HomeMy WebLinkAboutDepartment Report 12-06-222
Carmel Plan Commission
COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE
Tuesday, December 6, 2022 Department Report
3. Docket No. PZ-2022-00169 DP/ADLS: Chick-Fil-A – US 421.
The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a new restaurant with drive thru on 1.97 acres. The site is
located at 9965 N. Michigan Road (previous location of Red Robin), part of West Carmel Marketplace, Block F.
It is zoned B-2 and is within the US 421 Overlay District. Filed by Joe Vavrina of HR Green, on behalf of Chick-
Fil-A.
*Updates to the Report are written in blue
Project Overview:
The Petitioner proposes a new restaurant with dine in and drive thru options. All surrounding properties are part of the US
421 Overlay zone. To the west across Michigan Road are I-1 zoned properties – RCI and Olive Garden Italian Restaurant.
Immediately north and sharing vehicular access is the PPG Paint store, zoned B-3. East and southeast are multi-tenant
retail buildings (PetCo, Best Buy, Kohl’s, Home Depot, etc.) part of the West Carmel Marketplace commercial
subdivision. They are zoned B-2 and B-3. South across 99th Street is another multi-tenant retail building, zoned B-2 and
B-3 (Jimmy John’s, Supercuts, etc.). Please see the Petitioner’s Information packet for more details.
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Standards this project MEETS:
US 421 Overlay Zone:
• Permitted use: Restaurant with walk up/drive-thru
• Architectural Design Theme: complementary to Italianate
style
• Min. Building Height: 20’ allowed, 21’5” proposed
• Façade design: base, middle, and top provided
• Building materials chosen – 2 colors of brick, glass, metal
coping, storefront aluminum
• 30’ greenbelt required & remaining as existing
• Minimum site acreage for DP: 3 acres required; 1.97 acres
existing (approved through previous project – Red Robin:
Docket No. 06090029 DP/ADLS)
• Vehicular parking: 62 spaces required (1 space per 80 sq.
ft. of floor area); 80 spaces provided
• Drive thru stacking: 10 spaces required, 46 proposed
• Min. front yard: 30’, 106’ proposed (west)
• Minimum rear yard: 15’ required, 56’ proposed (north)
• Minimum side yard (main building): 15’ required, 51’
proposed (east)
• Min. side yard (accessory canopy): 5’ required, 12.5’
proposed
• Connecting access to parcel to north and
private road to east provided
• Minimum gross floor area: 2,500 sq. ft.
required; 4,930 sq. ft. provided
• Trash Enclosure is architecturally
compatible with principal building
B-2/Business:
• Minimum Lot Area: 7,000 sq. ft. required;
1.97 acres (85,813.2 sq. ft.) provided
• Min. Lot width: 50’ required, 336’ provided
• Maximum Building Height: 35’ allowed,
23’0.5” proposed
• Maximum Lot Coverage: 90% allowed,
69.4% proposed
• Bicycle parking: 4 spaces required and
provided
• Ground sign height: 6’ proposed & allowed
• Ground and menu board sign locations: 5’
minimum setback from ROW required and
proposed
UDO Standards NOT MET, therefore a changes must be made, or variances requested:
• APPROVED: Docket No. PZ-2022-00211 V, UDO Section 3.95.F.: Drive Thru location: Must be located to the
rear of the parcel, Site has two public street frontages and one private street frontage, therefore, this requirement
cannot be met
• APPROVED: Docket No. PZ-2022-00212 V, UDO Section 5.39.H.2.: Two signs facing south (wall and ground),
one allowed
• APPROVED: Docket No. PZ-2022-00214 V, UDO Section 3.88.D. 8’ offsets required for facades greater than
90’ in width, at intervals of 60’; 4’ provided
• APPROVED: Docket No. PZ-2022-00215 V, UDO Section 3.92.C. - Lighting plan does not meet 0.3 footcandle
maximum at property lines
• APPROVED: Docket No. PZ-2022-00216 V, UDO Section 5.19.F.3.: Foundation plantings required, none
provided
3
• APPROVED and Amended: Docket No. PZ-2022-00218 V, UDO Section 5.39.H.2.a.: Signage – Number: Four 3
proposed, 2 allowed
• WITHDRAWN: Docket No. PZ-2022-00210 V, UDO Section 5.28.E.4.: Wheel stops required when less than 10’
sidewalk width provided adjacent to parking spaces; 6’ proposed (west)
• WITHDRAWN: Docket No. PZ-2022-00217 V, UDO Section 5.39.H.2.a. – Sign facing east towards private
street, none allowed.
