DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SPECIAL MEETING – TUESDAY, September 7, 2004
SIMSBURY TOWN OFFICES - 5:30 P.M – MAIN MEETING ROOM
I. CALL TO ORDER
Emil Dahlquist, Chairman, called the Meeting of the Design and Review Board to order at 5: 35 PM in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: Linda Kennedy, Mark Naccarato, John Carroll, Anthony Drapelick, William Gardner, John Stewart, Kevin Gray, and Charles Stephenson.
II. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
None
III. FORMAL PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE
a. Application of Thomas Pedrotty, President & COO-Ensign Bickford Realty Corporation, T.J. Donahue, Jr., Donahue & Jaff, LLC –Agent for Site Plan Approval for 182 units of active adult housing on 107 acres in the southwest corner of The Powder Forest, Stratton Brook and Bushy Hill Road (continued from July 27, 204 meeting)
Mr. Dwight Merriam was present to address the board and to introduce the speakers. He noted they have addressed the comments and concerns of the board with this presentation, and brought in charts and graphs, as well as a CAD simulation of the project.
Chris Ferrero presented to the board.
Through the use of colored charts and graphs of the project, Mr. Ferrero answered the board’s questions and concerns from previous meetings.
Disturbed area.
58 acres of the 107 acres (@54 %) of the project are disturbed, the remaining 49 acres are wetlands, open space, etc.
Road Widths.
The proposed road widths are 26 feet. Their thoughts are to have a hierarchical road width system, and would like the main two-way spine road to be 26 feet, the neighborhood-loop streets at 24 feet, and the small extending streets at 18-20 foot widths. They have spoken with town engineer, Rich Sawitzke, who has no problem with this, and are hoping the design board does not either.
Density.
Per a study of other active adult communities, this project’s density is on the lower end of the scale.
Per the sewer allocation, the project would be allowed 476 units based on the sanitary
allocation for industrial zoning, which would allow for 4.4 units per acre.
In the zoning regulations for a village cluster calculation, it allows the selection of sewer allocation as the density criteria, which if the net land area is divided by an R40 underlying zone, you come up with .7 units per acre.
In analyzing the densities of the land use surrounding the property, the single-family subdivisions are just under 1 unit per acre; Stratton Forest homes are at 2.76, and Billingsgate at 3.27. Mr. Ferrero stated the density of this project is 1.7, including the wetlands. If not including the wetlands the density is 1.993.
Density was also decided upon based on the topography of the site, and the environmental aspects of the property. Two of the primary programmatic decisions, which costs density, are having a main spine road with no units on it, and taking open space and bringing it into a central green space.
Rear elevations.
Rich Craine, Kemper Associates, was present to address the board. He showed the board a streetscape graphic of neighborhood C to show what it would look like from the street and also to view the rear walkouts.
Mr. Naccarato asked if there will be retaining walls on the sides of the units. Mr. Craine said it depends on the site conditions. It will also be a call by the developer.
Mr. Gardner said that the space between the units looks very uniform. Mr. Craine said that in reality the space between the units is anywhere between 18–33 feet.
At this point in the discussion, a CAD program of neighborhood A was shown to the board in order to see a 3 dimensional drive-through of the project.
After the presentation, Mr. Ferrero spoke about the techniques that could be used to minimize or reduce the driveway space and curb cuts. The units can share driveways, especially if each unit has side-loading garages. They can eliminate the center island. Around curbs, if the buildings are canted a bit, a single curb cut can be created for two units that share a driveway. More side-loaded garages can be implemented. G&E units can be reallocated to butt up against other standard units that would have side-loaded garages to combine the curb cuts. He stated that upwards of 25% of the units can be put on common driveway systems.
Speaking on the streetscape issue he said that some of the setbacks of the units have been manipulated, whereas some units have a 10-foot setback, others are at 12 feet. He said the units’ landscaping and border plantings will all be different and intertwine between the units to create variety.
Chairman Dahlquist thanked the applicants for the extra graphics and stated that it helped the board to better understand the project. He asked whether the CAD Planimetric graphic had any elevations. Mr. Ferrero said yes they did.
Chairman Dahlquist said he was in agreement with the idea of hierarchical road width systems.
Mr. Carroll asked if the fire marshall approves of this plan. Mr. Ferrero said that they have spoken to the fire marshall, and will most likely have this discussion during the zoning process. Mr. Merriam stated that there are very few areas of the site that don’t have two ways in and out. He stated there will probably be a discussion about keeping a clear path, lighting etc. He added that there will be no mailboxes.
Chairman Dahlquist stated the comments of Mr. Schoenhardt who was unable to attend. Mr. Schoenhardt’s main concern is with regard to the repetitiveness of the driveways, and he asked if there were some way to address the issue.
Mr. Gardner asked if parking is to be allowed on the street. Mr. Merriam stated that the streets will not be curbed, since the storm water system is a leak off system and is designed to use sheet flow for reinfultration of water. As such, there will be no problem if cars park on the grass. Mr. Ferrero said that in front of each unit’s garage doors there are 2 full parking spaces.
