1988-09-28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . Minutes - Plan Commission Page 2 September 28, 1988 Rally's drive-thru restaurants on Page Avenue. The menu will consist of a 99c quarter pound hamburger, sodas and fries - all at a reasonable price for family dining. Proposed hours of operation would be from 10:00 a.m. to 11 p.m. The business would employ approximately forty employees on different shifts. The business would be strictly a drive-through restaurant with no indoor seating. Precautions would be taken to prevent loitering and littering on the site. Mr. Schwartzkopf indicated that he and Mr. Barton had received a copy of the Planning Director's report on their application and would be able to comply with all of the changes and conditions he had recommended. Chairman McCauley called for Mr. Goldman's report on the application. Mr. Goldman indicated that the site plan submitted with the application was inaccurate in that the proposed improvements were dimensioned from the right-of-way line that existed before Olive Boulevard was widened. Also, the potential flooding of the site presented a serious problem for its development; the building and various other improvements could not be constructed in the floodway as indicated on the plans, unless certification is provided by a professional, registered engineer or architect that the construction would not result in any increase in flood levels during base flood discharge. The proposed locations of the driveways created especially tight turns, and the westernmost driveway on Olive was too close to Midland Avenue to provide for safe left-turning for drivers southbound on Midland. Mr. Goldman suggested changing the traffic and access arrangements after the applicant's consultation with a qualified traffic engineer. In addition, pedestrian access to the building should not have to cross on-site traffic, and a wider landscaped yard would be required along the Olive Boulevard frontage. As proposed, the building and signing conflict with the City's Sign Code. The internally lit awning would be classified as a sign and the other proposed signs were, together, too large in area. The proposed freestanding sign was also too large in height for a site of this size. Mr. Goldman suggested that drawings of all proposed signage be submitted for review. In addition, because of the demonstrated difficulty in developing this site, Mr. Goldman suggested a requirement that the applicant agree to remove the building and all other improvements from the site if the business is closed for a period of 120 days. Mr. Goldman agreed, however, that the proposed use and building size is appropriate for the site if all other problems can be resolved. Chairman McCauley asked the applicant to respond to questions by Commission members. Mr. Marsh asked how many employees would be working on the site at any one time. Mr. Schwartzkopf replied that eleven employees would run the busiest shifts. Mr. Safe questioned the classification of the backlit canopy as a sign, but Mr. Goldman replied that the classification would be made on the basis of whether the canopy material was opaque or translucent. Ms. Kreishman agreed that the proposed signage was excessive for the site, but pointed out that the canopy lighting might be one way to light the parking lot for safety reasons. Ms. Kreishman was also concerned about the potential conflict between pedestrian and automobile traffic on the site. Mr. Schwartzkopf assured her that this problem could be resolved to the satisfaction of the Planning Department and also explained that a separate walk-up window would be provided and open for pedestrians during warm weather.