Loading...
Item 5 & 6 - TIA ReviewF, Imencinirfflmc August 2, 2016 Steven Anderson, P.E., CFM City of Southlake 1400 Main Street, Suite 320 Southlake, Texas 76092 Re: White Chapel Village TIA and Update Memo Review Dear Mr. Anderson: ARIZONA TEXAS NEW MEXICO OKLAHOMA Per your request, we have completed a preliminary review of the traffic impact analysis for the White Chapel Village development. The proposed development will be located on the southeast corner of the intersection of White Chapel Boulevard and State Highway 114 (SH 114). The original TIA was prepared by Stantec and dated October 22, 2015. A memorandum was also prepared by Stantec and dated July 18, 2016, which provided an updated analysis for an increase in the proposed number of hotel rooms. Our review comments are numbered for ease of reference and the numbering does not imply any ranking. We have divided our comments into two categories—Informational Comments are those that require no action by the city or the applicant. Action Comments are those that require a response or action by the City or applicant. We offer the following comments on the submitted study. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS /REQUIRE NO ACTION BY CITY OR APPLICANT) 1. The directional distribution used for this study was 3% to/from the north on White Chapel Boulevard, 15%to/from the west on SH 114, 42%to/from the south on White Chapel Boulevard, and 40% to/from the east on SH 114. Based on the land use assumptions in the original TIA, the site is anticipated to generate 471 trips during the AM peak hour (306 entering, 165 exiting) and 711 trips during the PM peak hour (322 entering, 389 exiting). Site build -out is anticipated by 2020. o The memo update indicates that the planned hotel has increased in size from 220 rooms to 240 rooms, which will increase the trip generation by 10 trips during the AM peak hour and 12 trips during the PM peak hour. 3. Adjacent development traffic for the Carillon and Southlake Office Plaza developments were included in background traffic volumes. 4. The TIA specifies that the eastern driveway on the SH 114 frontage road will be coordinated with and relocated from Forest Park Medical center and will provide shared access to both sites. 3030 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1660, Dallas, TX 75234 (972) 248-3006 office (972) 248-3855 fax I www.leeengineering.com Page 1 of 5 5. The TIA assumes the following improvements to accommodate background or other development traffic will be in place prior to the 2020 buildout date of the site. If any of these are not in place prior to build -out of the site, then poorer operations than shown in the TIA should be anticipated. o White Chapel Boulevard would be widened to a four -lane divided cross section as part of the City's project between SH 114 and Highland Street. o A traffic signal would be installed at the White Chapel Blvd and Kirkwood Boulevard intersection. o At the SH 114 frontage road intersection with White Chapel Blvd, a third through lane would be added on the westbound approach to the signal. The widening would be east of the intersection to facilitate westbound through traffic. The diamond interchange signal phasing would be converted to a four-phase diamond operation. o At White Chapel Blvd and Highland Street, a two-lane roundabout would be installed by the City. ACTION COMMENTS (REQUIRE RESPONSE OR ACTION BY CITY OR APPLICANT) 6. The site plan currently submitted to the City of Southlake and dated June 24, 2016, and the site plan analyzed in the TIA have different land uses and intensities. o The TIA analyzed hotel (220-240 rooms), 50,000 sf office, 35,000 sf retail, 15,000 sf restaurant, o The 6/24/2016 site plan includes hotel (240 rooms), 64,000 sf office, 36,000 sf retail and no restaurant. o The TIA, including all site traffic figures and analyses should match the site plan. 7. On the 6/24/16 site plan, right turn lanes are shown at all four site access driveways are labeled as 'per City of Southlake requirements'. o The TIA states that the volume of traffic at Driveway 2 is lower than the threshold for the turn lane and that Driveway 1 exceeds the threshold but suggests a variance be requested due to right of way not being available. o Lee Engineering agrees with the site plan that right turn lanes be provided at all four driveways, and does not support the variance request. Additionally, with 42% of total site traffic predicted to come from the south, Lee Engineering believes the volumes predicted for Driveway 1 and 2 to be low, and that both driveways will exceed the thresholds for requiring a right turn lane. It is unlikely that 29% of the traffic from the south will bypass the first two site driveways and access the site from the frontage road as shown in the TIA. Due to the configuration of the site access roadways, Lee Engineering believes Driveway 2 will serve a larger number of right turns than Driveway 1, and both will serve higher numbers than shown in the TIA. o On the second paragraph on page 30, please complete discussion for Driveway 2 (incomplete sentence). 8. Please include a figure depicting the roadway and intersection lane configurations used for the various analysis scenarios. Indicate clearly on the figures what lanes are existing, what lanes are assumed to be in place as part of other improvement projects, and what lanes or improvements are proposed as part of this development. LCC'Eneinaminc Page 2 of 5 9. In Figure 6, the southbound through volume at Intersection 5 appears to be approximately 200 vehicles higher than the adjacent intersections 4 and 6. Please address this discrepancy. 10. Please include delay values in addition to level of service in all tables. 11. Intersection level delay and LOS for a two-way stop -controlled intersection is not provided by HCM. Overall Intersection LOS has been provided in Tables 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9. Please include a description documenting how this was calculated. 