Loading...
2020, 10-22 Agenda PacketScm-mpkane '**� ,,;0oWVa11ey- Spokane Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 E. Sprague Ave. October 22, 2020, 2020 6:00 p.m. 1. PLEASE NOTE: Meetings are being held electronically in response to Governor Inslee's March 24, 2020 Proclamation concerning our recent State of Emergency, which waives and suspends the requirement to hold in -person meetings and provides options for the public to attend remotely. 2. Public wishing to make comments will need to email planning(a�spokanevalley.org prior to 4:00 pm the day of the meeting in order to be to speak during the comments period during the meeting. Comments can also be emailed. Send an email to planning_@spokanevalle�org and comments will be read into the record or distributed to the Commission members through email. 3. Link to Zoom Meeting information: https:Hspokanevalley.zoom.us/i/94994368021 Meeting ID: 949 9436 8021 One tap mobile +12532158782„94994368021# US (Tacoma) Dial by your location +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) Meeting ID: 949 9436 8021 Find your local number: https:Hspokanevalley.zoom.us/u/aeEBggGStf 4. CALL TO ORDER 5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 6. ROLL CALL 7. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 8, 2020 9. COMMISSION REPORTS 10. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT II. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. 12. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Public Hearing: STV-2020-0002, A privately initiated street vacation for a portion of East Montgomery Avenue and Bessie Road b. Study Session: Impact Fees for the South Barker Corridor 13. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER 14. ADJOURNMENT Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall October 8, 2020 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Administrative Assistant Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Fred Beaulac Walt Haneke, absent James Johnson Danielle Kaschmitter Bob McKinley Sherri Robinson John Hohman, Deputy City Manager Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Jenny Nickerson, Building Official Bill Helbig, City Engineer Jerremy Clark, Senior Traffic Engineer Connor Lange, Planner Deanna Horton, Administrative Assistant Taylor Dillard, Administrative Assistant Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant There was consensus from the Planning Commission to excuse Commissioner Haneke from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the October 8, 2020 agenda as presented' There was no discussion. The vote on the inotion was five in favor, zero against and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the September 24, 2020 minutes as presented There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero against and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Chairman Johnson reported that he continues to attend the Human Rights Task Force meetings. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Building Official Jenny Nickerson reminded the Commission that there will be a special Planning Commission meeting held on November 5, 2020 to discuss impact fees for the South Barker corridor. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: 10-08-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5 a. Findings Of Fact: CTA-2019-0005, A proposed amendment to Title 20, Subdivisions Planner Connor Lange requested approval of the findings of fact from the meeting on September 24, 2020 regarding the proposed amendment to Title 20. This document will formalize the Planning Commission's actions and the recommendation will be submitted to the City Council for approval. Commissioner Beaulac moved to approve the findings of fact and forward to City Council. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero against and the motion passed. b. Study Session: STV-2020-0002, A privately initiated street vacation for a portion of East Montgomery Avenue and Bessie Road Planner Connor Lange gave a presentation regarding an application received by the City on August 7, 2020 from Diamond Rock Financial, LLC/TCF Properties requesting a street vacation of 470 feet of Montgomery Avenue and 195 feet of Bessie Road. The area is located east of Vista Road, west of Sargent Road, south of Trent Avenue and north of Mansfield Avenue. The four parcels along Montgomery Avenue where the vacation is being requested are owned by the same person and the City will require that the owner aggregate those properties to avoid any access issues. Bessie Road is 25 feet of right-of- way and Montgomery is 30 feet in the smallest section and 60 feet in the largest section of right-of-way. Chairman Johnson asked for clarification about how the four lots will be accessed if the street is vacated. Mr. Lange answered that the property will still be accessed from the unvacated portion of Montgomery Avenue. Commissioner Robinson asked the zoning of the properties. Mr. Lange answered that the property off Bessie Road is zoned R-3 and the four properties on Montgomery are zoned multi -family residential (MFR). Commissioner Robinson asked if the surrounding properties have been notified about the requested change. Mr. Lange answered that a notice of public hearing has been sent out to all owners of properties within 400 feet of the proposal. Mr. Lange explained that there are three main items that staff reviews when processing a street vacation request: street connectivity, traffic volumes, & future development/access. During the review process, staff determined that there is sufficient street connectivity. Due to the location of the railroad to the north of the property, Bessie Road cannot be connected to Trent Rd. However, there is good access from Mansfield Avenue & Sargent Road providing circulation onto Montgomery Avenue. The applicant's reason's for request is as follows: 1) The proposed vacation is currently undeveloped (dedicated in 1955) and provides no public access at this time, having no potential for connection to the north with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail line directly to the north. 2) Both Bessie Road and a portion of Montgomery Road are not full right-of-way widths and therefore would be substandard for todays use. 3) The vacation will allow maximum use of abutting properties for infill development. 2 10-08-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of i Commissioner Beaulac asked if the railroad has been notified about this request. Mr. Lange answered that notification has been sent but the City has not received any comments from them. Commissioner Beaulac commented that he would really like to know their thoughts on the proposal. Mr. Lange responded that he would try to reach out to them for comments. Chairman Johnson asked about the comment from Whipple Engineering regarding the proposed subdivision of the lot on Bessie Road into three separate lots. Mr. Lange responded that there is a formal request for short plat on that property that has been deemed incomplete due to this proposed street vacation. With no other questions, Mr. Lange said that a public hearing will be held on October 22, 2020 and he will provide answers to those questions posed by the Commission. c. Administrative Report: Impact Fees for the South Barker Corridor Deputy City Manager John Hohman introduced the agenda item. He explained that the City of Spokane Valley does not currently have impact fees in place. The City would like to implement impact fees for new developments occurring along the Barker Road corridor. When a new project comes in for development, there will be a set dollar amount per trip that a developer pays which will be used by the municipality to improve the infrastructure that is impacted by the development. Senior Traffic Engineer Jerremy Clark stated there are two process used to determine project mitigation, traffic concurrency and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Traffic concurrency ensures that the transportation system has sufficient capacity to accommodate any proposed development. In order to have a consistent process, the City has street standards that must be met for each proposed development. All projects must have a trip generation and distribution letter (TGDL) which provides an estimate of how many trips will be coming onto the transportation network and where they will be occurring. The number of trips generated determines if a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is required for a proposed development. These tools are used to determine what kind of mitigation will be required from a developer. SEPA has its own set of requirements and processes but they are separate from concurrency. Mr. Clark explained that the City has done some in-depth studies of areas with substantial growth potential and limited roadway capacity. These areas include the Northeast Industrial area, Mirabeau subarea, North Pines subarea, and the South Barker corridor. Mr. Hohman explained the cost of preserving current infrastructure in the existing configuration. There are roads throughout the City that are deficient and can't support the amount of activity and development happening. The City struggles with funding their street maintenance programs. Historically, the estimated cost to maintain City streets is approximately ten million dollars and the average actual expenditures is six million dollars leaving a deficit of four million dollars each year. The ten million estimate is for preservation only and does not include lane widening, intersection operations, or other needed improvements. The City needs to find additional funding to accommodate growth and maintain current service levels. 10-08-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 5 Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb explained that the City is looking to identify the fair share impacts of new developments on an even basis so that citizens are not paying for the impacts. He stated that currently mitigation is only required if the level of service drops below acceptable levels based on the addition of a new development. Impacts occur from all developments but only the last developer who tips levels of service over the acceptable levels contributes to mitigation. The mitigation received from that developer will only be required based on that development's proportionate share. SEPA allows the City to address "probable significant adverse environmental impacts" on projects. Traffic is considered to be an environmental impact under SEPA but mitigation cannot be duplicated if it imposed by other regulations. Mr. Lamb stated that there are current process limitations because traffic concurrency is limited to designated corridors and areas. There are substantial exemptions in place through both SEPA and traffic concurrency such as short plats, multi -family dwellings up to sixty units and commercial buildings up to 30,000 square feet. However, impacts still occur from exempt areas, especially in regards to traffic impact. These limitations put the City in a situation where new development is not paying for their impacts to City infrastructure. Due to this shortfall in revenue, the City is looking into the possibility of implementing traffic impact fees. Mr. Lamb explained that impact fees are statutorily authorized mechanisms to have development pay for their proportionate impact on services and infrastructure and may be limited to an identified geographical area. It's a fair assessment of fees which gives certainty to developers regarding the amounts that will have to be paid. The fees are easy to collect because they are due at the time of building permit. The fees are established by an adopted rate schedule for each development activity and must be based on a specific formula or calculation. Chairman Johnson asked if the collected fees can be used city-wide for transportation related projects. City Engineer Bill Helbig answered that statutorily it is required that the fees received must be used within the area that they were collected. Mr. Helbig stated that the City has conducted a substantial study of the South Barker corridor. The study shows that this area has potential for significant future development and the level of service is degrading. The study recommends the need for mitigation and identifies fair share costs. It identifies seven recommended improvement projects throughout the corridor for a total of approximately 18.8 million dollars. Mr. Helbig explained that a public hearing on this agenda item will be held at a special meeting of the Planning Commission on November 5, 2020 and a Findings Of Fact will be held on November 12, 2020. It will then be forwarded to the City Council on November 24, 2020. Commissioner Beaulac asked for a report showing what other municipalities are charging for impact fees because he wants to make sure that the City is adopting fees that are competitive. Mr. Helbig stated that he will submit that report at the next meeting. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Mr. Hohman stated that Mayor Wick will select someone to fill the vacancy on the Planning Commission at the October 20, 2020 City Council meeting. The C! 10-08-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page i of i City has received three applicants for the position. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:33 p.m. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. James Johnson, Chair Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary adjustment application is necessary to aggregate those lots with parcel 45074.0219 prior to recording the street vacation. This requirement has been made a condition of approval. The vacation of Bessie Road would leave parcel 45074.9084 (owned by Kenneth Ward) without street frontage or access. Kenneth Ward also owns the property immediately to the south parcel 45074.2309. Therefore, either an access easement or boundary line adjustment application is necessary to aggregate the lot prior to recording the street vacation. This requirement has been made a condition of approval. OPTIONS: Recommend approval of the proposed sheet vacation with conditions, recommend approval with changes, or recommend denial. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to recommend approval of the proposed street vacation for Montgomery Avenue and Bessie Road to the City Council with staff conditions. STAFF CONTACT: Connor Lange, Planner ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report and Presentation RPCA Public Hearing for STV-2020-0002 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: October 22, 2020 Item: Check all that apply ❑ old business ❑ information FILE NUMBER: STV-2020-0002 ® new business ® public hearing ❑ study session ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing - Street vacation of Montgomery Avenue and Bessie Road DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Request to vacate 470 feet of Montgomery Avenue and vacate 195 feet of Bessie Road. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 22.140; RCW 35A.47.020 and RCW 35.79 BACKGROUND: The City received an application on August 7, 2020 from Diamond Rock Financial LLC/TCF Properties, the owner of one of the adjacent properties (45074.0223). The application is requesting a street vacation of 470 feet of Montgomery Avenue and 195 feet of Bessie Road. The total area to be vacated for Montgomery Avenue is approximately 18,885 square feet and the total area to be vacated for Bessie Road is approximately 4,631 square feet. The undeveloped right-of-way widths range between 25-feet to 60-feet wide. The property owner is making the request for the following reasons: 1. The proposed vacation is currently undeveloped (dedicated in 1955) and provides no public access at this time, having no potential for connection to the north with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail line directly to the north. 2. Both Bessie Road and a portion of Montgomery Road are not full right-of-way widths and therefore would be substandard for today's use. These right-of-ways are difficult to maintain due to being unimproved. 3. The vacation will allow maximum use of abutting properties for infill development. The 25 feet of right-of-way for Bessie Road and 30-60 feet of right-of-way for Montgomery were dedicated as part of the recording for Vista Gardens No. 4 Plat on August 51b, 1955. Neither section of roadway has ever been improved, with the exception of a curb return and drywell along Mansfield Avenue. The right-of-way described does not contain any utilities that would need to be relocated as part of the vacation process. However, Spokane Valley Public Works is requiring the existing curb return be removed and replaced with new Type `A' curbing along Mansfield Avenue per Standard Plan R-102. The existing drywell is also required to be removed and replaced with a Type `A' drywell approximately 7-feet to the south at the new curb line along Mansfield per Standard Plan S-102. These requirements have been made conditions of approval. The vacation of Montgomery Avenue would leave parcels 45074.0222, 45074.0221 and 45074.0220 (owned by Montgomery Apartments LLC) without street frontage or access. There is common ownership with parcel 45074.0219 the eastern most parcel and all four parcels are zoned Multi -family residential. Therefore, either an access easement or boundary line RPCA Public Hearing for STV-2020-0002 Page 1 of 2 U C— J O +-J cn c� Q) U Q) 4-J C- Q) O (3) L L— CL 4--' LL () U —0 U 4J O OC - O +-J .- r N O O tLo O N p o (N I O i a �► p N o \ d U O � V) N 8 0 Ln V O L. r paILIaUn ❑ alssag pur ,caatuo9juow SaAinS jo pioaad puu aauvulpjo p.aoaa- AOIAag 33VJS ❑ pagsilus suoilipuoD ❑ q � q 33 q r � naunoD '14aD P-Immm-11 rrU N U uodssluttu0O nuiuuuld _ ❑ , o H OZOZ `ZZ jagtuajdaS uo nu►.teaq aylgnd jas l!aunoD XI!D -- — OZOZ `L IsOnV lujjltugnS uoijualiddV lutu.ioq ii -AJF dew �c�vue:)!n O U m ^0 v 1 O 0L O L. ^ r) V 1 W +J C: ^ � t�A L1 Ol N O LU +�+ V .� U cc ,N � O N u O C V i iJ 4t— �O O v U Q_ Ln —I O U� cu� > oaj ° E Q a W DC cn (� -O �n D E N N v N -� H Q O O E O �. ,_ CO 4J 1 Q Q Q O - O U v_0_ N O 0 O J C 4J O E Q Q a A A A M M rn CO o Ln 2 w a o o' aroa ,LN3oilrS CID I=>a I z N W155 c<na� N Z � — a M s CD } o < U N — —I moo— IQF W � > m w ❑ m f C O c Z W L9 I L.L o � o a �F N J \ O Icoj ; ci ` _ O c I IlI O M of W W Z o J' � � \ p Z W Q n �I N O H N ❑ �I \ a to N o N N W 3 c0 N a � � Z � O ry1 LLJ O o M A� aroa atss�a _< < W � J mN3W4❑ — �t N p N p d' W 0 O^ N m II Oco M N m No a\ N = % ZOW 7W3pJ X ❑�aaa i w arcoaonaa❑ m 0 !mi v U O z P 2 c6 v C6 O m U C� W V) O O i CL 4- 0 U fB C6 N LO 0- Ln C— Ln u C% 41 VLni N � 4-� O V v O vi N Q1 _ v N U Q) .- 01 .Q c cn Q 0- _ - Q) — Q (A 0 Cn c6 +-1 1 U Al O. � Q Al O N v p E-0 �,CZ Z3 � 4-1 U O .� O Q1 Ln � a t a'' O aJ +� N u f6 U L a-J O E O X 0 i • U N m � Q- O C Q) > i .N :3 - a > �'� — m4-`� �0 O O cn 0 EA.� 4 O 4- � �� c C1A � = ago —; Ln '� �o Q) v .� ° ° V - aJ > O' O Q U Q) N a-' m +� v Q) O (3) U tn -� �. Q) -N 4- � Q) Z3 -4_ j > L ral 4-J N b.0 — O E v C O _ ® - O N O O +, O ® Q) O +-1 O �, cn O 4- E O Q) Np C�0 � 72 cn dl '— N w QJ _ Z U �O 4-1 N U N E �. v > > N v ca �- o Q O �" o L Ln N � v U v �' O p m v UD L 0 o Q +� a,_0 ��;m _ O +d Q) O � O F- ' u O v (1) — m `� Q� v a� du °; a N o U 4 E o E Q s.. ® U — Ln d' O 4-1 Q1 4- -6 c6 Ln �t O 0-4-1 = 0 n T z 0 a 0 z W 0 V W CG s W O w CL Q Spokane ..;;oOValley COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING & PLANNING STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE STAFF REPORT DATE: October 15, 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION FILE: STV-2020-0002 FILE NO: STV-2020-0002 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Request to vacate 470 feet of Montgomery Avenue and 195 feet of Bessie Road. STAFF PLANNER: Connor Lange, Planner, Community & Public Works APPLICANT: Todd Whipple, Whipple Consulting Engineers, 21 S Pines Rd, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 PROPERTY OWNER: Diamond Rock Financial LLC/TCF Properties, 320 S Sullivan Road, Spokane Valley, WA, 99037 PROPOSAL LOCATION: The portion of right-of-way proposed to be vacated is located between Vista Road (west) and Sargent Road (east) and adjacent to nine parcels (45074.0223, 45074.0222, 45074.0221, 45074.0220, 45074.0219, 45071.9089, 45077.0002, 45074.9084 and 45074.2309) further located in the east half of Section 08, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane Valley, Washington. BACKGROUND: The City received an application on August 7, 2020 from Diamond Rock Financial LLC/TCF Properties, the owner of one of the adjacent properties (45074.0223). The application is requesting a street vacation of 470 feet of Montgomery Avenue and 195 feet of Bessie Road. The total area to be vacated for Montgomery Avenue is approximately 18,885 square feet and the total area to be vacated for Bessie Road is approximately 4,631 square feet. The undeveloped right-of-way widths range between 25-feet to 60-feet wide. The property owner is making the request for the following reasons: 1. The proposed vacation is currently undeveloped (dedicated in 1955) and provides no public access at this time, having no potential for connection to the north with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail line directly to the north. 2. Both Bessie Road and a portion of Montgomery Road are not full right-of-way widths and therefore would be substandard for today's use. These right-of-ways are difficult to maintain due to being unimproved. 3. The vacation will allow maximum use of abutting properties for infill development. Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2020-0002 Page I of 1 I October 15, 2020 The 25 feet of right-of-way for Bessie Road and 30-60 feet of right-of-way for Montgomery were dedicated as part of the recording for Vista Gardens'No. 4 Plat on August 51h, 1955. Neither section of roadway has ever been improved, with the exception of a curb return and drywell along Mansfield Avenue. The right-of-way described does not contain any utilities that would need to be relocated as part of the vacation process. However, Spokane Valley Public Works is requiring the existing curb return be removed and replaced with new Type `A' curbing along Mansfield Avenue per Standard Plan R-102. The existing drywell is also required to be removed and replaced with a Type `A' drywell approximately 7-feet to the south at the new curb line along Mansfield per Standard Plan S-102. These requirements have been made conditions of approval. The vacation of Montgomery Avenue would leave parcels 45074.0222, 45074.0221 and 45074.0220 (owned by Montgomery Apartments LLC) without street frontage or access. There is common ownership with parcel 45074.0219 the eastern most parcel and all four parcels are zoned Multi -family residential. Therefore, either an access easement or boundary line adjustment application is necessary to aggregate those lots with parcel 45074.0219 prior to recording the street vacation. This requirement has been made a condition of approval. The vacation of Bessie Road would leave parcel 45074.9084 (owned by Kenneth Ward) without street frontage or access. Kenneth Ward also owns the property immediately to the south parcel 45074.2309. Therefore, either an access easement or boundary line adjustment application is necessary to aggregate the lot prior to recording the street vacation. This requirement has been made a condition of approval. APPROVAL CRITERIA: 1. SVMC — Title 20 (Subdivision Regulations) 2. SVMC — Title 21 (Environmental Controls) 3. SVMC — Title 22 (Street Vacations) 4. City of Spokane Valley Street Standards ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map Exhibit 2: Application Material Exhibit 3: Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit 4: Agency Comments I. PROPERTY INFORMATION Size and Characteristics The unimproved right of way area is approximately 18,885 of proposed vacation: square feet for Montgomery Avenue and 4,631 square feet for Bessie Road. The entirety of the subject right-of-way is unimproved and covered in grass and weeds. With the exception of the curb return and drywell at the intersection of Bessie Road and Montgomery Avenue. Adjacent Single Family Residential (SFR) and Multifamily Residential Comprehensive Plan (MFR) Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2020-0002 Page 2 of 11 October 15, 2020 Designation: Adjacent Zoning: Single -Family Residential (R-3) and Multi -family Residential (MFR) Adjacent Land Parcel 45074.0222, 45074.0221, 45074.0220, 45074.0219 and Use(s): 45074.9084 are all vacant. Parcel 45074.2309 is developed with a duplex, 45074.0223 has a single-family residence, 45071.9089 is additional paved parking and a drainage swale and 45077.0002 includes the railroad yard. II. STAFF ANALYSIS OF STREET VACATION PROPOSAL A. COMPLIANCE WITH SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE (SVMC) TITLE 22.140.030 Findings: 1. Whether a change of use or vacation of the street or alley will better serve the public? The area proposed to be vacated is unimproved with the exceptions noted, and no utilities are located within the right-of-way. The right-of-way is overgrown with weeds and hasn't been maintained by the City in the past. The street vacation would eliminate the unmaintained right-of-way and allow that area to be improved and maintained by the adjacent properties through infill development. Infill development on these parcels will enhance the City's tax base and remove undeveloped right-of-way from the City's maintenance division. Whether the street or alley is no longer required for public use or public access? The subject right-of-way is unimproved and not being utilized for public access. There are no means of future connection that would enhance public access because much of the right- of-way is substandard to the City's current standards. City staff determined that the existing street network provides sufficient level of service and the right-of-way is not anticipated to be needed in the future. 3. Whether the substitution of a new and different public way would be more useful to the public? Public access is not needed in this area because no properties currently utilize the right-of- way for access and the aggregation of the properties would alleviate the need for an access road. The infill development that occurs will either provide access on -site via private streets or from the currently developed right-of-way via private driveways. There is no need for a new and different public way. However, as discussed in the background section an access easement or boundary line adjustment application will be needed for parcels 45074.9084, 45074.0222, 45074.0221 and 45074.0220 due to their only access being from the undeveloped portions of Bessie Road and Montgomery Avenue. However, there is common ownership among those parcels which makes a BLA or access easement feasible. 4. Whether conditions may so change in the future as to provide a greater use or need than presently exists? Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2020-0002 Page 3 of I 1 October 15, 2020 Based on the comprehensive plan it is not anticipated that changes will occur in the future that would require the use of the Bessie Road and Montgomery Avenue right-of-way for public access. Whether objections to the proposed vacation are made by owners of private property (exclusive of petitioners) abutting the street or alley or other governmental agencies or members of the general public? The adjacent property owners who signed the application include Kenneth Ward (45074.2309; 45074.9084), Montgomery Apartments LLC (45074.0219; 45074.0220; 45074.0221; 45074.0222) & Argonne/Montgomery Storage LLC (45071.9089). The only adjacent land owner who did not sign the application was the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway who received the application materials and provided no objection to the proposal. An email was received on October 7, 2020 from a neighboring property owner Sheri Lang (2321 N Sargent Road; 45074.0246) who indicated an intent to submit formal public comments in objection to the street vacation but no comments have been submitted to date. Conclusions: The findings confirm criteria set forth in SVMC 22.140.030 have been met. B. COMPLIANCE WITH SVMC TITLE 21—ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS The Planning Division has reviewed the proposed project and has determined that the project is categorically exempt pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(2)(i) and SVMC 21.20.040 from environmental review under the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). III. PUBLIC COMMENTS Findings: No public comments have been received following the notice of public hearing issued, mailed and posted on October 2, 2020. A Notice of Public Hearing sign was posted on the property October 2, 2020 in two separate locations and public hearing notices were mailed to all owners adjacent to the parcels abutting the right-of-ways being vacated. Notices were posted in the Spokane Valley Public Library, City of Spokane Valley main reception area and CenterPlace Event Center on October 20, 2020. Lastly, the notice was published in the Spokane Valley Herald on October 2, 2020 and October 9, 2020. Conclusion(s): Staff concludes that adequate public noticing was conducted for STV-2020-0002 in accordance with adopted public noticing procedures. IV. AGENCY COMMENTS Notice was provided to agencies and service providers on September 28, 2020. Comments were received from the following agencies and are attached as exhibits to this staff report. Where Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2020-0002 Page 4 of 11 October 15, 2020 necessary, comments have been incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval in Section V. Agency Received Comments Comments Dated City of Spokane Valley Public Works Yes 10-2-20 Spokane Valley Fire District No.l Yes 10-12-20 Spokane County Environmental Services Yes 6-8-20 (w/ application) Spokane Regional Health District No Avista Utilities Yes 10-1-20 Spokane Transit Authority No City of Spokane Valley Police Department No Century Link Yes 6-19-20 (w/ application) Comcast Yes 6-8-20 (vv/ application) Spokane County Water District #3 Yes 6-16-20 (w/ application) WA Archaeology and Historic Preservation No WA Department of Transportation No Yellowstone Pipe Line Company Yes 10-13-20 Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Yes 10-15-20 Findings: Notice of application was routed to jurisdictional agencies, utilities, and public districts for review and comment. As discussed in the Background section Spokane Valley Public Works is requiring the curb return be removed and replaced to run along Mansfield Avenue and remove and replace the existing drywell. Access easements or boundary line adjustments to aggregate several lots are necessary to ensure access is maintained after the vacation of Bessie and Montgomery. These requirements have been made conditions of approval. No other substantive agency comments have been received to date. Conclusion(s): Staff concludes that jurisdictional agencies, utilities, and or public districts have no concerns regarding the proposed street vacation for Montgomery Avenue and Bessie Road so long as conditions are met. V. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS Staff concludes that STV-2020-0002 as proposed is generally consistent, or will be made consistent, through the recommended conditions of approval based on the approval criteria stated herein. RECOMMENDATION: Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2020-0002 Page 5 of 11 October 15, 2020 Approve the request to vacate 470 feet of Montgomery Avenue and vacate 195 feet of Bessie Road subject to the following: 1. Initial work to satisfy conditions of the street vacation (File No. STV-2020-0002), including all conditions below shall be submitted to the City for review within 90 days following the effective date of approval by the City Council. 2. The vacated property shall be transferred into the abutting parcels (45074.2309; 45074.9084; 45074.0219; 45074.0220; 45074.0221; 45074.0222; 45071.9089) as shown on the record of survey created and recorded with Spokane County Auditor's Office pursuant to condition 9. 3. A Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) application to consolidate the parcels is required to be submitted and approved prior to recording the record of survey for the street vacation for parcels 45074.0219; 45074.0220; 45074.0221 and 45074.0222 and parcels 45074.9084 and 45074.2309 to ensure access is maintained. The BLA can be accommodated with the record of survey for the street vacation. 4. Prior to recording the street vacation of Bessie Road and Montgomery Avenue the following Development Engineering requirements shall be satisfied: a. The existing curb return at the northeast corner of Bessie Road and Mansfield Avenue shall be removed and Type 'A' curb shall be installed along Mansfield Avenue across the vacated portion of Bessie Road per Standard Plan R-102. b. The existing drywell at the northeast corner of Bessie Road and Mansfield Avenue shall be removed and replaced with a new Type `A' drywell approximately 7' to the south at the new curb line along Mansfield Avenue per Std. Plan S-102. A Type I (bypass) metal grate shall be installed with the drywell per Std. Plan S-121. c. Construction within the public right-of-way shall be performed under the direct supervision of a licensed Washington State Professional Engineer and in accordance to the Spokane Valley Street Standards. All work is subject to inspection by the City of Spokane Valley Development Engineering Construction Inspector. d. Upon completion of the improvements, a Construction Certification package per SVSS Chapter 9 shall be submitted and approved prior to recording of the Street Vacation Ordinance. e. A Warrant Surety shall be provided for the public improvements per SVSS Chapter 9. 5. Following the City Council's passage of the Ordinance approving the street vacation, a record of survey of the area to be vacated, prepared by a registered surveyor in the State of Washington, including an exact metes and bounds legal description, and specifying any and all applicable easements for construction, repair and maintenance of existing and future utilities and services, shall be submitted by the proponent to the City Manager, or designee, for review. 6. The surveyor shall locate a monument at the intersection of the centerline of the vacated right - Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2020-0002 Page 6 of 11 October 15, 2020 of -way with each street or right-of-way in accordance with the standards established by the SVSS. 7. All direct and indirect costs of title transfer of the vacated street from public to private ownership, including but not limited to, title company charges, copying fees, and recording fees shall be paid by the proponent. The City shall not and does not assume any financial responsibility for any direct or indirect costs for the transfer of title. 8. The zoning district designation of the properties adjoining the street to be vacated shall be automatically extended to the center of such vacation, and all area included in the vacation shall then and henceforth be subject to all regulations of the districts. The adopting Ordinance shall specify this zoning district extension inclusive of the applicable zoning district designations. 9. The record of survey and certified copy of the Ordinance shall be recorded by the City Clerk in the office of the Spokane County Auditor. 10. All conditions of City Council authorization shall be fully satisfied prior to any transfer of title by the City. Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2020-0002 Page 7 of 11 October 15, 2020 EXHIBIT 1 Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2020-0002 Page 8 of 11 October 15, 2020 C\l C) C) C) I < C) C>:) a - co A 71 _q 1; -7 ! igwwr- fw plijuableS.N - V-SUP) On. - AM- 0 (D - ----- LLJ L7- 13 LU V Mal k "T EXHIBIT 2 Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2020-0002 Page 9 of 11 October 15, 2020 �r,., *0 STREET VACATION APPLICATION` Spokane SN'NIC 22.140 o*Valley Phone: (509) 720-5240 STAFF USE ONLY Date Submitted: Received by: PLUS #: File #:— Project Y 5TV 00 � -"`-�� } RECEIVED 10210 E Sprague Avenue ♦ Spokane Valley V A 99206 Fax: (509) 720-N,36 Vp7i12; items okane alle�.or_ CSV PERMIT CEi,! T ER PART I - REQUIRED MATERIAL "THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED" n Completed Application Forrm��r. �,r} Application Fee�� Written Correspondence from Utility Purveyors Telephone _Cable "Electric Other (Specify) Water District Fire District Gas Utility _Sewer Utility Vicinity Map — Submit a map showing the general area of the proposed vacation E -Record of Survey, if available, for the subject street and/or alley proposed for vacation, and abutting 2q i properties. streets and alleys within 100 feet on all sides of the proposed vacation. Written Evidence of all easements, allowances or reservations, if available, pertaining to the street and/or alley proposed for vacation. PART II - APPLICATION INFORMATION [APPLICANT NAME: Whipple Consulting Engineers MAILING ADDRESS: 21 S. Pines Rd CITY: Spokane Valley j STATE: WA ZIP: 99206 PHONE: (509) 893-2617 i FAx: (509) 926-0227 CELL: EMAIL: toddw@whipplece.com PROPERTY OWNER No. 1: Diamond Rock Financial LLC/TCF MAILING ADDRESS: 320 S Sullivan Road CITY: Spokane Valley STATE: WA ZIP: 99037 PHONE: 509.924-8964 FAX: _7CELL: EMAIL: crapodennis@gmail.com ` If more than two (2) abutting property owners. include information and written authorization on a separate sheet of paper for each. 2659 Bessie and Montgomery Street Vacation NAME OF STREET/ALLEY TO BE VACATED: N Bessie Road and E Montgomery j DIMENSIONS OF STREET/ALLEY TO BE VACATED: 25' ROW on Bessie and 30'-60' ROW on Montgomery SQUARE FEET OF STREET/ALLEY TO BE VACATED: 0.54 acres ABUTTING TAx PARCEL No(s).: 45074.0219, 45074.0220, 45074.0221, 45074.0222, 45074.0223, 45074.2309, 45077.0002, 45074.9084 A nnoceCcc nc Aorrw� �wrnr ro- 0AIn OCn7 C KA--- C-1.J A.... ' ZONING DESIGNATION: R3 THE FOLLOWING IS CRITERIA EVALUATED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN FORMULATING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. ON A SEPARATE SHEET OF PAPER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS SHALL BE ANSWERED IN A DETAILED MANNER; 1. HOW DOES A CHANGE OF USE OR VACATION OF THE STREET/ALLEY IMPROVE SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC? 2. IS THE STREET OR ALLEY NO LONGER REQUIRED FOR PUBLIC USE OR PUBLIC ACCESS? EXPLAIN. 3. WOULD SUBSTITUTION OF ANEW AND/OR DIFFERENT PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY BETTER SERVE THE PUBLIC? EXPLAIN. 4. HOW WILL USE OR NEED FOR THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY BE AFFECTED BY FUTURE CONDITIONS? EXPLAIN. 5. WILL EASEMENTS BE RETAINED FOR ALL UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD UTILITIES? THE REQUESTED VACATION IS LOCATED IN THE SERVICE AREA OF WHAT UTILITY COMPANIES. (SPECIFY)? 6. DOES THE RIGHT-OF-WAY INCLUDE STORMWATER DRAINAGE FACILITIES (SPECIFY)? PLEASE NOTE: PER RCW 35.79.040 (TITLE TO VACATED STREET/ALLEY, THE PROPERTY WITHIN A PUBLIC STREET OR ALLEY VACATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL BELONG TO THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS, ONE-HALF (1 /2) TO EACH. THEREFORE, PROPERTY OWNER SHALL BE REQUIRED TO SIGN THE STREET VACATION APPLICATION. PER RESOLUTION 07-009 OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, THE CITY COUNCIL HAS THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE CHARGES FOR STREET/ALLEY VACATION PURSUANT TO RCW 36.79.030 PL-15 V1.0 Page 3 of 2659 Bessie and Montgomery Street Vacation PART III - AUTHORIZATION (Signature of owner or authorized representative) I. Susan M. Moss , (print name) swear or affirm that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. (Sigmiture) NOTARY STATE OFWASHINGTON) 7// (Date) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this v'' day ofy� �;� 20d `.i NOTARY SEAL r N0`TARY SIGNATURE Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Residing at: l I My appointment expires: `� ! ! 0 / LEGAL OWNER NO. 1 AUTHORIZATION: If the applicant is not the legal ownef(s), the owner must provide the following acknowledgement; - - owner of lot 7, block 1 of Vista Gardens No 4 final Plat do hereby authorize WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS to represent me and my interests in all matters regarding this street vacation application. PL-15 V1.0 Page 4 of 2659 Bessie and Montgomery Street Vacation PART III - AUTHORIZATION NOTARY STATE OFWASHINGTON) COUNTY OF SPOKANE SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of NOTARY SEAL FS ASEY G CUSHMAN Notary Public tate of Washington ntment Expires Oct 7. 2020 NOTARY SIGNATURE Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Residing at: C My appointment expires: �0Z�_.o-1,o LEGAL OWNER NO. 2 AUTHORIZATION: If the applicant is not the legal ownerr(s`), the owner must provide the following acknowledgement; of Argonne/Montgomery Storage, LLC do hereby authorize WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS to represent me and my interests in all matters regarding this Street Vacation application. PROPERTY OWNER No. 2: Argonne/Montgomery Storage, LLC MAILING ADDRESS: 8915 E Montgomery STE B CITY: Spokane STATE: WA ZIP: 99212 PHONE: Obi he FAX: CELL: ci ter•, FJ t�.� r^ �.� j EMAIL: 2659 Bessie and Montgomery Street Vacation PART III - AUTHORIZATION NOTARY STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 12A day of �'t�� 2CrZ 0 J J NOTARY §�AL •,PQ` Gp 11, p •• 0 STATE O�- IGNATURE Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Residing at: My appointment expires: n LEGAL OWNER NO. 3 AUTHORIZATION: If the applicant is not the legal owner(s), the owner must provide the following acknowledgement; GAw Sc w+.v►• U lc,- z o,c- I , m ejy , y r c,c. c.. owner of lots 3-6, block 1 of Vista Gardens No 4 Final Plat do hereby authorize WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS to represent me and my interests in all matters r garding this street vacation application. /� PROPERTY OWNER No. 3: Montgomery Apartments, LLC 1 MAILING ADDRESS:_ PO BOX 19351 CITY: SPOKANE STATE: WA ZIP: 99219 GARY@SCHIMMELSCONSTRUCTION.COM PHONE: FAX: CELL:953-9999 EMAIL: 2659 Bessie and Montgomery Street Vacation PART III - AUTHORIZATION NOTARY STATE OFWASHINGTON) COUNTY OF SPOKANE SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this �` day of Ir 2010 NOTARY SEAL .�``,00 O ,ftADE r',',���'�, _ • �O py . • COOS i° i 2 �. •...•• gyp, `.` rSTATE `OF``%\\\`\ SIGNATURE Notary Public in an&ffor the State of Washington Residing at: �,O, C,2 *1-m My appointment expires: 0 1-zJz w LEGAL OWNER NO. 3 AUTHORIZATION: If the applicant is not the legal owner(s), the owner must provide the following acknowledgement; I, Kenneth L Ward , owner of 8419 E Mansfield Ct. do hereby authorize WHIPPLE CONSULTING/ENGINEERS to represent me and my interests in all matters regarding this streetvacation an application. PROPERTY OWNER No. 4: Kenneth L Ward MAILING ADDRESS: Z �/ S n CITY: STATE: WA ZIP: p C/ PHONE: FAX: CELL: `� /6 EMAIL: G�/ (WCE June 1 S. 2020 Whipple Consulting Engineers. Inc. W.O No. 2020-2659 City of Spokane Valley, City Council 10210 E. Sprague Ave. Spokane Valley. WA 99206 RE: Street Vacation of Bessie Rd and Montgomery Ave. Dear City Council. This letter will serve as the criteria evaluation by the Planning Commission for the Street Vacation of Bessie Rd and Mansfield Ave.. per the City of Spokane Valley Street Vacation Application questions. Our discussion of the vacation can be seen below in bold. This streets being vacated are Bessie Road from Mansfield to Montgomery and Montgomery from Bessie Road to the east side of lot 3, block 1 of Vista Gardens No. 4 final plat. Properties adjacent to the vacations are parcel numbers 45074.0223, 45074.0219-4.0222, 45077.0002 and 45071.9089. This street vacation will provide the highest and best use for the properties in Vista Gardens No. 4 block 1. This vacation of approx. 0.54 acres will aid in the design of adjacent lots bringing unused ROW into real property and increase City tax base. See the roadway vacation exhibit for more details. 1. How does a change of use or vacation of the street./alley improve service to the public" These ROW's are undeveloped surplus land in the City, full of "needy and unkept land of no beneficial use. This ROW diminishes the adjacent properties enjoyment and value through the lack of maintenance. By allowing the vacation the City will reduce their service area of 0.54 acres of untended and weedy RONA! for maintenance of streets, utilities and drainage benefitting the public and supplementing the City budget and limiting liability. 2. Is the street or alley no longer required for public use or public access? Explain. Upon vacation and development the subject street vacation is proposed because there will be no need for public access, utilities or drainage facilities for the adjacent lots. No lot -will be land locked by this and will provide the highest and best use for said lots. 21 South Pines Rd. • Spokane Valley, WA 99206 k PO Box 1566 • Veradale, WA 99037 Phone 509-893-2617 • Fax 509-926-0227 • WhippleCE.com • Info@WhippleCE.com Civil, Structural, Traffic, Survey, Landscape Architecture and Entitlements 3. Would substitution of a new and/or different public right-of-way better serve the public? Explain. NO, the ROW being vacated is not in a location where another dedicatory process would be appropriate to serve the travelling public. 4. How will use or need for this right-of-way be affected by future conditions? Explain. Urban development in these lots is best satisfied with the vacation of the ROW and therefore no affect would be possible. 5. Will easements be retained for all underground and overhead utilities? The requested vacation is located in the service area of what utility companies. (specify)? At this time no facilities have been installed, therefore no easements are anticipated. 6. Does the right-of-way include stonnwater drainage facilities (specify)? No, as an unimproved ROW none were ever constructed. Should you have any further questions regarding the project or this narrative, please call our office at (509)893-2617. Sincerely, f Susan M. Moss, A.S.L.A. Whipple Consulting Engineers iWCE �,Vhipple Consulting Engineers. Inc. June 19. 2020 W.O. No. 2019-2659 City of Spokane Valley Planning Department 10210 E Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re: Bessie Rd and 1lontgomen- Ave. Street Vacation Narrative Dear Connor. This letter is intended to serve as the project development narrative The project proposes to vacate the right of way on Bessie Rd north from Mansfield Ave to Montaoniern Ave. and Montgomery Ave. east from Bessie Rd to the east side of 1_ot 3, Block 1 of Vista Gardens No 4 Final Plat. approximately 0.54 acres. The adjacent lots are lots 3-7 of Vista Gardens no.4 Block 1 Plat. lot ] of SP 91-733 Argonne` lontvomen, Storage. LLC. and Burlington Northen Santa Fe Railway parcel 45077.0002. The subject property is located in a portion of N1 !,� Section 7, f 25 N.. R 44 E.. W.M. Burlinsnon Northern Santa Fe Raihvay has declined to accept the Right of Way which would typically go to BNSF. see the attached email. Also see the Street Vacation exhibit I for more information. Se%-,-er Svstem Spokane County environmental services has no sewer lines or services located in this street vacation. Water Svstem Spokane County Water District 93 has no water lines or services located in this street vacation. Power- and Dry Utilities Avista. C'enturl-ink. and Conicast have no lines or services located in this street vacation. Stormwater There are no stonnwater facilities located in this street vacation. If you have any questions or comments in regard to this letter please feel free to contact us at (509) 593- 2617. Sincerely, Susan M. Moss, PLA, ASLA 21 South Pines Rd. • Spokane Valley, WA 99206 k PO Box 1566 • Veradale, WA 99037 Phone 509-893-2617 • Fax 509-926-0227 • WhippleCE.com • Info@WhippleCE.com WhippleCE.com Civil, Structural, Traffic, Survey, Landscape Architecture and Entitlements C!J QV02f INSOlVS O � CIO N 0 4 — 0 0 LO c� O Z cn Z -w 0 N o� CID m O Y ~O— Cf) J N N 5; m � Q r I O 0 LO N O 4 to rl O LO N N C CO n O N O � r r O I Ln N N 0 O cLn N O O o QV02Y IYlSSLYB IV w O N I N O O 6• r7 0 r- coN LO I W — T z LI) wui zo�o 3 Z(7OO nO Z z 29 Z — w U' wz¢?� 10?2� aa -i¢m3w za�w� Izo w ¢ Z * m w a z N o �3a as U N /NN LPL W L❑ Ip z w W 0 N Z �' Q °Z 3 Q w v J I- �'V W W W o O W Y rn UJ ❑ N LO o IL In En N N Q W Z� W m � :EO W U (n QQ w� cn —' Q� Id-0 V) Of�N-3Q0 ma3wa LLJa�w0 N W N� II O F•• m Eq W � > I Z0 w3a4 X '0 HQaQ W aQaao ao0Gm cc Lj UJ �� o I vp 2°¢� Z Q v F-o Za w F=—Q~~m Q 2'o��'I v~ l�ilaq I P~ 2WN O 4 (, vY C _ «� Za } Q z »W �w �� e J o �a a ~ ao3 Z F—��=o ~ Q. ` Qo O 1 WO {TWO uuu F' Z`' Z Z2 �� Ui W ZWWWI W Z2� �2•� W U W VOO O O \� O�� x �k a O��ti" Of ~ OWN 2 Wa wzy � O OXz pia OtL= a OxWaQ a Oxi o OX= °a�=�a° O W U� Uw1 UO� .y U_aaa h Uwe UWI O� �y u - - W 't :+ 3ul AtZ W W S jl U LLJ U. 64 y. - 2= - m -- — ° N Gxs QCO�d jn 0 \ ------------- �j-------------- .".a 8 ------- Q \ 1 .. '•� <<'o � 3 \ 1 o y i I I a `oi > 87 Z u °c \!1 3, 00.90.00S i C1 n�+ ♦¢ r— _U 10 16 Kz G .. nY'c 75 \ I .a�� L-.°,...o"m n-.H ,_.. •ter_ ` e°o. � \1 I \ "------------------i-----I \ eooz Johanna Herzog From: Byus, Dave <Dave.Byus@avistacorp.com> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 12:32 PM To: Johanna Herzog Subject: RE: [External] 2659 Bessie and Montgomery Street Vacation Johanna. don , think we have any issues with the proposed street vacation but I am waiting for a reply back from our Transmission Engineering department. I sent them another email a couple of minutes ago so hopefully I can get back to you shortly. Thanks Davc_ From: Johanna Herzog [mailto:jherzog@whipplece.com] Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 3:48 PM To: Byus, Dave <Dave.Byus@avistacorp.com> Cc: Susan Moss <smoss@whipplece.com> Subject: [External] 2659 Bessie and Montgomery Street Vacation Hello Dave, I am reaching out in regards to a Street Vacation on N Bessie Road and E Montgomery Avenue. if you could please send comments or easement documents regarding this Street Vacation, that would be greatly appreciated. The Street Vacation will run along the full 25' ROW of N Bessie Rd. and the full ROW along E Montgomery Ave as shown in the attached drawings. Attached are pdfs of the vicinity map and Street Vacation exhibit for your use. Let me know if you need our preliminary application if it was helpful last time. The project plan in conjunction with this street vacation is to subdivide parcel 45074.0223 into three lots. We are currently not far along and will coordinate with you further as the time comes and we prepare further plans and applications. Can you provide preliminary comments, easement concerns within 100' and/or concerns regarding this vacation? This correspondence will be submitted to the City of Spokane Valley with our street vacation packet. Please contact me or Susan Moss if you have any questions. Thank you for your help. Hanna Herzog Civil Engineering Intern Phone: 509.893.2617 1 Fax: 509.926.0227 !AtC E Whipple Consulting Enc-meers 1ST:pr.•.CF cr.. USE CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER Do not click on links or open attachments that are not familiar. For questions or concerns, please e-mail phishin avistacorp.com IT ( NOTICE: The c Intents of this email rnessage and any attachments are intended solely *pr tt;a a^dresseels; and nay contain prr,ileged intomnatron and may be legally protected from disclosure If you are nat the intended recipient of this message or an agente r. _jctent or if this message has been addressed to you in error. olease immedi.ately alert th'e sender by reply email i,d then delete tnis - - - ?^d =rr: atiaGhmlent5 Johanna Herzog From: Byus, Dave <Dave Byus@avistacorp com> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2020 8:22 AM To: Johanna Herzog Subject: RE: [External] 2659 Bessie and Montgomery Street Vacation Hi Johanna, Transmission Engineering got back to ITWI this morning regarding our transmission line Currently in RR ROW north of the proposed road vacation. Avista currently does not have any utilities (gas or electric) installed within the proposed street vacation and as a result we have no comments or issues with the proposal. Neale let nie knoti�, if you need anything else. Thanks Dave Byus Real Estate Representative � L�C.:Ilxsnr�y=, From: Byus, Dave Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 12:32 PM To: Johanna Herzog <jherzog@whipplece.com> Subject: RE: [External] 2659 Bessie and Montgomery Street Vacation Johanna, I don't think we have any issues with the proposed street vacation but I am waiting for a reply back from our Transmission Engineering department. I sent them another email a couple of minutes ago so hopefully I can get back to you shortly. Thanks Dave 1 From: Johanna Herzog[mailto_jherzot�(a—i�rrhipplece.cc)_:.] Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 3:48 PM To: Byus, Dave <Dave.ByuslcDavistacorp.com> Cc: Susan Moss <srnossrawhipplece.com> Subject: [External] 2659 Bessie and Montgomery Street Vacation Hello Dave, I am reaching out in regards to a Street Vacation on N Bessie Road and E Montgomery Avenue. If you could please send comments or easement documents regarding this Street Vacation, that would be greatly appreciated. The Street Vacation will run along the full 25' ROW of N Bessie Rd. and the full ROW along E Montgomery Ave as shown in the attached drawings. Attached are pdfs of the vicinity map and Street Vacation exhibit for your use. Let me know if you need our preliminary application if it was helpful last time. The project plan in conjunction with this street vacation is to subdivide parcel 45074.0223 into three lots. We are currently not far along and will coordinate with you further as the time comes and we prepare further plans and applications. Can you provide preliminary comments, easement concerns within 100' and/or concerns regarding this vacation? This correspondence will be submitted to the City of Spokane Valley with our street vacation packet. Please contact me or Susan Moss if you have any questions. Thank you for your help. Hanna Herzog Civil Engineering Intern Phone: 509.893.2617 I Fax: 509.926.0227 'WCE' Whipple Consulting Engineers saoManc vnt:cy. Wit "2Cja 119•.np'rcr cam USE CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER Do not click on links or open attachments that are not familiar. For questions or concerns, please e-mail hishingavistacorp.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential andlor privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or an agent of the intended recipient. or if this message has been addressed to you in error. please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments Johanna Herzog From: Depner, Colin <CDEPNER@spokanecounty,org> Sent: Monday, June 08, 2020 9:43 AM To: Johanna Herzog; Knudson, Chris Cc: Susan Moss Subject: RE: 2659 Bessie and Montgomery Street Vacation There is no public sewer within the proposed vacation area. Sewer connection requirements would not change for any of the involved properties, particularly for the following parcel numbers, which are required to connect upon development: • 45074.0222 • 45074.0221 • 45074.0220 • 45074.0219 Colin Depner Spokane County Environmental Services 1026 W. Broadway Ave. 4`h Floor Spokane, WA 99260 509-477-7282 !: .: ,:r•;.. _;'r:anecounty.o Video Inspection Requests L,yertVruguests(cpsookanr_cou LY' QrL; Electronic Plan Submittal ->Uui•.,.u1c_i)Unt .OrS From: Johanna Herzog [mailto:jherzog@whipplece.com) Sent: Friday, June 05, 2020 4:14 PM To: Depner, Colin <CDEPNER@spokanecounty.org>; Knudson, Chris <CKnudson@spokanecounty.org> Cc: Susan Moss <smoss@whipplece.com> Subject: 2659 Bessie and Montgomery Street Vacation Hello Colin and Chris, I am reaching out in regards to a Street Vacation on N Bessie Road and E Montgomery Avenue. If you could please send comments or easement documents regarding this Street Vacation, that would be greatly appreciated. The Street Vacation will run along the full 25' ROW of N Bessie Rd. and the full ROW along E Montgomery Ave as shown in the attached drawings. Attached are pdfs of the vicinity map and Street Vacation exhibit for your use. Can you provide comments, easement concerns within 100' and/or concerns regarding this vacation? This correspondence will be submitted to the City of Spokane Valley with our street vacation packet. Please contact me or Susan Moss if you have any questions. Thank you for your help. Hanna Herzog Civil Engineering Intern Phone: 509.893.2617 ' Fax: 509.926.0227 E' %.,V,',Pp1e Consulting Engfneers WA ?)2: E) Johanna Herzog From: Harvey, Traci <HarveyT@SpokaneValleyFire.com> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 2:22 PM To: Johanna Herzog; Inspections Cc: Susan Moss Subject: RE: 2659 Bessie and Montgomery Street Vacation We would have no easement documents associated with a street vacation; our main concerns would be related to fire flow/hydrants and access for future development. All specific fire cle-partment requirements shall be conditioned on future commercial permits. Thanks Traci Harvey Firc Prutccuoll F:ng,111c •r sl,ok;mc Valle l irc I)chartm�nt _' I _'() N. Wilhur urk ;! N-892--I I -i-f Fax From: Johanna Herzog [mailto:jherzog@whipplece.com] Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 3:35 PM To: Inspections <Inspections@SpokaneValleyFire.com>; Harvey, Traci <HarveyT@SpokaneValleyFire.com> Cc: Susan Moss <smoss@whipplece.com> Subject: 2659 Bessie and Montgomery Street Vacation Hello Traci, I am reaching out in regards to a Street Vacation on N Bessie Road and E Montgomery Avenue. If you could please send comments or easement documents regarding this Street Vacation, that would be greatly appreciated. 1 The Street Vacation will run along the full 25' ROW of N Bessie Rd. and the full ROW along E Montgomery Ave as shown in the attached drawings. Attached are pdfs of the vicinity map and Street Vacation exhibit for your use. Can you provide comments, easement concerns within 100' and/or concerns regarding this vacation? This correspondence will be submitted to the City of Spokane Valley with our street vacation packet. Please contact me or Susan Moss if you have any questions. Thank you for your help. Hanna Herzog Civil Engineering Intern Phone: 509.893.2617 1 Fax: 509.926.0227 WCE Whi(1p{e Consulting Engineers ^�:+,. - «okanc Vo::ry. WA Johanna Herzog From: Fisher, Brent <.Brent-Fisher@comcast.com> Sent: Monday, June 08, 2020 11:30 AM To: Johanna Herzog,- Susan Moss Cc: Richardson, Bryan Subject: RE: 2659 Bessie and Montgomery Street Vacation Attachments: Bessie & Montgomery (Corncast).pdf Hanna, Comcast should have no objection to this proposed street vacation as it will have little to no impact our existing services - Our facilities are all aerial at this location and we are built on what appear to be primarily Avista poles. I've attached a pdf showing the three existing poles that we have services on in the immediate vicinity of this project. Thank you, Brent Fisher Comcast Spokane Construction Specialist 2 509-755-4804 rJren� rise rL�co:oca-t.com From: Richardson, Bryan <Bryan_Richardson@cable.comcast.com> Sent: Monday, June 8, 2020 7:24 AM To: Fisher, Brent<Brent_Fisher@cable.comcast.com> Subject: FW: 2659 Bessie and Montgomery Street Vacation This should be in your area and I would not take away the joy of you doing it. From: Johanna Herzog < Sent: Friday, June 5, 20204:13 PM To: Richardson, Bryan com> Cc: Susan Moss < :nosc,' hiu: lecc.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] 2659 Bessie and Montgomery Street Vacation Hello Bryan, I am reaching out in regards to a Street Vacation on N Bessie Road and E Montgomery Avenue. If you could please send comments or easement documents regarding this Street Vacation, that would be greatly appreciated. The Street Vacation will run along the full 25' ROW of N Bessie Rd. and the full ROW along E Montgomery Ave as shown in the attached drawings. Attached are pdfs of the vicinity map and Street Vacation exhibit for your use. Can you provide comments, easement concerns within 100' and/or concerns regarding this vacation? This correspondence will be submitted to the City of Spokane Valley with our street vacation packet. Please contact me or Susan Moss if you have any questions. Thank you for your help. Hanna Herzog Civil Engineering Intern Phone:509.893.2617 Fax:509.926-0227 WCE. Whipple Consulting Engineers d; Saw?, P,n ., Rpa3 • SpoYinr Va •.y. WA 492f5 Johanna Herzog From: Justin Van Dyke <jyandyke@scwd3.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 10:34 AM To: Johanna Herzog Subject: RE: 2659 Bessie and Montgomery Street Vacation - Checking in The only comments we have are Lots 2 through 6 will not be eligible for water service unless they have frontage along a water main. So by vacating the owner's ability to loop a waterline around the entire parcel may pose a concern for later water accessibility and development of those lots. Justin Van Dyke. Assistant'Iauager Spokane Count- Water District --3 0:: -- -- --- -- -- - From: Johanna Herzog [mailto:jherzog@whipplece.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 10:24 AM To: Justin Van Dyke <jvandyke@scwd3.org> Cc: Susan Moss <smoss@whipplece.com> Subject: 2659 Bessie and Montgomery Street Vacation - Checking in Hi Justin, I am checking in about a request for comments I sent out last week regarding a Street Vacation application for Bessie Rd and Montgomery Ave. if you could please send comments or easement documents that Water District 3 might have regarding this Street Vacation, that would be greatly appreciated. The Street Vacation will run along the full 25' ROW of N Bessie Rd. and the full ROW along E Montgomery Ave as shown in the attached drawings. Attached are pdfs of the vicinity map and Street Vacation exhibit for your use. Can you provide comments, easement concerns within 100' and/or concerns regarding this vacation? This correspondence will be submitted to the City of Spokane Valley with our street vacation packet. Please contact me or Susan Moss if you have any questions. Thanks for your help, Hanna Herzog Civil Engineering Intern t 'IUlJJ!c_unst.,fZ _nt rr;eer5, Inc Phone: 509.893.2617 1 Fax: 509.926.0227 Johanna Herzog From: Welch, M ' ark <Mark.Welch@Centu.ryLink.corn> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 10:34 AM To: Johanna Herzog Subject: Mansfield Mark Welch Engineer 11 904 N. Columbus St., Spokane, WA. 99202 teL 509.835.4604 cell: 509.703.2705 CentUryLink 1 PROJECT S ITE o E MANSFIELD AVENUE cif _ ------E MONTGOMERY AVENUE _ --- E S PROJ # 20-2659 STREET VACATION DATE: 6�2�20 VICINITY M A P AW DRAWN: SGP REVIEWED: TRW 8507 E MANSFIELD AVENUE SCALE: NTS SPOKANE VALLEY, WA WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS PH: 509-893-2617 EX- I Vacation of Bessie Road That portion of Bessie Road lying between the South right of way of Montgomery Avenue, and the North right of way of Mansfield Avenue. Vacation of Montgomery Avenue That portion of Montgomery avenue lying between the Westerly right of way of Bessie road and the East line of Lot 3, Block 1 of Vista Gardens No 4, as recorded in Book 4 of Plats, Page 28, Records of Spokane County, Washington. First American First American Title Insurance Company 40 E Spokane Falls Blvd Spokane, WA 99202 July 04, 2020 Johanna Herzog Whipple Consulting Engineers, LLC P.O. Box 1566 Veradale, WA 99037 Phone: (509)893-2617 Fax: (509)926-0227 Title Officer: Tiffany Ipock Phone: (509)835-8957 Fax No.: (866)537-9602 E-Mail: tipock@firstam.com Order Number: 3510272 Escrow Number: 3510272 Buyer: Owner: Property: 8507 E Mansfield Ave Spokane, Washington 99212 Attached please find the follo,,ving item(s): Guarantee Thank You for your confidence and support. We at First American Title Insurance Company maintain the fundamental principle: Customer First! ProjeC; AUG - 7 2020 COSY PE; :MJ CENTER SUB #�� Form 5003353 (7 1 14) ;Page 1 of 9 Guarantee Number: 3510272 CLTA 414 Sntnn ubdivision Guarantee (4 10 75)1 1 1 Wachin First American Guarantee Subdivision Guarantee ISSUED BY First American Title Insurance Company GUARANTEE NUMBER 5003353-3510272 SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE LIMITS OF LIABILITY AND THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS OF THIS GUARANTEE, FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY a Nebraska corporation, herein called the Company GUARANTEES Whipple Consulting Engineers, LLC the Assured named in Schedule A against actual monetary loss or damage not exceeding the liability stated in Schedule A, which the Assured shall sustain by reason of any incorrectness in the assurances set forth in Schedule A. Firsr American TWe Insurance Company . pc.nrvr, J &.!merc. F:esident Gri-q L Smith 5ccroay This jacket was created electronically and constitutes an original document Form 5003353 (7-1-14) iPage 2 of 9 Guarantee Number: 3510272 CLTA k 14 Subdivision Guarantee (4-10-75) LVachinn'nn� First American Schedule A Order No.: 3510272 Subdivision Guarantee ISSUED BY First American Title Insurance Company GUARANTEE NUMBER 3510272 Liability: $2000.00 Name of Assured: Whipple Consulting Engineers, LLC Date of Guarantee: June 25, 2020 The assurances referred to on the face page hereof are: 1. Title is vested in: Fee: $350.00 Tax: $31.15 DIAMOND ROCK FINANCIAL, LLC, A WASHINGTON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AS TO A 90% INTEREST, AND TCF PROPERTIES, LLC, A WASHINGTON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AS TO A 10% INTEREST 2. That, according to the public records relative to the land described in Schedule C attached hereto (including those records maintained and indexed by name), there are no other documents affecting title to said land or any portion thereof, other than those shown under Record Matters in Schedule B. 3. The following matters are excluded from the coverage of this Guarantee A. Unpatented Mining Claims, reservations or exceptions in patents or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof. B. Water rights, claims or title to water. C. Tax Deeds to the State of Washington. D. Documents pertaining to mineral estates. 4. No guarantee is given nor liability assumed with respect to the validity, legal effect or priority of any matter shown herein. 5. This Guarantee is restricted to the use of the Assured for the purpose of providing title evidence as may be required when subdividing land pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 58.17, R.C.W., and the local regulations and ordinances adopted pursuant to said statute. It is not to be used as a basis for closing any transaction affecting title to said property. 6. Any sketch attached hereto is done so as a courtesy only and is not part of any title commitment, guarantee or policy. It is furnished solely for the purpose of assisting in locating the premises and First American expressly disclaims any liability which may result from reliance made upon it. __ _ - Form 5003353 (7 1 14) !,Page 6 of 9 (Guarantee Number: 3510272 EL -TA ± 14 Subdivision Guarantee (4-" n l Wavhinatnn - .First Amerlcan Schedule B Subdivision Guarantee I55Uc`D By First American Title Insurance Company GUARANTEE NUMBER 3510272 RECORD MATTERS 1. General Taxes for the year 2020. The first half becomes delinquent after April 30th. The second half becomes delinquent after October 31st. Tax Account No.: 45074.0223 1st Half Amount Billed: $ 1,727.66 Amount Paid: $ 1,727.66 Amount Due: $ 0.00 Assessed Land Value: $ 37,800.00 Assessed Improvement Value: $ 202,700.00 2nd Half Amount Billed: $ 1,727.67 Amount Paid: $ 0.00 Amount Due: $ 1,727.67 Assessed Land Value: $ 37,800.00 Assessed Improvement Value: $ 202,700.00 2. Municipal assessments, if any, levied by the City of Spokane. 3. Said premises lie within the boundaries of Spokane Water District No. 3 and are subject to future assessments by said district. 4. Deed of Trust and the terms and conditions thereof. Grantor/Trustor: Steve Mcmullen as Trustee of The 8507 Mansfield Trust Grantee/Beneficiary: Diamond Rock Financial, LLC, A Washington Limited Liability Company, to A 90% Interest, and Tcf Properties, LLC, A Washington Limited Liability Company, as to A 10% Interest Trustee: Ford & Dalton, Ps Amount: $225,000.00 Dated: December 03, 2018 Recorded: December 06, 2018 Recording Information: 6766695 A notice of trustee's sale recorded March 16, 2020 as 6901852 of Official Records. 