Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
bld20150214-TIA-Starbucks.pdf
CAN, i I�� ~~-- Prepared for: July 2014 Prepared by: -'^—r-~^`~''~~ 1173O118UhAvenue NE, Suite GOO Kirkland, WA 98034-7120 Phone: 425-821-3665 Fax: 425-825-8434 vmww.honnpogvoup.00m J 4183.00 @ 2014 Transpo Group Traffic Impact Analysis Edmonds Starbucks Julv 2014 Table of Contents Introduction....................................................................................................................................1 ProjectDescription................................................................................................................. 1 StudyScope........................................................................................................................... 1 StudyArea............................................................................................................................. 1 ExistingConditions.......................................................................................................................4 RoadwayNetwork.................................................................................................................. 4 TrafficVolumes...................................................................................................................... 4 TrafficOperations.................................................................................................................. 6 TrafficSafety.......................................................................................................................... 7 Future Without -Project Conditions..............................................................................................8 PlannedImprovements.......................................................................................................... 8 TrafficVolumes...................................................................................................................... 8 TrafficOperations.................................................................................................................. 8 ProjectImpacts............................................................................ TripGeneration........................................................................... Trip Distribution and Assignment ................................................ Future With -Project Traffic Volumes ........................................... Future With -Project Traffic Operations ....................................... SiteAccess Analysis................................................................... Parking........................................................................................ ................................................10 ....................... I ... .... .......... 10 .................. ....... I............... 10 .................... I., ....... ........... 10 ......................................... 14 ......................................... 15 ................................... 15 Mitigation Recommendations.....................................................................................................16 TrafficImpact Fee................................................................................................................ 16 Conclusions..................................................................................................................................17 Appendix Appendix A: Traffic Counts Appendix B: LOS Definitions Appendix C: LOS Worksheets Appendix D: Drive -Through Queuing Analysis Figures 1. Site Vicinity and Study Driveways................................................................................ 2 2. Preliminary Site Plan.................................................................................................... 3 3. Existing Weekday Daily and AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...................................... 5 4. Future Without -Project Weekday Daily and AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .............. 9 5. Project Trip Distribution and Net New Average Daily Traffic Volumes ...................... 11 6. Weekday AM Peak Hour Project Trip Assignment.................................................... 12 7. Future With -Project Weekday Daily and AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................. 13 Tables 1. Existing Weekday AM Peak Hour Driveway Operations ............................................. 6 2. Existing 95th -Percentile Queue Lengths..................................................................... 6 3. Three -Year Collision Summary (2011 — 2013); ................................... ....................... 7 4. Future Without -Project Weekday AM Peak Hour Driveway Operations ...................... 8 5. Estimated Weekday AM Peak Hour Trip Generation ................................................ 10 6. Future With -Project Weekday AM Peak Hour Driveway Operations ......................... 14 7. Estimated Traffic Impact Fee.. .......... ......................... _ ........ ............. ...................... 16 -- Page tranS(JOGH.UU Traffic Impact Analysis Edmonds Starbucks July 2014 Introduction The purpose of this traffic impact analysis (TIA) is to identify potential traffic -related impacts associated with the proposed Edmonds Starbucks Coffee shop. The proposed project is a Starbucks Coffee shop generally located north of Edmonds Way and east of 100th Avenue W in the City of Edmonds. The project site is specifically located at 9801 Edmonds Way at the southeast corner of an existing shopping center with PCC Natural Markets and Walgreens. The proposed project would construct approximately 2,130 square feet of coffee shop with drive-through window and would be completed and occupied by 2015. Figure 1 illustrates the project site and surrounding vicinity. A preliminary site plan is shown in Figure 2. As shown in the site plan, there are two existing full access driveways to Edmonds Way located on the east and west sides of the project site. In addition to these two adjacent driveways, there are two other existing driveways into the shopping center; a full access driveway located on 100th Avenue W at the northwest corner of the shopping center and a right-in/right-out access only driveway located at the southwest corner of the shopping center on Edmonds Way. Study Scope This TIA evaluates existing (2014) and future (2015 and 2020) weekday AM peak hour intersection operations in the area surrounding the project site. Horizon years of 2015 and 2020 were used for all analysis of future conditions as it represents the anticipated build -out year of the proposed project and five years beyond the change of land use as required per the City of Edmonds Traffic Impact Analysis Requirements. The analysis focuses on the weekday AM peak period (7:00 to 9:00 a.m.) operations at three full -access driveways determined through coordination with the City of Edmonds, including: 1. 100th Avenue W/ Driveway 1 2. Edmonds Way / Driveway 2 3. Edmonds Way / Driveway 3 The fourth driveway described above, the right-in/right-out access only driveway, was not studied as very few, if any, project traffic is anticipated to access the site via this driveway. The Edmonds Way/100th Avenue W intersection was also not studied because this intersection was recently evaluated in a traffic study completed by Heffron Transportation and shown to operate acceptably during the weekday PM peak hour (one-hour period between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m.), a time period when there is more traffic at this intersection than during the weekday AM peak hour.' Similarly, weekday PM peak period operations were not evaluated at the full -access driveways because (1) the proposed project is anticipated to generate less traffic during this hour as compared with the AM peak hour and (2) the aforementioned Walgreens traffic study evaluated these driveways with a more intensive use (drive-in bank) and determined these driveways would operate acceptably during this time period. ' Transportation Impact Analysis for Walgreens — Edmonds, Heffron Transportation, March 30, 2012. ,- Page 1 M. irar1SPOGHOUP LLI ry H Is �2 Traffic Impact Analysis Edmonds Starbucks July 2014 Existing itl h This section describes existing condition within the identified study area. Characteristics are provided for the roadway network, existing traffic volumes, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Roadway Network Existing roadway characteristics within the vicinity of the project site are described below: Edmonds Way (SR 104) is a five -lane roadway classified as a principal arterial with a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour (mph). Sidewalks are provided along both sides of the street. 