Turbine plan faces fine-tuning
Watson, Young apply brakes; wind power proposal moves back to P&Z
KINGMAN — Proponents of wind turbines attended Tuesday’s City Council meeting en masse, hoping to see Council pass a text amendment to provide a new set of building standards that would pave the way for turbines to be built throughout the city.
But it was not to be — not yet anyway. Turbine supporters left the meeting dejected, following Council’s 5-1 vote to send the amendment back to Planning and Zoning for further fine-tuning. Councilman Kerry Deering was not at the meeting.
The amendment as initially written would have altered the text of the city’s zoning ordinance to allow for a single wind turbine on any size parcel, or up to two turbines on parcels larger than one acre. It would have required turbines to stand no higher than the maximum building height allowed in the zone in which they were built, or up to 60 feet with a conditional use permit. It also would have required they be rated at no more than 10 kilowatts capacity and painted a non-reflective, neutral desert color.
None of these conditions posed a problem to Council or the assortment of residents and wind turbine vendors who spoke at Tuesday’s meeting.
The proponents’ main cause for concern was the amendment’s setback requirements — while the proposed standards didn’t set a minimum lot size for turbines, they would require turbines to be set back as far as their reclining length of 30 feet or more.
This, proponents argued, would restrict many smaller residences from installing turbines on their property, and amounted to a de facto minimum lot size. One turbine vendor, Richard Salmonsen, said that while he understood the idea behind setback requirements, in this case, the fears of a turbine falling on a neighbor’s yard were unfounded. He said turbines are typically built to standards that far exceed those of conventional buildings, and are engineered to withstand up to 190 mph winds.
“These will never go into a neighbor’s yard,” Salmonsen said. “Once they’re placed, they’re there forever.”
Councilman Keith Walker asked Salmonsen what kind of setbacks he would prefer. Salmonsen said he wanted either regular sideyard setbacks or the length of the blade, to avoid encroaching on a neighbor’s airspace.
Another turbine vendor, Tony Kuc, agreed that setbacks were the main issue. He said that by passing the amendment with reduced setbacks, Kingman would be making a strong environmental statement to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and the state legislature.
“The state of Arizona’s watching this real close,” Kuc said. “We have the opportunity to make a difference in the state, in the country, in the world.”
Local resident Catherine Rumney said she had originally been for the increased setbacks, but had come around after considering that wooden utility poles were much more likely to fall on her property than a well-engineered turbine would. She agreed that the new standards could potentially launch Kingman to prominence as a Mecca for green development.
“I remember when (Timothy) McVeigh put Kingman on the map, and hearing this, it sounds like a great chance to put Kingman on the map again,” Rumney said.
Council concurred with opinions that the setbacks should be reduced. Councilwoman Robin Gordon said 15-foot setbacks seemed like a reasonable compromise, and colleagues Walker and Carole Young agreed with her.
Vice Mayor Janet Watson, however, wondered if it wouldn’t be more prudent to have staff first consider the merits of several setback options, then present them before Council at a later date. The idea elicited groans from several of the turbine aficionados present, but Watson stood firm.
“This is the first time we’ve talked about this, this is major,” she said. “I think that sometimes making a hasty decision, you have to go back and say ‘Oh, we didn’t do this,’ or ‘We should have added that,’ rather than getting it right.”
Young also recommended that turbines be confined to backyards and side yards only, an idea that gained traction with the rest of Council, but raised a red flag with City Attorney Carl Cooper. By effectively eliminating half the property in the development standards, he said, Council was altering the amendment far beyond how it was advertised to the public.
“That’s a considerable difference than what was originally proposed,” Cooper said. “I hate to be the bearer of the ‘push it back to P&Z,’ but some of the things you’re talking about are significantly different than what had gone through P&Z that most of the people had heard.”
Young made the motion to return the amendment to P&Z for another go, with Council’s alterations. Watson seconded, and the motion passed, Gordon’s was the sole opposing vote.
The vote came more than two and a half hours after the meeting began, and Mayor Salem thanked the attendees for being so patient. As the wind turbine supporters shuffled out of the Council Chambers, however, several could be heard grumbling at the evening’s outcome.
“Once again, they can’t make a decision,” one man said.
Also on Tuesday, the Council:
• Voted 6-0 to approve an amendment to the zoning ordinance that rewords the section requiring applicants to wait one year from the Planning Commission’s decision to resubmit a proposal that was previously denied. The new wording begins the waiting period at Council’s decision instead.
• Voted 5-1 to approve an amendment to the zoning ordinance that will require a one-time, one-year review of all new conditional use permits within the city. Walker was the dissenting vote.
• Voted 6-0 to approve the rezone of a 1.69 acre parcel at the northeast corner of Bank Street and Kino Avenue from R-R: Rural Residential to C-3: Commercial, Service Business.
• Voted 6-0 to approve the rezone of 4.55 acres south of Airway Avenue between Harrison Street and Rutherford Street from O: Open Space to C-3.
James Chilton, Miner Staff Reporter
5 September 2008
The copyright of this article is owned by the author or publisher indicated. Its availability here constitutes a "fair use" as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law as well as in similar "fair dealing" exceptions of the copyright laws of other nations, as part of National Wind Watch's effort to advance understanding of the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development. For more information, click here.
Blog it:
Tags: Wind power, Wind energy
|
