Village of Gurnee
Joint Plan Commission & Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
June 2, 2010
The meeting was called to order at 8:00 P.M.
Plan Commission Members Present: Stephen Park, David Nordentoft, Richard McFarlane, Sharon Salmons, Gwen Broughton
Plan Commission Members Absent: James Sula, Patrick Drennan
Zoning Board of Appeals Members Present: Chairman Tom Hood, Edwin Paff, John Spadaro, Richard Twitchell, Jerry Kolar
Zoning Board of Appeals Members Absent: Don Wilson, Robert Monahan
Other Officials Present: Bryan Winter, Village Attorney; Dave Ziegler, Director of Engineering; Tracy Velkover, Planning Manager; Molly Bacon, Associate Planner; Ryan Mentkowski, Associate Planner
1. Informal Review: Wind Energy Systems Regulations
Mr. Mentkowski stated Staff is not recommending allowing “Large Wind” or Utility Scale Wind Turbines in the Village of Gurnee with any new Ordinance. He stated the Ordinance is focusing on smaller turbines that Staff believes would be more appropriate for a suburban setting. He stated the basis for the regulations came from the Wind Energy Task Force of Lake County communities. He stated the task force group worked together and did research on restrictions and areas of concerns with their main purpose, which was not political, but to promote wind energy policies by a model ordinance as well as an informational resource guide for communities to utilize as guide. He stated they know the model ordinance would change with each community but the hope would be that it is a good starting point.
Mr. Mentkowski stated the Small Wind Energy Model Ordinance as well as the Wind Energy Resource Guide has previously been provided to both Commissions here this evening. He stated he has heard from other communities how useful the Wind Energy Resource Guide is and stated it is intended to be basic but contains detailed information.
Mr. Mentkowski stated the presentation this evening will include the types of wind energy which are 1) Horizontal Axis vs. Vertical Axis and 2) Building Mounted & Small Wind Energy. He stated the presentation will include looking at aspects related to proposed restrictions which include 1) height reference examples, 2) types of support towers (monopole, etc.), and 3) definitions. Mr. Mentkowski stated these would be discussed prior to getting into any types restrictions which include 1) PC & ZBA discussions of draft Wind Energy Regulations and 2) Building Mounted & Small Wind Energy. He noted additional discussions will include important Wind Energy documentation consisting of the technical aspects of Wind Energy Systems and some other commonly discussed concerns that have been raised.
Mr. Mentkowski stated the Horizontal Wind Access Turbine, which is like the Chipolte Wind Turbine and essentially moves into the wind. He stated the Vertical Access Wind Turbine is stationary and whatever wind is available to push it will be caught by the turbine causing it to turn without the turbine actually moving into the wind. He stated the Vertical Access Wind Turbine is not as efficient and not as much energy is realized from it, however, it does take up less space.
Mr. Mentkowski stated the Building Mounted Wind Turbine is structurally attached onto the roof or a side of a building. He stated it is actually a supplement energy production and most likely will not create enough power to power an entire home. He stated it is less expense than a Small Wind Turbine but something that Staff feels would fit into a suburban setting because it is attached to a house, versus being in a backyard.
Mr. Mentkowski stated for the purposes of discussion and the ordinances, the Building Mounted Wind Turbine is a tower mounted turbine up to 175 feet in height and used to produce on-site power for a single user and possibly net metering in which ComEd would buy power back from you. He stated a 10 kW turbine would power one home.
Mr. Mentkowski provided examples of tower heights which include: the Emergency Broadcast tower in front of Fire Station # 2 on Hunt Club Road at 49 feet in height; the Chipolte Tower at 58 feet in height; the Key Lime Cove Hotel which varies from 52 feet to 59 feet/6 inches in height; the Com Ed Tower on Dilleys Road at 105 feet in height; the Village Cell Tower located by Dana & Hunt Club Road is 135 feet in height; and Aldridge Electric at 150 feet in height.
Mr. Mentkowski stated the types of support towers for Small Wind Energy are: Monopole Towers; Lattice Towers; Tilt-Up Towers; and Guyed Wire Towers. He stated Monopole Towers are the tidiest looking yet the most expensive. He stated the towers increase in cost as they increase in height essentially because of the engineering costs. He stated Lattice Towers are generally three or four legged lattice structures without guyed wires and are less expensive than Monopole Towers with smaller footprints. He stated Tilt-Up Towers can basically be moved up and down, primarily for maintenance purposes for the inner workings of the tower.
