Item 7B TIA Kelly & Associates
785 Sleepy Creek Drive, Frisco,Texas,75034 (214)697-1328(972)668-7867 fax
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
09-4��'�NA
To: Justin L. Lansdowne, P.E. t��.........
OF t
G & A Consultants, LLC ,W
O�IfY K ILLY
From: Rod Kelly, P.E.
Kelly & Associates ago ���� oil
Date: September 5, 2017
RE: Revised Traffic Impact Analysis: Proposed Medical-Dental & General Office
Development in Southlake, Texas
PURPOSE
The purpose of this revised memorandum is to document the results of a traffic impact analysis(TIA)
for the proposed medical-dental/general office development,to be located at the southwest corner of
N. Kimball Avenue and E. Highland Street in Southlake, Texas (See Figure 1). The proposed
development site plan is shown in Figure 2. The revised TIA report was prepared in response to
comments from the City of Southlake, concerning the initial TIA, which was conducted to determine
the possible impacts of the proposed development on traffic operations along North Kimball Avenue,
adjacent to this development. The TIA also examined the development driveways to determine
compliance with City ordinance requirements related to location,spacing,sight distance, internal site
vehicle storage /throat length, and the need for right and/or left turn lanes on the adjacent street.
Figure 1 — Site Vicinity Ma
,. ,, •
' F:I
' a - •
y y'� �
s t r
W4hie
r
y ? rl
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Denta/& General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 2of44 September 5, 2O17
Figure 2 Site Plan
EASi -T
-------------
V MAR VMRD
SHADY
I'll LAW USE:
PWOM Us LF
;k7A"KG WALL
IT 013MIR BOOM
Qw BOARD
Ti
VIM SP
BLOCK
DEN5lW]RESIDENTIAL
lswm
ED,TZD
MIXED use Wxcp r M.
ZONED,SF2V
ANALYSIS APPROACH
)~ Newtnsffiocounts were obtained hoestablish existing tnsffiovo|umeeat the development access
driveway intersections and East Highland Street with North Kimball Avenue. The counts were
obtained for the morning and afternoon peak traffic conditions. PM peak period traffic counts
were conducted on Tuesday, June 27, 2017, and the AM peak period counts were conducted on
Thursday, August 81. 2O17. toinclude the nearby middle school traffic. These traffic counts are
provided in Appendix A. The AM and PM peak hour existing traffic data was balanced to
eliminate minor traffic volume continuity differences and is summarized in Figure 3 and Figure 4.
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Dental& General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 3 of 44 September 5, 2017
Figure 4— Existing AM Peak Hour Non-Site Traffic
a
Y �
c� E
Jl Y
E Highland Street x
21 mt 1
47 s ry
N
0
UD c
4
9 Shady Ln
Driveway 1 t r
N
Ln
W
LD -0 ` 7
Yeargain Ct
Driveway 2 I r
o
N
Figure 4— Existing PM Peak Hour Non-Site Traffic
CUa
N W
a
CIO� E
J1 Y
E Highland Street a
9M � t
2s
M M
r
H Q7
9
3 Shady Ln
Driveway 9
a
61)L4
m
ito 4rm 2 Yeargain Ct
Driveway 2
La
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Dental& General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 4 of 44 September 5, 2017
➢ Vehicle trips in and out of proposed development were determined for the AM and PM peak hour
of traffic. Using the 9th Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual information provided in
Appendix B, the weekday AM and PM peak hour trip generation rates were calculated. The
resulting rates and proposed development vehicle trip calculations are shown in Table 1.
Table 1 — Development Trip Generation Calculations
Use Pk Hr ITE Trip Gen Equation Bid Quan Bld Quan Unit Trips
Med Oft AM No Eq. - Used 236 Avg. 25,000.00 SF 60
Gen Ofc AM Ln(T)=0.80Ln(x)+1.57 19,256.00 SF 51
Tot Oft AM 44,256.00 SF 111
Med Oft PM Ln(T)=0.90Ln(x)+1.53 25,000.00 SF 84
Gen Oft PM T=1.12(x)}78.45 19,256.00 SF 100
Tot Oft PM 44,256.00 SF 184
➢ Vehicle trips in and out of proposed development were determined for the AM and PM peak hour
of traffic and are shown in Table 2.
Table 2— Development Trip Generation
ITE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Use Code Unit of Measure
In Out In Out
Medical- Dental Ofc. 720 25,000 S.F. 47 13 24 60
General Office 710 19,256 S.F. 45 6 17 83
All Land Uses 44,256 S.F. 92 19 41 143
➢ The directions of approach and departure for traffic entering and exiting the proposed
development were determined. The directions of approach and departure were derived from a
combination of(1)viewing the existing housing development density contained on an aerial map
of the area within 3 miles of the site, (2)determining the directions of approach and departure at
the SH 114/N Kimball Ave interchange, and (3) considering the distribution of the trips at the
intersections counted for the subject TIA. This combined information indicated that the general
approach/departure patterns developed for the subject site would be approximately as follows:
PM Peak Hour General Approach and Departure Patterns
- 20% from and to the North
- 25% from and to the South
- 10% from and to the East
- 45% from and to the West
The major traffic arteries that would be primarily used to access the site are shown in Figure 5.
It should also be noted that Grapevine Lake limits access to the north of the site. For the traffic
impact analysis, it was decided to use the existing non-site volumes and let the results of the
capacity analyses determine whether additional traffic projections and analysis would be
necessary.
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Dental& General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 5 of 42 September 5, 2017
Figure 5— Major Site Access Roadways
I-
➢ Trips generated by the proposed development were then assigned to the appropriate approaches
of the intersections to be analyzed. These volumes are shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7.
➢ The existing non-site traffic volumes and that which will be generated by the proposed
development at the intersection of N Kimball Ave and E Highland St, as well as the intersections
of N Kimball Ave with the development driveways 1 and 2, were combined. These volumes are
shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9.
Figure 6 —AM Peak Hour Site Traffic
}
a
E HiQI►lantl Street �
x
1 shady Lri
DfiyeWayr 1 d
Yeargain CI
Driveway 7 1
8
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Dental& General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 6 of 42 September 5, 2017
Figure 7— PM Peak Hour Site Traffic
a
c
a
E
E Highland Street 1 2
x
3 =% Olt
UD?-
IN
LO U")
AShady Ln
Driveway 1 18 tt$ 01 t
55
W� Ln
V_ W_
JI Yeargain Ct
Driveway 2 15' t
55 mm% rLn
Figure 8—Combined AM Peak Hour Site + Non-Site Traffic
d
ra
a
a
L a
J 1 IE
E Highland Street 2
x
21 � � 1
5D a M a
N
0
Qpm `4
J1 t* �9 Shady Ln
Driveway 1 4=0 41 t
6 ww4 Cn
N
0 0�
J1 L► t T Yeargain Ct
Driveway 2 1
8� � �
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Dental& General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 7 of 42 September 5, 2017
Figure 9— Combined PM Peak Hour Site + Non-Site Traffic
d
a
C3.
a
J1 E
E Highland Street Y
x
9� � 1
31 M
m
W m `9
j I to 3 Shady Ln
Driveway 1 18
55�
m
v
'n a c t� 1
J2 Yeargain CE
Driveway 2 t f
15�
55� LnMcn
➢ The 2017 traffic lane configurations and intersection traffic control were also determined and are
displayed in Figure 10.
