Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Restaurant Parking topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Former Bennigan—ootprint eyed for restaurant-with-bar; parking variances remain contentious

Planning and Zoning Commission · October 6, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Planners proposed reallocating PUD acreage at 660 Walnut Ridge Drive to permit a restaurant with on-site alcohol sales (RAB) in a footprint once occupied by Bennigan's. Staff recommended SP-1 RAB approval but opposed related parking variances; applicant may seek a compromise on seating ratios.

Gina Costanza Grant, a planner with the City of Irving, presented a paired set of cases for 660 Walnut Ridge Drive on Oct. 6. The owner seeks to reallocate PUD-2 acreage to permit an SP-1 RAB (a detailed site plan for a restaurant with on-premises alcohol sales). Grant noted the parcel previously held RAB zoning for a Bennigan's restaurant; the site was later reverted to Community Commercial in 2019. The new proposal would reconstruct a larger building and return the zoning to an RAB use.

Staff recommended approval of the RAB site plan but recommended denial of associated parking variances. The applicant initially requested a seating-to-parking ratio of 1 space per 3 seats but later indicated they would consider the prior restaurant—ase ratio of 1 space per 2.85 seats as a compromise. Grant said the site would be capped at 50 parking spaces, which corresponds to a capacity tied to seating. Commissioners asked about a letter of opposition from an adjacent hotel that claimed shared parking; staff said no shared-parking agreement was found and that any shared parking would have to be formalized in writing.

Commissioners discussed existing 9-by-16 spaces on the site (some possibly approved historically as compact) and whether restriping to current 9-by-18 standards would encroach on a fire lane or utility easement. Staff explained the fire lane dimensions and where expansion could be difficult without additional paving or easement work. No formal decision was made; staff and the applicant will clarify compact-space status and any potential shared-parking agreements before a future hearing.