK ELEVATION = T /G+0.2' VARIES BASE AREA MIN. WEIGHT 118 LBS. &RATE -7YPE4 I I/8" TOP OF RETENSION DAM TOP OF GRASSY SHALE A A 35' SEE NOTE 2 LOCATE DRYWEI 1S AS SHOWN ON PLANS r 6" FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC. WORKS CA 1CCT B -15 I1/8 "•--( r- STANDARD METAL FRAME GRA i L COVER - TYPE 4 SHALE WATER RETENSION DAM SF� NOTE TYP I GAL GRASSY SHALE 1 ES I SN 13' DRAINAGE, SLOPE, 0' 13' GENERAL NOTES I. FRAME SHALL BE GRAY IRON CONFORMING TO A.S.T.M. A48 -q0, GRADE 30. THE GRATE SHALL BE DUCTILE IRON CONFORMING TO AS.T.M. A536 -84. GLASS 80- 55-06. 2. METAL FRAME AND GRATE TYPE 4 SHALL ONLY BE USED WHERE SHOWN ON THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS. IT SHALL NOT BE USED AT A CURB LINE. 3. DRAINAGE SLOTS SHALL BE PLACED PARALLEL TO THE DIRECTION OF FLOW. 4. FIT TOLERANCE SHALL BE I /8" ± 5. WELDING 15 NOT PERMI 1 I ED. SECTION 5-13 Y ' I GAL SHALE HATER RETENTION DAM -1r-1/2" MIN. WEIGHT 168 LBS. FRAME - TYPE 4 r 1 8" MIN. (TYP.) DRYWELL PLACEMENT PER PLANS SWALE BANK ELEVATION = E/P + 0.2' OR T/G + 0.2' HYDRO MULCH WITH HYDROLCCD MIXTURE 60% BWE5RASS 20% PERENNIAL RYE 20% FESCUE OFFICIAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER'S OF PROJECT 1 `I- SUBMITTAL # . RETURN TO COUNTY ENGINE. NOTE: THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE EROSION PREVENTION/SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES IN GOOD WORKING CONDITION UNTIL THE VEGETATION 15 ESTABLISHED AND DRAINAGE FACILITIES ADJACENT TO THE PUBLIC R/H ARE ACCEPTED BY THE COUNTY; AND THAT THE DEVELOPER SHALL THOROUGHLY GLEAN THE DRYWELLS PRIOR TO THE COUNTY'S ACCEPTANCE OF THE DRAINAGE FACILITIES ADJACENT TO THE PUBLIC RM. 2 0 AND UTILITIES EASEMENT t • . o oo " . 0 00 C) 0 0UCDDOD • QDDDna 0 Oa0Onoo p 0 0Dn000. • o 0 0 oaooccD p • 0 OnnnODD p • pOnn •• 0 DO000nc o 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 o 0 • 0 0 0 \ c�:1 •(O 15 1 MAX. TO 0. P ,1 LTERNATIVE NO POND STA. 3+00.0 TO STA. 11+6121 051 1'13[6 ii Lf` JUN 2l:; MP`X• ALTERNATIVE POND STA. 0 +15.00 TO STA. 3+00.00 RECEIVED JUN 2 9 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER EXPIRES: 9/23/:5 6/21/.15 MGW v U F 0 1 O 0 0 RAMP TEXTURE • CHORD LE6THS AT BACK OF CURB, BACK OF WALK 6' CURB FACE BACK OF WALK 6 ' CURB FACE O SCA 1 3.0' 2' 0.I 12: I SLOPE 12:1 SLOPE R.P. t / 1 d 0'3.0' Liti. A DESIGN "A" SECTION B -B 3' 3' SECTION D -D STANDARD HEELGHA I R RAMP PROJECTED BACK TO BACK 2' T TEXTURE (rrPP) 6' 6' FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET A -5 r� G.] I2 :1 SLOPE DESIGN "G" PLAN • CHORD LEGTHS AT BACK OF CURB. 6" (TYP.) 12:1 SLOPE 6" (TYP,) SECTION A -A 85 SECTION G -G L • CHORD LEGTHS AT G BACK OF CURB. DESIGN "5" NOTES: DRAINAGE INLETS SHALL BE OUTSIDE THE WHEELCHAIR RAMP. 2. TEXTURE FOR THE RAMP AND ADVANCE WARNING PANELS SHALL BE CREATED BY INSERTING A METAL GRID INTO THE WET CONCRETE. THE GRID SHALL NOT EXCEED A WIDTH OF 1/2 ". 3. CURB RAMP DESIGN SHALL BE SPECIFIED IN THE CONTRACT PLANS OR SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 4. CURB RAMPS SHALL BE POURED INTEGRALLY WITH SIDEWALK AND SHALL BE ISOLATED BY EXPANSION JOINT MA 1 tKIAL ON ALL SIDES, EXCEPT AT THE SIDE ADJACENT TO THE ROADWAY. 5. WHERE CONSTRUCTED ON STRAIGHT CURB, DESIGN "A" DIMENSION REMAIN THE SAME AS SHOWN. 6. TOP OF CURB ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON PLANS ARE PROJECTED TOP OF CURB ELEVATIONS THROUGH WHEELCHAIR RAMP AREA. T. DRYWFI 15 OR CULVERTS TO BE PLACED AS NEEDED TO PREVENT RUNOFF FROM OVERFLOWING PEDESTRIAN RAMP NEEDED. 1/2" 0 Q I I/2" %4 \ -I /2" PRE MOLD JOINT FILLER q •'r O= } RAMP TEXTURE DETAIL --2 6' -6 f-- TROWEL FINISH SECTION A -A 5LOPE I /4 "/FT SECTION 5-13 2" REBAR PLACEMENT SPECIAL CURB INLET SIDEWALK �� -CURB LINE 4 „ , \ i 1"" RADIUS SPECIAL CURB INLET CONSTRUCTION JOINT SHEAR KEY #4 REBAR ® 10 "O /C E.W. TYPICAL -TOP i BOTTOM SEE SECTION 5-6 TYPICAL BOTH SIDES GUTTER FLOW LINE TYPE 2 PUBLIC WORKS SHEET B -1 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE 1 1/2" TOP OF CURB TOP OF CURB OR BAGK 0 WALK 1 T 8 SIDEWALK PAY LIMITS STANDARD CURB INLET FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF + i 2' 11111111111it 3' -10" 4' 6" 3' -10 "— SECTION G -G GU I I ER DEPRESSION DETAIL CONSTRUCTION „ JOINT 2' CONCRETE CURB INLET SIDEWALK PAY LIMITS _ PAY LIMITS f -- l'-6" --•- –TYPE B CURB FINISH GRADE " 24" TI IT" I" RADIUS TYPE "B° OUANITY = 0.047657 G.Y./L.F. N OUTLET SHALE GRADING DETAIL GENERAL NOTES I. CURB INLET SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM G 415 (ASSHTO M 111) 4 ASTM G 810 UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON PLANS OR NOTED ON THE PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 2. TOP SURFACE TO BE BROOM FINISHED. 3. ALL EXTERNAL EDGES NOT LABEL FD SHALL BE TROWELLED WITH 1/4" RADIUS EDGER 4. SEE "TEMPORARY EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL" SHEET q OF 10 3 " -8" N 1/2" PRE MOLD JOINT FILLER GENERAL NOTES I. PORTLAND GEMENT CONCRETE SHALL BE GLASS 3000 CONFORMING TO THE STANDARD SPEGIFIGATI ONS. 2. WEAKENED PLANE JOINTS FOR PORTLAND GEMENT CONCRETE SHALL BE PLACED AT 15' IN i tKVALS. 3. 3/8" EXPANSION JOINTS IN PORTLAND GEMENT CONCRETE SHALL BE PLACED AT CURB RETURNS. 4. TO BE USED IN SPECIAL GASES WITH APPROVED OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER. 5. CURBS SHALL HAVE A LIGHT GROOMED FINISH. GUTTERS SHALL BE FINISHED WITH A STEEL TROWEL. STANDARD GURSS GUTTERS FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET A -3 EASEMENT 10' R.O.W. 11' \ \ -S% MAX. i \\ /\ � / / / / / \�\ 3/8" EXPANSION JOINT SWALE AREA 8 96 HA) 6RABE --- f "W" " 6' 1/4" PER FOOT SWALE AREA m SECTION B -B SIDEWALK EASEMENT 6" PORTLAND '3�/ ►!•ii_i_Z !i! CEMENT CONCRETE STANDARD DRIVE/NAYS 2" DEPRESSION AT FLOWLINE� FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET A-4 4" PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE CL DRAINAGE • CURB DROP SHALE 3' SECTION E3-E3 EDGE OF PAVEMENT 4" PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE 11' HIGH SIDE OF DRIVE 2% . DRAINAGE SWALE 1 FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET B -8 GENERAL NOTES I. EXPANSION JOINT MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED IN THE CENTER OF ALL COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAYS OVER 20' IN WIDTH. 2. EXPANSION JOINT REQUIRED IF POUR INCLUDES ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY AREA. 3. CONCRETE FOR DRIVEWAYS SHALL BE GLASS 300 AIR ENTRAINED. 4. ALL EXTERNAL EDGES TO BE TROWELLED WITH 1/4" RADIUS EDGER. 5. SIDEWALK TO BE SCORED EVERY 5'. 3/8 EXPANSION JOINT TO BE INSTALLED EACH SIDE OF A CURB RETURN AND AT LOCATIONS WHERE SIDEWALK INTERSECTS OTHER SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, AND CURBS. 6. THE WIDTH OF COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAYS MAY BE WIDER THAN SHOWN, IF APPROVED BY THE COUNTY ENGINEER. 6' SWALE AREA . GURE3 INLET TYPE 1 2% ROW GENERAL NOTES 11' SECTION A -A (DRAINAGE SHALE) I. CURB INLET SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM G 41.5 (AASHTO M Iqq) ASTM C 810 UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON PLANS OR NOTED IN THE PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 2. TOP SURFACE TO BE BROOM FINISHED. 3. ALL EXTERNAL EDGES NOT LABELED SHALL BE TROWELLED WITH 1/4" RADIUS EDGER. 4. DIMENSION "L" SHALL BE 3'-O" 5. SEE "TEMPORARY EROSION/SEDIMENT SON OL" SHEET &OF1- OFFICIAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFICE ORIGINAL PROJECT u P14:. SUE'MI rTAL # 7 RETURN TO COUNTY ENGINEER !EXPIRES: 9/23/95 RECEIVED JUN 29 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER 5/14/15 { • 0 C DISTANCES " TYPE MIN. MAX. RES. lb' 30' RAMP TEXTURE • CHORD LE6THS AT BACK OF CURB, BACK OF WALK 6' CURB FACE BACK OF WALK 6 ' CURB FACE O SCA 1 3.0' 2' 0.I 12: I SLOPE 12:1 SLOPE R.P. t / 1 d 0'3.0' Liti. A DESIGN "A" SECTION B -B 3' 3' SECTION D -D STANDARD HEELGHA I R RAMP PROJECTED BACK TO BACK 2' T TEXTURE (rrPP) 6' 6' FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET A -5 r� G.] I2 :1 SLOPE DESIGN "G" PLAN • CHORD LEGTHS AT BACK OF CURB. 6" (TYP.) 12:1 SLOPE 6" (TYP,) SECTION A -A 85 SECTION G -G L • CHORD LEGTHS AT G BACK OF CURB. DESIGN "5" NOTES: DRAINAGE INLETS SHALL BE OUTSIDE THE WHEELCHAIR RAMP. 2. TEXTURE FOR THE RAMP AND ADVANCE WARNING PANELS SHALL BE CREATED BY INSERTING A METAL GRID INTO THE WET CONCRETE. THE GRID SHALL NOT EXCEED A WIDTH OF 1/2 ". 3. CURB RAMP DESIGN SHALL BE SPECIFIED IN THE CONTRACT PLANS OR SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 4. CURB RAMPS SHALL BE POURED INTEGRALLY WITH SIDEWALK AND SHALL BE ISOLATED BY EXPANSION JOINT MA 1 tKIAL ON ALL SIDES, EXCEPT AT THE SIDE ADJACENT TO THE ROADWAY. 5. WHERE CONSTRUCTED ON STRAIGHT CURB, DESIGN "A" DIMENSION REMAIN THE SAME AS SHOWN. 6. TOP OF CURB ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON PLANS ARE PROJECTED TOP OF CURB ELEVATIONS THROUGH WHEELCHAIR RAMP AREA. T. DRYWFI 15 OR CULVERTS TO BE PLACED AS NEEDED TO PREVENT RUNOFF FROM OVERFLOWING PEDESTRIAN RAMP NEEDED. 1/2" 0 Q I I/2" %4 \ -I /2" PRE MOLD JOINT FILLER q •'r O= } RAMP TEXTURE DETAIL --2 6' -6 f-- TROWEL FINISH SECTION A -A 5LOPE I /4 "/FT SECTION 5-13 2" REBAR PLACEMENT SPECIAL CURB INLET SIDEWALK �� -CURB LINE 4 „ , \ i 1"" RADIUS SPECIAL CURB INLET CONSTRUCTION JOINT SHEAR KEY #4 REBAR ® 10 "O /C E.W. TYPICAL -TOP i BOTTOM SEE SECTION 5-6 TYPICAL BOTH SIDES GUTTER FLOW LINE TYPE 2 PUBLIC WORKS SHEET B -1 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE 1 1/2" TOP OF CURB TOP OF CURB OR BAGK 0 WALK 1 T 8 SIDEWALK PAY LIMITS STANDARD CURB INLET FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF + i 2' 11111111111it 3' -10" 4' 6" 3' -10 "— SECTION G -G GU I I ER DEPRESSION DETAIL CONSTRUCTION „ JOINT 2' CONCRETE CURB INLET SIDEWALK PAY LIMITS _ PAY LIMITS f -- l'-6" --•- –TYPE B CURB FINISH GRADE " 24" TI IT" I" RADIUS TYPE "B° OUANITY = 0.047657 G.Y./L.F. N OUTLET SHALE GRADING DETAIL GENERAL NOTES I. CURB INLET SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM G 415 (ASSHTO M 111) 4 ASTM G 810 UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON PLANS OR NOTED ON THE PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 2. TOP SURFACE TO BE BROOM FINISHED. 3. ALL EXTERNAL EDGES NOT LABEL FD SHALL BE TROWELLED WITH 1/4" RADIUS EDGER 4. SEE "TEMPORARY EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL" SHEET q OF 10 3 " -8" N 1/2" PRE MOLD JOINT FILLER GENERAL NOTES I. PORTLAND GEMENT CONCRETE SHALL BE GLASS 3000 CONFORMING TO THE STANDARD SPEGIFIGATI ONS. 2. WEAKENED PLANE JOINTS FOR PORTLAND GEMENT CONCRETE SHALL BE PLACED AT 15' IN i tKVALS. 3. 3/8" EXPANSION JOINTS IN PORTLAND GEMENT CONCRETE SHALL BE PLACED AT CURB RETURNS. 4. TO BE USED IN SPECIAL GASES WITH APPROVED OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER. 5. CURBS SHALL HAVE A LIGHT GROOMED FINISH. GUTTERS SHALL BE FINISHED WITH A STEEL TROWEL. STANDARD GURSS GUTTERS FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET A -3 EASEMENT 10' R.O.W. 11' \ \ -S% MAX. i \\ /\ � / / / / / \�\ 3/8" EXPANSION JOINT SWALE AREA 8 96 HA) 6RABE --- f "W" " 6' 1/4" PER FOOT SWALE AREA m SECTION B -B SIDEWALK EASEMENT 6" PORTLAND '3�/ ►!•ii_i_Z !i! CEMENT CONCRETE STANDARD DRIVE/NAYS 2" DEPRESSION AT FLOWLINE� FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET A-4 4" PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE CL DRAINAGE • CURB DROP SHALE 3' SECTION E3-E3 EDGE OF PAVEMENT 4" PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE 11' HIGH SIDE OF DRIVE 2% . DRAINAGE SWALE 1 FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET B -8 GENERAL NOTES I. EXPANSION JOINT MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED IN THE CENTER OF ALL COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAYS OVER 20' IN WIDTH. 2. EXPANSION JOINT REQUIRED IF POUR INCLUDES ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY AREA. 3. CONCRETE FOR DRIVEWAYS SHALL BE GLASS 300 AIR ENTRAINED. 4. ALL EXTERNAL EDGES TO BE TROWELLED WITH 1/4" RADIUS EDGER. 5. SIDEWALK TO BE SCORED EVERY 5'. 3/8 EXPANSION JOINT TO BE INSTALLED EACH SIDE OF A CURB RETURN AND AT LOCATIONS WHERE SIDEWALK INTERSECTS OTHER SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, AND CURBS. 6. THE WIDTH OF COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAYS MAY BE WIDER THAN SHOWN, IF APPROVED BY THE COUNTY ENGINEER. 6' SWALE AREA . GURE3 INLET TYPE 1 2% ROW GENERAL NOTES 11' SECTION A -A (DRAINAGE SHALE) I. CURB INLET SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM G 41.5 (AASHTO M Iqq) ASTM C 810 UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON PLANS OR NOTED IN THE PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 2. TOP SURFACE TO BE BROOM FINISHED. 3. ALL EXTERNAL EDGES NOT LABELED SHALL BE TROWELLED WITH 1/4" RADIUS EDGER. 4. DIMENSION "L" SHALL BE 3'-O" 5. SEE "TEMPORARY EROSION/SEDIMENT SON OL" SHEET &OF1- OFFICIAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFICE ORIGINAL PROJECT u P14:. SUE'MI rTAL # 7 RETURN TO COUNTY ENGINEER !EXPIRES: 9/23/95 RECEIVED JUN 29 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER 5/14/15 { • 0 C 1 111 9 i STA. 0+15.00 START POND FLAT BOTTOM ELEV. 202352 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE '13' DRYWELL WITH SOLID LOGKIN& LID STA. 11+54.00 GRATE ELEV. 202621 OFFSET 28' LE=T SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'B' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND &RATE STA. 1 +16.00 GRATE ELEV. 2024 .02 OFFSET 28' R16HT SIDEWALK CURB CUTTER PLAT BOUNDARY RIGHT OF WAY 1+21.43 CENTER POINT INV. E.V. E 2025.15 TYPE 2 CURB INLET i /W J.* INV. ELEV. 202352 9" O 2.0 TOP BERM / STA. 1+60.00 ELEV. 202554 v BASIN A 5.20 .50 INDIANA AVENUE 1 +15.00 CENTER POINT IPM law. 2026.04 TYPE 2 CURB INLET 6' UNDERDRAIN FROM KEYSTONE WALL TO CATCH BASIN • STA. 1 +21.43 GO 1 +21.43 CATCH BASIN AND INLET TYPE 2 WITH 60' OF D.IP. CULVERT INVERT ELEV. 2024.00 SLOPE = 0.008 �L\ /Nb4 0 FLAT BOTTOM ELEV. 2025.04 POND BOTTOM ELEVATION • 2020.16/2o25.0412025b1 VOLUTE REAM, • UM alit. VOLUME PROVIDED = 1100 cult. 110.60' t B ASIN D R•50.00' 5 0 TYPE 'A' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 10+5353 CRATE ELEV. 2028.11 OFFSET 195' RIGHT BASIN 6 POND BOTTOM ELEVATION • 202161 ME VOLU R6ANRED • 202 Galt. VOLUME PROVIDED • 415 Wt. TOP BERM STA. 2 +25.00 ELEV. 2026.11 CO 31 . F.6. 202550 WITH METAL &RATE TYPE 2 STA. 11+45.00 GRATE ELEV. 2026.00 OFFSET 52' LEFT P41114 LP. 12' G.M.P. • :Y2% GRADE POND BOTTOM ELEVATION • 202530 ME VOLU REQUIRE? • 501 oat. VOLJJr'E PROM! D • 20!00 GYlt. EDGE OF PAVEMENT RIGHT OF WAY 2+50.00 CENTER POI NV. I ELEV. 2026b1 TYPE 2 CURB INLET loAe 58' FLAT BOTTOM ELEV. 2025b1 EASEMENT STA. 3+00.00 END POND CUTTER SIDEWALK RIGHT OF WAY PLAT BOUNDARY HARMONY LANE F.6. 2021.10 GONGRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL GRATE TYPE 2 STA. I0+6924 CRATE 13EV. 2021.60 OFFSET 4642' LEFT WITH •43 L.F. 12' G.M.P. • t2% GRADE 0 J SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE -'9 DRYWELL WITH SOLID LOCKING UD STA. 11+54.00 &RATE ELEV. 2026.21 OFFSET 28' RIGHT a 3134' RIGHT OF WAY BASIN H POND BOTTOM H.EVATLON • 2021.10 VOLUME REQUIRED • 2 oat. V PROVIDED • .50 al* • • SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'B' DRYWELL NTH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND &RATE STA. 5+59.16 GRATE ELEV. 202646 OFFSET 28' LEFT z INDIANA AVENUE CURB SIDEWALK POND BCTT0M ELEVATION • 2026J8 V0LL E REQUIRED • 50 cuit. VOLUME PROVIDED • 205 cult. RIGHT OF WAY R =61 5.00' L =39 ' 9' BASIN B CUTTER PLAT BOUNDARY SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'B' DRYWELL WITH SOLID LOGKIN& LID STA. 1045358 GRATE ELEV. 2028.11 OFFSET Il' RIGHT ED6E OF PAVEMENT SIDEWALK 5+64.41 CENTER POINT INV. ELEV. 2024.18 TYPE 2 CURB INLET La 5.03' F.6. 2028.18 INDI `NA AV ENUE 2.0- L =2/ ---\ >----1 °- It_ STA. 13+11.46 INV. ELEV. 203051 PLAT BOUNDARY RIGHT OF WAY SIDEWALK CURS GUTTER F.6. 202550 10 4 20.0' 7.00' 2030 0 lip ,n 5TA. 13 +16.41 TOP BERM 2031.01 14.00' 1/( x50 \ O CONCRETE INLET TYP 2 WITH METAL ORATE TYPE 2 STA. 11+95.00 GRATE ELEV. 2026.00 OFFSET 52' RIGHT WITH •44 L.P. 15' G.M.P. • 32% 6RADE BASIN E POND BOTTOM EL.EVATION • 202550 VOLUME REWIRED • 164 cult VOLUME PROVIDED • 2050 cult LOT LINE STA. 13 +21.42 INV. ELEV. 203051 - 3" od F.6. 202550 STA. 15+06.46 5+6851 CENTER POINT INV. ELEV. 202422 TYPE 2 CURB INLET F.&. 2028.06 INV. ELEV. 202856 158' 10.46' STA. 15 +11.41 TOP BERM 2024.06 LOT LINE 1 6 20.10' v 14.00' 14.00' 1,1 HARMONY LANE BASIN 1 N1DIANNA AVE 43.41' 5220' SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'S' DRYWELL 1,4111-1 TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 19 +25.00 HARMONY GRATE ELEV. 202143 OFFSET 11' RIGHT P.G. 2021.13 ASIN G STA. 15 +16.42 EV INV. EL. 202856 CURB SIDEWALK RIGHT OF WAY \lUE k\ 1 t R =146.00' L=43.43' 7 POND BOTTOM ELEVATION • 2021J5 VOLIJrE RE UN432 = 272 u.tt. VOLUME PROVIDED = 595 cult. CONCRETE 1 TYPE 2 WITH METAL CRATE TYPE 2 STA. 4+40.00 &RATE ELEV. 202143 OFFSET 52' RIGHT WITH t 28 L.F. 12' G.M.P. • t2% GRADE F.6. 2021.04 ONO CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL &RATE TYPE 2 STA. 16+41.43 GRATE ELEV. 202159 OFFSET 55' LEFT WITH a a Q t 38 L.F. 12' G.MP. • *2% GRADE 5 6 $ _ POND BOTTOM ELEVATION • 2030DV202606/20214rrlojFCT HA 4- VOLL E REQUIRED • 429 calk VOLUME PROVIDED • 1030 cult. SU8t,9ITTAL # BASIN F 20 OFFICIAL P : C SPOKANE COUNTY BONER'S ; ICE T RETURN TO COUNTY ENGINEE ems 4 R POND BOTTOM ELEVATION • 2021.13 VOLUME REQUIRE? • 202 colt. VOLUME PROVIDED • 450 cult CUTTER CURB • RIGHT OF WAY INDIANA AVENUE eUTTER T • - L =23.12 d1 F.G. 2021.13 .2 , I►\ " .. ' LOT LINE SIDEWALK SIDEWALK UNDERDRAI SPOKANE COUNTY STAND TYPE 'A' DRYWELL WITH SOLID LOGKIN6 Lill STA. 19+40.00 HARMONY &RATE ELEV. 2021.10 OFFSET 17' LEFT SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN STA. 16+41.43 INV. ELEV. 202189 SWALE LOW POINT 202184 STA. 16+41.43 OKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE W DRYWELL P1111-1 SOLID LOCKING LID STA. 16 +26.00 GRATE ELEV. 2021.43 OFFSET IT LEFT RIGHT OF WAY SIDEWALK EDGE OF PAVEMENT RECEIVED JUN 30 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER SCALE: I INCH � J��ET 6 EXPIRES: 9/28/95 W U Tn Io H 4 A la • • -77i4 0 V1 0 0 CO CO 0 H a) r-1 0 U SHEET G1 A z iO to O w .-1 ri CD n 0 0 a SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE "B" DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 1 +16.00 &RATE ELEV. 2024.02 OFFSET 28' RIGHT SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 18" DRYWELL WITH SOLID LOCKING LID STA. 11 +54.00 GRATE ELEV. 2026.21 OFFSET 28' LH t RIGHT OF WAY SIDEWALK CURB PLAT BOUNDARY GUTTER 1 +21.43 CENTER POINT INV. ELEV. 2025.15 TYPE 2 CURB INLET 6' UNDERDRAIN FROM KEYSTONE STA. 0+15.00 START POND FLAT BOTTOM ELEV. 2023.52 INV. ELEV. 2023.52 TOP BERM STA. 1+60.00 ELEV. 202554 ASIN A F.6. 202550 WALL TO CATCH BASIN A STA. 1 +21.43 1 +15.00 CENTER POINT INV. ELEV. 2026.04 TYPE 2 CURB INLET 1 +21.43 CATCH BASIN AND INLET TYPE 2 WITH 60' OF P.I.P. CULVERT INVERT ELEV. 2024.00 SLOPE = 0.008 POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 2023.16/2025.04 /2025.61 VOLUME REQUIRED = 1165 cult. VOLUME PROVIDED = 1180 cult. FLAT BOTTOM ELEV. 2025.04 l2BbO', _-- 110.6 0 ' 12=50 .00' INDIANA AVENUE BAS IN POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 202550 VOLUME REQUIRED = 509 cult. VOLUME PROVIDED = 2030 cu.ft. b 0 / SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'A' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND &RATE STA. 10 +5358 &RATE ELEV. 2028.n OFFSET 195' RIGHT BASIN C POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 2021.61 VOLUME REQUIRED = 232 ur.ft. VOLUME PROVIDED = 615 cult. TOP BERM STA. 2 +25.00 ELEV. 2026.11 CONCRETE I TYPE 2 Fa 202550 WITH METAL &RATE TYPE 2 STA. 11+95.00 &RATE ELEV. 2026.00 OFFSET 52' LEFT WITH 144 L.F. 12' G.M.P. 0 12% GRADE EDGE OF PAVEMENT RIGHT OF WAY ..........., 2 +50.00 CENTER PO INV. ELEV. 2026.61 TYPE 2 CURB INLET 10.46' FLAT BOTTOM ELEV. 2025 .61 EASEMENT STA. 3+00.00 END POND GUTTER CURB SIDEWALK PLAT BOUNDARY HARMONY LANE CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 F:6. 2021.10 WITH METAL &RATE TYPE 2 STA. I0+89.24 &RATE ELEV. 2021.60 OFFSET 46.42' LEFT WITH 143 L.F. 12' C.M.P. 0 12% GRADE RIGHT OF WAY ASIN H RIGHT OF WAY SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE '8' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND ORATE STA. 5 +51.16 ORATE ELEV. 2028.68 OFFSET 28' LEFT SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'B" DRYWELL WITH SOLID LOCKING LID STA. 11 +54.00 &RATE ELEV. 2026.21 OFFSET 2B' RIGHT POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 2021.10 VOLUME REQUIRED = 212 cult. VOLUME PROVIDED = 650 cult. CURB SIDEWALK RIGHT OF WAY BASIN B &UTTER PLAT BOUNDARY SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'B' DRYWELL WITH SOLID LOCKIN& LID STA. 10+5358 &RATE ELEV. 2028.11 OFFSET 11' RIGHT ED6E OF PAVEMENT SIDEWALK 5+64.41 CENTER POINT INV. ELEV. 2021.18 TYPE 2 CURB INLET L= 45.03' INDIANA AVENUE POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 2028.18 VOLUME REQUIRED = 150 cult. VOLUME PROVIDED = 205 cult. F.6. 2028.18 IND I ANA AVENUE 1 2.08 L= PLAT BOUNDARY RIGHT OF WAY SIDEWALK CURB GUTTER STA. 13+11.46 F.G. 2030.01 F.G. 202550 INV. ELEV. 203051 STA. 13 +16.41 Itz TOP BERM 2031.01 POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 202550 VOLUME REQUIRED = 184 cult. VOLUME PROVIDED = 2030 cult. 1 0 a 2000' 14.00' • LOT LINE 14.00' 1 CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL ORATE TYPE 2 STA. 11+15.00 GRATE ELEV. 2026.00 OFFSET 52' RIGHT WITH 144 L.F. 12' G.M.P. ® 1295 GRADE K O O R ° STA. 13+21.42 INV. ELEV. 203051 STA, 15+06.46 5 +6851 CENTER POINT INV. ELEV. 202122 TYPE 2 CURB INLET F.6. 202550 F.G. 2028.06 INV. ELEV. 202856 "158' 10.46' STA. 15 +11.41 r- LOT LINE 7 6 TOP BERM 2024.06 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'B' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 19 +25.00 HARMONY &RATE ELEV. 2021.63 OFFSET 11' RIGHT 20.00' 1 v 14.00' ARMO \IY LA\l- Cam ASIN 1 POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 2030.01/2028.06 /2021.01 VOLUME REQUIRED = 129 cult. VOLUME PROVIDED = 1030 cult. SCALE: 1 NO- tr. Sis INDIAI` AVE V \/ R= 143.00' L= 43.13' STA. 15 +16.42 INV. ELEV. 202856 43.91' 52.20' F.6. 2021.13 ASIN G POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 2071.13 VOLUME REQUIRED = 272 cult. VOLUME PROVIDED = 595 cult. SIDEWALK RIGHT OF WAY JE GUTTER CURB • l- SIDEWALK ._ ✓�- i-- RIGHT OF WAY GUTTER CURB F.6. 2027.09 CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL GRATE TYPE 2 STA. 16+41.43 &RATE ELEV. 202151 OITGET 55' LEFT WITH 138 L.F. 12' G.M.P. 0 ±2% &RADE t(1 1Nb/ANA A F.6.2021.13 ,p CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL &RATE TYPE 2 STA. 4+40.00 &RATE ELEV. 2021.63 OFFSET 52' RI&HT WITH 1 28 L.F. 12° C.M.P. ® ±2% GRADE 5AS I POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 2021.13, VOLUME REQUIRED = 202 cult. VOLUME PROVIDED = 450 cult. 5 20.00' F r- LOT LINE 4 14. 0' SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'B" DRYWELL WITH SOLID LOGKIN6 LID STA. 16 +26.00 &RATE ELEV. 2027.93 OFFSET D' LEFT = 20 FEET NU.E ■ SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN SPOKANE COUNTY STAND TYPE "A" DRYWELL WITH SOLID LOCKING LID STA. 19+40.00 HARMONY &RATE ELEV. 2021.10 OFFSET 11' LEFT OFFICIAL P ri: C DOCUMENT SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFICE ORIGINAL PROJECT Pkkl# SUBMITTAL RETURN TO COUNTY ENGINEER RIGHT of WAY SIDEWALK SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN STA. 16+41.43 INV. ELEV. 2071.81 SHALE LOW POINT 2021.84 STA. 16+41.43 EXPIRES: 9/23/95 EDGE OF PAVEMENT RECEIVED JUN 2 9 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER 0 0 0 W A U 0 0 w t. N I 0 0 CD Cam' • • a 0 ONO a 0 r a) 0 SHEET qB of 0 CV `V 0 w Z .-I .-1 10 CO 0 r • H A In EDGE OF PAVEMENT RIGHT OF WAY r rvi ONO HARMONY LANE 8655' OOP , IMIO 82.48' 4755' SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 8" DRYNEI L WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 13+47.98 ORATE ELEV. 2028.13 OFFSET 195' RIGHT -1.----1 ASINK POW 90TTOM ELEVATION • 202745 VOLIIE REGI • 501 cwlt. \ EW WARM • N40 co/t. 1NI01 ANA AVENUE SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN INV. 2028.63 44 .01' 2026.45 TYFE 'A' DRYWELL WITH SOLID L.OGKINS LID GRATE ELEV 202644 10 .00 ' BASIN N a POtV BOTTOM E1F/ATION • 2026.45 VOLUME real o • 442 cult. VOUM! PROVIDED • 540 cult GUTTER CURB SIDEWALK R16HT OF WAY LOT LINE 2 WITH METAL GRATE TYPE 2 STA. 22+34.16 MGMILLAN LANE GRATE ELEV. 2026.95 OFFSET 60' RIGHT WITH ±40 L.F. 12' GMP. • 3266 GRADE EDGE OF PAVEMENT F.6. 2021.42 • :RI ■G • •' C7 2 OOP WITH METAL GRATE TYPE 2 STA. 15+19.10 GRATE E.EV. 2028.42 R161-1T OF WAY R OFFSET 195' RIGHT WITH i 125 LF. 12' G.M.P. • i2As GRADE EDGE OF PAVEMENT SIDEWALK RIGHT OF WAY EDGE OF PAVEMENT PROJECT BOUNDARY CHECK DAM 3A TOP CENTER OF BERM 3A 1 STA. 15+25.10 HARMONY &RATE ELEV. 202184 GRADE FLAT 2021.12 - 2028:12 TOP CENTER OF INLET STA 15 +11.10 HARMONY 2028.42 STA. 14+10.11 E.GR HARMONY OS' END POND t STA. 14+24.44 INV. ELEV. 2029.83 11256' MAO' SP• ��: COUNTY ST TYPE 'VP PRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND &RATE STA. 15 +15.00 ORATE ELEV. 2021.89 OFFSET 195' RIGHT HARMONY LANE F.6. 202134 116.40' 45.00' 45.00' 51.00' 203 BASIN L POND BOTTOM ELEVATION • 20502 VOLJh! REasseD • moat. \VUR* Pt/OVUM? • 112 oat. . 7 4 . � + 1 / /13 SO F.4.2628 83 q'1% BASIN 0 POW BOTTOM ELEVATION • 2024.75 VOLUME MOPED • 564 cult. YOUR E PROVIDED • 870 calk TOP CENTER OF BERM 38 STA. 16 +20,10 HARMONY 2028.21 GRADE FLAT 202131 -ir---cstimga--- BASIN J PROFILE NOT TO SCALE POW BOTTOM ELEVATION • 202142/202139/2027.41 VOLUME REQUIRED • 350 cult. VOLUME PROVIDED • 565 cult. HARMONY LANE 5453' g ° 22.E 2. 3' .< SP • • CHECK DAM 3B SP• COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'B' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND &RATE STA. 16+05.00 GRATE ELEV. 2021.64 OFFSET 14.5' RIGHT STA. 16+05.00 GRATE ELEV. 2021.81 • A L• T TAND TYPE 'A' DRYWEt1. WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 11+45.00 6RATE ELEV. 2032.22 OFFSET 195' RIGHT SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE V' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 14 +11.62 GRATE ELEV. 202433 OFFSET h' RIGHT Fri. 2021.41, my \ t 0.8' R= 424.00' � �R•421. 00 ' R =432.00' R =435.00 0.5' L= 48.66' L =44.11' L= 50.12' OKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'B' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 16+55.00 GRATE ELE'/. 2021.41 OFFSET 145' R16HT GRADE FLAT 2027.41 STA. 16+55.00 &RATE ELEV. 2021.11 =26.00' • L =3. b, R =20 L =8.7y STA. 11 +0131 HARMONY END POND 38 37 GUTTER CURB SIDEWALK R16HT OF HAY 33.00' ♦ V 40.00' IND I ANA AVENUE 3.92' F.6. 2024' ow Poo SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'A' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE GRATE ELEV 202850 �F 6. 2028.00 60.00' SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'B' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE GRATE ELEV 2026.41 BASIN M POND BOTTOM ELEVATION • 2026.41 VOL UM REWIRED • 351 GYIt. VOLUME PROVIDED • 460 cult. 40 .00_ 50.0 35 BRSIN P FUTURE I MPROV�EMENTS POND BOTTOM ELEVATION • 2026.00 VOuke REWIRED • 0 Guff. VOLU M PROVIDED • 345 cult. GOMMO? 