Design Review Board Minutes 09/15/2014 ADOPTED

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ADOPTED MINUTES

SEPTEMBER 15, 2014

REGULAR MEETING

I.          CALL TO ORDER

Chairperson, Jennifer Murnane, called the Design Review Board meeting to order at 5:34 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices. 

II.        ROLL CALL

The following Board Members were present: Jennifer Murnane, 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

A quorum was present and no alternates were appointed.

IV.       DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION

a.         Application #14-37 of Robin Messier Pearson, Esq., for K & K Developers, Inc., Applicant; INFINITY IV, LLC, Owner; for a Zone Change from I-1 to I-1 and PAD on the property located at 34 Hopmeadow Street (Map E18, Block 117, Lot 001). Zone I-1.

The Applicant's engineer represented K & K Homes and Garden Homes as the developer of Phase 1B of the Master Plan for a PAD application submitted to the Zoning Commission for about 60 acres of land near the Rte. 10 Avon border.  Following a previous informal presentation to the Board, the Applicant has returned to provide more detailed information.  The site contains in the center a leased CL&P facility with a parcel on each side; the only wetlands are a CL&P ditch providing drainage for their facility.  The PAD zone would allow for more flexible mixed-use development than the current underlying zone.  Garden Homes would develop and manage these rental properties and has assembled a local team.  Garden Homes has developed over 40,000 units of single-family housing and 40,000 units of rental housing and was described as having sizable projects in Connecticut.  The Board was shown examples of their various types of properties ranging from higher to lower-density products. 

The POCD was said to provide two options for this property:  1) as zoned - Industrial/Office; and 2) an alternative strategy with a number of tenets, including mixed use.  The existing surrounding mixed use properties consisted of employment centers, retail, multi and single-family residences west of Hopmeadow Street, the Nod Brook Wildlife Sanctuary; and important to the developer - the abutting bike trail which would connect site residents to Simsbury, Avon, and beyond.  In terms of scale, the proposed project would be about half the density of the former River Oaks project proposed for this site, maintain the 2-lane character of Hopmeadow Street, and preserve views. 

The Applicant's engineer discussed the iconic view sheds along Hopmeadow Street looking toward the top of Talcott Mountain, the height of buildings, and how far back to place those buildings in order to maintain continuous views to the ridgeline.  They noted existing vegetation blocks views at various locations, e.g. CL&Ps pine trees planted years ago are 60-feet tall and completely obstruct the view, and an existing patch of vegetation in the wetland area that cannot be removed also obstructs the view.  They provided the Board with photos of views along Hopmeadow Street adjacent to the property, including an office building set far back from the road that did not obstruct the mountain view.  One of the iconic views shown would be close to a proposed entrance site for this development.  The development pattern would have 150-200 feet of open green space between Hopmeadow Street connecting to a central open space system; the first layer of smaller 1-story buildings would be located toward the front of the site, and the 2 and 3 story buildings located further back in the site where they would not obstruct the view.  Garden Homes would first develop a 14-acre site shown in brown on their map at the rear of the property with development of the rest of the site predicated on the future developer interest.  The bike trail was anticipated to connect all neighborhood mixed uses for residents. 

If the PAD is approved, Garden Homes would build 181 rental units on the 14-acre site in a 3-lot subdivision and that subsequent application would be presented to the Board.  They would continue to own the right of way and grant right of access to adjacent parcels; the entire rest of the property would remain in single ownership, but in the future, may be further subdivided.  Parcel 1A would be mixed use with about 51,000 sq. ft. of 2-story buildings; Parcel 1B is the proposed Garden Homes site for 181 units consisting of twenty-five 2 to 2 1/2-story town houses located closer to Hopmeadow Street, 20% of the remaining 156 units would be 2-bedroom apartments and the rest 1-bedroom apartments.  The existing CL&P facility would remain in place.  The remaining 34 acres of the 60 acres on Parcel 2 would have about 91,000 sq. ft. with about 40,000 sq. ft., including single story and possibly smaller single or 2-story buildings.  The Garden Homes site would also have clubhouses, open space, amenities, and active and passive recreation.

