Town of Wellesley, Massachusetts

Also Present:

Richard Honan, Elaine Elliot, Anita Alden, Kerri Kenny, Jimmy Alden, Cynthia Westerman, Steve Gagosian, Katherine Babson, Suzy Newman Alex Pitkin, Nesbitt Hagood, Joe Shaker, Bruce Jaffin, Nunes Trabucco, Dean Behrend

Mr. Richard Honan returned to the Board for continued review of a proposed wall sign to be located at 326B Washington Street. 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 Board at the last meeting felt the ampersand symbol was too big and blocked the readability of the sign.

Mr. Honan presented four alternative concepts for the ampersand including a muted color, and three other options which outline the symbol in various colors including gold, white, and cream. The Board after a review felt the sign should be uniform in color and recommended the gold leaf ampersand symbol be used.

Alex Pitkin, architect with SMMA, came before the Board for continued review of the proposed High School. Katherine Babson was present representing the School Building Committee, Steve Gagosian was present representing the Permanent Building Committee, and Suzy Newman was present to represent the School Committee.

Mr. Pitkin brought samples of two brick selections. He indicated the mortar colors have not been selected. Mr. Pitkin pointed out to the Board that since the last meeting the front entrance has been canted 10% more towards Rice Street as recommended by the Board.

Mr. Pitkin began his presentation with a site plan showing a new landscape plan. Mr. Pitkin indicated he will be meeting with the Town Landscape Planner, Cricket Vlass this week to review the plant selections. Mr. Pitkin indicated the original plan along Seaver Street was to salvage the remaining trees. The new plan with the altered bus location would add screening along Seaver Street.

Mr. Broder felt it was unfortunate to drop students off at a back door. He noted the previous plan had the bus drop off location entering through the cafeteria. Mr. Broder stated the bus door is on the right hand side, and the current plan has students crossing in front of the bus. He questioned why the buses could not enter from Seaver Street.

Mr. Pitkin stated the drop off area has a vertical connector to the main corridor. He noted the intent was to avoid students from entering through table and chairs and disrupting the breakfast service. Mr. Pitkin noted from the cafeteria there is a 4 foot grade change. There is no grade change from the current bus drop off location.

Ms. Robertson questioned the width of the rear entrance hallway. Mr. Pitkin stated all of the hallways are 10 feet wide. Ms. Babson noted the traffic consultants stated the length of time students would be riding the bus would be increased if the buses entered through Seaver Street due to the additional intersections.

Mr. Hand stated he was impressed by the packet of information the Seaver Street neighbors provided the Board. He noted at the cafeteria drop off location it would be possible to widen the road where the bus discharges to prevent queuing. He felt the cafeteria entrance would also bring students in a lot easier to the main entrance than the proposed drop off

Ms. Robertson questioned if the proposed drop off area has taken into consideration the potential growth of the student population. She felt the cafeteria entrance could more easily facilitate a greater number of students. Ms. Robertson emphasized the Board’s desire to have the bus drop off be at a location that had a sense of place.

Ms. Suzy Newman from the School Committee explained the current bus drop off location was determined by the impact of 4 buses arriving at the same time, and the potential for stacking which could back up onto Smith Street and block the service area if the drop off remained at the cafeteria.

Mr. Gagosian noted the loop would have to cut through the only remaining sanctuary of existing trees. Mr. Gagosian further noted the loop would require the buses to share the main entrance with car drop off which would transverse the bus and pedestrian access points.

Ms. Dinsmoor noted if the buses came in from Seaver Street the traffic entering from Rice and Smith would be further diverted. Ms. Newman felt the cafeteria entrance presented some problems due to the proximity of the service area. Mr. Pitkin stated the cafeteria entrance would require an air locked vestibule.

Mr. Broder noted the general consensus of the Board is the drop off location in the rear of the building is unfortunate. The Board would prefer a more centralized and formal entrance. Mr. Skolnick stated the drop off area makes students appear as an afterthought. The Board as a whole felt the High School has not been constructed yet, and now is the time to change the design.

