Design Review Board Minutes 11/17/2014
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
SUBJECT TO APPROVAL AT NEXT MEETING
NOVEMBER 17, 2014
REGULAR MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
John Carroll, Secretary, called the Design Review Board meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices.
II. ROLL CALL
The following Board Members were present: John Carroll, Jonathan Laschever, Anthony Drapelick, Anca Dragulski, and Paul Lanza. Also in attendance were Hiram Peck, Director of Planning; Janis Prifti, Clerk; and other interested parties.
III. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
A quorum was present and John Carroll, Secretary, appointed Board Member Laschever as an alternate for Ron Perry.
IV. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION
a. Application #14-44 of John Evans, Agent for E and A/I and G Simsbury Commons LP, Owner, for a Special Exception pursuant to Article Ten, Section C.3i, of the Town of Simsbury Zoning Regulations for an additional wall sign for the Zoo on the property located at 530 Bushy Hill Road (Assessor's Map B20, Block 508, Lot 001-B). Zone B-3.
Application #14-44 was read into the record, but the Applicant was not present and the Board proceeded with the Agenda.
b. Application #14-48 of John M. McCarthy, Agent; Chestnut Hill Associates of Simsbury, LLC, Owner; for a Site Plan Amendment for The Ensign House at Chestnut Hill, consisting of 35 living units, on the property located at 690 Hopmeadow Street (Assessor's Map G11, Block 132, Lot 053). Zones SC-1 and SC-2.
Application #14-48 was read into the record.
Jackson Eno of 119 Westledge Road summarized that his family had partnered with the McCarthy Brothers in purchasing the historic building they are calling the Ensign House at 690 Hopmeadow Street. He grew up in Simsbury and has observed the previous historic downtown change from residential to commercial and watched in agony as many of the majestic old homes disappeared and did not want to see the Ensign House become another commercial site. The history of this property is unique to him because 104 years ago his father, Ralph Eno, was born in Simsbury and named for his uncle, Ralph Ensign; Ralph Ensign's son, Joseph Ralph Ensign, built the Ensign House and as he had no sons, he took Ralph Eno as his godson treating him as a son. Jackson Eno recalled attending Sunday School at the Ensign House and addition of the building annex. The Applicant believes downtown residential living is a very important aspect of Town development.
The Applicant's architect, Bill Crosskey, described the existing site, including: the primary brown structure in the center with teller plaza; the original house built in 1909 in the lower site portion; a 1960's addition toward the page top; a large parking lot in the rear to the east; and 2 curb cuts - one near the Drake Hill intersection and a more primary cut east of that. The architect described the proposed plan to demolish the addition to the original house and remove the raised southeast entry plaza; the original house would remain and be converted to 7 apartments. Two new 2 1/2-story buildings with 14 units each would be constructed - one at the south property line and one along the east property line. The center of the site would be almost flat with a slight slope toward the new construction which would sit a little lower than the house. The primary curb cut would remain and the smaller curb cut near the Drake Hill intersection would be eliminated; visitor parking, grade, and entry drive were noted. A one-story 7-bay garage would be constructed to serve the apartments in the original building with a trash collection area at the garage end. The front entrances of the new units would face visitor parking; a second drive along the east property line would come in from Drake Hill Road providing access to 15 parking spaces under a new building; 2 carports would provide 13 parking spaces; a basement-level entrance would provide 2 more parking spaces; and there would be a second trash enclosure in the southeast corner. They would save the existing trees and supplement some new trees, and replace overgrown bushes in front of the building; an existing brownstone wall with new bushes in front would remain and act to screen the new parking lot; there would be landscaping against the building, patios, and around the building perimeter; and two existing trees may need to be replaced due to construction.
The architect described the detailed plans for the existing house, including: a dumbwaiter to upper levels in the plan center; at the lowest level would be a direct entrance to the building at the northeast corner to a 2-bedroom unit with finished lower level and access to a new terrace with open living/dining/kitchen area; on the main level, the original front entrance would remain for two units with fireplaces and master bedroom units, sunroom and patio access on a corner of the building behind the curved brownstone wall and ramped access to the 7-bay garage building and the back unit would have a patio and open living with private entry under the covered porch area; on the 2nd floor the beautiful main stairwell would remain and entry would be through the side entrance - the front unit would be 2 bedrooms with a deck above the sunroom; the rear unit has a bedroom in each corner with open living space in the middle; and the top floor 2 units would be 1-bedroom and built under the roof slope with open living space. Utilizing historic tax credits following state and federal review, the exterior would be restored to its original appearance with roof repairs, woodwork painting, and brownstone restoration, as necessary. Various proposed views were shown to the Board.
