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 5 of 21  <br />  <br />across a road from residentially-zoned property. In the Highway 12 commercial areas, the same <br />proximity to residential zoning is found. Certain properties in the Orono industrial park on Highway 12 <br />may be the exception, being surrounded by non-residential uses. <br /> <br />Questions to be answered related to residential versus nonresidential WECS are as follows: <br /> <br />1. Is there a desire on the part of the City or its residents to allow WECS of greater than 10 kW <br /> capacity within residential zoning districts? <br /> <br />2. Is there a desire to allow WECS of any generating capacity within commercial or industrial <br /> districts within Orono? Is there a known demand for such use? <br /> <br />3. Are the visual aspects of WECS a significant factor in whether WECS should be allowed in <br /> commercial/industrial areas? <br /> <br />Leskinen stated she would be opposed to having any WECS in a residential area that is greater than the <br />10 kW capacity. Leskinen indicated she likes some of the recommendations that were proposed <br />previously in 2013 and that it is her belief there was a maximum of 10 kW capacity included in that draft <br />ordinance. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated it was included in the 2013 draft ordinance. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated she cannot see a reasonable need for anything larger than that as an accessory use and that <br />if something larger is allowed, there would need to be a higher level of scrutiny. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit asked if someone with ten acres would be allowed to have more than one wind turbine. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the draft ordinance and many of the other city ordinances only allows one per property. <br /> <br />Landgraver stated his answer would be no to the first question since there has been no demonstrable <br />demand for it. Landgraver stated to his recollection the reason why the Planning Commission was <br />circumspect about Questions 2 and 3 was that they could not envision it and that they would like to see a <br />formal plan before allowing or not allowing it. <br /> <br />Thiesse asked if there should be a minimum size. Thiesse indicated he is not interested in allowing a <br />micro-WECS or something that would only power a microwave given the possible impacts to the <br />neighboring properties. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated if you look at who is sponsoring that ordinance, the micro-WECS may turn out to be <br />more like a small dish antenna, which state law allows everyone to have one and would trump any city <br />code. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated she is less inclined to look for a minimum only because in the other aspects of the <br />ordinance those potential issues will be addressed. Leskinen stated she would like to allow it on a <br />residential property that is large enough to handle it without having any impact on the neighbors. <br />Leskinen stated once there is an impact off the property, then it becomes an issue. <br /> <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes [Page 5 of 21]