Design Review Board Minutes 07/11/2016
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
JULY 11, 2016
MINUTES FROM REGULAR MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Acting Chairman Ron Perry opened the Regular Meeting of the Design Review Board at 5:31 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room at the Town Offices. Also present were Jamie Rabbitt, Director of Planning and Community Development; Michael Glidden, Assistant Town Planner; Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk; and other interested parties.
II. ROLL CALL
Board Members and Alternates in attendance included Ron Perry, Anca Dragulski, Anthony Drapelick, and Paul Lanza.
1. Appointment of Alternates
A quorum was present and no alternates were appointed.
III. APPLICATIONS
1. Discussion and Possible Action:
a. None.
IV. GENERAL COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Preliminary Discussions
a. Development of 32 and 36 Iron Horse Boulevard (Mike Girard and Donald Powers, AIA, Union Studio Architects)
Mr. Girard thanked the Board for its preliminary feedback prior to their attendance at this evenings Zoning Commission meeting, which will be followed by preliminary reviews at the 07/12/2016 Planning Commission meeting, at the 07/19/2016 Inland/Wetlands Agency, and returning to Zoning on 07/25/2016. They have worked on plans for several years and believe they are at about a point to put the design on paper. He thanked Staff for their patience and time in extensive meetings. He reviewed that the 13.86-acre property consists of 3 parcels surrounded by several hundred acres of open space where their current Simscroft Farms shop/office is located, which will be moved to Wolcott Road. They had to establish permits with Ed Lally performing flood plain work, Deborah Bernard working on marketing/design of the units, and Jeremy Lake of Union Studio Architects providing tonight’s presentation. Mr. Girard said they reviewed dozens of different proposals from developers/individuals and today’s review contains the best ideas and he requested the Board’s input.
Jeremy Lake of Union Studio Architects from Providence, Rhode Island, presented the preliminary plan for the Iron Horse Boulevard property to the Board, which was targeted to fit into the larger community. He noted the property’s location near the river valley, Simsbury Meadows and the PAC, and with access to Hopmeadow Street businesses; the property site survey showed a few buildings in a largely open area sloping to a settlement area in the middle. He noted the Charrette allowed for 150-200 units with a mix of multi-family, single-family, and various town house types with higher density given its proximity to Town center. Mr. Lake noted Mr. Glidden and the Town went through the process of redefining the FEMA flood map, which was technically incorrect, bringing much of the area out of the flood plain as developable area with nice views to the river valley and providing the community asset of a nice big lawn area. Mr. Lake believed the logical primary entry through the site center would be at Pent Road; a hiker/biker trail runs along the site’s western boundary providing access to the site; an existing berm with scrubby trees to the south provides screening for current site activities, which could be opened up for a nice connection to the PAC and community; they would like to salvage an existing large tree currently in poor shape, as it sits at the proposed community center; they would extend the primary connection from Pent Road throughout the site and beyond for a visual connection with a loop road running throughout the site at the community edge with views; and a north/south connection to Simsbury Meadows/PAC; a small informal green space around the salvaged tree; an open lawn in the lower area with access to the river valley below; and a 4 ½ block framework moving forward. He noted two asterisked areas for a potential gazebo and connection to Simsbury Meadows and discussed the amount of roadways needed for 135-156 potential units with smaller multi-family units connected by a elevators/lobbies proposed to be along Iron Horse Boulevard, with town houses rounding out along Iron Horse, and lower density duplexes and single-family homes at the community center with homes/porches/covered entries facing the roads and shared parking lanes/garages with private yard areas behind the buildings. He indicated this proposed plan is their preferred approach and showed the Board a bird’s eye view of the proposed site; a view from Pent Road looking in; sample tree-lined two-way street views/sidewalks; a pedestrian zone running through the middle; a typical parking alley to the rear; and photos of some of their previous more traditional projects. Mr. Lake requested the Board’s comments and feedback.
Regarding the number of entrances, Mr. Lake anticipated there would be 3 entrances at the ends. Regarding the existing narrow rough conditions on Pent Road, Mr. Girard indicated it was the original road used to service the property and was used as the post office exit; and they have a right of way to Rte. 10 in order to access utilities; Ms. Bernard indicated they are using Pent Road primarily to organize the project with Iron Horse as the main entrance. Board Member Drapelick believed main access to Iron Horse is from Rte. 10 and the post office road could be better; Mr. Girard indicated there are utility poles that make it difficult to make the road bigger, the rectory owns property to the north and there is a building on the south property line. Mr. Rabbitt commented this project may lead to improvements in other areas noting Simscroft has been at this location for a long time and at some time in the future, the post office may move; and the Charrette grid for downtown would not be jeopardized by activities for a new neighborhood on this site. Mr. Lake added that the loop road may alternatively provide primary vehicle access. Regarding the number of people exiting, Mr. Lake indicated that could be about 250 people. Mr. Rabbitt felt people would walk to urban downtown resources, but the quickest vehicle access would be from Iron Horse. The Board noted that currently people like to walk and exercise on Iron Horse and while this is a very nice development, once it is built the character of Iron Horse will change, which people should be aware of. The Board discussed how Iron Horse is currently utilized and noted traffic studies will be done; issues that arose regarding the large scale of the Webster Bank building were provided as an example of something the Board would have a problem with. Regarding PAC concerts, Mr. Lake felt that would be a positive opportunity for this community. Mr. Girard commented regarding traffic that they currently move 150-ton bulldozers in/out and felt confident traffic could be controlled with Pent Road remaining a private right of way for now. The Board reiterated being careful with the scale of the front buildings; Mr. Lake indicated the front buildings were offset with single-story garages in back connected by an elevator lobby to another building in back allowing them to capture the efficiencies of a larger building with a smaller structure character. Regarding making the building styles distinctive, Mr. Rabbitt indicated they are working toward balancing a mix of existing town architecture, similar to the Warwick Road example - brownstone, clapboard, ranges of front porches, etc.
The Board commented that the development is a great concept. Mr. Rabbitt commented Staff has cautioned them to match the scale, heights, and roof pitches, and their presence to Iron Horse, which is where the majority of the discussion will be; the drop from Rte. 10 to Iron Horse is about 15-20 feet. Mr. Girard believed that looking at the development from Rte. 10 you would see the large building roofs along the street, but not massive buildings. Mr. Rabbitt indicated a cross-section might show Town Hall, Hopmeadow Street, Simsbury Shops, and the proposed buildings at a lower elevation. The Board commented that would be a main concern, given the Webster Bank building elevation issues. Mr. Rabbitt confirmed the form-based code requires all of the homes to be presented at the street in this SC-5 residential zone. Mr. Lake indicated there would be parallel parking on the streets.
Mr. Rabbitt noted tonight’s presentation is preliminary and they will return with a master plan and formal application seeking a zoning permit. Ms. Bernard noted the need for an integrated plan for the project to evolve; Mr. Rabbitt and the Board agreed that homes in various stages of age in a community add to its character.
2. Commission Education/Workshop
a. None.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the June 20, 2016 Regular Meeting
Board Member Drapelick made a motion to approve the June 20, 2016, Regular Meeting Minutes, as written.
Board Member Lanza seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Board Member Drapelick made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:20 p.m.
Board Member Lanza seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.