Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPR Comment Sheet Great Island Plaza 063020 w DRC Comments SIGNEDFormal_X __Informal_ _ __Review SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMENT SHEET Date: June 30,2020 – Virtual Meeting New Map: 32 New Lot: 64 & 65 Applicant: Great Island Plaza, LLC Location: 590 – 600, 602 Route 28, 12 Winslow Gray Rd, WY Zone: B-2 Persons Present: Kathy Williams Jeannie Kampas Mark Grylls Brian Yergatian Jon Sawyer Jan Kvietok Kevin Huck Chaya Rosenberg Amanda Ruggiero Project Summary Renovate and reconstruct the existing commercial building at 590 – 600, 602 Route 28, along with site improvements. Demolish existing multi-family dwelling at 12 Winslow Gray Road. Comments Building: Lot is located in the B2 / VCOD VC1 zoning district, but is being developed under the B2 zoning district. Proposed project to be phased with relief for each phase identified as follows. PHASE 1: As there is a proposed increase in the number of parking spaces beyond the existing 35 spaces, relief will be required for Phase 1 including: Does not include in lot trees, seek relief from 301.4.6 or request ZBA condition plantings based on phasing plan. SP & or variance Relief from landscape requirements of 301.4.9 for plantings in front of building or provide a comprehensive landscape plan. (SP & or variance) Parking in front – SP per 301.2. Phasing plan to ZBA should identify relief for the number of spaces in front of building for each phase. Occupancy to be limited for the building based on the proposed 44 parking spaces in Phase 1. Photometric plan not provided to show compliance with 301.4.10 PHASE 2 Include relief per 301.2 for the parking in front of the Post Office also as it part of the same parcel. 11 total. (Special Permit) Relief from landscape requirements of 301.4.9 for plantings in front of building or provide a comprehensive landscape plan. (SP & or variance) Abutting lot to the east is in R-25 zone and buffer requirements of 301.4.5 apply. Modify plan to reflect adequate buffer or seek relief. (SP & or variance) Consider relocating northwest infiltration system to the south to allow for proper plantings per Section 301.4.4 and 301.4.9 to reduce needed relief from ZBA. (SP & or Variance) Identify loading areas per Section 301.6. All construction to comply with 780 CMR MSBC, 521 CMR and all other applicable sections of TOY Zoning Bylaw. Planning: Significant improvements are being proposed to enhance the streetscape through the elimination of much of the parking in the front, elimination of an unsafe curb cut on Winslow Gray Road, and the addition of the landscaped buffer along the roads. The majority of the parking is to the side/rear of the buildings with a pedestrian corridor between the buildings from the main parking area to access the street-oriented entrances and Route 28. The improvements and reconstruction of the buildings is significant and will restore the building to its original charm. 1. Buffers and Screening: a. Provide screening for the proposed transformers, condensers and building electric meters, and roof mounted mechanicals. Kelly Grant Mallory Langler b. Buffers along Streetscape: Although Section 301.4.9 allows for trees every 35’ in front of buildings, the buffer “shall also include a mixture of shrubs and flowering plants to create a comprehensive landscape plan, as approved by Site Plan Review Team”. This has not been done along Winslow Gray which only shows trees and switch grass around the sign. Also do not recommend placing a tree in front of the free- standing sign as it will impact visibility. Evaluate use of Red Maple in the Route 28 buffer as these can grow to 40-50’ in height with a 35’ spread which may be an issue with the overhead utilities and the narrow 10.5’ wide buffer. c. Provide for foundation plantings around the building in open areas and provide sidewalks to rear entrances of the building. d. Eastern Buffer: A large segment of existing trees are shown to remain, but the grading plan shows changes to grades in this area which may impact existing trees. Address grading to retain existing trees. In addition, much of this buffer abuts a residential zoning district (R25) and Section 301.4.5 requires a 20 buffer but also a dense planting of shrubs which may include fencing, but appears to require relief. e. Northern Buffer: Modify the layout and/or move subsurface infiltration system south outside the buffer area to allow for planting of the northern buffer area near Winslow Gray to minimize the amount of relief needed. 2. Miscellaneous Comments: a. Parallel parking spaces need to be 23’ long. The parking in the front does not appear to meet this dimension. Adjust or relief will be required. b. Parking in front of the Post Office should be included in the relief requested related to parking in the front. c. Show AutoTurn movements to ensure adequate access to dumpsters. d. Site lighting to be mounted on precast concrete bases or flush mounted (no 30” high sonotubes). Lighting must meet Section 301.4.10. e. Concrete washout area for Phase 2 will impact access to post office loading area. f. Phasing Plan: Some type of timeline should be proposed for when Phase 2 improvements would be required to be made. Conservation: The project is not jurisdictional under the wetland protection regulations. Per the Yarmouth stormwater regulations, the project is exempt if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the Commission to occur in a completely contained watershed that cannot possibly empty into the Town