Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutYarmouth SPR Comment Sheet (CCIP)(10.19.2021)Formal X Informal Review SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMENT SHEET New Map: 31 New Lot: Location: 492, 498, 512 & 518 RTE 28 Zone: 62 & HMOD1 Persons Present: KathyWilliams Joe Marrama Amanda Lima Ca t Kevin Huck Atty Andrew Singer Lt. Jason Moriarty Glen Carpenter Mark Grylls Bryan Meskill Laurie Ruszala Kieran Heal Proiect Summary New special Permit to reconfigure within the existing park and replace the inflatable water rides with a permanent water ride feature and add additional pool area, expand parking on -site and incorporated parcels and replace motel buildings with smaller structure all as shown on the submitted plans. Comments Building: Subject property is in the B-2 Zoning District, HMOD-1 Overlay District. Applicant proposes to demolish two existing hotels at 492 & 498 Route 28, replace with an accessory storage building and increase parking for the park / hotel use. Project is located on several different parcels. As stated in the application for SPR there has been numerous petitions for relief. The applicant should review all prior relief to determine which require modification & or new. #4368 condition #12 limits height to 35% later modified in decision #4470, #4420 modification #1ii lighting should be reviewed and determination made as the any applicability. Condition #2 A-E should also be reviewed as to the relevance to the proposed changes modify or seek new. #4524. The application for SPR indicates that new or amendments may be necessary. This decision relates to Manager / Employee housing. The relevance is not clear at this time. The permitting for this type of use has been modified in recent years to be permitted through the Building Commissioner annually. See zoning bylaw sections 404.4.2 & 404.5.2 for applicability. #4567 Proposal #2 may have relevance although not mentioned in the conditions. #4470 Condition #4 amended Petition # 4368 regarding height and named the ride specifically. May request a modification & or new SP. Section 203.4.1 appears to exempt the rack from the height limitations. Recommend indicating. the height on the plan. While the last sentence of said section appears to exclude the rack from this standard, applicant should consider asking for the height variance for the rack separately. If deemed not necessary, withdraw the request for the relief for the height of the rack. #4486 may be necessary as part of the relocation of inflatables? The reasons for adding to the list are unclear to me. Section 301.4.1 indicates that parking areas to be located to the side and or rear of the principle structure. Proposed new structure is an accessory structure. There does not appear to be a primary structure on the lot. Section 500, Definitions states the following: ACCESSORY STRUCTURE — A structure customarily incidental to and located on the same lot with the principle structure, or on contiguous lots held under the same ownership. If ownership record does not indicate that the adjoining parcel is under the same ownership, relief in the form of a SP & or variance for configuration proposed will be necessary. The stand-alone accessory structure would qualify potentially as a F-3 Trucking & Warehousing use and requires a variance as a result. Structure also appears to be too close to the road, not meeting the required setbacks. Confirm tree spacing in front of the proposed structure and elsewhere meets the requirements of section 301 A, It is still unclear what the actual park occupant load is. Plumbing code fixture counts are based on occupant load. Onsite parking spaces are 485 which gives a base # of 1455 occupants. The plans indicate there are 78 additional off -site parking spaces available at a neighboring property available for patrons of the park. The occupant Toad could be as many as 1689 occupants. Walk ins are not considered at this time. Plans show a rest rooms are not clear as they do not indicate a fixture count. The number of fixtures to be discussed with the Plumbing & Gas Inspector early in the application process. If code cannot be complied with, relief may be sought from the Plumbing & Gas Appeals Board. After discussion with P&G Inspector he has provided the following. Fixtures must also be within 300of the use. Fixture counts from 248 CMR are as follows: Lavatory Female - 1 per 30 Male — 1 per 50, '% of which may be urinals. Sinks: 1 per 150 occupants Applicant shall plant all buffers, in lot trees & required screening prior to final inspections & occupancy. Each structure will require a separate building permit per 780 CMR. All construction to meet requirements of all relevant sections of 780 CMR, 521 CMR as well as all other relevant sections of the Town of Yarmouth Zoning Bylaws. Applicants counsel should review project and relevant prior relief prior to any new application to the ZBA 'Welanning: Tree spacing in front of the parking along Route 28 needs to be every 20'. Only in front of the building can it be reduced to 35' if part of a comprehensive landscape plan (per Section 301.4.9). Provide a more detailed landscape plan with plant