The Applicant's engineer indicated that, in compliance with the POCD open space objectives, the proposed plan provides both passive and active open space.  The active open spaces provide amenities for residents, e.g. pools, clubhouses, etc.  Passive open space, such as the Hopmeadow green, would:  1) break up parking fields, and 2) provide for a storm water system to maximize infiltration capabilities given the excellent soils on site.  The Board was shown a grid pattern of the site layout with everything interconnected across the site and requiring only 3 curb cuts on Hopmeadow Street -2 primary and 1 secondary primarily for service.  Based on build-out of the housing component only, a signal intersection would not be required until future full build out.  In order to reduce pavement, they would work to set about 15% of the net parking or about 47 spaces in reserve as contribution to green space, although that reserve amount is not included in the 39 acres of open space.

Regarding the mixed-use components, the Applicant's engineer indicated marketing analysis of retail linkage includes furniture, hardware, and services such as laundromats.

The Applicant's architect showed the Board examples of the housing units intended to capture New England character using pitched roofs, residential clapboard siding, double hung windows, clustering units with nice massing and balance utilizing asymmetrical design, and shadow lines and ins/outs to reduce visual scale.  An example on the main level would be a garage and entrance with stairs to the upstairs and master bedroom suite in the roof shape; another unit with bedroom bathroom on the first floor and 2 bedrooms on the second floor.  In terms of clustering, one building would have 4 units, several would have 5 units and one would have 6 units.  The 2-story building would be all flats with 6 units on each level, 3 on each side with entry point on either side to the stairwell/lobby and common hallway; the 1st floor would have individual entrances with front porches to create a neighborhood feel.  Materials would include cultured stone on the base, vinyl siding and trim with architectural grade asphalt shingles for the roofs.  The 4 larger 3-story buildings at the rear of the site would be all flats with 10 units per floor, stairwell at each end, elevator in the middle, entrance from both sides to the common space; all ground floor units have individual porches and entrances; upper units have porches as well.  Parking for the 3-story buildings was described as split between on-street diagonal parking and a parking lot in back separated by open space.  A 1-story clubhouse would be located on the green and a commercial 1-story building would be built later.  The PAD Application includes mixed-use components that could be built in the future. 

The Board was shown a layout of the site scale and location of buildings with the green bar demonstrating at the top of the bar visibility of only the ridgeline and at the bottom of the bar visibility of 200 feet of ridgeline.  It was clarified the town house design, particularly at the front of the site, would provide greater flexibility with dormers that contain rooms.  Regarding the drop from Rte. 10 to the back of the bike path, the Applicant's engineer explained it drops quickly from Hopmeadow Street about 8 feet and the remainder of the 900-1000 ft. deep site is mostly flat.  The parking areas spread out around the site were shown to the Board. 

Potential screening for the CL&P facility when the first phase is completed with residents living onsite was discussed.  The Applicant's engineer explained that there would be a tree buffer with understory and only the short side of all but one of the buildings would be oriented toward CL&P.  The Board felt that further work would be needed in this area.  Town Staff confirmed this would be a Master Plan approval for the PAD zone, and the other components, such as subdivisions, would have to return to the Board and the Zoning Commission for site plan approval.  If they are successful with the PAD, the Applicant's next step would be to fully engineer and architect a proposal and come before the Board; and Town Staff confirmed a subdivision application would also be required and would involve the Planning Commission.

Regarding traffic and parking, the Applicant's engineer indicated they would be comfortable with 1.78 parking spaces per residential unit and for commercial 4 spaces per 1000 sq. ft.  They are working to maximize on street parking and place parking lots in the back or side and out of the residential core.  Town Staff confirmed that the amount of impervious area, open space, and density in the Master Plan would be locked in, but the exact building arrangement could change at the site plan stage.  Their full traffic analysis was provided to the Board in the Appendices. 

Regarding POCD desirable performance objectives, the Applicant's engineer summarized they have:  preserved Hopmeadow Street vistas/views, preserved the character of mixed open space, provided a variety of housing options, provided mixed uses, and tied in to the bike trail.  Site access would be accomplished with only 2 additional curb cuts on Hopmeadow Street, one secondary entrance, and use of CL&P's entrance.  Regarding future access behind the CL&P building to connect the north and south sides, the Applicant's engineer indicated CL&P would be interested in security for their yard and that would likely involve a future negotiation with the landowner and lessee.  It was noted the Fire Marshall was positive about this build out because a second means of egress would be beneficial from firefighting standpoint.  Additional criteria included their grid pattern circulation system and movement through the site including, sidewalks close to the buildings with entrances onto the sidewalks and abutting on street parking, with passive buildings on the opposite side to give the feeling the buildings are floating with active space on one side and passive on the other.  The increase in density is for the taller, larger buildings further away from Hopmeadow Street. 

