Town of Wellesley, Massachusetts

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

Stephen Kasok, Neil F. McLaughlin, Beth Arndtsen, Mike Brock, Katharine Brock, Chris Hall, Douglas Shoop, Steve Sykes, Jaklyn Dextradeur, Frank Romeo, Sophie Jones, Margaret Griffin, Ellen M. Davis, Raymond Capobianco, Marty Kane, Elgar Pichler, Ann Hile, Rob Chizmadia, Sheila Tucker, John Buckley, Jennifer Conley, Mark Paris, Bob Davis.

The Board acknowledged receipt of the report from the Town Engineer dated May 8, 2008. Chairman Frisardi asked Mr. Hall, architect for the project, whether he had seen the report and had any comment. Mr. Hall said that he had and that there would be no problem complying with the requirements.

Mr. Kasok, 25 Standish Circle, asked to speak and introduced himself as the abutter to the west of the Brock property. He said that he has not had a chance to discuss his concerns with the Brocks. He submitted a letter to the Board stating his concerns. He expressed concern about the length of the two story portion of the proposed house as it extends along his side line. He feels more landscaping and screening is necessary but he felt that he can work that out with the Brock's. He passed around photos he had taken of both properties.

Mr. Kasok felt that his house was not accurately represented in the drawing. Upon scaling the drawing Mr. Hall admitted that the scale was off and the Kasok house was indicated as being larger that it should be on the plan.

Chairman Frisardi suggested an Arbor Vitae along the side would screen much of the addition. There was a brief discussion of the planted height and mature height of such a screen and the number of years to attain a certain height.

Mr. McCauley said that he is not troubled by the size of the Brock house based on its design but he said that the inaccurate representation of the scale of the houses on the presentation drawing is a concern.

Mr. Chan said the Kasok letter does provide compelling arguments. The proposed TLAG of the Brock house is significantly greater that those of the dwellings on either side. Planning staff pointed out that the TLAG figures stated in the letter have not been generated or reviewed by Town staff.

Ms. Donahue acknowledged that it may be larger but the LHR was represented by the Board as being a review not a cap. She suggested that the screen on the Kasok side could be a mix of plantings not just a hedge of one species which would form a wall. She asked Mr. Kasok whether he has any concerns about the outdoor lighting plan. He said that he has not thought about it. She felt that to be more "green" less lighting would be better.

Chairman Frisardi said that the Brock's plan does not really affect the backyard strip shared by the abutting lots. This remains open. He said that perhaps the portion of the house that extends to the rear could be lowered to one-story but he said nevertheless the Brocks have made a textbook LHR presentation.

Ms. Donahue suggested that the buffer at the lot line could be pulled back from the lot line. Ms. Arndtsen, Landscape Architect for the project, said that the Brock's have four children and really need the yard for play space.

Chairman Frisardi noted that there is a grade difference between the Brock's and the Kasok's property of approximately four feet (Kasok's is higher). Mr. Kasok said that in planning for his home the grade was lowered by about seven feet.

Mr. Hall noted that the Kasok house is effectively three stories. He felt that the design of the Brock house with the top of the wall on that side being 20 feet and the particular roof pitch chosen creates a "quiet" elevation in spite of its length.

Mr. Chan said the reference to the "drainage report" of the Town Engineer should be changed to "report" of the Town Engineer since it includes elements not related to drainage.

Mr. Shoop, Architect for the owners, addressed the items from the report of the Town Engineer. He said that the applicant has no objection to the requirements of the report. He provided copies of the Wetlands Protection Committee decision as the Board had requested at the April 28th meeting.

Ms. Donahue asked about the lighting plan. Mr. Shoop explained the details of the lighting plan. He described the "down" lighting at each doorway entrance and the wall sconces. Ms. Donahue said that the Town has encouraged reducing consumption of water and it is desirable to reduce electric usage as well.

There being no further comment the Board moved, seconded and voted unanimously to approve LHR-08-04 subject to the submitted lighting plan and the revisions and changes discussed to the draft decision.

