Development Review Board
Town of Stowe
November 1, 2005 The regular meeting of the Development Review Board was held Tuesday, November 1, 2005 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M. Members present: Chris Walton, Vice Chair who chaired the meeting in the absence of the Chairman; also Susan Jary, Larry Jones and Francis Aumand. Also present: C. Bryant Brink, Zoning Administrator and Scott Monroe from the Stowe Reporter.
Absent: Allan Coppock and Ed Izzo. The Board is still in need of another member. 5:00 P.M.
Steve Lichtenstein re: JCOGS who was present requesting approval to install a roof vent for the kitchen which is 26 3/8” wide and 20 7/8 high, aluminum and not painted. Mr. Lichtenstein stated the only places it will be seen are: the access road (private), Cape Cod Road (it can barely be seen at an angle) and from the Stoweflake parking lot it will be slightly visible. Mr. Aumand felt the vent will blend in with the wall and is not of such a size that one would not expect to see on a building venting a kitchen and it clearly does not protrude beyond the roofline. Mr. Lichtenstein stated it would be very unobtrusive. The Board did not seek to amend the decision but felt the Zoning Administrator could address the alteration. 5:10
Application #: 3-092-A
Property Owner: Shannon, Robert dba The Fly Rod Shop
Overview: Requesting an extension of BA 3-092, which was the conversion of the 2nd floor to residential apartment.
Tax Parcel #: 3-092.000
Physical Location: 2703 Waterbury Road
Zoning District: RR-2
Present was Robert Shannon. Mr. Walton read Sec. 23.2 (3) (b), regarding the request for an extension. Mr. Shannon stated currently the interior space is finished and they are living there. The exterior has 3 sides of the siding done (need to do the 4th side) and the deck has not been done. He plans are to complete all work approved in the spring of 2006. Mr. Brink verified there has been substantial work completed. Mr. Aumand moved to approve a 12-month extension of the original permit, noting that substantial completion has been made and that the extension is in conformance with Sec. 23.2 (3) (b). CONDITIONS:
(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 conditions in the original approval shall remain in force.
Ms. Jary seconded the motion with all in favor. Voting in favor: Ms Jary, Mr. Walton, Jones and Aumand. Absent: Mr. Coppock and Izzo. 5:30
Application #: 7-237.01
Property Owner: Shea, Gertrude
Overview: 9-lot Planned Residential Development. RECESSED from October 4, 2005 Final Plot Approval.
Tax Parcel #: 7-237.000
Physical Location: 351 Sylvan Park Road
Zoning District: RR 1, RR 2, RR 3
Present were John Pitrowski, Powders Edge and Consulting Engineer; Charles Burnham, Land Planner and Dean Ramono, Powders Edge. Mr. Pitrowski stated that note # 6 on the plat relating to the ¼ acre of clearing has been removed as was requested by the Chairman; a letter has been received from the Fire Department with no conditions. Mr. Brink told the members that all conditions of the Preliminary Approval have been satisfied. Final Plot review, Sec. 4.2: they will need curb cut approval and a letter stating there is adequate sewer and water capacity from the Town. (e) (f) & (h) are not applicable, stated Mr. Brink. Municpal Impact questionnaire filed and Bruce Godin, Rec. Department said no as he felt the noise from the ice rink may affect the residents. Ms. Jary asked about the covenants re: a structure. Mr. Pitrowski said it is recognized by the applicant that individual lot owners would have to return to the Board for approval for additional structures (the covenants provide for this). Mr. Brink stated a shed less than 8’ x 8’ does not require a permit, otherwise an application would come to Mr. Brink for a permit. Mr. Pitrowski stated the clearing limits are shown on sheet SP 1 which shows no clearing outside the building envelope on Lot # 9. The road goes through lot #9 which will have to be cleared.
Mr. Aumand moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: BA 7-237.000 with the following CONDITIONS:
(1) Any change to the property of the 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) The standard condition relative to the ability to serve letter from Stowe Electric Department shall be imposed.
(3) Curb cut approval letter shall be received for the file.
(4) A letter for Storm Water Approval shall be received for the file.
(5) Any land changes to Lot # 9 shall is required to come before the Board for their review and approval.
(6) Any proposed shed shall be permitted in accordance with the Bylaws then in effect.
Ms. Jary seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Walton, Jones and Aumand voting in favor. Mr. Coppock and Izzo were not present. 5:45
Application #: 7-141-2
Property Owner: Winterquest LLC aka Tubbs Snowshoe Co.
Overview: Alter large manufacturing area in mill to become retail space. Intended use is for, but not limited to, an antique center. RECESSED from October 18, 2005
Tax Parcel #: 7-141.000
Physical Location: 52 River Road
Zoning District: RR 2
Tim Meehan was present and stated that the building is 17,200 sq. feet and has seen multiple uses over the years. K-2 Tubbs is currently using 2500 s.f. for office and storage (800 s.f. is storage.) through a 2 year lease. After going through the building, there is 14,268 s.f. of useful space, and the remaining square footage is dead space. Mr. Meehan stated he is presenting the whole building as retail and based the parking on that (with the exception of Tubbs). He said the historical use of the property is manufacturing, retail and storage and now seeking to change to retail, which requires 1 space for every 300 sq. ft.. He has provided for 48 spaces including handicap. Mr. Meehan continued to feel he did not have to be in front of the Board. Discussion took place re: the use and it was determined it is changing from the primary use of manufacturing to retail. Mr. Brink felt it should be mentioned this is a grand fathered non-conforming use in an RR 2 zone. Mr. Aumand moved to APPROVE the change in use from manufacturing to retail/office space noting it is a pre-existing non-conforming use in the RR 2 district and the parking calculations are in conformance with the proposed use with the following CONDITION:
(1) Any change in 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) Ms. Jary seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Walton, Jones and Aumand voting in favor. Mr. Coppock and Izzo were not present.