1 AREA PROJECT BOUNDARY OFFICIAL PUBIC DOCUMENT COUNTY ENGINEERS SPOKANE C N� !N AL OM "(! PROJECT SUBMITT # ENGINEER RETURN TO COUNTY •'33NION3 uN 1► .4 EXPIRES: 9/23/96 SGALE: 1 INCH = 20 FEET 29 mull €15 Std► N - IVNI O 301330 S,b33NION3 31\10IOc.S 1N371I1000 0119fld 'IV10i ±0 RECEIVED JUN 301995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER 6/28/45 J8 EDGE of PAVEMENT RIGHT OF WAY z 1r\ 0 r L HARMONY LANE 82.98' F.6. 2027b3 A SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE "A' DRYWELL WITH SOLID LOCKING LID GRATE ELEV 202694 9'aq / = \V» \ 9155' SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE "B" PRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND &RATE STA. 13+91.98 6RATE ELEV. 2028.13 OFFSET 195' RIGHT BA51 N K POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 2027.63 VOLUME REQUIRED = 301 cult. VOLUME PROVIDED = 1140 cult. INDIANA AVENUE 10.00' ASIN N POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 2026.45 VOLUME REQUIRED = 492 cult. VOLUME PROVIDED = 540 cult. SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN INV. 202863 6UTtER CURB SIDEWALK RIGHT OF WAY LOT LINE CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL &RATE TYPE 2 STA. 22+39.16 McMILLAN LANE ORATE ELEV. 2026.95 OFFSET 60' RIGHT WITH t40 LF. IT GUMP. O t2% GRADE RIGHT OF WAY 7 ED6E OF PAVEMENT P.6. 2021.92 STA. 14+70.97 E.G.R. HARMONY END POND CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL 6RATE TYPE 2 STA. 15 +19.10 GRATE ELEV. 202842 OFFSET 195' RIGHT WITH 125 LF. IT G.M.P. ® t2% GRADE GRAPE FLAT 2021.92 TOP CENTER OF INLET STA. 15 +19.10 HARMONY 2028A2 05'1 EDGE OF PAVEMENT SIDEWALK RIGHT OF WAY CHECK DAM 3A EDGE OF PAVEMENT PROJECT BOUNDARY STA. 14+24.94 W. ELEV. 2029.83 HARMONY LA F.6. 202139 t169o• 11256' 17690' SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'B' PRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND &RATE STA 15 +15.00 GRATE ELEV. 2021.69 OFFSET 195' R16HT TOP CENTER OF BERM 3A STA. 15 +25.10 HARMONY 2028:72 S TA. 15 +75.00 ORATE ELEV. 2027.89 0.8' n}/ \t POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 2021.92/2021.39 /202141 VOLUR REQUIRED = 350 cult. VOLUJ E PROVIDED = 585 cult. HARMONY LANE 5453 .6. 2031.12 BASIN L POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 2031.12 VOLUME REQUIRED = III cult. VOLUME PROVIDED = 112 cult. / 6� \ ' V s/ BASIN J fp 8A5I N 0 POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 202983 VOLUME REQUIRED = 384 cult. VOLUME PROVIDED = 810 cult. \IE PROFILE NOT TO SCALE TOP CEN I tK OF BERM 38 STA. 16 +20.10 HARMONY 2028.21 GRADE FLAT 2021.39 R =22•ay CHECK DAM 3B SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'B" DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND &RATE STA. 16+05.00 6RATE ELEV. 2021.89 OFFSET 195' RIGHT STA. 16 +05.00 ORATE ELEV. 2027.89 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE "A" DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 11+45.00 GRATE ELEV. 2032.22 OFFSET 195' RIGHT SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE B' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 19 +11.62 GRATE ELEV. OFFSET I1' RIGHT 021.41 R= 424:00' L =42'6' R =421.00' L =49.11' R =432.0= 4 L R= 435.00' L =46D SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'B' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL. FRAME AND GRATE STA. 16 +55.00 SKATE ELEV. 2021.81 OFFSET 195' RIGHT GRADE FLAT 2027.41 STA. 16 +55.00 'ORATE ELEV. 2027.91 STA. 11 +0737 HARMONY 0 8' 05 / END POND 38 31 33.00' INDIANA AVENUE SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'A" DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE &RATE ELEV 2029.00 50.00' 35 POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 2026.41 VOLUME REQUIRED = 331 cult. VOLUME PROVIDED = 460 cult. ASIN P POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 2028.00 VOLUME REQUIRED = 0 cult. VOLUME PROVIDED = 345 cult. SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE "B" DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND &RATE GRATE ELEV 2026.91 SAS 1N COM FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS \10 \I AREA PROJECT BOUNDARY SCALE: 1 INCH = 20 OFFICIAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFICE ORPNAL PROJECT t414 SUBMITTAL RETURN TO COUNTY ENGINEER RECEIVED JUN 2 9 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER CURVE 1 RADIUS 1 LENGTH ( TANGENT 1 CHORD 1 BEARING 1 DELTA GI 20 .00' 1.14' 361' 1.10' 509•38'3914 20 G3 20 .00' 31.43' 20.02' 2830' N45 '01'36"E 10'03'08' G4 20.00' 31.40' 11.18' 2821' 544 °58'24 "E 81 °56'52" G8 20.00' 14A5' 156' 14.14' 561'54'31"E 41 °24'35" 01 125.00' 1861' 1.34' 18.61' N11'03'58'4 01°28'32" 011 125.00' 15432' 11.45' 154.03' N23'54'06'14 12 °11'44" G31 20.00' 2426' 1368' 2260' 554'31'43'W 61 °30'46" 038 20 .00' 24.26' 1368' 2260' 525'14'31 "4 bq'30'46" 031 20.00' 1.15' 3.61' 1.11' 511 °45'21"E 20 °21'14 G40 20 .00' 1.15' 3b1' 1.11' N40 °1436'4 20 G41 20.00' 24.26' 1368' 22.80' N85 °14'36'4 61'30'46' C44 600.00' 21.88' 10.94' 2168' 511'22'24°E 02 °05'24" G45 150.00' 43.12' 2151' 43.12' NIl'5832'W 03 °11'40" C46 20.00' 2161' 1832' 21.02' N21°21b8'E 84 °51'16" C47 20.00' 33.66' 2238' 21.82' N61'31'11"W 16'25'23" LINE J DIRECTION 1 DISTANCE LI 589'24'5714 15.00' L3 5 00 ° 00'04" W 10.00' L5 SO0'03'10'14 10.00' LI1 N8q•23'06'E 21.1' L12 500'35'24'E 84.18' LI9 589'24'51`4 30.00' L43 5 81"2451'14 1.61' L44 5 03'48'01' W 2162' L45 N 00•35'03°14 21.15' L46 N 89'23'06' E 263' L41 5 04'58'08' E 36.16' L48 N 00'35'03* 14 36.85' R5 N25'44'01'4 18.10' R6 N26 1 03'14•4 11.10' R1 N72'i1'46 "E 22 .00' RII 539•30'41 "1"1 2531' R12 521'51'58 2059' R13 N80'24'I6'E 26 .01' RI4 529 °51'58'E 2331' R21 N40'41'40'E 31.94' R28 510'01'40'E 2154' ci N N v N 111 L L J O 0 LI) O • 0 � N 30.00' 60 1 O' L48 = 1I °30'19" R = 20.00' T = 2.01' L = 4.02' L43 L19 DETAIL "A" 11 CLEAR VIEW TRIANGLE FD. 1/2 INCH REBAR W/SURCAP MARKED 'WELBORN PL5 15043' r S81 °23'06 "W 322.21' �:•: 5 I:l_Tei 581 °23'06 "W 211.41' INDIANA AVENUE 1_ CLEAR VIEW TRIANGLE (NOT A PART) EASEMENT FOR CLEAR VIEW TRIANGLE (NOT A PART) 226.45' 25' SIDEWALK, DRAINAGE, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT • A = 40 °21'00' R = 20.00' T =138' L = 14.13' 11• \0 5' DRAINAGE, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT 30' 22650' 'MAGI 'G' 13' 13' DRAINAGE, SLOPE ANDS: E ASEMENT f \_. N8q'23'06'E 24523' 25' SIDEWALK, DRAINAGE, SLOPE AND UTILITY EASEMENT 5' FUTURE ACQUISITION AREA 13' DRAINAGE, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT UNPI.°ATTED go (NOT A PART) Abz 48 13' DRAINAGE, SLOPE AND UTILITY EASEMENT p' ° 0 0 be 0 = 41°44'43' R = 20.00' T = 1.63' L = 1451' \ R • DETAIL "G" 3 0 5 103 EASEMENT FOR CLEAR VIEW TRIANGLE 13' DRAINAGE, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT Q 8 is V 17 25' SIDEWALK, SLOPE, DRAINAGE AND, UTILITY EASEMENT (TYP) EASEMENT FOR CLEAR VIEW TRIANGLE (NOT A PART) CLEAR VIEW TRIANGLE 5 83 °45'00" 4 5 00 W 1.29' 102.6 10221' 5 89 E N81 °56'5014 O EASEMENT FOR CLEAR VIEW TRIANGLE 16' SIDEWALK, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT (TYP) 16' SIDEWALK, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT (TYP) 46 5 83 .45'00'14 4q A = 21'49'31" R = 20.00' T = 3.86' L = 1.62' 102.8 83.61' 8�t6 - 5" - E V 5 •4 ° 56'50' E 20.00' cv 621.62' 50.00' 44.95' •A•_ I� 10' RIGHT -OF -WAY DEDICATION MISSION AVENUE 3000' 5 5q °56'44" E 2615.15' (RLI) N 8q °56'50" W 2615.15' (M) t = 02'48'59° 100 \ R = 100.00' <; T= 11.21' \ s L = 34.41' \ b \ 1 v-? • 16' SIDEWALK, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT (TYP) ' C4 C3 A = 36 °56'05" R = 20.00' T =668' L = 12.81' DETAIL "1E3" u-1 Z O O O 0 Z 173.60' DETAIL "D" C4 \Ak! gto qq \5 a8 U) J O L = 21'43'05" R = 20.00' T =364' L =158' 16' SIDEWALK, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT (TYP) N 83•38'45" N 5‘1•56'50'14 (NOT A PART) CLEAR VIEW TRIANGLE 2 05.75' 185 .13' 1988.16' LINE TABLE CURVE TABLE SCALE: I INGH = 40 FEET te77 Fb'clti n U l 4 JUN 2, Iu OFFICIAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT ='O'tANE COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFICE OR -MAL suEtvil i l AL # 7 RETURN TO COUNTY ENGINEER RECEIVED JUN 2 9 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER Jost 1 EXPIRES 09/23/99] 6/21/15 JOM S 0 dG n � W O O H ta- A � 0 0 �-I 0 0 U E-1 c -T 0 CV .-1 �-1 rf O 0 5 co SPOKANE RIVER INDIANA AVE. E3ALDIAII N AVE. AUSUSTA AVE. MISSION AVE. BENCH MARK-SOUTHEAST CORNER BRIDGE OVER SPOKANE RIVER AT SULLIVAN ROAD. ELEV. I£56.16 VICINITY MAP (NO SCALE) CLEAR VIEW TRIANGLE EXISTING ROW 5'06" E 3 LAND5G PPROX. LOC s 3/8" TO BE SET AS ■M PRIOR e GO 1RUOTION. 40 \ q,3/32 5F (2026) (2028) (203 PERIMETER FE GE (SEE DETAIL) TBM: SPIKE IN POWER POLE ELEV. 2033.51 10' FUTURE AGe ISITION (203 (2032) (2033) (2029) (2030) 2 41 5F 6336 5F 104' 1 10 6,136 5F COMMON AREA 24,820 5F 0.51 AG „. 3q cle,3 5F 6,521 5F N 51•56051" 25 6341 SF 24 b;167 5F 3e, " CA 21 5F CLEAR VI 1,q25 5F 51 8,1 5F qp67 5F TO BRIDLE PRIVATE Ok'INERSHIP NOT A PART 5.1^1. 1/4 SECTION EXISTING R01^1 SHEET STREET LOCATION INDEX STREET TITLE SHEET 2 INDIANA AVENUE MISSION AVENUE (EXISTINS 50' R.O.M. 20 3 HARMONY LANE 4 BALDNIN LANE AUSUSTA LANE 5 McMILLAN LANE 6 BARKER ROAD STA. 10+00.00 - 23+00.00 BARKER ROAD STA. 23+00.00 - 32+05.15 (BRIDOE) MISSION AVENUE STA. 10+00.00 - 11+00.00 1 DETAIL SHEET 10 DETAIL SHEET 179 \ APPROX. LOCATION 3/8" REBAR TO BE SET AS TBM PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CLEAR VIEW TRIANGLE APPDX. LOCATION 3/8" REBAR T0-BE SET AS TBM PRIOR TO 1 04 'CONSTRUC ION. CLEAR VIEW TRIANGLE 1 07 • 1 0 CLEAR VtE TRIANGLE APPROX. LOCATION 3/8" REBAR TO BE SET AS TBM PRIOR TO ONSTRUCTION. GUL-DE-SAG DATUM: BRASS GAP AT SOUTH EAST CORNER OF BRIDLE OVER SPOKANE RIVER ON SULLIVAN ROAD. ELEV. = 1c186.16 GENERAL NOTES - STREET SPECIFICATIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS 71-1E CONTRACTOR SHALL GUARANItzt ALL MA 1 tKIALS AND WORKMANSHIP FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING FINAL APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER. IT WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO CONTACT ALL APPLICABLE UTILITY COMPANIES AND HAVE THEM FIELD LOCATE THEIR UNDERGROUND LINES. ANY DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY REPAIRED BY HIM AT HIS EXPENSE. THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 15 HEREB Y ADOPTED FOR THIS PROJECT. A. ANY CONFLICTING UTILITIES SHALL BE RELOCATED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ROAD OR DRAINAGE FACILITIES. B FOR CURB GRADES LESS THAN O.E'% (0.008 FT/FT), A WASHINGTON STATE-LICENSED PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR SHALL VERIFY THAT THE CURB FORMS ARE AT THE CORRECT DESIGN GRADE AND ELEVATION PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF CURBING MATERIAL. FINAL GUARANTEE: ALL WORK SHALL BE AND 15 HEREAFTER GUARANTEED BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM AND AFTER THE DATE OF FINAL ACCANCE OF ALL THE WORK BY THE OWNER. IF, WITHIN SAID GUARANTEE PERIOD, REPAIRS OR CHANGES ARE REQUIRED !N CONNECTION WITH THE GUARANTEED WORK, WHICH IN TI-1E OPINION OF THE ENGINEER, 15 RENDERED NECESSARY AS THE RESULT OF THE USE OF MA 1 tRIALS, EQUIPMENT, OR WORKMANSHIP WHICH ARE INFERIOR, DEFECTIVE, OR NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL, PROMPTLY UPON RECEIPT OF NOTICE FROM THE OWNER, AND WITHOUT EXPENSE TO THE OWNER, (A) PLACE IN SATISFACTORY CONDITION IN EVERY PARTICULAR ALL OF SUCH GUARANTEED loNIORK, CORRECT ALL DEFECTS THEREIN; (B) MAKE 600D ALL DAMAGE TO THE SITE, OR EQUIPMENT THEREON, WHICH IN THE OPINION OF THE ENGINEER, 15 THE RESULT OF THE USE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT OR WORKMANSHIP WHICH ARE INFERIOR, DErECTIVE, OR NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THIS CONTRACT; AND (C) MAKE GOOD ANY WORK OR MA 1 tRIAL. ON THE SITE DISTURBED IN FULFILLING ANY SUCH GUARANItt. IF THE CONTRACTOR, A1-1 tR NOTICE, FAILS WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS TO PROCEED TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THIS 6UARAN itt, THE OWNER MAY HAVE THE DEFECTS CORRECTED, AND THE CONTRACTOR AND HIS SURETY SHALL BE LIABLE FOR ALL EXPENSE INCURRED; PROVIDED, HOWEVER THAT IN CASE OF ANY EMERGENCY RE MAY BE MADE WITHOUT NOTICE BEING GIVEN TO THE CONTRACTOR AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PAY THE COST THEREOF. SUCH EMERGENCY REPAIRS SHALL BE MADE BY OTHERS ONLY IN THE EVENT THAT THE CONTRACTOR CANNOT BE LOCA1t1). THE CONTRACTOR 15 RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING ALL UTILITY COMPANIES BErORE ANY CONSTRUCTION. ANY DAMAGE TO UTILITIES CAUSED BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REPAIRED AT HIS EXPENSE. ONE-CALL (50c0456-8000 GRAPHIC SCALE 50 100 200 (SN 1/4 SECTION 5, T 25 N., R 45 E KM.) EXPIRES: 9/23/95 OFFICIAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFICE SUBMITTAL # 10/21/c44 RETURN TO COUNTY ENGINEER r3--. PERIMETER FENCE 0 +00.0 11 +23.1 F.5. 20 INDIANA A BARKER 115 2030 T.F.G. 2027.02 B.G.R. 0+5652 TF.G. 2026.84 18+84.10 B M.G.R. TF.G. 2027.15 E.C.R. 0+5648 T.F.C. 2026.84 OW POINT LOW POINT P.I.V.G. 5 P.LV.G. STA. 0+15.00 F.S. 202654 A = 1+00 = 2025.11 ' VG = 2026.2 TA = 1 +21.43 A = 1+00 = 2025.15 1 +21.43 C INV. ELEV TYPE 2 CURB POINT 75 INLET .00 CENTER POINT 202627 2 CURB INLET EXISTIN6 6ROUND FINISHED GRADE 2 +88.00 CENTER INV. ELEV. 2026. TYPE 2 CURB I STA. 1+25.00 F5.202624 EXISTING 6ROUND FINISHED 6RADE INV. ELEV. 2028 TYPE 2 CURB 1 00 OENTER. POINT . 2021.27 2 CURB INLET POINT 028.15 : INLET EG.R. 4 +7121 TFL. 2024.00 MLR T.F.C. 2028.86 B.G.R. 20+40b1 TFL. 2028:71 5 +21.55 INDI I1 +14.01 H F.5. 2021.38 NA AVENUE RMONY LANE 8.G R. 4+40.18 T.F.C. 2024.04 M.G.R. T.F.C. 202893 5+64.41 CENTER INV. ELEV. 2021.1 TYPE2 CURB 1 5+6851 CENTER P INV. ELEV. 2021 TYPE 2 CURB 1 M.G.R. T.F.C. 2024.21 B.C.R. 14+41.41 STA. 6 +15.00 F5. 2030.50' R 5+6656 G. 202970 P.I.V.G. 5 .I.V.G. 100.0 ,Hilt ?C i• il % •• €ilia' - • ki ;Ji3- _ • il M.C.R. T.F.C. 2027.15 ECR 0+ TFL. 2026.84 I+00 2+00 NEW RIGHT OF WAY LINE FOR BARKER ROAD 5' FUTURE AG&UISITION AREA T. 202720 M.CR. GONGERNWNS 1 R1614T OF HAY 2 +25.00 CENTER POINT INV. ELEV. 2026.41 TYPE 2 CURB INLET 3+00.00 END GRASSY SWALE, NORTH SIDE OF INDIANA ONLY 2L 0 =il =- POINT INV. ELEV. 202/.27 net 2 CURB INLET 6' SIDEWALK (:EC DETAILS) B.G.R. 20+40.61 HARMONY LANE T.F.C. 2028.71 5 +21.55 INDIANA AVENUE =11 +14.01 HARMONY LANE F.5. 2021.38 E.C.R. 20+31 .08 HARMONY TFL. 2028.76 1 1 T.F.C. 2021.22 1. L =2457' (NOT TO SCALE) TYPE 'B' CURB SIDEWALK 10• DETAIL A T • 'T' 'R RI PROVE M iii l • LANE TYPE 2 ' • 7'i B.G.R. 5+62.42 i • ,._ OF WAY I T =6 +58.16 I • I � ` 1 1 INV. ELEV. 2028.41 I r * � +%c" 8+25.00 GENTHR POINT I / r m - �''' G 2 / I l i PE GUR TFL. 2021.67/ I NL I TYPE 2 CURB 214 ET 2H 5+64.41 CENTER PO I 2 CURB INLET I EE2 CURB I 1 7 I I ZE I AM:111501111■Vgr.m-- T.F.C. 2027.80 T.F.C. 2028.66 E.C.R. 22+3836 McMILLAN LANE INV. ELEV. 027.47 TYPE 2 r1! L =24 M.G.R. EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY . 0 +00.00 INDIANA AVENUE 11 +23.12 BARKER ROAD F.S. 202115 (STATIONING ON BARKER ROAD BEGINS AT THE SOUTWEST V4 CORNER OF SEC. 13, 1251t R4514, KM. AT STATION 10+00.00) 0 +30.00 JOIN EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS 2+21.01 2H 10+15.00 202737 2.1 1 +15.00 2026.11 3+15.00 1 +15.00 8+15.00 11+6120 11+6120 Top E382M ELEV. 2'425 .44 202654 2027.17_ 2029.71 2021.'1 20284/ 2028.1 202641 2021.71 702177 2021.1 202891 2027.08 c 2021.08 EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT ACCELERATION/ DECELERATION RAMP (SEE SHEET *6) 5.CR 18+84.10 BARKER ROAD T.F.C. 2021.46 25' SIDEWALK, DRAINAGE, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT (TYP) STATIONS AND 'ELEVATIONS FOR CHECK DAMS 202161 202644 2024.61` 202421 0+00 ACCFI FRATION/ L= 31.41' DECELERATION RAMP (SEE SHEET *6) DOI41STREAM TOE OF BERM 2025.43 2021.63 202425 2028.45 2024.63 202425 2028.45 2026.15 2026.15 STA. 0+68.44 OFFSET 2650' ELEV. 2026.16 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 13' PRYWELL 11T14 TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 0+61.18 6RATE ELEV. 2026 8: ✓ y OFFSET 28' RIGHT 1+2143 CENTER PO PG =2 +11.41 INV. ELEV. 202821 TYPE 2 GURB INLET B.G.R. 4+4078 T.F.C. 2024.04 L= 24.02' M.G.R. T.F.C. 202843 1 L =2' E.G.R. 11 +52.65 HARMONY LANE T.F.C. 2O213:17 SPOKANE COUNT( STANDARD TYPE 'A" DRYNEL L WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE HARMONY LANE SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE "B" DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE HARMONY LANE STREET AND STOP 51614 B.GR 14#7.47 HARMONY T.F.C. 202871 \1D I ANA 5+6851. POINT.` y TYP,E2 CURB INLET E.GR. 5+6656 TFL. 2024:10/ SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE "A" DRYWi3L WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 5+61.15 408.47E welt. 2 ✓ LANE OFFSET 28' RIGHT 8 +25 .00 CENTER POI INV. ELEV. 202427' 2 CURB INLET E POINT Ev. 2021.811 - : INLET STORAGE AREA OM REV 6h2 T7.?G INLET SPOKANE • 13' SIDEWALK, DRAINAGE, SLOPE, UTILITY, EASEMENT, AND LANDSCAPED TRACT. (SEE LANDSCAPED PLAN BY THE BERGER PARTNERSHIP, P.S) 10 +01.20 INDIANA AVENUE =22 +80.36 MGMILLAN LANE F.5. 20283' 1 `; 1 11+50.00 CENTER POINT FED. RAMP IINV. 6.11.2026.67 1 L / fl 1 STA. 10+21.06 TypE CENTER PoW 11 INLET I 1 +25 .0o cENTER PO T.F.C. 2028.28 L =1.15' SPOKANE COUNT( STANDARD TYPE '8' DRYWELL 14IT14 TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND CRATE McMILLAN LANE STREET AND STOP 51614 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'A' DRYYELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE McMILLAN LANE TF.G. 2027.18 L =7.13' 103 B.G.R. 22+3836 McMILLAN LANE T.F.C. 20 .40 CURVE DATA FOR TOP 11 +6621 END CONSTRUCTION F.S. 202102 ERECT 1ayi'ORARY BARRICADE ' 10 CHECK t 100' ON GENTER DAMS AS SHOWN ON PLAN, TYP) SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE "B" DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND 6RATE STA 11+54.00 GRATE 8.EV 202621 4 OFFSET 28' R16HT EXPIRES: 9 -23 -95 RIGHT (T.F.G.) FACE OF CURB PROFILE SCALE: HORIZONTAL: 1"=50' VERTICAL: 1 " = 5' 31.43' 31.41' 40.10' 33.18' 14.11' 22.14' 40 81'58 16•35'13' 17'52'01' 88•18'00' 41'20'24' 90'00'00' 40'00'00' OPPICIAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFICE ORIGINA SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD PROJECT 4-1 TYPE 'B' DRYWELL WITH SUBMITTAL M TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA 11 +54.00 SRAMELEVV 202621 e RETURN TO COUNTY ENGINEER^ OFFSET 28' LEFT GALE: 1 INGH = 50 FEET SSG. 8, T2SN, R45E, RM. RECEIVED FEB 2 3 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER LES ENI7 STOP AND STREET 51614 DRYWELL CHECK DAM A = 1 +00 = 2030.14 ' VG 8+25.00 GENTI32 INV. ELEV. 2021 TYPE 2 CURB 1 1 +25.00 G INV. ELEV. 20 TYPE 2 CURB 1 INV. ELEV. 2028.4 TYPE 2 CURB I 10+50.00 G ITN. ELEV. 20 TYPE 2 CURB I E.C.R. 10+3810 T.F.C. 2028.06 T.F.C. 2027.18 INV. ELEV. 20 TYPE 2 CURB I 11+50.00 0 LEFT (T.F.G.) Sf-FEET 2 LEFT (T.F.G.) RIGHT (T.F.G.) 2030 2025 z W 2030 iL 0 O POINT ®• CENTER POINT .15 INV.: . 2026.41 INLET TYPE 2 CURB INLET 100.0 P.I V.G. 5 P.I.V.G. EL N O O tT (NI O ' VG A = 1+00 = 2025.17 (V N (Ni N O N O N N O N INV. ELEV. 20 TYPE 2 CURB O N O N O CI N t4 1- N N is N O DOMINO 6ROUND FINISHED 6RADE ,„ N N O N INV. N) N N E.G.R. 11+ T. 20 N N N O C :71 N 0 O m O cv T.F.C. 20 M.G.R. T.F.C. 2021.22 E 20+37.08 T.F.C. 2028.76 2.42 .67 NY LANE 0 100.0 P.I.V.G. 5 P.I.V.G. I6H POINT HIGH POINT P.I V.C. 5 P.I.V.G. I00. 0 N ' VG A =1+00 =: 2030.14 = 2030.5' -TA ="1+00 A = 1+00 = 2030.15' 'VG m O TYPE Inv N N mom -hispirieW.:INIMM/1111411111 III I"MIIW B.C.R. 1+63.10 T.F.C. 2028.66 MGR TF.G. 202828 POINT 2030.02 CURB INLET t N O N N N O 8+25.00 GENT INV. ELEV. 2024 TYPE 2 CURB I cv N tr N O E.C.R. 22+3856 T.F.C. 2021. 0 N N INT N O N dJ N O IPA 1 +25.00 CENTER N N N O C N O N N O T.F.C. CV 10+01.20 IND 2021.40 0 N N O N 0 N O III • ■NIN ,46.4. 139.polenr■I•111111Mirvil IANA AVENUE =22 +8036 F.S. 2028.3 cMILLAN LA 1I +6621 END F.5. 20210 ERECT TEMP (SEE DETAIL 2030 6RADE OUT 2025 CONSTRUCT! RARY BA ) N GENTS 1- N O z w 11+50 CENTER POINT INV. ELEV. 2026 •7 TYPE 2 CURB I 4_\ 2030 6RADE OUT 2025 z 1= X 2 1.l.. POINT .67 NE w d A U to W A A Qd cy d' N ti 5 co r GENTS 10+ =16 F.S. CR. 5 +90.•8 M T.F.C. 2034.85 0.00 HARM M.G.R. T.F.C. 2034.41 B.G.R. 10+51.53 T.F.C. 203409 AVENUE P.I.V.C. 5 PIVC •-•-j 50.0 ---'I 50.0 P.I.V.G. 5 P.I.V.G. = 10 +50 = 2033.61 ' vG ' VG 1-- = 10 +50 = 2033. .00 HARMO 21.62 MI55I0 2034.10 2035 EXISTING &ROUND FINISHED GRADE 2032. M.C.R. F5. 203124 E.C.R. 12 +25.47 F.S. 2031.91 EXISTING GROUND EXIS11N6 GROUND T.F.C. 2029.61 3.GR 16+65.08 M T.F.C. 203457 ION AVENUE M.GR T.F.C. 2034.44 E.C.R. 10+5146 TF.G. 2034.10 P.I.V.G. 5 P.I.V.G. EL 50.0 = 10 +50 = 2033.61 ' VG £GR 10+63.03 F.S. 2031:77 E ..•_.. OKANE B.GR. 11+53.97 FS. 203263 M.GR F5.203220 STA. IN STA. OUT OFFSET IN OFFSET OUT ELEV: IN ELEV. air I +.62.62 2031.02 4+07.62 14+22.62 028 81 ,202857 2021b4 I 17 +26.34 II +71.62 17 +10.60 1950' Lt1-1 1950' LEFT 1943'111 1950' Li=t-I 1950' LEFT 19.43' LEFT 203132 2021:96 DATA FOR 104) G.M.P., 15' L6. EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT EXISTING RIGA -IT OF WAY 10 +00.00 HARMONY LANE =16 +2 MISSION AVENUE F.S. 2034.10 SAWGUT 1' OF EXISTING PAVEMENT TO FACILITATE PAVEMENT INSTALLATION S.G.R. 16+65.08 MISSION A T.F.C. 2034.'77 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE B' DRYYEIL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 10+40.00 GRATE ELEV. 203123 OFFSET 19.5' RIGHT E.G.R. 10+36.03 FUTURE SANDUSKY RIVER LANE F$. 203177 18+2858 18+10.14 19+02.13 18+61.13 2028.80 202178 202838 202852 202778 202132 2027.91 DOWNSTREAM TOE OF 202821 202711 11 + HARMONY LANE =10 +00.00 FUTURE SANDUSKY RIVER LANE F.5. 2032.55 FUTURE ACQUISITI .GR. 11+33.97 F5. 2032.63 FUTUR: : t1PROr: L«ITS E.G.R. 15+40.08 MISS ON AVENUE TF.C. 2034251 M.GR TF.G. 2034.41 L =3143' B.G.R 10+5153 T.F.C. 2034 •' M.G.R. F5.203220 = ! ROv "-_..f NTS 11 +10.12 STATIONS AND ELEVATIONS FOR CHECK DAMS TO DRAIN STA. 13+97.98 GRATE ELEV. 2029.69' 24 OFFSET 77' RI 1 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'A' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND &RATE STA. 10+40.00 GRATE ELEV. 2031.23 OFFSET 195' LEST B.C.R. 10+35.91 FUTURE SANDUSKY RIVER LANE F5.203177 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE "A' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE AUGUSTA LANE PROJECT EXAM:PAW E.GR. 10+36.03 AUGUSTA LANE F.S. 202435 cur /FILL LIM 1 r5 (TYP.) SPOKANE COUNTY STAND TYPE 13' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND M.G.R. F.5. 202977 23.00' 20.00' 3556' 40.I0' 3853' 21.98' 22.02' 21.98' 22.02' 21.98' 90'03'08' 84 °5652" 90'03'08' 89 81'37'05' 88'35'01' 90'03'08" 89'56'52" 16 97 - 88'18'00' 47'20'24' 14+15.12 G2 1 EDGE OF PAVEMENT 11 TOP FACE OF CURB 10 9 8 10' SIDEWALK DRA NAGE SLO AND UTILITY EASEMENT (TYP) GRADE TO DRA N CURB DATA FOR EDGE OF PAVEMENT AND SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE "3" DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE AUGUSTA LANE SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 13" DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE AUGUSTA LANE F5. 20 L= 31.40' M.G.R. F.S. 2029.41 STREET 5IGN B.C.R. 10+35.97 F.S. 202935 36 TOP FACE OF CURB SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'B" DRYWELL WI TYPE 4 METAL STA. 16+05 • HARMO LANE E.G.R. 10+ F.S. 20 L =4604 L =I35' B.G.R. 17 F.S. 20 " .001 2826' .GR .5. 2028.89 .11 BALDWIN LANE SPOKANE COUNTY B ARD TYPE "A" DRYHELL WITH / TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND,6R STA. 19+40.00 GRATE ELEV. 202170 -ima OFFSET 195' LEFT_ PT =18 +11.5 5P• COUNTY STANDARD TYPE • DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE BALDWIN LANE B.C.R. 4+9078 INDIANA AVENUE T.F.C. 20 1. M.G.R. T.F.C. 2028. L=24.02' L =2.13' E.G.R 19 +52.65 F.G. 2028.T1 STREET AND STOP 516N L =958' . TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE -6TA I9 +2500 M.G.R. ELEV. 2021.63 F.S. 2029.13 S' RIGHT STREET 516N B.C.R. 10+31.80 BALDWIN F.S. 2028.16 41 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'B' DRYWFL I WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE BALDWIN LANE M.C.R. T.F.C. 202921 RIGHT OF WAY SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'A' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE INDIANA AVENUE E R. 4+1121 INDIANA AVENUE T.F.C. 202400 M.C.R. T.F.C. 2028.86 B.G.R. 20+4051 - TF.C. 2028 i �- / -- / F.S. 202138/ PROJECT BOUM7ARY F.G. I1+'14.07 E.G .R. 20+37.08 / T.F.G. 2028.16 FUTURE : t9ROv k NTS M.C.R. T.F.G. 202922 E.G.R. 5+66.56 INDIANA AVENUE T.F.C. 202970 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'A" DRY1j1L WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE INDIANA AVENUE 11 +14.01 HARMONY LANE =5 +2 INDIANA AVENUE SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'B" DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE INDIANA AVENUE B.G.R. 5+62.42 INDIANA AVENUE T.F.C. 2029.61 13' SIDEWALK DRAINAGE SLOPE UTILITY EASEMENT, AND LANDSCAPED TRACT. (SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN BY THE BERGER PARTNERSHIP, P.5.) EXPIRES: 9 -23 -95 70 A/ov 14- SCALE: 1 I NGH = 50 FEET SEG. 8, T25N, R4SE, RM. II/21/44 OFFICIAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFICE PROJECT SUBMI I IAL # RETURN TO COUNTY ENGINEER RECEIVED FEB 2 3 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER NiKESIN aou BLR 10+35. F.5. 2031.T1 14+35.00 H =10 +00.00 F.S. 2030.1 E.G.R. 1 F.S. 202 MONY LANE GUSTA LAN B.G.R 13+98.91 F5: 2030.18 M.G.R. F.S. 2029.71 1 C i HI ' H2, ■ �t51Efffi , ' ) B.GR 13+98.' E.C.R. 12 +25.97 ' ^ T_ F.S. 2031g1 F5.2030.18 L =31 L= 3143' M.C.R. - - -- - 5. 203184 FINISHED GRADE B.C.R. 10435S TI STA. 15 +75.00 F.S. 2028.76 E.G.R. 14+10.97 F.S. 2029.46 M.G.R. F5.2029.41 14+35.00 HARM =10 +00.0 + r AUG STA LAN F.5. 2030. OJ 1 2031 SPOKANE • c TYPE 'B' ' - TYPE- NEPAL STA: 16 +26 • 6RATE OFFSET 71' NY LANE 014 POINT LOW POINT 5 ST Pi .V.G. 100.0 = 16 +00 = 2028.11 ' VG 1 +38.78 =q + F.5. 202 = 16 +00 = 2028.11 'VG E.G.R. 10+30.11 FS. 2028.71 ARMONY LA ALDWIN LAN 56 STA. 16 +25.00 F.5. 202871 M.C.R. F.S. 2028.89 ALDWIN LANE 56.86 GRADE TO DRAIN 202823 STA. 11 +15.00 F.S. 2029.18 I6H POINT HI6H POINT 5 P.I.V.G. ST P.I.V.G. (00.0 B.G.R. 10+31.8 F5.2028:16 =18+00 = 202'111 ' VG EV = 202q.1 A = i7 +85.301 = 18 +00 = 2030.05 ' VG =18+00 = 202'111 ' VG E.G.R 11 +1455 F.S. 2029.50 M.G.R F3. 2029.13 3ALDWIN LANE P.I. P.I.V. LOW P LOWP P.I. P.I.Y. - 1 .465g_ .G. STA = 1 . ELEV =20 50.00' VG INT ELEV = INT STA = I .G. STA = la ELEV = 20 50.00' VG .G. STA = l . ELEV = 20 50.00' VG .G.R 19 +52.65 T.F.G. 2028.77 028.41 +24.61 25 6.22 B.G.R. 19+4 1.97 T.F.C. 2028.11 9 +14.01 F.S. 2 '28.9 +14.01 B.GR 4+9078 I T.F.C. 2029.09 H.C. T.F.C. 2028.93 £G.R. 5 +6656 IND T.F.C. 202970 M.CR T.F.C. 202921 IANA AVENUE E.G.R. 4+1929 IND T.F.C. 2029.00 T.F.C. 2028.86 B.G.R. 20+40.61 T.F.C. 2028.11 1 HA =5 +2155 IN F.S. 202 G.B. 20+14.01 F5. 2028.46 ANA AVENUE B.C.R. 5+62.42 1 M.G.R. T.F.C. 202922 E.G.R. 20+37.08 T.F.G. 2028.16 2030 MONY LANE IANA AVENUE 2030 1111111111 III (EDP) PROFILE SCALE: HORIZONTAL: I " =50' VERTICAL: I " =5' L_ESEN1 STREET SIGN DRTHFI 1 )� GHEGK DAM III CURB INLET • 4 +x4.13 B =11+38, F.S. 202 GENTEf EG.R. 11 +"1455 F.5. 202450 DWIN LANE HARMONY 56 B.C.R. 11+04.11 F5. 