The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7/14/09 City of Farmington 430 Third Street Farmington, MN 55024 A Proud Past - A Promising Future Committed to Providing High Quality, Timely and Responsive Service to All Of Our Customers AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION July 14, 2009 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) May 12, 2009 Regular Meeting b) May 27, 2009 Work Session c) June 9, 2009 Work Session . 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Variance(s) request to exceed the height limitation in the 1-1 Industrial Zoning District Applicant: Kemps, LLC. 15 4th Street Farmington, MN 55024 b) Ordinance Amendment to Title 10, Chapter 6, Section 27 of the City Code regarding Erosion Control Applicant: City of Farmington 430 Third Street Farmington, MN 55024 c) Ordinance Amendment to Title 10, Chapter 2, Section 1 of the City Code as it relates to Definitions Applicant: City of Farmington 430 Third Street Farmington, MN 55024 d) Ordinance Amendment to Sections 10-2-1 concerning Definitions, 10-5-6(B)2, 10-5-7(B)2, 10-5-8(B)2, 10-5- 9(B)2, 10-5-10(B)2, 10-5-11(B)2, 10-5-12(B)2 concerning Detached Garages and Storage Sheds and 10-6-6(A) and 10-6-6(B) of the Farmington City Code concerning Accessory Structures. Applicant: City of Farmington 430 Third Street Farmington, MN 55024 4. DISCUSSION a) Design Standards - drafts - Downtown Commerdal District - Industrial Park Expansion Area b) Wind Turbines in Residential Areas c) Churches in the B-1 (Highway Business District) Zone d) Weeds in Developing Subdivisions (verbal) 5. ADJOURN City of Farmington 430 Third Street Farmington, Minnesota 651.280.6800 . Fax 651.280.6899 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Planning Commission Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner I~ FROM: SUBJECT: Variance Request - Height Requirement Applicant: Kemp's LLC - 15 4th Street, Farmington, Minnesota DATE: July 14, 2009 INTRODUCTION Kemp's LLC, 15 - 4th Street, is seeking approval often separate height variances. Kemp's is located within the Industrial Zoning District (I-I). The maximum height in an I-I district is 45'. Kemp's is requesting ten variances of approximately 18' and a variance of approximately l' - 2" (see Exhibit A). DISCUSSION Kemp's LLC is proposing to install ten (10) vertical storage silos on the roof of the second floor of the existing plant. The height of the silos themselves will be 25'; however, when added to the height of the second floor roof and the required new structural steel, the final height will be approximately 63'. All new silos will include a stainless steel exterior and will have a diameter of 9'. The ten new silos are proposed to be installed on the northwest portion of the plant's roof behind the existing ground silos located on the west and north sides of the plant (Exhibit Bl and B2). In addition to the installation of the ten silos, Kemps is proposing to construct an alleyway and stairwell addition on the second story roof between the proposed silos. The alleyway addition will run the length of the silos and is designed to provide access for the workers to the silos. The height of the alleyway measured from grade to the top of the alleyway structure will be approximately 46' - 2", requiring a variance of l' - 2". History A number of variances have been granted for this property, the most recent in August 2004. That particular variance was to allow the installation of an 80' 8" ground silo (silo H shown on Exhibit C). As shown on the attached Exhibit C, silo A, along 4th Street was constructed in 1983 at a height of74'6". This silo is constructed on a pad at 65" in height, creating an overall height of 79' 11". The City has no record of a height variance for silo A, thereby, the structure is also considered a legal non-conforming use. Silo D along 4th Street was constructed in 1989 at a height of 56 feet, this excludes the height of the pad. Marigold Foods applied for a height variance of 11 feet in 1989 after the work for construction of the silo was ordered. The Planning Commission waived setback requirements and approved the II-foot height variance "since it will be no taller and no closer to 4th Street than the existing silos." Variances from setback requirements, sign height requirements, and sign area requirements were granted in 1986 as well. In 2001, Marigold also received a front yard setback variance for a cardboard compactor along 5th Street. Conditions of approval of the variance included the requirement to screen the cardboard compactor from street views. This required the installation of Arborvitae planted at 5-6 feet in height and 4-5 feet on center. Additionally, the City suggested that grass (by seed or sod) be installed between the curb and the building and from driveway to driveway in order to soften the area. Upon in~ection of the property at 15 - 4th Street, there are four 5-6 foot tall pines screening the compactor. With the 5 Street reconstruction project, the project requires that sod be installed by the project's contractor in front of the cardboard compactor, meeting the requirements ofthe 2001 variance requirements. Variance Criteria The Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment, must determine whether the reasons provided by the applicant warrant approval of the variances. The City Code provides the following criteria that must be met for a variance to be approved: 1. Because the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration, topography, or other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, strict adherence to the regulations of this Title would cause undue hardship. Economic consideration alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this Title. Research by staff has determined that the property has been an industrial use since at least the 1950's. therefore, surrounding neighbors are familiar with the industrial operations at the site. Milk silos have been installed throughout this time period to allow for milk storage on the site and therefore, are common to the visual landscape of the neighborhood The hardship for the applicant is space constraints for additional silos. 2. The conditions upon which a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, to other properties within the same zoning classification. Again, the industry has been operating within the neighborhood for a number of decades, and the silos are common to the visual landscape. 3. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Title and has not been created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land. The 45-foot maximum height required in the 1-1 zoning district is too restrictive and does not allow for enough storage capacity of milk at the height for the business to operate. 4. The granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality or be iJUurious to other property in the vicinity in which the parcel of land is located or substantially diminish property values. Granting the height variances would not alter the character of the area or have a negative impact on other property in the vicinity due to the operation of the industry for several decades in the neighborhood and the existence of 11 silos on the property. 5. The proposed variances will not substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or be detrimental to the public welfare or public safety. The proposed variances would not result in any of the above mentioned adverse effects. 6. The requested variances are the minimum action required to eliminate the hardship. The requested variances are the minimum necessary to alleviate the hardship. ACTION REOUESTED Recommend approval of the requested height variances subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant obtaining all necessary building permit approvals prior to the installation of the silos and construction of the alleyway and stairwell addition. Respectfully submitted. ,--- W~ Tono;JiPPler, Assistant City Planner Cc: Neil Dunlap, Director of Engineering, Kemps LLC EX. A 1D)~@~om~~ lflj JUN 1 8 2009 W City of Farmington 430 Third Street Farmington, Minnesota 651.280.6800. Fax 651.280.6899 www.ci.farmington.mn.us By II VARIANCE APPI.ICATION II Applicant: ;k' e~j) L L. C Add /~ roo.e.T# .f'7~C:.cT ress: Street p-c~d LiC. Owner: ^ , Address: /5 /""l/J,e,/#' r./L3z;~cT Street Telephone:p5{ YG3 ~?~Fax: B ~6.3 35c;.r /.-JJI$tr41C:/p,J~,A:/ ,-55a.2Y City State Zip Code /~ . '/1 g 70 0... ,AC-s/' ~ .!> 7cJ 9..3' Telephone: c:........J $1'= '/.:" Fax: c::::Y _ ~G ,:) /:~;J/"<.I4f?~ ~....c/. S 50-<r City State Zip Code Premises Involved: S€l:! IITrtrcN'lEt~ Address! Legal Description (lot, block, plat name, section, township, range)_ '1_ J Current Zoning District ,j:. / Current Land Use CdL7c.'),ec- ~L/fJA/T Q.A'~ L/ E/6,#'T tl4~4-AYc?C Specific Nature of Request I Claimed Hardship: /7' SUBMITTAL REOUIREMENTS o Proof of Ownership o Application Fee ($200) /! ';/j~Y Signature of Property Owner o Copies of Site Plan o AbstractlResidential List (adjoining property owners only) o To.rrens (0. wner's Duplica~erti~cate JfrT?tle Re<y?ed) 6: 7/'7-- " '? ft~ 4 ~ tfJ t/Af/ Date Signature of Applicant 6'--/7/07 Date EX.AI City Of Farmington City Planning . 430 Third Street Farmington MN 55024 June 17, 2009 Re: Request for variance The Kemps LLC culture plant located at 15 Fourth St. in Farmington is requesting a variance to facilitate the installation of 10 new vertical product storage silos on the roof of the second floor of the existing plant. We understand the current zoning height limit is 45 feet and a variance was granted approximately 2-4 years ago for installation of a new silo (located on the NW corner of the plant) with height of 65 feet. This request is for 10 new silos; the maximum height of the silos will be approximately 63 feet when placed on the roof of the second floor. The proposed addition will be located on the northwest portion of the plant and therefore be behind the existing tall silos located on the west and north sides of the plant. The silo height itself will be approximately 25 feet, but when added to the height of the second floor roof and the required new structural steel, the final height will be approximately 63 feet. All the silos will include a stainless steel exterior and be similar in appearance to the large silo placed 2-4 years ago. The diameter of each silo will be approximately 9 feet. R. Neil Dunlap Director of Engineering ,Ej ~I> ;j' ~'E ~ I" I~ ~ I~ )> N 1 \:c;~~~~ r::\ ~r;j; i ., i ~ !'Wi OJ iG/':1 ~~~ . : Ii: J: : t I ~ I l .. L -I~ -- .~.,- [ _;:~; ~~"~-t ;""~;~- ~_ -tJ i t I I}>Z 1 I ~ I ~~ ' "II ~~ I: I <z f_' ~ ... . . ~_J I , !;wf'T)i ~ ,I _L _... .1_-1'1 I I I : 1 I Ii! I I I I I I I' I I I I , I I I // / / / /--- /' " ;' \ ~ ,,~ ~~ mE ~. gji ~ ,,~ ~~ mE o. ~. ~ / // J I \ '-.. ~n~ , I I ii------<i I' ., \~r~T" ., ,I I 1/,1 I\!i I! I ! ~ I =,-,-,*,bL.;..-,-LL..Li'-~ "==' ",,10.= ='= '-= !i 1/.['.1- -: ~~~ ~ \., ."*'*', ..~~-~:- .~. ! 1/): -r--'-I ...J ,.L FL.,,:c.....!- n...... ... .~~-E~~,.. =,.. ..u 1 r.._ ..~. "'c""',' I j :J J _L~=._....._._.. ...L.,... ..:.'-'.=___....~ ._.., ..._ ...''''''''... iL '1:L_ :::j z '" ::;; 'r VARIANCE SUBMfTT AL o /~;~===~=~=== dlz~~;~~ts. LLC \, ~ ._~----~-_._- NTJSkalPW.:e Suitc9Sl) ^,~:::I.,w.JSS117 '-- ./___--t' ._.~.~.,----- 'Offrt',6C,t771,1ffli fro< 6.51 nlBit20 o CD o '" ROOF.M FOR; FARMINGT N 'INNESOTA "-.. ~ ,,~ ~~ mE ~> g' .', \ \ , / / .-// _i.._ D<.S/ ,..-/ /' - ~-L ~\ I!:~ \ >1ii I =~ \ ~~ i ~. ' g/ ::: , 1 I \.., .' ., " ----,:/--' 0; .,/ / , ~ '\ i'i~ I~~ I mE oE ,1 I I~' / I., / j; 1.-1/. ,r-i-- I. .5 --'~~---!" " IS \, !"~ \ ~~, i,.,O H / ~ . ~/ I! /' \. ,--- )L.___ / e'\ ,,~ \ ~~ ' mb 0; ~ji ~ , .,--",~",// ,-,..,..,....,_....... -.-.....,,-.. _<T~............._ ."",..........,->0"""_ ""......"......." ,,_...,.. ~:V .cL. -t.t\~' p <"'Tl <-1'-1 i! E~ ~Oo o "'Tl-i :ri-o-l m -<~ <~ ~ 8 "'O~ ~- -- ~r-=:--=~~~===:;-=:E=~.--Ex"'T"i:f.;.:~A!<;~~;-;';;f=~!__~~,==~_ ..-NP. . -..;-L...---.f .,.,...... .J, . ~:-'J:j :. ....co. ....j:_ -\=1 i! ~l~ ~!l Z~ ;~ , ,- ~ -I :;; i 6 5 z :P lJJ o <D o W VARIANCE SUBMmAL ROOF.M 'OR FARMINGT ' INNESOTA f {UJ$tG .1.+1-6] . tl:+::H-H.. , -t"tTffi "Batt. + TLLLLl~ :r:t--l+-l. :: :r+-11:1:t-j T.r.d:ttE - H-J+1'.'-1- ,J.....l...1....!......I... :'TT' , \ \\/// ~ ~ ~ Ii " ;; ;: s ~ EJl.1S.T~. TANI';_~_l!.:~__". 'fEAIf.~_ , , , , 1 I i ~ ~=====t====\v~~~ l___~-J-----\ . · , " j , '--"'r I l , , , , ~ : // !r -I f~ \ ~I ,.------~ / / // // r----- I /' y I I I ~ ~ > ;; > ~ ~ ~ ~ :="::::~=.==:-=::: 4;~I~~~~Uth --'----:---------- ifjII Architects, LLC -------------:--~~-- 1973Slodr'PIdce,s...tz2.50 /"oIw~..xx:t.MN55117 m_...__~_m_"___'__ office- 651.7711OCQ m~ 651 n1B820 \ \ \ >z ~- -~ i;: g~ ~~ ~~ ~! ;-~ ~ EX. 82.. \ \ \ \ ,-,,,",,,,,,,.,.,,..,,,,,,, .....-...."".-.. "'...'-~"''-_.... "..."..-""",,,,,,,,,",,,, ......-00_...,."_- ~ p ..-4, City of Farmington 430 Third Street Farmington, Minnesota 651.280.6800 . Fax 651.280.6899 www.cLfarmington.mn.us TO: Planning Commission Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner ~. c FROM: SUBJECT: Ordinance Amendment Regarding Erosion Control Required DATE: July 14, 2009 INTRODUCTION Attached for the Commission's review and subsequent recommendation is an ordinance amendment to Section 10-6-27 of the City Code as it relates to Erosion Control Required. DISCUSSION The attached ordinance is being proposed, in large part, to replace the language "Director of Public Works" with the language "City Engineer" throughout this Section of City Code. This change in language is necessary as the City no longer has a staff person with the title of Director of Public Works. Additionally, this ordinance amendment includes minor "housekeeping" corrections such as capitalizing certain words throughout the Section, changing "Pollutant Control Agency" to "Pollution Control Agency", and spelling out the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization. ACTION REOUESTED Recommend approval of the attached ordinance amendment Title 10, Chapter 6, Section 27 of the Farmington City Code and forward the recommendation onto the City Council. Respectfully submitted, -r~ TO~iPPler, Assistant City Planner CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 10-6-27 OF THE ZONING CODE REGARDING EROSION CONTROL REQUIRED THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City of Farmington City Code, 10-6-27 Erosion Control Required is amended by deleting the strikethrough language and adding the underlined language as follows: 10-6-27: EROSION CONTROL REQUIRED: (A) A property owner or contractor who removes substantial vegetative growth for any reason including landscaping, excavates for a building foundation or other purpose, or adds soil or other fill on property within the city shall adhere to erosion control measure standards and specifications contained in the Minnesota pollution control agency publication "Protecting Water Quality In Urban Areas", as may be amended, the e.Gity of Farmington comprehensive plan and official controls, the general permit authorization to discharge stormwater associated with construction activity under the nNational p~ollutant ElDischarge eElimination s.s.ystem/s.s.tate ElDisposal s.s.ystem permit program permit MN R100001 (NPDES general construction permit) issued by the Minnesota p~ollutantion eControl aAgency, August 1,2008, as amended, for projects disturbing more than one acre, and any applicable water management plan of the city or other governmental units. Except as other measures are required by the above documents and plans, property owners and contractors shall take the necessary precautions, outlined below, to prevent soil erosion, damage to adjacent property and control of surface water runoff. The city may impose additional erosion control requirements if, in the opinion of the dircctor of public works City Engineer or designee, said measures are necessary to protect adjacent properties and manage surface water runoff. (Ord. 009-603, 3-16-2009) 1. No land shall be developed and no use shall be permitted that results in water runoff causing flooding,erosion, or deposit of sediment on adjacent properties. Such runoff shall be properly channeled into a storm drain, watercourse, ponding area, or other public facilities subject to the review and approval of the dircctor of public ',yorks City Engineer or designee. Appropriate erosion control measures shall be taken throughout the construction process. They include, but are not necessarily limited to, the use of erosion control fences, wood fiber blankets, rock construction entrances, seeding and/or mulch. Other techniques or combinations of the above may be used. The erosion control measures shall be maintained and repaired throughout construction and until such time as the property has been either sodded or a seeded vegetative cover has taken hold. All temporary erosion control devices including silt fence, gravel, hay bales or other measures shall be removed from the construction site and properly disposed of or recycled. This removal and disposal must occur within thirty (30) days of the establishment of permanent vegetative cover on the disturbed area. Final stabilization of the site must be completed in accordance with the NPDES general construction permit requirements. 2. Proposed erosion control measures may be approved by the director of public \ovorks City Engineer, or designee, as part of site plan, landscaping or grading plan reviews. Erosion control may be specified by the dircctor of public \ovorles City Engineer, or designee, as part of a site survey for individual building permits or other city approvals. Erosion control measures may also be specified by the director of public works City Engineer, or designee, as needed and deemed appropriate during the construction and postconstruction periods for permitted or unpermitted activities separate from the above. 3. No dirt piles or soil banks shall remain exposed without a protective cover to prevent erosion for a period longer than seven (7) days. No soil surface shall remain exposed without seeding, if allowed, or sodding or by mulching or covering or other equivalent control measure for a period longer than seven (7) days. Seed shall be a blend of rye grass or other fast germinating seed in addition to perennial grasses suitable for the soil and the exposure of the area to sunlight. All seeded areas shall be mulched and disk anchored, or covered with a Minnesota ElDepartment oftIransportation approved fiber blanket, as necessary for erosion protection and seed retention. The contractor should recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. 4. Mud, dirt, or other sediment carried onto city streets, trails or adjacent properties from the building site shall be removed by the property owner or contractor prior to the close of each workday. If cleanup of the mud, dirt or other sediment is not carried out as required above, the director of public works City Engineer, or designee, may direct city crews and/or contract a third party to complete the cleanup and bill the property owner or contractor for all associated costs, or deduct these amounts from any required bond or security. Unpaid charges will be certified by the city for collection with taxes and no city license, permit, or other approval shall be issued for the property while any charge is outstanding. 5. All on site stormwater conveyance channels shall be designed and constructed to withstand the expected velocity of flow from a 1 O-year frequency storm without erosion. 6. Failure to comply with any of the above requirements will result in the issuance of a stop work order halting construction until the project area is brought into compliance. Failure to remedy the situation within a reasonable time determined by the director of public \ovorks City Engineer or designee will result in the issuance of a citation for violation of this section. Failure to have erosion control measures in place may also result in denial of a certificate of occupancy for the structure under construction. 7. The VR\VJPO Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization may at their discretion use turbidity measurements as an indicator of potential noncompliance with these standards. IfNTU measurements taken at a point of site stormwater discharge exceeds fifty (50) NTUs (25 NTU for trout stream) a construction erosion control inspection of the site shall be completed. Enforcement procedures and time frames to correct noncompliant conditions shall be as specified by these standards and NPDES general construction permit. Exceedance of the turbidity indicator alone shall not constitute noncompliance. Sampling and analysis of turbidity shall be completed as follows: (a) Samples should be taken from the horizontal and vertical center of the outflow, and care should be taken to avoid stirring bottom sediments. (b) A written narrative of site specific analytical methods and conditions used to collect, handle and analyze the samples will be completed and kept on file, and a chain of custody record kept if the analysis is performed at a laboratory. (c) All sampling shall be collected by "grab samples" and the analysis ofthese samples must be conducted in accordance with methodology and test procedures established by EP A method 180.1 or standard method 2130B.d. Other sampling protocol include: (1) Sample containers should be labeled prior to sample collection. (2) Samples should be well mixed before transferring to a secondary container. (3) Sample jars should be cleaned thoroughly to avoid contamination. (4) Sampling and analysis of receiving waters or outfall below the minimum detection limit should be reported at the detection limit. (Ord. 008-593, 12-1-2008) SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication according to law. ADOPTED this _ day of ,2009, by the City Council of the City of Farmington. CITY OF FARMINGTON By: Todd Larson, Mayor ATTEST: By: Peter Herlofsky, City Administrator SEAL By: Joel Jamnik, City Attorney Published in the Farmington Independent the day of , 2009. City of Farmington 430 Third Street Farmington, Minnesota 651.280.6800. Fax 651.280.6899 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner t;W SUBJECT: Ordinance Amendment Regarding Zoning Definitions DATE: July 14,2009 INTRODUCTION Attached, for Planning Commission consideration, is an ordinance amending Title 10, Chapter 2 of the Zoning Code as it pertains to definitions. The Planning Commission reviewed the attached ordinance, in draft form, on May 12,2009 and expressed no concerns with regard to the proposed definitions. DISCUSSION I REVIEW As the City of Farmington prepares to amend its official controls as part of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan update, it is critical that staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council evaluate the current zoning code and make any changes deemed necessary. Upon staff review of the established zoning districts and uses identified within, it was discovered that a number of the existing zoning uses were not defined in the zoning code. The proposed ordinance includes those missing definitions that were previously identified. The City Attorney has reviewed the document and staff has incorporated all suggested changes. ACTION REOUESTED Recommend approval of the attached ordinance and forward that recommendation onto the City Council. Respectfully submitted, ~G'~, Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 10-2-1 OF THE ZONING CODE AS IT RELATES TO DEFINITIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City of Farmington City Code, 10-2-1 Definitions is amended by adding the language below and deleting the strikethrough language as follows: Auction House: A place of business that conducts auctions on site. Auto Sales: The use of any building or land area for the display and sale of new or used automobiles, trucks, vans, or recreational vehicles including any major or minor automobile repair or service uses conducted as an accessory use. Car Wash: Any building or portion thereof used for the cleaning or washing of motor vehicles. Cemeteries: A parcel or tract of land used for the burial of the dead including columbariums, crematories, mausoleums and mortuaries when operated within the boundaries of such cemetery. Churches: A building, together with its accessory buildings and uses, where persons regularly assemble for religious worship. Coffee Shops: A small restaurant and/or cafe where assorted drinks and food items are sold to the general retail public. Commercial Recreation, indoor: A commercial recreational use available to the general public that is completely contained within a building. Commercial Recreation, outdoor: A commercial recreational use available to the general public that is outside a building. Dental Laboratories: A facility that produces dental restorations as requested by a licensed dentist. Dental laboratories may produce dentures, crowns, or other dental restorations such as implant crowns. Equipment Maintenance and Storage Facility: A facility for maintenance, repair or storage of equipment on property owned by the owner of said equipment. Food Processing Facilities: A facility that transforms raw ingredients into food or transforms food into other forms for consumption by humans or animals either in the home or by the food processing industry. Funeral Homes: A building that provides facilities for funerals; a chapel for funeral services; rooms for viewing the remains in caskets (slumber rooms, reposing rooms, viewing rooms, visitation rooms) before final services or cremation; rooms for preparation of bodies (embalming, cosmetic treatment and clothing of the deceased); display rooms and storage for caskets; garages for hearses and other equipment; and administrative offices. A funeral home may include family living quarters for the funeral director/owner. Golf Courses: The land upon which individuals play the game of golf, with a green and a flag. The golf course may include a clubhouse, and various accessory buildings and related practice facilities and areas such as a driving range. Grocery Stores: A place of business established primarily for the retailing of food. Group Daycare Centers, commercial: Any State licensed facility, public or private, which for gain or otherwise regularly provides one or more persons with care, training, supervision, habilitation, rehabilitation, or developmental guidance on a regular basis, for periods less than twenty four (24) hours per day, in a place other than the person's own home. Commercial Groups Daycares include, but are not limited to: family daycare homes, group family daycare homes, daycare centers, day nurseries, nursery schools, daytime activity center, day treatment programs and other "nonresidential programs" as defined by Minnesota Statute section 245A.02, subdivision 10. Manufacturing Facilities: Facilities used for the manufacture, compounding, processing, packaging, treatment or assembly of products and materials that mayor may not emit objectionable and offensive influences beyond the lot on which the use is located. Such uses include, but are not limited to: sawmills, refineries, commercial feedlots; acid; cement; explosives; flour, feed, and grain milling or storage; meatpacking and slaughterhouses; coal or tar asphalt distillation; rendering of fat, grease, lard or tallow; alcoholic beverages; poisons; exterminating agents; glue or size; lime; gypsum; plaster of Paris; tanneries; automobile parts; paper and paper products; glass chemicals, crude oil and petroleum products including storage; electric power generation facilities; vinegar works; junkyard; auto reduction yard; foundry forge; casting metal products; rock, stone, cement products; lumberyards; machine shops; products assembly; sheet metal shops; plastics; electronics; general nonalcoholic beverages; signs and displays; printing; publishing; fabricated metal parts; appliances; clothing; textiles and used auto parts. Ministorage Units: A building or series of buildings consisting of individual, small, self-contained units that are leased or owned for the storage of business and/or household goods. Non-Commercial Nursery: A place where trees, flowering and decorative plants and shrubs are grown on site which may be conducted within a building or without and where the items grown are not sold to the general retail public. Parking Lots: An off-street, at grade, uncovered area, utilized for the temporary storage of motor vehicles. Public Buildings: Any building and or structure owned or operated by municipality, school district, county, state, or other governmental unit. Public Utility Buildings: An occupied structure, building or mechanical facility owned and operated by a public or private utility company which occupies less than 500 square feet of land area. Public Gardens: Public gardens include botanic garden, arboreta, historic landscapes, conservatories, and display gardens. These gardens focus on display, evaluation, conservation, and research of plants in landscaped and natural settings. Public Parks and Playgrounds: Any land owned or leased by the City for the use of the public for active or passive recreation. Recreational Equipment, Sales, Service and Repair: A use that sells, services and repairs recreational vehicles and equipment. Recreational Vehicle Storage Facilities: Any facility and/or property utilized for the storage, either temporarily or permanently, of recreational vehicles on property not owned by the owner(s) of the recreational vehicle. Retail Sales and Service: A use engaged in selling goods or merchandise to the general public for personal or household consumption and rendering services incidental to the sale of such goods. Seasonal Produce Stands: A temporary use for the purposes of selling seasonal produce. School, Private: Any building or group of buildings, not operated by a public agency or unit of government, the use of which meets compulsory education laws of the State of Minnesota, for elementary school, middle school Gunior high school), secondary (senior high school), or higher education and which use does not secure the major part of its funding directly from any governmental source. School, Public: Any building or group of buildings, the use of which meets compulsory education laws of the State of Minnesota, for elementary school, middle school Gunior high school), secondary (senior high school), or higher education and which secures all or the major part of its funding from governmental sources and is operated by a public agency or governmental unit. Warehousing Facilities: A building and or facility used primarily for the extended storage of goods and materials. Wholesale Businesses: A business which sells goods, equipment and materials by bulk to another business or final customer. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication according to law. ADOPTED this _ day of ,2009, by the City Council of the City of Farmington. CITY OF FARMINGTON By: Todd Larson, Mayor ATTEST: By: Peter Herlofsky, City Administrator SEAL By: Joel Jamnik, City Attorney Published in the Farmington Independent the day of ,2009. City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota 651.463.7111 . Fax 651.463.2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lee Smick, City Planner AICP, CNU-Accredited SUBJECT: Ordinance Amendments - Detached Garages, Storage Sheds, and Accessory Structures DATE: July 14, 2009 INTRODUCTION Staff is proposing the following concerning sheds and detached garages: 1. Increasing the maximum size of a storage shed to 240 square feet in size and anything below 240 square feet requires that the storage shed is anchored to the ground. 2. Any accessory structure exceeding 240 square feet shall be constructed on a slab on grade or foundation. 3. A detached garage would be an accessory structure exceeding the 240 square foot minimum up to a maximum size depending on the lot size or the size of the principal structure. 4. A building permit would be required for any accessory structure above 120 square feet. 5. Any accessory structure shall be located at least 10 feet away from any structure including buildings, billboards, carports, porches, signs, retaining walls, decks and other building features, but not including sidewalks, drives, fences and patios. 6. A paved driveway to a detached garage is not required. DISCUSSION Detached Garages Staff proposes to insert the definition of detached garage into Section 10-2-1 of the City Code to read as follows: GARAGE. DETACHED: An accessory structure that is detached from the principal building and requires a garage door with the ability to park a vehicle within the structure. The accessory structure is to be constructed of similar materials as the principle structure. .^..ccess to a garage requires a paved drb'e\vay. During review of the proposed text revision, the Planning Commission determined that a paved driveway is no longer required for a detached garage. A private garage will now be known as an attached garage and reads as follows: GARAGE, PRIV.^.. TE A TT ACHED: An accessory structure or accessory use of a principal structure which is intended for and used to store the private passenger vehicles and trucks not exceeding twelve thousand (12,000) pounds' gross weight, of the family or families resident upon the premises, and in which no business service or industry is carried on. Access to a garage requires a paved driveway. The size range for a detached garage is minimum of 240 square feet and maximum of 1,000, 1,250, or 1,500 square feet depending on the size of the lot. The 240 square feet (12' x 20') is the smallest structure that a vehicle could be located within. The maximum size of the detached garage is also dependent upon the size of the principal structure. F or instance, if a principal structure is 950 square feet, the maximum size of the detached garage may only be 950 feet. This requirement has been in the City Code for many years. Additionally, the detached garage needs to be constructed of similar materials as the principle structure. Storage Shed City staff is proposing to include "storage" shed as an accessory structure and proposes the following language in the Section 10-2-1 of the City Code: ACCESSORY STRUCTURE: A structure on the same lot with, and of a nature customarily incidental and subordinate to, the principal structure including but not limited to a detached garage and storage shed. Because of the new sizes in sheds and the increase of complaints about storage of items outside on residential properties, City staff is proposing to increase the maximum size of a storage shed to 240 square feet rather than the current 120 square-foot requirement. Staff is also proposing to require a building permit for any accessory structure over 120 square feet. Staff has researched a number of communities concerning its requirements for building permits for accessory structures. Over forty communities such as Andover, Maple Grove, Ramsey, Inver Grove Heights, Rosemount, Bloomington, and Lakeville responded to a staff request concerning the community's requirement for an accessory structure building permit and the cost of the permit. Most of the communities stated that they require building permits for accessory structures over 120 square feet. All of the communities surveyed stated that they require accessory structures to be anchored, which is currently the requirement of Farmington as stated in Section 10-6-6 of the Code. ACTION REOUESTED Recommend approval of the attached ordinance revisions and forward the recommendation to the City Council. CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 10-2-1 CONCERNING DEFINITIONS, 10-5-6 (B) 2,10-5-7 (B) 2, 10-5-8 (B) 2,10-5-9 (B) 2, 10- 5-10 (B) 2,10-5-11 (B) 2,10-5-12 (B) 2 CONCERNING DETACHED GARAGES AND STORAGE SHEDS AND 10-6-6 (A) AND 10-6-6 (B) OF THE FARMINGTON CITY CODE CONCERNING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City of Farmington City Code, 10-2-1 Definitions is amended by adding the language below and deleting the strikethrough language as follows: ACCESSORY STRUCTURE: A structure on the same lot with, and of a nature customarily incidental and subordinate to, the principal structure including but not limited to detached garage, storage shed or gazebo. GARAGE, PRI" ATE ATTACHED: An accessory structure or accessory use of a principal structure which is intended for and used to store the private passenger vehicles and trucks not exceeding twelve thousand (12,000) pounds' gross weight, of the family or families resident upon the premises, and in which no business service or industry is carried on. Access to a garage requires a paved driveway. GARAGE. DETACHED: An accessory structure that is detached from the principal building and requires a garage door with the ability to park a vehicle within the structure. The accessory structure is to be constructed of similar materials as the principle structure. SECTION 2. 10-5-6: R-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: (B) 2. Accessory Structure Standards: Accessory structures must be located behind principal structure in the side or rear yard according to the following requirements: Maximum. size Detached garages: Lots up to 0.5 acre Lesser of 1,000 square feet or square feet of principal 'HSe structure Lots 0.5 to 1 acre Lesser of 1,250 square feet or square feet of principal 'HSe structure Lots 1.0 acre + Lesser of 1,500 square feet or square feet of principal 'HSe structure Storage Shed -l-2{} 240 square feet Building Permit Any accessory structure over 120 square feet requires a building permit. Building Material The detached garage shall be constructed of similar materials as the principle structure. Maximum number 1 of each Side yard setback 6 feet Rear yard setback 6 feet Height (maximum) storage shed 12 feet Height (maximum) detached garage 20 feet All standards are minimum requirements unless noted. SECTION 3. 10-5-7: R-2 LOWIMEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: (B) 2. Accessory Structure Standards: Accessory structures must be located behind principal structure in the side or rear yard according to the following requirements: Maximum size Detached garages: Lots up to 0.5 acre Lesser of 1,000 square feet or square feet of principal 'HSe structure Lots 0.5 to 1 acre Lesser of 1,250 square feet or square feet of principal :use structure Lots 1.0 acre + structure Lesser of 1,500 square feet or square feet of principal H-Se Storage Shed -HG 240 square feet Building Permit building permit. Any accessory structure over 120 square feet requires a Building Material The detached garage shall be constructed of similar materials as the principle structure. Apartment 1,800 square feet Maximum number 1 of each Side yard setback 6 feet Rear yard setback With alley 10 feet Without alley 3 feet Height (maximum) storage shed 12 feet Height (maximum) detached garage 20 feet All standards are minimum requirements unless noted. SECTION 4. 10-5-8: R-3 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: (B) 2. Accessory Structure Standards: Accessory structures must be located behind principal structure in the side or rear yard according to the following requirements: Maximum size Detached garages square feet of principal use Storage Shed Lesser of 1,000 square feet or square feet of principal structure 240 square feet Building Permit Any accessory structure over 120 square feet requires a building permit. Building Material The detached garage shall be constructed of Apartment Maximum number Side yard setback Rear yard setback similar materials as the principle structure. 1,800 square feet 1 of each 6 feet With alley 10 feet Without alley 3 feet Height (maximum) storage shed 12 feet Height (maximum) detached garage 20 feet All standards are minimum requirements unless noted. SECTION 5. 10-5-9: R-4 MEDIUM/HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: (B) 2. Accessory Structure Standards: Accessory structures must be located behind principal structure in the side or rear yard according to the following requirements: Minimum - Maximum size Detached garages square feet of principal use Storage Shed Building Permit Building Material Apartment Maximum number Lesser of 1,000 square feet or square feet of principal structure 240 square feet Any accessory structure over 120 square feet requires a building permit. The detached garage shall be constructed of similar materials as the principle structure. 1,800 square feet 1 of each Side yard setback Rear yard setback Height (maximum) storage shed Height (maximum) detached garage All standards are minimum requirements unless noted. 6 feet 6 feet 12 feet 20 feet SECTION 6. 10-5-10: R-5 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: (B) 2. Accessory Structure Standards: Accessory structures must be located behind principal structure in the side or rear yard according to the following requirements: Maximum size Detached garages square feet of principal use Storage Shed Building Permit Building Material Apartment Maximum number Side yard setback Rear yard setback Height (maximum) storage shed Height (maximum) detached garage Lesser of 1,000 square feet or square feet of principal structure 240 square feet Any accessory structure over 120 square feet requires a building permit. The detached garage shall be constructed of similar materials as the principle structure. 1,800 square feet 1 of each 6 feet 6 feet 12 feet 20 feet SECTION 7. 10-5-11: R-T DOWNTOWN TRANSITIONAL MIXED USE DISTRICT: (B) 2. Accessory Structure Standards: Accessory structures must be located behind principal structure in the side or rear yard according to the following requirements: Maximum size Detached garages square feet of principal tlSe structure Storage Shed Building Permit Building Material Lesser of 1,000 square feet or square feet of principal structure 240 square feet Any accessory structure over 120 square feet requires a building permit. The detached garage shall be constructed of Apartment Maximum number Side yard setback similar materials as the principle structure. 1,800 square feet 1 of each 3 feet Rear yard setback With alley 10 feet Without alley 3 feet Height (maximum) storage shed 12 feet Height (maximum) detached garage 20 feet All standards are minimum requirements unless noted. SECTION 8. 10-5-12: R-D DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: (B) 2. Accessory Structure Standards: Accessory structures must be located behind principal structure in the side or rear yard according to the following requirements: Maximum size Detached garages Lesser of 1,000 square feet or square feet of principal ttSe structure Storage Shed HG-240 square feet Building Permit Any accessory structure over 120 square feet requires a building permit. Building Material The detached garage shall be constructed of similar materials as the principle structure. Apartment 1,800 square feet Maximum number 1 of each Side yard setback 3 feet Rear yard setback With alley 10 feet Without alley 3 feet Height (maximum) storage shed 12 feet Height (maximum) detached garage 20 feet All standards are minimum requirements unless noted. SECTION 9. 10-6-6: ACCESSORY BUILDINCS STRUCTURE: Accessory buildings structures shall be permitted uses in residential districts and conditional uses in business and industrial districts subject to the following conditions: (A) Residential: 1. :fhey Accessory structures shall be placed in the located behind principal structure in the side or rear yard ofilie principal unit and at least ten feet (10') away from the dV/c1ling unit any structure if not attached. 2. :fhey Storage sheds shall not exceed twelve feet (12') in building height and 6fl:e hundred t'.venty 120 two-hundred forty (240) square feet. 3. :fhey Accessory structures shall meet the minimum requirements of the building code and be anchored in place as approved by the building inspector. 4. Accessory structures over one-hundred and twenty (120) square feet requires a building permit. 5. Accessory structures below 240 square feet are required to be anchored to the ground. 6. Accessory structures at 240 square feet and above require a floating slab. 7. Accessory structures at 1.000 square feet and above requires footings and foundation. 8. Detached garages shall be constructed of similar materials as the principle structure. (B) Commercial And Industrial: 1. They Accessory structures shall be approved as part of the conditional use process, 2. They Accessory structures shall be constructed of similar materials as the principal use. 3. +hey Accessory structures shall comply with minimum requirements of subsection (A) ofthis section. SECTION 10. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication according to law. ADOPTED this _day of Farmington. , 2009, by the City Council of the City of CITY OF FARMINGTON By: Todd Larson, Mayor ATTEST: By: Peter Herlofsky, City Administrator SEAL By: City Attorney Published in the Farmington Independent the _ day of ,2009 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota 651.463.7111 . Fax 651.463.2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lee Smick, City Planner AICP, CND-Accredited SUBJECT: Design Standards - Downtown Commercial District DATE: July 14, 2009 INTRODUCTIONIDISCUSSION Staff is proposing the attached ordinance defining the requirements for the Downtown Commercial District's design standards as mapped on Exhibit A. The design standards pertain to commercial buildings that are new, renovated, or added to an existing commercial building in the B-2 and B-3 zoning districts. ACTION REOUESTED Review and comment on the attached Industrial Park District design standards. Respectfully Submitted, Lee Smick, AICP, CND-Accredited City Planner CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE FARMINGTON CITY CODE, THE FARMINGTON ZONING ORDINANCE, CONCERNING DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Title 10, chapter 6 of the Farmington City Code, is hereby amended by adding a new chapter 28 to read as follows: 10-6-28: Downtown Commercial District Design Standards (A) Pw:pose 1. Encourage integrated site planning to create a cohesive. sustainable built environment. 