HomeMy WebLinkAbout04_Beckers_Mixed Use DRC Comments 050625 - Engineer SignedReview 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
Meeting Date: May 6, 2025 Map: 36 Lots: 77, 78 & 79
Applicant: Huzafia Corporation Zone(s): B2/APD
Site Location: 49 & 55 Route 28 & 10 Drews Way
Persons Present:
DCR Members Present Yarmouth Town Staff Present Guests
Steve O’Neil Kathy Williams Bill Lavery, Jr., Joe Casali Engin.
Chris Vincent Oscar Ramirez, Aharonian Architects
Sara Porter
Dick Martin
DRC Review for this project started at: 4:03 PM
DRC Review ended at: 5:12 PM
On a motion by Steve O’Neil, seconded by Sara Porter, the Design Review Committee (DRC) voted (4-0) to
adjourn the May 6, 2025 DRC meeting at 5:12 PM.
Project Summary
General Description: The applicant is proposing an addition to the existing commercial building to create a total of
5,074 SF of commercial space on the first floor, with a new second floor for two (2), two-bedroom residential units,
along with various site improvements.
Summary of Presentation: Bill Lavery and Oscar Ramirez gave an overview of the project. Mr. Lavery reviewed
the site plans containing three separate parcels. The existing single story structure is on the easternmost parcel with
associated parking to the west. The lots will be combined for the proposed structure with first floor expansion for a
larger Becker’s Package Store and second story for two dwelling units. Site improvements include revisions to the
parking for easier accessible parking along the building edge sidewalk and more pockets of landscaping in the front.
Rear parking is for the residential entry. Also aware of the MassDOT future streetscape improvements and will need
to file a MassDOT access permit to modify the curb cut. Drainage will be directed to a low spot in the rear of the
building with pre-treatment, with a small trench and infiltration in the front. Will upgrade the existing septic system and
move it to a new location. Shrubs and flowering plants will be around the building with buffer trees.
Oscar Ramirez gave an overview of the architecture starting with a review of the floor plans including the new basement
area for storage with a lift, utility rooms and a restroom. First floor includes expanded sales area and backroom storage
area with sink for possible coffee station, and can recycling. Stairs in the rear are to the second floor where there are
two 1,300 square foot 2-bedroom units. Mr. Ramirez reviewed the proposed Elevations and talked about building
materials. Materials include asphalt roof shingle with colonial red metal roof on the entrance overhang, brick veneer,
composite for gable ends and bump outs with areas of clapboard/shakes. Existing signage would be removed and
reinstalled.
DRC Questions & Discussions:
Dick Martin felt the design and site plan is good and inquired about the in-lot trees. Kathy Williams noted they may be
short a couple trees, as they need 1 tree per 8 spaces. Mr. Martin asked about the plans for the rear of the lot. Mr.
Ramirez indicated there may be some expansion in the future, but not at this time. Mr. Martin asked about what portion
of the building is being retained. Mr. Ramirez indicated about 900 sf with an addition of over 4,000 sf to the commercial
space. Mr. Martin noted the buffer trees along Drews Way should match buffer tree requirements. Mr. Martin thought
the building is very close to Route 28 and the side buffer and he would rather it be pushed back and meet proper
setbacks on all sides and allow for buffer trees in the front. He noted there is only 8’ to the eastern sideline and the
hotel is very close to the property line. Mr. Martin questioned whether the existing signage would be considered
grandfathered. Mr. Martin also felt less brick and more shingles or clapboards should be used on the siding.
