Historic District Commission Minutes 07/07/2016
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
JULY 7, 2016
MINUTES FROM REGULAR MEETING
I. ROLL CALL
Acting Chairperson Marguerite Rodney opened the Regular Meeting of the Historic District Commission at 7:30 p.m. in the Main Meeting Room at the Town Offices. Other members in attendance were Betty Woollacott, Julie Carmelich, and Patricia Hyyppa. Also present were Michael Glidden, Assistant Town Planner; Janis Prifti, Commission Clerk; and other interested parties.
II. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
Chairperson Rodney appointed Julie Carmelich as a voting member.
III. APPLICATIONS
1. Public Hearing(s)
a. Application #16-02 of Simsbury Land Trust, Owner, for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a parking area on the property located at East Weatogue Street (Assessor’s Map H11, Block 106, Lot 037A). Zones R-40 and R-80. (received 05/31/2016; decision must be rendered y 08/04/2016)
2. Discussion and Possible Action
a. Application #16-02 of Simsbury Land Trust, Owner, for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a parking area on the property located at East Weatogue Street (Assessor’s Map H11, Block 106, Lot 037A). Zones R-40 and R-80. (received 05/31/2016; decision must be rendered y 08/04/2016)
Chairperson Rodney opened the Public Hearing at 7:33 p.m. and read Application #16-02 into the record.
Fred Feibel from the Land Trust indicated they are trying to get cars off the street and would like to put gravel in the area determined by engineers to be the best location. Regarding how the area for the apron was selected by the engineers, Mr. Feibel explained there is limited property adjacent to the street and the proposed location provides good visibility for cars traveling in both directions on the street and for cars pulling out, and would minimize any digging Chairperson Rodney asked if alternative locations were considered so no trees are disturbed. Mr. Feibel believed that was taken into account and noted the Town was involved in the decision. Michael Glidden, Assistant Town Planner, explained Staff met with the Applicant and their agent concerning locating a curb cut for the future parking lot. Mr. Glidden clarified the Application review tonight is for Phase 1 only, which is for the curb cut shown by the shaded area on the drawing provided to the Commission; the proposed gravel apron would be 30’ x 22’ and is adjacent to Hartford Electric Light telephone pole 1478 on East Weatogue Street. Mr. Glidden indicated the Applicant’s engineer felt the location chosen would provide the safest site line north/south on East Weatogue Street; also, their initial proposal called for removal of significant vegetation, and this location reduces that amount. Mr. Glidden added that the Applicant will return to the Commission with a proposal for the Phase 2 parking lot remainder of the project. He indicated this Application will go to the Zoning Commission on Monday, July 11th, as the use is specially permitted in the residential zoning district; this is a unique situation requiring more subjective review by this Commission of the proposed activities shown in Phase 1 and whether the Commission feels those activities impact the overall character or sense of place in this area; and if so, what are the specific concerns regarding those activities, some of which are outlined in the Staff report.
Commissioner Carmelich asked why the trees highlighted in orange need to be removed? Mr. Glidden responded they are labeled to be removed on the plan mainly to accommodate site line, which would involve clearing and grading activities in the right of way. He provided the Commission with 3 photos – north, south, and directly across from the proposed apron – noting in Photo #3 that trees marked with an X to the left of the phone pole would be removed - a total of 4 trees would be removed; and the extent of construction would be in the shaded area with potential additional minor grading east of the proposed cut to assure there are no drainage issues that could wash the driveway out; and proposed treatment of the graded area would be grass. Mr. Glidden indicated Staff has requested verification of sight lines in order to minimize both the physical impact of clearing to the edge of the road as well as visual impact to the road. Chairperson Rodney asked about the expected volume of cars in the proposed parking area? Mr. Feibel responded there could randomly be several cars parked, but not all the time; he noted there have been complaints about cars parked on the street. Commissioner Carmelich asked about signage alerting people this area is available to them for parking? Mr. Feibel indicated they usually have signs set back from the road, similar to their other properties. Mr. Glidden recalled about a year ago the Commission issued a permit for installation of a footbridge and kiosk with maps, but they are interior to the site and not near the road. Chairperson Rodney asked where else people park now to access this site? Mr. Feibel indicated currently there was no place closer to park than by the Flower Bridge at the river. Mr. House indicated cars park near his property across from the Boy Scout entrance. Commissioner Hyyppa noted review is only for the apron and that eventually Phase 2 will be presented and asked what “eventually” is? Mr. Feibel responded that the Land Trust currently did not have the financial capacity to do the Phase 2 parking lot construction.
