Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/19/13 PUBLIC HEARING November 19, 2013 Present: Sara Fisher Chairman Jill Ryan Commissioner Kathy Chandler-Henry Commissioner Keith Montag County Manager Rachel Oys Assistant County Manager Bryan Treu 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: Consent Agenda Chairman Fisher stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: 1. Approval of Bill Paying for the Weeks of November 18,November 25 and December 2, 2013 (Subject to Review by the Finance Director) John Lewis,Finance 2. Approval of Payroll for November 28 and December 12, 2013 (Subject to Review by the Finance Director) John Lewis,Finance 3. Resolution 2013-109 Modifying Eagle County's Appointment Resolution No. 2013-066 for the Minturn Cemetery District Diane Mauriello,Attorney's Office 4. Resolution 2013-110 for Final Release of Collateral and Termination of the Warranty Period for Roundup River Ranch Final Plat No. SMA-2440 Ben Gerdes,Engineering 5. Agreement between Eagle County and Vail Valley Medical Center Diversified Services,DBA Eagle Care Clinic, for Provision of Prenatal Health Care Services Jennie Wahrer,Health&Human Services 6. Resolution 2013-111 Authorizing any of the Eagle County Commissioners to Execute all Documents Necessary for the Preservation of the Horn Ranch Property Toby Sprunk, Open Space 7. Resolution 2013-112 Authorizing any of the Eagle County Commissioners to Execute all Documents Necessary for the Acquisition and Preservation of the Glassier Ranch Toby Sprunk, Open Space Jennifer Ludwig spoke about item 5 regarding the program that provided prenatal care for 128 women. There were two contracts, one with Eagle Care and one with Community Health Services in the Roaring Fork Valley. Commissioner Ryan believed it was a vital service. 1 11/19/2013 Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve the Consent Agenda for November 19,2013,as presented. Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input Chairman Fisher opened citizen input. Denise Kipp with the Red Ribbon Project spoke. She spoke on behalf of a collaborative group of non- profits called Eagle County Gives. The group included 34 approved Non-Profits. Colorado Gives Day was December 10,2013 and this was the 4th year it had happened in the state. Donations to any of the organizations would be matched and there would be no processing fees. She asked that the commissioners proclaim Colorado Gives Day as December 10,2013 to build awareness of the initiative and increase philanthropy in the county. Last year$450,000 was raised in Eagle County. Commissioner Ryan read the proclamation into the record. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to adopt the proclamation. Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion.The vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Fisher closed citizen input. 8. Third Quarter Interest Report Third Quarter Public Trustee Report Karen Sheaffer,Treasurer&Public Trustee Mari Renzelman presented the third quarter interest report through the end of September 2013. The amount collected was$154,556 of that$129,000 was for the general fund. She showed some comparisons from prior quarters. The comparisons indicated a continuing decline in interest revenue. Karla Bagley stated that the total revenue received was$31,328.92 and expenses were$38,676.44. Foreclosures were down state wide. In 2013,there were 181 foreclosures sales, last year there were 394 property owners that lost their properties. Commissioner Ryan moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners and re- convene as the Eagle County Local Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Liquor License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office 9. Special Event Permit-Hospice of the Valley,Inc. APPLICANT: Hospice of the Valley,Inc. REQUEST: Special Event Permit EVENT: "Trees of Hospice"Fundraiser DATE: Wednesday-December 11,2013 REPRESENTATIVE: Monica Benderly LOCATION: Colorado Mountain College— 150 Miller Ranch Rd, Edwards STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy Scriver 2 11/19/2013 CONCERNS: None DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested a permit for an event being held(inside)the Colorado Mountain College campus in Edwards on,December 11, 2013 from 5:00 to 8:00 pm. The applicant expects 80 attendees. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. This application is in order,all application requirements have been met, all necessary documents have been received, and all fees have been paid. 2. Public notice has been given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises November 8, 2013, at least 10 days prior to the hearing. 3. The applicant has provided alcohol management plan and proof of server training is pending. 4. Eagle County Sheriff's Office other Emergency Service Providers have been notified. DISCUSSION: Ms. Scriver presented the request. Monica Benderly was present on behalf of the applicant and provided the details of the event. The event wasn't long but a large money raiser for Hospice of the Valley. They expect between 60 and 80 attendees. Chairman Fisher believed it was a special time to remember those who had gone before us. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority approve the permit for Hospice of the Valley event being held at the Colorado Mountain College Campus in Edwards on December 11, 2013 from 5—8 p.m. Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. *The hours approved in the motion are the hours requested on the application and are not necessarily the hours of the event. 10. Transfer/Temporary Permit-Corner Bistro,LLC.DBA Corner Bistro APPLICANT: Corner Bistro,LLC DBA: Corner Bistro REPRESENTATIVE: Stephanie Shaffer—Owner LOCATION: 275 Main Street Unit C 106—Edwards, CO 81632 REQUEST: Temporary Permit STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy Scriver CONCERNS/ISSUES: None DESCRIPTION: The applicant has applied for the transfer of a Hotel and Restaurant license and is requesting a Temporary permit to allow him to operate during the period in which the application to transfer ownership of the license is pending. The applicant has submitted all of the required documents and associated fees for the transfer. Last Course,LLC d/b/a Last Course currently holds the license. STAFF FINDINGS: 3 11/19/2013 1. The premises where the alcoholic beverages will be sold have been previously licensed by the state and Local Licensing Authorities,and were valid as of the date of receiving the application. 2. The applicant has applied on forms provided by the Department of Revenue and includes the name and address of the applicant,the names and addresses of the president,vice-president, secretary and managing officer,the applicant's financial interest in the proposed transfer, and the premises for which the Temporary Permit is sought. 3. A statement that all accounts for alcohol beverages sold to the applicant are paid has been filed. 4. The application for the Temporary Permit has been filed no later than thirty(30)days after the filing of the application for the transfer of ownership and the appropriate fees have been paid. DISCUSSION: Ms. Scriver presented the request. She indicated that staff had no concerns with the request. Michael Irwin stated that the restaurant would offer contemporary lunch and dinner,bistro style. There were 45 seats indoor andoutdoor. They hoped to open December 1St. The restaurant was located near the Bookworm in Riverwalk. Stephanie Shaffer stated that she would be doing the bookkeeping and whatever needed to be done. Shawn Darling stated that he had another business to run but as an owner would be there to help whenever needed. Jessica Irwin stated that she would be helping out with the marketing and promotions. Chairman Fisher asked if anyone had held a liquor license previously. Mr. Irwin stated that he was an owner of Juniper Restaurant and worked as a manager at Zino's. Chairman Fisher wished them luck. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority approve the issuance of a Temporary Permit to Corner Bistro, LLC d/b/a Corner Bistro which will be valid until such time as the application to transfer ownership of the license is granted or denied or for one hundred twenty(120) days, whichever occurs first; except that, if the application to transfer the license has not been granted or denied within the one-hundred-twenty day period and the transferee demonstrates good cause,the local licensing authority may extend the validity of said permit for an additional period not to exceed sixty(60)days. Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Local Liquor Licensing Authority and re-convene as the Eagle County Housing and Development Authority. Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Housing and Development Authority 11. Resolution 2013-113 Authorizing Any Eagle County Housing and Development Authority Commissioner to Execute All Documents Associated with a New Management Agreement for Lake Creek Village Apartments Jill Klosterman,Housing Ms.Klosterman provided the details of the changes in the property management business plan. The Housing and Development Authority currently manages three affordable housing projects owned by affiliates of Eagle County. The properties were Golden Eagle, Seniors on Broadway and Riverview Apartments. They were requesting to add Lake Creek Village Apartments to the properties. There were financial benefits but the primary reason was to add programing to the facility. Their hope was to add social educational programs for the kids and parents. There would be a savings of$20,000 in year one even after adding one staff person. Staff's primary goal would be to promote existing programs. 4 11/19/2013 Commissioner Chandler-Henry commended the work being done by the Housing and Development Authority. Commissioner Ryan echoed the comments made by Commissioner Chandler-Henry. Chairman Fisher also complimented Ms.Klosterman on her work. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve the resolution authorizing any Eagle County Housing and Development Authority Commissioner to execute all documents associated with a new management agreement for Lake Creek Village Apartments. Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 12. Property Management Agreement between Lake Creek Village,LLC and Eagle County Housing and Development Authority Jill Klosterman,Housing Ms.Klosterman stated that this agreement obligated the Housing Authority to manage the property. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve the property management agreement between Lake Creek Village,LLC and Eagle County Housing and Development Authority. Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Ryan moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Housing and Development Authority and re- convene as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Planning Files 13. ZS-4197 Anion Energy Solar Farm Scot Hunn,Planning Greg Schroeder, Engineering Nick Azari: Arion Energy,Representative Tim Olsen: Anon Energy,Representative Eric Eves: Red Mtn.Ranch Properties,Representative Action: The purpose of this Special Use Permit is for the construction of a 359.6kW solar energy device(solar farm), covering approximately five acres of a 43-acre parcel located in the Red Mountain Ranch subdivision. Location: Lot 4,Filing No. 3,Red Mountain Ranch; 43 acre parcel located 3 mi. east of the Town of Eagle; north of Interstate 70 westbound Right-of-Way FILE NO./PROCESS: ZS-4197/Special Use Permit PROJECT NAME: Anion Energy Solar Farm LOCATION: 2 miles east of Town of Eagle/Lot 4,Filing No. 3,Red Mtn. Ranch OWNER: Red Mountain Ranch Partnership(C/o: Mery Lapin) APPLICANT: Anion Energy REPRESENTATIVE: Nick Azari,PhD STAFF PLANNER: Scot Hunn,AICP I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 5 11/19/2013 The Applicant requests review of a Special Use Permit for the construction of a 359.6 kW solar energy device (solar farm), covering approximately five acres of a 43-acre parcel located in the Red Mountain Ranch subdivision. Pursuant to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations (ECLURs), "Solar Energy Devices"over 80 kilowatts (kW) in capacity require a Special Use Permit. According to the application, the solar farm will consist of 62 arrays of solar panels arranged in multiple rows across the 5-acre project site. The project is expected to generate approximately 564 mega-watts (MW) of energy per year at full build-out. The project is projected to start construction before the end of 2013, with construction to be completed by the end of 2014. The solar farm is being proposed to provide renewable energy to Holy Cross Energy as part of that utility's renewable energy portfolio. The project site has been selected due primarily to solar access and the presence of three phase power lines which transect the northern portion of the property from east to west and which are essential for tying the project into the power grid. Upon initial project submittal in the spring of 2013, the Applicant proposed the same project on a different site, closer to the Town of Eagle along Interstate 70. However, due to the lack of three-phase power on that site, the Applicant revised the application in August, 2013 to include the current parcel. Although staff is generally in support of solar farms as a means to implement certain policies of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan,the following issues are of primary concern with this application: 1. Visual Impact and Community Buffers 2. Wildlife and Disturbance to the Site 3. Winter Access 4. Layout of Solar Array and Easements 5. Overall Comprehensive Plan Conformance Visual Impact and Community Buffer Areas The project is located within a mapped "Community Buffer" area as depicted on the County's Future Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan. The Plan identifies such agricultural and low density areas as important for preserving visual quality and, specifically, to provide "visual breaks along the County's main development corridors."Staff will provide additional analysis within the report(Appendix `A'). The project(the solar panel installation and disturbance necessary to construct the project and connect the project to three-phase power) will be visible from important travel corridors and potentially from residential properties located south of the interstate and U.S. Highway 6. Although the Applicant has provided visual renderings or simulations showing what the solar farm could potentially look like when viewed from several locations around the site, it is difficult to truly understand the potential impacts of the project from a visual standpoint. Likewise, projects such as this in highly visible locations may be viewed quite differently depending on one's perspective. On the one hand, visibility of a renewable energy project could be construed by some passers-by and visitors to the County as indication that Eagle County embraces sustainability concepts. On the other hand, those same people, as well as permanent residents who may live nearby might (literally) view the project as negatively impacting visual quality within an otherwise undeveloped area of the county. It could also be argued that similar projects that have been approved (Clean Energy Collective's Solar Farm in El Jebel) or that have been proposed (solar project at the Eagle River Events Center in Eagle) in areas closer to, or within, urbanized areas of the County also reflect a commitment to renewable energy sources while not impacting community buffer areas. Additionally, while solar panels are designed to absorb light energy, there are typically glare and glint studies accompanying larger, industrial sized projects detailing how reflective a particular project may be (See attached example). Such studies generally illustrate (in technical terms) the concept that while solar farm projects may produce temporary glare or reflection depending on sun angles and time of year/day, albedo (reflectivity) varies greatly and, compared to some common surfaces such as water, sand or snow, solar(PV) panels are generally less reflective. The Applicant was not asked to provide a reflectivity study specific to this project, however the 6 11/19/2013 Applicant did provide an example("Glare Analysis of the Calipatria I, Midway I and Midway II") of another study that was completed for a much larger project in California. Staff suggest that additional visual analysis for this project could be beneficial to better understand the potential sun angles of the proposed solar arrays relative to the Interstate-70 platform and surrounding residential properties to the south. Overall, staff suggests that any analysis of this or other, future proposals for solar farms in Eagle County should focus on the question of location. Specifically, it has become apparent with this application that future projects may be driven by 1) availability and cost of vacant land, and 2) availability/accessibility of three-phase power located on or very near a project site. This may suggest that there are inherent tradeoffs between available land, and potential visual impacts. Likewise, one's perception of compatibility of solar farms (vs. a new residential structure) on parcels such as the one proposed are relevant to a larger discussion of whether solar development has the same impacts, infrastructure needs or access concerns as residential, agricultural or some other special use, and therefore; whether solar farms should be directed to specific areas within or immediately surrounding existing communities (based on mapping and site selection planning performed by local governments and utility companies) as an alternative to entertaining one-off proposals. It should be noted that Red Mountain Ranch subdivision, while platted and zoned to allow for one (1) unit per 35 acres of land,was not reviewed for conformance with the Land Use Regulations in effect at the time(1982). This is due to the fact that the subdivision falls under the "35-acre rule" — an exemption from subdivision regulations afforded by State law for lots of 35-acres or more. Wildlife and Disturbance to the Site According to mapping available and a referral response by Brian Wodrich, Colorado Parks and Wildlife(CPW),the site is mapped as winter concentration and severe winter range for both mule deer and elk. The Eagle County Comprehensive Plan contains specific policy recommendations and goals in-line with CPW objectives to protect and preserve such areas and to direct development away from buffer areas where habitat has not been disturbed. The CPW makes certain recommendations with regard to restricting use of the property during winter months; restricting or mitigating disturbance and, specifically, reducing or mitigating the removal of vegetation on the site; restricting fencing, and; creating a buffer zone around an existing "ramp" used to allow deer and elk to safely exit the Interstate corridor. The Applicant has responded to the CPW recommendations (see attached letter) and Craig Wescoatt, CPW, was in attendance at the October 16a' Planning Commission meeting to testify on behalf of CPW. Staff suggest s that the Applicant should be required to demonstrate (using mapping/site plans) how, exactly, CPW recommendations will be adhered to. Specifically, the Applicant should provide a plan detailing how mitigation requirements, as well as specific recommendations of CPW,will be met either on-site or off-site. Winter Access The site is accessed using an access easement that traverses a parcel of vacant agricultural land owned by the Eagle County School District located between U.S. Highway 6 and 1-70. Access is further provided using an underpass under 1-70 and access road that traverses Lot 3, Red Mountain Ranch. Because this access route will most likely require travel over a non-maintained road and because the CPW has recommended that the site see limited use/activity during winter months, staff questions how the site will be maintained during winter months. It will be helpful for the Applicant to address issues of winter time maintenance such as how often the Applicant anticipates needing to access the site, as well as what types of activities might occur during winter months, if any. Perhaps such details should be part of a wildlife agreement formed between the Owner of the property, the Applicant and the CPW. Layout of Solar Array and Easements The site plan provided by the Applicant shows approximate locations of rows of solar panel"arrays"that would be installed across the site contours. When reviewing the plat for Red Mountain Ranch,Filing No. 3, it appears that the 7 11/19/2013 property lines on the site plan may need adjustment. Likewise,the location of several arrays on the southern portion of Lot 4 may be encroaching within a"permanent"access and utility easement.The Applicant should be required to obtain approval (easement encroachment agreement) from the property owner prior to any installation of panels or arrays in this area. Overall Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals The Eagle County Comprehensive Plan clearly and specifically supports the development of alternative energy sources such as solar farms as a matter of diversifying "economic infrastructure", protecting the environment (for example,by protecting air quality)and reducing dependence on fossil fuels. However, as discussed above and later in this report,the Plan(inclusive of the Eagle Area Community Plan and the Eagle County Open Space Plan which are sub-sets of the Comprehensive Plan) also specifically discourages development within Community Buffer areas of Eagle County. Such goals are directly related to preservation of