Design Review Board Minutes 04/07/2014 ADOPTED
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 7, 2014
REGULAR MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson, Jennifer Murnane, called the Design Review Board meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: Ron Perry, Anthony Drapelick, Anca Dragulski, 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
Board Member Leschever was appointed for John Carroll.
III. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION
a. Application #13-43 of Terri-Ann Hahn, LADA, P.C. Land Planners, Agent; Town of Simsbury, Owner; for a Site Plan Amendment for Simsbury Veterans Memorial on the property located at 725 Hopmeadow Street (Map G10, Block 203, Lot 049). Zone SC-1.
The Application was read into the record.
The Applicant's representative explained that the proposed design modifications to the Veterans Memorial site have been made following input in 2013 from this Board resulting in a smaller design. They reviewed the Simsbury Veterans' goal to have a memorial specifically for residents killed in action back to the Revolutionary War with a current total of 104. The Veterans want to assure the Memorial is part of the streetscape and has a presence on Hopmeadow Street; other memorials in Town would remain in place. The overall layout near the Library, driveway, and adjacent parking was described with the street level area dropping down toward a stream, parking lots and Boy Scout Hall. The specific corner for improvement for the Memorial would be created at streetscape level utilizing fill, extending off the existing sidewalk creating a gathering area. This smaller design was partially the result of the Center Code which requires that no vertical structures can be within 10-feet of the property line; therefore, the area was reduced between the sidewalk and the plaza area.
Regarding how this project interfaces with a potential future pond contained in the Charrette plan, a concern arose through discussions with various Town entities about where a sidewalk would be located to get to the water’s edge. A future pond would be about 5-6 feet below the existing sidewalk and there was only one possible location for a sidewalk near the pond area which resulted in the original plan for a retaining wall being eliminated. The two issues were separated and the Veterans Memorial now has a slope off the back with minimal regrading required for the pond/sidewalk to interface the two areas; as confirmed with the Town Engineers, there would be no interference with the pond from the Memorial.
The Veterans continued goal was to have a Memorial at the street level as shown by the current design. The current more open design would have 4 granite columns representing the four pillars of democracy with integrated elements, including names and symbols; six granite benches would represent the services; a flagpole; and brick pavers in the main plaza area would contain names of veterans as part of a fundraising effort and a mix of pavers with brick pavers would run from the sidewalk into the plaza. The flagpole height would be about 35-feet tall and lit from below and would catch people's attention first. The columns would be fully accessible to viewers and would be lit from LED fixtures in the concrete. There are no area lights or other nighttime illumination. They now meet setback requirements. The area from the sidewalk to the plaza would be grass with a shaped hedge and more natural interface with Rhododendrons and Mountain Laurels. It was confirmed that the pond is not part of this Application; a Town funding effort would be required. Town Staff confirmed that the connection between the parking lot and Boy Scout Hall is currently planned to be a walkway, and not a roadway. Easy access to the Memorial from the parking lot would be across level mowed grass; for those with disabilities, there is parking on the other side and a direct walkway. Regarding landscaping, the entire backdrop is wooded with an existing large tree at the street to be protected and a Cherry tree was proposed to offset the flagpole and continue the circuit. The Members discussed how the Memorial would be perceived by drivers on Hopmeadow; moving north there is a difficult traffic scenario, so the flagpole was put out front as a readily recognizable landmark. Town Staff confirmed that setback and height requirements have been met. Functions at this location would be for about 30-40 people and would include a small ceremony for Veterans Day in November; Memorial Day would continue to be held at Eno Hall and larger functions would be held elsewhere. They hope to begin fundraising for about $150,000 for this Memorial beginning Memorial Day. Town Staff believed fundraising for the Martin Luther King Memorial is going on. The Town would maintain the proposed Veterans Memorial as part of the streetscape.
Board Member Perry made a motion to approve Application #13-43 of Terri-Ann Hahn, LADA, P.C. Land Planners, Agent; Town of Simsbury, Owner; for a Site Plan Amendment for Simsbury Veterans Memorial on the property located at 725 Hopmeadow Street (Map G10, Block 203, Lot 049). Zone SC-1.
