The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSEPA EPIC-17-90 - RUSS HASSE & ASSOCIATES - DONDERO MOTELTHE DONDERO MOTEL 146T" AND PACIFIC HIGHWAY S0. (TUKWILA INTERNATIONAL BLVD.) EPIC -17 -90 Notice of Public Hearing C1 Notice of Public Meeting Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission Agenda Packet Short Subdivision Agenda Packet (] Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit Ur. U 1 S i ft; 9 U T I O N hereby declare that: ❑ Oetermination of Nonsignificance Mitigated Determination of Non - significance O Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice 0 Notice of Action O Official Notice [] Other (] Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on , 19 . WAS PUBLISHED IN THE THURSDAY 9 -13 IOW Name of Project 37 UNIT MOTEL File Number EPIC -17 -90 90 EDITION OF :THE VALLEY DAILY NEWS. WAC 197 -11 -970 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of Proposal To construct a 34 unit motel which consist of 10,020 square feet. Named Dondero Motel. Proponent Russ Hasse of Russ Hasse & Associates Location of Proposal, including street address, if any 3747 South 146th Section 22, Township 23, Range 4 Tukwila, WA. 98188 Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC -17 -90 The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. 0 There is no comment period for this DNS E[ This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by September 27,1990 . The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Responsible Official Rick Beeler Position /Title Planning Director Phone 433 -1846 Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwi.`;%� 98188 Date j/4 i�i� - /10 Signatur You ma appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above date by written appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal. Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and Planning Department. FM.DNS • • CITY OF TUKWILA MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE THE DONDERO MOTEL DATE: 10 September 1990 PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: Construct a 34 unit motel which consist of 10,020 square feet. 3747 South 146th Street, Section 22, Township 23, Range 4E. Russ Hasse & Associates FILE REFERENCE: EPIC- 17 -90, 90 -8 -DR THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: This is a Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance The environmental analysis consisted of review of the Environmental Checklist dated 05 July 1990. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The proposal involves construction of a 34 unit motel. The total square footage of this motel is 10,020 square feet. This excludes the decks on each room. The decks add an additional 900 square feet to the overall total square footage. The parcel is zoned for C -2 (Regional Retail). The applicant has provided two studies as part of the SEPA submittal. These studies included 1) Down stream drainage analysis 2) Chris Brown traffic analysis. The Board of Architecture will review this project, which may add specific design improvements. DESIGN FEATURES The proposed addition shall comply to the standards set forth by B.A.R. (Board of Architectural Review) criteria. DONDERO MOTEL Page 2 MDNS EPIC- 17 -90, 90 -8 -DR PERMITS REQUIRED * Utility /Street permits * Mechanical Permit * Building permit CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Issuance of a Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance is appropriate since the environment review has been mitigated. Mitigated conditions of approval: PUBLIC FACILITIES 1. Additional traffic analyses shall be conducted for S. 146th and SR 99 intersection prior to issuance of a Building permit. A. Signal warrant analysis and collision diagram shall be used to determine future intersection improvements. Cost of this analysis is to be shared by the Project and the proposed new motel on 146th (Dondero), based on the contribution of each to intersection traffic. B. The cost of the Project's contribution to future intersection improvements shall be determined by the Project's traffic divided by 1990 to 2000 traffic increase. 2. The developer shall donate a 10' right -of -way along S. 146th Street as part of this development. CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 MEMORANDUM TO: Rick Beeler FROM: Phil Fraser/ DATE: 9/7/90 PHONE # (206) 433.1800 SUBJECT: Review of 5/15/90 Traffic Impact Analysis for the Tukwila Motel by Chris Brown and Associates Public Works has reviewed the Chris Brown and Associates 5/15/90 traffic study for the Tukwila Motel and provides the following comments: 1. Additional traffic analysis /studies will be made to South 146th /Pacific Highway intersection prior to issuance of Building Permit. A. Signal warrant analysis and collision diagram to be used to determine future intersection improvements. Cost of this analysis to be shared by Dondero and Larry's based on their intersection traffic. B. Costs of future intersection improvements con- tribution to be determined by developer traffic divided by 1990 to 2000 traffic increase. Accident records from the State are to be used in analysis. Specific evaluation ofpedestrians is also needed and include peds crossing Pacific Highway South at 146th. Also, provide a analysis of safety for pedestrian access from the property to to SR -99/ S. 146th. South 146th Street is a commercial street fronting property. A 60 L.F. right -of -way is required. The developer shall donate the 1/2 of the needed right -of -way (10 L /F /) as part of this development. , xc: Tukwila Motel Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor cv , (7e • 9 bITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LAND SSE PERMIT ROUTING FORM PERMIT NO.: P7IG - 17 -40 PROJECT mow ADDRESS 4(0 41, t 17412,4 Abin DATE TRANSMITTED -MOA10 STAFF COORDINATOR • RESPONSE REQUESTED BY W DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED Q (ow.) Please review the attached projects plans and respond with appropriate comments in the space below. Indicate crucial concerns by checking the box next to the line(s) an which that concern is. noted...: n n ❑ n n ❑ n ❑ ❑ DRC review requested ❑ Plan submittal requested' ❑ Plan approved Plan check date: Comments prepared by: 09/08/80 y_ f :01TY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT oiid(ng Planning �1- UK IT Mu 1 1 1,460-1 rigiko DATE TRANSMITTED -rnio%U RESPONSE REQUESTED BY W STAFF COORDINATOR • DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED Please review the attached projects plans and respond with appropriate comments in the space below. Indicate crucial concerns by checking the box next to the :line(e) on which that concern is noted. ❑ Environmental ❑ Page 17 - Utilities, Item A - Water availability: Water District ❑ #125 indicates (to meet City and Water District #125 standards) this main to be extended with a 10" diameter line from existing main in ❑ from SR99 to easterly property line of the Dondero Motel in South 146th and connected to existing main. lilt PROJECT ADDRESS LNNU E PEHMIT ROUTING FORM PERMIT NO.: RIG- 17-10 office Larks/ iec s. ❑ Page 15 - Item # 14 - Transportation - Ron Cameron is reviewing traffic study to determine impacts /mitigations. Ron will work with ❑ Chris Brown and get back to Ann with final comments. ❑Page 7 - Item C,1 - Provide the following: A 100 year detention /24 hour storm event on site, and; ❑ Provide hydraulogical capacity analysis of downstream storms stem to ❑ inventory and identify