Loading...
TC Minutes 12-13-1994MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN COUNCIL HELD DECEMBER 13, 1994 - 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Avon Town Council of the Town of Avon, Colorado was held in the Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado, in the Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Albert Reynolds at 7:32PM. A roll call was taken with Councilors Richard Carnes, Jack Fawcett, John Hazard, Celeste C. Nottingham, and,Judy Yoder present. Councilor Tom Hines arrived approximately 7:50PM. Also present were Town Manager Bill James, Town,Attorney'John Dunn, Town Clerk Patty Neyhart, Planner Mary Holden, Fire Chief Charlie Moore, Police Chief,Gary Thomas, Transportation Director Harry Taylor, Director of Municipal Services Larry Brooks, Recreation Director Meryl Jacobs, and Community Service'Officer Steve Hodges, as well as members of the press and public. First Reading of Ordinance No. 94-23, Series of 1994, AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A CERTAIN LEASE AGREEMENT Mr. Bill James stated this lease agreement is for the purchase of the "Pledge", a sculpture by Glenna Goodacre. The purchase price is $150,000 and the sculpture is valued at $195,000. The lease payments will be $50,000 each year for 1994, 1995, and 1996; plus interest. Councilor Hazard motioned approval of Ordinance No. 94-23, Series of 1994, on first reading. Councilor Yoder seconded the motion. Mayor Reynolds called for a roll call vote. The motion carried unanimously. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 94-21, Series of 1994, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 8, CHAPTER 8.24 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF AVON AS IT RELATES TO PUBLIC NUISANCES AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION HEREOF Mr. James reminded that Council, Planning & Zoning Commission (P & Z)-and Staff have received a lot of input and reviewed this Ordinance. Changes have been made to reflect that input and review. Those changes are: change 72 hours, in terms of how long a recreational vehicle can be stored on site, to 14 continuous days. After that, if there is to be permanent storage on site, they have to go through the process of getting approval from the P & Z to screen recreational vehicles from public view. Temporary structures are basically the same, with the addition of an administrative procedure. They can make application to the community development department for approval of temporary structures. Staff is recommending deletion of the newspaper racks from this Ordinance. Cliff Thompson has volunteered to, help with the volunteer program. Staff is also recommending an administrative process for the outdoor display of merchandise. These changes are offered for Council's consideration this evening. Mayor Reynolds opened the meeting for public hearing. Mr. Jack Hunn, Wildridge resident for eleven years and a P.& Z Commissioner"for five years, shared his views as a citizen; primarily the recreational vehicles. Mr. Hunn has been concerned about the image of these'in our town and particularly in Wildridge.. Mr. Hunn distributed to Council photographs taken last summer of the conditions in Wildridge. 0 0 The photos were taken from public roadways of some of these examples of how recreational vehicles have been stored up there. Mr. Hunn encouraged Council to adopt this Ordinance. It has been amended sufficiently to create flexibility. Mr. Hunn thought this Ordinance is fair and reasonable. Mr. Hunn recommended one change in paragraph 8.24.111 on the first page, paragraph C there is a typo in the last sentence; visible form should be visible from. And, then you limit the enforcement to public roadways. Mr. Hunn encouraged Council to consider the visual impacts from adjacent properties as well. Mr. Myers, resident of Wildridge, questioned the 14 continuous days.- It says 14 continuous days then the vehicle has to be pulled out; what would happen if the gentleman just pulled it out and two weeks later he brings it back in? You can just keep doing this? Or, if he is on a duplex lot put it from one side, wait 14 days and put it on the other side. You got anything on that, that is just going to stop it? Mr. James stated discussion focused on that today. That is the way the Ordinance is written - as long as they are moving the vehicle - if it sits there for 13 days and they move the vehicle and come back and park it - technically they have met the definition of this Ordinance. Mr. Myers stated he thinks this is just foolish - if you are going to have the law, have a law that sticks - nothing that we can go around. Councilor Yoder asked Mr. Myers if he would suggest the 14 day period be one time per year. Mr. Myers suggested 14 days and you're out - in other words you have 14 days - yes, there should be a grace period, they've got everything covered right now. But, once you're there, they know the law - and then it doesn't come back; period. If you are going to have the law, enforce it. If you aren't going to have-the law, don't put a loop hole in it so we can just hop around it. You,sure are going-to have people jump around it.' Mr. Myers stated he would rather not.see the law at all, but if you are going to have it, enforce the thing. And, if you do have the law, make sure it is enforced. Councilor Yoder asked what about if it was 14 'continuous-days in one year; that would allow you to have a guest that comes annually. Mr. Myers said that is OK; I'm just using,common sense. Up in Wildridge, I see snowmobiles.right now sitting out in the front yard. And, if by the law, all they do is pull it out, pull it down to a gas station, come back two days later, they have 14 days again. Or if they own a duplex, just move it to the next duplex. Councilor Hazard asked if this could be amended a little stricter - in other words, so that