HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2009-12-15RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission
December 15, 2009, 6:00 p.m.
Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall
Commission:
Attending:
Also Attending:
Absent:
Chair Doug Klink; Commissioners Aian Fraundorf, John Tucker, Betty
Huil, Steve Lane, Ron Norris, and Rex Poggenpohl
Chair Klink, Commissioners Fraundorf, Lane, Norris, Hull and
Poggenpohl
Town Attorney Greg White, Planner Dave Shirk, Planner Alison
Chilcott, Town Board Liaison Richard Homeier, and Recording
Secretary Karen Thompson
Commissioner Tucker, Director Joseph; Commissioner Lane was
excused from the meeting at 6:50 p.m.
The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological
sequence.
Chair Klink called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. There were approximately 10
citizens in attendance.
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
a. Approval of correction of minutes from November 12, 2009 Special Planning
Commission Meeting.
b. Approval of minutes from November 17, 2009 Regular Planning Commission
meeting.
c. Acknowledgment of Joint Study Session minutes from joint study session between
Town Board and Planning Commission on November 24, 2009.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Poggenpohl) that Consent Agenda items a and
c be accepted as presented, and item b be approved as corrected, and the
motion passed unanimously with one absent.
3. AMENDMENT TO ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE - WIND TURBINE
REGULATIONS
Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report, and stated changes were made based on
public comments heard in the November meetings. Changes include a more
descriptive method to measure height and a proposed required setback from property
lines of five (5) times the structure height; also, the current standards for structures as
they relate to setbacks from public and private roads were added. The Ridgeline
Protection Area standards were modified with the intent to keep turbines off ridgelines.
If the site contains an identified Ridgeline Protection Area, the applicant could
demonstrate to the Planning Commission that the location of the proposed system is
not on a ridgeline. It was proposed to prohibit lighting of any type on the system or
through up-lighting. After conversation between Staff and Utilities Engineer Reuben
Bergsten, it was noted the manufacturer’s installation instructions sometimes conflict
with the Underwriters Laboratories’ installation standards. Until this is reconciled, it was
determined to include a statement concerning the approval of safety standards by the
State Electrical Inspector. Swept Area and Micro-Wind were defined, with systems
having a swept area of fifteen (15) square feet or less qualifying as a micro-wind
system and being exempt from the proposed setback regulations of five times the
structure height, but still subject to other zoning district setback requirements. It was
proposed to allow multiple micro-wind systems on one parcel, with a cumulative total of
fifteen (15) square feet of swept area.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission 2
December 15, 2009
Planner Shirk reported the wind turbine moratorium was extended by the Town Board
to March 8, 2010. This moratorium is effective only within the Town limits.
Public Comment:
Paul Brown/Town Resident was concerned about the enforcement of noise ordinances
on properties located on the town/county border, knowing the town and county
ordinances are not in alignment. Mr. Brown suggested the title of section 5.2.B.2.h(9)
be revised to say Performance Noise and Safety Standards. He also offered several
changes as related to the International Electrotechnical Commission standards on
safety. Mr. Brown recommended including a maximum horizontal limit and/or a
maximum swept-area limit in the proposed code. Lastly, he suggested either increasing
the swept area for micro-wind systems or removing 5.2.B.2.h(13)b concerning the
allowance of multiple units per lot, as he sees no benefit to having multiple units if they
cannot generate a practical amount of power.
Dave Rusk/County Resident supported wind turbines, and was concerned that property
rights would be violated if a government agency was able to restrict property owners
from being able to make use of their land. Mr. Rusk did not think that creating
regulations for a specific use like wind turbines was appropriate for this Commission.
He thought the Renewable Energy Sun/ey provided good information about how the
residents view wind turbine regulation.
Johanna Darden/Town Resident thought there were a large number of residents
against wind turbines in the Estes Valley, herself included. She was concerned about
visual impact, and suggested more research on this topic.
Commissioner Lane was excused from the meeting at 6:50 p.m.
Jim Tawney/Town Resident thought there were too many variables involved, and
encouraged the Planning Commission to discontinue discussion on this item and
refrain from regulating wind turbines.
Celine LeBeau/Town Resident supported wind turbines and thought the setbacks were
too restrictive.
Tom Bergmann/Town Resident supports the property owner’s right to build wind
turbines. He opposes the regulation of wind turbines.
Red Palace/Town Resident supported micro-wind turbines and did not think they
should be restricted.
Bob Clements/County Resident supported wind turbines and thought the focus of wind
turbine regulation was visual impact and turbines located in corridors. He thought
setbacks should be addressed differently if visual impact was not an issue on an
applicant’s property.
Paul Brown/Town Resident suggested increasing the wattage levels for micro-wind
systems to a higher level to allow turbines that would produce more energy. He thought
the setbacks should be reduced, and consideration be given to the future
advancements in technology.
Bill Darden/Town Resident thought the setbacks were too limiting, though he was
somewhat against wind turbines and the potential affect they have on property values.
Tom Bergmann/Town Resident proposed a new setback requirement: the existing
setback requirement from property lines plus the height of the turbine.
Chair Klink closed public comment.
Planning Commission and Staff Comment:
Discussion occurred concerning the swept area of micro-wind systems. The
Commission proposed changing the definition in Section 13.3 to read “with a swept
area greater than fifteen (15) square feet and less than 400 square feet.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS llillllll llli
Estes Valley Planning Commission 3
December 15, 2009
Commissioner Poggenpohl stated the safety standards in Section 5.2.B.2.h.(9) wouid
be more appropriately written into municipal and county ordinances than the EVDC.
