HomeMy WebLinkAboutDR-10-02 - Decision - 0222 Dorset Street#DR-10-02
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
HEALTHY LIVING - 222 DORSET STREET
DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION #DR-10-02
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Healthy Living, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is requesting design review
approval for the exterior modifications to a 33,733 sq. ft building consisting of office and
retail food use. The amendment consists of an extension of the request for installation of
the art piece on the west fagade of the principal building and modification of the art piece
itself, 222 Dorset Street.
The Development Review Board held a public hearing on May 4, 2010. Eli Lesser -
Goldsmith represented the applicant.
Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans and
supporting materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development
Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The applicant is requesting design review approval for the exterior modifications to a
33,733 sq. ft building consisting of office and retail food use. The amendment consists of
an extension of the request for installation of the art piece on the west fagade of the
principal building and modification of the art piece itself, 222 Dorset Street.
2. The application was received on January 26, 2010.
3. The owner of record of the subject property is Patrick Malone
4. The subject property is located in the Central District 1 Zoning District.
5. The plans submitted consist of revised artwork plan for the west fagade of the
principal building and request for an extension to complete installation.
The subject property falls within Design District 1 of the City Center Design Review
Overlay District. Pursuant to Section 11.01 of the South Burlington Land Development
Regulations, these changes shall be subject to design review by the Design Review
Committee (DRC) and the Development Review Board (DRB).
HISTORY
The Design Review Committee reviewed the proposed building over the course of many
months during the initial project approval process. A primary issue at many meetings
was the west -facing fagade along Dorset Street. Staff and the Committee consistently
advocated for a design which would break up the brick wall area and accomplish the
design standard which states that:
I:\Development Review Boa rd\Findings_Decisions\2010\HealthyUving_DR1002_ffd.doc
#DR-10-02
Buildings shall be designed in a manner that relates the building to the public
street in order to protect the integrity of city blocks, present an inviting street
front and promote traditional street patterns. New buildings shall be built to
the street property line. Such improvements could include installation of
doors and windows facing the public street.
The applicant met with the Design Review Committee for review on January 22, 2007. The
Committee discussed the plans submitted and asked the applicant to propose something
that would break up the monotony of the brick wall along the Dorset Street facade and the
western faqade. The applicant then submitted several options for the DRC to review. The
DRC unanimously expressed favoritism of the option labeled as #1 which offered concrete
blocks and a place holder for a wall mounted sign. This elevation was then approved by the
DRB on February 6, 2007.
The applicant then proposed to locate their allowable two wall mounted signs along the
northern fagade of the building with no sign proposed along the Dorset Street fagade,
specifically where the approved elevations depicted such a sign and where the Design
Review Committee advocated very heavily for something which would alleviate the blank
fagade of brick.
The applicant met with the Design Review Committee and Staff on November 26, 2007
to discuss this matter. All three parties came to a compromise which would replace the
wall sign on the Dorset Street faqade with appropriately sized and mounted wall art to be
approved by the DRC and DRB prior to issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy for
the building.
As part of the condition of the master plan amendment (DR#07-13), the applicant "shall
propose a wall art piece for the Dorset Street fagade. The proposed art shall be
reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee and Development Review
Board prior to issuance of a final Certificate of Occupancy for the building."
The applicant subsequently received approval from the Development Review Board on
May 20, 2008 upon recommendation from the Design Review Committee, approving a
design labeled as the `Health Living & the Giant Beanstalk'. After some discussion, the
Board granted the applicant twelve (12) months in which to install this piece of art.
In the fall on 2009, the applicant approached staff with concepts for a revised artwork
design. Enclosed, following this discussion, is the proposed revised artwork design,
along with a request to provide an extension for completion of the project.
In order to assess this proposed revised, staff requested images of the proposed design.
These images, which are attached to this report, include:
• Two digital renderings of the proposed artwork,
• A scaled representation of the artwork on the fagade (note that staff only asked
for the applicant to show this as an edit to the existing Option #1, rather than
require a new drawing altogether. The darkened section in the middle section of
that fagade was replaced with regular brick following approval — see above),
• Pictures of the artwork under construction over the past two months.
The standards for design review in this district are displayed below:
2
I:\Development Review Boa rd\Findings_Decisions\2010\HealthyLiving_DR1002_ffd.doc
#DR-10-02
Design plans for properties within Design District 1 shall comply with the following design
criteria, as outlined in Section 11.01(C)(1) and Section 11.01(F) of the Land
Development Regulations:
Design District 1- This area is ply
highest density and greatest min
"downtown" for South Burlingtor
design. Building materials should
stone) and the buildings themse
should be placed up front to the
street rather than parking lots.
nned to be the core area of the City Center with the
of uses. It is the intent of this area to be the main
and therefore should uphold the highest quality of
consist only of natural, indigenous materials (brick or
ves should relate directly to the public street. They
property line and the main entrance should face the
(a) Consistent design. Building design shall promote a consistent organization
of major elements; and decorative parts must relate to the character of the design. All
sides of a building shall be designed so that they are compatible in terms of material,
window treatments, architectural accents, cornice/parapet design, etc. The design of a
building should consider the design features of other structures in the area so as not to
be harshly discordant with other nearby buildings.
