Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PACKET Estes Valley Planning Commission 2009-11-12
Prepared: November 3,2009 AGENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION - SPECIAL MEETING Thursday, November 12, 2009 12:00 Study Session, Rooms 201 and 202, Town Hall 1:30 p.m. Meeting, Board Room, Town Hall 1. PUBLIC COMMENT The EVPC will accept public comments regarding items not on the agenda. Comments should not exceed three minutes. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes - October 20,2009 Planning Commission Meeting 3. AMENDMENT TO ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE - WIND TURBINE REGULATIONS The proposed amendments would regulate small-scale residential and commercial wind turbines. 4. REPORTS 5. ADJOURN The Estes Valley Planning Commission reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission October 20,2009,6:00 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Chair Doug Klink; Commissioners Alan Fraundorf, John Tucker, Betty Hull, Steve Lane, Ron Norris, and Rex Poggenpohl Attending: Chair Doug Klink, Commissioners Alan Fraundorf, Betty Hull, Steve Lane, Ron Norris, Rex Poggenpohl, and John Tucker Also Attending: Director Joseph, Town Attorney White, Planner Shirk, Town Board Liaison Homeier, and Recording Secretary Thg€Pson Absent: Planner Chilcott t. I. The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda andcnot necessarily the chronological sequence. R-'/.04 t.,4 \ . 21 Chair Klink called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. I ,"0 ·/*. ./t:#.. *230 \1.././. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT George Hoffman/Town Resident appreciated having thd gtudy session in the Board Room where listening devices are available. He would like to see hall public meetings in locations where microphones and listening dAGbes. are available, \ \ NON \74 Cori LaBianca/Town Resident is a propopent of wind energy 4ut°concerned about allowing wind turbines in the Estes Val14. Hergonchns.are hoise and safety levels as 1& 4 x. well as the potential destruction of the naturalibeauty of the area. She urged caution when ragulating wind turbinish N¢ 4 ./ r %6 9. I 2. CONSENT AGENDAN ~ Approval of minutes'froth.Sept*mber 15, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. It was,moved ahd secondbd (Hullifraun3orf) that the consent agenda be approved as prdsented, and the motion passed unanimously. 11 1/7 3. AMENDMENT TO ESTEdVALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE - SHORT TERM RENTALS Revisions* fvacation $home regulations, including revisions to the definition of accommodatiohiuse, gudst room, guest quarter, household living, and nightly rental in EVDC Chapt@rd 3, andrevisions to distinguish between B&Bs and vacation home uses and the districts in¢~hich these uses are permitted. 4. Director Joseph stated today's draft is very similar to what the Planning Commission approved in May, 2009. Town Trustees returned that approved draft back to the Planning Commission with a request to have fewer regulations and less text. The main purpose of this code revision is to reconcile the code language currently in the Municipal Code with the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC). The EVDC would then become the primary regulatory document for vacation homes and B&Bs. In the process of merging the codes, it was determined a vacation home and B&B should be considered a principle use. This principle use is a key feature of this new draft, and allows someone to purchase a home in a residential neighborhood with the specific intention to use it strictly as a vacation home. In response to public comment at the Town Board meeting, changes were made to allow housekeeping services in both vacation homes and B&Bs. Director Joseph pointed out the differences between vacation homes and B&Bs; a B&B can have rooms rented out to separate parties at the same time, while vacation homes are rented to one party at one time; vacation homes cannot be used as hotels, meaning rooms cannot be rented individually. Town Board Liaison Richard Homeier believes the Town Board's main desire is to allow people to use vacation homes as a principal use. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 October 20,2009 Commissioner Lane suggested changing the language in Section 5.1.B.3(2) to read: "Number of Parties. Vacation homes shall be rented, leased, or furnished to no more than one (1) party, occupying the vacation home as a single group. Owners of the vacation home shall not be permitted to occupy the vacation home while a party is present." Discussion between staff and Planning Commissioners revolved around when the owner can and cannot be present, with Director Joseph reviewing the history of how the current code revisions evolved. It was agreed upon by the Commission to keep the language requiring the owner to not occupy the home at the same time renting it as a vacation home. Owners will be required to have a sales tax and business license (within Town limits) to operate, which is an administrative policy handled by the Town Board. Commissioner Norris suggested changing the code language in Section 5.1.B.3.a(1) to delete the last two sentences. Commissioner Poggenpohl puggested removing the redundancies concerning use on the ground floor fronting,Elkhorn Avenue and also removing the duplicate language concerning the prohibitioh(of home occupations in a vacation home. Public Comment: None 1..\ j, NIA ki '44 \ It was moved and seconded (Norris/Hull)/to recommend approv,11of the code revisions for vacation homes and B&Bs,+Which inclukles minor changesiuggested by the Planning Commissioners, and the' mdtioh pass84'unanimously;>* 4. AMENDMENT TO ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 5.2 ACCESSORY USES - KITCHENS<[he proposed Amendments include revisions to Section 5.2 of the Estes Valley Dev&lop€ent~ode, to allow hccessory kitchens in single- family residential dwellings. Proposed®ode.changes includka.definition of an accessory kitchen, a clarification that an accessoN¢itch~n.Jshlot.consitlered a second unit and the dwelling is bound by thedefinition of Household livingta'provision that interior access shall be maintained„aiQI.wahants for whe*Sland use Affidavit would be required. 1 Director Josephi:6{bd theset,proposed codeqr~!sions have evolved due to today's trend <7/ Ce 1 to design single-family:'dwelliAds with more than one kitchen for personal use. This code / *.4 accommodates that charigerwhile also.clariGing a second kitchen does not constitute approvall#Gnatcessory dwelling. The lanOuage relies heavily on a land-use affidavit as the m;chanis#to, khep the otiginal intent clear for the record as the property changes hantls' in the future.#,lp *<.11 r« . 1 Discussionioccurred alhohg Co/nmissioners about Table 5-1 and permitting accessory kitchens"in R;1 and R-2 foning districts. It was the general consensus that accessory kitchens Will. 68, allowed,in all zoning districts except RW\-Multi-Family. Commissioner Poggenpohl 8is@greed#There was also general consensus that the land-use affidavit should be incluciaq inlhe code. Public Comment: None It was moved and seconded (Tucker/Norris) to recommend approval of use and development regulations for Accessory Kitchens with the changes that were made by the Planning Commissioners on Table 5-1, and the requirement of a Land Use Affidavit. The motion passed with Commissioner Poggenpohl abstaining. Commissioner Poggenpohl disagrees with allowing accessory kitchens in R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. 5. REPORTS Commissioner Klink mentioned the Special Planning Commission Meeting on November 12, 2009, to discuss wind turbines. The intent of this meeting is to hear public comment. Wind turbines will also be an agenda item for the regular meeting on November 17, 2009. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 October 20,2009 Director Joseph stated he would like to forward a recommendation to the Town Board at the December 8,2009 meeting prior to the expiration of the moratorium on December 9, 2009. Commissioner Norris noted the survey results indicated a consensus that wind turbines should be regulated but not banned. Commissioner Klink asked Commissioners for corhments and direction in order to prepare for the special meeting: 1)Setbacks at least three times the height of the tower with a maximum blade height of 50 feet; 2)Compliance with international standards; 3)Repaired or removed if inoperable; 4)Ridgeline protection and noise standards referenced; 5)Setback from structures as well as setbacks from property line; 6)No design restrictions to allow for improved technology; 7)Director Joseph advocated for a formula to determine the setback in relation to the height of the wind turbine, which would eliminate the need for lot size restrictions. This formula should include an ultimate maximum height; 8)Only one turbine per lot; 9)10-foot minimum height from ground for moving parts. Director Joseph reported the YMCA Signage Master Plan was appyved by the Board of County Commissioners on September 21, 2009. Supplementaltondominium Map #3 for Wonderview Village is scheduled to be heard by Town Boardoh October 27,2009. /71\ EVDC Wildlife Habitat Code Revisions were approved by the*Town Board and are scheduled to be heard by the County Commissionets.atea spEi@.rheeting in Estes Park on November 9,2009 at 6:30 p.m. in the Town Hall;Bokrd Room. 1\ it The Community Development Department has#book titted Wind Energy Basics, which is available for checkout from the Communitybevelobment Ddpartment. Commissioner Poggenpohl made an announcement. about the County Commissioners breakfast at the Senior Center on,~Octqber 21, 200&,The Larimer County Director of Natural Resources will be in attendance. Thelarimer Count¢Open Lands Advisory Board meeting is October 22,2009 at the Lohejandlihrary_at 5:00 p.m. £1 /..9... #-77 .qer-$- V~ .a·,F There being no further business, Chair Klink adjourn6d the meeting at 7:35 p.m. ///3 4,\11 N 6 1 1.1 *t ~ w'-. 1 -99 Doug Klink, Chair /2/ t.......19% ''. \\ %1 ...11· i l # Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary ...1... 4/2 j/ To: Estes Park Board of Trustees November 4,2009 Problem Statement for Wind Turbines Dear Trustees: Based on initial feedback on the draft code language for wind turbines, some Trustees appear to have significantly differing points of view regarding what these regulations should/should not contain. To help guide the Planning Commission as we address this issue, we would appreciate your comments on the following draft problem statement. Your input will help us understand your preferences and concerns as we develop our recommendations, and should help us avoid the problems we encountered in trying to develop recommendations on other topics. Could you please e-mail your feedback to the Planning Commissioners and the Community Development Department Staff by Monday, November 9? This will give us time to consider your input before our November 12 public meeting on this subject. Many thanks, Ron Norris/Doug Klink, on behalf of the Planning Commission - f Problem Statement on Wind Turbines, Rev. 1: 11/4/09 Issue: (Describe the issue being addressed and why/reasons change is needed.) Current Estes Valley Development Code does not regulate installation of residential wind turbines by individual property owners. It is not immediately obvious whether regulation of these turbines is needed, and if so, what regulations would be appropriate. Community opinion is divided, with some residents supporting installation, and others concerned about the impact of these turbines on views, noise, and wildlife. Purpose: (State problem to be solved in 2-3 sentences.) Identify the needs and issues associated with potential regulation of residential wind turbines. Recommend appropriate code language, if necessary, to the Town Board and County Commissioners. Scope: (Explain: 1. What is and is not to be considered. 2. Any other constraints or boundaries within which the work is to be kept. 3. Desired timing. 4. Suggested priority for this change.) 1. Collect community input on potential benefits and problems associated with residential turbines (includes on-line survey and two public hearings in November). 2. Assess the current state of residential wind turbine technology and economics. 3. Summarize key findings. 4. Recommend any action needed to regulate these turbines, and reasons why. 5. Provide recommendations to the Town Board before expiration of the current wind turbine moratorium. 6. If the Town Board concurs with these recommendations, work with Staff to develop specific code language (if required) for presentation to the Town Board in December 2009. 7. If meaningful recommendations cannot be developed before the moratorium expires, request an extension of the moratorium. Desired Outcomes: (Describe the benefits to be gained by solving this problem.) • Clear understanding of the community's views on this issue. • Understanding of the current state of wind turbine technology and economics, in order to provide a sound basis for recommendations. • A recommendation on whether these turbines should be regulated, and why or why not. • A list of any specific recommendations for regulations, the reasons for these regulations, and benefits to the community for having them. • A list of any potential adverse consequences of these regulations, and how they can be avoided or mitigated. • Public awareness of any proposed regulations, reasoning, and benefits. Work Process for EVDC Changes Problem Statement on Wind Turbines, Rev. 0: 10/14/09 c To: Staff and Planning Commissioners From: Ron Norris Issue: (Describe the issue being addressed and why/reasons change is needed.) Current Estes Valley Development Code does not regulate installation of residential wind turbines by individual property owners. It is not immediately obvious whether regulation of these turbines is needed, and if so, what regulations would be appropriate. Community opinion is divided, with some residents supporting installation, and others concerned about the impact of these turbines on views, noise, and wildlife. Purpose: (State problem to be solved in 2-3 sentences.) Identify the needs and issues associated with potential regulation of residential wind turbines. Recommend appropriate code language, if necessary, to the Town Board and County Commissioners. Scope: (Explain: 1. What is and is not to be considered. 2. Any other constraints or boundaries within which the work is to be kept. 3. Desired timing. 4. Suggested priority for this change.) 1. Collect community input on potential benefits and problems associated with residential turbines. 2. Assess the current state of residential wind turbine technology and economics. 3. Summarize key findings. 4. Recommend any action needed to regulate these turbines, and reasons why. 5. Provide recommendations to the Town Board before expiration of the current wind turbine moratorium in November 2009. Desired Outcomes: (Describe the benefits to be gained by solving this problem.) • Clear understanding of the community's views on this issue. • Understanding of the current state of wind turbine technology and economics, in order to provide a sound basis for recommendations. • A recommendation on whether these turbines should be regulated, and why or why not. • A list of any specific recommendations for regulations, the reasons for these regulations, and benefits to the community for having them. • A list of any potential adverse consequences of these regulations, and how they can be avoided or mitigated. • Public awareness of any proposed regulations, reasoning, and benefits. Developed Bv: Ron Norris, for consideration by Planning Commissioners and Staff. Small Wind Energy Conversion System: Regulations- DRAFT Definition: Small Wind Enerqv Conversion System (SWECS): A wind energy conversion system consisting of a wind turbine, a tower, and associated control and conversion electronics, which has a rated capacity of not more than 25 kW and which is intended to primarily reduce on-site consumption of utility power. A. Height shall be measured to the highest point of the SWECS structure moving or fixed, whichever is greatest. B. The maximum allowable height shall be 50 ft. above original grade. C. Setbacks from property lines shall be 3x the structure height. For example a 30 ft. SWECS unit must be set back a minimum of 90 ft. from the nearest property line, whereas 50 ft. unit must be set back a minimum of 150 ft. from the nearest property line. D. Inoperative SWECS units, or units found to be unsafe by an official of the Protective Inspection Division of the Town or the County, must be repaired within 3 months of becoming inoperative or unsafe, or be subsequently entirely removed by the owner within 6 months of becoming inoperative or unsafe. If the installation ceases to function as intended and designed by the manufacturer it shall be deemed inoperative. E. All SWECS units must operate at all times in compliance with the applicable noise limits of the jurisdiction within which it is located (Town or County). F. Only one SWECS installation is permitted per lot. All installations must be accessory to an allowed and approved principal use on the parcel or lot upon which it is located. G. SWECS installations shall not be installed in mapped ridgeline protection areas unless the Planning Commission determines that the visual impact is negligible. H. Colors and surface treatment of the SWECS installation shall be neutral and non-reflective, with muted colors on all exposed surfaces. Lighting, graphics, signs and other decoration are prohibited. Blades may be black in order to facilitate de-icing. I. The minimum distance between the ground and any blades or moving parts utilized on a SWECS shall be 10 feet as measured at the lowest point of the swept area J. SWECS shall be designed and sited in such a manner to minimize shadow flicker roadways and on residences located off the property on which the wind machine is constructed. K. SWECS shall be equipped with both manual and automatic controls to limit the rotational speed of the blade within the design limits of the rotor. L. A building permit shall be required for the installation of a small wind energy conversion systern. r The following slides were presented at the Planning Commission Study Session on October 20,2009. Slides were created by Utilities Engineer Reuben Bergsten and Director of Utilities Bob Goehring. X* Jif-•.A .. I liu/1- '9~7)\Rai .. . 