Design Review Board
Approved Meeting Minutes
November 14, 2007
Eaton E. Smith Meeting Room, Town Hall
1 – Chairman Scott Hill called the meeting to order at 7:06 pm
Present: Chairman Scott Hill, Vice Chairman Diana Marsh, Mary Anne Ciriello, Michael Allstadt, Gary Hall, Linda Axline, Kevin Burnham Others: Members of the public, Mary Ann Dostaler Chair of EDC, Recording Clerk, Denise Wojick
2 – Acceptance of minutes from October 25, 2007
A motion made by Kevin Burnham and seconded by Diana Marsh to accept minutes from October 2, 2007. Vote: All in favor A motion was made by Linda Axline and seconded by Kevin Burnham to change the agenda moving Mary Ann Dostaler from item # 6 under new business to item # 3.
3 - New Business-
Mary Ann Dostaler, Chair Economic Development Commission Mary Ann welcomed the Design Review Board on behalf of the Economic Development Commission (EDC) and offered the support of the EDC. The EDC has hired the firm Connected Connecticut to assist in economic development. Greg Stevenson, Chris Edge, and Linda Parketee make up this team. They are here as a resource that is available to assist the Design Review Board as well. The focus of the EDC is the revitalization of the town and the village. A document called the Village Center Revitalization was reviewed with the board. This can be obtained on the town web site as well. There are two (2) historic districts in town that are listed on the national register of historic places. An inventory list was passed around for review. There are 145 buildings included on the
inventory list. Mary Ann will provide a map of the historical area in town to the DRB. EDC wants to work on having certificate local status. If able to secure status the town can get access to additional grants. Over the next year Mary Ann would like to have the DRB, EDC and Middle Haddam Historic District have joint meetings, reviewing guidelines about the history of the town and how to get on the national register.
Information given today on the Belltown Historic Area will help define the guidelines being worked on. EDC offered to provide any resources at their disposal to assist DRB. Mary has invited Scott to be introduced to Greg Stevenson who is the executive of Connected Connecticut. A future project that is being discussed is replacing the bridge over Pocotopaug Creek, which is located next to the town library. Adjacent to the library is a vacant lot that is going to be incorporated into new structure for the town. Thanks to the Brownfield Committee they have received a grant that will help with new development. The development plan is to expand the parking lot for the senior center and add a greenway park. Tying in these 2 projects gives the town an opportunity to build an attractive bridge and create more beautiful space for
the community to use. A meeting will be held in January to discuss more details of the plan. Mary Ann has invited the DRB to the meeting to share ideas or suggestions with the EDC on the development of the bridge.
4 – Plan Review – Chatham Center, Jin S. Bok Peter Argiros Architects, from Colchester CT representing Jin S. Bok, owner of the property located on 33 West High Street. Currently the Connecticut Motor Trike Shop occupies the land. The existing building is an L shape building. They are proposing to expand the building giving the building about 1200 square feet on the lower level and adding a second level. The owner has two businesses that it would like to bring to the building. One business would be a laundry service for drop off and pick up. The second floor would be a salon and skin care center. There would an entrance on the side of the building and 20 parking spaces available, 2 of which would be handicap parking. There is no handicap accessibility to the second floor. Landscaping is still being designed. The
front of the building will have siding and stone. The stone is to blend with the surrounding wall that also was built with stone. It was noted that this property is on the historical properties list. The DRB went through the standards of review and made comment on areas of concerns.
DBR Standards of Review:
A. The compatibility with the Plan of Conservation and Development of the Town of East Hampton and existing zoning regulation. This issue was deferred pending review of the Town C&D plan.
B. The compatibility of a proposed architectural design with the architectural designs of existing adjacent building and the architectural character of the neighborhood as a whole. Building materials used include a stone accent to the front of the building. The architect believes this will help tie in with surrounding walls. A discussion took place concerning the use of the stone. Linda does not agree with the arbitrary placement of the stone. The placement suggests that the center wall is doing all the bearing where psychologically we want to see the corners as the primary supporting elements. There is an opportunity here to make the stone veneer appear more believable in its ability to support the upper story. The way it was presented to the DRB, it is being used as an exterior wall-covering in an attempt to make the new
structure “relate to its neighbor” and makes no sense architecturally. Therefore, Linda feels the façade design will not be as positive an addition to the area nor will it age as graciously as it could. Linda would like to see the stone redistributed on the façade to make more sense architecturally.
C. The impact of historical significance of the affected property/structure and other properties in the immediate area: This location is on the historical inventory list, but it should not be a problem with the renovations since the exterior no longer retains the original historically significant characteristics.
D. The compatibility of the landscape and layout on the parcel with the landscaping and layout of adjacent parcels: There are no definite landscaping plans at this time.
E. The landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and provide shade and other means of public comfort and establish a desirable transition with the streetscape and provide safe pedestrian movement and parking: The board had a discussion of the eliminating parking spaces one, four and five to add landscaping; narrowing the entry drive; providing improved pedestrian access from sidewalk to building; and relocating handicapped space four to space one.
F. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, ground or building , service yards, refuse storage areas, dumpsters and other places that tend to be unsightly should be screened from public view of the above, and should be equally effective in winter and summer. Discussion took place on the location of a dumpster that would be in the back of the building and not be an eyesore to the public.
G. Fencing, walls, paving, brick, stone, gravel and cobbles should be used where appropriate to enhance the project: The board does not have any concerns with the colors of the building or material being used. There were insufficient plans for review at this time regarding the remaining elements.
H. Exterior lighting should enhance the architectural and landscape design and the lighting fixtures should be compatible with the design of the building and neighborhood. There were insufficient plans for review at this time.
I. Style and color of building materials should be in harmony with the design of the building and with adjacent buildings: The structure and colors chosen will be acceptable for the design of the building.