100th Avenue W is a five -lane roadway classified as a minor arterial with a posted speed limit of 30 mph. Sidewalks are provided along both sides of the street. Traffic at the three study driveways is controlled with stop signs. Traffic Volumes Figure 3 illustrates existing weekday AM peak hour traffic volumes at the study driveways as well as the average daily traffic (ADT) volumes along both Edmonds Way and 100th Avenue W. Traffic counts were collected at each study driveway in June 2014 and tube counts were taken along the roadways in January 2012. Since the ADT volumes were collected in 2012, these volumes were grown by 1.5 percent per year for two years to estimate existing conditions. Detailed intersection traffic counts are provided in Appendix A. Traffic volumes were rounded to the nearest five vehicles since weekday volumes fluctuate day-to-day. fk; Page 4 iiansp®'3poup w LL LL Traffic Impact Analysis Edmonds Starbucks 2014 Weekday AM peak hour traffic operations were evaluated at the study driveways based on levels of service (LOS). The LOS analysis method was based on procedures identified in the Highway Capacity Manual (2010) and evaluated using Synchro version 8.0. At stop -sign -controlled intersections, LOS is measured in delay per vehicle. Traffic operations for an intersection can be described alphabetically with a range of levels of service (LOS A through F), with LOS A indicating free-flowing traffic and LOS F indicating extreme congestion and long vehicle delays. Appendix B provides a more detailed explanation of intersection LOS criteria. Table 1 shows the weekday AM peak hour existing traffic operations. Detailed intersection LOS worksheets are contained in Appendix C. Table 1. Existing Weekday AM Peak Hour Driveway Operations AM Peak Hour Intersection LOS' Delay2 WM3 1. 100th Avenue W /Driveway 1 B 12.4 WB 2. Edmonds Way / Driveway 2 B 13.9 SB 3. Edmonds Way / Driveway 3 C 17.1 SB Source: HCM, 2010 and Transpo Group, 2014. 1. LOS as defined by the HCM (TRB, 2010). 2. Average delay per vehicle in seconds. 3. Worst movement (WM) reported for side -street stop controlled intersections. SB = southbound approach, WB = westbound approach As shown in Table 1, all study driveways currently operate at LOS C or better. A queuing analysis was performed at the three study driveways. The 95th -percentile queues are shown in Table 2 below.2 As shown in the table, the 95th -percentile queues for all movements at the three study driveways are one vehicle length or less and within the existing storage lengths. Table 2. Existing 95th -Percentile Queue Lengths Movement Storage 95th -Percentile Queue 1. 100th Avenue W / Driveway 1 Westbound Approach 50' 20' Southbound Left 200' 20' 2. Edmonds Way / Driveway 2 Eastbound Left 125' 20' Southbound Approach 50' 20' 3. Edmonds Way / Driveway 3 Eastbound Left 150' 20' Southbound Approach 50' 20' Note: 50th -percentile queues reported for traffic signal controlled intersections only. 2 The 50th -percentile queues are not reported for stop controlled intersections. " ` iranS(JOGROUP Page 6 Traffic Impact Analysis Edmonds Starbucks Traffic Safety 411E,I Collision records were reviewed within the study area to document any potential traffic safety issues. The most recent summary of collision data from WSDOT is for the three-year period between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2013. A historical review of collisions was conducted at the three existing driveways. A summary of the total and average annual number of reported collisions as well as the collisions rate at each study driveway is provided in Table 3. The collision rate is representative of the number of collisions per one million entering vehicles (MEV) at each intersection. Intersections with a rate greater than 1.0 collision per MEV are typically flagged for further investigation to determine whether an adverse condition exists. As shown in the table, all study driveways experienced 0.5 collisions per MEV or less. Table 3. Three -Year Collision Summary (2011 — 2013) Number of Collisions Annual Collisions Driveway 2011 2012 2013 Total Average per MEV' 1. 100th Avenue W/ Driveway 1 0 1 1 2 0.7 0.2 2. Edmonds Way / Driveway 2 1 3 3 7 2.3 0.5 3. Edmonds Way / Driveway 3 2 0 0 2 0.7 0.1 Source: WSDOT and Transpo Group, 2014. 1. Million Enterinn Vehicles Within the analysis time period, the highest number of collisions occurred at Edmonds Way/Driveway 2 with approximately two collisions per year. The most common collision type at Driveway 2 was a vehicle entering at an angle. One bicyclist collision occurred at a study driveway (100th Avenue W/Driveway 1) during this time period as well. Y % P tranSpO�� ROU Page 7 Traffic Impact Analysis Edmonds Starbucks July 2014 Future i- 1 cConditions This section describes the future 2015 and 2020 traffic conditions during the AM peak hour without the addition of project traffic. The following describes planned transportation improvements, traffic volume forecasts, and traffic operations (LOS and queue lengths). 4F 1 =I- ' - Based on coordination with the City of Edmonds, no planned improvements have been identified; therefore no changes to the roadway network have been included in evaluating future 2015 and 2020 conditions. T. - Future without -project weekday AM peak hour traffic volumes and average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were estimated by growing existing traffic volumes by 1.5 percent per year to 2015 and 2020 conditions. This growth rate was determined in coordination with the City of Edmonds. No pipeline projects were identified within the study area. Figure 4 illustrates 2015 and 2020 without -project weekday AM peak hour traffic volumes and ADT volumes at study driveways. u Weekday AM peak hour intersection operations were evaluated for forecast 2015 and 2020 without -project conditions. Intersection LOS was calculated at the study intersections using the LOS methodology described previously. Table 4 summarizes the 2015 and 2020 without - project weekday AM peak hour traffic operations and compares these forecast conditions to 2014 existing weekday AM peak hour traffic conditions. The detailed LOS worksheets are included in Appendix C. Table 4. Future Without -Project Weekday AM Peak Hour Driveway Operations Existing 2015 Without -Project 2020 Without -Project Intersection LOS' Delay2 WM3 LOS Delay WIVI LOS Delay WM 1. 100th Avenue W / Driveway 1 B 12.4 WB B 12.5 WB B 12.8 WB 2. Edmonds Way / Driveway 2 B 13.9 SB B 14.0 SB B 14.6 SB 3. Edmonds Way / Driveway 3 C 17.1 SB C 17.3 SB C 18.3 SB Source: HCM, 2010 and Transpo Group, 2014. 1. LOS as defined by the HCM (TRB, 2010). 2. Average delay per vehicle in seconds. 3. Worst movement (WM) reported for side -street stop controlled intersections. SB = southbound approach, wB = westbound approach As shown in Table 4, all study driveways are forecast to continue to operate at LOS C or better under 2015 and 2020 without -project AM peak hour conditions. 95th- rcen d® maces Lengths The 95th -percentile queues for all movements at the three study driveways are forecast to continue to be one vehicle length or less and within the existing storage lengths. Page 8 tfanSpocRou , 7,5 U U n o o V N LL N N L Q < N I[J N COp ' lfJ cN0 Q Q � 1} N N Q D /} � Qpoo-r 1} moo wW O O M 0 W O D W t [) N t n r >Q Q o 0 0 �<n In In O oo V v o N N 3 r oLU W w w d d $$1 qjj m { W w.,.. w LULLU LJ It It r v x` I a t: t f EaR € a s .