Town of Wellesley, Massachusetts

WELLESLEY PLANNING BOARD

REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2008, 7:15 p.m.

GREAT HALL - TOWN HALL

Present: Mr. Frisardi, Ms. Donahue, Mr. Chan, Mr. McCauley, Ms. Lehmann, ……… …. ……………………………………………………………………………Mrs. Jop, Mr. Brown.

Mary Ann Hill, Bob Davis, Peter Tamm, Jack O'Neil, Ronald Rich, Kathleen McLoughlin, Frank McLoughlin, Dianne Sullivan, Christine Bellon, Ann Hile, Denny Nackoney, Kati Bannish, Julianna Kaden, Nunzio Domilici, Elgar Pichler, Donna Buckley, John Buckley, Mary Bowers, Joachim Seemann, Peggy Griffin, John and Amanda Rich, Ray Capobianco, Sophie Jones, Marian Wrobel, Amy Kane, Karty Kane, Kevin Bradley, Dave Darwin, Sanjeev Singh, Pam Stewart, Janie Batista, Frank Holmes, Robert Cornell, Mark Paris, Joe Tierney, Bill Tedoldi, Neal Glick, Rob Chizmadis, Amy Sangiolo, Robert Sechrest, Marlene O'Brien, Heidi Gross, Susan Abbott, Alex Gabbis, Nina Danforth, Steve Sykes, Ken Baer.

1. Plan Thought Not to Require Approval

PBC-08-1 #19 Dunedin Road and Lot 4A Polaris Circle

The Board met with Mr. Singh to review this plan. After a brief discussion the Board moved, seconded and voted unanimously to endorse the plan as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law.

The minutes of February 4, 2008 were approved as amended.

3. Continuation of Public Hearings - 27 Washington Street - National Development

Residential Incentive Overlay (RIO) and Project of Significant Impact (PSI)

Chairman Frisardi reconvened the public hearings. He made it clear that there are two hearing open, the RIO and PSI special permit requests. He reported on the on-site inspection made by the Planning Board on Saturday February 9, 2008. At that time Planning Board members walked the site and surrounding streets. He called upon Mr. Davis.

Mr. Davis briefly introduced the topic and asked Mr. O'Neil of National Development to make the presentation.

Mr. O'Neil said that there would be no discussion of traffic at this meeting because the review of traffic and pedestrian safety by the Board of Selectmen has not been completed. He reported on the progress of the wetlands permitting, meetings with BETA the town's traffic engineering consultant, and other follow-up meetings since the last session of the hearing. Using a slide presentation he described the previous and current (revised) plan which eliminates parking and pavement at the northwesterly corner of the site (nearest the private residences). He noted that the buffer area from the single residence area on the original plan was 13 feet wide. By elimination of this pavement this buffer width has been increased to 60 feet. Photos were shown of existing neighboring buildings and imagery of the proposed westerly apartment building. He said neighbors had expressed concerns about possible noise from rooftop mechanical equipment. The building plans have been modified to include screening and sound buffering of this equipment. He said neighbors had requested a "shadow study" showing the implications of building shadows on the land. Through slides building shadow was shown throughout the day at spring equinox, summer solstice, autumnal equinox and winter solstice. This shadow study portion of the slide presentation was run through several times and paused, at the request of viewers, so that the shadow at various times of the day could be carefully examined.

Ms. O'Brien asked if copies of the study could made available. The response was in the affirmative.

Ms. Donahue noted that the latest plan shows no access from the former rail right-of-way. Mr. O'Neil acknowledged that and indicated that discussions are continuing with the town relative to the plan for the right-of-way and that National has indicated that it will implement the agreed upon plan.

In response to a question concerning quantity of proposed parking Mr. O'Neil said there would be 388 spaces, 262 spaces in the garage, 300 spaces will be devoted to the residential component.

Chairman Frisardi entertained comments and questions from the floor.

Mrs. Bowers said that she lives at 12 Columbia Street now and has lived on the street for 66 years formerly at 15 Columbia Street. She read from a prepared statement that was subsequently submitted to the Board for the record. She said the four story building is difficult to accept. She felt the view toward the development from the front of her house will not be pleasant. She said no image has been shown of the proposed building from this angle. She felt no amount of screening will block the view of the proposed building. She is troubled by the acquisition of #9 Columbia Street by National Development. She hoped it would not be used for access. She felt that the proposed westerly apartment buildings should be moved closer to Washington Street to reduce the impact on single residences. She said that the town has enacted Mansionization controls. She felt that this project amounts to commercial Mansionization. She felt that Wellesley is looking more and more like a city. She asked the Board members to visualize this project in their neighborhood. She lamented that future generations of abutters will need to look at it.

