The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutR00-087 PUD sketch plan for Abrams PUDC J Commissioner . ".. 40A moved adoption of the folio ng Resolution: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSI COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF CO RESOLUTION NO. 2000 - i 1P,C6_E 0MINTY AT- TORNEY APPROVAL OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SKETCH PLAN FOR ABRAMS PUD FILE NO. PDS -00020 WHEREAS, on or, about February 25, 2000, the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, accepted for filing an application submitted by Steve Osterfoss (hereinafter "Applicant ") for approval of the Planned Unit Development Sketch Plan for Abrams PUD, File No. PDS- 00020; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requested the approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Sketch Plan which would allow for the development as follows: Subdivide an approximately 15 acre parcel into two lots, of approximately 5 acres and 10 acres, respectively, with primary and secondary residences and related auxiliary uses permitted on each lot. WHEREAS, notice of the Sketch Plan was given to all proper agencies and departments as required by the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Section 2.17.02(1); and, WHEREAS, at its public hearings held April 5, 2000, the Planning Commission, based upon its findings, recommended approval of the proposed PUD Sketch Plan, with certain conditions; and WHEREAS, at its regular hearings of April 17, 2000, 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; and the recommendation of the Planning Commission. 1 IN I11 732821 06/23/2000 03:38P 370 Sara Fisher 1 of 6 R 0.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 Eagle CO f BASED ON THE EVIDENCE BEFORE IT, and with the modifications imposed by the conditions hereinafter described, THE BOARD FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5- 240.F.3.e Standards for the review of a Sketch PUD: 1. Unified ownership or control. [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (1)] - The title to all land that is part of this PUD IS owned or controlled by one (1) person. 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 -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. 2. 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. However, variations of these dimensional limitations MAY be authorized pursuant to Section 5 -240 1 Variations Authorized 3. 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 CAN comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off - Street Parking and Loading Standards without a necessity for a reduction in the standards. 4. Landscaping. [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (5)] - Landscaping provided in the PUD DOES comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards However, the Conceptual Landscape Plan DOES NOT adequately demonstrate what areas will be disturbed and how existing trees, shrubs and groundcover in these areas will preserved, replaced or the areas otherwise re- vegetated. Signs. [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD SHALL be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations 6. Adequate Facilities. [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (7)] - The Applicant HAS NOT demonstrated that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads, and will be 2 . i . Y C C conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. However, such demonstration MAY be provided at application for Preliminary Plan approval. 7. 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. (e) Snow Storage. However, if it is not possible to meet these improvement standards, the Applicant MAY be granted one or more variances to satisfy this standard. 8. Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (9)] - The development proposed for the PUD IS compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. 9. Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD IS NOT consistent with the Master Plan, although it IS consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Areas of non - conformance are related to (1) the lack of common recreation and open space, (2) an increase in density and (3) the location of the proposed development away from an established community center. 10. Phasing Section 5- 240.F.3.e (11) - A phasing plan IS NOT applicable for this development. 11. Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (12)] - The PUD DOES NOT comply with the common recreation and open space standards with respect to: (a) Minimum area; (b) Improvements required; (c) Continuing use and maintenance; or (d) Organization. 12. Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (13)] - The PUD DOES NOT fully demonstrate that the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards have been considered. However, that MAY be demonstrated at application for Preliminary Plan approval. 3 Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5- 280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a Sketch Plan for Subdivision: 1. Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5- 280.B.3.e (1)] - The PUD IS NOT consistent with the Master Plan, although it IS consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Areas of non - conformance are related to (1) the lack of common recreation and open space, (2) an increase in density, and (3) the location of the proposed development away from an established community center. 2. Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5- 280.B.3.e (2)] - The Applicant HAS NOT fully 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 appears that the Applicant MAY be able to meet the applicable standards at application for Preliminary Plan approval. 3. Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5- 280.B.3.e (3)] - The proposed subdivision IS located and designed to avoid creating 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. 4. Suitability for Development. [Section 5- 280.B.3.e (4)] - 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. 5. Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5- 280.B.3.e (5)] - The proposed subdivision IS compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and SHALL NOT adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS: 6. PUD Guide [Section 5- 240.F.2.a.(8)] - Applicant has submitted a PUD guide that DOES demonstrate that the requirements of this Section can be fully met at Preliminary Plan. However, the Applicant HAS NOT clearly demonstrated that the purposes of PUD zoning are being served by the proposed development. 0 C NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO: THAT, the application for approval of the Planned Unit Development Sketch Plan for Abrams PUD be and is hereby granted, subject to compliance with the following conditions: The proposed PUD be modified to provide the minimum amount of common recreation and open space recommended in Section 5- 240.F.3.e (12), Common Recreation and Open Space, of the Land Use Regulations. 2. The Applicant demonstrate the manner in which the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards including the Colorado State Forest Service and the Colorado Geological Survey, have been considered in the preparation of the application for Preliminary Plan approval. 3. The application for Preliminary Plan approval incorporate the recommendations of HP Geotech and the Colorado Geological Society, including they way they relate to foundation footings and septic systems. 4. The application for Preliminary Plan approval incorporate the recommendations of the Colorado State Forest Service, specifically as they relate to wildfire protection. 5. Applicant be required to provide evidence, at the time of application for Preliminary Plan approval, of adequate easement or other access to this site from Brush Creek Road across any third party's property, sufficient to permit the Applicant to satisfy all of the requirements of the Land Use Regulations regarding access to Brush Creek Road. 6. The Applicant demonstrate efforts to successfully reach an understanding with the Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority regarding alignment and financial commitments for a bike path segment along and in the vicinity of Brush Creek Road. 7. In order to justify the use of PUD zoning for this development, the Applicant modify the proposed development sufficiently, (a) by creating a more desirable environment than would be possible through the strict application of the minimum standards of the Land Use Regulations, or (b) by making more creative use of any of the performance standards, to demonstrate clearly that the purposes of PUD zoning for this site are being satisfied. 5 a m s D4 l THAT, the Sketch Plan submitted under this application and hereby approved, does not constitute a "site specific development plan" as that phrase is defined and used in C.R.S. Section 24 -68 -101, et seq. Sketch Plan approval is expressly conditioned on the County's authority to impose further restrictions or limitations on the PUD which are necessitated by impacts which are not yet recognized or which are more severe than realized under the review given at the hearings on the Sketch Plan. 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 day o 2000, nunc pro tunc to the 17` day of April, 2000. COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO, By and Through Its ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY: ° : � � BY: Sara J. Fishe Tom C. Stone, Chairman Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners BY: ohnnette Phipps, Commissioner ^ 1 �� AA Michael L. i Commissioner seconded adoption of the foregoing resolution. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Commissioner Tom C. Stone i 2 a ' 4 1 Commissioner Michael L. Gallagher &4 L-- Commissioner Johnnette Phillips This Resolution passed by 0 vote of the Board of County Commissioner of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado. G