6:00
Application #: Z-05-146
Property Owner: Stafford, Marilyn
Overview: Enlarge and winterize porch, add dormer, enlarge existing dormer, add windows and skylights to historic building. POSTPONED from September 20, 2005
Tax Parcel #: 7A-05-146
Physical Location: 58 Sunset Street
Zoning District: VR-20
Present for the hearing was Olivier Garret and stated the building is non-complying. The use will remain residential. Proposing to demolish the existing porch (36’ x 12’) and rebuild in a similar style and widen from 12’ to 14’ (will be 36’ x 14’). Mr. Garret stated the porch is complying with the exception of 2’, but addition will not increase the degree of non-compliance from Pleasant Street. Replace a window on the Pleasant Street side. tape 1 side 2. A letter was read into the record from Tom Jackman stating the Historic Preservation Commission, at their October 12th meeting reviewed the plans and agreed the proposed renovations are in keeping with eh historic character of the existing building and voted unanimously to recommend approval as presented. Mr. Garret showed the members the windows to be replaced and one to be removed. The Board felt the non-complying building meets the requirements of Sec. 5. Mr. Aumand moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law in reference to Z-5-146 with the following CONDITIONS:
(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 require
(2) A revised specification sheet shall be submitted for the renovations of the historic building and showing the changes. Mr. Aumand asked that the Decision and Findings show that the Board agreed they did not need to go further with their review as the Historic Preservation Commission had reviewed/approved the changes.
Ms. Jary seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Jones, Walton and Aumand voting in favor. Mr. Izzo and Coppock were not present at the meeting. 6:15
Application #: BA 7-0272-1
Applicant (s): Springer, Frank & Butler, Mort
Overview: Seeking to convert one of two residential apartments to office space
Tax Parcel #: 7-272.000
Physical Location: 908 South Main Street (Touchette House)
Zoning District: LVC
Mort Butler present and stated they are looking to purchase the Touchette property. It is currently divided front and back into 2 residential units and they would like to move their business (computer repair) into the front half and take two of the upstairs bedrooms for storage. The rear apartment would remain the same with the exception of the two upstairs bedrooms. The second floor windows in the front are required to have the style changed but not the dimensions, for fire exit purposes. 1600 square feet will be used for office space. After some excavating in the rear, there will be 10 parking spaces, which will include one handicap space and 2 for the residence. The windows are the only exterior changes proposed. The building is in the Historic Overlay District and after speaking with Tom Jackman, Ms. Butler stated there is not approval needed as the size of the windows are not changing. Sec. 17.4 © There will be 4 employees at any one time with possibly 3-4 cars in and out each day. Ms. Butler stated most of their business is done off site. A letter from Department of Public Safety and Division of Fire and Safety was presented for the record. The Board reviewed Sec. 4.7. Ms. Butler stated they are not planning any major landscaping change.
Lighting was addressed and members felt they needed a cut sheet of what is being planned.
(1) Any change in 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) An “ability to serve letter” from the Stowe Electric Department is required, and the life of any permit issued under this approval shall be limited to the period of time for which the Electric Department approval is valid
(3) A letter shall be provided from the Director of Public Works stating there is adequate water and sewer approval.
(4) A cut sheet shall be provided for the Board’s review of the pole light to b e used, including the type of fixture and wattage.
(5) A photo or drawing shall be submitted for the Board’s review of the windows being proposed.
(6) A copy of the Public Safety letter shall be submitted for the file
Ms. Jary moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law re: 7-272-1 with the above mentioned CONDITIONS. Mr. Aumand seconded the motion with Ms.Jary, Mr. Aumand, Jones and Walton voting in favor. Mr. Izzo and Mr. Coppock were not present at the meeting. 6:30
Application #: BA 7A-110-8
Property Owner: Stowe Bagel Co, Inc.