availability and /or infrastructure requirements per King County 1990 Design Manual. ❑ (Per my telephone discussion with Mr. Dondero ❑ O information will be brought to the City by the endOofthehday. In tmy absence Ross Heller will provide comments) ❑ PF /amc:5:notel ❑ ❑ El ❑ DRC review requested ❑ Plan submittal requested ❑ Plan approved Plan check date: /5 I CID Comments prepared by: CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LANDO$E PERMIT ROUTING FORM police::: DATE TRANSMITTED STAFF COORDINATOR • Please review the attached projects plans and respond with 'appropriate comments . in the space below.. Indicate crucial concerns by checking the box next to the lines) on which: that concern Is noted.':: RESPONSE REQUESTED BY DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED Com) Item # 13 and # 14 - Final review of Transportation Study is being carried out by Ron Cameron and will get back to Ann with comments. Also, inventory of downstream drainage system is necessary to fully address deficiencies in the existing infrastructure and mitigations before this issue can be fully addressed. Per my telephne Cdiscussion with Mr.Dondero on 8/10/90, he said the information will be brought to the City by the end ofthe da C Heller will provide comments). Y In my absence Ross Upgrading of water system with new 10" main from SR99 to east edge of property in South 146th to be provided per requirements of Water District # 125. 3 3 ❑ DRC review requested [] Plan submittal requested ❑ Plan approv Ian check date: 1 Ul z o Comments prepared by: OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LANDOSE PERMIT ROUTING FORM PERMIT NO.: RIG - 17-10 TO: PROJECT ADDRESS uilding L Planning 77— ()1•11-r M,6 1464= rati4 DATE TRANSMITTED -7/3,0 Jto STAFF COORDINATOR / cj, co. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED //4c (Plec) Please review the attached projects plans and respond with appropriate comments in .the space. below Indicate crucial. concerns by:. checking the box next to the lines) an which that.concern .is: noted. ':_ •.. 0 0 .L41:6. 6' 1 4. 4,..1 •, III . ii. 1 MI. ._4...._,.., _Ailii /1 ' ' °/ 4 ' %4 / ❑ ❑ DRC review requested ❑ Plan submittal requested ❑ Plan pro ed Sig /t Plan check date: f' - % - �� Comments prepared by: owow LAND Ullg PERMIT ROUTING FORM Y OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Building . L.,1 Planning PROJECT 7_ UN LT IsAL2M, ADDRESS � p DATE TRANSMITTED • 4 • STAFF COORDINATOR PERMIT NO.: plc -1-7- 90 Ire Police LI Parks/Rec •4 C �� .1 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED Please review the attached projects plans and respond with appropriate comments in the space below. Indicate crucial concerns by checking the box next to the line(s) on which that concern Is noted.:..:. Pv?wq a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ DRC review requested ❑ Plan submittal requested ❑ Plan Plan check date: 90 Comments prepared by: Oil/08/BO LAND IlikE PERMIT ROUTING FORM CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.: ''I G - (7-10 PROJECT 2)7. Uhl (t MOM. ADDRESS lziGA nazi 4 DATE TRANSMITTED "7/30A0 STAFF COORDINATOR / Gj, RESPONSE REQUESTED BY W DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED d Please review the attached projects plans and respond with appropriate comments in the space below, Indicate crucial concerns by checking the box next to the line(s) on which that concern is noted. 4 �m7,? 2 ❑ DRC review requested Plan check date: /Ao ❑ Plan submittal requested ❑ Plan approved Comments prepared by: COL/ 09/08/89 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LAND 1411E PERMIT ROUTING FORM PERMIT NO.: E11 C -17-90 PROJECT ADDRESS 7- UN IT tUOT 14(piti F-1,46 DATE TRANSMITTED STAFF COORDINATOR RESPONSE REQUESTED BY DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED • Please review the attached projects plans and respond with appropriate comments in the space below. Indicate crucial concerns by checking the box next to the line(s) an which that concern is noted. ri, 0/1 Li 4 ,t6/%26t-e2 CI a LI LI n D DRC review requested LI Plan submittal requested LI PI n approved Plan check date: Comments prepared by: 09/08/89 LAND e5E PERMIT ROUTING FORM CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ADDRESS '177' uct I1/4k61 4. 1'641= rac i f t,"& DATE TRANSMITTED -7ADA0 S. STAFF COORDINATOR PERMIT NO.: SIG 17-10 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY O DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED QD C.pec) Please review the attached projects plans and respond with appropriate comments in the space below. Indicate crucial concerns by checking the box next to the line(s) on which that concern is noted. n n n u n n Li ❑ DRC review requested ❑ Plan submittal requested ❑ Plan approved Plan check date: Comments prepared by: 09/08/89 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instruction for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. The City uses this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring prepara- tion of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise infor- mation known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. . In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply ". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shore- line, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the City staff can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The City may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Nonproject proposals refer to actions which are different or broader than a single site specific development project, such as plans, policies and programs. Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." In addition, complete the supplemental sheet for nonproject actions (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the the "project," "applicant," and "property or site" shoul "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respective JUL 51990 CITY ILIKVvILA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: 2. Name of applicant: Richard Dondero ContI411 No. Epic File No. /;z-90 Fee $100.00 Receipt No. Airport Motel 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Richard Dondero 874 -2424 37022 8th Ave. So., Federal Way, WA 98003 4. Date checklist prepared: 3 -1 -90 5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): soon as possible. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. NO 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. 0 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. NO 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. 0 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that'ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. Motel- 11,000 Sq. Ft. - Site 27,632 Sq. Ft. 2 S UQry Wood Frame. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applica- tions related to this checklist. 3747 So. 146th St. Tukwilla, WA Ile East 88ft. of lot 11, block7, Adams Home tracks Accar.d.i_ng to the plat recorder in Vol. 11_,pabe 31 A, records of King Co.WA 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? NO TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLI B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, '' er b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? _057, c. What general types of soils found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel peat, muck)? If you know the classification o agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. NO e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti- ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. 