Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout07-10-2012MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, JULY 10, 2012 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL (2052 County Road 24) 1. Call to Order 2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda 3. Update from City Council proceedings 4. Planning Department Report 5. Approval of June 12, 2012 draft Planning Commission minutes. 6. Public Hearing — Richard Cavanaugh requests a Concept Plan Review for a potential residential subdivision on 22.86 acres located north of Highway 55 and east of Arrowhead Drive. 7. Public Hearing — Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8 of the Medina City Code related to Wind Energy Conversion Systems, solar panels, and geothermal heat sources. 8. Public Hearing Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8 of the 9. Public Hearing — Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 8 of the Medina City Code related to uses permitted in commercial zoning districts. 10. Council Meeting Schedule 11. Adjourn REPOSTED IN CITY HALL July 6, 2012 CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes Tuesday, June 12, 2012 1. Call to Order: Commissioner Charles Nolan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Planning Commissioners Charles Nolan, Robin Reid, Randy Foote, John Anderson, Kathleen Martin (arrived at 7:07 p.m.), Kent Williams (arrived at 7:32 p.m.) and Victoria Reid. Absent: None Also Present: City Councilmember Elizabeth Weir and City Planner Dusty Finke. 2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda No public comments. 3. Update from City Council proceedings Weir updated the Commission on recent activities and decisions by the City Council. 4. Planning Department Report Finke provided an update of upcoming Planning projects. Two ordinance amendments and sign ordinance. City Council directed staff to conduct a study on wind turbines within the City. This is now top of staffs priority list. Nolan asked status of Hennepin County wind turbine and Finke explained they were not moving forward due to lack of finances. Anderson asked status of Holiday Station Store's blue lights. Finke explained next month it will be discussed. Gramercy is waiting for a decision to be made. 5. Approval of the April 10, 2012 Draft Planning Commission meeting minutes. Motion by R. Reid, seconded by Martin, to approve the April 10, 2012 minutes with revisions. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: Williams) 6. Public Hearing — U.S. Home Corporation, Lennar, requests a PUD General Plan and Preliminary Plat for 118 Single Family Home lots to be located South of Hamel Legion Park and west of Brockton Lane. Finke presented the application by summarizing the project. The 60 feet to the south of the property is an old vacated row which is part of the plat. The preliminary plat and general plan is very similar to the second concept plan. The primary changes are the rearrangement of a pond to save trees, but beyond that it is similar to what the Commission saw in April of this year. V. Reid asked where the tot lot was located. Finke said the applicant could speak more to it, but it was located in the same location during the concept stage plan and not to the south as recommended by the Commission in April. Finke said the overall density was approximately 2.5 units per acre. The total lots consisted of 95 Single Family Homes and 23 detached homes for a total of 118 residential units. Finke reviewed streets/sewer and water. The streets would be 28 feet in width internally with a 50 foot right-of-way. Martin asked if any right-of-way was being dedicated on the plat and Finke said 33 feet. Anderson asked about a letter from Loren Kohnen and his concerns for narrow street widths in the event of emergency. He asked how concerned staff was regarding this issue. Finke explained if people parked poorly on both sides of the street the fire truck should still be able to maneuver into the area, though it would be slower. Three access points into the site are available and the City would regulate the parking requirements. Finke explained the proposed street width has become the city's new standard, though untested. Foote asked how our streets compare with Plymouth. Finke said he wasn't sure. Weir asked about roadway width in Morningside and Finke said the streets are posted no parking on both sides of the street. Finke explained the final review criteria, stating the City has a great deal of discretion and the applicant was seeking discretion since it's a PUD. Finke said the Commission should always go back to the ordinance and comprehensive plan for direction. Nolan said he saw by the minutes that the Commission had wanted the tot lot on the south side and questioned why the applicant hadn't moved it. Finke explained Cherry Hill and The Enclave along the Hunter side had 5 and 10 foot side yard setbacks. Nolan asked about traffic site lines and said it seemed to be an issue hanging out there. Finke explained the traffic numbers are based on a 10 second lead time to pull out onto Brockton Lane. He said the major difference between the two is the MnDOT standard assumes you can't do anything the first 2 seconds, so only 8 seconds would be remaining. The engineer isn't suggesting a realignment to meet the requirement. Nolan said he assumes the traffic study looks at traffic speed levels at 40 and 50 mph. Finke said the study reviews it only at 40 mph. 2 Foote was looking for clarification on the tree preservation ordinance. Finke explained 70 percent of the significant trees will be removed. Nolan clarified the first 10 percent doesn't have a penalty. Finke said the overall removal of trees is 15 percent when combined with the initial development without a penalty. He is planning to consult with the City's arborist. He said he is concerned with the intensity of all the trees being proposed for long term growth and ability to survive. He thought if there wasn't enough room within the development then possibly the overflow could be planted in The Enclave development along Hunter Drive. Martin asked about what setbacks were being shown on the site plan on the south side. Finke said the homes on the site plan show them 10 feet apart, but the applicant is proposing to have the option to be closer. Nolan asked about the use of the building envelope. Finke said homes are typically consuming the entire building envelope except for the larger developments such as Foxberry and Keller. Finke explained the Cherry Hill development had 60 foot lot frontages and the proposed development is greater. Joe Jablonski representing US Home Corporation said it's been a pleasure working with planning staff to get to this point in the process so quickly. Jablonski said in Plymouth he had developed with the same street width standards and Plymouth allows parking on both sides. Medina is only proposing parking on one side of the street. Jablonski said the tot lot was proposed on the north side, so it would be in a central location for both the Enclave and the proposed development, since it will be fairly large with possible pool area and recreational equipment. He said Lennar's concern is "connectivity" and to not have it imbedded into one neighborhood area. Jablonski said Lennar would like to relocate a lot of the trees on -site, but it would have to be done on a case by case basis while working with staff. Jablonski said they met the minimum standards for engineering requirements in the traffic report/study. Jablonski said the side yard setbacks on the south end would be designed to have consistency throughout the neighborhood. Martin asked the applicant to walk through the PUD standards and say why he thinks they meet the tests. Jablonski said: Subd 1. — Innovation in development to the end that the growing demands for all styles of economic expansion may be met by greater variety in type, design, and placement of the structures and by the conservation and more efficient use of land in 3 such developments. - Applicant — This is achieved through the blending of densities from north to south. We are offering three distinct lot types that will allow for multiple house types, sizes, and price points. The higher density section along the park is designated for our Lifestyle product. The Enclave at Brockton is designed to fulfill the void in 75 foot wide lots...... Nolan asked about the issue of a floodplain. He asked where Lennar was at with it. Jablonski said they have been working with FEMA and they aren't doing work below the floodplain levels, and any work would require permits. V. Reid said she wasn't on board with the tot lot being adjacent to Hamel Legion Park because she doesn't want the continuity. Jablonski said the area will be marketed as one neighborhood. He said having it located on the northern end would limit the traffic elsewhere. V. Reid doesn't like both under one HOA. She asked how many units would be between the two developments. She calculated around 700 people. Nolan asked what other amenities would be in the HOA lot and Jablonski said a pool, possible clubhouse building; but at a minimum it would have a building with restrooms and some other recreation inside. Weir asked what the concern was with the pool area on the north side. She asked if it was because of the park. Nolan said he wasn't sure, but it needed to be discussed. Finke said it could be moved across the street away from the public park. Jablonski said they did look at the proposed location rather than across the street, due to trees and that it would be shaded the majority of the time. Nolan asked if the first two lots across the street were used for the tot lot and that the location would actually be in the middle of the development if the two developments were one neighborhood. Finke said he had some concern if it was moved to the south, since it could change density. Martin said previously during the Concept stage berming was discussed. She asked if that was not possible and wondered if fencing was discussed as a barrier. Jablonski said on the landscape plan they intend to make the opaque requirements. They chose to not show berming along the south side since by not doing it a lot of significant trees would be saved. Nolan asked how much of the significant trees were on the Bitterman property. Finke said there were some. Finke said where there aren't trees they could berm and where they have trees there would be no berm requirement. Finke said in some locations berms would push the drainage closer to the homes. R. Reid asked about siting the municipal well. Jablonski said they are continuing to work with staff. He would like to get some type of credit. Finke said some of the 4 well would be used for irrigation. Finke said there is space for a well location along Brockton Lane. Public Hearing Opened at 8:11 p.m. Dan Cates, representing the landowners along Brockton Lane, said they felt that Lennar was doing a good job. He said all nine landowners were under contract with Lennar. Public Hearing Closed at 8:13 p.m. HOA (tot lot area) location — Nolan summarized that he was aware the mayor had concern with a park next to a park. V. Reid thought two HOA's should be established rather than one. Nolan raised concern about not having any information related to the HOA tot lot/pool area. He is concerned with not being able to review the parking and size for 700-900 residents. The pool area is not within walking distance so it is a concern. Martin wants the parking to be on the side of the pool. The placement and size should be conditioned on further study. Anderson concurs with Martin and other Commissioners. He said potential is for 800 residents at one pool. He is surprised by only having one pool area for both projects. Foote said he would have concern with parking and traffic at any tot lot location. Nolan asked the applicant to provide information from other pools they have constructed to convince them further. Martin asked the size of the site and Finke said its 25,000 square feet. Jablonski said he doesn't want this issue to hold up the process. He doesn't want the Commission so concerned by it that it slows up the process. At the end of the day they could just pull it. Nolan said it's a fair comment and is a small piece of the overall application. Nolan suggested that maybe they shouldn't look at having the pool area amenity at this time. He would favor the lot to be an Outlot and come back later. He said the City should not lock themselves into approving it without details. R. Reid said for marketing purposes does it need to be a pool that may sit covered for a large portion of the year. Martin said the tot lot is oversized and could only accommodate one home. She feels it's a wise use of leftover land and has minimal impact to neighboring properties. She thinks the location could stay where it is with conditions placed on it related to the parking. The Commission felt it needs significant screening and separation from other homes and parking data. 5 Weir said she's been to the Bridgewater pool and hasn't seen people swimming, but has seen towels out, but not heavily so she knows it's being used. She said she thinks it's a great amenity. US Home Corporation representative said Lennar will look at the pool location and provide design. Martin recommended additional berming on the south side of the development. V. Reid said she lives in Foxberry Farms and the idea of a pool was considered there. She said many Foxberry residents wished they had constructed a swimming pool within their development. She said she thinks it is a good idea for the proposed development to have a swimming pool as an amenity. Nolan asked that the Commission finish discussions on a couple of other issues. He asked the Commission what their concern was with the side yard setbacks. The Commission recommended 10/10 for the larger lots south of the trail area. Traffic Site lines — no concerns and recommends approval with staff's condition. V. Reid suggested staff work with the Arborist as a condition. Motion by Martin, seconded by Anderson, to recommend approval of the PUD General Plan and Preliminary Plat subject to the modifications to the conditions. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: None) 7. Public Hearing — Henri Germain requests a Variance from the City's requirement to install an upland buffer adjacent to a wetland required for construction of new home at 790 Navajo Road. Finke presented the application and explained City code requires installation of upland buffers adjacent to all wetlands upon "new development activity." Finke showed an aerial and reviewed the "practical difficulties" requirement and explained the applicant had submitted a narrative explaining why he felt he had "practical difficulties." Finke said the wetland was relatively small overall and the upland buffer would be more than one and one half the size of the wetland. He explained that the majority of the year the wetland was dry. He also said other wetlands in the development don't have upland buffers. Finke reviewed the Statutory Criteria. He said the required upland buffer didn't appear to have impacts on the construction of the new home, but rather the concern is aesthetics for the property owner. Staff's recommended conditions were reviewed in case the Commission chose to approve the variance. Martin asked what other plants could be used besides prairie grasses within the upland buffer area. Finke said there are other options. 6 1 R. Reid asked if trees could be planted within a buffer. Finke said it was possible if you can sustain coverage. Foote asked if grading would be involved and Finke said it would just be a matter of tilling up the ground. Henri Germain, 790 Navajo Road, wanted to thank Dusty and Deb for their help in getting to this point in the process. He explained the large wetland was added by the previous land owner which was a great amenity that wasn't required at the time, though it was one of the reasons they bought the lot. He said he wanted to make the entire area environment friendly. He said the subject wetland had been mowed for over the past 20 years. He said it is the buffer that creates a small issue. One of his concerns was the wood ticks within this area if it were to be expanded. He would like this area to blend in with the neighborhood since it is near the roadside and wanted it to be status quo. He said the only place for a playset was along the west side of the large existing pond which was visible from their kitchen. He explained that if the Variance was approved and the specific conditions being recommended were placed on him he wouldn't be able to put in their playset for his kids. He said they only have one location that would work for a playset that is flat enough and it's the area staff is recommending for the additional buffer area for the pond on the north side of the lot. He has tried to keep everything the way it was when they purchased. Germain said he has a challenge with the buffer and not the wetland. Williams asked Germain if he had concerns with staffs conditions if approved. Germain said the only concern is using up the area for his playset. Public Hearing opened at 9:13 p.m. Finke said staff isn't really recommending approval of the Variance. R. Reid asked if the buffer could be reduced. Finke said it's the existence of the buffer, though Germain said he would consider a smaller buffer if the Commission didn't choose to eliminate the buffer all together through the variance. Nolan said rather than looking at it partially dry or partially wet he asked if the applicant had thought of trying to make it into something nice. Germain said he knows it's possible to make a nice amenity out of the buffer area but said it's an investment of time that he doesn't have. Williams asked about staffs condition that would take away his only location for a playset, saying he would not be alright with it. Weir suggested the Commission address the requirements of a Variance. 7 Nolan said when taking the Variance criteria literally he was having a hard time with justifying approval. He said precedence is always a concern for him. He doesn't see the hardship and feels that by having less of a yard area for kids to play in isn't a reason for approval of a Variance. Williams said it appears to be more of an aesthetic concern by the applicant and felt there would be a huge variety of choices that could be low maintenance for the required buffer area. Nolan said not all vegetation is difficult to maintain. Finke asked the Commission if they felt there were issues with the ordinance that was recently approved. The Commission commented that they didn't think there were issues. R. Reid said she didn't think the application qualified for a Variance. R. Reid said the adjoining wetland to the west looks nice and suggested doing something similar to it to blend the two wetlands. Public Hearing closed at 9:34 p.m. Motion by Williams, seconded by V. Reid, to recommend denial of the application based on the findings described in the staff report. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: None) 8. City Council Meeting Schedule Finke requested a Commissioner attend the June 19th City Council meeting. Anderson said he would attend the next council meeting. 9. Adiourn Motion by Williams, seconded by R. Reid, to adjourn at 9:27 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. (Absent: None) 8 Agenda Item: 6 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner DATE: July 5, 2012 MEETING: July 10, 2012 Planning Commission SUBJ: RPC Medina, LLC — Concept Plan for residential development — N of Hwy 55, East of Arrowhead Dr. — Public Hearing Review Deadline Complete Application Received: June 20, 2012 Review Deadline: August 19, 2012 (60 -day) Summary of Request RPC Medina, LLC has requested review of a Concept Plan for a potential residential subdivision on approximately 23 acres (approximately 21.45 net acres) immediately west of the Fields of Medina. The applicant has submitted a number of potential site layouts for City discussion which show predominantly single-family development, although some of the layouts show areas being "set aside" for a small amount of townhomes to be developed in the future. The applicant's preference is to be able to develop the property with 75 -foot wide single-family lots, which is the reason they have submitted the Concept Plan. The property is guided Medium Density Residential and requires a net density of 3.5-6.99 units/acre. This land use was changed from Mixed Use to Medium Density Residential at the end of 2010 at the request of the property owner. The applicant's conceptual 75 -foot single- family layout would achieve a net density of approximately 3.12 units/acre, assuming the City required the 2 acres of park dedication which the applicant is showing on the concept plan. The property is currently fanned. There are two wetlands located on the property and a wooded area of approximately 2 acres in the northwest corner of the property. An aerial of the site can be found at the top of the following page. Comprehensive Plan As mentioned previously, the property is guided Medium Density Residential. The Comprehensive Plan defines MDR as follows: Medium Density Residential (MDR) identifies residential land uses developed between 3.5 units per acre and 6.99 units per acre that are served, or are intended to be served, by urban services. The primary uses in this designation will be a mix of housing such as single family residential, twin homes, town homes, and row homes. This designation provides a transition area between the commercial and retail uses along the TH 55 corridor and the single-family uses. RPC Medina, LLC Page 1 of 7 July 10, 2012 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting 1 The various layouts submitted by the applicant would achieve the following densities, assuming the City requires the 2 acres of park dedicat.on shown on the concept plan: # of Lots Net Density All 75' -wide single-family 60 3.12 All 70' -wide single-family 64 3.32 All 65' -wide single-family 67 3.48 The Comprehensive Plan establishes 21 objectives for Residential Uses served by urban services. The following are the objectives staff found most relevant, and the entire list can be found on pages 14 and 15 of Chapter 5. • Consider exceptions to or modifications of density restrictions for developments that protect the natural features or exceed other standards of the zoning district. • Allow for a variety of housing types with a range of economic affordability in the urban residential areas. • Encourage a controlled mix of densities, housing types, age groups, economic levels, lot sizes, and living styles that are of appropriate scale and consistent with appropriate land use, market demands, and development standards. • Require standards