Design Review Board Minutes
Regular Meeting- Tuesday April 25, 2006
Simsbury Town Offices- 5:30PM- Main Meeting Room
Chairman Dahlquist called the meeting to order at 5:28 PM in the Main Meeting room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: Anthony Drapelick, Richard Schoenhardt, John Carroll, William Gardner, Kevin Gray, Charles Stephenson, John Stewart, and Linda Kennedy. Also present was Zoning Compliance Officer, Mr. Howard Beach.
II. |
APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES |
John Carroll was appointed to serve for Mark Naccarato.
III. |
PRESENTATION(S), DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE |
Application of Steven Walker, Grove Capital, LLC, Owner, for a Site Plan Amendment for modifications to existing entrance court at Simsbury Town Shops, 920-930 Hopmeadow Street.
Mr. Steven Walker was present to discuss the application. The application is for the renovation of the existing courtyard in the area of Little City Pizza and the video store.
Mr. Walker stated that the changes include moving the handicap walkway, which involves raising the patio up to the elevation of Little City Pizza. Doing this will also make the nail salon ADA compliant. The patio will be brick to break up the appearance of the concrete. He added that the new handicap railing would also be changed, to blend in more with the area and not detract from it. There will be one light moved to a new location, and two new lampposts at the top of the stairs at either side of the black painted railing. The lamps will be metal halide. There are also to be two small landscaped beds in the area.
Chairman Dahlquist voiced his concern regarding the new handicap rail type with the large opening, stating that it a code issue. Mr. Stewart stated that balusters are needed because of the potential issue of a child falling through the railway. Mr. Walker stated that the new handicap ramp would be made of concrete with a brushed finish.
In answer to Chairman Dahlquist’s question, Mr. Walker explained that drainage on site will tie into the existing below grade drainage system.
Mr. Stewart suggested coloring the concrete terrace to tone down the area, and thus avoiding the possibility of the area becoming too overheated by the sun’s reflection. As to the landscaping he suggested removing the rug junipers, and instead planting perennials primarily for maintenance purposes.
Chairman Dahlquist summarized the concerns of the Board. He stated that with regards to the handrail, type #2 would most likely be needed because the rail proposed is a code violation. The second is the substitution of the daylilies (perennials) for the rug junipers.
Mr. Gray asked about the concrete coloring. Mr. Walker said it was discussed but the issue is cost, however he expressed that he will discuss the issue with his associates.
Mr. Stewart motioned that the Design Review Board recommend to accept the application as presented in the drawing entitled “Grove Property, Simsbury Town Shops, proposed modifications to existing entrance court, sheet of 1 of 1 dated 3/29/06” with the following conditions: 1. Type B railing is to be used on the handicap access ramp leading down into the terraces, as well as on the top of the north side areas where the grade change is evident. 2. The rug junipers are to be removed and replaced with perennials (daylilies, etc.). The Board recommends that the applicant consider coloring the concrete landing, thereby toning down the white and bringing in more texture to the area. It is understood that the additional lighting fixtures as presented will be compatible with the existing fixtures on
site.
Mr. Gardner seconded, with all in favor.
Application of David W. Burr, Arbor Associates, Owner, for a Site Plan Amendment for clarification of fencing and location of buffer material and air conditioning pads on property located at West Street Storage, 123 West Street (rear).
Present were Mr. Richard Case- Attorney representing Arbor Associates and West Street Storage, Mr. David Burr and Mr. Richman.
Mr. Case explained that the previously proposed air conditioning pads would be relocated towards the center of the building rather than on the south side. As for the fencing, the original fence was a coated chain link along the north side of the site along the berm. There is decorative fencing located at the entranceway. They propose removing the chain link fence from the north side and instead beginning it from the northwest corner of the property line. It will not be on Mr. Sastre’s property but instead on the applicant’s side of the landscape plantings proposed along Mr. Sastre’s boundary. The fencing will continue along the back of the site and along to the point where the decorative fence begins.
