01-19-2021 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,January 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. changing the character of the neighborhood. He noted it would be a negative change if they had to cut down trees. Erickson is in favor of this. Bollis is having a hard time seeing the practical difficulty to allow the additional 5%; not saying that he thinks it might be silly to not allow that,he just does not see it on this project. He thinks the Planning Commission should look at that code and decide,rather than just granting variances when they do not apply and meet the practical difficulty. His basis for that is asking what percentage of electrical use do they allow. He noted everyone putting solar up wants to maximize their solar but that should not be considered in the practical difficulty when looking at whether or not they are encompassing 70%. Chair Ressler thinks the main thing is that the Planning Commission could move to deny and say it needs to meet the percentages allowed and then the application could go to City Council and they could approve it as applied. The Planning Commission's reasoning would be that it does not meet the practical difficulty to exceed the allotment of percentage which is a technicality and he does not know if Staff has a comment on that.He asked if there is really a difference one way or the other. Barnhart hears Bollis' comment because they do have this conversation quite a lot where someone is allowed 25%hardcover and they are asking for 26%hardcover,and what is really the big deal. He gets that, but the challenge here is the State statute says that lack of adequate access is a practical difficulty. However,that does not give the credit card for someone to just do whatever they want.He noted the City has taken steps to address concerns they had in 2003 and 2012 and they put standards in place such as no ground-mounted solar systems,probably because of a hardcover issue and from a screening perspective. Barnhart believes the 70%is mostly an aesthetic issue so the variance process allows the Planning Commission to review options and as the Applicant said,he has option to put the panels elsewhere on the roof and the conduit will be seen. That is a balance from the Planning Commission and City Council perspective: is what they are proposing more consistent with the goals of the ordinance and goals of the City than the alternate where the practical difficulty cannot be met because of X, Y, and Z reasons. Staff recommended approval because looking at the fact they are allowed solar and the difference is negligible from a visual impact. Staff believes the alternative would be to put it elsewhere on the roof that may require removal of trees over time; it does not show in the drawing very well but Barnhart noted there are quite a few trees in this area that impact the other large expanse of roof for the solar panels. Staff recommended approval because they felt that the goals of the ordinance were satisfied by granting a variance versus not granting. Chair Ressler said fundamentally the goals that Staff is marking is the aesthetics more than anything else. It is not a safety concern and asked if that ship has sailed. Barnhart replied no,there is still a safety concern but the concern is managed by the building code regulations. They are not suggesting variances from that,but from Staff perspective,they believe that the 70%regulation at this day and age is likely more tied to aesthetics than it is to other safety issues. Chair Ressler noted it is the Staffs opinion that those aesthetics have been satisfied. Barnhart also pointed out while the Applicant suggested that these are the two new panels, it is really the last two. Kirchner said if they are looking at the practical difficulty side of this from a lack of adequate sunlight, whichever two panels it is he finds it hard to say the practical difficulty had been met for those two panels Page 20 of 28