The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDR-09-06 - Decision - 0365 Dorset Street#DR-09-06 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING MCQUISTON BOUTIN, LLC - 365 DORSET STREET DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION #DR-09-06 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION McQuiston Boutin LLC, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking to obtain a new master signage permit for a property in the Dorset Street/City Center Design District. The master signage permit would establish the design scheme for the freestanding and wall signs on the property, 365 Dorset Street. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on December 1, 2009. John Boutin 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 seeking to obtain a new master signage permit for a property in the Dorset Street/City Center Design District. The master signage permit would establish the design scheme for the freestanding and wall signs on the property, 365 Dorset Street. 2. The application was received on November 13, 2009. 3. The owner of record of the subject property is Paul Martelle 4. The subject property is located in the Central 3 Zoning District 5. The plans submitted consist of a two (2) page set of plans, including a depiction of the sign and an overall site plan. The plans are not dated. Pursuant to Section 6 of the City of South Burlington Sign Ordinance, the erection, alteration, or relocation of any sign within this district shall require design review by the South Burlington Design Review Committee (DRC) and Development Review Board (DRB). Section 8 of the Sign Ordinance requires all property owners within the DS/CC Sign District to obtain a Master Signage Permit. The South Burlington Design Review Committee met on November 23, 2009 to discuss the application and unanimously recommended the following review: DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA In reviewing an application for signage, the DRC and DRB shall consider the following: (a) Consistent Design I:\Development Review Boa rd\Findings_Decisions\2009\Mcquiston_DR0906_ffd.doc UQ I I i The design of a sign must be compatible and harmonious with the design of buildings on the subject property and nearby. The design of all signs on a property shall promote consistency in terms of color, graphic style, lighting, location, material and proportions. The Board finds that the design of the proposed signs is harmonious with the design of the buildings on the subject property and nearby. (b) Promotion of City Center Goals Signs within the DS/CC Sign District should be of high aesthetic quality and pedestrian oriented. The Board finds that this criterion is being met. The proposed materials consist of an aluminum composite background, the colors, lettering, and design come together to present an aesthetically pleasing sign. The sign is pedestrian scaled at a height of approximately 9 feet. (c) Color & Texture The applicant is proposing that the background area for the freestanding signs to be bright white or dark blue, conversely with contrasting bright white or dark blue lettering. A lighter shade of blue shall be acceptable for accent coloring, and red shall be allowed for accent lettering. Posts shall be bright white. (d) Materials Used Pursuant to Section 20 of the Sign Ordinance, all signs shall be of substantial and sturdy construction, kept in good repair, and painted or cleaned as necessary to maintain a clean, safe, and orderly appearance. As the applicant is proposing to use an aluminum composite as the main sign material. They have stated that they plan to reuse the existing pressure -treated wood sign posts. This is acceptable provided that they are painted or stained a bright white. They shall be kept in good repair. All signs shall be kept in a clean, safe and orderly appearance. The applicant should acknowledge this. (e) Wall Mounted Signs Section 10 of the Sign Ordinance governs the size and location of wall -mounted signs. Pursuant to Table 10-1 of the Sign Ordinance, a wall -mounted sign for a multi - tenant building or a multi -building lot with a master signage permit in any district with freestanding or landscape sign shall not exceed 15% of the area of the facade to which it is attached or 100 sq. ft., whichever is smaller. I:\Development Review Boa rd\Findings_Decisions\2009\Mcquiston_DR0906_ffd.doc #DR-09-06 Pursuant to Table 10-1 of the Sign Ordinance, the total area of all wall -mounted signs on the subject property shall not exceed 10% of the area of principal public fagade of each building. The code officer shall ensure that these criteria are met when issuing individual sign permits for the property. Section 10(c) states that a wall -mounted sign shall not project above the roof or parapet of the building nor below the top of any first floor doorway unless permitted through the design review approval process. The applicant has not proposed any wall signs. If the applicant proposes any wall signs, they shall be incompliance with this criterion. Pursuant to Section 10(d), a wall -mounted sign shall not cover any opening or project beyond the top or end of any wall to which it is attached. Section 10(g) stipulates that a wall -mounted sign shall not project from the wall in excess of 9". (0 Freestanding Signs Section 9(h) states that free-standing signs along Dorset Street are to be located in a sign corridor that begins adjacent to the road Right -of -Way and runs sixteen (16) feet from the edge of the Right of Way toward the building face. In those instances where dimensions do not provide for a two (2) foot setback from the Right -of -Way before a sign support post can be located, it is permitted to erect a centered single pole mounted sign of which the road side edge of the sign is directly outside the R.O.W. line. The code officer shall ensure compliance with this criterion such that the subject sign shall be within this designated sign corridor. OTHER The applicant has not proposed any lighting. However, a conduit and electrical box remain on the existing sign posts which are to be reused. The Design Review Committee recommends that the box and associated exposed conduits be painted white if they are to remain. DECISION Motion by seconded byCI&LE to approve DesignfReview Applicatlon4UH-09-06 of McQuiston Boutin, LLC s bject to the 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. I:\Development Review Boa rd\Findings_Decisions\2009\Mcquiston_DR0906_ffd.doc #DR-09-06 3. A Master Signage Permit shall be issued to the applicant by the DRB, prior to the issuance of any individual sign permit for the property. 4. The predominant colors (i.e. central logos and principal text) of the freestanding and wall signs shall be limited to white or dark blue, conversely with contrasting white or dark blue lettering. A lighter shade of blue shall be acceptable for accent coloring, and red shall be allowed for accent lettering. Sign posts shall be bright white. 5. The sign posts shall be a clean bright white and kept in good repair, in both construction and paint. 6. All signs shall be kept in good repair; landscaping surrounding the freestanding signs shall be kept trimmed and neat and shall not obscure the text of the signs. 7. Wall signs shall not extend above the roof or parapet of the building, nor below the top of any first floor doorways or windows. 8. Wall signs shall not cover any opening or project beyond the top or end of any wall to which it is attached. 9. Wall signs shall not project from the wall in excess of 9". 10. The electrical box on the sign and related conduits are to be painted white if they are to remain. Mark Behr —r e nay/abs__ �n/not present Matthew Birming — e nay/abstain/not present John Dinklage /nay abstain/not present Roger Farley — ay/abstain/not present Eric Knudsen y nay/abstain/not present Gayle QuimbWenay/abstain/not nay/abstain/not present Bill Stuono — present Motion carried by a vote of �- v - v Signed this / day of 2009, 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 $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). 4 I:\Development Review Boa rd\Findings_Decisions\2009\Mcquiston_DR0906_ffd.doc