Mr. Mentkowski stated important technical aspects from the Lake County Wind Energy Task Force as well as promoting Green Energy include the importance of height. He stated the higher the turbine the more powerful the wind is. He stated there is an exponent of 3 that is applied to the height/power. He noted there is not a direct correlation between a generator size and tower height. He stated there are variables that go into the kilowatts, which include the size of the blades and the height of a tower. He stated wind maps for Illinois point out areas that have resource of winds and for the Gurnee area it is primarily the northeast winds at 12-14 m.p.h coming from Lake Michigan. This provides the complete lamenter flow with nothing to stop or make the winds turbulent which make a turbine less efficient. He stated in choosing the best site for a wind turbine it is important to obtain the maximum efficiency by citing the turbine 300 feet upwind and 30 feet above any buildings, trees or other tall obstacles. He noted that there are Illinois statues that Staff believes restrict the ability to place setbacks on a wind tower or other renewable energy systems. The State of Illinois limits this to 1.1 times the height of the energy system from the end user’s property line, thus the State is regulating the home rule power.
Mr. Mentkowski stated when measuring height for a Wind Energy System it refers to the height from the bottom of the house to the tallest peak of the house that does not include architectural features, i.e. a chimney. He stated the height is added from the top of the house to the top of the turbine and that depicts the height for a Building Mounted Wind Energy System. He stated for a Small Wind Energy System the height is measured from the tower base to the top of the tower plus the height to the top of the blade height, which is the ultimate height of this type of turbine.
Mr. Mentkowski stated another concept to be introduced and currently being called the Front and Corner Side Side Yard Plane which is essentially to be drafted for a home on a corner lot noting the front yard and within the front plane of a house toward a street, not allowing any Small Wind or Building Mounted Energy Systems. He stated it would also be the same for a Corner Side Yard Plane which the plane would extend from a house parallel to the property line in a rear yard. He stated within the Corner Side Plane there would not be any Small Wind or Building Mounted Energy Turbines allowed either.
Mr. Mentkowski stated the Draft Ordinance Restrictions include the following:
Currently as drafted by Staff, a BWES (Building Mounted Wind Energy System) is permitted to be attached to a principal structure in residential and non-residential. He stated for purposes of this Ordinance, residential is property that is used or zoned for residential purposes and non-residential is property zoned for non-residential purposes. He stated it was felt not appropriate to put a BWES on an accessory structure and therefore, at this time not permitted.
Mr. Mentkowski asked for any opinions from the Commission members.
Pro-tem Chairman Park asked when speaking of “residential” if this referred to all types of residential, single and multi-family.
Mr. Mentkowski responded yes.
Pro-tem Chairman Park asked if a condo or apartment complex had a separate building such as a pool or community center if a wind energy system could be placed in those areas.
Mr. Mentkowski responded no.
Pro-tem Chairman Park asked why and that he wanted to understand the theory.
Mr. Mentkowski stated he believed the focus was more on single family garages. He noted this may be something to consider if the Commissions feel this is something that could be utilized.
Mr. Paff stated he didn’t understand if a person was sticking with the setback and it didn’t meet the setback requirements, then he would understand it not being mounted on an accessory structure. He asked if someone put a turbine next to it in the ground what the difference would be.
Pro-tem Chairman Park asked if this would be for a single family residence.
Mr. Paff replied yes, a single family residence for a small wind turbine.
Mr. Mentkowski responded this would be assuming it met the 1.1 setback. He noted with a lot of garages the 1.1 setback will not be met. He stated if a building mounted wind system is done, a kind of “pass” is considered for abiding by the setbacks as it was thought that esthetically speaking it is a little different than a 40 foot turbine in a rear yard.
Pro-tem Chairman Park asked if these types in installations be relevant for a townhouse project and if a townhouse or condo association could prohibit them. He asked if there was a potential in a condo association where a Building Mounted Wind Energy system is on a townhome. He noted the Village might allow it but asked what about the condo association.
Mr. Mentkowski responded this is not something that the Village could make them do.
Pro-tem Chairman Park asked if the condo association can override the Village regulations in this respect.
