Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1272-1276-1282 Rte 28 DRC Comments ROAD 2022-2 101822 TC"i f Review is: ❑ Conceptual ❑x Formal ❑x Binding (404 MotelsNCOD/R.O.A.D. Project) ❑ Non -binding (All other commercial projects) Review is by: 0 Planning Board ❑ Design Review Committee DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) - COMMENT SHEET (DRC comments which are provided to the Planning Boardl Meeting Date: October 18, 2022 - Room BNirtual Map: 60 Lots: 130 131 & 132 Applicant: Ekaterina & Family LLC & Jay Imad Zone(s): ROAD Optional Overlay District Site Location: 1272, 1276 & 1282 Route 28, South Yarmouth, MA Persons Present: DCR Members Present Yarmouth Town Staff Present Guests Dick Martin KathyWilliams Halim Choubah, CEG Sara Porter remote Attorney Paul Tardif Chris Vincent Jay Imad DRC Review for this Agenda Item started at: 4:01 PM DRC Review ended at: 4:25 PM On a motion by Chris Vincent, and seconded by Sara Porter, the Design Review Committee (DRC) voted (3- 0) to adjourn the October 18, 2022 DRC meeting at 4:25 PM. Proiect Summary General Description: The Applicant seeks to develop the project using Zoning Bylaw Section 411 — Revitalization Overlay Architectural District (ROAD). The DRC had reviewed a previous ROAD Application from this applicant back in May of 2022. The Applicant has modified and resubmitted the project to try to address comments received during the Planning Board's Public Hearing on this earlier application which was ultimately withdrawn without prejudice. This modified project includes the parcel to the east (1272 Route 28) and would demolish all existing buildings on the three properties and construct a gasoline filling station with four dispensers, overhead canopy, a 4,000 square foot mixed -use building, landscaping, and various site improvements. The mixed -use building would still include a convenience store, coffee shop area, and drive-thru on the first floor; and four (4) residential apartments on the second floor. Canopy dimensions are 50'x42' and include a hip style shingle roof, no signage or side illumination, and decorative stone bases on the columns. The lots currently contain multiple buildings, a convenience store and two gas pumps with canopy. For ROAD projects, the Planning Board serves as the Design Review Authority and will be holding their Public Hearing on November 16, 2022. The application is also distributed to the Design Review Committee (DRC) for their input and comments which will be provided to the Planning Board. The standard for the optional ROAD overlay district is substantial adherence to the Architectural and Site Design Standards ("Design Standards"). Summary of Presentation: Attorney Paul Tardif gave an overview of the updated modified plan which includes an adjacent parcel to give more flexibility and room along Route 28 to address neighbor concerns from the previous planning board meeting. Hal Choubah noted the amendments to meet the ROAD bylaw that included a smaller building fronting along the road, parking to the side/rear of the structure, separate residential parking area, additional open space, and wider buffers with more landscaping and irrigation around the perimeter. The applicant has worked to address the planning board, design review committee and staff comments to have an improved layout. Hal Choubah reviewed the renderings and building elevations/architecture. DRC Questions & Discussions Sara Porter thinks it is incredibly creative and innovative to switch things around and the building looks great. Dick Martin concurred. He only noted the three curb cuts but understands the reason for that. He felt the architecture, and mixed -use were great. He noted that the applicant took into account concerns about too much being placed on one site. The addition of the third lot and shrinking of building/pumps is good. He also liked the canopy over the pumps. Mr. Martin noted the playground area is butting up to residential and may need more buffering. Confirmed that the plantings within the state layout would remain and noted that a few existing are shown as remaining. Mr. Martin noted his appreciation for listening to all comments. Mr. Martin indicated he felt there were too many red maples and would like them to be more of a mix. Sara Porter inquired who the rental units would go to. Attorney Tardif noted they are only two bedrooms so maybe couples, but no large families. Review Comments In Relation To The Design Standards As a ROAD project, the Siting and Building Strategies were reviewed for substantial adherence to the Architectural and Site Design Standards SITING STRATEGIES Sect. 1. Streetscape ❑ N/A 19 Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: The new building fronts on the street with a porch, street facing windows and street entrance. Sect. 