Simsbury, CT - Design Review Board Minutes 04/08/2008

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, Richard Schoenhardt, William Gardner and Rita Bond. Also present were Mr. Hiram Peck, Director of Planning, and Alison Sturgeon, Commission Clerk.

a. Application of Tom Earl, Business Manager, Westminster School - Owner, Ronald E. Bomengen, Engineer III, Fuss & O'Neill - Agent, for a Site Plan Amendment for building plan modifications on property located at the Westminster School, 995 Hopmeadow Street.

Mr. Anderson stated that they are working on three projects. The first project is to add a new entryway into their main administration building. The second project is to relocate an existing road and the third project is to renovate an existing athletic field.

Regarding the relocation of the road, Mr. Anderson stated that they would like to do this because the dormitory exits onto the road; there are no sidewalks. This is not a safe environment for the students. They are proposing to pull the road away from the dorm with a 7' wide paved sidewalk, which will link up with the walkways that lead to the new academic building. There is currently a small parking lot in front of that building, which they will be taking away and adding parking in the back. There are currently four spaces behind the building and they are proposing to add another five spaces. Also, there will be a snow shelf between the walkway and the driveway, which will be landscaped.

Commissioner Gardner questioned if there would be a grade change in pulling the road away from the buildings. Mr. Anderson stated not a tremendous amount of grade change will occur. He believes that they are going to do something with the pitch of the road to address the drainage issue. Commissioner Gray questioned if this would change the intersection at the top of the driveway. Mr. Anderson stated that it would not.

Regarding the second project, Mr. Anderson stated that this is the renovation of an existing athletic field directly behind the athletic center. They are proposing this as a field hockey field. They will be stripping the sod and the topsoil, stockpiling it and then re-grading. They will also be adding drainage. The topsoil will be screened and put back and they will then sod the field. He stated that the plans show a pass-through that goes between the buildings. They are proposing to extend the brick area out into the field area. They would like to pave this area and not add additional brick.

Mr. Schweitzer showed the Board the Plans depicting the entryway. He has been asked to design an entryway that is sympathetic to the existing building and that mimics the materials and forms. This proposed entryway requires four columns, not two. It has granite steps and will be using the same handrail forms and will mimic the balustrade up top. He stated that there are some associated site improvements with this project. The changes in grade are only inches. They will be taking up the brick walk and reinstalling it at the different grades. The grades are ADA compliant. Mr. Schweitzer showed the Commission the ADA complaint access into the building, which currently exists.

Regarding the lighting and signage, Mr. Schweitzer stated that there is existing signage, which they will be keeping. The exterior lighting is carriage lighting. They will provide two fixtures, which are identical to the fixtures at the other entrance. There will also be two wall mounted lights and the required emergency lighting.

Commissioner Gray questioned if the applicant looked at connecting the road behind the building and gym. Mr. Anderson stated that, long term, the school would like to eliminate the roads that run in front of all of the buildings and having the road behind the gym would not work with their future plans.

Commissioner Stephenson motioned that the following referral be made to the Zoning Commission. That the Design Review Board find this application in its current form generally consistent with the Guidelines for Community Design and recommends approval by the Zoning Commission. The information is presented on the full set of drawings, Site Plan Amendment for Westminster School", dated 3/13/2008. Commissioner Gardner seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.

As a Design consideration, the Westminster school has always come prepared and sometimes comes with a pre-application, which we encourage. In this case, however, that was not necessary. The Design Review Board would urge the applicant to do that for future projects. They have a consistently high level of standards for design that we find, on this Board, coming from the school. We are always delighted to see their projects come forward, knowing that they are always well represented and presented.

Sheldon Crosby showed the Board the Site Plan. He stated that they have set the building addition back behind the main addition. They have also eliminated the canopy. Their goal for this project is that since Pettibone's was a long time landmark in Simsbury, they would like to recognize and enhance that. In order to do this, they need to make several improvements. They need to address the bar situation; they would like to move the bar down to the first floor. Secondly, the kitchen is quite small, which they are proposing to enlarge.

Mr. Crosby showed the Board the elevations on the plans. The front on the building will remain the same. There are two simple additions, which are in harmony with the existing building. The porch is reminiscent to what is currently there, although the kitchen will reflect more closely the architecture of the building. The addition is a challenge because they need height to screen the mechanical ducts and equipment on the roof. He stated that, as a result, they have put together two flat roof elements.

Mr. Crosby stated that the kitchen addition extends beyond the porch 7 feet. They will also be removing the picket fencing in the front and will be putting shrubs in front. He feels that this will be more welcoming. They would also like to widen the brick walkway, which is currently very narrow.

