Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Item 6H
13 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE Department of Planning & Development Services STAFF REPORT January 28, 2015 CASE NO: ZA14-100 PROJECT: Preliminary Plat for Southlake Town & Country EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant Cencor Realty Services is requesting approval of a Preliminary Plat for a total of approximately 55.3 acres that includes Southlake Town & Country which consists of the development of six (6) commercial retail buildings consisting of approximately 165,034 square feet of floor area on approximately 25.921 acres located at 500 W. State Highway 114. SPIN Neighborhood #3 DETAILS: Cencor Realty Services is requesting approval of a Preliminary Plat for 55.3 acres that includes Southlake Town & Country, a proposed development of six (6) commercial retail buildings consisting of approximately 165,320 square feet in size on one lot, the dedication of right-of-way for Kirkwood Boulevard and another one lot to remain undeveloped on the east side of Kirkwood Boulevard. The total acreage for the Preliminary Plat boundary is approximately 55.3 acres. A Site Plan for Southlake Town & Country (Planning Case ZA14-099) is being processed concurrently with this request. This plat is consistent with the proposed development. ACTION NEEDED: Consider Preliminary Plat Approval Request ATTACHMENTS: (A) Background Information (B) Vicinity Map (C) Plans and Support Information (D) Plat Review Summary No. 4, dated January 26, 2015 (E) Surrounding Property Owners Map & Responses (F) Full Size Plans (for Commission and Council members only) STAFF CONTACT: Ken Baker Daniel Cortez Case No. ZA14-100 (817) 748-8067 (817) 748-8070 BACKGROUND INFORMATION OWNERS: Dove 114 Infinity, LLC APPLICANT: Cencor Realty Services PROPERTY SITUATION: 500 W. State Highway 114 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tract 1 F and Tract 1, J. West Survey, Abstract No. 1620 LAND USE CATEGORY: Mixed Use CURRENT ZONING: "S-P-2" Generalized Site Plan District HISTORY: - During the adoption of Zoning Ordinance No. 480 in 1989, the "AG" Agriculture District zoning was placed on the property. - On May 6, 1997 the City Council approved a Zoning Change and Concept Plan from "AG" Agriculture District to "S-P-2" Generalized Site Plan District under Ordinance No. 480-220 (Planning Case ZA96-130). TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT: Existing Area Road Network and Conditions The development is bound to the west by the frontage road of State Highway 114 and Dove Road to the north, a four -lane divided arterial. With the development of this site the applicant is planning to dedicate the right- of-way to construct a portion of Kirkwood Boulevard that is adjacent to the site. Kirkwood Boulevard is shown on the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan at ultimate build -out as a 100-foot, 4-lane divided arterial. Case No. ZA14-100 Based on the site plan submitted there are six driveways total that will access this development. Two Driveways are located on the frontage road of State Highway 114, one along Dove Road, and the last three are located along Kirkwood Boulevard. There are also six right turn deceleration lanes being provided at Driveway 1, Driveway 2, Driveway 3, at Kirkwood Boulevard, Driveway 4 and Driveway 5. Traffic Impact A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was developed by the applicant for this project by the DeShazo Group dated April 24, 2014. The Executive Summary of this report can be found under Attachment `C' of this report. (A digital copy of the TIA has been provided to Council, for a hard copy, please contact staff). The City's consultants, Lee Engineering, reviewed the TIA and they provided comments back to the City that were provided in a letter and were sent to the applicant. The City has since met with the applicant regarding these comments and the applicant has provided additional information. All of these comments can be found under Attachment `E' of the staff report for Planning Case ZA14-099, the Site Plan for Southlake Town & Country and Attachment `C' of this report. SH 114 Frontage Road - Exit Ramp to Dove Road. (019W) BoundWest Attachment A Page 1 SH 114 Frontage Road - Exit Ramp to Dove Road. (019W) 00 00- Dove Road - Between State Hwy 114 and N. White Chapel Blvd. (019W) . . * Based on the 2013 Citv of Southlake Traffic Count Report Shopping Center (820) 165,320 7,099 104 66 298 322 Current Site Plan request Shopping Center (820) 184,820 7,936 116 74 333 360 *Anticiaated at full build -out * Vehicle Trips Per Day * AM -In, AM -Out, PM -In and PM -Out are peak hour generators on a weekda) * Based on the ITE: Trip Generation Manual, 7`t' Edition UTILITIES: Water There is an existing 12-inch water line and 18-inch water line along Dove Road that has the capacity to serve the development. The applicant has also indicated they will be constructing a public 12-inch water line along Kirkwood Boulevard to the south boundary of the development. Sewer The development will connect to two existing 8-inch sanitary sewer lines located at N. White Chapel Boulevard with 8-inch lines. TREE PRESERVATION: The City's Tree Preservation Ordinance allows for any development which was platted or approved under a concept plan prior to September 1, 2005 to adhere to Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 585-B, rather than the current Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 585-D. A Zoning Change and Concept Plan were approved by City Council in 1997 for this property; therefore, the site plan must comply with the requirements of Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 585-B. The City's Landscape Administrator has made an assessment of the applicants Tree Removal and Protection Plan that can be found under Attachment `F' of the staff report for Planning Case ZA14-099, Site Plan Review Summary No. 5, dated January 26, 2015. The applicant has also provided a letter addressing tree preservation and the grading of the site that can be found under Attachment `D' of that staff report as well. SOUTHLAKE 2030: Case No. ZA14-100 Consolidated Future Land Use Plan The Southlake 2030 Consolidated Future Land Use Plan designates this development area as Mixed Use. The following information provided below is from the Consolidated Future Land Use Plan, as it pertains to the Mixed Use land use designation, adopted March 20, 2012 under Ordinance No. 1022. �t Attachment A Page 2 Purpose. To provide an option for large-scale, master -planned, mixed use developments that combine land uses such as office facilities, shopping, dining, parks, and residential uses. Definition: The range of activities permitted, the diverse natural features, and the varying proximity to thoroughfares of areas in the Mixed Use category necessitates comprehensively planned and coordinated development. New development must be compatible with and not intrusive to existing development. Further, special attention should be placed on the design and transition between different uses. Typically, the Mixed Use designation is intended for medium- to higher - intensity office buildings, hotels, commercial activities, retail centers, and residential uses. Nuisance -free, wholly enclosed light manufacturing and assembly uses that have no outdoor storage are permitted if designed to be compatible with adjacent uses. Other suitable activities are those permitted in the Public Parks/Open Space, Public/Semi-Public, Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Retail Commercial, and Office Commercial categories previously discussed. The percentages below for the land use mix in the Mixed Use category are intended only to be guidelines, and greater flexibility may be appropriate under site specific conditions. Percentage. Retail 30% ±20% Office 35% ±30% Residential 15% ±15% Open space 15% ±15% Civic use 5% ±5% Total 100% *These percentages are not regulatory and should only be used as a guide. Scale and Context Criteria: General: ■ Buildings and their pedestrian entrances are to be oriented towards internal streets. ■ Larger -format retail uses (with footprints larger than 40,000 s.f.) shall be located adjacent to the arterial or highway with pedestrian entrances from internal streets. Retail and Office Uses: ■ Pedestrian -oriented or automobile -oriented. Hotel Uses: ■ Hotel uses should be full -service hotels at market -driven locations, primarily in the S.H. 114 Corridor. Full -service, for the purposes of this plan, shall be hotels that include a table -service restaurant within or directly attached to the hotel. Other services or amenities typically included would be bell service and room service, as well as available meeting space. Case No. Attachment A ZA14-100 Page 3 The desire is to approve hotels adequate to support market -driven commerce in the City, paying attention to the product mix such that the hospitality services in the area are complementary to one another. Single-family Residential Uses: ■ Residential uses are to be located between the proposed office or retail uses and existing residential neighborhoods. These uses are intended to provide a lower intensity transition between existing neighborhoods and commercial uses. ■ Residential uses should be well integrated with proposed open space and other civic uses to create a sense of place. ■ They should also be integrated with proposed commercial uses in a manner that provides internal automobile and pedestrian access to convenience commercial uses. ■ Single-family residential uses are recommended to be to the density and scale that is appropriate based on the context and character of the proposed overall development. Open Space: ■ Consider environmental elements as "features," rather than constraints. ■ Emphasis shall be placed on preservation of existing wooded areas and stream corridors. ■ Avoid channeling or piping of streams. ■ Streams or creeks should become a focal point rather than the rear of the development. ■ Provide natural walking paths along stream and creek corridors. ■ Well designed and integrated open spaces are critical to the creation of successful mixed -use neighborhoods. ■ Open spaces should be designed to add value to proposed development and not as an "after -thought'. To that end, open spaces should maximize frontage along residential and office uses. Open spaces shall occupy a prominent place in the development of a neighborhood and form the center pieces of a community. ■ Open spaces are intended to be the "front -yards" and invite passive recreational activities. Open spaces may be in the form of pocket parks, children's play areas, squares, linear greens, and conservation areas. ■ Use the topography as an advantage, do not flatten the site. ■ Preserve views. Civic Uses: ■ Civic uses such as day -cares, post office, police substation, local government offices, churches, etc. are encouraged. Ideally, civic uses should be located centrally in the development and provide convenient access to all other uses and activities in the development. Civic uses are to be designed to the scale and context of the neighborhood. Uses are encouraged to be appropriately scaled to the proposed development and generally limited to a maximum of 10,000 square feet of built area. Overall Character an, ➢ Buildings are to be designed to be pedestrian friendly. Case No. Attachment A ZA14-100 Page 4 ➢ Buildings shall have shallow setbacks and sidewalks that are a minimum of 10'. ➢ Buildings are to be oriented towards other buildings (across the street) or towards open spaces. ➢ Minimize the impact of surface parking. ➢ Mix up land uses to maximize shared parking. Street Design Standards: ➢ Internal streets to be designed to accommodate both automobiles and pedestrians. ➢ Streets to be designed with curb and gutter. ➢ Interconnected street network. ➢ Regular blocks and streets. ➢ Block widths between 400' and 600'. ➢ Design speed <25 mph. SH 114 Corridor Plan The subject site is located within the State Highway 114 Corridor Plan area that was adopted under on March 6, 2012 under Ordinance No. 1021. A copy of this entire plan will be provided to the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council in their packets. Major Corridors Urban Design Plan The Urban Design Plan was adopted February 5, 2008 and contains recommendations for private development. The following information and recommendations are from the Urban Design Plan as it pertains to private development: • cat�vlraencity ream�ea � .. a. OF: ® Bridge Enhancemenia 1 � _ �i , ® Low Nonumeni SiKn _ - - - 114Bridged O- • hail Amenity L«ation � - �h s • �I,Pment tdeotlry kid o x© "Special consideration should be given to S.H. 114 with respect to both the public and private realms. The SH 114 Corridor is over 200 feet wide and traffic travels an average of over 60 mph. This means that the City's development identity must be shaped with bold strokes which can readily be discerned by a person driving at a high speed with limited peripheral Case No. Attachment A ZA14-100 Page 5 vision. In addition, the elevation of the road changes dramatically in relationship to adjacent and distant land parcels which provides views into some adjacent properties. Given the scale and impact of the highway facility on the city's existing fabric, creating a sense of place along its corridor is challenging with just public realm improvements. Private development can, where appropriate, complement and enhance the investments in the public right-of-way. To this end, the following are specific recommendations for private development along the S.H. 114 corridor: f ■ Preserve existing natural view corridors where appropriate. Specifically, tree stands along the highway should be preserved when they terminate views from the highway. ■ In order to maximize regional access and limit the impact of strip retail development, retail and restaurant development should be concentrated at interchanges in 1-2 storey buildings with higher intensity office and institutional uses at mid block locations. Establish appropriate scale and bulk standards for buildings along the highway, specifically at mid -block locations. Buildings should be 4 — 6 stories tall and step down as they move away from the highway corridor. Buildings over three stories should be articulated along the first three floors. Materials on the lower floors should be brick, stone or other approved masonry. Low -profile, single storey pad buildings that tend to blend into the background and have limited visibility from the highway are discouraged. All windows on buildings should be vertically oriented and be articulated with a 4-inch reveal to avoid solid, flat walls, and to create shadowlines and surface texture. Glass curtain walls and facades with more than 60% glass along any elevation shall be discouraged. Along retail store fronts, 1'— 2' high knee walls shall limit the amount of glass along each fagade visible from public streets. ■ The view of surface parking from the highway should be limited. Surface parking lots should be designed to be in smallerpods (no more than 200 parking spaces) with increased landscaping and pedestrian accessways. Structured parking is encouraged over surface parking. Specifically, shared parking is also encouraged between adjoining complementary land uses. Special attention should be given to the design of parking garages to avoid plain facades with views of parked cars from adjoining properties and rights -of -ways. Fagade details, vertical and horizontal courses such as cornices, lintels, sills, and water courses should be used to add interest along facades. To the extent possible, parking garages should be located behind principal structures to limit views from the highway. ■ All developments greater than 10 acres should be broken up into blocks Case No. Attachment A ZA14-100 Page 6 which can provide easy circulation by cars, people and emergency vehicles, and which interconnect with adjacent properties where possible. This will also facilitate reinvestment and possible redevelopment in future years. Master planning of larger tracts or multiple tracts is encouraged over piece -meal development. In addition, the master plan applications should include all the elements of the built environment such as building design, site design, wayfinding and building signage, landscaping, treatment of natural features, bridges, streets, street lighting, etc. Every effort should be made to incorporate recommended urban design elements into the project design. PLAN FOR UNDERGROUNDING UTILITY LINES Implementation of the recommended corridor improvements will considerably improve the visual appearance of the city's major corridors. However, the presence of overhead utility lines and utility poles along the city's major corridors will continue to limit this effort. To this end, the burying of overhead utility lines is a critical complement to the recommended design improvements. Based on existing development and the potential for future development, this plan recommends a prioritization plan for burying overhead utility lines. Although the cost of burying overhead utility lines can be fairly expensive, they can be offset by the aesthetic benefits that will ultimately increase property values, benefiting both adjacent property owners and the city in the long run. Due to limitations on the city's ability to regulate utility companies and the placement of utility lines, this plan recommends a public -private partnership approach to addressing this critical issue of burying utility lines. The City's participation to offset the difference in costs between overhead and underground utilities could include a range of options including zoning entitlements such as mix and intensity of uses, developer's agreements, economic development agreements, TIF reimbursements, and other incentives. During this planning effort, all overhead utility lines along major roadway corridors were identified. Based on existing, pending, and future development, a prioritization plan was developed. The plan on the following page categorizes the burying of overhead utilities. ■ Priority should be placed on the frontages of Southlake Boulevard, Carroll Avenue, and S.H. 114 in the immediate vicinity of the Town Center area. ■ Large, undeveloped tracts along the S.H. 114 corridor should be prioritized. Due to the visibility and high profile nature of development along this corridor, this plan recommends a public -private partnership approach based on new development proposals. ■ Coordinate and prioritize the burying of overhead utility lines along Case No. Attachment A ZA14-100 Page 7 Carroll Avenue from F.M. 1709 to S.H. 114 in the city's CIP. ■ Bury overhead utility lines in conjunction with roadway improvements to take advantage of cost savings that may be available due to the need to move utilities. ■ Along corridor segments with existing development, prioritize and coordinate the burying of utility lines with major redevelopment of the parcels. " I Prioritization Plan for illll -- .. Undergrounding BDB Overhead Utility Lines TI = - October 17. 2007 City ofSm"44 OeP.1—ta pi—mgaOre hp—ts.,ie,e Legend - 1 J=" High P real¢. Pardn001.0.P..A ft Pried¢. Fulce D—bp-rt - High -P,-te. Redeedov-A — Med— Prbk �. McQnn-PrieeM. Pendbg OerelePn 1 Medan-Pried¢-FWee Deeebp—.# `E e r — Medi.n-Priude. Red —I poem e 1 e -- LowPuhlrRrrde - OClE mi1 CAy L Pares e .. w i- NAXE [ i jj I CA.NhtJENTAL � CON�INEy_4L e �rP Mobility Master Plan The Master Thoroughfare Plan recommends for this portion of Kirkwood Boulevard to be a 100-foot, 4-lane divided arterial roadway. As such, the applicant is proposing to construct two lanes of Kirkwood Boulevard leaving the remaining two lanes to be built in the future, potentially if the adjacent property develops. The plan also contains one specific recommendation at the intersection of Kirkwood Boulevard and Dove Road which reads: Case No. Attachment A ZA14-100 Page 8 Issues .0Recommendations Traffic volumes will increase as Consider property to the ation or sither south develops otraffic other and the MT26 management intersection is devices at the built for the intersection of continuous Dove and Kirkwood. connection of Kirkwood. As the property develops to the south of this interesction, traffic is anticipated to increase. A study will be necessary to determine a form of traffic control at this intersection. Implementation Metric �Mmm■:�i Conduct a study of Mobility, Efficient 3.1, the Dove/Kirkwood Infrastructure, Mobility 3.3, Pw intersection. C1, C2, CB04 Options 3.5, 3.9 The Pathways Plan recommends for a less than 8-foot sidewalk along the south side of Dove Road and the west side of Kirkwood Boulevard and an 8-foot sidewalk along the east side of Kirkwood Boulevard and the frontage road of State Highway 114. The applicant is proposing to construct a 6-foot sidewalk along the south side of Dove Road and an 8-foot sidewalk on the west side of Kirkwood Boulevard and along the frontage road of State Highway 114 meeting the Pathways Plan recommendations. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION: October 9, 2014; Approved to Table (7-0) to the November 6, 2014 meeting. November 6, 2014; Approved to Table (5-0) to the November 20, 2014 meeting. November 20, 2014; Motion to recommend denial (5-2), passed. CITY COUNCIL: December 2, 2014; Tabled (7-0) to the second City Council meeting in January (January 20, 2015. January 20, 2015; Tabled (7-0) to the February 3, 2015 City Council meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Plat Review Summary No. 4, dated January 26, 2015. WCommunity DevelopmentWEMO12014 Cases000 - PP - Southlake Town & CountrylStaff Report Case No. Attachment A ZA14-100 Page 9 Vicinity Map Southlake Town & Country 268 402 209 N < 212 213 217 F 301 11 C1 305 U $ 600 [a308 2309 100 Q2304 2305 s 165 185 245 y 4_ N 101 500 2300 23073h 684 600 W DOVE RD Y 665 Nip d2 �`Po 0 112 116 101 05 �y a 104 120 lb 100 >qq 112 11 `� 204 g a O rao Y E KIRKWOOD BLVD o^ 707 } O S N 594 N r 114 ZA 14-100 �d - Preliminary Plat 11 0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet Case No. Attachment B ZA14-100 Page 1 ya9.po.ry �emr :mla�II{ems Ova-s��4mu4uin IIavn3lnoe ooanuiaia _ I Plans and Support Information oot 3Ls'.vuld NoumoN rrvs tree' �Tl'wNtlN16443aW LN�0l9 ,L dAl We'L J1.7010,15101 mr3L'.urvno��xreari Aa1Nf107 NMOl 371VIH1nOS 31fYlFl1f10s j0All3 lYlSd ALtlNWIId t,� w -j a9s GuvA3ln— i3dvio munm N . 1� W I gg a =5.�1$ Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 1 HPo[15tlXNOIN 5llOH ONZ 3LS'hA1Nd NOLSf10H WtlS LZ88 1P.-earn 3i,' INIdNl 6LI Owa 6N0019'L lOI P�e'L NOOl9 IS101 ads -aof •ea>tspo..y �a� s✓X31'A NnOOlNYtlWI ANIM100'8 NMOI 3N"H1f10S w N o N llNBll1 a N �" 3JrolH UnS1L1� Ltlld AiltlNIW H]Ld I �I iM OZ91 ory ]oaHrsev'n3nans ]s�v, NHor s3wvr 77 FF o zu �a 4Yj°moY�� On- `HHNj m � u €��8Ga38 �$$ TAMP 0 wn� IF dap � t� .1 �� �� $�� �� ��5 g g.r 9'JiD ir gppiigg ��� s 5 ffi 5P gn S Eiji! s hisi" apE s spy "" �a` ffi i W Gg �. = EcQ 3 nn Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 2 Traffic Impact Analysis Findings DeShazo Group Traffic. Transportation Planning. Parking. Design. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To: Michael Clark, P.E. Winkelmann & Associates, Inc. From: DeShazo Group, Inc. Date; April 24, 2014 Re; A Traffic Impact Analysis for Southlake Center, a Proposed Commercial Development in Southlake, Texas (DeShazo #13057) Introduction The services of DeShazo Group, Inc. were retained by Winkelmann & Associates, Inc. to conduct a Traffic Impact Analysis and Access Assessment for Southlake Center, a proposed commercial development located at the intersection of Dove Road and White Chapel Boulevard in Southlake, Texas (see Exhibit 1). The DeShazo Group is an engineering consulting firm providing licensed engineers skilled in the field of traffic & transportation engineering. This study will examine the potential traffic generated by the proposed development plan and will determine the general availability of access and roadway capacity available to serve it far the following scenarios: Existing conditions (2013) • Project buildout (2015 - if needed) • Project buildout+5 years (2020). The 2015 scenario will only be analyzed if the 2020 scenario is found to require mitigation. If the 2020 scenario provides acceptable levels of service without roadway improvements beyond those proposed as part of the project, it can be assumed that the 2015 scenario (which will reflect lower traffic volumes) will also provide acceptable levels of service. Once completed, this report will be provided to City of Southlake staff (Staff) and TxDOT for review and to fulfill the associated requirements of the local approval process. Proposed Development Characteristics This proposed development consists of approximately 200,000 square feet of commercial uses an the western tract and 69 single-family dwelling units an the eastern tract. The overall project is proposed to be fully developed by the end of 2015. Exhibit 2 offers a conceptual site plan and shows the roadway improvements included with the project including: 1) The construction of deceleration lanes on Dove at Kirkwood, on Kirkwood and the site driveways and on SH 114 at Drives 1 and 2, 2) the construction of a raised median on Dove at Drive 3 and 3) the completion of Kirkwood as a 4-lane, divided facility south of Dove. 400 South Houston Street, Suite 330 Dallas, Texas 75202 P. 214.74M740 F. 214.748.7037 www.deshaaogroitp.com Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 3 Roadways and Accessibility The following existing roadways will provide primary (direct) access to the subject site and are included in the study area (refer to Exhibit 3 for Southlake's Mobility Plan): • Dave Road a 4-lane, divided roadway with additional turn lanes at major intersections between Kirkwood Boulevard and SH 114 and a 2-lane, undivided roadway east of Kirkwood Boulevard and West of SH 114. Shown as an A413 between Kirkwood Boulevard and SH 114 and an AZU east of Kirkwood Boulevard and West of SH 114 (with the possibility of an upgrade to an A413 if/when traffic volumes warrant). • White Chapel Boulevard o a 2-lane, undivided roadway. Shown as an A4D between Dove Road and 5H 114 and a CZU north of Dove Road. • SH 114 Frontage Roads o the northbound frontage road is a 4-lane, one-way roadway adjacent to the site and the southbound frontage road is a 3-lane, one-way roadway. • Kirkwood Boulevard a a 4-lane, divided roadway north of Dove Road and east of White Chapel Boulevard. The portion of Kirkwood Boulevard between Dove Road and White Chapel Boulevard has not been constructed. The following intersections will also he included in the impact analysis: • Dove Road @ White Chapel Boulevard, • Dove Road @ Kirkwood Boulevard, • Dove Road @ the 5H 114 frontage roads, • Dove Road @ 2 site driveways, • White Chapel Boulevard @ 2 site driveways and • SH 114 northbound frontage road @ 2 site driveways. Traffic Volumes The TIA presented in this report will analyze the operational conditions for the peak hours and study area as defined above using standardized analytical methodologies where applicable. It will examine current traffic conditions, future background traffic conditions, future traffic conditions with the proposed project fully developed and operational and a final scenario occurring 5 years after development is complete. Once current traffic information was collected, future background volumes were developed by applying an annual growth rate to the existing count data. Then, the traffic generated by the proposed development was projected using the standard four -step approach: Trip Generation, Mode Split, Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment. By adding the site -generated trafficto the future background traffic, the resulting traffic impact to operational conditions may be assessed from which mitigation measures may be recommended. Existing Traffic Volumes Existing peak hour traffic volumes were collected in the study area in May and August of 2013. These volumes are shown in Exhibits 4 -6. Detailed traffic counts can be found in the Appendix. Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 4 Future Background Traffic Volumes The standard procedure for determining the future background or non -site -related traffic involves several steps. The first is to determine an average annual growth rate for the roadways in the study area. The second is to determine a buildout or horizon year for the analysis. Finally, the existing traffic volumes are factored using the assumed annual growth rate for the selected number of growth years. For this project, we have assumed a horizon/buildout year of 2020 and that an average annual growth rate of 4% will occur each year for the next 7 years. Applying this factor to the existing traffic volumes yields the 2020 background volumes shown in Exhibits 7 - 9. Site -Related Traffic Volumes Trip Generation and Mode Split Trip generation for the Project was calculated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual (9t' Edition). ITE Trip Generation is a compilation of actual traffic generation data by land use as collected over several decades by creditable sources across the country and it is accepted as the standard methodology to determine trip generation volumes for various land uses where sufficient data exists. Because there is no proposed connection between the commercial and residential developments, the development was analyzed as two separate traffic generators - one east of proposed Kirkwood and one west of proposed Kirkwood. No reductions were applied for internally captured trips (because the ITE Shopping Center land use code already reflects this characteristic) or pass -by trips (motorists who patronize the site, but who already pass through the study area during the peak periods). A summary of the site -related trips calculated for the proposed building program is provided in Table 1 which shows the net trips added by the proposed development. The appropriate ITE Trip Generation Manuaf-8'' Edition excerpts are provided in the Appendix. Table 1 �V1.I VI IICIRC 4CIIC1 111p V=11-41V11 AM Peak PM Peak Weekend Peak Daily Land Use Quantity Hour Hour Hour Traffic In I out Jn I Out In I out Eastern Tract 210—Single Family 69 pC 746 15 43 47 28 38 32 Western Tract 820 — Shopping Center 199,678 SF 8,526 119 73 457 495 712 658 944 —Gas Station 18 Pumps 3,034 112 107 125 125 125 125 Totals 12,306 246 223 629 M 750 690 Trip Distribution and Assignment Traffic generated by the proposed development at site buildout conditions was distributed and assigned to the study area roadway network using professional judgment to interpret the traffic orientation characteristics of existing traffic volumes in the study area and a technical understanding of the available roadway network. Exhibits 10 - 12 illustrate the approach and departure percentages assumed for site - generated traffic in this study. Traffic Volumes Determination of the traffic impact associated with the Project is measured by comparing the change in operational conditions before and after site -related traffic is added to the roadway system. This involves the development of traffic volumes that include both background and site -related traffic. The site -generated traffic was calculated by multiplying the trip generation values (from Table 1) by the corresponding traffic approach and departure orientations (Exhibits 10 - 12). The resulting peak -hour, site -generated traffic volumes of the Project are summarized in Exhibits 13 - 15. Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 5 Future Background Plus Site Traffic Volumes Adding the new site -related traffic volumes from Exhibits 13 - 15 to the 2020 background traffic volumes shown in Exhibits 7 - 9 yields the total peak period traffic volumes at the Project buildout year shown Exhibits 16 - 18. Access Assessment The access assessment portion of this study will examine three major areas: 1) The spacing between the proposed driveways and adjacent driveways, 2) The spacing between proposed driveways and adjacent public street intersections and 3) The need for acceleration f deceleration lanes based on the projected turning movements at the proposed driveways. Access Point -to -Access Paint Spacing The TxDOT Access Management Manual requires 305' between access points on a one-way facility with a posted speed limit of 40 mph as is the case on the SH 114 northbound frontage road in the area of the proposed development (see Appendix). The site plan (Exhibit 2) shows that: • Driveway 1 is located approximately 475' from Driveway 2 and • Driveway 2 is located approximately 425' from Dove Road Therefore, both distances exceed the minimum separation requirements. The City of Southlake controls the access spacing on both Dove Road White Chapel Boulevard and requires 250' between driveway oenterlines and 20(Y between driveways and street intersections on an arterial. Applying these criteria to the proposed site plan (Exhibit 2), we find that; • Driveway 3 is over 400' from the SH 114 northbound frontage road, • Driveway 4 is approximately 300' from Driveway 3 and 230' from Kirkwood Boulevard, • Driveway 5 is approximately 400' from Dove Road and over 550' from drive 6 and • Drive 7 is over 300' from Drive 6. Therefore, all distances exceed the minimum driveway separation requirements. Auxiliary Lane Assessment This portion of this study will examine the need for a uxiliary or turn lanes based on the projected turning movements at the proposed access points. Both TxDOT and the City of Southlake require that auxiliary turn lanes be provided when the turning movements exceed 50 vehicles per hour for right turns on a roadway with a speed of 40 mph or less (see Appendix). Applying the volume threshold standard to the proposed site traffic (Exhibits 13 -15) shows that: 1) The projected right turn traffic volumes on the SH 114 northbound frontage road at Driveways 1 and 2 exceed the volume threshold for an auxiliary lane (both are shown on the site plan), 2) The projected eastbound right turn traffic volumes on Dove Road at Drive 3 exceed the volume threshold for an auxiliary lane. 3) The projected eastbound right turn traffic volumes on Dove Road at Kirkwood Boulevard exceed the volume threshold for an auxiliary lane (one is proposed and shown on the site plan). 4) The projected right turn traffic volumes on Kirkwood at Driveways 5 and 6 exceed the volume threshold for an auxiliary lane (both are shown on the site plan). Poge 4 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 6 Traffic Impact Analysis Analysis Methodology Traffic operational conditions for unsignalized and signalized roadway intersections are quantitatively measured in terms of average delay per vehicle Ina one -hour period through the intersection as a function of roadway capacity and operational characteristics of the traffic signal. The standardized methodology applied herein was developed by the Transportation Research Board as presented in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). HCM also qualitatively rates the overall delay conditions in terms of "Level -of -Service" (LOS) ranging from "A" (free -flowing conditions) to "F" (over -capacity conditions). Generally, LOS D or better is considered an acceptable condition for intersections in urban and suburban areas. Summary of Results The intersection capacity analyses presented in this study were performed using the Synchro 8 software package. Table 2 provides a summary of the intersection operational conditions during the peak periods under the analysis conditions presented previously. Detailed software output is provided in the Appendix. The findings are as follows: Existing (2013) Conditions The following assumptions were included as part of the existing conditions analysis: • The traffic volumes collected in May and August of 2013 are representative of average daily traffic levels. As Table 2 indicates, all interchanges and intersections operate acceptably during the morning and afternoon peak periods with 2013 traffic volumes. In order to determine the feasibility of signalizing the Dove/Kirkwood intersection, a traffic signal warrant analysis has been conducted. This study found that existing volumes do not satisfy the warrant criteria. However, with the addition of seven years of background traffic growth and the retail traffic, the projected volumes satisfy one -hour, four-hour and eight -hour volume warrants. The detailed warrant analysis can be found in the Appendix. Future (2020) Background Conditions The following assumptionswere included as part of thefuture background conditions analysis: • The traffic volumes collected in May and August of 2013 have been increased by 4% per year for seven years to reflect the normal growth in the study area and represent average daily traffic levels for the year 2020. As Table 2 indicates, 1) The SH 114IDove Road interchange operates acceptably during the morning and afternoon peak periods with 2020 background traffic volumes. 2) The Kirkwood Boulevard f Dave Road intersection fails as an unsignalized operation during the AM peak. if this location is signalized, however, the levels of service will return to acceptable values. 3) The Dave Rood/White Chapel roundabout fails during the AM and PM peak periods. if bypass lanes are added, the LOS does improve. In order to determine the feasibility of signalizing the Dove/Kirkwood intersection, a traffic signal warrant analysis has been conducted. This study found that existing volumes do not satisfy the warrant criteria. However, with the addition of seven years of background traffic growth and the retail traffic, the projected volumes satisfy one -hour, four-hour and eight -hour volume warrants. The detailed warrant analysis can be found in the Appendix. Future (2020) `Buildout Plus 5 Years' Conditions The following assumptions were included as part of the future background plus site conditions analysis: • The proposed project will be fully developed by the end of the year 2D15 and Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 7 Table 2 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis Results 21F13 2AID b2dWnwd Pmd[imm+See Irrtere 6m TrEww kameA AM PM Weekend AM PM Weekend AM PM VW.,L d SH 117 SSFR @ D.- B j147) B 1212) B f12.1) C r2i6J B PD) B (22-5) C (3129) C r273) B IM21 5H 114 NBFR 0 Owe B 444J C pa6) B 42291 C 95.9) C r3L2J B fi83) C r33sJ D j4L4 B f179) AE2 A (44 A ff q A Ralf A P9J A jB.df A JZAJ F rz"J F j11 9p F IM031 NBL F f1099J F Err F (9SLD) NOT F faaq F (5tq D j33A NBR C r232J C (1" B f147) Dour KiM-d EBL A 172J A fat) A (36J B fW5) A J A f7.8J B f209J A f LSJ A f8.2) 'NBL A (4K4) A I L9J A (92) 5BL D f1" C f1R1) B JULS) F f1085) D pzgJ B flf-V F f8779J F f2342.0) F f m) sm D f3i7J B (IZM A f8-9! B WAY C f:5-4J A f9.4 C (28,6) C M V D fz7_SJ xirs+8^v! C L2 4 C f29.2) B AM) A r9-ai A JM12) A IUai Alf. E 974 9 1104 A Ref F J&D4 E f433) A f6.4 F P&N F 935L4 9 1109) EB B 41") B (114 A L5.2) E f369) C (Z-5J A f5.9J F (6@ 9) F {F4.4J B 12L5) wf EB Op.- C LLd..0) C psi) A r5-6J O (322J D r28.6J A f72J WB C J22 67 C f1.r`_fii A L63) F jl&u= E r41S6 A f&6J F r364.8j F 0587J B p2_6J Done@WhieeCh2pel 0yposs E 146A9 D rIS-4 A f6-IJ F M24 F M37 B pafiJ NB B iM51 C r1-92) A L90 D (26,09 F f?" A" E r3&4) F g32.8) A 19.5) .1wByposs B 114'M C r19,f1) A (477 C (1791 F (674 A f7 21 55 C 4ES) A fx1J A 15L4 F p3.q 8 f2L5J A ffLu F (96.0) C 48.6J 5 f2O5) ydSB Oyposs C 125-4 A LA5) A j5LSJ C f28.8J 9 p(o) A ffA ALL A (L9) A jL6J A JZM A fSJ A RA A (LiJ A f3A A 143J A (54 'NBL C iEU) B 93.7) B A" C pa 7) C f27.4J B r123) D r75.4J D i28.4 C R.13J Whi�{hapel IGrkunod 'NBR A f99) B f1rz1J A f92J B f266) B 12091 A fMJ B f2L7J B rt3.1J B gL8J 58L A f8.0J A f8.0i A ri.6) A f&2) A (M4 A f78J A J8.4) A P.BJ A (93) AIL A L031 A f06J A f12) SH 114 h BFR @ Drix 2 WBA A �99) B iIZ4 B PLO) ALL A fD-5) A LuJ A (34 SH 11A hBFRMCriv 1 wM A (20. 0) B M 21? B f121) AE2 A i7Sf A fUj A rin A LLB) A MXJ A f27) A f27) A P q f8 A Iv..aJ A IUM A 100j A 010J A r0.0J F (56.2) C (2-R C r2321 EEL A ry3J A PO) B paq A (OAJ A f0.OJ B f2L2J A j6.0J A PM Dove@ Dive 3 'NBL A Iv..aJ A PO) A IGOJ A XD. A f0.01 A f9.7) A fast A t9l) 5BL B (;R4 A IV a) a pa-R) A Lf1.b) A f0.dj A (dM A 14A) A IV0) SBR A px.aJ B f126) A f0.0J B (246J A f0.0J B (112) C (M). A 100) ALL A (34 A (L5) A (14) Kirk-d a Drive 5 EBL A (9.6) B (i24 8 f12.3) ALL A KA A r53J A f49) KiM-Dd @ Drive B EBL A (98) A 19.7J A P. ALL A fLai A r0.AJ A jUdi NBL E 4L4J E jda.SJ C (2O2) Dove im Drive S NBR B P232J C (I59J B (12-M 'NBL A J.0) A f99J A (93) AIL A W) A IU) A fa1J NBL A J&3) A f Ll2 A f&.B) White Chapd @ Orive9 EBL C (276) C (MOJ B nf,4 EBR B f2L7J B r10.4J B f103) ALL A f0.1) A r09J A fu1J NBL A I83) A j LOj A r7.91 Whie` {hapel @ 0rive id EBL C f2C2J C 4E4 B P91 EBR B f2L2J B 4dR B f10.2) ItEr +4%CA E. F=!-r J'S-ci ,'�,-i4�.pp Yr Case No. ZA14-100 MS SA EL W®=A"tll, SCWry fart-,N4� Tld cP .h JrR=uAm VgI7tA vod+-iny me-rE Attachment C Page 8 The traffic volumes collected in May and August of 2013 have been increased by 4% per year for seven years to reflect the normal growth in the study area and represent average daily traffic levels for the year 2020. As Table 2 indicates, 1) The SH 114/Dove Road interchange operates acceptably during the morning and afternoon peak periods with 2020 background plus site traffic volumes. 2) The Kirkwood Boulevard/Dove Road intersection fails as an unsignalized operation during the AM and PM peak periods. if this location is signalized, however, the levels of service will return to acceptable values. 3) The Dove Road/White Chapel roundabout fails during the AM and PM peak periods. Even if all 4 bypass lanes are added, the LOS does not improve. This single -lone roundabout will need to be widened to a multi -lane roundabout in the very near future and Dove Road may need to be widened to a 4-lane facility. Conclusions and Recommendations This report has examined the access and traffic impact of Southlake Center (a proposed Commercial development in Southlake, Texas) on the adjacent roadway system. The findings indicate the following: 1) All site driveways meet TxDOT and Southlake access spacing requirements, 2) Site Driveways #3 may require an auxiliary/deceleration lane. 3) The intersection of Dove Road and Kirkwood Boulevard should be signalized when volumes satisfy the warrant criteria. In order to determine the feasibility of signalizing the DovelKirkwood intersection, a traffic signal warrant analysis has been conducted. This study found that existing volumes do not satisfy the warrant criteria. However, with the addition of seven years of background traffic growth and the retail traffic, the projected volumes satisfy one -hour, four-hour and eight -hour volume warrants. The detailed warrant analysis can be found in the Appendix. 4) Because one approach of the single -lane roundabout at Dove and White Chapel already fails during the AM peak period, this roundabout will need to be widened to a multi -lane roundabout in the very near future and Dove Road may need to be widened to a 44ane facility. By-pass lanes may also be needed by 2020. NOTE: Recommen do tions for public improvements within the study area presented in this report reflect the opinion of DeShazo based solely upon technical analysis and professional judgment and are not intended to define, imply, or allocate funding sources nor required improvements. Applicable legal precedent indicates that the Owner of a Project should only be required to proportionately fund necessary infrastructure improvements that are directly attributable to implementation of the Project. Such requirements will depend upon the individual circumstances of each project that may be viewed differently by each particular ogencyfmunicipolity. ENO OF MEMO Page 7 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 9 7LVAM rinanamne September 12, 2014 Alex Ayala, P.E. City of 5outhlake 1400 Main Street, Suite 320 5outhlake, Texas 76092 ARIZONA TEXAS NEW MEXICO ❑KLAHOMA Re: Southlake Town & Country Tia Review —August 2014 Revision - (Formerly Southlake Center) Dear Mrs. Ayala: Per your request, we have reviewed the traffic engineering study for the proposed South lake Town & Country ❑evelopment. The traffic engineering study reviewed was titled "So uthlake Center" and was dated August 9, 2014 by the Deshazo Group. Our review comments are numbered for ease of reference and the numbering does not imply any ranking. We have divided our comments into two categories — Informational Comments are those that require no action by the city or the applicant. Action Comments are those that require a response or action by the City or applicant. We offer the following comments on the submitted traffic impact analysis. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS (REQUIRE NO ACTION BY CITY OR APPLICANT) 1. The proposed development contained in the site plan in the TIA is for the property that is bordered by SH 114 to the west, Dove Road to the north, and North White Chapel Boulevard to the east. The extension of Kirkwood Boulevard bisects the property. The site plan shows commercial development west of Kirkwood Boulevard and vacont land east of Kirkwood Boulevard. 2. The site plan of the TIA indicates that the western portion of the development will contain a grocery store, retail, restaurant, bank, and related commercial uses. The approximate size of the western portion of the development is 204,343 square feet. Gas pumps are not included in the site plan exhibit. 3. The TIA text indicates that the roadway improvements included with the project include the following. o Construction of deceleration lanes on Dove Road at Kirkwood Blvd and Drive 3, On Kirkwood at Drive 5 and Drive 6, and on SH 114 at Drives 1 and 2. o Construction of a raised median on Dove Road at Drive 3. This improvement was not shown on the site plan. o Construction of Kirkwood Boulevard as a 4 lane divided facility south of Dove Road to the project limits. 4. Based on the site traffic assignment the eastbound right turn movement into Driveway 4 does not exceed the City of South lake threshold. No deceleration lane is shown to Driveway 4 3030 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1660, Dallas, TX 75234 (972) 248-3006 office (972) 248-3855 fax I www.leeengineering.com Page 1 of 3 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 10 5. No pass -by or internal capture reductions were performed on the calculated trip totals. This is because the shopping center use was selected for the commercial site and includes internal capture affects already. This is a conservative methodology and we agree with performing the study in this fashion. 6. The TIA indicates that the project is projected to be complete in 2015. No 2015 analysis was presented. The study includes a Future (Buildout + 5 Year) analysis that includes background traffic grown at 4% annually from 2013 until 2020. In our original 2013 TIA reviews for this property we commented that we believe the first, southernmost, driveway on the frontage road, Drive 1, is too close to the freeway exit ramp. The spacing to the exit ramp does not appear to have changed. We still believe the site would be better served by moving the driveway further away from the exit ramp. Based on a comment response letter from previous reviews submittals, TOOT has conceptually approved this configuration though formal documentation of this approval has not been provided. 