Loading...
Traffic Impact Analysis 080609-apprvd.pdf2802 't+'dETMORE AVE. « SUITE 220 - EVERETT, WA 98201 a PH: (425) 339-8265 - FAX: (425) 258-2.9221 August 6, 2009 Mr- Dave Gebert, P -E. RECEIVED APR ..- (1 2010. ltf t'1OPMENT 8f6 10 S ("TK e' te H AUG 217f? City of Edmonds UN OF EUMNOtr Pkv, � 121 yah Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 'Ale, Re_ Grow with Us Daycare — 49 Student Daycare on Edmonds Why Updated Traffic impact Analysis, GTC 909-079 Gibson Traffic Consultants (GTC) is providing updated text to address comments from the City of Edmonds pertaining to a discrepancy in Table i and credit for the existing single-family residence. We have included the other sections of` the report for consistency with the original report, This study has been organized in the manner of the SEPA Traffic Impact Requirements for the City of Edmonds for developments generating less than 25 PM peak -hour trips - DEVELOPMENT SITE DESCRIPTION The Grow with Us daycare is proposed to remodel an existing single -fancily residential unit and construct an 832 square (bot (SF) addition_ The daycare is proposed to total 2,273 SF of daycare that will be approved for 49 students. The development site is located at 665 Edmonds Way in Edmonds, Washington. The proposed development is anticipated to be occupied in 2010_ The development is proposed to have two one-way access paints, one each for inbound and outbound traffic. The outbound access will be the farthest from the signalized intersection of Edmonds Way at 226`h Street SW. Trip generation rates were obtained from the Institute of Transportation Lngincers (CTE) Trip Generation, 81h Edition (2008). The average trip generation rates for ITE Land Use Code (LUC) 565, daycare center, and CTE LUC 210, single-family detached housing, have been used for the trip generation calculations_ Daycare facilities ha�c pass -by trips associated with parents dropping off children in the morning before work and picking up children in the afternoon after work. These trips are not new trips generated by the development since these trips are currently on the surrounding roadway system. GTC collected data at the North Creek County Day Yu 0OCINTSISURVEYS SITE IMPACTS - LOS ANALYSIS - EIS ® HEARINGS - SAFETY - SIGNALS « P, Attachment 10 ('gage Ica. j` 19) Mr_ Dave Gebert, P_E_ August 6, 2009 Page 2 School, which has similar uses to the Grow with Us daycare_ GTC's data shows a pass - by rate of 69%. This pass -by rate has been applied to the trip generation for the Grow with Us daycare_ GTC-s study for the North Creek Community Day School is included with this report_ This pass -by rate should be considered conservative since Snohomish County allows a 75% pass -by rate for daycares on arterials and Edmonds Way would be classified as an arterial by Snohomish County. The Grow with Us daycare, based on a capacity of 49 students and the removal of one single-family residential unit, will generate 58.48 neer average daily trips (ADT) with 11 AM peak -hour trips (6 iuboundl5 outbound) and 11 PM peak -hour trips (5 inbound/6 outbound)_ A summary of the trip generation has'been included in Table L Table 1: Trip Generation Summary The trip generation calculations have been included in the attachments. ACCESS ANALYSIS The development is proposed to have an internal one-way loop_ Inbound traffic will enter at the east edge of the property and the outbound traffic will exit at the west edge of the property_ This configuration should maximize the efficiency of the flow of traffic on the site. Iti An information sight distance analysis was performed using the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) SRWeb application, which has photos taken at street level along all of WSDOT's routes_ It appears that there is adequate sight distance in both directions from the access- � UN1Qtl�! RAUFFIC OO [M��JL VG1[1�� AM Peak -Hour Trips PM Peale -Hour Trips Land UseDAN Total Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Trips