HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-17-2015 Planning Commission Packet PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE -� �' � % ` 1-�
❑ COUNCIL
� PLANNING COMMISSION
❑ OTHER
Assistive Listening Device available upon request.
Please complete the following information for City records.
PRESENT FOR(from agenda)
NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER
� C _ ,.-�'�` . "' ��.. >�� �, :�' ��
,,-
z.� �
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
'!3.
14.
15.
V:1(LEGAL FORMS)\(FORMS)\PUBLIC ATTENDANCE.DOC
Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us – follow links for Stay Connected & Email Notifications
AGENDA
City of Orono Planning Commission Meeting for TUESDAY, February 17, 2015; 6:30 PM
Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356
952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us
Council Representative: Jim Cornick, Jr.
Audience Members:
Please sign in for the public record if you wish to address the Planning Commission. The sign in sheet is in the
lobby. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet – located in the lobby near
the sign in sheet.
Items on the Consent Agenda, including (*) asterisk items, are reviewed in total by the Planning Commission and
may be approved through one motion with no further discussion by the Planning Commission. Any items may be
removed by any Planning Commission Member, staff member or person from the public for separate
consideration. If you wish to remove any item from the Consent Agenda, please s tate the item number and
description of the item.
Applicants will be asked to move to the podium to answer questions after staff presents the application.
The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda,
they will be scheduled for an upcoming City Council meeting.
Consent Agenda
* 1. Approval of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 20, 2015.
New Business
2. 15-3717 Chamberlain Capital, LLC, 1340 Fox Street, Variances (Staff: Melanie Curtis)
3. 15-3708 Amend Section 78-1405(a)(8) regarding fence standards (Staff: Mike Gaffron)
Planning Commission Comments
4. Report from Planning Commission representatives on City Council meetings:
January 26, 2015 and February 9, 2015.
5. Other issues for discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 21
ROLL CALL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present:
Chair Denise Leskinen, Commissioners Kevin Landgraver, Bruce Lemke, Christopher McGrann, Loren
Schoenzeit, and John Thiesse. Representing Staff were Senior Planner Michael Gaffron, City Planner
Melanie Curtis, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor Lili McMillan was present.
Chair Leskinen called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF
NOVEMBER 17, 2014
Lemke moved, Schoenzeit seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission
meeting of November 17, 2014, as amended, with the time of the meeting in the header being
corrected to read 6:30 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
2. #14-3700 AMENDMENT OF ZONING CODE CHAPTER 78: AMEND SECTION
78-1379 REGARDING WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS (WECS), 6:33 P.M. –
7:54 P.M.
Gaffron stated this is an amendment to Chapter 78 regarding small wind energy conversion systems. The
City Council adopted an ordinance approximately one year ago that banned the use of small wind energy
conversion systems throughout the city. As a result of some court action, the City Council determined
that it was appropriate to reconsider and take a look at where and how the City might allow wind energy
conversion systems in the City.
Gaffron noted at its November 16 meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive
public input regarding small wind energy conversion systems or SWECS. The minutes of that meeting
have been included in the Planning Commission’s packets. At that meeting a presentation was made by
Orono resident Peter Lanpher, who provided some visual aids that depicted the visual impacts of the
SWECS on his enjoyment of his property. At that meeting the Planning Commission tabled the
discussion for further discussion.
Gaffron stated there are a number of decisions that need to be made tonight in order to craft an ordinance
that meets the City’s desired outcome. Part of what the Planning Commission will be doing tonight will
be answering questions that will help Staff define what those outcomes should be. Staff has also included
a table that compares the ordinance that the Planning Commission had recommended in 2013 to a number
of other city ordinances that exist from Woodbury, Brooklyn Park, Lakeville, North St. Paul, Medina,
Delano, and other cities. It also compares those to some model ordinances, one of which was put out by
the City of Des Moines, Iowa. Gaffron stated based on those ordinances, there appears to be a wide range
of standards throughout the state.