Overview: Seeking to add 10 seats to existing 20 seats
Tax Parcel #: 7A-110.000
Physical Location: 394 Mountain Road Unit #10
Zoning District: VC-30
Present to testify Sam Scofield, Architect who stated the owner currently has a Zoning Permit to expand into the next unit using 440 s.f. (formerly occupied by Curves and the plan is to split the “Curves” space between the Bagel Shop and Robert Paul Gallery) Now would like to expand by 10 seats. Nothing changing in the existing space but will use the Curves door for the entrance and the current door for the exit. A letter dated 10/28/05 from the Director of Public Works stating there is sufficient capacity for water and sewer. Mr. Bryant asked if the current seating includes the outside seating and Mr. Scofield said yes. The number of seats remains constant. Mr. Scofield stated the permit is for 20 parking spaces, and now asking for an additional 10. There are 3 employees at any one time. Mr. Scofield stated every unit in the shopping center has been assigned a certain number of parking spaces and the Bagel Unit #10 has 10 spaces. Curves was # 11 and had 5 spaces assigned. The Bagel will be using 3 of those of those 5 spaces. (parking calculations were updated for the Rimrocks project, stated Mr. Brink).There will be no new lighting and no new exterior changes. Mr. Jones stated the parking regs say a space for every 300 s.f. which works in the applicants favor. The owner was asked if she would like to expand the extra 5 seats (given there are 8 ???? extra spaces, stated Mr. Scofield) . After continued discussion about whether or not there would need to be another warning, approval by the Public Works Director etc, the owner opted to remain at the additional 10 she was requesting and asked if she could amend in the future for the extra 5 seats and the answer was that she could always apply for the extra seats at a future date. Mr. Brink suggested it be approved as an alteration to a previously approved Conditional Use. Mr. Aumand moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of fact and Conclusion of Law re: BA 7A-110-8 based on an alteration to a previously approved Conditional Use with the following CONDITIONS:
(1) Any change in the plans or the proposed use shall be brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator, prior to its implementation, for a determination if an amendment shall be required
(2) The applicant shall submit for the Board’s review an updated parking plan calculation.
Mr. Jones seconded the motion with Ms.Jary, Mr. Walton, Aumand and Jones voting in favor. Mr. Izzo and Coppock were not present. 6:40 BREAK 6:50
Application #: 6-088-5 Ampersand Properties, LLC
Overview: Planned residential and planned unit developments to include commercial buildings, single family dwellings, duplexes and multi-family units.
Tax Parcel #: 6-088.000
Physical Location: 1652 Mountain Road
Zoning District: HT, MRV (Mountain Road Village), MOD (Meadow Overlay District) Application #: S-05-31P
Applicant (s) Ampersand Properties, LLC
Tax Parcel #: 6-088.000
Physical Location: 1652 Mountain Road
Zoning Districts: HT, MRV, MOD Mr. Walton told Mr. Biedermann the Board would be giving him 1 ½ hours for his presentation. Mr. Brink suggested the Vice Chair open both applications to get an overview of the project. Mr. Biedermann was asked if he was in agreement to proceed in this manner and he said yes. Mr. Biedermann had distributed a narrative (dated 9/14/05) to members and he felt that would be a good document to follow. tape 2 side 1 2 years ago 1.2239 acres was subdivided off for the Jewish Center, leaving 14.261 acres which is governed by 3 zoning districts, approximately 5.5 of HT; 8.761 in the MRV and 5 in the MOV. The development will consist of single-family homes, duplexes and multi family units. 19 of the housing units will be on individual lots, which requires a subdivision. One lot will house 10 multi family residential units and one lot will be a 6 building commercial lot. The project will be reviewed under Sec. 18 PUD; Sec. 17 PRD; Sec. 9 MRV; Sec. 15 MOD and the Subdivision Regs. There will be a condominium association, but the units will be individually owned. Mr. Biedermann explained the purpose of a PUD
Phase I plans are to start in summer of 2006 and the entire project will be finished sometime in 2013, stated Mr.Biedermann. 18.2 single family and two family dwelling are permitted. 18.3 multi family dwelling units and other permitted uses in the underlying district (MRV) are allowed as conditional uses, which allows for commercial development. Sec. 17.2 Multi-family units shall not exceed 3 per acre. 2: Other principal buildings require a minimum of 20,000 s.f. per building, therefore allowing a single family or duplex. 3: The total building coverage for all structures cannot exceed 12% of the lot. Density in HT restricts building coverage to no more than 8% of the lot.
(1) There are 18 multi-family units (3 exist in Whiskers building); 5 over new commercial spaces; 4 in building # 26; 6 in buildings 24 & 25 x .33 = 5.95 acres
(2) There will be 10 other principal buildings requiring 20,000 s.f. each= 200,000/43,560= 4.59 acres. The total acreage required is 10.53 acres.
(3) Total building coverage is 54,282 s.f. Total allowable coverage is 64,962 s.f. Mr. Biedermann stated the Development Plan goes to the centerline of the river
But some of the remaining acreage has been used for density and there are no plans to develop, as some along the river is floodway and wetlands. 17.3 Standards for Development:
(1) Multiple housing requires double setbacks from the outside boundary except in HT,VC, LVC or MC. Mr. Biedermann stated it was his belief that it was intended the MRV be included in this exception.
(2) The distance between any two buildings is approximately 20’ This distance is allowed by the Department of Labor and Industry.
