Town of Stowe, Vermont - Minutes of August 2007

Mr. Jones noted the project has previously been before the Board for the concept with this being the first warned hearing. Mr. Mansfield described the existing property as being a house, thirty-two (32) room hotel with a dining room, indoor, outdoor pools, tennis court and other related amenities on 16.4 acres located as 7.1 acres in HT and 9.3 in RR 3. The proposal is to remove all existing buildings (house and garage to remain) and replace with a 35 room hotel, 91 seat restaurant/bar; outdoor pool; paddle tennis court; (which will be used as an ice rink for guests) underground garage; 9 cabins. Existing entrance to remain with the exception of the sign, which will be replaced in another location. Existing drive to the house gets eliminated. Mr. Sellers provided a summary of the plans stating they are trying to minimize the activity in the front by creating an apple tree orchard grove, which will provide local food; pool being replaced with a more upscale pool and two hot tubs. A portion of the building will be behind the orchard and other trees. Eliminating all culverts and taking all drainage around the exterior of the project with foot bridges made of logs from local trees crossing at intervala; novelty siding; Mr. Jones referred to Sec. 8.6 as well as Sec. 4.7. Mr. Sellers stated the ground floor would be entered under a porte- cochere, 35 hotel rooms and a 51 car underground garage. Trash area provided. Valet service will be provided. People will walk to the 9-luxury cabin area. Cabins, 24’ x 20’ will be of slab wood, one bedroom, porch, sitting room with fireplace and bath with tub/shower. None of the cabins will be visible from the road and none will have kitchen facilities. Charles Grenier, Engineer worked with a hydro geologist firm, and the Agency of Natural Resources has agreed to allow the relocation of the existing stream by building a stream around the development which will have a planted buffer on each side and small bridges across the stream. The run-off will be collected in a collection system and then go into a retention pond on the right side of the property. Water and sewer is served by Municipal Sewer and Water and allocation has been received. In the area of the cabins, there is an existing house and garage, which is wooded, and Mr. Sellers stated very little cutting would be done for the cabins. Underground power will be provided to the cabins as will a service trail 6-8’ wide for snowmobiles and walking etc. Mr. Sellers stated no one will drive up there (no cars will be allowed). Mr. Pineles commented that the grade looks steep to the cabins and since the cabins will be elevated there is some concern with noise pollution. Mr. Sellers said there are large trees and did not feel noise or lights would be a problem. He said they want privacy for the cabins. Sec. 4.7 Capacity of existing planned community facilities: Project has water and sewer approval; Stowe Electric has changed their policy and now is giving capacity on a case by case basis; Fire Department has seen the plans and have concerns with the access to the cabins and applicant will return with additional information; Rescue has the same concerns as to how they would be able to drive to the cabins; Mr. Rood stated the path will be lighted with landscape lights and kept clear; Traffic on roads and highways: Mr. Mansfield stated the same access off Rte 108 will be used; traffic study (on file) done by Resources Systems Group, Inc (Jon Slason) felt the use will not be increased but Public Works Director asked about the second access off Birch Hill Road. Study shows there will be a total of 304 net increase week day trips also accounting for deliveries. Mr.Pineles stated that a 91-seat restaurant has been referred to but the traffic analysis states 69 seats. Mr. Mansfield will check with Mr. Slason. Mr. Mansfield said there has been discussion re: a 20’ r.o.w. which in his opinion the applicant owns and running across the Birch Hill Condominium property. Mr.Grenier stated it will be a service entrance or an exit from the garage for those staying on that end of the hotel. Mr. Rood stated the Fire Department is interested in using the second entrance. It will be a one-way exit, stated Mr. Mansfield. tape 1 side 2 Mr. Jones asked if there would be signs at the exit on Birch Hill and Mr. Mansfield said possibly a small sign. Mrs. Brittin asked how far the nearest drive is on Birch Hill and the answer was 80-100’. Mr. Jones stated he has a concern that the stretch of Mountain Road between Birch Hill Road and the entrance to the existing property has been described as a high accident area and the proposed project would be adding 304 additional trips. Attorney George Stearns re: the r.o.w. issue: Mr. Stearns stated he has the highest regard for Charles Grenier as an engineer but in Mr. Grenier’s letter it states in part that the road way could provide access to the resort as well and Mr. Stearns disagreed. He referred to the deeds in which the Snyder’s reserved for themselves and their heirs a non-exclusive 20’ r.o.w for the purpose of providing vehicular access from town road 72 (Birch Hill) to land of the grantors (the Snyder property). Mr. Stearns stated it is his legal opinion that it is a 20’ r.o.w and that is the extent of which any earth disturbance can occur. Mr. Stearns said the Snyders did not own the motel property (1.1 acres) and consequently they could not reserve a r.o.w to land they did not own. Mr. Stearns objected to the use of the r.o.w to come in and benefit the use of the proposed Resort property. Mr. Leven stated one-way would be to have the road do a traverse around which would make for a much more intrusive use. Mr. Stearns stated he felt that would not be permissible, as it would be overburdening in the r.o.w. When there is a burdened property and a benefited property, the r.o.w. can be utilized to only