Figure 10 - Lane Configurations & Traffic Control
a
R
s
Y
E Highland Street Oil z
It 1
Stop Sign
0i it* Shady Ln
Driveway 1 + 1
Stop Sign
4 It* Yeargain Ct
Driveway 2 t�
Stop Sign
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Dental& General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 8 of 42 September 5, 2017
➢ The above traffic information was entered as input data into Trafficware's "Synchro" traffic
analysis software package, both for the existing traffic conditions and for conditions that included
the traffic added by the proposed development.
CAPACITY ANALYSIS FINDINGS
The analysis of impacts is measured in terms of traffic operating level of service(LOS). According to
the Highway Capacity Manual, capacity is defined as the maximum number of vehicles that can be
expected to travel on a given section of roadway or a specific lane during a given period under
prevailing traffic conditions. The operational conditions of roadways are measured in terms of"Level
of Service" (LOS). Level of Service refers to the operational conditions within a traffic stream and
their perception by motorists in terms of delay, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort,
convenience and safety. There are six levels of service (LOS) or capacity conditions for each
roadway facility and they are designated from "A"to 7", with "A" representing an optimal, free-flow
condition, and "F" representing a congested, forced flow condition. These Delay/LOS relationships
are shown in Table 2 for intersections with stop sign and traffic signal control.
Table 2 - Relationship between Delay and LOS
Average Vehicle Delay (Seconds) LOS (Vol./Cap. Ratio
per Vehicle for Stop Controlled Intersections < or= to 1
< or= to 10 A
>10 & < or= 15 B
>15 & < or= 25 C
>25 & < or= 35 D
>35 & <or= 50 E
>50 F
For the analysis of the impacts of expected traffic operations in the AM peak hour at the intersection
of N. Kimball Ave. and Highland St. and the proposed intersections of Driveway 1 and 2 with N
Kimball Ave,the Synchro traffic analyses were conducted. A summary of the AM peak hour analysis
results are shown in Table 3. The AM peak hour capacity analysis worksheets for the stop sign
controlled intersections are contained in Appendix C.
Table 3—Site + Non-Site AM Peak Hour Analysis Results
No Mitigation With Traffic Mitigation
Intersection Intersection roach Approach Mitigation Intersection Approach
LOS AppLOS Measures LOS LOS
N Kimball Ave & EB c
E Highland St A NB A None required
SB
EB C
Driveway 1 & A WB C None required
N Kimball Ave NB A
SB A
EB B
Driveway 2 & WB c
N Kimball Ave A NB A None Required
SB A
As can be seen from the delay and LOS results, all analyzed intersections and associated
approaches will operate at a high LOS C or better. Because of these highly favorable levels of
service and the fact that the area served by the subject roadway segments and intersections is
almost fully developed, it is expected that there will be more than adequate traffic capacity on these
streets for the foreseeable future; therefore, no additional non-site traffic projections were made.
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Dental& General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 9 of 42 September 5, 2017
A summary of the PM peak hour analysis results are shown in Table 4. The PM peak hour capacity
analysis worksheets for the stop sign controlled intersections are contained in Appendix C.
Table 4— Site + Non-Site PM Peak Hour Analysis Results
No Mitigation With Traffic Mitigation
Intersection Intersection roach Approach Mitigation Intersection Approach
LOS AppLOS Measures LOS LOS
N Kimball Ave & EB B
E Highland St A NB A None required
SB A
EB B
Driveway 1 & A WB C None required
N Kimball Ave NB A
SB A
EB B
Driveway 2 & WB c
N Kimball Ave A NB A None Required
SB A
As can be seen from the delay and LOS results, all analyzed intersections and associated
approaches will operate at a high LOS C or better. Because of these highly favorable levels of
service and the fact that the area served by the subject roadway segments and intersections is
almost fully developed, it is expected that there will be more than adequate traffic capacity on these
streets for the foreseeable future; therefore, no additional non-site traffic projections were made.
➢ Researched City of Southlake and TxDOT access management standards associated with
the need for separate right and left turn deceleration lanes.
ACCESS MANAGEMENT STANDARDS ANALYSIS
The City of Southlake access management standards are contained in Driveway Ordinance 654,
which contain criteria for left and right turn lanes, access drive location and spacing, sight distances,
and of-street internal site driveway storage / throat length that can be applied to this proposed
development site. Excerpts from the relevant sections of this document, referenced in the following
discussions, are provided in Appendix D.
Turn Lane Requirements — N. Kimball Avenue
Left Turn Lane Requirements
Since median openings and exclusive northbound left turn lanes already exists at the intersections of
N. Kimball Ave with the driveways serving the proposed development, there are provisions for
queuing of vehicles turning left into the development for northbound N. Kimball Ave. The results of
the queuing analysis, as defined in Footnote 5 of Table 3-3: Lengths of Single Left-Turn Lanes on
Urban Streets, in the TxDOT Roadway Design Manual, was conducted as a part of the overall
Synchro intersection capacity analyses. This reference table is contained in Appendix D. The
analysis indicated that the existing northbound left turn lane storage of approximately 70 feet at the
two development access driveways, as shown in Table 5, will be adequate to accommodate the 36
northbound vehicles in the AM peak hour and the 15 northbound vehicles in the PM peak hour
turning left into each of the two development site driveways.
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Dental& General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 10 of 42 September 5, 2017
Table 5 — Left Turn Lane Vehicle Queuin (Synchro)
N Kimball Ave Peak Hour 95th Percentile
Left Turn Lane Queue Length
Driveway 1 AM 4 feet 1 vehicle
Driveway 2 AM 4 feet 1 vehicle
Driveway 1 PM 1 foot 1 vehicle
Driveway 2 PM 1 foot 1vehicle
Right Turn Lane Requirements
For right turn lanes, subsection 5.4a of the City's driveway ordinance shows that a right turn
deceleration lane shall be provided for any driveway located on an arterial street if the speed limit is
equal to or less than 40 MPH and the right turn ingress volume exceeds 50 vehicles in the design
hour. Since the Site Driveways 1 and 2 are projected to have no more than 10 vehicles turning right
into these driveways in either the AM or PM peak hours (which is below the threshold volume of 50);
no separate right turn lanes will be required. TxDOT criteria,contained in Appendix D, indicates that
if the speed limit on the roadway is equal to or less than 45 MPH and the volume of right turning
vehicles is greater than 60 vehicle per hour, a separate right turn lane will be required. As with the
City's criteria, the volume of right turning traffic into any of the proposed development driveways does
not exceed TxDOT threshold criteria.
