Members Present: |
Sheila Dinsmoor, Bob Broder, Helen Robertson, Ed Hand Planner: Ethan Parsons |
Also Present: |
Richard Honan, Carol Gregory, Suzy Newman, Cynthia Westerman, Linda Perlman, Katherine Babson, Michael Eby, Alex Pitkin, Troy Sober, Ted Clark, Carice Pingenot, Cheri Clark |
Mr. Broder brought the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
1. |
7:30 pm |
Art of Tile & Stone |
326 B Washington St. |
Wall and Window |
DRB: 05-09, 06-09 |
Richard Honan of Honan Sign Company came before the Board to request a wall and window sign at the Art of Tile & Stone located at 326 Washington St. The wall sign would be 96 inches wide by 24 inches high. The window sign would measure 20.25 inches wide by 16.87 inches high. The maximum letter height of the letters on the wall sign would measure 10 inches high. The material of the wall sign will be wood. The wall sign would have a black background with gold letters and a bronze ampersand. Both signs appear to meet the by-right requirements of the Town’s sign regulations.
The Board expressed serious concern about the legibility of the sign due to the size and prominence of the ampersand relative to the other letters. It was felt that the ampersand was both too big and appeared to cramp the other letters because it overlaps with the words “Tile” and “Stone”. Ms. Dinsmoor suggested reducing the value of the ampersand, which would cause the other words to project better. Mr. Broder indicated that there is no consistency to the text, including the ampersand, of the sign and suggested making the text style consistent.
The Board requested that Mr. Honan return to the Board with an amended sign.
2. |
7:50 pm |
High School |
50 Rice St. |
PSI |
DRB 16-08M |
Alex Pitkin, architect with SMMA, demonstrated the brick types that might be used on the high school. Mr. Broder felt that it was best to wait to see an actual mock-up outdoors to get the best sense of the bricks’ appearance. Mr. Broder stated that the choice of bricks would be especially important on the side of the building facing Seaver St. as the view will change dramatically from this perspective.
Mr. Pitkin showed the Board the Site Plan. He explained that four mature trees along Seaver St. would probably be saved. Mr. Hand asked whether the Town could plant street trees along a greater stretch of Seaver St. as part of this project. Mr. Eby stated that they might, but will look closer at the opportunities to do so during the Site Plan Review. Mr. Broder encouraged Mr. Pitkin to pay close attention to the need for sidewalks and screening and appropriately balance the two. Mr. Pitkin showed the Board the technical Site Plan and Planting Detail. The Board questioned whether the building would be raised. Mr. Pitkin explained that the building would actually be slightly lower than the surrounding level. Mr. Pitkin showed the Board the Lighting Plan. He stated that
the final design might use LED lights.
Mr. Pitkin showed the Board the most recent Circulation Plan with the bus drop-off to the south side of the building. Ms. Robertson asked whether the designers had considered dropping students off near the cafeteria so that all the students have one central collecting area. Mr. Pitkin explained that with the new Circulation Plan the students dropped off by buses would walk through a vestibule and enter the larger collecting area so that there would actually be minimal separation of students taking the bus and those who enter and exit via other modes of transportation.
Linda Perlman expressed some concern about the proposed Circulation Plan because she felt that it would encourage students to congregate to the south of the school and linger, and potentially engage in disruptive behavior.
Mr. Pitkin presented the Wall and Gate Option. He stated that the Historic Working Group is looking at ways to incorporate elements of the existing school project in the proposed project. Mr. Pitkin showed the Kepes panel detail of the tower to illustrate these efforts. Mr. Pitkin also showed the flag configuration and their siting.
Mr. Broder asked whether the flags would appear lost in the niche that that is carved out especially for them. The Board felt the flags would not fly properly if they were tucked away as proposed. Mr. Broder asked why the flags couldn’t be placed in the circle in front of the entryway. Mr. Pitkin explained that the designers envision the circular area as a landscape element rather than a hardscape element.
Mr. Pitkin showed the Board various perspectives of the building, including the cupola design and the green roof. Mr. Pitkin explained that the green roof would be visible from the top floor and would create a very interesting environment.
Ms. Robertson requested that Alex show the slides of the Wall and Gate Option. She explained that the entryway appeared out of place, that it lacked a clear and prominent presence. Ms. Robertson suggested that the entryway either be kiddy-corner (45 degrees) to the corner of the front of the building or projected from the building enough to allow for a panel of glass in the front with a stronger wall in the back to really make it pop out. Mr. Pitkin confirmed that the designers needed to further consider how to make this entryway appealing and prominent. It was agreed that the entryway is perhaps the most important element to a building of such importance.
The application for design review for this PSI application now includes the model. The Board had an opportunity to look at the model and use it to explain their comments.
3. |
9:00 pm |
Clark Residence |
119 Woodlawn |
LHR |
LHR 09-03 |
Ted and Cheri Clark, 119 Woodlawn, came before the Board with their architect, Carice Pingenot Catalano Architects), and landscape architect, Troy Sober (Greg Lombardi Design), to present to the Board their Large House Review application. Mr. Clark explained to the Board that they are requesting approval of an addition to a house that was permitted during 2008 and is currently under construction. Mr. Broder explained to the Clarks and to Ms. Pingenot and Mr. Sober that the charge of the DRB with respect to Large House Review applications is not to approve or disapprove of applications but to provide a recommendation to the Planning Board based on their professional opinion about the aesthetic features of the projects.
Mr. Clark explained that the project before the Board today, that which triggers the Large House Review, consists of a third garage bay, a greenhouse, and an extended porch.
Mr. Broder stated that he had no objection to the addition of the porch on the south side of the house. He did state, however, that he felt the length of the house along the northern side could be shortened by rotating the proposed greenhouse 90 degrees to the south. Mr. Sober explained that they would like to leave the greenhouse as it is currently proposed because the kitchen and breakfast room would look directly out on the rear yard with an unobstructed view. Mr. Sober explained that an existing row of healthy hemlocks and a fence would screen the length of the house. Ms. Clark stated that they would relocate the fence clearly within their property as it currently straddles the property line. Mr. Clark stated that they already shortened the house by roughly 20 feet along the northern side from a
previous design based on concerns expressed by the neighbors immediately to the north. He stated that the property to the north is actually longer than what would result from the proposed addition.
Mr. Broder asked the Clarks whether they plan on air conditioning the entire house, and if so, would there be an apparatus outside the house. Mr. Clark stated that they would use geothermal heating and cooling systems so there would be no noise-producing devices.
The Board felt that relocating or rotating the greenhouse would minimize the length of the house along the northern property line. The Clarks and Mr. Sober and Ms. Pingenot stated, however, that they had examined several different scenarios, including relocating the greenhouse to the south and rotating it toward the south, but found no better alternative that would satisfy their interests. Ms. Clark stated that they were being very sensitive of two mature maples to the south that they are trying to preserve. Ms. Clark explained that the sensitivity to the landscape significantly influenced their design.
The Board explained to the applicants that they would issue their findings within a few days and send a letter to the applicants and the Planning Board.
Mr. Clark gave Mr. Parsons letters from abutters that they had received. Mr. Parsons agreed to record these letters as part of the application.
The Board adjourned at 10:00 pm.
Ethan Parsons
Planner
Minutes Approved:
| 
