Design Review Board Minutes
November 13, 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: Charles Stephenson, Mark Naccarato, William Gardner, John Carroll, Richard Schoenhardt, 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 Kevin Gray and Commissioner Carroll to serve in the absence of John Stewart.
III. PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE
a. Application of Thomas Schneider, Director of Finance, Ethel Walker School – Owner, for a Site Plan Amendment to construct a barn on property located at the Ethel Walker School, 230 Bushy Hill Road (west side).
Kenny Langmeier and Iain Sorrell presented this application. Mr. Sorrell stated they are proposing a 40’ x 100’ barn for the stabling of horses. They will be excavating the hillside in this area for the barn. Mr. Langmeier showed color samples of the barn and trim to the Commission. He stated they would be using earth tones to keep it soft and to help hide the building. Every 10’ section of the barn is on a rail system to help with the ventilation; the doors on the rails will be 10’ x 10’ doors on each gable end. The floor will be gravel based with a stone dust on the top. The horses will then stand on rubber mats. Once the barn is built, they will be removing the tents that are currently in place. Regarding the height of the building, Mr. Langmeier stated
that the building is 18’; it will house 16 horses for the summer camp. There are also skylights in the barn to help bring in some natural lighting.
Mr. Sorrell showed the Commission the site lines. He also showed them the existing buildings on the plan and the future proposed additional equestrian facilities.
Commissioner Bond questioned if there would be any shade trees for cooling of the horses. Mr. Langmeier stated they are in the process of putting in shade trees in the vicinity of the paddocks. Commissioner Bond suggested a Maple tree or some type of non-invasive tree. Mr. Langmeier stated great care needs to be taken when deciding on a certain kind of tree. Red Maple trees are toxic to horses.
Chairman Dahlquist questioned if there would be any lighting on the outside of the building. Mr. Langmeier stated there would not be any lighting on the building, although there would be a spotlight on the telephone pole. This would provide light for the manager who does the nightly inspections. This pole is owned by Ethel Walker and not CL&P. Chairman Dahlquist stated that the spotlight would need to be directed away from the road.
Commissioner Gardner motioned that the Design Review Board finds this application consistent with the Guidelines for Community Design and recommends approval by the Zoning Commission and/or the Planning Commission as necessary. The DRB recommends the plantings of shade trees near the paddocks and that the spotlight lighting on the pole be directed in such a way that it not reflect onto the road, but is aimed at the barn. Commissioner Bond added that the nature of the trees be non-invasive and that the size and number of the trees are to be determined by the applicant. Commissioner Carroll seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
b. 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.
Commissioner Schoenhardt excused himself from sitting on the Commission during this application.
Mr. Mocarsky from Schoenhardt Architects, stated that Mr. Rossetti has been using this property for the last several years for his real estate development business and his residence. Mr. Rossetti has recently built a new home and would now like to renovate this building to be a business only, for Summitt Financial. Summitt Financial is an investment planning brokerage/consultant firm. This will be a branch office for them. There will be only four people working at this site. Typically, clients do not come to the office, the consultants go to them. He showed the plan depicting the red building, which is located at 10 Library Lane. They are proposing to paint the building a gray color. Mr. Mocarsky showed the Commission a similar sample of the color they are proposing.
Regarding the proposed changes to the building, Mr. Mocarsky stated there is currently a wide curb cut at the street and 6 back-to-back parking spaces, which are not permitted. They are proposing to increase the paving in the front of the building to accommodate 6 conforming parking spaces, although Zoning Regulations require 10 spaces. They are only proposing more spaces in the rear of the building if the need arises; they will be asking the Zoning Commission for a variance regarding this issue. He also stated that they are proposing to add some paving, which will be either a pressed concrete or pavers, for ramps for accessibility to the building. There is a heavy tree line of Evergreens along the east of the property. They will not be touching these, although they are proposing some additional plantings.
Regarding the elevations, Mr. Mocarsky stated they will be adding a dormer to the front of the building in order to get additional light to the second floor rooms, and they will also be changing some of the smaller double hung windows to larger windows. They are also proposing a small sign over the brick gable entry and a cupola over the porch.
Chairman Dahlquist stated that this Commission concerns itself with the amount of parking in the front of the building. This is a somewhat difficult site.
Randy Gowdy, business owner and Simsbury resident, stated that there will be only four employees in this business. He stated this business location is a regional sales office for a national company. Regarding the parking, Mr. Beach stated that the requirement in the Center Zone is 4.5 spaces per 1,000 s.f.; the building is 2,000 s.f. Mr. Gowdy stated they will be applying for a Special Exception and will be putting the additional parking in reserve and, hopefully, never have to build them, although, they will be meeting the requirements this way. Commissioner Carroll questioned why the parking could not be in the rear of the property with less asphalt in the front. Mr. Gowdy stated that there would still need to be significant asphalt in the front of the building in order for the cars to maneuver around. They would also need spaces in the front to accommodate the occasional client. Commissioner Stephenson questioned if the position of the existing curb cut could be changed
to be moved further up the hill on Library Lane to allow a straight access in for rear parking. Mr. Beach did not think this would be a problem, although there may be a grade change. Commissioner Stephenson suggested that if the driveway was further to the east, with a straight driveway past the building and 7 spaces behind the building in reserve and three spaces with a simple turnout, the parking could physically stop before it does now. This would create a much larger landscaping element in front of the building. This plan would allow 3 guest spots in front of the building, 7 reserve spaces in the back of the building. If the entry were moved, turned left for those 3 front spaces, and the future driveway would simply stop at the point where it could accommodate 1-2 more cars and the reserve spaces could remain green lawn behind the building. The Commission members were in favor of this suggestion made by Commissioner Stephenson. Mr.