The architect described the new east building driveway entry would be from Drake Hill to 15 garage bays with a storage space for each tenant, and entry to the building via common stairs in the building center to 2-bedroom flats on either side of the stairs to the first floor units with either sunroom or patio; the 2nd floor units provide a 2-bedroom townhouse at each of the four corners with identical layouts and open living. A goal of the proposed design for the sprinklered building was to provide an efficient means of egress for each unit with no more than 4 units per floor serviced by the stairwell and maximum travel distance of 50 feet to enter the stairwell. Exterior building elevations were shown to the Board which were modified following informal comments previously received from the Board to bring the building height down with more of the master bedrooms within the roof slope providing a 2 1/2-story look. The new construction building material was described as Brownstone-like material on the lower level with Hardy plank artisan siding with no corner boards and clapboards that fit together on the bevel and Hardy trim for the fascia, accent, and trim around the windows; the 2nd floor would have architectural-grade asphalt red-shingled roofs to match the house and wood double-hung windows throughout. Samples of siding color and material were shown to the Board. For discussion purposes, the Board was shown abstract computer models and artist renderings demonstrating the relationship between existing and new buildings, the proposed landscape and screening, and various street views.
The architect noted a comment was received from Staff asking they consider adding an entrance at the side of the new building to look like a facade from the street and the Board was shown a re-worked ground floor unit with entrance on the Drake Hill side. The Board was shown additional views with landscape screening moving around the building.
The Board asked about the steepness of the slope near the garages and retaining wall and the Applicant confirmed there was a significant drop off near the railroad track and while they have not yet worked out the details, they would like to keep the retaining wall in place.
The Board asked about the other materials to be used in the buildings, e.g. railing units, bump outs for the sunrooms, areas with a panelized look, etc. The architect responded that would be a composite material, as is the Hardy trim, and panel material would be MDF or a composite material and all painted surfaces; the siding would be a warm lighter version in the same family of colors, something like a coffee-color. Regarding the approximate 10-foot elevation change from the building west side to the retaining wall and the proposed entrance, the Board asked how that steep transition would be made. The Architect indicated that comment was recently received and has not yet been incorporated into the model and they are working with the civil engineer regarding how it would work, including the possibility of steps in that area.
The Board expressed agreement with the Mr. Eno's idea of having more residential units downtown and asked where the pedestrian connection would be to Hopmeadow Street moving north. The architect indicated current connections to the sidewalk, and crosswalk to the north; they are waiting for traffic safety information to see if another connection could come across. The Board asked what would be visible coming up Drake Hill Road from the bridge. The architect showed an artist view with an existing tree line they hope to keep intact, depending on the condition of the retaining wall. A commercial broker in the audience noted that a vacant lot to the east with a lot of trees is owned by the state and would remain for screening. However, the Board noted that if the existing wall had to be replaced, the trees would have to come down to the property line. The Applicant's representative responded that ideally they would like to keep the wall, but the grade varies and they have not yet worked out the engineering but it would be expensive to take down the wall. The architect looked at the existing survey with a grade of 178-180 and they would be at about the top of that wall and hope to leave the wall in place. The Board expressed concern that coming west on Drake Hill, a 2 1/2-story building sitting above the retaining wall would be very tall and visible. The Applicant's representative believed the trees provide good screening, but behind Fitzgeralds you would see that end of the building which would be 2 stories.
The Board reiterated concern about the composition of the 7-bay garage building in the center of the site which has now added an area for trash. The architect explained it provides convenient parking for residents of the existing building, screens the patio for the 1st floor rear unit, and a 2nd trash area is needed on the site which would be screened. The Board suggested that residents sitting on the patio would not want to look at the back of a garage. The architect indicated other garage locations were not feasible and it would be screened with landscaping. The Board suggested utilizing the same stone material to match the main building at least on the street side tying it in to all the other lower building levels. The architect explained the carport roofs would be similar to the 7-bay garage and they are not sure of how much would be covered yet; the roof edge would be about grade level with more screening. Regarding building trim, the architect clarified that the trim would be off-white. The Board expressed appreciation for the Applicant's efforts, including retaining the original building.
Board Member Carroll Drapelick made a motion that Application #14-48 of John M. McCarthy, Agent; Chestnut Hill Associates of Simsbury, LLC, Owner; for a Site Plan Amendment for The Ensign House at Chestnut Hill, consisting of 35 living units, on the property located at 690 Hopmeadow Street (Assessor's Map G11, Block 132, Lot 053). Zones SC-1 and SC-2, recommending to the Zoning Commission that the plan basically meets the needs of the Design Review with the caveat that the seven-bay garage behind the existing building be sided so as to match the main building to look as part of the main building, including the color of the siding and roofs as presented by the Applicant; and preference for an alternate entrance on Drake Hill Road for the east building as recommended by Staff, if possible.
Board Member Laschever seconded the motion, and it was passed with 4 Board Members in favor and 1 Board Member opposed.
c. Informal review of a Site Plan Amendment for 568 Hopmeadow Street (Assessor's Map G12, Block 132, Lot 037) and 570 Hopmeadow Street (Assessor's Map G12, Block 132, Lot 038). Zone B-1.
