The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDR-08-03 - Decision - 0222 Dorset Street#DR-08-03 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING PATRICK MALONE - 222 DORSET STREET DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION #DR-08-03 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Patrick Malone, 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, 222 Dorset Street. 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). The Development Review Board held public hearings on Tuesday, May 20, 2008, and Tuesday, June 17, 2008. Stephanie Hainley & Katy Lesser 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, 222 Dorset Street. 2. 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). 3. The owner of record of the subject property is Patrick Malone. 4. The plan submitted consists of an 8'/2" x 11" sketch of the west building elevation entitled, "Healthy Living & The Giant Beanstalk (Centered), prepared by K. Clear, dated 2008. - 1 - #DR-08-03 The Design Review Committee reviewed the proposed building over the course of many months. A primary issue at many meetings was the vast expanse of brick along Dorset Street. For many meetings, staff and the Committee advocated for a design which would break up this area and serve the design standard which states that: 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 fagade and the western fagade. 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 one of their allowable wall mounted signs along the northern fagade of the building; with no sign along the Dorset Street fagade, specifically where the approved elevations depict 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 fagade 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." This application is an attempt to satisfy this condition. Standards for review Desiqn 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: This area is planned to be the core area of the City Center with the highest density and greatest mix of uses. It is the intent of this area to be the main "downtown" for South Burlington and therefore should uphold the highest quality of design. Building materials should consist only of natural, indigenous materials (brick or stone) and the buildings themselves should relate directly to the public street. They should be placed up front to the property line and the main entrance should face the street rather than parking lots. (a) Consistent design. Building design shall promote a consistent organization -2- #DR-08-03 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 facade 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. (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 -3- #DR-08-03 consider solar energy and the use of natural daylight by capturing the sun's energy during the winter and providing shade during the summer. The proposed wall art meets the standards outlined above. A letter and a plan from the applicant summarizing the proposed changes was submitted and is included in the document file for this application. Staff has worked with the applicant since the last hearing on May 20, 2008 and is in agreement with respect to the revised proposal. A smaller piece is being proposed and the applicant has consented to a one year time limitation for installation. A drawing is enclosed in the document file for this application. DECISION Motion by G « �{%l� seconded byRn to approve Design Review Application #DR-08-03 of Patrick Malone, subject to th following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not superseded by this approval shall remain in effect. 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 proposed art shall be installed no later than one (1) year after the date of this design review approval. 4. Any change to the site plan shall require approval of the South Burlington Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer. Mark Behr — yea/nay/abstai of present Matthew Birmingham —yea/nay a s am/hot present John Dinklage /nay/abstain/not preset Roger Farley —� I.' nay/abstain/not present Eric Knudsen — e nay/abstain/not present Peter Plumeau — ea/nay/abstain/ of presen Gayle Quimby —(ye ay/abstain/not present Motion carried by a vote of `Y - U -L> Signed this )7 day of 2008, by John Dinklage, CKait -4- #DR-08-03 Please note: You have the right to appeal this decision to the Vermont Environmental Court, pursuant to 24 VSA 4471 and VRCP 76 in writing, within 30 days of the date this decision is issued. The fee is $225.00. 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-