0 0 0 0 .. e @ 4,1 CL. Residential Renewable Energy >Siting- Estes Park Anemometer Results • CSU Senior Researcher Michael Kostrzewa in conjunction with the Governors Energy Office (GEC)) provided data collection & analysis. le ssep pUMA Z Jaqulnu e s! >ped sals3 • Mjed Sals3 Joi Sllnsai 039/eAAazilso>I .I s! 1SJOAA 041 '133 3 09 il!Wl 143!34 loo# 017 e sell AlunOD Jal.U!321 . Alle.lal.133 3312 3045!4 pue E sassep Ja/v\Od pl.HAA • 'lualudopAap Ja/\Aod pl.1!AA JOJ aiqellns paJap!suoo • Technical feasibility = 6- 4 0 7 LON -1 1 u .. 2 4 4 > 0 .w W 2 N. -.. LU o k ~ M L ti 3% Rk f N N m In Jkrt e-; 0 0 0 2o S ~ ch - m 251: 0 E B 3 M 0 2 -¤ 9 4 1 .90 .S % Q < I & B & E N N = m 6 6 4 m 4 A h . 1 .7 0, & SE 0 0 JAW'ICL ale, , 092,la/\V aBejaA¥ d jua]Jad SJ313111 SlajaUU au!qjnl 00 90'ZE DIOI Z'ZI S-laoxEI Aaviag 9.L 009'D ES.OD DI'OI Z'ZI 005 Jads!4AA 1SaM41nOS Pajekl Ojaz O indino 140!aH .~ZO Jalawe!(1 9I 005'Z t"SE DIOI Z'ZI LE weansAWS JSaM41nOS ES.OP VIOI u-leox3 Aai,Jag Residential Renewable Energy > Siting- Estes Park Anemometer Results That's not good. PRPA will deliver renewable energy from Duke energy's Silver Sage site having 40% net capacity factor. 9I 00*'I DIOI 7.'ZI r-IX AaBiag qnH 04 1 4 1!M UO!1)unfuoo u! (AS)) eAAezilSO>I lael.p!IN Aq pap!Aoid 5!sAieue 18 uo!:Palloo elecl :00 •® Technical feasibility JIM MCCORMICK 825 WILDLIFE LANE ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 111@ NOV - 5 2009 11~ll November 5,2009 Members of the Commission ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION 170 MacGregor Avenue 4 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Subject: personal wind turbines Dear Members of the Commission: First, please allow me to say thank you for your service to our community. The countless hours you invest in seeking to keep the Estes Valley the extraordinary place that it is are appreciated beyond words. More specifically, thank you for your diligence in seeking a thoughtful policy on personal wind turbines. I had very much hoped to attend the November 12 study session and meeting of the commission, but I will be out of town on business on that day. As such, I appreciate this opportunity to express my concerns to you in writing. There are a few points I would like to ask you to consider. Survey Underassessment As you have no doubt noticed, Questions 10 through 14 in the online survey show substantially more respondents having skipped these questions than responded to them. These questions focus on how personal wind turbines should be restricted and regulated. In some cases, more than twice as many people skipped the question as responded to it. (Question 13: 249 answered, 555 skipped.) Upon inquiring of Community Development Director Bob Joseph, 1 , learned that those respondents who expressed opposition to personal wind turbines earlier in the survey were deprived of the opportunity to respond to these questions. Not only was this both nonsensical and inequitable, it clearly resulted in an underassessment of the extent to which respondents support the regulation of the turbines. This statement is based on the assumption that those who oppose the presence of the devices would likely also support the extensive regulation of them in the event they are allowed. Members of the Commission Page 2 ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION November 5,2009 What does this mean in practical terms? The faulty design of the survey leaves us to speculate, but it certainly seems reasonable to assert that the percentage of respondents who feel that personal wind turbines should be regulated based on height, setbacks, noise, lot size, and color are higher than indicated (Question 11). This is significant because it means that responses in the 60% range would be in the 70 % or 80% range or higher if opponents of the devices had been allowed to • express their opinion. It also means that those who think a 30 foot height limit is appropriate (Question 12) is likely an even more commanding majority of respondents. I encourage you to revisit the summary of responses to Questions 10 through 14 with this survey design flaw in mind. Structure Height I am perplexed that the draft regulations as made available on the town web site are proposing a 50 foot height limit for these structures for two reasons. The first is that a clear majority of the respondents (which is likely underreported as explained above) support a 30 foot height limit. The second is that it is my understanding that the Estes Valley has had a 30 foot height limitation on structures for years. In such a view sensitive area as the Estes Valley, it seems indefensible to consider allowing a higher limit. Consent of Impacted Property Owners Sadly, the survey did not inquire as to respondents' desire to consent to the installation of personal wind turbines that visually or audibly impact their property. This is a serious oversight. Just as an adjacent or impacted property owner in most communities would be given the opportunity to weigh in on the siting of a disruptive use (say an airport, industrial facility or fairgrounds) that was not present at they time they purchased their property, a property owner who will be visually or audibly impacted by a personal wind turbine deserves the right to consent to its „ installation. This is vital to any thoughtful policy on personal wind turbines. It has been suggested that the ability to erect a personal wind turbine is a property rights issue for the property owner who desires to install such a device. If this is the case, it is no less of a property rights issue for a property owner whose view or quiet enjoyment of their property will be impacted by such a device. Members of the Commission Page 3 ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION November 5,2009 Current Availability of Wind-Generated Electricity While it has been stated previously in prior public forums, it cannot be emphasized enough in the midst of these discussions on personal wind turbines that every customer of the Town of Estes Park Utilities Department has immediate access to wind-generated power through the Renewable Energy Purchase Plan - without erecting a personal wind turbine. I implore you to keep this foremost in mind as you seek to create an appropriate policy for personal wind turbines. There is no need for any property owner to negatively impact their fellow property owners in order to have the wind power their home. It is simply not necessary. As such, personal wind turbines are an indulgence and need to be addressed as such. Thanks once again for your efforts and consideration. I look forward to joining you to continue this conversation at your meeting November 17. Sincerely, 94 ; 44 : /Jim McCormick & 'If 7 -. Li ' 7 ' f 0 I -1 a t. ././M 0 3 4- m ~Tf 1 2.- 1 . C f *:7 04 7-JV, r L 1 f -2 o w .:.1 11 4 I . * t 4~ 79 - (10 - I 1 - I. 3 4 , 3 1 2 - 3 i 0 n 4 ' 17 W ., i -,4 B d U &211 - ·51.1 fi I :=, 703 I f)* ; i t */AN# ': € '~ 6 4..pt '·4. ·U'-3~pE'-REVE :C. 4 . 4 . ..B/4,712 . (P tu g * 7$ , 4 ·, f ~, -~t. IU t,= - .1.- 11 4 4 *L 3 . G 'E (4 00- ' ..1 ..:-4-1 v , - L 4 191 /0 mid=.-7./ . -Aff 4 2~ E E emp U) -1/10 24/1*k- th'u'/.. ' & 5 ' : -EN 491 0 1"ilill/ f23 . g -42 ,- I A, f g' .B. 1 C 0 0 1#, k & t~~ 2 /*54 2 C =r ./ . 2-& 9 116 a)°*4 A E- ' 31 1 0 0 2 - 91*- 7 2 - ... 09 2 : N~i 0 07 .C fo .1... A ': .4. r 1 . 61 2 4. 0. j. - .1*%-- N 97» 0 0 4 ' 401Ft 4 -~ i SE * Ce , I. ' 1 44= R .1 f. 0, m m .., -1 - e. .1 - » p ..'I C. e 'U€< -/ I. , P 'ft (D .¤ 0 _n ' .!r' 52)32 < 152.'Ill V# = a> -44 7 * E 2, 83 1//El//A , 4 2 0 (0 0 21. 