06/10/2009 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Section 1153.07 Administrative Review: Mr. Rerko suggested wording should be added to address periodic maintenance testing of the braking systems. Wording should require annual or bi-annual maintenance inspections to be conducted. Mr. Lasko questioned what a met tower was under paragraph (b)(4)A. and Ms. Wenger advised that the words "or met tower" should have been deleted. Mr. Malone questioned why met towers were not included in the chapter and Ms. Wenger said met towers are temporary structures which are not addressed in the city zoning code and instead would be addressed administratively through the Building Department as a temporary structure. Mr. Lasko thought the time frames listed (18-month and 12-month) in regards to permit expiration and abandonment may be to long or lenient. Ms. Wenger said that the time frames which were incorporated into the chapter were similar to many other zoning codes and noted that some codes permitted 24 months which she felt was excessive. Mr. Rerko suggested wording be added under this section that the system be locked down and measures taken to make sure the brake system doesn't fail and the tower is secured. Ms. Wenger question if there were provisions the city could take within the 12-month timeframe if they believed unsafe conditions arise or exist. Mr. O'Malley said he liked the suggestion of a maintenance program requiring inspections and requiring the premises be secured. He noted Lakewood's code has a bonding requirement and evaluation which seemed quite burdensome but it's designed to make sure someone is paying attention to the system. Mr. Lasko opened the meeting to public comment on Ordinance 2009-63 only. Ms. Popovich questioned what size WECS would be allowed on the industrial parcels and if abutting a residential lot would limit the size and noise levels allowed. Ms. Wenger said if a parcel is within the overlay district and meets the acreage and other setback requirements, an applicant could propose either a small or medium WECS; setbacks for medium WECS are determined by the abutting parcel's zoning. Mr. O'Malley advised that the planner could not speculate how the chapter would govern a specific site without an application and proper documentation. Ms. Wenger added that no matter what zoning district a system is in, the maximum noise level of 55 dB(A) at the lot line does not change. Mr. Mitchell said the application process requires the applicants to provide documentation showing their system will not exceed the 55 dB(A) level. Mr. Holder thanked the city for looking into the topic both as an opportunity for the city and for incorporating restrictions to protect the city. Under 1153.03(c) regarding noise, it says at the adjacent property line he suggested it should also say "or any point on the adjacent property". He believes that noise levels can carry beyond the property line which may be buffered into the property. He suggested bearings being properly maintained also be included in the maintenance wording, as bearings go bad noise levels increase. He suggested definitions for small and medium should be national definitions so there is no misunderstanding or confusion. He felt most building integrated systems were vertical shafts not horizontal so maximum height wording for those type systems should be considered. Mr. Crabs said turbines would not reduce pressure from power grids because they are designed to produce and maintain a specified load and if the wind is not blowing the load would not be met. Mr. Rerko said taking pressure off a grid is no different from turning off an air conditioning unit on any given day. The idea of taking it off the grid is not tliat the grid wouldn't be designed to carry the load but shedding the load at peak points throughout the day. Higher charges are assessed at peak times than during the off peak times. Mr. Crabs said the school board said the