Town of Wellesley, Massachusetts

Also Present: Richard Joyce, Francisco Frias, Donald Newell, Debra Healey, Jim Verner, Tom Harrington, Carl Fleischer, Suzy Littlefield, Steve Fader, Michael Pakstis, Curt Smith, William Ellis, Mary Cronin, David Himmelberger, Thomas Howard Brown, Mary Jane Twohy, Ellend Rendell, Mike Jennings, John Walsh, Robert Finnegan, Bruce Diamond, Mark Sullivan, Meir Segal, Kate Klenk, Liz Rogers, Julie Kieninger, Margaret Lyne, Matt King, Matthew Roman, Billy Thelander, Dan Gordon

Mr. Richard Joyce, Mr. Don Newell, Mr. Francisco Frias, Ms. Debra Healy, and Mr. Jim Verner came before the Board, at the Board's request to discuss additional screening to be planted at the Weston Road Substation.

Mr. Grissino began the discussion by thanking the Municipal Light Plant for coming before the Board. Mr. Grissino informed the MLP that the DRB had asked Mr. Dan Gordon, a landscape architect and former Board member, to sit with the Board for recommendations on landscaping.

Mr. Grissino indicated the Board's issue with the site is the prominent visual impact and the newer plantings. Mr. Grissino noted the Board felt there was an opportunity to plant some additional screening.

Ms. Carls stated she passes the site on a daily basis and felt the site looked militaristic. Ms. Carls stated the older units at the substation were painted green and she felt those units blended in better with the landscape than the current gray.

Mr. Broder questioned if there was a security issue with screening. Mr. Joyce stated the current lighting, high pressure sodium, is part of Homeland Security requirements and the proximity of screening to the substation itself could form a security issue.

Mr. Gordon questioned if the Design Review Board reviewed the substation renovation prior to construction and questioned the landscape review at that time. Mr. Grissino stated the Board did not review the substation modifications.

Mr. Gordon questioned if the substation budget came out on its project costs. Mr. Joyce stated the Town has thought about making lot a parking lot and stated he did not want to invest money into plantings that would later be removed for the parking lot. Mr. Joyce stated he would try to plant a few additional trees to break up the visual impact.

Mr. Gordon stated he went to the site and noted along Weston Road at Linden Street the sight lines are broken. Mr. Gordon pointed out a row of Oak trees along the driveway entrance of the site. He suggested planting 5 or more pines along the edge on the sunny side of the lot, not under the Oak, but in close proximity.

Mr. Carl Fleischer, Ms. Suzy Littlefield, Mr. Tom Harrington, Mr. Steve Fader and Mr. Mike Pakstis came before the Board for review of the proposed synthetic turf fields to be located at the existing Sprague Fields. The Department of Environmental Protection has issued an order to the Town to cap the existing fields to prevent the continuing rise of glass and plastic material to the surface of the fields. The current proposal includes the installation of two fields that would be used for boys and girls' lacrosse, boys and girls' soccer, field hockey, and football if needed. Included in the proposal with the fields is the installation of a chain link fence to surround the fields, a 15' net to be placed behind the goal posts, and a new scoreboard.

Mr. Grissino began the discussion by stating to those in attendance that the Design Review Board role is primarily focused on aesthetics and would look at the physical impacts but would not discuss the physical impacts at length. Mr. Grissino noted the Board would not spend time on the debate on environmental concern or maintenance and operations. Mr. Grissino reminded the audience that the Board is looking at the physical appearance of the fields.

Mr. Fader gave a brief presentation station the two synthetic fields are proposed to have turf, which is called "Field Turf" by its trade name. Mr. Fader noted the infill material for the field would be sand, recycled rubber and Nike grind. The infill is an approved method for covering a dumpsite by the EPA and DEP. Mr. Fader noted the two field designs proposed have been submitted along with details of the visible items such as the scoreboard, fence, and netting.

Mr. Fader noted a walk would be created to surround the perimeter and to allow for handicapped access to both fields. He further stated there were two options for fencing. The first is a 4' high vinyl coated chain link fence. The second is a wood guardrail that would surround the perimeter. Mr. Fader pointed out there is already a wood guardrail fence along the existing walkway. Mr. Fader also mentioned there are two scoreboards proposed to be located on the western end of the fields towards Oak Street, but that the two scoreboards would not face Oak Street. As an accessory to the field a water fountain would be installed at the eastern end of the field and temporary netting is proposed at the goal lines. The netting would range in height between 15'-16' and would be removed at the end of the season.

