HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20100420City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes - Apri120, 2010
Comments
Minutes
Conflicts of Interest
Aspen Energy Center
Code Amendments -Signs
2
2
2
2
20
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -April 20, 2010
Stan Gibbs called the regular meeting in Sister Cities Meeting Room to order at
4:30pm. Brian Speck, Bert Myrin and LJ Erspamer were excused. Commissioners
present were Jasmine Tygre, Cliff Weiss, Jim DeFrancia, and Stan Gibbs. Staff
present were Jim True, Special Counsel; Sara Adams, Jennifer Phelan, Community
Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
Comments
Jasmine Tygre commented that two recently-approved free market projects were
supposed to provide two employee units each (4 total). Only one is currently
occupied by a qualified renter (who submitted the necessary documentation to
APCHA).One other unit is occupied but has not provided any documentation; the
other two are unoccupied and one is being offered for sale along with the free-
market unit. Julie, the APCHA enforcement officer, has been following up, but
has no real power to compel compliance. It is outrageous that conditions of
approval/mitigation are ineffective. I plan to do some more research and come up
with some suggestions.
MINUTES
MOTION: Mike Wampler moved to approve the minutes from April 6, 2010,
seconded by Jim DeFrancia. All in favor, APPROVED.
Conflicts of Interest
None stated.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Aspen Energy Center Power Plant Rd: Consolidated PUD Review, Growth
Management for Essential Public Facility, Rezoning and Subdivision
Stan Gibbs opened the Public Hearing for the Aspen Energy Center. Sara Adams
said the proposal was to develop a hydroelectric plant and was determined by the
Community Development Director to be an essential public facility and has been
requested along with the rezoning from R-30 to Public, a consolidated PUD review
and growth management for an essential public facility. Adams said that P&Z is
the final review to determine generation rates for this project and review criteria
will be discussed during her presentation. There have been about 5 public
meetings to date and there will be more meetings about this project continuing on.
Sara Adams stated that at noon today Planning and Zoning Commissioners
Jasmine Tygre, Stan Gibbs and Cliff Weiss did a site visit to the hydroelectric site
and members of the public also attended. Adams stated that the applicant was
going to provide information on how the hydroelectric plant works and where it
will be located and then Sara will present the staff findings and discuss the stream
2
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes - Apri120, 2010
margin exemptions and then the applicant will follow up and address some of the
background on how this plant will work.
Andy Rossello introduced the design team with Mitch Haas, Phil Overyender,
Scott Smith, Steven Dunn, Dave Hornbacher, Rob Covington and Bill Miller.
Rossello said that this project came about in the overflow of the water plant and
currently the Thomas Reservoir fills up and overflows and runs down the side of
Castle Creek Road. Rossello said that the city was looking at this to find out what
they could do with this to generate some energy; dating back to 2007 the Aspen
Area Community Plan was asked if you had the funds to improve on one of the
following. Rossello said 47% of the people in the town were for developing new
renewable energy and from those renewable energies they determined these were
the 3 vision statements for this project, Castle Creek; the increased use of
renewable energies in the public and private sectors has reduced our carbon
footprint and reduced our dependence on foreign oil, energy use is reduced as we
supply primarily clean renewable and reliable sources of energy and carbon
emissions and green house gases will be greatly reduced. Rossello said if we look
at the historic energy production of the City of Aspen we looked from 1885 to
1958 we survived solely on hydroelectric power; in 1958 federal power came
through and we said that we will be able to supply you with clean free renewable
energy and we determined that was not the case. In 2004 they did an energy audit
of their site and found out that 64% of the energy was generated from coal;
hydroelectric and wind operated at about 36% and in 2007 after the 2004 and 2006
canary initiatives we have reduced our rate to 25%; after the construction of the
Castle Creek Energy Center we will further reduce our coal to 17% having 49% of
our city's energy coming from hydroelectric power. This gets us towards our goal
of 0% or 100% carbon neutrality by 2015. City policies are dictated by the Canary
Initiative and Action Plan were formed as a result of the 2006 meetings; in 2007
the City proposed a public vote and 77% of the public was in favor of the Castle
Creek Energy Center. Rossello said the benefits of the public power system
through $500,000.00 a year returned to the community, so the direct return of
funds. The street light program in the City of Aspen is completely free; the Ice
Garden is supplied with completely free power, we supply Food and Wine with
entirely free power. Rossello said that $800,000.00 of what we have talked about
in total community benefit is greater than 10% of all of our electrical revenue;
compared to a national average of 4.6% that's pretty darn good. The benefits of
clean energy heritage to our clean power in Aspen; we have a 120 year history of
clean renewable energy. Carbon emissions reduction will be 5% tons of CO2 that
we remove from the atmosphere by installing this new plant; our customers will
3
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -April 20, 2010
pay less than typical Colorado scale and they will be addressing the last 20 tons of
carbon emissions to achieve that 2015 goal of the Canary Imitative.