Daycare - Total Trips (49 Students) 219.52 34 21 !S 40 18 22 Daycare - Pass -Sy Trips (49 Students) 151.47 -27 -14 -13 -28 -13 -15 Single -Family (Removed) _9.57 -1 -1 0 -1 0 -! TOTAL. -58.48 11 6 5 11 5 6 The trip generation calculations have been included in the attachments. ACCESS ANALYSIS The development is proposed to have an internal one-way loop_ Inbound traffic will enter at the east edge of the property and the outbound traffic will exit at the west edge of the property_ This configuration should maximize the efficiency of the flow of traffic on the site. Iti An information sight distance analysis was performed using the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) SRWeb application, which has photos taken at street level along all of WSDOT's routes_ It appears that there is adequate sight distance in both directions from the access- � UN1Qtl�! RAUFFIC OO [M��JL VG1[1�� Mr. Dave Gebert, P_E_ August 6, 2009 Page 3 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES Traffic impact mitigation payments to the City of Edmonds are based on Edmonds Road Impact Fee Rate Studv Table 4, Impact Pee Rates. The table does not have a rate for daycares and therefore GTC has calculated the traffic impact fee based on the new PM peak -hour trips generated by the development, a mitigation fee of $736.66 per PM peak - hour trip and an estimated trip length factor_ The average trip length for the City of Edmonds is not included in the City of Edmonds Trac Impact Analysis Requirements and GTC staff was unable to obtain from City of Edmonds staff what average trip length was used in the traffic impact fee calculations_ The trip length factor has therefore been calculated from data used by Mirai Associates in the City of Monroe_ An average trip length of 2.0 miles was used in the traffic impact fee calculations for the City of Monroe. An average trip length for Grow with Us daycare patrons was calculated to be 1,075 miles, based on data provided by the applicant for a similar center under the same ownership. This data results in a trip length factor of 0.5375 for the daycare_ This trip length factor is similar to the factor used by the City of Edmonds for high schools_ The calculated trip length factor should therefore be appropriate since daycares and high schools have similar trip types and there are more daycare alternatives than high school alternatives, which would reduce the trip length for daycares_ It should be noted that the calculated daycare trip length adjustment factor could be reduced if the average trip length for the City of Edmonds is greater than the 2.0 mile trip length form similar cities that GTC used. Table 4, Impact Fee Rate and the Mirai Associates are included xvith this report. The Grow with Us daycare is anticipated to generate 12 PM peak -hour trips per Table 1, which results in 6.45 PM peak -hour trips when multiplied by the trip length adjustment factor. The traffic mitigation fees for the Grow with Us daycare are $4,751.46_ Per Table 4, Impact Fee Rate (City of Edmonds) the credit for the existing single-family residence being removed is $840.72, therefore, the total mitigation fees the Grow with Us daycare will be responsible for is S3,410_74_ ROR'A"Fv'1'0 a1�3 M.r. Dave Gebert, P.E_ August 6, 2009 Page 4 GTC trusts that this updated memorandum and attachments adequately address the trip generation and traffic impacts of the proposed Grow with Us daycare development. If there are any questions or comments, please contact GTC at (425) 339-8266. Sincerely, GiBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS, INC 30111V Matthew J. Palmer, P.E. Traffic Engineer �, y }��///�//p_/ Attachments i ,O'7 CC: Scott Andersen42322 .V j0NAI, ~.V.. .V RAFFIC =MR■ o ( / £ 39m 2 z tu \�}_ 11 � / q £ C. g \§\ o \ < wow m L k % E \ - ' z \ }�2 \\ G{ r LLI o e m F- X z � z { L - w / , o ° ) JLu § 02 ID + M G 2 - - U) z3/2E/ /7G [ / C) {b §+j E0\oe= \\ )K}w a . O ■ \ C)®� 2 - @ , + \ CRCA ƒCL o - ®j \ a . CL/ Je \\\ a _ � /� \ $ LU CD - - $ � q : \ \ 2 $ $ 7 $ 2 E2 a � \ / ? c e S \ 9 -2{ j \0 U)� § 3 . z z k§� \ <mz l H /kms - 0 - & � \ § § \ ° 7 � - ly uj z 37 0 §7§ƒib e _ L 2 / z § / >- - 2 $ 2 / a_ ®tu c \\e \ < EG2000 o \2 \\/ƒe ` 3LT CLO 2 r 0 m \ co G & e < 4 %2 3a \I &J \ -a ƒ $LU= M�S*®\ i- ƒ< « _ $ � z . \ � D � � k / 2 J J § f E a / z \\] j //� a co a m � 3 T 17Z � [0 1� n � � m O S � O �k a U O F -- a a a U ro a o � � S O Y S t4 Y a [L c� a � Q � T co m -0'a0 �C .X a U) a }a 7 0 . �N0 " i'69&F-FFHC G 6) H 7 lluj LUZ% H U 0 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING •TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RADIO 123 BLDG_ - 2917 PACIFIC AVENUE - EVERETT, WA 96201 - (206) 339-8256 ?'eJ7- DX-W,�t-Jed May 13, 4992 HEARING E,�.!-fr: Mr. Norman Stone, LURE Snohomish County Dept_ of Public,Works 00T I - 199?. 2930 Wetmore Avenue, 1 st Floor , �,: Everett, WA 98201 E�H.a'7 Z? CASE RE: ZA91.10303 - North Creek Country- Day School (GTC # 92-038) Traffic Impact Study for proposed School Expansion Dear Mr_ Stone: Background: Gibson Traffic Consultants (GTC) has been hired by .lane Heusse (Owner/ Applicant), to complete a traffic assessment of trip ge6eration and mitigation requirements for the proposed expansion of the North Creels Country Day School on 196th Street SE west of SR -527 in Snohornish County (see Figure 1). We have revic-wed your preliminary comments for the subject project (December 19, 1991 memorandum to Ernie Jensen)- It was determined that the subject project is located within Transportation Service Area SA "F This traffic assessment memorandum addresses trip generation/ distribution, existing LOS conditions and the impacts of the proposed development on the affected County road system per the requirements of the new Title 26.B ordinance. Note: This project would only generate four (4) new PM peak trips and thus, the recent Traffic Impact Analysis Checklist ircm WSDOT District 1 is not applicable. However, the newly signaiized intersection of SR -527 and 196th Street SE (as part of WSDOT's Phase improvements to the SR -527 corridor) was analyzed since a critical access intersection. 196th Street, which dead -ends just west of the project site, would handle 100 % of site traffic Qast to SR -527. Description of Proposed Site Development and A s: 1 -his CUP application proposes to expand an existing pre-school, elementary and extenued day-care facility on *.=-a 4 -acre site at 1510 -196th Street SE_ Two (2) pre-school cEasses, one K-3 elementary class and AM/ PM daycare classes are being conducted at the:: North Creek Country Day School, using a converted single family residence and garage at present. The site proposal calls for construction of a new 28' x 56' structure to house two (2) new classrooms for new elementary and pre-school students- There are presently 73 students enrolled at the school, with 18 new students projected for the 1992-93 year and 9 additional students projected by 1994-95 (total student enrollment of 99)ri Access to the site would be provided via two driveways (nbound west access and outbound east access)- Both driveways have a gravel surface at present, but would be paved with site construction along with the parent drop-off/pickup loop and 14 on-site parking stalls (see Site Plan)- The inbound driveway would be located approximately 225 feet east of the North Creek Bridge, vti wile the outbound driveway would be located within an existing 30 --foot access easement near the east property boundary (110 feet east of west/inbound entrance)- COUNTSISURVEYS - SITE IMPACTS + LOS ANALYSIS - EIS • HEARINGS • SAFETY • SIGNALS • PARKING Mr. Norman Stone May 13, 1992 Page 3 TRIP GENERATION Existing Traffic & Travel Modes_ An origin -destination and travel mode survey of the existing 73 students in preschool and K-3 classes was conducted by Edith Christianson, manager of the North Creek County Day School_ Parents of students were surveyed to determine trip origin, travel made and trip time data. Three (3) distinct groups were identified in the travel survey: 1) Single occupant vehicle (SOV) coming directly from home or college to school; 2) SOV vehicle dropping off student(s) on way to work; and, 3) carpool vehicle (HOV) with student(s) riding with school staff or sibling. As summarized in Table 1, the existing school generates an estimated 159 ADT on an average weekday with a total of 75 vehicles (66 parent and 9 staff}. Ove: two-thirds (69 %) are pass -by trips by SOV or HOV vehicles. Thus, new site trips by SOV or HOV vehicles arriving from homes or near -by colleges represent 31 % of daily site traffic. Note. Non of the students presently walk or bike to school and parent/staff vehicles represents nearly 199 % of daily site traffic. Traffic Generated by New QIA sr urns 2L. Section 524 (Elem. School) of the 5th edition ITE Trip Generation manual was utilized to estimate the daily site trips generated by the two (2) proposed classrooms. Full occupancy of the new classrooms is projected by 1994-95 (3rd year), and 30 new daily trips are projected for the site proposal_ FM peak hour trips to be generated were determined by estimating the number of daily trips that would occur during the critical 3:39-5:34 PM commuter peak period. Peak departure times and number of students departing per the existing travel survey are: 12:40 PM - 15; 3.30 PM - 31; 5:40 PM - 15; and 5:39-6:00 PM - 12- Nearly 2/3 of exiting peak trips occur during the critical PM peak period. Thus, it is estimated that approximately 1/3 of daily trips would occur during the afternoon rush hour - 10 PM peak trips. The number of new daily/peak trips for the expanded- school facilities would be 9 AWDT and 4 PM peak trips (new), assuming the existing 69 % pass -by trip rate. Trip Distribution & PM Peak Volumes: As showy} in Figure 2, tr;p distribution percentages for daily and PM peak -hour traffic to from the project site were estimated based on the O & D survey of existing students- The majority of the new school traffic (55%6) would be destined to the north on SR -527 with 15% east onto 180th and 40% north on SR -527 (5% to Seattle Hill Road, 25% to Mill Creek Road and 10% to the west on 164th Street). Forty percent (40%) of new school traffic would be des&ed to the south on SR -527 with 15% east onto Maltby (212th), 20% west to Filbert Road and 5% south on SR -527_ The remaining 5% are local trips on 196th Street to the east. Existing.Level-of-Service (LOS) at gritical Intersections: The worst levels of congestion and longest delays to motorists will generally occur during the PM peak period_ A measure of the relative congestion levels can be made by calculating the level- of-service evel- ofservice (LOS) at intersections_ Traffic operations within the study area were analyzed using the methodology presented in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). LOS ratings for each intdrsection range from LOS A (free flow) to LOS F (forced flow or jammed conditions), with LOS E being capacity conditions. LOS D (toles le delays) is l7 a ���1�3 RAI"FIC ®M2ML��LaaM LI ATTACHMENTS North Creek Country Day School 1510 - 190th Street SE Snohomish County, Wa. 4 ; Rylee all Daniel CE S Maria Jos Danielle IBartoEva I Gregory �jyE' - f Nate H,2� y" f Ian Heoss .s' Alex Horr f Christcph Taylor Ir .� Marie Joh 1 Jaime Owe 1 K�is�tYa--`S�C i Matthew E Tbny Spry —#-•z V'c-ncnd j 2.4, (MASS LIST f�,�c- 5 f' c e 1 LT T T►.TL- f C TXYxw 3 /r 11 DewyrLs - --� - ix Y ,--—� S by y ar Ho£editz Y nson—__ ri With 3 16 4 /r 11 16 4 /r SS Kristian Ary" Bell Katie Broi i Stephen C Betts CO= 7 Jake Fost( >' Mellissa 2 S Nicole Hac Heather H� 5 Joseph Hat Trevor Hoc e Diasuke Kz f Marie KanE .:f'(uant Kifm ., Christophe i Carson Kri i Corey Krol > Neil Metz] � Mao MOritE i Tomson Ng Alex PynsA S Ryan Rych S Heed Tract 1 Zach VonWi Chelsea Vst 1 Marshall rA r J�G�IN�L r .20. 