Design Review Board Minutes 03/17/2014 ADOPTED
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
MARCH 17, 2014
REGULAR MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Acting Chairman, John Carroll, called the Design Review Board meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: Anca Dragulski, Anthony Drapelick, Paul Lanza, and Jonathan Laschever. Also in attendance were Hiram Peck, Director of Planning, Janis Prifti, Clerk, and other interested parties.
II. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
A quorum was present.
III. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION
a. Application #14-03 of Ensign Bickford Realty, Owner for a Zone Change from I-2 to PAD on the properties located at 437 Hopmeadow Street (Assessor's Map F13, Block 103, Lot 005-3), 200 Powder Forest Drive (Assessor's Map F14, Block 103, Lot 005-4), 225 Powder Forest Drive (Assessor's Map F14, Block 103, Lot 005-5), and 275 Powder Forest Drive (Assessor's Map F14, Block 103, Lot 005-6). Zone I-2.
Chairman Carroll read the Application into the record.
The Applicant's representative provided an overview of the four site locations: Their request to change from an I-2 Zone to a PAD Zone would provide them with flexibility for uses; the PAD requires a good plan for the projects direction and a Master Development Plan with more details will follow for each site defining elevations, layout, and relationship to the overall site plan. They indicated the first site at the Powder Forest entrance traffic light, Site 3, would add 75,000 square feet of commercial space with a single-story building and 5 parking spaces per 1000 sq. ft. for potential offices, retail, and restaurant for local businesses. Further inside the site would be an assisted living facility with a memory care unit in a 4-story building with 2 and 3-story sections, clapboard siding in a more residential-style architecture, and pitched asphalt shingle roofs. A third site location would have 252 housing units composed of 48 units of town homes, some apartments, and some work force housing. They believe this commercial development located at the northern end of Weatogue would help solidify the Weatogue Village District the Town has been working on. The larger buildings would be easy to access but their visibility within the Park would be hidden. Similar to transit hub developments, these residential units across the street from the commuter lot would allow residents to walk to the bus to get into Hartford. A series of trails connects the buildings and these neighborhood interconnections would also reinforce the Rails-To-Trails. They confirmed there is no plan for a residential exit onto Stratton Brook Road; they would maintain the 150-foot buffer along Stratton Brook Road and the vista along Rte. 10.
The assisted living facility would be located in a cleared, flat site with established grades and a row of trees around it where wood chipping was done following recent storms. It would have a series of one, two, three and four-story buildings. A corner vignette of the building representing the architecture was provided and the developer will present their full plan to the Board later on in the year.
They would try to maintain a building on the grass edge near the traffic light for a potential restaurant. As you come into the middle area with all the parking, they would try to maintain a cityscape with single-story buildings capped by a two-story building. They confirmed all exits would be on Powder Forest Drive.
The Applicant's first architectural representative provided a sample drawing of the architectural theme consistent with the iconic variety found in Simsbury, e.g. one and two-story buildings around a parking or pedestrian court. They provided a vignette of the center space and considered Ensign-Bickford's development with the very unique Simsbury brownstone, as well as the courtyard buildings on Jim Gallagher Way, and other structures on Hopmeadow Street. The buildings proposed would have individual entrances highlighted and a distinguishing feature. e.g. a clock tower as an extension on a building. Fenestration would have variety reflective of a building's usage. In the 75,000 sq. ft. facility, would be a mix of local offices, e.g. dentist, doctor, realtor, and quasi-retail with big visibility and high traffic. The materials for and desirability of clock towers was discussed.
The LandWorks developer discussed how the mixed-use Master Plan develops and that they would return to the Board as it develops. They reviewed the status of their ongoing Mill Commons project, which is the first PAD Zone, with about 87% of the 88 apartments occupied and construction for two of the 20 town home buildings underway. They believe this project would augment product in Town; these town homes would be a little smaller and lower priced at 1400 to 2100 sq. ft. with a mix of one and two-car garages, while Mill Commons is 1800 to 2100 sq. ft. with two-car garages. A village cluster courtyard design would provide a nice neighborhood with transitions from single-family detached to single-family attached to apartments a little smaller than Mill Commons, but larger than Dorset Crossing. They also have a work force product with studios from 600 sq. ft. and up, energy efficient, and a more affordable product. At the request of the Zoning Commission, they conducted various economic studies and provided them to the Board Members. As people come home they would stop at the Mail Center for the 208 housing units, and the amount of traffic in this area was discussed. The developers experience has been that the mail structure is larger than needed but they would consider expanding it and study it further; the 48 housing units would have their own mail structure.