The office buildings on the Avon side appear to be about 60 feet away from this property.  It was noted the Hartford site is much deeper with buildings located further back.  The architectural look of CL&P's building would remain the same; if the use changed, it would come back before the Board for approval. 

If PAD approval is granted, the Applicant's engineer indicated construction would begin in 10 months.

The Board concerns expressed to the Zoning Commission included:  1) recommending the iconic view at Blue Ridge Drive be maintained - a traffic light would ruin that view and it could become a cut through at Blue Ridge increasing traffic in a residential neighborhood; 2) restricting the size of retail buildings to avoid a 40,000 sq. ft. big box store, and instead allowing for something smaller like a Trader Joes or Whole Foods; and 3) also having a restriction so the CL&P building in the future could not become a big box store.

Regarding Application #14-37 of Robin Messier Pearson, Esq., for K & K Developers, Inc., Applicant; INFINITY IV, LLC, Owner; for a Zone Change from I-1 to I-1 and PAD on the property located at 34 Hopmeadow Street (Map E18, Block 117, Lot 001). Zone I-1., Board Member Carroll made a motion on behalf of the Design Review Board that we advise the Zoning Commission that we find this PAD acceptable with the comments that have been made by this Board included in their consideration.

Board Member Drapelick seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

V.        INFORMAL DISCUSSION

a.         Informal presentation by Thomas J. Daly, P.E., Milone & Macbroom, regarding Ethel Walker Centennial Center

The proposed school Centennial Center would contain a gym, wellness center, and provide a social center for the girls.  The board and school have been working with their engineers over the past year, and have met with Town Staff in the development of this plan.  The layout was provided and described to the Board.  An important part of the plan would be to break out vehicle access with minimal parking and create a great lawn while maintaining the existing driveway; a cul de sac would accommodate visitor’s buses and fire trucks.  There would be 360-degree access around the campus perimeter.  The proposed building works with the topography as it steps down; a loading area would be formalized with a wooden screened fence and masonry columns; landscaping would be characteristically simple obscuring parked cars; a large pedestrian area would be created; a landscaped turnaround and large flagpole.  Currently, the location for this building is about 75% pavement.

Over the last 3 years, their architect has been working with the school to review the entire campus for integration and wellness as part of the girl’s everyday activity in order to select the right site.  The structure would connect to Beaver Brook with galleries, etc. for the girls.  The hill provides wonderful views and a real lawn would be put in with gardens; the larger piece in the middle would be wrapped by the lower pieces so you do not see a big box.  On another side would be dance studios and underneath a health center that provides ambulance access.  A pool, squash courts, etc. and visitor entry are provided.  The Board was shown the floor plans and entry points in relation to the grade and surrounding buildings and how well it fits on campus.  They worked toward a more consolidated European service appeal.  Visiting teams would enter on the lower level with lockers.  Currently, they do not have a squash court or team and this would allow them to compete. 

The overall layout of the campus was shown to the Board and how the proposed building would fit in, although it would be a more contemporary building with nicely detailed square columns and a moderate size wall with a portion of green wall; the pool area will have natural light and the gymnasium with a high clear surround and overhangs.  Materials were shown to the Board and their location demonstrated on the design with some of the slate-like lower roof actually utilizing architectural shingles; the scale, material, and proportion were selected in order to not compete with surrounding buildings and areas.  They are working with a contractor who has worked on a number of independent schools.  The proposed structure would connect to the Beaver Brook building, and to surrounding green areas.  The Board noted that they are hiding a lot of equipment with this well laid-out design and commented it was an excellent presentation and plan.

VI.       APPROVAL OF MINUTES from April 7, 2014; June 2, 2014; July 7, 2014 and July 21, 2014

Board Member Drapelick made a motion for approval of the minutes for April 7, 2014, June 2, 2014, July 7, 2014 and July 21, 2014, as written.

Board Member Carroll seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.

VII.     ADJOURNMENT

Chairman Murnane adjourned the meeting at 7:03 p.m.

_____________________________

John Carroll, Secretary