The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Estes Valley Planning Commission 2009-12-15Prepared: December 7,2009 Revised: AGENDA ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, December 15, 2009 4:00 Study Session, Rooms 201 and 202, Town Hall 6:00 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 a. Correction to minutes - November 12, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting - Utilities Engineer Reuben Bergsten has requested the following changes be made: Utilities Engineer Bergsten stated House Bill 1160 requires tewns electric utilities to allow installation of 10 kW systems with no regulations other than what is already in plaGe for residential applications. The Town could require regular inspections on larger systems, which would bo regulated by the Public Works Department. b. Approval of minutes - November 17, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting c. Acknowledgement of minutes from joint study session between Town Board and Planning Commission from November 24,2009 3. AMENDMENT TO ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE - WIND TURBINE REGULATIONS The proposed amendments would regulate small-scale residential and commercial wind turbines. 4. REPORTS Kind Coffee - Appeal withdrawn by appellants. 5. ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2010 Election of Chair - Town Resident Election of Vice-Chair - County Resident Appointment of Community Development Department Administrative Assistant as Recording Secretary 6. 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 Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 November 12, 2009 Phil Edwards/County Resident is opposed to wind turbines and the negative visual impacts. Bob Ayers/Town Resident opposes wind turbines in the area, and supports the renewable energy program. He encouraged the Commission to disallow wind turbines built with current technology. Utilities Engineer Bergsten stated under current net-metering policy, alternative energy sources connected to the grid are not allowed to operate if the grid goes down due to safety issues for the lineman when that energy is fed back through the system. Equipment to completely disconnect from the grid is available to homeowners but is very expensive. Chair Klink closed the public comment. Chair Klink stated a community wind farm is out of the scope of this regulation. The Planning Commission's directive is to regulate small-scale residential wind turbines. Based on public input, Staff and the Commission will draft regulations to be recommended to Town Board and Board of County Commissioners, who will be the decision-making bodies. Commissioner Norris stated the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden has discontinued research on small-scale wind turbines due to low efficiency. Commissioner Hull agrees the survey is not scientific, but over half of the comments supported height regulations, 46.3% of respondents believe they have negative visual impact, and 18 comments were directed towards property rights. Chair Klink stated although unscientific, the survey provided comments from interested residents and visitors that were willing to state their opinions. Commissioner Fraundorf concludes from public comment that residents do not want widespread wind turbines, especially on small lots. He hears that wind turbines should be strictly regulated, and possibly even banned. Commissioner Poggenpohl thinks the Commission should be looking at ways to protect the view quality when creating regulations. Commissioner Lane stated the Commission should not be reactionary, and thinks they should be able to draft a reasonable set of restrictions that make sense and address needs. Chair Klink polled the board on items "B" - height limit and "C" - setbacks. The Commissioners agreed the maximum height limit should be 30 feet to the top of the blade, and the setback from the property line should be five times the height of the structure. Commissioner Poggenpohl would also like to see flexibility for small personal systems that are shorter than 30-feet and would not require a 10-foot ground clearance. Director Joseph explained these small systems are a subset of this technology and would require a different regulatory approach. There was general consensus among the Commission not to restrict color and surface treatment. The prohibition of lighting, graphics, signs, and other decoration should be written into the code. Chair Klink called a recess at 3:37. The meeting reconvened at 3:50. On proposed item "M" - safety standards, Commissioner Poggenpohl has researched the product safety standards for wind turbines and found international safety standards, but none originating in the United States. He suggests applying the International Electro- Technical Committee standards, coordinated with the International Standards Organization (ISO) and the International Energy Agency until the United States adopts national safety standards for wind turbines. Utilities Engineer Bergsten stated House Bill 1160 requires tewAG-electric utilities to allow installation of 10 KkWW- systems with-Re regulations other than what is alroady in placofor residential applications.-:FNe-Â·Tewn-Gewlâ‚¬1 roquiro rogular incpoctions on largor cyctoms, which would bo rogulatod by tho Public WeFk&--DepaAment. Director Joseph stated this is largely an issue with the state electrical inspector. The Building Department handles the structural component as well as the setback requirements. Commissioner Poggenpohl stated because there are no US Estes Valley Planning Commission Members t . C Â·a 1 Commissioner Appointed iby Term Expirds ... Rex Poggenpohl County June 30, 2013 Alan Fraundorf Town December 31, 2012 Betty Hull County June 30, 2011 Steve Lane County June 30, 2011 Doug Klink, Chair County June 30, 2010 Ron Norris Town December 31, 2010 John Tucker, Vice-Chair Town December 31, 2012 Richard Homeier, Town Board N/A N/A Liaison RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 24,2009 Minutes of a Joint Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD AND ESTES VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in Rooms 202 & 203 in said Town of Estes Park on the 24th day of November, 2009. Board: Mayor Pinkham, Trustees Blackhurst, Eisenlauer, Ericson, Levine, Homeier and Miller Commission: Commissioners Fraundorf, Hull, Lane, Norris and Poggenpohl Also Attending: Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town Administrator Richardson, Town Attorney White, Town Clerk Williamson, Director Joseph and Planners Chilcott and Shirk Absent: Commissioners Klink and Tucker Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. PRIORITIZE DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGES. The Town Board ranked a list of Development Code changes presented by the Estes Valley Planning Commission. The list by highest ranking included enforcement of current development code, wind turbines, vacation home rentals and Bed & Breakfasts, accessory dwelling units/kitchens, Planned Unit Development (PUD) provisions (downtown), RM - Multi-Family Residential and A-Accommodations standards (replace existing kitchen based density formulas with a Floor Area Ratio (FAR)), adopt solar panel regulations, clarify containment provision in the CD-Commercial Downtown districts (tour operators and bike rentals), expired development plan approvals, fix Appendix D (reconcile Town and County road standards), private schools (develop standards), limit site disturbance on old lots, A-1-Accommodation density formulas (clarify definition of unit), wildlife and open space, inclusionary zoning (affordable housing), revision of Comprehensive Plan, and commercial/residential interface zoning. Trustee Miller suggested PUDs be addressed first and focus on the entire valley with three types, including residential, commercial and mixed use. He stated the PUD process encourages developers to be more creative and develop intelligent design. He encouraged staff to review other community's regulations to determine what would work for Estes Park. Discussion occurred amongst the Board and the Commissioners and has been summarized: there may be some issues that could be resolved rather quickly and with little staff time; PUDs could provide additional housing options; the Town should address the solar panel regulations before it becomes an issue; PUDs need to be addressed because they are not readily available with the current code language; the Board needs to have a discussion on why regulations are required to address certain issues because regulation without enforcement may not be the answer; enforcement of current development code should be removed from the priority list; accessory dwelling units should be addressed with workforce housing and PUDs; the Comprehensive Plan does not include an energy policy and should be revised; the Planning Commission should review the Comprehensive Plan and submit a report to the Town Board on necessary changes/updates. After further discussion, the top priorities included 1) Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), Housing (specific code changes to be identified after the joint meeting with the Town Board, Planning Commission and the Housing Authority in February 2010) and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town Board Study Session - November 24,2009 - Page 2 Comprehensive Plan review. Administrator Halburnt suggested a joint Task Force be established with Town Board and Planning Commissioner members to review the Comprehensive Plan. A discussion ensued on whether or not to, regulate alternative energy such as solar panels and solar arrays. Some members expressed concern with property rights and questioned the need to regulate, while others expressed concern with view corridors and the rights of neighboring property owners. A problem statement needs to be outlined in order to identify and address the issues related to alternative energy. WIND TURBINES. Director Joseph stated the Planning Commission has studied, reviewed the surveyi and taken public comment on the issue, and have concluded wind turbines should be regulated and not banned by striking a balance between property rights and public concern. An extension of the temporary moratorium has been requested to allow the Planning Commission time to investigate and develop regulation for a new affordable and efficient micro-turbine before bringing a recommendation forward to the Town Board. The Planning Commission would recommend the devices meet international standards because the state has not developed safety standards for the devices. Board comments included: the proposed regulations would ban wind turbines on most lots; HOAs should address the issue; why regulate wind turbines if the intent is to ban them; a special review process would allow neighboring property owners a voice in the review process; and regulations already exist in the code such as setbacks, height and noise that should be used to regulate wind turbines. Planning Commission avoided the special review process because there is no other issue regulated in that manner. The Commission focused on regulating . turbines thiough setbacks. Attorney White emphasized a variance for the sighting of a wind turbine due to setback requirements would not be in the preview of the Board of Adjustment, as the function of the Board of Adjustment is to address irregularities of lots. Discussion followed on how to address wind turbines either through regulation or a ban throughout the valley. The Town Board requested the Planning Commission bring forward a recommendation for the Board's consideration. VACATION HOMES AND BED & BREAKFAST CODE AMENDMENT - PROBLEM STATEMENT. Director Joseph stated the vacation home code amendments have been simplified in relation to services provided by owner, meal service, housekeeping, definition of party' and minor wordsmithing. Staff would replace the word agency in the code amendments with representative. ACCESSORY KITCHEN. Director Joseph stated the recommended code change would allow an accessory kitchen on any lot with the recordation of a land use affidavit. The affidavit would ensure future owners are aware the property cannot be used as a duplex. There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m. Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission November 17, 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 Klink, Commissioners Fraundorf, Hull, Lane, Norris, Poggenpohl Also Attending: Director Joseph, Town Attorney White, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, Town Board. Liaison Richard Homeier, and Recording Secretary Thompson Absent: Commissioner Tucker ./.0/ 1 \ The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and notnecessarily the chronological sequence. Chair Klink called the meeting to order at 6:00 e.16.-and tbelcomed approximately 20 citizens to the meeting. ./.. /. \ / .4. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT ~. * . Â« I. L./.1 None. 46 ~. I 2. CONSENT AGENDA : i I Approval of minutes from the Novemt#r 12,2009 Special PlatininO Commission meeting. I , It was moved and seconded (Hull/L~rie) thatthe ~nsent agenda be approved, and the motion passed unanimously with ohe absent. 1 7 \ 7 3. AMENDMENT TO ESTES I VALLEY DEyELOPMENT CODE - WIND TURBINE REGULATIONS . 1 \\-9. Planner Shirk stdted the :draftÂ»being presented allows Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems (SWECS) in all Zoning distridtÂ©probided specific setback requirements are met. Basbd on public comment, the maxinitim height was reduced from 50 feet to 30 feet from ...dxisting grade to the top of the tallest blade. Setbacks from property lines are proposed to be five times the structure height,*so a thirty-foot tall system would have a minimum f setback of 150 Ut SWECS would be prohibited in ridgeline protection areas; however, broperty owners woold have th@opportunity to demonstrate to the Planning Commission, with.photographic sirhulations, that a mapped ridgeline protection area is not actually a ridgeline.1The current noise ordinance for the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County would applÂ©With a*minimum setback of five times the SWECS height, code language addressino shhdow flidker is no longer needed. Lighting and decorating of SWECS would be prohibited>SWECS would be required to be kept in safe operating conditions and to have at least 10 feet of ground clearance between the ground and the lowest part of a moving bladefControls to limit the speed of the blade would be required; however, the language in the current draft concerning automatic and manual controls on blade speed would be removed. Planner Shirk also stated that language in the current draft referencing the International Standards Organization and International Energy Agency would be removed and replaced with a reference to a specific safety standard. Building permits would be required. Only one SWECS would be allowed per lot. For example, multi-family properties could have one per lot, not one per dwelling unit. Micro-wind systems would be exempt from these standards; however, there would be a five-square-foot swept area limit, which equates to an approximate 1.5 foot blade. Finally, a definition for a SWECS would read: "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. Such systems are accessory to the principal use or structure on a lot." RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 November 17, 2009 Chair Klink stated that the Planning Commission has received public comment requesting a ban on wind turbines. He stated this is a political decision and is the purview of the elected officials, i.e., the Town Board and Board of County Commissioners. Planning Commission's purview is to present draft regulations to the elected officials to adopt, reject, or modify. Public Comment: Todd Plummer/Town Resident stated the large setbacks would make it very difficult for property owners to install wind turbines and make it impossible for him to install any kind of wind generator on his property, and questioned theujustification for the proposed setbacks. He believes this is a de facto ban. Chair Klink commented that utility providers in the Estes Valley have plans in place to eliminate above-ground power sources, including but not limited to electrical lines on 30-foot power poles. Mr. Plummer believes alternative energy generation is not supported by the Town. /1 Amy Plummer/Town Resident stated that, as outlined, theseirestrictions are limiting innovation and creating policy at a time when the country*hould'be moving away from fossil fuel products. She thought each wind turbine shouldl be review&d individually rather than have such sweeping restrictions. 06 1 Tom Bergman/Town Resident stated the setbacl&4re too large, and the.swept area for the micro-wind systems is too small. Smaller,lnits could be attached to a~house, could meet the 10-foot minimum ground clearance<requirement, ahd,could still genetate etiough energy to power home appliances and lights in ah odtage..4-4 Dave Rusk /County Resident appreciated the Plannikg@ommission taking on this difficult task. He preferred a 50-foot height.limit. He questioned *hy a setback five times the structure was being considered wRen the county requires h.setback two times the height. He believed the vertical axis syst&*isÂ·<artsuperior to horizor;tal'axis systems. As a property owner, he did not want propdrty rights tÂ¢be restricted By these setbacks. He also believed people opposing wind turbine-s"are mote vocal thanttlie proponents, though the recent renewable energysurvey shows dWitrehtly. 5 / 5 3 ' Johanna Darderi/Town Resident would likeito see the Aratorium extended. She thought it was impoptdht to *termihe the most efficiddt height before creatinj regulations. 4 \-9 I i Kay Rusk/County Re~ident*sÂ®ported wind energy systems. She recommended not being too restrictioe so residelit&*Rn-becor*lessllbpendent on foreign oil and fossil fuels. She 9.OPSd that th@PlanninB Commission Would support using renewable wind energy. a f / '331 Hdinemanfi/Colinty ResidALstated the wind energy program through the Poudre 4--~River Power Authbrity<(PRPA),is rhore efficient than small-scale wind turbines. He was corkerned about ttie View impakt of wind turbines in residential areas. He supported extending'the moratdril.An. He recommended a modification in the code requiring input from'adjabent properN owners. 11 - Jim McC~mick/County Hesident previously workedÂ·with staff at the National Renewable Energy Labdrat@4'dnd believed their decision to discontinue the small-scale wind turbine research did nbtcome without hesitatibn. He was concerned about potential noise and color issues, Ad Town Attorne<White replied HOAs could be more restrictive with those requirements. Director Joseph stated the issue is not so much the actual color of the turbines but the amount of visual contrast generated from the color of the equipment as contrasted to the background. He recommended to the Planning Commission that if they desire to regulate colors, it would make more sense to regulate setbacks instead, so color would be inconsequential. Mr. McCormick believed the manufacturer would be willing to use colors acceptable to customers and regulators. He agreed wind turbines are not efficient in turbulent wind. He believed the carbon footprint for manufacturing and transporting does not recover the cost of energy saved. He disagreed with Planning Comrhission"not being able to recommend to Town Board a ban on wind turbines. Mr. McCormick thought the renewable energy survey was fatally flawed and unfortunate. He thought all property owners who could see or hear the intended wind turbine should consent to it. He distributed photos of areas in Estes Park with super-imposed wind RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 3 November 17, 2009 turbines demonstrating what the valley could look like if wind turbines are allowed. He supported purchasing wind power through the PRPA. Bob Clements/Town Resident brought his recently purchased micro-wind system to the podium, and believed the proposed code regulations may prohibit him from installing it. His system has a 45-inch diameter swept area and generates 400 watts of energy. He thought the sound of the wind would be louder than his wind turbine. He thought it would be wise to make the code consistent with what the industry calls micro-systems (500-600 watts or less). He was not aware of any micro-system on the market that would fit into the proposed five-square-foot swept area. He stated this proposed code penalizes the small property owner, and the proposed setbacks are too restrictive. Mr. Clements suggested the five-square-foot swept area be increased to 15 square feet, which would allow a four- foot diameter or smaller turbine to be considered a micro-turbine. Ht supported allowing residents to produce small amounts of electricity off the grid. Bill Darden/Town Resident suggested lowering variance fees for,those who could clearly demonstrate their proposed wind turbine would not be visible Br-interfere in any way with their neighbors. U Cory LaBianca/Town Resident supported continuintl the tilbratorium,"Site believed the larger wind turbines belong in industrial neighboWoods rather than resldeAtial. Director Joseph clarified that only the Town Board hasltie power to declare, sustain,# relract a moratorium. The Planning Commission is thd rec@mmendino' body, 1. \ :/...r. 4, Frank Theiss/County Resident is opposed to any moreÂ·*new regulation. He believed the movement of wind turbines was a concern and would~likdto use the regulations currently in place instead of creating new ofies.4 :..Ix\% David Hemphill/County Resident beileved t~e'Commission n6ed~1 t~ be thoughtful about value in the views. He thought increasing the height.limit of structt,res after the purchase of a property would be taking withoutdompendation. He.suptibrted 100% consent from adjacent property owners.~ Xt j 1. I Chair Klink closd; publidcorAment. I I Commissidner Lalie stated <the draft codellanduage concerning micro-wind systems needs further reViedvby ,the- Commission. He' thought the swept area of micro-wind systems may need to BetÂ®Breased. CommiEsioner Poggenpohl stated that if the swept areA .is increased, Pldnniftg Commiksion''needs to consider other issues such as the nuinber of thicrb-Wind sfhteÂ¢ns allowed per lot and the safety of micro-wind systems. Chair Klink stathd fis impdrtalit:to pwrite the code so it will apply to current and future I: I >Â© tdchnology. Commissioner Hull stated the code language needs to be brief, to be as ger;bral as possible/antl to covb? coming technology. She thinks within a year or two, the cutrent wind turbines'arde likely to be the dinosaurs of the industry. She supports the 30- foot height.limit. She *ab concerned about allowing multiple micro-wind systems per lot if the alloWat;le4sweptjarea is increased. Commissioner Lane stated the setbacks in the proposal prei/ent wind turbines on small lots, so he would support making the micro-wind systems exemptlrdm the setback requirements. Commissioner Fraundorf stated that if the swept area' is' increased, micro-wind systems should only be exempt from the setback requirement. He would like to learn more about micro-wind systems prior to defining the allowable swept area. He is interested in further discussion about if, and how, to allow neighborhood input into siting of wind turbines. Town Attorney White stated it is not constitutionally permissible to require 100% consent from adjacent property owners. Chair Klink stated micro-wind turbines should be exempt from more than the setback requirement such as the safety from safety standards, which are not designed for micro- wind turbines, and possibly from the requirement to obtain a building permit. Director Joseph stated there is an option for the Planning Commission to take micro-wind systems out of this draft, move it forward to Town Board, and follow-up with micro-wind systems at a later date. The Commissioners could also decide to increase the square footage on the swept area for micro-wind systems. He thought the main issue with the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 4 November 17, 2009 Commission was how to minimize visual impact of all wind turbines, and how to determine a maximum size that could be exempt from the code requirements. Town Attorney White stated the Board of Adjustment cannot grant a variance to circumvent a general code requirement. Commissioner Norris recommended requesting a continuance of the moratorium to the Town Board. Commissioner Lane would like to discuss micro-wind systems in next month's study session and include swept area, number of systems allowed per lot, structure height, setbacks, safety standards, etc. in the discussion. Chair Klink directed staff to work with Utilities Engineer Bergsten to compile a list of information and thoughts on micro-wind systems that could be distributed to the Planning Commissioners prior to the study session in December. Commissioner Norris summarized the discussion about the draft code language: Table 5- 1, no changes; (1)Height, shall be measured from natural gradd;*2)Setbacks from Property Lines, include setbacks from road easements; (3)~dOeline Protection Areas, delete "if the site contains an identified ridgeline protection rarea" from the second sentence; (4)Noise, no changes; (5)Shadow Flicker, delet6;'(6). tighting Prohibited, no changes; (7)Operating Condition, no changes; (8)Gr6uhd Cleardnce, no changes; (9)Blade Speed, delete "both manual and automatic:;,(10)Safety 'Stal,dards, add "IEC standard 61400-1", delete "International Standards&Organjzition (ISO):.afid International Energy Agency (IEA); (11)Permit Required, ~n6'changes; (12)Limit ~on Number, no changes; (13)Micro-wind, will require more reyieâ‚¬by the Planning Commission,'anc[~hair Klink suggested deleting "...but shall not be axemptjrom setback, height, or oth~r general development standards set forth in the Estes Valley DevepdrnantCode". tter It was moved and seconded (Norris/Hull) to continuethe Amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code cond*rning the regulatioA otsmall-scale residential and commercial wind turbines to thehneit regularly schedOled'meeting, and the motion 1% Ly. passed unanimously with one absekt. .. 1 .\ t. It was moved and seconded (pobgenpoht/NorriÂ«to-request from the Utilities Department prior to, the next study hessi6ft, a one-pade informational document explaining the pros andcons of renewable energy dystems. The motion passed with five votinO:in favbr, one abstaining, and one absent. Commissioner Lane was the abstainini Oote. \ 1 \1 4. REPORTS 4 10Â»7917 Wildiife Habitdt Code Revisigns #Difector Joibph Atated the Board of County Comrnissioners heard the EVDC Wildlife " Habitat Amend,>hent'"and contiAued.their action on that item until March 8, 2010. They 4Â·&Rave Pecommend@cl back to the Â»wn' Board to consider the preparation of revisions to the~proposal to include\raptor,Resting as a trigger for a site-specific study. They would aldo]Ikedto see staff bmpowered to make decisions on the qualifications of qualified plan preparers- Kind C~k~kbpealÂ·of Staff Determination Staff receiv@d t* 'appeals of staff determination that small-scale coffee roasting is a permitted use,in CH-Commercial Heavy zoning district. The appeals will be heard at the Town Board rtieeting on December 8,2009. Director Joseph appreciated the task-oriented approach used by this Commission to create the wind turbine regulations. He said this is a good example of how a Planning Commission can work effectively. There being no further business, Chair Klink adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m. Doug Klink, Chair Karen Thompson, Recording Secretary \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Wind Turbines\PC Report - Dec 15- Wind Turbine.doc ~ Wind Turbines ~ Estes Park Community Development Department Municipal Building, 170 MacGregor Avenue PO Box 1200 ~ Estes Park, CO 80517 ~ Phone: 970-577-3721 Fax: 970-586-0249 www.estesnet.com 4 <f. DATE: r... RA/NP ~ Estes Valley Planning Commission - ... : USFS â€¢ November 12, 2009: Initial discussion, set -{3.,- - parameters f 34 - â€¢ November 17, 2009: After public input - regarding "micro-wind", opted to continue to Faky " I Moultain USFS Natioral December meeting â€¢ December 15, 2009 Town Board - at â€¢ January 26,2009 â€¢ February 22,2009 . Board of County Commissioners =A ,=':U///F V-~ â€¢ March 8, 2010 (tentative) 1~ iwli REQUEST: To adopt regulations pertaining to Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems (commonly referred to as "small wind turbines") 1~ STAFF CONTACT: Bob Joseph PURPOSE AND INTENT: The purpose of this proposed amendment is to establish use and development regulations for~mall Wind Energy Conversion Systems (SWECS) within the Estes Valley. REVIEW CRITERIA: Per Section 3.3.D of the EVDC, all applications for amendments to the development code shall be reviewed by the EVPC and Boards for compliance with the relevant standards and criteria set forth below and with other applicable provisions of this Code. 1. The amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected; 2. The development plan, which the proposed amendment to this Code would allow, is compatible and consistent with the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with existing growth and development patterns in the Estes Valley; and 3. The Town, County or other relevant service providers shall have the ability to provide adequate services and facilities that might be required if the application were approved. Last printed 12/10/2009 8:36:00 AM 1 \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Wind Turbines\PC Report - Dec 15- Wind Turbine.doc Of these, only the first is relevant. Staff suggests the factors listed below constitute changes in conditions in the areas affected: â€¢ Citizen Requests. The Community Development Department has had multiple requests from residents to build small scaile wind turbines. To date, four permits have been issued within Town limits, and two outside town limits. â€¢ Moratorium: On August 11, the Town Board issued a 120-day rgofhtorium on the idsuante of any building permits for the installation of any wind turbinewittiin'fhe Town of Estes Park; on December 8, the Board extended this moratorium to March 84010. The moratorium was intended to obtain and review publlicommenfregarding the installation and operation of wind turbines as an indidation of a ne/d thconsider adopting regulations by the Town to address issues surrourfili*fthe siting, noise, visual and other potential impact to adjoining properties. It way#riticipated by the Board'efl*ustees that the â€¢ Problem Statement: Following the moratoril~~>~~9!y;1~~~ommission d r~~ this public process would lead to the possible introduction of regulations. \ problem statement: "Identify the needs and issuA.assoy&ted with -potential regulation of residential wind turbines. RecomrÂ®Ad<appropriate 36dmlanguage, if necessary, to the Town Board and County Commissi Mrs A- NA TFShh OPTIONS: The following options.are potential recorrlmerfde Town Board and Board of County Commissionert 1,-\- ~ Planning Commission can make the.f~llowing rdcommendations to the Town Board and Board of County Commisslor<r<1 ~/ ar-h..._ P 1. No chgnge.-.4 ~'\\V l,0/-----......I~37 2. Clayif*slan.adbefsory.ude, and apply standard height, setback, and noise regulations. 3. AlloW-and reguIRte,. Staff Aas~Irafted potential code amendments, following public input and Manrfing Commission ?evieÂ¢>aedelineated below. -Â· . \\ FORMATTING: \\ 1 Â» 1) ExistingÂ·text in blackifont. 2) Propos*14@ktÂ® plue,dnderlined text. 3) Text to be ?emofed,in Fed-6tFikethfeugh. 4) M.gllow highjjgbiatindicate revisionsfrom the November 17 draft. Â§ 5.2 ACCESSORY USES (INCLUDING HOME OCCUPATIONS) AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES A. General Standards. [No Changes] Last printed 12/10/2009 8:36:00 AM 2 00 . \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Wind Turbines\PC Report - Dec 15- Wind Turbine.doc B. Accessory Uses/Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts. 1. Table of Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures. Table 5-1 Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Residential Zoning Districts Residential Zoning District "Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Permitted Additional Accessory Use RE-1 RE Ed E R R-1 R-2 RM Requirements Small Wind Energy Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 45.2.B.2.h Conversion Systems 7 n 2. Additional Requirements for Specific<â‚¬6~ssory Uses/Structures # e~tted in the Residential Zoning Districts. 