0 f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. NO g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 80% Evaluation for Agency Use Only 1111 411 Evaluation for Agency Use Only h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: N/A 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air w.uld r- ult from the proposal (i.e., dust, industrial wood smoke) during co the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. NO c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: N/A 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year - round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. NO • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. NO 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. N/A 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. N/A 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. NO 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. NO • Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? -Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. NO 2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sour- ces, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. N/A c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. A designed retention system will be provided. • III Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. NO d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: N/A 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other _ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs gras pasture _ crop or grain _ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? None— mostly gravel c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. 0 1 Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: A designed plan will be 2rovided. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: 0 mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: 0 fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: 0 b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. 0 c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. NO d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: 0 S• Evaluation for Agency Use Only 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solor) wi the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. elecrtric — heat natural gas =wryer b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Fed., State and local codes will be used. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. NO 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. 0 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ- mental health hazards, if any: 0 • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? 0 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short - term or a long -term basis (for example: traf- fic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. construction only 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: 0 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Current - R.V. and Boat Storage _Arljarent - Business and Apartment. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. NO c. Describe any structures on the site. Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? NO e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Business f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Same g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. NO i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Work — 5 Motel — 34 rentals, --1 manager apt. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? 0 k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com- patible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: n • Evaluation for 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing? MOtel — 3PY units b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli- minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. 0 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: N/A 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? 23 b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? 0 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: 0 Agency Use Only 37 ? 41 ip Evaluation for Agency Use Only 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? 0 b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? 0 c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? 0 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: 0 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational oppor- tunities are in the immediate vicinity? ? b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. NO c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: 0 • 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro- posed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe.0 b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. 0 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: N J 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed accss to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. 146th St. and:_:Hwy 99. Site plan will be provided. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? yeses ;block to bus stop. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate ?____ Evaluation for Agency Use Only 34, 0 -- 3 # 2 / f • Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). NO e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Aiport - 1 jnile f. How many vehicular trips per,day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when —' S6` frss+c peak volumes would occur. s�rcdy 9 g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor- tation impacts, if any: Control 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. NO b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. N/A • 16. Utilities a. Ci - utilities currently available at the site: elec ty, (Et-Y, refus service, ni ary sew , septic m, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. the above circled C. Signature Tne above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency relying on them to make s_d isio Signature: Date Submitted: is PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE. Evaluation for Agency Use Only TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICIO D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not imple- mented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? n Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 0 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life? 0 Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life are: Evaluation for Agency Use Only • 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? 0 Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resourses are: 0 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? 0 Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 0 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, inclduing whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Evaluation for Agency Use Only Evaluation for Agency Use Only Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts area: 0 How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan? 0 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Very little if any. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 0 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. NONE • 8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? NO Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: N/A Evaluation for Agency Use Only TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLIC• . Evaluation for Agency Use Only E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental infor- mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor- tive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? N/A 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? 