The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDept Report 08-27-12 CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DEPARTMENT REPORT AUGUST 27, 2012 2. (V)Olive Garden The applicant seeks the following development standards variance approvals: Docket No. 12070007 V Ch. 23C.09 E. Roof material (Clay tile proposed) Docket No. 12070008 V Cli. 25.07.02-08b Total number of signs (5 proposed, 2 allowed) Docket No. 12070009 V Ch. 25.07.02-08b Signs not facing public ROW south (2 proposed,0 allowed) Docket No. 12070010 V Ch. 25.07.02-08b Number of signs facing ROW east (2 proposed, 1 allowed) Docket No. 12070011 V Ch. 25.07.02-08c Total square footage (185.10 sq. ft. proposed, 80 sq. ft. allowed) The site is located at 10206 N. Michigan Rd. It.is zoned I-1. Signage variance filed by Shawn Smith of Site Enhancement Services on behalf of GMRI, Inc. Building variance filed by Janet Reid of GHA Architecture/Development on behalf of Jack DeGagne for GMRI, Inc. y. k't�$y t�, F 444,11 '^'C r � w 41,0' h';'4,_ ;,.:%--k"e ++ c ', � ,�a �t ,r, ttk General Info. z t s u,�% The Petitioner is requesting a variance from the �.� w�� 0,-4,0,1,,,,;,. � � � �� .�� permitted roof materials of wood shingles, slate, ^r t a s s :"y�j �"` "-= y s' !Aga Erk "ai, Z P v 4 t composition asphalt or standing-seam metal panels in the �1 I r � + ; °, r 41 � - Michigan Road Overlay to allow a material that is a ft: , ` fi , �. s 1 i t major component of their corporate identity. The ,0'- h C i7 , ,6 .;/: wx , %�, Petitioner is also requesting variances for additional ` �re�fr ,arty r %' -- r��, signage. Directly to the north of this property are West R{'&'ail t-' 1,44+ 1: ,, k -, '1,� .�' '$. k.V f : '' i'! MI .z ',11 7 F r' Carmel Commons and the Outback site that were '� AIN i- „< �t ki iit recently approved by Plan Commission. To the east is gi . 41 °,, �� f ,, - Michigan Road and West Carmel Marketplace, to the Y* : .� ? f f :;t south and west is RCI. Please refer to the petitioner's '. 4 i. t tV11 ' .o r- :e4 i� it r as"` �, 4 �' 4. � n� 0 � : information packet for more details. sx s 'T. }i:.1" h £' cn tr� fit �st �O �4 g b �i iin V A t. il { , Analysis: r i 'y '�.,� r b ��.'r z l a +ti "�, ',�, ` , 1 ,i�a� fikV n�^ � f� "- Docket No 12070007 V: Roof Material: The purpose : ,. '„,� f.-�o .;; , � -NJ K:,4 i °` ' and intent of the Michigan Road Overlay is to, among other things, "promote high quality innovative site design..." and "...foster development that will provide this district with a special sense of place" through a"coordinated set of design principles for buildings." "These principles are intended to guide individual development activities so that they will work together visually in support of the common architectural theme..." While understanding and respectful of Darden's wish to use their standard design palette, the petitioner has not satisfied the Plan Commission or the Department that the proposed Olive Garden building meets the standards of the Michigan Road Overlay as it pertains to architectural design as it is not designed to be complementary of one of the 4 permitted architectural themes. This variance request for roof material will be contrary to the intent of the Overlay and will only further disconnect this building from the permitted architectural styles. The Department does not believe that there is a practical difficulty in the use of this property as it pertains to this variance. This variance will be detrimental to the community in general as it will detract from the character already established in this area by previous developments. The Department is not in favor of this variance. Docket Nos. 12070008-11 V: Signage: The Petitioner proposes five signs,however only two are allowed because the site faces two public streets. The Department is in support of three of these signs: one wall sign facing east, one ground sign facing east, and the projecting sign facing south for the "To Go"entrance. Together the three of these signs would only put the Petitioner 2.85 sq. ft. over the 80 that is allowed. However, the Petitioner is requesting two additional wall signs. One is 56.83 sq. ft. and the other is 45.4 sq. ft.This is 102.23 sq. ft. over the 80 sq. ft. allowed. The Department is not in support of these two additional wall signs because the ground sign out on Michigan Rd. and the main wall sign facing Michigan Rd. will give consumers more than enough identification of the location of the restaurant. There are also two entrances to the site, which will further aid consumers to 5 make a turn into the restaurant if they miss the first entrance.Lastly, it is important to note that the building architecture is very unique and functions like a sign and/or reinforces their brand image. The Department believes the request for these two additional signs is excessive and unnecessary. Findings of Fact: Roof Material 1, The approval of this variance will be injurious to the public health,safety,morals,and general welfare of the community because: the proposed roof material will detract from the character already established in this area by previous developments. 2. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variances will be affected in a substantially adverse manner because: the proposed roof material will detract from the character and sense of place already established in this area by previous developments and which helps attract other businesses and patrons. 3. The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will not result in practical difficulties in the use of the property because: the property will still be viable for development and there are not conditions on site that would necessitate a deviation from the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to roof material. All along Michigan Road new developments have been constructed and have been able to meet the ordinance as it relates to roof material and architectural style. Findings of Fact: Si2nage 1. The approval of these variances will not be injurious to the public health,safety,morals,and general welfare of the community because: the approved signs will be located appropriately on the building and on the site to identify to patrons the name of the business and will not interfere with sight-lines of drivers. 2. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variances will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner because: the approved signs will complement the surrounding uses because they are compatible with other businesses in the corridor. 3. The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property because: the Petitioner would not be able to have the extra identification desired for way-finding around the site. Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services recommends negative consideration of Docket No. 12070007 V, Positive Consideration of Docket No. 12070008 V (however only 3 of the 5 signs proposed), Positive Consideration of Docket No. 12070009 V (however only 1 of the 2 signs proposed), Positive Consideration of Docket No. 12070010 V, and Positive Consideration of Docket No. 12070011 V, (however only 82.85 sq. ft. of the 185.10 sq.ft. proposed) 6