Design Review Board Minutes 09/24/2013 ADOPTED

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 24, 2013
REGULAR MEETING

I. CALL TO ORDER

Emil Dahlquist, Chairman, called the Design Review Board meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices.  The following members were present:  John Carroll, Anthony Drapelick, Kevin E. Gray, and Rick Schoenhardt.  Also in attendance were Janis Prifti, Clerk, and other interested parties. 

II. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES

Chairman Dahlquist appointed Commissioners Carroll and Drapelick as alternates for two regular members.

III. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION

2. Application #13-44 of Chris Milliard of Phase Zero Design, Agent for GC Simsbury LLC, Owner, for a Site Plan Amendment on the property located at 920 Hopmeadow Street (Map H09, Block 227, Lot 001). Zone SC-1.

The Application proposes updating the front facade of 920 Hopmeadow.  They would infill 2 areas near Subway's entry and add a second awning in another area allowing for some differentiation between tenants; they will continue using gooseneck fixtures and decorative lighting around the building, and some window replication using the same mullions and mutton bars.  As previously approved by Zoning and DRB, the former Metro Bis stairs have been eliminated and new stairs would be pulled back with a landing.  They were asked to remind the architect not to have signs on both the building and the awning nor sandwich signs filling the windows.  A flat sign on the building would be preferred under the new Town Code.  They will return to discuss signage and lighting in the future and will bring a manufacturer’s lighting cut for the file and record.  Regarding landscaping, Zoning approved plantings and density similar to Starbucks; where the grade changes in front of the building and planting area, there may be shrubbery with the grade sloped to the curb; Town Staff will check the specifics of Zoning's approval. 

Commissioner Gray made a motion for referral to the Zoning Commission that the Design Review Board finds Application #13-44 substantially consistent with the intent and principles of the Guidelines for Community Development and recommends approval based on the Application submitted issue date 9/10/2013, with the exception the Applicant will return as this approval does not include signage and lighting changes. 

Commissioner Schoenhardt seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously.

1. Application #13-30 of Matt Wittmer of Phase Zero Design, Agent for GPF-Drake Hill, LLC, Owner, for a Site Plan Amendment on the property located at 720 Hopmeadow Street (Map G10, Block 227, Lot 001-2). Zone SC-1.

Following DRB's previous review, this Application was revised to provide a landscaping plan and ramp.  An addition at the end of the building is proposed about 14 feet wide within a raised plaza to create a larger, leasable space near the Drake Hill Mall parking area with a new staircase up to the entrance and accessible ramp.  The exterior of the building is little changed and the windows and brickwork style of the building are maintained.  The intention is to do significantly more with the plantings than currently, as shown on L2, adding trees and low shrubbery to hide the ramp.  Based on the topography, they cannot get flush to grade and propose an angled sidewalk to the staircase area with a gradual slope and handrails up to the entrance with a couple of handicapped spaces in this area.  The current sidewalk accesses handicapped parking at the north end of the building; however, the new tenant space would require separate handicapped access.  The original exterior wall and windows will be maintained as much as possible in setting up space for the new tenant.  Regarding the Town Center Code, the Commissioners discussed the transparency issue for an SC1 Zone where the recommendation is for ground floor commercial set up of 20% minimum, 40% maximum of the area for glazing and that this addition is a significant exception to that.  This building is much longer than 40 feet and given the requirement for a 10-foot setback every 40 feet, this addition will make a nonconforming issue worse.  The Applicant is not adding a 2nd floor and believes that adding a porch onto the building works well.   Potentially the addition would be on top of a patio wall, unless the footing is not below the frost line, in which case they will put in a full concrete foundation.

The current waiting room will become part of the new tenant space and includes everything south of the main entrance.  The Commissioners expressed concern about the placement of the handicapped ramp and what it does to the outside and discussed alternatives with the Applicant because this is a protected building on the National Registry.  The landscaping along the ramp includes Boxwood and Azalea.  The existing unique cast items may be restored and incorporated into the design to frame the building entrance.  For the door concrete, the roofline comes in above the windows with scalloping above the door maintained.  The Commissioners discussed the goal of maintaining a clear distinction between the old and new additions to historic buildings in order to allow the possibility of restoring the original building in the future.  The addition is designed to look like a porch and not distract from the main building.  Preliminarily, the tenants are planning on maintaining the exterior wall and the interior wall fireplace with some modification of the surrounding walls and access doorways.  The Commissioners discussed whether the gutters should be white aluminum or copper, noting the Porte corchere end is white.  There is no canopy over the south entrance and the handrails will remain consistent.  Modification of the ramp was suggested; one alternative would be to relocate the ramp around the corner of the building to hide it where currently there are steps and a landing and a door could be added with ramp to protect a highly visible building in Town Center; however, the Applicant was concerned about the grade dropping down and an additional 24 feet of ramp and a landing.  A motion was made and withdrawn.  The 5/28/13 motion was read into the record. 

