Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Solar Ready Task Force - 05/30/2014SOUTH BURLINGTON SOLAR READY ROOFS TASK FORCE TASK FORCE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 30 MAY 2014 1 The South Burlington Solar Ready Roofs Task Force held a meeting on Friday, 30 May 2014, at 8:00 a.m., in the Medium Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: S. Swanton (Energy Committee); S. Roy (Wiemann Lamphere Architects); B. Bouchard (Pizzagalli Properties); J. Larkin (Larkin Realty); T. Hardy (Hardy Structural Engineering); J. Askew (LN Consulting); Also Present: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; G. Beaudoin; K. Myrick (Peck Electric); P. Foy (Encore Redevelopment) 1. Introductions Mr. Conner welcomed everyone and invited all present to introduce themselves. 2. Review Charge of the Task Force as requested by the Planning Commission: Mr. Conner provided an overview of the charge of the Task Force and a brief summary of the draft Form Based Codes under development for the City Center area. He noted that the Planning Commission is seeking a definition for solar ready roofs, an analysis of potential costs and benefits, options for encouraging, incentivizing, or requiring solar ready roofs, and what types of regulations would be most appropriate for these standards. Mr. Swanson gave a summary of what led the Energy Committee to this point and the recommendation to pursue this topic. 3. Develop a definition for “Solar Ready” Mr. Conner presented two definitions of solar ready; one from the “Solar Ready Building Design Guidelines for the Twin Cities” which discussed three components of solar ready roofs; another broad definition supplied by Solar Simplified. Members found that the Twin Cities definition captured the elements. Mr. Roy asked how “a place on the roof of a building” would be defined; it left a lot of room for interpretation. 4. Discuss and develop estimated costs associated with solar ready roof for new buildings in South Burlington Mr. Roy shared a drawing of a typical roof laid out in three configurations, and the percentages of each that could be used for solar as a result. He said that from his perspective, solar ready and solar should be an incentive. Mr. Bouchard said that the potential for solar will depend on the type of building – wood construction vs. steel, pitched roof vs. flat. With their building on Shelburne Road, they had decided to put solar on the roof in order to meet the LEED standard. 2 Mr. Askew said that loading requirement seems to be getting higher. Mr. Roy said he has worked with 4- 6 pounds per square foot. Mr. Conner said that structural engineer Tim Hardy would be joining the group shortly and suggested the question be posed to him. Mr. Larkin said that he had looked into solar in a number of ways; as people know, they have installed several ground facilities. He said that often the biggest obstacle is that it’s simply not worth going into, citing code issues, planning for wind load, difficulties in getting to scale that makes sense. He said he he’d like to suggest an idea: if someone could do a quick study of a building’s potential during the design process, that would be very helpful. He wasn’t sure of who would pay, but perhaps the city could have a pre-assigned 3rd party reviewer so that the applicant did not have to seek on out. Mr. Beaudoin said that having an independent 3rd party reviewer would be helpful; sometimes, he said, clients have their own building designs. With a third party reviewer, they would be given the opportunity to see and be convinced of improvements that could be made. Mr. Bouchard said that if something could add value to the project, or if incentives could be included, it would be more attractive. Members then discussed the various components of a solar ready roof, including the building’s roof membrane, internal chase, and space for the electrical inverters. Mr. Roy and Mr. Askew said that the biggest challenge, other that the roof loading, would be grouping of rooftop equipment. Mr. Myrick said that the chase and the space for the electrical equipment, while important design considerations, were not major cost drivers. Mr. Hardy joined the meeting and discussed roof loading. He said that for pitched roof, solar typically adds 2-4 pounds per square foot, and that for flat roofs, it adds 5-8 pounds per square foot. What that does is highly dependent on the individual building. Assuming a building has been modelled, it is very easy to make the assessment of the effect. Sometimes this weight adds cost, and sometimes there is no added cost. Roof structures tend to come in sizes, and so depending on how close a building is to its maximum load, solar may or may not be accommodated without adding additional load capacity. Mr. Conner asked what percentage of buildings are modelled. Mr. Bouchard said they model all their building early on. Mr. Hardy said a high percentage do. Mr. Myrick said that one challenge would be in finding off-takers for the electricity produced. 5. Develop options for buildings to be encouraged, incentivized, and/or required to be solar ready and the effects of each 6. Consider in what types of regulations could such standards be included Members discussed what types of encouragements, incentives, or requirements could be included. Mr. Roy said that municipalities can choose to tax or not tax solar installations. Mr. Larkin said that there could perhaps be a reduction in impact fees. Mr. Bouchard said that there could be a density or height bonus. Mr. Conner said that permit fees could also be considered. 3 Members discussed the possibility of a checklist of some kind that an applicant, or a reviewer, could use to assess the potential for a building. If the building has little or no potential, then the box is checked and no further action takes place. If there is potential, then the applicant may pursue further and incentives could be applied. Mr. Swanson said that he liked the idea of a study. He said that assessing a building’s potential was an important priority. He said that the group seemed to be discussing a requirement for a study to be done, to look at solar potential and identify ways in which a design could be improved to allow for greater potential; and then to have incentives to actually install solar. He said he liked that approach and that this could be a recommendation of the Task Force. Other members agreed. A checklist / study could include an analysis of the various components of the definition – the structural loading of the building, roof membrane, where power would be going, the chase and the electrical. Members discussed when in the review process this checklist / review should take place. Mr. Foy suggested perhaps a two-step, or iterative review. Step 1 would be a basic look at the design. If that showed potential, then a more detailed analysis could take place. Members agreed this made sense. Mr. Conner said that what he was hearing was that there was no simply metric of determining, up front, what the cost of solar ready roofs would be. He asked if that was an accurate statement. Members agreed. Mr. Conner then asked whether the concept presented by Mr. Swanson this was the consensus of the group. Members agreed unanimously. Mr. Foy offered to work with Mr. Conner to develop the checklist; his office has used similar tools. 7. Next meeting Mr. Conner asked what the group would like to do next. Mr. Larkin said he would like to meet again to discuss incentives in more detail. Members agreed. In the meantime, Mr. Conner will report out to the Planning Commission. Members asked to have a draft of the concepts for the checklist circulated. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 am.