Town of Wellesley, Massachusetts

WELLESLEY PLANNING BOARD

REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS

MONDAY, APRIL 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.

Amy Kane, Sophie Jones, Jean Todd, Raymond Di Lucca, Mary Bowers, Doris Oldfield, Ellen M. Davis, Florence Capobianco, Dario Fauza, Christine Bellon, John W. Buckley, Donna Buckley, Sheila Tucker, Joe Tierney, Neal Glick, Padg Etta Jordan, Sandra Jordan, Joachim Seemann, Stephen Nuzzi, Sean Campbell, Greg Kaden, Marty Kane, Ronald Rich, Bob Sechrest, D. Behrend, Clark Brewer, Cynthia Theriault, Jack O'Neil, Bob Davis, Bob Corning, Mark Paris, Scott Engstrom.

The Minutes of March 24, 2008 were approved.

2. Review of Zoning Board of Appeals petition before an April 24, 2008 Public Hearing

WB Wellesley Inn, LLC

576 Washington Street & 53 Grove Street

The Board reviewed a report from Mrs. Jop. There was a brief discussion of the two-family cottage which is to be rehabilitated to provide two of the six affordable housing units required under the Planning Board's Inclusionary Zoning decision. The two-family use of the building has been interrupted during the time of the approval process. It was felt that it should not be a concern. The recommendation will include reference to the fact that the use of the cottage for two of the affordable units is a integral component of the entire project which has been under review by the town since 2005.

After a brief discussion the Board moved, seconded and voted unanimously to recommend approval.

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

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

Chairman Frisardi opened the continued hearings and stated that the focus of the evening would be on RIO rather than PSI since the report from the Board of Selectmen concerning traffic has not been received. He commented on the zoning discussion which was raised at the last session of the hearing (March 10, 2008). He said that a memo had been requested from the Inspector of Buildings, Town Planner and Planning Director concerning the zoning questions. This memo, dated March 12, 2008, was prepared and is posted on the Town Web site and sent via email to those requesting it. He noted that the Planning Board does not have a determinative role in the interpretation of zoning. He summarized topics from the memo including overall project density and size of the commercial building.

Chairman Frisardi asked the Planning Board members beginning with Mr. Chan whether they are satisfied with the project's compliance with zoning. Mr. Chan noted that the Zoning Bylaw is not clear and precise in many respects but said that after examining the memo and after further review he is satisfied that the project complies with zoning.

Ms. Lehmann said that she was comfortable with the project from the beginning.

Mr. McCauley said that he agrees that the project is in compliance with zoning and agrees that in this context the zoning is not the Planning Board's call. Concerning density he felt that the only way to arrive at a lower density is to reason that assisted units are prohibited in the zone. He said this would be illogical.

Ms. Donahue agreed with Ms. Lehmann in that she had not seen any zoning problem initially. She said she then listened to Mr. Chan's points and reviewed the written materials submitted by Mr. Wrobel and Mr. Capobianco. She said she read through the zoning as well as past planning studies. She feels that the 150 units is allowed without qualification and this has been now been verified by the Building Inspector and planning staff.

Chairman Frisardi noted that email and letters received Mr. Glick, Mr. Kane and any others will become part of the record. A letter from Ms. Griffin was received at the hearing.

Mr. Glick raised a point of order. He questioned the process of the Board in deciding not to receive testimony and debate about the zoning. He said the matter was raised by a Board member at a previous hearing and the his understanding was that it would be discussed at this hearing.

Chairman Frisardi said that following the March 10th meeting he reached the conclusion that he was in error in inviting that discussion. The Board declines to entertain a discussion of the details of the zoning as it is not a Planning Board role in the context of this hearing. He apologized for any misunderstanding. He called upon the applicant for a presentation.

Mr. Davis briefly introduced the topic and introduced Mr. O'Neil.

Mr. O'Neil introduced the other members of his project team, Mr. Paris, Mr. Corning, and Mr. Engstrom. Using slides he noted the changes in the design plans made since the last session of the public hearing. He noted that the fourth floor of the westerly apartment building has been eliminated. He said that this fourth floor contained approximately 16 or 17 units some of which have been relocated by lengthening each building slightly. He said the total reduction in units is to 141 from 150. He said that it is necessary to restore the 19 parking spaces which had been removed from the 60 foot wide building setback area west of the westerly apartment building. He said that the spaces under the surface parking lot will be eliminated. He said that the development will still have more parking than the zoning requires. He mentioned the right of way improvement plan which shows 19 parking spaces. He mentioned that the materials and other design elements are unchanged. He presented slides showing imaging of the three story design from the neighborhood. He showed a slide of a modified the RIO development site.

