Loading...
2020, 11-12 Agenda PacketSpokane jValley. Spokane Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 E. Sprague Ave. November 12, 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 planningAspokanevalley.org prior to 4:00Pm 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(a,spokanevalley org and comments will be read into the record or distributed to the Commission members through email. 3. Link to Zoom Meeting information: https:Hspokanevallev.zoom.us/e/93950793 161 One tap mobile US: +13462487799„93950793161# or+16699006833„93950793161# Dial by your location US: +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) Meeting ID: 939 5079 3161 4. CALL TO ORDER 5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 6. ROLL CALL 7. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 5, 2020 9. COMMISSION REPORTS 10. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 11. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. 12. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Findings Of Fact: STV-2020-0002: STV-2020-0002, A privately initiated street vacation for a portion of East Montgomery Avenue and Bessie Road b. Findings Of Fact: CTA-2020-0005: Impact Fees for the South Barker Corridor 13. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER 14. ADJOURNMENT Special Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers — City Hall November 5, 2020 I. Chairman Johnson called the special meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was held remotely via ZOOM meeting. H. 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 Karl Granrath, arrived at 7:11 Walt Haneke 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 Deanna Horton, Administrative Assistant Taylor Dillard, Administrative Assistant Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant There was consensus from the Planning Commission to excuse Commissioner Granrath from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the November 5, 2020 Special Meeting agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to approve the October 22, 2020 minutes as presented. Chairman Johnson moved to make a change to page three, paragraph three to include the language "Kenneth Ward was not notified by staff that he would be getting any of the vacated property." The vote on the amendment was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. There was no additional discussion. The vote on the amended motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Chairman Johnson reported that he continues to work with the Human Rights Task Force. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Building Official Jenny Nickerson thanked the Planning Commission and administrative staff for the implementation of new Zoom meeting protocols. Deputy Attorney Erik Lamb reminded the Planning Commission not to use personal media devices while attending Zoom meeting because the meetings are open to the public and subject to open record requests. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. 11-08-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5 IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a. Public Hearing: CTA-2020-0005: Impact Fees for the South Barker Corridor The public hearing was opened at 6:11 p.m. City Engineer Bill Helbig introduced the public hearing item. He explained that the City is proposing a code -text amendment to implement transportation impact fees along the South Barker Road corridor. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb explained that the City staff really attempted to get notification out to the public regarding this proposed amendment. He stated that the City followed the legal requirements of publishing the notice in the newspaper for two consecutive weeks but staff also did additional notifications by sending out press releases, emailing to resident distribution lists, posting on the main page of the Spokane Valley website, and sending out through all social media platforms. The press releases led to articles in the Spokesman Review and the Journal of Business and some new broadcasts on some of the radio stations. Mr. Helbig explained that impact fees are statutorily authorized mechanisms to have new development pay for their proportionate impact on services and infrastructure and may be limited to an identified geographical area. These fees can only apply to new development and cannot be used to correct existing deficiencies. He stated that the City has conducted a substantial transportation study of the South Barker corridor. The study identifies seven recommended improvement projects throughout the corridor for a total of approximately $18.8 million dollars. If the impact fees are implemented, they will cover about 19% of the improvement amount. Mr. Helbig stated that if these fees are adopted, there will need to be code changes made to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). A new chapter will need to be added to Title 22 adopting and imposing Transportation Impact Fees (Chapter 22.100). Some additional updates will need to be made to 17.90 regarding appeals, 17.110.010 regarding fees and penalties, and 22.10.010 regarding authority. Also, Chapter 3 of the Spokane Valley Street Standards will also need to be updated. Mr. Lamb explained that these changes are primarily set forth by state law because there are very specific requirements that have to be met in the code language. The language specifically states that these fees are only for the Barker Corridor based on the traffic studies completed. He noted that the fee amounts will not be included in the code because they are based on information gained from traffic impact studies. The rates will be adopted as part of the City's fee schedule which will allow flexibility for updated rate studies in the future. The impact fees will be assessed at the time of issuance of building permit. He explained the highlights in the new SVMC Chapter 22.100 including the assessment procedure, the deferral process, exemptions, credits, independent fee calculations, appeals and refunds. Mr. Helbig presented the proposed rates. The proposed rate for South Barker is $1,272 per PM peak trip. The adopted SEPA mitigation fee for the Northeast Industrial Area is 2 11-08-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5 $2,831 per PM peak trip so this new impact fee is substantially lower than other adopted fees. He gave a comparison of the proposed rates to other municipalities adopted fees. Mr. Lamb stated that the Findings of Fact will be