The developer worked with the land contours and showed a drawing of sections to provide the Board a sense of scale and distance between buildings, including a garage product, and walkout across the street because the lower tier of land on Powder Forest Drive rises about 20-25 feet to an upper tier plateau where they would leave the 150-foot buffer at the top and an additional 25 feet of work space behind the buildings; the grading then drops down to Stratton Brook. They would use actual Simsbury brownstone on all of their buildings. For the apartments, entry is at the mail center, then winds up the hill to the upper tier to the clubhouse at the top serving the entire community with great room, internet-type cafe, exercise equipment, indoor/outdoor bathrooms, pool and outdoor living space. The front of the garage product was shown with most garages moved to the sides; scale is mostly two-story, but where there are three-story walkouts they have provided for one flight up and one flight down. There are four workforce buildings with two buildings next to each other and further down the road another grouping of two buildings and they would use similar architectural hints with brownstone materials; these buildings would contain studios and one-bedrooms and would all be walkup with 3rd floor units the least expensive. The Board noted the undesirability of garages on the front of homes, with four garages in front and four driveways together. The developer explained that each garage would house four parking spaces and that was done because the Zoning Commission requested they reduce the amount of street parking; they will continue to work on it. The Board suggested having more detail at the approach to the garage door. The developer indicated there would be a deep overhang to shadow the garage and a complementary color used to minimize it.
The developer confirmed there would be 252 housing units, 48 town homes and the balance apartment units for a population of about 300 to 400. The original Powder Forest Master Plan was for about 600,000+ sq. ft. of industrial/commercial/office and they have reduced the traffic impact by about half of what that would have been. They anticipate, with the assisted living facility, that people will travel from this development countercyclically.
The Ensign-Bickford representative reviewed that as they sought developers for this project, they were very impressed with and selected LandWorks who received the Community of the Year Award from the State for their West Street project. From the economic development viewpoint, they currently are paying the Town less than $1300/year and when these projects go forward they would be paying the Town over $2 Million/year and another $2 Million in development fees. He indicated the assisted living facility has a contract and will come before the Board later this year. He said there have been some preliminary discussions for both a restaurant and office building on Site 3 at the corner of Powder Forest Drive and Rte. 10, and they would like to begin the already approved excavation of this site which will take about two years. Ensign-Bickford's representative requested the Board's endorsement to the Zoning Commission for the zone change to PAD for these three sites. He confirmed they would return to the Board as plans become more final.
LandWorks developers confirmed, similar to their Mill Commons project, they are working with Gate 17 architects in Pennsylvania in combination with local architect, Jack Kemper, who designed the town homes, the entry sequence, and the apartments and clubhouse are a combined product. It was added, Dale Cutler, who provided the architectural theme also worked on the very attractive Simsbury Library and Fire Station.
Chairman Carroll made a motion regarding Application #14-03 of Ensign Bickford Realty, Owner for a Zone Change from I-2 to PAD on the properties located at 437 Hopmeadow Street (Assessor's Map F13, Block 103, Lot 005-3), 200 Powder Forest Drive (Assessor's Map F14, Block 103 ,Lot 005-4), 225 Powder Forest Drive (Assessor's Map F14, Block 103, Lot 005-5), and 275 Powder Forest Drive (Assessor's Map F14, Block 103, Lot 005-6). Zone I-2., that the Design Review Board recommends to the Zoning Commission that the application for a change to a PAD be accepted.
Board Member Drapelick seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
b. Application #14-07 of John D. Ritson, Applicant; RC Connectors, LLC, Owner; for a special exception pursuant to Article Ten, Section C.3j, of the Simsbury Zoning Regulations for an additional sign, as well as a sign permit for King's Ridge, on the property located at 144 Hopmeadow Street (Map F17, Block 154, Lot 008). Zone B-1.