(3) Mr. Biedermann stated there is an ability to serve letter from the Town of Stowe for both water and sewer. 17.5 Open Space:
(1) There will be a master condominium association. In addition the applicant will retain ownership of the 3.87 acres on the south side of the West Branch and Little River. 19 lots in residential and 2 in commercial condo association. Sec. 9 MRV: There is a network of sidewalks allowing for good pedestrian circulation. Curbing in some locations. 9.3 Conditional Uses, professional offices and stores area conditional use in the MRV. 9.6 (shown on the different exhibits). All units will have a parking garage with 2 spaces each. JCOGS parking is not a part of this application although there is an agreement with them. 5. Density for multiple family units was calculated in 17.2 (1). Calculated 6.Commercial buildings on Cape Cod Road area minimum of 50’ from the HROW. Commercial and residential buildings on the Mountain Road are a minimum of 20’ from the r.o.w.; side yards and rear yards meet the dimensional requirements at the perimeter of the project and within a PRD project there are no internal setback requirements; no building will exceed 25’ in height. Mr. Biedermann stated there would be 2 front yards. Mr. Brink felt that he can approve the one and two family residential units as permitted uses. Mr. Walton asked, “ then it doesn’t matter what the buildings look like?” Mr. Biedermann stated the Board might wish to see them. The architecture will be the traditional village look. No storm water will leave the site (per state regulations) and will have paved parking. Lot #21 is 3.21 acres & includes all common land and parking. 9.8 B. All buildings will be 2 stories. Commercial buildings are oriented toward the Mountain Road or Cape Cod Road. Residential buildings will be focused around the village green, as this is where the parking will be. 15.4 The project provides a village green, a landscaped recreation corridor centered around the Rec path, and an open landscaped area leading to the West Branch River. The public land totals 1.73 acres therefore meet the requirement. Because of traffic coming off Rte 108, parking is in the rear (backyards with walkways to the Rec Path. There will be landscaping and possibly fences to create privacy). Mr. Biedermann stated the AOT’s concern is the intersection at Cape Cod. CONDITIONAL USES: Letters on file from the Fire Department (dated 7/28/05), Town water and sewer (dated 6/21/05) and an ability to serve letter from Stowe Electric Department dated August 23, 2004. Members questioned the validity of the ability to serve based on the date and the current power situation. Mr. Biedermann explained the proposed landscaping plan tape 2 side 1 Lighting will be 6’ in residential areas & 8’ tall pole lamps for the commercial (similar to the ones at Stoweflake). with lighting for the individual units to be approved by the DRB. Traffic: Resource Systems did a traffic analysis (Exhibit #12) A meeting was held with Town officials to determine areas of impacts and possible concerns. It was agreed at the meeting that consultants would evaluate the 3 intersections i.e Route 108 & project drive; Cape Cod Road and 2nd project drive; Route 108 and Cape Cod Road intersection. It is projected there will be 54 trips per day. Mr. Biedermann explained there is a State of Vermont Stormwater Discharge Permit required. There will be no erosion during construction. There will be no water, air or noise pollution. Part of the project is flood plain and floodway. All development will be above and no closer than 75’ from the centerline of the river. Parking: parallel parking on both entrance roads. See exhibit # 5 for calculations. There will be a network of sidewalks within the project to create a village concept. Mr. Biedermann stated they have not located the dumpsters at this time.
Gas tanks will be underground for each building. Subdivison Review: Mr. Brink asked Mr. Biedermann his intentions with the Board-go through the subdivision review and then conditional use review ? Mr. Biedermaann stated he is asking for an umbrella permit and will return for each building. Ms. Jary asked about the Electric Department unconditional letter and can the floodway be used for density? Mr. Biedermann stated he did not use floodway acreage for density (not sure what he said???? This will be looked into further). Members felt perhaps the Electric Dept (an open ended letter) would have to be asked for an updated letter. Mr. Brink said it is an unconditioned letter so felt it could be accepted. Mr. Aumand said in the past the Board has asked for an updated letter.
Mr. Aumand had concerns with the traffic analysis-the study is referencing congestion on the road to begin with and making several suggestions. Mr. Biedermann felt it the only way to resolve some of the suggestions is to get the town involved. Mr. Aumand said he had concerns with allowing projects which contribute to traffic problems. Mr. Aumand stated there may be an issue when the Mt. Co project gets on line. Mr. Biedermann stated the only way the level of service can be addressed is to stop building. This will be discussed more in the future. The subdivison process was discussed with Mr. Brink. As they go through subdivision review and see what is required, can refer to different sections, i.e. Sec. 17 etc. Mr. Aumand stated he was not opposed to treat like the Mt. Co rather than try to cram it in every meeting (fear of what will happen) It is a matter of whether we upset this project or some other projects, stated Mr. Aumand. Mr. Jones felt if it is done piece meal, we lose tract of what has been discussed. This was discussed and members agreed they would prefer to treat the project like they did the Mt. Co. and not piece-meal. Mr. Biedermann stated he would like to keep the hearing going forward. Mr. Coppock and Izzo will be asked how they wish to proceed. Mr. Aumand moved to RECESS to NOVEMBER 15, 2005 when the subdivison review will start. (Mr. Biedermann agreed to be put on the agenda last) Mr. Jones seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Walton, Jones and Aumand voting in favor. Mr. Izzo and Coppock were not present BA 14-002-26T Condition # 2 parking. Mr. Brink stated temporary base A, B & C at Spruce Peak. Mr. Apple asked to get a permit for Base A-the Adventure Center. The parking plan was submitted Ms. Jary moved to approve stating that condition # 2 was satisfied and to allow the construction of Base A. Mr. Aumand seconded with all in favor. The parking plans do not satisfy Condition # 2 for temporary buildings B & C and no construction shall begin until the condition is satisfied. . There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Barbara S. Allaire
Development Review Board
November 15, 2005 The regular meeting of the Stowe Development Review Board was held Tuesday, November 15, 2005 in the Banquet Room in the Akeley Memorial Building starting at 5:00 P.M. Members present: Chris Walton, Larry Jones, Susan Jary, Ed Izzo and Francis Aumand. Absent: Allan Coppock. There is one vacancy on the Board.
