Design Review Board Minutes 06/02/2014 ADOPTED
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ADOPTED MINUTES
JUNE 2, 2014
REGULAR MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson, Jennifer Murnane, called the Design Review Board 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 present: Ron Perry, John Carroll, Anca Dragulski, Paul Lanza, and Jonathan Laschever. Also in attendance were Hiram Peck, Director of Planning; Janis Prifti, Clerk; and other interested parties.
III. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
Board Member Laschever was seated for Anthony Drapelick.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of May 19, 2014
On Line 85, following the word "building," the words "also known as the Palmer House," are inserted.
On Line 135, the word "Their" is deleted and replaced with "The proposed".
Board Member Carroll made a motion to approve the May 19, 2014, minutes, as amended.
Board Member Lanza seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
V. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION
a. Application #14-27 of T.J. Donohue, Killian & Donohue, LLC, Agent; Simsbury Historical Society, Inc., Owner; for a Site Plan Amendment for the proposed Memorial for Martin Luther King in Connecticut on the property located at 800 Hopmeadow Street (Map G10, Block 227, Lot 001).
The Application was read into the record.
Three Students, Zach Walsh and Taylor and Margaret Willerup, represented 70 students involved in the Martin Luther King in Connecticut project stating their goal to bring awareness to the time Martin Luther King spent in Connecticut, particularly in Simsbury where Mr. King, at ages 15 and 17, spent two summers working in tobacco and was the first time he lived in an integrated community which further inspired him. After conducting a lot of research over the summer, the students decided to further MLK's message with a Memorial. Because the First Church has established celebrations for Martin Luther King Day, they selected a nearby site. Mr. Donohue summarized that the students' project began 5 years ago with Rich Curtis's non-credit project at Simsbury High School resulting in a 15-minute documentary movie with assistance from Emmy-winning artist, Bobby Houston, which opened at a state-wide gathering in Hartford on MLK Day and 1400 people viewed it at Eno Hall. Also continuing involvement in the project were John Conard Malley and Stefan, who did the voice of Mr. King. The CIGNA General Counsel bequested $20,000 to build the Memorial. The words the students proposed for the Memorial were to serve, educate, and inspire people with the story of MLK in Simsbury. In 1944, when MLK was first in Simsbury and wrote special letters to his family, he was these students same age.
The Board was provided with materials showing where the proposed Memorial would be located on the grounds of the Simsbury Historical Society near Vincent's Sports Shop, Phelps Lane, the Hendrix Cottage, and the Red School House. The Red School House would be moved further back and the Memorial was proposed to be placed about 8 feet east of that location. The Memorial mockup was shown and would have 5 glass panels telling the story they felt was important for Simsbury to know. Regarding why this site was selected, it was explained the Red School House has no foundation and was moved to the site from Bloomfield. There was a great deal of discussion about where to put the Memorial which coalesced once the students became involved. The Historical Society filed this Application because the Memorial at this site would be on the Connecticut Freedom Trail, would have visual connection to the road inviting visitors to stop, and would not interrupt use of the Historical Society/Simsbury Town green.
Jay Willerup, Architect, provided drawings and explained the design was developed through interaction between the students and a Massachusetts artist. The design incorporates native brownstone, where the students are from, and Georgia granite, where MLK was from. The panels are translucent providing a lighter more airy environment; the granite bench provides an area to sit and contemplate for students on field trips and a timeline of important MLK events may also be engraved into the granite. The total budget would be $110,000 and they currently have $78,000. The native brownstone exit markers would be similar to Rotary Park with a sloped face and bronze plaque; they would describe the Memorial, its development and symbolism, and list donors and students names. The stainless steel edged glass panels were selected because of longevity with an epoxy image put on the glass which is laminated to protect the image and the stainless steel channel protects the glass.