2029.00 MLR. F5.2024.13 BL.R 10+31.60 F.S. 2025:16 M.G.R. F5. 2028.84 E.C.R. 10+30.11 F5.2028 T1 P.I.V.G. 5 PJ V.G. LOW POINT LOW POINT 5 P.I VL. 5 P.I V.G. 5 PJ.V.G. =10+50 =202855 = 10+50 = 202855 CURVE RADIUS TANGENT DELTA BI 22.00' 2.28' 14.84' 84'04'44' B2 22.00' 37.46' ' 25.12' 47 °34'03' H5 26.00' 3W4' 22 81 H6 23.00' 3556' ' 548.55'01° GROUND FINI5I it27 GRADE 145H POI NISH POINT 5 P.IV.G. 51 P.I.V.G. 100 STA. 13+25.00 F5. 2030.98 P.I.V.G. 5 P.I.V:G. 100 P.I V.G. 5 P.I V.G. 100 = 13+50 = 2030.45 P.I = 13+50 = 2030.43 ' VG J.V.G. STA = 14+ MEV = 2030 POINT E1.EV = POINT STA = I4+ .I.V.G. STA = 14+ V.G. ELEV = 2030 50.00' VG STA. 13 +15.00 F5. 2050.93 .I.V.G. 5TA = 14+ V.G. = 2030 - 50.00' VG F5. 2030.68 E.C.R. .R. 14+49.94 F.5. 2030.45 M.G.R. F.S. 2030.82 B.G.R. 14434.61 F5. 203037 B.C.R. 19+91.14 M.G.R. F.S. 203051 14 +81.11 B =14 +58.83 F.S. 2031.2 .2025.88 cMILLAN LA GENTE + NPIS F5. 20) • r L =30.65' B.C.R. 10+31 F5. 2028.16 \ / 5TREET516 ".. _ F5. 2029 E.C.R. 10+30.11 F.S. 2026.T1 MLR F5. 2028.89 °B. 2826' ` B 11+04.11 HARMONY LANE M.C.R. 5 S IGN B.C.R. 14439.6 4 5.2030.37 L =33.66' ML.R 5.203121 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE "B' DRYHELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE McMILLAN LANE 2030 PC = a +44.13 3 q +14.13 BALDWIN LANE =11 +38.18 HARMONY LANE F.S. 202456 CURVE DATA FORAGE OF PAVEMENT 11 +16.41 HARMONY LANE SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE °S' DRYINELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE HARMONY LA () SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'A' DRYWEL_ WITH TYPE 4 METAVFRAMIF. &RATE STA. 14+25.00 GRATE ELEV.12024.83� OFFSET 145' LEFT I0' SIDEWALK, DRAINAGE, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT (TYP) 6' SIDEWALK (SEE DETAILS) RIGHT OF WAY EDGE OF PAVEMENT COMMON AREA B.CR 14+41.14 McMILLAN LANE F.S. 20506,5 46 F.S. 2030.:, L= 29.61'- E.C.R. 14+44.4 F5. 2030.45 F.S. 2030132 SP OKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'B' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 14425.00 15RATE EL V. 2024133 •� ONSET 145' RIGHT PT = 14 +81:71 qq 14 +8131 BALDWIN LANE =14 +58.83 McMILLAN LANE F.S. 2031.22v 14+33.43 McMILLAN LANE 6' SIDEWALK (SEE DETAILS) E.G.R. 14 +11.18 McMILLAN LANE SCALE: 1 INGH = 50 FEET 5EG. 8, T25N, R4.5E, K M. UND M.G.R. 2J SPOKANE STANDARD - i 10 +00.00 AUGUSTA LANE 14+15.12 HARMONY LANE q 10' SIDEWALK, DRAINAGE, SLOPE AND UTILITY EASEMENT (TYP 6' SIDEWALK (SEE DETAILS) EDGE OF PAVEMENT G.R. 14+10.91 HARMONY F5. 2029.46 Z-4) 4 to /2031- --- RIGHT OF WAY ELR 10+36.03 F5.2029.35 OKANE COUNTY STANDARD 1 TYPE 'A' DRYWEL_ WITH TTt't 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE F5. - 2029.-7 1 STA. 10+36.03 2028.85 -1-'31.431 I ( n ' TYPE 'B" DR WITH TYPE 4 METAL AND GRATE HARMONY LA Tp S.G.R. 13+98.91ARMONY LANE F.S. 2030.18 AUSUSTA LAN SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD '3 / TYPE ' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND 6RATE 5TA. 10+45.00 6RATE ELEV. 2028.83 OFFSET 195' LEFT 5 (TYP) 10' SIDEWALK, DRAINAGE, SLOPE PROJECT BOUNDARY 11 +25.00 END CONSTRUCTION ERECT TEMPORARY BARRIER F.S. 2030.5q (SEE DETAILS) ? PRO v E ?.1E NTS 6' SIDEWALK (1C.0 DETAILS) CURVE DATA FOR EDGE OF PAVEMENT.. SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TN �EL t 'B° DRYY.L_ WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND CRATE STA. 10+66. --� CRATE EL . 2028.44 OFFSET -14a RI 6R� EXPIRES: 9/29/95 OFFICIAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT SPOKANE CO UNTY ENGINEER'S OFFICE PROJECT # R L G NA L SUBMITTAL # RETURN TO COUNTY ENGINEER II/15/94 RECEIVED FEB 2 3 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER PROFILE SCALE: HORIZONTAL: 1 " =50' VERTICAL: 1 " =5' CURVE RADIUS 1 TANGENT DELTA H3 22.00' 3458 22.02' 40'03'08' H4 22.00' 3454' 21.96' 89 LEFT (EDP) RIGHT 2030 _INE 2030 N 2025 2030 0 N 0 0 0 cN N O m O N 0 N O m O EXISTING GROUND FINISHED GRADE O m O N m O N m O ur m 0 N of m r O N FT'S O z N X m 0 E.G.R 19 +11.18 Mc F.S. 2031.77 z 2025 DWIN LANE 2025 ILLAN LANE 2030 2025 (E.oP) RIGHT INE LEFT (EDP) 10+00.00 = 14+35.00 F.S. 2030. E.G.R. 14+10.41 F5. 2024.46 SUSTA LA HARMONY L 0 B.G.R. 13 +48.47 F.S. 2030.18 M.G.R. F.S. 2029.41 B.G.R. 10+35.91 F5. 2024.35 M.C.R. F5. 2024.77 E.G.R. 10+36.03 F.5. 202935 LOW POINT LOW POINT P.I V.G. 5 P.i V.G. 50 F5. 2024.82 = 2024.61 TA = 10+45 L = 10+50 = 2024.46 ' VG =10+50 = 202418 'VG EXISTING 6RO FINISHED EXISTING, 6ROU EXISTING GROU FINISHED 11 +25.00 E ' ERECT TE F.5. 2030.'. (SEE DETA D GONSTRUG PORARY BA LS) 2030 - ION RIER GENTE RIGHT (EDP) z w 2030 _INE 2030 z N 2025 2030 z N W HARMONY LANE z g" N 0 N 0 N N 2030 DEOUT 2025 2030 LEFT (E.oP) RIGHT INE LEGEND STREET SIGN STOP AND STREET 516N ® DRYNELL PEDESTRIAN RAMP 0 O z O 4-+ to 0 1 0 r tr 0 o •gr ti 0 0 n 0 W 0 0 r O 0 0 r0 cc 0 N O 0 S -ET DAM STA. Ma :;q: �:��Li��i��OF •':I•I.1•:L� TOE • BERM 5A 18+25.00 /\ 2031.41 MN \2031.4_3 '- 2031.34 5B 21+50.001 /202436, j� 2028..27 ' 2028.16 50 21+50.00 ' 2024561 2028.7! 2028.16 J=15464.22 F.S. 203.47 F.S. 2 OFFSET E= 154644.22 F5.2033.41 G =I6 +14.58 F.S. 2033.01 OFFSET 45' 2025' R16HT 2.21 MGR 3381 H =16 +14.81 F.5. 2033.01 OFFSET 44. 1 =15 +18.85 F.G. 2033.11 OFFSET 2126' 4.22 IN CONSTRUCTION 203431 8 MGR L =1 88 .23' RIGHT K =16 +54.77 6 =16 +50.10 F5.2033.11 OFFSET 25:1 16+13.40, 50' OF TEMPORAR F5. 2035.48 CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT DELTA BI 22.00' 321.6' 1494' 84'04'44" B2 22.00' 37.46' 25.12' 41'34'03" R'1 22.00' 3456' 22.00' 40 R8 22.00' 3456' 22.00' 40 1115 POINT. CUL-DE-SAC 16 +1221 PROJECT BOUND F.S. 203351 0.11 MGR 203323 18.60' RIE A =16 +7221 D =15 +71.48 F5. 2033:10 OFFSET 28.16' RI 5= 16+50.61 F5. 2033.14 OFFSET 27.14' P16HT M.C.R. , F.S. 2030.82 B.G.R. 14+34.61 FS. 203037 ISTIN6 GROUND (SHED GRADE -0.801` STIN6 GROUND (SHED GRADE - 0.8051 ALDWIN LANE F.S. 2030: E.G.R. 1 B.G.R. 14+41.14 .5. 2030.68 F5. 203057 q4 BALDWIN LANE 19 +58.83 Mc P.I V.G. 5 P.I V.G. 100 I LLAN LANE ANA AVENUE 1 P.I V.G. 5 P.I.V.G. 100 P.I V.G. 5 P.I.V.G. -100 = 21+00 = 2024.81 'VG E.G TF = 21+00 = 2030.04 'VG =21+00 = 2024.81 VG 22+3836 MOM! 2027.40 22+38.36 MGMI . 2027.40 50.00' VC POINT ELEV POINT STA =22 '.I V.G. STA . 22 +. V.G. ELEV = 2021 50.00' VG '.i V.G. STA = 22 +. V.G. ELEV = 2021 B.G.R. 4+ ,M.G.R. T.F.C. 2028.: T.F.G. 20 10 INDIANA A 6.5. 22 +6036 .5. 2021.4 2030 22 +80.36 M MILLAN LAN =10 +01.20 I DIANA AVEN P.S. 2028.3 " 2030 2030 D 16+'12.21 PROJECT BOUNDARY F.S. 205351 16 +13.40 RADIUS POINT_ OF TEMPORARY CUL- DE-SAC F.5. 2033.48 AND UTILITY EASEMENT SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD \ TYPE "B' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME GRA BALDWIN LANE SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'A" DR WELL WITH T BAL YPE M4 I M ETAL FRAME AND GRATE S \ 7 LANE �(S� B:G.R 14+34.61 BALDWIN LANE \ \ :, M.C.R. F S. 20 3082 I A LL 5TRT 5I6N - 50 L =33.66' E.G.R. 14 +11.18 OKANE COUNTY STANDARD F.S. 203121 RIGHT OF WAY -SHADED AREA DEMOTES TEMPORARY IMPROVEMENT PGG = I6 + 6' SIDEWALK (SEE DETAIL) E.G.R. 14+49.4 6RADE TO DRAIN :.R . 203051 24.61' LG.R. 14+41.14 CUT/4111- L I 715 (?yP} -_ A 10 IN M:P., 15' LONG \ 0 C. STA IN, +26.14, OFFSET 14.5' FT INV IN 2024.48 STA' OUT +4154, OFFSET I4.S' RT INV(DUT 2024:70 jj BALDWIN LANE T.F.C. 2028.66 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD `\ TYPE 13" DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND ORATE STA. 22 +34.00 GRATE ELEV. 2026.471 41 \ � OFFSET 17' LEFT \ PT 21 +1 .15 46 SPOKANE COUNTY STA) - PRG 19 40.16 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'A' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 22454.16 \ GRATE ELEV. 2026.44' . \OFFSET 11' mew / o� CHECK DAM 50 T.F.G. 2028.26 4$ L= 2426' -. 2027.40 / E.G.R. 10+38.10 INDIANA AVENUE TF.C. 2028.* EDGE OF PAVEMENT RIGHT OF WAY MPROVEMENTS 13' SIDEWALK, DRAINAGE, SLOPE, UTILITY EASEMENT AND LANDSCAPED TRACT (SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN BY THE BERGER PARTNERSHIP, P5.) EXPIRES: 9/23/95 AND ELEVATICV FOR CHECK DAMS • EDGE OF PAVEMENT •• TOP FADE OF CURB CURVE DATA FOR TOP FACE OF CURS AND EDGE OF PAVEMENT 1E61N CONSTRUCTION FS. 203437 10' SIDEWALK, DRAINAGE, SLOPE SGALE: I INGH = 50 FEET SEG. •, T25N, R45E, N.M. OFFICIAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFICE oRi NAL PROJECT # 4 SUBMITTAL # 5 RETURN TO COUNTY ENGINEER RECEIVED FEB 2 3 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER LESEND LEFT RISHT (EAPJ 2035 2030 2035 2030 2025 2035 2030 OF OFFSET 20' LEFT EX Flr Muer D C1 0 rm 0 tf cNi O N ts 0 O N 0 0 ts N N ts N 0 N • O P a /TF.G. 202 ■ N 0 866 2035 2025 2025 2035 2025 LEFT RIGHT (1P.GJ INE PROFILE SCALE: HORIZONTAL: I " =5O' VERTICAL: 1"=5' • N N • r, W 0 r ti r4 0 ry A q) O O 0 V 0 Q) rd 0 0 U co 0 CV 0 f: S CURVE 1 RADIUS 1 LfN&1}+ 1 TANGENT 1 DELTA MI 22.00' 3457' 21.81' 84•3056' RI 201)0' 3143' 20 .01' 90'0152" R2 20.00' 3L41' 14.44' 84'58'08' OTE SHADED AREA FROM MISSION AVENUE TO INDIANA AVENUE DENOTES IMPROVEMENTS TO BE GONSTRUGTED WITH RIVERWALK PHASE 11 OR PHASE VI, WHICHEVER\ OCCURS FIRST. ( i yv .t: MPR ..... .. .:zi ei =: .ie :..iris E.C.R. O+56.48 INDIANA AVENUE * T.F.G. 2026.84 NOTE 6RADE ROADSIDE DITCH IN PHASE I TO DRAIN TO DRYMELL AT STA 18+40.00 STA. 0+61.78 INDIANA AVENUE NOTE SHADED AREA FROM INDIANA AVENUE TO STATION 23+00.00 DENOTES 1MPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH RIVERWALK, PHASE 11 OR VI, WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST. SW 1/4 GUAR I iK CORNER SEC. 8 ExISTIN6 DRYI^ELL • 0 I I 10+58.01 M1�5ONIA 10 +00 a _ SEE DETAIL A 4:11 BGR CURVE DATA FOR TOP FACE OF CURB ASPHALT TAPER TOP DETAIL A & T $ . - 1 1 + 0 0 - 10+39.10 OFFSET 223' RI6HT AT4T UNDERGROUND GABLE MANHOLE AND FIBER OPTIC SIGN 10+5032 START TAPER 12 +00 EXISTING EiATE VALVE RIGHT -OF -WAY SIDEWALK DRAINAGE; 510PF UTILITY err 0 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDA TYPE "B" DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE GRATE ELEV. = T.P.G. OFFSET FROM SECTION LINE 56' R SA ¢. TYPE I CURB INLET FLOWLINE INV. ELEV. = T.P.G. -0.50' 0 CE CHECK DAM TOP BERM ELEV. = T.F.G. - 1.63' ELEV. = T.F.G. - 230' SIDE SLOPES 3: 1 MAX. 13+00 14+00 13+88.02 END TAPS SECTION AND CENTER LINE 15 +00 16+00 EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT r 0r i cu a � 1 z 11 +00 &ATE VAL 18 +00 Iq +00 VARIANCE APPROVED FOR NON - CONFORM I NG I NTERSEGTI ON PARATION DISTANCE 20+00 21 +00 22+00 23+00 1 BARKER ROAD = 0 +00.00 INDIANA AVENUE EXI5TIN5 21' AG WATER MAIN 22+6850 MIDPOINT OF 12 PRIVATE DIRT DRIVE SGT 1 INGH = 50 FEET SEG 8, T25N, R45E, YA*.M. _ ATION OFFICIAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFIC PROJECT SUBMITTAL #- Qj\J A L RETURN TO COUNTY ENGINEEI RECEIVE FEB 231995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINE LESEND STOP AND STREET 516N PEDESTRIAN RAMP ® DRYWEI. 2/21/95 SH- 6 O O d a)) 0 4 r al 0 0 CO r - 10+00.00 3ARKER. ROAD � al tA 0 � 0 .d, • , .. • .4 WI S Seoz b' 1 g'b90Z 3 1 C i j b'eeoz I 1 GGOZ I O' GGOZ 1 1 c'ZGOZ b' IGOZ 1 GOZ OGOZ 1 i • 1 OGOZ L'bZOZ G'bZOZ l bZOZ L' 9zoZ 'STING ( V9ZOZ I ( o9zo ( b'LZOZ 1 G'LZOZ Le d m o . �' 1 9 ( I 120 9ZOZ 9'9ZOZ I 9' 9ZOZ 2035 GENTERL CENTERLINE GRADE /-- 0I00.( 2030 2025 n 0 N d 0 0 N 2035 BCR FE F.. 10+58.01 MI5510h 203453 -j 2034:41 AVE rcm. 10150.44 15ARKER. FS 2034.29 10+15.00 Rv CURB INLET' 11+60.00 :.URS INLET 12 +50.00 CURB INLET FINISHED GRADE 2 2 0+56 2 INDIANA AVENUE C01 APPROVED APPROVED: OP N E LINE 3 +00.00 13.4657 -.: INLET ----- _ 15 +25 EXISTING 14+50 .00 CURB - 1.185 GROUND INLET 15+50.00 CURB INLET Ib+so.0o 11+6000 1+60 CURB INLET INLET 5 2026.84 3.G.R 18+84.10 BARKER FS 2027.46 INDIANA AVENUE- M.G.R. F5 2027.15 ROAD - - M.G.R. FS 2027. .R 19+64.14 BART 202720 R ROAD 2030 RI SHT - WO% GRADE BREAK GRADE BREAK _. 16 +50.00 -0. GRADE BREAK - 0.435' I8 +25 GRADE RRFAK r - 0535K Q - O % • o c -035% 22+00.00 a T.F.G. 14400.00 -' .' + •• 1'11 i j ' 22+15.00 GRADE BREA a - i cy - r mryO (n 0 0 N NN -. in 0 N ' mO N O O to I'n O 0 .N rro N N 0 0 • NN � = `m_: Na 0 0 �- (11) N N O 0 NN &1 � N 0 0 .NN � Ng cc) NN N 0 NN O. dJ aJ NN 0 0 NN r r . N � 0 0 . NN Z r�-- NN 0 0 NN ^d; , � r • r NN NN N 0 0 0 0 O 0 NN N N N (0' LZOZ) LO'LZOZ 2026.40 (2026 .q) 4.,<. (9' .2OZ) (ri7 0Z) 2033.80 (2033.4) (9'ZGOZ) OgGSOZ (G.ZGOZ) Oq'ZGOZ (Cr IGOZ) br'ZGOZ (L'9ZOZ) GL'9ZOZ (0' 9ZOZ) I r9ZOZ ( -9Z0Z) 909ZOZ (q 9ZOZ) GS'9ZOZ (9N LIGIXW 9b'GZOZ OTE SHADED AREA FROM MISSION AVENUE TO INDIANA AVENUE DENOTES IMPROVEMENTS TO BE GONSTRUGTED WITH RIVERWALK PHASE 11 OR PHASE VI, WHICHEVER\ OCCURS FIRST. ( i yv .t: MPR ..... .. .:zi ei =: .ie :..iris E.C.R. O+56.48 INDIANA AVENUE * T.F.G. 2026.84 NOTE 6RADE ROADSIDE DITCH IN PHASE I TO DRAIN TO DRYMELL AT STA 18+40.00 STA. 0+61.78 INDIANA AVENUE NOTE SHADED AREA FROM INDIANA AVENUE TO STATION 23+00.00 DENOTES 1MPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH RIVERWALK, PHASE 11 OR VI, WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST. SW 1/4 GUAR I iK CORNER SEC. 8 ExISTIN6 DRYI^ELL • 0 I I 10+58.01 M1�5ONIA 10 +00 a _ SEE DETAIL A 4:11 BGR CURVE DATA FOR TOP FACE OF CURB ASPHALT TAPER TOP DETAIL A & T $ . - 1 1 + 0 0 - 10+39.10 OFFSET 223' RI6HT AT4T UNDERGROUND GABLE MANHOLE AND FIBER OPTIC SIGN 10+5032 START TAPER 12 +00 EXISTING EiATE VALVE RIGHT -OF -WAY SIDEWALK DRAINAGE; 510PF UTILITY err 0 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDA TYPE "B" DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE GRATE ELEV. = T.P.G. OFFSET FROM SECTION LINE 56' R SA ¢. TYPE I CURB INLET FLOWLINE INV. ELEV. = T.P.G. -0.50' 0 CE CHECK DAM TOP BERM ELEV. = T.F.G. - 1.63' ELEV. = T.F.G. - 230' SIDE SLOPES 3: 1 MAX. 13+00 14+00 13+88.02 END TAPS SECTION AND CENTER LINE 15 +00 16+00 EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT r 0r i cu a � 1 z 11 +00 &ATE VAL 18 +00 Iq +00 VARIANCE APPROVED FOR NON - CONFORM I NG I NTERSEGTI ON PARATION DISTANCE 20+00 21 +00 22+00 23+00 1 BARKER ROAD = 0 +00.00 INDIANA AVENUE EXI5TIN5 21' AG WATER MAIN 22+6850 MIDPOINT OF 12 PRIVATE DIRT DRIVE SGT 1 INGH = 50 FEET SEG 8, T25N, R45E, YA*.M. _ ATION OFFICIAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFIC PROJECT SUBMITTAL #- Qj\J A L RETURN TO COUNTY ENGINEEI RECEIVE FEB 231995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINE LESEND STOP AND STREET 516N PEDESTRIAN RAMP ® DRYWEI. 2/21/95 SH- 6 O O d a)) 0 4 r al 0 0 CO 2025 2020 CENTERLINE 2025 2020 R161-IT CrF.GJ STA 23+32.50 OFFSET 15' R1614T TO 16' DIRT DRIVE 23#00 l� 0 O O ra 5TA.23+11.2 OFFSET 21' R16HT— PoWET2 POLE WITH STREET L16141 N 0 0 0 N N z EXISTING PRIVATE DRIVE INSTALL LANE REDUCTION TRANSITION SIGNS Wq -2 AND W4-2 m LA 0 N N A to N 0 ltd N 0 N - 0h4% 25 +25.00 GRADE BREAK ■ 24+52.00 E CV 0 0 0 N • CURB AND GUTTER 23+52.00 6A NOTES: ALL SWALE CHECK DAMS ARE TO BE 112 FOOT ABOVE THE BOTTOM OF THE SWALE UNLESS OTHERWISE NO 1 t . . ts N 0 0 N N 24+00 25 +00 23 +3563 ANGLE POINT FOR CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK BEGIN TAPER EXISTING EDGE OF PAVING STA. 23+50.42 OFFSET 35' R16HT FIRE HYDRANT STA 23+35.6 OFFSET 21' RIGHT POWER POLE WITH TRANSFORMER 2. SHADED AREA FROM STA. 23 +00.00 TO BRIDGE DENOTES IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH RIVERWALK PHASE 11 OR VI, WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST. 2025 N O Q cfl 0 0 N N STA. 25+213 OFFSET 31 .0' RIGHT TO POWER POLE WITH TRANSFORMER *NOTE: 25+64 6' SID5IALK O N STA. 24+50.00 CENTER POINT TYPE I CURB INLET INV. ELEV. 2024.51 - 0.80% STA. 21 +00..00 CENTER POINT TYPE I CURB INLET INV. ELEV. 2022.62 N : 0 0 N N 26 +00 21 +00 EXISTING R16HT-0F -WAY EXISTING SURFACE AT CENTERLINE CN O R1614T- OF-14AY 2024 26464.00 N O N O N 0 N 0 SIDEWALK, DRAINAGE, SLOPE — AND UTILITY EASEMENT EXISTING PRIVATE DRIVE 5' ACQUISITION AREA SHADED AREA FROM STA. 25 +00.00 TO BRIDGE DENOTES IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH RIVERWALK, PHASE II OR VI, WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST. N 0 N N LU N O N m 0 N N 0 N 2023 1 N N CV 0 P.I.V.G. STA = 28+00 P.I.V.G. ELEV = 20223 200.00' VG STA. 2 q +OC .00 CENTER POINT TYPE 1 CURB INLET INV. ELEV. 2011.10 N N N 0 0 CV 28+00 STA. 21+11.00 OFFSET 365 R1614T POWER ROLE WITH AND BELL PHONE PEDEST STA. 26+54.4 OFFSET 15' R TO 16' DIRT DRIVE STA. 28+32.0 OFFSET 31.8' R16FIT — POWER POLE WITH STREET LI GHT 1: N O N 0 0 _. NO N N N SECTION LINE 28+85.00 N 0 O N O t CN 0 tr N 21+00 EXISTING CENTER LINE 5TA 26+16 OFFSET 15' RIGHT 16' GRAVEL DRIVE 6E 29+45.00 0 24+15.00 BARKER ROAD dZi O N 20' WIDE ACCESS GRAVEL DRIVE FOR CENTENNIAL TRAIL PARKING AREA. 24 +2600 P.U.D. BOUNDARY COMMON AREA 24+45.00 1 0 N O N 30+00 NGE ACC TO DRYWELL 0 N CN 16 2015 r, EXISTING GROUND FINISHED SURFACE 0 N 0 0 31+00 A 30 +17.4 OFFSET 445' RIGHT POWER POLE m 0 ATtT LINE SECT! r FI OPTIC RIGHT OF LINE N O N 32 +00 2020 0 K2 RE a — ---- a k Ala --... •p -mar. 11 Air i WEI b 1/12 .4=M mim°tamlialr • STA 31 +00.00 ANGLE POINT FOR CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK END TAPER STATION 23+09:75 5011114 EDGE OF BRIDGE END IMPROVEMENTS DIAL TRAIL 1 ATIT FIBER OPTIC/LINE NSLE/POINT SOUTH EDGE OF BRIDGE END IMPROVEMENTS STA. 32 +0815 STA. 31+65.04 OFFSET 25' R16HT OF SECTION LINE TO ATIT MAN HOLE TEMPORARY SILTATION FENCE ES P O I(A_ IN E. TO BE MAINTAINED UNTIL 6ROUND DOVER 15 REESTABLI 1 1 RIVER 0 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE "B" DRYWFI I WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE GRATE ELEV = T.F.G. OFFSET FROM SECTION LINE 56' R bA CE GHEGK DAM TOP BERM ELEV. = T.F.G. -1.80' T. ELEV. = T.F.G. -230' SIDE SLOPES 3:1 MAX. 6E CE GHEGK DAM TOP BERM ELEV. = T.F.G. -1.63' . ELEV. = T.F.G. -2.30' SIDE SLOPES 3:1 MAX. 0 4. —+- 0 tn 0 0 WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 8 w o. 0 0 1 EXPIRES: 9-23-95 2025 2020 CENTERLINE 2025 2020 RI (T.F.C.) PROFILE SCALE: HORIZONTAL: r=50' VERTICAL: 1"=5' SCALE 1 SEG 8, T25N, R45E, KM. OFFICIAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER'SOFFIGE ORIGINAL PROJECT ., {-($14 SuE3MiTTAL a RETURN TO COUNTY ENGINEER RECEIVED FEB 2 3 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER T LEGEND STOP AND STREET 5I6N PEDESTRIAN RAMP DRYWELL 2/2I/45 r E4 SH 7 w 0 ^ O `2 0 0 FT DAM STATION TOP BERM ELEV. UPSTREAM TOE ELEV DOWNSTREAM TOE EIIV 8A - 11+45.00 2032.83 2032.33 203233 8B 12 +45.00 . 2032.83 2032.33 203233 8G 13+45.00 203263 203233 203233 SD : 14+40.00 203263 203233 203233 BE • 15+40.00 203253 203233 203233 BF: 11+60.00 2033.19 203269 2032.64 86 - 18+60.00 203331 203251 2032.31 CURVE I RAPIU5 1 LENGTH I TANGENT 1 DELTA MI ?`' 22.00' 3437' 21.81' 89'3056' 22.00' 34.58' 22.02' 90'03'08' M3 22.00' 3454' 21.48 89'5652' • ■ ■ LEFT T.P.G. 2035 2030 GENTS 2035 2030 E.C.R. 10+30.49 BARKf32 P5. 0 M.G.R F5. 2034.41 B.G.R. 10+58.01 F5. 203453 12 +00.0 INV. ELEV. CURB INLET =2033.55 I3 +75.00 14 +50.0 L 15+90.0 . 2034.35 ONY LANE T.F.G. 2034.09 M.G.R. T.F.G. 2034. E.GR 10+31. T.F.G. 2034.1 16 +21. 10 +00 F.5. 2 16+65.03 2034.11 15+00.00 2 MISSION A NUE LANE • t 0 ■ d 0 • O UND ..s • d- 0 •UND EXISTING 6 n 0 0 XI STING ASP • • ■ • 0 N • 0 • ►O CURB INLE V.. 203ff. 00 LEFT T.P.G. 2035 2030 GENTh 2035 2030 PROFILE SCALE: HORIZONTAL: I " =50' VERTICAL: 1"=5' •v • •.fr • i1 E.C.R. • 10+50.49 BARKER AVENUE T.F.C. 203429 M.G.R. TF.G. 2034.41 6' SIDEWALK B.G.R 10+5 T.F.G. 203453' 1 0' ACQUISITI AREA � i t i b iv _ /1- - ! i �lll■■II��II .Im.II. 1 __Fi/�II . U �'f i � - v - - / 2032 ,- ' - 1.02032 33 r' �� ! 8A II 88 STA 14+50.( SIDEWALK, DRAINAGE, SLOPE AND UTILITY EASEMENT CURB AND 6UIIWR RIGHT -OF -WAY NOTE: SAWGUT I' OF EXISTING PAVEMENT ON NORTH SIDE TO FACILITATE PAVEMENT INSTALLATION M.GR T.F.G. 2034.47 E.G.R. 15+40.0,5 TF.G. 2034.85 STA 16 +65.00 EXISTING PAVEMENT 16 +21.62 MISSION AVENUE 10 +00.00 HARMONY LANE F.5. 2034. .40 M.G.R T.F.C. 2034.44 PHONE PED. SHADED AREA 15 TO BE CONS I tD WITH FUTURE PHASE 111 OF RIVERWAY VILLA SECTION AND CENTER. LINE Nr; IBER OPTIC LINE C 0e9E - ral3c.S FOR- -reP fAcc.E cue _b SW 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 5 SHADED AREA 15 TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH FUTURE P H A S E I I OR V I OF RIVERWALK RELOCATE EXISTING STREET AND STOP SIGN AS REQUIRED AT*T FIBER OPTIC MAN HOLE. 1 0 +0 11 +00 12 +00 I3+00 14+00 I5 +00 SSION I6 +00 Av 1 11 +00 15 +00 Iq +0 WIRES: 9/23/95 3o Nov 11- SCALE 1"=50' SEG 8, T2SN, R45E, N.M. OFFICIAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFICE L PROJECT SUBMITTAL RE TURN N C:l.r�I FEB 2 3 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER LE ENS STOP AND STREET 5I6N PEDESTRIAN RAMP 11/29/94 cr 6 cio z o. + < Z o 0 0 • o cao 0 0 CV 0 0 U r 0 -0 w CO 0 0 S-fEET 6ENERAI- NOTES . &RAVEL BACKFILL QUANTITY FOR DRYWELLS- TYPE "A" - 30 CUBIC YARDS MINIMUM / 42 TONS. TYPE "B' 40 CUBIC YARDS MINIMUM / 5b TONS. 2. SPECIAL BAGKFILL MATERIAL FOR DRYWELLS SHALL CONSIST OF WASHED 6RAVEL FROM I' TO 3" WITH A MAXIMUM OF 5% PASSES THE U.S. NO. 200 SCREEN, AS MEASURED $Y WEI6HT, MAY BE CRUSHED OR FRACTURED ROCK. THE REMAINING 90% SHALL BE A MAXIMUM OF 10% NATURALLY OCCURRING UNFRAGTURED MATERIAL 3. CONCRETE SLAB SHALL BE CLASS 3000 CONCRETE. 4. : LC STANDARD PLANS FOR PRECAST CONCRETE DETAILS. 5. ADJUSTMENT BLOCKS SHALL BE CEMENT CONCRETE. 6. PRECAST RISER MAY BE USED IN COMBINATION WITH OR IN LIEU OF ADJUSTING BLOCKS. 7. SEE "TYPICAL GRASSY SHALE DESIGN" 8. "TEMPORARY EROSION/SEDIMENT GONROL" TYPE 4 GRATE COVER -� 2 -0r T ' I► 41-4° SEE 6EN. NOTE 14 2 BAGKFIILL. SECTION LINE I Exls-nN6 PAVEMENT BARKER ROAD (51'M.) - . _ LEFT TURN LANE 10 EASEMENT FOR SIDEWALK, UTILITIES, AND SLOPE 10' 7'-- " CONC. SLAB. GENERAL �c NOTE 2' TRAFFIC 2% DRYWELL 2'-O EXI5TIN6 FROM SECTION LINE 2' TRAFFIC :y r ADJUSTMENT ti � RINGS ISTURBED SOIL BIKE 2' MORTOR IN PLACE ABRIG LINER STANDARD PRECAST DRYHELL FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET B-1 R%W 10:1 MN ACQ. aitra BOUNDARY' TYPE ' " = T/G - 130' MIN. SWALE DEPTH = T/C - 230' ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT GL "A' 4` (MIN) - 8-I/2" CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE 2% MIN. NOTE: CONSTRUCTION BASED ALONG SECTIONLINE O+OO TO 23+35.63, FROM EXISTING 41. 23+35.,3 TO 35+63 LANE WIDTH TRANSITION TO EXISTING PROM STA. 23+35.63` TO 31+00.00 'CO O � • ONE SIDE ONLY BARKER 208 TREATMENT AND SNOW STORAGE 16' FUTURE ACQUISITION 25' OR SLOPE CATCH POINT WHICHEVER IS GREATER DRAINAGE, SIDEWALK, SLOPE, 4 UTILITY EASEMENT 6' SIDEWALK 2% MIN. 7►- T/C + 0.2' LOCATE DRYWELLS AS SHOWN ON PLAN MISSION AVENUE TO SPOKANE RIVER TYPICAL. ROADWIAtiY SECTION FROM THE OFFICE OF SPOKANE COUNTY • ENGINEER 11' GRASSY SWALE AREA 3b' 1 4.4' 1 3'-- _1 ' MIN. 1 NT 3 IDEWALK ELEVATION = E/P+02' D 4' 2% MIN NOTE ieN &RAVEL BAGKFILL 5:1 TO 0.5. GRATE ELEVATION f . + 0.5' TYPE 4 L FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET A-I GRATE COVER EXISTING GRADE 14' 4 G CONC. NOTE 22% UNDISTURBED SOIL DRYWELL 2% MIN. 1 - 2' ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT - 6" CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE INTERIOR STREET SECTION MORTOR IN PLACE MORTARED ADJUSTME RJN65 1' MIT SEE NOTE 2 ABRJC LINER FETAL FENCE POST (TYP,) 2 INCH X 2 INCH-I4 G.A. WELDED 1H0& WIRE" FENCING BEHIND FABRIC (TYP,) MI 1 ••„ EN l WW1 : : I 1 I TRENCH LINE S H TEMPORARY SILTATION FENCE SECTION u5-5U TEMPORARY EROSION / SEDIMENT CONTROL I. WHERE POSSIBLE, MAINTAIN NATURAL VEGETATION FOR SILT CONTROL. 2. TEMPORARY SILTATION PENCE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AROUND DRYNELL INLETS AND AT MAJOR INLETS TO SHALES. 3. ALL SILTATION FENCES SHALE BE MAINTAINED IN A SATISFACTORY CONDITION UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT GLEANING AND /OR CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED AND THE PERMANENT DRAINAGE FACILITIES ARE OPERATIONAL. 4. PLACE ADDITIONAL HYMROSEL=DIN6 AS REQUIRED. 11' 6RASSY SWALE AREA 3tt 2 PER TYP \-.LOCATE DRYWELLS AS SHOWN ON PLAN 4'-4" 48 INCH WIDE FILTER FABRIC MIFAFI 100 X TM OR EQUAL (FULL LENGTH) FASTEN TO H0& WIRE WA-106 RINGS OR STAPLES. LAY FILTER FABRIC IN TRENCH, BAGKFILL WITH EXISTING SOIL (TYP) 10' EASEMENT FOR SIDEWALK, UTILITIES, AND SLOPE 10' 15.1 t oy, TO 1 • EEEI ;i w iz. ® ® ®IZ .� ® ® ® C ®� ® c .71 [EE21 I. DRYWELL S ELEVATION DRYS 56EML AN PL EXISTING SOIL BAGKFILL aaaa9a 0000o0 0 0000 0 000000 000000 aaeaae r- 4' -&" DIA. SANK ELEVATION = E/P+02' GNOTES AL 3 " (TYP,) " (TYP) 4 3 (TYP) DITCH SLOPES AND SIDE SLOPES SHALL BE NO STEEPER THAN RATIOS SHOWN UNLESS RECOMMENDED BY A SOILS REPORT AND APPROVED BY THE COUNTY ENGINEER LIMITS OF EXCAVATION SLOPES HIGHER THAN 5' SHALL. BE DETERMINED BY SOILS TESTING. . DRAINAGE SHALES SHALL BE HYDROS ICAL GRASSY SWALE DETAIL. rz� 6 I/2 "1 3 I /4' SECTION D -D r 5 3/4" 5 3/4" A : ,, 2 .5 2.5' 1.5' DRAINAGE PORT r EDGE PAVEMENT OR TOP FACE OF CURB 0 GENERAL NOTE: SASE DRAIN HOLE P TA1 PLAN . CONCRETE DRYWFI I ITEMS SHALL. BE CONSTRUCTED WITH THE BARRELS AND CONES REINFORCED WITH 0.12 SQ. IN. STEEL GRADE 40, PER LINEAL FOOT WALL 2. TOLERANCE OF DIMENSIONS FOR DRAINAGE PORTS SHALL BE ±1/2' 3. EACH BARREL SECTION SHALL A MINIMUM OF 6 ROWS OF DRAINAGE PORTS VERTICAL AND MINIMUM OF 10 DRAINAGE PORTS AROUND THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE BARREL SECTION A -A TOP OF RETENSION DAM TOP OF GRASSY SWALE 8' MAX. 6" trrP) 10' DRAIN HOLES issilfiviumor IllimmowAns Pr SWALE WATER RETENSION DAM TYPICAL SHALE HATER RETENTI DA M 31 / I' MIN. h O VARIES CEMENT CONCRETE CURB, TYPE "3" CONC. SIDEWALK (TYPICAL) td F b" 3/4 "- SECTION 5-13 1 r- I /4" S . 5//6°3- SQ. - H COVER SKID DE SIGN DETAIL 27 5/8" 26 3/8" 24" G.U 6" 26 3/4' 34 I/8" SECTION A -A 26 3/16" DRYWELL PLACEMENT = cL OF STREET 0.81' SHALE BANK ELEVATION = E/P + 0.2' OR T/C + 0.2' r r 3/4" � 8 3/4' --� - -1 -- X 1 -I" 2 7032" SECTION SECTION LINE MISSION AVENUE (SYM.) TRAFFIC 1i 2' TRAFFIC 2% MIN. J� J� 4' LANE MIN. WEIGHT 118 LBS. GRA - TYPE R/W ai :� -.11H16 1 1 7/8" - -1 f -- �-1 1/3" STANDARD METAL GRATE COVER FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET 8-15 EXISTIN6 PAVEMENT EXISTING 20' FUTURE ACQUISITION 10 10,1 MIN. T O FWURE ACQ. BOUNDARY TYPE "B" CURB TC - 1.00' - ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT GL "A" 4" (MIN) C RUSHED SURFACING / TOP COURSE FRAME„ TYPE 4 MISSION AVENUE FROM THE OFFICE OF SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER 00000 00000 00000 00000 000000 000000 000000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 eENERAL NOTES 1. FRAME SHALL BE BRAY IRON CONFORMING. TO A.S.T.M. A48 - GRADE 30. THE GRATE SHALL BE DUCTILE IRON CONFORMING TO A.S.T.M. A536 -34. GLASS 80- 55-06. 