The Applicant will return to the Commission in the future regarding signage; a post with a sign may be used. 

Commissioner Gray made a motion for referral to the Zoning Commission that the Design Review Board recognizes that extenuating circumstances may prevent conformance with specific recommendations in the Guidelines for Community Design and with that recognition, the Design Review Board recommends approval with the understanding that these circumstances are not intended to act as a precedent for future unlimited applications.

Commissioner Schoenhardt seconded the motion, and it was approved by majority vote with 3 Commissioners in favor and 2 Commissioners opposed.

As design considerations, the Applicant is willing to consider relocating the cast pieces, and signage presented at this time is inconsistent with Design Review Guidelines and is not included in this package. Aan alternative method should be brought to DRB for review.

3. Application #13-43 of Terri-Hahn of LADA, P.C. Land Planners, Agent for Town of Simsbury, Owner, for a Site Plan Amendment for Simsbury Veterans Memorial on the property located at 725 Hopmeadow Street (Map G10, Block 203, Lot 049). Zone SC-1.

To be rescheduled.

IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS

a. Informal review of Eastpointe at Dorset Crossing

Eastpointe at Dorset Crossing provides 168 units on Lot B of the approved PAD that was for 216 residential units.  It was noted the proposed road and stream crossing has been eliminated and there is no Phase 2.  The site plan for the 168 units includes seven 24-unit, 3-story buildings with a 50/50 split of one- and two-bedroom units, clubhouse, gymnasium, leasing center, dog park for residents, 80 garage spaces, fire pit for recreational use, sidewalks throughout the site, and landscape plan with mail kiosk.  Entry from Dorset Crossing Drive was described with a leasing office built first with parking, circulation through the site, and then buildings 1 and 5 will be constructed first. 

Topography of the former gravel pit will have a road to the west at the high point with the site flowing east and providing water quality basins to handle runoff, as originally approved in the Master Plan.  The site to the west has a 10-foot bank with buildings ranging from 215' to 202' (a 12-13-foot drop).  There are 10 garage units with 8 spaces each, totaling 80.  A central trash collection area is east on the site allowing cars to drop waste into a large compactor.  Roof runoff storm detention will be re-introduced into ground water; one will always contain water and the other will have water seasonally; the site water treatment is a significant improvement.  There is a centrally located mailbox area with parking, and sidewalks around the perimeter of the development.  The central sewer and other site services connect with existing systems.  Town Staff will review LID and Conservation issues; the Applicant indicated everything is outside the Conservation Easement.  

Regarding overall development, the project is designed to enhance the neighboring community with deciduous and flowering trees and evergreens.  They are installing shrubs/trees that will grow on a degraded site and seasonal flowering trees will break up the views from different apartments.  The bulk of the trees are maples, lindens, flowering pears, cherries, birch and arbor vitae and Norway spruce to provide different colors and textures; shade trees will provide scale with birch breaking up massing of the attractive buildings.  A more detailed plan will be developed in the future.  Sidewalks are concrete and drives are asphalt; with 2 entrances, no traffic calming is currently planned; there is parking on both sides of the 2-way, 60-foot wide roads. 

The general building configuration is walkups with no elevators for 8 units per floor with an entrance foyer staircase and 4 units surrounding the central staircase.  The first floor units are handicap accessible in accordance with State code.  Every unit has:  washer/dryer, balcony, upgraded kitchen, and walk-in closets and is described as a luxury apartment building.  The exterior of the building combines hip roofs and gables to break up building massing with in/out along the perimeter; materials are asphalt roof shingles, PVC shake siding on the upper level, PVC lap siding on the second floor, and the building is anchored with cultured thin-set stone.  There are 3 different building color schemes in complementary earth tones; windows are a combination of double/single and typically a single is 3 x 5 feet, allowing a lot of natural light, balcony sliders, and on outside wall kitchens a 3 x 3 awning over the sink area.  Materials for the side and rear of the buildings will provide stone where visible and PVC siding where not visible; balconies in the front and rear will be the same. 