Rossello utilized power point to show the Colorado utilities area of municipal
residential survey of customers. The City of Aspen currently spends about $17.44
per 700 kilowatt hours of generated than the City of Denver. Some of customers in
the City do use Holy Cross Energy; we pay $9.03 less currently than Holy Cross
customers do for energy for an equivalent amount. Rossello said we will see more
savings from the inception of the Castle Creek Energy Plant. So what are some of
the project alternatives; do we continue to use coal fired power; do we go away
from the Aspen Plan and Canary Initiatives, do we lose our goals and continue to
use coal energy. Then we can also look at conservation; in 1992 you can see a
spike in that power point graph that was the highest consumptive use for water in
that year and we have reduced use of the water by two-thirds since then; what do
we do with this excess water; let it continue flowing into the river or do we use it
to generate hydroelectric. Similar what we want to do with this is take our energy
consumption over the next 10 to 15 years have a graph that is similar to this and
continue to use energy conservation so that not only do we achieve our Canary
Initiative goals but we produce less energy because the customer needs less.
Rossello said the history of the hydroelectric power was in 1885 and 1892 water
rights were acquired on Castle and Maroon Creeks; in 1892 the original plant was
constructed (the initial Castle Creek Plant) and in 1892 the plant came on line with
the same capacities as today's plant; the engineers who designed it then were
brilliant; they are following their alignment that they had even with our superior
technology. It served the City of Aspen's entire power until 1958; in 1958 federal
power came through and said our coal will be able to supply you with free power.
In 1961 Castle Creek Power Plant opened and Holy Cross came in and we are an
end user so if their lines go down we cannot provide our customers with service so
this will provide a secondary circuit to provide energy in the case of future power
outages. In 1976 the Castle Creek Power Plant had its existing site added to the
Colorado Historical Society site and in 2007 the state historic preservation officer
determined that he Castle Creek Power Plant would be eligible for the national
registry.
Rossello utilized power point to show the projected operation of the plant, which
showed the power production from 1970 to 1994 with both Ruedi and Castle Creek
plants as you can see that in May it starts peaking again and this will also ensure
that we are keeping water in the stream during that part of the year. There is a
peak that comes through the stream from April through June when the river is
4
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes - Apri120, 2010
flowing at its high peak they can produce energy until November. The
hydroelectric plant operates with a reservoir at the top of the hill and there is a
supply tower to a turbine with 5 jets that come into a pelton wheel that spins the
generator that is connected to the grid to supply energy back to the grid. The
existing elements are the paddle wheel, Castle Creek and Maroon Creek pipelines,
the Thomas Reservoir and the rights of way for the proposed project, the Midland
and the Maroon Creek flume water rights; the related sites are the Maroon Creek
Hydro plant, potable water system, which has the potential to supply 20,000,000
gallons a day. When the potable water system went in we assumed that we would
be supplying water up and down the valley so we have 17,000,000 gallons of
additional water a day to produce clean energy. The newly reconstructed energies
include a 4,042 inch multipurpose drain as well as a penstock. The berm for the
Thomas Reservoir could fail since it was built in the 1960s and at that time there
was no development below there; if there were a breach there would be millions of
dollars in property damage. There will be the associated infrastructure necessary
to connect to the actual existing system. They have had 5 meetings with the public
that started as early as 2007 and they are committed to public responses; the
biggest concerns that we have heard thus far are sound and noise generated at the
site, traffic generation and the stream. Rossello said the threshold of hearing is
around 0 decibels, the threshold of pain when hearing is about 120 decibels; the
internal of the building structure there will be about 88 decibels generated as they
determined from Manitou Springs, which is very similar to the hydro system here.
The goal with the City of Aspen is about 50 decibels achieved and they will use
sound mitigation with interior sound dampening panels and thicker than standard
walls to increase the sound transmittal on the inside and keep the sound transmittal
from going to the external walls. They have dual role; garage doors and all the
windows will be fixed, none will open. They will have 2 hydro specialists which
will go to the plant in the morning and do their basic maintenance with only 1
vehicle that equipment can be transferred to and from the site for these daily reads.
Rossello said that as far as stream flows they are 12 CFS in Castle Creek and 14
CFS in Maroon Creek. Bill Miller is currently updating studies and ecological
services.
Sara Adams said that exhibit 1 was the public notice and the applicant within 24
hours will give affidavit showing that poster (this was done). Adams said that the
applicant requests subdivision approval Lot 3 and Open Space 2A of the Marolt
Ranch along Power Plant Road and beneath Castle Creek bridge in order to create
a hydroelectric plant on the newly created 23,689 square foot lot. Adams noted in
the resolution that the open space is removed from the Open Space in a
5
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -April 20, 2010
memorandum of agreement and will be recorded with the subdivision plat and the
PUD plat.
Adams said that the subdivision criteria and the AACP were met; and recommend
that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval to City Council.
The property is currently zoned R-30 and there was a request to rezone to the
public zone district which is essentially required to in order to permit the
construction and operation of the hydroelectric plant; the public zone district
requires a PUD overlay to establish dimensional requirements. Adams said the
criteria to rezone the parcel to public have been met and P&Z recommend approval
to City Council and the rezoning.
Adams said the PUD review includes the size and scope of this project which
qualifies for consolidated PUD; so conceptual and final are being done together.
The city shop PUD is included in the packet for a comparison since it was a similar
use and it is also in the public zone district. The applicant proposes a floor area
ratio of .13 to 1 which will leave some un-built floor area on the property; any
changes to the property will require a PUD Amendment and the resolution just
approves the floor area that's proposed tonight.