8. The TIA indicates that the White Chapel at Dove roundabout will operate at acceptable levels of service during the year 2020 under background traffic with the exception of the eastbound approach which is predicted to operate at level of service E. The eastbound level of service E operation is driven by the peak period related to the elementary school north of the site. With development traffic added to the intersection in the year 2020, the study indicates level of service E and F operation in the northbound and westbound directions during the PM peak hour. The study states that the intersection may warrant a northbound and/or westbound right -turn bypass lane. It is important to recognize that the roundabout analysis is highly dependent on the peak hour factor selected for use in the analysis. As volumes grow at a location typically the peaking characteristics level out across the peak hour instead of being concentrated in a single few minute period. Thus, the operation may be slightly better than predicted. The addition of right -turn by-pass lanes to the roundabout would only benefit traffic during the peak 15-30 minutes of the morning and evening peak hour, but would be unnecessary throughout the majority of the day. ACTION COMMENTS (REQUIRE RESPONSE OR ACTION BY CITY OR APPLICANT, 1. Trip generation included in the report indicate that the site is predicted to generate 8,725 trips on a daily basis. This calculation was performed using the 1TE Average rate for the shopping center land uses. When the regression equation is used to calculate the estimated daily trips the resulting value is 10,806 trips on a typical weekday. We have previously commented on this item: o "the revised trip generation table should use the equation for the daily trip calculation, resulting in higher predicted daily volumes over the day. These minor changes should be made and reflected in an updated record copy of the TIA for the City. They are not expected to impact the findings or conclusions of the study." Table 5 and Table 6 in the Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis appear to contain significant errors. Table 5 is reported as containing the site traffic generated by the shopping center, however, the volumes shown in Table 5 for the Rove Road and Southbound Kirkwood approach are far too high to be site traffic only. Table 6 similarly has volumes that are far too high to be Site + Background based on the information and traffic volumes figures contained in the TIA. o Revise Table 5 and Table 6 with and update the signal warrant accordingly. LEE rina umne Case No. ZA14-100 Page 2 of 3 Attachment C Page 11 o Previously we had commented on the signal warrant that: "The signal warrant must be updated to reflect the correct trip generation and land use mixes from the current proposed development." Table 7 in the Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis indicates that the signal is not warranted by background traffic growth at the Kirkwood at Dove intersection in the year 202Q and that signalization results from the increase in traffic generated by the site, No 2015 opening day analysis is present that indicates if the signal is warranted at opening day. o Please assess if warrants are expected to be met on opening day. o Based on the warrant provided, the construction of the development results in the need for signalixation at the Kirkwood and Dove intersection. Based on the analysis presented, the development should be responsible for the construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Kirkwood Boulevard and Dove Road. 4. Page one of the TIA text indicates that the development consists of approximately 200,000 square feet of commercial use on the western tract and 69 single family homes on the eastern tract. o No trip generation or traffic analysis was included for the traffic from the eastern tract. No site plan information related to development on the east side of Kirkwood Boulevard is included in the study. The traffic impact analysis should account for future development of the adjoining tract in some fashion, o Please revise the traffic impact analysis to include development planned forthe eastern tract. ■ If no development is currently planned, please update the study to include traffic volumes generated by the maximum use and intensity allowable based an the future land use of the site. S. The site plan included with the TIA did not contain a scale and driveway throat lengths were not clearly legible on the copy provided to LEE. Based on ourvisual review of the site plan, and capacity analysis results, the throat lengths appear to be satisfactory and variances, if necessary, should be allowable. Please include a clearly legible site plan, including scale, in future pdf submittals of this study. If you have any questions, please contact me at (972) 248-3006, We appreciate the opportunity to provide these services and are available to address any additional comments or concerns. Sincerely, John P. Denholm III, P.E., PTOE Lee Engineering TBPE Firm F-450 Ur: monErivnc Case No. ZA14-100 Page 3 of 3 Attachment C Page 12 DeShazo Group Traffic. 3rawiportatavn Planning Asrking. Design. Technical Memorandum To: Mike Clark — Winkelmann & Associates. Inc. From: Tom Simerly — DeShazo Group Inc Date: November 13, 2014 Re: Traffic and Transportation Elements for South lake Center on SH 114 at Dove Road in Southlake, Texas (deShazo Pm;,e-d No T3o6J) This memorandum is provided to address comments and is a follow-up to discussions held with the City staff, A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was prepared by DeShazo several months ago for the referenced commercial development The purpose of the TIA was to determine the impact of the development and to make recommendations to mitigate any issues that might develop as a result of the development - For a grocery -anchored retail development, the PM peak hour would be the focus for the impact study. The TIA resulted in the following recommendations 1) All site driveways meet TxDOT's and the City of Southlake's access spacing requirements. 2) Site driveways #t, #2, #5 and #6 will require auxiliary/deceleration lanes, all of which are shown on the site plan 3) The eastbound approach of the Dove Road/Kirkland Boulevard intersection will require an auxillaryldecelerabon lane, which is also shown on the site plan 4) The Dove Road/Kirkland Boulevard intersection should be signalized when volumes satisfy the warrant criteria. In order to determine the feasibitity of signalizing this intersection, a traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted- This study found that existing volumes do not satisfy the warrant criteria. However. with the addition of seven years' of background traffic growth and the retail traffic- the projected volumes satisfy one -hour, four-hour and eight -hour volume warrants. The detailed warrant analysis can be found in the Appendix. 5) Because one or more of the approaches to the single -lane roundabout at Dove Road and White Chapel will experience unacceptable delays in 2020. a northbound and/or westbound bypass lane may he warranted as a rastpit of harkt3rniind trafrtr inrreases. not site traffic - The latest site plan also shows a deceleration lane at Driveway #3. Deceleration lanes are shown at all driveways except Driveway #4 and Driveway #7, which serves the back of the grocery store- A deceleration lane is also shown for the Clove Road/Kirkwood Boulevard intersection. There is some subjectivity on how to approach a TIA One of the choices that a traffic engineer has to consider concerns the method of calculating the trips generated by a site. There are two ways to calculate trips outlined in the ITE Trip Generation manual One method is to use an established average rate which produces trips per thousand square feet of development. The second is to use a --- _eh AID LL 3t-L. s"" a30 DAIL", le"At 75282 P. 214.748 6740 P 214 718 7037-- Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 13 regression equation developed from a fitted curve using the historical data. which also produces the average rate per thousand square feet of development. For the purposes of this study. QeShazo used the average tnpslI ,000 5F method for determining trips. The City's consultant has suggested revising the study using the regression equation. The regression equation method results in a 24% increase in daily traffic. It should be noted that "passby" trips were not considered in this study The ITE Trip Cermwalrcirr manual allows for a 35% reduction in net traffic based upon people who are already on the road and decide to stop at the grocery or other retailer (passby trip). This reduction was not taken. DeShazo considered the request with one question in mind What additional improvements might be required of the developer if the report were revised to reflect a 24% increase in traffic? The answer The developer is currently providing a of the mitigation that could be requested; revising the report would not reveal any additional mitigation. The possible exception would be the timing of the need for signalization at the Dove RoaOKirkwood Boulevard intersection. The current study reports that background traffic plus site traffic in the year 2020 may meet three warrants outlined in the Mammal on Un►f(ym Traffic Control Devices. Existing Ira ffc {plus two years of 4% growth per year} for the projected Buildout of the site in 2015 plus our site traffic meets PM peak hour warrants The north leg (Verizon) drives this single peak -hour warrant. In consideration of the City s consultants recommendation to increase site traffic by 24%. a warrant analysis was conducted with the increase resulting in the intersection meeting only the PM peak hour warrant A single peak hour warrant is not considered sufficient to recommend installing a traffic signal at this time It would be recommended that conduit and pull boxes be installed al appropriate locations In concert with the construction of Kirkwood Boulevard on the site to facilitate a signal when warranted in the future. Activity on the property to the east and south would trigger a reassessment of the signal An evaluation of the site traffic as a percentage of overall traffic results in a 36% site contribution to the intersection of Dove Road at Kirkwood Boulevard End of Memo Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 14 DeShazo Group Tra_f3c. Ttanft,�LLaLICn t_ann'-nq Parking_ Design. October 13, 20I4 Mr. Mike Clark W'inkelmann dr Associates, Inc, 6750 1 hUcrest Plaza [?rive, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 757-30 RE Proportionality of Southlake Center Traffic on Kirkwood Boulevard in Southlake, Texas Wroject No. 13057) De" Mr. Clark: The De5hazo Group has been asked to determine the proportion of traffic generated by the Su Idake Center to the capacity of Kirkwood Boulevard. Kirkwood Boulevard is a proposed four -lane, divided roadway that wound serve the east side of the commercial site. Based upon the traffic impacl analysis, the largest hvo-way traffic volume occurs during the weekend peak hour. During this peak hour, a projected 731 trips will use Kirkwucxi Boulevard. The North Central Texas Council of Governments has guidelirm's defining capacity for various classifications of roadways. Based upon the location and the cross section of Kirkwood Boulevard, it would be considered a suburban n-.idential, minor arterial. NCI"COG's capacity for this facility is 900 vehicles per land per hour. 'I7his four -lane, divided facility has aii hourly capacity of 3,600 vehicles. '17teteforo, the Suuthlake Center's proportion of capacity would be 731/3,600, or 20.3 percent f20.3%J. Sincerely, DLSHAZO GROUP, INC_ Turn Sirnerfy, P.E. President TJS.Isk rtlC 5w th HoLston 8Cra t. suite 330 Dallas. :—h. 1520,� P. 21�. �16,;710 F 7Sa 75; TO]7 rvN.rlwL.scyrour�.em Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 15 2 •SS - II. OrShaw, Tans & Aw,:ia:es. !r:,- ROADWAY U K lf]erived jrofri the North Central Texas Council of Coverunt"rts (NCTCOG) modeftrfg pararrrrters, I For roadway links in this analysis, per -lane link capacities are defined as the values used in regional transportation modeling procedures by NCTCOG. Link capacity is a function of surrounding land development characteristics (e.g., central business district; suburban, etc.) and file functional classification of the roadway (e.g. arterial, kcal street, etc.). A summary of hourly and daily link capacities per lane is provided in the table immediately beloAr. lay calculating the ratio of volume to capacity for a roadway link, LO5 may be defined. rased upon guidelines established by NCTCOG, LOS criteria are summarized in the second table: Table A. Hourfy Roadway Link Service Volurnes (Per Lane) (Derived from parrimeters used by North Gentrai Texas Council of Gor+ernmends) AREA ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION TYPE PrinW Minor ArterW 0)[lector Local _ Fronuge Road CUD 725 725 475 475 725 (650) (650) (425) (425) (650 C60 Fringe 775 775 500 5W 775 (725) (725) (450) (450) CM) 18�50 Ll bAn M $25 525 525 Residential (775) (750) (475) (475) (750) Suburban 925 900 575 575 900 Residential (975) (825) (525) (525) (925) Rural 1,025 975 ev0 600 975 (925) (875) I55D } (550) (975) '0### - Divided or One -Way Roads (YA#9) - Undivided Roads Table B. Daily Roadway Link Level•of-Service Guidelines (Derived from pa--ofafs used by North Central Texas Gounrd of Governments) Volume/Capacity Level -of -Service Ratio : [0.65 0,65 < x < 1,00 DIE xn1.00 F TNOC Impucf A aafysis Appendrx Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 16 A TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ASSESSMENT FOR THE INTERSECTION OF DOVE ROAD AND KIRKWOOD BOULEVARD IN SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS Prepared For: wWinkelmann &Associates, Inc. Winkelmann & Associates, Inc. 6750 liillcrest Plaza Suite 325 Dallas, Texas 75230 Prepared by. DeShazo Group Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-3199 Engineers • Pfonners 400 South Houston Street Suite 330 ■ Union Station Dallas, Texas 75202 Phone; 214.748-6740 Fax:214.748-7037 November 12, 2014 OpShalo 013057 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 17 DeShazo Group Tz"tsc. Transportation Planning. Parking. Design. Ii��I:1►[�r1,1���I�11I*l:: i � �� To: NO. Mike Clark, P.E. Winkelmann & Associates, Inc From: DeShazo Group, Inc. Gate: November 12, 2014 Re: Traffic Signal Warrant Assessment for the Intersection of Dove Road and Kirkwood Boulevard in Southlake, Texas (DeShoio #130571 Introduction The services of DeShazo Group, Inc. (DeShazo) were retained by Winkelman & Associates, Inc. to conduct a Traffic Signal Warrant Assessment for the intersection of Dove Road and Kirkwood Boulevard in Southlake, Texas. DeShazo is an engineering consulting firm providing licensed engineers skilled in the field of traffic & transportation engineering. The subject intersection is located on Dove Road approximately 1,000 feet east of the SH 114 northbound frontage road and 1,000 feet west of White Chapel Boulevard (see Exhibit 1). This intersectlon will also serve a proposed commercial development located south of Dove Road between SH 114 and White Chapel Boulevard (see Exhibit 2). This report will summarize the findings of the Traffic Signal Warrant Assessment In a request for approval of the installation of a traffic signal at the subject intersection. This report will be provided to the City of Southlake staff (Staff) for technical review to fulfill the associated requirements of the local approval process. Signal Warrant Assessment -Existing Conditions Traffic Signal Warrants The Texas MUTCO defines a series of traffic signal warrants to be used in the investigation of a traffic signal installation. These warrants are listed as follows (also see Appendix). Warrant 1 right -Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 5 School crossirng Warrant 2—Four-Ffour Vehicular volume Warrant "oordinated Signal System Warrant 3—Peak dour Warrant 7--Crash Experience Warrant 4edestrian Volume Warrant "ciadway Network 400 South Houston StLGat. Suite 330 Dallis, Texas 78202 V. 214.746.6140 Y. 214.740.70- www. deshaaogwovp. com Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 18 Existing Traffic Volumes The traffic volumes to be used in the signal warrant analyses include the sum of the approach volumes (i.e., traffic volumes entering the intersection) an the major street and the higher of the two minor street approach volumes. These volumes were taken from the manual and automated traffic counts collected in May and August of this year and are shown in Table 1 (also see Appendix). If current traffic volumes do not satisfy the signal warrant criteria, traffic for the proposed development will be generated and added to the existing volumes for a 'future scenario' analysis. Table 1 2013 Hourly Volumes Time SWt own we t T a xirkwovd See t T R Dewy M L T a 1Rrkw o d Na 1. T R _ 6.00AM 50 42 ZGS 740AM SU 141 523 A 00 AM 246 82 470 Too AM 44 57 248 0:00 AM 41 40 143 t3�0AM 96 107 Is& 12:00 PM 122 100 267 1:00tMJS 113 S4 233 2 AO PM 165 74 248 3.00 PM 236 130 215 41.001104 20s 241 218 S.00PM 297 10 280 6100PM 235 199 2S7 7300PM 144 82 151 Rico PM 101 Is lu 9.40PM 77 21 83 SOAO PM ZS 3 3 60 113co PM 17 4 23 Right Turn Reductions The Texos Mt1TCQ has provisions for different adjustments in the assessment of the traffic -volume -related warrants. For instance, right -turning vehicles may turn "right•on. red" at a traffic signal under the same conditions as turning right at an unsignalized, STOP controlled intersection approach. At intersection approaches on the minor street where the ability to turn right is uninhibited due to the intersection geometry (e.g., an exclusive right -turn lane exists) or where a disproportionately high percentage of vehicles are turning right (Le., there is not a significant queue of vehicles turning left or traveling straight), then: 'Engineering judgment should be used to determine what, if any, portion of the righr-turn traffk is subtracted from the minor- street traffic count when Evaluating the count against the above signoI Kvrronts.4 Because the data collected was no described in terms of turning movements, no adjustments for right turns have been made. Warrant Analysis The warrant analysis is based on the following assumptions- ■ The subject intersection will be studied under existing volume conditions. The traffic volumes for this study were collected on a typical weekday in May and August of 2013 {see Appendix). If current traffic volurnes do riot satisfy the signal warrant criteria, traffic for the proposed development will be generated and added to the existing volumes for a'future scenario' analysis. Integration of a traffic signal at the subject intersection shall be appropriately coordinated with surrounding, existing traffic signals where applicable. However, these considerations were not directly evaluated as a primary factor in the justification of the traffic signal installation. ' brMlniC'D 2006• Sect. 4CA1 page 4C-1 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 19 4 Based upon background knawiedge of the subject Intersections, the basis For this traffic signal warrant assessment i5 derived primaHJy from vehicular traffic volumes. The pedestrian activity and accident history warrants will only be examined if the volumetric warrants are not satisfied. The remaining volume -related warrants;1, 2 and 3) are considered in this analysis. The results of the analysis far existing (2a13) traffic vol urnes are summarized in Table 2 and detailed results are provided in Appendix - Table 2 Existing Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Results Weekday Warrant I- Eghi- Hour U2hiGutarvalurnq HOiSatlsired Warrant 2. Four. Hour Vehicular Vakrrn No WOO WBfrara 3. Peak -Hour Vehicular Valume Hai sakisfred The Texas MUTCD stipulates that a tralflc signal control may be installed at the discretion of the authorized agency responsible for traffic control installation and maintenance provided that one or more of the published slgnal warrants are inet_ However, the existing volumes du not satisfy any of the volume -based warrants at the subject intersection - Signal Tarrant Assessment -Future Conditions Future Traffic Volumes To hie 4 illustrates the future background traffic volumes on Dove and Kirkwoocl assuming a 4% growth rate over a 7-year period. The traffic volumes to be used in the future signal warrant analyses in€lLid e the sum of the approach volumes (i.e-r traffic volumes entering the intersection) on the major street and the higher of the two minor street approach volumes. The volumes used for analysis include the existing traffic volumes and traffic volumes for the proposed development derived from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (I'rQ Trip 6erwrotion manual 39t4 E: ItionM, ITE Trip Gaenerutrart is a compilation of actual traffic generation data by land use as collected overseveral decades tycreditable sourvR5 acrossthe Country an(] it is accepted as the standard methodology to determine trip generation volumes for various land uses where sufficient data exi st s. It Is assamed that the "mode spirt" choracteds tics inherent to the 17 trip robes will adeguatefy reflect the mode choices ns5ocfatea with this development. Table 3 202O Hourlyfiackground VGILimes Time Start I Dave w9 Kirkwood S9 Oa 1p E B L T Ik L T R L T A 65 55 349 Klrkw44d N� L T 6:00AM 7;O0AM 442 186 08 E:OOAM 224 109 619 ROAM 124 75 326 MODAM 12A 53 188 11:O6AM 116 141 2O18 iMOPM 161 132 351 17d1PM 249 i1 304 2JCGPM 243 97 326 a�OQPM 311 145 283 440prA 270 337 287 5MPM 2" 175 368 &GO PM 309 262 338 -1JVPM 1% YO6 199 COOPM iM 50 155 SMPM 101 28 109 16IG3 PM 37 4 79 11100 PM 22 5 30 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 20 Table 4 summarizes the trip generation calculations for the proposed center. The appropriate excerpts from the ITE Trip Generarfon Manuaf-e Edirion are provided In the Appendix. Table 4 SoAhiake Center Trio Generation AM Peak Hour Land Use Quanlily Daily Total rn aw Traffic PM Peak Hour Vveek4 ntl Peak Nour Total In Out Total In Out 820-5hopping Center 204,300 8.725 196 122 74 1 9�7 4611 503 1,391 723 668 _ rntnfs $J25 196 122 74 1 967 4F4 503 4391 729 668 In order to develop more than just these two hours of trip generation, the ITE manual offers Information regarding the hourly, daily and monthly variation factors for shopping centers of various sizes_ Exhibit 3 iffustrate5 these factors as shown in the ITE Trip Generation manual (V' Edition)_ Using the fec#ors shown in Table 1 of Exhibit 3, an additional 12 hours of traffic dara for the shopping Center kird9 generated. Hourly turning movements were then calculated for the Intersection by applying the trip orientation percentages shown in the de5hazo traffic study dated October 31, 2013 to the shopping renter volumes (arid assuming that these percentages remain the same all day). The traffic volumes associated with the proposed shopping center are shown in Table 5, Table ti Shows the Sum of the 2020 background traffic and the 2020 Site traffic and it is this volume set which will be used for the future signal warrant analysis. Table 5 Hourly 5hoppingCenterTraffiic Using dove Road and ttlrkwgpd Boulevard Based on ITE Hourly Shopping Center Trip Rates Time Start I I L 4o+re wg T R klrkwood Mh I t 7 k I Dave ee L T R L Kirkaacd H B T R &CAM _ 7-q AM 33 12 1# 7 18 16 4 i6 a1w AM 9:00 AM MM AM 90 13 31 28 50 62 14 62 11-00 AM 90 23 33 37 50 91 i9 R1 12;00 P M 90 M 33 36 50 79 18 79 106 P M 61 3D 30 33 45 72 i6 72 2:06 PM i06 39 30 34 59 75 17 75 3:00 PM 113 Q 42 41 53 91 21 91 400 PM 114 42 42 45 53 10D 23 100 5:D6 PM 125 45 46 so n 111 25 111 G:D6 PM 62 32 32 35 46 80 i9 so 7-.W PM (A )A 2q 23 35 si 12 Si 9:0 PM 41 18 16 19 27 All 9 41 9:DD PM 22 6 a Jr 12 17 4 17 10t6DAM Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 21 Table 6 Hourly Total Traffic Using Dave Road and Kirkwood Boulevard Based on ITE Hourly Shopping Center Trip Rates Time s1r1 l now WS T R 66 xirkwaad SB 1 1 R J s 5 f Ouvo I4 L r 349 a 1 404k o Ni It R 6 00 AM 7MOAM 33 454 198 606 is 1E 4 16 A 00 AM 124 tab 639 9 00 Alr4 124 75 326 Moo AM 90 151 96 217 so 62 14 62 11;00AM 90 159 174 245 so 81 1s 6L 12.O0M 90 194 165 38Y 5o 79 1/ 79 1 WPM a] 179 101 337 45 12 16 72 2:OoPM 106 283 137 350 s9 7s 17 75 3 1.00 PM 113 3s2 187 324 61 91 71 91 4,00PM 114 111 3s9 331 67 100 23 too 5 Co PM 125 345 515 419 70 111 25 111 600PM 97 342 294 174 41 AO 18 80 7-00 PM 64 213 131 222 3s sl 12 sl 9= PM 49 1S4 6a 114 21 41 9 43 9.00 PM 22 110 36 117 12 17 4 17 10.0O FM 37 4 79 L1 Do PM 22 5 30 Right Turn Reductions The Texas MUTCD has provisions for different adjustments in the assessment of the traffic -volume -related warrants. For instance, right -turning vehicles may turn "right -on -red" at a traffic signal under the same conditions as turning right at an unsignalited, STOP controlled intersection approach. At intersection approaches an the minor street where the ability to turn right is uninhibited due to the intersection geometry (e.g., an exclusive right -turn lane exists) or where a disproportionately high percentage of vehicles are turning right (i.e., there is not a significant queue of vehicles turning left or traveling straight), then. "Engineering ilydgrnenI should be used to determine what, if any, poetion of the right•turn traffic is subtracted from the minor- street traffic Count when evokF0ti0g the count against the above signal wan, ants.'w In order to be consistent with the existing conditions analysis, no adjustments for right turns have been made. Warrant Analysis The warrant analysis is based on the following assumptions: The traffic volumes for this study are composed of existing counts on [love Road and Kirkwood Boulevard {May & August 2013 — see Appendix) and a portion of the ITE Trip Generation volumes for the proposed shopping center. Integration of a traffic signal at the subject intersection shall be appropriately coordinated with surrounding, existing traffic signals where applicable. However, these considerations were not directly evaluated as a primary factor in the justification of the traffic signal installation. ■ Based upon background knowledge of the subject intersections, the basis for these traffic signal warrants is derived primarily from vehicular traffic volumes. The pedestrian activity and traffic accident history are typically only applicable traffic signal warrants in extreme or severe conditions. ?xMUTCo 2006- sect- 4C.01 page 4C-i Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 22 Appendix A Traffic .Signal Warrant Descriptions Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 23 Appendix B Traffic Count Data Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 24 Appendix C Traffic Signal Warrant Summory Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 25 ARIZONA TEXAS NEW MEXICO OKLAHOMA 7;Liii amine:unc November 20, 2014 Alex Ayala, P.E. City of Southlake 14DO Main Street, Suite 320 5outhlake, Texas 76092 Re: Southloke Town & Country T!A Review — November 2014 Revision - (Formerly Southlake Center) Dear Mrs. Ayala: Per your request, we have reviewed the traffic engineering information for the proposed 5outhlake Town & Country Development. The data reviewed included a memorandum dated November 13, 2014 from the ❑eshazo Group and an updated signal warrant study dated November 12, 2014. Our review comments are limited to the "Action Comments" we provided in our previous review dated September 12, 2014. 