PLANNING COMMISION TOWN OF STOWE Monday, September 17, 2007 Minutes The Stowe Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Monday, September 17, 2007, in the Banquet Room of the Akeley Memorial Building, starting at 5:30 p.m. Members Present: Lynn Altadonna, Chair Paul Percy, Co-Chair Barbara Pfitzenmayer Sal Vespa Members Absent: C. Paul Reed (one vacancy)Chuck Baraw Others Present: Rich Baker, Zoning Administrator; Tom Jackman, Director of Planning; Andrea Adams-McKnight, Zoning Assistant; Larry Jones, Chair of DRB; Scott Noble, Chip Percy, Edward Izzo, Scott Monroe, Stowe Reporter; Valerie Rochon, Dean Pineles, Geoff Wolcott, Carolyn Ruschp, Carla Blood, and Tom Michaeleson Minutes The minutes from the September 10, 2007 meeting were approved on a motion by Ms. Pfitzenmayer, seconded by Mr. Percy. Meeting Times After discussion, the Commission decided that the meeting time for upcoming meetings will be 6 p.m. and the meetings will be scheduled to last 2 hours. Mr. Jackman stated that once the Commission passes the zoning revisions on to the Selectboard and before the PC begins its work on the town plan, the meetings may only need to be 1 ½ hours. Public Meeting Protocol Mr. Altadonna stated that the procedure for the public hearing would be the acceptance of input, not acting on any of the items until after the public hearing completion or at another meeting. Public Hearing on revisions to Stowe Zoning Regulations The public hearing officially opened at 6 p.m. Mr. Altadonna stated that as a matter of procedure he wanted it noted that the Planning Commission received written input from the DRB Board and from Darrow Mansfield. These written comments would be considered along with any input received verbally at the public hearing. Mr. Altadonna asked for each person present for the Public Hearing to state their name and express which section or sections on which they had concerns. Caroline Ruschp - Densities on Mountain Road heights, and Density Chart 6.3 Valerie Rochon – Signs, Section 13 Chip Percy – WBCSB Boundary Carla Blood – Signs, Section 13 Scott Noble – Height – building and signs Scott Monroe – in attendance for the Stowe Reporter Tom Michaeleson – RR-1, RR-2, RR-5 Sections The Density Chart (Table 6.3) was explained to the group present by Mr. Altadonna and Mr. Jackman. Ms. Ruschp questioned why the building height change had been suggested at 28’? Mr. Altadonna responded that architects measured buildings within the town and found that 28’ was more in compliance with the buildings already present. Mr. Jackman stated that in order to build a basic two-story cape with a 10’ first floor, the height needed to be changed to 28’. Mr. Chip Percy had concerns about the WBCSB Boundary. Mr. Altadonna suggested that Mr. Percy meet with Mr. Baker with a sketch of his land and talk about his concerns and also meet with Mr. Jackman to discuss rationale for his suggested changes. Signs, Section 13. Ms. Rochon and Mr. Noble both requested explanations to be more complete and Mr. Noble suggested that VC-10 Section be changed to allow perpendicular and on-building signs (on the sides of buildings) – making signage readable/visible as one walks along the side walks, looking up, and also visible when looking across the street. Mr. Vespa, after asking what limitations there were on the materials that a sign could be made from, and Mr. Baker replying that permanent stiff materials were allowed, Mr. Vespa suggested the materials approved be more clearly defined. The discussion then progressed to 13.5 – General Sign Requirements and 13.7 – Temporary Business Signs. Ms. Rochon shared with the group that having received input from the retail community, the Stowe Area Association would like to see a temporary new business banner allowed for any new business in Stowe, to hang in front of that business for a maximum of 30 business days. Stowe Area Association would be willing to provide that sign, thus insuring a professional standard sign. Sign illumination was the next topic for discussion. Mr. Izzo would like light illumination on signs to be consistent throughout the Stowe Town and Village. Mr. Izzo brought up decorative lights under 13.6. Mr. Izzo would like them limited to a certain time of year, and to limited building coverage. There was further discussion about translucent back lighting—Duratran – Not being compatible with the scenic beauty of the Town of Stowe, and not consistent with the town plan. Mr. Baker stated that this discussion was better put in the lighting section rather than the sign section of Mountain Road Village. The PC will see if there is any discrete language that can be included providing the DRB use for enforcement for sign illumination. Mr. Izzo will work with Mr. Baker to generate language that may be helpful. 13.8 No comments. 13.9 Open sign is separate from property identification sign. 13.10 No comments. 13.11 a) Selectboard can sanction anything the Town of Stowe owns. b) Why is the school board included? Board will look at this and see if the School Board delineation needs to be kept. Mr. Noble talked about including language under 13.12 regarding historic, cultural and religious signs. It was his opinion that there needs to be a limit on these signs size as well. 13.9 paragraph 17 – Sandwich Boards. The group concurred that the language be changed to be more clear in its interpretation. Mr. Altadonna explained to the group gathered that the proposed changes will be posted to the website and incorporated into the paper copy of the proposed regulations. The document then proceeds to the Selectboard who will hold a public hearing on the regulations as well. The public will have at least three other input times. Ms. Rochon extended a thank you to Mr. Jackman and Mr. Baker for all of the work they have done on the regulation changes. Others extended their thanks as well. Mr. Chip Percy addressed the current stormwater regulations and thought it might be best if the language in the town regulations matched the state regulations. DRB Comments (provided in written form) Section 2.2 Should a term of office be stated for PC? Section 2.4 Should a term of office be stated for SHPC? Section 2.5.2(K) How is height measured? Section 2.11 Should include a statement about failure to act. Section 2.12(2) Define renewable energy structures Section 3.9.2(B) Clarify 50% limit. Non-habitable– porches or deck, patio. Need to be careful it’s not a garage, i.e. (roof may be the answer). Section 3.9.2 D&E Move to nonconforming uses? Needs an example – clarity – rather than move this section. Section 3.10 Top of Bank? How do you deal with gorge? Mr. Baker suggested that the state language be used. Section 9.4.2 C&D too much discretion to Zoning Administrator? Should there be more checks and balances? Shifting to ZA if you have a good ZA, but what if you don’t? Section 10.6 Too much discretion to ZA? The group then decided they were fine with the present language. Section 10.13.4 Should cost only be associated with porches? Should move where it has a broader impact. Section 12 Should there be a mechanism for abandoning PUD’s? Should we regulate for one specific issue? Section 12.3 Change PRD to Residential PUD. Section 12.4.1(A) Plat recording no longer required? Deleted. Section 12.5.1(A) Take out leech field. No control over septic any more. Section 12.5.1(B) DRB approve plat? Taking the Selectboard out the equation. Section 12.7.4 Who keeps track of density? The applicant and the town clerk. Section 12.7.7 Who keeps track? The applicant and the town clerk. Section 12.7.12 12 and 13 are repetitive…one should be deleted. Section 13.13 Prohibit translucent backlighted displays and “Duratrans”. Section 15.7.68 Home occupation standards moved to Section 4.4. Section 2.4 on page 2-3 Historic Preservation meets with applicant and makes recommendations to DRB. Meeting adjourned at approximately 7:55 p.m. October 1, 2007 is the next scheduled meeting beginning at 6 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Andrea Adams-McKnight, Zoning Assistant
|
