Design Review Board Minutes 09/21/2015
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
SEPTEMBER 21, 2015
MINUTES FROM REGULAR MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
John Carroll, Board Secretary, opened the Regular Meeting of the Design Review Board at 5:30 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room at the Town Offices.
II. ROLL CALL
Other members and alternates in attendance were Jonathan Laschever, Anca Dragulski, Anthony Drapelick, and Paul Lanza. Also present were Michael Glidden, Assistant Town Planner; Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk; and other interested parties.
Other members and alternates in attendance were Jonathan Laschever, Anca Dragulski, Anthony Drapelick, and Paul Lanza. Also present were Michael Glidden, Assistant Town Planner; Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk; and other interested parties.
III. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
A quorum was present and Secretary Carroll appointed Commissioner Laschever to serve as an alternate for Jennifer Murnane.
IV. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION
1. Application #15-25 of Royce Palmer, Owner; Mansour Prime LLC, Applicant; for Special Exceptions pursuant to Article Ten, Section N.3, and Article Ten, Section N.6, of the Town of Simsbury Zoning Regulations for the establishment of a Workforce Housing Overlay Zone and for a Site Plan Approval on the property located at 80 Climax Road (Assessor’s Map D20, Block 608, Lot 001). Zone R-40. (received 09/18/2015; public hearing must be opened by 11/22/2015; site plan approval decision must be rendered by 11/22/2015)
Application #15-25 was read into the record.
Secretary Carroll asked Michael Glidden to address the Board on the particulars of the Workforce Housing Overlay Zone (WHOZ) and the Board’s related responsibility. Michael Glidden, Assistant Town Planner, reviewed that there are 2 Applications tonight pertaining to Article 10.N of the Zoning Regulations for a WHOZ zone change; this referral to the Board relates to Articles 10 and 9 of the Zoning Regulations, which require in the pre-approval process that the plans be reviewed by the Board, because this is an Affordable Housing application with density bonuses allowed--e.g. in a single-family sub-district the owner is allowed to have up to 6 residential units/acre--the Board’s role is to review architectural plans, landscaping, and to determine whether there are appropriate measures in place in the development to preserve the character of the surrounding neighborhoods. WHOZ zoning regulations were provided to the Board for review, including page 157, and the intent of the regulations and how the design of the houses and development relates to the surrounding neighborhood. Town Staff indicated the Board’s review role is both advisory as well as a requirement of the zoning regulations.
The Applicant’s engineer noted specific to the WHOZ zone change application, they are applying for a single-family (SF) sub-district for WHOZ in order to be in harmony with the surrounding single-family neighborhood. The engineer described the 4.4 acre property near the Avon town line, which currently has one house, driveway, woods, and open areas on the parcel. The engineer indicated the proposal is for 15 New England-style village homes on a public road with public sewer/water and storm drainage.
The engineer noted the 1st step would be for the Zoning Commission to establish the WHOZ-SF; in the 2nd step, regulations allow a density of 6 units/acre and they are proposing 3.4 units/acre. The engineer noted housing affordability requirements are established by zoning regulations, and the Workforce Housing standards require 20% of the housing to be affordable and deed restricted, which would be for households earning 80% or less of Simsbury area median income with the remaining 80% of homes sold at market rate. .
The Applicant’s architect/designer provided the Board with examples of proposed alternate housing fronts that were more traditional with some side and front-entry garages, and a courtyard plan; given the space they had to work with, 2-story Cape homes were believed to be better; and the deed-restricted properties could be any of the 15 homes.
The Board asked whether they worked with Town Staff in developing this plan for high-density housing, since so much work has gone into it, given the surrounding single-family residential R-40 homes. The engineer indicated the reason for this development with 3 Workforce Housing units is that it works toward the Town meeting the State-required 10% of housing stock being affordable housing, with WHOZ needing to be integrated into various zones. The Board expressed concern regarding potential conflict with neighborhood character, including a unit near the road with a side entry garage and that it should be densely screened from the road, and similarly on the other side of the road. The Board was also concerned that there be enough variety of screening plants between the units. .
Some Board members noted that even though the houses have different designs and dormers, because of their density more interesting differences among the structures would be beneficial. The Board noted their statutory requirement to accept, reject, or make suggestions for this first of its kind application; the Applicant will have to return to the Board. The architect noted they plan to develop a number of New England fronts, encompassing a wide variety of styles. The architect commented on the number of simple Ensign Bickford houses in Town and did not believe this development on Climax was high impact. The Board noted an approval of the overlay and accompanying site plan is sought with improvements anticipated to be made in a number of areas on this Application.
A discussion was held on the details of the housing plans, the width of the road to accommodate the turning radius of Town maintenance vehicles, and screening along Climax Road.
Commissioner Laschever made a motion that Application #15-25 of Mansour Prime LLC, for the design of the proposed subdivision to be located at 80 Climax Road, that would fall under the Workforce Housing Overlay Zone, that the Design Review Board recommend approval of the designs and the subdivision layout, with the stipulation that a dense planting screen be added to the site plan on both lots that front Climax Road.
Commissioner Drapelick seconded the motion.
Some Board members complemented the Applicant on their effort, but were opposed to this type of development on this 4.4-acre lot surrounded by R-40 homes. Some Board members noted it was not in conflict with regulations, exposure to Climax Road appeared limited, and the development is close to Avon’s town center.