Also present: C. Bryant Brink, Zoning Administrator and Scott Monroe from the Stowe Reporter as well as those listed in the minutes book. Mr. Walton, Vice Chair, chaired the meeting in the absence of Mr. Coppock. OTHER BUSINESS: Z-05-154 Brown, Mariah and Courtney re: conditions. The 24’ x 20’ barn (Day Care Center) has been relocated, stated Mr. Brink, to the opposite side of the house. Mr. Brink visited the site and he felt it is still a minor although will be more visible. The setbacks are met but Mr. Brink advised the owners to have a survey of the property line. Mr. Brink submitted elevations of the building as required in Condition #3. Mr. Aumand moved to accept the material submitted as satisfying conditions # 2 & #3 of the approval, seconded by Ms. Jary with Mr. Walton, Izzo, Aumand and Jones voting in favor. Mr. Coppock not present. Location: 1040 Ayers Farm Road. Z-05-85 DiPiano, Jimmy re: condition # 2 of the 8/3/05 meeting which required the Board do a site walk when the house was framed. The Board will do a site walk Saturday, November 19, 2005 at 10:00 A.M. meeting at Romys. CHANGE IN MEETING DATE from December 6th to DECEMBER 13, 2005 at the STOWE FREE LIBRARY MEETING ROOM. 5:05
Application #: BA 7-005-1A
Applicant(s) Gristmill Builders Ltd.
Overview: Amend previous approval to include as built roof vents at Jasmine restaurant. RECESSED from October 18, 2005.
Tax Parcel # 7-005.000
Physical Location: 1128 Mountain Road
Zoning District: HT
Present: John Lupien and Brendan O’Reilly. Mr. O’Reilly stated they have redesigned the venting system after hiring a new engineer. The hoods will be dropped 20” (from 60” to 40” tall) to the top of the exhaust from the pitch of the roof, with the louvered vents being removed from the sides. Two of the vents will be removed from the west elevation (Rte 108 side), one of which will go to the back (east side) and the other halfway across the back. The hoods will remain brown in color. Mr. O’Reilly said he is proposing as an amendment constructing a handicap walkway (on the south side using 2’ x 2’ paver stones with 2 lights beside the walk. There will be no additional landscaping in this proposal. Mr. Aumand said he felt the proposal had gone a long way to mitigate the undue adverse impact and moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law to the original approval and to accept as an amendment, the handicap ramp and lights. Conditions:
(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 enactment, for a determination if an amendment shall be required.
(2) The applicant shall submit a site plan for the Board’s review, showing the dimensions to scale of all the hoods and showing the exact location of each
Mr. Izzo seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Walton, Izzo, Aumand and Jones voting in favor. Mr. Coppock was not present. 5:15
Application #: S-05-28
Property Owner: Lipsky, Jed and Annika
Overview: Amend development agreement to create clusters 4-A through 4-E as residential condominiums resulting in 6 parcels.
Tax Parcel #: 7A-132.000
Physical Location: 123 Mountain Road
Zone: VC-30 BA 7A-132-4
Lipsky, Jed and Annika
Overview: Tear down motel wing and construct 19 condominiums in five buildings with a new maintenance barn/apartment. Mr. Walton opened both hearings. Present were Darrow Mansfield, Mansfield Ventures; Jed Lipsky, Llaine Nichols, Attorney, Malcolm Appleton, Architect. Mr. Mansfield gave the following overview:
1. Will be reducing the main Inn from 18 to 16 rooms
2. Demolish the motel rooms
3. Construct 12 condominiums to be sold, 3 of which will have ground floor lock-off units.
4. Reduce the restaurant seating from 180 seats to 100.
5. Addition on the back of the Inn for kitchen and laundry area
6. Construct an Annex building with 6 suites (2 of which will have lock-offs and be rented (total of 12 hotel rooms).
7. Construction of a barn type maintenance building with a manager’s apartment. Mr. Mansfield stated the project is subject to modification of the development agreement. He said the project is pre-existing and over density and coverage based on existing uses. The project will meet all dimensional requirements but the non-compliance/conformance, relates only to density. Mr. Mansfield said they are seeking a reduction of 38% in the required restaurant parking (Sec. 21.2) Density: 41,055 footprint. Mr. Mansfield described the existing condominiums and the proposed as being in VC-30 and needing 270,500 sq. ft. and they have 241,500 of density. If the VC-10 bonus is granted, they have 174,000 s.f. and require 162,500 sq.ft. Sec. 11.5 (VC-10 bonus) this would swap density from one zone to another, stated Mr. Mansfield. Site Coverage: Existing 23,251 and proposed 35,738. Allowed 41,055. Parking: Existing 129 spaces and with the 50% credit for the restaurant (-30). Revised total 99 spaces for the restaurant with requirement of 118. Have provided 96. 9 additional there as green space but not built= 105. In- house restaurant credit using the 38% =13 (Sec. 21.2). Applicant asking for this as the property is within the village walking district, historic overlay district and can use Barr’s office parking area as the office would not be open at peak times (this is included in the 105). Need an additional 7 ???????. A letter was given members from Ms. Fitzgerald re: parking concerns. She is owner of one of the condo units 3A & 3B of Rivers Edge. Mr. Mansfield told the members the situation as it exists is a mess but plans are to, when the motel is demolished, create a 20’ lane with delineated parking, paved and with a sidewalk in front of the new condominiums. There are no plans to have designated parking for any unit, stated Mr. Lipsky. Phasing: Phase I: plans are to demolish the motel, add kitchen/laundry and 12 room annex, 4 condos and garage. Phase II: tri-plex building; Phase III: 3 additional units and barn; Phase IV: 2 condo units. 