Town of Wellesley, Massachusetts

The Department of Public Works submitted their final submission of the exterior modification to the Water and Sewer Garage proposed. The design has come before the Board on three occasions. The front façade has been the major point of discussion. The Department of Public works, due to a lack of Town Meeting funding had to scale back the project and remove the administrative portion of the previously approved plan. The modification required a redesign of the buildings front façade. The current proposal is for a 24,500 square foot Water and Sewer garage to be connected to the existing DPW Highway Building. The Municipal Light Plant garage would remain the same as approved.

The proposed materials include pre-engineered buildings clad with a masonry base and pre-finished vertical metal panel walls and pre-finished aluminum windows and trim. Overhead doors would be insulated metal with a white finish similar to the existing overhead doors. Sloped roof would be metal standing seam; flat roofs would be EPDM. Metal screening would be provided for rooftop equipment.

The Board reviewed the front façade on three occasions. The initial proposal included brick piers with the majority of the façade being metal panels with vertical standing seams, and the roofline adorned with horizontal metal panels with standing seams. The Commission was concerned over a conscious decision to not have brick at the base of the building. Additional concerns were that there was little continuity with the approved MLP garage. The Board 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.

Earthtech redesigned the front façade to address the Design Review Board's concerns and returned with a plain metal sheathing after the Permanent Building Committee failed to gain consensus on the design. At the March 28th meeting the Board reviewed the proposal and felt the lack of architectural detail was disconcerting. The Board asked the submittal to be returned one more time with some vertical element to be located at the front entrance.

A final submission was submitted to the Board on April 11, 2007 with vertical standing seam panels and horizontal seamed panels located at the small gable at the top of the front façade. The Board felt the verticality was good and noted larger standing seam panels were placed at the main entrance to set the door off, as well as along the windows on both the first and second stories to create virtual piers.

Mr. Tim Sullivan, representing Federal Realty returned to the Board. Mr. Sullivan stated the last time he met with the Board there were a few details that needed to be followed up including an update on the site signage based on the ZBA approval, modifications to the 190 Building, and the new Linden Square logo.

Mr. Sullivan stated that Federal Realty has acknowledged the Board's concerns over the change in logo from a Linden leaf to a black square and have decided to revisit their design and to not place the large logo on the 165 Linden Street building.

The Board reviewed the 162 Building and noted as proposed there was a wall sign over the door of one tenant space and over the display window on the other tenant space. Mr. Sullivan noted both signage placements are acceptable to Federal and was demonstrating how each would look. Ms. Carls questioned if the signs would be illuminated. Mr. Sullivan stated the signs would be illuminated with gooseneck lamps. Ms. Carls recommended the signs on the property that would be illuminated by gooseneck lamps should have uniformity in the lights chosen.

The Board reviewed the 165 Building. Mr. Sullivan stated there were options of both awnings and wall signs. Mr. Sullivan noted Federal would like to keep the options open on a tenant-by-tenant basis. Mr. Grissino noted the large logo that had been located on one of the two towers on 165 Linden had been removed. Mr. Grissino suggested as Federal Realty is reviewing alternative logo designs that they might want to consider color as well, because the black really stands out. Mr. Grissino mentioned he did like the previous leaf design. Mr. Sullivan stated the leaf is still one of the considerations for the logo.

The Board reviewed the 180 Building. Mr. Sullivan noted at the last meeting in February the Board wanted confirmation whether the sign would be located on the wall of the building or on the canopy. Mr. Sullivan confirmed the proposed signage would be located on the edge of the canopy.

The Board reviewed the 200 Building. At the previous meeting the Board noted the medallion signage proposed for 200 Linden had added a circle with the new Linden Square logo. The Board had liked the previous design better without the logo. Mr. Sullivan noted the circle logo has been removed from all of the medallion signage as the Board had recommended.

