HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/06/11 SPECIAL MEETING
July 6, 2011
Eagle County Building at EL Jebel
0020 County Drive
El Jebel, Colorado
************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Present: Jon Stavney Chairman
Peter Runyon Commissioner
Sara Fisher Commissioner
Keith Montag County Manager
Bryan Treu County Attorney
Robert Morris Deputy County Attorney
Christina Hooper Assistant County Attorney
Teak Simonton Clerk to the Board
Kathy Scriver Deputy Clerk to the Board
This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County
Commissioners for their consideration:
Work Sessions (recorded)
Roaring Fork Water Watershed Plan
Mark Fuller & Sharon Clarke
Community Office for Resource Efficiency Clean Technology Economic Development Report
Nathan Ratledge, CORE Director
Katherine Dart, CORE Climate Control Coordinator
Adam Palmer, Planning
ZS -2756 Clean Energy Collective Solar Farm Site Visit (recorded)
Planning Files
ZS -2756 Clean Enemy Collective Solar Farm
Scot Hunn, Planning
Paul Spencer, Clean Energy Collective and Louis Wilsher, landWest
ACTION: The purpose of this Special Use Permit is to allow for the phased installation/operation of up to 2
mega -Watts of solar electrical generation on approximately 5 acres of property located in the El
Jebel area.
LOCATION: 201 Tree Farm Drive; located along Hwy. 82, due east of the intersection of Hwy. 82 and El
Jebel Road, in El Jebel.
FILE NO./PROCESS: ZS -2756 / Special Use Permit
PROJECT NAME: Clean Energy Collective — Solar Farm
OWNER: Clean Energy Collective
1
07/06/2011
APPLICANT: Clean Energy Collective
REPRESENTATIVE: Louis Wilsher, RLA, 1andWEST Colorado, LLC
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. SUMMARY:
The applicant requests review of a Special Use permit for the phased construction of a 2 -mega Watt
community -owned solar energy device (solar farm), covering five acres of a 128 -acre parcel located in El
Jebel.
According to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations (ECLURs), "Solar Energy Devices" over 80
kilowatts (kW) in capacity require a special use permit. Pursuant to Section 5 -250.E — Effect of Issuance of
Special Use Permit, Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Special Use permits are valid for three (3) years
until the approved use is implemented. If the approved use is not implemented within the three year time
period, the permit expires. Upon implementation of the approved use within the three year time period,
Special Use permits remain valid in- perpetuity, unless an expiration date or exception has been placed upon
the permit by the Board of County Commissioners.
B. SITE DATA:
The project site is located just east of the main El Jebel commercial district and directly across State
Highway 82 from the Old Orchard Plaza and Willits Town Center development. The property is bordered
on the north by public lands (Bureau of Land Management), and to the west by the 100 -unit Shadowrock
Townhomes development and the El Jebel Mobile Home Park. A private in- holding (McKelvey exemption
parcel) and the site of the proposed Tree Farm mixed -use PUD are located generally to the south of the
proposed solar farm site. Laura J Estates and Christine State Wildlife Area located to the east of the subject
property.
2
07/06/2011
Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning:
Land Use Zoning x.
Resource Preservation BLM
North: Public Land RP)
PUD; `C3 PUD - McKelvey Exemption /In- holding;
South: Residential; Multi -Use Town Willits Town Center
East: Residential Rural Residential (RR) Laura J Estates
West: Residential • PUD; RSM Shadowrock; El Jebel MHP _
fi h xaf.
E xisti 1 Zoni V- t Resource Zone District -
Wopo�e`c Zo>i g N/A
Residential Single - Family dwelling, with detached caretaker /assessor unit and art studio;
Cul'etliYeTome�t
private open s lace uses and motorized recreational track; a a icultural uses.
Site drttrops • "; 0 Wooded — pinion juniper and sage; moderate to steep slopes; 20 ft. power line easement
4 . dissects solar farm site; historic landslide complex.
'Total LandaArea. art: , Mies x y 1 128 Square feet: 1 5,575,680
Total' o "n S ce # N/A
Wafer :. ._ . Public :: N/A Private N/A
Sewe :V � Pub 16: N/A ; Private _., N/A
, eeess. . ,; Tree Farm Drive and ,rivate (_ated) drivewa
C. CHRONOLOGY/BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located on the former Kodiak Park Planned Unit Development (PUD) site. The
Kodiak Park PUD zoning was originally approved in 1994 on approximately 199 acres owned by Ace and
Jennifer Lane. The approval for the development plan was granted one extension in 1997, and later expired
with no Final Plat approval, leaving PUD zoning designation for the entirety of the Lane Property. In 2009,
71.71 acres of the Lane Property was included within the Sketch Plan approval for the Tree Farm PUD, and
the remaining 128 acres of the larger 199 -acre parcel owned by the Lanes was recently re -zoned from PUD
to the Resource (R) zone district, in part, for the purpose of complying with a condition of approval for the
Tree Farm PUD Sketch Plan, but also to accommodate the solar farm application and future conservation
subdivision application on the 128 -acre parcel.
D. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION:
The Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission held two public hearings to consider the
proposal, the first occurring on April 7, 2011 and the second on May 19, 2011. At their regular meeting on
the 19 the Planning Commission voted (4 -1) to recommend approval of the proposal, incorporating staff
recommended conditions. At both meetings, the following topics and issues were discussed during the
Planning Commission's deliberations:
Wildlife:
At the April 7 hearing, one member stated her concern regarding the cumulative loss of severe winter
range, winter concentration areas and winter range — throughout the Mid - Valley region and as a result of
proposals such as the solar farm. Following that meeting, staff contacted Matt Yamashita, Colorado
Division of Wildlife, inquiring whether or not the Division "tracks" or quantifies the ongoing impacts from
development, and thus the cumulative loss of such habitat types. Mr. Yamashita confirmed the Division
does monitor such activities on a large scale (commensurate with most of the mapping the Division
maintains). However, Mr. Yamashita distinguished the proposed solar farm from other types of
"development" such as new home construction, due to the nature of the solar panel installation (above
ground) which allows for continued movement through the site. As well, the installation will be associated
with minimal long -term human activity. Likewise, the Division representatives confirmed the site is viewed
3
07/06/2011
as one with decreased habitat quality due to the proximity of surrounding human disturbance (Please see
recently received correspondence from Perry Will, CDOW Area Wildlife Manager, attached).
Wildfire Hazard Mitigation:
At the April 7 hearing, one member stated her objection to the proposed removal of shrub -like vegetation
(sage) from the entirety of the solar farm site as a result of coordinated planning and (hazard mitigation)
design efforts between the Applicant, Eagle County and the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District.
Eric Lovgren, Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist, and Bill Harding, Fire Marshal, Basalt and
Rural Fire Protection District, were in attendance at the May 19` hearing to discuss the matter. Mr.
Lovgren stated that the proposed removal of vegetation over 5 acres, whether the array was broken -up, or
not, would create a substantial (and beneficial) fire break in an area surrounded by residential development.
Mr. Harding reiterated his support for alternative energy solutions and cautioned that solar farms present
unique challenges to fire suppression and response. Mr. Harding stated that, in this case, removal of shrubs
and the maintenance of native grasses throughout the site, combined with prescribed clearing of defensible
space around the array, will provide the best mitigation and access to the site in the event of fire.
Key Observation Points and Visual Impacts:
At the April 7 hearing, one member stated her concern regarding the potential for visual impacts on the
surrounding area, specifically the Laura J Estates neighborhood. As a result, the Applicant was asked to
perform additional study /observation from points within the Laura J Estates subdivision, demonstrating the
potential visibility of the solar farm from certain points (or point) within that neighborhood.
At the hearing held on May 19` the Applicant presented additional photographs (attached) taken from
different areas within Laura J Estates and contended that visual impacts will be minimal (not generally
visible). Therefore, the Applicant reported that they had determined a photo- simulation showing the solar
farm - was not warranted or useful. Commission members commented on the potential visual impacts,
with one member stating objection to certain arguments put forth in the Applicant's presentation which
compared the solar farm visibility to the visual impacts created by local hillside residential development or
power line installations. The same commission member suggested that the proposal is "industrial in
nature" needs to be "broken -up" to lessen the impact. The Applicant explained that break -up of the solar
array would not be practical and may actually increase visual impacts. Another commission member
agreed with the Applicant's general arguments — that the solar farm will have less visual impact than
residential or commercial development, specifically Willits Town Center, on neighboring properties such
as those in Laura J Estates.
At the May 19 hearing, there was also a discussion regarding proposed phasing of the project and which
portions of each phase would be most visible. This discussion arose from recommendations received from
the Town of Basalt, wherein the Town suggested a phasing plan that permits construction of those phases
of the array that are least visible — first. The Applicant clarified that Phases One and Two would be the
least visible.
2. STAFF REPORT
A. NECESSARY FINDINGS:
PROCESS INTENT
ECLUR Section: 5 -250 Special Use Permits
Section Purpose: Special Uses are those uses that are not necessarily compatible with the other uses
allowed in a zone district, but which may be determined compatible with the other
uses allowed in the zone district based upon individual review of their location,
design, configuration, density and intensity of use, and the imposition of
appropriate conditions to ensure the compatibility of the use at a particular location
4
07/06/2011
with surrounding land uses. All Special Uses shall meet the standards set forth in
this Section.
Standards: Section 5- 250.B. The issuance of a Special Use Permit shall be dependent upon
findings that there is competent evidence that the proposed use as conditioned,
fully complies with all the standards of this Section, this Division, this Article, and
these Land Use Regulations. The Planning Commission may recommend and the
Board of County Commissioners may attach any conditions deemed appropriate to
ensure compliance with the following standards, including conformity to a specific
site plan, requirements to improve public facilities necessary to serve the Special
Use, and limitations on the operating characteristics of the use, or the location or
duration of the Special Use Permit
STANDARD: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5- 250.B.1] The proposed Special Use shall
be appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies
of the Comprehensive Plan and the FL UM of the Comprehensive Plan, including standards for building
and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use.
EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS
X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS
MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS
DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS
EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
2 4 ,h M 8 FLUM
0 cs. ; Designation
41> , �,. em
Exceeds
Recommendations X
Incorporates Majority a X X' X X X
Recommendations _
Does. Not Incorporate'
Recommendations
Not Applicable X X
(1) To the extent the proposed special use will provide alternative energy to those business entities choosing to
purchase power from the collective, and to the extent the proposal adds to the "economic infrastructure"
(which includes power generation) of Eagle County, the policies and recommendations are being
supported.
(2) To the extent the proposed special use will address the service and infrastructure needs of all socio-
economic, age and cultural groups by providing alternative energy sources for purchase in an open market
place, the policies and recommendations are being supported.
(3) According to the Environmental Impact Report provided within the application, the project location is
mapped by the Colorado Division of Wildlife as mule deer and elk winter range, severe winter range and
winter concentration areas. The proposal would essentially remove five acres of habitat from such
ranges /areas. However, no fencing is proposed around the site (only around the power inverter complex), in
part, to allow for continued use and migration by deer and elk through the site. The site is surrounded on
three sides by development and/or human activity and there is no "pass- through" from the site to other
habitat areas; it is reported by the project's consulting biologist as a "dead end" for migratory /movement
purposes. Further, the Colorado Division of Wildlife has determined the impact to wildlife to be "minimal."
5
07/06/2011
(4) Although not mapped as a "ridgeline" by Eagle County, the subject site can be considered a visual
resource. The Comprehensive Plan policies encourage such resources to be protected, or for development
to minimize negative impacts. The proposed solar farm will be visible from multiple points along the
Highway 82 corridor and within certain areas of the Mid - Valley region. The Applicant has provided
evidence to demonstrate that, while visible from certain "Key Observation Points" (KOPs) in the El Jebel
and Basalt area, the proposed location for the solar farm is on an intermediate land form (not a highly
prominent ridge) in context to surrounding hillsides, and that existing vegetative cover in the foreground
(Cottonwood trees lining the Robinson Ditch) will provide some visual screening. Recommendations from
the Town of Basalt include: phasing installation to ensure the top portion of the site is developed last, and;
requiring tree planting — between the proposed solar farm and Hwy. 82 — to mitigate potential visual
impacts. (See attached referral comment letters from the Town of Basalt, as well as the Applicant's
response letter demonstrating revisions to the phasing plan and addressing glare concerns). Likewise, staff
suggests the Applicant be held to a standard color scheme for panels to ensure frames are flat (vs. glossy) in
appearance and dark (black, or other dark color blending with pinion/juniper vegetative background) to
reduce overall visibility.
Regarding wildfire hazards, the Applicant has met several times on -site with Eagle County staff and the
Basalt and Regional Fire Protection District to discuss the sites "high" wildfire hazard rating, as well as
mitigation inclusive of creating defensible space around the site and providing access for emergency
service vehicles. The Applicant has provided a revised set of plans (site and landscape) demonstrating
adherence to the recommendations of both the County Wildfire Mitigation Manager and the Fire District.
(See attached referral comment letters from the County and the Fire District, as well as the Applicant's
response letter which includes copies of revised site and landscape /vegetation management plans).
(5) Policy "d" under Environmental Quality" states: "Energy Efficiency and the reduction of overall energy
consumption should be a primary goal for future operations and developments in Eagle County." The
proposed special use helps Eagle County achieve the stated policy goal, while having positive or negligible
impact on the quality of ambient air, noise levels and the quality of the night sky.
MID VALLEY COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN
is Tcawsport Community Open Space/ El ebelf
F apliti es Environnum t. lit 'Tyra, ' A
Ex 4
RecomMendations
Incorporates Maiority x'
of a mendations
Does Not Incorporate
Recommendations
Not
Applicable X X X XZ X X X
(1) To the extent potential impacts on wildlife can be minimized and mitigated, the proposal meets the goals
for open space and environment. Otherwise, most goal/policy statements related to open space and
environment are not applicable.
(2) No goal or policy statements specific to the El Jebel/Basalt Area relate to the proposed use.
EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN
6
07/06/2011
0 3 o o .o- q
Exceeds'`
Recommendatio
In i t r tes tMajeritY. X l X 2 X X 4
of R * 11.1 ' fl dations
Does Niet Incorporate
Recommendations
Not Applicable ,c X X X
(1) To the extent the applicant has coordinated (and will continue to coordinate) with the Basalt and Rural Fire
Protection District regarding this proposal as it relates to wildfire mitigation and access, the project meets
the master plan policy of cooperating with other agencies.
(2) According to the Eagle County Open Space Plan, "Visual Quality" is the highest ranked priority for open
space preservation. The subject property is mapped as "Moderately Constrained" with regard to visual
quality, meaning development is possible (not prohibited) but should "be limited by architectural
controls which specify style and materials, siting controls which would guide building location relative
to vegetation, ridges and other environmental factors and road and fill controls which would limited
visual degradation."
It is important to recognize that the Open Space Plan (1979), in particular the above referenced goal or
priority statement regarding visual quality, was most likely drafted with residential development in mind.