of Yarmouth MS4 that is hydraulically connected to a Wetland Resource Area. The applicant shall have the burden of proof in demonstrating that the activity is not subject to the jurisdiction of these regulations. Please refer to engineering comments with regard to the proposed site drainage. There needs to be stormwater management included in Phase 1 of the project. Otherwise all the stormwater infrastructure is limited to Phase 2 and the redeveloped commercial area will be discharging to the MS4 for an undetermined and unlimited period. As a minimum, the roof runoff shall be directed to downspouts and drywells/infiltration in Phase 1. Options for directing pavement runoff onsite should be looked at, including using the landscape area in an infiltration area and/or directing runoff temporarily to a retention/infiltration area in the back of the property until phase 2 commences. Design Review: Refer to the attached April 28, 2020 Design Review Committee Comments. The submitted SPR plans did incorporate some comments from the DRC including increasing the northern buffer to 10’ and providing additional plantings; retaining some of the existing trees in the eastern buffer; and continuation of the daylilies in front of the Post Office. The SPR plans did not incorporate the request for a comprehensive landscape plan along the roadways; Autoturn for the dumpster access; or utility screening and foundation plantings. Engineering: · Site Plan o Inconsistencies with scaling of parallel parking spaces. Minimum size 10’x23’ o Verify turning radius of emergency vehicles. o Parallel parking space to the right of the pedestrian crossing to the rear of the property appears to overlap with pavement markings/accessibilities. o Coordinate with DPW for road opening permit for Winslow Gray Road curb cuts and restoration of sidewalks and curbing, etc. · Stormwater o Provide O&M for stormwater as noted in Section 2.09 in the drainage calculations. o Provide test pit logs as noted on drainage Sheet 7. o Provide snow storage accommodations on Sheet 7. o Downspouts to gutters shall tie into drywells under temporary conditions and then tie into the final infiltration system during Phase II. · Lighting o As noted by Building, provide photometric plan to verify compliance with 301.4.10. o Pole height is limited to 20’ with downward facing fixture. Fire: 527 CMR 1 Chapter 16 “Safeguarding Construction, Alteration, and Demolition Operations.” 780 CMR Chapter 33, NFPA 24. Per 527 CMR 1 16.1.2 “ A fire protection plan shall be established and submitted” This plan shall include the following: 16.3.1 Fire safety program, 16.3.2 Owners designated fire prevention program manager, 16.3.4.1 A suitable location at the site shall be designated as a command post and provided with plans, emergency information, keys , communications and equipment as needed. Existing Building on plan with Units 1,2,3,4,5,6, & 8, and unit 7 will require NFPA 13 system per MGL 148 section 26G. A commercial fire alarm system per 148 26 B including heat detectors, smoke detectors, and monitored CO. The sprinkler system will also be monitored. Health: -Please submit hard copies of the updated plans to our department showing the overdesign to include potential future flow. -Include details on septic plan listing which septic tank each unit flows into. -Septic tank for unit #7 is not 10’ off of foundation when measured with a scale -Reserve area needs to be shown on the plan. -Inspection port needs to be added on SAS. -Remove note #6 on pg. 2 referring to H10 septic tanks; all tanks are under driveways and must be H20. -Additional details will be required for the floor plans should additional permitting be required (ex. Restaurant units are missing hand sinks, prep sinks etc). Water: Coordinate with the Water Dept. directly. Read & Received by Applicant(s) Dated: 07/01/20 DRC Questions & Discussions: Chris Vincent asked about what is going into 12 Winslow Gray Road. Jan Kvietok indicated it is open space for now, but reserved for future development. Brain Yergatian noted there will be a septic tank installed for a future connection. Dick Martin noted the septic tank should have H-20 loading as parking may be required in this area. Jack McCormack asked if all three lots are in the B2 zoning district, which they are. Dick Martin asked about 18 Winslow Gray Road which is also owned by the Applicant. He has concerns about not meeting the buffer requirements as currently shown and not selling the parcel separately. Jeannie Kampas noted that the lot to the north is owned by Ms . Rosenberg but is the subject of litigation right now so they eliminated this parcel to be able to move forward with the project now. There is a buffer issue, and will address the buffer in the future and hope it will ultimately be redeveloped as part of this development. Dick Martin noted that there was no plan to leave existing buffers to the east and north naturally treed. He noted that the buffer trees along Winslow Gray Road should be added, along with additional foundation shrubs and plantings in front of the Post Office. The site plan shows the 4 parking spaces set aside for the 606-610 Route 28. Dick Martin asked about the type of trees in the center island and recommended that in-lot trees, not shrubs, be included in the parking lot. Additional shrubbery would also be good. He felt the landscaping plan as shown was not adequate. Jan Kvietok noted trees could be added to the 12 Winslow Gray Road buffer. Dick Martin noted that some existing buffer trees could be saved to