Design Review Board Minutes 10/22/2013 ADOPTED
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
OCTOBER 22, 2013
REGULAR MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Emil Dahlquist, Chairman, called the Design Review Board meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: John Carroll, Kevin E. Gray, Charles Stephenson, Rita Bond, and John Stewart. Also in attendance were Hiram Peck, Director of Planning, Janis Prifti, Clerk, and other interested parties.
II. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
Chairman Dahlquist appointed Commissioners Bond and Carroll to serve for two vacancies.
III. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION
1. Application #13-47 of Dr. Kenneth Finn, Agent for Ruark Properties, LLC, Owner, for a Sign Permit for Kenneth R. Finn, DMD, on the property located at 530 Hopmeadow Street (Map G12, Block 132, Lot 026). Zone B-2.
The Applicant has a new office in Simsmore Square and provided drawings illustrating proposed signage placement. The office is also referenced on a sign just inside the building and on a 530 Hopmeadow property directory. There are 2 separate proposed signs: one identifying "Kenneth R. Finn, DMD" on the building and another on his office glass with the slogan "Making Great Smiles Better Every Day". The Town Officer indicated the size and location of the sign is acceptable and only the tooth is a little different. The Commissioners advised the Applicant that Page 31 of the Guidelines for Community Design policy states, "Do not use advertising or business slogans" and the Smiles statement would be a slogan. It was noted a previous project on Rte. 10 displays many hand painted advertising signs through windows to the outside and the Town will follow up. Zoning Regulations allow a 25% maximum percentage of the window for signage, which does not necessarily agree with the Design Guidelines. The Commissioners reiterated the Design Guideline recommendation to not allow advertising, but agreed the 2-sign positions, color, and different type face was fine. The Zoning Commission will make the final decision and enforces their regulations. It was explained from a design perspective that there is a tendency for excess signage to develop in built-up areas and as those signs are grandfathered, change becomes difficult; the Guidelines for Community Design are intended to provide consistency throughout the Town, and simple, advance guidance to applicants. It was noted the Guidelines also provide for naming of services or products sold, but the Applicant felt it would look cluttered to name all the dental services.
Commissioner Gray made a motion for referral to the Zoning Commission that the Design Review Board finds part of this Application consistent with the intent and principles of the Guidelines for Community Design, that being the "Kenneth R. Finn DMD" sign and recommends approval of the first sign; however, the second sign "Making great smiles better every day" is inconsistent with the Guidelines for Community Design, specifically that signs should not use advertising or business slogans.
Commissioner Carroll seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
The Applicant was advised that the minutes of this meeting will be provided to the Zoning Commission and Town Staff will be in attendance at the 11/18/13 Zoning meeting and invited the Applicant to attend for a brief time to discuss the slogan. In the meantime, Town Staff will speak to the Zoning Chairman about the name sign approved to see if administrative permission can be provided so the Applicant can go ahead and put their name sign up.
IV. FOR CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE VOTE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL:
1. Capitol Region Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Update 2013 -2018, Executive Summary
Regarding whether this Plan would be a burden to the Town in terms of consistency with neighboring towns and create any disadvantage, the Town Engineer was involved in putting this updated Plan together with CCROG. The focus of Town Staff is on the Mitigation Actions on Page 9, Objective 1 which discusses encouraging municipalities in the Region to adopt regulations that incorporate or refer to recommended practices for storm water control, specifically with regard to low impact development and green infrastructure. While agreeing to the proposals in this Plan requires no further regulations, it would still allow LID regulations for Town Center to be used in other areas of the Town and also assist with that education process. When DRB evaluates a site plan, this Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan would provide additional background information and also indicates encouragement from the regional planning agency. Town Staff Planning discussions with developers regarding Town regulations and requirements have never actually resulted in a developer stating they will go elsewhere. Town Staff explains environmentally sensitive ways to develop a site, even though they may not be required to do it. The Zoning Commission has agreed with this Mitigation Plan concept; and, if appropriate, this document could be in a package given to an applicant. Typically, Town staff from Planning, Engineering, Environmental, Fire, and Building meet with developers to review a proposal and to provide appropriate regulations and documents online. If land use commissions agree with this Mitigation Plan policy, it would become further embodied in LID regulations and the checklist; and if a developer doesn't agree, the Town would like to know why and whether it would impact the Town or State drainage system. A goal would be to prevent inadvertent negative impact on Town infrastructure and promote transparency. The Commissioners discussed the Town not checking off promotion of informational public outreach which they believe would be a good idea.
