Design Review Board Minutes 04/23/2013 ADOPTED

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 23, 2013
REGULAR MEETING

I. CALL TO ORDER

Emil Dahlquist, Chairman, 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:  John Carroll, Anthony Drapelick, Rick Schoenhardt, Willliam Gardner, Charles Stephenson and Rita Bond.  Also in attendance were Hiram Peck, Director of Planning, Janis Prifti, Clerk, and other interested parties. 

II. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES

Chairman Dahlquist appointed Commissioner Carroll to serve as an alternate member for the vacancy on the Board.

III. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION

1. Informal Discussion

  a. Grove Properties
  b. Drake Hill Mall
  c. Simsbury Town Shops

Matt Witmer of Phase Zero Design stated this is to present concept designs for 3 important buildings in downtown Simsbury owned by Grove Properties.  He said they are looking at the marketability of these buildings, as well as their historic character.  He said they will show some elevations and welcome DRB's feedback before coming back in.  Chairman Dahlquist thanked them for taking advantage of the informal at the conceptual stage and welcomed the presentation.  Mr. Witmer said Steve Walker of Grove Properties wanted to be present but is presenting on the Cape this evening.  Mr. Witmer introduced his colleague, Chris Millard, who continued with the presentation providing handouts to the Commissioners.

Mr. Millard said they are working on 3 separate properties owned by Grove Properties.  First, Mr. Walker asked them to provide a more elaborate store front for the Metro Bis building; they are looking at a front entry door with 3 side lights, some transoms, a fabric awning, leaving signage as is but adding some exterior light fixtures, including sconce wall lights to better indicate the entrance to the restaurant, and signage above a parapet.  He said the sidewalk is about 6 inches below the finished floor and needs to be raised a little to meet the proper pitch for handicapped accessibility.  He said the finish, material and siding would match what currently exists and the change would be to add in the new storefront entry.  He said the side door may be replaced with a decorative glass panel and eliminated as a door.  He said the site layout is preliminary and at this point, they are working more on the building facade.  The Commissioners liked the direction and proposed improvements and also discussed the overall building balance.  Mr. Millard stated the intent to give Metro Bis the feeling of a separate building, not in relation to Subway.  Regarding a 45 degree angle view of both facades of Metro Bis and tying them together, Mr. Millard said they have not elaborated on that facade at this point.  The Commissioners felt the series of bay windows in the development should be looked at together.  Mr. Peck noted the element in the Starbucks building of the windows not coming all the way to the ground.

Mr. Millard continued with the 2nd building at Simsbury Town Shops where Sarah Byrnes is located.  He said they would replace the 4 front bay windows with new storefront windows matching the building style on the left which has a large piece of glass broken up into several adjacent side lights.  He said as the building is viewed from the street, this is the center portion and he proposes adding some paneling underneath the large windows to draw focus to the center as the main entry door.  He said the main entry door will be replaced with a similar door, but adding trim work to dress it up, and a signage band above it.  He said they will replace side piece windows to match the rest of the building.  Mr. Witmer said the building changes in shape quite a bit and they would like to maintain some differences.  The Commissioners commented this proposal is nicely done and suggested considering a vertical munton bar pattern on either side for the windows, a transom at the restaurant, and similar improvement for the Subway window.  Regarding outdoor seating, Mr. Witmer agreed it is desirable but the space is too tight.  Mr. Millard said the 2 signs above the bay windows would stay and be centered with lights. 

Mr. Millard said the 3rd property is the Canon Building; Mr. Walker has asked them to add an entry facade to the building side in order to lease the space, possibly for retail.  He said they do not want to compromise the existing appearance of the building and their approach is to add about 400 sq. ft. which covers the existing patio.  He said at the front facade, they would add a brick base and windows above to match the building style; the windows would be cased by trim on all sides with pilasters in the corners and adjacent to the doors on each side giving the addition the feeling of a sun room.  He said along the top of the space they would mimic some of the banding or a parapet facade that is on the adjacent end of the building; the banding also allows space for signage.  He said in front of that they will do site work to modify the existing stair with a new concrete stair and handicap accessible ramp from the parking lot tucked behind the stair hidden from street view.  He said the street facade maintains the same facade as on the CVS parking lot side.  The Commissioners noted the need to check the form-based code restrictions for handicap access with regard to landmark buildings.  Regarding building circulation, Mr. Millard said the building will be revamped for one tenant.  For the portico on the north side of the building, he said they are trying to incorporate some of those features into the rest of the building.  The Commissioners agreed they have been very respectful of the original building with this proposal and thanked them for their informal presentation.