5. Any and all offers of dedication, conditions, restrictions, easements, boundary discrepancies or encroachments, notes and/or provisions shown or disclosed by Short Plat or Plat Amended Final Plat Vista Gardens No. 4 recorded in Volume 4 of Plats, Page(s) 37. Form 5003353 (7-1 14) Page 7 of 9 Guarantee Number: 3510272 CLTA #14 Subdivision Guarantee (4-10-75) Wnshinotnn Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: 8829976 In Favor of: The Washington Water Power Company, a Washington corporation For: Electric transmission and/or distribution system Easement, including terms and provisions contained therein: Recording Information: o2,b=1 �7u7 In Favor of: Sprint Communications Company L.P., and Level 3 Communications, LLC For: Telecommunications easement Informational Notes, if any Form 5003353 (7-1-14) Page 8 of 9 Guarantee Number: 3510272 CLTA tr 14 Subdivision Guarantee (4-10-75) Wachinntnn ry -� First American Schedule C Subdivision Guarantee ISSUED 5r First American Title Insurance Company Guaa:,r, EE rjurIBE, 3510272 The land in the County of Spokane, State of Washington, described as follows: LOT 7, BLOCK 1, AMENDED FINAL PLAT OF VISTA GARDENS NO. 4, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN .,OLUME 4 OF PLAT S, PAGE 37, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, IN SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Form 5003353 (7-1-14) Page 9 of 9 Guarantee Number: 3510272 CLTA t14 Subdivision Guarantee (4-10-75) Washinornn EXHIBIT 3 Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2020-0002 Page 10 of 11 October 15, 2020 Spokane Community & Public Works Valley Building & Planning Division NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING THE SPOKANE VALLEY COMMUNITY & PUBLIC WORKS IS SENDING THIS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 400 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BASED ON THE MOST CURRENT RECORDS FROM THE SPOKANE COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OR TREASURER'S OFFICE. Due to the restrictions on public gatherings arising from the COVID-19 outbreak, this hearing will be conducted remotely using web and telephone conference tools, as described below. Hearing Date: Thursday, October 22, 2020 beginning at 6:00 p.m. Meeting Details: Join Zoom meeting by computer, smartphone, or tablet at: A link to the Zoom meeting will be provided on the agenda and posted to the City's webpage: www.spokanevalley.org/planninjzcommission. Application/Description of Proposal: Request by Diamond Rock Financial LLC/TCF Properties, to vacate 470 feet of Montgomery Avenue and 195 feet of Bessie Road. Applicant: Whipple Consulting Engineers, 21 S Pines Road, Spokane Valley WA 99206 Owner: Diamond Rock Financial LLC/TCR Properties, 320 S Sullivan Road, Spokane Valley WA 99037 Location of Proposal: The portion of right-of-way proposed to be vacated is located between Vista Road (west), Sargent Road (east) and Mansfield Avenue (south). The undeveloped right-of-way is adjacent to nine parcels (45074.2309, 45074.9084, 45074.0223, 45074.0222, 45074.0221, 45074.0220, 45074.0219, 45077.0002 and 45071.9089) located in the NW quarter of the SE quarter of Section 7, Township 25 North, Range 44 East, Willamette Meridian, Spokane Valley, Washington. Approval Criteria: Section 22.140 (Street Vacations) of the City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC); Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code; the City of Spokane Valley Street Standards; the Regional Stormwater Manual; and the Spokane Regional Health District regulations. Hearing Process and Appeals: The Planning Commission will conduct the remote hearing pursuant to the rules of procedure adopted in SVMC Title 18 (Boards and Authorities). The public is encouraged to submit written comments prior to the hearing by sending the comments to Connor Lange, 10210 E Sprague Ave, Spokane Valley, WA 99206, or email to clange@spokanevalley.org. Comments will need to be submitted no later than 4:00 PM on October 22, 2020 in order for them to be received and prepared for submission into the record. Comments received will be entered into the record at the time of the public participation portion of the Public Hearing. If you would like to deliver comments to City Hall you may contact City Hall at (509) 720-5000 prior to 4:00 PM on October 22, 2020 to schedule an appointment for delivery and allow staff to scan and include in the report. Comments received through US Mail will be included if they are received prior to the hearing. All interested persons may testify at the remote public hearing via the zoom meeting address and/or phone number. Interested persons will need to sign up to speak no later than 4:00 p.m. on October 22, 2020 at the link provided in the agenda posted at the link referenced above. Use the link above to sign up for oral public comments. The link will direct you to directions to sign up for oral public comments. This is not an opportunity for questions or discussion. Remarks will be limited to three minutes per person. Written comments and documents may only be submitted prior to the hearing. Any appeal of the Planning Commission's decision will be based on the record established before the Planning Commission, pursuant to SVMC 17.90 (Appeals). The Planning Commission will forward a recommendation on the request to the Spokane Valley City Council. Environmental Determination: The Planning Division has reviewed the proposal/project and has determined that the project is categorically exempt pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 and City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC); Title 21 (Environmental Controls) from environmental review under the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Staff Report and Inspection of File: A staff report will be available for inspection seven (7) calendar days before the hearing. The staff report and application file may be inspected by logging on to the Spokane Valley SmartGov Public Portal at this web address: ci-spokanevalley-wa.smartgovcommunity.com/Public/Home Go to applications and search for STV-2020-0002 to review or download the staff report. If you have any questions, please contact Connor Lange, Planner, Building & Planning Division, at clange(aspokanevalley.org. 10210 East Sprague 1 Spokane Valley, WA ♦ 99206 ♦ (509) 720-5240 ♦ Fax (509) 720-5375 EXHIBIT 4 Staff Report and Recommendation STV-2020-0002 Page 11 of 11 October 15, 2020 From: Byus. Dave To: Connor Lange Subject: RE: [External] STV-2020-0002 Agency Routing Date: Thursday, October 1, 2020 9:40:30 AM Attachments: imaae002.aif image003.Qif imaae004.ioa Connor, I reviewed this back in June with Whipple. I don't have any issues or comments to add for this proposed street vacation. Thanks Dave Byus Real Estate Representative M PO Box 3727 MSC-25 Spokane, WA 99220 'I411 E Mission Ave. DISC 25 Spokane, WA 99202 P 509.495.2013 509.993.7852 htto://www.2vistautilities.com This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential and privileged information, and unauthorized disclosure Oruse is prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete this email from your system, Thank you From: Connor Lange [mailto:clange@spokanevalley.org] Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 4:39 PM To: Chad Riggs <criggs@spokanevalley.org>; Traci Harvey<harveyt@spokanevalleyfire.com>; Chris Johnston <crjohnston@spokanesheriff.org>; CDEPNER@spokanecounty.org; CKnudson@spokanecounty.org; Bruner, Jennifer S. <JBRUNER@SpokaneCounty.org>; Megan Bickley <MBickley@SpokaneCounty.org>; Grepp@spokanecounty.org; Spokane Regional Health District <psavage@srhd.org>; Spokane County Water District #3 <scwd3@comcast.net>; figgg@wsdot.wa.gov; Spokane Transit Authority<kotterstrom@spokanetransit.com>; Hanson, Sydney (DAHP) <Sydney.Hanson@dahp.wa.gov>; Byus, Dave <Dave.Byus@avistacorp.com>; Karen. Stoddard(karen.stoddard@centurylink.com)<karen.stoddard@centurylink.com>; Comcast <bryan_richardson@cable.comcast.com>; Chad.M.Polak@p66.com Subject: [External] STV-2020-0002 Agency Routing Hello all, Attached is the formal Agency Routing for the street vacation of a portion of Bessie Road and Montgomery Avenue, comments are due back by October 12, 2020. Please let me know if you have any questions. Connor Lange I Planner 10210 E. Sprague Avenue I Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 720-5332 1 clance@snokanevallev.or� M This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act. chapter 42.56 RCW. USE CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER Do not click on links or open attachments that are not familiar. For questions or concerns, please e-mail ohishing(@avistacorp.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or an agent of the intended recipient, or if this message has been addressed to you in error. please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Connor, Semenick, Stephen Connor Lang Hellman, Johan RE: Street Vacation Thursday, October 15, 2020 1:38:40 PM The vacation should not have any impact on existing BNSF operations. Only concern I'd have is long term planning for the vacated property. If additional residences are established I'd want to be sure that drainage was not diverted to BNSF ROW and trespasser mitigation was evaluated. Thanks, Stephen Semenick, PE Manager Public Projects — WA, OR, & B.C. BNSF Railway Company 2454 Occidental Ave S, Suite 1A Seattle, WA 98134 Office: 206.625.6152 Cell: 817.422.2486 From: Connor Lange <clange@spokanevalley.org> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 10:40 AM To: Semenick, Stephen <Stephen.Semenick@BNSF.com> Cc: Hellman, Johan <Johan.Hellman@BNSF.com> Subject: RE: Street Vacation *** This email includes an ATTACHMENT from outside of BNSF and could contain malicious links. Ensure email is from a trusted sender before opening the attachment. Never enter your login credentials if prompted. Click the Email Alert button on the Outlook toolbar to send SPAM email to Security. EXTERNAL EMAIL Attached are the application materials for review by BNSF. From: Hellman, Johan <.Iohan.Hellman(@BNSF com> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 10:36 AM To: Connor Lange <clange(@spokanevalleyorg>; Semenick, Stephen <Stenhen.Semenick(@BNSF com> Subject: Re: Street Vacation Hey Connor. Apologies, looping in Steve on this one. Thanks, Johan On Oct 15, 2020, at 9:57 AM, Connor Lange <clanee(EDsookanevallev.orp wrote: EXTERNAL EMAIL From: Hellman, Johan <lohan Hellman@BNSF.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 11:12 AM To: Connor Lange <clanee(@sookanevaIlev.org> Subject: Street Vacation Thank you, Connor. I am looping in my colleague Steve Semenick from BNSF's Public Projects team. Be well, Johan Johan Hellman I Executive Director of Public AffairsL:- To: Johan Hellman From: Connor Lange Email: clange(@sool<anevallev.org Message: Hello Johan, I am reaching out to you from the City of Spokane Valley because there is a proposed street vacation application immediately adjacent to the BNSF railroad and wanted to ensure there are no concerns from the railroad regarding the project. If you could send me an email I could provide you with the application materials. We physically mailed them to the main office in Fort Worth but I figured I would try to reach someone directly who deals with the pacific northwest. The location is Bessie Road and Montgomery Avenue, just north of Mansfield Avenue. Thankyou Connor Lange, Planner, City of Spokane Valley CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. From: Polak, Chad M To: Connor Lana Subject: RE: STV-2020-0002 Agency Routing Date: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 10:02:16 AM Attachments: imaae001.ioa Hi Connor, Was looking at this one as well, with the vacation of the ROW does not appear to have any issue with the YPL pipeline as we are in the BNSF ROW at this location just to the north of the city ROW that is to be vacated. Let me know if there are any questions. Sincerely, Chad M. Polak Agent, Real Estate Services 0: (+1) 303.376.4363 1 M: (+1) 720.245.4683 3960 East 56th Avenue I Commerce City, CO 80022 Phillips 66 From: Connor Lange <clange@spokanevalley.org> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 5:39 PM To: Chad Riggs <criggs@spokanevalley.org>; Traci Harvey <harveyt@spokanevalleyfire.com>; Chris Johnston<crjohnston@spokanesheriff.org>; CDEPNER@spokanecounty.org; CKnudson@spokanecounty.org; Bruner, Jennifer S. <JBRUNER@SpokaneCounty.org>; Megan Bickley <MBickley@SpokaneCounty.org>; Grepp@spokanecounty.org; Spokane Regional Health District <psavage@srhd.org>; Spokane County Water District #3 <scwd3@comcast.net>; figgg@wsdot.wa.gov; Spokane Transit Authority<kotterstrom@spokanetransit.com>; Hanson, Sydney (DAHP) <Sydney.Hanson @dahp.wa.gov>; dave.byus@avistacorp.com; Karen. Stoddard (karen.stoddard@centurylink.com) <karen.stoddard@centurylink.com>; Comcast <bryan_richardson@cable.comcast.com>; Polak, Chad M <Chad.M.Polak@p66.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL]STV-2020-0002 Agency Routing Hello all, Attached is the formal Agency Routing for the street vacation of a portion of Bessie Road and Montgomery Avenue, comments are due back by October 12, 2020. Please let me know if you have any questions. Connor Lange I Planner 10210 E. Sprague Avenue I Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 720-5332 1 clanE�e@sookanevallev.org I This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act. chapter 42.56 RCW. CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. From: Justin Van Dyke To: ConnorLanoe Subject: RE: STV-2020-0002_13essie and Montgomery Street Vacation Date: Thursday, October 15, 2020 9:49:07 AM Attachments: image002.ona imaoe003.ioa Yes that works great for us. Thanks for the update and the condition of approval on your part. Outlook Signature_NEW 0' From: Connor Lange[mailto:clange@spokanevalley.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 3:26 PM To: Justin Van Dyke <jvandyke@scwd3.org> Subject: STV-2020-0002_Bessie and Montgomery Street Vacation Hello Justin, I am reaching out to you for clarification regarding some comments you made on June 16th, 2020 during the initial proposal to Whipple Consulting Engineers regarding the street vacation. You indicated that the street vacation may hinder development of Lots 3-6 because they will no longer have access to the main in the street. However, as a condition of approval the City is going to require Lots 3-6 (all owned by Montgomery Apartments LLC) be consolidated and the access and water would be brought through the existing right-of-way east of the proposed vacation (see attached). Would this consolidation alleviate those concerns you posed in your original comments? Thanks! Connor Lange I Planner 10210 E. Sprague Avenue I Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 720-5332 1 clanrre@sool<anevallev.org M This email and any attachments may be subject to disclosure pursuant to Washington State's Public Record Act. chapter 42.56 RCW. CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. October 12, 2020 Connor Lange City of Spokane Valley 10210 E. Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 2120 N. Wilbur Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 928-1700 Main (509) 892-412S Fax spokanevalleyfire.com RE: STV-2020-0002 Technical Review Street Vacation of Montgomery Avenue and Bessie Road between Vista Road/Sargent Road/Mansfield Avenue The Spokane Valley Fire Department has completed a review for the above referenced project and takes no exception to the "Street Vacation" as proposed. All specific fire department requirements shall be conditioned on future associated platting action or commercial permits. If there are any questions please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, eJ>�CCC'C el/�CII'C�C'� i Traci Harvey Fire Protection Engineer Spokane Valley Fire Department Community & Public Works Department Spokane Valley 10210 E Sprague Avenue ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 ,,,;oo* Phone: (509) 720-5000 ♦ Fax: (509) 720-5075 ♦ www.spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Connor Lange, Planner From: Chad Riggs, Senior Engineer Date: October 1, 2020 Re: STV-2020-0002: Montgomery Ave and Bessie Rd Street Vacation Recommended Conditions of Approval Development Engineering requires the following items to be addressed prior to street vacation finalization: General 1) The existing curb return at the northeast corner of Bessie Road and Mansfield Avenue shall be removed and Type `A' curb shall be installed along Mansfield Avenue across the vacated portion of Bessie Road per Standard Plan R-102. 2) The existing drywell at the northeast corner of Bessie Road and Mansfield Avenue shall be removed and replaced with a new Type `A' drywell approximately 7' to the south at the new curb line along Mansfield Avenue per Std. Plan S-102. A Type 1 (bypass) metal grate shall be installed with the drywell per Std. Plan S-121. 3) Construction within the public right-of-way shall be performed under the direct supervision of a licensed Washington State Professional Engineer and in accordance to the Spokane Valley Street Standards. All work is subject to inspection by the City of Spokane Valley Development Engineering Construction Inspector. 4) Upon completion of the improvements, a Construction Certification package per SVSS Chapter 9 shall be submitted and approved prior to recording of the Street Vacation Ordinance. 5) A Warrant Surety shall be provided for the public improvements per SVSS Chapter 9. Ljaze: TO: Connor Lange, Planner, Spokane Valley Building & Planning Division RE: Proposed Street Vacation (Montgomery Ave.) by Diamond Rock Financial LLC — STV-2020-0002 ! objecito the pnojused SLreet vacabun of &4ont8ome/yAve. by Diamond Rock Finaocia| LLC [ord)e following reasons: O�nernznoe�LLL Owner address: Owner signature: y Date: � \�A TO: Connor Lange, Planner, Spokane Valley Building & Planning Divis Project ) " RECEIVED OCT 21 2020 COSY PERMIT CENTER UB#[ REV.#� RE: Proposed Street Vacation (Montgomery Ave.) by Diamond Rock Financial LLC— STV-2020-0002 i object to the proposed street vacation of Montgomery Ave. by Diarnualid Rock Financial LLC. for the following reasons: 7� �� '1 �'lpu (V1kL f- p� U-C C, Ccv%'-4�� Lk CowtOL4 G�' `��V�. `►� ��i�:.� rS�V��\`��� �,�;,� �"`�.� C: � ids ��b�y�� ���'� l �� . i Ole U,o\,%AA Ao (\;A�, t, utAw— uv0, SA ali ; VY v�Y Weld �U �`� )tJ j 1 -1wner name: Owner address: Owner signature: (>-4 "I'll 0 3 t,g alvoLLcU l Eat ��, V - �7 it'A av\\� si-� �)"I-k OW�L/ a- c J\W &Vkir' cocle- L Date: TO: Connor Lange, Planner, Spokane Valley Building & Planning Division RE: Proposed Street Vacation (Montgomery Ave.) by Diamond Rock Fin Project;j�l/ p� C% 21 : a! C `��l _r�"E TLJ I object to the proposed street vacation of Montgomery Ave. by Diamond Rock Financial LLC for the following reasons: If this street vacation is allowed, the future development of the adjacent properties owned by Diamond Rock Financial LLC and Montgomery Apartments would violate Housing Policy 6 of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Spokane Valley. Housing Policy 6 is to preserve and enhance the city's established single-family neighborhoods by minimizing the impact of more dense housing typologies. Diamond Rock Financial LLC has also applied to sub divide their property into 4 lots. Three additional houses on a % acre lot and the apartments that Montgomery Apartments would presumably build would definitely impact our single family neighborhood. Some of those impacts would be increased traffic, increased noise and loss of privacy to the adjacent properties. Owner name: 1�G�lCI� Y�LJ�C Owner address: 3CJ2_� E Owner signature: 0�� � i�tl/� /Vuy (Drop off written response to street vacation at: City Hall, Building & Planning Div/Connor Lange.-10210 E. Sprague) 1b11�IZy ! Date: fir- r,. ^:t . •,- TO: Connor Lange, Planner, Spokane Valley Building & Planning Division RE: Proposed Street Vacation (Montgomery Ave.) by Diamond Rock Financial LLC—STV-2020-0002 I object to dl-ie proposed street vacation of Montgomery Ave. by Diamond Rock Financial LLC fo( the following reasons: 1 I��crea.�c� Ti�G`E�~c ..4Jn."r name: Owner address: sMa) E Owner signature: F'i TO: Connor Lange, Planner, Spokane Valley Building & Planning Division: —r RE: Proposed Street Vacation (Montgomery Ave.) by Diamond Rock Financial LLC — STV-2020-0002 ti ajcC.L co Li -ie pro, jaOscU SLict'L VcicdliVil OT IVloiii.b''U rlirly r-i`vZ. uy DIdrIIOrid Rli%iC i`ifiditC.ldi LLc Itir ,c following reasons: Ouf- Covhmun�}�� tag\\ O�I�J �e vhPac{-ed ,/lec�q�iv�`�� wj 41 O.�l c�c�d���cs,1 0� (��Qc�mPn->- si�y�e coyv���es. I He ir�cfeaS�rJ ����c- alane �ose5 a,n YVIY Cl\NTef\, WI^0 CUCOMLJr Caf\ �,�qy QUF31'je AA ;ncree.J-e ►A t�eonS o.h i&cfecoc m,,ve;. fineo 5 �n ?ro? r y Cr\Mej wn1 1 e,C hoc,sin9 1AoMe U glees Qlease KeeP i5 C s S1�e� Co�vY,v�;�y `�jU�e4-1 1c�w-�c� `;� , L'AN V\Cfea51n5 �IbgAe va tse5. �o ��fi set\ J �ti�ow the tt se. c�� �M.c���-gor>1er� avenue �y l7iar�c�nc� '�oc�C -Iz)vnGncic\l LLC. Owner address: �j%o21 C ✓� o(�s�i e� U \J �n ue, SnUK.cA� �f G�leTr�I 1� I �� � Owner signature: Projec+ OCT 2 TO: Connor Lange, Planner, Spokane Valley Building & Planning Divisio`HJ RE: Proposed Street Vacation (Montgomery Ave.) by Diamond Rock Financial LLC — STV-2020-00027 —1 i object to the proposed street vacation of Montgomery Ave. by Diamond Rock Financial LLC for the following reasons: �� "—Q— �o Owner ;panne: Owner address: Owner signature: ZI Date: -`� —,mil ��� C� Fl Gject it, , EWE) `� I r �;. TO: Connor Lange, Planner, Spokane Valley Building & Planning Division 'C 3 2 �I, �0 RE: Proposed Street Vacation (Montgomery Ave.) by Diamond Rock Financial LLC—iSTV-2020-0.002 " I L Ei NITER I _ rcV, it a I object to the proposed street vacation of Montgomery Ave. by Diamond Rock Financial LLC for the following reasons: -rivL 'r� Gk �. j/ �+ .5 •. a �- � �a �..��`�-dam � ����s �a �.�- � � L• l�C�s D 1 ��.tr'l �..•>v� � �/, � �, S4:� C 87 �i ire%�.��� 3 � ^ �-• `-1'VU 40 1 I r~i / l�L�'/- � l o'_ (�u"wk �'I'LC c � �, � ~f [� (p fl_(�L !� t`�1�._C_,h g'"� � .,`L• � r' � L', � i 4'Y-��� T ��� •� ire icC�4 Er Y t"Lict 0) a-k. ,5 a :) `f'L i.�<..� i 4'�J`...•,� . lam' � '' f xt(- 0.Jbr r L r71" � ,r-.'fit &a Ca,5 Owner name: Owner address: Owner signature: (Drop off written response to street vacation at: City Hall, Building & Planning Div/Connor Lange.-10210 E. Sprague) IN ,� l/ I VJ N'V I L 1 �� l Date: t..r_ TO: Connor Lange, Planner, Spokane Valley Building & Planning Division - ------- RE: Proposed Street Vacation (Montgomery Ave.) by Diamond Rock Financial LLC — STV-2020-0002 i object to t ,e proposed street vacation of Montgomery Ave. by Diamond Rock Financial LLC for the following reasons: obs\� E �e�\,�. R\ SCE �o��, k c�r\���s�� a��c�,� W �,(.� �- � �'\avv \�'\.c��.`�- Chi �a�'� `�" ,--- 1� (2A�'ir d Cl' y5zI t-1:;` W�ti1Si2lU CAL r l S i�� '`vi��\-C?�'S �.�L3w� �.e. 'CE✓s�VE'1�\�S , 1�, `� ���� ci. e��-\�a� rM A-. Z d- Nlds Owner name: Owner address: Owner signature: JateC�'�(1vZ/ ��. .�(of�J I C:� 3 2 S 12''20 NITER TO: Connor Lange, Planner, Spokane Valle Building & Planning Division' g p V g g .r..wr._._.._._ ...- RE: Proposed Street Vacation (Montgomery Ave.) by Diamond Rock Financial LLC—STV-2020-0002 i object to the proposed street vacation of Montgomery Ave. by Diamond Rock Financial LLC for the following reasons: L V r i �J ,7t� �Py�� n • Log) �=v Iv'.'vii'.�..r iia �lle: Dcule \ —rw."!1 ✓J�lr/V Lill Owner address: Owner signature: __�%1/1� %%�lf✓.�/ 1 CJnC! W i_"EI ED TO: Connor Lange, Planner, Spokane Valley Building & Planning Divisiom JLR3� s 'J.E RE: Proposed Street Vacation (Montgomery Ave.) by Diamond Rock Financial LLC— STV-2020-0002 1 Ui; ttL LU iit iU''US2U S;Iife VaLdLlUi�i Gi iV�oll� U ller r'iV�. (i`� Dldi�i�fUllU iiOCi<i`iliail[.ldi i_LC. IUi,�Liic 1- N N 5 1' > following reasons: 7k � i�Glu�-0.�2 1 'VA Cv i Vvt.P � vom�v O`.vfiar ilunie: Owner address: Owner signature: Z Date: CSC+. TO: Connor Lange, Planner, Spokane Valley Building & Planning Division C1 2 12 RE: Proposed Street Vacation (Montgomery Ave.) by Diamond Rock Fina7%, LLC-._STV-2020-00(ZCiTEr'� I object to the proposed street vacation of Montgomery Ave. by Diamond Rock Financial LLC for the following reasons: �r )re-aS C' ct T r�' c L. I C'v�l t C, CU 1/L�S_. f-t L-C Lv v Owner name Owner address: Owner signature: 4--- box P-5il-CLC 04- v,� Ile .,k. �-(d(«A i;_QV" -A�--_. ,Z (Drop off written response to street vacation at: City Hall, Building & Planning Div/Connor Lange.- 10210 E. Sprague) 0 - 1021t. 2 - 6 / TO: Connor Lange, Planner, Spokane Valley Building & Planning Division ProjeCt C-')-3V PEFIRM.,'IT CENTER 1-1 1 r- SUB 3µ R E: \1 RE: Proposed Street Vacation (Montgomery Ave.) by Diamond Rock Financial LLC — STV-2020-0002 t,y DianRFinancial C objC---ciL- :L,u tiie proposed Street vacc-Ation of tvkoriLguon-H21-�, Ave. W L-1 Inond I X ock N I Inancial Ll foi t1he following reasons: 4-eerzw -S e 0'wl - ler name Owner address: Owner signature: 7,?, W" '�� Project ;.5LU_Z&ZZ)- te: l%G�' - / .6-L<� -- 0�C9 21 1 Datl CCSV I"E MIT CENTER TO: Connor Lange, Planner, Spokane Valley Building & Planning Division SUS #= FED ij u RE: Proposed Street Vacation (Montgomery Ave.) by Diamond Rock Financial LLC — STV-2020-0002 I object to the proposed street vacation of Montgomery Ave. by Diamond Rock Financial LLC for the following reasons: ��t � -� ��y,�h��� ✓��j, J���� z���� �,� Owner name: Owner address: Owner signature Project Li L T1^ 2 Er`�T0: Connor Lange, Planner, Spokane Valley Building & Planning DivisionJ �'�V. ;# (—"—; RE: Proposed Street Vacation (Montgomery Ave.) by Diamond Rock Financial LLC—STV-2020-0002 ---_� i Ej ect to the proposed street vacation of Montgomery;;ve. by Diamond Rock Financial LLC for the following reasons: iC hC"tJ 1 i - � � Ir�'1'r/� (,� ��i�"11"'l�✓l� [G%^n��-(� C7�,�rCi.it�l� `(��( tj �j�1• n�/ �.��([_ Vk-A I �/tC'✓L'Cj�t� _'J 1 t A I f 71NL U�'t V� C► {� 4,k.a1 WE �)Gkvt- 1;.�".n� '►�-erg -�-�- uv'�� l5 PC VIj i ct t Z�1 �V►GtrZ �(7� 1.�55 ��� ' ()'\ Owner name: Owner address: Owner signature: it A V �\rG1 LL' I r Oject ;-.'_ r:iate: �� L� Z� OCT 21 2020 COW PERNINIT CENTER ISUB#= REV. TCj TO: Connor Lange, Planner, Spokane Valley Building & Planning Division RE: Proposed Street Vacation (Montgomery Ave.) by Diamond Rock Financial LLC — STV-2020-0002 i object to the proposed street vacation of Montgomery Ave. by Diamond Rock Financial LLC for the following reasons: i_+RIAff ic- CW-)LI T iUNI� �Uv��u�;.m �� a� i ►� Pr�cT Owner name: Owner address: MIalL-Is) Owner signature: �( '1 Z Date:G� Q T 21 �2o20 CQ 'V PC,RkjIT CENTER SU" TO: Connor Lange, Planner, Spokane Valley Building & Planning Division —� RE: Proposed Street Vacation (Montgomery Ave.) by Diamond Rock Financial LLC— STV-2020-0002 I object to the proposed street vacation of Montgomery Ave. by Diamond Rock Financial LLC for the following reasons: o L U n ,p'- Owner name Owner address: Owner signature: Vie \+�JOrV,00� ?�\(\ Jk ok yy�a" Y-\ Project,;ss—' — Date: �� ' 5 ?��� (('�� `Cl,! 21 2,0. l�si+;�i i CrEN tTLrR �..� t , _V 1=�1 TO: Connor Lange, Planner, Spokane Valley Building & Planning Division --- RE: Proposed Street Vacation (Montgomery Ave.) by Diamond Rock Financial LLC— STV-2020-0002 I v Jjeu to vile proposed s�i cet vacation of Montgomery rive. uy Diamond Rock F inanciai LLC for the following reasons: r- J 15 fyz Y1 ar'-) I G W Cv Z �n �( C,,, ;�� � n� --fir-�--�� I � -�-►� z.�, 7 �^, —�l�s� Laa / pas Clwner nann--: Owner address: Owner signature: P^cj--c` ' ZOzU-z RE CLIVED OCT 2 S 2020 COSY PERMIT CENTER REV # TO: Connor Lange, Planner, Spokane Valley Building & Planning Division - RE: Proposed Street Vacation (Montgomery Ave.) by Diamond Rock Financial LLC— STV-2020-0002 i object to the proposed street vacation of Montgomery Ave. by Diamond Pock Financial LLC for the following reasons: _ - ,�,`.� U�`� �i�E'_� (7.1 L''��� !`�.� 4�'�tG�.�Ut-��IC��� t•(J,�/ cb,�Jr ��� ��J'.- be. t vi J _q ./ f i a V VVIiCi IIuIIIC.ir t- Owner address: Owner signature: Date: ~ �,���7m [��1��pNI/l-CEENT�� _` TO: Connor Lange, Planner, Spokane Valley Building & Planning Division RE- Proposed Street Vacation (Montgomery Ave.) by Diamond Rock Financial LLC— STV-2020-0009 |object totheproposed street vacationofk4ont8omeryAwe. byDiamond RockFinanda|LLCforthe following reasons: Ai le Owner name: Owner address: Owner signature: ,*"'c__) ProjectRE`72020 rr��' s !'f 0 TO: Connor Lange, Planner, Spokane Valley Building & Planning Division - RE: Proposed Street Vacation (Montgomery Ave.) by Diamond Rock Financial LL C—STV-2020-0002 I obJcIi v 'ii io proposed street vacation of Montgomery Ave. by Diamond Rocif: inanclal LLC for the following reasons: boQ&'�'l w\1�o-U 15-c y W ('1 Y" L W1 ek �3 f'C_. ow s e G' �' C)�`c'C ( �. \� i "A , � �iLrC�S C OH i [ r L v1-or Owner name: Owner address Owner signature: Project Z R :: 1VED U l 13•0 ! ©CT 2 1 2020 CCSV PERMIT CENTER T0: Connor Lange, Planner, Spokane Valley Building &Planning RE: Proposed Street Vacation (Montgomery Ave.) by Diamond Rock Financial LLC— STV-2020-0002 obiC--ct lJ iie P-rOpo' Sic�l Si.re`et'Vai.aZlUn iil' iV�lOi'if�0iileryi=�Ve. by DialY-iond mock i nanclal LLC IGr tLhe following reasons: C4 cam. C,. �t" s xf'- ax - �'pc��,� cam-► % o-��.c�- ���iu�" �iu��. -��, C,� - -t� cLA44, Ors vier i-,anie: Owner address: c>UJ-\ `6 N\ '\\ \ G.) G'Ue, Owner signature: UJA AEG Project ��E�EQDN OCT 21 - 2020 Lati : CQSV PERMIT CENT" R sus C� EV m�— � TO: Connor Lange, Planner, Spokane Valley Building & Planning Division RE: Proposed Street Vacation (Montgomery Ave.) by Diamond Rock Financial LLC— STV-2020-0002 i object to t1he proposed street vacation of Montgomery Ave. by Diamond Rock Financial LLB for the following reasons: Owner nanie: Owner address: Owner signature: Z -1Z -2o2e) Project �L5 / z0 ®, 3 21 2020 CO V PERMIT CENTER SUB 4 RSV. T TO: Connor Lange, Planner, Spokane Valley Building & Plan ningb[visforr---- RE: Proposed Street Vacation (Montgomery Ave.) by Diamond Rock Financial LLC— STV-2020-0002 Z I object to the proposed street vacation of Iviontgomery Ave. by Diamond Rock Financial LLC for the following reasons: n )� P T ► 1 �J � �c l c) A Owner name: Owner address: Owner signature: / Project RACE' i/E OCT 21 2020 CQSV PERMIT CENTER U B # REV. # [_] TO: Connor Lange, Planner, Spokane Valley Building & Planning Uv.isio. RE: Proposed Street Vacation (Montgomery Ave.) by Diamond Rock Financial LLC—STV-2020-0002 i i bjecl o the pi-o used street Vacation. --I' vloilctgoliiery Ave. by vl- —Iond xrJCk Flnariclai 1 1 C ror Lhe following reasons: W1 L vy� -p- a"j' V` IS �c. , tJe ire ��f ►'�cn� �`►S G � Ode y U � e ���� � CA rU� S, �i S �IJUv�� G ��} �t�w��/ �dm-e �%� ��S �✓ c-t( O U s � 1�� ire `{�� c vn Owner address: Owner signature: �oq�' e_ SSA Date: Project i"��-✓- ��i� Iz TO: Connor Lange, Planner, Spokane Valley Building & Planning Division RE: Proposed Street Vacation (Montgomery Ave.) by Diamond Rock Financ OCT 21 2020 COSV PERMIT CENTER I object to the proposed street vacation of Montgomery Ave. by Diamond Rock Financial LLC for the following reasons: /VC T O/t/L K /11(C/_eA5CD c:Lu76ANT- uT TR }AYc-iCI Tqg 1'1-)-/ 4R©R,D /q ccrss �© III,-e qks . WJ:7 A,9 (/--- IVO P14,5 5 Rt'/�D S a& C, p R / 5r�iili � / /V f//-1WZ;. —G / ZUitl /IV C7 4j I&MiM4-5- of Y�g PD V- 0.4v G(/C qGSO bUOkkLJ �04-Li /�/�R fPvZ(, i/i/_.4�En 4 R,l4— NO 7- ( O;01&0 7O � Y� /(r/�i(!T/O/!l �:�pe� � y /JO Dr— TAL Ot /1/10 --AQ41<�7G% [c//Tf/ G.� 7-�iV � �g� 5- raw �;rii GZ 7-l-,,115 x/TS �� 7 .� 7 Owner name Owner address: Owner signature: Ax��- q- z (Drop off written response to street vacation at: City Hall, Building & Planning Div/Connor Lange.- 10210 E. Sprague) La L�)— I 1�2 — 2 L) 2-0 P t-iCjyRL-1§011211-11-1Zat 1 '�.i 21 2023 COSY PERMIT CENTER SUB 44 pC IZCV y`� TO: Connor Lange, Planner, Spokane Valley Building &Planning Divis Qn---------.-__._..-__`_ RE: Proposed Street Vacation (Montgomery Ave.) by Diamond Rock Financial LLC- STV-2020-0002 I object to 'Che proposed street vacation of Montgomery Ave. by Diamond Rock Financial LLC for the following reasons: This vacation would infringe on the surrounding homes by decreasing privacy, decreasing property values, increasing traffic which decreases safety to our families in our family neighborhood. This is a single family established neighborhood, The proposed development would violate housing policy 6. So frustrating that diamond rock is proposing this plan for their gain and knowingly violating this policy. r �. Owner na ne: Owner address: Owner signature: Date: / 0 /C), 0 AL OC t- 0 TO: Connor Lange, Planner, Spokane Valley Building & Planning Division RE: Proposed Street Vacation (Montgomery Ave.) by Diamond Rock Financial LLC — STV-2020-0002 I object to the proposed street vacation of Montgomery Ave. by Diamond Rock Financial LLC for the following reasons: L o k) �l s-j- 8/2/ A,14i s 4 B e. E, IV 6 Tu S T C 07 ,�� o � � /�.2e/�1 No4rS€S. d , Lo,JL7CST6-25 S7 of �1 7,v,s /4erwzv/z, 1/7 6 rz. 2) /.r, IAJ s /4 t/ o z �4-b' s, ITi7" t; A/ /4,J Owner name: Owner address: _ �� ���}�� icl/Itc, L.n f`7' (�� SV, 4A, Owner signature: �V (Drop off written response to street vacation at: City Hall, Building & Planning Div/Connor Lange.- 10210 E. Sprague) S V , UvA CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: October 22, 2020 Item: Check all that apply ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® study session ❑ pending legislation FILE NUMBER: CTA-2020-0005 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Study Session — Proposed Amendment to adopt South Barker Transportation Impact fees. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The City -initiated code text amendment will provide a new chapter 22.100 to Title 22 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) and provide minor modifications as applicable to various other Titles of the SVMC, including Title 17 and Title 22 SVMC, and the Spokane Valley Street Standards (SVSS), to provide for the collection of transportation impact fees in the South Barker Corridor. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b); RCW 82.02.050-.110; WAC 365-196-850. BACKGROUND: Title 22 SVMC regulates the design and development standards pursuant to RCW's 35A.11.020, 35A.14.140, 36.70A (Growth Management Act), and 58.17, WAC 365-195-800 through 365-195- 865, and the provisions of SMVC Titles 17 through 25. The proposed code text amendment will add a new Chapter 22.100 SVMC and applicable revisions to other effected sections of the SVMC and SUSS in order to impose and provide for collection of transportation impact fees pursuant to RCW 82.02.050 through 82.02.110. Transportation impact fees are fees specifically allowed to address impacts from new development, and they may be imposed on all development. Staff have identified the Barker Road Corridor as an area experiencing a significant amount of new development. This has and will lead to continued degradation of levels of service for traffic movement on Barker Road and on connecting streets throughout the corridor. The City has taken action with regard to impacts along the northern section of Barker Road (from Mission to Trent), and has adopted the "Northeast Industrial Area Planned Action Ordinance," ("NIA-PAO") set forth in chapter 21.60 SVMC. While technically a SEPA process, the NIA-PAO provides a streamlined land use permit review process that includes traffic mitigation fees in a very similar manner to impact fees. As part of the NIA- PAO, qualifying projects pay a traffic mitigation fee of $2,831. This fee is in lieu of providing detailed lengthy individualized traffic analysis, so it provides certainty to developers and eliminates significant project review time. In 2019, staff contracted with a transportation engineering and planning firm, Fehr & Peers, to complete a comprehensive traffic study for the South Barker Corridor. Through this study, the City has identified various improvements needed to accommodate new development and the anticipated fair -share costs per trip for new development. Staff shared this study with City Council on February 18, 2020. City Council supported the study and requested staff to pursue fee collection in the South Barker Corridor area. At the study session, staff will discuss the proposed code changes, including the proposed impact fee schedule to be applied towards new development in the designated Barker Road corridor area. The discussion will also include a comparison of the proposed transportation impact fee schedule with other adopted impact fees from the NIA-PAO and agencies in the region and across the state. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action recommended at this time. The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing and consider the proposed code text amendment on November 5, 2020. STAFF CONTACT: John Hohman — Deputy City Manager RPCA Study Session CTA-2020-0005 — Impact Fees Page I of 2 Bill Helbig — City Engineer Erik Lamb — Deputy City Attorney Jerremy Clark — Sr. Traffic Engineer ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study Exhibit A: Draft 22.110 SVMC Exhibit B: Draft 17.110.010 & 22.10.010 SMVC Exhibit C: Draft SVSS Chapter 3 — Traffic Analysis RPCA Study Session CTA-2020-0005 — Impact Fees Page 2 of 2 0' O '- O 4 � c 0 L w Q w O N Q cv 4- U . _ U U U o � � L .� o . N • — 4) �, � U 0 = o .o a 1 C: ,�e O p - cn Q LO m E 4- J U �J l-- 0 D 4 � c/') 0 n V) ro L w w w ••-- _ � N 44 ` O in i-I Z w > N ce n Glcu a1„i�' • m ti CL in J `t ( '• �- � to O 4J �\ (u O cn � N 4-J ru .� Q O Q r (/) ateJ Q _ Q > 4— ^ Q a--� p Q m ru V p Q. o- c� '0 � .� � � E Q v N Q >' U U U U -0 cn O F E ra 4_j U (n ra �O •� � � C� a; ELj c ru L_ W �O ■ Q. ■ ■ ■ ■ O � cn m U) cn U■ ■ ■ N L Q� FhH U) (I) O W 4- A _0 a) .� 0-0- (1) V V f6 O 0 o ru 0)0- +� O ■ .. _-- L-- - - - - - �- 1 &' r4 /, 1V T W 4-1 r1 E -I--� • L O � .O j > Q Q� LLn Q) Q� a1 a Q0 E fu o- 4-, -J Q L f a� N u C cu ru O O 4-1 W Ln �>•� ru .— V O O, E u Q. ,O (n V .0 J CL ■ ----------- - - - - -- ,U) ^0 4-J i E 4-j 0-0- u O Q .� a) �-0 1- O C V fu O O O O ■ M O -IJ -IJ E J V) V) (1) V 0 CL LJ V) fu W - _ro O a u Q a� E i O U U � U EE c ru N �-- .0 ■ (n 01-IN cn O O 0) V U E ( X u W � O .�-� O 0-4— -- D M L U U O U O � L- O cn O I E �O U Q Ln O U � pl v) 0 N i y_ N U o Q �' V v U L M p Co O .� ro (D •� � a) _ .� �I— O 1 - +� : , C -r- E ra -a U E •�, � V m ' � Q U a 1 40 Et f V fu ca. E 4-J ru 4D ie a cu —J N J6ei.Rd P ML co 0 .Is OJV N 0 H IlaG N C) LU CO flB Rd 7 N MOO PH UeAllInc w 4-j c fu u _0 > CL N <[ U- -0 4-) 0 -J 4u 0 4-j fu -0 fu ca- fu E 4-J 0 0 n. E 0 (U u N r) L 4L-j- 0 U E .(n 0 C: 0 4-J ru M 4-) ru ro CL c ro 4-) L- u 0 :3 -�-j 0 -C — — C: 0 ca. U 4-J -0 fu < 0 c V) E Q) ". D C: 0 6) W� m -0 J- 4-J M fV :C-; Q) E0 fU 4-J L 40 ro r"% ru rt3 oC 0 c6 _0 0 V) C: 0 -r- L- -0 ru c)-.-, 4.-J -Fu Ln E >1 Ln — E -u fu u .O E u U 4- u 4-) 0 r fu Z) =3 4-) ru J > C: fu 0 a) • V)4- _(1) 0 0 0) Lo ,b�(. � fie• � ._' 1�..+ t _ � • ' �,I � '�� ♦ -'RYA{�,�-^�' L.� 4 - 1"M•� �' "i'l 97 - n _ wa lt�- q•l ` t ;-� .i�'S -ip� ��C'C��x-� -� yam^ 'l +� KK�y-'sue -'-� ± • .. t � � ram• -Try �-W. ls r: S.-�. JJ ��.�� � \t ��J 1�'i lT��Li'___ . :.�.RY ��' i�• , �.'.- -_�.. . _ � ~� YI y�1 li _�9 r� - � i � F .7•k("� �=yy(� �,r •.3.,ti ♦� � r. .�� � �rr�V'l�,���'{7�: E' 'iEM � - Mou '�': ��.jy,,O, �^�• •4��e t. �'��s�t�. *' 1" � _ ,R� ',y�iii�d;ies �y� r: �y �w4t� i .ss wpm {y � irJ�ii a• � �s7� ^�+�(��'+. -1. Cd4f"'L Li _� jWy(h�!• 4 -� 4- lia.':w .1»....a ! '� ry c� 7y4rup zft a" far O V 0 _ N f6 = C C T--i c O c O C) i--i OO p = O bq- o N C a 1 o Ln :3 Lru ip cn I I LL �� O n a ; � � � r^ (n o N C "a N U? ru _0 m 'O ^ CD > o m Q o C 169- VJ 4--J � j a� N a� � a, ca � I (� cn cn N 4-1a) aJ -0 0 Q -0 Q _'O �om JQ JaiL o Q c O Q �E ', aQ � a� U U c ca o o ca v M 0 ^rf rl ::D O aJ � Q _ � � V"' L i Cn N o n n m m Q) o>> mJ (� E .u) L a) L a) J � Q _l a Q V E � M ro ■ H H ■ (.n Q ■ d' CO 0— � � A \ O V/ V/ LL H ■ ■ I� tD _ S —C—�J G��,� S Henrys w - 5 N Joel Rd D L--r-- i _ Lis 31e N PN IIaB N ui _ L J ' Y j N Moore. Rd Cfl I y .,PH uenjjn V) 4-J U N UcN4 --) t Q E u O (1 _O Q) _0 O N C: V o rn Q O v j Q E ru O O -F-' . Q) Ln Lnn E O O U Q) u L 4- J Q) � p o -I--� Q) O f 6 cn \ rn v > U Q� -a c N 0)� u 0 U_ � `O -� o� U �t L O V U (M (, M i ,--1 o 4-1■ .L L Q) z O O 0) r-I ■ ■ ■ U cn i N 4 w 0 Q Ul) Lo a) O .-, u- U 4-J m O Ln Q _0 _O a VO r 4 Q) 0- r6 U -0 ra ` W � a U o U — O > 0 U0 � Cn 0 (U O ry U L Q) 5 cn .. .. f- o .V) u U N ru �- n) L ro 0-Q L H E V -a �. E z O U E 0 U) H ■ An n dJ U U) W U- Lo ro iF- Ln ra cn w m LL Q. O Q � C 0 rn r< ri ,-i ,--i U) 73 a - NO L 4-J D :Y C) rl 0 0 N N Ll i4 ntke :4 I j W aA cB ru �7 t L 0 z u 0 0 o ro C� �O O v . ^ O , JJ ■ u U ro ru Cn Q Cn ru ru z `0 0 U0c .. 