DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING – TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 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, Charles Stephenson, Kevin Gray, Anthony Drapelick, Mark Naccarato, and Richard Schoenhardt.
APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
Mr. Stephenson was appointed to serve for Mr. Stewart.
Mr. Drapelick was appointed to serve for Mr. Gardner.
PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION, AND POSSIBLE VOTE
a. Application of Martha Hickey, Owner, for Sign Approval on property located at Doggie in the Window, 1522 Hopmeadow Street. (continued from 9/13/05 meeting)
Ms. Martha Hickey and her sister Ellen Hickey were present to discuss the application, and handed out photos and pictures of the site and signs to the board.
Ms. Ellen Hickey explained that changes made since the last meeting include the following: adding curtains to the dog in the window sign, adding LLC to the sign (a legal requirement), and placing only two 23 square foot signs on two sides of the building, the left elevation and the right elevation, as opposed to three sides.
Ms. Hickey clarified the size, colors, and details of each of the three components of the sign. As for the lighting, each sign is to be illuminated by three light fixtures, such as those seen at Holloway’s, using 60-watt fluorescent bulbs, and spaced 18 inches apart. She explained that there are already existing fixtures using 60-watt bulbs, which illuminate the front door and will therefore illuminate the address of the business.
They are proposing installation of a white PVC picket style fence for the front elevation, which will be gated. Abutting the corner of the building from Wolcott Street, they propose installing a 6-foot high stockade style fence, which would contain noise better and also provide safety for the dogs.
They would like to decide on the landscaping of the property until such time as they can get a full picture of how the snow, and snow removal affects the site. This fall they will reseed the area and add perennials and oriental grasses. They wish to remove the “tree/bush “along the front elevation.
As for parking, Ms. Hickey noted there is ample parking for this type of facility. She noted that a regular day care facility requires one space per every 500 feet. They have 3,000 square feet or 6 spaces. She noted on the handout where the spaces and handicapped spaces are available. If it was determined that more spaces are needed there are about 6-7 more spaces that could be designated on the property.
Chairman Dahlquist asked if any of the pavement is to be removed. Ms. Hickey said no. She added that the back of the site would be excavated and peastone put down, and stated that Paine’s will remove the waste. Ms. Hickey noted that they did receive approval to have this type of business over an aquifer protection site.
The board asked questions concerning the signage. They discussed installing two lighting fixtures, instead of three, along the sides of the signs, which would look better than over the top of the sign. The board also expressed that a smaller lighting fixture would not detract from the look.
They Board felt the picket fence on the Hopmeadow side is fine, but expressed concern over the board commented on the 76-foot long stockade fencing, and offered suggestions to break up the look. It was expressed that the stockade fence is very shiny and reflects light. Mr. Loren Rosen of ArtFX expressed that the sheen of the fence could be removed by using an abrasive. Ms. Hickey also explained that the stockade fence will be contoured down. Members expressed an interest in having the stockade fence be green instead of white.
Mr. Naccarato expressed that the stockade fence located along the Wolcott Street side and running parallel with the street should have a 4-foot deep indentation at its’ midway point where plantings could be implemented, which would break up the look of the fence and not impact the budget.
The paving along the front was discussed. Ms. Hickey informed the Board that they would be willing to place planters on the pavement in front of the building.
Motion
Mr. Gray motioned to approve the application with the following understandings:
There will be two signs, one on the front elevation and one on the left elevation of the building.
At each sign location there will be two lighting fixtures, each will be affixed on either side of the “Doggie in the Window” logo and located slightly towards the top of the sign. The type of fixtures will be similar to those at “Holloway’s”, but the smallest fixture, in size and scale, as practical for the application will be used. The light source will be metal halide.
The canopies are not shown on the elevations, but are intended to remain as part of the project.
The Board expressed no objections as to the location of the 4-foot high picket fence on the Hopmeadow Street side, nor to the gates proposed therein.
The 25-foot long stockade fence located along the Wolcott Street side and running parallel with street is to have a 4-foot deep indentation at its’ midway point where plantings will be implemented in order to break up the look of the fence.
The stockade fence will be a dark green color, and its’ glossy finish will be removed with an abrasive application.
Lighting fixtures currently at the site will remain.
The Board recommends that the tree/bush on the Hopmeadow side be removed to improve site lines from traffic exiting from Wolcott Street, but it is understood that the bushes are in the right of way and the owner must contact the State to receive approval to remove them.
The owners are proposing to go through one winter season before deciding on the placement of plantings (perennials, grasses, etc) as proposed on pictures submitted. The plantings will be placed outside of the fences along Hopmeadow Street and Wolcott Street.
The paving is to remain in place. The owners are taking under consideration the removal of some of the paving at the front of the building, but would be willing to put in large planters with all season plants in the pots in lieu of removing the paving.
Mr. Drapelick seconded with all in favor.
Mr. Gray asked about shading for the dogs. Ms. Hickey stated that they have plans to evaluate shading, adding that the dogs are not exposed to the elements for long periods of time.
