Design Review Board Minutes 10/17/2016
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
OCTOBER 17, 2016
MINUTES FROM REGULAR MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Acting Chairman Ron Perry opened the Regular Meeting of the Design Review Board at 5:47 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room at the Town Offices. Also present were Jamie Rabbitt, Director of Planning and Community Development; Michael Glidden, Assistant Town Planner; Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk; and other interested parties.
II. ROLL CALL
Board Members and Alternates in attendance included Ron Perry, Anca Dragulski, Jonathan Laschever, and Paul Lanza.
1. Appointment of Alternates
A quorum was present and no alternates were appointed.
III. APPLICATIONS
1. Discussion and Possible Action:
a. Application #16-35 of Matt Wittmer, Phase Zero Design, Agent; Mitchell Auto Group, Inc., Owner; for a Site Plan Amendment for changes to the facades for Quick Lane on the property located at 384 Hopmeadow Street (Assessor’s Map F14, Block 145, Lot 001-2). Zone B-2.
Chairman Perry read Application #16-35 into the record.
Matt Wittmer of Phase Zero Design recalled that due to questions that arose from the Town at the previous presentation, this Application was put back on the Board’s Agenda. Mr. Rabbitt clarified that Phase Zero was not requested to come back in, and that their request was based on the recommendations to the Zoning Commission for landscaping along Hopmeadow Street to modify the plan and not do all the landscaping. Mr. Wittmer showed the Board the current plan noting that originally it was incomplete, which is why the Zoning hearing was extended; the DOT right of way on the plan had 2 trees in one area, not 1 tree, and with the existing plantings it screens the building; and Quick Lane requested as much visibility to the site as possible. The Board discussed the number of trees along the front; Mr. Wittmer indicated there would be a total of 4 trees with the existing plantings and they now propose 2 trees with the existing plantings and keeping the existing berm, which goes into DOT’s right of way. Chairman Perry asked if there was another location for the 2 trees. Mr. Wittmer responded that they want to make sure the monument sign on the site plan is visible. Board Member Laschever noted the drawing does not show the landscaping and asked to be shown where the trees used to be and where they have been eliminated; Mr. Wittmer showed the Board those locations. Mr. Rabbitt indicated all 5 trees were planned to fit between the State Right of Way and the parking lot and did not know of a reason; and the deliberated decision incorporated both architecture and landscaping. Mr. Rabbitt noted Staff’s review looked at the right of way and parking lot and saw no reason those trees could not be planted within the existing property line, other than a request by the landowner to reduce screening so the building is more visible. Chairman Perry commented respectfully that the building is not pretty and the Board felt the trees help shield it.
Board Member Dragulski asked why there are 2 rows of parking. Mark Mitchell, President of Mitchell Auto Group, responded that formerly they sold 800 Swedish cars generating taxes and jobs for the Town, and now they are now down to 300 new Volvos, and if they went out of business, the Town could have a property in Weatogue similar to the current Wagner Ford; Quick Lane has been a savior to them, but they have requirements to be addressed; he indicated embarrassment regarding the building’s aesthetics, but in this highly competitive environment it has taken time for them to be able to address the aesthetics; and it should look beautiful when it is done and attract customers. Chairman Perry explained that the Board is required to assure the Application falls within the standards set by the Design Guidelines with a goal to keep improving them. Chairman Perry noted while this is a functional building, if it is upgraded the trees help raise the bar. Board Member Laschever agreed and expressed appreciation for the plan to improve the appearance of the business, but believed the added trees would not hurt the business. Mr. Mitchell agreed that more trees could be put in, but he believed a Red Maple would be a mess for their business in 5 years and suggested something like a Crab Apple would be cleaner. Chairman Perry indicated the plan did not indicate the type of trees.
Board Member Jennifer Murnane joined the meeting at 6:00 p.m.
