Item 4G - MemoItem 4G
Page 1 of 2
M E M O R A N D U M
(December 6, 2022)
To: Shana Yelverton, City Manager
From: Rob Cohen, Director of Public Works
Subject: Approve an Engineering Services Agreement (ESA) with
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. to provide engineering
design and construction phase services for Central Avenue
Improvements in an amount not to exceed $65,000.
Action
Requested: Approve an Engineering Services Agreement (ESA) with Kimley-
Horn and Associates, Inc. to provide engineering design and
construction phase services for Central Avenue Improvements in
an amount not to exceed $65,000.
Background
Information: The purpose of this item is to seek City Council approval of an
Engineering Services Agreement (ESA) with Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc. to provide engineering design and construction
phase services for Central Avenue Improvements in an amount not
to exceed $65,000. This agreement includes preliminary and final
design plans, surveying, and additional engineering services to
enhance safety and provide accessibility for pedestrians.
Concerns have been raised about the safety of vehicles and
pedestrians at the intersection of Central Avenue and Main Street
as well as concerns about pedestrian safety along Central Avenue.
Following the reports of these concerns, staff engaged traffic
engineering consultants to provide pedestrian and vehicle studies
to evaluate existing conditions and offer recommendations for
safety improvements.
The first study, conducted by Lee Engineering was finalized in
March of 2021 and confirmed that the intersection at Central
Avenue and Main Street presents sight constraints for vehicles
approaching and leaving the intersection, posing safety concerns
for pedestrians. The second study, conducted by Kimley Horn was
finalized in August 2022, and evaluated safety concerns along
Central Avenue from Main Street to State Highway 114. Both
studies noted the volume and direction of pedestrians and
inadequate pedestrian facilities. These studies presented various
pedestrian improvement recommendations along Central Avenue,
Item 4G
Page 2 of 2
including adding sidewalk ramps, crosswalks, striping and signage.
The proposed improvements at Central Avenue and Main Street
intersection will consist of modifications to all four corners of the
intersection to enhance pedestrian access and visibility.
If approved, survey and design should be completed within three to
four months and construction estimated to commence
spring/summer. City staff met with Parkview, Meeting Street, and
Brownstone residents on Monday, November 14, 2022, to provide
project background information and present the recommendations
from the studies. During this meeting, attendees had the
opportunity to ask questions about the project as well as present
any additional concerns. The residents’ main concerns were the
proposed sidewalk crossing locations, duration of the project, and
potential continuous speeding. Staff will be working with the Kimley
Horn Associates, Inc. to take a closer look at the conceptual
crossing and addressing the feedback from the residents during the
design.
Financial
Considerations: Funding for this agreement is budgeted in the FY 2023 budget as
part of the Capital Improvement Program.
Strategic Link: This item links to the City’s Strategy Map strategic focus area of
Mobility. It specifically relates to the City’s Corporate Objectives,
C2: Provide Travel Convenience Within City & Region, and B5:
Enhance Service Delivery Through Continual Process
Improvements. The Critical Business Outcome is CBO2: Enhance
Mobility Through Aggressive Traffic Management Initiatives and
Capital Project Implementation.
Citizen Input/
Board Review: City staff met with Parkview, Meeting Street, and Brownstone
residents on Monday, November 14, 2022, to provide project
background information and present the recommendations from the
studies. The meeting report is attached to this memo.
Legal
Review: The proposed agreement is a standard agreement that the City
Attorney has reviewed and approved.
Alternatives: The City Council may approve or deny the agreement.
Staff
Recommendation: Approve an Engineering Services Agreement (ESA) with Kimley-
Horn and Associates, Inc. to provide engineering design and
Item 4G
Page 2 of 2
construction phase services for Central Avenue Improvements in
an amount not to exceed $65.000.
Supporting
Documents: Attachment A: Engineering Services Agreement
Attachment B: Location Map
Attachment C: Central Avenue & Main Street Study – Lee
Engineering, March 2021
Attachment D: Central Avenue Pedestrian Study – Kimley Horn,
March 2022
Attachment E: November 14, 2022 Resident Meeting Report
Staff
Contact: Rob Cohen, Director of Public Works
Kevin Ferrer, P.E., City Engineer
Bryan Ahumada, P.E., Civil Engineer
Page 1
AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT is made this _____ day of ____________, 2022, by and
between the City of Southlake, Texas (hereinafter referred to as “CITY”), and Kimley-
Horn and Associates, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “ENGINEER”).
WHEREAS, CITY contemplates the need to make improvements along Central
Avenue and at the Intersection of Central Avenue and Main Street. This Project is to be
known as the Central Avenue Improvements project and hereinafter referred to as the
“Project”.
WHEREAS, ENGINEER is qualified, able, and desirous of performing the
necessary engineering work upon which the Project is based and is willing and able to
work with CITY staff to organize and coordinate the professional services necessary to
complete the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, CITY engages ENGINEER to perform, and ENGINEER
agrees to perform, the engineering work for the Project, as more fully described herein
below, and CITY agrees to pay as compensation, and ENGINEER agrees to accept as
compensation, the payments on the dates and in the amounts herein specified, all in
accordance with the terms more fully set out below and as provided in Attachment A
which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
I. ARTICLE
ENGINEERING SERVICES
A. Scope of Work
ENGINEER will provide the supervision, direction, personnel and equipment to
perform the engineering Services outlined in Attachment A in accordance with the terms
set forth in this Agreement and in Attachment A.
B. Definitions
Services refer to the professional services performed by ENGINEER pursuant to
this Agreement.
C. Changes
CITY, without invalidating the Agreement, may order changes within the general
scope of the work required by the Agreement by altering, adding to and/or deducting
from the work to be performed. If any change causes an increase or decrease in
ENGINEER’s cost of, or the time required for, the performance of any part of the
Services under the Agreement, an equitable adjustment will be made by mutual
Agreement and this Agreement shall be modified in writing accordingly.
ATTACHMENT A
Page 2
D. Coordination with Owner
The CITY shall make available to ENGINEER for use in performing Services
hereunder all existing plans, maps, field notes, statistics computations and other data in
the CITY’s possession relative to existing facilities and to the Project.
E. Site and Local Conditions
ENGINEER has the right to examine the site in order to become acquainted with
local conditions and accepts conditions at the site unless otherwise noted in writing to
the CITY. Any coordination or scheduling of work by CITY shall not relieve ENGINEER
from its responsibilities specified hereunder. Necessary arrangement for access to any
site by ENGINEER’s employees will be made with CITY.
F. Assignment and Subcontractors/Third Party Rights
The rights and obligations covered herein are personal to each party hereto and
not to any third party and for this reason neither this Agreement nor any contract
hereunder shall be assigned by either party in whole or in part; nor shall ENGINEER
subcontract any of its obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent
of CITY.
G. Independent Contractor
ENGINEER covenants and agrees that it will perform the work hereunder as an
independent contractor, and not as an officer, agent, servant, or employee of CITY; that
ENGINEER shall have exclusive control of and exclusive right to control the details of
the work performed hereunder, and all persons performing same, and shall be solely
responsible for the acts and omissions of its officers, agents, employees, contractors,
subcontractors, and consultants; that the doctrine of respondent superior shall not apply
as between CITY and ENGINEER, its officers, agents, employees, contractors,
subcontractors, and consultants, and nothing herein shall be construed as creating a
partnership or joint enterprise between CITY and ENGINEER.
H. Disclosure
By signature of this Contract, ENGINEER warrants to CITY that it has made full
disclosure in writing of any existing conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest,
including personal financial interests, direct or indirect, in property abutting the proposed
Project and business relations with abutting property owners. ENGINEER further
warrants that it will make disclosure in writing of any conflicts of interest that develop
subsequent to the signing of this Contract and prior to final payment under the Contract.
Finally, Engineer warrants that it has submitted to the City a completed Conflicts of
Interest Questionnaire as required by Chapter 176 of the Texas Local Government
Code.
Page 3
I. Approval by CITY
Approval by CITY of this Agreement shall not constitute or be deemed to be a
release of the responsibility and liability of ENGINEER, its officers, agents, employees,
and subcontractors for the accuracy and competency of the Services performed under
this Agreement, including but not limited to surveys, designs, working drawings and
specifications and other engineering documents.