we do not have a loop hole. Councilor Yoder suggested to just add 14 continuous days per year. Councilor Fawcett agreed with Mr. Myers that we should provide something to make sure the snowmobiles, motor homes, etc., aren't jogged downtown for a day and then brought back up and reset on the property. Fourteen continuous days in any one year might need some reworking. We might have to look at this again on the tenth of January. Or, make the amendments right now. Councilor Fawcett continued, the other thing I am a little concerned about is "except when screened from public view". Screening seems to indicate some kind of a manufactured device which would prevent someone from seeing this; be it a wooden framed building or fence, even shrubbery. I think there are some homes in Avon where you can probably put a vehicle or snowmobile or whatever in a concealed or hidden location that would hide it from public view, from both the street, public way, or adjacent property owners; which is really the purpose, so that is it not seen. 2 • i Councilor Fawcett continued, the objection is if they clutter the property-up and the neighbors obviously can see them and if they are observed from the public roadway. I am not sure screened is the-right word. I would rather see hidden or concealed. Mr. Myers asked if this Ordinance does go into affect, is Council going to give people enough time to get them out of there. Mayor Reynolds stated of course, perhaps a grace period of a couple weeks, if it passes. Mr. David Gosset, a Wildridge resident, asked,-so basically under recreational vehicles, it is all targeting just motorized vehicle use, correct? If you store a bicycle outside, that is fine? If I can see someone's bicycle that is fine, but it isn't if you can see my snowmobile? Mayor Reynolds stated that is the way I read it. Councilor Nottingham asked what if it is a sail boat versus a power boat? Mr. Gosset stated it is kind of discriminatory towards motorized recreational vehicle use. Councilor Hazard asked if Mr. Gosset had a garage. Mr. Gosset stated yes - I can take everything out of my garage and put it,outside, but you don't want to see that either. There are several cars that are titled, registered; I can drive on the road. I can park them outside; would you rather see those or my snowmobiles? You are putting a lot of people in a catch 22 spot with this Ordinance. Councilor Hazard asked Mr. Gosset if he lives in Wildridge. Mr. Gosset stated yes. Councilor Hazard stated, when you bought your property, you must have signed a covenant. Councilor Yoder interjected, you don't sign it, you just get a copy. Councilor Hazard stated those covenants you are suppose to abide by. Too many people talking at one time; unable to transcribe. Mr. Gosset asked if there have been alot of complaints about motorized vehicles. Councilor Fawcett stated he is not sure what Mr. Gosset is suggesting; what are you suggesting. Mr. Gosset stated he rides snowmobiles and motorcycles and he leaves them outside; this really affects him. Mr. Gosset stated his snowmobiles and motorcycles are parked in the driveway on trailers; they are visible. In the summertime, I store them behind the house so I have space; I have limited space. Why aren't lawn mowers and snowblowers included in this? Why is it just recreational vehicles? Why are you coming down on the recreational vehicle part when a lawn mower, weed chopper, etc., is just as bad to look at as this is? Councilor Fawcett stated just to go one by one snow cat or other similar type of snow vehicle the idea a snow remover,,snow blower, etc. I think would be included and.that. would be the intent. Mr. Gosset stated so I put a log chipper; I buy a.yard tractor and stick outside; what is the distinction between a yard tractor and a snowmobile? Councilor.Fawcett'-stated I,think you have a good point in terms .of; you know we are thinking in terms of yard tractors and other vehicles of that nature; even unmotorized. Mr. Gosset stated it says recreational vehicles. Councilor Fawcett stated I think we do wish to include certain other things such as yard tractors; it is difficult to list them all. And, when we say motorized vehicles; I don't really think we are referring only to motorized vehicles because we could have an old wreck sitting in your yard. And, you might be intending to restore and there is no engine in it. So, it is unmotorized. So does that mean it can stay out in front? Technically yes. Specifically, I don't think that is the idea. I think your points are good and I think maybe we ought to go back and work on this amendment a little more. Councilor Carnes asked if someone parks a junk car out there; isn't that already against the law? Mr. Gosset asked if I have a snowmobile that is registered with the Colorado Department of Recreation; that is OK? The Ordinance says unlicensed motorcycles; well unlicensed and licensed motorcycles; what is the difference? I can license my dirt bike and now I can park it outside, right? The same dirt bike that is not licensed right now that I ride in the woods; I can come down; it has lights; it has everything on it; just no license. 