Design Review Board Minutes
March 25, 2008
Regular Meeting
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Dahlquist called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM in the Main Meeting Room of the Simsbury Town Offices. The following members were present: Kevin Gray, Charles Stephenson, John Carroll, Mark Naccarato, Anthony Drapelick, Richard Schoenhardt and Rita Bond. Also present were Mr. Howard Beach, Conservation Officer, and Alison Sturgeon, Commission Clerk.
II. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES
Chairman Dahlquist appointed Commissioner Drapelick to serve in the absence of Commissioner Stewart and Commissioner Carroll to serve in the absence of Commissioner Gardner.
III. PRESENTATION(s)
a. Application of Phelps Lane, LLC, Owner, Wayne Molinare, Agent, for a Site Plan Amendment to install an awning with logo on property located at Molinare, 9A Phelps Lane.
Wayne Molinare distributed photographs of the building at 9A Phelps Lane to the Commission depicting the current building and pictures of the building with the proposed awning. Mr. Molinare stated that no lighting changes are proposed. He will be painting the front door. Also, the proposed awnings will extend out 3'.
Mr. Beach stated that the awning does not violate any required setbacks and is consistent with the Regulations with regard to size and content. Chairman Dahlquist asked if there was an issue regarding the awning being a sign. Mr. Beach stated that typically, they only consider the section that has the actual lettering on it; the whole awning would not be considered.
Chairman Dahlquist questioned if Mr. Molinare was the only tenant in this building. Mr. Molinare stated that there is another tenant in 9B.
Commissioner Stephenson motioned that the following referral be made to the Zoning Commission. That the Design Review Board finds this application in its current form generally consistent with the Guidelines for Community Design and recommends approval by the Zoning Commission of information as presented on a photograph titled, " Molinare Drawing", dated 3/25/08. Commissioner Gray seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
As a Design consideration, Chairman Dahlquist stated that there will be no changes to the lighting from what is currently on the building.
.
b. Application of Asbjorn S. Gjertsen, 10 Winslow Place, Simsbury, LLC - Owner, for Signage (entrance sign) and stone walls on property located at The Riverview, 10 Winslow Place.
Asbjorn Gjertsen distributed a picture and schematics and dimensions of the wall. He stated that he would like a sign that is readable from Route 10. He feels that this is necessary because many people who have booked events at the Riverview are not from Simsbury or surrounding Towns. These people are not familiar with the area or with the location of The Riverview and a sign visible from Route 10 would help. He stated that the sign is 29 s.f.. The total height of the sign is 6'10" with 14" high columns on the sides of the sign. The length of the sign is 9'8". Ms. Gjertsen stated that the smaller columns are 4' high and the taller columns are 6' high. The wall is 3', which is tucked off with a cap. There will be a lighting fixture on top of the two taller columns. He
stated that they are proposing seasonal plantings in front of both walls.
Commissioner Drapelick questioned if there would be lighting on the sign. Mr. Gjertsen stated that they would be using inground spotlights on the sign. He also stated that he would like to put the street number on a plaque on the smaller column.
Chairman Dahlquist asked if any of the Commission members had any concerns with this application. Commissioners Schoenhardt and Drapelick stated that everything looked fine. Commissioner Bond stated that she liked this design better than the last one, which was presented during an informal discussion. Commissioner Stephenson thanked the applicant for listening to their suggestions at the last meeting. Commissioner Carroll questioned what the background color of the sign was. Mr. Gjertsen stated that it was a yellow to match the siding of the building. Commissioner Naccarato stated that the scale works well.
Chairman Dahlquist agreed with Commissioner Naccarato that the scale of the walls would identify the driveway. He questioned what size lamps would be used for the ground lighting. Mr. Gjertsen was not sure, although he thought they would be using two 6" canisters in the ground, which would be hidden by the plants. He is not sure if 60 watts would be enough as an incandescent bulb. Chairman Dahlquist suggested that he use another source.
Mr. Beach stated that this application is within the Regulations regarding the size of the sign and the posts.
Commissioner Stephenson motioned that the following referral be made to the Zoning Commission. That the Design Review Board finds this application in its current form generally consistent with the Guidelines for Community Design and recommends approval by the Zoning Commission of information as presented on Site Plan, dated 3/25/08 and Rendering, dated 3/25/08 and Dimensional Drawings 1, 2, & 3, dated 3/25/08. It is the Design Review Board's understanding that: 1 ) there will be a plaque identifying the #10 on the smaller of the two columns done in such a way as to be clearly visible; and 2) the light source for the two lanterns, the owner will consider metal halide as a light source. Commissioner Drapelick seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
As a Design consideration, Chairman Dahlquist stated that the Design Review Board appreciates the cooperation of the owner and his willingness to take advantage of the informal review process and to listen to comments and to respond in a very effective way. The owner of the project continues to be extremely cooperative and we hope that the project benefits from that.
IV. INFORMAL PRESENTATION by Sheldon Crosby, L'Are Architects, on a proposed addition to the Pettibone Tavern, 4 Hartford Road.
Commissioner Schoenhardt recused himself from this informal presentation because his son is the real estate agent on this property.
Sheldon Crosby stated that there are several challenges in terms of their plan for this property. He stated that they would like to expand the kitchen, which would expand the building toward Route 10. They would also like to bring the bar downstairs, which is currently upstairs. This will help the ambiance of the restaurant. To do this, they are proposing to expand the porch on the west side of the building. In addition, they would also like to raise the ceiling to make the porch taller. He stated the advantage of making the porch taller is that it will screen the ducts and the rooftop units. Having a taller ceiling also helps with some of the kitchen equipment that will need to be installed.
