Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout785 Route 28 Design Review Comments October 7 2014Review is: D Conceptual © Formal ❑ Binding (404 MotelslR.O.A.D. Project) ❑x Non -binding (All other commercial projects) Review Is by: ❑ Planning Board © Design Review Committee If this is a conceptual review, a formal review will be required before Site Plan Review. QmaN REviEw CQMMExr SHEET 7, 2014 at 4PM in Room B of Town H; Applicant: Seaview Motel Condominium Trust Zone(s): 82 Site Location: 785 Route 28 Lot Size: 37,124 +1- sf Persons Present. Lot: 77 (Cl thru C1 DCR Members Present Yarmouth Town Staff Present Guests Sara Jane Pori KathyWilliams, Town Planner Attorney Paul Tardif Jack McCorm Kieran Healy, BSC Group Charlie Adams Paul Baron AnthonyPanebigeco Dick Martin DCR Review Started at: 4:50 PM DCR Review ended at: 5:40 PM Protect Summary The site includes 10 existing units (cottages) which are currently being used as year-round multi -family in violation of the Zoning Bylaw. The Condominium Trust has applied for a Special Permit with the ZBA using Bylaw Section 104.3.2(4) which allows for this conversion if certain criteria are met, or for a Variance. At the 2014 ATM, we also included the requirement that the applicants go through Design Review and Site. Plan Review, and develop improvement plans to accommodate this new use. The proposed site improvements eliminates 3 of the existing curb cuts, reduces impervious areas along Route 28; reduces the width of the western curb cut on Route 28; reduces the number of parking spaces that back into traffic; better defines and organizes the parking and on -site traffic pattern; and provides for additional street trees and fencing. A presentation of the project history was given by Attorney Paul Tardif. Improvements to the exterior of the buildings can now be done by the Condominium Trust as their condominium documents were modified to allow for this work. Kieran Healy gave a brief summary of the proposed site improvements, including improvements to some septic system components. The site improvements were estimated at $24,000 and site improvements would happen in first year. Paul Baron, property manager, and Attorney Tardif gave a summary of improvements to the buildings. There is an estimated 3 year phasing of all improvements. In the first year, the site improvements and improvements to units 1, 2 and 3 would be done. They are proposing to use two neutral color vinyl siding (platinum gray & stone hearth with "mozart" blue doors) on the fronts of each building, with 1'x5" or 1"x6" corner boards and 1"x4" trim around windows, with white cedar shingles on the other sides. The next year, units 8, 9 & 10 would be done. The third year, the remaining 4 units (4, 5, 6 &7) would receive the vinyl siding and shutters. The Design Review Committee recommended using white cedar shingles on all four sides with white trim and different color doors (colonial colors). RECEIVED VIA E-MAIL Review Comments In Relation To The Deskin Standards SITING STRATEGIES Sect. 1. Streetscape ❑ NIA ❑ Meets Standards, or 0 Discrepancies: The streetscape needs to be better defined by adding/modifying street trees/plantings as follows: • The existing tree to the east side of the Route 28 curb cut is a very small caliper and should be replaced with a 3" caliper tree. Although there are two pine trees nearby, they offer little screening for the parking as the canopy is very high. • The tree at the comer of Seaview and Route 28 should be located behind the sidewalk to accommodate the existing tourism sign. • One of the trees shown as being existing on Seaview Avenue has been cut down. Add some ornamental grass in this area. • Two proposed shrubs along Route 28 need to be labeled. Fence styles/heights should be noted on the plan. Fencing to screen parking should be a minimum X tall white vinyl picket fence. Fencing to prevent cars from parking on the septic tanks should be white split rail. Fencing around the dumpster should be white vinyl for ease of maintenance. Existing wooden fence along the property boundary should be repaired as necessary. A note should be added to the plans indicating the removal of all personal items within the common areas, in accordance with the condominium documents. When the siding is done, the overgrown foundation plantings shall be removed, and replanted with dwarf species of foundation plantings. Sect. _2, Tenant Spaces 0 NIA ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect. 3. Define Street Edge ❑ NIA ❑ Meets Standards, or 0 Discrepancies: See Siting Comments in Section 1 above. Sect. 4. Shield Larae Buildings 0 NIA ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect. 5. Design a 2nd Story 0 NIA ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect. 0.- Use Topo to Screen New Development 0 NIA ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect. 7 Landscape Buffers/Screening ❑ NIA ❑ Meets Standards, or 0 Discrepancies: See Siting Comments in Section i above. Sect. 8, Parking Lot Visibility ❑ NIA 0 Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Applicant is proposing the use of fencing along section of Route 28 and Seaview Avenue to reduce visibility of parking areas. Street trees are also proposed. Traffic is limited to one-way along eastern access from south to north with No Parking signs attached to existing fence to retain a fire lane and to better define parking areas. Sect. 9 Break up Large Parking Lots 0 NIA E) Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect. 10. Locate Utilities Under round 0 NIA ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect. 11 Shield Loading Areas 0 NIA 0 Meets Standards, or 0 Discrepancies: BUILDING STRATEGIES Sect. 1 Break Down Building Mass — Multiple Bld s. ❑ NIA IN Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: The units are small traditional Cape Cod cottage with small breezeways between the buildings and varying orientation which helps to vary the fapade lines, the wall heights and roof lines. Sect. 2 Break Down Building Mass — Sub -Masses 0 NIA ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect. 3 Va Facade lines ❑ NIA 0 Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: See Building Comment 1 above. Sect. 4 Vary Wall Heights ❑ NIA 0 Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: See Building Comment 1 above. Sect. 5. Vary Roof lines ❑ NIA OMeets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: See Building Comment 'l above. Sect._ 6 _Brim Down Building Edges ONIA ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect. 7 Va Building Mat'Is For Depth 0 NIA ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect. 8 Use Traditional & Nat'l. Building Mat'Is ❑ NIA 0 Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: The Design Review Committee recommended using white cedar shingles on all four sides with white trim and different color doors (colonial colors). Sect. 9. Incorporate Pedestrian -scaled Features 0 NIA o Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect. 10. Incorporate Enerav-efficient Design 0 NIA ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Next step for applicant: 19 Go to Site Plan Review ❑ Return to Design Review for Formal Review 4 . ' / Read $ R '*, ed by Applicant(s)