Such approval shall not be deemed to be a waiver or an assumption of such
responsibility and liability by CITY for any negligent act, error, or omission in the
performance of ENGINEER’s professional services or in the conduct or preparation of
the subsurface investigations, surveys, designs, working drawings and specifications or
other engineering documents by ENGINEER, its officers, agents, employees and
subcontractors, it being the intent of the parties that approval by CITY signifies the
CITY’s approval of only the general design concept of the Improvements to be
constructed.
J. Indemnification
ENGINEER SHALL AND DOES HEREBY AGREE TO INDEMNIFY AND HOLD
HARMLESS CITY, ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES FROM ANY AND
ALL DAMAGES, LOSS OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER, BY REASON
OF DEATH OR INJURY TO PROPERTY OR PERSON CAUSED BY ANY OMISSION
OR NEGLIGENT ACT OF ENGINEER, ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS, EMPLOYEES,
INVITEES, OR OTHER PERSONS FOR WHOM IT IS LEGALLY LIABLE, WITH
REGARD TO THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS CONTRACT, AND ENGINEER WILL, AT
ITS COST AND EXPENSE, DEFEND, PAY ON BEHALF OF, AND PROTECT CITY
AND ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES AGAINST ANY AND ALL SUCH
CLAIMS AND DEMANDS. THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION ARE SUBJECT TO
THE LIMITATIONS OF TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 271.904 AND
SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO THAT EFFECT.
K. No Third Party Beneficiary
For purposes of this Agreement, including its intended operation and effect, the
parties specifically agree and contract that: (1) this Agreement only affects
matters/disputes between the parties to this Agreement, and is in no way intended by
the parties to benefit or otherwise affect any third person or entity (except the
indemnitees identified or described in Article I, Section J., above), notwithstanding the
fact that such third person or entities may be in a contractual relationship with CITY and
ENGINEER, or both; and (2) the terms of this Agreement are not intended to release,
either by Contract or operation of law, any third person or entity from obligations they
owe to either CITY or ENGINEER.
Page 4
L. Successors and Assigns
CITY and ENGINEER each bind themselves and their successors, executors,
administrators and assigns to the other party to this Agreement and to the successors,
executors, administrators and assigns of such other party with respect to all covenants
of this Agreement. Neither CITY nor ENGINEER shall assign or transfer its interest in
this Agreement without prior written consent of the other.
II. ARTICLE
CITY’S RESPONSIBILITIES
CITY will:
1. Provide full information as to CITY’s requirements for the Project;
2. Assist ENGINEER by placing at ENGINEER’s disposal all information in
CITY’s control or knowledge which is pertinent to the Project, including
executed right-of-way easements and final field survey data;
3. Examine all work presented by ENGINEER and respond within
reasonable time and in writing to the material submitted by ENGINEER;
4. Pay all costs incident to advertising for obtaining bids or proposals from
Contractors;
5. Give prompt written notice to ENGINEER whenever CITY observes or
otherwise becomes aware of any defect in ENGINEER’s work or in
Contractor’s work;
6. Designate in writing a person to act as its representative with respect to
this Agreement, such person having complete authority to transmit
instructions, receive information, and make or interpret the CITY’s
decisions;
7. Provide all information and criteria as to the CITY’s requirements,
objectives, and expectations for the Project including all numerical criteria
that are to be met and all standards of development, design, or
construction.
8. Provide to the ENGINEER all previous studies, plans, or other documents
pertaining to the Project and all new data reasonably necessary in the
ENGINEER’s opinion, such as site survey and engineering data,
environmental impact assessments or statements, zoning or other land
use regulations, etc., upon all of which the ENGINEER may rely; and
9. Arrange for access to the site and other private or public property as
required for the ENGINEER to provide its services.
Page 5
III. ARTICLE
COMPENSATION FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
The CITY shall compensate ENGINEER for services rendered under this
Agreement, in accordance with the following:
For the completion of the work contemplated in Article I, the ENGINEER shall be
paid on a lump sum basis in the amount of $43,000 for Basic Services (as outlined in
the attached proposal) with a total not to exceed cost ceiling of $65,000 as billed
monthly by ENGINEER. This Contract only authorizes Task 1 through Task 3 as
described in Attachment A. Task 4 will need written notice to proceed from the CITY to
be authorized for billing.
IV. ARTICLE
TIMES OF BILLING AND PAYMENT
The ENGINEER shall bill CITY monthly for any services and expenses incurred
in accordance with the work performed subject to the limits set out in Article III. Payment
shall be due within thirty (30) days of receipt by CITY of a properly prepared and correct
invoice from ENGINEER. ENGINEER’s invoices shall be accompanied by such records
or other written proof as CITY deems necessary to verify the billings. Invoices shall be
made to City Finance Department’s office at 1400 Main Street, Suite 440,
Southlake, Texas 76092.
If CITY fails to make payment due ENGINEER within thirty (30) days of the day
when payment for services and expenses is due under the terms of this Agreement,
ENGINEER shall be entitled to interest on such unpaid sums at the rate provided in
Chapter 2251 of the Texas Government Code.
V. ARTICLE
ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
In addition to performing the engineering services set out in Article I, hereof,
ENGINEER agrees to perform additional services as requested by CITY from time to
time and CITY agrees to compensate ENGINEER for such services in accordance with
ENGINEER’s standard hourly fee and expenses (see Attachment B) for actual time
expended and actual out-of-pocket sums expended, such services to be one or more of
the following:
1. Make or prepare detailed description of sites, maps, or drawings related
thereto and outside the scope of the Project;
2. Appearances before courts or boards on matters of litigation or hearings
Page 6
related to the Project;
3. Preparation of environmental impact assessments or statements for any
governmental agency;
4. Miscellaneous engineering work for CITY not related to the Project;
5. To provide resident project construction inspection, unless such inspection
is not required, in writing, by the CITY;
6. Other services agreed to by the parties in writing and incorporated herein.
VI. ARTICLE
STANDARD OF CARE
In performing its professional services, the ENGINEER will use that degree of
care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable members
of its profession in the same locality at the time the services are provided and in
accordance with any applicable governmental laws, regulations and ordinances.
VII. ARTICLE
PERIOD OF SERVICE
This Agreement shall be effective upon execution by CITY and ENGINEER, and
shall remain in force until work is completed on the Project or until terminated under the
provisions hereinafter provided in Article VIII.
VIII. ARTICLE
TERMINATION
The CITY may terminate this Agreement at any time for convenience, with or
without cause by giving written notice to the ENGINEER. Such termination may be
made effective on such future date as agreed by the parties, but absent such
Agreement shall be immediate. Upon receipt of such notice the ENGINEER shall
immediately discontinue all services and work and the placing of all orders or the
entering into contracts for supplies, assistance, facilities, and materials in connection
with the performance of this Agreement and shall proceed to cancel promptly all existing
contracts insofar as they are chargeable to this Agreement.
The ENGINEER, upon termination, shall be paid for all services rendered
through the date of termination together with any additional reimbursable expense then
due.
Page 7
IX. ARTICLE
OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
1. All completed or partially completed reports prepared under this
Agreement, including the original drawings in both paper and electronic
formats, shall become the property of CITY if this Agreement is
terminated. Upon completion and payment of the Contract, the final
design, drawings, specifications and documents in both paper and
electronic formats shall be owned by CITY.
2. Reuse, change or alteration by CITY or others acting by or on behalf of
CITY of such documents without the permission of ENGINEER shall be at
CITY’s sole risk.
X. ARTICLE
INSURANCE
ENGINEER shall carry and maintain at all times relevant hereto, at ENGINEER’s
expense, insurance of the type and of minimum coverage limits as follows:
1. Workers Compensation - Statutory Employer’s Liability - Limits as required
by the State of Texas.
2. Comprehensive General Liability, Bodily Injury and Property Damage
including contractual liability in a combined single limit - $500,000 per
occurrence.
3. Comprehensive Automotive Liability, Bodily Injury and Property Damage
in a combined single limit - $1,000,000 per accident.