J. Relationship of width to height of new structures should be consistent with the ratio of existing adjacent buildings: No concerns
K. Landscaping of all open spaces and buffer zones including the location, type and size of all trees and shrubbery: There will be some shrubs and trees, but the landscaping is not complete at this time. There were insufficient plans for review at this time.
L. The lighting, design, material, colors, size and location, but not content of signs: There were insufficient plans for review at this time.
Mary Anne Ciriello asked about the possible widening of RT 6. Would this have an impact on the parking lot for this location? Scott confirmed that the project to widen RT 66 is not in the process as of now. When that project takes place, it would not affect the building.
5 - Plan Review- Stephen Motto George Mantikas, owner of proposed building and John McFarland from JWM Architects introduced the medical dental building to be built on 142 East High Street. This is a D & D zoned site, and the design complies with all of it’s zoning requirements. Due to site being small there are special provations that hopefully some requirements will be waived. There will be 63 parking spaces located in the back of the building. This is a 3 story building that would have overhangs to project glazing, applying sun screens on both sides of the elevations. There is a 3- d model being used to study the environmental friendly building. A metal green roof, red brick and glass structure will be used for building material. There is no construction activity in the wetlands. Sp 3 shows the landscape and
lighting plan. The retention wall appears to be 2 to 3 feet high. Gary Hall asked about taking into consideration light escaping the sight. After review of the DRB standards a discussion took place about concerns.
DBR Standards of Review:
A. The compatibility with the Plan of Conservation and Development of the Town of East Hampton and existing zoning regulation. This issue was deferred pending review of the Town C&D plan.
B. The compatibility of a proposed architectural design with the architectural designs of existing adjacent building and the architectural character of the neighborhood as a whole. The board was concerned with the size (scale) of the building. The DRB would like to see an artist concept of the building. The DRB wants to see the building within its setting and relationship to RT 66. The board is also interested in screening and landscaping associated with screening the detention base. Need information on signage.
C. The impact of historical significance of the affected property/structure and other properties in the immediate area: In respect to the history of the town this is a new development and the architect has taken into consideration the history of the town and having a contemporary building fit in.
D. The compatibility of the landscape and layout on the parcel with the landscaping and layout of adjacent parcels: The DRB spoke about the incomplete walking access from the Laurel Ridge neighborhood to the medical dental building. There is concern about how the building will appear when driving along RT66. There is no landscaping shown in the front of the building at this time. The DRB would like to see more landscaping in the front of the building to take away from the height and size of the building and soften its appearance along RT 66.
E. The landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and provide shade and other means of public comfort and establish a desirable transition with the streetscape and provide safe pedestrian movement and parking: Continued discussion about the concerns of the landscaping in the front of the building. Parking will be in the back of the building.
F. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, ground or building , service yards, refuse storage areas, dumpsters and other places that tend to be unsightly should be screened from public view of the above, and should be equally effective in winter and summer. A dumpster would be in the north of the building in a screened area. At this time there are no rooftop or outside mechanical units planned.
G. Fencing, walls, paving, brick, stone, gravel and cobbles should be used where appropriate to enhance the project: The DRB does not have any concerns with the colors and materials proposed for the building.
H. Exterior lighting should enhance the architectural and landscape design and the lighting fixtures should be compatible with the design of the building and neighborhood. The lighting being used will be full cut off so it will not trespass onto RT 66 or onto adjacent properties in the neighborhood of Laurel Ridge.
I. Style and color of building materials should be in harmony with the design of the building and with adjacent buildings: The structure and colors chosen are in harmony of the design of the adjacent buildings.
J. Relationship of width to height of new structures should be consistent with the ratio of existing adjacent buildings: There are concerns with the height of building.
K. Landscaping of all open spaces and buffer zones including the location, type and size of all trees and shrubbery: Reference article D above L. The lighting, design, material, colors, size and location, but not content of signs: No lighting or sign plan available for review. The plans can be viewed on JWM architects website.
This application will more then likely have to come back for the board to review again after the applicant is able to provide more information on the landscaping. A method needs to be created for applicants to receive copies of comments, suggestions that the board has. This will be discussed with David Dodes on how to proceed going forward.
Motion made by Kevin Burnham and seconded by Diana Marsh to advise P & Z on suggestions and recommendations as follows:
1. Scale of building in relation to the setting and RT 66: It was requested that applicant provide color rendering.
2. Landscaping/ screening: Requested updated landscaping plans
3. Pedestrian access for cross driveway east to west connecting side walk in front of east elevation requesting applicant provides concrete apron and connection of sidewalk to building. Vote: All in favor
6 - Continued discussion of DRB Guidelines Kevin shared documents from the Town of Rocky Hill showing their design guidelines. Kevin continues collecting comments and suggestions that the board sends him in regards to the Guidelines that are being developed
3 - New Business – Continued from above
B) New business: Scott spoke with Reverend Harmon and has received the support of P&Z. Reverend Harmon recommended that the Design Review Board finish the draft on the guidelines and then address with P&Z and then hold a public hearing, The second option is to use Economic Development Commission’s on call to help with guidelines; It was agreed to proceed with the board working independently to prepare the DRB Guidelines and if the teams gets bogged down then they will turn to P&Z for help
C) Kevin shared an update on the streetscape committee project on RT 66 and Main Street. The state has agreed to incorporate some the streetscape projects. Some plans for the sidewalks is creating a 5-foot sidewalk and making it decorative. The town project will continue on south side of street.
7 - Adjournment A motion was made by Kevin Burnham and seconded by Diana Marsh to adjourn meeting at 10:05pm Vote; All in favor,
Meeting Adjourned
Respectfully Submitted, Denise Wojick, Recording Secretary
| 