- � x O 99 � N CL 41 u a Y LU ' it i wv (006'£1) _. y +' Q " 00611 M 3f1N3ATHIO01 .9 0 -- ks Llj 1 e�ti { f V CL 41 u a Y LU ' it i wv (006'£1) _. y +' Q " 00611 M 3f1N3ATHIO01 .9 0 -- Traffic Impact Analysis Edmonds Starbucks July 2014 Project act This section of the analysis documents potential project -generated impacts at study driveways. First, estimated traffic volumes generated by the proposed project are distributed and assigned to the adjacent street system. Next, project trips are added to future without - project traffic volumes and any potential impacts to traffic operations are identified. The need for turn lanes and an evaluation of sight distance at study driveways is also included. This section concludes by comparing the parking supply to the anticipated parking demand. Trip Generation Trip generation estimates are summarized in Table 5. Estimates for project -generated vehicle trips were calculated using average peak hour trip rates for a coffee/donut shop with drive- through window (Land Use No. 937) published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation (8th Edition, 2008).3 As described previously, the proposed project would construct a Starbucks Coffee shop totaling approximately 2,130 square feet. Table 5. Estimated Weekday AM Peak Hour Trip Generation Weekday AM Peak Hour Gross Land Use' Size Daily TripsZ Rate Trips Pass -by' Total in Out Coffee Shop with Drive 2,13 ksf 1,750 110.75 236 -188 48 26 22 Through Window (LU #937) Source: Transpo Group, 2014. Notes: ksf = one thousand square -feet 1. Trip generation estimates based on size and average daily and peak hour trip rates from ITE Trip Generation, 8th Edition (2008). 2. Daily trip generation based on only two data points. Generally three or more data points are preferred. 3. Pass-bv of 80 percent based Der Citv of Edmonds Traffic Impact Fee Table. The proposed project would generate approximately 1,750 daily trips, with approximately 350 daily primary trips (non -pass -by trips). During the weekday AM peak hour, the project would generate approximately 48 net new trips (26 inbound and 22 outbound). The analysis did not account for trips internal to the existing shopping center in order to provide a conservative estimate at the study driveways. • 0 • •K MU07= Net new project trip distribution was estimated using the City's travel demand forecasting model and anticipated peak hour distribution of retail trips to/from Transportation Analysis Zone JAZ) 35, the zone in which the project site is located. Figure 5 illustrates the daily and AM peak hour trip distribution. As shown in the figure, approximately 40 percent of the trips would be oriented to/from the east, 20 percent to/from the south, 20 percent to/from the north, and 20 percent to/from the east. In contrast, pass -by trip distribution was based on existing AM peak hour travel patterns on Edmonds Way and 100th Avenue W. Project trips were assigned to the study driveways based on the travel patterns and the resulting net new daily and weekday AM peak hour trip assignment is shown in Figures 5 and 6, respectively. Future With -Project Traffic Volumes The project traffic volumes were added to the future 2015 and 2020 without -project traffic volumes to form the basis of the with -project analysis. The resulting future (2015 and 2020) with -project weekday daily and AM peak hour traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 7. 3 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation (8th Edition, 2008) was used in accordance with the City of Edmonds Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet. Page 10 iranSPOGROU ' W wm J lA (n 7 m QZ n LL OfLLI CD CL Cn F— ¢ 1— ii a ii m z,a,1`'�. co w Po " r CC F Co iCOy j j. w e z CD I V A J II ��I II II IItatyqlET ; U _ as �# M On " r ®_ U3J < < ♦.a • 4- Y: F L i d HLU ��ZZII c TT yg � y. �^moi N VN 3l o .y w t ui ¢ o <, • Ni 3f1N3AV Fllb�l —__ _-, ,.;_ L U 'o oOL O OL .i N o O O w z O � FWEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL TRIPS 236 120 116 PASS -BY (80 PERCENT) -188 -94 -94 TOTAL NET NEW TRIPS 48 26 22 PCC NATURAL MARKETS NOT TO SCAL 5 16 w _ 5-) ��5 -8— —4 '- -21 25 E� Q 16 < i t x WALGREENSAft rl t� �` r 1 j 13 32-) l 34 y ✓ U" { _ -29— a-25 d, t f o f STARBUCui KS LEGENDfi> �,. r I STUDY DRIVEWAYS EDMONDS WAY (SR 104) X = WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR Weekday AM Peak Hour Project Trip Assignment FIGURE Edmonds Starbucks it n OGROUP \1srv-dfs-wa1MM_Projects\Projects\14\14183.00 - Edmonds StarbuckslGraphicslGraphics <6 -Assign> kassil 06/30/1411:48 4`= P"' V � lL LL W w ;� V � M JJ w IrOi �iw / Q c QQ�V ®-NN Q LU CD LIJ 0 �> ¢¢ o� I / �- jN x Cc)� M 0 W w 0 o o 0 w m m > _ 0 Q O O O a M O � N v O Gn N It S _ �I O 0 W Y Y �� J 2 d } Q Q > < a? z Y W w w w w } xJON R W s mJ4 L �kd `j# �e• r Z t LYr r , Q 4. i A r W .m.o- ui v (Ot6 £l) 016 Zt M 3(1N3AV H1001 .? ''37 � �- o z� Traffic Impact Analysis Edmonds Starbucks July 2014 Level of Service Analys& Future 2015 and 2020 with -project study intersection operations were evaluated for the weekday AM peak hour. Intersection LOS was calculated using the methodology described previously. The without -project conditions are compared to the with -project conditions to understand the potential traffic impacts of the proposed project. Table 6 summarizes the 2015 and 2020 without- and with -project driveway operations for the weekday AM peak hour. LOS worksheets are included in Appendix C. As shown in Table 6, the LOS with the addition of project traffic remains at LOS C or better when compared to without -project conditions. Table 6. Future With -Project Weekday AM Peak Hour Driveway Operations Without -Project With -Project Intersection LOS' Delayz WMI LOS Delay WM 2015 1. 100th Avenue W / Driveway 1 B 12.5 WB B 13.2 WB 2. Edmonds Way / Driveway 2 B 14.0 SB B 14.4 SB 3. Edmonds Way / Driveway 3 C 17.3 SB C 17.3 SB 2020 1. 100th Avenue W /Driveway 1 B 12,8 WB B 13.6 WB 2. Edmonds Way / Driveway 2 B 14.6 SB C 15.0 SB 3. Edmonds Way / Driveway 3 C 18.3 SB C 18.4 SB Source: HCM, 2010 and Transpo Group, 2014. 1. LOS as defined by the HCM (TRB, 2010). 2. Average delay per vehicle in seconds. 3. Worst movement (WM) reported for side -street stop controlled intersections. SB = southbound approach, WB = westbound approach 95th -Percentile Queue Lengths The 95th -percentile queues for all movements at the three study driveways are forecast to continue to be one vehicle length or less and within the existing storage lengths. As a result of the minimal queues forecast at the driveways, particularly the two adjacent driveways (Driveways 2 and 3), access to the on-site parking stalls and the drive-through window entrance are not likely to be blocked by driveway queues. In addition to queues at the three study driveways, queues were evaluated at the proposed drive-through window. The drive-through queue was estimated using the Poisson queuing distribution. Based on a study completed by QSR in 20124, the average service rate for a fast-food restaurant drive-through window is approximately 175 seconds, slightly less than three minutes per customer. A detailed Poisson queuing worksheet is provided in Appendix D. The weekday AM peak hour anticipated drive-through 95th -percentile queue length is estimated at 10 vehicles or approximately 200 feet. The proposed site plan provides approximately 200 feet of drive-through storage. Based on this, queues are anticipated to be accommodated within the proposed driveway storage. 4 2012 QSR Drive-Thru Study: Average Service Time, QSR, Accessed July 2014 <http://www.gsrmagazine.com/content/2012-qsr-drive-thru-study-average-service-time> RPage 14 P:far)SPO,�f OU- Traffic Impact Analysis Edmonds Starbucks Site Access Analysis 2014 Since all study driveways have an existing two-way center left -turn lane to access the site, left -turn lane warrants were not evaluated. Similarly, right -turn lane warrants were not evaluated because the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) guidelines for right -turn lanes is limited to two-lane highways and since both Edmonds Way and 100th Avenue W are five -lane roadways, these guidelines do not apply. Sight distance was measured in the study previously submitted by Heffron Transportation, Walgreens — Edmonds Way TIA (Heffron Transportation, 2012) for the three study driveways and was shown to meet American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards. The location of these driveways have not changed since this study was completed and are not proposed to change as part of the proposed Starbucks Coffee shop. Therefore, adequate sight distance exists at each study driveway. Parking ly The required parking supply was calculated in accordance with the City of Edmonds Municipal Code 17.50.020 — B1. A retail store is required to provide one space per 300 square -feet, requiring a total of approximately 7 parking spaces. As shown in the site plan (Figure 2), the project is proposing to provide 7 on-site parking spaces, meeting the City of Edmonds requirements. In addition, the