Design Review Board Minutes
November 27, 2007
Regular Meeting
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: Kevin Gray, Charles Stephenson, Mark Naccarato, John Carroll, John Stewart, Rita Bond and Anthony Drapelick. Also present were Mr. Howard Beach, Conservation Officer, and Alison Sturgeon, Commission Clerk.
II. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
Chairman Dahlquist appointed Commissioner Bond to serve in the absence of William Gardner and Commissioner Carroll to serve in the absence of Richard Schoenhardt.
III. PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE
a. Application of Marianna Rossetti, Owner, Anjela Cahill, AIA, Schoenhardt Architects, Inc., Agent, for a Site Plan Approval for renovation of a dwelling to a business use on property located at 10 Library Lane. (continued from meeting of 11/13/07)
Mr. Mocarsky, Schoenhardt Architects, stated that they presented this application at the last meeting. The aesthetics were acceptable to the Commission, except for seeing the cars in the front of the building. Since that meeting, the applicant has had many discussions with Town Staff. They are now proposing to narrow down the existing curb cut from 32’ to 20’. They are proposing to hold the easterly edge of the curb cut; the westerly edge will be moved down so it is just off of the driveway, which is across the street. Regarding the parking, Mr. Mocarsky stated they are proposing 5 spaces. This decreases the amount of paving, although it still allows people to back out of these spaces into the crosshatch of the handicapped space and proceed out onto Library Lane. He believes that the
handicapped space will be vacant 90% of the time. They are also proposing to leave the large hedgerow on the east side and also plant a similar hedgerow on the west side, although it will be planted farther back so it does not interfere with site lines. This additional hedgerow will help screen the parking. The paving area has been cut back from 2,605 s.f. to 2,115 s.f. Mr. Beach stated that the rest of the parking would remain in reserve.
Commissioner Stewart stated his concerns regarding the handicapped space not conforming to the State of Connecticut Regulations.
Regarding pervious surfaces for parking, Mr. Beach stated that the Zoning Regulations do not distinguish between gravel and paved. If it is a parking lot, they consider it impervious. The Commission discussed this issue and how these surfaces do not work well with New England’s weather.
Commissioner Stephenson stated that the applicant has made very good progress since the last meeting. This site is very problematic in terms of the grades. Also, the addition of the second hedge and the narrowing down of the curb cut is good as long as the overall plan shows it to be a master plan such that someone in the future, if buying this property, would know where all of the parking spots could occur on this property. Commissioner Stephenson stated he felt this was a suitable solution. Commissioner Bond agreed with Commissioner Stephenson.
Commissioner Naccarato stated that the Design Guidelines state, “that the parking, as intergraded into the design, provide a positive visual element or does it dominate the landscape?” He feels that in this instance, it does dominate the landscape, although, he feels that this would fall into a category of an exception given its location and proximity to Route 10. Regarding the lighting, Commissioner Naccarato
questioned if it was the applicant’s intent to use the full 50 watts for the lighting on the signage. Mr. Mocarsky stated he needs to look further into this and research different optics.
Commissioner Carroll stated he feels that this is the best solution for this site given the circumstances.
Chairman Dahlquist stated, in the future, the Design Review Board needs to be very sensitive to the issue of where the parking is and how dominant it is on the landscape. This application does need to be treated individually because of the site constraints and limitations. He feels that this type of use for this building and site is commendable.
Commissioner Stephenson stated that the Design Review Board finds this application to be generally consistent with the Guidelines for Community Design and recommends approval by the Zoning Commission as presented on drawings titled, “Proposed Site Plan”, A-1, dated 11/21/07 and “Proposed Elevations”, A-3, dated 11/09/07. Commissioner Carroll seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
Chairman Dahlquist stated that the primary consideration of the Design Review Board was in the site planning of the parking, although the Design Guidelines indicate that parking should not be the dominant feature and that a certain percentage (more than 50%) of the parking should be in the rear or at the side of the building. The Design Review Board also realizes that the physical constraints of this site did not permit following that particular Guideline. As an exception to the Guidelines, the Design Review Board felt that the solution and the willingness of the applicant to listen to some of the recommendations regarding screening the parking was satisfactory with the final presentation. Also, the architectural changes were appropriate to the building style and location in Town.
IV. DISCUSSION
Mr. Beach introduced Lynn Charest to the Commission. She has recently been hired by the Town to assist Mr. Beach. She previously lived in Simsbury for many years and knows the Town quite well.
Regarding the PDD, Mr. Beach stated that Mr. Peck is diligently working on the re-draft of the PDD. He is currently taking all of the comments from the Boards and Commissions, as well as the public input, to put together another draft form.
Regarding the ENO repairs, Chairman Dahlquist stated that he would be getting the ENO Site Plan. Commission Bond has already volunteered to look at the history of the landscaping. At the last meeting, this Commission agreed that the masonry walls in the front of the building were not repairable. Some old photographs showed a hedge and not a wall. Commissioner Stewart stated that they should consider what the Town would be doing and what the library’s historical records show regarding the paving. He feels that although they should be respectful of the building’s history, they should bring modern components into it for maintenance purposes. Chairman Dahlquist stated that the Town has already accepted a bid to replace the terrace with Bluestone. The Commission continued to discuss these
issues. They felt that they should get together again for a Special Meeting at ENO prior to Chairman Dahlquist having a meeting with the Main Street Partnership. This would allow them to discuss some of their ideas. Prior to this Special Meeting, the Commissioners will gather blueprints, old photos, etc. which will help them with ideas for these repairs at ENO.
The Commission decided to have their Special Meeting on Tuesday, December 4, 2007. Mr. Beach was not sure that a Special Meeting could be held on that day because of Hanukah. He would let the Commission know.
V. CORRESPONDENCE
There were none.
VI. STAFF REPORTS
There were none.
VII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of November 13, 2007
Commissioner Carroll motioned to approve the minutes of the November 13, 2007, meeting as written. Commissioner Bond seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. Commissioners Stewart and Gray abstained.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Gray made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:30 PM. Commissioner Carroll seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
________________________________________
Kevin Gray, Secretary
| 