Adams stated that it was important to note that the parking requirement was 5
spaces however those are located on the CDOT right-of--way so they don't count as
spaces according to our land use code; if CDOT leases the spaces to the City then
the spaces will be used for the hydro plant and there will be no employees
regularly present. There is an existing building located to the south, which is going
to be removed as part of this project so once the open space is subdivided that
building will be removed.
Adams noted that when they were on the site visit Cliff wanted to know the
distance between the proposed building and Power Plant Road; the setback will be
established by the distance between the building and the property line. Adams said
that on the southeast corner closest to Castle Creek; the setback from Power Plant
Road to the building will be about 15 feet; on the southwest corner of the building,
the closest to Cemetery Lane that measurement will be about 8 feet and there will
be a significant grade change. Staff finds that the proposed building does fit into
the context of the site and a great improvement to the site and the PUD criteria are
met and recommend that P&Z recommend approval to City Council.
Adams stated the Growth Management Request was for Growth Management for
essential public facility and P&Z was the final review for employee generation.
6
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -April 20, 2010
And P&Z was asked to make a recommendation to City Council regarding
employee mitigation; so P&Z says these are the number of employees generated
for this essential pubic facility and then you recommend to Council the number of
those employees that should be mitigated for. The applicant is requesting a
generation rate of zero employees if approved by P&Z; they are stating that the
water department employees will operate the plant and visitors will be by
appointment only and as Andy mentioned there will be 2 hydroelectric specialists
that will add this to their list if it is built. The housing department did provide a
recommendation of an employee audit after 2 years after a C.O. was granted and
that was included in the resolution; the employee audit will be specific to the
hydroelectric plant. Adams recommended P&Z establish an employee generation
rate of zero employees and recommend to City Council zero mitigation.
Adams said that the Stream Margin Review was Exhibit E; the proximity of the
proposed site to Castle Creek is sensitive to the waterways, natural vegetation and
the wildlife. The code does allow for an exemption for development that is
required for public health and safety specially related to utilities from stream
margin review as long as the development meets the criteria to the extent practical.
Adams thought it was important to discuss stream margin review criteria with the
Planning & Zoning Commission and with the public for this project even though
the application is exempt. There were two main issues discussed in the stream
margin review and those are the potential impacts on aquatic and vegetative life in
changes in stream levels and the noise levels. Adams stated the applicant hired a
private consultant to conduct these extensive studies and they are working closely
with the Colorado Department of Wildlife to satisfy all of the licensing
requirements for the hydroelectric facility; in Section 6 of the resolution that the
City commits to maintain the highest level of in-stream protection by the
consultants and by the GOW; she included the timeline and estimated reports of
the Miller Consulting Group as Exhibit C just so that everybody is clear on what
report she is talking about because it was not proposed to come out until
September or October of 2010. Adams said that they were conducting all of the
studies now on the boreal toad and the fish population.
Adams noted the applicant hired a sound engineer to mitigate noise impacts and
also to confirm that this hydro plant is going to meet the required sound level.
Today Community Development received a summary letter from the consultant,
EDI. Section 7 of the resolution states that a noise analysis is going to occur upon
completion of the hydro plant to confirm that the noise levels will comply with the
local requirement and staff suggested that Environmental Health confirm
compliance with the noise regulations and they will go out and take sound tests to
7
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes - Apri120, 2010
make sure that the hydro plant is operating under our current code. Rossello said
that would be EDI going out and not the City. Adams said staff found that the
applicant met the stream margin to the best extent possible.
Adams included the DRC comments as Exhibit F and will be in the resolution as
seen fit. Staff found the AACP criteria have been met. Staff recommends that
P&Z recommend approval of Subdivision, Rezoning, Consolidated PUD and
Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility requiring mitigation
for zero employees.
Phil Overeynder, Utilities Director for the City, summarized and reiterated some of
the commitments for follow up on the project. The benefits of the project will
fulfill a 30 year plus commitment to renewable energy that started with Ruedi,
Castle Creek and Maroon Creek power plants; it will implement parts of a vision
statement from the AACP. Renewable power dividend will be available from this
project and these projects outlast. Ruedi facility is fully amortized now and is the
cheapest facility; we hope that this facility will do the same thing. Overeynder said
that's how they are able to commit to powering this facility at no cost, keeping the
lights on here for the Ice Garden. The project utilizes primarily saved water rather
than new water and addresses some of the use it or lose it aspects of the Colorado
Water Law; if we don't use our water rights they are subject to ultimately
abandonment. So by demonstrating the use of this water we are using it. Greening
of the Aspen Utilities are a success in reducing carbon emissions; we saw in
Andy's presentation the progress in renewable energy. Overeynder emphasized
that Aspen was one of the few communities in the country that actually
demonstrate the reduction of carbon emissions over time. They started the
program in 2006 and the primary reason they can point to that success is renewable
energy from an electric utility; this project will enable them to continue that
success and address about one-quarter of the remaining carbon emissions and get
to that goal by 2015 of being a carbon free utility. Overeynder thanked Sara for
addressing the public comments and have concerns about adequate flows for a
healthy aquatic habitat; there were 5 public meetings to solicit input on design that
established follow up study programs and follow up studies.