for site improvements that ensure compatibility with adjacent residential areas. • In urban residential zones with sanitary sewer service permit higher density in PUD's in exchange for (1) reduced land coverage by buildings, (2) provision of more multi -family units; and, (3) sensitive treatment of natural resources. RPC Medina, LLC Page 2 of 7 July 10, 2012 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting In order for the property to be developed with only wider (70'+) single-family lots, a Comprehensive Plan amendment would be necessary. Staff is concerned that changing the land use of the property may result in a reduction of housing diversity by allowing more lower density single-family development. The various layouts shown seem to show a lot of flexibility in developing the property and still being able to achieve the required density. It should be noted that the City is required to maintain a net density of 3-5 units/acre within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The Comprehensive Plan currently states that the City is planned to be 3.01 units/acre, if all future development occurs at the minimum density. Changing the future land use of this property from MDR to LDR would reduce the density to 3.00 units/acre. While this may be permissible in this context, the policy question may be why would the City wish to reduce the density in this location as opposed to any other MDR or Mixed Use property. Proposed Site Layout The concept plan shows a general arrangement which is fairly consistent through all of the layouts. Street arrangement and grading plans have not been submitted, so a more fully -designed plan will need to change when an actual development plan is being contemplated. The layouts are provided more to provide context to discuss the land use of the property. Although house pads and setbacks are not shown, they would be required to meet the standards to the R2 zoning district unless the property was developed through a PUD. The 65' wide lots are smaller than the required minimum lot size required by the R2 zoning district. The Planning Commission should discuss if this is acceptable in support of higher density because developing the property in such a way would require a PUD. Following is a summary of the requirements of the R2 zoning district compared to the layouts in the concept plan: R2 Requirement Shown on Layouts Minimum Lot Size (single-family) 8,000 square feet 65'wide lots = 7,475 square feet 70' wide lots = 8,050 square feet 75' wide lots = 8,625 square feet Minimum Lot Size (two-family) 5,000 square feet per unit N/A Minimum Lot Width 60 feet Varies by layout Minimum Lot Depth 90 feet 115 feet Front Yard Setback 25 feet Front Yard Setback (garage) 30 feet Side Yard Setback (combined) 15 feet (10 & 5) Side Yard (corner) 25 feet Rear Yard Setback 25 feet Max. Hardcover 50% Even though it is difficult to provide feedback on the proposed layout because of how conceptual the plans are, the Concept Plan provides the Planning Commission and City Council the opportunity to provide comments to guide the creation of a future development plan. Generally, staff provides the following comments with relation to the general layout: RPC Medina, LLC Concept Plan Review Page 3 of 7 July 10, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting 1) A 60 -foot wide strip of property is located immediately to the west of the subject property which includes a driveway for the two properties to the north. It is likely that this strip of property would be included with development of either the subject property, or the property to the west. 2) The applicant shows two access points to Meander Road for the subdivision. These locations will need to be analyzed as part of the future application, especially how the western access point will interact with the small area of developable property to the west of the subject property. Staff believes a broader examination of the access is necessary and that it likely makes sense to limit the number of access points to Meander Road to two for all property between the park and the large wetland located on the property to the west. Staff recommends considering a requirement for right-of-way to connect with the property to the west. Perhaps only one entrance is necessary for this subdivision with the expectation that a second access point would be located on the property to the west and that the two projects would connect. 3) The applicant shows a connection to the property to the north, which is an important consideration and makes sense from a broader traffic perspective. 4) The layout/orientation of lots with relation to Meander Road should be reconsidered in order to reduce the "wall of homes" which would appear. 5) The Planning Commission and City Council may wish to discuss the size of the lots shown. The 65' -wide lots are smaller than would be required by the R2 zoning district and would need to be developed through a PUD. If the City is not supportive of this, it would probably be in the applicant's interest to know as early as possible. 6) The depth of the lots along Meander will need to be analyzed to verify that there is enough space to accommodate the 30 foot front setback, 35 foot setback from Minor Collector roadways and also any necessary screening and berming. Wetlands Two wetlands have been delineated on the property. The applicant proposes to fill the smaller of these basins in its entirety (located just north of Meander Road and west of the proposed eastern access point). The larger wetland would be located between a row of homes and the property proposed to be dedicated as park and combined with the parkland dedicated from the Fields of Medina. Any impacts will need to reviewed for consistency with the Wetland Conservation Act, including any required mitigation. Streets The applicant proposes a right-of-way width of 50 -feet internally and 60 -feet for Meander. This is consistent with The Enclave and The Fields of Medina, but will need to be analyzed in relation to streets and utility when the plans are prepared to more detail. More than 60 -feet may be necessary for Meander in order to accommodate turn lanes. The concept plan shows all of the right-of-way for Meander Road being dedicated from the property to the south. This property is owned by another LLC linked to the Cavanaugh family. Future development proposals will need to show that the owner is willing to dedicate this property. Any future application for development would be expected to construct Meander Road at the developer's cost, including any turn lanes necessary to serve this site taking into consideration all surrounding development. A traffic study will need to be completed to verify if additional improvements will be necessary at Arrowhead or County Road 116. RPC Medina, LLC Page 4 of 7 July 10, 2012 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting Sewer/Water The concept plan shows sewer and water mains being extended to Arrowhead Drive and the watermain being connected to the main being installed as part of the Fields of Medina. These improvements will need to be completed at the cost of a future applicant for development and shall be sized according to the sewer and water plans in the City Comprehensive Plan. The City Engineer has provided additional comments, which are attached. Most notably, sanitary sewer manholes should not be located within streets to the extent possible. The City recently analyzed future City Water Supply capital needs and identified the area north of Highway 55 between Arrowhead Drive and County Road 116 as a potential location for a future water tower. The City Council may wish to discuss the potential at this site. Stormwater/LID Review/Tree Removal Because this is a concept plan, the applicant has not submitted drainage calculations. The plan identifies conceptual stormwater pond locations, but does not identify improvements which would meet the City's volume control requirements. Future development plans should include calculations to show that proposed improvements are consistent with the City's Surface Water Management Plan and Stormwater Management ordinance and meets volume control and rate control standards. Public Works and the City Engineer strongly recommend that the City require a separate pipe system into which foundation draintiles can discharge. No information is provided related to the conceptual grading of the site. This will need to be reviewed at the time of a future development proposal. Grading will likely impact a vast majority of the trees in the northwest corner of the site if the property is developed as shown in the layouts. Tree removal for initial site development cannot exceed 10% of the total significant trees and a large amount of replacement will be necessary if many of these trees are removed. Staff recommends measures to save as many of these trees as possible, perhaps by avoiding development of this area as part of the flexibility within a PUD. Buffer Yards and Landscauing The concept plan submittal did not include substantial information related to landscaping. Standard City ordinances would require two trees per single-family lot and would require bufferyards with a 0.1 opacity along Meander Road and staff recommends a bufferyard with an opacity of 0.3 along the park. Park Dedication The applicant proposes 2.2 acres of property to be dedicated on the eastern portion of the property which could be appended to the 6 acres which were dedicated from the Fields of Medina. The Park Commission and City Council should discuss the amount of land necessary for the park. The Area Study conducted in 2010 recommends a 10 -acre park. 10 -acres is likely too RPC Medina, LLC Page 5 of 7 July 10, 2012 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting small for a community -wide park, so the park would be serving more of a local function. In this case, it may be worth discussing how much additional property is desired to combine with the 6 - acres dedicated from the Fields of Medina. The applicant shows a trail easement connecting the neighborhood to the park on some of the proposed layouts. The City's trail plan shows a trail corridor along Meander Road, and this trail is being constructed along the Fields of Medina as part of that project. This trail should be required to be continued when Meander is constructed adjacent to this property as well. Purpose of Concept Plan Review According to Section 825.63 and Section 825.71 of the City Code: "Concept plan review serves as the basis for informal conceptual discussion between the city and the applicant regarding a specific land use proposal. It is designed to assist the applicant in preparing a formal land use application for the city's consideration. The purpose of the concept plan review is to identify significant issues, suggest design considerations and discuss requirements of the city's official controls. Concept plan review is optional, not mandatory, for qualified applicants. Concept plan review is for the purpose of discussion and comment only. Any opinions, comments or observations provided to the applicant by the city staff, planning commission or city council shall be considered advisory only and shall not constitute a binding decision on the proposed project. The applicant may not infer any future approval of a formally submitted land use application based upon the concept plan review and no vested rights shall accrue as a result thereof." Staff Comments Staff recommends that the Planning Commission and City Council begin by discussing the land use of the site, as this is the primary policy question. The applicant seeks feedback if there is support for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow reduced density from the MDR. If the Planning Commission and City Council do not support lowering the density, staff would suggest discussing the layout options provided by the applicant. For example, one of the layouts shows that the applicant could likely meet the density through smaller single-family lots (perhaps 63' -foot wide lots at 7,000 square feet in size) without any other type of housing. This would require a PUD, so the Planning Commission and City Council could provide feedback whether this lot size flexibility would be supported. Alternatively, the applicant shows other layouts which show a combination of slightly larger lots and leave a portion of the site for future townhome development. The Planning Commission and Council may wish to discuss if this mix is preferable to granting flexibility on the lot size requirements of a neighborhood with all single- family homes. In addition to feedback on these broader land use questions, staff provided a number of comments throughout this report, and the main points are summarized below for convenience: 1) Access points to Meander Road shall be or the subdivision be analyzed as part of the future application, especially in relation to the property to the west of the subject property. Right-of-way may be required to connect this neighborhood with the property to the west. 2) The layout/orientation of lots with relation to Meander Road should be reconsidered in order to reduce the "wall of homes" which would appear. RPC Medina, LLC Page 6 of 7 July 10, 2012 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting 3) The depth of the lots along Meander will need to be analyzed to verify that there is enough space to accommodate the 30 foot front setback, 35 foot setback from Minor Collector roadways and also any necessary screening and berming. 4) If future townhome development is proposed to meet density requirements, staff would recommend that the City require these lots to be shown in the preliminary plat with far more detail to be provided so that it can be verified that the required density can be achieved. 5) Required width of right-of-way shall be studied when streets and utilities are designed, and additional right-of-way may be necessary. 6) A traffic study shall be submitted at the time of a development proposal to determine what improvements are necessary for Meander Road when the area is fully developed, and if improvements are necessary at Arrowhead Drive or County Road 116 as a result of this development. 7) If right-of-way is proposed to be dedicated from adjacent property, that property will also need to be platted, or right-of-way will need to be dedicated through another means. 8) The site layout should be updated to save as many trees as possible in the wooded area in the northwest portion of the site, perhaps through setting aside a contiguous area into an outlot as part of granting flexibility for density, lot size, setbacks, etc. Attachments I. City Engineer comments dated 6/26/2012 2. Narrative from Applicant 3. Plans received by the City 6/19/2012 RPC Medina, LLC Page 7 of 7 July 10, 2012 Concept Plan Review Planning Commission Meeting WSB Engineering ■ Planning • Environmental • Construction & & Associates, inc. June 26, 2012 Mr. Dusty Finke Planner City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340-9790 Re: City Project: Cavanaugh Property, L-12-083 WSB Project No. 02065-160 Dear Dusty: 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 66416 Tel: 763-641-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 We have reviewed the Cavanaugh Property Concept Plan dated 6-19-12. The plan set includes various lot configurations as well as a concept utility plan. We have the following comments regarding engineering matters: • The proposed 50' right-of-way internal to the site is 10' less than the City minimum of 60'. The City should review and decide whether the proposed 50' is adequate. • In all concepts the existing wetland on the east side of the property is proposed to be part of platted lots. The City should review and determine if after providing the required wetland easements the lots platted still have enough land area to construct a house or townhome. • It appears the southerly wetland will be filled. This work should be done in accordance with WCA rules. • It is unclear what the purpose of the 20' trail easement shown on some, but not all, of the concepts is for. Further clarification should be provided regarding the purpose and why it is shown only on some concepts. • The concept utility plan shows utilities within the area where the roadway will be constructed. City standards require manholes and gate valves to be located outside of the driven roadway. • The proposed sewer and water mains shown on Meander Road have notes stating "+/- 1300 LF Connect to Arrowhead Sanitary and Watermain". The plans should show how the developer will extend the sewer and water to Arrowhead as part of this project. • The applicant should demonstrate how they plan to construct Meander Road south of the subject property. Please contact me at (763) 231-4865 if you have any questions. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. if Tom Kellogg Minneapolis • St. Cloud Equal Opportunity Employer K.VAedi.aVR{vare P.kvdopnmt Revictvstava eugh Property L-12-Og71Cavnneugh Property Concept Plnn Review CurrnenU.doe June 19, 2012 Mr. Dusty Finke City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340 Dear Mr. Finke: Thank you for giving us the opportunity to present our vision of developing our family farm. The farm has been in the family for over 50 year and we look forward to seeing it become a special place for many generations of future homeowners. We have looked at many possibilities for the development and believe the best use for it is a development of 75' single family lots. This would produce a lower density than the 3.5 units per acre that it is currently guided for, but slightly more than the overall 3.0/units an acre than the overall city's density requirement. We believe this is the best use of the property for the following reasons: • Townhomes are not selling as they were when requirement was established; • Developers have no interest in developing townhomes due to lack of market for this product and high cost of developing in Medina; • Mattamy had a contract for this property and scrapped the project after seeing the high cost for the townhouses and lack of townhouse sales; • We have extensively marketed the project and no developer is interested in townhomes at this time; • The variance between all single family homes and a mix of single family/townhomes is negligible as detailed below. The main advantages to the city are as follows: • The development would provide a trunk water main loop from Arrowhead Road to County Road 116 (currently a dead end); • A through connection for Meander Road which will ease congestion on County Road 116 by allowing traffic to flow to Arrowhead and an existing stoplight; • Tax revenue from the new development (higher taxes for single family homes) and current taxes rather than some time in the future. EVS 110250 Valley View Rd., Suite 1231 Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3534 j Phone: 952.646.0236 j Fax: 952.646.02901 www.evs-eng.com Mr. Dusty Finke June 19, 2012 Page 2 The following details the potential scenarios for development: Development with only single family homes: 75' Lots: 60 single family, 0 townhomes 70' Lots: 64 single family, 0 townhomes 65' Lots: 67 single family, 0 townhomes With Townhomes: 75' Lots: 53 single family, 16 townhomes (2.5 acre outlot) 70' Lots: 61 single family, 8 townhomes (L1 acre outlot) 65' Lots: 65 single family, 4 townhomes (0.6 acre outlot) Also please consider that we have taken the area required for the collector road entirely from the adjacent property to the south. Should we have taken all or part of thearea for the road from the development, the total unit requirements would have been as follows: Area for road ((1345*60)/43560) = 1.853 Acres • If the total area for road would have been on the development this would result in a unit count of 62.57/units. ((19.73 net acreage less 1.853 road)*3.5 units and acre) • If total area for road would have been on the development this would result in a unit count of 65.81/units. ((19.73 net acreage less .926 road)*3.5 units and acre) All of the above calculations assume 2.2 acres for park, 1.0 acre for wetland. We look forward to discussing this further at your convenience and appreciate your consideration. Best regards, Richard Cavanaugh Agenda Item: 7 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner DATE: July 3, 2012 MEETING: July 10, 2012 Planning Commission SUBJ: Wind Energy Conversion System (WECS) Regulation Study Public Hearing Background The City Council directed staff to study the City's existing regulations related to WECS at the June 5, 2012 meeting and also established a moratorium on the approval and construction of WECS until the study is complete and any amendments deemed necessary by the Planning Commission and City Council have been enacted. This staff report summarizes the information studied by staff and raises a number of questions for the Planning Commission and City Council to discuss. The attached ordinance includes a number of potential changes to the City's existing regulations based on the information reviewed. Existing City Regulations WECS are currently permitted conditionally in the Rural Residential, Agricultural Preserve, Rural Residential -Urban Reserve, Rural Residential 1, Rural Residential 2, and Suburban Residential districts. WECS are not currently permitted in any of the commercial, business, or industrial districts. In the residential districts in which they are allowed with a CUP, the following standards are established for WECS: (i) minimum set back from the nearest property line 150 feet or a distance equal to the height of the tower plus one-half the diameter of the rotor, whichever is greater; (ii) certified by a professional engineer as being of a design adequate for the atmospheric conditions of the Twin Cities; (iii) equipped with overspeed or similar controls designed to prevent disintegration of the rotor in high winds; (iv) compliance with all building and electrical code requirements of the city, the noise regulations of the Minnesota pollution control agency and the rules and regulations of the federal communications commission and federal aviation administration; (v) the city council may require compliance with any other conditions, restrictions or limitations it deems to be reasonably necessary to protect the residential character of the neighborhood. (vi) the maximum capacity or size of the WECS generator shall be 100 kilowatts or less; (vii) the city hereby reserves the right upon issuing any WECS conditional use permit to inspect the premises on which the WECS is located. If a WECS is not maintained in operational condition or poses a potential safety hazard, the owner shall take expeditious action to correct the situation; and Wind Energy Conversion Systems Page 1 of 6 July 10, 