Members Present: |
Rob Skolnick, Helen Robertson, Ed Hand, Bob Broder, and Planner- Ethan Parsons |
Also Present: |
Jeff Newman, Alan Taylor, Peter Harrington, Frederick Camerato, Richard Guliani, Alex Pitkin, Stephen Gasosian, Roger Gurney, Cynthia Westerman, Katherine Babson |
Mr. Skolnick brought the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
1. |
7:30 pm |
Truly Yogurt |
35 Grove Street |
Wall sign |
DRB: 68-08 |
Mr. Jeff Newman requested the Board approve of a proposal to replace an existing wall sign at Truly Yogurt’s 35 Grove Street location. The wall sign would measure 15” high x 80” wide, resulting in an area of 8 sq. ft. The words “Truly Yogurt” would have blue and white letters measuring 7” high. The words “Ice Cream & More” would be placed under the word “Yogurt”, would have 1.2” high letters, and would be the same color as the other letters on the sign. The background of the sign would be lavender and fuscia. The sign will not be illuminated. Mr. Rob Skolnick advised Mr. Newman that the business owner should remove the smaller sign that reads “Annabelle’s Ice Cream”, below the new sign. The
smaller sign is not permitted.
The Board voted unanimously to approve the new wall sign as presented.
Peter Harrington, Alan Taylor, Frederick Camerato, and Richard Guliani came before the Board to discuss conceptual ideas for a potential residential project on Rice Street. The parcel is located in a General Residence district. The parcel is bordered by a Town-owned right of way and parkland. The group is conceptualizing a 3-unit residential development. The group might seek a variance to encroach on the front-yard setback if the development demands the encroachment. Two-family residences exist to the north of the property and single-family residences exist to the south of the parcel. The group is weighing the design benefits of separating the units into a single-family building and a two-unit building.
Ms. Robertson observed that the parcels have great potential because of the southern exposure. Ms. Robertson emphasized utilization of the sunlight and the view of the natural area to the south.
Mr. Guliani stated that he liked the design of the residential units at 3 Smith Rd., behind Needham Bank. In particular, he liked the cedar and the paint color. He stated that he would perhaps like to develop something similar to these residences.
Mr. Broder encouraged the group to carefully consider both the benefits and hazards of using cedar shingles. He observed that this material often requires more frequent and costly maintenance. Mr. Broder advised the group to develop a detailed plan for the site and then submit an official application to the Design Review Board. When the application was finished and the Board could look at a massing model, photographs of adjacent buildings, materials to be used, and other details, it would be able to make more informed comments and conduct a comprehensive review.
The group agreed to take the suggestions of the DRB into consideration as they construct a development proposal.
3. |
8:15 pm |
High School |
PBC/SMMA |
Schematic Design |
|
Mr. Alex Pitkin, an architect for SMMA, came before the Board to present the schematic design for the proposed High School project. Mr. Pitkin walked the Board members around and through the school, explaining the fundamental design principles that guided the schematic design development. Beginning with the front entrance, Mr. Pitkin explained how the intent of the design is to guide visitors and students into the entrance. Strong architectural features would signify the entrance, such as canopies, the use of glass windows and doors, a sign, and landscape elements. The Site Plan depicts the strong t-shape of the school, with its distinct wings housing various educational and administrative uses. The Site plan and birds-eye view shows the buildings’ orientation. Photovoltaic roof
panels and the exterior portion of the cafeteria take full advantage of the southern exposure. The elevation view looking northwest displays the entrance, the preservation of the historic clock face, the auditorium wing and gymnasium. Looking at the building toward the southwest one can see the cafeteria’s exterior, stair patters continuing around the building, and the clustering of windows toward the southerly and westerly sides of the building. Looking at the front of the building from an aerial point of view, one can see the extent of the building on the lots and the elevation. The image shows the parking lot joining with the entrance. Plans show the various aerial views from Paine Street, Rice Street, and Seaver Street. Entrance details show the use of a brick base, the canopies sheltering drop-off and pick-up areas, and a potential patio area under the Wellesley High School sign. The clock face is clearly visible from the front
entrance. The windows of the school will have shading devices to help with climate control. Mr. Pitkin explained to the Board how the school design aspires to meet Mass Chips ‘green’ building standards.
Mr. Broder asked about the projected uses of the building during the summer and off-seasons. Mr. Broder questioned whether the school would be utilized throughout the year and whether any considerations have been given to the design of the school for different demographics. Moreover, Mr. Broder asked whether the school would need to be air conditioned year-round. Mr. Pitkin explained that the school would be used year-round, that the design has considered the full use of the school by different publics, and that air conditioning would be regulated and adjustable in sections. Mr. Broder asked Mr. Pitkin about the LEED certification. Mr. Pitkin explained that the Mass Chips program functions slightly differently than the LEED program but that the school aspires for at least the equivalent of
LEED Silver standards.
Mr. Pitkin then led the Design Review Board members and audience on a simulated fly-through of the exterior and interior of the school, showing the school from different perspectives.
Ms. Helen Robertson expressed some concern over the busyness at the front of the school, surrounding the entrance. She observed that the terracing, use of glass, exterior features, and other architectural elements appeared to detract from the strong entrance one would anticipate in a civic building. Mr. Pitkin stated that his team would look at the front entrance and would attempt to amend the entrance to make it stronger. He noted that this could be accomplished with signage and material changes.
Mr. Skolnick observed that the entrance could be changed once the parking and drop-off area is finalized. Mr. Broder asked Mr. Pitkin about the white area under the Wellesley High School sign near the front entrance. Mr. Pitkin stated that it shows a potential patio area. The area could be designed to create a pleasant seating/waiting area. Mr. Pitkin agreed that the curve in the sidewalk in front of the entrance should be redesigned.
Mr. Hand observed that the entrance looks very small compared to massing and should be enlarged. He suggested raising the front entrance piece that is glass in order to make the entrance stronger. Ms. Robertson also observed that the roof height was very varied above the auditorium and leading toward the main entrance. Mr. Pitkin explained that the variation in the height of the roof was caused in large part by the requirements for the height of the auditorium, the green roof, the mechanical system, and other internal elements.
Mr. Skolnick asked Mr. Pitkin if the locker room layout and/or placement had changed at all since the previous design presentation and he asked what access athletes and others would have from the locker rooms to the sports complexes. Mr. Pitkin showed the access points to the fields and courts from the school.
Mr. Hand asked Mr. Pitkin about safety measures within the school. Mr. Pitkin explained that the school committee was entertaining the use of CCTV and other safety measures on doors. The Town Police would assist in making the school safe.
Lastly, Mr. Pitkin asked the Board members if they had any concerns about the view from Seaver Street, as this has been a point of conversation previously. The Board members asked about the use of glass windows on corners surrounding the entire building, as this is felt to be a nice touch.
Ms. Babson invited the Design Review Board members to the following TDRT meeting in Town Hall on November 20. She explained that the SBC would like to submit a complete PSI application in the late winter/early spring.
The Board adjourned at 9:30 pm.
Ethan Parsons
Planner
Minutes Approved:
| 