Overeynder said in the aquatic habitat area hired Dr. Miller to do the aquatic
studies and Dr. Miller was in the audience and will field questions. Overeynder
said basically they were committed to study and get scientific data on how much
water is necessary to support a healthy aquatic environment and our commitment
to this project is the City will adjust its release during critical low periods if
necessary to provide for that. Overeynder said that when they did the survey of
8
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes - Apri120, 2010
this facility they found an extra 20 feet that they didn't believe that they had from
the reservoir down to the plant site; that translates to between 8% and 12 % more
power. Overeynder said that they can fully commit to meeting the health and
safety requirement.
Overeynder said on sound transmission engineering (McGregor) determined the
sounds suppression features incorporated in the project will more than meet the
regulatory requirements for the ordinance and they are committed to do a follow up
study that would demonstrate during operations how this facility operates and are
committed to following up with corrective measures as necessary to ensure that we
do that.
Overeynder stated that the permitting and licensing with the penstock and drain
line going forth regardless of the outcome of the permitting activities that they are
engaged in here with Planning & Zoning and the Federal Licensing that is required
and the need to protect public facilities like the hospital, Thomas Reservoir, and we
have had similar circumstances like on Aspen Mountain and the need to bring a
facility to the Aspen Mountain Tank; in the case of Aspen Mountain to bring water
safely down from the tank to the storm drains. The same thing applies here; we
have to these kinds of things here to insure that we are operating in compliance
with what current engineering practices are and without liability to the utility. So
in summary the project has substantial benefits across the community to advance
our progress towards renewable energy goals; it has substantial measures that have
been incorporated with each of those concerns they are committed to following up
with each of those elements in both the design and project operations and have
reviewed the draft ordinance and have committed to meeting all of requirements as
recommended by staff and request the Commission approve this important
community asset.
Commissioners Questions:
Jasmine Tygre if despite your precautions the noise levels exceed 50 decibels what
kind of additional mitigation would be available. Andy Rossello replied there were
additional flappers that they could put into the towers as the highest potential for
sound mitigation in the structure but they don't suspect that anything will get
through the walls; they will bring back EDI and do whatever is necessary. Tygre
asked if there were plans in place to address this. Rossello replied yes and they
will know that after the follow up EDI study.
Mike Wampler said that he had the feeling that a lot of people in the audience were
here about the noise and about the build out. Wampler asked if there was a way to
9
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes - Apri120, 2010
get the noise below 50 down to 30%. Rossello asked if it were the decibels.
Wampler replied yes and asked if it was a cost issue. Rossello replied no because
the stream produces that much noise currently and the background noise exceeds
what the energy center will produce; if there were no walls on this building it
would produce 88 decibels. Phil Overeynder read from Howard McGregor's
letter: Using the data from the Manitou plant and noise level emissions would be
less than 35 to 14 decibels at nearby residences. Overeynder said that the
background noise level would be higher at times. Wampler asked how long this
was going to take to build and asked what was going to happen. Rob Covington
replied that it wasn't that large of a building and the concrete floor to top of slab
and after that it was a lot of concrete product after the walls are poured. Wampler
asked about the disruptions to the neighborhood. Covington replied that it would
be standard construction traffic. Wampler asked if they have met with the
neighborhood. Overeynder said there were 5 community meetings and all the
mailings went to community members; they kept a list of people that were
interested in this and notifications of subsequent meetings prior to the election;
they held a required public meeting during the licensing requirements. Overeynder
said there were 2 other public meetings; one of the specifics was discussed
regarding specifically construction impact on the relocation of a water line. Adams
noted that the project is required to meet the construction management plan.
Cliff Weiss said the two major concepts were how this related to coal in this state
and you showed a reduction in coal from 60 to 40%; how did that work.
Overeynder said that from the 2004 to 2007 we show reduction in the coal
purchase and that was due to a wind energy purchase from wind farms in Nebraska
and not only from hydroelectric improvements but also during 2004 and 2007 we
did better with our hydroelectric plants. Overeynder said the 8% is what we will
get from this particular project. Rossello said that from the diagram it shows coal
at 25%; wind 44%; hydro at 41% as of the 2007 survey; when we go to post Castle
Creek construction we are at 17%. Overeynder summed it up by saying that we
have a contract that basically says that we buy energy from Nebraska and what we
can produce here locally we don't buy through their resources and that's primarily
coal. Overeynder said that they were developing their own resources, basically
they back off on their production, its energy we have already bought.
Weiss said the next thing he wanted to understand was the CFS and if there was no
diversion of any kind in Castle Creek; he said he saw that it would come down to
12 CFS but wasn't that a small section or was that where it would be put back in.
Rossello replied that was for a one mile section. Weiss asked what Castle Creek
flowed at without any messing around with it. Rossello answered that was the top
10
City Planning & Zoning; Meeting -Minutes - Apri120, 2010
black line shows how variably Castle Creek was ranging from the 12 CFS. Weiss
asked if naturally on its own it drops. Rossello answered that was in 2002 and the
12 CFS will be between December and May. Rossello said the stream typically
flows between 30 and 40 CFS and we are having Bill Miller re-analyze this
because of the anchor ice effects that occur; essentially it is what the top line is
what it has historically flowed at; the bottom line is what we are proposing the
flow at. Weiss said he sees April to May which looks like the lowest flow so is
that when the generating capacity has dropped. Rossello replied yes. Weiss said
he saw 25 CFS being removed from the Castle Creek diversion to the Midland
flume so you will take less in that April/May period. Rossello answered yes; they
do take that water currently and produce water from it; when we get a low flow
situation we turn the wells on to supply public water, drinking water at that point.
