Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDR-07-04 - Decision - 0222 Dorset Street#DR-07-04 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING PATRICK MALONE - 222 DORSET STREET DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION #DR-07-04 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 a public meeting on Tuesday, June 5, 2007. Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public meeting and the plans and supporting materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: NDINGS OF FACT 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). 2. The Design Review Committee held a meeting on May 21, 2007 and recommended that this application go before the Development Review Board for approval. 3. The owner of record of the subject property is Patrick Malone. 4. The subject property is located in the Design District 1 of the City Center Design Review Overlay District. 5. The building elevation plan submitted is entitled, "Malone Properties Healthy Living Natural Foods Market 222 Dorset Street Renovations South Burlington, Vermont", prepared by Bast & Rood Architects et al, dated 4/2/07, last revised on &41&7. . Prior to the May 21, 2007 Design Review Committee reviewed by the Design Review Committee on January made to the design elements of this project, the Design the new application and related materials carefully. meeting, this application was last 22, 2007. As changes have been Review Committee should review - 1 - #DR-07-04 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 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 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. The proposed changes are largely in compliance with this criterion. The use of materials is consistent on all sides of the building and has not changed as a result of this design review amendment. (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. The applicant proposed 'jumbo brick' and 'hardi-plank' siding with some use of split face concrete block and a wire mesh lattice. The Committee previously stated that materials are acceptable and in compliance with the regulations. There are no changes as a result of this application. (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. The applicant is proposing to predominantly use shades of red brick and beige 'hardi-plank' siding throughout the design. There are no changes as a result of this application. (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. -2- #DR-07-04 The changes to the windows are perhaps the most significant change presented in this application for amendment. Some windows have been improved (the windows on the north elevation near the main entrance now have mullion lines) while other windows have been removed (see East Elevation) or reduced (see west elevation). Others have simply been relocated. The most noticeable change is apparent on the north elevation near the area labeled "checkout area." Here, the outer window bays have been reduced from three panes to two. Undoubtedly, some of the proposed changes are positive, and some are negative; the proposed changes are equal in scope with respect to this regard and are balanced throughout the building. Still, the Committee should closely examine the drawings provided by the applicant to compare the changes and render guidance and a recommendation in this respect to the Development Review Board. (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. The applicant is proposing several lattice treatments and design walls which will serve to shield rooftop apparatus. The new application provides a new wall to conceal RTUs from the east elevation that was previously open. (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. There had previously been great discussion relating to this matter. No changes to this element have been proposed as part of this application. (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. It has already been noted that the applicant has presented a plan which provides more than substantial screening of the rooftop devices. The applicant is proposing several lattice treatments and design walls which will serve to shield rooftop apparatus. The new -3- #DR-07-04 application provides a new wall to conceal RTUs from the east elevation that was previously open. (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. There are no changes to this criterion as a part of this application. (i) Pedestrian promenade along Market Street. This criterion is not applicable to the subject application. In addition, design plans for properties within Design District 2 shall comply with the following site design criteria, as outlined in Section 11.02 of the Land Development Regulations: (a) Landscape and plantings. The landscaping plan has received partial approval as part of the subdivision application approved by the Development Review Board on February 6, 2007. Other elements of the landscaping plan are being designed in conjunction with the City Center Urban Art team. (b) Integrate special features with the design. Storage areas, machinery and equipment installation, service areas, truck loading areas, garbage and refuse collection areas, utility connections, meters and structures, mailboxes, and similar accessory structures shall be positioned in such a way to minimize visibility from the public street, existing or planned. Such features shall be incorporated within or designed as part of the building on the site, not added as an afterthought. There are no changes to this criterion as part of this application. (c) Walls, fences or other screening features: Such elements, if used, shall be employed in a skillful manner and in harmony with the architectural context of the development. Such features should be used to enhance building appearance and to strengthen visual linkages between a building and its surroundings. The Committee previously discussed plans for the fencing surrounding the trash facilities. No changes to free-standing walls or fences are proposed as part of this application. (d) Accessible open space. When providing open space on a site, it shall be designed to be visually and physically accessible from the public street. Open space should add to the visual amenities of the vicinity by maximizing its visibility for persons passing by or overlooking the site from neighboring properties. If open space is intended for active use, it should include such elements as benches, shade trees, and refuse containers and be so designed to maximize its accessibility for all individuals, including the disabled, and encourage social interaction. The siting of open space on a lot shall also consider the potential impact of buildings, both existing and potential, on shadow casting and solar access. -4- #DR-07-04 This has been addressed as part of the previously referenced City Center Urban Art initiative. No changes to this area have been proposed as part of this application. (e) Provide efficient and effective circulation Circulation on the site is adequate. (f) Outdoor Lighting. There have been a few minor changes in the location of lighting fixtures, including new up -lit canopy lights. These are acceptable. (g) Provide for nature's events. Attention shall be accorded to design features which address the affects of rain, snow and ice at building entrances and on sidewalks, and provisions for snow and ice removal from circulation areas. There are no changes to this criterion as a result of this application. (h) Make spaces secure and safe. With respect to personal safety, all open and enclosed spaces should be designed to facilitate building evacuation, and provide reasonable accessibility by fire, police or other emergency personnel and equipment. There are no changes to this criterion as a result of this application. (i) Streetscape improvements. An applicant for new development shall be responsible for implementing streetscape improvements (e.g., sidewalks, street lighting, street trees, etc.) within the portion of the public street ROW directly fronting the parcel of land for which development is proposed. Dorset Street already has appropriate street tree plantings and sidewalks. The design for the section of the property abutting the new road will be handled as part of the "Blue Zone' Design competition. DECISION Motion by 6 (z ` C seconded by &a F41<(-G)l , to approve Design Review Applicati n #DR-07-04 of Patrick Malone, subject to fhe 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. Any change to the site plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board. -5- #DR-07-04 Mark Behr — r&ye /nay/abstain/not present Matthew Birmingham — yea/nay/absta_in of presen John Dinklage — yea/nay/abstai not presen Roger Farley — e nay/abstain/no present Eric Knudsen — e nay/abstain/not present- Peter Plumeau — a/nay/abstain of presen Gayle Quimby — qe/nay/abstain/not present Motion carried by a vote of -� Signed this r7 day of- c P46 2007, by A /MA Behr, Vice Chairman 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).