Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,November 16,2020 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> ROLL CALL <br /> The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: <br /> Chair Jon Ressler, Commissioners Chris Bollis,Bob Erickson,Matt Gettman, Scott Kirchner,Dennis <br /> Libby, and Mark McCutcheon. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy <br /> Barnhart and City Planners Melanie Curtis and Laura Oakden. <br /> Chair Ressler called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. <br /> APPROVAL OF AGENDA <br /> Libby moved, Gettman seconded,to approve the Agenda for the November 16, 2020 Planning <br /> Commission meeting. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. <br /> APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 2020 <br /> Kirchner moved,Libby seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission <br /> meeting of October 19,2020 as submitted.VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. <br /> PUBLIC HEARINGS <br /> 1. LA20-000069 ALL ENERGY SOLAR,4760 BAYSIDE ROAD,VARIANCE. STAFF, <br /> JEREMY BARNHART <br /> Kali Anderson,Applicant,was present. <br /> Staff presented a summary of packet information. Regarding practical difficulty, Staff notes that the <br /> State Statutes identify inadequate access to sunlight as a practical difficulty; in its review, Staff notes that <br /> the improvement will have no impact on neighboring properties. The City prohibits ground mounted solar <br /> systems and recently denied a ground mounted array variance on a different property. Staff supports the <br /> variance as proposed. <br /> Gettman asked if aesthetics is really the only reason that the statute exists, or that actual guidance exists. <br /> Barnhart does not know all of the reasons,but that seems to be the most obvious one. From a structure <br /> standpoint, if the structure can support the additional amount of solar panels,that is a building code <br /> question not necessarily a variance question. Primarily, it is a visual impact type of issue. <br /> Collin Buechel, a representative from All Energy Solar, stated they are proposing to meet the variance <br /> and to address the question; they will get structural analysis on the roof. Any sort of structural <br /> components or concerns will be addressed with a professional engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota <br /> doing analysis on the roof. They are applying for a variance for the 70%coverage rule and as Barnhart <br /> addressed, one of the big reasons the 70%coverage rule is in place is to minimize the visual appearance. <br /> If they were to reduce the solar panel system to meet the 70% coverage,they would also have an irregular <br /> layout; as far as an eyesore,the proposed plan is a clean-cut, square on top of the roof. If the intent of that <br /> 70%coverage rule, in combination with it not really being visible from either road besides just the <br /> homeowners, contributes to that factor. As Barnhart mentioned,according to Minnesota statute, access to <br /> Page 1 of 23 <br />