2. METAL FRAME AND CRATE TYPE 4 SHALL ONLY BE USED WHERE SHOWN ON THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS. IT SHALL NOT BE USED AT A CURB LINE. 3. DRAINAGE SLOTS SHALL BE PLACED PARALLEL TO THE DIRECTION OF FLOW. 4. FIT TOLERANCE SHALL BE 1/8" t 5. WELDING IS NOT PERMITTED. TYPICAL ROAD AY SECTION T/C + 0.2' .711 MIN. WEIGHT 168 LBS. FRAME - TYPE 4 5:i T p EXISTI G 5A MIN. SWALE DEPTH = TG -2.00' - GRATE ELEVATION = + 05' LOCATE DRYWELLS AS SHOWN ON PLANS O SCALE 4 1 i 6" 1 1/2" CLEARANCE *4 BARS ® 10" EACH WAY II 1/2' SECTION C-C 4' 8" DIA. f /S DRThE 5,45E ELEVATION DRThELL DETAILS FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET 3-2 3" (TYP) 5" (TYP.) =t (rYPJ DRAINAGE PORT STANDARD PREGAST 3' TYPI GAL 13' LANDSCAPE TRACT 13' DRAINAGE SLOPE AND UTILITIES EASEMENT 3r / NOTE 2 5.5' 2.75' BANK ELEVATION =' T/C+0.2' l\ \ 4 \� /\ \ \�`G<� HYDROSEED MIXTURE 60% BLUEGRASS 20% PERENNIAL RYE 20% FESCUE 4I NOTE. CRASSY SHALE`-bESICN 10• 35' 3'- 13,1 BASE AREA NOTE: THE DEVELOPER SHALL SE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE EROSION PREVENTIOWSEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES IN 6OOD WORKING CONDITION UNTIL THE VEGETATION 15 ESTABLISHED AND DRAINAGE FACILITIES ADJACENT TO THE PUBLIC R/W ARE ACCEPTED BY THE COUNTY; AND THAT THE DEVELOPER SHALL THOROUGHLY GLEAN THE DRYWFI 15 PRIOR TO THE COUNTY'S ACCEPTANCE OF THE DRAINAGE FACILITIES ADJACENT TO THE PUBLIC RM. 05'-- LOCATE DRYWELLS AS SHOWN ON PLANS 20' 2% MIN RO MULCH WITH O 0 / 2% MIN INDIANA ST REET SEGTION FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET A -I 10' - 3" ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT - 6" CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE 6PNFRAI NOTES 13' LANDSCAPE TRACT. 13' DRAINAGE, SLOPE, AND UTILITIES EASEMENT 13' 25 : E T APTRACT OR SLOPE CATCH POINT WHICHEVER 15 GREATER 208 TREATMENT AND SNOW STORAGE 15' -�-5 5, / z 1 4 -, ` 5 SEE NOTE 2, �6. 21' q'-.- 41% 1. DITCH SLOPES AND SIDE SLOPES SMALL BE NO STEEPER THAN RATIOS SHOWN UNLESS RECOMMENDED BY A SOILS REPORT AND APPROVED BY THE COUNTY ENGINEER LIMITS OF EXCAVATION SLOPES HIGHER THAN 5' SHALL BE DETERMINED BY SOILS TESTING. 2. DRAINAGE SHALES SHALL BE HYDROSEEDED PER TYPICAL GRASSY SWALE DETAIL. 6' SIDEWALK 2% MIN. - 25' SIDEWALK, SLOPE, DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT. OFFICIAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFICE INAL PROJECT # SUBMITTAL # RETURN TO COUNTY ENGINEER RECEIVED FEB 23 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER EXPIRES: 9/23/95 30 I1/2q/g4 co co 2 N N �0 W 0 r-cs H 1.4 O 6 5 -ET q) 0 0 LPL 0 is 0 O t0 0 TABLE A GUARDRAIL TYPE WOOD POST AUGER AND BAGKFILL STEEL POSTS AUGER AND DRIVEN BACKFILL 1 2, 3, AND 4 6° 6" 7 6" 7" 6" ;ll RAMP TEXTURE CHORD LEGTHS AT 'BACK OF CURB. ACK OF WALK CURB FACE GENERAL NOTES TEMPORARY CUL-DE-SAC WILL BE MARKED BY INSTALLATION OF GUARD RAIL OR OTHER PHYSICAL BARRIER AS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY ENGINEER WITtf "END OF ROADWAY ". SIGN WI6 -1. 6.0' 1 1 TEMPORARY FULL GUL.- DE-SA 3.0 0'3.0'24 6.0 � DESIGN "A" :6.0' LALARNIN6 STRIP TEXTURE (TYPJ 6' FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET A -I0 *6.0 DESIGN "G" JEGTED BACK TO BACK CHORD LEGTHS AT BACK OF CURB. R =25' R =25 STRIP TEXTURE CM') R.P. A R =50' R=50 R =15' g 7.0' METAL BEAM GUARD RAIL SEC NOTE #1 RAMP TEXTURE LANDIN 11 sto • 'D6A' 6' 12:1 SLOPE 8.5' 12:1 SLOPE L • CHORD LESTHS AT G BACK OF CURB. DESIGN '3" WARNING STRIP TEXTURE (TYPJ FLUSH smailwommun FLUSH V2" 0 t \-I/2" PRE MOLD JOINT FILLER O' III" 4 // 4 � RAMP TEXTURE DETAIL .�....2" r *1 TROWEL FINISH " SECTION A - A SLOPE I /4 "/F[ T T SLOPE V4 "/FT SECTION 5-5 REBAR PLACEMENT ,sPEGIAL CURB INLET SIDEWALK 2 "--� b. - CURB LINE GUTTER FLOW LINE I" RADIUS SPECIAL CURB INLET TOP OF CURB GONSTRUCTIQN_JOINT SHEAR KEY GUTTER FLOW LINE STANDA RD CURB INLET TYPE 2 FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEE=T 5-4 12 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE OVERLAYS ' AMON GROUND LINE SIDEWALK PAY LIMITS 2' 3' -IO" 2' TOP OF CURB OR BACK Or WALK \ -TYPE 5 CURB FINISH GRADE /-I" 24" .._ 6. / II •.. QUANITY = 0.047657 C.Y./LP. 4' -b" 4 " 3' 10" .t SECTION G-G II CONCRETE CURB INLET SIDEWALK PAY LIMITS PAY LIMITS N 1/2' PRE MOLD JO NT FILLER a/T'IER DEPRESSION DETAI I f s N - T OUT SHALE SRAeDIN6 DETAIL F NERP:L NOTES T 1 G _ F . 11 1 CURB INLET SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM 0 478 (ASSHTO M Iqq) d ASTM G 8q0 UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON PLANS OR NOTED ON THE PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 2. TOP SURFACE TO BE BROOM FINISHED. 3. ALL EXTERNAL EDGES NOT LABELED SHALL BE TROWELLED WITH I/4' RADIUS EDGER. 4. SEE 'TEMPORARY EROS IOWSEDII ENT CONTROL" SHEET q OF 10 17" " RADIUS 8.1% 1' 3/8" 1 3/4 "' POST BOLT WASHER FOR TYPE I AND 2 RAIL ONLY 6 + ° R a. l ACC NOTES: 5, 6, AND 8 EASEMENT 11' SWALE AREA 2" DEPRESSION AT FLOWLINE - t m UWN GRAHE p AREA 1/40 P ER B SWALE 4" PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SECTION B-B 3/8" EXPANSION JOINT SIDEWALK 6" PORTLAND ./ CEMENT CONCRETE FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET A-4 DRAINAGE CURB mop SWALE EDGE OF PAVEMENT EASEMENT ROW 10' x 6' II' HIGH SIDE • P OF DRIVE D. L►� 2% m SECTION I3-13 STAN7Ai?D DR I VENAYS a l 4" PORTLAND - CEMENT CONCRETE . ¢• DRAINAGE SWALE 2A L 112 NOTES I . EXPANSION JOINT MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED IN THE GENTErR OF ALL COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAYS OVER 20' IN WIDTH. 2. EXPANSION JOINT REQUIRED IF POUR INCLUDES ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY AREA. 3. CONCRETE FOR DRIVEWAYS SHALL BE GLASS 300 AIR ENTRAINED. 4. ALL EXTERNAL EDGES TO BE TROWELLED WITH 1/4" RADIUS EDGER 5 SIDEWALK TO BE SCORED EVERY 5'. 3/8 EXPANSION JOINT TO BE INSTAL 1 Fn EACH SIDE OF A CURB RETURN AND AT LOCATIONS WHERE SIDEWALK INTERSECTS OTHER SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, AND CURBS. 6. THE WIDTH OF COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAYS MAY BE WIDER THAN SHOWN, IF APPROVED BY THE COUNTY ENGINEER 6' I/4" PER FOOT SWALE AREA GENERAL NOTES 11' SECTION A -A (DRAINAGE SWALE) 1 CURB INLET SHALL. BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM G 418 (AASHTO M 19q) CURB AND # A5TM G .5 0 UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON GUTTER PLANS OR NOTED IN THE PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 2. TOP .SURFACE TO BE BROOM FINISHED. 3. ALL EXTERNAL. EDGES NOT LABELED SHALL BE TROWELLED WITH 1/4" RADIUS EDGER 4. DIMENSION : "L" SHALL BE 3' -0" 5. SE °TEMPORARY EROSIOH/SEDIMENT NT COROL" SHEET q OF 10 BACK OF WALK 6' FAGS 12:I SLOPE SECTION 5 6" (MD) 12:1 SLOPE 12:1 SLOPE SECTION D - D 12 :1 SLOPE STANDARD 6" (TYP) t FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET A -5 SECTI A -A SECTION C,-C 1h(NEELGHA1 R RAMP NOTES: DRAINAGE INLETS SHALL BE OUTSIDE THE WHEELCHAIR RAMP. TEXTURE FOR THE RAMP AND ADVANCE !ALARMING PANELS SHALL BE GREA1ty BY INSERTING A METAL GRID INTO THE WET CONCRETE. THE GRID SHALL NOT EXCEED A WIDTH OF 1/2 ". CURB RAMP DESIGN SHALL BE SPECIFIED IN THE CONTRACT PLANS OR SPECIAL PROVISIONS. CURB RAMPS SHALL BE POURED INTEGRALLY WITH SIDEWALK AND SHALL BE ISOLATED BY EXPANSION JOINT MATERIAL ON ALL SIDES, EXCEPT AT THE SIDE ADJACENT TO THE ROADWAY. WHERE CONSTRUCTED ON STRAIGHT CURB, DESIGN "A" DIMENSION REMAIN THE SAME AS SHOWN. TOP OF CURB ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON PLANS ARE PROJECTED TOP OF CURB E EVATIONS THROUGH WHIELGHAIR RAMP AREA. DRYWELLS OR CULVERTS TO BE PLACED AS NEEDED TO PREVENT RUNOFF FROM OVERFLOWING PEDESTRIAN RAMP NEEDED. *4 REBAR ® 10 "0 /0 B.W. TYPICAL- -TOP 4 BOTTOM SEE SECTION B-5 TYPICAL BOTH SIDES STANDARD GURBS SU 1 tR5 TIMBER BLOCK SHALL BE TOE NAILED TO POST WITH A I6D GALVANIZED NAIL TO RESTRICT BLOCK ROTATION. POST AND BLOCKS MAY BE 6" x 8" OR 8" x 8" TRENCH TIMBER OR W6 x q OR "C SHAPE 5.875" x 4340" GALVANIZED STEEL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. FOR STEEL POST DETAILS SEE STANDARD PLAN STEEL POST AND BLOCK FOR BEAMS GUARDRAIL. TREATED' TIMBER POST AND BLOCKS MAY BE 545 OR ROUGH SAWN. 1. TYPE I ALTERNATE SHOULD ONLY BE USED WHEN ANTICIPATED OVERLAYS WILL REDUCE THE GUARDRAIL HEIGHT TO LESS THAN 2' -0" DURING THE LIFE OF THE GUARDRAIL INSTALLATION, WHICH 15 NORMALLY CONSIDERED 15 YEARS. i iv FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHIFT A -3 • TYPE I AND 2 RAIL 5/8" X: lb BUTTON HEAD BOLT WITH 732" OVAL 6RIP, AND RECESSED HEX NUT 'TYPE 3 AND 4 RAIL 5/8" x 25" BUTTON HEAD BOLT WITH 1/32" OVAL GRIP WITH RICESSED HEX NUT OR 5/8" ROD THREADED BOTH ENDS WITH HEX NUTS 2 5/16" 5/8" x 1 1/4" BUTTON HEAD SPLICE BOLT WITH 1/32" OVAL GRIP AND RECESSED HEX NUT. (8 REQUIRED PER SPLIGE) SCREW SLOT OR MILLED WRENCH SHOULDERS IN BOLT HEAD OPTIONAL. 3 1/4" CONSTRUCTION JOINT 1 1/8" 12 1/2" RAIL Efl'IT 3 1/4" BEAM GUl�RiDR�t I L (N-BEAM) WASHINGTON STATE- PEFARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION JAN. 6, Ic164 - STANDARD FLAN G-21 GENERAL NOTES PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SHALL BE GLASS 3000 CONFORMING TO THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 2. WEAKENNE=D PLANE JOINTS FOR PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SHALL BE PLACED AT 15' INTERVALS. 3. 4. 3/8" EXPANSION JOINTS IN PORTLAND CEMENT GONGKt I t SHALL BE PLACED AT CURB RETURNS. TO BE USED IN SPECIAL GASES WITH APPROVED OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER 5' CURBS SHALL HAVE A LIGHT GROOMED FINISH. GUTTERS SHALL BE FINISHED WITH A STEEL TROWEL WOOD POST ASSEMBLY DETAILS 2 5/16" GURE3 INLET TYPE FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET 5-8 OFFICIAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFICE oRRINAL PROJECT 5 SUBMITTAL # RETURN TO COUNTY ENGINEER RECEIVED FEB 2 3 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER EXPIRES: 9/23/95 5 emi r A 6 0 0 ti 0 1.0 k rti a) O 0 0 H 1- 1 1 rci SHEET DISTANCES A TYPE MIN. MAX. RES. 16' . 30' ;ll RAMP TEXTURE CHORD LEGTHS AT 'BACK OF CURB. ACK OF WALK CURB FACE GENERAL NOTES TEMPORARY CUL-DE-SAC WILL BE MARKED BY INSTALLATION OF GUARD RAIL OR OTHER PHYSICAL BARRIER AS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY ENGINEER WITtf "END OF ROADWAY ". SIGN WI6 -1. 6.0' 1 1 TEMPORARY FULL GUL.- DE-SA 3.0 0'3.0'24 6.0 � DESIGN "A" :6.0' LALARNIN6 STRIP TEXTURE (TYPJ 6' FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET A -I0 *6.0 DESIGN "G" JEGTED BACK TO BACK CHORD LEGTHS AT BACK OF CURB. R =25' R =25 STRIP TEXTURE CM') R.P. A R =50' R=50 R =15' g 7.0' METAL BEAM GUARD RAIL SEC NOTE #1 RAMP TEXTURE LANDIN 11 sto • 'D6A' 6' 12:1 SLOPE 8.5' 12:1 SLOPE L • CHORD LESTHS AT G BACK OF CURB. DESIGN '3" WARNING STRIP TEXTURE (TYPJ FLUSH smailwommun FLUSH V2" 0 t \-I/2" PRE MOLD JOINT FILLER O' III" 4 // 4 � RAMP TEXTURE DETAIL .�....2" r *1 TROWEL FINISH " SECTION A - A SLOPE I /4 "/F[ T T SLOPE V4 "/FT SECTION 5-5 REBAR PLACEMENT ,sPEGIAL CURB INLET SIDEWALK 2 "--� b. - CURB LINE GUTTER FLOW LINE I" RADIUS SPECIAL CURB INLET TOP OF CURB GONSTRUCTIQN_JOINT SHEAR KEY GUTTER FLOW LINE STANDA RD CURB INLET TYPE 2 FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEE=T 5-4 12 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE OVERLAYS ' AMON GROUND LINE SIDEWALK PAY LIMITS 2' 3' -IO" 2' TOP OF CURB OR BACK Or WALK \ -TYPE 5 CURB FINISH GRADE /-I" 24" .._ 6. / II •.. QUANITY = 0.047657 C.Y./LP. 4' -b" 4 " 3' 10" .t SECTION G-G II CONCRETE CURB INLET SIDEWALK PAY LIMITS PAY LIMITS N 1/2' PRE MOLD JO NT FILLER a/T'IER DEPRESSION DETAI I f s N - T OUT SHALE SRAeDIN6 DETAIL F NERP:L NOTES T 1 G _ F . 11 1 CURB INLET SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM 0 478 (ASSHTO M Iqq) d ASTM G 8q0 UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON PLANS OR NOTED ON THE PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 2. TOP SURFACE TO BE BROOM FINISHED. 3. ALL EXTERNAL EDGES NOT LABELED SHALL BE TROWELLED WITH I/4' RADIUS EDGER. 4. SEE 'TEMPORARY EROS IOWSEDII ENT CONTROL" SHEET q OF 10 17" " RADIUS 8.1% 1' 3/8" 1 3/4 "' POST BOLT WASHER FOR TYPE I AND 2 RAIL ONLY 6 + ° R a. l ACC NOTES: 5, 6, AND 8 EASEMENT 11' SWALE AREA 2" DEPRESSION AT FLOWLINE - t m UWN GRAHE p AREA 1/40 P ER B SWALE 4" PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SECTION B-B 3/8" EXPANSION JOINT SIDEWALK 6" PORTLAND ./ CEMENT CONCRETE FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET A-4 DRAINAGE CURB mop SWALE EDGE OF PAVEMENT EASEMENT ROW 10' x 6' II' HIGH SIDE • P OF DRIVE D. L►� 2% m SECTION I3-13 STAN7Ai?D DR I VENAYS a l 4" PORTLAND - CEMENT CONCRETE . ¢• DRAINAGE SWALE 2A L 112 NOTES I . EXPANSION JOINT MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED IN THE GENTErR OF ALL COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAYS OVER 20' IN WIDTH. 2. EXPANSION JOINT REQUIRED IF POUR INCLUDES ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY AREA. 3. CONCRETE FOR DRIVEWAYS SHALL BE GLASS 300 AIR ENTRAINED. 4. ALL EXTERNAL EDGES TO BE TROWELLED WITH 1/4" RADIUS EDGER 5 SIDEWALK TO BE SCORED EVERY 5'. 3/8 EXPANSION JOINT TO BE INSTAL 1 Fn EACH SIDE OF A CURB RETURN AND AT LOCATIONS WHERE SIDEWALK INTERSECTS OTHER SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, AND CURBS. 6. THE WIDTH OF COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAYS MAY BE WIDER THAN SHOWN, IF APPROVED BY THE COUNTY ENGINEER 6' I/4" PER FOOT SWALE AREA GENERAL NOTES 11' SECTION A -A (DRAINAGE SWALE) 1 CURB INLET SHALL. BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM G 418 (AASHTO M 19q) CURB AND # A5TM G .5 0 UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON GUTTER PLANS OR NOTED IN THE PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 2. TOP .SURFACE TO BE BROOM FINISHED. 3. ALL EXTERNAL. EDGES NOT LABELED SHALL BE TROWELLED WITH 1/4" RADIUS EDGER 4. DIMENSION : "L" SHALL BE 3' -0" 5. SE °TEMPORARY EROSIOH/SEDIMENT NT COROL" SHEET q OF 10 BACK OF WALK 6' FAGS 12:I SLOPE SECTION 5 6" (MD) 12:1 SLOPE 12:1 SLOPE SECTION D - D 12 :1 SLOPE STANDARD 6" (TYP) t FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET A -5 SECTI A -A SECTION C,-C 1h(NEELGHA1 R RAMP NOTES: DRAINAGE INLETS SHALL BE OUTSIDE THE WHEELCHAIR RAMP. TEXTURE FOR THE RAMP AND ADVANCE !ALARMING PANELS SHALL BE GREA1ty BY INSERTING A METAL GRID INTO THE WET CONCRETE. THE GRID SHALL NOT EXCEED A WIDTH OF 1/2 ". CURB RAMP DESIGN SHALL BE SPECIFIED IN THE CONTRACT PLANS OR SPECIAL PROVISIONS. CURB RAMPS SHALL BE POURED INTEGRALLY WITH SIDEWALK AND SHALL BE ISOLATED BY EXPANSION JOINT MATERIAL ON ALL SIDES, EXCEPT AT THE SIDE ADJACENT TO THE ROADWAY. WHERE CONSTRUCTED ON STRAIGHT CURB, DESIGN "A" DIMENSION REMAIN THE SAME AS SHOWN. TOP OF CURB ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON PLANS ARE PROJECTED TOP OF CURB E EVATIONS THROUGH WHIELGHAIR RAMP AREA. DRYWELLS OR CULVERTS TO BE PLACED AS NEEDED TO PREVENT RUNOFF FROM OVERFLOWING PEDESTRIAN RAMP NEEDED. *4 REBAR ® 10 "0 /0 B.W. TYPICAL- -TOP 4 BOTTOM SEE SECTION B-5 TYPICAL BOTH SIDES STANDARD GURBS SU 1 tR5 TIMBER BLOCK SHALL BE TOE NAILED TO POST WITH A I6D GALVANIZED NAIL TO RESTRICT BLOCK ROTATION. POST AND BLOCKS MAY BE 6" x 8" OR 8" x 8" TRENCH TIMBER OR W6 x q OR "C SHAPE 5.875" x 4340" GALVANIZED STEEL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. FOR STEEL POST DETAILS SEE STANDARD PLAN STEEL POST AND BLOCK FOR BEAMS GUARDRAIL. TREATED' TIMBER POST AND BLOCKS MAY BE 545 OR ROUGH SAWN. 1. TYPE I ALTERNATE SHOULD ONLY BE USED WHEN ANTICIPATED OVERLAYS WILL REDUCE THE GUARDRAIL HEIGHT TO LESS THAN 2' -0" DURING THE LIFE OF THE GUARDRAIL INSTALLATION, WHICH 15 NORMALLY CONSIDERED 15 YEARS. i iv FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHIFT A -3 • TYPE I AND 2 RAIL 5/8" X: lb BUTTON HEAD BOLT WITH 732" OVAL 6RIP, AND RECESSED HEX NUT 'TYPE 3 AND 4 RAIL 5/8" x 25" BUTTON HEAD BOLT WITH 1/32" OVAL GRIP WITH RICESSED HEX NUT OR 5/8" ROD THREADED BOTH ENDS WITH HEX NUTS 2 5/16" 5/8" x 1 1/4" BUTTON HEAD SPLICE BOLT WITH 1/32" OVAL GRIP AND RECESSED HEX NUT. (8 REQUIRED PER SPLIGE) SCREW SLOT OR MILLED WRENCH SHOULDERS IN BOLT HEAD OPTIONAL. 3 1/4" CONSTRUCTION JOINT 1 1/8" 12 1/2" RAIL Efl'IT 3 1/4" BEAM GUl�RiDR�t I L (N-BEAM) WASHINGTON STATE- PEFARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION JAN. 6, Ic164 - STANDARD FLAN G-21 GENERAL NOTES PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SHALL BE GLASS 3000 CONFORMING TO THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 2. WEAKENNE=D PLANE JOINTS FOR PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SHALL BE PLACED AT 15' INTERVALS. 3. 4. 3/8" EXPANSION JOINTS IN PORTLAND CEMENT GONGKt I t SHALL BE PLACED AT CURB RETURNS. TO BE USED IN SPECIAL GASES WITH APPROVED OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER 5' CURBS SHALL HAVE A LIGHT GROOMED FINISH. GUTTERS SHALL BE FINISHED WITH A STEEL TROWEL WOOD POST ASSEMBLY DETAILS 2 5/16" GURE3 INLET TYPE FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET 5-8 OFFICIAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFICE oRRINAL PROJECT 5 SUBMITTAL # RETURN TO COUNTY ENGINEER RECEIVED FEB 2 3 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER EXPIRES: 9/23/95 5 emi r A 6 0 0 ti 0 1.0 k rti a) O 0 0 H 1- 1 1 rci SHEET . • BENCH MARK - SOUTH EAST CORNER BRIDGE OVER SPOKANE RIVER AT SULLIVAN ROAD. ELEV. I't86.I6 INDIANA AVE. BALDWIN AVE. AUGUSTA AVE. MISSION AVE. VICINITY MAP (NO SCALE) CLEAR VIEW TRIANGLE EXISTING ROW AUGUSTA 'OW E bq SF loo' 1 10 b;136 SF 24,820 SF 057 AG ` ?a' 483 SF 38 12 21 SF 00' N 84'5b'5 ' W 101 q,888 SF GOMM6l. AREA 7,425 SF 51 8,141 SF 52 9p67 5F ! CV n � �� .- . .= .�....�s nJ.3` ..1 a?�7�f' Y:JC":l SFL ;t_: �.r� _ .V.rtt .�?�r.,T "_3t�b..iY_"�t.J"^: !-V u (2026) PRIVATE OWNERSHIP NOT A PART PPROX. LOG (2028) 5' FUTURE GOUISITION AREA TBM: SPIKE IN POWER POLE ELEV. 203351 EXISTING ROW S.W. I/4 SECTION 8 TO BE SET AS OMMERGIAL 682,731 SF 8.74 AG SHEET ivn. * : > �r',:.r «.,�.r.�: i..,c « —:,s•� lret :ri� l' AHSLE5 ( 20 2 8) (2031) PERIMETER FE GE (SEE DETAIL) 3/8" ' • R M PRIOR • TRUCTI ON. 25' BLD (2029) (2030) STREET LOCATION INDEX STREET TITLE SHEET INDIANA AVENUE HARMONY LANE BALDNIN LANE AUGUSTA LANE MGM I LLAN LANE BARKER ROAD STA. 14 +50.00 24 +00.00 MISSION AVENUE STA. 10 +00.00 V4+00.00 DETAIL SHEET DETAIL SHEET BASIN SHEET BASIN SHEET SIGHT TRIANGLE DETAILS TEMPORARY GUL -DE -SAG APPROX. LOCATION 3/8" REBAR TO BE SET AS TBM PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CLEAR VIEW TRIANGLE CLEAR VIEW TRIANGLE X. LOCATION 3/8" REBAR 0-BE SET AS TBM PRIOR TO 'CONSTRUG ION. \ APPROX. LOCATION 3/8" REBAR TO BE SET AS TBM PRIOR. TO • NSTRUGTION. TEMPO' • 'Y CUL-DE-SAC 100 OENERA1_ NOTES - STREET SPECIFICATIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS THE CONTRACTOR SHALL 6UARAN i tt ALL MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING FINAL APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER. IT WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO CONTACT ALL APPLICABLE UTILITY COMPANIES AND HAVE THEM FIELD LOCATE THEIR. UNDERGROUND LINES. ANY DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY REPAIRED BY HIM AT HIS EXPENSE. THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IS HEREBY ADOPTED FOR THIS PROJECT. A. ANY CONFLICTING UTILITIES SHALL BE RELOCATED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ROAD OR DRAINAGE FACILITIES. B FOR CURB GRADES LESS THAN 0,5% (0.008 FT/FT), A WASHINGTON STATE- LICENSED PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR SHALL VERIFY THAT THE CURB FORMS ARE AT THE CORRECT DESIGN GRADE AND ELEVATION PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF CURBING MA 1 tKIAL. FINAL GUARANTEE: ALL WORK SHALL BE AND 15 HEREAFTER GUARANTEED BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM AND AFTER THE DATE OF FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF ALL THE WORK BY THE OWNER. IF, WITHIN SAID GUARANTEE PERIOD, REPAIRS OR CHANGES ARE REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE GUARAN►ttD WORK, WHICH IN THE OPINION OF THE ENGINEER, 15 RENDERED NECESSARY AS THE RESULT OF THE USE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, OR WORKMANSHIP WHICH ARE INFERIOR, DEFECTIVE, OR NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE I tKMS OF THE CONTRACT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL, PROMPTLY UPON RECEIPT OF NOTICE FROM THE OWNER, AND WITHOUT EXPENSE TO THE OWNER, (A) PLACE IN SATISFACTORY CONDITION IN EVERY PARTICULAR ALL OF SUCH SUARAN I ttD WORK, CORRECT ALL DEFECTS THEREIN; (B) MAKE 600D ALL DAMAGE TO THE SITE, OR EQUIPMENT THEREON, WHICH IN THE OPINION OF THE ENGINEER, 15 THE RESULT OF THE USE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT OR WORKMANSHIP WHICH ARE INFERIOR, DEFECTIVE, OR NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THIS CONTRACT; AND (G) MAKE GOOD ANY WORK OR MATERIAL ON THE SITE DISTURBED IN FULFILLING ANY SUCH 6UARAN I tt. IF THE CONTRACTOR, AFTER NOTICE, FAILS WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS TO PROCEED TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THIS 6UARANItt, THE OWNER MAY HAVE THE DEFECTS GORREG I W, AND THE CONTRACTOR AND HIS SURETY SHALL BE LIABLE FOR ALL EXPENSE INCURRED; PROVIDED, HOWEVER THAT IN CASE OF ANY EMERGENCY REPAIRS MAY BE MADE WITHOUT NOTICE BEING GIVEN TO THE CONTRACTOR AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PAY THE COST THEREOF. SUCH EMERGENCY REPAIRS SHALL BE MADE BY OTHERS ONLY IN THE EVENT THAT THE CONTRACTOR CANNOT BE LOCATED. DATUM: BRASS GAP AT SOUTH EAST CORNER OF BRIDGE OVER SPOKANE RIVER ON SULLIVAN ROAD. ELEV. = Ic186.16 &wexr adt+ r2,wrea � THE CONTRA.TOR 15 RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING ALL UTILITY COMPANIES 5E-FORE ANY CONSTRUCTION. ANY DAMAGE TO UTILITIES CAUSED BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REPAIRED .. HIS EXPENSE. ONE -GALL (50(1)456 -8000 GRAPHIC SCALE 50 100 200 ( Mt FEET ) 1 inch = 100 ft. (SW I/4 SECTION S, T 25 N., R 45 E W.M.) RECEIVED JUN 29 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER OFFICIAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFICE SUBMITTAL # 6/8/45 RETURN TO COUNTY ENGINEER RECEIVED JUN 0 8 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER - PERIMETER FENCE CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT DELTA RI 20D0' 31.43' 20.01' 10•01'52' R2 20.00' 31.41' Iq.gq' 89•58 R3 3000' 40.10' 2369' 16 ° 35'13" R4 2200' 3138' 2525' 91•52 R5 25.00' 3853' 2421' 88•18'00" Rh 20.00' 33.55' 22.14' gl'20'24° R• 22.00' 5456' 22.00' 90°00'00* RB 22.00' 3456' 22.00' 90•00'00" LEFT (T.F.G.) RISHT (T.F.G,) 2030 2025 z N W 2030 z N X N 0 .q4 BARKER ROAD 0 O 0 0 N O N O 0 0 N N O N N N CN N N O O N O N N N O N 0 N 0 m N N r N O 0 tT N O N 0 0 ts N 0 O N N 0 N N tT N O EXISTING 6ROUND FINISHED 6RADE EXISTING 6Rourly FINISFF.0 GRADE N O I ts N O r N O N O TN • 1-- 0 ts N O r ( EXISTING GROUND N ►,..»� 1111 FINISHED GRADE 1 100.• •' VG �t ' + oo ,, P,. u " .7 • .,,_� P.I.V.G. 5 A = 1 +00 P.I.V.G. EL = 2025.1 m 0 N • � O � O 111 11111111111111 unin Ln N O 0 O 0 0 N 0 0 N O N O m N 0 0 O O N 0 N O O N TN O RMONY LANE i r N 0 N 0 0 O %71 N 0 N 0 0 O 0 O O 1 TA TN N O 0 O 0 5 +6851 CENTER P. 0 co O l tr 0 N O O O O 0 0 O co O V N 0 N m 0 • N 0 E.G.R. 4+ T.F.G. 2029.00 M.C.R. T.F.C. 2028 B.C.R. 20+40 .61 T.F.C. 202871 5 +2155 INDI =11 +14.07 1-f F.5. 202138 5+64.41 CENTER INV. ELEV. 2021.1 TYPE 2 CURB INL T.F.G. 20 M.C.R. T.F.C. 2029.22 T.F.C. 2028.76 E.GR 20 +37.08 STA. 6 +1500 F.S. 203050 100.0 P.I.V.G. 5 P.I.V.G. E IGH POINT ' VG A = 7 +00 = 2030.74 EV = 2030.5 TA = 7 +00 A = 1+00 = 2030.15 ' VG 0+00.0 11 +23.1 F.5. 20 E.C.R. Iq F.5. 2021. INDIANA A BARKER R 1.15 B.C.R. 18+83. F.S. 202750 M.C.R. F5. 2027.13 B.G.R. 0+39.02 FS. 202677 M.C.R. F.S. 2027.12 E.C.R. 0+38.98 F.5. 2026. 5 STA 0 +15.00 F.S. 202654 N 1 +21.43 C 0 INV. ELEV. 20 N TYPE 2 CURB 1 STA. 1 +2500 F5. 2026.24 INV. ELEV. 2026 TYPE 2 CURB INV. ELEV. 2026 TYPE 2 CURt3 1 E.C.R. 11+ T.F.C. 20 B.G.R. 4+1038 T.F.C. 2021.09 M.G.R TFL. 2028.13 INV. ELEV. 20292 TYPE 2 CURB 1 M.GR T.F.C. 2029.21 T.F.C. 20287 B.C.R. 19+47.17 .R. 5+6656 . 20297o P.I.V.G. 5 P.I.V.C. EL 100.0 A = 1 +00 = 2030.14 ' VG in 0 N 0 O O 0 O 0 ts- N O In L O N 1 N 0 • in m O N 0 N N 0 STA. 1+25.00 FS. 203050 is N O N O N tT N O N O N '3 N O N N O TA 0 N N O B.G.R. 9+63:70 T.F.C. 2028.66 MLR. T.F.C. 202828 E.C.R. 22+3836 T.F.C. 2021. 1- N O N N O eQr N O r N 0 O CHEM dS N 0 N cNi O 10 +01.20 INDIANA AVENUE =22 +80.36 cMILLAN LA ___ F.5. 2028.3 _ �,•- � 1 2025 i N O 0 STA 1 +8120 2027.18 It. CROS STA. 10+ 2021.81 GUTTER 120 GROSS GUTTER STA. 10 +15.20 N O N O 2027.16 ft. GR055 202110 r N O N 0 N 0 N O z N W MINN E.GR 10 +38:10 TF.G. 2028.06 t N 0 N 0 O N N STA. 11 +6621 T.G. ELEV. 2027.0 - 2030 2025 LLI to z STA. 11 +6621 .G. ELEV. 2027 2030 2025 t1 11.. LEFT (T.F.G.) RIGHT (T.F.C.) INE PROFILE SCALE: HORIZONTAL: I"=50' VERTI GAL: I " =5' f(_ 200211..81 -1 II: 2027.98 fE 2027.16 6 2.25 0 F.6. 202650 L= 24.26' M.G.R. T.F.C. 202628 L =1.15' B.G.R. 18 +83.44 BARKER ROAD F5. 202750 MLR F.S. 202112 E .C.R. 0+3818 FS. 2026.15 RAMP 819 STA. 0+68.44 OFFSET 2650' ELEV. 2026.16 ELEV. 2023.16 POND A SEE SHEET qA A 0+15.00 ART POND SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD 0 +15.00 BEGIN 2029.00 T.O.W. 2026.00 F.6. HALL 2024.00 B b' UNDERDRAIN •M WALL TO CATCH BASI 1+21.43 !� +21.43 CATCH BASIN AND INLET TYPE 2 WITH 60' OP 12' D.IP. CULVERT INVERT ELEV. 2024.00 SLOPE = .004 2 +50.00 S -- 202 T .014. 2028.00 F.6. • WALL 2024.00 B.0.14. INV. ELEV. 2026.61 TYPE 2 CURB INLET TOP BERM STA 2 +25.00 ELEV. 2026.11 FLAT BOTTOM 2030.34 T.O.W. 202850 TOP OF CONCRETE WALK • WALL 2025.00 B.O.W. 3+50.00 STEP FOOTING 2030.34 T.0.14. 2028.00 F.6. • WALL 2023.33 B.O.W. A 3+00 .00 STEP 2030.34 I.O.W. 2026.00 F.6. • WALL 2024.00 6.0.W. STA 3+00.00 END POND RETAINING WALL ENCROACHES ON SIDEWALK SHEET 9A B.GR 4+4078 T.F.C. 2021.09 M.C.R. T.F.C. 20284.3 4+01.06 END 203034 T.O.W. 202650 TOP OF CONCRETE • WALL 202450 B.0.(4 B.C.R. 20.4061 HARMONY LANE T.F.C. .2871 M.G.R. T.F.C. 2028.86 L= 23.36' E.GR 4+19.2'1 T.F.C. 2029.00 L =24.51' L =24.02' POND G SEE F.S. H.P. 203055 SPOKANE COUNTY ST VI SHEET 9 (1 1 1111"1 11WL ■2426 . • L= 24.26' ` M.C.R. T.F.G. 2021.98 r L =1.15' STREET AND �Y STOP 5I6N E.G.R. 10 +38.10 26.45 T.F.C. 2028.06 INLET TYPE 2 WITH ; TE TYPE 2 STA 22 +31.16 Mc ■ • &RATE ELEV. 202695 OFFSET 60' RIGHT WITH ±40 L.F. 12' G.M.P. 0 22% 6R SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE "A' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE McMILLAN LANE 103 BLR 22 +3836 MGMILLAN LANE T.F.C. 2021.90 BEGIN CURB AND GUTTER F 202550 CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL &RATE TYPE 2 STA. I1 +45.00 6RATE ELEV. 2026.00 OFFSET 52' LEFT WI ±44 L.F. 12' G.M.P t295 6f EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY 0 +00.00 INDIANA AVENUE 11 +23.12 BARKER ROAD F.5. 2021.15 (STATIONING ON BARKER ROAD BEGINS AT THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 CORNER OF SEC. 8, T2514, R4514, H.H. AT STATION 10+0000) 0 +11.00 JOIN EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS NOTE: EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT 1 FOR SIGHT TRIANGLE INFORMATION SEE SHEET 10. /I END CURB AND GUTTER TAPER CURB STA 0+56.48 25' SIDEWALK DRAINAGE SLOPE AND UTILITY EASEMENT (TYP) 0+00 1+00 F.S. 2027.13 STREET AND TYPE '6' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND &RATE STA. 1 +16.00 SPATE ELEV. 2024.26 OFFSET 28' RIGHT E.C.R. 11+63.14 BARKER ROAD F5.2027Aq MLR STOP 51614 B.C.R. 0+34.02 F.S. 2026.77 END CURB AND SUTTER TAPER CURB STA. 0+5652 PED. RAMP STA 0+69.01 ELEV. INV. 2026.04 TYPE 2 CURB INLET BERM STA. 1+6000 ELEV. 2025.54 INVERT ELEV. 202336 1+21.43 CENTER P01141' INV. ELEV. 202535 TYPE 2 CURB INLET FLAT BOTTOM NOT A PART 2+00 NOT ' PART ELEV. 2025.04 ELEV. 2025.61 KEYSTONE PROJECT BOUNDARY 3+00 DE5I6N DEVIATION CONCERNING IRR 6UL.AR RI6HT OF WAY 4+0452 CORNER PG =2 +q 4 6' SIDEWALK (SE= DETAILS) 4+00 VAR] WALL SEE DETAIL 'A' FOR KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL (SEE RIGHT) L =24 .02' CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL 6RATE TYPE 2 STA 4+40.00 1 o GRATE ELEV. 2021.63 , OFFSET 52' RIGHT WITH L =2.'13 t 28 L.F. 12' GNP. • ±2% GRADE E.G.R. 19 +52.65 HARMONY T.F.C. 202877 END CURB AND 6lJTTER SIDEWALK UNDERDR SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE W DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE HARMONY LANE t/ k itk SECTION A - MOT TO SCALE) 5+00 65' .EGT BOUNDARY B TYPE " CURB SIDEWALK 5 +2155 INDIANA AVENUE =11 +14.01 HARMONY LANE F.5. 