The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutR09-058 Crown Mountain PUD DenialCommissioner moved adoption of the following R ution: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION N0.2009 -~~~ DENIAL OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SKETCH PLAN FOR THE CROWN MOUNTAIN PLAZA PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FILE NO. PDS-00052 WHEREAS, on or about February 22, 2007, 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 Crown Mountain Plaza Planned Unit Development, File No. PDS-00052; and WHEREAS, the Applicant requested approval of a 130,263 square foot mixed-use building including: residential, retail commercial and office commercial uses on a triangularly shaped, 2.28-acre property adjacent to U.S: Highway 82 in the El Jebel vicinity of Eagle County. The property is locally referred to as the "Fitzsimons Parcel"; 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 hearing held on June 19, 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 July 22, 2008, August 26, 2008, October 28, 2008, March 3, 2009 and May 12, 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 Roaring Fork Valley Regional 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 may be 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 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule" for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. 3. 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. 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 not 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 not 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)] A comprehensive sign plan was not provided with the PUD application. 7. Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] 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)] - It has not been 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 Comprehensive Plan.- (Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] -The PUD is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and is not consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FL,UM). 11. Phasing. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] A phasing plan is not proposed for this development. 12. Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] It has not been demonstrated that the PUD will comply with the common recreation and open space standards with respect to: (a) minimum area; (b) improvements required; (c) continuing 2 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 Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] The PUD is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and is not consistent with the Future Land Use Map (PLUM). 15. Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] 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. 16. Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] The proposed subdivision would not 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 development 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 Crown Mountain Plaza PUD be and is hereby DENIED. 3 ~ ~ ~ . r 1+ ~ '~ ~ Z ~~Y-` ~ ~ C. ` ` ` f .. k` `Z~ L ' ~ ~' ~ 4 - err ~ ' h [ ~ ~ ~ ~ S 'rf ~: ~,j a F ~ y~yT i h iL ,,°2.. .5. ~, y r .ate f, '.~'' ~ ~<"~~' ~`"~ ~ i l ~~-r~b ,,~ ~?~''a. ~' ~ /.s ~s.. ,.~ ;:. ^: ~~~ ~ .,.r- l," 4~ _ ~ ~4: ;~~tf l~~ ~ ~. e3F 4ti ~ ~ ~~ ,~!{~'. ~i~ r. 34~i~ic't' ~ I4 ,iYi ~~. ~~ tF s '~ } { .. L ~ ~_ fit, '!"y ~ i~ ;.. is L ~'.st',S ?. t r • ~ ~ ~. ~, ~.