Mr. Mentkowski responded yes they can as it may be in their conveyance not to allow them. He stated a condo association can be more restrictive than the Village’s minimum requirements.
Mr. Spadaro asked if there was any federal jurisdiction regarding wind energy systems.
Mr. Mentkowski responded there is none as of yet. He stated from what he is seeing in other communities it is his opinion that the State or Federal government will step in and not allow regulation.
Pro-tem Chairman Park stated he is seeing that both vertical and horizontal will be allowed in residential and non-residential.
Mr. Mentkowski stated that is correct.
Mr. Twitchell asked to define the highest point in a building structure.
Mr. Mentkowski responded it is the highest peak on a roof. He stated there can be multiple peaks on a roof and it would be the highest one of those multiple peaks.
Mr. Twitchell asked what if a chimney protrudes higher than the peaks on a roof.
Mr. Mentkowski stated the chimney would not be part of this. He stated the wording will be clarified to ensure this.
Mr. Salmons asked if the amount of Wind Energy Systems a person can have would be limited. She asked if more than one Wind Energy System could be installed on a structure.
Mr. Mentkowski responded presently, this is set-up where there is no limit to the number of Building Mounted Wind Energy Systems. He stated theoretically, two could be put onto a home, but structurally speaking reinforcement of the home’s roof would have to be done. He stated this is something that needs to be considered in putting together an ordinance.
Ms. Salmons stated this is something that should be thought about.
Pro-tem Chairman Park stated Ms. Salmons has raised this point and the Commissions may need to differentiate between Single Family detached or Townhouses and a twelve building Apartment Complex or a non-residential project. He stated it may very well be different standards for the type of building and may be the difference between as this is as much as aesthetics as anything.
Ms. Salmons asked if the Commissions can be this specific in their regulations.
Mr. Mentkowski responded yes. He stated for example a single family detached could have a maximum of (1) one commercial or multi-family residential could be (1) one per unit for the multi-family and a maximum of 2 (two) for commercial; and over (2) two would be a Special Use. He stated by doing this esthetically it would not look ugly.
Mr. Spadaro stated if the Commissions are going to consider this he believes it should be done by the square footage rule due to residences varying in size. He stated for example up to 6,000 square feet per residence that one would be allowed.
Pro-tem Chairman Park stated even getting into multi-family or office industrial would be the same thing. He stated this would be one way of approaching it.
Ms. Salmons stated she agrees with this.
Pro-tem Chairman Park referenced a note provided to the Commissions regarding restricting the attaching of poles and asked if a monopole or lattice type be okay.
Mr. Mentkowski responded it will get into aesthetics.
Pro-tem Chairman Park asked Mr. Mentkowski what he would recommend in this respect.
Mr. Mentkowski stated he is not recommending any real restriction on the building mounted as far as the type. He stated he really feels based on research that it will be a monopole or a lattice type. He stated if this is something that is not wanted by the community the Commissions can say that. He stated for example, building mounted shall be monopole attached.
Pro-tem Chairman Park asked the Commissions for any other questions on the first page of topic.
Mr. Mentkowski asked what the Commissions feel about just the monopole.
Mr. Paff stated he prefers the monopole.
Ms. Salmons stated aesthetically it has a definitive line and takes up less room.
Mr. Mentkowski stated the lattice building mounted turbines that he can recall have been on more commercial buildings.
Pro-tem Chairman Park stated all types of buildings are being addressed and all types of installations need to be addressed as well, unless the Commissions want to distinguish them.
Pro-tem Chairman Park stated the Commissions have the issues of how many; having Staff look into the size of the facility as a stepping stone for how many; accessory buildings, allowing them or not, depending upon the type of accessory building such as an apartment complex or buildings for non-residential; and what is the attachment. He stated these are the three pieces that have been addressed so far this evening.
Mr. Paff stated he didn’t know if square footage was the best because a 2-story home where both floors are counted would have the same footprint as a ranch style home. He stated it would make more sense to him to do this by a footprint size.
Pro-tem Chairman Park stated another alternative to square footage would be a separation between installations. He stated if a person had a single family home that is 10,000 square feet on one level they could be 100 feet apart, as it is a separation as much as mass.
