Laserfiche WebLink
Date Application Received: December 11,2020 <br /> Date Application Considered as Complete:December 15,2020 AZLOATo <br /> 60-Day Review Period Expires: February 13,2021 <br /> To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members y A. <br /> Ron Olson, Interim City Administrator ``e � <br /> "IkES H O�� <br /> From: Jeremy Barnhart,AICP <br /> Community Development Director <br /> Date: January 19, 2021 <br /> Subject: #LA20-000073,All Energy Solar o/b/o Brian O'Connell, 3145 North Shore Drive, <br /> Variance <br /> Public Hearing <br /> Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow solar arrays to cover 75.3 <br /> percent of the roof plane,where a maximum is 70%. <br /> Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval <br /> Background <br /> The applicant is working on behalf of the owner who recently purchased the parcel. They <br /> propose a roof mounted solar array that covers 75.3%of the roof to which it is affixed,the <br /> maximum is 70%. The difference between conforming roof coverage and the proposal is two <br /> panels. <br /> This is the fourth variance related to Solar Arrays since 2017. Most recently, in December 2020 <br /> the City Council reviewed and approved a variance to allow 83% roof coverage on an accessory <br /> structure (LA20-69). <br /> Practical Difficulties Analysis <br /> Applicant Submittal Information:The applicant suggests that the roof design, its orientation, and <br /> the presence of trees in the lake yard provide inadequate access to sunlight is a practical <br /> difficulty.Additionally,they have provided supporting documentation regarding Practical <br /> Difficulties attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the <br /> application.The applicants also note that ground mounted solar arrays are not permitted in <br /> Orono. <br /> Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: To correct inadequate access to solar for this site,the <br /> remedy is removal of the trees,which is undesirable for the city,or redesign of the roof <br /> structure. Staff concurs that the design of the roof,the location of existing trees creates a <br /> practical difficulty. While the array may be visible from certain points off the property,this visual <br /> impact for the additional coverage is not deemed to be a substantial negative. <br />