The Planning Commission should consider a definition for ornamental wind turbines, whether the
Planning Commission would consider the use of WECS systems in a commercial or nonresidential area of
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes [Page 1 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 2 of 21
the City, and review height, location, and setback standards. The Planning Commission should also
discuss whether distribution of electricity would be allowed to properties outside of the property that the
WECS is located on and whether WECS should be an accessory use or a conditional use.
Gaffron stated in relation to ornamental wind turbines, the City has one that was put in place that was
purported to be ornamental along Highway 12. The turbine is roughly 15 to 20 feet in height and is
purportedly not generating electricity. The existing alternative energy ordinance, while it bans the use of
WECS, does not ban the installation of wind turbines themselves that are not connected to electrical
feeder lines or the associated controls.
Gaffron stated a list of definitions is included in Staff’s memorandum. In most city codes, a wind turbine
is defined as any piece of electrical generating equipment that converts the kinetic energy of blowing
wind into electrical energy through the use of airfoils or similar devices to capture the wind. A residential
wind turbine is capable of generating 10 kilowatt nameplate generating capacity or less. A small wind
turbine is capable of producing 100 kW nameplate generating capacity or less. A utility wind turbine is a
turbine capable of generating more than 100 kW nameplate generating capacity. A wind energy
conversion system (WECS) is an electrical generating facility that consists of a wind turbine, feeder
line(s), associated controls, and may include a tower.
Gaffron stated a question has been raised as to whether a purely decorative or ornamental wind turbine or
wind device functionally has the same potential visual and noise impacts as one that is part of a system.
Assuming that the end result of this process is that a WECS will be allowed subject to certain standards,
the existing code section that bans wind energy conversion systems will be removed and replaced with
some defined standards. If the City decides to allow ornamental wind turbines, it will need to be spelled
out that way in the code.
Other cities’ codes have used the following definition: Ornamental wind devices that are not a WECS
shall be exempt from the provisions of this section and shall conform to other applicable provisions of
this chapter and the City Code.
Staff is also recommending that the definition terminology be revised so that the terms residential wind
turbine, small wind turbine, and utility wind turbine, be listed as Residential WECS, small WECS, and
Utility WECS, since their intended meanings relate to the complete system and not just the turbine. It
also may be appropriate to include language in the code that acknowledges that WECS of 5000 kW
nameplate capacity or greater are regulated by the state and not subject to this ordinance.
Questions to answer regarding ornamental wind turbines are as follows:
1. Should the installation of purely ornamental wind turbines be allowed?
2. If so, what standards should be applicable to their installation?
- Should they be allowed only if they are non-functional; i.e., blades do not rotate?
- Should they be allowed if they contain a light or are illuminated by a separate light source?
- Should they be treated as accessory structures or signage and subject to the pertinent
standards for such uses?
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes [Page 2 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 3 of 21
Schoenzeit suggested a limitation on height be placed on ornamental wind devices, such as under ten feet.
Schoenzeit stated he has an ornamental wind device in his garden that is approximately five feet in height
and that the blades do move.
Landgraver asked what chapters or other city codes they would need to comply with.
Gaffron stated if they are considered an accessory structure, they would need to meet the City’s accessory
structure regulations, such as setbacks, and could not be any higher than the principal house structure.
Thiesse asked if the City has any historical information on ornamental wind devices.
Gaffron indicated it does not. Gaffron stated there have been a few ornamental wind devices in the City
but a number of them have been removed over the years.
Leskinen stated she is not sure whether a garden wind mill would rise to the level of an accessory
structure.
Gaffron stated in his view the accessory section of the code does not really address ornamental devices.
Leskinen stated she does not want to overregulate ornamental structures in someone’s yard, but that an
ornamental wind device would need to be addressed somewhere since it could be called ornamental but
still be impactful if it is too large.
McGrann asked whether someone could put up a permanent basketball hoop at 10 to 12 feet without a
permit.
Gaffron indicated they could.
McGrann asked if someone could put up a piece of art or sculpture that is 25 feet in their front yard.
Gaffron stated the Code does not really talk about art or sculpture but that it does address flag poles.