access the benefited property, and cannot be extended to provide access to other adjacent properties (i.e., overburdening the r.o.w. ) and is not permitted under Vt. law. Mr. Sellers asked if it could be used for emergency vehicles etc. Mr. Stearns replied they recognize the r.o.w. can be utilized to access the property but expressed concerns about its use in that the r.o.w. is limited to 20’ wide. Sec. 4.5 (1) the property does not have frontage on the highway and requires a 50’ r.o.w to access property that does not have frontage on a town highway. Mr. Ramos felt there would not be a lot of traffic and did not feel it would be an overburden to exit that property. Mr. Stearns felt the proposed r.o.w. (exit) would be a direct violation of the terms of the easement. Mansfield completely disagreed and Mr. Rood felt they did not have legal representation present. Mr. Stearns felt it incumbent on the members for someone to make it clear to them. Mr. Jones felt it will be a legal interpretation beyond the Board’s jurisdiction. Mr. Baker suggested the attorney’s resolve the issue, but the proposed project could go through without the access. Mr. Stearns stated it is residential area and would not be in keeping with the character of the area to have commercial traffic going through to Birch Hill Road and is not necessary as there is another access. Fire Department would again have to go over the plans if the exit were not to be approved. Mr. Sellers stated 99% of the parking will be valet and he said they could live without the second access, but “if we have a r.o.w. we want to use it.” Mrs. Gibbons (in the audience) asked if the restaurant will be open to the public and if so where will they park. Mr. Mansfield said guests coming in from outside would use valet parking or a small area to the side (they would not park in the garage) and would exit onto Rte 108. Character of the Area: this is not entirely determined because of the second access. Mr. Teffner asked if the second access is made available, would that create an effect on the area? Mr. Stearns felt it would have an adverse effect on his client’s property. Mr. Mansfield stated the coolers, freezers etc are in the garage area so will be using that access. Mr. Mansfield stated there is a significant tree line (buffer) if they are to use the r.o.w. Pall Spera: there is a neighborhood on the easterly side of the project with several homes in the area. Mr. Mansfield said there is an existing tree line, which will remain after the existing tennis court is removed. Power lines will be buried and serve all homes in the area (on the east side). Mr. Spera asked what will happen behind the existing house on the project and Mr. Mansfield stated the driveway will be relocated, the house and garage will remain but there will be no public access to the cabins. Mr. Sellers said the Snyder house will serve for functions or as a meeting room and will have no exterior changes tape 2 side 1 Mr. Baker stated the house is a historic building and any changes would have to go before the SHPC for review. Mr. Leven stated the house and cabins are in RR3 and now being proposed to go commercial. Other Bylaws in Effect: one of the permitted uses in RR 3 is campsites. Mr. Teffner stated the Board will need to consider the most intense use of the house. Mr. Baker stated one cannot have an accessory use outside the district it serves. Parking: Sec. 22.2 35 rooms = 35 spaces; 91 sea/bar= 31 spaces; staff at peak occupancy = 15; campground = 9. Total 90. Provided are 61 underground spaces and at least 17 surface spaces. Creates a 12 space deficit and the applicant is seeking to hold that area as green space as permitted by Sec. 22.3 (a) of the regulations. 4 ADA spaces near the garage with some inside. Mr. Leven questioned having only 15 staff at full occupancy, feeling that is a very low number. Mr. Mansfield felt it is adequate and functional with 15. Mr. Baker referred to Sec. 22.1 (c) project has parking in the front. Mr. Sellers stated overflow parking is on the side and not the front nor will there be a parking lot. Mr. Mansfield stated it is 510’ from the closest portion of a new building to the edge of highway right of way and 9.3 acres in RR 3, which is primarily wooded. Mr. Sellers said the project would be moved back, increasing the setback, putting 2 buildings into 1 building etc. Mr. Jones stated the regs state where the parking shall be placed and he was comfortable that the parking will be on the side, which will have a large greenbelt. There will be no lights, except low landscaping lights in the parking lot and low lights along the pedestrian path. Mr. Baker questioned the driveway going to the cabins (there is a 25’ setback within residential areas) so is it a driveway? Mr. Jones felt it has to be reviewed as a driveway. Mr. Mansfield stated the closest point now is 50’. Bob Lansing: felt the parking is on the side. His concern is with the 15 employees stating it is way under the numbers that will be there at any one time. Members agreed each would have to make their own decision. Mr. Ramos asked if the driveway cannot be used, what would the applicant do for Fire and Rescue vehicles? Mr. Rood stated they have access off Rte 108 and still within code for fire protection. Mrs. Brittin asked if members were approving the reduction of spaces and Mr. Jones replied it has not been decided yet. RR 3 & HT Sec. 6.2(1) J. Mr.Mansfield stated there is nothing that says cabins are not allowed. Mr. Jones observed tha the language speaks of campsites and the nearest thing to cabins is the definition of campground. Mr. Leven asked if the Board should equate campsite to campground? Mr. Jones felt one could. Mr. Mansfield stated there will be no exterior grills for cooking- no cooking to be done. Sleeping space for 2 people in each cabin. Mrs Frye concerned with noise as her house is in close proximity to the cabins. Mr. Sellers