minimize the need for new plantings. Jan Kvietok indicated they could retain good trees. Dick Martin felt the circulation was good and elimination of the curb cut was good. He was comfortable with the rest of the site plan. Brian Yergatian noted the thin strip in front of the Post Office could impede site distance if planted with a tree. He noted that the southeast corner of the rear parking is a hydrangea, but that corner is right on the edge of the leaching field and he would like to stay away from that. Dick Martin felt the site should meet the bylaw as close to possible. Kathy Williams asked if the leaching field could be rotated to give additional space for planting a tree. Brian Yergatian thought that could be done. Dick Martin felt the parking layout was good and doesn't feel you would need the 82 spaces, especially as space is available at 12 Winslow Gray for additional parking. Dick Martin asked if anything was being done to the Post Office building. Jan indicated nothing was proposed for the building at this time, but that they are angling the parking spaces and adding some landscaping. Jan noted some previous siding work done to the Post Office a few years ago, along with some painting and patching of the pavement. Dick Martin noted that with the improvements on either side, it would be good to improve the Post Office building. Dick Martin inquired as to whether there were any west side elevations? Jan Kvietok noted the Left Elevation on Sheet A2.0. Dick Martin mentioned the large expanse of wall. Jan Kvietok indicated this is the convenience store that has interior fixtures. Dick Martin felt something is needed to break up the wall. Chris Vincent suggested an arbor. Sara Porter suggested a smaller gable with a window in it that could project out. Chaya Rosenberg noted she had added the two windows you see in the existing gable end and the rest of the wall could possibly be a mural. Chaya felt an arbor is more for where someone can sit and there may not be enough room in that location . The center island of the parking lot may be better. Jan Kvietok noted they were planning on installing foundation plantings along this wall and can dress it up with plantings and trellises. Sara asked about a rendering. Chris Vincent noted he meant a trellis flat against the wall and not a pergola. Jan Kvietok noted he will try to get some visuals along the left elevation of the building. Sara Porter noted she isn't usually a fan of brick, but feels it is done sparingly here. The cornice moulding at the hair salon could be extended around the east and north elevation. The pizza place cornice moulding in the front should be included in the rear. She also asked about the gable end of units 2 & 3 and whether it extends out. Dan Santacroce stated that it does extend out. Sara Porter noted it is not included in the Revised Elevations and Roof Plan. Dan Santacroce stated that the plans can be updated to denote the gable. Sara Porter felt that the back of the building is not as dynamic as the front and patrons will be parking in the back. She suggested adding more visual appeal to the rear fa~ade. Dick Martin concurred with Sara and noted that the rear can be seen from Winslow Gray. Jack McCormack asked about the floor plan in the restaurant, which shows stairs going down and whether there a basement. Dan Santacroce noted that there is a basement which will be used for storage. Chris Vincent asked about electric service connections and condensers, and it would be good to show them on the plans. Dan Santacroce said they are working on them. Sara Porter inquired about the runoff from the Delicatessen roof. Dan Santacroce noted he would need to cricket the roof. Kathy Williams asked about funneling water to the center of the building and snow loads. Dan Santacroce noted there will also be an internal roof drain in the center area. From a snow load perspective, they are checking the roof framing for code compliance. Jan Kvietok noted they were hoping to have roof mounted equipment which can be hidden in this center roof area. Sara asked about other ways to hide the mechanicals with increasing the height of the walls at the Hair Salon and Basil Thai. Jan noted he would need to look at water loads but that something could be done. Chaya Rosenberg noted that some landscaping in the rear of the building would help to make it more welcoming. She also liked the idea of false windows. Dick Martin noted there are some green spaces in the rear which could accommodate landscaping. Dick Martin noted it was a good proposal on a site that has been neglected. He's thrilled to see the repairs to the existing building. Adding of the architectural and landscaping comments noted here will just add to the property. Jack McCormack echoed Dick's comments and felt it would be a good addition to Route 28. Kathy Williams asked about the dumpster locations and access for garbage trucks. Jan Kvietok noted that they tried to find the best place for the dumpsters where the employees can have easy access, especially in the winter time. Jan Kvietok felt this would be the best location and they are hiding them with arborvitae and fencing and they will be accessible for smaller trucks. Brian Yergatian felt a smaller garbage truck would be able to access these areas as the travelway is wide in this area. Brian Yergatian will run an Autoturn analysis and have it available for Site Plan Review. Sara Porter had some sketches for the rear elevation that she would like to give to Dan Santacroce. Dan Santacroce was open to suggestions. Dick