Design Review Board Minutes
Regular Meeting- Tuesday October 10, 2006
Simsbury Town Offices- 5:30PM- Main Meeting Room
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Dahlquist called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM in the Main Meeting room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: Linda Kennedy, John Stewart, Charles Stephenson, Kevin Gray, John Carroll, Anthony Drapelick, and Mark Naccarato. Also present was Zoning Compliance Officer, Mr. Howard Beach.
II. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
Charles Stephenson was appointed to serve for Richard Schoenhardt.
Anthony Drapelick was appointed to serve for William Gardner.
III. PRESENTATION(S), DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE
Application of Educational Playcare, LLC, Applicant, Thomas J. Donohue, Jr., Agent, for a Site Plan Amendment for a Day Care Facility to be located on property at 1 St. John’s Place. (continued from meeting of 9/26/06).
Mr. T.J. Donahue, Attorney, and Mr. Keith D’Angelo, Design Contractor, spoke on behalf of this application. Representatives of Educational Playcare, LLC. were also present.
Mr. Donahue expressed that much reviewing of the project was done since their last meeting, but that they currently do not have the either the finished landscape design, nor a finished sign design. He noted that Chairman Dahlquist’s suggestion of a possible separate entrance and exit on the site was looked into. However, it was determined that since the portion of land for the possible second egress is owned by someone else, and the fact that the topography of the area is significant, it would not be possible. On the question of children being dropped off by school bus, Mr. Donahue stated that buses are prohibited access to the site, and the busses will be dropping the children off at the road entrance. He also expressed that they spoke with Heskith Associates concerning the dumpster location, and a spot was sited
for it where it would not interfere with the turnaround. Mr. Donahue also stated that the pavillion idea was withdrawn, and there have been some changes with respect to structure.
Mr. Keith D’Angelo thanked the Design Review Board for their input. He handed out four black and white sketches of the site to the Board members. He stated that the pavillion was withdrawn because it would have taken up too much impervious surface. He guided the Design Board members through the site design and elevations, and revealed the new versus the existing structures. He explained that the main walk into the building will have a wider walkway than the others, leading the people to the entrance of the building. He stated that the one freestanding sign will be located where the existing site sign is currently.
Concerning the circulation issue, it was noted that the letter written by Heskith Associates states, “After reviewing the proposed parking lot layout it is our opinion that the parking lot will function adequately.” Mr. D’Angelo answered that the turnaround is not a circle, it is instead a place to pull in and back out.
Mr. D’Angelo said that under the phase two building addition, the dumpster will be removed and relocated next to the building. Board members discussed how the truck will access the dumpster area. Mr. D’Angelo explained that the project engineer will need to look at the turning radius in that area.
The Board discussed the rooflines of the buildings, and the elements and materials of the buildings.
Chairman Dahlquist asked if the roof could possibly be dropped down so that the windows on the second level were more in keeping with the farm house style with detailing above them. Mr. D’Angelo said that they will continue to work on that.
Chairman Dahlquist expressed that there is a disparity between the two massings on the site and there needs to be some roofline detail to break up the scale. Mr. D’Angelo said that at present the ceiling are nine feet, and they are considering shortening the ceiling and bringing the roofline down.
Mr. Stephenson questioned whether the building is drawn to scale in each of the drawings shown. He also expressed concern as to whether the soffit lines on phase one and two match up. Mr. D’Angelo said that they can revisit this issue, adding that in one of the elevation drawings the soffit is brought down making the building addition seem squat looking. Chairman Dahlquist expressed that the elevation in question might benefit from a gable to be reminiscent of the original building.
Mr. Stewart asked how high the finish grade is to the top of the roofline on phase two. Mr. D’Angelo stated that it is about 30 feet. Mr. Stewart expressed that there is no building in the nearby area as tall, one of the reasons making it necessary to reducing its mass. Mr. D’Angelo stated they looked into erecting a story and a half building, but it shrunk the floor space. He reflected that maybe dropping the eve down might be the answer.
Mr. Drapelick asked if there had been any thoughts on dropping the first floor below grade. Mr. D’Angelo expressed that this would create an issue with the door wells, among other possible problems.
Mr. Stephenson expressed that the building looks like the old tobacco barn housing. He also expressed concern about the parking lot circulation.
Chairman Dahlquist asked about fencing around the property and what is between the fence and the property. It was stated that the fencing will be a white picket vinyl and woodchips will be used.
Mr. Naccarato expressed that there may be an issue of geometry in the perspective drawing, and that the building might be actually longer than shown.
Chairman Dahlqust expressed that although he knows they are set to go before the Zoning Commission soon, the Design Board would like the applicants to return to discuss the issues discussed. Mr. Donahue said they are not yet scheduled for Zoning and would be happy to come back again.
Mr. Carroll expressed that the sign is too ornate for the project. Chairman Dahlquist stated there should be a relationship between the simplicity of the architecture and the simplicity of the sign. Other members agreed, and Mr. D’Angelo said that they will address the sign issue.
Chairman Dahlquist said the key concerns are the relationship of the buildings to the site, the circulation, the massing, the signage and its’ location, the landscaping, the fencing, and the roof detailing. He thanked the applicants and expressed that the Board looks forward to seeing them at the next meeting.
No action taken
INFORMAL PRESENTATION(s)
An informal review on the proposed banquet facility to be located at 6 and 10 Winslow Place. (continued from meeting of 9/26/06).
Mr. Phil Doyle was present to speak on behalf of the project. The architects and the developers of the project were also present.