The board commended the applicants for the volume of photos and details brought to the meeting.
b. Application of Louis George, Massaco Properties, LLC, Owner, Kim Lingard, Artfx Signs, Agent, for Sign Plan Approval on property located at Hassett & George, 945 Hopmeadow Street.
Mr. Loren Rosen, ArtFx Signs was present to address the board, and handed out pictures of the building.
Mr. Loren explained the idea process by which the look of the new Hassett & George sign came to be. He showed the board the two looks of the sign, noting that he and the owner prefer the look of the sign with the larger wrought iron “fence”. He stated that there is also a pre-existing sign directory on the site, which will remain.
He noted on the plan where the sign would be located and added that it will be perpendicular to Hopmeadow Street. The one sign that is currently located at the site on Hopmeadow will be removed and the new sign put in its’ place.
As for the landscaping, Mr. Loren stated that the applicant had wanted him to present it to the Board. The Board and Mr. Loren came to the conclusion that Mr. Loren did not have enough information on the landscaping to give a comprehensive presentation.
Mr. Schoenhardt stated that action should not be taken on this application because the site plan is not up to date and is inaccurate. He stated that the plan shows the Massaco Street sign as a new sign, and it is not. The plan also shows a stone wall on Hopmeadow Street, which will not be there. Because of this, the Board decided to restrict the discussion to the signage only, and determined that they need more information on the other aspects of the application.
As for the lighting, Mr. Loren said two 75-watt metal halides are to be used. They will be aimed in a criss-cross fashion, be 4 feet back and shuttered, and located approximately 1 foot in from each side of the sign. There will be plantings in front. The board questioned the use of the 75-watt light. Mr. Loren said that he would be amenable to changing them to 50-watt metal halides if the Board wished. He noted that J. Foster business uses 75-watt lights.
The Board discussed the sign design. Mr. Schoenhardt expressed that the design with larger “fence” might be too large, he added however, that if the sign were to be placed parallel to Hopmeadow Street he would be in favor of it. By placing the sign parallel to the road there would be better visibility, and also the lighting fixtures would only be located on one side. Mr. Loren explained that the applicant wishes to have the sign perpendicular to the street. Mr. Stephenson also stated he is in favor of the larger “fence” sign, only if it is placed parallel to the street. If not, he is in favor of the smaller “fence” sign placed perpendicular to the street.
Chairman Dahlquist concluded that the Board prefers the applicant to locate the sign perpendicular to the road, and use 50-watt metal halide lights. It was decided that no action will take place on the landscaping portion of the plan until the Board is able to hear from a representative who is able to explain the plan in detail.
Mr. Loren explained the construction and materials to be used for the sign. The fencing is aluminum. The lettering is of ½ acrylic, with 24-carat gold leaf. The letters are mounted on ¼ inch acrylic, which is about ¼ greater than the letter itself, serving as an outline of the letter and the letters will cast a shadow. It will be sprayed a deep rust color. The oval with the address will also be sprayed a deep rust color. The perimeter of the sign will be aluminum but be painted to look like wrought iron. He stated that the sign will look like it is wood, and the material will last a long time.
Motion
Mr. Stephenson motioned to approve the sign application as proposed in the drawing entitled “Number File Hassett Main Sign 4” and dated 8/30/05. It is understood that two metal halide 50-watt criss-cross lights will be located on either side of the sign with shutters and will be buffered from view by from landscaping. It is understood that there is a single freestanding sign as dated 3/30/05 entitled “Site Layout Drawing L1” and prepared by CR3.
Mr. Schoenhardt seconded with all in favor.
Chairman Dahlquist made a design note.
The Board felt that additional information was required before determination could be made on landscaping on the site. It is recommended that before a motion is made, the landscape designer come before the Board at a future meeting to explain and show materials for the complete landscaping of the site.
Mr. Gray recused himself from the meeting at 7:05PM.
DISCUSSIONS
a. 2005 Plan of Conservation & Development- Introduction and Community Planning and Design Sections (enclosed)
Chairman Dahlquist discussed the document he wrote entitled, “Introduction to the 2005 Plan of Conservation of Development”. Chairman Dahlquist assisted the Planning Commission by writing up this introduction for the 2005 plan of development. He explained to the Board, sections of the introduction. Members expressed their compliments to Mr. Dahlquist for his writing, saying that it is very well done. Some members had ideas, and will contact Mr. Dahlquist.
b. Review of Design Guidelines for upcoming applications.
Chairman Dahlquist handed out a copy of Design Principles. Discussed was the possibility of having criteria/checklist of principals to guide the Board when discussing the different applications that come before them.
CORRESPONDENCE/DISCUSSION
a. Charter Revision Committee
Chairman Dahlquist read a letter about adding the DRB in the Charter. At their meeting, the Charter Revision Committee made a motion not to include the DRB in the Charter, but instead to support the Board. There was a motion made and seconded to pass an ordinance to recognize the DRB.
There is a Charter Revision Meeting set for October 4, 2005, and a Public Hearing on October 18, 2005.
STAFF REPORTS
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES of September13, 2005
The minutes of September13, 2005 were tabled until the next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Stephenson motioned to adjourn the meeting at 7:20PM
Mr. Drapelick seconded with all in favor.
| 
