Design Review Committee

DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE Received TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2021 City Clerk Office Minutes 12/8/21 @ 12:32 pm 1. Call to Order at 6:01pm by Matt Sherrill. Roll call: Matt Sherrill, Rachel Harris, Janine Whittaker Others in attendance: Angela Cleveland (staff), Lars Johannessen (resident), members of Angiolillo Group 2. Review of Minutes from 10-19-2021. Rachel Harris moved to approved, Janine Whittaker seconded. Roll call vote – approved unanimously. 3. Public Comment – none 4. Communications a. Matt Sherrill mentioned that they were emailed about the CPTC Trainings (Design Review Training – Dec 16th). Angela Cleveland said there is funding to support members attending this training. 5. New Applications a. Sign Permit Application: 100 Macy St Suite 1 – Domino’s. The sign is over the amount 30 sf limit. We need to check with the Carriagetown Plaza rules. The freestanding street sign should be changed to have white opaque back- ground, which is consistent with the rest of the signs. Matt Sherrill made a motion to send this application to the Planning Board with a recommendation as long as they contact City Hall to confirm the sign agreement with the shopping plaza that are consistent with the size of the signs at the plaza. Also recommended to change the freestanding sign to opaque white background. Rachel Harris seconded. Roll call vote: approved unanimously. b. Site Plan Review: 39 Hillside Avenue - Angiolillo Management Group The applicant reviewed the purpose of the project and the Committee re- ceived a presentation on the site plan. Once completed, Matt Sherrill provid- ed an update what the purview of the Committee is, which is to look at the design is, not to get into the technical layout of the site. It includes 3 stories. Everything except the roof is panels, clapboards, panels. Low, smooth facing block at the bottom. Although not shown, there will be landscaped boxes out front. The shingles would be asphalt. Black windows. They spoke with Nipun Jain, Planning Director, who helped them to plan this design including the dormers, brackets, paneling coming down to the ground, ensconced lighting, pillars. Modest floor heights to keep the scale of the building down as much as possible. Matt Sherrill noted that it is a very large building compared to some of the buildings around it (bank is 1 ½ stories, Andyman’s one story). What does Rachel Harris think? Rachel agreed, but the zoning does allow this in this ar- ea. It’s commercially zoned. What gave her pause was the setback and the access to retail spaces, making visitors use the sidewalk to walk to the front of the building. It was originally considered by the applicant. The applicant said that if they did that, they wouldn’t be able to have parking under the building. It was also mentioned that this is preferred to have it up on the streetfront to not promote car use and to be consistent with smart growth. Rachel also asked about access to existing green space. Is there any thought of providing a second door from the vestibule for resident access to that open space? The applicant said there is nothing that would prohibit them from do- ing that. Janine Whittaker also pointed out that it would provide a more inter- esting vista since that’s the first thing people see when you come into town from I-495. Could the open space be more of an accessible space for outside tables, benches, etc.? Applicant agreed – it’s a good size space. Originally they were waiting to see what the retail space would be. Rachel also suggest- ed flipflopping the elevator to the other side of the building to provide access to the retail from the back of the building. Can there be access to the back? Applicant said they looked at that. They mentioned there would be at least 6 spaces for retail use. Stair 2 could be the area to access the front retail through the middle of the building, Janine Whittaker asked if the back vestibule could mirror the front pillars to bring that design to the side of the building. She also mentioned that she thought it would be good to ADD back in the brackets that were taken away. They tried doing this and some of them would not be functional, more for form. But if they feel differently they would add some. Especially in middle section on the front between the two dormers. Maybe they could look at a different style of brackets? Rachel mentioned they liked the scale. The appli- cant said they will look into it. Overall, Janine said the building looked beau- tiful. Rachel agreed that it is in keeping style-wise to adjacent buildings, in- cluding the bank. Matt asked about the bump outs – are they wood, and what about the siding? And what is the color? The applicant confirmed that it is clapboard siding made of cement base. Pre-fab, pre-painted product for bump outs. Panels and window trim is 4x8 sheet panels. They wanted something with longevity and easy to maintain. The color is blue-grey. Trim is silvery grey. Matt asked what they are going to use for rainwater runoff. There is a lot of water to get rid of. Applicant said gutters would be on either side of both bump outs, with downspouts connected to underground cisterns that would go to subsurface infiltration facility. Matt mentioned that it can get messy with that much roofspace. Rachel mentioned that it would be nice to have a half round gutter. The roof is large, but there are