Town of Wellesley, Massachusetts

WELLESLEY PLANNING BOARD

REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS

MONDAY, MARCH 10, 2008, 7:00 p.m.

GREAT HALL – TOWN HALL

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

Peggy Griffin, Tsumehiru & Cynthia Yasuda, Martha McGandy, Joseph A Fagan, Eileen Fagan, Martin Horowitz, Frank Holmes, Scott Engstrom, Robert Corning, Neal Glick, Stella Karavoili, Doris Oldfield, Amy Kane, Andrea Moore Johnson, Dario Fauza, Dianne Sullivan, Kathleen McLaughlin, Frank McLaughlin, Florence Capobianco, Raymond Capobianco, Kati Bannish, Julianna Kaden, Steve Sykes, Kathy Cervon, Jan Matejka, Chuck Herron, Connie Carven, Christine Bellon, Sophie Jones, Lynn Donahue, Joachim Seemann, John Martin, Elgar Pichler, Christine Kehoe, Marian Wrobel, Andy Wrobel, Sandra Jordan, Padg Etta Jordan, Christina B. Sentence, Elizabeth Holden, Kevin Bradley, Glenn Kurth, Paul Jerrickson, Bill Tedoldi, Ted Chryssicas, Marty Kane, Jack O’Neil, Peter Tamm, David Manfreddi.

1. Continuation of Public Hearings – 27 Washington Street – National Development

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

Chairman Frisardi opened the continued session of the hearing and asked Mr. O’Neil for a presentation.

Mr. O’Neil presented materials by use of projected slides. He said that the materials presented are intended to be responsive to the requests made at the last session of the hearing on February 25^th. He presented two photographs of the Wellesley Lower Falls area showing the former railroad sidings with box cars and the former mill buildings in the distance. He presented slides showing an aerial photograph with land ownerships and land uses superimposed; a slide of a plan showing the river protection area and the building setbacks from street and property lines and sewer lines to be relocated; and a slide of a plan showing the existing zoning. He called upon architect David Manfreddi to explain in detail the modifications to the west façade of the west apartment building.

Mr. Manfreddi presented a slide showing changes to the west façade of the west building as well as the materials. He presented a slide showing the roof plan showing the screening of rooftop mechanical equipment. He noted that this rooftop equipment serves the common areas in the building. He said there is no need for rooftop equipment to serve the apartments themselves.

Mr. O’Neil presented a slide of a perspective rendering of the west façade of the west building. He also presented photo imagery of two views from this neighborhood toward the existing, former Grossman’s building and imagery of the proposed new apartment building with landscaping.

Ms. Donahue asked whether the Design Review Board has seen the changed materials. Mr. Manfreddi said that they had. Mrs. Jop confirmed this. The materials board was displayed.

Mr. Chan asked if the metal shingle materials proposed for the top floor is reflective. Mr. Manfreddi said that it is not – it has a dull finish.

Mr. McCauley asked if the applicant is selectively using the RIO district.

Mr. Tamm said there would be no advantage to the applicant to do that. He said if they had not identified a “RIO Development Site” there would be inconsistencies in the zoning pertaining to street setback.

Chairman Frisardi indicated that Mr. Chan has questioned the density calculations.

Mr. Chan felt that there is a problem of interpretation of the housing density. He acknowledged that the Bylaw RIO District provides two different density ratios, one for elderly living units and one for conventional multi-family housing, but none for assisted units. He read portions of the Planning Board Report to the 1998 Town Meeting at which the RIO District was adopted.

Mr. Tamm said that the Bylaw ignores the density for the affordable units.

Mr. Chan said that he has reviewed the application materials and has found ambiguities and flaws. He noted that there is inconsistency in the stated lot area used as the basis for “calculating” the maximum number of allowable units, required amount of open space, and maximum size of retail building. He questioned whether the applicant should be exempt from the 10,000 square foot retail limitation for mixed use projects in the RIO District or the 0.30 Floor Area Ratio for the Lower Falls Village Commercial District. He questioned whether the proponent can and should exempt the assisted unite from density limits. He said that the RIO District does not even list “assisted units” explicitly as a permitted use, and found it unfortunate that eh RIO bylaw had not been updated to reflect more recent inclusionary zoning requirements. He felt the units on the site should be limited to either 90 or 128 depending on the lot size and the retail space should be limited to 10,000 square foot limitation and the 0.30 FAR. He felt that his position is supported by the planning studies that were done at the time as these provide the legislative history.

