Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Tuesday, January 20, 2015 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 11 of 21  <br />  <br />Leskinen noted in another section the maximum blade length was defined and that perhaps a maximum <br />blade length for ornamental wind devices could help clarify it. Leskinen stated her concern with the <br />ornamental wind device is that it will be too big and will cause flicker. <br /> <br />Thiesse suggested a maximum height of 12 feet and a blade length of three feet. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated no matter what code is adopted, someone will try to get around it and that he is not sure <br />what the exact standard should be at this point. Gaffron stated the two things that jump out are that there <br />should be no visual or noise impacts. <br /> <br />McGrann stated if they allow something that is 12 feet high and not more than four feet in diameter for <br />the blades, someone could come back and request a variance. <br /> <br />Thiesse stated to his knowledge there is one in town right now that meets that criteria and is causing <br />problems. <br /> <br />Landgraver stated he does not want to be regulating what people put in their garden, but that ten feet <br />sounds kind of large. Landgraver stated on a 10-acre lot a 10-foot high structure would not be but that it <br />could be on some of the lakeshore lots. Landgraver stated he is not sure what the right number is but that <br />he would suggest six or eight feet for height and no individual blade over two feet. <br /> <br />Thiesse stated it could also be used to generate wind in one spot and be ornamental in another spot. <br />Thiesse stated language could also be stated it would be considered ornamental and that it could be dealt <br />with in another section of the ordinance. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the only problem is there will be some things that could be considered an accessory <br />structure that only has to be ten feet from a lot line and as high as the principal structure. In that situation <br />there could be impacts. <br /> <br />Landgraver stated some art work or sculpture could exceed those restrictions but that a basketball hoop <br />does not have moveable blades. <br /> <br />Thiesse stated it can be tied to rotating. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated he can envision someone creating some art that does not move but yet exceeds those <br />standards. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated he will take into account the fact that the Planning Commission is considering a two to <br />three foot diameter blade and a maximum of eight feet high for ornamental wind devices. Gaffron stated <br />the City Attorney may also have a solution. <br /> <br />Gaffron noted this is a continuation of a public hearing and that the Chair should reopen the public <br />hearing. <br /> <br />Thiesse asked what size WECS the City does not have control over. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated anything over 5000 kW. <br /> <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes [Page 11 of 21]