Mr. McLaughlin presented the details of the lighting plan and lighting catalog cut sheets showing the lighting fixtures to be used, as previously requested by the Board. The lighting plan was discussed. The Board was concerned about flood lights at the front and rear corners of the house on the Edmunds Road side. After this discussion it was agreed that post lights would be used rather than the flood lights.

Mr. McLaughlin and Mr. Siemering acknowledged receipt of the report from the Town Engineer. Mr. McLaughlin said there are no design standards for the drainage system. He said that they have no problem with complying with the recommendations of the Town Engineer.

Mr. Chan asked about the path to Edmunds Road. It was agreed that it would not be built because construction of the path would compromise the stone wall on that side along Edmunds Road.

There being no further comments the Board moved, seconded and voted unanimously to approve LHR-08-06 subject to revision of the lighting design to eliminate the two sets of double flood lights at the Edmunds Road side with substitution of post lights.

Chairman Frisardi opened the hearing and reported on the review of the zoning questions by Town Counsel. He indicated that Town Counsel reviewed the letter from Peggy Griffin and Charles Sabatier dated April 10, 2008, revised April 28, 2008, and that he endorses the report given to the Board dated March 12, 2008 from Michael Grant, Richard Brown and Meghan Jop.

Ms. Conley, Traffic Engineer for the applicant, explained the traffic mitigation program for the west section of the study area (site drive to Glen Road). She mentioned that due to the geometry of the intersection it is recommended that there be an extended (1-2 seconds) "all red" phase. She discussed the advance stop line at Ledyard and the "Do Not Block Intersection" designation.

Chairman Frisardi asked about the appearance of the signal heads, mast arms and poles. He noted that the River/Cedar/Walnut signal looks "industrial." Mr. Romeo said that the River/Cedar/Walnut signal has cable supported heads. This signal would use the ornamental black uprights, mast arms. and signal heads consistent with those along the length of Washington Street.

Ms. Donahue found the proposed signal confusing. She questioned the viability of the advanced stop line. She indicated it is not observed by drivers at the Washington Street/Walnut Street signal for Bay State Road. She felt that the "Do Not Block Intersection" paint hatching on the street will mean nothing to drivers. She asked about the disadvantages of moving the signal head to Ledyard. Ms. Conley said that it would reduce the effectiveness of the intersection because "yellow time" must be increased and this is subtracted from "green time" for the through traffic. Ms. Donahue said that she is also concerned about cars being queued up in front of the school.

Ms. Donahue asked about the flow of traffic to the school. Ms. Conley said that presently for arrivals vehicles enter Columbia and exit Ledyard for after school pick-up it is the reverse.

Mr. Paris said that he understands the school will continue to have a crossing guard. Mr. Romeo said that the crossing guard will have a remote control to operate the signal.

Mr. Capobianco emphasized the difficulty and dangerousness of exiting Ledyard and Columbia. He said that these side streets are too narrow to allow for two-way traffic. In addition he noted that there is on-street parking on Columbia.

Mr. Kane said that there should be removal of more on-street spaces to improve the visibility for exiting vehicles. He suggested eliminating two or three spaces east of Ledyard. He felt the queued vehicles will cause a problem for the side streets. He noted that at certain times there is considerable on-street parking with the school and funerals at the church. He said the parking and the queues from the signal will hinder westbound right turns onto Ledyard. He questioned whether there is enough right of way width to allow the turn bays.

There was discussion of the width of the Washington Street right of way to accommodate a eastbound left turn bay. Ms. Conley said there is enough width for the turn bays at Glen and at the site drive. It was noted that the turn bays are a component of the mitigation plan approved by the Board of Selectmen.

Ms. Griffin favored moving the signal head to Ledyard. She felt that the negative effect on the efficiency of the light will only occur at limited times of the day. She emphasized that if the curb to curb distance is not sufficient for the turn bay and width must be taken away from the sidewalk ADA mandates a minimum sidewalk width.