0 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? NO Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: N/A -23- D & D Builders Co. P.O. Box 488 Belfair, WA 98528 Re: Tukwila Motel Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Dondero; Christopher Brown A88ociate5- 879 Rainier Avenue N., c uite A -201 \` Renton, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 May 15, 1990 We have completed the traffic impact analysis for the above referenced project. The original is attached for your use. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact us. Yours truly, Keith Brown kpb /s Attch. Traffic Engineers (1 Transportation Planners • Christopher brown 0 Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N., Suite A -201 Renton, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 TUKWILA MOTEL Tukwila King County Traffic Study May 15,1990 JUL 51990 CITY PLANNING DEPT. Traffic Engineers 0 Transportation Planners • • TUKWILA MOTEL Traffic Study TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1. Location 1. Purpose 1. Access 3. Project Description 3. Road System 3. Traffic Data 5. Data References and Sources 5. Background Traffic 5. Trip Generation 7. Traffic Assignment 7. Horizon Year Traffic 7. Levels of Service 10. Discussion 12. Mitigating Measures 12. Conclusions 13. LIST OF FIGURES 1. Vicinity Map 2. 2. Current Traffic Volumes 4. 3. 1992 Traffic Volumes Without Project 6. 4. Trip Distributions 8. 5. 1992 Traffic Volumes With Project 9. LIST OF TABLES I Trip Generation, Tukwila Motel 7. II Levels of Service 10. III Platoon Levels of Service, 1992 12. APPENDIX Capacity Calculations Input and Results TUKWILA MOTEL Tukwila King County Traffic Study Introduction The implementation of a motel will produce an increase in vehicular traffic demands on the adjacent highway and local collector and arterial road system due to added vehicular traffic associated with the motel patrons. If projected traffic volumes are large and /or if projected increases in traffic demands due to the new land use associated with the proposed project are large, then the traffic operating ability of the highway and access road system may be impacted. Accordingly, it is appropriate to review both current traffic conditions and future traffic conditions to determine what the possible traffic impacts might be from such a land use and; in concert with the potential development, define the appropriate mitigating measures in order to ensure the continuation of adequate traffic operations. Location The "Tukwila Motel" is situated in the city of Tukwila, east of S.R. 99 and south of S. 146th Street. The site is depicted on page 2, Figure 1, the Vicinity Map. Purpose The purpose of this study was: -1- o to gather a data base of current (1990) traffic operations on the adjacent highway and key arterial and access streets serving a proposed 37 unit motel project, the "Tukwila Motel "; o to estimate the daily and peak hour trip generation for the site: iiChri8topher Brown C. A88ociate8 879 Rainier Avenue N., 6uite A -2011\ Renton, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772-1188 j l .f0 51 > ! Q MIN t ! 5 x 5T i3 c ST I.0 G(v(AA: 5.010 � of \yril 130: a a 5 � �_ 5T Ina o ' c . n sourNGAr l :, ^' 'FOi re4 • 4 • 13710 5 ` ' . t. r' _ "r - - I\ �ZSIT7n �1�1i Si. 9 \. ?� 1 S 1111g 51 4555 1 5S,AG 144TH f1 ITS,. ISTIn55 l54l 75 1_ 51 •,,v I t s 1'._61 • 1 1-,111G141 ''. nor 2I n =1S, s j154TH _�1 S, Aa, 5 .5' 51 156154 { r r S / 1611TH spa,, �IaQT H ` 5 i _ i cJ'1 162 "ii ST 9 s :11 :' s ii ".714 5 . . I '• �� '. 11.1,__. F D R TT) -. I .J� / ., I LrK[ E e il' • • ...., 1llYib IK SEATTLE TACO(VIA� ,,c. 5 — , N I v..� :IT {•I '.• I. n DOUGLAS a, r I. _ •,r. I. Q INTERNATIONAL • PD ♦I I ! 16t,N 51 • a�y.Inf r. I ` ` N .A I(I 515._1.1 SI 291. s- 1677. a (' � \ a I 16 1.57 5 6b1• 2 7 _ 16b'^ 51 ' ` Si ,i AIRPORT,- I ' -1 , 5. �--tIs i�}ji�• l� a, ' 1 1 I -I .1,1-‘1,...,. 51 • s 1 SEATAC `/ i I 1 ,nl < > 170,^ cT S 1707^ ST I I ... •L; ," , > II .7 S 17151 ST 1 j >\\ , 1 4. • ° I �f •; �7'J� y///.55�] •` 611100 {I rf it 11:1( \ " 1 I + M 1a ! \-T .1 'p::, 51 I 1 ¢S55A e.,. — { �] 1i , 5 • ` 44 i1. aIPD5; \ �1y)PU r, fir,•, .• .....,` � <� UI 5t G I :74NO I a T PMA , , 7TH 111 .1 5 1 yONCJUNS( - "� \ '.15 17F,7^ _ 1 17}171 S• \ Y `;'. MI s 4 1 1 it �T. I! I ( 5 1 176,^ 176171 3 ...S1 ^n Y 0,4. s min \; ✓' a S r;ti sri 1 CC (,� �I —, ^� 5,)7,71 .S F i� I t 1 \ "„ �, sE -.14 s�- 11 0 1� :: ! x -rt,-- 5 ,r.5, , _. ....... .,AL .A, Il „s � 1 1 A irAM� - S $51.• ST .Yl awn a S lb 4' -2- 57 COPY(ul ry.MS•,r,rir yPJND1 In IM,n1:11t, - "1 7, 16" 1761. S 15015 5I.5. 51.1. r no'r Pin 7.dg b fI 51101. i ar FIGURE 1 Vicinity Map ( // Christopher Brown Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N., 6uite A -201 Renton, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 ._ • o to assign generated traffic from the project to the road and highway system serving the site: o to define the horizon year for the project, in this case 1992, and derive a traffic forecast for the baseline condition, that is for 1992 without the site: o to quantify the existing and horizon year levels of service (LOS) both with and without the project at the key intersections and access driveways serving the project under present street and traffic control systems. Further, given that the development may immediately proceed, a secondary function of the study is to also identify any possible changes or modifications in access and traffic control systems to ensure the maintenance of adequate traffic operations in the future when the project will be completed and occupied. Access Access to the "Tukwila Motel" will be from a driveway connecting to S. 146th Street. Traffic using this driveway will have access to S.R. 99 via S. 146th Street. Proiect Description For the purposes of this traffic study, the motel will consist of 37 units, 2 of which will have kitchens. Parking for 38 cars will be provided. Road System In the vicinity of the site, SR 99 is currently a four lane state highway with a two -way left -turn lane and a posted limit of 45 m.p.h. The intersection of S.R. 99 and S. 146th Street is unsignalized. S. 146th Street is a small local street, two lanes wide. Current roadway geometric conditions including the number of lanes, grades and traffic control devices are contained in the Appendix as a part of the level of service analysis computer -3- Chri8topher brown Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N., e,uite A -201 Renton, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 S. 144th Street S. 146th 784 9Z 2.08 63 00 o (09 3 /!0 • Street 90 R 8 Z9 2 // Legend Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FIGURE 2 Current Traffic Volumes Christopher brown g Associates 879 rainier Avenue N.. Suite A -201 renton, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 • input. Also included with this data are truck, bus and pedestrian parameters. Traffic Data Traffic data was collected between April 18 and April 19, 1990 to provide both vehicle and pedestrian data was well as the key intersection peak hour turning movements. The period was fair and sunny; no weather constraints were in effect. The current p.m. peak hour data along