Town of Wellesley, Massachusetts

WELLESLEY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

PLANNING BOARD OFFICE, TOWN HALL

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

Also Present: Steve Fader, Chris Guiffre, Tom Harrington, Mike Pakstis, Tom Brown, Suzy Littlefield, Tilde Miller, Michael Resmini, Richard Morse, Robert Finnegan, Robert McConnell, Bill Seymour, Dean Behrend, Frank Tarantino, Susan Tarantino, Al Thoman, Sheila Thoman

Mr. Bob Broder, Chair, brought the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.

1. 7:40 pm Sprague Fields Task Force Sprague Fields Site Plan DRB: 03-08M

Mr. Chris Guiffre of the School Committee and Mr. Bill Seymour from Gale Associates came before the Board for Site Plan review of the proposed remediation to Sprague Fields. The Sprague Fields are made up of 25.75 acres of open space located between the Sprague Elementary School and Wellesley Middle School. The fields support the Town youth sports, Middle School and Sprague School PE, Middle School and High School athletics, and Recreation Department programs. The two rectangular fields closet to the Sprague School are under a Consent Order from MA DEP to mitigate exposed waste materials arising from historic filling of the site. The project includes layouts for 5 full size, multi-use fields. Two if the fields would by synthetic, and the remainder of the fields would be natural turf.

Mr. Bill Seymour gave a brief presentation orienting the DRB to the site. He noted the site is made up of 27 acres and historically was a landfill. The land has been determined to not be toxic, but does have a risk of glass, metal shards, and aluminum rising to the surface. The Town is currently under a DEP order to mitigate the fields.

Mr. Broder asked if Mr. Seymour could discuss alternatives to the fields for clean up purposes. Mr. Seymour noted the Town could dig the landfill up and clean it, could make the field a parking lot, or could use a synthetic turf field or a reinforced natural field to mitigate the problem.

Mr. Seymour stated the plan for the fields discussed last year included the installation of two synthetic turf fields, with the remainder of the site untouched. The Board and other residents had concerns over the scoreboard, fencing, proximity to school, and stands. Mr. Seymour explained the current plan has included more community outreach and the design has been based on top down research.

Mr. Seymour stated there would be one full sized natural field next to the school, then additional fields with one stretching into the outfield of the baseball diamond. Also there would be 2 synthetic fields plus a softball field. A revised pathway has been planned to accommodate vehicles and would connect Francis Street. The new plan has no fencing, except for backstop fencing, no lights, no permanent striping, and no tire infill on the synthetic fields.

Mr. Seymour described the scope of the project as completing the remediation, installing 2 synthetic fields comprised of TPE infill (Thermal Plastic Material), redoing the natural fields, adding a 90' diamond, realignment of the access drive for softball, parking lot restriping, the addition of a retaining wall in the back rear corner close to the Middle School, handicapped access to fields, and the addition of significant plantings along the proposed retaining wall.

The Board began the discussion with Mr. Hand questioning why the fields are not in the same direction. Mr. Seymour stated fields running north by slightly northeast are optimal.

Ms. Carls questioned if the turf was permeable. Mr. Seymour stated the synthetic fields are fully permeable and can absorb water at the rate of 16" per hour. The natural fields need to be pitched 1.5 degrees for drainage, but a large drainage structure would be located under the field.

Ms. Carls questioned if the filter fabric needed for the natural fields needs to be replaced. Mr. Seymour stated the proposed fabric is of a tougher quality than typically recommended to last a substantial time.

Mr. Skolnick questioned the natural field over the landfill area. Mr. Seymour stated the field would be excavated; an 8" of root zone would be placed over the fabric, then 2" of sod, and carpet infill. Mr. Skolnick questioned if the location of the natural field was based on concerns from Sprague School parents. Mr. Seymour stated the school would prefer the natural field closer to the school building.

Ms. Carls questioned the edge of the synthetic turf. Mr. Seymour stated there would be a concrete curb around the turf that would project 4"-5" above grade.

Ms. Dinsmoor questioned if the synthetic turf would be plowed. Mr. Seymour stated the fields could be plowed. Ms. Dinsmoor questioned if the curbing was outside the play area. Mr. Seymour stated the curbing is setback 15 feet from the play area. He noted NCAA requires a 12-foot setback.

Ms. Carls questioned the size differences in the field. Mr. Seymour stated the 210' x 330 field could accommodate soccer, lacrosse, and field hockey, there would be 1 regulation football field, and the 180' x 300 field could accommodate field hockey, soccer and lacrosse. The two remaining fields are approximately 210' x 340 and can accommodate the same types of play.

