No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR09-012 Denial PUD Coleman RanchCommissioner I ~L, `~(U ~~-- moved adoption of the following Resolution: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION N0.2009 - DENIAL OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SKETCH PLAN FOR THE COLEMAN RANCH SUBDIVISION PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NOS. PDS-00057 WHEREAS, on or about February 12, 2008, the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, accepted for filing the application submitted by Coleman Brothers Construction, LLC (hereinafter "Applicant") for approval of the Planned Unit Development Sketch Plan for the Coleman Ranch Subdivision Planned Unit Development, File No. PDS-00057; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant initially requested approval of eight single family lots on 18-acres located in the Emma vicinity of Eagle County; and, WHEREAS, while in process, the Applicant amended the request from eight single family lots to four single family lots and ultimately to three single family lots; and, WHEREAS, notice of the Sketch Plan was given to all proper agencies and departments as required by the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Section 5-210.E; and, WHEREAS, following its public hearings held on June 5, 2008, October 16, 2008 and November 20, 2008, the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission, based upon its findings, recommended denial of the proposed PUD Sketch Plan; and WHEREAS, following its regular hearings of June 17, 2008, July 1, 2008, September 16, 2008, December 9, 2008 and January 6, 2009 the Eagle County Board of Commissioners (hereinafter "Board"), considered the proposed 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; and the recommendation of the Eagle County Planning Commission. BASED ON THE EVIDENCE BEFORE IT, THE BOARD FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e. Standards for the review of a Preliminary Plan PUD: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] -The subject property is held under unified ownership. 2. Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] -The uses that maybe developed in the PUD are those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule" for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD are not those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. But, the Board may grant a variation from these dimensional limitations pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f., Variations Authorized. 4. Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] It has been demonstrated that off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD complies with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards, without a necessity for a reduction in the standards. Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] It has been demonstrated that the landscaping proposed for the PUD may comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] No signs were proposed within the PUD. 7. Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] With the recommended conditions of approval, it has not been demonstrated that the development proposed in the PUD Sketch/Preliminary Plan will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. 8. Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] -With the recommended condition, it has not been clearly demonstrated that the improvements standards applicable to the development will be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards regarding: (a) safe, efficient access, (b) internal pathways, (c) emergency vehicles, (d) principal access points, and (e) snow storage. 9. Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] The development proposed for the PUD is not compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. 10. Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] -The PUD is not consistent with the Master Plan, and is not consistent with the Future Land Use Map (PLUM). 11. Phasing. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] A phasing plan is not required for this development. 12. Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] The applicant has demonstrated that the PUD may comply with the common recreation and open space 2 standards with respect to: (a) minimum area; (b) improvements required; (c) continuing use and maintenance; or (d) organization. 13. Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] The PUD does demonstrate that the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents available at the time the application was submitted have been considered. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a Preliminary Plan for Subdivision: 14. Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] The PUD is not consistent with the Master Plan, and is not consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). 15. Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] Due to potential impacts on critical wildlife habitat, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed subdivision complies with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards. However, it maybe possible to demonstrate consistency with the Land Use Regulations in the PUD Preliminary Plan. 16. Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] The proposed subdivision would create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. 17. Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] The Applicant did not adequately demonstrate that the property proposed to be subdivided is suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. 18. Compatible with Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] -The proposed subdivision is not compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and will adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.2.a:(8), Initiation: 19. The Applicant has submitted a PUD Guide that demonstrates that the requirements of this Section have been fully met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO: THAT, the application for the Planned Unit Development Sketch Plan for the Coleman Ranch PUD be and is hereby DENIED. 3 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 17th day of February, 2009, nunc pro tunc to the 6th day of January 2009. COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO, by and Through Its BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Teak J. Simonto~/ ~ ~b Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners `~J`'i' _ ---- ~ Dr.IPv ~ ~ Commissioner~1~'u~~econded adoption of the foregoing resolution. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Commissioner Sara J. Fisher ~~ `' Commissioner Peter F. Runyon Commissioner Jon Stavney This Resolution passed by ~ ~ vote of the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado. 4 ..- Cara T Ficliar viz 0 ~~ 0 0