Development Review Board

                                                   December 5, 2006

 

The regular meeting of the Stowe Development Review Board was held Tuesday, December 5, 2006 in the Auditorium in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M.

 

Members present: Larry Jones, Chair; Susan Brittin, Ed Izzo, Dean Pineles and Lynn Altadonna as alternate .

Absent: Ted Teffner. There remain two vacancies on the Board.

 

Project:           Demolition of a historic house

Mr. Izzo moved to POSTPONE to January 16, 2007 at the applicant’s request in order that additional materials may be provided. The applicant needs to return to the Historic Preservation Commission as they previously granted recommendations for only a portion of the house to be demolished. Mr. Pineles seconded the motion with Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Izzo, Pineles, Jones and Altadonna voting in favor. Mr. Teffner not present.

 

Project:          Review of previous approval for live music

Present was Mr. Rovetto. Mr. Baker, Zoning Administrator, told members he had received no complaints of noise and an e-mail was sent on behalf of the neighbor’s saying they had no complaints and Mr. Rovetto stated he had been to the neighbors property each time he had a live band (2 times this season) but does not have one on a regular basis (possibly have one on an occasional basis on Friday nights). He said he is making an effort to keep any volume down and the manager is required to do this. The owner has a DJ Thursday nights. Mr. Pineles asked if anyone other than the abutter had complained about the noise and Mr. Rovetto said no. The plan is to do the patio in the spring but is in the process of revising the plans. Music starts at 10:00 and could go 1:45 A.M. Mr. Pineles moved finding that the applicant was in front of the Board satisfying condition #4 of the 9/14/06 approval, finding that mitigation measures have been taken. The previous approval goes forth until 9/14/07 with the all conditions remaining in effect. Mr. Altadonna seconded the motion with Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Izzo, Jones, Altadonna and Pineles voting in favor. Mr. Teffner was absent.

 

Project:           Requesting a height waiver in SHOD (POSTPONED 11/28/06)

Present were Heather Palmer and Darrow Mansfield. Since approval for the project was granted, the applicant, because of design constraint, has been back to SHPC seeking approval to go from a roof pitch of 12 over 6 to 12 over 8 which 11/30/06 recommending the DRB accept the design change. Sec. 17.9 of the Bylaws refers to the waiver request. Mrs. Brittin moved to grant the 2’ waiver because of the design change allowing a 12 over 8’ roof pitch. Mr. Altadonna seconded the motion. All previous conditions shall remain in force. Mr. Altadonnaseconded the motion withMrs. Brittin, Mr. Izzo, Jones, Pineles and Altadonna voting in favor. Mr. Teffner was absent.

 

Project #:       Convert office space to retail and convert a portion of Unit #1 to additional office space and façade renovations to Unit #12. Postponed 11/28/06. Requesting to RECESS changes to Unit # 1 (main house) to January 2, 2007 to allow for further SHPC review. POSTPONED 11/28/06).

Zone:              RR-1/RR-2 & SHOD

Present was Darrow Mansfield stating the changes being requested are in Unit #2, office-barn. Will now have a single door in the barn with minor changes in the windows. North elevations have changed the window patterns. Once the cellar hole was dug, it created space to be used for office. The driveway has been constructed (with changes) and parking spaces have increased to 20 (from 16). 4 parking lot streetlights, 12’ in height with 100 watt metal halide bulbs. Planting 3 maples on the western side and 2 flowering crabs near the parking lot will increase landscaping. SHPC recommended changes to building #2, stated Mr. Jones and a decision dated 11/30/06 was submitted. Windows will all have divided lights. Building lighting remains as previously approved. Landscaping Plan: proposing addition of 5 additional trees. Parking: 4 additional spaces were added and streetlights with the location being identified. tape 1 side 2 Parking lot lights will be on timers and switched. There is a designated a van parking space with a patio type area which allow for use of the lift of the van. Building #1 approved for 2 offices spaces requiring 6 spaces. Building #2 is 2 rental spaces, 3 spaces per unit so requires 6 spaces totaling 12 spaces. Façade: Windows have been redesigned on all elevations. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law as an amendment to the previous approval of Building #2 reflecting changes to parking, landscaping and the façade, noting the approval of the SHPC letter dated 11/30/06. Mr. Pineles seconded the motion with all in favor. Mr. Teffner absent.

CONDITIONS: All conditions of the previous approval shall remain in force.

 

Mrs. Brittin moved to RECESS any action of project #3243 having to do with Unit #1 to January 9, 2007. Mr. Altadonna seconded the motion with Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Jones, Altadonna, Pineles and Izzo voting in favor. Mr. Teffner absent. 

 

Project #:   3256

Owner:      Mansfield, Darrow

Tax Parcel #: 7-312.100

Location:        996 South Main Street

Project:           Requesting approval to convert office space to retail and one bedroom apartment. Convert basement space to office. POSTPONED 11/28. Requesting to POSTPONE to JANUARY 2, 2007to allow approval coordination with Project 3243.

Mr. Pineles moved to grant the POSTPONEMENT to the first meeting in JANUARY 2007. Mrs. Brittin seconded the motion with all members in favor. Mr. Teffner was not present. 

 

Project:            Preliminary Review for redevelopment of the Mountain Road Resort.