Ms. Conley reviewed with the Board the Level of Service comparison study requested by the Board. There were some questions about the study, which was generated using a computer program. It was asked whether the program could be run to determine the impact of the signal head moved to Ledyard. She said that the program is not sophisticated enough to do that. The program will not recognize the nuance of that change.

Ms. Donahue said that she is trying to absorb all of the parameters of the intersection design. She said that she still has concerns about how the intersection will operate with the school, the retail component and pedestrian phases. Ms. Conley said that there will be free flow on Washington Street much of the time.

Ms. Jones asked if the school has been taken into consideration in the data. She said morning arrival seems to operate quite smoothly but the afternoon release is not as smooth. Parents park and wait. She suggested that there should be traffic calming measures for the side streets. She said the side streets have no sidewalks. She questioned the viability of adding 70 vehicles to the River/Cedar/ Walnut intersection. She mentioned the increase in traffic from the former Spivak's building.

Ms. Tucker said the spaces in front of the bank (on Columbia) should be shown on the plan. She said that she has observed the double stop bar at Longfellow Road. She said few people actually stop where they are supposed to stop. She said Ledyard is at a higher elevation than Columbia and this affects sight lines as well. She favored a "Right on Red" prohibition at the Glen intersection noting the three cross walks in the vicinity of the church.

Mr. Kane noted that an entire neighborhood of residential streets exit to Washington Street via Ledyard. He said that there should be an officer placed at the Glen intersection as a test to see what the effect the signal will have on Ledyard.

Ms. Conley described the ITE "Specialty Retail" ratio and that it includes small restaurants. She said they have taken a more conservative approach and included calculations for a restaurant. She said that this increases the calculation by 16 trips which has no meaningful effect on any intersections (does not change any LOS and increases delay by less that one second.) Mr. Romeo agreed with her assessment.

Mr. Chan said that he shares Ms. Donahue's concerns. There are serious traffic issues in the area which will only get worse over time. He asked if the church has specifically commented. Ms. Conley said "no". Ms. Donahue said the church should be consulted. Ms. Donahue asked if the mitigation program forces any vehicle arrival/departure changes on the school. Ms. Conley said there is no proposal to have the school change but the school may want to do this to take advantage of the signalized intersection.

Mr. Chan expressed the concern that there may be unseen consequences. He asked if there has been expansive thinking about the intersection, consideration of geometric changes or a traffic circle.

Mr. Romeo answered in the affirmative he said that BETA has been studying the area for 18 years and many aspects have been considered including one-way street patterns, additional lanes, and consolidation of driveways. But he said the mitigation program is a balance between moving the traffic and maintaining pedestrian safety. He said the proposed curb extensions will do a lot to improve pedestrian safety.

Mr. Davis called attention to Ms. Conley's representation that there is enough width but that a design plan will take much more time to develop because there is a fine degree of engineering involved. Ms. Donahue suggested that a least a dimensioned sketch plan could be developed. Mr. Romeo agreed that if there is 55 feet of width in the right of way it will apparently work.

Mr. McCauley expressed concern about removing parking spaces in front of the businesses because these spaces may be vital to the business. He favored moving the signal head to Ledyard and suggested further consideration of a one-way pattern for the side streets. He suggested that consideration be given to utilization of the former rail road right of way for the main access to the site with elimination of the proposed site drive and moving the commercial building to the west. He felt the proposed site drive is narrow and challenged. Chairman Frisardi expressed concern about trying to make such a substantial change in the plan now.

Chairman Frisardi said that it will not be possible to close the hearing. Mr. Davis felt that the information needed by the Board could be made available next week. He suggested that a building permit be conditioned on this being done. The Board was not amenable to that.

The Board moved, seconded and voted unanimously to continue the public hearing until 9:30 p.m. Wednesday, May 28, 2008 in the Great Hall. (After the PSI hearing on Temple Beth Elohim.