01/18/2007 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE Minutes (2)

Home Browse Search

ilkCharles L. Rowley &Ass®elates CIVIL ENIMINEERS 8c SURVEYORS SITE EVALUATION LAND SURVEYING SITE DESIGN ENvIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT TITLE 5 DESIGN 2229 Cranberry Highway Tel:(508)295-0545 Post office Box 9 Fax: (508)295-1192 West Wareham,MA 0257o e-mail: crsr060863@aol.com January 17, 2007 Town of Mashpee Planning Board Town Hall 16 Great Neck Road Mashpee, MA 02649 Re: Center Street Village Phase I Ken-Mark Project Attention: Beverly A. Kane, Chairman I have reviewed a plan entitled "Revised Slope & Wall Grading Plan" by Horsley Witten Group dated as revised 12/12/06 and have the following comments: 1. The plan shows the site as previously permitted including two proposed walls to the rear of the parking area and a retaining wall on the abutting 40B project known as Main Street Village. There is also a proposed retaining wall near Route 130 with an adjacent label of"Tree Save Area". 2. The plan also shows the site as a proposed revised plan. This plan shows the area between the project and the abutting project (40B) as having been re-graded to elevation 87, approximately 3 feet lower than the original existing grade of 90. All retaining walls between the two projects have been removed. 3. To accomplish the re-grading, one parking space has been eliminated and the end of the parking area cut back the width of one space. The parking area is actually constructed as sho-n on the permitted plan as of this date. Re-grading as shown on the proposed plan would require the removal of the extra paving. 4. Approval of the re-grading as proposed would require the re-grading of the 40B project as well. 5. The proposed re-grading is shown at a 2:1 slope which is a safe slope for the soil types found on the site. However, the addition of loam and seed on the slopes will require adequate protection such as jute netting or bio'mat to prevent erosion and loss of topsoil while seed germinates. 6. Any undercut areas surrounding existing trees will need to be protected regardless of whether the re-grading proposal is accepted or not. 7. There has been concern raised about the construction of the walls, whether they are built as per the permitted plan or otherwise. .Construction details should be submitted so that the Planning Board knows what to expect for wall construction and inspection of the work. This should include at least the method of stabilizing soil behind the wall as well as the proposed slopes, if any, particular construction materials, etc. and these should be shown in cross section, length, width and height. 8. The revised proposal for grading impacts the abutting property. Any Planning Board action to approve the proposed revised plan should be conditioned to include a statement that requires the applicant to obtain any and all other approvals necessary to revise the grading on abutting property. V f ly y rs, Charles L. Rowley, PE,'RLS Cc Horslev Witten GrouiD