1. The traffic engineer has chosen to use a method of estimating daily trips for the development that results in an estimate of 8,725 trips. The daily trip estimate was only used in the evaluation of signal warrants for the intersection of Dove at Kirkwood. The updated signal warrant study indicates that a signal will be warranted in 2020 and recommends that the signal be installed with the opening of the retail center. While our prior comment still stand on the trip generation estimation method, we concur with the resulting analysis and recommendation related to the signal warrant and installation. 2. Table 5 and Table G have been revised. The numbers are presented accurately using the trip generation method selected by the traffic engineer. 3. While a Signal Warrant for 2015 has not been provided, the recommendation to install the signal with the opening of the retail center makes the analysis unnecessary 4. The report was not revised to include traffic generated specifically by the tract of land east of Kirkwood. When a development plan for the tract of land east of Kirkwood is proposed, the traffic impacts of that development should be assessed. 5. A clearly legible site plan has been submitted. Based on our review of the site plan, and capacity analysis results, the throat lengths appear to be satisfactory and variances, if necessary, should be allowable. 3030 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1660, Dallas, TX 75234 (972) 248.3006 office (972) 248-3855 fax I www.leeengineering.com Page 1 of Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 26 If you have any questions, please contact meat (972) 248-30135. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these services and are available to address any additional comments or concerns. Sincerely, Joseph T. Short, P.E., PTOE Lee Engineering TBPE Firm F-450 LarcEnainEIciine Case No. ZA14-100 Page 2 of 2 Attachment C Page 27 DeSha o Group Traffic, Trmspoatation Planning. Parking- Design, TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM I To: Michael Clark, P-E. Winkelmann &Associates, Inc From: DeShazo Group, Inc. Date: Anuary2fi,2015 Re: A Traffic Impact Analysis far Southlake Center, a Proposed Commercial DeYeFvpment in South lake, Texas (De5hozv #I30371 Introduction The services of DeShazo Group, Inc were retained by Winkel mann tk Ass Dciates, Inc- to conduct a Traffic Impact Analysis and Access Assessment for South lal)e Center, a proposed commercial development located at the intersection of Dove Road and Kirkwood Boulevard (SW Go-rner) in SouthlaIce, Texas (see Exhibit 1). The DeShazo- Group is an engineering consulting firm providing licensed engineers skilled in the field of traffic &transportation engineering. This study wil I exa m ine the potential traffic generated by the pro posed development plan and wil I determ ine the general availability of access and roadway capacity available to serve it for the following scenarios: • Existing conditions (2013) • Project buildout (2015I • Project buildout + 5 years (2020)_ On€e completed, this report will be provided to City of Southlake staff (Staff) and TxDOT for review and to fulfill the associated requirements of the local approval process. Proposed Development Characteristics This proposed develo-pment consists of approximately 200,004 square feet of €omrner€ial uses- The overall project is proposed to be fully deve"d by the end of 2015. Exhibit 2 offers a con€eptuaI site plan and shows the roadway improvements included with the project including: 1) The construction of deceleration lanes on dove Road at Kirkwood and at Drive 3, on Kirkwood Boulevard at Drives 4 and 5 and on SH 114 Frontage Road at Drives 1 and 2, 2) the construction of a raised median on dove at Drive 3 and 3) the construction of four lanes on Kirkwon-d south of dove Road till Drive 4 and construction of two of the ultimate four lanes on Kirkwood south of drive 4 to the project limit. 40D South X-Duston Street, Suite 330 DaL s, Tesae 75202 P- 2t4.74&6740 F- 21A.748.7037 wwuw.drsltezogroup.co-m Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 28 Roadways and Accessibility The following existing roadways will provide primary (dinect� access to the subject site and are included 'in the study area (refer to Exhibit 3 for Southlake's Mobility Plan}: r Dove Road a 44ane, divided roadway with additional turn lanes at major intersections between Kirkwood Boulevard and SH 114 and a 2-laner undivided roadway east of Kirkwood Boulevard and West of SH 114_ Shown as an A4D between Kirkwood Boulevard and SH 114 and an A2U east of Kirkwood Boulevard and West of SH 114 { with the passibility of an upgrade to an A4D if/when traffic volumes wan -ant). ■ White Chapel Boulevard c a 2-lane, undivided roadway. Shown as an A4D between Dave Road and SH 114 and a C2U north of Dove Road_ • SH 114 Frontage Roads the northbound frontage road is a 4-la ner one-way roadway adjacent to the site and the southbound frontage road is a 3-Ianer one-way roadway. ■ Kirkwood Boulevard o a 41ane, divided roadway north of dove Road and east of White Chapel Boulevard_ The portion of Kirkwood Boulevard between Dove Road and White Chapel Boulevard has not been constructed_ The fallowing intersections will also be included in the impact analysis: r Dove Road @ White Chapel Boulevard, • Dove Road @ IGrkwaod Boulevardr • Dove Road @ the SH 114 frontage roads, • SH 114 northbound frontage road @� 2 site driveways ( Drives 41 & 2], • Dove Road @ 1 site driveway ( Drive #3}, and • Kirkwood Boulevard P 3 site driveways [Drives # 4, S, & 6}. Traffic Volumes The TIA presented in this report wi I analyze the operational conditions for the peak NDurs and study area as defined above using standardized analytical methodologies where appli€able. It will examine current traffic conditions, future background traffic conditions, future traffic conditions with the proposed project fully developed and operational and a final scenario occurring 5 years after development is complete_ Once cu rrent traffic information was collectedr futu re background volumes were developed by applying an annual growth rate to the existing count data_ Thenr the traffic generated by the proposed development was projected using the standardfnur-step approach: Trip Ceneraticnr Mode Split, Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment_ By adding the site -generated trafficto the future background traffic, the resulting traffic impart to operational conditions may be assessed from which mitigation measures maybe recommended. txWing Traffic Volumes Existing peak haurtraffi€ volumes were colleted in the study area in May and August of 2413_ These volumes are shown in Edhibhs t - G. Detailed traffic counts can be found in the Appendix_ Page 2 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 29 Future Buckground Traffic Volumes The standard procedure for determining the future background or ran -site -related traffic invahres several steps_ The first is to determine an average annual growth rate for the roadways in the study area. The second is to determine a buildout Dr horizon year for the analysis_ Finally, the existing traffic volumes are factored using the assumed annual growth rate for the selected number of growth years. For this project, we have assumed a buildout year of 2D15 and horizon year of 2020 and that an average annual growth rate of 40A will occur each year for the next 7 years. Applying this factor to the existing traffic volumes yields the 2015 a nd 2020 background volumes shown i n Exhibits 7 -',12. Site -Related Traffic Volumes Trip Generation and Made Split Trip generation for the Project was calculated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual (9°" Edition). 11 E Trip Generotion is a compilation of actual traffi€ generation data by land use as collected over several decades by creditable sources across the country and it is accepted as the standard methodology to determine trip generation volumes for various land uses where suffi€iert data exists_ No reductions were applied for internally captured trips (because the ITE Shopping Center land use code already reflects this ctiaracteristic) or pass -by trips (motorists who patronize the site, but who already pass through the study area during the peak periodsl_ A summary of the site -related trips calculated for the proposed building program is provided in Table 1 which shows the net trips added by the proposed development_ The appropriate ffE Trip Generation lvlunva?-5�6 Edition excerpts are provided in the Appendix_ Table i So uth lake Cen ter Tri p Generation PM Peak Weekend Peak ly Land Use Quantity r L IMPeak Hour Hour Traffic0 In 1 Out In Out a20 —Shopping fienter—204,343 SF 8,725 122 74 464 503 723 658 Totals 0,725 122 74 464 503 723 663 Trip Distribution and Assignment Traffic generated by the proposed development at site buildout conditions was distributed and assigned to the study area roadway network using professional judgment to interpret the traffir orientation chara€teristics of existing traffic volumes in the study area and a technical understanding of the available roadway network_ Exhibits 13 - 15 illustrate the approach and departure percentages assumed for site - generated traffic i n this study_ Traffic Volumes Determination of the traffic impact associated with the Project is measured by comparing the change in operational conditions before and after site -related traffic is added to the roadway system_ This involves the development of traffic vo.umes that include both background and site -related traffic- The site -generated traffic was calculated by multiplying the trip generation values (from Table 1) by the corresponding traffic approach and departure orientations JExhibits 13 - 15). The resulting peak-hourr site -generated traffic volumes of the Project a re summarized in Exhibits lfi -18_ Future Background plus Site Traffic Volumes Adding the new site -related traffic volumes from Exhibits 16 - 18 to the 2015 and 2020 background traffic volumes shown in Exhibits 7 -12 yields the testa I peak period traffic volumes at the Project buildout years are - shown in Exhibits 19 - 24. Page 3 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 30 Access Assessment The access assessment portion of this study wi II exami ne three major a reas= 1} The spacing between the proposed driveways and adjacent drivewaysr 2} The spacing between pro posed d riveways and adjacent publ i€ street i ntersectians a nd 3} The need for acceleration f deceleration lanes based on the projected turning movements at the proposed driveways. Access Point -to -Access Point Spacing The TxDOT Access Management Manual requires 350' between access points on a one-way facility with a posted speed limit of 45 mph as is the case on the SH 114 northbound frontage read in the area of the proposed development (see Exhibit 25)_ The site plan IExhibit 2) shows that: • Drive 1 is located approximately 355' from property boundary and 736' from the ramp [physical gore} • Drive 1 is located approximately 445' from Drive 2 and • Drive 2 is located approximately 455' from Dove Road Therefare, all distances exceed the minim no separation requwemenf& The City of Southlake controls the access spacing on both Dove Road and Kirkwood Boulevard and requires 250' between driveway centerlines and 2OQ' between driveways and street intersections on an arterial. Applying these criteria to the proposed site plan (Exhibit 2), we find that: • Drive 3 is over 400' from the SH 114 northbound frontage road and Over 500' from Kirkwood 9.oulevardr • Drive 4 is approximately 390' from Dove Road • Drive 5 is approximately 500' from Drive 4 and • Drive 6 is approximately 330' from Drive 5 Therefare, all distarmes exceed the minimum driveway separation requirements. Sight Distance Criteria DeShazo conducted sight distance ana ysis based on .4A.SHTO Design standards for the Horizontal sight distance and Vertical sight distance near the project vicinity. The vertica sight distance was not performed due to fact that the project area and a field visit to the project location found the SH 114 frontage Road and Site Driveways location appear to be adequate. Site Drive 1 and 2 appears to intersect the existing SH 114 frontage road at 90 degree angle to the horizontal curvature. The AASHTO design guide specifies a stopping siglrt distance (SSD) of 360' and an intersection sight distance (ISD) for the outbound right -turn maneuver from a site driveway (minor street) of 430'r respectively for a posted speed limit of 45 mph with a vehicle driver eye sight setback of 14.5' from the curb of SH 114 frontage road. The findings from the prelimi na ry site plan are shown in Exhibits 26 - V. • Site Driveways (Drives 1 & 21 on the SH 114 frontage roadways shown on Exhibit 2-Preliminary site plan satisfy both the SSD and ISD for Lase 132 — Right -turn from the minor road_ A11 driveways satisfy the.4A5HTO minimum horizonralsight distance requirements - Auxiliary lane Assessment This portion of th is study will examine the need for a uxiliary or turn lanes based an the projected turning movements at the proposed access points_ Both TxDOT and the City of South' ake require that auxiliary turn lanes be provided when the turning movements exceed 60 vehicles Per hour For right turns on a roadway Page 4 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 31 Tahle 2 Peak Hour Intersection CaDsclty Analysis Results 20L3 2015 2020 Intersection T.thc Earkeround Background+Site Backerountl Background+Site Movement AM PM Weekend AM PM Weekend AM PM Weekend AM PM Weekend AM PM Weekend SH 114SBFR M B 15.8 B 15.4 B ]6.6 B 16.2 B 16.5 B 17.0 B 16.9 B 1&9 C .2 B 15-4 B 28.3 B 173 B 170 C 20.6 B 19.8 SH 114 NBFR P B (19.9) C (2&8) C (30.9) C (20.3) C (292) C f3I.I) C (20.3) C (30.2J C (272J C (20.4) C (30.1) C (31.1) C (W-8) C (31.7) C (26.7) ALL A (4.0) A (5.7j A f2.8J A f4.4) A f6.1) A (2.9) A (5.9) F f81.bJ B f1I.SJ A f7.0) A (7.9J A f3.0) B fil.8) F f�100) B f14.2) NBL D 133.3) F (1I00) F (61.1) F (53.5) F (1100) F (88.5) NET D f34.9] D (28.1) C (22.1) D (33.3) E (35.8) C (24.8) NBR A f9.3) B (10.1) A ry.4) A (9. 6) B (I03) B (11.8) D-@a kirkwood EEL A (8.9) A (8.1) A (7.6) A (9.11 A (8.1) A (76) A f9.2) A (&2) A (7.8) A (9 9) A (8.4) A (77) A(100) A M51 A (79) WBL A f8.0) A (&4) A (79) A (8.2) A (8.6) A (&B) SBL D (30.5) C (177) B (106J E (373) C f198) B (109) F (84.7) ❑ f298) B (116) SBR B (IO3] B (11.6) A (89) B (10.6) B 112.2) A (99) B (11.4) B (14.3) A (9.1J SBTL F 155.0) F (1I00) C (24.6J F (�300] F (1100) D (28.5) SBTR E f1I.6) C (20.5) C (15.91 B (12.9) D (32.8) C (16.7) wl*nal A f9l) C (25.8) 8 (IS7) ALL B f12.2) B (10.7) A f4.9) 8 114.2) 8 f12.2) A f5A) C f15.9) C fI9.5) A (7.4) 0 f25.5) C f195) A (55) C f22.2) C (22.7) A (7.7) EB B (112) A (9a) A (4.7) B (12.7) B f10.5] A (4.9) B f13.7) C (16.2) A (7.6) C (19.7) B (145) A (5.4) C f223) D (26-3) A (8.4) w/EB C f223) D (26.3) A (8.4) WO B (I45) B (11.1) A (51) C (174) B f127) A (53) C f200) C (199) A (78) E (371) C f198) A (59) E (466) E (351) A (87) Dove LD Whim w/WB D (28S) D (28.1) A (&4) Chapel NB B (103) B (13.1) A (4.7) B f11.1f C f153] A (4.8) B (12.0) D (27.4) A (7.0) C (16.2) D (295) A f5.2) C (177) F (51.9) A (7.71 w/NB 8 (12S) C (23.4 A (6.6) SB B (I2-1) A (7.1) A (4.8) B (13.9) A (7.6) A (4.9) C 1156) A (9. 71 A (7.1) C (232) A (9.3) A (5.5) ❑ (274) B (I2.0) A (7.9) TSB Byposs D (274) 8 (12.2) A (7.4) ALL A 11.3) A (LI) A (1.6) A 11.4) A (1.I) A 11.6) A (1.5) A (1.8) A f2.4) A (IS) A (1.3) A fl.8) A (1.7) A (I.9) A (2.5) While Chapel @a WBL B (132) B (12.4) B (10.4) B (13.9) B 112.9] B (10.6) B 114.3) B (14.7) B (12.9) C (16.4) B 114.7) B (11.3) C (169) C (I7-1) B (1.3.9) Kirkwood WEIR A (9.6) A ry.9) A (9.0) A (9.7) A f10.0] A (9.1) A 0-03 B (103) A ry.7) B (10.1) B f105) A (9.3) B (102) B (I1.03 A (10.0) SBL A (78) A f7.9) A (7.6) A (7.9) A (8.0) A (76) A 993 A (8.1) A (7.8) A (80) A f8.2) A (7.7) A (B.I) A (8.4) A (7.91 SH 114 NBFR P AN A (0.2) A (A 9) A (2.0) A (02) A (0.9) A (1.9) Drivel WBR B f1I4] C (15.3) B (12.7) B (12. 1) C (I73) B (13.3) SH 114 NBFR P AN A (0.2) A (1.5) A (3.7) A (02) A (I.S) A f3.6) Drivel WBR B f11.4) C (16.4) B (13.5) B (12.4) C (I8.93 B (14.3) ALL A f1.5) A f13) A (0.0) A f1.5J A f1.4) A f0.0) A (1.7) A (1. 9) A (2.2) A (IS) A (1.6) A (0.0) A (1.8) A (2.1) A (2.1) NB A (0.0) A (0.0) A (0-0) A (O.01 A (0.0) A (0.0) C f19.7) B (13.1) B (13.4) A (0 0) A M. 0) A (0.0) D (275) B (I42) B (14.1) Doves EBL A (23) A (00) A (0.0) A (23) A (00) A (O DJ A f92) A (00) A (00) A (98) A fO 0) A (0.0) A (99) A M0) A (0.0J Wrixon/Drive 3 WBL A (0.0) A (0.0) A (O.0) A M.0] A (0.0) A (O.0) A f8. 6) A (94) A (8.4) A (0 0) A (0.0) A (0.0) A (9.0) A (8.4) A (&5J SBL A M.9) A (0.0) A (O.0) B f10.0) A (0.0) A (O.0) B f100) A (O.0) A (0.0f B (10.5) A (0.0) A (0.0) A (0.0) A M.0) A (0.0) SBR A f0.0] 6 (11.2) A (O.0) A (0.0) B f11.6] A (0.0) A (0.0) B (12.71 A (0.0) A (0.0J B (Li. 0) A (0.0) B (105) B (14.5) A (0.0) Kirkwood @ Drive4 ALL A (1.4) A (2.3) A (1.3) A f1.3) A (2.2) A (1.3) EBL A 02) B (10.2) B (11.5) A (9.1) B (I0.8) B (11.1) Kirkwood 0 Drive 5 AIL A (3.4) A (5.1) A (4.6) A (3A) A (5.1) A (4.6) EBL A 490) A (98) B (101) A 00) A (98) B (101) Kirkwood LD Drive 6 AN A (2.8) A (4.5) A (4.1) A (2-R) A (4.5) A (4.1) EBL A f8.5) A (96) A (8.6) A (8.5) A (8.6) A (&6J Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 32 with a speed of 45 mph or less (see Appendix)_ Applying the volume threshold standard to the proposed s'de traffi€ (Exhibits 15 -18) shows that: 1) The projected right turn traffic vol u mes on the SH 114 north hound frontage read at Drive's 1 and 2 exceed the volume threshold for an auxiliary lane (proposed and shown on the site plan). 2) The projected eastbound right turn traffic vol u mes on Dove Road at Drive 3 exceed the vDl ume threshold for an auxiliary lane {one is proposed and shown on the site plan }_ 3) The projected eastbound right turn traffic volumes on Dove Road at Kirkwood Boulevard exceed the volume threshold for an auxiliary lane (one is proposed and shown on the site plan)_ 4) The projected right turn traffic volumes on Kirkwood at Drive's 4 and 5 exceed the vDlume threshold for an auxiliary lane (proposed and shown on the site plan)_ internal Storage (Stocking IliRfnimum Throat Length) AYsegym erlt This portlon of the study will examine the site driveways for the intern storage criteria_ The City of South lake driveway ordinance (Table two) states the internal storage sha I he based on the average number of parki nff sp aces per driveway - 50 to 199 spa€es{driveway (total n umber driveways 5) and total number of parking spaces of 2M plus category for this project (total parking spaces provided - Lr127 spaces)_ Applying the parking threshold standard to the proposed site plan shows that: 1) The Site Driveways shown on the preliminarysite plan on Exhibit.2 meets the City required minimum storage lengths (IN')_ The outbound approach lane shows a minimum required continuous curb up to the front right-of-way line_ Traffic Impact Analysis Analysis Methodology Traffic operational conditions for unsignalmed and signalized roadway intersections are quantitatively measured in terms of average delay per vehicle in a one -hour period through the intersection as a function of roadway capacity and operational characteristics ofthe'traffic signal- The standardized methodology applied herein was developed by the Transportation Research Board as presented in the 2010 Highway Capacity Munuaf (HCM). HCM also qualitatively rates the overall delay conditions in terms of "Level-af- Service" (LOS} ranging from "A" (free -flowing conditions) to "I" (over -capacity conditions_ Generalhlr LOS D or better is considered an acceptable condition for intersections in urban and suburban areas. SINIlf1 aly Of Re-su is The intersection capacity analyses presented in this study were performed using the Synchm 8 software package- Table 2 provides a summary of the intersection operational conditions during the peak periods under the analysis conditions presented previously_ Detailed software output is provided in the Appendix_ The findings are as follows: Existing (2013) Conditions The following assumptions were included as part of the existing conditions anahlsis: • The traffic volumes collected in May and August of 2O13 are representative of average da illy traffic levels_ As Table 2 indi€atesr all interchanges and intersections operate acceptably during the rr7orain4 acid vffemoon peak periods with 2013 rraffix volumes_ Future (2015) Background Conditions The folkwing assumptions were included as part of the future background conditions analysis: • The traffic volumes collected in May and August of 2013 have been increased by 4% per year for two years to reflect the normal growth in the study area and represent average daily traffic levels for the year 2015_ Page 5 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 33 As Table 2 in d i€ates, 1) The Sll 124fDove Road interchange operates acceptably during the morning and afternoon peak periods with 2015 background traffic Volumes_ 2) The Kirkwood Boulevard f Dove Road intersection operates with acceptable lOS except for the 59 left -turn movement -us as unslgnaiized operation during the AM peak periods. 3) The Dove RoadfWhite -Chapel roundabout operates with acceptable !OS during the AM, PM and Saturdaypeak periods- Futu re (2015) `BuiIdout Con ditions The following assumptions were included as part of the future background plus site conditions analysis: • The proposed project will be fully developed by the end of the year 2015 and • The traffic volumes collected in Maya nd August of 2013 have been increased by 41A per year for two years to reflect the normal growth in the study area and represent average dais traffi€ levels for the year 2015- As Table 2 indicates, 1) The 511 114fDove Road interchange operates acceptably during the morning and afternoon peak periods w1th2O15 backgroundplus site traffic volumes. 2) At Kirkwood Boulevard f Dove Road intersection, hIB and SB left -turn movements exhibit delays or an unsignaliredoperation during the peak periods. 3) The Dove Road%WWte {Chapel roundabout operates with acceptable t05 during the AM, PM and Saturday peak periods - Future (2020) Background Conditions The following assumptions were included as part of the future background conditions analysis: • The traffic volumes colleted in May and August of 2013 have been increased by 4% per year for seven years to reflect the normal growth in the study area and represent average daily traffic levels for thsyear2020- As Table 2 indicates, 1) The 51} 114fDove Road interchange operates acceptably during the morning and afternoon peak periods with 2020 background traffic volumes- 2) The southh+uund approach of the Kirkwood Boulevard / Dove Road intersection exhibit delays under unsrgnahzed conditions durrng the AM peak- The 2020 bac*ground volumes, however, do ,rotsatisfythe muf rsignaKwarrants(see warrantstudyinAppendlxJ- 3) The westbound approach of the Dove Road%White Chapel roundabout will experience delays during the AM peak period- A bypass Jane may be warranted. Future (2020) Background plus Silo Conditions The fallowing assumptions were included as part of the future background plus site conditions analysis: • The proposed project will be fully d2veloped'bythe end of the year 2015 and • The traffic volumes colleted in May and August of 2013 have been increased by 4% per year for seven years to reflect the normal growth in the study area and represent average daily traffic levels for the year 2020- As Table 2 indicates, 1) The 514 114fDove Road interchange operates acceptably during the morning and afternoon peak periods with 2020 background plus site traffic veJumes. Page Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 34 2) The Kirkwood Boulevard % Dove Road inteFmcrion exhibit delays as an unsignalized operation during the PM peak period. if this location is signalized, however, the levels of service will rertarn to acceptabke vakues- 3) The westbound and northbound opproarhes of the Dove Road/White Chapel roundabout will experience delays during the AM and PM peak periods. 