HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 07_2024-10-01 DRB Minutes DRAFT
PAGE 1
DRAFT MINUTES
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
1 OCTOBER 2024
The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on
Tuesday, 1 October 2024 at 7:00 p.m. in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market
Street, and via Go to Meeting interactive technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: D. Philibert, Chair; M. Behr, Q. Mann, J. Lesko, J. Moscatelli,
C. Johnston
ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; M. Gillies,
Development Review Planner; A. Rowe, K. Braverman, R. Dahlstrom
1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency:
Ms. Philibert provided instructions on emergency exit from the building.
2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items:
No changes were made to the agenda.
3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda:
No issues were raised.
4. Announcements:
There were no announcements.
5. Miscellaneous Permit Application #MS-24-02 of Prospect Place
Apartments, LLC, for alternative entrance compliance as allowed under
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD [DATE] | PAGE 2
the Land Development Regulations Section 8.06H for a mixed-use
building consisting of 120 units & 6,000 sf of commercial space, 112
Garden Street:
Mr. Rowe explained that in City Center Form Based Code district, they received an
administrative approval. The building is constructed and will be occupied in June.
It includes 2 non-resident spaces, a café (not yet fit up) and a 5000 sq. ft. daycare
use. The play area is at the far end of the building, farthest from Garden St. The
main entry is at the back of the building. There are 2 doors on Garden Street. For
safety reasons, those doors have to be locked. In the T-4 district, there is a
provision for alternative entry. They are asking to keep those doors locked and
provide an alternative entrance which would activate the streetscape. They
propose a mini-parklet at the far end of the building. There is another parklet with
amenities at the head of the gravel wetland.
Staff comments were addressed as follows:
#1. Staff consider the proposed alternate detracts from other elements of
the entrance standard intention by reducing the engagement along the
commercial length of the building. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether
they feel the criteria are met. Ms. Philibert said that when she drives by, she
won’t know whether those doors are locked or not. It will also be charming
because there are “little people” around. Ms. Keene then reviewed the 5
standards as follows:
a. Establishes a consistently pedestrian friendly environment
b. Fosters a built pattern of attractive, engaging building forms
c. Presents users with an inviting street presence of the building
d. Engages users along the length of the building
e. Creates a reason and interest for users to walk the entire length of
the building and engage with the next building rather than
creating an environment where a user would turn around
Mr. Braverman noted this part of the building was originally intended for
residential units. They were then approached to consider the daycare use and
thought it was a great idea. He stressed that nothing on the outside of the
building changed (e.g. windows, etc.).
Members then reviewed the 5 criteria and agreed that they were met. They did
state that if the use were to change, they would want to revisit the situation.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD [DATE] | PAGE 3
#2. Staff asked what alternatives were considered. Mr. Braverman said they
looked at this as the only alternative. They felt the little parklet would enable
people picking up the children would have a place to sit while waiting.
#3. Staff suggested that if the Board considered the concept acceptable,
they should consider requiring the applicant to provide a larger, different tree.
Mr. Rowe said they have no problem providing the sassafras tree recommended
by staff.
Mr. Behr said now that he understands the concept, he has no issue with what the
applicant is proposing. He also thought the parklet is a plus.
Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment.
The applicant was asked whether the outdoor furniture would be bolted down.
Mr. Braverman said it will be.
Ms. Lesko moved to close MS-24-02. Mr. Johnston seconded. Motion passed 6-0.
6. Minutes of 6 August, 4 September, 17 September 2024:
Ms. Lesko moved to approve the Minutes of 6 August, 4 September, and 17
September as presented. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 6-0.
7. Other Business:
No other business was presented.
As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was
adjourned by common consent at 7:38 p.m.
These minutes were approved by the Board on _______.