Present were Darrow Mansfield, Land Planner and David Sellers, Architect from Warren, Vt. Mr. Jones stated this hearing is only as a preliminary review (it was warned) but no decision will be made. Mr. Mansfield stated the applicant is looking to tear down the Mountain Road Resort on 16.4 acres, 7 acres + 10 acres in the rear which has a single family dwelling and garage. Presently is a 30 room motel, 2 buildings, outdoor and indoor pools, tennis courts, owner’s apartment and shed. Resort was built in the 50’s and there is a stream running behind the hotel, which will be rebuilt. Plans are to move the driveway south, tear down the buildings and rebuild with a single building of 33 hotel suites, day spa and 99-seat restaurant open to the public. Lawn area will be restructured to have an ice skating rink (120’ x 60’) in the winter and in the summer lawn croquet etc. There will be an outdoor pool. A series of hiking paths will be cut to the rear of the property, which will have 6 cabins on the hillside. These cabins will have single bed, fireplace but no kitchen facilities. Will be used as part of the hotel business and located so one could hike, snowshoe or snowmobile to them. The existing house will remain and used for storage and recreation things. Site Plan A-2 is for future Phase 2. Mr. Mansfield introduced Mr. Sellers who stated they would like to put the hotel back to the rear as far as possible and because of the grade, it would accommodate underground parking. There will be an orchard. The pond will be lighted with moderate lighting for skating. Mr. Sellers stated the rink could be done without refrigeration. The design of the hotel will look like a rambling building with the roof scape designed to hold the snow in the winter (so when one looks they will see snow and not roof). Mr. Sellers said they are looking to maintain the snow. The center will be 3-story with skylights, fireplace, and water feature inside. The buildings have not been designed, stated Mr. Sellers. DENSITY:  Mr. Mansfield stated there is 7.1 acres in HT; .5 acres for restaurant; leaving 87,496 s.f. (??)

of ground at 5 per A, for the 33 rooms. In addition there is 9.4 in RR-3 . There is density enough for 3 residential units, which may come to the front area. Mr. Mansfield stated they are not counting the cabins in the density. (a question for the Board) They will be used for either /or—not rented as a room. There will be electricity, compost toilets but year around cabins. 200-300’ uphill to the cabins. There are many decisions and choices to be made with the cabins. Mr. Altadonna suggested the applicant confer with Wendall Mansfield, Fire Chief re: the cabins. Mr. Sellers stated there would be valet parking as well as underground parking (80 spaces). Mr. Baker suggested the Board look at RR-3 zone, and at Conditional Uses in the zone to see how it fits. Mr. Baker said he was not sure one could have an accessory use in the RR. Would have to have the use of snowmobiles for safety. tape 2 side 1 SITE COVERAGE: Mr. Jones said one issue is lot coverage, in HT is a maximum 8% but RR-3 there is no limitation. Can the Board coordinate the two districts into one parcel, questioned Mr. Jones. Mr. Baker there was a question can one have a PUD which is for a resort but not a Ski PUD?. That would allow merging into one unit. A PRD has commercial aspects within a commercial zone. Any decision of the Board will determine how the project is designed, stated Mr. Baker. Mr. Jones stated the Board has to deal with the regulations as they exist. Mr. Mansfield stated the question is, can they use the PUD format for density . Mr. Jones felt the Board is not at the point to determine that now. Mr. Baker said the first step is “can the board even consider it?” Mr. Sellers said the parking will be below the bank on the uphill side.              Mr. Izzo stated that the r.o.w across the town road, which goes to Birch Hill, might have an impact on traffic. Mr. Sellers said they would have a zamboni. The fall back plan is a residential component, stated Mr. Mansfield, which he briefly showed the Board. Chavan DeGrasse, Project Manager stated Castlestone is an Investment Company. Mrs. Brittin asked about the methodology of the wetlands done by Pioneers Environmental Assoc. and asked if they had reviewed the state regulations. Mr. Mansfield said they did an independent on site analysis this past fall. Are they concerned with stream alterations, asked Mrs., Brittin and the answer was they will want the stream fixed. The stream now goes through a pipe and across the road. The main hotel would be sold in a condo format.

Mr. Pineles stated there seem they will be a limit at which point condos will not be feasible financially—as there are a lot of condo projects on the board. The owners of the former Dan Snyder house in the rear of the property were concerned with the property line. (could not hear on the tape their concerns) other than storm water. Mr. Mansfield stated they will process the storm water on the property as required by the state and when the water leaves the property the peak discharge cannot change. After little more discussion, Mr. Jones stated he was not ready to address the issues and members agreed. Mr. Jones stated he felt the Board needs opinions re: the issues, i.e. density- can it be a PUD, how the cabins will fit in, (Mr. Mansfield will seek a jurisdictional opinion from the State). The new building will be higher than the existing one but will fall within the guidelines of the zoning—but set back into the hill.

Mr. Izzo moved to JANUARY 9, 2006, seconded by Mrs. Brittin with all in favor.

 

 

Mr. Baker stated he is trying to correct the situation of Dr. Bauman’s mural. The Dr. is willing to take the murals out of the windows, but prior to that he is going to the Historic Preservation Commission for their opinions.

 

There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 8:15 P.M.

 

Respectfully submitted,

  

Barbara S. Allaire