Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, February 11, 2019 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 8 of 11 <br /> <br />Lindstrom indicated at the shortest it would be 10 feet and at the highest it would be 11 feet. Lindstrom <br />indicated he has seen most city ordinances between 13 and 15 feet, so this is below other cities’ <br />restrictions for ground arrays. <br /> <br />Barnhart noted the lot is not flat and is high at one end and low on the other. <br /> <br />Crosby asked how visible it would be to the neighbors. <br /> <br />Barnhart indicated it will likely be fairly visible. The challenge from a visibility standpoint is the <br />applicants would be allowed to place the solar panels on top of a building, which would be more <br />noticeable, especially from the south, and the structure cannot be screened. <br /> <br />Seals asked how many panels would be installed. <br /> <br />Lindstrom indicated 24 panels. <br /> <br />Seals stated the only set of solar panels she has observed being mounted on the ground are over by Share <br />Farms. While someone will know it is there, there is also a lot of nature around it so you can look past it. <br />If you put solar panels on top of a building, they will be more visible. <br /> <br />Lindstrom noted Orono has previously issued a variance for a ground mounted solar array. <br /> <br />Barnhart indicated that was approximately two years ago and the area was actually 100 percent screened. <br /> <br />Walsh stated the City has a Code Review Committee and that the applicants are essentially asking the <br />City to change their code. Walsh stated he does not see a practical difficulty and that in his view the <br />appropriate way to bring this before the City is to go through that committee so they can discuss possible <br />changes and their impacts. <br /> <br />Lindstrom stated he can understand that, but it is specifically written into the Minnesota statute that <br />access to sunlight is a practical difficulty and this house presents a challenge to direct access. The <br />proposed location is directly facing south and will be a great spot for solar. Lindstrom stated he can <br />understand where a code change might be necessary, but at the same time direct access to sunlight is a <br />practical difficulty. <br /> <br />Walsh commented he appreciates that, but noted the practical difficulty can be changed or eliminated by <br />removing the trees. Walsh stated the applicant is asking the City to do something that is completely <br />different from what the code reads and that it would be appropriate for the committee to review it. <br /> <br />Crosby stated he would like to see it vetted more thoroughly to avoid setting a precedent. Trees are not a <br />practical difficulty because the trees can be trimmed. <br /> <br />Lindstrom noted this is being vetted more than if they had proposed to build an accessory building and <br />place the solar panels on top of it, which would only require a building permit. <br /> <br />Walsh stated that is one option, but that changing the code without any standards would open the door to <br />anyone coming in with a similar request. Walsh stated he would like to look at what other cities have <br />done and that he would not be in favor of a variance because it would change the city code.