Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Tuesday,January 19,2021 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Chair Ressler thinks it is laid out very well with the screening and the findings from the November <br /> meeting is a good lesson for the Planning Commission to know there was not necessarily a safety reason <br /> they had that limitation. A lot of the weight of the decision goes upon proper screening. <br /> Barnhart pointed out late in the afternoon the Planning Commission received a forwarded email from the <br /> neighboring property owner to the south supporting the proposal. <br /> Chair Ressler welcome the Applicant to the podium. <br /> Colin Buechel, 18 West 15th Street,Minneapolis approached the podium representing All Energy Solar, <br /> the company doing the installation on the property. He summarized the practical difficulties on this <br /> project—at first glance it looks like there is plenty of space on the roof to put these panels, and they can <br /> see the garage roof facing south is by far the best option for panels. The difference was two panels <br /> between getting that 70%coverage and what the proposed design is currently. As Barnhart mentioned <br /> there are a lot of hills and valleys and the Planning Commission can see that on the bird's eye view on <br /> screen. On top of that,there are some mature trees southeast of the residence that also provides further <br /> shading on the roof structure. This is not a residence built by the current owner and he did not design this <br /> residence to maximize solar and meet the City code,rather he purchased the property and is hoping to add <br /> solar to the property. If they were to remove two panels and move them to a different roof structure,he is <br /> not sure the concern on that limitation is visual but they would likely have to move those two panels to a <br /> completely different area of the house further north and it would just be two panels sitting out on a roof <br /> plane. If it is a visual impact concern,putting them all on the garage roof with very little visibility versus <br /> putting those two panels on the other side of the house with more increased visibility.He also mentioned <br /> the elevation of the garage is pretty high where one cannot even see the shingles from the adjacent <br /> property so this seems like a far-and-away the ideal location for these panels. Moving those two panels <br /> would also include conduit and electrical to run to service back to the original array,which complicates <br /> the electrical and cost proponent. <br /> Gettman noted the elevation and the neighbor to the south and asked if they can see those panels. <br /> Chair Ressler thinks what is onscreen is illustrating the height as well as the screening between the houses <br /> makes it pretty well-hidden from the neighbor. <br /> Gettman thinks it is just the opposite as they can almost see the neighbor's house to the right. He said <br /> they would be looking directly at the panel and asked if that is correct. <br /> Brian O'Connell, 3145 North Shore Drive,Applicant, said his neighbor's house has a lot of windows but <br /> the photo shown onscreen is looking at the lake. Around the side of the house where the mouse onscreen <br /> is waving is where the panels would be; if they were in the neighbor's house looking at that roof plane, it <br /> is 3 stories up and the neighbor has maybe two windows that are foyer windows on that side of the house. <br /> To be in the neighbor's front yard and look up, one cannot see that roof plane. He said the neighbor is <br /> fine with the variance, and Barnhart went out and visited the property and took some photos.He asked to <br /> show the side view of the garage onscreen and noted the roof plane at the very top if they put a panel on <br /> that roof, it cannot be seen from the ground. <br /> Gettman thanked Mr. O'Connell and said that clarifies. <br /> Page 18 of 28 <br />