presented at the Planning Commission meeting on November 12, 2020. The findings will then be forwarded to the City Council on November 24, 2020. Commissioner Beaulac asked about the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) funded improvement projects in the corridor. Mr. Helbig answered that the new roundabouts off of the interstate are just interim improvements. WSDOT hopes to be able to upgrade those roundabouts to two lanes and increase the capacity of the bridge over Barker Road. Deputy City Manager John Hohman added that if those improvements aren't completed, it could cause a bottleneck on the City projects. However, the City and WSDOT are working together to get the projects completed as quickly as possible. Commissioner Beaulac asked if schools or public facilities could be exempted from paying impact fees because the fee amount would be burdensome. Transportation Engineer Chris Breiland with Fehr and Peers (the technical consultants for the traffic impact fee rate study) answered that according to state law impact fees must be assessed equally among all uses that generate trips. Therefore, schools and public facilities cannot be exempted. However, the fees assessed for schools could be lower because they aren't impacting traffic during PM peak times. Commissioner Robinson asked about the comments received from the City of Liberty Lake. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb responded that the City does not have jurisdiction to collect fees outside of the City limits but the City hopes to work with other jurisdictions. Comments were received from the City of Liberty Lake that they are in favor of impact fees but they are concerned about what the fee amount is and imposing that fee in their jurisdiction. He explained that the City is not looking to do that through this adoption of fees, they will only apply within the Spokane Valley City limits. Chairman Johnson opened the public testimony. Barb Howard, Spokane Valley, asked why these impact fees are not being implemented throughout the entire City. She expressed concern about a lower amount being assessed on storage sheds. Scott Grimmett, Spokane Valley, stated that he is a property owner and developer on Sprague Avenue and he is opposed to impacts fees because they are unfair. He explained that infrastructure developments benefit everyone that use them so the fees should be the same for everyone. He stated that this impact fee will inflate home prices and reduce affordability through the City. He asked the Planning Commission not to approve the request. Chairman Johnson asked if the City is planning to implement fees anywhere else in the City limits. Mr. Helbig answered that staff does plan to look at some other areas of the City for rate study analysis. However, the Barker corridor has the biggest impact and has the most development occurring so it is the primary concern for staff right now. 3 11-08-2020 Planning Commission Minutes The public hearing was closed at 7:18. Page 4 of 5 X. Xl. Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to recommend approval to the City Council of CTA- 2020-0005 as presented. Commissioner McKinley expressed concern that this fee could make homes in this area less affordable and it could be a detriment to the development of the area. Mr. Hohman responded that there is a cost savings for development by doing impact fees because they will no longer have to do individual traffic impact studies for each new development. Senior Engineer, Jerremy Clark added that small projects require a Trip Generation Letter and that is approximately $1,000 - $2,500 depending on the size of the project. For larger developments that might trigger mitigation (which is anything in excess of 20 trips) the City requires a full traffic impact analysis. They can range from $15,000 - $70,000 and can take up to three or four months to be completed. Commissioner Robinson commented that currently multi -family housing up to 60 units is exempt and this will force them to mitigate their impact on the traffic system. Commissioner Beaulac expressed concern over the implementation of the fees but said that he would be willing to approve these impact fees on a trial basis to make sure that the system is actually doing what is needed for the City, especially before approving any additional impact fees. Commissioner Kaschmitter stated that she thinks this will streamline things for developers wanting to build in the City. She thinks this will be a much easier process for them and it is a needed revenue source for infrastructure improvements. Commissioner Granrath said that he thinks this adoption will lead to some intergovernmental agreements with other jurisdictions to address some of the impacts coming from developments outside of the City limits. Commissioner Haneke said that he thinks the costs of impact fees versus impact fee study requirements will be very similar and shouldn't cause a big change in affordability. Chairman Johnson stated that he supports this request and feels that it will help the developers and keep the taxpayers from having to pay for all needed improvements. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Chairman Johnson stated that long-time Spokane Valley resident, Sally Jackson passed away on November 2, 2020. He said that she will be greatly missed in the community. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Kaschmitter moved to adjourn the meeting at 7: 37 p.m. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. James Johnson, Chair Date signed 4 11-08-2020 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5 Deanna Horton, Secretary CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: November 12, 2020 Item: Check all that apply ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ study session ❑ pending legislation FILE NUMBER: STV-2020-0002 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Findings and Recommendations - Street vacation of a portion of Bessie Road and Montgomery Avenue DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Request to vacate 470 feet of Montgomery Avenue and 195 feet of Bessie Road. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 22.140; RCW 35A.47.020 and RCW 35.79 BACKGROUND: On October 8, 2020 the Planning Commission conducted a study session. On October 22, 2020 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing. Following public comment, the public testimony portion of the hearing was closed. The Commission deliberated and voted 7-0 to recommend to the City Council that STV-2020-0002 subject to the proposed Conditions of Approval located in the Staff Report. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve the Commission's Findings and Recommendation for STV-2020-0002 or provide staff with further direction. STAFF CONTACT: Connor Lange, Planner. ATTACHMENTS: 1. PC Findings and Recommendation STV-2020-0002 RPCA Finding of Fact — STV-2020-0002 Page I of I CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: November 12, 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: Findings and Recommendations — Proposed Amendment to Title 22 SVMC, Title 17 SVMC, and Chapter 3 of the SVSS. 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 adopt and assess transportation impact fees that include the South Barker Corridor and other related items. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b); RCW 82.02.050-.110; WAC 365-196-850. BACKGROUND: On October 22, 2020, the Planning Commission (Commission) conducted a study session. On November 5, 2020, the Commission conducted a public hearing. Following public comment, the public testimony portion of the hearing was closed. The Commission deliberated and voted 7-0 to recommend to the City Council that CTA-2020-0005 be approved as amended. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve the Commission's Findings and Recommendation for CTA- 2020-0005 or provide staff with further direction. An example motion for approval of the proposed amendment is: "I move to approve the Findings and Recommendations for CTA-2020-0005." STAFF CONTACT: Bill Helbig — City Engineer, Erik Lamb — Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Findings and Recommendation Exhibit A: Draft 22.110 SVMC Exhibit B: Draft 17.90.010, 17.110.010 & 22.10.010 SMVC Exhibit C: Draft SVSS Chapter 3 — Traffic Analysis RPCA Findings of Fact CTA-2020-0005 — Impact Fees Page I of I FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-2020-0005 Proposed Amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(E) the Planning Commission shall consider the proposal and shall prepare and forward a recommendation to the City Council following the public hearing. The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation. Background: 1. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, Spokane Valley adopted its 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update and updated development regulations on December 13, 2016, with December 28, 2016 as the effective date. 2. Pursuant to RCW 82.02.050-.110, the City may adopt, assess, and collect transportation impact fees on new development. 3. CTA-2020-0005 is a City -initiated text amendment to the SVMC to create a new chapter 22.100 SVMC to adopt and assess transportation impact fees for the South Barker Road Corridor, minor associated modifications to Titles 17 and 22 SVMC and the Street Standards, and other related items. 4. The Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing and conducted deliberations on November 5, 2020. The Commissioners voted 7-0 to recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments. Planning Commission Findings: 1. Compliance with SVMC 17.80.150(D) Notice of Public Hearing a. The City provided notice of the public hearing on CTA-2020-0005 as follows: i. Publication in the Spokane Valley Herald on 10/16 and 10/23. ii. Press release to 320 media -related email addresses, multiple postings on all City social media outlets, email to email subscribers for numerous City email lists, and creation of transportation -specific impact fee website. b. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 5, 2020 and received public testimony on the proposed amendments. The Planning Commission has considered all testimony received on the proposed amendments. c. Conclusion The requirements of SVMC 17.80.150(D) are met. 2. Compliance with SVMC 17.80.150(F) Approval Criteria a. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Findings: The proposed amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the following goals and policies: ED-G3 Balance economic development with community development priorities and fiscal sustainability ED-G6 Maintain a positive business climate that strives for flexibility, predictability, and stability. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-2020-0005 Page 1 of 3 ED-P8 Provide and maintain an infrastructure system that supports Spokane Valley's economic development priorities. LU-G1 Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane Valley. LU-G4 Ensure that land use plans, regulations, review processes, and infrastructure improvements support economic growth and vitality. LU-P7 Protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and adverse impacts associated with transportation corridors. LU-P8 Ensure that neighborhoods are served by safe and convenient motorized and non -motorized transportation routes. T-G1 Ensure that the transportation system and investments in transportation infrastructure are designed to improve quality of life or support economic development priorities. T-G2 Ensure that transportation planning efforts reflect anticipated land use patterns and support identified growth opportunities. T-G3 Strive to reduce the number of serious injury/fatality collisions to zero. T-P2 Consider neighborhood traffic and livability conditions and address potential adverse impacts of public and private projects during the planning, designing, permitting, and construction phases. T-P6 Work collaboratively with developers to ensure that areas experiencing new development are well served by motorized and non -motorized transportation options. T-P9 Provide and maintain quality street, sidewalk, and shared -use path surfaces that provide a safe environment for all users. CF-G4 Pursue a diverse set of capital funding sources. CF-P6 Ensure that facilities and services meet minimum Level of Service standards. CF-P15 Evaluate a variety of capital funding sources including, but not limited to, grants, local improvement districts, latecomer agreements, and impact fees to fund projects and programs. Conclusion: The proposed text amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. b. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Findings: The proposed amendments implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and ensure a safe and efficient transportation system that supports and maintains the character and quality of life of Spokane Valley. The improvements identified in the South Barker Corridor Study and Rate Study will help maintain adequate levels of service for traffic along the Barker Road corridor over the next 20 years. The Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-2020-0005 Page 2 of 3 transportation impact fees will provide a regular and reliable funding source for a portion of these improvements, and will be provided by developments that are directly contributing to the need for such improvements. Further, the fees will be limited to the proportionate impact from new development, so as new development causes impacts, those impacts will be able to be addressed through necessary improvements. The proposed amendments introduce a consistent and reliable fee schedule for new development that establishes set rates across various types of new development, lending itself to more efficient planning and budgeting for new development projects. The proposed impact fee of $1,272 "per trip" is based on the Rate Study, which was conducted within standard engineering principles and provides a reasonable and appropriate fee amount. Conclusion: The proposed text amendment is consistent with Comprehensive Plan and bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. 3. Compliance with RCW 82.02.050-.110 a. The proposed amendments and fees are based on a traffic rate study conducted in accordance with the requirements of RCW 82.02.050-.110. b. The proposed fees and amendments are for system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development, do not exceed the proportionate share of the costs of system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development, and will be used for system improvements that will reasonably benefit the new development within the South Barker Corridor, as identified in the South Barker Corridor Traffic Study and South Barker Corridor Traffic Rate Study. 4. Recommendation: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends the City Council approve CTA-2020- 0005. Attachments: Exhibit A, B, & C — Proposed Amendment CTA-2020-0005 Approved thisl2th day of November, 2020 Planning Commission Chairman ATTEST Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-2020-0005 Page 3 of 3 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 11/12/2020 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 11/12/2020 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 11 / 12/2020 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 11/12/2020 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 11/12/2020 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 11/12/2020 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 11/12/2020 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 11/12/2020 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 11/12/2020 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 11/12/2020 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 43.21C 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 1 1/12/2020 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 11/12/2020 Page 12 of 12 Draft TITLE 17 GENERAL PROVISIONS CHAPTER 17.90 APPEALS 17.90.010 General. Draft A. Appeals and Jurisdiction. All final decisions shall be appealed to the authority set forth in Table 17.90-1. Specific procedures followed by the planning commission, hearing examiner, and city council are set forth in Appendix B. Table 17.90-1 — Decision/Appeal Authority Land Use and Development Decisions Appeal Authority Type I and II decisions Hearing examiner (SVMC 17.90.040); further appeal to superior court (Chapter 36.70C RCW) Building permits Hearing examiner (SVMC 17.90.040); further appeal to superior court (Chapter 36.70C RCW) Type III decisions except zoning map amendments Superior court (Chapter 36.70C RCW) Type III zoning map amendments City council (SVMC 17.90.070); further appeal to superior court (Chapter 36.70C RCW) Type IV decisions Superior court Matters subject to review pursuant to RCW 36.70A.020 Growth Management Hearings Board Shoreline substantial development permits, shoreline Shorelines Hearings Board (RCW 90.58.180) conditional use permits, and shoreline variances Compliance and enforcement decisions (Chapter Hearing examiner (SVMC 17.90.040); further appeal to 17.100 SVMC) superior court (Chapter 36.70C RCW) Order of dwelling, building, structure, or premises unfit Hearing examiner (SVMC 17.105.050) pursuant to the for human habitation or other use (Chapter 17.105 appeal procedures set forth in Chapter 17.105 SVMC; SVMC) further appeal to superior court (SVMC 17.105.120) Impact fee appeals pursuant to chapter 22.100 SVMC shall be heard by the Hearing Examiner. Such appeals shall be subject to the procedures herein for Type 1 permit appeals, except as otherwise provided for by chapter 22 100 SVMC Pursuant to chapter 22 100 SVMC, impact fee appeals shall be heard concurrently with appeals of the underlying permit as applicable Impact fee appeals shall be subject to all requirements of chapter 22.100 SVMC, including any necessary pre -anneal requirements. 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. im wet 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). CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit B 11/12/2020 Page 1 of 2 Draft 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. 1 0kr 82.02.�0 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 11 / 12/2020 Page 2 of 2 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 11 / 12/2020 Page 1 of 21 Draft 3.4.4.8 Findings.............................................................................................................19 3.4.4.9 Appendices........................................................................................................19 3.5 Meetings........................................................................................................................20 CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 11/12/2020 Page 2 of 21 Draft THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 11/12/2020 Page 3 of 21 Draft CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 11/12/2020 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 tc document is required. The City concurrency has been determined. Required for all projects outside of an impact determine what type of transportation concurrency shall not sign off on a project until transportation fee area that generate more than 10 peak hour Trip Generation & Distribution Letter trips or projects inside of an impact fee area that do not match a land use in the TIF table. Required for allprojects 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 are tee hon 3.3; IKe cation 3.11 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 11 / 12/2020 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 X 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 11/12/2020 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 urine-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: i. Brief project description; ii. 