Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPR 2/10/26 Comment Sheet Formal Review SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMENT SHEET Date: February 10, 2026 New Map: 88 New Lot: 87&88 Applicant: Desert De Oro Foods, Inc Location: 433, 437, &439 Station Avenue Zone: B1/APD Persons Present: Mark Grylls Pete Malpass, DRC Nicole Duquette Matt Bearse Connor Clifford Mark Raymo_ng Barry Lewis Laurie Ruszala Sara Porter, DRC Kathy Williams Project Summary The project located at 433, 437, &439 Station Avenue proposes redevelopment of these parcels to include a fast- food restaurant and related site improvement. It is proposed that the construction of a single fast-food restaurant building with drive-thru service, parking, vehicle and pedestrian circulation routes, associated stormwater, and utility improvements. Comments t4 i/Building: Use is allowed in B1 zoning district. If�� Merger of lots 433, 437 &439 will require a SP per section 104.3.5 para. 2 A-D Raze and replace existing non-conforming structure(s)SP per section 104.3.2#3 for setback relief from the required 75' per Table 203.5 note J. Drive-through will require a SP per section 301.2 due to the proximity to the R-40 zoning district as required in section 301.8.Any outdoor service facility(including menu boards, speakers, etc.)shall be a minimum of 100 feet from any residential use or zone. Parking on Station Ave is located in the front of the building as required by section 301.4.1. SP required as allowed per 301.2 Parking lot buffer does not appear to meet the standard of section 301.4.4 regarding the number of trees. Section 301.4.4 reads in part.... 3" (three inch)caliper trees (with expected mature height of at least 20')shall be planted at intervals of at most 20' in all buffers. Planted trees which die shall be replaced. Modify existing plan to meet this standard or seek a SP from the ZBA as allowed per section 301.2. Section 301.4.9 requires plantings in buffer areas in front of buildings along a way to include, but not be limited to, 2.5" caliper trees approximately every 35' and shall also include a mixture of shrubs and flowering plants to create a comprehensive landscape plan, as approved by the Site Plan. Modify plan or seek SP as allowed by 301.2. Lighting plan does not meet the standards of section 301.4.10 as submitted. Modify plan or seek variance relief from the ZBA regarding light pole height and light trespass. LED lighting often causes glare which if found to be true will require additional shielding. Signs will be reviewed at time of application. Recommend a thorough review of section 303 prior to application. All work to comply with 780 CMR and appendant codes as well as all other applicable sections of the Town of Yarmouth Zoning Bylaw. y9VPlanning: 1. Vehicle/Pedestrian Traffic/Circulation: a. Pedestrian Access: The Taco Bell will likely be a big draw for the DY students and the design needs to address I how students (and other pedestrians) would safely access the site and delineate a safe pedestrian route to the building. b. On-Site Circulation:The on-site circulation creates a number of conflict points. c. Station Avenue Traffic Concerns: There are existing concerns about traffic and pedestrian safety along Station Avenue with the Cape Cod Commission recently completing the Station Avenue Corridor Study https://www.capecodcommission.org/our-work/station-avenue-corridor-study/ Of particular note is the Station Avenue access with people trying to take a left turn out onto Station Avenue and people trying to take a left turn into the restaurant from Station Avenue. Restricting access to right turn in/right turn out has proven less than successful at other locations (i.e. Seasons & Shaws). Turning movements at the driveways need to take into consideration traffic from pass-by trips to reflect the actual number of vehicles entering/exiting the site. d. Peer Review: Strongly recommend that the ZBA conduct a peer review of the Traffic Study and the assumptions included within the report. 