Town of Wellesley, Massachusetts

WELLESLEY DESIGN SEPTEMBER 26 2007

PLANNING BOARD OFFICE, TOWN HALL

Members Present: Bob Broder, Ed Hand, Robert Skolnick, Ingrid Carls, Sheila Dinsmoor and Meghan Jop

Also Present: Thomas Frisardi, Rose Mary Donahue, Mary Anne Burke, Russ Baker Matt Hanas; Mark Lampons, Stephen Langer, David Webster, Jeff Newman, Bob Haskins, Justin Boucher, John Wolfe

Bob Broder, Acting Chairman, brought the meeting to order at 7:30.

1. 7:30 pm Burke Funeral Home 56 Washington St. Awning Sign DRB: 54-07

Ms. Mary Anne Burke returned to the Board for continued review of an awning sign to be located at the main entrance of the Burke Funeral Home located at 56 Washington Street. The proposed awning would project approximately 7.5' from the front façade. The front of the awning would measure 5' wide by 2.5' high and would have the letter "B" as a logo on the front of the awning. The side valances are proposed to read "Henry J. Burke & Sons Funeral Home" in 6" white letters.

The Board after a brief discussion established the proposed signs meets the by right requirements of the Sign Bylaw and the Design Review Guidelines and moved, seconded, and voted to:

"Recommend the Building Inspector approve the proposed awning sign to be located at 56 Washington Street to read "B" on the front and "Henry J. Burke & Sons Funeral Home" on the valance as presented."

2. 7:35 pm Large House Review Discussion

Mr. Thomas Frisardi and Ms. Rose Mary Donahue, members of the Planning Board came before the Board to discuss the current proposal of the Planning Board for a Large House Review. The current proposal would include an advisory review of single-family homes by the Design Review Board. Mr. Frisardi stated the DRB could be removed from the proposed bylaw, and noted that other towns only have the Planning Board review the proposals. Mr. Frisardi noted however, that the DRB's input is valuable and hoped the Board would be willing to review the projects, even if the reviews lasted 10 minutes.

Ms. Donahue noted the skill sets of the DRB are different from the Planning Board. Ms. Donahue noted massing on lot lines and perception of bulk along the street are areas she would consider the DRB review. She noted the reviews could benefit from the Board's expertise and design sensibility.

Mr. Frisardi stated he hoped and would expect the types of homes that would require the large house review will have hired an architect. Mr. Frisardi noted the vast difference in design between contractor plans and architectural plans.

Mr. Broder stated he agreed with the need for good architects, but noted the architects were one reason the original statute for the DRB was written to exclude single and two family homes. Mr. Broder noted a home is a castle. Mr. Broder also noted single family home construction does not have a need or compulsion to hire an architect.

Mr. Frisardi stated the Planning Board anticipates approximately 60 homes a year would need review. Mr. Broder stated he is worried about the back and forth between neighbors and the homebuilders and the potential for conflict. Ms. Dinsmoor noted design is subjective and would not be a 10-minute review. Ms. Carls agreed and stated the review function with the commercial properties is different because they want to fit into town. Ms. Carls also noted the subjectivity of design and reminded Mr. Frisardi and Ms. Donahue of the debate on the design of the Town Library.

Mr. Broder mentioned in commercial development the Boards are presented originally with good architects and that the architects are changed to less expensive firms that are known for strip malls. M

Mr. Frisardi stated the Town of Lincoln had some sample materials on regulations that the Board could look at to understand their function.

Mr. Hand felt the DRB could take a different angle on the review of large homes. He felt the Board could review a property not based on whether it is beautiful or ugly, but could look at key factors like massing, site, retaining wall designs, shadow. Mr. Hand didn't feel the DRB needed to look at materials as closely as in commercial development.

Mr. Frisardi stated the Planning Board will be looking at other towns regulations and will be working on draft regulations for the review.

Mr. Broder suggested applicants not being present at the DRB meeting, and just receiving comments prior to the Planning Board review.

Mr. Frisardi stated the importance of having the DRB comment on the projects. Ms. Donahue noted it seemed wrong for the PB to not include the DRB. The DRB's basic charter is to be advisory to the Planning Board, ZBA and Building Inspector.

Ms. Dinsmoor was concerned each project would take on a life of its own. Mr. Skolnick agreed and felt each project would bring in more emotion with neighbor concerns. Mr. Broder noted in general the DRB strives to reach a consensus with an applicant. Mr. Hand noted because of the consensus building he felt it would be necessary to have the applicants at the meeting to interact.

Ms. Carls noted that the Planning Department's staff would need to be increased. Mr. Frisardi stated he agreed and the Planning Board would fund new positions with the review fee. Mr. Frisardi stated the review fee would be around $2,500.