Mr. O’Neil said that there have been a number of meetings with town staff and Town Counsel. He said there has been much forethought and discussion concerning the plan and the density of the project.

Chairman Frisardi said that there will be a process to discuss the matters raised by Mr. Chan and it will not be decided tonight.

Ms. Donahue said that she wants to study the matter more in view of Mr. Chan’s analysis.

Ms. Lehmann said that she spent all day going over the zoning. She noted that the zoning confers development options and does not take anything away. She acknowledged that the zoning language is ambiguous but the 150 unit maximum is clear. She agreed that there is no maximum density listed for assisted units, and concurred with the applicant’s math.

Chairman Frisardi felt that ambiguous construction in language works against the interests of the Town and in favor of the developer. He said that he feels that the 1800 square feet per unit maximum density cannot be exceeded.

Mr. Chan said that he does not agree with using the entire site for the unit calculation.

Mr. McCauley expressed his gratitude to Mr. Chan for bringing these matters forward. He said that he agrees with Ms. Donahue that the matter needs more study. He feels that the 1800 square feet per unit is the key metric. He noted that the assisted unit exemption applies to FAR not density.

Mr. Tamm said that a great deal of time has been spent studying the zoning and feels the application is correct. He noted the Inclusionary Zoning filing that was approved by the Board applied to the entire lot. He said the project meets all bulk requirements. He felt that the Bylaw is clear that the 1800 unit requirement applies to conventional units.

Chairman Frisardi doubted that the affordable units would not be subject to any density limit.

Mr. Tamm said that they are subject to the 150 unit cap. He added that the RIO is an incentive district.

Chairman Frisardi said that the incentive would be recognized by not replicating the 2,500 square foot requirement of the underlying zone.

Mr. Tamm felt that Mr. Chan’s assertion that the studies provide the legislative history of RIO is only useful to a point because it is the exact language of the zoning that the developer has relied on – not the language of a report. He said that this is matter will be addressed by the applicant in writing. He said hopefully the Building Inspector and Town Counsel will be able to participate in the discussion.

Chairman Frisardi said that he is concerned about the amount of land devoted to each use the applicant is taking credit for. This will affect the size of the commercial building. He invited written submittals from the applicant and from anyone else. He called for comments from those in attendance.

Mr. Glick suggested that the Board should look upon Mr. Chan’s suggested numbers as the maximum density not necessarily the ideal density for the project. The ideal density may be logically less. He said the idea that there is no density limit for the affordable units makes the affordable units seem to be second rate. He feels that was not the intent of the drafters of the provision.

Mr. Wrobel suggested that further consideration be given to the amount of parking needed for the assisted units.

Mrs. O’Brien said that she is representing Father Tom Powers of St. John’s Church. She said the church is generally supportive of affordable housing but the traffic issues are a particular concern in view of the proximity of the school. She said everyone appreciates the hard work done by the Planning Board.

Mr. Kane questioned the size of the lot.

Mr. O’Neil stated it is 5.2 acres. He said that it includes the riverfront area it is measured to the high water mark.

Dr. Matejka emphasized that Washington Street is a critical artery that serves the town. He asked the Planning Board to act conservatively in its decision-making.

Mr. Fauza said that in view of the differences in interpretation of the law he encouraged the Planning Board to favor the Town’s interests rather than the interests of the business owner. He mentioned the proximity of the site to I-95, the current overcrowding of the Schofield School and the concern about nearby residential property values.

Chairman Frisardi noted that this is not an adversarial situation. He contrasted the dialog today with the years of litigation concerning a past project on this site. He said maybe a compromise can be worked out.

Ms. Jones said that she is still appalled and shocked by the project. The proposed screening does not really help. She said that perhaps town houses would work on the site but not the buildings proposed. She said the materials of the neighborhood are not the stone, cement and metal siding proposed. She called for removal of the top floor to reduce the scale.

Ms. Lehmann cautioned that the site is Industrial District A which itself allows substantial construction.

Chairman Frisardi asked Mr. Manfreddi how the colors were selected. Mr. Manfreddi explained the selection of the neutral color and choice of materials.