Board Member Lanza seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
b. Application #13-59 of David A. Richman, Agent for DARLAR, LLC, Owner, for a Site Plan Amendment for the installation of a permanent handicap ramp on the property located at 730 Hopmeadow Street (Map G10, Block 227, Lot 002). Zone SC-1.
The Application was read into the record. Town Staff reviewed that the original ramp was temporary and this permanent design is now proposed by the Applicant.
The Applicant indicated the temporary ramp accommodated one tenant who has just resigned and is the only hearing center in Town. A site survey company was hired to assure they comply with State required setbacks along Hopmeadow Street. The proposed upgraded ADA compliant ramp would utilize the correct material, slope, and pre-fab white composite railings; some landscaping would be moved to the north side. The Applicant indicated the ramp slopes were the result of the entrance being seven feet above ground, and that there is only one viable location for the ramp. The ramp cost is about $7,000 and they consider the drawings provided to the Board to be official. The Board discussed that the height did not appear to be seven feet above ground and the idea that the ramp design potentially use switchbacks. The Applicant responded that they looked at switchbacks and decided it would not look good and would reduce tenant parking. The decking material color would match the light gray on the building.
The Board discussed the impact of such a large ramp with platforms visible from Hopmeadow Street and whether that would be appropriate given the structure's significance. How the ramp could be made more compact and connected more to the building was discussed. The Applicant responded that the ramp connects on the side at the existing entrance platform and not straight up the stairs; the substantial plantings to the north would provide screening; they cannot plant on the west side because it is owned by the State, although they maintain existing trees, etc. Items the Board was concerned about included: if the ramp only goes up three feet, the ramp and landing currently are not drawn correctly; the railings do not appear to meet code - no more than a 4-inch space is required, ADA height restrictions must be met, an intermediate grab rail is needed between the rails, and it would be better to make the railing system darker so it doesn't standout and the Board would like to see actual material color samples. The Board felt that no one could build the ramp with the existing drawings. The Applicant responded they had met with the Building Department and number of times. It appeared the existing ramp would be less obtrusive than the proposed ramp moved slightly northward. Regarding the material coming out of the concrete base to the structure, it would be a pressure-treated 4x4.
The Board suggested further consideration of the design and the Applicant agreed they would like the ramp area to look permanent and natural. Town Staff summarized the need to minimize the impact on Hopmeadow Street, perhaps with plantings, and will talk with the Building official to get input on the ramp specs and will work with the Applicant on the issues. The Board requested and the Applicant agreed to bring in material color samples. The Board discussed alternative ramp configurations and that this would be directly opposite the new Veterans Memorial. Town Staff indicated discussions had been ongoing for over a year.
IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS
At the last meeting, the Board felt the discussion was too rushed regarding the two gas stations and a more thorough review was needed. Town Staff will work to provide a checklist and/or Draft Decision to aid the Board's process in the future. Town Staff for future meetings will reserve the Probate Room for the Board to move to at 7:00 p.m. in order to continue meeting discussions, if necessary.
Regarding handicapped ramps, the Board suggested having more adequate criteria, including how it relates to the building and neighborhood. It was noted that Applications should meet the Guidelines in order to be approved. Applicants should have reviewed the Guidelines prior to presenting a proposal to the Board; Town Staff's recommendation to Applicants is that they be well-prepared for their meeting with the Board. Prior to this meeting, material for Application #13-59 was provided to the Board for comparison to the Guidelines.
V. CORRESPONDENCE
None.
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of March 17, 2014
On Line 10, the name "Ron Perry" is deleted, and the sentence ends with "and Anthony Drapelick."
On Line 301, the name "Perry" is deleted and replaced with the name "Laschever".
Board Member Drapelick made a motion to approve the March 17, 2014, minutes as amended.
Board Member Laschever seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Board Member Drapelick made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:25 p.m. Board Member Laschever seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
_____________________________
John Carroll, Secretary