Item 7B Lee Review of TIA and Parking Analysis
ARIZONA
TEXAS
NEW MEXICO
OKLAHOMA
3030 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1660, Dallas, TX 75234
(972) 248-3006 office (972) 248-3855 fax | www.leeengineering.com Page 1 of 4
June 7, 2018
Steven Anderson, P.E.
City of Southlake
1400 Main Street, Suite 320
Southlake, Texas 76092
Re: Southwest Meadows Parking and Traffic Impact Analyses – Combined Review #3
Dear Mr. Anderson:
Per your request, we have completed a review of the updated parking study and TIA conducted for the
proposed Southwest Meadows development, to be located on the southeast corner of the intersection of
SH 114 and Kirkwood Boulevard in Southlake, Texas. The TIA was prepared by DeShazo Group, Inc., and
dated April 19, 2018. The parking study was prepared by DeShazo Group, Inc., and dated May 30, 2018.
PARKING STUDY REVIEW COMMENTS
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 parking study was updated to indicate that the hotel will include 3,500 square feet of restaurant
space, rather than the previous 1,588 square feet. Additionally, the total square footage of the stand-
alone restaurants sites was changed to 15,000 square feet rather than the previous 17,868 square
feet.
2. Based on this revised land use data, this study calculated that a minimum of 334 parking spaces
would be required for the site based on City code.
ACTION COMMENTS (REQUIRE RESPONSE OR ACTION BY CITY OR APPLICANT)
3. This study continued to attempt to utilize ITE time of day distribution data for parking demand and
ULI Shared Parking methodology to account for non-captive parking. However, these methodologies
were applied to City code as the demand variable instead of Parking Demand ratios presented in
either ITE Parking Generation or ULI Shared Parking. Use of the demand ratios from either
publication would result in a larger calculated parking demand for the site.
4. Parking studies conducted by Kimley-Horn and Associates for other hotel sites were provided in the
Appendix of this report to justify reduced parking demands. The sites in these studies were located
Page 2 of 4
in very urbanized areas, while Southlake is generally suburban. In addition, the Highland Hotel
studied and presented is located less than a quarter-mile from a major light rail transit station.
• Hotel parking studies will be considered in order to reduce the parking requirements,
however the sites selected should be more similar in scope and location to the proposed site
than the two selected locations.
5. The parking study does not indicate how many parking spaces will be provided by the site.
6. Based on the proposed site information and data presented in the study, Lee Engineering does not
support the reduced parking requirement of 270 spaces attributed to the site in the parking study.
7. A reduced parking value for the hotel compared to City code alone appears somewhat justified based
on ITE Business Hotel parking demand data. It is our understanding that 138 spaces are currently
proposed for the Hotel.
• It is important to recognize that many of the spaces provided for the hotel will be utilized by
the restaurant uses at various times of the day so it is important to consider that the lower
the hotel is parked, the less opportunity to share parking between the sites.
8. There are numerous elements to consider in determining the parking requirements for this site. It is
important that the site be considered as a whole because the interaction between the hotel and
restaurant uses is critical to the provision of suitable parking on the site. Key factors and elements
to consider include:
• The lack of adjacent large office or church complexes that could provide overflow parking.
• Restaurants are likely the worst case parking requirement for the site. Spa, health/wellness,
or boutique retail would likely require less parking than the proposed restaurants.
• The specific mix and type of restaurants is important to how the parking interacts between
the restaurants and the available spaces at the hotel site.
i. If the three restaurants trend more toward high-turnover family restaurants with no
bar facilities then the parking demand would be lower, especially on weekend
evenings than if the restaurants were more of a quality/fine dining type
establishment.
Restaurant type Parking Demand Peak
High turnover sit-down
(Family restaurant with no bar) Lower Midday
Quality Restaurant
(Fine/Casual Dining with bar) Higher Evenings
Friday-Saturday
• The restaurants could have an undetermined number of seats available on patios or outdoors
that may increase parking demands, yet not be accounted for in parking supply or demand
calculations based strictly on building area.