3 • i Mr. Gosset continued, so basically, I can put a license and park it in the same spot - 'is that what you are saying? Mayor Reynolds stated that is a legal motor vehicle in the State of Colorado. Councilor Hines stated that is what this ordinance is saying. Mr-. Gosset stated there is no distinction. It is so vague and it almost seems like it is aimed at a certain user in Wildridge; mainly myself. This covers alot of things I have around the house. Mr. Myers suggested, let's go the other way around. I think we come up there; we all have homes up there that are worth anything from $100,00 - $500,00'0. Let's go the other way - let's make junk yards up there. I don't think anybody wants to live up there in a junk yard. All we are trying to do is look down; is maintain it. If people took care of their yards - property, fine. And, we had a covenants when I moved out there that I had to look into and I abide by. Yes, we let some-things slip by. But, it is getting to the point now that anything goes.. In other words, we are getting nit-picky; all we are just trying to do is get a-few things out there. Mr. Myers stepped away from the microphone and am unable to transcribe. Mr. Myers continued, I mean it is just junk out there; all the way.through. I love - sport's myself. I have a boat - but I got my boat jammed inside my garage. I want a boat, yes - it is my activity. But, it is my responsibility to take care of my own yard.. ;If you don't want it up there; fine, let's-just have one big-junk yard up there. I think we have to have some kind of law up there - a little bit of common sense. I think, if people just took care of their yards and didn't have something laying all over, we wouldn't have to have an Ordinance at all. Councilor Nottingham stated Mr. Myers' subdivision does have covenants that you have the opportunity to enact; doesn't it - to take care of your neighborhood? Mr. Myers stated I think you have to go through - you have to sue the people = to get it all done - it is a long process. Councilor Nottingham stated it sounds like a neighborhood issue because you have the tools; your subdivision has the tool? Mr. Myers stated yes. Councilor Nottingham questioned this is kind of redundant on the tool that you already have?' Mr. Myers stated we can't enforce it. If I wanted to enforce it _ by the time I got a lawyer - it is not worth it to me. I will be honest with you - I will get up and move. Mr. Myers continued, I came up to Wildridge to build a home - a nice home in a nice area. And, I don't mind a few vehicles up there. But, you look what's happened in the last four years up there - you just look at the area - it is going down hill - people say well they don't do in Singletree; well I'll move up to Wildridge - I can store anything I want up there. Are we supposed to be the junk yard of the Town of Avon? I don't want it. Councilor Fawcett stated this Ordinance is not for Wildridge. This is for the Town of Avon. Mr. Myers interjected I can understand where the man is coming from, but if I'am going to, have this equipment, I am going to have an area to-store it in. Councilor Fawcett stated this is what I think the Council and our P & Z Commission is trying to do - is to make it fair and equitable for all, but just in the same way this town built the streetscape - to try to make this town an attractive location to live in - for people to come to. The same thing - this is exactly what we are trying to do through this Ordinance. I am not sure - the gentleman who pointed out the areas which really aren't covered and where they might discriminate one vehicle against another - I am not sure we have drawn this as tightly or as well as we could. And, I think we might want to go back to the drawing board on that. 4 • • Councilor Fawcett continued, but I do think that this Council, at least this one council member,',is definitely interested in doing what is best for the Town of Avon. And, I think, what is best, is to try to, in someway, regulate what you might refer to as junk, but then to be fair to the other person, they may think it is the most beautiful object in the world. Somewhere we have to come to something in between that is fair to all. Mr. Doug Cross, a Wildridge resident for about ten years, stated he has no problem with recreational vehicles, snowmobiles. I think it is kind of ridiculous for us to complain about .recreational things when this is all we do in this valley is play. If our toys are in display in our yard - I just frankly think we,have better things to do than to worry about whether the guy down the street has $100,000 motor home in his drive. I don't have a problem with that. I looked at the pictures - I don't have a problem with those pictures - I don't see the problem. Mr. Josh Hall stated this strikes me as weird, I am sorry. I kind of held off because I felt, well, I'd just get up and say ditto because a bunch of people would get up and go this is a Wildridge problem - this is not an Avon problem. I am a little offended by the fact certain people are saying, well, we are not going to dictate what is junk and what isn't junk. We are going to dictate about what a recreational vehicle should be outside your home; where it should be outside your home; whether this $19,000 shiny looking motorcycle should be there or, if this is a piece of junk with a piece of tape on it, then I don't want it in the same spot. Also, I noticed that just about everybody that has talked here is from Wildridge - well, I am not from Wildridge. The comment that was made at the last Council meeting that this town is starting to look junkie; I am sorry but, I have never ever heard that. Nobody came to me - I have never heard people at parties or anything like that say, boy, this town is getting junkie. You know, if you want to talk about junk, look behind the Seasons. There is about 20 busses hanging back there leaking fluid and there is junk - you know if you really want to get picky and go around the town and look for all kinds of junk - I am sure we can find it not only in the town's arsenal of vehicles but also in other peoples recreational vehicles. Where I live there are kayaks and things outside. Mayor Reynolds asked where Mr. Hall lives. Mr. Hall stated at Beaver Bench Condominiums, on the lake. Mr. Hall felt the Council is getting into an area that he finds should be handled by the covenants, that the folks are talking-about. Mr. Hall stated there are homeowners' associations.