4-5 year build out. Plans are to remove the motel prior to April 1, 2006. tape 1 side 2 there will be 12 employees, which requires 12 parking spaces, stated Mr Mansfield. Mr. Aumand said he was not ready to make an assumption that based on existing condominiums and using the 50% that the revised total of parking is sufficient, based mostly on the letter from Ms. Fitzgerald. The letter suggests, stated Mr. Aumand that the 50% credit minus the 30 spaces would be in error. The condo association is saying their situation is being taken care of with 8 spaces for them, but he did not know if it would take care of the parking problem referenced in the letter. Mr. Lipsky stated he has met twice with the owners and they had mixed reaction to designated parking—they are not in unison to the number of parking spaces. He felt he could have a sign in front of their building. They were all in agreement, stated Mr. Lipsky, that to demolish the motel and the paving/striping, curbing, lighting would help. Mr. Aumand stated the letter is based on the current conditions of parking so to give credit could be in error. Mr. Lipsky said in reality it will provide many more spaces as nothing is laid out now. Ms. Jary suggested there not be designated parking as she felt it could create problems. Mr. Lipsky said if they fail to have adequate parking, they would fail in developing. Mr. Aumand stated the letter was addressed to the Board, which has an obligation. The handicap parking located in the front of the building will be designated. Mr. Aumand recommended looking at the standards prior to making any determination as to any bonus for parking or density. Sec. 5.1 Review: The applicant has met with the Agency of Natural Resources and it has been determined there will be no encroachment on the bank. General Construction and Storm Water Discharge Permits have been received. A letter has been received from the Historic Preservation Commission stating they accept the proposal. Mr. Walton continued going through Sec 5.1 finding no apparent impact. There are no reserved strips in the projects. Height of the buildings to be no more than 25’ and within the regulations, stated Mr. Appleton who described the buildings briefly. Mr. Aumand moved to RECESS to 12-13-05 S-5-28 and 7A-132-4 at which time they will begin discussion re: screening and landscaping. Ms. Jary seconded with all in favor. Mr. Walton stated (in response to Mr. Lipsky’s question) he could not say if the architect, lawyer etc were needed at the next meeting and would leave that decision up to him. 6:20
Application #: BA 7A 125-2E
Property Owner: J + KWL, LLC
Overview: Seeking to extend permit issued October 3, 2002 for addition of third apartment.
Tax Parcel # : 7A-125.000
Physical Location: 254-Mountain Road
Present Kenneth Libby, owner, stated in 10/03 Mr. Evans (former owner) was given a permit to expand an unused storage area in the barn into an efficiency apartment plus an air lock, expansion of existing building of 12’ x 13. In order for this building to connect to the Town sewer an upgrade of the sewer line to the plant was required because of the small size of the existing line. It took the Town a long time to secure the sewer easement from the neighbor to the south. The upgrade was done after Mr. Libby purchased the building and the building is now connected to the sewer as of 7/26/05. Mr.Libby stated the new concrete floor, foundation and plumbing has been done since the permit was issued. Mr. Libby purchased the building in 6-05 and the permit had expired. No other changes being proposed. Landscaping ($12,000 worth) has been done, changed the front deck etc. Permit was issued 1 year from the date of decision, stated Mr. Libby (which expired). Mr. Brink felt the applicant was not able to complete the project as they had to wait for the sewer hook up. tape 2 side 1.Mr. Aumand felt the applicant had no control over completing the work because of the easement being held up. Mr. Jones felt the Board should take the record as it exists, the applicant took over the property in 6/05 and it wasn’t until July that the sewer was in compliance because of the easement. Mr. Aumand moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law to approve a 12-month permit renewal (from 11-15-05) without fee. Mr. Jones seconded with Ms. Jary , Mr. Izzo, Walton, Jones and Aumand voting in favor. Mr. Coppock not present.
(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. 6:30
Application #: 6-146.2
Property Owner: Stowe Tennis Club
Overview: Enclose existing 10’ x 40’ covered porch, add a gabled dormer in center of porch, add new 10’ x 40’ covered porch in front of the existing building plus 10’ x 20’ open deck at front of existing deck.
Tax Parcel #: 6-146.000
Physical Location: 1180 Barrows Road
Zoning District: RR-2
Present was Brian Elmendorf who explained the plans are to enclose the existing front porch and add a new front deck in front of the porch which is 10’ x 60’ (only 10’ x 40 ‘ to be covered). Gabled peak in the middle. The existing windows will slide forward to the front and add 5 additional windows in the front, which will match the existing ones. Plans are to use the existing exterior lights under the porch, just move forward. There is a motion sensor light existing and will remain. Mr. Elmendorf stated the expansion is to be used for the pro-shop and lobby. Same siding and roofing material to be used. (possibly change the roofing color). The structure is not heated, stated Mr. Elmendorf. Mr. Izzo moved to instruct the Zoning Administrator to draft Findings of fact and Conclusion of Law with the following CONDITION:
(1) Any change in 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.
Ms. Jary seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Izzo, Walton, Aumand and Jones voting in favor. Mr. Coppock not present. 6:45 Break 7:00
Application #: Z-05-176
Applicant(s): Mansfield Ventures, Ltd.