Rossello said when they are approaching that 12 CFS level they will back off water
production when necessary and turn our wells back on. Overeynder stated that Bill
Miller did not do a specific measurement today for those of you at the site visit.
Overeynder believed this was a pretty typical year and typically you would see
between 30 and 50 Cubic Feet per Second; now it's difficult for an untrained eye,
on the graph the purple line versus the blue line; you really need to go out with
instruments to measure the flow differences. Overeynder said that without
measuring it he wanted to give a reference point between 30 Cubic Feet per
Second and 50 Cubic Feet per Second, which is typically what you would see this
time of the year. If we were in full operation of this plant today 12 Cubic Feet per
Second unless Dr. Miller's study shows that it meets a different value like 20 CFS
in which case we would raise it up to that level. Dr. Miller said that it was at about
38 CFS measured on Friday. Weiss asked about Thomas Reservoir issues of
overflow yet nothing has been said in this project about any work taking place in
this new hydroelectric plant solving these overflow problems. Rossello responded
that the penstock drain line that they are installing will address all of those
overflow issues. Overeynder said the project will bring it into current engineering
practice, safety considerations that you would have with a new reservoir, which we
didn't do when it was constructed in the 1960s.
Weiss said that there was a question in one of the letters in the packet asking if this
was the best location for the plant based upon the distance of the penstock; he
hadn't heard the placement addressed, why you were putting it where you are.
Overeynder answered in 2006, which they started with the Canary Imitative
requested by City Council to evaluate hydroelectric potentials at a number of
different city facilities; they hired an engineering firm in 2006 to look at how we
could generate hydroelectric power from this overflow. Overeynder said they
looked at number of different sites in that study; they looked at a site on the Wachs
11
City Planning & Zoning Meetine -Minutes -April 20, 2010
property, which is immediately below this out flow that Andy showed; that
location was eliminated because it was on private property and the property owner
asking if they were interested in allowing a hydroelectric plant and penstock across
their property and they were not interested. Overeynder said there were
constructability issues with that location in terms of really steep slopes; the team
that looked at that site in 2006 felt that site wasn't feasible for standard kind of
construction methods, everything would have to be lowered into the site by crane
off of Castle Creek Road and we didn't have aright-of--way; they did not have
support from the property owner or City Council. Weiss asked if that was the best
site or were there other sites. Overeynder replied that was the only other
alternative site beside the historic site and on the historic site there were three
places to site the facility; within the historic city shop, within the new city shop
and a new building. Overeynder said this placement was the best for this project.
Weiss asked how taking the water out and putting it right back was a lose it or use
it. Overeynder replied the water law was basically a state law where it was first
come first serve basis and to develop a water right you have to show a beneficial
use for that water right; so using it for potable water consumption to distribute to
our customers was a beneficial use. Overeynder said that using it for hydroelectric
power was also a beneficial use; in the 1960s it took the original facilities from
1850s to the 1958 facility and convert those into what was anticipated to be potable
water facilities. Overeynder said in the 1990s they found they didn't need all that
water because they were so good at conserving water and didn't need all that water
for potable water consumption. Overeynder noted the use it or lose it comes into
play is you don't use it for hydroelectric power and you don't use it for potable
water supply then you run the risk if you don't have a use for it then it goes back
into the pool and somebody else can get that water. Overeynder said that was a
simplistic view of how Colorado Water Law works.
Weiss asked about the comment in one of the letters about a museum; he asked if
there was any kind of information about that and he thought that the neighbors had
concerns about that traffic to the museum. Overeynder explained that they would
by an arrangement or prior appointment to bring down groups of people to see how
hydro energy works; probably the schools, probably very similar to what the
historic society operates in terms of bringing people but focusing only on
hydroelectric and renewable energy. Mitch Haas said it was more of a visitor's
center than a museum and the space available to it had to shrink so there will be
interpretative elements like photographs and in the courtyard area and old
equipment. Haas said it was meant to be by appointment only; some of these
12
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes - Apri120, 2010
plants are visited by other communities. Haas said that on the plans the room for
visiting is quite small so you can't fit 50 people in there at a time; maybe 5 or 6.
Stan Gibbs asked if they did an analysis and had percentages of the total energy
that you produced based on a change in the level at which you took water only
when there was 50 CFS in the creek; what percentage of the power would you still
be able to generate. Overeynder replied they did that analysis up to the threshold
level of about 20 Cubic Feet per Seconds by raising the threshold from 12 to 20
Cubic Feet per Second and it is in the range of 10% reduction of overall power.
Overeynder said that they have additional power available because of what they
found in the detailed survey the proposed elevation from that location. Gibbs
asked if they could get up to 80% of the power if you went up to 30 CFS.
Overeynder replied that they didn't do the analysis beyond 20. Gibbs asked what
do you have rights for and what do you take today. Rossello replied that in Castle
Creek they have rights to take it all and in 1974 they agreed with the CWB and
currently they get 25 CFS; 27 CFS from Maroon. Rossello said that they have 60
in Castle and only take 20. Gibbs asked how much power was currently from
other plants; was that the Maroon plant that produces the rest. Overeynder replied
that Maroon Creek produces about 2,000,000 kilowatt hours per year, that's about
a third of this power and the Ruedi facility is about 20,000,000 kilowatt hours per
year so that was a 5 megawatt facility. Gibbs asked what the arrangement with
Ruedi was, can we just buy more power from them or is it just a certain
percentage. Overeynder replied that we own the Ruedi facility and it's basically
operated to its capacity.