202135 E.C.R. 20+31.08 HARMONY LANE LP. 11+24.61 Z F5. 2028.41 rn I NDIA 6+00 STANDARD KEYSTONE UNIT'°TYP) COMPACTED NATIVE SOIL GRAVEL BACKFILL FOR DRAIN PER KEYSTONE SPECS 6" DRAIN, ELEV. VARIES B.G.R. 5+62.42 TFL. 2024.6 5+64.41 CENTER POINT INV. ELEV. 2021.18 TYPE 2 CURB INLET I POND SHEET qA 4,a�iFlli TYPE 2 CURB _ pro :V 5+6851 CENTER P 202951 TO ` j� INV. ELEV. 2029 INLET ,,� �'i�►.s� E.GR 5 +6656 L =968' T.F.C. 202121 STREET AND 40 STOP 51614 B.G.R. 14 +47.11 HARMONY LANE T.F.C. 202831 BEGIN CURB AND GUTTER SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE B" DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND 6RATE HARMONY LANE NATIVE SOIL SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE B" DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 5 +59.16 6RATE ELEV. 2028.68 OFFSET 28' LEFT AAV b' MIN. 6" 1411. GRANULAR FILL (CRUSHED SURFACIN6 TOP COURSE) DETAIL A H.P. \1U (NOT TO SCALE) anNO ewe STORAGE AREA COMPACTED FILL MATERIAL. 1 74 KEYSTONE RETAININ6 WALL NOTES: I. COMPACTED 6RAVEL FOUNDATION, 15% STANDARD PROCTOR 2. MIN. I' DRAINASE 3. PROVIDE LATERAI.. DRAINA&E AND DRAIN To CATCH BASIN o STA. 1+21.43 4. FOLLOW APPLICABLE 5. CONSTRUCT PER 6. CONTRACTOR TO SUI3MIT CONSTRUCTION, SEGUENCIN6 PLAN, AND COPY MANUFAC M 5 13' DRAINAGE, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT. (SEE LANDSCAPED PLAN BY THE BERGER PARTNERSHIP, P.5) I 1 TYPE 13" DRYWELL WITH 'TYPE 4 METAL FRAME McMILLAN LANE TP.C. 2027.10 END C.URB AND GUTTER TEI E.C.R 22+38.36 McMILLAN LANE 10+00 LP. 2027.15 0F PAVEriENT 10+01.20 INDIANA AVENUE =22+80.36 McMILLAN LANE F.S. 202834 PRO-E BOUNDARY STA. 10+21.061 11+00 CURVE DATA FOR TOP FACE OF CURB NORM MAW) ENSI JUN 0 8 1995 SCALE: 1 NCH = 50 FEET SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE "B' DRYWELL W171-1 TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 11+54.00 ISRATE ELEV. 202621 OFFSET 28' LEFT PROJF_CT BOUNDARY POND 17 9-23-95 OFFICIAL PUBIJC DOCUMENT SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER'S ORIGIVAL SUBMITTAL # RETURN TO COUNTY E RECEIVED JUN 0 8 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENWER 11+61.21 END CoNSTRUCTION F.S. 202102 DRAINA&E EASEMENT POND E SHEET TEMPORARY 'TURN AROUND RADIUS POINT 12+31.21 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD 'TYPE '5' DRYVELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND &RATE STA. 11+54.00 6RATE ELEV. 202621 Orr-SET 28' RI&HT SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL aRATE 'TYPE 2 STA. 11+15.00 &RATE ELEV. 2026.00 OFFSET 52' R161-1 WITH LESEND STOP AND STREET 51614 DRYWELL PEDESTRIAN RAMP CHECK DAM CURB INLET CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TAN6ENT DELTA HI 22.00' 3458' 22.02' 90 142 22.00' 3454' 2198' 89 H3 22.00' 3458' 22 .02' 90'03'08' H4 22.00' 3454' 2198' 89•5652" H5 26 DO' 37.04' 22.45' 8I H6 23 .00' 35.56' 22.44' 88 M2 22.00' 3458' 22.02' 90'03'08' M3 20.00' 31.40' 19.98' 89•5652' R3 30.00' 40.10' 23.69' 16'3513' R4 22.00' 3158' 2525' 47'52 R5 25 .00' 3853' 2427' 88'18'00' Rb 20.00' 33.98' 2274' 97'20 '24' DAM STA. TOP BERM ELEV. UPSTREAM TOE OF BERM DOWNSTREAM TOE OF BERM 3A 15 +25.10 202532 2021.92 202739 3B 16 +20.10 2028.21 2021.41 2027.39 3G 10+36.06 AUGUSTA 2024.13 2028.33 202742 CULVERT STA. IN STA. OUT OFFSET OUT ELEV. IN ELEV. OUT OFFSET IN GI 11+6262 11 +7162 1650' LEFT 1650' LEFT 2031.11 2031.41 C2 14+01.62 14+22 .62 1650' LEFT 1650' LEFT 2029.26 2028 96 C3 11 +2628 11 +10.66 16.43' LEFT 16.43' LEFT 202835 2028 .05 10+ =16 F.5. 5'•"8 T.F.C. 2034.85 0.00 HARM M.GR T.F.C. 2034.47 B.G.R. 10 +51.53 TF.C. 2034.04 NY LANE AVENUE P.I.V.G. 5 P.LV.G. E 50.0 50.0 P.I.V.G. 5 P.I.V.G. = 10 +50 = 2033.67 ' VG ' VG =10+50 = 2033.415 LEFT (E.O.P) RIGHT (E.o.P,) 2030 21.62 MI55I0 2034.40 2035 2030 ill ry O m 0 O 0 r Lri r m O q N m 0 Lri 0 N O O CNI m O m 0 0 II +g0.o0 HA =10 +00.00 F.S. 2032.55 m O N cla ' MONY LANE UTURE SANDU 0 N M.G.R. F.5. 2031.84 E.C.R. 12 +25.07 F.S. 2031.41 q O N m m 0 m 0 m O m O r tV O q m O N m N .35 co N N m O .cV r 0 0 EXISTING GROUND m O • EXISTING GROUND O �i O N k MINN E XISTINS GROUND 1+ FINISHED GRADE - I.0096 q N 0 B.G.R. 16+6159 MI S. 2034.63 SION AVENUE P.LV.G. 5 P.I.V.G. EL 50.0 = 10 +50 = 2033b1 ' VG E.C.R. 10+63.03 F.S. 2031.11 F.S. 2032.20 B.C.R. 10+35. F5. 203177 - 1.00% KY RIVER L 14 +35.00 H =10 +00.00 F.S. 2030.1 E.C.R. 10 F.S. 202 NE MONY LANE GUSTA LAN B.C.R. 13+4841 P.S. 2030.18 M.G.R. F.S. 2029.71 FINIMIMED GRADE FINISHED GRADE B.C.R. 10+35.47 STA. 15 +15.00 F.S. 2028!6 E.C.R. 14+10.47 FS. 2024.46 M.G.R. F.S. 2029.41 0W POINT LOW POINT 5 P.I.V.G. 5 P.I.V.G. 100. P.I.V.G. S P.LV.G. EL T - 100.0 17 +3535 =q + F.S. 20241 = 16 +00 = 2028.1 ' VG = 2028.6 A = 16 +05.5 = 16 +00 = 2028.45 VG =16+00 = 2028.11 ' VG E.G.R. 10+30.11 F.S. 2028.77 ARMONY LA ALDWIN LAN 56 STA. I6 +25.00 F.S. 202811 M.GR F5. 2028.89 ALDWIN LANE STA. I1 +15.00 F.5. 202478 P.I.V.G. ST P.I.V.G. ELE 100.0 B.G.R. 10 +31.8 F.S. 2028.16 =1E3+00 = 202 ' VG =1E5+00 = 202q.77 ' VG E CR. 17 +1455 F.S. 202950 M.G.R. F.S. 2024.13 P.I. P.I.V. SHALE LOW POI STA. 19+40.00 LOW P LON P P.I P.I.V. _ 202813 .G. STA = Ig . ELEV = 20 50.00' VG m _ INT ELEV = INT STA = I .G. STA = 141 . ELEV = 20 50.00' VG ts .G. STA = 1 . ELEV = 20 50.00' VG .G.R. 19 +52.65 TF.G. 2028.71 028.41 +24.61 25 822 B.C.R. 19+47.47 T.F.G. 2028.71 B.G.R. 4+9078 IN T.F.G. 2029.09 M.C.R. T.F.G. 2028.93 &B. 19 +74.07 FS. 2028.46 T.F.C. 202470 M.C.R. T.F.G. 2024.21 IANA AVENUE E.C.R. 4+14.24 IND M.G.R. T.F.C. 2028.86 B.C.R. 20+40.61 T.F.C. 2028.11 1 HA 6E. 20 +14.07 F.S. 202896 B.C.R. 5+62.42 IND M.GR T.F.C. 2029.22 E.C.R. 20+37.08 T.F.G. 2028.76 MONY LANE IANA AVENUE 2030 2030 -_- q N N ts N O O N 0 N N 0 N 0 N O N r- 0 N W N 0 N O O O m O N O m 0 0 .ry • 1 N O 1s O O I■ 10 .' N O N O m O N 0 0 O N O N E.C.R. 5 +6656 IND N T.F.C. 2029.00 T.F.C. 2029.61 2025 2025 2025 RIGHT (E.O.P.) • • • • • • • •• •• Of NOTE: • EDGE OF PAVEMENT •• TOP FADE OF CURB FOR SIGHT TRIANGLE INFORMATION SEE SHEET 4 1C. POND L SEE SHEET 4B TYPE B" DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND 6RA STA. 16 +26.00 &RATE E1_EV. 20 .93 OITJFT 17' LEFT 6. 2028.06 STA. I5+06A6 INV. ELEV. '028.61 STA. 15 +11.4 TOP BERM 2029.06 STA. 15 +16. INV. ELEV. .02851 51 STA. Ih +4143 65.00' INV. ELEV. GRADE TO DRAIN ,' S AND 2033 .. I ST OP SIGN u 11 +10.12 Wray /`1134 • 5 .00' trait F5. 2034. M.G.R FS. 2034.33 TF.G. 2034 =10 +00.00 FUTURE SANDUSKY F.S. 2032.55 EDGE OF PAMENT 2032 D 'NAGE, SLOPE AND U ILITY EASEMENT POND .1-3 I SEE SHEET 9B 1 71.45' O E.C.R. 12+25.97 F.S. 2031.91 L= 31.40' POND K M.C.R. SHEET 5. 2031.84 F.6. 021 %3 24 500 °00'02'14 656.86' STA. 13+11.46 INV. ELEV. 203056 STA. 13 +16.41 TOP BERM 2031.01 STA. 13+21.42 B.G.R. 13+48.47 F.S. 2030.18 SP • COUNT( STAND TYPE B' DWI-ELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND STA. 13+97.48 GRATE ELEV. 2028.33 L= OFFSET 145' RIGHT RIVER LANE GRADE TO DRA 14+15.12 G2 7 5.00'.1 65.00' {�� r+� IKE -.W .1".2 (IriiIIMIMIN I4 +35.00 HARMON AN F.S. 2029.41 STREET 5I6N 11 +38./8 HARMONY LAN =q + BAL1764Q4 LANE F.S. 202156 d 24 4 I POND .1-I SEE SHEET 9B F.&.20 O9 ►r=�� PG =16 +56.86 STA. 16+41,43 6 2071.3 F.S. 02889 F.62. POND 1-1 SEE SHEET 9A CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 - 'OKANE COUNTY TANDARD TYPE "A' DR WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 19+40.00 GRATE ,ELEV. /07130 OFFSET 17' H. , 11+8539 20 9.00 F.S. 2029 1-16 it WITH METAL INDIANA A . SPOKANE GOUNTY STANDARD POND F ALL SHEET 9A F.G. 2021.13 L =273' E.G.R. 19 +52.65 T.F.C. 2028.17 SI K UNDERDRAIN 2 STA. 11+42.17 INV. ELEV. 2028.1/ .�V POND G SEE SHEET 9A SPOKANE COUNTY' STAND L =968' STREET E.C.R. 5+6656 INDIANA AVENUE T.F.C. 202470 M.G.R. T.F.C. 202421 L =24 .02' CURB DATA FOR EDGE OF PAVEMENT AND TOP FACE OF CURB EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY -\ SAWCUT 1' OF EXISTING PAVEMENT TO FACILITATE PAVEMENT INSTALLATION 10 +00.00 HARMONY LANE =16 +2162 MISSION AVENUE F.5. 2034. B.C.R. 16+6159 MISSION AVENUE F5. 203463 FUTURE RIGHT OF WAY 11+00 NOTE. PLACE PIPE WITH HOLES DOWN RIGHT OF WAY FUTURE ACQUISITION e /- WITH METAL - - • TE TYPE 2 STA. 10+40 •4 FUTURE SANDUSKY 6RATE ELEV. 2031.00 OFFSET 50' • 6HT 141T14 t 27 L.F. 12" 4 .M.P. 0 t2% GRADE FUTURE . ' Dit wwi.N S M F.5. 2032 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD DATA FOR 4'4' PERFORATED PIPE, 15' L6. TYPE 'B' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND. &RATE STA. I0+40.00 FUTURE SANDUSKY &RATE ELEV. 203123 OFFSET 195' RIGHT ON AVENUE 12 F5. 203177 I2+00 11 ... � . tiI - -. • r I T S 'T� . .' rviu. i E.C.R. 10+36.03 FUTURE SANDUSKY RIVER LANE 13+00 1I + HARMONY LANE 25 M.G I B.C.R. 10+35.97 FUTURE SANDUSKY RIVER LANE FS. 2 F.5. 2031.11 SIDEWALK ► _' 'RAIN , E.C.R. 10+36 • AUGUSTA LANE PROJECT BOUNDARY F5.2024.35 ARM I4+00 STATION AND ELEVATION FOR CHECK DAM \rr LA 15+00 F.S. 2024.35 36 CONCRETE WITH MET STA. 15 +14. &RATE : . 2028.42 OFFSET •' R16141 WITH t 125 LF. 12" G.M.P. a *2% 6RADE CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL 6RATE TYPE 2 STA. 16+41.43 GRATE ELEV. 202159 OFFSET 55' LEFT WITH t 38 L.F. 12 " 0.MP. • OKANE COUNTY STANDARD 19 TYPE 2 6RATE TYPE 2 16100 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE B' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 15 +15.00 GRATE ELEV. 202759 OFFSET 145' R1614T SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE B' DRYHELJ_ WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 16+05.00 &RATE ELEV. 2027.89 OFFSET 145' RIGHT 17+00 141T1T METAL GRATE TYPE 2 BALDWIN LANE F.6. 2027.10 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE B' DRYI" LL. WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 16+55.00 GRATE ELEV. 2027.91 OFFSET 19.5' R16HT 0+00 SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN B.G.R. 4+40 78 INDIANA AVENUE T.F.C. 2029.04 \ rwrc T.F.C. 2028. L= 24.02' 2030 F.G. 2027.13 CONCRETE INLET +7455 F.S. 20295 POND 6 SEE SHEET 4A L =30.65' M.G.R F5. 2024.13 41 STREET SIGN B.C.R. 10+31.80 BALDWIN LANE .5. 202876 TYPE B' PRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE BALDWIN LANE E.G.R. 10 +30.11 BALDWIN LANE FS. 2028.71 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE B" DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE BALDWIN LANE 14+00 2030 TYPE 'B" PRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND 6RA STA. 19+25.00 GRATE ELEV. 2021.63 F.6. 202113 OFF5 T 17' RIGHT STOP SIGN 40 B.G.R. 19+4191 TF.G. 2028.11 T.F.C. 2024.00 M.C.R. RIGHT OF WAY PROJECT BOUNDARY E.G.R. 4+1429 INDIANA AVENUE TF.G. 2028.86 B.G.R. 20 +40.61 T.F.C. 2028 ,.. E.G.R. 20+31.08 , T.F.C. 2028.76 / 'j : V RE M.G.R. T.F.C. 2029.22 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'B" DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE INDIANA AVENUE POND B SEE SHEET IA B.C.R. 5+62.42 INDIANA AVENUE T.F.C. 2024.67 NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING JUN 08 1995 P.G. iq +414.01 1q +414.01 HARMONY LANE = 5 +2 (4.55 INDIANA AVENUE F.S. 20241.38 6' SIDEWALK (SEE DETAILS) 11�RQ` EM NTS .r ♦ mow. 13' DRAINAGE SLOPE UTILITY EASEMENT. (SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN BY THE BERGER PARTNERSHIP, P.5) SGALE: 1 ! NGH = 50 FEET SEG. 8, T25N, R45E, KM. 6/8/45 1 PROFILE SCALE: HORIZONTAL: I " =50' VERTICAL: I " =5' RECEIVED JUN 2 9 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER OFFICIAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER'SOFFICt ORIQINAL PROJECT # SUBMITTAL # RETURN TO COUNTY ENG.1NEER RECEIVEu JUN 0 8 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER LEsEND STREET 516N STOP AND STREET SIGN DWNELL PEDESTRIAN RAMP CHEf,K DAM CURB INLET rn Is- Pl er ra zQ g al CO 0 0 to CO • 0 CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT DELTA BI 22.00' 3228' 19.84' 84'04'44" 52 22.00' 37.46' 25.12' 97 °34'03' 145 26.00' 37.04' 22.45' 81'37'05" 116 23 .00' 3556' 22.44' 88 CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT DELTA H3 22.00' 3458' 22.02' 40°03'08' 144 22.00' 3454' 21.98' 89 °56'52" `v 1 +14.13 BAL =11 +38.•78 H F.5. 2021.5 �4 724 E.G.R. 17 +7455 HARMONY LANE F.S. 2029.50 2030 PG = q+cf4.13 10+00 CURVE DATA FOR EDGE OF PAVEMENT IN LANE 17 +18.47 HARMONY LANE POND 6 CC SHEET 9A M.G.R. 41 202761 L =30.65' B.G.R. 10+3 42 11+00 STA. 10 +54.03 INV. ELEV. 2028.00 SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN .R. 10 +30.11 3q FS. 028.71 M.C.R. F5. 2028.89 N. B.G.R. 11+04.11 HARMONY LA F.5. 2024.00 2031 \ STA. 14+24.4 44 INV. ELEV. 2029.63 RIGHT OF WAY 43 10' DRAINAGE, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT (TYP SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE "A' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND &RATE STA. 10+5358 TOP OF GRATE ELEV. 2028.17 / OFFSET Iq5• LEFT 12400 STA. 10 +8q &RATE ELEV. 20 ' • 0 OFFSET 46.42' R16HT WITH t 43 LP. 12' G.MP. 8 *2% GRADE POND H SEE SHEET qA / q2 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'B" DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND ORATE STA. 10+5358 TOP OF 6RATE ELEV. 2025.17 OFFSET 11' R16HT 13+00 b' SIDEWALK (SEE DETAILS) EDGE OF PAVEMENT INLET TYPE 2 GRATE TYPE 2 GOMMON AREA BALPHIN LANE B.GR 19+91.14 MGMILLAN LANE F.5. 203068 46 203021 L =29.67' E.C.R. 14+49.94 F.S. 2030.45 14+00 516N B.C.R. 14+39.67 F.5. 203031 L =33 .66' M.G.R. F.S. 2030 .62 44 c POND 0 SEE SHEET qB PT = 14+8131 qq 14 +801 BALDWIN LANE =11 +58.83 MGMILLAN LANE F.5. 2031.22 19 +33.93 MGMILLAN LANE 6' SIDEWALK (SEE DETAILS) E.C.R. 19 +17.18 MGMILLAN LANE S. 203127 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE "B" DRYWELL_ WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE MGMILLAN LANE q8 10' DRAINAGE, SLOPE, NOTE: FOR SIGHT TRIANGLE INFORMATION SEE SHEET IC. AND UTILITY EASEMENT (TYP) SCALE: 1 INGH = 50 FEET SEG. 8, T25N, R45E, K.M. STATION AND ELEVATION FOR CHECK DAM DAM 4A STA. 10 +36.06 TOP BERM ELEV. 2028.85 UPSTREAM TOE OF BERM 2028.36 DOWNSTREAM TOE OF BERM 2028.34 CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL GRATE TYPE 2 HARMONY LANE M.G.R. F.S. 2021.T1 1 10 +00.00 AUGUSTA LANE =14 +35.00 HARMONY LANE F.S. 2030.10 $ 6B. 10+14.00 F.S. 2029.82 14+15J2 HARMONY LANE 4 10' DRAINAGE, SLOPE AND UTILITY EASEMENT (TYP) 10 6' SIDEWALK (SEE DETAILS) L.0 0 O 0 u 10 +00 H4 - EDGE OF PAVEMENT F.S. 2029.46 �2031- F.S. 2029.41 L= 31.40' STREET 5I6N 584'56'51"E � - 125.00' LA N RIGHT OF WAY E.G.R. 14+70.97 HARMONY LANE B.G.R. 10+35.97 F5. 2029.35 80.02' 11+00 36 6' SIDEWALK E.GR 10 +36.03 (SEE DETAILS) F.S. 202935 SIDEWALK U 12 5TA1 INV. ELEV. 202853 L= 31.43' SPOKANE G TY STANDARD TYPE B' D LL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE HARMONY' LA 25 B.C.R. 13+98.97 4ARMONY LANE F5. 2030.18 F.Ei. 2027.83 24 AUGUSTA LA PROJECT BOUNDARY \IE PROJECT BOUNDARY 10' DRAINAGE, SLOPE AND UTILITY EASEMENT P 11 +25.00 END GONSTRUGTION ERECT TEMPORARY BARRIER F.s. 2030.51 (SEE DETAILS) INSTALL TEMPORARY BERM I'HI6H,2' TOP WIDTH, 3 :I SIDE SLOPES NORTH VdD 'M 1 11401iMa JUN 0 8 1995 CURVE DATA FOR EDGE OF PAVEMENT UPROVEMENTS EXPIRES: 9/23/95 6/7 /q5 RECEIVED JUN 29 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER OFFICIAL PUBLIC DOWNTE T SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFICE PROJECT R I 1 ((AL SUBMITTAL # RETURN TO COUNTY ENGINEER RECEIVED JUN 0 8 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER 1' LEGEND --1 5TREET 516N STOP AND STREET 5IGN ® DRYWELL PEDESTRIAN RAMP z i-- CD LL i o co !l. O m m O I (aZGOZ) L9'gZOZ (O'ZeOZ) GVQZOZ I (0'ZeOZ) GOI ZOZ I (0'Ze0Z) SL'bZOZ I (0'Z 00Z) I SI'OGOZ (b'IeOZ) SS' OGOZ 2030.13 (2031.1) 2030.45 (2031.6) zLLJ �N pp ]L z� i j W `? 11 m LT (I'ZeOZ) I (I'ZGOZ) - velpZOZ I (JN1191X3) 0b'bZOZ Q�H51NI� m v N ° o d` 0 `.�. r-i 10+50 202855 G ;1 ■ P.LV.C. STA P.1 V,G. ELEV = 13+50 = 2030.95 Pi - J.V.C. STA = I4+25 V.C. ELEV = 2030.20 -4•- + SL+ n n d � n 100.00' 111 VG 50.00' VG O LEFT (EAP) q +94.13 BALDWIN =11 E' - 18 F.S. 2021.56 GENT ERL 2030 E.C.R. T1 +7455 F.S. 202950 - •NY LANE LANE_ M.C.R. via FINISHED 6RADE cL1 fi V ui W B.G.R. 19+91.14 N cMILLAN LANE LEFT (.0..P.) GENTER_ RIGHT (E.oP) I NE . LEFT (E.OPa 10 +00.00 =14 +35.00 F.5. 2030. CENTERLINE . RI&HT (E.0 P.) 2030 E.G.R. 14+70.97 F5. 2029.46 2025 AUGUSTA LA HARMONY L • 0 2030 Z �� u X J U Z- 2025 �- HARMONY LANE M.C.R. F.S. 2029.41 F ` IL Di 'I WAS 1 7z '3onS Z '37/3 EXISTNG _ 11 +25.00 E ERECT TE F.5. 2030. AD CO Z «� b /2 g , g \ 43H5IN6I - -- g 11! QDI KINII 2030 . EOU T 2025 D CONSTRUCTION PORARY BARRIER ' cs) 2030 .EOUT 2025 2030 • EOUT 2025 LEFT (EDP) CENTERLINE RIGHT /� tL..OPa I s\\ I f 1 n\ \ I� J Q_ SL+C 'S7nS c oq 2 � � m fLi D_ a IL WAS r (e th N £Y OZ '37n9 ry - + N SL +O 'S7/�3 cwpp } SL +O 'S'�/l� �i it . : Z9 bZOZ c � � [ 7 . 0) a 4 'wiz Z '37n3 9512Z0Z '37n3 %.596 �`.�. FINISHED 6RAD EXISTING GROUND r„ � FINISHED ij N CO tnt wu (b'I eOZ) M ^ 2 roam '3o/ Sce 202 (2032.0) kNN 2020(.63 6 - I z (2032.0) g. 2030.03 c (2032.0) - oo+£I 'sons (I'Ze0Z) ,0 Q � oo+£i 'sons N m �+ U tsi 1 eb'OGOZ n m I WI in r, q N (O'ZGOZ) a ' 4 ul g � 8 1 'I �R 4 97090Z '37n9 g'OGOZ SSOC7z 1 3nS c 9 3 a 0041 'sons (b' I G0 ' ) a oo 'son3 5 �� _ o 0 �Q d�O ' I0I u I 4` o POINT ELEV = 20'0.61 .14 POINT STA = 14+25 .1 V.G. STA = 14+25 V.G. ELEV = 2030 50.00' VG -- I O • in ui 2031.22 6 m , ,. r, cq I O C mm �� STA. 13+75.00 F.S. 2030.93 - .I.V.G. STA = 14+25 V.G. ELEV = 2030.20 50.00' VG -0- O • T • _ N di / per' E5R 14 F.S. 2030.30.45 5 . N 1! 2 .. m r z11 . tn 11.1 - O • N FS. 2030.66 M.G.R. F.S. 203057 14 +81.1 BALDWIN =11 +58.83 MGMILLAN F.S. &.B. 14+64.71 FS. 2025 88 Mc 2030 2025 LANE LAN= 2030 2025 1lLI AN LANE u .� ._,r te• , �_ _. -� M x _ .. , [-) COUNTY OF SPOE'ANE A G F; APPROVED ENGINEERING DEPARTI[ENT DATE APPROVED: DATE DEVELOPER APPROVAL: • 2025 LANE HARMONY LAN I NE 2030 b Ntn ON x ? 2025 F.S. 2029.13 B.G.R. 10+31.80 F5.2026.16 11 O . LOW LOW * tq POINT POINT 5 64 RISHT (1 =.OP) 2030 B.C.R. 17+04.11 HA•MONY F.S. 2029.00 LANE H.G.R. • 3 (L' IeOZ) ZOZ '37M F.S. 203118 Ll- 2030 2025 2030 B.C.R. 13+98.97 HARMONY F S. 2030.18 FS F5 E.C.R. 2025 F.S. -, z N N_ m X O W Ll.. wzeoZ) 1— li t7qbZOZ (eNIISIXW st ,t1 Er _ £b'bZOZ N, 0 N to mm O 0 0 N N �' ^ r m -, N O 0 N 0 N O N � - - O N O m m N s o 0 N N H.G.R. F5. 2030 82 \B.GR 14+39.67 (O'ZGOZ) Sb'QZ0Z (O' ZGOZ) Ge'bZOZ 1 (0'Z0Z) SL bZOZ 2 z � _ W F.S. 2028.89 E.C.R. 20 83�o.II m 0 m z O Li N g m O N F.S. 203037 Z I- � - X z W `v 1 +14.13 BAL =11 +38.•78 H F.5. 2021.5 �4 724 E.G.R. 17 +7455 HARMONY LANE F.S. 2029.50 2030 PG = q+cf4.13 10+00 CURVE DATA FOR EDGE OF PAVEMENT IN LANE 17 +18.47 HARMONY LANE POND 6 CC SHEET 9A M.G.R. 41 202761 L =30.65' B.G.R. 10+3 42 11+00 STA. 10 +54.03 INV. ELEV. 2028.00 SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN .R. 10 +30.11 3q FS. 028.71 M.C.R. F5. 2028.89 N. B.G.R. 11+04.11 HARMONY LA F.5. 2024.00 2031 \ STA. 14+24.4 44 INV. ELEV. 2029.63 RIGHT OF WAY 43 10' DRAINAGE, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT (TYP SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE "A' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND &RATE STA. 10+5358 TOP OF GRATE ELEV. 2028.17 / OFFSET Iq5• LEFT 12400 STA. 10 +8q &RATE ELEV. 20 ' • 0 OFFSET 46.42' R16HT WITH t 43 LP. 12' G.MP. 8 *2% GRADE POND H SEE SHEET qA / q2 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'B" DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND ORATE STA. 10+5358 TOP OF 6RATE ELEV. 2025.17 OFFSET 11' R16HT 13+00 b' SIDEWALK (SEE DETAILS) EDGE OF PAVEMENT INLET TYPE 2 GRATE TYPE 2 GOMMON AREA BALPHIN LANE B.GR 19+91.14 MGMILLAN LANE F.5. 203068 46 203021 L =29.67' E.C.R. 14+49.94 F.S. 2030.45 14+00 516N B.C.R. 14+39.67 F.5. 203031 L =33 .66' M.G.R. F.S. 2030 .62 44 c POND 0 SEE SHEET qB PT = 14+8131 qq 14 +801 BALDWIN LANE =11 +58.83 MGMILLAN LANE F.5. 2031.22 19 +33.93 MGMILLAN LANE 6' SIDEWALK (SEE DETAILS) E.C.R. 19 +17.18 MGMILLAN LANE S. 203127 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE "B" DRYWELL_ WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE MGMILLAN LANE q8 10' DRAINAGE, SLOPE, NOTE: FOR SIGHT TRIANGLE INFORMATION SEE SHEET IC. AND UTILITY EASEMENT (TYP) SCALE: 1 INGH = 50 FEET SEG. 8, T25N, R45E, K.M. STATION AND ELEVATION FOR CHECK DAM DAM 4A STA. 10 +36.06 TOP BERM ELEV. 2028.85 UPSTREAM TOE OF BERM 2028.36 DOWNSTREAM TOE OF BERM 2028.34 CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL GRATE TYPE 2 HARMONY LANE M.G.R. F.S. 2021.T1 1 10 +00.00 AUGUSTA LANE =14 +35.00 HARMONY LANE F.S. 2030.10 $ 6B. 10+14.00 F.S. 2029.82 14+15J2 HARMONY LANE 4 10' DRAINAGE, SLOPE AND UTILITY EASEMENT (TYP) 10 6' SIDEWALK (SEE DETAILS) L.0 0 O 0 u 10 +00 H4 - EDGE OF PAVEMENT F.S. 2029.46 �2031- F.S. 2029.41 L= 31.40' STREET 5I6N 584'56'51"E � - 125.00' LA N RIGHT OF WAY E.G.R. 14+70.97 HARMONY LANE B.G.R. 10+35.97 F5. 2029.35 80.02' 11+00 36 6' SIDEWALK E.GR 10 +36.03 (SEE DETAILS) F.S. 202935 SIDEWALK U 12 5TA1 INV. ELEV. 202853 L= 31.43' SPOKANE G TY STANDARD TYPE B' D LL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE HARMONY' LA 25 B.C.R. 13+98.97 4ARMONY LANE F5. 2030.18 F.Ei. 2027.83 24 AUGUSTA LA PROJECT BOUNDARY \IE PROJECT BOUNDARY 10' DRAINAGE, SLOPE AND UTILITY EASEMENT P 11 +25.00 END GONSTRUGTION ERECT TEMPORARY BARRIER F.s. 2030.51 (SEE DETAILS) INSTALL TEMPORARY BERM I'HI6H,2' TOP WIDTH, 3 :I SIDE SLOPES NORTH VdD 'M 1 11401iMa JUN 0 8 1995 CURVE DATA FOR EDGE OF PAVEMENT UPROVEMENTS EXPIRES: 9/23/95 6/7 /q5 RECEIVED JUN 29 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER OFFICIAL PUBLIC DOWNTE T SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFICE PROJECT R I 1 ((AL SUBMITTAL # RETURN TO COUNTY ENGINEER RECEIVED JUN 0 8 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER 1' LEGEND --1 5TREET 516N STOP AND STREET 5IGN ® DRYWELL PEDESTRIAN RAMP CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TANGENT DELTA BI 22 .00' 32.28' 1984' 84'04'44" 52 22.00' 31.46' 25.12' 41 °34'03" 121 22.00' 34.56' 22.00' 40 °00'00 RB 22.00' 34.56' 22.00' 90 °00'00" LEFT ((.OP) RIGHT (EDP) INS 2035 2030 2035 2030 2025 2035 2030 2025 J= 15+64.22 F.S. 2033.91 221 MGR 33.8'1 H =16 +14.81 F.S. 2033. OFFSET 44. 1 =15 +18.85 F.S. 2033.11 OFFSET 2126' 4.22 IN CONSTRUCTION 203451 6 =16 +50.10 F.S. 2033.11 OFFSET 25.1 16 +13.90 50' OF TEMPORAR F.S. 2033.48 OFFSET 20' LEFT . !US POINT CUL-DE-SAC ill 16 +1221 PROJECT BOUND F.S. li 203351 S O 0 M =I5 +10 F.S. 203 OFFSET E =15+6422 F.S. 2055A7 20.25' R1614T 8 MGR L =1 .88 23' RIGHT G= 16+14.58 F5. 2033.01 OFF5ET 45' D= 15 +T7.98 F.S. 2033.10 OFFSET 28.16' RI 0.11 MGR 203323 IBbO' RI B= 16+50.61 F.S. 2033.14 OFFSET 21.14' A =16 +1221 0 '3 m O to O O N 0 0 m 0 " u N m 0 N N m O - 16HT O O N cr szq O N O O (V 0 N N 0 1 N m O PROJECT BOUND 111 MOI MEI M FS. 2033.23 OFFSET 14.34' R1 STING GROUND IS GRADE N (V 0 N STING GROUND M.G.R. F.S. 2030.82 B.G.R. 14+3461 F.S. 203031 ALDWIN LANE F.S. 2030. M.G.R. F.S. 203051 q4 BALDWIN LANE Iq +58.83 MG =14 +81.11 IND F.5. 2031.22 P.IV;G. 5 P.I.V.G. 100 ILLAN LANE ANA AVENUE P.IV.G. 5 P.1 V.G. - _ 100. = 21+00 = 202981 ' VG = 21+00 = 2030.04 'VG 22 +38.36 MGM! . 2021.g0 � m 1- N N 0 N .I V.G. STA = 22+ I.V.C. ELEV = 2021 POINT ELEV = 20 POINT STA = 22 .I.V.G. STA = 22+ .V ELEV = 2027 B.G.R. 9 +6 T.F.G. 20 M.C.R. T.F.G. 2028 .10 INDIANA A 6.B. 22 +6036 F.S. 2021.94 22 +80.36 M =10 +01.20 I F.S. 2028.3 MILLAN LAN DIANA AVEN 0 N m 0 '3 N m 0 m O N (0 O m 0 FfS ts 0 N (0 O cy 0 N (0 O N 0 N O m 0 O (0 0 0 O N 0 (0 0 O m 0 O CO O N 0 N O (V 0 rr N 0 P O 6 N O N O N N O r N 0 cI z d) N 0 N z U_ z 2035 2025 2025 2035 N 0 O N P A u . 2021.40 N O N N O 2025 E LEFT GENTS RIGHT PROFILE SCALE: HORIZONTAL: I " =50' VERTIGAL: 1"=5' • EDGE OF PAVEMENT * TOP FACE OF CURB 9 STREET 5I6N M.G.R. FS. 203082 L =33 .66' F.S. 2030.45 M.GR F.S. 203051 4.26' 02828 L =1.15' 2 +3836 POND 14 :;CC SHEET qB l02 COUNTY STAND TTYt 'A DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 AL FRAME AND SRAM STA. 22 9.16 MGMILLAN LANE GRATE 2026.99 n Rie tr B.C.R. 14+3961 BALDWIN LANE F5. 2030.31 F.6. 203021 51 • - • K ITH AND GRATE E.G.R. I4 +11.18 L =24.61' B.G.R. 19+9 14 Iq +5% .83 McMILLAN LANE =14 +41.71 BALDWIN LANE F.S. - 031.22 100 N6 T.F.C. 2 L =1.15 L =24.26 CURVE DATA FOR TOP FACE OF CURB AND EDGE OF PAVEMENT 16 +1221 PROJECT BOUNDARY FS. 203351 16 +13.40 RADIUS POINT OF TEMPORARY CUL- DE-SAG F5. 2033.98 EASEMENT o o, J 1-1.5.12.0.T. TYPE 3 BARRICADE / FUTURE 16+00 STREET, i i i 52 +64 14 CONSTRUCTION F.S. 203437 ri+00 18+00 2033 / 50 \ POND 0 SEE SHEET SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'B' DRYWELL TYPE 4 METAL F STA. Iq +11.62 / 51 GRATE ELEV. 2030.11 F.S. 203121 OFFSET Il' RIGHT 10' DRAINAGE, SLOPE A UTILITY EASEMENT (TYP) \ e%p', • RIGHT OF WAY 46 SHADED AREA DENOTES TEMPORARY IMPROVEMENT PGG = 16 +72.21 NOTE: 19+00 FOR SIGHT TRIANGLE INFORMATION SEE SHEET qG 6' SIDEWALK (SEE DETAIL) 2033 98 4 STA N I INV IN E INV OU PROJECT BOUNDARY PT = 21+13.15 46 -PRO = Iq +40.16 E.G.R. 14+49.44 BALDWI 19 +33.93 GRAPE TO DRAIN 99 PERFORATED PIPE 15' 26.24, OFFSET 16' RT 2030.01 +41.62, OFFSET 16' RT 2029.11 2032 "TG 20+00 T.F.G. 2028.66 POND 41 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'B" PRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND 6RA STA. 22+34.00 &RATE ELEV. 202687 OFFSET 11' LEFT 21+00 B.G.R. 9+63.10 1N12IANA AVENUE I LLA L = M.G. T.F.G. 48 E.C.R. LA 22+00 T.F.C. 2021.48 E.C.R. 10+38:10 INDIANA AVENUE T.F.C. 2028.06 M.G.R. 5 RDRAIN CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL &RATE TYPE 2 STA. 22+39,16 &RATE ELEV. 2026.95 OFFSET 60' R161-1T WITH t 40 LF. 12" G.M.P. ® ±2% GRADE PROJECT BOUNDARY X22+ +80.36 McMILLAN LANE / =10+01.20 INDIANA AVENUE F.S. 202834 . -r -r 1.. 10 +21.06 INDIANA AVENUE FUTURE :MP'. I!e N T :1 6' SIDEWALK / (LTC DETAILS) SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN RIGHT OF WAY 13' DRAINAGE, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT (SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN BY THE BERGER PARTNERSHIP, P.S.) Agekti IDAPa gird ,4N Erii JUN 0 8 1995 JUN 2 9 1995 SCALE: 1 INCH VGH - 50 FEETKANE COUNTY ENGINEER SEG. 8, T25N, R45E, N.M. EXPIRES: 9/23/95 6/8/95 OFFICIAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFICE ORIGINAL PROJECT # t ' � I SUBMITTAL # RETURN TO COUNTY ENGINEER RECEIVED JUN 0 8 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER LEG END STOP AND STREET 516N DRYWFI1 PEDESTRIAN RAMP w 0 0 W a 5 0 0 go 0 0 t rn 1-4 0 c\2 0 W 5 -ET RIGHT (E.O.P.) INE 2030 2025 2030 2025 0 0 N 0 O rr N O 111 11.1 1111 1111 N O N 0 O N EXISTING 6 N O N c0 N O 0 N O N O O N N O N 0 N O N O N N O N 0 N O N O 01 0 N O N B.G.R. 18+83.44 F.S. 202750 E.G.R. 0+38.9 F.S. 2026:15 M.G.R. F.5. 2021.12 INDIANA A w • r u). N O N tr. N O N An c N O t N O 11 +23.12 BA KER ROAD 0 +00.00 IN IANA AVENUE EXISTING GE TERLINE G • D 111 111 F.S. 2021.15 t N O M.G.R. F.S. 2021.13 B.G.R. Or39 .02 I 5. 