Ms. Donahue noted a new process would be a transition. She felt the first 20 to 30 reviews might be difficult, but that each Board would find a way to conduct the reviews more efficiently.

Mr. Broder noted the submission materials must be clearly defined, and noted that applications would not be accepted without all materials.

Mr. Broder questioned how recommendations would be enforced. Mr. Frisardi stated the Planning Board would incorporate the DRB recommendations into the decision. Mr. Frisardi also noted the Planning Board has gotten feedback from Town Meeting Members to allow for neighborhood appeal of decisions.

Mr. Hand felt the Neighborhood Conservation Districts is a better way for neighbors to look at the minutia of design details.

Md. Frisardi questioned if the Board felt there was some value in style. Ms. Dinsmoor noted that there are differences in taste. Ms. Carls felt one area the DRB could contribute towards is landscaping.

Mr. Frisardi stated the Planning Board would be recommending a pre-filing meeting with the DRB to flush out major issues. Mr. Frisardi stated the hope is that there would only need to be one formal meeting with each applicant.

Mr. Broder stated the only way to really know the problems or difficulties with the review are to try it and evaluate the DRB's role.

Mr. Frisardi and Ms. Donahue stated they would keep the Design Review Board up to date on information pertaining to any changes or revisions to the Large House Review proposed for the Special Town Meeting beginning on November 6, 2007.

3. 8:30 pm Starbucks 190 Linden Street Wall Signs DRB: 07-07, 08-07

Mr. Russ Baker and Mr. Matt Hanas returned to the Board for continued review of two wall signs to be located at 190 Linden Street. The proposed wall signs would both measure 16'-1" wide by 12" high and would read "Starbucks Coffee" in green individually mounted letters. The lighting proposal includes the installation of gooseneck up lights below the signage.

Mr. Hanas stated the intent of having the lighting below the signs is due to the need to bring the electrical from the bottom of the sign. Mr. Hanas noted the blade sign originally proposed has been removed.

The Board after a brief discussion established the proposed signs meets the by right requirements of the Sign Bylaw and the Design Review Guidelines and moved, seconded, and voted to:

"Recommend the Building Inspector approve the proposed wall signs to be located at 190 Linden Street to read "Starbucks Coffee" as presented."

4. 8:45 pm Haskins Auto Body 467 Washington Street Standing Sign and 2 Wall Signs DRB: 55-07, 56-07

Mr. Jeff Newman and Mr. Bob Haskins came before the Board for review of two wall signs and a standing sign to be located at 467 Washington Street. The proposal includes the removal of two existing "Hertz" sign. The proposed wall signs would measure 141" wide by 44" high with a green background and would have 12" white letters. The signs would be externally illuminated with goosenecks. The signs would read "Haskins Automotive Repairs" with Hertz in the lower right hand corner. The proposed standing sign would measure 8' in height and would measure 24.5 square feet on each side for a total of 49 square feet. The sign is proposed to be setback 6' from the property line. The standing sign would need to seek a special permit for total area, setback, and height. The standing sign would read "Haskins" in 10" letters in white on a green background at the top, "Automotive" in script green letters on a white background in the middle, and "Sales - Service - Repairs" in 7" white letters on a green background in the middle.

Mr. Broder began the presentation by questioning what will happen to the large Body Shop standing sign located on the corner of Kingsbury and Washington Street. Mr. Newman stated eventually Mr. Haskins would replace the Body Shop sign with a similar standing sign to the one proposed. Mr. Broder asked why the Body Shop language isn't just added to the existing sign to reduce the signage on site.

Mr. Haskins stated he receives drive by customers for repairs and the auto body is a specialized sector of his business. Mr. Haskins stated the body shop is half of his business and noted he has a separate building on a separate lot dedicated to the auto body.

Mr. Haskins noted the larger pylon signs would both eventually be removed because of the tree growth. The foliage makes the signs difficult to read. Mr. Skolnick agreed with Mr. Haskins and felt the specialized business needed a standing sign.

Mr. Broder and Ms. Dinsmoor both felt the proposal for the wall signs had a more elegant design than the standing sign. They felt the band of white in the middle of the standing sign and the change in fonts did not work.

Ms. Carls questioned if the standing signs could be moved to better accommodate one sign.

Ms. Dinsmoor recommended the standing signs become companion signs in similar styles. Mr. Haskins stated he would be willing to do that. Mr. Haskins questioned illumination. The Board noted external illumination would be acceptable.

Mr. Broder recommended the standing sign proposed read "Haskins - Automotive Repair" all in white on a green background. Mr. Broder further recommended that the secondary standing sign read "Haskins- Body Shop" in the same manner.

Mr. Skolnick noted the importance of keeping the signs consistent to create a branding image for the business.