Weiss asked what 12 CFS looked like. Rossello replied 3 feet by 4 feet of water
passing every second and it looks different in every stream section because some
stream sections are very narrow; CFS is difficult to understand. Weiss said so fly
fishing isn't going to end in Castle Creek and this again is only in the diversion
area. Rossello said you can see the Castle Creek intake at the water plant.
Overeynder said it was listed as 2.4 miles but the actual segment was broken into
two parts the actual head gate and the overflow is already affected by water
diversions and that was about a mile; and another'/4 of a mile below that was
affected by that with the penstock pipeline link.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
1. Yasmine DePagter, public, showed pictures of Castle Creek and she said that
it would help with the CFS. DePagter asked Dr. Miller if she was correct in
her estimate of about 40 CFS from these pictures that she took this morning.
13
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes - Apri120 2010
Dr. Miller replied somewhere in that range. DePagter was concerned about
12 CFS; the reduction of water in the river.
2. Paul Noto, attorney represents several people in the audience as well as
others, stated that he wanted to clear up several things brought up in the
presentations; we heard that there was going to be excess water. Noto said
that it really wasn't excess water because it appears that the city is going to
have to divert more water from Castle Creek. Noto said that we also heard
that this is free energy and nothing is free when it comes to producing
energy and there are environmental costs in terms of production and we are
looking 3 to 4 times less stream flow in a 2 %z mile reach. Noto said the
biggest decision was the approval of this rezoning of this parcel and perhaps
this was premature because the city has to go through a federal licensing
process to get either an exemption in licensing or a license in order to start
the project and the city has applied for the licensing.
3. Carl Bergman said the length was 1 mile and 3/a of a mile and asked what the
diameter of the pipe was. Overeynder replied that the pipe itself was 4,000
feet and the diameter was 42 inches. Bergman asked about aright-of--way of
100 feet in the original application.
4. Michael Lipkin said that he and his wife were present and his wife, Julie,
saw a blue heron in the Creek and there would not be a pool there that exists.
Lipkin said that people are horrified that flow in Castle Creek will be low
and 17% that actually voted of the 77% that approved was the actual figure
and 90% of the community has not approved this project. Lipkin applauded
staff for the job that they have done and sometimes we get a little over
zealous and he said that he was more interested in what the state of the art
plan was than the historical. Lipkin said that there should be some peer
review. Lipkin stated major concerns for the river. Adams noted that
Michael's letter was included in the packet.
5. Tom Starodoj said that the hydroelectric package that the city presented to
the city of Aspen is painted green however when you open it up it is not
green; it contains several serious aspects; foremost is minimum stream flow
at 12 CFS and that is for approximately one mile upstream from the hydro
plant. Starodoj said that Maroon Creek has 14 CFS for several miles and
that commences from the Roaring Fork River. On November 13, 2009 Phil
Overeynder and John Hines held a public meeting and the benchmark for
this project was 12 CFS there wasn't very much water in there. Castle Creek
and Maroon Creek will see its aquatic life, fish spawning habitat and riparian
area being severely damaged. Starodoj stated that presently 14 homes on
Sneaky Lane and Harbor Lane are on private wells; if Castle Creek is
reduced upstream from these homes it could negatively impact the aquifer
14
City Planning & Zoning Meeting? -Minutes - Apri120, 2010
that supplies water to the wells at this homes. Starodoj asked if they are
using the same acoustical measuring equipment as they did in Manitou
Springs. Starodoj said that the city should be held to the same standards in
this process and asked the commission to turn down this project.
6. Maureen Hirsch said that the city has plans because they have looked at
storing the hydroelectric power and hydrogen on site and a hydrogen fuel
cell will be created from the electrolyzer. Hirsch said that they will be
taking out more water than they are right now.
7. Donna Stewart said how can we rezone at this time when we don't have
permission from the federal energy commission so why would we rezone
now and would that zoning be appropriate. Stewart felt that they should
wait until the full environmental impact study and wondered if the city
explored flood mitigation with Thomas Reservoir.
8. Tom Hirsch stated that since we were little kids we are taught about cause
and effect; in this case he asked the applicant to consider and think about the
impacts however you haven't measured the impacts yet. Hirsch said there
were a lot of things that are not known about because they are not measured
yet. Hirsh asked Andy what he meant by excess water. Rossello replied it
was the overflow and have been endeavoring to conserve since1992 and are
leaving in the stream now two-thirds of the water. Hirsch said the whole
wildlife that we are here to preserve and yet we are talking about excess and
preservation doesn't correlate. Hirsch said this project was setting in motion
something that can't be taken back.
9. Curt Gregory said the city does espouse itself to being green and it is
inappropriate to circumvent things getting around the necessary; this is a big
deal...that stretch of river and suggested everyone walk that creek. Gregory
said that this was not publicized well and finally got someone from the city
(John Hines) to talk to him and then he was let go. Since that time he hasn't
had any contact.
