TC Ord. No. 2001-17 Approving an amendment of the Wildridge planned unit Development PUD for lots 12 block 4 Wildridge subdivision TOATOWN OF AVON
ORDINANCE NO. 01-17
SERIES OF 2001
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT OF THE
WILDRIDGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) FOR
LOTS 12 BLOCK 4, WILDRIDGE SUBDIVISION, TOWN OF
AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, the Town of Avon has applied to amend the Wildridge PUD for Lot 12
Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, to increase the development rights from single-family to duplex;
and
v
am
®i WHEREAS, the proper posting, publication and public notices for the hearings before
0 CD
N
M m ° the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon were provided as required by law; and
m WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon held a public
®N hearing on October 16, 2001, at which time the applicant and the public were given an
®~I
® opportunity to express their opinions and present certain information and reports regarding the
®N f proposed PUD amendment; and
® WHEREAS, following such public hearing, the Planning & Zoning Commission
I forwarded its recommendations on the proposed PUD amendment to the Town Council of the
® m
®W Town of Avon; and
WHEREAS, after notices provided by law, this Council held a public hearing on the
2:7_ day of November, 2001, at which time the public was given an opportunity to express
® a
their opinions regarding the proposed PUD amendment; and
WHEREAS, based upon the evidence, testimony, and exhibits, and a study of the
Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Avon, Town Council of the Town of Avon finds as follows:
FACouncil (c)\Ordinanc6s\2001\Ord 01-17 L12 B4 WR PUD amendment.doc
1. The hearings before the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Town Council
were both extensive and complete and that all pertinent facts, matters and issues
were submitted at those hearings.
2. That the amendment of the Wildridge PUD for Lot12 Block 4, Wildridge
Subdivision is consistent with goals and objectives of the Town's Comprehensive
Plan, is compatible with surrounding neighborhood and is consistent with the
public interest.
3. That the development standards for Lot 12 Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision
comply with each of the Town of Avon's PUD design criteria and that this
proposed development is consistent with the public interest.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF AVON, COLORADO, THAT:
The amendment to the Wildridge PUD for Lot 12 Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, to increase
the development rights from single-family to duplex is hereby approved with no conditions.
INTRODUCED, PASSED ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED
POSTED, this 13 day of November, 2001, and a public hearing shall be held at the regular
meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Avon, Colorado, on the 27 day of, November
2001, at 5:30 P.M. in the Municipal Building of the Town of Avon, Colorado.
Town of Avon, Colorado
Town Council
dy Yod , Ma r
I IYIII I II IINII INI VIII IIII null III IIAI nll IIII
Sar 10, CO 289 R 20
779050
Page: 2 of 4
12/10/2001 04:32P
00 D 0.00
F:\Council (c)\Ordinances\2001\Ord 01-17 L12134 WR PUD amendmentdoc
K4-s Nash, Town Clerk
INTRODUCED, PASSED ON SECOND READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED
POSTED.
Town of Avon, Colorado
Town Council
J y Yoder, a r
AS TO FORM:
TownAttorney
- 779050
~ Page; 3 of 4
Sara J Fisher Eagle, Co 289 R 20.00 2/10D20.00 4.32P
FACouncil (c)\Ordinances\2001\Ord 01-17 L12 134 WR PUD amendmentdoc
Kris Nash, Town Clerk
STATE OF COLORADO )
COUNTY OF EAGLE ) SS
TOWN OF AVON 1
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO AT 5:30 P.M. ON THE 27th DAY OF NOVEMBER
2001, AT THE TOWN OF AVON MUNICIPAL BUILDING FOR THE PURPOSE OF
CONSIDERING THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 01-17, SERIES OF 2001:
An Ordinance Approving an Amendment of the Wildridge Planned Unit Development (PUD) for
Lots 12 Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado.
A copy of said Ordinance is attached hereto, and is also on file at the office of the Town Clerk,
and may be inspected during regular business hours.
Following this hearing, the Council may consider final passage of this Ordinance.
This notice is given and posted by order of the Town Council of the Town of Avon, Colorado
Dated this, 14th day of November, 2001.
TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO
BY: L lmk
Miranda Steber
Deputy Town Clerk
POSTED AT THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC PLACES WITHIN THE TOWN OF AVON ON
NOVEMBER 14,2001:
AVON MUNICIPAL BUILDING IN THE MAIN LOBBY
ALPINE BANK
AVON RECREATION CENTER
CITY MARKET IN THE MAIN LOBBY
!III II~II~III ~I~I 11 11 llll~~l x•9050 a..x
Sara J Fisher Eagle, CO 289 R 20. 00 D 0. 00
fox
20
Memo
Ta Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Thru Bill Efting, Town Manager 0~-
From Ruth Borne, Director of Community Development
q
~Eric Johnson, Planning Technician
Dade November 15, 2001
Re: Second Reading of Ordinance 01-17, An Ordinance Amending the Wildridge
PUD for Lot 12, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision
Public Hearing
Summary
The Town of Avon is applying to amend the Wildridge PUD to increase the development
rights on Lot 12 Block 4 from single-family to duplex. Incorrect development information on
Lot 12, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision was provided to the owner who relied upon this
information in purchasing the property. Staff erroneously informed the owner that the
property had development rights for a duplex residence by providing evidence of the duplex
zoning via fax (copy attached to staff report).