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 a-b.Project description, including proposed use; b c. Site plan with vicinity map; e.d.Building size noted in square feet; d-e.Zoning of the property; C_Determination of whether the project is in a SEPA Infill Area (see following section); e:g_Determination of whether the project is in an impact fce arr;,. CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 11/12/2020 Page 7 of 21 Draft fl.LProposed and existing access points, site circulation, queuing lengths for driveways (and drive-throughs, if applicable) and parking locations; g:i_Project phasing and expected build out year; try. 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 TIA requirements of a new development; j.LA preliminary distribution pattern for traffic on the adjacent street network, shown in a graphical format; and, lcm. 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 may beis required for the following situations: a. Projects adding 20 or more peak -hour trips through an intersection lckl 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 toi m" 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 11/12/2020 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 11/12/2020 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 a typical 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 11/12/2020 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 11/12/2020 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 11/12/2020 Page 12 of 21 Draft g. References. CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 11/12/2020 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 federally 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 to—impaeting 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 Fart 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 ^f %! 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—l+_ if 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 11/12/2020 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 t;+rintersection 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 11/12/2020 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 Manua[. 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 - ith within the Major Arterial Corridor are not part of the corridor LOS calculation since they are not arterial streets. CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 11/12/2020 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 11/12/2020 Page 17 of 21 3.4.4.4 3.4.4.5 Draft 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. 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 11/12/2020 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 11/12/2020 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, c. 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 11/12/2020 Page 20 of 21 Draft THIS PAGE IS INTENTIALLY LEFT BLANK CTA-2020-0005 — Exhibit C 11/12/2020 Page 21 of 21 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION STV-20204002 Street vacation of a portion of Bessie Road and Montgomery Avenue Pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(E) the Planning Commission shall consider the proposal and shall prepare and forward a recommendation to the City Council following the public hearing. The following findings are consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation. A. Background: 1. Chapter 22.140 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), governing street vacations, was adopted in September 2007 and became effective on October 28, 2007. 2. The privately -initiated street vacation, STV-2020-0002, proposed to vacate 195-feet of Bessie Road and 470-feet of Montgomery Avenue. 3. The Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing and conducted deliberations on October 22, 2020. The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of STV-2020-0002 to the City Council as presented. B. Planning Commission Findings: Compliance with SVMC 22.140.030 Planning Commission review and recommendation Finding(s): 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. 2. 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 parcel 45074.9084 & 45074.2309 owned by Kenneth Ward and parcels 45074.0222, 45074.0221, 45074.0220 and 45074.0219 owned by Montgomery Apartments LLC due Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission STV-2020-0002 Page I of 4 to their only access being from the undeveloped portions of Bessie Road and Montgomery Avenue. However, due to the common ownership among these parcels, a BLA or access easement is feasible. 4. Whether conditions may so change in the future as to provide a greater use or need than presently exists? 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. Significant public comment was received on the proposal. The primary objections concerned the potential for a multi -family development on parcel's 45074.0219; 45074.0220; 45074.0221; 45074.0222. However, the application before the Planning Commission was only to review the merits of the street vacation. Multifamily uses are currently permitted in the multi -family zoning district, and subject to the administrative review by staff for consistency with the regulations. The street vacation has no effect on the permitted uses. Conclusion: The findings confirm criteria set forth in SVMC 22.140.030 have been met. C. Recommendation: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends the City Council approve STV-2020- 0002 for Bessie Road and Montgomery Avenue 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. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission STV-2020-0002 Page 2 of 4 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 1 (bypass) metal grate shall be installed with the drywell per Std. Plan 5-121. 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-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. Approved this 12th day of November, 2020 Planning Commission Chairman Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission STV-2020-0002 Page 3 of 4 ATTEST Marianne Lemons, Office Assistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission STV-2020-0002 Page 4 of 4