Nevertheless, it will be equally important for the Applicant to demonstrate how visual impacts from this
commercial scale solar energy device were taken into consideration during the design of the project, the
creation of the phasing plan and when evaluating proposed mitigation techniques. Currently, the application
requests flexibility in the future with regard to the style and appearance of panels due to uncertainties in the
market and ever - changing technological innovations. If the Applicant is held to design standards such as
requiring matte or flat finishes on panels, frames and mounting equipment, and otherwise "minimizing" the
impact to visual quality, this master plan goal can be better met.
(3) The project generally avoids development on slopes exceeding 40 percent and the plans include
specifications for re- vegetation of any disturbed areas with native grasses. According to the application
materials submitted, the site is located on an ancient landslide complex. The submittal includes a letter
from consulting geologist, CTL Thompson, asserting that the site is stable and suitable for the proposed
use. The Applicant has addressed recommendations from the State of Colorado Geologic Survey (See
attached referral comments from the CGS, as well as the Applicant's response letter).
(4) The project site is located within mapped elk and deer winter range, severe winter range and winter
concentration areas. The Open Space Plan considers winter range areas to be "moderately constrained ".
As such, the Plan states: "Development may occur in most areas of wildlife habitat, however, moderate
development constraints should be used to protect the wildlife. Areas shown to be necessary for the
viability of a species should be prohibited from developing."
The project proposes to remove 5 acres of pinion juniper habitat area. However, no fencing is proposed
around the site (only around the power inverter complex), in part, to allow for continued use and migration
by deer and elk through the site. The site is surrounded on three sides by development and/or human
activity and there is no "pass- through" from the site to other habitat areas; it is reported by the project's
consulting biologist as a "dead end" for migratory/movement purposes. Further, the Colorado Division of
Wildlife has determined the impact to wildlife to be "minimal."
STANDARD: Compatibility. [Section 5- 250.B.2] The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its
proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses.
7
07/06/2011
EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS
MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS
X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS
DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS
Potential
Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning Compatibility
Lssues
Yes No
North: Public Land Resource Preservation (RP) ✓
McKelvey Exemption (residential PUD); Willits Town
South: Mixed -Use; Residential Center - Town of Basalt `C -3' Zoning ✓
East Residential Rural Residential (RR) ✓
West: Residential Shadowrock PUD ✓
Note:
Staff has not been contacted by the adjacent property owner to the south (McKelvey) or from the Home
Owner's Association at the adjacent Shadowrock Townhomes (to the west) regarding this application. The
proposed solar farm will be approximately 300 feet from Shadowrock and approximately 330 feet from the
McKelvey Residence. There is no anticipated noise that would be generated by the use; only low level
noise generated by the power converter which will be located near the existing Lane Property driveway.
The solar farm is likely to be visible from both adjacent properties, but may be obscured by existing
vegetation that will be preserved between the solar farm and adjacent properties.
Although dissimilar in . scale, the solar farm should be considered in context to the surrounding uses,
inclusive of residential development (Shadowrock, El Jebel Mobile Home Park and Laura J Estates) which
encroaches in a similar manner upon the foreground hillsides, and which are similarly visible from the
Hwy. 82 corridor and surrounding area. It should be noted that any of these existing residential
developments could see applications for roof top solar devices.
STANDARD: Zone District Standards. [Section 5- 250.B.3] The proposed Special Use shall comply with
the standards of the zone district in which it is located and any standards applicable to the particular use,
as identified in Section 3 -310, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential, Agricultural and
Resource Uses and Section 3 -330, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial
Uses.
EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS
X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS
MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS
DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS
SECTION 3 -310. REVIEW STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO PARTICULAR
RESIDENTIAL, AGRICULTURAL AND RESOURCE USES
STANDARD: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact. [Section 5- 250.B.4] The design of the proposed
Special Use shall minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands;
furthermore, the proposed Special Use shall avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands
regarding trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and shall
not create a nuisance.
8
07/06/2011
EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS
X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS
MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS
DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS
oo B
1 . o 'Q '5
H H rn 0 Z {7 > P. Z
Exceeds ECLUR
Requirements
Satisfies ECLUR X i X
Requirements
Does Not Satisfy ECLUR
Requirements
Not Applicable X X X X X X X
(1) Only low level noise will be generated by the solar farm power inverter which
will be located on the Northwest side of the project site, near the existing private
driveway for the Lane Property. Such noise will only be audible when in close
proximity to the inverter.
(2) The Applicant has stated that matte finish, low glare panels will be used. Also,
the Applicant has provided industry- generated information/studies related to
solar panel glare calculations to demonstrate conformance to this standard.
Incidentally, while uses are to minimize "glare" per the Eagle County Land Use
Regulations, there are no standards, per se, provided regarding glare limits or
calculation methods in the ECLURs.
STANDARD: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact. [Section 5 - 250.B.5J The proposed Special
Use shall minimize environmental impacts and shall not cause significant deterioration of water and air
resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources.
EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS
X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS
MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS
DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS
Exceeds ECLUR Requirements X
Satisfies ECLUR Requirement X X X X
Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirement
Not Applicable X X j
9
07/06/2011
(1) The proposed use may actually have a positive overall effect on the air quality of Eagle County by
providing an alternative energy source that does not contribute to Green House Gas (GHG) emissions.