Certificates of insurance for the above coverage in a form acceptable to CITY,
evidencing the coverage required above, shall be provided to CITY within ten (10)
business days after execution of this Agreement and prior to issuing Notice to Proceed.
Such certificates shall provide that the insurer will give CITY not less than ten (10) days
notice of any material changes in or cancellation of coverage. In the event any
subcontractor of ENGINEER, with or without CITY’s consent, provides or renders
services under this Agreement, ENGINEER shall ensure that the subcontractor’s
services are covered by the same insurance limits as set forth above.
ENGINEER shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has obtained
Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) Insurance as required hereunder and such
insurance coverage has been approved by CITY. Such insurance shall be in the
minimum amount of $1,000,000 and shall include coverage of Contractually Assumed
Liability. The insurance coverage prescribed herein shall be maintained until one (1)
Page 8
year after CITY’s acceptance of the construction project and shall not be canceled
without prior written notice to CITY. In this connection, upon the signing and return of
this Agreement by ENGINEER, a Certificate of Insurance shall be furnished to CITY as
evidence that the insurance coverage required herein has been obtained by
ENGINEER, and such certificate shall contain the provision that such insurance shall
not be cancelled or modified without thirty (30) days prior written notice to CITY.
ENGINEER shall notify CITY within ten (10) days of any modification or alteration in
such Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) Insurance.
XI. ARTICLE
AUTHORIZATION, PROGRESS AND COMPLETION
CITY and ENGINEER agree that the Project is planned to be completed as
expeditiously as possible. ENGINEER shall employ manpower and other resources,
and use professional skill and diligence to meet the schedule; however, ENGINEER
shall not be responsible for schedule delays resulting from conditions beyond its control.
By mutual Agreement, CITY and ENGINEER may modify the Project schedule during
the course of the Project and if such modifications affect ENGINEER’s compensation, it
shall be modified accordingly, subject to CITY’s approval.
It is understood that this Agreement contemplates full and complete engineering
services for this Project, including any and all Services necessary to complete the work.
For additional Engineering Services, the authorization by CITY shall be in writing and
shall include the definition of the services to be provided, the schedule for commencing
and completing the services, and the basis for compensation as agreed upon by CITY
and ENGINEER.
XII. ARTICLE
NOTICE
Any notice required under this Agreement will be in writing and given either
personally, by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, or by a nationally
recognized overnight courier service, addressed to the parties as follows:
If to CITY: Shana Yelverton
City Manager
City of Southlake
1400 Main Street, Suite 460
Southlake, Texas 76092
Phone: 817-748-8400
Fax: 817-748-8010
Page 9
If to ENGINEER: L. Nathan Ante, P.E.
Senior Vice President
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
2201 W. Royal Lane, Suite 275
Irving, Texas 75063
Phone: (214) 420-5622
All notice shall be effective upon the date of receipt.
XIII. ARTICLE
SEVERABILITY
In the event that any provision of this Agreement shall be found to be void or
unenforceable, such finding shall not be construed to render any other provisions of this
Agreement either void or unenforceable. All provisions, which are void or
unenforceable, shall not substantially affect the rights or obligations granted to or
undertaken by either party.
XIV. ARTICLE
VENUE-LAW
Venue of any suit or cause of action under this Agreement shall lie exclusively in
Tarrant County, Texas. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws
of the State of Texas.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed
in two equal originals on the date and year first above mentioned.
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE:
By: _________________________________
John Huffman, Mayor
ATTEST:
By: _________________________________
City Secretary
Attachment A - Page 1
kimley-horn.com 2201 West Royal Lane, Suite 275, Irving, TX 75063 214.420.5600
November 3, 2022
Bryan Ahumada, P.E.
City Engineer
1400 Main Street, Suite 320
Southlake, Texas 76092
Re:Central Avenue Improvements; Southlake, TX
Dear Mr. Ahumada,
Project Understanding
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (the “ENGINEER”) is pleased to submit Attachment A of the Agreement
for Engineering Services to the City of Southlake (the “CITY”) for providing professional services to provide
design and construction phase services for various improvements along Central Avenue.
This scope of services includes the design of the following:
· Pedestrian improvements at Main Street at Central Avenue
· Pedestrian improvements at Central Avenue at alley way north of Moxie’s
· Pedestrian improvements at Central Avenue at Federal Way
· Pavement marking and signing improvements
· Street improvements to modify valley gutter inside the intersection of Central Avenue at Main Street
Scope of Services
Task 1 – Topographic and Boundary Survey (Lump Sum)
The ENGINEER (through a Subconsultant) will perform topographic survey for areas included shown in red
in the following two exhibits:
Southern Topographic Survey Limits
Page 2
kimley-horn.com 2201 West Royal Lane, Suite 275, Irving, TX 75063 214.420.5600
Northern Topographic Survey Limits
· Data Collection and Property Research
o Gather existing plat information
o Collect property owner information
o Gather existing right-of-way and easement information based on available plats and record
drawings. Title research, if required by the CITY, can be provided as an Additional Service
· Perform field survey ground control
· Locate pertinent objects and above-ground features, typically including:
o Roadway pavement
o Drainage structures (i.e. culverts, ditches, inlets, manholes, and outfalls)
o Utilities (signs or markers showing the presence of underground utilities, valves, manholes,
flowlines, meters, backflow preventers, vents, poles, and guy wires)
o Traffic signal equipment (poles, cabinets, ground boxes)
o Large (6 inch diameter and up), significant trees (identify species and caliper)
o Limits of landscaped areas will be defined. Individual plants and or trees (less than 6 inch
diameter) will not be located.
o Fences (including material type) and gates
o Sidewalks
o Street lights
o Signs
o Right-of-Way monumentation
· Process survey data to create plan view of existing features
· Prepare a final topographic drawing in digital format (including contours and break lines) showing
the features located in the field as well as right-of-way information. Digital files will be in .DWG
format. The ENGINEER will conduct one site visit to field verify the topographic survey.
Page 3
kimley-horn.com 2201 West Royal Lane, Suite 275, Irving, TX 75063 214.420.5600
Task 2 – Preliminary Design Construction Plans (Lump Sum)
· Project Management and Administration
o Develop project production plan and schedule
o Prepare for and attend up to one (1) meeting
o Project site visits
o Data collection
o Coordination with CITY
o Coordination with subconsultants
o Prepare meeting agendas and summaries
o Project correspondence and invoicing
o Quality control and internal plan reviews
· The ENGINEER will prepare preliminary construction plans for the improvements. The preliminary
construction plans may include the following sheets:
o Title Sheet
o Index
o General Notes
o Project Control
o Paving (plan only)
o Existing Drainage Area Map
o Erosion Control Plan
o Pavement Markings and Signing
o Traffic Control Narrative
o Traffic Control plans
· Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (OPCC)
o OPCC – A 60% OPCC will be prepared and included with the Preliminary submittal.
· The ENGINEER will submit .PDF files of the preliminary design items to the CITY.
· The ENGINEER will address comments from the CITY on the preliminary design items, which will
be reflected in the Final Design submittal.
Task 3 – Final Design Construction Plans (Lump Sum)
· Project Management and Administration
o Prepare for and attend up to one (1) meeting
o Project site visits
o Coordination with CITY
o Coordination with subconsultants
o Prepare meeting agendas and summaries
o Project correspondence and invoicing
o Quality control and internal plan reviews
· The ENGINEER will update the plans based on comments received on the Preliminary Design.
· Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
o OPCC – The 60% OPCC will be updated and included with the Final submittal.
· The ENGINEER will submit .PDF files of the preliminary design items to the CITY.
· The ENGINEER will address comments from the CITY on the final plan sheets.