2. Village District Study

Mr. Peck stated the Committee met with the consultant last week and decided to focus on one area to develop a regulation, plan, graphics, and connection to the current Design Guidelines.  He said the focus will be from where Rte. 185 crosses the river up to Powder Forest Drive.  He said within about the next week they will get this information to the consultants with a list of stakeholders and discussions will then be set up with the stakeholders so things move along quickly.  He said they will keep everyone informed as it evolves.  Chairman Dahlquist said the Study may be done by frontage type and will be a mini-charrette process.  Mr. Peck said it will provide a long-term plan for the area with some ideas having come out of the Rte. 10 Corridor Study, and the team includes John Ford, an engineer concerned with stormwater, and Russ Preston who was the architect for the LID Study.  Chairman Dahlquist said the form-based code can be as detailed as you want and include a lot of graphics.

3. Community Center/Senior Center - Richard Sawitzke, Town Engineer

Mr. Sawitzke provided a letter of recommendation to the Board of Selectmen from the Public Building Committee which in 2010 was assigned the task of looking at potential Senior Center sites.  He said Quisenberry Arcari Architects was selected to conduct the study and the lengthy report is available both on the Town website under Social Services Senior Center, as well as in his office.  He said they comprehensively evaluated population trends and potential users of the Senior Center over the next 20 years, existing and planned program space requirements; they determined there would be a need for about 22,200 gross sq. ft.  He said Eno Memorial Hall has about 22,500 gross sq. ft., with about 13,000 sq. ft. reserved for the DAR, Simsbury Community TV, and historically significant space like auditoriums, public areas, the rotunda, etc., so an additional 12,500 sq. ft. would be needed to accommodate programs, as well as a parking deck on the back of the building to accommodate parking requirements.  He said in conjunction with the Study the dedicated seniors, Committee members and Staff visited senior centers in Glastonbury, Lebanon, Enfield, and Agawam, MA and decided the Agawam center was a good baseline facility model.  He said they considered 12 sites in Simsbury and evaluated 6 sites as indicated on page 2 and they evaluated polls taken.  He stated there is a strong opinion the senior center should stay in Simsbury Center and the Public Building Committee recommended 1) Eno Memorial; 2) Bushy Hill/Stratton Brook; and 3) Simsbury Performing Arts Center.  He said the numbers for each site are comparable until the parking deck is added to Eno, but there are a lot of soft costs and flexibility to adjust the numbers.  He would like to see total project costs targeted at around $6 Million. 

Mr. Sawitzke stated Eno Memorial has a lot of advantages, including its Town center location, which was a keystone of the Center Charrette Study; also it is the traditional location for the Senior Center with considerable infrastructure in place; main considerations are parking and access and respecting the historic nature of the building and its impressive presentation.  He said it has a lot of potential, especially with a parking deck added. 

Mr. Sawitzke said the Bushy Hill/Stratton Brook site is the most efficient in terms of design and ease of construction, but it is not in the Town Center.  He said sewers and utilities would have to be brought in and land cleared and while it is not in the down gradient area of the aquifer protection area, large production wells are nearby.

Mr. Sawitzke said they did not evaluate the Performing Arts Center site and its operations; it is a very interesting site with many pluses for multi-generational activities but it has a lot of people traffic and the space would need to be shared.  He said Senior Center activities will be very active at the Arts Center with potential conflict for sharing space.  He said the Arts Center is looking for permanent bathrooms, activity rooms, a green room, etc. and these could be shared with a Senior Center. 

Mr. Sawitzke said that currently they are coming before this Board and the Planning Commission to gain members thoughts, followed by formal presentations to the Board of Selectmen, and also a public informational meeting for residents' input with the goal of a BOS decision by July.  Regarding the Bushy Hill/Stratton Brook site, he said it was originally intended for a school and this land was not acquired as part of Walker Woods, but there are issues regarding its proximity to the aquifer and that it is not in Town Center. 