- The reason that homeowner's associations exists is because they get together and they say this is the way we'd like our community to look. That is what that is for. I don't think you guys are here to arbitrate to the entire town a complaint-in Wildridge, what exactly, what vehicles should be where. I am a recreator. I have no stake in this - I have no recreational vehicles - I can't afford them. But, I feel a guy up in Wildridge who bought a $200;000 home =maybe he put every penny he had into it - and he can't afford.to buy a garage - or something to hide that boat or whatever he has - or his snowmobile. I feel that this is a recreational town. I understand what you guys are trying to do - you are trying to say OK, this is really junkie - and I understand what you guys are talking about - you are saying this we want to kind of curve this area of behavior. But, I don't think that is for the Town Council to do. Councilor Fawcett commented I agree with you Josh (Mr. Hall) on the parking of our busses behind or next to the Seasons. And, that is one of the reasons why we have passed a bond issue to build'a public works site, which will eventually go up in Swift Gulch, because we want to get that type of stuff out of town - so, we don't have this unattractive looking really mess as even Josh (Mr. Hall) would admit. 5 • • Councilor Fawcett continued, in terms of what we can and can't legislate, I agree; it is something the community as a whole has' to come together. I-myself have heard many comments from people who live in,Wildridge basically, but in other parts of town, who are concerned with vehicles and items - they don't necessarily have to be recreational vehicles or snow mobiles - but sometimes it is just plain wagons'of trash that might sit there - or-as somebody mentioned an old snow blower that is kind of a wreck in, the middle of summertime when it,is never in use., Again; the main point is to hopefully - we all want the same-thing,, eventually - which is to try to increase property values - it will make us have pride in the Town of Avon and in our residential neighborhoods - if they are somewhat clean and not cluttered. Junkie; I haven't heard that-word, myself but,' somebody on Council may have. But, I certainly have heard complaints from some that they want to - you know their neighbors are leaving their yard a mess and yet we are cleaning it up. You know, the P & Z Commission as well as the Town Management, as well as the Council; there are things that are legislated. I mean maybe they are wrong - maybe they are right, but they are Y there - they are Ordinances - such as when you build a home there are setbacks, height levels, the fact that you have to have things like sprinkler systems, you have to have certain types of plantinggs, etc. Now, that is taking something away from the individual. This man or woman owns this land but, they can't use it,just as they wish. And, they never have been able to. And, this is something that is not just for Avon or Vail. It is common through out the United States and in most civilized countries of the world. So, I think we do have to have some type of legislation. But, thank god you people are here to give us some guidance as to what type we should have. That is why we have these open forums and public meetings. I think we should go back to the drawing board and look at the.Ordinance. I do think, and I hope, that we can come out with something that will satisfy those that don't want anything in the yard and those that want everything - something that is workable for all of us. Councilor Nottingham stated Councilor Fawcett is more optimistic than she. Councilor Nottingham stated we are never going to find something that satisfies everyone and find the happy medium. We will never. I also think this is really a situation that is so unfair; if we ever made it retroactive to those who have already bought - and even if it is in Beaver Bench, because it would apply there and they have boats out there and that type of thing. They have no opportunity to create these enclosures where it can't be viewed - its common area. We have so many of these units down here in the core that can not comply - Buck Creek Condominiums is another one. There is no land available for those people to have that kind of thing. Perhaps they do have it out on their deck, or whatever. But, they have another protection built in, just like Wildridge Subdivision does - it is within their condominium/townhouse association guidelines and rules and covenants that they were aware of. And, I think it is so unfair to have us go back and retroactively change the plan that they thought they had when they moved into these places. Councilor Nottingham continued, you can probably tell by now, I am not in favor of this Ordinance, at all. I think it is to much government. I think that there is already tools in place for these people to use do these situations. This is just a case of legislation that will end up being a bad piece of legislation. Mr. Rich Howard, a citizen of Avon, stated I don't live in Wildridge - I live in Beaver Creek West. Mr. Howard reiterated some of the comments that have already been made. I think that this is bad legislation. This is government that is being heavy handed. The comments, that seem to have been made, have been related to Wildridge. I want to reiterate that I think there are tools in place for Wildridge residents to try to take care of the so called junkiness in their neighborhood. In my particular condo complex, we do have homeowner's covenants. 