Gaffron noted the City revised their Accessory Structure Code a couple of years ago to address certain
specific structures, such as a flag pole in the lakeshore area. Gaffron stated an option would be
establishing a maximum height for a decorative wind device.
McGrann stated in his view, a flag pole at 25 feet is probably considerably less obstructive than a wind
mill at 25 feet. McGrann stated something below 15 feet is fine and that anything over that could create
issues, especially in a residential neighborhood.
Landgraver noted a question in Staff’s report asked if they be treated as accessory structures or signage
and subject to pertinent standards for such uses. Landgraver asked what the City’s signage standards are.
Gaffron stated an example was in the commercial area of Navarre that was intended to be purely
ornamental but it was above the parapet of the building.
Curtis stated the City in that situation required the ornamental device to become part of the sign and could
not be free-standing. Curtis stated the sign has not been installed yet and is still being designed, but the
blade structure will be incorporated into the sign.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes [Page 3 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 4 of 21
Schoenzeit stated it sounds like something similar to a clock.
Lemke asked what would happen if the ornamental device is not maintained and becomes noisy.
Gaffron stated it has a potential to be a problem, but unless it was squeaking very loud, it likely would not
be considered illegal under any of the City’s current ordinances.
Schoenzeit stated in that situation it likely would be bothering the homeowner more than the adjoining
property owner. Schoenzeit indicated he likes Commissioner McGrann’s suggestion of limiting it to
around 10 to 15 feet since the City is already allowing other structures that size.
Thiesse stated the ornamental wind device should not be comprised of standard pieces of a WECS.
Schoenzeit stated it would need to be nonfunctional as far as generating electricity.
Leskinen stated she does not want to regulate this to death but that there could be someone who will call it
ornamental, not use it to generate electricity, but it would still technically quality as a WECS. Leskinen
stated she is not sure if the provisions already in the City Code would address a situation like that or
whether the ordinance needs to be more specific about blade size, et cetera. Leskinen stated the question
is what makes it ornamental. Leskinen asked if it is only the fact that it does not generate electricity.
Gaffron stated they could do it as an accessory structure, but that he can imagine the types of things that
could go up. Gaffron indicated he has a sense of what the Planning Commission is thinking as it relates
to ornamental wind devices and that they can come back to this one if the Planning Commission would
like.
Gaffron stated as it relates to residential WECS, the existing code section identifies three distinct levels of
WECS based on generating capacity: 10 kW residential wind turbine, 100 kW small wind turbine, and
100 kW utility wind turbine. Gaffron indicated residential wind turbines in many ordinances are the only
WECS allowed in residential zoning districts regardless of lot size, height, or setbacks. In some
ordinances, small wind turbines are allowed in residential districts.
Residential wind turbines with 10 kW capacity are primarily designed to provide power to a single
residence, while small wind turbines with 100 kW might serve a single business or a group of homes.
Gaffron noted utility wind turbines are primarily designed as electric power generators for utility systems
or wholesale power markets. The MPCA model ordinance defines something called Micro-WECS, which
is a wind turbine with a generating capacity of 2 kW or less and mounted on a tower of 70 feet or less.
Gaffron stated the wind turbine on Rest Point would fit into that category.
Gaffron stated as generating capacity increases, the size and required height of a WECS will increase.
The efficiency of a WECS relies on a wide variety of factors, not the least of which is sustained,
unobstructed winds, which results in the need for greater heights and placement in open spaces and
creates increased visibility.
Gaffron noted the majority of Orono property is zoned for residential purposes, and approximately half of
the City’s land area is within the designated Shoreland Overlay District. Orono’s commercial and
industrial districts are limited in land area. The Navarre commercial area is almost completely within the
Shoreland Overlay District, and a majority of the commercially zoned properties abut or are directly
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes [Page 4 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 5 of 21
across a road from residentially-zoned property. In the Highway 12 commercial areas, the same
proximity to residential zoning is found. Certain properties in the Orono industrial park on Highway 12
may be the exception, being surrounded by non-residential uses.