Mr. Peck stated that since the last meeting, the plans have been stepped back to avoid the setback line. The height has also been altered slightly at the step to break the massing of the addition and avoid its dominance. The rounded front fascia has been removed, and the addition has been moved back behind the front face. From a Zoning standpoint, Mr. Peck stated that there are no additional comments.

Regarding the lighting, Mr. Crosby stated that there is some sidewalk lighting along the walkway near the parking lot. They will be keeping this. They will be replacing the lighting underneath the trees. They would also like to add 4 posts for lighting to highlight the walkway. There would not be lighting for the porch or kitchen.

Commissioner Naccarato stated that this is a dramatic improvement from the informal presentation. He stated his concerns with the bar area. He feels this area is too large. Mr. Crosby stated that this building has very low ceilings and he would not be able to scale it down but a few inches, which would not make a difference. Regarding the lighting along the front walkway, Commissioner Naccarato feels that this is overstated. The style is more of a carriage style. He asked the applicant to consider just having lights at the end of the walkway. Chairman Dahlquist agreed with the lighting issues; the carriage style lighting would not be historically correct for this site.

Commissioner Naccarato motioned that the following referral be made to the Zoning Commission. That the Design Review Board find this application in its current form generally consistent with the Guidelines for Community Design and recommends approval by the Zoning Commission with the following design considerations: 1) the owners provide some form of vertical landscaping adjacent to the kitchen addition to soften the visual effect of that portion of the building as well as Route 10; 2) revise the lighting along the sidewalk to the main entrance so that there are only two pole mounted fixtures at the end of the walkway adjacent to the parking lot; 3) additional landscape lighting along the walkway should be provided for proper illumination and safety. The information as presented on drawings A1.0 dated 4/2/08, A2.0 dated 4/2/08, and A3.0, dated 4/2/08 and renderings dated 4/8/08. Commissioner Gray seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.

As a Design consideration, the Design Review Board appreciates the applicant's willingness to come for an informal pre-application review prior to the final presentation and finds that the applicant was willing to listen to comments and recommendations made by the Design Review Board, and in so doing, the product has turned out to be a better project.

Mr. Hensley, Selectman, stated that he has noticed several Towns in the area have updated their gateway signs. He feels that Town signs should reflect the image and character of the Town. He has noticed that there are many signs in Simsbury in need of repair. Some of these signs have logos of various clubs and organizations on them, some of which are no longer in existence.

Mr. Hensley stated that he had a meeting with Mary Glassman and some of the organizations which were on some of the signs to discuss what could be done with the signage as you come into major arteries in Simsbury. This would not be a costly project; the signs could be upgraded and updated.

Commissioner Carroll agrees that the signs need to be updated. He questioned how they would pick which clubs and organizations get on the signs. He feels that all of the signs should be uniformed for recognition purposes. Chairman Dahlquist agreed with Commissioner Carroll but also stated that there should be a degree of urbanism incorporated in the signs. Commissioner Schoenhardt stated that he appreciated Mr. Hensley's initiative. He suggested that to avoid conflict of which organizations get on the signs, he feels that no one should be on them, and the signs should just concentrate on Simsbury. Mr. Hensley stated that he would like to give organizations a way to be identified, which could possibly be on the web.

Chairman Dahlquist stated that the Design Review Board would definitely like to be involved in this project and someone from this Board could possibly start going to the meetings where this issue is discussed. The Design Review Board members also volunteered to do some sketches of signs for Mr. Hensley to present at an upcoming meeting. Chairman Dahlquist stated that this item would be on the agenda for the next meeting.

Chairman Dahlquist stated that Ethel Walker would like to come in with an application for directional signage for their campus. There are 8-10 areas where different types of signage would be installed. He stated that Ethel Walker would like to move quickly and would like to install these signs soon, prior to a school event.

Commissioner Carroll stated that in light of the rules and procedures established by the Chairman of the Zoning Commission at the public hearing regarding the application of Konover Development for text changes to the proposed PDD, he made a motion that the Design Review Board reconsider its referral to the Zoning Commission on April 1, 2008, as follows: The Design Review Board has reviewed the proposed PDD submitted by the applicant and recommends that the Zoning Commission accepts the PDD and makes such amendments and modification as it may deem appropriate. Commissioner Gardener seconded the motion.

Commissioner Carroll stated that Chairman Barney said that the public hearing was only about the PDD and the text. Commissioner Carroll feels that it is the responsibility of the Zoning Commission to review and accept or modify it, or do whatever they have to, to get this done.

The meeting was adjourned at 7:03 p.m. and reassembled down the hall in Room 103 of the Simsbury Town Hall to continue this discussion. The Commission had significant discussion regarding this issue. Mr. Peck assured them that the revised PDD would go forward on a timely basis. Commissioner Carroll withdrew his motion.