Jim Saben also asked about what parts of the existing building are being retained. Mr. Ramirez indicated the existing
sales area would be retained to keep the store open during construction in the back, keeping about 900 sf with the
addition being over 4,000 sf. Mr. Saben was also concerned about the building setbacks. Mr. Ramirez indicated they
would have to demolish the entire building to get the front/side setbacks. Mr. Saben asked about the grades to ensure
it is pitched away from the parking lot/building. Mr. Lavery noted there is proposed drainage in place to address this
but will look at an additional swale. Mr. Saben asked why there is a 2nd floor bump out in the living room to be closer
to the side setback and inquired as to whether it could be eliminated. Kathy Williams indicated it was their attempt to
vary the façade. Mr. Ramirez noted this bump out could be eliminated. Jim Saben also indicated he is not a big fan
of the brick veneer, but likes that the building is broken up with different materials. He would prefer more cedar shingle.
Steve O’Neil asked about the use for the additional commercial square footage. Mr. Ramirez indicated it would be
increasing the sales areas by 2,000 sf with the remainder for storage. Mr. O’Neil thanked them for staying in town and
expanding in Yarmouth. Mr. O’Neil felt the existing signage helps the building stand out.
Sara Porter likes the building and has no problems with building being close to the road in the front. She likes it just
the way it is. Ms. Porter asked about the means of egress from the 2nd floor. Mr. Ramirez noted the bedroom windows
are emergency egress with Kathy Williams noting the building will be sprinklered. Ms. Porter would prefer brick
wainscotting in the front with blue clapboards wrapped around. Mr. Ramirez noted there could be some changes to
the inset areas in the front.
Kathy Williams indicated they may wish to have the sewer line come out the west side with a future sewer line for easy
connection to the municipal sewer and suggested coordinating sewer stub/water stub locations with the Water
Department. As the site plans have changed since Site Plan Review, she also recommended coordinating with the
Fire Department, and the Building Commissioner on zoning compliance and specific relief needed. If disturbing more
than one acre, she indicated Stormwater Management Permit would be needed from the Conservation Commission.
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:
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 trees are 3” caliper native species, and buffer plantings are located on the east
side of the rear parking lot.
Sect. 8, Parking Lot Visibility N/A Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Parking is located to the side/rear of the building with access improvements
Sect. 9, Break up Large Parking Lots N/A Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Appears to need additional in-lot trees, coordinate with the Building Commissioner.
Sect. 10, Locate Utilities Underground N/A Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Will need to coordinate with the Utility Company regarding location of existing utility pole and investigate
under grounding the utilities.
Sect. 11, Shield Loading Areas N/A Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Loading area in rear of property and screened. Provide solid wood dumpster enclosure.
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:
Facades of greater than 50’ without modulation, but upper level is setback creating variation in the west
elevation façade line, and there is a small bump out on the east elevation. DRC is supportive of eliminating
the small bump out on the east elevation to provide more side setback.
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:
Suggested modifications along the Route 28 façade to include a brick wainscotting with composite blue
shakes
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:
Considering roof mounted solar.
Next step for applicant: Coordinate with Staff on SPR Comments Return to Design Review for Formal Review
On a motion by Jim Saben, seconded by Steve O’Neil, the Design Review Committee (DRC) voted (4-0) to
approve these DRC Comments as meeting minutes for the May 6, 2025 DRC meeting for the proposed mixed-
use development at 49 & 55 Route 28 & 10 Drews Way, West Yarmouth.
Received by Applicant(s)
William M. Lavery, Jr.
ATTACHMENTS:
• May 6 DRC Agenda
• DRC Application:
o DRC Application and Materials Specification Sheet
o Site Plans: All plans prepared by Joe Casali Engineering Inc, dated April 2025:
Cover Sheet
Existing Conditions & Site Prep Plan
Site & Landscape Plan
Grading & Drainage Plan
Drainage Details
Civil Details I
Civil Details II
o Architectural Plans: Prepared by Aharonian & Associates Architects, dated XXX:
Material Board, dated April 18, 2025
Proposed Elevations (2 sheets), dated March 7, 2025
A1.0 – Proposed Basement Plan, dated January 4, 2021
A1.1 – Proposed First Floor Plan, last revised March 10, 2025
A1.2 – Proposed Second Floor Plan, dated January 4, 2021