06/10/2009 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

towers. Ms. Puinno questioned how the commission voted on such issues as before them when they are not experts in the field. Mr. Lasko said it was no different from any other issue they review, they rely upon the homework, research and the investigations conducted by city departments which is presented at their meetings and compiled for their review. They also accept and review documentation from any member of the public who wishes to submit their concerns. They ultimately make a recommendation to city council for final consideration. Mr. Young asked if the setback distances shown in the ordinance could be increased to 2.2 for the small and 2.5 for the medium size units. His reasoning is to double what has been suggested to increase the buffer. Ms. Meredith said what is being presented is already quite conservative. Mr. Young questioned if liability insurance was required and Ms. Wenger said liability insurance was required under section 1153.07(b)(6). Mr. Young questioned what dollar value would be required. Mr. Lasko said the dollar amount was not listed which could be quantified further. Mr. Stalter said trying to keep up with technology and going green is not easy and creating and adopting this ordinance is doing the right thing. The code as written looks to be restrictive with the land mass and setbacks required. There are few parcels within the city that can fit a wind energy conversion system. Something to consider is small hobbyist type systems under 2 KW used when power goes out and for limited backup power. Consideration may also be given to tree removal on private and commercial lots. Mr. Evans said 1153.03(a) reads any WECS shall be designed as a monopole tower which limits what can be used. Recently there have been numerous articles listing the type of systems being developed and are available. Ms. Wenger said it was limited to monopole towers to prohibit climbing. Good points have been raised about technology but it's a challenge to create legislation which would cover and regulate every type of system available. If the commission would like to see the legislation broadened to more styles it could be looked into. However while creating the chapter she was purposely conservative, limiting the design both from an appearance and safety climbing standpoint, but if the commission would like to broaden the ordinance, she could look into amendments. Ms. Meredith felt that the legislation as written did not prohibit vertical axles; what is being restricted is the mounting unit only which was done for safety. Mr. Rerko said addressing the monopole is the best thing to do as they have the most visibility. Other units are closer to the roof and use much smaller mounting devices. Ms. McLaughlin asked if there had been any studies pertaining to ice buildup and ice being projected off the blades and creating safety hazards to persons and property. She understands that the monopoles are metal and will be required to be painted and paint corrodes so would painting be added to the maintenance program. There are people with epilepsy in the city and flickering will cause seizers. Mr. Rerko said a lot of the poles are anodized surfaces or have a powder coating both of which are warranted to 50 to 100 years. Ms. McLaughlin said she has seen many turbines in Texas on the gulf which has a constant wind stream and they rust. Mr. Rerko said the gulf has salt issues not found in this area and the systems there are wind farms which are much larger scaled turbines. Ms. McLaughlin said the turbines create sun glare and flickering which she has witnessed. The chapter should address painting, sun glare and flickering within maintenance requirements. Mr. Rerko said to address ice there is very little ice buildup due to movement but what has been recorded falls down due to the weight and does not