HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 09-04-12 CARMEL PLAN COMMISSION I SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE
SEPTEMBER 4, 2012 DEPARTMENT REPORT
2. Docket No. 12050014 DP/ADLS: Olive Garden Restaurant.
The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a restaurant .with parking area The site is located at 10206 N.
Michigan Rd. It is zoned I-1/Industrial,within the US 421/Michigan Rd. Corridor Overlay Zone. Filed by Janet Reid
of GHA Architects on behalf of Darden Restaurants, Inc.
The petitioner seeks site plan &design approval for a restaurant building&parking. Part of this proposal is contributing
funds for the Retail Parkway road extension, west of Michigan Rd. Signage, lighting, and landscaping have also been
submitted. Please view revised plans and building elevations for more detail.
Architecture/Design: The petitioner worked with the Planning Dept. to come up with a building design that tries to meet
the Michigan Road Overlay Zone architectural requirements for design and materials. The Department suggested that the
petitioner continues working on design revisions with the Plan Commission's input. The Department's main concern is
that the proposed architectural.style is still more of a Tuscan farmhouse style(their typical prototype); however, the US
421 Overlay Zone.architectural design requirements only permits architectural elements from Italianate, Greek Revival,
Federal, and Georgian periods of American architecture. The petitioner needs to further show the Committee how the
building design pulls architectural elements from the Italianate style and also show how each facade is balanced
and symmetrical in design.
The Michigan Road Corridor Overlay Zone architectural design requirements (Section 23C.09) can be found online at:
www.carmel.in.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=1527.
Signage: The applicant originally proposed five signs for the site: three wall, one ground, and one projecting sign. The
site is only allowed two signs at 80 sq. ft. total.This proposed amount of signage seemed excessive and unnecessary to the
Department. BZA variances were requested, and the Department gave negative recommendations to the Board of Zoning
Appeals against-these extra signs. At the August 27 meeting, the Board voted in favor of the small projecting sign facing
south and two signs facing east(one wall and one ground). The Department is now in full support of the signage approved
by the BZA. The wall sign is 45.42 sq. ft.,the ground sign is 29.12 sq. ft., and the projecting sign is 8.31 sq. ft. This total
is 82.85 sq. ft., only 2.85 sq. ft. over the 80 sq. ft. allowed. The overage will be considered an exempt sign, since that sign
is less than 3 sq. ft. and does have some "dead space" accounted for in the design of all three signs.
The design of the signs is a tan background with green face- lit individual internally illuminated"Olive Garden"letters,
purple non-illuminated"Italian Restaurant"letters and a non-illuminated grape bunch. For the wall sign, the grapes are
externally illuminated by one gooseneck light fixture centered over the grapes.For the ground sign, the entire sign is also
illuminated by an external spot light. The Department is not in favor of using two different types of lighting for one sign.
The Department:recommends having the entire sign either entirely internally illuminated or entirely externally
illuminated. The Department is supportive of the overall design and structure of the sign,but wishes to see some
modifications made regarding the lighting of it.
Variances: The variance requests received the following actions on August 27 from the Board of Zoning Appeals:
a) Tabled to Sept. 24: `Clay tile' roof material is not permitted in the Overlay Zone.
b) Approved 4-1: The signs facing south do not face a public street.
c) Denied 3-2: Five signs are proposed; only two are permitted.
d) Approved 4-1: Two signs face east toward Michigan Rd., when only one is permitted.
e) Denied 3-2: The total amount of signage allowed is 80 sq. ft., and they propose 185.10 sq. ft.
July 17 Plan Commission meeting re-cap:
The petitioner stated how the building design pulls from Italianate elements of design. Several comments were voiced by
the Plan Commission members. Some topics were pedestrian crossings and safety within the parking lot, the fact there is a
lot of signage and that the building design, itself, is a type of corporate branding, and suggested changes to the building
design. The item was then forwarded to the August 7 committee meeting.
August 7 Committee meeting re-cap:
Detailed discusgion was had about the building architecture, design, scale,building footprint, and building materials. The
architectural design regulations of the Michigan Rd. overly were also discussed, along with characteristics of Italianate
architecture. Bicycle parking,pedestrian connectivity, and signage were also discussed, along with the vegetated swales
Page 8
and guard rail. The committee requested additional changes be made and that additional information be provided for the
next meeting; the item was then continued to the Sept. 4 meeting. (Please see the revised info packets dated Aug. 24.)
Staff's outstanding comments for the petitioner:.
1. Please add a cap to the dumpster enclosure walls, either with the clay tile topper, soldier course brick, or a
combination of.
2. Please make the tower entry element taller.
3. Please add a little bit more brick clinkers to the EIFS areas.
4. Please add closed wooden shutters(same color as the trellis and window trim)to-the arch window elements, instead
of having stucco/EIFS inside the arches.
5. Is there any way to make all of the square/rectangular windows arched?
6. The use of`more than 10%EIFS/stucco requires a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. (The Dept. might be
supportive of this variance if the building design can be modified a bit, to be more symmetrical and balanced.)
7. Please provide the committee with additional detail on how the revised elevations are more balanced and
symmetrical and pull elements from Italianate architecture.
8. Need details on the retention pond guardrail design and materials.
9. Need details on plant species will be planted in the detention ponds and vegetated swales.
10. At the last meeting,athe architect stated that the gooseneck light would be removed from the wall sign. Please show.
11. The Engineering Dept. is reviewing the revised plans,but do not see any major concerns.
Recommendation:
IF all commentsand concern's are addressed at the committee meeting:and the building design is revised to be more
balanced and symmetrical ,then the Dept of Community Services(DOCS)recommends that the Committee sends this
item to the Sept. 18 Plan Commission meeting with a favorable°recd mmendation.
•
Page 9