From
Chris Hartmann
Title
S180801 - Site Plan - Olive Garden at Epic West Towne Crossing (City Council District 2). A Site Plan for Olive Garden, a 7,757 sq. ft. restaurant at Epic West Towne Crossing on 1.875 acres. Lot 5, Block B, of Epic West Towne Crossing Phase 1, City of Grand Prairie, Dallas County, Texas, zoned PD-364, within the SH 161 Overlay District, and addressed as 3138 S Highway 161. The agent is Kourtnie Airheart, CDS Development, the applicant is James Powell, Olive Garden Holdings, and the owner is John Weber, Epic West Towne Crossing LP. (On August 6, 2018, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of this request by a vote of 8-1).
Presenter
David P. Jones, AICP, Chief City Planner
Recommended Action
Approve
Analysis
SUMMARY:
A Site Plan for Olive Garden, a 7,757 sq. ft. restaurant at Epic West Towne Crossing on 1.875 acres. Lot 5, Block B, of Epic West Towne Crossing Phase 1, City of Grand Prairie, Dallas County, Texas, zoned PD-364, within the SH 161 Overlay District, and addressed as 3138 S Highway 161.
PURPOSE OF REQUEST:
The applicant intends to construct a 7,757 sq. ft. restaurant on Lot 5, Block B of Epic West Towne Crossing Phase 1. 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-364 and within the SH 161 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-364 |
Undeveloped land part of Epic West Towne Crossing |
|
South |
PD-364 |
Undeveloped land part of Epic West Towne Crossing |
|
West |
PD-364 |
Undeveloped land part of Epic West Towne Crossing |
|
East |
PD-364 |
SH 161; Undeveloped land part of Epic East Towne Crossing |
PROPOSED USE CHARACTERISTICS AND FUNCTION:
The proposed use is a full service restaurant. The site is accessible from the private street that bisects Epic West Towne Crossing. The proposed number of parking spaces exceeds what is required.
ZONING REQUIREMENTS:
Density and Dimensional Requirements
The property is subject to density and dimensional requirements in PD-364 and 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 |
81,693 |
Yes |
|
Min. Lot Width (Ft.) |
50 |
282.38 |
Yes |
|
Min. Lot Depth (Ft.) |
100 |
295 |
Yes |
|
Front Setback (Ft.) |
25 |
25 |
Yes |
|
Rear Setback (Ft.) |
0 |
0 |
Yes |
|
Max. Height (Ft.) |
50 |
20 |
Yes |
|
Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) |
1:1 |
.09:1 |
Yes |
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 the landscape and screening requirements.
|
Table 3: Landscape & Screening Requirements |
|
Standard |
Required |
Provided |
Meets |
|
Landscape Area (Sq. Ft.) |
8,169 |
17,426 |
Yes |
|
Trees |
16 |
16 |
Yes |
|
Shrubs |
163 |
334 |
Yes |
|
Dumpster Enclosure |
Masonry Enclosure |
Masonry Enclosure |
Yes |
Building Design
The building is primarily clad in stone veneer with brick accents, farmhouse style windows, and barrel roof tile. 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 proposed elevations require an exception to this 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 require several exceptions to the building design requirements in Appendix F.
Signage
The applicant has submitted plans for wall signs and a projecting sign. Signage is typically reviewed during a separate process. However, a variance is required for the projecting to-go sign with a 9 ft. clearance when 12 ft. is required. The variance for the projecting sign will be considered with the Site Plan request.
EXCEPTIONS OR APPEALS:
1. Windows on the South and West Façade: The applicant is requesting an exception to the requirement for windows along 50% of the south and west façades to allow elevations with windows along 32% of the south façade and 19% of the west façade. Both façades use brick veneer in the shape of windows to add visual interest.
2. Stone Accent: 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 applicant is requesting an exception to the stone accent requirement.
3. To-Go Sign: Projecting signs are required to have 12 ft. clearance. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a projecting sign with a 9 ft. clearance. Staff does not object to the variance.
RECOMMENDATION:
At its August 6, 2018 meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission voted 8 to 1 to recommend approval per staff recommendations and any improvements agreed to between the parties.
The Development Review Committee (DRC) recommends approval with the condition that all elevations meet window requirements for a primary facade.
Response to P&Z Recommendation:
1. The conceptual designs approved for Epic West were more applicable to the in-line retail, not the freestanding restaurant pad sites. This is also an issue where corporate branding/image is vital to all restaurants, and exceptions to that design are rare. Olive Garden did incorporate several enhancements at staff’s request, that differ slightly than what they typically build.
2. The applicant brought the changes recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission to the Darden Group (parent company of Olive Garden) design committee and top executives but were denied, based on too much of a departure from their prototype. Olive Garden did advise staff of this decision and asked if they could submit the same design and plan that was seen at the Commission. Staff supports this request as it would not be a significant departure to the intent of the overlay district standards and recommends approval as presented.