Town of Wellesley, Massachusetts

Also Present: Greg Lebrun, Paul Mcgok, David Manfredi, Robert Corning, Scott Engstrom, Mark Paris, Mary Ann Hill, John Marin, Jack O'Neil, Sheila Tucker, Andy Wrobel, Sophie Jones, Pam Stewart.

Mr. Greg LeBrun came before the Board for review of five proposed awning signs to be located at 162 Linden Street, three of which would have permanent signage for the Linden Store. Two of the awnings would measure 10' wide by 4-9" high with a 3' projection. The remaining three signs would measure 6' wide by 4'-9" high with a 3' projection. All of the awnings would be made of a navy blue sunbrella. The proposed signage for the Linden Store would include a new logo on the center awning of their space that would read "The Linden Store, Delicatessen, Est. 1933, 162 Linden Street, Homemade Soups-Sandwiches- Salads" The smaller awnings on the left side would read "Coffee- Breakfast" and "Catering & More" on the right.

The Board began the discussion and Ms. Carls felt there was too much copy on the signs. Mr. Skolnick noted the Board approved similar signage at Sports Replay on Washington Street. Mr. LeBrun noted the stores name does not indicate what products are sold. The awning language would help identify the type of store. Ms. Carls recommended the left awning read "Breakfast", the center awning only have the logo and read "The Linden Store, Delicatessen, Est. 1933, 162 Linden Street", and the right sign read "Catering". The Board asked Mr. LeBrun if he would prefer all caps or upper and lower case letters.

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

Mr. Mark Paris, Mr. Jack O'Neil, Ms. Mary Ann Hill, Scot Engstrom, Mr. David Manfredi, Mr. John Martin and Mr. Bob Corning came before the Board for continued review of the proposed major construction project to be located at 27 Washington Street.

Mr. Corning began the discussion by stating there have been two modifications to the landscape plan. The first modification is an additional pedestrian connection to the river. On the east side of the property a paved sidewalk is proposed to connect the rear parking area to Washington Street. In addition a stone dust path would be installed as a temporary solution to connect the east side of the property to the river along the railroad R-O-W. Mr. Corning stated the additional change to the landscape plan is to move the street trees back 5 feet to give more protection to the trees and to reduce the sidewalk width.

Mr. Corning noted in moving the sidewalk trees back a number of small planters would be removed, but benches would remain. Mr. Broder questioned the plantings in front of the storefronts. Mr. Corning stated low plantings would be planted in front of the storefronts.

Mr. Broder questioned if a coffee shop with outdoor seating has been considered. Mr. Broder felt the outdoor seating would bring life to the area. Mr. Paris stated the central lobby limits the size of retail space at the corner and would limit the ability for a coffee shop.

The Board questioned the buffer between the proposed project and the residential abutters. Mr. Corning stated there are two residential properties that directly abut the project then a parcel owned by Department of Conservation and Recreation. Mr. Corning stated there is currently a 5 foot buffer proposed which includes plantings, a fence, and a 2-5 foot retaining wall. Mr. Corning stated the development team has been in discussions with the neighbors.

Ms. Sheila Tucker stated substantial trees are being removed which creates a buffer with the neighbors. Mr. Corning stated a number of existing trees are proposed to be removed. Some of the existing trees are on private property and there are some additional trees on National Development property that need to still be evaluated. Mr. Corning also noted the proposed residential structure is set back 60 feet from the residential properties, would have a 5 foot wide buffer, and the parking proposed on the west side of the side would be down five feet below the retaining wall proposed.

Mr. Dan Gordon, resident, stated the Design Review Board has recommendation criteria for Lower Falls and wanted to make sure the Board was giving the project a thorough review. He noted the Board is asked to look at screening and the relationship of the project to the environment.

Ms. Carls noted the buffer between the Harvard Pilgrim Development and the neighborhood was accomplished by a buffer and a berm. Mr. Broder noted Mr. Manfredi had designed the buffer for Harvard Pilgrim as well and questioned his recollection of the project. Mr. Manfredi noted a berm was installed 5 feet in height and the area was determined based on the slope. The berm never exceeded 5 feet in height along the property lines.

Mr. Gordon noted the Board should address requirements for screening. Mr. Gordon stated the RIO overlay requires access to the river and criteria to enhance access to the river. He questioned if these objections were being met. Mr. Gordon questioned the percentage of open space on the lot. Mr. Corning stated there is 37% open space and enhanced open space.