Mr. Pitkin continued the review of changes to the design. He noted the location of flagpoles and bike racks close to the front entrance. The front entrance would be at grade, but would have bollards to protect pedestrians and the building.

Mr. Pitkin indicated the lighting plan for the site. He noted all lights could be turned off and in an emergency would automatically be turned on. A majority of the exterior lighting for the building would be located in overhangs and in the soffit.

The site lighting discussion continued. The proposed parking lot fixtures are double head fixtures, with some additional low scale fixtures along pedestrian routes. The fixture height for the parking lot still has to be determined, but would be approximately 20 feet in height with sharp cut off angles.

Mr. Broder questioned if the parking lot would have any closed circuit cameras for safety. Mr. Pitkin noted the parking lot may have a few cameras for security. Ms. Newman noted the existing high school has several small parking lots. One main parking field will also allow for more security.

Mr. Pitkin reviewed the elevations. Mr. Hand noted the screens for the roof top mechanical equipment seem high. Mr. Pitkin stated the screens will be 12”-18” off the roof deck and will be fairly tall, however the setback from the building edge is substantial. Ms. Cynthia Westerman, a Seaver Street abutter questioned the neighbor’s view of the screens. Mr. Pitkin showed a perspective and noted from the ground floor the screens would be tough to see. He stated he could take pictures to illustrate the cutoff point.

Mr. Broder asked if an acoustical report had been prepared. Mr. Pitkin indicated the report is being produced. Mr. Hand questioned the hours of operation for the exterior equipment. Mr. Pitkin stated the heating and cooling would be used only during school hours.

In review of the front entrance Mr. Hand felt the angle was not quite right. Mr. Gagosian stated the PBC looked at enhancing the main entrance with a skewed entrance for visual interest and to offset the design from a strictly 90 degree angled building. Mr. Hand stated he liked the concept, but felt the design need some additional tweaking.

Mr. Pitkin stated solar shades have been added to the first and second floor windows of the building. He noted some additional detailing and windows were added in the Seaver Street elevation to add as much articulation as possible.

Mr. Hand questioned why the solar shades were so high. Ms. Newman stated to prevent kids from hanging on them. Mr. Hand also questioned why the shade was being located at the ¼ point from the top of the window. Mr. Gagosian stated the natural light would be able to enter the rooms at the angle to provide light without glare. Mr. Gagosian noted the top of the window would be clear, and the bottom 2 panels of the window would have a slight tint.

Mr. Broder outlined the Board’s outstanding issues with the design. He stated the traffic flow and drop off location, in terms of design, should be revisited, as should the landscape screening on Seaver Street and the main entrance. Mr. Broder stated the Board will ask a landscape architect to join them for the review of the landscape plan.

The Board asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak. Ms. Anita Alden, of Seaver Street, stated she wants the school to be a continued good neighbor. Some of the proposed roadway to the rear of the school is within 75-100 feet of abutters. She encouraged further study of the bus pickup area. She noted every landscape plan has some variation, but they all say the existing trees would remain. Ms. Alden noted there are 4 trees that are roughly 16 feet tall. She asked that a combination of deciduous and evergreen trees be planted along Seaver Street.

Mr. Joe Shaker, Mr. Bruce Jaffin, and Mr. Trabucco came before the Board for review of a proposed minor construction project to be located at the Wellesley Mazda at 965 Worcester Street. The proposal includes increasing the height of the front section of the existing building and redesigning the interior layout. The structure of the building would be steel frame construction with exterior metal panels and EIFS. Most of the existing structure would be covered in EIFS.

The proposal would implement a Mazda prototype design. The two story structure space would be comprised of 1 story which would allow for a car to be lifted and displayed in the upper portion of the windows. The remainder of the project would include painting the rest of the building and improving the landscaping.

Mr. Hand questioned what the two green screens present in the drawing represented. Mr. Shaker stated it is a metal panel that would surround the walls on the interior and would continue to the exterior of the building. Mr. Shaker stated Mazda considers the panels a “jewel case” to emphasize the cars in the window.

