HomeMy WebLinkAboutDesign Review Committee Comment Sheet 05.07.2024Review is: Conceptual Formal
Binding (404 Motels/VCOD/R.O.A.D. Project) Non-binding (All other commercial projects)
Review is by: Planning Board Design Review Committee
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENT SHEET
NOTES ONLY DUE TO LACK OF QUORUM
Meeting Date: May 7, 2024 Map: 33 Lots: 72
Applicant: Christina Meggison Zone(s): VCOD VC2
Site Location: 811 Route 28, South Yarmouth
Persons Present:
DCR Members Present Yarmouth Town Staff Present Guests
Chris Vincent Kathy Williams Brian Yergatian
Steve O’Neil
DRC Meeting and Review for this project started at: 4:02 PM
DRC Review for this project ended at: 4:40 PM
Project Summary
General Description: Christina Meggison (Applicant); Roseanna Nikolaidis & Lambros Nikolaidis (Owners); 811
Route 28, South Yarmouth; Assessor Map 33, Parcel 72; Zoning Districts VCOD VC2, HMOD1, ROAD, and B2. The
Applicant is proposing to redevelop the property as multi-family housing, with a total of eight, one-bedroom units
utilizing Zoning Bylaw Section 414 - Village Centers Overlay District (VCOD) VC2. The existing single-family dwelling
and shed will be razed and a new multi-family townhouse building will be constructed. The project also includes
reconfiguration of a shared-access drive, utility connections, a new sewage disposal system, stormwater management
and landscaping.
Summary of Presentation: Brian Yergatian from BSC Group represented the applicant and gave an overview of the
project as summarized above. The project went before the Site Plan Review (SPR) Team on April 16th and they have
made some plan revisions to address comments. The project will be eliminating one of the curb-cuts and reconfiguring
the existing driveway shared with 807 Route 28. He noted the turn-around driveway at the entrance was needed for
emergency vehicles. Each driveway has a set of two parking spaces. A sidewalk connection is provided to Route 28,
along with the reconstruction of the Route 28 sidewalk. He reviewed the landscaping being provided and noted some
species replacements and modifications from the SPR plans. He noted the 20’ vegetated buffer required along the
southern property line with trees every 30’ shown. He noted the septic under the access drive and stormwater facilities
around the site. Brian Yergatian also reviewed the architectural plans noting the addition of the materials and the
covered entry added to the front of the building facing Route 28.
DRC Questions & Discussions:
Chris Vincent asked about the height of the building which is 27’-8”. He noted the building setback requirement
adjacent to residential zoning is 20’ or height of the building, whichever is greater. Brian Yergatian noted that he would
be asking for relief from that requirement.
Chris Vincent also asked about the location of the bicycle rack within the walkway connection to Route 28. Brian
indicated there was ample space for people to pass around the bike rack. Chris Vincent indicated that if he were living
there, it would be nice to have bike rack closer to the building if there is space for it.
Steve O’Neil asked about site lighting with Brian Yergatian indicated there is no site lighting, only building mounted
lighting.
Chris Vincent inquired about the number of trees. Kathy Williams noted the need to have a robust opaque screen in
the rear abutting the residential zoning district. Chris Vincent noted this is even more important since they would be
asking for relief from the rear setback.
Kathy Williams noted the need for the tree canopy calculations to include the entire parking area including drive aisles.
Brian Yergatian noted the larger planting islands to allow for the planting of larger trees, but he thought relief might be
needed for the tree canopy requirements. Kathy Williams asked if they could ultimately plant where the septic tanks
are now once connected to the sewer system.
Talked about relocating the turn around to the rear. Brian Yergatian indicated they tried but the geometry did not work
with the ladder truck. Also discussed the location of the dumpster in the rear and potential concerns from the neighbors,
although the only other option would be to locate it in the front of the building.
Kathy Williams asked about relocating the infiltration basin to be able to move the street trees away from Route 28 to
allow for future expansion. Brian Yergatian indicated they needed to maintain 50’ separation between the infiltration
basin and the septic system because they are located in a floodplain. Brian Yergatian indicated he would look into it
more to see if they can move some trees around.
Review Comments In Relation To The Design Standards
SITING STRATEGIES
Sect. 1, Streetscape N/A Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Sect. 2, Tenant Spaces N/A Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Sect. 3, Define Street Edge N/A Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Street trees help to define the street edge, but should be located further from Route 28 to accommodate the
future expansion of the road layout.
Sect. 4, Shield Large Buildings 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:
Meets the standard if retain applicable existing mature trees located in the buffer areas and add additional
screening in the rear to screen the project from the abutting single family home.
Sect. 8, Parking Lot Visibility N/A Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Parking is located to the side of the building
Sect. 9, Break up Large Parking Lots N/A Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Parking lot is small and includes periodic trees.
Sect. 10, Locate Utilities Underground N/A Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Overhead utilities remain to the first utility pole located within the property.
Sect. 11, Shield Loading Areas N/A Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
BUILDING STRATEGIES:
Sect. 1, Break Down Building Mass – Multiple Bldgs. N/A Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Sect. 2, Break Down Building Mass – Sub-Masses N/A Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Sect. 3, Vary Façade Lines N/A Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Sect. 4, Vary Wall Heights N/A Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Sect. 5, Vary Roof Lines N/A Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Sect. 6, Bring Down Building Edges N/A Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Sect. 7, Vary Building Mat’ls For Depth N/A Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Suggest varying the building materials on the eastern side of the building between clapboards and shingles.
Sect. 8, Use Traditional & Nat’l. Building Mat’ls N/A Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Sect. 9, Incorporate Pedestrian-scaled Features N/A Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Sect. 10, Incorporate Energy-efficient Design N/A Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Next step for applicant: Go to Planning Board VCOD SPR Return to Design Review for Formal Review
On a motion by Steve O’Neil, seconded by Chris Vincent, the Design Review Committee (DRC) voted (2-0) to
approve these DRC Comments as meeting Notes for May 7, 2024 DRC meeting related to the proposed multi-
family housing project at 811 Route 28 using the VCOD VC2 overlay district.
Received by Applicant(s)
ATTACHMENTS:
• May 7, 2024 Agenda
• May 3, 2024 e-mail from Kathy Williams, Town Planner
• DRC Application:
o VCOD SPR Application
o DRC Application and Materials Specification Sheet
o March 18, 2024 Project Narrative from BSC Group
o April 16, 2024 Site Plan Review Comment Sheet
o April 30, 2024 Plan Revision Summary from BSC Group
o Cut-sheet on building mounted lighting
o Site Plans: All plans prepared by BSC Group, dated March 18, 2024 and revised April 26, 2024
Cover Sheet
Existing Conditions Plan
Erosion & Sediment Control Plan
Site Preparation & Demolition Plan
Layout & Materials Plan
Grading & Drainage Plan
Septic & Utilities Plan
Planting Plan
Details (3-sheets)
o Architectural Plans: Prepared by ERT Architects, dated April 25, 2024:
A.1 – Floor Plans
A.2 - Elevations