9ypass Panels) may be ivarranted- Irr order to determine the feasibility of signalizingthe Dave{Kirkwood intersection, a traffic signal warrant analysis has been conducted- This study found that existing volurnesr year 20IS buildout volumes do not satisfy the warrant criteria- However, with the addition of seven years of background traffic growth and the sitetraffi€,'the projected vniurnes satisfy one -hour, four-hour and eight -hour volume wanrants. The detailed warra nt analysis can befound in the Appendix. Conclusions and Recommendations This report has examined the access and traffic impact of Sauthlake Center [a proposed Commercial development in Southlake, Texas] on the adjacent roadway system- The find'inffs indicate the following: 3) Allsite driveways meet TxWTandSatrthlvke access spacing requrremems, ZJ Site Driveways (Drive) AF1, dr2, #3, #d and #5 will require ouxrliory f deceleration lanes fall of which are shown art the site plan J- 3J The eastbound approach of the Doveflfirkwood intermctiort w91 require an auxiliary f deceleration lane Jwhirh is also shown an the site pkanJ- 4) The intersection of Dace Road and Kirkwood Boulevard should be signalized by year 2020 or when volumes satisfy the warrant criteria- In order to determrne the feasibility of signalizing the Dove/Kirkwood intersection, a traffic signal warrant analysis has been conducted- This study found that existing volumes and year 2015 BuHdout volumes do not satisfy the warrant criteria- However, with the addition of seven years of background traffic growth and the site traffic, the projected volumes for year 2020 satisfy one -hour, four-hour and eight -hour volume warrants- The detarled warrant analysis can be found in theAppendix- SJBecause one or more of the approaches to the single -lane roundabout at Dove and White Chapel wrU experience delays in 2020, o northbound andjor westbound by-pass lane may be warranted. NOTE: t#eeammerrdatrarrs far pubfkc rmpmvements within the study area presented in this report reflect Nre opinion of Oe-Shazo based solely upon terhnicak anakysrs and pmfessionvf judgnm t and are oat intended to definer imply, or afkora[e funding sources nor regiired improvements. ApplinabJe kegof precedent indicates that the Owner of a Project shovJd only be required to prnpurtrunvtely fund necessary infrastructure improvements that are directly attributabke to impJementamm of the Project 5u€h requirements wX depend upon the individual circumstances of each project that may be viewed djerentrrby each portrwfaragency/municipality. f ND OF MEM Q Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 35 DeShazo Group Traffic. T'iaiY6poStSh9R planning. Parking, Desiga. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To: Mr- MikeClark, P.E_ Winkelmann &Associates, Inc - From: DeShazo Group, Inc. Date: Ja nua ry 26, 2015 Re: Traffic Signal Warrant Assessment for the Intersection of Dove Road and IGrkwood Boulevard in South lake, Texas (DeShazo #13057) Introduction The services of DeShazo Groupr In€_ (DeShaza) were retained by Winkelrnann & Assadatesr In€_ to conduct a Traffic Signal Warrant assessment for the intersection of Dove Road and Kirkwcnd Boulevard in Snuthlake, Texas. DeShazo is an engineering consulting firm providing licensed engineers skilled in the field of traffic & transportation engineering. The subject intersection is located on Dove Road approximately 1,040 feet east of the SH 114 northbound frontage road and 1,004 feet west of White Chapel Boulevard [see Exhibit 1}. This intersection will also serve a proposed commercial development located south of Dove Road between SH 114 and White Chapel Boulevard (see Exhibit 2). This report will summarize the findings of the Traffic Signal Warrant Assessment in a request for approval of the installation of a traffir signal at the subject intersection. This report will be provided to the City of South lake staff (Staff) for technical review to fulfill the associated requirements of the local approval process. Signal Warrant Assessment -Existing Conditions Traffic Signal Worranft The Texas MUTCD defines a series of traffic signal warrants to be used in the investigation of a traffic signal installation. These warrants are listed as follows (also see Appendix)_ Warrant i—Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 2--Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 3 eak Hour Warrant 4—Pedestrian Volume Warrant 5—School Crossing Warrant f—Coordinated S igna I System Warrant 7—Crash Experience Warrant 8 oadway Network 400 South X-Duston Streetr Suite S20 Dallas, Texas 75202 P_ 214.741L6740 F. 2i4.748.7037 www.deshezog►oup.com Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 36 Existing Traffic Volumes The traffic volumes to be used in the signal warrant analyses include the sum of the approach volumes (i.e, traffic volumes entering the intersection) on the major street and the higher of the two minor street approach volumes. These volumes were taken from the manual and automated traffic counts collected in May and August of this year a nd are shown in Table 1 (also see Appendix_ If current traffic volumes do not satisfy the signal warrant aiteriar traffic for the proposed development will be generated and added to the existing volumes fora Tutu re scena rior analysis_ Table 1 2013 Hourly Volumes Time stw1 Eo ewe L T R Kirkwtatls6 L T R nmt ER L T R If&WMd W9 L T R 7N*ATti 33F i41 523 SMAM 24E 22 476 9MAM 94 37 243 1(bWAM 91 46 143 MN AM 96 167 i5a 12:D6PY 122 iR6 267 1:GCFY 113 54 231 2:GCFY 195 74 248 3:GC•FY 236 116 2i5 4:GC.FY 2115 241 273 ]:GCFY 227 362 211U 6:GC-FY 235 194 257 7:GG F Y 144 92 151 9136PM VA 39 11a 996 PIN 37 21 9a VID6 PM 29 3 66 11:O6PM 17 4 1 23 Might Turn Reductions The Texas MUTCD has provisions for different adjustments in the assessment of the traffic -volume -related warrants. For instanter right -turning vehicles may turn "right -on -Fed" at a traffi€ signal under the same conditions as turning right at an unsignalixed, STOP -controlled intersection approach- At intersection approaches on the minor street where the ability to turn right is uninhibited due to the intersection geometry (e-g_, an exclusive right -turn lane exists) or where a disproportionately high percentage of vehicles are turning right (i-e_r there is not a significant queue of vehicles turn ing left or traveling straight), then: "Engineering judgment shovi'd be used to determrrie what, if anV, p,orrbn of the fight -turn trvfjSc rs subLmrted from the rnfnor-street trafjfic rount when evaluating the count Qgnrrrstthe above srgrWwarmnts_"L Beca use the data collected was not described in terms of turning movements, no adjustments for right tums have been made. Warrant Analysis The wa rrant a na lysis is based on the following assumptions: ■ The subject intersection will be studied under existing volume conditions_ The traffic volumes for this study were €ollected on a typical weekday in May and August of 2,013 (see Appendix)_ If current traffic volumes do not satisfy the signal warrant c iteriar traffic for the proposed development will be generated and added to the existing vol umes for a Tvture scenario' ana lysis. Integration of a traffic signal at the subject intersection shall be appropriately coordinated with surroundingr existing traffic signals where applicable- Howeverr these considerations were not directly evaluated as a primary factor in the justification of the traffic signal installation. TxMUMD 2476- Sect 4CAn page 4G1 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 37 Based upon background knowledge of the subject intersections the basis for this traffic signal warrant assessment is derived primarily from vehiculartraffic volumes. The pedestrian activity and acddent history warrants will only be examined if the volumetric warrants are not satisfied. • The remaining volume -related warrants 11, 2 and 3) are considered in this analysis_ The results of the analysisfor a)jsting j2013] traffic volumes are summarized in Table 2 and detailed results are provided in Appendix. Table 2 ExistingTreffic Signal Warrant Analysis Results Warrart 1. E Hour Vehinir Volume Not SStisTitd Warrelt 2. FDur-Hour Ytlrcular Votrne Not SYfinh-d Warrert 3. Peek -Hoer Vehiamr Volume Not 9itisTied The Texas MUTCD stipulates that a traffic signal control may be insta lied at the discretion of the autihorrzed agency responsible for traffic control installation and maintenance provided that one or more of the published signal warrants are met. However, the existing volumes do not satisfy any of the volume -based warrants at the su bjert intersection_ Signal Warrant Assessment -Future Conditions future Trofffc Volumes Tables 3 & 4 it lustrates the future background traffic volumes on dome and Kirkwood assuming a 4% growth rate over a 2-yearand 7-year period. The trafficvolumes to be used in the future signal warrant analyses in€ludethe sum of the approach volumes (i_e_,#raUicvolumes entering the intersectiun} on the major street and the higher of the two minor street approach volumes_ The volumes used for analysis include the existing traffic volumes and traffic volumes for the proposed development derived from the Institute of Transportation Engineers IITE) Tray Generation manual {9°i Editionk_ ITE Trip Generation is a rompllation of actual traffic generation data by land use as €ollected over several decades by creditable sources across the oo-untry and it is accepted as the standard methodology to determine trip generation volumes for various land uses where sufficient data exists_ It is assumed that the "made split" characteristics inherent to the ITE trip rates will adequately reflect the mode choices associated %vith this deueiapmeni_ Table 3 2015 Hourly Background Volumes 3`ne Had Dwe We I5FIFWD tl56 L T R L T R Ewe® L T R Phtwoad Wil L T R fiM ADA 74 0 ZS7 ?Ala ADA 363 03 366 SMAM 266 29 31M 6bMALG inz 62 zW 10116A14 99 43 ill i+wtAM i64 US 171 iZD6PM 13x ice 285 196PM 122 3z 276 Z90PM 206 S1) 2fa 391) PDA 233 119 233 491) PM 222 261 236 391) PM 246 392 3D3 621) PDA 234 20 27B 790 PM 06 29 163 9fl6PM iii. U US 991) PM 93 Z3 90 i1F.06 PM 30 3 0 StI16PM ie S 23 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 38 Table 4 2020 Hourly Oa€kground Volumes Time sL DOVE t'6 Kirkwc dS& L T R L T R ur aere L T R aMMMrua L T R am AM B6 31 345 ?A16ARA 442 126 62S �bMAM 324 i0a si4 5t06AM 124 77 326 19bMAM i2D 73 iss 21MAM 126 i4L Me iZD6PM isL 132 33L 11H7 PM 149 71 3D4 Z90 PM Z43 47 326 3116 PM Ri. i-M 223 41x3PM Z76 31.7 227 71x}PM Z99 476 36Z 5176PM Ne 26Z 332 713�7 PY OD il3& AS 9:GC. F V 136 76 03 9:GC.FV AL 22 MR A:CC• F V 37 4 74 11:LG Pal 22 1 3D Table 5 summarizes the trip generation calculations for the proposed center. The appropriate excerpts from the ITE Trip Generation Manual-O Edition are provided in the Appendix_ Table 5 Southlake Center Trip Generation Land Use Qumthy Ugly TreHIC AM Peak Haur PM Peek Hour weekend Peak Hour Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out IM—Fhappirr.Center ZIftL,30O 8.725 196 i2Z 74 M7 464 503 1.391 723 EK Torsos 8,725 195 122 74 967 46R 503 1,391 723 658 In order to develop more than just these two hours of trip generation, the ITE manual offers information regarding the hourly, daily and monthly variation factors for shopping centers of various sizes. Exhibit 3 illustrates these factors as shown in the ITE Trip Generation manual (8d' Edition). Using the factors shown in Table 1 of Exhibit 21, an additional 12 hours of traffic data for the shopping center was generated_ Hourly turning movements were then calculated for the intersection by applying the trip orientation percentages shown in the OeSha2o traffic study dated January 26, 2015 to the shopping center volumes (and assuming that these percentages rema in the sa me al I day). The traffir volumes a ssodiated with the proposed shopping center are shown in Table 6. Table 7 and 0 shows the 2015 background plus site traffic and 2020 background plus site and it is this volume set which will he used for the future signal warantanalysis_ Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 39 Table 6 Hourly Shopping Center Traffic Using Dove Road and Kirkwood boulevard Based on ITE How.ly Shopping Center Trip Rates Timm Stwt L Dowe WB T P Kirkwcod 59 L T R Dove E9 L T R L Kirfwdod Ll9 r A GMAM 7N*AM 33 12 12 7 13 16 4 16 SHAM 5h06A1A 11"AM 90 33 33 2E 50 62 14 62 MM AM 90 33 39 37 50 Ei 19 81 iZ:DL PY 90 33 33 36 50 79 16 79 1:GC F Y 81 3D 36 33 45 i2 16 72 2:GCFY 106 39 39 34 59 M 17 75 3:GCFY 113 42 42 41 63 91 21 91 A:GC• F Y 114 42 42 45 63 IM 23 10D 7:GC.FY 125 46 46 54 70 111 25 111 s:MPM 87 32 32 36 43 DD is 60 72D PM 64 24 24 23 5.5 51 12 51 evaPM 49 ie i9 19 27 Ai 9 41 9flb PM 22 e 9 8 i2 17 4 17 ilF.DD PM i1DD PM Table 7 Year2015HourlyT33ta1Traffic Using Doge Road and Kirkwood boulevard Based on ITE Hourly 5h000i ne Cente r Tri o RateS Time Had L Lyme WB T R Idrhwowsa L T K 0w ER L T R L Mi&wood Lle r e e:DD AM 5A 45 287 7-M AM 33 376 166 973 18 16 4 16 �bWAM 266 e9 5D9 9738 AM M 62 269 10:DD AY 90 132 76 iD3 50 62 14 62 i1:D0 AY 90 137 149 209 50 el i6 81 12:GC•FY 90 ie5 141 325 50 79 1B 79 1:GC-FY 81 i52 99 283 45 72 16 72 2:GCFY 106 73% 119 3D2 59 35 17 75 3:GCFY 113 Z97 i61 274 63 91 2i 91 A:GC•FY 114 Z64 309 291 63 im 23 10D 7:GC.FY 125 292 439 353 70 111 25 111 6:GCFY 87 2e6 249 314 AS M is 94 7:00 F Y 64 179 112 186 35 51 12 51 9:GC-FY 49 136 59 146 27 Ai 9 41 9:GCFY 22 92 31 99 12 17 4 17 10:GCFY 30 3 65 11:DOPM ie 4 25 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 40 Table 8 Year 2Q2OHourlyTotalTraffic Using Dowe Road and Kirkwood BDulevard [cased on ITE Hourly Shopping Center Trip Rates Timm 9ra L MMEWa T R Pirkwadtl 59 L T R Dave E9 L T R L KFWKod Na T A G)MAM 66 55 349 7N*AM 33 454 ise 696 18 16 4 16 SMA1A 324 i0a 61-4 5h06A1A 124 75 326 11"AM so 1s3 96 217 54 62 14 62 MM AM i6 i59 174 245 50 Ei 19 81 iZ:6i PM W 194 ids 387 50 79 18 79 1:GC.FY 81 OR 1U1 337 45 7x 16 72 2:OC F Y 106 293 137 366 59 M 17 75 3:LC-FY 113 352 157 324 63 91 21 91 A:CC• F Y 114 312 359 332 63 1.0a 23 SGb 7:LC.FY 125 345 523 419 70 111 25 111 s:MPM 87 342 294 374 48 Ba is 80 79U PM 64 213 131 222 M 51 12 51 61r6 PM 49 154 sa 174 27 Ai 9 41 9flb PM 22 i16 36 117 12 17 4 17 ilF.D6PM 37 4 79 U1D6PM 22 5 36 R? ght Turn Reduf[farrs The Texas MUTCD has provisions for different adjustments in the assessment of the traffic -Volume -related warrants. For instanaer right -turning vehicles may turn "right -on -red" at a traffic signal udder the same conditions as turning right at an unsignalixed, ST-OP-controlled intersection approach- At intersection approaches on the minor street where the ability to turn right is uninhibited due M the intersection geometry (e-g_, an exclusive right -turn lane exists) or where a disproportionately high percentage of vehicles are turning right (i_e_r there is not a significant queue of vehi€lesturn ing left or traveling straight), then: €ngineMng judgment shouid be used to determfne wrra[, a arry, pvrtron of the right4um traffic is subtracted fro-m the mfn r-strew~ tmffx count when evaluating the courrtagarrrstthe above sigrW warwna. n2 I n order to be consistent with the existi ng conditions a nalysis, no adj ustments for right turns have been made. Warrant Analysis The wa rrant a na lysis is based on the following assumptions: • The traffic volumes for this study are composed of existing counts on Dove Road and Kirkwood &au levard (May & August 2013 — see Appendix) and a partio-n of the ITE Tri p Generation volumes for the proposed shopping center - Integration of a traffic signal at the subject intersection shall be appropriately coordinated with surrounding, existing traffic signals where applicable. However, these imnsiderations were not directly evaluated as a primary factor in the justification of the traffic signal installation. Based upon background knowledge of the subject intersections, the basis for them traffic signal warrants is derived primarily from vehicular traffic volumes_ The pedestrian activity and traffic aoodent history are typically only applicable traffic signal warrants in extreme or severe conditions. ' TmMUFCd 8006, Sect 4C.01 page 4G1 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 41 Pedestrian and traffic aoddent conditions at these to€atians are assumed to be insuffi€ient to- satisfy the respective traffic signal warrants. Therefore, this data was not colleted or inducted in this analysis- Should assessment of pedestrian activity, traffic accident history and/or other warrants be desired, additional study will be required- 0 The remaining volume -related warrants (1, 2, and 3) are considered in this analysis - The results of the analysis aresummarized in Table 9 and detailed results are provided in the Appendix - Table 9 Future Traffic Signet Warrant Analysis Results (ITE Profile Traffic Volumes) 2015 & 2020 2015 Total 2020Tntal Mckground Warrant 1. Eight -Hour Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Satisfied J3 hours) Vehicular Volume WarraM2. Four -Hour Nat Satisfied Not Satisfied Satisfied Jd hours) Vehicular Volume Warrant 3. our Not satisfied Not satisfied Satisfied J2 hours) Vehicular Volumeolume The Texas MUTCD stipulates that a traffic signal control may be installed at the discretion of the authorrzed agency responsible for traffic control installation and maintenance provided that one or more of the published signal warrants are met- The criteria for Warrant i-Eight Hourr Warrant 2-Four Hour and Warrant 3-Peak Hour are satisfied at the subject intersection with consideration of the future traffic volumes generated by the proposed shopping center with background growth in the year 2020- Thus study reports that bacgmund traffic plus site traffic In the year 2020 may meet three warrants outlined in the TMUTCD. It would be recommended that conduit and puff boxes be installed at appropriate locations In concert with the construction of Xirkwood Boulevard on the site to facilitate a signal when warranted in the future. Activity on the Property to the east arid south worrfd trigger a reassessment of the signal - Conclusions f Recommendations The purpose of a Traffic Signal Warrant Assessment is to determine the feasibility of installing a traffic control signal at a designated location. Based on a combination the existing traffic volume information and the projected traffic generated by the proposed shappirkg centerr the intersection of Dove Road and Kirkwood Boulevard will satisfy at least three of the signal warrants listed in the TMUfCD in the year 2024: Warra nt 1— Eight Hour Volumes (satisf ed S hau rs� Warrant 2 — Four Hour Volumes (satisfied 4 hours) and Warrant 3 — Peak Hour Volumes (satisfied 2 hours) - END OF MLMO Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 42 7aim EncinEame January 27, 2015 Alex Ayala, P.E. City of 5outhlake 1400 Main Street, Suite 320 5outhlake, Texas 76092 Re: 5outhlake Town & Country TIA Review —January 26, 20I5 Revision Dear Mrs. Ayala: ARIZONA TEXAS NEW MEXICO OKLAHOMA Per your request, we have reviewed the traffic engineering information for the proposed 5outhlake Town & Country development. The data reviewed included a traffic impact analysis dated January 26, 2015 from the Deshazo Group and a traffic signal warrant study dated January26, 2015. 1. The site plan and traffic impact analysis indicate that a rlght-turn lane will be provided at Site Driveways 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. A right -turn lane eastbound on Dove at Kirkwcod is also shown In the site plan and traffic impact analysis. We concur with the provision of these lanes. 2. Driveway 6 does not have sufficient traffic volumes projected to exceed the City of 5outhlake right -turn lane threshold. We concur with this analysis. 3. The latest signal warrant study (1-26-2015) indicates that a signal will be warranted in 2020. This is unchanged from previous warrant studies submitted for this location. 4. The traffic impact analysis no longer recommends that a signal be installed with the opening of the retail center. The latest signal warrant study (1-26-2015) includes a 2015 analysis using total traffic (background site) volumes that indicates that the intersection does not satisfy the vehicular volume warrants,. Warrant 1 (8 Hour), Warrant 2 {4 Hou(), or Warrant 3 (Peak Hour). Though the signal warrant analysis references eight (8) signal warrants on page 1 of the study, no warrants other than the three volume warrants (1, 2 and 3) were analyzed in the study provided. Warrant 8 — Roadway Network -- Is a signal warrant that is applicable In situations such as this development with the construction of a major roadway such as Kirkwood Boulevard. The roadway network warrant specifies that The reed for a traffic con trol s ign a/ shall be considered If an engineering study finds that the cam man intersection of two or more major roiites meets one or both of the following criteria: A] the intersection has a total existing, or Immediately projected, entering volume of at least 1,000 vehicles per hour during the peak hour of a typical weekday and has 5-year projected traffic 3030 L81 Freeway, Suite 1660, DaIlas, TX 75234 (972) 248.3006 office (972) 249,S855 fax I www.leeengineering.com Page i of 3 Case No. Attachment C ZA14-100 Page 43 volumes, based on an engineering study, that meet one or more of Warrants 1, Z and 3 during an average weekday; or B) The intersection has a total existing or immediately projected entering valuate of at ieost 1,000 vehicles per hour for each of any 5 hours of a non -normal business day {Saturday or Sunday), Bath Dove Road and Kirkwood Boulevard qualify as rnajar routes and based on Table 1 of the traffic signal warrant analysis, the existing AM peak hour volume is 1,DOO vehicles per hour. Additionally, the provided traffic signal warrant study shows that within 5 years the intersection is predicted to satisfy Warrant 1, Warrant 2, and Warrant 3. As such, Lee Engineering believes Warrant 8 to be satisfied at this location and the intersection of dove Road and Kirkwood Boulevard signal should be installed. S. In a previously submitted signal warrant analysis (11-6.2014) the signal warrant study stated that "in order to provide the greatest safety and highest level of service possible, therefore, the installation of this traffic signal should be pursued with the opening of the proposed shopping center." While the latest signal warrant study (1-26-2015) no longer contains that language, signalization is the only way to allow the Kirkwood at Dove intersection to operate in a satisfactory manner (LOS D or better) after the addition of the fourth leg and site traffic. u The traffic impact analysis indicates that the southbound Kirkwood left turn movement to Dove operates with less than 20 seconds of average delay in the 2015 background: condition (without site traffic), Once site generated traffic and the fourth leg of the intersection are added the movement is predicted to operate with over 130 seconds (LOS F) of average delay during the PM peak hour. o The traffic impact analysis indicates that the northbound left turn from Kirkwood to Dove is predicted to operate with over 600 seconds of average delay along with a 951h percentile queue length of 15 to 16 vehicles. o The traffic impact analysis indicates that the Dove at Kirkwood intersection operates at LDS A with 6.1 seconds of average delay during the 2015 PM peak hour under background conditions (without site traffic). After the fourth leg of the intersection and site traffic are added to the analysis, LOS F operation with an average delay of 81.6 seconds is predicted, n The analysis shows that absent site traffic, the intersection of Kirlwood and Dove operates acceptably through 2020 with the exception of one movement (southbound left -turn) that fails in 2020. a Based on the information provided in the traffic impact analysis, the north and south approaches to the Kirkwood at Dove intersection will operate at unacceptable levels of service with large amounts of delay predicted to occur absent the installation of a traffic signal. o Based on the information provided in the traffic Impact analysis that multiple approaches to the Dove at Kirkwood intersection will not operate satisfactorily without signalization, Lee Engineering recommends that a signalized intersection at Dove and Kirkwood be constructed and operational when the retail center opens. LCCCfiC na:vInC Case No. ZA14-100 Page 2 of 3 Attachment C Page 44 The report does not include traffic generated specifically by the tract of land east of Kirkwood. When a development plan for the tract of land east of Kirkwood is proposed, the traffic impacts of that development should be assessed. The TIA misstates the City of 5outhlake auxiliary turn lane thresholds on page 4 and 5 of the TIA. The City of 5outhlake thresholds are 50 vehicles per hour on roadways with a speed limit of 40 mph or less. The City of Southlake threshold is 40 vehicles per hour on roadways with a speed limit higher than 40 mph. Because driveways 1,2,3,4 and 5 a•e all shown with right -turn lanes provided 1n the analysis and in the site plan, no changes are necessary to tite study. H. The minimum driveway Internaf storage length is 100'. All proposed site driveways have 100 feet or more of storage provided. If you have any questions, please contact me at t972j 248-3006. We appreciate tfe opportunity to provide these services and are available to address any additional comments or concerns. Sincerely, Jos h T. Short, P.E., PTOE Lee Englneering TBPE Firm F-450 LEE Enclnaviinc Case No. ZA14-100 Page 3 of 3 Attachment C Page 45 PLAT REVIEW SUMMARY Case No.: ZA14-100 Review No.: Four Date of Review: 01/26/2015 Project Name: Preliminary Plat for Southlake Center APPLICANT: Cencor Realty Services OWNER: Dove 114 Infinity, LLC David Palmer Tim Brittan 3102 Maple Ave., Ste. 500 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 954-0300 Fax: 1905 N. Pearson Ln. Westlake, TX 76262 Phone: (303) 825-0899 Fax: CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 01/26/2015 AND WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. THESE STIPULATIONS ARE HEREBY MADE CONDITIONS OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED FURTHER CLARIFICATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE APPROPRIATE STAFF MEMBER. Planning Review Daniel Cortez, AICP Principal Planner Phone: (817) 748-8070 Email: dcortez(a)ci.southlake.tx.us Any comments noted in the Site Plan submittal (ZA14-099) must also be addressed if relevant to this preliminary plat. This may include comments from Tree Preservation, Public Works, Fire Department and Community Services. 