Mocarsky stated that he was not sure about this option because there was a telephone pole that may be in the way. He would have to research this.
Commissioner Naccarato questioned if the sign could be put in another location on the building. He feels that there is too much attention drawn to the sign. Mr. Mocarsky stated that they are putting the sign in this location because it is the only wall surface that can be used. The sign would be red on the proposed gray building and it is considerably under the size allowed. There will be 2 ground lights that would wash the wall and there will be a thin trim around the sign.
Chairman Dahlquist suggested that the applicant come back before this Commission at their next meeting on November 27, 2007.
Mr. Rossetti, owner of the property, stated that he has owned this property for 30 years and has now built a new house on the lot next to this building. He stated his concern with realigning the entrance is the proximity to the Simsbury Chamber Office and Library.
Commissioner Stephenson made a motion that the Design Review Board finds this application to be inconsistent with the Guidelines and recommends denial by the Zoning Commission. The DRB further recommends that this application be revised and resubmitted with more in keeping with the Guidelines with specific attention to the following: the access to the property from the street; the treatment of the parking in the front of the building with the understanding that the curb cut be moved to the easterly corner of the property from the existing location. Phase I of the parking would show 9-10 spaces on this site. There would be 3 parking spaces in the front and the westerly edge of the parking would be moved back to the east as far as practical. The driveway would be extended down the easterly side of the building
to allow for 1-2 parking spaces; and the amount of landscaping should be increased from the street view in front of the building.
Chairman Dahlquist stated that the Design Review Board is sensitive to the needs of the application, however, this Board tries to be consistent with the way they treat parking between the road and the building. The Guidelines are written to try and get as many parking spaces behind or to the side of the building instead of in the front. The DRB feels that there is an option here to do this and would recommend that the owners follow this option or at least explore it. They can then come back with a revised site plan. The DRB does find the architecture to be consistent with the Guidelines at this point. He hopes the applicant will come back to the next meeting on November 27, 2007.
IV. INFORMAL PRESENTATION(s)
a. Informal presentation by John D. Ritson, RC Connectors, LLC, on a proposal to construct a building on property located at 146 – 150 Hopmeadow Street. (continued from 10/23/07 meeting)
Mr. Beach stated that this applicant decided not to be present at tonight’s meeting; they did not have any additional information to share with the Commission.
V. APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD’S 2008 REGULAR MEETING SCHEDULE
Commissioner Stephenson made a motion to approve the Design Review Board’s 2008 Regular Meeting schedule. Commissioner Gardner seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
VI. DISCUSSION
Chairman Dahlquist stated that he attended a meeting for Main Street Partnership regarding the updating and repair work at ENO. The concerns are that any repair work be sensitive to the historic nature of the building. The Fire Marshal had stated that there needs to be fire sprinklers throughout the building. The Main Street Partnership was concerned that pipes would be exposed. Chairman Dahlquist stated that he has seen the plans and it seems that the architect has been very sensitive to the nature of the building; the pipes will be as invisible as possible. There are still other issues that they are trying to work out. He stated that the issues that they are currently moving forward on are replacing the front doors and replacing the terrace area, if possible, before the winter. They will also be
putting down Bluestone in the front. Regarding the brick wall in the front of the building, they feel that it will be useless to replace because of the existing trees. He stated that the original building had hedges in the front; the brick wall was built in the 1960’s.
Chairman Dahlquist stated that he has volunteered to do a study of the front of the building. He stated if anyone on the Commission was interested in helping him, he would be glad to have them help. Regarding landscaping, he stated that they are looking for original photographs of the building to see what the original landscaping was. Commissioner Carroll suggested having 1-2 sitting areas in the front of the building, which could be located close to the sidewalk with low landscaping. He also suggested duplicating the memorial on the other side. Another suggestion Commission Carroll made was having lights on columns near the entrance with a seating area. Chairman Dahlquist suggested having seating on either side of the entrance. Several Commissioners continued discussing the different benches that
could be used, which have been used throughout Simsbury for other projects. Commission Bond stated she would be willing to look into the landscaping aspect.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE
There were none.
VIII. STAFF REPORTS
There were none.
IX. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of October 23, 2007
Commissioner Carroll made a motion to approve the October 23, 2007, minutes. Commissioner Schoenhardt seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved, except for Commissioners Naccarato and Gardner, who abstained.
X. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Gardner made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:55 PM. Commissioner Drapelick seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
________________________________________
Kevin Gray, Secretary
| 