The Planning and Zoning Commission determined that the increase of development rights
on Lot 12 Block 4 Wildridge, from single-family to duplex, would not negatively affect
Wildridge. The Commission further determined that the PUD amendment was in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, Policy A1.1 that states, "Development and
redevelopment will be of a scale and intensity appropriate for the neighborhood in which it is
located." Duplex-zoned lots surround the property. The property is on the north side of
Wildridge Road and is adjacent to Forest Service property. In Wildridge, there are only
fourteen (14) lots zoned single-family out of 353 lots in Wildridge. Ten (10) of the single-
family lots are in Block 1 located on Beaver Creek Point. There is only one other single
family zoned lot in Block 4.
Based upon discussions with the Town Attorney, the Town has filed an application for a
PUD Amendment to increase the development rights on the property to a duplex. Attached,
please find a memo prepared by Burt Levin, Town Attorney, outlining the legal theory
supporting this matter. On October 16, 2001 the Planning and Zoning Commission
approved Resolution 01-16, recommending approval to the Town Council for the PUD
Amendment. On November 13, 2001 Town Council approved Ordinance 01-17 on first
reading by a vote of 4-3.
Memo to Town Council, November 27, 2001 Page 1 of 2
Ordinance 01-17, Amend Lot 12 Wildridge PUD
. 4
Background
• 1978 Wildridge Final Plat - 356 lots, 830 Dwelling Units (Lot 12, Block 4 zoned for
duplex)
1980 Wildridge RePlat Number 1: 352 lots, 830 DU (Lot 12, Block 4 zoned duplex)
• 1981 Wildridge RePlat Number 2: 338 lots, 849 DU (Lot 12, Block 4 zoned single-
family)
• August 15, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the
PUD amendment to Council.
• August 22, 2000, the owner withdrew the application.
• October 16, 2001, the' Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of
the PUD amendment to Council.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Town Council pass Ordinance 01-17, amending Wildridge PUD
to increase the development rights for Lot 12 Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision from single-
family to duplex.
Alternatives
1. Approve on Second Reading
2. Deny on Second Reading
Proposed Motion
"I move to approve on second reading Ordinance 01-17, approving an amendment to the
1Nlldridge PUD for Lot 12 Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Town of Avon, Eagle County,
Colorado. "
Town Manager Comments
Attachments:
A. Ordinance 01-17
B. Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report
C. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 01-16
Memo to Town Council, November 27, 2001 Page 2 of 2
Ordinance 01-17, Amend Lot 12 Wildridge PUD
TOWN OF AVON
PLANNING & ZONING CON MISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 01-16
SERIES OF 2001
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING TO THE TOWN COUNCIL OF
THE TOWN OF AVON APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE
WILDRIDGE PUD FOR LOT 12, BLOCK 4, WILDRIDGE SUBDIVISION,
TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
WHEREAS, Alice Leeds has applied for an amendment to the Wildridge PUD to convert
Lot 12, Block 4 from a single-family lot to a duplex lot.
WHEREAS, after notices required by law, a public hearing on said application was held by
the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Avon.
WHEREAS, said application is consistent with all legal requirements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning and Zoning Commission
hereby recommends to the Town Council of the Town of Avon approval of the application
for amendment to the Wildridge PUD to establish Lot 12, Block 4 as a duplex lot.
ADOPTED THIS 16th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2001
Si Date:
Chris Evans, Chair
'16116101
tcl, "m~ Date: Zoe)
RaD~.Ew /1(/g,-'- oj1
Town of.Avon
PUD,
Staff Report
October 16, 2001 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting
Report Date October 9, 2001
Project Type Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amended
Legal Description Lot 12, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision
Current Zoning Single Family (PUD)
Address 5712 Wildridge Road East
Introduction
According to the Final Subdivision Plat, Replat Number 2 of Wildridge, Town of Avon, Lot 12,
Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision has development rights for a single-famaly residence. The Town
of Avon is applying to amend the PUD to increase the development rights on the site for a
duplex residence on the site. On August 15, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission
reviewed this application and recommend denial of the application to Council by Resolution 00-
06. The applicant then withdrew its application to Council on August 22, 2000.
This issue is brought before you because incorrect development information on Lot 12, Block 4,
Wildridge Subdivision was provided to the owner. Staff erroneously in the owner that the
property had development rights for a duplex residence by providing evidence of the duplex
zoning via fax (copy attached). The owner relied upon this information in purchasing the
property-
Based upon discussions with the Town Attorney, the Town has filed an application for a PUD
Amendment to increase the development rights on the property to a duplex. Attached, please
find a memo, prepared by Burt Levin, Town Attorney, outlining the legal theory supporting this
matter.
There has been several letters received in opposition to this application, which have been
attached to this report. The criteria for amending the PUD are set forth below and provide an
adequate basis for approving the PUD amendment for this property.
PUD Review Criteria
1. Conformance with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan's Goals and Objectives.
Policy A1.1: Development and redevelopment will be of a scale and intensity appropriate
for the neighborhood in which it is located. .
This proposal is consistent with the goals and policies of the Town by supporting residential
uses.
2. Conformity and compliance with the overall design theme, of the Town, the sub-area
design recommendations, and design guidelines of the Town.
The project is surrounded by duplex properties. Lot 12, Block 4, is almost an acre in size.
The site abuts Tract J, which is Town owned designated open space and then extends onto
Forest Service property. The project will have to conform to all of the design criteria
established by the Town through the Final Design review process.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Lot 12, Block 4, Wildridge, Planned Unit Development Amendment
October 16, 2001 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 3
3. Design compatibility with the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent
properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones,
character, and orientation.
