Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutC_Transpo_Final_TIA_Review_CRA_200429.pdf 12131 113th Avenue N.E., Suite 203, Kirkland, WA 98034 | 425.821.3665 | TG: 1.19297.00 April 29, 2020 Matt Herrera Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 SUBJECT: CEDAR RIVER APARTMENTS TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REVIEW COMMENTS Dear Mr. Herrera: We have completed our independent review of the updated February 18, 2020 Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by William Popp Associates for the Cedar River Apartment project proposal on behalf of the City of Renton. In addition, we reviewed the Responses to Comments Memorandum regarding Transpogroup/Jon Pascal and City Comments, and the associated Synchro/SimTraffic simulation model files that were provided and which supported the updated TIA findings. In general, the updated TIA has helped to address most of our comments, but we still have questions about the following items. Updated TIA (February 18, 2020) Page 35. Intersection LOS Analysis. The turning movement volumes for 2023 “With Project” AM and PM scenarios are not consistent for some movements with pass-by volumes between volume graphics (Figure 8b and 9b) and the Synchro worksheets in Appendix C.1.c and C.2.c. However, the difference is within 1 or 2 trips and should not affect the analysis results and findings. Pages 49 and 54, Parking. The updated TIA shows that the estimated medical office parking demand of 81 vehicles would be adequately accommodated with the 60 designated garage stalls plus the 48 surface stalls. The study also highlighted on Page 49 that there is a shortage of 17 stalls to meet the RMC requirements for this specific use. The study should include more discussion about how the deficiency of 17 stalls will be accommodated, or why it is unnecessary to meet the RMC parking requirement. In addition, it is unclear whether all 48 surface stalls would be available for shared parking. What requirement will be made to ensure adequate spaces will be made available for visitors of the medical office building? Responses to Comments Memorandum Page 4. Response to Comments on Secondary Site Access – Left-Turn Restriction. The C-curb, as described in our previous comments, would be along the southern edge of the current two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) to prevent left-turns in and out of the driveway, rather than providing a pork-chop. We are not sure how a C-curb would prevent larger trucks from entering or exiting a right-in, right-out only driveway, as described in the response. Truck access should be accommodated at the main access roadway. We are still interested in understanding why a c-curb would not be a more effective solution to restrict left-turns in and out of the driveway. Perhaps the reason has to do with the fact that SR 169 is a WSDOT facility, and concurrence on any channelization changes along the TWLTL would been to be approved by WSDOT? Mr. Matt Herrera April 29, 2020 Page 2 Thank you for the opportunity to assist in this review. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 425.821.3665 should you have any questions about our comments. Sincerely, Transpo Group USA, Inc. Jon Pascal, PE, PTOE Principal jon.pascal@transpogroup.com 425.896.5230