Page 4
kimley-horn.com 2201 West Royal Lane, Suite 275, Irving, TX 75063 214.420.5600
Task 4 – Additional Services (Reimbursable/Hourly)
The scope of services listed may or may not be performed as part of our services. Work under this task
shall only be performed at the discretion of the CITY. This task includes up to 88 hours and may include
the following:
Task 4.1 – Construction Phase Services
·Attend the pre-construction meeting
·Visits to Site and Observation of Construction. ENGINEER will provide on-site construction
observation services during the construction phase. ENGINEER will make visits at intervals as
directed by CITY in order to observe the progress of the Work. Such visits and observations by
ENGINEER are not intended to be exhaustive or to extend to every aspect of Contractor's work in
progress. Observations are to be limited to spot checking, selective measurement, and similar
methods of general observation of the Work based on ENGINEER’s exercise of professional
judgment. Based on information obtained during such visits and such observations, ENGINEER
will evaluate whether Contractor's work is generally proceeding in accordance with the Contract
Documents, and ENGINEER will keep CITY informed of the general progress of the Work. The
purpose of ENGINEER’s site visits will be to enable ENGINEER to better carry out the duties and
responsibilities specifically assigned in this Agreement to ENGINEER, and to provide CITY a
greater degree of confidence that the completed Work will conform in general to the Contract
Documents. ENGINEER shall not, during such visits or as a result of such observations of
Contractor's work in progress, supervise, direct, or have control over Contractor's work, nor shall
the ENGINEER have authority over or responsibility for the means, methods, techniques,
equipment choice and usage, sequences, schedules, or procedures of construction selected by
Contractor, for safety precautions and programs incident to Contractor's work, nor for any failure of
Contractor to comply with laws and regulations applicable to Contractor's furnishing and performing
the Work. Accordingly, ENGINEER neither guarantees the performance of any Contractor nor
assumes responsibility for any Contractor's failure to furnish and perform its work in accordance
with the Contract Documents.
·Recommendations with Respect to Defective Work. ENGINEER will recommend to CITY that
Contractor's work be disapproved and rejected while it is in progress if, on the basis of such
observations, ENGINEER believes that such work will not produce a completed Project that
conforms generally to Contract Documents.
·Clarifications and Interpretations. ENGINEER will respond to reasonable and appropriate
Contractor requests for information and issue necessary clarifications and interpretations of the
Contract Documents to CITY as appropriate to the orderly completion of Contractor's work. Any
orders authorizing variations from the Contract Documents will be made by CITY.
·Change Orders. ENGINEER may recommend Change Orders to CITY, and will review and make
recommendations related to Change Orders submitted or proposed by the Contractor.
·Shop Drawings and Samples. ENGINEER will review and approve or take other appropriate
action in respect to Shop Drawings and Samples and other data which Contractor is required to
submit, but only for conformance with the information given in the Contract Documents. Such
review and approvals or other action will not extend to means, methods, techniques, equipment
choice and usage, sequences, schedules, or procedures of construction or to related safety
precautions and programs.
·Substitutes and "or-equal." Evaluate and determine the acceptability of substitute or "or-equal"
materials and equipment proposed by Contractor in accordance with the Contract Documents, but
subject to the provisions of applicable standards of state or local government entities.
·Inspections and Tests. ENGINEER may require special inspections or tests of Contractor's work
as ENGINEER deems appropriate, and may receive and review certificates of inspections within
ENGINEER’s area of responsibility or of tests and approvals required by laws and regulations or
Page 5
kimley-horn.com 2201 West Royal Lane, Suite 275, Irving, TX 75063 214.420.5600
the Contract Documents. ENGINEER’s review of such certificates will be for the purpose of
determining that the results certified indicate compliance with the Contract Documents and will not
constitute an independent evaluation that the content or procedures of such inspections, tests, or
approvals comply with the requirements of the Contract Documents. ENGINEER shall be entitled
to rely on the results of such tests and the facts being certified.
·Disagreements between CITY and Contractor.ENGINEER will, if requested by CITY, render
written decision on all claims of CITY and Contractor relating to the acceptability of Contractor's
work or the interpretation of the requirements of the Contract Documents pertaining to the progress
of Contractor's work. In rendering such decisions, ENGINEER shall be fair and not show partiality
to CITY or Contractor and shall not be liable in connection with any decision rendered in good faith
in such capacity.
·Applications for Payment. Based on its observations and on review of applications for payment
and accompanying supporting documentation, ENGINEER will determine the amounts that
ENGINEER recommends Contractor be paid. Such recommendations of payment will be in writing
and will constitute ENGINEER’s representation to CITY, based on such observations and review,
that, to the best of ENGINEER’s knowledge, information and belief, Contractor’s work has
progressed to the point indicated and that such work-in-progress is generally in accordance with
the Contract Documents subject to any qualifications stated in the recommendation. In the case of
unit price work, ENGINEER’s recommendations of payment will include determinations of
quantities and classifications of Contractor's work, based on observations and measurements of
quantities provided with pay requests. By recommending any payment, ENGINEER shall not
thereby be deemed to have represented that its observations to check Contractor's work have been
exhaustive, extended to every aspect of Contractor's work in progress, or involved detailed
inspections of the Work beyond the responsibilities specifically assigned to ENGINEER in this
Agreement. It will also not impose responsibility on ENGINEER to make any examination to
ascertain how or for what purposes Contractor has used the moneys paid on account of the
Contract Price, nor to determine that title to any portion of the work in progress, materials, or
equipment has passed to CITY free and clear of any liens, claims, security interests, or
encumbrances, nor that there may not be other matters at issue between CITY and Contractor that
might affect the amount that should be paid.
·Substantial Completion. ENGINEER will, promptly after notice from Contractor that it considers
the entire Work ready for its intended use, in company with CITY and Contractor, conduct a site
visit to determine if the Work is substantially complete. Work will be considered substantially
complete following satisfactory completion of all items with the exception of those identified on a
final punch list. If after considering any objections of CITY, ENGINEER considers the Work
substantially complete, ENGINEER will notify CITY and Contractor.
·Final Notice of Acceptability of the Work. ENGINEER will conduct a final site visit to determine
if the completed Work of Contractor is generally in accordance with the Contract Documents and
the final punch list so that ENGINEER may recommend, in writing, final payment to Contractor.
Accompanying the recommendation for final payment, ENGINEER shall also provide a notice that
the Work is generally in accordance with the Contract Documents to the best of ENGINEER’s
knowledge, information, and belief based on the extent of its services and based upon information
provided to ENGINEER upon which it is entitled to rely.
·Limitation of Responsibilities. ENGINEER shall not be responsible for the acts or omissions of
any Contractor, or of any of their subcontractors, suppliers, or of any other individual or entity
performing or furnishing the Work. ENGINEER shall not have the authority or responsibility to stop
the work or direct Contractor.
Task 4.2 – Record Drawings (Reimbursable/Hourly)
· The CITY will furnish to the ENGINEER a “marked-up” field set of plans that identifies any
modifications to the “As-Bid” contract documents. The ENGINEER will be entitled to rely upon the
Page 6
kimley-horn.com 2201 West Royal Lane, Suite 275, Irving, TX 75063 214.420.5600
“marked-up” field set for the purpose of preparing the record drawings.
· Record drawings submittal will include the following:
o The record drawings shall be sealed in accordance with current Texas Board of
Professional Engineers’ requirements
o All changes shall be shown and noted in the revision block
o AutoCAD (.dwg file format) of design files
o Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF file format) of record drawings
o Hard copies as requested by the CITY
Task 4.3 – TDLR Fees and Coordination – (Reimbursable/Hourly)
· Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR)
o Identify and analyze the requirements of the Texas Architectural Barriers Act, Chapter 68
Texas Administrative Code, and become familiar with the governmental authorities having
jurisdiction to approve the design of the Project
o Register the project with TDLR.
o Submit construction documents (final, signed and sealed plans) to a TDLR licensed
Registered Accessibility Specialist (RAS) no later than the 20th day after the date the
ENGINEER issues the plans for construction.
o Complete all TDLR forms/applications necessary.
o Request an inspection from the RAS no later than 30 calendar days after construction
substantial completion. Advise the CITY in writing of the results of the inspection.
o Respond to agency comments and requests.
o ASSUMPTIONS
§ ENGINEER will pay project registration, plan review, and inspection fees.
§ The scope does not include services related to obtaining a variance from TDLR.
Page 7
kimley-horn.com 2201 West Royal Lane, Suite 275, Irving, TX 75063 214.420.5600
Additional Services
Any services not specifically identified in the Scope of Services shall be considered Additional Services.
These may be performed on an individual basis upon written authorization by the CITY at our then current
hourly rates under the existing Agreement if budget allows.
