Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5255 Town Fair Tire Design Review Comments 05.19.26YAPj' OUTH TOWN CLERK RE MAY 29 926 PK4:28 Review is: ❑ Conceptual 17 Formal ❑ Binding (404 MotelsNCOD/R.O.A.D. Project) © Non -binding (All other commercial projects) Review is by: ❑ Planning Board ® Desion Review Committee DESIGN REVIEW COMMENT SHEET Meeting Date: May 19, 2026 _ _ Map: 97 Lots: 22 & 23-Cl _ Applicant: Town Fair Tire (John Wypychoski) _ Zone(s_): B1/APD Site Location: 484 Station Avenue, South Yarmouth Persons Present: DCR Members Present I Yarmouth Town Staff Present I Guests Sara Porter I Kathv Williams, Town Planner John Wvpvchoski, Town Fair Tire Andrew Milliken, Architect DRC Review for this project started at: 4:05 PM DRC Review ended at: 4:34 PM On a motion by Peter Slovak, seconded by Peter Ma/pass, the Design Review Committee (DRC) voted (3- 0) to adjourn the May 19, 2026 DRC meeting at 4:34 PM. Project Summary General Description: The Applicant seeks to construct a new 6,576+/- square foot Town Fair Tire retail store connected to the southern end of the existing building within the plaza, along with associated parking, landscaping, and utilities. Summary of Presentation: Matt Ashley gave an overview of the project including the approximately 6,600 square foot building for Town Fair Tire with retail in the front and 5 car loading bays in the back for tire installation/alignments. They are utilizing the existing grass area identified for future expansion. Will be replacing the parking in kind near the expansion with the inclusion of additional in -lot planting islands. Drainage will go into a recharge system in the rear. Already have water on site and will be tying in. The Board of Health has approved the additional flow into the existing septic system. Andrew Milliken outlined the architecture with the extension of the building following the same form with gable end. The side wall is shown dressed up with pilasters, additional windows in customer waiting area with the upper part of the wall shown being panelized. The materials are copying what is in place, extending the brick along the front fagade. There already appears to be some EFTS material along the upper part of the fagade with some texture. Working to mimic this so the expansion looks like part of the original building. The southeast elevation is currently painted concrete block, but they are proposing improvements to cap off the end of the plaza. Roofing shingles would match as close as possible. DRC Questions & Discussions: Peter Slovak had them clarify the landscaped islands to which the applicant reviewed L101 — Landscape Plan. He further inquired about irrigation with the applicant indicating they would not be adding in irrigation but would keep the plants watered. Mr. Slovak asked if the Barnstable Town Fair Tire would remain open which it will. Mr. Slovak asked why they chose this site. They noted they preferred this site to the available Rite Aid property in Dennis. Mr. Slovak asked about the lost trees in the parking lot. Kathy Williams mentioned they would need to be replanted by the owner and it may be a ZBA condition of approval to replant the trees. Mr. Slovak asked about any Development of Regional Impact (DRI) implications. Kathy Williams noted that the plaza was developed in 1986 prior to the DRI process and this is a separate project of less than 10,000 sf. Discussed the traffic with the applicant noting a peak of about 7 vehicles based on ITE. The applicant noted most of their work is by appointment. Peter Malpass was delighted and thanked them from an economic standpoint and noted they did a thorough job on the application. Review Comments In Relation To The Desian Standards SITING STRATEGIES: Sect. 1. Streetscaoe IN N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Proposed project Is an expansion along the southern end of an existing building which Is not located along the streetscape. Future expansion along this end of the building was shown on the original shopping plaza plans. Sect. 2. Tenant Soaces O N/A O Meets Standards, or O Discrepancies: The expansion /s not a large enough building to require tenant spaces for screening. Sect. 3. Define Street Edge IN N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or O Discrepancies: See Sect 1, Streetscape. Existing plaza has street trees along Station Avenue. Sect 4. Shield Large Buildings ❑ N/A © Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: There Is an existing frontage building in front of the proposed expansion. Sect 5. Desian a 2nd Story IN N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: The proposed type of business Is not conducive to a second story. Sect 6. Use Topo to Screen New Development xO N/A O Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect 7. Landscaoe Buffers/Screening IN N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or O Discrepancies: The Plaza has existing buffer trees. Sect. 8. Parkina Lot Visibility IN N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: The parking area for the proposed project already exists and /s being enhanced to Include In -lot p/anung Islands. Sect 9. Break uo Large Parkins Lots ❑ N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or IN Discrepancies: The parking area for the proposed project Includes in -lot planting Islands with trees and shrubs. However, some trees originally planted as part of the plaza have been removed over time and the owner needs to replace them. Sect. 10. Locate Utilities Underaround ❑ N/A IN Meets Standards, or O Discrepancies: Sect. 11. Shield Loadina Areas ❑ N/A © Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: No loading areas are proposed, but access to the service bays is located In the rear of the building to limit visibillty. BUILDING STRATEGIES: Sect. 1. Break Down Buildino Mass — Multiole Bldas. 0 N/A O Meets Standards, or O Discrepancies: Sect. 2. Break Down Buildina Mass — Sub -Masses 0 N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or O Discrepancies: Sect. 3. Vary Facade Lines O N/A O Meets Standards, or 0 Discrepancies: There are no modulations in the fagade of the building. The front elevation is designed to match the existing and includes a covered walkway. Sect. 4, Vary Wall Heights ❑ N/A IN Meets Standards, or O Discrepancies: Sect. 5. Vary Roof Lines O N/A 0 Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect. 6. Brina Down Buildina Edaes ❑ N/A 0 Meets Standards, or O Discrepancies: Sect. 7. Vary Buildina Mat'Is For Depth ❑ N/A 0 Meets Standards, or O Discrepancies: Sect. 8. Use Traditional & Nat'l. Buildina Mat'Is ❑ N/A 0 Meets Standards, or 0 Discrepancies: Although not traditional building materials, they are appropriate for the setting. Sect. 9. Incoroorate Pedestrian -scaled Features ❑ N/A 0 Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect. 10. Incoroorate Enerov-efficient Design O N/A 0 Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Next step for applicant: 0 Go to Site Plan Review O Return to Design Review for Formal Review On a motion by Sara Porter, seconded by Peter Ma/pass, the Design Review Committee (DRC) voted (3.0) to approve these DRC Comments as meeting minutes for the May 19, 2026 DRC meeting for the Town Fair Tire project at 484 Station Avenue. Received by Applicant(s) ATTACHMENTS: • May 19, 2026 Agenda • May 15, 2026 e-mail from Kathy Williams, Town Planner • May 15, 2026 email from Matt Ashley, Bohler • Photos of Existing Building • DRC Application: o May 5, 2026 Letter from Owen Ryan, Bohler, LLC o DRC Application and Materials Specification Sheet o Architectural Plans: Prepared by Architect Andrew C. Milliken, last revised May 12, 2026 • All — Floor Plan & Elevations o Site Plans: Prepared by Bohler Inc., dated April 29, 2026 • C-101— Cover Sheet ■ C-102 — General Notes and Legend • C-103 — Jurisdictional Notes • C-201— Existing Conditions/Demolition Plan ■ C-301— Site Plan ■ C-401— Grading and Drainage Plan ■ C-501— Utility Plan ■ C-801— Erosion and Sediment Control Plan ■ C-803 — Erosion and Sediment Control Notes 3 Details ■ C-901-C-903 — Construction Details (3 Sheets) • L-101 — Landscape Plan • L-202 — Landscape Notes and Details o Alta Survey: Prepared by Control Point Associates, Inc, dated February 6, 2026 (2 Sheets)