Ms. Lehmann favored the change to three stories.

Ms Jones asked about parking adequacy for the commercial building. Mr. O'Neil said that there will be 89 spaces, 67 are required by zoning. He said they are "over parked" for the residential component.

Mr. McCauley asked about the change to the RIO development site. Mr. O'Neil said that it is to maintain parking compliance.

Mr. Chan asked about the buffer area now that the parking must be restored. Mr. O'Neil said that it is still a 60 foot wide setback within which the landscape buffer remains at 13 feet wide.

Mr. McCauley asked about open space compliance. Mr. Corning, Landscape Architect for the project from Stantec, said open space and enhanced open space requirements are met or exceeded.

Mr. Kane questioned the decision not to entertain discussion of zoning issues. He noted that it was a Planning Board member, Mr. Chan, who brought them up. He felt that density issues are germane to the Board's discussion. Chairman Frisardi said that density is only germane to the discussion insofar as may be related to required RIO findings, otherwise zoning issues are matters for the Building Inspector or the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Kane pressed his point.

Chairman Frisardi called for a ten minute recess.

Ms. Jones said that she appreciates the removal of the fourth floor but said she is still unhappy with the height and density of the screening particularly now that the 19 parking spaces are restored.

Chairman Frisardi said the parking is six feet lower than the abutting property and would really not be visible.

Ms. Jones said they should paint the building green. She said there will be cars and noise. She said the site is contaminated. She is fearful about construction activities disturbing the pollutants.

Chairman Frisardi asked if people want a large retail store or the residential project. Ms. Jones said they are just trying to reduce the scale of the project.

Chairman Frisardi asked Mr. O'Neil if they could drop the 19 spaces on the westerly side. He said they might be able to but they are trying to retain 84 spaces with the commercial building. Mr. Davis said that there has been a shortfall of parking in the area for many years. Ms. Jones said that parking issues go beyond 27 Washington Street.

Mr. (Steve) Nuzzi, a direct abutter, said that the parking is an eye sore and is noisy. He favored the taller, four story building, with no parking. He said the screening is not enough since the trees in the buffer area are sparse. Chairman Frisardi thought that the parking on the site would be better than spillover onto the street.

Mrs. Bowers disagreed with Mr. Nuzzi. She said that the abutters are happy with the fourth floor being removed and don't want a return to the four story building.

Mr. Sechrest thanked Mr. O'Neil for his project and his efforts. He said that he particularly appreciates the applicant's approach of providing more parking than the zoning requires. He said that this is an instance when, to his credit the developer has realized that the zoning doesn't require enough parking. He said that there is a 60 foot building setback where the underlying zoning requires none, a building can be on the line. He feels the Planning Board should look at the zoning. He noted the benefits of a consultative process. He felt what should be done is what is best for the town. He said there should be space given to Mike's Wienie Wagon. He asked that the slide presentation shown be put on the town web site. He said that he walked the trail along the river and cleanup and pruning is needed but the applicant has agreed to do that. He felt the conservation restriction area should be at least 20 feet from the building, otherwise it is not fair to the applicant. He recalled the establishment of a parkland line too close to the Warren Building as being a shortsighted mistake that has since hamstrung the town. He said that reconstruction of the railroad bridge for pedestrians is important - it is not safe now. He said the estimate for the upgrades is $100,000. He mentioned the StoSS plan done for the Planning Board and that a portion of the railroad right-of-way could be landscaped according to this plan.

Mr. O'Neil said that many of these issues are before the NRC and National is interested in implementing them. Mr. Davis said the conservation restriction can be worded to provide limitations on the use specifying areas that will be open to the public and those that will protected as open space but not open to the public.

Ms. Todd said that the proposed parking lot on the west side could act like an echo chamber since there will be so much pavement. She mentioned that they can hear the train.

Mr. Glick said that abutters are being bought out. He said that this says a lot about the project; people are voting with their feet. The fact that the applicant can build 150 units does not mean that this many should be built. He said the parking should be limited. The Board does not have to allow more parking.

Ms. Donahue mentioned Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and urged the developer to come up with some ideas. She emphasized that the project represents change in the area and change is difficult for area residents. She said the owner has rights. There are certain things the Planning Board can and can't do. She said Board members do read their materials and do listen to the residents. The Board must be mindful of the best interests of the whole town balanced with those of the immediate area residents. She said that she does understand the concerns of the neighborhood. Noting review a large project in her own neighborhood helped her to understand the importance of citizen participation in the process she was encouraged to stand for election to the Planning Board. She acknowledged that the projects are different but after this citizen involvement she then ran for and was elected to the Planning Board and has served 10 years.