Additional Services include, but are not limited to, the following:
· Additional meetings.
· Bidding Phase Services
· Landscaping design
· Storm drain hydraulic design.
· Utility design.
· Public Meetings.
· Services related to survey for easement or property acquisition and preparation of associated
documents.
· Services related to historical artifacts and any review or coordination required for the Texas
Historical Commission.
· Services related to regulatory permitting outside of that defined herein.
· Identifying or correcting any deficiencies found in any data provided by others. ENGINEER will be
entitled to rely upon any information provided by the CITY.
· Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.
· Any services not specifically defined above.
· Any item not specifically mentioned in our Scope of Services.
Schedule
The ENGINEER will provide its services as expeditiously as practical to meet a mutually agreed upon
schedule.
Page 8
kimley-horn.com 2201 West Royal Lane, Suite 275, Irving, TX 75063 214.420.5600
Fee and Billing
The ENGINEER will perform the services identified in the Scope of Services on either a Lump Sum or
Reimbursable/Hourly basis in accordance with the following tasks:
Lump Sum:Task Fee:
Task 1 – Topographic and Boundary Survey $12,000
Task 2 – Preliminary Design Construction Plans $21,500
Task 3 – Final Design Construction Plans $9,500
Total Lump Sum:$43,000
Reimbursable/Hourly:Task Fee:
Task 4 – Additional Services (Reimbursable/Hourly)$22,000
Total Reimbursable/Hourly:$22,000
Total $65,000
The ENGINEER will perform the Lump Sum Tasks identified in the Scope of Services for a lump sum fee
of $43,000. All permitting, application, and similar project fees will be paid directly by the CITY. Lump Sum
fees will be invoiced monthly based upon percentage of services performed as of the invoice date.
The ENGINEER will provide the Reimbursable/Hourly Tasks services on a labor fee plus expense basis.
For your budgeting purposes, we recommend allocating $22,000 for these tasks (not-to-exceed). The fee
breakdowns for each task are for budgeting purposes only and ENGINEER reserves the right to reallocate
the reimbursable budget among tasks as necessary. Direct reimbursable expenses (subconsultant fees,
out-of-house printing, courier services, etc.) will be billed at a rate of 1.10 times cost. Labor fee will be billed
on an hourly basis based on then hourly rates. A percentage of labor fee (6%) will be added to each invoice
and is included in the not-to-exceed budgets, to cover certain other expenses such as telecommunications,
printing, in-house reproduction, postage, computer expenses, supplies, and local mileage. Administrative
time related to the project will be billed hourly. All permitting, application, and similar project fees will be
paid directly by the CITY.
Fees will be invoiced monthly based on the actual amount of services performed and expenses incurred.
A description of services provided and hourly breakdown will be provided with each invoice. Payment will
be due within thirty (30) days of your receipt of the invoice.
Page 9
kimley-horn.com 2201 West Royal Lane, Suite 275, Irving, TX 75063 214.420.5600
Closure
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these services to you. Please contact me if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Brendan Yarborough, P.E.
Project Manager
kimley-horn.com 2201 W Royal Lane, Suite 275, Irving, TX 75063 214 420 5600
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Hourly Labor Rate Schedule
Classification Rate
Analyst $150 - $230
Professional $200 - $275
Senior Professional I $240 - $330
Senior Professional II $295 - $350
Senior Technical Support $150 - $260
Support Staff $105 - $135
Technical Support $95 - $140
Effective through December 31, 2022
Subject to annual adjustment thereafter
ATTACHMENT B
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 5
March 26, 2021
Mr. Robert Cohen
City of Southlake
1400 Main Street, Suite 320
Southlake, Texas 76092
Re: Central Avenue Pedestrian Crossing Review
Dear Mr. Cohen:
Lee Engineering has completed our review of the pedestrian crossing on Central Avenue north of Main
Street. This letter documents our study efforts, our findings, and our recommendations related to
pedestrian treatments within the study area.
BACKGROUND
When Town Square was initially planned, the crossings at traditional four-way intersections were generally
located at the end of the curb radius and identified with curb ramps and inlaid pavers. Most if not all four-
way intersections in Town Square are controlled by All-Way Stop Control (AWSC). In general, the stop signs
and stop bars, if present, have been placed upstream of the crosswalks at the curb radii, and thus, all four
crossings at a traditional intersection are generally controlled by the stop signs. As Town Square has
developed over time, crossings have generally continued to be located at the end of the curb radius though
paver crossings have ceased to be implemented.
Sidewalks in Town Square generally extend from building face to curb with tree wells between the back of
curb and the primary pedestrian access route. In areas where the sidewalk is wide, and the curb radius is
small, the access route and the crossing at the end of the radius are near each other and a relatively small
deviation from the natural walking path is necessary to cross roadways. At the intersection of Central
Avenue and Main Street, the cross walk on the north leg is located at the end of the radius for the
westbound to northbound curb. This results in the crossing being approximately 45-52 feet back from the
edge of the Main Street traveled way. The stop bar on the southbound approach is located downstream of
the marked pedestrian crossing. The marked crossing functions as a midblock crossing because it is not
part of the intersection. The crossing on the west leg is 32-43 feet back in comparison and the stop bar is
upstream of the crossing making the marked pedestrian crosswalk part of the intersection. DRAFT ATTACHMENT C
Page 2 of 5
FIELD OBSERVATIONS
Lee Engineering personnel visited the crossing on three occasions, once during the midday (lunch) hour and
twice during the PM peak period to observe traffic operations and the interaction of pedestrians and
vehicles in the vicinity of the intersections. The numbered list that follows contains a variety of field
observations from Lee Engineering staff. Additional information for our field visits appears on the various
attachments to this letter.
1. During our field observations, the peak hour of traffic occurred from 4:20 PM to 5:20 PM. During
this 60 minute period:
o 16 total pedestrians were observed crossing the north leg of the intersection.
13 pedestrians used the marked pedestrian crossing
Only 3 pedestrians crossed south of the stop bar in the more natural walking path
crossing locations.
o 100 southbound vehicles were observed on the approach and 151 northbound vehicles
departed the intersection toward the north.
o The 5:05 to 6:05 hour saw a slightly larger number of vehicles on the north leg and
pedestrians using the crosswalk (113 southbound, 156 northbound, and 23 pedestrians).
2. One potential pedestrian/vehicle conflict was observed when a pedestrian crossed behind a
queued vehicle at the southbound stop sign. The northbound motorist failed to yield to the
pedestrian in the crosswalk.
3. In general, the traffic control devices, sidewalks, and ramps, are in good condition for a
development of this age. Some minor grade issues are present in the attached photos that need
added to maintenance plans in order to provide a more level walking surface.
4. The intersection of Central Avenue and Main Street does not have any ALL WAY plaques beneath
the stop signs.
5. The eastbound stop sign at the intersection of Main Street and Summit Avenue street is faded from
sun exposure.
6. Numerous vehicles were observed going straight from the left lane on the northbound Central
Avenue approach.
7. Other findings and observations are documented in the photos attached.
MIDBLOCK CROSSING TREATMENT REVIEW
The exis ng crossing on the north leg of the intersec on func ons as a midblock crossing. Lee Engineering
u lized the guidelines detailed in Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings (NCHRP 526) to
verify the appropriate treatment for this unsignalized crossing.
The guidelines in NCHRP 562 present crossing treatments in graduated levels of intensity. The intensity
level at a crossing loca on is a step func on determined by the rela onships of the following measures:
pedestrian crossing distance, pedestrian volumes, vehicle speeds, and vehicle volumes. The crossing
treatments, ranked from least to most intensive, are the following:
1. Crosswalk - standard crosswalk markings and signs
2. Enhanced - enhanced crosswalk markings & signage DRAFT
Page 3 of 5
3. Active - devices designed to display a warning only when pedestrians are present
4. Red Beacon - devices that display a circular red indication to motorists at the pedestrian location
5. Signal - full traffic signal
Lee Engineering conducted the crossing analysis using the volumes observed from 5:05 to 6:05 PM.
