Loading...
PZC Minutes 0107147vi C U L D R A D U I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:05pm. Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, January7, 2014 Avon Town Council Chambers Avon Municipal Building I One Lake Street II. Roll Call All Commissioners were present with the exception of Losa and Minervini. III. Additions & Amendments to the Agenda None IV. Conflicts of Interest None V. Minor PUD Amendment — Continued Public Hearing Property Location: Lots 15 & 16, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision Property Address: 5684 & 5678 Wildridge Road East Applicant: Dominic Mauriello, MPG / Owner. John Minervini & Virginia Klyce Description: The applicant is requesting modify the zoning on 2 separate parcels of land. The two parcels are currently zoned for one (1) single-family residence and one (1) duplex residence. The applicant is requesting to modify this to three (3) single-family residences. The application proposes height limitations, footprint caps, limitation of driveway curb cuts, and non -developable areas. This is a continued Public Hearing, originally heard on November 5, 2013. Discussion: Dominic Mauriello presented the application on behalf of the owner, and highlighted the changes since the last meeting. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Jeremy Merling spoke on behalf of Karen, Joe, and Betts Merling, all owners of adjacent property (Lot 13). Jeremy cited the lack of precedent for this type of application and that the real issue is moving, or transferring, a dwelling unit to the other side of the existing home on Lot 15. He distributed a copy of the plat note from when Lot 14 was dissolved and the associated dwelling units were vacated. He stated that the intent was clear and the two development rights would be eliminated and not transferred to either Lot 13 or Lot 15. Mr. Merling elaborated that if this were approved there would be 90+ additional applications in similar form. Jeremy expressed the opinion that the lot being created (Lot 3) was smaller than neighboring properties and inconsistent with the neighborhood. The Merling's did not favor the placement of the home due to privacy, obstructed views, and incompatibility with the property development patterns in the neighborhood. He said that if the house was kept to an elevation below the ground level of their home, a restrictive covenant could be placed on the land to ensure the height of the house did not grow. Karen Merling stated that the driveway to access Lot 3 seemed abnormally long and that their visit with the Minervini's the second time was completely different that the first time. Mrs. Merling was uncomfortable with the fact that the Minervini's could not guarantee they would develop the property as they said during their first meeting. Mr. Jack Hunn spoke against the application and stated that the application benefits only the Minervini's and nobody else. He mentioned the intent of the vacated property (Lot 14) and that this application could be considered a transfer of a development right. Mr. Hunn stated that the proposal was self-serving and adversely affects the adjacent properties. Page 1 of 2 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Bonidy did not object to the application and said that in his professional opinion the narrow footprint and restrictions on size would alleviate concerns with view corridors. Commissioner Clancy walked the property and viewed the staked building corners in the field. He was having some trouble getting past the review criteria #6, and felt that it was a transferring of a development right. He cited the plat notes from the 1999 vacation of Lot 14 and the clear intent to lose the development rights. Commissioner Prince cited conformance with the review criteria, and that impacts would be adequately mitigated with the proposed restrictions. He noted that only two homeowners responded and that the Commission looks at the bigger picture of the amendment, not to discredit the public comment received. Commissioner Struve was not concerned about a precedent being created as this situation appeared to be unique. Commissioner Hardy felt that the application was in compliance with the standards and review criteria, and presented mixed housing types. Action: Commissioner Bonidy motioned to approve the draft findings of fact and record of decision provided by Staff with two additional conditions: 1. The top of the ridge for Lot 3 will be no taller than 8638' USGS elevation. 2. Driveway will be reconfigured between proposed Lots 2 & 3 within two (2) years of approval. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Prince. The motion and conditions were discussed by the Commissioners. Matt Pielsticker suggested additional findings related to the building height restriction. Commissioner Bonidy added a finding: the maximum ridgeline height of 8638' for Lot 3 is based off the ground floor of the existing residence on Lot 13, and would minimize impacts to the existing residence. Commissioner Prince agreed with the additional finding. The motion passed with a 4-1 vote, with Commissioner Clancy dissenting. VI. Consent Agenda • December 19th Meeting Minutes Action: Commissioner Struve motioned to approve the minutes, as amended, and Commissioner Clancy seconded the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously. VII.Other Business • Branding Community Outreach Meeting: Wednesday, January 29th, 6-9pm VIII.Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 6:58pm APPROVED on this 18' Day of February, 2014 SIGNE P Ji Clancy, PZC Ch irman Page 2 of 2