Mr. Rabbitt noted that this gateway property in Weatogue is being evaluated on that basis, along with property improvements and landscaping, and the Board concluded that the street trees would help break up the massing of the building given its garage repair functionality with garage doors; and street trees are typically between 6 to 8 feet apart allowing visibility into the site while helping to break up the building scale/massing. Mr. Wittmer indicated they would work to squeeze them in. Board Member Dragulski repeated her question asking why there are 2 rows of parked cars when originally there was 1 row on the drawing. Mr. Wittmer responded it was an existing condition with only 1 of the rows striped. The Board Members discussed denying the request for revision of the Application.
Board Member Laschever made a motion on Application #16-35 of Matt Wittmer, Phase Zero Design, Agent; Mitchell Auto Group, Inc., Owner; for a Site Plan Amendment for changes to the facades for Quick Lane on the property located at 384 Hopmeadow Street, that it is our recommendation to deny the Application because it was our intent that the number and type of trees originally approved still be in place in the site plan.
Board Member Lanza seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously.
b. Application #16-44 of TJ Donohue, Jr., Agent; SL Simsbury, LLC, (The Silverman Group), Owner; for The Hartford-Simsbury Form Based Code Master Development Plan on the property located at 200 Hopmeadow Street (shown as Assessor’s Map F17, Block 154, Lot 009-1, Assessor’s Map F17, Block 154, Lot 009-2, and Assessor’s Map F17, Block 154, Lot 009-3). Zone HS-FBC.
Acting Chairman Perry read Application #16-44 into the record. Board Member Murnane then took over as Chairperson.
Attorney T.J. Donohue represented the Silverman Group and was accompanied by representatives from VHB. The VHB Civil Engineer provided a site overview showing the Board an aerial map with the area demolished marked by a star, an agricultural field to the left, the zone along Rte. 10 for the commercial area, and moving east (tan color) an assisted living building with 120 beds, longer high-density apartment buildings, smaller lower-density town house buildings, totaling 281 units. He indicated there would be 2 site entrances and a loop road around the site; buildings would be closer to the main road to create a pedestrian friendly urban feel; a clubhouse in the middle on the main north/south boulevard lined with buildings and trees on both sides; and roads in the back for residents to access garages; 4 quadrants created with internal parking areas for residents from one entrance; higher density to the west moving east to lower density; dash lines identify type A primary pedestrian streets, red lines identify sidewalks with everything connected, and perimeter multi-function space; open space in dark green for residents, yellow highlighted area public space for assisted living residents, and the remaining open space area for public access. Chairman Murnane asked if traffic lights for Rte. 10 were proposed. The engineer responded their preliminary review indicates that is not warranted.
The VHB Landscape Architect indicated the main site entrance median would not have trees and is a signature framed entrance toward the tower with the common area toward the center somewhat offset to open the view, and a tree lined entrance and screening wall to the right to hide bank parking; the overall layered design creates a neighborhood utilizing: a loop road providing street trees on one side and bump outs for other trees/plantings on the other side; well-landscaped center parking areas; the clubhouse on the right as an architectural focal point; the outer area stays in back of buildings; the assisted living building compliments the design; native plant material would be used for landscaping to create sustainable design. He showed the Board various site views.
Chairperson Murnane asked Staff to clarify what is required of the Board for this Application at this meeting? Mr. Rabbitt clarified the permitting process for this Application is based on the Hartford-Simsbury Form Based Code which requires the Applicant submit a detailed Master Site Development Plan stipulating the Code for all future development on this portion of the Hartford; therefore, the Board must determine that what is being proposed is consistent with the Design Guidelines contained within the Master Plan criteria in the Code, as well as the Simsbury Community Design Guidelines, e.g. height, bulk, density, etc., but not the exact location of every building on the property. Mr. Rabbitt added that the Board should have a good sense in approving the Master Plan that when it is built, the Board will know what it will look like. Regarding approval by the Board of individual buildings, Mr. Rabbitt indicated approval of the Master Plan sets the scale/density of the development, and during site plan approval individual or groups of buildings should be referred by Zoning to the Board, which then decides whether it is consistent with the Master Plan. Mr. Rabbitt clarified when the Applicant shows architecture, building location, building bulk and density consistent with an approved Master Plan, it would be difficult for the Board in the future to indicate it does not like the bulk, density and architecture of the buildings. Mr. Rabbitt added the Board should focus on the big picture with the end product in mind.