Figure 1, below, shows a graph of the results of the pedestrian crossing treatment analysis. As evidenced by
the analysis, vehicle and pedestrian volumes could both more than triple at the intersec on before an
ac ve/enhanced crossing using a flashing yellow light would be needed. In fact, the volumes are barely
above the threshold recommended for a marked crossing at all.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations below are numbered for ease of reference and do not represent a priority ranking.
Short Term Recommendations
At the intersection of Central Avenue and Main Street, LEE has identified two short term alternatives that
may improve the pedestrian experience at the intersection.
1) Option 1 includes the following:
a. Add a Pedestrian crossing sign with downward arrow plaque at the northbound approach
to the crosswalk north of Main Street.
b. Add a downward arrow to the existing pedestrian sign in the southbound direction.
c. Remove the crosswalk lines and install a high visibility crosswalk similar to the markings on
the west leg. LEE recommends that the crosswalk markings extend at least 15 feet to the
south from the exiting north edge of the crosswalk.
DRAFT
Page 4 of 5
2) Option 2 includes the following:
a. Relocate the stop sign for the southbound approach of Central Avenue should be relocated
immediately north of the existing crosswalk.
i. Care should be taken in placing the stop sign so at least a 4 feet wide minimum
sidewalk width is maintained.
ii. It may be necessary to place the stop sign in the void area near the first parking
space.
b. A 12” thermoplastic stop bar should be added 4 feet north of the existing crosswalk on the
north leg of the intersection. The stop bar should be in line with the stop sign if possible.
The existing stop bar should be removed when this is done.
c. Remove the crosswalk lines and install a high visibility crosswalk similar to the markings on
the west leg. LEE recommends that the crosswalk markings extend at least 15 feet to the
south from the exiting north edge of the crosswalk. This will provide a higher conspicuity
crossing marking to alert motorists that the crossing is present on that leg of the
intersection.
Lee Engineering recommends Short Term Option 2 be implemented by the City. This would make the
crossing operate more consistently with other AWSC intersections within Town Square.
Other short-term recommendations that are independent of either option above are listed below.
3) Install all way (R1-3P) plaques beneath the stop signs on all four approaches to the intersection. All
way plaques are required per the Texas MUTCD section 2B.05.
a. It should be noted that the ALL WAY plaque is missing from the majority of all way stop
controlled intersections in town square.
4) Replace the eastbound stop sign on Main Street at Summit Ave.
5) Perform sidewalk panel replacement, leveling, or grinding at areas where the sidewalk or utilities
have heaved or sunken.
a. Add other ramp modifications or replacements to curb ramp improvement program.
i. New ramp at alley south of Moxie on west side of Central
ii. Replacement ramp at Federal and Central on SW corner.
iii. Provided long term improvements are not imminent, consider replacing the
existing ramp on the east side of Central Avenue at the crosswalk north of Main
Street to provide a flare. Also the ramp run length should be verified to assure it
complies with TAS and PROWAG.
6) Trim bushes as noted in the photos.
7) Install permanent stop sign at Federal Way eastbound approach to Central Ave.
8) Add a northbound lane control sign in advance of the Main Street intersection on Central Avenue to
inform motorists of the lane configuration at the intersection.
DRAFT
Page 5 of 5
Long Term Recommendations
1) The intersection should be reconfigured to allow for crossings closer to the natural walking
path along the sidewalks. This improvement would involve significant design and construction
effort and should be programmed amongst other capital improvement projects on the City’s
long-range CIP. The benefit-costs of this project are limited and other projects will likely be
higher priority.
a. The ramps and pedestrian crossings on all four approach should be redesigned so the
overall intersection is smaller and the crossings are more in line with the natural paths.
b. The NE corner of the intersection should be reconstructed to allow for directional
ramps closer to the corner. This will likely require complete reconstruction of the
corner, including the relocation of illumination and possibly other utilities.
c. The existing ramps for the crossing of the north leg should be removed once new
ramps are in place.
d. The existing valley gutter along Central Avenue represents a barrier along the
pedestrian path and relocation of the ramps will likely require complete reconstruction
of the intersection in order to maintain positive drainage and an accessible route.
2) The are multiple desired crossings along Central Avenue north of Main Street, generally at T
intersections and/or alleys where a pedestrian walking path terminates at a crossing of Central.
Ramps should be designed and constructed for these locations when feasible.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (972) 248-3006.
Sincerely,
John Denholm, P.E., PTOE
Senior Project Manager
Lee Engineering, LLC
TBPELS Firm F-450 DRAFT
Valley Gutter within crossing
path may represent barrier that
needs reconstructed in order to
relocate crossing to align more
with sidewalks
Existing illumination pole likely
requires relocation if ramps are
moved to align more with the
sidewalk paths.
Patio wall restricts vision for
eastbound motorists to pedestrians
entering crosswalk from west side of
street. Previous tenants had fence
that allowed better line of sight
Existing ramp has returned curb.
Ramp should have a flared side
adjacent to walking surface.DRAFT
Sidewalk panel leveling /grinding necessaryDRAFT
Sidewalk panel/utilitycover require leveling. DRAFT
Ramp slope too steep and does notsatisfy accessibility requirements. Ramp should be upgraded soon sincenew sidewalk was installed at landing.Permanent stop signnecessaryNo ramp / crossing present on east sideof Central opposite Federal.DRAFT
Bushes should betrimmed and kept lower. Present height mayimpedes visibility tocrosswalk for a motoristbacking from parkingspace. Western mostbush should beconsidered for removal.Returned curb adjacent towalking surface should bereplaced with a flare. DRAFT
Patio wall may block line ofsite for eastbound motoristto pedestrian in crosswalkleaving western curb.Previous tenant hadwrought iron fencing thatallowed visibility acrosspatio. DRAFT
No ramp present on eastside of Central to line upwith this crossing.DRAFT
Ramp necessaryDRAFT
Level/reconstruct ramp toeliminate lip. DRAFT
Page 1
August 23, 2022
kimley-horn.com 2201 West Royal Lane Suite 275, Irving, Texas 75063 214-420-5680
To:Kevin Ferrer, PE., CFM
City of Southlake, TX
From:
Tom Grant, P.E., PTOE
Brendan Yarborough, P.E.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Texas Registered Eng. Firm No. F-928
Date:August 23, 2022
Subject:Central Avenue Pedestrian and Vehicle Study; Southlake, Texas
At the City of Southlake’s direction, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. analyzed Central Avenue between
SH 114 and Main Street for pedestrian and vehicle improvements. At the City’s direction, Kimley-Horn
observed traffic and pedestrian movements on Wednesday, May 11th, 2022. Kimley-Horn also performed
an all-way stop warrant for the intersection of Central Avenue and Federal Way. Using a subconsultant,
Kimley-Horn collected pedestrian counts at various zones along Central Avenue, 48-hours of turning
movement counts at Central Avenue and Federal Way, and 72-hours of speed counts at various
locations in Town Square. This memorandum summarizes the findings of the study.
Figure 1 Location Map
08/23/2022
ATTACHMENT D
Page 2
August 23, 2022
kimley-horn.com 2201 West Royal Lane Suite 275, Irving, Texas 75063 214-420-5600
ALL-WAY STOP WARRANT
The Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (TMUTCD) provides guidelines for performing an
all-way stop warrant analysis in Section 2B.07. An all-way stop may be warranted based on traffic
volume, crash history, high pedestrian traffic, or inadequate sight distances. This study evaluated the
traffic volume, pedestrian volume, and other criteria. The traffic volume criteria warrants when the total of
both the major volumes (vehicles only) and the minor street (total of vehicles, pedestrians, bikes, etc)
approach volumes average 300 vehicles per hour (vph) and 200 vph, respectively, for 8 hours of an
average day. In the Attachment A, the exhibit shows the existing peak hour volumes for both Thursday,
April 21, 2022 and Saturday, April 23, 2022.
Central Avenue has no stop signs between SH 114 frontage road and Main Street and was considered
the major street, Federal Way is stop controlled at Central Avenue and was considered the minor street.