Mr. Doyle showed and explained the elevations, the site plans, and the existing buildings on and surrounding the site. The building is sited in the middle of the 18-acre piece. He stated that the trees on the water bank, along with other areas will not be touched. He explained the circulation in the patron parking lot, noting that the lot is divided into two islands. He noted that there is a level change in the parking area. There is a retaining wall and heavy screening being used for the employee parking area. He discussed the landscaping of the patio areas, using annuals and perennials.
The road to get to the facility’s entrance is by way of the St. John’s Street commuter lot. They will be visually separating the commuter lot’s roadway from the facility using landscaping.
Chairman Dahlquist asked how many patrons would be using the site at a time. Mr. Royce, project principal, explained that with two functions beginning held at different times there will be at least 100 patron per function.
Mr. Gray asked why instead of being more hidden behind the building, the two patios are so close to the parking area. Mr. Royce explained that brides do not like to see each other, and by doing this addresses this. He noted that there will also be many hedges to block out the sound of the noise from the parking lot.
Chairman Dahlquist asked if the entrance to the facility at Winslow Place will be made distinctive. It was explained that the entrance has not yet been developed, but the idea is to make it similar to a country club entrance.
Chairman Dahlquist asked about the parking area, stating that there needs to some screening. Mr. Doyle explained that he opened up the parking area to four parking bays and also included some 18-foot islands.
Mr. Stephenson said that the detail given to the existing trees and landscaping is commendable and expressed that it works very well. He stated that he is impressed with the thoughtfulness given to the ideas of dropping down the service area to a lower grade, and the positioning the building with respect to the river. Chairman Dahlquist noted that the site lines are also nice.
Mr. Leigh Overland, Architect, spoke on the architecture of the building. He stated that they have made many changes to the building, which better model the architecture and massing of Simbury’s current buildings. Renderings of the building from each angle were shown. Mr. Overland stated that a white metal and glass conservatory will connect the different building masses. A sample of the cultured stone material (with a two inch depth) to be used along the base of the entire building, up along the two ends of the building, and up along the front façade was shown. There will be a heritage cream colored scalloped shake at the top of the towers, a buckskin colored regular shake on the base of the building, and a bit of synthetic stucco at the top of the front main entrance. They are also looking at type of
gray slate, which will give a very realistic slate look and also has a shadow line. He explained that the building will be slab on grade, and the only finished section will be at the service area. The interior floor plan was also shown.
Mr. Naccarato stated that the massing is a great improvement. He stated that his minor concern is that the articulation of the windows is a bit too ornate, and the scalloped shingles could be more effective as an accent band rather than such a large mass of it. Mr. Doyle said that the window adds a wonderful feeling inside, making one feel as though in a church. Mr. Naccarato expressed that there are different types of architectural styles/types he sees on the building. Mr. Overland explained that that was the idea behind the architecture, to ensure that the building appeals to many different people.
Mr. Stewart stated that the building is very handsome and that complements should be given to the visual artists who rendered the drawings. Mr. Overland introduced the gentleman from his office who worked on the project.
Chairman Dahlquist expressed that he likes the way the planting material comes into play with the building.
Mr. Drapelick expressed that he is impressed with the project.
Mr. Carroll expressed his congratulations on the project.
Mr. Stephenson thanked the applicants for being willing to listen to the Design Board’s suggestions and for working together. He added that the completed project will be a delight to see.
Ms. Kennedy expressed concern about the amount of concrete and pavement on the site. Mr. Rich Correia noted that trees will not be pulled out and it will be screened from the roadways.
Mr. Gray thanked the applicants for taking part in the informal process. He expressed that it is critical the project look like what is envisioned, noting that some previous projects have not. He stated that it does not look like a Simsbury building, but it does work. He added that he still does have concerns about the patios being so close to the parking.
Mr. Overland asked what other aspects of the project were still in question. The Design Review Board members expressed they would like information on the proposed lighting plan for the parking lot, and the signage. Chairman Dahlquist added that the proposed signage does not have to be included in the formal application, it can be a separate application. He also expressed, agreeing with Mr. Naccarato, that the scalloping detail does is not blend in with the look of the rest of the building.
Mr. Naccarato asked how the building itself will be lit. Mr. Overland said there will be walkway lighting, some planting lighting, and some uplighting, but minimal lighting attached to the building itself.
The Board members stated they were pleased with the texture of the materials to be used, especially the cultured stone material. They thanked the applicants for their time and look forward to seeing them at a future meeting
No action taken
At 7:15pm, Mr. Carroll recused himself.
An informal discussion by Althea Plumb on proposed Site Plan Modifications to property located at 41 Main Street, Tariffville.
Mr. Scott Plumb and Ms. Althea Plumb were present to speak on behalf of the application. They are proposing to renovate and modify the building at 41 Main Street into a café. They will need to obtain a special exception from Zoning because the building is currently zoned for commercial use. Mr. Plumb explained that the parking in front will remain and that there is an easement at the post office side, and on the red hill side. There are currently three apartments on the top floor, which will remain.
Mr. Plumb showed sketches of the site elevations, and the interior layout of the building. He explained that the exhaust fans can be seen from the parking lot in the back. Chairman Dahlquist expressed that rooftop mechanicals should be screened. Board members expressed that the sign location is fine, and that an internally lit sign is prohibited.
The Board expressed that at a future meeting they would like to see the materials and colors samples to be used.
No action taken
V. DISCUSSION
Design Guidelines as relating to principles, development types, and tools.
Not discussed.
VI. CORRESPONDENCE
None
VII. STAFF REPORTS
None
VIII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF September 26, 2006
Mr. Stephenson made a motion to approve the September 26, 2006 with a correction.
Mr. Stewart seconded with all in favor.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Stephenson made a motion to adjourn at 7:30pm.
Mr. Naccarato seconded, with all in favor.
Respectfully Submitted,
_____________________________________
Kevin Gray, Secretary
| 