(2) The proposed use will affect the biotic community by removing existing vegetation (pinion juniper tree
cover) and causing disturbance to existing ground- cover; wildlife habitat will also be affected.
However, the Applicant proposes to plant native forbs and grasses in disturbed areas; such vegetation
will stabilize the site and provide forage for wildlife. The Colorado Division of Wildlife referral
comments indicate that impacts to wildlife will be "minimal" and the design seeks to minimize impacts
by limiting overall disturbance (grading), limiting the installation of fencing to allow wildlife (deer and
elk) to move through the site.
(3) The solar farm will most likely be visible from adjacent properties and will be visible from several
points or areas within the surrounding community. It is difficult to judge the total impact or effect on
the visual resources of the area, despite the use of visual simulation techniques /information, as
provided by the Applicant. However, when viewed in context to the visual quality of surrounding urban
and suburban level development (Old Orchard Plaza, Willits Town Center, Missouri Heights, Laura J
Estates), it could be argued the proposed use does not significantly degrade the existing visual
resources of the area. If the Applicant is held to design standards such as requiring matte or flat finishes
on panels, frames and mounting equipment, and otherwise "minimizing" the impact to visual resources,
this standard will be better met.
STANDARD: Impact on Public Facilities. [Section 5- 250.B.6] The proposed Special Use Permit shall
be adequately served by public facilities and services, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable water and
wastewater facilities, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services.
EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS
X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS
MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS
DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS
0
le
°'
il a ° 3 a 3a
Exceeds ECLUR
Requirements
Satisfies ECLUR X X'
Requirements
Does Not Satisfy ECLUR
Requirement
Not Applicable X X X X X
(1) The Applicant has met several times with Eagle County staff and with representatives from the Basalt
and Rural Fire Protection District to address potential emergency access and wildfire mitigation issues
related to solar farms. The plans have been revised to reflect recommendations of both Eagle County
and the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District and the proposal will continue to serve as a basis for
cooperative and collaborative emergency management planning and mitigation.
STANDARD: Site Development Standards. [Section 5- 250.B.7] The proposed Special Use shall
comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards.
EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS
10
07/06/2011
X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS
MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS
DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS
W µ 4
8x c N Conditions
o 8 Artiei t�� v bent Sta
y � ;1-1 ' ata,-*,
W VI "<;(.4 .a. "''s `t;..:.a ' a .,' Pte.." r , „" '
X Off - Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4 -1)
X Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4 -2)
X Sign Regulations (Division 4 -3)
X Wildlife Protection (Section 4 -410)
X Geologic Hazards (Section 4 -420)
X Hillside Development (Section 4 -425) 4, 5, 6 & 7
X Wildfire Protection (Section 4 -430) 2 & 3
X Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440)
X Ridgeline Protection (Section 4 -450)
X Environmental Impact Report (Section 4 -460)
X Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4 -5)
X Noise and Vibration (Section 4 -520)
X Smoke and Particulates (Section 4 -530)
X Heat, Glare, Radiation and Electrical Interference (Section 4 -540) 4 & 5
X Storage of Hazardous and Non - hazardous Materials (Section 4 -550)
X Water Quality Standards (Section 4 -560)
X Roadway Standards (Section 4 -620)
X Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4 -630)
X Irrigation System Standards (Section 4 -640)
X Drainage Standards (Section 4 -650)
X Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4 -660)
X Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4 -670)
X Water Supply Standards (Section 4 -680) *
X Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4 -690)
X Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4 -7)
STANDARD: Other Provisions. [Section 5- 250.B.8] The proposed Special Use shall comply with all
standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout,
and general development characteristics.
EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS
X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS
MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS
11
07/06/2011
DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS
C. SUMMARY ANALYSIS:
Benefits
Staff believes the proposal presents several distinct benefits to Eagle County.
The proposal is a `first of its kind' for Eagle County. The nature of the cooperative ownership structure
being proposed, as well as the size of the proposed solar installation is unprecedented in the County.
Typical solar energy device installations in Eagle County have been small, individual residential,
commercial or light - industrial installations. However, the Mid - Valley Metropolitan District recently
installed a 7.74 kW solar farm on 1.3 acres just west and north of the project site (located in the Blue Lake
Subdivision along Hwy. 82). Likewise, Garfield County has recently approved an 858 kW system at the
Garfield County Airport.
Potential benefits include the development of significant amounts of alternative energy capacity - close to
population centers and the power grid. As well, the potential to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
while potentially reducing energy costs for individual residents in the area and throughout all of Eagle
County presents a unique opportunity. This aspect of the proposal addresses several policy goals for Eagle
County, including the overall Sustainable Communities 2010 goals for Eagle County Government
operations and energy usage, as well as the specific policy of supporting the Governor's Energy Office goal
to reduce GHG emissions by 20% by 2020.
In addition, the proposal has the potential to bolster certain economic, infrastructure, and environmental
strategies outlined in the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan. The proposed special use (as conditioned)
appears to meet applicable approval standards, as well as those site development standards applicable to the
proposed use.