(b) Materials used. A wide variety of both natural and high quality man-made
materials are allowed. Examples of acceptable materials include red brick, indigenous
stone (i. e., granite, limestone, and marble), architectural concrete, synthetic stucco,
wood clapboard (synthetic materials such as vinyl siding may be used in place of wood
provided it is of high quality and closely resembles wood clapboard/shingles), and glass
or glass block.
(c) Colors and textures used. The color and texture of the building shall be
harmonious with the building itself and with other buildings on the site and nearby.
Colors naturally occurring from building materials and other traditional, subdued colors
are encouraged. More than three (3) predominant colors are discouraged.
(d) Windows and doors. Window and door treatment shall be a careful
response to the buildings interior organization as well as the features of the building site.
The treatment of windows and doors shall be in a manner that creates a rhythm that
gives necessary order and unity to the facade, yet avoids monotony. For sides of
buildings that face or front public streets, the majority of the first floor's fagade area shall
consist of see -through glass in order to promote pedestrian activity; however, the
windows and doors should be of human scale, so as to welcome pedestrians.
(e) Roofs as a design element. Roofs shall be part of, or define, the style of a
building. They shall be used creatively to break up long facades and potentially long
roof lines. For one-story structures, the minimum and maximum slope of a pitched roof
shall be 8 on 12 and 12 on 12, respectively. For structures of two (2) or more stories, the
minimum and maximum slope of a pitched roof shall be 5 on 12 and 12 on 12,
respectively. Only a small portion of roof area may be flat provided it is not visible from
the public street, existing or planned, or does not detract from the overall design and
harmony of the building. Where portions of a roof are flat, architectural elements such as
cornices and parapets shall be included to improve the appearance and provide interest.
Large, low -slope (i.e., less than 5 on 12) gable forms are discouraged.
3
I:\Development Review Board\Findings_Decisions\2010\Hea1thyLiving_DR1002_ffd.doc
#DR-10-02
(f) Orient buildings to the public street. Buildings shall be designed in a
manner that relates the building to the public street in order to protect the integrity of city
blocks, present an inviting street front and promote traditional street patterns. New
buildings shall be built to the street property line. For existing buildings undergoing
renovation, improvements shall be done to relate the building better to the public street.
Such improvements could include installation of doors and windows facing the public
street.
(g) Conceal rooftop devices. Rooftop mechanical equipment and
appurtenances to be used in the operation or maintenance of a structure shall be
arranged so as to minimize visibility from any point at or below the roof level of the
subject structure.
(h) Promote energy efficiency. Where feasible, the design of a building should
consider solar energy and the use of natural daylight by capturing the sun's energy
during the winter and providing shade during the summer.
Description of Proposal
The applicant describes the proposed revised artwork as consisting of "three 4' x 5'
panels that when applied will create a unit 21' w x 10' h. The pieces will stand off the wall
at intervals, creating different planes that will add depth and interest to the wall, ie,
`visually break up the front wall."'
Design Review Committee Input
The South Burlington Design Review Committee was not able to reach a quorum at its
April meeting. Two members did, however, provide feedback to staff.
Michael Terricone asked whether the rusty steel meets the consistency with the other
materials criteria, and whether it is painted steel or steel being left to rust. If it is the
latter, he is concerning that the oxide will end up on the wall and sidewalk and would
recommend a flat finish in lieu of rust.
Kevin Lavery stated that he would be in favor of a more stringent timeline for completion,
given the previous past deadlines. He also reported that he is "a bit concerned about
having open space on the building that was previously going to have some kind of wall
art that now will have nothing." He also added, however, "If nobody else on the
committee feels this way it's not a sticking point for me. "
DECISION Motion by seconded by j Lb
S= 4(C , to
approve Design Review Applica on #DR-10-04 of Pines Housing, LP subject to the
following conditions:
1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not superseded by this approval
shall remain in effect.
4
I:\Development Review Boa rd\Findings_Decisions\2010\HealthyLiving_DR1002_ffd.doc
#DR-10-02
2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant
and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning.
3. The applicant will meet a deadline of July 1, 2010 for the installation of this artwork.
4. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section
17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void.
5. Any change to the site plan shall require approval by the South Burlington
Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer.
Mark Behr-,,ye�ilnay/abstain/not present
Matthew Birmingham — yea/nay/abstain not present
John Dinklage nay/abstain/not present
Roger Farley — ay/abstain/not present
Eric Knudsen a ay/abstain/not present
Gayle Quimby - e nay/abstain/not present
Bill Stuono — yenay/abstain/not present
Motion carried by a vote of (e- O - (>
Signed this day of )-,)-? � 2010, by
John Dinklage, Chairman
Please note: You have the right to appeal this decision to the Vermont Environmental
Court, pursuant to 24 VSA 4471 and VRECP 5 in writing, within 30 days of the date this
decision is issued. The fee is $250.00. If you fail to appeal this decision, your right to
challenge this decision at some future time may be lost because you waited too long.
You will be bound by the decision, pursuant to 24 VSA 4472 (d) (exclusivity of remedy;
finality).
5
I:\Development Review Board\Findings_Decisions\2010\Hea1thyLiving_DR1002_ffd.doc