Design Review Board Minutes 03/07/2016
Town of Simsbury Design Review Board
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
Subject to Vote of Approval
Monday, March 7, 2016 at 5:30PM
Simsbury Town Offices – Main Meeting Room
933 Hopmeadow Street, Simsbury, Connecticut
PRESENT: Anthony Drapelick, Paul Lanza, Jonathan Laschever, Jennifer Murnane; Director of Planning and Community Jamie Rabbit and Assistant Planner Michael Glidden.
ABSENT: Anca Dragulski, Ron Perry.
1. CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Jennifer Murnane called the meeting to order at 5:30PM.
2. ROLL CALL:
A. Appointment of Alternates.
Ms. Murnane noted that with four regular members present, a quorum was established. Election of a board secretary was discussed. It was decided that Ms. Murnane would poll members to gauge interest and would include the election of a board secretary on the agenda for the next regular meeting.
3. APPLICATIONS:
A. Application #16-06 of Clyde Grindall, Agent; Steven Antonio, Antonio 5
LLC, Owner; for a Site Plan Amendment and Sign Permit for a unified sign
plan on the property located at 1225-1231 Hopmeadow Street
(Assessor’s Map I05, Block 403 Lot 019) Zone B-2.
(received 03/07/2016; decision must be rendered by 5/11/2016).
Director of Planning and Community Development Jamie Rabbit reminded the board that a staff report dated March 4, 2016, updated on March 7, 2016, has been included for their reference. Mr. Rabbit explained that within the sign regulations, the sign square footage is based on building frontage. He noted that a conservative, traditional view of what building frontage is and how it is accumulated as it relates to a sign, is to base it off of the facade of the side of the building that faces the street for which the sign is proposed. Mr. Rabbit noted that this is not how Simsbury has interpreted the code. He noted that they have allowed other applicants to accumulate, or add together, all of the building frontages and potentially put them on one of those facades, such as Dorset Crossing. Mr. Rabbit explained that under a liberal interpretation of the regulations, the application would be compliant at 134.1 square feet. He noted that the Board should determine whether the application is architecturally compliant with the goals and objectives of the Town and then submit a recommendation to the Zoning Commission who will base their approval as part of the Unified Sign Program.
Ms. Lisa Antonio, of Antonio 5 LLC, appeared before the board regarding this application. She referenced Article 4 Definitions of the Zoning Regulations, reading aloud the definition of Lot Line, Front. Mr. Rabbit explained that this definition is in regard to setbacks. Ms. Antonio then referenced Section C Sign Standards By Zoning Districts of Article 10 Special Regulations of the Zoning Regulations, turning to and reading aloud sub-section A of 3. Sign Design Standards.
Mr. Paul Lanza questioned Mr. Rabbit whether there is a practical reason to make an exception to allow this sign as proposed. Mr. Rabbit noted that notwithstanding a dimensional requirement, it is the role of this Board to determine the architectural integrity of the proposed signs as it relates to the building facades.
Mr. Jonathan Laschever questioned how the size of the proposed signage relates to the space. Mr. Clyde Grindal of Falcon Sign and Awning, also appeared before the board on behalf of the owner, and noted that except for the larger “Sunrise” sign, the other signs fit right into the white background plate. It was noted that with the shrinking of this larger sign, a white frame from the backer board would be created whereas the other three smaller ones would not.
Discussion ensued, wherein board members noted that the three smaller signs would appear more uniform if there was a slight reduction resulting in a slight reveal, a thin gap that would remain to provide a white border.
In response to a question from Mr. Rabbit regarding the size of the “Sunrise” sign, Mr. Grindal indicated that the sign that fronts on Ely Lane is 14’ 4” and the one on Hopmeadow Street is 11’ 6”. Proportionality regarding borders to the signs on the site was also discussed.
MOTION: Mr. Laschever, Mr. Anthony Drapelick second, to table the application to allow the applicant adequate time to bring architectural drawings with the actual sign dimensions shown noting the request that there be some proportional bordering showing; Motion passed with Mr. Drapelick, Mr. Laschever, and Ms. Murnane voting aye while Mr. Lanza was opposed.
4. GENERAL COMMISSION BUSINESS:
A. Commission Education/Workshop.
Mr. Rabbit reported that he and Ms. Murnane had discussed scheduling a workshop for policies and procedures as they relate to applications, motions, etc. as well as covering roles, responsibilities and duties of the Design Review Board. Mr. Rabbit explained that he would like to better understand what the board’s vision is through the regulations so that when he meets initially with developers, he can begin then to articulate the expectations. A poll of board members indicated that a Special Meeting on a Monday from 5PM-7PM would be most convenient.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES- FEBRUARY 1, 2016 REGULAR MEETING:
MOTION: Mr. Drapelick, Mr. Lanza second, to approve the February 1, 2016 Minutes; Motion passed with Mr. Drapelick and Mr. Lanza voting aye while Ms. Murnane and Mr. Laschever abstained.
6. ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: Mr. Drapelick, Mr. Laschever second, to adjourn at 6:29PM; unanimously approved.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela A. Colombie
Commission Clerk