Development Review Board

                                                March 13, 2007

 

The regular meeting of the Stowe Development Review Board was held Tuesday, March 13, 2007 in the Banquet Room of the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M.

 

Members present: Larry Jones, Susan Brittin, Dean Pineles and Ed Izzo. Absent: Ted Teffner and Lynn Altadonna, alternate. Two vacancies remain on the Board. Mr. Jones advised applicants that there were only 4 members present which constitutes a quorum but all 4 had to vote unanimously. 

 

Project:           Revision of building design for project # 3242 & 3155 (Postponed 2/20/07- Requesting postponement to 3/20 to allow for SHPC review..

Zone:              RR 1/RR 2/ SHOD

Mr. Pineles moved to POSTPONE at the applicant’s request to March 20, 2007 in order that SHOD review can take place. Motion seconded by Mrs. Brittin with those members in attendance voting in favor.

 

Location:       645 South Main Street

Project:          Changes to previously approved façade (RECESSED 2/20/07)

Dean Economou present to explain the changes, which have been recommended from SHPC, State Fire and Safety and a potential tenant. Mr. Baker stated that the SHPC advised him that awning windows are historical. The changes being proposed were approved by the SHPC on 3/8/07. Changes proposed are: (1) changing the second floor dormer windows on south elevation from double-hung to awning windows; (2) swapping the locations of a door and window on the north elevation; (3) changing the double glass door design on the north elevation; (4) changing a window to a door on the north elevation; (5) changing muntin pattern on some windows on south elevation; (6) modifying portions of siding on north elevation to vertical siding (which will be 6” shiplap and stained stated Mr. Economou); (7) adding a covered porch on the west elevation (previously approved) and only adding a railing; (8) adding an extra window on the west elevation; (9) adding double glass doors on east elevation and (10) adding 4 skylights on east elevation which will not be visible from the public road. Mr. Economou stated windows will have true-divided lights or simulated divided lights.                                                                                                             

 

Mr. Izzo was not in favor of the awning type windows being used and a total of 73 windows being proposed feeling that is too many for the building. Mr. Pineles asked Mr. Economou if there was much discussion with the SHPC about awning windows. Mrs. Baraw, in the audience, stated the SHPC was adamant to have awning windows as they are in balance and double hung windows should not be. Mr. Izzo disagreed. Mr. Economou stated the reason some of the windows are as small as proposed is because there are height restrictions and double hung would look out of place. Mr. Pineles stated he questioned if awning windows are displeasing and it is logical double hung would not work. Mr. Izzo stated double hung windows were approved. Setting the issue of the windows aside, Mr. Jones asked members if there were issues about other changes (i.e. #2-10). The Board then reviewed each change and with minor comments agreed to accept as proposed. Mr. Pineles then moved to approve as an amendment to the original approval items # 2-10 and RECESS item # 1. Mrs. Brittin seconded the motion. Discussion took place Re: when the windows were ordered and why they were ordered without approval. Mr. Izzo was uncomfortable and felt the Board should look on the entire project as a whole. Mr. Izzo stated it is a good project but a number of changes have been made. Mr. Pinles withdrew his motion and Mrs. Brittin moved to RECESS project # 3305 to MARCH 20, 2007. Mr. Pineles seconded the motion with all in favor. 

 

Project:          Addition of stair tower and cooling towers to Stowe Mountain Lodge/Spa

Rob Apple was present stating Phase I was approved, including the spa portion of building D (Phase II). In order to serve the spa it is necessary to build a portion of building D, an enclosed stairwell, providing a second egress from the spa and access to the lower level of the mechanical area to include cooling towers. tape 1 side 2 The applicant proposed placing the temporary cooling towers (22’) on a construction trailer and locating them temporarily to the east of building B. Eventually the permanent towers will be placed on top of building D. The exterior stairwell will serve the spa which is currently under construction, and will be eventually integrated into building D. A foundation and covered slab are to be placed this spring in conjunction with the tower so that the mechanical can be placed under it. The stairwell, which will be 32’, will go on the southwest corner of the spa building (which is 32’ and has received approval, and building D will need to come back to the Board). There will be a berm and temporary vegetation as one drives into the construction area where the towers will be placed. Plans are now to have a 4-5’ fence around the area. Sec. 4.7 reviewed re: the stairwell and slab. Same materials and colors will be used. Electrical capacity for the cooling towers is within the “ability to serve letter”. Mr. Apple stated the decibel level of the towers would be less than 92 within 10’ of the towers themselves. Mr. Pineles referred to another project where the members were concerned with the decibels being 40. No additional landscaping or screening planned. One exterior light over the doorway. It was agreed by members that the Zoning Administrator could approve the cooling towers/trailer. Mrs. Brittin moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: the construction of the stairwell in project # 3318, seconded by Mr. Pineles with all in favor.

   CONDITIONS: (1) All previous conditions in this project shall remain in force.

 

Project:             Revisions to previously approved golf clubhouse       

Mr. Apple present and stated the previous amendment approval did not have a basement and this plan does so the footprint has been enlarged to 2720 s.f for a total of to 5540. The exterior will consist of primarily natural cedar shingles and natural wood trim consistent with the approval of 8-06. The porte cochere has been eliminated. Plans are for a pull in area with 4 parking spaces including one handicap space. Height remains 20’. Golf carts will eventually be stored in the parking garage in the summer and off site in the winter. The clubhouse as proposed will include a small kitchen area with bar, office space, mechanical room, ski & snowboard storage area, retail storage, food storage, golf bags/room storage. Lighting will remain as approved in 2006. Building will be used in the winter on a limited basis, stated Mr. Apple. Sec. 4.7 reviewed in detail referring to written testimony supplied by the applicant dated 2/12/07. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: an amendment to project #3077 with the following CONDISTIONS:

(1)   Any change to the plans or the proposed use of the property shall be brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator, prior to its implementation, for a determination if an amendment shall be required.

(2)   All previous conditions connected with the original approval shall remain in force.

Mr. Pineles seconded the motion with Mrs. Brittin, Mr. Izzo, Pineles and Jones voting in favor. Mr. Teffner and Altadonna were not present.

  

Project:            Relocation of historic school house and the construction of an addition (RECESSED 1/23/07

Present was Barbara Baraw on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Jones stated a significant change has taken place in that the Select Board on 2-26-07 agreed to amend the application making the Town of Stowe the applicant and to clarify that the building would be a municipal-owned and operated facility. Under Vt. Statutes Title 24 Sec. 4413(a) the DRB has very limited review and he read what could be regulated. Additionally, Sec. 4.5(6) of the Regulations provides that municipal uses will not be subject to the dimensional requirements of the underlying zoning district. Rather, the dimensional requirements of the least stringent of any zoning district in the Village shall apply. Accordingly, this project requires only a 10-foot setback. Mrs. Baraw showed the members and audience a perspective done by Paul Rogers, which provides a good rendering of the placement of the building relative to the Bloody Brook School and the Helen Day Memorial buildings. However, Mr. Rogers was unable to put the side addition and ramp into the prospective. There will be an 11’ space between the front corner of Bloody Brook and the addition with an ADA handicap access. tape 2 side 1. (tape off for a brief time) She stated that in 1991 the Town and School District combined acreage totaling 14.06 acres, which includes the entire school/recreation area. Mr. Pineles stated he was concerned with how the addition of 5’ will look and the width of the passageway and asked if it could be placed on the rear of the building. Mr. Jones stated at some point the building would require an addition somewhere because of the proposed elevator and handicap bathrooms. Tape on-- Mr. Pineles stated he was convinced the addition as proposed is essential to the project and would not oppose that, but asked if the handicap access could be reconfigured. Mr. Izzo asked if the building could be moved 5’ forward and Mrs. Baraw stated it could but they would have to return with a whole new project. Mr. Jones told members it is not up to them to design the project but they could express concerns with the project. Mr. Jones stated there were two members not present so the applicant could return. Mr. Pineles stated he was not saying he would vote no necessarily if the ramp has to remain where it is, he wants the project to work, but his preference was to maintain the perspective the best possible with the ramp in the rear. This would mean that a handicap ramp would be immediately adjacent to the sidewalk and he did not see that as a problem. Mr. Pineles said if the Board had the right to impose the historic criteria they could waive the setback and then the ramp could go in the rear. There will be a handicap parking space next to the power pole and gravel sidewalk. Discussion continued with the Board feeling constrained as to their review. Sec. 4.7, Conditional Use Review, provides a basic framework for review, but many specific items are beyond the jurisdiction of the DRB because of the limitations imposed by Title 24, Sec. 4413. It was determined there would be no traffic impact and no landscaping is being proposed for the project. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law with the following changes:

(1)   Any change to the plans or the proposed use of the building shall be brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator, prior to its implementation, for a determination if an amendment shall be required.

(2)    Proposed pole lamps will have translucent bulb. Mrs. Brittin seconded the motion.

No vote taken

Mr. Apple stated when a project now goes to bid, he will be meeting with the contractor to make certain they are building what the Board approved.

 

The ridgeline is being adjusted, the SHPC treated as a minor and the Board had previously agreed.                                 

 

 Butternut Commons: The Board previously approved an office to be an apartment or office with Conditional Use Review. The owner now would like to combine two apartments and would like to use another apartment as an office. The question was what is on the property in each building at the present time. Mr. Jones felt the Board should be consistent in their review procedurally since there are three different buildings. The owner will be asked to attend the March 20, 2007 meeting withan inventory of what is on the property.

 

The question was the legal status of a previous approval. A preliminary drawing was recorded. Town’s Attorney said based on the fact it was signed by the Chair it was approved, and with three different permits having been given for the project, it should be treated as being approved. It is considered as one condo lot.

 

821 RIVER ROAD (MORIARTY PROPERTY: There is a 3-acre parcel on River Road that currently has 4 single-family dwellings. It is non-conforming lot, in an RR-2 zone. Technically all that could be put on the lot is a single family or duplex, stated Mr. Baker. There is someone who wishes to redevelop the parcel and keep the same density of 4, proposing to construct two single-family dwelling units and one duplex. The question before the DRB is whether one can redevelop a parcel with an existing non-conforming density and maintain the same degree of non-conformity with a different configuration of buildings. Mr. Izzo felt that is a lot of density on 2 acres and the change could trigger using what allowed. The Regulations provide for a single-family dwelling or a duplex on parcels in the RR-2 zoning district. He suggested getting advice from the Town Attorney. Mr. Pineles stated if they tear down the buildings, they don’t have what they have now so how could they put it back and asked if the use is not non-conforming? It is not permitted to have more than x number of buildings on this size lot. Mr. Baker stated one of the criteria could be the Conditional Use and is it an expansion? Mr. Jones referred to Sec. 5.1(1) and read it—no non-conforming use can be changed unless to a conforming use. Mr. Baker stated the lot is what is non-conforming. Members felt they should have to probably adhere to Sec. 5.1(1) but it is not clear.

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 P.M.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Barbara S. Allaire

 

***