The property was granted Final Design review in 1998 for a single-family home. Staff
erroneously identified this property as a duplex lot in the Staff Report. All of the design
factors suggest that a duplex design is compatible with the environment, neighborhood and
the adjacent properties. Most of the adjacent lots are zoned as duplex lots. There are only
fourteen (14) single-family lots out of 353 lots in Wildridge. Ten (10) of the single-family
lots are in Block 1 located on Beaver Creek Point. There is only one other single family
zoned lot in Block 4.
4. Identification and mitigation or avoidance of natural and/or geologic hazards that
affect the property upon which the PUD is proposed.
There are no known natural or geologic hazards on this site.
5. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and
off site traffic circulation that is compatible with the town transportation plan.
One access point from Wildridge Road for this property will accommodate the traffic and
circulation constraints for this site compatible with Town requirements.
6. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and
preserve natural features, recreation, views and function.
A duplex on this property will not have a significant impact on the views from surrounding
properties nor will it affect adjacent Town owned open space (Tract J) and the existing
easement for the Town water storage facilities.
7.' Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional, and
efficient relationship throughout the development of the PUD. The phasing plan shall
clearly demonstrate that each phase can be workable, functional and efficient without
relying upon completion of future project phases.
There is no phasing plan.
8. Adequacy of public services such as sewer, water, schools, transportation systems,
roads, parks, and police and fire protection.
Public services are adequate to accommodate the addition of one dwelling unit.
9. That the existing streets and "roads are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated
traffic within the proposed PUD and in the vicinity of the proposed PUD.
Traffic will not be adversely impacted by the addition of one dwelling unit.
10. Development Standards
The change from a single-family to a duplex residence will not affect the Wildridge PUD
development standards now in effect for this property.
Recommended Motion
I move to approve the Planning & Zoning Resolution 01-16, recommending approval of the
application for amendment to the Wildridge PUD to establish Lot 12 Block 4, Wildridge
Subdivision as a duplex lot.
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 7484030 Fax (970) 949-5749
Lot 12, Block 4, Wildridge, Planned Unit Development Amendment
October 16, 2001 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 3
If you have any questions regarding this project or anything in this report, please call me at 748-
4009 or stop by the Community Development Department.
Respectfully submitted,
V`
R th O. Borne
Town of Avon Community Development (970) 748-4030 Fax (970) 949-5749
11ildrtdno Lend W'10
~''L.oc/Tea,ec xuias3r _ .1~~
~
~
Ara4- (scs•~_.,
oe
D..P1ow
n_as
Dow
Z
3
0404
aatq
81.
4
~pterC
1t,~
6
0ypt*Y
1.21
~
!Iw♦l.os
8~
L.l9
A
9
DuPlbx
flwPlwx
1.74
1o
Duplex
t.64
1i
0.Y6 _
3
t
13
WV14z -
I.
0.66
Drpl•x
,
o.7~'
~s
wvlex
Duplex
0.4%
ib
17
Duplex
0.4.1
0.46
38
Duplex
Duplex
O.i4
3'
20
Duplex
0.6•
0.76
21
A.ple:
1.14
32
omp l w •
1.60
27
OuPle*
l.bi
2r
t1„ 3►1~K
o.ss
novice
1.00
26
oilP les
3
120
27
wip1eu
1.17
26
au91°se
1.87
29
Dugl•s•,
2.19
!o .
pM9~ea
t.So
31
Duplex
1.23
32
Duplex
0.94
33
Implex
0.e9
3%
o.aplax
0.80
35
o"Plos
6.67
36
Duplex
D. P7
31
oup tee
1.03
Ss
Drvlw:
2.40
A.plws
0.79
qu0twx
p.69
Duplex
1.20
s2
a-~L•Y
o.sd
43
i 4laa
1.19
64
DuP1NC
0.44
4S
Anplea
041'.
ccsf
ri~lbY'•C
4
I e 1: • ~
~
J
Z. muML a9•~i°6~ dog t to wo-SO- L"O
QvL8GV88LG wil 000Z/ZTUG
y S,
MEMORANDUM
FROM: Burt Levin, Town Attorney
TO: Hon. Mayor and Town Council Ale
RE: Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2000
DATE: August 16, 2000
Attached is a fast reader copy of Ordinance 10, Series of 2000, which, if enacted,
changes the zoning for Lot 12, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, from single family to
duplex.
Also 'attached is Community Development's Staff Report to the Planning & Zoning
Commission regarding the rezoning of the lot. Community Development recommended
to P&Z that the lot be rezoned.
This rezoning application is made in the name of the Town and at the request of the
owner of the lot in question. The reason the application has been made in the name of the
Town is to correct an unfairness, or a potential unfairness, to the owner of the lot.
Before purchasing the lot in question, the current owner inquired of the Community
Development Department whether the zoning on the lot would permit construction of a
duplex -as well as a single family home. A staff member of the Community Development
Dept. erroneously informed the owner that the lot was zoned to allow either single family
.or duplex. The staffer also faxed the owner a sheet prepared by Community
Development listing her lot as being zoned for a duplex. (A copy of the fax with the
erroneous information is, attached hereto.) (Also attached is a copy of a Commraunity
Development Staff Report dated April 2,1999, showing the zoning on the lot as 'duplex.)
In reliance on the statement she received from the Town, the owner entered into a
contract to purchase the lot. The contract was silent concerning the zoning.
After she purchased the lot, the owner made inquiries to the Town concerning
construction of a duplex, but was informed that the lot is zoned to permit only a single
_...__-4arnily hom . if ShM 1--Ad
aware that it was not zoned to permit construction of a duplex. The owner requested that
the zoning on the lot be changed to be consistent with the information she received from
the Town, and upon which she relied.
As a staff, we asked ourselves whether the owner should have realized the zoning was
single family notwithstanding the contrary information she received from the Community
Development Dept. prior to entering into a contract to purchase the lot. We concluded
that as a practical matter the owner had done exactly what she should have done to
ascertain the zoning on the lot before signing the, contract. There would have been no
practical reason for the owner to doubt what she had been informed by the Town
department which includes the Zoning Administrator (i.e. no reason for her to come in
and inspect the official zone map). So, we concluded that the owner's reliance on the
erroneous factual information she received from the Town was reasonable.
The owner has not threatened to sue the Town to conform the zoning of her lot to duplex,
but such a suit could have merit. The legal principle involved is a simple one based on
fairness. If a governmental entity makes a factual assertion to a citizen, and the citizen
changes his or her position in reasonable reliance on such factual assertion, the ' .
government may not later disavow its factual representation. In other words, if a citizen
reasonably and detrimentally relies on a factual representation of a responsible
government official, the government is "estopped" from denying the validity of its
assertion. See Colorado Water Quality Control Commission v. Town of Frederick, 641
P.2d 958 (Colo. 1982).
The doctrine of estopped supports the Town's application to rezone the lot in question.
The owner claims she relied on the information she received from the Town concerning
the zoning, and that she would not have purchased the lot had she know the zoning was in
fact other that what she had been told by the Town. The owner's reliance on the Town's
representation was reasonable because (1) it came from the responsible official, and (2) in
fact the vast majority of lots in Wildridge, including the lots immediately surrounding her
lot, are zoned for duplex (or three or four-lex).
As the staff report of Community Development to the P&Z on this matter indicates,
setting aside the unfairness to the owner which would result if the lot is not rezoned, the
lot in fact is appropriate for a duplex. There are only 9 lots in Wildridge zoned single
family. (Indeed, at one time the lot in question was itself zoned as a duplex lot.) Since,
the vast majority of the lots in the vicinity of the lot in question are zoned duplex, there is
no question but that rezoning to duplex would be consistent with the Town's
comprehensive plan and the surrounding neighborhood. Obviously there is adequate
infrastructure to accommodate a duplex on the lot in question.
P&Z denied the Town's application to rezone the lot. I advised P&Z that it could and
should consider the legal principle of estoppel in deciding this matter. Based on its
comments, the Commission appears to have believed that it should disregard the equities
of the situation and not take into account the doctrine of estoppel, instead, leaving the
equities of the question to the Town Council. In denying the Town's application to
rezone the lot in'question, the Commission seems to Have determined simply that as an
abstract matter Wildridge should not be up-zoned.
Attached please find five letters of comment from members of the public.
In conclusion, the Town staff believes a rezoning of the lot is the only fair outcome in
this case in view of the owner's reasonable reliance on the Town's representation to her
that the lot she was about to purchase was zoned for a duplex.
Memo
To: Planning & Zoning Commission, Honorable Mayor and Town Council
From: Burt Levin, Town Attorney
Dabs July 24, 2000
Re: Resolution No. 00-06, PUD Amendment for Lot 12, Block 4, Wildridge, .
Subdivision from a single-family lot to a duplex lot
Summary: The owner of Lot 12, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision ("the Property") .
purchased the property in 1999. Staff provided the owner with land use information
via fax, which indicated the Property, was zoned duplex.. The owner reasonably
relied upon this land use information in purchasing the Property. The Property is
surrounded by duplex lots, abuts Forest Service property, and is almost an acre in
size.
Recently, the owner contacted staff and was informed the Property is in fact a single-
family lot. The owner presented the fax copy provided by our office indicating the
property is a duplex lot.
The case law in Colorado and other jurisdictions is clear. If a person detrimentally
relies upon erroneous information provided by a governmental entity, then the town
is estopped from denying the owner the remedy. In other words, the owner of Lot 12,
Block 4, Wildridge, purchased the property based upon the incorrect information that
the Property allowed a duplex. The owner contends that she would not have
purchased the property had the correct information been disclosed i.e, that the
Property is limited to a single family residence. It is unjust to prevent the owner from
obtaining what she thought she was purchasing.
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning & Zoning Commission
recommend approval of the PUD Amendment for Lot 12, Block 4, Wildridge
Subdivision.
F:comc Ti ff =sl2 W12b4wr
Planning and Zoning Commission's Recording Secretary
Town of Avon
PO Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
October 6, 2001
To whom it concerns:
OC j 15 200)
Community )eve -
loP
We are opposed to the re-zoning of Lot 12, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision from single-family to'
duplex residence for the following reasons:
1. Lot 12 was re-zoned in 1981 from duplex to single family to compensate for an overall
Wildridge plat density increase from approximately 830 to 849 units. No rationale has
been provided in your notice to justify the additional density increase resulting from this
proposal.
2. As prospective buyers of this lot circa 1998, we had a soil survey conducted as a condition
of purchase. At that time, the soil survey indicated great erosion potential and soil
instability in wet conditions due to the nature of the subsurface ,and steep grade of the lot.
A multi-family dwelling in this location can only exacerbate the potential problem Our soil
survey can be made available upon request.
3. As owners of Lot 83, Block 4, we are directly below the subject property. If the re-zoning
is approved, we feel we may suffer economic loss in the future based on the conditions
stated above.
Thank.you for your attention.