shopping center has 230 existing parking spaces serving the PCC Natural Markets and Walgreens. This would result in a total of 237 parking spaces for the shopping center has a whole. Parking and The peak parking demand was estimated based on the size of the proposed building and average rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Parking Generation (4th Edition, 2010). The average peak hour parking rate for a coffee/donut shop with drive-through window (Land Use No. 937) is 10.4 vehicles per 1,000 square feet, resulting in an estimated peak parking demand of approximately 22 vehicles. This estimate does not reflect any adjustment for other modes of travel (e.g., transit) or reductions for trips internal to the existing shopping center. The peak demand is anticipated to be accommodated by the total parking available in the shopping center as the peak parking demand for grocery and drug stores does not generally occur at the same time as a coffee shop and as such, no off-site parking impacts are expected as a result of the project. Page 15 tranSPOGROU. Traffic Impact Analysis Edmonds Starbucks July 2014 Mitigation n I Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce potential transportation -related project impacts. As all study driveways are forecast to operate at LOS C or better, the proposed project should not be required to mitigate any driveway impact. The proposed project will be required to pay traffic impact fees which are summarized below. The project would be required to pay the City's Transportation Impact Fee. A fee for the ITE Land Use No. 937, coffee/donut shop with drive-through window, is not included in the Edmonds Streets and Roads Impact Fee Rate Study Table 4, 2009. Instead, the impact fee was calculated based on the most current edition of ITE, (9th Edition, 2012) in accordance with the City of Edmonds Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet and consistent with the calculation of other coffee shops in the 2009 Impact Fee Rate Table. The calculated impact fee for land use 937 can be found in Table 7 below. Table 7. Estimated Traffic Impact Fee % New Trip Length Net New Trips per Impact Fee per Unit Land Use' Trip Rate2 Trips3 Factor. Unit of Measure at $1,049 per trip Coffee Shop with Drive 42.80 20% Through Window (LU #937) 0.67 5.74/1,000 sf 6.02 per square foot Source: Transpo Group, 2014. Notes: sf = square -feet 1. Trip generation estimates based on the square feet and the average peak hour trip rate from ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition (2012). 2. PM Peak Hour Trip Ends (4-6 p.m.) 3. Per the Edmonds Streets and Roads Impact Fee Rate Study, Table 4, 2009. Consistent with land uses 936 and 938. As shown in Table 7, an impact fee of $6.02 per square foot was calculated resulting in a preliminary estimate of approximated $12,800 for a Starbucks Coffee shop with drive-through window totaling approximately 2130 square feet. The final impact fee will be calculated and approved by the City. Page 16 frar'1spoc-iC oup Traffic Impact Analysis Edmonds Starbucks July 2014 Conclusions ~ �ons This traffic impact analysis summarizes the anticipated traffic impacts nfthe proposed Edmonds Starbucks Coffee shop. General findings and recommendations include: ° The project consists ofconstructing aStarbucks Coffee shop with drive-through window totaling approximately 2.13Osquare feet. ° The proposed project would generate approximately 350 net new daily trips and 48net new trips during the weekday /\yNpeak hour. ° All study driveways are forecast to operate at LOS C or better during the weekday AKApeak hour with the addition ofproject traffic. ° The 95th -percentile queue lengths at study driveways as well as the drive-through window are anticipated to be accommodated within the existing and proposed atonyga. respectively. ° The project will provide 7 parking spaces on site, consistent with the City of Edmonds Code requirements, and ieforecast tuhave opeak parking demand cf approximately 22 vehicles. The peak demand is anticipated to be accommodated by the total parking available within the shopping center (a total of 237 parking spaces including the proposed parking spaces) because the peak parking demand of coffee shops and grocery and drug stores do not generally occur simultaneously. ° Edmond's traffic impact fee is estimated to be approximately $12,800 for a coffee shop with drive-through window totaling approximately 2,130 square feet. The final impact fee will bacalculated and approved bythe City. Page 17 mes El El 100TH AVE W DRIVEWAY 01 wa)�, Date: Tue, Jun 17, 2014 N Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM Peak Hour: 8:00 AM to 9:00 AM 04 r - ?j LO N t_jf L!J V Q 04 dam04 co I- ' N DRIVEWAY 01 � 1 flnfln 0 > 32 23 44 A 0 �- 8 TEV: 894 2 o ® o0 * N O O (O 0 PHF: 0.91 19 4 41 33 54 DRIVEWAY 01 0 00 N N w HV %: PHF Q EB 2.4% 0.64 F WB 4.5% 0.61 o NB 4.6% 0.83 00 Ln N SB 2.9% 0.97 TOTAL 3.5% 0.91 Two -Hour Count Summaries DRIVEWAY 01 DRIVEWAY 02 100TH AVE W 100TH AVE W Interval 15 -min Rolling Start Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Total One Hour LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT 7:00 AM 1 0 7 2 0 2 4 45 5 9 118 8 201 7:15 AM 4 0 7 3 0 2 6 39 7 10 139 7 224 7:30 AM 2 0 4 8 0 1 2 46 8 7 135 6 219 7:45 AM 2 0 7 6 0 1 10 51 6 9 121 4 217 861 Count Total 1 17 0 58 38 2 29 40 420 53 62 999 37 1,755 Peak Hr 1 8 0 33 19 2 23 1 18' 239 27 27 486 12 894 Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 6 3 1 4 6 0 1 0 4 10 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 3 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 4 2 4 3 Count Total 1 1 4 25 27 57 1 0 0 4 4 8 1 6 10 9 0 25 1 N Peak Hour r � M N Q W N M � r r 3e.. Date: Tue, Jun 17, 2014 Count Period: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM Peak Hour: 8:00 AM to 9:00 AM A, J/_ 4 1000M> 604 Lm 20 612 0 0 0 ° < TEV: 1,247 592 E— o ® o 0101 —� 4 PHF: 0.92 40 0 4 0 604 600 6190 0',� EDMONDS WAY EDMONDS WAY EDMONDS WAY 0 HV %: PHF EB 4.0% 0.84 WB 6.4% 0.89 SB 0.0% 0.60 TOTAL 5.1% 0.92 Two -Hour Count Summaries Interval15-min Start EDMONDS WAY EDMONDS WAY 0 DRIVEWAY 30 1 0 DRIVEWAY 0 Total Rolling One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 4 LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. 7:00 AM 0 188 0 0 91 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 285 EB WB NB SB Total 7:15 AM 2 115 0 0 97 4 0 0 0 3 0 1 222 0 0 0 0 7:30 AM 1 209 0 0 116 2 0 0 0 7 0 1 336 7:45 AM 2 141 0 0 129 3 0 0 0 5 0 1 281 1,124 Count Total 9 1,253 0 0 1,025 30 1 0 0 0 39 0 152,371 Peak Hr 4 600 0 0 592 `20 0 0 0 19 0 12 1,247 Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Interval Start Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM 1 8 11 1 8 0 0 6 0 0 3 0 0 7 0 0 9 14 14 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 Count Total 1 45 63 0 0 108 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 7 0 8 1 W Date: Tue, Jun 17, 2014 N Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM Peak Hour: 8:00 AM to 9:00 AM r N > V W 0 O O r EDMONDS WAY3 614 1 614 0 ^F0 TEV: 1,269 611 o > 645 PHF: 0.92 2 > ' o o c 648 2 6497777" 0-'y EDMONDS WAY 0 HV %: PHF EB 4.5% 0.86 O WB 5.9% 0.87 o NB 0.0% 0.50 0 et cc SB 0.0% 0.25 TOTAL 5.1% 0.92 Two -Hour Count Summaries EDMONDS WAY EDMONDS WAY DRIVEWAY 02 DRIVEWAY 01 Interval Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 15 -min Rolling Start Total One Hour LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT 7:00 AM 0 184 0 0 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 274 7:15 AM 0 118 0 0 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 217 7:30 AM 0 219 0 1 114 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 334 7:45 AM 0 139 0 0 135 0 0 0 2 0• 0 0 276 1,101 Count Total 1 1,305 2 3 1,048 1 3 0 5 1 0 1 2,370 Peak Hr 1 645 2 1 2 611 1 31 0 3 1 0' 0 1,269 Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count. Interval Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) Start EB WB NB SB Total EB WB NB SB Total East West North South Total 7:00 AM 1 9 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:15 AM 8 4 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 7:30 AM 12 3 0 0 15 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7:45 AM 3 6 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 Count Total 1 53 58 0 0 111 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 2 6 1 1 6 'o 0 I as 4 Highway Capacity (Manual 2010 Signalized intersection level of service (LOS) is defined in terms of a weighted average control delay for the entire intersection. Control delay quantifies the increase in travel time that a vehicle experiences due to the traffic signal control as well as provides a surrogate measure for driver discomfort and fuel consumption. Signalized intersection LOS is stated in terms of average control delay per vehicle (in seconds) during a specified time period (e.g., weekday PM peak hour). Control delay is a complex measure based on many variables, including signal phasing and coordination (i.e., progression of movements through the intersection and along the corridor), signal cycle length, and traffic volumes with respect to intersection capacity and resulting queues. Table 1 summarizes the LOS criteria for signalized intersections, as described in the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 (Transportation Research Board, 2010). Table 1. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Levet of Average Control Delay Service (seconds/vehicle) General Description A <_10 Free Flow B >10 — 20 Stable Flow (slight delays) C >20 — 35 Stable flow (acceptable delays) D >35 — 55 Approaching unstable flow (tolerable delay, occasionally wait through more than one signal cycle before proceeding) E >55 — 80 Unstable flow (intolerable delay) F' >80 Forced flow (congested and queues fail to clear) Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2010, Transportation Research Board, 2010. 1. If the volume -to -capacity (v/c) ratio for a lane group exceeds 1.0 LOS F is assigned to the individual lane group. LOS for overall approach or intersection is determined solely by the control delay. Unsignalized intersection LOS criteria can be further reduced into three intersection types: all -way stop, two-way stop, and roundabout control. All -way stop and roundabout control intersection LOS is expressed in terms of the weighted average control delay of the overall intersection or by approach. Two-way stop -controlled intersection LOS is defined in terms of the average control delay for each minor -street movement (or shared movement) as well as major -street left -turns. This approach is because major -street through vehicles are assumed to experience zero delay, a weighted average of all movements results in very low overall average delay, and this calculated low delay could mask deficiencies of minor movements. Table 2 shows LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections. Table 2. Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Average Control Delay (seconds/vehicle) A 0-10 B >10 — 15 C >15-25 D >25 — 35 E >35 — 50 F' >50 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2010, Transportation Research Board, 2010. 1. If the volume -to -capacity (v/c) ratio exceeds 1.0, LOS F is assigned an individual lane group for all unsignalized intersections, or minor street approach at two-way stop -controlled intersections. Overall intersection LOS is determined solely by control delay. • • -• l • • HCM 2010 TWSC Existing AM Peak Hour 1: 100th Ave W & Driveway 1 Edmonds Starbucks Int Delay, slveh 1.7 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 6 0 5 6 0 7 5 0 6 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - 100 Veh in Median Storage, # - 1 - - 1 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 Mvmt Flow 11 0 38 22 5 27 22 264 27 ajorlMnor7,Mirior2 f. Miborl lalorl Conflicting Flow All 785 941 284 655 933 160 550 0 0 Stage 599 599 - 328 328 - - - - Stage 2 186 342 - 327 605 - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.6 6.6 7 4.2 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6,54 5.54 - 6.6 5.6 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.6 5.6 - - - Follow-up Hdwy - 3.52 4402 3.32 3.55 4.05 3.35 2.25 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 283 262 713 345 260 847 Stage 1 455 489 - 651 38 " 638- Stage Stage 2 798 637 - 651 478 - - - Platoon blocked, °l - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 259 24,81, 1 706 312 246 837 990 - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 356 352 417 342 - - Stage 1 443 476 - 63,31, 1 620 - - - - Stage 2 744 619 = 599 465 - HCM Control Delay, s 11.8 12.4 0.6 HCM LOS B B 7/112014 Synchro 8 Report Transpo Group Capacity (vehlh) 990 - - 579 541 1246 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.022 - 0`085 0.102 0.022 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.7 - - 11.8 12.4 8 - - HCM Lane LOS A B B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.3 0.3 0.1 7/112014 Synchro 8 Report Transpo Group HCM 2010 TWSC Existing AM Peak Hour 1: 100th Ave W & Driveway 1 Edmonds Starbucks Int Delay, s/veh Conflicting Peds, #/hr 7 0 6 Sign Control Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - Grade, % - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, '% 3 3 3 Mvmt Flow 27 533 11 Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 1246 - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - Stage 1 Stage 2 - - HCM Control Delay, s 0.4 HCM LOS 7/1/2014 Synchro 8 Report Transpo Group HCM 2010 TWSC Existing AM Peak Hour 2: Edmonds Way & Driveway 2 Edmonds Starbucks )ntersect�on Int Delay, s/veh 0.4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 4 0 0 4 4 4 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 100 - 0 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 1 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 6 6 0 0 Mvmt Flow 5 652 641 22 22 11 Conflicting Flow All 667 0 - 0 993 340 Stage 1 656 Stage 2 - - 337 Critical Hdwy 4.18 - - 6.8 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.8 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.8 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.24 - - - 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 905 - - - 246 662 Stage 1 - - 483 - Stage 2 - - - - 701 - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 902 - - - 243 658 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 364 Stage 1 - - - 481 - Stage 2 - 695 HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 13.9 }HCM LOS B 7/1/2014 Synchro 8 Report Transpo Group Capacity (veh/h) 902 - - - 364 658 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 0.06 0.017 HCM Control Delay (s) 9 - - - 15.5 10.6 HCM Lane LOS A C B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.2 0.1 7/1/2014 Synchro 8 Report Transpo Group HCM 2010 TWSC Existing AM Peak Hour 3: Driveway 3 & Edmonds Way Edmonds Starbucks Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 100 100 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 Grade, % - 0 - 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 '92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 5 5 6 6 6 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 5 701 5 5 663 5 5 0 5 ,. �lalor/Itlonor ; �:;Majorl t.�iufator2 � . --Monod. Conflicting Flaw All 671 0 0 707 0 0 1060 1397 356 Stage 1 - - - - - - 715 715 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 345 ' 682 - Critical Hdwy 4.2 4.22 7.5 6.5 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 6.5 5,5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 6.5 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.25 - - 2.26 - - 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 895 - - 861 - - 181 142 646 Stage 1- _ - - - - 392 438 , Stage 2 649 453 Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 893 - - 859 - - 179 140 644 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - 295 265 - Stage 1 390 436 Stage 2 - - - 644 449 HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.1 14.1 HCM LOS B NB6flll0'T. WBR > SK0 - 11 Capacity (veh/h) 405 893 - - 859 - - 303 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.027 0.006 - 0.006 0.018 HCM Control Delay (s) 14.1 9.1 - - 9.2 - - 17.1 HCM Lane LQS' B A - A C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.1 711/2014 Synchro 8 Report Transpo Group HCM 2010 TWSC Existing AM Peak Hour 3: Driveway 3 & Edmonds Way Edmonds Starbucks lnfersecfon = = — Int Delay, slveh Mvmt Flow Stage 680 680 - Stage 2 361 717 - Critical Hdwy 7.5 6.5 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.5 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.5 5.5 - Follow up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 187 142 662 Stage 1 412 454 - Stage 2 636 437 - Platoon blocked,'°l Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 183 140 659 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 303 265 Stage 409 450 - Stage 2 626 435 HCM Control Delay, s 17.1 HCM LOS C Min©r.LanelMajai Mvmt. 7/1/2014 Synchro 8 Report Transpo Group HCM 2010 TWSC Baseline 2015 AM Peak Hour 1: 100th Ave W & Driveway 1 Edmonds Starbucks Int Delay, s/veh 1.7 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 6 0 5 6 0 7 5 0 6 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - 100 Veh in Median Storage, # - 1 - - 1 - - 0 - Grade, °lo - 0 - - 0 " - 0 Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles;; % 2 2 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 Mvmt Flow 11 0 38 22 5 27 22 269 27 MajoxlM�nor .. = "f Ntiror2 Minor/ _ ; Maioil Conflicting Flow All 793 953 287 664 944 162 555 0 0 Stage 605 605 334 334 Stage 2 _ 188 348 - 330 610 - - - Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.6 6.6 7 4.