• Some parking surplus is necessary above peak demand so that site circulation is not impacted
and drivers are able to find a space. A 5 to 10% surplus above peak demand is a common
surplus value.
Page 3 of 4
9. As cited in comment #3, the study utilized City Code as the demand variable before adjusting
downwards using various ITE and ULI variables and methodologies to arrive at the 270 spaces
presented in the parking study. Had the starting point for the adjusted calculations been average ITE
and ULI demand ratios, the resulting parking calculation would have likely been higher for the site,
before providing any surplus.
i. Industry publications generally recommend parking demand be calculated based on
85th percentile demand, which better accounts for some locations being more
successful than others, and results in less potential for the site to be under parked.
ii. Depending on the mix of restaurants, Lee Engineering calculates the following
average parking demands for the site with the following assumptions – business
hotel, no outside usage of restaurant in hotel, no outside usage of meeting space in
hotel, and 15,000 SF of restaurants on the outparcels:
1. 271 space demand Saturday with all family restaurants
2. 316 space demand Friday/Saturday night with all quality restaurants
3. Once a surplus is applied this would result in 301 to 351 space supply being
necessary for the site under average demands.
10. Lee Engineering concurs with the code calculation and has yet to review compelling information
suggesting lower parking for the site than the 334 spaces calculated in code is appropriate.
• The restaurant uses alone may require more parking than the 270 spaces presented as the
requirement in the study, particularly on the weekend.
11. The current parking demand calculation of 270 spaces presented in the parking study appears to be
minimalistic in that it would generally provide the lowest supply number necessary for the site.
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REVIEW COMMENTS
INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS (REQUIRE NO ACTION BY CITY OR APPLICANT)
12. The revised traffic impact analysis calculates a total site trip generation estimate of 3,090 trips on a
daily basis, with 219 trips during the AM peak hour and 200 trips during the PM peak hour.
ACTION COMMENTS (REQUIRE RESPONSE OR ACTION BY CITY OR APPLICANT)
13. The distribution of trips between Driveway 1 and Driveway 2 was revised, and the study now states
that the requirements for a right turn lane on Kirkwood Boulevard at Driveway 1 are met.
o The outer lane on eastbound Kirkwood Boulevard terminates at T W King as a right-turn only
lane just downstream of the proposed site driveways. This outer lane will function as a de
facto right turn lane for the site driveways and TW King and the construction of a separate
right-turn lane may not be necessary.
o It will still be necessary and required to construct a westbound left turn lane at Driveway 1.
14. It should be noted that the analysis and site plan presented in this TIA do not appear to match either
the land use assumptions presented in the updated parking study or the latest site plan presented to
the City.
Page 4 of 4
• However, the changes in land uses are relatively small and are not expected to have a major
effect on the traffic analysis. The TIA conclusions are anticipated to remain the same if the
updated land use were utilized.
15. Previous review comments requested an explanation for the improvement in delay/LOS at the
diamond interchange in 2021 after site traffic has been added to the intersections. No explanation
was noted.
16. Table 7, the roadway link capacity analyses still only provides analysis for the AM peak hour. The PM
analysis should be shown as well.
17. The internal stacking section was updated to indicate 100’ of stacking at each driveway as required
per City ordinance.
o According to the TIA, approximately 50’ of stacking will be provided for the Kirkwood
Boulevard driveways and only 75’ will be provided for Driveway 3 on the SH 114 frontage
road based on the proposed site plan.
o The proposed driveway storage lengths do NOT meet requirements.
o Queuing analysis presented in the report indicates that the anticipated 95th percentile
queues on each driveway is less than one vehicle.
Based on the information presented in the report, reduced throat depths appear
acceptable.
18. On page 1, Finding 4 should read that a right-turn lane is required at Driveway 1, not Driveway 2.
• This comment also applies to the Summary section on page 17.
19. On the second paragraph on page 17, “eastbound” right turn volume on SH 114 NBFR is not correct.
Sincerely,
John Denholm III, P.E., PTOE
Senior Project Manager
Lee Engineering
TBPE Firm F-450