open lands and scenic vistas along and within the County's developed corridors. Importantly,the Plans each call for development to be avoided in areas mapped as winter concentration and/or severe winter range for deer and elk. Of note, however, is the fact that Lot 4 (the project site) is part of an exempt subdivision created in the 1980's; therefore, residential development could occur on this property if development permit and access requirements can be met. For these reasons, staff believes the project has a "mixed" conformance with the Comprehensive Plan (See master plan analysis provided within Appendix `A'). Effect of Special Use Permits 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. II. BACKGROUND: The Applicant has worked with the owner of the property, Red Mountain Ranch Partnership (c/o: Mery Lapin) to identify the correct site for installation of the proposed solar farm. As mentioned earlier in this report,this particular site was chosen over another because of the proximity to three-phase power transmission lines; it is necessary and beneficial to locate projects such as this as close as possible to such lines. And, in this case, the lines transect the property within a 100' power line easement. This is an advantage for the Applicant who will not need to pursue easements with adjacent land owners(BLM)in order to reach the three phase lines. The Applicant is proposing this project in response to a bid and "Purchase Power Agreement" process by Holy Cross Energy, whereby Arion Energy will produce power exclusively for the benefit of Holy Cross Energy and its customers. In addition, the Applicant has stated that the approval and installation of the project is an urgent matter due to Federal tax credits applicable to the project that will expire by the end of 2013. To this end, staff worked to schedule the public hearings for this application prior to the referral period ending in an effort to expedite the process, if slightly. The Applicant has responded to the only substantive referral agency response (CPW's letter dated September 29th) and has provided staff with additional visual simulations since the start of the referral period. Likewise,the staff has received information (a plat) from the Eagle County School District demonstrating that legal access exists from U.S.Highway 6, across School District property, to the site. III. SITE DATA 8 11/19/2013 The project site is located approximately 2 miles east of the Town of Eagle town boundary, on Lot 4, Filing No. 3, Red Mountain Ranch Subdivision (See attached land survey plat). Red Mountain Ranch is an exempt, 35-acre subdivision zoned Resource(R)that was created via Land Survey Plat in 1982. Therefore,the lots in Red Mountain Ranch were not created pursuant to County subdivision regulations. The site is bordered by Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands to the north; Interstate 70 to the south; Red Mountain Ranch,Filing No. 3 (Lots 2 &3)to the west, and; BLM lands and I-70 to the east. Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning: Lam else ,Zoning. North: BLM Resource Preservation(RP) South: Interstate 70 Resource(R) Resource East: BLM&1-70 Preservation(RP)/ Resource(R) BLM& Resource West: Residential/Agricultural Preservation(RP)/ Red Mountain Ranch,Lot 3 Resource(R) Ii, tiu zgi Resource Zone District Prnprused Zonis N/A Cane* evelopme Vacant;open range. Site Ctimlition .. Wooded pinion juniper and sage;moderate to steep slopes. _ Total Land A.rna`.: Access 43 I Square feet. Total space: a N/A _ Water: bi N/A Private: N/A Serer: N/A Private:,`: N/A _ A eee s: ��; School District Parcel;Red Mountain Ranch Filing No.3,Lot 3 Easement IV. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Referral copies of this application were sent to twenty-one (21) agencies for review on September 11, 2013. The following section summarizes the comments of all agencies that submitted an official referral response to Eagle County prior to the date of this report: Eagle County Airport(Greg Phillips) "After reviewing the entire 87 page document, I don't think it requires any coordination or review by the FAA. Essentially,there would be two concerns the FAA and EGE would be interested in. The first,of course, is any obstruction into the airspace around the Airport. As you will see in the attached documenthttp://www.faa.gov/documentL.ibrary/media/Form/FAA%20Form%207460-1_2012.pdf), Section 77.9 (a-e)indicates that the general requirements are a 200'height and/or penetration of the FAR Part 77 airspace dimensions. Given that the proposed panels are,by my measurement, 7.61 miles from the runway end at EGE, at roughly 7'600'MSL and not in alignment with the final approach course of the runway,the proposal does not appear to meet those requirements." "The second concern, which is much less clearly defined by the FAA, is the impact of glare or reflection. - The FAA has become much more comfortable in recent years with solar farms and their negative impact on flight. The attached studies with this proposal and the proposed flat-plate photovoltaic panels appears to validate this as a minimal concern. In short, I don't view this as a significant concern." Colorado Parks& Wildlife(Brian Wodrich): "The proposed area falls within winter concentration and severe winter range for mule deer and elk. Disturbance during the winter months for these species can result in significant impacts to their wellbeing. Any activity associated with facility construction and improvements should be limited to the spring, summer and early fall months." 9 11/19/2013 - "Since the proposed area falls within severe winter range and winter concentration for mule der and elk winter range, access to food sources during the winter months is essential for the survival of both species. To help offset the losss of vegetation and reduction of habitat quality, CPW recommends that any amount of sage and native grasses that are removed for construction and operation of the solar panels be replaced in equal or greater value elsewhere on the proposed project area." - "If perimeter fences are deemed necessary for security or any other reasons, CPW recommends wildlife fencing guidelines. CPW's typical four-wire fence standard uses wire heights of 16-22-28-40 inches. The top and bottom wires should be smooth and the middle wires can be barbed. The recommendation for a three wire fence is 16-26-38 inches, again top and bottom wire smooth. These standards have been found to minimize the potential of wildlife to inadvertently become entangled in them. Additionally, flagging the top wire or using a visible vinyl tape on the top strand will greatly reduce the frequency of damage to the top wire as well as increase the visibility of the wire to wildlife and again reduce entanglement." "The proposed project area borders 1-70 wildlife fencing installed by the Department of Transportation and one ramp that allows wildlife caught south of the fence within the interstate corridor [to exit]. CPW recommends that a buffere zone of at least 75 feet be placed around the ramp. This buffer zone should contain no panels or operating equipment so that wildlife continues to use the ramp to ensure public safety on the interstate as well as reducing elk and deer loss to vehicles." (See Applicant's response to the CPW letter, attached). See condition(s):2& 3 Colorado Geological Survey (Jill Carlson): - "The site presents no geotechnical constraints or geologic hazards that would preclude the proposed use as a solar farm. CGS therefore has no objection to approval of the special use permit request." Eagle County School District(Tom Braun): - "I am writing on behalf of the Eagle County School District in regards to the proposed solar farm project east of Eagle. As I mentioned in a previous email,the District has no position on the proposed land use. Our previous questions/concerns pertained to how the project operators would access the subject parcel, and whether the proposed access utilized the District' property." - "An access easement over the District's parcel was reserved by RMR(providing access to the 1-70 tunnel) on a plat from 1982 (see attached). In talking with Eric Eaves from Red Mountain Ranch and we now have a better understanding of the easement and its location relative to the Hwy 6 rail road crossing. We have confirmed that this access easement does provide RMR with access over the District's property to the tunnel under I-70 and that RMR also reserved the right to assign this easement for use by others. Based on Eric's comments it is our understanding that no improvements to the existing road on District land are planned or necessary in order to facilitate the solar farm construction or operation. Any modifications to the existing road would require coordination and approval by the District." See condition(s): 7 V. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION: At their regularly scheduled meeting of October 16, 2013, the Eagle County Planning Commission considered the Special Use request. Prior to voting on the matter (the Planning Commission vote on a motion to recommend approval failed, with three members in favor, and three opposed), the Commission members discussed the following issues and/or made the following recommendations for conditions of approval: Wildlife Craig Wescoatt, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) attended the meeting and testified regarding the proposal and the potential impacts to habitat. When asked by the Planning Commission, Mr. Wescoatt suggested that access to the site should be limited to spring, summer and early fall months; that closure should be from December 1 s`, to April 15th every year. Mr.Wescoatt also stated that for each acre of land disturbed by the solar farm installation,the CPW would require 1 acre of new or enhanced habitat on-site, or 3 acres for every one acre disturbed if mitigation is to occur off-site. 10 11/19/2013 One commission member asked if the recommended closure of December 1st would impact the Applicant's construction timeline for the project.Mr.Wescoatt stated that the December cutoff date was firm,but that CPW can approve"light"activity for limited periods and during certain hours of operation after December 1St CDOT and Impacts to I-70 One commission member inquired about the referral to the Colorado Department of Transportation. Specifically, the commission member asked the Applicant what information had been sent to CDOT, as the application letter states that the project had been "cleared with CDOT". The Applicant reported that CDOT had been sent information relative to the previously identified site (closer to the Town of Eagle), but had not commented specifically on the current proposal. Staff clarified that CDOT had been sent a referral containing information specific to the current proposal and that staff had received an email from Martha