Access Drive Location and Spacing
The locations of the development access driveways were established in accordance with Section 5.1
of the City's driveway ordinance, which defines the standards for placement of driveways on City
streets. The driveway locations and spacing, as shown in Site Plan in Figure 2, meet the
requirement shown in Table One of this ordinance, as shown in Appendix D, except for the distance
between Driveway 2 and Southlake Glen Drive. In this instance, the spacing is only 110 feet, while
200 feet is required. Because it will be desirable to locate the driveway at an existing median
opening, a variance should be requested.
Driveway Sight Distances
Observations made at the development site indicated that there is generally flat terrain and straight
roadway alignment, with no obstructions, in both directions adjacent to the subject development, to
provide clear and adequate sight distance at the two proposed development access driveways.
Internal Storage/ Throat Length
Table Two, in Subsection 5.2d of the City's driveway ordinance, indicates that, based on the number
of required parking spaces, 100 feet of internal / throat vehicle storage will be required within the
proposed development site. However,the vehicle queuing analysis results from the Synchro analysis
indicates that only a maximum queuing storage of 16 feet for 1 vehicle will ever be required for
vehicles exiting either of the two access driveways. This information can be found in the Synchro
analysis worksheets, in Appendix C.
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Dental& General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 11 of 42 September 5, 2017
CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the Analysis Findings discussed above, the following conclusions can be drawn.
Intersection Levels of Service—The overall intersection and intersection approach Levels of Service
(LOSs)for existing conditions, with development traffic added,were all found to be expected to be at
highly acceptable free or stable traffic flow rates. Because of these highly favorable levels of service
and the fact that the area served by the subject roadway segments and intersections is almost fully
developed, it is expected that there will be more than adequate traffic capacity on these streets for
the foreseeable future and no additional non-site traffic projections are necessary.
Turn Lane Requirements - Based on City of Southlake and TxDOT access management standards,
no separate southbound right turn lanes on N. Kimball Ave. will be warranted for either of the
proposed development access driveways. Furthermore, based on the anticipated left turning traffic
volumes into the two site access driveway, there is adequate queuing storage in the existing
northbound N. Kimball Ave. left turn lanes.
Driveway Location and Spacing—the locations and spacing of the two development driveways meet
the City's requirements, except for the distance between Southlake Glen Dr. and the proposed
development Driveway 2. Because this driveway is proposed to be located at an existing median
opening, a variance request to accept the sub-standard spacing is desirable.
Driveway Sight Distances—More than adequate unobstructed sight distance will be provided at the
two development access driveways.
Driveway Internal Storage/ Throat Length - Based on the driveway queuing analysis results, a
variance request to accept the sub-standard internal exiting vehicle storage length is desirable.
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Dental&General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 12 of 42 September 5, 2017
Appendices
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Dental&General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 13 of 42 September 5, 2017
Appendix A
Traffic Counts
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Ue±c AOe Gz& General Office Development in S wmak, Texas
Page f4 0 42 September 5, 2fz
.f .A
s \ a2 :
n § n \
§ § § $ K
§ A
2 ( k \
§ A
k 2
f R ±
'F_
\ \ \
u } § )
2 } § 6 /
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Dental& General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 15 of 42 September 5, 2017
O N 4 N
Z•{� w v
ppm
CCrni p
l0
• a�0 u�Q II? _,
lD o p
n its m
Vt
li 1
� � Q
oa Cp �
N N �
P
In
N em-0 V
O
C D O
p3 o q1 e*�1
c �
ri
m m
ns ry o
m m �
Do m m
ID w o
0 0 0
5 o
n
W 1: W �
P
[0
w
u
t < <
r � p 4 � 4
N O
a-1 W C G. M
Y .4
d
w S 'u Q W <
i VC a O
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Ue±c AOe Gz& General Office Development in S wmak, Texas
Page fe of 42 September 5, 2fz
® 2 ( $ \
d § § (
\ § § §
' , d
q
- ( 04 Q
. . §
§ / §
/
) `
\ \ j
}
\ §
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Dental& General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 17 of 42 September 5, 2017
o h o 0 0 0 0
z 0 3
a -I -
c o rn
ami' u+
• ,n m cto
a
m o m 1O M
o
0 0 0 0
00 m
N D N
rn g 'nn
N N 41
o
en a rn m
m " o
in
N ^fi N rD
CD
O - O 00
M m w
w w
M
(n
tY1 O
0
In M 00
00 e? d1
m
o a o
n
00 00 �?
0
N N a1
m e~r1 O
:N
u F
V R LL
a o x o
C F d
w
m
u
In y u1
Y
6 t r2 2
v a y a
Q0 c In
■ Ln
V V
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Dental& General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 18 of 42 September 5, 2017
O O o 0
o O O O
Z w n
Ol O1
O O �
00
• 0000 000
rn m O
T m m
N N
LnO
Ln
C r
N N �
O O o
rn tls ?
O
m
m m o
0
• ko
� � 4
ry N rn
m m o
O O O
M m M
00 as m
m m p
M m
O
_m
V R lL
c � a
V
u y
„ `w e a a
Y
• d a 2
a U a
d Q c Ln
a a
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Dental& General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 19 of 42 September 5, 2017
0 o a o
o g o Q a o 0
Z W -A
N N n
P 4 �
r T C)
m M O
M M �
N N �
O
a0
• M M M
= o
M 00 h
10 O M
� � O
Co
r M M M
0
00
0
0 0 0 0
un
N o N N
� O
N N N
.+ O
h
O] M
p M tD G n
r
LO
• M N N
O
Ch $
• � K1 � M O
A _
o e z o
m
v
o a a
- 4 N O
d '
r W
a a a
O C O
v
0 a
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Dental& General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 20 of 42 September 5, 2017
Appendix B
Development Trip Generation Rates
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Dental&General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 21 of 42 September 5, 2017
Medical-Dental OffiCe Building
(720)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area
On a: Weekday,
Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic,
One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m.
Number of Studies: 23
Average 1000 Sq.Feet GFA: 41
Directional Distfibution: 79%entering,21%exiting
Trip Generation,per 1000 Sq.f=eet Gross Floor Area
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
2.39 0.85 4.79 1.89
Data'plot and'Equation
r 300T--...,-._.._....-
i
W200
CL
F
7
� y
n Inc
~ I L x
x
0 10 20. 30 40 so 60 70 60 90 W f to j2C
x=1000 Sq.Feet Gross Fkspt Area
X Aetuai oats Points ------ A1111 S Nyle
Fitted Curre Equation: Not given R2=,,•
Trip Gengf000n,9th Edltlon 6 In3ntule ul .=ranaportitwr Engineers 12
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Dental&General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 22 of 42 September 5, 2017
Medleal-Dental mice Building
(720)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq.Feat Gross Floor Area
On a: Weekday,
Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic,
One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m.