Mr. Tom Hannigan from Gail Associates gave a brief description of the proposed synthetic turf. He stated the turf would be 1 piece of carpet enclosed by a cast concrete curb that would measure 4"-6" in width that would be flush with the ground. The field dimensions would be 210' by 340'. The secondary walk that is proposed around the field is to allow spectators to walk around the field and would prevent additional dirt from being traipsed onto the new turf fields. Mr. Hannigan noted there would be a 12" stone base underneath the field to allow for drainage. Underneath the 12" base would be a filter fabric over additional subgrade materials.

Mr. Hand questioned if the filter fabric would prevent the glass and plastic that is currently raising form the dump below. Mr. Hannigan stated the filter fabric would prevent material from rising to the surface and the material is an approved use by the EPA and DEP.

Ms. Dinsmoor noted the Town has to mitigate the current conditions of the field by 2009, and she questioned what would happen to the areas where the field is not proposed. Mr. Hannigan stated the other sections of the fields that require mitigation would have the filter fabric put down with a 3'-4' of clean fill placed on top. Mr. Hannigan stated the two synthetic fields were sited to try and mitigate the worst section of the clean up effort.

Mr. Dan Gordon, advising the Board on landscape issues, stated that some filter fabrics are notorious for drainage issues due to the small pieces of stone getting caught in the fabric. Mr. Gordon questioned if the fabric would be used under all of the area that needed clean up.

Mr. Broder asked how the synthetic turf would be cleaned. He questioned if it would be hosed down. Mr. Hannigan stated there is a piece of equipment that comes with the fields that is called a groomer. It picks up debris and fluffs the field at the high use areas. The field would need to be groomed once a month during the playing season.

Mr. Gordon questioned if the filter fabric has been used on natural fields next to artificial fields. He stated he was concerned over this detail. He encouraged Gail Associates to look at where there is a barrier separating the substrate and the top of the fields for drainage.

Mr. Grissino stated he was curious about the transition from fields where there is a 4"-6" concrete strip. Mr. Hannigan stated the curbed area can be fenced in or a fence can be placed adjacent to the curb. Mr. Grissino noted the synthetic fields would be becoming a separate entity of the Sprague Fields.

Mr. Gordon stated the current Sprague Fields have no fence. He stated if the synthetic fields were used there would be four teams in a fence. He questioned the need for the fence. Mr. Hannigan stated the fence serves several purposes. It is used for crowd control and to protect the investment into the synthetic field. Mr. Hannigan stated without a fence more people would be standing and walking on the field. Mr. Grissino stated the field would be fundamentally altered.

Mr. Grissino questioned if a sidewalk could be installed from the school building to the field. Mr. Grissino noted the field is fairly flat and the contours are such the handicapped accessible 5% grade could be achieved.

Ms. Suzy Littlefield of the School Committee stated the proposed fields would allow for outdoor recess and would be open to the students. Mr. Grissino noted recess on the fields on a daily basis would impact the longevity of the field more than spectators.

Mr. Hand stated unless the Town is going to install fences around all of the playing fields, he felt fences should not be installed on this field. Mr. Gordon felt more openings in the fence were needed.

Mr. Fleischer, a Recreation Commissioner and Chair of the Playing Fields Task Force, stated the fence also provides for animal and pet control. Mr. Fleischer noted the fence would define where pets are allowed.

Mr. Gordon suggested fewer barriers. Mr. Grissino agreed and noted this is the second project the Board has seen where there has been a shift from an open field to a field with constraints. Mr. Grissino did not think openness should be limited.

Mr. Grissino questioned the scoreboard. He noted there is currently no scoreboard at the fields. Mr. Grissino noted the 4" by 15" scoreboard seemed to be an appropriate size at 10" in height. Mr. Grissino questioned what the poles and face of the scoreboard would look like. Mr. Hannigan stated the color is flexible. Mr. Hannigan noted the topography changes in the location and the scoreboard is not that visible to the abutters.

Mr. Thomas Howard Brown, an abutter at 77 Oak Street stated he felt with the scoreboard, a stadium complex was being created. Ms. Suzy Littlefield noted by MIAA rules, all high school sports require a scoreboard.

The Board discussed the netting. Mr. Gordon noted that a 15 foot net is visually jarring. He questioned how the net was held up. Mr. Hannigan noted there would be two poles 3" in diameter that would allow for the net to be raised and lowered.