lots of opportunities for downspouts next to each of the bump outs. 5-6 inch half rounds would be ideal. They should mention the trim or body color depending on what they are up against. Maybe 4-6 of them? Avoid doing them at the corners where they interfere with the brackets. The applicant suggested one on each side of the bump out, 4 total. Janine asked how that would be handled in the back. Downspouts coming down aligned with the columns. Mr. Johannessen provided some comments based on his experience with a subcommittee of the Planning Board that dealt with design review. In his opinion: it is not completely a mansard…no swooping roofline. No soffet between the rooflines. Too big of an overhang. What is the siding? Flat side out or textured side out? If it’s not a mansard, what about a building like we find in downtown? This would allow for downspouts inside the building, util- ities on the top, making construction easier. It would allow for a flat roof. He would suggest removing the banding around the sign. Dropping the stone off the bottom of the building. He mentioned the insides of the drawings don’t match the outside. There are other The dormers are not reflected on the inside drawings. The applicant replied that they design this based on comments and input from Nipun Jain on what he thought the community wanted to see. There was an ask to discuss site issues with the site engineer. Lars mentioned there is a buffer zone needed between the site and the abutting use. There is also a lack of landscape plans available. The applicant said it will be coming in the next phases. They are working on an easement with the abutting land- owner. Lars continued to point out that no curbing was provided. Discussion about the dumpster location ensued. At that point, Matt called the meeting back to order to focus on design features. Lars said the lighting is not called out anywhere except on the building. Is there lighting anywhere else and what is the cut of it? The size and dark sky-consistent lighting needs to be in- cluded. The applicant said that all lighting would just be on the building es- pecially given how close the parking is to the street. Perhaps ground-lighting or bollards? There will likely be ambient lighting for ingress and egress. They don’t want significant amounts of light leaving the site, or to make it feel like a commercial site, but they want it to create a safe site. Chis mentioned that they want to put bikes on the second lot to create a resi- dential feel, but also support the retail. Janine mentioned that she likes the window boxes in downtown buildings. Is this something they could integrate? What would the intention of the side- walk material be? Concrete. Janine mentioned brick would be nice, but it wouldn’t tie it into what’s already there. The applicant said they want to keep a consistent look and tie into the sidewalk on Allen Claire. They did it in the  parking lot at CVS. Perhaps they could do a brick apron in the parking lot? Applicant likes the flower boxes. They considered ground boxes with sea- sonal flowers. Matt mentioned that the Chamber has hanging baskets – perhaps the appli- cant could do something like that on the building-mounted lights? Lars mentioned that they need to have decent drawings to make a good deci- sion and that uplighting is not something the Planning Board likes to see. Planting boxes are not ideal…they don’t seem to work. Rachel mentioned that it would nice to see where the condensers will be in the next round of drawings. Lars also said that the details need to be more de- fined (including gutters, etc.). Matt asked if there were any other questions. He said we are not ready to rec- ommend this to the Planning Board. The gutters, details, condenser locations, landscaping, lighting all need to be included to tighten things up. The rest of the Committee agreed. Matt said they are meeting every couple of weeks and will be in touch with a date certain. Angie will be in touch with that date. 6. Continued Applications a. Sign Permit Application: 44 Main Street – Sand & Sole Nail Bar Scaled photo in appropriate location. Motion from Rachel Harris to send a positive Janine Whittaker seconded. Roll call vote – approved unanimously. b. Sign Permit Application: 77 Macy Street – GLOW Matt Sherrill asked everyone if they were ok with 3 1/2 inch marine plywood. Committee members were comfortable with that. Matt Sherrill asked if this entrance was along Macy Street or on the other side of the building – clarifi- cation that it will be on the Macy Street side. Also clarified that they would like her to remove the lettering from the door and windows, as right now it looks like there are four signs on the Macy Street side. Sign needs to be in- stalled away from the building/clapboard, not nailed to it. Janine Whittacker moved to send a positive recommendation to the Planning Board with a stipu- lation that the lettering in the windows and that door be removed and the method of hanging the sign needs to be clarified and the scale of the sign needs to be updated. Rachel Harris seconded. Roll call vote – approved unan- imously. 7. Other Business – move the new applications after the continued applications. 8. Establish Regular Meetings – 1st and 3rd Wednesday of the month at 6pm at 39 South Hunt Road Conference Room. 9. Motion to adjourn by Matt Sherrill, seconded by Janine Whittacker. Roll call vote – unanimously approved at 8:05pm.