Simsbury, CT - Design Review Board Minutes

Chairman Dahlquist called the meeting to order at 5:33 PM in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: Kevin Gray, Charles Stephenson, John Carroll, John Stewart Anthony Drapelick, Richard Schoenhardt and Rita Bond. Also present were Mr. Howard Beach, Conservation Officer, and Alison Sturgeon, Commission Clerk.

Commissioner Gray made a motion to amend the agenda to add an informal discussion regarding sign review for the River View Banquet facility. Commissioner Drapelick seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.

The Commission reviewed a copy of the Village District Legislation. Chairman Dahlquist stated that when the Planning Commission was creating the POCD, they identified some special areas, which encouraged the Zoning Commission to consider designating Tariffville as a Village District. He read from the POCD and also read several sections of Legislation 8-2j regarding Village Districts.

Chairman Dahlquist stated that the Zoning Chairman would like the Design Review Board to consider crafting language regarding Village Districts as a way to help that Commission go through their revisions of the Zoning Regulations. DRB could possibly designate an area like Tariffville or West Simsbury for a Village District with certain guidelines that define the character and nature of that area. Chairman Dahlquist stated that this could also be used as a way for the DRB to continue the Design Guidelines. He stated that there is a linkage between the Zoning Regulations and the Design Guidelines.

Chairman Dahlquist stated that he would like the DRB to follow the Village District Legislation in terms of the components they would like to talk about and create some language for each of the Village Districts that are indicated in the POCD. This Commission could establish what the character is and what the key issues might be for each area. This information would then be presented to the Zoning Commission, who would then make this a part of their Regulations if adopted.

Commissioner Schoenhardt stated that he feels that it is a matter of defining the districts and where the boundary lines are. He feels that the Village District Legislation includes all of the aspects of the development that the DRB should be looking at. He feels that the more simple the language the better. They should keep, as close as possible, to the State definitions included in the Village District Legislation. Chairman Dahlquist stated that the key is getting the language to identify the character; the developers need to know what is required of them for approval. Commissioner Stewart agreed with Commissioner Schoenhardt to keep the language simple. He feels that defining a boundary also makes sense. The Commission continued to discuss this issue and what Towns already have Village District Regulations in place.

Chairman Dahlquist stated that the DRB needs to come up with the components in terms of the elements that, when put together, give the character. He does not believe that it is just the architectural details. He suggested that they follow the POCD to create the objectives they are looking for and then identify what characterizes the area to alert a developer as to what is expected. Commissioner Gray suggested that they start with Tariffville because there is community support in that area. Chairman Dahlquist agreed that there should be public input in this process.

Chairman Dahlquist distributed a handout to the Commission regarding Village District Criteria in which they could discuss and fill in the matrix with a description of what would characterize each area (i.e. general residential, cluster residential, hamlet, etc.).

The Commission continued to discuss the best way to go about writing the language for the Zoning Commission. Chairman Dahlquist stated that after the language is written and given to the Zoning Commission, if adopted by them, it would be part of their Regulations. This will also help with the DRB Guidelines. Commissioner Stewart stated that, if adopted into the Zoning Regulations, he did not feel that it would be necessary to continue their efforts in coming up with additional language for their Guidelines. Chairman Dahlquist stated that he is not assuming that the Zoning Commission will adopt all of the language that the DRB recommends. He feels that they should make recommendations that go beyond what Zoning would want for the DRB Guidelines.

After continued discussion, Chairman Dahlquist stated that he would start with Tariffville and write a description and list of characteristics that could be used. The Commission agreed to start with Tariffville. Commissioner Bond felt that it would be helpful to walk the district as a group to better understand the area. Chairman Dahlquist stated that taking pictures of the area might be helpful. Commissioner Stewart volunteered to help plot large pictures for the Commission to review.

Asbjorn Gjertsen, applicant, showed the Commission a map depicting the location of the River View facility. He stated that they are proposing 2 stone walls at either side of the entrance. He discussed the height and design of the walls. The walls start at 3’ and as they go up, they extend to 5’. The column at the high end of the wall is 7’. They are proposing a lantern on top of the column. The wall will be constructed out of the same stone as the building. He stated that they are also proposing an oval 9’ x 3 ½ ‘sign on the wall so it will be visible from the street.

Commissioner Stewart stated his concerns regarding the height of the wall and the height of the lantern. He would like to see this scaled down. He suggested that at the next meeting, the applicant come back with the plans that show the scale of the wall. Commissioner Gray did not feel that the wall was too high because he feels that this area is distracting and the height of the wall may help.

Chairman Dahlquist questioned if these walls were on the owners property. Mr. Gjertsen stated that they were on their property; the walls are 10’ in from the curb. Chairman Dahlquist suggested that, for the next meeting, the applicant bring in a sample panel that shows the materials they are proposing for the walls to compare with the building. Mr. Gjertsen stated that the walls would closely match the building in pattern, stone size and color.

Regarding the sign, Mr. Gjertsen stated that they are proposing an oval sign. The background color would match the yellow siding of the building with deep burgundy lettering. They have not decided whether the lettering will be raised or carved. Commissioner Gray questioned what materials would be used for the sign. Mr. Gjertsen did not have all of the details for the sign materials or lettering. He believes that the sign would be either wood or high-density foam.

Commissioner Stewart stated his concerns regarding the sign. He does not feel that the sign relates well to the wall. Commissioners Drapelick and Bond also felt that the sign looked out of place. Commissioner Carroll suggested that instead of the sign being an oval, that the applicant might look at the arch of the wall and redesign the sign with that taken into consideration. Commissioner Stephenson also suggested that instead of the wall being sloped, that the wall might be re-designed in level steps. The sign can then be placed on one of the steps. He feels that this will help the stone work embrace the sign. If the bottom of the sign and the steps of the wall are both horizontal, they would relate better to each other.

Chairman Dahlquist stated that, prior to the next meeting, the applicant should also consider lighting for the sign. Also, the DRB typically asks for numerical identification on the sign or possibly on the wall.

Commissioner Gray made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 26, 2008 meeting as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Stephenson, which was approved. Commissioners Drapelick and Schoenhardt abstained.