Design Review Board Minutes 10/05/2015
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
OCTOBER 5, 2015
MOTIONS FROM REGULAR MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Jennifer Murnane opened the Regular Meeting of the Design Review Board at 5:40 p.m. in the Program Room at the Simsbury Public Library, 725 Hopmeadow Street. Other members and alternates in attendance were Jonathan Laschever, Anca Dragulski, John Carroll, Anthony Drapelick, and Paul Lanza. Also present were Michael Glidden, Assistant Town Planner; Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk; and other interested parties.
II. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
A quorum was present, therefore, no alternates were appointed.
III. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION
1. 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.
2. 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 11/25/2015)
Bill Ferrigno of Sunlight Construction, the Applicant, requested and the Board agreed for the record, that Applications #15-30 and 15-34 be addressed together as the 2 parcels will be merged into 1 property. The Applicant noted that at the last Board meeting they discussed their development/architecture and were returning to this meeting to respond to questions that resulted. The Applicant reviewed that their proposed development would fall under Town Workforce Housing regulations, which they will discuss later tonight with the Zoning Commission. The Applicant proposed the development would include introducing affordable housing units mixed in with conventionally-priced units, which would be indistinguishable from one another; currently, affordable housing is for households earning 80% or less of Simsbury median income - currently set at $279K; and the market rate housing pricing would likely range from $450K-475K. The Applicant noted a Board request for colors and textures and provided some vinyl and roofing samples.
The Applicant's architect reviewed that the development would have a mix of single-family units ranging from 1400-3000 sq. ft.; multi-family units of about 1200 sq. ft. each with 2 bedrooms/baths; and patio units joined at the garage by a trellis; a mixture of styles would be used including, Cape and 2-story units; all have porches or recessed covered entries; side entry garages would be placed strategically where the lots allow; proposed vinyl siding colors were displayed in a color palette ranging from basic white to beige/gray; roof colors included a weathered look and charcoal color. Regarding the ridge line, the architect indicated they have lowered the main roof line about 4 feet, keeping the pitch the same in front but lowered in the back. The Applicant noted that in response to Board comments for the multi-family structures with 4 units/floor for a total of 8 units, changes were made to increase building depth while leaving the 1st floor accessible/regressible. The Board commented that with a significant number of light colors on a significant number of roof structures, perhaps lighter colors on the larger multi-family roofs would make those structures stand out which may not be desirable; the lighter colors might be more appropriate on the single-family roofs. The Board discussed the color contrasts between the roof and siding and the Applicant noted that the gables in cedar-impression vinyl shakes would be a little lighter than the body color. Regarding the trim work fascia’s, the Applicant indicated they would be a mix of vinyl and Azac or its equivalent; window trim would be more vinyl material and the Azac-type material around the entries providing better long-term maintenance and architectural impact.
The Applicant clarified for the gables the fascia board would be projected and brought across with flashing used; window trims are substantial; the gable entries would have a layer of trim laid on top of flat panel for a recessed panel look at the plane of the gable, not at the fascia plane; they will build the balconies as shown on the rendering, providing character and scale to the porch projections. For the 3 multi-family buildings, the Applicant indicated the buildings would all be the same with similar ends and 2nd-story gable elements. Regarding selection of roof colors, the Applicant proposed and the Board agreed the 3 buildings should have the same color roofs and siding; the Applicant believed when buildings are 40-50 feet apart and you have a theme, it is best to have the same color roofs and siding; the weathered wood color would be used. The Applicant indicated single-family owners would be involved in selecting from the roof colors and it is their policy to not allow the same color siding next to each other, which the Board noted would also likely alter the roof colors and work toward the goal of having the area look like a New England village with a mixture of colors. The Applicant noted for the patio homes located closer together, single colors might be more appropriate, and agreed that could help distinguish them from the single-family homes.
Regarding the subdivision design and its close proximity to the bike way, the Applicant proposed that an attractive element of their design allows residents of the development to connect with the commercial corridor to the east on Rte. 10 and also to the bike path. The Applicant explained their proposed entrance to the development is safer than the West Street entry, which is planned only for emergency access, because the road grade is at 7% with people speeding down the hill.
Commissioner Drapelick made a motion that 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, and Application #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, be approved as presented.
Commissioner Laschever seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
3. Application #15-35 of Christopher Milliard, Phase Zero Design, Applicant; Antonio5, LLC, Owner; for a Site Plan Amendment on the property located at 1225-1231 Hopmeadow Street (Assessor's Map I05, Block 403, Lot 019). Zone B-2. (received 09/21/2015; decision must be rendered by 11/25/2015)
Application #15-35 was read into the record.
Steve Antonio, property owner, indicated they would: 1) informally present a site plan amendment in order to receive the Board's initial feedback, which was reviewed with the previous Town Planner, where they would raze 3 buildings and a build a new Dunkin Donuts building; and 2) their formal presentation proposed a new facade for a corner building to begin development. The Owner showed the Board the locations of the buildings under discussion.