2026.77 E.G.R. 19+63.94 F.S. 2021.49 IANA AVENUE N O N N O N O r. N N tr. N O N N O N N O N O N c0 O N N O N cN O N O N O N N L N O '4- N N r u1 N O ■ to U O N 2030 2025 2030 2025 111 RIGHT ( E. O. P a INE ■ PROFILE SCALE: HORIZONTAL: I"=50' VERTICAL: I"=5' CURVE DATA FOR TOP FADE OF CURB CURVE 1 RADIUS 1 LENGTH TANGENT 1 DELTA RI 20.00' 31.43' 20.01' 90'01'52' R2 20.00' 31.41' 19 .49' 8•'58'08' AT*T UNDERGROUND GABLE AND FIBER OPTIC SIGN OFFSET 22.3' RIGHT AT$T FIBER OPTIG LINE RIGHT OF 5' ACQUISITION AREA POWER POLE AND BELL PHONE PEDESTAL. STA. 15 +10.50 OFFSET 265' RIGHT 15+00 I6+00 I'1+00 15+00 19+00 20+00 DESIGN DEVIATION FOR NON - GONFORMING INTERSECTION SEPARATION DISTANGE • to B.G.R. 18 +83.94 F.S. 202750 M.G.R g -1 z 2030 20241 GATE VALVE SECTION AND GENTER LINE EXISTING EDGE EXISTING OF PAVEMENT i RIGHT -OF -WAY UTILITY POLE W/ STREET LIGHT AND BELL PHONE PEDESTAL. STA. 16+52.20 OFFSET 27.1' RIGHT WATER VALVE SHUT-49 NOT A PART * NOTE GRADE ROADSIDE DITCH IN PHASE I TO DRAIN TO DRYWELL AT STA 18+90.00 STA. 0+61:78 INDIANA AVENUE CU r z -3 GRASSY SWW 1 - 2029 \ 2025 2027 POWER POLE STA. 16 +52.20 OFFSET 27.1' RIGHT UTILITY AND PHONE PEDESTAL I .61' 0 2135' F.S. 2021.12 E.C.R. 0 +38.98 F5. 202635 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD That "B' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE INDIANA AVENUE BAR W 41 . n1 NOTE: FOR SIGHT TRIANGLE INFORMATION SEE SHEET G. 11 +23.12 BARKER ROAD 0 +00.00 INDIANA AVENUE F.S. 2021.15 RI 36.85 � / WATER ELBOW - 243 0 ROAD .R. 19+63.94 F.S. 362 4 M.GR. F.S. 2021.15 STREET AND F5. 202677 21+00 0 4 UTILITY AND PHONE PEDESTALS 2025_ AT*T FIBER 20+50.00 OFFSET 285' RIGHT POWER POLE 22+00 STOP B.G.R. 0+3 INDIANA AVENUE 8 I0'41810251 NOT A PART 16' PRIVATE DIRT ROAD 23+00 24+00 12' PRIVATE DIRT ROAD STA. 22+6850 MIDPOINT OF DRIVE R) STA. 23+3250 OFFSET 15' RIGHT POWER POLE W/ STREET LIGHT STA. 23+1120 OFFSET 21' RIGHT POWER POLE W/ TRANSFORMER STA. 23+35.60 OFFSET 27' RIGHT R) M FIRE HYDRANT STA. 23+50.42 OFFSET 35' RIGHT NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING JUN 0 8 1995 SCALE: 1 INGH = 50 FEET SEG 8, T25N, R45E, W.M. EXPIRES: 9 -29 -95 6/8/95 RECEIVED JUN 29 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER OFFICIAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEERS OFF1C;y PROJECT R I C ` NAL SUBMITTAL # RETURN TO COUNTY ENGINEER RECEIVED JUN 08 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER LESENI7 STOP AND SIRE 516N PEDESTRIAN RANG' DRYWELL CURB INLET 0 0 z 0 H W z 0 C ) 0 H A 0 Q t0 S EST LEFT T.F.G. 2035 2030 GENTS 2035 2030 t 0 N 0 EXISTING G 0 2 a XISTINS ASP 0 . B.C.R. 10+5153 E.G T.F 0 ALT M.G.R. .F.G. 2034.4 15+40.0 . 203485 ONY LANE T.F.G. 2034.04 .4- m 0 N E.G.R. 10 +32. F5. 2034.12 0 O z x w LEFT TF.G. 2035 2030 2035 2030 INN PROF SCALE: HORIZONTAL: I " =50 VERTICAL: I " =5' x 0 0 PQ 0 55 04 CURVE TABLE FOR ED6E OF PAVEMENT CURVE TANGENT 1 DELTA 1 RADIUS 1 LENeTH 1 3458' M2 22.00' 22.02' 90•03'08' 1.13 20.00' 31.40' 89 51^1 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 8 AT*T FIBER OPTIC MAN HOLE. 10221'. .. • L = 1b2' 1 + 0 0 11 +00 EXISTING POWER POLE WITH TRANSFORMER (TYPICAL) 12 +00 RY WELL FIRE HYDRANT It SATE VALVE FUTURE 10' ACQUISITION AREA FUTURE RIGHT -OF -WAY LIMITS 13+00 NOT A PART 2034) _ STA 14+12b4 START TAPER 14 +00 NOTE: SAWGUT 1' OF EXISTING PAVEMENT ON NORTH SIDE TO FACILITATE PAVEMENT INSTALLATION SIDEWALK, DRAINAGE, SLOPE AND UTILITY EASEMENT STA: 14+48.41 END TAPER BEGIN CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK. NORTH SIDE ONLY 15 +00 B.G.R. 10 +5153 HARMONY LANE TEL. 2034.04 1— Q IO M.GR T.F.G. 2034.41 6' SIDEWALK E.G.R. 15+40.08 T.F.C. 203485 EXISTING RIGHT —OF —WAY 16+00 HARMONY LANE SEE SHEET #3 — — — _ ��.��--- -��__. • PAI LINE - TI• . EXISTING PAVEMENT 16 +21.62 MISSION AVENUE 10 +00.00 HARMONY LANE F.S. 2034.40 *\1155 0\1 AV__:\IU Z 11+00 E.G.R. STA: 10+32.41 HARMONY LANE F.S. 2034.g2 M.G.R. F.S. 203434 L=31.40' tS.C; R Sift: 16+6154 F.S. 2034163 L - 153' PHONE PED. SECTION AND CENTER LINE 18 +00 CO 0 0 Iq +00 NOT A PART FUTURE 10' Ac UISITION AREA FUTURE R16HT- OF -INAY LIMITS T *T FIBER OPTIC LINE PROTECT IN PLAGE 0 0 NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING JUN 0 8 1995 NOTE: SEE SHEET 6 10 FOR SIGHT TRIANGLE DIMENSIONS. EXPIRES: 9/23/95 6/8/95 JOM RECEIVED JUN 2 9 1995 POKANE COUNTY ENGINEER SPOK/ 'NE COI I ` EIN S =( K ORIGINAL PRO. CT # Pt4 SUM TTAL- RETUIRN TO COMM E I&I EE SCALE: 1 INGH _ 50' SEG 8, T25N, R4SE, N.M. RECEIVED JUN 0 8 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER L E ENI7 STOP AND STREET SIGN PEDESTRIAN RAMP w A 0 rn 0 N z 0 0 N N • 0 a as 5 a) 0 0 0 ; 0 0 0 a S T GENERAL NOTES I. GRAVEL BAGKFILL QUANTITY FOR DRYWELLS: TYPE "A" - 30 CUBIC YARDS MINIMUM / 42 TONS. TYPE "B" - 40 CUBIC YARDS MINIMUM / 56 TONS. 2. SPECIAL BAGKFILL MATERIAL FOR DRYWELLS SHALL CONSIST OF WASHED GRAVEL FROM I" TO 3" WITH A MAXIMUM OF 5% PASSES THE U.S. NO. 200 SCREEN, AS MEASURED BY WEIGHT, MAY BE CRUSHED OR FRACTURED ROCK. THE REMAINING q0% SHALL BE A MAXIMUM OF 10% NATURALLY OCCURRING UNFRAGTURED MATERIAL. 3. CONCRETE SLAB SHALL BE CLASS 3000 CONCRETE. �••" GONG. SLAB. 2' -0" EEG NOTE 37 1. -Q.. \'^ -2% -2% 414" SEE BEN. 1 NOTE 1 $ 2 6RAVEL BAGKFILL. 10' EASEMENT FOR UTILITIES, AND SLOPE SECTION LINE TYPE 4 GRATE COVER 10' MISSION AVENUE (SYM.) ck TRAFFIC O SCA NDISTURBED SOIL DRYHELL - TYPE 'A' STANDARD PRECAST ORYIhIELL EXISTING PAVEMENT. t12' ---{ 20' 2% 11' 6' - \� ONE SIDE ONLY EXI FUTURE ACQUISITION 12' TRAFFIC 2% MIN. TYPE "B" CURB 30' BIKE LANE R/W MORTOR IN PLACE 10' 10: MIN SLOPE TO FUTURE AC BOUNDARY TG -1.00' ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT GL "A" 4" (MIN) 6' CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE 5' FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET B-I 4' 2% MIN SIDEWALK ELEVATION = E/P +0.2' 10' 25' OR SLOPE CATCH POINT WHICHEVER 15 GREATER 208 TREATMENT AND SNOW STORAGE 15' 5 :/ I 4:1 SIDEI^IAL.K 2% MIN. l0' LANDSGALED TRACT 21' SEE BEN. NOTE 1 4 2 BAGKFILL 4' TYPE 4 GRATE COVER 4" CONG. SLAB. SEE GENERAL NOTE 3 -2% 28' 5:l T EXISTING 6RoUND 5, T p . MISSION AVENUE TYPI GAL ROADI4AY SECTION FROM STATION 15+13.q6 TO STATION I6 +65.08 v T/C + 0.2' 4. SEE STANDARD PLANS FOR PRECAST CONCRETE DETAILS. 5. ADJUSTMENT BLOCKS SHALL BE CEMENT CONCRETE. 6. PRECAST RISER MAY BE USED IN COMBINATION WITH OR IN LIEU OF ADJUSTING BLOCKS. , 1. SEE "TYPICAL GRASSY SWALE DESIGN" 8. SEE "TEMPORARY EROSION/SEDIMENT CONROL" MEM MIN. SWALE DEPTH = TG - 2.00' 4. 0 r • + - . MORTARED r, ADJUSTMENT RINGS 2' -O" 1 1 O ‘EEPASE PORTS .SEE DETAIL 1 14' 2% MIN. 25' SIDEWALK, SLOPE, DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT. FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET A -I MORTOR IN PLACE 1' MI . y / . , / . i /v/ / . e /v /v /e /v/e / v/ NDISTURBED SOIL DRYHELL - TYPE 'B' -2% 2" ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT - 6" GRU5HCD SURFACING BASE COURSE SEE NOTE 2 INTERIOR STREET SECTION SHOULDER EDGE PAVEMENT OR TOP FACE OF CURB ABRIG LINER 5 ' _ y , BASE DRAIN HOLE DETAIL 4' -4" z t 0 PLAN PLAN FT= a I� Gr==q 47. .1r. i ® EE4 ::a 1. P .iC:E=1 �. .3 ® D -qD=i3� P CIECI U P =71 1 DRYHELL BARREL ELEVATION DRYHELL BARREL 10' EASEMENT FOR UTILITIES, AND SLOPE II' l 0' TO 0.6' 15�i M TO 0.6 DITCH BANK ELEVATION = E/P+02' ®R/W BOTTOM DITCH = E/P - 0.5' HARMONY LANE EAST DRAIN HOLES 4' -8" r _ - 3" (TYP.) - 5" (TYP) 1 3" (TYP,) 5 " GENERAL NOTES I. DITCH SLOPES AND SIDE SLOPES SHALL BE NO STEEPER THAN RATIOS SHOWN UNLESS RECOMMENDED BY A SOILS REPORT AND APPROVED BY THE COUNTY ENGINEER. LIMITS OF EXCAVATION SLOPES HIGHER THAN 5' SHALL BE DETERMINED BY SOILS TESTING. 2. DRAINAGE SHALES SHALL BE HYDROSEEDED PER TYPICAL GRASSY SHALE DETAIL. /\ \/\ . I' MIN. l \ / / }. \„, \ am j / / / / 1 4" • SECTION D -D GENERAL NOTE: 7 E:3 P=CI 17=9 ®VJ C 4' -4" .-1 D q 12=9 17=q E a=i P=c1 /Y' ; : ' 11 6" 1 1/2" CLEARANCE *4 BARS ® 10" EACH WAY DRYHELL BASE 2" } SECTION G -C STANDARD PRECAST PRYIA1ELL DETAILS FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 51ICET 5-2 STA. 15 +25.10 TO STA. 16+20.10 I. CONCRETE DRYWELL ITEMS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH THE BARRELS AND CONES REINFORCED WITH 0.12 SQ. IN. SrttL GRADE 40, PER LINEAL FOOT WALL. 2. TOLERANCE OF DIMENSIONS FOR DRAINAGE PORTS SHALL BE tl /2" 3. EACH BARREL SECTION SHALL A MINIMUM OF 6 ROWS OF DRAINAGE PORTS VERTICAL AND MINIMUM OF 10 DRAINAGE PORTS AROUND THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE BARREL. HYDRO MULCH WITH HYDROSEED MIXTURE 60% BLUEGRASS 20% PERENNIAL RYE 20% FESCUE SEE NOTE. 4' -8" DIA ELEVATION SHALE BANK ELEVATION = E/P + 0.2' • R.O.W. DRAINASE PORT 1 3" (TYP.) 5" (TYP) 3" (TYP) DRAINAGE PORT 1111... ►1111..• 111►..• 1 1.5, 2 INCH X 2 INCR =14 FA: WELDED "Hoe' HIRE' FENCING BEHIND FABRIC (TYP) METAL FENCE POST (TYP) STANDARD GATGH E3AS I N INLET INSTALLATION TEMPORARY 5 TATION FENCE TEMPORARY EROSION / SEDIMENT CONTROL 1. WHERE POSSIBLE, MAINTAIN NATURAL VEGETATION FOR SILT CONTROL. 2. TEMPORARY SILTATION FENCE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AROUND DRYWELL INLETS AND AT MAJOR INLETS TO SHALES. 3. ALL SILTATION FENCES SHALE BE MAINTAINED IN A SATISFACTORY CONDITION UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT GLEANING AND /OR CONSTRUCTION 15 COMPLETED AND THE PERMANENT DRAINAGE FACILITIES ARE OPERATIONAL. 4. PLACE ADDITIONAL HYDROSEEDING AS REQUIRED. DRAINAGE SLOPE AND UTILITIES EASEMENT BEGIN STA 4+0452 \ M SEE DETAIL "A" FOR ' 0 O ' KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL BEGIN 5TA. 0 +75.00 TO END STA. 4+04.52 (SEE SHEET 2) GATCH BASIN t INLET TYPE 2 FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS !:,I IEET 5-1 48 INCH WIDE FILTER FABRIC MIFAFI 100 X TM OR EQUAL (FULL LENGTH) FASTEN TO HOG WIRE W/H06 RINGS OR STAPLES. LAY FILTER FABRIC IN TRENCH, BAGKFILL WITH EXISTING SOIL (TYP) 13' VARIES 3:1 MAX. GENERAL NOTES GENERAL NOTES I. THE TOP OF GRATE SHALL BE INSTALLED 1" LOWER THAN THE PROJECTED GUTTER GRADE. 2. THE PRECAST CONCRETE INLET SHALL BE PLACED ON THE SAME GRADE AS THE CURB. 3. RISER TYPE 2 TO BE USED WITH CATCH BASIN. 4. IN STREET WITH TYPE B CURB USE FRAME TYPE 2 5. IN PONDS USE FRAME TYPE I SEE NOTES ILI Q - 1 EXISTING SOIL BAGKFILL BEGIN STA. 4+04.52 10' END STA. 4 +04.52 R.O.W. VARIES / VARIES u PROJECTED ROAD GROSS SLOPE 0.5' MIN. � - MORTARED CONCRETE ADJUSTMENT RISERS (MINIMIM ONE RISER, SEE NOTE 3) I. DITCH SLOPES AND SIDE SLOPES SHALL BE NO STEEPER THAN RATIOS SHOWN UNLESS RECOMMENDED BY A SOILS REPORT AND APPROVED BY THE COUNTY ENGINEER. LIMITS OF EXCAVATION SLOPES HIGHER THAN 5' SHALL BE DETERMINED BY SOILS TESTING. DRAINAGE SHALES SHALL BE HYDROSEEDED PER TYPICAL GRASSY SWALE DETAIL. 12" PIPE CEMENT CONCRETE CURB, TYPE "B" GONG. SIDEWALK (TYPICAL) 1 2.5' -5' 15' .5 SECTION "B -B" 0' 2% MIN 6" 3/4" 3/16" I /2° SQ. --I COVER SKID DESIGN DETAIL 21 5/8" 26 3/8" 24" G.O. 1/4" SQ. 341/8" SECTION _A- ! 26 3/16" 8 3/4" 3/4" 1 I' --2 1/32" SECTION J -J MIN. WEIGHT 118 LBS. C RA 1 Iz - TYPE 4 - - i 6 " I - I/2" 3/8 "�I -� -•� --I I/8" - - I {- - -I /2" tV STANDARD METAL FRAME, ORATE COVER - TYPE 4 EDGE PAVEMENT OR TOP FACE OF CURB 40' 20' 2% MIN. SECTION A -A INDIANA STREET SECTION FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET A -I FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SI ;CET 5 -15 TOP OF RETENSION DAM TOP OF GRASSY SHALE (TYP) 8' MAX. 0.4' MIN. \ / \ \ \ \ \ o / 411110 /% BASE AREA --05' 6' 2% MIN A VARIES 0' 3.5' 3" SHALE BANK ELEVATION = T /G+0.2' - 3 ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT SEE NOTE 2 - 6" CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE LOCATE DRYWELLS AS SHOWN ON PLANS 1/5"---I h-- \--SHALE WATER RETENSION DAM y TYPICAL SIAIALE HATER RETENTION DAM JUN 2 9 1995 DRYWELL PLACEMENT PER PLANS SHALE BANK ELEVATION = E/P + 0.2' OR T/C + 0.2' e ORIGINAL SEE NOTE. PROJECT # - (4 TYPICAL SRASSY SHALE DES I S N SUBMITTAL RETURN TO COUNTY ENGINE: NOTE: THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE EROSION PREVENTION/SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES IN 6009 WORKING CONDITION UNTIL THE VEGETATION 15 ESTABLISHED AND DRAINAGE FACILITIES ADJACENT TO THE PUBLIC R/H ARE ACGE1'ItD BY THE COUNTY; AND THAT THE DEVELOPER SHALL THOROUGHLY GLEAN THE DRYWELLS PRIOR TO THE COUNTY'S ACCEPTANCE OF THE DRAINAGE FACILITIES ADJACENT TO THE PUBLIC R/W. o o, - O o 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O �uaaaaa 0 9 � 0 0 00 0099900 0o00009aDo 0aaooao0 0 0000009999 ° O ° 0 :Cl ° 0:::: : ::: 0 0 0 0 0 0 } 13' DRAINAGE, SLOPE, AND UTILITIES EASEMENT 13' IS : 1 MAX. TO Q. P ALT ERNATIVE No POND STA. 3+00.00 TO STA. 0.5' - 3 \ MPS MATH IDAHO - ENGfNttkING JUN 08 1995 GENERAL NOTES I. FRAME SHALL BE GRAY IRON CONFORMING TO A.S.T.M. A48 -90, GRADE 30. THE GRATE SHALL BE DUCTILE IRON CONFORMING TO A.S.T.M. A536 -84. GLASS 80- 55 -06. 2. METAL FRAME AND GRATE TYPE 4 SHALL ONLY BE USED WHERE SHOWN ON THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS. IT SHALL NOT BE USED AT A CURB LINE. 3. DRAINAGE SLOTS SHALL BE PLACED PARALLEL TO THE DIRECTION OF FLOW. 4. FIT TOLERANCE SHALL BE 1/8" ± 5. WELDING 15 NOT PERMITTED. SECTION 5-5 MIN. WEIGHT 168 LBS. FRAME - TYPE 4 DL RECEIVED JUN 08 1995 5:\ M -c o 0 '5 11 b 4 X - 8" MIN. (TYP.) ALTERNATIVE POND STA. 0 +15.00 TO STA. 3 +00.00 RECEIVED EXPIRES: 9/23/95 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER HYDRO MULCH WITH OFFICIAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT HYDROSEED MIXTURE SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEERS OF" 60% BLUEGRASS 20% PERENNIAL RYE 20% FESCUE SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER 6/6/95 z 0 E tdD E . I =.1 0 r Ti z 0 0 rd 0 S i r * CHORD LEGTHS AT BACK OF CURB. BACK OF WALK 6' CURB FACE BACK OF WALK b' CURB FACE O SCA GENERAL NOTES TEMPORARY CUL-DE-SAC WILL BE MARKED BY INSTALLATION OF GUARD RAIL OR 011IER PHYSICAL BARRIER AS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY ENGINEER WITH "END OF ROADWAY ". SIGN WI6 -I. DESIGN "A" 0. 12: I SLOPE SECTI B -B TEMPORARY FULL PROJECTED BACK TO BACK 2' } 3' 12:1 SLOPE 12:1 SLOPE SECTION D -D b' b' 11) G� FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC. WORKS :I ICCT A -I0 PLAN 12:I SLOPE * CHORD LEGTHS AT BACK OF CURB. b" (TYR) } 6" (TYP) FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET A -5 D R =50' R =50' GUL -t7E -SAG Li. • CHORD LEGTHS AT G BACK OF CURB. DESIGN "6" SECTION A -A SECTION G -G STANDARD !"1HEELGHA I R RAMP TYPE III BARRICADE W.SD.O.T. STANDARD PLAN H -2 , SEE NOTE *I 1 \I /2" PRE MOLD JOINT FILLER q r RAMP TEXTURE DETAIL f 2 " ,/- TROWEL FINISH SECTION A -A SLOPE I /4 "/FT I. DRAINAGE INLETS SHALL BE OUTSIDE THE WI ICCLGHAIR RAMP. 2 TEXTURE FOR THE RAMP AND ADVANCE WARNING PANELS SHALL BE CREATED BY INSERTING A METAL GRID INTO THE WET CONCRETE. THE GRID SHALL NOT EXCEED A WIDTH OF 1/2 ". 3. CURB RAMP DESIGN SHALL BE SPECIFIED IN THE CONTRACT PLANS OR SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 4. CURB RAMPS SHALL BE POURED INTEGRALLY WITH SIDEWALK AND SHALL BE ISOLATED BY EXPANSION JOINT MAItKIAL ON ALL SIDES, EXCEPT AT THE SIDE ADJACENT TO THE ROADWAY. 5. WHERE CONSTRUCTED ON STRAIGHT CURB, DESIGN "A" DIMENSION REMAIN THE SAME AS SHOWN. 6. TOP OF CURB ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON PLANS ARE PROJECTED TOP OF CURB ELEVATIONS THROUGH WI ICCLGHAIR RAMP AREA. 1. DRYWELLS OR CULVERTS TO BE PLACED AS NEEDED TO PREVENT RUNOFF FROM OVERFLOWING PEDESTRIAN RAMP NEEDED, 6 SLOPE I /4 "/FT SECTION B -B 2" REBAR PLACEMENT SPECIAL CURB INLET SIDEWALK � ----CURB LINE �, -- GUTTER FLOW LINE i I" RADIUS 4" SPECIAL CURB INLET TYPE 2 PUBLIC WORKS SHEET 8 -q 12 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE #4 REBAR ® 10 "O /C E.W. TYPICAL -TOP 4 BOTTOM SEE SECTION 13-8 TYPICAL BOTH SIDES idi 11/2" CONSTRUCTION JOINT SHEAR KEY TOP OF CURB GUTTER FLOW LINE TOP OF CURB OR -- \ BACK 0 WALK l'-b" - " 8 SIDEWALK PAY LIMITS 2' -TYPE B CURB STANDARD GURF3 INLET FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TYPE "13" G1UANI = 0.041651 C.Y./L.F. FINISH GRADE 24" /-I " I" RADIUS 4' -b" 3' -10" SECTION G -G CONCRETE GURB INLET PAY LIMITS 3' -10" 5 N I/2 RE GUI 1 tR DEPRESSION DETAIL JOINT FILLER N OUTLET SWALE GRADING DETAIL GENERAL NOTES 13/8" SIDEWALK PAY LIMITS 2' 3 " - GENERAL NOTES FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET A -3 CONSTRUCTION JOINT 1. CURB INLET SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM G 418 (ASSHTO M Iqq) 4 ASTM G 8 UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON PLANS OR NOTED ON THE PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 2. TOP SURFACE TO BE BROOM FINISHED. 3. ALL EXTERNAL EDGES NOT LABELED SHALL BE TROWELLED WITH 1/4" RADIUS EDGER. 4. SEE "TEMPORARY EROSIOWSEDIMENT CONTROL" SHEET q OF 10 I. PORTLAND GEMENT CONCRETE SHALL BE GLASS 3000 CONFORMING TO THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 2. WEAKENED PLANE JOINTS FOR PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SHALL BE PLACED AT 15' IN I tKVALS. 3. 3/8" EXPANSION JOINTS IN PORTLAND GEMENT CONCRETE SHALL BE PLACED AT CURB RETURNS. 4. TO BE USED IN SPECIAL CASES WITH APPROVED OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER. 5. CURBS SHALL HAVE A LIGHT BROOMED FINISH. GUTTERS SHALL BE FINISHED WITH A STEEL TROWEL. STANDARD GURSS GUTTERS SHALE AREA 8 ' 6 2" DEPRESSION AT FLOWLINE� &RADE- 4" PORTLAND GEMENT CONCRETE 6' 1/4" PER FOOT SHALE AREA • •• 3/8" EXPANSION JOINT 6" PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE m SECTION B -B i (k DRAINAGE. CURB DROP SWALE 3' SECTION B -B SIDEWALK EDGE OF PAVEMENT EASEMENT \ \ • STANDARD DR I VEJ»4AYS FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET A-4 10' 4" PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE 11' -HIGH SIDE OF DRII.VE 2% r.,- 21.5/4/4K •. (E DRAINAGE SWALE SWALE AREA CURB INLET TYPE 1 FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET B -8 GENERAL NOTES 6' 1/4" PER GENERAL NOTES NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING JUN 081995 1. EXPANSION JOINT MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED IN THE CENTER OF ALL COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAYS OVER 20' IN WIDTH. 2. EXPANSION JOINT REQUIRED IF POUR INCLUDES ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY AREA. 3. CONCRETE FOR DRIVEWAYS SHALL BE GLASS 300 AIR ENTRAINED. 4. ALL EXTERNAL EDGES TO BE TROWELLED WITH 1/4" RADIUS EDGER 5. SIDEWALK TO BE SCORED EVERY 5'. 3/S EXPANSION JOINT TO BE INSTALLED EACH SIDE OF A CURB RETURN AND AT LOCATIONS WHERE SIDEWALK INTERSECTS OTHER SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, AND CURBS. b. THE WIDTH OF COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAYS MAY BE HIDER THAN SHOWN, IF APPROVED BY THE COUNTY ENGINEER. ROW SECTION A -A (DRAINAGE SHALE) I CURB INLET SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM G 418 (AASHTO M Iqq) 4 ASTM G 8g0 UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON PLANS OR NOTED IN THE PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 2. TOP SURFACE TO BE BROOM FINISHED. 3. ALL EXTERNAL EDGES NOT LABELED SHALL BE TROWELLED WITH V4" RADIUS EDGER. 4. DIMENSION "L" SHALL BE 3'-O" 5. SEE "TEMPORARY EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL" SHEET 8 OF q RECEIVED JUN 2 9 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER OFFICIAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFICE ORIGINAL PROJECT # SUBMITTAL AL # RETURN TO MINTY ENGINEER RECEIVED JUN 0 8 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER EXPIRES: 9/23/95 5/14/q5 Q 0 0 ti tt 5 z 0 0 z 0 H E w z 0 F A 0 (Li 1I N (0 CO CV 0 Jl r DISTANCES :: TYPE MIN. MAX. RES. Ib' 30' * CHORD LEGTHS AT BACK OF CURB. BACK OF WALK 6' CURB FACE BACK OF WALK b' CURB FACE O SCA GENERAL NOTES TEMPORARY CUL-DE-SAC WILL BE MARKED BY INSTALLATION OF GUARD RAIL OR 011IER PHYSICAL BARRIER AS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY ENGINEER WITH "END OF ROADWAY ". SIGN WI6 -I. DESIGN "A" 0. 12: I SLOPE SECTI B -B TEMPORARY FULL PROJECTED BACK TO BACK 2' } 3' 12:1 SLOPE 12:1 SLOPE SECTION D -D b' b' 11) G� FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC. WORKS :I ICCT A -I0 PLAN 12:I SLOPE * CHORD LEGTHS AT BACK OF CURB. b" (TYR) } 6" (TYP) FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET A -5 D R =50' R =50' GUL -t7E -SAG Li. • CHORD LEGTHS AT G BACK OF CURB. DESIGN "6" SECTION A -A SECTION G -G STANDARD !"1HEELGHA I R RAMP TYPE III BARRICADE W.SD.O.T. STANDARD PLAN H -2 , SEE NOTE *I 1 \I /2" PRE MOLD JOINT FILLER q r RAMP TEXTURE DETAIL f 2 " ,/- TROWEL FINISH SECTION A -A SLOPE I /4 "/FT I. DRAINAGE INLETS SHALL BE OUTSIDE THE WI ICCLGHAIR RAMP. 2 TEXTURE FOR THE RAMP AND ADVANCE WARNING PANELS SHALL BE CREATED BY INSERTING A METAL GRID INTO THE WET CONCRETE. THE GRID SHALL NOT EXCEED A WIDTH OF 1/2 ". 3. CURB RAMP DESIGN SHALL BE SPECIFIED IN THE CONTRACT PLANS OR SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 4. CURB RAMPS SHALL BE POURED INTEGRALLY WITH SIDEWALK AND SHALL BE ISOLATED BY EXPANSION JOINT MAItKIAL ON ALL SIDES, EXCEPT AT THE SIDE ADJACENT TO THE ROADWAY. 5. WHERE CONSTRUCTED ON STRAIGHT CURB, DESIGN "A" DIMENSION REMAIN THE SAME AS SHOWN. 6. TOP OF CURB ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON PLANS ARE PROJECTED TOP OF CURB ELEVATIONS THROUGH WI ICCLGHAIR RAMP AREA. 1. DRYWELLS OR CULVERTS TO BE PLACED AS NEEDED TO PREVENT RUNOFF FROM OVERFLOWING PEDESTRIAN RAMP NEEDED, 6 SLOPE I /4 "/FT SECTION B -B 2" REBAR PLACEMENT SPECIAL CURB INLET SIDEWALK � ----CURB LINE �, -- GUTTER FLOW LINE i I" RADIUS 4" SPECIAL CURB INLET TYPE 2 PUBLIC WORKS SHEET 8 -q 12 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE #4 REBAR ® 10 "O /C E.W. TYPICAL -TOP 4 BOTTOM SEE SECTION 13-8 TYPICAL BOTH SIDES idi 11/2" CONSTRUCTION JOINT SHEAR KEY TOP OF CURB GUTTER FLOW LINE TOP OF CURB OR -- \ BACK 0 WALK l'-b" - " 8 SIDEWALK PAY LIMITS 2' -TYPE B CURB STANDARD GURF3 INLET FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TYPE "13" G1UANI = 0.041651 C.Y./L.F. FINISH GRADE 24" /-I " I" RADIUS 4' -b" 3' -10" SECTION G -G CONCRETE GURB INLET PAY LIMITS 3' -10" 5 N I/2 RE GUI 1 tR DEPRESSION DETAIL JOINT FILLER N OUTLET SWALE GRADING DETAIL GENERAL NOTES 13/8" SIDEWALK PAY LIMITS 2' 3 " - GENERAL NOTES FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET A -3 CONSTRUCTION JOINT 1. CURB INLET SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM G 418 (ASSHTO M Iqq) 4 ASTM G 8 UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON PLANS OR NOTED ON THE PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 2. TOP SURFACE TO BE BROOM FINISHED. 3. ALL EXTERNAL EDGES NOT LABELED SHALL BE TROWELLED WITH 1/4" RADIUS EDGER. 4. SEE "TEMPORARY EROSIOWSEDIMENT CONTROL" SHEET q OF 10 I. PORTLAND GEMENT CONCRETE SHALL BE GLASS 3000 CONFORMING TO THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 2. WEAKENED PLANE JOINTS FOR PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SHALL BE PLACED AT 15' IN I tKVALS. 3. 3/8" EXPANSION JOINTS IN PORTLAND GEMENT CONCRETE SHALL BE PLACED AT CURB RETURNS. 4. TO BE USED IN SPECIAL CASES WITH APPROVED OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER. 5. CURBS SHALL HAVE A LIGHT BROOMED FINISH. GUTTERS SHALL BE FINISHED WITH A STEEL TROWEL. STANDARD GURSS GUTTERS SHALE AREA 8 ' 6 2" DEPRESSION AT FLOWLINE� &RADE- 4" PORTLAND GEMENT CONCRETE 6' 1/4" PER FOOT SHALE AREA • •• 3/8" EXPANSION JOINT 6" PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE m SECTION B -B i (k DRAINAGE. CURB DROP SWALE 3' SECTION B -B SIDEWALK EDGE OF PAVEMENT EASEMENT \ \ • STANDARD DR I VEJ»4AYS FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET A-4 10' 4" PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE 11' -HIGH SIDE OF DRII.VE 2% r.,- 21.5/4/4K •. (E DRAINAGE SWALE SWALE AREA CURB INLET TYPE 1 FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET B -8 GENERAL NOTES 6' 1/4" PER GENERAL NOTES NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING JUN 081995 1. EXPANSION JOINT MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED IN THE CENTER OF ALL COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAYS OVER 20' IN WIDTH. 2. EXPANSION JOINT REQUIRED IF POUR INCLUDES ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY AREA. 3. CONCRETE FOR DRIVEWAYS SHALL BE GLASS 300 AIR ENTRAINED. 4. ALL EXTERNAL EDGES TO BE TROWELLED WITH 1/4" RADIUS EDGER 5. SIDEWALK TO BE SCORED EVERY 5'. 3/S EXPANSION JOINT TO BE INSTALLED EACH SIDE OF A CURB RETURN AND AT LOCATIONS WHERE SIDEWALK INTERSECTS OTHER SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, AND CURBS. b. THE WIDTH OF COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAYS MAY BE HIDER THAN SHOWN, IF APPROVED BY THE COUNTY ENGINEER. ROW SECTION A -A (DRAINAGE SHALE) I CURB INLET SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM G 418 (AASHTO M Iqq) 4 ASTM G 8g0 UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON PLANS OR NOTED IN THE PROJECT SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 2. TOP SURFACE TO BE BROOM FINISHED. 3. ALL EXTERNAL EDGES NOT LABELED SHALL BE TROWELLED WITH V4" RADIUS EDGER. 4. DIMENSION "L" SHALL BE 3'-O" 5. SEE "TEMPORARY EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL" SHEET 8 OF q RECEIVED JUN 2 9 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER OFFICIAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFICE ORIGINAL PROJECT # SUBMITTAL AL # RETURN TO MINTY ENGINEER RECEIVED JUN 0 8 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER EXPIRES: 9/23/95 5/14/q5 Q 0 0 ti tt 5 z 0 0 z 0 H E w z 0 F A 0 (Li 1I N (0 CO CV 0 Jl r STA. 0+15.00 START POND FLAT BOTTOM ELEV. 2023.16 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE "B' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 1 +16.00 GRATE ELEV. 202426 OFFSET 28' R1&HT SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE B' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 1I +54.00 ORATE ELEV. 2026.21 OFFSET 28' LEFT INV. ELEV. 2023.16 TOP BERM STA. 1 +60.00 ELEV. 202554 F.G. 202650 1 +21.43 CATCH BASIN AND INLET 'Isn't 2 WITH b0' OF D.1P. CULVERT INVERT ELEV. 2024.00 SLOPE = 0.004 FLAT BOTTOM ELEV. 2025.04 BASIN D F.G. 202550 CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL &RATE TYPE 2 STA. 11+95.00 ORATE ELEV. 2026.00 OFFSET 52' LEFT WITH ±44 L.F. I2' G.M.P. a 12% &`ADE F.B. 202550 TOP BERM STA. 2 +25.00 ELEV. 2026.11 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'A' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND &RATE STA. 10+5358 GRATE ELEV. 2028.17 OFFSET 19.5' RIGHT BASIN 0 EDGE OF PAVEMENT CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL ORATE TYPE 2 STA. 10+89.24 GRATE ELEV. 2021 .60 OFFSET 46.42' LEFT WITH 143 L.F. 12" G.M.P. • ±2% GRADE SIDEWALK RIGHT OF WAY PLAT BOUNDARY HARMONY LANE SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE B' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND ORATE STA. 11 +54.00 GRATE ELEV. 2026.21 OFFSET 28' RIGHT 3134' RIGHT OF WAY � SiN H SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE "B' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND ORATE STA. 5+59.16 GRATE ELEV. 2028.68 OFFSET 28' LEFT RIGHT OF WAY SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE B' DRYINEL.L WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 10+5358 &RATE ELEV. 2028.11 OFFSET ri' RI&HT EDGE OF PAVEMENT 5+b4.41 CENTER POINT INV. ELEV. 2029.18 TYPE 2 CURB INLET INDIA 1A AVE AS1N B F.6. 202&.12' F.6. 202650 PLAT BOUNDARY RIGHT OF WAY SIDEWALK F.G. 2025.50 CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL &RATE TYPE 2 STA. 11 +95.0o ORATE ELEV. 2026.00 OFFSET 52' RIGHT WITH 144 L.F. 12" G.M.P. ® ±2% GRADE P.