2. Architecture: Colors should be gray tones with white trim, rather than tans and dark trim. 3. Hours of Operation & Deliveries: At previous meetings, it has been stated that there will be no breakfast service at the Taco Bell and deliveries via the WB-60 tractor trailer will occur only when the restaurant is closed. 4. Cut-through Traffic: Consider measures to reduce cut-through traffic. Design Review: Refer to the attached November 14, 2025 Design Review Comment Sheet and December 10, 2025 Concept Sketch. Prefers gray tones and lighter trim. Look at sidewall vs. roof material @ roof valleys. Conservation: Engineering:C C- • Coordinate addressing with DPW upon joining of the parcels. • Traffic/Pedestrian Movement-The traffic report submitted does not handle improving safety measures besides noting to reduce the curb cuts. ZBA review is recommended and DPW would suggest: o For Station Avenue curb cut, revise to only right turn in and right turn out or remove in its entirety. o No pedestrian movement along the site is proposed. Suggest ways to connect employee parking to the front of the building. o There is no pedestrian movement on this side of both Station Avenue and Old Town House Road. Suggest providing a crosswalk and sidewalks from the front of the building along the radius of the intersection to the OTH curb cut. • For work within the ROW, Contractor shall submit Road Opening Permit. • Drawing T1.1 Note Demo Note 15, Refers to unknown septic. Refer to attached septic plan on file. • Drainage o It appears that none of existing Leaching Basins are included to be demoed and are not shown on the proposed plans (C2)as existing nor what is proposed of them. Fire: Access as per 527 CMR 1 Chapter 18, Hood suppression and fire alarm system as per building code and NFPA 72, V1/#' Fire Dept. Lock box purchased from fire dept.for key access. I will email you the specs for the Yarmouth Tower ladder for the turning radius, Ladder access will be from the South and West, not from the North. Police: Does the study dated 10/17/25 address vehicles taking a left out of the parking lot on Station Ave to travel north? I believe that vehicles will have a difficult time safely entering Station Ave from that exit as they will have to navigate the southbound right turn only onto Station Ave and through traffic on Station Ave. A recommendation would be to make entry onto Station Ave is right turn only. I do not see an issue with the traffic on OTH Road and Station Ave if the drive- through is managed properly. .(11Ith: (Toxic and Hazardous Materials) Storage of toxic or hazardous materials of more than ten gallons liquid measure or five pounds dry weight requires a Board of Health, Handling and Storage of Toxic or Hazardous Materials license. Typical toxic or hazardous materials used within the food service industry include, but are not limited to, various cleaners and sanitizers. Please inform the Health Dept. whether a cleaner mixing station using concentrates diluted with water or if premixed, bottled materials will be used. Please inform the Health Dept. of the total volume of toxic or hazardous materials • planned for storage. If a cleaning mixing station, also referred to as a dilution station, will be used, it must have integral ASSE 1055E backflow protection with a manufacturer's label indicating such, and be compliant with State Plumbing Code. Please check with the Town Plumbing and Gas Inspector regarding plumbing requirements. On Plan Sheet C3, it is noted "Septic design by others." Please note that the Health Department requires submission of a complete set of septic system design plans for review and approval. This is necessary for the proposed 20-seat fast food establishment. Zone II flow limit: 440 gallons per day per acre Parcel area: 0.85 acres Maximum allowable design flow calculation: 0.85 acres x 440 gallons per day per acre= 374 gallons per day Maximum allowable design flow: 374 gallons per day Per Massachusetts Title 5, quick-service restaurants are assigned a design flow of 20 gallons per day per seat. Maximum allowable seating calculation: 374 gallons per day+20 gallons per day per seat= 18.7 seats Maximum allowable seating: 18 seats Health will also need interior