2012 Ordinance Analysis/Amendment Planning Commission Meeting (viii) any WECS or tower which is not used for six successive months shall be deemed abandoned and shall be dismantled and removed from the property at the expense of the property owner. Regulations in other Area Communities Regulations for WECS vary a great deal in nearby developing and rural communities. The attached table attempts to summarize the common regulations, including in which areas (districts) WECS are permitted, what types of WECS (private vs. utility) are allowed, setback requirements, maximum height, etc. Setback requirements are commonly 1.1x the height of the WECS, and some of additional minimum standards (for example, 1.lx the height, but no less than 300 feet). The districts in which WECS are permitted and which types of WECS are permitted vary by City. In fact, some communities do not allow WECS at all. Also attached is the "Minnesota Model Wind Ordinance. It should be noted that the model ordinance was put together in 2005 by a number of zoning/community development professionals from rural counties (Pipestone, Lyon, Nicollet) in southwest Minnesota. Public Safety Considerations Safety should be the primary concern of the regulations. Setback requirements are one of the most important considerations for this factor. In addition to protecting the "fall zone" of the tower (it needs to be noted that a collapse of the tower structure is exceedingly rare), the setback provides protection for potential for the rotor falling (still very rare, but less so than a tower collapse. One case has been reported in Minnesota), and ice falling from the blades. Ordinances include the requirement for both an automatic braking system as well as a manual braking system in order to prevent the rotor from operating in high winds. Ordinances reviewed include many requirements that licensed professionals certify to the design of a WECS, including things such as the footing of the tower, the tower structure, protection from lightning, etc. Staff has included all of these requirements found in other ordinances as part of the attached draft ordinance. Noise Beyond public safety, staff believes that the most important thing to consider is noise. As a result, staff reviewed a number of studies and other information about noise impacts of wind turbines. WECS produce sound in two ways. The equipment itself produces sound when operating, although new technologies are trending towards magnetic drives which produce less sound than the traditional gearboxes. Perhaps more important than the mechanical noise, the rotor blades produce aerodynamic sound as a result of their interaction with the wind. While mechanical sound is relatively easy to mitigate through the use of insulation, aerodynamic sound is much more difficult. As technology continues to evolve, rotor blades are being designed to produce less sound. In terms of decibels (dB), generally, an increase of 3 dB is difficult to notice, while an increase of 5-6 dB is noticeable, and an increase of 10 dB is generally perceived as twice as loud. Wind Energy Conversion Systems Page 2 of 6 July 10, 2012 Ordinance Analysis/Amendment Planning Commission Meeting One example of a private turbine of 39.9 kW with a magnetic drive is spec'ed to produce "50-55 dB at...100 feet." Decibels reduce with increased distance, generally 6dB each time the distance is doubled. At a distance of 200 feet (a likely minimum setback for this scale of turbine), the turbine would be producing 49 dB according to its specs. Larger turbines can produce around 100 dB of sound The State of Minnesota has determined that it is considered noise pollution (for all uses, not just wind turbines) for more than 50 dB to occur at residential property for more than 50% of any given hour. While almost every ordinance reviewed requires that a WECS meets the state's noise pollution standards, staff questions if this standard is sufficient, especially in residential settings. For example, the WECS described in the previous paragraph is 1 dB below and would meet state law. However, the noise from the WECS will occur more often. The Planning Commission and Council should discuss if relying on the state noise regulations are sufficient. Aerodynamic sound from wind turbines are at a low frequency which are not attenuated as well by windows and walls. A study from the Minnesota Department of Health states that the low frequency sound from turbines may be amplified by resonance and be accompanied by more vibration which lowers tolerance when compared to higher frequency sound of similar intensity. The Department of Health report summarizes two studies from Europe which concluded that approximately 25% of residents reported annoyance when sound from wind turbines were measured at 35-40 dB (in one study) or 40-45 dB (in another study). It should be noted that these studies were conducted in locations with numerous wind turbines. Reported "annoyance" from wind turbine was more likely at lower dB when compared to other sounds. Annoyance associated with exposure to different environmental noises 50 45 m 40 Wind turbines Aircraft 0 35 1 E 30 25 1 Road traffic ot 20 1 3 15 / Railways 10 •1 5 -. 0 r 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 Sound exposure (dBA) Pedersen, E. and K.P. Waye (2004). Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise —a dose -response relationship. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 116: 3460. Copyright 2004, Acoustical Society of America. Wind Energy Conversion Systems Page 3 of 6 July 10, 2012 Ordinance Analysis/Amendment Planning Commission Meeting The Department of Health study concluded that the Minnesota 50dB nighttime standard "appears to underweight the penetration of low frequency sound into residences" and suggest that a more in-depth analysis of sound is necessary for turbines. The World Health Organization recommends that ambient noise levels should be below 35 dB for optimum sleeping conditions. The model wind ordinance suggests a minimum setback of 750 feet from residences for any commercial WECS (40 kW+), and the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission requires 750 feet setback for larger commercial turbines (over 5000 kW), primarily because of noise. While the assumption may be that larger turbine produce more noise, this is not necessarily the case because smaller turbines tend to operate at higher RPMs. The example turbine described above would be reduced to 37.5 dB at 750 feet. Obviously, setbacks of 750 feet (or larger) would greatly reduce the locations in Medina where a WECS could be located. Some regulations allow this setback to be reduced through contractual agreements with neighboring properties, essentially easements where the neighboring property owner agrees to the impacts occurring on the property. Other states and countries have adopted different types of requirements related to noise. New York, for example, requires that a wind turbine does not increase the sound by more than 6 dB above the measured average ambient nighttime sound. Oregon limits the sound of wind turbines to 10 dB above the ambient level. These types of regulation requires a lot of modeling. Limits for European countries range from 35 dB to 45 dB at a "non -consenting" property line. Shadow Flicker Shadow flicker is another potential impact of WECS. The rotating blades rhythmically block the sun at locations fairly distance from the WECS, especially in the morning and evening when the angle of the sun is lower. The flicker can be annoying for neighboring property owners. The State of Michigan requires larger setbacks from roadways so that shadow flicker does not create a distraction. For larger turbines, a common recommendation is that turbines be setback a minimum of 10 times the rotational diameter of the rotor in order to reduce the impacts of flicker. One of the local ordinances reviewed by staff includes a requirement that a "flicker study" be conducted as part of the CUP process in order to analyze the potential impact of shadow flicker. Computer software exists in the wind energy industry which makes this type of study fairly easy to accomplish. Visual Impacts In order to access the amount of wind necessary to effectively produce electricity, WECS are required to be taller than surrounding landscapes and tend to be located on higher topographical locations. As a result, the turbines will be very apparent and may cause visual impacts. Such impacts are fairly subjective, and are very difficult to quantify or qualify. Certain design aspects may minimize the visual impacts such as: non -reflective finishes, monopole vs. lattice tower design, and muted color requirements. Wind Energy Conversion Systems Page 4 of 6 July 10, 2012 Ordinance Analysis/Amendment Planning Commission Meeting Wildlife Impacts Concern is often raised of the likelihood of WECS striking and killing birds and bats, which does occur. Generally, studies have shown (including studies at Buffalo Ridge in Minnesota, which showed bats were of more concern than birds) that mortality rates are not generally high enough to cause concern, especially when compared to other hazards which kill birds on a daily basis, especially natural predators. Types of WECS Some local ordinances regulate non-commercial and commercial WECS differently. Anoka, for example, only permits larger -scale commercial WECS. Other communities prohibit WECS over a certain capacity. Draft Ordinance Amendment The attached ordinance includes many of the regulations discussed in this report. Districts Allowed In terms of the districts in which WECS are permitted, staff included the most inclusive list as a starting point. This will allow the Planning Commission and City Council to remove the use from any of the districts if they see fit. As drafted, WECS would continue to be allowed in the RR, RR -1, RR -2, RR-UR as they are already. The amendment removes WECS from the Suburban Residential zoning district, but adds the use to the Business, Business Park, Commercial -Highway, Commercial Highway -Railroad, Commercial -General, Rural Business Holding and Rural Commercial Holding districts. Minimum Lot Size The ordinance requires a minimum lot size of 2 acres for any WECS. A WECS over 50 feet in height requires a lot size of 10 acres or greater and a WECS over 120 feet in height requires a lot size of 30 acres or greater. Setback Requirements The draft ordinance requires a minimum setback of 300 feet or 1.25x the height of the WECS, whichever is greater. Additional setback may be necessary in order to meet the noise limitation at the property line which is discussed later. The Planning Commission and City Council may wish to discuss removing the 300 foot minimum setback for smaller WECS (vertical axis turbines under 50 feet in height, for example). Maximum Height The draft ordinance does not establish a maximum height for a WECS. As mentioned above, larger lots are required for turbines over 120 feet. Tower Design The draft ordinance requires all WECS towers to be of monopole design. It is suggested that this design reduces the visual impact of the tower and also the potential for impacting birdlife. Noise As mentioned above, staff's research has suggested that Minnesota's noise pollution standard may not adequately protect neighboring property owners from noise impacts. Consistent with Wind Energy Conversion Systems Page 5 of 6 July 10, 2012 Ordinance Analysis/Amendment Planning Commission Meeting the studies referenced, staff believes it would be best to prevent noise in excess of 35 dB from impacting neighboring properties. This is especially true for residential property. The draft ordinance includes language for situations where greater ambient noise is already present, which would allow more than 35 dB of noise, but no more that 6 dB additional. Technical Design Requirements As referenced earlier in the report, the draft ordinance includes the requirements for professional certifications and references to other relevant codes which were found in most other local codes. Attachments 1. DRAFT ordinance 2. Minnesota Model Wind Ordinance 3. Study from Minnesota Department of Health 4. Summary of Regulations in other communities Wind Energy Conversion Systems Page 6 of 6 July 10, 2012 Ordinance Analysis/Amendment Planning Commission Meeting CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REGARDING REGULATIONS OF WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS; ADDING SECTION 828.##; AMENDING SECTIONS 826.26.4, 826.98, 832.1.03, 832.2.03, 832.3.09, 833.03, 833.07, 838.1.03, 838.2.03, 838.3.03, AND 838.5.08. The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows: SECTION I. Section 826.26.4, Subd. 8 of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by adding the underlined language and deleting the stricken language as follows: Section 826.26.4. (SR) Conditional Uses. Within the Suburban Residential district, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: Subd. 8. Windmills er wind energy conservation sy:;tems. RESERVED SECTION II. Section 826.98, Subd. 2(e) of the code of ordinances of the city of Medina is amended by adding the underlined language and deleting the str-ic-keri language as follows: Section 826.98. Conditional Use Permit Standards for Agricultural Preservation and Residential Districts. Subd. 2. Specific Standards. In addition to the general standards specified in section 825.39 of this ordinance, no conditional use permit shall be granted unless the city council determines that all of the specific standards contained in this subdivision will be met: (e) private use of windmills or Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS): windmills and WECS shall he regulated as per Section 828.XX of the Medina code of ordinances. (i) minimum set back frem the nearest property line 150 feet or a distance equal to the height of the tower plus one half the diameter of the rotor, whichever is greater; (u) c. titied by a professional engineer as being of a design ad. quite for the at.,,... .,h.,t:,. the rotor in hieh winds; 1 limitations it deems to be reasonably necessary to protect the residential character of SECTION III. New Code Section 828.XX is added as follows: Section 828.XX Wind Enerav Conversion Systems WECS Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to establish standards and procedures for Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS) through a conditional use permit in order to harness clean, renewable wind energy while at the same time protecting public health, safety and welfare. Subd. 2. Definitions. The following words and terms, wherever they appear within this ordinance, are defined as follows: (1) WECS height — the distance measured from the grade of the WECS to the highest point of the rotor blade_ For WECS which are attached to a structure, the height shall be measured from the lowest grade of the structure on which the WECS is attached. Subd. 3. Location Requirements. The following shall apply to all WECS: (a) Minimum lot size: Two acres 50 feet in height shall onlv be permitted if a lot is 10 acres in size or greater and a WECS greater than 120 feet in height shall only be permitted if a lot is 30 acres in size or greater_ (b) Maximum WECS density: 1 per lot (c) Setback from all property lines and/or public right-of-ways: 300 feet or tunes the height of the WECS. whichever is greater. (d) Setback from all stntctures: A distance ectual to the height of the WECS. This provision shall not apply to structures related to the operation of the WECS, nor if the WECS is attached to a structure. (e) No WECS shall be allowed within the Shoreland Overlay District or a tloodplain. (t) No portion of the WECS. including the full arc area created by the bladesshall extend over above -ground power lines or into any drainage and utility easement_ (e) For pole -mounted WECS, the full arc area created by the blades shall have 30 feet of clearance from any accessory structure or tree. Notwithstanding this re uirement. a WECS greater than Subd. 4. WECS Standards. The following shall apply to all WECS: (a) Maximum WECS heights: Comment [dfl]: Could set a maximum allowed capacity (5 megawatts, Comment [df2]: Or 5 acres Comment [df3]: Or 1.1 Comment [df4]: Or 300 feet, whichever is greater Comment [DM: Option: Maximum height even for barge lots. Option: Maximum rotor diameter! Option: differentiate between residential and commercial property for larger turbines (1) WECS on property less than 10 acres in size: A 'WECS located on a property less than 10 acres in size shall not exceed 50 feet in height. (2) WECS on property less than 30 acres in size: A WECS located on a property less than 30 acres in size shall not exceed 120 feet in height. (b) Tower Design: AVFCS shall he constructed in a monopole design and shall be self- supporting without the use of guy wires or similar features. (c) Tower Appearance: the following provisions shall apply to WECS unless otherwise required by FAA regulations: (1) Towers shall be unobtrusive in color such as pale gray or white or a color consistent with the surrounding area. (2) Towers shall he non -reflective and/or galvanized finish to reduce visual impact. (d) Tower Access: WECS shall he designed to prevent climbing from within 12 feet of the ,round. (e) Controls and Brakes: WECS shall he equipped with both a manual braking device as well as an automatic device capable of stopping the WECS operation in winds in excess of 40 MPI-t. (1) Lighting: No lighting, reflectors, flashers, or other illumination shall be affixed to the WECS except as required by FAA regulations. All other on -site lighting shall he consistent with the Medina Lighting Ordinance. (g) All power lines and wires serving the WECS shall he buried. (h) Electromagnetic Interference: WECS shall he filtered, shielded, or otherwise designed and constructed so as not to cause communication signal interference. The applicant shall notify all communication tower operators within two miles of the proposed WECS location prior to application to the City for conditional use permit approval. The City may require a study of the signal prior to construction in order to provide a baseline. (i) WECS foundations shall be designed to resist two times the wind uplift calculated pursuant to the Uniform Building Code. (j) Noise: The WECS shall he designed and located in such a way that no more than 35 d13(A) of noise is apparent at the property line. Notwithstanding the above, the apparent noise from the WECS may exceed 35 dB(A) at a property line if the applicant can demonstrate that the amount of noise when the WECS is operating will not exceed the average nighttime ambient noise by more than 6 dB(A). (k) Manulhcturer Warranty: The applicant shall provide documentation from the manufacturer that the WIiCS equipment proposed has been successfully operated in atmospheric conditions similar to those within the City. The WECS shall he warranted against any system failures reasonably expected in severe weather conditions. (1) Certification: (1) Equipment shall he certified by the manufacturer that it is in conformance to applicable industry standards for wind turbine design and standards adopted by the American Standards Institute (ANSI). (2) An engineer registered with the State of Minnesota shall certify that the design construction and operation of the tower and foundation are compatible with and appropriate for the turbine to he installed given the soil and climate conditions of the proposed location. 3 (m)Compliance with Codes: all WECS equipment shall be certified by relevant professionals that it is in compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal regulatory standards, including but not limited to: (1) The relevant standards of the City Code - (2) Uniform Building Code as adopted by the State of Minnesota - (3) The National Electrical Code as adopted by the State of Minnesota - (4) 'Ihe National Electric Safety Code; (5) Federal Aviation Administration and Minnesota Department of Transportation requirements: and (6) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Environmental Protection Agency regulations. Subd. S. Additional Submittal Requirements. In addition to the information required elsewhere in the City Code, applications for \VFCS shall include the following infornation: (1) A copy of the review response from the FAA concerning the development application and FAA requirements for warnin devices heioht restrictions etc. (2) Technical specifications of the WECS including, but not limited to: type, height, blade length, operating parameters, anticipated noise level at property lines, lightening protection, manufacturer's certification as required by this section, and engineer's certification as required by this section. (3) A shadow flicker report summarizing the amount of time which shadow flicker will impact neighboring property. (4) A Decommissioning Plan as required by this section shall be submitted for review and approval of the City. Subd. 6. Decommissioning. AWECS shall be considered a discontinued use after six months without energy production. A discontinued WECS must he dismantled and removed, at the property owner's expense, within 90 days of discontinuation. The decommissioning plan shall he reviewed and approved by the City to ensure the safe, rapid, and complete removal of the WECS. The plan shall identify the financial resources which will he available to pay for the im lementation of the decommissioning plan. A discontinued WECS which is not dismantled and removed within 180 days shall he considered a public nuisance subject abatement as described in the City Code and Minnesota law. Subd. 7. Record Keeping. The party responsible for operating the WECS consistent with the conditional use permit and other relevant operating standards shall measure the enerw produced by the WECS and he prepared to report the production upon request of the City. If records of energy production are not provided when requested, the WECS shall he considered to not he producing energy and subject to the rec uireunent of being decommissioned. Subd. 8. Inspection. The City reserves the right, upon issuance of a conditional use permit, to inspect the premises on which the WECS is located for compliance with this ordinance, the conditions set forth on the conditional use permit, and other relevant requirements. If a WECS is not maintained in operational condition or poses a potential safety hazard, the 4 owner shall be required to take expeditious action to correct the situation upon written notice from the City. Subd 9. Enforcement. Operation of a WECS in violation of the requirements of this ordinance, of the teens of the conditional use permit, or of other relevant requirements shall he a violation of this ordinance and subject to prosecution. Additionally, such operation shall constitute a public nuisance, subject to abatement as described in the City Code and Minnesota law. SECTION IV. Section 832.1.03 (11) of the code of ordinances for the City of Medina shall be added by adding the underlined material as follows: ,Section 832.1.P, (BPl conditional >4jsel. Within the Business Park District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit, the specific requirements established in Section 832.3.09, and other applicable provisions of the city code: (11) Wind 1?nerg,y Conversion Systems (WECS) SECTION V. Section 832.2.03 (18) of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina shall be added by adding the underlined material as follows: Section 832.2.03. (B) Conditional Uses. The following shall be permitted uses within the B district, subject to conditional use permit approval, the specific requirements established in Section 832.3.09, and other applicable provisions of the city code: (18) Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS) SECTION VI. Section 832.3.09, Subd. 25 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina shall be added by adding the underlined material as follows: Section 832.3.09. Supplemental Requirements for Specific Uses within the Business Park and Business Districts. Subd. 25. Wind Energy Conversion Systems (%VECS) - shall meet the requirements set forth is Section 828.