Design Review Board Minutes 05/19/2014 ADOPTED
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ADOPTED MINUTES
MAY 19, 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.
II. ROLL CALL
The following Board Members were present: Ron Perry, Anthony Drapelick, Anca Dragulski, John Carroll 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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of May 5, 2014
On Line 8, the words "Acting Chairman," are deleted and the sentence begins with "John Carroll, Secretary,".
On Line 83, the words "Acting Chairman Carroll" are deleted and replaced with "John Carroll".
Board Member Carroll made a motion to approve the May 5, 2014, minutes, as amended.
Board Member Perry seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
V. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION
a. St. Mary's School & Parish Center Sign at 946 Hopmeadow Street
St. Mary's representative provided Board Members with photos of the current and proposed sign location. The new sign would be about the same size as the current sign and have a natural flagstone base in shades of gray, brown and soft red and they would follow the Guidelines for the type of vegetation to put around the base. The Board suggested St. Mary's look at nearby similar sign examples. The sign currently would have no lighting; Town Staff requested when lighting is proposed that St. Mary's return for Board approval. Town Staff also advised St. Mary's that, depending on how close the sign is to the road, anything in the DOT right of way would require DOT approval as well.
Board Member Lanza made a motion to accept the proposed sign.
Board Member Perry seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
VI. UPDATE ON OTHER PROJECTS
a. The Hartford Code for 200 Hopmeadow Street
Town Staff advised the Hartford approved the final Code draft which is posted on the Town website, but the four graphics are contained in the old version of the Code and have not changed. The Code would operate similar to the Town Center Code with normal regulation review through an application to the Zoning Commission with referrals to this Board and the Planning Commission. A Public Hearing for the Code is scheduled for 6/16/2014 and any comments from the Board were requested to be provided to the Zoning Commission prior to that meeting. Potential Code development concepts for the property could include a live/work/play area where residences are part of the development with a bridge connection across the wetlands to the Hartford building area; that building could remain or be replaced by a variety of other buildings; and the close location to the trail and river could provide a variety of activities.
Regarding interest in the property, Town Staff has spoken with over a dozen interested parties and noted CBRE has also spoken with a number of interested parties. While the Code provides flexibility, there are a number of prescriptive items so that Townspeople would know how the property could be developed. Town Staff estimated there is about a year before the Hartford makes a final decision. The Hartford's consultants reviewed the form-based Code to make it more user friendly and their requested changes were made, but the intent of the Code remains the same with no substantial changes from what was presented at the Library meeting. At the 6/16/2014 meeting, the consultant will present to the Zoning Commission, other commissions/boards, and the public; the meeting will probably be held at the Library. The Town would like to see development on this property move forward and replace the tax loss on the Grand List. Town Staff reviewed other developments in Town currently moving forward include: West Street, Carson Way, the recent PAD on Powder Forest Drive for the assisted living facility which plan will likely come in this summer, and special needs housing at Dorset Crossing and some of the proposed apartments.
Regarding the Webster Bank building also known as the Palmer House, Town Staff reviewed that the original plan was for 10-12 units circling the building but anticipates they will return with a request for additional units. Town Staff noted that the State has certain requirements for historic tax credits, and if a building doesn't quality, it is in danger of being demolished; no one wants to see the Webster building demolished and the developers are working out those issues. Town Staff believed the developers are very aware a high level of architectural design is required due to the building's prominent location and for marketing purposes. The location is constrained with no ability to expand the site.
Town Staff indicated Big Y is still moving forward with a plan to start this summer and final details with the Skating Center close to being worked out, including driveway and catch basin maintenance, and liability issues. Big Y has stated they need to be open in October of the year they start which now would be 2015. Big Y would utilize the upper 6 acres of the Wagner property, and the lower 6 acres remain available for development.