with the daily traffic estimates are shown on page 5, Figure 2, Current Traffic Volumes. Data References and Sources Data references and sources used in this study include: population and employment forecasts published by the Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG) in the document Population and Employment Forecasts, 1988 (for growth rates noted below), trip generation statistics published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers in the document, Trip Generation; 4th edition, and the Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, published by the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. For the latter item, reference is also made to the computer program CAPCALC 85, Version 2.2, published by Roger Creighton and Associates, New York and used under license for this study. Background Traffic Development of concurrent projects as well as normal growth in population and employment will cause commensurate growth in background traffic volume. Background traffic volumes are based on the annual growth in traffic demand at the project site from 1980 to 1990. The ten year growth rate is four percent per year, as calculated from the population and employment forecasts published by the Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG). This growth rate is used to determine the 1992 traffic volumes without the project as shown in Figure 3. -5- Christopher Brown a Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N., 6uite A -201 Renton, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 8y 99� S. 144th Street 22S 68 340 S. 146th Street tZ,k, c"613 Gsy 21 12 Legend Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FIGURE 3 1992 Traffic Volumes Without Project Christopher Brown 0 Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N., Suite A -201 Renton, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 • Trip Generation The trip generation data for the site is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (I.T.E.) Land Use Code 320 which applies to motels of this type. The expected trip generation data is shown in Table I below. TABLE I Trip Generation, TUKWILA MOTEL Time Interval Volume A.W.D.T.* 340 vehicles per day A.M. Inbound A.M. Outbound P.M. Inbound P.M. Outbound * Average Weekday Traffic Volume Traffic Assignment 7 vehicles per hour 13 vehicles per hour 12 vehicles per hour 12 vehicles per hour Site generated traffic is assigned to the network on the basis of the 1990 employment forecasts for the South King County area as prepared by the Puget Sound Council of Governments, adjusted to account for the proximity of the international airport located south of the site. Figure 4 shows the trip distribution for the project. Horizon Year Traffic With the project built, including the background traffic that will be produced by normal growth, the horizon year for the project of 1992 will have the p.m. peak.hour traffic demands shown on Figure 5. Since the p.m. peak hour traffic volumes include both the home based work trip as well as shopping and social- recreation trips, they tend to be greater than the a.m. peak hour. As a consequence, the p.m. peak hour is used for the design hour. -7- Chri8topher Brown 0 Amociate8 879 Rainier Avenue N., c uite A -201 Renton, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 1 i53ND i541" 51" 51 17 714151 Is 51 t0, 7t41 i441n !Ws :I 4171.77 , 1.1511i0.1 SI M1s11 50,^5T 4.4414 RIM 17 ■7171 ) 'IA J11 I SEA7TLE ,TAcOltolA ,�7G441 4.7 INTERNATIONALV° '11 AIRPORT- 7E1 S(A. rACL) „.:_i:42..x.. ,.. .. ;,..... s ,,,,,' ,::1': ,...,. ;',....%:::::,....!;;;,. , L..!1 0 ' ' ..1 ij 41 .[ • .!... • . 1 ,11171, . ,I ,I,„ar. j..21LIe.' ilai ..11. :;11 , ' 111__ VI14, .,..64-Y:y e safs ,-._a. •. • ..% 11, ■1 4. . ‘ • •,. b..421t..11 1 ° •- •••i , •,. ' C ' Ii " ' ' .• •11.1G.:.tiS li i I c , E , - -:1,-----', 71 ::. 1 1, ,., •71D 6,1 .' 1--,1-- 1710,1 1._ '1 5 .70" in," .S1111161 -8- FIGURE 4 Trip Distribution I4- Christopher brown Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N., (Suite A-201 --- (206) 772-1188 Qciil on, WA 98055-1380 S. 144th Street By t) 2 2S 408 3N/ S. 146th Street Z� J 1"st 7r5-0 55 Legend Peak Hour Traffic Volumes FIGURE 5 1992 Traffic Volumes With Project Christopher Brown Associates 879 12ainier Avenue N., &uite A -201 I2enton, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 Levels of Service The level of service (LOS) describes the quality of traffic flow. This ranges from the best or highest level, 'A', usually denoted by an ability to select ones' own speed or the ability to change lanes or overtake at will, down to the lowest of worst level 'F'. This LOS is the lowest possible level and is one where traffic is severely constrained. It is usually denoted by "jam" conditions and attendant long traffic delays. Capacity computations were performed in accordance with Special Report 209, the Highway Capacity Manual, using the computer program CAPCALC 85, Version 2.2 published by Roger Creighton and Associates. Signalized intersection analysis was done with the "Operations and Design" methods which are more rigorous than the "Planning" method. STOP sign controlled intersections used parameters for arterial roads with speeds under 50 m.p.h. As noted earlier, all input data is listed in the appendix, along with computer output. When reviewing the appendix data, it may be noted that each set of data has its' own file reference number. This is located at the top right of each data sheet. The title and other descriptive material is on the upper left corner. Level of service data for unsignalized intersections is reported for the movement . with the lowest LOS, this is generally the left turning movements from a minor roadway onto a major roadway. Levels of service for the three conditions, Current or 1990 traffic, 1992 without the project and 1992 with the project are shown below. Intersection TABLE II Levels of Service Current 1992 W/O 1992 W/ Year Project Project S. 146th Street /S.R. 99 E E F S. 144th Street /S.R. 99 B B B -1 0 - Chri8topher Brown Amociate� 879 Rainier Avenue N., 6uite A-201 / Renton, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 Westbound traffic flow on S.R. 99 at the intersection of S. 146th Street is heavily platooned due to the proximity of the signalized intersections of S.R. 99/S. 144th Street and S.R. 99/S. 152nd Street. It should be noted that the level of service analysis method contained within the Highway Capacity Manual assumes random type of arrivals on the major street.. Traffic signals located close by to a unsignalized intersection tend to cause the major street traffic from the signal to the unsignalized intersection to be platooned. Platooned traffic streams contain more useful gaps than does traffic streams with a random type of arrival. Therefore, traffic from the minor street can more easily enter the major road than the unsignalized intersection LOS analysis assumes. Any level of service values obtained under this situation must be considered conservative and the actual level of service probably much better than calculated. The Transportation Research Board has established a procedure in the Highway Capacity Manual to quantify the quality of gaps created by platooned traffic flow. An analysis can be preformed by creating a space -time diagram to identify the the relative arrival patterns in both directions on the major street. Separate level of service analysis is performed for each discrete interval, with the results