#n of this code. SECTION VII. Section 833.03 (17) of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina shall be added by adding the underlined material as follows: Section 833.03. Conditional Uses. Within the Industrial Park District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit. 5 (17) Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS) SECTION VIII. Section 833.07 Subd. 3 (q) of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina shall be added by adding the underlined material as follows: Section 833.07. Design and Development Standards. Design and development standards are established for this district to achieve a high standard of development by providing assurance that land uses, buildings, and functions are compatible within the district and with adjacent districts. The plans and the proposed use of a property shall conform to the design and development standards prior to approval of any permit. The applicant or owner shall supply plans and data necessary to demonstrate such conformance. Subd. 3. Design and development standards — conditional uses: The following design and development standards are identified for the uses listed below. Additional standards may be identified during the review and approval process, due to the particular characteristics of each site, the proposed development of the site, and the uses on adjacent property. fq) Wind Energy Conversion Systems (\VECS) - shall meet the requirements set forth is Section 828.# of this code. SECTION IX. Section 838.1.03(11) of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina shall be amended by adding the underlined material as follows: Section 838.1.03. (CH) Conditional Uses. The following shall be permitted within the CH district, subject to conditional use permit approval, the specific requirements established in Section 838.5.08, and other applicable provisions of the city code: (1 l) Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS) SECTION X. Section 838.2.03 (1 1) of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina shall be added by adding the underlined material as follows: Section 838.2.03. (CH -RR) Conditional Uses. The following shall be permitted within the CH - RR district, subject to conditional use permit approval, the specific requirements established in Section 838.5.08, and other applicable provisions of the city code: (I 1) Wind Energy Conversion S stems WECS SECTION XI. Section 838.3.03 (10) of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina shall be added by adding the underlined material as follows: 6 ,a1 Section 838.3.03. (CG) Conditional Uses. The following shall be permitted uses within the CG district, subject to conditional use permit approval, the specific requirements established in Section 838.5.08, and other applicable provisions of the city code: (10) Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS) SECTION XII. Section 838.5.08, Subd. 20 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina shall be added by adding the underlined material as follows: Section 838.5.08. Supplemental Requirements for Specific Uses within Commercial Zoning Districts. In addition to the general standards specified for conditional uses in section 825.39 of the City Code and other requirements of this ordinance, the following uses shall not be permitted unless the city council determines that all of the specific standards contained in this subdivision will be met: Subd. 20. Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS) - shall meet the requirements set forth is Section 828.## of this code. SECTION XIII. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication. Adopted by the Medina city council this _ day of , 2012. T.M. Crosby, Jr., Mayor Attest: Scott T. Johnson, City Administrator -Clerk Published in the South Crow River on the _ day of . 2012. 7 Attachment 2 - MN Model Wind Ordinance (12 pages) Interest and development of wind energy has increased in Minnesota, both in the volume and geographically. During the 1990's, several counties adopted wind ordinances to address local wind development. Over time, zoning issues have arisen and it was found that modifications to the ordinances were desired to promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community. To address these issues and provide consistencies between counties in wind development, the development of a model wind ordinance and supporting explanation document were identified as a benefit to all Minnesota Counties who are experiencing wind development, and to the Clean Energy Resource Teams who advocate renewable energy development.. The Model Ordinance (attached) and supporting explanatory document (completion anticipated in early November 2005) are being prepared in partnership by: • John Biren, Lyon County • Annette Bair, Southwest Regional Development Commission • Kyle Krier, Pipestone County • Mandy Landkamer, Nicollet County • Mark Lindquist, The Minnesota Project Additional assistance is being provided by • Jannie Hanson, Three Rivers Resource and Conservation Development District Wind Turbine Zoning Summary of Standards Counties, Cities, and Townships are enabled to regulate land under Minnesota Statutes 394 and 462 for the purpose "promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of community" Key Factors in Model Wind Ordinance 1) Distinguish between Commercial and Non -Commercial wind turbines. a. Commercial > = 40 kW (or 100 kW) b. Non Commercial < 40 kW (or 100 kW) c. Optional: Micro <=1 kW and short tower 2) Define Necessary Permits a. Commercial: i. Conditional Use Permit in Ag and Industrial Zones ii. "Conservation" or special protection Districts — examine purpose of the districts to determine if CUP is appropriate. iii. Not permitted elsewhere, including Shoreland or Wild and Scenic River iv. Alternatively — establish a wind energy overlay district. b. Non -Commercial use of: the i. Permitted in Ag and Industrial Zones ii. Conditionally Permitted in Rural (large lot) Residential, Highway Commercial, Urban Expansion, Shoreland, Wild and Scenic River iii. Not -Permitted: Rural Town Site (small lot residential), General Business, 3) Establish Setbacks a. Commercial i. Homes 150 feet ii. Property lines 1.1 — 1.25 x total height iii. Road Rights -of -Way 1 x total height iv. Other ROWs to be considered v. Conservation lands 600 feet vi. Type III, IV and V wetlands 600 feet vii. Scenic River Bluffs 500 — 1340 feet. b. Non -Commercial i. Property 1.1 x total height ii. ROWs 1 x total height (or fall zone + 10') 4) Establish Safety Standards a. Engineers Certification on system b. 12' minimum ground clearance c. Markings on guy cables 5) Establish Design Standards a. Tubular towers on commercial turbines b. White, grey or non -obtrusive color i. Consideration for aviation warning on met towers c. Lighting limited to FAA requirement d. Signage limited to appropriate warnings and turbine mfg / owner on nacelle. e. Power lines buried f. Power lines between projects and off -site substations buried. g. Substations comply with essential service standards h. Discontinued Use and Decommissioning — considered abandoned after 1 year no production / 90 days for removal. — Plan required 6) Establish Other Applicable Standards a. Comply with state noise rules (50 decibels at nearest farm house), b. Electrical codes, and c. FAA regulations 1) Minimize Infrastructure Impacts a. Road damage mitigation b. Drainage system damage mitigation Interference — minimize or mitigate interference with electromagnetic telecommunications. Note: text in brackets [ ] is to note that there are some reasonable alternatives that the local unit of government may choose in adopting an ordinance. Those alternatives are listed but separated by a slash /. Example: Commercial WECS: A WECS of equal to or greater than [100/40] kW in name plate generating capacity. This means that the local unit may prefer a larger or smaller threshold for defining a Commercial WECs. Wind Energy Conversion System Ordinance Purpose — This ordinance is established to regulate the installation and operation of Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS) within County not otherwise subject to siting and oversight by the State of Minnesota under the Minnesota Power Plant Siting Act (MS 116C.51 -116C.697. ) Interpretation, Conflict and Separability' Interpretation — In interpreting these regulations and their application, the provisions of these regulations shall be held to be the minimum requirements for the protection of public health, safety and general welfare. These regulations shall be constructed to broadly promote the purposes for which they are adopted. Conflict - These regulations are not intended to interfere with, abrogate or annul any other ordinance, rule or regulation, statute or other provision of law except as provided in these regulations. No other provision of these regulations that impose restrictions different from any other ordinance, rule or regulation, statute or provision of law, the provision that is more restrictive or imposes higher standards shall control. Separability — If any part or provision of these regulations or the application of these regulations to any developer or circumstances is ajudged 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 be rendered and shall not affect or impair the validity of the remainder of these regulations or the application of them to other developers or circumstances. Enforcement, Violations, Remedies and Penalties Enforcement of the Wind Energy Conversion System Ordinance shall be done in accordance with process and procedures established in Section of the County Zoning Ordinance. ` The County may wish to examine the Interpretation, Conflict and Separability language in its other ordinances and utilize consistent language. Definitions WECS - Wind Energy Conversion System: An electrical generating facility comprised of one or more wind turbines and accessory facilities, including but not limited to: power lines, transformers, substations and metrological towers, that operate by converting the kinetic energy of wind into electrical energy. The energy maybe used on -site or distributed into the electrical grid. Aggregated Project: Aggregated projects are those which are developed and operated in a coordinated fashion, but which have multiple entities separately owning one or more of the individual WECS within the larger project. Associated infrastructure such as power lines and transformers that service the facility may be owned by a separate entity but are also included in the aggregated project. Commercial WECS: A WECS of equal to or greater than [100/40] kW in total name plate generating capacity.2 Non -Commercial WECS: A WECS less than [ 100/40] kW in total name plate generating Capacity. Fall Zone: The area, defined as the furthest distance from the tower base, in which a guyed tower will collapse in the event of a structural failure. This area is less than the total height of the structure. Feeder Line: Any power line that carries electrical power from one or more wind turbines or individual transformers associated with an individual wind turbine to the point of interconnection with the electric power grid, in the case of interconnection with the high voltage transmission systems the point of interconnection shall be the substation serving the WECS. Meteorological Tower: For the purposes of this Wind Energy Conversation System Ordinance, meteorological towers are those tower which are erected primarily to measure wind speed and directions plus other data relevant to siting WECS. Meteorological towers do not include towers and equipment used by airports, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, or other similar applications to monitor weather conditions. 2 40 kw and 100 kw are both reasonable standards for defining the Commercial WECS threshold. In Minnesota, renewable energy projects of less than 40 kW are covered by a "Net Metering" law. This allows the electrical generating facility to effectively receive retail rate for all energy sold to the local utility. 100 kW is a significantly larger, but is relatively speaking a small electric generator. Federal and state laws also have established relatively favorable procedures and rates for interconnecting renewable generators of under 100 kW capacity. Refurbished wind turbines are currently available in capacities between 40 and 100 kW. Some counties may find that that these turbines are fully consistent with surrounding land uses and opt for a less rigorous set of standards and conditions. Micro-WECs: Micro-WECS are WECS of 1 kW nameplate generating capacity or less and utilizing supporting towers of 40 feed or less. Property line: The boundary line of the area over which the entity applying for WECS permit has legal control for the purposes of installation of a WECS. This control may be attained through fee title ownership, easement, or other appropriate contractual relationship between the project developer and landowner. Rotor diameter: The diameter of the circle described by the moving rotor blades. Substations: Any electrical facility designed to convert electricity produced by wind turbines to a voltage greater than (35,000 KV) for interconnection with high voltage transmission lines shall be located outside of the road right of way. Total height: The highest point, above ground level, reached by a rotor tip or any other part of the WECS. Transmission Line: Those electrical power lines that carry voltages of at least 69,000 volts (69 KV) and are primarily used to carry electric energy over medium to long distances rather than directly interconnecting and supplying electric energy to retail customers. Tower: Towers include vertical structures that support the electrical generator, rotor blades, or meteorological equipment. Tower height: The total height of the WECS exclusive of the rotor blades. Public conservation lands: Land owned in fee title by State or Federal agencies and managed specifically for [grassland] conservation purposes, including but not limited to State Wildlife Management Areas, State Parks, State Scientific and Natural Areas, federal Wildlife Refuges and Waterfowl Production Areas. For the purposes of this section public conservation lands will also include lands owned in fee title by non-profit conservation organizations. Public conservation lands do not include private lands upon which conservation easements have been sold to public resource management agencies or non-profit conservation organizations. Wind Turbine: A wind turbine is 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. Procedures: [Zoning / Land Use] Permits, Conditional Use Permits and Variances shall be applied for and reviewed under the procedures established in Section of the County's Zoning Ordinance, except where noted below. The application for all WECS shall include the following information: • The names of project applicant • The name of the project owner • The legal description and address of the project. • A description of the project including: Number, type, name plate generating capacity, tower height, rotor diameter, and total height of all wind turbines and means of interconnecting with the electrical grid. • Site layout, including the location of property lines, wind turbines, electrical wires, interconnection points with the electrical grid, and all related accessory structures. The site layout shall include distances and be drawn to scale. • Engineer's certification • Documentation of land ownership or legal control of the property The application for Commercial WECS shall also include: • The latitude and longitude of individual wind turbines. • A USGS topographical map, or map with similar data, of the property and surrounding area, including any other WECS within 10 rotor diameters of the Proposed WECS. • Location of wetlands or natural areas within 1,320 feet of the proposed WECS. • [An Acoustical analysis] • FAA Permit Application • Location of all known Communications Towers within 2 miles of the proposed WECS. • Decommissioning Plan • Description of potential impacts on nearby WECS and wind resources on adjacent properties. Aggregated Projects — Procedures Aggregated Projects may jointly submit a single application and be reviewed under joint proceedings, including notices, hearings, reviews and as appropriate approvals. Permits will be issued and recorded separately. Joint applications will be assessed fees as one project. [Aggregated projects having a combined capacity equal to or greater than the threshold for State oversight as set forth in MS Statute 116C.691 through 116C.697 shall be regulated by the State of Minnesota.]3 3 Aggregated projects have been a grey area, with some regulated by the State and some regulated by Counties. The County may wish to remove uncertainty by directing that all aggregated projects over the 5 MW threshold currently outlined in statute be subject to state regulation. During late 2004, however, the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board determined that aggregated projects of 5 MW or more are the jurisdiction of the State, as long as the projects are using one substation and being installed by one developer. District Regulations WECS will be permitted, conditionally permitted or not permitted based on the generating capacity and land use district as established in the table below: District Non- Commercial* Commercial Meteorological Tower* Agriculture (A-1, A-2, A-3) Permitted Conditionally Permitted Permitted Rural Residential Conditionally permitted Not permitted Not Permitted Rural Town Site Not permitted Not permitted Not Permitted General Business District Not permitted Not Permitted Not permitted Highway Commercial Conditionally permitted Not Permitted Permitted Light Industry Permitted Conditionally Permitted Permitted Heavy Industry Permitted Conditionally Permitted Permitted Shoreland [may depend upon the lake and the specific district] Not permitted Not permitted Urban Expansion Overlay District Conditionally permitted Not permitted Not permitted Conservation / Special Protection Shoreland Wild and Scenic River [requires examination of the district purpose, the underlying resource and the impacts of a wind turbine on that resource] Conditionally permitted Conditionally permitted [requires examination of the district purpose, the underlying resource and the impacts of a wind turbine on that resource] Not permitted Not permitted [Requires examination of the district purpose, the underlying resource and the impacts of a wind turbine on that resource] Not permitted Not permitted [* Non -Commercial WECS and Meteorological towers shall require a conditional use permit if over feet in height in accordance with Section of the County Zoning Ordinance.] [The county may choose to establish a Wind Energy Development Overlay District in lieu of permitting or not permitting wind in existing zoning districts. Counties may also consider a third category of WECs, "Micro Turbines" which have a name plate capacity equal to or less than 1 kW and utilizing towers of less than 40 feet. Permitting would be more permissive for these machines. ] Setbacks — Wind Turbines and Meteorological Towers All towers shall adhere to the setbacks established in the following table. Wind Turbine — Non- Commercial WECS Wind Turbine - Commercial WECS Meteorological Towers4 Property lines 1.1 times the total height or in Agricultural or Industrial Land Use Districts only. the distance of the fall zone, as certified by a professional engineer + 10 feet. [ 1.1 / 1.25] times the total height The fall zone, as certified by a professional engineer, + 10 feet or 1.1 times the total height. [Neighboring] Dwellings [*] 750 feet The fall zone, as certified by a professional engineer, + 10 feet or 1.1 times the total height. Road Rights -of -Way [**] The distance of the fall zone as certified by a professional engineer + 10 feet or 1 times the total height. [Or equivalent to centerline] 1 times the height, may be reduced for minimum maintenance roads or a road with Average Daily Traffic Count of less than 10. [Or equivalent to centerline] The fall zone, as certified by a professional engineer, + 10 feet or 1 times the total height. Other Rights -of -Way (Railroads, power lines, etc) The lesser of 1 times the total height or the distance of the fall zone, as certified by a professional engineer + 10 feet. To be considered by the planning commission The fall zone, as certified by a professional engineer, + 10 feet or 1 times the total height. Public conservation lands managed as grasslands NA 600 feet 600 feet Wetlands, USFW Types III, IV and V NA 600 feet 600 feet Other Structures To be considered Other Existing WECS NA To be considered based on: - Relative size of the existing and proposed WECS -Alignment of the WECS relative to the predominant winds. The county may have an existing tower ordinance in place, and inay choose to regulate meteorological towers under that ordinance. -Topography -Extent of wake interference impacts on existing WECS. -Property line setback of existing WECS. -Other setbacks required. Waived for internal setbacks in multiple turbine projects including aggregated projects. River Bluff' [500 / 1,000 / 1,320 / ] [* The setback for dwellings shall be reciprocal in that no dwelling shall be constructed within 750 feet of a commercial wind turbine.] [** The setback shall be measured from future rights -of -way if a planned changed or expanded right-of-way is known.] Setbacks — substations and accessory facilities Minimum setback standards for substations and feeder lines shall be consistent with the standards for essential services established in Section of the County Zoning Ordinance. [Substation setbacks - 0 feet / structure setback from road ROW — located wholly outside the ROW. - property lines 0 feet / structure setback from property lines/side yard.] Requirements and Standards Safety Design Standards The intent here is to minimize the impact on the scenic qualities of major rivers valleys such as the Mississippi, St. Croix and Minnesota. Care should be taken to avoid excessive setbacks, particularly from bluffs overlooking smaller tributaries to the major river. Wabasha County Minnesota has adopted 1/4 mile setbacks from bluffs overlooking tributaries as well as the the Mississippi River. This effectively creates a broad corridor where WECS are prohibited. It may be more appropriate in areas with complex terrain to develop an overlay map that identifies specific areas where wind development is prohibited. 