Town of Wellesley, Massachusetts

WELLESLEY DESIGN MARCH 14, 2007

PLANNING BOARD OFFICE, TOWN HALL

Members Present: David Grissino, Ed Hand, Helen Robertson, Rob Skolnick, Sheila Dinsmoor, Ingrid Carls and Meghan Conlon

Also Present: Steve Fader, Michael Pakstis, Michael Humphrys, Ray Porfillio, Michael Eby, Paul Baynouty, Charles Le Ray, Bill Panasuik, Carol Bugbee

David Grissino, Chairman, brought the meeting to order at 7:30.

1. 7:30 pm DPW 455 Worcester Street Major Construction Amendment DRB: 04-07M

Mr. Michael Eby, Mr. Michael Pakstis, Mr. Steve Fader, Mr. Michael Humphrys and Mr. Ray Porfillio came before the Board for review of an amended proposal to add a garage with office space to the existing Highway Building located at 455 Worcester Street. Since the Board's previous meeting with the DPW the Town has decided not to proceed with the two-story administration portion of the building submitted and approved previously. The current proposal includes the construction of a 24,500 square foot Water and Sewer garage connected to the existing DPW Highway Building. The previously approved MLP Garage will be proceeding to construction. The exterior of the garage building has been redesigned as a result of the down size. The structures exterior would be a pre-engineered garage building that would be clad with a masonry base, pre-finished vertical metal panel walls and pre-finished aluminum windows and trim. The parking for the area has been moved back and some additional green space has been added. The approach to the new garage would remain the same.

Mr. Porfillio noted the new design and material palette is the same on all sides, except the front façade. Mr. Porfillio noted the structure has been designed with a masonry base and red brick on the front façade. The red brick has been used to tie the design into the MLP garage design and to give the façade verticality.

Mr. Grissino began the discussion by stating his first thoughts are that it is a shame the administrate portion of the building has been removed. Mr. Grissino noted given the reduction, the plan still seams to work well and the design is straight forward. Mr. Grissino had one concern on the façade design and questioned if it was a conscious decision to not have brick at the base of the building. Mr. Porfillio stated it felt strange to bring the block out to the corner. Mr. Porfillio also noted the number of bays in the Water and Sewer garage far out number the MLP garage and stated the block was needed to give the garage a strong structural base.

Mr. Grissino noted the design for the MLP garage has a clear bottom, middle and top. Mr. Grissino pointed out that the Water and Sewer garage has a block base, red brick piers, and two types of metal panels.

Mr. Hand questioned if the panels were trapezoidal panels. Mr. Porfillio stated the panels were trapezoidal and noted with a low-pitched roof the building has a flat wing. He stated he did the design does not have a uniform gable. He noted the design has a front canopy and vestibule to help break up the vertical and horizontal metal panels. Mr. Grissino asked how the brick piers would turn the corner of the building. Mr. Hand noted the brick does turn the corner but then appears to butt up against the eave. Mr. Porfillio stated there would be a recess to the brick.

Mr. Skolnick noted the brick piers run close against the windows and it looks odd. Mr. Hand agreed and noted the brick piers look lost and suggested removing one row of bricks against the windows.

Ms. Dinsmoor asked if the seam lines were raised panels on the front façade. Mr. Porfillio noted the panels do have a slight raise that would create a shadow.

Ms. Robertson noted the top of the façade is in a gable formation with horizontal seams and the remainder of the front façade has vertical seams, and the vertical seams of the door way cut across the top gable. She suggested having the top be separated with all horizontal seams.

Ms. Dinsmoor noted she liked the interplay between the horizontal and vertical seam lines.

Mr. Grissino questioned if the brick or metal panels were more expensive. Mr. Porfillio stated the brick is more expensive. Mr. Grissino recommended using the brick less and suggested using the brick as one key element over the door to the top of the gable rather than as piers. Mr. Grissino noted removing the brick piers would also solve the problem of having the brick piers wrap the corner.

Mr. Eby noted more metal panels would make the structure look more like a garage. Mr. Grissino noted the brick piers makes the structure look like a dressed up garage.

Ms. Robertson questioned why the entrance canopy covers the window to the left of the main entrance door. Mr. Porfillio noted they would have to look at the canopy again if there were to be changes with the brick.

The Board asked for the DPW to return with modifications to the plan and suggested they return to the March 28th meeting.

2. 8:00 pm Philips Park 324 Washington Street Standing Sign DRB: 68-06, 70-06

Mr. Paul Baynouty came before the Board for continued review of the proposed standing sign to be located at 324 Washington Street. The proposed sign would measure75" wide and 52" high for a total square footage of 27 square feet. The standing sign would be composed of two brick posts that would measure 3'-8" high with a red brick veneer in a running bond and a precast concrete cap and base. The sign would be composed of wood and would have a black background with red trim and white letters. The sign would read "Phillips Park Apartments in 8" letters. At the bottom of the sign a secondary sign area is proposed to read "EQUITYAPARTMENTS.COM 781.326.8660" in 1.25" letters.