Mr. Seymour stated the committee has tried to mitigate buffer with neighbors. He noted the current proposal does lend itself to more of a park like structure. The field lines would be painted with permanent paint that would last a season of play. The football goal posts would be removable, and there would be no lights. Mr. Guiffre noted there would also be no permanent scoreboards. The scoreboards would be wheeled in for the games.

Ms. Carls questioned the current number of fields at Sprague. Mr. Guiffre stated the number of fields would essentially remain the same and the number of events and participants would not change.

Ms. Carls questioned the 8-foot high retaining wall. Mr. Seymour stated there are trees and vegetation with an abrupt slope. The retaining wall is needed to level out the fields. A chain link fence would be used for the retaining wall over 3 feet in height. Mr. Pakstis stated the area has more brush than trees. The only trees to be removed are White Pines located being the parking.

The Board after a brief discussion established the proposed Site Plan application meets the Design Review Guidelines and Criteria and moved, seconded, and voted unanimously to:

"Recommend the Zoning Board of Appeals approves the proposed Sprague Fields project as presented."

2. 9:00 pm Dean Behrend 30 Benvenue Large House Review DB:01-08L

Mr. Dean Behrend came before the Board for a Large House Review for his property located at 30 Benvenue Street. The proposed home would exceed the 3600 TLAG calculation for a Single Family Residence 10,000 sf zone. The proposed house includes the construction of a new structure with a 3,902 square foot foundation, three stories in height. Mr. Behrend describes the architectural design of the structure as a "shingle style" house. The proposed plan includes the relocation of an existing easement used by the Wellesley Friends Meeting House to the edge of the property line. Arborvitae and Hemlock Trees are proposed to surround the property and to create a buffer.

Mr. Broder began the discussion by questioning if Mr. Behrend had an elevation of the proposed retaining wall to be located on the northern property line. Mr. Behrend stated the wall would be down grade and would appear flush with the paving. Mr. Behrend noted he did not have an elevation of the retaining wall.

Ms. Dinsmoor questioned if the retaining wall would change the location of the easement. Mr. Behrend stated the easement would be shifted towards the northern property line, a 3'-5' retaining wall would be installed with a 6' fence on top. The fence would be the existing fence relocated. Mr. Broder questioned the style of the existing fence. Mr. Behrend stated it was a scalloped 1 x 4 Cedar stockade fence. Ms. Robertson stated from here plans it appeared as thought the retaining wall would be 5.5' at the low point and 9' at the high point. Mr. Behrend showed the Board the exact location of the wall and the heights which did vary from 3'-5.5' in height.

Mr. Broder questioned how the roof run off would be mitigated. Mr. Behrend stated he planned to install 16 underground structures that would have the capacity for a 100 year storm event.

Mr. Broder questioned if Mr. Behrend had considered using a cistern instead of detention to capture the water and reuse it for landscaping purposes. Mr. Behrend stated he is aware of the use of cisterns, but had not planned on using one.

Mr. Broder noted he was concerned the design was very fussy. He felt the structure had too many architectural details proposed in comparison to the surrounding housing. Mr. Broder noted the new home Mr. Behrend constructed at 173 Grove Street was more in keeping with the vernacular of the surrounding homes. Mr. Broder also felt the proposed structure had too many gables. Mr. Broder noted the design had a steep 12/16 gable, plus a mechanical gable of 8' x 12'. Mr. Behrend stated the larger gable is an open room above the garage. Mr. Hand questioned if the proposed structure was under the 36 foot height limit.

Mr. Behrend stated his intent is to design three additional shingle style structures similar in quality to 173 Grove Street.

Ms. Robertson noted she felt the roof was inappropriate for the design. Mr. Behrend noted he constructed a home similar in design in Weston at 300 Glen Road and the design had no issues at the Weston Site Plan Review. Ms. Robertson questioned the surrounding neighborhood in Weston. Mr. Behrend stated the abutters have straight front colonials and ranches. Ms. Robertson noted the abutters on Ingraham Road appear to be homes approximately 2,400 sf or less. She noted the LHR is designed to preserve neighborhoods. Ms. Robertson stated the structure at 173 Grove Street has a greater distance from the properties on Ingraham Road.

Ms. Robertson noted the scale elements used in the design were defining the height rather than bringing the height down. Mr. Behrend noted the house is setback 160' from Benvenue and the landscaping would enclose the structure.

Ms. Dinsmoor questioned how the height of the proposed structure compared to the height of the previous structure that was demolished. Mr. Behrend stated the chimney on the previous structure was 50 feet high.

Ms. Robertson questioned why the roofline is not lowered if the plan is to not finish the attic. Mr. Behrend stated the roofline fits in with the shingle style design of the house.