Mr. Mentkowski responded from a Staff and administrative standpoint the recommendation of “one by Right” and “anything over one for single family be a Special Use”.
Pro-tem Chairman Park asked what would be done for other than single family such as an industrial building that is 250,000 square feet.
Mr. McFarlane responded essentially the FAR should be used as the footprint. He stated this way it could be written for a unit to be every “so many square feet.” He stated in essence this will have to be residential and non-residential having significant differences because more applications for a commercial setting will be seen as they use more power.
Mr. Mentkowski responded this is something that Staff can work on. He stated if thoughts are to possibly restrict the number this is something that Staff will address.
Mr. Twitchell suggested another addition stating not to exceed a certain percentage of electrical output above what an applicant themselves would need on their property as a way to regulate the number of turbines.
Pro-tem Chairman Park stated he didn’t know if this was something that could really be done as being discussed. He stated at the Federal level and probably at the State level as well is the fact that one could over produce power and for instance sell it back as it is less coal, power, etc. and less renewable resources is a good thing. He stated he believes for the short term a lot more will be seen on residential versus non-residential because there is more disposable income. He stated the business has to justify the cost and presently they are not very cost justified.
Mr. Mentkowski responded this is a good idea. He stated from a “planning standpoint” it will be difficult for Staff to obtain this information and regulate it as far as zoning.
Pro-tem Chairman Park stated part of this would be dependent upon the size of the installation and the wind. He stated his concern would be how this would be monitored.
Mr. Paff stated he didn’t think it affects the people and the need is for something aesthetically acceptable more than being concerned with how much electricity is generated and not to affect the community in a bad way.
Mr. Twitchell stated his point was that someone could come in with a 250,000 square foot building and decide to put up 10 building mounted turbines because they want to generate additional energy. He asked if this is something that the Commissions would want to allow.
Pro-tem Chairman Park asked if this is something that should be encouraged. He stated this is part of the whole equation of how much is enough. He stated this is something that needs to really be looked at.
Mr. Mentkowski responded as long as the power generated is not for utility purposes because then it is a totally different issue. He stated if it is someone’s power where they are getting money back due to be net metered for personal use that is considered one thing. He stated if a person goes over to the “utility side” he believes this is looking at something totally different.
Mr. Twitchell stated if a residential person were to install (2) two turbines, it might be aesthetically better to have them as close together as possible, rather than spread apart.
Mr. Kolar responded as long as something doesn’t end up looking like the Devon bank located in Wheeling which has 6-8 turbines located in the parking lot.
Mr. Mentkowski responded it does seem cluttered, with the small wind turbines. He stated he would get back to this later this evening.
Pro-tem Chairman Park asked the Commission if there were any other items on the “building” side.
Pro-tem Chairman Park asked to move onto the “Small Wind” portion of the discussion.
Pro-tem Chairman Park stated differentiation is noted in the “types” of towers. He stated it is noted to permit three of the four in residential but only permitting one of the four in non-residential. He asked Mr. Mentkowksi the reasoning for this.
Mr. Mentkowski responded the reason is aesthetics. He stated Staff felt that monopole is more appropriate for commercial and industrial settings.
Pro-tem Chairman Park stated Mr. Mentkowski noted earlier in the presentation that tilt-up towers were vertically monopole.
Mr. Mentkowski responded this was done previous to other thoughts he had which came up this afternoon. He stated the tilt-up tower if it is a monopole setting, would probably then be allowed as permitted.
Pro-tem Chairman Park stated he understands the issue about establishing guyed wired towers. He clarified that Mr. Mentkowski stated it is that a lattice tower is merely a bulk and esthetic issue.
Mr. Mentkowski responded yes. He asked the Commissions their feelings on allowing a lattice type tower in residential areas
Mr. Paff stated the aesthetics would be more important in a residential area than in a business area.
Mr. McFarlane asked why the Commissions are being more restrictive in the non-residential or industrial then the residential.
Mr. Mentkowski responded that the other reasoning is due to the cost. He stated from Staff’s view they feel that a business has deeper pockets than a resident. He stated it would be less expensive to put up a lattice tower.
Pro-tem Chairman Park asked if a less cost solution would not be available to a business forcing a business into the higher cost solution.
