DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING – TUESDAY, February, 22, 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: 30 PM in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: Linda Kennedy, John Stewart, Charles Stephenson, Kevin Gray, Anthony Drapelick, John Carroll, Mark Naccarato, Richard Schoenhardt.
APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
Mr. Carroll was appointed to serve for Mr. Gardner.
PRESENTATION
a. Application of David Holden, Business Manager-Simsbury Public Schools, Simsbury Board of Education-Owner, Barry Blades, Blades and Goven Landscape Architects, Agent, for a Site Plan Amendment for track and field renovations at Simsbury High School, 34 Farms Village Road.
Mr Barry Blades, Principal Blades and Goven, and the Athletic Director for Simsbury High were present to discuss the application with the board.
The project consists of the renovation of the existing track and field area. They propose building an eight lane all weather surface track in approximately the same location as the existing track. The field on the interior of the track will be used for soccer, football, and lacrosse.
There will be some lost parking space. The sixth tennis court closest to the current track will be lost because of the expansion, but another one will be added on the other side. The home bleachers will stay, and the field will be centered on the bleachers. There will be new pits for the long jump and triple jump, and a new discus cage built. The shot-put area will remain, as will the concession stand and ticket booth window. No new permanent structures will be built. However, a portable set of bleachers with a 400-seat capacity will be installed on the visitor side of the field. There will be an eight-foot wide bituminous walkway encircling the track for ADA accessibility. A new walkway will be installed around the entire perimeter of the track both for spectator viewing and handicapped access. There
will be two primary entrances for spectators. The project will begin late spring. The goal is to have it ready for the fall.
Chairman Dahlquist asked about the lighting systems. Mr. Blades explained that the lighting, currently being bid out, will consist of four 70-foot poles placed around the field providing 30 to 50-foot candle field illumination. They will be mandating that manufacturers have candles with spill and glare control built into the fixtures. Mr. Blades handed out a brochure for the board’s perusal. He explained that the lighting levels will be bid as an alternate. The two major alternates will be bidding on the sports lighting and the visitor side bleachers, and then several other small alternates, depending on cost analysis.
Mr. Stewart asked about the bleacher system to be used. Mr. Blades said they have general information, but have not specified any particular one to use. He noted that the bleachers will be ADA compliant.
Mr. Stewart asked about the removal of the tennis court. Mr. Blades explained that the replacement court will butt up against the existing court, there will be no fencing in between them. There will however be a difference in appearance between the new and existing court.
Mr. Stewart asked about the new track and turf system. Mr. Blades explained that it will be a polyurethane track with ½ inch thick polyurethane and rubber base mat with 2 coats of structural spray on top. He stated that it is one of the most common and cost effective track systems for high schools. Many manufacturers can meet the track specifications. They have not yet decided on a turf system, but will be visiting many sites to compare products.
Chairman Dahlquist asked about signage. Mr. Blades answered that per the High School, the existing scoreboard will remain.
Mr. Stewart asked about the perimeter bituminous walk around the track. Mr. Blades answered that the walk is contiguous with the track surface. There is also a standard chain-link fence separating the two.
Chairman Dahlquist asked if alternatives for the site were discussed. It was explained that they looked at different sites, but it would have increased the cost. Also, the home bleacher system, press box, and the scoreboard are already in place. As well, the parking is close to the field. It was stated that if the if track were to be built at the rear of the facility, the current field space would be taken away. Mr. Blades said that the site is tight, but doable. The small amount of parking spaces lost was acceptable to the school.
Mr. Drapelick asked what would be seen from the road. Mr. Blades said that the most significant change seen will be the red color of the track surface.
Mr. Drapelick asked about the size of the visitor bleachers. Mr. Blades said that they will install an eight-row set of bleachers with the first row elevated. They will be 8 feet in height. He added that the bleachers will most likely be shorter than they are currently, but a bit wider.
Mr. Schoenhardt asked why the color red was decided on as the track color. Mr. Blades explained that while there are other colors to choose from, red is the best because it lasts longest under the sun. He added that blue fades very quickly under uv rays.
Mr. Stewart asked about the interior field. Mr. Blades noted that the field will be 360’ x 214’. The school was encouraged to narrow the field’s width in order to have more room between the field and the track for players to stand.
Mr. Stewart asked if the sports edge system will be used. Mr. Blades answered yes, the trench drain system will be used along the interior, as well as slot drains.
Mr. Naccarato asked Mr. Blades to explain the current lighting system versus the new.
Mr. Blades explained that currently there is parking lot lighting only. The new lighting will be used only during night games. The tennis courts will have no lighting. However there will be low-level lighting capabilities (>30ft candles) for night joggers, and for maintenance. There will also be emergency lights built into the system.
Mr. Schoenhardt asked if it were possible to have all of the bleachers on one side, so as not to have a back view of the bleachers. Mr. Blades said there have always been problems with having home and visitors on the same side. Mr. Stewart added that the price for doing this is also high.