2. All plats of property in the noise cone as defined in the Zoning Ordinance, shall provide the avigation easement note on the face of any plat intended to be filed in the County Plat Records. A portion of the property on Lot 1 of Block 2 has the 65'LDN Airport Overlay Zone. Please add this overlay line to Lot 1 of Block 2. Please also be aware that at the time a Final Plat is processed for this lot an Avigation Easement and Release will be required to be placed on the Final Plat for recording. Please contact staff is assistance is needed in identifying specific location of this overlay. 3. Ensure that the acreage shown on the Land Use table on sheet 2 is correct with the acreages shown on the face of the preliminary plat. This should also include the vacant lot that is not proposed to be developed. Informational Comments Require and provide that all newly installed electric utility lines and wires that will be operated at nominal voltages, all telephone utility lines and wires, all cable television and other communication or utility lines and wires, and all terminals shall be installed, placed and constructed underground; and cable television, telephone, and electric transformer and primary switching gear may be pad mounted or placed underground. Unless provided otherwise, no earthwork, grading, utility, street or drainage improvement construction or any public or private improvements shall be allowed until the developer receives approval of a final plat and the City executes a developer's agreement with the developer. Case No. Attachment D ZA14-100 Page 1 All preliminary plats shall substantially conform to the Site Plan approved in accordance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance No. 480, as amended of the City. A separate Final Plat application will need to be processed, approved and filed with the county prior to the issuance of any building permits for any of these lots. A Preliminary Plat shall expire two years from the date of approval. Said expiration date shall be extended one year from the latest date of filing a Final Plat on a portion of said Preliminary Plat in the County Plat Records. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to monitor the timing of the plat and the potential for expiration. Denotes Informational Comment Case No. Attachment D ZA14-100 Page 2 SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS MAP & RESPONSES Southlake Town & Country .W 2304 g 10 195 246 20 285 315 o, nnvppn 230o J 230, � 600 � 2 a cr z 205 2t2T ZZ 2123 m 2a 2,9 tt2 2tt5 2112 2tt1 101 105 21M M W 120 21 306 00 1y2 20C 208 212 216 ]00 209 213 391 A G m 1oa FOWNWpa Z!Z 200 � S t D C 'm6 y 7 Z '. 1. Mansoor, Shadan RPUD 2308 IDLEWILD CT 0.40 NR 2. Kurtz, Brian L Etux Melissa RPUD 2309 IDLEWILD CT 0.45 O 3• Kirkwood Hollow Ho Assoc RPUD 2301 KIRKWOOD BLVD 0.32 O 4• Bradford, Joseph III Etux S RPUD 409 STOCKTON DR 0.46 O 5. Owens, Andrew W Etux Elizabeth RPUD 401 STOCKTON DR 0.47 O 6• Southlake, City Of CS 2300 N WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 0.88 NR 7. Kushwaha, Alok P RPUD 405 STOCKTON DR 0.59 O 8. Chokshi, Rupesh Etux Aparna Z RPUD 403 STOCKTON DR 0.49 O 9. Bollini, Sashidhar Etux Sesha RPUD 2304 IDLEWILD CT 0.37 O 10. Schultz, Todd R RPUD 2305 IDLEWILD CT 0.38 O 11. Southlake, City Of SF1-A 2235 N WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 0.65 NR 12. Morales, Michael D RPUD 2300 IDLEWILD CT 0.38 O 13. Eady, Linda L Etvir Connie D RPUD 2301 IDLEWILD CT 0.47 O 14. Southlake, City Of RPUD 150 W DOVE RD 0.44 NR 15. Southlake, City Of RPUD 2280 N WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 0.54 NR 16. Mullikin, Timothy D SF1-A 2225 N WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 1.15 NR 17. Neill, Rosemma & Kay V Gunn SF1-A 2201 SHADY OAKS DR 1.50 F 18. T Zero Partners Lp AG 2001 SHADY OAKS DR 5.64 F 19. Brentwood Residential Assoc SF30 2055 N WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 0.02 O 20. Shivers Family Partnership AG 1835 SHADY OAKS DR 21.53 O 21. Thrasher, Wesley A Etux Terrie AG 1975 N WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 1.18 NR 22. Gottimukkula, Sohini Etvir S RPUD 109 KEYSTONE DR 0.46 NR 23. Repice, Joseph A Etux Victoria RPUD 105 KEYSTONE DR 0.38 O 24. Verizon Wireless Texas Llc NRPUD 500 W DOVE RD 24.86 NR 25. Simpson, Charles Etux Kathleen SF30 104 BRENTWOOD CIR 0.68 O Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 1 26. Conley, Michael Etux Audrey SF30 100 BRENTWOOD CIR 0.74 O 27. Patel, Prabhudas K Tr SF30 101 BRENTWOOD CIR 0.74 O 28. Currie, John L & Deborah J SF30 105 BRENTWOOD CIR 0.87 O 29. Rodriguez, Joe III Etux Tanya RPUD 113 KEYSTONE DR 0.49 NR 30. Southlake, City Of ECZ 100 E KIRKWOOD BLVD 0.63 NR 31. Brown, Kenneth R Sr Etux C J SF1-A 2005 N WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 1.71 NR 32. Thrasher, Wesley Etux Terri AG 1965 N WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 1.85 NR 33. Estes Park Hoa Inc RPUD 101 KEYSTONE DR 0.30 NR 34. Estes Park Hoa Inc RPUD 100 KEYSTONE DR 0.58 NR 35. Southlake, City Of SP1 100 E DOVE RD 10.56 NR 36. Dove 114 Infinity Llc SP2 500 W SH 114 29.49 F 37. Shivers Family Ptnrship Ltd AG 1900 N WHITE CHAPEL BLVD 39.54 O 38. Dove 114 Infinity Llc SP2 500 W SH 114 24.95 F F: In Favor Responses Received O: Opposed To Seventeen (17) U: Undecided NR: No Response Multiple Responses have also been received from outside the 200-foot buffer that can be found under Attachment `E' of this report. The applicant also provided a petition of signatures to staff in support of the project. This petition will be provided to the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council separately. City residents have also provided several additional property owner responses in opposition to the project in addition to a petition and information regarding the applicants petition. All these responses and information will be provided to the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council separately. Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 2 Notification Response Form ZA14-100 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM Dove 114 Infinity Llc 1121 5 Carroll Ave Southlake Tx 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) . the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: Additional Signature: Printed Names): Must be property owner(s) whose nam (s) are printed at top. Phone Number (optional): Case No. ZA14-100 Date: Date: contact the Planning Department. One form per property. Attachment E Page 3 Notification Response Form ZA14-100 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM T Zero Partners Lp 13631 Ashridge Dr Dallas Tx 75240 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted alcove, are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Additional Signature: Date: Printed Name(s): —/ V�,' Must be property cwner(s) whose rame(s) are p Phone Number (optional): Case No. ZA14-100 at top. Othery tse contact the Planning Department. One form per property. Attachment E Page 4 Notification Response Farm rt -0 , ZA14-100 011faber 9, 2Q14 at 6:34 PR Notification.Response Southfake, T 76092 t� Wake lac i D Phbnea (W)7 -8621, Fax: (1 7)746.0677 PPS -..SSE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS V.A. MAIL, FA_x. OR_ �,jARQ DEUVE-P,y BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING, Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in `ravor o ,oppose to`> unde6ded ibaut (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for con-va ents regarding your position: -�Wa 544 Signature: � Additional Si � OA el were- Lvae-i- J Date: L�1 re: Date:lo - I - Printed Name(s): Q`F e- , C t e-Al e r - /' L_ rJ. Must be property owners) whose names) are printed at top. Qtherwise contact the Pla ' g One form per property. Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 5 --0/0'i. Ply =5:5' -:1--''-a- _I 'A --t, PAGE $f Notification Response Form ZA14-100 Mooting bate: October B, 2014 at 6:34 PM Bradford. Joseph III Etux 5 409 Stockton Or Southinice Tic 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of cpposeti 10 undecided about �clrc or t�ndl�1lirl� one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above - Space for comments regarding your, pesiflan: beso- dLdcnkr( *yt rrL d"fg- �hu. hum �t�� `f �� 2a* . ZL � ignature- - ----- - Additional Signature: Date: _..... _ Printed Name(s)- Muai ho proporty c opF(F) wKu;o nom*(a) are prirt*d ak tpp. 4X)wrMtd wntaetthe Planning Qapadnns . One form Per pwRQrlY. done Number (optional): Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 6 Notification Response Form Meeting Data: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM Chokshi, Repesh Etux Aparna Z 403 Stockton or Southiake Tx 76092 PLFASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed #o undecided about (circle or underline one) the Proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space For comments regarding your position: U. & .�-�-r, ran . W 0p p0 14 e- 00nn e U n Loa n- tr r f,L I U to KC-- fir., LA/ 1 i IQ 00d '+"y ' +r + e- t ( v i n Signature: Date: i 4 I Additional SignatuDate: 1 Printed Names : rr ( art 1`5,11 Pdust be properly ownegs) whose me(s) are prinled at lap. Olharwlse c:untact the Planning Department One form per properly. Phone Number (optional): t - Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 7 Notification Response Form ZA14-100 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM Conley, Michael Etux Audrey 100 Brentwood Cir Southlake Tx 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above; are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: We were opposed to the original plan presented —I year ago. It appears the developer completely Ignored all homeowners/resideats comments and concerns this past year and it trying to push the same plan through again. We are ESPECIALLY OPPOSED to any major commercial development on the Block closest to White Chapel (Block 2). This is too close to our homes and Walnut Grove Elementary School. The cityjms last week installed a sidewalk along White Chapel from Brentwood to Estes Park v!hich is awesome (thank youl). We have already used it several times to walk our son to/from school at Walnut Grove, Please do not destroy this family atmosphere you have treated in our area by alkywing major retail with all the associated traffic it will bring so close to our homes. We had seen an interim plan several moths ago that had residential on Block 2 which vie really liked and thought was a step In the right direction. But we have since learned that this plan has been abandoned which is very disappointing. Slgl1S#Ure."� 1l r� I J Y Date': �4 Ifs Additional Signature: �� Date: Printed Names}: M .iArAe Jg- LA. eq 0� �� Mus: be property ovfner(s) vrhose names) are printed at top. O�t6 Ctthe P17ing Department. One fCr'TI per property. Phone number (optional): On 7� Qqo -?D � rn Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 8 Notification Response Form ZA14-100 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM Kirkwood Hollow Ho Assoc 1800 Preston Park Blvd Ste 101 Plano Tx 75093 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING, Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of (:opposed to decided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Sig Additional Signature: Date: Date: Printed Name(s):6*Zoel'e,Zl Must he property owner(s) whose name(s) are printed at top. Otherwise contact the Planning Department. One form per property. Phone Number (optional): F - t 1ir-d Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 9 May 00 01 022398 fitnk KLJShWAha, Mfl GBF83103A4 NOtifieation Response Form ZA14-100 Meeting Date, October 9, 2014 at 6-30 PM Kushwaha, Alok P 405 Stockton Dr Southlake Tx 76092 p.1 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the propefty so noted above, are hereby in favor of op cp sed t undecided about circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: P�X(ov V)O �- Signature: Additional Signature: Printed Name(s): ' Must he pro-perty awger(s) v4itpse names) are pm a! top. Dlherwise Phone Number (optional)_ uy"- v�cless { *rt � Date: k> r Date: the Planning 6upuitmert. One forth per property. Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 10 ZA14-100 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6-30 PM Neill, Rosemma & Kay V Gunn 4812 Barkridge Trl Fort Worth Tx 76109 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position - Signature: Date:�4 ' Additional Signature: �J f Date: Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 11 Notification Response Form ZA14-100 Meeting Date; October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM Repice, Jose p h A Etu x V icto ri a 105 keystone Dr $outhlaka Tx 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS ILIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the pro so noted above, are hereby in favcr of opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: - Additional Signature: Printed Name(s): — MuM tm propertyownmr(6) whowe 1 rt ' L- pringerf at bop. ❑Iherwirpe oantLqt the Phone Number (optional): ON Date: Date; ! 1 Planning deparbrnw t. One farm pear property. Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 12 Notification Response Form ZA 14-100 Meeting Date: Oetcber % 2014 at 6:30 PM WA-m€ i ,ado}]P.ES`al Southlsko Tic 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of ��p�pose� undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above - Space for comments regarding your position: c) 9 1 (, I (1 , IC11-IatUr$' C� � � -- Date: AdditionalSignature'. Date: Printed Names}: ) rrlust F.E )wPorty owler{s) wlhose rrame(A) ate PrInter-a- top, OthR-xvisC --cmact the Plar,r;ng Department, Or* farm perpKgerly, Phone Number (optional): Case No. ZA14-100 Attachment E Page 13 Notification' Response Form Ummkm Date: DwWbw 9, 2Q74 at 6:30 PM Tx 79092. PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED' FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC. HEARING, Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. ,pace for comments regarding- you p"ition: -1 T r T • 4 l Sig Additional Signature, Printed' Narne(s): _ {. MUs1 be RrDPWY ovnler(s) aTe , Phone Number (optional): 1 � " � `' � � + ,!� ZD Date; 7 z r Date-q—D71W the Planning deoulmen;. On6 corm per piopar V. Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 14 Notification Response Form ZA 14-100 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6.30 PM southlake Tx T6092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAiL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor crf-Qpposed to kk ,, u: de.6ded about (circle or underline one) the proposed Prelim[nary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position' o Signature: c• r r t .f Dante: � Additional &gnatunDate:. r ` Printed Narne(s): _ 1 . rr, c^ MusE be Property owner{ej whom name(s) are printed at lcp- Phone Nurnber (optional): D Case No. ZA14-100 the Planr* Qawtft •d, QM torn Per PNP- Attachment E Page 15 Notification response Form ZA14-100 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 5:30 PM - r �i �5 Sotlake lx 76092J PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVER BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING, Beling the c)wner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about �— (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for cornments regarding year position: 12 5 "' a-S� r) I P V 4A Signature: aNAIL � �� - Date, Additional Signature: Printed Name(s): us# ownur E,) whose riarnLt(s, ors primed al op. Olherw�F■ cinlictwte IMnnlrrs peNtrtrrwni- One r par P"08 ry- one Number (optional): Date: NL�1� Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 16 1002104 lA 1 d-1 CC jp� Notification Response Form ZA14-I00 meepung Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM ,yA"C- f ADWW 'b o -SoK IA6 Tx 76092- PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE S HEl ULEaPUBLIC HE-ARING. Being the owner(s) of the prcperty so noted above. are hereby in favor Cf apposed #0 undecided about c6rG cline ona) the proposed Preliminary Flat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your p09980n: Additional Signature: Date,+" PFirited Names): v ; ' rif j... 'AList be prC ertp -�u'sar(F,) xv-ase nstrws) ar6 ;)rir'.� X lop, 4;henuiae cb AaC11h9 Plarming neparmunt One km per property, Phone Number (optional): hlpsr�yrtM,g44gls�carJmelUur4fiVlnhaxt1A6T1u29b15Alr123'�projridor+rl Case No. ZA14-100 Uy Attachment E Page 17 Notification Response Form ZA'14-100 Mead ng Dot*: CeWbor 9, 2014 at 8;30 PM Sou#aleks 7x 70(3 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELWERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments ragarding your position: L� � i A Cf-.wgf-% •� 1 r Signature: Date; j Additional Signature: Date: Printed Narrte(s): �- Must be proporty cvener,sj whose narna(s) are pdnlp.d a'. tap. Otherwfse uaptaCt Ma pCan lily Q9pgjUuKA. One fcfm per proFer'•Y- Phone Number �optjonal): 4 ,? - c--rD - 01 E-�-1-1'A Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 18 Not1fication Responso Form ZA14-100 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6;3a PM � r-�- s Southlake Tx 70M PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VlA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the ownegs) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of (OP=P05edo undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments rfgarding your position: S 4 �. Mv� Az Signature: Additional Signature. Wc"]'T"T "i Printed Name():8�-- �.9ua4 he proporty olhmer(s) whole naMEXa) ace pdrtlud as tiaP- dlherwiae oftlarct tlla paern;ng Deparimeni. Phone Number (optional); Dater Date: per propany, Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 19 Notification Response Form ZA 14-100 Meeting Date: OcWbar 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM Smd2hke Tx 760D2 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby to favor of p- os� edto undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space #or comments regarding your position: Signature: Additional Signature: Printed Narne(s): Orl-111 Muet sae proprry mrlw(G) whose game (a) are Pr Phone Number (optional)' at top. Omenwisr' Date!: 0 el- Date:��� ib= per property. Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 20 1'}_79-14.i19'17.4Y;Fri:n T7 r1l(N$5477 Notification Response Foam ZA14-100 UG"ng DaW- OCWbW 0, W .4 at 6.30 PM SouiE> kdw Tx T6092 K w PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING, Being the owner(s) of the Property so noted above. are herehy �n favor of apposed to undedded about (circle oe L n—dedine one) thte proposed Preliminary Flat referenced above - Space for comments mgarding your Pasltlan: P t)ra j couri�rl ,-e 6 Signature' ' '� —...,..� Date: /10 Q 4 I Additional Signature) L Date: ID^ Printed Nam (s)=� rf l'ctd 5� � [ i 647el � XlUa Ge PMPWtyr ownewtf) %WbUW RW WfQ OM j11fii11red at top- ❑tliEFLvke ttio Planni% Depart QM "farm perp=anv. Phone Number {optianal);. � - `- Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 21 Notification Response Form lA14.1 O0 Meeting Date: October S, 2014 at 6:30 PM DJA"4 + AP IL&SSI. iO 12•nn 11+..V�� I Y � -- Southlake Tic 7NO . . PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA, MAIL, FAX OR HAND OELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owns(s) of the property so noted above, are hemby in favor of opposed to urrdecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: i' Signature-te: ,+ dditlonat Signature: , Date: lrlrlteGl Name(s)= : } f Jf r Must be prGperty awagr%) whew: namr3[s) am prklied at top. OtherwkieC*rkeams p9arning 4epaFwnrk. One form per property- Mhona Number (optional): A - 1 - 5/+) Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 22 Notification Response Form ZA14-100 Meefing Date: October 9, 2014 at 6.30 PM r A -MC- 4 Ar}nt.Ss; Corow, _ ' Southlake Tx 002 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above. are hereby in favor of used to � undecided about (circle cr underline cne) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: kWk Date. K. AdditionalSignature: Date: Printed Name(s): (!Ar7 Must tie property ovmar{s) V&0$@ names) are pnntied al Wp- OlhuWise owilewbe planning DeParb—t. One farm per P►Werty, Phone Number (optional); Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 23 Notification Response Form ZA►14.100 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM -W,d 4 Sauthlake 7x 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the }era erty so rioted: above, are hereby in favor of apposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: d , 4 1 1 ignaWr°e: o = Date: I 5 r++- Additional Signature. Date: Printed Name(s): Must be prcpeq rwrw(s) wffinse narna(s) are prinled at top- 0Ihervvlse mntod the Planning RepArtmwt. One form perproperty. Plane Number (optional); Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 24 Notification Response Form ZA14-100 Meeting veto: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 M l" VroaD (5t4-c SoUthha_ke Tx 76092, PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VITA MAIL, FAX OFF HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the Property so noted above. are hereby in favor of a posed)undecided about (circle or underline ore) the proposed Preiiminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: Date: Additional Signature: _ Date Printed name{s}; ti' -'�`�� "► Must @e 4rQP1{Y oWbr(S) wno5e 1am07are printed at Rap. Otherwise ce ntac7 The Planrning Deparlmen1- One i= per pTOPBTT]Y- Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 25 - — Notification Ro,9ponse Fonn ZA14-100 Meeting Date: Oct*w 0, 2014 at 6.30 PM Southieks Tx MR PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA (NAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY MFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owners) of the property so noted above, are hereby In favor of oppo�tc undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: YDate: AdditionalSignature'. DffhL Printed Name(s): must ee pmnp" o++mer(a) whome name{a) are prtnlEd at lop Olhervr;se oanlaat the Planrgrig Pewadynant Cne form p*F Phone Number (optional): kil H -, _ t _-- Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 26 Notification Response Form ZA 14-100 Meeting Date: October % 2014 at6:30 PM ra{krvte � A�p.�E-�J6: Southlake Tx 760�� PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby CosSire favor of c undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your lfposition: ff I i .ti f a A U'� ; I s ., i h i' 1, n P f7 .I n P.If A I n,��.s . L I _ . ...1 r� A ,c : riv. Uk Signature: Additional Signature: Date: Printed Name(): %tst rae property rnxiner(s) wtta6e names) am panted at tvp. Phone Number (optional): Case No. ZA14-100 contact fhe Planning ❑ rtmGnt. One farm per property, Attachment E Page 27 Notification Response Form ZA14-100 Wetting Dab: octaober 9, 2014 at 6:30 PIA i.