The Applicant’s architect complimented the Town on working toward a Form Based Code for this important site. He noted the architecture comes from the site plan and is based on new urban principles of design. He noted that most historic homes in Simsbury were built close to the road with street landscaping and barns behind houses accessed by a small driveway providing great architecture/landscaping along New England streets. He noted they are trying to translate that historic type of design into a modern plan. The architect described the view from the main boulevard looking across the town green toward the mountain and community club house with a cupola symbolizing a more public building in the development. He indicated a simple New England style architecture with low stone elements and wainscot along the building foundation line, horizontal siding, real shutters as building accents, heavy trim work at the building corners, windows and standing seam metal roof. He showed the Board drawings and floor plans for the 3-story buildings near the street with front porches, covered entries, stone on the first level, punched windows and bay windows, some turned gables and roof dormers, horizontal/vertical movement and slight color changes in horizontal siding. He indicated the larger buildings in the site center would be either 32 or 28 units with garages on the back side using corridors on either building side allowing people direct access from their garage to the building. He showed the Board some examples of their other similar developments. He indicated elevations for these buildings are under development and will be presented at the Public Hearing. He showed views from Rte. 10 looking across the development with a low front entry scale, but the buildings are all close in height due to their varied widths and are within the Form Based Code Guidelines.
Chris Rossum of CA Ventures represented the assisted living portion of the project and described their operations indicating the assisted living population is growing and they provide assistance to elderly residents with a focus on healthy, active lifestyle, engagement and wellness with 40-50% of the building used as common space; their communities range from 80 to 120 beds of primarily studios and 1 bedrooms; and providing 65 full time and 20 part time jobs. He indicated they are pleased to be part of this development in an active community with amenities like Simsbury. He showed the Board examples of their other developments noting they typically build their properties with cast stone, brick, cement board horizontal siding with vertical accents, and for this development they may use shakes. He noted they have a prototype building they adapt to the community; typical amenities include community and/or bistro dining, lounges, salon spa, library reading room, with many activities to keep residents interacting and engaged in the community, and walking on the trails; 1-2 bedroom units have current technology and are ADA compliant; and about 25% of the building would be for memory care locked down to protect residents. Board Member Lanza asked if everything is scheduled to be built at once. Mr. Donohue responded they would like to begin building as soon as possible; CA’s project will be built by an independent contractor and the rest by Silverman. Mr. Rossum indicated there would be close coordination and confirmed that parking for the CA building will primarily be used by staff. Mr. Donohue added the scope, scale and design of the CA building is as submitted and the skin of the building will be made in the site plan process.
The Landscape Architect showed the Board additional examples of projects and inviting landscape materials used in various areas. Mr. Rabbitt clarified as part of the Master Plan the Applicant needs to show the Board the landscape pallet, not just a photo of another project. The Landscape Architect showed varieties of plants they propose using. Board Member Perry asked where these plants would be located and in what number. Mr. Donohue explained their responsibility is to provide a pallet of materials that will be used throughout the site and there will be landscape plans as the site plans come in with specific commitment regarding the plant types and census. Board Member Dragulski asked to see how the 3-4 story buildings will look eventually from the street view noting the landscaping could save the whole project; the buildings at these heights will dramatically change this corn field, including impacts from parking lots and impervious paving; she asked to see how it will look from ground level. Mr. Donohue responded they will show a short video of that view. The Landscape Architect showed preliminary examples of furnishings, bike racks around the development, light fixtures that are pedestrian friendly, and pavements ranging from all concrete sidewalks to some with brick.