Questions to be answered related to residential versus nonresidential WECS are as follows:
1. Is there a desire on the part of the City or its residents to allow WECS of greater than 10 kW
capacity within residential zoning districts?
2. Is there a desire to allow WECS of any generating capacity within commercial or industrial
districts within Orono? Is there a known demand for such use?
3. Are the visual aspects of WECS a significant factor in whether WECS should be allowed in
commercial/industrial areas?
Leskinen stated she would be opposed to having any WECS in a residential area that is greater than the
10 kW capacity. Leskinen indicated she likes some of the recommendations that were proposed
previously in 2013 and that it is her belief there was a maximum of 10 kW capacity included in that draft
ordinance.
Gaffron indicated it was included in the 2013 draft ordinance.
Leskinen stated she cannot see a reasonable need for anything larger than that as an accessory use and that
if something larger is allowed, there would need to be a higher level of scrutiny.
Schoenzeit asked if someone with ten acres would be allowed to have more than one wind turbine.
Gaffron stated the draft ordinance and many of the other city ordinances only allows one per property.
Landgraver stated his answer would be no to the first question since there has been no demonstrable
demand for it. Landgraver stated to his recollection the reason why the Planning Commission was
circumspect about Questions 2 and 3 was that they could not envision it and that they would like to see a
formal plan before allowing or not allowing it.
Thiesse asked if there should be a minimum size. Thiesse indicated he is not interested in allowing a
micro-WECS or something that would only power a microwave given the possible impacts to the
neighboring properties.
Schoenzeit stated if you look at who is sponsoring that ordinance, the micro-WECS may turn out to be
more like a small dish antenna, which state law allows everyone to have one and would trump any city
code.
Leskinen stated she is less inclined to look for a minimum only because in the other aspects of the
ordinance those potential issues will be addressed. Leskinen stated she would like to allow it on a
residential property that is large enough to handle it without having any impact on the neighbors.
Leskinen stated once there is an impact off the property, then it becomes an issue.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes [Page 5 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 6 of 21
Schoenzeit stated there could also be some minimum performance standards, which would help prevent
nonworking wind turbines.
Thiesse pointed out there are minimum manufacturer performance standards that will not provide much
electricity but still cause issues.
Landgraver stated of all the municipality ordinances, none of them has adopted anything like that and the
only group advocating that is the MPCA model ordinance.
Leskinen asked if Commissioner Thiesse would like to have minimum performance standards to prevent a
nuisance.
Thiesse stated if someone is going to install a wind turbine, it should create a fair amount of electricity.
Lemke questioned whether that would require the City to calibrate everyone’s wind turbine to ensure it is
running correctly.
Gaffron asked if the Planning Commission would like to see wind turbines in a commercial district and
whether they should be an accessory use or a conditional use.
Landgraver stated his personal opinion would be to make them a conditional use.
Leskinen indicated she would agree with that. Leskinen noted the City has very few commercial
properties and that they are few and far between but close to residential. Leskinen stated in her view they
would have to at least be a conditional use to make sure the impacts are minimized or eliminated to
residential areas.
Gaffron stated at this point he is not getting the impression that anything should be written in the Code to
allow them in commercial areas.
Landgraver stated there has been no demand and that they are close to residential neighborhoods.
Schoenzeit stated the proper way would be to implement a process to get a conditional use permit for a
WECS in a commercial district.
Leskinen asked if there are any disadvantages to making them a conditional use.
Gaffron stated some standards would need to be established for commercial districts, such as height,
setback and location. Gaffron stated wind turbines located in a commercial area would likely be designed
to produce larger amounts of electricity and would need to be higher in height.
Gaffron stated as it relates to height, setback, and location standards, the Planning Commission’s
recommendation in November of 2013 was to limit WECS as follows:
- Only allow WECS in the RR-1A and RR-1B, 2-acre and 5-acre Rural Residential zones.
- Not allow WECS in the Shoreland Overlay District, nor in wetlands or floodplains.
- Minimum lot size of 10 acres (gross acreage)
- A minimum setback to any property line of 300 feet.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes [Page 6 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 7 of 21
- Must be located within 150 feet of the principal structure.