Chairman Dahlquist questioned that he believed there to be an architectural grade fence parallel to West Street. Mr. Case stated they are proposing installing no fence, they will instead plant a vegetation buffer on the top of the berm for screening and erosion control.
As for landscaping, they propose plantings trees, a mixture of pines and spruce, along Mr. Sastre’s and Mr. Azaro’s boundaries.
Mr. Gray asked why the stockade fence is not continued along the west side. Mr. Case stated it is a cost issue.
Mr. Stewart expressed concern regarding the plantings proposed on the berm. He stated that the material proposed is deciduous and it will take a few seasons to see any progress. He also expressed that the plantings should instead be placed down the berm, not on it, so that the mass of the plantings go up. He expressed that the planting should be a lot denser. He expressed that the plan proposed will not solve the screening problem.
Mr. Burr expressed that at the original meeting, an architectural fence was not proposed.
Chairman Dahlquist asked if the air conditioning unit is ground mounted and runs full-time. It was answered that it is ground mounted, but does not run full-time.
Chairman Dahlquist asked Mr. Burr how he would resolve the screening problem. Mr. Burr explained that he and Mr. Beach discussed relocating the nine evergreens to screen the location. He stated that the only part of the building that is visible from the road is the view from West Street.
Mr. Stewart suggested possible alternatives to the types land location of plants used for the buffer.
Chairman Dahlquist suggested planting in clusters/groupings to facilitate concealing large parts of the building and to make the area have a more natural look. Mr. Stewart also suggested getting rid of the perennial grasses.
The screening at Mr. Sastre’s property will include a chain link fence with a vegetative buffer on his side of the business’s property. Four or five of the trees will be spread on Mr. Sastre’s side and four or five on Mr. Azaro’s side.
Mr. Gardner asked the length of Mr. Sastre’s property line. Mr. Case answered that it is about 100 feet.
Mr. Beach explained that the plantings around the air conditioning units will remain, each dogwood proposed for the end will be moved to the western side of building C of the property to help screen.
Mr. Carroll stated that he would like to see a revised planting plan. Other board members agreed.
Mr. Beach expressed that the landscaped island on building three (3) is currently is being eliminated.
Mr. Gardner motioned that the applicant revise and resubmit the application with a detailed planting plan.
Mr. Carroll seconded, with all in favor.
Mr. Burr stated that he understands the Board’s suggestions.
Mr. Sastre was in the audience and attempted to voice his concerns. As this was not a public hearing, Chairman Dahlquist and Mr. Beach explained this and thanked him, and expressed that the town has received all of his letters and the board members have read them.
Powder Forest.
Mr. Stewart stated that the trees being planted along Stratton Forest are too close to the road. Mr. Beach explained that they were planted there because there was nowhere else to plant and wanted to get an immediate buffer up. Mr. Beach stated he knows of the issue, stating that they are so close to the road that the trucks salting the road in the winter will harm them.
b. Design Guidelines as relating to principles, development types, and tools. (continued from meeting of March 28, 2006).
The board discussed the wording of motions and decided on four basic ones.
1.Refer to zoning as presented. 2. Refer to zoning with changes to be made, but the applicant does not need to return.3. Refer to zoning without fully endorsing it. 4. Revise and resubmit the application.
It was noted that the wording changes are due to the fact that the board should be “recommending/ making a referral” to the zoning commission, and that these will be beneficial to the board so they can easily structure the wording of the motion.
The board will make a motion on this issue at the next meeting.
Chairman Dahlquist stated that he continues to receive correspondence to the board.
None
VII. |
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF March 28, 2006 |
Mr. Drapelick made a motion to approve the March 28, 2006.
Mr. Gray seconded with all in favor. Mr. Gardner, Mr. Schoenhardt, and Mr. Stephenson abstained.
Mr. Gray made a motion to adjourn at 7:00pm.
Mr. Schoenhardt seconded, with all
| 