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.6 5.6 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.6 5.6 - - - Follow-up Hdwy; 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.55 4,05 3.35 2.25 - - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 279 258 710 340 256 845 991 - - Stage 1 451 486 645 634 - - - - Stage2 796 633 649 476 Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 255 244 703 307 242 835 986 - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 353 348 413 339. _ Stage 1 439 473 627 616 Stage 2742 615 - 597 463 - HCM Control Delay, s 11.8 12.5 0.6 HCM LOS B B Capacity (veh/h) 986 - - 576 537 1239 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.022 0.086 0,102 0.022 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.7 11.8 12.5 8 HCM Lane LOS A - B B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 7/1/2014 Synchro 8 Report Transpo Group HCM 2010 TWSC Baseline 2015 AM Peak Hour 1: 100th Ave W & Driveway 1 Edmonds Starbucks Int Delay, s/veh Conflicting Peds, #/hr 7 0 6 Sign Control Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - Grade, % - 0 Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 Mvmt Flow 27 538 11 HCM Control Delay, s 0.4 HCM LOS 7/1/2014 Synchro 8 Report Transpo Group HCM 2010 TWSC Baseline 2015 AM Peak Hour 2: Edmonds Way & Driveway 2 Edmonds Starbucks Int Delay, s/veh 0.4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 4 0 0 4 4 4 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 100 - - 0 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 1 - Grade, - 0 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 6 6 0 0 Mvmt Flow 5 663 652 22 22 11 Ma(orl[�norME KM Conflicting Flow All 678 0 - 0 1009 345 Stage 1 667 Stage 2 - - - 342 - Critical Hdwy 4.18 - - - 6.8 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 5.8 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.8 Follow-up Hdwy 2,24 - 3.5 ' 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 897 - - - 240 657 Stage 1 - - - 477 - Stage 27 - 697 - Platoon blocked', le - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 894 - - - 237 653 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 359 '. Stage 1 - - 475 - Stage 2 - - 691. HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 14 HCM LOS B Capacity (veh/h) 894 - - - 359 653 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0,006, - 0.061 0.017 HCM Control Delay (s) 9.1 - - - 15.7 10.6 HCM Lane LOS A C B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0.2 0.1 7/1/2014 Synchro 8 Report Transpo Group HCM 2010 TWSC Baseline 2015 AM Peak Hour 3: Driveway 3 & Edmonds Way Edmonds Starbucks Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None Storage'; Length 100 - 100 - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 55 6 6 6 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 5 712 5 5 674 5 5 0 5 MaloriMinor ` � Major/ ,Ma1©r2 . _ _ �hnorl - Conflicting Flow All 682 0 0 717 0 0 1077 1419 362 Stage 1 - - - - - - 726 726 - Stage 2 - - - - 351 693 - Critical Hdwy 4.2 4.22 7.5 6.5 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - 6.5 5.5 ; - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.5 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.25 - - 2.26 - - 3.5 ; 4 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 887 - - 854 - - 176 138 641 Stage/ - - - - 387 433 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 644 448 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 885 - - 852 - - 174 136 639 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - 291 261 Stage 1 - - - - - 385 431 Stage 2 - - 639 444 HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.1 14.3 HCM LOS B Capacity (veh/h) 400 885 - - 852 - - 298 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.027 0.006 - 0.006 - 0.018 HCM Control Delay (s) 14.3 9.1 - - 9.3 - - 17.3 HCM Lane LOS ! B A - A C ' HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 0 0.1 7/1/2014 Synchro 8 Report Transpo Group HCM 2010 TWSC Baseline 2015 AM Peak Hour 3: Driveway 3 & Edmonds Way Edmonds Starbucks Int Delay, s/veh Conflicting Peds, #/hr 3 0 3 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None Storage Length - Veh in Median Storage, # Grade, % - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 5 0 0 lirlajorlMmor --; Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 1058 1419 346 Stage 1 691 691 - Stage 2 367 728 - Critical Hdwy 7.5 6.5 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.5 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.5 5.5 - Follow up Hdwy l 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 182 138 656 Stage 1 406 449 - Stage 2 630 432 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 178 136 653 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 298 260 Stage 1 403 445 Stage 2 620 430 HCM Control Delay, s 17.3 HCM LOS C 7/1/2014 Synchro 8 Report Transpo Group HCM 2010 TWSC Baseline 2020 AM Peak Hour 1: 100th Ave W & Driveway 1 Edmonds Starbucks Int Delay, s/veh 1.7 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 6 0 5 6 0 7 5 0 6 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free ' Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - 100 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 1 - - 1 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 Mvmt Flow 11 0 44 22 5 27 22 286 27 aIorlMnor Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 846 1013 309 702 1004 171 599 0 0 Stage 649 649 - 350 350 - - - - Stage 2 197 364 - 352 654 - - - Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.6 6.6 7 4.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6:54 5.54 - 6.6 5.6 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.6 5.6 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3,52 4.02 3.32 3.55 4,05 3.35 " 2.25 - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 256 237 687 319 235 834 954 - - Stage1 425 464 - 631 624 - - Stage 2 786 622 - 630 454 - - - - Platoon blocked,;°fo - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 233 224 680 285 222 824 949 - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 332 331 - 394 322 - Stage 1 413 451 - 613 606 - - - - Stage 2 731 604 573 442 - - - HCM Control Delay, s 12.1 12.8 0.6 HCM LOS B B Capacity (veh/h) 949 - - 562 517 1223 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.023 - 0.098 0.106 0.022 - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 12.1 12.8 8 HCM Lane LOS A B B A - HCM 95th %stile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.3 0.4 0.1 - - 7/1/2014 Synchro 8 Report Transpo Group HCM 2010 TWSC Baseline 2020 AM Peak Hour 1: 100th Ave W & Driveway 1 Edmonds Starbucks Int Delay, s/veh Conflicting Peds, #/hr 7 0 6 Sign Control Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None Veh in Median Storage, # Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 Mvmt Flow 27 582 11 HCM Control Delay, s 0.4 HCM LOS 7/1/2014 Synchro 8 Report Transpo Group HCM 2010 TWSC Baseline 2020 AM Peak Hour 2: Edmonds Way & Driveway 2 Edmonds Starbucks Int Delay, s/veh 0.4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 4 0 0 4 4 4 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length ' 100 0 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 1 - Grade, % 0 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, °l 4 4 6 6 0 0 Mvmt Flow 5 712 701 22 22 11 MajorlMinor„ .