Number of Studies: 43
Average 1000 Sq.Feet GFA: 31
i3irectiona!
Distribution: 28%entering,72%exiting
Tr!p Generation per 100D Sq. Feet Gross F'toor Area
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
3.57 0.97 8.86 2.47
Data Plot and Equatlon
4ao .� „_• _._.__� _ .
u 300
UJ a
iE
m '
200 %
ms
r x
N_ X
X
leo
X
1I n J '
X � f
• X '
r 0 70 20 W ah ,,� BO tp 80 90 100 140 120
X- 1000 Sq.Feet Gross Floor Area
.. Fitted Curve ------ Avenperam
Actlmr Oeste Points
Fitted Curve Equatton: Ln(7)=0.90 Ln(X)*1.53 R2=0.77
Me Trip Gerr mUdn,9th Edition o Ins*uts ot-rransportation Engineers
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Dental&General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 23 of 42 September 5, 2017
General Office Building
(710)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq.Feet Gross Floor Area
on a: weekday,
A.M.Peak Hour ;
Number of Studies: 218
Average 1000 Sq.Feet GFA: 222
Directional Distribution: 88%entering, 12%exiting _
Feet Gross Floor Area
Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. standard pevia'
Range of Rates
Average Rst2 1.40
1.56 0.80 - 5.98
Data Plot and Equation
a,Doa
w ;
m
s,aoo
a x x
k _ _
1.000 X
X
x
x' xx x
at`x
D 20M soca
0 000
X 1 pp0 Sq.Fest Gross Floor Area
Fllbd CUT" ------ Ave"Rab
: Aclusl Para Paints
IRS 0.83
FOW Curve Equation: Ln
s fl.801 n(X)r 1.57 =
(T}
3
12W flip aeMratloe,9th Edition • lnSMute of Yren$PGn8tion Engl"w'
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Dental&General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 24 of 42 September 5, 2017
3` General Office Building
(710)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq.Feet Gross Floor Area
On a: Weekday,
P.M.Peak Hour
Number of Studies: 236
Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 215
Directional Distribution: 170%entering,63%exiting
Trip Generation per 1000 Sq.Feet Gross Floor Area
Average Rate Flange of Rates Standard Deviation
1.49 0.49 - 6.39 1.37
Data Plot and Equation
4.000
X
3,000
w ia
CD i
yz,a00 -
1.000
X
ft
a
1000 8000 8000 t
X=1000 Sq.Feet Gross Floor Area
prlr
Aclw!Date POM
Curet ----- A9rr i
Rz z 0.6� 1
Fitted Curve Equndon: T a 1,12(X)+M45
a
Tdp Generation,9th Edwon a IndWM of 7ranspart0w Engineers 1261
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Dental&General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 25 of 42 September 5, 2017
Appendix C
Synchro Traffic Capacity Analysis Worksheets
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Dental&General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 26 of 42 September 5, 2017
HGM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2017 Site+Nan-Site-AM
1: N Kimball Ave&E Highland St 914/2017
l --t t 4j
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 'rpt ) tt f1l;.
Volume(vehlh) 2i' 50 28 270 656 46
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 01A
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate(vph) 23 54 30 293 715 59
Pedestrians
Lane Width(ft)
Walking Speed(fUs)
Percent Blockage
Right tum flare(veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal(fl)
pX,platoon unblocked
vC,conflicting volume 946 383 765
VC 1.stage 1 Genf vol
vC2,stage 2 conf vol
vGu,unblocked vol 948 383 765
tG,single(s) 6.6 6.9 4.1
IC,2 stage(s)
tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free% 91 91 96
cM capacity(vehlh) 250 615 844
Direction,Lane N EB 1 NB 1 NB 2 N8 3 SB 1 SB 2
Volume Total 77 30 147 147 477 288
Volume Left 23 30 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 54 0 0 0 0 50
cSH 429 844 1700 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.18 0.04 0.09 0.09 0.28 0.17
Queue Length 95th(ft) 16 3 0 0 0 0
Control Delay(s) 15.2 9.4 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0
Lane LOS C A
Approach Delay(a) 15.2 0.9 0.0
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.3 -
Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period(min) 15
Med_Gen_2017_Site_Plus_Non-Site_AM_REV_1.syn Page 1
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Dental&General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 27 of 42 September 5, 2017
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Anaiysis 2017 Site+Non-Site-AM
2:N Kimball Ave& Driveway 1/Shady Ln 91412017
_# _. l ,,(, 41-- 1 /. '* l w
Movement EBL EBT EBR W6L WBT WBR N8L NBT NBR SBL SBT SSR
Lane Configurations 4+ 4+ 1 tT. I ti.