combined to determine the capacity of the minor street approaches. The intersection of S.R. 99/S. 146th Street is 640 feet from S. 144th Street and 2000 feet from S. 152nd Street for a total distance of 2640 feet. The intersection of S. 144th Street and S.R. 99 has a cycle length of 84 seconds with 36 seconds of green and yellow time for the north and southbound thru traffic. The intersection of S. 152nd Street /S.R. 99 has 36 seconds of green and yellow time for north and southbound thru traffic with a cycle length of 72 seconds. Average vehicle speed between S. 146th Street and S. 152nd Street on S.R. 99 was 31 m.p.h. or 45.5 f.p.s. The levels of service of for each situation in the platoon analysis are listed on Table III. Chri8topher Brown a A88ociate8 879 Rainier Avenue N., 6uite A -201 Renton, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 • • TABLE III Platoon Levels of Service, 1992 Percent of Volume in Time Reserve Flow Platoons in Sec. Capacity LOS Northbound 0.69 1060 316 B Southbound 0.82 810 108 D Both 730 41 E Neither 1000 495 A The weighted level of service is LOS 'C' with a reserve capacity of 263 v.p.h. Discussion In the horizon year of 1992 with the project, the roadway system surrounding the site will operate adequately with the exception of the S.R. 99/S. 146th Street intersection, where a level of service 'F' has been calculated. However, as discussed, the high incidence of platooning on S.R. 99 indicates that the intersection is operating at a better LOS than calculated. The level of service at the intersection of S.R. 99 and S. 146th Street is currently operating at LOS `B' using the platoon analysis method. In 1992 with the project the intersection will operate at LOS 'C', an acceptable level of service. There will be no decline in the level of service at the S. 144th Street /S.R. 99 intersection as the level of service remains at LOS `B`. Mitigating Measures The intersections operate at acceptable levels of service, no mitigation is required. -12- 4 Christopher brown C( A88ociate8 879 Rainier Avenue N. eSuite A -201 Renton, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 • • Conclusions With the implementation of the "Tukwila Motel ", the following conclusions may be drawn; -13- 1. The project will generate about 340 vehicles per day, with about 24 of these in the p.m. peak hour. 2. The inclusion of the project's traffic will not lower the level of service at the intersection of S.R. 99/S. 144th Street. 3. The level of service for the westbound approach at the S.R. 99/S. 146th Street intersection is currently at LOS 'E' and will go to LOS 'F' following project implementation, using the standard method. This LOS value is conservative since the effects of platoon flow on S.R. 99 has not been accounted for. An LOS 'C' is calculated using the platoon analysis method for 1992 with the project. Christopher Brown « Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N., &uite A -201 Renton, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 d TUKWILA MOTEL Traffic Study APPENDIX Capacity Calculations Intersection Current (1990) Operations File No. S.R. 99/S 144th Street TUKM001 S.R. 99/S 146th Street TUKM002 Horizon Year (1992) Operations Without Project S.R. 99/S 144th Street S.R. 99/S 146th Street TUKM011 TUKM012 Horizon Year (1992) Operations With Project S.R. 99/S 144th Street TUKM021 S.R. 99/S 146th Street TUKM022 Christopher Brown Associates 879 Rainier Avenue N., 6uite A -201 Renton, WA 98055 -1380 (206) 772 -1188 AGE 1 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 5/1/1990 PAGE 2 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 5/1/1990 NTERSECTION : 144TH STREET @ R 99 EEKDAY PM PEAK CTUATED SIGNAL TUKWILA MOTEL TUKM001 1990 CURRENT CBD 7 N V O L U M E A D J U S T M E N T PPROACH LANE GROUP FLOW RATE LANE UTIL ADJ FLOW PROP OF TURNS MVM VOLUME IN GROUP FACTOR RATE LT RT - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- B L 78 87 1.00 87 1.00 0.00 TR 298 331 1.00 331 0.00 0.30 B L 55 61 1.00 61 1.00 0.00 TR 379 421 1.00 421 0.00 0.17 B L 111 123 1.00 123 1.00 0.00 T 442 491 1.00 491 0.00 0.00 R 54 60 1.00 60 0.00 1.00 B L 69 77 1.00 77 1.00 0.00 T 890 989 1.00 989 0.00 0.00 R 92 102 1.00 102 0.00 1.00 S A T U R A T I O N F L O W IDEAL # OF ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ADJ. APP MVM SAT FLOW LANES WIDTH H.V. GRADE PARK BUS AREA RT LT FLOW B L 1800 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.29 522 TR 1800 1 1.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1830 B L 1800 1 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.41 731 TR 1800 1 1.07 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1850 B L 1800 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1710 T 1800 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3600 R 1800 1 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1438 B L 1800 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1710 T 1800 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3600 R 1800 1 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1438 r INTERSECTION : S 144TH STREET @ SR 99 WEEKDAY PM PEAK ACTUATED SIGNAL TUKWILA MOTEL TUKM001 1990 CURRENT CBD ? N C A P A C I T Y A N A L Y S I S LN GR ADJ FLOW PMSV ADJ SAT FLOW GREEN LN GR V/C APP MVM RATE LT FLOW FLW RT RATIO CRIT ? RATIO CAPACITY RATIO EB L 87 0 522 0.167 N 0.300 157 TR 331 0 1830 0.181 N 0.300 549 L 61 0 731 0.083 N 0.300 219 TR 421 0 1850 0.228 Y 0.300 555 NB L 123 T 491 R 60 SB L 77 T 989 R 102 CYCLE LENGTH : 100.0 LOSS TIME PER CYCLE : .279 .759 O 1710 0.072 Y 0.110 188 .654 0 3600 0.136 N 0.590 2124 .231 O 1438 0.042 N 0.590 848 .071 O 1710 0.045 N 0.110 188 .410 O 3600 0.275 Y 0.590 2124 .466 O 1438. 0.071 N 0.590 848 .120 SUM OF CRITICAL LANES' FLOW RATIOS : 0.575 9 INTERSECTION V/C : 0.632 L E V E L O F S E R V I C E LN GR V/C GREEN CYC 1st LN GR 2nd LN GR LN GR APP APP APP MVM RATIO RATIO LEN DELAY CAP DELAY PF DELAY LOS DELAY LOS EB L 0.554 0.300 100 22.3 157 3.2 0.85 21.7 C TR 0.603 0.300 100 22.7 549 1.4 0.85 20.5 C 20.7 C L 0.279 0.300 100 20.3 219 0.2 0.85 17.4 C TR 0.759 0.300 100 24.1 555 4.2 0.85 24.1 C 23.2 C NB L 0.654 0.110 100 32.4 188 5.4 1.00 37.8 D T 0.231 0.590 100 7.4 2124 0.0 0.85 6.3 B R 0.071 0.590 100 6.7 848 0.0 0.85 5.7 B 12.0 B SB L 0.410 0.110 100 31.5 188 0.8 1.00 32.3 D T 0.466 0.590 100 8.8 2124 0.1 0.85 7.6 B R 0.120 0.590 100 6.9 848 0.0 0.85 5.9 B 9.1 B INTERSECTION DELAY : 14.1 secs /veh LEVEL OF SERVICE : B CHRISTOPHER BROWN 5/1/1990 TUKWILA MOTEL TUKMO01 CNTERSECTION : i 144TH STREET @ ;R 99 pEEKDAY PM PEAK 1990 CURRENT CBD7N CTUATED SIGNAL T R A F F I C & R O A D W A Y C O N D I T I O N S GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR APP ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE EB -1 0 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 WB 1 0 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 NB 0 1 ' N 0 0 0.90 0 N. 0.0 3 SB 0 1 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 APP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD EB 78 208 90 L 1 12.0 TR 1 14.0 WB 55 316 63 L 1 12.0 TR 1 14.0 NB 111 442 54 L 1 12.0 T 2 24.0 R 1 10.0 SB 69 890 92 L 1 12.0 T 2 24.0 R 1 10.0 S I G N A L P H A S I N G APP PHASE 1ST MV 2ND MV 3RD MV PROT PMSV G Y +R - -- - - -- - - -- -- - -- EB 3 L TR LR 30 70 WB 3 L TR LR 30 70 NB 1 L L 11 89 NB 2 T R R 59 41 SB 1 L L 11 89 SB 2 T R R 59 41 5/1/1990 CHRISTOPHER BROWN INTERSECTION TUKMO01 92 SB TOTAL 1051 69 v 890 S 144TH STREET E/W STREET 78 ^ EB TOTAL 376 208 90 v 1 2 v N W - +- E S SR 99 N/S STREET *> 1 SR 99 N/S STREET 63 WB TOTAL 316 434 55 v S 144TH STREET E/W STREET < * -- 1 * - -- 1 v 442 111 54 <. .