Mr. O'Neil said that the #9 Columbia property will not be used for access. He said zoning law would not allow that. Mr. Frisardi asked his plans for the property.

Mr. O'Neil said he had no intention to buy it but was approached by the owner with a favorable offer. He said that they will hold it and lease it then will sell it after his project is complete. Mr. Frisardi asked if he would be willing to add a deed restriction to limit use. Mr. O'Neil said that he would be open to that.

Mr. Sechrest said that he feels the rehabilitation of the old rail road bridge is important for pedestrian use. He said it will tie into a larger trail system. He mentioned the StoSS plan for the rail right-of-way done several years ago by the Planning Board. He mentioned the proposed trail along the river and that it could be half way down the embankment. He asked about cleaning up of the riverbank. Mr. O'Neil said that would be done by National.

Mr. Sechrest said that the proposed trails on National Development Property will need to be recorded. He mentioned that Stop and Shop had an option on the first building on Mica Lane to improve access. He acknowledged that this is no longer possible. He felt that parking along the right-or-way would take away from green space. He felt that there should be dedicated space for Mike's Wienie Wagon acceptable to Mike. He mentioned the parking situation at Linden Square and suggested the town's required ratios may be wrong. He mentioned the Washington Street pedestrian crossing at Mica Lane and that it may need to be relocated for safety reasons. He suggested that the River Street Parking Garage proposal should be brought back before the town.

Ms. Gross, Chair of Natural Resources Commission (NRC) , praised National Development for their cooperation in working with NRC on this development. She said an initial plan for the former rail right of way called for parking and pavement almost to the bridge (owned by the State Division of Conservation Resources DCR). The later plan provides green space 200 feet from the river which is very acceptable to NRC. She said National has agreed to place a conservation restriction on the entire riverbank area.

Mr. Capobianco asked about the responsibility for future maintenance of the proposed trail along the river. Mr. O'Neil said National would be responsible for that.

Ms. Wrobel thanked the Planning Board for all the time it has devoted to review of this project and thanked National Development for its responsiveness. She displayed a poster board (visual aid) purporting to show the proposed westerly building in relation to her house at 12 Columbia Street along with landscaping and screening as proposed by National. She said that she is asking the developer to provide additional views of the proposed project from the neighborhood. She feels that the scale of the west building will not be compatible with the neighborhood. She said that she agrees with Mrs. Bowers that screening will not cure this. She hopes for some changes. She asked for a memo from the developer that provides some options. She said that the neighborhood wants to support the project but continues to be concerned about noise, light pollution, safety during construction, the construction timetable.

Ms. Jones said Columbia Street is a modest neighborhood and asked for views from there.

Chairman Frisardi asked about provision of imaging or a rendering as seen from the neighborhood (from the west). Mr. O'Neil said it would be provided.

Mr. Glick, 89 River Street, said that he does not regularly receive the notices of meetings and feels he is still within the neighborhood. He feels the project does not meet the Lower Falls Guidelines and will be detrimental to neighborhood character. He feels the project is too large and that the neighborhood cannot absorb it. He said Washington Street traffic is a mess. He is dismayed that people (#9 Columbia Street) are selling out to the developer. He feels the project needs to be scaled down. He said that the town should be getting benefits from the project, he sees none. He feels the entire former rail right-of-way should be green. Chairman Frisardi asked him how he visualizes the neighborhood. Mr. Glick said it is controlled by the employees during the day. He said Newton did a better job with the riverfront in the Cordingly Dam area.

Ms. Hile asked how much of the riverbank is publicly owned.

Ms. Gross said none in this area because National owns the riverbank and owns to the center of the river. She said there is a 50 foot buffer zone but National could close the area to public access. She said the permanent public access rights to be granted by National are very important and will, among other things, allow kayak landings at new locations. There is DCR property on either side of National Development land. Mr. Sechrest confirmed that this will connect the two.

Ms. Gross added that the bridge is in structurally sound condition but needs to be decked. She said the estimate for this work is in the range of $100,000.

Ms. Abbott introduced herself as being a member of the Charles River Watershed Association. She toured the area and feels the riverfront is a wonderful access that should be preserved and enhanced.

Mr. Gabbis asked about the impact on schools and the train system and whether soil testing was done since this has been an industrial area. Mr. O'Neil said that the proposed project will be 70% one bedroom which will discourage families with children. He said that soil testing has been done and some cleanup is necessary and will be done.