6 Mr. Howard continued, I agree and sympathize with those of you and also of the audience that have a problem with some of the various aesthetics in their particular neighborhood or their condo complex. I have had that problem with my condo complex and I have been working through our homeowner's association to enforce our covenants. I don't think this is the type of legislation that any government ought to be doing. It is using taxpayers' money essentially to try to enforce private covenants. If residents that are living under private covenants don't think that those covenants are being enforced, well, then it is their obligation and prerogative to use their money to try to litigate the enforcement of those covenants. I don't want to see them use my money and other residents' money - tax money - to enforce those private covenants. Mr. Howard continued, also, there seems to be a cost to this Ordinance that has not been discussed at all. Assuming that this Ordinance does pass and there is enforcement;- who is going to be enforcing the terms of this Ordinance. I would assume that it is going to be probably our police department. Councilor Hines interjected Code Enforcement Officer. Mr. Howard stated none the less, they are an employee of the Town. And, there are probably other codes that are just as important, if not more important than to be having one of our publicly paid individuals constantly going around counting the number of days a given vehicle is in a given spot. I would like to see that money being spent on this Code Enforcer to be enforcing perhaps codes that are directed more towards the health and public safety of our citizens. It also seems that there are many terms-in the particular section that we all seem to be discussing tonight - 8.24.11 as it relates to recreational vehicles - it seems to me, that the intent, of the Council and the intent of this Ordinance and especially that particular section. is to get not only vehicles but any unsightly type of material out of the yard 'and out of public view and get it behind some type of closed structure. Two points that relate to that - going back to the enforcement of this regulation - if it is in fact-enforced -where are we going to put those vehicles? Is the town in fact going to have this screened area, screened from public view? Assuming that we go and we round up every single vehicle that is in violation of this Code, how many vehicles are we talking about? How large of an impoundment area do we have to worry-about? And, we also have to worry about the duration of time of that impoundment and the unsightly aspect of those impounded vehicles until the owners can reclaim those vehicles. As it relates to the actual homeowners and their lawns that we are trying to get these vehicles off of - if we are looking in a broad sense in trying to-'get unsightly material out of lawns it seems to me that the way-this code is written is vague. We have already heard much discussion about the interpretation of what a motor vehicle is. And, if it is registered one day and not registered the next day,-;how does that fall into the enforcement of this regulation? I look at junker cars that happen to be in my particular condo complex. They are registered vehicles however, they are incredibly unsightly. Right behind you, there is a new condo complex being developed right now. There are construction vehicles that are stored on that site day•in and day out. To me they are most unsightly as well.- But; again, they are registered vehicles and so therefore they would be-exempt. I have also seen very junky swing sets that I also would like to see taken off of lawns but, they don't fall into this Ordinance. There are also open garages around town.that are also unsightly - are we going to regulate-those as well? So, I caution the Council before you start passing a regulation like this - think about what your intent-is and if there-are other alternatives to try to achieve your intent.- Also, think about the-costs,that are involved in enforcing this type of a regulation. Mayor Reynolds questioned Mr. Howard - you said you were in the process of representing your condo association? Mr. Howard stated he is not representing them - just as a homeowner. 7 • 0 Mr. Howard added, I am making an effort to make sure that our covenants are enforced as written and the rules and regulations that we as a condo complex do live under. Councilor Carnes asked, so you have had experience enforcing them? Mr.-Howard stated what we have done is we have passed it on to our legal counsel for our particular.complex and they are taking the various measures that are necessary to try to clean up and enforce those covenants. But, we as homeowners are bearing that cost - it is nobody else - it is not Beaver Bench, it is not Buck Creek, it is not Wildridge residents - it is Beaver Creek West residents - it is not taxpayers. Councilor Fawcett stated you indicted that you are suggesting we come up with something else that will more or less follow through with the same intent that we are - I think somewhat similar to what you may be doing within your condo association right now - I am not sure what that is but, maybe it is some of those cars that you mentioned or other trash left outside. I don't know but, again that is the intent of this Ordinance. And, also the intent is of course not to have each individual fighting every other individual or one suing the other - something that makes sense for the town as a whole so that the town can go out and say, you know, hey, come on, lets clean this up, etc. Now, what I am getting at, is, I am asking you whether you have any suggestions, which is the whole purpose of the public meeting, as to how we can accomplish some of these ideas or some of these thoughts. Maybe they are all wrong, I don't know. Some how I feel, no, they are not all wrong - that some how we want to make this a community that we are proud of. But, whether we are going at it the right way - we may not. Mr. Howard stated a couple of comments. First, and I will get to suggestions that I have and the primary one is that those people that live in an area, whether it is Wildridge or any other community,-neighborhood, or condo complex, if they don't like the aesthetics of their neighborhood, than privately try to achieve their goals of cleaning it up. And, I suspect that many of our neighborhoods