Simsbury, CT - Design Review Board Minutes

Design Review Board Minutes

Regular Meeting- Tuesday February 27, 2007

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, William Gardner, John Carroll, Anthony Drapelick, and Mark Naccarato. Richard Schoenhardt came in at 5:40pm. Also present was Zoning Compliance Officer, Mr. Howard Beach.

APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES

III. REVIEW OF COLOR SELECTION FOR PAINTING OF THE AQUARION WATER TANK ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 264 FIRETOWN ROAD.

Mr. Mike Gills, representative of Aquarion Water, was present to discuss the application. He stated that in January of 2004, Aquarion received site plan approval for renovations to the existing tank, and now are undertaking the painting of the tank. The colors proposed for the tank were passed around to Design Review Board Members.

Chairman Dahlquist stated that when the application for the water tower came through, a motion was made to paint the tower a medium dark green color. Recently, Officer Beach made Chairman Dahlquist aware of the exact proposed color, and because it is not a medium dark green color, Chairman Dahlquist wanted the Board members to come to a decision on a color together.

The Board expressed their willingness to hear public comment.

Ms. Wendy Heller, 3 Elliot Drive.

Ms. Heller expressed that the water tower has been extended 12 feet in height, and is now more visible from her house, particularly during the winter. She stated the proposed green color is a better choice, but expressed that given the height of the tower it now stands out in the sky. She expressed that it lowers the property value, and asked that the Board view the site and thoughtfully consider the colors.

Mr. Stewart expressed that he understands Ms. Heller’s issue with the sky, adding that green is a better choice. Chairman Dahlquist stated green would blend in with the surroundings, and expressed that a darker color will recede, whereas a lighter color will stand out. Mr. Gardner stated that the sky color is not the color one wants.

Mr. Gills stated that during the site application approval process, the medium dark green color was decided upon.

Mr. Naccarato expressed that the tank will blend in better with the town. Ms. Heller said that only specific houses can see the tank it cannot be seen from other vantage points in the town.

Mr. Gills stated that the paints are very resistant and do not fade as much as in the past.

Mr. Gray motioned that the Design Review Board recommends the SW4024 Environmental Green manufactured by Sherwin Williams as the paint color selected for the Aquarion water tank located at 264 Firetown Road.

Mr. Carroll seconded, with all in favor.

Ms. Heller expressed that the tower rises above the properties, it is not just in a wooded area. She expressed concern that the Board might not have all of the necessary facts to make an informed decision.

Application of J. Fine, MIJI Avon, LLC, Owner, Allan Borghesi, Borghesi Bldg. & Eng. Co., Inc., Agent, for Site Plan Approval for a Men’s Warehouse (retail store) to be constructed on property located at 6 Albany Turnpike. (continued from meeting of February 13, 2007).

Mr. Borghesi was present to discuss the application, and handed out photos of the site.

Mr. Borghesi stated that the building will be demolished and a new building built. He stated that they have gone through the various variance approvals. The new plan entails a new driveway entrance to the eastside of the building, some parking in front and additional parking to the rear.

Modifications to the plan include the implementation of slightly larger plantings to help screening of the building and other plantings around the building; some of the species include boxwoods. Lighting has been reduced from 20-foot light poles to 16-foot poles with 150 metal halide bulbs. Mr. Borghesi explained the photometric plan with regards to calibrated illumination rates. He stated that there will be bumper rail fence with an eight-foot level gravel area after the parking spaces. Signage is to include two signs, one freestanding and one on the building.

Chairman Dahlquist stated that provided there is sufficient lighting in the back for safety purposes, he does not see a reason to illuminate the back. Mr. Borghesi said he is fine with leaving the back the way it is.

Mr. Stewart said the use of boxwoods around the building is a good change. He requested that the brush and debris on the north side be removed, and made the suggestion that a wooden post and beam fence would be more architecturally appropriate than the proposed metal guardrail. Mr. Borghesi agreed.

There was a discussion about the crushed stone being to be placed on the ground following the fence. Mr. Borghesi said the gravel aids with water runoff and the infiltration. Mr. Stewart suggested that if it meets the engineering dept requirements the guardrail should be moved forward so that it acts as a curb stop with the gravel behind it. Officer Beach said the town would not have a problem with this.

Mr. Stephenson stated that the back parking lot shows 24 feet between marking ends for an 18-foot marking line. Thus a car’s bumper would overhang by 2-3 feet. He stated that if the guardrail were located at the edge of the 18-foot line there would be problems. Mr. Stewart said the guardrail could then be located 18-24 inches off the back edge of curb. Chairman Dahlquist stated that the applicant should contact the town engineer to see whether the procedure is permissible and if so, then the guardrail could be placed 2 feet off the edge of the pavement.

Chairman Dahlquist asked whether the coverage issue needs to be addressed with Zoning. Officer Beach said they went to Zoning and received the applicable variances.

Mr. Borghesi proposed two signs, one 3x10 foot low freestanding sign at the entry, and one on the building. The freestanding sign will be lit by two 70-watt halogen ground lights to be screened with shrubs. The sign’s base will be brick matching the building; the sign itself will be a stucco panel with surface mounted lettering.