Impacts & Trade - offs
Potential negative impacts to the environment and community include the elimination or reduction of
capacity of mule deer and elk habitat, effects on the visual quality and character of the area and potential
wildfire hazard mitigation challenges for service providers. Staff believes such impacts are important to
the overall community health, yet they may represent a trade -off of sorts.
Certain potential impacts such as those to visual quality or character are difficult to judge prior to
development of the solar farm, even with visual simulation techniques used during this review. There is no
doubt the proposed solar farm will be visible from several points or areas in the surrounding community.
There is also certainty in the County's intent to protect and preserve visual resources, yet there is no
(recent) attempt to rank or quantify such resources in this area of the County and the Open Space Plan
provides guidance to allow development on "moderately constrained" land forms such as this site.
Such impacts could be weighed against overall greenhouse gas emissions (reduction) and alternative energy
goals of the County. As such, visual impacts may represent a tradeoff and could be viewed in context to
surrounding visual resources and surrounding development located on nearby hillsides and ridgelines.
Staff believes the use of dark colors, and flat or matte finishes for solar panel frames and mounting
equipment will help to mitigate any negative visual impacts. Ultimately, the effect (benefit) of such
mitigation will be somewhat difficult to ascertain until portions of the solar farm were to be installed.
Other impacts are less nebulous, such as the loss to mule deer and elk habitat. The proposal will cause the
elimination or reduction in capacity of five acres of habitat (as mapped by CDOW). However, it could be
argued that this particular area, among several thousand acres of adjacent, mapped winter range, severe
winter range and winter concentration areas (on BLM and State Wildlife lands), is less critical given its
location and the physical barriers, as well as the level of development and human activity that surround the
property. And, according to the referral response from CDOW, the impact on wildlife from the
12
07/06/2011
development will be "minimal." It could also be argued that removal of sage and pinion/juniper habitat, and
reestablishment of native forbs and grasses may actually improve forage — similar to Mule Deer habitat
enhancement projects being undertaken by the Division of Wildlife elsewhere in the region.
Potential impacts associated with increased wildfire hazard and emergency response around the site have
proven to be issues that have furthered learning, coordination and collaboration between Eagle County and
the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District. As such, potential impacts appear to be ones that can be
adequately mitigated. However, wildfire mitigation which will include creation of defensible space, may
restrict the Applicant's ability to mitigate other potential impacts to visual quality.
Summary
Overall, the potential benefits from the project, specifically the provision of significant amounts of
alternative energy production in -line with County goals and policies, appear to outweigh any potential
disadvantages or impacts. Likewise, staff believes the project — as designed and with certain (conditional)
mitigation — meets or can meet the County's standards for Special Use Permit approval.
That being said, some of the potential impacts of the project cannot easily be judged at this time. Therefore
it is difficult to weigh the total impact of the project against benefits. Both positive and negative impacts
from the proposed use and development of the site can be viewed in context to incremental change. On the
one hand, any development causing the removal of significant amounts of vegetation and habitat, and
which alters natural landforms, vistas and environments — will add to the cumulative effects of human
impact. On the other hand, projects such as the solar farm present a unique opportunity to incrementally
work toward meeting larger State and County -wide goals to achieve 20% reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions by 2020, thereby reducing human impacts from growth and development. Importantly, the
location of the proposed use, while expanding the human "footprint" in the El Jebel area, is proposed in an
"area of the highest (solar) productivity" according to the application; is within an existing community
center, and; is close to the power grid — where such development is most efficient and beneficial from a
power generation standpoint.
In summary, staff fords:
1. The petition will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare, and;
2. The proposed use is attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood
properties and uses, and;
3. The proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and
with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable
master plans).
D. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER OPTIONS:
1. Approve [File No. ZS -2756] request without conditions if it is determined that the petition will not
adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and the proposed use is attuned with the immediately
adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the
Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan
(and/or other applicable master plans).
2. Deny [File No. ZS - 27561 request if it is determined that the petition will adversely affect the public health,
safety, and welfare and/or the proposed use is not attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby
neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is not in compliance with both the Eagle County Land
Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable
master plans).
3. Table [File No. ZS - 2756] request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition.
Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff.
13
07/06/2011
4. Approve [File No. ZS -2756] request with conditions and/or performance standards if it is determined
that certain conditions and/or performance standards are necessary to ensure public, health, safety, and
welfare and/or enhances the attunement of the use with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood
properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations
and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans).
E. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS:
1. Except as otherwise modified by this development permit, all material representations made by
the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval.
2. Prior to or concurrent with any building, electrical, grading or other, miscellaneous permit
application, all comments and recommendations set forth in the following referral responses
shall be incorporated into the design of the Special Use, or otherwise adequately addressed as
evidenced by written documentation from the applicant, inclusive of revised plan documents:
1. Eagle County Environmental Engineering Department correspondence dated Friday,
January 28, 2011;
2. Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Manager correspondence dated January 18, 2011;
3. Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District correspondence dated January 27, 2011;
4. Town of Basalt correspondence dated January 25, 2011 and March 3, 2011;
5. State of Colorado Geological Survey correspondence dated January 20, 2011.
3. In addition to the Applicant's responsibility to adequately document, in writing, all ongoing
efforts to address the above referenced referral agency comments, concerns and/or
recommendations, the Applicant shall specifically continue to work with the Basalt and Rural
Fire Protection District and the Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Manager to address site -
specific recommendations generated during meetings held on 1/21/11 and 1/26/11.