already have some type of private covenants already in place. I would not like to see the Council and the tax payers' money trying to achieve the problems of a neighborhood. The problem that you start having then is that this Council and this town starts getting in the litigation business. And, if the private citizens are trying to abdicate their responsibility and place that upon the government, I don't think that is the right goal of any town or any government. I think the people, the private citizens, ought to be taking some responsibilities themselves to try to manage their own affairs. And, they can manage them either between neighbor and neighbor, or manage them within a private governmental system. We have that - those private governmental systems are covenants and restrictions that private individuals buy into. They buy into them when they agree to buy that piece of property. If they didn't like those covenants then they have one of two options; they can either not buy the property or they can buy the property and then see to amend those covenants through the private governmental system that that neighborhood or condo complex may have. But, I don't want to see this government or any government in the litigation business cause it is very expensive quite frankly and I think there are other ways that those goals can be achieved. Councilor Fawcett stated what I gather from what you are telling me is the only way you see or the only one you suggested is by private covenants. In other words, I suppose we could abdicate a lot of the areas such as dog control and so on to private covenants amongst neighbors, but we don't; we have a municipal government that handles those items. There are a lot of other areas the municipal government could abdicate certain functions to private citizens, but we don't because that is why a municipal government is formed. 8 0 • Councilor Fawcett continued, in other words, I find a very fine line as to whether and what and when municipal government should be in control or at least try to organize - or a group of private citizens, a vigilante committee, if you will - I am kind of in favor-generally of trying to do it through the public forum such as this ,and not through the private groups because I think disputes become quite out of hand. Mr. Howard stated I think that I would disagree in your comment about vigilante groups because to me that lends an air of illegality to their efforts. There is nothing illegal about a private citizen trying to enforce a private covenant. It may be expensive, it may be unneighborly to do, but the neighbor at whom that litigation may be directed is also living under those same rules. And, they understand those rules, or should understand those rules when they buy into those rules. Councilor Fawcett stated I agree. And, in the best of all possible worlds that would be happening with all of our different covenants and the different homeowners associations. Unfortunately, it hasn't been working. Mr. Howard stated I would have to assume that it-hasn't, at least in Wildridge, because I know of no effort by Wildridge residents to bind together to try to enforce any covenants that they may have against their neighbors. And, if in fact Wildridge residents, and for that matter any other residents living under a private covenant, if they don't like the way those covenants are enforced, I would like to see them take personal responsibility, not abdicating that responsibility to local government; to try and enforce'those covenants under which they are being ruled. Councilor Fawcett asked what would you say if there were no covenants or homeowners' associations through out Avon. Mr. Howard responded by saying that is a hypothetical and I would much rather not answer that because that is not the case we have. To me that is really not relevant to the discussion because it is a•hypothetical. Councilor Hazard pointed out that Wildridge is part of Avon. And, Wildridge citizens.pay taxes just like anybody else in any other neighborhood. I-think they have the right, if they wish to, to be part of this Town of Avon. They are not a little group completely separate. They have ,a neighborhood where they paid a lot of money for that land to be kept nicely. If, like you said, it would be a personal - where every citizen should take care of itself and so forth - if this was an ideal situation we could save a lot of money by cancelling our police department. That would be the first thing I would do - if everybody was a law abiding citizen this would be marvelous. We could live with each other very, very easily. But, unfortunately I think you have to consider; we all talk about Wildridge like somebody - some place separate. Wildridge is part of Avon and it pays their taxes just like everybody else. Mr. Howard agreed that Wildridge is part of Avon. I agree that all Wildridge residents are citizens of Avon. However, it seems as though this Ordinance got started through the concerns of Wildridge residents. If in fact Wildridge residents are able to lobby this Council and convince you to pass this Ordinance, I say I am all for.it, because that is democracy working. If other citizens, whether they live in Wildridge or not,_are able to lobby a majority of this Council to act a different way, then I would say at least those people have spoken. So, it depends upon,'obviously, the way that this Council is going to rule as to whether this Ordinance is passed or not. 9 • i Mr. Howard continued-, I still think though that if there are private covenants - you know, I question why have private covenants - if there was not the intent of developers and also homeowners to try to rule themselves then it doesn't seem as though there would be any reason to have private covenants. I also agree-that many people don't take self responsibility for their lives either and that is unfortunate and that