Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout228 Rte 28 ROAD 2024-1 DRC Comment Sheet 060624 TCReview is: ❑ Conceptual ❑x Formal ❑x Binding (404 MotelsNCOD/R.O.A.D. Project) ❑ Non -binding (All other commercial projects) Review is by: ❑x Planning Board ❑ Design Review Committee DESIGN REVIEW COMMENT SHEET (ORC comments which are provided to the Planning Boardl Meeting Date: June 6, 2024 — Room B/Virtual Map: 37 Lots: 148 Applicant: A Plus Real Estate LLC Zone(s): B2, HMOD1 & ROAD Site Location: 228 Route 28, West Yarmouth Persons Present: DCR Members Present Yarmouth Town Staff Present Guests Charlie Adams KathyWilliams Scott Parrella, ConSery Group Steve O'Neil Roy Cati nani, ConSery Group Sara Porter Emad Zahran, Owner Dick Martin Mike Putnam, Owner Chris Vincent DRC Review Meeting started at: 4:06 PM DRC Review Meetin❑ ended at: 5:22 PM On a motion by Chris Vincent, seconded by Steve O'Neil, the Design Review Committee (DRC) voted (5-0) to adjourn the June 6, 2024 DRC meeting at 5:22 PM. Proiect Summary General Description: The Applicant seeks to develop the project using Zoning Bylaw Section 411 — Revitalization Overlay Architectural District (ROAD). This project would redevelop the currently vacant former restaurant site with a new mixed use building including retail on the first floor and 13 apartments on the second floor; and associated site work including parking, loading dock, utilities, and landscaping. The existing septic system for the former restaurant will be utilized until connection to the municipal sewer system. For ROAD projects, the Planning Board serves as the Design Review Authority and will be holding their Public Hearing on June 26, 2024. 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: Scott Parrella gave an overview of the property, the proposed 2-story building, and reuse of the existing septic system until they tie into town sewers. They have engineered the site for septic, lighting, stormwater and landscaping. Scott gave an overview of the landscaping plan, which includes removal of some invasive species, planting of native species, and a rain garden in the front. Scott Parrella reviewed the architectural renderings and the location of the entrances to the retail on the first floor which will be an Xpress Restaurant Supplies store for retail and wholesale of food service related products. There are ten (10) 1-bedroom and three (3) 2-bedroom units proposed for the second floor. Deliveries will be made in the rear of the building at the one loading dock. Trucks have the ability to circulate on site to access the loading dock. Scott Parrella indicated the general color themes were gray tones with hardie plank and hardie shingle siding, asphalt architectural roof shingles, and platinum brick veneer wainscotting. DRC Questions & Discussions Dick Martin asked about the existing trees and felt the buffers should extend further back. Kathy Williams indicated the buffers need to screen the parking areas and the truck turn around. Dick Martin also noted the need for additional in - lot trees. ARMOUTH TOWN CLERK RE JUN 10'24 Am11:27 Steve O'Neil asked about the maintenance of the rain garden. Scott Parrella indicated the owners will manage the property and will be operating their business out of this property as well. Sara Porter indicated the columns on the rendering look too large, although they look different on the elevations. The rendering also doesn't show any trim on the columns, but the elevations do. She would like to see more details on the columns and the panels. She thought a 10"-12" width on the columns might be sufficient along with trim. Roy Catignani indicated the panels/columns help to create a faux entrance in the front, and the panels are hiding the structure, but they could have a different look. Roy Catignani also noted the rendering is more of an artistic rendering with the elevations being more accurate. Otherwise, Sara felt it was a pretty good design. Dick Martin asked about laundry. Scott Parrella indicated there was common laundry along with individual storage units. Dick Martin asked about the building height with Roy Catignani indicating it is less than that allowed by zoning. Charlies Adams asked about the dumpster location, which is located behind the building and fenced in with chain link with slats. The DRC would like to see a solid fence. Steve O'Neil asked about the location of the sign which is to the left of the western entrance. Charlie Adams asked about whether there will be a sign for the residences. Scott Parrella indicated there is no residence sign for privacy, but the main sign includes the street number, and the residential entrance would have a sign. Charlie Adams asked about the size of the parking spaces, which are 10'x20'. Sara Porter asked about the location of parking for the residents and employees which is in the rear and east side of the building. Roy Catignani indicated the residents would have access to both residential entrances, but the east door is more of an emergency door and the northern door in the main residential access. Sara Porter asked about the residential entrances and the roofline. Roy Catignani gave an overview of the architecture at the entrances. Charlie Adams asked if there would be only one retail tenant. There will be one retail tenant who is the owner of the property. Roy Catignani also indicated there will be two (2) affordable housing units. Dick Martin asked about the in -lot trees and reviewed the location of the one in -lot tree. Roy Catignani indicated he would look at adding more in -lot trees. Dick Martin noted that the proposal is an improvement. Dick Martin inquired as to whether there would be irrigation. Scott Parrella indicated they had not considered it, but Roy Catignani indicated they will need to preserve the plantings and would consider drip irrigation. Sara Porter suggested having a larger covering over the northern residential entrance by making it wider. Chris Vincent suggested maybe including a bus shelter for the residents. Charlie Adams asked about the site lighting which is a shoe box style light located around the perimeter of the parking areas. Review Comments In Relation To The Design Standards SITING STRATEGIES Sect. 1, Streetscape Cl N/A 0 Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: The design may be considered to substantially adhere to the Design Standards as