Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5093-A Staff AnalysisSeptember 19, 1989 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B Name: Location: Grady's Restaurant Site Plan Review (Z -5093-A) The east side of Shackleford Road south of West Markham Street Own er_/Ap_pIic_ant: Chili's Grill and Bar/Joe White PROPOSAL: To construct a one-story 7300 square foot restaurant and 126 parking spaces on 1.70 + acres that is zoned "C-2." ANALYSIS: This site is a remnant of the larger Holiday Inn site located to the north. The site proposal contains a deficiency with regard to a required 11C-2" 40 foot front yard landscaped area. Staff appreciates the 126 parking spaces (73 required) but feels that the parking should be redesigned in such a way as to allow a landscaped area along Shackleford Road. The Staff recognizes the constraints of the steep grade on the northeast corner of the property and wants the trees to remain in an undisturbed manner. Finally, the applicant needs to dimension the building footprint. CITY ENGINEER COMMENTS: Construct a triangular island in the Shackleford driveway which would limit the turning movements to right turn in and right turn out. 2. Meet Detention and Excavation Ordinance requirements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) Submit a revised site plan as outlined in the analysis section; (2) comply with City Landscape Ordinance requirements; and (3) comply with City Engineer Comments numbered 1 and 2. 61 September 19, 1989 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B Continued ..._ ......A .. (Continued)___ t i ._ SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. There was a general discussion about the required 40 foot landscaped area. The Staff reiterated its position about revising the site plan in such as way as to allow some landscaped area along Shackleford Road. The Staff also stated that AP&L had requested a service easement. The applicant stated that they would make an effort to comply with regard to landscaping along Shackleford Road. The applicant also agreed to comply with the Staff's recommendations except for the,turn island on Shackleford Road. A lengthy discussion ensued over the restriction of turn movements. The City Traffic Engineer stated that it was imperative that the turn movements be restricted as outlined for proper traffic circulation and safety reasons. The applicant wondered how the site could be successfully used as planned if the turning movements were restricted as outlined. The issue remained unresolved. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Staff stated that they had received a revised site plan that increased the landscaped area on Shackleford Road from five feet to seven feet in width but did not include the "traffic island" as requested by the City Traffic Engineer. Mr. Wayne Sherrell, the City's Traffic Manager, stated that Shackleford Road carried 30,000 cars per day and that it was likely to increase to 34,000 cars by the year 2010. He also stated that 38 accidents had occurred in the area during 1988 and that the turn limitations as outlined in the Staff recommendation were necessary for proper traffic circulation and safety reasons. Mr. Joe White, the agent for the applicant, introduced Mr. Ernie Peters as their traffic expert. Mr. Peters stated that the peak traffic flow was 180 cars per hour on the exit ramp off of the interstate and that the proposed entrance on this site would be further from the signal at Markham and Shackleford and, therefore, safer. September 19, 1989 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. B Continued A lengthy discussion ensued. Mr. Wayne Sherrell stated that Engineering could accept a south -bound (on Shackleford Road) left -turn movement in addition to the right -turn in and right -turn out. Mr. Joe White stated that his client could live with Mr. Sherrell's revised proposal. Another lengthy discussion followed. The Commission then voted 7 ayes, 2 noes, and 2 absent to approve the revised site plan as recommended by the Staff and agreed to by the applicant. RECONSIDERATION OF THE SITE PLAN FOR GRADY' RESTAURANT: The applicant has submitted a letter requesting reconsideration of the access turning movements to the site. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. The staff stated that the site had received prior approval for three turning movements and that the applicant was requesting approval for the fourth (left turn out of the site onto Shackleford Road). There was no further discussion. PLANNING_ COMMISSION ACTION: (August 8, 1989) The applicant was present and stated that due to there only being six Commissioners present, he would prefer that the item not be discussed but rather be deferred to the September 19, 1989 Planning Commission meeting. The Commission then voted 6 ayes, 0 noes and 5 absent to defer the item until the September 19, 1989 Planning Commission meeting. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The item was not discussed. (September 19, 1989) The applicant was present and requested withdrawal of the item. The Commission voted 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent to withdraw the item. 3 June 27, 1989 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 Name: Location: Grady Restaurant Site Plan Review (Z -5093-A) The east side of Shackleford Road south of West Markham Street Owner/Applicant: Chili's Grill and Bar/Joe White PROPOSAL: To construct a one-story 7300 square foot restaurant and 126 parking spaces on 1.70 + acres that is zoned "C-2." ANALYSIS: This site is a remnant of the larger Holiday Inn'site located to the north. The site proposal contains a deficiency with regard to a required "C-2" 40 foot front yard landscaped area. Staff appreciates the 126 parking spaces (73 required) but feels that the parking should be redesigned in such a way as to allow a landscaped area along Shackleford Road. The Staff recognizes the constraints of the steep grade on the northeast corner of the property and wants the trees to remain in an undisturbed manner. Finally, the applicant needs to dimension the building footprint. CITY ENGINEER COMMENTS: 1. Construct a triangular island in the Shackleford driveway which would limit the turning movements to right turn in and right turn out. 2. Meet Detention and Excavation Ordinance requirements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, provided the applicant agrees to: (1) Submit a revised site plan as outlined in the analysis section; (2) comply with City Landscape Ordinance requirements; and (3) comply with City Engineer Comments numbered 1 and 2. June 27, 1989 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 (Con tinuedy SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. There was a general discussion about the required 40 foot landscaped area. The Staff reiterated its position about revising the site plan in such as way as to allow some landscaped area along Shackleford Road. The Staff also stated that AP&L had requested a service easement. The applicant stated that they would make an effort to comply with regard to landscaping along Shackleford Road. The applicant also agreed to comply with the Staff's recommendations except for the turn island on Shackleford Road. A lengthy discussion ensued over the restriction of turn movements. The City Traffic Engineer stated that it was imperative that the turn movements be restricted as outlined for proper traffic circulation and safety reasons. The applicant wondered how the site could be successfully used as planned if the turning movements were restricted as outlined. The issue remained unresolved. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The Staff stated that they had received a revised site plan that increased the landscaped area on Shackleford Road from five feet to seven feet in width but did not include the "traffic island" as requested by the City Traffic Engineer. Mr. Wayne Sherrell, the City's Traffic Manager, stated that Shackleford Road carried 30,000 cars per day and that it was likely to increase to 34,000 cars by the year 2010. He also stated that 38 accidents had occurred in the area during 1988 and that the turn limitations as outlined in the Staff recommendation were necessary for proper traffic circulation and safety reasons. Mr. Joe White, the agent for the applicant, introduced Mr. Ernie Peters as their traffic expert. Mr. Peters stated that the peak traffic flow was 180 cars per hour on the exit ramp off of the interstate and that the proposed entrance on this site would be further from the signal at Markham and Shackleford and, therefore, safer. June 27, 1989 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 8 (Continued) A lengthy discussion ensued. Mr. Wayne Sherrell stated that Engineering could accept a south -bound (on Shackleford Road) left -turn movement in addition to the right -turn in and right -turn out. Mr. Joe White stated that his client could live with Mr. Sherrell's revised proposal. Another lengthy discussion followed. The Commission then voted 7 ayes, 2 noes, and 2 absent to approve the revised site plan as recommended by the Staff and agreed to by the applicant.