• WITHDRAWN: Docket No. PZ-2022-00219 V, UDO Section 5.39.E.5.: Signage – Wall signs cannot obscure
architectural details, non-compliant as proposed
• WITHDRAWN: Docket No. PZ-2022-00220 V, UDO Section 3.88.H.: Metal or aluminum awnings are
prohibited
• WITHDRAWN: Docket No. PZ-2022-00221 V, UDO Section 3.88.F. Building entrance: not defined and
articulated
Site Plan, Parking, and Engineering:
The Petitioner seeks approval for the Development Plan and ADLS for a new restaurant with drive thru. This site is
currently home to a Red Robin restaurant, approved originally in 2006 (Docket No. 06090029 DP/ADLS). Existing access
to the site will be maintained from the north via the PPG paint store property and the east from Walnut Creek Drive, a
private street. This location is essentially on a peninsula with two public street frontages and one private street frontage.
Due to multiple front yards, they are not able to meet the screening and location requirement for the drive thru. A variance
approval for the location of the drive thru being visible from the front yard/adjacent streets is required and was approved
on November 28, 2022 by the BZA.
80 parking spaces are provided, when 62 are required. Restaurants with drive thru require one space per 80 sq. ft. of floor
area. The drive thru will be a double lane with room for 46 cars to stack. The site is also large enough to have a bypass
lane for interior circulation for those patrons not going through the drive thru.
The plan meets lot coverage requirements at 69.4%, when 90% coverage is allowed per the B-2 zone. Drainage for this
site is coordinated through master-planned detention for the West Carmel Marketplace commercial subdivision. The
Petitioner continues to work through project details with the Carmel Engineering Dept.
Active Transportation:
Sidewalks are currently installed along Michigan Road and 99th Street. The Petitioner will install a new sidewalk
connection from Michigan Road to the front door of the restaurant (west). An existing sidewalk connection will remain
from 99th Street to the front door of the building. However, additional work (striping) is needed to identify the path
through the parking lot.
Sidewalks are provided all around the building. In order to gain parking spaces and drive aisle maneuverability, the
Petitioner has chosen to forego building base plantings, which required a variance. (Variance approved at November 28,
2022 BZA meeting.) The sidewalk on the west side of the building is 6’ wide. Due to parking spaces adjacent to the
sidewalk, wheel stops are required to ensure enough room for pedestrians. If the sidewalk could be increased to 10’ wide,
wheel stops would not be required. The Petitioner does not wish to install wheel stops due to concerns over trip hazards.
The Petitioner has instead worked with Staff to provide bollards, which will serve multiple functions – not a trip hazard,
prevents cars from blocking the sidewalk, and can also double as sign posts, to designate ADA accessible parking spaces.
The variance for this item was withdrawn.
Due to the high volume of drive thru customers, employees will often be outside walking from car to car taking orders.
Therefore, additional hardscape areas for pedestrians are required immediately adjacent to the drive thru lanes, rather than
landscaping. The Urban Forester has agreed to allow stone “mulch” in these areas. Two bicycle racks (four spaces) are
provided adjacent to (and within 50’) of the front door. This meets UDO requirements.
Architectural Design:
The architect has designed the building to be complementary to the Italianate architectural style. Some of these features
include the enhanced brick detailing around cornice of the building and the symmetrical form of the building and window
placement. The building will be constructed of two colors of brick – red and tan. The design includes a distinct base,
middle, and top, with soldier course and rowlock brick accents. Cornice elements are constructed of metal coping. The
height of the building ranges from 22’3” to 24’6.5”. Additional windows have been added on the south façade to enhance
4
pedestrian scale details and are shown in white. One of these windows has been changed from white to match the other
“real” windows on the elevations, however, the floor plan does not show it as an actual window. Petitioner, please
provide an update on this design. We are also still needing clarification on the white windows as spandrel
glass/faux windows. The previously proposed metal awnings/canopies over the windows have now been changed to
canvas awnings, therefore the variance has been withdrawn.
The US 421 Overlay also requires entrances to be defined and articulated by architectural elements. The Petitioner has
worked to change the design of the entrance to make it the focal point of the building. It is now all tan brick, whereas the
rest of the building is primarily red brick. This variance request has also been withdrawn. Another design element the US
421 Overlay focuses on is avoiding long, monotonous, uninterrupted walls on buildings. There is a requirement for 8’
offsets on facades over 90’ long. The Petitioner has proposed a 4’ offset on the north and the south facades but has
requested and been granted variance to not meet the 8’ requirement.
The Petitioner has adjusted the vehicle canopy designs and has made good progress. However, there is still more work to
be done. The brick columns have now been extended to meet the roof structure, so that is a positive change. However, the
canopy itself still does not appear to be in scale in with columns below it. It should be taller and perhaps have more
ornamentation. Underneath the canopy there will be heaters and fans to enhance the comfort of employees during all
seasons.
The dumpster enclosure is generally located at the southeast corner of the site, with the drive thru lanes separating it from
the perimeter landscaping areas. It will be constructed of brick to match the building.