Mr. Sawitzke showed boards for the Eno site with a proposed drop-off canopy space off of Station Street which would become 2-way with public entry space on the north side and 2 additions in the back linked to a parking deck - the lower level would be from Railroad Street with stairs and elevators; the upper deck would come off Station Street, as it does now.  He said the deck would be completely open on the Railroad Street Side and partially open on the Station Street side; the business community has discussed extending it as a joint venture.  He said this configuration of the deck is somewhat inefficient, and if it were deeper, could have a circular pattern with entrances on both levels.  He confirmed the Main Street grant toward the deck is for half a million dollars and is not factored into these numbers and he expects to hear from Main Street this month.  He showed the present level which would have an entrance and drop-off area from Station Street; the lower level would be returned to a dining area and multi-purpose uses, a new kitchen, activity rooms, administrative offices, a patio on the south side and the entry would have a lobby area with cafe which is a major feature similar to all other senior centers; and the 2 large rooms in the front remain for senior and community uses - arts/crafts, classrooms, etc.  He said the present auditorium main floor accessed by elevators and stairs remains, along with public spaces and rotunda; the present senior center room would be returned to a big open area and the offices removed and a fitness room and exercise activity room.  Regarding computer training and use, he said the nearby Library provides those opportunities.  He said the upper level is untouched with upper stage, balcony, and public north and south conference rooms.  He showed the Station Street elevation with drop-off area glass wall allowing you to see through to the existing wall with large windows similar to an atrium space, the addition on the back and the parking deck which requires much more detailed work.  Regarding moving east to west from the deck through the entire building, Mr. Sawitzke said the corridor area in the atrium area provides that in a spectacular space preserving the interior wall and connectivity to the addition in the bank with elevator bank in a much more inviting area. 

Mr. Sawitzke complimented the architect who went way beyond in putting together a schematic demonstration of space to accommodate the programs and needs in 22,500 sq. ft.  He showed the Bushy Hill/Stratton location on the corner near Powder Forest Homes and East Billings Gate at the top of the hill staying out of the up gradient area for the well fields with drainage toward Bushy and Stratton.  He said there is public water and natural gas, but the sewer is a substantial distance.  He said it is all on-grade parking and a 1-story building; Agawam is actually a 2-story building but seems like 1 floor; he sees advantages in 2 stories.  Regarding the many more parking spaces than at Eno, he said they can accommodate twice as many cars here.  He said Eno works very well for most programs and on-street parking is available to accommodate parking for very large community programs with potentially less walking than in a large parking lot such as Bushy Hill/Stratton. 

Regarding other sites, e.g. combining a youth and senior center, he said that was not considered; they looked at the Library site, but parking is limited causing that site to be rejected.  He said the Main Street Program has spearheaded some good conversations with neighbors to the south of Eno considering shared parking.  Regarding Andy's site, he said contacts were made and leaseback discussed but there is not much parking unless the other tenants left; also, a criteria was to not affect the tax rolls and it is a very old building with cleanup issues.   He said they looked at the synergy for Eno, the Library, and shopping and the strong argument to keep the Senior Center there.  He said cost-wise it is easier to put an addition on the back; Eno was built in the 1930's and has strong construction with some forward looking features, but it is a solid masonry and difficult and expensive to work in.   He is requesting 60% design development funding in the next budget cycle and since the cost estimates are close it will accommodate any of these sites.  Commissioner Carroll commented this renovation of an iconic building is very well done. 

IV. CORRESPONDENCE

Chairman Dahlquist listened to the Zoning Commission on SCTV and discussed that the 3 Zoning Commissioners, Chairman Pomeroy and Commissioners Ryan and Pabich have met together and are developing ideas and directives which will be provided to Design Review in the future.  He said they are looking for names of potential members for DRB by 8/15/13; those names will come from the 2 political party's nominating committees and passed onto Zoning who deliberates, possibly interviews, and selects 6 regular members and up to 3 alternates by mid-October preceding the election.  He said they are looking at what projects DRB will review and will make a statement about it.  Mr. Peck said they will likely develop a framework for what experience members should have in about 2 weeks.  Chairman Dahlquist said members will probably be given strong consideration and each member will need to consider those conditions.  The Commissioners discussed there is potentially a 4-year staggered term initially; DRB is a permanent Board under the Charter; the Zoning Commissioners made a positive comment about finding a way to get hold of "urban legends", e.g. Dorset Crossing returned 4 times to DRB which they chose to do.

V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of February 26, 2013

On Line 60, the name "Dahlquist" is corrected to "Drapelick".

On Lines 196 and 197, the remainder of the sentence following "HomeGoods deliberations" is deleted and replaced with the words, "the Applicant proceeded with what they originally proposed and the Zoning Board approved."

On Line 202, the word, "to" is deleted and replaced by the words, "the DRB should".

Commissioner Drapelick made a motion to approve the February 26, 2013, Meeting Minutes as amended. 

Commissioner Stephenson seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

VI. ADJOURNMENT

Commissioner Gardner talked about changes to his eyesight and great help received from his wife, Babs, and regretfully tendered his resignation to DRB.  He said his time on the Board goes back a long way and has been very enjoyable.  Chairman Dahlquist expressed the Commissioners appreciation and pleasure in working with Commissioner Gardner over the years and thanked him for his service wishing him the best of luck in the road ahead.

Commissioner Carroll made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:00 p.m.  Commissioner Gardner seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

_____________________________
Emil Dahlquist, Chairman