Mr. Schoenhardt asked if some type of a graphic on the back. Mr. Stewart mentioned that on one project a company an area beneath the bleachers to use as storage, but it was expensive.
Chairman Dahlquist asked if any other concession stands will be erected. Mr. Blades answered that the current concession stand and ticket booth will remain.
Mr. Naccarato asked if there was a path/walkway plan for people to get from the school to the field. The parking lot aspect of the project is being handled by designers of the high school. It was explained that there is a striped walkway area through the parking lot to get to the field.
Mr. Stewart said that to be pro-active they should consider putting in some handicapped parking spaces near the bleachers.
Mr. Stephenson asked about the width between the parking bays. Mr. Blades explained there are mostly full-size spaces in the center and compact spaces around the perimeter.
Mr. Stephenson asked about the broken back type of track, and how common it is.
Mr. Blades said that it is very common, since soccer became the rage. There was a discussion about the layout of the track.
Chairman Dalquist asked whether landscaping is proposed. Mr. Blades stated that no new plant materials proposed. They will be stabilizing the surface with lawn. There will be a loss of one to two trees to make room for the parking expansion. He explained that there really is no budget for landscaping. For security and maintenance reasons they do not want trees/landscaping near the track, because it screens the track from the road, and also blows leaves onto the track.
Mr. Gray asked about the spacing between the visitor side bleachers and the back fence.
Mr. Blades stated that there is about five feet of space between the two, but they still have to study this. He added that they might have to add some fabric to the area.
Mr. Carroll asked if lighting is included with the proposal. Mr. Blades stated that they are proposing 30 or 50-foot candles, but the preference is for a 50-foot candle system.
Chairman Dahlquist said he has issues with approving something without seeing the actual appearance of the lighting.
Mr. Blades distributed lighting designs for the board to see.
Chairman Dahlquist asked if a study was done about the impact of the light spillage. Mr. Blades said that at the zoning meeting a representative from Musco will be present to explain this.
The board discussed the site layout and possible spillage. It was decided that the lighting is a big issue of the project. Mr. Blades added that they are preparing to go in depth as to the lighting issue at the zoning meeting.
The board discussed excluding lighting from the application, and having them come back again to discuss the lighting proposal.
Mr. Schoenhardt asked if lower poles would be possible, wondering what the impact would be for 60-foot poles. Mr. Blades said they do not propose going lower than 70-foot poles. As for an alternative pole height Mr. Blades stated that they would have to discuss with Muskoe representative.
Mr. Carroll noted that a special meeting could be scheduled in order to discuss the lighting. Members agreed with this. Mr. Blades said that he would have to check with Mr. Voelker.
Board members said they would like to see the effect of alternative pole heights, and effective cut-off to neighboring properties.
Motion
Mr. Gray made a motion that no action take place on this application due to the lack of information about the lighting proposed for the site, specifically the lighting level at ground level in the area adjacent to the athletic field. Mr. Naccarato seconded, with all in favor.
There is a special meeting tentatively scheduled for Tuesday March 1, 2005 to discuss the proposed lighting on this application.
INFORMAL PRESENTATION
b. P.J. Louis, Regional Sales Manager, William Raveis Real Estate, to review proposed Site Plan Amendment for a location change of a sign on property located at William Raveis Real Estate, 961 Hopmeadow Street. (continued from 2/8/05 meeting).
Applicant was not present at the meeting.
DISCUSSION
a. Village Design
Chairman Dahlquist discussed the handout entitled, “Village Design.” The discussion centered around guidelines of design types, as well as patterns seen in specific areas of Simsbury. Chairman Dahlquist wants the board to develop their position on the design guidelines, and also get the community involved in the process.
There was a discussion about the process of how to facilitate the public interest in design.
The Board discussed the Village of Tariffville, and The Simbury Land Trust and how they have progressed.
Mr. Carroll asked about feedback regarding the charette. He said it was well done and presented, but nothing has been done with it yet. Chairman Dahlquist said that maybe the board should use some ideas from the charette. The board suggested that most of Simsbury has no idea about this.
The board also discussed signage guidelines, with respect to design guidelines and zoning regulations. Mr. Naccarato noted that while the idea is to try and encourage people to walk through the community, the signs in town are scaled for the automobiles.
Chairman Dahlquist asked board members to reread the guidelines and come up with ideas on the best way to approach signage.
Mr. Schoenhardt asked if members could have a copy of the current sign guidelines for the next meeting.
CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman Dahlquist noted that the Town of Norwich will be attending one of the board’s future meeting.
STAFF REPORTS
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF February 8, 2005
Ms. Kennedy motioned to approve the minutes of February 8, 2005 with a correction.
Mr. Carroll seconded with all in favor, Mr. Schoenhardt abstaining.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Drapelick motioned to adjourn the meeting at 7 PM.
Ms. Kennedy seconded with all in favor.
| 