2. Maintain and reinforce "small town" & "Main Street" architectural traditions. 3. Control vehicular access and parking to encourage an active pedestrian environment. 4. Maintain the character of historic buildings. 5. Unify & articulate building facades. 6. Place a strong visual emphasis on streetscapes. 7. Require new construction to be compatible with existing buildings. 8. Respect the residential neighborhoods on the edge of downtown. 9. Encourage replacement or remodeling of architecturally incompatible buildings. 10. Adaptively reuse older buildings that contribute to the district's sense of time & place. 11. Encourage the development of pocket parks. gardens. plazas. and courtyards for public use. 12. Establish well-defined transitions between the downtown and adiacent neighborhoods. (B) Process Farmington's Downtown Commercial District Design Standards will be administered through the Site Plan Process in Section 10-6-23 and. if required under Title 2. Chapter 11. the Design Review Process in Section 2-11-5 of the City Code. 1 (C) Applicability.I. All new construction and renovations or additions of existing commercial structures within the B-2 and B-3 districts within the Downtown Commercial District Boundary will be required to meet the standards in this chapter. unless otherwise provided. Proiects exempt from meeting the standards are those commercial buildings that are comprised of any of the following proiect types: 1. Interior remodels~ 2. Buildings used solely for residential pm:poses~ 3. Normal or routine maintenance and repair of existing structures~ 4. Construction that does not require a building permit. (D) Building Material and Design 1. In the case of new construction. 70% or more of the total surface area of exterior walls exposed to public view shall consist of a mixture of two or more of the predominant downtown finish materials (clay. brick. stucco. natural stone. ornamental concrete~ except for portions of exterior walls not visible from the public viewshed. Extruded metal storefront framing may be used only on window or door frames. 2. Transparent glass must comprise a minimum of 50% (but shall not exceed 75%) of the total wall area of the first floor elevation on the primary facade~ transparent glass or facade openings shall comprise a minimum of 20% (but shall not exceed 50%) of the total wall area on the upper floor elevation of any street facade~ upper-story windows will be vertically proportioned and have the visual appearance of traditional double-hung sash. 3. Blank. windowless walls shall be avoided wherever possible. 4. Exterior walls shall not be covered with metal panels. EIFS (exterior insulation & finish system). vinyl siding. faux half-timbering. logs. shakes. shingles. exposed aggregate. or poured-in-place concrete. 5. Pre-assembled clay brick panels. artificial stucco. decorative pre-cast units resembling stone. and other modem materials that similarly match the appearance of historic materials shall be approved by the Planning Division. 6. Standardized corporate or "trademark" commercial building types shall be constructed to meet the architectural style of the downtown. which includes building materials. glass. color. and signage. 7. The ground or street level of a building shall be visually distinguished from the upper level(s) through the use of colors and/or building materials. 8. Imitation of historical styles shall be discouraged in new construction and renovation of existing buildings~ references to historic architectural styles and periods 2 will be interpreted in a contemporary manner: new and renovated buildings shall reinforce and not compete with heritage landmark properties. 9. New commercial buildings shall solidify the relationship between old and new buildings and support a human-scaled. street-oriented downtown environment. Infill construction on side streets shall be designed with architectural features such as brick facades. 10. Large. monolithic "big box" type buildings shall not be allowed. The massing and bulk of new buildings shall be mitigated by varied massing and proper articulation of street facades. Large commercial buildings shall be designed to appear as multiple storefronts by breaking the facade into smaller bays of 20 feet in width in order to maintain a rhythm similar to surrounding buildings. 11. The size. scale. massing. and facade materials of new construction will complement the architectural character of existing historic buildings identified as heritage landmarks. 12. Comer buildings shall be designed with two street facades and a main entrance on both sides. 13. The maximum height of new construction shall be 45 feet. 14. Roof lines shall be flat or gently sloping. (E) Awnings/Canopy 1. Awningslcanopies shall be allowed over the first floor windows and along the frontage of all building entrances. 2. Awnings and canopies shall not proiect more than five feet (5') into the public right of way. except where located above an entrance. in which case the maximum proiection shall not exceed eight feet (8'). Awnings and canopies may not be supported by poles or other structural elements located in the public right of way. 3. Length: Awnings and canopies should emphasize the rhythm of the facade bays. windows and entrances. and shall not continue uninterrupted along the building facade. 4. Height: The bottom of awnings and canopies should be at least eight feet (8') above sidewalk grade. 5. Illumination: Backlit awnings and canopies are not permitted. 6. Inscription: Lettering on awnings and canopies shall comply with subsection 10-6- 3(B)1(k) of this chapter. (k) Awning Signs: Signs consisting of one line ofletters not 3 exceeding nine inches (9") in height may be painted or placed upon the hanging border only of an awning. An identification emblem. insignia. initial or other similar design. not exceeding eight (8) square feet in area may be painted or placed elsewhere on an awnmg. 7. Materials: Awning and canopy materials should be limited to cotton. acrylic or vinyl coated cotton. copper or bronze coated metal. or clear glass. Other materials may be used if approved by Planning Division. Awnings shall be designed with a slope. No horizontal awnings are allowed. Structural supports shall be constructed of steel andlor aluminum and shall (if or where visible) inco1]Jorate ornamental features. 8. Signs on historic landmark buildings must (1) not cause damage to historic architectural features or building materials as a result of installation: and (2) should be designed and installed in such a manner that when they are removed or replaced there is no physical evidence of their former presence. In other words. holes may not be drilled in historic masonry. alterations may not be made of historic character- defining windows or doors. and no fasteners may be attached to any historic trim. (F) Parking Areas 1. Required off-street parking shall be provided by spaces at the rear or sides of a building and provided with architecturally compatible security lighting. and screened with landscape buffers or low walls. 2. Underground and structured parking shall be encouraged and new parking structures shall be compatible with (but not indistinguishable from) adiacent buildings in terms of height. scale. massing. and materials. (G) Landscaping 1. Landscaping within the Downtown Commercial District Boundary shall comply with Section 10-6-10 of the City Code. (H) Screening 1. Screening of service yards. refuse. and waste removal areas. loading docks. truck parking areas and other areas which tend to be unsightly shall be accomplished by use of walls. fencing. dense planting. or any combination of these elements. Screening shall block views from public rights of way. private street and off street parking areas. and shall be equally effective in winter and summer. Chainlink and slatted fencing are prohibited. 2. Mechanical equipment. satellite dishes. and other utility hardware. whether located on the roof or exterior of the building or on the ground adjacent to it. shall be screened from the public view with materials identical to or strongly similar to building materials. or by landscaping that will be effective in winter. or they shall be 4 located so as not to be visible from any public right of way. private street or off street parking area. In no case shall wooden fencing be used as a rooftop equipment screen. (I) Signs 1. Proiecting signs perpendicular to the building. Proiecting signs shall comply with subsection 10-6-3(B)5(e) of this chapter. 2. Wall signs flat along building frontage as required in Section 1O-6-3(B)3(a). 3. Monument signs are allowed where existing building is set back from front property line as required in Section 1 0-6-3(B)3(b ). 4. Painted Wall Signs shall be permitted through a conditional use permit per Section 10-6-3 (B)l(1). (J) Maintenance 1. Owners and occupants of any or all of a site have the duty and responsibility. at their sole cost and expense. to keep the site. including improvements and grounds. well maintained. safe. clean and aesthetically pleasing. Such maintenance includes. but is not limited to. the following: (a) Prompt removal of all litter. trash. refuse and wastes. (b) Provide such care as required to maintain all vegetation In a healthy and aesthetically pleasing appearance. (c) Maintain exterior lighting and mechanical facilities in good working order. (d) Maintain parking areas. driveways and roads in good repair. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication according to law. ADOPTED this _day of Farmington. , 2009, by the City Council of the City of 5 CITY OF FARMINGTON By: Todd Larson, Mayor ATTEST: By: Peter Herlofsky, City Administrator SEAL By: City Attorney Published in the Farmington Independent the _ day of ,2009. 6 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, Minnesota 651.463.7111 . Fax 651.463.2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Planning Commission FROM: Lee Smick, City Planner AICP, CND-Accredited SUBJECT: Design Standards - Industrial Park District DATE: July 14, 2009 INTRODUCTIONIDISCUSSION Staff is proposing the attached ordinance defining the requirements for the Industrial Park (IP) District's design standards. The ordinance has been revised to include a Purpose, Process, and Applicability section and a minor change to the maintenance section excluding maintenance requirements to buildings since the City does not have a building maintenance code. The only major revision is to the exterior surface of the building where pre-engineered metal is allowed on the upper portion of a building not to exceed 50%. If this change is approved, it would also be in effect for the existing Industrial Park. ACTION REOUESTED Review and comment on the attached Industrial Park District design standards. Respectfully Submitted, ~~ Lee Smick, AICP, CNU-Accredited City Planner CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF THE FARMINGTON CITY CODE, THE FARMINGTON ZONING ORDINANCE CONCERNING INDUSTRIAL PARK DESIGN STANDARDS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 10-6-20 of the Farmington City Code is amended to read as follows: 10-6-20: Industrial Park Design Standards: (A) Pm:pose: 1. Enhance and protect Farmington's quality oflife and community image through clearly articulated industrial development design standards. 2. Protect and promote Farmington's long term economic vitality through industrial design standards which encourage high quality development. while discouraging less attractive and less enduring alternatives. 3. Minimize adverse impacts of vehicular circulation to existing neighborhoods and to the surrounding physical environment. 4. Enhance and protect the security and health. safety and welfare of all residents of the City of Farmington. 5. Facilitate an understanding of Farmington's expectations and to assist developers in compiling a complete and efficient application. (B) Process: Farmington's Industrial Park Design Standards will be administered through the Site Plan Process in Section 10-6-23. (C) Applicability: 1. All new construction and renovations or additions of existing commercial structures within the Industrial Park District will be required to meet the standards in 1 this chapter. Proiects exempt from meeting the standards are those industrial buildings that fall outside the Industrial Park District. or are comprised of any of the following proiect types: (a) Interior remodels; (b) Buildings being entirely used as residential; (c) Normal or routine maintenance and repair of existing structures; (d) Any type of construction that does not require a building permit. (D) Building Material And Design: 1. Exterior Walls: Exterior walls of buildings to be constructed shall consist of one or more of the following materials and shall receive prior approval of the city: (a) Brick: Size, type, texture, color and placement shall be approved. (b) Stone: Stone shall have a weathered face or shall be polished, fluted or broken face. (c) Concrete Masonry Block: Concrete masonry block shall be those generally described as "customized architectural concrete masonry units" or shall be broken faced brick type units with marble aggregate. All concrete masonry units shall be coated with a city approved coating. There shall be no exposed concrete block on the exterior of any building unless approved by the city. (d) Concrete: Concrete may be poured in place, tilt up or precast; and shall be finished in stone, textured or coated, with a minimum life expectancy of ten (10) years. 2. Alternate Materials: Alternate exterior surface materials of preengineered metal may be substituted in an amount not to exceed sHt filly percent (6 50%) of the upper portion of the exterior wall surface area of each building if the following conditions apply: (a) Used for housing or screening equipment necessary to the manufacturing operations; (b) Architecturally compatible with the building as a whole as determined by the city planning division; (c) Compliance with any additional screening and/or landscaping requirements of the city; and (d) Modifications are made with prior written approval of the city planning division. 2 3. Alterations To Buildings: Any alterations to buildings shall meet all requirements of this chapter. 4. Canopies: Canopies with visible wall hangers shall not be permitted. Design of canopies shall be in keeping with the design of the building and shall be approved by the city prior to construction or alteration. 5. Roof Mounted Equipment: All rooftop equipment shall be set back a minimum of twenty feet (20') from the edge of the roof and shall be screened. Screening shall consist of either a parapet wall along the roof edge or an opaque screen constructed of the same material as the building's primary vertical exposed exterior finish. Equipment shall be painted a neutral color. The site plan shall indicate all mechanical rooftop equipment and shall include elevations. 6. Loading Docks: The design ofthe loading docks shall be incorporated into the overall design theme of the building and constructed of materials equal to or the same as the principal building. The loading dock areas shall be landscaped and/or screened so that the visual and acoustic impacts of their function is fully contained and out of view of adjacent properties and public streets. The required width for a landscaped yard along a local collector/industrial or local street is ten feet (10'). The architectural design shall be continuous and uninterrupted by ladders, towers, fences, and equipment. Businesses that abut County Highway 50 and/or County Highway 31 shall not construct loading docks that front these roadways. 7. Trash Containers: Trash containers or trash compactors shall not be located within twenty feet (20') of any street, sidewalk or internal pedestrianway and shall be screened by a six foot (6') masonry wall on three (3) sides of the trash unit. 8. Coverage: Unless otherwise approved by the city, the ratio of building square footage and parking area shall not exceed sixty five percent (65%) of the total square footage of any building site within the affected property. (E) Utilities: All buildings and structures shall be served by underground utility distribution facilities. The installation of such utilities shall not change the grade or contour of the city approved grading plan for the site. (F) Building Setbacks: No building or other structure shall be erected within fifty feet (50') of the front property line; or twenty five feet (25') of the side and rear property lines. If two (2) or more lots are developed as one site, the interior common lot line shall be ignored. (G) Parking Areas: 1. Surfacing: Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, all parking areas, driveways and loading areas shall be surfaced with asphalt or concrete pavement following the city's engineering standard plates. In the event said surfacing cannot be 3 completed due to weather or seasonal restrictions, a temporary certificate of occupancy may be issued contingent upon the extension of the security or letter of credit required under this chapter. All parking lots located in the front of buildings or adjacent to street rights of way shall be curbed. 2. Off Street Parking Spaces Required: Offstreet parking shall be provided to serve each site. The minimum number of parking spaces shall be the greater of: (a) One space for every six hundred (600) square feet of industrial space; and One space for every two hundred (200) square feet of office space; and One space for each two thousand (2,000) square feet of storage area or (b) One space per projected employee per shift. 3. Screening: All parking areas shall be screened as required in subsection (F) of this section. 4. Location: Parking shall not be permitted within ten feet (10') of the front property line (those facing any dedicated street), or within ten feet (10') of any side or rear property line unless otherwise approved by the city. (Ord. 002-469,2-19-2002; amd. Ord. 002-477, 7-15-2002) (E) Landscaping: All open spaces shall be dustproofed, surfaced, landscaped, rockscaped or devoted to lawns. Not less than two-thirds eh) of the required building setback area from any dedicated street shall be landscaped with lawns, trees, shrubs and walkways of a design approved by the city planning division. Landscaping shall be installed within ninety (90) days of occupancy or substantial completion of building, whichever occurs first, weather permitting. The following landscape standards shall apply to all proposed projects within the overlay zones: 1. Lot Frontage Trees: Lot frontage trees shall be planted at one canopy tree per forty feet (40') of street frontage. 2. Perimeter Parking Lots: One tree and three (3) shrubs per forty feet (40') of parking lot perimeter frontage. Plants are to be installed within ten feet (10') of the parking lot frontage area. 3. Interior Parking Lots: One planting island per twenty (20) parking spaces. One tree and three (3) shrubs are required within each planting island. The planting island shall be curbed with concrete. 4 4. Buffer Area: When the industrial district is adjacent to a residential district, a twenty five foot (25') buffer is required and shall include a six foot (6') high wooden fence and landscaping to screen the adjacent property. (Ord. 008-590, 10-20-2008) (F) Screening: 1. Storage Areas: Without prior approval of the city, no outside storage areas shall be allowed nor shall any articles, goods, materials, incinerators, storage tanks, refuse containers or like equipment be kept in the open or exposed to public view or view from adjacent buildings. If outside storage is given city approval, all materials and/or containers and equipment shall be screened from view. Required screening shall include: a) a six (6) to eight foot (8') high opaque wooden fence and landscaping; b) landscaping and berms; or c) a combination of both to fully screen the outdoor storage. 2. Structure: No accessory structures (including, but not limited to, water towers, storage tanks, processing equipment, cooling towers) or outside equipment shall be constructed, erected or placed on the affected property without prior approval of the city. If such approval is granted, such structures shall be screened from public view and the view of adjacent buildings in a manner approved by the city planning division. (G) Signs: All signs shall be of a design and material approved by the city planning division. Unless otherwise approved, wall signs must be attached to the building, and be parallel to and contiguous with its walls and not projecting above its roofline. No sign of a flashing or moving character shall be installed and no sign shall be painted on any building wall. Pole signs will not be allowed. Advertising billboards are not allowed within the overlay zone. (General guidelines standards for signage available through the city planner. (H) Maintenance: 1. Owners and occupants of any or all of a site have the duty and responsibility, at their sole cost and expense, to keep the site, including buildings, improvements and grounds, well maintained, safe, clean and aesthetically pleasing. Such maintenance includes, but is not limited to, the following: (a) Prompt removal of all litter, trash, refuse and wastes. (b) Provide such care as required to maintain all vegetation in a healthy and aesthetically pleasing appearance. (c) Maintain exterior lighting and mechanical facilities in good working order. (d) Maintain parking areas, driveways and roads in good repair. 5 (e) Prompt repair of any exterior damage to any buildings and improvements. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication according to law. ADOPTED this _day of Farmington. , 2009, by the City Council of the City of CITY OF FARMINGTON By: Todd Larson, Mayor ATTEST: By: Peter Herlofsky, City Administrator SEAL By: City Attorney Published in the Farmington Independent the _ day of ,2009. 6 City of Farmington 430 Third Street Farmington, Minnesota 651.280.6800 . Fax 651.280.6899 www.ci.farmington.mn.us SUBJECT: Planning Commission Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner ~ Wind Turbines in Residential Areas - Discussion TO: FROM: DATE: July 14,2009 INTRODUCTION The City has received an inquiry regarding the installation of an 80 foot tall, 20 kilowatt (kW), wind turbine on a residential lot. The City Code currently does not address these types of structures; therefore, they are automatically prohibited. DISCUSSION As more and more "green" or "sustainable" infrastructure are developed and made available it is important that the City review its current code language to determine what mayor may not be appropriate for inclusion into the City Code. Attached for Planning Commission review and discussion, please find the following documents: · Wind Energy - Model Ordinance Options; · Taking the Red Tape Out of Green Power; · City of Woodbury' s Draft Alternative Energy Systems Ordinance; · Small Wind Energy System Ordinance - Wisconsin; · Small Wind Energy Systems Ordinance - Tazewell County, Illinois · Wind maps for the State of Minnesota Due to the large amount of information staff is providing to the Commission as well as the sheer complexity of this issue, it may be prudent that the Commission review the documents entirely prior to holding an in-depth discussion. Staff is suggesting that this topic be brought back to the Commission at the regular meeting in August for further discussion. ACTION REOUESTED None, this is for informational purposes only. Respectfully submitted, y w -n Ton~Pler, A~ Planner www.chicagotribune.comlnews/local/chi -wind-turbine-nw-zone-19-jun 19,0,7056259 . story chicagotribune.com Neighbors say Libertyville company's wind turbine is a nuisance By Kathryn Dill Special to the Tribune June 19,2009 The huge fan blade of the 126-foot wind turbine behind a Libertyville electrical contractor stands still now, a temporary concession to neighbors who find it a nuisance despite being touted as green energy. The turbine, taller than any building in the north suburb and visible to drivers along busy East Rockland Road, arrived with much fanfare in April, with both Aldridge Electric and village officials calling it an energy-saver. The company, which sells small wind turbines, also is using it as a marketing tool. Shortly after the turbine was installed -- about 275 feet from one resident's backyard -- neighbors began complaining about noise, light from the turbine's reflective surface and the "flicker effect" created by the rotating fan blade. II;'ARGOSY Advance your career with \1~UNIVERSITY. an advanced degree in: The turbine was turned off about two weeks ago while the two sides agreed to enter mediation over the situation. But company officials said they may turn it on again as early as next week. About 35 residents who live near Aldridge's property met with company officials Tuesday night to discuss the turbine. Neighbors expressed a range of opinions, including concerns about potential long-term health effects. "The noise is much louder than I ever thought it would be," said Gary Newell, who says he is using portable fans and ear plugs to drown out the noise of the turbine while he sleeps. "It awakens you." Laurie Renz, whose backyard is next to Aldridge's property at 844 E. Rockland Rd., said the noise reverberates through her house constantly, and she began suffering severe headaches, nausea and vomiting when the turbine was installed. "There's no way to get away from it," Renz said. "The only thing I can do is leave my house." Some neighbors, though, said the turbine is not a problem, and that even with it, Aldridge is a quieter neighbor than the factory that previously occupied the property. "We learned to live with [the noise from the factory]," said Dave Bates, who has lived near what is now Aldridge's property for 30 years. "I like it, I think it's cool," said neighbor Rosemary Boortz. "It doesn't bother me, but I respect that it does bother some people." Richard Porter, a Rockford attorney who has represented citizens groups opposing wind farms and has been hired to represent some of the neighbors, said he found the turbine's location and noise "quite surprising." "It's just a few hundred feet from a residential area ... it's extremely loud," Porter said. The Village of Libertyville approved the turbine plan but has not been involved in the mediation process, officials said. Though company representatives said they would take neighbors' concerns into consideration and may limit the hours it rotates each day, their position on the matter remained clear. "I am going to run this turbine, and I'm trying to understand what it is that's really interfering with people's lives," said company owner Ken Aldridge. About five families have been pooling savings and 401 (k) funds to afford the legal fees associated with the dispute, said resident Dave Gates. They live in mostly smaller brick homes in what Renz described as a middle-class neighborhood. Renz used money she had saved to build a patio and fence in her yard. "Everybody's scrounging, and we're just about scrounged out," she said. Gates said a meeting between company officials and neighbors was scheduled for June 30, but a representative of Aldridge Electric walked door-to-door June 12 to inform residents about Tuesday's meeting. Residents were required to sign a form stating they would attend the meeting in order to receive a copy of the announcement, which also stated that the turbine could be reactivated as soon as Tuesday, Gates said. "I'll do whatever I can to make sure [the turbine] does not go on in a week because I can't live like that," Renz said. Copyright @ 2009, Chicago_Tribune P '",.,,,,,.,,,, ". ('I\';lIll" ." '\ ower . . .:"-I ;J III ra II ~. WIND ENERGY !V1odel Ordinance Options JJ~ ~cm t :~,~,WY~\lJAA.Y-t =s::..JMCe "--".,.-,.<,,",,--,,-,,,-", NYSERDA I\IY!iERDA / . New York State &aargy RBlA!!ilrdlllnd lhnIeIopment. AutharIt:g Available at: www.powernatural[y.org October 2005 NYS Energy Research & Development Authority 17 Columbia Circle Albany, NY 12203-6399 J Prepared by: Katherine Daniels, NY Planning Federation P.'J\TeI~ " j R't'lJl 0* t)!<;\ "''>:'0;,' VVind Energy Model Ordinance O~ ,':~'/" This document is one of a series of reports and guides that are all part of the NYSERDA Wind Energy Tool Kit. Interested parties can find all the components of the kit at: www.powernaturally.org. All sections are free and downloadable, and we encourage their production in hard copy for distribution to interested parties, for use in public meetings on wind, etc. Any questions about the tool kit, its use and availability should be directed to: Vicki Colello; vac@nyserda.org; 518-862-1090, ext. 3273. In addition, other reports and information about Wind Energy can be found at www.powernaturally.org in the on-line library under "Large Wind." NOTICE This report was prepared by Katherine Daniels of the NY Planning Federation in the course of performing work contracted for and sponsored by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (hereafter "NYSERDA"). The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those ofNYSERDA or the State of New York, and reference to any specific product, service, process, or method does not constitute an implied or expressed recommendation or endorsement of it. Further, NYSERDA, the State of New York, and the contractor make no warranties or representations, expressed or implied, as to the fitness for particular purpose or merchantability of any product, apparatus, or service, or the usefulness, completeness, or accuracy of any processes, methods, or other information contained, described, disclosed, or referred to in this report. NYSERDA, the State of New York, and the contractor make no representation that the use of any product, apparatus, process, method, or other information will not infringe privately owned rights and will assume no liability for any loss, injury, or damage resulting from, or occurring in connection with, the use of information contained, described, disclosed, or referred to in this report. p.,\ret , , ' , , , ,iN , k~ Wind Energy Model Ordinance 0 "ns ' ,J\. Wind Energy Model Ordinance Options Introduction Effective wind ordinance standards should address several objectives, including: ensuring public safety, identifying and minimizing on- and off-site impacts, promoting good land use practice, expressing local preferences, informing and involving the public and providing legal defensibility. Predictable and clear standards and a reasonable timeframe for review provide fairness for towns, wind developers and the public, and help to streamline the review process. Some flexibility is also needed in ordinance language to enable municipalities to respond to unique situations. J Local Review Options A town does not have to employ zoning to develop and adopt a wind energy ordinance, although it is preferable as it better assures that the town will get the type of development it wants. There are a variety of ways in which towns can review and allow for wind energy facilities, as follows: & an outright permitted use . With a special use permit . Subject to site plan review . & an accessory use Based on a use variance These options are discussed further in the Toolkit section titled Local Governments Role in the Approval Process. In most cases, towns will probably want to use a combination of the special use permit andlor site plan review, especially for large, commercial wind energy facilities. Zoning for Wind A town that uses zoning and also has an up-to-date comprehensive plan that addresses the wind energy resource (see Comprehensive Plan discussion paper) is in an excellent position to pro actively identify key wind energy areas that could be developed. The existing zoning for these areas could then be amended to allow wind energy facilities, subject to the town's chosen review process. However, sometimes these areas suitable for wind energy facilities are located within parts of multiple zones rather than primarily in one or two zones. In this case, it might make sense to create a wind energy overlay zone for application to these areas. An overlay would apply special wind energy review standards to proposed wind energy uses in addition to the standards that apply to the underlying zone. Careful attention to potential visual and avian impacts in defining the overlay area can greatly mitigate or even eliminate these issues when wind energy facilities are proposed. The overlay zone should be shown on the town's zoning map and could be an incentive to attract wind developers to the town. POV\Ter "'. I die v, ~~ t' d~ , <;i,Q Wind Energy MOdel Ordinance Omi9ns !\{.. Setbacks and Other Zoning Considerations Many concerns associated with safety, noise and aesthetics can be addressed by placing distance between wind turbines and people, property lines, roads and certain environmental areas or scenic or historic landscapes. Although there is no consensus on appropriate distances or types of setbacks, there are several common themes that appear in a number of wind energy regulations that various communities have adopted. Most local government requirements include setbacks for the distance between the wind turbine and residences/other buildings, property lines and roads. Property lines should always be part of the setback formula in order to provide consistency and not endanger future uses on adjacent parcels. A few communities have also defined setbacks from railroads, above-ground transmission lines and other specific uses. The most common way to define a setback distance is in terms of a multiple of the turbine height. Other options are to specify a fixed distance or a combination of a fixed distance and a multiple of the turbine height. Setbacks should be at least as great as the height of the turbine. When specifying the structure height, it is important to define whether the height is considered the top of the tower or the highest point reached by the rotor blade. Some communities provide that setbacks may be reduced when doing so would enhance aesthetic, noise or safety considerations. Turbines should be exempt from property line setbacks if the adjacent property contains a wind turbine from the same plant or the adjacent property is a participant in the project through a land lease and/or wind access agreement. This is an important consideration since turbine layouts and plant infrastructure can result in many parcels of land being utilized for one project. Communities may adopt noise regulations that apply to wind facilities. These can involve the use of setbacks. Noise impacts may be measured at the property line or at the location of the affected uses - residences and certain other public uses. Use of property lines in determining setbacks assures that future uses of unbuilt adjacent parcels will not be exposed to unreasonable noise impacts. When establishing setbacks, the intended protective effect must be balanced with economic considerations for wind projects. For instance, very large setbacks that could be viewed as providing maximum mitigation of adverse noise, visual and environmental impacts could render a sizable percent of a proposed site unusable for wind turbines reducing the overall number of turbines that could be accommodated, and thereby making the project not feasible. Height restrictions are a part of most roning ordinances and can also have an adverse, though unintended, impact on wind turbine installations. Many local height restrictions do make exceptions for church spires, silos, cell towers and similar uses. In areas where wind energy facilities are to be permitted, height exceptions should similarly include wind turbines. P.'lvet , 11f, . \(,,1; , . <>, , 1, Wind Energy MOdel Ordinance O~s ~';~t,~; Some communities specify a minimum height for the blade tips above ground level. Minimum limits are driven by safety concerns and typically range from 15 to 30 feet. Because today's commercial wind turbines are typically installed on towers of at least 200 feet, minimum levels above ground are unlikely to be an issue. Although small turbines are installed on lower towers, their rotors are also smaller and so these limits should not be an issue. For a discussion of appropriate review standards for environmental and cultural impacts, see the Environmental section of this Toolkit. Wind Energy Model Ordinance Options The following is a mix/match menu of options for creating a local wind energy ordinance. Because no two towns are alike, included are a variety of choices for addressing the many issues involved in a review of a proposed wind energy facility. The standards below are drawn primarily from adopted wind energy ordinances in New York State and around the country. They are grouped under general headings that address different aspects of a wind energy ordinance. Typically, a few issues are addressed under each heading. Where there are multiple ways to address the same essential issue, we have provided "or" language to point out the choices. "And" language is used to identiiY review standards that are linked and should be used together. In some cases, just one sample standard on a particular issue is offered. While some standards, particularly most of those that address safety concerns and setbacks, are basic and need to be included in any wind energy ordinance, other standards should be considered optional and considered for inclusion based on the particular circumstances, objectives and desires of each town or municipality. Purpose Any new wind ordinance standards should be accompanied by a purpose statement that explains the intent of the new provisions. Examples of possible purpose statements are as follows: The purpose of this district is to foster the development of the Town's wind power resources while preserving farmlands and adjoining settlements as compatible adjoining uses. or . It is the purpose of these amendments to provide a wind power overlay district and certain regulations regarding setbacks and other requirements relative to wind power facilities. or The purpose of the ordinance is to provide a regulatory scheme for the construction and operation of Wind Energy Facilities in the Town, subject to reasonable restrictions, which will preserve the public health and safety. Povvet ~ j 1 t. 'l~~ , &' "', ,. Wind Energy Model Ordinance O~ it,;, ~ ""* q ,. Findings A brief statement of findings provides a rationale for the purpose of the ordinance. The following is a sample findings statement: . The Town finds that wind energy is an abundant, renewable and nonpolluting energy resource and that its conversion to electricity will reduce our dependence on nonrenewable energy resources and decrease the air and water pollution that results from the use of conventional energy sources. Wind energy systems also enhance the reliability and power quality of the power grid, reduce peak power demands and help diversify the state's energy supply portfolio. Definitions Wind energy facilities should be specifically defined in municipal zoning ordinances to ensure that the language of the ordinance legally applies to them. While some existing broad definitions for uses such as 'public or semi-public utilities, , 'industrial uses' or even accessory uses' might be argued to include some types of wind energy facilities, they are not likely to apply to the fUll range of wind energy facilities, including small to large applications. A specific definition of wind energy facilities also provides Towns with a basis for the adoption of approval and siting standards that are specific to this use. The following are examples of definitions for this use. Wind Energy Facility: An energy facility that consists of one or more wind turbines or other such devices and their related or supporting facilities that produce electric power from wind and are a) connected to a common switching station or b) constructed, maintained or operated as a contiguous group of devices. or . Wind Power Generating Facility: Facilities at which wind is converted to another form of energy and distributed to a customer or customers. or . Wind Energy Facility: An electricity-generating facility consisting of one or more wind turbines under common ownership or operating control that includes substations, MET towers, cables/wires and other building accessories to such facility, whose main purpose is to supply electricity to off-site customer(s). Information to be Submitted Some of the following information may already be required to be submitted as part of a special use permit or site plan review. However, there may be a need to require the submission of some additional information, depending on the ordinance standards that towns adopt. The following are types of information that towns could request: The applicant and landowner's name and contact information. . The tax map numbers, existing use and acreage of the site parcel. POV\Tel- ~ " ?~~ I';(!f:" , ~ Wind Energy MOdel Ordinance OF:W9ns . " \ ' A survey map at an appropriate scale showing the proposed location of the wind energy facility (including access roads) as it relates to the boundaries of the parcel, adjacent ownerships and existing residences/schools, churches, hospitals, or libraries to a distance of2,OOO feet (or other measure). . A survey map at an appropriate scale showing any federal, state, county or local parks, recognized historic or heritage sites, state-identified wetlands or important bird areas as identified in federal, state, county, local or New York Audubon's GIS databases or other generally-available documentation. . Standard drawings of the wind turbine structure, including the tower, base and footings, drawings of access roads, and including an engineering analysis and certification of the tower, showing compliance with the applicable building code. Data pertaining to the tower's safety and stability, including safety results from test facilities. Proposal for landscaping and screening. . A completed Environmental Assessment Form. e A project visibility map, based on a digital elevation model, showing the impact of topography upon visibility of the project from other locations, to a radius of three miles from the center of the project. The scale used shall depict the three- mile radius as no smaller than 2.7 inches, and the base map used shall be a published topographic map showing man-made features, such as roads and buildings. . No fewer than four, and no more than the number of proposed individual wind turbines, plus three color photos, no smaller than 3" by 5", taken from locations within a three-mile radius from the site and to be selected by the Planning Board, and computer-enhanced to simulate the appearance of the as-built site facilities as they would appear from these locations. Approval Standards The standards chosen must be integrated into whatever local review process is used by the town. The standards that follow may be used in addition to e"xisting special use permit and site plan review standards, if the town feels they are applicable, or the following may be used to create a stand-alone set of review standards that substitute for any existing review standards. Typical site plan review standards for a wind energy ftcility would be those that assure proper design and site layout. This would cover most safety, setback and siting and installation issues. Typical special use permit issues for wind energy ftcilities are those that assure compatibility of the use with and minimal adverse impacts on neighboring properties. This would cover nuisance and most environmental and visual issues. A town that uses both the site plan review process and the special use permit will be in the best position to fUlly consider all aspects of proposed wind energy ftcilities. P.,!vel~ "'- .. in- , ' i!! , A , l' ,J'fI< Wind Energy Model Ordinance OPIQns ,~, :;~'" A town that wishes to allow small wind energy facilities through an outright permitting or accessory use process with minimal review may still use some of the following standards, provided that compliance can be readily determined by the town s code enforcement office. Safety: . The minimum distance between the ground and any part of the rotor blade system shall be thirty (30) feet. To limit climbing access, a fence six feet high with a locking portal shall be placed around the facility's tower base or the tower climbing apparatus shall be limited to no lower than 12 feet from the ground, or the facility's tower may be mounted on a roof top. or . Wind turbine towers shall not be climbable up to 15 feet above ground level. and All access doors to wind turbine towers and electrical equipment shall be lockable. and Appropriate warning signage shall be placed on wind turbine towers, electrical equipment and wind energy facility entrances. . Towers shall be equipped with air traffic warning lights and shall have prominent markings on the rotor blade tips of an international orange color where the total height of the tower exceeds 175 feet. or . Use the minimum lighting necessary for safety and security purposes and use techniques to prevent casting glare from the site, except as otherwise required by the FAA or other applicable authority. or . Wind energy facilities shall not be artificially lighted, except to the extent required by the FAA or other applicable authority. . All wind turbines shall have an automatic braking, governing or feathering system to prevent uncontrolled rotation, overspeeding and excessive pressure on the tower structure, rotor blades and turbine components. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide the town proof of a level of insurance to be determined by the Town Board in consultation with the Town's insurer, to cover damage or injury that might result from the failure of a tower or towers or any other part or parts of the generation and transmission facility. . Any wind energy system found to be unsafe by the local enforcement officer shall be repaired by the owner to meet federal, state and local safety standards or removed within six months. If any wind energy system is not operated for a Povvet n H. , ,~.J j }~l~ Wind Energy MOdel Ordinance ORI9Ps ':;:~~ continuous period of 12 months, the Town will notify the landowner by registered mail and provide 45 days for a response. In such a response, the landowner shall set forth reasons for the operational difficulty and provide a reasonable timetable for corrective action. If the Town deems the timetable for corrective action as unreasonable, they must notify the landowner and such landowner shall remove the turbine within 120 days of receipt of notice from the Town. Siting and Installation: . Use existing roads to provide access to the facility site, or if new roads are needed, minimize the amount of land used for new roads and locate them so as to minimize adverse environmental impacts. Combine transmission lines and points of connection to local distribution lines. . Connect the facility to existing substations, or if new substations are needed, minimize the number of new substations. All wiring between wind turbines and the wind energy facility substation shall be underground. or . Electrical controls and control wiring and power lines shall be wireless or underground except where wind farm collector wiring is brought together for connection to the transmission or distribution network, adjacent to that network. . The wind power generation facility, if interconnected to a utility system, shall meet the requirements for interconnection and operation as set forth in the electric utility's then current service regulations applicable to wind power generation facilities. Any construction involving agricultural land should be done according to the NYS Department of Agriculture and Market "Guidelines for Agricultural Mitigation for Wind Power Projects" (which can be found at: www.agmkt.state.ny.us. "construction projects affecting farmland.") Setbacks: The minimum setback distance between each wind turbine tower and all surrounding property lines, overhead utility or transmission lines, other wind turbine towers, electrical substations, meteorological towers, public roads and dwellings shall be equal to no less than 1.5 times the sum of proposed structure height plus the rotor radius. or . Each wind turbine shall be set back from the nearest residence, school, hospital, church or public library a distance no less than the greater of (a) two (2) times its total height or (b) one thousand (1,000) feet. Povver '", .~)!" , . ""~" \ J'; " , ;; ~ . V\ljnd Energy Moae' Ordinance 0 00 ns . ':!~ or All wind power generating facilities shall be located at least 50 feet plus the height of the structure from roads and side and rear lot lines. or Setbacks for wind power generating facilities shall be 100 feet plus the height of the structure from lot lines and 1,500 feet from existing residential structures. or . The wind energy system shall be set back a distance equal to one hundred ten (110) percent of the height of the tower plus the blade length from all adjacent property lines and a distance equal to one hundred and fifty (150) percent of the tower height plus blade length from any dwelling inhabited by humans on neighboring property. or Each wind turbine shall be set back from the nearest property line a distance no less than 1.1 times its total height, unless appropriate easements are secured from adjacent property owners. and Each wind turbine shall be set back from the nearest public road a distance no less than 1.1 times its total height, determined at the nearest boundary of the underlying right-of-way for such public road. and Each wind turbine shall be set back from the nearest above-ground public electric power line or telephone line a distance no less than 1.1 times its total height, determined from the existing power line or telephone line. Nuisance: Individual wind turbine towers shall be located so that the level of noise produced by wind turbine operation shall not exceed 55 dBA, measured at the site property line. or Audible noise due to wind energy facility operations shall not exceed fifty (50) dBA for any period of time, when measured at any residence, school, hospital, church or public library existing on the date of approval of the wind energy facility. The applicant shall minimize or mitigate any interference with electromagnetic communications, such as radio, telephone or television signals caused by any wind energy facility. or No individual tower facility shall be installed in any location along the major axis of an existing microwave communications link where its operation is likely to produce electromagnetic interference in the link's operation. and No individual tower facility shall be installed in any location where its proximity with fixed broadcast, retransmission or reception antenna for radio, television or P.'i,Ter ">, H \l" " ,,( ~11. Wjnd Energy MOdel Ordinance OmJRns ,~:'~~ wireless phone or other personal communications systems would produce electromagnetic interference with signal transmission or reception. Environmental and Visual: Brand names or advertising associated with any installation shall not be visible from any public access. or Wind turbines shall not be used for displaying any advertising except for reasonable identification of the manufacturer or operator of the wind energy facility. Colors and surface treatment of the installation shall minimize visual disruption. or Wind turbines shall be painted a non-reflective, non-obtrusive color. or The design of the buildings and related structures shall, to the extent reasonably possible, use materials, colors, textures, screening and landscaping that will blend the facility into the natural setting and existing environment. Appropriate landscaping shall be provided to screen accessory structures from roads and adjacent residences. Where wind characteristics permit, wind towers shall be set back from the tops of visually prominent ridgelines to minimize the visual contrast from any public access. and/or Towers shall be designed and located to minimize adverse visual impacts from neighboring residential areas, to the greatest extent feasible. and/or The tower shall not significantly impair a scenic vista or scenic corridor as identified in the Town's comprehensive plan or other published source. or . No individual tower facility shall be installed at any location that would substantially detract from or block the view of the major portion of a recognized scenic vista, as viewed from any public road right-of-way or publicly-accessible parkland or open space within the Town. Avoid, to the extent practicable, the creation of artificial habitat for raptors or raptor prey, such ~ a) electrical equipment boxes on or near the ground that can provide shelter and warmth, b) horizontal perching opportunities on the towers or related structures or c) soil where weeds can accumulate. Wind turbines shall be set back at least 2,500 feet from Important Bird Areas as identified by New York Audubon and at least 1,500 feet from State-identified wetlands. These distances may be adjusted to be greater or lesser at the discretion POv\ret " q Jh ,~ ~ "~i Wind Energy Model ordinance 0 '!;:. ' " ,"" '" of the reviewing body, based on topography, land cover, land uses and other factors that influence the flight patterns of resident birds. TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT-OF GREEN POWER How to Overcome Permitting Obstacles to Small-Scale Distributed Renewable Energy N C Prepared for the Network for New Energy Choices, a program of GRACE @ 2008 GRACE All rights reserved PRINCIPAL AUTHOR Damian Pitt Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University September 2008 ..................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................... DAMIAN PITT, AICP, is a PhO candidate in Planning, Governance, and Globalization, with an emphasis on energy policy, at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. The mission of the Network for New Energy Choices INNEC) is to promote policies that ensure safe, clean, and e!,\vironmentally responsible energy options. NNEC collaborates with all levels of government, planning agencies, public interest organizations, government and industry associations, professional societies, labor groups, businesses, and the public. NNEC, formed in 2006, is a program of GRACE. For more information about NNEC, or for additional copies of this report, please visit www.NewEnergyChoices.org. For more information, please contact: KYLE RABIN Director Network for New Energy Choices 215 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001 New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212.726.9161 Design: Stephanie Skirvin Printed on recycled paper using vegetable-based inks ............. ............ -................................ ........................... -.. END 0 RS IN G 0 RGAN I ZA T IONS.............. "Taking the Red Tape Out of Green Power" has been endorsed by the following organizations and associations: II The American Institute of Architects II American Wind Energy Association II Apollo Alliance II Environment, Natural Resources and Energy Division of the American Planning Association II Florida Solar Energy Center II ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA II Institute for Local Self-Reliance II Interstate Renewable Energy Council II Natural Resources Defense Council II Northwest Sustainable Energy for Economic Development II Pace Energy and Climate Center II Sierra Club I11III Solar Energy Industries Association II Southern Alliance for Clean Energy II The Vote Solar Initiative Endorsing organizations recognize the report's value as an important resource to local municipalities and states, particularly in facilitating permitting of small-scale photovoltaic and wind energy systems. DISCLAIMER: Organizations endorsing this report are in no way responsible for inaccuracies or omissions contained within, .............. T AS LE 0 F CO N TE NTS ........................................................................................................ LIST 0 F FI GU RES....... ..... ............. ............. ..... ................. .......... ..... ..... ...... vi LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................ vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................... viii FOREWORD............................................................................................... xi EXECUTIVE SU M MARy...... ........... .......... ........ ............. .......... ............. .......1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION - IT'S NOT EASY BEING GREEN ................................7 1.1 OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS........................... 8 1.2 THE NEED TO ADDRESS PLANNING AND PERM ITTI NG BARRI ERS .............. ............ ....................... ............ 9 1.3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.......................................................11 CHAPTER 2 LOCAL GOVERNMENT PLANNING AND PERMITTING BARRIERS FOR SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAICS (PV) ..................................15 2.1 STANDARD PERMITS AND PROCEDURES.................................16 2.1.1 Electrical Permits ............................................................ 17 2.1.2 Building Permits .............................................................. 18 2.1.3 Design Review.................................................................. 18 2.2 OBSTACLES STEMMING FROM COMPLEX PERM ITTI NG PROCESSES ...... ............ .......................................18 2.2.1 Excessive Permitting Requirements ..............................19 2.2.2 I nexperienced Permitting Officials .................................21 2.2.3 Un predi ctable Delays.. ............ ............. .......... .................22 2.3 INCONSISTENT REQUIREMENTS ACROSS JURISDICTIONS.....23 2.4 PERM IT FEES.. ............ ............................... ................................24 2.5 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS AND PRIVATE COVE NAN TREST R I CTI 0 NS .......................................................25 2.6 SUMMARY: PLANNING AND PERMITTING OBSTACLES TO PV .................. ........................... ........................28 CHAPTER 3 LOCAL GOVERNMENT PLANNING AND PERMITTING BARRIERS FOR SMALL WIND TURBINES ......................................... 31 3.1 APPLICABLE PLANNING AND PERMIT PROCESSES ................33 3.1.1 Building and Electrical Permits .....................................33 3.1.2 Local Planning and Zoning Requirements.....................34 3.1.3 Conditional Use Permits.................................................35 3.1.4 Additional Agency Review...............................................37 iv NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES ......,........................................................................................................................................................................ 3.2 LOCAL GOVERNMENT PLANNING AND PE RM ITTI NG BARRI ERS .............. ................................... ........ ...37 3.2.1 Excessive Zoning Requirements ....................................37 3.2.2 Conditional Use Permit Requirements ..........................38 3.2.3 Undefined or Inconsistent Approval Processes .............41 3.2.4 Unsupportive Regulatory Boards ...................................42 3.3 SUMMARY: PLANNING AND PERMITTING OBSTACLES TO SMALL WIN D ...... ............................... .................................44 CHAPTER 4 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ....................................... 47 4.1 LOCAL GOVERNMENT POLICIES FOR PV..................................47 4.1.1 Removing Regulatory Barriers.......................................47 4.1.2 Streamlined Approval and Permitting Processes ..........48 4.1.2.1 Simplified Permit Applications ......................49 4.1.2.2 Electrical Permitting Standards ....................49 4.1.2.3 Inspector Education .......................................50 4.1.3 Flat Permit Fees and Fee Exemptions ...........................51 4.1.4 Financial Incentives for Developers and Homeowners ...... ....... ................. ............... ................ .....52 4.2 LOCAL GOVERNMENT POLICIES FOR SMALL WIND .................52 4.2.1 Comprehensive Planning for Small Wind ......................53 4.2.2 Appropriate Review Processes and Defined Review Criteria ..... .... ........ ..... ....... ........ .................. ........54 4.2.3 Model Small Wind Ordinances .......................................58 4.2.4 Wind Energy Overlay Zones ............................................60 4.3 STATE POLICIES FOR DISTRIBUTED REN EW AB LE EN ERGY ...............................................................61 4.3.1 Statewide Interconnection and T rai ning Standa rds ... .............. .................. ..................... .61 4.3.2 Preemption of Local Permitting Authority .....................62 4.3.3 Solar Rights Laws ...........................................................65 4.4 CO N C LUS IONS.................. ....................................................... ..66 END NOTES ............................................................................................................... .....70 APPEN DIX A: Glossa ry......... ..... ..... ........ ............. ........ ........ ............... ..................... ....... 76 APPEN DIX B: Fi nal Recommendations ......... ....................... ........................ ................. 80 APPENDIX C: Standard Questionnaire for Solar Contractors.......................................83 APPENDIX D: Schematic of a Net Metered Residential PV System ..............................84 APPENDIX E: Additional Resources ..............................................................................85 APPENDIX F: Local Government Incentives for Distributed Renewab le Energy Systems ........ ..... ......... ..... ......... ....... ............. ........ .... 87 TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER V .............. LIST 0 F FIG U R ES ................................................................................................................ FIGURE 1: FIGURE 2: FIGURE 3: FIGURE 4: FIGURE 5: FIGURE 6: FIGURE 7: Solar Energy System Options for Members of Homeowner Assoc iations ........... .., .......... ..... .......... ................... ...... ....... ........ .., ........29 Size Comparison of Turbines of Various Capacities.......................32 Basic Components of a Small Wind Turbine ...................................33 Comparison of Wind Turbine Sound Levels to Other Common So u nds ... ............................... ..... ........ ........... .......... ......... ........ .......... .... 40 Wind Resource Map for Watauga County, N.C. ...............................54 Small Wind Ordinance Design and Performance Standards........59 Klickitat County Renewable Energy Overlay Zone.......................... 61 vi NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES ...... ................ ..... .... ....... ................ ..................... ........... ...................... LIST 0 F ACRONYMS ..... APA......................... American Planning Association ASES..................... American Solar Energy Society AWEA ................... American Wind Energy Association CAI........................ Community Associations Institute CUP ...................... Conditional Use Permit DG................ ......... Distributed Generation EESI...................... Environmental and Energy Study Institute FAA....................... Federal Aviation Administration FSEC..................... Florida Solar Energy Center IBEW .................... International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ICMA..................... International City/County Management Association IEEE...................... Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers IREC ..................... Interstate Renewable Energy Council ISPQ ..................... Institute for Sustainable Power Quality LEED .................... Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design NABCEP ............... North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners NEC ...................... National Electric Code NFPA .................... National Fire Protection Association NJATC................... National Joint Apprenticeship & Training Committee Northwest SEED.. Northwest Sustainable Energy for Economic Development NYSERDA ............. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority PV ......................... Photovoltaic RELI...................... Renewable Energy Long Island RETAP .................. Renewable Energy Technology Analysis Project SEIA...................... Solar Energy Industries Association Solar ABCs........... Solar America Board for Codes and Standards SRCC .................... Solar Rating and Certification Corporation SWCC.................... Small Wind Certification Council UBC ...................... Uniform Building Code UCAN.................... Utility Consumers' Action Network UL........ ...... ........... Underwriters Laboratory VWEC.................... Virginia Wind Energy Collaborative TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER vii H H.. H'" H' AC K NOW LED GEM EN TS....................... H.............................................. ............................. The author and the Network for New Energy Choices [NNEC) would like to thank the following individuals who were instrumental in reviewing the report and providing valuable recommendations for its improvement: Megan Amsler Gobind H. Atmaram Nancy Frank Christopher Hall Richard Hirsh Jennifer Oliver Jenkins Ingrid N. Kelley Gordian Raacke Larry Sherwood Benjamin Sovacool Ron Stimmel Jane Weissman The author wishes to thank the NNEC staff for its leadership, guidance, and research assistance in preparing this report. NOTE: This report was prepared with the best information available at the time of printing. We welcome any new information as we strive to make our reports as accurate and up-to-date as possible. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of those who provided peer review and editorial review. The author, GRACE and the Network for New Energy Choices do not assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process that is referred to in this report. References in this report to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply endorsement, recommendation or favoring by GRACE or the NNEC. viii NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES All images from National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NRELl except for the bottom left lNorth Carolina Wind Energy Center]. .. . . .. . .. . .. . . .. .. . .. .. . . . . .. .. . . .. .. . .. . . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . . .. .. .. .. . .. . . .. . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . . .. . . .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. FOR E W 0 R D ............. By Ingrid Kelley Chair, Environment, Natural Resources and Energy Division, American Planning Association I am imagining the mayor of a small, suburban town as she presides over a jubilant city council which has just voted to become one of approximately 900 U.s. cities and towns to sign on to the U.s. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement.' This agreement, which originated with Seattle Mayor Greg Nichols in 2005, has become a major grassroots effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the local level while pushing for a federal commitment to join in international agreements for action. The councilors are excited. "We'll have the greenest town in the state!" declares one. "All our new buildings will be LEEDTM certified, and we'll install solar panels on city halU" says another. Naturally, it is the sexy technoLogy that first comes to mind. In the passion of this moment of community commitment to positive action, who wouLd think of shouting, "And our renewabLe energy permitting process will be fast and fair and reasonably priced!" As these newly motivated community Leaders sharpen their penciLs and roll up their sLeeves, they wiLL find that successfuLLy meeting their ambitious new goaLs will require skills and experience that are more political than technical. "Taking the Red Tape Out of Green Power" underlines two fundamental facts about what will be needed for us to make the transition to clean energy in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For one thing, transitioning to clean energy is not necessariLy about funding expensive demonstrations of technoLogy, or even about the technology itself. Second, this report makes a strong case that committed, informed leadership at the local LeveL is absolutely vital to making it happen. MunicipaL officiaLs across the country are facing public pressure to effectiveLy address climate change issues on Local turf, while dealing with tight municipal TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER xi budgets and plenty of other priorities. Finding the courage to fully assess the challenge and then take a confident leadership role will require planners, local officials and community leaders to fully educate themselves by digging beneath the media hype about energy issues to discover what the truly effective strategies are. This report is a valuable contribution to that body of deeper knowledge. In preparing "Taking the Red Tape Out of Green Power," renewable energy professionals from all over the country were interviewed, revealing that planning and permitting barriers all too frequently drive significant costs and delays in getting small PV and wind power systems installed. The report outlines challenges specific to each technology, but points out most definitely that it is not simply the expense of the equipment or the perceived novelty of the technology that prevents its wider adoption by interested homeowners. Unclear and inconsistent permitting requirements are discouraging people from generating their own clean power. Furthermore, homeowner associations in planned communities. which could be valuable allies in the effort to reduce carbon emissions, have often taken the opposite position by adopting unfriendly and sometimes illegal covenants regarding installation of renewable energy systems. The author begins by reporting the variety of political viewpoints and priorities they found, as expressed through a wide spectrum of local rules. The very inconsistencies among permitting practices and fee schedules, even among neighboring jurisdictions, shows how local a movement renewable energy has been for the last forty years. For communities everywhere the lesson is clear: with regard to renewable energy as an important technological tool in addressing emissions reduction, the power of political will has yet to be fully harnessed. Luckily, "Taking the Red Tape Out of Green Power" also provides some creative ideas for doing just that, and on several different levels. At the micro level, the report suggests that some existing rules and procedures could be tweaked to bring them up to date. Possibilities include standardizing technical reviews, or making permit fees consistent with the cost of providing the service, like other permitting procedures. Both wind and solar electricity technologies have come a long way since the 1970s when permitting authorities first needed to deal with them. Many local permitting processes reflect these origins in the days when generating one's own power was regarded as eccentric at best, and at worst, suspiciously antisocial. The technologies were unfamiliar, and the associated politics, unpopular. From what these researchers found, it is evident that before solar and wind power take their places in the national spotlight, many cities and towns need to dust off their attitudes and update their technological understanding. The seven primary recommendations presented in this report will help guide planners and local officials toward graceful incorporation of renewable energy into their communities. They focus primarily on solar electric panels, (or xii NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES photovoltaic panels, also called PV), and small wind turbines that are connected to the main electric grid. Solar and wind systems used to be associated with a self-sufficient and isolated lifestyle. These days, they are beginning to payoff as part of a new pattern called "distributed generation." These small systems work well for homes and small businesses, and because they could collectively contribute substantially to our clean electricity supply, cities and towns would do well to encourage their installation. To smooth the installation process for solar electric panels, the author recommends municipalities revisit their requirements and fees for permitting, making things simpler and less expensive for contractors and their clients. Part of this will mean recognizing PV as the reliable technology it has become, thereby eliminating unnecessary engineering studies and reviews. The report points out that it is no longer necessary to inspect the equipment to be used in every PV installation because most established manufacturers have received approval for their products from a national testing laboratory. The quality of installation is not addressed specifically, but for those code officials still leery of poor workmanship in an unfamiliar trade, the North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners [NABCEPF certifies solar electric installers in a rigorous process that includes both system installation experience and a rigorous written exam. A similar certification is in the works for small wind system installers as well. Even though solar thermal systems (for hot water and heat) were not part of this report, they can also contribute to reducing carbon emissions, and face similar left-over perceptions from the early days. NABCEP has recently begun certifying solar thermal installers as well. As for solar thermal equipment, the Solar Rating and Certification Corporation [SRCC)3 is a nationally recognized organization that certifies solar thermal panels for consistent quality. Another important group of recommendations addresses the incorporation of renewable energy into the comprehensive planning process, particularly with regard to wind energy. One recommendation involves establishment of renewable energy overlay zones that essentially give pre-approval for siting of renewable energy generation in designated geographical locations. Creating a renewable energy overlay zone offers the opportunity for a thorough assessment of available resources, and the impacts on natural and human inhabitants of the area. Creating an overlay zone can increase public participation and ownership, perhaps even leading to designating parcels well suited for solar subdivisions or planned communities. These are actually quite trendy in parts of California. The author's recommendations fit into a broader concept of comprehensive community energy planning. Municipalities that have promised to meet certain carbon emissions reduction goals will need to take some sort of organized approach if they expect to meet those goals in a timely and affordable manner. TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER xiii Community energy planning considers an assessment of the municipality's energy needs and resources, followed by an evaluation of available strategies for meeting the energy goals including how they integrate with existing programs and budgets. If municipalities need another good reason to consider energy a community- level concern, they can think about its role in hazard mitigation, a booming new specialty in the planning profession. Small-scale renewable energy or "distributed generation" technologies, such as PV and wind turbines, can play an important role in providing secure local power during emergencies. Sandia National Laboratory in Albuquerque, NM has been working on what it calls Energy Surety Microgrids4 for application on military bases, but the idea could be applied to cities and towns as welL Small generation systems are located close to vital facilities such as hospitals, fire and police stations, and water and sewage infrastructure. Renewable energy systems can be connected to the grid, adding power on a daily basis, offsetting the load. However, if power goes down during an emergency, these small systems are switched to operate independently, providing electricity to vital services in predetermined order of priority. The incorporation of renewable energy as an essential energy security strategy boosts its local presence in a number of ways, creating greater public awareness and providing a new market for energy services. Now is the time for municipalities to support renewable energy in any way possible. By all means, the mayor and her city council should install PV panels on city hall-first hand experience in applying for a system permit may uncover some unpleasant truths about the user-friendliness of the local process. Never before has the general public been so interested in solar and wind energy, nor has the potential for political support ever been so high. "Taking the Red Tape Out of Green Power" doubtless will prove to be a valuable guide for local leadership determined to move their communities toward cleaner energy. INGRID KELLEY Chair, Environment, Natural Resources and Energy Division, American Planning Association Ingrid Kelley is a former HVAC mechanical designer who has worked for over twenty years promoting renewable energy, energy efficiency, permaculture, alternative construction and sustainable community design. In 2001 she earned a master's degree in Community and Regional Planning from the University of New Mexico, and is a LEED Accredited Professional. She is currently a project manager at the Energy Center of Wisconsin. Ms. Kelley is one of the authors of the American Planning Association [APA] "Policy Guide on Energy," adopted in 2004, and served on the Steering Committee for the APA "Policy Guide on Planning and Climate Change," adopted in April 2008. Her book, "Energy in America: A Tour of Our Fossil Fuel Culture and Beyond," will be published by the University Press of New England in November 2008. xiv NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES budgets and plenty of other priorities. Finding the courage to fully assess the challenge and then take a confident leadership role will require planners, local officials and community leaders to fully educate themselves by digging beneath the media hype about energy issues to discover what the truly effective strategies are. This report is a valuable contribution to that body of deeper knowledge. In preparing "Taking the Red Tape Out of Green Power," renewable energy professionals from all over the country were interviewed, revealing that planning and permitting barriers all too frequently drive significant costs and delays in getting small PV and wind power systems installed. The report outlines challenges specific to each technology, but points out most definitely that it is not simply the expense of the equipment or the perceived novelty of the technology that prevents its wider adoption by interested homeowners. Unclear and inconsistent permitting requirements are discouraging people from generating their own clean power. Furthermore, homeowner associations in planned communities, which could be valuable allies in the effort to reduce carbon emissions, have often taken the opposite position by adopting unfriendly and sometimes illegal covenants regarding installation of renewable energy systems. The author begins by reporting the variety of political viewpoints and priorities they found, as expressed through a wide spectrum of local rules. The very inconsistencies among permitting practices and fee schedules, even among neighboring jurisdictions, shows how local a movement renewable energy has been for the last forty years. For communities everywhere the lesson is clear: with regard to renewable energy as an important technological tool in addressing emissions reduction, the power of political will has yet to be fully harnessed. Luckily, "Taking the Red Tape Out of Green Power" also provides some creative ideas for doing just that, and on several different levels. At the micro level, the report suggests that some existing rules and procedures could be tweaked to bring them up to date. Possibilities include standardizing technical reviews, or making permit fees consistent with the cost of providing the service, like other permitting procedures. Both wind and solar electricity technologies have come a long way since the 1970s when permitting authorities first needed to deal with them. Many local permitting processes reflect these origins in the days when generating one's own power was regarded as eccentric at best, and at worst, suspiciously antisocial. The technologies were unfamiliar, and the associated politics, unpopular. From what these researchers found, it is evident that before solar and wind power take their places in the national spotlight, many cities and towns need to dust off their attitudes and update their technological understanding. The seven primary recommendations presented in this report will help guide planners and local officials toward graceful incorporation of renewable energy into their communities. They focus primarily on solar electric panels, lor xii NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES photovoltaic panels, also called PYI, and small wind turbines that are connected to the main electric grid. Solar and wind systems used to be associated with a self-sufficient and isolated lifestyle. These days. they are beginning to payoff as part of a new pattern called "distributed generation." These small systems work well for homes and small businesses, and because they could collectively contribute substantially to our clean electricity supply, cities and towns would do well to encourage their installation. To smooth the installation process for solar electric panels, the author recommends municipalities revisit their requirements and fees for permitting, making things simpler and less expensive for contractors and their clients. Part of this will mean recognizing PYas the reliable technology it has become, thereby eliminating unnecessary engineering studies and reviews. The report points out that it is no longer necessary to inspect the equipment to be used in every PY installation because most established manufacturers have received approval for their products from a national testing laboratory. The quality of installation is not addressed specifically, but for those code officials still leery of poor workmanship in an unfamiliar trade, the North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners [NABCEP)2 certifies solar electric installers in a rigorous process that includes both system installation experience and a rigorous written exam. A similar certification is in the works for small wind system installers as well. Even though solar thermal systems (for hot water and heat) were not part of this report, they can also contribute to reducing carbon emissions, and face similar left-over perceptions from the early days. NABCEP has recently begun certifying solar thermal installers as well. As for solar thermal equipment. the Solar Rating and Certification Corporation (SRCC)3 is a nationally recognized organization that certifies solar thermal panels for consistent quality. Another important group of recommendations addresses the incorporation of renewable energy into the comprehensive planning process, particularly with regard to wind energy. One recommendation involves establishment of renewable energy overlay zones that essentially give pre-approval for siting of renewable energy generation in designated geographical locations. Creating a renewable energy overlay zone offers the opportunity for a thorough assessment of available resources, and the impacts on natural and human inhabitants of the area. Creating an overlay zone can increase public participation and ownership, perhaps even leading to designating parcels well suited for solar subdivisions or planned communities. These are actually quite trendy in parts of California. The author's recommendations fit into a broader concept of comprehensive community energy planning. Municipalities that have promised to meet certain carbon emissions reduction goals will need to take some sort of organized approach if they expect to meet those goals in a timely and affordable manner. TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER xiii . .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . .. . .... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. . . .., . . . . ... .. .. .. .. . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ... . . EX E CUT I V E 5 U M MAR Y . . .. .. . . .. . . . . . Over the last several years Americans have become increasingly aware of the importance of renewable resources in reducing our nation's dependence on foreign sources of energy and decreasing the emission of climate-changing greenhouse gases and other pollutants. As a result, renewable energy technologies, particularly solar and wind power, are the most rapidly growing sources of electricity in the U.S. Furthermore, environmental and security concerns have sparked increasing interest in small-scale, "distributed" sources of electricity generation to reduce our reliance on large-scale, centralized power plants; however, individual homeowners and small business owners looking to invest in these new sources of energy face multiple bureaucratic barriers to installing their own small-scale, distributed renewable energy systems. The greatest barriers to the expanded use of distributed renewable energy systems in the United States stem not from technical obstacles, but from financial, political and social hurdles. System installers often face planners and building inspectors with little experience permitting renewable energy systems and with no formal education for certifying system safety and reliability. Complex permitting requirements and lengthy review processes delay installations and add significant costs to distributed renewable energy systems. Multiple permitting standards across jurisdictions create additional complications and inefficiencies for system installers. In many cases, these remaining bureaucratic hurdles stymie efforts by homeowners and business owners to install systems and hinder the development of a national market for distributed renewable energy systems. The term "distributed renewable energy systems" is used to describe the distributed applications of clean renewable electricity that are the subject of this report. Distributed renewable energy systems can take many forms, including geothermal systems, micro-hydroelectric systems, and various solar and wind energy applications. While solar thermal systems, which use the sun for space or water heating, are an important form of clean renewable energy, the focus of this report is the unique set of issues facing electricity-generating systems, particularly those that are interconnected to the local electricity distribution grid. The term distributed generation (see Glossary in Appendix A) distinguishes these systems from the large, centralized generation facilities that provide the vast majority of the nation's power. TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER This report focuses specifically on solar photovoltaics [PV) [see Glossary) and small wind turbines, as these are the most common distributed renewable energy technologies and the ones with the greatest potential for expansion. The most significant municipal-level planning [see Glossary) and permitting obstacles to these distributed renewable energy systems are identified, and include: .. Complex and/or unclear local permitting requirements; .. Inspectors and permitting authorities that are inexperienced with renewable electricity systems; .. Permitting requirements that vary significantly across jurisdictions; .. Permit fees that vary across jurisdictions and are sometimes not consistent with municipal resources expended; and II1II Unfair and often illegal enforcement of restrictive housing covenants. "Taking the Red Tape Out of Green Power" also discusses ways to overcome these hurdles and identifies policies from states and municipalities that have successfuLLy streamlined certification and permitting guidelines. From this analysis seven sets of recommendations were developed for overcoming the remaining hurdles to widespread deployment of distributed renewable energy systems. These recommendations cover local government policies for distributed PV, local government policies for small wind turbines and state policies for distributed renewable energy systems. FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS 1: Remove barriers to PV systems from building and zoning codes. 2: Simplify PV permit application forms and review processes. 3: Adopt flat permit fees or fee waivers for PV and small wind systems. 4: Incorporate information about wind energy opportunities into municipal comprehensive planning. 5: Establish smaLL wind turbines as permitted uses, with appropri- ate design guidelines, performance standards, and review pro- cesses. 6: Ease permitting processes by establishing statewide inter- connection standards and educating building and electrical inspectors about proper installation procedures for distributed renewable energy systems. 