HomeMy WebLinkAbout111611 DR 512 518 Route 28..Review is: Conceptual Formal Binding (404 Motels/R.O.A.D. Project) Non-binding (All other commercial
projects)
Review is by: Planning Board Design Review Committee
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENT SHEET
Date: November 16, 2011 Map:31 Lot:82/83
Applicant: Cape Cod Inflatable Waterpark Zone(s):
Location: 512-518 Route 28, W. Yarmouth
Persons Present:
Dick Martin Karen Greene Kieran Healy
Jack McCormack Joe Marrama
Sara Jane Porter Jack Hynes
If this is a conceptual review, a formal review will be required before Site Plan Review.
Project Summary
The proposed project will create an outdoor water park composed mostly of inflatable water amusements. There will be a
total of outdoor slides and amusements (20 regular size, 6 toddler). Toddler area will include a lifeguard station. In
addition the park will encompass 2 existing buildings which will contain a restaurant, arcade, changing rooms, gift shop
and retail space, party rooms and additional indoor amusements. The park will operate from Memorial Day through
Columbus Day. In addition the motel on the 521 parcel will operate as a motel in conjunction with the amusement
activities. The hours of operation for the amusement devices will be from 9:00AM to dusk.`
Review Comments In Relation To The Design Standards
As determined by the Building Commissioner, a site upgrade is not required. Committee requests additional landscaping
improvements be made where possible to existing parking lot and buffers. 6’ black vinyl chain link fence is proposed.
Applicant may install stockade fencing in back section closest to the residential neighborhood. Committee understands
that nature of business is temporary so that Design Standards are, in most cases, not applicable. Applicant has indicated
that color schemes for inflatables will be simple, likely blue and white.
SITING STRATEGIES
Sect. 1, Streetscape Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Sect. 2, Tenant Spaces Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Sect. 3, Define Street Edge Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Sect. 4, Shield Large Buildings Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Sect. 5, Design a 2nd Story Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Sect. 6, Use Topo to Screen New Development Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Sect. 7, Landscape Buffers/Screening Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Sect. 8, Parking Lot Visibility Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Sect. 9, Break up Large Parking Lots Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Sect. 10, Locate Utilities Underground Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Sect. 11, Shield Loading Areas Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
BUILDING STRATEGIES
Sect. 1, Break Down Building Mass – Multiple Bldgs. Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Sect. 2, Break Down Building Mass – Sub-Masses Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Sect. 3, Vary Façade Lines Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Sect. 4, Vary Wall Heights Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Sect. 5, Vary Roof Lines Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Sect. 6, Bring Down Building Edges Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Sect. 7, Vary Building Mat’ls For Depth Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Sect. 8, Use Traditional & Nat’l. Building Mat’ls Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Sect. 9, Incorporate Pedestrian-scaled Features Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Sect. 10, Incorporate Energy-efficient Design Meets Standards, or Discrepancies:
Next step for applicant: Go to Site Plan Review Return to Design Review for Formal Review
Read & Received by Applicant(s)