The Board having established the proposed wall signs meet the by right requirements of the Sign Bylaw and the Design Review Guidelines moved, seconded, and voted unanimously to:

"Recommend the Building Inspector approve the proposed wall signs to be located at 467 Washington Street to read "Haskins Automotive Repairs" with "Hertz" in the corner as presented."

In addition, the Board moved, seconded, and voted unanimously to:

"Recommend the Zoning Board of Appeals approve the proposed standing sign to be located at 467 Washington Street at the proposed dimension, height, and setback provided the sign be composed of a green background with white letters to read "Haskins" at the top of the sign and "Automotive Repair" on the bottom of the sign."

5. 8:45 pm The Cottage 190 Linden Street 2 Wall Signs DRB: 57-07, 58-07

At the Design Review Boards meeting on September 26, 2007 Mr. John Wolfe came before the Board for review of two wall signs to be located at 190 Linden Street. The proposed wall signs would both measure 9' wide by 2.5'high and would be composed of a brown metal panel with white 14" letters that would read "The Cottage". Channel lights set above and below the metal panel would illuminate the signs.

Mr. Wolfe gave a brief presentation stating the sign proposed has been reduced slightly in height from the original submittal with 40" in height to the current proposal at 30" in height.

Mr. Broder noted with the lighting above and below the sign a the lighting would not cast any shadow. Mr. Skolnick noted the proposed sign might look better more towards the center of the building along the Linden Street frontage. Mr. Wolfe stated the approved signage plan for Linden Square has the sign located in the corner, and Mr. Wolfe noted some electrical holes have already been drilled.

The Board after a brief discussion established the proposed signs meets the by right requirements of the Sign Bylaw and the Design Review Guidelines and moved, seconded, and voted to:

"Recommend the Building Inspector approve the proposed wall signs to be located at 190 Linden Street to read "The Cottage" as presented."

6. 9:00 pm French Lessons 180 Linden Street 2 Wall Signs DRB: 59-07, 60-07

Mr. Gilbert Tunney came before the Board for review of three proposed wall signs, one of which would be a blade sign. The two mounted wall signs would measure 10' wide by 2.5' high and would be composed of a cream background with black trim and black individually affixed 14" letters that would read "French Lessons Boutique". The proposed blade sign would measure 32.5" high by 42.45" wide and would also read "French Lessons Boutique". Gooseneck lights would externally illuminate the proposed wall signs

Mr. Tunney began the discussion by stating he has decided to removed the proposed blade sign. The current proposal would only include the two wall signs. Mr. Tunney also noted he is considering installing awnings along the façade of his business.

Mr. Hand questioned why the sign is not centered over the storefront door. Mr. Tunney noted his storefront only comprises two bays so the sign is actually centered over the leased space. Ms. Dinsmoor felt the sign needed to be reduced slightly in height to allow for the sign to be more centered in the brick. Ms. Dinsmoor noted the signage plan approved had the signs at 20". Mr. Skolnick noted the letter height would need to be reduced proportionally to fit due to the ascender and descender letters in the business name.

Ms. Carls noted that each business is also allowed one square foot of signage on the entrance door to list store hours.

The Board having established the proposed wall signs meet the by right requirements of the Sign Bylaw and the Design Review Guidelines and moved, seconded, and voted unanimously to:

"Recommend the Building Inspector approve the proposed wall signs to be located at 180 Linden Street as proposed subject to the reduction in height of the sign from 30" to 20"."

9. 9:15 pm Other Business

The Board met with Mr. Justin Boucher, who is interested in filling an open position on the Board. Mr. Boucher is currently working as an architect in training for Elkus Manfredi. The Board asked Mr. Boucher what types of projects he is currently working on. Mr. Boucher stated he is working on a 140-acre development in Westwood, MA which is a green building pilot program.

The Board asked Mr. Boucher how long he has lived in town. Mr. Boucher stated he moved to Wellesley in January of 2007 and currently resides on the Hunnewell Estates. The Board asked Mr. Boucher how he became aware of the position. Mr. Boucher stated a friend of his works at CBT with Mr. Broder and she mentioned the DRB was seeking an architect for the position. Mr. Boucher stated he was eager to become involved in the review of design projects in Town.

The Board noted that Elkus Manfredi is the architect for the 27 Washington Street project and Mr. Boucher would need to recuse himself. Mr. Broder reminded the Board that he would need to recuse himself from the Wellesley Inn project because of his affiliation with CBT Architects.

Mr. Broder stated the Board has been thinking about adding a sustainable development component to the Design Review Guidelines and he asked Mr. Boucher if he is LEED certified. Mr. Boucher stated he has begun the preparation for the LEED exam.

The Board after further discussion moved, seconded, and voted unanimously

"Recommend the Planning Board appoint Mr. Boucher to the Design Review Board."

The Board asked for the minutes to be reviewed at the next meeting

The Board adjourned at 10:00 p.m.