PLANNING COMMISSION
TOWN OF STOWE
January 2, 2006
Minutes

The Stowe Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Monday, December 19, 2005 in the Banquet Room of the Akeley Memorial Building, starting at 5:30 p.m.

Members present:  Lynn Altadonna, chair  Absent:  Barbara Pfitzenmayer
           Chuck Baraw        Paul Percy
           Marie Duquette
           Bob Evans
           Scott Noble
          
Others present:  Tom Jackman, Director of Planning; Lisa McCormack, Stowe Reporter; Allan Coppock, DRB Chair, Greg and Mitzi Speer.

Minutes

The minutes of the December 19, 2005 meeting were approved on a motion by Mr. Noble, seconded by Mr. Evans. 

Speer’s Re-zoning Request

Greg and Mitzi Speer presented their request to include their property (Inn at Turner Mill) in the Upper Mt. Road district. The property consists of 9 acres and one main building with 6 apartments in the RR-5 district. They would like to build a house, subdivide the lot into 2 parcels and sell the inn property. After the Speers left, the consensus of PC members was that they were willing to consider a natural extension of the northern boundary of the UMR district across the parcel, dividing it into two districts. Mr. Jackman was asked to present this proposal to the Speers and report back to the PC at the next meeting.

Discussion of Possible Zoning Revisions

Mr. Jackman provided the PC with maps of individual zoning districts and an analysis of existing building coverages in the MRV and HT districts. Mr. Jackman noted that the majority of the parcels in these districts have coverages well below the maximum. An analysis of the LVC and VR-20 districts showed that 85% of the existing buildings are non-complying in terms of existing front setback. After a spirited discussion involving Allan Coppock, the DRB Chair, the Commission decided to recommend increasing the maximum building coverage in the HT from 8% to 10% and in the MRV/MRC from 12% to 15%. The consensus also was to decrease the front setback requirement in the LVC from 50ft. to 20ft. and from 30ft. to 20 ft. in the VR-20.

There was a brief discussion of the 100ft. front setback requirement in the HT district. The consensus was that this was too high and contradicted the town’s policy of putting parking behind buildings when possible. Mr. Noble floated the idea of lowering it to 50ft. but no decision was reached and the discussion was tabled until the next meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 8:15.

Respectfully submitted,

Tom Jackman
Director of Planning

***

PLANNING COMMISSION
TOWN OF STOWE
January 16, 2006
Minutes

The Stowe Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Monday, January 16, 2006 in the Town Administrator’s office of the Akeley Memorial Building, starting at 5:30 p.m.

Members present:  Lynn Altadonna, chair  Absent:  Marie Duquette
           Chuck Baraw
           Bob Evans
           Scott Noble
           Paul Percy
           Barbara Pfitzenmayer

Others present:  Tom Jackman, Director of Planning; Biddle Duke, Stowe Reporter; Amanda Riesmeyer, administrative secretary.
Minutes
The minutes of the January 16, 2006, meeting were approved on a motion by Mr. Evans, seconded by Mr. Noble.  Abstained:  Barbara Pfitzenmayer

Discussion:  Allan Coppock’s Letter to the Stowe Reporter
The letter (1/12/06) to the Stowe Reporter by Allan Coppock, chairman of DRB, regarding the issue of conflict of interest during the 1/2/06 Planning Commission Meeting, was briefly discussed.  Mr. Evans commented that a more courteous and proper procedure would have been for Mr. Coppock to have discussed the issue with Chairman Lynn Altadonna first, before going to the select board and the Stowe Reporter.  Mr. Baraw agreed.  Ms. Pfitzenmayer added that in a small town where the pool of volunteers is not large there is always the possibility of accusations of special treatment. When one goes on the commission it is assumed that you set your agenda aside.  Having been on the commission for 6 or 7 years she has never had a sense that people were using their position to further their own personal goals.  Mr. Noble stated that if we want strong commissions we need strong people, people invested in the community in one way or the other.  The strength of this commission, he said, is that it has people from virtually every part of the community who all bring with them knowledge about the things they do and that knowledge should be imparted and shared.  It is fair that we should remind ourselves every once and awhile about potential conflicts and revisit the issue now and then. Commission members agreed that Mr. Baraw did not have a conflict of interest and therefore did not need to recuse himself. Mr. Altadonna summed up the discussion by thanking Mr. Baraw for handling the letter in admirable manner stating that periodically conflict of interest needs to be looked at, recognizing the issue for what it is and as a commission behave accordingly, above reproach.

Revisions to PC Rules and Regulations
Revisions to the Planning Commission’s Rules of Operation were reviewed by the commission. The changes suggested were as follows:
Section II.  Purposes
* Eliminate “Purposes.”
* Move “Section IV. Powers and Duties” to Section II.  
Section III. Membership
* Change “nine (9) members” to “seven (7) members.”
Section IV. Meetings
* A. Annual Meeting: Add “review of these Rules and Regulations” after “…ensuing year.”
* D. Deliberative Sessions: Delete entire paragraph as it is no longer applicable.  DRB now does this.
* Delete “Closed Deliberative Session” in the sentence directly proceeding       
    A.  Annual Meeting.
* G.  Conflict of Interest: Reword this section in include the following:

In the event that any members shall have a conflict of interest of any kind in the matter before the commission, he/she shall disclose his/her interest.

A member shall recuse himself/herself from all participation in any matter of the commission upon which there may be such a conflict of interest.

In the event a citizen asserts that a commissioner has a conflict of interest the chair may request the commissioner to recuse himself/herself.