Miller, local resident engineer, questioning the point of access to the site along U.S. Hwy. 6. A commission member then suggested that staff contact CDOT directly to verify that there were no issues with the proposal. Staff has made contact with Ms.Miller but has not been able to clarify if there are any issues other than access off of U.S.Hwy. 6. Visual Impacts One commission member inquired about the photo-simulations provided in the application. Specifically, the commission member stated that he was concerned with the accuracy of the visual simulations, or"mock-ups", and that he felt the information was"misleading"; that the solar panels will be taller and more impactful than shown on the photo-simulations, and that the photo-simulations also do not accurately depict the solar panels or arrays stepping up the contours of the sloped project site. SUP Timeframe One commission member asked about the life span of solar panels/arrays relative to the terms of the lease(between the Applicant and land owners). The Applicant reported that the lease term was 20 years, but that the life span of a typical solar project is approximately 35 years. Another commission member suggested that the Special Use Permit should run with the contract with Holy Cross Energy; as along as the contract is in effect, with Holy Cross Energy or its successors, then the SUP would be in effect. Likewise, the SUP would terminate upon termination of the contract with Holy Cross Energy. Deliberations Final deliberations by the Planning Commission members focused primarily on 1)the trade-offs between potential benefits to Eagle County and potential impacts to the site; 2) the appropriateness of the site, and; 3) recommended conditions of approval. Three commission members questioned the location of the project, stating that although they believed the Comprehensive Plan supports the development of alternative energy in Eagle County, they felt the Plan also does not necessarily support development within Community Buffer areas and that the proposal presents unacceptable impacts; that there may be alternative sites elsewhere in the County that share similar attributes of access to three- phase power lines and solar access(sun angles). Two commission members stated that they felt the proposal was supported by the Comprehensive Plan and that other sites (like the one the Applicant had originally selected closer to the Town of Eagle) are problematic due to the lack of proximity to three-phase power lines. One commission member further stated that solar installations, particularly highly visible ones, can be construed positively by the community and visiting public. As stated previously, the motion to approve the Special Use Permit failed due to a tie vote. However the Planning Commission did forward suggested conditions of approval for the Board's consideration: o That access to the site be prohibited, except as otherwise approved by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Division on a case by case basis, from December 1 to April 15,of each year. o That staff shall review the Special Use for conformance prior to the Special Use Permit becoming fully vested, or the end of the three year period within which the vesting shall be completed, whichever comes first; if all conditions have not been met, or if there are glare, glint or reflectivity issues associated with the solar farm installation, the applicant will be given one (1) year to bring the Special Use Permit into compliance or to 11 11/19/2013 address. Failure to comply shall result in a complete, comprehensive review of the Special Use Permit by the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. o That the Special Use Permit approval shall be in effect as long as the Applicant's contract with Holy Cross Energy,as such contract may be terminated or extended, is in effect and in force. Note: Although staff has incorporated two of the three suggested Planning Commission conditions within this report for the Board's consideration, the suggestion to require re-review of the solar farm after installation appears problematic. Specifically, following further discussion between the Attorney's Office and Planning Department, staff recommends against consideration of this condition for the following reasons: 1. The Eagle County Land Use Regulations already permit the County to review Special Use Permits for conformance with the Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with conditions of approval and the terms of the Special Use Permit,prior to the permit being fully vested, or afterwards; 2. If there is a concern regarding potential visual impacts, specifically glare, glint or reflectivity at this time, staff suggests requiring additional studies prior to installation as the Applicant will be investing considerable time,monies and other resources to complete the project. VI. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: Potential Benefits Staff believes the proposal presents several distinct benefits to Eagle County. Potential benefits include the development of significant amounts of alternative energy generation capacity - close to population centers and the power grid. As well, the potential to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions while providing alternative, renewable energy sources for Holy Cross Energy and its customers within Eagle County presents an opportunity. These aspects of the proposal address several policy goals for Eagle County, including the overall Sustainable Communities 2010 goals for Eagle County Government operations and energy usage, as well as supporting State-wide goals to reduce GHG emissions. 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).could meet most if not all applicable approval standards, as well as those site development standards applicable to the proposed use. Potential 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 glare hazard for travelers along the Interstate 70 corridor. 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 should 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 could mitigate 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. 12 11/19/2013 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/viability of approximately 5 acres of habitat (as mapped by CPW). Based on testimony provided by Craig Wescoatt, CPW, at the Planning Commission hearing on October 16t, it is difficult to quantify the potential impacts of solar farms on local wildlife populations; simply, there are no local examples of such developments from which to draw any conclusions about how solar farms affect animal behavior. However, the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan, the Eagle Area Community Plan and the Eagle County Open Space Plan all speak to protection of critical wildlife habitat and, specifically, avoidance of development in winter ranges of both deer and elk. Summary Overall, the potential benefits from the project, specifically the provision of significant amounts of alternative energy production, appear equal to potential disadvantages or impacts. 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 potential 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 vegetation and wildlife habitat, and which alters natural landfonns, vistas and environments—will add to the cumulative effects of human impact. There are already examples of residential • and utility related development within this particular Community Buffer area of Eagle County. On the other hand,projects such 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. Certainly, some view this proposal as a positive reflection or indication that Eagle County and its citizens support renewable energy, regardless of concerns over visual impacts, glare from the project on the traveling public on Interstate-70 or loss of wildlife habitat. The deliberations that occurred at the Planning Commission hearing and the split vote on the matter also reflect the tradeoffs involved. In summary, and in reference to the standards applicable to Special Use Permits, staff finds: 1. The petition may adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare, if not conditioned properly, and; 2. The proposed use may be attuned(compatible)with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses if conditioned properly, and; 3. The proposal is in mixed compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan(and/or other applicable master plans). VII. 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. The Applicant is required to demonstrate how Colorado Parks and Wildlife recommendations will be adhered to with regard to disturbance, buffer zones and mitigation. Specifically, the Applicant is required to provide a"perpetual mitigation plan"using 3-5 year cycles (or per the CPW) for those areas of the project site where existing vegetation will be disturbed. Said plan should quantify the total acreage of deer and elk habitat to be disturbed or removed, and should include a detailed site plan which areas of the site will be cleared of vegetation(for installation of the solar arrays and, particularly for any new transmission lines to/from the site and the three-phase power lines) and how such impacts will be mitigated either on-site, or off-site, according to CPW mitigation rates. 13 11/19/2013 3. That access to the site for construction of improvements be prohibited, except as otherwise approved by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Division on a case by case basis, from December 1, and April 15, of each year. If a variance to this restriction is granted by the CPW, the Applicant shall submit documentation from CPW verifying the terms of the variance. 4. Staff shall consult with the Colorado Division of Transportation to confirm that the solar farm will not negatively impact the traveling public on the Interstate-70 and/or U.S. Highway 6 corridors. 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. Any lighting associated with the site shall be downcast in accordance with dark/night-sky compliant lighting standards; specifically, any on-site lighting shall be designed and installed so as not to direct glare onto adjacent Interstate highway. 7. Any modifications to the existing access road may require coordination and approval by the Eagle County School District. 8. The Applicant is encouraged to re-design the project to remove solar arrays from within the "permanent" access easement on Lot 4. If the Applicant is not able to redesign the project, the Applicant will be required to obtain approval (easement encroachment agreement) from the property owner prior to any installation of panels or arrays within said easement. 9. The Applicant shall provide a Construction Management Plan with any building or grading permit application. 