The Board was concerned that the stainless would reflect sunlight and looks more modern in an historic setting. The architect believed it would be kept as small as possible and with the floating image the glass disappears. The glass panels are embedded in a concrete foundation and bolted in with a frame that clamps around it at the base. Currently, no lighting is planned. It is anticipated the Memorial will be dynamic and change may occur in the future. From a design standpoint, the Board was concerned the stainless steel would reflect light as people drive by and that it is too modern for an historic area and recommended using black or a colored metal that would not catch light. The Applicant indicated the stainless steel band would only be about 1/2 inch; core 10 could not be used because it leaches with age and could affect the granite below. Materials such as brass, bronze, copper, core 10, plastic, and other materials were considered. They planned to use polished stainless steel to match the glass, rather than brushed stainless steel; the Board looked again at the panel drawing and discussed that the Historical Society is the Applicant. The Applicant indicated that members of the Historical Society believe the Town green should have free and open access with the proposed Memorial serving to open the Historical Society grounds. The Applicant indicated they would look further at the stainless steel.
The Board discussed security concerns and potential invitation to vandalism. The Applicant felt that placing the Memorial at the busiest intersection in Simsbury at the street was the most secure location with the most visual access and traffic flow. Additionally, stone was selected for both durability and resistance and the see-through glass contributes to safety with the 18-inch tall bench as the tallest structure. The Board suggested when the building is done that they put in underground conduits so if an alarm system is put in the future, it will be very easy to do. The Applicant felt that would be no problem. The Board asked where parking would be located. The Applicant responded that parking would be on street and the Historical Society has an 18-space parking area in back; they believe traffic will generally be in small numbers, but they will focus on having school groups come and park in the Historical Society lot.
The Board advised the Applicants about the nearby Veterans Memorial that will be going in and suggested taking a look at it. It was explained that this proposed Memorial design resulted from the original MLK documentary. The Board noted their purview to review design. Also the importance of being able to replace the glass panels, if they become damaged, was important to the Board.
The Board acknowledged the hard work that has gone into developing the Memorial and appreciated the use of the glass panels, and that it is low profile with back low-profile landscaping. The Board further discussed whether or not the Memorial should be turned to take better advantage of the glass and background that people view. The Applicant believed the planned Methodist Church view across the street was desirable and was selected by the Historical Society to flow and integrate into the lawn area with the paving leading to the tavern and open space. They plan to do another test mockup to see how much can be read to determine the final amount of text.
Board Member Carroll made a motion regarding Application #14-27 of T.J. Donohue, Killian & Donohue, LLC, Agent; Simsbury Historical Society, Inc., Owner; for a Site Plan Amendment for the proposed Memorial for Martin Luther King in Connecticut on the property located at 800 Hopmeadow Street (Map G10, Block 227, Lot 001) that the Design Review Board finds this Application substantially consistent with the intent and principles of the Guidelines for Community Design and recommends approval. The Application is represented by Drawing titled Site Improvement Plan L-2, Sectional Plan A-2, A-5 Elevations, and the remainder of the 12 drawings submitted in the proposed package, 98% submission, dated 4/22/14.
Board Member Perry seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
The Board Secretary reviewed DRB's process, as agreed upon with the Zoning Commission, is to "recommend" but not "approve" Applications before the Board.
The Board noted a typo in the MLK narrative, "that while is Simsbury" which should be "that while in Simsbury".
b. Referral of Application of Simsbury Zoning Commission for proposed revisions to Article Seven, Section C.9, of the Simsbury Zoning Regulations regarding conditions of approval and requirements for Accessory Dwelling Units in the Town of Simsbury.
Town Staff provided the proposed revisions to the Board showing what the Zoning Commission will be considering for Accessory Dwelling Units because their design may be important to the neighborhood. Current regulations do not require a resident of an Accessory Dwelling Unit to be related to the owner, and could simply be a rental. These regulations have worked out well, although there are likely units in Town without permits and they would not become known unless the property ownership is transferred. The regulations allow homeowners to rent a portion of the Dwelling Unit assuming all building codes are met for access, fire and safety, and that not a lot of street parking is created. A few such applications have been reviewed. It is key that the unit be integrated into the structure and neighborhood, and that the owner is resident on the property. The replacement text was provided to the Board and it was noted in B.iii. "primary dwelling unit of" should read "primary dwelling unit or", and in B.ix. the typo, "and affidavit" should be corrected to "an affidavit".