Ms. Velkover stated one of the other reasons is that the height allowed in commercial is greater than in residential. She stated when a lattice tower is put up, the taller the structure is, and therefore more visible and imposing. She stated it was discussed whether or not to allow lattice structures in residential areas due to aesthetic issues. She stated the monopole is definitely a cleaner look as the heights are shorter in residential then they potentially are in commercial. She stated this is one of the reasons Staff decided not to allow this in commercial.
Ms. Salmons asked what the footprint is for the lattice type of tower.
Mr. Mentkowski stated it generally depends on the height and it would be a bigger footprint than a monopole.
Pro-tem Chairman Park stated it is being suggested that it never be allowed in a front yard or corner side yard regardless of the use and only in an interior rear yard providing it meets the appropriate setbacks. He stated in a non-residential setting there may be setbacks of a couple hundred feet.
Mr. Mentkowski apologized, stating he was supposed to make a change to this.
Pro-tem Chairman Park asked if these were “p’s” instead of “np’s” in non-residential.
Mr. Mentkowski stated originally they were “np’s” and after speaking with Staff it was determined that most of the big boxes are pushed back 500 feet off the roads and therefore not able to put these in a front yard. He stated it would be changed to in a front yard on non-residential to “permitted” and in a side yard “permitted”.
Pro-tem Chairman Park asked the Commissions if there were any other issues on yards.
Mr. Spadaro stated he needed clarification on non-residential if it is a government building i.e. Lake County building something in the industrial park.
Pro-tem Chairman Park stated it would be non-residential following the same rules.
Pro-tem Chairman Park stated if the Federal Government were to do that, they can do what they want.
Mr. Mentkowski stated the Village would still try to have the Federal Government follow the regulations.
Pro-tem Chairman Park stated the Village would try to convince the Federal Government, but there are no rules that require it, which would be normal at the federal level.
Pro-tem Chairman Park asked the Commissions if there are height issues. He noted it states when there is a larger parcel taller heights are allowed. He stated the theory on the numbers has been discussed at other meetings.
Mr. Mentkowski stated that is correct. He stated the recommendation from the task force was actually for property less than (1) one acre and Staff felt that (2) two acres was more appropriate.
Pro-tem Chairman Park stated he noted that even if the cut-off is 100 feet, it is still allowing the potential for 175 feet on a large tract residential.
Mr. Mentkowski responded that is correct. He stated this is definitely a conversation he wants to have with both of the Commissions. He stated this is also a recommendation from the task force and he would like the opinions from the Commissions whether they feel 175 feet is appropriate or not.
Ms. Salmons asked why it states the height can only go up to 100 feet for a property of 5 acres and then states it can go 175 feet. She stated this does not make sense to her and asked why this is being put in as part of the verbiage.
Mr. Mentkowski stated it is a cap because there had to be a maximum.
Pro-tem Chairman Park stated it calls for a Special Use for anything over 100 feet.
Ms. Salmons responded she understands this.
Pro-tem Chairman Park stated in no case could someone ask for over 175 feet, even under a Special Use. He stated it is the “regardless” and that he would clarify as there may be circumstances for particular parcels that as a broad brush Ordinance the Commissions can never get everything covered. He stated if someone had a 10 acre site surrounded for example by forest preserves what difference would it make if the height went to 175 feet. He stated this is giving the flexibility for the Village to consider something and it would not be an absolute right, thus giving someone the opportunity to request it. He stated it is the “regardless” and if the Commissions feel it would never be appropriate for 100 feet and there may be circumstances where the Commissions might feel otherwise. He stated when drafting this code, not every circumstance can be covered.
Mr. McFarlane stated in fully understanding everything that has been stated, he would like the height to be 150 feet. He stated as reference he looks at 135 foot pole by the fire station and believes 175 feet is too tall.
Pro-tem Chairman Park stated he is not saying that 175 feet is the right number as maximum.
Mr. McFarlane stated to consider 150 feet in height as input.
Ms. Salmons stated if it is left out there, someone will want it.
Mr. Paff asked if the measurement is to the top of the blade, not just the pole.
Pro-tem Chairman Park responded correct and it is to the absolute top and not just the pole. He stated it may be that the blade is 40 feet long and therefore the pole would only be 135 feet in height.
Ms. Salmons and Mr. McFarlane both stated they understand.
Mr. Mentkowski stated Mr. McFarlane brought up 150 feet as a maximum.