3 --T (_.ASS LISA' MINAKO S ROCM ?r, S. /i •: � / 1.1 JD �rntstrong_ r-- ezq m enE]aniel '� I I Inikka neko '� t ko`� - ' - --- - - ra i r Koss eg -A/ � — s p er N y v J --- - - ttkampi+e - --i - -- - V6 lCox— i f _ ' ---r---- I JD - ® j CLASS LIST C le R'2.i- ' JF AND NORMA S RQCM 1 Matthew Avery Whitney Burets % -Marianna DeTbrr Y ✓ r_ !Ashly Could 1 Scott Ho - Y Hillary Iveans Y i Nicholas Kropp Y r Katerina Iamarch i James McDDwel Y ' r Brendan Mc Mah ✓ 1 Megan May. N Erik Qiso f 1 Jessie Owen i E Shefali Pace '/ F Claire Pallansch - I✓ i Kelly Patti �' i Kyle Pattison i i Liz Pyn-5ky 1 Ashley Scotty cott. ! Tara Scott.-- —Alison AlisonSimmons Y _ 1 Kyle Taylor 1 Forrest Thompson Alec 31ai nbul l Ryall White .f �7 1 t x3 IVY 11'f Q� NORTH CREE- t CoijNTRY SAY SuHOOL ,s 4220.050 Pass -By Rates Adopted 3/31/03 unless otherwise noted, First Revision 10/11/04 (1) For any given land use being reviewed by DPW, if a pass -by rate is not included in the table shown in Subsection 4220.050(2) below, but an average pass by rate for the AM and/or PM peak hour is included in the ITE Trip Generation Report, then the ITE average pass -by rates shall be used. (2) For Drive -Through Espresso Stands, Daycare Located on Arterials, Specialty Retail, Health Clubs, and Video Store the following pass --by rates shall apply, ITE Code Description Pass -By Rates Conditions Espresso 100% Apply this rate only to free-standing, no sit - Stand down, drive -through -only espresso stands 565 Daycare 75% Apply this rate only to daycare facilities located on arterials. 814 Specialty 25% Retail 493 Health Club 54% 896 Video Store 53.5% for ADT, 80% for peak -hour trips 912 Drive-in Bank 47°1a (3) Unless stated otherwise in an adopted DPW Rule, the pass -by rate for PM peak hour trips will be used for average daily trips (ADT)_ (Adopted 8/8/00) 4220.060 Traffic Counts Adopted: 1/1/03, First Revision 10/11/04 (1) Traffic Studies provided for large developments will need to include traffic counts for any impacted key intersections on critical arterial units. These counts are necessary to estimate future volumes and to support the forecast assignments of trips from the development at the intersections_ (2) DPW has a regular program of conducting traffic counts and may be able to provide the developer with acceptable counts_ DPW will determine whether or not specific available traffic counts are acceptable_ For purposes of future analysis of level of service for traffic studies, the count date should not be more than one year prior to the submittal dale of the report_ An older count is only acceptable with prior written permission from the department_ For other purposes, such as screening or assistance with trip distributions, counts may be up to two years old. When acceptable counts are not available from DPW, developers must provide new counts with their traffic studies. (3) DPW may develop guidelines to be used to determine whether or not counts are acceptable and a standard format for counts, including a tabular format_ 4220.070 Trip Distributions and Assignments Adopted., 1/1/03, First Revision 10/11/04, Second Revision 1219/07 ` (1) Trip distribution means applying the trip generation to the road system to forecast the number of new vehicle trips on specific roads in the system_ A "trip distribution" is a type of traffic analysis that estimates the likely destinations of trips generated by a proposed development and the likely traffic routes to reach those destinations. The result of this analysis is a reap or list indicating what number or percentage of trips from the proposed development are added to the development's road system, including the number or percentage of trips added to individual traffic movements on arterial units and/or at intersections. The analysis provides a set threshold, consisting of a predefined number or percentage of trips below which no attempt is made to further distribute the trips onto the road system - DPW Rules Page 9 of 12 I E ©�nap� s�s�c:ora Chapter 4 - Impact Fee Schedule The impact fee schedule was