The Board reviewed the 190 Building. Mr. Sullivan stated at the last meeting the main question left open was on having a second floor sign for the Spa that is going to be located on the entire second floor. Mr. Sullivan stated at the last meeting the Board wanted to review other areas of Town to see where similar signage has been done.

Mr. Grissino noted the Board wanted less to see if second story signage has been done in town, but more if there are similar conditions on buildings that other businesses could propose to use second story signage. Mr. Broder noted several buildings that could have second story signage like the Marino Building on Washington Street and the large building in the Hills.

Mr. Skolnick stated if there is one tenant on the whole floor it makes sense to allow for signage. Mr. Skolnick stated the Board could make the approval a restrictive approval that would only allow for the signage for this one business. It was further noted that the sign might require a special permit, which would further restrict the signage approval. Mr. Skolnick stated the space is a service space so people will be trying to find it. Mr. Grissino noted in this particular location the Board is looking at signage that exceeds the limitations of the sign bylaw and the Board would need to make clear the rationale of their findings.

Mr. Hand questioned if the proposed signage would be on the south elevation. Mr. Sullivan stated the second floor tenant would have two signs on the east and south elevations. Mr. Broder noted by putting modest sings on the east and south elevations, there is less visibility. Mr. Grissino noted coming from the west on Linden Street you would look at the sign directly. Mr. Skolnick noted the awnings might also have small print on the valance that would create additional visibility. Mr. Broder questioned if a banner could be hung on the building to demonstrate the location and visibility. Ms. Carls noted the Citizens Bank on Central Street had a similar problem in terms of their signage.

Mr. Grissino noted the Board would need to be specific in their decision on the signage. Mr. Skolnick recommended placing the sign in the corner of the 190 building. Mr. Sullivan stated the idea is to hide the sign a little so it does not overwhelm the building. Mr. Skolnick questioned why the signage is not placed on the street side. Mr. Sullivan noted Federal Realty felt the proposed locations are the best.

Mr. Skolnick noted the first floor signage could be aligned with the second floor tenant signage. Mr. Sullivan stated the restaurant tenant on the south elevation would not have a door. The main entrance to the restaurant would be on the north elevation. Mr. Grissino stated he was regretful there would not be more entrances to the building from the sidewalk. The Board agreed to accept the possibility of second floor signage at the location, but would restrict the decision to second store signage to only the 190 building and to only the tenant.

The Board questioned building addresses and whether numbers were to be placed on the building. Mr. Sullivan stated neither the post office of the fire department have required the installation of numbers. Mr. Sullivan stated there would be lettering for the tenant spaces and that multistory tenants would have their mailboxes in the lobby.

Mr. Sullivan also asked the Board to review the 190 Building's east corner. The corner and cornice had been redesigned with the removal of the projecting cornices from the top of the building. The Board noted the proposed design was much cleaner and the Board had recommended up and down lights on the corners. The Board noted they would write a memo to reflect those changes.

The Board at the previous meeting had asked Mr. Sullivan about the site signage. Mr. Sullivan stated for the most part the ZBA had denied the initial installation of pedestrian and way finding signs on the site. The ZBA had stated that if the signs become necessary due to directional flaws that the Board would rehear the proposal.

The Board did look at the changes made to the Linden Square entrance signage. Mr. Sullivan noted the Board had seen the material and shape changes on the signage located at the front of the 180 Building and that Federal Realty had changed all of the entrance signage to match. Mr. Sullivan reminded the Board that the interior of the sign would be made of arriscraft to match the 190 building with red brick to match the 180 Building. Mr. Grissino questioned if the arriscraft would be setback from the brick. Mr. Sullivan stated the arriscraft would be slightly stepped back and reminded the Board the other major change was altering the original compound curve at the top of the sign to a straight line. Mr. Grissino noted the inset and change in the top design of the sign works well and pulls the body of the 180 and 190 Buildings into the signage.