floor plans including floor and wall materials. Equipment list for hand, mop, &3 bay sinks, equipment list. Food establishment application with sery safe and allergy certifcations Water/Wastewater: A cut and cap of the existing water service for 433 Station Ave is shown, the service for 437/439 will also need to be cut and capped at the main. Yarmouth water valves shall open LEFT(Sheet C3 indicates open right). Read &Received by Applicant(s) Review is: 0 Conceptual ®Formal 0 Binding(404 MotelsNCOD/R.O.A.D. Project) B Non-binding(All other commercial projects) Review is by: 0 Planning Board ®Design Review Committee DESIGN REVIEW COMMENT SHEET Meeting Date: November 14,2025 Map: 88 Lots: 87&88 Applicant: Desert De Oro Foods Inc. (Taco Bell) Zone(s): B1/APD Site Location: 433,437&439 Station Avenue, South Yarmouth Persons Present: DCR Members Present Yarmouth Town Staff Present Guests Sara Porter Kathy Williams Nicole Duquette, McClure Eng. Peter Malpass Mark Raymond, DDO Foods Peter Slovak Rosa Corsiglia,Tessere Arch DRC Review started at: 4:01 PM DRC Review ended at: 4:47 PM On a motion by Sara Porter,seconded by Peter Malpass, the Design Review Committee(DRC)voted(3-0) to adjourn the November 14,2025 DRC meeting at 4:47PM. Project Summary General Description: The Applicant proposes to redevelop these two lots by razing the existing structures and constructing a single fast-food restaurant building with drive-through service and related site improvements. Summary of Presentation: Nicole Duquette gave an overview of the project site located at the corner of Old Town House Road & Station Avenue, currently containing a former gas station and physical therapy offices. The two lots would be merged to allow for an approximately 2,000 square foot(sf)Taco Bell with 20 seats and dual drive through lanes including a mobile pickup lane. Also have a mobile pickup space in front of the building. The site includes eight parking spaces which includes three for employees in the back. Ms. Duquette reviewed the two access points and the overall site circulation. Coming in from Old Town House requires a right turn only to go around the building to park or join the drive-through lane. Leaving the drive through, can exit onto Station Ave or Old Town House Road. She noted the reduction in curb cuts and the addition of a full 20' buffer for the property frontage which will be green and landscaped. A new sign is being proposed located on the property. Rosa Corsiglia gave an overview of the building architecture. Taco Bell has a standard image and created a special building for Cape Cod, noting they have modified the building from their standard prototype to include hardi-board siding and asphalt architectural shingles and a beach style color scheme with mansard roofline to break up wall space. Integrated a lot of elements from other businesses in the neighborhood and added some shutters to dress up the windows and mullions in the windows. The roof is a parapet with a flat roof to screen rooftop equipment. Ms. Duquette noted the orientation of building elevations, which are all visible from the streetscape. She further noted the Menu Board is shown 100'from the residential properties. DRC Questions&Discussions: Sara Porter liked the building pretty much but the color sample looks more brown,whereas we usually do beachy gray. She noted it looks like a typical commercial building. She will leave comments on trees and buffer planting to others. IRMOUTH TOWN CLERK RE DEC 2'25 PN3:53 Peter Slovak inquired about the previous coffee shop building proposed for the site which faced Station Ave, and inquired as to why the orientation was changed. Ms. Duquette noted that layout wasn't as good for the Taco Bell needs as it puts the drive-through along Station Ave and they prefer to have long or short side of the building along the main road. Mr. Slovak further inquired about the number of queued parking spaces required by Taco Bell, as only 10 are shown which may result in a full parking lot at times. Mark Raymond indicated they typically have space for 5 cars from the menu board to pickup and have 7 shown here