HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 09B_2019-02-05 DRB Minutes DraftDEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 FEBRUARY 2019
The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 5
February 2019, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.
MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; J Smith, J. Wilking, F. Kochman, M. Behr (via telephone),
M. Cota, B. Sullivan
ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; E.
Langfeldt, A. Gill
1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room:
Mr. Miller provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures.
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:
Mr. Miller noted the 19 February meeting will be held at the Police Station.
5. Sketch plan application #SD‐18‐34 of O’Brien Home Farm for the next phase of
previously approved master plan for 458 dwelling units and 45,000 sq. ft. of office
space. The phase consists of 6 multi‐family residential buildings with 322 units, and a
single‐story parking structure, 255 Kennedy Drive:
Mr. Sullivan recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest.
Mr. Langfeldt said the proposed plan is consistent with the Master Plan. The will be
constructing 322 apartments over the 6 buildings (the original number was 340). The property
is primarily in the R‐12 district which allows this density. They could look to go higher if the
Board wanted that. There is now a good transition from the 2‐story condos on the east side.
Of the initial phase, 17 units are completed, and they are ahead in marketing. The plan is to
build the currently proposed units concurrently with those in the previous phase. Mr. Langfeldt
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
5 FEBRUARY 2019
PAGE 2
showed a plan and indicated what has been built and where the units in the current application
will go.
Mr. Kochman asked how far a child would have to go to find a place to play ball. Mr. Langfeldt
identified parks and green spaces and noted there is a playground in the large park. Mr.
Kochman suggested something closer. Mr. Gill noted an area where there will be amenities
such as a barbeque pool, etc. Mr. Langfeldt said they expect to see more children in the single
family areas than in the apartments.
Staff comments were then addressed as follows:
Staff suggests substituting “PUD” for “lot” relative to the non‐residential buildings to allow
these buildings to be considered principal buildings containing “accessory uses.” Members
were OK with the flexibility of “principal buildings with accessory uses.”
With regard to the height waiver request, Mr. Langfeldt showed some renderings from
different viewpoints. He also indicated under‐building parking and noted the use of different
materials to create more visual interest. Mr. Kochman did not find the buildings “beautiful”
and suggested more of an “aesthetic effort,” something “less boxy.” Mr. Behr felt it was a very
contemporary style, the current design trend. He would prefer more variety, but the design
doesn’t bother him.
Mr. Miller noted that the street trees are shown as “baby trees” and will grow significantly in 30
years. Mr. Gill said they have an extensive pallet of trees (no ash trees), and there will be a
significant landscaping requirement as well. Ms. Keene read the list of specifically approved
varieties of trees. Mr. Wilking suggested something tall to buffer the change from town homes
to multi‐family buildings. Mr. Langfeldt said current residents in the town homes have been
told the multi‐family buildings are coming.
Members were OK with the height request.
Regarding a traffic study, Mr. Langfeldt noted they had a study done for the whole
development which also was presented at Act 250. Ms. Keene said the study did address what
is being proposed in this sketch plan.
Mr. Kochman repeated his request to “squeeze in” a little play area closer to the buildings. Mr.
Miller agreed. Mr. Gill noted the existence of a green area near the stormwater pond.
Mr. Langfeldt said they might possibly use some of the landscaping money for amenities.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
5 FEBRUARY 2019
PAGE 3
Members were concerned with “head in” parking on the bend of Two Brothers Drive. Mr.
Langfeldt felt they could do some reconfiguration of that. Mr. Wilking suggested possibly
widening the road and having parallel parking on each side. He was specifically concerned with
people back out into traffic coming around the bend.
Mr. Miller read into the record the nature of a Sketch Plan and stressed that no decision is
provided to the applicant.
There was no public comment on this application.
The sketch plan was concluded.
Mr. Sullivan rejoined the Board.
6. Other Business:
Mr. Wilking recused himself during this item due to a potential conflict of interest.
It was noted that Dorset Meadows has requested to postpone their scheduled hearing from 5
March to 19 March. The Board was OK with this and will address it with a formal motion on 5
March.
As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 8:06 p.m.
_____________________________________
Clerk
_____________________________________
Date