6 Nearly all zoning ordinances address "essential services" which usual includes electric power lines, and related equipment such as substations. Most substations are sited adjacent to the road ROWs. This conserves farm land and reduces costs for such facilities, but creates some concerns for road authorities including site lines, snow drifting, and financial liabilities that might result from road re -construction. It is recommended that substations associated with WECS be regulated in a manner consistent with essential service regulations. However, if those regulations are clear then it may be appropriate to establish specific setbacks in the WECS ordinance. Engineering Certification — For all WECS, the manufacture's engineer or another qualified engineer shall certify that the turbine, foundation and tower design of the WECS is within accepted professional standards, given local soil and climate conditions. Clearance — Rotor blades or airfoils must maintain at least 12 feet of clearance between their lowest point and the ground. Warnings — For all Commercial WECS, a sign or signs shall be posted on the tower, transformer and substation warning of high voltage. [Signs with emergency contact information shall also be posted on the turbine or at another suitable point.] For all guyed towers, visible and reflective objects, such as plastic sleeves, reflectors or tape, shall be placed on the guy wire anchor points and along the outer and innermost guy wires up to a height of 8 feet above the ground. [Visible fencing shall be installed around anchor points of guy wires.] [Consideration shall be given to painted aviation warning on metrological towers of less than 200 feet.] Standards Total height — Non -Commercial WECS shall have a total height of less than 200 feet. [Section of this ordinance requires a conditional use for all structures over feet in total height. In those districts where meteorological towers are a permitted use, meteorological towers of less than 200 feet shall be exempt from Conditional Use process established for structures of over feet in height.]' Tower configuration — All wind turbines, which are part of a commercial WECS, shall be installed with a tubular, monopole type tower. In adopting this ordinance, care should be taken to ensure that this section and the District Regulations section are consistent. Most county zoning ordinances require a Conditional Use Permit for structures of 100' or greater. If a county chooses to exempt meteorological towers from the CUP process, it should include that language here, and not include the reference back to that section in the District regulations. Conversely, if the county does not wish to exempt meteorological towers from the height triggers for CUP, this language should not be adopted Meteorological towers may be guyed. Color and Finish — All wind turbines and towers that are part of a commercial WECS shall be white, grey and another non -obtrusive color. Blades may be black in order to facilitate deicing. Finishes shall be matt or non -reflective. [Exceptions may be made for metrological towers, where concerns exist relative to aerial spray applicators.] Lighting — Lighting including lighting intensity and frequency of strobe, shall adhere to but not exceed requirements established by Federal Aviation Administration permits and regulations. Red strobe lights are preferred for night- time illumination to reduce impacts on migrating birds. Red pulsating incandescent lights should be avoided. [Exceptions may be made for metrological towers, where concerns exist relative to aerial spray applicators.] Other Signage — All signage on site shall comply with section [sign ordinance] of the County Ordinance. The manufacturer's or owner's company name and /or logo may be placed upon the nacelle, compartment containing the electrical generator, of the WECS. Feeder Lines — All communications and feeder lines, equal to or less than 34.5 kV in capacity, installed as part of a WECS shall be buried [where reasonably feasible]. Feeder lines installed as part of a WECS shall not be considered an essential service. This standard applies to all feeder lines subject to County authority. 8 Waste Disposal — Solid and Hazardous wastes, including but not limited to crates, packaging materials, damaged or worn parts, as well as used oils and lubricants, shall be removed from the site promptly and disposed of in accordance with all applicable local, state and federal regulations. Discontinuation and Decommissioning - A WECS shall be considered a discontinued use after 1 year without energy production, unless a plan is developed and submitted to the County Zoning Administrator outlining the steps and schedule for returning the WECS to service. All WECS and accessory facilities shall be removed to [ground level / four feet below ground level] within 80 days of the discontinuation use. 9 $ The model ordinance references the Essential Services Ordinance for determining setbacks for substations and feeder lines in the Setback Section. However, the intent is not to necessarily define the feeder lines as an essential service. The model ordinance anticipates that there will be projects that run feeder lines to interconnection points that are off site. The ordinance does not intend to provide commercial projects with the same prerogatives as a essential services, but rather to simplify determination of setbacks and placement of substations and feeder lines relative to rights -of -ways. 9 Removal of materials will provide differing protections to the public welfare. Removal to ground level will eliminate the potential for blight and safety concerns associated with un-maintained equipment left Each Commercial WECS shall have a Decommissioning plan outlining the anticipated means and cost of removing WECS at the end of their serviceable life or upon becoming a discontinued use. The cost estimates shall be made by a competent party; such as a Professional Engineer, a contractor capable of decommissioning or a person with suitable expertise or experience with decommissioning. The plan shall also identify the financial resources that will be available to pay for the decommissioning and removal of the WECS and accessory facilities. Orderly Development — Upon issuance of a conditional use permit, all Commercial WECs shall notify the Environmental Quality Board Power Plant Siting Act program Staff of the project location and details on the survey form specified by the Environmental Quality Board. Other Applicable Standards Noise — All WECS shall comply with Minnesota Rules 7030 governing noise. Electrical codes and standards — All WECS and accessory equipment and facilities shall comply with the National Electrical Code and other applicable standards. Federal Aviation Administration— All WECS shall comply with FAA standards. [Uniform Building Code — All WECS shall comply with the Uniform Building Code adopted by the State of Minnesota.] Interference — The applicant shall minimize or mitigate any interference with electromagnetic communications, such as radio, telephone, microwaves, or television signals cause by any WECS. The applicant shall notify all communication tower operators within [two / five] miles of the proposed WECS location upon application to the county for permits. No WECs shall be constructed so as to interfere with County or Minnesota Department of Transportation microwave transmissions. Avoidance and Mitigation of Damages to Public Infrastructure — Roads — Applicants shall: Identify all county, city or township roads to be used for the purpose of transporting WECS, substation parts, cement, and/or equipment for standing. Deeper removal will facilitate the return of the site to agricultural production or other uses. The shallow removal will allow resumption of cropping, and the deeper removal will allow for future tiling or drainage projects. construction, operation or maintenance of the WECS and or Substation and obtain applicable weight and size permits from impacted road authority(ies) prior to construction. [Conduct a pre -construction survey, in coordination with the impacted local road authority(ies) to determine existing road conditions. The survey shall include photographs and a written agreement to document the condition of the public facility. Be responsible for restoring or paying damages as agreed to buy the applicable road authority(ies) sufficient to restore the road(s) to preconstruction conditions.] Drainage System — The Applicant shall be responsible for immediate repair of damage to public drainage systems stemming from construction, operation or maintenance of the WECS. Attachment 3 - Study from MN Dept of Health Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines Prepared by: Minnesota Department of Health Environmental Health Division In response to a request from: Minnesota Department of Commerce Office of Energy Security May 22, 2009 Table of Contents Table of Contents ii Tables Figures iii L Introduction 1 A. Site Proposals 1 1. Bent Tree Wind Project in Freeborn County 3 2. Noble Flat Hill Wind Park in Clay, Becker and Ottertail Counties 3 B. Health Issues 6 II. Elementary Characteristics of Sensory Systems and Sound 6 A. Sensory Systems 6 1. Hearing 6 2. Vestibular System 7 B. Sound 8 1. Introduction 8 Audible Frequency Sound 8 Sub -Audible Frequency Sound 9 Resonance and modulation 9 2. Human Response to Low Frequency Stimulation 10 3. Sound Measurements 10 III. Exposures of Interest 11 A. Noise From Wind Turbines 11 1. Mechanical noise 11 2. Aerodynamic noise 11 3. Modulation of aerodynamic noise 12 4. Wind farm noise 14 B. Shadow Flicker 14 IV. Impacts of Wind Turbine Noise 15 A. Potential Adverse Reaction to Sound 15 Annoyance, unpleasant sounds, and complaints 15 B. Studies of Wind Turbine Noise Impacts on People 17 1. Swedish Studies 17 2. United Kingdom Study 17 3. Netherlands Study 17 4. Case Reports 18 V. Noise Assessment and Regulation 19 1. Minnesota noise regulation 19 2. Low frequency noise assessment and regulation 19 3. Wind turbine sound measurements 22 4. Wind turbine regulatory noise limits 24 VI. Conclusions 25 VII. Recommendations 26 VIII. Preparers of the Report: 26 IX. References 27 ii Tables Table 1: Minnesota Class 1 Land Use Noise Limits 19 Table 2: 35 dB(A) (nominal, 8 Hz-20KHz) Indoor Noise from Various Outdoor Environmental Sources 22 Figures Figure 1: Wind turbines 2 Figure 2: Bent Tree Wind Project, Freeborn County 4 Figure 3: Noble Flat Hill Wind Park, Clay, Becker, Ottertail Counties 5 Figure 4: Audible Range of Human Hearing 9 Figure 5: Sources of noise modulation or pulsing 13 Figure 6: Annoyance associated with exposure to different environmental noises 20 Figure 7: 1/3 Octave Sound Pressure Level Low frequency Noise Evaluation Curves 21 Figure 8: Low Frequency Noise from Wind Farm: Parked, Low Wind Speed, and High Wind Speed 23 Figure 9: Change in Noise Spectrum as Distance from Wind Farm Changes 24 iii I. Introduction In late February 2009 the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) received a request from the Office of Energy Security (OES) in the Minnesota Department of Commerce, for a "white paper" evaluating possible health effects associated with low frequency vibrations and sound arising from large wind energy conversion systems (LWECS). The OES noted that there was a request for a Contested Case Hearing before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) on the proposed Bent Tree Wind Project in Freeborn County Minnesota; further, the OES had received a long comment letter from a citizen regarding a second project proposal, the Lakeswind Wind Power Plant in Clay, Becker and Ottertail Counties, Minnesota. This same commenter also wrote to the Commissioner of MDH to ask for an evaluation of health issues related to exposure to low frequency sound energy generated by wind turbines. The OES informed MDH that a white paper would have more general application and usefulness in guiding decision -making for future wind projects than a Contested Case Hearing on a particular project. (Note: A Contested Case Hearing is an evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, and may be ordered by regulatory authorities, in this case the PUC, in order to make a determination on disputed issues of material fact. The OES advises the PUC on need and permitting issues related to large energy facilities.) In early March 2009, MDH agreed to evaluate health impacts from wind turbine noise and low frequency vibrations. In discussion with OES, MDH also proposed to examine experiences and policies of other states and countries. MDH staff appeared at a hearing before the PUC on March 19, 2009, and explained the purpose and use of the health evaluation. The Commissioner replied to the citizen letter, affirming that MDH would perform the requested review. A brief description of the two proposed wind power projects, and a brief discussion of health issues to be addressed in this report appear below. A. Site Proposals Wind turbines are huge and expensive machines requiring large capitol investment. Figure 1 shows some existing wind turbines in Minnesota. Large projects require control of extensive land area in order to optimize spacing of turbines to minimize turbulence at downwind turbines. Towers range up to 80 to 100 meters (260 to 325 feet), and blades can be up to 50 meters long (160 feet) (see Tetra Tech, 2008; WPL, 2008). Turbines are expected to be in place for 25-30 years. 1 1. Bent Tree Wind Project in Freeborn County This is a proposal by the Wisconsin Power and Light Company (WPL) for a 400 megawatt (MW) project in two phases of 200 MW each (requiring between 80 and 130 wind turbines). The cost of the first phase is estimated at $497 million. The project site area would occupy approximately 40 square miles located 4 miles north and west of the city of Albert Lea, approximately 95 miles south of Minneapolis (Figure 2) (WPL, 2008). The Project is a LWECS and a Certificate of Need (CON) from the PUC is required (Minnesota Statutes 216B.243). The PUC uses the CON process to determine the basic type of facility (if any) to be constructed, the size of the facility, and when the project will be in service. The CON process involves a public hearing and preparation of an Environmental Report by the OES. The CON process generally takes a year, and is required before a facility can be permitted. WPL is required to develop a site layout that optimizes wind resources. Accordingly, project developers are required to control areas at least 5 rotor diameters in the prevailing (north -south) wind directions (between about 1300 and 1700 feet for the 1.5 to 2.5 MW turbines under consideration for the project) and 3 rotor diameters in the crosswind (east - west) directions (between about 800 and 1000 feet). Thus, these are minimum setback distances from properties in the area for which easements have not been obtained. Further, noise rules promulgated by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA; Minnesota Rules Section 7030), specify a maximum nighttime noise in residential areas of 50 A -weighted decibels (dB(A). WPL has proposed a minimum setback of 1,000 feet from occupied structures in order to comply with the noise rule. 2. Noble Flat Hill Wind Park in Clay, Becker and Ottertail Counties This is a LWECS proposed by Noble Flat Hill Windpark I (Noble), a subsidiary of Noble Environmental Power, based in Connecticut. The proposal is for a 201 MW project located 12 miles east of the City of Moorhead, about 230 miles northwest of Minneapolis (Figure 3) (Tetra Tech, 2008). The cost of the project is estimated to be between $382 million and $442 million. One hundred thirty-four GE 1.5 MW wind turbines are planned for an area of 11,000 acres (about 17 square miles); the site boundary encompasses approximately 20,000 acres. Setback distances of a minimum of 700 feet are planned to comply with the 50 dB(A) noise limit. However, rotor diameters will be 77 meters (250 feet). Therefore, setback distances in the prevailing wind direction of 1,300 feet are planned for properties where owners have not granted easements. Setbacks of 800 feet are planned in the crosswind direction. 3 Figure 2: Bent Tree Wind Project, Freeborn County A. ETGOIST ..w Light n W-:,scc3 Co bau(i Co MINNESOTA IOWA Freeblrr1'Co. MINNESOTA OVERVIEW ND MI WI NE \ IA IL S.ee Co. Kies 0 1 2 3 Away. reel. 4 Figure 3: Noble Flat Hill Wind Park, Clay, Becker, Ottertail Counties 5 B. Health Issues The National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC, 2007) has reviewed impacts of wind energy projects on human health and well-being. The NRC begins by observing that wind projects, just as other projects, create benefits and burdens, and that concern about impacts is natural when the source is near one's home. Further, the NRC notes that different people have different values and levels of sensitivity. Impacts noted by the NRC that may have the most effect on health include noise and low frequency vibration, and shadow flicker. While noise and vibration are the main focus of this paper, shadow flicker (casting of moving shadows on the ground as wind turbine blades rotate) will also be briefly discussed. Noise originates from mechanical equipment inside the nacelles of the turbines (gears, generators, etc.) and from interaction of turbine blades with wind. Newer wind turbines generate minimal noise from mechanical equipment. The most problematic wind turbine noise is a broadband "whooshing" sound produced by interaction of turbine blades with the wind. Newer turbines have upwind rotor blades, minimizing low frequency "infrasound" (i.e., air pressure changes at frequencies below 20-100 Hz that are inaudible). However, the NRC notes that during quiet conditions at night, low frequency modulation of higher frequency sounds, such as are produced by turbine blades, is possible. The NRC also notes that effects of low frequency (infrasound) vibration (less than 20 Hz) on humans are not well understood, but have been asserted to disturb some people. Finally, the NRC concludes that noise produced by wind turbines is generally not a major concern beyond a half mile. Issues raised by the NRC report and factors that may affect distances within which wind turbine noise may be problematic are discussed more extensively below. II. Elementary Characteristics of Sensory Systems and Sound A. Sensory Systems 1. Hearing Sensory systems respond to a huge dynamic range of physical stimuli within a relatively narrow dynamic range of mechanical, chemical and/or neuronal (electrophysiological) output. Compression of the dynamic range is accomplished by systems that respond to logarithmic increases in intensity of physical stimuli with arithmetically increasing sensory responses. This :eneral property is true for hearing, and has been recognized since at least the mid -19` century (see e.g., Woodworth and Schlosberg, 1964). "Loudness" is the sensory/perceptual correlate of the physical intensity of air pressure changes to which the electro-mechanical transducers in the ear and associated neuronal pathways are sensitive. Loudness increases as the logarithm of air pressure, and it is convenient to relate loudness to a reference air pressure (in dyne/cm' or pascals) in tenths of logarithmic units (decibels; dB). Further, the ear is sensitive to only a relatively narrow frequency range of air pressure changes: those between approximately 20 and 20,000 cycles per second or Herz (Hz). In fact, sensitivity varies within this range, so that the sound pressure level relative to a reference value that is audible in the middle of the range 6 (near 1,000 Hz) is about 4 orders of magnitude smaller than it is at 20 Hz and about 2 orders of magnitude smaller than at 20,000 Hz (Fig. 3). Accordingly, measurements of loudness in dB generally employ filters to equalize the loudness of sounds at different frequencies or "pitch." To approximate the sensitivity of the ear, A -weighted filters weigh sound pressure changes at frequencies in the mid -range more than those at higher or lower frequencies. When an A -weighted filter is used, loudness is measured in dB(A). This is explained in greater detail in Section B below. The ear accomplishes transduction of sound through a series of complex mechanisms (Guyton, 1991). Briefly, sound waves move the eardrum (tympanic membrane), which is in turn connected to 2 small bones (ossicles) in the middle ear (the malleus and incus). A muscle connected to the malleus keeps the tympanic membrane tensed, allowing efficient transmission to the malleus of vibrations on the membrane. Ossicle muscles can also relax tension and attenuate transmission. Relaxation of muscle tension on the tympanic membrane protects the ear from very loud sounds and also masks low frequency sounds, or much background noise. The malleus and incus move a third bone (stapes). The stapes in turn applies pressure to the fluid of the cochlea, a snail -shaped structure imbedded in temporal bone. The cochlea is a complex structure, but for present purposes it is sufficient to note that pressure changes or waves of different frequencies in cochlear fluid result in bending of specialized hair cells in regions of the cochlea most sensitive to different frequencies or pitch. Hair cells are directly connected to nerve fibers in the vestibulocochlear nerve (VIII cranial nerve). Transmission of sound can also occur directly through bone to the cochlea. This is a very inefficient means of sound transmission, unless a device (e.g. a tuning fork or hearing aid) is directly applied to bone (Guyton, 1991). 