7: Adopt legislation at the state level mandating consistent and appropriate permitting requirements for distributed renewable energy systems. Additional sub-recommendations are described in Chapter 4 and are Listed in Appendix B. 2 NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES LOCAL GOVERNMENT POLICIES FOR DISTRIBUTED PV This report's recommendations reflect actions that can be taken by municipalities (e.g., cities, towns, or counties) to ease permitting processes and remove barriers for distributed PV systems. Perhaps the most obvious step that local governments can take in support of PV is to remove barriers that are inherent in their building or zoning codes, such as by exempting PV systems from building height Limitations or building permit and design review requirements (see Glossary). Many of these recommendations are intended to reduce the time, paperwork and unnecessary inconvenience associated with building and electrical permit (see Glossary) applications for PV installations. This includes creating simplified permit application processes and working with surrounding jurisdictions to develop standardized application procedures that support the increased use of PV systems across entire regions. It is recommended that electrical permitting requirements be based on a common set of standards - Underwriters Laboratory (ULl1741 and IEEE (formerly the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) 1547 - which ensure the safety and reliability of PV systems if they are installed according to the National Electric Code (NEC). This would streamline the electrical permitting process for grid-tied PV systems by allowing it to focus only on ensuring that the system has been installed properly and is ready for grid interconnection. Local governments could further reduce permitting delays by providing their building and electrical inspectors with the necessary training to understand and properly evaluate PV systems. While this report focuses specifically on permitting issues for distributed renewable energy systems, the high cost of these technologies continues to be a major obstacle to their widespread use. The cost and permitting obstacles converge with the issue of permit fees. Flat permit fees are encouraged, as opposed to "valuation-based" fees that are based on project value and thus discourage investment in larger systems. Also, the approach taken by some municipalities to encourage PV and other distributed renewable energy systems by exempting them from permit fees and/or providing rebates or other types of financial incentives is recommended. LOCAL GOVERNMENT POLICIES FOR SMALL WIND TURBINES The greatest permitting obstacle to small wind turbines often is not the presence of overly burdensome permitting requirements for this technology, but rather a lack of applicable guidelines, which often leads to evaluation of small turbines using the same detailed permitting processes that are required for large wind turbines or other types of major energy infrastructure. TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER 3 Local governments should identify areas in their jurisdictions where wind energy development may conflict with surrounding land uses. A number of factors should be considered when identifying these areas, including locations of endangered bird and bat habitat, density of existing or planned development, and the location of sensitive land uses. Small wind turbines should then be designated as conditional uses (see Glossary) in the areas of potential conflict and as permitted uses in all other areas of the jurisdiction. Designating small wind turbines as permitted uses does not mean that their potential impacts must be ignored. Appropriate design guidelines and performance standards can be established to mitigate the potential impacts for most proposed small wind turbines, allowing the more rigorous conditional use permit application and review process to be used only in areas where the potential impacts are greatest. Local governments can further expedite the permitting process by adopting a list of pre-approved small wind turbine models and by providing local inspectors with the necessary training to properly evaluate proposed small wind installations. STATE POLICIES FOR DISTRIBUTED RENEWABLE ENERGY While this report focuses primarily on local government policies to remove planning and permitting barriers to distributed renewable energy systems, three ways in which state governments can help to overcome those barriers are identified. First, states can ease distributed renewable energy permitting processes for their localities by establishing statewide standards for renewable energy equipment and providing statewide training and education to familiarize local building and electrical inspectors with distributed generation technologies. Such statewide programs would also help to mitigate the problem of inconsistent permitting requirements across jurisdictions. Second, states can pass legislation to preempt home rule and require that local governments develop efficient permitting processes and reasonable review criteria for distributed renewable energy systems. This approach has been used with some success in both California and Wisconsin, among other states. Third, states can pass laws banning private covenant restrictions that prohibit or restrict PV and other distributed renewable energy systems on aesthetic grounds. Several states have passed such laws already, but their effectiveness has been limited. Therefore, it is recommended that in addition to passing laws banning private covenant restrictions, states actively work to educate community associations about their obligations under the law and inform homeowners about their right to install distributed renewable systems with the proper government permits. 4 NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES Most of these suggestions require only minor policy changes that could be implemented expeditiously by state and/or local officials, These minor changes could have a profound impact on the ability to safely and rapidly expand the use of on-site, renewable energy systems and may even help jump-start a robust domestic renewable energy market that benefits all Americans. .................................................................................................................... " '" . , . .. .... .... , . . . . , , .. . . . . ..~. . . . ... . . . .. . , . .. . . . . . . , . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . ..' . . .. . r . .. , ... .. .. . . . . . . . . . : : '. '. ..................................................................................... .............................................................00 " ................................................... TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER 5 Community energy planning considers an assessment of the municipality's energy needs and resources, followed by an evaluation of available strategies for meeting the energy goals including how they integrate with existing programs and budgets. If municipalities need another good reason to consider energy a community- level concern, they can think about its role in hazard mitigation, a booming new specialty in the planning profession. Small-scale renewable energy or "distributed generation" technologies, such as PV and wind turbines, can play an important role in providing secure local power during emergencies. Sandia National Laboratory in Albuquerque, NM has been working on what it calls Energy Surety Microgrids4 for application on military bases, but the idea could be applied to cities and towns as well. Small generation systems are located close to vital facilities such as hospitals, fire and police stations, and water and sewage infrastructure. Renewable energy systems can be connected to the grid, adding power on a daily basis, offsetting the load. However, if power goes down during an emergency, these small systems are switched to operate independently, providing electricity to vital services in predetermined order of priority. The incorporation of renewable energy as an essential energy security strategy boosts its local presence in a number of ways, creating greater public awareness and providing a new market for energy services. Now is the time for municipalities to support renewable energy in any way possible. By all means, the mayor and her city council should install PV panels on city hall-first hand experience in applying for a system permit may uncover some unpleasant truths about the user-friendliness of the local process. Never before has the general public been so interested in solar and wind energy, nor has the potential for political support ever been so high. "Taking the Red Tape Out of Green Power" doubtless will prove to be a valuable guide for local leadership determined to move their communities toward cleaner energy. INGRID KELLEY Chair, Environment, Natural Resources and Energy Division, American Planning Association Ingrid Kelley is a former HVAC mechanical designer who has worked for over twenty years promoting renewable energy, energy efficiency, permaculture, alternative construction and sustainable community design, In 2001 she earned a master's degree in Community and Regional Planning from the University of New Mexico, and is a LEED Accredited Professional. She is currently a project manager at the Energy Center of Wisconsin. Ms. Kelley is one of the authors of the American Planning Association [APAI "Policy Guide on Energy," adopted in 2004, and served on the Steering Committee for the APA "Policy Guide on Planning and Climate Change," adopted in April 2008. Her book, "Energy in America: A Tour of Our Fossil Fuel Culture and Beyond," will be published by the University Press of New England in November 2008. xiv NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES ..................................................................&................................. "I've been trying to put solar panels on my house for the last 5 months. And the regulatory process - you can't get through it. What's going on here? Why is there regulatory opposition to solar energy?" -George Shultz, former Secretary of the U.s. State Department before the Society of Environmental Journalists, Sept. 5, 2007 When a former secretary of state is incapable, after five months, of installing a solar system on his home, something is amiss. Unfortunately George Shultz is not alone. While high up-front costs and other financial obstacles are likely the primary impediment to widespread adoption of distributed renewable energy technologies by homeowners and small businesses, these problems are exacerbated by a multitude of bureaucratic hurdles associated with the planning and permitting of these systems. In fact, in 2007 former Vice President and famed clean energy advocate Al Gore was denied permission to install solar panels on the roof of his home in Belle Meade, Tenn., based on local zoning rules that required all power generating equipment to be placed at the ground level.5 Mr. Gore was able to install the solar panels after the city changed these rules, but the new law still presents a significant barrier to solar power by requiring that the panels not be visible from the street.6 Similar bureaucratic obstacles occur in many states and localities across the nation. Many homeowners and small-business leaders, who struggle to navigate TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER 7 a sea of red tape when trying to generate their own electricity, end up frustrated and embittered, and no one knows how many of them give up entirely. 1.1 OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS In recent years Americans have become increasingly concerned about the cost, security and environmental impacts of our energy supply. Many are now looking to renewable energy technologies, particularly solar and wind power, as sources of clean, safe and abundant electricity that can address these concerns. Some local governments have pursued policies to encourage renewable energy since the late 1970s. Local government energy planning has increased dramatically in recent years, as hundreds of municipalities have begun efforts to mitigate the effects of global climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in their communities. These efforts have resulted in a wide variety of policies to encourage energy efficiency and renewable energy use, including: l1li Rebates and Low- or zero-interest Loan programs for energy efficient appliances, solar water heaters, and small-scale renewable energy systems; III Power purchase agreements, property tax exemptions, and other mechanisms to encourage solar panels and other home energy systems; III Green energy pricing, or aLLowing residents to pay a premium on their electricity bills to support renewable energy, offered either through municipal utilities, "green tags," or community aggregation of power purchases; II Municipally-owned renewable energy facilities, including solar power systems, smaLL wind turbines, and methane capture facilities at landfiLLs and wastewater treatment pLants; and l1li "Brownfields to brightfields" programs, in which environmentaLLy-degraded sites are converted into facilities to manufacture solar energy equipment. solar energy generating facilities (Le., "solar farms"), or other new land uses that incorporate solar energy systems. Substantial research has been conducted in recent years on the benefits of renewable energy and on state and federal level policies to support these technologies. Much of the research has focused on technological improvements and efforts to reduce the cost of these systems. This report focuses on an important issue that has received much less attention-local planning and permitting rules that inhibit the use of small-scale renewable energy systems in many communities. 8 NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES 1.2 THE NEED TO ADDRESS PLANNING AND PERMITTING BARRIERS For several years now, renewable energy advocates and community planners have recognized the need to explore various ways of overcoming these planning and permitting barriers to distributed renewable energy installations. In April 2004, for example, the American Planning Association [APA) released its "Policy Guide on Energy." Two of the document's policy findings directly addressed the need for new and creative approaches to planning and permitting distributed renewable energy systems: "5. Fair share or other equitable approaches are needed for siting energy generation and distribution facilities, and land-use plans and policies need to provide flexibility and guidance for communities involved in development of new energy sources. 6. The way we plan urban areas significantly affects the energy usage of individual building sites. Appropriate site design standards and building codes can encourage energy conservation and the use of renewable energy technologies on site."7 In addition to these findings, APA's "Policy Guide on Energy" also includes a number of policy initiatives meant to promote reforms that will improve the planning and permitting process; however, despite AP/J\s laudable intentions, its policy recommendations have been somewhat vague. Initiative 9.a. of the "Policy Guide on Energy," for example, addresses the need for improved planning and permitting of distributed renewable energy projects, but does not specify what processes wouLd overcome the existing barriers it identifies: "Initiative 9: Support utilization of on-site, distributed generation technologies. a. APA encourages discussion with buiLding code officials to ensure that local land-use standards proactively encourage the installation of renewable energy technologies." The American Solar Energy Society [ASES) also has recognized local permitting as an obstacle to renewable energy development. In 2005, the ASES Policy Committee released a report entitled "Common Sense: Making the Transition to a Sustainable Energy Economy," which, among other things, described the need for state and local permitting reforms designed to encourage on-site renewable energy generation: "State and local governments should amend local building, permitting and zoning laws to accommodate, encourage and expedite the construction of renewabLe energy projects and distributed generation stations... In addition to modifying buiLding codes to reflect the importance of energy efficient TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER 9 designs and practices, other locaL laws, regulations and procedures should be deveLoped and impLemented... In reviewing local codes, ordinances and regulations, particular attention shouLd be paid to changes that encourage the use of decentralized generating faciLities."8 APA'S "POLICY GUIDE ON PLANNING AND CLIMATE CHANGE" The American Planning Association recently adopted a new "Policy Guide on Planning and Climate Change." It includes the foLLowing policies for the removal of planning and permitting barriers to distributed renewabLe energy: "SPECIFIC POLICY #19.3: INTEGRATION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY INTO CODES Revise building codes and architectural design guidelines to aLLow for, encourage, or require integration of passive solar design, green roofs, active solar and other renewable energy sources. SPECIFIC POLICY #19.4: ELIMINATE REGULATORY BARRIERS TO THE USE OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS Examine existing zoning laws and development standards and revise or eliminate provisions that act as a barrier to the use of renewable energy systems." However, as with the "Policy Guide on Energy," the APA's "Policy Guide on Planning and Climate Change" provides little detail on how building codes, zoning laws, or other planning regulations should be revised to support renewable energy sources. The "Policy Guide on Planning and Climate Change" can be found on the APA's Web site at http://www.planning.org/policyguides/pdf/ climatechange.pdf. This report builds on the work of the APA, ASES and others by investigating specific planning and permitting reforms designed to encourage and expedite the installation of distributed renewable energy systems. While solar thermal systems, which use the sun for space or water heating, are an important form of clean renewable energy, this report focuses on the unique set of issues facing electricity-generating systems, particularly those that are connected to the local electricity distribution grid. The term Distributed Generation (DG) distinguishes these systems from the large, centralized generation facilities that provide the vast majority of the nation's power. Thus, the term" distributed renewable energy systems" is used to describe smaLL-scale, decentralized applications of clean 1 0 NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES renewable electricity. While the capacity of these systems can vary, DG typically refers to projects with a generation capacity of up to 2000 kilowatts (kW), or two megawatts [MW) [see Glossary). This report focuses on grid-tied systems of up to 10 kW, sufficient to power a home, small apartment building, or small business. While a number of technologies could fit this definition, the two most common types of distributed renewable energy installations, Solar Photovoltaics (PV) and small wind turbines, are discussed. Chapters 2 and 3 describe the planning and permitting issues facing home and small business owners wishing to install PV and small wind turbines on their property. A significant portion of the information for these chapters was gathered through interviews with small-scale solar and wind contractors who have directly faced these obstacles. Chapter 2 includes a discussion of private covenant restrictions. While these restrictions are not technically local government obstacles, they can contribute to the difficulties faced by homeowners that attempt to install distributed renewable energy systems, particularly PV systems. Chapter 4 recommends policy changes that may help to ease the approval process and encourage more wide-scale use of distributed renewable energy. 1.3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Research for this report included a review of numerous prior studies on topics including electrical codes and permitting, private covenant restrictions, permit fees for PV systems, and land use and permitting issues for PV and small wind turbines. Approximately two dozen telephone interviews were conducted with a variety of academics, solar energy contractors, renewable energy advocates, and local government planners and building officials identified through the background research. Finally, a questionnaire was sent via e-mail to over 100 solar contractors identified from Solar Energy Industries Association chapter Web sites, Findsolar.com and Renewable Energy Long Island (RELI) (see Appendix C). Approximately 20 solar contractors responded to the e-mail questionnaire. In order to increase response rates and encourage candor, these respondents were assured that their comments would remain anonymous. Therefore, quotes from these contractors are not credited in the endnotes. In most cases the state or region of the country where the respondent is located is identified in the text in order to illustrate geographical disparities in the perception of local planning and permitting processes. The report was peer-reviewed by two separate teams of experts in the fields of energy policy, PV systems technology, small wind turbine technology, distributed energy permitting procedures and land use planning. TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER 11 Most of the previous studies cited in this report are geographically specific, discussing, for example, technical issues in New York or building permit fees in California. This report is among the first to tackle the issue of planning and permitting obstacles to distributed renewable energy in a way that is national in scope. 12 NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES All images from National Renewable Energy Laboratory INRELI except for the bottom left [North Carolina Wind Energy Center!. jJ " ..(............................................1...................:..... : Image from National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Image from National Renewable Energy Laboratory [NRELl. .................................................................................................... Because most PV systems are installed on the roof of a building, rather than as separate structures, it is rare that their installation will require zone changes or special use permits. While a simple zoning permit may be required to install PV as a retrofit to an existing home, rarely does this requirement represent a major burden for homeowners wishing to install off-the-shelf PV systems. Obtaining building and electrical permits for such systems can bea major obstacle. Many solar installers are concerned that varying permitting requirements between jurisdictions can add costs to PV installations or generate safety risks in jurisdictions that do not adopt rigorous enough requirements.9 Interviews with solar energy contractors in a number of different states revealed that a majority identified local permitting processes as a significant obstacle to small- scale solar installations. There are three primary ways in which permitting processes are an obstacle for PV installation. Each of these examples has been described in previous studies and was noted by several of the contractors and solar energy advocates that were interviewed: 1. Complex Permitting Processes This category includes a number of different obstacles that together serve to lengthen the permitting process, which stymies the growth of distributed PV in many areas by raising costs for solar contractors and discouraging potential PV customers. TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER 15 2. Inconsistent Permitting Processes Across Jurisdictions Just as permit fee structures vary across jurisdictions, permitting requirements and processes are also inconsistent, which compounds many of the problems cited by the solar contractors interviewed. For example, the Energy Trust of Oregon found that inconsistent permit fees and processes across jurisdictions in Oregon add so much additional complexity that they have the potential to delay or deter projects altogether: "Jurisdictions were found to employ different permit fee assessment methods resulting in different documentation requirements as well as widely varying permit fees. Inconsistency makes it difficult to plan and bid projects across jurisdictions."'o 3. High Permit Fees Permit fees for PV systems create an additional expenseforsolarcontractors and their customers. These fees vary greatly by jurisdiction, and in some cases may make an otherwise appealing PV project cost-prohibitive. In a 2007 white paper on solar permit fees, the Vote Solar Initiative documented how the added expense of municipal permitting fees, in some cases, may act as a deterrent to the expansion of PV: "(Plermit fees, charged at the local level to ensure engineering and safety standards, also make a substantial difference in the price of home installation. And because there is only one local permitting authority per municipality, no competitive market forces influence solar permit fees. "" A MAJORITY OF SOLAR ENERGY CONTRACTORS IDENTIFIED lOCAL PERMITTING PROCESSES AS A SIGNIFICANT OBSTACLE TO SMAll-SCALE SOLAR INSTAllATIONS. In the following section, general permitting processes and requirements for PV installations are discussed. Within this standard permitting framework each of the obstacles is mentioned in greater detail. The chapter ends with a discussion of a related obstacle for PV-covenant restrictions from private homeowner associations. 2.1 STANDARD PERMITS AND PROCEDURES Installing a PV system generally requires, at minimum, an electrical permit from the local building department and an interconnection permit or agreement with the local utility. A building permit may also be required, particularly if the project will alter the building structure or if the solar installation will not be flush with 16 NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES the roof. In some cases a zoning, design review. or other type of planning permit may be required to approve the PV installation as a "use" on the property. The research for this report did not uncover any examples of special use permits, conditional use permits, or zone changes being required for PV. but that may be the case in some municipalities. If so, such a requirement would be more costly and time-consuming than even the design review process and would likely be prohibitive for most PV installations. 2.1.1 Electrical Permits Most utilities require an electrical permit and possibly other applicable permits before they will issue the interconnection agreement that enables a distributed renewable energy system to be connected to their grid and participate in a state's net metering program (see Glossary; see Appendix 0 for illustration of a net metered PV system). In some cases, such as in California, states require an electrical permit before owners may receive state tax rebates. Electrical permits are designed to facilitate the inspection of DG systems to avoid potential safety hazards [such as fires, electrocution, or power surges] which could injure the homeowner or utility line workers or cause damage to the home or the electrical grid (see RETAPS Guidelines on page 51).'2 Specific requirements for both local government electrical permits and utility interconnection permits are typically derived from the following standards: . The NEC, published by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPAI. is the standard for installing wiring and equipment. The NEC contains Article 690. which is dedicated to PV systems.13 . IEEE Standard 1547 is the standard for interconnecting DG with electric power systems. The standards address the issues of performance, operation, testing, safety considerations, and maintenance for purposes of connecting to the grid.14 . UL 1741 standards are the set of requirements that cover inverters, converters, charge controllers, and interconnection system equipment used with grid-tied and non-grid-tied DG. The UL 1741 requirements supplement, and are used in conjunction with, IEEE 1547. The equipment covered is intended to be installed according to the NEC.15 Receiving an electrical permit is generally less onerous than obtaining a building permit, and is certainly easier than going through a design review, zoning, or other type of planning process. While some contractors interviewed complained about the time and/or cost involved in obtaining an electrical permit, others responded that the electrical permitting process is not particularly difficult for them. In Madison, Wis., for example, one building department official noted that the process for obtaining an electrical permit takes "less than a minute," once the proper paperwork is submitted by a licensed electrician, and the fee TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER 17 is only $10. The disagreement between contractors on the burden represented by electrical permitting processes highlights the wide disparity in requirements between jurisdictions. 2.1.2 Buildinq Permits Many municipalities only require building permits for PV systems that do not sit flat on the roof or that would alter the building structure in any way. In other municipalities, building permits are required for all PV systems, even those that are flush with the existing roof. The purpose of the building permit requirement is to ensure that the building's roof can support the PV system and "that the PV system's rack and roof attachments are water tight and meet wind-load requirements."'6 These wind- load requirements are particularly important in tornado or hurricane-prone areasY They can also add to the complexity of the permitting process. One Florida-based contractor, for example, identified wind-loading requirements as the single most difficult permitting issue in that state. It is important for localities in highly windy areas to establish wind-loading requirements that ensure the safety and the structural integrity of PV systems without imposing exceedingly complex or difficult-to-achieve requirements on potential PV customers. 2.1.3 Desiqn Review Some jurisdictions require more planning for a PV installation beyond the electrical and building permit applications. For example, some municipalities require a design review or a process to permit the system as a "use" under the area's given zoning designation. The design review process in urban planning evaluates the aesthetics of a proposed use-in this case, a PV system-and typically allows for public comments from neighbors and others who may object to the use as being visually unattractive or incompatible with the look of the surrounding neighborhood. Some California municipalities require such review processes even though state law protects consumers' rights to install PV on their property and prohibits the regulation of solar power based on aesthetic concerns.'8 2.2 OBSTACLES STEMMING FROM COMPLEX PERMITTING PROCESSES A 2007 report by SolarTech, a consortium of renewable energy businesses in California, discussed some of the obstacles to permitting distributed solar installations. SolarTech found that permitting and utility interconnection costs are a much higher proportion of the total cost of solar power projects in the U.s. than they are in Europe and Japan. The group attributed the disparity to the relatively uniform permitting and interconnection standards (see Glossary) found in other countries versus the inconsistent and/or duplicative requirements in the U.S. SolarTech concluded that the U.S. "must address and streamline permitting and utility interconnection standards if we are to lower our costs in these areas."'9 18 NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES The need for streamlined permitting processes was reiterated by many of the solar contractors interviewed for this report. One contractor from the San Francisco Bay area cited lengthy and difficult permitting processes as a major obstacle for the PV industry and estimated that obtaining the proper permits accounts for about one-third of the labor costs for each installation. 2.2.1 Excessive Permittinq Requirements Obtaining all of the required permits to install a legal PV system can be lengthy and time-consuming, which is discouraging to customers and costly to contractors. This is particularly true when the permit application requires unnecessarily complex paperwork that must be reviewed by multiple departments within the same jurisdiction. For example, some localities require permit applications to include detailed information about the roof structure, such as identifying the number of rafters, their spacing, and the material from which they were made.20 Santa Clara County, Calif., was identified as a municipality with lengthy and burdensome permitting requirements. In Santa Clara, the permit application must include plans, elevation drawings for the entire lot, and other paperwork. The application must be reviewed by multiple departments, and can take as long as eight weeks to be processed. Contractors also cited poor communication between the county and the project applicant(s) as a reason for project delays. For example, county officials must send all correspondence to the homeowner, rather than the contractor, which delays response times.21 THE CAPABILITY OF A ROOF TO SUPPORT A PV SYSTEM CAN BE PROVEN WITHOUT REQUIRING THE CONTRACTOR TO DOCUMENT SUCH SPECIFIC DETAILS AS RAFTER SPACING AND MATERIAL. Most of the contractors interviewed recommended less specific requirements, as the capability of a roof to support a PV system can be proven without requiring the contractor to document such specific details as rafter spacing and material. The city of San Jose, Calif., for example, streamlined its building permit process without compromising safety by requiring permits only if the system meets any of the following criteria: 1. Total panel weight [including frame) is greater than five pounds per square foot. 2. Maximum concentrated load at each point of support exceeds 40 pounds. 3. Maximum height above roof surface exceeds 18 inches.22 TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER 19 Most residential PV systems should easily meet San Jose's criteria. For this reason, some solar contractors argue that building permit requirements are unnecessary for the majority of PV installations. One contractor in the San Francisco Bay area, for example, noted that most homes built to post-1950s building code standards undoubtedly will be capable of supporting a typical residential-scale PV system. He suggested that jurisdictions could waive the building permit requirement for PV systems on homes that were built to meet modern building codes. The design review process can also present an obstacle to PV systems. For example, in the Village of Bellerose, N.Y., Robert Syverson has spent more than a year trying to convince the Board of Architectural Review to allow him the right to install a PV system. While there is no official code banning solar panels in Bellerose, the board felt that the panels were not the "look of the town." The proposed system design places the panels on the back of his house, visible to only a few neighbors. In defending its decision, the board has cited that other homes in the village may become interested in PV if Syverson is successful with his installation. His remaining option is to challenge the board in court to change the way the review process deals with PV.23 Syverson expressed his frustration with the permitting process as follows: "I will go as far as stating, within the next 10 years it will be so blatantly obvious that we are in trouble locally and globally that my current fight will seem absurd."24 One solar contractor in Oregon described the burden that design review processes can present to installers: "We are required to submit an application for a planning review for any residential system that projects more than twelve inches above the roof or any commercial system, period. The cost of the application is approximately $580 plus 1/2% of the project cost, and the review process takes four-to-six weeks. This is in addition to the normal building and electrical permits." The situation faced by this contractor illustrates the tension that sometimes exists between the need to promote renewable energy and the need to ensure public involvement in local government decisions. The city of Ashland, Ore., for example, has long been a leader among small local governments in supporting renewable energy. In the early 1980s Ashland passed one of the nation's first solar access laws.25 Ashland also has a robust system of incentives to encourage renewable energy in new home construction,26 and has coordinated PV demonstration projects on several prominent buildings in the community. (See Chapter 4 and Appendix F for more information on these and other local government renewable energy incentives). However, the city's concern for careful and thorough land-use planning (much of which is required by state lawl. has, according to at least one local solar contractor, resulted in a tedious and unwieldy permitting process for retrofitting existing homes with simple PV systems. 20 NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES 2.2.2 Inexoerienced Permittinq Officials In addition to the difficulties presented by electrical and building permitting, several of the contractors interviewed suggested that a lack of understanding about permitting rules and procedures, even among the local government staff that is enforcing those rules, is among the biggest obstacles to PV installation. Because PV is still an emerging technology, many planning or permitting officials have little if any experience in dealing with PVapplications. One Florida-based contractor described the situation in his community: "Here, PV has been unheard of in the mainstream. Those very few of us that did off-grid systems were ignored by the authorities. Now that I am trying to install grid-tied systems that require permits, the local counties are clueless as to what to do with me. They do not have a permit category for solar electric, only solar hot water since that has been around for decades. So I am struggling my way through educating everybody in the process, and it is painful. The inspectors generally do not want to take the time to learn about PV (I don't blame them], as they are overstretched with other work. The permit offices have no idea how to even issue a permit for it." A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING ABOUT PERMITTING RULES AND PROCEDURES IS AMONG THE BIGGEST OBSTACLES TO PV INSTALLATION. Similarly, an updated 2008 Sierra Club study of permitting processes in 131 Northern California municipalities quotes solar contractor Tom McCalmont of REgrid Power: "Some building departments are unfamiliar with [PV systems] ... so they are ultra-cautious in their process. It's very clear from cities like San Jose and Palo Alto that [processing solar permits] can be done safely, dependably, with an over-the-counter permit."27 McCalmont also contends that many cities should prioritize their time on post- installation inspections, rather than spending too much time reviewing the pre- installation plans: "The cities would be better served by sending the inspectors to classes and getting them trained and familiar with solar so that they do the right thing when they come out and look."28 In addition, a 2007 study by the Santa Barbara Million Solar Roofs Partnership identified the lack of experience by local permitting authorities as a significant TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER 21 barrier to expediting permits for distributed solar installations in Santa Barbara County, Calif.: "Local permit agencies, including planning and building departments have historically not understood current solar technologies. This can lengthen the complexity and time required to process permit requests. In reality the majority of solar installations are standard systems containing consistent components approved by Underwriters Lab or the California Energy Commission, requiring only simple electrical and structural review prior to installation."29 A prerequisite to developing streamlined permit approval processes is having permit department staff that understand the basics of PV installations. Knowledgeable inspectors are critical to ensuring the safety of a solar installation.30 But knowledgeable inspectors are also essential to any effort to decrease permitting delays and costs. Well-trained staff should be able to review standard residential PV system applications in a matter of minutes, thus allowing for "over-the-counter" permit processing. Similarly, well-trained inspectors can conduct an on-site inspection of an installed PV system in less than an hour, which should minimize costs to the local jurisdiction. In theory, streamlined PV permitting processes have the added benefit of allowing the jurisdictions to lower permit fees since each installation would require less staff time. DEVELOPING STREAMLINED PERMIT APPROVAL PROCESSES REQUIRES UNDERSTANDING THE BASICS OF PV INSTALLATIONS. 2.2.3 Unpredictable Delavs The issue of unpredictable delays was mentioned repeatedly by the solar contractors interviewed, and is discussed at length in the Sierra Club permit fee study. These delays seem irrational to property owners, who believe they are performing a public good by investing in clean energy, and have the potential to create ill will between local permitting authorities and the citizens they serve. For example, a 2006 white paper by the San Diego-based Utility Consumers' Action Network (UCAN! recounted the story of Lewis Fry, a utility customer in the city of Chula Vista, Calif., who applied in June 2006 for building and electrical permits to install a 2.4-kW solar electric system on his house. Though the city told him it would require seven to 21 days to review his plans, local officials had yet to permit his installation in November 2006, some five months after he had submitted the necessary paperwork.31 22 NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES Unexpected delays can cause cash flow problems for solar contractors, who often must purchase equipment in advance, but cannot be paid by the client until the project is approved. This is frustrating to solar customers, who sometimes expect "instant gratification," and become frustrated when the permitting process does not move quickly enough.32 DELAYS HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO CREATE ILL WILL BETWEEN LOCAL PERMITTING AUTHORITIES AND THE CITIZENS THEY SERVE. Scheduling site inspections is a major source of contention for some contractors. In most municipalities inspections are scheduled to take place within a four or eight-hour window, even though the inspection itself may last only 30 minutes. The large appointment window eats up significant time and prevents the contractor from doing other productive work. One contractor interviewed in this study complained: "Besides getting a permit (a process that sometimes takes months in certain jurisdictions], the inspection schedule is also problematic. The better cities (like San Josel schedule the post-installation inspection by appointment, usually within a two-hour window. Other cities just specify a day and expect contractors to wait for an indeterminate amount of time. These are hassles for customers but it's also worth noting that such delays have a greater impact on the solar industry itself. Most solar companies are small: wasted man-hours spent waiting on permits and inspections is also wasted money." Another contractor described the issue from the small business perspective: "We are businessmen, but we are not treated as such in the permit process. Business people set a meeting for a specific time. What kind of business sets its meetings to take place in a four-hour window?" 2.3 INCONSISTENT REQUIREMENTS ACROSS JURISDICTIONS Most solar contractors that were interviewed agreed that the permitting requirements for renewable energy projects (including both permit fees and application processesl are more difficult in some municipalities than others. While the process generally boils down to a permit submittal and an inspection, the requirements under each permit and the length of each inspection vary widely among different cities, towns, and counties.33 TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER 23 Most local government building code requirements are based on the nation- wide Uniform Building Code (UBCI. as amended by the applicable state building code (such as the California Building Code, the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, etc.J. The electrical components of the state building codes are typically based on the NEC. However, in many cases the state and national codes are subject to the interpretation of local permitting authorities. SolarTech found that the variety of PV installation requirements among California municipalities "lack[s] consistency and transparency, which creates uncertainty and increases costS."34 One Oregon-based contractor agreed that local inspectors do not understand or are not aware of the NEC installation practices for PV. He noted how this lack of understanding causes the permitting and inspection procedures to vary considerably among jurisdictions. He described the effect of this inconsistency on solar contractors and noted that: "Part of the problem is that we have so many jurisdictions that interpret the NEC requirements differently that we need to change our permit application and installation habits for each jurisdiction." Interconnection requirements from utilities can also vary somewhat, even though generally they are all based on the NEC, UL Standard 1741, and the IEEE Standards 1547 and 1547.1. Inconsistent interconnection requirements cause problems for contractors even in places, such as Texas, where there are few if any local government permitting obstacles. For example, because of deregulation of the electricity market in Texas, the Texas Solar Energy Society has lamented how the rules for accounting for grid-tied PV systems have become "fuzzy," leading to an "anything goes" approach which can delay or deter the installation of distributed renewable energy systems.35 2.4 PERMIT FEES While permit fees almost always represent a small percentage of total project costs, the size of the fees and the manner in which they are assessed can vary greatly across municipalities. The Sierra Club PV permit fee study found that permit fees in the 131 municipalities studied ranged from $0 to $671, with an average fee of $224. The average fee was equal to 1.2% of the total post-rebate cost of $18,600 for a 3-kW peak output system.36 Inconsistent permit fees are a problem outside of California as well. One Arizona-based solar contractor interviewed described the incongruity of permit fees across neighboring jurisdictions: "Some [jurisdictions] allow mail-in applications that are pretty straight- forward. Others are disorganized in regards to the permit fees. One time we paid $1,000 for a permit for a utility intertie system, and the next time 24 NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES we were charged $150 for a similar system. There is also variation in the documentation that the different jurisdictions require." Fees are typically required as part of an electrical permit application, and if building or design review permits are required then additional fees often apply. While most are levied as a flat fee, some municipalities use a "valuation method" that calculates the fee as a percentage of the total cost of the system. The valuation method of assessing permit fees has the unintended consequence of discouraging homeowners from installing larger systems. As the Sierra Club study noted, under a valuation method, "The more a homeowner contributes to a city's renewable energy supply, the more that homeowner must sacrifice financia lly. "37 The valuation method seems particularly unfair when one considers that the size of the system has little relation to the resources a city must devote to its inspection. The Sierra Club study quotes two electrical inspectors from San Francisco Bay Area cities who claim that large residential systems typically do not take longer to review or inspect than small ones. Therefore, the study recommends that all cities adopt a flat-fee method, which can cover the city's review and inspection costs while encouraging homeowners to invest in larger systems.38 THE HASSLE OF GETTING A PERMIT DISCOURAGES CUSTOMERS AND CONTRACTORS MORE THAN THE ACTUAL PERM IT COSTS. Even the highest permit fees represent a small portion of the overall cost of a residential-scale PV system, and most of the contractors interviewed agreed that the hassle of getting a permit discourages customers and contractors more than the actual permit costs; however, it is possible that in some cases these relatively small cost increases could impact homeowners' willingness to invest in PV installations by pushing payback periods out beyond a certain, undefined "tipping point." beyond which the cost of the system is deemed prohibitive. 2.5 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS AND PRIVATE COVENANT RESTRICTIONS Covenant restrictions enforced by private homeowneror" community" associations can also represent a barrier to distributed renewable energy systems. While not a local government planning and permitting barrier per se, covenant restrictions merit consideration in this report because they can add to the difficulties that homeowners experience when seeking approval to install PV or other distributed renewable energy systems on their homes. The APA addressed the problem of private covenant restrictions in its "Policy Guide on Energy": TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER 25 "b. The use of renewable energy equipment such as photovoltaic panels and solar water heaters is frequently discouraged in housing development covenants because people assume they will be unattractive."39 Most community associations appoint an Architectural Review Committee, which is responsible for enforcing the covenants, conditions and restrictions of the association. The U.S. Department of Energy's "Bringing Solar Energy to the Plan ned Comm unity" describes howenforcementofthesecovenantscan effectively prevent homeowners' from installing PV or other renewable energy systems for their homes: "Restrictive covenants are commonly used by planned communities to ensure that all units adhere to a common design theme, and to prevent activities deemed to be undesirable by the community at large... Restrictions on solar energy systems have become commonplace in many parts of the country. Unlike contracts, which bind only the actual parties to the agreement, restrictive covenants are said to "run with the land." This means that the benefits and burdens created by the restrictions are usually part of the deed or title to the property, and extend to all subsequent owners of the property. Absent an explicit agreement as to duration, courts will enforce restrictive covenants for a period of time that seems reasonable under the circumstances."40 ENFORCEMENT OF THESE COVENANTS CAN EFFECTIVELY PREVENT HOMEOWNERS FROM INSTALLING PV OR OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS FOR THEIR HOMES. The restrictive covenants may in some cases explicitly prohibit the use of PV systems, but more commonly they indirectly affect the system by increasing costs or by impairing system efficiency. For example, the covenant may require that the system be located on a side or rear roof, so that it is not visible from the street. This requirement presents a problem if the south-facing roof surface (which receives the greatest amount of sunlight] faces the street. Or the covenant may require that the PV array be hidden with screening materials for aesthetic reasons. The need for screening increases the project cost and may reduce efficiency by casting a shadow on the PVarray.41 26 NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES I I I PRIVATE COVENANT RESTRICTIONS Community associations represent property owners within a planned community, condominium-complex, or cooperative and have the authority to regulate the appearance of individual homes, typically requiring "a uniform and consistent appearance within the development."42 Among the tools used by community associations to enforce these requirements are private covenant restrictions. Simply stated, covenants are promises that the buyer of property makes as a condition of purchasing the property. Generally, they are created when the developer files, with the property records, a declaration of covenants that restrict the use of the property for all subsequent owners. Because the covenants are filed with the property records in the jurisdiction where the property is located, and because they are referred to in the deed, some homeowners are not even required to be fully aware of the specifics of the restrictions when closing on their homes. Over 42 million Americans were living under the authority of "community associations" in 1999. The number of these associations has grown tremendously over the past 30 years, from 10,000 in 1970 to over 200,000 in 2000. This trend is likely to continue. In fact, the Community Associations Institute projects that over half of all new developments in large metropolitan areas will be governed by communityassociations.43 Ten states have laws in place to prevent covenant restrictions that would prohibit or unreasonably affect solar energy use within planned communities: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Massachusetts, Nevada, Utah and Wisconsin; however these laws are routinely violated. Ironically, according to "Bringing Solar Energy to the Planned Community", private covenant restrictions on PV are most problematic in states [such as Arizona and Florida] where they are technically illegal, but in which laws banning those restrictions are not adequately enforced. Those parts of the country are where planned communities are most prevalent, and the community associations are often unaware that they cannot restrict renewable energy projects based on aesthetics. The responsibility falls to the homeowner to fight the restriction in court, something few homeowners are inclined to do.44 In Arizona, where planned communities are growing rapidly, state law is very specific in prohibiting associations from restricting solar energy: TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER 27 "Any covenant, restriction or condition contained in any deed, contract, security agreement or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of, or any interest in, real property which effectively prohibits the installation or use of a solar energy device. . . is void and unenforceable."45 Nevertheless, one Arizona-based solar contractor that was interviewed report- ed that covenant restrictions are a significant barrier to PV in that state. Clearly, public education and outreach to community associations is essential, even in states that prohibit covenant restrictions. Johnny Weiss of Solar Energy International, a non-profit renewable energy advocacy group in Colorado, characterized community associations as "serious institutional barriers" to PV in parts of Colorado, even though the associations are prohibited by state law from restricting solar power. Weiss said that covenant restrictions are most common in newer subdivisions, due to aesthetic concerns and the perception that PVinstallationswill reduc~ neighboring propertyvalues.46 For example, a recent New York Times article recounted the case of a couple near Carbondale, Colo. whose plans to install a PV system on their home was vetoed by their homeowner's association on aesthetic grounds, despite state laws prohibiting such restrictionsY As was demonstrated by the example in Carbondale, the design approval process is not necessarily a straight path. "Bringing Solar Energy to the Planned Community" includes a flowchart (see Figure 1) that illustrates the various options open to homeowners that face private covenant restrictions.48 The flowchart provides several options and outcomes of negotiating the process of obtaining design approval. 2.6 SUMMARY: PLANNING AND PERMITTING OBSTACLES TO PV The long-term viability of PV as a source of electricity in the U.S. will depend largely on bringing the cost per kWh of these systems to a level comparable to that of centralized, fossil-fuel based systems through a combination of technology improvements, government subsidies and economies of scale. Even if the costs can become comparable, it is unlikely that a majority of Americans will take the initiative to install residential PV systems if they perceive doing so to be a difficult, time-consuming process. The planning and permitting obstacles represent a significant hurdle to the long-term diffusion of distributed PV technology. In the short term, these obstacles discourage conservation- minded citizens who might otherwise be willing to make a long-term investment in solar energy systems and reinforce the false notion that distributed renewable energy is not a viable solution to our nation's energy crisis. Fortunately, a number of policy options are available to help overcome these hurdles, as shown in Chapter 4 of this report. 28 NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES FIGURE 1 I Solar Energy System Options for Members of Homeowner Associations SEEKS HOAAPPROVAL DOES NOT SEEK HOA APPROVAL APPROVED I IGNORED/LEFT ALONE SUED BY HOA OR AGENT HOA DROPS OBJECTIONS Source: Starrs, Thomas, Les Nelson and Fred Zalcman. "Bringing Solar Energy to the Planned Community: A Handbook on Rooftop Solar Systems and Private Land Use Restrictions." TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER 29 . .............................................................................................................. : Image from National Renewable Energy Laboratory INRELI. .................................................................................................... Wind turbines are among the fastest growing sources of electrical power for the United States. Less than 1% of the nation's electricity is currently supplied by wind power, and the vast majority of installed wind power capacity comes from "utility-scale" wind farms-projects involving anywhere from several dozen to several hundred wind turbines, each of which can be up to 300-500 feet tall and can generate 2-3 MW of electricity, enough to power hundreds of homes. This report is concerned with much smaller wind turbines-those designed to serve a single residence, farm, or other small business. As illustrated in Figure 2, residential-scale turbines are significantly smaller than the utility- scale turbines. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) describes "small wind turbines," as follows: "A typical residential wind energy system includes a 10 kW turbine, with rotors measuring perhaps 23 feet in diameter, mounted on an 80-foot tower. Such a system is suitable for meeting the electricity needs of a household or small business. Turbines as small as 400 watts, with rotors only 46 inches in diameter, may be employed for specific purposes, such as pumping water (for stock or irrigation) or running lights and appliances in a remote cabin or recreational vehicle."49 The term "small wind turbines" is used to describe wind energy generating systems consisting of a single "small" turbine and the tower, guy wires, and inverter equipment needed to support the single turbine (See Figure 3). TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER 31 FIGURE 2 I Size Comparison of Turbines of Various Capacities 160' 140' 120' 100' 80' 60- 1 20 ft. tower 60' 40' 20' Average Residential Flagpole 1.8 kW 10 kW turbine turbine Average Residential - Scale System Size Source: American Wind Energy Association 32 NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES ~ .1 20-kW lU rbi ne tower , ~ 100-kW turbine SOkW turbine Small wind turbines are subjected to many of the same local government permitting barriers as PV, particularly with respect to building and electrical permits. Small wind turbines have more potential impacts on the environment and nearby land uses than PV systems, and are therefore more likely to require planning and zoning permits. While some level of additional planning review is appropriate, excessive permitting requirements can present a significant deterrent to homeowners who wish to invest in small wind energy systems. This chapter describes the planning and permitting processes that apply for most small wind projects and how these processes inhibit the expansion of wind power as a source of distributed renewable energy. FIGURE 3 I Basic Components of a Small Wind Turbine ROTOR BLADES GENERATOR/ALTERNATOR / 0( TAIL 0( TOWER 0( GUY WIRES Source: American Wind Energy Association 3.1 APPLICABLE PLANNING AND PERMIT PROCESSES Depending on the state and jurisdiction in which they are located, small wind turbines may be subject to several different planning and permitting procedures. For large energy facilities, including commercial-scale wind farms, some states have state level review processes that essentially circumvent local review; how- ever, small wind projects typically require local government approval, including both planning permits (such as a conditional use permit) and building and electrical permits. Depending on the location of the project, additional permits may be necessary to ensure compliance with state and/or federal regulations. 3.1.1 Building and Electrical Permits Most wind turbine projects must receive building and electrical permits.50 The processes and requirements for obtaining these permits are similar to those for PV systems and are, therefore, not discussed in detail in this chapter. Many utilities will require additional inspections for grid-connected wind systems. In the state of New York, for example, the local utility that will receive a wind turbine's electricity is responsible for inspecting and approving the turbine equipment, collection system, substation, and interconnection.51 TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER 33 3.1.2 Local Planning and Zoninq Requirements Most local governments in the U.S. use zoning regulations to guide the growth of the community. In the state of New York, for example, about 78% of the state's municipalities use zoning.52 Where no zoning rules are in place, approval of a small wind energy project would likely require only building and electrical permits. Where zoning is used, more stringent reviews are typically required to ensure that the project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) has described the following land use designations that may apply to small wind facilities in municipalities that use zoning: . APPROVED AS A PERMITTED USE. This is most common in remote, rural areas where potential negative impacts to nearby properties are minimal. A permitted or "allowed" use can be approved "over-the-counter," without a public hearing, if applicable design standards are met; . APPROVED AS A "SPECIAL USE" (ALSO KNOWN AS A "CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT" OR CUPI. This process requires a more detailed application, which is the subject of a discretionary review process by the local planning board and usually requires a public hearing; . APPROVED PENDING A SITE PLAN REVIEW. A review of the project site and nearby land uses and environmental conditions is generally required for approval as part of a special use permit application; . ALLOWED AS AN ACCESSORY USE. If wind facilities are not listed as a permitted or allowed use within a certain zone, then the municipality can list them as an accessory use. This designation avoids the need for special use permits for future wind projects; II PERMITTED WITH A VARIANCE. A variance can be used to waive or modify the zoning requirements (such as setbacks or height requirements) for a permitted use. Technically speaking, variances should only be issued in cases where zoning regulations impose an unreasonable burden on a property owner; however, many municipalities interpret this requirement broadly, and use variances to adjust building height requirements or other design standards on an ad-hoc basis. Variances are typically issued by the local planning authority through a quasi-judicial review process, and generally require a public hearing; and . ALLOWED IN AN OVERLAY ZONE. An overlay zone (see Glossary) is used to provide new regulations that modify and/or supersede the rules of the existing "base" zone. For example, a wind energy overlay zone can establish expedited approval procedures in the parts of a jurisdiction that have been identified as appropriate for wind energy facilities.53 34 NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES The simplest application process occurs when wind energy facilities are listed as an "approved" or "permitted" use according to the property's zoning designation. In this case the facility must be approved as long as it meets certain design standards, such as turbine height and setbacks, and other applicable requirements. For example, in Oregon, state law requires cities and counties to allow wind turbines on any land zoned for agricultural use, as long as the proposed project: "(a) . . . will not force a significant change in accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use; and (b) will not significantly increase the cost of accepted farm or forest practices on lands devoted to farm or forest use."54 The law also requires Oregon jurisdictions to list wind turbines as an allowed use on land zoned for Forest Uses, provided that the projects: "[a] . . . will not force a significant change in, or significantly increase the cost of, accepted farming or forest practices on agriculture or forest lands; [b] The proposed use will not significantly increase fire hazard or significantly increase fire suppression costs or significantly increase risks to fire suppression personnel; and [c] A written statement recorded with the deed or written contract with the county or its equivalent is obtained from the land owner which recognizes the rights of adjacent and nearby land owners to conduct forest operations consistent with the Forest Practices Act and Rules."55 The rules and procedures for obtaining approval for a wind turbine that is an allowed or "permitted outright" use will vary by state and jurisdiction, but typically involve an application showing that the proposed project would meet any applicable design standards or other requirements. If all applicable requirements are met, the project can often be approved "over-the-counter," without a public hearing. If the proposed facility is allowed by the applicable zoning, but would not meet one or more of the design standard requirements, then the applicant can seek a variance to have those standards waived. This may require a public hearing. 3.1.3 Conditional Use Permits While some localities permit small wind turbines outright in certain zones, it is more common for small wind installations to be labeled as "conditional" or "special" uses. In these cases, a conditional or special use permit is required before the system can be constructed. This is a more rigorous review process, which typically involves a public hearing. Northwest Sustainable Energy for Economic Development (SEED) has prepared a guidebook that describes the permitting processes for community-scale wind TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER 35 projects in Oregon. The guidebook describes the type of information that is generally needed in a CUP application for a medium to large-scale wind project. The CUP process, if necessary, would be similar for a small wind project. The applications typically must include a detailed site plan, which provides a legal description of the subject property and identifies the location of the facility within the property as well as the location of nearby structures or natural features. The application must also include a written analysis describing environmental conditions on the subject property (and in the surrounding area) and analyzing the project's potential natural resource, cultural, and neighborhood impacts.56 A decision to approve or deny the application is typically based on the following considerations: . Public health and safety; . Siting and installation; . Setbacks from residences, roads, and property lines; . Nuisance impacts, such as sound and electromagnetic/microwave interference; . Environmental impacts, such as avian mortality and soil erosion; and . Visual impacts.57 Often, planning commission staff members are asked to make a recommendation on the permit application, considering the aesthetic, environmental and economic impact of an installation. The Energy Trust of Oregon's "Community Wind: An Oregon Guidebook" describes this procedure as it exists for typical community- scale wind turbines: "If a city or county Conditional Use Permit or Zoning Variance is sought, there will be a public hearing of the county planning commission to present the project application and solicit public feedback. When such a decision-making body is involved, it is common for planning department staff to review the application first. Staff will then provide the decision- making body with a recommendation for whether to approve or reject your permit application and will suggest conditions for approval. This recommendation is based on local zoning and permitting ordinances, the details of the application, and the project's anticipated compliance."58 In the state of New York, wind facility applications may be reviewed by "a local enforcement officer, the planning board, the zoning board of appeals, the local legislative body, or some combination of these," depending on the size of the proposed facility and the municipality in which it is located. NYSERDA recommends that municipalities establish processes that minimize the number of different bodies that must review each application.59 36 NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES 3.1.4 Additional Aqency Review In some cases, a proposed wind energy project may also be reviewed by adjacent or surrounding jurisdictions. In the state of New York, for example, proposed special use permits or site plans must be referred to the applicable county or regional planning agency for input if the proposed facility would lie within 500 feet of a municipal boundary, a county or state park, road, stream, public building, or a farm operation located in an agricultural district. Such referral is also necessary if a municipality wishes to amend its comprehensive plan or zoning ordinance to accommodate wind projects.60 The local authorities may also have to seek input or approval from state and federal agencies, particularly when reviewing the environmental impacts of a proposed wind facility. This is most commonly required for large, commercial- scale wind facilities, such as in the case of a proposed wind farm near Mosier, Ore. that was required to modify the layout of its turbines to mitigate visual impacts within the nearby Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area.61 However, state or federal review could be necessary for smaller projects under certain conditions, such as if they would adversely impact agricultural lands, water bodies, or designated wildlife habitat, or if they would be located near federal facilities or other important infrastructure. For example, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAAI must review all turbines that would be located near airports, military facilities, or aviation corridors.62 3.2 LOCAL GOVERNMENT PLANNING AND PERMITTING BARRIERS The barriers to small wind installations presented by local government permitting processes include excessive zoning requirements, undefined approval processes, conditional use permit applications, and unsupportive regulatory boards. 3.2.1 Excessive Zoninq Requirements All of the wind energy experts interviewed agreed that local zoning ordinance requirements can be a significant barrier to the siting of small wind energy systems. Brian Antonich, a Minnesota-based wind energy consultant, identified a number of zoning-related obstacles to small wind installations, including excessive setback requirements and burdensome height restrictions.63 In many cases, the latter is a by-product of outdated zoning ordinances. For example, Minnesota's height restriction originally was adopted to prevent structures from exceeding the maximum height that fire hoses could spray. According to Dr. Jonathan Miles, of the Virginia Wind Energy Collaborative (VWEC) at James Madison University, zoning-related height restrictions are particularly burdensome to small wind energy installations.64 In Virginia, most county zoning ordinances have a 35-foot height restriction. Since most tower-mounted small wind installations require towers that are between 80 and 120 feet tall, owners must seek a variance to the local zoning ordinance in order to install most systems.65 TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER 37 Another problem is that some zoning ordinances require small wind installations to be approved by a state-certified engineer.66 Because the costs of obtaining the approval are borne by the installer, this requirement can add several thousand dollars to the project cost. However, the requirement is often unnecessary because most small wind installations are purchased from established, nationwide firms that employ certified engineers to ensure their products' safety and effectiveness. A requirement that each system be inspected by a state- certified engineer adds significant cost while essentially duplicating work that the manufacturer has already done. At a minimum, these requirements should be modified so that this certification can be provided by the manufacturer or supplier, without the need for a site visit from an independent inspector. REQUIRING A STATE-CERTIFIED ENGINEER INSPECTION ADDS SIGNIFICANT COST AND DUPLICATES WORK ALREADY DONE BY THE MANUFACTURER. AWEA has identified additional types of excessive permitting requirements, including lighting requirements that exceed FAA rules, fencing requirements, requirements that all wind turbines "blend in with their environments" and mandatory security bonds for the removal of small wind turbinesY These security bonds makes sense for commercial systems (which are often installed on land leased from a farmer or property owner), but can be burdensome for landowners who wish to install a small system on property that they own. 3.2.2 Conditional Use Permit Requirements Many wind energy advocates argue that small systems should be allowed as permitted uses, at least under certain conditions. For example, three counties in North Carolina recently approved ordinances identifying single-turbine small wind systems up to 20-kW capacity as permitted uses, as long as certain setback and height requirements are met (see Chapter 4 for more detail on these ordinances).68 In contrast, the Town of Kill Devil Hills, N.C., recently adopted an ordinance identifying all wind turbines as conditional uses and establishing a maximum turbine height of 85 feet, thus effectively banning all but the smallest of wind energy systems.69 While some localities list small wind turbines as permitted uses, they are more commonly identified as conditional uses. Such a designation requires a much more time-consuming approval process, even without stringent height limits or other design standards such as those recently approved in Kill Devil Hills. Several of the small wind experts interviewed for this report noted that the time required to obtain a permit is the biggest obstacle presented by zoning requirements. 38 NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES In addition, obtaining a conditional or special use permit typically requires a public hearing and a vote of the local planning commission and/or other governing body. Gaining approval thus becomes much more complicated than if the system were an allowed use subject only to an administrative review. Public hearings for a conditional use permit also create an opportunity for citizen testimony against the project. Many proposed commercial-scale wind energy projects have met strong objection from citizens and community groups concerned about potential visual, sound, land use, safety, and environmental impacts. While these concerns are not without merit, the difference in scale between commercial wind energy projects and single-turbine small wind installations is substantial, and the potential impacts of the small systems are relatively minor if they are located in rural areas with sufficient setbacks from neighboring land uses. AWEA has produced a series of publications intended to educate the public and dispel myths about the potential impacts of small wind installations. They address many of the concerns associated with wind energy projects and explain why those concerns should not apply to modern small wind systems. For example, some of the more common safety questions are addressed as follows: . "Falling tower: Thousands of wind turbines are installed in the U.s., and their safety track record is excellent. Trees are much more likely to fall than a properly installed wind turbine, but no setbacks or minimum property sizes are required for trees. . Safety of utility repair personnel during a power outage: Small wind systems shut down automatically in the event of a power outage to protect utility workers, and will not energize a dead power line. . Icethrowfrom rotor blades: Ice buildup makes wind turbine blades heavier and less aerodynamic, and therefore they turn more slowly. Typically, ice will drop to the base of the turbine tower instead of being thrown. . Children climbing the tower and falling: Possible, but wind turbines should be treated no differently than other climbable structures such as water towers or amateur radio antennas."70 AWEA maintains that sound and visual impacts are negligible for most small wind installations. Much of the sound associated with utility-scale wind turbines actually comes from the high-speed transmission lines that receive their power output. Small wind installations do not connect to such transmission lines, and their only sound comes from the blades moving through the air. Studies have shown that the sound from a small wind system is negligible i.e., indistinguishable from background noise, (see Figure 41 at 300 feet or less.71 TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER 39 FIGURE 4 I Comparison of Wind Turbine Sound Levels to Other Common Sounds Home 50 Small Wind Turbine* 40 Bedroom 30 Whispering 20 Falling Leaves 10 Jet Airplane Industrial Noise Inside Car decibeLs Pneumatic Drill ~( J~ . . . . .' A" '.-IV-.. Stereo Music Office O"O_~__~""~O~~'oS~~~d:=""~ ~ewL :' 'd::::' of '~ ~:J Source: American Wind Energy Association Visual impacts from small wind turbines are a matter of perception. To some, wind turbines are a visual blight that negatively impact the "character" of the surrounding community. To others they are an aesthetically pleasing symbol of progress and environmental responsibility. The visibility of a given small wind turbine depends on a number of factors, including tower height, setbacks from roads and nearby properties, and the surrounding topography. Fortunately, FAA rules only require lighting for towers that are at least 200 feet tall, and smaller wind turbines must only be lighted if they are located near airports or military bases.72 Potential bird and bat fatalities are another source of objection to proposed wind energy systems. Much of the concern about this issue is derived from the experience at Altamont Pass in California, one of the first commercial-scale wind farms in the U.S., which was built in a major flight path for golden eagles and other bird species and has resulted in significant bird fatalities. While potential bird and bat fatalities remain a very real concern for large, commercial-scale wind turbines, AWEA contends that this is much less of an issue for small wind installations. According to AWEA, birds are no more likely to hit a small wind turbine than any other structure, and far more birds are killed annually by domestic cats and by flying into sliding glass doors and windows.73 Because the potential negative impacts of small wind installations are so small, particularly when compared to those of commercial-scale wind farms, an administrative review procedure is appropriate for judging the merits of these systems. The longer, more rigorous conditional use permit review process is an unnecessary obstacle to the use of small wind turbines, and should only be required in places where potentiaL conflicts with surrounding land uses have been specifically identified. 3.2.3 Undefined or Inconsistent Aoproval Processes The consensus among the wind energy contractors interviewed is that the largest permitting obstacle in many municipalities is the lack of clearly defined processes for reviewing small wind installations. Even in municipalities where there is a defined approval process, it is rare that someone atthe local government permitting authority understands the process and has experience dealing with wind project applications.74 Steve and Kathy Nelson, for example, live in San Joaquin County, Calif., an area with substantial experience with wind energy, and home to one of the world's largest wind turbine farms. The area is also subject to rules and rebates overseen by the California Energy Commission. Nevertheless, local permitting officials required two sets of plans for the Nelson's small wind installation: one from a civil engineer and one from a structural engineer. According to the Nelsons, local inspectors were often too busy to sign off quickly on the couple's plans and asked TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER 41 for revisions in an attempt to delay review. The Nelsons waited three months, for example, just for utility staff to approve the interconnection permit.75 Further obstacles to small wind installations are created when zoning ordinances do not distinguish between commercial and residential-scale systems. For example, in 2000, Dave and Jan Blittersdorf of Charlotte, Vt. sought approval for a 10-kW wind turbine (about the size to power one large home!. Because no specific process for zoning and permitting small turbines was in place, the Blittersdorf's had to follow the same permitting process as required for large, commercial-size power plants, including approval from the state's Public Service Board. By the time the installation was approved, the process took 11 months and an estimated $9,500 in legal fees and personal time.76 Jennifer Grove of Northwest SEED, helped to develop a number of small, cooperatively-owned wind projects in Washington, Oregon, and Montana.77 According to Grove, the permitting requirements for small wind projects varied greatly by municipality, and also by state. Montana, for example, had very few permitting requirements at the time (2003-20051 when the Northwest SEED projects were installed. The turbines were small enough that they did not trigger any land use or zoning laws, and electrical permits were easily obtained through the contractor who installed the systems. In Washington, on the other hand, Northwest SEED experienced more difficult permitting processes.78 Local permit approval there took longer and required greater detail, which increased the payback period for the installed system. Northwest SEED therefore had to seek additional financing support from local utilities Seattle City and Light and the Klickitat Public Utility District,79 These anecdotes indicate that poorly defined approval procedures can significantly slow the permitting process for homeowners and small businesses. 3.2.4 Unsupportive Requlatorv Boards In addition to the zoning regulations and related issues described above, small wind installations also encounter obstacles from the local permitting bodies themselves. Even if a proposal appears to meet all legal requirements, winning approval from the local planning commission, board of zoning appeals, or other applicable agencies may be difficult. This is due largely to a lack of understanding about the impacts of wind facilities and a general unwillingness to approve projects that are new or unfamiliar to the community. Dr. Jonathan Miles of VWEC noted that wind energy projects in Virginia usually require the approval of the local board of supervisors (equivalent to a county commission in other states]. As touched upon above, putting the decision in the hands of an elected body allows for greater discretionary decision-making than 42 NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES would be expected from a purely administrative review procedure. According to Miles, the boards in Virginia often defer to the objections of neighboring landowners rather than judge the applications strictly on the established permitting requirements. In many cases the neighboring landowners may object due to misconceptions about the impacts of small wind projects, or the belief that these projects have the same sound, aesthetic, and other impacts as large-scale wind farms.8o Miles recounted the story of two small wind projects that recently sought approval in Northumberland County, Va., which has adopted permitting language specific to small wind projects. The board of supervisors denied one applicant, but approved the second. According to Miles, the driving force behind the denial was the discomfort of a single neighboring landowner and a local developer, even though in the public hearing more people spoke in favor of the project than against it. The supervisors, while supportive of small wind in principle, may have acted out of an abundance of caution in an effort to avoid setting a controversial precedent. Miles noted that public education .is essential to the expansion of small wind installations, especially if public hearings are required for local planning and permitting approva1.81 PUBLIC EDUCATION IS ESSENTIAL TO THE EXPANSION OF SMALL WIND INSTALLATIONS, ESPECIALLY IF PUBLIC HEARINGS ARE REQUIRED FOR LOCAL PLANNING AND PERMITTING APPROVAL. Wind energy consultant Brian Antonich reports that small wind projects face similar barriers in the upper Midwest, where local zoning boards can be fairly conservative. Like their Virginia counterparts, Midwest zoning officials do not want to change systems or processes that have worked in the past, and are hesitant to change planning or permitting rules for technologies whose success had not yet been demonstrated to them; however, Antonich suggests that this situation is changing as "more and more people are starting to see renewable energy as the way of the future."82 Demonstration projects, which allow community members to see small wind turbines and understand the relatively minor scale of their impacts, may be particularly effective at overcoming community objections. For example, Chesapeake Renewable Energy in Richmond, Va. set up a 1-kW system on public land in nearby Northumberland County, on property outside the county courthouse.83 The demonstration provided local citizens and the county's board of supervisors with a working example of a small wind turbine and to allay TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER 43 concerns about visual impact and sound. Since people have been able to see the demonstration turbine, local contractors feel that residents and officials are warming to the concept of small wind,84 3.3 SUMMARY: PLANNING AND PERMITTING OBSTACLES TO SMALL WIND Small wind installations can be a viable source of relatively cost-effective distributed renewable energy, particularly for rural areas. While there are valid concerns about the potential negative impacts of large, commercial-scale wind farms, those concerns are, for the most part, not applicable to small, single- turbine wind systems. Nevertheless, small wind installations often face the same permitting requirements as much larger, more impactful systems. These permitting requirements present a number of undue barriers to the use of small wind installations, particularly when the process includes public hearings and/ or discretionary hearings before planning commissions or other local legislative bodies. Fortunately, a number of policy options are available to help overcome these barriers, as described in Chapter 4 of this report. 44 NETwORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES ............................................................................................................... ............................................................... ......................................................... ..' Image from iStockphoto .&...&...................&..................................................................&........ This chapter includes three sections addressing the distributed renewable energy permitting obstacles described in the previous chapters. The first two sections offer recommendations on local government policies to ease permitting for PV and small wind systems. The third section offers recommendations for state level policies that would support local government recommendations and help to overcome existing permitting obstacles. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the need to inform and educate local governments about these obstacles, and ways in which those obstacles can be overcome. 4.1 LOCAL GOVERNMENT POLICIES FOR PV The following recommendations reflect actions that can be taken by local governments (e.g., cities, towns, or counties) to facilitate permitting processes and remove barriers for installation of distributed solar photovoltaic (PV) systems. RECOMMENDATION 1: REMOVE BARRIERS TO PV SYSTEMS FROM BUILDING AND ZONING CODES. 4.1.1 Removinq Requlatorv Barriers Perhaps the most obvious step that local governments can take in support of PV systems is to remove barriers that may be built into their building or zoning codes, such as by exempting PV systems from building height limitations or building permit and design review requirements. The city of Los Angeles, Calif., for example, exempts solar energy devices (PV or solar water heaters) from building height limits, as long as the systems are sufficiently set back from the perimeter of the roof.85 TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER 47 RECOMMENDATION 1-A: EXEMPT ROOF-TOP PV SYSTEMS FROM BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITATIONS. Ideally, building permits should not be required for most standardized, residential-scale PV systems. Electrical permits and inspections will always be necessary to ensure the safety and reliability of the installation, but separate building permits are arguably unnecessary for most systems. For example, the city of Santa Cruz, Calif. does not require building permits for solar energy systems that do not extend beyond 12 inches from the building roof or are not visible from a public thoroughfare.86 Similarly, the city of San Jose, Calif. does not require building permits for roof-mounted systems that extend less than 18 inches above the roof surface, weigh less than 5 pounds per square foot, and do not exceed a maximum concentrated load of 40 pounds at any point of support. In San Jose, homeowners or solar contractors can apply for PV system electrical permits "over-the-counter," using a simple checklist. If the above criteria are met then the system can be approved after a brief follow-up inspection. RECOMMENDATION 1-8: ALLOW "OVER- THE- COUNTER" BUILDING PERMITS FOR STANDARD ROOF-MOUNTED PV SYSTEMS THAT DO NOT EXCEED THE ROOF SUPPORT CAPABILITIES OF A STRUCTURE MEETING MINIMUM BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS. If building permits are required, then proposed distributed PV systems should be judged strictly on their structural merits. Design review, which requires a homeowner to prove that planned improvements or home additions would not violate aesthetic guidelines set forth for the given neighborhood or zoning district, is required for PV systems in some jurisdictions. Such review may be appropriate under certain extreme conditions, such as in Historic Preservation districts, but for the most part rOof-top PV systems should be exempted from such requirements or any other rules that could effectively prohibit such systems on aesthetic grounds. If a local government wishes to maintain design review requirements for PV then a self-certification procedure such as that used by the city of Oakland, Calif. is recommended. RECOMMENDATION 1-C: DO NOT RESTRICT PV SYSTEMS ON AESTHETIC GROUNDS. 