> NB TOTAL 607 • • CHRISTOPHER BROWN 5/1/1990 TUKWILA MOTEL TUKMO02 NTERSECTION : 146TH STREET @ R 99 EEKDAY PM PEAK 1990 CURRENT CBD ?N NSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS NORTH / SOUTH U N S I G N A L I Z E D C R I T I C A L G A P S APP EB WB NB SB LEFT TURN 7.10 7.10 5.20 5.20 CRITICAL GAPS (SEC) THROUGH RIGHT TURN 6.60 5.40 6.60 5.40 V O L U M E A L L O C A T I O N T O L A N E S LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 APP L T R L T R L T R EB 9 8 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 18 2 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 19 0 0 0 319 0 0 298 22 SB 29 0 0 0 535 0 0 513 22 U N S I G N A L I Z E D APP LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 EB RESERVE CAPACITY 42 LEVEL OF SERVICE E WB RESERVE CAPACITY 30 LEVEL OF SERVICE E NB RESERVE CAPACITY 278 LEVEL OF SERVICE C SB RESERVE CAPACITY 494 LEVEL OF SERVICE A 1AJOR STREET - NB /SB CHRISTOPHER BROWN 5/1/1990 TUKWILA MOTEL TUKMO02 INTERSECTION : S 146TH STREET @ SR 99 WEEKDAY PM PEAK 1990 CURRENT CBD7N UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS NORTH / SOUTH T R A F F I C & R O A D W A Y C O N D I T I O N S GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR APP ( %) (%) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE EB -1 0 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 WB 1 0 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 NB 0 1 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 II SB 0 1 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 APP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD EB 9 8 11 LTR 1 14.0 WB 18 2 17 LTR 1 . 16.0 NB 19 617 22 L 1 12.0 TR 2 24.0 SB 29 1048 22 L 1 12.0 TR 2 24.0 • ?AGE 1 CHRISTOPHER BROWN ENTERSECTION : 144TH STREET @ iR 99 EEKDAY PM PEAK kCTUATED SIGNAL 5/1/1990 PAGE 2 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 5/1/1990 TUKWILA MOTEL TUKM011 1992 W/O PROJ CBD ? N V O L U M E A D J U S T M E N T INTERSECTION : S 144TH STREET @ SR 99 WEEKDAY PM PEAK ACTUATED SIGNAL TUKWILA MOTEL TUKM011 1992 W/O PROJ CBD ? N C A P A C I T Y ANAL Y S I S \PPROACH LANE GROUP FLOW RATE LANE UTIL ADJ FLOW PROP OF TURNS MVM VOLUME IN GROUP FACTOR RATE LT RT LN GR ADJ FLOW PMSV ADJ SAT FLOW GREEN LN GR V/C - - -- - - -- - - -- APP MVM RATE LT FLOW FLW RT RATIO CRIT ? RATIO CAPACITY RATIO EB L 84 93 1.00 93 1.00 0.00 - -- - -- - - -- TR 322 358 1.00 358 0.00 0.30 EB L 93 0 432 0.215 N 0.300 130 0.71 TR 358 0 1830 0.196 N 0.300 549 0.65 13 L 59 66 1.00 66 1.00 0.00 TR 409 454 1.00 454 0.00 0.17 WB L 66 0 677 0.097 N 0.300 203 0.325 TR 454 0 1850 0.245 Y 0.300 555 0.818 JB 313 L 120 133 1.00 133 1.00 0.00 T 477 530 1.00 530 0.00 0.00 NB L 133 0 1710 0.078 Y 0.110 188 0.707 R 58 64 1.00 64 0.00 1.00 T 530 0 3600 0.147 N 0.590 2124 0.250 L 75 83 1.00 83 1.00 0.00 R 64 0 1438 0.045 N 0.590 848 0.075 T 961 1068 1.00 1068 0.00 0.00 SB L 83 0 1710 0.049 N 0.110 188 0.441 R 99 110 1.00 110 0.00 1.00 T 1068 0 3600 0.297 Y 0.590 2124 0.503 R 110 0 1438 0.076 N 0.590 848 0.130 CYCLE LENGTH : 100.0 SUM OF CRITICAL LANES' FLOW RATIOS : 0.620 S A T U R A T I ON F L O W LOSS TIME PER CYCLE : 9 INTERSECTION V/C : 0.681 IDEAL # OF ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ADJ. kPP MVM SAT FLOW LANES WIDTH H.V. GRADE PARK BUS AREA RT LT FLOW L E V E L OF S E R V I C E - - -- - - -- - - -- - --- - - - -- EB L 1800 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.24 432 LN GR V/C GREEN CYC 1st LN GR 2nd LN GR LN GR APP APP TR 1800 1 1.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1830 APP MVM RATIO RATIO LEN DELAY CAP DELAY PF DELAY LOS DELAY LOS 1B L 1800 1 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.38 677 EB L 0.715 0.300 100 23.7 130 11.2 0.85 29.7 D TR 1800 1 1.07 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1850 TR 0.652 0.300 100 23.1 549 1.9 0.85 21.2 C 22.9 C 1B L 1800 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1710 WE L 0.325 0.300 100 20.6 203 0.3 0.85 17.8 C T 1800 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3600 TR 0.818 0.300 100 24.7 555 6.5 0.85 26.5 D 25.3116 R 1800 1 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1438 iB L 1800 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1710 NB L 0.707 0.110 100 32.6 188. 7.7 1.00 40.3 E T 1800 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3600 T 0.250 0.590 100 7.5 2124 0.0 0.85 6.4 B R 1800 1 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1438 R 0.075 0.590 100 6.7 848 0.0 0.85 5.7 B 12.5 B SB L 0.441 0.110 100 31.6 188 1.1 1.00 32.7 D T 0.503 0.590 100 9.1 2124 0.2 0.85 7.9 B R 0.130 0.590 100 6.9 848 0.0 0.85 5.9 B 9.4 B INTERSECTION DELAY : 15.0 secs /veh LEVEL OF SERVICE : B CHRISTOPHER BROWN 5/1/1990 TUKWILA MOTEL TUKM011 INTERSECTION : 144TH STREET @ iR 99 gEEKDAY PM PEAK 1992 W/O PROJ CBD ?N 4CTUATED SIGNAL T R A F F I C 8 R O A D W A Y C O N D I T I O N S GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR APP ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE EB -1 0 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 WB 1 0 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 NB 0 1 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 SB 0 1 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 APP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD EB 84 225 97 L 1 12.0 TR 1 14.0 WB 59 341 68 L 1 12.0 TR 1 14.0 NB 120 477 58 L 1 12.0 T 2 24.0 R 1 10.0 SB 75 961 99 L 1 12.0 T 2 24.0 R 1 10.0 S I G N A L P H A S I N G APP PHASE 1ST MV 2ND MV 3RD MV PROT EB 3 L TR WB 3 L TR NB 1 L L NB 2 T R SB 1 L L SB 2 T R 5/1/1990 CHRISTOPHER BROWN INTERSECTION TUKMO11 N W - +- E S SB TOTAL SR 99 68 1135 N/S STREET 99 75 v 961 v WB TOTAL 341 468 <' v 1 PMSV G Y +R /\ \/ LR 30 70 1 1 - - -* LR 30 70 11 89 R 59 41 1 - - *> 11 89 v R 59 41 S 144TH STREET E/W STREET 84 ^ EB TOTAL 406 225 > SR 99 N/S STREET 97 59 S 144TH STREET E/W STREET < * -- 1 * - -- 1 v 477 120 NB TOTAL 655 58 CHRISTOPHER BROWN TUKWILA MOTEL [ NTERSECTION : 146TH STREET @ >R 99 - AEEKDAY PM PEAK 1992 W/O PROJ CBD7N JNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS NORTH / SOUTH 5/1/1990 { CHRISTOPHER BROWN 5/1/1990 TUKMO12 TUKWILA MOTEL TUKMO12 INTERSECTION : S 146TH STREET @ SR 99 WEEKDAY PM PEAK 1992 W/O PROJ CBD ?N UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS NORTH / SOUTH T R A F F I C & R O A D W A Y C O N D I T I O N S GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR U N S I G N A L I Z E D C R I T I C A L G A P S APP (%) (%) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE CRITICAL GAPS (SEC) EB -1 0 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 APP LEFT TURN THROUGH RIGHT TURN WB 1 0 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 - -- NB 0 1 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 SB 0 1 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 EB 7.10 6.60 5.40 WB 7.10 6.60 5.40 NB 5.20 SB 5.20 V O L U M E A L L O C A T I O N T O LANES LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 APP L T R L T R L T R EB 9 9 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 19 3 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 21 0 0 0 345 0 0 321 24 SB 31 0 0 0 578 0 0 554 24 U N S I G N A L I Z E D APP LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 EB RESERVE CAPACITY 30 LEVEL OF SERVICE E WB RESERVE CAPACITY 16 LEVEL OF SERVICE E NB RESERVE CAPACITY 