However, he would like the Planning Commission to formally request that the Town of
Estes Park and Larimer County Building Departments incorporate the pending United
States standards into their regulations.
There was lengthy discussion about setbacks, property rights, and visual impact
(location, motion, view obstruction, etc.). There was general consensus among the
Commission that it was difficult to effectively address these issues while still creating
satisfactory regulations. Town Attorney White explained the existence of aesthetic
regulations in land use codes, which include view, that have been upheld in court;
however, view alone has not been upheld as a sole, determining factor with regard to
land use regulations. Commissioner Norris proposed allowing a Special Review
process for applicants to request a smaller setback than five times the height of the
structure for large wind turbines. Chair Klink commented that this regulation proposal
restricts, at a higher percentage than any other regulation in the development code, a
property owner’s ability to build something on their property. Commissioner
Poggenpohl urged keeping tight restrictions on large systems and allowing more
flexibility with micro-wind systems. Planner Shirk referred to the Setback Illustrations
that were presented at the special meeting on November 12, 2009, which gave an
indication as to the number of wind turbines that could be allowed in the development
code area relative to the proposed setback requirements. Planner Chilcott advised the
Commission that some wind turbines are less than the 30-foot height limit; therefore,
the setbacks for those units would be less, which could potentially allow wind turbines
in more areas. Commissioner Norris stated that, based on the current proposal, a
micro-wind system would be allowed on the majority of lots throughout the Estes valley.
Commissioner Poggenpohl described that a micro-wind system with a 15 square-foot
swept area would have blades approaching 5 feet in diameter. He suggested a 40-50
square-foot cumulative aggregate swept area on any given lot to allow multiple micro
wind systems. The proposed requirement of a maximum height limit of 30 feet and a
10-foot clearance of moving blades from the ground would still apply.
Chair Klink summarized the changes to the proposed regulations. Elimination of
Section 5.2.B.2.h(9) referring to safety standards; Section 5.2.B.2.h(13)b., changing
fifteen square-feet to forty (40) square-feet; Section 13.3, adding the phrase “...and
less than 400 square-feet” after “...with a swept area greater than fifteen (15) square-
feet. Also, there were minor grammatical corrections that were discussed and changed
in the study session. These changes did not affect the context of the regulations.
Commissioner Norris summarized the process of the proposed code amendments,
including but not limited to five public meetings, written public comment as well as
public input at Planning Commission meetings, study of wind data in Estes Park from
Colorado State University’s local research station, and the review of information from
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The Planning Commission’s
recommendations to the Town Board were based on understanding the effect the code
amendment will have on the surrounding area and the community as a whole. They
understood that the community did not want to ban wind turbines, but did want to
regulate them. From the review of the current technology available for wind turbines,
the Commission learned wind turbines would not be a significant source of alternative
energy for most locations in the Estes valley. It was also understood there is wind
power available to residents of the Estes valley through the Poudre River Power
Authority.
It was moved and seconded (Poggenpohl/Norris) to recommend to the Larimer
County and the Town of Estes Park Building Departments that they adopt the
pending AWEA Standard 9.1 on the performance and safety standards for smaii
wind turbines, and the motion passed unanimously with two absent.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/ Hull) to recommend Approval of the code
amendments, with the foilowing revisions, to the Town Board and the motion
passed unanimousiy with two absent.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Estes Valley Planning Commission
December 15, 2009
Revisions:
1. Grammatical corrections as discussed in the study session
2. §5.2.B.2.h(9) - Delete this statement
\
3. §5.2.B.2.h(13)b. - Change . .fifteen (15) square-feet...” to forty (40) square-feet
4. §13.3 - After “.. .with a swept area greater than fifteen (15) square-feet, ADD the
phrase “...and less than 400 square-feet...”
REPORTS
Planner Shirk reported Kind Coffee had requested a use classification to move their
roasting operation to Dunraven Avenue, and two neighbors in the area appealed the
staff decision on the use classification. The appeal was withdrawn by the appellants
when the owner of Kind Coffee decided not to relocate that portion of the business to
Dunraven Avenue.
Planner Shirk described the new feature of the Agenda on the Town website.
Town Attorney White reported the audit of the Community Development Department by
Zucker Systems is being finalized and will become a public document after
presentation to the Town Board.
Planner Shirk announced the resignation of County Commissioner Kathay Rennels.
The Republican Party will name a new commissioner to serve as an interim
commissioner until Ms. Rennels’ official term expires.
Town Attorney White stated the Inter-Governmental Agreement between the Town of
Estes Park and Larimer County expires February 1, 2010. It has been proposed to
establish two-year terms for officers of the Estes Valley Planning Commission rather
than the current one-year term.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
According to the Inter-Governmental Agreement, the position of Chair for the upcoming
one-year term shall be a Town resident, while the one-year term of the Vice-Chair
position shall be a County resident. Commissioner Norris was the only nominee for the
position of Chair, while Commissioner Hull was the sole nominee for the position of
Vice-Chair.
Commissioner Hull nominated Commissioner Norris for Chair. The nomination
was seconded by Commissioner Fraundorf. There being no further nominations,
Commissioner Norris was elected Chair by acclamation.
Commissioner Norris nominated Commissioner Huli for Vice-Chair. The
nomination was seconded by Commissioner Poggenpohl. There being no further
nominations. Commissioner Huil was eiected Vice-Chair by acclamation.
It was moved and seconded (Norris/Poggenpohl) to appoint the Community
Development Department Secretary or designee as Recording Secretary, and the
motion passed unanimousiy with two abset^
There being no further business,
p.m.
adjourned the meeting at 7:47
oug K^k, Chair
Karen Thompson, Recoirdif’fg Secretary