�/1'r C f Av(sIZE-60Y SoutEtlake T5[ ie092 -�R PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE STAR' OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of poseDto undecided about: {circle or underline one) the pmpo5ed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your Po$ttlon: Dove Road, between S.H IL14 and N- White Chapel Is not retail destination- The proposal Is not what the area needs, is incoilsist4nt with the surrounding area of high -end homes and not the type of development that was to be ollowed when we made a major kwestrnent in a single family homer in a quiet a rea. We a re totally opposed to this proposal- The pro pospd zoning change and site plan and the prelirnin ary plat represent development that is dropped i n an area without adjoining retail- Aeces_s to relt�Gl is not lock ng in the area and thus this is not addressing a geed. There are numerous (grocery and specialty retail establishments within reescmable distances. Again, we are totally opposed to this type of development In this area atSouthlelcrz- Signature: Date: Additional Signature: is Lam.. ..� Date; Ia:s r Printed Narne(s): OLL4,Aoir Mmf ba proparty axna {a1 whow names} are p9rrt4d at top. ❑na form perpropeMrf Prone Number (000nal): _ ;�i r y z w a_ a Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 28 Notiffoation Response Form ZA14-SOID Meeting Dote, 0rtoher 9, 2014 at6:30 PM o Southlake Tx 7S PLrsASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA AVAIL, FAX OR NAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUKIC HEARING. Beirwg the ovrrier(s) of tha property so notsd above, are hereby oppsed to undecided about n favor of C (circle or underiine one the proposed Prelimirl�iry Plat refererued above. 4PW-1pr commenU regarding your posidnn: I AdditionalSignature: Date: Printed Names); 1� r.1uEt b$ proFcrtY VW0ftPr1%) -hhoaa name r,) M MIr od of Wfk C)thenAea [xnlact the Fiai;nirnj ::eparmant. vrd km P W prcpgrtF• Phone Nurn ber {optional}: Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 29 Notification Response Form ZA14-t 00 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM erne � �eot,Ess: Southlake Tx T6092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, $re hereby in favor of apposed to undecided about (circle o nderline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position' Idt P10 174� W914�t�� �ra ?�t A,�- g-lill;`111c- - W� Signature' Additional Signature; Printed Name{): Date: -- Date: Mustbe piripai'.Y mrier,al vmose nomeisj ate prinU dattop. v,isecontact th.e Planning ❑eperjEnaM one farm parP�W�'tY Phone Number (optional):qq0-� � Case No. ZA14-100 Attachment E Page 30 Ta Pipe 4 Ot3 2014-104911:34:54 (GMT) PMUC 8b"herr R Ellis ftaflon Respon se Form CAt.k00 1;4•'" ; 54t I ~PROVIDE ~FORM.11i4:' A R I _F�!-OMPU. y _= in;tatir( r'+o rroid aira;r did 7. P_w MRM 79 '.YJg�.unP.atd-fisthErl. r [[te4ak�o�er,- M�ftlwiwlll do claimm hid del'';rd horn 1pe'uvemii fee and abet a SrAjWWkQ:�- =uOw1W*.Oms nc# nwid and w gnx� � stare, as w3a re y F1ati4' ` - -'- Vka(W NOT W16v'o_r.WikANt"rchl'a*:bpx+BkaNa�prett �.Orily.burv-+ikonrrghxoluRl result ai subs�enhe irscreased tradi 66*sllpn iri this 6our imiat bpOnbd. wu might Y+�vra frdflFereriF" ; .., L,.y: na 4'x-.v _ y.1� —•`t'� :. k'� .. —•. �''':~ti _. ""—i', — '-�''�x,\� ~--.. _.:L�titi '�: is �. -: "...� y.-. .. y --• ::. �� _ t __ ry 4� x � :i _.k �.\"'mil. i4"_ y', +, — 1 — — �` �• .� va IWO -'�� . fiIli Elf �.-.--� :,...,.. ..-_.,,-( �:r NameiY�ua� a �r n,r,rxr(6� „mpee�rer!re�e} ere pr4tbad P. `C t4 rTse G_ ct tha.PWnir.g 1�epa+ Case No. ZA14-100 Attachment E Page 31 Notification Response Form ZA14.100 MeetIng DoW 0otoher 9, 2014 at 620 Phi r�,trn a + Sara o+ cam: 7,1 ..goo SoOhlakQ Tx 75092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. rig the aMvneKsj o p-pfofertnoted above, are hereby in favor of op"ed to ' undecided about a1 a 0r underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat refemnoed above, Space for comments regarding your position: U3'1k�- ora#i...la . i0p, lqwe- '*A �- Signature: Date: Additionai Signature: Dater' 1-f Y Printed dame(s): Muni ho pmporty owner(s) whaae r4eme(s) a•a pi inted a top. OlhenAse contac, the Planning Del�rtmeni. One fvrrr. Per Properly - Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 32 Notification Response Form ZA14-1QD Mooling Date: October 9, 2014 at6.30 PM WfrrA,z -F oed-5%. F-aqQL 526 RDund�South lake Tx 7809 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of sad to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding ycur pcL�itioh: -r ra t h�q Y.+ I a '1� % 41 (1-0 4) -�D 6f� cLvi�md' �0 )bta. J- � J. CL &4 v&L, r, N Wt Signature: 14Date ! Additional Signature; Date: Printed Larne( ): s�L ra List ne properly owner{s) mMose name(s) are Phone Number (optional). D. a: tap. C:I herju se contact the artment. Una farm per prop". Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 33 Notification Response Form ZA14-100 meang oats: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM _ +}— So thlake PAY PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your pos 00'. w-ew w 0 •' b y w Slow- 1T �Lj - q o ignatu Additional Signature: Date; 'I�� Datw: Printed Name(e); 1N Must he property awhar[s) ;Ow' namo(sl are {�ait ;ap.Oit�erNlse ppn;a�?he ¢lain ,,g DepArtmant One corm per Pam# Phone Number (optional); 0 D5' — Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 34 111WLII1%&ULILl11 N%W,2 rter1,2r-- I 1/I I k 4 J �a F LES �t 1946,1 ZA14-I W 0peting Date., October 9, 21014 at 0:30 Ifs WA -Me I Aab"'q5: R,Vbs� 3VOk)OhG L ;. S*authlake Tx 7GN2 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL., FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (circle or underline ore) the proposed Preljmi nary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: _p Z .I lbt-t fv �4'-�- KzoA 04tiI,t F Signature: Additional Signature: Date- 0131)14 Date: Printed Narne(st+�,'� :LEA°st De property ❑wi2r(6) wfiL-A nama(S} are prin,ed at top. Otherwise contact the Pfawin!g Dapadftlfwl . Oa9 fmm per property. Phone Number (optional)-, Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 35 I iV OF 1%*Q LF VF! 9'k0-%jJ%-#f 1,MW F %J1I FF A14-100 Meetft Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM � 1`>-iC'4-- edD +i r L', .5 6outhlake Tx 76092 -Ditimt.gge 9ff6 d'wdt'Wpo �: i�latift�I�evf�ittietitei�i}` #" V. yer a k.rre l' SOUTx a:, '.i PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted alave, are hereby in favor of ap o!�eal tc_D undecided about (circle or undedine one) the proposed Prelimirlary Plat referenced above - Space for comments regarding your position: 1 "[�e � 14 ti tou I I a h A" .. F �,r Signature: Date: �� V Addi0ona l Signature; Printed Nama(s): a .,.gustpepiopLytaswrerfsjwhi? Fmsnu(u)arep:intP4aR#op,-V Phone Number (optional)' Date: orxrtput the Plamirig Departmarl. One form per prap+e _ Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 36 Notification Response Form 7-A14-100 Meeting Date: 00Wber 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM -Y,*-MO 4 .9bp i59: .rT..��.1�r, . Slake Tx 76092 t�..:[[ +? cs:r PLEASE PROVIDE COMPi ETED FORMS VIA MAIL, PAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preiimiriary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: igrlatU!`e: Aw,� Date: AdditionalSignature: Printed Name(s): W- Imo( --5 _ Must 4e Iyopeq °wnH% whose name(@) are printed at tap. Otherwise r❑nta❑t the Planning Phone Number (optional): Case No. ZA14-100 Date: pur property. Attachment E Page 37 Notification i espcnse Form ZA14-100 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM wy furl � t o ; --- outhlake Tx 7809 PLEASE PROVIDE CO MPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING, Being the owner(a) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of opPoed to undecided about (r,ircle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above - Space for comments regarding your position: ,' r c= Signature: _,h Additional Signature: Printed iv rrle(sj: . 7 \5 rut js! be propcTty own,00) whose name(S) are prird [ tap. Phone Number optional); Date: Date: C f i One farm per property. Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 38 Notification Response Form 14-100 Mwdng DwW. October 9, 2014 at 6.30 PM hfXm6 Y Am V,( ! ' Ca F1t ff. 'r4a P40*.t C. Ak OVA 3C'1 S#osJOjan V�-I4 o SovMlako Tx T5092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed ta• undecided about (circle Nr un6erline one) the proposed Preliminary Plot referenced above. Space for cornments regarding your position: 'd ii !: v Y7 Jam%« f vj CJ. 4 O[r#`tJ v al Y'�' Ct-s� Ci'�6�.? �Yr[+'�P '4p,Ps.. -Tfi±'�J� f'ef% cer�F-,�1°1�'�E'.. Gr r'4�Crsf•,rl� �acr,1P �*'ox-x igrtiature; plate: ' O Additional Signature: r Cate: Panted Names}: c-,- G1r7G j� Ofera Mole/f'c? hlust be prapolt; ower;s? vrroee rmioKa] ara pitinled at lop. OM@ wNa oor*vA R* Planting Department, One farm par property. PhoneNumber (optional): (1.17) Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 39 Notification Response Forfr -rr:n• M� S ZA14.1 00 W-I- .m' [ wm'- GoAher 9, 2414 at 6,34 Pdb. IJT�-rrl c' i lahtrE a3' Nuf?fiyGllation fResponseg I J 7UIR7rY, lw674 gaut lake, Tom€ 76092 Souftaka Tx 76GO2 Phone: (817)748-SW E ar1 (817)748,801'7 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETEK) WIL, FAX ORi 2E1, VERY BE.FG E ,3 HE TART OF T>';E S' ?`lED1. LED PUBLIC HEARI14 . D.-ing the owner(s) of the property so rkoled above, are herigby in tavor o� ui dedided aboLIt (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Flat refemneed above. Space for comments regarding your position: b- .0 j---*o'fP:.C' Inc? r' Signature, � --- ale: f ciifiior7al igInu e:Date,1o.-i-L Printed fame{s}: Sc' MustGe prworiy �::vr-g (a, wnoB¢ name(e,) are purled atiop. Otherwise mnlack'he PlaiYdng epad,nank One tarm par properly. Phone dumber (optional): -7 -- Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 40 J%WL3111fRGr V11 11 j.,evll=iL I v5111 Z-Al Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6.30 PM South lake Tx 76092 .0Erect-4Uv-st+oin3and mall ..rm oases -Ma rinine �.'�":fitot�fiCatisSrr;Res�p,. �,�_�:;: - _ "'`.:,.fir•;_T. 5` 'Snutr7l;l ke;- T ' '7$ 2 PLEASE PROVIOE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVrRY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBL]C HIEARING. Being the owner's) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favo, of c osed toy-.—., undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Pmfirninary Plat referenced alcove. Space for comments regarding ]dour position: 93 Signature: � � �� � Date: AdditionalSignature: Date: Printed Names): - { 0 i Pil List be pruerty olr.'ner, sj wkme narne(s) are printed at tap' Otherwise Phone Number (optional): t]ra P9anntng deparlrnrnk One fafm per praporly" Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 41 Notification Response a Form ZA14-100 ltiAeetin Data: October 01 IIat 6:30 PM South Iake Tx 766-02 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted shore, are hereby in favor of pposed to undecided about (circle or undedineone) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: sI . f �\ Signature: Date: U&I-Ij AdIciitional Signature: N _-- Date. Printed Marne{s): 4n,�LL�IpM us- bo propa,#y nvner's, whonled It -ie Fam p$r PnDpCrty. Phone Number (optional); Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 42 Notification Response Evan ZA14-100 Mating Data: October 9, 2014 at 15;30 PM rg Qr arxcf- Southlake 7x 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA WWL, FAX OR HAND [DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARIN . Being the owners) of the pro r1y so noted above, are hereby in favor of undecided about (clrcle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenoed above_ Space for comments regarding your position: Ltd 4h Signature; }ate: ft) 7 ` Additional Signature: Date: ONY Printed Name(s): rA —W- v-%t to picrdprt; rwnei (s) unase rLaM(3) are pOnked at Okhc,- *e cUo1ar.V a Rannmg Np*rtM8Rt. One lcm par Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 43 Notification Response Form Z,A14-100 Meeting Date, 000trer 0, 2014 at6.30 PM Svuttilake U 76 2 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY (BEFORE. THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEADING. Being the owner(s) of the pipperty so noted above, are hereby in favor of C��2posed to-," undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above, Space for comments regarding your position: 7.1 igr�atre; { ; Date: Additional Signature: Date: Printed Names)- Must be prorer!y awner(s) whose mme(s) No Phone Number (optional): at top. 0Itj0P;A9e oanfact thO farm per wpm Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 44 17SdiF l4Lpi1 YJ1� YG.i I.rYlac ! r.e1111 ZA14- OO Meeting Date' October 9. 2014 at 6:30 PM V, 6? (2-V, V and Arai[ ragpG"s$s .ty. =�x oc2oit.Resp=."iµ 1+S Fes{ Ph- € LEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINO, 9eing the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (circle or underline ore) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for co m m a nts regarding your position; Additional Signature, . Date: Printed Names Whist t a proW.rtV ownags) wF 1e sj are prinWd at tap. CAne Jse cuctW be Plamingl�ipervmrik Qqa torn per grapenq- Number�~� PhonNumber (opti;onal): k _ Case No. ZA14-100 Attachment E Page 45 NoN ation Response Form 4A14-100 �yq/� Meeting Dole- October 9, 2014 at 6'30 PM u F -j Aoptf-W. _ 9 t 6 1 a-Tkkk ewfi-7 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the awner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: f O I) - c) ' Eve t 1 v�, C r e qn e eon e(,rCt�� 1e 4 0r siss Signature: Date: Additional ignaktre; Date: l Oq Printed Name(,): 4AIly � - { ci- h1 ust be property nvaor;s) Mio%� nnmejs era crMlad at top, Oahprwiso contact tha la4" Oe , Cne kwm per property. Phone Number (optional)' _ Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 46 Notificatlon Response Fora Z#114-10v fileeting Date: OcWber 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM Xut 6h a k �elt�.__� . PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VtA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the cwner(s) of the property so noted move. are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (circle or underline ones the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position- 0 Additlonal Signature: Printed I arne(s). �tA b LiN }.oust be property owners) wlwse nsineM are pr9ntad at tap. Phone dumber (optional}. - N -15 Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 47 Notification Response Form ZA14-100 Meeting Date; October 9. 2014 at 6:30 PM ( �_oP HAAD tD Southlake 7)c 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULE] PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property sc noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (elrcle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above_ Space for comments regarding your position: r 6,) I xs u o- t �S Signature: Date: a 4 • Additional ig�awrv- - Date: 1n j Printed Names): o PJ.. Mud ce prop" gwnw(r) whose namla(s} Mrs printed al tap. olhrmwsse ::o-,tact the Planr-+9 oepartme�:rF. one farm parproperty. Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 48 16I59I2914 a9: az 214855e2e0 NDRTONP SFE BRIGHT PAM f4J91 Notificaflon Response Form TA14-100 OA"Ung a� 00 9, 2014 at e, aUFm -y�r.+nwors cv�F'1n,c.. lkr / + ,-a �Outhfx o Tx 7B - - PLE"E PROVIDE COMPLETED FO'RMS WA MAIL, rAx oR HAND I)Ei_I11ERy BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDUL.E13 PUBUC HEARING. 8GIng the ov ir(s) of this RMpertv so rioted above, are hereby in fervor of pp4ssed to und%idsd about (CIrcle 4r underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. SPaCe for carrim0rft regarding your poaftti: h v signawre; -- — �- .. � Date: � c Adddonal Signature; Date; Printed Names); 1i sI d Pro PRY oswtar�e) whies ramE{s}ere rlr�led &ttrp CEO, Ow 4 nnic �pan n.niF, One form perproww. Phone'Number (optianaJ): Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 49 Notification Response Form Z,a14-1W Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM 4 V-aAv<<6L' -C_ Southlake Tx 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAMD DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed D undecided about (circle or underlirle one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: C" W, d car�Jti u.-C ignaturef Date; Additional Signature: Panted Names}: -f + 1 " rvl-as`. ba =roperp T.vrer(9)vihmie ,2n a,$) are printed aLtap- GWRviss 4ant=Me Date: One farm per pn#"- Phone Number (optional): � — Case No. ZA14-100 Attachment E Page 50 11%JLJ11LraL1V11 1%V#0jJW110W I V111r r ZA14- 1 00 Meeting Date-, October 9, 2UI4 at 6:30 PM �E� I �C� ►.+�� a try ouithlake fix 70092 — ec 4 #'low. 7 (177 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of oppa'fo` undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above - Space for comments regarding your position: ri nd Signature: Date: Additional Signature: Date: Printed Narne(s): _`0L,c 4 sTv Mist be pwertf Qwrer(s) WW5e MT1015} are Printed at top. OtnvNi3e contaa the Pfaniing [}epartrnAnt. One farm per pF°pgrlY- Phone Number (optional)- L� 11* ? _ Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 51 Notification Response Form 7.4114-100 Meeting Data: October 9, 2014 at 6.30 PM 4s southialo 70092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEAR1NG, Being the owner(s) of th so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (dre rline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above- Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: Additional Signature. k Printed Name(s): ., Must Le property M-er(s) yehcse rF9.rme(S) fire printe4 Al kep. ,OSh-mfte C4f= Phone Number (optional); Date: DrWmerAL One fam Per ProPertY- Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 52 11vulmraHVi l I Willi ZA14-100 M eeeting Date: October J, 20'14 at 6:30 PM F` WM6 f A*EP&!yw- South Tx 75092 '; . to y ri y �wy. &T'yr� �y7�:�2: -tip: ,�y ft�'�y ':,:4{_••I PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed tc undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above - Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: AdditionalSignature: i)ate: )iq-- - A4 Date-, Printed Narne(s): -)TOL(' 1 l M.-ist he property cwrpWs) +noose name(a) are printed l - 0MefwAsacorftac1 the Planring Depament. One form Per properly. 4 Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 53 17V4111RwC1i1V17 1 WS611 ZA t 4-100 Meeting Data-- October 9, 2,014 at 6-30 PEA firlG�f .cc t } ,re- I-J4+dnc' � 7,Lc L�fS�uflY o� Southlake Tx 76092 F.,gwo�i$ ri?ADfIB@S .ta: _ n n �• ��1400 Main, k. 46 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) ofthe property so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (c3rr-le or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Spare for comments regarding your position: � r�' Ii1,l ir't 1:� 5 it"� �-A,) and p r, 7{(rkl c( f er* C cP, of Signature: ` r I 4-GI I Date: Additional Signature: � � ' � Date: Printed Names): ri n A r-e- . "0 ►-? h4;ist lie property or.m w(s} tare rxrsg nania(Q are printed at top. Phone Number (optional)_ - Case No. ZA14-100 }ej-e-- i 6L(-f1 -e the PjanNN u=roartment- One Farad par prapelty- Attachment E Page 54 Notification Response Form ZA14-100 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM outhfake T i M PLEASE P ROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELI FRY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING, Being the owner e) of the pr so noted above. are hereby s in favor of opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referanced above. Space for comments regarding your position: st Sig natu re: Additional Signature: Printed Names)* Lc� Y 4 N1. ust be Q*portY caner(s) wham names) are prlr Phone Number (optional): Date at tap, olharwrse car+taCt Ma Planning Dapartinerrt. OnG form per properlyr, Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 55 Notification Response Farm ZA'14-9 ou mWing sate: Octo ear �14 at 6:30 Phil PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owners) of the progerrty so noted above, are hereby irl favor of opposed tv — nc#ocided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your posit] on: Additional Signature: _u— gate: Printed Name(s): `-- 4 � 1'4 Must be piupoi ty rnvr. ce (s) whose names} re Rdrded at top. Otherw ul gontA'2 Ile Planning CNVe manl. One karat per prvpwty. Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 56 oci 061405:14p CbRIN7HIAN Notification Response Form 2 A14-100 Meeting Dimte: October 9, 2014 at 6.30 PM ?j, p � Az r ;. So'LwiV Faki Tx 76092 0147420097 p,1 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS ViA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEAPJr4G. Beim the cwrner(s) of the notedabove, a hereby in favor at vp�10 undecided about (ciicla or urlderfine one) the proposed P liminary Plat referenmd above, Space for commonts regarding your position: ignatur#: addition !.iOature: Printed i ame(s)' lulual. be p:opeit3' Gm►vns; *re pnnred estop. Phone Number (optional)' Case No. ZA14-100 BrwiS� Or4'�:t Date; V Date: Oric lar1 per ppopWW- Attachment E Page 57 Notification Response Form ZA14-100 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6.30 PM wA'rnC f Apb y i G 91 --1r b'U-A Y SCC�1 P'QUV'.d Southialke Tx 98092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: `+fit-s devclb �+ 1Lk i {l vt tY64 v {A WO-" �kp- d C"L12bC- k'v- 5&3�wr ( '-1t5 . rf�jLvc Lue- Vb k u,je-�- rl�a;a' 13 +ry rt� lzs es Sa « a. t I irk bVASV—ice.l ilceL� Iti�c�d ^Q-t U kU) �`� It:ti _O akkIWtd-q �`J,^.'� �J�V�� i�•�l j �v ,f[7 lY�;,{,1t j-� 15��LTLA Signature: '> a-A�Date: W51wiq Additional Signature: Gate: /01Wze1y. Printed Name(s): Lri c-- 0 bolo r �w z-c�' h4ust be property ownor(s) whose nerne(s) are prirod at: top. Oth"se Contact the planning Department. One form per p,'Opurty. Phone Number (opfional): �fl I r `i'� I -I�o-1 Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 58 �7Vii 17VS1N V�# ■1kG11FF%r11'wc I w./11r. ZA14-100 Mee#ing Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM Southlake Tx 76092 ri,; Ct giee�n�irt��.d rr�gr,I�'�espons..._, '-'OU501A ppJJ �r��g1LL1RR 1"i PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of (;posed to undecided about (circle or undefline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position - Signature. Date, Addition ' nature: Date: Painted Nam.e(s): hh,hk U� pfaperty mwier(s] whose iiame(a) are printnd Ht top. G[hcr•:nse oj=ct the Planning €}epa nt• Or* form per Pp*". Phone Number (optional). I Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 59 Notification Response Form ZA1+4-100 Meeting Date; 00Wbar 9, 2014 at b:30 PM `v:tlaA �{ kRN� PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA IULAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THI= SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the e�a noted move, are hereby in favor of opp� ttc undecided about (circle or underline one) the Proposed PFeliminary Flat referenced above, Space f*r comments regarding your position: Signature: Additional'Signature: Printed Name(S)' IWc 'd Plus. to proporty cvmar,r;) whose na.re(s} are prinirwj e top. Phone Number (optional); Case No. ZA14-100 Date: Date: ` mntaa 6�6 Planning Departhignt. pre form Per property, Attachment E Page 60 Notification Response Form ZA14-100 Meeting Date' OcWber 9, 2014 at 6.30 PM- YA"6 I 0wf)C&5'V- PA-TPvC V- A -Lb C,6[ rJ&4 ,�16 ~5TKT0r4 S0Uth126'ri76-69k 3 4% 34 RF- Zit .Y av 10 10, Aego `6s6 nijthWe TX 7609 PLEAS'E PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are Hereby in favor of cop;po!q�) undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your positlion' w w.C")'� 0M Vus Al iJae df dew"w o*'s Y� Signature. Date. Additional Signature. Date' ILL, Y Printed Name(s): K 1 C r' Must be pmportY OWW(5) 1"hngh Taffm(s) are prinW at tap: 00-nwiee awqarl the Planning Daparkmnt. Ore kmn peer pf"*. Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment E ZA1 4-100 Page 61 Notification Responso Form ZA t 4-I 4D Meeting Date: October 9, 20U at 6:30 PM -1 A b Z*5;rc 1. /2v SOLI South lake 7x 78092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, rAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE STAR' OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above: are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your poshow o"n ju k I 1 ignature': Date: A � Additional Signature: �� Date. `' -Kg Printed Name(s): ?��14 -V `;Z 1 .so �i us! d a pwpaity ax mr(s) vrhose names) are prints J at IDp. O'herwise oontadt The PlaMing Department- One farm per prul y- Phone Number (optional). Case No. ZA14-100 Attachment E Page 62 Notification Response Form ZA 1 4-9 00 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6,30 PM +JAIM& 4 Ap�Ci--Fo: 01Olr1cD Southlake Tx 6-09i PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAID, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby In favor of opposed�to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regnrdinio your position: C) o\ M Signature' Date, IN Additional Signature: Date: Printed Name(s), : pk>l-t,, .vi � ' "o I #"A (A.V 414L291 be property owner{s) whale name(r;) are printed at tap- otherwise cointara the Plamling DapaAmant One form per property - Phone plumber (optional) Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 63 ITAJLlII1.r0tzUri s ik�q&0jul1.04V 1 L"aII ZA14-100 Meeting Date: October 9, Z014 at 6:30 PM II otjjh-I ka ' x 79092 m o�' M1.M1 c <-f Adft b. PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHE13ULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the_pmpp-rt so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to uendecidad about !