Lighting:
Decorative wall sconces will be provided all around the building (16 in total). The proposed awnings/canopies over the
doors have down lights built into them. This is generally good, except that metal awnings/canopies are not allowed in the
US 421 Overlay zone. The Petitioner has now agreed to use canvas awnings; however, we do not have specifications
on new lighting. Petitioner, please provide updated lighting information. Six down lights are proposed within the
south drive thru canopy and eight down lights are proposed within the north canopy. Two security style down-lights are
proposed over the trash dumpsters. Petitioner, please provide more info on why these lights are needed at the trash
enclosure. There is also a flood light proposed on the building – Petitioner, is this meant to illuminate the flagpole? If
so, please provide a different, more concealed light source for the flagpole. The parking lot will be lit by 5 pole lights
placed around the site at 24’ tall, which meets the maximum height allowed for pole lights. Due to the order canopies
facing north and east, and the desire to have them well lit, it is not possible for the 0.3 footcandle measurement to be met.
The Petitioner requested a variance and was granted approval on November 28, 2022.
Landscaping:
The site has existing mature landscaping in the greenbelt and around the south perimeter. The Petitioner plans to leave
these existing landscaping areas as they are planted today. The Urban Forester had comments regarding tree species, tree
protection fencing, and ensuring the new plan matches the previously approved plan. We have not yet completed a
second review cycle through ProjectDox, our online review software. So, the Petitioner will need to continue to
work through the Urban Forester’s review comments to gain plan approval.
Signage:
This site is located on two public streets; therefore, two main identification signs are allowed. (Additional signs are
allowed for the drive thru menu boards.) Two wall signs (west and south) and one ground sign are proposed. This
proposal required a variance for the number of signs, and it was granted by the BZA after the request was reduced from
three to two wall signs. The proposed ground sign is 6’ tall and 40 sq. ft., which meets the size and height requirements
for a ground sign. The design is also complaint with a base and delineated cornice. Regarding the number of wall signs,
the Dept. recommends one wall sign facing south, as this will be over the front door to the restaurant and the most visible
to the motoring public. The Department is not supportive of the additional wall signs facing west and east.
The design of the building has been modified to provide a more appropriate spandrel panel for the wall signs. This means
that the variance to obscure building details is no longer needed and was withdrawn. The proposed sign facing south
appears to meet size requirements. However, the wall sign facing west does not appear to meet spandrel panel size
requirements. Additional work will need to be completed to ensure compliance. Up to 70% of the height and 85% of
the width of the spandrel panel (defined architectural area) is allowed as the sign square footage.
5
The menu board signs are 20 sq. ft. each, with one provided for each drive thru lane. Up to three menu boards are allowed
for drive thrus with two lanes. Up to 30 sq. ft. per menu board is allowed for drive thrus with two lanes. The location of
the menu boards is in line with the drive thru and shielded from view, as is required in the UDO. Directional signage is
allowed as long as it is 3’ tall and 3 sq. ft. or less in area. Please note that all signage is subject to additional review for
size compliance with the UDO and will require sign permits prior to installation.
October 18 Public Hearing Recap:
• Petitioner gave an overview of the project and discussed some of the outstanding questions from the Dept. Report.
• Plan Commission members had questions regarding the location of the dumpsters and if there would be a conflict
with the drive thru location adjacent. The Petitioner said that trash is typically picked up early in the morning.
• The parking spaces adjacent to the drive thru lanes were another topic of interest. The Petitioner clarified that
these would be low-turnover spaces due to employees parking there.
• The Plan Commission members were pleased to see so much stacking availability on this site.
• Sent to the Commercial Committee meeting on Tuesday, November 1 for further review, with the Commercial
Committee having final voting authority.
Update Since PC Meeting:
Five variances were withdrawn, and one was amended to reduce the number of signs requested. The remaining variances
were approved at the November 28, 2022 BZA meeting. We still have a bit more work to do with the Petitioner as far as
getting through the next review round and addressing all comments on Project Dox. The remaining items will most likely
be easily addressed. They are highlighted in bold above and repeated below.
DOCS Remaining Comments/Concerns:
1. Pedestrian striping needed to identify pedestrian path through the parking lot.
2. Canopy “roof” design still not in scale in with columns below it.
3. Faux vs. real window proposals on south façade clarifications.
4. Is lighting still proposed within awnings?
5. Lighting changes needed for flagpole light.
6. Lighting info still needed regarding dumpster lighting.
7. Urban Forester approval needed on landscaping plan.
8. West wall sign size compliance verification.
Recommendation:
If all comments and concerns can be addressed prior to or at the meeting, the Department of Community Services
recommends the Commercial Committee votes to Approve this item this evening. If all items are not addressed, DOCS
recommends to continue this item to Tuesday, January 3, 2023 for final approval.