2. Vestibular System The vestibular system reacts to changes in head and body orientation in space, and is necessary for maintenance of equilibrium and postural reflexes, for performance of rapid and intricate body movements, and for stabilizing visual images (via the vestibulo-ocular reflex) as the direction of movement changes (Guyton, 1991). The vestibular apparatus, like the cochlea, is imbedded in temporal bone, and also like the cochlea, hair cells, bathed in vestibular gels, react to pressure changes and transmit signals to nerve fibers in the vestibulocochlear nerve. Two organs, the utricle and saccule, called otolith organs, integrate information about the orientation of the head with respect to gravity. Otoliths are tiny stone -like crystals, embedded in the gels of the utricle and saccule, that float as the head changes position within the gravitational field. This movement is translated to hair cells. Three semi -circular canals, oriented at right angles to each other, detect head rotation. Stimulation of the vestibular apparatus is not directly detected, but results in activation of motor reflexes as noted above (Guyton, 1991). Like the cochlea, the vestibular apparatus reacts to pressure changes at a range of frequencies; optimal frequencies are lower than for hearing. These pressure changes can be caused by body movements, or by direct bone conduction (as for hearing, above) when vibration is applied directly to the temporal bone (Todd et al., 2008). These investigators 7 found maximal sensitivity at 100 Hz, with some sensitivity down to 12.5 Hz. The saccule, located in temporal bone just under the footplate of the stapes, is the most sound -sensitive of the vestibular organs (Halmagyi et al., 2004). It is known that brief loud clicks (90-95 dB) are detected by the vestibular system, even in deaf people. However, we do not know what the sensitivity of this system is through the entire range of sound stimuli. While vestibular system activation is not directly felt, activation may give rise to a variety of sensations: vertigo, as the eye muscles make compensatory adjustments to rapid angular motion, and a variety of unpleasant sensations related to internal organs. In fact, the vestibular system interacts extensively with the "autonomic" nervous system, which regulates internal body organs (Balaban and Yates, 2004). Sensations and effects correlated with intense vestibular activation include nausea and vomiting and cardiac arrhythmia, blood pressure changes and breathing changes. While these effects are induced by relatively intense stimulation, it is also true that A - weighted sound measurements attuned to auditory sensitivity, will underweight low frequencies for which the vestibular system is much more sensitive (Todd et al., 2008). Nevertheless, activation of the vestibular system per se obviously need not give rise to unpleasant sensations. It is not known what stimulus intensities are generally required for for autonomic activation at relatively low frequencies, and it is likely that there is considerable human variability and capacity to adapt to vestibular challenges. B. Sound 1. Introduction Sound is carried through air in compression waves of measurable frequency and amplitude. Sound can be tonal, predominating at a few frequencies, or it can contain a random mix of a broad range of frequencies and lack any tonal quality (white noise). Sound that is unwanted is called noise. Audible Frequency Sound Besides frequency sensitivity (between 20 and 20,000 Hz), humans are also sensitive to changes in the amplitude of the signal (compression waves) within this audible range of frequencies. Increasing amplitude, or increasing sound pressure, is perceived as increasing volume or loudness. The sound pressure level in air (SPL) is measured in micro Pascals (µPa). SPLs are typically converted in measuring instruments and reported as decibels (dB) which is a log scale, relative unit (see above). When used as the unit for sound, dBs are reported relative to a SPL of 20 µPa. Twenty µPa is used because it is the approximate threshold of human hearing sensitivity at about 1000 Hz. Decibels relative to 20 µPa are calculated from the following equation: Loudness (dB) = Log ((SPL / 20 µPa)`) * 10 Figure 4 shows the audible range of normal human hearing. Note that while the threshold sensitivity varies over the frequency range, at high SPLs sensitivity is relatively consistent over audible frequencies. 8 Figure 4: Audible Range of Human Hearing 120 — Sound Pressure Level (a 100 — o. 80 N 60 .r = 40 20 m 0 -20 105 dB(C) isopleth —20 dB(A) isopleth • 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Frequency (Hz) Equivalence curves for different frequencies, when sound meter readings in dB are taken with A or C -weighting filters. (Adapted from EPD Hong Kong SAR, 2009) Sub -Audible Frequency Sound Sub -audible frequency sound is often called infrasound. It may be sensed by people, similar to audible sound, in the cochlear apparatus in the ear; it may be sensed by the vestibular system which is responsible for balance and physical equilibrium; or it may be sensed as vibration. Resonance and modulation Sound can be attenuated as it passes through a physical structure. However, because the wavelength of low frequency sound is very long (the wavelength of 40 Hz in air at sea level and room temperature is 8.6 meters or 28 ft), low frequencies are not effectively attenuated by walls and windows of most homes or vehicles. (For example, one can typically hear the bass, low frequency music from a neighboring car at a stoplight, but not the higher frequencies.) In fact, it is possible that there are rooms within buildings exposed to low frequency sound or noise where some frequencies may be amplified by resonance (e.g. 1/2 wavelength, 1/4 wavelength) within the structure. In addition, low frequency sound can cause vibrations within a building at higher, more audible frequencies as well as throbbing or rumbling. Sounds that we hear generally are a mixture of different frequencies. In most instances these frequencies are added together. However, if the source of the sound is not constant, but changes over time, the effect can be re -occurring pulses of sound or low frequency modulation of sound. This is the type of sound that occurs from a steam engine, a jack hammer, music and motor vehicle traffic. Rhythmic, low frequency pulsing of higher frequency noise (like the sound of an amplified heart beat) is one type of sound that can be caused by wind turbine blades under some conditions. 9 2. Human Response to Low Frequency Stimulation There is no consensus whether sensitivity below 20 Hz is by a similar or different mechanism than sensitivity and hearing above 20 Hz (Reviewed by Moller and Pedersen, 2004). Possible mechanisms of sensation caused by low frequencies include bone conduction at the applied frequencies, as well as amplification of the base frequency and/or harmonics by the auditory apparatus (eardrum and ossicles) in the ear. Sensory thresholds are relatively continuous, suggesting (but not proving) a similar mechanism above and below 20 Hz. However, it is clear that cochlear sensitivity to infrasound (< 20 Hz) is considerably less than cochlear sensitivity to audible frequencies. Moller and Pedersen (2004) reviewed human sensitivity at low and infrasonic frequencies. The following findings are of interest: • When whole -body pressure -field sensitivity is compared with ear -only (earphone) sensitivity, the results are very similar. These data suggest that the threshold sensitivity for low frequency is through the ear and not vestibular. • Some individuals have extraordinary sensitivity at low frequencies, up to 25 dB more sensitive than the presumed thresholds at some low frequencies. • While population average sensitivity over the low frequency range is smooth, sound pressure thresholds of response for individuals do not vary smoothly but are inconsistent, with peaks and valleys or "microstructures". Therefore the sensitivity response of individuals to different low frequency stimulation may be difficult to predict. • Studies of equal -loudness -levels demonstrate that as stimulus frequency decreases through the low frequencies, equal -loudness lines compress in the dB scale. (See Figure 4 as an example of the relatively small difference in auditory SPL range between soft and loud sound at low frequencies). • The hearing threshold for pure tones is different than the hearing threshold for white noise at the same total sound pressure. 3. Sound Measurements Sound measurements are taken by instruments that record sound pressure or the pressure of the compression wave in the air. Because the loudness of a sound to people is usually the primary interest in measuring sound, normalization schemes or filters have been applied to absolute measurements. dB(A) scaling of sound pressure measurements was intended to normalize readings to equal loudness over the audible range of frequencies at low loudness. For example, a 5,000 Hz (5 kHz) and 20 dB(A) tone is expected to have the same intensity or loudness as a 100 Hz, 20 dB(A) tone. However, note that the absolute sound pressures would be about 200 µPa and 2000 µPa, respectively, or about a difference of 20 dB (relative to 20 µPa), or as it is sometimes written 20 dB(linear). Most sound is not a single tone, but is a mixture of frequencies within the audible range. A sound meter can add the total SPLs for all frequencies; in other words, the dB readings over the entire spectrum of audible sound can be added to give a single loudness metric. If sound is reported as A -weighted, or dB(A), it is a summation of the dB(A) scaled sound pressure from 20 Hz to 20 kHz. 10 In conjunction with the dB(A) scale, the dB(B) scale was developed to approximate equal loudness to people across audible frequencies at medium loudness, and dB(C) was developed to approximate equal -loudness for loud environments. Figure 4 shows isopleths for 20 dB(A) and 105 dB(C). While dB(A), dB(B), dB(C) were developed from empirical data at the middle frequencies, at the ends of the curves these scales were extrapolated, or sketched in, and are not based on experimental or observational data (Berglund et al., 1996). As a result, data in the low frequency range (and probably the highest audible frequencies as well) cannot be reliably interpreted using these scales. The World Health Organization (WHO, 1999) suggests that A -weighting noise that has a large low frequency component is not reliable assessment of loudness. The source of the noise, or the noise signature, may be important in developing equal - loudness schemes at low frequencies. C -weighting has been recommended for artillery noise, but a linear, unweighted scale may be even better at predicting a reaction (Berglund et al., 1996). A linear or equal energy rating also appears to be the most effective predictor of reaction to low frequency noise in other situations, including blast noise from mining. The implication of the analysis presented by Berglund et al. (1996) is that annoyance from non -tonal noise should not be estimated from a dB(A) scale, but may be better evaluated using dB(C), or a linear non -transformed scale. However, as will be discussed below, a number of schemes use a modified dB(A) scale to evaluate low frequency noise. These schemes differ from a typical use of the dB(A) scale by addressing a limited frequency range below 250 Hz, where auditory sensitivity is rapidly changing as a function of frequency (see Figure 4). III. Exposures of Interest A. Noise From Wind Turbines 1. Mechanical noise Mechanical noise from a wind turbine is sound that originates in the generator, gearbox, yaw motors (that intermittently turn the nacelle and blades to face the wind), tower ventilation system and transformer. Generally, these sounds are controlled in newer wind turbines so that they are a fraction of the aerodynamic noise. Mechanical noise from the turbine or gearbox should only be heard above aerodynamic noise when they are not functioning properly. 2. Aerodynamic noise Aerodynamic noise is caused by wind passing over the blade of the wind turbine. The tip of a 40-50 meter blade travels at speeds of over 140 miles per hour under normal operating conditions. As the wind passes over the moving blade, the blade interrupts the laminar flow of air, causing turbulence and noise. Current blade designs minimize the amount of turbulence and noise caused by wind, but it is not possible to eliminate turbulence or noise. Aerodynamic noise from a wind turbine may be underestimated during planning. One source of error is that most meteorological wind speed measurements noted in wind farm literature are taken at 10 meters above the ground. Wind speed above this elevation, in 11 the area of the wind turbine rotor, is then calculated using established modeling relationships. In one study (van den Berg, 2004) it was determined that the wind speeds at the hub at night were up to 2.6 times higher than modeled. Subsequently, it was found that noise levels were 15 dB higher than anticipated. Unexpectedly high aerodynamic noise can also be caused by improper blade angle or improper alignment of the rotor to the wind. These are correctable and are usually adjusted during the turbine break-in period. 3. Modulation of aerodynamic noise Rhythmic modulation of noise, especially low frequency noise, has been found to be more annoying than steady noise (Bradley, 1994; Holmberg et al., 1997). One form of rhythmic modulation of aerodynamic noise that can be noticeable very near to a wind turbine is a distance -to -blade effect. To a receptor on the ground in front of the wind turbine, the detected blade noise is loudest as the blade passes, and quietest when the blade is at the top of its rotation. For a modern 3 -blade turbine, this distance -to -blade effect can cause a pulsing of the blade noise at about once per second (1 Hz). On the ground, about 500 feet directly downwind from the turbine, the distance -to -blade can cause a difference in sound pressure of about 2 dB between the tip of the blade at its farthest point and the tip of the blade at its nearest point (48 meter blades, 70 meter tower). Figure 5 demonstrates why the loudness of blade noise (aerodynamic noise) pulses as the distance -to -blade varies for individuals close to a turbine. If the receptor is 500 feet from the turbine base, in line with the blade rotation or up to 60° off line, the difference in sound pressure from the tip of the blade at its farthest and nearest point can be about 4-5 dB, an audible difference. The tip travels faster than the rest of the blade and is closer to (and then farther away from) the receptor than other parts of the blade. As a result, noise from other parts of the blade will be modulated less than noise from the tip. Further, blade design can also affect the noise signature of a blade. The distance -to -blade effect diminishes as receptor distance increases because the relative difference in distance from the receptor to the top or to the bottom of the blade becomes smaller. Thus, moving away from the tower, distance -to -blade noise gradually appears to be more steady. Another source of rhythmic modulation may occur if the wind through the rotor is not uniform. Blade angle, or pitch, is adjusted for different wind speeds to maximize power and to minimize noise. A blade angle that is not properly tuned to the wind speed (or wind direction) will make more noise than a properly tuned blade. Horizontal layers with different wind speeds or directions can form in the atmosphere. This wind condition is called shear. If the winds at the top and bottom of the blade rotation are different, blade noise will vary between the top and bottom of blade rotation, causing modulation of aerodynamic noise. This noise, associated with the blades passing through areas of different air -wind speeds, has been called aerodynamic modulation and is demonstrated in Figure 5. 12 Figure 5: Sources of noise modulation or pulsing furthest (quietest) Dista osest (loudest) 20 mph wind source of aerodynamic modulation noise 10 mph wind In some terrains and under some atmospheric conditions wind aloft, near the top of the wind turbine, can be moving faster than wind near the ground. Wind turbulence or even wakes from adjacent turbines can create non -uniform wind conditions as well. As a result of aerodynamic modulation a rhythmic noise pattern or pulsing will occur as each blade passes through areas with different wind speed. Furthermore, additional noise, or thumping, may occur as each blade passes through the transition between different wind speed (or wind direction) areas. Wind shear caused by terrain or structures on the ground (e.g. trees, buildings) can be modeled relatively easily. Wind shear in areas of flat terrain is not as easily understood. During the daytime wind in the lower atmosphere is strongly affected by thermal convection which causes mixing of layers. Distinct layers do not easily form. However, in the nighttime the atmosphere can stabilize (vertically), and layers form. A paper by G.P. van den Berg (2008) included data from a study on wind shear at Cabauw, The Netherlands (flat terrain). Annual average wind speeds at different elevations above ground was reported. The annual average wind speed at noon was about 5.75 meters per second (m/s; approximately 12.9 miles per hour(mph)) at 20 m above ground, and about 7.6 m/s (17 mph) at 140 m. At midnight, the annual averages were about 4.3 m/s (9.6 mph) and 8.8 m/s (19.7 mph) for 20m and 140 m, respectively, above ground. The data show that while the average windspeed (between 20m and 140m) is very similar at noon and midnight at Cabauw, the windspeed difference between elevations during the day is 13 much less than the difference at night (1.85 m/s (4.1 mph) and 4.5 m/s (10 mph), respectively). As a result one would expect that the blade angle can be better tuned to the wind speed during the daytime. Consequently, blade noise would be greater at night. A number of reports have included discussion of aerodynamic modulation (van den Berg, 2005; UK Department of Transport and Industry, 2006; UK Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, 2007; van den Berg, 2008). They suggest that aerodynamic modulation is typically underestimated when noise estimates are calculated. In addition, they suggest that detailed modeling of wind, terrain, land use and structures may be used to predict whether modulation of aerodynamic noise will be a problem at a proposed wind turbine site. 4. Wind farm noise The noise from multiple turbines similarly distant from a residence can be noticeably louder than a lone turbine simply through the addition of multiple noise sources. Under steady wind conditions noise from a wind turbine farm may be greater than noise from the nearest turbine due to synchrony between noise from more than one turbine (van den Berg, 2005). Furthermore, if the dominant frequencies (including aerodynamic modulation) of different turbines vary by small amounts, an audible beat or dissonance may be heard when wind conditions are stable. B. Shadow Flicker Rhythmic light flicker from the blades of a wind turbine casting intermittent shadows has been reported to be annoying in many locations (NRC, 2007; Large Wind Turbine Citizens Committee, 2008). (Note: Flashing light at frequencies around 1 Hz is too slow to trigger an epileptic response.) Modeling conducted by the Minnesota Department of Health suggests that a receptor 300 meters perpendicular to, and in the shadow of the blades of a wind turbine, can be in the flicker shadow of the rotating blade for almost 1'/z hour a day. At this distance a blade may completely obscure the sun each time it passes between the receptor and the sun. With current wind turbine designs, flicker should not be an issue at distances over 10 rotational diameters (-1000 meters or 1 km (0.6 mi) for most current wind turbines). This distance has been recommended by the Wind Energy Handbook (Burton et al., 2001) as a minimum setback distance in directions that flicker may occur, and has been noted in the Bent Tree Permit Application (WPL, 2008). Shadow flicker is a potential issue in the mornings and evenings, when turbine noise may be masked by ambient sounds. While low frequency noise is typically an issue indoors, shadow flicker can be an issue both indoors and outdoors when the sun is low in the sky. Therefore, shadow flicker may be an issue in locations other than the home. Ireland recommends wind turbines setbacks of at least 300 meters from a road to decrease driver distraction (Michigan State University, 2004). The NRC (2007) recommends that shadow flicker is addressed during the preliminary planning stages of a wind turbine project. 