Property owner: Talarico, Frank
Overview: Alterations to previously approved building plan
Tax Parcel #: 7-164.01 (3)
Physical Location: Taber Hill Road
Zoning District: RR 2; RR-5; RHOD
Present Darrow Mansfield and Paul Reed. Mr. Mansfield explained that the exterior changes are on the west elevation and proposing 4 skylights on the gable ends, which will open into a loft area and a new door under the eaves for the master bedroom. East side: adding 8 skylights for ventilation and light. Mr. Izzo stated his concern is any possible glare from the skylights on the west elevation. Mr. Reed stated the way the light will hit in the late afternoon, it will tend to reflect. This was discussed and Mr. Reed said he understood Mr. Izzo’s concern. Mr. Reed stated vegetation has been left to help the break up the view of the house. The area will be used for the master bedroom with less internal lighting. Mr. Brink had visited the site with a long view towards Stowe Club and felt the winter sun may be too far south to shine on the house. The footprint has been expanded from 24’ to 30’ on the east side, stated Mr. Reed. The exterior treatment remains as approved. Mr. Aumand moved to approve as an alteration to a previously approved permitted use, seconded by Ms. Jary with Ms. Jary, Mr. Walton, Izzo, Jones and Aumand voting in favor. Mr. Coppock not present. CONDITION:
(1) Any change in 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.
7:10
Application #: S-05-33
Applicant(s) Mansfield Ventures, Ltd
Land Owner: Scotford, Steve
Overview: Proposing a 2 lot subdivision-Lot 1 of .67 acres with dwelling and Lot 2 being .49 acres with frontage on Cemetery Road
Tax Parcel #: 7A-075.000
Physical Location: 385 Maple Street
Zoning District: VR-20
Present were Steve Scotford and Darrow Mansfield, Mansfield Ventures. Mr. Walton opened this and the following hearing simultaneously. Mr. Mansfield stated the site is located with frontage and access off Cemetery Road and is restricted because of wetlands. The Board reviewed the subdivsion first. Mr. Mansfield stated there is .67 acres with existing house (former Clem Wilkins house on Maple Street) and .49 acres with the proposed dwelling. Christine Balzer, owner of the house on the corner of Maple St. and Cemetery Rd. stated that she and her husband purchased the house over 20 years ago assuming they would always have the view of Mt Mansfield. She asked where the house will be located, “when I look out my window, will I look in their bedroom or will I see the mountain?” She asked, because of the power line, where will the house go, on the green strip? Mr.Darrow answered, yes it is along the green strip but down slope. Mr. Izzo asked what the elevations are and Mr. Mansfield said he had no idea. Mr. Scotford said, “the house we are proposing will block her view and I am willing to put that right out on the table. I can understand her concern and I am not here to hide anything. Have been coming to Stowe for 10 years and have owned property for 2 years.” Sec. 5.1 General Standards reviewed. Mr. Jones brought up 5.1 (a) as it pertains to the neighboring property. (2) There is a large class 2 wetlands on the property with a very restricted area. Findings from the Agency of Natural resources dated 3/17/05 was entered into the record. The applicant received a CUD to impact 4600 sq ft of the buffer zone of the Class II wetland. The majority is in the 50’ buffer zone of the wetlands, stated Mr. Scotford. Scenic vistas: Mr.Mansfield said he felt it meant in the public good and not one neighbor. (3) a letter is on file from the Stowe Historic Preservation Commission dated October 24, 2005, saying they have approved the house. Mr. Walton referred to Sec. 10.6 frontyards. There is a 30’ frontyard crossed by a driveway. Mr. Mansfield stated the lot dimensions are met. Mr. Aumand asked if they meet the building requirements for VR-20. Lot 1 is 107’ minimum width and required to be 100’. tape 2 side 2 A letter is on file dated November 15, 2005 from the Stowe Electric Department and project will be on municipal sewer and water.
Future development plans: Mr. Scotford stated at some point his plan is to redo the Wilkins house to be more in character with houses on Maple Street. Sec. 4.3 Final plat shall show the dimensions. Ms. Jary moved to approve the subdivision with the following CONDITION:
(1) A copy of the CUD (Conditional Use Determination) shall be provided for the file.
Mr. Aumand seconded the motion with Ms. Jary, Mr. Jones, Walton Aumand and Izzo voting in favor of the subdivsion approval. Mr. Coppock was not present.
Application #: Z-05-169
Applicant(s) Mansfield Ventures, Ltd.
Property Owner: Scotford, Steve
Overview:
Tax Parcel #: 7A-075.000
Physical Location: 385 Maple Street
Zoning District: VR-20, SHOD Mr. Mansfield and Mr. Scotford present. The letter from the Stowe Historic Preservation Commission was read into the record. Mr. Brink asked if when they went to the SHPC, did they show the them the house on the site? Mr. Mansfield said, yes. Ms. Jary read from the new Sec. 17.3 (2) (which members had not received) Ms. Jary asked if the Board should take the recommendation of the SHPC or make their own determination. She felt the members should have the opportunity to review under the new rules. Mr. Jones agreed with Ms. Jary, and he felt because they are now in effect, and the Board has not had the opportunity to review them, he felt it is up to the Board. Ms. Balzer said that her house is connected to town sewer and asked if the new house will have to pump up? Mr. Scotford said he would connect the Wilkins house as well as the new one. Mr. Izzo felt there are new bylaws, which the Board has not seen and felt they should have the opportunity to review under the new SHOD. Mr. Brink felt the Board would be within its right to accept the letter from the SHPC if all criteria are met. Mr. Izzo moved to RECESS to DECEMBER 13, 2005, for further review under the Historic District, Overlay District, seconded by Ms. Jary with all in favor. 7:50
Application #: BA 6-088-5
Property Owners: Ampersand Properties, LLC
Overview: Planned residential and planned unit developments to include commercial buildings, single family homes, duplexes and multi-family units.
