My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-17-2015 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2015
>
02-17-2015 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/12/2016 9:19:59 AM
Creation date
4/6/2015 1:07:14 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
72
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Tuesday, January 20, 2015 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 10 of 21 <br /> <br />Leskinen stated she is very comfortable with leaving it with the 10-acre minimum and the 300-foot <br />setback, with the ability for the property owner to apply for a variance. <br /> <br />Landgraver indicated he is in agreement with Chair Leskinen but noted the Planning Commission has not <br />addressed flicker. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated she would like to consider adding language from either the Medina or Des Moines <br />ordinances addressing the flicker. Leskinen stated the flicker is the reason that the setback should be <br />300 feet. <br /> <br />Thiesse stated a site specific flicker analysis could be required prior to installation but that the flicker <br />pattern would also change with the seasons. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the proposed ordinance does make a few changes, such as the addition of Item 14 on Page <br />3 of the draft ordinance. Gaffron noted Item 14 states that no WECS shall be installed and operated so as <br />to cause a shadow flicker to fall on or in any existing residential structure. Gaffron stated another way to <br />accomplish that would be to require a shadow flicker report before installation rather than waiting until it <br />is installed. Gaffron noted most cities have not addressed flicker and that in his view a shadow flicker <br />report may be a little more prudent than waiting to see if there is a problem after it is installed. <br /> <br />Landgraver stated he likes the language in the Medina ordinance. Landgraver stated if there is not a <br />residential structure nearby, then there would not have to be a report. <br /> <br />Thiesse stated they could have a combination of the two by requiring the shadow flicker report and <br />keeping the current language in the draft ordinance. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated that is a nice combination of both ordinances and that it would also deal with what is <br />existing on the neighboring properties. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated if the well is there first, it establishes the no build zone for even the neighboring <br />property. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated Staff will combine the two sentences into one item that says there needs to be a report <br />showing there will not be flicker. <br /> <br />Landgraver stated he is not sure whether shadow flicker is a defined term and that the City Attorney <br />should review that and come up with an appropriate definition for that. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the City Attorney will be reviewing the draft ordinance after tonight’s meeting once the <br />recommendations of the Planning Commission are incorporated. <br /> <br />Leskinen asked who would be qualified to prepare the flicker report. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated that will need to be investigated at this point and further defined. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated the time of the year the report will cover will also need to be addressed. <br /> <br />Gaffron requested the Planning Commission go back to the discussion on ornamental wind devices. <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes [Page 10 of 21]
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.