Design Review Board Minutes 07/21/2014 ADOPTED
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ADOPTED MINUTES
JULY 21, 2014
REGULAR MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson, Jennifer Murnane, called the Design Review Board meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices.
II. ROLL CALL
The following Board Members were present: Ron Perry, Anca Dragulski, Anthony Drapelick, Jonathan Laschever, and Paul Lanza. Also in attendance were Hiram Peck, Director of Planning; Janis Prifti, Clerk; and other interested parties.
III. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
Chairperson Murnane appointed Board Member Laschever serve for John Carroll.
IV. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION
a. Application #14-36 of Thomas J. Donohue, Jr., Applicant; 16 Albany Turnpike, LLC, Owner; for a Site Plan Amendment for a proposed bank on the property located at 16 Albany Turnpike (Map A20, Block 503, Lot 001). Zone B-3.
The Application was read into the record.
The Applicant's attorney explained the site located at Rte. 44 and Bushy Hill Road has been dormant for 20 years and under environmental remediation. The Hoffman’s acquired the site at auction several years ago and have worked through demanding negotiations with McDonalds to create a design with no curb cuts on either Bushy Hill Road or Rte. 44; the curb cuts will be closed and access will be internal with the McDonalds parcel. The Zoning Board of Appeals process fixed the Berkshire Bank building location to protect site lines and allowed the building to be closer than the normal setbacks on the west and south sides so there would not be curb cuts on Bushy Hill and Rte. 44.
The Applicant's architect described the proposed design of the 2500 sq. ft. Berkshire Bank branch with ATM and Teller drive-up lanes. In an effort to maintain the site lines, the main entry faces the intersection and the ATM lane faces the rear of the diagonal site with exposure to the main intersection. The area has a group of similar single story structures. The Board Members were provided a package of material with photos and were shown examples of the proposed materials including: a stone water table base material, traditional pre-painted double siding for the upper portion with painted trim, 2 colors in a darker beige for the building body and in a lighter beige for the trim color, and accent trim in aluminum framing in a Hartford green color. There would be a good deal of glass, stone veneer around entry ways, and all long-term high quality materials in the branch itself with an asphalt shingle architectural weathered wood style roof. The colors were described as Berkshire's standard colors and fairly subdued. The Applicant plans to return to the Board in the future for discussion of signage. The design was described as intricate in response to Town Staff and State Traffic Commission requirements.
The gables were described as painted stucco and the Board suggested considering shakes or using the same shingle siding. Signs would not be lit externally but possibly halo or backlit and would be part of the next application. The Commissioners commented that this would resolve a negative long-term remediation situation in this area. The green accent color for windows and doors is similar to other Berkshire Bank buildings. The Board acknowledged the difficulty of designing a building to fit on this site. The site would be significantly landscaped with the site line near McDonalds having a lower level of plantings, as committed to in the easements; landscaping will be added to the future signage application. There was only one location for the drive through as a result of the setback variance from ZBA and their commitment that the full side of McDonalds remain visible. The Board commented that adding more shingles would provide more texture and the completed design should look nice. The Applicant anticipates getting the project in the ground in November.
Board Member Drapelick made a motion for approval, pending the Applicant's agreement to reconsider the stucco.
Board Member Perry seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
V. INFORMAL DISCUSSION
a. Informal presentation of proposed development on the property located at 690 Hopmeadow Street (Map G11, Block 132, Lot 053). Zones SC-1 and SC-3.
The owner's representatives presented the Board with a revised plan following their original presentation 6 months ago for restoring the mansion building in the Town center. The owner's architect showed the 3+ acres with the original mansion with an existing 2-story building to the south and freestanding remote teller on the east side. They proposed demolishing the parish house, restoring the brownstone mansion to its original exterior, and re-building the sunroom on the south side. They would also build a 1-story, 7-car garage for mansion residents, construct 2 new apartment buildings on the east and south side of the site also using those buildings as retaining-type walls in the 10-foot sloped area on the east and south sides providing a more level plain between the mansion and buildings. There would be a new access drive around the east side of the site in the rear following the existing pavement edge; garages would be accessed from the east side building and for some units on the south side, with no access for lower level units due to the rising grade. Mansion access is at elevation 193, the surrounding ground is at 190, and the first floor of new buildings at 188 or about 5-feet lower. There would be 44 surface parking spaces and 28 garage spaces totaling 72 spaces. The renovated existing mansion would contain 7 units and the new buildings would have 33 units totaling 40 units on the site. State and Federal tax credits would be used to restore the mansion and hold them to very strict standards with the State reviewing the new buildings for appropriateness. The building exterior design is under development. The luxury mansion building would contain two 1-bedroom units on the third floor under the slope of the roof between the dormers, a 2-bedroom unit on the back lower level, two units on the first floor - one with 2200 sq. ft. gross and one with 1470 sq. ft. gross, and on the 2nd floor two 2-bedroom units about the same size as on the first floor. The new buildings with lower side garage access would also contain storage space and common stairs up to the main level mansion parking lot and that level would have a 1246 sq. ft. 2-bedroom unit off the stairs, and on up the stairs to the second floor level would be two 1274 sq. ft. townhouse units one facing the mansion and one looking toward the mountain; to access all the units residents would climb only two sets of stairs as an aspect of the building code allows having only one set of stairs within certain distances and with a sprinkler system.