12. On page 16, please identify the improvements associated with adjacent developments that are being assumed for 2020 background analysis. 13. In Table 7, the northbound and southbound delay appears to be for the overall approach, rather than for the left-turn/U-turn movements, which should be shown to show the operation of the hooded left scenario. o Please provide a figure depicting the traffic volumes associated with the hooded left turn scenario. o No analysis was provided indicating that the U-turn movement can be performed at the White Chapel Boulevard/Countryside Court intersection. A review of the U-turn movement's feasibility from a capacity and a roadway geometry standpoint should be performed if the hooded left is recommended. Many vehicles have difficulty successfully completing a U-turn on a 4 -lane divided roadway with narrow median due to turn radii and receiving lane widths. 14. Driveway 1 provides full access and is predicted to need signalization if hooded left turn access is not provided. This signal would be approximately 700-800 feet from both the roundabout at Highland and the signalized diamond at SH 114. Please discuss how this signal would affect operations of the roundabout and the diamond, and if any queues from any of the three intersections is expected to impact the other locations. 15. Signalized intersection operations at Driveway 1 in multiple scenarios in the appendix show a two phase signal operating at a very short actuated cycle length. Based on our knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that the signal would operate as two-phase and a left -turn phase would be likely along White Chapel as a protected permissive operation. Given the intersection's proximity to the diamond at SH 114 a coordinated operation is more likely and reasonable than free operation with an effective cycle less than 50 seconds. 16. Based on the "Future Total AM Dwy 1 Signal" printout in the appendix the signalized intersection analysis shown in Table 6 does not include 50+ vehicles performing the southbound left turn into the site. 17. Please clearly label the analyses in the appendix, including the year. Multiple analyses are presented for "Future Total AM" for the signalized Driveway 1 and it is unclear which should be used. LCC "enanEsina Page 3 of 5 18. The SH114 westbound frontage road approach lane configuration is inconsistent between the AM/PM scenarios for both the future background and future total scenarios. The AM scenarios have a 5lane approach whereas the PM scenarios have a 4lane approach. The existing approach is 3 lanes but the text indicates that an additional lane will be added by others in the future. Please correct this discrepancy in lane configuration and verify all lane configurations used in the analyses. 19. Include queuing results to determine if adequate storage will be provided for the left turn lanes on White Chapel Boulevard, especially considering the relative closeness of the driveways. There is only approximately 375 feet between Driveway 1 and Countryside Court. Queuing analysis for the potential U-turn movement at Countryside Court should be included in this. 20. Intersection sight distance was not assessed. 21. The last line on Page 13 refers to LOS analysis shown in Figure 8. This reference is incorrect. 22. For the Phase 1 analysis of the hotel use only the study states "Using 30% as an approximation, the peak directional flows for Phase 1 would be 21 inbound and 14 outbound trips during the AM peak hour and 20 inbound and 20 outbound trips during the PM peak." It is unclear why the hotel traffic is reduced to 30% of the trip generation in the Phase 1 discussion on page 32 of the TIA. The trip generation estimate in Table 1 predicts 69 inbound/48 outbound trips during the AM peak and 67 inbound/65 outbound trips during the PM peak for the Hotel land use. This estimate is then increased slightly in the TIA update memo for the 240 room hotel. The trip generation should be used in any discussion of the hotel volumes. 23. In the memo update, in the recommendations section it says the full TIA recommended a traffic signal with hooded left turns at Driveway 1. However, this is unclear, and presumably is supposed to read "traffic signal or hooded left turns". 24. Given the projected future turn volumes at the northbound White Chapel right turn to the eastbound SH 114 frontage road, right of way for a dedicated right -turn lane at this signal should be dedicated as part of this project if it has not already been planned for as part of the White Chapel widening. 25. The TIA concludes that the deceleration lanes along SH 114 should be constructed prior to full - buildout of the site, but would not be necessary for the hotel site alone. o A mechanism should be put in place to ensure that right-of-way is dedicated and all four turn lanes shown on the site plan are constructed as the site develops. Each lot individually is unlikely to trigger the improvements but collectively the improvements are necessary. LCC EncinEvvinc Page 4 of 5 26. The site plan in the TIA appendix has a roundabout at the intersection of the two site "spine" fire lanes. The site plan from 6/2016 provided by the City does not have this configuration, though the outside curbs appear unchanged. If no roundabout is intended internally, then the intersection should be modified to provide better traffic operations and clearer travel paths to the motorists. 27. Pedestrian connections should be provided between all uses on the site and should be more direct. 28. No cross access is shown to the property to the south. Cross access to that property, with ultimate access to Highland Street should be pursued in order to provide better access to traffic leaving the site towards the south. if you have any questions, please contact me at (972) 248-3006. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these services and are available to address any additional comments or concerns. Sincerely, John Denholm III, P.E., PTOE Project Manager Lee Engineering TBPE Firm F-450 LCC MGME IMG Page 5 of 5