1./. g!.E .5 1 .4 a, 5 = 0 6(0 i. 0 n - 9 k- m c 4 & 9 2- 4 9 - C 4~64 w 5t- li ~2409 hav~ been given 4 Karen Thompson ~FECEUVE~11 From: S Lindquist F ~ ~ UL i LD ZUUG 9'J Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 2.21 PM - 12. 1 + 6 Subject: borne estes Wind Data i I Attachments: EstesWindAzimuths.pdf; EstesWindVelocity.pdf; EstesWeatherStationMap.pdf To various Estes neighbors, friends, & associates who currently happen to be in my email address book and who might be interested in local wind data that I've (Sandy Lindquist) been examining from my own house and from some regular online Valley reporters for the last year. Some of you have your own anemometers. No guarantees that I'll ever have the patience to collect and compare "year-to-year" differences! I have a fairly complete year's worth of Estes speed-and-direction wind data*, mid-Oct 2008 to mid-Oct 2009. I've just Excel-plotted it (here shown monthly) - with my home's data ( "SJL") compared with three of the regular, automated "Weather Underground" online reporters, representing a N-S swath across the Estes Valley (see attachment map). The 3 attachments are pdf files. This has been done both out of scientific curiosity and to help me mentally adapt to the winter winds up here (because knowledge is strength!). The Reserve station is north of Hwy 34 (Big Thompson Ave) in a big open meadow http://www.wunderground.com/weatherstation/WXDailyHistory.asp?ID=KCOESTES2. Grey Fox is "south- central" (about a mile south of me near Hwy 7 and similarly amidst some topography with trees ) http://www.wunderground.com/weatherstation/WXDailvHistory.asp?ID=KCOESTES5. And Rockwoo¢ is farthest south where the landscape gets more complex at the south end of the basin, south of Fish Creek Rd near ~ Cheley Camp and the northern Twin Sister http:Uwww.wunderground.com/weatherstation/WXDailyHistory.asp?ID=KCOESTES 3. There certainly are problems in comparing different sampling/reporting methods. I haven't found answers to all my questions of how Weather Underground reporters sample and average their data, but all averages are probably arithmetic. The Wise. manufacturer of my lesser-quality equipment has given me different phone answers on different occasions as to exactly how my anemometer does sampling and reporting (nothing that detailed in the written instructions ! !). My indoor unit displays a digital update every minute and stores max, min, & avgs for a week at a time (I must remember to transfer to a spreadsheet!). I think my device samples every 15 "atomic-clock" seconds (which means it can miss a bigger momentary wind gust in between those times). If I try to compare same-place, real time data with a hand-held mountaineering anemometer (not a pleasant task with sustained wind over 10+ mph!), I see much faster display changes on that device and higher (to 2x ?) momentary gust numbers. But with my automated system, I think the daily high and low " 15-minute averages" (likely from 60 evenly spaced samples) give a good idea of sustained higher winds and sustained calmer periods. With that in mind, my data compare fairly well with what I presume are the "full-daily" averages of the station closest to me (Grey Fox), which is somewhat similar in landscape setting. Despite all those disclaimers, what's attached is interesting stuff. I've mentioned the wild Rockwood velocity data to our state climatologist in Ft. Collins. Perhaps they might have some local accelerating effect going on ~ there (maybe a roofline setup??) because I think The Reserve (north of Hwy 34) is probably the most typical data for our regional wind patterns (least locally affected by trees or topography). 1 1 & L I no longer get too anxious when Rockwood is reporting gusts over 100 mph because I can mentally calibrate to what I and other locations are experiencing (much lower!). If you want to print the graphs and charts, they're ~rmatted for LEGAL paper, 1-sheet and 2-sheets, respectively. * I haven't found where official NWS reporting stations (like you can see at the head of Lake Estes and at Beaver Meadows Visitor Center) maintain this sort of public-accessible detail. This transmission, including any attachments, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under law. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information in this message, including any reliance thereon by you or any other third person, is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy this message in both electronic and any hard copy formats. . 2 3 4-6 Estes Valley Dominant Wind-Source Directions by Month & Locale (Oct 2008 - Oct 2009) Frequency histograms (# of days) compiled by Sandy Lindquist (SJL location in Arapaho Estates). Locations also include (N to S) The Reserve, Grey Fox Estates Oust south of SJL). and Rockwood Estates from their online Weather Underground reports. Rockwood had no Oct 2008 reports, and Reserve is open meadow & least affected by local topography & trees (true "regional" winds). Oct (2~ half) 2008 Daily Predominant Wind Source 10 / SJL 6 I Greyfox 4 ¤ Rockwood 2 - N nne E ese S SSW SW WSW W wnw NW nnw NE ene SE sse Nov 2008 Daily Predominant VVind Source 16 -7 14 i M Reser·ve 12 10 I SJL ~ Grey Fox c Rockwood S SSW SW Ws W VA/ v./nw N W nnv, N nne NE ene E ese SE sse Dec 2008 Daily Predominant V~nd Source 25 1 r L 1 111 11 1 11 11 1 f-2-iUene7 2O 15 -/,SJL ~ Gre/Fox / Rockwood 10 5 -- - O 5 S SSW SW #S W VI V'.'n~, .\A/ nrvv N nne NE ene E ese SE sse Jan 2009 Daily Predominant Wind Source 12 I GreyFox 1O / Rockwood S S.W SW vvsvi/ VV v/nvur N \A nnu N nne NE ene E ese SE sse Feb 2009 Daily Predominant VVInd Source 25 m r2-===-Ill 2O / SJL 15 - GreyFox O Rockwood 10 . 5 . 0 S .SW SV\/ WS'U V\,' W.W N W nnvv N nne NE ene E ese SE sse Mar 2009 Daily Predominant Wind Source 18 - SJL 12 ---------- -------=--- ------------------- -- - Grey Fox ¤ Rockwood S SSW SW w. w \Al/ wnw NW nnw N nne NE ene E ese SE sse Apr 2009 Daily Predominant Wind Source 12 10 I Resene - SJL 8 - Greyfox 6 - 1 - 0 Rockwood 4 2 - 0 I S SSW SW W.W W wnw NW nnw N nne NE ene E ese SE sse ON A GOD ON * C) 0 // 9/ -Im /IFIB 0/B'/ 4 J L 12 ~--------- =--------- CUILIt----------W---------1: GreyFox ¤ Rockwood S SSW SW WSW W wiw NVV nnw N nrie NE ene E ese SE sse ¤ Reserve ~ • SJL m GreyFox ¤ Rockwood S ssw SW wsw W wnw NW nnw N nne NE ene E ese SE sse | Jul 2009 Daily Predominant Wind Source ~ 16 , ¤ Resene 1~ ~- mSJL -~ m Greyfo,< N 8 1--------19.--.--------.-------------1 H 1-r[-----------~---1 0 Rockwood H 6 Il S ssw SW wsw W wnw NW nnw N nne NE ene E ese SE sse Aug 2009 Daily Predominant Wind Source ~ 14--- - 12 ¤ Reserve 10 -r-----------1:--~------·---------------------------1 I SJL 8 ¤ Rockwood 4 2 1 0 S SSW SW WSW W wnw NW nnw N nne NE ene E ese SE sse Sep 2009 Daily Predominant Wind Source ~ 12 .SJL 11 8 m Greyfox 6 ¤ Rockwood 4 2 0 S SSW SW WSW W wnw NW nnw N nne NE ene E ese SE sse 0?!ale..~41.T"#.IR.serve 11 SJL 5 1 Greyfox 4 O Rockwood 3 - 2 - 2 - 1 1 3 . '. 0 . .I S SSW SW WSW W wnw NW nnw N nne NE ene E ese SE sse ON)•00601 ONAC)"a ZE= gd- L . 1 1 2.*- 4 - -FE~:z f . -- f- 1-----bii 1- -i - 1- ic:~2 1 1-- - - 1[EZZ= 1- 1-1 C 1.-4-= "1 1 1 J.J.!- -3 =-2-10 1 1 1 1 1 - 1% lin .I. 1 " -2 9} 1 1 1 , CD r 03 2 1 -1- 1 2 ' ' i c:~E 1 1 1 1 2 -2 .1- 1 a. -- 1 1. 1 1 1 1 1 lili I.-E l...1. I 1 . 1 1 1 1- -1 - 1 -7/ ¢0 SE< 8 ' 1 - 14 -1-·-1.-mALL- - 05 , , i *- LL LL LL C 11'..Ah --1 2 -daily avg (blue solid bar) alwa s between nearby SJ 's d "15 in avg high" and "15-min avg low" (green solid bars). I SJL Avg15-minLow (sometimes 0) 140 - 0%:20(212'eya'13===32 iTEDfl;131~'i~le most unaffected by local iSJL M~GIJ(172~ SpIS) i Reserve MaxGust 1 Reserve AvgGust Estes Monthly Wind Comparisons (mph) 2008-2009 O Reserve AvgDaily ries, as does autornat ling and recording intervals) . GreyFox MaxGust SJL: spls each 15-sec w/just da y 15-min avg high" & "15-min a spls each) available. Others: continuous daily avgs. 1 GreyFox AvgGust usts"are usually 2x those ed (les freq uipment, but their "avg gusts" are closer. N to S: Reserve, D GreyFox AvgDaily Rockwood MaxGus Rockwood AvgGus O Rockwood AvgDaily 4 s ) Po des 6nV Inr unr elly AoN pug) PO 08 Sheetl Chart 20 -- 01 eq 130 120 - 110 100 ' 109 1 .F·U ' - _~ ,1 10 09 1 - _ . - - -- -- ---- L -02 90 C&C . -1.- 1 I -.. M , 1. 6 + Region j Y* 4 1 1)2 ¥ . I. 4 V I. Continent -- c 1 If. '4.- ;49 A V 9 - 1. rs *9 34 ~ tr,Ir, . . 00 . .4MIIM , 4 4 9'. 0 ijie Res~.+A *- ~~. flfLIAL $. :, . * t - ' . -441 09. -- .7 9 41 bill 1 4 1 07.- <2924*fl ~2 09110#44 67~ . 46/*00' ~Estes Park'+ ~ L~ Es es .5,· ¥le -1 1365 -: # vi . e , 0 --- - Part,P.be 40 133]k ,DS#' _ 3292 Prospewt' f 'a*.8,4X - * 5 I o .0,£1 4- 0 4 @3 , C SJL 9: -1 4 r -9-16 y 0 f. (831~ 6~/ 112. U - 0,-f - , 7 9///le F IT./. 2. '1£ 7 .,4 , 4.. 