- Hub height maximum of 30 feet, blade length maximum of 15 feet, and a maximum total height of 45
feet.
Gaffron noted Medina is the only city that has a setback of 300 feet. Gaffron stated a square 10-acre lot is
660’ x660’. The 300-foot setback standard places the WECS in the extreme center of the lot. Many lots
of ten acres or larger may be narrower than 600 feet and would not be able to locate a WECS on the site.
Gaffron stated a number of the cities had picked five acres as the minimum lot size.
A review of other cities’ standards suggests there is little uniformity as to whether or what size of
property should be required for a WECS. The setback requirement most common is 1 to 1.5 times the
total height of the WECS.
Per Orono Code Section 78-1378, in all districts antennas may not exceed 20 feet in height as an allowed
accessory use. The City allows ham radio towers/antennas to be up to 65 feet in combined height via a
conditional use permit. Per Section 78-1433, no accessory structures or buildings may exceed 30 feet in
height and may not exceed the height of the principal building. This pertains to items such as light poles
and flagpoles. A WECS with a height of 45 feet would be an exception to the accessory structure
standard and would have to be defined as such.
A 45-foot maximum WECS height is likely to be limiting from the perspective of optimizing wind
resource conditions. That places it below the typical tree line. WECS height limits vary widely among
the municipal codes reviewed, based on the zoning district, the generating capacity of the WECS, the lot
size, or a combination of these factors. For a 10 kW WECS, Brooklyn Park and Delano limit the height
to 20 feet above the roofline of the principle structure. Medina and Plymouth limit the 10 kW WECS to
50 feet above grade. Other cities and model ordinances suggest height limits of 125 feet or greater are
appropriate, and the Distributed Wind Energy Association as an industry advocate suggests a minimum
hub height of 60 feet.
Gaffron stated the Planning Commission should also discuss flicker from the wind turbine and noted that
the majority of the city ordinances do not cover that. In addition, the Planning Commission should
discuss whether there is any desire to allow for distribution of electricity outside the property on which
the WECS is located.
The Planning Commission should consider the following questions:
1. Is the 10-acre lot size minimum an appropriate standard to establish?
2. Given the wide range of standards established for maximum height of WECS and assuming there
is no desire to allow for WECS with generating capacity greater than 10 kW, is the 45-foot height
limit reasonable?
Schoenzeit stated if the height is higher, the flicker may be eliminated on the small lots and could very
well make it more functional. Schoenzeit stated limiting the height may have negative impacts rather
than improving the situation for the neighbors.
Thiesse asked whether he would be allowed one if he has a 10-acre lot but cannot meet a 300-foot setback
or whether he could come in for a variance.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes [Page 7 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 8 of 21
Gaffron stated a variance in that situation might make more sense rather than meeting the standards for a
conditional use permit.
Thiesse asked if the City is being too strict if 80 percent of the City’s 10-acre lots are unable to meet the
setbacks.
Gaffron stated it depends on what the City’s desired outcome is. If the intent is to allow wind generators
that are functional, efficient and have no impacts on anyone, there will be a limited number of properties
that will be able to meet those standards. Gaffron stated the trade-off might be higher devices.
Thiesse indicated he does not have the technical knowledge to know whether an additional five feet
would make it more efficient.
Schoenzeit stated it will be very site dependent as well. Schoenzeit stated the actual installation of the
wind turbine will also determine whether it will be efficient.
Leskinen stated once the standards are set, the variance process would make more sense than a
conditional use permit since a variance would be specific to each property. Leskinen stated she would not
allow WECS on any lots that are smaller than ten acres or less than a 300 feet setback.
Lemke asked whether the City wants to have 80 percent of the properties that qualify come in for a
variance.
Thiesse stated there will probably only be two to three percent of that number that are interested in wind
energy.
Landgraver stated ten acres seems reasonable given the setbacks suggested and that he does not see a
reason to change the 45-foot height limit. Landgraver stated the City could look at it again if the City
starts to receive a high volume of variance requests.
Schoenzeit stated the variance process can be used to review site specific requests and practical
difficulties.
Leskinen stated in her view that is pretty reasonable if the City is interested in limiting the impacts to the
neighbors.
Gaffron stated assuming the limitation of 10 kW capacity for allowed WECS, the expectation for the
ability to generate excess electrical power to the grid is minimal at best and it would be reasonable to
establish a code provision that power generated by the WECS shall be consumed on-site for residential
use and not distributed across property lines. Gaffron asked if the Planning Commission is interested in
allowing electrical power outside of the property.
Schoenzeit stated what they should not be able to do is run a line to their neighbors bypassing the grid but
that they should be able to hook up to the local utility.
McGrann stated in his view the electricity generated should only be allowed for that property and that he
does not want this to turn into a money making venture.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes [Page 8 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 9 of 21
Schoenzeit noted 10 kW will not generate that much electricity and that the City could require they only
connect it to their house and local meter grid but not redistribute it.
Thiesse indicated he is in agreement with that.
Landgraver asked if there is a reason why those points were not raised in the other model ordinances.
Gaffron stated there are a few that specifically prohibit that but that he does not know the answer to that.
Schoenzeit stated that would be the safest way to connect it and that a licensed electrician will need to do
the hookup.
Leskinen asked if there is a risk to someone only feeding their house and not the grid.
Schoenzeit stated the extra current would not be a problem if it is hooked properly to a person’s meter.
Thiesse stated he would recommend allowing a connection to the grid.
Leskinen indicated she would also be agreeable to that.
Gaffron stated that would also help to eliminate the commercial component to it if they are allowed to
connect it to the local utility to offset their electrical use.
Thiesse stated with only one turbine on a property, the electricity generated would be rather minimal.
Gaffron stated the way the language is currently drafted, more than one would not be allowed. Gaffron
stated he has not seen multiple wind turbines addressed in other city ordinances.
Gaffron stated as it relates to accessory use versus conditional use, the Planning Commission had
concluded under the limitations recommended in 2013 that WECS could be listed as an allowed accessory
use in the RR-1B and RR-1A districts, and approval would be administrative, with any deviations subject
to the variance process. The administrative approval process negates any neighbor input, while the
conditional use permit or variance processes each involve neighbor notification and the public hearing
process.
The Planning Commission should consider the following:
1. Should residential WECS be allowed administratively as an accessory use or should they be
allowed only as a conditional use.
2. Should any deviations from the standards be subject to the variance process rather than a
conditional use permit.
Gaffron stated a number of suggested changes have been incorporated into the 2013 draft ordinance and
that the Planning Commission should review the comparison of various jurisdictions’ WECS code
provisions provided in their packet and attempt to answer the questions listed in Staff’s memorandum.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes [Page 9 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 10 of 21
Leskinen stated she is very comfortable with leaving it with the 10-acre minimum and the 300-foot
setback, with the ability for the property owner to apply for a variance.
Landgraver indicated he is in agreement with Chair Leskinen but noted the Planning Commission has not
addressed flicker.
Leskinen stated she would like to consider adding language from either the Medina or Des Moines
ordinances addressing the flicker. Leskinen stated the flicker is the reason that the setback should be
300 feet.
Thiesse stated a site specific flicker analysis could be required prior to installation but that the flicker
pattern would also change with the seasons.
Gaffron stated the proposed ordinance does make a few changes, such as the addition of Item 14 on Page
3 of the draft ordinance. Gaffron noted Item 14 states that no WECS shall be installed and operated so as
to cause a shadow flicker to fall on or in any existing residential structure. Gaffron stated another way to
accomplish that would be to require a shadow flicker report before installation rather than waiting until it
is installed. Gaffron noted most cities have not addressed flicker and that in his view a shadow flicker
report may be a little more prudent than waiting to see if there is a problem after it is installed.
Landgraver stated he likes the language in the Medina ordinance. Landgraver stated if there is not a
residential structure nearby, then there would not have to be a report.