Mr. Sechrest asked if there would be a sidewalk from Washington Street to the river. Mr. O'Neil said there would be.

Ms. Danforth introduced herself as a resident of Weston but a frequent visitor to the riverfront. She strongly favored the rehabilitation of the bridge for pedestrian and bicycle use. She said all future development needs to be more "green." The bridge offers a wonderful opportunity for a pedestrian/bicycle connection to the Riverside MBTA station. She commented that the proposed building walls will be harsh and perhaps could be stepped back or architecturally softened.

Chairman Frisardi commented about the moving of the sewer lines as a PSI element. Mr. O'Neil assumed it would be.

Chairman Frisardi said that he wished to turn to comments from Planning Board members. He stated that the Planning Board will not be deciding on the use of the right-of-way. He oriented the Board on its responsibilities under the requested RIO special permit by reading the preamble to the Zoning Bylaw section.

Mr. Chan said that he is troubled by the scale and scope of the project but is mindful of the economics. He would like to see the scale issue addressed reducing the impact with a lower height or further consideration given to softening the edge.

Mr. O'Neil said consideration of these matters has been going on a long time. He said if a floor were easy to delete it would have been done by now.

Ms. Donahue said that it is not easy to balance the interests. The Lower Falls Visioning provided for the Residential Incentive Overlay provisions. The Board must weigh the benefits and the costs. The predominantly residential nature of the project is not a bad thing. It is seen that efforts have been made to contain the amount of commercial space. She mentioned the negative value in a big box type store. She asked what is it about the area that people value. She said that she is sensitive to concern about views from the neighborhood. She felt, however, that the pre-construction perception is often worse than the reality. She felt that much could be done to soften the design through choice of materials and perhaps "greening" of the roof. She appreciated the shadow study and found it very valuable. She suggested also air photos of the area indicating ownership. She feels it is a challenging site because of the river; attention must be paid to the natural features and the character of the area. She emphasized to those unfamiliar with the topic that the existing zoning allows substantial development.

Ms Lehmann said that she is "on the fence in several respects." She said that she feels there a lot of good aspects to this project. She understands the neighbors' concern about building height. She hoped consideration could be given to the "stepped back" upper floor. She felt everyone has made good points.

Mr. McCauley noted that the RIO purpose section specifies that one or more of the three listed purposes must be met. He said that it appears that two of the three listed purposes are met. He said that the prerequisite findings appear to be sub-clauses 1 through 4 within clause O. These are the required criteria. He felt that a better project may result through utilization of the former rail right-of-way. He felt that using this strip for access may be an "historical accident." He felt that, on balance, the project meets the intent of the bylaw. It's hard on the Columbia Street neighborhood that is compromised by the Industrial District and the bank on one side and St. John's school on the other. He felt the applicant should explore and explain methods to enhance the neighborhood.

Chairman Frisardi said that the RIO District does provide a transition. Without utilization of the district offerings there is effectively no buffer required. Applicants seeking to utilize the district offerings are required to have a 60 foot wide buffer from the single family residential area.

Mr. McCauley said that he is somewhat troubled by the shadow study in that the buildings would appear to delay sunrise for some abutters.

Chairman Frisardi said that initially he thought a 20 foot eastward shift of the buildings may make an improvement. He now feels that it wouldn't make much difference. The existing change in grade on the west side reduces the height impact. An upper floor setback or green roof may help.

Ms. Lehmann suggested consideration be given to moving the westerly building toward Washington Street. Mr. O'Neil felt that would bring it out of the RIO District.

Chairman Frisardi asked the height of the rooftop screening for the mechanical equipment. The response was approximately 10 feet. Mrs. Jop noted that the screening is set in from the outside wall such that it would not be seen by from the abutting property. Mr. O'Neil offered to provide building sections to show this.

Chairman Frisardi asked about the surface finishes facing Columbia Street. It was noted that samples of these finishes were available at DRB meetings which were well attended by the abutters.

Ms. Donahue mentioned the importance of the pedestrian connection across the river and the possible "rail trail" to Riverside Station.

Ms. Sangiolo, a member of the City of Newton Board of Alderman, said some residents of that area of the city are in favor of a rail trail and some are not. She said that she understands there is a major project to be proposed soon for the Riverside Station.

Chairman Frisardi asked about soil testing. Mr. O'Neil said that they have two environmental matters that are currently under third party peer review.

Chairman Frisardi asked about impact on schools. Mr. O'Neil said that the project will likely have minimal impact on the schools since 70% of the units will be one bedroom.