The Applicant has an apartment building behind Duncan Donuts and requested the Board's endorsement to install a sign on a concrete base 2-feet wide x 5-feet long and 12 inches tall; on top, they would place a 1-foot wide cinderblock with a 6-inch reveal all around at 4-feet tall and 60 inches, which is smaller than Dunkin's 62-inch sign. The sign would have on each side a metal plaque in forged aluminum with goldish yellow raised letters and black leather on the plaque. Heritage cultured stone on the base of the main building would also be used to cover the entire sign base 4-feet high with a reddish bluestone to cap the 6-inch reveal all the way around and on top. The Board was shown samples of these materials and the location of the sign which is a good distance away from Dunkin's sign; the sign placement would not inhibit driver’s vision when entering or exiting. The Applicant did not believe there was a need to light the sign given all the area lighting; the building will have a lit #144 over the doors and the garages are lit until midnight. The Board commented the design was very nicely done; the Applicant said the building architect was Bill Cruskey of Cruskey and Associates, and expressed appreciation for the Board's previous suggestions which were incorporated to greatly improve the garages and other areas. These apartments are a little smaller than Mill Commons and the demographic moving in are ages 55-85.
Board Member Laschever made a motion regarding Application #14-07 of John D. Ritson, Applicant; RC Connectors, LLC, Owner; for a special exception pursuant to Article Ten, Section C.3j, of the Simsbury Zoning Regulations for an additional sign, as well as a sign permit for King's Ridge, on the property located at 144 Hopmeadow Street (Map F17, Block 154, Lot 008). Zone B-1., that the Design Review Board approved the Application for the sign as presented and endorsed the idea of a separate sign for the apartment complex on the property.
Board Member Lanza seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
c. Application #14-11 of Robert Bolduc, Advisor, Pride, Applicant; Pride Limited Partnership, Owner; for a Site Plan Amendment for a gas station on the property located at 518 Hopmeadow Street (Map G13, Block 132, Lot 023). Zone B-2.
d. Application #14-12 of Robert Bolduc, Advisor, Pride, Applicant; Pride Limited Partnership, Owner; for a Site Plan Amendment for a gas station on the property located at 1340 Hopmeadow Street (Map I05, Block 439, Lot 004K). Zone B-2.
The Applicant's representative explained these would be Pride's 3rd and 4th stores in Connecticut and provided copies of surveyor's plans for each. The 518 Hopmeadow site would be removed and replaced in the upper right corner of the site with a brick building which would have a gabled roof colonial pitch, gable over the front entrance, and face the street with a lot of glass in front; the other three sides would be white clapboard - a sample package of materials had been provided to Town Planning. The canopy would be similar to the current size and there would be three pumps on two islands. A digital sample street sign was shown from Pride's Rte. 75, Windsor Locks location; however, the signs for these two stations would not be digital and in red brick about 10-feet tall with a gable peak, and display a smaller size font Pride name and gas prices.
The canopies would be about 46 feet long, with sidewalks and curbings added in front, and they would add very nice landscaping (double knockout roses with a horizontal yew backdrop) with matching attractive brick base. The entrances would remain the same size but with curbings extended; however, the red brick pavers originally proposed in front were disallowed by the State. The sign would be located at the property's center, visible from both directions, and set back the requisite amount. The entry and exit of cars was described and the tank locations noted. The new building would be 42x46 feet and meet all setback requirements. Because of a 12-14 foot elevation drop in the back of the property facing the gym parking lot, a poured concrete retaining wall was proposed beginning at a height of 2-feet tall increasing to 8-feet tall; the wall would be setback 5 feet from the property line and they would landscape the area with dark american arborvitae which grows tall and thin to nicely block the wall, while still allowing the gym to put snow along the wall. With the wall in place and a graceful slope along the top, they would add small rhododendron, flowering dogwood and red japanese maple, forsythia, and hedge juniper. Because the wall goes to 8-feet tall, they would put in a 4-foot black, single rail, aluminum fence on top of the retaining wall securely set into the concrete.