Regards,
d14'
John and Janet Perdzock
1289 Sugarhill Lane
Xenia, OH 45385
937-372-4237 (please leave message)
Memo
To:
Ttt~
IFrortrx
Dabs
Re:
Summary
Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Bill Efting, Town Manager
Ruth Borne, Director of Community Development
Eric Johnson, Planning Technician
November 7, 2001
First Reading of Ordinance 01-17, An Ordinance Amending the Wildridge
PUD for Lot 12, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision
The-Town of Avon is applying to amend the Wildridge PUD to increase the development
rights on Lot 12 Block 4 from single-family to duplex. Incorrect development information on
Lot 12, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision was provided to the owner who relied upon this
information in purchasing the property. Staff erroneously informed the owner that the
property had development rights for a duplex residence by providing evidence of the duplex
zoning via fax (copy attached to staff report).
The Planning and Zoning Commission determined that the increase of development rights
on Lot 12 Block 4 Wildridge, from single-family to duplex, would not negatively affect
Wildridge. The Commission further determined that the PUD amendment was in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, Policy A1.1 that states, "Development and
redevelopment will be of a scale and intensity appropriate for the neighborhood in which it is
located." Duplex-zoned lots surround the property. The property is on the north side of
Wildridge Road and is adjacent to Forest Service property. In Wildridge, there are only
fourteen (14) lots zoned single-family out of 353 lots in Wildridge. Ten (10) of the single-
family lots are in Block 1 located on Beaver Creek Point. There is only one other single
family zoned lot in Block 4.
Based upon discussions with the Town Attorney, the Town has filed an application for a
PUD Amendment to increase the development rights on the property to a duplex. Attached,
please find a memo prepared by Burt Levin, Town Attorney, outlining the legal theory
supporting this matter. On October 16, 2001 the Planning and Zoning Commission
approved Resolution 01-16, recommending approval to the Town Council for the PUD
Amendment.
Memo to Town Council, November 13, 2001 Page 1 of 2
Ordinance 01-17, Amend Lot 12 Wildridge PUD
Background
• 1978 Wildridge Final Plat = 356 lots, 830 Dwelling Units (Lot 12, Block 4 zoned for
duplex)
• 1980 Wildridge RePlat Number 1: 352 lots, 830 DU (Lot 12, Block 4 zoned duplex)
• 1981 Wildridge RePlat Number 2: 338 lots, 849 DU (Lot 12, Block 4 zoned single-
family)
• . August 15, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the
PUD amendment to Council.
• August 22, 2000, the owner withdrew the application.
• October 16, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of
the PUD amendment to Council.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Town Council pass Ordinance 01-17, amending Wildridge PUD
to increase the development rights for Lot 12 Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision from single-
family to duplex.
Alternatives
1. Approve on First Reading
2. Deny on First Reading
Proposed Motion
"I move to approve on first reading Ordinance 01-17, approving an amendment to the
Wildridge PUD for Lot 12 Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Town of Avon, Eagle County,
Colorado.
Town Manager Comments
Attachments:
A. Ordinance 01-17
B. Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report
C. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 01-16
Memo to Town Council, November 13, 2001 Page 2 of 2
Ordinance 01-17, Amend Lot 12 Wildridge PUD
Lyn and Joanne Morgan
5735 Wildridge Road East
Avon, CO 81620
970 949.4436
October 15, 2001
Avon Planning and Zoning Commission
Recording Secretary
PO Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
Re: The re-zoning of Lot 12, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision
RECEIVED
0CT152001
COMME Mfty Devabp nrt
It seems as if we just addressed this issue and, in fact we did, in August of last year. Having
already expressed our disapproval of the plan at that time, I will simply reiterate that we are
still opposed to allowing the down-zoning of the property owned by Alice Leeds.
The first time around, Ms. Leeds claimed that she should be allowed to re-zone the lot because
when she purchased the lot she didn't know it was zoned single family. (This is hard to under-
stand because the property was sold with already approved single-family home plans designed
for use on the property.) However, after experiencing negative response from the neighboring
homeowners in addition to a denial by Planning and Zoning, she withdrew her request. One
year later, with the lot still priced higher than comparable sites, she has returned to try again.
Our reason for wanting her request to be denied is simply that we do not want to see the
Town of Avon begin to change the zoning on residential properties. We are in agreement
with all of our neighbors who feel that the Town of Avon should not change the zoning on
Ms. Leeds' lot. Down-zoning will depress the valuation of nearby existing single-family homes
and increase neighborhood traffic. Because only one road leads to Wildridge we believe the
Town should look for ways to up-zone instead of down-zone.
Sincerely,
Lyn J. organ
n S. Morgan
John & Donnis McDonald
5730 Wildridge Road E
PO Box 1185
Avon, Co. 81620
(Lot 10, Blk 4)
Town of Avon, Planning and Zoning Comm.
P O Box 975
Avon, Co. 81510
Attn: Recording Secretary
Re: Opposition to rezoning Lot 12 Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision
Dear Commissioners;:
RECEIVED
OCT 10 2001
Community Development
October 9, 2001
We are shocked and disappointed that the Town is pre-disposed to rezone the lot (12,Blk 4) in
Wildridge before the public hearing noticed in your letter of 2 Oct. 01 to some of the nearby residents.
We have not received a letter here in Avon or at our Birmingham, Al office (101 Lockerbie Lane, 35223)
This matter was addressed last year, Re: our letter dtd 14 August, 00 to your office. The
Board/Commission wisely rejected the petition to rezone at that time. How many times will it recur ?
The owners / developers were aware of the zoning and approved use recorded Planed Use and
Development documents for Wildridge before purchase and at closing, via the Title policy.