VII. TO START AT OR AFTER 6 p.m.:
a. Informal discussion of possible PAD Zone for development at Infinity, LLC, property at 34 Hopmeadow Street
The developer, Garden Homes, presented a proposal to both the Zoning Commission and Design Review Board for a development at the Town's southern gateway potentially establishing a PAD Zone. The developer has built/managed/sold/rented over 80,000 units for all types of housing and has an extreme interest in Simsbury. The proposed development in this mixed-use neighborhood is for 60 acres between Rte. 10 and the bike trail near the Avon town line. Two factors are their interest in the bike trail and its connection to Avon and Simsbury, mixed use office areas, and the nearby Nod Brook Wildlife Sanctuary which create unique differentiation. They reviewed the POCD's support of mixed use development in this area; the Incentive Housing Zone Study which set this site as a Tier 1 priority recommending mixed use for about 250 units; and the Rte. 10 Corridor Study with goals of continued views to the ridge and Heublein Tower and maintaining the 2-lane character of Hopmeadow Street through the area, and their traffic impact would be substantially less than previously studied. POCD fundamental tenants also were stated to include preserving open space along Hopmeadow Street, and access to recreational areas; they carefully placed buildings on the site to maintain that character with views to the ridge over their buildings. With the site's substantial depth, they demonstrated the locations of one, two and three-story buildings and 200-300 feet of view to the ridge remaining.
They demonstrated traveling south and north views which are frequently blocked by landscape vegetation between the road and the property. CL&P is currently the only developed tenant on the 60 acres. They showed a 3-story office building in Avon far back on the site and that it had no substantive impact on the view. An established wetland area created a visual block and could never be removed. At the proposed development area, some vegetation would be removed and a view to the ridge created. The proposed development concept revolves around open space connectivity by establishing a large green space between Hopmeadow Street and the area of development/pavement, and linking that directly to the bike path and wildlife area through a system of open and green spaces creating views to the mountain. Their current concept is for the front parcel providing 2 subdividable sites with about 67,000 sq. ft. of mixed use with one and two-story buildings; the north parcel would have about 88,000 sq. ft. of mixed use (40,000 sq. ft. single story building). CL&P occupies about 49,000 sq. ft. of office space and 15,000 sq. ft. of industrial. Their development would have about 181 units, including: 150-160 apartments, and about 25 townhouses with the 2-story units in front and 3-story units in back because the density would be used by the bike trail, which is an important component.
Regarding the market aspects, they estimated demand over the next 5 years in Simsbury of about 175 units annually. Demand comes from increasing population and increasing number of households, and changing demographics and incomes. Over the next 5 years in the Hartford area, about 8,000 households will be generated with about 25% of the growth as rental housing. About 60-65% of the demand for rental housing comes from people under age 35 or over age 55; it is a relatively high-income market with average annual income over $60K. They looked at market capture rate for the area north of Hartford and found it to be one other fastest growing areas with competitive market rates ranging from $1,600/mo. for one bedroom to $2,100/mo. Currently, there are 307 units planned or under construction in Simsbury with a 2-year supply available and demand continuing to grow. The proposed development adjacent to Avon center is also very attractive to people. They clarified this new development in its desirable location would capture demand for new construction and turnover of existing residents. They indicated retail demand follows households with niches including grocery and specialty food and potential demand for smaller stores, e.g. Trade Joes, fish, wine and cheese. Demand based on household income levels is compared to the square footage available and find a retail gap in the home improvements area, e.g. Restoration Hardware, flooring and tile stores to maintain existing homes, as well as neighborhood convenience centers with coffee shops. This demand will fill in overtime as residential households grow.
Their PAD application for mixed use would provide for residential being built first and then commercial. The smaller buildings occur closer to Hopmeadow Street and the larger buildings bring population density closer to the bike trail. In the mixed-use buildings, the 2nd story could provide more residential units and/or office space, as market demand requires. Their objectives to preserve views and open space and provide multi-modal connectivity to Simsbury/Avon were recalled. Access management to the site would be at 3 points, one of which exists at the CL&P driveway, and an existing access easement for this property, all of which act to minimize curb cuts on Hopmeadow Street. The PAD would establish design controls for the near-term housing and the long-term mixed use and commercial development, including scale, density, parking , general layouts, and satisfying tenants and desirable performance objectives in the POCD. As the site is sand and gravel, the ability to retain and infiltrate storm water on the site is the best it could be. The common spine of the site plan is devoted to streetscape and public use with large open space at the rear of the buildings for green infrastructure. They suggested removing vegetation from a low-value area of existing wetlands with a right to drain easement for CL&P to that wetland and open up the view creating new wetlands with lower vegetation fronting on Hopmeadow Street. They noted this development would support both maintaining a two-lane Hopmeadow Street and Simsbury as the only bike-friendly community in Connecticut.