The attractive exterior design of the two new buildings was intended to be complementary to the mansion and not compete with it. They proposed using brown concrete pressed stone with residential siding on the upper two levels with sunrooms and window seats modulating the exterior. They showed a rendering facing Hopmeadow/Drake Hill and transition between the upper/lower levels. To show that the scale of the new buildings roof is lower than the mansion, they provided a drawing looking from Drake Hill and the Church across the street, as well as street Hopmeadow angles providing a glimpse of the new buildings which are as far away from the mansion as possible. They will be finalizing material selections and requested feedback from the Board. Their next step would be to engage a civil engineer and landscape architect to work out plan details. The apartments on the west side would provide parking in the open lot and they would put in a turf block drive providing circular access to the site for the Fire Department. They would update overgrown bushes in front of the mansion and present that aspect when they return with an application.
They reviewed that at the January meeting, a development for 11-12 condos was presented which would have to be sold for $600,000+ to break even and that is why they are presenting this new plan. The Board noted the attractiveness of the previous design and felt the new proposed design would overwhelm the area and change its character. The owner's representative believed that the area would not be visible from the street intersection. The Board noted the overall length of the back buildings represented a 3-fold increase from the previous design and its massiveness would overpower the mansion.
Regarding the phase of building, in Phase 1 they would restore the mansion and build the 7 units, followed by Phase 2 construction of the 2 new buildings; apartments in the new buildings would likely rent at under $3000 each and the two large units in the mansion at likely $3000+. Regarding replicating the stonework similar to Mill Commons that the Town is known for, they would use brown concrete pressed stone for the first floor. Total square footage of each of the back buildings at about 40,000 sq. ft. would be substantial for this small lot and the Zoning Commissioners provided feedback that they would be looking at density relative to the total space; they were very positive about the mansion units, but the proposed back units would be very large for the site. The Applicant's representative commented that 9000 sq. ft. of undesirable square footage in the annex building would be taken down. However, nearby residents believed that currently the beautiful historic building is the visible feature driving by.
Feedback was provided suggesting the Applicant scale the units down to 2-stories on the building ends and possibly in the middle which would help break up the mass and roofline. Regarding who would own the 100-year old railroad wall near the river, it would not be owned by the development. Board members complimented the presentation graphics and effort and suggested possibly tapering the roof around the eave lines to mimic the mansion building. The Applicant acknowledged that could be done.
For the garages in the center of the property, the Board suggested building a shed-type garage with posts, stone base, and nice wood framed structure so residents could park underneath. The Commissioners referred to the previous desirable carriage house design and suggested stepping down the garage with 1-2 units above behind the mansion. The Board also expressed concern about the building on the east side and the massive pavement behind it coming up Drake Hill Road that would look like an alley with visible dumpsters, garages, and the retaining wall; the end of the units were considered unattractive, too tall, and would not do justice to the site. The mansion has many attractive elements and the two buildings would be mostly roof with tiny dormers and could be broken up with more appealing architectural elements, e.g. chimneys, flares, etc. and vertical elements to break up the height; the left building was of more concern. The previous 2-story design was considered by the Board to have been more appealing and reiterated the proposed scale is overwhelming. The Board believed the mansion would be why residents move there and noted there are very few 4-story buildings in Town.
The importance of bringing people downtown to live was acknowledged by all attendees. It was noted that the previous design preserved more of the front area as park space and the proposed design would change the front and should go with the building, rather than the road. The Applicant noted that with only an acre of developable property, it would not be possible to reduce the number of units from 10 to 5 per acre. The Applicant requested they be put on the next meeting Agenda in September.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Board Member Lanza made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Board Member Dragulski seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
_____________________________
John Carroll, Secretary