1 ..10, 1 , 'll'I. JF~~ 1~4& 2:.4 -+6~ 4.67 (56/Ap *//4 1// 71/////FF# -4 h>•,6'~ .f' *7 1// r 1.. aol - 6 4<1 -444. % al . S. Fule//6- ~. &./ .../ 'b 45*»: A WA· 6-/ * Karen Thompson From: fallrivercabins@aol.com Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 11:10 AM ~ To: ronaldfnorris@gmail.com; Bob Joseph CC: Karen Thompson; dougklink@gmail.com; poggenpohl@mac.com; afraundorf@yahoo.com; info@fallrivercabins.com; steve_lane@basisarchitecture.com; JBHULL@aol.com Subject: Re: Additional Thoughts on Wind Turbine Code Hi to all, It is my opinion that we dont have any color requirements today for buildings. So that leaves me with the question why should we start now on wind turbines. I dont think it has been a major problem in the past. At this time i dont think we should make any more restrictions. Thanks for the thoughts Ron and Doug. jt In a message dated 10/26/2009 9:03:54 AM Mountain Daylight Time, ronaldfnorris@qmail.com writes: Morning Bob. Late last week Doug and I discussed two additional items we thought should be included in the draft wind turbine code. If the other Commissioners concur, would you please add these items: 1. Color: In ou, last Planning Commission meeting we assumed that the • only colors available are white and silver. However, since it's likely that producers of residential turbines may begin offering a wider choice of colors, let's add a statement that says something like 4 "turbines and their support structures shall be muted shades of browns and greens, if available from the manufacturer." 2. Roof-mounted wind devices: We did not discuss these, but some are already available. Suggest we add language that says "Any devices mounted directly on existing building structures shall comply with local building codes for safety, and shall comply with the overall height limit for wind devices." Many thanks, Ron This transmission, including any attachments, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under law. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information in this message, including any reliance thereon by you or any other third person, is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy this message in both electronic and any hard copy formats. 1 Karen Thompson om: CRonald Norris[~aldfnorris@gmail.com] nt: Mond«Ociober 26,2009 9:04 AM , O: Bob Joseph CC: Karen Thompson; Doug Klink; Rex Poggenpohl; Alan Fraundorf; John Tucker; Steve Lane; jbhull Subject: Additional Thoughts on Wind Turbine Code {f Morning Bob. Late last week Doug and I discussed two additional items we thought should be included in the draft wind turbine code. If the other Commissioners concur, would you please add these items: ~ begin offering a wider choice of colors, let's add a statement that says something like 1. Color: In our last Planning Commission meeting we assumed that the only colors available are white and silver. However, since it's likely that producers of residential turbines may < "turbines and their support structures shall be muted shades of browns and greens, if available from the manufacturer." 2. Roof-mounted wind devices: We did not discuss these, but some are already available. Suggest we add language that says "Any devices mounted directly on existing building ~ structures shall comply with local building codes for safety, and shall comply with the ,¢overall height l,imit for wind devices. " « Many thanks, n This transmission, including any attachments, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under law. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information in this message, including any reliance thereon by you or any other third person, is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy this message in both electronic and any hard copy formats. 1 Possible Factors to Consider Regarding Wind Turbine Regulations Ron Norris: 10/19/09 • Public opinion • Current State (and likely future developments) of wind turbine technology • Reliability of residential wind turbines • Energy conservation potential of residential turbines vs. other alternatives • Public safety • Noise • Property rights of owners • Impact on neighbors • Impact on property values • Impact on views, Estes Park's image, and tourism CGA- 7344 - L. - - 1- I - 4 - I. . IS. 21 W.1„ -;rds caught i n d-vI rm pus[~ . , V .* structures," Jodziewicz said. ~ Some species 4 Salazar said new technology m the ~ 4 I . I - %1 could be wiped 43 -1~ 2 i ..*~. ~ .- ... ~· ~ ..1,dejign of turbines andmore careful i 1·placement suchas outside of migra- 1 .:-1.1;torv paths and Eygy from ridgelines I I out, groups say . '·· L I'<Tairieducebirddeatlis*----=-- 1-Fry says othdrmethods include us- r:.1 · .5. '' . '· '.1 ''-·9>'· ....3- 1-- 1'' .itigradartodetectatidshutdowntur- ~ ByWilliain M.Welch - c . ·2 -:' 2 2..0- 2 bines fwhen migratory birds ap- r . j., 2.-6.,t--11,04'CI .4.12 ' proach,· building:towers higher and USATODAY uth more sbace between them, and Foryears, ahugewmd'tarmin Cali- ' '--'I; 1, .. where ~'forbid's#San Joaquin.Valley Was 8 : 4. 9 .·. ... ..:. :.v-* ,·,-p~ . 6.0- Ph,At raptorshilfitforsmallanimals. f '':, b.: .:. ·'., 7,4:71' ' 11.,1: .1.Vi ..klinology hai'evolved overthe lh*idring thdiEand# ~6f bi~~s,~in; -4:·;,i.- . ...I ' :, . cluding Polden'. eagies, rea-taitea ,- i,; :J......, r · -· " ' .-6 12' · '·C·.L .I-.· ' last several decades in significant .-'.1.·. 0 -4- , -4, 'tf Ways,"Saiazarsaid>Weknowhowto hawks and burrowing owls. * . 1lteraptoriveuldgetslited upby . .:..9 -i'j . .. - . ,:·~- -3 ~-'.23'· :p,-1:,,( dowind,farms inways that minimize thebladesonthe5,400turbinesinAl- 3, andmitigate theeffecton birdi" tamont Pass, or electibcuted Dy the ', . ., *ui« larm's.power lines. Scientists, L. r N6n-wind utilities fined heavily ... WlialiIe *Acies AM turbine experts :' . .j,/: ' '' r *• A ....... - 1 fcame0togetlier'm an attempt tb solve ,.- :-:i .' ' i '-; :, Ek. it i ,- ·u>.·t ··: ~ 20:·-: ·»9 < Some hee a double standard for the problem. The reut? 1-1 ''- wind farms. .. Protective measures putinplacein 3'-l,·4:," ·. 'i ·''J-,9,-im -A r;, *·'.t' ra. ='-t./'.: t'·3·''.2.- ' ExxonMobilpleadedguittyinfeder- an "efTort to reduce deaths by 50% 3 ¢ 1 - T.:. .11 < 1.l: :."-3-: 3.·' ~' .IN · .t. .7 ,· .alcoutt in August tothedeathsof85 failed.Deaths infactsoaredijrthree . ',-1 -:~-;?·:.- 174-«-0'11.i'.. 7,7: U · f. : J:; =-,Dit' :. 74' ..,1.... , birds ht ith'operationi:'ift.(&69efal offourbirdspecies studied, saidthe f,·,>':1 ' .1 7-, '14~~? ~' 1< s" ' 1--6 4· I 1:r:'0~ Mairt©%1 ~e~el:tz~ Althlitont Pass Wind Resource Area "3 1:1 -C , 73 * i ) 7.10 i 4 ality Study. -: # It . 1 . '. I . 9 "lby the Migratory Bird'Itealy Act, ahd slmightir, at Al~amont Pass is ..27't: .' ' : t ..' ..v.'all'*. :.2 3. ".- '1·Exibnagreedtopa6d600,000 infines 13; f·*;-·i.,~ -*d fees. Injuw, th€PatifiC*p @lity , f.fl..."1.. flu ill vw : 4¥i "·:- . 2of Oremn'had to'D*{ $10.5 million m Bts to,t®idly'bodst USY*liid-fi,im "..:.-4.- /, 1.-'**M}f'!L . j 'f" ..9.44 4431·-=,-1 >fnes. restitiltionfand iliiprovements power 20times could lead to massiv@ · «P...2 -3.- 00.-=.ml, L , ~47,.44§ 7 -3- -r'91, 4 f:-to;thek equi-pm#jit/r 232 eagles bir(11O5sesandevendknoidlis.'- - ~.. ' **Y.EQi:f:Rt :<I-J.--4,': 1 ·relalled byrunnIng intocipower 2~ WWfWind pr6je¢137'haveth{Lpor. -~ 0;': f~:1 1 *. ...' i„Irig...:. ..rb..:+ =.., lines m Wyoming,qactoraing to the ' 4..r~ t<.: t~tial: of *illifitalot of.migratory .,4.444 r 1.1./. U.S. Fish ahd Wildlife Service bird&,7. said.Michil I¥*, director of. conselvation Advocady at~ihe Ameri- Ir;tllp?-7?,fi.~~~~L-1-MI34-A ~.7 -~~f' f¥:. fri~~~r~,4-~~ ~ ~ . 4 de inigratory bir~1 lavij) tliat are b2ing i %*' '~ -':10;000 birds(nearly bli prbtected by can Bird Cobservancy iri Washington. 446* - Wmaprojects are being proposed 4 6 2 p ' ' , " B,Ben MarsocAP 1(illed everyyearat Altaliiont, accord- ..U ing to R6bert Brke, author of Gusher fdf the Teicas G*thd-Adantic Coak Imidiigfof abigbod#t:Enviin~t~entalists havesaiH they want 20% of the ~ the Great Plaid anit Uj>#ef Midwest nation's electticity genetat@d through Wind by 2030. Ciirrently, about' 1% is. of lies:*1112:'Dan#rous Delusions of President-Obhmi*shid in *il thht he ,<, ~ rfEE#gy Inde»ide,ice.' Bryce says »uld illdiarbinus along the Man- Worldng on th* problem .ytariat sdinbofthe natioh.bigtest'."thhtifollows.a decidEs-long double- wind [afins, bt~t Aid¢*y the doncerns y stjaidd Whbrd oil and gaj companies'~ ptic as 6fie **t~lielf fheet'a goal bji Jnviiminidiitalist*knit the industry Of Interior *rdtary Ken Salazar is a*bverstated. w ' - c . 7 [r. I face*oskutioR but ?politicalw pop- 'ov 6f the nation's elec- aware of theproblemlAilliys th@ad- - 1.2itri@ joaztewicz,imanager .of~siti) ulaV~R)this ofenergyget a pass .