TC Res. No. 1991-17RESOLUTION NO. 91-17
SERIES OF 1991
The attached sheet is from the•.Town Council Meeting Minutes of
June 25, 1991.
Resolution No. 91-17, Series of 1991 was not nut in written form;
only verbal via the attached minutes.
TOWN COUNCIL.MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 1991.
This ordinance would be deferred until the July 9, 1991 Council
Meeting.
At that point, Councilman Ptach entered a Resolution on the floor.
He proposed that Resolution No. 91-17, Series of 1991 be proposed
stating that the Town of Avon Council direct the Planning and Zoning
Commission and the Design Review Board to no longer allow any further
subdivision of residential'lots in the Wildridge Subdivision.
Additionally, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Design'
Review Board would be, instructed to enforce the regulations as.
written in Wildridge to interpret that two unit lots mean "attached
duplex buildings and no detached,'duplex allowed and, three unit
or greater lots would mean multi-family attached buildings of three
units or more per building". The motion'was seconded by'.Coun_clman
Bennett.
Mayor Davis stated that there was a moratorium on this issue at, this
time,'and it was not clear of what the resolution would accomplish.
Councilman Ptach stated that the resolution would, accomplish no .
further subdivision of residential lots in Wildridge. He stated. that
it deterred from-the character of Wildridge and a resolution was
needed as to comfort the residents of what was happening,in Wildridge.
Mayor Davis stated that it was not appropriate to circumvent the process
that the Council had been discussing the issue. He stated that the
Council agreed in an earlier work session to come up with away to
resolve this issue.
Councilwoman _McRory stated that it was the consensus that 30,000 square
feet of 40,000 square feet might be acceptable - to allow_ the
duplex subdivision for single family homes.
The Mayor-felt that that was the consensus of-the Council and that this
issue be reviewed and brought.back- to the next meeting.
Councilwoman McRory called for question.
Because of the nature of the issue, the Mayor called for a roll call.
Those Councilmembers voting aye were-Tom Ptach, Jim Stovall and Mike
Bennett. Those Councilmembers opposing the resolution were Albert
Reynolds and Gloria McRory. The motion carried by a-3 to 2 vote.
The Mayor stated that he found that type of action objectable, for
.the Council to agree at one point to discuss the issue further and
then to propose a resolution, approve it without any further
discussion was not appropriate.
-4-
TOWN COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 9, 1991
The next discussion was in respect to duplex subdivision in Wildridge.
Ken Gubler approached the Council. He wanted to express his opinions
of the 'issue of the subdivision of lots in Wildridge.
He stated that his goal was to have a single family home and two car
garage. He believed and hoped the opportunity would surface in
Wildridge with some of the re-zoning of some of the multi-family
lots, down-zoning and building of single family homes, that those
would provide a range that his budget could afford.
Joe Peplinski, a Real Estate Broker and who was also involved in the
Claivin Project in Wildridge. This project had a lot of focus in
respect to this issue. The project was a six unit detached townhomes.
He stated that their group had purchased another lot in Wildridge,
Lot 17, Block 1, which was zoned for four units. He stated that
their main concern was whether those units could be detached. They
were not going to change the density or the zoning. The Claivin was
six detached Townhomes. He stated that in appearance they looked like
single family homes.
Councilman Stovall stated that the resolution that was adopted would
not preclude the developer from developing the lot as requested. He
stated that the developer bought the lot with the knowledge of the
restrictive covenants of Wildridge. He.stated that those restrictive
covenants could be amended. He stated that there was an alternative
process that could come into the Town which probably would be more
appropriate and that was to amend the covenants to allow what was
wanted to be accomplished.
Councilman Ptach stated that the intent of the resolution was not to
restrict conventional attached duplexes or multi-family subdivisions.
The intent was to restrict subdivision or resubdivision of undeveloped
land to allow for additional single family housing to be constructed.'
Mr. Peplinski stated that there was a market for detached units verses
attached units.
Paul Jeppson a property owner in Wildridge stated that he had bought
in Wildridge three yeara ago because that was the only undeveloped
property in the area. He stated that he like the open space. He stated
that it was important to take a look of what would be built in Wildridge.
Mike Bruen owner of a lot in Wildridge and, also a real estate agent.
He agreed with the above coimnents. He stated that they were ready to
break ground for a fractionalized project that would allow six units
on a four-plex lot. This was approved in June of this year. He stated
that there seemed to be a wide variety of lot sizes, square footage
acreage, some lots had multi-entrances off of different roads. HLS
stated that there were a lot of gray areas, nothing was written in stone.
He stated that the variety was much more attractive than having
buildings all the same.
-2-
Michael Rick, property owner in Wildridge and owner of a duplex in,
Wildridge approached the Council. The original intent of what
the building was to be in Wildridge when he bought his, lot now seemed
to be changing. He stated that if you let one developer.have approval
for subdividing, then you would have to let all developers have their.
wish.
Ken Sortland property owner and developer in Wildridge approached the
Council. He felt that there have been too many changes in-the laws
in Avon. He stated that Council wanted to encourage building in Avon,
then they dempen that encouragement by changing the laws.' He stated
that the lenders would not loan any funds on four-plex units unless
all the units were pre-sold. He suggested that the requests should
be on a case by case basis.
Peter Monroe, property owner in Wildridge and structural engineer
approached the Council.' He stated that the resolution was excellent.
He stated that the guidelines have to be specific. He stated that a
more simplified language in the resolution could have read, "Undeveloped
property cannot be subdivided and sold".
Jack Hunn, resident of Wildridge approached the Council. He served_ on
the Planning and Zoning Commission for two years and dealt. with
.these issues of for and against of these types of projects. He stated
that for--two years he had been encouraging the Planning staff to, come
up with a criteria on which you could consider, these types of projects.
There was no - process to notify owners of what was going on. People
that own property in Wildridge that do not live in the area, do not
know what is being.proposed in Wildridge, and how-their property
-value - may be•greatly-effected. He stated that'there are covenants
in Wildridge, they were legal and binding. The people that bought
-in Wildridge. had confidence that the laws of the covenants would stand.
Celeste Nottingham approached the Council. She also was a property
owner in Wildridge.. She-stated that she also supported the resolution.
She felt that the Wildridge covenants was there to protect the intent
of openance, which was-very attractive. The Council should not'be
moving as a reaction to the market or, chasing, the market. She
stated that Council should not loose site of the big picture. Those
people were looking toward the Council to preserve that confidence
for them.
Councilman Bennett asked if the resolution precluded anyone from
appealing- to the Council to allow subdivision of a lot. He was under
the impression that the request could-be heard.
-3-
Mr. Dunn stated that there was nothing in the resolution that stated
that a developer could not ask. He stated that what was really being
talked about was the SPA for Wildridge. The provision of the resolution
was .for the Planning and Zoning Commission to enforce the regulations
as they were written for Wildridge.
Councilman Garton stated that it had always been his understanding
that protective covenants ran with the land. He stated that he did not
feel that Council could override protective covenants. He did not think
it was the right group of people to be discussing changes in the
covenants that govern the building in Wildridge. He stated that.
there was a provision in the covenants that would set forth'how
amendments could be made to those covenants. He stated that 75% of
property owners would have to ge't together in order to change the zoning
in Wildridge.
Councilman Ptach stated that one observation was that people who live
in Wildridge support the resolution, and those who do not live in,
Wildridge, do not support the resolution.
Mayor'-Davis stated that the Town of Avon did not have the obligation_
or responsibility to amend the covenants, but the Council did control
Design Review and'zoning and what can and cannot be built in Wildridge.
The Planning Commission did not have an ordinance that would enforce
the covenants, and 'that the resolution did not enforce the covenants.
He stated that he'objected to the process last time.- There-was a
market out-there .now for single family homes. There are not any single
family lots in the valley. He stated that Avon could continue to build
row, townhomes. Single family homes would add to the variety. `He stated
that there was an article in the Planning Issue of July, 1991 in which
they were describing a new idea called "Co-Communities". He stated
that things change, new ideas come along and he did not know why
Avon, should resist. Perhaps staff could look at a study then, come
up with something that would be acceptable. His concern was that the
Council had cut off all requests, when probably an.ordinance needed
to be established to clarify what was and what was not proper to define
a SPA. He felt it was a very unstable situation.' He stated that he'woulc
like to see Avon grow, and having a few more single family homes would
do that: He had hoped that this Council could look at that somewhere
in the.future and solve the problem. 'He. stated that he was not sure that
the problem was solved with this resolution.
Councilwoman McRory stated that there were more. duplex lots than there
were multi-family lots. She felt that'was a great concern. She
suggested that a open-hearing or work session be scheduled to discuss this
issue and set a criteria for two single families on a duplex lot-
provided the lot was large enough and flat-enough.
-4-
Councilman Reynolds stated that two weeks ago-the Council had
requested that Rick Pylman research this issue. He stated that he
voted unfavorably of the resolution because there was not a, public
hearing on this issue. He-requested that Mr. Pylman do the research
and return to the Council. He :stated that possibly-some lots were
feasible. He felt that the resolution needed to be in-writing so it
would not-be interpreted differently each time it was discussed.-
Mr. Dunn stated that the resolution was written into-'the minutes
therefore, a resolution was not needed.
Being there was no further discussion on this matter, the Mayor stated
that the resolution would stand as is.
The Council recessed at 9:30 p.m. and reconvened at 9:35 p.m.
Second reading of Ordinance No. 91-11, Series of 1991, AN ORDINANCE
REGULATING FIREPLACES AND OTHER SIMILAR DEVICES WITHIN THE TOWN, OF
AVON'AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION'HEREOF.
Bill James stated that there were three parts to the proposed Air
Quality Prograp.
1. Was the ordinance regulating fireplaces and other similar devices.
2. Was the resolution in respect to an Incentive'Program to encourage
people to convert from Solid Fuel Devices to Certified Solid Fuel
Devices.
'3. A request for a purchase of a street sweeper. He stated that
approximately 40% of-the air problems were created by. dust.' The Town
was looking, at using a different type of material in -the winter months
to reduce the dust. Mr. James reviewed the ordinance with the Council.
If the Council approved the resolution in. respect to the 'Incentive
Program then Section 15.40.070-could be deleted from the ordinance.
The resolution outlined conditions that staff suggested for
consideration. Staff made an extensive study of.costs that would make
conversions. The Certified Solid Fuel Devices range in price from
$750.00 to $1,500. Mr. James recommended that'the Town pay 50% of the
actual cost not to exceed $750.00 for the conversion of any existing
Solid Fuel burning device to any Certified sold fuel burning device,
gas log fireplaces or gas appliance. The program would be limited
to only two units of condominiums complex within any given year..
The ordinance did allow a wood burning fireplace in the areas of hotel
lobbies and lodges and recommended that a fee of $3,000 be applied
to the Construction Fund.
There were some modifications to the ordinance.
15.40.030., add to the sentence, "provided, a fee in the amount of $3,000
is paid at the time of application for building permit"..
-5-