02-08-2021 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 6 other places but if the analysis is variance or no, they are allowed 38 panels and are just asking for 2 extra ones, that difference is relatively negligible from a Staff perspective. Chair Ressler thinks it is laid out very well with the screening and the findings from the November meeting is a good lesson for the Planning Commission to know there was not necessarily a safety reason they had that limitation. A lot of the weight of the decision goes upon proper screening. Barnhart pointed out late in the afternoon the Planning Commission received a forwarded email from the neighboring property owner to the south supporting the proposal. Chair Ressler welcome the Applicant to the podium. Colin Buechel, 18 West 15th Street, Minneapolis approached the podium representing All Energy Solar, the company doing the installation on the property. He summarized the practical difficulties on this project – at first glance it looks like there is plenty of space on the roof to put these panels, and they can see the garage roof facing south is by far the best option for panels. The difference was two panels between getting that 70% coverage and what the proposed design is currently. As Barnhart mentioned there are a lot of hills and valleys and the Planning Commission can see that on the bird’s eye view on screen. On top of that, there are some mature trees southeast of the residence that also provides further shading on the roof structure. This is not a residence built by the current owner and he did not design this residence to maximize solar and meet the City code, rather he purchased the property and is hoping to add solar to the property. If they were to remove two panels and move them to a different roof structure, he is not sure the concern on that limitation is visual but they would likely have to move those two panels to a completely different area of the house further north and it would just be two panels sitting out on a roof plane. If it is a visual impact concern, putting them all on the garage roof with very little visibility versus putting those two panels on the other side of the house with more increased visibility. He also mentioned the elevation of the garage is pretty high where one cannot even see the shingles from the adjacent property so this seems like a far-and-away the ideal location for these panels. Moving those two panels would also include conduit and electrical to run to service back to the original array, which complicates the electrical and cost proponent. Gettman noted the elevation and the neighbor to the south and asked if they can see those panels. Chair Ressler thinks what is onscreen is illustrating the height as well as the screening between the houses makes it pretty well-hidden from the neighbor. Gettman thinks it is just the opposite as they can almost see the neighbor’s house to the right. He said they would be looking directly at the panel and asked if that is correct. Brian O’Connell, 3145 North Shore Drive, Applicant, said his neighbor’s house has a lot of windows but the photo shown onscreen is looking at the lake. Around the side of the house where the mouse onscreen is waving is where the panels would be; if they were in the neighbor’s house looking at that roof plane, it is 3 stories up and the neighbor has maybe two windows that are foyer windows on that side of the house. To be in the neighbor’s front yard and look up, one cannot see that roof plane. He said the neighbor is fine with the variance, and Barnhart went out and visited the property and took some photos. He asked to show the side view of the garage onscreen and noted the roof plane at the very top if they put a panel on that roof, it cannot be seen from the ground.