Chris Milliard, Applicant, showed the existing Sunrise Convenience building and entry off Rte. 10. The Applicant proposed removing/replacing the parapet, replacing dated siding, and eventually putting in new signage. The Applicant noted an adjacent house is well screened by trees from their building. The Applicant provided the Board with existing building elevations; the building currently has vertical siding, one parapet height around the building, and painted CMU on the building back. The Applicant indicated the new hardy board siding in Heritage Gray/Newport Taupe would go over existing siding with the darker color on the lower building and lighter color above; the parapet would be taller on the front wrapping to the southern elevation - recent design changes to break up building scale pulled the taller parapet back somewhat and the parapet on north side is open and only extends half way. The Board noted the existing parapet is easily seen coming east; the Applicant indicated the new parapet would be built into the roof system allowing the roofing membrance to come up the back side of the parapet with a single-ply smooth black roof surface visible. The Board noted the existing unattractive parapet is visible coming from the east and should not be open; the Applicant explained there would be a stud wall straight up, sheathed on both sides, a roof membrane on the back, with a concealed structure as shown in their rendering, and likely a sloped continuous kicker covered with the roof membrane and a portion of the metal coping on top visible. The Owner indicated a new portion of roof was put in recently and there is a considerable cost savings in this phase without a parapet in that area. The Owner noted the structural engineer would determine the height of the continuous kicker wall - probably about 3-feet tall at a 45 degree angle and covered with black membrane; a continuous wall will come up the back of the fascia/parapet clad in EDPM membrane in one continuous color.
The Applicant provided a sample of the maroon fabric awning that would separate the darker/lighter siding colors; trim would be solid PVC with fasteners countersunk, finished and painted; and existing warped fascia boards would be replaced with PVC. The Applicant indicated they are in preliminary discussions with the structural engineer. The Applicant explained the renovations will be done in phases, and right now a parapet on one wall was eliminated because the roof in that back half is brand new and they don't want to damage it, but it may be done in the future with roof repair. Regarding the smooth fiber cement siding note on the drawings, the Applicant explained it was changed to textured cedar board; the Board agreed that was a better choice. Regarding the fabric awning, the Applicant noted it wraps the existing canopy along the side and across the building front with a short return along the north facade. The Applicant indicated the gooseneck lights are both decorative and could be used in the future for signage; they have 4 panels for signs with the required junction boxes and electrical fixtures. The owner noted the truncated parapet is significantly obscured by the 1790 house/trees and those goose neck lights would not likely be installed; it is the intent to build the goose necks in for the 4 panel signs when the general contractor builds. The Owner has a short timeframe and would like to have the proposed work done by year end or January/February latest.
Regarding the pilasters, the Applicant indicated they would wrap the existing 3-4-inch square steel columns with an 8-inch PVC enclosure with a cap and base; 8-inch square pilasters on the building would mimic that following along the building front; trim on the side and above would break up the long facade. The Applicant indicated that currently there are 3 tenants and they plan to fill the 4th space. Regarding the white painted fascia wood trim on the upper portion, the Applicant showed the Board a photo of the area and confirmed they would replace it with like kind material. Regarding the architectural contrast with the neighboring historic 1790 building, the Applicant believes the building reflects the 1970's/80's in a classic style with corner boards and clapboard siding, which relates to the neighboring building. The Board commented that the renovations would be a great improvement.
Commissioner Drapelick made a motion that Application #15-35 of Christopher Milliard, Phase Zero Design, Applicant; Antonio5, LLC, Owner; for a Site Plan Amendment on the property located at 1225-1231 Hopmeadow Street (Assessor's Map I05, Block 403, Lot 019). Zone B-2, be approved as presented.
Commissioner Carroll seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
The Applicant provided the Board with a copy of their informal plan. The Owner believed that some of the North Village area requires re-building and 3 of his buildings composed of cinder blocks and rubber roofs are in horrible condition and should be razed and replaced; Dunkin Donuts has expressed a very high level of interest in a new building 97% similar to what exists in Weatogue. The Owner requested Board feedback before coming in with a formal presentation by LADA; the Board suggested they review the application/minutes from that DRB review for the Weatogue Dunkin Donuts. The Owner indicated their goal is a colonial building look, and noted for the existing Dunkin Donuts building in Antonio's plaza, the color orange was not allowed. The Board suggested in dealing with branded services/products their normal presentation does not fit the community's program, and a lot was learned from the Weatogue Dunkin Donuts building, which resulted in it generally fitting the area and serving the purposes of both the applicant and community.
The Board noted the Owner has more room than to build just a Dunkin Donuts and perhaps something like a Trader Joe's would fit in nicely. The Owner responded that there was more room, but their plan is to carefully move in stages over 5 years - this year they would work on the Sunrise location, followed next year with razing the 3 buildings to get a clean level lot, followed by the Dunkin Donuts building, and potentially another building, which may/may not be enough size for a Trader Joe's type store; the area to remain was noted and its access; and they confirmed connectivity would be provided to a future Big Y to the north.
The Board discussed development taking place in the Northern Village and suggested turning the Dunkin Donuts building to provide more building on the streetscape with the current side parking moving behind the building. The Owner responded that was discussed and they would revisit it with the Town Engineer, but the building was left perpendicular to Rte. 10 because the previous Town Planner indicated that ideally they did not want stacking from the drive-in window to be visible from Rte. 10, so both stacking and the menu boards in the current design are obstructed by the building. The Owner indicated part of razing the buildings was to provide more flexibility to manipulate structures and described the looping flow of traffic; however, if the building were parallel to Rte. 10, they might not be able to maintain a functional entrance to the neighboring office building. The Board suggested the owner take a further look at having more building on the streetscape and less parking, as there may be more leeway to be lateral and still avoid stacking.
IV. CORRESPONDENCE/ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from July 6, 2015; July 27, 2015; and September 21, 2015
Commissioner Carroll made a motion to approve the July 6, 2015; July 27, 2015; and September 2015 minutes, as written.
Commissioner Drapelick seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Drapelick made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:40 p.m.
Commissioner Laschever seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.