Design Review Board Minutes 02/06/2017

Meeting date: 
Monday, February 6, 2017

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

FEBRUARY 6, 2017

MOTIONS FROM REGULAR MEETING

 

 

 

I.             CALL TO ORDER

 

Jennifer Murnane, Chairperson, opened the Regular Meeting of the Design Review Board at 5:30 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room at the Town Offices.  Other members and alternates in attendance were Jonathan Laschever, Anca Dragulski, Paul Lanza, and Ron Perry.  Also present were Jamie Rabbitt, Director of Planning and Community Development; Michael Glidden, Assistant Town Planner; Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk; and other interested parties.

 

 

II.            APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES

 

A quorum was present and no alternates were appointed.

 

III.           APPLICATIONS

1.            Discussion and Possible Action:

 

a.            Application #17-03  of LADA, P.C. Land Planners, Agent; Simsbury Cemetery Association, Inc., Owner, for a Site Plan Approval for the installation of a columbarium wall and pavilion on the property located at Plank Hill Road (Assessor’s Map G09, Block 203, Lot 044, spanning between Library Lane and Plank Hill Road behind and adjacent to the property located at 755 Hopmeadow Street). Zone R-40.     

 

Chairperson Murnane read Application #17-03 into the record.

 

Terri-Ann Hahn of LADA, P.C. Land Planners represented the Applicant and said J. Eno apologized for being unable to attend the meeting.  Ms. Hahn described the cemetery layout and orientation to Hopmeadow Street; the term mausoleum refers to above-ground internment and columbarium refers to cremated remains or cremains, which have niches or individual boxes usually 12 or 15 inches square with 1-2 foot peaks that hold a vessel.  She indicated that in the last 10 years cremation has trended toward 50%, but people still like having a memorialized place to go with names displayed in columbarium walls.  She said the proposal would be to extend the viewing platform building the slope with the columbarium wall facing the slope and continuing down to a small pavilion; the columbarium wall is built of pre-cast concrete covered in granite with names displayed in the light gray granite which matches the mausoleum; a walkway will provide access from an existing drive for a cortege and so people can walk down; the pavilion is located to provide access with the mausoleum for operational consistency; there would be granite benches inside; there would be about 125 units within the pavilion and in the wall structure there are 30 niches in each of the 13 sections – the 500-600 units are sealed with a concrete panel inside and a granite panel on top keeping water out but allowing air in.  Board Member Laschever asked about how the wall is viewed and projections over time.  Ms. Hahn responded that the wall is lower than the circular driveway; when you are at the top of the circular driveway you would see over the wall top to the pavilion; a 10-year buildout is anticipated as the existing columbarium wall took about 12 years to become occupied, but the industry is changing.  Commissioner Dragulski asked if the entire wall would be built at once and what the color would be.  Ms. Hahn confirmed the entire wall would be built at once in a light gray granite; Mr. Rabbitt described the granite color as similar to material from the Connecticut shoreline area.  Board Member Dragulski asked if there was a plan for plantings to blend the columbarium into the landscape.  Ms. Hahn indicated they believe the pavilion is attractive on its own with no plantings, but there will be plantings at the wall top and to define the viewing area at the top; other land may be used for future burial areas with no additional plantings currently planned; and enough room must be provided for people to attend and view the proceedings.  Ms. Hahn noted two pull-off areas on the north property line; and there will be an ornamental metal fence at the top.

 

Mr. Rabbitt indicated Staff’s concerns included solidifying the granite’s color and recommended the pavilion roof be copper metal and a not a metal look alike given the pre-fab nature of the construction.  Ms. Hahn confirmed it would be copper metal and that there would be a retaining wall behind the columbarian wall, so fill will be done, then the retaining wall, and then the columbarium wall secured to the retaining wall.

 

Board Member Perry made a motion recommending approval of Application #17-03 with 3 clarifications of approval:

 

1.            Approval is based on plans titled, “Simsbury Cemetery Gazebo” prepared by Mathews Cemetery Products, revision date 06/20/2016.

2.            Roof for proposed pavilion shall be a copper dome, which the Applicant has no objections to.  Changes to the material will require approval by the Design Review Board.

3.            Minor field adjustments to grading and landscaping may be made based on field conditions upon written approval from the Town Planner, who has been given the authority on behalf of the Town’s Design Review Board to act on their behalf.

 

Board Member Laschever seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously.