Mr. Stephenson expressed that signage coverage calculations need correcting. Mr. Borghesi said he made a mistake and will reduce signage so it is less than the square footage. Officer Beach said total signage need to comply with the zoning regulation, whereby one square foot of signage is equal to each linear foot of the building facing the street. Chairman Dahlquist asked whether both a freestanding and building sign are needed. Mr. Borghesi said that is a question for his client.

Mr. Borghesi stated that all of the rooftop units will be screened, and the entrance will be extended back. The colors for the building include white for the screening, “rosedale” for the horizontal clapboard siding, and “Old Chicago” used for the brick. Except one wall pack over the door, there will be no building lights, and no illumination for the 4x4 building signage.

A discussion ensued regarding the placement of the property address on signs. The Board agreed that the address number, 6, should be on the building on the glass transom.

Mr. Gray stated that he sees a redundancy in the number of signs, and would prefer to remove the sign on the building. Mr. Drapelick said if the building sign is removed, the freestanding sign could potentially be made larger.

Mr. Stewart motioned that the Design Review Board finds this application in its current form to be generally consistent with the guidelines for community design and recommends its approval with the following conditions: 1. The metal guardrail on the north side of the parking lot shall be changed to a wood post and beam guardrail. 2. The guardrail shall be located approximately 18” to 24” off the north side of the termination of the proposed bituminous concrete. 3.Lighting at the back of the building associated with the rear door shall consist of one wallpack light. The Design Review Board highly recommends the following: 1. The address number of the building be located on the building not on the freestanding sign. 2. The words “Men’s Warehouse” located on the fascia be removed, leaving the Men’s Warehouse name and logo on the pediment above the door. 3.The freestanding sign remain in the appropriate size as indicated on drawing A1 dated 02/19/07. 4. Metal lettering used for the freestanding sign. It shall be noted that the brick selected for the building is “Old Chicago,” manufactured by Robinson Brick Company.

Mr. Gardner seconded, with all in favor.

Chairman Dahlquist stated that while the Design Review Board understands that the applicant has met the zoning requirements, there was concern about the signage issue given the size of the property, the location of the building, and the numbers of signs in the relatively small area. The Board feels that the sign on the building is a redundancy.

On behalf of the members, Chairman Dahlquist expressed thanks to Mr. Borghesi for his willingness to co-operate with the Board.

The agenda was amended to include an informal presentation for Autobon, 89 Wolcott Road, Simsbury.

INFORMAL PRESENTATION

Application of Autobon, 89 Wolcott Road, Simsbury.

Mr. John Powell representing Autobon, was present to discuss the application and photographs were handed out.

The building proposed for renovation is the Culbro agricultural vehicle repair facility, located across from Simsbury Airport. The project entails moving the vehicular garage doors, building up the front doors, and building a mezzanine space along the middle of the building. A large-scale trellis with latticework will be placed along the front of the building and will contain wisteria, clematis, ivy and morning glory. There will be a four-foot total overhang canopy along the front. Mr. Powell showed where the sign will be located and stated that the #89 address will be located adjacent to the front doors. He stated that the site has a line of spruce trees along the north and the east, and this tree line will be disturbed in order to provide parking, it will also be cut back slightly along the front to increase the sight line. He added that some plantings will also be implemented along the east and west sides. No freestanding sign is proposed. Mr. Powell showed on the plan how the building is serviced.

Mr. Powell stated that the total property is 3.75 acres and no decisions have been made regarding other buildings on the property.

Mr. Stewart complemented Mr. Powell on the idea of implementing an espalier along the front, but voiced concern about its’ maintenance. Mr. Powell said it will be pruned regularly.

The Board expressed that for the formal presentation, color samples should be submitted, and renderings and lighting changes proposed should be presented.

Officer Beach said that there is a pre-existing condition for the house, and the curb cut is continuous all along. He added that the engineering department has not yet reviewed the project.

The application will come before the Board as a formal presentation at a future meeting.

VI. CORRESPONDENCE

VII. STAFF REPORTS

VIII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF

Mr. Gardner made a motion to approve the February 13, 2007

Mr. Naccarato seconded with all in favor. Mr. Gray abstained.

At 7:00pm Chairman Dahlquist called for a recess. At 7:05pm the meeting readjourned in Room 106.

Mr. Stewart, Mr. Schoenhardt, and Ms. Kennedy recused themselves at 7:00pm

Present for the discussion were: Chairman Dahlquist, Mr. Gray, Mr. Stephenson, Mr. Carroll, Mr. Gardner, Mr. Drapelick, and Mr. Naccarato.

The Board discussed a strategy for reviewing future mixed-use projects as an extension of the Design Guidelines Character Places for Village Centers as they may occur in the two Form Districts being considered by the Planning Commission. Chairman Dahlquist contacted Howard Beach requesting that the developers for the North and South projects consider a minimum of three informal meetings focusing on specific issues/discussions of each project. While letters from the public to the Board will be taken into consideration, public comment should not be allowed at the meetings themselves. The Board should offer constructive criticism, but not come up with solutions for plan changes. It was greatly recommended that Hiram Peck be at the meetings as well.

Chairman Dahlquist disclosed that the 1994 Plan of Development is the plan that will be used, not the current plan. Chairman Dahlquist stated he would e-mail the guidelines for neighborhood centers to Board members.

Mr. Gray made a motion to adjourn at 7:40pm.

Mr. Schoenhardt seconded, with all in favor.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________________

Kevin Gray, Secretary