14 IV. Impacts of Wind Turbine Noise A. Potential Adverse Reaction to Sound Human sensitivity to sound, especially to low frequency sound, is variable. Individuals have different ranges of frequency sensitivity to audible sound; different thresholds for each frequency of audible sound; different vestibular sensitivities and reactions to vestibular activation; and different sensitivity to vibration. Further, sounds, such as repetitive but low intensity noise, can evoke different responses from individuals. People will exhibit variable levels of annoyance and tolerance for different frequencies. Some people can dismiss and ignore the signal, while for others, the signal will grow and become more apparent and unpleasant over time (Moreira and Bryan, 1972; Bryan and Tempest, 1973). These reactions may have little relationship to will or intent, and more to do with previous exposure history and personality. Stress and annoyance from noise often do not correlate with loudness. This may suggest, in some circumstances, other factors impact an individual's reaction to noise. A number of reports, cited in Staples (1997), suggest that individuals with an interest in a project and individuals who have some control over an environmental noise are less likely to find a noise annoying or stressful. Berglund et al. (1996) reviewed reported health effects from low frequency noise. Loud noise from any source can interfere with verbal communication and possibly with the development of language skills. Noise may also impact mental health. However, there are no studies that have looked specifically at the impact of low frequency noise on communication, development of language skills and mental health. Cardiovascular and endocrine effects have been demonstrated in studies that have looked at exposures to airplane and highway noise. In addition, possible effects of noise on performance and cognition have also been investigated, but these health studies have not generally looked at impacts specifically from low frequency noise. Noise has also been shown to impact sleep and sleep patterns, and one study demonstrated impacts from low 'frequency noise in the range of 72 to 85 dB(A) on chronic insomnia (Nagai et al., 1989 as reported in Berglund et al., 1996). Case studies have suggested that health can be impacted by relatively low levels of low frequency noise. But it is difficult to draw general conclusions from case studies. Feldmann and Pitten (2004)) describe a family exposed during the winter to low frequency noise from a nearby heating plant. Reported health impacts were: "indisposition, decrease in performance, sleep disturbance, headache, ear pressure, crawl parasthesy [crawling, tingling or numbness sensation on the skin] or shortness of breath." Annoyance, unpleasant sounds, and complaints Reported health effects from low frequency stimulation are closely associated with annoyance from audible noise. "There is no reliable evidence that infrasounds below the hearing threshold produce physiological or psychological effects" (WHO, 1999). It has not been shown whether annoyance is a symptom or an accessory in the causation of 15 health impacts from low frequency noise. Studies have been conducted on some aspects of low frequency noise that can cause annoyance. Noise complaints are usually a reasonable measure of annoyance with low frequency environmental noise. Leventhall (2004) has reviewed noise complaints and offers the following conclusions: " The problems arose in quiet rural or suburban environments The noise was often close to inaudibility and heard by a minority of people The noise was typically audible indoors and not outdoors The noise was more audible at night than day The noise had a throb or rumble characteristic The main complaints came from the 55-70 years age group The complainants had normal hearing. Medical examination excluded tinnitus. " These are now recognised as classic descriptors of low frequency noise problems." These observations are consistent with what we know about the propagation of low intensity, low frequency noise. Some people are more sensitive to low frequency noise. The difference, in dB, between soft (acceptable) and loud (annoying) noise is much less at low frequency (see Figure 4 audible range compression). Furthermore, during the daytime, and especially outdoors, annoying low frequency noise can be masked by high frequency noise. The observation that "the noise was typically audible indoors and not outdoors" is not particularly intuitive. However, as noted in a previous section, low frequencies are not well attenuated when they pass through walls and windows. Higher frequencies (especially above 1000 Hz) can be efficiently attenuated by walls and windows. In addition, low frequency sounds may be amplified by resonance within rooms and halls of a building. Resonance is often characterized by a throbbing or a rumbling, which has also been associated with many low frequency noise complaints. Low frequency noise, unlike higher frequency noise, can also be accompanied by shaking, vibration and rattling. In addition, throbbing and rumbling may be apparent in some low frequency noise. While these noise features may not be easily characterized, numerous studies have shown that their presence dramatically lowers tolerance for low frequency noise (Berglund et al., 1996). As reviewed in Leventhall (2003), a study of industrial exposure to low frequency noise found that fluctuations in total noise averaged over 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 seconds correlated with annoyance (Holmberg et al., 1997). This association was noted elsewhere and led (Broner and Leventhall, 1983) to propose a 3dB "penalty" be added to evaluations of annoyance in cases where low frequency noise fluctuated. In another laboratory study with test subjects controlling loudness, 0.5 — 4 Hz modulation of low frequency noise was found to be more annoying than non -modulated low 16 frequency noise. On average test subjects found modulated noise to be similarly annoying as a constant tone 12.9 dB louder (Bradley, 1994). B. Studies of Wind Turbine Noise Impacts on People 1. Swedish Studies Two studies in Sweden collected information by questionnaires from 341 and 754 individuals (representing response rates of 68% and 58%, respectively), and correlated responses to calculated exposure to noise from wind farms (Pedersen and Waye, 2004; Pedersen, 2007; Pedersen and Persson, 2007). Both studies showed that the number of respondents perceiving the noise from the wind turbines increased as the calculated noise levels at their homes increased from less than 32.5 dB(A) to greater than 40 dB(A). Annoyance appeared to correlate or trend with calculated noise levels. Combining the data from the two studies, when noise measurements were greater than 40 dB(A), about 50% of the people surveyed (22 of 45 people) reported annoyance. When noise measurements were between 35 and 40 dB(A) about 24% reported annoyance (67 of 276 people). Noise annoyance was more likely in areas that were rated as quiet and in areas where turbines were visible. In one of the studies, 64% respondents who reported noise annoyance also reported sleep disturbance; 15% of respondents reported sleep disturbance without annoyance. 2. United Kingdom Study Moorhouse et al. (UK Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, 2007) evaluated complaints about wind farms. They found that 27 of 133 operating wind farms in the UK received formal complaints between 1991 and 2007. There were a total of 53 complainants for 16 of the sites for which good records were available. The authors of the report considered that many complaints in the early years were for generator and gearbox noise. However, subjective analyses of reports about noise ("like a train that never gets there", "distant helicopter", "thumping", "thudding", "pulsating", "thumping", "rhythmical beating", and "beating") suggested that aerodynamic modulation was the likely cause of complaints at 4 wind farms. The complaints from 8 other wind farms may have had "marginal" association with aerodynamic modulation noise. Four wind farms that generated complaints possibly associated with aerodynamic modulation were evaluated further. These wind farms were commissioned between 1999 and 2002. Wind direction, speed and times of complaints were associated for 2 of the sites and suggested that aerodynamic modulation noise may be a problem between 7% and 25% of the time. Complaints at 2 of the farms have stopped and at one farm steps to mitigate aerodynamic modulation (operational shutdown under certain meteorological conditions) have been instituted. 3. Netherlands Study F. van den Berg et al. (2008) conducted a postal survey of a group selected from all residents in the Netherlands within 2.5 kilometers (km) of a wind turbine. In all, 725 residents responded (37%). Respondents were exposed to sound between 24 and 54 dB(A). The percentage of respondents annoyed by sound increased from 2% at levels of 30 dB(A) or less, up to 25% at between 40 and 45 dB. Annoyance decreased above 45 dB. Most residents exposed above 45 dB(A) reported economic benefits from the 17 turbines. However, at greater than 45 dB(A) more respondents reported sleep interruption. Respondents tended to report more annoyance when they also noted a negative effect on landscape, and ability to see the turbines was strongly related to the probability of annoyance. 4. Case Reports A number of un-reviewed reports have catalogued complaints of annoyance and some more severe health impacts associated with wind farms. These reports do not contain measurements of noise levels, and do not represent random samples of people living near wind turbines, so they cannot assess prevalence of complaints. They do generally show that in the people surveyed, complaints are more likely the closer people are to the turbines. The most common complaint is decreased quality of life, followed by sleep loss and headache. Complaints seem to be either from individuals with homes quite close to turbines, or individuals who live in areas subject to aerodynamic modulation and, possibly, enhanced sound propagation which can occur in hilly or mountainous terrain. In some of the cases described, people with noise complaints also mention aesthetic issues, concern for ecological effects, and shadow flicker concerns. Not all complaints are primarily about health. Harry (2007) describes a meeting with a couple in Cornwall, U.K. who live 400 meters from a wind turbine, and complained of poor sleep, headaches, stress and anxiety. Harry subsequently investigated 42 people in various locations in the U.K. living between 300. meters and 2 kilometers (1000 feet to 1.2 miles) from the nearest wind turbine. The most frequent complaint (39 of 42 people) was that their quality of life was affected. Headaches were reported by 27 people and sleep disturbance by 28 people. Some people complained of palpitations, migraines, tinnitus, anxiety and depression. She also mentions correspondence and complaints from people in New Zealand, Australia, France, Germany, Netherlands and the U.S. Phipps (2007) discusses a survey of 619 households living up to 10 kilometers (km; 6 miles) from wind farms in mountainous areas of New Zealand. Most respondents lived between 2 and 2.5 km from the turbines (over 350 households). Most respondents (519) said they could see the turbines from their homes, and 80% of these considered the turbines intrusive, and 73% considered them unattractive. Nine percent said they were affected by flicker. Over 50% of households located between 2 and 2.5 km and between 5 and 9.5 km reported being able to hear the turbines. In contrast, fewer people living between 3 and 4.5 km away could hear the turbines. Ninety-two households said that their quality of life was affected by turbine noise. Sixty-eight households reported sleep disturbances: 42 of the households reported occasional sleep disturbances, 21 reported frequent sleep disturbances and 5 reported sleep disturbances most of the time. The Large Wind Turbine Citizens Committee for the Town of Union (2008) documents complaints from people living near wind turbines in Wisconsin communities and other places in the U.S. and U.K. Contained in this report is an older report prepared by the Wisconsin Public Service Corporation in 2001 in response to complaints in Lincoln County, Wisconsin. The report found essentially no exceedances of the 50 dB(A) requirement in the conditional use permit. The report did measure spectral data 18 accumulated over very short intervals (1 minute) in 1/3 octave bands at several sites while the wind turbines were functioning, and it is of interest that at these sites the sound pressure level at the lower frequencies (below 125 Hz) were at or near 50 dB(A). Pierpont (2009) postulates wind turbine syndrome, consisting of a constellation of symptoms including headache, tinnitus, ear pressure, vertigo, nausea, visual blurring, tachycardia, irritability, cognitive problems and panic episodes associated with sensations of internal pulsation. She studied 38 people in 10 families living between 1000 feet and slightly under 1 mile from newer wind turbines. She proposes that the mechanism for these effects is disturbance of balance due to "discordant" stimulation of the vestibular system, along with visceral sensations, sensations of vibration in the chest and other locations in the body, and stimulation of the visual system by moving shadows. Pierpont does report that her study subjects maintain that their problems are caused by noise and vibration, and the most common symptoms reported are sleep disturbances and headache. However, 16 of the people she studied report symptoms consistent with (but not necessarily caused by) disturbance of equilibrium. V. Noise Assessment and Regulation 1. Minnesota noise regulation The Minnesota Noise Pollution Control Rule is accessible online at: https://www.revisor.leg..state.mn.us/piles/?id=7030. A summary of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) noise guidance can be found online at: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/pro<u.rams/noise.html . The MPCA standards require A - weighting measurements of noise; background noise must be at least 10 dB lower than the noise source being measured. Different standards are specified for day and night, as well as standards that may not be exceeded for more than 10 percent of the time during any hour (L10) and 50 percent of the time during any hour (L50). Household units, including farm houses, are Classification 1 land use. The following are the Class 1 noise limits: Table 1: Minnesota Class 1 Land Use Noise Limits Daytime Nighttime L50 L10 L50 L10 60 dB(A) 65 dB(A) 50 dB(A) 55 dB(A) These noise limits are single number limits that rely on the measuring instrument to apply an A -weighting filter over the entire presumed audible spectrum of frequencies (20 Hz to 20 KHz) and then integrating that signal. The result is a single number that characterizes the audible spectrum noise intensity. 2. Low frequency noise assessment and regulation Pedersen and Waye (2004) looked at the relationship between total dB(A) sound pressure and the annoyance of those who are environmentally exposed to noise from different sources. Figure 6 demonstrates the difficulty in using total dB(A) to evaluate annoyance. Note how lower noise levels (dB(A)) from wind turbines engenders annoyance similar to 19 much higher levels of noise exposure from aircraft, road traffic and railroads. Sound impulsiveness, low frequency noise and persistence of the noise, as well as demographic characteristics may explain some of the difference. Figure 6: Annoyance associated with exposure to different environmental noises 50 45 N. 40 35 E 30 4 25 20 1' 15 • 10 5 • i 0 • Wind turbines r f 1 • Aircraft Road traffic Railways 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 65 68 70 Sound exposure (dBA) Reprinted with permission from Pedersen, E. and K.P. Waye (2004). Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise — a dose -response relationship. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 116: 3460. Copyright 2004, Acoustical Society of America. Kjellberg et al. (1997) looked at the ability of different full spectrum weighting schemes to predict annoyance caused by low frequency audio noise. They found that dB(A) is the worst predictor of annoyance of available scales. However, if 6 dB ("penalty") is added to dB(A) when dB(C) — dB(A) is greater than 15 dB, about 71% of the predictions of annoyance are correct. It is important to remember that integrated, transformed measurements of SPL (e.g. dB(A), dB(C)) do not measure frequencies below 20 Hz. While people detect stimuli below 20 Hz, as discussed in above sections, these frequencies are not measured using an A -weighted or C -weighted meter. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that if dB(C) is greater than 10 dB more than dB(A), the low frequency components of the noise may be important and should be evaluated separately. In addition, WHO says "[i]t should be noted that a large proportion of low -frequency components in noise may increase considerably the adverse effects on health." (WHO, 1999) Many governments that regulate low frequency noise look at noise within bands of frequencies instead of summing the entire spectrum. A study by Poulsen and Mortensen (Danish Environmental Protection Agency, 2002) included a summary of low frequency noise guidelines. German, Swedish, Polish, and Dutch low frequency evaluation curves were compared (see Figure 7). While there are distinctions in how the evaluation curves are described, generally, these curves are sound pressure criterion levels for 1/3 octaves from about 8 Hz to 250 Hz. Exceedance in any 1/3 octave measurement suggests that the noise may be annoying. However, note that regulations associated with low frequency 20 noise can be quite complex and the regulatory evaluations associated with individual curves can be somewhat different. Figure 7: 1/3 Octave Sound Pressure Level Low frequency Noise Evaluation Curves Sound Pressure Level. dB 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 5 20 30 50 200 300 500 10 100 Frequency, Hz (Danish Environmental Protection Agency, 2002) Low Frequency Evaluation Curves Piet Sloven, NL Swedish —X— Polish $ German — A — Dutch The Danish low frequency evaluation requires measuring noise indoors with windows closed; SPL measurements are obtained in 1/3 octave bands and transformed using the A - weighting algorithm for all frequencies between 10 and 160 Hz. These values are then summed into a single metric called LPA,LF. A 5 dB "penalty" is added to any noise that is "impulsive". Danish regulations require that 20 dB LPA,LF is not exceeded during the evening and night, and that 25 dB LPA,LF is not exceeded during the day. Swedish guidance recommends analyzing 1/3 octave bands between 31.5 and 200 Hz inside a home, and comparing the values to a Swedish assessment curve. The Swedish curve is equal to the United Kingdom (UK) Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) low frequency noise criterion curve for overlapping frequencies (31.5 — 160 Hz). The German "A -level" method sums the A -weighted equivalent levels of 1/3 octave bands that exceed the hearing threshold from 10 — 80 Hz. If the noise is not tonal, the measurements are added. The total cannot exceed 25 dB at night and 35 dB during the day. A frequency -dependent adjustment is applied if the noise is tonal. In the Poulsen and Mortensen, Danish EPA study (2002), 18 individuals reported annoyance levels when they were exposed through earphones in a controlled environment to a wide range of low frequency environmental noises, all attenuated down to 35 dB, as depicted in Table 2. Noise was simulated as if being heard indoors, filtering out noise at 21 higher frequencies and effectively eliminating all frequencies above 1600 Hz. Noise levels in 1/3 octave SPLs from 8 Hz to 1600 Hz were measured and low frequencies (below 250 Hz) were used to predict annoyance using 7 different methods (Danish, German A -level, German tonal, Swedish, Polish, Sloven, and C -level). Predictions of annoyance were compared with the subjective annoyance evaluations. Correlation coefficients for these analyses ranged from 0.64 to 0.94, with the best correlation in comparison with the Danish low frequency noise evaluation methods. As would be expected, at 35 dB nominal (full spectrum) loudness, every low frequency noise source tested exceeded all of the regulatory standards noted in the Danish EPA report. Table 2 shows the Danish and Swedish regulatory exceedances of the different 35 dB nominal (full spectrum) noise. Table 2: 35 dB(A) (nominal, 8 Hz-20KHz) Indoor Noise from Various Outdoor Environmental Sources Traffic Noise Dro For a Gas Turbine i Past Fe Cooling p g rry ,Steel Factor}✓ Generator I Compressor Discotheque Noise Noise >- 20 Hz 67.6 dB(lin) 71.1 dB(lin) 78.4 dB(lin) 64.5 dB(lin) 72.7 dB(lin) 60.2 dB(lin) 60.3 dB(lin) 67.0 dB(lin) 35.2 dB(A) 36.6 dB(A) 35.0 dA 35.1 dB(A) 33.61 dB(A) j 36.2 dB(A) 3'6.6 dB(A) 1 33 6 dB(A) 62.9 dB(C) i 67.3 d8(C) 73.7 dB(C) 61.7 dB(C) 1 66.0 dB(C) r 58.6 dB(C)I 59.0 d8(C) 57.8 dB(C) Danish Environmental 14.5 dB Protection Agency Swedish National Board ( 14.1 dB of Health and Welfare 21.5 dB • 14.8 dB 15.0 dB 13.1 dB 16.1 dB 19.7 dB 15.9 dB 16.8 dB 14.0 dB 18.0 d6 15.5 dB 18.3 dB i 16.0 dB 10.0 dB * includes 5 dB "penalty" Noise adjusted to dB(lin), dB(A), dB(C) scales. Calculated exceedances of Danish and Swedish indoor criteria. (data from Danish Environmental Protection Agency, 2002) In their noise guidance, the WHO (1999) recommends 30 dB(A) as a limit for "a good night's sleep". However, they also suggest that guidance for noise with predominating low frequencies be less than 30 dB(A). 3. Wind turbine sound measurements Figure 8 shows examples of the SPLs at different frequencies from a representative wind turbine in the United Kingdom. Sound pressure level measurements are reported for a Nordex N-80 turbine at 200 meters (UK Department of Transport and Industry, 2006) when parked, at low wind speeds, and at high wind speeds. Figure 8 also includes, for reference, 3 sound threshold curves (ISO 226, Watanabe & Moller, 85 dB(G)) and the DEFRA Low Frequency Noise Criterion Curve (nighttime). 22 Figure 8: Low Frequency Noise from Wind Farm: Parked, Low Wind Speed, and High Wind Speed Loa Frequency Noise Assessment Wind Farm: External Noise Levels Ground Board —0-1)I:I IIN(nlcn„n(u„r �.:1•ns yh,nalw C M, tk, - In.l t .nn. Ira -A.,: — ?—tt'md F.ull. t OW % n,1 Sj 1 tn.! f .r:c: I1Th 1% mat Six..1 Coll co 4n lrx IM +} Ii1 1 • e, . 10 i_ In .1w ,.1,± 411 <,1 4*:' X. 100 1111 _Ire :, 11. S.M. hMl I hill Ost.r.o I i I Crutly I toju4.11,.y (ILO, (UK Department of Transport and Industry, 2006) In general, sound tends to propagate as if by spherical dispersion. This creates amplitude decay at a rate of about -6 dB per doubling of distance. However, low frequency noise from a wind turbine has been shown to follow more of a cylindrical decay at long distances, about -3 dB per doubling of distance in the downwind direction (Shepherd and Hubbard, 1991). This is thought to be the result of the lack of attenuation of low frequency sound waves by air and the atmospheric refraction of the low frequency sound waves over medium to long distances (Hawkins, 1987). Figure 9 shows the calculated change in spectrum for a wind farm from 278 meters to 22,808 meters distant. As one moves away from the noise source, loudness at higher frequencies decreases more rapidly (and extinguishes faster) than at lower frequencies. Measurement of A -weighted decibels, shown at the right of the figure, obscures this finding. 23 Figure 9: Change in Noise Spectrum as Distance from Wind Farm Changes 10 Turbine Wind Farm X11 • c .i 0 n) 15 75 _11 • 15 11 11 1_5 25,0 500 lk Octave Nand Centre Frequency (titl —'—`)S m —1111— 516 m -t— .tat', m —0-4 .1M m-+-1s;'4m —0-2_'NIU m it '1 .A 1A',r0Mcd (UK Department of Transport and Industry, 2006) Thus, although noise from an upwind blade wind turbine is generally broad spectrum, without a tonal quality, high frequencies are efficiently attenuated by both the atmosphere, and by walls and windows of structures, as noted above. As a result, as one moves away from a wind turbine, the low frequency component of the noise becomes more pronounced. Kamperman and James (2008) modeled indoor noise from outdoor wind turbine noise measurements, assuming a typical vinyl siding covered 2X4 wood frame construction. The wind turbine noise inside was calculated to be 5 dB less than the noise outside. Model data suggested that the sound of a single 2.5 MW wind turbine at 1000 feet will likely be heard in a house with the windows sealed. They note that models used for siting turbines often incorporate structure attenuation of 15dB. In addition, Kamperman and James demonstrate that sound from 10 2.5 MW turbines (acoustically) centered 2 km (1'/4 mile) away and with the nearest turbine 1 mile away will only be 6.3 dB below the sound of a single turbine at 1000 feet (0.19 mile). 