HomeMy WebLinkAboutDR-01-05 - Decision - 0372 Dorset Street#DR-01-05
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
STATE OF VERMONT
COUNTY OF CHITTENDEN
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
Re: Findings of Fact, design review application #DR-01-05 of Nigel Mucklow to: 1) add
three windows and a sign panel to the north fagade, 2) remove the cast stone siding, the
current window and door bays, and chimney stack from the west fagade, 3) introduce a
center side gable to the west fagade with three six over six pane windows underneath
framed on the fagade of the building by wooden pilaster strips and flanked on each side
by three window bays each with one six over six pane window, and 4) reconfigure the
three western most bays on the south fagade, 372 Dorset Street.
On the l Oth of July 2001, the South Burlington Development Review Board approved the
design review application of Nigel Mucklow, under Section 24.20 of the South
Burlington Zoning Regulations based on the following findings:
This project consists of. 1) adding three windows and a sign panel to the north fagade,
2) removing the cast stone siding, the current window and door bays, and chimney
stack from the west fagade, 3) introducing a cross gable to the west fagade with three
six over six pane windows underneath framed on the facade of the building by
wooden pilaster strips and flanked on each side by three window bays each with one
six over six pane window, and 4) reconfiguring the three western most bays on the
south fagade, 372 Dorset Street.
2. The owner of record is Nigel Mucklow.
3. This property is located within Central District Two and Design Review District Two.
It is bounded on the west by Dorset Street, on the north by a commercial property,
and on the south and east by open land.
4. Consistent Design: The applicant proposed removing the cast stone siding from the
west and south facades of the building and residing with vinyl. New six over six
windows will be added to these facades as well as the north fagade. The east fagade
as well as the north and south facades of the ell will remain unchanged. These
facades are associated with a storage use on the rear of the building. The majority of
what is visible from the public right of way will be united by vinyl clapboard siding.
There is currently vinyl clapboard siding on the north fagade of the building. This
siding will be continued along the Dorset Street fagade and south fagade. The green
trim will match the existing trim on the north fagade. The proposed changes will
unify half of the building while leaving the un-renovated storage area untouched and
contrasting to the rest of the building. The proposed changes will not make the
renovated portion of the building contrast drastically with the un-renovated portion,
but the difference will be noticeable. The proposed alterations will complement the
new construction at 368 Dorset Street and 415 Dorset Street which utilize the same
color scheme and materials. If the ivory siding did not already exist on the building,
staff would probably recommend that a different base color be used for the building
to prevent the streetscape from becoming monotonous.
5. Materials Used: The applicant proposed vinyl siding and asphalt shingle for the roof.
These materials are already present on the building and have been approved by the
Committee previously within Design Review District Two. Staff recommended that
the simulated wood grain vinyl siding be avoided in favor of vinyl siding without a
simulated texture.
6. Colors and Textures: The applicant proposed removing the cast stone siding and
replacing it with ivory vinyl clapboard siding with "Wildwood" green trim. These
colors complement the colors existing on the north facade of the building. Staff
recommended that the simulated wood grain vinyl siding be avoided in favor of vinyl
siding without a simulated texture.
7. Windows & Doors: The applicant proposed six over six pane windows. There are
currently one over one pane windows on the building. The replacement windows will
span over entire facades so that only the new windows will be visible to the public
streets thereby creating a unified look to the building. Currently there are windows
varying in size, some of which have been removed and boarded over, on the building.
Section 21.201(d) requires that the majority of the first floor's facade area consist of
see -through glass in order to promote pedestrian activity in Design District Two. The
applicant proposed to increase the amount of glass on the north, west, and south
facades.
8. Human Scale Design: The applicant proposed a cross gable with pilaster strips
centered on the west, or the street, facade. This introduces elements that reduce the
building's apparent overall size. The new design elements break the monotony of the
west facade and add design elements to a facade that was previously devoid of
architectural detailing.
9. Roof as a Design Element: The proposed cross gable will penetrate the length of the
current side gable which dominates the Dorset Street facade. This interruption will
serve to break up an otherwise monotonous facade. The use of pilaster strips will tie
the new roof design element into the block of the structure.
10. Orient Buildings to Public Streets: Section 24.401(g) of the Zoning Regulations
requires that the primary entrance to buildings shall be "oriented directly on the
public street rather than facing parking lots". The applicant proposed eliminate the
single existing entranceway on Dorset Street and replacing it with three six over six
windows. Staff recommended that these proposed windows be replaced with a door
with sidelights and perhaps a transom light.
t
11. Conceal Rooftop Devices: No rooftop devices were proposed.
12. Landscape and Plantings: No changes were proposed.
13. Efficient and Effective Circulation: No changes were proposed.
14. Outdoor Lighting: No changes were proposed.
15. Special Features: The applicant did not propose any air conditioner units, new gas,
electric, or phone meters on the exterior of the building.
DECISION AND CONDITIONS
Based on the above Findings of Fact, the South Burlington Development Review Board
approves the design review application #DR-01-05 of Nigel Mucklow to: 1) add three
windows and a sign panel to the north fagade, 2) remove the cast stone siding, the current
window and door bays, and chimney stack from the west fagade, 3) introduce a center
side gable to the west fagade with three six over six pane windows underneath framed on
the fagade of the building by wooden pilaster strips and flanked on each side by three
window bays each with one six over six pane window, and 4) reconfigure the three
western most bays on the south fagade, 372 Dorset Street, as depicted on a ten (10) page
set of plans, page one entitled "Nigel Mucklow" with a stamped received date of 7/10/01
with the following stipulations:
This approval of the proposed addition is based on the application's
compliance with the design review criteria contained in Section 24 of
the South Burlington Zoning Ordinance. The determination of
whether or not this application complies with all other requirements
contained in the zoning ordinance shall be made by the Administrative
Officer.
2. The proposed structure shall utilize a high quality vinyl that does not
use a simulated grain.
3. All graffiti shall be removed from the exterior of the building.
4. For the purposes of zoning and subdivision, this property shall not be
exempted from Design Review associated with air conditioner units,
new gas, electric, phone meters, or other utilities on the exterior of the
building.
5. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant
to Section 27.302 of the zoning regulations or this approval is null and
void.
6. The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy/Compliance from
the Administrative Officer prior to the occupancy of the building.
air or Clerk D e
South Burlington Development Review Board
Please Note: You have the right to appeal this decision to the Vermont Environmental Court, pursuant
to 24 V.S.A. § 4471 and V.R. C.P. 76, in writing, within 30 days of the date this decision is issued. The fee
is $150.00. 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 V.S.A. § 4472(d)
(exclusivity of remedy; finality).
4