the building fronts on the street, has street facing windows and porches giving the impression of a street facing entrance; and although enclosed building modulations are less than 5 , porches extend out further to provide variations in the fagade plane. Sect. 2, Tenant Spaces 0 N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect. 3, Define Street Edge ❑ N/A ❑x Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Building is located close to the street, and street trees and landscaping along Route 28 help to define the street edge. ARMOUTH TOWN CLERK RE JUN 10 924 Na l l:2H Sect. 4, Shield Large Buildings 0 N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect. 5, Design a 2"d Story ❑ N/A 0 Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect. 6. Use Topo to Screen New Development 0 N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies Sect. 7. Landscape Buffers/Screening ❑ N/A 0 Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: The design may be considered to adhere to the Design Standards if existing buffer trees to remain are identified on the plans and protected during construction; and all trees and plantings are native species. Side/rear buffer trees to be 3" caliper native species, trees in front of buildings along a way can be 2.5" caliper as part of a comprehensive landscape plan. Buffer trees on the sides need to extend to the end of the parking and truck turn around in the rear. Sect. 8, Parking Lot Visibility ❑ N/A 0 Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Parking is located to the side and rear of the building. Sect. 9, Break up Large Parking Lots ❑ N/A 0 Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: The parking lot contains 31 parking spaces. The plans do not appear to show the required four in -lot trees. Design meets the standards if add 3 more in -lot trees to the parking area. Sect. 10. Locate Utilities Underground ❑ N/A 0 Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Utilities are proposed to be buried for their project. There are existing overhead wires and poles on the property owned by Eversource that service Giardinos. Applicant will try to have Eversource relocate the overhead line and utility poles off their property. Sect. 11, Shield Loading Areas ❑ N/A 0 Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: The loading dock area is well hidden behind the building. BUILDING STRATEGIES: Sect. 1, Break Down Building Mass - Multiple Bldqs. 0 N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect. 2, Break Down Building Mass - Sub -Masses ❑ N/A 0 Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect. 3. Vary Facade Lines ❑ N/A 0 Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: The design may be considered to substantially adhere to the Design Standards as there are some modulations in the building fagade (although less than 5'), and the porches extend out further at varying depths to provide defined variations in the fagade lines of the building. However, as the porches are relied upon for the main variation in the building fagade, the columns should be modified to be proportional to the building and include trim detail at the base and top of the column. The panels between the columns need more detailing such as shadow boards. Sect. 4. Vary Wall Heights ❑ N/A 0 Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Wall heights are varied with the gable ends and small shed dormers in the front. The partial first floor roof projection also helps to create variations in the wall heights. Sect. 5, Vary Roof Lines ❑ N/A 0 Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: The roof height is lower in the rear, there are gable ends and small shed dormers in the front. ARMOUTH TOWN CLERK RE JUU 10'24 Am 11:28 Sect. 6. Brirw Down Building Edges ❑ WA ® Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: The porches and the first floor partial roof help to bring down the building edges. Sect. 7. Vary Building Mat'Is For Depth ❑ WA IN Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect, 8. Use Traditional & Nat'l. Building Mat'is ❑ WA ® Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Modem materials are used for longevity and low maintenance but look like traditional building materials. Sect. 9. Incorporate Pedestrian -scaled Features ❑ N/A ® Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Porches and first floor partial roof, address pedestrian scale features. Sect. 10. Incorporate Enemy -efficient Design ❑ WA IN Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Next step for applicant: IN Go to Planning Board ❑ Return to Design Review for Formal Review On a motion by Chris Vincent, seconded by Steve O'Neil, the Design Review Committee (DRC) voted (5-0) to approve these DRC Comments as meeting minutes for the June 6, 2024 DRC Meeting for the proposed mbred- use development at 228 Route 28, West Yarmouth. Received by Applicants) ATTACHMENTS: f , G Ila June 6, 2024 Agenda June 3, 2024 Memo from Town Planner Kathy Williams ROAD Application 2024-1: o ROAD Application Form o May 9, 2024 Project Narrative from green Seal Environmental o Design Review Materials Specification Sheet o Cut Sheets on trim, siding, roof, brick, doors and windows o March 19, 2024 Site Plan Review Comment Sheet with attachments o Architectural Plans: Prepared by ConSery Group ■ A00 - 31) Renderings, undated ■ A201— Exterior Elevations, last revision date of May 9, 2024 ■ A100 —First Floor Plan, last revision date of May 9, 2024 ■ A101—Second Floor Plan, last revision date of May 9, 2024 o Site Plans: All plans prepared by Green Seal Environmental, dated 2128/24 with last revision date of April 18, 2024, unless otherwise noted: ■ Cover Sheet ■ G-2 — Notes & Legend, last revision date April 18, 2024 ■ C4 — Existing Conditions Plan, last revision date April 18, 2024 ■ C-2 — Demolition & Erosion Control • C-3 — Layout & Materials ■ C-4 — Utility Plan ■ C-5 — Grading & Drainage Plan ■ C-6 — Landscaping ■ C-7 — Lighting ■ TR1— Turning Radius Plan, dated April 16, 2024 ■ D-1— General Site Details, last revision date of 2114/23 • D-2 — General Site Details, last revision date of 2/14123 ■ D-3 — Site Landscaping Details, dated 2128124 ■ D-4 — Erosion Control Details, dated 2/28124 ■ 0-5 - Site Utility Details, dated 2128124 ■ D-6 — Stormwater Details, dated 2/28/24 ■ D-7 — Stormwater Details, last revision date of 5/6123 ARNOUTH TOWN CLERK RE ,SUN 10'24 Am11:2U