RED BARN KICKS OFF ITS LANDMARK 45TH SEASON WITH THE HILARIOUS “THE FOREIGNER”
New Key West City Hall solar panels draw harsh criticism
New Key West City Hall solar panels draw harsh criticism
BY PRU SOWERS
KONK LIFE STAFF WRITER
Or, subscribe for unlimited access
It is unfortunate that Mr. Wardlow, and others who prefer cosmetics over functionality, cannot comprehend the value of solar panels. With the threat of global warming looming large, the message sent by their prominent placement, especially in a flood-prone community like Key West, is critical. We have to change, we need to change. Rather than blather on and on, I suggest people simply watch the documentary ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ or read ‘This Changes Everything’ by Naomi Klein. Lastly, since the location of the panels were discussed in previous meetings, moving the panels would be not only a waste of energy and effort, but proof that commissioners need not pay attention when projects are discussed.
It is UNTRUE that the neighbors were aware of these massive solar array carports. They were NOT presented to the community at the architect’s neighborhood meeting.
Here is the architect’s illustration of what was presented June 22, 2013:
http://www.cityofkeywest-fl.gov/egov/documents/1375366155_21935.pdf
Notice there are NO carports in the illustration. And those carports did no appear in any plans until one month before the HARC approval. As soon as they were erected, neighbors complained. They clearly violate the HARC guidelines, which are very specific about locations of solar panels and highly-visible accessory structures.
Here are the particular HARC guidelines:
Section – Solar Collectors
1. HARC supports the introduction of new and emerging technology for renewable energy but will seek to achieve this by ensuring equipment is installed without permanent detriment to the historic fabric already established in the district and the least visual impact to buildings and streetscapes HARC’s goal is high performance conservation with low public visibility. HARC recommends applicants exhaust all other ways of reducing the carbon footprint before putting forward applications for the installation of solar devices.
2. Any proposal to install solar energy collectors shall be based on a hierarchy of preferred locations starting with roofing not visible from public streets, then locations within rear gardens or on pergolas and only if none of these are viable because of orientation or overshadowing will HARC consider schemes which involve collectors on roofing areas or other locations visible from public streets.
3. Any proposals that include collectors and/or related equipment and cabling visible from public streets will be required to show (by way of calculation of energy outputs) that it is not possible to achieve similar performance from equipment located away from public view.
Section – Outbuildings: Carports, Gazebos, Garages, Sheds, Shelters & Accessory Structures
4. The design of new outbuildings must be complementary to the existing streetscape if they are visible from the public right-of-way.
5. The construction of new accessory buildings such as garages or carports which are highly visible from the public right way are not appropriate in the historic district
The real question is, “Does the City need to follow the same rules as it insists the citizens follow?”
I completely support solar, but I also support the Historic District. These panels should have been located on the roof, but the architect mis-interpreted the building code (which has been verified by building officials, industry experts, and the architect himself!), and therefore did not present the rooftop option to HARC.
HARC, meanwhile made a HUGE mistake. The HARC staff failed to notice this project violated numerous guidelines. Finally, HARC Commission completely dropped the ball and did not enforce the guidelines.
Take a look at this video of the HARC approval: https://youtu.be/4bfKXNSmmHE
Finally, a few weeks ago the current chair of HARC, Bryan Green, wrote a letter to all of the City Commissioners and Mayor where he states that the solar panel placement and accessory structures clearly violate the guidelines, would not be permitted if brought to HARC today, and should be moved to the roof.
Here is that letter:
Commissioners
I was approached two weeks ago by several residents of United Street and Knowles Lane. They contacted me as Chair of HARC to seek advice on the siting of the existing and further planned solar arrays in the car park area of New City Hall
I was not on the HARC Commission when this was approved in 2014 but I have reviewed the video recordings of both the HARC and Planning meetings
I am very familiar with this aspect of HARC guidelines because with Ron Ramsingh, I wrote the revised Solar Collector Guidelines which were approved by Ordinance in May 2012. This revision became necessary after Florida State adopted legislation (163.04) [*1] in relation to energy saving devices that in effect trumped then existing HARC guidelines (refer Cushman case)
The 2012 guidelines are clear in that they support solar panels but require the applicant to locate these in the least visible location based on a hierarchy of preferred locations starting with roofing not visible from public streets, then locations within rear gardens or on pergolas and only if none of these are viable because of orientation or shadowing will HARC consider ..in other locations visible from public streets. Mr Bouquet was wholly incorrect when he told you that HARC had not allowed these panels to be located on the roof.
My understanding is that the Architect misunderstood the Florida Building Code and determined that the only “viable” location was on purpose built structures within the parking area which could double up as shading for vehicles. HARC relied on the assertions from the applicant.
It transpires that the FBC does not preclude location on the roof and therefore the basic premise on which HARC granted consent was flawed.
In my opinion if this application was being presented today the applicant would be required to locate the panels on the roof and if more space is needed then in any other location that will not have an adverse visual impact on the contributing building or surrounding streets.
It is misleading to argue that these are car ports or pergolas. These are clearly way too large to be considered as either (nor do they perform those functions) and in any case they are clearly contrary to the Solar Collectors guidelines in addition to P37(3) because they are not compatible with the characteristics of the original structure, neighbouring buildings and streetscapes.
Given the error made in assessing the Florida Building Code I believe any other applicant would be encouraged to relocate the installed panels on the roof – and certainly this is where any panels not yet installed should be located
It is a pity that this project which in all other ways is such an exemplar scheme should be marred by something that can be easily remedied. It really is important that the City be seen to hold itself to no lesser standard than it requires from all the rest of us.
I therefore urge you to require further panels to be installed in compliance with our guidelines and to find a way to relocate the array already installed
Bryan Green
One more thing: in this article the mayor states, “Everybody knew those panels were going there. The drawings were in the [news] paper. This was well known,”
I can find no record of drawings in any newspaper that show the carports.
The public was unaware of these massive structures highly-visible from the right-of-way, clearly in violation of guidelines, and permanently harming the historic street.