Item 6A and 6B Lee TIA Reviews and Recommendations ARIZONA
' TEXAS
NEW MEXICO
OKLAHOMA
LMC� rinanrirc:nnc
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:
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 CITYOR 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.
2. 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 LB1 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 rincinra:inc 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 incinacsinc 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 5 lane approach whereas the PM scenarios have a 4 lane 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.
o 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 CIIonEERinc. 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 6/20 .6 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 Cnana:vina Page 5 of 5
ARIZONA
TEXAS
NEW MEXICO
OKLAHOMA
L�� anc�nE��inc
November 3,2016
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-Additional Comments
Dear Mr.Anderson:
Lee Engineering submitted TIA review comments on August 2, 2016 related to the TIA and Update
memorandum prepared by Stantec and dated October 22, 2015 and July 18, 2016 respectively. As a result
of additional review efforts related to the parking analysis of the Delta Hotel property within this site, Lee
Engineering offers additional comments on the traffic impact analysis. The comments in this letter are in
addition to our August 2 comments and do not replace the original review comments.
Our review comments are numbered for ease of reference and the numbering does not imply any ranking.
The numbering is sequential with the original review comments from August 2, 2016 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 RE UIRE NO ACTION BY CITY OR APPLICANT
No new informational comments at this time. Please refer to informational comments 1-5 in the August 2,
2016 review letter.
ACTION COMMENTS(REQUIRE RESPONSE OR ACTION BY CITY OR APPLICANT
Action comments 6-28 appear in the August 2, 2016 review letter. It is our understanding that neither a
revised TIA nor a response to the August 2,2016 comments has been received.
29. The original operator of the hospital on the Forest Park Medical Center property wound down and
ceased operations at an unknown date. The operating status of the hospital is unclear in the
reviewed traffic impact analysis for the White Chapel Village development. It is possible that the
hospital may have been operating at lower levels or may have already ceased operations when the
traffic counts were collected for the traffic impact analysis. It is unlikely that a fully operational
hospital has been adequately accounted for in the original White Chapel Village TIA.
3030 LBJ Freeway,Suite 1660, Dallas,TX 75234
(972)248-3006 office (972)248-3855 fax I www.leeengineering.coni Page 1 of 2
30. Comment 6 of the August 2 review indicated that discrepancies existed between the land use
intensities analyzed in the TIA and those shown on the site plan. Based on the latest information
available, these discrepancies have increased with the concept development plan included in the
2016-10-24 Delta Southlake Center S-P-2 Zoning submittal. This concept plan depicts the proposed
Delta Hotel Development as well as the following buildings and uses:
o Two(2)five-story office buildings with retail and parking below grade;
o One (1) six-story office building;
o A three-story parking garage with retail space; and
o A separate retail space.
o It is important to recognize that the uses shown in the latest concept plan are more intense
than the uses analyzed in the traffic impact analysis submitted and reviewed previously for
the TIA for the White Chapel Village Site. The TIA should be updated to reflect the latest
plan.
31. Furthering comment#28 from our August 2 review related to cross access the 10-24-2016
Concept
Development Pian indicates that no cross access is planned to the adjoining medical center property
along either the eastern or southern property lines.
o The site plan that accompanied the traffic impact analysis included cross access in at least
one location.
o Shared access to the medical developments to the east and Highland Street to the south is
suggested to provide for safer and more efficient flow of traffic accessing both properties.
32. Previous submittals forthe Forest Park Medical Development indicated a significant amount of future
medical-office development is planned for the site. The 10-24-2016 Concept Development Plan for
White Chapel Village shows new medical developments on the Forest Park site but does not contain
any information about the size and intensity of the medical developments. We are unable to
determine at this time if the adjoining medical uses shown on the 10-24-2016 Concept Development
Plan match those that were accounted for in the original traffic studies for the Forest Park Medical
Development,
33. The planned medical-office building towers and structure parking on the medical site to the east
were not accounted for in the background traffic for the White Chapel Village Traffic Impact analysis.
o The City should consider requiring the White Chapel Village TIA to be updated in order to
provide an analysis that accounts for planned medical-office uses in the vicinity.
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
f
LCC Cnonrusina Page 2 of 2