is why we have police departments'and quite frankly-that-is why we have government. However, if we do have covenants already in place- and there are residents that are living under those covenants, again, I would like to see them try to enforce them using there own money and not my money. It seems as though that is what certain residents of this town are trying to do. They are saying we haven't even tried, we are not even going to try; but, we want you as the government and we want the rest of the..taxpayers to help us out - to subsidize cleaning up our neighborhood. I say that, is not good legislation. I don't happen to enjoy the looks of some of my neighbor condos, but I can't do anything about that other than,not buy into their private covenants or buy into their junky aesthetic looking place. I just want to try and make sure that the environment that I am living in is as nice as possible and I have ways of going about doing that and, it has nothing to do with government, at least not this government. Mr. Hall added that it was one thing - Councilor Fawcett wanted to defend the passing of the Ordinance because he mentioned other examples of the passing of Ordinances for instances landscaping, for instances planning and zoning concerns - my comment to the Council, in regard to that, is that you are now entering an area where you are the arbiters of taste. A dog is a dog. Landscaping is grass. How high a building is - yes - then you are getting into the-arbitration of taste to a certain degree; before the building is built. But, retroactively you are now all saying I am going to decide what boat looks good-where,-what motorcycle looks good where; I am not sure you guys want to get into that. Councilor Fawcett stated I don't' think that is the point either, Josh (Mr. Hall). I don't think that is what we are doing, if we do anything. All I am saying - I shouldn't say we're saying, and I think we need to find out where the Council--stands because sometimes you don't hear until the public session - but, all I am saying is that if there is something that doesn't - shouldn't be there - as far as most of the citizens of Avon - so far here I guess we're kind of.split in terms of the input I've got and phone calls and so on; its running quite a bit in favor of this type of Ordinance. But, that is people that are calling me. So, all we are doing is airing it in the public as we should and finding out what is best and what we want as citizens. I mean Rich (Mr. Howard) very lucidly presented the-position of no legislation but he did admit that it is the will of the people that will finally - and I have got to kind of find out what are constituents really want. Mr. Hall stated right; my only point was that I thought in mind there was a distinction between Ordinances that had been passed and this one. Councilor Fawcett stated no; it is just that there are Ordinances that have been passed that have some similarity to this in terms of they control what you can and can't do with your private property. Ms. Colleen Carter, from Wal-Mart, stated you asked if there was another way to accomplish the same thing that you are trying to do here. I have been in a lot of different communities and lived in a lot of different places with Wal-Mart. One of the things- that I am seeing in.common in a lot of communit'ies' is residents trying to legislate the people as to how their areas should look. 10 • • Ms. Carter continued, what happens if we challenge these people to - maybe a community week - cleanup week'or something, where we once in a while bring to the forefront of their mind; hey, this is something we want to look good, we want to look good in our community. Challenge our people to fix the problems that are out there. I didn't realize that some of the problems we have at Wal-Mart were a problem, like the front sidewalk, until it was brought to my attention. But, by the same token, I am more than willing to work to fix up that type of problem. But, how much of' our community would be willing to get out there and clean and fix it up? I have seen communities that have - there is one community in Neosho, Missouri that is called the flower box community. They get out there and they build flower boxes - I am not recommending that, but why not a community clean up week? Why not something that will challenge our people, rather than regulate them to do the same type of thing. When you put down rules, like with children or anyone else, the more rules you make, the harder it is to do. But, if you challenge that same person to accomplish something greater than what they have already done, sometimes it happens a lot easier and a lot quicker. Councilor Hines stated a lot of what he wanted to say has already been said. Quite honestly, Councilor Fawcett is kind of throwing us out as a whole - I am not a part of that whole on this issue. The only negative comments that I have received regarding the Town of Avon is either from fellow council members or from the two individuals who have stepped up to the podium tonight. Most of the comments that I have,received from the public at large have been negative on the town passing this ordinance. They echo the concerns that were raised by the audience. A lot of individuals feel this is preempted at this stage of the game for the Town of Avon to be moving forth on something where you do not have town wide support. I notice that most of the discussion seems to center around recreational vehicles - I don't know whether we've moved into temporary structures or outdoor display of merchandise yet, but I'll stick to the recreational vehicle side of things. To me, most municipalities do not enforce covenants - do not actively seek to try to do so. That is a private right to be utilized. Most of the comments that I have heard have centered around Wildridge and it means that the town is trying to - or we as a body