Thiesse stated they could have a combination of the two by requiring the shadow flicker report and
keeping the current language in the draft ordinance.
Leskinen stated that is a nice combination of both ordinances and that it would also deal with what is
existing on the neighboring properties.
Schoenzeit stated if the well is there first, it establishes the no build zone for even the neighboring
property.
Gaffron stated Staff will combine the two sentences into one item that says there needs to be a report
showing there will not be flicker.
Landgraver stated he is not sure whether shadow flicker is a defined term and that the City Attorney
should review that and come up with an appropriate definition for that.
Gaffron stated the City Attorney will be reviewing the draft ordinance after tonight’s meeting once the
recommendations of the Planning Commission are incorporated.
Leskinen asked who would be qualified to prepare the flicker report.
Gaffron stated that will need to be investigated at this point and further defined.
Schoenzeit stated the time of the year the report will cover will also need to be addressed.
Gaffron requested the Planning Commission go back to the discussion on ornamental wind devices.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes [Page 10 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 11 of 21
Leskinen noted in another section the maximum blade length was defined and that perhaps a maximum
blade length for ornamental wind devices could help clarify it. Leskinen stated her concern with the
ornamental wind device is that it will be too big and will cause flicker.
Thiesse suggested a maximum height of 12 feet and a blade length of three feet.
Gaffron stated no matter what code is adopted, someone will try to get around it and that he is not sure
what the exact standard should be at this point. Gaffron stated the two things that jump out are that there
should be no visual or noise impacts.
McGrann stated if they allow something that is 12 feet high and not more than four feet in diameter for
the blades, someone could come back and request a variance.
Thiesse stated to his knowledge there is one in town right now that meets that criteria and is causing
problems.
Landgraver stated he does not want to be regulating what people put in their garden, but that ten feet
sounds kind of large. Landgraver stated on a 10-acre lot a 10-foot high structure would not be but that it
could be on some of the lakeshore lots. Landgraver stated he is not sure what the right number is but that
he would suggest six or eight feet for height and no individual blade over two feet.
Thiesse stated it could also be used to generate wind in one spot and be ornamental in another spot.
Thiesse stated language could also be stated it would be considered ornamental and that it could be dealt
with in another section of the ordinance.
Gaffron stated the only problem is there will be some things that could be considered an accessory
structure that only has to be ten feet from a lot line and as high as the principal structure. In that situation
there could be impacts.
Landgraver stated some art work or sculpture could exceed those restrictions but that a basketball hoop
does not have moveable blades.
Thiesse stated it can be tied to rotating.
Gaffron stated he can envision someone creating some art that does not move but yet exceeds those
standards.
Gaffron stated he will take into account the fact that the Planning Commission is considering a two to
three foot diameter blade and a maximum of eight feet high for ornamental wind devices. Gaffron stated
the City Attorney may also have a solution.
Gaffron noted this is a continuation of a public hearing and that the Chair should reopen the public
hearing.
Thiesse asked what size WECS the City does not have control over.
Gaffron stated anything over 5000 kW.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes [Page 11 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 12 of 21
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7: 41 p.m.
Lisa Daniels stated she is the Executive Director of a company called Windustry, a nonprofit company
based in Minneapolis, and also the managing partner of the Midwest Wind Energy Center. Daniels stated
in her view Staff has done a great job of researching small wind energy systems and presenting the
materials tonight.
Daniels stated her main concern with the code and the ordinance is regarding safety. Daniels stated safety
can be addressed through setbacks and certification. Daniels stated in her view it seems like the 300-foot
setback that has been discussed is more going to eliminate any chance of people actually doing this even
though more and more people want to have a choice in their electricity and the sources of their electricity.
Daniels stated in her view 300 feet might be excessive.
Daniels noted any turbine or mechanical piece of equipment has risks of failure involved in its operation,
and in order to mitigate the safety concerns, minimum setbacks should be put in place. Daniels indicated
she has a 2005 Minnesota wind model ordinance that recommends for noncommercial machines the
setback should be equal to or slightly larger than the total height of the structure. The Distributed Wind
Energy Association version of their model ordinance was less restrictive and states that no part of the
wind turbine structure may extend closer than ten feet to any property line.