The motion was passed with 4 votes in favor and 1 vote opposed.
2. Application #15-30 of Girard Brothers Corporation, Owner; Sunlight Construction, Inc., Applicant; for a Site Plan Approval on the property located at 42 and 54 Hoskins Road (Assessor’s Map H05, Block 404, Lot 005). Zone I-1. (received 09/21/2015; decision must be rendered by 11/25/2015)
Application #15-30 was read into the record.
Bill Ferrigno, President and majority owner of Sunlight Construction presented Application #15-30 indicating their applications integrated Workforce Housing and proposed creating a neighborhood about 700 feet west of Rte. 10 backing up to the International Skating Center, with a main entrance near Hoskins and Ely Roads; a separate emergency-only road was also noted. The developer described the property as comprised of a 16-acre Girard Brothers parcel to the west, which was used for gravel for many years and has been mostly cleared and leveled off with a lighter green area on the map indicating a 70-80-foot slope, and an 11+-acre Condev parcel to the east. The developer noted to the north is Town open space and the Dorset Crossing development. The developer indicated the zone is currently I-1, but demand for suburban industrial parks has declined and they believe residential would be a better use for this property. Rather than utilizing the 6 units/acre that workforce housing allows, they propose using 3.2 units/acre for single-family detached.
The developer noted existing residential housing in the Hoskins area and the presence of a dramatic wooded Conservation Easement, so any home they build would be 200-350 feet away from any existing house. The developer described the layout as a village-type neighborhood with homes built around a circular network with a lot of green space and conservation easements remaining in place; and at the property rear, they have access to an easement allowing them to build a bike/pedestrian path leading to Rte. 10 commercial development. The developer showed the Board their proposed layout consisting of 3 small apartment buildings with 8 units each to the east, near an existing small apartment complex; moving further into the development would next be smaller patio homes described as single-family attached homes; and the remainder of the development would be single-family detached homes; and 20% of all the units would comply with the workforce housing requirement, its income requirements, and 30-year deed restriction. The builder indicated 100’s of trees/shrubs/plants would be added with trees every 50-80 feet along the street, along with substantial vegetation for each home and overall site.
Jack Kemper, architect, presented the unit types, including: three 8-unit apartment buildings with a residential feel using roof lines, porches, a masonry base (brick, brownstone, etc.) so it looks like a complete building – each apartment building would have 4 units per floor with 2 entrances; the architect noted variations in the location/depth of units as you drive through the complex so it is not monolithic. The architect showed the Board their Cape model for the patio homes, which was also used at their existing Summerfield development, with individual homes connected by trellises; these proposed homes would be connected at the garage; they would use pitched roofs and dormers appropriate to Simsbury architecture.
The architect showed the Board their proposed 4 styles of single-family homes priced at $259K-450K, including Federal, Cape, and Colonial; maintenance–free vinyl material would be used, as called for by today’s market. The builder indicated there would be 16-17 affordable housing units between all the building types, which would be well-integrated using similar architecture/features, rather than building size. The builder believed the roof shingles should all be the same; there would be 7-8 different wall colors for the houses and the same color would not be used on houses next to each other - with the exception that patio homes would be the same color; front door and shutter colors would be varied; the houses all have at least 3 planes and nothing would look like a flat façade driving by which improves community character. The builder confirmed there would be 63 housing units, of which 54 would be single-family units. The Board suggested there not be garages in the front of every façade. The builder agreed and noted 8-10 houses where they would do side-entry garages.
The Board suggested that that the ridgeline be broken up on the apartment units. The architect indicated the center slope could be altered to make the ends more important; the attics are all trusses, which easily allows alteration. The architect proposed taking a look at a pallet of roof colors that might work.
The Board discussed the need to see the change in the apartment building design prior to voting on it, including seeing actual color samples. Town Staff confirmed the Board’s options were: 1) approve the applications conditionally, e.g. roofline modifications; 2) provide a negative referral; or 3) see the substantial changes before voting and Table to the 10/05/2015 meeting. The Zoning Chairman suggested movingthe applications forward; a recommendation could be made to the Zoning Commission to reduce the ridgeline height. The Board noted they have always required actual colors to be presented. As the application is not on the Zoning Commission’s Agenda until their 7 p.m. 10/05/2015 meeting, the Board noted the applicant could return for a referral to the Board’s 5:30 p.m. 10/15/2015 meeting. The builder was not aware they needed to present colors, but agreed to come back with both colors and ridgeline given that adequate timing available.
3. Applicant #15-34 of Condev Associates, LLC, Owner; Sunlight Construction, Inc., Applicant; for a Site Plan Approval on the property located at 22 Hoskins Road (Assessor’s Map H05, Block 403, Lot 021). Zone I-1. (received 09/21/2015; decision must be rendered by 11/24/2015)
Commissioner Drapelick made a motion to Table Applications #15-30 and 15-34 to the next meeting.
Commissioner Laschever seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
V. CORRESPONDENCE/ANNOUNCEMENTS
No discussion.
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from July 6, 2015 and July 27, 2015
Discussion of minutes was moved to the 10/15/2015 meeting Agenda.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Dragulski made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:50 p.m.
Commissioner Lanza seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.