Martin asked about outside dining. Jan Kvietok said outside seating was included in the calculations for the restaurants as the sidewalk is wider. Sara Porter asked about the variable sidewalk, and whether it needs to be that wide and whether you could add to the width of the buffer. Jan Kvietok wanted to keep the sidewalk wide for a larger crowd and outside seating, benches and planters. Review Comments In Relation To The Design Standards SITING STRATEGIES Sect. 1 , Streetscape 0 N/ A ~ Meets Standards, or 0 Discrepancies: Significant improvements have been made to the streetscape through the elimination of much of the parking in front of the building, elimination of the curb cut on Winslow Gray Road closest to Route 28, and the addition of the landscaped buffer along the roads. The majority of the parking is to the side/rear of the buildings with a pedestrian corridor between the buildings from the main parking area to access the street- oriented entrances. The front of the buildings face the street with a wide sidewalk and 7 parallel parking spaces in front of the main building (similar to on-street parking). Pedestrian walkways are shown from the building entrances to the public sidewalks. Although the building modulations are less than 5' every 50', the addition of awnings, a variety of different architectural features, wall heights and roof lines add interest to the buildings, reducing the visual impact of the building size. Sect. 2, Tenant Spaces ~ N/A 0 Meets Standards, or 0 Discrepancies : Sect. 3, Define Street Edge 0 N/A ~Meets Standards, or 0 Discrepancies: Although some parking remains in the front, the buildings are still relatively close to the roadway. The addition of street trees helps to further define the street edge. While a wider buffer along Route 28 would be preferred, a more comprehensive landscape plan is recommended along Route 28 and along the corner of Winslow Gray Road to add planting beds with flowers and shrubs. The planting bed at the corner around the proposed sign only includes one type of plant (switch grass) and the trees are located too far apart. Continue the daylily buffer proposed for the adjacent property at 606-610 Route 28 to in front of the Post Office. Sect. 4, Shield Large Buildings ~ N/A 0 Meets Standards, or 0 Discrepancies : Sect. 5, Design a 2nd Story 0 N/A ~Meets Standards, or 0 Discrepancies: Sect. 61 Use Tope to Screen New Development ~ N/A D Meets Standards, or D Discrepancies: The proposed uses along with the proposed improvements do not need to be screened with any significant enhanced topography. Sect. 71 Landscape Buffers/Screening D N/A D Meets Standards, or~ Discrepancies: No existing 4" diameter buffer trees are shown to remain, with the buffers along the abutting properties being impacted by grading/drainage and no new buffer plantings are shown. Retain more existing buffer trees and supplement with proposed buffer plantings. Provide screening for the proposed transformer, condensers and building electric meters. Provide foundation plantings around the building. The addition of trellises and plantings would be beneficial along the blank wall along the Left Elevation (west side). Sect. 81 Parking Lot Visibility D N/A ~ Meets Standards, or D Discrepancies: The new parking lots are located to the rear and side of the buildings and the existing parking in the front has been significantly reduced. Also see Comments under Sect. 3, Define Street Edge. Sect. 91 Break up Large Parking Lots D N/A ~Meets Standards, or D Discrepancies: Unfortunately the location of the subsurface septic system impacts the ability to plant trees in some of the parking lot islands, but the large center island allows for canopy trees. Some island plantings are shown as shrubs and need to be 3" caliper trees. Retain existing larger healthy trees in the center island where possible. Sect. 101 Locate Utilities Underground D N/A ~ Meets Standards, or D Discrepancies: Sect. 11 I Shield Loading Areas D N/A ~ Meets Standards, or D Discrepancies: The location of the central dumpsters are very visible for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and the angled orientation may make it difficult for trash truck pick-up. Provide improved screening, and utilize solid white vinyl fencing. Provide Autoturn movements for a trash truck at Site Plan Review. Site lighting will be on a precast base or flush mounted. BUILDING STRATEGIES: Sect. 1 I Break Down Building Mass-Multiple Bldgs. D N/A ~Meets Standards, or D Discrepancies: Sect. 21 Break Down Building Mass-Sub-Masses D N/A ~Meets Standards, or D Discrepancies: Petitioner agrees to improve the look of the rear of the building to potentially include landscaping, false windows, trellises, or extension of cornices. Sara Porter will provide some ideas to the Applicant's Architect. Sect. 31 Vary Facade Lines D N/A D Meets Standards, or~ Discrepancies: The building modulations are less than 5' every 50'. However, the addition of awnings and a variety of different architectural features and roof lines add interest to the buildings, reducing the visual impact of the building size. Sect. 41 Vary Wall Heights D N/A ~ Meets Standards, or D Discrepancies: Sect. 51 Vary Roof Lines D N/A ~Meets Standards, or D Discrepancies: Sect. 61 Bring Down Building Edges ~ N/A D Meets Standards, or D Discrepancies: The majority of the building is single story and there is no need for smaller attached masses to break up the building size. Sect. 71 Vary Building Mat'ls For Depth D N/A ~Meets Standards, or D Discrepancies: