Laserfiche WebLink
PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM <br /> LA20-000073 <br /> 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not <br /> permitted by the Zoning Chapter. <br /> Response: The solar ordinance as outlined by the City of Orono allows solar energy systems to be <br /> used in all zoning districts, but is only permitted as a roof-mounted system. The property owner <br /> proposes to install a roof-mounted solar system. <br /> 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created <br /> by the landowner. <br /> Response: The residence was built in 2006 and the current property owners purchased in 2020. The <br /> roof structure consists of multiple roof planes varying in direction and size and includes many hips and <br /> valleys. The majority of the south facing roof planes, which is most ideal for solar, may be shaded by <br /> the adjacent roof plane and inhibit the sun access. The roof plane on the southeast side of the house <br /> that is south facing is shaded heavily by a tree. The roof plane on the southwest side of the home and <br /> is south facing, is the most ideal for solar. This is where the solar is being proposed to be installed. <br /> The factors listed above are outside of the control of the landowner. <br /> 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. <br /> Response: Rooftop solar PV is a permitted use in the City of Orono. The proposed array would only <br /> be visible from one neighboring property but none others due to the flush mounted design, natural <br /> screening, and location and tilt of the roof plane. <br /> 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use <br /> for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. <br /> Response: Our design meets the 2020 State of Minnesota Building code; however, it does not meet <br /> the City of Orono's requirements outlined in Sec. 78-1379 of Orono's Zoning Ordinance. Specifically <br /> Sub e, number 2, letter h which states, "Maximum area. In all residential zoning districts, the collector <br /> and mounting system of a roof-mounted solar energy system shall cover no more than 70 percent of <br /> the roof to which it is affixed". The current array design covers approximately 75.3 percent of the roof <br /> plane. Minnesota Statute 462.357, subd. 6, states that inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar <br /> energy systems is a practical difficulty. <br /> 5. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight <br /> for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as <br /> defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116106, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this <br /> Chapter. <br /> Response: The proposed location for 30 solar panels is at an azimuth of 180 degrees. Due to <br /> Minnesota residing on the North side of the equator line, the optimal azimuth for solar access is <br /> South, therefore this is the ideal spot on the roof. Additionally, the residence's roof structure consists <br /> of many valleys and hips between other south facing planes and are slightly shaded and less <br /> supreme. <br /> The ordinance would require two of the 30 solar panels be removed. It is impractical to require two <br /> solar panels be placed on another roof plane, a great distance away. Due to the nature of the layout <br />