Volume(vehlh) 4 0 5 9 0 4 36 290 10 8 690 10
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate(vph) 4 0 7 10 0 4 39 315 11 9 750 11
Pedestrians
Lane Width(ft}
Walking Speed(fifs)
Percent8tockage
Right tum flare(veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal(ft)
pX,piatoon unblocked
vC,conflicting volume 1013 1177 380 798 1177 163 761 326
vC1,stage 1 coni vol
vC2,stage 2 coni vol
vCu,unblocked vol 1013 1177 380 798 1177 163 761 326
tC,single(s) 7,5 6.5 6-9 7.6 6.6 6,9 4.1 4.1
tC,2 stage(s)
tF(s) 3.5 4,0 3.3 3.5 4,0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free% 98 100 99 96 100 99 95 99
cM capacity(vehlh) 184 180 617 263 180 853 847 1230
Direction,Lane# EB Y WB 1 NB 1 NO2 NB 3 SBI SB 2 SB 3
Volume Total 11 14 39 210 116 9 500 261
Volume Left 4 10 39 0 0 9 0 0
Volume Right 7 4 0 0 11 0 0 11
cSH 31B 334 847 1700 1700 1230 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.12 0.07 0.01 0.29 6.15
Queue Length 95th(ft) 3 3 4 0 0 1 0 0
Control Delay(s) 16.7 16.3 9.5 0.0 0.0 7,9 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS C C A A
Approach Delay(s) 16.7 16.3 1.0 0.1
Approach LOS C C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.1% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period(min) 15
Med_Gon_2017_Site_Plus_Non-Site_AM_REV_l.syn Page 2
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Dental&General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 28 of 42 September 5, 2017
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2017 Site+Non-Site-AM
3: N Kimball Ave&Driveway 2/Yeargain Ct 9f412017
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NST NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 4$ 4$ ) t1r. ) fT�
Volume(vehm) 1 0 8 7 0 1 36 334 1 4 691 10
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 C.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate(vph) 1 0 9 8 0 1 39 363 1 4 751 11
Pedestrians
Lane Width(ft)
Walking Speed(fVs(
Percent Blockage
Right turn Flare(veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal(ft)
pX,platoon unblocked
vC,conflicting volume 1026 1208 381 835 1212 182 762 364
vC1,stage 1 car(vol
vC2,stage 2 wnf vol
vCu,unblocked vol 1026 1208 381 835 1212 182 762 364
tC,singie,(s) 7,5 6,5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4,1 4,1
tC,2 stage(s)
tF(s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
p0 queue free% 99 100 99 97 ICO 100 95 100
cM capacity(vehlh) 181 173 617 247 172 829 846 1191
Direction,Lane# EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 S32 S8 3
Volume Total 10 9 39 242 122 4 601 261
Vatume Left 1 8 39 0 0 4 0 0
Volume Right 9 1 0 0 1 0 0 11
cSH 487 271 846 1700 1700 1191 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.14 0.07 0.01) 0.29 0.15
Queue Length 95th(R) 2 2 4 0 C 0 0 0
Control Delay(s) 12.5 18.7 9.5 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS B C A A
Approach Delay(s) 12.5 18.7 0.9 0.0
Approach LOS B C
fniersection Summa
Average Delay 0.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.1% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period(min) 15
Med_Gen_2017_Site_Plus_Non-Ske_AM_REV_l.syn Page 3
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Dental&General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 29 of 42 September 5, 2017
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2017 Site+Non-Site-PM
1:N Kimball Ave& E Highland St 914)2017
} Z 4., t 4.1
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SET SBR
Lane Configurations Y ) 44 +1*
Volume(Vehlh) 9 31 37 659 380 8
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 01K 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate(vph) 10 34 40 716 413 9
Pedestrians
Lane Width(ft)
Walking Speed(fits)
Percent Blockage
Right tum Care(veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal(ft)
pX,platoon unblocked
VC,conflicting volume 856 211 422
VC 1,stage I coni vol
vC2.stage 2 conf vol
VOL,u*ocked vol 856 211 422
IC,single(s) 6.8 6.9 4.1
tQ 2 stage(s)
tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free% 97 96 96
cM capacity(vehm) 286 795 1134
Direction,Lane# EB 1 NG 1 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2
Volume Total 43 40 358 358 275 146
Volume Left 10 40 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 34 0 0 0 0 9
cSH 568 1134 1700 1700 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.04 0.21 0.21 0.16 0.09
Queue Length 95th(ft) 5 3 0 0 0 0
Control Delay(s) 11.9 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS B A
Approach Delay(s) 11.9 0A 0.0
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.7
intersection Capacity Utilization 28.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period(min) 15
Med_Gen_2017_Site_Plus_Non•Site_PM_REV_1.syn Page 1
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Dental&General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 30 of 42 September 5, 2017
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2017 Site+Non-Site-PM
2:N Kimball Ave&Driveway 1/Shady Ln 9W2017
-j" -► * i' - ,- 1 T * ,-
Movement EBL EBT ESR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 40 4 T'l� Ili +r+
Volume(vehlh) 18 0 55 3 0 9 15 669 15 9 396 6
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate(vph) 20 0 60 3 0 10 16 727 16 10 430 7
Pedeslrians
Lane Width(fl)
Walking Speed(ftls)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal(ft)
pX,platoon unblocked
vC,conflictng volume 859 1229 218 1062 1224 372 437 743
VC1,stage 1 coni vol
vC2,stage 2 conf vol
vCu,unblocked vol 859 1229 218 1062 1224 372 437 743
1C,single(s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1
1C,2 stage(s)
IF(s) 3.5 4.0 3.3 35 4.0 3.3 2.2 2,2
p0 queue free% 92 100 92 98 100 98 99 99
cM capacity(vehlh) 241 172 786 161 173 626 1119 860
Direction,Lane# EB 1 WB 1 N61 NB 2 NB 3 SB 1 SB 2 SB 3
Volume Total 79 13 16 485 259 10 287 150
Volume Lett 20 3 16 0 0 10 0 0
Volume Right 60 10 0 0 16 0 0 7
GSH 505 363 1119 1700 1700 860 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.16 0.04 0.01 0.29 0.15 0.01 0.17 0.09
Queue Length 95th(fl) 14 3 1 0 0 1 0 0
Conhr0 Delay js) 13.5 15.3 8.3 0.0 0.0 9.2 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS B C A A
Approach Delay(s) 13.5 15.3 0.2 0.2
Approach LOS B C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.5% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period(min) 15
Med_Ger_2017_Site_Plus_Ncn-Site_PM_,REV_l.syn Page 2
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Dental&General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 31 of 42 September 5, 2017
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2017 Site f Non-Site-PM
3:N Kimball Ave& Driveway 2/Yeargain Ct 91a12a17
--I' -. --v r - "i h t /0
Movement i EBT EBR W8L WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SSL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations +:r* 4 �Ti: ) tf+
Volume(vehlh( 15 0 55 2 0 1 15 683 3 0 449 5
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 C.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Hourly flow rate(vphJ 16 0 60 2 0 1 16 742 3 0 488 5
Pedestnans
Lane Width(fl)
Walking Speed(fr(s)
Percent Blockage
Right tum flare(veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh}
Upstream signal(ft)
pX,platoon unblocked
vC,conflicting volume 696 1269 247 1060 1270 373 493 746
vC1,stage 1 coni vol
v02,stage 2 conf vol
vCu,unblocked vol 896 1269 247 1080 1270 373 493 746
tC,single(s) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 4.1 4.1
tC,2 stage(s)
tF(s) 3.5 4,0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2
pC queue free% 93 100 92 99 100 100 98 100
cM capacity(vei 232 164 753 157 164 625 1066 856
Direction,Lane# E8 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 NB 3 SS 1 SB 2 SB 3
Volume Total 76 3 16 495 251 0 325 168
Volume Left 16 2 16 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 60 1 0 0 3 0 0 5
c8H 509 209 1066 1700 1700 1700 4700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.15 0.02 0.02 0.29 0.15 0.00 0.19 010
Queue Length 95th(ft) 13 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Control Delay(s) 13.3 22.5 8.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS B C A
Approach Delay(s) 13.3 22.5 0.2 O.0
Approach LOS B C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.9
intersection Capacity Utilization 29.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Penod(min) 15
Med_Gen_2017_Site_Plus_Non-Site_PM_REV_1.syn Page 3
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Dental&General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 32 of 42 September 5, 2017
Appendix D
Relevant Excerpts
from the
City of Southlake Access Management Standards
and the
TxDOT Access Management Manual
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Dental&General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 33 of 42 September 5, 2017
DRIVEWAY ORDINANCE NO.634
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE ESTABLISHING
CRITERIA AND REGULATIONS FOR THE DESIGN,CONSTRUCTION,
LOCATION,SPACING,RELOCATION AND REMOVAL OF DRIVEWAYS;
PROVIDING FOR DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR PERMIT
REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING A REVIEW PROCESS; PROVIDING
ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES;PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE
SHALL BE CUMULATIVE OF ALL ORDINANCES; PROVIDING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY FOR
VIOLATIONS HEREOF;PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE;PROVIDING
FOR PUBLICATION IN TETE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER;AND PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS,the City of Southlake,Texas is a home rule City acting under its charter
adopted by the electorate pursuant to Article XI,Section 5 of the Texas Constitution and Chapter
9 of the Local Government Code;and
WHEREAS,driveway access and design regulation can reduce the number of vehicular
accidents by reducing the number of conflicting turning movements;and
WHEREAS,driveway access and design regulation can reduce congestion and increase
roadway capacity by reducing the number of driveways and approaches;and
WHEREAS,driveway access and design regulation can matte roadways safer by locating
driveways outside of the hazardous areas of intersections;
WHEREAS,driveway access and design regulation can increase tax revenues by improving
the image of the City of Southlake and attracting new business,industry,and residents,and
WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Southlake has determined that driveway access
and design regulation is necessary to adequately protect the public health,safety,and welfare.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SOUTHLAKE,TEXAS:
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Dental&General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 34 of 42 September 5, 2017
5.0]]I:SI IN CRITERIA
The following standards shall be followed in the design and construction of driveways within
the City of Southlake.
