Design Review Board approves Restaurant Depot site plan, asks applicant to return with façade alternatives

The Waterford Design Review Board voted Feb. 24 to accept site plans for a new Restaurant Depot at 161 Waterford Parkway North, while asking the applicant to provide alternative façade treatments to reduce the building's visual mass ahead of Planning & Zoning's site-plan review. The board's action was made with the understanding the applicant would return with refined design alternatives for the commission's recommendation.

Chaz Evans of Boller Engineering, presenting for the applicant team, said the property sits between Lowe's and Walmart and that the proposal uses much of an earlier-approved footprint: "what's being proposed now is a slightly more than 45,000 square foot Restaurant Depot," Evans said, describing four loading docks on the west side, a south-facing main entrance, and a generator area to the southwest. Heather Mize of ADA Architects described the building as "a 34 foot high, precast concrete building" in Restaurant Depot's white-and-blue color scheme, with an enclosed compactor and refrigerated equipment set behind an 8-foot chain-link fence with white vinyl slats.

Why it matters: the board told the applicant the simple, boxy design reads as a large, unarticulated mass along a high-traffic stretch of Waterford Parkway North. Chair (meeting moderator) commented that "it would be nice if it were a little more visually interesting," urging treatments that direct attention to the entrance. Board members suggested paint accents, a portal or modest canopy where site geometry allows, lattice with planting, or applied texture as lower-impact ways to break up the elevation without compromising the applicant's operational needs.

Applicant response and technical clarifications: Mize and Evans said the building's design is intentional for the retailer's operational strategy and noted some constraints due to the existing parking template. Mize offered several lower-impact options for the board's consideration: painting to create accent bands, an applied portal over the entrance, or texturing in limited areas. The project team confirmed utility and drainage work: a new catch basin and a sump/hood are proposed at the loading dock to tie into the existing stormwater conveyance and above‑ground pond. The applicant also provided a sight-line study showing roof-mounted HVAC would not be readily visible from the Parkway; planting plans call for canopy trees (two-and-a-half-inch caliper honey locusts, roughly 5 to 6 feet at planting).

Next steps and conditions: the board asked the applicant to prepare design alternatives and advised those recommendations would be forwarded to the Planning & Zoning Commission, which has the site-plan hearing scheduled for March 10. The board made a motion to accept the plans "with the understanding that they'll be coming back with some alternative design ideas that this commission can look over and provide recommendations to P&Z" and approved it by voice vote.

What the approval does and does not do: the Design Review Board's vote memorializes the board's informal design review and recommendations; final site-plan and zoning approvals remain with the Planning & Zoning Commission. The board did not require a specific material palette or mandate a particular design option; instead it requested a set of alternatives (painting, portals/canopy where feasible, textural treatments, or limited architectural features) for the commission to weigh at the P&Z hearing.

Planning and timeline: the applicant indicated the project will proceed through Planning & Zoning on March 10; the board will review any returned alternatives prior to or as part of that process.

Speakers quoted or referenced in this article are drawn from the meeting record and include Chaz Evans (Boller Engineering), Heather Mize (ADA Architects), Larry Cohen (applicant representative), and the board's chair and clerk.