243 LEVEL OF SERVICE C SB RESERVE CAPACITY 460 LEVEL OF SERVICE A MAJOR STREET - NB /SB G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 APP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD EB 9 9 12 LTR 1 14.0 WB 19 3 18 LTR 1 16.0 NB 21 666 24 L 1 12.0 TR 2 24.0 SB 31 1132 24 L 1 12.0 TR 2 24.0 ?AGE 1 INTERSECTION : 144TH STREET @ iR 99 VEEKDAY PM PEAK ACTUATED SIGNAL • CHRISTOPHER BROWN TUKWILA MOTEL 1992 W /PROJECT CBD ? N 5/1/1990 TUKMO21 V O L U M E A D J U S T M E N T 4PPROACH LANE GROUP FLOW RATE LANE UTIL ADJ FLOW MVM VOLUME IN GROUP FACTOR RATE EB L 84 93 1.00 93 TR 323 359 1.00 359 PROP OF TURNS LT RT 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 CB L 59 66 1.00 66 1.00 0.00 TR 409 454 1.00 454 0.00 0.17 !1B L 121 134 1.00 134 1.00 0.00 T 478 531 1.00 531 0.00 0.00 R 58 64 1.00 64 0.00 1.00 5B L 75 83 1.00 83 1.00 0.00 T 962 1069 1.00 1069 0.00 0.00 R 99 110 1.00 110 0.00 1.00 S A T U R A T I O N F L O W IDEAL # OF ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ADJ. RPP MVM SAT FLOW LANES WIDTH H.V. GRADE PARK BUS AREA RT LT FLOW - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- EB L 1800 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.26 468 TR 1800 1 1.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1830 WB L 1800 1 TR 1800 1 NB L 1800 1 T 1800 2 R 1800 1 SB L 1800 1 T 1800 2 R 1800 1 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.39 695 1.07 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1850 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1710 3600 1438 1710 3600 1438 PAGE 2 INTERSECTION : S 144TH STREET @ SR 99 WEEKDAY PM PEAK ACTUATED SIGNAL CHRISTOPHER BROWN TUKWILA MOTEL 1992 W /PROJECT CBD ? N 5/1/1990 TUKMO21 CAPACITY ANA L Y S I S LN GR ADJ FLOW PMSV ADJ SAT FLOW APP MVM RATE LT FLOW FLW RT RATIO I EB L 93 0 TR 359 0 L 66 TR 454 NB L T R SB L T R 134 531 64 83 1069 110 CYCLE LENGTH : 100.0 LOSS TIME PER CYCLE : GREEN LN GR V/C CRIT ? RATIO CAPACITY RATIO 468 0.199 N 0.310 145 0.641 1830 0.196 N 0.310 567 0.63] O 695 0.095 N 0.310 215 0.307 O 1850 0.245 Y 0.310 573 0.792 O 1710 0.078 Y 0.110 188 0.713 O 3600 0.147 N 0.580 2088 0.254 O 1438 0.045 N 0.580 834 0.077 O 1710 0.049 N 0.110 188 0.441 O 3600 0.297 Y 0.580 2088 0.512 O 1438. 0.076 N 0.580 834 0.132 SUM OF CRITICAL LANES' FLOW RATIOS : 0.620 9 INTERSECTION V/C : 0.681 LN GR V/C GREEN APP MVM RATIO RATIO EB L 0.641 0.310 TR 0.633 0.310 WB L 0.307 0.310 TR 0.792 0.310 NB SB L E V E L O F S E R V I C E CYC 1st LN GR 2nd LN GR LN GR APP APP LEN DELAY CAP DELAY PF DELAY LOS DELAY LOS 100 22.6 145 6.2 0.85 100 22.5 567 1.6 0.85 100 20.0 215 0.3 0.85 100 24.0 573 5.2 0.85 L 0.713 0.110 100 32.7 188 8.0 1.00 T 0.254 0.580 100 7.9 2088 0.0 0.85 R 0.077 0.580 100 7.0 834 0.0 0.85 L 0.441 0.110 100 31.6 188 1.1 1.00 T 0.512 0.580 100 9.5 2088 0.2 0.85 R 0.132 0.580 100 7.3 834 0.0 0.85 24.5 C 20.5 C 21.3 C 17.3 C 24.8 C 23.8 40.7 E 6.7 B 5.9 B 12.9 B 32.7 D 8.2 B 6.2 B 9.6 B INTERSECTION DELAY : 14.7 secs /veh LEVEL OF SERVICE : B CNTERSECTION : 3 144TH STREET @ SR 99 9EEKDAY PM PEAK \CTUATED SIGNAL CHRISTOPHER BROWN TUKWILA MOTEL 1992 W /PROJECT CBD?N 5/1/1990 TUKMO21 T R A F F I C & R O A D W A Y C O N D I T I O N S GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR APP ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE - -- - -- - - -- -- -- - - -- EB -1 0 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 WB 1 0 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 NB 0 1 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 SB 0 1 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 5/1/1990 CHRISTOPHER BROWN INTERSECTION TUKMO21 SB TOTAL 1136 99 I 75 v G E O M E T R I C S / VOLUMES 962 LANE GROUPS VOLUME 1 2 3 APP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD EB 84 225 98 L 1 12.0 TR 1 14.0 WB 59 341 68 L 1 12.0 TR 1 14.0 NB 121 478 58 L 1 12.0 T 2 24.0 R 1 10.0 SB 75 962 99 L 1 12.0 T 2 24.0 R 1 10.0 S I G N A L P H A S I N G APP PHASE 1ST MV 2ND MV 3RD MV PROT PMSV G Y +R ^ EB 3 L TR LR 31 69 1 ---* WB 3 L TR LR 31 69 NB 1 L L 11 89 NB 2 T R R 58 42 1 -- *> SB 1 L L 11 89 v SB 2 T R R 58 42 S 144TH STREET E/W STREET 84 ^ EB TOTAL 407 225 98 v N W - +- E S SR 99 N/S STREET 1 2 1 1 2 1 SR 99 N/S STREET 68 WB TOTAL 341 468 59 • v S 144TH STREET E/W STREET < * -- 1 * - -- 1 v 478 121 I 58 <I > NB TOTAL 657 CHRISTOPHER BROWN 5/1/1990 TUKWILA MOTEL TUKMO22 INTERSECTION : S 146TH STREET @ SR 99 WEEKDAY PM PEAK 1992 W /PROJ UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS NORTH / SOUTH CBD ?N CHRISTOPHER BROWN 5/1/1990 TUKWILA MOTEL TUKMO22 INTERSECTION : S 146TH STREET @ SR 99 WEEKDAY PM PEAK 1992 W /PROJ UNSIGNALIZED - MAJOR STREET RUNS NORTH / SOUTH CBD?N T R A F F I C & R O A D W A Y C O N D I T I O N S GRADE HV ADJ. PKG LN. BUSES CONF. PEDS PED BUTTON ARR U N S I G N A L I Z E D C R-I T I C A L G A P S I APP ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm (Nb) PHF (peds /hr) Y/N SEC TYPE CRITICAL GAPS (SEC) EB -1 0 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 APP LEFT TURN THROUGH RIGHT TURN WB 1 0 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 3 - -- NB 0 1 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 SB 0 1 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 0.0 EB 7.10 6.60 5.40 WB 7.10 6.60 5.40 G E O M E T R I C S / V O L U M E S NB 5.20 - -- LANE GROUPS 1 VOLUME 1 2 3 SB 5.20 APP LT TH RT MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD MVM LNS WD V O L U M E A L L O C A T I O N T O L A N E S LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 APP L T R L T R L T R EB 9 9 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 29 3 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 21 0 0 0 350 0 0 316 34 SB 33 0 0 0 578 0 0 554 24 U N S I G N A L I Z E D APP LANE 1 LANE 2 LANE 3 EB RESERVE CAPACITY 30 LEVEL OF SERVICE E WB RESERVE CAPACITY -3 LEVEL OF SERVICE FAILURE NB RESERVE CAPACITY 243 LEVEL OF SERVICE C SB RESERVE CAPACITY 451 LEVEL OF SERVICE A MAJOR STREET - NB /SB EB 9 9 12 LTR 1 14.0 WB 29 3 20 LTR 1 16.0 NB 21 666 34 L 1 12.0 TR 2 24.0 SB 33 1132 24 L 1 12.0 TR 2 24.0 • SITE PLAN a•.•..• .....I. - • O 0 L_ 1 1' t E11&R,Y Llc-ur,.ry M' -•• s .LLN. MR •i..tl e1 tt-1:2L::L MVJ7""L_ — LId,wit4 SECOND FLOOR PLAN 10 MOM El 4 *• 1e-0• d:t/L MI%, ..f 4ryKG.4 4 WJ- J4 .r,4 tt.1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN 3S UNIT MOTEL *ad of 0 I 0 1713.1 1111•11 11111 III ! 1111! 1 ■ ■- r• ■ 'RAW MINI 1 Y fl _ ■ flW F$ i1■ ■1 IF.c l lr llllld'i1l r�� uunuunnrmui •1 - �1 I��1 I� ■�"�'r I � I�� I�11■tll�i i loom n I uiu�ImIIIIti�lhl�ii Inll u�� ,i — •' VIII 1111" IMII IuI�I111111111� AIIIIIIII � I� a 11� f II iv) li -1n if 1 D[ fl. RiLi Dfl. Isivl 1.1.6 pTre1- 45pI4.,1 GO..MOY *tlY GW41.Gb ��. — .erN.. earrcr em.. N.M.M.. fl*MS +n.10•••• vVEST 6LGVA1-I0 14 w.s. ML ,'••• I�I 111 OL 4w tnttH b i ti J' FARICJW61 LC, EPCiE AST ELEVATION, •11/.1•IS 404/12b010.1 .44 • o :.ram !�1i1)Fir ! I/!! I' ;i ii�i'�i ' 1 1 i �:..►F��r� � r� �..:o �ID� 1 rclli ��i11131111U�i1IJ�/S: nonail L'! im Eii3i � t iii �-- -i1 iP�+ lit nor flip Ti, iT �nit011- li nnulI I�° �Ir1 ' , grip �' =1 I = = -1-_ — I= r��h ®liT �aTii �h1 _= 1_= Ii�_��1.I ' I � ",h , ,` : _ - . S Ira �` - '_ _ 1T� + ,�I , rwormli>li�i', . riI� if oft �ol�Al— ,11„ il11if��r,l.,�a JEt}1. Barmy caw. 44YA1.M/ RJ.M6 Mall /VEST GLE_VATtO . a' belt EAST ELEVATION' SOUTH ELEVATION NORM ELEVATION it UNIT ■OTEL • • w1 o ft 3 �W ;nem ::� n.... we vu wem 0 -t. eft .104■11 WSW 4• it• . + . +114.1. LANDSCAPE PLAN it 1101* ■OTII