5.1 DESIGN STANDARDS:1be values in Table One represent minimum and/or maximum
standards to be applied in designing and locating driveways on City streets.
_7_
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Dental&General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 35 of 42 September 5, 2017
T til E NE
(including notes on the following page)
Crltcria Street Residential
Commercial& Service Driveway
Classification Driteway multi-Family
Driveway
Driveway Throat S.11.114&frontage roads 12-20 ft.
width' 24-40 ft. 30A8 fL
F.M.1438,P.M.1709,S.H.26 12-20 R 24-40 ft 30-48 ft,
Arterial 12-20 ft. 24-40 ft. 30.48 ft.
Collector 12-20 ft. 24-40 fLe 30-48 ft,•
I.,ocal Street 12-20 ft 240 fi.�
24-36 ft.r
Driveway Curd S.H.114&&ontageroads 20-25 fL
Radius` 20.30 ft. 25-40 ft
F.M.1938,F.M.1709,S.H.26 20-25 fL 20-30 ft. 2510 ft.
Arterial 20-25 ft. 20-30 R
25-30 ft.
Collector 15-20 ft. 10.20 8.•
10-20 ft.9
Local Street 5-10 ft. 10-20 ft.* 10-20 ILO
mum Distance to S.H.114&frontage roads 150 ft.
section Along 2D0 ft 200 ft.
kaadway$ F.M.193$,F.M.1709,S.H.26 150 ft. 500 fL 200 ft.
Arterial 150 ft. 200 ft. 200 k
Collector 50 R
150 ft.• 150 ft.ti
Local Street 30 ft, 100 ft* 100 ft.*
Minimum Centerline S.H.114&frontageroads g0 ft
Driveway Spacing 500 ft.+ 500 ft,+
Along Roadwayr F.M.1938,F.M.1709,S.H.26 80 ft 500 ft t 250 ft.*
Arterial 1030 250 ft 250 fL*
Collector 40 it 1150 fLe 150 fLe
Local Street 20 ft. 100 ft*
100 ft.s
-h
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Dental&General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 36 of 42 September 5, 2017
TABLE ONE NOTES-
' "Rte requirements for Driveway Throat Width and Driveway Curb Radius are for standard undivided two-way
operation and may be varied by the Director if traffic volumes,truck usage,common driveways,and other
factors warrant such
-
t The minimum centerline spacing does not implicitly determine the number of driveways allowed.Driveways
served by deceleration lanes may be spaced at closer intervals if approved by the Director.See Section 5.2(b)
for additional restrictions on driveway locations along S.H.114 frontage roads.
t Distance measured from the intersecting R.O.W.line to the center€ine of the driveway.See Section 52(h)for
additional restrictions on driveway locations along S.H.1 t4 frontage roads_
* Service driveway centerline spacing tnay be reduced to 15V if the ingresslegress volume is less titan 50 vehicles
per day and it the service driveway is a secondary driveway ancillary to a commercial driveway within the
same development.
♦ The minimum centerline spacing may be reducod to 250'provided that the driveway is connecting directly to a
frontage road and provided that it meets the criteria in Section 5,20).
• Refer to Section 5.2(c).Commercial,multi-family and service driveways may not be permitted on collector or
local streets.
o Them minium cemerline spacing maybe reduced to 250'for right-Wright- ut driveways-Refer to Section
5.2(a)-
5.2 GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA
a. DRIVEWAYS ON F.M.1709,F.M. 1938&INTERSECTING ARTERIALS:
The minimum centerline spacing for hill-access driveways on F.M.1709&F-M.
1938 is 500 feet as per Table One;however,the minimum centerline spacing may
be reduced to 250 feet for right-in/right-out driveways in accordance with
Appendix 1. Driveways constructed within 250 feet of an intersection of F.M.
1709 or F.M.1938 and an arterial shall be right-in/right-out only. All right-
in/right-out drives shall be designed in accordance with Appendix 5 and shall
have signs placed at the Applicants expense indicating right turn in only facing
the street and right turn out only facing the property.
b. DRIVEWAYS ON S.FI. 114: Driveways along S.H_114(and its future frontage
roads)shall be designed in accordance with Texas Department of Transportation
(TxDOT)access control guidelines as applicable to the conceptual design and
alignments of the proposed reconstruction of S.H.114.Driveways will be not be
allowed within areas indicated as"access denied"as per Appendices 2&3.
c. DRIVEWAYS PROHIBITED:Commercial,multi-family and service driveways
shall not be permitted on collector or local streets unless the tract or lot has no
other public access.In the event there is no other public access,commercial,
9_
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Dental&General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 37 of 42 September 5, 2017
multi-family and service driveways shall be permitted on collector or local streets
provided that they meet the design standards in Section 5.1.
d- REQUIRED INTERNAL STORAGE(STACKING I MINIMUM THROAT
LENGTH):The driveway for any multi-family,commercial or industrial property
that connects to a major street facility or collector or local street shall extend onto
private property a rninimtmt distance of 10 feet,but not Icss than the required
front bufferyard width,from the right-of-way line before intersecting any internal
circulation drive. Internal storage(stacking)shall be provided on multi-family,
commercial or industrial properties for corresponding driveways in accordance
with Table Two for driveways that provide ingresslegress to parking areas of 20
or greater spaces.