Mr. Paris noted the development has connected paths to the neighborhood and to the river. He noted in addition access could be added on the west side of the property, but would need a staircase and a handicapped ramp.

Ms. Sheila Tucker, resident, asked if sections on the path along the river and of the west side screening could be provided. Mr. Paris questioned the necessity for the section of the river path, there is not topographic change. Mr. Corning noted the path along the river is located at the current edge of pavement on the site.

Ms. Carls questioned if an easement would be placed on the river path to provide for public access. Mr. Paris stated National Development has discussed creating a public access easement.

Mr. Andy Wroble, abutter, noted he was concerned over the removal of large 30-40 foot trees at the rear of his property. Mr. Wroble noted with the trees removed he would look out at an 8 foot fence and a structure the size of a cruise ship.

Mr. Gordon again reiterated there are two parcels of residential properties abutting the property and he wanted to make very clear this project is supposed to preserve and fit in with neighbors.

Mr. Wroble stated he felt this design was a worse design than Stop and Shop due to the screening. He noted National Development has offered to plant trees on his property, however is lot is tight. His garage would be three feet from the start of the retaining wall.

Mr. Skolnick noted if the applicants are not meeting the requirements the Board would review that and make recommendations. Mr. Skolnick noted it is in the best interest of the applicants to meet the requirements and to provide a nice looking project for the residential tenants.

Mr. Manfredi gave a brief presentation stating he had made modifications to the commercial building based on several comments from the last meeting. He noted he changed the relationship and the horizontal dimension of the second floor. The distance between the windows and the stonewall on the second floor was reduced to 18 inches and a stone coping was added at the top of the stone on the front façade. In addition an outdoor roof area has been created on the second floor. Mr. Manfredi noted a perspective was added heading from the west to the east. The changes are to encourage reducing the scale to the east of the structure and to use the west side of the structure to create more transparency with glass.

Mr. Manfredi discussed the changes made to the residential structures in the rear. He noted the previous design had the tower composed of significant amounts of glass. The current design has in filled with metal shingles and have added divided lights. The bridge has been altered to include smaller windows that have the same character as the windows in the residential units.

Mr. Manfredi noted there was a shed roof and projecting rafter tails as a way of providing screening to roof top equipment. The new design has raised the parapet to hide the mechanical units.

Mr. Gordon questioned if the design of the residential buildings would be tied into the design of the front building. Mr. Manfredi stated the commercial and residential buildings would both be Hardi. The residential structure would be overlapped and the commercial building would have butt joints.

Ms. Carls questioned if the metal shingles are only on the residential structures. Mr. Manfredi stated the metal shingles would only be on the residential units and the metal shingles help in giving the buildings a base, middle, and top.

Mr. Broder asked if the leasing agreements would limit what is allowed on the balconies. Mr. Paris stated there would be limitations on the balconies. Mr. Hand questioned if specific window treatments would be required. Mr. Paris noted blinds would be installed in all of the rental units.

Ms. Tucker asked what type of screening was in place for the mechanical units. Mr. Manfredi stated the units are not screened from every direction. He noted residential units are much smaller than commercial grade coolers and would be unseen from the residential abutters. Mr. Hand noted the sight lines would be cut off by the angle of the roof to limit property owners seeing the HVAC units. Mr. Manfredi stated a screen could be added to the backside.

Ms. Robertson questioned if a coping line is proposed for the west side of the commercial structure. Mr. Manfredi stated a slightly projected cornice wraps the west corner of the building and stops. He agreed with Ms. Robertson that the west side is very exposed. Mr. Manfredi stated they might be able to dress the elevation up and add a cornice. Ms. Carls noted the cornice would need to wrap around to the rear of the structure.

Mr. Hand questioned if any additional parking spaces could be placed underground. Mr. Jack O'Neil stated underground parking is expensive. Mr. Broder questioned if stackers could be used in the underground lot. Mr. O'Neil stated National Development has tried to create a project that meets all zoning criteria.

Mr. Gordon stated he felt the main entrance drive would feel like and alley. Mr. Manfredi stated the main entrance has a sidewall with open spaces to engage people as they enter the site. Mr. Paris stated he felt it would not feel like an alley and noted the main drive is 40 feet wide.