2, Tenant Spaces ❑x N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect. 3, Define Street Edge ❑ N/A ❑x Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: The new building has been relocated closer to the street and the street edge is further defined with a wider front buffer with plantings and irrigation. Sect. 4, Shield Large Buildings ❑x N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect. 5, Design a 2"d Story ❑ N/A (] Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect. 6, Use Topo to Screen New Development x❑ N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect. 7, Landscape Buffers/Screening ❑ N/A ❑x Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Wider buffers with detailed landscaping plan and irrigation have been shown in the modified design, along with an 8' solid wood fence along the abutting residential zone. Recommend less red maples and more variety in tree species. Sect. 8, Parking Lot Visibility ❑ N/A ❑x Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: The parking areas have been relocated to the side and rear of the new building, include two in -lot trees and provides more screening landscaped buffers. Sect. 9, Break up Large Parking Lots ❑ N/A © Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: The design may be considered to substantially adhere to the design standards as the parking areas have been broken up into three separate areas, the amount of pavement has been reduced to that needed for circulation, and buffer screening has been provided. Sect. 10, Locate Utilities Underground ❑ N/A Z Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: For substantially adherence to the Design Standards, recommend a significant reduction in footcandles under the canopy which are currently shown as high as 77.4 footcandles and reducing the footcandles to 0.05 footcandles at the property line abutting the residentially zoned properties. Sect. 11, Shield Loading Areas El N/A O Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: BUILDING STRATEGIES: Sect. 1, Break Down Building Mass — Multiple Bldqs. OO N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect. 2, Break Down Building Mass — Sub -Masses C1 N/A D Meets Standards, or O Discrepancies: Sect. 3, Vary Facade Lines ❑ N/A O Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: The design may be considered to substantially adhere to the Design Standards as the front of the building is modulated and includes a front porch with entrance, the east elevation includes a large porch structure, and the rear facade has an angle and small modulation for the drive-thru window and upper level living space. Sect. 4, Vary Wall Heights a NIA 9 Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect, S. Vary Roof Lines D N/A X Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect. 6, Bring Down BuildingEdges ❑ N/A Z Meets Standards, or F-1 Discrepancies: Sect. 7. Vary Building Mat'Is For Depth i] N/A x❑ Meets Standards, or L] Discrepancies: Sect. 8, Use Traditional & Nat'l. Building Mat'Is J N/A L7 Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect, 9, Incorporate Pedestrian -scaled Features L 7 N/A Z Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect. 10, Incorporate Energy -efficient Design 17, N/A Z Meets Standards, or C Discrepancies: Next step for applicant: (E Go to Planning Board ❑ Return to Design Review for Fomnal Review On a motion by Chris Vincent, and seconded by Sara Porter, the Design Review Committee (DRC) voted (3- 0) to approve these DRC Comments as meeting minutes for the October 18, 2022 DRC meeting for the proposed modified redevelopment at 1272, 1276 & 1282 Route 28 using the ROAD overlay district. Received by Applicant(s) 1-4 f ATTACHMENTS: • October 18, 2022 Agenda • October 14, 2022 Memo from Kathy Williams and Aerial • ROAD Application 2022-2: o ROAD Application Form o Project Narrative o September 20, 2022 Site Plan Review (SPR) Comments o Existing Conditions Plan: Prepared by Borderland Engineering, Inc, dated December 7, 2021 n Site Plans: All plans prepared by Choubah Engineering Group, dated September 26, 2022: ■ Cover Sheet ■ Demolition and Erosion & Sediment Control Plan • Erosion Control Details & Notes ■ Site Layout & Fuel Truck Access Plan ■ Grading & Drainage Plan ■ Utility Plan ■ Sewage System — Profile & Sections ■ Landscape Layout & Fire Apparatus Access Plan ■ Lighting Plan ■ Site Details #1 ■ Site Details #2 ■ Site Details #3 ■ Underground Fuel Storage Tanks Details o Architectural Plans: All plans prepared by Choubah Engineering Group, dated September 26, 2022: ■ Proposed 1 s' Floor Layout ■ Proposed 2"d Floor Layout ■ Proposed Front & Left Side Building Elevations ■ Proposed Rear & Right Side Building Elevations ■ Canopy Elevations & Details ■ Architectural Renderings #1 ■ Architectural Renderings #2