Examples of the potential housing types ranging from low-density townhouses in front to higher density two to three-story units in back, with a one-story clubhouse facility on the center green with swimming pool, bike storage facilities and possibly zip-like programs near the bike trail. When they return with a PAD application they would provide more site-specific information.
Regarding Riverdale Farms location nearby and its impact, they believe as the region continues to grow demand will increase for those activities. In addition, the market is now trending toward supporting smaller local businesses.
The Board indicated the development on the left side of the site proposes a great deal of asphalt and today very careful use of asphalt is required and must be justified. The developer indicated coverage is below 50% on each of the 3 areas with no garages. In order to achieve below 50% coverage, the streets would be dual use and provide diagonal parking. They clarified that the ground floor retail buildings would have residential or offices on the 2nd story depending on the market. The buffer width at Rte. 10 would be about 120 feet and the one-story building heights at 17-18 feet. The CL&P facility is part of mixed use and provides site access and they showed connectivity through this area. They had not looked at CL&P's laydown yard in the rear of that facility and that would be determined by the landowner and developer prior to making commitments to the PAD application.
The residential component would be built first. The PAD process would 1) lock in the standards for the future development of this property, and 2) 181 units will be built adjacent to this development. Until now there have been many unknowns for this parcel and this process would establish the standards with the catalyst residential homes built first. The Board noted the CL&P building is reasonably attractive and suggested they consider tying into their design.
The landowner welcomed comments from the Board and the public to help them decide whether to move forward with the PAD process. The Board members responded that the concept of establishing something at this location was good and enhanced by the location adjacent to Avon, as long as Guideline standards are met. CL&P's location in the middle of the site was discussed. The entire parcel is under one owner. Having all the units as rental units is because of current demand, especially for ease of financing. This development has much more potential for the community, as long as there is not too much asphalt. Zoning's approval of the PAD process is encompassed by this collaborative process and complimented the owner and developer on the presentation and indicated this is a good concept for this area of Town. Zoning would be interested in as much definition for the parcels, with a reasonable amount of flexibility, and the goal that the entire development be built. The developer indicated 200 units of housing alone would not create retail but they would help; however, taking into account what is not being served in this Simsbury also plays a role and beginning to build starts things happening. It was reviewed that real estate development is a risky business and currently multi-family development is lowest risk with funding available. Once a development goes in with a defined plan and developers become aware of it and know what the process is, that is much more attractive.
The green area through the property was discussed and whether it could turn into impervious surface in the future, the developer indicated enough parking is provided and the next level of detail submitted with the PAD when approved would not change. Whether or not a street signal would be required was discussed and the need to have the right length turning lanes with more detail to follow. The benefit to nearby Avon was discussed.
A member of the public indicated the green space in front in the POCD was actually much larger than proposed by the developer. It was stated the point was to maintain all of the vistas from the road; the developer indicated they took the photos from the road and noted a 5-foot drop from the road and stated the importance of the cross-section analyses they used. The developer believed that it was not the intent of the POCD to have an unobstructed view along the whole ridgeline, but to keep view corridors as primary criteria. The 3-story building in Avon Meadow was indicated by the audience member to be on a grade going higher and may not apply. It was also noted that change to a PAD can be applied for numerous times with no insurance for residents to establish what will happen. The visibility of the 600-700-foot tall ridgeline view from different locations was discussed and the developer’s goal restated to minimize impact on the view. The Zoning Chairman expressed appreciation for the developer’s efforts and emphasized the seriousness with which application reviews are conducted and any changes would require Commission/Board re-approval. Detailed information on the overall housing market, as well as Avon development projects because of this development's location, were requested to be provided by the developer with the PAD application.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Board Member Drapelick made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Board Member Carroll seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
_____________________________
John Carroll, Secretary