Mr. Glick urged the Planning Board to obtain and study the developers pro forma financial information for this project.

Mr. Fauza opposed the proposed density and asked if all of the records and testimony are public. The response was that it is all public record.

Mr. Rich said that National Development is a good developer but in his opinion in this case they have not been sensitive to the immediate neighborhood. He felt the headlights of cars exiting the garage at night would be objectionable to the neighbors. He questioned how the pathway would link up on the north west corner of the site to the MDC land. Mr. O'Neil indicated that this would be designed according to the recommendations of the NRC.

Ms. Donahue said that she is familiar with the area mentioned by Mr. Rich having walked the trail at the conclusion of the Planning Board site visit.

Mr. Rich asked the actual difference in overall height between the four story and the three story building. Mr. O'Neil said 11 feet.

Mr. Fagan said that the traffic on Route 16 is at gridlock or nearly so much of the day. He felt that time spent on this project is a waste of effort.

There being no further comment the Board moved, seconded and voted unanimously to continue both hearings until 7:30 p.m. Monday, May 5, 2008 in the Great Hall, Town Hall.

3. PSI-08-01 Public Hearing #978 Worcester Street - Wellesley Motor Inn site.

Chairman Frisardi opened the hearing and recognized Mr. Behrend.

Mr. Behrend introduced the other members of his team, Clark Brewer and Cynthia Theriault. He explained the changes to the project since the previous submission (PSI-07-01). He said that the rear building would be a new 36 unit condominium building rather than a 16 unit renovation of an existing building. The units will be one, two and three bedroom units with 7 affordable. He said that there would be a 24,000 square foot two-story commercial building located at the front of the site. This commercial building is unchanged from the previous submission. He said the traffic review by the town is not complete but he has been meeting with Hans Larsen and Kien Ho to bring it to a close.

Ms. Theriault displayed the site plans.

Ms. Donahue commented that the site appears tight. She asked about access to the cell tower and town electric transformer at the rear of the site.

Ms. Theriault described the easement serving this area and said there are no obstructions. She described the water, sewer, electric service and storm drain systems. Mr. Behrend said that the Fire Department has asked for another hydrant on site. She said the storm drain system will contain the 100 year storm. She explained the overflow to the Morse's Pond wetland buffer and "level spreader." Mr. Behrend said the Wetlands Committee has issued the order of conditions which has been filed.

Mr. McCauley asked if "demand response" and "peak shaving" had been discussed with the Municipal Light Plant. Mr. Behrend said no - MLP has not raised that with him.

Concerning off-street parking Mr. Behrend said there would be 140 spaces with 54 in the garage. He said there would be a 3,000 square foot restaurant as well as a 1,700 square foot Starbucks coffee shop with a drive through window.

Mr. Chan asked about the Floor Area Ratio of the project. The response was that it will be approximately 0.24. He asked about other tenants. Mr. Behrend said that so far he expects a hair salon and a phone store.

It was stated that there has been discussion of the benefits of providing a "frontage road" or some other means of access for the businesses on this side of Worcester Street to access the Overbrook Drive traffic signal. This would enable exiting vehicles to proceed on west on Route 9 without having to use the Weston Road interchange. It was stated that initially Mass Highway Department did not favor the "reverse lane" particularly because of the nighttime "oncoming headlights problem."

Mr. Sechrest commented that he is aware of a very similar and quite workable situation on Route 89 in Montpelier, Vermont. He said there are "Jersey" Barriers with a screen on top to block the headlight glare.

There being no further comments the Board moved, seconded and voted unanimously to continue the hearing until 7:30 p.m. Monday, June 9, 2008, in the Great Hall.

4. #30 Benvenue Street

Chairman Frisardi suggested to Mr. Behrend that he withdraw the #30 Benvenue LHR request and resubmit when he has his approvals from the Friends Meeting and MWRA.

Mr. Behrend said that he expected MWRA approval in a few days. He said #34 does not have an issue with Friends Meeting. He suggested that he could withdraw #30 and submit #34 with the fee rolled over. That was felt to be satisfactory to the Board.

Next Meeting: Monday, April 28, 2008

Meeting Adjourned: 10:50 p.m.

Richard H. Brown, Planning Director