4-J 0)V) Q) �Ln _¢ V i ru � � Cl CL O U D o -� V biO i p < tea. —J _ 0 O ® lid m (, ® I(I m des. V) 0 m D _U f6 N N LL V) c- Q) o Q w U O O O O O O Ln Ln rZ, m ,--1 N O O O O Am `0' r) 0 — ^ 1 r2. c c J 3 m m C G xV- v r x x a E4f zv .0 x x w v v o a a Q Q a Q Q Q Q a a Q o a a a Q `o `o `o `o `o `v `o ` n a a n n n n a v`o n n n n a v n n a w n n n n 01 1� N N h O N I- b W 00 Q m N � ' � 0 0 Lq 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 00 n 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o o o o O O o o o 0 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 S L n 'm a c � w 3 m o > o ? 7 v F c O E s m l Q N oa w u n o E E o v c o m c j V1 n m ti Gl > ' m O o O N N O N O N N r-1 f�'1 Ol Q O1 N N N V1 N N Q1 Ol O1 C « C UI u > > m � � _ ~ - K C 4� Cl W Q F 4-J Q- C f6 °- n a W uH -0 a U) Q rl M N (p CO C) a--' Efl O ■ 0 ■ n z 0 a 0 L— E O U Q) T fu ce W Q) U— U E 1- - W m tll Q I� Q l0 l0 1� O M M m O Q H N � oHo � n � � H to to o In m In In as ao w N tt> O Ol T T t0 m O M 1p N 41 W 00 Q m lD tD � IO O N N O Ill u1 O T lOD INA VN1 N n N eO-I N n N Q {D t0 IV O O O H IV f� to ID M Q N Il> N N N N N N N N N N m !� Q m Q ma! Ill IO Ul Q w Q Ill Ot I� !D tD Q Q Op n Vl N W N t0 m H N O Q N lD N N 0 0 O N N N Q H Q N N N H N m N N I H O N N N H Q H N N N N n N b IT In N Vl tll lD M m M N N b �l O lD m Ill H Ill < Ol m tO Ml Q Q OO 1p H N 1l1 H O N O m W H M 0 0 0 N l0 N O I -I V O O O H N • In N N N N H N M O O N N vl Ill Ol Q pl M N N Vl � � Q"tp O 00N 40 Q 6 O 0 0 Ill N 4 d C) a, N N m Q O N N H H O 1l 00 n H Hi N Vl DJ O H Vl Ill Ol N m O Ill Q M M m o Ol t0 Ol Ol H Ol O t0 m N t� n O I� H N O H N 1� N r ID w H Q O O H ai O O N rl N N N N N IA O M N ul Q Ol m lD M O 1� N Ol N � M ul Ol O tp O Ci Ci O O 0 0 O 0 0 I-1 0 0 O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N •C C J J C_ C_ 3 3 E x x 0 x x x x x x E x x x x x O M H M 1� Q H M Q 00 n O 1� m O Vl N l0 O Ip N ^ N M H N W N n N N VHl N N N 1� O W N (O/L N 1� Lo N VQf N W op N O N N {iT Q Q T N VQl N L > a? m L t Z J O F 6 C v l > a 3 F u a U U LL E °' Y' `o ` m u c o v' m LLm $ a a In c LL a a E a J vl u« in x x m 2 Iu°. tJ ILiI 6 lOJ C7 2w O m - c ❑ - - .�/ /K//� 2 N a � a O Q LL N ._ o u U c coCL U m E .« p tLa � F- N N a lA 0 a N C Y CL a C C tLp E O E 11. n u o• @ u i o — a �L d N a li POW-Wa C a o a 3 ou o p l u E a z > aQ�C:•a ao z a° u m Q Vl w E Eo X . ° y u c 1A 0 a �f6 � U. o 7 ++ GC u U +-' •• �j L o E i�L C O L u � m L 42 o fu LA u fu 0 4-J V) w l r-d gv' ON Cna�, Rj Rd Pu, PH .WAS n I& I o vu 119 N ED sH.Y" un ic d N PH ­1 d S L PH PH li,4 PH r. ci PH 5.,o 5, P8.1--ds PH,d; wi Fd o Pb W - 0 fH r4_­.,A -4 VH-ION F�j N ,kc o CD _j m 173 Cd 000 t PH s South Barker Corridor 0 Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study, Prepared for: City of Spokane Valley, Washington September, 2020 SE20-0748 FEHRt PEERS Table of Contents Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1 StudyArea.......................................................................................................................................................................................1 Methodology................................................................................................................................. 3 ProjectList.......................................................................................................................................................................................4 TravelGrowth................................................................................................................................................................................5 CostAllocation..............................................................................................................................................................................7 Existing Transportation Deficiencies............................................................................................................................8 CommittedExternal Funding..........................................................................................................................................8 Fair -Share Cost.....................................................................................................................................................................8 ImpactFee Schedule................................................................................................................... 10 TripGeneration...........................................................................................................................................................................10 Pass -By Trip Adjustment.........................................................................................................................................................10 Scheduleof Rates.......................................................................................................................................................................10 Appendices Appendix A — Expanded Impact Fee Schedule Appendix B — South Barker Corridor Study List of Figures Figure 1: Transportation Analysis Zones Included South Barker Corridor Study Fair -Share Analysis...............2 Figure2. Impact Fee Methodology...............................................................................................................................................3 Figure3. Impact Fee Cost Allocation............................................................................................................................................7 List of Tables Table 1. South Barker Corridor Project List and Cost Estimates (cont. on next page)..............................................4 Table 2. Growth in Study Area PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips(2015-2040).....................................................................6 Table 3. Percent of 2040 Traffic on Barker Road Attributable to Study Area...............................................................8 Table 4. Cost Per PM Peak Hour Trip Calculations..................................................................................................................9 Table5. Impact Fee Schedule.......................................................................................................................................................11 Table6. Expanded Impact Fee Schedule..................................................................................................................................12 This page intentionally left blank. Introduction This report documents the methods, assumptions, and findings of a transportation impact fee (TIF) rate study for the South Barker Corridor in Spokane Valley. The need for a TIF is identified in the South Barker Corridor Study (Feb 2020), which documented the growth along the corridor, projected how that growth will degrade traffic operations along Barker Road, and identified several transportation capacity projects to support growth and ensure adequate level of service through the year 2040. That study identified the needed future improvements along the corridor, completed project cost estimates, and included a fair share cost analysis to separate project costs between growth in southeast Spokane Valley and growth from other parts of the region. This TIF rate study builds on the South Barker Corridor Study and identifies a Growth Management Act (GMA) compliant impact fee rate schedule per development unit. Using this rate schedule, developers in southeast Spokane Valley can quickly identify their fair share contribution toward new transportation projects, facilitating development and reducing the cost and complexity of traffic studies associated with project permitting and transportation concurrency requirements. Except as otherwise identified herein, the South Barker Corridor Study provides the basis for all TIF rates calculated in this rate study. As part of adoption of any TIF rates, both the South Barker Corridor Study and this TIF rate study will be adopted as supporting documents. Study Area The South Barker Corridor extends along Barker Road from Mission Avenue to the south city limits of Spokane Valley. The South Barker Corridor Study defined the impact fee area for the South Barker Corridor as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 shows the portions of Spokane Valley, Liberty Lake, and unincorporated Spokane County near the South Barker Corridor where development would have the greatest impact on traffic in the corridor. The area was defined in that study using a select zone analysis from the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) regional travel demand model to quantify the impact of the transportation analysis zones (TAZs) near the corridor. Combined, this area is expected to contribute between 45% and 52% of future traffic on South Barker Road (depending on the segment of Barker Road). It should be noted that the Northeast Industrial Area (north of the Spokane River) was excluded from the analysis as the City of Spokane Valley (COSV) is already utilizing a Planned Action Ordinance to assess SEPA mitigation fees for projects on Barker Road north of 1-90. The South Barker Corridor TIF rate provided in this study would apply to any new development in the Spokane Valley TAZs identified in the South Barker Corridor Study, which is the area shaded in pink on Figure 1. This includes the following TAZs: 325, 326, 327, 328, 334, 369, 388, 389, 391, and 392. This area will be referred to in this report as the South Barker Corridor TIF area. Based on the analysis provided in the South Barker Corridor Study, future development in the South Barker TIF area of Spokane Valley is expected to contribute between 18% and 26% of future traffic on the South Barker Corridor - depending on the segment of the corridor. Based on the select zone analysis, areas in Spokane Valley outside of this area generate less traffic on South Barker Road and do not need to pay an impact fee. P& 6 p�lVm �SeZ S \ � > f P21 uosuanalS N -2 ��� i = ci a w J2�OIN S O %_ NMaasQ S INrigldO p— PJenieH N mo l 0 N �f w p�� a Gcti S R r— Gay S Henry cO Sa\`ese J J ti a\`eSeLake Pa Ilagdwe0 N— w M 1p 5 5 w p M I — -- -- c N Joel Rd N N CD to `O � N M M M O M M u18uo,1: o. a IS 01V N m � M O PailaB N C) bOaaU d BJOIj. U I•-, 00 w M 1 /& N Moore Rd �.._.. I P enylnS S { m u c U) I T I swn�.. m _ w pLl g N N IN :— w _w ¢ Q w is uaaJ619n3 N w Y W N r Py sea S N Blake Rd W P2i aNel8 S I— — PleuoOo_yV N a / < I ,l^•;; gv — Pa sau!d N q P2i JaloJaq g t -- Ntt- ¢ Pa sau!d S S Linda Ln P?J Jngl!M S P8 sP -\ 2i Jngl!M N w Pa xod S P Nay /// \ r NJ 4s!pMog S GN P' %� E I`c Pii aoJa'd S o0 'Jl UJ: '0 e� P2i C S d l �_ i c MS ' 2 asIIIJS :QCAI L J@IJEN u L � ynJpooN O C L N Cl) N 1 + ) In > Q NQ C) �j M C J C 0. / rL ) / N (� ''o^ v0 0 , r V/ � 4e� a� CD LZ 3 a z Methodology The impact fee for the South Barker Corridor was developed to establish the fair share of transportation improvement costs that may be charged to new development in the area. Revised Code of Washington Section 82.02.050 authorizes cities planning under the GMA to impose Figure 2. Impact Fee impact fees for system improvements that are reasonably required to Methodology support and mitigate the impacts of new development. Fees may not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of improvements and cannot Projects and costs be used to fund existing deficiencies.South The following key points summarize the process for developing the impact fee structure (refer to Figure 2): • The South Barker Corridor Study identified a list of future projects and estimated costs along Barker Road that will be needed to support future growth through the year 2040. • The South Barker Corridor Study also accounted for any existing deficiency (intersections/roadway segments that do not meet current level of service standards) or committed outside funding sources by deducting the costs of those deficiencies/external funds from the total project cost. • The South Barker Corridor Study next assigned the fair share of each project to southeast Spokane Valley and nearby areas outside the City. • The forecast growth in PM peak hour vehicle trips in southeast Spokane Valley was estimated by converting the forecast land use growth in the SRTC regional travel demand model using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, loth Edition. • A cost per PM peak hour trip was calculated by dividing the fair share cost of each project by the growth in vehicle trips in southeast Spokane Valley. • Lastly, a land use -based fee schedule was developed using the cost per PM peak vehicle trip calculated above. Trip rates for multiple land use categories were estimated using vehicle trip generation rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 1011 Edition. Using the ITE Trip Generation Manual will provide consistency between a project trip generation letter or traffic impact study and the impact fee rate. The following sections describe in detail these elements that that are integral to the final impact fee schedule. South Barker Transpoi ration Impact Fee Rate Study September 2020 Project List The South Barker Corridor Study, completed in July 2019 and updated in February 2020, included an analysis of traffic demand through the year 2040 to identify potential traffic improvement projects on the segment of Barker Road between Mission Avenue and the south City limits of Spokane Valley. That study identified a total of eight projects that will be needed by 2040 along the corridor to accommodate future growth and maintain level of service standards. Those projects, and costs in 2020 dollars, are shown in Table 1. Three of the projects include improvements to the Barker Road/1-90 interchange that will primarily be the responsibility of the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT). At this time, there are no anticipated costs to the City of Spokane Valley (COSV) for these projects. Therefore, the five projects identified in the South Barker Corridor Study for which COSV would be responsible for funding total approximately $18.8 million in 2020 dollars (note: these costs have been updated from the cost estimates in the South Barker Corridor Study to account for construction cost inflation and/or more detailed estimates by COSV). Table 1. South Barker Corridor Project List and Cost Estimates (cont. on next page) Constructed in 2020 1-90 Eastbound Ramp/ Reconstruct intersection with single - Barker Road Interchange lane roundabout and two eastbound Horizon 2040 WSDOT N/A Interim Improvements approach lanes; realign east leg of Plan (#12) Broadway 1-90 Westbound Ramp/ Reconstruct intersection with single - Barker Road Interchange lane roundabout and two southbound Horizon 2040 WSDOT N/A Interim Improvements approach lanes; convert Barker/Boone Plan (#12) to right-in/right-out Near -Term (2021-2024) Sprague/Barker Reconstruct intersection with single- 2021-2026 Intersection lane roundabout TIP (#28) COSY $2,139,000 Improvements Mid- Term (2025-2030) Replace Barker Rd. Bridge, widen to 4- 1-90/Barker Road lanes from Boone Ave. to Broadway; Interchange Long -Term reconstruct both intersections to 2-lane Horizon 2040 WSDOT Not anticipated roundabout; reconstruct Barker/1-90 Plan (#12) at this time Improvements WB ramp intersection to six -leg roundabout with Boone Avenue Barker Road Improvement Project— Widen and improve to 5-lane urban 2021-2026 COSV $6,501,000 Appleway to 1-90 section; roundabout @Broadway TIP (#44) VAR Barker Road Widen and improve to 5-lane urban 2021-2026 Improvement Project— COSY $3,146,000 section TIP (#61) Mission to 1-90 Long -Term (2037-2040) Barker Road Reconstruct and widen north of Improvement Project — Sprague to 3-lane urban section, and 2019-2024 COSY $3,500,000 Appleway to South City south of Sprague to 2-lane urban TIP (#20) Limits section 4th Avenue/Barker & 8th Reconstruct 4th Ave. and 8th Ave. Avenue/Barker 2019-2024 intersections with single -lane COSV $3,500,000 Intersection TIP (#21) roundabouts Improvements TOTAL $18,786,000 Source: South Barker Corridor Study (February 2020). Costs were updates to 2020 dollars based on the COSV 2021-2026 TIP for all projects except Barker Road Improvement Project — Mission to 1-90. Cost for that project was updated using construction inflation rates. Note: Horizon 2040: SRTC Long Range Transportation Plan; TIP: City of Spokane Valley Transportation Improvement Plan. Travel Growth Determining the growth in travel demand caused by new development is a key requirement for a TIF program. In nearly every TIF program across Washington and the country, the total eligible costs of building new transportation capacity is divided by the total growth in trips to determine a cost per trip. All developments pay the same cost per trip, but larger developments that generate more trips pay a higher total fee than smaller developments. In this way, the cost to provide the new transportation infrastructure is fairly apportioned to new development. Moreover, in setting the boundary for the TIF, a select zone analysis was performed to validate that all the areas within the TIF area contributed a meaningful amount (at least one percent) of total traffic to Barker Road. The amount of traffic varies somewhat based on which segment of Barker Road is evaluated and which TAZ the project resides in, but in all cases each of the ten identified TAZs within the TIF area contribute at least 5% of the total COSV traffic along the corridor. For the South Barker Corridor TIF, the future growth in PM peak hour vehicle trips was estimated using the change in land use in the study area from the 2015 and 2040 SRTC regional travel demand model as well as trip rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 101h Edition. The SRTC travel demand model includes 11 land use categories: two residential and nine non-residential categories. For each land use in the SRTC model, an associated ITE trip rate was identified. Total PM peak hour vehicle trips within the study area were calculated by multiplying the PM peak hour trip rate identified by ITE by the forecast growth (from 2015 to 2040) in dwelling units, employees, or hotel rooms, depending on the land use. Table 2 summarizes the calculation. It should be noted that COSV directs developers to apply the trip South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study September 2020 calculation methodology based on the process detailed in Section 4.4 of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3,d Edition when estimating trip generation for developments. In some situations the best -fit curve would be used instead of average trips rates. That methodology is applicable at the development scale where developments of various sizes can impact trip rates. However, in this situation given growth forecast in the model will occur among developments of various sizes over a 25 year period, using average trip rates is more appropriate and was applied to forecast growth in trips in the Barker TIF area. Table 2. Growth in Study Area PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips (2015-2040) Single Family Dwelling Single -Family Detached Residential 917 Units 210 Housing 0.99 908 Multi -Family Dwelling Multifamily Housing Residential 1,070 Units 220 (Low -Rise) 0.56 599 Hotel/Motel 200 Rooms 310 Hotel 0.60 120 Agriculture, Forestry, Mining, Industrial, 0 Employees N/A N/A N/A 0 Manufacturing, Wholesale Retail Trade (Non - Central Business 280 Employees 820 Shopping Center 1.62 454 District) Services and Offices 654 Employees 710 General Office Building 0.40 262 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 62 Employees 710 General Office Building 0.40 25 Services (FIRES) Medical 503 Employees 630 Clinic 0.85 428 Retail Trade (CBD) 0 Employees N/A N/A N/A 0 Education Employees 35 Employees 520 Elementary School 1.78 62 University Employees 0 Employees N/A N/A 0.40 0 Total Growth in PM Peak Hour Trips 2,8572 1. ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10`h Edition; average trip rate of adjacent street traffic 4-6 PM was used for all land uses given growth will occur among developments of various sizes. 2. Estimated growth in trips differ from the findings in the South Barker Corridor Study because estimates in this study are based on the ITE trip generation rates as opposed to trip growth outputs of the SRTC regional travel demand model. Using this methodology, it is forecast that the South Barker Corridor TIF area would generate about 2,857 new PM peak hour vehicle trips by 2040. This total PM peak hour vehicle trip growth will be used in the V1 calculation of TIF rate. Note: the trip growth by 2040 differs from the trip growth estimated in the South Barker Corridor Study as the estimate in this report is based on ITE trip rates derived from forecast land use growth, while for the South Barker Corridor Study trip generation was pulled directly from the SRTC regional travel demand model. ITE Trip rates were used to develop the TIF rate in accordance with development requirements defined in the Spokane Valley Street Standards. Cost Allocation Three steps were used to allocate costs per PM peak hour trip, see Figure 3. First, the TIF methodology must separate the share of project costs that address existing deficiencies from the share of project costs that add transportation capacity and serve new growth. Second, dedicated funding from non -City sources must be removed from the project cost as funds generated by the TIF can only be used for projects identified to have an impact from the development being assessed a fee. Third, resulting growth - related improvement costs are then further separated to identify the share of growth related to land development in Barker Road TIF area. Figure 3. Impact Fee Cost Allocation STENDS L 0 Future Growth $18.8 M © City Funds Non-C $18.4 M $: South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study September 2020 Existing Transportation Deficiencies An existing conditions analysis was conducted as part of the South Barker Corridor Study, which identified existing level of service deficiencies at the Barker Road and 1-90 intersections. A deficiency at an intersection is defined as a level of service rating of E or lower at a signalized intersection or level of service F at an unsignalized intersection as established in the Comprehensive Plan. Since the three projects at the Barker Road and 1-90 interchange are expected to be funded by WSDOT, the cost of these projects was not included in the total project cost for the South Barker Corridor. No other locations along the corridor were identified as having an existing deficiency. Therefore, no costs were deducted from the total project cost on account of an existing deficiency. Committed External Funding Of the five projects whose cost are included in the South Barker Corridor TIF, only one currently has dedicated funding from a non -City source, the Sprague Avenue/Barker Road intersection improvement project. This project has $349,000 dedicated from a Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality grant. Therefore, this cost was deducted from the total cost of this project. Table 4 (on the following page) illustrates the eligible project costs that were applied to the South Barker Corridor TIF, totaling $18,437,000. Fair -Share Cost With deficiencies and external funding accounted for, all the remaining project costs are related to supporting new growth in trips that will be funded by COSV. However, not all the growth comes from development in the South Barker Corridor TIF area — there is a portion of growth that comes from other parts of Spokane Valley and surrounding jurisdictions. To ensure that the costs assessed to development as part of the TIF are fair and proportional to the impact, a fair share percentage was used. The South Barker Corridor Study identified the percentage of traffic growth in three different segments of the South Barker Corridor that are expected to be attributable to development in the South Barker Corridor TIF area. This was done using a select zone analysis in the 2040 SRTC travel demand model. The percentage ranges from 18% in the south end of the corridor to 26% in the north end of the corridor as shown in Table 3. Table 3. Percent of 2040 Traffic on Barker Road Attributable to Study Area North of 1-90 26% 1-90 to Appleway Avenue 19% South of Appleway Avenue 18% Source: South Barker Corridor Study The fair share percentages were multiplied by the eligible cost of each project in the corridor to get the cost of growth -related transportation improvements on the South Barker Corridor that is expected to be attributable to development in the South Barker Corridor TIF area. This equates to $3,635,350. Lastly, this blo cost was divided by the forecast new PM peak hour trips generated by new development in this area (2,857) to arrive at a cost per new PM peak hour vehicle trip of $1,272. Table 4. Cost Per PM Peak Hour Trip Calculations 1-90 Eastbound Ramp/ Barker Road Interchange Interim N/A N/A N/A N/A 26% N/A Improvements 1-90 Westbound Ramp/ Barker Road N/A N/A N/A N/A 26% N/A Interchange Interim Improvements Sprague/Barker Intersection $2,139,000 $0 $349,000 $1,790,000 18% $322,200 Improvements 1-90/Barker Road Not None Interchange Long- anticipated $0 $0 None anticipated ° 26/o anticipated Term Improvements at this time at this time at this time Barker Road Improvement Project— $6,501,000 $0 $0 $6,501,000 19% $1,235,190 Appleway to 1-90 Barker Road Improvement Project— $3,146,000 $0 $0 $3,146,000 26% $817,960 Mission to 1-90 Barker Road Improvement Project — $3,500,000 $0 $0 $3,500,000 18% $630,000 Appleway to South City Limits 4th Avenue/Barker & 8th Avenue/Barker Intersection $3,500,000 $0 $0 $3,500,000 18% $630,00 Improvements TOTAL $18,786,000 $0 $0 $18,437,000 Varies $3,635,350 PM Peak Trips 2,857 Cost Per PM Peak Trip $1,272 When taking all the above calculations into consideration, the South Barker Corridor TIF would contribute up to 20 percent of the total $18.4 million eligible cost of the improvement projects on the South Barker Corridor. City matching funds, new grants, and other sources would provide the remaining 80 percent of the total project costs. South Barker Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study September 2020 Impact Fee Schedule The impact fee schedule was developed by adjusting the cost per PM peak hour vehicle trip to reflect differences in trip -making characteristics for the general land use types forecast in the SRTC regional travel demand model within southeast Spokane Valley. The fee schedule is a table where fees are represented as dollars per unit for each land use category which makes it easier for developers to calculate their impact fee rates. Table 5 shows the various components of the fee schedule. Trip Generation Trip generation rates for each land use type in the PM peak hour were derived from average trip rates for selected land uses of the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 101h Edition to ensure consistent and repeatable calculations across all land uses. Pass -By Trip Adjustment The ITE trip generation rates represent total vehicles entering and leaving a development. For certain land uses (e.g., retail, convenience stores, etc.), a substantial amount of the motorized travel is already passing by the property and merely turns into and out of the driveway. These pass -by trips do not add trips to the surrounding street system and therefore are subtracted out prior to calculating the impact fee. The resulting trips are considered "new" trips and are therefore subject to the impact fee calculation. The pass - by trip percentages are taken from the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition (2017). Schedule of Rates The proposed impact fee rates are shown in Table 5. An expanded table of land uses is provided in Table 6 in Appendix A. In the fee schedule, fees are shown as dollars per unit of development for various land use categories. The impact fee program is flexible in that if a use does not fit into one of the ITE land use categories listed, an impact fee can be calculated based on the development's projected PM peak hour person trip generation and multiplied by the cost per PM peak hour trip of $1,272 as shown in Table 5. Projects with land uses not in Table 5 or Table 6 shall prepare a trip generation and distribution letter and will be responsible for a fee based on $1,272 per PM peak hour trip. blo Table 5. Impact Fee Schedule ITE Code 210 City of Spokane Valley South ITE Land Use Category Single Family & Duplex Barker Corridor PM Peak Vehicle Trip Rate' 0.99 Transportation Passby %2 0% Impact Fee Rate Adjusted Trips per Unit of 0.99 Schedule Impact Fee Per Unit4 @ $7,272 per PM Peak Vehicle Trip $1,260 per dwelling unit 220 Multi -Family 0.56 0% 0.56 $713 per dwelling unit 310 Hotel (3 or More Levels) 0.70 0% 0.70 $891 per room 520 Elementary School 0.00137 0% 0.00137 $1.74 per sq ft 630 Medical Clinic 0.00328 0% 0.00328 $4.17 per sq ft 710 , General Office 0.00115 0% 0.00115 $1.46 per sgft 820 iShopping Center 1 0.00381 1 34% 1 0.00251 1 $3.20 1 per sq ft ' ITE Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition): 4-6 PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Generation Rates for the Adjacent Street Traffic (weekday 4- 6PM); This worksheet represents only the generalized land uses in the SRTC regional travel demand model and is NOT all-inclusive; see Table 6 for a wider variety of uses; Projects with land uses not in Table 5 or 6 shall prepare a trip generation and distribution letter and will be responsible for a fee based on $1,272 per PM peak hour trip. z New trips will exclude "pass -by" trips: see "ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Edition" (2017). 3 PM peak trip rate excluding passby trips 4 sq ft = square feet, room = available hotel/motel room Expanded Impact Fee Table 6. Expanded Impact Fee Schedule City of Spokane Valley South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Schedule PM Peak Vehi le Adjusted Impact Fee Land Use Group ITE Code ITE Land Use Category c Passby%' TripsperUnit Trip, ofMeasure' $7,272 per PM _Am� Rate 210 Single Family & Duplex 0.99 0% 0.99 $1,260 Per Unit 4 @ Peak Vehicle Trip per dwelling unit Residential 220 Multi -Family 0.56 0% 0.56 1 $713 per dwelling unit 310 Hotel (3 or More Levels) 0.70 0% 0.70 $891 per room Services 492 Health Club 0.00345 0% 0.00345 $4.39 per sq ft 912 Bank 0.02045 34% 0.01350 $17.17 per sq ft 520 Elementary School 0.00137 0% 0.00137 $1.74 per sq ft Institution 522 Middle School 0.00119 0% 0.00119 $1.51 per sq ft 530 High School 0.00097 0% 0.00097 $1.23 per sq ft Drinking Establishment 0.01136 43% 0.00648 $8.24 per sq ft Restaurant Fast Food Restaurant (with drive-thru) 0.03267 50% 0.01634 $20.79 per sq ft Coffee Shop with Drive-Thru 0.04338 89% 0.00477 $6.07 per sq ft E841 Shopping Center 0.00381 34% 0.00251 $3.20 per sq ft Retail Automobile Sales - Used/New 0.00375 0% 0.00375 $4.77 per sq ft Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps 23.04 66% 7.83 $9,968 per pump 110 Light Industry/High Technology 0.00063 0% 0.00063 $0.80 per sq ft Industrial 140 Manufacturing 0.00067 0% 0.00067 $0.85 per sgft 151 Mini -Storage 0.00017 0% 0.00017 $0.22 per sgft 710 General Office 0.00115 0% 0.00115 $1.46 per sq ft Office 720 Medical Office/Clinic 0.00346 0% 0.00346 54.40 per sgft 750 Office Park 0.00107 0% 0.00107 $1.36 per sq ft ' ITE Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition): 4-6 PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Generation Rates for the Adjacent Street Traffic (weekday 4-613M); This worksheet represents only the most common uses in southeast Spokane Valley and is NOT all-inclusive; Projects with land uses not in Table 5 or 6 shall prepare a trip generation and distribution letter and will be responsible for a fee based on $1,272 per PM peak hour trip. Z New trips will exclude "pass -by trips: see "ITE Trip Generation Handbook 3rd Edition" (2017). 3 PM peak trip rate excluding passby trips "sq ft = square feet, pump = vehicle servicing position/gas pump, room = available hotel room FEHR�PEERS kC L r Tc c 1, [Add S Barker Corridor Study] FEHRtPEERS ��' fie+ -• '- � .�r�.��_''.t.,•�•�-�J � � _ - � � � � _ l y " J^� AK i SOUTH BARKER -_ FEHR � PEERS Spokan - FINAL REPORT I UPDATED FEBRUARY 2020Valley. Contents Introduction.............................................................................................................................................. 3 Methods& Assumptions...........................................................................................................................5 ExistingConditions....................................................................................................................................9 1-90 Interchange Interim Improvements Summary & Findings..............................................................13 2040 Analysis & Findings........................................................................................................................15 2040 Recommendations.........................................................................................................................23 Implementation......................................................................................................................................26 Conclusions............................................................................................................................................. 32 List of Figures Figure 1. Study Area Intersections................................................................................................................4 Figure 2: Level of service description and delay thresholds at intersections ............................................... 8 Figure 3. Existing conditions traffic volumes and lane configurations.......................................................10 Figure 4. Existing conditions level of service and delay..............................................................................11 Figure 5. Existing AM peak hour queue lengths at the Barker Road/1-90 interchange..............................12 Figure 6. Existing PM peak hour queue lengths at the Barker Road/1-90 interchange..............................12 Figure 7. Barker Road/1-90 Interchange Interim Concept proposed by WSDOT........................................13 Figure 8. Barker Road/1-90 westbound ramp intersection — revised Interim Concept..............................14 Figure 9. Year 2028 SimTraffic LOS results under the "hook ramp' concept at the Barker Road/1-90 westboundramp.........................................................................................................................................15 Figure 10. 2040 conditions traffic volumes and lane configurations..........................................................16 Figure 11. 2040 Barker Rd/1-90 eastbound ramp intersection concept (same as Barker Road IJR preferred alternative)..................................................................................................................................................18 Figure 12. 2040 Barker Rd/1-90 westbound ramp intersection concept (modified from Barker Road IJR preferredalternative).................................................................................................................................18 Figure 13. 2040 conditions level of service and delay................................................................................19 Figure 14. Volume -to -capacity ratio in 2040 for Barker Road/1-90 interchange roundabouts..................19 Figure 15. Volume -to -capacity ratio, LOS and/or delay in 2040 with mitigations.....................................20 Figure 16. Pros and cons of a roundabout versus a traffic signal at Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection................................................................................................................................................. 21 Figure 17. Diverging roundabout concept..................................................................................................22 Figure 18. 2040 volume -to -capacity ratio and 95% queue with a single -lane diverging roundabout . ...... 