The Applicant's engineer presented a combined site plan for a new building and restoration of the Green Tea building at 568 and 570 Hopmeadow Street owned by husband and wife in limited liability corporations. The proposal would be to construct a new 2450 sq. ft. restaurant with 2 apartments on a separate adjacent parcel and renovate the existing 4050 sq. ft. Green Tea restaurant, which the Applicant runs and is purchasing. The very small parcel of undeveloped business property is .35 acres and the difficulties of putting a building on it caused the owner to decide to purchase that property and do a combined site plan. The Green Tea facility has a wide entrance, pavement crosses the state right of way line and also goes to the property line to the north; coverage on the existing site is 47% which is over the 40% allowed by regulations; the other parcel has about 97% coverage. They proposed: 1) narrowing the Green Tea entrance; 2) to introduce an island in the parking lot to break up the street view and provide traffic direction; 3) to move some pavement back out of the right of way and introduce landscaping; 4) to pull pavement back from the east property line; 5) to remove pavement on a side of the building; 6) a circulation pattern allows parking in the building rear and for commercial deliveries; and 7) a proposed trash area would be enclosed and not visible from Hopmeadow Street. The fascia of both the Green Tea and new buildings would be similar. They have reduced the overall hard surface on these 2 properties by about 7-8% while adding a building and improving aesthetics; the 24-foot wide driveway would be removed; an existing pole would now be in a landscaped area with drivers no longer entering/exiting the package store area on a diagonal which would increase safety. They would have the 47 parking spaces required by the Town Code with handicapped spaces near the entrances; and after these plans were done, a Staff suggestion was received to provide a separate pathway from the handicapped space to the new restaurant. The red lines over tan on the drawing would be for proposed outdoor dining areas. Cross easement drafts were provided to the Town for sharing access parking, underground utilities, delivery of goods, traffic patterns for customers, etc., and upon submission of the site plan to the Town for approval, the Town Engineer will modify them, as necessary.
The Applicant's architect proposed updating the existing building by removing the roof across the front covering the walkway and adding a new element announcing the entrance and adding symmetry utilizing simulated brownstone material with a band on the top providing a color transition, overhang and shadow line. On the main entrance flanking sides, they would remove the walkway entirely and provide pergolas to cover it creating an interesting shadow pattern and provide shading for potential seating; they would have the same effect on the opposite side of the building to unify the design. The proposed material would fit in with the look of the Town. Regarding the Green Tea 2nd floor small dormers and attic space, they would put in some larger windows for a mixed use building look; vinyl siding may be used, but has not been discussed at this point. Regarding the roof, they would put in a new English Gray slate line shingled 4 1/2 to 5 pitch shallow hip roof with membrane; the entrance would be covered with a pergola and the facade would come up to the roof structure.
The Applicant's architect proposed for the new building: 1) vinyl siding; 2) similar roofing; 3) a flat roof covered pergola protecting the seating area and announcing the entrance from the parking lot side; 4) introduction of cedar impression style plastic shingles; 5) mahogany with glass main entrance doors; 6) residential style double hung windows; and second floor apartments. The restaurant in this building would be complimentary to, but different than the Green Tea Restaurant. The Applicant's architect felt that utilizing a brownstone-type product would provide longevity to the look of these buildings. The Applicant's engineer explained the goal was to tie the two buildings together with the use of materials and the pergolas and as much green as possible; existing signage would be modified to serve both buildings. The Board discussed issues regarding signage and building visibility coming from north and south directions; the Applicant planned to wrap the stone at a low height around the perimeter, and full story stone on the front facing Hopmeadow; there would be a gable on the south side and no windows in order to meet the Fire Code. The Board noted this was an informal review and suggested when the Applicant returns they would like information on landscaping, signage and lighting, and to see north and south elevations. The Board expressed appreciation for the Applicant's efforts and felt this proposal was a significant improvement for this site. The Applicant's engineer indicated they would be asking the Planning and Zoning Commissions to change the material under the parking due to the incorporation of grass which should allow drivers to pull in to less than an 18-foot space.
d. Proposed 2015 Meeting Schedule
The Board discussed whether having meetings on the same day as Zoning should be changed to another day. The Zoning Chairman acknowledged the time constraints and pressures, but felt having joint presentations was advantageous and suggested that when the Board has a full Agenda that the Zoning Commission could begin their meetings at 7:30 p.m. It was also suggested that when a Board meeting runs longer the meeting be moved to another room and continued.
Board Member Drapelick made a motion to approve the Proposed 2015 Meeting Schedule.
The Board noted that Vincent’s Sports Shop porch had been taken down. Town Staff indicated they plan to come in soon to show how they would repair/replace the overhang in front of the store. The Board noted the Department of the Interior once had a program entitled "New England Store Fronts" providing guidance regarding what is appropriate for such repairs/restoration. Town Staff will advise the Board as soon as they receive something for this historic building.
Board Member Laschever seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from October 6, 2014
Board Member Drapelick made a motion to approve the October 6, 2014 minutes, as written.
Board Member Laschever seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Board Member Laschever made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Board Member Drapelick seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
_____________________________
John Carroll, Secretary