-I dky~2~ikiwiNd~by 2030. alr-' ministrAtidntis·Woi*iftg~With eIidrgy ing policy fofthe Ainerion Wind En- -balazar~aid higidepartment;s Fish rently abaut.1% of US. power comes companies and wildlifegr6upstohelp ergyfAssotiation, .said (the:m_ try ·: and'Wildlifd° SEIVicett~k 'force: will froinwitid, according to the American lessenthe d€aths.. "Ithinkwewill beabletommiLze hat=tZEzt21':J~%: 2212% 2:&5%Jl,ind Wind Energy Association. 'llidres.concen because of the the faimber of bilils.belig killed, jubtof projdet- all'Weer 'thei.tbuhtrfthi€ Bird~advotates raise fdoubts about ' scale Of*hal-We'rd talking about" ibyted*i,·of sheaf tiumbers,t Shlazar are. notli*itlg those:immitti.'t..sht · tlie,imAct bkcalie*the guidelines said Shawn Smallwoodi a Davis, Cali[, saidlhe fact thdt hothclbirds will be said, -referring to-Altiiiolit 'r ' ~ - . . are Voluht~ry. , eatd*ist. atid reseajeher. "Just the' killdd is'areallw. Bild dedths-c=ibt'be tomplkely, s "Ifs still entirely up to power com- 'll./. ' ' I. sneer numberd ofturbines ... we're Offi-als ' 'the windlenergy indus ttimiiat ,{JodzieWici said/1 ere pani66 w v de' toWers,"sal *Wi~~db€killijik go m*raptbrs un- Iry sg miltal#'blids'and liitds:bi · Gl~be 4Kbitds tt# 911&~~~~2- G®in Sl~~~s~antorthib Aiiier~ , til there are no more raptors." prey, inchiding dagles,·are killedead. cad@t*iao *lia6 ,Ntt~Ehd~ >icaNBWd Consetvancy~- . .4 9 - .W - ., . 47 SE~ LA'ty- tj€y3 9"n 18,- Egs.Uy 8)20[EDVE € Summary of Information on Wind Turbines pll} OCT 1 2 2009 'll~ From October 7,2009 Visit to National Renewable Energy Laborato~in-Golden u k u J 4 1 Ron Norris, October 11, 2009 Introduction: On a tour arranged by Sustainable Mountain Living, we met with James P. Bosch, a biologist at NREL, who provided an overview of NREL's research facilities, took us through several state of the art laboratories, and provided information about NREL's programs that could be of interest to residents of the Estes Valley. This summary focuses on information provided by NREL on small residential wind turbines, and reveals some of the challenges associated with making these small turbines viable. Specific Comments bv Mr. Bosch: • NREL is doing extensive research on wind turbines, but is now focusing efforts entirely on the large, commercial turbines. Efficiencies of small turbines are so low in most applications that they are no longer a research priority. The comments that follow reflect the knowledge that NREL has gained from the work they had previously done on small turbines. • Residential turbines tend to perform best when they are mounted high above any interferences (e.g., other buildings,·trees, etc.) and when winds are of moderate speed, not gusty, and come from a steady direction. They perform poorly at lower heights, in high wind velocities, and in gusty and variable wind conditions. • The large wind farms in northeastern Colorado are good applications for wind energy because the winds are very steady in both speed and direction. • Because of Estes Park's topography and wind conditions, he would not recommend that anyone install a residential turbine without first engaging a consultant to do a site-specific wind survey, to determine if a turbine will be effective on that site, and if so, what turbine, and what height, would work best. • Quality of small turbines has been variable. Many have experienced significant mechanical problems. Any regulation of residential turbines should include a requirement that they be kept in working order, or dismantled if not operable for some specified period of time. Excerpts from an Article on Residential Wind Turbines in the Fall '09 Edition of «Smart Enemy Living" Magazine: • Wind turbines perform best when they can spin high up and without interference [i.e., they are most effective when on tall towers]. • Property owners with about an acre of unobstructed land and local zoning rules allowind ( towers that sometimes rise 125 feet can benefit the most. D- f- -b Summary of Information on Wind Turbines (cont'd) • Consult a qualified consultant. • Small wind has tough challenges across the board. • There is not yet an accepted standard that small turbines must meet to prove that they are safe and that they function as advertised. • The quality of the wind depends on the location. • While pretty much all of sunny Colorado is a great place to collect solar energy, wind is very site specific. • Commercial developers erect towers with testing equipment... to measure the wind in detail, usually for a year [before deciding to construct turbines in that area]. • «Small wind turbines have to be made more reliable, more productive, and safer. They need to comply with international standards, and testing and measurement results need to be made public." (Paul Gipe, author of Wind Energy Basics Revised) • Small wind experts agree that small turbines need a standard rating system based on how - much electricity they are likely to produce in a month and in a year at h specific wind speed. They are currently sold based on the maximum power they can produce... which is not a very helpful measure. ' ED September 11,2009 ll/]] l SEP 1 1 2009 ~ ~ Ken Dahlgren Carol Dahlgren 617 N gth Street St. Peter. MN 56082 507-380-6007 Mr. Dahlgren phoned the Community Development Department to voice is opposition to wind turbines within the Town limits. He and his wife have a second home in Estes Park, and both feel very strongly about not allowing wind turbines around town. He said that if someone has a large enough lot where a wind turbine could be at least 2000 feet from anyone's property line, it might be acceptable. He realizes there is a lot of pressure on the planning department on this issue, and will make a special trip to Colorado to share his concerns if necessary. He lives in St. Peter, Minnesota, which is similar to Estes Park in that it has a very scenic setting. Wind turbines are not allowed in St. Peter, and he knows of only four places in the entire county where they are allowed. Gustavus College is in St. Peter, and has been unsuccessful in getting a wind turbine approved on campus. kt 01 . 2-(o 56 1. 75010 20 upt p r,r,q. 12 - -/r42£ + 5.4-(p )*h 0 9,9 A .An Qcw~4 +t~ 9<9~af t °1.Ar dEDA...~ 9 4/1 er+ f" t L..A l»no( nult c ,-2, -thon A k<+ Q,t-voj--;0-·~~ * trcot 44 11¢ °4 9.1 ue-34 1* (7339nt«b 4-4 - DIE©,6¥12111 --530~_ a +92~11~ SEP -7 2009 s -1U1 92 4-9©3- CO j [aren Thompson From: Sherri Burrisk [ @airbits.com] ~1~~~~7wl Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 12:51 PM linfr_-9 13l TO: Karen Thompson :~ ~ SEP -1 2009 "I Subject: wind turbines in Estes Park LE==9 Karen, Thank you for responding to my message regarding the Wind Turbines in Estes Park. I am writing this message to voice my thoughts and concerns about the resurrection of wind turbines in Estes. I live on Country Club not too far from the one that now stands. I saw a variance on the fence but in fear of being nosy, I didn't not stop to see what is was pertaining to. I thought possibly a Noise variance as he does work in his garage on vehicles. Well, I have to say I was very upset when I first saw the wind turbine. I still am sick when passing buy it. I feel it is an eyesore. I am concerned that if the further construction of wind turbines continues, we can say good bye to property values. Here is the way I see it. One buys artwork that features lovely, pristine mountain views appealing to the eye. Put the wind turbine in the artwork, and I bet they would not buy it. Now, put a house in the same piece of artwork with those lovely, pristine mountain views and ask the people, " Would you buy this artwork?" How about the bottom line, Would you buy this House with the view obstructed by the wind turbine?" Sorry, but I doubt it. ere is my thought to camouflage. You might fool the elk, deer and bear but you wont fool the investor or the people. hat thought is really insulting. If it looks like a duck in camo, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, I say it is still a duck. This is not meant mean or insulting but rather a call to just be real. Well, I am not sure why most people buy here outside of the obvious which is a sound investment. I am concerned my investments are not being protected. The city is very particular and up to this point has made decisions based on " the views." My hopes are we continue down that path. Thank you Karen for forwarding this to the powers that be, and giving me the opportunity to sound my concerns. I will look forward to good news on this matter. Regards, Sherri Burrisk This transmission, including any attachments, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under law. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information in this message, including any reliance thereon by you or any other third person, is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy this message in both electronic and any hard copy formats. 1 1!*Illne 3*2Tv• iii -lilli 0~ AUG 2 5 2009 #Ul C Lynn J. Weissenrieder 1373 beer Path Court, Estes Park, Colorado 80517 - Phone (9701 577- 1 25 August 2009 To: Mr. Bob Joseph Mayor Pinkham Town of Estes Park Trustees 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park, Colorado 80517 bear Mr. Joseph, Mayor Pinkham & Town of Estes Park Trustees: I know that you face many tough challenges balancing the rights and desires of individuals and the welfare of the community as a whole. The current issue of private wind turbine is certainly one of those challenges. I am writing to urge you to err on the side of extreme caution when making decisions on this controversial issue. The'Estes VAlley is fortunate to have very spectacular viewscapes. Turbines such as the one recently erected on Route 7 are an eyesore and inconsistent with preserving the pristine character of Estes Park. That individuals with the Town's permission would choose to damage these views in the belief that some greater personal or humanitarian goal is being served is q mystery to me. \L_27 I believe that over time, the value of privately generated wind power will be much the same as that of the 6solar power" phenomenon of the 70' & 80's. The only true economic benefactors of this prior technology were those who sold it, those who installed it and those who are today removing it. Had it truly benefited the homeowner we would see it as a predominant feature on today's homes. Fortunately the visual impact (although in many cases ugly) and auditory impact was much less than that of wind turbines. I have only been able to attend one Town meeting on this topic. I left that meeting with the impression that the Town was focused on minimizing the overall noise and visual impact of these devices and that low profile, vertical axis designs were preferred. I believe that the only turbines permitted by the Town should be these low profile vertical axis designs and,that the . type currently damaging our views should be prohibited. I realize that there may be some *efficiency" arguments that favor the bigger horizontal axis devices and that lacking this efficiency the individual economic payback time may be longer. So be it! your job should not be to try to make a bad idea less bad. Production of electrical power is best left to professionals at the public utilities not misguided homeowners. Sincerely, r:=4103- C/~JI Weissenrieder 1.1/ Wind Turbine Public Forum Thursday, April 30,2009 6:00 p.m. Town Board Room Staff in Attendance: Community Development Director Bob Joseph; Utilities Director Bob Goehring, Recording Secretary Karen Thompson. There were approximately 55 citizens in the audience, including several Planning Commissioners. Director Joseph opened the forum stating this is the first of several discussions about regulating small-scale residential wind turbines in the Estes Valley. Tonight's forum is to begin discussion on regulatory issues, particularly the following: Height of Towers, Ridgeline Protection and Visual Impacts, Setbacks and Zoning districts, Highway Corridors, Noise, Flicker, Energy Audits, and Inoperative Units and Disrepair. Director Joseph presented a slide show describing the various types and operation of small-scale residential wind turbines. He also explained the reasons behind the growing popularity of wind turbines. Some communities including Estes Park ( currently participate in a net-metering program which is connected to the local power grid. Any excess electricity produced by alternate energy sources for residential use can be sent back through the grid for a credit on utility bills. Director Joseph began by focusing on.tower. height and turbine performance versus visual impact. Studies show wind speed and wind current stability is directly related to the distance from ground level. Wind speeds three feet off the ground are only about 2/3 of what they are at 120 feet. The greater the topographic relief, the greater the turbulence. Director Joseph noted the general rule of thumb states turbines should be installed at least 20 to 30 feet above the tallest obstruction within 300 feet. The highest efficiency is reached when the turbines are 60 - 80 feethigh. The height limit in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) area is 30 feet. Director Joseph also stated wind turbulence can cause higher levels of noise and require more maintenance than if they were higher and had free flowing wind. Director Joseph explained that large-scale wind farms will typically recover the imbedded investment in approximately one year and then become profitable due to the economy of scale, location, and engineering. In 1999, Estes Park Light and Power began participating in a program where residents can subscribe to and purchase wind energy through the Platte River Power Authority. He stated this is a very economic and environmentally effective way to reduce carbon footprints and get a better dollar-for-dollar return on your investment. In comparison, small-scale ( wind turbines, unless placed in optimum position and height, may never recoup the investment. Director Joseph stated there are a few proposed turbines within the Estes Valley. The current regulatory structure reads as long as the entire structure is less than 30 feet in height, a building permit can be issued. A variance through the Board of Adjustment would be required for any probosed wind turbines over 30 feet tall. Larimer County's height limit is currently 40 feet, so turbines constructed outside the EVDC area would need to comply with 'this- limit. Director Joseph stated noise is another concern. The current code relies on zoning districts to determine allowed decibel devels. From his studies of wind turbines, it appears many approach and possibly , exceed the decibel limits; however, technology is improving with the goal to make them quieter. The burden of noise compliance is on the property owner and product distributor. Some units can be programmed to shut down when certain sp6eds are reached, which could help With the noise. Chris Stough/Local Resident believes vertical (helix) turbines will probably work best in this area. They can be installed below the 30 foot height limit, and he says one is unable to hear it over the sound of the wind. He thinks wildlife issues will be lessened if noise levels are low. He also said some wind turbines can be painted to blend in with the environment. · , Various' comments and questions were>received by the public, including but not limited to: Is there a Way to Compare the efficiency of different,types of turbiries? Could they be clustered and town-owned? Could generators be installed on the towers on the causeway? Cost'payback from the system will not be great,„ but the appreciation in home value could help make up for the cost. It was suggested wind turbines should be reviewed slowly.due.to advancing technology: DavezSchultz/Town Resident thinks wind turbines in Estes Park are out of character. Of greater coricern to him is when larger developments are built and the developer requests approval for a larger turbine to serve many households. He 'believes the minimum lot size should be 5 acres,c·and turbines should be located in the middle of the pro'perty rather than the perimeter to impact the property owners more than the neighbors. Mr. Schultz also suggests not allowing wind turbines in designated critical wildlife habitat corridors. 4 Chris Stough/Local Resident believes the bird kill issue is related to the low frequency noise emitted by the turbines, which disorients birds. Technology is improving and; noise is being reduced.C He also stated the average cost including installation is between $16,000 and $28,000. 