HomeMy WebLinkAboutDESIGN REVIEW Comment Sheet - 28 South Shore Dr - RJ Resorts Beach Resort 080223 TCReview is: ❑ Conceptual 9 Formal " -'*M G- -0: _(_2 RI`C;
❑x Binding (404 MoteisNCOD/R.O.A.D. Project) F-i Non -binding (All other commercial projects)
Review is by: ❑x Planning Board ❑ Design Review Committee
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENT SHEET
Public Hearing Date: July 19, 2023 (continued to August 2, 2023) Map: 19 Lots: 20.1
Applicant: RJ Resorts Beach Resort Owner LLC Zone(s): HMOD2
Site Location: 28 South Shore Drive, South Yarmouth
Persons Present:
_y2ting Planning Board Members
Yarmouth Town Staff Present
Guests at one or both hearings
Chris Vincent
KathyWilliams, Town Planner
Marian Rose, Singer & Singer
Susan Brita
John Bologna, Coastal Engineering
Joanne Crowley
Lance Walker, WATG
Peter Slovak
Hollie Handrahan, RJ Resort Manager
Ken Smith
Project Summary
The Applicant seeks to redevelop a portion of their hotel property using Zoning Bylaw Section 404.2 —
Hotel/ Motel Overlay District 2 (HMOD2). Per Zoning Bylaw Section 404.2, the Applicant is seeking Design
Review Approval to replace the existing outdoor pool and deck area with a reconfigured larger pool, spa,
deck, cabanas and fencing; replace the existing temporary bar tent structure with a new permanent open-
air pavilion and trellised area with bar, seating and fireplace; enlarge the existing interior pump room; add
two unisex restrooms within the existing building with exterior doors; install one exterior shower; upgrade
landscape plantings in pool area, the adjacent event lawn, at the Resort entrance and at the existing porte-
cochere/lobby entrance, add trees in the existing parking lot islands, augment shrubs in the northern buffer
areas, and replace existing landscape plantings with native plantings for environmental mitigation; add
two new crosswalks; and redesign/upgrade existing required handicapped parking spaces and accessible
routes.
Review Comments In Relation To The Design Standards
SITING STRATEGIES: The Strategies below have been reviewed for both the Proposed Work ("Proposed")
and the remaining Existing Conditions ("Existing") that are not being improved as part of this application.
Sect. 1, Streetscape
Proposed: ❑O N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies
Existing: i N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or x❑ Discrepancies
Existing parking located in front of existing buildings which have facades longer than
50' without modulation.
Sect. 2, Tenant Spaces
Proposed: ❑x N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies
Existing: ❑x N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies
Sect. 3, Define Street Edge
Proposed: ❑x N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or f 7 Discrepancies
Existing: ❑ N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or X❑ Discrepancies
Existing parking located in front of existing buildings and impacts defining the street
edge with trees.
Sect. 4, Shield Large Buildings
Proposed:
❑x N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies
Existing:
❑x N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies
Sect. 5, Design a 2nd Story
Proposed:
❑x N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies:
Existing:
❑ N/A ❑x Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies
Sect. 6, Use Topo to Screen New Development
Proposed:
❑x N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies
Existing:
❑x N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies
Sect. 7, Landscape
Buffers/Screening
Proposed:
❑ N/A 19 Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies
Existing:
❑ N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑x Discrepancies
There are minimal existing landscape buffers trees on the property although there is an
existing fence along the northern property line and the applicant will be enhancing the
shrub buffer along the northern boundary. Planting of large trees may impact water
views for neighbors.
Sect. 8, Parking Lot Visibility
Proposed: ❑x N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies
Existing: ❑ N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑x Discrepancies
Some existing parking located in front, rather than to the rear or side.
Sect. 9. Break up Large Parking Lots
Proposed: ❑x N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies
Existing: ❑ N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or x❑ Discrepancies
Although the applicant added trees in the existing parking lot planters, there remain
large expanses of parking areas without in -lot trees.
Sect. 10, Locate Utilities Underground
Proposed:
❑ N/A ❑O Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies
Existing:
❑ N/A ❑x Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies
Sect. 11. Shield Loading Areas
Proposed:
❑x N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies
Existing:
❑x N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies
BUILDING STRATEGIES:
Sect. 1, Break Down Building Mass — Multiple Bldgs.
Proposed:
❑x N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies
Existing:
❑x N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies
Sect. 2, Break Down Building Mass — Sub -Masses
Proposed:
❑x N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies
Existing:
❑x N/A I 1 Meets Standards, or [ 1 Discrepancies
Sect. 3, Vary Facade Lines
Proposed:
❑ N/A ❑x Meets Standards, or I Discrepancies
Existing:
❑ N/A I 1 Meets Standards, or N Discrepancies
Sect. 4, Vary Wall Heights
Proposed:
❑ N/A O Meets Standards, or [ j Discrepancies
Existing:
0 N/A 1.1 Meets Standards, or 19 Discrepancies
Sect. 5, Vary Roof Lines
Proposed: ❑ N/A ❑x Meets Standards, or f ; Discrepancies
Existing: ❑ N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑O Discrepancies
Sect. 6. Bring Down Building Edges
Proposed: ❑ N/A ❑x Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies
Existing: ❑ N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑x Discrepancies
Sect. 7, Vary Building Mat'Is For Depth
Proposed: ❑ N/A ❑x Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies
Existing: ❑ N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑x Discrepancies
Sect. 8, Use Traditional & Nat'l. Buildinq Mat'Is
Proposed: ❑ N/A x❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies
Existing: ❑ N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑x Discrepancies
Sect. 9, Incorporate Pedestrian -scaled Features
Proposed: ❑ N/A ❑x Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies
Existing: ❑ N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or x❑ Discrepancies
Sect. 10, Incorporate Energy -efficient Design
Proposed: ❑ N/A Z Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies
Existing: ❑ N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑x Discrepancies
On August 2, 2023, on a motion by Susan Brita, and seconded by Peter Slovak, the Planning Board voted
(5-0) to Approve the proposed improvements as shown in the submitted plans as having met the
provisions of the Yarmouth Architectural & Site Design Standards, and to deny Design Review Approval
of the existing remaining elements which do not meet all of the Yarmouth Architectural & Site Design
Standards and require relief from the Planning Board via a Special Permit, with Chris Vincent, Susan
Brita, Peter Slovak, Ken Smith and Joanne Crowley voting in favor.
APPLICATION MATERIALS:
• Design Review Application
• Planning Board Presentation Plan Set, dated July 19, 2023
o Cover
o Existing Site Conditions
o Landscape Plan
o Pool Area Enlargement
o Tree Enlargement Plan — Pool Deck
o Tree Enlargement Plan — Porte Cochere
o Tree Enlargement Plan — Main Area
o Shrub Enlargement Plan — Pool Deck
o Shrub Enlargement Plan — Porte Cochere
o Shrub Enlargement Plan — Main Area
o Site Lighting Photometric Plan
o Hardscape Enlargement Plan — Pool Deck
o Material Board, Architecture (2 sheets)
o First Level Floor Plan — Pavilion, Architecture
o Roof Plan — Pavilion, Architecture
o Demolition & Erosion Control, Civil
o Layout & Materials, Civil
o Grading Drainage & Utilities, Civil
o Swept Path Analysis, Civil (2 sheets)
o Site Accessibility Plan
o Parking Lot Edge
o Renderings and Design/Plant Imagery (7 sheets), dated July 19, 2023
o Modified stone veneer on Fireplace (3 sheets), dated July 26, 2023