On the side bordering neighbors, the Applicant received a request to replace the aging stockade fence with a white vinyl fence, but was open to other options; a picture of the fence was provided and the Board discussed other fences in Town. A neighbor in attendance noted the need for the fencing to block as much of the station view as possible. The Applicant's design near the neighbors’ side showed masses of plants including dogwood, azalea, specimen maple trimmed, and filled in for a pretty area. Regarding the State disallowing the pavers shown on the drawing, the State DOT letter said they were afraid plows would damage the pavers; however, the Applicant has had previous success with pavers and they would have been located above the curbing. The Board noted there are many pavers on Hopmeadow Street and suggested they would talk to Zoning about it as pavers are preferred; the pavers would be in lieu of grass which will not grow here.
A rendering of the current lights was provided to the Board showing elevations and illuminations; their proposed plan would decrease light spillage as requested by Planning. Lights would be under the canopy, with a 500 watt floodlight pointing in at the entrance and lighting within the parking area; the lights are LED and meet dark sky requirements; there are zero lumens off the property with no light extending to neighboring yards. It was explained that rainwater from the store and canopy would go to underground pipes to a large leaching catch basin, and then clean water would infiltrate back into the soil along the back; the site would increase from 53% permeable to 55% permeable. There are pavers in the flat parking area further increasing permeability. They have received verbal approval from the State for the water for all the paved areas to go into designated storm scepters and catch basins, then out into the State system to an existing right of way, and into the Farmington River Basin. Parking flow for delivery trucks was shown to the Board along with curb cut details previously provided to the State.
The Applicant's information provided about the tanks, included: they would be double walled tanks manufactured by General Industries; with an inner liner of 1/4 inch plate; the second layer around the tank would be fiberglass to prevent corrosion and with a sealed second barrier; in between layers would be Vitaroot sensors connected to a tank monitor manufactured in Simsbury, which it was noted is the best available and sold worldwide; if there were a leak from the inner tank out, the comprehensive monitoring unit would send an email to their dispatcher and engineers; it also tells them how much product is in the tank, and a processor connected to the cash register compares the amount of gallons sold revealing discrepancies and potential leaks. The actual estimated tank life would be 50 years or more with the combined strength of steel and corrosion resistance of fiberglass. The double walled piping would also contain sensors revealing any leaks; there are sensors in the sumps and also in the large fiberglass sealed tub underneath the pumps - the sensor goes off if there is more than 1/2 inch of product leak. There would also be sensors for any leaks in surface sumps; other sensors shut the system down if pressure is lost in the line. Today's gas station systems were described as like intensive care with their many wires and monitors; their dispatcher knows to the gallon how much product is in each tank.
The Applicant explained that the 1340 Hopmeadow site plan design details would be the same, except that the retaining wall is in a different location and has a 6-foot drop in elevation but it is already landscaped with only clean up needed; no fence is required for this location.
The Board commented that the 518 Hopmeadow site fencing was quite extensive. The neighbor at 1 Hazelmeadow stated their major concern regarded lights, and the fencing would help block their view of the gas station but a stockade fence in this area might be better. The Applicant suggested they could put in more dense and taller vegetation to block the view eliminating some of the extensive fencing.
The Applicant explained that the size of the 518 Hopmeadow brick/white vinyl building had been slimmed down; the Board discussed for both locations whether the white color on the building and canopy posts could be a more attractive color.
Board Member Drapelick made a motion that Applications #14-11 and #14-12 of Robert Bolduc, Advisor, Pride; Applicant, Pride Limited Partnership, Owner of the Site Plan Amendments for that stations on properties located at 518 and 1340 Hopmeadow Street, that the Design Review Board says that the plan as projected meets the Board's program, but with the vinyl fence not coming down the south side of the property and that more vegetation will be put in there to cover the neighbor and that it be left up to the gas station to decide whether the fence will be vinyl back there or stockade. The motion was amended that the Design Review Board feels that the pavers that are shown at the front edge of the property are appropriate from a design standpoint and recommends that the Zoning Commission permit their use. The motion was further amended that where fencing is required by Code on retaining walls that the fencing be four-foot black aluminum pickets colonial style.
Board Member Laschever seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS
a. Possibility of new lighting regulations
b. Discussion of ongoing Town Consulting projects:
* The Hartford Land Use Study status
V. CORRESPONDENCE
None.
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of March 3, 2014
Board Member Drapelick made a motion to approve the March 3, 2014, minutes as written.
Board Member Laschever seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Board Member Drapelick made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:05 p.m. Board Member Laschever seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
_____________________________
John Carroll, Acting Chairman