Rita Jepson of 137 East Weatogue Street noted the previous plan was for a paved entrance and the current plan for a gravel surface could be a hazard in terms of loose gravel being tossed onto the road, which has fast moving traffic, joggers, and bicyclists. Mr. Feibel believed any gravel would go back into the area as people exit and that the grade is very slight and almost flat. Mrs. Jepson was also concerned with aesthetics within the historic community and that a parking lot visible from the road would be unattractive along a scenic route and asked if the Land Trust planned to create a natural barrier of trees or plants to obscure the site, given the plan for 11 parking spaces and 1 handicapped van? Regarding signage, she lives across the street and noted while it is a narrow scenic street, it is also a commuter street from/to Granby with cars moving fast, along with runners and bicyclists; and she believed people will not know to park there unless there is appropriate signage. She had both aesthetic and safety concerns regarding the gravel. Mr. Feibel indicated the Land Trust’s safety concern was people parking along the road and noted Town regulations determine how close signs can be to the road; people accessing the Land Trust website will know about the parking location once it is available for use – currently, people have been requested to not go to the area and park.
Sue Bednarcyk of 119 East Weatogue Street thanked the Simsbury Land Trust for its critical preservation of the land. She discussed working with the neighbors to make things work, including providing parking for visitors to the area, and was concerned about removal of trees given the existing drainage issues from the existing driveway. She acknowledged this Commission does not deal with drainage, but did not understand why the Application was not going to the Conservation Commission for the drainage issues given close proximity to Lucy Brook. She believes it is well intended and should be done right and spoke with Dick Davis who indicated there would be 11 logs for parking; she offered to call Eversource to ask for the phone pole to be removed as it is a scenic road and there is concern about cutting down trees. She indicated this is a 10+ in her book and a wonderful thing, but there is concern about buffering and a sign “Closed at Dark” may be needed because kids will go there to party. She was also concerned about cars regularly parked on the street so “No Parking” signs are required; and the Police acknowledge they cannot control speeding in that area on East Weatogue Street. She noted long-time drainage problems and the need to not impact wetlands, the Town, the road, or the neighbors. She understood the need not to pave the area, but believed there must be another option to the gravel surface.
Commissioner Woollacott believed the Land Trust as the owner will take care of the property and the public will not be able to pop in as they wish. Arthur House of East Weatogue Street responded that there is no one there to stop them and his concern was to keep people from parking on his and neighbor’s property making it far more dangerous. He would like to get people off the street and to protect the area, which is a speed trap road and far more dangerous. He was concerned about having a parking lot in the Historic District and how you get people up into the parking area.
Chairperson Rodney read a letter into the record opposing Application #16-02 from Don MacQuattie of 133 East Weatogue Street as he was unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Feibel responded to the letter that any cars in the lot will not be obvious or a big eyesore; once everything is set up the Police will be able to monitor activity on the site. He believed people looking for that hiking site, will notice appropriate nice signage indicating where to park; the parking area would be at the trail head, which is the only available location as all other access is through private property; and there will not be a lot of cars, but they will park in the lot rather than on the road. Mrs. Jepson did not believe anyone knows how many cars will park there, not everyone will go to the website, and the cars would be visible in the parking area in a scenic district – are there plans to create hedges? Mr. Feibel believed that would be the easiest part. Mrs. Jepson expressed the need for the area to be well managed, including signage.
Commissioners Carmelich noted discussion of materials in the Historic District Handbook and that there are permeable pavers as an alternative that could provide a firm surface but allow water to drain through and grass to grow; she was concerned about a gravel apron and would like to see an alternative that blends nicely into the landscape considered. Mr. Feibel indicated the Land Trust would like to be as unobtrusive as possible. Commissioner Carmelich recommended investigating more appropriate current material alternatives. Mr. Glidden recommended following the Applicant’s investigation of alternative surface treatments, that they then present that information to the Commission; while the Applicant has financial concerns, it is within the Historic District Commission’s purview to request seeing the various options; other comments regarding parking area screening fall under Commission review for a COA and the Commission can request a longer term plan working with the neighbors. Regarding approval of plantings and landscaping, Mr. Glidden believed in this case that various treatments and appropriate native vegetation should be taken into account for this Application. He did not recommend approving a change to a plan until a physical representation is presented to the Commission; however, a decision for this Application is required by 08/03/2016 to be safe; otherwise a special meeting would be required. Commissioner Hyyppa clarified this is a discussion of Phase 1 and Mr. Glidden confirmed that, but other concerns have been brought to the table with the potential to table and continue the Hearing with direction provided to the Applicant. The Commissioners discussed the need for more information on signage; Mr. House noted the need for positive signage directing people to the parking area considering the impact of the appearance of parked cars on a scenic road, otherwise about 150 yards of unattractive “No Parking” signs would be needed. Mr. Glidden noted the need to provide the Applicant with direction regarding not seeing cars at all or 60-90% of visual impact; Commissioner Carmelich felt there were adequate trees present for screening; Mr. Feibel noted that of all their properties in Town, this was the one that received the most support from residents for preservation and they are trying to find a way to access it. Mr. Feibel was filling in for T.J. Donohue and asked if the questions will be written up to reflect this discussion for the Land Trust to respond to? Mr. Glidden responded 1) that the meeting minutes will reflect the Commission’s action; and 2) Staff will follow up with the Applicant’s agent and relay the Commission’s concern so he can address them with the design team.
