Laserfiche WebLink
14-3700 SWECS <br /> January 16,2015 <br /> Page 5 <br /> A 45' m�imum WECS height is likely to be limiting from the perspective of optimizing <br /> wind resource conditions. That places it below the typical tree line (but makes it less <br /> visible). WECS height limits vary widely among the municipal codes reviewed,based on <br /> the zoning district, the generating capacity of the WECS,the lot size, or a combination of <br /> these factors. For a 10 kW WECS, Brooklyn Park and Delano limit the height to 20' <br /> above the roofline of the principle structure; Medina and Plymouth limit the 10 kW <br /> WECS to 50' above grade; other cities and model ordinances suggest height limits of <br /> 125' or greater are appropriate; and the Distributed Wind Energy Association as an <br /> industry advocate suggests a minimum hub height of 60 feet. <br /> Questions to be answered: <br /> a. Is the 10-acre lot size minimum an appropriate standazd to establish? <br /> b. Given the wide range of standards established for maximum height of WECS, and <br /> assuming there is no desire to a11ow for WECS with generating capacity greater than <br /> 10 kW, is the 45' height limit reasonable? <br /> 4. Residential Use. Assuming the limitation of 10 kW capacity for allowed WECS, the <br /> expectation for the ability to generate excess electrical power to the `grid' is minimal at <br /> best. It would be reasonable to establish a code provision that power generated by the <br /> WECS shall be consumed on-site for residential use and not distributed across property <br /> lines. <br /> Questions to be answered: <br /> a. Is there any desire to a11ow for distribution of electricity outside the property on <br /> which the WECS is located? <br /> 5. Accessorv Use vs Conditional Use. Planning Commission had concluded that under the <br /> limitations recommended in 2013, WECS could be listed as an allowed accessory use in <br /> the RR-1 B and RR-1 A districts, and approval would be administrative, with any <br /> deviations subject to the variance process. The administrative approval process negates <br /> any neighbor input, while the CUP or variance processes each involve neighbor <br /> notification and the public hearing process. <br /> Questions to be answered: <br /> a. Should Residential WECS be allowed administratively as an accessory use, or <br /> should they be allowed only as a Conditional Use? <br /> b. Should any deviations from the standards be subject to the variance process rather <br /> than a CUP? <br />