Mr. Robert Finnegan of 71 Oak Street noted he felt the colors on the field were too bold and noted the Design Review Board's role is to look at aesthetics. Based on aesthetics Mr. Finnegan felt open space has aesthetic value. He also suggested using portable scoreboards for the fields rather than installing permanent scoreboards. He further noted as a direct abutter he was willing to risk the balls hitting his fence rather than look at a net for 9 months. Mr. Finnegan noted he was concerned over the addition of spectator stands, the possibility of lighting in the future, emergency vehicle access, reducing parking, and the loss of an open and natural field next to the school.

Several Sprague School parents were present and noted that animals do not like synthetic fields and they questioned the need for the fence. Mr. Hannigan noted the sidewalk and 6" concrete strip helps to remove dirt. The parents questioned if the field could be relocated approximately 35' back from the school to allow for more natural grass for the kids to play on during recess.

Mr. Grissino gave a brief summary of the discussion. He noted he appreciated the applicants willingness to respond to concerns raised by abutters and concerned parents in regards to the fence and the netting. Mr. Grissino recommended the applicants return with good photos of the existing area that show topography where the scoreboards are proposed to be located. Mr. Grissino also recommended reevaluating some of the pathways and transitions from the parking lot and from the school, and finally Mr. Grissino asked for a color sample of the proposed lines. Mr. Hannigan had indicated the lines for the various sports would be stitched into the turf carpet, and the Board had asked to see samples.

Mr. Steve Fader and Mr. Mike Pakstis returned to the Board for continued review of the exterior modifications to the proposed Water and Sewer garage. Mr. Grissino noted he had received an email with an alternative design showing the center of the doorway to the top of the building in a brick. Mr. Fader noted the Permanent Building Committee did not approve the modification and has submitted a plain metal sheathing for the exterior. Mr. Fader noted the hope is that the exterior would be temporary until the new administrative section of the building, which was removed at this time from the design, was constructed.

Mr. Fader briefly noted that the PBC could not, as a group, endorse the second rendering that altered the design with a brick element located and centered on the door of the front façade. As a result the current design is straight metal panels.

Mr. Grissino noted part of the frustration of the Board is that we are a review board and there hasn't been an option that has gained action. Mr. Grissino noted the PBC is trying to resolve the issue as soon as possible to be able to go forward with something.

Mr. Fader noted there was a treatment for the front of the building, which was approved by the Board when the Administrative portion of the building was attached. Mr. Fader noted the current design would be temporary until Town Meeting would approve the second phase. Mr. Fader questioned if the Town should invest the money now or later in to the design.

Ms. Robertson noted the entrance could be slightly set off. Ms. Carls agreed and suggested the earlier submission with the brick be reexamined. Ms. Carls suggested switching the materials to the vertical metal panels that would give the building some verticality and make the entrance more interesting.

Ms. Billy Thelander came before the Board for review of a proposed wall sign to be located at 304 Washington Street. The proposed wall sign would measure 8' wide by 2' high and would be composed of wood. The background of the sign would be yellow with a black border and logo. The sign would read "Little Bits Toys" in 10.2" letters and the sign would not be internally illuminated.

Mr. Grissino began the discussion by stating the sign was straightforward and the design was almost identical to Ms. Thelander's sign currently located at 200 Linden Street. Mr. Hand questioned if the proposed sign fit in the sign band and noted he did not want the proposed sign to cover any of the buildings moldings. Ms. Thelander stated the proposed sign would match the size of the other signs on the building.

Ms. Thelander noted she would like to carry over two vinyl signs that are currently in the store window on Linden Street that would read "toys" and "crafts". The Board felt that "toys" was going to already be on the sign it was not necessary in the window as well. The Board stated the proposed door sign that would have the store hours and read "Little Bits Toys" was fine.

Mr. Matt Roman came before the Board for review of a proposed awning sign to be located at 25 Central Street. The proposed sign would measure 12 feet wide by 4 feet high and would have a total square footage of 48 square feet. The proposed awning would be made of a blue sunbrella and would read in white letters "LF Stores" with the LF logo on either side of the store name. One additional logo is also proposed on the right side of the awning.

Mr. Grissino questioned the logo and whether the gray area on the mock up would be gray or would be the color of the awning. Mr. Roman stated it would be the color of the awning. The Board also had some concerns over the number of logos. The Board recommended either having one logo on the front of the awning and one on the side, or having two on the front of the awning and none on the side. Mr. Roman stated he would prefer to use the two logos on the front of the awning.