Ms. Bednarczyk asked if the Application would go to the Wetlands Commission? Mr. Glidden responded it would not because there is no activity within 100 feet of mapped wetlands or a watercourse; however, in Phase 2 for the parking lot it would go to both the Conservation Commission and the Zoning Commission. Commissioner Carmelich asked when the Conservation Commission would have jurisdiction over the parking area? Mr. Glidden responded it would be for the excavation of soil or deposited materials; and site improvements, e.g. grading, would be handled by the Zoning Commission. Mrs. Jepson was concerned that when the apron is created the parking area could function for a long time with long-term impact on Lucy Brook with no supervision from the Conservation Commission; Mr. Glidden indicated that a future trigger event, e.g. erosion and sediment control for the Brook, could cause the Conservation Commission to require the Applicant address the problem. Mrs. Jepson noted there are cars present for that area every day; Mr. Glidden indicated that the Zoning Commission can address and regulate the curb cut subject to enforcement actions and these are valid points to bring up at the Zoning Commission hearing. Ms. Bednarczyk recalled when she was on the Planning Commission that entire projects were evaluated, because doing projects in pieces can get the Town into trouble. Mrs. Jepson was concerned that creating an apron where cars go in creates an opening and does not anticipate possible problems and the impact on the environment; she frequently sees cars parked in front of her house, typically 2-4 staggered throughout the day. Ms. Bednarczyk recalled the negative impact on drainage from the subdivision that went in near her home and emphasized the need for everything to be protected, e.g. a parked car could leak oil that gets into Lucy Brook. Mrs. Jepson agreed it would be good to work with the property owners on East Weatogue Street to develop a well-coordinated plan. Commissioner Carmelich expressed similar concern that the project should be looked at holistically, including Phases 1 and 2, in order to make a sound judgment and acknowledged the Land Trust’s benefit to the community. Mr. Glidden noted that granting the COA for the curb cut does not require approval of Phase 2; however, it may limit the scope of review; if the Commission is not comfortable with that phased review, Staff recommends denying the request and sending the message the Commission wants a complete picture; the Applicant’s agent cut back the scope of their request and this is a specially permitted use by Zoning, so reasonable use of the property would not be denied.
Chairperson Rodney asked if once the apron is created, is the Land Trust under obligation within a certain period of time to provide access for handicapped parking? Mr. Glidden responded ADA parking has to be on pavement, and usually for a public place, ADA parking has to be provided. He would stay with voting in the direction of what the Commission is comfortable with. Chairperson Rodney noted the need for more options in terms of apron material; more information regarding signage – what it looks like and what it says; more information on proposed partial screening of the parking area looking at the whole plan; the concerns of the impact of the parking lot on Lucy Brook and also on ADA parking access. Mrs. Jepson was concerned if there are financial issues now, that the Commission address the impact of those concerns on the whole project before starting down the road. The Commissioners discussed that the Applicant will need adequate time to prepare a plan addressing the issues discussed at this meeting.
Chairperson Rodney made a motion to close the Public Hearing at 8:44 p.m.
Commissioner Carmelich seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.
Chairperson Rodney made a motion to deny Application #16-02 based on the number of questions raised in looking at Phase 1 and the need for the Commission to have more information about the total project in order to make a decision on the first proposed phase. The Commission has raised questions about the material for the apron and that permeable material options could be explored; no information has been provided about the signage, either on the street or in the parking area; no information has been provided on proposed screening of the parking area; the Commission would like to see the bounds of the parking area defined; and the implication of whether handicapped accessible parking is required and what improvements may be associated, keeping in mind potential for visual impact.
Commissioner Carmelich seconded the motion, and it passed with Commissioners Rodney, Carmelich and Hyyppa in favor of denial and Commissioner Woollacott abstaining.
Commissioner Woollacott requested that the audio system be operating to allow for better hearing of the softer voices during the discussion.
IV. GENERAL COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Correspondence
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the June 2, 2016 Regular meeting and the June 6, 2016 special meeting
For the June 2, 2016 Regular Meeting:
Chairperson Rodney made a motion to approve the June 2, 2016 minutes, as written.
Commissioner Carmelich seconded the motion, and it was passed with Commissioners Rodney, Carmelich and Hyyppa in favor and Commissioner Woollacott abstaining.
For the June 6, 2016 Special Meeting:
Chairperson Rodney made a motion to approve the June 6, 2016 minutes, as written.
Commissioner Carmelich seconded the motion, and it was passed with Commissioners Rodney, Carmelich and Hyyppa in favor and Commissioner Woollacott abstaining.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Rodney made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
Commissioner Carmelich seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously.