Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2009-11-17“RECORD OF proceeding! I Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission November 17, 2009, 6:00 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Town Hall Commission: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Doug Klink; Commissioners Alan Fraundorf, John Tucker, Betty Hull, Steve Lane, Ron Norris, and Rex Poggenpohl Chair Klink, Commissioners Fraundorf, Hull, Lane, Norris, Poggenpohl Director Joseph, Town Attorney White, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott, Town Board Liaison Richard Homeier, and Recording Secretary Thompson Commissioner Tucker The following minutes reflect the order of the agenda and not necessarily the chronological sequence. Chair Klink called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and welcomed approximately 20 citizens to the meeting. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of minutes from the November 12, 2009 Special Planning Commission meeting. It was moved and seconded (Hull/Lane) that the consent agenda be approved, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. AMENDMENT TO ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE - WIND TURBINE REGULATIONS Planner Shirk stated the draft being presented allows Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems (SWECS) in all zoning districts, provided specific setback requirements are met. Based on public comment, the maximum height was reduced from 50 feet to 30 feet from existing 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 setback of 150 feet. SWECS would be prohibited in ridgeline protection areas; however, property owners would have the opportunity to demonstrate to the Planning Commission, with photographic simulations, that a mapped ridgeline protection area is not actually a ridgeline. The current noise ordinance for the Town of Estes Park and Larimer County would apply. With a minimum setback of five times the SWECS height, code language addressing shadow flicker 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 blade. Controls 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 25kW 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.” 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 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission 2 November 17, 2009 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 the justification 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. Amy Plummer/Town Resident stated that, as outlined, these restrictions are limiting innovation and creating policy at a time when the country should be moving away from fossil fuel products. She thought each wind turbine should be reviewed individually rather than have such sweeping restrictions. Tom Bergman/Town Resident stated the setbacks are too large, and the swept area for the micro-wind systems is too small. Smaller units could be attached to a house, could meet the 10-foot minimum ground clearance requirement, and could still generate enough energy to power home appliances and lights in an outage. Duve Rusk/County Resident appreciated the Planning Commission taking on this difficult task. He preferred a 50-foot height limit. He questioned why a setback five time the structure was being considered when the county requires a setback two times the height. He believed the vertical axis systems are superior to horizontal axis systems. As a property owner, he did not want property rights to be restricted by these setbacks. He also believed people opposing wind turbines are more vocal than the proponents, though the recent renewable energy survey shows differently. Johanna Darden/Town Resident would like to see the moratorium extended. She thought it was important to determine the most efficient height before creating regulations. Kay Rusk/County Resident supported wind energy systems. She recommended not being too restrictive so residents can become less dependent on foreign oil and fossil fuels. She hoped that the Planning Commission would support using renewable wind energy. Jay Heinemann/County Resident stated the wind energy program through the Poudre River Power Authority (PRPA) is more efficient than small-scale wind turbines. He was concerned about the view impact of wind turbines in residential areas. He supported extending the moratorium. He recommended a modification in the code requiring input from adjacent property owners. Jim McCormick/County Resident previously worked with staff at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and believed their decision to discontinue the small-scale wind turbine research did not come without hesitation. He was concerned about potential noise and color issues, and Town Attorney 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 contract 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 believes 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 Commission 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 vailey 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 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. He supports 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 or interfere in any way with their neighbors. Cory LaBianca/Town Resident supported continuing the moratorium. She believed the larger wind turbines belong in industrial neighborhoods rather than residential. Director Joseph clarified that only the Town Board has the power to declare, sustain, or retract a moratorium. The Planning Commission is the recommending body. Frank Theiss/County Resident is opposed to anymore new regulation. He believed the movement of wind turbines was a concern and would like to use the regulations currently in place instead of creating new ones. David Hemphill/County Resident believed the Commission needed to be thoughtful about value in the views. He thought increasing the height limit of structures after the purchase of a property would be taking without compensation. He supported 100% consent from adjacent property owners. Chair Klink closed public comment. Commissioner Lane stated the draft code language concerning micro-wind systems needs further review by the commission. He thought the swept area of micro-wind systems may need to be increased. Commissioner Poggenpohl stated that if the swept area is increased. Planning Commission needs to consider other issues such as the number of micro-wind systems allowed per lot and the safety of micro-wind systems. Chair Klink stated it is important to write the code so it will apply to current and future technology. Commissioner Hull stated the code language needs to be brief, to be as general as possible, and to cover coming technology. She thinks within a year or two, the current wind turbines are likely to be the dinosaurs of the industry. She supports the 30- foot height limit. She was concerned about allowing multiple micro-wind systems per lot if the allowable swept area is increased. Commissioner Lane sated the setbacks in the proposal prevent wind turbines on small lots, so he would support making the micro-wind systems exempt from 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 grade; (2)Setbacks from Property Lines, include setbacks from road easements; (3)Ridgeline Protection Areas, delete “if the site contains an identified ridgeline protection area” from the second sentence; (4)Noise, no changes; (5)Shadow Flicker, delete; (6)Lighting Prohibited, no changes; (7)Operating Condition, no changes; (8)Ground Clearance, no changes; (9)Blade Speed, delete “both manual and automatic”; (1)Safety Standards, add “lEC standard 61400-1”, delete “International Standards Organization (ISO), and International Energy Agency (lEA)”; (ll)Permit Required, no changes; (12)Limit on Number, no changes; (13)Micro-wind, will require more review by the Planning Commission, and Chair Klink suggested deleting “...but shall not be exempt from setback, height, or other general development standards set forth in the Estes Valley Development Code.” It was moved and seconded (Norris/Hull) to continue the Amendment to the Estes Valley Development Code concerning the regulation of smaii-scaie residentiai and commercial wind turbines to the next reguiariy scheduied meeting, and the motion passed unanimously with one absent. It was moved and seconded (Poggenpohl/Norris) to request from the Utilities Department, a one-age informational document explaining the pros and cons of renewabie energy systems. The motion passed with five voting in favor, one abstaining, and one absent. Commissioner Lane was the abstaining vote. REPORTS Wildlife Habitat Code Revisions Director Joseph stated the Board of County Commissioners heard the EVDC Wildlife Habitat Amendment and continued their action on that item until March 8, 2010. They have recommended back to the Town Board to consider the preparation of revisions to the proposal to include raptor nesting as a trigger for a site-specific study. They would also like to see staff empowered to make decisions on the qualifications of qualified plan preparers. Kind Coffee Appeal of Staff Determination Staff received two 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 meeting on December 8, 2009. Director Joseph appreciated the task-oriented approach used by this Commission to create the wind turbine regulations. He saj^ tt^s is a good example of how a Planning Commission can work effectively. There being no further business.ing at 8:10 p.m. taren Thompson, Rec Secretary