Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout28- Appellant Ex 3 Ross Tilghman Report22 April 2022 Alex Sidles Bricklin and Newman 1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98101 Terri Ross 2971 Oak Bay Road Port Hadlock, WA 98939 re: Pomona Woods Transportation Concerns Dear Alex and Terri: I have at your request reviewed the application for the Pomona Woods project at 3030 Oak Bay Road near Port Hadlock, Jefferson County for its transportation implications. My review included the applicant’s permit application and supplemental application, site plan and SEPA Checklist. Based on that review, I offer the following comments. 1.The biggest transportation issue to resolve concerns driveway safety in terms of its alignment opposite Terri Ross’s driveway (2971 Oak Bay Road), and in terms of rear-end collision potential. a.Operationally, the best result would be to relocate the project’s driveway approximately 125 to 150 feet away from Terri’s driveway to avoid conflicts between vehicles turning in and out of each driveway. Regrettably, no drawing in the project’s file shows the driveway’s placement relative to those on the east side of Oak Bay Road. It’s unclear to me based on the limited drawings in the application whether such a relocation has been considered and could be achieved, but it should be investigated. b.Alternatively, the driveway should be more precisely aligned opposite Terri’s. In its recent and perhaps temporary stub configuration, the project’s driveway is slightly offset to the north. If left like that, virtually all turns to and from the driveway will conflict with any turns at Terri’s driveway. If properly aligned, vehicles leaving Terri’s drive could at least turn right when vehicles on Oak Bay Road wait to turn left into the project’s driveway. Neither Jefferson County nor WSDOT identifies a standard to guide the location of opposing driveways. Nationally published research indicates that driveways can be located opposite one another on undivided roads with lower volumes (see National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 659 Guide for the Geometric Design of Driveways, Transportation Research Board 2010). Exhibit 28 Exhibit 28 Page 0503 Alex Sidles and Terri Ross 22 April 2022 Page 2 of 5 c. Concerning the potential for rear-end collisions – I anticipate that the majority of the project’s arriving traffic would come from the south on Oak Bay Road and would be turning left into the driveway. Since Oak Bay Road is posted 50 mph and some vehicles travel faster, that left turn will cause a big difference in speeds between turning and through traffic. That circumstance exists for any residential driveway in the area, but what makes this project’s driveway different is the higher volume of traffic that will use it since the project will generate twice as much traffic as would residential development on this acreage (see trip generation discussion, below). The volumes don’t meet WSDOT criteria for adding a left-turn lane, but Jefferson County should consider other means of alerting drivers to this commercial driveway such as signs so that they are better prepared to slow or stop if necessary. 2. The SEPA’s Checklist’s trip generation estimates reflect a broad average based on expected annual visitation. Consequently, those estimates obscure the wide variability in daily trip making, especially for busier days in the 5-month long peak season. A number of assumptions need to be clarified and/or modified: a. With 24 rooms, the applicant says that the number of guests is capped at 35 persons. Clearly, many of the rooms provide double occupancy. But do all of the rooms offer double occupancy? If they do, what is to prevent bookings totaling 48 guests? Will the Conditional Use Permit cap the number of guests and, if so, how would that be enforced? b. Inconsistent numbers of staff are stated, ranging from 5 to 8 present at one time. While small in number, the staff count affects the number of parking spaces required by code (1 per employee). c. Greater clarity about staff roles is needed to understand whether they are full or part time employees working in shifts. How many work in the kitchen, how many are housekeeping, and how many are instructors/facilitators? d. The manager’s house needs to be treated as a single-family home for trip generation calculations. The SEPA Checklist treats it as if only one person lives there, making no more trips than a commuting employee. While the applicant may plan to live alone in the manager’s house, nothing prevents a future manager or owner from having a family live there, with the potential to generate many more vehicle trips. e. The trip calculations omit the days during which one group departs and a new group arrives. Those days, which would occur two or three times each week, would have twice as much traffic as the SEPA Checklist suggests. f. No allowance is made for contractors’ or maintenance vehicles. For a hotel with a commercial kitchen, it is reasonable to assume that plumbers, electricians, roofing specialists, appliance repair people, landscapers, pest control, window washers, and other maintenance and repair services would make periodic trips to the site. g. The assumed average occupancy of 2.5 persons per vehicle will be hard to achieve. First, the parking supply of 1 space per unit provides no incentive to share rides beyond what would occur by default. Second, commercial shuttles from ferry terminals are not offered, despite such suggestions in the application. Groups planning on using vans or a bus would need to arrange their own service from their origin to the