4.1.2 Streamlined Approval and PermittinG Processes The following recommendations are intended to support the wider utilization of distributed solar energy by reducing the time, paperwork and general inconvenience associated with building and electrical permit applications for PV installations. 48 NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES 4.1.2.1 Simplified Permit Applications The contractors interviewed for this report described a wide range of application procedures for receiving a building or electrical permit. They universally recommended that permit application forms be as clear and simple as possible and that building permit applications, for example, should not require detailed site plans or elevation drawings for the entire property. If a building permit is necessary, the application should require a simple checklist on which the applicant can verify that the system would not exceed the load capabilities of the building's roof. The application review process should be, to the extent possible, limited to a single agency. RECOMMENDATION 2: SIMPLIFY PV PERMIT APPLICATION FORMS AND REVIEW PROCESSES. A related problem identified in this report is the wide discrepancy in permitting requirements often found among neighboring jurisdictions. The varying requirements prevent solar contractors from standardizing their application procedures and inhibit the use of PV systems across a region. It is recommended that local governments coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions to develop consistent permitting requirements for PV systems. This is perhaps best accomplished through regional councils of government. For example, the Maricopa County Council of Governments (including Phoenix, Ariz. and surrounding municipalities) developed standardized procedures for securing electrical and building permits for commercial and single-family residential PV systems. These procedures were then adopted by many cities in the region. Consistent permitting requirements can also be established at the state level, as described in section 4.3.2. RECOMMENDATION 2-A: COORDINATE PV PERMITTING PROCEDURES WITH NEARBY JURISDICTIONS. 4.1.2.2 Electrical Permittinq Standards Standards are very important in the electrical industry to ensure the safe and reliable use of electricity. While the details of interconnection standards are beyond the scope of this report, it is important that PV equipment be tested by a nationally recognized testing laboratory. UL 1741 requirements set industry standards that work in conjunction with IEEE 1547 standards for interconnection and NEC installation requirements. Streamlined application and inspection procedures should be established for installations using UL-listed equipment. UL 1741 lists specific makes and models of PV equipment that are safe and reliable if installed according to the NEC. Most states with interconnection standards specify that equipment used to connect to the grid must be UL 1741 listed and comply with the IEEE 1547 TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER 49 standards and the NEC to connect to the grid. The standards specify that the interconnection be tested according to IEEE 1547.1. Local governments should adopt these standards for connecting PV to the grid and ease the permitting and approval process for systems that meet these standards. RECOMMENDATION 2-8: BASE PV ELECTRICAL PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS ON IEEE 1547 ANDUL1741. In adopting these standards local governments can reference the PV permitting guidelines prepared by Brooks Engineering for the Pace University Law School Energy Project and those prepared by the Florida Solar Energy Center (FSEC) and the Southwest Technology Development Institute at New Mexico State University (see Appendix E for additional information on these standards), 4.1.2.3 Inspector Education One of the more common criticisms shared by the contractors interviewed for this report was the local permitting authorities' lack of familiarity with current PV and small wind technologies, which typically delays review processes and adds cost to the homeowner and/or contractor. This includes both a lack of knowledge on the part of building and electrical inspectors and, in some cases, the lack of an identified set of requirements on which to evaluate the system. This lack of established requirements applies primarily to small wind systems. Local governments should ensure that their building and electrical inspectors become familiar with distributed renewable energy systems as part of their standard training and continuing education requirements. If such training is not available through the standard building inspector certification bodies, then inspectors could attend training sessions offered to solar installers, such as the certification and continuing education programs offered by the North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners. Inspectors with the city of San Jose, Calif., for example, actively participate in PV training programs held by a local chapter of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW).87 One city inspector reported having attended "six to eight" PV training sessions in approximately five years.88 RECOMMENDATION 2-C: PROVIDE TRAINING TO EDUCATE BUILDING AND ELECTRICAL INSPECTORS ABOUT PV TECHNOLOGY AND INSTALLATIONS. Local governments can also take advantage of FSEC's "PV System Design Review and Approval" process and the "Inspector Guidelines for PV Systems" prepared by Brooks Engineering for the Pace University Law School Energy Project.89 These guidelines are good examples of how to establish a uniform permitting 50 NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES process that follows a set of best practices that ensure public safety and provide a standard curriculum for helping inspectors become more prepared to review the installation of distributed PV systems. RETAP'S INSPECTOR GUIDELINES FOR PV SYSTEMS REPORT The "Inspector Guidelines for PV Systems" report was prepared by Brooks Engineering for the Renewable Energy Technology Analysis Project [RETAP) of the Pace University Law School Energy Project. The report, funded by the U.s. Department of Energy, was published in 2006. These guidelines were developed to provide a framework for permitting and inspection of PV systems, assist local building code officials in evaluating and inspecting PV systems, and clarify installa- tion requirements for PV system installers. They offer a common set of informational requirements needed to demonstrate satisfaction of electrical and building code standards, and thus may help to reduce the time, cost and uncertainty of local permitting processes. The guidelines were drawn from the first-hand experience of many PV installers and inspectors throughout California and the rest of the nation. California was used for much of the data gathering because the high number of PV systems in that state has resulted in a signifi- cant knowledge base among both PV installers and inspectors. The guidelines are divided into two sections to reflect the two stages of the permitting process: the plan check stage, in which the information is reviewed for accuracy and completeness; and the field inspection stage, in which the installation is reviewed for compliance with the approved plans. The overall objective of the guidelines is to facilitate the installation of safe PV systems at a minimum of cost and effort for the inspector and the installer. According to these guidelines, all PV systems installed for residential or commercial use should include proper documen- tation, proper structural attachments and proper wiring methods. Those failing to meet these basic requirements are a detriment to the long-term health and safety of the PV industry. While some code variations may be appropriate to reflect local conditions, such as wind loading or seismic concerns, most of the guidelines are intended to be applicable for all local jurisdictions. ~.... 4.1.3 Flat Permit Fees and Fee Exemotions While even the highest of permit fees still represent a small percentage of the overall cost of a PV installation, they can serve to discourage investment in these technologies. Of particular concern is the use of "valuation-based fees," TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER 51 which calculate the cost of the permit as a percentage of the pre-rebate cost of the system. This type of fee structure discourages homeowners and small businesses from investing in larger systems by increasing the cost of the fees charged for such systems. To a large extent, the size of the proposed installation does not affect the complexity or time required for the inspection (i.e., it is no more difficult to inspect a 10-kW system than a 1-kW system], so the extra permit fee for a larger PV system is not necessary. This report recommends a three-tiered fee structure involving a single. low-cost flat fee for PV systems on single-family homes and appropriately priced flat fees for multi-family and commercial PV systems. This fee structure should be sufficient to cover the variation in inspection costs associated with different-sized PV systems and would remove the disincentive for larger systems that comes with a valuation- based fee system. The use of certified PV equipment, standardized inspection criteria, and inspector training should further lower inspection costs for local permitting authorities, further justifying a flat-fee approach. RECOMMENDATION 3: ADOPT FLAT PERMIT FEES OR FEE WAIVERS FOR PV AND SMALL WIND SYSTEMS. Additionally, some localities have chosen to waive permit fees altogether for PV and other forms of distributed renewable energy. This sends a powerful symbolic message that the local government supports these technologies and the social and environmental benefits that they bring to the community. Some municipalities that have waived permit fees for PV installations include Tucson, Ariz., San Diego, Calif. and Fairfax, Calif.90 4.1.4 Financial Incentives for Developers and Homeowners While not technically a tactic to address permitting barriers, it is worth mentioning here that a growing number of local governments are offering financial incentives to encourage the increased use of PV and other distributed renewable energy sources, including rebates (Austin, TX, among other municipalities), electricity generation credits (Montgomery County, Md.), property tax credits or exemptions, zero-interest loans and other measures to help reduce the up-front costs of distributed renewable energy systems. This is in addition to the wide range of tax credits, tax exemptions, and other financial incentives offered by the federal government, state governments, and utilities. Some municipalities also offer density bonuses or other incentives to encourage developers to include PVand/ or energy efficient design in new construction. Many of these incentive programs are described in the "Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy," a Web site maintained by the North Carolina Solar Center at North Carolina State University (see examples in Appendix FJ. 4.2 LOCAL GOVERNMENT POLICIES FOR SMALL WIND Small wind energy systems face many of the same permitting obstacles that have been identified for PV, such as height limitations and other regulatory barriers, 52 NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES complex permitting procedures and a lack of familiarity with the technology on the part of building and electrical inspectors. The recommended approach to resolving these issues for small wind turbines is quite different, as they involve a much different set of impacts and a different permitting context. In many cases the greatest obstacle to small wind turbines is not overly burdensome permitting requirements, but rather the lack of any applicable planning and permitting guidelines. This lack of clear requirements means that proposed small wind turbines often face the same permitting process as would be applied to large. commercial-scale wind farms. Therefore, the recommendations focus on establishing guidelines that are appropriate to the scale of impacts associated with small wind energy systems. The vast majority of small wind turbines are installed in rural areas, and the recommendations are therefore geared towards permitting these installations in a rural context (i.e., under the jurisdiction of a county or a rural town government]. While there is increasing interest in developing small wind in urban areas, including roof-top systems, the technology for urban small wind energy systems is still evolving. The impacts of these systems are not fully understood, and therefore appropriate permitting procedures cannot yet be determined. 4.2.1 Comprehensive Planninq for Small Wind Most local governments maintain a comprehensive plan which describes existing conditions within the community as well as goals and objectives for the future of the community along with action items or strategies to achieve those goals, In some states, such as Oregon, these comprehensive plans carry the weight of law, and the jurisdiction must ensure that its day-to-day planning and permitting decisions are consistent with the comprehensive plan. A local government can support wind energy by identifying it as a priority in the comprehensive plan. Ideally, the plan would describe the community's wind energy resources, discuss potential advantages and disadvantages of wind energy development and identify the areas within the jurisdiction that are best suited for wind energy systems as well as those in which wind energy development may conflict with surrounding land uses. This work paves the way for approval of small wind turbines as a permitted use and possible adoption of a Wind Energy Overlay Zone. RECOMMENDATION ,= INCORPORATE INFORMATION ABOUT WIND ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES INTO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Municipalities may be tempted to use publicly available wind resource maps, such as those produced by AWEA, to determine if there are appropriate areas for wind energy development in their jurisdictions; however, most large-scale maps do not provide the level of specificity needed for siting small wind turbines. TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER 53 The quality of the wind resource must be measured on a case-by-case basis for small wind turbines, as a specific site can have a high quality resource even if the surrounding area is shown on these maps as having moderate or poor wind resources. In some cases, smaller-scale, localized wind resource maps may be available, such as that shown in Figure 5, which may be useful in identifying areas that are ideal for wind energy development. FIGURE 5 I Wind Resource Map for Watauga County, N,C. 25 10 Miles I Source: North Carolina Energy Center Small Wind Initiative. All of the wind energy experts interviewed for this report identified the lack of clearly defined standards or permitting requirements as a major obstacle for small wind turbines. Identifying these criteria is important so that local governments can establish consistent, streamlined methods for approving or rejecting proposed small wind turbines. Such methods are further described in the following sections. 4.2.2 Appropriate Review Processes and Defined Review Criteria Local governments serving rural areas should establish small wind turbines as permitted uses, with clear permitting procedures and well-defined criteria by which proposed installations will be evaluated. This can be accomplished by 54 NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES revising the applicable sections of specific zoning designations [e.g., identifying small wind systems as an allowed use within a rural residential zone], or by adopting a stand-alone small wind ordinance. RECOMMENDATION 5: ESTABLISH SMALL WIND TURBINES AS PERMITTED USES WITH APPROPRIATE DESIGN GUIDELINES, PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, AND REVIEW PROCESSES. It is recommended that local governments identify areas in their jurisdictions that may not be appropriate for small wind turbines, bearing in mind that the potential impacts of these systems are much smaller than those associated with commercial-scale wind farms. Municipalities may consider a number of factors when identifying these areas, including locations of endangered bird and bat habitat, density of existing or planned development and the location of sensitive land uses. Small wind systems should be designated as conditional uses in those areas, allowing proposed systems to be evaluated on a case-by- case basis. These evaluations should be based upon information available in the comprehensive plan, and should not require property owners or small wind turbine developers to prepare site-specific wildlife assessments or other highly detailed impact studies. RECOMMENDATION 5-A: IDENTIFY AREAS WITHIN JURISDICTIONS WHERE SMALL WIND TURBINES MAY CONFLICT WITH SURROUNDING LAND USES. Once the areas of potential conflict have been identified, small wind turbines should be designated as permitted uses in all other areas of the jurisdiction. This would significantly ease the permitting process for small wind turbines by avoiding the time and cost obstacles associated with seeking a conditional use permit. RECOMMENDATION 5-8: IDENTIFY SMALL WIND TURBINES AS CONDITIONAL OR SPECIAL USES IN AREAS OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT AND AS PERMITTED USES IN ALL OTHER AREAS OF THE JURISDICTION. Designating small wind turbines as permitted uses does not mean that their potential impacts must be ignored. Appropriate design guidelines and performance standards can be established to mitigate potential impacts. The NYSERDA Wind Energy Toolkit recommends that small wind ordinances or zoning regulations should address the following objectives: "ensuring public TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER 55 safety, identifying and minimizing on- and off-site impacts, promoting good land use practice, expressing local preferences, informing and involving the public and providing legal defensibility." This will establish a streamlined review process that is fair to wind developers, the public, and the local government.91 AWEA suggests that a well-designed zoning ordinance should define "small wind energy systems" and clearly spell out the relevant restrictions on: . Maximum rated capacity; . Height limits; . Setbacks; . Allowable noise levels; and . Required compliance with various standards such as the UBC, NEC and FAA regulations.92 Restrictions on maximum rated capacity and turbine height are appropriate to ensure that small wind systems are indeed "small," but they should not be so restrictive as to disallow modern residential-scale systems. AWEA defines small wind systems as those that have a maximum rated capacity of 100 kWand that are intended to reduce on-site consumption of utility power. However, the average capacity of residential scale systems is much smaller, around 10 kW. RECOMMENDATION 5-C: ESTABLISH LIMITATIONS ON MAXIMUM RATED CAPACITY AND TURBINE HEIGHT THAT ARE UNAMBIGUOUS AND ARE SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW MODERN RESIDENTIAL-SCALE SMALL WIND TURBINES. When establishing height restrictions, it is important to note that turbine height has a direct impact on the generating capacity of the system, and thus its economic viability, as higher turbines can access more powerful and consistent winds. In addition, taller towers reduce sound impacts on surrounding properties.93 A forthcoming AWEA report, "In the Public Interest: How and Why to Zone for Small Wind Systems," recommends that tower height should be constrained by sound and setback requirements rather than a specific height limitation. If a tower height limitation is to be used, AWEA recommends a maximum of 80 feet. (not including rotor blades) for properties of less than one acre and no height limitation for properties larger than one acre, except when FAA regulations apply.94 An alternative would be to establish a maximum height of 120 feet for properties larger than one acre, as that is the greatest tower height typically associated with small systems. The NYSERDA recommendations include specifying "a minimum height for the blade tips above ground level," such as 15 to 30 feet, thus allowing most small wind turbines while maintaining the necessary safety precautions on the ground.95 56 NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES Setback requirements can mitigate visual and sound impacts by establishing a minimum distance between the proposed turbine and nearby buildings, property lines, and roads. Setbacks for wind turbines are often defined in terms of the turbine height, such as a minimum distance of 1.5 times the turbine height. Currituck County, N.C., employs a combination of minimum setbacks from neighboring property lines (the height of the turbine!. occupied structures on neighboring properties (1.5 times the turbine height!. public or private rights-of-way (1.5 times the turbine height) and major highways (2.5 times the turbine height).96 RECOMMENDATION 5-D: ESTABLISH APPROPRIATE SETBACKS, MEASURED IN TERMS OF THE TURBINE HEIGHT AND DISTANCE FROM THE NEAREST PROPERTY LINE. Setback requirements are necessary to ensure public safety, but to avoid confusion it is important to clarify if "turbine height" refers to the top ofthe tower or the tip of the rotor blades at their highest point. The NYSERDA Wind Energy Toolkit includes some recommendations for appropriate setback requirements: . Allow for reduced setbacks when possible without jeopardizing aesthetic, noise or safety considerations. ., Measure noise impacts at property lines, rather than at the location of nearby uses, and establish setbacks accordingly to prevent unreasonable noise impacts for possible future uses on adjacent parcels. . Balance the "intended protective effect" of setbacks with the economic needs of potential wind projects, as very large setbacks intended for maximum impact mitigation could render a site largely unusable for wind turbines.97 Sound impacts are perhaps best regulated with a performance-based approach, i.e., allowing systems that do not exceed a certain decibel level. AWEA recommends a sound limitation of 55 dBA in residential districts and 60 dBA in non-residential districts, measured at the property line.98 RECOMMENDATION 5-E: ESTABLISH PERFORMANCE- BASED SOUND STANDARDS BASED ON A MAXIMUM DECIBEL READING OF 55-60 DBA MEASURED AT THE NEAREST PROPERTY LINE. Another approach to regulating small wind turbines would be to prepare a list of certified turbine models. There is no established certification body at this time, TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER 57 but the Small Wind Certification Council [SWCC) is working on a certification system to be in place by 2009. This system will certify small wind turbines that meet certain sound, reliability, performance and safety standards.99 Once the SWCC program is in place, municipalities can establish streamlined requirements for certified models, as their safety and reliability can be more easily estimated, as well as their sound, visual and other impacts. RECOMMENDATION 5-F: STREAMLINE PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL WIND TURBINE EQUIPMENT MEETING SMALL WIND CERTIFICATION COUNCIL REQUIREMENTS. While all of the recommendations described in this section would help to establish appropriate review procedures and design guidelines for small wind turbines, approving these systems may still be difficult if local building and electrical inspectors are unfamiliar with wind energy technology. Indeed, this lack of familiarity was cited by many of the experts on small wind energy systems interviewed for this report. Therefore, training local inspectors in these technologies is highly recommended. RECOMMENDATION 5-G: PROVIDE TRAINING TO EDUCATE BUILDING AND ELECTRICAL INSPEC- TORS ABOUT SMALL WIND TECHNOLOGY AND INSTALLATIONS. 4.2.3 Model Small Wind Ordinances A number of counties in California have adopted small wind permitting programs as required by State Law AB 1207, approved in 2001. However, these programs are for permitting small wind systems with a conditional use permit. The "Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy" identifies a handful of counties that have adopted permitting regulations similar to those recommended in this report, with small wind systems identified as a permitted use with well-defined standards and regulations. The design and performance standards required for small wind turbines in these counties are shown in Figure 6, along with the standards recommended in the AWEA model ordinance. Camden and Currituck Counties, two adjacent jurisdictions in the northeast corner of North Carolina, adopted similar small wind ordinances in late 2007 and early 2008, respectively. The Camden County ordinance allows small wind turbines as permitted uses in its Light Industrial (1-1 I. Heavy Industrial (1-2) and General Use (GUD) zones. The GUD zone allows very low-density residential development and agricultural uses. Small wind turbines require a special use permit (similarto a conditional use permit) to be placed in any of the county's three primary residential zones. The Currituck County ordinance is more generous, identifying small wind systems as permitted uses in all zoning districts. 58 NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES FIGURE 6 I Small Wind Ordinance Design and Performance Standards Camden, 150 feet (ti p of 20 kW 1-1.5 None None N.C. rotor blade] times turbine height Currituck, 120 feet (ti p of 25 kW 1-2.5 None 20,000 N.C. rotor blade] times square turbine feet height Watauga, 135 feet (tip of 20 kW 1-1.5 None None N.C. rotor blade] times turbine height Rockingham, 80 feet None 1-1.5 60 dBA at 0.5 acre Va. [tower!, or times nearest no limit on turbine property parcels> 1 height line acre AWEA model 80 feet 100 kW 10 feet 60 dBA at None (tower! from nearest property inhabited line (guy dwelling wires] Sources: Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy; American Wind Energy Association. Watauga County, located in the mountainous western portion of the state, also allows small wind turbines as permitted uses throughout the county. All three ordinances [those adopted by Camden, Currituck and Watauga Counties) include a separate, more rigorous set of requirements for larger wind turbines. The Watauga County ordinance was prepared by the Appalachian State University Energy Center's Small Wind Initiative, which also is developing a model wind energy ordinance for counties across North Carolina, that identifies small wind turbines as a permitted use in all agricultural, residential, commercial, and industriaVmanufacturing zones.lOO The Virginia Wind Energy Collaborative [VWEC) has drafted small wind energy ordinances for several counties in that state. The first of these ordinances was adopted by Rockingham County in 2004. Dr. Jonathan Miles, of VWEC, reports that many Virginia counties have indicated they would prefer to use a conditional or special use permitting process for small wind energy systems. TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER 59 Therefore the VWEC has developed a model ordinance that is a suitable alternative in those circumstances. The Rockingham County ordinance, for example, allows small wind systems in the county's agricultural zones, but requires a special use permit application and a public hearing before the Rockingham County Board of Supervisors.101 4.2.4 Wind Enerqy Overlay Zones An alternative approach to removing permitting barriers for small wind energy systems is adoption of a wind energy overlay zone that establishes a streamlined review process for wind energy facilities in areas identified as suitable for wind energy development. The new requirements of the overlay zone would supersede those of the underlying "base" zone, as they apply to wind energy facilities, but the base zone requirements would remain in place for all other uses. Areas not in the overlay zone would retain the more stringent approval procedures identified in their base zoning requirements. RECOMMENDATION 5-H: AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO RECOMMENDATIONS 5-A AND 5-B, CON- SIDER ADOPTING A WIND ENERGY OVERLAY ZONE THAT IDENTIFIES APPROPRIATE AREAS FOR WIND ENERGY USE, DESIGNATES SMALL WIND TURBINES AS PERMITTED USES, AND ESTABLISHES APPROPRIATE DESIGN GUIDE- LINES AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. The overlay zone approach differs from the recommendations described above, as it establishes a streamlined permitting process only in designated areas. Therefore, it is important to note that an overlay zone, if not properly written, could have the unintended effect of preventing or discouraging small wind systems outside of the overlay zone. To prevent this unintended consequence the zone should cover a large area, including all parts of the jurisdiction that are appropriate for wind energy development. In addition, a CUP process or other mechanism should be maintained for approving small wind turbines outside of the overlay zone. Klickitat County, Wash. has a Renewable Energy Overlay Zone illustrated in Figure 7 that permits small turbines outright and eases the permitting process for larger projects. County planners created the overlay zone by determining the most appropriate areas for wind energy development, taking into consideration the local wind resources, sound mitigation, avian corridors, visual impact, transportation, land values and other important impacts that are typically considered by zoning authorities. The resulting overlay zone covers the vast majority of the County, excluding primarily urbanized areas and land within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. 60 NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES FIGURE 7 I Klickitat County Renewable Energy Overlay Zone G .. '''~:'.t'~''\1 A, -\ .\)~; .1.:(' .~ ~ _ ~ '. 'l;'~' ~.. 1 , r Legend COUNTY ROADS N STATE HIGHWAYS + County Boundary 10 10 Miles l1li Energy Overlay Zone Source: Klickitat County Planning Department. April 2008. Prior to County adoption of the overlay zone, all small wind projects were required to obtain a conditional use permit.102 Small wind systems, defined by the County as turbines no taller than 120 feet and generating no more than 25 kW of power, are now permitted as an allowed use throughout the overlay zone. The overlay zone includes detailed mitigation requirements for commercial-scale wind systems. Although small wind turbines are exempted from those requirements, the county suggests that the mitigation measures listed for larger systems be used as a guide to reduce the impacts of small wind turbine installations. 4.3 STATE POLICIES FOR DISTRIBUTED RENEWABLE ENERGY This report has primarily focused on local government planning and permitting barriers to distributed renewable energy systems and policies municipalities can adopt to remove those barriers. This final set of recommendations identifies three ways in which state governments can help to overcome those barriers. 4,3.1 Statewide Interconnection and Traininq Standards States can ease distributed renewable energy permitting processes for their localities by establishing statewide interconnection standards for renewable energy equipment and by conducting training and certification programs to familiarize local building and electrical inspectors with those technologies. Such statewide standards and programs would also help to mitigate the problem of inconsistent permitting requirements and understandings of distributed renewable energy systems across jurisdictions, described primarily in Section 2.3. TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER 61 RECOMMENDATION 6: EASE PERMITTING PROCESSES BY ESTABLISHING STATEWIDE INTERCONNECTION STANDARDS AND EDUCATING BUILDING AND ELECTRICAL INSPECTORS ABOUT PROPER INSTALLATION PROCEDURES FOR DISTRIBUTED RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS. The FSEC provides one example of a statewide certification program. The FSEC has been mandated by state statute to set standards, conduct tests and evaluations, and certify solar energy systems and equipment manufactured or sold in the state of Florida.103 The FSEC's "Standardized Procedures for Photovoltaic System Design Review and Approval" identify how PV systems are certified in Florida. RECOMMENDATION 6-A: ESTABLISH STATEWIDE PV INTERCONNECTION STANDARDS THAT USE IEEE 1547, UL 1741, AND THE NEC. In establishing training and certification programs, states should draw on existing institutions and other educational providers who offer renewable energy and code compliance courses. Ideally, the courses should be offered by any accredited university, college, community college, or vocational-technical institute; or offered by any joint apprenticeship and training committee, such as the National Joint Apprenticeship & Training Committee (NJATC) and IBEW; or approved by the state contractor licensing boards; or offered by a training program accredited by the Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC) to the Institute for Sustainable Power Quality (ISPQ) Standards or similar accrediting body. The course should include at least six hours of instruction and offer continuing education credits. Its purpose should be for the inspectors to better understand the NEC requirements for designing and installing PV systems. Participants should be provided with an intensive overview of the codes and standards that govern small-scale, solar electrical generation. RECOMMENDATION 6-8: ESTABLISH STATEWIDE TRAINING AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS FOR BUILDING AND ELECTRICAL INSPECTORS ABOUT PV TECHNOLOGY AND INSTALLATIONS. 4.3.2 Preemption of Local Permittinq Authoritv Preemption, in the context of land use and planning, is when a higher legislative authority, such as a state legislature or federal government, overrides home rule in order to implement its preferred form of land use policy. Preemption from the state or federal level can force the hand of local governments to develop efficient 62 NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES THE FLORIDA SOLAR ENERGY CENTER The Florida Solar Energy Center [FSEC] at the University of Central Florida tests and evaluates all solar thermal and PV systems manufactured or sold in the state. State law requires FSEC to certify PV module power ratings and approve PV system designs that are manufactured or sold in the state. This helps those building and electrical inspectors who may not have sufficient training and experience in the specifics of PV systems, thus greatly expediting the permitting process. In addition, the FSEC sponsors a technical design review program as a precursor to expedited permitting by building and electrical inspectors. This "Procedures for Photovoltaic System Design Review and Approval" program takes place prior to seeking formal permitting approval. It greatly facilitates the standard review processes for electrical and/or building permits, or in many cases may be used "in lieu" of standard permitting at local authorities' discretion. It primarily aids the electrical permitting process, but also aids the building permit process. The success of FSEC's PV system design review and approval process in expediting permitting has motivated some counties in New Jersey to seek a design and review process similar to that of the FSEC, and some other states are considering adopting the program. The FSEC also provides training and workshops for PV system installers, inspectors and energy professionals several times a year. Additional information is available at www.fsec.ucf.edu under the heading "Testing and Certification Program." permitting processes and reasonable review criteria for distributed renewable energy systems. RECOMMENDATION 7: ADOPT LEGISLATION AT THE STATE LEVEL MANDATING CONSISTENT AND APPROPRIATE PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR DISTRIBUTED RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS. A precedent for federal preemption of local planning and permitting can be found in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which included partial federal preemption of home rule by limiting the authority of local jurisdictions to regulate installation of cell phone antennas and towers. For example, the act precludes local restrictions that would have the effect of limiting wireless service and TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER 63 requires local authorities to act on applications for the siting of cell towers within a reasonable period of time.104 Several state governments have utilized the preemption option to prevent unreasonable restrictions on distributed renewable energy installations. In Wisconsin, for example, the state passed a preemption statute in 1993 protecting the rights of landowners to install solar and wind energy systems on their property. Wisconsin statute 66.0401 states: "No county, city, town or village may place any restriction, either directly or in effect, on the installation or use of a solar energy system...or a wind energy system...unless the restriction satisfies one of the following conditions: (a) Serves to preserve or protect public health or safety. (b) Does not significantly increase the cost of the system or significantly decrease its efficiency. (c) Allows for an alternative system of comparable cost and efficiency."105 RECOMMENDATION 7-A: ADOPT LEGISLATION REQUIRING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO ESTABLISH TIME-EFFICIENT PERMITTING PROCESSES AND REASONABLE REVIEW CRITERIA FOR DISTRIBUTED RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS. One unique aspect of Wisconsin's statute is that it places the burden of proving that an installation presents health or safety concerns on the zoning authority rather than requiring that the applicant prove that such concerns do not exist, as is the case with most proposed distributed renewable energy systems in other states. Another example of preemption comes from New Hampshire, which passed a law in 2008 prohibiting municipalities in that state from holding small wind turbines to the same building height standards that apply to buildings.106 In 2001, California passed law AS 1207 authorizing local zoning jurisdictions to establish processes to issue conditional use permits for small wind systems. The state law set specific limits to local regulation of property size, tower height, setback, sound, technical submissions and turbine certification. In the event that a local jurisdiction does not create such an ordinance, the state law established small wind systems as a permitted use by right as long as the installed systems are compliant with certain conditions enumerated in the statute. 64 NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES The California law did not require the direct abdication of home rule. Rather it required local jurisdictions to exercise their authority to establish regulations [within certain parameters] specific to the jurisdictions and provided redress to landowners in the event that they did not. This "partial" preemption of home rule maintains some deference to local zoning authority while ensuring that the authority is used in a manner consistent with the public interest as determined by state law. California has also exercised preemption to prevent unreasonable design review requirements for PV. The California Solar Rights Act of 2005 prohibits permitting authorities from restricting PV systems based on aesthetic considerations. As a result of this act California Government Code, Section 65850.5(a) now states: "It is the intent of the Legislature that local agencies not adopt ordinances that create unreasonable barriers to the installation of solar energy systems, including, but not limited to, design review for aesthetic purposes... "107 While it is likely that state or federal preemption for distributed renewable energy permitting would be met with strong political resistance, it is clear that this approach could help remove the local zoning and permitting obstacles facing distributed renewable energy systems. 4.3.3 Solar Riqhts Laws As described in Section 2.5, 10 states have laws preventing homeowner or community associations from enforcing private covenant restrictions that prohibit or unreasonably restrict solar energy use within planned communities, including Arizona; California; Colorado; Florida; Hawaii; Iowa; Massachusetts; Nevada; Utah; and Wisconsin; however, these laws are routinely violated, as most community associations seem unaware that the restrictions are illegal and most homeowners are unwilling to defy community associations that reject installations on these grounds. In fact, the states in which these covenant restrictions are considered most problematic for PV (Arizona and Florida) are states in which such restrictions are against state law, but the laws are not adequately enforced. RECOMMENDATION 7-B: ADOPT "SOLAR RIGHTS" LEGISLATION BANNING PRIVATE COVENANT RESTRICTIONS ON DISTRIBUTED RENEWABLE EN ERGY SYSTEMS. It is recommended that all states pass "solar rights" laws banning these private restrictions. States should develop monitoring and enforcement procedures to ensure the effectiveness of these laws, as well as penalties that can be applied TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER 65 to community associations that do not comply. They should also work closely with the Community Associations Institute (CAli and its state, regional and local chapters to better educate community associations about their obligations under the law and about the many social and environmental benefits of distributed renewable energy. RECOMMENDATION 7-C: CREATE ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES AND PENALTIES FOR NON- COMPLIANCE WITH SOLAR RIGHTS LAWS AND DEVELOP AN EDUCATION PROGRAM TO INFORM HOMEOWNERS OF THEIR RIGHTS AND COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS OF THEIR OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE LAW. In the absence of state legislation. prohibitive covenant restrictions can be banned at the local government level. At least one community, Chapel Hill, N.C., has adopted a land use ordinance that prohibits "covenants or other conditions of sale that restrict or prohibit the use, installation or maintenance of solar energy collection devices." 