Mr. Wrobel thanked National Development for their efforts but felt the building still does not fit in the RIO zone. He said that the criteria of the Design Review section are not being met and were not considered. He hopes that in a redesign of the project the applicant can “get it right” next time. He said the Lower Falls Guidelines call for a “transition to residential” for the site. He feels this project does not accomplish this particularly regarding building height. He displayed a photo of his house against a drawing the proposed building to demonstrate the incompatibility. He said it might be better without the top floor.

Mr. Capobianco said that he participated in the public forum for the Lower Falls Plan in 1995. He said that his recollection was that the Lower Falls projects were recommended to be two or three stories in height not four.

The following written submissions were made to the Board at the hearing:

a. Letter dated 3/6/08 by Mary (Nuzzi) Bowers.

b. Lower Falls Forum 6/14/95 Summary Report provided by Mr. Wrobel

c. Report of the Planning Board to the 1998 Annual Town Meeting provided by staff.

Chairman Frisardi noted that the Planning Board has other business to discuss. After consultation with the applicant the Board moved, seconded and voted unanimously to continue the hearings on RIO and PSI until Thursday, April 10, 2008, 9:00 p.m. in the Great Hall.

2. Public Hearing on Amendments to Rules Relative to the Issuance of Special Permits

by the Planning Board for Projects of Significant Impact

Chairman Frisardi opened the hearing and noted the staff report in the packet recommending a 20% increase in submission fees and elimination of the $50,000 submission fee cap.

Mr. Brown said that there has been an estimated four-fold increase in staff time spent on PSI reviews. A comparison was made between the number of meetings concerning the Druker/Harvard-Pilgrim project and the Linden Square Project both of which involved rezoning action before Town Meeting and both projects comprised approximately 270,000 square feet of commercial floor area.

No comments were received from those in attendance.

Mr. McCauley expressed concern that some applicants may be taken by surprise. Mr. Brown said effort was made to notify known prospective applicants.

After a brief discussion the Board moved, seconded and voted unanimously to adopt the amendments as submitted by staff.

3. Zoning Bylaw Recodification Project

The Board reviewed a draft Request for Qualifications (RFQ) prepared by staff.

Mr. McCauley felt that the study of elimination of Industrial Districts should not be included in the scope. He said that this is a broader matter than should be included in a recodification project.

Chairman Frisardi suggested we request of respondents that a three or four page writing sample to be submitted. He suggested that the Board conduct an off-site retreat for this project similar to the one held prior to the Large House Review project.

With these changes the RFQ will be sent out to a list of consultants.

4. Associate Member Position

Mr. Chan suggested that we solicit candidates for the open Associate Member position. A notice will be prepared for publication The Wellesley Townsman.

The Minutes of February 2, 2008 were approved as amended.

6. Large House Review

Ms. Lehmann stated that she has spoken to Mrs. Jop about the progress of the first Large House Review cases and as a result concluded that a meeting between the Planning Board and the Design Review Board might be very helpful.

Mrs. Jop summarized the Design Review Board deliberations concerning the 30 Benvenue and 169 Grove Street applications. After a brief discussion Chairman Frisardi suggested that a meeting may not be necessary and that the Design Review Board should continue to review the cases based on the established criteria contained in Section XXII of the Zoning Bylaw.

7. Barton Road and Possible Shuttle Bus

Ms. Donahue reported on a conversation with Mr. Schuler of the Housing Authority Board concerning the interest in exploring the possibility of establishing shuttle bus service to the Barton Road housing complex. The Housing Authority will be seeking CPC funding for a study.

8. Denton Road – Neighborhood Conservation District (NCD)

The Board briefly discussed this project (Article 33) to establish an NCD in the Denton Road area. It was noted that NCD proponents have met with Mr. McCauley and Mr. Chan to further explain the details.

Mr. McCauley said that the guidelines have been relaxed somewhat and that he is now supportive of the effort.

Mr. Chan said that it was a productive discussion and he appreciates the opportunity to provide his input. He said that he still does not favor this particular proposal.

9. Wellesley West Gateway

Mr. Chan and Mr. McCauley said that they had a productive meeting with Donna Jacobs of the Metro West Office. A revised draft is expected soon. March 27, 2008 was set as a tentative follow-up meeting.

Next Meeting: Monday, March 24, 2008

Meeting Adjourned: 9:50 p.m.

Richard H. Brown, Planning Director