Mr. Gray asked about the maintenance of the driveways. Mr. Ferrero said that all of the main roads are private, the association maintains the private driveways.
Chairman Dahlquist asked about the density calculation. Using the village cluster formula, they come up with 74 units. They are proposing 184 units, the difference being bonus housing from what would be a village cluster designation. Mr. Donahue answered that it has to be understood in a larger context. If the developer is going to build 74 units, the houses will be along the lines of 5,000 square foot houses that are seen in Simsbury. He said they are providing a broader diversity of housing product and type. They do not feel it is bonus, because the town zoning authority used the sewer capacity regulation as the standard for Billingsgate, which is twice as dense as this project.
Chairman Dahlquist said that since the applicants are going for a zoning change, industrial zone to a residential zone, he feels the discussion is a very important one. The applicant is looking for a zoning change and the town is looking for something that enhances the community, the environment and the economy. He asked for comments from the board.
Mr. Naccarato stated he has concern about how the units relate to the streets-Bushy Hill and Stratton Brook. He said he wants to position the units so that they are parallel to the street. Most of the existing structures that surround the site relate to the street in that manner, and by virtue of the undulating pattern that the units have been disbursed in, they are turning their backs on the surrounding streets. He feels the project overall has been articulated very nicely, the density is appropriate for the site, and the driveway layout revisions, which help to break up the monotony, are very good. He is in favor of the road hierarchy.
Chairman Dahlquist agreed with Mr. Naccarato’s thought that the development seems to isolate the surrounding streets.
Mr. Carroll is impressed with the project. He stated the applicant has responded to the board’s suggestions. They have presented a professional and competent presentation. He hopes that when the motion is read, he would like to hear some enthusiasm from the board.
Mr. Drapelick said that it is a separate community. Driving down the Bushy Hill and Stratton Brook there is not much to compare it to. He likes what they are doing with the driveways. He is in favor of the road hierarchy, the narrower the road the better, providing the safety features are met. The rear of the houses look nice. He feels it project will be good for the town.
Mr. Gardner likes the project. Speaking to the relationship of the houses to Stratton Brook and Bushy Hill, he feels there is no relationship to Stratton Brook, and no real relationship to Bushy Hill as it is main thoroughfare. He agrees that it is a community unto itself, much like Stratton Forest. He is concerned about the variation of spacing between the units. Granted the charts show the spacing, but it still looks very uniform. He added that on the CAD presentation all of the houses looked similar in color, mostly beige and gray, and would like to see more color. He likes the driveway and garage solutions and has no issues with the road width hierarchy.
Mr. Gray commented he likes what they did with the driveways and the road hierarchy. He is not too concerned with the relationship of the project to Bushy Hill and Stratton Brook. He feels it will be a good addition to the town.
Mr. Stephenson is in favor of a hierarchy of road widths, but feels the board should not be state the specific widths to be used, in this way they are not encroaching on the Fire Marshall’s territory. He is appreciative of the work the applicants have put into the project. It has been thoughtful and thorough and he added that they have gone further than he is used to seeing in terms of trying hard to listen and deal with issues as they are raised. He likes the circulation of the site. It is unusual to find developers willing to do single or no-loaded roads in the way they have done. He is comfortable with the densities and the walkout elevations which are in scale and comfortable. They have done a good job of modulation of the architecture and the rooflines. He cautions that in the visual
presentation it seems as if they are planning to have 10” to 12” caliper trees everywhere. They might either let people know how it will look in so many years, or tool back the diameter of those trees. To the issue of how the project relates to the surrounding neighborhood, he said he would be worried if they did try to line up some of the units. This is a rural part of the community and on other projects the board has been in favor of random setbacks, random treatments and modulations. He added he is very much in favor of how the edges of the project work. He agrees with other members in that they deserve an enthusiastic endorsement for this project. While he understands they are coming before the town and asking for a zone change, they have gone a long way to accommodate the design guidelines and many of the things the board looks for in all of the projects that come before them. He is very much in favor of the project.
Mr. Merriam stated they had discussed the look of the trees, etc. They did not measure the caliper of the trees, but did spend time making sure they have the top and under story of the canopy correct and the right proportions on the trees. Unfortunately the detail of the model does not mention the caliper, so they may look more robust.
Mr. Stewart agrees with hierarchical road width system, and that anything they can do to narrow the roads is good. He does not agree that the units should align themselves with Stratton Brook and Bushy Hill. Having traveled those roads many times, he does not see it as an issue. He agrees with Mr. Carroll that they should be commended for the work put in, and the effort taken in respecting the boards concerns and questions. He feels the idea of shared driveways is excellent. Kemper Associates and the owners should be commended for their ability to take those units and develop as much variety as possible within a footprint. He wholeheartedly and enthusiastically approves of the project.
Ms. Kennedy said she likes the shared driveway idea. It gives people more room to move around. She is favor of the density and the road widths.
Chairman Dahlquist had concerns about the affordability issue. Mr. Merriam said the original program was to have units no smaller than 1,400 square feet. Stemming from a discussion with staff and pre-application meetings on the affordability issue, they drove down 14 of the units in the duplexes to 1,000 square feet, making them market rate affordable. He said these units will not have additions put on them, since they fall under the condominium regulations. They are also looking at some resale control issues that will keep them from being driven up quickly. He stated that 7 ½ % of the units will be market rate affordable, which is twice the town’s current percentage of affordable units.