4,4 CONCLUSIONS This report describes a number of issues and concerns related to planning and permitting for distributed renewable energy systems, as identified by renewable energy installers, advocates, customers and professionals in the field. Combining the issues identified for solar and wind technologies, a common theme emerges: The lack of a clear understanding or awareness on the part of local governments about the impacts of distributed renewable energy systems, and the appropriate mechanisms for evaluating them, results in a large disparity in permitting requirements across jurisdictions and inhibits the use of these technologies from becoming more widespread. THE LACK OF A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING ON THE PART OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ABOUT THE IMPACTS OF DISTRIBUTED RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS RESULTS IN A LARGE DISPARITY IN PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. The PV permitting process can be as simple as an over-the-counter electrical permit application utilizing a one-page checklist form (e.g., San Jose, Calif.). In contrast, in other municipalities a similarly sized system would require separate applications for electrical, building, and design review permits, each requiring 66 NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES detailed site plans and other complicated paperwork. This variation in permitting processes reflects a lack of shared understanding about the safety, reliability, and aesthetics of PV systems. Small wind energy systems also suffer from this lack of understanding or awareness, but for this technology the problem manifests itself in a different way. Because PV systems are most often integrated into a home or other building, their obstacles are, for the most part, limited to building and electrical permit requirements. As stand-alone structures, small wind systems must also be permitted as a separate "use" on the property. This brings additional permitting issues if small wind turbines are not explicitly identified as an allowed or permitted use in the applicable zoning district. In some cases small wind turbines are identified as conditional uses, and must go through a rigorous conditional use permit application, but in many cases the applicable permitting requirements are simply not defined. This report recommends a number of ways in which local governments, and to a lesser extent, state governments, can remove planning and permitting barriers and facilitate more widespread use of distributed renewable energy technologies; however, these recommendations will not take hold if local governments remain unaware of the obstacles created by their existing requirements and the opportunities available to streamline and expedite their permitting of distributed renewable energy systems without compromising the public interest. THESE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL NOT TAKE HOLD IF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS REMAIN UNAWARE OF THE OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE TO STREAMLINE AND EXPEDITE THEIR PERMITTING OF DISTRIBUTED RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS. This report seeks to cast light on the issue, but there is much more work to be done. Organizations such as the APA and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) have a variety of programs about sustainability and other environmental issues, but have not tackled in any meaningful way the issue of distributed renewable energy permitting. While APA has published a "Policy Guide on Energy" and a "Policy Guide on Planning and Climate Change," both of which are quoted as part of the justification for this report, much of the organization's emphasis seems to be on the energy implications of long-range land use decisions, as shown on the "Planning and Climate Change: Mitigation and Clean Energy Strategies" page of the APA Web site: TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER 67 "Planners can encourage efficient energy use, diversification of energy supply, and emissions reductions through their influence over the built and natural environments - including both where and how we build, and where and how we preserve open spaces."108 While the APA's objectives in this area are laudable, attention should also be given to the barriers that local government planning and permitting regulations can place on distributed renewable energy systems and the role that planners can have in removing these barriers and encouraging clean, renewable energy use for our nation's future. Publicizing this issue in a "Planners Advisory Service" report is recommended, and it is hoped that these concerns will be further studied in the APA's on-going research program with the Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) on planning strategies for mitigating climate change and encouraging the use of clean energy. Renewable energy industry organizations such as ASES, the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) and AWEA, as well as advocacy groups such as The Vote Solar Initiative, have a role to play in addressing this issue. Both ASES and AWEA have published an array of reports and fact sheets about permitting issues, and the Solar America Board for Codes and Standards (Solar ABCs) is developing model codes for PV permitting, solar rights and wind loading requirements fqr PV systems. This report recommends that these and other renewable energy organizations work closely with APA, or directly with local governments (if they are not already], to advocate for the necessary changes to local permitting processes. An important component to publicizing this issue is drawing attention to those municipalities that have already made great strides in removing planning and permitting barriers to distributed renewable energy. The city of San Jose, Calif., and other cities and towns that have developed streamlined permitting processes for PV systems, should be continually recognized by the APA, ASES and other organizations for their accomplishments. Similarly, the APA and AWEA should recognize the innovative approaches that Klickitat County Wash, Currituck County N.C. and other jurisdictions have taken to plan for small wind energy systems and develop appropriate processes for permitting them. This report has identified the primary permitting barriers to small-scale PV and wind energy systems, and has described many actions that state and local governments can take to remove these barriers. Further work must be done to call attention to these issues and assist local and state governments in implementing these recommendations. This is one of the many important steps that must be taken to facilitate this nation's transition to a future that is powered by safe, secure and clean renewable energy. 68 NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES ............... END NOTES -............................................................................................................................ "Mayors Climate Protection Center, U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement," http://www.usmayors.org/climateprotection/agreement.htm . 2 "North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners," http://www.nabcep.org/index.cfm. 3 "Solar Rating and Certification Corporation," http://www.solar-raling.org. 4 "Sandia Researchers Apply Energy Surety Model to Military Bases," Sandia National Laboratories News Releases, 10 Jul. 2006, http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2006/microgrid.html. 5 Erik Schelzig, "Zoning Rules Thwart Gore's Solar Dreams," Boston Herald, 20 Mar. 2007, http://www.boston.com/news/sci ence/a rticles/200 7 /03/20/townJu les_thwa rt_g 0 res_so la r _pla ns/. 6 "Gore gets OK to go Solar at Tenn. Home," MSNBC, 18 Apr. 2007, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/1817 4408/. 7 "Policy Guide on Energy," American Plan nino Association, 25 Apr. 2004, http://www.planning.org/policyguides/energy.htm . 8 Joel B. Stronberg, "Common Sense: Making the Transition to a Sustainable Energy Economy," American Solar Eneroy Society lASES) Policy Committee, May 2005, p.26, http://www.ases.org/p rog ra ms/poli cy/ com mon_se nse. pdf. 9 "Inspector Guidelines for PV Systems," Renewable Eneroy Technolooy Analysis of the Pace University Law School Eneroy Proiect, Mar. 2006, http://www.irecusa.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ NationalOutreach Pu bs/I nspectorGuidelines-Version2.1.pdf. Brien Sipe, "Renewable Energy System Permit Fees in Oregon," Eneroy Trust of Oreoon, 20 Jul. 2006, p.12, http://www.energytrust.org/library/reports/0609 _SolarPermitFees. pdf. Helen O'Shea, "Vote Solar White Paper on Solar Permit Fees," 2007, http://voteso la r. 0 rg/li n ked-docs/sola r -pe rm itJeport. pdf. 12 Carl Mills and Kurt Newick, "Solar Electric Permit Fees in Northern California: A Comparative Study," 31 Mar. 2008, pp.9-10, http://lomaprieta.sierraclub.org/global_warming/pv_permit_study.htm. 13 "NFPA 70," National Fire Protection Association 2008 edition, http://www. nfpa .org/a bo utthecodes/ About TheCodes.asp ?DocN um= 70. 14 "IEEE 1547: Standard for Interconnecting Distributed Resources with Electric Power Systems," Institute of Electrical and Electronics Enoineers, http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/scc21/1547/1547jndex.html. 15 "UL 1741 Inverters, Converters, Controllers and Interconnection System Equipment for Use With Distributed Energy Resources," Underwriters Laboratory, http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/scopes/scopes.asp?fn= 1741.html. 16 See note 12, pp.9-10. 17 Kurt Newick, Horizon Eneroy Systems, Personal interview. 27 Jul. 2007. 18 "Creating a Solar Center of Excellence White Paper," SolarTech, Jun. 2007. http://www.so lartec h.o rg/STWP. pdf. 19 Ibid. 20 21 22 1 10 11 See note 12, p.9. See note 17. City of San Jose Building Division, Solar Hot Water Heaters & Photovoltaic Systems, Buildino Division Informational Handout [San Jose, Calif.], 30 Oct. 2007, http://www.sanjoseca.gov/building/PD FHandouts/1-1 OSolar.pdf. 70 NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES ................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Marcelle S. Fischler, ''When Solar Power Is Short on Charm," New York Times, 25 Nov. 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007 /11 /25/nyregion/nyregionspecia l2/25peopleli.html; Robert Syverson, Personal Interview, 21 Apr. 2008. 24 Robert Syverson, "Letter to the Editor," The Gateway [Bellerose. NY], 9 Apr. 2008. 25 Dick Wanderscheid, "Solar Pioneers: Ashland Solar Pioneer Program," city of Ashland Community Development Conservation Proqram Web paqe [Ashland. Ore.], http://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?Navl D= 1534. 26 City of Ashland Conservation Program, Other Resource Savinq Proqrams [Ashland. Ore.], http://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?Navl D= 1366. 27 See note 12. 28 See note 12, p.9. 29 "Solar Energy in Santa Barbara County: The Next Steps for Removing Barriers," Santa Barbara County Million Solar Roofs Partnership, Jan. 2006, http://www.communityenvironmentalcouncil.org/ Prog ra ms/EP /PD F siMS R%20Sola r%20 Ba rrie rs%20 FI NAL. pdt. 30 See note 12, pp.17-18. 31 "Solar Panel Permitting Fee White Paper," Utility Consumers' Action Network (UCANl, 21 Nov. 2006, http://www. u ca n.o rg/ ene rgy/ electri city/so la r _pa ne l_perm itti ng_fee_ wh ite_pa pe r. 32 See note 17. 33 See note 17. 34 See note 18. 35 "Photovoltaics! - Attaching to the Electric Grid," Texas Solar Enerqy Society, http://www.txses.org/PVg rid. ph p. 36 See note 12. 37 See note 12. 38 See note 12, pp.15-16. 39 See note 7. 40 Thomas Starrs, et al., "Bringing Solar Energy to the Planned Community: A Handbook on Rooftop Solar Systems and Private Land Use Restrictions," U.S. Department of Enerqy 2000, p.13, http://sdenergy.org/uploads/Final_CC& R_Ha ndbook_1-0 1.pdf. 41 Ibid,p.13. 42 Ibid, p.7. 43 Ibid, p.7. 44 Fred Zalcman, The Pace University Law School Enerqy Proiect, Personal interview via email. 13 Jul. 2007. 45 Arizona Revised Statute Ann.~ 44-1761, as cited in Starrs 51. 46 Johnny Weiss, Solar Enerqy International, Personal interview. 26 Jul. 2007. 47 Felicity Barringer, "In Many Communities, It's Not Easy Going Green," New York Times, 7 Feb. 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/07 /us/07g reen.html ?J= 1 &oref=slogin. 48 See note 40, p.20. 49 "Factsheet: What is Small Wind?" American Wind Enerqy Association, http://www.awea .org/sma llwi nd/too lbox2/factsheet_ whaUs_sma llwi nd. ht m l. TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER 71 .............. END NOTES......................................................................................................................... ... 50 Ibid. 51 Katherine Daniels, "The Role of Government Agencies in the Approval Process," New York State EnerQY Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) Small Wind Toolkit, Oct. 2005, p.8, http://www.powe rnatu ra lly.o rg/p rog ra ms/wi nd/too lkit/16 JO leg overn me ntage nci es. pdf. 52 Ibid, p.4. 53 Ibid, p.5-6. 54 Oregon Administrative Rules 660-033-0130(5), as cited in "Community Wind: An Oregon Guidebook," Report by the Energy Trust of Oregon for Northwest Sustainable EnerQY for Economic Development, pp.41-42, http://www.energytrust.org/RR/wind/community/formsJequest.html. 55 Oregon Administrative Rules 660-006-0025(5), as cited in "Community Wind: An Oregon Guidebook," Report by the EnerQY Trust of OreQon for Northwest Sustainable EnerQY for Economic Development, pp.41-42, http://www.energytrust.org/RR/wind/community/formsJequest.html. 56 See note 54, pp.45-46. 57 See note 51, p.7. 58 See note 54, pp.40-41. 59 See note 51, p.7. 60 See note 51, p.7. 61 Gail Kinsey Hill, "New Wind Farm on Hold in the Columbia River Gorge," The OreQonian, 31 Mar. 2008, http://blog.oregon live .com/b rea ki ng n ews/2008/03/new _ wi n d_fa rm_ 0 n_ho ldj n_ th e_ c. htm l. 62 See note 51, p.8. 63 Brian Antonich, Antonich Wind Enel1lY ConsultinQ, Personal interview. 19 Jul. 2007. 64 Jonathan Miles, James Madison University. VirQinia Wind EnerQY Collaborative. Personal interview. 18 Jul. 2007. 65 "Final Report: Small Wind Systems for Virginia," Environmental Resources Trust, 31 Mar. 2005, p.23. 66 See note 63. 67 "Small Wind Toolbox," American Wind Enerqy Association, http://www.awea . 0 rg/sma llwi nd/too lbox2/zo n i ng. htm l. 68 Database of State Incentives for Renewable EnerQY, hit p:/ /www.co.currituck.nc.us/U n ifi ed - Deve lo p me n t - 0 rd i na n ce. cfm. http://www. d si re usa .org/doc u ments/I ncentives/Ca md en_wi nd_ ordi na nce. pdf. http://www.wataugacounty.org/cgi-bin/ordinances/dispord.pdf?DbID=111. 69 Database of State Incentives for Renewable EnerQY. http://nc-killdevilhills.civicplus.com/documents/ Town%20Clerk/Town%20Code/ Amendments%20to%20the%20Town%20Code/07 _16.pdf. 70 "Small Wind Energy Systems Frequently Asked Questions," American Wind EnerQY Association, http://www.awea .org/sma llwi nd/faq-9 ene ra l. ht m l. "Fact Sheet: How Much Noise Do Small Wind Systems Make?" American Wind EnerQY Association, http://www.awea . 0 rg/sma llwi nd/toolbox2/factsheet_how _m u ch_noise. htm l. 72 Ron Stimmel, American Wind EnerQY Association, Personal Interview. 7 May 2008. 73 "Fact Sheet: Do Small Wind Systems Kill Birds?" American Wind EnerQY Association, http://www.awea .org/sma llwi nd/toolbox2/factsheet_ki ll_bi rds. htm l. 74 Jennifer Grove, Northwest SEED, Personal interview. 27 Jul. 2007. 71 72 NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES ................................................................................................................................................................... 75 "Success Stories," American Wind Eneroy Association, http://wvvw.awea.o rg/sma llwi nd/ success_sto ries/success_stories_007. htm l. 76 Jim Green and Mick Sagrillo, "Zoning for Distributed Wind Power: Breaking Down Barriers," National Renewable EnerGY Laboratory, May 2005, http://wvvw.renewwisconsin.org/wind/ T oolbox- Homeowne rs/Zoni ng %20for%20 D istri buted%20Wi nd-J G ree n%20a nd%20 MSag rillo. p df. 77 "Community Based Energy Solutions," Northwest SEED, 6 Jul. 2007, http://wvvw.nwseed .org/defa u It.asp. 78 See note 74. 79 Stephen Thompson, "Backyard Powerhouses," Rural Cooperative Maoazine, Sept./Oct. 2004, http://wvvw.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/sep04/backyard.ht m. 80 See note 64. 81 See note 64. 82 See note 63. 83 See note 64. 84 "How the wind blows important to this man," The Free Lance-Star [Fredricksburo, Viroinia], 18 Jul. 2006, http://fredericksbu rg .co m/N ews/FLS/2006/072006/07182006/207093. 85 Database of State Incentives for Renewable Eneroy, http://wvvw.dsireusa.org/documents/lncentives/CA04R.ht m. 86 Database of State Incentives for Renewable Eneroy, http://wvvw.dsi re usa.o rg/li b ra ry/i nclud es/i m p leme nti ngsecto r.cfm? EE=O& R E= 1. 87 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 332, http://wvvw. i bew332.org/feat_photovolta ic. htm l. 88 Patrick Skillsky, city of San Jose Buildino Department, Personal interview. 2 Apr. 2008. 89 "Inspector Guidelines for PV Systems," Renewable Eneroy Technolooy Analysis Proiect of the Pace University Law School Eneroy Proiect, Mar. 2006, http://wvvw.irecusa.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ NationalOutreach Pubs/I nspectorGuidelines-Version2.1.pdf. 90 Database of State Incentives for Renewable Eneroy, http://wvvw.dsireusa.org/library/includes/ implementingsector.cfm?EE=0&RE=1; and See note 12, pp.16-17. Katherine Daniels, "Wind Energy Model Ordinance Options," New York State Eneroy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) Small Wind Toolkit, 2005, p.3, http://wvvw. powe rnatu ra lly. org/p rog ra ms/wi nd/too lkit.asp. 92 See note 70. 93 91 "In the Public Interest: How and Why to Zone for Small Wind Systems: A Guide for State and Local Governments," American Wind Eneroy Association, Publication forthcoming. 94 Ibid. 95 96 See note 91, p.4. Database of State Incentives for Renewable Eneroy, http://wvvw.d si re usa.o rg/li bra ry /i nc lud es/i m p leme nti ngsector. cfm? EE=O& R E= 1. 97 See note 91, p.4. 98 See note 93. 99 Ron Stimmel, American Wind Eneroy Association, Personal interview. 7 May 2008. TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER 73 .. ....... ..... END NOTES ......... ..... ..... ..... .... .............. ...... ... ................. ..... ................ ...... .... ... ..... .................. 100 Dennis Scanlin, Appalachian State University Eneroy Center, Personal interview via e-mail. 22 Jun. 2008. 101 See note 65, p.6. 102 S. Lowry, "Small wind projects on the rise," The Goldendale Sentinel [Washinoton State], 16 Sept. 2004, p.1, http://www.ourwind.org/windcoop/pdfs/Goldendale_Sentinel_O91604.pdf. 103 "Procedures for Photovoltaic System Design Review and Approval:' Florida Solar Eneroy Center, May 2005. 104 J. Green and M. Sagrillo, "Zoning for Distributed Wind Power - Breaking Down Barriers," Conference paper prepared for WindPower 2005 [Denver. Colo.I, 16-18 May 2006, http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy050sti/38167.pdf. 105 "Statute 66.0401:' State of Wisconsin, http://www.legis.state.wLus/statutes/Stat0066.pdf. 106 Clare Trapasso, "Bill supporting residential turbines in NH passes," Union Leader [Manchester. N.H.], 1 Aug. 2008, http://hosted.a p.org/dynamic/stories/n/nhJesidential_wind_turbines_nhol- ?site=nhmal &section=state&template=default&ctime=2008-08-01-14-21-42. 107 California Government Code, Section 65850.5[al. as cited in note 12, pp.16-17. 108 "Planning and Climate Change: Mitigation and Clean Energy Strategies," American Plannino Asso ciation, http://www. p la nn i ng. org/ e ne rgy/. 74 NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES ............... A P PEN 0 I X A · GLOSSARy........................................................................................................... BUILDING PERMIT An allowance provided by local authorities that permits new construction, changes and/or additions to existing physical structures within limits designed to protect public health, safety and general welfare. CONDITIONAL USE A land use that may be allowed under a given zoning designation if certain conditions are met. This differs from an "allowed" use, or a use that is "permitted outright" under a given zoning designation. A property owner or developer must receive a "conditional use permit" from the local zoning authority before constructing or implementing a conditionally allowed use. The Conditional Use Permitting (CUP) process varies between jurisdictions, but is generally the same within a jurisdiction regardless of the type of development that is proposed. While the CUP process for a medium-scale wind turbine project, for example, might be different between city A and city B, the process should be the same within city A whether developers are proposing a medium-sized wind project, a small-sized wind project, a barn, a liquor store, or any other conditionally allowed use. DESIGN REVIEW A planning process in which the proposed construction of a new structure or alteration of an existing structure is evaluated based on its aesthetics and appropriateness to the surrounding community. DISTRIBUTED GENERATION lOG) The use of small electricity generating systems rather than traditional large, centralized generation facilities. This includes many types of renewable energy systems such as small wind turbines and solar photovoltaics. Distributed generation facilities have a capacity of up to 2000 kilowatts (kW), or two megawatts (MWl. but this report focuses on smaller systems (up to 10 kW) that are sufficient to power a home, small apartment building, or small business. While distributed generation can include off-grid generation systems, this report focuses on grid- tied systems. ELECTRICAL PERMIT An allowance provided by local authorities that permits changes and/or additions to the electrical wiring of a building or structure provided the changes/additions meet a set of national or international regulations and are designed to ensure that electrical wiring systems are safe and unlikely to risk electrocution, fire or damage to interconnected electrical systems. 76 NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES .........................................................................................................................................-........................... INTERCONNECTION STANDARDS A set of rules under which a customer-generator interfaces with the electricity grid. Each state regulates the process under which a generator can connect to the distribution grid. These standards seek to maintain grid stability as well as the safety of those who use and maintain it. NET METERING A billing arrangement that enables electricity consumers (e.g. residents, businesses, farms or municipalities) to use their own generation to offset their consumption over a billing period by allowing their electric meters to turn backwards when a system generates more electricity than the consumer uses, In effect, a system owner uses excess electricity generation to offset electricity consumption at another time during a billing cycle (or during a one-year period!. With net metering, consumers receive the full retail rate - the same rate they pay the utility - for the electricity they generate, including any excess electricity. OVERLAY ZONE A zoning designation that is applied "on top of" the base zoning designation for a given area. Overlay zones are typically used to designate areas with particular environmental characteristics that influence their suitability for development, and they involve additional requirements or limitations on the types of uses that are allowed. For example, property lying within a 1 DO-year floodplain may have a base zoning of Residential, Commercial, or Industrial, and also be part of a "Flood Hazard Overlay Zone" that applies additional restrictions appropriate for development within a floodplain [such as limiting the amount of impermeable surfacel. Typically the requirements of the overlay zone supersede those of the base zone in the event that the two conflict with one another. PHOTOVOLTAICS IPV) A generation system that utilizes the photovoltaic effect to convert sunlight into electricity. These systems are commonly referred to as "solar electric panels." PLANNING A branch of public policy which seeks the orderly disposition of land, resources, facilities and community services with a view to securing the physical, economic and social efficiency, health, and well-being of urban and rural communities at the macro level. At its most basic, planning involves predetermining the physical layout of communities through zoning, transportation infrastructure planning, urban design and development. TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER 77 ...............A P PEN 0 I X A · GLOSSARy......................................................................................................... WATT A unit of electrical power equal to one joule of energy per second, or one ampere of electrical current flowing at a pressure of one volt at unity power factor. One thousand watts is equal to a kilowatt (kWI. and one million watts is equal to a megawatt (MWJ. Electrical energy is typically measured in terms of kilowatt- hours, equal to one kilowatt of power expended for one hour. ZONING A system of local regulations used to designate appropriate uses for land within a municipal jurisdiction. Euclidean zoning designations (such as Residential, Commercial, or IndustriaL) "allow" the types of land uses that are deemed appropriate in a given area and prohibit new development that would be incompatible with the allowed uses and thus might harm existing residents or businesses. ln addition to identifying the types of uses that are allowed in a given zone, zoning regulations often include detailed requirements on the size of structures and the amount of space that they may occupy, distances (known as "setbacks") between structures and property lines, and myriad other details about the scope of development allowed within a zone. Newer forms of "performance-based zoning" rely primarily on these restrictions, along with other requirements such as the amount of traffic that a land use would generate, without specifying the exact types of uses that are or are not allowed in a given area. A municipality's "zoning map" identifies the zoning designations for all land within its physical boundaries. The "zoning code" describes all of a jurisdiction's zoning designations, the regulations that apply to each designation and the procedures for granting variances from zoning regulations or changing the zoning designation on a parcel of land. 78 NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES ............... APPEN DIX 8 · FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................. RECOMMENDATION 1: REMOVE BARRIERS TO PV SYSTEMS FROM BUILDING AND ZONING CODES. RECOM M EN DATION 1-A: Exempt roof-top PV systems from building height limitations. RECOMMENDATION 1-B: Allow "over-the-counter" building permits for standard roof-mounted PV systems that do not exceed the roof support capabilities of a structure meeting minimum building code requirements. RECOMMENDATION 1-C: Do not restrict PV systems on aesthetic grounds. RECOMMENDATION 2: SIMPLIFY PV PERMIT APPLICATION FORMS AND REVIEW PROCESSES. RECOMMENDATION 2-A: Coordinate PVpermitting procedureswith nearby jurisdictions. RECOMMENDATION 2-B: Base PV electrical permitting requirements on IEEE 1547 and UL 1741. R ECO M M EN DATION 2-C: Provide training to educate building and electrical inspectors about PV technology and installations. RECOMMENDATION 3: ADOPT FLAT PERMIT FEES OR FEE WAIVERS FOR PV AND SMALL WIND SYSTEMS. RECOMMENDATION ,: INCORPORATE INFORMATION ABOUT WIND ENERGY OPPORTUNITIES INTO MUNICIPAL COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING. 80 NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES .................................................................................................................................................................... RECOMMENDATION 5: ESTABLISH SMALL WIND TURBINES AS PERMITTED USES, WITH APPROPRIATE DESIGN GUIDELINES, PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, AND REVIEW PROCESSES. RECOMMENDATION 5-A: Identify areas within jurisdictions where small wind turbines may conflict with surrounding land uses. RECOMMENDATION 5-B: Identify small wind turbines as conditional or special uses in areas of potential conflict and as permitted uses in all other areas of the jurisdiction. RECOMMENDATION 5-C: Establish limitations on maximum rated capacity and turbine height that are unambiguous and are sufficient to allow modern residential-scale small wind turbines. RECOMMENDATION 5-0: Establish appropriate setbacks, measured in terms of the turbine height and distance from the nearest property line. RECOMMENDATION 5-E: Establish performance-based sound standards based on a maximum decibel reading of 55-60 dBA measured at the nearest property line. RECOMMENDATION 5-F: Streamline permitting requirements for small wind turbine equipment meeting Small Wind Certification Council req u irements. RECOMMENDATION 5-G: Provide training to educate building and electrical inspectors about small wind technology and installations. RECOMMENDATION 5-H: As an alternative to recommendations 5-A and 5-B, consider adopting a wind energy overlay zone that identifies appropriate areas for wind energy use, designates small wind turbines as permitted uses and establishes appropriate design guidelines and performance standards. TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER 81 ...............APPEN DIX B · FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................... RECOMMENDATION 6: EASE PERMITTING PROCESSES BY ESTABLISHING STATEWIDE INTERCONNECTION STANDARDS AND EDUCATING BUILDING AND ELECTRICAL INSPECTORS ABOUT PROPER INSTALLATION PRO- CEDURES FOR DISTRIBUTED RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS. RECOM M EN DATION 6-A: Establish statewide PVinterconnection standards that use IEEE 1547, UL 1741, and the NEC. RECOMMENDATION 6-B: Establish statewide training and education programs for building and electrical inspectors about distributed renewable energy systems. RECOMMENDATION 7: ADOPT LEGISLATION AT THE STATE LEVEL MANDAT- ING CONSISTENT AND APPROPRIATE PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR DISTRIBUTED RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS. RECOM MEN DATION 7-A: Adopt legislation requiring local governments to establish time-efficient permitting processes and reasonable review criteria for distributed renewable energy. RECOMMENDATION 7-B: Adopt "solar rights" legislation banning private covenant restrictions on distributed renewable energy systems. RECOMMENDATION 7-C: Create enforcement procedures and penalties for non-compliance with solar rights laws and develop an education program to inform homeowners of their rights and community associations of their obligations under the law. 82 NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES .................................................ST.l\NDARD QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SOLAR CONTR,b.CTORS · APPEN DIX C .............. ~________._._.. .0 __.__ The Network for New Energy Choices (www.newenergychoices.org) is preparing a report on local government obstacles to distributed I renewable energy projects and methods to overcome those I obstacles. We obtained your contact information from the [name of solar energy industries association chapter] list of solar electric contractors in [state]. We would greatly appreciate it if you could share your thoughts on the following questions about local government permitting obstacles. . In general, do you feel that local government permitting processes are a significant impediment to the development of small-scale, distributed renewable energy projects? . What specific permitting requirements are the greatest obstacles to distributed renewable energy projects? (For example, are building permit fees the greatest obstacle, the time required to obtain a permit, or something else?) . Does the difficulty of navigating the permitting process differ significantly by jurisdiction? If so, how? . Are you familiar with any local government programs or incentives that have eased the permit process for distributed renewable energy projects? . In your experience, are private codes or covenants (such as those that place restrictions on landscaping or renovations for homes in a subdivision] a significant barrier to renewable energy projects? If so, please explain. Thank you very much for your assistance. TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER 83 .............. APPENDIX 0 · SCHEMATIC OF A NET METERED RESIDENTIAL PV SYSTEM .......................................... SOLAR PANELS UTILITY SERVICE POWER PANEL Residential grid-tied PV system capable of net metering. An inverter changes DC power from the solar panels into AC power that is required to run the home's appliances and is compatible with the grid. If the panels are producing more power than the house needs, the meter will spin backwards and feed clean energy to the grid. 84 NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES ..................................................................................... ADDITIONAL RESOURCES · APPEN DIX E............. . The American Institute of Architects Sustainability Resource Center: http://www.a ia .org/ susta i na b i lity . The American Institute of Architects/PricewaterhouseCoopers: ''The Economic Impact of Accelerating Permit Processes on Local Development and Government Revenues" http://www. a i a.o rg/ site 0 b j ects/fi les/ perm itstu dyfu llre po rt. pd f . American Planning Association: "Policy Guide on Energy" http://www.planning.org/policyguides/energy.htm "Policy Guide on Planning and Climate Change" http://www. p la n n i ng.o rg/ policyg u i d es/ pdf/ c li matecha ng e. pd f . Brooks Engineering/Pace University Law School Energy Project: "Inspector Guidelines for PV Systems" http://www.irecusa.org/filead mi n/user _upload/Nationa lOutreach Pubs/ InspectorGuidelines-Version2.1.pdf . Florida Solar Energy Center: "Procedures for Photovoltaic System Design Review and Approval" http://www. fsec. ucf. ed u/ en/p u b licatio ns/pdf/FS ECstd_203-0 5. pdf . Southwest Technology Development Institute at New Mexico State University: "Photovoltaic Power Systems and the 2005 National Electric Code: Best Practices" http://www. n ms u. ed u/ -td i/ pdf- reso u rces/p df%20ve rs ion %20d ivi d ed %20 PV:NEC/PV-NEC%201.8/PV-NEC-V-1.8-opt.pdf . Solar America Board for Codes and Standards: Solar PV Standards and Local Codes Study Panel http://www.sola ra bcs. 0 rg/i n d ex. p h p?o ptio n=co m_ co nte nt&vi ew= article&id=48& Item id=27 http://www.sola ra bcs. 0 rg/i n d ex. p h p?o ptio n=co m_ co ntent&vi ew= article&id=51 &ltemid=59 TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER 85 ............... A P PEN 0 I X E · AD D ITI ONAl RESOU RCES ..................................................................................... . The Vote Solar Initiative: ''Vote Solar White Paper-Solar Permit Fees" http://votesola r.org/li n ked-docs/sola r _perm itJeport. pdf . The Sierra Club (Lorna Prieta Chapter): "Solar Electric Permit Fees in the San Francisco Bay Area: A Comparative Study" http://lomaprieta.sierraclub.org/global_warming/pv_permit_study. htm . American Wind Energy Association: "In the Public Interest: How and Why to Zone for Small Wind Systems" and other publications http://www.awea .org/smallwind/ . New York State Energy Research and Development Authority: Wind Energy Toolkit and Wind Energy Model Ordinance Options http://www. powern atu ra lly. 0 rg/Prog ra ms/Wi n d/too lkit.as p http://www. powernatu ra lly. 0 rg/Prog ra ms/Wi n d/too lkit/2_' windenergymodel.pdf . Appalachian State University Energy Center: Various Publications http://www. ene rgy.a p pst ate . ed u/p u bs. P h p . University of San Diego School of Law Energy Policy Initiatives Center: Various Publications http://www.sandiego. ed u/epic/publications/ . States Advancing Solar: Various Publications http://www.statesadva ncingsola r:org/resou rces . U.S. Department of Energy "Bringing Solar Energy to the Planned Community" http://sdenergy.org/uploads/Final_CC&R_Handbook_1..;..0 1.pdf. 86 NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES ................ LOCAL GOVERNMENT INCENTIVES FOR DISTRIBUTED RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS · APPEN DIX F .............. . Oakland, California: Self-Certification for Renewable Energy Systems http://www.lg c. 0 rg/ sp i re/oa kla n dJe n ewa b le. h tm l . San Jose, California: Streamlined Permitting for Solar PV and Solar Water Heaters http://www.sanjoseca.gov/building/PDFHandouts/1-1 OSolar.pdf . Santa Monica, California: Green Building and Solar Santa Monica Programs http://www.smg reen. org/req u i re me nts/i nd ex. htm l http://www.solarsantamonica.com/ma i n/i nd ex. htm l . Aspen/Pitkin County, Colorado: Renewable Energy Mitigation Program and Solar Pioneer Rebate Program http://www.aspencore.org/sitepages/pid31. ph P http://www.aspencore.org/sitepages/pid77 .ph P . Boulder, Colorado: Solar PV Sales Rebate and Solar Grants Funds http://www. b 0 u ld erco lora do. gov /i n d ex. p h p?o ptio n=co m_ content&task=view& id=7700& Itemid=2845 . Harford County, Maryland: Property Tax Credit for Solar and Geothermal Devices http://www. ds i re usa. 0 rg/ d ocu m en ts/I ncentives/M D24F. p df . Epping, New Hampshire: Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Design Requirement http://www.mgplanning.com/Epping/epping_energy.htm . Asheville, North Carolina: Building Permit Fee Waiver http://www.ashevi llenc. gov /u p loa d ed Fi les/De pa rtm e nts/B u id li n g_ Safety / S usta i na ble%20 Fee%20 Re bate%20 Fo rm %20 Dec%20 %202007. pdf TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER 87 .............. AP PEN D IX F · LOCAL GOVERNMENT INCENTIVES FOR DISTRIBUTED RENEWABLE ENERGY SySTEMS.............. . Currituck County, North Carolina: Small Wind Energy Ordinance http:// dsi reusa. 0 rg/li b ra ry /i nclu d es/i n centive2. cfm? Incentive_Cod e= N C 1 4R&state=NC&CurrentPagelD=1 &RE=1 &EE=O (See Chapter 3: Special Requirements) . Ashland, Oregon: Density Bonus for Green Building http://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?Navl D= 1366 . Austin, Texas: Power Saver Solar PV Rebate Program http://www.austinenergy.com/E n e rgy%20 E ffi c i e ncy /P rog ra ms/ Reba tes/Sola r%20 Rebates/i nd ex. htm . Klickitat County, Washington: Renewable Energy Overlay Zone http://www. k li c ki tatco u n ty. 0 rg/ p la n n i n g/fi les H t m L!20 0408- EO Z - E I S/ 05-00- EOZFina lDocs-All. pdf . Seattle, Washington: Density Bonus for Green Building http://www.sea ttle. gov / d pd/G reen B u i ld i n g/O u rProg ra m/ Pu bli cPo li cy Initiatives/Develop m ent I n centives/ d efa u lt.as p 88 NETWORK FOR NEW ENERGY CHOICES TAKING THE RED TAPE OUT OF GREEN POWER How to Overcome Permitting Obstacles to Small-Scale Distributed Renewable Energy Network for New Energy Choices \" 215 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001 N~C New York, NY 10016 tel: 212-726-9161 i nfola n ewen ergychoi ces. 0 rg Generatorl 31t~m~lCll' Rotor ' ~..: Tow" Alternative Energy Systems Ordinance Draft - June 2, 2009 Community Meeting/City Council Workshop "a,. :.."..: 'WOO(t)ury Chapter 24 ZONING Article VI. Supplemental Performance Standards Division 5. Alternative Energy Systems 24-401 Scope. This division applies to alternative energy systems in all zoning districts. 24-402 Purpose and intent. It is the goal of the city council, as expressed in the Comprehensive Plan, to provide a sustainable quality of life for the city's residents, making careful and effective use of available natural, human and economic resources and ensuring that resources exist to maintain and enhance the quality of life for future residents. In accordance with that goal, the city finds that it is in the public interest to encourage alternative energy systems that have a positive impact on energy production and conservation while not having an adverse impact on the community. Therefore, the purposes of this ordinance include: (a) To promote rather than restrict development of alternative energy sources by removing regulatory barriers and creating a clear regulatory path for approving alternative energy systems. (b) To create a livable community where development incorporates sustainable design elements such as resource and energy conservation and use of renewable energy. (c) To protect and enhance air quality, limit the effects of climate change and decrease use of fossil fuels. (d) To encourage alternative energy development in locations where the technology is viable and environmental, economic and social impacts can be mitigated. 24-403 Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this division, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section: Accessory means a system designed as a secondary use to existing buildings or facilities, wherein the power generated is used primarily for on-site consumption. Alternative energy system means a ground source heat pump, wind or solar energy system. Alternative Energy Systems Ordinance Draft - June 2. 2009 Building-integrated solar energy system means a solar energy system that is an integral part of a principal or accessory building, rather than a separate mechanical device, replacing or substituting for an architectural or structural component of the building including, but not limited to, photovoltaic or hot water solar systems contained within roofing materials, windows, skylights and awnings. Closed loop ground source heat pump system means a system that circulates a heat transfer fluid, typically food-grade antifreeze, through pipes or coils buried beneath the land surface or anchored to the bottom in a body of water. Ground source heat pump system means a system that uses the relatively constant temperature of the earth or a body of water to provide heating in the winter and cooling in the summer. System components include open or closed loops of pipe, coils or plates; a fluid that absorbs and transfers heat; and a heat pump unit that processes heat for use or disperses heat for cooling; and an air distribution system. Horizontal ground source heat pump system means a closed loop ground source heat pump system where the loops or coils are installed horizontally in a trench or series of trenches no more than 20 feet below the land surface. Heat transfer fluid means a non-toxic and food grade fluid such as potable water, aqueous solutions of propylene glycol not to exceed 20% by weight or aqueous solutions of potassium acetate not to exceed 20% by weight. Horizontal axis wind turbine means a wind turbine design in which the rotor shaft is parallel to the ground and the blades are perpendicular to the ground. Hub means the center of a wind generator rotor, which holds the blades in place and attaches to the shaft. I RltOl' Blade RltOl' Gearbox DEer . I. ~~c:e Hub Axed RIch RltOl'- Blade - Tower lit Gearbox-... ,- Horizontal Axis Whut Turbille COIifigumtiolls Hub Hub height means the distance measured from natural grade to the center of the turbine hub. 2 Alternative Energy Systems Ordinance Draft - June 2. 2009 Monopole tower means a tower constructed of tapered tubes that fit together symmetrically and are stacked one section on top of another and bolted to a concrete foundation without support cables. Open loop ground source heat pump system means a system that uses groundwater as a heat transfer fluid by drawing groundwater from a well to a heat pump and then discharging the water over land, directly in a water body or into an injection well. Passive solar energy system means a system that captures solar light or heat without transforming it to another form of energy or transferring the energy via a heat exchanger. Photovoltaic system means a solar energy system that converts solar energy directly into electricity. Residential wind turbine means a wind turbine of 10 kilowatt (kW) nameplate generating capacity or less. Small wind turbine means a wind turbine of 100 kW nameplate generating capacity or less. Solar energy system means a device or structural design feature, a substantial purpose of which is to provide daylight for interior lighting or provide for the collection, storage and distribution of solar energy for space heating or cooling, electricity generation or water heating. Total height means the highest point above natural grade reached by a rotor tip or any other part of a wind turbine. Tower means a vertical structure that supports a wind turbine. Utility wind turbine means a wind turbine of more than 100 kW nameplate generating capacity. Vertical axis wind turbine means a type of wind turbine where the main rotor shaft runs vertically. Vertical ground source heat pump system means a closed loop ground source heat pump system where the loops or coils are installed vertically in one or more borings below the land surface. Wind energy system means an electrical generating facility that consists of a wind turbine, feeder line(s), associated controls and may include a tower. Wind turbine means any piece of electrical generating equipment that converts the kinetic energy of blowing wind into electrical energy through the use of airfoils or similar devices to capture the wind. 3 Alternative Energy Systems Ordinance Draft - June 2. 2009 24-404 Ground source heat pump systems. (a) Zoning districts. Ground source heat pump systems in accordance with the standards in this section are allowed as a pennitted accessory use in all zoning districts. (b) Standards. (1) System requirements. a. Only closed loop ground source heat pump systems utilizing heat transfer fluids as defined in Section 24-403 are pennitted. Open loop ground source heat pump systems are not pennitted. b. Ground source heat pump systems in public waters may be pennitted as an interim conditional use in accordance with Section 24-407 subject to approval from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources in accordance with Minnesota Rules Chapter 6115.0211, Subp. 6b and subject to written consent of all property owners and/or approval by an association in accordance with its adopted bylaws. c. Ground source heat pump systems in water bodies owned or managed by the City of Woodbury are not pennitted. (2) Setbacks. a. All components of ground source heat pump systems including pumps, borings and loops shall be set back at least 5 feet from interior side lot lines and at least 10 feet from rear lot lines. b. Ground source heat pumps shall not be installed in the front yard of any lot or the side yard of a comer lot adjacent to a public right-of-way and shall meet all required setbacks for the applicable zoning district. (3) Easements. Ground source heat pump systems shall not encroach on public drainage, utility roadway or trail easements. (4) Noise. Ground source heat pump systems shall comply with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency standards outlined in Minnesota Rules Chapter 7030. (5) Screening. Ground source heat pumps are considered mechanical equipment and subject to the requirements of Section 24-307(a)(lO). (6) Deviations. Any deviation from the required standards of this ordinance may be pennitted through an interim conahiOnal use permit in accordance with Section 24-407. (d) Safety. Ground source heat pumps shall be certified by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. and meet the requirements of the International Electric Code. 4 Alternative Energy Systems Ordinance Draff - June 2. 2009 (e) Abandonment. If the ground source heat pump system remains nonfunctional or inoperative for a continuous period of one year, the system shall be deemed to be abandoned and shall constitute a public nuisance. The owner shall remove the abandoned system at their expense after a demolition permit has been obtained in accordance with the following: (1) The heat pump and any external mechanical equipment shall be removed. (2) Pipes or coils below the land surface shall be filled with grout to displace the heat transfer fluid. The heat transfer fluid shall be captured and disposed of in accordance with state and federal regulations. The top of the pipe, coil or boring shall be uncovered and grouted. (3) Lake ground source heat pump systems shall be completely removed from the bottom of the body of water. (t) Permits. A building permit and interim conditional use permit, if required, shall be obtained for any ground source heat pump system prior to installation. Borings for vertical systems are subject to approval from the Minnesota Department of Public Health. 