10. That the Special Use Permit approval shall be in effect during the terms of the Applicant's contract with Holy Cross Energy, as such contract may be terminated or extended by Holy Cross Energy or its assigns,is in effect and in force. VIII. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 1. Approve [File No. ZS-4197] 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-41971 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-4197] if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 4. Approve [File No. ZS-4197] 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). 14 11/19/2013 IX. ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS 1. Application and maps/exhibits 2. Referral comments and citizen input 3. Applicant response to CPW referral comments 4. Vicinity Map 5. Copy of Red Mountain Ranch Land Survey Plat(1982) APPENDIX `A' 1. 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 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 MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ' Designation Exceeds Recommendations. Incorporates Majority of X2 X3 Xs Recommendations 15 11/19/2013 • Does Not Incorporate Xl X° Recommendations Not Applicable X X X (1) The project is located within the Community Buffer area of Eagle County. The Eagle County Comprehensive Plan states: "These are lands, both public and private, that are located between existing towns and community centers which provide undeveloped visual breaks along the County's main development corridors. Residential densities within the Community Buffer designation are limited to one primary residence and one accessory dwelling unit per 35 acres, although clusters of smaller previously approved residential lots exist. Agricultural lands and lands of significant visual, cultural or environmental quality should be protected. Additional residential development of densities greater than one (1) unit per 35 acres, if approved, should be clustered, with homes positioned in a manner consistent with the intent and purpose of this land use designation and the written policies of this Comprehensive Plan." Although this policy goal speaks primarily to residential development densities in rural areas, the proposal does constitute "development" of structures within the Community Buffer area, where "Agricultural lands of significant visual, cultural or environmental quality should be protected." Staff suggests that this property, although previously platted as a residential lot, does represent an area of visual and environmental quality. (2) To the extent the proposed special use will provide alternative energy to those business entities choosing to purchase power from the Applicant, 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. (3) 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. (4) According to the wildlife habitat mapping provided with the application, the project location is mapped by the Colorado Parks&Wildlife Department as mule deer and elk winter concentration area and severe winter range. Although it is not entirely clear from the application materials how many acres of habitat from such ranges/areas would be removed, the Colorado Parks & Wildlife Department (CPW) has provided recommendations for avoidance and mitigation. Staff suggests that, should the project move forward, the Applicant provide more detailed site plans showing existing vegetation to be removed as well as areas where sage and grasses(per CPW)are to be planted/replaced for mitigation purposes. Fencing was proposed around the site; however, due to comments from CPW, the Applicant has stated that the site will NOT be fenced at this time, or; that in the event that fencing is implemented,the Applicant will follow CPW recommendations for design/installation. Lastly, the CPW recommends a 75 foot buffer around the wildlife ramp located on the southern property boundary between the parcel and I-70. Staff suggests that the Applicant be required to provide a new site plan showing how the solar arrays will be relocated on the site to create the 75' buffer from the ramp. (5) 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 Interstate 70 and U.S. Highway 6 corridors to the south,and from certain residential areas located south along U.S.Highway 6. (6) 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. 16 11/19/2013 EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN x t r ' "S 4 i . 4z:!i' b 31 1 ..'g s7^.4,. s �a�# �g, y. e x k A ,4i174;,x t 3 1 1 3 741e4,',1... It, ? `4` 0 fi if5� s br" �v 4 r 1 i=�i e ,-.1 g �i ' a � zt;„ < x, : M� *A ,~1 1012,0000%,i' f � 0 0C ' fi ..,x 4r ,,0* x +i � v 3ifyK u',:'0,...:0 4 .Z � y � q ✓s a � . i i ?a "4 i" 0:� �3:!1 0 s ,E�1,q: ';:,;41:,','. .:..,: ,;;>g,.';',:.', a+ ffi I, i A r ' i 011 i p , M , , *'-ii', * C fl # M h a ! 1m. ',h t , Y ,,0y '1 w i.: xk li1,41 r , y ° # :',400,000.4.i'Y . ,.o i r n a i n vf., ,'x x :a e x * . d ,» x, r1 , m ° ",:41- ++ i# y 4 yE vA40,74 , S� D i,�: i , a #�, ; r r 94.4.W.5.. #,t S VI xay v A, h g ` F * : _ t;�E E b . S,L A� n , x , fi - � u _ . Irl*NAMOCIW 4 rF b;i 7a a,r r #q GPs a , x2 4 xsid m, n 1 , : X x 15 �, $- ,,„ PF X X (1) The application was referred to 21 different County departments and/or outside agencies. Only the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Department (CPW), and the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS), Eagle County School District and the Eagle County Airport responded to the referral. Of those entities, only the CPW made specific recommendations for the project. To the extent the Applicant can successfully demonstrate that such recommendations have been or can be incorporated into the design of the project, staff suggests that this policy goal can be met. (2) According to the Eagle County Open Space Plan, "Visual Quality" is the highest ranked priority for open space preservation. Based on the weighting criteria provided in the Plan, and available mapping, staff believes the subject property is classified as"Moderately Constrained"with regard to visual quality and wildlife meaning development is possible 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 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.To the extent 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, conformance with this this master plan goal can be improved. (3) The project avoids development on slopes exceeding 40 percent and the Applicant has stated a commitment to re-vegetate any disturbed areas. Colorado Geological Survey had no objection to the site. (4) The project site is located within mapped elk and deer 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 impact approximately 5 acres of primarily sage and grass habitat, as well as limited pinion juniper habitat areas surrounding the solar arrays. While fencing was originally proposed around the site for security purposes, the Applicant has stated that no fencing will be installed in response to CPW comments. Staff suggests that some fencing may be necessary around electrical panels or power inverter units. 17 11/19/2013 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. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Su r+,unding %OS.1 Uning: North: Publte Lend -. " Resource Preservation(RP) ✓ South: IntViitate Highway / Resource(R)/PUD ✓ East: ResidennaVPublie Land Resource(R)/Resource Preservation ✓ West: Itniddendal• Resource(R) ✓ Note: Staff has received one inquiry regarding the proposal and potential impacts from a property owner located directly south of the proposed project site, along the U.S. Highway 6 corridor. With regard to potential conflicts or compatibility issues, staff views the proposed Special Use as potentially impacting existing residential development located south and across the Interstate and Hwy. 6 from the project. This is due to areas where there is a direct line of sight from residential lots — to the project site. Likewise,without additional information specific to reflectivity, glare and glint for this specific project, staff is concerned with potential impacts to travelers on Interstate 70. 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. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 18 11/19/2013 y i t s r �'(a bl v n a '�4 4,' r£ '' a,i p ! s' t r c+w�� r 4 eMOIV s,a r f 'd `£"ims*k+', s � t 4 t r e fi r " � � C £4 4 a4 : 4s7 4. +5`r £'firtry y,£ '� +, s s r '' 4. . n: 4ai r �r s o , '`'` a + �y spa 's� ,£ef t7 + C � S I'? i r t x 5 4 451 z rs,+;;4,-�C;,, ., ..... ,. . .... ,,- £s , _ :.;;s ,, L L 3 Xl X2 +Y9 v{A h 4 t4', ft s sr ua${r s — -- ',. x., r a�`; X X X X X X X (1) Staff is not aware of any permanent or persistent noise that will be generated from the installation of the solar farm. However, staff suggests that low level noise (humming) may be generated by the solar farm power inverter -- a small box or enclosure that will be located near the array. There are no existing' residences within close proximity to this site and staff is not aware of any planned residential development adjacent to the site on Red Mountain Ranch Lot 3. (2) The Applicant should be required to using matte fmish, low glare panels. Likewise, additional studies for reflectivity, glare and glint for this specific project site can help to confirm that travelers on I-70 will not be adversely impacted. If conditioned as such, the project can be made to comply with the standard. Incidentally,while uses are to minimize"glare"per the ECLURs,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.5] 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 MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 4 "d r K r 4a t ( hl rr z W T 4 � ., r 15 p � F ! r � T i y J 1 k ! r 4 s t b T { 3 N d 414 3 p ; U� hts XI S s es�"� nenf X X � ',., ;a ;F4�f fad s R 4� �t �n'N4 a' � � fV�OO alt"'''' X2 X3 x (1) The proposed use may 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. 19 11/19/2013 (2) The proposed use will affect the biotic community by removing existing vegetation(pinion juniper tree cover; sage and grasses). Wildlife habitat will therefore be affected. However, the Applicant has committed to addressing CPW comments regarding vegetation loss and fencing on the site. Staff suggests that the Applicant be required to provide revised, detailed site plans showing areas to be disturbed (grading plan if applicable) as well as areas on the site where replacement vegetation can be planted to mitigate any losses. (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 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 Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR X X' Requirements Does Not Satisfy ECLUIt Requirement Not Applicable X X X X X (1) Both the Greater Eagle Fire Protection District and the Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist did not provide comment on this application. Staff, therefore, is not aware of specific issues related to emergency services. 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 X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 20 11/19/2013 11 olloortoomor pwmgmtrrreFrfivrawoonvvmramgg774r4-pituox,,,z„ plueltro .1.'