22 Figure 19. Pros and cons of a two-lane versus three -lane configuration south of Appleway....................25 Figure 20. South Barker Road projects and cost estimates to be implemented through year 2040.........26 Figure 21. Transportation analysis zones by jurisdiction included in the fair -share cost analysis.............28 Figure 22. Percent of 2040 Barker Road traffic generated by jurisdiction.................................................29 Figure 23. Fair -share cost by jurisdiction and project.................................................................................30 Figure 24. Cost per PM peak hour trip from new development (2015-2040) in Spokane Valley...............31 Figure 25. Cost per PM peak hour trip from new development (2015-2040) by jurisdiction ....................32 SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report INTRODUCTION vs 2/7/20 This report presents the findings and recommended improvements of the South Barker Corridor Study. The purpose of the South Barker Corridor Study is to analyze traffic demands through year 2040 and identify potential traffic improvement projects on the segment of Barker Road between Mission Avenue and the South City Limits in Spokane Valley, Washington. The study includes planning -level cost estimates of improvements and an estimate of the proportion of traffic along segments of the corridorfrom adjacent jurisdictions (Liberty Lake and Spokane County) to assist in developing potential mitigation fee payments for the new development that is occurring in this part of the Spokane region. In addition, this study analyzed traffic operations at the Barker Road/1-90 interchange under the WSDOT interim concept (year 2020) and long-term concept (by year 2040) to verify that the proposed interchange improvements will operate adequately and serve the planned growth in Spokane Valley and the surrounding area. Based on the analysis, guidance is provided to WSDOT on the City of Spokane Valley's preferred interim and long- term improvements for the 1-90 interchange. Study Area The study area includes the Barker Road corridor between Mission Avenue and the South City Limits on the east side of Spokane Valley. The following 10 intersections along Barker Road were included in the study and mapped in Figure 1. 1. Barker Road/Mission Avenue 2. Barker Road/Boone Avenue 3. Barker Road/1-90 westbound ramp/Cataldo Avenue 4. Barker Road/1-90 eastbound ramp 5. Barker Road/Broadway (east) 6. Barker Road/Broadway (west) 7. Barker Road/Appleway Avenue 8. Barker Road/Sprague Avenue 9. Barker Road/4th Avenue 10. Barker Road/8th Avenue City of Spokane Valley 3 1 p a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report Figure 1. Study Area Intersections Mission A10 " Maxwell Av Sinto Av Sharp Av v^ [ioone Av 3 It Av Broadway Broadway Av Rig Alki Av CowSeV pv x Pp1emaV me N '9 Q�v Qom. V ✓ Q r, Sprague Av 3rd Av ath Av 0 2nd Av Sth 99) Av .` loth AV i '\ m-..A vs 2/7/20 City of Spokane Valley 4 1 F a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report vs 2/7/20 METHODS & ASSUMPTIONS The following methods and assumptions were applied to forecast traffic and analyze traffic operations as part of this Study. Land Use Assumptions Traffic volumes at each of the study intersections were estimated using the current version of the SRTC 2015 and 2040 regional travel demand models, which was last updated in December 2017. Fehr & Peers received a copy of the SRTC travel demand model on January 9, 2018. Land use assumptions were reviewed by the project technical advisory committee (TAC) on May 17, 2018 which is comprised of staff representing Spokane Valley, Liberty Lake, Spokane County, WSDOT and SRTC. The TAC approved the land use assumptions on June 1, 2018 with three comments, including providing a comparison to what is assumed in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, incorporating impacts of new grade schools, and future land use forecasts in Liberty Lake - all of which are addressed below. Detailed land use data assumed in the model is provided in the following appendices: Appendix A — Includes a summary of the forecast 2015-2040 change in dwelling units and employees by transportation analysis zone (TAZ) near the Study Area. Appendix B — Includes a summary of the difference in assumed land use for the TAZs around Barker Road and 1-90 between the 2015 travel demand model used for the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Update (prepared in 2016) and the current 2015 SRTC travel demand model used for this study. New Grade Schools In addition to the regional travel demand model, traffic forecasts also accounted for several new grade schools planned in the vicinity by 2021. These schools are not specifically accounted for in the model and include: A new elementary school at Long Road and Mission Avenue in Spokane Valley (opens 2018) A new middle school at Harvest Parkway and Mission Avenue in Liberty Lake (opens 2019) A new high school near Sprague Avenue and Henry Road in Spokane County (opens 2021) It was determined through analysis of existing and future school location and enrollment zone boundaries as well as traffic studies completed for each school that the impact to traffic volume on Barker Road in the study area from the new elementary and middle school would result in a net neutral change. It was also determined that the primary impact from the new high school will be a shift in some traffic currently making a southbound right at the Barker Road/Appleway intersection to instead make a southbound through at that intersection and a southbound left at the Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection. The inverse movements at the two intersections' were also adjusted. In the southbound direction, 80 vehicles in the AM peak hour and 17 vehicles in the PM peak hour were assumed to shift from making a southbound right at Barker Road/Appleway to making a southbound left at Barker Road/Sprague Avenue. In the northbound direction 37 vehicles in the AM peak hour and 19 vehicles in the PM peak hour were assumed to shift from making an eastbound left at Barker Road/Appleway to making a westbound right at Barker Road/Sprague Avenue and northbound through at Barker Road/Appleway. 1 For example, at Barker Road and Appleway Avenue southbound right turns were reduced and southbound through movements were increased by the same margin. Similarly, eastbound left turns were also reduced with northbound through movements increased by the same margin. City of Spokane Valley 5 1 P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report va 2/7/20 Liberty Lake Land Use Forecasts During the analysis stage, the City of Liberty Lake was in the process of updating their land use forecasts for 2040 as part of their Land Quantity Analysis. Land uses are expected to be different from the forecasts assumed in the current SRTC travel demand model, particularly in the Riverside District. Given this information was not yet available at the time of analysis, the 2015 and 2040 land use assumed for Liberty Lake in the current SRTC travel demand model was used. Assumptions regarding the future roadway network in Liberty Lake are explained below. Roadway Network Assumptions The SRTC travel demand model was also updated to account for several recent changes to the assumed 2040 roadway network as well as minor changes to the 2015 model to ensure recent projects were reflected. These changes are based on feedback provided by the project's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), which included the City of Spokane Valley, WSDOT, Spokane County, and Liberty Lake. The changes to the network include the following. 2015 Model Changes: • Chapman Road was connected from 32nd Avenue to Barker Road just south of 12th Avenue to reflect existing conditions • The centroid connector at transportation analysis zone (TAZ) 369 was moved to load to 4th Ave and 8th Ave instead of Barker Road, which better reflects where the driveways in the area load onto the roadway network • The centroid connector at TAZ 392 was moved to load to 4th Ave instead of Barker Road • The centroid connector at TAZ 327 was moved to load onto Indiana Avenue (instead of the intersection of Barker Road/ Indiana Avenue) • A second centroid connector at TAZ 327 connecting to Mission Avenue was deleted to match the 2040 model 2040 Model Changes: • Same changes made to the 2015 model • Indiana Avenue was connected through from Barker Road to Harvard Road • Instead of a new 1-90 interchange at Henry Road (as is currently in the 2040 model), Henry Road was connected from Appleway Avenue to Mission Avenue via an overpass of 1-90, but with no 1-90 interchange; the current partial interchange at Appleway Avenue was retained • The preferred alternative for the Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation project was assumed for the intersection of Barker Road/Trent Avenue • The south leg of the Flora Road/Trent Avenue intersection across the BNSF railroad track is assumed to close (consistent with the preferred alternative for the Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation project) • A new link was added between Flora Road and Barker Road north of Euclid Avenue and south of Trent Avenue (to reflect the Garland Avenue connection assumed in the Northeast Industrial Area PAO) • The centroid connector from TAZ 600 is assumed to be more heavily weighted toward Barker Road (reflecting the development potential in the Northeast Industrial Area assumed as part of the Northeast Industrial Area PAO) • Barker Road was assumed to be 5 lanes from Mission Avenue to 1-90 (to reflect planned mitigations in the SEIS to the Comprehensive Plan for the Northeast Industrial Area PAO) City of Spokane Valley 6 1 P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report It should be noted that the following planned improvements are already assumed in the current SRTC travel demand model: • The Barker Road/1-90 interchange would be reconfigured to a standard diamond interchange with two-lane roundabouts plus slip ramps for right -turn movements at both ramps (as reflected in 1-90/Barker Rd Interchange Justification Report) • Barker Road between 1-90 and Appleway Avenue would be widened to five lanes as identified in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) • A new northbound lane would be added on Harvard Road across 1-90 Traffic Forecast Methodology Near -Term Traffic Forecasts An annual growth rate of 3.0% along Barker Road was used for near -term traffic forecasts through year 2020 (based on historic growth) and an annual growth rate of both 2.0% and 3.0% were used for traffic growth on Barker Road between year 2020 and 2028 to capture an upper and lower range of potential growth. 2040 Traffic Forecasts Instead of using the traffic forecasts directly from the 2040 travel demand model, 2040 volumes were estimated using an industry standard approach known as the difference method. The difference in traffic volumes between the 2015 and 2040 models are added to observed counts at each of the study area intersections to arrive at a 2040 forecast traffic. This method reduces model error by relying as much as possible on observed data rather than model output data. Note: the difference in traffic volumes between the 2015 and 2040 model will be multiplied by 0.88 to account for growth in traffic that occurred between 2015 and 2018 (22 years/ 25 years = 0.88). Existing traffic data was collected during the AM and PM peak hour on Thursday, May 24th 2018 at all study intersections (see Figure 1) except Barker Road/Boone Avenue and Barker Road/8th Avenue. Existing traffic volumes at Barker Road/Boone Avenue are based on counts collected on Tuesday, February 14th 2007 and existing volumes at Barker Road/8th Avenue are based on counts collected on Wednesday, February 14, 2018. Estimating AM Peak Volumes The regional travel demand model forecasts PM peak hour turn movements, but only forecasts 3-hour AM peak turn movements at each intersection. Therefore, the inverse of PM peak hour traffic growth multiplied by 80% was used to estimate AM peak hour traffic growth. This is consistent with research published in National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 3652 and in observed peak hour traffic count data collected in Spokane Valley. For example, 80% of growth in PM peak volumes for southbound right turn movements at each intersection were applied to eastbound left movements to get the AM peak traffic forecast. z Martin, W., N. McGuckin. Travel Estimating Techniques for Urban Planning. NCHRP Report 365. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1998. City of Spokane Valley 7 1 P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report Level of Service Standards Spokane Valley LOS Standards v8 2/7/20 The City of Spokane Valley uses level of service (LOS) to describe and evaluate traffic operations along major arterial corridors and intersections within the City. Levels range from LOS A to LOS F, which encompass a range of congestion types from uninterrupted traffic (LOS A) to highly -congested conditions (LOS F). The description and intersection delay thresholds of each LOS category are described in Figure 2. These are based on the Highway Capacity Manual, which is the methodology used by Spokane Valley. The LOS for signalized intersections and roundabouts is measured by the average delay per vehicle entering the intersection from all approaches, while the LOS for unsignalized intersections is measured by the average delay per vehicle on the approach with the highest average delay. Figure 2: Level of service description and delay thresholds at intersections Level Signalized Unsignalized of Description Service Delay (seconds) Delay (seconds) A Free -flowing conditions. 0-10 0-10 B Stable operating conditions. 10-20 10-15 Stable operating conditions, but individual motorists C 20-35 15-25 are affected by the interaction with other motorists. D High density of motorists, but stable flow. 35-55 25-35 Near -capacity operations, with speeds reduced to a E 55-80 35-50 low but uniform speed. F Over -capacity conditions with long delays. > 80 >50 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2016, Transportation Research Board The LOS standards used by Spokane Valley are defined in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: LOS D for major arterial corridors: o Argonne/Mullan between the town of Millwood and Appleway Boulevard o Pines Road between Trent Avenue and 8th Avenue o Evergreen Road between Indiana Avenue and 8th Avenue o Sullivan Road between Wellesley Avenue and 8th Avenue o Sprague Avenue/Appleway Boulevard between Fancher Road and Sullivan Road LOS D for signalized intersections not on major arterial corridors LOS E for unsignalized intersections (LOS F acceptable if peak hour traffic signal warrant is unmet) WSDOT LOS Standards WSDOT also uses LOS thresholds for State Highways. The LOS standard for State Highways in Urban Areas is LOS D. Within the Study Area this would apply to the Barker Road/1-90 interchange. This LOS standard applies to roadway segments and signalized and stop controlled intersections. City of Spokane Valley 8 1 P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report Per WSDOT's recommended guidance, the primary measure of effectiveness (MOE) for roundabout analysis is not LOS, but the overall intersection and approach volume to capacity (v/c) ratios. WSDOT recommends that v/c ratios not exceed 0.85-0.9 for any approach or the entire intersection, which typically corresponds to LOS D. Traffic Analysis Methodology In order to analyze traffic operations, including LOS, v/c ratios and/or impacts of queuing, the following traffic engineering software was used in accordance with WSDOT Traffic Analysis policies and protocol': Synchro - Synchro software (version 9.2) was be used to evaluate AM and PM peak hour LOS at most signalized and stop controlled intersections. LOS was measured using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 methodology within Synchro. All settings were set to be consistent with WSDOT Synchro Protocol. The observed intersection peak hour factor averaged for all approaches was used for the existing conditions analysis and near -term traffic analysis. A PHF of 1.0 was used for the 2040 analysis. A saturation flow rate of 1,775 vehicles per lane per hour was assumed in order to be consistent with City of Spokane Valley practice along the Barker Road corridor. Sidra - Sidra software (version 7.0) was used to analyze the AM and PM peak hour v/c ratios for intersections with a roundabout configuration. All settings were set to be consistent with WSDOT's Sidra Policy Settings (WSDOT, April 2018). SimTraffic—SimTraffic software was used to analyze the AM and PM peak hour traffic operational performance for closely spaced intersections in order to capture the impacts to traffic delay of queuing. This includes the intersections with Barker Road/Cataldo Avenue and Barker Road/1-90 under the single -lane roundabout configuration proposed by WSDOT as an interim solution. All settings were set to be consistent with WSDOT SimTraffic Protocol with the same PHF and saturation flow rate used in the Synchro analysis. SimTraffic was not used to analyze operations with two-lane roundabouts. Sidra software was used in those instances. EXISTING CONDITIONS Within the 1.6 mile segment of Barker Road between Mission Avenue and the south Spokane Valley City limits there are four signalized intersections. These are located where Barker Road crosses Mission Avenue, Cataldo Avenue/1-90 westbound ramp, 1-90 eastbound ramp and Appleway Avenue. There is a four-way stop at Barker Road/Sprague Avenue. All other intersection are controlled by side -street stop signs. The segment of Barker Road north of Boone Avenue is a three lane street with bike lanes, curb and gutter and 5-foot sidewalks on both sides. South of Boone Avenue Barker Road is a two-lane street without curb, gutter, storm drain or sidewalks. South of Appleway there is an asphalt paved multiuse trail on the west side of the street that extends to Chapman Road in unincorporated Spokane County. Existing peak hour traffic volumes and lane configurations at the ten study intersections are shown in Figure 3. 3 www.wsdot.wa.gov/Design/Traffic/Analysis/ City of Spokane Valley 9 1 P a g e a E � '�� (69) 06 (Z8S) 09Z .�. (� 0) L£9 n _ a) L (l0E) E94 0 o r (99Z) SL4 ,3m t 0 (L) 9 v C p N 0 m CL C ,-, " m (EEL)Sl)LE , CO (6 L) Z (SOS) LLL vti (LZE) 4LZ m (SZZ)ES1, C�N m ^,.i (909L m c7 V N N 1 I s c 0 u m B m E o _ �.}+N Ql) 4Z ? (4) Ll O65 n n ^ (a) 4E C =o j a (OU 5444(484) O (EC) 9LLE m O m U) Q Z ^ F a C) uwa m } "Ir uwa n,..a mN (L84) 0£L 0 ` 1' m (00L)04 (O8£) 65L i'+ ® LU ur © 4 �. (L) L m (04L) 88L (9Z) 4l H LU v � J ® S (64l09 B1 a E (S)L4 L(S m> O C] m —(SO) LS LE E" o.-. r- (6) 9Z (OSE (9S) 0m 484Z9 I�0II (95 4£ ,W S Ot m Q m N o y wa m �� �} lr i�tl (94)9 1 (SZ)8Z� (9 n x (98Z) 48L (4Ll)OB7's _m (L6L)LS� (L9E) £SL (ESE) 101 (09) S6 C m (80L) 4LL (L4)L Nne �n `1 Mn Ca Ln — Or: I:a —, Rol Ili :-.Tf :ii < O D,i:c... :.. 0NGwke Rd ©© T, a' _ _ h y � Q 6 �• J f4'r E �O NBarker Rd , U Q.r. —RC OR Borkei Rd O o- Ln a c C -p 0 0 0 C :3 p o �1 V i L U u x �e W J _ M c3d CO Ln +S 7 N CD E O O V ca SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY va 2/7/20 Updated Report Intersection Level of Service The AM and PM peak hour level of service (LOS) at the 10 study area intersections are summarized in Figure 4. The intersections between Boone Avenue and Broadway were analyzed using SimTraffic to account forthe impact of queuing given the close spacing of intersections as well as the split signal phasing currently used at the Barker Road/1-90 eastbound ramp. All other intersections were analyzed using Synchro. Figure 4. Existing conditions level of service and delay. PM Peak Side Software Intersection Control 7Delay LOS Delay LOS.. Street (all HCM 2010) Approachl Barker/Mission Signal 12 B 13 B Synchro Barker/Boone Side -Street Stop >100 F 64 F EB SimTraffic Barker/1-90 Westbound Signal 57 E 29 C SimTraffic Ramp/Cataldo Barker/1-90 Eastbound Ramp Signal 57 E 103 F SimTraffic Barker/Broadway (N) Side -Street Stop >100 F >100 F WB SimTraffic Barker/Broadway (S) Side -Street Stop 60 F 43 E EB SimTraffic Barker/Appleway Signal 21 C 30 C Synchro Barker/Sprague All -Way Stop 26 D 49 E Synchro Barker/4th Side -Street Stop 16 C 17 C EB Synchro Barker/8th Side -Street Stop 23 C 23 C EB Synchro Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 Results show that under existing conditions, the Barker Road/1-90 westbound ramp/Cataldo Avenue intersection operates at LOS E in the AM peak hour and the Barker Road/1-90 eastbound ramp intersection operates at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour. Thus, both intersections of Barker Road/1-90 do not currently meet WSDOT LOS standards. Additionally, the queue along Barker Road from the two 1-90 intersections impacts the LOS at both Barker Road/Boone Avenue and the two Barker Road/Broadway intersections, causing all three intersections to operate at LOS F during either the AM or PM peak hours or both. Additionally the Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection is operating at LOS E during the PM peak hour. This intersection has been identified by COSY as a location in need of improvement to address existing congestion and multimodal operations. Results of the existing conditions traffic analysis show this intersection is just two additional seconds of delay from operating at LOS F. A small increase in traffic is likely cause this intersection to operate at LOS F without improvements. The existing average and maximum queue lengths at the Barker Road/1-90 interchange during the AM peak hour are shown in Figure 5 and in the PM peak hour are shown in Figure 6. In the AM peak hour a long queue forms in the southbound direction at the Barker Road/1-90 westbound ramp intersection. In the PM peak hour a long queue forms in the eastbound direction at the Barker Road/1-90 eastbound ramp intersection. It should be noted the distance between the gore point in the eastbound direction of 1-90 City of Spokane Valley 111 P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report v8 2/7/20 and the Barker Road intersection is about 1,700 feet and the average queue on this segment during the PM peak hour is 1,200 feet and the maximum queue is 1,500 feet. Figure S. Existing AM peak hour queue lengths at the Barker Road/1-90 interchange Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 Figure 6. Existing PM peak hour queue lengths at the Barker Road/1-90 interchange Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 Corridor Level of Service The existing corridor level of service within the study area is LOS D derived from average daily traffic (ADT) on each roadway segment and weighted by the segment's length. Based on the posted speed and number of lanes, the LOS D threshold for the corridor is 13,800 ADT (as defined in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual), and the length -average ADT-to-LOS D volume threshold ratio is 0.83. As long as the ratio is less than or equal to 1.00, the corridor is defined as operating at LOS D or better even though some intersections may experience greater congestion than LOS D. City of Spokane Valley 12 1 P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY vs 2/7/20 Updated Report I-90 INTERCHANGE INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY & FINDINGS The Barker Road/1-90 interchange is currently operating at LOS E or worse at one or both interchange intersections in both the AM and PM peak hour, thus failing WSDOT LOS standards. WSDOT has proposed an interim solution that includes single -lane roundabouts at each ramp intersection until the long-term concept proposed in the 2014 IJR can be implemented. Traffic analysis was performed for the intersections between Barker Road/Boone Avenue and Barker Road/Broadway, including both ramps of the Barker Road/1-90 interchange in years 2020, 2023, and 2028. The analysis was performed to determine how well and for how long a single -lane roundabouts as depicted in Figure 7 would operate acceptably at the two intersections. Figure 7. Barker Road/1-90 Interchange Interim Concept proposed by WSDOT /7 rr - Source: WSDOT A subsequent revision to this interim concept, shown in Figure 8, shifted the northern single -lane roundabout to the existing Cataldo Avenue/Barker Road/1-90 Westbound intersection, maintaining the existing "hook ramp" configuration. According to the best available information at this time regarding long-term plans for the interchange and replacement of the Barker Road Bridge, the advantage of this configuration, as compared to the tight diamond configuration (shown in Figure 7 and originally proposed as the interim solution) is that the proposed location of the Barker Road/westbound ramp intersection is City of Spokane Valley 13 1 P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report v8 2/7/20 farther from 1-90 than what is proposed with a tight diamond configuration. This would allow WSDOT to convert a single -lane roundabout at this location to a two-lane roundabout in the future when the Barker Road Bridge over 1-90 is replaced without necessitating lowering the elevation of the 1-90 travel lanes in order to achieve the required clearance under the bridge. Figure 8. Barker Road/1-90 westbound ramp intersection — revised Interim Concept 1 • - : :r 't m,. 1. 1 _ arc rY� Source: WSDOT A summary of the key findings of this traffic analysis are presented below: • A single lane roundabout will operate acceptably at Barker/1-90 Interchange in 2020 with: o A 2nd southbound approach lane at the westbound ramp — This can be implemented through restriping and curb modification within the existing ROW. o A 2nd eastbound approach lane at the eastbound ramp • The eastbound ramp intersection will drop below LOS D sometime between 2023 and 2028 o Main constraint: sometime between 2023 and 2028 the northbound traffic demand across the bridge will exceed the physical capacity of the bridge (1,000-1,100 vph) • Regardless of the configuration (either what is shown in Figure 7 or Figure 8) westbound ramp will operate at an acceptable LOS by 2028 because the eastbound roundabout will effectively "meter" northbound traffic so that there will be gaps for the heavy southbound traffic to enter Figure 9 summarizes the LOS results based on SimTraffic. It should also be noted that Sidra analysis was also performed for both intersections in years 2020, 2023 and 2028 with results showing that the v/c ratio would exceed the 0.85-0.9 threshold for both intersections sometime between 2023 and 2028, with the eastbound ramp failing sooner. However, unlike the Sidra results, SimTraffic showed that the eastbound ramp intersection would effectively "meter" traffic entering the westbound ramp intersection resulting in acceptable LOS at that intersection through 2028. City of Spokane Valley 14 1 P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report v8 2/7/20 Figure 9. Year 2028 SimTraffic LOS results under the "hook ramp" concept at the Barker Road/1-90 westbound ramp Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 The results of this analysis demonstrate that the interim solution (modified with a second approach lane at one leg of each intersection and revised to maintain the existing location "hook ramp" configuration at Barker Road/Cataldo Avenue/1-90 westbound ramp intersection) for the Barker Road/1-90 interchange would last about 5-10 years before falling below WSDOT LOS standards. Given this, it is recommended that the City of Spokane Valley workwith WSDOTto secure funding within 5-10 years to replace the Barker Road Bridge over 1-90 with a four -lane bridge. 2040 ANALYSIS & FINDINGS Traffic analysis of the Barker Corridor intersections was performed with the assumption that several already planned transportation projects would be implemented. This includes: • Barker Road from Mission Avenue to Appleway would be widened to five lanes (through a combination of several projects). • The Barker Road/1-90 interchange would be reconfigured into two-lane roundabouts at each ramp intersection similar to the Barker Road IJR preferred alternative, with some modifications (as described below), including adding Boone Avenue into the westbound ramp roundabout and preserving the existing hook ramp configuration for the westbound ramp. • The east leg of Broadway would be realigned with the west leg of Broadway at Barker Road. These changes would effectively consolidate the Barker Road/Boone Avenue intersection with the Barker Road/1-90 westbound ramp/Cataldo Avenue intersection and consolidate the two Broadway intersections into one. Consolidation of these intersection means under 2040 conditions there would be eight study intersections instead of ten. Traffic volumes and lane configurations assumed in 2040 at each of the study intersections are shown in Figure 10. City of Spokane Valley 15 1 P a g e E s • O W (OLl)O6 "'vv (OBZ) OL4 c �-- (gel) SEfi m • (OOL)OZL O d U) �. co 1� o (SLL) 54L • ose (S W m m` (ssv) ro (00 Sz N Y N h m S N N • Eaiao 'e oaoo h 6a,. O _� a (0619 !n� i tom ^ m (OO L) oL m m t-- (O6£) SES v H n S4 lS tW S94 c (S61) OOb . s o, (s) s �p 3 '— �1 kr (S6) oL t ;, • (ot) s p'C (SZ4) OOL q WOOL :54 y e (09) OS 'T� s (OZS) }} (096 09 I f (SS) OZ I • m Y W m OBE. f � � (O6 �o0�s m (gig) Sze o o N m (o[t)S4t (ozs) sst �+ (09)ot 6 NNN -25 0 p- ` 4 Oco PMN N Ohry a •- g po E n_N o00 (08Z)S9t �Nto` goy (9)SL 63, 6 V (S)S (S6€) 0 o M (009) 09z r(sS0 ort 3 o • p(N i (06L) 996 r(S L)0 y • '�N 509 (9)OL m } Y m n (OZ) S I (S44) 0 LS �' m (96 C L) Sig —� - (sm m Co (589) OSZ (s£) OE Ogg (S£L) sn H v 99 mN n _ > W O �e s y© 0 O s Darker Rd` O N Oalker Rd © ry Darker NC� 4 _ • F !9 G U � Q _ a a � SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY vs 2/7/20 Updated Report Barker Road/I-90 Interchange Configuration A conceptual layout in 2040 of the Barker Road/1-90 eastbound ramp intersection is shown in Figure 11 and a conceptual layout of the Barker Road/1-90 westbound ramp intersection is shown in Figure 12. The configuration of the Barker Road/1-90 eastbound ramp intersection would be largely the same as the Barker Road IJR preferred alternative, including a roundabout with two circulating lanes and two eastbound approach lanes on the 1-90 off -ramp. However, the Barker Road/1-90 westbound ramp intersection was modified from the Barker Road IJR preferred alternative in order to preserve the "hook ramp" configuration at the same location as today, with Cataldo Avenue on the east leg. Reasons for this change were to satisfy City of Spokane Valley and WSDOT's desire to shift the interim solution to a location that better accommodates long-term reconstruction of the interchange, as well as City of Spokane Valley's desire to find a solution with the least impact to private property. Converting the 1-90 westbound ramp to a diamond interchange would have either required Cataldo Avenue to be rerouted through private property to Boone Avenue or the Barker Road/1-90 westbound ramp intersection to be moved closer to 1-90. The original IJR preferred alternative would also have necessitated lowering 1-90 in order to achieve adequate clearance under the Barker Road Bridge. Preserving the hook ramp negates both of these potential issues. While the bridge will still need to be replaced to achieve adequate clearance, the proposed configuration would allow sufficient approach length to achieve adequate clearance without the need of lowering 1-90. In addition, the east and west leg of Boone Avenue was added to the westbound ramp roundabout in order to preserve full movement on Boone Avenue and reduce the potential impacts of loss of access or additional ROW needed to provide access near the existing Boone Avenue intersection. These modifications result in a roundabout with six legs. Without this configuration Boone Avenue would be too close to the Barker Road/1-90 westbound ramp roundabout to safely operate with full movements. It should be noted that the concepts shown in Figure 11 and Figure 12 are schematic in nature and the exact diameter of a future roundabout would need to be determined through a more detailed engineering study. The assumed length of the roundabout diameter does not affect the Sidra outputs. City of Spokane Valley 17 1 P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report vs 2/7/20 Figure 11. 2040 Barker Rd/1-90 eastbound ramp intersection concept (same as Barker Road IJR preferred alternative) Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 Figure 12.2040 Barker Rd/1-90 westbound ramp intersection concept (modified from Barker Road IJR preferred alternative) 8��kr Aa:h Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 City of Spokane Valley 18 1 P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report vs 2/7/20 Intersection Level of Service Findings The AM and PM peak hour level of service (LOS) findings at the eight study area intersections are summarized in Figure 13. The 1-90 intersections were analyzed using Sidra. The more relevant measure of effectiveness for these intersections per WSDOT policy is v/c ratio, which is shown in Figure 14. All other intersections were analyzed using Synchro. Figure 13. 2040 conditions level of service and delay. I PM Peak Software Intersection 177 1 • (all 1 1 Barker/Mission Signal 25 C Synchro Barker/1-90 WB Ramp/Cataldo/Boone Roundabout 17 B 13 B Sidra Barker/1-90 EB Ramp Roundabout 9 A 12 B Sidra Barker/Broadway Side -Street Stop 71 (EB) F >300 (EB) F Synchro Barker/Appleway Signal 30 C 46 D Synchro Barker/Sprague All -Way Stop 132 (NB) F >300 (SB) F Synchro Barker/4th Side -Street Stop 1 22 1 C 33 D Synchro Barker/8th Side -Street Stop 1 17 1 C 33 D Synchro Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 Figure 14. Volume -to -capacity ratio in 2040 for Barker Road/1-90 interchange roundabouts. Intersection Control AM Peak PM Peak 95% 95% Software (all V/c Queue V/c Queue HCM 2010) '1 WB 1 240 Ramp/Cataldo/Boone- Roundabout �_Mmm�= Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 Results presented in Figure 14 show that under existing 2040 conditions, the Barker Road/1-90 eastbound ramp intersection and the Barker Road/1-90 westbound ramp/Cataldo Avenue/Boone Avenue intersection as laid out in Figure 11and Figure 12, respectively, would operate acceptably. The v/c ratio would be meet the WSDOT threshold of 0.85-0.90 for both intersection in both the AM and PM peak hour. Results presented in Figure 13 show that the Barker Road/Sprague intersection (which had poor LOS under existing conditions) would operate at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hour without improvements. City of Spokane Valley 19 1 P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report vs 2/7/20 Additionally, the Barker Road/Broadway intersection would operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hour and would meet the peak hour signal warrant in the PM peak hour, thus failing the City of Spokane LOS threshold in 2040. Analysis shows that the Barker Road/41h Avenue and Barker Road/8`h Avenue intersection will with acceptable LOS through 2040 under the existing configurations with side street stop control. These intersections would also operate acceptably with a signal or roundabout although the forecasts do not indicate that either intersection would meet the peak hour signal warrant in 2040. Mitigation Measures Barker Road/Sprague Avenue - Traffic operations at the Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection were analyzed in Sidra assuming a single -lane roundabout concept and in Synchro assuming a traffic signal with left turn lanes and protected left -turn signal timing for all approaches. Results, shown in Figure 15, demonstrate that a single -lane roundabout or a traffic signal with protected left -turn lanes would result in acceptable traffic operations at this intersection in 2040. Figure 16 summarizes the pros and cons of implementing a traffic signal as compared to a roundabout at this intersection. The primary differences in a traffic signal versus a roundabout relate to traffic safety, cost, right-of-way impact, impervious surface and landscaping opportunities. While this study recommends a roundabout at this intersection primarily due to the safety benefits, the City will undertake a separate and more detailed design study as part of implementation to determine the ultimate future intersection configuration. Figure 15. Volume -to -capacity ratio, LOS and/or delay in 2040 with mitigations. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 City of Spokane Valley 20 1 P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report v8 2/7/20 Figure 16. Pros and cons of a roundabout versus a traffic signal at Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection. Factors Roundabout Traffic Safety The primary benefit of a roundabout over a traffic signal is related to traffic safety. Research provided by WSDOT shows that on average single -lane roundabouts result in 75% fewer injury crashes and 90% fewer fatalities than signalized intersections. Roundabouts mitigate the risk of moderate -to - high -speed broadside crashes commonly caused by a driver running the red light at a traffic signal. Capital Cost On average the capital cost of constructing a roundabout is higher than the capital cost of constructing a signalized intersection, but this can vary from location to location. Operations & Long-term operations and maintenance costs associated with a Maintenance Cost roundabout are typically lower than those associated with a traffic signal (about $5,000 to $10,000 per year based on COSY research), often enough to offset the higher capital cost of a roundabout over the life of the project. Right -Of -Way Impact On average, the right-of-way (ROW) impact of a roundabout can be greater than a traffic signal, but varies depending on the location and number of turn lanes. At the Barker/Sprague location the area of ROW impact would be similar with a roundabout or a signal and neither would impact existing structures. Impervious Surface A roundabout could result in more impervious surface than a traffic signal depending on whether the center island is landscaped or hardscaped. Art & Landscape Roundabouts typically have more opportunity for landscaping Opportunities or art (primarily because of the center island) than traffic signals. Noise & Air Pollution Roundabouts typically result in less air pollution and noise than a traffic signal due to less idling and fewer hard accelerations. Barker Road/Broadway — Additionally, a two-lane roundabout at the Barker Road/Broadway intersection would result in acceptable operations in year 2040. A traffic signal is not advised at this location due to the proximity of this intersection to the planned roundabout at the Barker Road/1-90 eastbound ramp and the potential for queue spillback onto the 1-90 roundabout. An acceptable alternative to a roundabout would be to convert this intersection to right-in/right- out/left-in only configuration. However, this type of intersection configuration would result in some degree of inconvenience for drivers trying to make a left -turn from either leg of Broadway to Barker Road as they would have go out of direction to make that movement. If there is substantial commercial development along the Broadway corridor in the future, the lack of left - out movement could be a major impact to the viability of retail businesses. However, if the Broadway corridor has similar land uses as today (or other lower trip generating uses like offices or apartments), the lack of outbound left -turns would be less of an impact. City of Spokane Valley 211 P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY vs 2/7/20 Updated Report Diverging Roundabout Concept Given the high volume of northbound left turns from Barker Road onto 1-90 westbound (700 in the AM peak), WSDOT suggested that a "diverging roundabout" concept be tested to see if the interchange could operate effectively with single -lane roundabouts. A diverging roundabout is a diverging diamond interchange with roundabouts instead of signalized "crossover" intersections —see an example in Figure 17. The advantage of this concept is it eliminates all turning vehicle conflicts. The only point of conflict is where through traffic must cross over to the other side of the road. A diverging diamond interchange works best in situations where there are high volumes of vehicles turning off or onto the highway and not a lot of through movement on the road crossing the highway. Figure 17. Diverging roundabout concept. Image source: https.11www.youtube.com/wotch?v=msSTv2—JPME Sidra software was used to test the diverging roundabout concept in 2040 with one circulating lane at both the eastbound and westbound 1-90 ramp intersections with Barker Road. Results are shown in Figure 15 and illustrate this configuration would meet WSDOT standards during three of the four conditions tested. This configuration would result in unacceptable operations at the Barker Road/1-90 westbound ramp in the PM peak hour due to the high volume of northbound and southbound through movements. The primary other disadvantage of this configuration is it would require a diamond interchange, which means the hook ramp would have to be removed and Cataldo Avenue would have to be rerouted to Boone Avenue. It should be noted, however, that a diverging roundabout interchange would likely meet WSDOT LOS standards if the roundabouts were dual -lane and there was a four -lane bridge over 1-90 (although this configuration was not specifically analyzed). Figure 18.2040 volume -to -capacity ratio and 95% queue with a single -lane diverging roundabout. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 City of Spokane Valley 22 1 P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY vs 2/7/20 Updated Report 2040 RECOMMENDATIONS Recommended transportation improvements for the Barker Road corridor are organized by two distinct segments of the corridor, the section between Mission Avenue and Appleway Avenue and the section between Appleway Avenue and the south City limits. Mission Avenue to Appleway Avenue The Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan identifies a five -lane urban section for Barker Road between Mission Avenue and Appleway Avenue. The segment between 1-90 and Appleway Avenue is also identified in the Spokane Valley six -year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) as a five -lane arterial. Furthermore the segment between Mission Avenue and 1-90 is identified in the in the Northeast Industrial Area Planned Action Ordinance (PAO), which is in the process of being adopted as a supplement to the Spokane Comprehensive Plan EIS. WSDOT has allocated funding in 2019 and 2020 for implementing an interim improvement to the Barker Road/1-90 interchange until a longer -term solution can be implemented as identified in the SRTC Horizon 2040 Plan and 1-90/Barker Road IJR. Based on these previously planned projects and findings of the traffic operations analysis presented in the previous section of this report, the following projects are recommended for Barker Road north of Appleway Avenue. • Barker Road/1-90 Interchange Interim Improvements — it is recommended that WSDOT convert the 1-90 eastbound and westbound ramp intersections with Barker Road to single -lane roundabouts as an interim measure to improve traffic operations and safety until funding for a longer -term solution can be secured. Roundabouts would be implemented at the same locations as the ramp terminal intersections are located today. As part of this project, a second southbound approach lane should be added on Barker Road at the westbound ramp. This can be implemented through restriping and curb modification within the existing ROW. Additionally, a second eastbound approach lane should be added to the eastbound 1-90 off -ramp. WSDOT will also realign the east leg of Broadway to match the location of the existing west leg. Traffic analysis shows that this solution will operate effectively for about 5-10 years. Thus, it is recommended that WSDOT and City of Spokane Valley work to secure funding for a longer -term solution within the next 5 to 10 years. • Barker Road/1-90 Interchange Long -Term Improvements — It is recommended that WSDOT convert the 1-90 eastbound and westbound ramp intersections with Barker Road to two-lane roundabouts as a longer -term solution to improve traffic operations through 2040. Consistent with recommendations from the 2014 IJR, this would include two eastbound approach lanes at the Barker Road/1-90 eastbound ramp intersection and an expansion of the roundabout to include two circulating lanes. However, unlike the 2014 IJR, it is recommended that westbound hook ramp be preserved and the roundabout at the westbound ramp be implemented as a six -leg intersection with Cataldo and Boone Avenue (this would also require that the interim roundabout be widened to include two circulating lanes). This project would include replacement of the Barker Road Bridge over 1-90 with a four -lane bridge including a multiuse trail or sidewalk on both sides to wide enough to allow for safe circulation of bicyclists and pedestrians. • Barker Road — Mission Avenue to Boone Avenue Widening — It is recommended that Spokane Valley widen this segment of Barker Road to a five -lane urban section. This project has been identified in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast Industrial Area PAO. It is recommended that this project be implemented at the same time as (or shortly after) the long term improvements are made to the Barker Road/1-90 Interchange. City of Spokane Valley 23 1 P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report v8 2/7/20 • Barker Road —1-90 to Appleway Avenue Widening - It is recommended that Spokane Valley widen this segment of Barker Road to a five -lane urban section. This project is identified in the 2019- 2024 TIP. It is recommended that this project be implemented at the same time as the long term improvements are made to the Barker Road/1-90 Interchange. Given that traffic analysis also shows the Barker Road/Broadway intersection will need improvement by 2040, it is also recommended that either a two-lane roundabout at Barker Road/Broadway be implemented as part of this project orthe intersection be converted to prevent left -out movements. A roundabout at Broadway was included in the TIP. ApplewayAvenue to South City Limits As identified in the traffic operations analysis, the South Barker corridor will operate acceptably in 2040 with either single -lane roundabouts or traffic signals at the major intersections (Sprague Ave, 4`h Ave, 81h Ave).' The Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan and TIP identify a three -lane urban roadway section between Appleway and the southern city limit. This roadway would consist of one travel lane in each direction, a two-way left -turn lane, a sidewalk, and the existing multi -use trail. Traffic signal control at the major intersections is entirely consistent with the three -lane cross section, since left -turn lanes approaching the intersections would be required. This configuration is very common in Spokane Valley. However, single -lane roundabouts do not require a turn -lane at the major intersections and this configuration could be pursued with a narrower cross-section with just two travel lanes in each direction. While it is true that traffic signals (with widening at the major intersections) could also be accommodated with a two-lane segment, this configuration is less common in the Valley (existing two- lane roads with traffic signals often do not have turn lanes at major intersections, which reduces the capacity of the street). Based on this finding, Spokane Valley may wish to consider a two-lane cross section for all or a portion of the South Barker Road corridor. Figure 19 illustrates a few pros and cons of the three -lane versus two- lane configuration. For purposes of this study, the cost estimates assume the full three -lane buildout to capture the higher potential cost, which would lead to a cost savings if the two-lane design is ultimately selected. 4 Note that in the near -term (next 5-6 years), only the intersection at Barker Rd/Sprague Ave will likely warrant a traffic signal or roundabout to address poor traffic LOS. However, as development increases in the future it is not unlikely that the intersections at 0 Ave and Bch Ave will eventually need to be upgraded from their current side - street stop control. As of now, it does not appear that these intersections will require upgrades prior to 2040, but that could change if a larger use (e.g., apartment, church) is permitted along one of these streets. City of Spokane Valley 24 1 P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report Figure 19. Pros and cons of a two-lane versus three -lane configuration south of Appleway. v8 2/7/20 Option Pros Cons Two-lane • 33 percent less paved area; results in No mid -block left -turn lane; may configuration lower up -front costs and lower long- require a median to prohibit left - term maintenance costs turns at larger developments or a • Less impervious surface reduces short widened section to stormwater conveyance and accommodate a turn lane treatment costs Retrofitting a turn lane could be • More space within the right-of-way costly if a parcel is rezoned at a for wider sidewalks or landscaped later date for a more intensive area use Three -lane • Once this configuration is in place, • Higher cost to build and maintain configuration there is no need to retrofit the road More impervious surface and to accommodate left -turns at larger water runoff developments • Less opportunity for landscaping • Better accommodates more trip - intensive land uses like multifamily residential Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 Given these pros and cons, along with the potential for rezoning of the land north of Sprague Avenue to more dense residential, the following projects are recommended: Barker Road/Sprague Avenue Intersection Improvements — Implement a single -lane roundabout at Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection to improve traffic operations and safety. This project should be prioritized for this segment and can be implemented prior to making corridor -wide improvements. A roundabout is recommended over a traffic signal at this intersection because roundabouts tend to have lower numbers of serious traffic collisions and they cost less to maintain in the long -run compared to traffic signals. In addition, with all the other roundabouts being built by WSDOT farther north on the corridor, roundabouts will be a common and consistent traffic control device on Barker Road. Barker Road —Appleway Avenue to Sprague Avenue Widening — Implement a three -lane cross section between Appleway and Sprague Avenue; consider extending the existing northbound right -turn lane at Appleway approximately 200 feet south to Laberry Drive and converting this to a northbound through -right lane when Barker Road is widened north of Appleway. Barker Road —Sprague Avenue to South City Limits Improvements — Implement a two-lane cross section south of Sprague Avenue. In the design, set the multi -use trail and sidewalk in a position that could ultimately accommodate a three -lane cross section. Build two lanes of a potential three -lane configuration where one side of the street will have a final curb and gutter and the other side of the street will have a shoulder and swale for drainage. In this way, the street can more -easily be widened if it is ever necessary to accommodate a mid -block turn lane, but most of the corridor will benefit from the narrower cross-section. Given the current single-family zoning and the generally smaller parcels south of Sprague, it seems that this area is less likely to see pressure for rezoning and the two-lane cross section will operate well in the future. 41h Avenue and 81h Avenue Intersection Improvements - Phase the construction of Barker Road to include single -lane roundabouts at 4th Avenue and 8th Avenue along with the two-lane configuration. City of Spokane Valley 25 1 P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report v8 2/7/20 IMPLEMENTATION The recommended transportation improvements can be summarized into a total of eight projects along the South Barker Road Corridor. A list of these projects, along with a brief description, timeframe for implementation, and estimated cost in 2018 dollars for the portion Spokane Valley would be responsible for are shown in Figure 20. Reference to the program and project numberfrom previous plans, documents or the City's TIP is also identified. Figure 20. South Barker Road projects and cost estimates to be implemented through year 2040. C• ProgramAgency Project• • (Project #) Responsible • I IMMEDIATE 2019.2020 1.90 Eastbound Ramp/ Reconstruct intersection with Barker Road single -lane roundabout and two Horizon 2040 WSDOT N/A Interchange Interim eastbound approach lanes; Plan (#12) Improvements realign east leg of Broadway 1.90 Westbound Ramp/ Reconstruct intersection with Barker Road single -lane roundabout and two southbound approach lanes; Horizon 2040 WSDOT N/A Interchange Interim convert Barker/Boone to right- Plan (#12) Improvements in/right-out NEAR TERM 2021.2024 Sprague/Barker Intersection Reconstruct intersection with 2019-2024 COSV $1,517,000 single -lane roundabout TIP (#15) Improvements MID TERM 2025.2030 Replace Barker Road Bridge and widen to 4-lanes from Boone Avenue to Broadway; I-901Barker Road reconstruct both intersections Horizon 2040 Not anticipated at Interchange Long -Term to 2-lane roundabout; Plan (#12) WSDOT this time Improvements reconstruct Barker/1-90 westbound ramp intersection to six -leg roundabout with Boone Avenue Barker Road Widen and improve to 5-lane 2019-2024 Improvement Project — urban section; roundabout @ TIP (#22) COSV $6,477,000 Appleway to 1-90 Broadway Barker Road Improvement Project — Widen and improve to 5-lane NE Industrial Area PAO COSV $2,950,000 Mission to 1-90 urban section Phase 2 LONG TERM 2031.2040 Barker Road Reconstruct and widen north of Improvement Project— Sprague to 3-lane urban 2019-2024 COSY $2,854,000 Appleway to South City section, and south of Sprague TIP (#20) Limits to 2-lane urban section. 4th Avenue/Barker & 8th Reconstruct 4th Avenue and 8th 2019-2024 Avenue/Barker Intersection Avenue intersections with TIP (#21) COSY $3,000,000 single -lane roundabouts Improvements 1. Costs do not include WSDOT's portion City of Spokane Valley 26 1 P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY ve 2/7/20 Updated Report Source: Fehr & Peers; City of Spokane Valley. Cost estimates are primarily derived from the City of Spokane Valley 2019-2024 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Exceptions include the cost of the Barker Road Improvement Project — Mission to 1-90, which is derived from the estimate provided in the Northeast Industrial Area PAO and adjusted for 2018 dollars and the 4' Avenue/Barker & 8tn Avenue/Barker Intersection Improvements, which assume a cost of $1.5 million per intersection comparable to the cost estimate for the Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvements. Projects are divided into four distinct timeframes: immediate (by 2020), near -term (3-6 years), mid-term (by 2030) and long-term (2040). The timing of implementation is based on a combination of traffic analysis findings of when the project is needed to meet LOS criteria, time for project development and anticipated availability of funding. Fair Share Analysis and Potential Funding In order to offset the costs of the future infrastructure projects that will be needed to achieve acceptable multimodal operations in the Barker Road Corridor, one option would be for Spokane Valley to collect traffic impact mitigation fees based on a fair -share analysis. Fees could be collected from developments in Spokane Valley around the Barker Road corridor, as well as from neighboring jurisdictions, including Liberty Lake and Spokane County where development is expected to generate traffic that will utilize the corridor, generate/exacerbate traffic impacts, and benefit from the future roadway widening projects. The fair -share financial contribution is determined by how much traffic each jurisdiction is expected to contribute in 2040 to locations in the Barker Road corridor where future transportation improvement projects were identified. The same regional travel demand model used to forecast 2040 traffic was used to estimate the percent of traffic through various segments of Barker Road generated by a portion of each jurisdiction. This was done by using a tool in the model called a "select zone analysis." The select zone analysis was set to identify the traffic generated by the area in each jurisdiction where development is expected to have the greatest traffic impact on the South Barker Road corridor and thus where a development fee could be reasonably assessed. This includes the portion of Spokane Valley south of the Spokane River and east of Flora Road, the area of unincorporated Spokane County immediately south and east of the Spokane Valley City limits and the City of Liberty Lake west of Harvard Road as shown in Figure 21. Please note that the Northeast Industrial Area (north of the Spokane River) was excluded from this analysis as the City is already utilizing a Planned Action Ordinance to assess fair -share fees for projects on Barker Road north of 1-90. City of Spokane Valley 27 1 P a g e r �1 dll J Grk p1 Chase Rd °4epj S �\be�y /f P21 JN 11 El - �� ,a 441 Nenry Rd @v a' Q Tt J 00 -47 cr C j a - N pH u0suanaIS N "p - � . d Ofi,S� =Uc Wrigfit,O��iLPi'IIoW` SI P21 PlenieH N � CO le _ u► j — --� �� °� del S EIk,Greek Se �S Henry, e \`eke Lake_ RPa Ilagdwe� S - J � 2 Pb Ilegdwe0N w i � �I � --� w M Pa I^?O.S -- N N c N Joel Rd M of � P 8 t0 tt cfl i� dLO M M M `� �1i it N M o` -r--�= I I uTBUO'JIS M IS OJV N I M r Jam- PH I188 N U M i cYoaaC�l =, Pa ejold U W co M _ 1 r-I L 00 SS N �. 9a1noa leina - u I RdL_ - l sa O' 1¢ N Moore I P2i uenlpng g re m -� '_ o m f w _ ?PH -Wine N - - d! P2! @ 3 L-Q Arrowleaf L Y M ° uaa�6�an N rN W'( x 2 w � = I L % sv ed S S HwY 27 d aNal8 S Q ala a1eiS - d N Blake R �r0Dr _ S VicariO PM PleuoQOW N / L- - - m; d PH I A c� �a Ora - JI� P2l squid N m S ¢ PH said g dl_ `� o LLJT� _ 65 S Linda Ln P21 �ngl!M S - Pa sPUes S:4` y i q l! PH X S ++ _ Eiy Pa rM 41�N ui PH gslpmog S ozF PH s! i N PH II!H Vrud yv \ - v IL S S L E a o PH aOJa!d S � J` \ y _0 Q Pb JalieW u '� y m PH uljagOS �v C r Q d-'1 PN gnipooN L C �/& o F -� L O \ - a✓ L _ )N 0 3 V PH11tiPO0M O PH Bul rj Pa.auuofuy N o w N n Z PH ale4 N _) 1 2 Iue6jeS N --� ' f Qua ZJ T w d� PH e113 Nod, � w�7 o l ,.N Ge ier R PH >I1ed,N ¢ o � � a)- _i �,i �� —' u1-Wei i= I m u m > _ a a Q Q ewial41 N cn O• cn as�I '� J J 4: Pb;walse3lN 1 O R e� Pbuewl3a8 S t a -.PN ie4ou ; .- 0 O 0 _ e-IN- �'•h L;- I P21asn„1_ N F- 1 SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report To complete this analysis, the corridor was divided into three segments: north of 1-90, between 1-90 and Appleway Avenue, and south of Appleway Avenue. The results of the fair share analysis are shown Figure 22. As an example, Figure 22 shows that by 2040 about 18% of traffic on Barker Road north of 1-90 will be generated by Liberty Lake and 4% will be generated by unincorporated Spokane County immediately south and east of Spokane Valley. South of Appleway Avenue, only about 2% of traffic on Barker Road will be generated by Liberty Lake and 35% will be generated by development in unincorporated Spokane County immediately south and east of the Spokane Valley city limits. It should be noted that the percentages represent the percent of trip ends, since all trips have two ends. The select link analysis provides the origins and destinations by TAZ of all the PM peak hour trips traveling in each direction of Barker Road. Since each trip has both an origin and destination, half of the trip was assigned to the origin and half of the trip was assigned to the destination. For example, in the case of a trip that begins in Spokane Valley and ends in Liberty Lake half of that trip would be assigned to Spokane Valley and half to Liberty Lake, since both locations generated one end of the trip. Trips in the "other" category include traffic that has at least one trip end outside the TAZs included in the travel shed (see Figure 21). These include trips passing through the area or trips that have one end in the travel shed and one end outside of the travel shed (e.g., a trip between southeast Spokane Valley and downtown Spokane). Spokane Valley will need to use non -mitigation fee funding (grants, general funds) to cover the cost of the "other" trips since they cannot be levied on developers in the study area. Figure 22. Percent of 2040 Barker Road traffic generated by jurisdiction. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 To estimate the fair share transportation impact mitigation fee for new development in each of the jurisdictions, the cost of each project is multiplied by the percent of traffic from that jurisdiction that is forecast to use the infrastructure. Given the relatively low volume of traffic generated by unincorporated Spokane County north of 1-90 and the relatively low volume of traffic generated by Liberty Lake south of Appleway Avenue it is recommended to exclude those jurisdictions from contributing to the cost of projects in those respective segments. It is recommended that new development in Liberty Lake be assessed a fair -share fee of 18% of the capital cost of infrastructure projects needed between Mission Avenue and Boone Avenue and 16% of the capital cost of infrastructure projects needed between 1-90 and Appleway Avenue. Similarly, it is recommended that new development in Spokane County within the south Barker Corridor travel shed (see Figure 21) be assessed a fair -share fee of 17% of the capital cost of infrastructure projects needed between 1-90 and Appleway Avenue and a fair share fee of 35% of the capital cost of infrastructure projects needed between Appleway Avenue and the south city limits. In addition to determining which jurisdictions use the new infrastructure, a fair share transportation impact mitigation fee must consider "existing deficiencies." Impact fee case law clearly states that new developments cannot be charged to fix existing deficiencies to the transportation system. Based on the LOS analysis above, there are existing deficiencies at the 1-90 ramp intersections. Since WSDOT is funding City of Spokane Valley 29 1 P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY vs 2/7/20 Updated Report the bulk of the interim improvements at the Barker Road interchange, there is no need to take a credit at that location. When the percentages in Figure 22 are applied to the cost of the projects listed in Figure 20, the fairshare cost that can be applied to new development in each jurisdiction is listed in Figure 23. The total fair share cost is estimated at about $1.57 million to Liberty Lake and $3.57 million to Spokane County. It should be noted that Spokane Valley already has an agreement with Spokane County for a number of vested developments to pay a mitigation fee for improvements on Barker Road. The agreement totals $116,411, which was subtracted from the fair -share cost (specifically the Barker Road Improvement Project — Appleway to South City Limits). Figure 23. Fair -share cost by jurisdiction and project. ProjectTotal .•Spokane Segment of '... Cost Valley Liberty Lake County 1-90 Eastbound Ramp/ Barker Road N/A NIA N/A N/A Interchange Interim Improvements 1-90 Westbound Ramp/ N/A N/A N/A N/A Barker Road Interchange Interim Improvements Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvements $1,517,000 $273,000 $0 $531,000 I-90/Barker Road Interchange Long -Term Not anticipated at N/A N/A N/A Improvements this time Barker Road Improvement Project- Appleway $6,477,000 $1,230,000 $1,036,000 $1,101,000 to I-90 Barker Road Improvement Project- Mission to $2,950,000 $767,000 $531,000 $0 I-90 Barker Road Improvement Project— Appleway $2,854,000 $514,000 $0 $999,000 minus to South CityLimits $116,411 4th Avenue/Barker & 8th Avenue/Barker $3,000,000 $540,000 $0 $1,050,000 Intersection Improvements Total $16,798,000 $3,324,000 $1,567,000 $3,565,000* Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 *Total was reduced by $116,411 to account for the existing mitigation fee agreement between Spokane Valley and Spokane County for several vested developments in Spokane County. Typically, costs to mitigate transportation infrastructure impacts are allocated based on PM peak hour traffic generation. Using PM peak hour trips is typical, since it is the PM peak hour that typically has the most -congested traffic and trips are a way to distribute costs in a way that is proportionate to the total impact generated. In other words, larger developments that generate more trips pay proportionately more than smaller developments that generate fewer trips. To develop a per -trip fee, it necessary to estimate PM peak hour traffic that will be generated by new development in the area that will use the South Barker Road Corridor. This includes portions of Spokane Valley and unincorporated Spokane County with the Barker Road Corridor travel shed and Liberty Lake east of Harvard Road (see Figure 21). Based on the 2015 and 2040 regional travel demand model, it was found that about 5,033 new PM peak hour trips will be generated by new development in this area between 2015 and 2040. This includes 2,212 new PM peak hourtrips generated by Spokane Valley, 1,888 new PM peak hour trips generated by Liberty Lake and 933 new PM peak hour trips generated by unincorporated Spokane County. To estimate a cost per PM peak hour trip, one would divide the total City of Spokane Valley 30 1 P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report eligible costs of Barker Road projects (project costs minus existing deficiencies) by the new PM peak hour trips forecast to be generated in the study area. As an example, Figure 24 illustrates the cost of each capital improvement project recommended on the South Barker Road Corridor through 2040, along with the portion of the cost attributed to Spokane Valley traffic and the corresponding cost per new PM peak hour trip generated by development east of Flora Road and south of the Spokane River. The total cost of all projects (excluding WSDOT's portion) is about $16.8 million. Using the fair -share estimate, about $3.3 million would be attributed to traffic generated by Southeast Spokane Valley. When the fair share cost is divided by the number of new PM peak hour trips expected from development in Southeast Spokane Valley between 2015 and 2040, the total cost per PM peak hour trip would be $1,503. Figure 24. Cost per PM peak hour trip from new development (2015-2040) in Spokane Valley. Project COW Cost Estimate' Percent Attributed Portion New PM Peak 1 to COW Attributed to COW from Nearby COW PM Peak Development 1.90 Eastbound Ramp/ Barker Road N/A N/A N/A 2,212 N/A Interchange Interim Improvements 1-90 Westbound Ramp/ Barker Road Interchange Interim N/A N/A N/A 2,212 N/A Improvements Sprague/Barker Intersection Improvements $1,517,000 18% $273,000 2,212 $123 1-90/Barker Road Interchange Long- Not anticipated at N/A N/A 2,212 N/A Term Improvements this time Barker Road Improvement Project— $6,477,000 19% $1,230,000 2,212 $556 Appleway to 1-90 Barker Road Improvement Project— $2,950,000 26% $767,000 2,212 $347 Mission to 1-90 Barker Road Improvement Project— $2,854,000 18% $514,000 2,212 $232 Appleway to South City Limits 4th Avenue/Barker & 8th Avenue/Barker Intersection $3,000,000 18% $540,000 2,212 $244 Improvements Total $16,798,000 $3,324,000 1 2,212 $1,503 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018 Applying this same methodology to the other jurisdictions results in a total cost per new PM peak hour trip of $830 for Liberty Lake and $3,821 for the area of unincorporated Spokane County within the South Barker Road travel shed as shown in Figure 25. These fees represent potential fair -share costs that could be levied on new development to help finance projects on the South Barker Corridor. City of Spokane Valley 311 P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report Figure 25. Cost per PM peak hour trip from new development (2015-2040) by jurisdiction. v8 2/7/20 Vested Trips According to data provided by Liberty Lake and Spokane County, a significant number of dwelling units forecast to be added between 2015 and 2040 have already been vested. In the three TAZs in Liberty Lake west of Harvard Road, about 1,490 of the 1,929 total new dwelling units forecast to be added between 2015 and 2040 have already been vested. In addition, a number of properties in Liberty Lake have already been vested for commercial development (about 397,853 sq. ft. across the City). While there is no mechanism to charge a mitigation fee to existing or vested trips, the number of vested trips does not detract from the fact that Barker Road is not expected to meet the City of Spokane Valley LOS standard by 2040, nor does it detract that development and growth in Liberty Lake and Spokane County contributes substantially to the traffic and congestion on Barker Road. One could recalculate a new impact fee that specifically accounts for the vested trips. However, the resulting impact fee for the unvested trips would be higher than what was calculated in this Study. This is because the total costs for the capacity expansion would be the same, but there would be fewer growth trips to spread the cost of necessary transportation improvements across. Based on a rough calculation, it's estimated the cost per PM peak hour trip for unvested growth in Liberty Lake to be approximately $1,200 to $1,300 or about 50% higher than the PM peak hour fee of $830 when vested trips are included. Therefore, Spokane Valley is suggesting that any unvested trips be assessed the fee calculated in this study as its proportionate fair -share fee. This keeps these trips from being additionally cost -burdened because of the inability to capture the costs of the vested trips. It should be noted that Spokane Valley already has an agreement with Spokane County for a number of vested developments to pay a mitigation fee for improvements on Barker Road. The agreement totals $116,411, which was subtracted from the fair -share cost for Spokane County. CONCLUSIONS This report provides a summary of recommended capital improvement projects and estimated costs on the South Barker Corridor between Mission Avenue and the south City limits to be implemented by 2040. Projects are recommended to meet City and WSDOT LOS standards as well as to improve multimodal mobility in preparation for future development. This report also provides analysis of a fair -share cost estimation associated with traffic generated by adjacent jurisdictions and potential development traffic impact mitigation fees as one tool to finance projects. Lastly, guidance is provided to WSDOT on the City of Spokane Valley's preferred interim and long-term alternative for the 1-90 interchange. Analysis of existing conditions shows that both intersections of the Barker Road/1-90 Interchange are not currently operating at acceptable standards and the Barker Road/Sprague Avenue intersection is close to City of Spokane Valley 32 1 P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY v8 2/7/20 Updated Report failing COSV standards in the PM peak hour. Additionally, by 2040 the Barker Road/Broadway intersection will fail City of Spokane Valley LOS standards. Traffic on Barker Road is expected to grow at a rate of about 1.4% per year through 2040, which will necessitate widening the corridor to five lanes between Mission Avenue and Appleway Avenue. In orderto address traffic operations, traffic safety and multimodal mobility on the corridor a total of eight capital improvement projects are recommended to be implemented between now and 2040. These are listed below, organized into four different time frames for implementation based on when the project is needed as well as other factors (including funding availability): • Immediate (2019-2020) 0 1-90 Eastbound Ramp/Barker Road Interim Improvements (single -lane roundabout) 0 1-90 Westbound Ramp/Barker Road Interim Improvements (single -lane roundabout) • Near -Term (2021-2024) o Barker Road/Sprague Avenue Intersection Improvements • Mid -Term (2025-2030) 0 1-90/Barker Road Interchange Long -Term Improvements o Barker Road Improvement Project —1-90 to Appleway Avenue (5-lane urban section) o Barker Road Improvement Project — Mission Avenue to 1-90 (5-lane urban section) • Long -Term (2031-2040) o Barker Road Improvement Project — Appleway Avenue to south City Limits 0 4th Avenue/Barker & 8th Avenue/Barker Intersection Improvements In summary, the recommended improvements by 2040 would result in the following future condition. Barker Road would have bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides of the street and curb and gutter along the length of the corridor. The road would be widened to five lanes from Mission Avenue to Appleway Avenue, three lanes from Appleway Avenue to Sprague Avenue and two -lanes from Sprague Avenue to the south City limits. South of Sprague, the area between the sidewalks on eitherside of the street would be wide enough to accommodate a third centerturn lane in the future if warranted by development. Two- lane roundabouts would be implemented at both intersection of the 1-90 interchange. The Boone Avenue intersection would be consolidated into a new six -leg roundabout with the 1-90 westbound ramp and Cataldo Avenue. The bridge over 1-90 would be widened to four lanes with wide sidewalks on both sides to accommodate both bicyclists and pedestrians. The east -leg of Broadway would be realigned to meet the west -leg and the Broadway intersection would be converted to a roundabout or reconfigured to prevent left -out movements. New single -lane roundabouts or traffic signals would be implemented at the Sprague Avenue, 4tn Avenue and 8tn Avenue intersections. The combined costs of the projects, excluding the portion that would be funded by WSDOT, is estimated to be about $16.8 million in 2018 dollars. A fair -share analysis of the corridor was also conducted to highlight how development in Spokane Valley, Liberty Lake, and Spokane County could help to finance these projects. By multiplying the eligible project cost with the fair -share percentage and charging that fee, it would ensure that new development in each jurisdiction is contributing funding to the project reflective of their use of/benefit from the improvement. The fair -share analysis demonstrated that traffic from Southeast Spokane Valley developments will generate fairly equal demand on the length of the corridor. Traffic from Liberty Lake is generally expected to use the section of Barker Road north of Appleway Avenue and traffic from unincorporated Spokane County will generally use the section of the City of Spokane Valley 33 1 P a g e SOUTH BARKER CORRIDOR STUDY Updated Report vs 2/7/20 corridor south of 1-90. Therefore, it is recommended that a fee program be implemented to collect fees for projects on three distinct segments of the corridor based on the fair -share percentage: • Mission Avenue to 1-90 • 1-90 to Appleway Avenue • Appleway Avenue to south City limits It should be noted that while developer impact fees can provide an important source of funding, after negotiating with developers, elected officials, and neighboring jurisdictions, the impact fees are typically set so that they only cover a portion of project costs (typically less than 50%). Thus, Spokane Valley will need to use other financing strategies to pay for the remaining costs of the projects identified above. Other financing strategies Spokane Valley might consider include implementing a local improvement district or transportation benefit district, and applying for grants. Historically, Spokane Valley has had strong success in seeking and winning external funding, which has kept the costs of expanding transportation infrastructure relatively low for both developers and existing taxpayers compared to other cities in the region and state. City of Spokane Valley 34 1 P a g e Draft Draft Chapter 22.100 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES Sections: 22.100.010 Findings and Authority. 