The Club House is approximately 3500 sq. ft. with a community room, serving kitchen for heating food (but no cooking range) and small eating area for small parties, billiards area, wellness center with workout equipment, lockers for pool area, and entrance with cathedral ceiling and view through to the pool.  The architecture and materials are consistent with PVC siding and there will be a stone water table all the way around the building.  The 3-sided mail pavilion will be next to the Club House and maintains consistent architecture.  The sim board and stone sign location was shown and will be freestanding for "Eastpointe Dorset Crossing."  The 8-bay garages include a handicapped space and maintain architectural materials and probably different color doors to break up the building, with a different gable end to break up the roof area.  It was confirmed there is not a garage for every unit. 

The Commission expressed concern about people in the center section crossing the street to reach the garage and whether the garages across the top set 5 feet off the drive lane allow sufficient visibility to pull safely into the drive lane.  Another concern was about the 1/2 wall created in the back where there is a 12-foot change in grade with a planted bank on the top side.  In the PAD process, the concept plan was approved and this is a more refined version coming to the Commission for informal review and feedback.  Regarding having 7 similar buildings, the Applicant emphasized having less buildings allows for more green space and economic considerations and market feedback led to this layout.  A comparison was made to the Grist Mill project on West Street, which is focused on a different market.  The Commissioners indicated the Grist Mill project is more appropriate to Town Center and noted the POCD recommendation for 2- to 2 ½-story buildings as the appropriate scale.  The Applicant's opinion was that the increase in height to 3 stories is less dense on the ground providing more passive and active recreation space to the tenants.  Looking at the original concept plan, this revised plan seemed much denser to the Commission.  The Applicant explained the density of the concept plan actually had a higher number of units and smaller varied building sizes would occupy more space; they believe this is a middle ground reducing building size to increase open space.  The Commissioners felt this plan is different from the original concept and discussed the impact of people living closely together in such a dense space.  Comparing it to the Grist Mill site, the Applicant believed the space for residents is similar.  However, the Commissioners noted this project is in a former gravel pit.  The Applicant discussed that this was created as a mixed space providing more affordable living space and will be relatively open until vegetation takes root.  The Commissioners clarified that green open space is not a function of a PAD or a mixed-use development, but of paving and number of buildings on the site, which could be 7 or 8, rather than 6 and more green space.   It was reviewed that the approved PAD total coverage on the original plan for this project including paving and building was 283,000 sq. ft. and they now are utilizing 10 acres of the 14-acre lot; their part of the project covers 222,000 sq. ft. and they are proposing 193,000 sq. ft., which provides a greater amount of green space than approved by the PAD.  The Applicant calculated going to 2-story buildings would require adding 3 1/2 buildings.  The Commissioners discussed how massing of these proposed buildings relate to what is appropriate for the north end of Town and asked whether 176 units are required.   It was suggested that, similar to the Grist Mill project, which has 5-6 carriage houses, some smaller buildings could be strategically placed to break up massing; aesthetically, the garages and Club House here are not a good substitute.  The Commissioners suggested the Applicant look at the Ritson building garages in Weatogue where better changes were made to their design, as these garages are similar.

The Commissioners thanked the Applicant for coming in for this informal hearing.

b. Discussion of ongoing Town consulting projects

  *Village District Study in Weatogue

Town Staff expect the final draft this week and this Study will be on the next meeting's agenda.

  *Marketing Study - Town wide

Town Staff expect the final draft this week and this Study will be on the next meeting's agenda.

  *The Hartford Land Use Study status

Town Staff reviewed meetings that were held and the Charrette book developed is available for the Commissioners' review.  The data book contains everything available, including the POCD.  This is an economically focused project potentially considering:  1) a whole health village concept with early childhood education and onward, different types of rehabilitation, and types of testing; 2) an agricultural eco-village; or 3) a corporate village.  Initial polling revealed the majority of people felt preserving the tax base is an important element; the building is 1/2 the size of the N.Y. Chrysler building, although it is not visible from Hopmeadow.  The Hartford was happy with the Study product and the potential for marketing the property is good.  By mid-October, the regulation framework will be done, but until the ultimate buyer(s) are identified the Code will likely not be put in place; the northern property may be coded first.  Opportunity for a single buyer of this space is considered remote; real property taxes are significant.  The window for working this out is 24 months and will return to this Commission for review. 

Zoning is discussing potential DRB members and members were advised to send their applications in.

V. CORRESPONDENCE

None.

VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of July 23, 2013

Commissioner Schoenhardt made a motion to approve the July 23, 2013, Meeting Minutes as written. 

Commissioner Drapelick seconded the motion, and it was passed, with Commissioner Carroll abstaining.

VII. ADJOURNMENT

Commissioner Drapelick made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:30 p.m.  Commissioner Schoenhardt seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously

_____________________________
Emil Dahlquist, Chairman