-- (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: -i- r) f 1 V-eA 0 ire -1 Lw Lt-'� r A-L - � kw-' `.s cooi d-kLi, ADC --- ignature: Date: Additional Signature: Printed Narne(s): I V � (Ll � . U ' 1 4) ?must be oroperiy ormoks) whose name(s) are printed at W. Otly-- 59 owtaGt Date: Qne inem per proparty. Phone number (cptional):Q Case No. ZA14-100 Attachment E Page 64 Notification Response Forth ZA1 4x 100 Meeting Data: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM �ftn'�'►F 'i Aub�E55: C. Southlake Tx 7609 MM sPkn1�I� :�' f0. PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: r e -A es j r1 ., r !� d- � I iao& Signature'. Date; I0 o rv��ar� Vb1cy'v4x PAJ 2 Cr �y6"rl Additional Si nature: A J Date. / P�rinJ{te4d1 Narne(s): a sarivvpr A InT i Must be property orrnAr(s) whose ame(s) are printed at ton. Otherwise contact the Pla i pp D..apa���l1��rrttii ❑ngg-f�or�] p r e V �tP��[rvlce%e of {fu l R Phone Number (optional): F I - .DI - a Z�L woa-� I cs6Ni k vary li c. , ( NsC-) Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 65 Cat.09.2014 02:D4 PM Manhar Patel R728521646 FACE. W 1 Notifloa#on Response Form ZA'14.100 Mee#ins Vate: October 8, 2014 d 6:30 PM Southiske Tx 7802 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Belrg the cwnegs) of ft property so noted above, are hereby in favor of undeJded about (oracle or undedine ana) the pro#ed Preliminary Plat reread ebo►re. Space for o mrae€1to regarding your posWark, Signature: ._ , Gate: S t o .o Additional Signature, Date; Printed Narne(s):- mint be PMMtty cwncx(91) 14 9ee Paff*W "POW4 AttOR. ❑r10uir;E [Ar pw"F1V. Phone Number (optional'): \a - A'%k - "!'-11 Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 66 Notification Response Form ZA14-I N Meeting te: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 1 T outhlake Tx 7601 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby -in favor of o sed - undecided about {olrc a or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: i nature Date: Additional Signature: Date. Pfinted Name(),--� .,- X?'�' \-k � must �)e pmpe; tp ov, ner{s1 whose names) jre printed at lop. Orh@F v w (7 C# 1h6 ?1"ing DV8CM farm per pro" - Phone Number (optional). Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 67 Notification Response Form ZA'14-100 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 5:30 PM tJ 0 4 A1>bC J%' N-� DA,r-cj /R�0 A, -' G; Chyl Zcgl SQi, thla1L6 x 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in flavor of - apposed #o undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: r J' E.1I1" 4) Q� l 11�iY Date: Signature: r Additional Signature: Printed Name(s): Must he property ovmer(s) whose name(a) are printed at top Phone Number (optional): Date: contact the Planning Oepartmant. One form per property. �02- 510 - 39W Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 68 Notification Response Form ZA9 4-9 0V Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 5:30 FM South Iake Tx 76092 77 }T?r �•``?� �''i ask "'_ _ PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the awner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of o�d to undecided about {circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat references! above. Space for comments regarding your position: r - � Signature: Date; l ,r Ad d Itional Signature: Printed Dame(s); _ 'ALst �)e prgpefty Ol n f(5) why pre printed at tap. Otherme owtact rho Phone Number (optional): Date: ona form per propaq Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 69 I:VLF111rQLjWj1 1 wlIli LFA'14-100 Meeting Date- October 9, 2014 at0-30 RAF PJAV e- d AoUG€er�. Southlake 7x 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS 1A MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVER BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING, Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above.. are hereby in flavor of <Eit undecided about (circle or underlime one) the proposed Preliminary Flat referenced above - Space for comments regarding your position: 0 Signature: AddNonal Signature: Date: z, Printed Names):Ag,],�L l�CL- 'S.1 ust be. propoiiy yar er(s) vhroso niKne(a) are d at tvp. 011 contact :hP Plan ring De(mrt m rtt. Gnc famt per property. Phone Number (optional). -- Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 70 Notification Response Form 14-100 MweUng pate: Mtober 9, 2014 at 6.30 PEA 6JA- If Y Aputl MA Iuke Tx 702 �- PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING, Being the cwn (s) of the property so noted above, are hefeb in favor of (!a:ppnjss�dundecided about (circle or underline onO the proposed Preliminary Plot raferenLed above - Space for comments regarding your positlon: Signature; Date: ar Additional Ignabufe: Date: Printed Name(s): C! - M Ls[ be pmpe4Y owr[W[2) WON rWi"W ciApg=0 gj ap, QoervAse ow tacIft PLNM*-4 peP*runerrl. Ora iwrn ADf P►)Wly- Rune Number (opti0r)MY TVIO 3utd Ld1 &ivs 14044£ZZW3 MEO:1; DtiQZI9$/IT Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 71 Notification Response Form ZA14-100 Meeting Date, October 9, 2014 at 6,30 PM Southlake Tx 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of pposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: .1 t � .i A I— t 1) 1__ Jdi x Signature: Dater t Add'€tionaf Signature: Printed Names): h1u5t be property owner(s) v;hose Date-. are prFntvd at—!ap. Othuiulse cantad the P12nnirry Department. Ora farm per property Phone Number (optional). - Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 72 Notification Response Farm ZA14-100 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM �� � ft4be.ESs: Southlakef[ 7B{-9 —� PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETE❑ FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the propwty so noted above, are hereby in favor of Coppo'sed)o undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above, Space for comments regarding your position: q 4a p t..f,�e r` r o g r,q so ✓o u- i t� cr Y ernec+x n tea, �CJt n�c n s rn rva "r- - w1 mew sa.cxt f e tA)r /!I mrwit,6celi 2, Signature: Additional Signature: Printed Name(s): � J- ML-st be pmporty otivner(s) whose mme(sy sm c�Fvkr^�_ i Date: 1,9 - -� - I `i Date: top. 4th&wf5eeonW fim Plannlnp Dapadnmt. Qne farm per pmperfy- Phone Number (optional): - o - Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 73 Notification Response Form ZA14-100 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 Pali SoWhIaM Tx f 92 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of #h"rcgefV so noted above, are hereby f _ in favor of opposed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: �r. GJ r- @ .. �tr v eP/ffid% trCrr %r,t- X ari eL 64,0[Ir G !. ![' �o. � � ti{v] Jam• � S f �� v. ..r y L.! 1i#� .�i`cfw�'�, �M ti,r { cap 7°'G,.{ i�tJc� f `%�i +� fv_�°�od 4c-'� , Signature: Date: t0 Additional Signature, Printed Narne(s): 'L. E-.-t-- �5Gj�i { f Must b,3 property cwnar%) whase name(s) arcs printed at ton. Otherwise contact the Phone Number (optional): '44, "( Case No. ZA14-100 Date: ❑eiaartment. One form per property. Attachment E Page 74 Notification Response Form ZA'14-100 Meeting Data: October 13, 2Q74 at6:30 PM Zoc. e-x4%-!� SouthlalCe 'Tx � 092 -- PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLF-TED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of =opposedundecided about (circle or underlbe ore) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for corn;ments regarding yaur pos. itian: a-ga cile cl. Io 7 • f Signature: ante: Additional Signature: Printed Names): Moat be property twnw(s) whose Date: uks are printed at tap. Olherwise cortact the Ptanning Uapartmr nt. U-ne Phone Number (optional): per property - Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 75 Notification Response Form ZA14-100 Meeting Date: October 9, ZO14 at 6:30 PEA Simpson, Charles Etex Kathloon 104 Brentwood Gir Southlake TX 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above. are hereby in favor of opposedD undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: We are IDD% opposed to the plan ds currently proposed. We have met repeatedly with the developer to express our Concerns to no avail. This is essentially the same retail plan proposed by an earlier developerr presented to the November 212013 P&Z, and subsequently withdrawn by the developer. The main objection of the surrounding homeowners and HOAs is to the placement of a maggive Kroger and the ksLtes accompanvingthis type of "Soper Store aklp to a Giant: Walmart into the rniddie or existing residential arms with high end homes- In adtlitioii, we have nqo [ been convinced of V-z is ed lor another grocery stir@ in South lake, currently we can conveNently reach 17 Grocery s?ores within min ui€:r. 'rrnm N, Whig Chapel and SW 114, Ourinterests have been in helping to shape the development of this beautiful piece of property into something that is an appr rlabe "GabeWY( to Southlake, that complements existing 5outhlake developments, and that transitions seamlessly into the already existing surrounding high end housing areas. This type of development does not fit into the surrounding areas cr the rural feel of the "north" side or South lake. It i s also disturbing that the demographics targeted by the deveiope r are trot even our Southl;ake citizens but residents of Trophy Club, Wert4ike and Roanoke. Signature:-' . �.a-ram Dater Additional signature: Date: f� Printed Narne(s): �r ' I, Lf- C"-e6S- ��oo Must he property aim ef(s) whale name(s) are printed at top. Otherwise canted the Planning Reparhnemt Ono form per property - Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 76 Notification Response Forgo ZA14 00 Meeting Date: October 9, 2044 at 6:30 PIN Kathleen V. 5impson, 104 Brentwood Circle President, Brentwood Resadentiai Association, Inc. 120 Brentwood Circle (T AD Acct#40987728) Southlake, TX 76092-3716 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULES] PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the pro arty so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed toundecided about [CI erline one} the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Our HO,Avehementhf oppusLS the prop n inn development, slte, and plat. As yoe, *.,ail,, ;nis project vraS prFser!ted Novernber 2013 by a different developer :me was -.urneu away by p&Z3or nnuitlp4e reasanssoiTc of which indudo& resdent OpPOSitiGn, Poor qua)ity 4f deuelopmenr, lack of need strrreto serve sgutnhake, and Resident opposition of "Big Box". When the nLw deve.'•oper started, a group of horne.a ancm were eager to wurk with them to shape this gateway to 5outhlake property only to Find out they had no Intention of working with nelghhors in good faith to address thelr concerns. And once they realized the level of nppositiol, rather than trying to workwlth I umeowners, they r(;sorter ro NrEnE a high powered PR Spin doctor who boasts an her viebsite. "if Failure is not an option, you've come to the right place." Combi nud with a team of attorneys and the distribution of mis+cading flyers suggesting Southlake's support of this pruied, this developer Nis tried to intimidate residents, mislead them, and even now, refuses to confirmdetafls of the project. As an example, the firm nu€ifierl us that they were including a 5tarhucks, sushi and a few other things. oje +,s,(ed in an email if that meant the jevyc�ry, dothtng, and furniture sales initially proposed had been removed. The only ans„ver they tivauld provide Is a non -answer: "We have shared a list of the confirmed upscale umenities char will be lnclvded Fin our Ta.vn & [.buntry Kroger. We are still developing potentkrf future offerings," Signature: vka_k.k,ti U Additional Signature: Printed Narne(s): R V. l Ivl Must be property owners) vah4ser name(E) are printed at top. Otherwise contact She P Phone Number (optional): Date: do Date: 'Z& I I f�Q-Cb rig ❑spartment. Orie fbrun per praperty- Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 77 Notification Response Forms ,e, ZA'14-100 -Meeting [gate; October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM Kathleen V. Simpson,104 Brentwood Circle President, Brentwood Residential Association, Inc. 2051 N. White Chapel Blvd (TAD Acct#40987736) south lake, TX 76092-3716 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX DR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of CopLosed�to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above.. Space for comments regarding your position: VVc- are 900%opposed to ihre plan as r_urrwiitIV pa-c)p,scr_i. VIYL DO NOT Nl.rf) A SUPERSfOKE, AKA A SUPERWALiAART LOOKALIKIE ACROSS Fi'zON1 OUR BEAUTIFUL HOPAES. This is an inappropriate place for such a development. in addition, we are very disturbed by the apparent lack of integrity displayed by the developer. After neighbors on the North side repeatedly expressed their concerns, they have attempted to mislead 5outhlake citizens into believing that the City of SaUthlake wants them to express their support to the Planner's office and they have handed out hundreds of these misleading flyers. Our great city should not he working with developers with this questionable level of ethical standards. S ig natu re: Additional Signature: Aid P[r4Yl 1ft .GMF'DL, quidcWtoz �ixur��l:+�d�txt�e lxtgl6 - a acNuiu.pyx�oa_r..s��u....�. ......:. _ Date: Date: Printed Name(s): �4T'k -e6l'J 1 , � I P1 P S0�J &e'�! bt*- ( (�I &Sc Ww Must be property owner(s) whose names] are printed at top_ Merwise contact the Planning Deparkrwrrt. One farm per property. � CA f bit W_ Prone Number (optional): jv'-�'Dc , I 'j G. Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 78 Notification Response Form ZA1 -100 Masttng Do ta: October 9, 2014 at 6:90 PM iv o t S70A�.rRaP S r�+aD�tu 3 CaYo R0 Southtake T fi6g! PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAID., FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted afoover are hereby in favor of �osed to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for iaomments regarding your position: 1 Signature: Date: Additional Signature: APAJI —Date.- 16 ..74A. Printed Name(s): VA\)jk0cR Tat he property awmer(s) wkW MOM*) ire printed et top. Oq>,erwbe oWteot Im Pfignriing beparlment. One foam per prmp�erty. Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 79 Notification Response Form ZA'14-100 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 8:30 PM KoA"e f ganWA' D T4 fur- 5 1AWO Soufghlaka Tx'76002 ocrt �IX 71412- PLEASE PROVI DE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIWRY BEFORE! THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the awnetr(s) of the properly so noted above, are hereby in favor of 4a:D undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space far comments regarding your position: I Signature: Dater ! AdditionalSignature' Panted Names): _ Muss he property owner(a) w-nP5e Date: Wa pr6jW at kop. Other wise Cwla'ctVLP;- ennin0 uaPMGM. Url6 roan parptopaity. Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 80 Notifoation Response Form ZA14-1 DG Meeting Date' October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM $outhla Tx tAi6 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) o(the pro a so noted abovo, are hereby ire favor of posed to undecided about (Cor underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above, Space for comments regarding your position: 1 Signature: bate: ha - �1 Additionail iganature: . A,,) ❑ ate : 1 Printed Name(s): Mu*i Ise PAY owner{a) who6eneme(s) are p4rao of - 0bmwiue ccn%--t irig Flainlnp ^apartment. Or*forfn P@f Prop". Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 81 Notification Response Form 1 4.100 Meeting Delta: October 9, 2014 4t 6:30 PM u + M& . f F 1�/V fF�1 SPr�L. D r f b 6'1'0CI T4 DelVe $ouWaaka Tx 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEAR1N . Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of q:opposed to undecided about (circle or uncisdine one) the }proposed Preliminary Plat refemnoed above. Space for cornments regarding your position: oil -'}'� I � " . 12 (11(c . f1J1 .( Signature: yk' Date: a Additional Signature; ,� '1�� � Date: _101-5f 00 Printed Name(s): }.tubt he pmpon r awnwe c) whaae han*6) are 1--KI" n) 4 �— C � 1Loc at �bb- Du,emiae ontaut the Phone Number (optional): I -7- - 70 Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 82 rnV LII mUa RN Uis i\=7rp1VF law 1 lip a11 A14-100 Meeting Iota: October 9, 2014 at 6,30 PM a pl: S66thlake TX 76092 m1 Tons°.aWmail -respott 0 VPFY�l.I.N ':FF ) Fr ..5 rr-•f._ .•i..±-+; Ar PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFOn THE START O1= THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted abover are hereby in favor ofopposed -#°�' undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: `" r Date' tole & AdditionalSignature: Printed Names): 6Je Must bo pmp" awn ar[s; t;lh name(s) are prineted e# tOp- of n w6e ea lW the - Phone Number (optional): Case No. ZA14-100 Date: Uepnrtment. Ong fom per prop rry- Attachment E Page 83 Notification Response Form ZA14-100 Meeting D*W October 9, 2014 at 6; 30 PM ewo tow 5�?l South' akda Tx 78082 - PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Baing the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor cf apposed tc undecided about (circle or underline ore) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your Position. A,- ���J'6 is ma �. Signature'-. Date: Additional Signature: Date. - Pflnted Name($). MusE 40 pqhM VW") vft&a nams(s) ara pdnwd al tQp. Glltierwiw cwui& tha Pianniig papari 0- f—r per Praperty. Phone Number {optional);. — Case No. ZA14-100 Attachment E Page 84 Notification Response Form Z A 14-'100 Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM Southlake Ti 76092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, PAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owners) of the property so noted above: are hereby in favor of paec to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed PT-eliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: Date: Additional Signature: Printed Narne(s): 14j Li5i be progerfy own arts) fiV-iose aye printed at tap- UUmn%iee g3nl ct tm Date: One form per PropertY Phone Number (optional): -- Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 85 Notification Response Farm 1 4-100 !ti n g Dt;tider 8, 2014 at 6:30 plot e� ems: PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORDS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVER` BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed tv undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: i nature: �� Date: 10-2-14- Additional Signature: Printed Narne(s): C11 Mut be prtiperty owrdw(s) whose nama(s) ore gAntad at tap. Qtherrwisa Owtilct I Phone Number (optional): Date: Planrrrng Dapartrnens. Qna ?arm per propeny. Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 86 Notification Response Form ZA14-100 Meedng Date: October 0, 2D14 at 6:30 FIM Y/trn,- i A-bCC—r- Sovthlpko Tx 7602 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING, Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby W,+r in favor of v '48%to undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space fior comments regard Ing your position: x Signature"- 4 Date: Additlonal Si Mature., Data. ty 9-11�' Printed N �' e{s):LA I-Q.. Must be pwperi mar(al wtrote rame(s) ere prlrftd sttop. oilivR%4m. Ontautthe NrinIng Gap Amen Ona kwrnpw proper Phone Number (optional): - -- Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 87 Notification Response Form ZA1 i -1 Uo Meeting Date: October 9, 2014 at 8:30 PM kha f$oTx76 92 C ,+ PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of =opposed:t�o4 undecided abort (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: �4(e dw m:- W'Al- o, ��Ff-r) Signature, Date - Additional Signature: Date: Printed Came(s). Vo-S] --i f ..1us' b� propaiy ownor{e) *ho names) prirmaf al too. Olhardsa co Planr)1rkp l]epariment, Ore farm per property, Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 88 Notification Response Form zA14A 00 Mewing Dom: October 8, 2494 at 6*30 PM F soutnlake Tx7sv PLr:ASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DEr1 i ERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING, Being the owner(s) of the }property so noted above. are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (circle or andefte ore) the proposed 1'mliminary Plat referenced above, Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: Date: Additional Signature: `l '1 Date: I U 11 / 0111 Printed Name s �n� Njur;t Ica properly d++t ($) whbae no-me(a) am printed at t--a. Otherwlsc ccnta t he'4annino Cepwirnia tt. Ore fw n per pTw"W- Phone Number (optional). - Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 89 Notification Response Form ZA14-IOD Meeting Date. October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM Southlake x 7609 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VlA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the property so doted above, are hereby in favor of (: apposed to u ` ecided about (circle or underllne one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comm45nts regarding your �p{�ositior.f{5 I h ../ - - - _. [+1 Yf. l Y Signatures' Additional tgnature: Printed Names): MUSE he prop" owner s) whose r i ` � 1 "`fi r Q" are premed at kap- 01herwfse contact the Planning Phone Number (optional): Date: Date: Oros form per p operky. Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 90 Notification Response Form ZA 14-100 Meeting Date: Ocfwbw 9, 2014 at 6:30 PEA Southidw Tx 7092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the O%Vner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of op 0seDto undecided about (circle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary plat referenced above, Space for comments regarding your position: F Signature; Date: Additional Signature: Date: Printed [ame(s): r Niue be property awn er(s) whose -iama%(s} are pr�rted at lop ti7 m'35 Wr tda the QlannIN Nparlrnant, line farm pe-r property, I Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 91 Notification Response Form ZA1 4-100 Meednn Date: October 9, 2014 at 6:30 PM k+gyVY%4C- + A1>5P-& s: Southlake Tx 7809 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC FEARING. Bei�e owner(s) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of opposed to undecided about (circle or uridedine one) the proposed Preliminary Platt referenced above. Space for comments regarding your Position: Signature: Date: 10h x� AddWonal Signature. Date - Printed ame(s)' 14E0--Lke,,0 Wier&- rAjs! ba praNc-ty owne•(e) wrwee MMEB(S) bra pfintek at tap, Othenhise oorktact the Planning departmard. One form per property. Phone Number (optional): Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 92 Notification Response Form Z 14-'100 Westing Date: October 9, ZD14 at 6:30 Phil i.JAWY' A w iiaGr-fSS: SV e*r2'Al 010 IV zj"tz� t�i74enL t( SouthiW 7k'A-M- - PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORAMS VIA MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(s) of the Property so noted above, are heret�y in favor of opposed undecided about (circle or underline arse) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenoed above. Space for comments regarding your position: #� -3 l -5 d w' !le6� VL& ' Signature: Date: 4- Additional Signature: Date: L Printed Name(s): -T1 Phus. bD property owners) whose ronKsj are primed at bap. ouwhise annuie the Planning Dawftant. ar* fD m PeF Prow'' - Phone Number (optional): - " Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 93 Notification Response Form 1 *00 I lung Date: October 9, 2D14 at 6:30 Ph + o,) aos, zei/Af- o,S V vrWAiJA V6 .4ove1D HOLLOW bgj%)E SowMllake Tx 70092 PLEASE PROVIDE COMPLETED FORMS VIA KWL, FAX 08 HAND OF -LIVERY BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING. Being the owner(g) of the property so noted above, are hereby in favor of posed to undecided about (clrcle or underline one) the proposed Preliminary Plat referenced above. Space for comments regarding your position: Signature: Date: AdditionalSignature'. Date: r ` Printed Narne(s): J LAM 4Gsff ZA-zftA-a cdSbar v r U 14AM C. Z VP cWs mu5the property "MrIe] nhoe6 maft*o MW pwdd at top. Offwrwse eontw the Planning oaparuneal Ono form Per punjporky. Phone Number (optional): T Case No. Attachment E ZA14-100 Page 94