.::1100404POPPV644e4WNF.,-4 V'qkir°,'tINIZZW,ittirgjeeAgeeVlkXgNWO,AW,' VV,ii,lt' ..:' t''' kUltalitelineV43141447V11014.6161111,110110V114:::::1Y! r,14.:il tior'll'ii:,` OMMMIat ISIONNCIONMAlitANdlatliniO.,,,tittC,:!: "4:14i.li WoqmmowgwWltuwwtwitvksAiewwgtmm*gmolokg4g000*Aovgwq40georptv wggpi ,,,:: !,. ,n*m?nkvP,,,, ,,,:,41,1P,vil,;="IrAv,4-0,15,Mtra,mcl,Nn:en-ni,,,•,14,,w,:ozookt,,,z,Kokm m.:,,t.:,,,r, **I i I ;.,,_ !, 10? c Ojr Oilrqq,440WWWWW041000t0000441444WaiMtii4044(0005Wiftngt00401''' Ni04 N 14 fg,4,1)A .,$, eg4t4,000Nlg0000AggxotWbgtOfWtkPIAORWggaiggANVentU§404: MiOt' , :7-J: ,T ,I,V6 01,1NOINAVA#4004440414i0100014,1.0p,40,6.4p:AWAVIVW.1-4 i .:„i',:j:,:1,',,.L.,:a„,11,1N4 Aillai.tialitalii,410,Afte&FMAORMaititaNQt Ziqia„;iatitaairr gii;acci=5;Y:;§a1416!..!'::,.,',:, :10," :';''n 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) 2&3 X Geologic Hazards(Section 4-420) X Hillside Development(Section 4-425) X Wildfire Protection(Section 4-430) 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& 6 1 X Storage of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials(Section 4-550) X Water Quality Standards(Section 4-560) X Roadway Standards(Section 4-620) 7 X Sidewalk and Trail Standards(Section 4-630) X Irrigation System Standards(Section 4-640) 1 I I X Drainage Standards(Section 4-650) ! X Grading and Erosion Control Standards(Section 4-660) X Utility and Lighting Standards(Section 4-670) 6 X Water Supply Standards(Section 4-680)* X Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards(Section 4-690) 1 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 MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS DISCUSSION: 21 11/19/2013 Mr. Hunn presented the request. The project location was a 43 acre property in the Red Mountain Ranch subdivision. The applicant was requesting a special use permit for a solar energy device,a 359.6 kW solar farm. He presented the standards. Staff had some primary concerns with the application;the visual impacts,wildlife and disturbance to the site,winter access, layout of the solar array, and overall comprehensive plan conformance. The property was mapped as"moderately constrained"The applicant had worked with the property owner to identify the correct site for installation. The Planning Commission discussed wildlife,visual impacts and the special use vesting period and recommended seasonal closures,confirmation with CDOT, and that the permit be valid for the term of the Holy Cross agreement. The disadvantages of the project were wildlife impacts and potential visual impacts. Staff questioned the winter maintenance. Staff believed the benefits and disadvantages were a trade-off. The community plan restricted development in community buffer areas and mapped wildlife areas. The benefits would directly benefit Holy Cross Energy and their customers. The proposal was in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan. He believed it was a mixed conformance proposal. Conditions were placed on the file that were intended tomitigate any concerns. Staff suggested one additional condition that would require re-vegetation of the site after the period of the special use ended and the solar farm went away. Nick Azari, CEO of Arion Energy demonstrated the project siting. The project would be in a buffer zone. The project required power lines within the Holy Cross boundary. The terrain also needed to be accessible with sufficient solar exposure. They considered other sites but there were very few areas that would work in Eagle County. Tim Olsen,VP of Engineering for Arion Energy explained the permit process. Holy Cross sent out a nationwide request for proposal last year for solar and Arion Energy was selected. Eric Eves with Red Mountain Ranch properties stated that they were approached by several other solar developers. Mr. Azari presented the preliminary layout of the solar panels and transmission lines. The layout was 75 ft. from the wildlife crossing. They didn't feel the need to fence the area. Commissioner Ryan asked Mr. Olsen if a new layout had been created since the site visit. • Mr. Olsen stated that the panels would sit closer and be positioned more towards the right of the site. He believed the footprint would be 300 -400 ft. Chairman Fisher asked about the glare analysis. Mr.Azari stated that the panels were designed to absorb rays,not to reflect them. The panels would be tilted 35 degrees and be 2.5—8 feet high from the ground. Chairman Fisher wondered about panels being coated with sand and mud and how they would be cleaned. Mr. Azari stated that the panels were low maintenance. Cleaning the panels every 6 months might be required but there was no heavy equipment needed to repair or maintain the panels. Commissioner Ryan asked about the encroachment. Mr. Eves stated that he did not see a problem with amending the lease. Commissioner Ryan asked about the longevity of the farm. Mr. Olsen indicated that they would have the option to renew their agreement with Holy Cross after 20 years. Chairman Fisher understood there was a deadline. Mr.Azari stated that if they could show a project was started they could qualify for certain benefits. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked if any comments had been received from the town of Eagle. Mr. Hunn stated that no comments had been received. Chairman Fisher spoke about the importance of community buffers. Mr. Eves believed the property was affected by the interstate already. He believed it was a good for people to see the county's commitment to alternative energy. Chairman Fisher asked if there was an opportunity to educate the public on Mr.Azari offered visits to the site and courses that would teach people about solar energy. Mr. Eves stated that he believed in the project. Commissioner Chandler-Henry was concerned with the timing and status of the application. The board was not provided with the actual site design. She wanted to support the project but wanted more specifications. Mr.Azari stated the only outstanding issue was an acceptance letter from CDOT. Commissioner Ryan stated that she would be more comfortable with an approval from CDOT with regards to reflectivity. 22 11/19/2013 Mr.Azari believed glare was a valid issue to be concerned about and they would provide something from CDOT. Mr. Olsen believed that staff recommended a condition that all dark materials be used on the panels. Chairman Fisher opened public comment. John Helmering believed it was important to understand that there would probably be very few renewable energy projects that were within a short distance of main transmission lines. The I-70 corridor and towns would be the focus of these renewable energy projects. He believed the county should work on zoning regulations that would address solar farms. This project was small but was a great stepping stone. Holy Cross needed to be given credit for making the effort. It was difficult to find solar developers to do a project of this size. He did not think access was an issue. He encouraged the board to approve the application. He believed that people would be proud that Eagle County was making the effort. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked if there would be a direct benefit to consumers. Mr.Helmering stated that the energy would stay in the valley and be used for residential and commercial use. Mr.Hunn reviewed the suggested conditions. Ms. Ayres-Oliver suggested putting a time frame on deconstruction. Commissioner Chandler-Henry encouraged the county to take a proactive approach and consider the areas that would be appropriate for solar energy. Commissioner Ryan appreciated the comments made by Mr. Helmering. She supported renewable energy and was glad to be having conversations about zoning. She understood that there were limited areas where this could occur. She believed the area selected may be appropriate but shared Commissioner Chandler-Henry concerns with the lack of detail on the site plan. She understood the time line and would be more comfortable with the site plan design being addressed in a condition. Commissioner Chandler-Henry encouraged the applicant to work hand in hand with staff to make sure that any concerns were met. Chairman Fisher wanted to have the opportunity to review the reflective information and wanted something in writing from CDOT. She understood this was a work in progress. She asked for something in writing that Anion would agree to provide educational opportunities about the benefits of solar. Commissioner Ryan moved to approve File No. ZS-4197,Anion Energy Solar Farm—Special Use Permit with conditions and performance standards as presented by staff. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Ryan Absent 14. SE-4160 Four Hearts Ranch Scot Hunn Kelly Miller Kathryn and Ben Biggs,Applicants Ted Archibeque Land Consulting,Applicant's Surveyor Action: The applicants request review of a Subdivision Exemption Plat for this 11.58 acre parcel located along Eby Creek Road north of the Town of Eagle Location: 2004 Eby Creek Road,Eagle area TITLE: Four Hearts Ranch-Subdivision Exemption FILE NO./PROCESS: SE-4160/ Subdivision Exemption LOCATION: 1880 Eby Creek Road OWNER/APPLICANT: Archdiocese of Hartford/Kathryn and Ben Biggs REPRESENTATIVE: Ted Archibeque,Archibeque Land Consulting 23 11/19/2013 STAFF PLANNER: Scot Hunn I. SUMMARY: The Applicants request review of a Subdivision Exemption Plat for this 11.58 acre parcel located along Eby Creek Road north of the Town of Eagle, approximately 1.75 miles from the intersection of Eby Creek Road and Market Street. II. BACKGROUND: As with most requests for Exemption from Subdivision Regulations, the history of the subject property is anything but clear. Property History According to research conducted by staff and the Eagle County surveyor, it appears the subject property was at one time part of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. As early as 1979, the parcel was created (via a property deed) as"Parcel B", and made part of the Kelly Subdivision Exemption which is located to the south of the subject property, as an"addition". The purpose or rationale for this transfer from the Federal Government to a private party is unclear. The Kelly Subdivision Exemption was approved in 1978 by Eagle County and included two lots, Lot 1 and Lot 2. Oddly, the subdivision plat was never amended to include "Parcel B"; however, staff is of the understanding that there is a private covenant for the Kelly Subdivision Exemption that references"Parcel B" as being attached to Lot 2 for the purpose of future property sales/transfers. Nevertheless, this parcel was never legally created nor recognized as a subdivided parcel. In 1987, Lot 2 and"Parcel B" were conveyed (together)to a new owner(Churchill). In 2002, it appears that Lot 2 was foreclosed, while"Parcel