developed by adjusting the "cost per trip end" information .to reflect differences in trip -making characteristics for a variety of land use types within the study area_ The fee schedule is a table where fees are represented as dollars per unit for each land use category_ Table 4 shows the various components of the fee schedule (trip generation rates, new trip percentages, trip lengths, and trip length adjustment for each land use). Trip Generation Components Trip generation rates for each land use type are derived from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (7th Edition)_ The rates are expressed as vehicle trips entering and leaving a property during the PM peak hour. PASS -BY TRIP ADJUSTMENT The trip generation rates represent total traffic entering and leaving a property at the driveway points. For certain land uses (e -g-, retail), a substantial amount of this traffic is already passing by the property and merely turns into and out of the driveway. These pass -by trips do not significantly impact the surrounding street system and therefore are subtracted out prior to calculating the impact fee. The resulting trips are considered "new" to the street system and are therefore subject to the impact fee calculation. The "new" trip percentages are derived partially from ITE data and from available survevs conducted around the countrv_3 TRIP LENGTH ADJUSTMENT Another variable that affects traffic impacts is the length of the trip generated by a particular land use_ The "cost per trip" calculated in the impact fee program represents an average for all new trips generated within Monroe_ Being an average, there will be certain land uses that generate trips of different lengths_ If a given trip length is shorter than the average, then its relative traffic impacts on the street system will be lower than average_ Conversely, longer trips will impact a larger proportion of the transportation network In order to reflect these differences, the method includes an adjustment factor, which is calculated as the ratio between the trip length for a particular land use type and the "average" trip length for the City_ Trip length data were estimated using limited national survey results.3 These national data showed average trip lengths of around 3.1 miles. The average trip length estimated for Monroe was 2.0 miles, based upon the 2025 mi-< of land use types within the study area and the geographic size of the city. To better reflect Monroe's conditions, the trip lengths were adjusted lower to match the 2.0 mile average for Monroe - 3 Trip Generation Sources: ITE Trip Generation {7th Edition); ITE Trip Generation Nandbook,(March 2001)1- Pinellas 001);Pinellas County (FI) Impact Fee Study (1991), Osceola County (171), Alternative Traffic Generation Rate Study (2004), Polk County (FI) Transportation Impact Fee Study (2005)_ City of Monroe August 2007 Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study Page 15 Addresses of 50 Clients of my Center Located At 21313 84th Ave W Edmonds WA 98026 Address City State Zipcode 1.22024 76th Ave W Edmonds WA 98026 2.21713 8M Ave W Edmonds WA 98026 3.23317 Edmonds Way Edmonds WA 98026 4. 22420 95th Pi W Edmonds WA 98020 5.23523 Edmonds Way Edmonds WA 98020 6.21323 80th Ave W Edmonds WA 98026 7.8121 236th St SW Edmonds WA 98026 8.8524 Sowdoin Way Edmonds WA 98026 9. 642 Maple St . Edmonds WA 98020 10. 23510 Edmonds Way Edmonds WA 98026 11. 7315 224th St SW Edmonds WA 98026 12. 8725 220th St SW Edmonds WA 98026 13. 9216 220th St SW Edmonds WA 98026 14. 7707 236th Pt SW Edmonds WA 98026 15.614 6th Ave N Edmonds WA 98020 16. 22829 85th Pt W Edmonds WA 98026 17. 20317 92nd Ave W Edmonds WA 98020 18.23430 97th Pi W Edmonds WA 98020 19.23014 Edmonds Way Edmonds WA 98020 20. 20503 79th Ave W Edmonds VILA 98026 21. 7308 208th St SW Edmonds WA 98026 22. 23332 Edmonds Way Edmonds WA 98026 23. 8134 212th St SW Edmonds VITA 98020 24- 22217 76th Ave W Edmonds WA 98026 25. 7302 213th P! W Edmonds WA 98026 26.8325 226th St SW Edmonds VITA 98026 27. 