-- _ Maj�r1 �: Malor2 :'`` : Minor2_ Conflicting Flow All 727 0 - 0 1083 ' 369 Stage 1 716 Stage 2 - - - 367 Critical Hdwy 4.18 6.8 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - 5.8 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.8 - Follow-up Hdwy ' 2.24 - - 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 859 - - - 215 634 Stage 1 - 450 Stage 2 677 Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 856 - - - 212 630 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - 336 Stage 1 - - - - 449 - Stage 2 - 671 HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 14.6 HCM LOS B Capacity (veh/h) 856 - - - 336 630 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - 0,065 0.017 HCM Control Delay (s) 9.2 - - - 16.5 10.8 HCM Lane LOS'. A - C B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.2 0.1 7/1/2014 Synchro 8 Report Transpo Group HCM 2010 TWSC Baseline 2020 AM Peak Hour 3: Driveway 3 & Edmonds Way Edmonds Starbucks Interset�on . � _ - Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None_ Storage Length 100 - - - 3.5 100 3.3 - 850 - - 813 - - 154 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 409' Stage 2 - Grade, % 624 0 - Platoonblocked, % 0 - - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 5 5 6 6 6 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 5 766 5 5 723 5 5 0 5 Stage 1 - - - - - - 780 780 - Stage 2 - - - - - 375: 742 14.9 Critical Hdwy 4.2 4.22 _ 7.5 6.5 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.5 ; 5.5 0 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.5 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.25 - - 2.26 - - 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 850 - - 813 - - 154 1 120 615 Stage 1 - - - - - = 359 409' Stage 2 - - - - 624 425 - Platoonblocked, % - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 848 - - 811 - - 152 118 613 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - 268 242 Stage 1 357 407 Stage 2 - - - 619 421 HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.1 14.9 HCM LOS B Capacity (veh/h) 373 848 - - 811 - - 276 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.029 0.006 - - 4.007 0.02 HCM Control Delay (s) 14.9 9.3 - - 9.5 - - 18.3 HCM Lane LOS : B A A - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 0 0.1 7/1/2014 Synchro 8 Report Transpo Group HCM 2010 TWSC Baseline 2020 AM Peak Hour 3: Driveway 3 & Edmonds Way Edmonds Starbucks In%rset tton = =— RE Int Delay, s/veh Conflicting Peds, #/-hr 3 0 3 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None Storage Length 1 - Veh in Median Storage, # Grade, % 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 5 0 0 Conflicting Flow All 1133 1522 370 Stage 1 739 739 Stage 2 394 783 - Critical Hdwy 7.5 6.5 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.5 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.5 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 160 120 633 Stage 1 380 427 - Stage 2 608 407 - Platoon 'blocked, '% Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 156 11.8 630 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 276 241 - Stage 1 377 423 Stage 2 598 405 HCM Control Delay, s 18.3 HCM LOS C mor�anelMajoi Mvmt �,, , .- _ . 7/1/2014 Synchro 8 Report Transpo Group HCM 2010 TWSC With Proj 2015 AM Peak Hour 1: 100th Ave W & Driveway 1 Edmonds Starbucks Intersechorr Int Delay, s/veh 2.3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 6 0 5 6 0 7 5 0 6 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - 100 Veh in Median Storage, # - 1 - - 1 - - 0 - Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 Mvmt Flow 11 0 38 37 5 46 22 255 36 Majorll�linor ... Mi ort _ Ninon . ��, . >..:. Malorl � Conflicting Flow All 822 983 274 703 971 160 530 0 0 Stage 641 641 - 324 324 - - - - Stage 2 181 342 - 379 647 - - Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.6 6.6 7 4.2 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6,6 5.6 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.6 5.6 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.55 405 3.35Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 266 247 724 319 246 847 1013 - - Stage1 430 468 - 654 641 - - - Stage 2 803 637 - 607 457 - - - - P[atoon blocked, °fo - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 233 228 717 283 227 837 1008 - - Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 332 328 - 389 322 Stage 419 444 - 636 623 - - - - Stage 2 731 619 545 434 Appr'oacb E13, B = Id8 HCM Control Delay, s 11.9 13.2 0.6 HCM LOS B B Capacity (veh/h) 1008 - - 570 529 1246 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.022 - 0.087 0.168 0.047 - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.7 11.9 13.2 8 HCM Lane LOS A - B B A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.3 0.6 0.1 7/1/2014 Synchro 8 Report Transpo Group HCM 2010 TWSC With Proj 2015 AM Peak Hour 1: 100th Ave W & Driveway 1 Edmonds Starbucks Int Delay, s/veh Conflicting Peds, #/hr 7 0 6 Sign Control Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - Grade, % 0 Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 Mvmt Flow 58 513 11 Approach ... w �B HCM Control Delay, s 0.8 HCM LOS inorLarielMajor Mvmt , = .. . - . � = 7/1/2014 Synchro 8 Report Transpo Group HCM 2010 TWSC With Proj 2015 AM Peak Hour 2: Edmonds Way & Driveway 2 Edmonds Starbucks Int Delay, s/veh 1.3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 4 0 0 4 4 4 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 100 - 0 ` 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 1 - Grade, % - 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 6 6 0 0 Mvmt Flow 43 628 622 62 52 48 .: Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 688 0 - 01058 350 Stage 1 _ 657 - Stage 2 - - - 401 !. Critical Hdwy 4.18 _ 6.8 6.9 Critical Hdwy, Stg 1 - _ - 5.8 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.8 .:, - Follow-up Hdwy 2.24 - - 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 889 - - - 223 652 Stage -I - - - 483 - Stage 2 651 Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 886 - - - 211 648 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - 341 Stage 1 481 Stage 2 - - - 617 _ HCM Control Delay, s 0.6 0 14.4 HCM LOS B Capacity (veh/h) 886 - - - 341 648 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.049 - 0.153 0.074 HCM Control Delay (s) 9.3 - - - 17.5 11 HCM Lane LQS' A C B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0.5 0.2 7/1/2014 Synchro 8 Report Transpo Group HCM 2010 TWSC With Proj 2015 AM Peak Hour 3: Driveway 3 & Edmonds Way Edmonds Starbucks Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 Conflicting Peds, 4/hr 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop ' Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 100 133 644 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - 100 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 426 - Stage 2 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 5 5 6 6 6 00 0 Mvmt Flow 12 701 5 5 678 12 5 0 5 Stage 1 - - - - - - 728 728 - Stage 2 - - - - - 353 704 Critical Hdwy 4.2 - - 4.22 - - 7.5 6.5 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - 6.5 5.5 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.5 5.5 Follow-up Hdwy 2.25 - - 2.26 - 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 878 - - 861 - - 175 136 646 Stage 1 - - - - - 386 432 Stage 2 - - - - - - 642 443 Platoon '.blocked, loto - - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 876 - - 859 - - 171 133 644 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - 287- 255 ' Stage 1 - - - - - - 381 426 - Stage 2 - 631 439 HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0.1 14.3 HCM LOS B Capacity (veh/h) 397 876 - - 859 - - 324 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.027 0:014 0.006 - 0.094 HCM Control Delay (s) 14.3 9.2 - - 9.2 - - 17.3 HCM Lane LOS B A A C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.3 7/1/2014 Synchro 8 Report Transpo Group HCM 2010 TWSC With Proj 2015 AM Peak Hour 3: Driveway 3 & Edmonds Way Edmonds Starbucks intees"ect�orr Int Delay, s/veh Conflicting Peds, #/hr 3 0 3 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None Storage Length - Veh in Median Storage, # - 1 - Grade, % - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 Mvmt Flow 25 Stage 1 - HCM 698 698 - Stage 2 374 730 - Critical Hdwy 7.5 6.5 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.5 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.5 5.5 ,Follow-up Hdwy, 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 177 136 651 Stage 1 :i 402 445 - Stage 2 624 431 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 172 133 648 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 292 257 - Stage 1 396 441 Stage 2 609 425- 25 HCM Control Delay, s 17.3 HCM