Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout601 Rte 28 Conv Store DRC Comment Sheet 071823 TC9s`ittfi IY -E �EC'0.{Bi�..I t�,L_-` Review is: ❑ Conceptual x❑ Formal ❑ Binding (404 Motels/VCOD/R.O.A.D. Project) ❑x Non -binding (All other commercial projects) Review is by: ❑ Plannino Board © Design Review Committee DES/GN REV/EW COMMENT SHEET Meeting Date: July 18, 2023 — Room BNirtual Map: 32 Lots: 191 Applicant: 601 Main Street, LLC Zone(s): B2 & VCOD VC1 Site Location: 601 Route 28, West Yarmouth MA Persons Present., DCR Members Present Yarmouth Town Staff Present Guests Charlie Adams KathyWilliams Hal Choubah Choubah Eng. Group Steve O'Neil Johnny Ka rouz Sara Porter Attorney Paul Tardif Dick Martin DRC Review for this project started at: 4:39 PM DRC Review for this project and DRC meeting of July 18, 2023 ended at: 5:23 PM On a motion by Steve O'Neil, seconded by Charlie Adams, the Design Review Committee (DRC) voted (4-0) to adjourn the July 18, 2023 DRC meeting at 5:23PM. Project Summary General Description: The Applicant proposes to modify the existing 2,288 square -foot building (previously used as a small snack shop with three repair bays) and add 1,584 square feet to create a total of 3,872 square feet of retail space to be used as a convenience store. The existing gas pumps and canopy would remain. Summary of Presentation: Hal Choubah gave an overview of the property noting the existing conditions with two curb cuts on Route 28 and one on South Sea Ave. The Applicant wants to convert the existing building space and add another 1,584 sf to the east of the building within the existing pavement area. The new building will be used as a convenience store. Parking is on the west side and northeast corner of the building. All modifications would be within the existing impervious areas so there will be no increased runoff from the site. The new building has a hipped roof with porch entrance. Mr. Choubah reviewed the general floor plan and the building renderings The canopy would remain the same except for a proposed blue stripe. Access and circulation would remain the same. No changes are proposed to the landscaping and the existing buffers would remain. DRC Questions & Discussions: Sara Porter thinks the building is attractive but felt that the hip slope could be lower, the portico is too high, and the plate height could be lowered. She provided an elevation sketch for the Committee which was also sent to Mr. Choubah during the meeting. She felt that the blank west side could have some windows as the interior is a corridor to the restrooms. All the committee members liked her ideas. Steve O'Neil noted his appreciation for the investment in the community. Mr. O'Neil encouraged fresh painting on the pump canopy, but he wanted to focus on the landscaping. The existing site suggests some lack of maintenance on the landscaping, and we want to improve Route 28. He recommended buffing up the landscaping on the site. Mr. Martin feels the building with Sara Porter's suggestions looks good. He noted they were adding a lot of square footage to the building so should add other upgrades that would normally be required. Mr. Martin noted two trees in the corner, but the center island needs trees and irrigation to keep it looking nice. The back of the lot is nicely wooded and offers buffering to residential neighbors. Mr. Martin would like to see improvements to the canopy with a pitched roof. He thought the blue stripe might not look good and feels like a sign. Mr. Choubah noted it may not be structurally possible to add a pitched roof and he needs to look into it and discuss it with his client. Mr. Kayrouz noted it may be challenging to do due to the nature of the existing canopy. Mr. Kayrouz noted that the blue stipe is the Mobil brand but can leave it white. Kathy Williams suggested adding a sidewalk from the rear door to the dumpsters to facilitate trash removal by staff. She also inquired as to how the garbage trucks would be accessing the dumpster area and location of loading area. Mr. Choubah indicated the deliveries would be box trucks but could be done in the dumpster area. Review Comments In Relation To The Design Standards SITING STRATEGIES Sect. 1. Streetscape ❑ N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or x❑ Discrepancies: The proposed project is the expansion of an existing building which is not located along the street. Sect. 2. Tenant Spaces 19 N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect. 3. Define Street Edge ❑ N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑x Discrepancies: The proposed building is not located along the street, no buffer plantings are proposed to help define the street edge and there are three wide curb cuts over 40' wide. Recommend adding one new buffer tree on South