Design Review Board Minutes 05/18/2015
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
MAY 18, 2015
REGULAR MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairwoman Jennifer Murnane called the Design Review Board Special Meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices.
II. ROLL CALL
The following Board Members were also present: John Carroll, Anca Dragulski, Anthony Drapelick, and Paul Lanza. Also in attendance were Hiram Peck, Director of Planning; Janis Prifti, Clerk; and other interested parties.
III. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
No alternates were seated.
IV. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION
1. Informal review of facade changes on the property of 776-782 Hopmeadow Street (Assessor's Map G10, Block 205, Lot 005). Zone SC-1.
Board Member Jonathan Laschever joined the meeting at 5:35 p.m.
Tom and Tim Vincent, the owners, were in attendance and Tom provided an informal review of the proposed changes. The owner indicated that the weekend of 10/17-19/2014 the building tenants notified them of water leakage from the porch overhang, which they knew needed repair. The owners were unable to obtain a Town permit as the offices closed at noon on Friday, and after consulting with each other regarding the safety concerns, they removed the porch on Sunday 10/19/2014; the following week they returned to Town Hall to explain events and request a permit for the unpermitted removal of the porch. The owner noted Town Staff have been very helpful going forward and the Board was provided building photos, and draft rendering with an explanation of proposed changes. Regarding Town Staff's request for a door cover as required by the Building Code, the owners provided a photo of the covered door.
The owners proposed in their 05/06/2015 permit application to eliminate the 2nd level door and replace it with a window similar to two others in place, and to move the Vincent Sports Shop sign higher allowing proper overhang of the bay windows; they were concerned that people not go back up on the porch above during parade events, etc.; during the last building inspection, the Fire Marshall gave them permission to replace the door with a window, as there are 2 other areas of building egress. The owner indicated the rationale for not rebuilding the porch related to safety with the two tenant's doors allowing access to the upper porch door and one tenant has 2 children. The Board commented on the location of this building in an historic area on the Town's main street and that they would like to see the porch/building restored from both a design standpoint and its location in the Town. The Board reviewed their charge that remodeled existing structures have to fit the area with its surrounding historic structures; the porch is part of the historic building. The owner indicated that following the Town Charrette, their proposed 1998 $40K porch repair plan did not go forward because handicapped access was not allowed outside the building. Currently, the owner believes that cosmetically correcting the building at a cost of $40K would be a waste of money; the building is an embarrassment to their family and they propose restoring it in phases as it becomes financially viable for them.
The Board noted a New England store front style architecture incorporating a facade with only the ends having railings and posts with door columns so that the windows/doors on the second floor would be moot because they wouldn't be seen, but would require putting the porch back. The Board expressed disappointment that the safety issues arose on a weekend without the Building Department's review prior to removing the porch. The Board suggested an architectural plan be thought out and developed and took a look at the 1998 plan. The owners were hoping to only do repair and possibly enclose it, not reconstruct it, as the building is grandfathered regarding handicapped access. The Board felt that owning a beautiful building in the center of Town to be a great benefit with an appropriate design required, as has been done for similar buildings in Town. Mark Nyquist, a member of the Historic District Commission, commented that while removing the porch due to safety issues is understandable, the porch also adds value to the structure if done properly and to code. Town Staff suggested that the owners' plans for enclosure could be discussed in Phase 2 and whether a porch roof could be constructed as part of Phase 1 sized to the enclosed structure underneath. The owner indicated there is no longer a need for an additional 600 sq. ft., as there was in 1998. The owners noted the concrete porch pad remains in place, and the Board discussed that the porch could be built with the columns and an appropriate roof structure, e.g. either a flat roof and railing or hip-type roof with the upper door secured for safety. Substantially replacing the existing porch would be grandfathered and provide a solution. Planning for expansion, e.g. a bump out, would provide future options, including for marketing purposes; Town building officials could be of help in developing a design.
The Board was unanimous in concluding the porch should be put back and the owners should return with the design. In the meantime, Town Staff will confer regarding the permit fee and options to improve the appearance of the building for the immediate future, possibly with banners. The owners have 8 full fiberglass columns, which could have 2 feet of overhang for future enclosure opportunities. The owners noted that things change and showed an historic photo of a barbershop between their driveway and Eno, which was taken down by the Town.
V. CORRESPONDENCE/ANNOUNCEMENTS
Town Staff indicated the Zoning Regulations are beginning to be revised, and provided the Board with an article regarding a UCONN study on parking which estimated Hartford provides about 15% of central business district land or more than 7.5 million sq. ft. for parking; so if each office worker needed 250 sq. ft. of building space, the city could accommodate 30,000 additional jobs with that parking space. Town Staff asked that as the Zoning Regulations are revised, thought be given to the ratio of parking needed and surrounding issues, e.g. parking is vacant much of the time, creation of heat islands and runoff, placement of parking in the rear of retail buildings. The Board asked about the status of improvements for slowing traffic on Rte. 10. Town Staff explained that restriping of lanes to 11 feet has provided some additional parking with more planned; proposed bumpouts are still being worked on where financial responsibility for snow plowing would have to shift to the Town; DOT's process is lengthy and they want to see traffic move through in opposition to the Town's desire to slow it down. Town Staff provided the Board with an article on Pedestrian Friendly Suburbs discussing parking, walkability, alignment of codes and infrastructure and requested the Board think about these issues.
Regarding projects, Town Staff noted: 1) Berkshire Bank at Rte. 44 and Bushy Hill has now begun; 2) Cumberland Farms/Pool Barn both began this week; 3) the memorial near the Library will begin soon with the Town taking over that project and funding in place; 4) the Martin Luther King Memorial site is being worked out by the Historical Society with no clear timeline currently; 5) Big Y plans to begin construction in spring of 2016 and there are other potential projects for that area that may come in; 6) the Ethel Walker project has fully begun; 7) the company-owned Getty Station property was withdrawn from auction several months ago because DEEP would not confirm the property was clean; the current operator would like to get it cleaned up and one potential plan would be to remove the building, and place it near the street with parking behind; and 8) additional projects for the neighboring Andy's location are desirable.
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from May 4, 2015
Board Member Drapelick made a motion to approve the May 4, 2015 minutes, as written.
Board Member Lanza seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Board Member Drapelick made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:30 p.m.
Board Member Carroll seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
_____________________________
John Carroll, Secretary