4. The project shall be phased so that Phases I and II are constructed first, with subsequent phases
(Phases III and IV) subject to administrative review by the Community Development Director
prior to or concurrent with any building permit or other required permit, to ensure all
applicable conditions of approval for the special use permit have been or can be satisfactorily
addressed.
5. Solar panel and mounting equipment surfaces shall be matte or low -glare finish, inclusive of
flat or matte finished frames using dark colors to blend the panels and other equipment with the
surrounding vegetation.
6. The Applicant shall work with staff to identify those areas outside of defensible space zones
and between the solar farm and the Hwy. 82 corridor, where additional plantings (fire resistive
trees) could be introduced to aid in providing visual screening of the solar farm.
7. According to representations made by the Applicant, no lighting will be installed in association
with the solar farm or related improvements.
8. The Applicant shall provide a Construction Management Plan with any building or grading
permit application.
F. ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS
1. Photo - simulations using Key Observation Points (KOPs) of solar farm/visibility (by Applicant)
2. Additional photos using viewpoints around El Jebel (by Applicant)
3. Additional photos taken from viewpoints within Laura J Estates (by Applicant)
4. Applicant response to Eagle County Engineering Department referral comments
5. Referral comment letter from Eagle County Housing Department
6. Applicant response to Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Manager and Basalt and Rural Fire Protection
District referral comments (inclusive of new site plans)
7. Eagle County Wildfire Hazard Rating
8. Applicant response to the Town of Basalt referral comments
9. Applicant response to Pitkin County referral comments
14
07/06/2011
10. Applicant response to Colorado Geologic Survey referral comments
11. Colorado Division of Wildlife referral comments
12. Email correspondence from Charlie Leonard, Laura J Estates resident
13. Panoche Valley Solar Farm Project Glint and Glare Study
14. SunPower Solar Module Glare and Reflectance Technical Report
15. Eagle County Planning Division letter of application sufficiency, dated May 26, 2010 (and Applicant
response)
16. Site Section drawings by Applicant, received 05/16/11.
DISCUSSION:
Chairman Stavney introduced the file.
Mr. Hunn presented a PowerPoint slide show with details about the request. The property in question was
199 acres and the solar farm would encompass 5 acres of the total. Surrounding the property was resource and state
wildlife area. To the west is the El Jebel mobile home park and to the south, the McElvey PUD and Tree Farm
PUD. He reviewed the standards being considered. There is a sub category in the Special Use regulations allowing
solar energy installations. He showed the site plan. Visual impacts, wildlife habitat and phasing and hazard
mitigation have been issues. The division of wildlife felt that the impact would be minimal. The Town of Basalt
asked that the project be phased so that the most visible portion was developed last. The Planning Commission met
twice and ultimately voted 4 to 1 to approve the request with conditions. The project would include removal of 5
acres of Pinion and Juniper trees. The project had proven to be a good learning experience for the developers and
the Fire District to better understand issues associated with Solar Farm installations and operations. It lined up with
many larger Eagle County alternative energy goals
Paul Spencer and Louis Wilsher presented the request. They provided a summary of the request. The fact
that this project was larger than 80 kilowatts made it necessary to apply for a Special Use Permit. The project
would be approximately 15 — 20 times larger than 80 kilowatts. Each panel would be sold to community members
who would in return benefit from the energy generated. It was a good system for local utilities to have clean energy
options for the next 50 years. Clean energy lowered the barrier to entry into solar energy.
Chairman Stavney asked if a person purchased a panel for $500.00 how much they would save a year.
Mr. Spencer indicated the yearly savings would be around $40.00. They were deliberately built to return as
much power as possible.
Commissioner Runyon asked if specific use would be identified.
Mr. Spencer indicated that all panels work together to generate the group power.
They could also take advantage of aggregate purchasing. They handled everything and this added convenience.
They were committed to providing 3.5 megawatts of power to Holy Cross Energy.
Mr. Wilsher added that the site was just over 5 acres and would be owned by Holy Cross Energy. The
character of surrounding land use was condensed or dense development. He spoke about the choice of the site on
the property and the fact that it had the highest exposure to solar.
Mr. Spencer added that when it was fully built out it could completely carry the power needed for about
200 homes. There would be undulations due to the topography on the site.
Commissioner Runyon asked about the wildlife and wondered if the elk would want to bed down in this
type of project.
Mr. Spencer stated that in some areas snakes like the shaded ground. There may be a draw to other wildlife
uses due to the permanent shade and shelter.
Commissioner Runyon asked how it would be handled if wildlife did take advantage and whether damage
could be done to the arrays.
Mr. Spencer felt that the conduit would protect the wiring and that other risks would be very minimal. The
array was 75% open space due to the required configuration and spacing. They anticipated that it would stay at 35-
degree angles year round. He provided some pictures of the key observation points from various adjacent
developments. The proposed Tree Farm development would cover the entire development.