LOS C 7/1/2014 Synchro 8 Report Transpo Group HCM 2010 TWSC With Proj 2020 AM Peak Hour 1: 100th Ave W & Driveway 1 Edmonds Starbucks Int Delay, s/veh 2.3 #/hr RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None Storage Length 8.8 12.2 13.6 8.1 HCM Lane LOS - 100 B A Veh in Median Storage, # - 1 - - 1 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 5 5 5 � 5 5 5 Mvmt Flow 11 0 44 37 5 46 22 271 36 +ta�rli�inor, � ;Mmor2 �'Ninorl . �rlalorl _ Conflicting Flow All 874 1044 296 742 1632 168574 0 , 0 Stage 685 685 341 341 _ _ _ Stage 2 189 359 - 401 691 - - Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.6 6.6 7 4.2 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.6 5.6 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.6 5.6 - - - - Follow-up Hdwy ', 3,52 4.02 3.32 3.55 4.05 3.35 2,25 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 244 228 700 299 227 837 975 - - Stage 1 404 447 - 639 630 - - Stage 2 795 626 - 589 436 - - - - Platoon blocked,I%o - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 213 210 693 262 209 827 970 - - Nov Cap -2 Maneuver 312 312 370 305 - - - Stage1 393 424 - 621 612 - - - - Stage 2 723 608 523 413 - �spprdaTch r HCM Control Delay, s 12.2 13.6 0.6 HCM LOS B B Capacity (veh/h) 970 - - 557 509 1228 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.023 - 0.099 0.175 0.047 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.8 12.2 13.6 8.1 HCM Lane LOS A - B B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.1 7/1/2014 Synchro 8 Report Transpo Group HCM 2010 TWSC With Proj 2020 AM Peak Hour 1: 100th Ave W & Driveway 1 Edmonds Starbucks Int Delay, s/veh Conflicting Peds, #/hr 7 0 6 Sign Control Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None Veh in Median Storage, # Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 Mvmt Flow 58 557 11 HCM Control Delay, s 0.8 HCM LOS 7/1/2014 Synchro 8 Report Transpo Group HCM 2010 TWSC With Proj 2020 AM Peak Hour 2: Edmonds Way & Driveway 2 Edmonds Starbucks Int Delay, s/veh 1.2 Conflicting Peds, #Ihr 4 0 0 4 4 4 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length '! 100 - 598 0 0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 1 - Grade, % 0 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 6 6 0 0 Mvmt Flow 43 677 671 62 52 48 706 Critical Hdwy 4.18 - - - 6.8 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.8 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.8 - Follow-up Hdwy ; 2.24 - ! 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 852 - - - 200 629 Stage 1 - - - 456 - Stage 2 - - 632 Platoon blocked, I% - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 849 - - - 189 625 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - 319 Stage 1 454 Stage 2 - - - 598 HCM Control Delay, s 0.6 0 15 HCM LOS C Capacity (veh/h) 849 - - - 319 625 HCM Lane V/G Ratio 0.051 - 0.164 0.077 HCM Control Delay (s) 9.5 - - - 18.5 11.2 HCM Lane LOS A C B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0.6 0.2 7/1/2014 Synchro 8 Report Transpo Group HCM 2010 TWSC With Proj 2020 AM Peak Hour 3: Driveway 3 & Edmonds Way Edmonds Starbucks Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None Storage; Length 100 100 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 Grade, % - 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, ''% 5 5 5 6 6 6 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 12 755 5 5 727 12 5 0 5 tatarl tor2 Conflicting Flow All _ 742 0 0 761 0 0 1159 ' 1535. 383 Stage 1 782 782 Stage 2 - - - - 377753 _ Critical Hdwy 4.2 4.22 7.5 6.5 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - 6.5 5.5 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.5 5.5 - Follow up Hdwy - 2.25 - - 2.26 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 841 - - 821 - - 153 117 621 Stage 1 - - - - 358 408 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 622 420 Platoon iblocked, % - - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 839 - - 819 - - 149 114 619 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - 264 ' 236 Stage 1 - - - - - - 353 402 - Stage 2 - _ 611 416 - HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.1 15 HCM LOS C Capacity (veh/h) 370 839 - - 819 - - 300 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.029 0.014 - - 0,007 - 0.101 HCM Control Delay (s) 15 9.4 - - 9.4 - - 18.4 HCM Lane LOS '; C A A - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.3 7/1/2014 Synchro 8 Report Transpo Group HCM 2010 TWSC With Proj 2020 AM Peak Hour 3: Driveway 3 & Edmonds Way Edmonds Starbucks Int Delay, s/veh Conflicting Peds, #/hr 3 0 3 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized None Storage; Length - Veh in Median Storaae, # Peak Hour Factor 92 Mvmt Flow 25 0 5 MatorlMnor. ... Mirior2� Conflicting Flow All 1149 1532 376 Stage 1 747 747 Stage 2 402 785 - Critical Hdwy 7.5 6.5 6.9 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.5 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.5 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 156 118 627 Stage 1 376 423 - Stage 2 601 407 _ Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 151 115 624 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 270 238 Stage 1 370 419 - Stage 2 586 401 - HCM Control Delay, s 18.4 HCM LOS C 7/1/2014 Synchro 8 Report Transpo Group Hoo El E Number ofService Channels Umnea Hourly Flow Rate (vph) Total Hourly Flow Rate Average Stopped Time Average Service Rate (Total) Average Vehicle Length 1 111 perohanne| 111 vehicles per hour 2:55 (mm:aa) 20.6 vehicles per hour 95th Percentile Queue Number of Vehicles Length( 10 200 the trash enclosure, as illustrated on the East Elevation depicted on the revised sheet A-2001 3. Signs: (Vote that the signs have not been reviewed with this application. Starbucks will be limited to a total of three signs and a maximum of 93 square feet of sign area. It appears that the signs identified in this application and shown on the building plans would be consistent with the sign requirements of ECDC 20.60. Response: The above comment concerning signage is noted. 4. Engineering Division Comments: Please respond to the enclosed Engineering Division Comments. Response: Engineering Division Comments will be responded to below. Rain Garden: As the building permit is being reviewed concurrently with the design review and conditional use permits, I am aware there are going to be comments forthcoming on the proposed rain garden. Depending on how these comments are addressed, the landscaping proposed in the rain garden area could change. If we do not have the rain garden issues addressed before the rest of the application is ready for the public hearing, we will try to condition the permit to allow flexibility in the rain garden landscaped area. Response: The above comment concerning the rain garden is noted. From: Engineering Division Jeannie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager Bertrand Hauss, City Traffic Engineer 6. The traffic impact analysis prepared by Transpo Group and dated July 2014, includes information related to Starbucks queuing. The total hourly flow rate instated to be 111 vehicles per hour. The 95th percentile queue is stated to be 10 vehicles with a queue.length of 200 feet. Please elaborate on how the 95'h percentile was derived. -What is the calculation based on? F se: The 95th -percentile queue length was calculated assuming (1) one drive through -window; dom vehicle arrival (Polsson distribution); (3) 90-95 percent of all inbound vehicles would use the hrough window (this is reflected by the hourlyflaw rate; 111 out of 120 total inbound trips); (4) rage stopped time of nearly three minutes; and an average vehicle length of 20 feet. Please update the architectural site plan (A-1001) to include the following elements consistent with the landscape plan and preliminary civil construction plans: a. Extent of curb separating proposed drive-through lane from existing 2 -way access drive aisle between Walgreens and the proposed development. b. Pavement markings (i.e. painted directional arrows) to clearly indicate traffic flows through the site and any effect this may have on the queue lane. A selection of the drive-through queue lane should be striped and/or signed as appropriate so vehicles "do not block" access from the drive aisle between the proposed rain garden and the parking area west of the rain garden. 10202 5th Avenue NE, Suite 102 1 Seattle, WA 98125 1 p 206.547.1940 1 expect a difier�_nce 1