HomeMy WebLinkAboutR00-099 approval of PUD for Mt. Sopris Tree Farm PDS-00021�y
Commissioner moved adoption
of the follo g Resolution:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. 2000 - Q9
APPROVAL OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
SKETCH PLAN FOR MT. SOPRIS TREE FARM PUD
FILE NO. PDS -00021
WHEREAS, on or about April 21, 2000, the County of Eagle, State of Colorado,
accepted for filing an application submitted by Eagle County (hereinafter "Applicant ") for
;. approval of the Planned Unit Development Sketch Plan for the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm PUD, File
No. PDS- 00021; and,
WHEREAS, the Applicant requested the approval of a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) Sketch Plan which would allow for the development as follows:
A number of active and passive recreation areas, pedestrian paths, a protected
riparian corridor, an interpretive trail, fishing access to the Roaring Fork River, a
14,750 square foot government services facility, other public uses in existing
structures, and agricultural hay production.
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, at its public hearings held June 8, 2000, the Roaring Fork Valley Regional
Planning Commission, based upon its findings, recommended approval of the proposed PUD
Sketch Plan, with certain conditions; and
WHEREAS, at its regular hearings of June 19, 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 Roaring Fork
Valley Regional Planning Commission.
I II1111 "III 1111111 1111 1111111111111111 111 11111 1111 ("
734417 07/12/2000 03:58P 370 Sara Fisher
1 of 12 R 0.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 Eagle CO
a
C
0
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.
1. 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 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 F.31,
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 MAY
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
5. 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
conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and
emergency medical services. However, such demonstration WILL be able
provided at application for Preliminary Plan approval.
2
f i 9 fj
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, it appears that the Applicant WILL BE ABLE to demonstrate that
improvement standards applicable to the development will be as specified in
Article 4, Division 6, Improvement Standards at application for Preliminary Plan
approval.
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
consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use
Map (FLUM).
10. Phasing Section 5- 240.F.3.e (11) - A phasing plan HAS NOT been provided for
the development, but WILL BE required as part of an application for Preliminary
Plan approval.
11. Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (12)] - The PUD
DOES 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 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.
r , a
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 consistent
with the Master Plan, and it IS consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM).
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.
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 demonstrates that the requirements of this Section MAY be fully met at
Preliminary Plan.
0
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
Mt. Sopris Tree Farm PUD be and is hereby granted, subject to compliance with the following
conditions:
1. Provide sufficient information, including consideration of shared parking, to
demonstrate that the proposed development provides adequate parking for all
uses, including active and passive recreation, and that sufficient "accessible"
parking is provided throughout the complex.
2. The Preliminary Plan be reviewed by the Eagle County Regional Trails Authority
trails staff to refine the internal trail alignment.
3. The road to the existing buildings be constructed by Applicant as soon as feasible.
4. The Preliminary Plan address improved pedestrian access across Valley Road at
Highway 82, including careful examination of separated pedestrian crossing, i.e.,
an overpass or underpass not at grade.
5. A report on pedestrian and non - motorized movement within the park be provided
at application for Preliminary Plan.
6. A second access for recreation users be explored.
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.
0
MOVED, READ AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissignizs of the
County of Eagle, State of Colorado, at its regular meeting held the /MU ay , 2000,
nunc pro tunc to the 19' day of June, 2000. 7
ATTEST:
COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF
COLORADO, By and Through Its
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
IC
Commissioner seconded adoption of the foregoing resolution.
been called, the vote was as follows:
Commissioner Tom C. Stone ZZA
Commissioner Michael L. Gallagher ah[
Commissioner Johnnette Phillips q44
If
The roll having
This Resolution passed by 3 "0 vote of the Board of County Commissioner of the County of
Eagle, State of Colorado.
..A
Sara J. Fisher `
Clerk of the Board of
County Commissioners
BY: _
Tom . Stone, Chairman