B"was retained by Churchill. Subsequently, Lot 2 (only)was sold by Weststar Bank to a private party. In 2006, Lot 2 was sold again to the current owners (Patricacca). In 2010, "Parcel B"was deeded(donated)to the Archdiocese by Churchill. Subsequently, in late 2012,the property was listed for sale by the Archdiocese. Staff then began to receive numerous inquiries from real estate agents and interested buyers with regard to potential uses of the property.This is when staff informed the Archdiocese that the property was illegally created and needed to be legalized via the Subdivision Exemption process. Current Status In early 2013, staff began to work with the Applicants to advise them of the Subdivision Exemption process. The Applicants are under contract to purchase the property and intend to construct one single-family structure with a garage for their private residence, if the Subdivision Exemption is approved. The property is zoned Rural Residential (RR) which requires two-acre minimum lot size and allows for, among other uses, single-family residential structures and customary residential uses such as garages. At just over eleven acres,the subject property is conforming to zoning. Although Eby Creek runs through the property, the buildable portion of the site (where a single-family home and garage are proposed) is located on a bench, above and outside of the 100-year floodplain. Likewise, the Applicant has identified a building site in compliance with the 75' minimum stream setback and the 25' setback to Eby Creek Road. Additionally, a geotechnical study by Hepworth Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. has been submitted with regard to safe building site and adequate soils/area for onsite wastewater disposal (septic tank and leach field). Therefore, no hazards have been identified on the property. Summary Analysis: 24 11/19/2013 Staff believes the proposed exemption meets, or can be made to comply with all required standards and that all issues related to the plat, as well as technical aspects of the survey have been resolved. Likewise, with any future plans for construction of a new residence, the Applicants are aware that they must comply with all applicable setbacks and dimensional limitations (building height,parking standards) and that they will need to comply with all current wastewater disposal design standards. III. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning: North: Residential/Rural Residential South: Residential/Rural Residential BLM/Resource Preservation East: BLM/Resource Preservation West: Residential/Rural Residential Existing Zoning: Rural Residential Total Area: 11.58 acres Water/Sewer: Individual well and on-site wastewater disposal systems Access: Eby Creek Road IV. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Eagle County Engineering(Kelly Miller): Please see attached correspondence from Kelly Miller, dated March 6, and April 23,2013. Eagle County Surveyor(Dan Corcoran): Please see attached correspondence from Dan Corcoran, dated March 5, 2013 and April 24,2013. Note: Both Kelly Miller's and Dan Corcoran's respective comments regarding property ownership, illegal conveyance and, particularly with regard to access, have been addressed. Specifically, staff has verified that the subject property is eligible for the Exemption Plat process. And, staff(Kelly Miller and Scot Hunn) has worked with the Applicant,the Applicant's surveyor, and the Eagle County Attorney's Office to resolve all issues related to access. V. STAFF FINDINGS: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Section 5-270, Subdivision Exemption: a. The division IS NOT within the purposes of Section 5-280, Subdivision. Staff Response: Pursuant to Section 5-270, Subdivision Exemption, the Board may exempt from the provisions of Section 5-280, Subdivision, any division of land, if it is determined that"such subdivision is not within the purposes"of Section 5-280. Specifically, Section 5-270 provides: "Such divisions may include, but are not limited to, divisions that: a. Condemnation. Could be created pursuant to powers of condemnation. b. Perpetual Open Space. Would result in property division for the purposes of perpetual open space. c. Pre Existing Lots. Were created and established in the records of the Clerk and Recorder subsequent to May 5, 1972 notwithstanding compliance with Eagle County Land Use Regulations in existence at the time of the creation of the parcels. 25 11/19/2013 d. Lot Line Adjustments.Are for the purpose of making a lot line adjustment to correct boundary errors, align boundaries with topographic features or straighten boundaries..." In this case, Sub-Section "c" applies as the lot in question was "created" illegally after May 5, 1972, the year that Senate Bill 35 was passed requiring approval by local jurisdictions of any subdivision of land under 35-acres (and exempting from subdivision any parcels larger than 35 acres). Therefore, the subject parcel is NOT within the purposes of the County's normal subdivision processes provided within Section 5-280; the only remedy available to the owner of the subject parcel is to request relief via the Subdivision Exemption process. b. Adequate access and the ability to provide potable water, and sewage HAVE BEEN or CAN BE established. Staff Response: Access With regard to adequate access, staff has determined — based on historic records of maintenance and use of Eby Creek Road—and based on a meeting held in the summer of 2013 between the Applicant's surveyor, Ted Archibeque, and staff(Scot Hunn, Kelly Miller and Bryan Treu) — that there is legal access to the parcel from a public road, without the need for private access easements (See comments from Dan Corcoran and Kelly Miller questioning the legal status of Eby Creek Road near the property). Water Similar to most Exemption Plat processes, there is a `catch-22' of sorts with regard to providing proof of adequate water. Specifically, the Eagle County Land Use Regulations require an applicant for Exemption to provide evidence of"legal,physical, adequate and dependable"water prior to granting an exemption; meanwhile, the State Division of Water Resources (DOWR) typically will not issue a well permit until such time as a property has been exempted. What staff has received by way of evidence that the DOWR may issue a permit is a letter stating that DOWR has received an application, and that the applicant must provide evidence that the County has exempted a given parcel, prior to proceeding with the well permit process. Therefore, the Applicants in this case (as in most cases) run the risk of proceeding through the Subdivision Exemption process and not receiving a well permit from the State, if the State determines that, for whatever reason (including material injury to other wells or rights in the immediate vicinity) that a permit will not be issued. Staff is not aware of previously approved Subdivision Exemptions that have not subsequently been granted a well permit. In this case and in all future cases where there is any question as to the State's ability and willingness to issue a well permit, staff suggests a condition that the Exemption Plat, if approved, not be recorded until such time that evidence that a well permit has been issued can be provided by the Applicant. Such condition should reduce the County's risk of approving a subdivision without proof of adequate water. In accordance with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations,the Applicant will have 180 days from the date of approval of the plat to provide such evidence,prior to expiration of the approval. On-site Waste Water Disposal(Sewage) The Applicant has provided a detailed engineering and geotechnical (soils and sub-surface geology) report with regard to the adequacy of the building site, and particularly the adequacy of the site to accommodate on-site waste water disposal. The Applicant will be required to provide detailed engineering plans for the on-site waste water disposal system at the time of building permit. c. The exemption WILL NOT create hazards. Staff Response: 26 11/19/2013 The Applicant has provided a detailed engineering and geotechnical (soils and sub-surface geology) report with regard to the adequacy of the building site. Specifically, the area of the lot proposed for a home site is located on a bench above the floodplain of Eby Creek and there has been no evidence provided establishing any known or future hazards that would be created by virtue of the subdivision exemption. d. The parcel DOES contain a safe and adequate building site. Staff Response: The Applicant has provided a detailed engineering and geotechnical (soils and sub-surface geology) report with regard to the adequacy of the building site. Additionally, the Applicant has provide conceptual site plans to staff showing that, with typical setbacks to Eby Creek Road (25') and to Eby Creek (75'), there is an adequate building site for a modest single-family residence, along with a garage. In summary, staff believes that each of the required criteria have been, or can be met; that positive findings can be made if the file is conditioned appropriately. The Applicant has shown good faith in systematically addressing each of the above criteria since March of 2013. Given the sorted history of the subject property, staff has been encouraged by the Applicant's willingness to address the criteria and to pursue legalization of the parcel. In this case, the only suggested condition will require the Applicant to provide evidence(a well permit and/or approved augmentation plan from the State)of adequate potable water. VI. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to approve File No. SE-4160 incorporating staff's suggested findings and condition(s), and authorizing the Chairman to sign the plat. VII. SUGGESTED CONDITION: 1.Prior to recording of the plat, the Applicant is required to provide evidence from the State of Colorado Division of Water Resources that a domestic well permit for in-home consumptive use has been issued for the subject property. VIII. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Copy of plat 2. Copy of HP Geotech Report 3. Copy of State Division of Water Resources documentation 4. Referral comments from Eagle County Surveyor and Engineering Department DISCUSSION: Mr.Hunn presented a PowerPoint slide show with the request's details. Subdivision exemptions are a difficult exercise. In this case there was a pre-existing lot created illegally. The parcel did not come through the subdivision process. There was an exemption plat. There were parcels that existed throughout the county similar to this. The exemption process allowed someone to seek allowance to build on their property. Ms. Ayers—Oliver clarified that if the board approved the subdivision it provided a way for the owner to legalize the plat. Mr.Hunn stated that the state would not issue a well permit until the county issued an exemption,however county regulations required a well before issuing a permit. Chairman Fisher wondered about watering outside the home. Mr. Hunn indicated there would be no outside irrigation allowed. 