site. Without a readily available shuttle service and without a limitation on parking supply, achieving an average of 2.5 persons per vehicle is highly unlikely. Such high occupancies occur for major sporting events where parking supplies are constrained and prices are high, or for trips to parks and zoos Exhibit 28 Page 0504 Alex Sidles and Terri Ross 22 April 2022 Page 3 of 5 when the entire family travels together. It is far more likely that the average will be closer to 2 persons per vehicle, resulting in somewhat more traffic. h. No use of private vehicles is accounted for during the multi-day stays. With up to 48 guests, it is reasonable to think that some, perhaps just one out of ten, might make an outside trip each day. i. The useful comparison of this project’s traffic impact is to that of residential development of the property that would yield 4 single-family homes based on 1 unit/5-acre zoning. To provide a broader perspective on the range of trips that the project would likely generation, I’ve calculated trip generation for residential development of the site as well as for three scenarios for the hotel’s operation: 1) A reasonable worst-case assuming full double occupancy on a day that could include delivery and maintenance trips as well as turnover between groups with a relatively low number of people per vehicle; 2) A peak season day with turnover based on the proposed 35 guests and a more likely number of people per vehicle; 3) A peak season mid-stay day when no guest turnover occurs. Exhibit 28 Page 0505 Alex Sidles and Terri Ross 22 April 2022 Page 4 of 5 Source: Tilghman Group Each of those three scenarios generates more daily trips than were disclosed in the SEPA Checklist. Except for days when no groups are staying, which would be few, the project’s traffic levels will essentially equal or greatly exceed those of 4 single-family homes. The worst-case days would equal the volume generated by 10 single-family homes but using a single driveway. Estimated Trip Generation Trip Gen if Only Residential @ 1du/5ac Vehicle Trip Ends (VTE) Single Family Homes 4 38 using ITE Avg. Rate of 9.43 vte/home Worst Case -- Turnover Day VTE Full occupancy at 2 pers/room -- Departure Group 28 Avg of 1.73 pers/veh Full occupancy at 2 pers/room -- Arrival Group 28 Extra Guest trips @0.1 per guest x 2vte 10 Staff Trips (6 x 2vte)12 Deliveries (2 x 2vte)4 Manager's Residence 9 Maintenance (2 x 2vte)4 Total Daily Vehicle Trips 95 Compared to SF Residential:2.49 times greater Equivalent to:10.0 Single-Family Homes Peak Season -- Turnover Day VTE Full occupancy, max. 35 persons -- Departure Group 18 Avg of 1.90 pers/veh Full occupancy, max. 35 persons -- Arrival Group 18 Extra Guest trips @0.1 per guest x 2vte 7 Staff Trips (6 x 2vte)12 Deliveries (1 x 2vte)2 Manager's Residence 9 Maintenance (1 x 2vte)2 Total Daily Vehicle Trips 68 Compared to SF Residential:1.79 times greater Peak Season -- Mid-Stay Day, No Turnover VTE Full occupancy, max. 35 persons -- Departure Group 0 Full occupancy, max. 35 persons -- Arrival Group 0 Extra Guest trips @0.1 per guest x 2vte 7 Staff Trips (6 x 2vte)12 Deliveries (1 x 2vte)2 Manager's Residence 9 Maintenance (1 x 2vte)2 Total Daily Vehicle Trips 32 Compared to SF Residential:0.84 Exhibit 28 Page 0506 Alex Sidles and Terri Ross 22 April 2022 Page 5 of 5 3. Waste collection requirements should be identified. The project will clearly necessitate more pick- up than 4 single-family homes, and the location and number of bins should be identified to understand how they will be collected without interfering with other traffic on Oak Bay Road. 4. The applicant notes that the driveway will have a lockable gate for days when the facility is not being used. The location of the gate should be shown to demonstrate that it is sufficiently far off the road to avoid conflicts with Oak Bay Road traffic for any vehicle that pulls into the gated drive. 5. The potential exists for gravel on the driveway to be tracked onto Oak Bay Road. The project should be conditioned to prevent gravel from spreading onto the road as it would be hazardous to cyclists and vehicles. 6. It should be noted that Oak Bay Road is poorly suited to cyclists and pedestrians given its narrow shoulders. The project is unlikely to add pedestrian traffic to the road, but it could add some cyclists in addition to its new vehicle trips. 7. Finally, since the Conditional Use Permit runs with the land, transportation impacts from future owners and operations need to be considered. As a 24-room hotel with a commercial kitchen, plus eating and meeting space totaling 12,000 square feet, future traffic potential could be higher than the applicant’s proposed use. If it were operated as a boutique hotel with destination restaurant, the property could easily generate more than 100 vehicle trips daily. What is to prevent more traffic from occurring under different ownership in the future? Sincerely, Ross Tilghman Ross Tilghman is a transportation planning consultant with his own firm, the Tilghman Group. He has 37 years of experience in analyzing transportation demands for a wide variety of land uses and in developing solutions to meet transportation needs. A full member of the Urban Land Institute, Mr. Tilghman is a frequent participant in ULI Advisory Service Panels working in communities around the country and has been active in developing ULI’s Building Healthy Communities initiative. He currently serves on ULI’s Suburban Development and Redevelopment Council. Tilghman completed five years as a Commissioner on the Seattle Design Commission, including a year as Chair. Exhibit 28 Page 0507