 

 

IV.          GENERAL COMMISSION BUSINESS

 

1.            Workshop (Site Design and Architecture)

 

Board Members and Town Staff discussed potential future workshop dates.

 

Town Staff continued with the computer Google Earth tour along Hopmeadow Street resuming at Simsmore Square.  There was a discussion of:  acceptable improvements and architecture in 2017 vs. previously; the issue of corporate logos as part of signage, e.g. corporate logo colors without any words and the look of white canopies with simple lettering vs, A-frames or colors – typically 14 feet of height clearance is required to protect canopy edges and what should be the scale limit of canopies given their relation to neighboring structures; pea stone and mulch vs. grass and trees/shrubs and which are desirable landscaping.  The Board Members discussed a large smooth concrete retaining wall that was approved behind Pride and what else could have been used rather than all hardscape, including faux stone and adding plantings; the Board Members suggested taking a look at the original application for this small infill site.  Town Staff noted other locations with pumps on the side and the canopy perpendicular to the street providing a narrow dimension and how that would have worked at the Cumberland Farms location to establish street presence and balance bulk.  Town Staff noted the overall goal of adding to community character.  Simsmore Square was described as originally well-balanced and when the storage addition that was requested with gable-end into the parking lot and how it could have been enhanced.  Town Staff discussed the original elevation for Garden Homes with significant garage appendages to building fronts, so that the landscaping should have been increased.  Various re-used single-family traditional colonial buildings were noted along Hopmeadow that maintain Town character vs. those that added large windows and changed their character.  Locations with the inability to put canopies at the street level because of large poles was noted and sight line requirements vs. the need for balanced green/floral landscaping; the Board Members noted New England winters require expenditures to maintain green landscaping.   Power lines around buildings, DOT right of ways, and the extent of pavement around buildings were discussed.  The Board Members had questions about whether the Green Tea site was built as the Board approved it and the 2nd building has not been constructed, drainage impacts, retaining wall, connection to the bike path, etc.  Town Staff noted everything on Hopmeadow has 3 or 4 sides to consider and the Green Tea site was done according to what Zoning approved; the Board asked why there isn’t feedback to DRB from Zoning; Mr. Rabbitt believed that in the 16 months he has been on Staff, that Zoning has followed DRB’s recommendations; the Board noted its function to make recommendations to Zoning, but would like to know if Zoning changes it.  The Board did not believe the Green Tea site looks like what was approved and fits in less well than anticipated and would like to figure out why; a member who ate at the restaurant felt parking was a nightmare; Staff noted the landowner is aware there could be an issue regarding construction of a 2nd restaurant on the site; but ZBA provided variances; also, 2 landowners discussed the retaining wall and decided to just change the grade at the property line replacing hardscape with softscape. 

 

Town Staff continued driving down Hopmeadow noting it is nicely mostly green on both sides with mature canopy; an institutional-type building with arched window was noted with substantial canopy in front; and the industrial EB housing has been softened by its nice front canopy with the classically attractive cream trimmed brownstone buildings, and dark stained shakes and well-hidden parking areas.  The Board discussed the major intersection at the church and the DOT funded stamped/painted brick walkways along Hopmeadow that add charm/character – maintenance of real brick inlay would be more difficult and costly given plows, etc.  Regarding the mansion, Town Staff indicated the property is for sale as the principal investor passed away; the current asking price may be $1.6 Million; the approval is still in place conditioned upon a site plan being submitted, reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer; however, developers are looking at alternatives that are more conscious of the existing architecture.  Board Members expressed concern about the plan that was presented for the Mansion; Town Staff talked about an estate plan for the property and associated buildings.  Staff noted that the Zoning Commission cannot say no more units in Town can be built because there are too many houses.  It was noted the mostly fully-leased Joe’s Pizza property recently sold for $3.4 Million.  Mr. Rabbitt wrote a report for the BOS that can be found on both the Planning and BOS home pages called, “Residential Trends in Simsbury” listing all the recent and anticipated developments and their impacts on population, as well as potential impacts on the Grand List for FY16 to FY23. 

 

 

V.            APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the December 5, 2016 Regular Meeting

 

Board Member Lanza made a motion to approve the December 5, 2016, Regular Meeting Minutes, as written.

 

Board Member Perry seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

 

 

VI.          ADJOURNMENT

 

Board Member Laschever made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:50 p.m.

 

Board Member Lanza seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.