1% L j. f Jim McCormick/County Resident is a fsupporter of wind energy purchased through the Platte River Power Authority. He stated while socially desirable, small-scale residential wind turbines will never yield a return on investment, will have a negative 0 c effect on neighbors and neighborhoods, and are completely incompatible with residential use. Jay Heinmann/County Resident opposes any small-scale turbine of the three blade type. He is also concerned about the dangers of structural failures. Jim Tawney/Town Resident supports wind turbines and hopes to see little regulation. Frank Theis/County Resident believes people should be allowed to take advantage of government energy programs for solar and wind power. He supports wind turbines under 30 feet in height. Julie Heckman/Town Resident believes small-scale turbines are good as long as they are done in a conscientious way, and should be a right of the property owner. She stated technology is making big strides in improving wind turbines. Dave Rusk/County Resident is a supporter of distributive small-scale wind energy. He believes a vertical axis system can be used without impacting the view. He wants to be able to take advantage of the net-metering system offered by the Town, and would like to see the Community Development Department move forward with allowing wind turbines in the Estes Valley. Tim McPhee/County Resident believes not all available wind turbine products should be allowed in Estes Park. He also suggests allowing only one per property. It is his opinion there are too many types available to be able to regulate each one, and general standards will need to be written. He hopes the Town hears public comment concerning visual and noise impacts. Bill Darden/Town Resident believes it is a right of property owners to be able to install alternate energy sources as long as they comply with the regulations. Andy Pizer/Local Resident supports helix type turbines. He believes we have to begin being self-sufficient with energy, and small changes can make an impact. Steve Little/Town Resident believes the only practical way to reduce your carbon footprint is to not consume the energy in the first place. He recommends having an energy audit completed on your home to find out what areas can be improved to lessen energy consumption. Director Joseph commented that any regulations could include an energy audit to ensure the home was energy efficient. The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. 1- Wind Turbine Public Forum Thursday, August 13, 2009 6:00 p.m. Town Board Room Community Development Director Bob Joseph opened the forum be stating this is a meeting to hear from the public how they feel about regulating small-scale wind turbines. On August 11, 2009, the Town Board placed a 120-day moratorium within the town limits on issuing any building permits for small-scale residential wind turbines. Comments from tonight's discussion will be reviewed by Staff and eventually the Estes Valley Planning Commission. Director Joseph briefly discussed the various types of wind turbines, and also reviewed the net-metering program currently in place with Estes Park Light and Power. It was suggested by someone in the audience to put Director Joseph's PowerPoint presentation on the Town website. Dave Rusk/County Resident is a small wind turbine advocate. He mentioned the Estes Valley's unique wind and views, and believes tower height should not exceed the tops of trees. He has seeh sorne very small turbines made for urban areas. He believes <-- with neighbors. zoning may require cehain restrictions. He stressed the importance of communicating Tom Gresslin/Town Resident suggests requiring an environmental impact study prior tb approving a wind turbine. He cited various reports from different states that were 4. opponetits of wind turbinds. He supports using the Plaite River P6wer Authority's (PRPA) wind energy program. Sandy LindquisUTown Resident questions the mechanical track records of turbines and believes regulations should be in place to enforce maintenance and repair or removal. Reuben Bergsten/Town Engineer explained the wind energy program with PRPA. The Town is planning a pilot program to determine the productivity in this area. Director Joseph clarified the land use code does not currently prohibit the installation of wind turbines as long as they are 30 feet or less in height. Until the moratorium, the practice was to treat them like any other structure, and the Town had a legal obligation to permit them. Town staff has a professional and ethical obligation to hear from the community, and more discussion will,occur prior to any regulation implementation. Any developmdnt code changes must be approved by the Planning Commission, Town Board of Trustees, and the Board of County Commissioners. 1 Betty Hull/Planning Commissioner stated wind turbines will be placed on an agenda for C Planning Commission Study Session. She supports the moratorium to buy time to hear public comment and establish some regulations. Carol Gresslin/Town Resident opposes wind turbines from a visual standpoint. Director Joseph stated it is difficult to obtain second- and third-party data, but easy to obtain manufacturer's data. Performance can be very different depending on th& region of the countrik. Estes Park has a lot of turbulence, which can compromise pdrformance. Prop driveri units always have to search for the wind direction, while helix types operate in wind from any direction. Different technologids have different pros' and tons fot performance and visual impacts. Marcia Logan/Town Resident would like to be able to know more about the types of wind turbines that will be allowed. Clay WrighUTown Resident is a proponent of wind turbines in Estes Park, and believes they sh'ow that the Town is willing to itand up"for the environmerit. He sees thbm as a very positive statement to the country. Jim McCormicleCounty Resident Wants renewable 6nergy soutcato be used thoughtfully. Wind turbinel are ndt just a bersonal decision, but affect thepedpld'around them, and there should be measures to mitidate the impact. He' is a strong supporter'of purchasirig wind poweR from the Town's program with PRPA. He is in favor of the 1/,t' , ~ moratorium. Mr. McCormick supports disallowing them altogether since wind energy is available through the PRPA subscription program. t. Ct t @ 1 r '1 Frank Theisd/County Resident asked about the recov6ry of erhbedded carbon emissions. Director Joseph stated if you do not put horitontalaxis turbinek high enough to operate at their optimum efficiency, they may never recover their costs. So, as performance is enhanced the visual impact is increased. Mayor Bill PibkhAm said the Platte River Power Authority is in the process of'contracting to double their capacity for wind energy. He also stated if you have wind generation on 1 -1 1.t "f your own property, you still need t6 be connected to the grid due to the unreliability of the wind in the area. HO noted thdre id an online site showing wind patterbs in Colorhdo. His perspective is that the PRPA wind energy program allows everyone to participate, while personal wind turbines will be limited to40nly a few individuals due td the cost. T A .. Directof Joseph»stated modi cost recoVery data is from manufacturers that ~are tdsting in optimum positions and afeas. Reuben Berosten/Td66 Efigind@r stated the prelimindry aneniometer results he has seen for this area are~ disappointing. Ron Norris/Planning Commissioner believes information should be gathered on the following areas: height of towers versus designs, what other communities have done L with setbacks and zoning (particularly in mountain communities), noise data, wildlife impact, energy production in variable winds, and actual performance and reliability of these units. Jim Tawney/Town Resident believes we live in an overregulated community. He thinks wind turbines can be strategically placed in the community with careful consideration. He also wants to make sure property rights are protected. Frank Theiss/County Resident supports wind turbines at a height of 30 feet. Jay Heinemann/County Resident believes there are other ways to be "green" rather than installing wind turbines; specifically, adding insulation to your attic, purchasing wind energy from the Town, or purchasing an electric thermal storage heater (depending on your type of heat source). Jim McCormicWCounty Resident suggests having a conceptual discussion about whether or not wind turbines should be allowed in the Estes Valley. Director Joseph asked for a show of hands as to whether there is a place in the community for small turbines if regulated properly - 7. Those that were opposed to the idea no matter how they were regulated - 12. Undecided - about 9. believing it is the opposite of what our location next to Rocky Mountain National Park Roger Galloway/Town Resident is very opposed to wind turbines in Estes Park, represents. He thinks it will depress property values and irritate visitors. John Kamprath/Town Resident is concerned we are going to go the wrong direction, and wants to make sure there will be opportunities as the technology improves and advances. He wants to make sure property rights are protected. An Allenspark resident believes we have an obligation to care for and maintain the views for the tourists that visit the area. Mayor Bill Pinkham mentioned that Boulder County has discussed this topic and has created some definitions. He wonders if the PRPA could do a better job promoting its wind energy program. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.