Commissioner Runyon asked whether a number of Pinion and Junipers were over 20 feet tall. He
wondered if these could be re- planted in front without casting a shadow.
Mr. Spencer stated that if a 30 -foot tree were planted in front it would be behind the 60 -foot Cottonwood
trees. The places were the array could be seen are where it would be visible over the Cottonwood.
15
07/06/2011
Commissioner Runyon wondered if there was a spot in which the Cottonwoods would not provide cover
for the arrays.
Mr. Wilsher showed the areas in question and indicated that there would be some trees remaining.
Commissioner Runyon wondered how steep the slope is and whether a shorter tree could enhance the
camouflaging.
Chairman Stavney stated that the significant issue was keeping the Cottonwood trees and maintaining the
ditch and in so doing saving the trees.
Mr. Spencer stated that as long as the trees could get water they are willing to discuss planting some trees.
Commissioner Runyon requested that the applicants look at locations where existing Pinion and Junipers
could be transplanted.
Chairman Stavney spoke about the success rate in transplanting older trees.
Commissioner Fisher added that there was a lot of rock and transplanting would be further challenging due
to this fact. She felt it was important that as some of the older trees died or were removed, replanting some
Cottonwood trees would be important.
Chairman Stavney stated that he felt the array could provide a significant firebreak for the materials further
up the hill. The materials between highway 82 and the array do not seem as important. He was not in favor of this
type of agreement.
Mr. Spencer agreed.
Commissioner Runyon wondered if the panels could cause fires.
Mr. Spencer stated that the panels do not often cause fires due to insulation and stringent codes. It is much
more likely to have fires caused by arcing involved with.a typical electrical connection in houses.
Commissioner Fisher asked about lightening.
Mr. Spencer indicated that everything was grounded. He showed project visibility from further away. He
summed up that the project is compatible with land use requirements, provides community benefits, creates local
jobs, provides opportunity for public and private participation and allows environmental benefits. All utility users
could partake in the renewable energy possibilities.
Commissioner Fisher wondered if the ownership would be restricted to certain county residents.
Mr. Spencer stated that this would not be a requirement. Ownership would be available to anyone in the
Holy Cross Energy area. Holy Cross would require that the ownership be within the coverage of their utility.
Commissioner Runyon stated that with 30,000 homes there would need to be hundreds of these arrays to
satisfy having every home using some solar energy.
Mr. Spencer stated that this also encouraged more adoption of renewable energy.
Chairman Stavney spoke about the suggested conditions.
Mr. Spencer stated that several phases would likely be completed at once.
Chairman Stavney wondered if condition 4 presented a problem.
Mr. Spencer stated that it could be a problem due to economies of scale, impact on the site and other
considerations. He hoped that if the demand were there they would be able to build the entire project at the same
time.
Chairman Stavney spoke about condition 6. This condition encourages additional plantings to shield the
array. He suggested adding something about the Cottonwood trees and Robinson ditch. He also spoke about the
methods for clearing the site.
Mr. Spencer stated they were interested in minimal site disturbance. He spoke about the conditions and
specifically item E. He asked that this condition be removed. They were willing to risk the slide potential due to
being insured and their survey results indicating the site had minimal risk.
Mr. Hunn stated that it would not be an issue and the applicant had already satisfied most of the condition.
Commissioner Fisher stated that the only other vegetation in the area was cactus. She suggested opening
the area to any landscapers who wanted to remove them.
Mr. Spencer spoke about condition 5. Typically, solar panels were not made in dark colors, as it was not as
efficient. This limited the options for purchasing the panels. Most panels were flat aluminum.
Chairman Stavney wondered about stipulating a condition for an area outside of that covered by the Special
Use Permit.
Chairman Stavney opened and closed public comment, as there was none.
16
07/06/2011
Mr. Spencer stated that ideally, there was a three -year window to execute the permit but he asked for a 5-
year permit due to other projects in process, including the Eagle County landfill.
Mr. Morris stated that 5 years was allowable.
Commissioner Fisher asked about an administrative review for the additional 2 years.
Mr. Morris stated wondered about adding the phrase "if phased construction was deemed by the applicant
to be appropriate based on market conditions, the project shall be phased" to the beginning of conditions 4. This
would allow the applicant more flexibility.
Mr. Spencer spoke about the only possibilities in which the project would need to be delayed longer than
the 3 -year window of time.
Chairman Stavney suggested a motion directing a resolution be drafted incorporating all changes to the
conditions and findings.
Commissioner Fisher thought that visitation to the site should not be discouraged. . She added that there
could be educational opportunities for local schools and suggested letting the teachers to know of the possibilities
for teaching.
Mr. Spencer thought this was a good idea.
Commissioner Runyon moved to direct staff to draft a resolution for file number ZS -2756 Clean Energy
Collective Solar Farm that reflected staffs discussion about the existing conditions, modifying 4 and 5.
Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
There being no further business b ef4rr Board, the meetin• was adjourned until July 12, 2011.
�O, • .
Attest: �.��y :
Clerk to the Board c' 0 .- Chal
17
07/06/2011