Tax Parcel #: 6-088.000
Physical Location: 1652 Mountain Road
Zoning District: HT, MRV, MOD Application #: S-05-31P
Overview: Preliminary layout for 10.02 acre 21-lot residential and commercial subdivion
Same as above.
Present Ken Biedermann who continued review starting with page 6 of the narrative.
Subdivision Sec. 5.1 (1) Mr. Biedermann stated the area is a TDR receiving area, which encourages intensive development. (2) the property is bisected by the river with the closest building being setback from the top of the riverbank by 80’. Approximately 5 acres is identified as primary agricultural soils which will be negatively impacted and require the applicant to do off-site mitigation through the State of Vt. . Ms. Jary asked if this plan has to be in place prior to construction and the answer was yes. A minimum of 1.5 acres is being reserved as open space and will be developed to be open to the general public. (3) Village settlement patterns with appropriate scale development. The commercial buildings are oriented to public streets and designed to screen parking lots from the roads. (4) There are no privately owned reserved strips in the project. (5) An extensive landscaping plan has been developed and on file (will be discussed in the future). (6) A sidewalk system is integrated into the plan. (7) Traffic: There is a traffic impact study done by Resources Systems Group, Inc (the Board had not seen this study) Exhibit 12 for the record. 3 intersections were studied; the existing driveways to the property from Cape Cod Rd and also from VT 108, as well as the Cape Cod Road – Vt 108 intersection. The conclusion was the project itself does not create a problem as it is anticipated 54 cars per day, but there is an existing problem, stated Mr.Biedermann at Cape Cod Road, particularly at certain times of the day. The study recommended the state help out with the problem as well as the Rec Path/pedestrian problem. It was felt by the study that the traffic generated by this project would be minimal and have no adverse impact. A long discussion took place by members. Ms. Jary felt the subdivision might create unreasonable traffic congestions and felt the developer should explore ways to mitigate the traffic. Mr. Jones said one of the recommendations is there be a left turn lane off Cape Cod Road. Mr. Biedermann stated his project does not impact Cape Cod Road based on the engineers study. Mr. Aumand said the study does say deficiencies exist today. Ms. Jary felt the Town should not be responsible for what the development is creating. Mr. Aumand stated one of the problems the Board has is that in the conclusion it says there will be no undue adverse impact on transportation, safety resulting from the development being proposed. It recommended the Town and developers get together and implement mitigation measures. Mr. Aumand felt there should be crafted a condition that allows the Board to maintain oversight or mechanism to revisit this at a later date. Perhaps the time has not come, but is slowly arriving, stated Mr. Aumand, that collectively something needs to be planned for. (this was done for the Mt. Company). Mr. Brink suggested that people who live there would use Cape Cod, Mayo Road or Barrows Road most of the time. It is a good location to avoid making the turn, stated Mr. Brink. Mr. Walton said the problem is here, but it is hard to make a developer accountable for what has been happening for many years, but something needs to be in place to start mitigating these problems. He wasn’t sure it is all Ampersand’s responsibility when the Mt. Co put in a $200 M development.
Mr. Biedermann responded re: what has been done to ease traffic flow, i.e. Barrows Road etc. saying that a lot has been done to ease the traffic flow on the Mt Road, such as using the Barrows Road as a bypass south. This has given us the traffic pattern we have todaytoday. Ms. Jary said the Rec Path crossing is a concern. Mr. Biedermann said not because of our development and Ms. Jary answered, “I don’t think you can say that.” 6 commercial buildings going in which will create additional traffic turn into development, which will eventually interfere with pedestrian traffic, stated Mr. Aumand. Mr. Biedermann: “that is true”. Mr. Aumand felt the Board has to implement some form of long-term involvement. Mr. Aumand said when the issue of moving the Rec Path came before the Board, and it was a split vote, the idea was that some day the town would tackle the issue of possibly re-route the Rec Path, i.e. under the bridge or another location. Mr. Biedermann stated this project does require Act 250 approval. Mr. Aumand referred to the conclusion again i.e. undue adverse traffic in the area. He felt the Board needs long-term involvement. Mr. Jones asked if the Board could piggyback on the Mt. Company stipulation. He said he could envision a project across the road at which time the area will be a village. Discussion continued. Members asked if the letter from Stowe Electric Department is valid for the project since it is dated 8/23/04. Letter from Fire Dept dated 7/28/05 submitted with conditions. A letter from the Town of Stowe saying the capacity to serve water and sewer is available.
Mr. Biedermann will put the building envelopes on the plat and not the buildings. Mr. Izzo moved to RECESS to DECEMBER 13, 2005 starting with Sec. 5.3 Open Space.
Mr. Aumand seconded the motion with all in favor. Respectfully submitted, Barbara S. Allaire
|