There is no duplex construction on the upper (north) side of Wildridge road for several blocks in ether
direction from Lot 12. This is by choice of as the adjacent owners to create an ambiance and quality of
Neighborhood. Although our lot and others were initially zoned duplex, regard for the immediate
neighborhood dictated that a single family structure would best complement the resale value in this
section (also the tax base for the city of Avon)
The topography and physical dimensions of the lot in question are difficult for a single family
construction but particularly challenging for the more complex considerations of a duplex application
concerning elevations, street access, snow and water flows and specifically foundation and excavation
stability. Considerable engineering and architectural study should be developed before any attempt to
multiply the construction and safety problems are addressed by the Board / Commission / Council
In light of the above concerns and last year's numerous property owners protests, it does not appear to
be " for the good of the community" , neighborhood, the city of Avon, 911 services, building inspectors,
insurance and liability carriers or the aesthetics of the area to approve this rezoning application.
Please exercise your responsibility to the town and neighborhood and deny the violation /deviation from
the recorded Planned Use and Development Restrictions for this (lot 12 Blk 4) property.
Sincerely, ll
0 Page 1
Gardner, John M.
RECEIVED
OCT 0 9 2001
Community Development
JOHN & CREEK CARDNER
5723 Wildridge Road East
Avon, Colorado 81620
MailingAddress:
P.D,Box 3026
Vail, Colorado 81658
October 6, 2W1
Avon Planning and Zoning Commission
P.O. Box 975
Avon, Colorado 81620
AtM. Recording Secretary
Re: Lot 12, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision
Enclosed please find a copy of our letter ofAagust 4 200, rgwrdigg the Avon
Community Development Departments application for duplex development of the above lot As
indicated, our home is directly across the street from the subject /off and we strongly object to the
proposed downgrade of zoning We are also enclosingcopies of the other letters from property
owners submitted last year.
When this matter came before the Council a year ago, the Town Attorney
indicated to the Town Council that it was his opinion that the change was permitted - - even required
- by the doctrine of "equitable estoppel. " We disagree with this conclusion. As explained by Mr.
Levin, in order to assert this doctrine, one must have been ignorant of the true facts and must have
reasonably relied on the mistaken information provided by the government entity against which the
doctrine is being asserted.
First, it is not apparent that the owner of the lot, Ms Leeds, is even asserting
this doctrine. In fact, Mr. Levi, 71; memo of August 16,20W, indicates that the "owner has not
threatened to sue the Town to conform the zoning of her lot to duplex " !f this is the case; why
is the Town's Community Development Department - - against the recommendations of the P&Z
Commission - - again making this application f In the year that has elapsed, the subject lot has
been offered for sale at a price of at least $315,000. We personally know two separate parties who
were very interested in the lot, but would not pay that exorbitant price /f Ms. Leeds now claims
she has been injured by the Town's actions, she has not met the strict requirements of equity that
she first take all possible actions to minimize her claimed losses
Second and most hnportan4 it is clear that Ms. Leeds did not reasonably rely
on the Town's misinformation. She bought the lot with an approved plan for a single-family house.
Should she not have asked the seller - - a developer - - why he had planned and obtained approval
for this development of the lot, rather than a duplex f /f this aspect ut her purchase was so
important to her, should she not have covered this very important feature of the lot in her purchase
contract ? When she purchased the lot, should she not have reviewed the Wildridge Protective
Covenant % which she surely receired from the We company and which clearly show this lot as a
single-family lot' Is that not the very reason we have title insurance ? Is that not the reason that, in
our modem society, zoning decisions and protective covenants are recorded - - so that anyone can
determine the status? Should Ms Leeds be excused from having constructive, legal notice of the
zoning of the subject lot because she was not diligent enough to check for herself ? In short, Ms.
Leeds' imprudence leaves her unable to legally assert the doctrine of equitable estoppels.
Beyond those facts, however, the real question to us is why the Town
Community Development Department - - which is given the duty of overseeing development of
properties in the Town and assuring that development is in the best interests of the Town and ALL of
ita citizens - - Mcludlig all of the property owners in the immediate vicinity of the subject lot - -
feels compelled to make this application, to downgrade zoning and encourage the derelopinent of
larger buildings and higher density ? It seems clear that Ms. Leeds sole reason to build a duplex is
to make a higher profit - - just as her aggressive sales price for the lot during the last year
demoastrates. This is not a question of Ibirness"at all, but & matter of greed. And when it comes
to fairness, we also object to the fact that no sign indicating the application was being made and a
hearing Mng held was ever posted on the lot itself - - is this not Town policy ? Was the Town hyir{g
to hide this application from public scrutiny ?
For all of these reasons, we Ave that the Planning & Zoning Commission and
the Town Council - - our elected representatives - - will deny this request:
Sincere/
John M. Gartd,70f
~ ICJ
Greer S. Gardner
P.S. In reviewing the materials made available tithe hearing held on this matter lastyear, it
appears that the Town records are not very reliable with respect to other lots, as well. Lot 15, Block
4 is listed as a duplex - - whereas the Protective Covenants show it, too, as a single-family lot.
JOHN r& GRUB GARDNIER
5723 Wildridge Road East
Avon, Colorado 81620
Mail a Ad W1.0
P.O. Sol 3026
veil, Colorado 81638
August 4, 2000
Avon Planning St Zoning Commission
PO Box 975
Avon, Colorado 81620
Attn: Recording Secretary
Re. Lot 12, Block 41, WlldrWe Spbdlvisioa
With respect to the Avon Community Development Department's application for
duplex development of the above-referenced property, are wish to express our s
to such'development. Our residence is directly across Wildridge Road from the subject lot and is
a single family structure, even though our lot (Lot 82, Block 4) was designated for a duplex and
is large enough (1.3 acres) to easily accommodate such development.
