Laserfiche WebLink
. IF Applicant. Cape Southport Associates, LL <br /> Location: Southport ondornir iu ,, Old Barnstable Rd <br /> Request: Approval ofFinal Site Development Plat. Continued from January 1, 04. <br /> Chainnan asked the Planning staff'to bring the Board up do date. <br /> Toni.- udala explained he-has prepared a draft decision. From the last meeting, there are issues <br /> still to be resolved: <br /> - access to property on Johns pond. Design is in current plan revisions. <br /> - tennis shelter location: need more detailed plans <br /> --retair i ng wall, boulder gall and timber retaining wall - Char]ie Rowley will report on. <br /> Beverly was concerned that plans were received only today? Tom explained revised plans have <br /> been received throughout the process in response to Board concerns. Mr. Bonvie added all <br /> changes are minor and were pointed out to the Torn. <br /> Beverly suggested Torn review the draft decision; if an item.has since.been addressed, please let <br /> the Board know at the time it is being discussed. <br /> 1. Decisions and Findings: <br /> - list of plans the Board is being asked to approved. Most important-part of the decision <br /> A. Comparison Set <br /> B. Landscape plans <br /> C. Pond Landscape Plan <br /> D. Proposed sidewalk and off-street parking pads and crosswalks s and handicapped ramps. <br /> Added: Sheet : plan of access-to Johns Pond area with 8 ft-vide pawed path with locked gate, <br /> Sheet : Tennis Shelter location. Torte pointed it out on the plan. Being placed in what is now a <br /> parking lot, will need revision. The Board can condition the approval so that a detail of the <br /> shelter and area is provided within 30 days of the decision. <br /> E. Site Development plan. Last sheet is plan and cross section of the retaining wall. Revision <br /> date will be Feb. 3` . <br /> Report of the retaining wall: <br /> Don took photos of the wall which he showed to Board members. <br /> Charlie Rowly reviewed his comments from his report on the wall: <br /> the question is whether the soil behind the wall was properly compacted. <br /> GA was hired by the developer to do test borings from the top of the wall and extract material <br /> at various depths to determine if it is consistent with info submitted to redi rock. <br /> Coastal Engineering, also hired by the developer, did testing of their own and clarified some <br /> questions. <br /> It was determined the soil is the same as the design parameters submitted to redi rock. Charlie <br /> feels there is adequate evidence and data to substantial that. <br /> Coastal Engineering discussed the height of the gall and possible solutions because portions of it <br /> are greater than the maximum height of 13 ill ft. There are-fluctuations in the grade of the wall. <br /> In one section, they propose to remove 1 " of height I level of rock removed). This does not <br /> impact the grading from the buildings. Theywill have to put additional fill at varying levels at <br /> the base) to maintain the 1 1 f . They also proposelo create a toe wall, of redi rock blocks, at <br /> the base, so they do not havc to maintain the.slope. <br /> Charlie pointed out the design on the cross section. At its deepest point, it will be 4 blocks sleep. <br /> Dennis asked if the fence at the top of the wall is permanent' It is not. A specific type of fence <br /> 3 <br />