4 /7 h. Small Wind Enemy Conversion Systems ('80[h::CS, or "system"). (1) Height. Height shall,1~1'Reaured from original natural qradd to the highest point of the SWECS\st~ucto?wr;bvioq or thi*i. whichever is areatest, and shall not exceed thirtv ?30lfeet. 2! ..1~hÂ»k V (2) betbacks- r\,1 a.<~16cks from* D[oper-ty JÂ»% shall be five times the structure height. For bxh*nple: a thth*Â¢@a).foot tall, ststem shall have a minimum setback of 150- feetifrbm life-kiehrest pibbeÂ£tvh ide. /3-\ FY / -b>d nis setbhdk requirement shall also apply to public or private roads that *..4 I servewnorâ‚¬ than four adiacent or off-site lots, and shall be measured from â‚¬ f the~edje of Butik or private roads, the edge of the dedicated right-of-wav or re*ded easdatent or the property line, whichever produces a greater setbacl& - ~ 11 ..1 . (3) NRidc/e//ne Protection Aread. a. SWECS shall not be permitted on land designated as a ridqeline protection area. b. If the site contains an identified ridqeline protection area, the Applicant may, by site-specific analysis, demonstrate that the location of the proposed system is not on an ridqeline. c. This shall require development plan review and approval of the Estes Valley Planning Commission. d. The development plan application shall include a visual analysis, including photographic simulations, from viewpoints as determined bv Staff. Last printed 12/10/2009 8:36:00 AM 3 \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Wind Turbines\PC Report - Dec 15- Wind Turbine.doc e. In such review, the Planning Commission shall find the system has been sited to avoid the visible intrusion of the structure above the designated ridqelines or above existing ridge-top trees or vecletatiori, and thus preserve identified scenic views across or through the site. Compliance with this standard requires sitinq the structure such that the highest point is below a ridqeline so there is a solid, mountain backdrop behind the structure. (4) Noise. All svstems outside the Town limits of the Town of Estes Park shall comply with the noise standards found in Larimer'County Ordinance 97-03 (as amended). All svstems located within tbd Tel;vn of Estes Park shall comply with the noise standards found in the*lurficipal Code of the Town of Estes Park. (5) Lighting Prohibited. Liahtina, qraottks,Vsians 3ricINther decoration are prohibited bn the system, or located in such a manner to illuminate thd 'structurd. l 1 (6) Operating Condition. All syst&nk shall be,lfkpt in safe op@atiho condition. Inoperative systems, or systern@4*Rd to,6eifbsafe bv an offici@ of the Town of Estes Park Light and Power 19eW,tm6nt, or the Protective Inspection Divisions of the Te*Mtâ€¢of Estes Part40#Larimer County, shall be repaired within three (3) Tn6hthRhof becomlnq \inoperative or unsafe, or be subsequently entirel*rhrnhved"bv,the owheE>at the owners expense, within six (6) months of becohilho indberati~aor unsafb, If the installation ceases to function .as,imtended an&' fiesioffea/b*:thknaMfacturer it shall be deemed inoperidti067-1.2,1 Â£ 7/ 17 (7) G/grdllearanbel The mirhnum distance between the qround and anv 01â‚¬ldbs or movihW parts utilt*64 on a system shall be ten (10) feet as meb~ed altfie.lowairpoint ofthb swept area. /d>-0>4.aade SFe-eek Systems shaIMe equipped with controls to limit the rotational sb*@etkof thbiblhde within the design limits of the rotor. X,~~ (9) saf22*nd~h~"SWECS shall meet or exceed current published safety ~X,~\ standardsTAs issue*d by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC \ ~ 61400-1, 661mav be amended from time to time), br alternative as approved \Xbv the State Electrical Inspectod. \\/17 (10) 'Renmt.Rdbuired. A building permit shall be required for the installation of all SÂ¢h'411,99ind Enemy Conversion Systems. (11) Limit on Number. There shall not be more than one (1) system on a lot. (12) twept Area shall mean the largest vertical cross-sectional area of the wind- driven parts as measured bv the outermost perimeter of blades. (13) 'Micro-Wind. Last printed 12/10/2009 8:36:00 AM 4 \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Wind Turbines\PC Report - Dec 15- Wind Turbine.doc a. Systems with a swept area of fifteen (15) square feet or less shall be exempt from setback regulations set forth in this sub-section, but shall be subiect to other zone district setback requirements. b. Multiple micro-wind systems mav be installed on lot, but shall not exceed a cumulative aggregate swept area of fifteen-square feet. C. Accessory Uses and Structures Permitted in the Nonresiddhtial Zoning Districts. t r 1. Table of Accessory Uses and Structures Permittddl the Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Table 5-2 /9 > Accessory Uses Permitted in the Not#dsidential Zo~~~~~r~s 1- 1 Nonresidential Zoning District "Yes" = Permitted "No" = Not Permitted Accessory Use A Ad CD CO O CH Id Additional Conditions Small Wind Energy Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5.2.B.2.h Conversion Systems \ V t.* Maj D. General Dimensional and Operationai Rhquirements. The following standards shall apply to all acc~sory uses afiq~structuresPif'~all zoning districts, except for: (1) Satellite antenna dishes accdhsor~dishilaial.uses'thht are one (1) meter or less in diameter; and (2) Satellite.aotenna*dishes,acce;Â§6ryÂ·to d?MAidential uses that are two (2) meters or less in diaffieter:<(8Â¥* 15-6Â§#1) - 0. 1 ~Â« 1 N \ 94\ lifT#ne of Establishment. 1416 accessory use shall be established and no accessory vstfbctures shall bhÂ¢dI]owed'dA the subject parcel until after all required permits and *prbvals for the p~ncipal use or activity have been obtained. (Ord. 15-03 #1) \-64. 2. Setbacks>~No accesp~ory use, structure or activity, except for permitted fences or walls shall b#*Wed*ke place within a required setback. On residential lots of less than one (1) acke edii;accessory buildings, excluding detached garages, shall be located no closer to thkfront property line than the residential dwelling. Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems shall be subiect to setback requirements set forth in Section 5.2.B. (Ord. 15-03 #1) 3. Setbacks from Easements. No accessory structure shall be located within any platted or recorded easement or over any known utility. (Ord. 15-03 #1) 4. Maximum Building or Structure Size for Nonresidential Uses. Wto Changes] 5. Maximum Cumulative Gross Floor Area Allowed for all Accessory Uses in Accessory Buildings, Accessory Structures and/or Principal Buildings for Residential Uses. 840 Changes] Last printed 12/10/2009 8:36:00 AM 5 fiA \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Wind Turbines\PC Report - Dec 15 - Wind Turbine.doc 6. Maximum Number of Freestanding Accessory Buildings and Structures, Including Detached Garages, Per Single-Family Residential Lot. No more than one (1) accessory building or structure less than or equal to one hundred twenty (120) square feet and no more than two (2) accessory buildings or structures greater than one hundred twenty (120) square feet shall be allowed on a lot of two-and-a-half (2.5) acres or less. Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems and "micro-wind" systems shall be exempt from this limitation. 7. Building or Structure Height. The height limitations set forth in the underlying zoning districts shall apply to all accessory buildings and structuref iticated therein. (Ord. 15- 03 #1) 1 j 8. Dwe#ing Unit Prohibited. [No Changes] 9. Operations. Accessory structures, buildings and uses shall beroonstructed, maintained and conducted to avoid production of noise .di#raiion, concussibri, dust, dirt, smoke, odors, noxious gases, fly ash, heat or glare~rrfartificial illurnir'ati~1< from reflection of natural light. 10. Limits on Mobile Homes/F?Vs. [No Cha~~sl \Â«/ Chapter 13 - Definitions Section 13.3 xxx. Sma# Wind Ene.rwreeoversion Syhtem-FS:#Â£14@NLwi nd energy conversion system consisting of a'wilid-turgine With a swept ared 'greater than fifteen (15) square feet, a tower, and,dkidciated 266401 and donfersion electronics. which has a rated capacity of not mofe' th'an 25 kW E|nd which is'intbnded to primarily reduce on-site consumption of utility pbw'&4 Such 8Â¥steins are acdesbory to the principal use or structure on a lot. STAFF,FINDINGS-AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the foregoing, Staff finds: 't, 1. sta has recei~j'~h" ~34 1 Iple re= uests for small wind energy conversion systems over thhip- st year. 2. The To*m Board imposetl a moratorium on wind turbines on August 11th. 3. This mbli~tbrium wfis~*nded to obtain public input regarding wind turbines, with the possibilifkof iptrocitiction of necessary regulations addressing any negative impacts of the~eatiorr'and operation of wind turbines. 4. The Planning Ch#irfilssion drafted a problem statement: "Identify the needs and issues associated with potential ragulation of residential wind turbines. Recommend appropriate code language, if necessary, to the Town Board and County Commissioners." 5. The Planning Commission has conducted three public hearings to obtain public input, and finds it necessary to recommend appropriate code language to the Town Board and Board of County Commissioners. 6. The Planning Commission has drafted a proposed amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code to address concerns expressed by members of the public. Last printed 12/10/2009 8:36:00 AM 6 \\Servera\comm_dev\EVDC & Sign Code Changes\Wind Turbines\PC Report - Dec 15- Wind Turbine.doc 7. The proposed amendment is intended to address issues surrounding the siting, noise, visual and other potential impacts to adjoining properties. 8. The proposed amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions in the areas affected 9. This is a Planning Commission recommendation the Town Board and Board of County Commissioners; /9 Therefore, Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposedÂ· Amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code. >Â« ..4 Fl SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to recommend 24~PROVAL of the p*opofed amended plat to the Town Board of Trustees <~nd LarimeÂ»g:ounty Boatt~~pf County Commissioners with the findings recommende~by staff 4 ~* 44 7 ilÂ« UX ,.6 \\'.1/ NÂ« t .0-1 1 ju- 4 - 9/72Â«--0 f A V FIA NN 7/ V Last printed 12/10/2009 8:36:00 AM 7