Ms. Carls stated she had some problems with the basic massing of the structure. She questioned if a greater side yard setback could be achieved. Mr. Behrend stated his landscape plan calls for larger trees to create immediate screening from abutters.

Mr. Broder questioned the landscape plan. Mr. Behrend stated the majority of plantings are 6 foot high Hemlocks with 8 foot high Arborvitae. Mr. Broder questioned where a family could have outdoor recreation. Mr. Behrend stated the front lawn is expansive and the majority of the lot has preserved green space. Mr. Behrend noted the large amount of impervious cover he would be removing from the site.

Mr. Skolnick questioned if the two other homes Mr. Behrend is proposing would require LHR. Mr. Behrend stated they would.

Ms. Dinsmoor agreed with Mr. Broder's comments on detail. She felt the amount of detail could be reduced. Ms. Dinsmoor was concerned over the large amount of roof visible. Mr. Behrend noted the scale of the rooflines over the garage and on the far right has been dropped. He noted the garage height is much lower.

Mr. Broder noted a large pediment projects in the rear of the garage over a blank shingle wall. Mr. Behrend stated it is the back wall of the garage. Mr. Broder noted if the front windows have validity, why wouldn't you add them to the rear. Mr. Behrend stated he could add windows.

Mr. Hand questioned the grading around the driveway. Mr. Behrend stated the MWRA still needs to give final authorization for the grading.

Mr. Broder noted the house is being pushed down slightly with the grading, but he questioned if Mr. Behrend knew the heights of the abutters homes on Ingraham. Mr. Behrend did not know the heights of the abutters homes.

Mr. Hand questioned if the garage had 2 or 3 bays. Mr. Behrend stated the house would have 3 bays. Mr. Hand also noted the cars would be driving over the concrete walk. Mr. Behrend stated he was trying to create a courtyard effect. Mr. Hand noted the garage could have been under ground more and depressed 3'-4', which could have taken away some of the height of the structure. Mr. Behrend noted he was trying to jeep the garage area as flat as possible. Mr. Behrend noted if you were to lower the garage additional space would be required for stairs to access the main house.

Mr. Broder stated he felt the articulation of the building was not consistent with the neighborhood.

Ms. Carls felt architecturally she didn't feel much was wrong with the style. Ms. Carls was concerned about the massing of the house and its proximity to Ingraham residents. She felt the house had to be moved forward slightly or be smaller.

Mr. Hand noted Ingraham Road is lower and the design accentuates the height problem. Mr. Hand suggested a lower pitched roof.

Mr. Skolnick disagreed with the Ingraham argument and noted your are not going to see any house front to front from Ingraham Road. Mr. Skolnick stated contextually the house fit more with the Grove Street neighborhood than the Ingraham neighborhood. Mr. Broder agreed with the argument and noted the majority of the house would only be seen from Benvenue.

Mr. Frank Tarantino, an abutter, noted he was concerned voer the height, the retaining wall, and the relocation of the easement closer to his property. Mr. Tarantino stated the relocation would remove three Hemlocks not on the plan along with the landscaping that he and his wife have maintained for over 20 years. Mr. Tarantino was also concerned over the maintenance of the retaining wall, and felt because the wall was visually more present from his property, the new homeowners would not maintain the wall.

Mr. Behrend sated he would be willing to move the 16' Hemlocks present on the slope between the two properties to Mr. Tarantino's property. Mr. Broder questioned why Mr. Behrend was installing the retaining wall. Mr. Behrend stated he could also use large boulders instead of the retaining wall. Ms. Robertson felt the boulders seemed to be a more creative design.

Mr. Broder closed the public comment discussion. The Board discussed the proposed LHR with mixed views. Several of the Board members had strong opinions on the siting of the structure including the side yard setbacks, depression of the garage, proximity of the rear of the house to the easement. In addition these same Board members felt the relation of the structure to Ingraham Road was significant in the scale and massing of the structure. The majority of the Board did agree that the design had far too many architectural details which overwhelmed the design of the house, that the roofline and pitch were too steep, and that the main roofline be lowered. The majority also felt the house should be reviewed in the context of Benvenue and Grove Street and that the scale of the house did fit in to this transitional section of Grove Street. All of the Board had concerns over the easement and the buffer between the abutters. It was felt the boulders and retaining wall with the 6' fence would aid in the visual screening of the easement. The Board notes Mr. Behrend appeared to be willing to work with the neighbors on relocation of trees within the buffer area. Mr. Behrend also agreed to add windows to the rear of the garage, and to consider lowering the garage.

3. 10:00 pm Other Business

Ms. Jop noted the first LHR project would be reviewed at the February 13, 2008 meeting.

The Board adjourned at 10:45 p.m.