Simsbury, CT - Design Review Board

Emil Dahlquist, Chairman, called the Regular Meeting of the Design Review Board to order at timeMinute30Hour175:30 PM in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: William Gardner, Mark Naccarato, Richard Schoenhardt, Charles Stephenson, John Stewart and Alternates John Carroll and Anthony Drapelick. Also in attendance were Howard Beach, Zoning Enforcement and Conservation Officer and other interested parties.

Mr. Guy Gilchrist, owner of Guy Gilchrist’s Cartoonist’s Academy and Cartoon Camp located at 237 Hopmeadow Street, had been asked at the Board’s last meeting to relocate his proposed signage between the two horizontal boards on the siding of the building. He offered the Board two variable design options: one 10’ x 32” high with one character logo and one 12’ x 32” high with two character logos.

The Board discussed the aesthetic merits of both options and asked Mr. Gilchrist for his personal preference (which was the latter). Mr. Dahlquist and Mr. Stewart had questions regarding any unified sign plan restrictions for the site and Mr. Beach stated that the plan basically addressed the number of signs per tenant and noted that any other tenant signs, which are not on the building, are of a standard letter format with no characters. Mr. Gilchrist stated his business needs a separate sign as it has an entrance which is separate from the other tenants of the building. Mr. Dahlquist asked if there were any size limitations for signs in Town and Mr. Beach stated that zoning regulations allow for one square foot of signage per every linear foot of frontage and assured Mr. Stewart that a 12’ sign would conform to that requirement.

The Board discussed the need for securing written final approval from the owner of the building, the positioning of the sign, the pros and cons of both options that Mr. Gilchrist had presented, the guidelines that limit a sign to three colors, the proposed material of the sign (matte plastic) and confirmed that the sign will not be lighted.

Mr. Stephenson made a motion that the Design Review Board finds the application of Daniel J. Steinmetz, Member, Res One Realty, LLC – Owner, Guy Gilchrist, Agent, for Signage (Guy Gilchrist’s Cartoonist’s Academy and Cartoon Camp) to be placed on property located at 237 Hopmeadow Street, specifically a sign which is 10’ long by 32” high as shown on Drawing A dated June 12, 2007, in its current form to be generally consistent with the guidelines for community design and recommends its approval by the Zoning Commission with the understanding that there will be no exterior lighting on this sign, that the colors will be generally in accordance with the colors presented in the application, and will be in a matte finish. Mr. Stewart seconded the motion and it passed 6-1 (Mr. Gardner voted “no”.)

Kent Schwendy of Fuss & O’Neill gave an overview to the Board of their plans and drawings of a new academic center to replace Baxter Hall (located next to Centennial Theatre) on the placePlaceNameWestminster PlaceTypeSchool campus. Also present were the School’s Business Manager, Tom Earl, and the School’s Facilities Director, Peter Anderson. The proposed building’s footprint would be approximately 27,000 square feet, with approximately 81,000 square feet of usable space and there would be a new parking facility behind it. The building will use a water-to-air heat pump using geothermal heat exchange to heat and cool the building.

Mr. Schwendy indicated that the Zoning Board of Appeals has granted them a variance (required because the School is located in a residential zone) allowing the building to be 61’ tall. The building’s design, which is one building made up of several smaller units, is intended to match some of the existing scale of the campus. The building will have a partial basement housing a mechanical area, a planetarium, a lecture hall, a student lounge area and a school store. The third story would also be partial as it is built into the roof line areas and will included administrative spaces, mostly classrooms and lab rooms as well as the library. A key feature is a glass atrium which will serve as an entrance and serve internally as a multi-use space tying everything together. The building’s exterior finish will be brick with some aluminum trim, the color of the brick would be matched to the color of Centennial, and roof slopes are designed to match what is already on the campus (12/12). The same architect, Gund Partnership (previously known as Graham Gund Architects) who designed the pool, Centennial and Ledge house is being used for this project.

Mr. Stephenson asked about exhaust stacks associated with lab rooms that might be coming out of the top of the building and Mr. Schwendy stated that they would be hidden in false chimneys (which are not being used by any boiler). Mr. Dahlquist asked about street visibility and Mr. Schwendy indicated that it would not be visible from off-campus. Mr. Schwendy also indicated that the long-term plan at Westminster is to eventually move the road behind all the buildings and make a true pedestrian only corridor and that the current plan is a step in that direction. Mr. Drapelick asked what would happen to the current academic building and Mr. Schwendy indicated that it is currently being evaluated as to whether it will be partly demolished or converted into another use.