A letters received from Sheila Tucker and Marian Wrobel and written notes from Robert Sechrest were submitted and will be added to the written record.

It was announced to those in attendance that the RIO hearing and the PSI hearing would be continued to Monday, March 10, 2008 at the same time and location.

4. PSI-07-1 #978 Worcester Street - Motor Inn

The Board received two requests from the applicant, Dean Behrend. The first was a request to withdraw the application. After a very brief discussion the Board moved, seconded and voted unanimously to accept the withdrawal of the application.

It was noted that a new modified application is pending submission (PSI-08-01). Mr. Behrend has requested recalculation of the required number of affordable housing units based on the new submission. The new application will consist of a commercial building of 24,0000 square feet (same as PSI 07-01) and a new building with 36 condominium units (PSI - 07-01 proposed 16 units). After a brief discussion and consideration of a staff report given orally the Board moved, seconded and voted unanimously to require 9 affordable units in conjunction with this project.

5. 2008 Annual Town Meeting

After a brief discussion the Board moved, seconded and voted unanimously to make no motion on the two submitted articles #29 & #30 at the Town Meeting.

Article 29 proposed and exemption from zoning density limits of the require affordable units. Although there was support from the Wellesley Housing Development Corporation the Advisory Committee was not supportive. An amended motion was discussed but it was felt there is not adequate time to properly analyze the proposed new language.

Article 30 proposed amendments to Large House Review if recommended by the Attorney General. Recent approval by the Attorney General suggested no text changes are necessary.

6. Review of Zoning Board of Appeals Petitions

951 Worcester Street

Special Permit Renewals

The Planning Board strongly objected to the granting of this renewal. Last year the Board expressed concerns regarding the renewal based on vehicle queuing. The traffic studies submitted indicate the number of vehicles per hour that utilize the drive through window but give no indication of queue length. A pass through of 74 vehicles per hour equates to 1.23 vehicles per minute. It has been observed that the queue spills out into the small parking lot and onto Route 9.

It was noted that SECTION XXV., D. 3. Vehicle Queuing Lanes., provides that "… vehicles will not encroach onto sidewalk areas or designated fire lanes, or interfere with the travel or maneuvering of other vehicles into and out of parking spaces, driveways or within the public right of way."

The Planning Board believes that this provision is currently not being met and consequently the current situation has serious unmet safety issues.

629 Washington Street

Special Permit Renewals

The Planning Board reviewed the application submission materials and supported the granting of this petition.

The Planning Board reviewed the application submission materials and supported the granting of this petition. The one comment made during the Board review was that consideration be given to providing adequate access to the fields for emergency vehicles.

The Planning Board has no objection to the division of the property based on the provisions of Chapter 41, Sections 81L (last sentence) and 81P of the Subdivision Control Law which allows the division of land upon which there are two existing dwellings (presumably for conveyance purposes). However, the Board would not consider these lots subsequently buildable, by right, after a voluntary tear down of the dwellings thereon.

Special Permit/Finding

The Planning Board opposed the granting of this request. It is felt to be inconsistent with the guidelines of the recently adopted Large House Review.

The Board met with Mr. Sykes and Mr. Baer concerning the budget.

Mr. Baer sought clarification concerning the relationship between the Professional Services line item request in the Operating Budget and the Capital Outlay request. He indicated that the Advisory Committee is seeking budget reductions from all departments. He said that Advisory Committee has some question as to whether all of the capital projects requested by the Planning Board can realistically be completed within a year. He emphasized that if there is an urgent need during the year for a study the Planning Board should request a transfer from the Reserve Fund.

The Board made it clear that its Operating Budget request for Professional Services is not intended to duplicate the Capital Request consequently the Capital Request would be reduced. Mr. McCauley questioned the Reserve Fund request approach noting that the views of the current Advisory Committee will not bind future Advisory Committees.

There was some discussion of Planning Department fees and the relationship to Operating and Capital Budgets. Large House review fees supporting a third planner request was discussed. Mr. Brown emphasized the very variable nature of Planning Department receipts and that it is really not workable to attempt to fully fund an employee on that basis.

Mr. Baer made it clear that the Advisory is looking for a $20,000 cut. After some further discussion Mr. McCauley moved, and it was seconded and voted unanimously to reduce the Operating Budget - Professional Services line item by $20,000.

The Board discussed the value of preparing a letter of explanation to the Advisory Committee.

The Board thanked Mr. Sykes and Mr. Baer for their support and guidance.

Next Meeting: Monday, March 10, 2008

Meeting Adjourned: 11:00 p.m.