Sea Ave (south of curb cut) and at least 5 new buffer trees along Route 28, two of which should be included as part of an upgraded landscaped planting bed in the center island which currently has a flag, and add irrigation. Consider reducing the curb cuts width to increase the two buffer islands. Sect. 4. Shield Large Buildings 0 N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect. 5. Design a 2nd Story © N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect. 6. Use Topo to Screen New Development © N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect. 7. Landscape Buffers/Screening ❑ N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or © Discrepancies: See comments above for Section 3. Sect. 8. Parking Lot Visibility ❑ N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑x Discrepancies: Parking is located in front of the building, expanding the buffer plantings will help to screen the parking. Sect. 9. Break up Large Parking Lots ❑ N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or I@ Discrepancies: There is a large expanse of pavement with no in -lot trees. Consider ways to reduce pavement and add in - lot trees. Sect. 10, Locate Utilities Underground ❑ N/A ❑x Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect. 11. Shield Loading Areas ❑x N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: BUILDING STRATEGIES: Sect. 1. Break Down Building Mass — Multiple Bldgs. ❑x N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect. 2. Break Down Building Mass — Sub -Masses 19 N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or 0 Discrepancies: fit"+ t p s TOW CLERK Sect. 3. Vary Facade Lines ❑ N/A ❑Meets Standards, or ®Discrepancies. REC The enclosed portion of the building has no modulations, but the porch along the front adds dimension to the building. Three sides of the building have no windows. Although the east and south sides will be well hidden, the west elevation facing South Sea Ave will be visible and suggest installing two windows along the Interior corridor. Sect. 4. Vary Wall Heights ❑ N/A © Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies The gable porch end adds varying wall heights. Sect. 5. Vary Roof Lines ❑ N/A ® Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies The hip roof helps to decrease the roof mass of the building, along with the gable end of the porch and addition of the cupola. The Committee suggested lowering the height and pitch of the hip roof to 12 over 6 on the front elevation and the pitch of the portico to 12 over 7.5, and both the plate height and the portico plate height should be the same height which could be lower than 141 perhaps 121. Refer to the attached sketch from Sara Porter. The Committee also suggested having a sloped hip roof on the canopy if reasonably possible. The Committee would prefer to leave the canopy white without the blue stripe. Sect. 6. Bring Down Building Edges ® N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or L7 Discrepancies: The building is a small single -story building. Sect. 7. Vary Building Mat'Is For Depth ❑ N/A ® Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect. 8. Use Traditional & Nat'l. Building Mafls D N/A ® Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Modern materials are proposed for longevity and low maintenance but look like traditional building materials. Sect. 9. Incorporate Pedestrian -scaled Features ❑ N/A IN Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies. Added front porch canopy. Sect. 10. Incorporate Energy -efficient Design ❑ N/A IN Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Next step for applicant: © Go to Site Plan Review ❑ Return to Design Review for Formal Review On a motion by Sara Porter, seconded by Charlie Adams, the Design Review Committee (DRC) voted (4-0) to approve these DRC Comments as meeting minutes for July 18, 2023 meeting related to the proposed Convenience Store expansion at 601 Route 28. //�; 9/"'-p"- s VH-RMLIT H TOWN f; 'ERK ATTACHMENTS: • July 18, 2023 Agenda • July 14, 2023 e-mail from Kathy Williams along with Google Aerial and Streetview • Front Elevation Sketch from Sara Porter • DRC Application: June 21, 2023 Transmittal Letter from Hal Choubah DRC Application with Materials Specification Sheet Site Plans: All plans prepared by Choubah Engineering Group, dated June 8, 2023: ■ Cover Sheet ■ Demolition and Erosion & Sediment Control Plan ■ Demolition and Erosion & Sediment Control Plan (Details) ■ Site Layout Plan ■ Grading Drainage & Utility Plan ■ Site Details Architectural Plans: All plans prepared by Choubah Engineering Group, dated June 8, 2023: ■ Existing Floor Layout & Existing Building Elevations ■ Proposed Floor Layout ■ Architectural Renderings Existing Conditions Plan: Prepared by Borderland Engineer Inc, dated May 4, 2023