&. 202550 STA. 13+11.46 / INV. ELEV. 203056 STA. 13 +16.41 BASIN E TOP BERM 2031.01 LOT LINE TA. 13 +21.42 . ELEV. 2030.46 I XPtfi s 09 ?23 F.G. 2028. STA. 15+06.46 NV. ELEV. 2026.61 STA. 15 +11.41 TOP BERM 2029.06 SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE B' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. I9 +25.00 HARMONY &RATE ELEV. 2021.63 OFFSET h' RIGHT WT LINE 6 SIDEWALK RI614T OF WAY BASIN 1 IN AVE BASIN G CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL ORATE TYPE 2 STA. 4+90.00 GRATE ELEV. 2021.63 OFFSET 52' RIGHT WITH t 28 LP. I2' G.M.P. ®12% GRADE 13.41' CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 F.6. 2021.13 AS1 F F.6. 2021 WITH METAL ORATE TYPE 2 STA. 16 +41.43 &RATE ELEV. 202159 OFFSET 55' LEFT WITH 1 38 L.F. I2' G.MP. O 12% GRADE SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN SPOKANE COUNTY STAND " • TYPE 'A' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 19+40.00 HARMONY ORATE ELEV. 2021.10 OFFSET 11' LEFT LOT LINE STA. 16+41.43 OKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE "B" DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 16 +26.00 GRATE ELEV. 2021.93 OFFSET IT LEFT RECEIVED JUN 2 9 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER OFFICIAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFICE OR N:L PROJECT 4 (4 SUBMITTAL t# RETURN TO COUNTY ENGINEER RECEIVED JUN 0 8 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER RIGHT OF WAY SIDEWALK UNDERDRAIN STA. 16+41.43 INV. ELEV. 2021.89 SWALE LOW POINT 2021.89 EDGE OF PAVEMENT EDGE OF PAVEMENT PLAT BOUNDARY DRAINAGE EASEMENT F.6. 2021.42 F.6. 202131 TaM11.111.102111nrakTims■■■■•■■■■■.-nsmiram■■■•4411111111 lop nal" 0.1■1■04■51 fi Ai o, mom ONO CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL &RATE TYPE 2 STA. 15 +11.10 GRATE ELEV. 2028.42 OFFSET 195' RIGHT WITH t 125 L.F. 12' G.M.P. a *2% 6RAPE 36 TOP CENTER OF INLET STA. I5 +11.10 HARMONY 2028.42 STA. 14 +70.17 E.G.R. HARMONY END POND 2032.60 II' 21' GRADE FLAT 2021.12 SEMIS 0.5' HARNIONt LANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE ' • DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 AL FRAME AND &RATE McMlLLIi LADE CHECK DAM 3A SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE '8' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND CRATE STA. 15 +15.00 ORATE ELEV. 202154 OFFSET 11.5' RIGHT 0.8' HARMONY LANE TOP CENTER OF BERM 3A STA. 15 +25.10 HARMONY 2028.72 STA. I5 +15.00 GRATE ELEV. 2027.51 HARMONY LANE v v 103 BASIN N F.6. 2030.50 103.13' CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 1 WITH METAL GRATE TYPE 2 STA. 10+40.00 FUTURE SANDUSKY CRATE ELEV. 2031.00 OFFSET 50' RIGHT WITH t 21 LF. 12' G.MP. a ±2% 6RADE CONCRETE INLET TYPE 2 WITH METAL GRATE TYPE 2 STA. 22 +31.16 McMlLLAN LANE &RATE ELEV. 2026.15 OFFSET 60' RIai1 WITH *40 LP. 12' G.MP. • ±2% 6RADE CHECK D 3B SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'B" DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 16+C5.00 GRATE ELEV. 202151 OFFSET 15' RIGHT ASIN J SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'B' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND GRATE STA. 10+40.00 FUTURE SANDUSKY &RATE ELEV. 2031.23 FUTURE EDGE OF PAVEMENT LOT LINE GRADE FLAT 202131 STA. 16+05.00 r ORATE ELEV. 202 .51 38 BASIN L TOP CENTER OF BERM 35 STA. 16 +20.10 HARMONY 2028.21 T _ ., )� 0 .5' SPOKANE COUNTY STANDARD TYPE 'B' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME AND CRATE STA. 16+55.00 &RATE ELEV. 2021.91 OFFSET 115' RIGHT 3q GRADE FLAT 2021.41 STA. 16 +55.00 GRATE ELEV. 2021.11 0.5' STA. 11 +0131 HARMONY END POND 51 RIGHT OF WAY GUTTER .6 2026.41 SPOKANE COUNTY STAND • RD 1 TYPE "B' DRYWELL WITH TYPE 4 METAL FRAME • • GRATE McMILLAN LANE BASIN M 60' ASIN 0 EDGE OF PAVEMENT / 4 R ONY L., NE •---•. vow w i t__ ftweavosmoo 1ONY LA BSS I N K POND A POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 2023.16/2025.04 /2025.61 VOLUME REQUIRED = 1165 cult. VOLUME PROVIDED = 1180 cult. POND B POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 2028.18 VOLUME REQUIRED = 150 cult. VOLUME PROVIDED = 205 tuft. POND G POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 2021.13 VOLUME RE-OARED = 272 cult. VOLUME PROVIDED = 515 cult. POND P POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 202550 VOLUME REQUIRED = 501 tuft. VOLUME PROVIDED = 2030 cuft. FOND e POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 202550 VOLUME REQUIRED = 184 cult. VOLUME PROVIDED = 2030 cult. POND F POND 6 POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 2021.13 VOLUME REQUIRED = 202 tuft. VOLUME PROVIDED = 450 cult. POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 2021.61 VOLUME REQUIRED = 232 cult. VOLUME PROVIDED = 615 cult. POND FI POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 2021.10 VOLUME REQUIRED = 292 cult. VOLUME PROVIDED = 650 cult. POND 1 POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 203001/2028.06/202101 VOLUME REQUIRED = 121 tuft, VOLUME PROVIDED = 1030 tuft. POND ,I POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 2021.12/20239/2021.41 VOLUME REQUIRED = 350 tuft. VOLUME PROVIDED = 585 cult. POND K POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 202153 VOLUME REQUIRED = 301 cult. VOLUME PROVIDED = 1140 cult. POND L POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 203050 VOLUME REQUIRED = Ill tuft. VOLUME PROVIDED = 1270 cult. POND M POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 202641 VOLUME REQUIRED = 331 tuft. VOLUME PROVIDED = 460 cult. POND N POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 2026.45 VOLUME REQUIRED = 412 cult. VOLUME PROVIDED = 5.40 cult. POND 0 POND BOTTOM ELEVATION = 2030.71 VOLUME REQUIRED = 364 cult. VOLUME PROVIDED = 810 cult. RECEIVED JUN 29 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER OFFICIAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER'SOFFICE ORICAL POIECT CC 1 - SUBMITTAL . RETURN TO COUNTY ENGINEER RECEIVED JUN 0 8 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER 1 E-+ 0 U 9 0 S 1 ac 0 0 V CLI 0 0 0 0 0 0 d+ SCALE: I NCH = 20' CURVE RADIUS LENGTH TAN6ENT CHORD BEARING DELTA GI 20.00' 1.14' 361' 1.10' 504'38'31 "W 20 °27'23' 03 20.00' 31.43' 20.02' 2830' N45•0186"E 90 °03'08' C4 20 .00' 31.40' 19.98' 28.27' 544•58'24 'E 89 °5652' CI 410.00' 43.43' 21.13' 43.41' 526'5155'E 06•04'01' G8 20 .00' 14.45' 156' 14.14' 561•54`3TE 41'24'35' G1 125.00' 18b1' 0 134' 1861' N1703'58 '11 01 °28'32' GII 125.00' 5432' ?7.45' 154 .03' N23'54'06'1-1 1211'44' G15 115.00' 132.72' 66.55' 13253' N65•14'05'E 10•38'01" G16 115.00' 233.17' 118 .04' 232.13' N80•0031'E 18•44'51' Gil 685 .00' 82.82' 4L46' 82.16' N85•55'I7E 06 C37 20 .00' 2426' 13.88' 22.80' 554•31'4314 69'3046' G39 20 .00' 2426' 13.88' 22.80' 525•1439 69•30'46' G3q 20.00' 1.15' 361' 1.11' 5l1'45'2I'E 20 °24'14' C40 20.00' 1.15' 3bI' 1.11' N40 °1436 "1"I 20 C4I 20 .00' 24.26' 13.88' 22.80' N95 61 °30'46' C44 600 .00' 21.88' 10.44' 21.88' 51722'24"E 02 °05'24" C45 150.00' 43.12' 21.51' 43.12' N175932'4 03 °11'40' C46 20.00' 21b1' 1832' 21.02' N2I °21'08 "E 84 °59'16" C41 20D0' 33be 22.38' 21.82' N61'31'1114 96 °25'23' G48 685.00' 81.18' 43.65' 81.12' N63•38'47 "E 01 °1131' C44 20 .00' 24.55' 14 .01' 23.03' ST73256 "E 10°19'04" 050 20.00' 2435' 14.01' 23.03' N39•54'44 "E 70 G51 685.00' 6225' 31.15' 6223' NT1'40'28 "E 05 °1225' 652 612.00' 10436' 5228' 10425' N64•2651'E 08 °5352' G53 612.00' 26.12' 13.06' 26.12' 1470•00'42 "E 02•1338' G54 612 .00' 21.44' 13.72' 27.44' N72'l J 43"E 02'20'24' G55 612.00' TTb1' 3895' 1116' N76•4656 "E 06°38'02' C56 672.00' 23513' 119.oq' 23452' 170 °02'59"E 20'05'55' LINE 1 DIRECTION 1 DISTANCE LI 581'245TH 15.00' L3 5 00 °00'04' W 10.00' L5 500•03'10'4 10.00' Lil N9q•23'o6"E 21.19' LI2 500 °35'24'E 84.98' LIq 5812451 "W 30.00' L20 500 °34'05'E 13.17' L2I 500'34'05°E 16.81' L43 5 89'2451" W 1.61' L44 5 03 °48'01' W 2162' L45 N 00 °35'03° W 21:75' L46 N 91•23'0b" E 2.83' L41 5 04•58 E 36.16' L49 N 00'35'03' W 36.85' R5 N25 ° 44'0114 18.10' Rb N26'03'14'14 11.10' R7 N72•11'46 "E 22 .00' RII 539•30'4T1 25.37' R12 524 °5158 'E 2059' RI3 N80•29'16 "E 26.01' RI4 521 °51'58 °E 23.3T R11 N22'4228'14 22.12' R18 N11'21'52'14 34.55' Rig N19'52'21'14 19.05' R22 N14°55'44•1-1 2259' R24 NO9 ° 43'2014 23:14' R25 N01'3231 "W 2019' R2T N40 °41'40 "E 31.44' R29 510 °01'40 "E 2734' I I I c:) � N N d N LU LU O 0 m m O 0 O 0 is U1 -r 30.00' -- 30.00' 606 t L48 R = 20.00' T = 2.01' L =4.02' L19 L43 L45 DETAIL "A" Ree Li Ci 5' DRAINAGE, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT ,2 25 FR 1/2 INCH REBAR W/SURGAP MARKED "WELBORN PLS 15043" 589 °23'06."14 589 °23'06 14 291.41' INDIANA AVENUE 3O' 1 22650' 13' 25' SIDEWALK, DRAINAGE, SLOPE AND UTILITY EASEMENT 5' FUTURE A&QUISIT10N AREA EASEMENT FOR CLEAR VIEW TRIANGLE (NOT A PART) 5 89 °23'06' 25.81' N 71 °15'58" E 28.46' 589 °23'06 "W 211.41' (NOT A PART) 5' 32229' 226.45' 25' SIDEWALK., DRAINAGE, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT TRACT 3 0" 13' DRAINAGE, SLOPE AND�T EASEMENT N81•23'06"E 245.23' EASEMENT FOR CLEAR VIEW TRIANGLE - 7ff 1253' C17 514 °15 58• W (NOT A PART) 5' DRAINAGE, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT EASEMENT FOR CLEAR VIEW TRIANGLE '10.1558? 4 #6109180257 (NOT A PART) 5 00'34'05' E 0.25' 0421' FD. 1/2 INCH REBAR W/SURCAP MARKED 14ELBORN PLS 15043" 5 89•23'06` W 25.81' 042 FD. 1/2 INCH REBAR W/SURGAP MARKED 1 PLS 15043' N.T.S. woo J / 055 13' DRAINAGE, SLOPE AND UTILITY EASEMENT C51 0 = 11°01'43' R = 20.00' T = I.15' L = 3.88' 7 - 0 51 TRACT 'I' 1' WIDE STRIP C5A (NOT A PART) c 56 0 53 7 Q 8 IS I-t C49 (NOT A PART) 13' DRAINA.6E, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT 0 = 18'31'28" R = 20.00' T = 326' L = 6.47' DETAIL. IIG" EASEMENT FOR CLEAR VIEW TRIANGLE 10268' 83.61' C3 C4 10221' J 5 89•5650' E 17360' S 89 °5650" E 20D0' N8q'5650 "W N ' 51°56'44" 45.05' a 44.85' 62162' 50.00' MISSION AVENUE 30.00' 10' RIGHT -OF -WAY DEDICATION EASEMENT FOR CLEAR VIEW TRIANGLE 25' SIDEWALK, SLOPE, DRAINAGE AND, UTILITY EASEMENT (TYP) 5 83 ° 5 00 °00'04' W 129' 00 0 � 0 O 16' SIDEWALK, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT (TIT) EASEMENT FOR CLEAR VIEW TRIANGLE 16' SIDEWALK, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT (TYP) = 21'4989" R = 20.00' T = 3.86' L =162' 102.81' 5 0'45'00'1'1 3 %'' 56 0 EASEMENT FOR CLEAR N,: VIEW TRIA•LE 46 i �a�Ov 4q DETAIL "B" 13' DRAINAGE, SLOPE, AND UTILITf EASEMENT UNPLATTED a � . rn 16' SIDEWALK, SLOPE, AND UTILIrr EASEMENT m-I: ) \s" n 0 = 40•29'00` R = 20 .00' T = 738' L= 14.13' ,v- / 0d0 o � bc (NOT A PART) 13' DRAINAGE, SLOPE AND UTILITY EASEMENT A = 02'48'59" R = 100.00' T = 1121' \ (5:.0 L= 34.41' o \ \ A = 36 °56'05" R = 20 .00' T = 668' \ L = 12.89' •0 48 .• C• DETAIL "EII 16' SIDEWALK, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT (MP) J A = 41 °44'43" R = 20.00' T = 1.63' L = 1451' DETAIL It 00 1 A = 21'43'05" R = 20.00' T = 3.84' L = 1.58' N 83 ' 3 845" H N 89 °5650" W (NOT A PART) qq q8 15 a X1 .346 4 13' DRAINAGE, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT 103 16' SIDEWALK, SLOPE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT (TYP) EASEMENT FOR CLEAR VIEW TRIANGLE 20 5.75' 185.93' EASEMENT FOR CLEAR VIEW TRIANGLE 1988.16' LINE TABLE CURVE TABLE SCALE: 1 INCH _ 40 FEET NORTH IDAHO ENGINEERING JUN 081995 RECEIVED JUN 2 9 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER OFFICIAL PUBLIC DOCUMENT • .RETURN TO COUNTY ENGINEE RECEIVED JUN 0 8 1995 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER 0 0 0 H LTa l-1r' iS A N N `. r;N1E COUNTY ENGINEER'S CE. `.ta pRoJEc.;T:it 104- 0 Q W rn W H r 0 0 H A T ti o o c v 0 0 co co 1 o tO 0 u 0 0 1� egINIXAI, -WATER ALL MATERIALS SHALL BE NEW, NSF APPROVED AND INSTALLED ACCORDING TO THE STI444ARPS SET FORTH IN THE CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION DISTRICT NO. 14 VT CONDITIONS ! SPECIFICATIONS FOR WATER MAIN INSTAI.LATIONSa AND STANDARDS SET FORT}I BY THE A.W W,A. AND SPOKANE COIL 11Y. CONSOLIDATED IRRISATION DISTRICT SHALL HENCEFORTH I:E' RgfigERRED TO AS 'C.ID." THE CONTRACTOR SHALL GUARANTEE ALL MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING FINAL WRITTEN APPROVAL BY THE EN6INIE-R. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING ALL UTILITIES COMPANIES TO DETERMINE THE LOCATIONS OF UNDERGROUND SERVICES. IF THE CONTRACTOR DAMAGES ANY UTILITY, HE SHALL IIIATELY REPAIR THE UTILITY AT HIS EXPENSE. CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM TO THE PREVIOUSLY NAMED STANDARDS AT THE TIE SUCH REPAIRS ARE MADE. NO DEVIATIONS PROM THE PLANS WILL BE ALLQ ED LJMLE5.6 APPROVED IN ADVANCE AND IN WRITING BY THE ENGINEER THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM ALL WORK IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH THE PPPlEYIOLs_Y NAMED STANDARDS AND SHALL ADHERE TO THE FOLLOWING AIWATIONAL REQUIREMENTS: ALL MAIN LINES SHALL BE 0400 GLASS 150 SIX OR EIGHT INCH IN DIAMETER INSTALLED IN THE LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND ACCORDING TO THE SPECIFICATIONS NAMED ABOVE. PLACED AT A DEPTH OF 5 PST BENEATH THE PAVEMENT (PAVING SURFACE TO TOP OF PIPE MINIMUM OF S FEET) IN PEA GRAVEL AS SPECIFIED IN THE DETAILS AND IN AGGORDANGE WITH THE STANDARDS MENTIONED IN THE GENERAL NOTES ABOVE. 'IRAGIIR WIRE 15 TO BE PLACED 24' ABOVE PIPE AND BROUGHT TO THE SURFACE AT +. ROE HYDRANT LOCATIONS. WATER SERVICES TO BE STUBBED 5' INTO PROPERTY BEHIND SWALE AREA AND MARKED WITH A 2x4 BURIED ON END WATER METERS AND METER BOXES TO BE INSTALLED BY G.1 D. WHEN OWNER REQUEST HOOKUP. F IHRIOT 8LOGKIN15 • FITTINGS SHALL BE CAST IRON FLANGE OR MECHANICAL JOINT. ALL FITT1NOS SHALL BE THRUST BLOCKED TO THE SIZE AND LOCATION SHOWN ON THE PLANET, AND BLOCK SHALL BE WRAPPED IN VISQIN AND EQUIPPED WITH Pte, WO. • WIMASTS FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE MUELLER OR M S H BRAND AND SHALL BE INSTALLED AT LOCATIONS AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND ACCORDING TO THE DETAILS. FIE HYDRANTS SHALL BE SET SO THAT THE CENTERLINE OF THE • T DIAMETER OUTLET 15 SITUATED 1.5 FEET ABOVE TOP FACE OF CURB ON STREETS WITH CURBS OR 2 FEET ABOVE THE EDGE OF PAVING AT THE ROADWAY SHOULDER ON STREETS THAT 120 NOT REQUIRE CURB INSTALLATION. rag HYDRANTS SHALL BE INSPECTED BY THE SPOKANE FIRE DISTRICT NO. I. VALVES SHALL BE MUELLER M t H, OR WATEROUS RESILIENT SEAT GATE VALVES AND MUST MEET OR EXCEED THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED STANDARDS. ALL VALVES SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH AN AP4115T/ILE CAST IRON VALVE 80X, TWO PIECE, SLIP TYPE, FOR A 5 FOOT MOO AND SHALL BE MARKED WATER. VALVES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN TIC AS SHOWN IN THE PLANS AND ACCORDIN& TO THE DETAILS. $II #4PIP WM LINE CROSSINGS AT LEAST I8 INCHES OF VERTICAL SEPARATION SHALL BE MAINTAINED 1 THE WATER AND SEWER MAINS. IF THE WATER MAIN 15 BELOW THE SERR, THE SEINER SHALL BE SUPPORTED TO PREVENT EXCESSIVE DEFLECTION OR §12EAKAse OF THE WATER MAIN. IF THE 18 INCHES OP VERTICAL SEPARATION gemeEN THE BOTTOM OF THE WATER LINE AND THE TOP OP THE SIB LINE CANNOT BE MAINTAINED, THE SEWER LINES SHALL BE GONSTRUGTED WITH PIPE WHICH CONFORMS TO WATER MAIN STANDARDS FOR AT LEA sT FET HORIZONTALLY IN EACH DIRECTION FROM THE WATER MAIN. THE WNW MAIN SHALL BE CENTERED AT THE CROSSING 50 THAT JOINTS • 410 . . AS POSSIBLE FROM THE .„ :,. P1 ALL LURE AND LEAKAGE TESTING SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BEFORE COMPLETION OF BAGKFILLIN6 AND WITH THE PIPE JOINTS ACCESSIBLE FOR EXAMINATION. SUFFICIENT BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED OVER THE PIPE BARREL BETWEEN JOINTS TO PREVENT MOVEMENT (SEE SECTION II, ITEM MM" OF ' STANDARDS. CONDITIONS t SPECIFICATIONS FOR WATER MAIN CONSTRUCTION BY G.I DJ. THE MAINS AND SERVICE LINES SHALL BE I RE.55URE TESTING TO 150 POUNDS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE EN6110141. WATER SAMPLES SHALL BE TAKEN AND SUPPLIED TO THE SPOKANE CoOkEirr WALTH DISTRICT FOR APPROVAL. ovesresevorws ALL WORK SHALL BE AND 15 GUARANTEED BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR A PERIOD OF OI+E YEAR FROM AND AFTER THE DATE OF FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF ALL THE WORK BY THE OWNER. IF, WITHIN SAID GUARANTEE PERIOD, REPAIRS OR GH$$€S ARE REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH GUARANTEED WORK, WHICH, IN THE OPINION OF THE ENGINEER, 15 RENDERED NECESSARY AS THE RESULT OF THE USE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT OR WORKMANSHIP WHICH ARE INFERIOR, ogrEcTivE, OR NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OP THE CONTRACT, THE GONIRAGTOR SHALL, PROMPTLY UPON RECEIPT OF NOTICE FROM THE OWNER, AND WITHOUT EXPENSE TO THE OWNER, (A) PLACE IN SATISFACTORY C4 &DITION IN EVERY PARTICULAR ALL OF SUCH GUARANTEED WORK, CORRECT ALL DEFECTS THEREIN; AND (B) MAKE GOOD ALL DAMAGE TO THE SITE OR EQUERMEHT THEREON, WHICH IN THE OPINION OF THE ENGINEER, IS THE RAT OF THE USE OP MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT OR WORKMANSHIP WHICH ARE IMIEMOR, DEFECTIVE, OR NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT; AND (G) MAKE GOOD ANY WORK OR MATERIALS ON THE SITE DISTUREED IN FULFILLING ANY SUCH GUARANTEE. IF THE CONTRACTOR, ArTgla NQTIC.E, PAILS WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS TO PROCEED TO COMPLY WITH TIE TERMS OF THIS GUARANTEE, THE OWNER MAY HAVE THE DEFECTS GPMGTED, AND THE CONTRACTOR AND HIS SURETY SHALL BE LIABLE FOR ALL UMW INGURF;ED PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT IN CASE OF ANY Emeigow HHERE, IN THE OPINION OF THE ENGINEER, DELAY WOULD CAUSE SERIOUS 1.055 OR DAMAGE, REPAIRS MAY BE MADE WITHOUT NOTICE BEING 6IVEN'TO TT CONTRACTOR AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PAY THE COST ENGINEER STAMPED AS- GUILTS SHALL BE SUPPLIED TO THE COUNTY AND WASONSTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEATH WITHIN 30 DAYS OF WATER SYSTEM GQ TK?N• GENERAL NOTES - 5EHER 1. 6E113RALI ALL SEWER LINE CONSTRUCTION METHODS AND MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD, BRIDGE, AND MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION AS JOINTLY PROMULGATED BY THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE WASHINGTON STATE CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION, 1444 EDITION, AS ADOPTED AND REVISED BY THE SPOKANE COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT. THESE PLANS ARE SCHEMATIC` AND ARE NOT INTENDED TO DEPICT ALL DETAILS OF THE WORK REQUIRED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO FAMILIARIZE HIMSELF WITH ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS AND FACTORS AFFECTING THE WORK. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO COORDINATE WITH SPOKANE COUNTY TO DEVELOP A TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN AND INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO OBTAIN ALL REWIRED PERMITS. PAVEMENT PATCHING REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE AS DETERMINED BY THE SPOKANE COUNTY ROAD DEPARTMENT. ALL SEWER PIPE SHALL BE PVC IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 3034, 5DR 35. 3. TRENCH EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL: ALL TRENCH EXCAVATION AND BAGKFILL SHALL CONFORM TO W.SD.O.T. SECTION 1.113 (I)A. ALL BEDDING SHALL CONSIST OF APPROVED BEDDING MATERIAL PLACED AROUND THE PIPE AND BAGKFILLED AS PER W.SD.O.T. SECTION "1.113 (I)B. COMPACTION OF BACKFILL IN ROADWAY SHALL BE PERFORMED TO MEET SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEERS' REQUIREMENTS. TESTING COLLECTOR SEWER AND SIDE SEWER SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPOKANE COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT. SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE DETAILS AS ADOPTED BY SPOKANE COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT. 5. SIDE SE31ERS: EACH 5FJ^ER SERVICE LINE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OP 10 FEET FROM SIDE LOT LINES. EACH SEWER SERVICE LINE AND MAINLINE 5118 SHALL BE MARKED WITH A 4 "X4" MARKER POST EXTENDING VERTICALLY PROM THE SEWER SERVICE OR MAINLINE 511.43 INVERT TO A MINIMUM OF 24" ABOVE FINISHED GRADE. EACH 4'X4" MARKER POST SHALL HAVE A b GAUGE GALVANIZED WIRE SECURELY ATTACHED FOR ITS ENTIRE LENGTH AND SHALL BE CLEARLY MARKED SHOWING THE 4 "x4" LENGTH IN FEET AT THE EXPOSED END. 6. A 55' -EUILT51 CERTIFIED REPRODUCIBLE AS -BUILT DRAWINGS ARE TO BE SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT AT THE COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION. 2 HORIZONTAL AND I VERTICAL TIE SHALL BE SHOWN ON AS- GUILTS FOR ALL SIDE SEWER SERVICES, MAIN LINE STUBS, AND GLEANOUTS. STUBS THAT ARE NOT CONSTRUCTED PERPENDICULAR TO SEWER MAIN WILL NEED A STATION ON THE TEE AND A STATION AND OFFSET FROM SEWER MAIN TO END GAP SHOWN ON AS- BUILTS. ANY BENDS IN SERVICE LINE NEED TO BE A5 -BUILT WITH 2 HORIZONTAL SWING TIES TO PERMANENT SURFACE FEATURES. THE LOW PRESSURE AIR TEST METHOD SHALL BE USED. ALL LINES SHALL BE GLEANED AND TV INSPECTED PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE BY SPOKANE COUNTY. 8. DEVELOPER'S APPROVAL THE UNDERSIGNED DEVELOPER OR HIS ASSIGNS AGREES TO CONSTRUCT IMPROVEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE '4ITH THIS PLAN, AND UPON COMPLETION, 15 RESPONSIBLE TO SUBMIT GERM =IED #'REPRODUCIBLE A5- GUILTS DRAWINGS APPROVED BY THE SPOKANE COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT AND PREPARED BY A PROFESSIONAL CIVIL ENGINEER LICENSED IN THE STATE OP WASHINGTON. DEVELOPER'S APPROVAL PATE THE CONTRACTOR 15 RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING ALL UTILITY COMPANIES BEFORE ANY CONSTRUCTION. ANY DAMAGE TO UTILITIES CAUSED BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REPAIRED AT HIS EXPENSE. ONE--CALL (50 CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION DISTRICT HATER SUPPLIER CERTIFICATION STATEMENT A. CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION DISTRICT NO. I4 WITH STATE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 10220T HAS APPROVED THIS WA I tK PLAN FOR RIVERWAY VILLA. THIS WATER PLAN WILL SATISFY OUR NEEDS IN PROVIDING ON ADEQUATE WATER SYSTEM AND FACILITIES FOR DOMESTIC AND FIRE PROTECTION FOR ALL PARCELS IN THE ABOVE NAMED PLAN. A MINIMUM OF 30 PSI WILL BE AVAILABLE UNDER ALL NORMAL CONDITIONS. B. APPROPRIATE CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS OR AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE WITH CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION DISTRICT NO. 14 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE WATER SYSTEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS APPROVED WATER PLAN. SAID CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS INCLUDE A TIME SCHEDULE ACCEPTABLE TO CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION DISTRICT NO. IQ AND COMMIT THE SPONSOR TO INSTALLATION OP INSPECTED SERVICE LINES TO EACH LOT PRIOR TO ANY APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMITS POR SUCH LOTS. FIRE DISTRICT NO. I HAS APPROVED THIS WATER PLAN FOR RIVERWAY VILLA. THE PLAN 15 IN CONFORMANCE WITH OUR REQUIREMENTS AND WILL SATISFY OUR NEEDS IN PROVIDING AN ADEQUATE WATER SYSTEM AND FACILITIES FOR PROTECTION PURPOSES TO ALL SITES IN THE ABOVE PROJECT. ,��►/ ` h, WO. .5 516 TURF TITLE DATE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH STATEMENT THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH HAS APPROVED THIS WATER PLAN AS HAVING MET ALL APPLICABLE STATE REQUIREMENTS. qi A. ( QC' .y.A, 5parwmt 1*►e4. /241hif SIGNATURE TITLE DAT SPOKANE: COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT STATEMENT THE SPOKANE COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT HAS APPROVED THIS WATER PLAN AS HAVING MET ALL APPLICABLE COUNTY DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS. j A +-sy SIGNATURE DATE SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS THE SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS HAS APPROVED THI5 WATER PLAN AS HAVING MET ALL APPLICABLE COUNTY BUILDING AND SAFE 1Y REQUIREMENTS. TITLE DATE BALDI'II N AVENUE AUSUSTA AVENU SPOKANE RIVER INDIANA AVE. BALDWIN AVE. AUSUSTA AVE. MISSION AVE. VIGINITY MAP (NO SCALE) PROJECT AREA 3 C 8,448 SF 6 ,521 SF o' ' 12 : 6341 SF 6 1,383 SF Spa SF 2 1,925 5F 1905E982N 19o3E/18:7N 3 3,19I SF 2 1,591 5F \ �. 5 10,037 SF 8385 SF N 84 °23'48" E (MEAS.) `" 310.03' (MEAS.) 5 84°5a'II" E (REC.) 310.00' (REG) 15' R.O.W. DEDICATION _ 5' RESERVED ACQUISITION AREA P.U.D. BOUNDARY MISSION AVENUE STREET LOCATION INDEX SHEET TITLE SHEET 2 VILLA AVENUE 3 CLARK FORK STREET 4 KLAMATH RIVER STREET ALLECSHENY AVENUE 5 COLORADO RIVER STREET b DETAIL SHEET DETAIL SHEET 25' BLDG SETBACK ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 100 ft. 104' 7 6,136 SF 104' c1 .4 E/16:1 N PLUS SOUTH AND EAST INV. AS REQUIRED GRAPHIC SCALE STREET TRACT "A" "COMMON AREA 62p32 5F PROPOSED FUTURE DEVELOPMENT - SEE SHEET IA [903 3119.8 MARK YQ/ 25(4' PLANK BURIED ON MD (SEE DETAILS). 3/14/q4 LOT LINES Sns OF WAY RECEIVED AUG 3 1 1994 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER EXPIRES: 9/23/94 () THRUST BLOCK 0 GATE VALVE • FIRE HYDRANT a WATER SERVICE O DRYWELL }� SEWER SERVICE STOP AND STREET 516N Y'> •15' 8.041. DEDICATION Ib- E S.H. V4 SECTION 0 - 1 40104180251 (NOT A PART) 1 $ BENCH MARK -SOUTH EAST CORNER BRIVSE OVER SPOKANE RIVER' ELEV. Igbb.ib E)QSTIN9 R.O.H. 10 R.O.H. DEDICATION 1q2 ► 193E 12 1 .4 Enos N ?__ _ • • Rt T7 Mb a. Vii' �R �' —�� a � � •1 1111 WM WS tltl �'T ' = IIIa�.+ens•. !II i '.. ��:e ! fl! IV !�.ii1 L v i � �� II �NM to ism ®► ___,...,„.,., Amur ' =tea ---; ilillii ----- k . I u r � l3 , III C SCALE ( IN 4 ET ) 1 inch - 200 ft. WiV INDIANA AVENUE BALDWIN AVENUE AUGUSTA AVENUE MISSION AVENUE SINTO AVENUE BOONE AVENUE EUCLID AVENUE L PIPE SIZE AND TYPE/LENS-R-1 AND SLOPE BETWEEN MANHOLES. 2. AS -BUILT RIM AND INVERT ELEVATION AT EACH MANHOLE. 3. DISTANCE FROM DOWNSTREAM MANHOLE TO SIDE SEWER SERVICE STUB ENDS. 90 OFFSET DISTANCE TO STUB END FROM SEWER MAIN OR BACK OF CURB (NOT PROPERTY LINES). ALL ANGLE POINTS OR BENDS ON SIDE SERVICE LINE SHALL BE LOCATED WITH 2 HORIZONTAL 51 TIES. SEWER LINE LIFT STATION 4. AS -BUILT INVERT ELEVATION OF 51118 AND CALCULATED DEPTH FORM ADJOINING CURB OR NATURAL GROUND. 5. STRUT WIDTH/BACK TO BACK OF CURBS/WIDTH OF RIC:HT -OF -WAY. 6. LOCATION OF SEWER MAIN WITHIN STREET. FORGE MAIN ANGLE POINTS SHALL BE LOCATED 2 WAYS HORIZONTALLY AND ONE WAY VERTICALLY FROM PERMANENT SURFACE FEATURES. 1. STUBS NOT IO' FROM SIDE LOTS LINES MUST BE MOVED OR 0 MAINTENANCE EASEMENT MUST BE PROVIDED OR A HOLD COUNTY HARMLESS A6RE3-IEJT MUST BE PROVIDED. SHOW ALL SERVICED LOTS, LOT NUMBERS, BLOCK NUMBERS AND LOT LINES. SHOW DIMENSIONS AND INCLUDE A COPY OF THE RECORDED EASEMENT DOCUMENT FOR ALL MAIN LINE SANITARY SEWER EASEMENTS (10' MINIMUM EACH SIDE OF PIPE). 10. INCLUDE COUNTY MANHOLE NUMBERS. 11. SHOW SECTION, TOWNSHIP, RANGE AND QUARTER SECTION. 12. DRAWINGS SHALL BE MYLAR WITH INK OR AS OTHERWISE APPROVED AND SUBMITTED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF SEWER SYSTEMS ACCEPTANCE. TIE TO EXISTING SEWER SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 90 NOT TO SCALE EXPIRES: 9/23/:4 IPA RECEIVED AUG 3 1 1994 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER LESEND THRUST BLOCK ® SATE VALVE D FIRE HYDRANT WATER SERVICE DRYWELL }--- SEWER SERVICE HOT TAP MAIN BY AT ISTING 21" N5OLIDATED Deva_opE .G. HATER IRR. DIST. EXPENSE. PLUG 1 2015 " P.V.C. SEW 5 REQUIRED . ELEV =2018 R MAIN CON 10" DI 5= 0.00 TRUGT CL150 HATE T GRADE 1"I TA 5+50 TO GL150 HATE T #5) ONSTRUCT 2 " DIA. PVG 5 TER MAIN TA 11+81.02 350 L.F. HER MAIN PVG SEWER ' Gc100 CLI5 EE SHEET tt5) 5112UGT 118. 0 L.F. EXTEN MAIN I BOUND (SEE D f3" Gc100 G 150 HATER BEYOND P OJEGT RY. CAP A REQUIRED. TAILS) 2020 2015 OP 8" Gc100 GONSTRU 10" DIA. T 3b.00 L. C SEWER MA 5=0.0•25 MAIN 10" PIA. HATER MAIN PROFILE SGALE: 0 0 0 1-1 0 0 44414 HOT TAP EXISTING 21" A.G. HATER MAIN BY CONSOLIDATED IRR. LIST. AT DEVELOPERS EXPENSE. 0+25.04 OFFSET 5' RIGHT 10' SANITARY SEWER AS REQUIRED. (SEE DETAILS) INV. ELEV=2018.35 181 E/I8.8 N NM' 5'04"E IE5c1,8 EJ1q.b N I/ 181.5 /15.8 N \o 18 N TB. 0+00 0 1+00 61.101•11 =MS N 0 -) A• / c) ' vz- 0, EDSE EXISTING PAVINb 0 0 2+00 4 -?6 A-71,,,t. 8 , N ' 6?( J// 4 . 2.)4.b I_ _ _.____ . 'y '4•D(-(//11-Y,;k:k-isS 355.03' ;' •"r? • • • 35 0" SANITARY 51 (TY! 57 /0 GAF> 0 A/C) Bu /is o c, Qt) ./ C9 A- 7.6, 4e • 5z . c 4+00 /i/ • <s c 0 •O'5 `e 1 ; , 6 --.111•■■■■■■ o d 5+00 7 Cs\ 0 CS\ 7 \ 6+00 VILLA AV •0 0, EDGE OF PAVING \IU 7+00 \— 2" SERVICE TO STORAGE AREA ..•■■•■•■••••• CURB AND GUTTER 10+06.02 VILLA AVE E 20+73.73 COLORADO fIVER ST. \ \0 STORAGE AREA RIGHT OF HAY \ EXTEND ALL SIDE SEWER LINES 5' BEYOND RIGHT OF HAY LINE, INSIDE LOTS (•YP. SEE DETAILS) q+00 10+00 E3 /-01-D IA's L vAL- /Ls) • HATER SERVICES AT SIDE LOT LINES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED EXTEND SERVICE 5' BEYOND RIGHT-OF-HAY LINE, INSIDE LOTS 11+00 T.B. EDGE OF PAVING //1-8 O Fzpz 5 _Cir,AAjour R/si-f 4 1'40.3 E/Iq.8 t■ . / 1 7/ 0 c • 6 1. 91/ .S> r e/ 6 C . 6>s'i / <Cs' o, 1 EXPIRES: 9/23/94 ___—EXTEND 10' BEY GAP A BURIED PLAT BOUNDARY t> ;1".,..4•1 8" Gc100 CLI50 WATER MAIN OND PROJECT BOUNDARY REGD. MARK kV 2"X4" PLANK ON END (SEE DETAILS) MARK 1AI/ 2"X4" PLANK BURIED ON END (SEE DETAILS). RECEIVED AUG 3 1 1994 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER SCALE: 1 INCH = 50 FEET LEESENE) THRUST BLOCK GATE VALVE D FIRE HYDRANT Iw- HATER SERVICE DRYNELL SERVICE EXTEND 8" G900 CLI50 HATER MAIN 10' BEYOND 'ROJECT BOUNDARY. GAP AS REGD. MA' H/ 2 "X4" PLANK BURIED ON END. (SEE DETAILS) — 5' STUB - 0 E SLOPE =0.004 INV. ELEV=202 .16 CONSTRUCT 231.06 _.F. 8" DIA. P.V.G. SERER MAIN 231.06' EXISTING GROUND AT CENTERLINE T9P 8" Gg00 CLI50 HATER MAIN CONSTRUCT 3I .'13 L.F. 8 INGH DIA. P.V.G. SERER MAIN 313.83' FINI: iCD. GRADE AT CENTERLINE 8" 0 GLI50 HATER (SEE SHEE #4) CONSTRUCT 224.30 L.F. 8 " DIA. P.V.G. SERER MAIN 22430— - 0.6096 EXTEN 7 8" G100 G 10' BEYOND PROJE AS RED. MARK H/ ON END. (SEE PETAL 2025 8" Gg00 GLI50 HATER MAIN (SEE SHEET #2) 2020 2015 150 HATER MAIN T BOUNDARY. GAP 2 "X4" PLANK BURIED 5) PROFILE SCALE: HORIZONTAL: 1"=50' VERTICAL: I"=5' PROJECT BOUNDARY 9x �b (SF \ O a +' . A 7 b -4 A ' / N #7 p� 5 �? . , LEST , -ti PLUS SOUTH AND EAST INV. AS REQUIRED 1882 5' STUB TO EAST � — - - INV. ELEV= 2025.16 EXTEND S" HATER MAIN 10' BEYOND PROJECT BOUNDARY, GAP AND MARK END OF LINE H/2" X 4" PLANK BURIED ON ENE) (SEE DETAILS FOR MARKING REQUIREMENTS). q +00 INSTALL AIR RELEASE VALVE: TO BE RELOCATED UPON HATER MAIN EXTENSION 65.00' v1 65.00' • 65.00' 65.00' 313.83' 65.00' v .. .. . K•,. ,.T 88.6 E /IB.q N - 10 +00 �ND 1_04 Fl I -)H I >o►rrT 13 .44' 10 65.00' 11 +00 1 7155' 12 12 +00 4 o y '0 0 13 +00 65.21' 65.21' 2 14 +00 50.06' 15 +00 � o 4 2 16 +00 11 +00 , 4 4Y co -t- _ �. N 0 Q 0 4- 0 4 0 - �. cn � � ' U v S 40 h 00 I.. '. , TB. EX 1 END 8" HATER MAIN 10' BEYOND PROJECT BOUNDARY, GAP AND MARK END OF LINE 1/4/2" X 4" PLANK BURIED ON END (SEE DETAILS FOR MARKING REQUIREMENTS). PROJECT BOUNDARY SCALE: 1 INCH = 50 FEET RECEIVED AUG 3 1 1994 344 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGCR LESEND I> THRUST BLOCK 0 GATE VALVE FIRE HYDRANT /ARK 0 0 STRT EXPIRES: 9/23/94 '=R SERVICE �--. SEWER SERVIGt 2030 — OP .5" c100 CLI50 WATER MAIN PROFILE SCALE: HORIZONTAL I" =50' VERTI GAL : 1"=5 cAtiouslogo.v.i 3 -040216 141.6.08 OFFSET cLov 4 0+00.00 KLAMATH RIVER AVE 14+60.80 CLARK FORK ST 0+00 1 1+00 EXTEND ALL SIDE SEER LINES • 5' BEYOND RIGHT OF NAY LINE—. INSIDE LOTS • SEE DETAILS) 3 CONSTRUCT 410 Gc100 GLI50 HA E/18.4 4 .F. 5" R MAIN 2+00 COMMON AREA TRACT "A" 5 0 4 > t;.scf s:5‘ • 0 1111:111 411111111* 3+00 5 6 o_ \TH 4+00 .\ k - S 41111 j 5 11),"Ok o l /iv 4 bec S /2 - 9- 5 VER AVE 6 UE 4+15.SI M.4-1.#11 OFFSET 5.00' LEFT SCALE: I INCH = 50 FEET izke oFs el - 5 0-1-000_6_LESHENY AVE I I t-56.01 GLARK FORK ST ALLIS PROJECT BOUNDARY waseiamIlla 0+00 .Nr AV__ RISHT OF HAY CONSTRUCT 125 L.F. 5" 1 GL150 HATER. MAIN tf Q I 1+00 UE T 1+35.00 OFFSET 5' RIGHT PLUS b" P.V.C. SEWER MAIN AS REQUIRED INV. ELEV=2024.1c1 PkL- 1 30UND/-, ECPLRES: 9/23/94 4A2P44 RECEIVED AUG 3 1 1994 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER LESEND f> THRUST BLOCK SATE VALVE 0 IYORANT HATEI DRYVIELL SEWER SERVICE 1f4P411 ,3"4,%n • ti414 4 EXTEND WATER PROJEG GAP AS G900 GLI5 • IN 10' BEYO BOUNDARY WIRED • II N� `R + SOON Its a ti ypNNo r NNN u O u u U/ O ._.100 i � Q 5411111111M111111 aromm,...T ' ____ I TOP 8" G90• 0L150 HATE " MAIN I I ONSTRUG 80.61 CONS GT 195.28 L.F. 8 INCH D A. CONSTRUCT 320.53 L.F. . INCH DIA. 1�IA. P.V.G SEWER MAI P.V.G. SEW R MAIN RV G. SEWER MA N 8. :.61' 115. - 320.53' 8" G900 WATER M (SEE SHEE U 'i SCALE 1 I NG1- -- J4 +65.5a BE(: I CONSTRIUC r101J ERECT TEMPORARY E3ARRIER (SEE DETAIL) I8g.3E /18.6N 15 +00 16 +00 n+00 18 +00 I Gi +00 20 +00 190.3E/18. -171) 3 WATER RVICES AT SIDE L.T LINES UNLESS 0 ERWISE NOTED. STUB SERVICE 5' ;EYOND RIGHT OF WAY LINE INSIDE LOTS (3) l 5/13 /8) • ND ALL SIDE SEWER INES 5' B OND RIGHT OF WAY INE INSID OTS (TYP. SEE DET ILS) 18'1.6E/11.6N 20 +7333 COLORADO RIVER ST = 10 +06.02 VILLA AVENUE ______--PROJECT BOUNDARY EXPIRES: 9/23/94 4/5/g4 PROF SGALE: SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER ti `''/ `ci p 0 ',: v LESEND - o v i ti I) THRUST BLOCK 0 a 0 6RTE VALVE I ✓ — � - 0 FIRE HYDRANT WATER SERVICE � SI - T DRYNFI I }--. SEWER SERVICE !i ttr5 A W A � W tt' H 5MQ OOP 'N7 I REVISION BLOCK: I I BY, DESC, DATE AS BUILT DATE: ., CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION DISTRICT WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DEVELOPER APPROVAL I WATER AND SH;WH,R DETAIL SHEET I I . a 4200 West Seltice Way Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83814 Phone: (208) 667-1171 Fax: (208) 664 -3507 LO Pi] � lu MATCH PVC SIDE SERVICE SEWER G w Pips (TYP) 45* i MATCH 502.VICE TEE _IERMINATE AS SPECIFIED BY AUNTY UTILITIES ENGINEER. 6" DEEP (MAX) OWNER INSTALLED SIDE SEWER * MINIMUM SLOPE , d0 SCAL FLU PER SPECIFICATIONS. GTIOH MATCH GROWN OF PIPE (-rYP.) • w •• i • ". dT: TYPE 'BM 5'- EXISTING GROUND NOTES 1. EXTEND CONNECTIONS 5" BEYOND TO THE PROPERTY LINE INSIDE LOTS. 2. INSTALL PIPE ZONE MATERIAL (BEDDING) PER SPECIFICATIONS. 3. ALL CONNECTIONS SHALL BE TYPE "A" UNLESS NOTED. 4. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE RECORD DRAWINGS LOCATIONS WITH TWO (2) HORIZONTAL TIES AND ONE (I) VERTICAL TIE TO STUB OR SEWER LINE AND STATION 90' OFFSET DISTANCE TO STUB DEPTH OF STUB, AND INVERT ELEVATION OF STUB. 5. INCLUDE STATION OF NEAREST MANHOLE 6. RECORD DRAWING SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE. TANDARD SERVICE CONNECTION FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET U -15 1. � THE SI ELF AND CHANNEL SHALL HAVE A SMOOTH FINISH 2. CONSTRUCT SHELF TO THE GROWN LINE OF THE PIPE. • r r SECTION A - 7YF jGAI_ CHANNEL C?' r' FROM SPOKANE COUNT ARTMLI PUBLIC WOE .✓ET U -II 0 2" x 4" BOARD SET AT INVERT OF STUB WITH IB" LENGTH OF 1/2" REBAR SECURED TO THE TOP PORTION OF BOARD b SET AT A MAX. OF 6" BELOW EXIST GROUND. •MINIMUM SLOPE -2% THE MINIMUM SLOPE MAY BE REDUCED TO I% IF A SURVEYORS LEVEL 15 USED. v MATCH TYPE "G" MATCH CAST BASE JOINT WATERPROOF NON- SHRINK GROUT 3" MAX. 5" I IAX. i M PIPE ADAPTERS AND GASKETS MAY VARY IN SHAPE AND SIZE AS ILLUSTRATED IN ABOVE DETAIL BY ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH A.S.T.M. -C -428. 1 v NOTES I. MANHOLES TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AASHTO M 199 (ASTM G 478) UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON PLANS OR NOTED IN THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH WSDOT SEG. 6 -02.3. 2. ALL REINFORCED GAST IN PLAGE CONCRETE SHALL BE GLASS A. NON - REINFORCED CONCRETE IN CHANNEL AND .,HCLF SHALL BE GLASS G. ALL PRECAST CONCRETE SHALL BE GLASS AX. 3. PRECAST BASES SHALL BE FURNISHED WITH CUTOUTS OR KNOCKOUTS. KNOCKOUTS SHALL HAVE A WALL THICKNESS OF 2" MINIMUM. 4. KNOCKOUT OR CUTOUT HOLE SIZE IS EQUAL TO PIPE OUTER DIAMETER PLUS MANHOLE HALL THICKNESS. MAXIMUM PIPE SIZE 15 21" FOR 48" MANHOLE. (MAX. PIPE SIZE MAY BE LIMITED BY PIPE CONFIGURATION.) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN HOLE 15 8 ". 5. ALL BASE REINFORCING SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM YIELD STRENGTH OF 60,000 P51 AND BE PLACED IN THE UPPER HALF OF THE BASE WITH 1" MINIMUM CLEARANCE. b. • NO STEPS SHALL BE PLACED IF THE DEPTH FROM THE TOP OF THE MANHOLE TO THE TOP OF THE BASE SLAB 15 LESS THAN 15 FEET. 1. NO STEPS SHAL.1. LE PLACED IN THE AD. P1Th4r -r IT nr.1 Tt l . ,ri01. ' SHALL BE IFD . ER THE INVERT OF r1E L. I II'E. MANHOLE WALL OPENING SHALL BE CAST AT THE FACTORY OR GORE DRILLED PIPE (TYP) PVC ADAPTER 11/2 TIMES NORINAL PIPE DIAMETER- - OR W. WHICHEVER 15 GREATER WATERPROOF NON - SHRINK GROUNT CONCRETE MANHOLE CONNECTION STANDARD MANHOLE ADAPTER AND STUB -OUT GONEGTI ON FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC. WORKS SI ICCT U - MORTAR FILL 1 FOR SEPERATE CAST IN PLACE ONLY. REINFORCING STLEL (FOR SERARATE BASE ONLY) 0.23 SQL. IN/FT. 114 EACH DIRECTION FOR 48" DIA. GASKET (TYPICAL) MANHOLE ADAPT kW (TYP.) I6" MAX. 4" MIN 6ASKETED PRECAST GONE ECCENTRIC UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED STEPS (SEE NOTE #b) 1- GASKET PRECAST RISER SECTION CONSTRUCT IN FIELD CHANNEL 4 SHELF _ TO THE GROWN OF THE PIPE. FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET U -2 SECTION A -A MANHOLE TYPE 1-48D PIPE PLUG OR GAP (IF APPLICABLE) � - PIPE PLUG r OR GAP (IF APPLICABLE) " • RING AND COVER SEE U -14 (SEE RIGHT) ADJUSTMENT SECTION/CONCRETE f BRICK OR CONCRETE GRADE RINGS CONCRETE C.L. 5 (1 1/2) POURED IN PLACE. NONSHRINK WATERPROOF GROUT BETWEEN ALL RINGS 4 FRAME. STRIKE OFF EXGE55 MORTAR, SMOOTH ON INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF ADJUSTMENT SECTION. `- SEPARATE CAST IN PLACE OR SEPARATE PRECAST BASE REINFORCING STEEL (FOR SERATATE BASE ONLY) 0.23 SG.. IN/FT. IN EACH DIRECTION FOR 48" DIA. DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS HEISHT1 OVER 12' TO 25'1 SOIL BEARING VALUE EQUALS 3800 41/FT (MIN.) NOTE: THE CENTER OF THE MANHOLE 15 TO BE A MINIMUM OF 4' FROM EDGE OF PAVING. REINFORCING STEEL (FOR PRECAST BASE WITH INTEGRAL RISER) 0.15 SO. IN./FT. IN EACH DIRECTION FOR 48" DIA. PRE -CAST BASE WITH INTEGRAL RISER GRAVEL BAGKFILL FOR PIPE BEDDING. 6" MIN. COMPACTED DEPTH FOR PRECAST BASE. ..; `,' I L 11/4u - 13/4 , F 6" MIN. 8" 4" MIN. 6" MIN.-I SECTI B--S 2" --I 15" SECTION A -A CAST IRON' RING * COVER (FOR GLEANOUT) 6" MIN. SECTION G-G \ --GRAVEL BED PER TRENCHING DETAIL 4 - 0" VARIES PER TRENCH DEPTH r RAISE I ns" WIDE BORDER CAST IRON RING it COVER (FOR GLEANOUT) LIMITS OF PIPE COMPACTION PIPE MAIEKIAL -N AS SPECIFIED. SANITARY WE 15" 1 -1/2" 31/4' COVER ASS '(. SPACED - 1/4" 1 GH A T Ug' r 1 I I `III. --1 " PLAN VIEYJ \- -GRAVEL BED PER TRE■GHIN6 DETAIL 8" GLEAN -OUT FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET U -I3 2 LEGEND: wp -pr Op O�"p Q� -G o ° °oo ° ° ° o ° op O O ° ap O O�' oo ° ° oo °oo ° °000p O Oa GRAVEL BAGKFILL FOR PIPE BEDDING. NATURAL GROUND GRAVEL FOR PIPE BEDDING METHOD B OR C. COMPACTION LIMITS OF PIPE COMPACTION 1' -0" 0.15" OD. MIN. -080" 0b5" RAVEL BAGKFILL OR FOUNDATIONS WHEN SPECIFIED. DES16N "B" - (FOR P.V.G. AND P.E. INSTALLATION) BAGKFILL MATERIAL PLACED IN 0.5" LOOSE LAYERS AND COMPACTION TO 95% MAXIMUM DENSITY FROM OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEER. COUNTY OF SPOKANE SHEET 5 -17 8" MIN. MIN. 12" 4> ADJUST. SECTION FIBER JOINT PACKING OR EQUAL. FINISHED GRADE 1/8 BEND B 2'- 0" PLUG TO BE SEALED IN SAME MANNER AS MAIN SEWER JOINTS. /. / / , /�- TRENCH BAGKSLOPE f PER 0.S.H.A. VERTICAL TRENCH WALLS REQUIRE SHORING BY 0.S.HA. PIPE COMPACTION AND BAGKE ILL I -6--6" MIN. CONCRETE C.L. 5 (I 1/2) POURED IN PLACE. A.S.T.M. A48 CL. 40 GRAY IRON 6" 5/4" J GAST RING 4 COVER 4" MIN. UNDISTURBED EARTH SOIL BASE SEWER SIDE SERVICE --i I--- I/2" DICTILE IRON FRAME MIN. WEIGHT 168 LBS. 27 5/8" 26 3/8" 24" G.O. 26 3/4" 34 I/8" 5' SECTION A -A FINISHED ROADWAY SURFACE (PAVEMENT) ROADWAY SUBGRADE INSTALL 6ASKETED GAP OR SCREW GAP AS SHOWN GLEAN -OUT STANDPIPE WILL BE USED AT END OF CONSTRUCTION TO GLEAN DRYLINE SEWER SYSTEM OF CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS AND EXCESS WATER. (STANDPIPE, GAPS, AND TEE WILL BE REMOVED WHEN SANITARY SEWER DRYLINE p SLOPE INSTALL STRAIGHT TEE AS SHOWN WITH GAP AT R.O.W. TO ACT AS A SMALL SUMP FOR CLEANING PURPOSES AT END OF CONSTRUCTION. I E •PORARY CONSTRUCTION GLEAN -OUT /PROPERTY LINE (10' MIN.) MIN) SEWER LINE - � NOTE! ALL SEWER SERVICES TO BE LOCATED A MINIMUM OF 10' FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND SHALL EXTEND 5' PAST THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE INTO THE LOT. —1" RIGHT OF WAY LINE MINIMUM DEPTH TO GAP = 12"/MAX. = 18" PROPERTY LINE 1 DOWNSTREAM END \ OF DRYLINE SEWER SYSTEM GAP (DOWNSTREAM) FROM SPOKANE COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT EQUAL (10' MIN.) 5' SEWER LINE -� SENER SIDE SERVICE LOCATION NON -SKID PAL I ERN TO BE CAST INTEGRAL ON TOP OF COVER. - 26 3/16" 2 7/8" FROM SPOKANE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SHEET U -14 EXISTING R.O.W. LINE (OR AS DIRECTED 13Y ENGINEER) NOTE: GAPPED TOP OF GLEAN -OUT STANDPIPE SHALL BE SHOWN ON AS -BUILT DRAWINGS WITH (2) HORIZONTAL ANS (1) VERTICAL CROSS TIES TO PERMENENT SURFACE FEATURES. EQUAL SEWER SIDE SERVICE ION E DIGTILE IRON DOVER MIN. WEIGHT 118 LBS. 5/8" 2 I/8" MANHOLE RI NC AND COVER RECEIVED AUG 3 1 1994 EXTEND IN FUTURE TO COUNTRY SEWER MANHOLE 3" TO CL OF PICK HOLE (I" DIA.) SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER A.S.T.M. 5536 C.L. 80 -55 -06 DIGTILE IRON D COVER SKID DESIGN DETAIL NOTES: I. THE WORD SANITARY SHALL BE EMOSSED ON EACH SANITARY MANHOLE COVER WITH 3/16" RAISED LETTERS. 2. MANHOLE RINGS AND COVERS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND MEET THE STRENGTH REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL SPECIFICATION RR- F -621D. 3. MATINS SURFACE: SHALL BE FINISHED TO ASSURE NON - ROGKINS FIT WITH ANY COVER POSITION. EXPIRES: 9/23/94 SI I! = T DEPTH MAINLINE PIPE TAPPED MECH. J.T. END GAP CONCRETE THRUST BLOCK WITH 4” PVC SLEEVE SADDLE MAY BE INSTALLED RATHER THAN USING TAPPED ENP CAP. 0 SCAL FROM CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION DISTRICT NO. STANDARD DRAINING TREATED 2" x 4" MARKER- 2"x4" MARKER --- HATER SERVICE PIPE - PAINT BLUE /b" G.I. V ALVE E3OX TOP HI LI-1 LID - 3o" BASE 2" SALV. 2" MUELLER MAKK II STOP 4 HASTE - 2"x4" LJKINc HATER MARKER DETAIL a CO. FEET DRAIN ROCK T TYP I CAL 6" DUCT IRON PIPE CL 50 ENT, VIEW 4" NIPPLE TER MAIN TYPIGAL FIRE HYDRANT SETTINS I 1/2" cl) SHINS JOINT 6" NIPPLE MEGA-LUO GLAND FROM CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION DISTRICT #Ici DRAWING NUMBER H-4 PLAN VIEH -1 1/2" GAVANIZED IRON PIPE NOTES: I. HYDRANT SHALL I3E TRAFFIC. MODEL. 2. ALL VALVES SHALL OPEN GOUNTER-CLOCKHISE 3. HYDRANT BRAND MUST bE APPROVED BY G.I.D. 4. ANY DEVIATIONS MUST BE APPROVED BY C.I.D. 5. GONG. BLOCKING REQUIRED IF MORE THAN ONE SECTION OF PIPE USED. fLEVATI ON HATER SERVIGE DETAIL FROM CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION DISTRICT ItIcl Igi 111141p / RSGV HITH MEGA-LU6 GLAND T OPER. NUT NOTE: I. ALL PIPEIN6 TO BE GALVANIZED IRON PIPE. 2. SINGLE SERVICE LINE ALL 1" PIPING AND FITTINGS. 3. 200 #1.P.5." P.E. MAY I3E USED FOR PIPE RUN - 6ALV. FOR STUB LINES MI =1111111=-14 I" (I) " l•-0 C /-PROPERTY LINE " 1111 f2} In t liVrk ,---(;UR13 AND ,r- GAST IRON / VALVE BOX b" Gq00 CL 150 HATER MAIN M.H. x M.H. x FLO. TEE OR TAP. SLEEVE (55) 5 MIN. - FINISH GRAPE-ROAD 3" MIN. 'TYPICAL SECTION AIR VACUUM RELIEF STATION HATER MAIN 11 1 1 11 ROAD HATER MAIN 3' MIN. BACKF11_1_ GHARACTERISTIG5 NO ROCKS LARGER THAN 4" DIAMETER NO ROCKS LARGER THAN 4" DIAME1 ER BEDDINO-GLEAN, ROUND, GRANULAR SAND OR GRAVEL 3/4" MINUS OR SMALLER. HA i HR. MAIN TRENCH DETAI1_, FROM CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION DISTRICT 4t1c1 FROM CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION DISTRICT NO. Ici STANDARD DRAHING RIGHT OF HAY TER MAIN A EA. G.I. DOUBLE STRAP SADDLE TAPPED I" B. 1 EA. BRONZED CORP. STOP, MALE I.P. X G. E. F. 5. H. K. L. M. 6 EA. I" GALVANIZED 6 10° ELLS EA. I" X VARIABLE LENGTH GALVANIZED EA. I" MUELLER "ORISEAL" STOP 4 WASTE 2 EA. I" X b" GALVANIZED PIPE NIPPLE EA. I" AIR VACUUM RELIEF VALVE, "APCO'' EA. 1" X ISO° SEND GALVANIZED !EA. 1" BEEHIVE STRAINER EA. 4" X 4" X 6' GUARD 4 MARKER POST PAINTED ORANGE AND SET APPROX. 2' IN GROUND. A V R 5 PAINTED BLACK 4' DIA. X 5" HALL PRECAST MANHOLE - FLAT TOP FOR HIGHWAY' TRAFFIC, 24" MANHOLE FRAME 4 COVER WITH CONCRETE LEVELING RINGS IF REQUIRED, 4' DEEP HASHED CRUSHED ROCK, 100% MAX. I 1/2, 5% THROUGH 1/4" SCREEN, 6" DEEP 2 EA. 1" X c10° GALVANIZED ELBOW 5 HATER MAIN EXPIRES: 9/23/94 *1 6- 1 0 . Y aptrio RECEIVED AUG 3 1 1994 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER B erge r Partnership, P.S 2021 Minor East Seattle, Washington 98 tO 2 (206) 326-68 7?? (206) 323 -6867 (Fax) Landscape'Architecture Site Plan PROJECT NO. ECIDVOUS PL461ANa#t 1 '42 CAI kl.OR14 1 50' 0.0. . - o ,,. 1_-IC UPAM ST YRA.C.I Lt 1Y ." WORTH ` % `?L0 J. 24% PareaKIHJAL IzstS, t E! " °C It'P }} I l + �qp,,, P '". ll E. . � PVls�r AU l OMA C. S1 44e ' LiS 514Q1.4N •:" 11,1 V I t.- i, : P 1 4, TPA Amp sip 1 PRA! RECEIVED AUG 3 1 1994 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER 021 ;Minor Eitst . Seattle, Washington 9810 ( (206) 323-6867 .(Fax) Landscape , Architecture Site Planuing CHECKED: BYi: WASH IiNGT REGISTER 5=0.004 8" Gc100 b" Cc100 150 WATER 8" Cq00 CLI50 WATER (SEE SHEE 4s4) 0 .004 =202 '.16 LI50 HATER MAIN 150 WATER AIN T BOUNDAR GAP 2"X4" PLANK BURIED 5) 67005 114 EL 188.5E/16.2N C 18 216/16 2 TI-i AND EAS PROJECT BOUNDARY lows SOUTH AND EASt WV. AS REQUIRED 1 '---- _ INV. ELEV=2025.16 5' STUB SLOPE= INV. EL SEWER' EXTENSION TO 8E CONSTRUCTED AND STR N ED AS A PART OF FiRs ADDITIo FAcILIT I Es, BUT To SERVE FUTURF PHASE INSTALL AIR RELEASE VALVE TO BE PELOGATED UPON HATER MAIN EXTENSION CONSTRUCT 231.06 ,...F. 8" DIA. P.V.C. SEWER MAIN 231.06 — 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 18`1.0E/i .7 1 C NO0' 1155' 65.00' 65.00 EXIST1N8 &ROUND AT CENTERLINE FINI EP 6RAAE AT CENTERLINE — O. 096 6521' 6521' 65.00' 15+00 • . - CONSTRUCT 224.30 .F. & DIA. 5EV1E MAIN 16+00 856 E/18.1 N — 0.6096 8" CG100 01.150 WATER (SEE SHEET st2) 2020 MAIN PROJECT BOUNDARY EXTEND 6" WATER MAIN 10' BEYOND PROJECT BOUNDARY, CAP AND MARK END OF LINE W2" X 4" PLANK BURIED ON END (SEE DETAILS FOR MARKING REQUIREMENTS). EXPIRES: 9/23/94 APPROVED FOR SPO • v. NE COUNTY ILIT ES \ A BY: DA : (9 -1 0( CONSTRUCTION PERMIT REQUIRED! NOTIFY THE PERMIT ENGINEER 456-3600 24 HRS. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION PROFILE SGALE: LESEND 1> THRUST BLOCK A _A 'r c. COR. CIO ® 4 1 too .1 00 E liC 1_ — un Deco io c:::I SZGIG2-A , c44 g V aqd County . N 9 -- 794 8 A . • q... /50' • . . 91.5 • 1- O 1. qj % 0 0 e 1. 0 0 • 6 s' s eo r. 4z7-- S.98° I 1. . : q3 r1.1 o 1% AVENU paed te;pouni 11°' 32C IC0 4 Deed le c4u 32G q , .7.e/9" -5 /P/1/ER /70 /5.36 . • • t" -90 u Pi7 • / • • _5 -,4. 1; ' 4 ,Sse 4iiic t' P C l ; " 4 5 \ Le N 7 -4 7 ' 11.! 7 SZ .a2 . ' •3. . • • .00 15 ‚ID sr 2,9 . : 636 1 .6o 1411) zvz. :_e 1 o . „. 5j/ . ' ° 4W1 RiKel? 1? - 45%04717:gilt: - `1ZieZ:41 ,TG. Ofr E...R 6.65 8 VE- . 0 • 20z•9 i 66 6t3 60 0 G60 , • /174.575 16•- • , 240.06 c• ! //496 t o . /.50 : . . 95. . no ,4 i4 rio oi :,-• : ,r1V-: . ii 'a ', 6 '_d -. . Q 48.12,' 9,0- ,-- 80 : " , 8P.la N° 1 GRACE - : CT •:?,-... , LiJ 7 I 2 6i1 ';'. ;7 :: CO IS . !t i 7 ': .o ,. .. 32 % . . 4 80 •k.../ . 1 20 ' - 5' iocn /30 , 77. . : 8430 .,. f 101.09 - • J. s . 6 4 6, 6 7 91.i/ fo- - 3° A,R VE ,s d• 70' .55./4 R:t-ti :D. C) 4 V- 1 -V 5 A :-- a. 2 87./ as 8S Vt• .70 ictl,;-,-, -: . -) ...._,... ..- .... az), : : : ,.. 4 , 4 .- . , T4. i : 0:, k„ ! .(9 , ,,.. :it) , 1,:f--- '. ..._..... i -.. \ 8 .,„ I . , f li - '?;.e, 1 - . 1 . . ( ®I .: •': i :.t.. „..;.. is __ \ ; 7: ■ AO 1 i7z, 0 ,...1 .: e... , rs. _ i ::•) . , ; , ,.1... 3 0 i T0a 0 , ...;...::....,„,' a i ..,, 1.• cy4 • \ - :-•-•-, ..,.;,.. Ili s,_., 6 v... , A i__ .0 ... - , — V- es.NA) Pi" ,.-e • : r -.-., 1 29 1 ; 6 4 . e: 6. • . : . . , • 20" d 7 2 6 . 4 i . i ..,.-: 1 ". %, •: , i,i • , '.. '.. :' • - •;,...,?,* kde" fr " .: 1; ."•• .i ` " s .-• .0 - • -0 . • -;- . . .30 20 . • • • • . • • • • • • • • . • . • • • , • 1 . • • • • • • • . •• • • • •• • • • • • • • • •,. . . .• • .• • • , . . • • . • • ••• 1 • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • •• • . • • • • • • • J am • 7 /1 \/ Z \ A/ 004 y 3 A� » � dw \» \ 55 /0/V e \\ d\ \ // . ®�..,.v.......... 2 .. w ?y>» » ? « a 6 4td \ .... . .. . . ..��..... : . . « 9/ 6 :f7 V C. F L //4O ©?< ........ :...:..... 3,pa 9 5 « 7 2$I 1 r99 r 99 • • • • • ■ ■ 2035 2030 2035 2035 2030 li gn i rimin•••• RIGHT GURB RISFIT CURB INE LEFT GURB In= Mon •I• PROFILE SCALE: HORIZONTAL: I " =50' VERTICAL: I " =5' PLAT BOUNDARY 2035 2030 2025 2035 CENTERLINE 2030 2025 2035 2030 2025 LEFT CURB RISNT CURB 15 +00 16 +00 11+00 18 +00 I q +00 20 +00 0 + + r r ,o BOR. STA: 20 +31.73 0" SET: 16.50 L 50 GRAPHIC SCALE 25 50 100 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 50 ft. PROF I LE SCALE. HORIZONTAL: I " =50' VERTI GAL: I " =5' 200 U1 0 zw) 0 w 0 rn z Ch aoH 0 C\2 w o. 0 N 0 V 0 CLEARANCE BETHEEN PIPES MULTIPLE INSTALLATIONS PIPE SIZE MIN. DIST. BETWEEN BARRELS GIGULAR PIPE CONCRETE 4 METAL " To 24" " DESIGN A (DIAMETER) PIPE -ARCH METEL ONLY (SPAN) 30" TO c16" DIM. + 2 102" TO 180" 48" 18" TO 36" 12" 43" TO 142" SPAN + 3 148" TO 199" 48" MINIMUM STREET REQUIREMENTS TYPE W A.G.P. THICKNESS R/V1 WIDTH PAVED WALK ACCESS 36' 2" 36 NO COLLECTOR 40' 2" 60 YES BEGONDARY 44' 31/2" 64 YES MAJOR 48' 31/2" 68 YES '1111111117 ADVANCED WARNING PANEL CURB FACE * CHORD LENGTHS AT BACK OF CURB POP -6" TYP. 6:1 SLOPE OR FLA I I tR 5' MIN. -3O" ELEVATION PLAN 5 ' - 36" TYP. 6:1 SLOPE OR FLA I I tR b" TYP .--f SECTION A -A FILE SPEC, SPOKI4HCH.DHe WHEELCHAIR RAMP N.T.S. HALT CONCRETE CURB, TY t t "0" 25' 2% MIN. 50' HALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT, CE NOTE I. N.T.S. 2% MIN. TYPICAL REQUIRED FOR SUBURBAN, RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL NOTES: I. DRAINAGE INLETS SHALL BE OUTSIDE THE WHELLGHAIR RAMP. 2. THE WHELLGHAIR RAMP SHALL BE MOVED ACCORDING FROM THE GROSSWALK TO AVOID CONFLICTS WITH HYDRANTS, POLES, INLETS, OR OTHER UTILITIES, EXCEPT WHERE STREET GRADE EXCEEDS 4% 3. IF THE WHEEL CHAIR RAMP CANNOT BE MOVED ACCORDING TO NOTE 2., AND BE LOCATED WITHIN THE COURSE SURFACE APPROVE BY THE COUNTY ENGINEER. 4. TEXTURE FOR THE RAMP AND ADVANCE WARNING PANELS SHALL BE CREATED BY INSERTING A METAL GRID INTO THE WET CONCRETE. THE GRID SHALL NOT EXCEED A WIDTH OF 1/2 ". z O CRUSHF_D SURFACING TOP COURSE CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE, DETEDMINED BY TRAFIG AND SOILS. CONCRETE INLET TO DRYWELL FILE SPEC, SPOKR550.D146 2% MIN. ,LC NOTE 2 / ( DRIVEWAY APPROACHES GRADED LINE AND PAVED TO R/W LINE. NOTES I. PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT MAY BE USED WHEN APPROVED BY THE COUNTY ENGINEER. THICKNESS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY TRAFFIC LOADS AND SOIL VALUES. 2. REFER TO SECTION 4.03 -2. LIMITS OF PIPE COMPACTION. GRAVEL BACKFILL FOR PIPE BEDDING. WHEN SPECIFIED LEGEND: Ath 1 1 - OII y BACKFILL MATERIAL PLACED IN 0.5" LOOSE LAYERS AND COMPACTION TO 95% MAXIMUM DENSITY METHOD B OR C COMPACTION 1 1" 1 .15" O.D. MIN. 1 1 ' LIMITS OF PIPE COMPACTION ,LIMITS OF VEL BACKFILL PAVEMENT FOR FOUNDATIONS WHEN SPECIFIED. DESIGN "B" (FOR P.V.G. AND P.E. INSTALLATION) NOTES: I. PIPE COMPACTION LIMITS SHOWN ARE FOR PIPE CONSTRUCTION IN AN EMBANKMENT. FOR PIPE LIMITS OF THE PIPE COMPACTION ZONE SHALL BE THE WALLS OF THE TRENCH. 2. ALL STEEL AND ALUMINUM PIPE -ARGI ICS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DESIGN "A 3. CONCRETE PIPE, PLAIN OR WITH CIRCULAR OR ELLIPTICAL REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DESIGN "A ". 4. O.D. IS EQUAL TO THE OUTSIDE DIAMETER OF A PIPE OR THE OUTSIDE SPAN OF PIPE -ARCH. THE DIMENSION SHOWN AS O.D. WITH 3' MAX. SHALL O.D. UNTIL O.D. EQUALS 3' AT WHICH POINT 3' SHALL BE USED. 5 POLYVINYLCHLORIDE PIPE AND POLYETHYLENE PIPE SHALL BE INSTAL) FD IN ACCORDANCE WITH DESIGN 11511 )' -O" FOR DIAMETERS 12" THROUGH 42" AND FOR SPANS THROUGH 50 ". 2' -0" DIAMETERS GREATER THAN 42" AND FOR SPANS GREATER THAN 50 ". PIPE COMPACTION AND BACKFILL N.T.S. FILE SPEC: SPOKPCA5.D1 ["CURB N.T.S. 45 2L-- SLOPE BREA GUTTER DEPRESSION FINISH GRAD PORTLAND 12 CEMENT CONGRETE- 1.. =11: D• 24" 1 1 11 I" RADIUS TYPE Bu GUANITY = 0.041651 G.Y. /L.F. 6" GONG. la• INLET 8.356 1 3/8" o' CONCRETE 3' 1 3/3" b ° 10REINF.MESH. SECTION A -A G�URB�S ONLY) (CU RB a GUTTER) S I tEL TROWEL FINISH V2lOINT ffl P J N B.G.R. GO ' JOINT GRO N.T.S. "L o• CONC. ALUM. 0 STEEL SEWER PIPE ( NOTE *6) —33 I5 MIN. N.T.S. NO I C5: N.T.S. FILE SPEC, SPOKGON6.D146 N.T.S. STREET CROSS GUTTER PAVEMENT SURFACE a 1 FIN 11' wi DRYWELL CONCRETE INLET TO DRYVELL I. THE CONCRETE INLET TO DRYWELL DETAIL SHALL BE USED WHERE ICFS OR LESS ENTERS THE GRATING. 2. THE DRYWELL SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH A GONE, RING, AND SOLID LID IF PLACED IN THE STREET OUT OF THE GUTTER LINE. 3. "L" 15 DESIGNATED ON THE PLANS AND SHALL NOT EXCEED 44'. 4. THE ROUND GRATE SHALL NOT BE USED WITHIN A STREET SECTION. 5. THE GUTTER DEPRESSION SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF ASPHALT CONCRETE WHERE NO CONCRETE GUTTER IS .SPECIFIED. A.G. THICKNESS SHALL BE THE SAME AS SPECIFIED FOR THE ROAD. 6. PIPE SHALL CONFORM TO SECTION T OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. NOTES: GUTTER STANDARD DRAINAGE DETAILS FILE SPEC. SPOKCITDDWG I. PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SHALL BE CLASS "B" CONFORMATION TO WASH DEPT. OF TRANFORMATION STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 2. WEAKNENED PLANE JOINTS FOR PORTAAND CEMENT CONCRETE SHALL BE PLACED AT 15' INTERVALS: 3. 1/2 EXPANTION JOINTS IN PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SHALL BE PLACED AT 45' IN I tKVALS AND AT CURB RETURNS. 4. TYPE "M" CURB SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF WHITE PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE, CLASS "B ". THE FINISH SHALL BE STEEL TROLLED TO. - POVIDE A DENSE, SMOOTH REFLECTIVE FINISH. 2/3 OF "D° MAX P.C.C. \` CUT SMALLER PIPE TO CONFORM TO INSIDE OF LARGE PIPE. PIPE COLLAR N.T.S. 0 *4 REINFORCING BAR A ®. 0 V U) 0 imi 0 W 0 E+ . H z . 0 o r ra4 E- W H ;W SHEET co co 0 0 W w co '-I OD 0 c*,