10. Gabbie Rafelson stated that she lived on Castle Creek Road with little kids
and her big concern was the flow of the river. Rafelson said that she was
questioning because she didn't have a clear sense of what was happening.
11. Betsy Starodoj asked about the sound readings done at their houses and she
thought that they would have peaks and valleys but the sound from this
turbine would be steady all day and all night long and the quality of the
sound was very different to her. Ms. Starodoj asked why don't you have a
stream margin review.
Stan Gibbs closed the public comments of the public hearing.
15
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes - Apri120, 2010
Sara Adams addressed the question of why this project was exempt from Stream
Margin Review. Adams stated that there was criteria in our land use code that
exempts construction of improvements that are essential for public health and
safety that are located within the stream margin area and it does include utilities
and staff found that the hydroelectric plant does qualify for this exemption. Adams
said that it is important to note even though it's exempt it has to meet the review
criteria that the Planning & Zoning Commission would be reviewing to the best
extent possible and staff found that it does meet the review criteria included in the
staff memo. Adams said that stream margin review is essentially for properties or
developments that are happening within 100 feet of either the Roaring Fork River
or its tributaries and Castle Creek is one of the tributaries of the Roaring Fork
River so there will be no development within that 15 foot setback. Jennifer Phelan
stated that Stream Margin Review focuses on location of a building in relation to
the river but also to natural vegetation and not changing that on the bank with some
construction mitigation so that you don't have silt running into the river. Phelan
said it really doesn't talk about measuring the flow.
Stan Gibbs explained to the public that this will definitely go to City Council so
that you will have more input at that time. Gibbs said that P&Z made
recommendations to City Council.
Phelan said there were some comments about this project being premature, the cart
before the horse, asking for a rezoning and as a Planned Unit Development it is a
site specific approval so if this does get approved it is very specific to what can
occur on this site, where it can be located, what can happen on that site and if the
required State and Federal approvals aren't granted this can't occur; they wouldn't
be able to put the power plant on the site.
Mitch Haas said with regard to the rezoning to Public; they feel that the existing
zoning is inappropriate and the new zoning would be appropriate. If nothing
happens here this parcel is open space but it is zoned for residential use; if you
change that zoning to public that's an appropriate zoning for open space. It's also
appropriate for this proposal only if it gets approved as a PUD. Haas said that it is
standard to deal with local approvals before you move on to State and Federal
approvals. Haas said that if there are wetlands on a property the stream margin
review is subject to the Army Core of Engineer approval; that would be the same
here.
Weiss said that he was curious about the hydrogen fuel production potential on this
site and if it was possible or plausible. Overeynder said as part of the renewable
16
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes - Apri120, 2010
energy portfolio and it is part of a carbon neutral facility; they have an
appropriation to look at, study hydrogen fuel. Overeynder said that an electrolyzer
doesn't have to happen at a hydroelectric facility it can be where ever there is
power. Overeynder said for the production of hydrogen fuel would be at the water
plant; as part of this project they are running the power lines so that they can
generate the power at this site and run it up to the water plant and look at whether
they can potentially site it there. Overeynder said that they are not proposing any
space here that would be convertible to that; if they were to move forward with the
with the hydrogen fuel cell proposal it would likely be at the water plant where
they have the space to do it and there aren't neighborhood issue.
Mitch Haas said that the floor area was built in here and to expand or to add to this
facility they would have this entire review process occurring again.
Gibbs asked if the PUD does not include any of the other buildings on the site.
Adams replied that it was specific to the lot that's requested to be subdivided in the
open space and it would be its own lot with its own site specific development.
Gibbs said the only thing that this approval would provide is a use on this
particular lot. Adams replied the rezoning would facilitate the use of a
hydroelectric plant and rezoning to public requires a PUD overlay. Gibbs asked if
there was any way for this to creep into the other buildings. Adams responded not
without a PUD Amendment; any external changes will require a public hearing for
a PUD Amendment.
Mike Wampler said he wasn't sure he understands the water flow and how deep
the water was going to be and he would like an explanation when it gets down to
12 CFS as to what affect will this will have on fly fishing and the blue heron
standing in the water. Wampler said that he would like a little better explanation.
Dr. Bill Miller replied that the city hired him to conduct additional studies on
stream flows, winter habitat and fish populations by the Colorado Division of
Wildlife. Miller said that they were looking at what does the stream channel look
like at 12 CFS and they were in the middle of those studies right now and we know
from the old studies what it looks like going from 25 CFS to 12 CFS. Miller said
the processes that they are going through right now are what those base flow
minimums should be and they will look at other habitats and what those pools
should be at. Miller said they are trying to address those concerns and the purpose
of the study is to maintain conditions so that you can have fly fishing, the riparian
areas and wildlife. Wampler asked for a best guess if the fly fishing would go
away. Miller said that the stream flow that they are probably going to find
downstream of the diversion was based on other diversions will be somewhat
17
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes - Apri120, 2010
higher than the 12 CFS; this wasn't based on any data right now. Miller said there
usually was not a linear relationship proportional to the change in CFS unless you
are already in the inner margin, the inner stream channel, it's not a one to one
relationship. Miller said at 12 CFS it will look different because it will be
narrower and we don't know and how much it affects pools we don't know; the
pools are maintained by other characteristics down near the ripple itself so there's
not a proportional change in stream depth also. Overeynder said that they have
been operating the Maroon Creek Hydroelectric Plant at 14 Cubic Feet per Second
release under a Federal license between the Maroon Creek head gate and the
Maroon Creek Hydro Plant which is about a mile and a half. Overeynder said
there was a very similar stream with similar hydrologic conditions existing; he has
never received a complaint of sections of that stream being unhealthy or anything
from the division of wildlife. Overeynder said that this was in the same context in
a local environment and we changed the stream to about the same extent.