as well as the dual lane for peak pickups. Taco Bell requires a maximum of 210 seconds from order to drive away so have more spaces than typically provided. Mr.Slovak inquired about the number of drive through users versus pick up. Mr.Raymond noted that before COVID it was 70% pickup and 30% dining room, post COVID it is 65% pickup, 30% third party (i.e., Grubhub) and 5% dining. Mr. Slovak inquired about the landscape buffer on the north side. Ms. Duquette showed the landscaping plan with a 10' landscape buffer to abutting properties. Mark Raymond noted there will be irrigation, with Ms. Duquette indicating it would be turned on as needed. Mr. Slovak asked about any vacant Taco Bells which have been converted to other uses. Mark Raymong indicated no freestanding Taco Bell structures have been vacated. Peter Malpass had no questions, noting he liked the design and was happy to get a Taco Bell in Town, noting a nice job looking at how it would fit in and look good. Kathy Williams made some general comments noting murals are not allowed, more buffer plantings are needed, and building architecture and roof lines are not Cape Cod. She noted she would be providing further comments at Site Plan Review and referenced the previous coffee shop design style. Sara Porter and Peter Slovak noted they liked the coffee shop style design. Review Comments In Relation To The Design Standards SITING STRATEGIES: Sect. 1. Streetscape 0 N/A 0 Meets Standards,or El Discrepancies: Due to the drive-through, the building does not front along the street and exceeds the façade length of 50' without modulation. Murals are not allowed, but there should not be a large expanse of blank wall. Consider use of faux windows instead. Sect.2.Tenant Spaces © N/A 0 Meets Standards,or 0 Discrepancies: Sect. 3. Define Street Edge 0 N/A ll Meets Standards,or 0 Discrepancies: The street edge has been defined by a 20'landscape buffer along both Station Ave and Old Townhouse Road and a reduction in curb cuts which will significantly green up the buffers. Meets the standard if additional buffer trees and plantings are provided to meet the zoning bylaw. Sect.4. Shield Lame Buildings I I N/A 0 Meets Standards,or 0 Discrepancies: Sect. 5. Design a 2nd Story © N/A 0 Meets Standards,or 0 Discrepancies: Sect.6, Use Topo to Screen New Development El N/A 0 Meets Standards,or 0 Discrepancies: Sect. 7. Landscape Buffers/Screening 0 N/A ©Meets Standards,or 0 Discrepancies: See Sect 3,Define Street Edge above. Sect. 8, Parking Lot Visibility 0 N/A 0 Meets Standards,or©Discrepancies: Some of the parking is located in front of the building. Sect. 9. Break up Lame Parking Lots ©N/A 0 Meets Standards,or 0 Discrepancies: As primarily a drive-thru business, there are no large parking lots. Sect. 10. Locate Utilities Underground 0 N/A I I Meets Standards,or 0 Discrepancies: YARMOUTH TOWN CLERK RE DEC 2'25 eM3:53 Sect. 11.Shield Loading and Delivery Areas 0 N/A 0 Meets Standards,or O Discrepancies: The WB-67 tractor trailer delivery truck will be highly visible during deliveries. Applicant indicated they can schedule deliveries outside of normal business hours, with deliveries between 7AM-10AM. BUILDING STRATEGIES: Sect. 1. Break Down Building Mass—Multiple Bldas. B N/A ❑Meets Standards,or 0 Discrepancies: Sect.2. Break Down Building Mass—Sub-Masses IN N/A 0 Meets Standards,or® Discrepancies: Sect. 3.Vary Façade Lines 0 N/A 0 Meets Standards,or IEI Discrepancies: The rectangular shaped buildings exceeds 50'in length without the minimum 5'modulation. Sect. 4.Vary Wall Heights 0 N/A El Meets Standards,or Discrepancies: Wall heights only vary with the "saloon"style facades,consider alternatives. Sect. 5.Vary Roof Lines 0 N/A lI Meets Standards,or Discrepancies: Roof is predominantly flat,and only varies due to "saloon"style facades, consider alternatives. Sect.6. Bring Down Building Edges 0 N/A I l Meets Standards,or 0 Discrepancies: The overhang helps to bring down the building edges,but the style feels heavy, consider alternatives. Sect. 7.Vary Building Mat'ls For Depth 0 N/A 0 Meets Standards,or©Discrepancies: Building materials are not