Commissioner Stewart made a motion that the Design Review Board supports the Mitigation Actions as delineated in "1.1 through 1.4 on Page 9 of the Capitol Region Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Update 2013 - 2018, Executive Summary".
Commissioner Gray seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
V. DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Discussion of ongoing Town consulting projects:
* Village District Study in Weatogue
The final draft is promised by 10/31/13 and copies will be provided to the Commissioners.
* Marketing Study - Town wide
On 10/16/13 the consultant made a presentation of the final draft to the BOS and all land use commissions; the document is available on the Town website. The draft suggested focusing on high quality, smaller-type businesses in the middle. Funding would need to be secured for Phase 2 to go forward. However, funding to further refine the Village District concept in Tariffville or the north end would likely take precedence.
Regarding Big Y project status, Town permits have been granted and discussions regarding the Skating Center granting an easement, as required by the Town Attorney, are ongoing.
* The Hartford Land Use Study status
The final presentation for the Charrette is posted online and the Town continues coordinating with CBRE. The Town has written letters to the Department of Community Economic Development (DECD) enumerating 6-7 items the Town would like help with, including a potential developer showcase. Connecticut does not have a certified sites program providing for pre-permitting and Town Staff have suggested using the Hartford project as a model to develop a certified sites program. Town Staff have also suggested DECD be the head agency and that they assign a specific point person from DECD to spearhead the project. If more time is needed to close on the property, the Town has suggested the State provide bridge funding; no decision has been received from the State to date. Putting together both how Zoning's form-based code would work on the Hartford site is important, as well as not constraining it until a developer is identified. Currently, the framework for the undeveloped parcel to the north is being reviewed.
2. Discussion on proposed policy for Route 10 light post banners
DOT does not allow advertising on banners in their right of way, so a Town policy has now been proposed to refine what the banners can be used for, and whether they should be there at all. This proposal would limit the banners’ maximum display time to 12 weeks, as after a time, people stop noticing them. Also, some of the banners are so low that a bicyclist hitting it becomes a safety issue. Managing groups that want to put banners up has also become a challenge for the 19 light posts. Business owners in the north end are now requesting banners for that area as well, so delineating the area of light posts for banners is another consideration. The example of Theatre Guild banners was discussed and what constitutes advertising; it costs $250 to put a banner up, which could prevent many organizations from doing so. The goal is to develop a clear banner policy for Town-sponsored events to avoid conflicts. While the banners add to the community, there is a need to stipulate timing for their removal, and a distinction from advertising. The Commissioners felt 12 weeks was too long for banner display and limits pole usage, and a tight timeframe for removal should be established. It is difficult to say what type of events should be allowed to have banners and what constitutes a community or Town-sponsored event. What is the differentiation between poles on State roads as opposed to Town streets? Also, putting signs on poles in front of locations that have nothing to do with the signs and whether there is a better way to handle that; defining both the quality and sign size for safety purposes, and what vendors can produce banners.
VI. CORRESPONDENCE
None.
VII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of October 8, 2013
On Line 37, the word "omni" is deleted.
Commissioner Carroll made a motion to approve the October 8, 2013, Meeting Minutes as amended.
Commissioner Gray seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Stewart made a motion to modify the Agenda to include discussion of the Veteran's Memorial with the consent of the Applicant.
Commissioner Bond seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Regarding the Memorial's location, Town Staff verified a 10-foot minimum setback from the street is required. It was recommended the pond described in the Charrette be part of this plan so the monument fits better in the setting. This would impact constructing the Memorial and configuring the pond to enhance the overall area, incorporating the whole back side. When the pond goes in, the backdrop of the trees would be eliminated with visibility through and beyond and the pond being a forecourt and overlook for the area; the flagpole needs to be strong to pin that corner down; and pedestrian connections to/through the Memorial from parking, the Library, and sidewalk establishes another walkway within Town structure. Removing the pillars in the current design was suggested. Town Staff will put in writing this discussion of a more integrated concept for this Town-owned property, provide it to the Commission for review, and then to the Applicant. It was noted that various funding sources will be needed.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Stephenson made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Gray seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
_____________________________
Emil Dahlquist, Chairman