From
Chris Hartmann
Title
S190101 - Site Plan - Texas Roadhouse (City Council District 4). Site Plan for Texas Roadhouse, an 8,210 sq. ft. restaurant on 2.5 acres. Tract 2B02, Charles D Ball Survey, Abstract No. 197, City of Grand Prairie, Dallas County, Texas, zoned PD-29, within the I-20 Overlay District, and generally located north of W I-20, south of Sara Jane Pkwy, and west of Bob Smith Pkwy. The agent is Yelena Fiester, GreenbergFarrow, the applicant is Caitlin Kincaid, Texas Roadhouse Holdings, Inc., and the owner is Sally Smith Mashburn, Bob Smith Management Company, LTD. (On January 7, 2019, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of this request by a vote of 7-0).
Presenter
David P. Jones, AICP, Chief City Planner
Recommended Action
Approve
Analysis
SUMMARY:
Site Plan for Texas Roadhouse, an 8,210 sq. ft. restaurant on 2.5 acres. Tract 2B02, Charles D Ball Survey, Abstract No. 197, City of Grand Prairie, Dallas County, Texas, zoned PD-29, within the I-20 Overlay District, and generally located north of W I-20, south of Sara Jane Pkwy, and west of Bob Smith Pkwy.
PURPOSE OF REQUEST:
The applicant intends to construct an 8,210 sq. ft. restaurant on 2.5 acres. Any development in a planned development district or overlay district requires City Council approval of a Site Plan. Development at this location requires site plan approval by City Council because the property is zoned PD-29 and within the I-20 Overlay District.
ADJACENT LAND USES AND ACCESS:
The following table summarizes the zoning designation and existing use for the surrounding properties.
|
Table 1: Adjacent Zoning and Land Uses |
|
Direction |
Zoning |
Existing Use |
|
North |
PD-353 |
Winding Creek Apartments (Under Construction) |
|
South |
PD-250 |
I-20, Commercial Uses |
|
West |
PD-29 |
Undeveloped |
|
East |
PD-29 |
Undeveloped |
HISTORY:
• February 15, 1972: City Council approved PD-29, a planned development district for retail, apartment, office, and service uses.
• May 4, 2015: The Planning and Zoning Commission approved a preliminary plat for Lots 1-5, Block 1 of Smith I-20 Addition. The preliminary plat has expired; a development application and preliminary plat is required for review. The preliminary plat should reflect the adjusted lot dimensions.
• August 2, 2016: City Council approved SUP-1002, a specific use permit for a hotel, on property adjacent to the subject property (Case Number SU160702/S160702). The specific use permit is expired since a building permit was not obtained within one year of Council approval.
PROPOSED USE CHARACTERISTICS AND FUNCTION:
The proposed use is a full service restaurant. The site plan includes the 8,210 sq. ft. restaurant, dumpster enclosure, drive aisles, and 195 parking spaces. The site is accessible directly from Sara Jane Pkwy. An access easement along the south of the property and adjacent lots will provide indirect access from I-20 to the site. The access easement will be created with the final plats for this property and adjacent tracts.
ZONING REQUIREMENTS:
Density and Dimensional Requirements
The property is subject to density and dimensional requirements in Article 6 of the Unified Development Code (UDC). The following table summarizes these requirements. The proposal meets the density and dimensional requirements.
|
Table 2: Site Data Summary |
|
Standard |
Required |
Provided |
Meets |
|
Min. Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) |
5,000 |
94,960 |
Yes |
|
Min. Lot Width (Ft.) |
50 |
282.38 |
Yes |
|
Min. Lot Depth (Ft.) |
100 |
298.5 |
Yes |
|
Front Setback (Ft.) |
25 |
25 |
Yes |
|
Rear Setback (Ft.) |
0 |
0 |
Yes |
|
Max. Height (Ft.) |
25 |
22.16 |
Yes* |
|
Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) |
.35:1 |
.08:1 |
Yes |
*The maximum height of the architectural roof is 28 ft. The flag poles on top of the tower elements extend to 40 ft. Article 6 of the UDC allows certain features to be constructed 15 ft. higher than the maximum height requirement if not more than one-third of the total roof area is consumed by such features and the features are set back from the edge of the roof a minimum distance of one foot for every foot by which such features extend above the roof surface of the principal building to which they are attached. The flag poles require an exception because they are set back 3 ft. from the roof.
Landscape and Screening
The property is subject to landscape and screening requirements in Article 8 and Appendix F of the UDC. The table below summarizes these requirements. The proposal meets or exceeds the landscape and screening requirements.
|
Table 3: Landscape & Screening Requirements |
|
Standard |
Required |
Provided |
Meets |
|
Landscape Area (Sq. Ft.) |
4,748 |
27,393 |
Yes |
|
Trees |
10 |
27 |
Yes |
|
Shrubs |
95 |
396 |
Yes |
|
Dumpster Enclosure |
Masonry Enclosure |
Masonry Enclosure |
Yes |
Building Design
The building is primarily clad in brick and stone with fiber cement siding accents and a metal roof. Appendix F requires a stone accent on primary façades. The stone accent must be a different color and surface texture used for the main structure. The proposal meets the stone accent requirement.
The following architectural features are required: articulation, parapet with projecting cornice, windows, covered walkways or awnings, and roof profile variation. The proposed building elevations substantially conform to the building design requirements in Appendix F.
EXCEPTIONS OR APPEALS:
1. Windows along 50% of the North, West, and East Façades: Appendix F requires windows along 50% of primary façades. The proposed elevations require a variance to this requirement to allow the north, west, and east façades to be constructed with windows along less than 50% of the façade.
Staff does not object to a variance. The elevations depict windows along 50% of the combined north and south façades and 47% of all four façades.
2. Maximum Height of Architectural Features: The maximum height of the architectural roof is 28 ft. The flag poles on top of the tower elements extend to 40 ft. Article 6 of the UDC allows certain features to be constructed 15 ft. higher than the maximum height requirement if not more than one-third of the total roof area is consumed by such features and the features are set back from the edge of the roof a minimum distance of one foot for every foot by which such features extend above the roof surface of the principal building to which they are attached. The flag poles require an exception because they are set back 3 ft. from the roof.
Staff does not object to this exception.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval as presented by Staff by a vote of 7-0.
The Development Review Committee (DRC) recommends approval with the condition that the applicant reconfigure the placement of street trees so that the distance between trees does not exceed 50 ft.