The Standards were discussed, including the subjective balance of, "i". The need for the proposed use and the proposed location." where if no one objects there is no problem, but sometimes the neighbors object and say it is not needed. Town Staff explained that the intent would be to refer back to the purpose of the regulation derived from the current POCD which provides for a variety of housing for all population segments, preserving appearance and general character of neighborhoods, and specific provision for a special exception and public hearing to create these units providing the unit be subordinate to the dwelling unit so there would not be 2 units on the same house. Town Staff indicated that B.ix. is the enforcement clause which provides a mechanism that a permit granted to one owner does not automatically continue to the next owner, but could easily be reinstated when applied for. The Board commented that building additions should maintain the architectural character of the building and the possibility of a requirement that any major additions come to DRB for that purpose. Town Staff advised while zoning regulations and building codes are required to be met, they cannot regulate the appearance of single family dwellings.
Any further comments on the proposed revisions were invited to be provided to Town Staff.
c. Referral of proposed new Form-Based Code zoning for property located at 200 Hopmeadow Street.
Town Staff reviewed that 4 types of applications could come in under the proposed Code. Type 1 applications would be simplest and utilize the existing building; Type 2 applications would use the existing building with some exterior remodeling; Type 3 applications would require a new master site development plan or major amendment for any building over 25,000 sq. ft., similar to Town Center; and Type 4 applications would be the most complex with alternative compliance plans that do not meet the original regulation plan and would come before this Board and the Zoning Commission. There are two illustrative plans: 1) Master Plan One in Appendix A would have some commercial activity, significant residential development, with the southern site leaving the existing building in place; a second type of development could be residential on the north parcel with small commercial surrounded by clustered residential. 2) Master Plan Two for the southern parcel could be for the existing building redesigned inside and an additional small commercial building, e.g. Whole Foods. The Board asked whether there was anything preventing neighborhood commercial from becoming a large box store. Town Staff responded that currently there is no square footage limitation in the regulation; the Board or the Zoning Commission could make that recommendation; however, under the proposed Code that would be a Type 4 complex application.
Regarding the condition of the existing building, Town Staff indicated it contains very nice materials and appears currently to only need minor maintenance; what would happen in the future is unknown. Town Staff reviewed that this regulation would allow for a variety of things to happen for this building.
Regarding parking, Town Staff explained for Plans A and B that some portions of the building might have a use that requires very few people and a lot of space; the plan allows the flexibility to work out any parking issues. The Board noted that intensive parking space should not be part of residential or commercial projects and the Board must be prepared to offer alternative ideas that fit the program and this Code.
The Zoning Commission will hold a Public Hearing on 6/16/2014 at the Library and Board comments were invited both in advance of the meeting and at the meeting as all of the land use commissions will be invited to attend.
Zoning Liaison, Dave Ryan, who is also President of the Performing Arts Center, asked if the Board, or any individuals on the Board, would be interested in helping them design a removable cover for 2500-3000 seats using a retractable roof that could survive storms and could be opened when the symphony wants to play under the stars. They are trying to determine the feasibility and cost of such a project and are looking for creative ideas. Acoustics and durability are factors. He heard of an idea with masts that roll up into the center, similar to a ship. Regarding study costs, they have raised $20k and could work on more. The Board suggested looking at sectional inflatable buildings that could be taken down in bad weather and will think about other ideas and provide them to the PAC. The Town would own the property in the end and be responsible for maintenance and any proposal would go through the capital appropriation process.
The Board Secretary requested that the Zoning Commission provide a copy of all final approvals for Applications that also came before DRB.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Board Member Lanza made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:50 p.m.
Board Member Perry seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
_____________________________
John Carroll, Secretary