22.100.020 Definitions. 22.100.030 Applicability. 22.100.040 Assessment of Transportation Impact Fees. 22.100.050 Deferral. 22.100.060 Exemptions. 22.100.070 Credits. 22.100.080 Independent Fee Calculations. 22.100.090 Adjustments. 22.100.100 Creation of Impact Fee Fund. 22.100.110 Appeals. 22.100.120 Refunds. 22.100.130 Interlocal Agreements. 22.100.140 Existing Authority Unimpaired. 22.100.150 Review. SVMC 22.100.010 Findings and Authority. A. The City Council hereby finds and determines that new growth and development, including but not limited to new residential, commercial, retail, office, cultural, educational, and industrial development, in the City will create additional demand and need for public transportation facilities, including but not limited to, public streets, roadways, multimodal, and related improvements within the City, and the City Council finds that new growth and development should pay a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities needed to serve the new growth and development. B. The City has conducted extensive studies documenting the procedures for measuring the impact of new developments on transportation facilities, has prepared certain Transportation Impact Fee Rate Studies, including the South Barker Corridor Study, dated February, 2020, and South Barker Corridor Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study, dated September, 2020. All such studies are hereby adopted and incorporated into this title by reference. Based on the foregoing, the City has prepared a formula and method of calculating transportation impact fees to serve new development that provides a balance between transportation impact fees, public funds, and other sources of funds. The data and method of calculating contained in the Transportation Impact Fee Rate Studies are consistent with the data collected as part of the development of the comprehensive plan, the traffic impact analyses completed for projects, and data and models developed by Spokane Regional Transportation Council and other jurisdictions. The Transportation Impact Fee Rate Studies utilize a methodology for calculating transportation impact fees that fulfills all of the requirements of RCW 82.02.060(1). Copies of all studies shall be kept on file with the City Clerk and shall be available to the public for review. CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit A 10/22/2020 Page 1 of 12 Draft C. Pursuant to chapter 82.02 RCW, the City Council adopts this chapter to adopt and assess transportation impact fees. D. The provisions of this chapter shall be liberally construed in order to carry out the purposes of the City Council in establishing the transportation impact fee program. SVMC 22.100.020 Definitions. As used in this chapter, the following words and terms shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly requires otherwise. Terms otherwise not defined herein shall be defined pursuant to Appendix A of the SVMC or RCW 82.02.090. A. "Applicant" means a person who applies for a development activity permit and who is the owner of the subject property according to the records of the Spokane County, or the owner's authorized agent. For purposes of transportation impact fee deferral requests pursuant to SVMC 22.100.050, applicant includes an entity that controls the applicant, is controlled by the applicant, or is under common control with the applicant. B. "Building permit" means the official document or certification that is issued by the City and that authorizes the construction, alteration, enlargement, conversion, reconstruction, remodeling, rehabilitation, erection, tenant improvement, demolition, moving or repair of a building or structure, as required and issued pursuant to Title 24 SVMC. C. "Development activity" means any construction or expansion of a building, structure, or use, or any change in use of a building or structure, or any changes in the use of land, that creates additional demand and need for public facilities. It does not include buildings or structures constructed by a regional transit authority or buildings or structures constructed as shelters that provide emergency housing for people experiencing homelessness, or emergency shelters for victims of domestic violence. D. "Development approval" means any written authorization from the City that authorizes the commencement of development activity. E. "Feepayer" is a person, corporation, partnership, an incorporated association, or any other similar entity, or department or bureau of any governmental entity or municipal corporation commencing a land development activity that creates the demand for additional public facilities, and which requires the issuance of a building permit. "Feepayer" includes an applicant for a transportation impact fee credit. F. "Impact fee" means a payment of money imposed upon development as a condition of development approval to pay for public facilities needed to serve new growth and development, and that is reasonably related to the new development that creates additional demand and need for public facilities, that is a proportionate share of the cost of the public facilities, and that is used for facilities that reasonably benefit the new development. "Impact fee" does not include a reasonable permit fee, an application fee, or the cost for reviewing independent fee calculations CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit A 10/22/2020 Page 2 of 12 Draft or other traffic studies prepared for safety, SEPA, or other purposes defined in the Spokane Valley Street Standards or in the SVMC. G. "Impact fee account" or "account" means the account(s) established for each service area for the system improvements for which impact fees are collected. The accounts shall be established pursuant to this chapter, and shall comply with the requirements of RCW 82.02.070. H. "Independent fee calculation" means the impact fee calculation and or economic documentation prepared by a feepayer to support the assessment of an impact fee other than by the use of schedule set forth in the Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study, or the calculations prepared by the City where none of the fee categories or fee amounts in the schedules in this chapter accurately describe or capture the impacts of the new development on public facilities. I. "Interest" means the interest rate earned by local jurisdictions in the State of Washington local government investment pool, if not otherwise defined. J. "ITE manual" means the current version of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, as amended from time to time and most current version of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook as referenced therein. K. "Pass -by trip rates" means those pass -by rates set forth in the Transportation Impact Fee Rate Studies, as amended from time to time. L. "Project improvements" means site improvements and facilities that are planned and designed to provide service for a particular development and that are necessary for the use and convenience of the occupants or users of the project, and are not system improvements. An improvement or facility included in the City's capital facilities plan is not considered a project improvement. M. "Public facilities" means publicly owned streets and roads, including related sidewalk, bike lanes, adjacent multiuse trails, and streetscape improvements required by the City's comprehensive plan and related development regulations, including adopted Street Standards, within the public rights -of -way. N. "Rate study" or "Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study" means the set of Transportation Impact Fee Rate Studies adopted by City Council that define the methodologies, service standards, projects, costs, deficiencies, fair -shares, and rate tables. O. "Rate table" refers to schedule(s) containing the transportation impact fee rate per PM peak hour trip or unit of land use (e.g., single family dwelling unit, square footage of leasable retail space, etc.) as defined by the Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study, and as may be amended from time to time. The rate table shall be incorporated into the City's adopted Master Fee Schedule, and shall be maintained by the City Clerk and shall be available for public inspection during regular business hours and/or electronically on the City's website. CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit A 10/22/2020 Page 3 of 12 Draft P. "Service area" means a geographic area defined by the City in which a defined set of public facilities provide service to development within the identified area. The City has identified the service areas, based on sound planning and engineering principles, but these service areas may change based on the nature of development and the public facilities needs identified to support development across the City. The service areas are defined in the Transportation Impact Fee Rate Studies. Maps depicting the service areas are set forth in the Rate Studies and shall also be maintained by the City Clerk and shall be available for public inspection during regular business hours and/or electronically on the City's website. Q. "System improvements" means public facilities included in the capital facilities plan and which are designed to provide service to service areas within the community at large, in contrast to project improvements. SVMC 22.100.030 Applicability. Except as may otherwise be provided herein, all development activity within the geographical services areas established in the Transportation Impact Fee Rate Studies shall be assessed the transportation impact fee applicable to the type of development in the amounts set forth in the current rate table as adopted by the City Council. SVMC 22.100.040 Assessment of Transportation Impact Fees. A. Transportation impact fees shall be assessed at the issuance of a building permit for each unit in a development, using either the current rate set forth in the adopted transportation impact fee rate table or an independent fee calculation as approved by the City. The transportation impact fee rate table is incorporated into the City's Master Fee Schedule, and is adopted and incorporated by reference herein as if set forth in full. B. Transportation impact fees shall be paid at the issuance of a building permit, except as otherwise provided pursuant to SVMC 22.100.050. C. For commercial development involving multiple users, transportation impact fees shall be assessed and collected prior to issuance of building permits that authorize completion of tenant improvements for each use. D. Applicants that have been awarded credits prior to the submittal of the complete building permit application pursuant to SVMC 22.100.070 shall submit, along with the complete building permit application, a copy of the letter or certificate prepared by the City pursuant to 22.100.070 setting forth the dollar amount of the credit awarded. Transportation impact fees, as determined after the application of appropriate credits, shall be collected from the applicant prior to issuance of the building permit for each unit in the development unless deferred per SVMC 22.100.050. E. For mixed use buildings or development, transportation impact fees shall be imposed based on the total PM peak hour trip generation from each individual use, as defined in the rate table. Where internal trip capture is expected based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual or Handbook, manual calculations may be submitted for review and approval pursuant to SVMC 22.100.080. CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit A 10/22/2020 Page 4 of 12 Draft F. The City shall establish the transportation impact fee rate for a land use that is not listed in the rate table based on the most similar land use category identified in the rate' table pursuant to SVMC 22.100.080. The applicant shall submit all information requested by the City for purposes of determining the impact fee rate pursuant to SVMC 22.100.080. F. The City shall place a hold on permits for development approval and no permits shall be issued unless and until the transportation impact fees required by this chapter, less any permitted exemptions, credits or deductions, have been paid or lien recorded. G. An applicant may request that the transportation impact fee be calculated in advance of building permit issuance, but any such advance calculation shall not be binding on the City and should only be used as guidance by the applicant, except as otherwise provided pursuant to SVMC 22.100.050. There is no vested right to pay a particular transportation impact fee in advance of building permit issuance. If the City Council revises the transportation impact fee formula or the transportation impact fees themselves prior to the time that a building permit is issued for a particular development, the formula or fee amount in effect at the time of building permit issuance shall apply to the development. SVMC 22.100.050 Deferral. A. An applicant for single-family detached and attached residential construction may request deferral of collection of transportation impact fees until certificate of occupancy or 18 months 'from the date of the original building permit issuance, whichever occurs first. The following requirements shall apply to any application for deferral of transportation impact fees: 1. The request for deferral must be made in writing prior to the building permit issuance, and consistent with the requirements of this section, to defer payment of the transportation impact fee until certificate of occupancy or equivalent certification. 2. To receive a deferral, an applicant must: a. Submit a deferred impact fee application and acknowledgement form for each single-family attached or detached residence for which the applicant wishes to defer payment of the transportation impact fees; b. Pay the applicable deferral application fee; c. Grant and record at the applicant's expense a deferred transportation impact fee lien in a form approved by the City against the property in favor of the City in the amount of the deferred impact fee that: i. Includes the legal description, tax account number, and address of the property; ii. Requires payment of the impact fees to the City prior to Certificate of Occupancy or equivalent certification, or 18 months from the date of the original building permit issuance, whichever occurs first; CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit A 10/22/2020 Page 5 of 12 Draft iii. Is signed by all owners of the property, with all signatures acknowledged as required for a deed, and is recorded in Spokane County; iv. Binds all successors in title after the recordation; and v. Is junior and subordinate to one mortgage for the purpose of construction upon the same real property granted by the person who applied for the deferral of transportation impact fees. B. The amount of transportation impact fees deferred shall be determined by the fees in effect at the time the applicant applies for a deferral. C. Prior to any required dates for payment, the applicant may pay the deferred amount in installments, with no penalty for early payment. The City may set a minimum installment amount. D. If closing of the first sale of the property for which transportation impact fees were deferred occurs within 18 months of the building permit issuance, payment of all deferred impact fees is required to take place prior to or upon closing, and the seller shall be strictly liable for payment of all deferred impact fees to the City at that time. The City bears no responsibility for determining whether the seller and the buyer have contractually agreed for the buyer to pay the deferred fees, and the City reserves the right to institute legal proceedings against the seller, if necessary, to collect any deferred impact fees that remain unpaid after closing. In addition, the City may withhold issuance of a certificate of occupancy, final inspection approval, or equivalent certification required for occupancy of the residence until all impact fees have been paid in full. E. If closing of the first sale of the property for which transportation impact fees were deferred does not occur within 18 months of the building permit issuance, then all deferred impact fees shall become immediately due and owing to the City, and the applicant shall be strictly liable for payment of all deferred impact fees to the City at that time. If the applicant fails, upon request by the City, to immediately pay all deferred impact fees pursuant to this chapter, then the City may foreclose on the lien in the manner provided for in chapter 61.12 RCW. In addition, the City may withhold issuance of a certificate of occupancy, final inspection approval, or equivalent certification required for occupancy of the residence until all impact fees have been paid in full. F. Upon receipt of final payment of impact fees deferred under this section, the City shall execute a release of deferred impact fee lien for each single-family attached or detached residence for which the transportation impact fees have been received. The applicant, or property owner at the time of release, shall be responsible for recording the lien release at his or her expense. G. The extinguishment of a deferred impact fee lien by the foreclosure of a lien having priority does not affect the obligation to pay the transportation impact fees as a condition of certificate of occupancy or equivalent certification, or at the time of closing of the first sale. CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit A 10/22/2020 Page 6 of 12 Draft H. Each applicant for a single-family attached or detached residential construction permit, in accordance with his or her contractor registration number or other unique identification number, is entitled to annually receive deferrals under this section for the first 20 single-family residential construction building permits on an annual basis. SVMC 22.100.060 Exemptions. For the purposes of this chapter only, the following are exempt from the payment of transportation impact fees: A. Replacement of a commercial structure with a new structure of the same size and use or a residential structure with the same number of residential dwelling units, both at the same site or lot, where demolition of the prior commercial or residential structure occurred within the prior two years. Replacement of a commercial structure with a new commercial structure of the same size shall be interpreted to include any structure for which the gross square footage of the building will not be increased by more than [120-200] square feet and the primary use of the commercial space is the same. It shall be the feepayer's responsibility and burden to establish the existence of a qualifying prior use. B. Expansions of existing residential structures that do not add residential dwelling units. C. Alteration of an existing nonresidential structure that does not expand the usable space, add any residential units, or result in a change in use. D. Miscellaneous improvements that do not create additional demand and need for public facilities, including, but not limited to, fences, walls, swimming pools, and signs. E. Demolition or moving of a structure. F. Re -use or change in use of an existing structure that does not create additional demand and need for public facilities. It shall be the feepayer's responsibility and burden to establish that no additional demand is created by the re -use or change in use. For a change in use of an existing structure that does create additional demand and need for public facilities, the City shall collect transportation impact fees for the new use based on the schedules in rate table, less the fees that would have been payable as a result of the prior use. SVMC 22.100.070 Credits. A. An applicant may request a credit for the total value of dedicated land for, improvement to, or new construction of any system improvements provided by the applicant. Credits will only be given if the land, improvements, and/or facility constructed are for one or more of the transportation projects listed in the Rate Study as the basis for calculating the transportation impact fee. B. Credits shall be based on appraised value made by an appraiser approved of by the City. The appraiser must be a Washington State certified appraiser or must possess other equivalent CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit A 10/22/2020 Page 7 of 12 Draft certification and shall not have a fiduciary or personal interest in the property being appraised. A description of the appraiser's certification shall be included with the appraisal, and the appraiser shall certify that he/she does not have a fiduciary or personal interest in the property being appraised. The applicant shall be responsible for payment of the cost of the appraisal and all associated or related costs. C. After receiving the appraisal, and where consistent with the requirements of this section, the City shall provide the applicant with a letter or certificate setting forth the dollar amount of the credit, the reason for the credit, the legal description of the site donated where applicable, and the legal description or other adequate description of the project or development to which the credit may be applied. The applicant must sign and date a duplicate copy of such letter or certificate indicating the applicant's agreement to the terms of the letter or certificate, and return such signed document to the City before the impact fee credit will be awarded. The failure of the applicant to sign, date, and return such document within 60 calendar days shall nullify the credit. The credit must be used within 72 months of the award of the credit. D. Any claim for credit must be made prior to issuance of a building permit, provided any claim for credit submitted later than 20 calendar days after the submission of an application for a building permit shall constitute a waiver and suspension of timelines established by state and/or local law for processing of permit applications. E. In no event shall the credit exceed the amount of the impact fees that would have been due for the proposed development activity. F. No credit shall be given for project improvements or right-of-way dedications for direct access improvements to and/or within the subject development above and beyond what is proposed in the capital facilities plan. SVMC 22.100.080 Independent Fee Calculations. A. If in the judgment of the City Manager, none of the fee categories or fee amounts set forth in the rate tables accurately describe or capture the impacts of a new development on transportation facilities, the City may prepare independent fee calculations and the City Manager may impose alternative fees on a specific development based on those calculations. The alternative fees and the calculations shall be set forth in writing and shall be mailed to the applicant. B. Alternatively, if an applicant believes that the applicant's proposed development activity does not fall under one of the fee categories set forth in the rate table, the applicant may, at the applicant's option, prepare and submit to the City an independent fee calculation for the development activity for which a development permit is being sought. The documentation submitted shall be prepared by a licensed professional engineer and shall identify a development activity or land use code in the ITE manual that most closely resembles the applicant's proposed development activity and calculate the applicant's fees based on the number of trips assigned to that development activity by the ITE manual. The applicant may also choose to prepare an independent trip generation rate/impact fee study to document why no ITE land use category is appropriate as it relates to this chapter. In calculating such fees, the applicant may choose to incorporate applicable pass -by trip rates or mixed -use internalization factors that are supported CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit A 10/22/2020 Page 8 of 12 Draft by evidence and/or transportation engineering best practices. For any independent fee calculation prepared by the applicant, documentation in the form of a report or memo is required to be submitted to the City that explains the methodology, data sources, and calculations. Independent fee calculations shall use the same impact fee rate per PM peak hour trip generated as documented in the rate table. The independent rate study shall be limited to documenting the project's net PM peak hour trip generation rate and subsequent impact fee and therefore shall not include travel demand forecasts, trip distribution, project cost, or fare -share cost allocation results. C. Any applicant electing an independent fee calculation pursuant to subsection (B) of this section shall pay the City a fee to cover the cost of reviewing the independent fee calculation. No such fee shall apply to calculations performed under subsection (A) of this section. The applicant shall remit all remaining actual costs of the City's review of the independent fee calculation prior to and as a precondition of the City's issuance of the building permit. D. There is a rebuttable presumption that the calculations set forth in the Transportation Impact Fee Rate Studies and the adopted fees in the rate tables are valid. The City Manager shall consider the documentation submitted by an applicant pursuant to subsection (B) of this section, but is not required to accept such documentation or analysis which the City Manager reasonably deems to be inapplicable, inaccurate, or not reliable. The City Manager may modify or deny the request, or, in the alternative, require the applicant to submit additional or different documentation for consideration. The City Manager is authorized to adjust the impact fees on a case -by -case basis based on the independent fee calculation, the specific characteristics of the development, and/or principles of fairness. The City's decision shall be set forth in writing and shall be mailed to the applicant. SVMC 22.100.090 Adjustments. Pursuant to and consistent with the requirements of RCW 82.02.060, the Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study has included and accounted for adjustments for future taxes to be paid by the new development which are earmarked or pro -ratable to the same new public facilities which will serve the new development. The Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study has included committed and probable external funding in calculating the impact fees. SVMC 22.100.100 Creation of Impact Fee Fund. A. There is created a special revenue fund in the treasury of the City termed the "Transportation Impact Fee Fund" into which all transportation impact fees collected pursuant to this chapter shall be placed and used solely for the purposes identified herein and in conformance with applicable state law. Interest earned on the fees shall be retained in the fund and expended for the purposes for which the transportation impact fees were collected. B. On an annual basis, the City shall provide a report on the transportation impact fee fund showing the source and amount of all moneys collected, earned, or received, and system improvements that were financed in whole or in part by the transportation impact fees. CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit A 10/22/2020 Page 9 of 12 Draft C. Transportation impact fees shall be expended or encumbered for a permissible use within ten years of receipt, unless there exists an extraordinary and compelling reason for fees to be held longer than ten years. The City Council shall adopt findings identifying the extraordinary and compelling reasons in the event any impact fees are held for longer than ten years and the additional time period fees shall be held. SVMC 22.100.110 Appeals. A. Applicants or feepayers may appeal an impact fee pursuant to the provisions of this section. B. Any applicant or feepayer may pay the impact fees imposed by this chapter under protest in order to obtain a building permit or certificate of occupancy. Any appeal filed prior to the payment of impact fees shall constitute a waiver and suspension of timelines established by state and/or local law for the processing of permit applications. B. Appeals regarding the impact fees imposed on any development activity may only be filed by the applicant or feepayer of the property where such development activity will occur. C. The applicant or feepayer must file a request for review regarding impact fees with the City Manager and receive such determination, as provided herein, prior to filing an appeal of the impact fees. 1. The request shall be in writing on the form provided by the City and shall outline the legal and factual bases for why the impact fee at issue should not be required or should be modified. The applicant or feepayer requesting review shall bear the burden of demonstrating the fee is inappropriate or should be modified. 2. The request for review shall be filed no later than fourteen calendar days after the feepayer pays the impact fees at issue. The failure to timely file such a request shall constitute a final bar to later seek such review. 3. No administrative fee will be imposed for the request for review; and 4. The City Manager shall issue a determination in writing and may uphold the impact fee, modify the impact fee, or determine the impact fee is inappropriate and dismiss the impact fee. Any amount of an impact fee paid in protest that is determined to be inappropriate shall be refunded. D. Determinations of the City Manager with respect to the applicability of the impact fees to a given development activity, the availability or value of a credit, or the City Manager's decision concerning the independent fee calculation, or any other determination which the City Manager is authorized to make pursuant to this chapter, may be appealed to the hearing examiner subject to chapter 17.90 SVMC. E. Appeals of impact fees shall be heard concurrently with any underlying appeal of the permit as applicable. SVMC 22.100.120 Refunds. CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit A 10/22/2020 Page 10 of 12 Draft A. If the City fails to expend or encumber the impact fees within ten years of receipt or such other time set by City Council as allowed by law, the current owner of the property for which impact fees have been paid may receive a refund of such fees, provided a refund is not required where extraordinary or compelling reasons exist for holding the fees longer than ten years, as identified in written findings by the City Council. In determining whether impact fees have been expended or encumbered, impact fees shall be considered expended or encumbered on a first in, first out basis. B. The City shall notify potential claimants by first class mail deposited with the United States postal service at the last known address of the claimants. A potential claimant or claimants must be the owner of record of the real property against which the impact fee was assessed. C. Property owners seeking a refund of impact fees must submit a written request for a refund of the fees to the City Manager within one year of the date the right to claim the refund arises or the date that notice is given, whichever is later. D. Any impact fees for which no application for a refund has been made within the one-year period shall be retained by the City and expended on the appropriate public facilities. E. Refunds of impact fees under this chapter shall include any interest earned on the impact fees by the City. F. A feepayer may request and shall receive a refund, including interest earned on the impact fees, when the feepayer and/or the feepayer's successors and assigns do not proceed with the development activity and there has been no impact to the City's transportation system. A request for a refund pursuant to this section must be accompanied by an acknowledgement that the feepayer's underlying development approval, including any associated permits, has expired and that any application to reinstate the development approval shall be subject to the payment of impact fees pursuant to this chapter. SVMC 22.100.130 Interlocal Agreements. Consistent with other terms of this chapter and state law, interlocal agreements by and between the City and other government agencies are permissible. SVMC 22.100.140 Existing Authority Unimpaired. Nothing in this chapter shall preclude the City from requiring the applicant for development approval to mitigate adverse environmental impacts of a specific development pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, chapter 43.21C RCW, based on the environmental documents accompanying the underlying development approval process, and/or chapter 58.17 RCW, governing plats and subdivisions; provided, that the exercise of this authority is consistent with the provisions of chapters 43.21 C and 82.02 RCW. SVMC 22.100.150 Review. The impact fee rate table set forth in this chapter shall be reviewed by the City Council from time to time, as it deems necessary and appropriate in conjunction with review of the City's CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit A 10/22/2020 Page 11 of 12 Draft transportation improvement plan and as necessary to address changes to travel demands, growth forecasts, or the project list. CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit A 10/22/2020 Page 12 of 12 Draft .Draft TITLE 17 GENERAL PROVISIONS CHAPTER 17.110 FEES AND PENALTIES 17.110.010 Master fee schedule. All fees, including but not limited to fees for development permits, code interpretations. impact fees, all other applications allowed pursuant to SVMC Titles 17 through 24, and allowed appeals, shall be set forth in the City master fee schedule. A copy of this schedule shall be available from the city clerk. (Ord. 19-014 § 4, 2019; Ord. 18-001 § 4, 2018; Ord. 16-018 § 6 (Att. B), 2016). Draft TITLE 22 DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CHAPTER 22.10 AUTHORITY 22.10.010 Purpose. The following design and development standards are established pursuant to RCW 35A.11.020, 35A.14.140, Chapter 36.70A RCW (the Growth Management Act), Chapter 58.17 RCW. RCW 82.02.50 through 82.01.1 10. and WAC 365-195-800 through 365-195-865, as well as provisions of SVMC Titles 17 through 25. (Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007). CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit B 10/22/2020 Page 1 of 1 Draft CHAPTER 3 -TRAFFIC ANALYSIS CHAPTER ORGANIZATION 3.