TABLE TWQ
Average Number of 'Total Number of Minimum Storage Length
Parking Spaces per Parking Spaces$
D rivewayt
20-49 2049 (bufferyard width+18')or 28;
whichever is greater
50-199 50'
200+ 75'
50 to 199 50-199 75'
2001 100'
200+ 200+ 150`
t The average number of parking spaces per driveway is calculated by dividing the total
number of parking spaces by the number o€commercial&multi-family driveways.(Service
driveways are not included in the calculation.)
$ The total number of parking spaces is the sum of all spaces accessible by a driveway or
driveways both on-site and oft-site.
The internal storage shall be separated from parking areas by a raised curb island
or median with a back-ofLcurb to back-of-curb width equal to the minimum
storage length divided by 25 or 3 feet,whichever is greater- Planting
requirements for the island or median shall be in accordance with Sections 3.4(b)
and 3.5 of the Landscape Ordinance No.544,excluding the requirements for
canopy trees. Appropriate signage(e.g,stop,yield,etc.)shall be placed for any
vehicular cross movement or internal circulation that intersects the ingress/egress
circulation beyond the required internal storage.
W-
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Dental&General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 38 of 42 September 5, 2017
e. COMMON ACCESS EASEMENTS:The use of common driveways shall require
the dedication of a joiut-use private access easement on each affected property.
Said dedication shall be provided on the final plat of the subject properties,or be
filed by separate instrument with Tarrant County with a copy forwarded to the
City.
The common access easement shall encompass the entire width of the planned
driveway plus an additional width of one foot(1')on both sides of the drive.At a
minimum,the size of the access easement must be twelve(IT)feet wide and
fifteen(15')feet deep for residential driveways or twenty-six(26)feet wide and
forty-two(42')feet deep for commercial and service driveways.When the center
of the easement is offset from the common lot tine,the easement must extend past
the lot line a minimum distance of one(1)foot.
f RADIUS RETURN LIMIT:For any driveway,the point of radius return tangency
with the street curb shall not extend beyond the property line(projected
perpendicular to the street centerline)except as provided in common driveway
agreements and as approved by the Director.
g. CURB LEAVE-OUTS:If a street curb is to be left out for later installation of a
driveway,the driveway shall be poured within six(6)months of the issuance of
the permit,or the curb shall be replaced_
h. UTILITY OFFSET MINIMUM:No portion of any driveway shalt be located
within four(4')feet of any fire hydrant,electrical pole,or any other surface public
utility, The Applicant,at his expense,may have the surface utility moved,if the
public utility agency determines that the move will not detrimentally affect the
service.
i. CURB INLET DRAINAGE OFFSET:The driveway curb return at the point of
tangency with the street curb shall not be located within(a)five(5')feet of the
downstream edge or ten(10')feet of the upstream edge of a straight curb inlet or
inlet extension or(b)within ten(10')feet of a recessed inlet.
j. OFF-STREET MANEUVERING:All vehicle maneuvering on multi-family,
commercial,and industrial properties into a parking space or up to a loading dock
or into any other area shall be accomplished by off-street maneuvering arras and
internal driveways. No back-in or baek-out vehicle maneuvering from a driveway
shall be allowed to occur on any public street or right-of-way with the exception
of residential drives on local streets.
k. ADEQUATE SIGHT DISTANCE:Driveways shall he prohibited where adequate
sight distance is not available for the established speed limit Sight distances shall
be calculated in accordance with the latest edition of the AASHTO"A Policy on
Geometric Design of Hirhways and Streets." if a field inspection indicates that
ti -
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Dental&General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 39 of 42 September 5, 2017
driveway sight distance may be insufficient,6e Applicant will be required to
submit vertical and horizontal information prepared by a registered Professional
Engineer to the City Engineer that verifies adequate sight distance is available for
the proposed driveway location.
1, SITE PIAN REQUIRED:A site plan showing all existing right-of-way,
easements,curbs,storm drain inlets,flumes,underground and overhead utilities,
trees and sidewalks shalt be required for each non-residential driveway permit
application. The proposed driveway grades shall also be shown for a minimum
distance of fifteen(15')feet past the right-of-way line. All driveways and median
openings within 150 feet of the subject property on both sides of each abutting
street shall be.shown on the site plan. If an adjacent street contains a raised
median,showing driveway(s)on the opposite side of the street shall not be
required unless a median opening is present or proposed.
5.3 RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS
a CIRCULAR DRIVES:Circular drives are allowed on residential lots not fronting
on arterial or collector thoroughfares. There shall be 25'minimum distance
between the two interior portions of the drives at the R.O.W.line.The minimum
lot frontage required to construct a circular drive is 70 feet.
b_ COMMON DRIVE WIDTH:A residential driveway shared by two or more
properties shall have a minimum throat width of twelve(IT)feet. A common
access easement shall also be required as described in Section 3.5.Shared
residential driveways may be required for adjoining residential lots on major
street facilities to reduce the number of access points on those roadways.
c. ACCESS TO MAJOR STREET FACILITY:Driveway access to a residential lot
from any major street facility shall not be permitted unless that lot has no other
public access. If such a driveway is approved on a major street facility,an off-
street maneuvering area approved by the Director shall be provided to ensure that
vehicles will not back into the public street. Driveway access to a residential lot
from a collector street may be denied if either(a)the lot has access to a local
street or(b)the proposed access would create a traffic flow or safety problem
unless there is no other access.
5.4 AIAILIARY LANES
a. VIFMN REQUIRED:As a condition of a Driveway Permit,the Applicant shall
provide a deceleration lane for any driveway located on an arterial street if the
right turn ingress volume exceeds 50 vehicles in the design hour(150 vehicles if
the design hour occurs on a Sunday). If the existing or future speed limit on the
street facility exceeds 40 MPI{,a deceleration lane may be required if 40 right
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Dental&General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 40 of 42 September 5, 2017
turn ingress vehicles occur in the design hour(100 vehicles if the design hour
occurs on a Sunday)_
b. DRIVEWAYS PROHIBITED: No driveway shall be permitted within the
transition area of any separate right turn or deceleration lane.
c. EXTENSION OF RIGHT TURN LANE:When a driveway is approved within
the separate right tum lane of a public street intersection,the lane shall be
extended a minimum of fifty(50')feet in advance of the driveway.
d. CONTINUOUS DECELERATION LANE:A continuous deceleration lane may
be required as a condition of a driveway permit when two or more deceleration
lanes are planned and their proximity necessitates that they be combined for
proper traffic flow and safety. The transition taper for a continuous deceleration
lane shall not extend into or beyond a public street intersection.
e. LEFT TURN LANES ON UNDIVIDED ROADS:On undivided arterial
roadways,a left tum lane and taper may be required as a condition of the
driveway permit when the product of the projected left turn ingress volume(50
minimum)and the opposing volume per lane exceeds 25,000 in any design hour.