schedule for the ZBA application (copy of native plant list provided to applicant). Replace any dead or dying landscaping in the buffers throughout the Park development. Label fencing to the west of the new parking entrance. If no buffer trees are being proposed with the adjacent Mayflower, and it is not being incorporated into the property, relief would be needed. With the addition of all these parking spaces, ensure you have adequate handicapped parking spaces. In my opinion the proposed roof over the front entry is not adequate as it looks disproportionately small and lacks detail (example from 20 Commercial Street provided to applicant). Design Review: Please see attached October 13, 2021 Design Review Committee Comment Sheet. Supplemental materials received 10/19/21 included subdued colors on the water slide (red was eliminated), inclusion of a roof over the building entrance (see Planning comments) and revisions to the fencing/landscaping (see Planning comments). DRC also recommended planting the rear/side berm with green ground cover at a minimum and higher plants if feasible. Conservation: Not Present. As there will be more than 1 acre of disturbance, need a Stormwater Permit, coordinate with the Conservation Administrator. Engineering: General 1. Provide lighting plan at Building Permit submission. Site 1. Suggest adding curb stops or other parking space delineators in crushed shell area. Noted on Sheet 7 the crushed shell will be painted. 2. Provide cross section/detail for crushed shell parking. Drainage 1. Clarify drainage pipe sizing and material 2. Provide detail for concrete apron for CBs. Fire: *� 1. Fire Department access for parking lot. Parking must allow for emergency vehicles to exit and enter 2. Access for emergency vehicles to new water ride feature J A 3. Consider second gate behind Sallies. 4. Required fire flow for new construction in park? (second hydrant?) Health: Not present, coordinate with the Health Department. Water: �/= \ 1. Please provide project water demands, daily and peak flow. 2. Please provide water line plans on the property including how they will connect to the Yarmouth Water System. 3. Please indicate where cross connection devices will be installed. 4. Water lines must remain 10 feet from all sewer lines unless encased. 5. The existing service for 498 Route 28 (Beachway Motel), 492 Route 28 (Cape Travelers Office) and the service for the previously demolished Cape Travelers Motel buildings must be cut and capped at the main. It appears the service for Cape Travelers was not properly cut and capped when the buildings were demolished. Read &Received by Applicants) Review is: ❑ Conceptual © Formal ❑ Binding (404 MotelsfVCOD/R.O.A.D. Project) 121 Non -binding (All other commercial projects) Review is by: ❑ Planning Board ID Design Review Committee DCR Members Present Yarmouth Town Staff Present Guests Dick Martin KathyWilliams Kieran Healy, BSC Group Chris Vincent Attorney Andrew Sin er Sara Porter Joe Manama DRC Review for On a motion by Chris V/ncent seconded by Sara Porter, the Design Review Committee (DRC) voted (3.0) to adjourn the October 13, 2021 DRC meeting at 4:57 PM. General Description: Applicant is proposing to redevelop the Cape Cod Inflatable Park to reconfigure and replace the inflatable water rides with a permanent water ride feature and add additional pool areas, expand parking on the site and adjacent parcels, and replace motel buildings with a smaller structure. Summary of Presentation: Andrew Singer gave a brief overview of the property and the two motel properties to be incorporated into the project. The inflatable water rides will become a permanent water ride. The adventure area would now become the air rides. Kieran Healy provided further information on the proposed changes within the water park itself, and the proposed additional shelled parking area with drainage and 5' wide planting islands with trees. Inside the park there will be pump houses and mechanical buildings, and cabanas and locker room. The exterior buffers remain the same for the park which is being reconfigured. Attorney Singer discussed the revised storage garage that superseded the previous building. Kathy Williams discussed the Concept Sketch she developed to improve the streetscape. _ Attorney Singer discussed the height of the water structure. The top of the fence would be 44' and top of highest tube is 48', and additional relief will be required. DRC Questions & Discussions: Sara Porter thought the building was fine and has no issues. Chris Vincent had no issues with the building or the water park, and thinks the park is great. Dick Martin noted it is a great business, but the bigger it gets, colorful, and taller, he has some reservations. He expressed concerns about the brightness of the colors. It will bring more cars to a crowded area. He felt the rear berm should be planted and neighbors taken into consideration. The group had a discussion on the colors of the water ride and visibility from Route 28. Chris Vincent felt that as it is easy enough to get muted colors as this is something new, then might make sense. Dick Martin indicated the red was the most objectionable color