Pro-tem Chairman Park asked if this is for residential or in all cases.
Mr. McFarlane stated for residential as it is incredibly high to have in a neighborhood. He stated he is much more comfortable with the towers being bigger for commercial areas.
Pro-tem Chairman Park asked the Commissions for their thoughts on 150 feet maximum height versus 175 feet.
Mr. Paff stated he didn’t think it really mattered because if it is not by right the Commissions would have the option of saying no and stopping it.
Mr. Twitchell asked the reasoning of the 175 feet suggested by the task force.
Mr. Mentkowski responded it was based on research from what other communities and counties had done as a maximum.
Pro-tem Chairman Park asked rural or urban.
Mr. Mentowski responded generally rural.
Pro-tem Chairman Park asked the Commission members to raise their hands for feeling more comfortable with 150 feet and for those more comfortable with 175 feet.
Pro-tem Chairman Park stated after the show of the Commission members hands 175 feet will be the height. He stated this is the bottom line as stated earlier and noted members would be able to look at situations and judge them accordingly. He stated with these circumstances it would make sense.
Mr. Mentkowski stated the setback requirements would still need to be met as well as being put into the locations as the Village restricts it. He stated additionally, Staff feels anything over 175 feet could be applied for by a variation if hardship can be proven.
Mr. Twitchell asked if the 175 feet includes lots that are less than 2 acres.
Mr. Mentkowski responded yes it does.
Pro-tem Chairman Park asked Mr. Mentkowski if on properties less than 2 acres with a Special Use for greater than 45 feet but up to 175 feet in height could be considered for a parcel that is almost 400 feet wide x 400 feet in length which is almost 2 acres. He stated if it is going to 175 in height, about 190 feet of setback is needed, meaning 380 feet side to side or front to back which is not 2 acres. He stated as a practical matter this could never be requested because of the setback.
Mr. Mentkowski responded if the Commissions feel this is too much Staff can further look into this.
Mr. Twitchell suggested to say it would only be on 5 acre parcels.
Pro-tem Chairman Park asked if 100 feet would be the maximum allowed for the others. He asked if a Special Use would be required for parcels greater than 5 acres requesting over 100 feet up to a maximum of 175 feet in height and if it were for a parcel less than 5 acres a Special Use could be requested for a maximum of 100 feet, in essence some lesser dimension.
Mr. Mentkowski stated that is correct. He stated if it is something that the Commissions want Staff to add into the Ordinance it would be a possibility.
Pro-tem Chairman Park asked Mr. Mentkowski to think about this and see how it fits in when doing the permitted as well as the number that would be allowed.
Pro-tem Chairman Park stated the number suggested is at 1/per property other than by Special Use and asked if this was correct. He stated he believes the same discussion is relevant for the site based small wind energy as well. He stated this should be thought about in tandem based on previous discussions as it may be okay, appropriate and desirable to have more than one building or small or some combination.
Mr. Mentkowski responded this is correct. He stated ultimately and in all honesty this is a starting point. He stated (1) one is permitted and if more than (1) one are requested a Special Use permit would be required as well as going through the process.
Mr. Mentkowski stated there will be more issues with the Small Wind than with the Building.
Pro-tem Chairman Park stated all residential parcels are being distinguished not just a single family detached site which includes apartment and condo complexes, all types which may or not be appropriate. He asked the Commission members how many per parcel should be allowed by Right.
Mr. Twitchell stated he likes the idea of (1) one by Right and a Special Use for anything more than (1) one.
Mr. Paff stated it appears you could have one Building and one Tower. He asked if this was correct. He stated actually there is no limit except for setbacks.
Pro-tem Chairman Park stated this is part of the question and the very question that is being raised. He asked if the setbacks are met would consideration be given for more than (1) one.
Mr. Twitchell stated this would somehow be based on acreage also then.
Mr. Paff stated if setbacks are met you could get quite a few in there.
Pro-tem Chairman Park stated there would not be a separation between as part of this.
Mr. Mentkowski stated no, not for interior private.
Pro-tem Chairman Park stated they could be 20 feet apart.