7222 208th St SW Edmonds WA 98026 28. 20714 76th Ave W Edmonds WA 98026 29. 7409 210th St SW Edmonds WA 98026 30. 21124 Shen Vatley Rd Edmonds WA 98026 31. 21323 80th Ave W Edmonds WA 98026 32. 7201 224th St SW Edmonds WA 98026 33.23408 Edmonds Way Edmonds WA 98026 34.22309 92nd Ave W Edmonds WA 98020 35. 21822 82nd PI W Edmonds WA 98026 36. 8408 224th St SW Edmonds WA 98026 37.7726 218th St SW Edmonds WA 98026 38. 9601 224th St SW Edmonds WA 98020 39.21319 84th Ave W Edmonds WA - 98026 40. 8504 218th St SW Edmonds WA 98026 41. 7512 218th St SW Edmonds WA 98026 42. 7723 209th St SW Edmonds WA 98026 43.19729 76th Ave W Edmonds WA 98026 44. 7807 218th St SW Edmonds WA 98026 45.22828 76th Ave W Edmonds WA 98026 46. 8623 204th St SW Edmonds WA 98026 4.7. 8415 221st Pi SVN' Edmonds WA 98026 48.23502 Edmonds Way Lynnwood WA 98036 49. 22906 Edunonds Way Edmonds WA 98020 50.23028 83rd Ave W Edmonds WA 98026 3m . 1�4 4 " 6 wt,%ts 2t. , A 1, 14 5 oulac -FP,IP LEMWJA F -A( -r S3. S'm,'Y% 1.93 Ales I C, `q 1.01 S 4. 1 Slid It -334L s-, ot Ae--> c O-fx 4,e;e- L,, G4.• 0 tj q 37 Avc 7, 2, al ttc_>s 39 t m V PA fes E�,kjm LOA-qgo-L(o q s 8M tw-(e,3 2- 157,- z qo 1� c.5 93 1, q 7ft' Q� r2, ;Lej 5- A', W4 .49 M,;ft-s q5 - T7 - 3 19. 7mAA 2 CSS -7 2- en hl m 7q m q5 1--77 JEes qf 5mM 1-47 S-6 3 rn 12* IZ5 -z Z3 7 54 -L o Leo Na --7-7 lu 31, qq :3 1 oq Z_ m l m Alf T-1 l e - 2? A 7v4 AV5 -1 I L's 5-3,73 ffif- It J sl rn i a -S )yt 4,vj wt es 07 it S ',4bfs+, V3 o Leo Na --7-7 lu 31, Edmonds Road impact Fee Rate study TABLE 4 IMPACT FEE RATES (3) (4) (5) {6) Trip ITE ITE Land Use Trip % New Length Net New Trips per Impact fee Per Unit @ $ Code Category Rate2 Trips' Factor' Unit of Measure 763.66 per Tri 110 Light Industrial 0-98 100% 1.59 1.56 1,000 sq ft 1.19 per square foot 140 Manufacturing 0.74 100% 1.59 1-18 1,000 sq ft 0.90 per square foot 151 Mini -warehouse 0.26 100% 1.59 0.41 1,000s ft 0.32 per s uare foot 210 Single family 1.01 100% 1.09 1.10 dwelling 840.72 per dwelling unit House 220 Apartment 0.62 100% 1.15 0.71 dwelling 544.49 per dwelling unit 230 Condominium 0.54 700% 1.15 0.62 dwelling 474.24 per dwelling unit 240 Mobile Home 0.56 100% 1.09 0.61 dwelling 466.14 per dwelling unit 310 Hotel 0.61 100% 1.Z5 0.76 room 582.29 per room 320 Motel 0.47 100% 1-25 1 0.59 room 448-GLper room 420 Marina 0.19 100% 0.97 0.18 berth 140.74 per boat berth 430 Golf course 0-30 100% 1-00 0.30 acre 229.10 per acre 444 Movie Theater 3.80 100% 0.72 2.74 1,000 sq ft 1.36 er s uare foot 492 Racquet club 1.83 100% 0.97 1.78 1,000 sq ft 3.58 per square foot 530 High School 1.02 100% 0.52 0.63 1,000 sq ft 0.48 per square foot 560 Church 0.66 100% 1-15 0.76 1,000 sq ft O.S$ per square foot 610 Hospital 0.92 100% 1-56 1.44 1,000 sq ft 1 _] 0 per square foot 620 Nursing home 0.20 100% 0.87 0.17 bed 132.88 per bed 710 General Office 1.49 100% 1.59 2.37 1,000 sq ft 1.81 per square foot 720 Medical office 3.66 100°x6 1.50 5.49 1,000 sq ft 4.19 per square foot 820 Shopping Center 3.74 81% 0.40 1 .21 1,000 sq ft 0.93 per square foot 832 Restaurant: sit- 10.86 56% 1.06 6.45 1,000 sq ft 4.92 per square foot down 833 Fast food, no 26,15 52% 0.6Z 8_�3 1,000 sq ft 6.44 per square foot drive -up 834 Fast food, w/ 33.48 S1% 0-62 10.59 1,000 sq ft 8.08 per square foot drive -up 844 Gas station 14.56 60% 0.53 4-63 pump 3,535.82 per -f- 845 Gas station 13.38 47% 0.53 3-33 pump 2,545.26 per vfp' w/convenience 850 Supermarket 11-51 55% 0.65 4.11 1,000 sq ft 3.14 perlsquare foot 851 Convenience 53-73 39% 0.40 8.38 1,000 sq ft 6-40 per square foot market -24 hr 912 Drive-in Hank 1 54.77 51 % 1 0.47 13-13 1,000 sq ft 10-03 per square foot 21TE Trip Generation (6th Edition): 4-6 PM Peak Flour Trip Enols s Excludes pass -by trips: see "Trip Generation Handbook: An ITE Proposed Recommended Practice" (1988) ` Ratio to average trip length. s Op., vehicle fueling position Henderson, Young & Company City of Edmonds. Washington April 15. 2003 Page 18 i