said each cabin will be unique, have a porch, table with 4 chairs, bathroom, one bedroom. Mr. Sellers said there is a ridge between the proposed cabin sites and the existing residential neighborhood, so one will not see anything. Mr. Pineles referred to definition of campground, which states that it is for use on a temporary seasonal manner. He questioned that. Mr. Sellers stated no one could stay there year around. Mr. Baker stated if they are used year around it would be a zoning violation. The proposed fireplaces will be either wood or gas; Mr. Mansfield stated they do not know at this time. Mrs. Frye said their homes look down on the cabins and even the lighting will be intrusive. Mr. Mansfield stated one might look across them but not down on them as they are in a bowl. Mr. Leven asked Mr. Mansfield if it was his testimony there will be only 2 occupants at any one time and the answer was yes, no pull out couch etc. Existing house: the house will become a part of the campground with the library, possibly a sauna, and lounge etc, a gathering for the campers. Mr. Teffner stated the Board needs to know what the house will be used for (or what it will not be used for) as it is near the property line and because of noise. The concern expressed by some Board members is that the house is being considered as an accessory use to the cabins because it is located in the RR zoning district, and cannot be considered as an accessory use to the hotel which will be located in the HT zoning district. Mr. Sellers stated there will be no bands, no parties; the intent is that it be used as an accessory to the cabins. Mr. Spera: explained that there are 3 residences within 100’ of the house. Mr. Mansfield stated the closest cabin will be 80’. Mr. Jones stated there could be conditions imposed re: any noise.

Resume hearing at 7:05. Mr. Jones stated the Board will need a clear idea how the house will be used. Overall project lies in two zones, RR 3 & HT, specifically the swimming pool which is divided by both districts. tape 2 side 2 Mr. Mansfield explained the lower tennis court will be in RR 3 as will part of the pool. The resort has a tennis court and pool and would share the use with the complex. Upper tennis court will be in RR 3 as an accessory use. The tennis courts will be lighted. Because of light pollution, the Board may require a condition as to what time the tennis court lights will be turned off. The height of the light pole was not known at this time. Swimming pool will be in-ground. Part of the garage will be used for storage and service vehicles. HT Sec. 8 Building height Sec. 4.5(3): Scott Baker explained the roof as the average height is below the maximum allowed with more than half (56%) below the 25’ mark for an average of 23’9” with it being 24’ to mid ridgeline. Highest point is 36’ 8”. Mr.Izzo commented that the mass of the building is a concern. Mr. Teffner stated the members need to have a better sense of the roof and its height, what will be seen behind the structure and asked if the roof will skyline. Other standards of evaluation: the proposed use is in a resort area and will not affect the character of the area; noise is still a concern with the campsites; Mr. Izzo asked if there will be condensers (not determined). Need to know how many etc. Will have an emergency generator; use of the house still needs to be clarified; adequacy of driveway is adequate as proposed (without the proposed exit); Mr. Sellers stated they will be using natural Vt. resources (materials); If the driveway (exit) is used, Mr. Grenier will have to address the stream; Mr. Mansfield expressed a willingness to rope the trails off to prevent patrons from wandering onto neighboring properties. Landscaping and screening: significant amount of landscaping going in front of the building. Mr. Sellers stated the limits of clearing for the cabins will take into consideration (need final grading plan with limits of clearing) Mr. Mansfield stated for the record the grading planned is intended to be very subtle. There will be brush hogging done but they do not see changing the contour of the land, stated Mr. Sellers and they will be cutting as few trees as possible. Storm Water Management Plan: Mr. Mansfield stated they willneed a construction permit from the state. Driveway Access: building along the existing drive. Lighting: proposed lighting was described by Mr. . Predominate as lights around parking area, leading from the house to the cabins will be low landscaping lights 18” high; in rock wall will be lights surrounded by rocks, lights on the entrance wall to the garage; cans in the roof eaves and porte cochere recessed in ceiling; with every recessed porch that has a ceiling will have a light. Mr. Teffner said the illumination needs to be known. Mr. Ramos asked if the motion censors are on a switch? The intent is for people to use flashlights going to and from the cabins. Mr. Ramos asked if the neighbors will see the lights which mark the path which will be spaced 15’ apart and do not shed light very far. The highest point of the construction will have a skylight, which will illuminate the hallway, but the intent is not to highlight the building stated Mr. Sellers. No plans for any new lighting added to the house or garage other than the path lighting. Need height of the poles for the tennis courts. They have not yet determined whether the footpath will be lighted all night long. tape 3 side 1 Ice skating rink will be lit by strip lights buried in the snow but no permanent lighting is planned. The zamboni will be stored in the garage. There are several issues to be resolved and members felt a site walk would be beneficial. Among the issues to be resolved: possibly height of building, number of staff, proposed exit drive, lighting plan, grading plan, how will walkers be kept from going off the trail onto neighbors property; parking calculations re: reserve area, and others.