The downgrade of zoning to duplex residential for Lot 12, Block 4, would not be
consistent with other development from our property to the wes% on both sides of Wildridge
Road. Duplex development would also severely decrease our propertY value-
Looking at how Wildridge has been developed, we think-it should be obvious that
some duplex designs are not very successful for their lots. As Wildridge is built out, it is our
hope that many of the duplex lots, like ours, will be developed as single family. Certainly, fiam
a Community Development perspective, duplex development should not be officially encouraged
by the Town, and downgrading of zoning should not be permitted.
Sincerely,
4fjo M. Gardner
Greer S. Gardner
Russell & Margaret Stunt
5717A WH"ge Road Ea#
Avon, Colorado 81820
MAILING ADDRESS
501 Egypt Valley
Belmont, MI 48806
August 10.2000
Avon Planning & Zoning Commission
PO B= 875
Avon, Colorado 81820
Attn: Recording Secretary
Re: Lot 12, Block 4, Wildridge Summon
We wish to express our Own obleotiona with respect to, the Avon Community
Deve rd Departments application for duplex development of the above-refierenced
property.
our property is southeast and directly across Wildridge Road from the subject lot.
Although we own a duplex careful consideration was given at the time of purchase as to
ft number of single-family homes and zoned single-family loll around our property. , We
did this because we believe it is the single-family horses #W add the most value to
proped es in the area. We realized then, as we do now, that Mlildridge is an area with
some less than quality duplexes. Indeed, one or two are eyesores and others do not
work well on their lots. We believe that the downgrading of zoning of the subject loot will
decrease our property value and should not be permit.
We understand that thane is always the possibility of any property owner applying for
variance of zoning. The'Town, however, should not officially, encourage the dwngmcling
of zoning.
August 4, 2000
Town of Avon
Planning and Zoning Commission's Recording Secretary
P.O. Box 975
Dear P&Z Commissioners,
We are writing to oppose the amendment to the Wildridge PUD concerning Lot 12,-
Block 4. We believe the property should remain a single-family lot for the following
reasons:
• There is already a mix of single family and duplex lots. In this case we believe the
topography and current density argues best for a single family as currently
designated
• Crowding duplexes onto more lots creates twice the vehicle traffic and human
congestion distracting from the potential ambiance and character of Wildridge.
• While we understand there are improvements scheduled for Nottingham Road, there
are presently none for Metcalf Road or Wildridge Road. Consider infiwtructure
improvements first! Set a precedent for the region.
• There are no plans to separate Metcalf commercial traffic from Wildridge residential
traffic; it is already congested at times and Wildridge is only 600A built out.
• Property values are affected when density increases; the area becomes less attractive
to potential buyers and existing residents.
• With the remaining supply of lots in Wildridge we believe the efforts of the P&Z
should be to enhance the subdivision, not increase its already high density. You
should consider the desires of existing residents who have invested in the future of
Avon.
® If the Town of Avon changes zoning on a residential property a precedent is set for
individuals who want to change zoning, something not always in the best interest of
Avon or existing property owners.
As residents we depend upon the P&Z to make thoughtful and strategic decisions
regarding architectural standards and requests for changes in density. Please make your
decisions based upon the long-term vision of Avon and the needs of current residents.
Consider quality enhancements when considering requests for change, not how to place
more duplexes in a subdivision with limited access. Look for ways to decrease density,
widen roads, encourage tree and vegetation planting, and increase open space.
Thank you for your consideration.
Lyn and Jo 7e Morgan
5735 Wildridge Road East
H) 949-4436
Intl/14/LWOU IU; L4 -j i Uc4DLj14 ~L L1JItMLL
14 August 2000
John and Donob Md)oWd
5730 Wildrldge Rd. M
Avon, CO $100
Town of A0. PlAINifig and Zoning Commission
PO Box 975
Avon, 00 81420
Attn: Reco ft Secretary
Deer Coma idOM;
We strongly object, to the rcvoning ofLot 12 Block 4 Wildridga SubdivWoa from
side fatally to duplex residam+et. be mostly single fatly lots.
Thin section of Wildridge was planned origir~a11Y to
Lots 8 dwougb 14 are now caned or couu=ucted by ownen as dn& tlmaly bo~.
Several other lots on the downO side of Wildridppe. although zomd duphK have been
bwk ss suk &=iy homes to mcreasc their value and limability
se~ivn of
if you have not had the oppordu~ity recently, please Mve a
the atmwsphere
Wildrid$e b&tc you comer imamseasing the howe density and devahft
and present valve of the existing homes.
You will notion also that the topography of Lot 12 is particularly chsllengin& It
9611 mqun additional study and et*meering to insure safe wcee &d d mbp =rL Orte
.lid== would be much more homogeneous to the site, neighborhood and subdivision.
re
Any increase in residerdiat density would be directly catnoor Productive to the
recent efts of the city to control vehicle tow and speed Imim within the eabdivisim
water, police eemn* aril fire protection resources would be ftutlter diluted. Especiak at
the bighest elevation of a *O&odmmd with only we access ro=d.
Please deny the change of xming for Lot 12 and maintain the antbiaaoe of this
section of vlrildridge as a has bun developed.