In such cases,a Traffic Impact Analysis shall be provided by the Applicant to
analyze the present and future traffic volumes to verify that the left turn lane is
necessary to maintain minimum levels of traffic flow and safety,
f. LEFT TURN LANES ON DIVIDED ROADS:On divided arterial roadways,the
Applicant shall,as a condition of the permit,construct a left tum lane at an
existing public street median opening when the proposed driveway will be served
by such median opening and no left tum lane exists in the median.
g. TEMPORARY AUXILIARY LANE:The Director may require a temporary
auxiliary lane to be constructed on existing arterial roadways that are planned for
future improvement.
h_ DECELERATION LANE EXTENSION:In the event the Applicant is allowed to
locate a driveway connecting to a deceleration lane within one hundred(100')feet
of an arterial intersection,the Applicant shall be required to extend the
deceleration lane to such intersection. The one hundred(100')feet shall be
measured from the nearest edge of the driveway throat to the nearest R.O.W.line
of the intersecting arterial.
i. CONSTRUCTION COSTS:The Applicant shall be responsible for the design,
right-0f--way adjustment of utilities,and construction costs of any auxiliary lane
and street widening required as a condition of the driveway permit. If for any
reason an auxiliary lane required under this Ordinance cannot be constructed in
conjunction with the driveway by the Applicant,the Applicant may be required to
place all necessary funds in escrow with the City.
It
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Dental&General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 41 of 42 September 5, 2017
C'hapler l %corion 3--Numirer.Lewation.and SpaCing of.•1CCCSN
Connections
where heavy left-turn movements take place,but also occur where left-tuns movements enter or
leave drivcways serving adjacent land development.As with left-turn movements,right-turn inove-
ments pose problems at both driveways and street intersections. flight-turn movements increase
conflicts,delays,and crashes,particularly where a speed differential of 14 mph or more exists
between the speed of through traffic and the vehicles that are turning right.
Table 2-3 presents thresholds for auxiliary lanes.These thresholds represcnt t:xamples of where left
turn and right turn lanes should be considered.Refer to the'NDO T Roa(firrn•1)eTign Manual,
Chapter 3,for proper acceleration and deceleration lengths.
Table 2-3:Auxiliary lane Thresholds
Right"turn to or from Property 61
t1Mediaa Type Lett Turn to or from Property
Aecetcration Deceleration Acceleration Deceleration
Non-Traversable (2) All W✓ Right tum egress • i 45 mph where right
(Raiwd Median) 200 vph(4) tum volume is>50
vph(3)
♦ ::45 where right tum
volume is;,60 vph f3)
Traversable IUndi- (2) (1) Same as above tiame as Above
vided Road)
(1)Refer to Table.i-I t.TxDOT km0 av Deaign,tfamual,for alternative left-tum-bay operational considerations.
12)A lett-turu acceleration lane may be required if it would provide a benefit to the safety and operation or the road-
way.A left-tum acceleration lane would interfere with the left-tttm ingress movements to any other access
eonnection.
(3)Additional right-turn considerations:
• Conditions for providing an exclusive right-tum lane when the right-tum traffic volume projections are less than
indicated in Table 2-3:
• High crash experience
• Heavier than normal peak flow movements on the main roadway
■ Large volume of tack traffic
• Highways~shoe sight distance is limited
• Conditions for NOT requiring a right-tum lane where right-turn volumes are more thmi indicated in Table 2-3:
• Dense or built-nut corridor where space is limited
• Where queues of stopped vehicles would block the access to the right turn lane
• where sufficient length of property width is not available for the appropriate design
(4)She acceleration lane should not interfere with any downstream access connection.
a The distance from the end of the acceleration lane roper to the next unsignali7ed downstream access confection
should he equal to or greater than the distances Bound in Table 2-2.
♦ .additionally,if the next access connection is signalized,the distance from the end of the acceleration lane taper to
the back of the 90th percentile queue should be greater than or equal to the distances found Table 2-2.
(5)Continuous right-tum lanes can provide mobility benefits both for through movements and for the turning vehi-
cles''Access connections within a continuous right turn lane should mee[the spacing requirements found in Table 2-
2.However,when combined with crossing telt in movements,a continuous right-tum lane can introduce additional
operational conflicts.
.4cc•ess Management Manual ?-14 YkWrO712011
Revised Traffic Impact Analysis:Proposed Medical-Dental&General Office Development in Southlake, Texas
Page 42 of 42 September 5, 2017
Chapter 3—New Location and Reconstruction(4R) Section 2—Urban Streets
Design Criteria
Table 3-3:Lengths of Single Left-'Vern Lanes on Urban Streetst
1 11 (US Customary)
35 215 50 See footnote 3 100 See footnote 5 100
40 275 50 See footnote 3 100 See footnote 5 100
45 345 100 See footnote 3 100 See footnote 5 100
50 425 too See footnote 3 100 See footnote 5 100
55 510 100 See footnote 3 100 See footnote 5 100
(Metric)
Speed Deceleration Taper Storage Length(m)
(wn/h) Lengthz(m) Length(m)
Signaiized Nan-Signalized
Calculated Mimmum4 Calculated Minimum4
50 50 15 See footnote 3 30 See footnote 5 30
60 65 15 See footnote 3 30 See footnote 5 30
70 85 30 See footnote 3 30 See footnote 5 30
s0 105 30 See footnote 3 30 See footnote 5 30
90 130 30 See footnote 3 30 See footnote 5 1 30
1 The minimum length of a left-tuna lane is the sum ofthe deceleration length plus queue storage. In order to
determine the design length,the deceleration plus storage length must he calculated for peak and off-peak
periods,the longest total length will be the minimum design length.
2 See Deceleration Length discussion immediately following Table 3-3.
3 See Storage Length Calculations discussion immediately following Table 3-3A.
4 The minimum storage length shall apply when:1)the required queue storage length calculated is less than
the minimum length,or 2)there is no rational method for estimating the left-tum volume.
5 The calculated queue storage at unsignalized location using a traffic model or simulation model or by the
following:
L m(V130)(2)(S)
where:(V130)is the left-turn volume in a two-minute interval and other terms are as defined in the
Storage Length Calculations discussion immediately following Table 3-3A.
Deceleration Length. Deceleration length assumes that moderate deceleration will occur in the
through traffic lane and the vehicle entering the left-turn lane will clear the through traffic lane at a
speed of 10 mph(15 km/h)slower than through traffic.Where providing this deceleration length is
Roadway Design Manual 3-14 TxD0T 10/2014