Mr. Sullivan noted the entrance sign located next to the 190 Building would have space for tenants' names. Mr. Sullivan stated the nameplates would be made from laser cut metal. Mr. Grissino questioned if the intent is to allow the tenants to customize their nameplates or to have a standard design. Mr. Sullivan noted the intent is to dictate materials and attachments, but to allow for individual lettering.

The Board questioned if the site directory would still be implemented on the clock tower at 165 Linden. Mr. Sullivan stated the directory hasn't been evolved yet and further stated there would be a tenant in the clock tower, so the directory would need to be moved.

"Approve the submitted site signage plan dated 3/21/07 as presented subject to consistent gooseneck lamps on exterior signage requiring gooseneck lighting, and the review of the mock up design for the second story signage located at 180 Linden Street."

Mr. Russell Baker came before the Board for review of three proposed signs to be located at 190 Linden Street. The proposal includes two internally illuminated wall signs that would measure11'-3. 25" wide by 33" high with a maximum letter height of 14". The proposed sign would read "Starbucks Coffee". The third sign proposed is a double-sided 24" internally illuminated logo disc.

In the Boards initial discussions the Board had no concerns over the sign. Ms. Dinsmoor questioned the recently approved signage plan and questioned if the expectation is for every sign to fit onto 1 line. The Starbucks proposal reads Starbucks on one line with Coffee on a second.

The Board also noted the internal illumination and both Mr. Broder and Ms. Carls noted they would prefer to see silhouette illumination rather than internal illumination. The Board asked if Mr. Sullivan, who represents Federal Realty could comment on the application.

Mr. Sullivan noted that Eastern Development, the previous owners of Linden Square, had rejected this proposal due to the internal illumination. Mr. Sullivan also noted the sign plan has the maximum heights of signs allowed and the stacked lettering would exceed the height. He stated the intent of the signage plan is to stretch the logos out to one line rather than to stack lines.

The Board asked Mr. Baker to return with authorization of the proposal from Federal Realty and the Board noted the sign package does not prohibit internal illumination however recognized that Federal Realty does not want internal illumination on any stores other than perhaps the Roche Bros, CVS, or Citizens Bank. The applicant agreed to return.

Mr. Michael Connolly came before the Board for preliminary review of a proposed major construction plan to be located at 1 Hillside Road and 65 Washington Street. The proposal includes the construction of two, two family townhouses. The proposal is currently in the process of going before Town Meeting for a zoning change as well as in negotiations with the Board of Selectmen for a Development Agreement.

Mr. Connolly began his presentation by stating the inspiration for the design of the townhouses came from the neighborhood itself including David Dinwoody. It was suggested to Mr. Connolly that the best of the neighborhood be taken when considering the designs. Mr. Connolly stated the plans have gone through four iterations. He noted the plan would merge two lots currently known as 1 Hillside Road and 65 Washington Street. The current zoning for the two parcels is single family residential. Mr. Connolly informed the Board that he would be going to Town Meeting shortly with the proposal to have the two parcels rezoned to multi-family. Mr. Connolly had a site plan and a rendering of his proposal for the Board.

Ms. Dinsmoor noted the topography of the site and questioned if the plan requires cutting into the hillside. Mr. Connolly stated he was hesitant to answer the question. He pointed out there would be a tree restriction in front of unit 1 which fronts Hillside road. Ms. Dinsmoor also noted it would be helpful if the site plan showed the complete footprint of 7 Hillside the abutting property rather than just a small portion of the house closest to the property line.

Mr. Broder stated the feasibility of this project is contingent on rezoning. He questioned if Mr. Connolly was wasting the Board's time with the current review considering there is a chance the project will not be constructed.

Mr. Connolly noted the thrust of the review has been to establish if the design itself is appropriate. Mr. Connolly stated he will be entering into a Development Agreement with the Board of Selectmen and that the Selectmen want to make sure the designs are on track.

Mr. Grissino noted his first reading of the proposal is a positive one. He stated he felt the massing and respect for surrounding community are good. Mr. Grissino noted the DRB could relay the positive aspects of the design to other boards. Mr. Grissino mentioned he thought there was a lot of sensitivity to site and context and noted he thought the Design Review Board could aid the design with a few suggestions.