24-405 Wind energy systems. (a) Zoning districts. Residential wind turbines in accordance with the standards in this section are permitted accessory uses on lots at least 3 acres in size in the R-l, Urban Reserve; R- 2, Urban Estate; and on lots at least 20 acres in size in the R-4, Urban Residential zoning districts. Wind energy systems are not permitted in any other zoning ~i~f~._______________________________----- (b) Standards. (1) Number. No more than one wind energy system is permitted per parcel. (2) Height. In the R-l, Urban Reserve, zoning district, a maximum hub height of 60 feet is allowed as a permitted accessory use; additional height, up to 120 feet in total height, may be permitted as an interim conditional use in accordance with Section 24- 207. In the R-2, Rural Estate, and R-4, Urban Residential, zoning districts, a maximum ~ub~6irg~t pX1~ X~~! _~~_~JJ~~~9: _~_ ~ p~~i):t~~_ _~~_~~_~~~ry _I:I~_~~_ :M9:i_~i_()~~L __ __- - - --- height, up to 75 feet in total height, may be permitted as an interim conditional use in accordance with Section 24-207. (3) Blade length. A maximum blade length of 15 feet is permitted. (4) Roofmounting. Roof mounted wind turbines are not permitted. (5) Setbacks. The base of the wind turbine tower shall be set back from all property lines a distance equal to the hub height. Wind energy systems shall not be installed in the front yard of any lot or in the side yard of a comer lot adjacent to a public right-of- way. 5 Comment [ml]: Consider residential scale turbines in non-residential zoning districts. (Note: Because of the number and variety of non-residential zoning districts, staffwould like to present this comment as an option to the Council for direction at their June worlcshop.) Comment [rri2]: HOightneCdedf';r' increased efficiency. (Note: See attached comments from Brian Ross.) Alternative Energy Systems Ordinance . Draft - June 2. 2009 (6) Easements. Wind energy systems shall not encroach on public drainage, utility roadway or trail easements. (7) Noise. Wind energy systems shall comply with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency standards outlined in Minnesota Rules Chapter 7030 at all property lines. (8) Screening. Wind energy systems are exempt from the requirements of Section 24- 307(a)(1O). (9) Aesthetics. All portions of the wind energy system shall be a non-reflective, non- obtrusive color, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. Only monopole towers are pennitted. The appearance of the turbine, tower and any other related components shall be maintained throughout the life of the wind energy system pursuant to industry standards. Systems shall not be used for displaying any advertising. Systems shall not be illuminated. (lO)Feeder lines. The electrical collection system shall be placed underground within the interior of each parcel. The collection system may be placed overhead near substations or points of interconnection to the electric grid. (11)Deviations. Any deviation from the required standards of this ordinance may be pennitted through an interim conditional use pennit in accordance with Section 24-407. (d) Safety. (1) Standards and Certification. a. Standards. Wind energy systems shall meet the minimum standards outlined by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEe) in IEC 61400-2 or the American Wind Energy Association's (A WEA) Small Wind Turbine Perfonnance and Safety Standard. b. Certification. Wind energy systems shall be certified by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the Small Wind Certification Council or other body detennined to be acceptable by the Community Development Director for confonnance to IEC or A WEA standards. The City reserves the right to deny a building pennit for proposed wind energy systems deemed to have inadequate certification or inadequate testing for operation in a severe winter climate. c. Maintenance. Wind energy systems shall be maintained under an agreement or contract by the manufacturer or other qualified entity. (2) Utility Connection. All grid connected systems shall have a completed contractual agreement with the local utility prior to the issuance of a building pennit. A visible external disconnect must be provided if required by the utility. 6 Alternative Energy Systems Ordinance Draft - June 2. 2009 (e) Abandonment. lfthe wind energy system remains nonfunctional or inoperative for a continuous period of six months, the system shall be deemed to be abandoned and shall constitute a public nuisance. The owner shall remove the abandoned system at their expense after a demolition permit has been obtained. Removal includes the entire structure including foundations to below natural grade and transmission equipment. (f) Permits. A building permit and interim conditional use permit, if required, shall be obtained for any wind energy system prior to installation. 24-406 Solar energy systems. (a) Zoning districts. Solar energy systems in accordance with the standards in this section are allowed as a permitted accessory use in all zoning districts. (b) Standards. (1) Exemption. Passive or building-integrated solar energy systems are exempt from the requirements ofthis section and shall be regulated as any other building element. (2) Minimum Lot Size. In the R-4, Urban Residential Zoning District, a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet is required for ground-mounted solar energy systems. (3) Height. Roof-mounted solar energy systems shall comply with the maximum height requirements in the applicable zoning district. Ground-mounted solar energy systems shall not exceed 15 feet in height. (4) Location. In residential zoning districts, ground-mounted solar energy systems are limited to the rear yard. In non-residential zoning districts, ground-mounted solar energy systems may be permitted in the front yard of any lot or the side yards on comer lots but shall not encroach in the minimum 20-foot landscaped area adjacent to public rights-of-way. (5) ~~tbacJJ: _ _ q~<?_~~~_-::J1?~~I)_t_~~ _~<?J_~_ ~}?-~rgy_ ~y~_t_~~~ _ ~h~Jl ~<?~p'ly_ ~i~~_ !lIJ_ _~~_~~_~~~I)' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -- -- structure setbacks in the applicable zoning district. Roof-mounted systems shall comply with all building setbacks in the applicable zoning district and shall not extend beyond the exterior perimeter of the building on which the system is mounted. (6) Roofmounting. Roof-mounted solar collectors shall be flush mounted on pitched roofs unless the roof pitch is determined to be inadequate for optimum performance of the solar energy system in which case the pitch of the solar collector may exceed the pitch of the roof up to 5% but in no case shall be higher than 10 inches above the roof. Solar collectors may be bracket-mounted on flat roofs. (7) Easements. Solar energy systems shall not encroach on public drainage, utility roadway or trail easements. 7 Comment [m3]: The Planning Commission is continuing to consider required setbacks for ground-mounted solar systems. Alternative Energy Systems Ordinance Draft - June 2, 2009 (8) Screening. Solar energy systems shall be screened from view to the extent possible without impacting their function, but are exempt from the strict requirements of Section 24-307(a)(l0). (9) Maximum Area. In the R-4, Urban Residential, zoning district, ground-mounted solar energy systems shall be limited to a maximum area of200 square feet. In other residential zoning districts, ground-mounted solar energy systems shall be limited to a maximum area consistent with the accessory structure limitations in Section 24- 281 (b) or no more than 25 percent of the rear yard, whichever is less. (lO)Aesthetics. All solar energy systems shall be designed to blend into the architecture ofthe building to the extent possible without negatively impacting the performance of the system and to minimize glare towards vehicular traffic and adjacent properties. (ll)Feeder lines. The electrical collection system shall be placed underground within the interior of each parcel. The collection system may be placed overhead near substations or points of interconnection to the electric grid. (l2)Deviations. Any deviation from the required standards of this ordinance may be permitted through an interim conditional use permit in accordance with Section 24-407. (d) Safety. (1) Standards and Certification. a. Standards. Solar energy systems shall meet the minimum standards outlined by the International Electrotechnical Commission (lEe) ,the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), ASTM International, British Standards Institution (BS!), International E1ectrotechnical Commission (lEe), International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Underwriter's Laboratory (UL) and/or the Solar Rating and Certification Corporation (SRCe). b. Certification. Solar energy systems shall be certified by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the Solar Rating and Certification Corporation or other body determined to be acceptable by the Community Development Director for conformance to IEC or A WEA standards. The City reserves the right to deny a building permit for proposed solar energy systems deemed to have inadequate certification. (2) Utility Connection. All grid connected systems shall have a completed contractual agreement with the local utility prior to the issuance of a building permit. A visible external disconnect must be provided. (e) Abandonment. If the solar energy system remains nonfunctional or inoperative for a continuous period of six months, the system shall be deemed to be abandoned and shall constitute a 8 Alternative Energy Systems Ordinance Draft - June 2. 2009 public nuisance. The owner shall remove the abandoned system at their expense after a demolition pennit has been obtained. Removal includes the entire structure including transmission equipment. (f) Permits. A building pennit and interim conditional use pennit, if required, shall be obtained for any solar energy system prior to installation. 24-407 Interim conditional use permit. Deviations to the standards in this division may be permitted as an interim conditional use in accordance with Section 24-45. In granting an interim conditional use permit, the city council shall consider the criteria in Sections 24-43 and 24-45 and the following additional criteria unique to alternative energy systems: (a) That the deviation is required to allow for the improved operation of the alternative energy system; (b) That the alternative energy system has a net energy gain; (c) That the alternative energy system does not adversely affect solar access to adjacent properties; (d) That the alternative energy system complies with all other engineering, building, safety and fire regulations; and (e) That the alternative energy system is found to not have any adverse impacts on the area, including the health, safety and general welfare of occupants of neighboring properties and users of public rights-of-way. 24-408 Interpretation, In interpreting this ordinance and its application, the provisions of these regulations shall be held to be the minimum requirements for the protection of public health, safety and general welfare. This ordinance shall be construed broadly to promote the purposes for which it was adopted. 24-409 Conflict. This ordinance is not intended to interfere with, abrogate or annul any other ordinance, rule or regulation, statute or other provision oflaw except as provided herein. If any provision of this ordinance imposes restrictions different from any other ordinance, rule or regulation, statute or provision of law, the provision that is more restrictive or imposes high standards shall control. 24-410 Separability. If any part or provision of this ordinance or its application to any developer or circumstance is judged invalid by any competent jurisdiction, the judgment shall be confined in its operation to the part, provision or application directly involved in the controversy in which the judgment shall 9 Small Wind Energy System Ordinance Note: This ordinance was funded in part through the Focus on Energy Program The following agencies provided input for the development of the Small Wind Energy System Ordinance: Focus on Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory Public Service Commission of Wisconsin University of Wisconsin-Extension Service Wisconsin Division of Energy Wisconsin Towns Association The following people helped develop, gave legal input as appropriate, and reviewed the Small Wind Energy System Ordinance: David Blecker, 7th Generation Energy Systems Alex DePillis, Renewable Energy Engineer, Wisconsin Division of Energy Jim Green, National Renewable Energy Laboratory Sherrie Gruder, University of Wisconsin-Extension Service Paul C. Helgeson, Senior Engineer, Public Service Commission of Wisconsin John Hippensteel, Lake Michigan Wind & Sun Larry Krom, Focus On Energy Renewable Energy Program Shelly Laffin, Focus On Energy Renewable Energy Program Carol Nawrocki, Legal Counsel, Wisconsin Towns Association Brian Ohm, Legal Specialist, University of Wisconsin-Extension Service Cheryl Rezabek, Chief of Planning and Evaluation, Wisconsin Division of Energy, Department of Administration Mick Sagrillo, Wind Energy Specialist, Focus On Energy Renewable Energy Program Michael Vickerman, Focus On Energy Renewable Energy Program Patrick Walsh, Energy and Environmental Specialist, University of Wisconsin- Extension Service Don Wichert, Director, Focus On Energy Renewable Energy Program The Small Wind Energy System Ordinance was developed as a permitted use ordinance, as we were advised that this would be the more difficult ordinance to draft. The ordinance can be simply used as a conditional use permit for a small wind turbine by inserting sections into the permit: 00.05 Standards 00.06 Permit Requirements. 00.07 Abandonment. 1 Small Wind Energy System Ordinance 00.01 Title. This ordinance may be referred to as the Small Wind Energy System Ordinance. 00.02 Authority, This ordinance is adopted pursuant to authority granted by: For counties: Wis. Stat. 9 59.69 and 66.0401 For towns and villages: Wis. Stat. 9 60.61 or 60.62 and 62.23(7), or 60.22(3) and 66.0401 00.03 Purpose. The purpose ofthis ordinance is to: (1) Oversee the permitting of small wind energy systems (2) Preserve and protect public health and safety without significantly increasing the cost or decreasing the efficiency of a small wind energy system (per Wis. Stat. 9. 66.0401). 00.04 Definitions. In this ordinance: (1) "Administrator" means the (County or Town) of Planning and Zoning Administrator Land Use Administrator or (2) "Board" means the (County or Town) of Board of Supervisors. (3) "Meteorological tower" (met tower) is defined to include the tower, base plate, anchors, guy cables and hardware, anemometers (wind speed indicators), wind direction vanes, booms to hold equipment anemometers and vanes, data logger, instrument wiring, and any telemetry devices that are used to monitor or transmit wind speed and wind flow characteristics over a period of time for either instantaneous wind information or to characterize the wind resource at a given location. (4) "Owner" shall mean the individual or entity that intends to own and operate the small wind energy system in accordance with this ordinance. (5) "Rotor diameter" means the cross sectional dimension of the circle swept by the rotating blades. (6) "Small wind energy system" means a wind energy system that (a) is used to generate electricity; (b) has a nameplate capacity of 100 kilowatts or less; and (c) has a total height of 170 feet or less. (7) "Total height" means the vertical distance from ground level to the tip of a wind generator blade when the tip is at its highest point. (8) "Tower" means the monopole, freestanding, or guyed structure that supports a wind generator. (9) "Wind energy system" means equipment that converts and then stores or transfers energy from the wind into usable forms of energy (as defmed by Wis. Stat. 9. 66.0403(1)(m). This equipment includes 2 any base, blade, foundation, generator, nacelle, rotor, tower, transformer, vane, wire, inverter, batteries or other component used in the system. (10) "Wind generator" means blades and associated mechanical and electrical conversion components mounted on top of the tower. 00.05 Standards. A small wind energy system shall be a permitted use in all zoning districts subject to the following requirements: (1) Setbacks. A wind tower for a small wind system shall be set back a distance equal to its total height from: (a) any public road right of way, unless written permission is granted by the governmental entity with jurisdiction over the road; (b) any overhead utility lines, unless written permission is granted by the affected utility; (c) all property lines, unless written permission is granted from the affected land owner or neighbor. (2) Access. (a) All ground mounted electrical and control equipment shall be labeled or secured to prevent unauthorized access. (b) The tower shall be designed and installed so as to not provide step bolts or a ladder readily accessible to the public for a minimum height of 8 feet above the ground. (3) Electrical Wires. All electrical wires associated with a small wind energy system, other than wires necessary to connect the wind generator to the tower wiring, the tower wiring to the disconnect junction box, and the grounding wires shall be located underground. (4) Lighting. A wind tower and generator shall not be artificially lighted unless such lighting is required by the Federal Aviation Administration. (5) Appearance, Color, and Finish. The wind generator and tower shall remain painted or finished the color or finish that was originally applied by the manufacturer, unless approved in the building permit. (6) Signs. All signs, other than the manufacturer's or installer's identification, appropriate warning signs, or owner identification on a wind generator, tower, building, or other structure associated with a small wind energy system visible from any public road shall be prohibited. (7) Code Compliance. A small wind energy system including tower shall comply with all applicable state construction and electrical codes, and the National Electrical Code. (8) Utility notification and interconnection. Small wind energy systems that connect to the electric utility shall comply with the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin's Rule 119, "Rules for Interconnecting Distributed Generation Facilities." (9) Met towers shall be permitted under the same standards, permit requirements, restoration requirements, and permit procedures as a small wind energy system. 00.06 Permit Requirements. (1) Building Permit. A building permit shall be required for the installation of a small wind energy system. 3 (2) Documents: The building permit application shall be accompanied by a plot plan which includes the following: (a) Property lines and physical dimensions of the property (b) Location, dimensions, and types of existing major structures on the property (c) Location of the proposed wind system tower (d) The right-of-way of any public road that is contiguous with the property; ( e) Any overhead utility lines; (f) Wind system specifications, including manufacturer and model, rotor diameter, tower height, tower type (freestanding or guyed) (g) Tower foundation blueprints or drawings (h) Tower blueprint or drawing (3) Fees. The application for a building permit for a small wind energy system must be accompanied by the fee required for a building permit for a Permitted Accessory Use. (4) Expiration. A permit issued pursuant to this ordinance shall expire if: (a) The small wind energy system is not installed and functioning within 24-months from the date the permit is issued; or, (b) The small wind energy system is out of service or otherwise unused for a continuous 12-month period. 00.07 Abandonment. (1) A small wind energy system that is out-of-service for a continuous 12-month period will be deemed to have been abandoned. The Administrator may issue a Notice of Abandonment to the owner of a small wind energy system that is deemed to have been abandoned. The Owner shall have the right to respond to the Notice of Abandonment within 30 days from Notice receipt date. The Administrator shall withdraw the Notice of Abandonment and notify the owner that the Notice has been withdrawn if the owner provides information that demonstrates the small wind energy system has not been abandoned. (2) If the small wind energy system is determined to be abandoned, the owner of a small wind energy system shall remove the wind generator from the tower at the Owner's sole expense within 3 months of receipt of Notice of Abandonment. If the owner fails to remove the wind generator from the tower, the Administrator may pursue a legal action to have the wind generator removed at the Owner's expense. 00,08 Building Permit Procedure, (1) An Owner shall submit an application to the Administrator for a building permit for a small wind energy system. The application must be on a form approved by the Administrator and must be accompanied by two copies of the plot plan identified in 00.06 (2) above. (2) The Administrator shall issue a permit or deny the application within one month of the date on which the application is received. (3) The Administrator shall issue a building permit for a small wind energy system if the application materials show that the proposed small wind energy system meets the requirements of this ordinance. (4) If the application is approved, the Administrator will return one signed copy of the application with the permit and retain the other copy with the application. (5) If the application is rejected, the Administrator will notify the applicant in writing and provide a written statement of the reason why the application was rejected. The applicant may appeal the Administrator's decision pursuant to Chapter 68 Wis. Statutes. The applicant may reapply if the deficiencies specified by the Administrator are resolved. 4 (6) The Owner shall conspicuously post the building permit on the premises so as to be visible to the public at all times until construction or installation of the small wind energy system is complete. 00.09 Violations, It is unlawful for any person to construct, install, or operate a small wind energy system that is not in compliance with this ordinance or with any condition contained in a building permit issued pursuant to this ordinance. Small wind energy systems installed prior to the adoption of this ordinance are exempt. 00.10 Administration and Enforcement. (I) This ordinance shall be administered by the Administrator or other official as designated. (2) The Administrator may enter any property for which a building permit has been issued under this ordinance to conduct an inspection to determine whether the conditions stated in the permit have been met. (3) The Administrator may issue orders to abate any violation of this ordinance. (4) The Administrator may issue a citation for any violation of this ordinance. (5) The Administrator may refer any violation of this ordinance to legal counsel for enforcement. 00.11 Penalties. (I) Any person who fails to comply with any provision of this ordinance or a building permit issued pursuant to this ordinance shall be subject to enforcement and penalties as stipulated in ch. _ section _ of the zoning code. (2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the (County or Town) Board from using any other lawful means to enforce this ordinance. 00.12 Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are severable, and the invalidity of any section, subdivision, paragraph, or other part of this ordinance shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remainder of the ordinance. 5 TITLE 7, CHAPTER 4 SMALL WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS 7 TCC 4-1 (a) Purpose. The requirements of this Chapter are established for the purpose of allowing Tazewell County residents and businesses to use small wind energy systems to harness wind energy for individual properties in order to reduce on-site energy consumption while protecting the public health, safety, and general welfare of the County. The requirements of this Chapter shall apply to small wind energy systems when they are allowed as a permitted use or by Special Use under Title 7, Chapter 1 of the Tazewell County Zoning Code. 7 TCC 4-2 (b) Authority. Pursuant to 55 ILCS 5/5-12001 et al. Tazewell County has the authority to regulate and restrict the location and use of structures, 7 TCC 4-3 (c) Definitions, The following definitions when used in this Section shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. Building Density: The number of buildings in a given area. FAA: The Federal Aviation Administration of the United States Department of Transportation, Guy Cable: Any cable or wire that extends from a small wind energy system for the purpose of supporting the system structure. Small Wind Energy System: A wind energy conversion system consisting of a single wind turbine, single tower, and associated control or conversion electronics that generates power for an individual property for the purpose of reducing on-site energy consumption, System: A small wind energy system. System Height: The height above grade of the highest point of the arc of the blades. Tower: The upright portion of a small wind energy system to which the primary generator devices are attached, 7 TCC 4-4 (d) Small Wind Energy Systems Permitted. A small wind energy system shall be permitted by building permit if all of the following conditions are met: (1) The system height is no greater than 100 feet; (2) The parcel on which the system is to be located shall be no smaller than 1 acre and shall contain an existing residence; and (3) The parcel on which the system is to be located is in the A-I, A-2, or Rural Residential Zoning District. 7 TCC 4-5 (e) Application for Building Permit. When a small wind energy system is allowed as a permitted use, a site plan shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator demonstrating compliance with the following restrictions: (1) Purpose: The only allowable purpose ofa small wind energy system is to reduce on-site energy consumption. (2) Setbacks: All parts of the structure ofa small wind energy system, including the tower, base, footings, and turbine but excluding guy cables and their anchors, shall be set back a distance equal to 110 percent of the system height from all adjacent property lines and a distance equal to 150 percent of the system height from any inhabited structure, road right-of- way, railroad right-of-way, and right-of-way for overhead electrical transmission or distribution lines. Guy cables and their anchors shall meet the setback requirements under Title 7 Chapter I for accessory structures in the zoning district in which the system is proposed to be located. (3) Noise: The small wind energy system shall not exceed a noise level of 60 decibels as measured at the closest property line. The noise level may be exceeded during short-term events such as utility outages and/or severe wind storms. (4) Building Code Compliance: Building permit applications shall be accompanied by standard drawings of the system structure, including the tower, base, footings, and guy cables. An engineering analysis of the tower showing compliance with the Uniform Statewide Building Code and certified by a licensed professional engineer also shall be submitted. This analysis may be supplied by the manufacturer. (5) Electric Code Compliance: Building permit applications for small wind energy systems shall be accompanied by a line drawing of the electrical components of the system showing compliance with the National Electric Code and certified by a licensed professional engineer, This information may be supplied by the manufacturer. (6) Notifications regarding Aircraft: Small wind energy systems shall comply with all applicable regulations of the FAA, including any necessary approvals for installations close to airports, The applicant has the responsibility of determining the applicable FAA regulations and securing the necessary approvals. If the system is proposed to be sited in an agricultural area that may have aircraft operating at low altitudes, the applicant shall notify all aircraft pilots that conduct activities pertaining to agriculture registered to operate in the County no later than 5 business days prior to submitting a building permit application. Copies of letters must be included in the building permit application. (7) Local Utility Company Notification: If a small wind energy system is to be connected to the electricity grid, the applicant shall notify the electric utility service provider that serves the proposed site of his intent to install an interconnected customer-owned electricity generator no later than 5 business days prior to submitting a building permit application, Copies of letters must be included in the building permit application. (8) Minimum Distances: The distance between any protruding blades utilized on a small wind energy system and the ground shall be a minimum of 15 feet as measured at the lowest point of the arc of the blades. The distance between the lowest point of the arc of the blades and the peak of any structure within 150 feet of the blade arc shall be a minimum of 10 feet. (9) Radio and Television Signals: The small wind energy system shall not cause any radio, television, microwave, or navigation interference, If a signal disturbance problem is identified, the applicant shall correct the problem within 90 days of being notified of the problem. (10) Appearance: The small wind energy system shall maintain a galvanized neutral finish or be painted to conform the system color to the surrounding environment to minimize adverse visual effects. No small wind energy system shall have any signage, writing, pictures, or decorations placed on it at any time other than warning, equipment, and ownership information. No small wind energy system shall have any flags, streamers, banners, and other decorative items that extend from any part of the system placed on it at any time. (11) Repair: A small wind energy system that is not functional shall be repaired by the owner or removed. In the event that the County becomes aware of any system that is not operated for a continuous period of 3 months, the County will notify the landowner by registered mail and provide 45 days for a written response. The written response shall include reasons for the operational difficulty, the corrective actions to be performed, and a reasonable timetable for completing the corrective actions. If the County deems the corrective actions and/or the timetable for completing corrective actions as unfeasible and/or unreasonable, the County shall notify the landowner and such landowner shall remove the turbine within 120 days of receiving said notice, (12) Removal Upon End of Useful Life. When a system reaches the end of its useful life and can no longer function, the owner of the system shall remove the system within 120 days of the day on which the system last functioned. The owner is solely responsible for removal of the system and all costs, financial or otherwise, of system removal. (13) Fencing: The tower shall be enclosed with a fence of at least eight (8) feet in height or the base of the tower shall not be climbable for a distance of 12 feet measured from the ground. (14) Height: The applicant shall provide evidence that the proposed height does not exceed the height recommended by the manufacturer or distributor of the system. (15) Required Safety Features: The small wind energy system shall have an automatic overspeed control to render the system inoperable when winds are blowing in excess of the speeds for which the system is designed and a manually operable method to render the system inoperable in the event of a structural or mechanical failure of any part of the system. 7 TCC 4-6 (f) Small Wind Energy Systems By Special Use. A Special Use shall be required for a small wind energy system if one or more of the following conditions apply: (1) The system height is greater than 100 feet. (2) The parcel on which the system is to be located is smaller than 1 acre. (3) Failure to meet the criteria as set forth under 7TCC 4-5 (c) (2), 7 TCC 4-7 ( g) Application for Special Use. When a Special Use is required for a small wind energy system, a site plan shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator demonstrating compliance with the restrictions listed in Section 7 TCC 4-5 (e). An application shall also be submitted to the Zoning Administrator which meets the requirements of the application procedures found in Title 7, Chapter I, Article 25 (Special Uses). 7 TCC 4-8 (h) Evaluation of Special Use. Following the procedures as established in Title 7, Chapter 1, Article 25 (Special Uses) the Zoning Board of Appeals, in evaluating a Special Use for a small wind energy system, shall consider the following matters: (1) The height of the system relative to the size of the parcel on which the system is proposed to be located; (2) The need for the proposed height of the system in order to allow the system to operate effectively; (3) The visual impacts of the system on adjacent properties and the general area in which the system is proposed to be located; / // (4) The building density of the general area in which the system is proposed to be located; (5) Whether a substantial adverse effect on public safety will result from the height of the system or some other aspect of the system's design or proposed construction, but only if that aspect of design or construction is modifiable by the applicant; (6) The existing uses on adjacent and nearby properties; and (7) Whether the design of the proposed system reflects compliance with Section 7 TCC 4-5 (e). 7 TCC 4-9 en Enforcement. The erection or operation of any small wind energy system in violation of the Ordinance shall subject the owner and/or the operator of the system to civil penalty. The civil remedies available to the Court shall include the removal of the system, If such removal is ordered all expenses shall be paid by the owner and/or operator of the system. '~ a. <( ~ ctl :::::l .... .c CI.l u. ~ ctl :::::l C ctl .., - J: a. E (0 't"'" N o 0) ~st3 O"'~ Cf)~~ ~:li:::= ..c:: == ~ S :::= ~ 0 ~~1~ ~ -" r....~ [=t ~ ~ _ N N "'C (1) (1) a. en "'C r::: ~ -0 l: .- tJ) ~~ ~... -Q) .. J:: -== -0....::::; .= l: 0 ~OCO .....~n; o Q) tJ) s... C)-o ca ca Q) ~mQ) c(~~ .... CI.l .c E CI.l u CI.l o .... CI.l .c E CI.l > o Z .... CI.l .c o .... u o .... CI.l .c E CI.l .... a. CI.l en .... 11l :::::l O'l :::::l <C Minnesota's Wind Resource by Wi.nd Speed at 30 meters . 't.... Wind Speed MPH (m/s) c=J 0.0 - 9.5 (0.0 - 4.3) c=J 9.5 -11.0 (4.3 -4.9) .. 11.0 - 12.5 (4.9 - 5.6) c=J 12.5 - 13.0 (5.6 - 5.8) c=J 13.0 - 13.5 (5.8 - 6.0) .. 13.5 - 14.0 (6.0 - 6.3) c=J 14.0 - 14.5 (6.3 - 6.5) L:J 14.5 - 15.0 (6.5 - 6.7) .. 15.0 - 15.5 (6.7 - 6.9) c=J 15.5 - 16.0 (6.9 - 7.2) c:J 16.0 - 16.5 (7.2 - 7.4) .. 16.5 - 17.0 (7.4 - 7.6) C] 17.0 - 17.5 (7.6 - 7.8) ~INNESOTA r _ .DEPARTMENT OF lI... ~COMMERCE W;ndLogics~ This map has been prepared under contract by Wind Logics for the Department of Commerce using the best available weather data sources and the latest physics-based weather modeling technology and statistical techniques. The data that were used to develop the map have been statistically adjusted to accurately represent long-term (40 year) wind speeds over the state, thereby incorporating important decadal weather trends and cycles. Data has been averaged over a cell area 500 meters square, and within anyone cell there could be features that increase or decrease the results shown on this map. This map shows the general variation of Minnesota's wind resource and should not be used to determine the performance of specific projects. January 2006 Minnesota's Wind Resource by Wind Speed at 80 Meters ~ E;, , "'A .. Wind Speed Meters/Second (mph) _ 4.9 - 5.3 (11.0 -11.9) _ 5.3 - 5.7 (11.9 -12.8) D 5.7 - 6.1 (12.8 - 13.6) ...)~~~ 6.1 - 6.5 (13.6 - 14.5) D 6.5 - 6.9 (14.5 - 15.4) D 6.9 - 7.3 (15.4 - 16.3) D 7.3 - 7.7 (16.3 - 17.2) D 7.7 - 8.1 (17.2 - 18.1) _ 8.1 - 8.5 (18.1 - 19.0) _ 8.5 - 8.9 (19.0 - 19.9) ~INNESOTA T. DEPARTMENT OF ll.. ~ COMMERCE W;ndLogics~ This map has been prepared under contract by Wind Logics for the Department of Commerce using the best available weather data sources and the latest physics-based weather modeling technology and statistical techniques. The data that were used to develop the map have been statistically adjusted to accurately represent long-term (40 year) wind speeds over the state, thereby incorporating important decadal weather trends and cycles. Data has been averaged over a cell area 500 meters square, and within anyone cell there could be features that increase or decrease the values shown on this map. This map shows the general variation of Minnesota's wind resource and should not be used to determine the performance of specific projects. January 2006 Minnesota's Wind Resource by Capacity Factor at 80 Meters '<:~"""t' .~:~~,~;. <-~ '.. , ,....\"!i-.."'..~~."';i.' ....~ ...,,:(~.. . '. ~ . , ~ :.. .~.., ~.'''.... .~ . \1'" > ......... . ~.,.. ". . .r "",,':01 4' ~':J :....'"'l-l'. "'~".'. Q ~ lit J.:. 11;1' If /I i'f" . ',; ~. '. .~ l' f\~I,: ;\ ~~'i f",:~, : . . .r.. '. f1 (;J II "'. . ~~ :-..,.;.,.,.~. ~~'" ' , f . ,.w".:JI. ~:"" .:<.:.....~ ,'. . ': .', "'-.:. ,lJ ~~~ ....~ ...~~.. .': '.' '.i ' :I .~\,,' --'l"';'};, .... . ~'. . . ..] ....... \-if' ._ <~..::...l'.,. 'L '" ^' '~yo - _ ~ "fill ' '" '" :J .' ..' ; ~ ,.,. .10/. >t; a C . ......~ ~.. ".;e:-~:~~ ~'l' i1 r:: . 'I."!L~ .v~'i';~~~;~'~~'~~~_u ~ i- ,'- t! ~:~:_~!f: . ~ ~":~. ,I ','-: ~~~ ~ !<. '~';~f . ~ '. r:1~ . ...~:.t 1'. . ~ ~ ~"'." CII ~'.J-'''~~ '.; 'f';;' . , t, ''-. ;~:: " ''i l II , 4. !l~ ..... .. 11 Turbine Capacity Factor _ 15.8% - 18.7% _ 18.7% - 21.6% D 21.6% - 24.4% L':~~ 24.4% - 27.3% D 27.3%-30.2% D 30.2% - 33.1% D 33.1% - 36.0% D 36.0% - 38.8% _ 38.8% - 41.7% _ 41.7%-44.6% ri'M.~~~~T~ .... ~ CEOMMERCE W;ndLogics~ This map has been prepared under contract by Wind Logics for the Department of Commerce using the best available weather data sources and the latest physics-based weather modeling technology and statistical techniques. The data that were used to develop the map have been statistically adjusted to accurately represent long-term (40 year) wind speeds over the state. Capacity factors are based on a 1.65 MW turbine, and production has been discounted 15% to represent real world conditions. Data has been averaged over a cell area 500 meters square, and within anyone cell there could be features that increase or decrease the values shown on this map. This map shows the general variation of Minnesota's wind resource and should not be used to determine the performance of specific projects. January 2006 Minnesota's Wind Resource by Estimated Annual Energy Production at 80 Meters 111&:.' '1: .... .,. J ~,., Annual Energy Production (MWh) _ 2,125 - 2,550 _ 2,550 - 2,975 D 2,975 - 3,400 r~11 3,400 - 3,825 D 3,825 - 4,250 D 4,250 - 4,675 D 4,675 - 5,100 D 5,100 - 5,525 _ 5,525 - 5,950 _ 5,950 - 6,375 ~......... MINNESOTA ~PARTMENT OP ~~CEOMMERCE WindLogics$ This map has been prepared under contract by Wind Logics for the Department of Commerce using the best available weather data sources and the latest physics-based weather modeling technology and statistical techniques. The data that were used to develop the map have been statistically adjusted to accurately represent long-term (40 year) wind speeds over the state. Energy production is based on a 1.65 MW turbine. Production has been discounted 15% to represent real world conditions. Data has been averaged over a cell area 500 meters square, and within anyone cell there could be features that increase or decrease the values shown on this map. This map shows the general variation of Minnesota's wind resource and should not be used to determine the performance of specific projects. January 2006 Minnesota's Wind Resource by Wind Speed at 100 Meters " :. .... ~'1..r~ $I,,' '\W. , ., '~ <./ ~ :.. .~~~...<-~ ,'1;'.!:'" " :.. t ~~ Wind Speed Meters/Second (mph) _ 5.5 - 5.7 (12.3 - 12.8) D 5.7 - 6.1 (12.8 - 13.6) (LifJl 6.1 - 6.5 (13.6 - 14.5) D 6.5 - 6.9 (14.5 - 15.4) D 6.9 - 7.3 (15.4 - 16.3) D 7.3 - 7.7 (16.3 - 17.2) D 7.7 - 8.1 (17.2 - 18.1) _ 8.1 - 8.5 (18.1 -19.0) _ 8.5 - 8.9 (19.0 - 19.9) _ 8.9 - 9.3 (19.9 - 20.8) . '" 'l':: of l$ ;, l~ rI':~~T~ ~~CEOMMERCE W;ndLogics~ This map has been prepared under contract by WindLogics for the Department of Commerce using the best available weather data sources and the latest physics-based weather modeling technology and statistical techniques. The data that were used to develop the map have been statistically adjusted to accurately represent long-term (40 year) wind speeds over the state, thereby incorporating important decadal weather trends and cycles. Data has been averaged over a cell area 500 meters square, and within anyone cell there could be features that increase or decrease the values shown on this map. This map shows the general variation of Minnesota's wind resource and should not be used to determine the performance of specific projects. January 2006 City of Farmington 430 Third Street Farmington, Minnesota 651.280.6800 . Fax 651.280.6899 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tony Wippler, Assistant City Planner SUBJECT: Discussion - Churches in the B-1 (Highway Business District) Zone DATE: July 14,2009 INTRODUCTION The owner of the Farmington Mall, Dave Adelmann, has been approached by a church as a possible tenant within the mall and has requested that the Planning Commission discuss the potential for amending the City Code to allow churches in the B-1 zoning district. Attached as Exhibit A is the B-1 zoning code, DISCUSSION The Farmington Mall, 923 8th Street, is located within the B-1 (Highway Business District) zoning district. Currently, the B-1 district does not allow churches as either a permitted or conditional use. Churches are conditionally allowed in the City of Farrnington in the following zoning districts: A-I, R-l, R-2, R-4, R-5, R-T, R-D, B-2 and B-4. The purpose statement for the B-1 code is as follows: "The B-1 highway business district is intended to provide pockets of convenience type uses along major thoroughfares that are both pedestrian accessible from adjoining neighborhoods and automobile accessible for short trips and through traffic. " Given the purpose statement for the B-1 district as well as the City's allowed uses of similar places of assembly (i.e., clubs, commercial recreational uses, hotels (all permitted uses) and auction houses, daycare centers, hospitals, nursing homes and theaters (all conditional uses) it may be difficult to defend, legally, an exclusion of churches from the B-1 zone. However, with that being said, churches are generally tax exempt properties where the aforementioned uses are not. By allowing churches in the B-1 zone, potential future commercial tax base could be lost due to the development of churches in this zone. This is a policy decision that the Planning Commission and City Council should make, ACTION REOUESTED Discuss the potential opportunity for conditionally allowing churches in the B-1 Zoning District and provide direction to staff. Respectfully submitted ~ (j-------() Z::;;PPler,~ty Planner ~x. A 10-5-13: B-1 HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT: (A) Purpose: The B-1 highway business district is intended to provide pockets of convenience type uses along major thoroughfares that are both pedestrian accessible from adjoining neighborhoods and automobile accessible for short trips and through traffic. (B) Bulk And Density Standards: 1. Minimum Standards: ILot area 1110,000 square feet ILot width 1175 feet IFront yard setback 1130 feet ISide yard setback 1110 feet IRear yard setback 1110 feet IMinimum side and rear yard abutting any residential district II IOff street parking and access drives 1110 feet IPublic and semipublic buildings 1135 feet IRecreational, entertainment, commercial and industrial uses 1150 feet IHeight (maximum) 1135 feet IMaximum lot coverage of all structures 1125 percent All standards are minimum requirements unless noted. (C) Uses: 1. Permitted: Animal clinics. Clinics. Clubs. Coffee shops. Commercial recreational uses. Convenience store, without gas. Health clubs. Hotels. Motels. Offices. Personal and professional services. Personal health and beauty services. Recreation equipment sales/service/repair. Restaurants, class I, traditional. Retail facilities. Sexually oriented businesses _ accessory. 2. Conditional: Auction houses. Auto repair, minor. Auto sales. Car washes. Child daycare center, commercial. Convenience store, with gas. Dental laboratories. Grocery stores. Group daycare centers, commercial. Hospitals. Nursing homes. Outdoor sales. Public buildings. Public utility buildings. Restaurants, class II, fastfood, convenience. Restaurants, class III, with liquor service. Restaurants, class IV, nonintoxicating. Solar energy systems. Supply yards. Theaters. Wholesale businesses. 3. Accessory: Parking lots. (Ord. 002-469, 2-19-2002)