and perhaps it is located on a lower slide. Dick Martin felt the planted front berm has some trees that need to be replaced and watered. Dick Martin noted that should have the perimeter buffer plantings around Mayflower motel, but the applicant noted that eventually it would be included as part of the property. Review Comments In Relation To The Design Standards SITING STRATEGIES .. Sect. 1, Streetscape ElNIA 21 Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: ' �" I ;.lki k"' "' i`' Meets the criteria if incorporate the modifications outlined /n the attached Concept Sketch, dated 10113121. Any dead or dying existing trees should be replaced. Sect. 2, Tenant Spaces x❑ N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect, 3, Define Street Edge O NIA x❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: See Comments under Sect. 1 Streetscape. Sect 4. Shield Large Buildings ❑O N/A O Meets Standards, or O Discrepancies: Sect 6. Design a 2nd Story 17 NIA O Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect, 6. Use T000 to Screen New Development O N/A Rl Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Meets the criteria if the existing rear/side berm is repaired where necessary and planted with green ground cover at a minimum, and higher plantings if deemed feasible for added buffering for the abutters. Sect. 7, Landscape Buffers/Screening ❑ N/A O Meets Standards, or ❑x Discrepancies: Additional buffers are needed. Provide 3" caliper trees every 20' to screen the parking, with 2,5" caliper trees every Win front of the building with a mixture of shrubs and flowering plants to create a comprehensive landscape plan. Replace any dead or dying existing landscape buffer trees. Sect 8 Parking Lot Visibility El N/A ❑O Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Parking lot Is located to the side and rear of the building and is further screened by the proposed building, fencing and landscaping. Sect 9 Break up Large Parking Lots ❑ N/A O Meets Standards, or O Discrepancies: Significant landscaped islands have been incorporated to break up the large parking area, Sect. 10 Locate Utilities Underground ❑ N/A ❑O Meets Standards, or O Discrepancies: Sect 11, Shield Loading Areas I7 N/A 11 Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: BUILDING STRATEGIES: Sect 1 Break Down Building Mass - Multiple Bldgs. IN N/A O Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect. 2 Break Down Building Mass - SubWasses ❑O N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or El Discrepancies: Building is approximately 880 square feet. Sect. 3, Vary Facade Lines ❑ N/A O Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Meets the standard If add some type of portico, or roof over the front entry. Sect, 4. Vary Wall Heights ❑ N/A O Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: % C I[ Nrl.'IJ t `. s `.11It r...;I_I Sect. 5, Vary Roof Lines O N/A ©Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Meets the standard if include an overhang with rake board and shadow board. Sect. 6, Bring Down Building Edges ❑ N/A ❑x Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Meets the standard If add some type of portico, or roof over the front entry. Sect. 7, Vary Building MaPls For Depth © N/A ❑ Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Building is relatively small and does not appear to warrant material variations. Sect. 8. Use Traditional & Naft Building Mads ❑ N/A 0 Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Sect, 9. Incorporate Pedestrian -scaled Features ❑ N/A O Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Meets the standard if add some type of portico, or roof over the front entry with other pedestrian features such as sidewalks and walkway to building. Sect. 10. Incorporate Energy -efficient Desion ❑ N/A iM Meets Standards, or ❑ Discrepancies: Next step for applicant: © Go to Site Plan Review ❑ Return to Design Review for Formal Review On a motion by Sara Porter, seconded by Chris Vincent, the Design Review Committee (DRC) voted (3.0) to approve these DRC Comments as meeting minutes for the October 13, 2021 DRC meeting for the proposed project at 492432 Route 28. Received by AppHcant�s) ATTACHMENTS: • October 13, 2021 Agenda • October 8, 2021 a -mall from Kathy Williams and Aerial • Town Planner Concept Sketch, dated October 13 2021 • DRC Application: o DRC Application and Materials List o October 13, 2021 e-mail with revised Materials List for modified Garage o Building Mounted Light Detail o Site Plans: All plans prepared by BSC Group, dated October 8, 2021: • Cover Sheet • As -Built Plan • Site Preparation Plan • Layout & Materials Plan • Grading & Drainage Plan • Utility Plan • Detail Sheet • Site Plan — Blow up of proposed water features o Water Park Rendering: Prepared by ADG, dated August 31, 2021 o Water Slide: Prepared by Whitewater, undated: Water Slide Plan Water Slide Elevation • Water Slide 3-D Rendering I Perspective 1 Perspective 2 Architecture: Prepared by Kieran Healy, dated October 12, 2021 and submitted on October 13, 2021 (Supersedes a building plan prepared by ADG and dated October 5, 2021) Front Elevation Rear Elevation Side Elevations Foundation