Simsbury, CT - Design Review Board Minutes

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: Kevin Gray, Charles Stephenson, John Stewart, John Carroll, Richard Schoenhardt, and Anthony Drapelick. Rita Bond arrived at 5:35 PM. Also present were Mr. Howard Beach, Conservation Officer, and Alison Sturgeon, Commission Clerk.

a. Application of Asbjorn Gjertson, Owner, Philip E. Doyle, LADA, P.C. – Agent, for a Site Plan Amendment to preserve the existing garage that sits on the southern side of the property located at the Simsbury Elegant Banquets (aka Riverview Banquet Facility), on the east side of Winslow Place.

Mr. Tom Lane stated the garage is located on the south end of the site, which they had wanted to demolish. The owner now wants to use the garage for storage of landscaping equipment. He stated that the grading plan accommodates the existing floor level, which requires a drop in grade. It will be lowered 3 feet. Essentially, they are refurbishing the existing garage. Commissioner Drapelick questioned if the sales office, which stands in front of this garage would be coming down. Mr. Lane stated that it would.

Regarding the architecture of the garage, Mr. Lane stated that they would be treating it like the rest of Riverview. They would like to put scalloped accents and shingles on the garage. Commissioner Stewart stated that during the previous application for Riverview, there was discussion regarding landscaping. In response to Commissioner Stewart’s concerns regarding the landscaping, Mr. Lane stated that there is an existing tree, which will provide screening. Commissioner Stewart disagreed; he did not feel that it would provide any screening. He stated that when people come down this driveway, they would pass by the garage on the way to the front entrance. The applicant should make every effort to soften the image of this garage. He suggested planting Spruces.

Regarding the color of the garage, Commissioner Schoenhardt stated he would like to see the color of the garage doors fade into the façade as much as possible. Mr. Lane stated that it was their intention to duplicate the treatments of the other building. The trim will be the same color.

Mr. Beach stated that this building is within the setback on the side of the property. It is a pre-existing, legal, non-conforming structure. They are not changing the structure; they are re-siding the garage.

Regarding the roof, Commissioner Carroll stated the roof of the garage, which is a reddish color, sticks out. The roofing on the main building is a light gray. The roof is a substantial part of the façade of the structure. He would like to see the garage roof match the main building. John Royce, owner of the Riverview, stated that the garage is approximately 300-400 feet away from the main building. The garage is a stand along structure. He also stated that the roof on the garage is only a few years old. Commissioner Carroll stated he would still like the roof on the garage to blend in.

Commissioner Stewart motioned that the Design Review Board finds this application generally consistent with the Guidelines and recommends approval by the Zoning Commission with the following conditions: that the color of the

garage doors are to match the siding; the landscaping shall be incorporated both along the foundation of the western facade to mitigate the image of the building, and to provide a minimum of two Evergreen trees, to further mitigate the image of the building as patrons proceed down the entrance road; and that two carriage lights be located on either side of the central garage door. Commissioner Gray seconded the motion, which was unanimously passed.

John Ritson, owner of RC Connectors, stated that they have not gone before the Zoning Commission yet regarding this application, although, they have already received a permit from the Conservation Commission. He stated that this is a mixed-use property. This proposed building has a 10,000 footprint with three stories. Mr. Ritson stated there would be an anchor tenant on the first floor, possibly a daycare center, with apartments on the second and third floors. He stated that they are not sure if they will be going to Zoning under a mixed-use regulation or for a zone change. The front of the property is zoned B1, which allows residential above a business office; the back is zoned I1, which is a more intensive use.

Bill Crosskey, architect, discussed the site plan with the Commission. He stated that there is currently a driveway at the front of the site with parking. They are proposing to extend the paved area to have parking in the back where the new building will be. He indicated where the wetlands were on the property, and stated that they would be staying away from the wetlands, which will be screened by heavy landscaping. Regarding the appearance of the proposed building, Mr. Crosskey stated that it would be a three-story building with different entrances for the anchor tenant and for the residential units. The building has a traditional New England appearance; there will be brick on the lower level and clapboard siding on the upper two floors. There are also accent dormers.

Commissioner Stephenson questioned how the number of parking spaces was determined. Mr. Ritson stated that it was based on Zoning rules. There needs to be 2 parking spaces per each unit and he believes it is 1 space per 500 s.f. for the daycare. He stated that his office building in the front of the property also has 25 spaces.

Regarding an area for the dumpster, Commissioner Stewart questioned where the applicant would anticipate it going. Mr. Ritson was not sure, but showed the Commissioner where the dumpster might be located. Commissioner Stewart asked the applicant to think about how the dumpster would be screened as the site plan progresses.

Commissioner Gray questioned why there was screening by the playground. Mr. Ritson stated that there are condominiums in the back of the proposed building on abutting land. He stated that the condos are approximately 70’ from the property line. The one condominium building is on an angle; it is approximately 120’ from the property line at its furthest point. He stated that they will berm that area with plantings. He also believes that there will be fencing put in behind the berms.