In Attachment B, the exhibits compare the measured vehicular traffic to the volumes required by the
warrant for the intersection of Central Avenue and Federal Way. Central Avenue traffic volumes exceed
the minimum 300 vehicles per hour for 5 hours on Thursday, April 21, 2022 but the volumes along
Federal Way do not exceed the minimum threshold of 200 vehicles for any hour of the day. On Saturday,
April 23, 2022, Central Avenue exceeded 300 vehicles per hour for 7 hours but the volumes along
Federal Way do not exceed the minimum threshold of 200 vehicles for any hour of the day. Therefore,
an all-way stop is not warranted based on the vehicular traffic at the intersection.
SPEED STUDY GUIDELINES
Kimley-Horn, using a subconsultant, collected 72-hours of speed counts at 4 locations around Town
Square (Central Avenue north of Park Ridge Boulevard, Central Avenue south of Meeting Street, Grand
Avenue north of Federal Way, and State Street north of Prospect Street). The current posted speed
around Town Square is 30 mph. The average of the four speed counts is 24.1 mph. The summary of the
counts can be found in Attachment C for the different locations.
Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (TMUTCD) and TxDOT provides guidelines for
performing speed zone studies. Speed limits are set by the 85th percentile method, which represents the
speed the majority of drivers will be traveling at or below. The speeds are observed under free-flow
speeds for vehicles, typically mid-day and not during the morning or afternoon peak hours. Speed counts
should also be taken on an average weekday under favorable weather conditions.
· The speed limit can be reduced up to 10 mph below the 85th percentile speed if some of the
following conditions are present:
o Roadway pavement width of 20 feet or less
o Curves and hills
o Hidden driveways and other developments
o High number of driveways
o Crash history
o Rural residential or developed areas
o Lack of striped, improved shoulders
Page 3
August 23, 2022
kimley-horn.com 2201 West Royal Lane Suite 275, Irving, Texas 75063 214-420-5600
The disadvantage of setting a speed limit too low is vehicles tend to ignore the signs and speed. The
State of Texas current state law states that the lowest speed limit that can be set in an urban district on a
street other than an alley is 30 mph. The speed limit may be lowered to 25 mph if the municipality
determines 30 mph is deemed unreasonable or unsafe. Due to Town Square being a high pedestrian
generator and the amount of on-street parking, it is recommended to set the speed limit to 25 mph for all
of the Town Square streets, and replace and add speed limit signs.
PEDESTRIAN STUDY
Kimley-Horn, using a subconsultant, collected pedestrian counts across 3 zones along Central Avenue.
The counts have been summarized into the exhibit in Attachment A. Each of the three zones had
similar numbers of pedestrians crossing. It is recommended to construct a receiving ramp on the south
side of Federal Way at Central Avenue with crosswalk markings and signage.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the information from previous sections, below are short-term and long-term recommendations
for Central Avenue between Main Street and SH 114 Frontage Road.
Short-term Recommendations:
· Provide a pedestrian crossing at Federal Way and Central Avenue.
o Install a receiving ramp on the east side of Central Avenue at Federal Way.
o Install crosswalk markings and pedestrian signage.
· Remove pedestrian ramp on west side of Central Avenue at Meeting Street and replace with
landscaping.
Page 4
August 23, 2022
kimley-horn.com 2201 West Royal Lane Suite 275, Irving, Texas 75063 214-420-5600
· Recommend changing speed limits all around Town Square from 30 mph to 25 mph.
· Install longitudinal striping (50’ of transition) for southbound Central Avenue to narrow roadway
from 24’ to 20’ so pedestrian crossing is shorter and provides better sight distance for vehicles
exiting Federal Way onto Central Avenue.
· When upgrading or installing new pedestrian improvements/crossings around Town Square,
consider one or more of the following enhancements:
o Continental style crosswalk markings at designated pedestrian crossings
o LED edge-lit stop signs
o Pedestrian crossing signs
Long-term Recommendations:
· Recommend reconstructing curb radius at Federal Way and Central Avenue to 15-feet radius.
This will help tighten the intersection and provide shorter crossing distance for pedestrians.
· Recommend bulbing out southwest corner of Central Avenue at Federal Way to provide better
sight distance around parked vehicles.
August 2022
kimley-horn.com 2201 West Royal Lane Suite 275, Irving, Texas 75063 214-420-5600
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:Summary of Traffic Counts
Attachment B:All-way Stop Warrant
Attachment C: Speed Study
August 2022
kimley-horn.com 2201 West Royal Lane Suite 275, Irving, Texas 75063 214-420-5600
ATTACHMENT A:
SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC COUNTS
SOUTHLAKE
Central Avenue Vehicle and
Pedestrian Counts
8/23/2022 NORTHAerial imagery captured 1/07/2022 by E STATE HIGHWAY 114FRONTAGE ROADPARK RIDGE BOULEVARDMEETING STREETMAIN STREETE SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARDCENTRAL AVENUE
C
E
N
T
R
A
L
A
V
E
N
U
EFEDERAL WAY19
,
[
4
1
]
,
(
5
2
)
40
,
[
1
0
4
]
,
(
1
0
4
)
95
,
[
1
6
1
]
,
(
1
5
0
)
10
7
,
[
1
9
6
]
,
(
1
9
6
)11,[25],(34) 26,[49],(75)17,[32],(30) 22,[67],(79)Daily Pedestrian Counts:
Thursday total peds - 79 peds
Saturday total peds - 168 peds
Daily Pedestrian Counts:
Thursday total peds - 101 peds
Saturday total peds - 176 peds
Daily Pedestrian Counts:
Thursday total peds - 76 peds
Saturday total peds - 191 peds
32
,
[
2
5
]
,
(
2
3
)
46
,
[
5
3
]
,
(
5
8
)
95
,
[
1
3
7
]
,
(
1
2
7
)
13
5
,
[
1
8
5
]
,
(
1
8
5
)
LEGEND
AM, [MD], (PM) - Thursday peak hour vehicle turning movement counts
AM, [MD], (PM) - Saturday peak hour vehicle turning movement countsData collected in April 2022
August 2022
kimley-horn.com 2201 West Royal Lane Suite 275, Irving, Texas 75063 214-420-5600
ATTACHMENT B:
ALL-WAY STOP WARRANT
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
VolumesperHour(vph)Min NB+SB Warrant Volume Min EB+WB Warrant Volume NB+SB Hourly Volume EB+WB Hourly Volume
THIS DOCUMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT IS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTATION BY KIMLEY-HORN, AND
ASSOCIATES INC. SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
1
ExhibitVolume Warrant for All-way Stop at
Central Avenue and Federal Way -
Thursday 4/21/2022
200 vph threshold for 8
hours on minor street300 vph threshold for 8
hours on major street
Central Avenue at Federal Way
Southlake, Texas
August 2022
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
VolumesperHour(vph)Min NB+SB Warrant Volume Min EB+WB Warrant Volume NB+SB Hourly Volume EB+WB Hourly Volume
THIS DOCUMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE CONCEPTS AND DESIGNS PRESENTED HEREIN, AS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND CLIENT FOR WHICH IT IS PREPARED. REUSE OF AND IMPROPER RELIANCE ON THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION AND ADAPTATION BY KIMLEY-HORN, AND
ASSOCIATES INC. SHALL BE WITHOUT LIABILITY TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
2
ExhibitVolume Warrant for All-way Stop at
Central Avenue and Federal Way -
Saturday 4/23/2022
200 vph threshold for 8
hours on minor street
300 vph threshold for 8
hours on major street
Central Avenue at Federal Way
Southlake, Texas
August 2022
August 2022
kimley-horn.com 2201 West Royal Lane Suite 275, Irving, Texas 75063 214-420-5600
ATTACHMENT C:
SPEED STUDY
SOUTHLAKE
Central Avenue Speed Counts
8/23/2022
NORTH
E
S
T
A
T
E
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
1
1
4
PARK RIDGE BOULEVARD
MEETING STREET
MAIN STREET
E SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARDCARROLL AVENUECENTRAL AVENUEGRAND AVENUE85% Speed:
-Thursday (4/21)
-NB: 31.6 MPH
-SB: 31.1 MPH
-Friday (4/22)
-NB: 28.6 MPH
-SB: 28.7 MPH
Saturday (4/23)
-NB: 26.6 MPH
-SB: 26.3 MPH
PL
A
Z
A
P
L
A
C
E
Aerial imagery captured 1/07/2022 by
Data collected in April 2022
SOUTHLAKE
Central Avenue Speed Counts
8/23/2022
NORTH
E
S
T
A
T
E
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
1
1
4