Wampler asked if the division of wildlife will have say so in this also if they think
that it gets too low. Miller replied that they requested the studies that they were
conducting so then they can write conditions for what they want to see.
Jasmine Tygre said that one of the things that was bothering her was a matter of
process because our code allows the community development director to exempt
certain things from stream margin review and this one is an essential public
facility; she said that she has always objected to that because if you are doing an
essential public facility all the more reason for every possible review to be in place
and have it discussed in great detail. Tygre disagreed that it was only about
construction when you look at the criteria for stream margin review in particular;
item 4 says the proposed developer does not pollute or interfere with the natural
changes of the river, stream or tributary. Tygre said that stream margin review was
not just about construction but it was also about the maintenance of the stream
itself and the kind of detail that we expect from a stream margin review that is part
of this application and was part of the overall review process we could address a
lot of the issues that the members of the public have brought forth because she
shared their perception to a certain extent that in the impetus to get a valuable
public facility built that there is a stream lining rather than a stream margin review.
Tygre said that this could be addressed and accounted for but we need that kind of
information before we can make this kind of decision. Tygre said that the process
has tripped P&Z up in getting support from the public for this.
Jim DeFrancia appreciated to the extent that the code now says that it is exempt so
it is exempt.
18
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes - Apri120, 2010
Cliff Weiss said the underlying issue that he has is the stream margin was the 12
CFS and what was 14 CFS; he asked if they knew what the stream looked like at
20 CFS. Weiss asked if there was an EIS required. Overeynder replied under the
FERC licensing statute they have to satisfy the National Environmental Policy and
look to us to gauge the input of the public, what kinds of concerns there are and to
scope out what kinds of concerns need to be addressed. Overeynder said that the
EIS looked at it from their standpoint and said they were looking at the impact that
was likely to occur; the level of study that they are doing is the same kind of
process that they are satisfying all the requirements for the Division of Wildlife
without doing a formal EIS.
DeFrancia said that there were lots of issues out there about stream flow, wildlife
and other concerns but this body is charged with the land use questions and we are
being asked to grant growth management, rezoning, subdivision and none of those
actions in themselves are going to cause this facility to be built. DeFrancia said
lots of other things have to happen and a lot of subsequent review by other
departments and other bodies of government that will reach that determination.
DeFrancia said focusing on the land use questions it seems that the staff
recommendation and what P&Z is being asked to address is what we need.
Weiss asked the timing of these studies and would they be available before you are
in front of Council. Overeynder said that Dr. Miller indicated that his draft report
would be out by the end of May. Dr. Miller replied the boreal toad is seasonal that
will be completed in June and late August; the stream flow and fish population will
be out in May.
DeFrancia said that P&Z was a recommending body and supports this and was
prepared to make a motion.
MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve resolution #009, series 2010 with
conditions to the recommendations to City Council that the Miller studies be
considered in detail at City Council and P&Z has concerns regarding the stream
flows and wants Council to carefully review; seconded by Mike Wampler. Roll
call vote: Weiss, yes; Tygre, no; Wampler, yes; DeFrancia, yes; Gibbs, no.
APPROVED 3-2
Discussion of motion prior to the vote: Jasmine Tygre asked if Jim if he would be
willing to add a condition that it is expected that the studies will be available to
City Council before they make their decision. DeFrancia stated yes absolutely,
Wampler agreed. Gibbs said that he would like to see that science before he could
19
City Planning & Zoning Meeting -Minutes -April 20, 2010
make a decision. Gibbs said there were enough questions and he would like to see
the fish and the stream flow science before making his decision. Weiss said that if
they made a recommendation that the CFS be raised that 12 was too low even
without the science; he felt that you only get the reduction of CFS and they are
concerned about the CFS and maybe bring it to 20 CFS. Weiss asked to add the
minimum of 20 CFS as a condition to the resolution. Rossello answered that
whatever Mr. Miller's study finds as the minimum stream flow is what the city will
maintain. Rossello said that having a hydrologist make that decision was prudent.
DeFrancia agreed with Andy. Gibbs said that he was thinking of something more
of how much stream flow there is and that if he had the science he could get a
sense of given what the historical flows have been; how about recommending
100% margin if the hydrologist comes back at 12 CFS and we say it has to be 24.
Gibbs asked if the commission wanted to make that a recommendation to Council.
DeFrancia said that if the applicant said that number is forthcoming that could be
the condition but not by just putting a number out there. Weiss said that he has a
concern about minimum stream flows. DeFrancia said P&Z expresses to City
Council that they have concern about minimum stream flows as an added
condition.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Miscellaneous Code Amendments
Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing.
MOTION: Jim DeFrancia move to continue the Code Amendments to May 4,
2010, seconded by Jasmine Tygre. All in favor, APPROVED.
Adjourned at 7:00 pm.
ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
20