Mr. Gardner made a motion that the Design Review Board finds the application of Peter Anderson, Westminster School, on a proposal to construct a new academic center to replace the existing academic building on the campus of Westminster School, 995 Hopmeadow Street as presented on drawings labeled “Prepared for Westminster School, Hopmeadow Street, Simsbury, CT, Plan Prepared by Fuss & O’Neill” dated 6/11/07 consisting of sheets G001, G101-1of 2/2 of 2, C101, C110, C120, C130, C140, C141, C510, C512, C250, C530, C531, C540, C550, C560, L100, E-0, A20, A21, A211, A12, A13, A218, A311 and A315, in its current form to be generally consistent with the guidelines for community design and recommends its approval by the Zoning Commission. Mr. Carroll seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

Eamon Clohessy stated that their client, who owns the building at addressStreet86 Hopmeadow Street, has recently received negative feedback from prospective tenants about the lack of light in the third floor area. The client has asked Clohessy Harris & Kaiser, LLC to design a solution to bring in more windows and light to the upper floor. The proposed solution was to create a extra row of windows spanning between the existing dormers. The renovation would be made on two sides of the building only that do not face addressStreetHopmeadow Street. The glass would be tinted to match the existing windows as closely as possible. The Board concurred that the design was a fine solution to the problem.

Mr. Stephenson made a motion that the Design Review Board finds the application of Clohessy Harris & Kaiser, LLC (CHK) on a proposal to add clear story windows and a shed roof to a building located at 86 Hopmeadow Street as shown on drawings consisting of Floor Plan A1 dated April 28, 2007 and Elevation Drawing A1 dated March 15, 2007, in its current form to be generally consistent with the guidelines for community design and recommends its approval by the Zoning Commission with the understanding that there will be no changes to exterior lighting, visible mechanical equipment on the roof or roof penetrations as it is restricted primarily to the modification to the windows and the fenestration on the third level of the east and north facades. Mr. Gardner seconded the motion and it passed 6-0.

Mr. Dahlquist stated that the Board of Selectmen has asked various land use commissions, including the Design Review Board, to comment on the proposed amendment to Chapter 85 (Fees) of the Simsbury Code of Ordinances. The proposal would enable the Town to charge fees for engaging outside consultants to assist Town staff and commissions in connection with large and complex applications that may be submitted. Mr. Dahlquist suggested the use of the phrase “large and/or complex projects”.

Mr. Stephenson made a motion that the Design Review Board agrees in principle with the wording and intent of the current revised edition of the proposed change to Chapter 85 of the Simsbury Code of Ordinances with the assumption that the land use boards will be involved in the selection of the consultants. Mr. Schoenhardt seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

Mr. Dahlquist asked the Board for a general consensus that the Dover Kohl presentation was a positive thing and that he intends to draft a letter that the Design Review Board agrees in concept with the Dover Kohl presentation similar to one that had been presented to the Board at this meeting by Simsbury Homeowners Advocating Responsible Expansion (SHARE) in which they supported implementing the charette process.

Mr. Stephenson noted that, since all three areas under discussion are mixed-used developments and the Planning and Zoning Commissions are currently studying a PDD, perhaps a moratorium on mixed use developments should be imposed until the zoning regulations are reorganized. Mr. Schoenhardt stated that the Planning Commission has spent a lot of time gaining an understanding of the issues and asked what more can be gained by the charette process. Mr. Dahlquist thought that the advantage would be that it is a citizen-based approach. Mr. Naccarato expressed concern that the River Oaks project, although not a formal application, has been in the public domain for at least fifteen months and that pursuing the charette process at this time could expose the Town to potential litigation for stonewalling an application. Mr. Stewart thought that establishing a moratorium sends a very bad message throughout the region. Mr. Carroll said that what Victor Dover said was that this is not the only project that the Town will be seeing in the next ten years or so and that a moratorium would be very difficult to deal with. He thought that a charette process that produces some results should be pursued as the Town has been given challenges and should be able to go forward without holding up what is on the table. Mr. Dahlquist said that he would draft a letter in support of what was heard at the presentation.