varied nor does the design include traditional Cape Cod architectural forms. Sect. 8. Use Traditional&Nat'l. Building Mat'ls 0 N/A tEl Meets Standards,or 0 Discrepancies: Sect. 9. Incorporate Pedestrian-scaled Features ©N/A 0 Meets Standards,or❑ Discrepancies: Typically used as a way to shield larger structures. Sect. 10. Incorporate Energy-efficient Design 0 N/A tEl Meets Standards,or 0 Discrepancies: Next step for applicant: Cl Go to Site Plan Review 0 Return to Design Review for Formal Review On a motion by Peter Malpass, seconded by Sara Porter, the Design Review Committee(DRC) voted(3-0) to approve these DRC Comments as meeting minutes for the November 14, 2015 DRC meeting for the proposed fast food restaurant(Taco Bell)at 433,437&439 Station Avenue. Received by Applicant(s) jedr4ok Nicole Duquette, McClure Eng. Co. ARNOUTH TOWN CLERK RE DEC 2'25 Ft43:53 ATTACHMENTS: • November 14,2025 Agenda • November 12,2025 e-mail from Town Planner Kathy Williams with Example of coffee shop building and site layout(former proposal for the site that was not constructed)and Site Aerial • DRC Application: o DRC Application and Materials Specification Sheet o Architectural Plans: Prepared by Tessere architects, undated • Elevations and Materials • Materials Board • Floor Plan o Site Plans, prepared by McClure,dated October 10,2025, unless otherwise noted • T1 -Title Sheet • T1.1 -General Notes • Existing Conditions Plan 1 of 2 and 2 of 2,dated October 15,2025 • D1 -Demolition Plan • C1.1 -Site Plan • C2-Grading and Drainage Plan • C3-Utility Plan • C4-Erosion&Sediment Control Plan • C5 thru C10-Construction Details • C11 -Sign&Graphics Plan • L1 -Landscape Plan • VT-Vehicle Turning Movement Plan • VO-Lighting Plan rIRHOUTH TOWN CLERK RE DEC 2'25 PM2:50 I v kn � �It a Ii v //, D \ Se Still 1 n 6 1 114'/i -11 ii,' 1 S L, 6Y 2.' �as - � G�IT�YJ.1 It1P ; I jjjji F. Ai fli ?) u 8 ill 1c, 4*If 1i � � _ __el 11.1 11 1 t / r _ O � ( q v1 rua ice■ , e. . , ,L, ■ii:�i y0j ' r■1Y�� � z P 4 , . ,:. q ,.._,_,.,.___ ___ , ..J giv SITE PLAN REVIEW FORMAL February 10, 2026 TO: ASSESSOR (w/o plans) ENGINEERING DEPT CONSERVATION FIRE DEPT PLANNING DEPT (3) WATER DEPT Planning Design Review (All comm.South of Rt.6) Town Clerk's Office (2) Econ. Development w/o plans-for posting. HEALTH DEPT 'V BUILDING DEPT FROM: Building Department SUBJECT: SITE PLAN REVIEW AGENDA TIME: 1:30 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: Town of Yarmouth—Room A NAME OF PROJECT: Desert De Oro Foods ADDRESS: 433, 437, 439 Station Ave MAP/LOT: 88 Parcel 87 & 88 Chair: Mark Grylls OFFICE OF 'UHF BUILDING COMMISSIONER ,IISSIONER &� . 0: 1 146 Route 2f , South Yarmouth, MA 02664 1!� .• i Q; 51)8-398-2231 ext. 1261 Fax 508-398-0836 \,0`u ,' , ; - - : y ','` MATTACHEESE �, \CORPORA7E�`b../ SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION Date: 1/15/2026 Office use Only: Review Date Time Property Address: 433, 437, 439 Station Avenue Assessors' Map 88 Parcel(s) 87 & 88 Zoning District(s): B1 Flood Zone: N/A Business Name: Taco Bell Applicant's Name: Desert De Oro Foods, Inc. Owner or Corp. Name(if different): Desert De Oro Foods, Inc. Applicant's Address: 79 North Main Street Mansfield, Ma 02048 Applicant's Phone No.: (508)-635-9325 Engineer/Surveyor's Name(s): McClure Engineering Company c/o Nicole Duquette, PE Description of Proposed Project(attach addition"_,,pays if necessary): The project located at 433,437,&439 Station Avenue proposes the redevelopment on these parcels to include a fast-food restaurant and relat site improvement. It is proposed that the construction of a single fast-food restaurant building with drive-thru service,parking,vehicle and pede: circulation routes,associated stormwater, and utility improvements. What is the square footage of land disturbance? 0.85 +/- Acres List of all Hazardous Materials and Quantities (attach if necessary): Is the Proposed Construction Within 100 Feet of a Wetland? Yes No V List and Attach Copies of Prior Board of Appeals Petitions. This information can be obtained from the Board of Appeals Office. Signature of Applicant 7y1-1 lea Date 1/14/2026 Rev.6:24 1 1 N \1 ,