27 11/19/2013 Chairman Fisher asked about the intended size of the proposed structure. Mr. Hunn stated that there was an outstanding well permit issue. Staff felt there was adequate access,the exemption would not create a hazard and the property did contain a safe building site. Katherine Biggs spoke to the board. The home was intended to be approximately 2200 square feet. It would be a three bedroom,two bath dwelling unit. She worked at the Eagle County airport and was excited about moving to Eagle. They were home builders from North Carolina. They had not yet purchased the property, and the sale was contingent upon getting a building permit. Chairman Fisher asked Ms. Ayers—Oliver about the challenges in these types of situation. Ms. Ayers—Oliver stated that historically there was a deed in 1979 that allowed parcel B to be part of anther parcel. Somewhere along the conveyances parcel 2 was foreclosed on. Parcel B was never platted as part of lot 2. The argument could be made that the illegal subdivision occurred in 1979 and possibly in 2002. In approximately 2010 Parcel B was donated to an Archdiocese. The board could approve any division of land if it met the conditions presented earlier. The division of land would not be considered to be within the purposes of the subdivision. Based on the Land Use Regulations the argument could be made that the lot was illegally created in 1972, and this parcel fit under the exception regulation. The question for the board was whether there was adequate access,water and sewer and safety. Chairman Fisher wondered why it was illegally created. Ms. Ayers—Oliver clarified that regardless of why it happened the only way to correct it was to grant an exemption. The LUR specifically had a section that provided a remedy for these types of illegally created parcels. Chairman Fisher wondered why the board needed to correct the legality of the parcel. She wondered why the courts would not be involved. Ms. Ayers—Oliver stated that the only reason it was illegal was because it wasn't passed through the county subdivision process. The fact that there weren't many regulations in place years ago was the reason there was an exception process in place within the Land Use Regulations. The board could deny the request for the exemption if it did not meet the factors that could be considered,but the board did not have the right to get into other traditional land use considerations. Mr. Hunn stated that usually this dealt with a property that was conveyed illegally for purposes of granting a building permit. It would be unusual to look at this any differently than other exemptions given recently. He provided examples of other recent exemptions. Chairman Fisher stated that these situations were somewhat different. She was challenged with giving approval simply to help sell an illegally subdivided lot. Ms.Ayers—Oliver stated that the goal was still the same in terms of granting an exemption. The fact was that this exemption process was in place to allow people to build on such lots. Commissioner Chandler—Henry wondered about wildlife and the groundwater situation. She asked for clarification that this type of concern could not be considered. Mr. Hunn concurred. Colorado Parks and Wildlife officials had no concerns with the property and additional development in the area. Chairman Fisher opened public comment. Susie Kincade spoke to the board. She was a neighbor adjacent to the proposed lot. She has owned the property since 1989. She thanked the board for recognizing that it was a different circumstance. Since they purchased their property,they understood that the lot was illegal,but the lot would have hazards. The entrance would be on a steep and hidden curve and would be an uncomfortable place to have a driveway. The viable building area was less than a '/ acre. The rest of the acreage was steep and unbuildable. The home would be right on the road in a rural residential area and did not fit at that end of Eby Creek Road. The water was a huge concern as wells along Eby Creek had become stressed. She used very stringent water rules to keep water running in the dry years,yet their well was closer to the creek than the proposed unit. The well would have to be to the north of the home,which would be directly north of the building envelope. There were two springs adjudicated on her property for wildlife and livestock. The idea that wildlife cannot be a consideration is abhorrent and wrong. They were considerate of wildlife when her house was built. This one stretch along Eby Creek Road was where the wildlife comes down off of the mountain into critical habitat. It is an abundant wildlife area. The Division of Wildlife spokesperson told her that he was very concerned. Approving an exemption would fly in the face of the intent of the Future Land Use Map. When the Churchill property was foreclosed upon it was divided into two 28 11/19/2013 separate parcels. The owner at that time has since moved away. When Mr. Churchill realized he would not be able to build on the lot he donated it to the church and now they are trying to sell it. She invited the commissioners to a site visit to see the limitations of the property. She wondered about whether the Engineering Department recommended denial. Mr.Hunn stated that all issues had been resolved amongst the internal departments. Ms.Kincade stated that the exemption would create hazards on Eby Creek Road and to the water supply. She also believed it was a hazard to healthy current and future wildlife populations. The Department of Wildlife had invested a lot of money into the wild turkey population and she believed additional buildings would create a threat to these birds. Ms. Biggs stated that the house was proposed to be 2100 square feet with a detached garage. Ms.Kincade further objected to two buildings on the small compressed building site. She served on the Eagle Area Community Plan Committee. She hoped there would be trust. She was also concerned about the precedent and Pandora's Box that could be opened. It was illegal and should not be awarded for being so. There were several 200 year old junipers on the site. She spoke for the trees. Glen Heelan spoke to the board. He was the managing member of the Greenhorn Ranch across the street. He hated to disagree with people's opportunity to improve their property. The intent was always for the lot to be one, and was accidentally created by Weststar bank. It was never intended to be a lot. They were zoned rural residential which was 2 acre zoning and had been before the county several times in the last few years to request down-zoning. He agreed there was a wildlife issue and concurred with Ms.Kincade's observations. He did not think the intent was for this ever to be a lot. Rosie Shearwood spoke. In 1969 her husband and she purchased a parcel up Brush Creek which had been platted and surveyed and legitimately created. They ended up owning two parcels. In 1979 they were denied a building permit due to the need to be approved by many d rtments. The previous year the 35 acre parcel exemption was legislated. Around 1975 she worked for.thc, agle Ranch Company and the owners had an idea of building a new Beaver Creek on Castle Peak. The land endedu being ac4uired by the BLM. She agreed that it would be a bad precedent. "` Chairman Fisher closed public comment. Ms.Biggs showed a copy of the proposed house and garage site. Out of the 11.5 acres only 1 would be used for the building and garage. The property met the setback requirements. Ms. Ayers—Oliver spoke about the water,the springs and the well. If the state considered there to be an issue the state would not issue a permit and the exemption would be voided. Approval of this request would not set a precedent. As long as the criteria were met,the board had the option of approving it. The building site would have to comply with the setback requirements. In terms of the illegal subdivision of the property,the reason why or how was not relevant. It did fit the exemption under subsection C and qualified it to fall into this process. Review criteria were very narrow and considerations of wildlife, community plans etc.,were not part of the allowable concerns. Chairman Fisher asked who determined this type of review was appropriate. She wondered if it could have subdivision review. Mr. Hunn stated that if the Planning Department determined there was an illegal parcel in the county they recommend this exemption process. If it were a minor A subdivision the criteria would also not allow certain considerations. Many of the criteria would be the same. Ms. Chandler-Henry asked about wildlife or compliance with the community plan. This request was anything but clear cut. She was a proponent of strong land use regulations and community plans. The Land Use Regulations allowed for exemptions,but they did not say"shall". She felt that thinking about the community,our wildlife, conformance with the master plan and character should be considered. She preferred asking the applicant to come back with a Minor A subdivision request. Chairman Fisher agreed with Commissioner Chandler—Henry. She felt that the fact that it was illegally subdivided coupled with a situation in which a property was given away as a donation and given the water situation and other hazards caused her to object. Not having any outdoor watering opportunities seemed unreasonable as well. She gave the applicant the opportunity to withdraw their application and come back with a Minor Type A subdivision request. She spoke about the well permit. Ms. Ayres—Oliver repeated that the state would not issue a well permit until the exemption was granted. 29 11/19/2013 Chairman Fisher spoke about the water and wildlife component which would all be considered under a type A review. Ms. Biggs spoke about the type of water request and the fact that they had no intentions of installing lawns. Chairman Fisher spoke about the need post construction to restore the surrounding land with replacement landscape materials, and this will require water. Ms. Biggs stated that they did not have investments in this application and the property even though they do not yet own it,but were under contract. Chairman Fisher stated that the board needed to be protective of a property on this type of parcel. Ms. Biggs requested that the application be withdrawn. Chairman Fisher asked for a formal opinion should a new subdivision application be presented. There being no further business before the : - %.10.F ing was adjourned until December 10,2013. • g 14.! 1:44 Attest: I t./ , I • - Cl k to the Board °I.00 Chairman 30 11/19/2013