Mr. Crosby stated that they would like to get the Board's input on the front façade of the building. He stated that they would like to introduce outdoor dining in the front with a canopy out over the area. This would allow dining from March or April through September. He stated that the colors of the building would remain the same, including the trim.
Chairman Dahlquist stated that he did have some concerns regarding the awning and the addition to where the bar would be and the side elevations and the potential for rooftop equipment. He stated that this is a historic building in Simsbury. It will be Mr. Crosby's job to explain, as an architect, why this would be an appropriate addition on the front. He asked for comments from the Board.
Commissioner Naccarato stated his concerns regarding the awning. He feels that it is not sympathetic to the historic nature of the building. He also stated his concerns regarding the addition of the bar area. He feels that it is starting to upstage the west elevation. The main part of the building should be the focal point. Commissioner Carroll agreed with Commissioner Naccarato.
Commissioner Stephenson stated that this is one of the most significant historic landmarks in Simsbury. He stated that whatever is done to the building has to be convincing that it looks like it has always been there. He asked that Mr. Crosby to take a picture from Hopmeadow Street perpendicular to the porch side in order for the Board to see the relative height.
Commissioner Drapelick stated he would like Mr. Crosby to explore the possibility of having the outdoor eating on the east side of the building. He also stated that something needs to be done to diminish the solid bulk on the west side of the building; it is overpowering.
Commissioner Bond feels that the front façade is so important; it is an entry point for Simsbury. She stated her concerns regarding the outdoor dining being in the front of the building. Route 185 is very noisy and would like Mr. Crosby to consider moving the dining area. Commissioner Gray agreed.
Mr. Crosby commented on the suggestion of making the building to look like the additions have always been there. He stated that this has not always been the case over the last 200 years. He stated that there is a strong core to the building and is fearful that if he tries to match it, it would actually detract from the historic nature of the building. Commissioner Stephenson stated that this is part of the process of being an architect and that Mr. Crosby might come back before the Board stating that certain things cannot be done.
Chairman Dahlquist thanked Mr. Crosby for taking advantage of the informal presentation process.
V. DISCUSSION OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED TO TOWN OF SIMSBURY ON FEBRUARY 19, 2008 BY INFINITY IV, LLC, OWNER, AND STANTLEY GLANTZ, KONOVER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, AGENT, ON A TEXT AMENDMENT ADOPTION OF PDD ZONE.
Chairman Dahlquist stated that the Zoning Commission is looking for a referral from the Design Review Board. If they do not get through the discussion tonight, they will hold a special meeting on April 1, 2008 with this item only on the agenda.
Chairman Dahlquist had written some fundamental questions and had previously e-mailed them to the Board members for their review. The Board also had a copy of Dwight Merriam's letter regarding Konover's proposed PDD. The Design Review Board needs to look at the different objectives that they would like to see in the Regulation as well as some standards regarding expectations.
Chairman Dahlquist read the following fundamental questions to the Board members:
" Does this PDD Regulation give clear and unambiguous guidance to a developer as to what the expectations are for Commission approval?
" Does this PDD Regulation honor Simsbury's history and continue its existing character as manifested in its built and natural environment?
" Does this PDD Regulation as a "floating zone" to be applied on any site of any size discern differences in the physical context of its surrounding as guidance for development choices?
" Does this PDD Regulation promote a physical configuration and disposition of buildings and roads with any reasonable degree of certainty in an outcome deemed desirable by the Town as may be developed in the 2007 Plan of Conservation and Development for example?
" Does this PDD Regulation offer Planning and Zoning Commissioners a meaningful and useful tool to measure compliance or non-compliance with specific standards?
" Does this PDD Regulation promote fairness in evaluation of the merits of all applications by stipulating definitive and specific conditions that would allow commissioners to render decisions in a uniform and non-capricious manner?
Commissioner Carroll stated that after reviewing several reports from other Boards, he feels that there are certain areas of commonality in their critiques. He suggested that the Board look at this application in categories. The three categories are: 1) the legal language, which Dwight Merriam has addressed; 2) the POCD; and 3) design. He stated that the DRB should identify the areas that are particular design criteria and not try to look at everything as a whole. He stated that the DRB has only one part of this process; the other Boards and Commissions have their part.
Commissioner Naccarato stated that it is difficult to establish the minimum threshold requirements because they are only looking at a portion of what would be required to get to that threshold. Chairman Dahlquist stated that the Board does not need to make corrections, only suggestions.
The Board started their discussions on Page 1 of 11 of the proposed PDD application. The members agreed that the opening paragraph, regarding intent, the language was not good. Chairman Dahlquist stated that these are general statements regarding intent, but they are not useful. There was some discussion by the members regarding intent. The members will comment on this section at the next meeting.
The Design Review Board decided to review the following sections of the proposed PDD application in order to have discussions at the April 1, 2008 meeting, which will be held at 5:00 p.m.:
" Section A - Intent
" Section D - General Requirements
" Section F - Locational Criteria
" Section H - Development Standards
" Section I - Design Criteria and Guidelines
" Section I, #7 - Creating and Protecting Public Spaces
" Section I, #8 - Human Scaled building Design
Chairman Dahlquist stated his concerns regarding that there is not a section devoted to definitions.
VI. CORRESPONDENCE
There was none.
VII. STAFF REPORTS
There was none.
VIII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of February 26, 2008 and March 11, 2008
Commissioner Carroll made a motion to approve the February 26, 2008 minutes as written. Commissioner Stephenson seconded the motion, which passed. Commissioners Drapelick and Schoenhardt abstained.
Commissioner Drapelick made a motion to approve the March 11, 2008 minutes as written. Commissioner Stephenson seconded the motion, which passed. Commissioner Naccarato abstained.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Gray made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Schoenhardt seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
| 
