Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-05-04 Pomona Woods Appeal_Transpo Response 12131 113th Avenue NE, Suite 203, Kirkland, WA 98034 | 425.821.3665 | MEMORANDUM Date: May 4, 2022 TG:1.22177.00 To: Courtney Kaylor, McCullough Hill Leary, PS Ann Burkhart From: Michael Swenson, PE, PTOE & Kassi Leingang, PE Subject: Pomona Woods Transportation Review Transpo Group has been retained by Ann Burkhart to review the transportation information included in the SEPA checklist and review the SEPA Appeal comments submitted by Mr. Ross Tighman. The memo referenced in the comments is dated April 22, 2022. We have reviewed the information provided in the SEPA checklist as well as the Jefferson County staff report and concur with its findings. The following provides a point by point response to the comments provided in Mr. Ross Tilghman’s April 22, 2022 memorandum. Comment 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. Response: The driveway serving the proposed project is aligned with the driveway located on the east side of Oak Bay Road. A road approach on the project site was previously approved by Jefferson County Public Works as referenced in the staff report. The road approach that was constructed is consistent with the location of the permanent access point to the site. Figure 1 shows the proposed site access, relative to the existing roadway approach. While Mr. Tilghman suggests a safety deficiency relative to the current alignment, this offset exists in the construction of the southern flair of the temporary construction access only. This minor and insignificant offset would not create any safety issues and the driveways may be aligned through the final engineering process with Jefferson County. 2 Figure 1: Oak Bay Road Site Access Point Comment 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. The memo goes on to identify a number of assumptions and to present its own trip generation estimate. This is not reprinted here due to length. Response: When estimating the trip generation for a development, it is standard industry practice to utilize average rates. The Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, which is commonly used in transportation studies, presents average trip rates for for numerous land uses. Averages are used because they represent the trip generation characteristics that will occur under normal conditions, rather than unusually low or high trip generation that may occur only occasionally. Based on the proposed use, there is not an ITE land use category that can be referenced. Accordingly, it is appropriate to consider the unique proposal and its planned transportation 3 characteristics. We have reviewed the information provided in the SEPA checklist about the proposal and its intended operation. Based on these characteristics, we concur with the trip generation information presented in the SEPA checklist as being representative of average conditions throughout the year. Information presented in Mr. Tilghman’s memorandum is based on assumptions that are not consistent with the information provided in the SEPA checklist regarding anticipated operations of this proposal. Even if these assumptions were accurate, they are more representative of atypical “peak” conditions and would occur infrequently, if at all. Further, even if the peak volumes referenced in this comment occur on occasion, this it is not likely to generate a significant traffic impact based on the low peak hour traffic volumes of the project and along Oak Bay Road. The daily traffic volumes projected by Mr. Tilghman assumed that the retreat guest rooms would change over in the course of the same day. Even if this was to occur, the daily activity projected by Mr. Tilghman would be spread out over the course of the day; likely over a 12 period. This results in a low volume of traffic during any one single hour. This low volume of cars entering the roadway would not significantly affect traffic movement on Oak Bay Road. Comment 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. Response: Waste collection operations have not been confirmed for the site, however two options are being considered. One option includes self-haul from the site to a local transfer station. The second option would include roadside collection by the local provider. Under this scenario, bins would be taken from the site to Oak Bay Road. This approach is consistent with other properties located along Oak Bay Road. While additional service at this location would create a temporary delay for vehicles on Oak Bay Road, it is not inconsistent with what occurs along the corridor for other properties. Comment 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. Response: Lockable gates are no longer proposed for the site. If a gate were to be added in the future, it would be located such that a vehicle that is waiting at the gate would not extend into Oak Bay Road and interfere with the traffic flows. Comment 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. Response: An asphalt approach to Oak Bay Road will be constructed consistent with Jefferson County design standards. The asphalt approach will prevent gravel from the site migrating onto Oak Bay Road and creating issues for cyclists and vehicles. Comment 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. 4 Response: Comment Noted. Comment 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? Response: While the Conditional Use Permit runs with the land, the permit is tied specifically to the uses as proposed. If the uses were to change in the future, the change would need to be permitted. Any impacts associated with the new use would be be measured against the impacts identified in the previous SEPA review and evaluated for consistency with existing Jefferson County Code for approved uses. Uses other then what was assumed would be evaluated through a new permit process and applicable SEPA requirements would need to be met.