The Board began the discussion of the sign. Mr. Grissino questioned if the applicant had a brick sample for the proposed standing sign. Mr. Baynouty stated the brick would match as close as possible to the brick of the Intermediate Building.

Ms. Carls noted that generally the signs in Town do not have telephone numbers. Mr. Grissino agreed. Mr. Grissino further noted he had less of an issue with the web address than he did with the telephone number. Ms. Dinsmoor stated Philips Park is senior citizen housing and stated she would prefer the telephone number over the web address due to the clientele. Mr. Skolnick stated he would prefer just to see "Philips Park Apartments" and noted anyone really interested in the property would go inside and inquire about available units.

Mr. Grissino questioned the type of material for the coping. Mr. Baynouty stated the footings and caps of the sign would be made of concrete.

Ms. Carls suggested the Equity Partners logo and company name be added to the bottom of the sign. Mr. Hand suggested increasing the letter height of Equity partners to match the height of the logo and to carry the text across the bottom of the sign.

Ms. Carls questioned the color of the wood trim surrounding the sign. Mr. Baynouty stated the trim would be painted to match the color of the brick.

Mr. Grissino asked the Board if they had further questions on the directional signs. Ms. Carls noted the directional signs should be trimmed in the same color as the standing sign.

The Board after a brief discussion established the proposed sign meets the requirements of the sign bylaw and the design review guidelines. The Board moved, seconded, and voted unanimously to:

"Recommend the Building Inspector approve the proposed standing sign and directional sign to be located at 324 Washington Street as presented subject to the removal of the telephone number from the bottom of the sign, the change of equityparners.com to Equity Residential with the letter height increased to fill the space, the brick posts to match the Intermediate Building bricks, and the trim color painted to match the brick posts."

Mr. Grissino asked that a final plan be submitted for the record showing the proposed changes.

3. 8:15 pm 54 Washington St. 54 Washington St. Minor Construction DRB: 03-07M

Mr. Charles LeRay and Mr. Bill Panasuia, representing the Bullfinch Company, came before the Board for continued review of the exterior modifications to 54 Washington Street. Mr. Panasuia began the discussion by noting the changes to the exterior from the last review. Mr. Panasuia stated bands have been added to break up the façade from the windows to the top of the roof, and could be used as signage bands later. Mr. Panasuia also noted the proposed canopy over the front door now has a more linear design with two wires holding the canopy back to the wall. The center of the front façade would step out 3" from the main portion of the building, and the windows have been brought all the way over to meet the door. The storefront would be an anodized brown finish and the handicapped ramp railing would match the storefront.

The Board questioned if the canopy would have lights. Mr. Panasuia noted the canopy is too thin for lights, but noted he would place small sconces on either side of the entrance door. The sconces would match the proposed bronze storefront and handicapped railings.

The Board questioned how the existing cornice has been replicated on the new façade. Mr. Panasuia noted the cornice is composed of three-dimensional stucco on PVC molding. Mr. Panasuia noted the PVC would be a harder edge than the stucco.

Mr. Grissino questioned if EIFS would be used for the entire façade. Mr. Panasuia stated EIFS in a fine textured would be used. Mr. Panasuia noted an iron mesh would be used to strengthen the EIFS.

Mr. Grissino questioned the maintenance of the EIFS and noted stucco can crack, and where water gets in stucco can become saturated over time. Mr. Panasuia noted the iron mesh really strengthens the stucco and the PVC at the cornice and at the kick plate would prevent water from being absorbed.

Ms. Robertson questioned if the stucco would wrap the corner. Mr. Le Ray noted the stucco would wrap where the windows wrap the corner. Mr. Panasuia also noted a secondary entrance to be added to the east side elevation and also identified a secondary canopy to match the canopy to be located over the main entrance.

Ms. Carls questioned if the building would have a street number. Mr. Le Ray noted the signage and the street numbers would be left to the tenants. Mr. Carls further questioned if the windows would be tinted glass or clear glass.

The Board after a brief discussion established the proposed minor construction project meets the design review guidelines and moved, seconded, and voted unanimously to:

"Approve the proposed minor construction project to be located at 54 Washington Street as represented on March 14, 2007."

4. 8:45 pm Dana Hall Barn 45 Dana Road Major Construction DRB: 06-07M

Mr. Rob Ayres, Ms. Sara Summers, and Mr. Scott Medeiros came before the Board for review of the construction of a new barn to be located at Dana Hall. Mr. Medeiros noted an existing barn and several out buildings would be demolished and the horse activity such as grooming would be consolidated into a larger barn. The new barn would increase in size from 5,500 square feet to 9,800 square feet. The barn would measure 154 feet long by 64 feet wide and would hold 45 stalls. The exterior of the barn would have green vinyl siding to match the Larson Riding Arena. Mr. Ayres noted the new layout of the barn would provide for more protection of the students with better lines of sight. Mr. Medeiros also noted the barn would have a gravel ramp into the barn and stated the grading is not substantially changing. Mr. Medeiros added that the ramp is needed because barns do not have steps. Mr. Medeiros stated there would be 4'5' of exposed concrete on the two corners of the east end of the building that would be covered in a fieldstone veneer.