Ms. Carls noted her initial concern was the steep hillside. Ms. Carls questioned if there would be a lot of cutting to eliminate some of the steepness. She felt the approach from Washington Street might be very high.

Mr. Grissino pointed out the number of retaining walls on site. Mr. Grissino noted it would be good for the Board to see all of 7 Hillside, as Ms. Dinsmoor suggested, as well as to understand the rooflines of the proposed and existing buildings. Mr. Grissino stated given the grade change a section of the hillside and of the buildings would be good.

Mr. Broder agreed and noted he couldn't stress the importance of the section enough and noted a proper site plan showing the existing and proposed contours was also needed. Mr. Broder suggested adding the roofline of 7 Hillside to the perspective as well so people can understand there is a house at the top of the hill.

Ms. Dinsmoor questioned if the access to the property is from an existing cut in the stonewall that runs along Washington Street. Mr. Connolly stated the cut would be a new entrance into the site, but that the existing wall would remain and the existing openings in the wall would be closed.

Mr. Chris Stamas, an abutter to the property, noted he had concerns over the grading and retaining walls proposed for the property. Mr. Stamas also noted the current materials seem suitable with brick and clapboard, however, Mr. Stomas' concern was that with financial cutbacks the materials would be changed.

Mr. Broder noted the Board is looking at the proposal at a very general level at this point and that would get into fine points if the proposal moved forward. At this stage the proposal needs to pass Town Meeting, a Development Agreement and then proceed with permitting.

Mr. Hand pointed out the Planning Board currently has a proposal moving forward to Town Meeting that would restrict the height of retaining walls. Mr. Hand questioned if the proposal met the Planning Board's requirements. Mr. Connolly stated the current proposal meets the proposed restrictions on retaining walls.

Mr. Skolnick questioned if there was adequate parking on site for guests. Mr. Connolly stated there is on street parking along Hillside at guests could park at the Warren School. Mr. Connolly also noted the courtyard is 40 feet wide. Mr. Skolnick pointed out it would be difficult for guests to park on site.

Mr. Jeff Mitchell, a direct abutter at 7 Hillside, stated he too had concerns over the grading. Mr. Mitchell pointed out a stonewall at the top of the hill and noted on top of the wall is a 6 foot fence. Mr. Mitchell stated he had two Maple Trees currently holding up a portion of the hill and he was concerned the installation of proposed riprap on the hillside would damage the trees.

Mr. Broder stated the landscape architect would need to come before the Board and the Board along with the ZBA would make sure the slope was protected as well as the trees. Mr. Broder questioned how large the riprap stones proposed. Mr. Broder also noted often the rocks have to be mortared into place.

Mr. Grissino stated for multi unit housing the proposal is a good example, however Mr. Grissino noted the Board would like to see additional plans. Mr. Grissino questioned the drainage of the slope and suggested a drainage plan be submitted. Mr. Broder added that a tree removal plan could be helpful as well.

Mr. Connolly noted in terms of landscaping, he has committed to the planting of 7 new deciduous trees, 20 evergreens, and 120 shrubs. Mr. Connolly also noted that he has agreed to create two tree preservation areas on the site.

Mr. Grissino recommended an existing landscape conditions plan showing 10"-12" caliper trees. Mr. Grissino explained the plan is good to see if any significant trees are coming downs and allows for the estimation of tree canopy.

The Board noted the materials would need to be received no later than April 20, 2007 for the Board to review the materials on April 25, 2007. The Board asked Mr. Connolly to return to their April 25, 2007 meeting.

Ms. Conlon noted that the Chamber of Commerce has reviewed the Town's Website and has generated a list of possible changes for the Town to consider. Mr. Skolnick is working with the Chamber on these improvements. The Board was asked to look over the handouts and get back to either Ms. Conlon or Mr. Skolnick with any further comments or ideas.