are trying pass legislation town wide which the rest of the town has not called for. That seems a little selective in my mind. You are implementing town wide regulations for a specific neighborhood - I don't feel very good about that - unless there was a major outcry by residents. I think that I would offer a suggestion - it may be unfeasible, I don't know. But, I have always wondered how come this hasn't taken place - I hear members say that there are an awful lot of negative comments or that they receive a lot of criticism, from neighbors about Wildridge. I haven't heard that and I don't know what process they have gone through.in order.to try to rectify . their problem. Have'they picked up'the phone-and contacted-that neighbor and said, hey I perceive a problem here? Have they even tried to work it out on that level? I see you shaking your head, 'Mr. Myers, I presume :you'have. Mr. Myers stated it is none of your, business - I bought my house and I am going to treat it the way I want to. Councilor Hines stated but, therein lies - you bought in there specifically and you brought it.up; Mr. fellow council member Hazard has brought it up; I've heard it brought up many.times - covenants. I remember the town going through this issue three and a half, four years ago, I think it was. If there is such a desire, by Wildridge residents, I would suggest that a diligent effort be made in order to try and find a consensus of Wildridge residents. I know that that is a major task. I know to some extent some individuals, private homeowners, property owners did attempt to do that. It is a large job. 11 • i Councilor Hines continued, I.would rather volunteer the time of the town or maybe some town dollars - but I would rather see the process go through the correct process before the town seeks to step in and be over intrusive in terms legislation. Personally I feel that is what you need to do. If you shake your head and disagree with me than you as a private homeowner have full right to try to rectify the problems or wrongs that you see right now. As I understand the covenants, that are written up there, you have that right. Other individuals have raised the comment, why should we be spending other tax payers' dollars. I_f I am going to implement this` town wide', - I need to hear a town wide out.. cry;. I have not heard that.- from my neighborhood I have not heard that. I have not received anything negative from Wildridge. I have to have more motivation before I would want to-see government become this intrusive.' I don't have that yet. I would like to see you - whom ever - pursue trying to form some sort of a true covenants committee,,homeowner's association, what ever it may be and to try and find a'consensus of what is'desired in Wildridge. If we had that, I think it would be an awful lot easier for this town to back something of that nature; because you have the support of a majority, instead of, as I see it right now, the push of a few. Councilor Hines continued, in terms of the temporary structures and the outdoor display of merchandise I must agree it is written a whole lot better. I think that-we already - doesn't this already back up what is written on the books. People already have to come in and submit an application for a temporary structure - don't they? This is nothing new, unless there is some new twist to this that I don't understand. Mr. Norm Wood answered away from the microphone and am unable to transcribe. Councilor Hines asked so we are just changing the application process? Again, Mr. Wood answered away from the microphone. Councilor Hines stated well in terms of the way this ordinance is proposed those two issues certainly fall more within the perimeters of this Ordinance. And, the recreational vehicles, to me, seems to fall outside. Just for public's knowledge, as this Ordinance is stated; Whereas the Town has an obligation to the general public to ensure a reasonably unobstructed passage over the public ways in a clean, safe, and orderly manner; Whereas the public, health, safety, and welfare require the adoption of regulations with respect thereto as well as the adoption of the other regulations herein after contained - I mean we are specifically addressing a public right of way issue when we say something like that. At least that is the way I interpret this. When we tag in recreational vehicles under this, to me that is where we are trying to implement something on private property that really has nothing to do with public right of way. As I read this, the intent of this is to control by regulation for the benefit of the public at large and not for the benefit of any one member of the public - the movement of people and property on the streets and sidewalks of the Town of Avon. No where does it say private property. So, personally I would like to see the recreational vehicle issue dropped from this. I wouldn't mind moving forth and having some discussion in terms of the other parts of this Ordinance. But, the recreational vehicle I do not support in any way, shape, or form. Councilor Yoder stated I don't see this as enforcing covenants. I don't see this for a specific neighborhood. For instance, last summer I saw either a motor home or travel trailer sitting right over here on Nottingham Road all summer. There is a motor home right now sitting over here on Avon Center's parking lot that appears to be lived in. This isn't just a Wildridge issue. It is a Wildridge issue to a lot people because there is a substantial part of the people in this town who live in Wildridge that are active and talk to people, just as there are in other parts of the town. But, I really don't consider the neighborhood issue. I do consider it an issue in another way. We are constantly reminded that we are not just Avon - we are a ,part of a larger resort community. We have to be responsible in the entire resort community. 12