The Board began the discussion with Mr. Hand asking why vinyl siding was proposed. Ms. Summers stated horses would chew the exterior if the exterior was not vinyl.

Ms. Dinsmoor questioned if there would be hay storage and how the windows would open. Ms. Summers indicated the windows would slide open.

Mr. Hand questioned if anyone on the Board felt strongly about the stone veneer. Mr. Grissino ntoed the rendering does not accurately portray the grade so it is difficult to understand how much of the foundation will be seen. Mr. Medeiros noted the landscaping would break up the visual impact of the foundation. Ms. Carls stated she felt the stone field foundation went well with the barn.

Mr. Grissino noted given the dimensions of the barn the direction is a good one. Mr. Grissino questioned if the stone field could turn the corner. Mr. Medeiros stated the stone veneer could wrap the corner and could end it on the other corner. Mr. Medeiros pointed out a door on the far corner and noted the stone could be ended at the door. The door is where the manure is unloaded on a daily basis.

Mr. Grissino questioned how the door opens. Ms. Summers stated the manure door is functional and allows for a truck to pull up underneath it for the manure to be loaded.

Mr. Grissino questioned if the cupola proposed was providing any ventilation or if it was strictly decorative. Mr. Grissino noted the barn is a long structure and if the cupola was to be functional it would require 3 cupolas. Mr. Grissino noted from a scale perspective two additional cupolas would break up the roof.

Mr. Grissino questioned how the ramp itself would be installed. Mr. Medeiros stated it would be cast in place and would require railings to comply with ADA requirements. Mr. Grissino stated the elevations should reflect the grade change, the ramp, and the railings for the Site Plan submission.

Mr. Grissino questioned the size of the windows. Ms. Summers did note the side windows are a little larger than previously presented. Mr. Grissino asked if a gutter would be installed. Mr. Medeiros stated gutters would be installed, and suggested flanking doors for downspouts, but a plan for locations has not been completed. Mr. Grissino asked for the gutters to be located on the Site Plan submittal as well.

The Board after a brief discussion established the proposed barn meets the criteria for a major construction project and the design review guidelines and moved, seconded, and voted unanimously to:

"Recommend the Zoning Board of Appeals approve the proposed barn to be constructed at Dana Hall, located at 45 Dana Road, as represented with the addition of 2 cupolas and a railing to the entrance ramp."

5. 9:00 pm CVS 188 Linden Street SP Wall Sign DRB: 04-07

Ms. Carol Bugbee came before the Board for review of a proposed special permit sign to be located at the new CVS location at 188 Linden Street. The proposed signage includes the installation of an internally illuminated sign that would read CVS/Pharmacy in red letters with the CVS portion of the sign measuring 30" in height. Additional signs proposed include the installation of several non illuminated signs on the drive through. The first front of the drive through is proposed to read "Drive-Thru Pharmacy" with "Full Service" signage to be over each drive-thru stall. The maximum letter height of the leeters would be 9" high. On the side elevation of the drive-thru a sign is proposed to read "Drive-Thru Pharmacy" in 9" letters, and on the rear elevation a sign is proposed to read "Drive-Thru Pharmacy" in 9" letters with an "Exit" sign below.

Ms. Bugbee gave a brief presentation stating the 30" letters would be channel letters and the three sets of drive-thru signage would be plate letters. Mr. Skolnick stated he felt there was a lot of signage on the drive-thru and recommended a small do not enter standing sign be used on the drive thru exit rather than another sign. Mr. Skolnick further noted the do not enter sign should match the on site signage Federal Realty is proposing. The Board agreed that the number of signs on the drive thru is excessive. The Board recommended the main entrance sign remain and read "Drive-Thru Pharmacy Entrance", and to remove the other signs.

The Board discussed the size of the signage and noted during the review of the structure that larger letters were necessary to fit the scale of the front façade of the building and the adjacent Roche Brothers store.

The Board after a brief discussion established the proposed sign meets the design review guidelines and moved, seconded, and voted unanimously to:

"Recommend the Zoning Board of Appeals approve the proposed wall sign to read "CVS/Pharmacy" in 30" red internally illuminated channel letters due to the scale and location of the building and the proximity to Roche Bros. The Board further recommends two of the proposed drive-thru signs on the rear and side elevation be removed, the front sign be altered to read "Drive-Thru Pharmacy Entrance" and to install an 18" directional sign that would read "Exit Only" to prevent drivers from entering the drive thru in the wrong direction."

The Board approved the minutes of 2/21/07 and 2/28/07 as amended.

The Board adjourned at 10:05 p.m.

Minutes Approved:06-13-07