Ms. Velkover suggested that since none of the Commission members can really picture what multiple wind turbines on a commercial or any piece of property look like and as a starting point to leave it at (1) one with a Special Use for more than (1) one. She stated as more experienced is gained and more come in for Special Use permits Staff can actually see what they look like in the field and then go back and re-visit this Ordinance. She stated in doing it this way it would be known on how to possibly make adjustments to reflect the needs of what the community character should be.
Mr. McFarlane stated he believes getting experience through Special Use makes good sense.
Pro-tem Chairman Park stated he has no problem with the experience approach and stated to get this up and running to see what happens. He stated they can always adapt at a later time.
Pro-tem Chairman Park asked Mr. Mentkowski what the timetable would be to re-think through the questions that have been raised at this meeting. He asked what the next step would be.
Mr. Mentkowski responded he hoped that the next step would be for a recommendation to hold a Public Hearing. He stated he would like to capture some public feedback. He also stated that he has been present at some Lake County public hearings where the public is contentious and very vocal about the issue.
Ms. Salmons asked if the Village has been approached by anyone else than Chipolte in requesting a wind turbine and what is being told to them.
Mr. Mentkowski stated yes there have been several and they are being told that there is a moratorium, which will probably be extended.
Mr. McFarlane asked how many have come through.
Mr. Mentkowskii responded 5 or 10 with some residential and someone in commercial looking at wanting to put turbines on light poles to utilize that power.
Ms. Salmons asked if the Village is interested in these to generate any power or in any case to think about it.
Mr. Mentkowski responded no and that he has not received direction to think about it.
Mr. Spadaro suggested Staff solicit some companies to install wind turbines (free of charge) if the Village is considering utilizing wind turbines. He suggested perhaps to request for a residential and possibly a business and a farm property. He stated perhaps one of these companies would be able to come into the Village, install these, and let the Commissions view the aesthetics so they Commissions could actually do a survey free of charge. He stated this would be a way for a company to get their foot into the door as well as possible standardization for the companies that install these, and those companies meeting certain standards and regulations. He stated he felt it would be a good idea if in fact the Village could legally do it and it would be a way of getting feedback on the turbines.
Mr. Mentkowski stated Staff has been contacted by companies but to cold call companies and have them come in to install a turbine would have to be approved by the Village Board and would probably take at least a year to get accomplished.
Mr. Hood stated he believes the Village will not want to be seen as going with that idea because of the significant backlash of the way it looks. He stated the Commission should be on the catching end rather than the front end as it has enough problems of its own.
Mr. Paff asked if there is any residential wind energy mounted in the area.
Mr. Mentkowski stated there is a residential in Highland Park, but the Village Planner of Highland Park would not provide the actual address.
Mr. Twitchell stated he could provide some addresses via email to Mr. Mentkowski.
Pro-tem Chairman Park asked for any other comments from the Commissions.
Ms. Velkover asked for clarification if everyone is looking to go to one more workshop or can this be advertised for a public hearing so that comments from the public can be obtained as well as discussing any changes.
Pro-tem Chairman Park responded he had not heard any objections to the approach that was suggested.
Mr. Kolar noted the following changes be made to the draft Ordinance that was provided in the Commissioners packets. He stated Item # 2 of 2 for Building Mounted Wind Energy Systems and referenced a typo error of 15 and “25” is in quotation marks.
Mr. Twitchell stated he worked in the telecommunications industry and he would highly recommend monopole only from the aesthetic standpoint. He also stated not to do the “hinged” one as it is the only one that has the potential of blowing over if some mechanism fails in the hinge. He stated towers crash straight down. He stated only a direct hit by a tornado will make a tower do anything but fall straight down. He stated any tower that has a hinge is a different story because there can be a mechanical deficiency within the hinge itself. He stated on a farm he would recommend a lattice tower because it might fit in esthetically with a farm look and this is the only place that type of tower should be allowed. He also referenced in the Ordinance as written, the statement on page (2), #C5 stating information must be conducted or certified by an acoustical specialist certified by the Institute of Noise Control & Engineering. He stated he knows of many people who perform this type of work and who do not meet this type of criteria. He stated by doing some internet research he only found 3 persons in the Chicago area who met this criteria.
Pro tem Chairman Park asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Twitchell made a motion seconded by Ms. Salmons to adjourn.
The Meeting was adjourned at 9:22 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted:
Joanne Havenhill
Plan Commission Secretary