Mr. Shaker stated he has two goals with the project. The first is to meet the goals of Mazda in redesigning the exterior so the manufacturer will contribute money to the upgrades. The second goal is to stay within the Town guidelines and to increase exposure. Mr. Shaker noted his dealership is at a low point in the street and is partially blocked by Dunkin Donuts on Route 9 which is at a higher level. Mr. Shaker also noted the height of the proposed addition will be important as a means to block light and noise to the residential abutters in the rear.

Mr. Broder questioned if the proposed car lift is on the second floor. Mr. Shaker explained the structure would be two stories in height, but the interior layout would be 1 floor with a high ceiling. The upper car display would hoist the car up on a lift.

Mr. Skolnick questioned why the glass on the first and second floors of the front façade was different. Mr. Skolnick noted the first floor windows appear like garage doors and do not align with the upper windows.

Ms. Dinsmoor questioned the green entrance canopy. Mr. Shaker stated it is a design element used to identify the area where you would receive your car. He noted he has a small lot and is not truly in favor of a large canopied area.

Ms. Dinsmoor questioned the color of the first floor exterior and the material. Mr. Trabucco noted the left side of the front portion of the building would be black EIFS. Mr. Trabucco also indicated the upper portion of the front façade would be sheathed in corrugated metal panels.

Mr. Shaker questioned the Board’s opinion on the corrugated metal panels. He noted he has seen other Mazda dealerships with the exterior completely in EIFS. Mr. Broder noted there can be a lot of variation in the metal panels, but would be fine with the exterior all in EIFS. The Board questioned Mr. Shaker’s preference. He noted he did prefer the EIFS exterior.

Mr. Shaker noted the canopy design needs some modification. Mr. Broder felt the canopy made sense for the design, but felt it would look better without the columns. The Board agreed that a downsized canopy would better serve the building. The Board felt the canopy should wrap the corner of the building and end over the door. Mr. Skolnick stated without the canopy there would be little distinction between the exterior of Mazda and the Lee Volvo dealership across the street. The Board encouraged Mr. Shaker to look at the canopies installed at Linden Square. The canopies at Linden Square are cantilevered and constructed of tempered glass.

Mr. Shaker stated he would return to the Board with a modified plan. He noted he would need to investigate some design alternatives with Mazda, but would return with a different mullion design for the glass on the façade, a wall sign, exterior cladding, and canopy. The Board also noted the colored window trim would not be seen readily from the road, and asked Mr. Shaker to look at alternative colors for the trim.

Mr. Behrend returned to the Board for review of 169 Grove Street under the Large House Review. The property in question was denied by the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals and returns as a new application. Mr. Behrend gave a brief presentation stating the footprint of the proposed structure remains the same. He noted he had a professional arborist examine the trees abutting 2 Ingraham Road. The arborist’s report indicates the Maples have a disease and that every Maple should be removed. The Red Oak on the plan, originally proposed to be removed, would remain. Mr. Behrend indicated on either side of the Red Oak, two new Bradford Pear trees would be planted. The current proposal has also added a slight curve to the easement to allow the fence to remain. A 4 foot picket fence would be added at the front of the house.

Ms. Dinsmoor questioned what has been altered on the house design. Mr. Behrend indicated the house plan has not been altered. Mr. Behrend stated the neighbor’s concerns were with the trees. He noted in previous meetings the height of the last section of the house was an issue, but since the redesign with a shed dormer, the main abutter concern has been with the landscaping.

Ms. Jop noted regardless of the abutter’s concerns the Planning Board denied the previous large house review application due to the length and size of the overall structure. She stated the Board would not review a new application with the same house. The application needs to be altered to show a reduction in house size. Mr. Behrend noted the TLAG has been reduced. Ms. Jop stated the Planning Board’s denial was on the design of the structure not necessarily the square footage.

The Board reviewed some areas of the design that could aid in reducing the appearance of the structure. Mr. Hand asked if Mr. Behrend had considered a detached garage. Ms. Robertson recommended reducing the number of dormers on the front façade. Ms. Robertson further encouraged Mr. Behrend to try and reduce the number of vertical elements on the building. Mr. Behrend noted some elements that could be reduced. He stated he would return to the Board for review on March 25^th.