DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING – TUESDAY, JANUARY, 11, 2005
SIMSBURY TOWN OFFICES - 5:30 P.M – MAIN MEETING ROOM
CALL TO ORDER
Emil Dahlquist, Chairman, called the Meeting of the Design and Review Board to order at
5: 30PM in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: John Stewart, Charles Stephenson, Mark Naccarato, Kevin Gray, John Carroll, Linda Kennedy, and Richard Schoenhardt.
APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
Mr. Stephenson was appointed to serve for Mr. Gardner.
Chairman Dahlquist announced an agenda change to include an informal presentation and asked for a motion to include it.
Mr. Gray motioned to amend the agenda to include the informal presentation.
Mr. Carroll seconded with all in favor.
III. INFORMAL PRESENTATION
A. Application of Grove Capital, Steve Walker presenting for change to a site plan on property located at Simsburytown Shops, 930 Hopmeadow Street in Simsbury.
Mr. Steve Walker stated that due to the fact the space is being leased to one tenant only; (Starbucks) some changes have been made to the previous design. The building style will remain the same, but there will only be one sign band and only one front door to the building. There has also been a little bit more siding added. Lighting has not changed, and the column number has not changed.
Chairman Dahlquist asked whether in the future the building might need to house two tenants instead of the one. Mr. Walker explained that the structure doesn’t allow for two tenants, adding that they also have an agreement with the tenant where they would take up 1,900 square feet of the downstairs space.
Questions were asked in regards to the signage. Mr. Walker said they want to match the signs currently seen at the Simsburytown Shops, white with gold leaf.
Mr. Stephenson asked what type of surface would be used between the 1st and 2nd floors to affix the signs. Mr. Walker answered that they will use an MDO board so that no seems or joints will be visible, or another option is a PVC board. The board will be painted white.
Mr. Schoenhardt asked about the material between the upper windows and lower windows. Mr. Walker stated it is existing clapboard.
Chairman Dahlquist asked how the sign will be illuminated. Mr. Walker stated it will be externally lit using gooseneck lamps. Mr.Walker also added that they will come back with a signage package.
Chairman Dahlquist told Mr. Walker to ask Mr. Voelker if the new plan should go before the planning and zoning.
A motion was made by Mr. Stephenson to convert the application from an informal presentation to a formal presentation. It was seconded by Mr. Gray with all in favor.
A motion was made by Mr. Stephenson to approve the application as presented as per the modifications illustrated on revised drawings dated 9/30/04.
It was seconded by Mr. Stewart with all in favor.
Chairman Dahlquist noted that the applicant will return with a signage package presentation, since signage is not part of the current application.
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Review of the language of the Simsbury Charter Revision Committee
Chairman Dahlquist spoke on the Charter Revision Review first. He stated that Mr. Carroll drafted proposed charter language, which was handed out to board members.
Mr. Carroll explained the aspects of the draft, noting firstly that the language he used is similar to the charter languages of other boards. He also explained that it is subject to legal review and whether it meets the statues.
Beginning from the top of the draft, Mr. Carroll has suggested the following:
1.Section 715 be changed to Chapter 7 Section 7** and let them pick their own numbers.
2. No alternates. All ten members should be able to vote.
3. Members shall serve for 3 years.
Board members discussed the use or not of alternates, quorums for meetings, 3-year terms, and residency requirements. There was agreement about having no alternates and 3-year terms for members. As to the residency requirement, Mr. Carroll stated that members all board and committee members have to be town residents, except in the case of the Building Code of Appeals Board.
Board members discussed the wording of the draft and suggested changes. The board members agreed to the changes, with Mr. Carroll noting as well that there must be a reference to the statutes and to the Board of Selectmen in the charter language.
Chairman Dahlquist will give the draft to Lois Laczko to type up and submit to the Charter Revision Committee.
B. Review of the Simsbury Design Review Board’s role, process and goals
Chairman Dahlquist stated he spoke with Mr. Howard Beach, Conservation Officer, about follow through on decisions made by the Board. Mr. Beach was amenable to taking on the task of finalizing a workable format for following through on decisions made. Chairman Dahlquist will be working on this with him.
Chairman Dahlquist discussed the need for a merging of planning/zoning regulations and design. He said zoning should find a role for some type of regional planning (transportation, land use, and population distribution).
In regards to dealing with applications, there was a discussion surrounding the fact that the board should spend less time deliberating on detailed issues, and “trying to design” the project for the applicant.
Chairman Dahlquist read a legal opinion entitled “Anderson et al vs. the city of Issaquah,” from the State of Washington on design review.
Court declared that design review is a legitimate extension of zoning authority.
To be defensible, a design review procedure must include standards that will give unambiguous direction to applicants, designers, and decision-makers. Terms that are used must be defined and explained through documents available to all parties in advance of the review.
The decision making body must follow adoptive criteria and not set them aside substituting personal opinion.
Mr. Gray stated that there must be a repeatable process for every review as well as a standard procedure, making the process consistent and simpler for the board and the applicants.
In response to this comment, Chairman Dahlquist said he took the design guidelines and made a checklist to follow when reviewing each application. He said he would e-mail the members on this. Board members thought this was an excellent idea and there was a discussion about how to formatting the checklist.
Mr. Schoenhardt added that the checklist and the design booklet should be given to the applicant at the beginning of the process.
Mr. Stewart agreed with Mr. Schoenhardt and added that if the process is followed both by the board and the applicants, the word will get out that the process is simple and clear-cut.
V. CORRESPONDENCE
There are seminars on design and building at Central CT, taking place on 1/21/05.
VI. STAFF REPORTS
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES of December 14, 2004
Mr. Stewart motioned to approve the minutes.
Ms. Kennedy seconded with all in favor.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Schoenhardt motioned to adjourn the meeting at 6:55pm. Mr. Gray seconded with all in favor.
| 
