Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-01-06 PACKET 08.B.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # DATE 1/6/10 PREPARED BY Community Development Howard Blin ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Consider an application for a conditional use permit to allow the installation of a 113 -foot tall, 10 kilowatt wind turbine at 6749 Geneva Avenue South STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit. ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION ® PLANNING ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ HUMAN SERVICES /RIGHTS ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS DATE REVIEWED APPROVED DENIED 11/23/09 ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® MEMO /LETTER: Memo from Howard Blin and John M. Burbank dated 12130109 ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ® OTHER: ADMINiSTRA T ORS COMMENTS t- City Administrator Date f. l COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ® APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE MINNESOTA TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator FROM: John M. Burbank, Senior Planner Howard Blin, Community Development Director DATE: December 30, 2009 RE: WECS Conditional Use Permit: 6749 Geneva Avenue r • At the December 16 City Council meeting, a conditional use permit to allow for the installation of 113 -foot tall, 10 kilowatt wind energy conversion system (WECS) at 6749 Geneva Avenue South was reviewed. The application was tabled until the January 6 th Council meeting. This report addresses the issues raised at the December 16 meeting. Location Map Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Ryan Schroeder Kooyman CUP WECS 6749 Geneva December 30, 2009 Page 2 of 6 Surrounding Land Use The lot on which the wind turbine is proposed is surrounded on the west, south, and east by rural residential lots. Land to the north is currently vacant and is proposed for urban low density residential development. Utilities are available to the area to serve this future development. Adjacent Property Detail Graphic Representation The following images were submitted with the application material, as an example of what is proposed. Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Ryan Schroeder Kooyman CUP WECS 6749 Geneva December 30, 2009 Page 3 of 6 Discussion Performance Standards Previous staff reports created confusion as to whether this application meets the performance standards for WECS included in the City Code (Title 11 -4 -6). The facts are that the proposal would meet the standards for size, height, and setbacks. It would not, however, meet the standards included for noise. The WECS ordinance adopted earlier this year requires wind turbines to meet state and local noise regulations. 26' Blade Sweep ''r f 100 — Maximum Height Generator Axis lH 14. GRADE _ 113! Maximum Height Rotor Closest Paint to Grade These requirements limit noise levels to 60 decibels from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 50 decibels from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Decibel levels are measured at the property line. The manufacturer's specifications for the proposed WCES show that at the rated wind speed of 29 MPH, 59 decibels are produced measured 70 feet from the turbine. Noise levels decrease by six decibels for every doubling of distance. Based on the proposed height and setback of the turbine, noise levels at the north property line would exceed the nighttime limit of 50 decibels. The applicant has acknowledged that at maximum operating conditions, with winds of 29 MPH, the generator would exceed noise limits. He further stated that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) recommends taking noise measurements during calm conditions. While this is correct, the purpose of this MPCA recommendation is to avoid incorrect readings on noise monitors, which include microphones, from ambient wind noise. It should also be noted that the noise standards do apply to the maximum decibel level from any source. In this case, it would be the noise levels from the turbine at peak operating speeds. Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Ryan Schroeder Kooyman CUP WECS 6749 Geneva December 30, 2009 Page 4 of 6 A study of noise impacts from wind turbines prepared by the, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, (2006) Wind Turbine Acoustic Noise, includes the following recommendations for measuring noise: • This study identified that sound levels "should be measured at lower and higher wind speeds." (page 24) • The study further concludes, that "if a wind turbine is proposed within a distance equivalent to three times the blade tip height of residences or other noise — sensitive receptors, a noise study should be performed and publicized." ( page 24) On this last point, it is very likely that development of the property to the north will result in houses located within 200 feet of the propose WOES. This is much closer than the three times the blade tip height (339 feet) cited above. A report prepared by the Minnesota Department of Health Environmental Health Division (2009) Public Health impacts of Wind Turbines, identifies several items related to noise. • The study concluded that "wind turbines generate a broad spectrum of low- intensity noise" (page 25) • The study concluded that "most available evidence suggests that reported health effects are related to low frequency audible noise" (page 25) • The study concluded that "complaints appear to rise with increasing noise levels above 35dB(A)" (page 25) • The study identified that " the Minnesota nighttime standard of 50dB(A) not to exceed 50% of the time in a given hour appears to underweight penetration of low frequency noise into dwellings" (page 25) To summarize the anticipated noise impacts from the propose turbine, it is clear that the turbine would exceed the noise limits. In addition, many of the documented complaints from wind turbine noise relate to low frequency noise which is not sufficiently measured by typical decibel readings. Property Values At the December 16 meeting, the effect of the proposed turbine on adjacent property values was questioned. The applicant presented a summary of two studies related to WECS and property values, and indicated that the studies concluded no evidence that WECS had no negative impacts on property values. City staff reviewed the studies, and offer the following analysis. One study cited was sponsored by the US Department of Energy and was completed in by the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory (2009) The Impact of Wind Power Projects on Residential Property Values in the United States: A Multi -Site Hedonic Analysis. Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Ryan Schroeder Kooyman CUP WECS 6749 Geneva December 30, 2009 Page 5 of 6 In reviewing this study, Staff determined that it is not applicable to this application for the following reasons: • The study did not include information from any homes less than 800 feet to a WECS, and all but 8 homes were outside of 1,000 feet to a WECS (page 74) • The study acknowledges "it is therefore possible that, if any effects do exist, they exist at very close range to the turbines, and that those effects are simply not noticeable outside of 800 feet." (page 74) • The study acknowledges that only eight of the nine homes within one mile of the WECS had a substantial or extreme view of the WECS (page 72) • The study identified that "those homes within 3000 feet and those between 3000 feet and one mile of the nearest the wind turbine sold for roughly 5 % less than similar homes ", but stated additionally that this information is not "statistically significant'. (page 73) The other study referenced was a study from 2002 that was published in May 2003, and was also sponsored by the US Department of Energy, Sterzinger, G. & Beck, F. & Kostiuk, D. (2003) The Effect of Wind Development on Local Property Values_ It also appears that this study is not applicable to this application for the following reasons: • The Study did not factor in if properties had a direct view of the WECS (page 12 • While the study analyzed 25,000 land transactions, the study included sales up to five miles away from WECS areas. (Ch II -C) • The conclusion of the study acknowledges that future studies would be desirable that "refine the view shed in order to look at the relationship between property values and precise distance from development." (page 3) The study was based on large wind farms with multiple WECS structures 10MW or larger. • • Conditional Use Standards In addition to meeting the performance standards required in the ordinance, the City Council should review the application for conformance with the following criteria established in City Code Title 11 -2 -91F. Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Ryan Schroeder Kooyman CUP WECS 6749 Geneva December 30, 2009 Page 6 of 6 11 -2 -9 F. Criteria for Issuance Of Permit: 1. The use will be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and with the pur- pose, intent and applicable standards of this Title. 2. The use shall be located, designed, maintained and operated to be compatible with the existing or intended character of that zoning district in which it is located. 3. The use shall not depreciate values of surrounding property. 4. The use shall not be hazardous, detrimental or disturbing to present and potential surrounding land uses due to noises, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water pollution, vibration, general unsightliness or other nuisances. 5. The use shall generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets as defined by the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan. The use shall not create traffic congestion, unsafe access or parking needs that will cause inconveniences to the adjoining properties. 6. The use shall be served adequately by essential public services, such as streets, po- lice, fire protection and utilities. 7. The use shall not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and shall not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the City. 8. The use shall preserve and incorporate the site's important natural and scenic fea- tures into the development design. 9. The use shall cause minimal adverse environmental effects. 10. The use shall not adversely affect the potential development of adjacent vacant land. In this case, it is questionable whether the proposed conditional use permit is in conformance with criteria 2, 3, 4, and 10 On November 23, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a conditional use permit of a 113 -foot tall, 10 kilowatt wind turbine WECS. Attached are resolutions of approval and denial for this application. RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -XXX RESOLUTION DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEM AT 6749 GENEVA AVENUE SOUTH WHEREAS, John Kooyman applied for a conditional use permit to allow the installation of a Wind Energy Conversion System consisting of a 113 -foot tall, 10 kilowatt wind turbine on the property legally described as: {Legal Description} Commonly known as 6749 Geneva Avenue South, Cottage Grove, Washington County, State of Minnesota. WHEREAS, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the property and a public hearing notice was published in the South Washington County Bulletin; and WHEREAS, a planning staff report was prepared and presented, which detailed specific information on the property, the application request, and ordinance criteria; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cottage Grove held a public hearing and reviewed the application at their meeting on November 23, 2009; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was open for public testimony, and testimony from the applicant and the public was received and entered into the public record; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission discussed the issues and facts presented by the applicant and staff, and recommended that the conditional use permit be granted; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove reviewed the application at their meeting on December 16, 2009; and voted unanimously to table the discussion on the application to the January 6, 2010. WHEREA, the City Council again reviewed the application on January 6, 2009. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota, hereby denies the conditional use permit that would allow the installation of a Wind Energy Conversion System consisting of a 113 -foot tall, 10 kilowatt wind turbine on the property legally described above. Denial is based upon the following findings of fact: Resolution No. 2010 -XXX Page 2 of 2 A. The City of Cottage Grove has adopted an ordinance (City Code Title 11 -4 -6) which regulates the installation and operation of wind energy conversion systems (WCES) B. Based on the manufactures' specifications for the proposed wind turbine and scientific standards for noise attenuation, noise emitted by the turbine would exceed the maximum allowable nighttime noise limits established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the City of Cottage Grove. Conformance to these noise rules is required in the City's WCES ordinance Title 11- 4 -6 -H1. C. The City has reviewed studies of the impacts of noise emitted from wind turbines and determined that the proposed wind turbine would not be in compliance with City Code Title 11- 6 -17A, and Title 11- 4 -6 -H1 and would create negative noise impacts on surrounding properties, particularly by creating low frequency noise. D. The proposed wind turbine would be located 140 feet from the north property line of the subject property. Properties located directly north of the subject property are currently in agricultural use or vacant. These properties are guided in Cottage Grove Comprehensive Plan for urban residential development. The utilities necessary to serve this future development are currently available to the area, allowing the land to be developed at the present time. The City finds that the proposed wind turbine would not conform to criteria for reviewing conditional use permits included in the Cottage Grove City Code Title 11 -2 -9F. In particular, the proposed wind turbine would not conform to the following criteria included in that code section: (Title 11- 2 -9F2). The use shall be located, designed, maintained and operated to be compatible with the existing or intended character of that zoning district in which it is located. (Title 11- 2 -9F3). The use shall not depreciate values of surrounding property. (Title 11- 2 -9F4). The use shall not be hazardous, detrimental or disturbing to present and potential surrounding land uses due to noises, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water pollution, vibration, general unsightliness or other nuisances. (Title 11 2 -9F2). The use shall not adversely affect the potential development of adjacent vacant land. Passed this 6th day of January 2010. Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: Caron M. Stransky, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -XXX A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF A WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEM AT 6749 GENEVA AVENUE SOUTH WHEREAS, John Kooyman applied for a conditional use permit to allow for the installation of a Wind Energy Conversion System consisting of a 113 -foot tall, 10 kilowatt wind turbine on the property legally described as: {Legal Description} Commonly known as 6749 Geneva Avenue South, Cottage Grove, Washington County, State of Minnesota. WHEREAS, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the property and a public hearing notice was published in the South Washington County Bulletin on November 11, 2009; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 23, 2009; and WHEREAS, a planning staff report, which detailed specific information on the property and the application request, was prepared and presented; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was open for public testimony and testimony from the applicant and the public was received and entered into the public record; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, recommended to the City Council that the conditional use permit be granted. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota, hereby grants a conditional use permit to allow for the installation a Wind Energy Conversion System consisting of a of a 113 -foot tall, 10 kilowatt wind turbine, on the property legally described above, subject to the following conditions: 1. The property owner must abide with all the requirements of City Code Title 11 -4 -6, Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS). 2. All applicable permits (i.e., building, electrical, grading, mechanical) completed, submitted, and approved by the City prior to the commencement of any construction activities. Detailed construction plans must be reviewed and approved by the Building Official. 3. The turbine owner must comply with all operation and maintenance specifications of the turbine manufacturer. These include: tower, foundation, turbine head and blade bolts. The annual report shall be submitted to the City Building official for review upon request by the City. Resolution No. 2010 -XXX Page 2 of 2 4. The blades must be inspected annually for cracks, chips or other damage, and shall be replaced or repaired as per the engineered specifications of the blade manufacturer. 5. If the City receives more than three noise complaints about the WECS in any six month period, the City may require that the property owner facilitate the completion of a noise study that includes measurement data for operation of the WECS in daytime, night time, high and low wind conditions and infrasound. The noise study shall be submitted to the City for review and action, and if the noise study indicates that the noise of the WECS exceeds the ordinance criteria, the conditional use permit will be reviewed by the City Council for possible revocation. 6. All components of the WECS shall be removed from the property if it is inoperable for a period of time exceeding twelve months. Passed this 6th day of January 2010. Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: Caron M. Stransky, City Clerk EXCERPT FROM UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON NOVEMBER 23, 2009 6.1 Kooyman Wind Turbine — Case CUP09 -026 John Kooyman has applied for a conditional use permit to allow the installation of a 100 - foot tall, 10 kilowatt wind turbine at 6749 Geneva Avenue South. McCool summarized the staff report. He clarified that the tower would be 100 feet in height and the blades 13 feet in length, so the total height of the proposed wind turbine would be 113 feet. He recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. John Kooyman, 6749 Geneva Avenue South, stated that the only other difference from the proposal in the staff report besides the tower height is that they would like to locate the tower closer to the north property line. The report states that the tower would be 140 feet from that property line and he is now proposing 130 feet, which is still within the ordinance criteria. They plan to start construction of the tower in spring of 2010. Thiede asked if they will be using the wind turbine to generate electricity for their use or to give some back to the power company. Kooyman responded that this tower should generate enough power for their home and an equivalent amount back to the grid. Xcel has a policy where they will purchase the electricity back at retail. Whatever they don't use Xcel will give a credit. Thiede asked if there were any rebates from Xcel. Kooyman responded that they have a 1.5 cent per kilowatt generation incentive. In addition there are some federal tax in- centives. Thiede asked if this is financially feasible. Kooyman stated the payback for them is estimated at about 13 years and the turbine has a 30 -year life span. Rambacher asked if the tower would be built on site. Kooyman explained that the wind tur- bines are manufactured in Canada and would be shipped to their home. The tower would then be erected on a foundation reinforced with rebar. Rambacher asked about maintenance for the blades. Kooyman stated that the blades would periodically wear out as they are fiber- glass. He may apply a 3M adhesive on the blade wings to minimize damage from insects, rain, and hail. The tower they would purchase a hydraulic lift on it for maintenance purposes. Messick opened the public hearing. John Bailey, 1345 Bailey Road, Newport, stated that he is here as a representative of Bailey Nurseries, which owns the property to the north. He stated that his company is strongly op- posed to having this wind turbine installed on the adjoining property. He pointed out the lo- cation of the Bailey property on the map. He stated that currently their property is agricultural but that is not the company plan for that property. It is probably one of the more desirable areas for future housing development due to its location. They feel that this type of structure immediately adjacent to property slated for future development would severely compromise the desirability of that property for future homeowners. He has talked to developers and real estate agents who all confirmed that these types of structures detract from the desirability of the property for housing. Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes Kooyman Wind Turbine — Case CUP09 -026 November 23, 2009 Page 2 of 3 Thiede asked if from that property the Newport water tower, the communications tower, and Cottage Grove's water tower are visible. Bailey responded those structures are further from their property than this structure would be. Willhite asked what the current zoning classification is currently. McCool responded that the Bailey property is agriculturally zoned. Willhite asked if anything is designated for that prop- erty. McCool stated that the comprehensive plan shows the future land use for that property to be low density residential. Poncin asked if there is a timeline when this property could be developed. Bailey stated that they had the property on the market three years ago. Currently they do not have any nursery stock on the property; the only production is just a cover crop. The property is available for development at this point. They don't imagine that happening in the next year but their intent is to be aggressive in moving that property. Willhite asked how many acres the property consists of. Bailey stated one parcel is 20 acres and the other is about 40 acres. Willhite asked how many homes could be developed. McCool responded about three units per acre for urban development. Thiede asked if there were any other comments from neighboring property owners. McCool stated that no other comments have been received. Linse noted that in reading the ordinance he does not see anything that gives the Planning Commission discretion to decide impacts on future residential development. The way he reads it, if the applicant meets the criteria as defined in the ordinance, he does not see any- thing that would allow consideration of aesthetic impacts on the area. Blin stated that under the general criteria for reviewing conditional use permits, the Commission can take into account impacts on surrounding properties. Thiede noted that due to the elevation of the land and trees, the property to the north is fairly open but it appears there are trees to the south. Bailey stated that there are no trees or screening between their properties. Poncin noted that the elevation coming up 70th Street is completely flat and the water tower and the cell phone tower are visible, so this tower would also be visible for at least a mile in every direction including the developed areas. No one else spoke. Messick closed the public hearing. Linse asked if future development would affect wind generation for the turbine. Kooyman stated that with the tower height being at 100 feet, they would be okay. Any trees or houses could affect the turbulence that is generated to the blades. Thiede asked about the height of the water tower. McCool stated probably about 110 feet, which is about the same height as the proposed wind turbine. CXUCIPL HUM UIIaPPIUVCU FlaIIIII11V vvl Kooyman Wind Turbine — Case CUP09 -026 November 23, 2009 Page 3 of 3 Rambacher asked how this turbine compares to the one in Maple Grove. Blin responded that he does not know but believes the blades are not as long. Messick stated that there are several options for the Commission, including tabling to allow time to look at the regulations to see if we need to discuss anything with the City Attorney. Willhite made a motion to recommend approval subject to the conditions listed below. Hofland seconded. The applicant must abide all the requirements of City Code Title 11, Chapter 4, Subsection 6. 2. All applicable permits (i.e., building, electrical, grading, mechanical) completed, sub- mitted, and approved by the City prior to the commencement of any construction activities. Detailed construction plans must be reviewed and approved by the Building Official. Motion passed on an 8 -to -1 vote ( Poncin). Poncin stated that her concern is the impact on the existing neighborhood and the fact that the surrounding area will eventually be developed. This does not seem like the right location.