* H.  Proceedings
2. Delete “Notices of Decision/Finding of Fact” and replace with “Planning Director’s Report.”
4. Needs to be abridged.
* I.  Scheduling:  Delete 1 and 2.  Rework 3.
* K.  Public Hearings: Delete what no longer applies.

Planning Director’s Report
Mr. Jackman presented the proposal to the Speers that came out of the 1/2/06 PC meeting.  There are some complexities still to be worked out and Mr. Jackman will put together a summary of the request to be discussed at the next PC meeting.

Mr. Altadonna, Mr. Noble and Mr. Jackman met with Valerie Rochon and Chris Cochran (State Historic Preservation) to talk about Village Center Designation vs. Downtown Designation.  His department has proposed legislation that will essentially provide equal benefits to both designations. Mr. Jackman noted that because of this, applying for village center designation makes most sense. One issue of concern is what boundaries to use in the application.  It seems to make most sense to go for the bigger boundary and apply to get the whole area covered by the Stowe Historic Overlay district designated as the village center. It’s a political process that legislators will vote on and it needs to be supported.  Mr. Jackman will provide a map by next meeting that PC can review and vote on.

Mr. Jackman is working on a recreational trails program grant with 2 components: 1) to build seven bridges on the Catamount Trail in Sterling Forest. The Youth Conservation Corp. will build the bridges with volunteers from the Stowe Mountain Bike Club and the Catamount Trail Association hauling the lumber to the sites.  2)  Stowe has partnered with Sterling Falls Gorge National Area Trust to finish up a project to build stone stairs out of the gorge to make it safer.

Traffic Discussion
Traffic issues in Stowe and whether or not the Planning Commission is doing all it should do regarding traffic problems was discussed.  The PC agreed that it would be most helpful if Mr. Jackman could pull together traffic studies that have previously been done and give a quick synopsis of them.  One such comprehensive study is the RSG-RTE 100 Study.  This study has very specific recommendations and should be revisited. 

Discussion of Possible Zoning Revisions
* H.T.: change min. front set back from 100 ft. to 50 ft. and change maximum building coverage from 8% to 10%.
* VC-30 change to VC-10.
* LVC:  Consider changing min. front set back from 50 ft. to 20 ft. and max. bldg. coverage from 20% to 25%.  Mr. Jackman will do an analysis to present at the next meeting.
* VR-40: consider changing to RR1.  Mr. Jackman will do an assessment to bring to the next meeting.

At 7:50 pm the PC voted to go into Executive Session on a motion by Paul Percy, seconded by Mr. Noble.

The meeting adjourned at 8:05.

Respectfully submitted,

Amanda Riesmeyer
Administrative secretary
***

PLANNING COMMISSION
TOWN OF STOWE
January 30, 2006
Minutes

The Stowe Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Monday, January 30, 2006, in the Banquet Room of the Akeley Memorial Building, starting at 5:30 p.m.

Members present:  Lynn Altadonna, chair  Absent:  Paul Percy
           Chuck Baraw
           Bob Evans
           Marie Duquette
           Scott Noble
           Barbara Pfitzenmayer

Others present:  Tom Jackman, Director of Planning; Lisa McCormack, Stowe Reporter; Amanda Riesmeyer, Administrative Secretary; Greg and Mitzi Speer. 
Minutes
The minutes of the January 16, 2006, meeting were approved on a motion by Mr. Evans, seconded by Mr. Noble. 

Planning Director’s Report
Mr. Jackman reported that the Mountain Road Shuttle rider ship for the months of November and December was up by 110%, from 3759 to 7899 for this first season of free service.

Speer’s Re-zoning Request
Greg and Mitzi Speer presented their request to include their property (Inn at Turner Mill) in the Upper Mountain Road district.  This and other possible options were discussed by PC members and the Speers.   Greg made a proposal to modify the boundary line.  Mr. Noble made a motion to move to pubic hearing the modification of the Upper Mountain Road boundary to include the 5 acres of the Speer property in a boundary to be set.  The motion died from lack of a second.
 
Mr. Noble made a new motion to include 4 acres of the Speer property as originally drawn of the Upper Mountain Road and to take to public hearing.  Mr. Braw seconded the motion which passed 4 to 2, Ms. Pfitzenmayer and Mr. Evans opposing. 

Revisions to PC Rules of Operation
Mr. Altadonna reviewed the revisions made to the PC’s Rules of Operation at the January 16, 2006, meeting.  He suggested adding a second sentence in paragraph one of Section V. to read:

Officers may be elected to successive terms; however, the commission is encouraged to share leadership responsibilities among its members. 
This met with the consensus of PC members.  The Rules of Operation as amended were approved on a motion by Mr. Noble, seconded by Marie Duquette.

Traffic Studies
Mr. Jackman distributed handouts of previous traffic studies.  After a brief overview and discussion, Mr. Altadonna noted that traffic studies have already been done which lay out a roadmap for improvements when needed.  A major concern raised was the matter of safety and members agreed to use safety as criteria in prioritizing tasks. It was the consensus of the PC to pursue the following actions:

* To consider putting stop signs at the West Hill Rd./Rte.100 intersection at Shaws.
* Redesign the Luce Hill/Mt. Road intersection into a “T” intersection.

Mr. Jackman will bring to the next PC meeting the Map Company Study for members to review. 

The meeting adjourned at 7:30.

Respectfully submitted,

Amanda Riesmeyer
Administrative Secretary