Mr. Rabbitt noted the Applicant’s intent to supply additional information and clarified that the Zoning Commission will receive this Application at tonight’s meeting with the intent to hold a Public Hearing in November and the Board may wish to table the Application pending receipt of the additional information; the video is only 10-12 seconds. Regarding the other Applications scheduled for this meeting, Mr. Rabbitt clarified the 2 Volvo items may be able to be combined; and the People’s Choice Application requires signage be posted and while the Application will not be taken up by Zoning until November, the owner can provide a simple presentation tonight.
Mr. Rabbitt noted the Board’s concerns for Application #16-44 regarding submission of additional information including sight lines from Rte. 10 and effect on the ridge, building profiles and rear/side street elevations, pallet choices for building materials, all of which are required by the Code. Board Member Laschever added that clarity regarding the line of sight will determine whether he is comfortable with approving the large buildings in front and the effect of all the buildings on the ridge view. The Engineer showed a video of the field from a 4 ½ foot elevation traveling 35 mph south in a car modeling the ridge line and tower. The Board Members commented that it looked tall with significant obscuring of the ridge and one video pause showed a blocked ridge line view. Mr. Donohue noted the Silverman Group’s significant investment in the community in compliance with the Code, which allows this project to be built, and they would like to have important Board support; he asked Staff to distribute an electronic video link to the Board; and asked for a longer discussion with the Board. The Board agreed.
Chairperson Murnane made a motion to table Application #16-44.
Board Member Laschever seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously.
c. Application #16-46 of Chris Millard, Phase Zero Design, Agent; Mitchell Auto Group, Inc., Owner; for a Site Plan Amendment for a unified sign plan on the property located at 384 Hopmeadow Street (Assessor’s Map F14, Block 145, Lot 001+2). Zone B-2.
The Board discussed tabling Applications #16-46 and #16-47. Mr. Rabbitt noted the non-conforming signs currently on the property are allowed to be maintained and the issues are movement, change, height, and location; whether the Board needs additional information from Staff regarding Code compliance; and are the elevations provided to date sufficient. The Board felt additional information was needed and a special meeting required.
Board Member Perry made a motion to table Application #16-46.
Board Member Lanza seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously.
d. Application #16-47 of Chris Millard, Phase Zero Design, Agent; Mitchell Auto Group, Inc., Owner; for a Site Plan Amendment for changes to the facades at the Volvo dealership on the property located at 384 Hopmeadow Street (Assessor’s Map F14, Block 145, Lot 001+2). Zone B-2.
Board Member Laschever made a motion to table Application #16-47.
Board Member Lanza seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously.
e. Application #16-48 of Robert Bylykbashi, Agent; Twenty Two GC 2012 LLC, Andreo Family Enterprises, Owner; for a Site Plan Amendment for modifications to People’s Choice Restaurant on the property located at 836 Hopmeadow Street (Assessor’s Map H09, Block 227, Lot 001A&1B). Zones SC-3 and SC-4).
Mr. Rabbitt noted the Applicant is required to post the property 10 days from receipt of the Application and the signs will go up tomorrow; a non-color elevation was submitted and the existing building with store front is there for putting new signage where old signage used to be, 4 parking spaces would be eliminated allowing for introduction of an outdoor dining area, which could be viewed as an upgrade to the façade; and it is Code compliant in black and white.
Chairperson Murnane made a motion to approve Application #16-48 of Robert Bylykbashi.
Board Member Laschever seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously.
IV. GENERAL COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Adoption of the Proposed 2017 Meeting Schedule
Board Member Lanza made a motion to approve the 2017 Meeting Schedule
Board Member Laschever seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the September 19, 2016 Regular Meeting
Board Member Perry made a motion to approve the September 19, 2016, Regular Meeting Minutes, as written.
Board Member Lanza seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Murnane made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:06 p.m.
Board Member Laschever seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.