PARK RIDGE BOULEVARD
MEETING STREET
MAIN STREET
E SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARDCARROLL AVENUECENTRAL AVENUEGRAND AVENUEPL
A
Z
A
P
L
A
C
E
85% Speed:
-Thursday (4/21)
-NB: 27.0 MPH
-SB: 27.0 MPH
-Friday (4/22)
-NB: 24.6 MPH
-SB: 25.5 MPH
Saturday (4/23)
-NB: 24.1 MPH
-SB: 24.6 MPH
Aerial imagery captured 1/07/2022 by
Data collected in April 2022
SOUTHLAKE
Central Avenue Speed Counts
8/23/2022
NORTH
E
S
T
A
T
E
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
1
1
4
PARK RIDGE BOULEVARD
MEETING STREET
MAIN STREET
E SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARDCARROLL AVENUECENTRAL AVENUESTATE STREETGRAND AVENUEPL
A
Z
A
P
L
A
C
E
85% Speed:
-Thursday (4/21)
-NB: 21.4 MPH
-SB: 19.2 MPH
-Friday (4/22)
-NB: 19.8 MPH
-SB: 19.1 MPH
Saturday (4/23)
-NB: 19.8 MPH
-SB: 18.9 MPH
PROSPECT STREET
Aerial imagery captured 1/07/2022 by
Data collected in April 2022
SOUTHLAKE
Central Avenue Speed Counts
8/23/2022
NORTH
E
S
T
A
T
E
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
1
1
4
PARK RIDGE BOULEVARD
MEETING STREET
MAIN STREET
E SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARDCARROLL AVENUECENTRAL AVENUESTATE STREETGRAND AVENUEPL
A
Z
A
P
L
A
C
E
PROSPECT STREET
85% Speed:
-Thursday (4/21)
-NB: 24.0 MPH
-SB: 24.5 MPH
-Friday (4/22)
-NB: 22.3 MPH
-SB: 22.9 MPH
Saturday (4/23)
-NB: 19.7 MPH
-SB: 21.7 MPH
Aerial imagery captured 1/07/2022 by
Data collected in April 2022
Page 1 of 11
CENTRAL AVE. TRAFFIC STUDY MEETING REPORT
Meeting Date: November 14, 2022
Meeting Location: 1400 Main Street, Southlake, TX
City Council Chambers
Attendees Invited: Brownstone, Parkview, and Meeting Street Residents
Total Attendance: Estimated 25
Presenters: Lauren LaNeave, Kevin Ferrer
City Staff Present: Lauren LaNeave, Deputy Director of Public Works Administration
Kevin Ferrer, City Engineer
Jose Luna, Police Captain
Hannah McKenzie Public Works Admin. Assistant
MEETING SUMMARY:
The purpose of this meeting was to present the recommendations of the Central Avenue study
to Southlake Town Square residents to inform and gain feedback prior to taking the engineering
agreement for design to City Council on December 6, 2022. The agreement under consideration
by City Council is for the design of improvements to the Main/Central Avenue intersection as
well as improvements along Central Avenue to improve visibility, make crosswalk and ramp
adjustments,
Ms. LaNeave and Mr. Ferrer presented a recap of resident concerns, which include speeding
along Central Avenue, pedestrian safety, requests for additional signage, and sight distance
issues at Central Avenue/Main Street and Central Avenue/Federal Way. The project
background and timeline was presented, along with a high-level overview of the speed counts
and data points taken for the study.
Study recommendations completed by Kimley Horn suggests visibility improvements, crosswalk
adjustments, speed limit reduction, crosswalk safety modifications, and traffic calming striping
adjustments. Staff discussed the new TxDOT regulations for crosswalk signage to say “Stop for
pedestrians” instead of “Yield to pedestrians.” The study did not recommend a three-way stop at
Central Avenue and Federal Way due to traffic volume warrants. Mr. Ferrer discussed the use
of stop signs and the requirements for installation.
The timeline for the design and construction was discussed. The design agreement is being
taken forward to City Council for consideration on December 6, 2022. Design will begin
December 7, 2022, and is estimated to take three to four months, with construction commencing
ATTACHMENT E
Page 2 of 11
spring/summer 2023. In the interim, staff plans to move forward with the speed limit reduction
and striping traffic calming measures.
After the presentation concluded, the floor was opened for resident questions and concerns,
summarized below.
QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS SUMMARY:
Question: Are you addressing the crossing at Main and Central, specifically the sight distance?
A: Yes, sight distance will be taken into consideration and done in conjunction with the
rest of the project. This intersection will be completely reworked as a result of these
improvements.
Question: When is the entire project projected to be complete?
A: The design phase will take about 3-4 months. After that the construction phase will
take approximately another 3-4 months, give or take, starting in Spring/Summer 2023.
Question: Why not permit the mid-block crosswalk at Meeting and Central?
A: Per the study results, it is safer to consolidate pedestrian movements at the
intersection of Federal and Central.
Question: What is the significance of ‘consolidating pedestrian traffic’?
A: A mid-block crosswalk is a safety concern for pedestrians.
Question: Why not a crosswalk at both Federal/Central and Meeting/Central?
A: The proximity of the crosswalks causes the value to decline and decrease the safety
for pedestrians in the crossing.
Question: What about the safety of cars on Federal turning onto Central and the visibility?
A: The stop bar will be moved closer to Central Avenue and the travel lane narrowed
with striping. Through the design we will evaluate the sight distances to determine if parking
spots need to be removed.
Question: For the pedestrian crosswalk, why a stop bar but not a stop sign?
A: The new law requires the operator of a vehicle to stop for pedestrians that is crossing
a street. A “Stop here for pedestrian crossing” with a stop bar will be added. Also, the traffic
counts on Federal Way do not warrant a three-way stop sign.
Question: Will the narrowing of the travel lane increase the parking depth on Central, which
would perpetuate the visibility issues?
A: We will look at the sight improvement with the consultant during the design.
Question: Will the striping go all the way to SH 114? It should go to Division.
A: It will continue to Park Ridge Blvd. The narrow road is to encourage drivers to reduce
speed coming off SH114. We will follow up with the traffic engineers on the striping to discuss
the most effective option for traffic calming
Question: When a vehicle is parked on Central, visibility turning off Federal onto Central is
extremely obscured. Will that be considered?
Page 3 of 11
A: The stop will be moved closer to Central, but we will also look into if changes need to
be made to those last spots closest to Federal.
Question: What will the striping be like for the pedestrian crossing at Federal?
A: It will be striped with Continental striping, reflective, and a sign that reads “Stop here
for Pedestrians” will be installed.
Question: I am concerned that drivers won’t adhere to the new signage. Could there be
flashing lights?
A: The pedestrian numbers in the study did not warrant flashing lights and was not
recommended by the consultant.
Question: Is this study taking into account the projected growth for the area or just current
status?
A: We have been looking at current needs and would re-evaluate when new buildings
are constructed.
Question: Is there anything that can be done about drivers running the stop sign at
Central/Main such as “blind stop” signs?
A: We will look into an interim options with the Consultant.
Question: Could there be an increase of the new state pedestrian crossing sign, possibly at
every intersection?
A: This would cause sign pollution, and ultimately drivers would not acknowledge any of
the signs due to frequency. However we will evaluate areas of Town Square where this may be
appropriate.
Concern: Several attendees expressed concern for what human nature would suggest to a
pedestrian walking (cut across at Meeting Street rather than go down to Federal and cross
there) and were strongly opposed to removing the crossing at Meeting Street, suggested the
City get more of the residents’ perspective rather than the consultant and data with many non-
residents moving about, and future use of the projected plans due to the increase of homes and
residents preference.
A: Through the design process the City will remain in contact with residents and
schedule another touchpoint before finalizing the design. Additionally, the City will work with the
consultant to evaluate the Meeting Street crossing.
Page 4 of 11
Presentation:
Page 5 of 11
Page 6 of 11
Page 7 of 11
Page 8 of 11
Page 9 of 11
Proposed ecommendation
Page 10 of 11
Page 11 of 11