Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,November 16,2020 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> McCutcheon said one could argue that just because of where we are located north in the northern <br /> hemisphere that we have inadequate access to the sun. Being in Minnesota and that far north in the winter <br /> it is the access to our sun, he thinks they can all agree,that is inadequate. Going forward,the City will <br /> see more of this and the challenges and will have to walk before they run. This situation is not a big ask <br /> and he is for it. <br /> Erickson said of the various solar applications received to date,this impressed him as perhaps the best one <br /> for a number of factors. One, the placement of this building on the roof and in relation to this property and <br /> relation to the neighbors,the neighbors will not complain about how it looks. Also,being on the roof is <br /> desirable to being on the ground and also reduces any temptation to cut down trees. He noted the <br /> southeast placement of this roof is fortunate,because Frank Lloyd Wright had thoughts on passive solar <br /> and recommended to his students that they always place their walk out buildings with most of the glass <br /> facing southeast. His reasoning was that in that arrangement they would catch the morning sun to warm <br /> the building and as the day wore on,the sun would swing around to the west and there wouldn't be as <br /> much solar buildup through the window. He feels very comfortable in supporting this application. <br /> Chair Ressler noted perhaps this is an opportunity for the City to look at what their limitations are,why is <br /> it 70%, is it because of fire safety and has that been addressed or mitigated,then that could be an <br /> opportunity to revisit what those rules and regulations are for. However, it is his interpretation of this <br /> variance would be placement for solar panels with accessibility to sunlight,not increasing the available <br /> percentage of what has been allotted in the City code. He personally thinks that it is honorable to want to <br /> get to a net zero as far as sunlight accessibility goes and he does not dismiss that. He looks at it two <br /> ways: either the City needs to increase the allotted amount of percentage of coverage, or they need to <br /> stick with what they've got because 70% is the rule and he does not see a reason in this case to go above <br /> and beyond it just because it is aesthetically not imposing. If nothing else,perhaps it is an opportunity to <br /> research deeper as to why that 70%number could not be increased. <br /> Bollis asked Mr. Buechel in designing these systems, in the standard for this to design it for 100%, or <br /> 110%, 120%,or something like that. <br /> Mr. Buechel said it depends on what the clients are looking to do. Some clients are trying to maximize <br /> their return on investment; depending on the utility there are different rebates,tax credits, and it is entirely <br /> based off of location,what utility they have, their property,but yes, in general the goal is to design <br /> complete offset of electricity for most projects. <br /> Bollis asked in that design,do they accommodate for the panels deteriorating over time; do they <br /> overdesign in order to offset the 100% 10 years from now. <br /> Mr. Buechel replied no, it is based off the wattage of the panels because theoretically they would not <br /> deteriorate. He noted if there are newer model panels and a client wanted to remove what they have to <br /> get their system higher wattage based on technology improvements, they can do that, as well, and remove <br /> and recycle those panels. <br /> Kirchner asked with this system, is there any issue with the amount of sunlight it will capture or is it <br /> logistics of how many watts each panel is in order to be able to get to the capacity to offset the power <br /> usage. <br /> Page 5 of 23 <br />