Commissioner Stephenson asked the applicant to trace the path of a typical drop-off at the daycare. Mr. Ritson stated that it would be a one-way, with signs telling people to stay right. He stated that the daycare would have approximately 140 students. The students would be arriving and departing at different times. A small, mini bus will be bringing in children for the aftercare program, not a regular, long bus. Commissioner Stephenson questioned if there would be assigned parking for the apartment dwellers. Mr. Ritson asked for suggestions; they have not made any decisions regarding this issue.

Chairman Dahlquist asked the applicant to consider the height of the building. This is a three-story building with a truss roof. He stated that this is a large building. He would like to see the roof dropped down a bit. This could be achieved by eliminating the attic or truss space. Mr. Ritson stated that there is a high water table on the property and it is unlikely that a full basement will be constructed. The attic space would allow storage space for the apartment dwellers.

Commissioner Stephenson stated he feels that the proposed building is a bit large, and it would be good for the applicant to consider lowering the roof. They should also be considering the location of the dumpster. Another issue for the applicant to consider is the landscaping in the front of the building.

In summary, Chairman Dahlquist stated that this is a very difficult site, although, it has been managed in a way that it will function properly. There were favorable comments from this Commission regarding the overall architecture detailing and choices that were made, although, they would like to see color samples at the next meeting. Also, the applicant should consider the height of the building because it is set amongst other buildings, which are not close to this size. Chairman Dahlquist stated that no action will be taken on this informal presentation tonight.

Tom Daley, professional engineer, stated that they were previously before this Commission concerning the larger barn on this property. They have constructed Phase I of that project; they have built the outdoor riding ring and have constructed 9 paddocks, six less than were approved. They are currently proposing a 40’ x 100’ barn with 16 stalls, which will be tucked up into the slope. In addition to this, there will be a gravel area with a concrete pad for the manure; a hauler comes daily to remove the manure, it is not stored.

Mr. Langmeier stated that the proposed barn will be 40’ x 100’ and will be in earth tones, which he showed samples of to the Commission. There will be a sliding door every ten feet for air in the summertime; there is no need for ventilation in the barn. The 16 stalls are portable and will possibly be taken down during the winter months. The main purpose of the barn is for the summer riding program. There is a great deal of natural lighting in the barn.

In response to Chairman Dahlquist’s question concerning the height of the building, Mr. Daley stated that it is 12’ to the soffit. They are also looking into cupolas. Regarding the mechanicals, they will be running a heater. They will only be needing water and a few lights for the barn. Commissioner Schoenhardt stated that he would not recommend cupolas unless they were functioning.

Commissioner Bond stated her concerns regarding being able to see the barn from Bushy Hill Road. Mr. Daley stated that he is not saying that the barn will not be visible; it will just be so far away that it will not stand out. In response to a question from Chairman Dahlquist, Mr. Daley stated that there is a natural slope by the proposed barn. The elevation is, at top grade, 386 and the floor level is 370.

Richard Correia, commercial real estate broker, showed the Commission a picture of what the body shop looks like today. He stated that they have already received a Special Exception for this property. Tonight, they are looking for input as to the design.

Richard, the owner of the studio, stated that the current building is a garage; they would like to turn it into a yoga studio. He stated that he is a certified yoga teacher and has lived in Simsbury since 2001 and would like to work in the community also. He showed the Commission the main floor plan. They will be adding a small section to the front of the building for a staircase, in addition to a vestibule; there is a second floor to this building, which is not shown on the elevation. They will also be looking for a tenant on the opposite side of the building, which compliments the yoga studio. He also showed the Commission the plan for the exterior of the building. They would be using a neutral color for the exterior with down lighting.

Commissioner Stewart stated he likes the idea of the vestibule and in front of the vestibule, which is a pedestrian space. He encouraged the applicant to work with that; it is a good transition coming into the building. Chairman Dahlquist stated that he would like to see even more glass in the vestibule. Commissioner Stephenson stated that the windows that are located around the building could also be installed over the doors in the vestibule for more natural lighting.

Commissioner Stephenson stated he likes the approach the applicant has used. This building will no longer look like a garage. He felt that their plans were imaginative and it looks more residential than commercial.

Commissioner Bond questioned what kind of material would be used on the exterior of the building. Richard, the owner, stated they will be using Drive-It, which will give the building additional insulation and it will also be easy to maintain.

Commissioner Schoenhardt recommended that this applicant come back for another informal discussion; there are still a lot of details to work out around the entrance. The overall quality level that is represented in this rendering is good, although, comments from this Commission are still necessary. They should bring back a Site Plan and a plan for the stair/vestibule entrance.

- Page 3, third paragraph, should read, “that area” instead of, “that old area”. Also in the seventh paragraph within the motion, it should read, “Connecticut Historic Commission’s decision”.