Mr. Donahue said he would like the board’s support for the diversity of the housing. He said there has been nothing at 1,000 square feet for years, so they feel they have market rate affordability. They expect to have a discussion with zoning dealing with specific codified provisions relating to this. The 1,000 square foot units are unique. The developer willing did in trying to create market affordability.
Mr. Merriam stated that other developments are very narrow in their size limits; no one has the diversity like this project. Market rate affordability is what they have tried to accomplish and he feels it will be very successful.
Chairman Dahlquist stated he mentions the market rate affordability issue because it is in the plan of development and also zoning regulations for a village cluster where diversity is the goal to allow for this type of cluster development.
Chairman Dahlquist said that he is the only one out of the board who would vote against the project, if her were able to vote. Mr. Gardner asked the Chairman his reasons for being against the project. Chairman Dahlquist did not feel the need to express his thoughts, but asked for a motion from the board.
Before beginning the motion, Mr. Merriam gave the board a list of findings, which were not submitted in time to be included with the application this time around. Following the motion is this draft from the applicant that Chairman Dahlquist asked to be included into the minutes.
Motion
Mr. Gardner made a motion to approve the application in accordance with the application dated 9/7/04 consisting of six pages showing the overall layout, the development area, various road widths, comparison of densities, and techniques for minimizing curb cuts. The board recognizes that this design has been modified from the original presentation and represents the latest and possibly the best thinking of designs of this type. The board enthusiastically supports the presentation as presented in these charts. The board feels there should be a hierarchy of road widths, with the desired widths to be less than 26 feet for all roads. The board wholeheartedly supports the development.
Mr. Drapelick seconded the motion with all in favor.
Mr. Stewart made a statement for the board.
He stated the board unanimously and with enthusiasm supports the project, and also enthusiastically supports the process by which this project came be. He thanked the design team, professional teams, realty teams, and all the team members for the great amount of work that was put in. It is a good example of what occurs when a project is helped by give and take, resulting in a project such as this one. This project is going to be a benefit to the town and will point the way to similar future developments in surrounding and regional towns. It shows how projects such as these can be realized when the right process is implemented and the right people are brought together to do it. It has been an excellent procedure to work with, and it has been gratifying to work with the high caliber professional people working on the
project. One of the telling things to him as a professional is the fact that the landscape architectural issues and site issues were deftly handled and professionally presented. He noted that Planimetrics should be commended for the job they did as well. The architect and the owner should both be commended for taking the extra effort to develop a diversity between the buildings, elevating the project from a series of repetitive architectural vocabulary to something which speaks to the individuality of the home and how it relates to the community. It says so much about our community and what the design board is trying to establish within the community. The board enthusiastically supports the project and thanks the applicants for their effort.
Chairman Dahlquist thanked Mr. Chris Ferrero and the whole team for their patience. He stated he appreciated the responsiveness of everything they have done, and it has made the project better.
Proposed Findings for the Powder Forest Residential Development
Given to the board by the applicant.
The Powder Forest Residential Development demonstrates a high level of compliance with the applicable provisions of the Guidelines for Community Design. Specifically, the Design Review Board finds as follows with regard to the development:
A. The proposed development meets applicable standards for site and landscape organization. The development relates well to the natural environment by preserving mature trees, open spaces, environmentally sensitive areas, and existing land contours. The development also relates well to the community through its mid-range density and effective use of buffers. The site plan provides for safe and efficient circulation for pedestrians and vehicles, while allowing for attractive visual elements such as central greens, a meetinghouse, and open spaces. Finally, the applicant has enhanced the visual and functional qualities of the streetscape through the use of
sidewalks, porches, landscaping, street buffers, and attractive outdoor lighting.
B. The architecture of the proposed development meets applicable standards. The buildings relate well to their site by addressing the street with front entrances and porches and subordinating garages to the overall design. The buildings also contribute to the formal and spatial qualities of the overall development through their appropriate size, their relationship to the street, and their varied, yet orderly, arrangement. The facades of the houses are attractively varied, employ historical detailing, and skillfully coordinate materials, forms, and color.
C. The current site plan shows street widths of 26 feet for two-way streets and 18 feet for one-way streets. The applicant has proposed a hierarchy of two-way streets with 26-feet widths for the primary road system, 24-feet widths for the neighborhood-loop streets, and 18-20-feet widths for small streets extending off neighborhood loops. The Design Review Board finds that reducing street widths for secondary and tertiary streets as proposed by the applicant would greatly benefit the design of the development. Specifically, these reductions in two-way street widths would better comply with “Circulation” guidelines, which ask applicants to
“[m]inimize traffic lane widths while allowing for vehicle maneuvering.” Reduction in two-way street widths would enhance the neighborhood qualities of the design and would result in safer driving speeds.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Gray motioned to adjourn the meeting at 6:45 PM
Mr. Gardner seconded with all in favor.
|