Rapectfift
UAW
eLlyv
John McDM d
Dmab McDonaM
Lot to B14
cc: Ruth 0. Borne
I p
1 -2tJ-1 ytzb 6: 1 1 NM I• A
P. I
FAX TRANSMISS10NO
Marvin B. Si.
FAX NO: 11222 DATE: August 1
TO: Town of Avon
SENDER: Mxvin Simon
NUMBER OF PAGES: COVER SHM
1. This lot is zoned Single Family by
2. Lots purchased nearby, including
zoned Single Family.
3. An increase in the zoning would pu
able to build 2 units is stealer than the
ton
2000 FAX PHONE: 970-949-9139
ATIN: Community Development
SUBJECT: Lot 12, Blk 4, Wildridge
+ p = 1 PAGES.
original developer. Bencbmark Propertim
were valued somewhat higher because the subject lot was
the owner with an unjust enrichment since the value of being
ction of building 1 unit.
4. Approval of this application would establish the precedent for requests to increase the density of other
lots. The Avon Town Council is-on record as being concerned ofthe high density in Wildridge, 1 was
required to provide a certified traffic study for my 4 bedroom home.
3. Many of the homes built at the top of Wildridge are single family homes. An approval of this
application would insert 2 units on it single property Purdimded by single family homes. Thereby
adversely affecting the value of the single family homes and' the neighborhood.
6. h should be a concern to the Town and this Commission to avoid increasing the density in Wildridge
and to encourage voluntary downzonin& and absolutely ban any increase in zoning. There are owners of
multiple zoned properties in the Town of Avon wbo could use tbis precedent to demand increased density
zoning for their properties.
This property is not suitable for 2 units, and may not really be suitable for a single unit since it is subject
to very heavy snowfall, deep snow accumulations and snow avalanches.
We encourage the Commission to ignore the conflict eatabli§hed by the ownership of this property and
reject this application as they certainly would from any other owner.
Thank you.
Marvin B. Simon
Pant &mon
u faoaimtlr u don van ca;as iototmetiea betoo ding to the aendv thus MO be CONI"mENI3AL AM MAMY JWV11.W0X TW& iullua~ h ~
lhs 1''~'~~ M ts+loam it is dira~mrl sa ic+~+tatn aboves If yuu eta nut the iateadml tseipitud. uny diedasure, • diattibutien, of use d the it~5oaanstioa ocitminod is es
Otis ttmsc~ilsel is any t* Ityou hove nan iml this kwsmiw eat m wig, plmiae =Bus eAvL nt(303) 377,2870 to attoM ltit ftvftn to us now
t>xr•~
Lyn and Joanne Morgan
5735 Wildridge Road East
Avon, CO 81620
970 949.4436
November 12, 2001
Avon Town Council Members
PO. Box 975.
Avon, CO 81620
Re: The re-zoning of Lot 12, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision
Nod V do 461401
/G /
401V
Is this issue going to emerge every year until the Town gives' in? Is the Town going to give in
because,Ms. Leeds arrives with a lawyer?
I thought we all knew the history of this lot - how in the early eighties it was re-zoned single
family so that a property somewhere else in Wildridge could be zoned duplex. This week
someone who was familiar with the history of the lot said it was re-zoned to lower the total
assessment for the installation of gas. lines. Whatever the reason; according to my copies of the
covenants 'of Wildridge, it has been zoned single family since September 1981.
We do care-about this history combined with the fact that someone in the Planning, an d
Zoning Department faxed Ms. Leeds misinformation regarding the zoning on her property.
However, we are opposed to the changing of this zoning on principle. The fact is that a Town
loses its integrity or credibility if-it does not respect its covenants and zoning - especially in a
residential area.
The first time around, Ms. Leeds claimed that she should be allowed to re-zone the lot because
when she purchased the lot's he didn't know it was zoned single family. (This is hard to under-
stand because the property was sold with already approved single-family home plans designed
for use on the property.) One year later, with the lot still priced higher ($298,500) than com-
parable sites, she has returned to try again using the same claim.
Our reasons for wanting her request to be denied are that we do not want to see the Town of
Avon begin to change the zoning on residential properties, and that We feel down-zoning will
depress the valuation of nearby EXISTING single-family homes and increase neighborhood
traffic. We are in agreement with our neighbors who feel that the Town of Avon should not
change the zoning on Ms. Leeds' lot:
Sincerely,
L j (yl
Lyn J. Morgan
IM
e S. Mor
NOV 2 l 2001
TOWN OF AVON
November 19, 2001
Town of Avon
Mayor and Town Council
P.O. Box 975
Avon, CO 81620
RE: Wildridge Lot 12, Block 4
Russ & Maggie Stuut
5931 Egypt Valley
Belmont, MI 49306
616-534-6996 voice
616-534-1402 fax
We wrote to you last year opposing a change of zoning of the above lot from
single family to duplex. This letter will renew our opposition. We own the property at
5717 Wildridge Road East, across the street from this lot. When we purchased our home,
we gave careful consideration to - and relied upon - the zoning in the area, as well as the
existing development, which is predominantly single-family. That development was a
significant factor in our decision and added to the value of our home when we purchased
it two years ago. Correspondingly, a change of zoning and the resultant duplex
development of the subject lot will decrease the value of our home.
We strongly urge you to deny the request for rezoning. It has been zoned as
single-family for over 20 years. Because a Town employee gave incorrect information to
the purchaser of this lot is not a reason why we - as existing property owners who have
already invested in the Town - should be charged a penalty for this mistake. This is not
how "fair" government should function.
Sincere
,
uss Stuut