The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutR98-103 Oak Tree Inn and Penny's Diner PUD Denial • Commissioner fiklii%74 moved adoption of the following Resolution: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 98-/b? DENIAL OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SKETCH PLAN FOR Oak Tree Inn and Penny's Diner FILE NO. PDS -00013 WHEREAS, on or about August 3, 1998, the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, accepted for filing an application submitted by Lodging Enterprises, Incorporated (hereinafter "Applicant ") for approval of the Planned Unit Development Sketch Plan for Oak Tree Inn and Penny's Diner File No. PDS-00013; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requested the approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Sketch Plan which would allow for the development as follows: within an approximately one acre building N on an envelope approximately 26 acre site, the construction of a PP Y 24 -hour 39 -room motel and 54 -seat diner open to the public but now catering to railroad employees; with access to be from SH -131 g , • water to be provided by well, and septic to be provided through u.. ISDS; and, w• N N W gis WHEREAS, notice of the Sketch Plan was given to all proper = ' agencies and departments as required by the Eagle County Land Use min I Z Regulations, Section 2.17.02(1); and, Nom ;4 so Imm Eiaa m o o WHEREAS, at its public hearing held July 15, 1998, the Eagle County Planning Commission, based upon its findings, recommended MEIN� • denial of the proposed PUD Sketch Plan; and SEP 0 8 1998 armseaw mom D EAGLE COUN y Ct_?I,V'� tj 1-Y' Q�LI I ., >,MENT WHEREAS, at its regular hearings of July 27, 1998 and August 3, 1998, the Eagle County Board of Commissioners (hereinafter "Board "), considered the PUD Sketch Plan, associated plans, and the statements and concerns of the Applicant, the Eagle County Community Development and Engineering staff, and other interested persons; BASED ON THE EVIDENCE BEFORE IT, THE BOARD FINDS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The proposed Sketch Plan is not in conformance with the Master Plan; and with policies, guidelines, zoning and other applicable regulations. Furthermore, the resulting development will be inconsistent with the Master Plan objectives. Specifically with regard to the Master Plan, the Board further finds the development of this project as proposed: a. Does not have a full range of public services available. b. Does not have a significant economic determinant to the County generally. c. Does not minimize negative effects on the social and natural environment. d. Is not capable of being phased in order to address current and anticipated market conditions. e. Is not consistent with the Future Land Use Map. 2. Pursuant to Section 2.06.13.2 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Standards and Requirements, the proposed PUD Sketch Plan: a) Is not consistent with the intent of the Master Plan and the policies therein. b) Does provide adequate, safe, and convenient arrangements for pedestrian and vehicular circulation, off - street parking and loading space. c) Is not compatible with other development in the area. d) Does provide maximally useful open space accessible by proper physical and legal access ways. e) Will provide well and septic facilities as may be required. f) Is not designed to provide for necessary commercial, recreational and educational facilities conveniently located to residential housing. g) Does not promote economy of development and variety in type, design and layout of buildings. 3. Pursuant to Section 2.06.13.3 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Criteria for Evaluation of the PUD, the proposed PUD Sketch Plan: a) Does provide a minimum of 25 percent of the total PUD area as usable open space. b) Does not provide residential housing. c) Does not have a density of non - residential use compatible with the Master Plan and with the characteristics of the subject land. d) Does not have architecture that is compatible with the area. e) Does not provide commercial, recreational and educational amenities to its residents to alleviate the necessity of increased traffic and traffic congestion. f) Is on a site greater than five acres. g) Has not provided for or established an adequate organization for the ownership and maintenance of common open space ... best calculated to insure maintenance of such area. h) Has not fully analyzed employee housing needs and shown how these needs are being satisfied. 4. Pursuant to Section 2.06.13.5, [PUD] Sketch Plan Review for the proposed PUD Sketch Plan: a) The resulting development will not be consistent with the Master Plan objectives; b) The area around the development can not be planned to be in substantial harmony with the proposed PUD; c) The adjacent and nearby communities will be detrimentally affected by the proposed PUD; d) The PUD can be completed within a reasonable period of time; e) The proposed commercial development can not be justified; Oil • f) The streets are adequate to support the anticipated traffic and the development will not overload the streets outside the planned area; g) The proposed utility and drainage facilities are adequate for population and densities and type of development proposed; h) The employee housing plan as provided is not acceptable. 5. Pursuant to Section 2.14.04.1, Review of Zone District Amendments for the proposed PUD: (a) The use is not consistent with the County Master Plan and that the use requested does not offer benefits that outweigh its disadvantages. (b) Conceptual evidence that the land has access and can be serviced with water and sewage disposal systems appropriate with the zone district being sought has been presented; and (c) That at least one of the following criteria has not been met: (1) That the area for which rezoning is requested has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density in the area; or (2) That the proposed rezoning is necessary in order to provide land for a demonstrated community need. 6. Pursuant to Section 2.17.02.3, [Subdivision] Sketch Plan Review for the proposed PUD Sketch Plan: a) The application is not in conformance with the Master Plan, policies, guidelines, zoning and other applicable regulations; in that b) The land is not suitable for subdivision; c) The comments and recommendations from the referral agencies have been considered; d) There is access to the state highway system; and that it is capable of servicing the development. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO: III III THAT, the application for approval of the Planned Unit Development Sketch Plan for Oak Tree Inn and Penny's Diner be and is hereby denied. THE BOARD further finds, determines and declares that this Resolution is necessary for the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado. MOVED, READ AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, at its regular meeting held the N_I t day of A- uA-t, , 1998. nunc pro tunc to the 3rd day of August, 199 COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO, By and Through Its ATTEST: "' ,+'J C O LOP 00 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS . C--5-..-- '' BY . _ _i _ / I / Al / _ tee Sara J. Fish -r J- es E. Johns. , Jr., C a man Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners ,, ^} n� v �, BY: A�` /a, '- ./CJ 0Z_J„) Georg A. Gates, Commissioner ii ,. t BY : II, Johnnette Phillips, Comm Commissioner g adoption of the foregoing resolution. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Commissioner Johnnette Phillips Aye Commissioner George A. Gates Aye Commissioner James E. Johnson, Jr. Aye This Resolution passed by unanimous vote of the Board of County Commissioner of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado. • .