4. Wind turbine regulatory noise limits Ramakrishnan (2007) has reported different noise criteria developed for wind farm planning. These criteria include common practices (if available) within each jurisdiction for estimating background SPLs, turbine SPLs, minimum setbacks and methods used to 24 assess impacts. Reported US wind turbine noise criteria range from: ambient + 10 dB(A) where ambient is assumed to be 26 dB(A) (Oregon); to 55 dB(A) or "background" + 5 dB(A) (Michigan). European criteria range from 35 dB(A) to 45 dB(A), at the property. US setbacks range from 1.1 times the full height of the turbine (consenting) and 5 times the hub height (non -consenting; Pennsylvania); to 350 m (consenting) and 1000 m (non - consenting; Oregon). European minimum setbacks are not noted. VI. Conclusions Wind turbines generate a broad spectrum of low -intensity noise. At typical setback distances higher frequencies are attenuated. In addition, walls and windows of homes attenuate high frequencies, but their effect on low frequencies is limited. Low frequency noise is primarily a problem that may affect some people in their homes, especially at night. It is not generally a problem for businesses, public buildings, or for people outdoors. The most common complaint in various studies of wind turbine effects on people is annoyance or an impact on quality of life. Sleeplessness and headache are the most common health complaints and are highly correlated (but not perfectly correlated) with annoyance complaints. Complaints are more likely when turbines are visible or when shadow flicker occurs. Most available evidence suggests that reported health effects are related to audible low frequency noise. Complaints appear to rise with increasing outside noise levels above 35 dB(A). It has been hypothesized that direct activation of the vestibular and autonomic nervous system may be responsible for less common complaints, but evidence is scant. The Minnesota nighttime standard of 50 dB(A) not to be exceeded more than 50% of the time in a given hour, appears to underweight penetration of low frequency noise into dwellings. Different schemes for evaluating low frequency noise, and/or lower noise standards, have been developed in a number of countries. For some projects, wind velocity for a wind turbine project is measured at 10 m and then modeled to the height of the rotor. These models may under -predict wind speed that will be encountered when the turbine is erected. Higher wind speed will result in noise exceeding model predictions. Low frequency noise from a wind turbine is generally not easily perceived beyond '/2 mile. However, if a turbine is subject to aerodynamic modulation because of shear caused by terrain (mountains, trees, buildings) or different wind conditions through the rotor plane, turbine noise may be heard at greater distances. Unlike low frequency noise, shadow flicker can affect individuals outdoors as well as indoors, and may be noticeable inside any building. Flicker can be eliminated by placement of wind turbines outside of the path of the sun as viewed from areas of concern, or by appropriate setbacks. 25 Prediction of complaint likelihood during project planning depends on: I) good noise modeling including characterization of potential sources of aerodynamic modulation noise and characterization of nighttime wind conditions and noise; 2) shadow flicker modeling; 3) visibility of the wind turbines; and 4) interests of nearby residents and community. VII. Recommendations To assure informed decisions: • Wind turbine noise estimates should include cumulative impacts (40-50 dB(A) isopleths) of all wind turbines. ■ Isopleths for dB(C) - dB(A) greater than 10 dB should also be determined to evaluate the low frequency noise component. • Potential impacts from shadow flicker and turbine visibility should be evaluated. Any noise criteria beyond current state standards used for placement of wind turbines should reflect priorities and attitudes of the community. VIII. Preparers of the Report: Carl Herbrandson, Ph.D. Toxicologist Rita B. Messing, Ph.D. Toxicologist Supervisor, Site Assessment and Consultation 26 IX. References Balaban, C. and B. Yates (2004). Vestibuloautonomic Interactions: A Teleologic Perspective. In: The Vestibular System. Hightstein, S., R. Fay and A. Popper. New York, Springer. Berglund, B., P. Hassmen and R.F. Soames Job (1996). Sources and effects of low - frequency noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am 99(5). Bradley, J.S. (1994). Annoyance caused by constant -amplitude and amplitude -modulated sounds containing rumble. Noise Control Engineering Journal 42(6): 203-208. Broner, N. and H.G. Leventhall (1983). Low Frequency Noise Annoyance Assessment by Low Frequency Noise Rating (LFNR) Curves. Journal of Low Frequency Noise and Vibration 2(1): 20-28. Bryan, M.E. and W. Tempest (1973). Are our noise laws adequate. Applied Acoustics 6(3): 219. Burton, T., D. Sharpe, N. Jenkins and E. Bossanyi (2001). Wind Enerey Handbook. West Sussex, England, John Wiley and Sons. Danish Environmental Protection Agency (2002) Laboratory evaluation of annoyance of low frequency noise. Authors Poulsen, T., Mortensen, F. R. Laboratoriet for Akustik, Danmarks Tekniske Universitet, http://www.miljostvrelsen.dk/udiiv/publications/2002/87-7944-95.5-7/pdf/87- 7944-956-5 .pdf Accessed: April 17, 2009 EPD Hong Kong SAR (2009). Audible Range of the Human Ear. Environmental Protection Department, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, People's Republic of China. http://www.epd.aov.hk/epd/noise education/web/ENG EPD HTML/ml/intro 3. html Accessed: March 3, 2009 Feldmann, J. and F.A. Pitten (2004). Effects of low frequency noise on man -a case study. Noise and Health 7(25): 23-28. Guyton, A. (1991). Textbook of Medical Physiology. 8th Ed. Philadelphia, WB Saunders. Halmagyi, G., I. Curthoys, S. Aw and J. Jen (2004). Clinical Applications of Basis Vestibular Research. In: The Vestibular System. Hightstein, S., R. Fay and A. Popper. New York, Springer. Harry, A. (2007). Wind turbines, noise, and health. February 2007, 62 pg. http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp- content/uploads!wtnoise health 2007 a harrv.pdf Accessed: April 27, 2009 Hawkins, J.A. (1987). Application of ray theory to propagation of low frequency noise from wind turbines, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Langley Research Center. Holmberg, K., U. Landstrom and A. Kjellberg (1997). Low frequency noise level variations and annoyance in working environments. Journal of low frequency noise, vibration and active control 16(2): 81-87. Kamperman, G.W. and R.R. James (2008). The "How To" Guide To Siting Wind Turbines To Prevent Health Risks From Sound. October 28, 2008. http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/1 I /kamperman- james-10-28-08.pdf Accessed: March 2, 2009 27 Kjellberg, A., M. Tesarz, K. Holmberg and U. Landstrom (1997). Evaluation of frequency -weighted sound level measurements for prediction of low -frequency noise annoyance. Environment International 23(4): 519-527. Large Wind Turbine Citizens Committee: Town of Union (2008). Setback Recommendations Report. Union, Rock County, Wisconsin. January 6, 2008, 318 pg. http://betterplan.squarespace.com/town-of-union-final- report/LWTCC%20Town%20of /o20Union%20Final%20Report%2001-14-08.pdf Accessed: February 25, 2009 Leventhall, G., P. Pelmear and S. Benton (2003). A review of published research on low frequency noise and its effects. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 88 pg. http://eprints.wmin.ac.uk/4141/1 /Benton 2003.pdf Accessed: April 14, 2009 Leventhall, H.G. (2004). Low frequency noise and annoyance. Noise and Health 6(23): 59-72. Michigan State University (2004). Land Use and Zoning Issues Related to Site Development for Utility Scale Wind Turbine Generators. http://web 1.msue.msu.edu/cdnr/otseuowindflicker.pdf Accessed: April 28, 2009 Moller, H. and C.S. Pedersen (2004). Hearing at low and infrasonic frequencies. Noise and Health 6(23): 37. Moreira, N.M. and M.E. Bryan (1972). Noise annoyance susceptibility. Journal of Sound and Vibration 21(4): 449. National Research Council (2007). Environmental Impacts of Wind -Energy Projects. Committee on Environmental Impacts of Wind Energy Projects, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Division on Earth and Life Studies. 346 pa Pedersen, E. (2007). Human response to wind turbine noise. The Sahlgrenska Academy, Goteborg University, Goteborg ISBN. 88 pg. https://guoa.ub.gu.se/dspace/bitstream/2077/4431 / 1 /Pedersen_avhandling.pdf Accessed: March 9, 2009 Pedersen, E. and W.K. Persson (2007). Wind turbine noise, annoyance and self -reported health and well-being in different living environments. Occup Environ Med 64(7): 480-6. Pedersen, E. and K.P. Waye (2004). Perception and annoyance due to wind turbine noise —a dose —response relationship. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 116: 3460. Phipps, Robyn (2007) In the Matter of Moturimu Wind Farm Application. Evidence to the Joint Commissioners, Palmerston North. March 8-26, 2007 http://www.ohariupreservationsociety.orn.nz/phipps-moturimutestimony.pdf Accessed: April 17, 2009 Pierpoint, N. (2009). Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment (Pre- publication Draft). Santa Fe, NM, K -selected Books. Ramakrishnan, R. (2007) Wind Turbine Facilities Noise Issues. Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Aiolos Engineering Corporation https://ozone.scholarsportal.info/bitstream/ 1873/ 13073/ 1/283287.pdf Accessed: March 9, 2009 28 Shepherd, K.P. and H.H. Hubbard (1991). Physical characteristics and perception of low frequency noise from wind turbines. Noise control engineering journal 36(1): 5- 15. Staples, S.L. (1997). Public Policy and Environmental Noise: Modeling Exposure or Understanding Effects. American Journal of Public Health 87(12): 2063. Tetra Tech (2008). Public Utilities Commission Site Permit Application for a Large Wind Energy Conversion System, Noble Flat Hill Windpark I, LLC, Clay County, Minnesota. Docket No.: IP6687/W S-08-1134. Todd, N., S.M. Rosengren and J.G. Colebatch (2008). Tuning and sensitivity of the human vestibular system to low -frequency vibration. Neuroscience Letters 444(1): 36-41. UK Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (2007) Research into Aerodynamic Modulation of Wind Turbine Noise: Final report. Report by: University of Salford. Authors: A. Moorhouse, M.H., S. von Hunerbein, B. Piper, M. Adams, http://usir.salford.ac.uk/1554/1/Salford Uni Report Turbine Sound.pdf Accessed: March 6, 2009 UK Department of Transport and Industry (2006) The measurement of low frequency noise at three UK wind farms. United Kingdom DTI Technology Programme: New and Renewable Energy. Contractor: Hayes McKenzie Partnership Ltd. Author: G. Leventhall, http://www.berr.i.tov.uk/files/file31270.pc1f Accessed: March 9, 2009 van den Berg, F., E. Pedersen, J. Bouma and R. Bakker (2008). Project WINDFARMperception: Visual and acoustic impact of wind turbine farms on residents. Final report, FP6-2005-Science-and-Society-20, Specific Support Action project no. 044628. June 3, 2008, 99 pg. http://www.windaction.ora/?module=uploads&func=download&file1d=1615 Accessed: May 11, 2009 van den Berg, G.P. van den Berg, G.P. (2008). Wind turbine power and sound in relation to atmospheric stability. Wind Energy 11(2): 151-169. van den Berg, G.P. (2005). The Beat is Getting Stronger: The Effect of Atmospheric Stability on Low Frequency Modulated Sound of Wind Turbines. Noise Notes 4(4): 15-40. van den Berg, G.P. (2004). Effects of the wind profile at night on wind turbine sound. Journal of Sound and Vibration 277(4-5): 955-970. World Health Organization (1999). Guidelines for community noise. Geneva; OMS, 1999, 94 p. Ilus, Authors: Berglund, B., Lindvall, T., Schwela, D. H. http://www.bvsde.paho.ora/bvsci/i/fulltext/noise/noise.pdf Accessed: April 17, 2009 Woodworth, R.S. and H. Schlosberg (1964). Experimental Psychology. New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Wisconsin Power & Light Company (2008). Minnesota Public Utlilities Commission Site Permit Application for a Large Wind Energy Conversion System, Bent Tree Wind Project, Freeborn County, Minnesota. Docket No.: ET6657/WS-08-573 29 Agenda Item: 9 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, City Planner DATE: July 5, 2012 MEETING: July 10, 2012 Planning Commission SUBJ: Ordinance Amendment: Uses in Commercial Districts Background Recently, a potential buyer of an existing motel in the Commercial -Highway (CH) district inquired with staff if it would be possible to expand the use. In the course of reviewing this question, staff noted that "Hotels and Motels" is not listed within the uses allowed in the Commercial districts. In fact, "Hotels and Motels" are only listed as an allowed use in the Business district. Staff was unable to find any reason in the record why this use was not included in the districts, and believes it was probably an oversight. As a result of this question, staff briefly reviewed the uses allowed in the Commercial, Business and Industrial districts in order to see if there were any other uses which are of similar concern. Staff foresees similar ambiguity with a number of other uses. It appears that the main reason for this is that the uses listed in the Business and Business Park zoning districts are more specific. For example: "Office Uses" and "Retail Uses" are allowed in the CH zoning district. "Office Uses," "Medical Offices," and "Banks and Financial Institutions" are allowed in the Business district. This leaves ambiguity whether banks and medical offices were meant to be allowed in the CH district. Staff believes these uses are very reasonable for a commercial district and were meant to be allowed. Ordinance Amendment The attached ordinance adds a number of allowed uses to the Commercial districts, including: motels/hotels, places of assembly/religious institutions, banks/financial institutions, showrooms, medical offices, daycare facilities, physical fitness clubs/dance studios. Staff believes these uses make sense in commercial districts and that they were likely intended to be allowed. However, the fact that these specific uses are allowed in other districts adds ambiguity which this amendment is meant to reduce. Attachment 1. DRAFT Ordinance Ordinance Amendment Page 1 of 1 July 10, 2012 Uses in Commercial Districts Planning Commission Meeting V CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REGARDING ALLOWED USES IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS; AMENDING SECTIONS 838.1.02, 832.2.02, and 832.3.02 The City Council of the City of Medina ordains as follows: SECTION I. Section 838.1.02 of the code of ordinances for the City of Medina shall be amended by adding the underlined material as follows: Section 838.1.02. (CH) Permitted Uses. The following shall be permitted uses within the CH district, subject to applicable provisions of the city code: (1) Essential Services (2) Professional and Medical Office Uses (3) Parks and Open Space (4) Public Services (5) Retail Uses, except the following are not permitted uses: pet stores, pawn shops, and adult establishments. ((LService Uses, except the following are not permitted uses: hospitals; veterinarian clinics; adult establishments; services related to automobiles; and services delivered off -site, including but not limited to building/lawn contractors, electrical and other skills trades and pest control. (7) Hotels and Motels (8) Places of assembly, conference halls, lodres and similar uses (9) Religious institutions (10)Banks and financial institutions (1 1) Showrooms (12)Dav care facilities (-x(13) Physical fitness clubs, dance studios, and similar uses Section 838.1.03. (CH) Conditional Uses. The following shall be permitted within the CH district, subject to conditional use permit approval, the specific requirements established in Section 838.5.08, and other applicable provisions of the city code: (1) Structures which exceed 50,000 square feet in floor area (2) Automobile, Marine, or Trailer Sales or Rental (3) Automobile Repair, Oil Lubrication Service Shops, Auto Body Shops (4) Automobile Towing (5) Car Washes or Auto Detailing 1 V (6) Drive -through services (7) Hospitals (8) Indoor Recreational Uses, including but not limited to bowling alleys, dance halls, movie theaters, and live entertainment. (9) Motor Fuel Stations (10) Retail and service uses which include the keeping of animals on -site such as pet stores, veterinarian clinics, animal day cares, animal boarding, commercial kennels and similar usesL SECTION II. Section 838.2.02 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina shall be amended by adding the underlined material as follows: Section 838.2.02. (CH -RR) Permitted Uses. The following shall be permitted uses within the CH -RR district, subject to applicable provisions of the city code: (1) Essential Services (2) Professional and Medical Office Uses (3) Parks and Open Space (4) Public Services (5) Retail Uses, except the following are not permitted uses: pawn shops, pet stores, and adult establishments. Chi LService Uses, except the following are not permitted uses: hospitals; veterinarian clinics; adult establishments; services related to automobiles; and services delivered off -site, including but not limited to building/lawn contractors, electrical and other skills trades and pest control. (7) Hotels and Motels (8) Places of assembly, conference halls, lodges, and similar uses (9) Religious institutions (10)Banks and financial institutions (1 1) Showrooms (12) Day care facilities (4)(13) Physical fitness clubs, dance studios, and similar uses Section 838.2.03. (CH -RR) Conditional Uses. The following shall be permitted uses within the CH -RR district, subject to conditional use permit approval, the specific requirements established in Section 838.5.08, and other applicable provisions of the city code: (1) Structures which exceed 50,000 square feet in floor area (2) Automobile, Marine, or Trailer Sales or Rental (3) Automobile Repair, Oil Lubrication Service Shops, Auto Body Shops (4) Automobile Towing (5) Motor Fuel Stations (6) Car Washes or Auto Detailing (7) Drive -through services Comment [DF1]: Shown for context of other uses allowed in the district...will be removed from final ordinance (8) Hospitals (9) Indoor Recreational Uses, including but not limited to bowling alleys, dance halls, movie theaters, and live entertainment. (10) Retail and service uses which include the keeping of animals on -site such as pet stores, veterinarian clinics, animal day cares, animal boarding, commercial kennels and similar uses. SECTION III. Section 838.3.02 of the code of ordinances of the City of Medina shall be amended by adding the underlined material as follows: Section 838.3.02. (CG) Permitted Uses. The following shall be permitted uses within the CG district, subject to applicable provisions of the city code: (1) Contractor services typically delivered off -site such as, building contractors, lawn care, electrical, plumbing, locksmiths, and extermination or pest control. (2) Essential services (3) Professional and Medical Office Uses (4) Parks and open space (5) Public Services (6) Retail Uses, except the following are not permitted uses: pawn shops, pet stores, and adult establishments. (7) Service Uses, except the following are not permitted uses: hospitals, veterinarian clinics, adult establishments, services related to automobiles (LWarehousing, Wholesaling, and Distributors not exceeding 10,000 square feet (9) Places of assembly, conference halls, lodges, and similar uses (10)Religious institutions (1 I)Banks and financial institutions (12) Showrooms (13) Day care facilities (44(14) Physical fitness clubs, dance studios, and similar uses Section 838.3.03. (CG) Conditional Uses. The following shall be permitted uses within the CG district, subject to conditional use permit approval, the specific requirements established in Section 838.5.08, and other applicable provisions of the city code: (1) Structures which exceed 50,000 square feet of floor area (2) Assembly or Manufacturing of light industrial products, except not the following uses and processes: leather tanning; paper manufacturing; meat slaughtering or rendering; metal plating; Teflon coating or similar coatings requiring high temperatures; the use of heavy or other drop forges; the use of heavy or other hydraulic surges; or the use of any devices capable of detection at the property line. (3) Automobile, Marine, or Trailer Sales or Rental (4) Automobile Repair, Oil Lubrication Service Shops, Auto Body Shops (5) Automobile Towing Comment [DF2]: Shown for context of other uses allowed in the district... will be removed from tinal ordinance (6) Car Washes or Auto Detailing (7) Indoor Recreational Uses, including but not limited to bowling alleys, dance halls, movie theaters, and live entertainment. (8) Retail and service uses which include the keeping of animals on -site such as pet stores, veterinarian clinics, animal day cares, animal boarding, commercial kennels and similar uses. (9) Warehousing, Wholesaling, or Distributors more than 10,000 but less than 20,000 square feet. - - 4 Comment [DF3]: Shown for context of other luses allowed in the disttict...wtill be removed from final ordinance SECTION IV. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication. Adopted by the Medina city council this _ day of 2012. Attest: T.M. Crosby, Jr., Mayor Scott T. Johnson, City Administrator -Clerk Published in the South Crow River on the _ day of . 2012. G, Ty � / Comment Card b` Public Agenda MEDINA Name of Speaker: (1 V U iN. 1 n)/Ly I y ` Forum _ Item / % ! liti 1 )4, (please ', t) J <- , I 1 Address: l 5 L� (j ti (, M 1 3-1. r'0 / F" I Telephone (optional): 1-6 - 9 71; " Z 7? j Representing: C I "l Nei 0 t- < 14- �r Agenda Item (list number Comments: 7/\,_ h �- 6 I andletter): / } V OI I i\ 0` ! 0 1(1 W t ivii. ," ohi'n(S 15 KG -I- t Gflut slit at et/�S ,� c O t- r r t, l i s (0-y0-.0,N_' �- o hC � hli��6 � �� �V Ch � Approach the podium to speak Meeting Rules of Conduct MEDINA • Please indicate if comment card is for the Public Forum or an Agenda Item in upper right hand corner. • Please fill out card and provide a brief summary of comments. • Please turn in the card to a staff member who will pass the card to the Mayor. The Mayor will call on you to speak when it is your turn. • Please approach the podium when called on to speak. While Speaking Please give name and address Please indicate if representing a group Please limit remarks to 3 to 5 minutes