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Trip Generation & Distribution Letter Guidelines.......................................................... 6 3.2.1 Applicability..............................................................................................................7 3.2.2 Minimum Elements................................................................................................... 7 3.3 Limited Traffic Impact Analysis..................................................................................... 8 3.3.1 Applicability..............................................................................................................8 3.3.2 Scope.........................................................................................................................9 3.3.3 Methodology............................................................................................................. 9 3.3.4 Limited TIA Report Minimum Elements................................................................ 10 3.3.4.1 Title Page.......................................................................................................... 10 3.3.4.2 Project Description and Summary.................................................................... 10 3.3.4.3 Proposed Development and Trip Generation.................................................... 10 3.3.4.4 Summary of Existing Conditions...................................................................... 11 3.3.4.5 Background Projects......................................................................................... 11 3.3.4.6 Other Analyses.................................................................................................. 12 3.3.4.7 Findings.............................................................................................................12 3.3.4.8 Appendices........................................................................................................12 3.4 Traffic Impact Analysis................................................................................................. 14 3.4.1 Applicability............................................................................................................14 3.4.2 Scope.......................................................................................................................14 3.4.3 Methodology........................................................................................................... 15 3.4.4 TIA Report Minimum Elements............................................................................. 16 3.4.4.1 Title Page.......................................................................................................... 17 3.4.4.2 Introduction and Summary............................................................................... 17 3.4.4.3 Proposed Development..................................................................................... 17 3.4.4.4 Summary of Existing Conditions...................................................................... 18 3.4.4.5 Background Projects......................................................................................... 18 3.4.4.6 Analysis Scenarios............................................................................................ 19 3.4.4.7 Other Analyses.................................................................................................. 19 CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 10/22/2020 Page 1 of 21 3.4.4.8 Findings .................................................... 3.4.4.9 Appendices ............................................... 3.5 Meetings............................................................... Draft ............................................. 19 ............................................. 19 ............................................. 20 CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 10/22/2020 Page 2 of 21 Draft THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 10/22/2020 Page 3 of 21 Draft CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 10/22/2020 Page 4 of 21 Draft 3.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the contents of the trip generation letter and traffic impact analysis (TIA) submittals. All projects except those exempt pursuant to SVMC 22.20.020 shall be subject to transportation concurrency review. This review is conducted to ensure that adequate transportation facilities are provided in conjunction with new growth. Transportation concurrency shall be measured using the concept of level of service (LOS). Acceptable LOS thresholds are defined in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan. This flowchart may be used to determine what type of transportation concurrency document is required. The City shall not sign off on a project until transportation concurrency has been determined. Required for all projects outside of an impact fee area that generate more than 10 peak hour Trip Generation & Distribution Letter trips or projects inside of an impact fee area Required for all projects that generate more that do not match a land use in the TIF table. than 10 peak hour trips (see section 3.2) Required for qualified projects within a Required for all qualified projects that do not SEPA Infill Area that generate more than 20 qualify for a Limited TIA and that generate more peak hour trips at an arterial intersection than 20 peak hour trips at an arterial intersection (see section 3.3) (see section 3A) May be required for projects within a SEPA Infill Area or impact fee area that generate more than 20 peak hour trips at an intersection of federally classified streets. Required for all projects that generate more than 20 peak hour trips at an intersection of federally classified streets or add volume to an area with a current traffic problem and do not qualify for a Limited TIA The table below summarizes the mandatory scope elements for each type of analysis required by Spokane Valley: CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 10/22/2020 Page 5 of 21 Draft Table 1— Summary of Traffic Analysis Scope Elements Scope Elements Trip . Generation Letter Limited TIA TIA Engineering Seal X X X Title Page X X Project Description and Summary X X X Proposed Development and Trip Generation X X X Summary of Existing Conditions X X Background projects and growth rate X X Study Area Intersections of Collectors or higher within % mile X Intersections of Collectors or higher within 1 mile X LOS Analyses X Safety Analyses X X Other Analyses (Operations, Sight Distance, Turn Lane Warrants, etc.) X X Analysis Scenarios (Peak Hours defined in scope) Existing Conditions X Build -out year without project X Build -out year with project X Build -out + 5 years without project X Build -out + 5 years with project X Regional modeling — regional impacting development X Findings X X Appendices X X Public Meetings X 3.2 TRIP GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION LETTER GUIDELINES All projects outside of an impact fee area which generate 10 or more new peak -hour vehicular trips shall submit a trip generation and distribution letter. Projects within an impact fee area with land uses that are not included in the impact fee rate schedule shall submit a trip generation and distribution letter. The letter shall be based on the current version of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual and developed by an Engineer. If a project is subject to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review, the trip generation and distribution letter shall be submitted for review at the time of the SEPA application. The letter is required to be approved by the City prior to submittal of a traffic impact analysis report. CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 10/22/2020 Page 6 of 21 Draft 3.2.1 APPLICABILITY a. A trip generation and distribution letter is required for most projects. However, the following projects are typically under the peak -hour threshold and may not be required to prepare a trip generation and distribution letter: i. Residential short plats of 8 or fewer lots or dwelling units (the number of trips from a duplex shall be equivalent to two single family homes); ii. Drive -through coffee stands with no indoor seating; iii. Multi -family projects with nine 13 units or less (for calculation purposes, multi -family housing projects are defined as four or more attached units in the ITE Trip Generation Manual); iv. Changes of use from residential to commercial with no new buildings or building additions; V. Office projects of less than 2,500 additional square feet (ITE land uses 700-799); and, vi. Industrial projects of less than 9,000 additional square feet (ITE land uses 100-199). b. For projects expected to generate less than 10 peak -hour vehicular trips the project applicant is required to submit a letter with the following information for all proposed development phases for the property: Brief project description; Number of expected employees; iii. Hours of business; and, iv. The expected number of vehicular trips (customers and employees) to the business during the AM and PM peak hours. 3.2.2 MINIMUM ELEMENTS The trip generation and distribution letter for projects generating 10 or more peak - hour trips shall include the following elements: a. Project application and/or permit number &.7b.Project description, including proposed use; b-c.Site plan with vicinity map; c—.d.Building size noted in square feet; d-.e.Zoning of the property; 1. Determination of whether the project is in a SEPA Infill Area (see following section); e-g_. Ueterni lation of 1\ hether the project is in 'ul impact I'ee area: CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 10/22/2020 Page 7 of 21 Draft f-.h. Proposed and existing access points, site circulation, queuing lengths for driveways (and drive-throughs, if applicable) and parking locations; ,, i_Project phasing and expected build out year; h-J. An estimate of trip generation for the typical weekday, AM peak -hour, and PM peak -hour conditions. Supporting calculations and data sources shall be shown. Any adjustments for transit use, mixed use internalization, pass - by trips, and/or diverted trips shall be clearly stated; i-k. A comparison of the trip generation between the previous and the proposed site use for projects involving a change of use. If the comparison shows a net increase in trip generation, the project shall be subject to the TIA requirements of a new development; y.I_A preliminary distribution pattern for traffic on the adjacent street network, shown in a graphical format; and, Ffl. The engineering seal signed and dated by the engineer who prepared the letter. 3.3 LIMITED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Pursuant to SVMC 21.20.040, portions of Spokane Valley had additional environmental review performed as part of the Comprehensive Plan EIS. Because of the additional environmental review within the SEPA Infill Areas, the majority of development projects within these areas do not require a full TIA report if the Applicant adopts the subarea environmental analysis and mitigation requirements identified in the SEPA documents. However, to assess potential traffic safety or site access issues, a limited TIA is required as set forth below. 3.3.1 APPLICABILITY A limited TIA m�beis required for the following situations: a. Projects adding 20 or more peak -hour trips through an ...: ; :! intersection and which are located within a SEPA Infill Area or impact fee area, b. Projects within a SEPA Infill Area or impact fee area that contribute volumes toit local access intersections, alleys, or driveways located within an area with a current traffic problem as identified by the City or previous traffic study, such as a high -accident location, poor roadway alignment, or area with a capacity deficiency; or c. At the discretion of the City in lieu of a full TIA. A full TIA (see Section 3.4) is required for land uses that exceed the total trip bank established in SVMC 21.20.040. Applicants are encouraged to consult with City staff if they are unsure if they apply for both SEPA relief and a limited TIA. CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 10/22/2020 Page 8 of 21 Draft 3.3.2 SCOPE The scope of the limited TIA shall be developed by an engineer. A draft scope shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to submission of the limited TIA. The scope of the limited TIA shall conform to the following: a. The study area may include any intersections or streets within a 1/2 mile radius of the site. b. A safety analysis may be required, as identified by City staff in the scope review phase. If the analysis is required, the City shall assist by providing crash data if available. Safety analysis at a minimum requires three years of crash history showing the date and time, type, number of vehicles involved in the crash, including weather and road conditions. Crash analysis shall include bicycle and pedestrian crashes. Crash information shall be assessed by the developer's engineer to identify possible impacts the proposed new trips would add to the problem. Examples may include queuing that exceeds storage pocket lengths or that extends to upstream intersections, recurring left turn crashes, limited sight distance, or proposed project access intersections that may be poorly placed. c. If a safety and operational analysis reveals deficiencies, then mitigation measures shall be developed with recommendations to fix the deficiencies. d. Unless otherwise identified by the City, the analysis shall be performed for the build -out year of the proposed development. 3.3.3 METHODOLOGY The analysis shall be done using the following methodology: a. Background growth rate — The background growth rate may be based on historical growth data or the growth rate as calculated from Figures 30 and 32 of the Comprehensive Plan (the 2016 and 2040 average daily traffic volumes). A minimal annual growth rate of 1% is required unless otherwise approved by the City; b. The LOS shall be determined in accordance with the methods reported in the current version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM); c. Use of the two -stage gap acceptance methodology for unsignalized intersections is subject to City approval; d. "Synchro" is the primary traffic software used by the City to model intersection and turn pocket queuing analysis. Depending on the analysis, the City may request other traffic analysis using other modeling software. In addition to Synchro, the engineer may use the most current version of Highway Capacity Software (HCS). Other analysis tools may be utilized with City approval if HCM methodology cannot accurately model an intersection; CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 10/22/2020 Page 9 of 21 Draft e. Trip generation data shall be based on the latest version of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Trip generation data from studies of similar facilities may be substituted with prior City approval; and, f. Turning movement counts and crash diagrams may need to be developed to document a safety or operations problem. If traffic counts are required, they shall be taken on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday representing a typical travel day. Counts shall not be taken during a week which contains a holiday or during a week of a significant weather event. Projects near schools may be required to collect turning movement counts during atypical school day. 3.3.4 LIMITED TIA REPORT MINIMUM ELEMENTS The limited TIA report shall include at least the following: 3.3.4.1 Title Page The limited TIA shall include a title page with the following elements: a. Name of project; b. City project number/permit number; c. Applicant's name and address; d. Engineer's name, address and phone number; e. Date of study preparation; and, f. The engineering seal, signed and dated by the professional engineer licensed in the State of Washington who prepared the report. 3.3.4.2 Project Description and Summary The limited TIA shall include a brief description of project, location, study intersections, findings, and mitigation. 3.3.4.3 Proposed Development and Trip Generation The limited TIA shall include the following information for the proposed development: a. Project description, including proposed use; b. Site plan with vicinity map; c. Building size noted in square feet; d. Zoning of the property; e. Determination of whether the project is within a SEPA Infill Area (see following section); f. Proposed and existing access points, site circulation, queuing lengths for driveways (and drive-throughs, if applicable) and parking locations; CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 10/22/2020 Page 10 of 21 Draft g. Project phasing and expected opening year; h. An estimate of trip generation for the typical weekday, AM peak - hour, and PM peak -hour conditions. Supporting calculations and data sources shall be shown. Any adjustments for transit use, mixed use internalization, pass -by trips, and/or diverted trips shall be clearly stated; i. A comparison of the trip generation between the previous and the proposed site use for projects involving a change of use. If the comparison shows a net increase in trip generation, the project shall be subject to the limited TIA requirements of a new development; j. A preliminary distribution pattern for traffic on the adjacent street network, shown in a graphical format; and, k. Project phasing and timing. 3.3.4.4 Summary of Existing Conditions The limited TIA shall provide a brief summary of existing conditions for the study area that includes at least the following: a. Brief summary of the transportation network adjacent to the site including a qualitative description of the facilities, speed limits, presence of bike lanes/trails, bus stops, and on -street parking; b. Figure or table of the peak hour turning movement volumes at the study intersections; c. Collision history — three years minimum; d. Length of existing turn pockets at study intersections; and, e. Other information as identified during the scoping process. 3.3.4.5 Background Projects If background project traffic is necessary to assess build -out conditions, it shall include the following: a. Traffic from newly constructed projects; b. Projects for which traffic impacts have been tentatively reserved; c. Projects for which a Concurrency Certificate has been awarded; d. Non -project, general background traffic increases; and, e. Vested traffic for vacant buildings that are undergoing redevelopment. The limited TIA shall provide the following information for background projects, as identified by the City: a. Project descriptions; b. Vicinity map; CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 10/22/2020 Page I I of 21 Draft c. Trips generated by projects and assigned to study intersections, d. Figure or table of the build -out peak hour turning movement volumes at the study intersections; e. Planned transportation improvements (private development and City); and, f. Where required, safety and operations analysis results. 3.3.4.6 Other Analyses Other analyses may be required as requested by the City, including but not limited to: a. Queue lengths at driveways and drive -through windows; b. Noise; c. Air quality (typically required when physical improvements are proposed and requires electronic submittal of Synchro files); d. Intersection control warrant analysis (signal, roundabouts, four-way stop, yield); e. Auxiliary lane warrant analysis; f. Parking study (including vehicles and/or bicycles); g. Site access; and, h. Pedestrian access study. 3.3.4.7 Findings The following shall be addressed in the findings section: a. Traffic and safety impacts; b. Proposed project modifications; and, c. Off -site mitigation or mitigation beyond that included with Impact Fees. 3.3.4.8 Appendices The following information shall be included in appendices: a. Definitions; b. Trip generation sources; c. Passer-by and origin -destination studies (if applicable); d. Volume and turning movement count sheets; e. Analysis software (Synchro, HCS, SimTraffic, etc.) report printouts (electronic submittal may be required); f. Warrant analysis calculations; and, CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 10/22/2020 Page 12 of 21 Draft g. References. CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 10/22/2020 Page 13 of 21 Draft 3.4 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS For developments that are not within a SEPA Infill Area or impact fee area, this section outlines the requirements for a TIA. The intent of the TIA is to allow the City to properly plan and improve the transportation system to meet the mobility needs of future growth and to comply with SEPA requirements. 3.4.1 APPLICABILITY A TIA is required for the following situations: a. Projects adding 20 or more peak -hour trips to an intersection of :;:-tei-izil 1-ederalh classified streets as identified in the current Arterial Street Plan within a one -mile radius of the project site as shown by the trip generation and distribution letter; or, b. Projects contributing volumes tong local access intersections, alleys, or driveways located within an area with a current traffic problem as identified by the City or previous traffic study, such as a high -accident location, poor roadway alignment or capacity deficiency. 3.4.2 SCOPE The scope of the TIA shall be developed by an engineer. Prior to submittal of the TIA, the City and other impacted jurisdictions/agencies shall approve the scope of the TIA. The scope of the TIA shall conform to the following: a. The study area shall include any intersections of ai,tei-iai Federalk. classified streets within a one -mile radius of the site that would experience an increase of at least 20 vehicle trips during a peak hour. Some intersections may be excluded if analyzed within the past year and are shown to operate at LOS C or better. All site access points shall be analyzed. Additional federally classified ai.ei-ial intersections outside of the one mile radius and intersections of local streets may also be required at the discretion of the City; b. If any of the study intersections are on a Major Arterial Corridor, a corridor LOS analysis shall be conducted for all relevant corridors. For example-'-_ i 1' a project increases traffic by 20 vehicles at the intersection of Pines Road/Mission Avenue, then a corridor LOS analysis shall be required for Pines Road. If a corridor has been analyzed within the last two years and is shown to operate at LOS C or better, the City may exempt the corridor LOS analysis, although traffic counts on the corridor may still be required in order to maintain an up-to-date database of counts along the Major Arterial Corridors. Below is a list of the Major Arterial Corridors from the Comprehensive Plan: • Argonne/Mullan Road between Trent Avenue and Appleway Blvd • Pines Road between Trent Avenue and 8th Avenue • Evergreen Road between Indiana Avenue and 8th Avenue CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 10/22/2020 Page 14 of 21 Draft Sullivan Road between Wellesley Avenue and 8th Avenue • Sprague Avenue/Appleway Blvd between Fancher Road and Park Road c. A PM peak hour LOS analysis shall be conducted for all study area intersections (and corridors if applicable). An LOS analysis of the AM peak hour, Saturday afternoon, or other time period may be required at the discretion of the City; d. As identified by City staff in the scope review phase, a safety analysis may be required, which may include intersection queuing, turn lane warrants and LOS, sight distance, and pedestrian/bicycle conflicts to identify potential safety issues; and, e. Additional analysis may be required by other reviewing agencies. The Intersection and corridor (if applicable) LOS shall meet or exceed the thresholds pursuant to the City's Comprehensive Plan — Chapter 4: Capital Facilities, Table 4.3 Spokane Valley Level of Service Standards. In the event that the LOS standard is not met, the project applicant shall work with the City to identify appropriate mitigation measures, which could include modification of intersection designs, constructing/funding improvements to City -owned intersections, or changing the scale of the development. A safety analysis may be required, as identified by City staff in the scope review phase. If the analysis is required, the City shall assist by providing crash data if available. Safety analysis at a minimum requires three years of crash history showing the date and time, type, number of vehicles involved in the crash, weather and road conditions. Crash analysis shall include bicycle and pedestrian crashes. Crash information shall be assessed by the developer's engineer to identify possible impacts proposed new trips would add to the problem. Examples may include queuing that exceeds storage pocket lengths or that extends to upstream intersections, recurring left turn crashes, limited sight distance, or proposed project access intersections that may be poorly placed. Safety issues shall be mitigated to the satisfaction of City staff. 3.4.3 METHODOLOGY The analysis shall be done using the following methodology: a. Background growth rate — The background growth rate may be based on historical growth data or the growth rate as calculated from Figures 30 and 33 of the Comprehensive Plan (the 2016 and 2040 average daily traffic volumes). A minimal annual growth rate of 1% is required unless otherwise approved by the City; b. The LOS shall be determined in accordance with the methods reported in the current version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) or as further defined by City staff; CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 10/22/2020 Page 15 of 21 Draft c. Corridor LOS shall be determined by calculating the volume -weighted average intersection LOS of all signalized arterial/arterial intersections along the defined length of the Major Arterial Corridor.' With all intersection LOS calculated along the corridor, the control delays of all intersections shall be averaged to calculate total corridor LOS. The same control delay thresholds defined for individual intersections shall be used to assign corridor LOS (e.g., corridor average control delay of 38 seconds would correspond to LOS D). Based on City input, WSDOT ramp terminal intersections may or may not be included as part of the corridor LOS calculation, and may be evaluated separately as individual intersections. d. Use of the two -stage gap acceptance methodology for unsignalized intersections requires prior City approval; e. "Synchro" is the primary traffic software used by the City to model intersection and turn pocket queuing analysis. Depending on the analysis, the City may request other traffic analysis using other modeling software. In addition to Synchro, the Engineer may use the most current version of HCS. Other analysis tools may be utilized with prior City approval if HCM methodology cannot accurately model an intersection; f. Trip generation data shall be based on the current version of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Trip generation data from studies of similar facilities may be substituted as approved by the City; and, g. Turning movement counts shall be recorded less than one year prior to submitting a traffic study. Counts less than two years old may be used if no significant development projects or changes to the transportation network have occurred. Counts shall be taken on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday representing a typical travel day. Counts shall not be taken during a week which contains a holiday or during a week of a significant weather event. Projects near schools may be required to collect turning movement counts during a typical school day. Given the potentially large-scale of corridor LOS evaluation, counts older than one year may be used for intersections along a corridor that are more than one mile away, so long as they are factored using the growth rate identified above. However, the City may request, at its discretion, that the project collect new traffic counts at any intersection along a relevant Major Arterial Corridor in an effort to maintain a relatively current database for TIA review. 3.4.4 TIA REPORT MINIMUM ELEMENTS The TIA report shall include at least the following: To clarify, unsignalized project driveway intersections -within the Major Arterial Corridor are not part of the corridor LOS calculation since they are not arterial streets. CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 10/22/2020 Page 16 of 21 Draft 3.4.4.1 Title Page The TIA shall include a title page with the following elements: a. Name of project; b. City project number/permit number; c. Applicant's name and address; d. Engineer's name, address and phone number; e. Date of study preparation; and, f. The engineering seal, signed and dated by the engineer who prepared the report. 3.4.4.2 Introduction and Summary a. Purpose of report and study objectives; b. Executive summary; c. Proposed development description; d. Location and study area; e. Findings; and, f. Recommendations and mitigation. 3.4.4.3 Proposed Development The TIA shall include the following information for the proposed development (this is the same information that is required for the trip letter): a. Project description; b. Location and vicinity map; c. Site plan with building size (square feet); d. Proposed zoning; e. Land use; f. Access points, site circulation, queuing lengths, and parking locations; g. An estimate of trip generation for the typical weekday, AM peak - hour, and PM peak -hour conditions. Any adjustments for transit use, pass -by trips, and/or diverted trips shall be clearly stated; h. A distribution pattern for traffic on the adjacent street network, shown in a graphical format; and, i. Project phasing and timing. CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 10/22/2020 Page 17 of 21 Draft 3.4.4.4 Summary of Existing Conditions The TIA shall provide a summary of existing conditions for the study area that includes the following: a. Transportation network description, including functional classification, bike/pedestrian facilities and transit routes; b. Existing zoning; c. Existing traffic volumes including percent heavy vehicles; d. Collision history —three years minimum; e. Posted speed limits (and if known the 85 percentile speed determined from a speed study); f. Length of existing turn pockets at signalized intersections; g. Location of the following: i. On -street parking, ii. Bus stops, and, iii. Private and public schools in the area, h. LOS and safety analysis results. 3.4.4.5 Background Projects Background project traffic shall include the following: a. Traffic from newly constructed projects; b. Projects for which traffic impacts have been tentatively reserved; c. Projects for which a Concurrency Certificate has been awarded; d. Non -project, general background traffic increases; and, e. Vested traffic for vacant buildings that are undergoing redevelopment. The TIA shall provide the following information for background projects, as identified by the City: f. Project descriptions; a. Vicinity map; b. Trip generation; c. Trip distribution; d. Planned transportation improvements (private development and City); and, e. LOS and safety analysis results. CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 10/22/2020 Page 18 of 21 Draft 3.4.4.6 Analysis Scenarios The TIA shall include the following analysis scenarios: a. Existing conditions; b. Build -out year without project; c. Build -out year with project; d. Build -out + five year analysis if project is expected to proceed in phases, take more than six years to complete, or if the study intersection is included on the City's Six -Year TIP; and, e. Major developments with regional impacts may be required to use the current version of the SRTC Regional Travel Demand Model and the associated horizon years for analyses, as determined by City staff. 3.4.4.7 Other Analyses Other analyses may be required as requested by the City, including but not limited to: a. Queue lengths at driveways and drive -through windows; b. Noise; c. Air quality (typically required when physical improvements are proposed and requires electronic submittal of Synchro files); d. Intersection control warrant analysis (signal, roundabout, four-way stop, yield); e. Auxiliary lane warrant analysis; f. Parking study (including vehicles and/or bicycles); g. Site access; and, h. Pedestrian access study. 3.4.4.8 Findings The following shall be addressed in the findings section: a. Traffic impacts; b. Compliance with level of service standards; c. Proposed project modifications; and, d. Offsite mitigation. 3.4.4.9 Appendices The following information shall be included in appendices: a. Definitions; CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 10/22/2020 Page 19 of 21 Draft b. Trip generation sources; c. Passer-by and origin -destination studies; d. Volume and turning movement count sheets; e. Synchro report printouts (electronic submittal may be required); f. Warrant analysis calculations; and, a. References. 3.5 MEETINGS A public meeting(s) may be required for any residential project generating over 100 PM peak -hour trips, commercial projects generating over 100 PM peak -hour trips impacting a residential area, or for other projects at the discretion of the City. The intent of the public meeting is to let the public know about the proposed project and to allow for public input to determine the scope of the TIA. Notice of date, time, place and purpose of the public meeting(s) shall be provided by the following means: a. One publication in the City's official newspaper at least 15 days prior to the meeting; b. A mailing to adjacent residents, property owners, neighborhood groups, jurisdictions, and/or organizations within a 400-foot radius of the project boundaries, not less than 15 days prior to the public meeting. Other persons or entities outside of the 400-foot radius may be required to be notified if the City determines they may be affected by the proposed project or have requested such notice in writing; and, A sign shall be erected, on the subject property fronting and adjacent to the most heavily traveled public street, at least 15 days prior to the meetings with formatting consistent with SVMC 17.80.120B. The sign shall be at least four feet in width and four feet in height and shall have letters three inches in size. The sign shall be easily read by the traveling public from the right-of-way. This sign shall announce the date, time and place of the traffic meetings and provide a brief description of the project. a. Proper notification and all associated costs shall be the responsibility of the Applicant. Notification shall be considered satisfied upon receipt of an affidavit provided by the Applicant to the City stating the above requirements have been completed. CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C l 0/22/2020 Page 20 of 21 Draft THIS PAGE IS INTENTIALLY LEFT BLANK CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 10/22/2020 Page 21 of 21