Daniels stated one thing that has not been discussed here is certification. Daniels stated setbacks are one
way to deal with potential safety concerns and certification is another. Machines that have been certified
have assurances built into them, such as safety, quality, functionality, performance and durability
assurances. Daniels stated all turbines come with a third party certification and provide a higher level of
confidence for both the consumer and the community. The kinds of standards re-enforced by certification
are used to qualify machines and are being adapted for wind turbines in terms of incentives, both on a
state and a federal basis. Daniels stated whether a piece of machinery would qualify or be eligible for the
federal tax credit would need to pass certification. Daniels indicated this is a guideline that just came out
this month from the IRS.
In addition, the Minnesota Department of Commerce has guidelines posted online that recommend siting
a tower on a minimum of one acre of land without trees or buildings, which underscores that some of the
properties in Orono might be too small to have a wind turbine. Daniels stated ten acres is sort of on the
large side, and if the MN Department of Commerce is suggesting one-half to one acre, Orono has gone
way on the other side of that.
Daniels stated she was also hoping that the City would allow structures that are higher than 45 feet.
Daniels stated a turbine cannot capture a good wind resource unless it is above the trees and that Orono is
essentially making any turbine almost useless if the height is limited to 45 feet. Daniels stated the
turbines also have to be away from local obstacles, including trees. Daniels stated the discussion about
getting the machine up higher to avoid flicker and avoid noise was on the right track. Daniels stated in
order for a machine to be useful, they have to allow it grab the wind, and that she hopes the Planning
Commission reconsiders some of these thoughts.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:49 p.m.
Lemke noted they have regulations in terms of the envelope of the wind turbine but that they do not have
anything regulating certification.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes [Page 12 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 13 of 21
Thiesse noted it is in the proposed ordinance but that the Planning Commission did not discuss it.
Landgraver thanked Ms. Daniels for her input. Landgraver stated one of the reasons for the Planning
Commission to exist is to take industry norms and then try to adapt those to where the community is at or
apply them to the community that the City and residents are trying to create. Landgraver stated it is good
to get input, but at this point he has not persuaded to change anything. Landgraver noted the City has
spent a lot of community resources on this project and that he would like to have something the Council
can review.
Schoenzeit noted there is the variance process that can be followed if a person can demonstrate practical
difficulties or have technical information showing something else.
Leskinen stated she is comfortable with the discussion the Planning Commission has had and that she
would be willing to forward the draft ordinance on to the City Attorney or City Council once the revisions
are made.
Gaffron stated Staff will put together some revisions to reflect tonight’s discussion, which will then be
given to the City Attorney for his review. Gaffron asked whether the Planning Commission would like to
see it again prior to it going to the City Council.
Leskinen stated she does not see any reason for it to come back to the Planning Commission at this stage,
especially since the Planning Commission has already spent a great deal of time on this the first go-
around.
Schoenzeit moved, McGrann seconded, to direct Staff to incorporate tonight’s discussion into the
draft ordinance regarding wind energy conversion systems (WECS) for the next level of review by
the City Attorney and City Council. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
3. #15-3704 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY SERVICES, 3880 SHORELINE DRIVE,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE, 7:54 P.M. –
8:03 P.M.
Curtis stated Hennepin County has operated a highway maintenance facility from the property located at
3880 Shoreline Drive since 1962. The facility is used primarily for winter road maintenance. The facility
was constructed when the property was zoned for commercial purposes and the property was rezoned in
the early 1970s to LR-1C. The maintenance facility was allowed to continue as a legal, nonconforming
use. The use of the property today is considered a public service structure which is allowed through a
conditional use permit. An expansion or change to the existing use or structure on the property requires a
conditional use permit.
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit and commercial site plan review to allow a 3,200
square foot addition on the north side of the existing building. The property is currently at 47 percent
hardcover where 35 percent is permitted. The addition will result in nonstructural hardcover to be
converted to structural hardcover which requires a hardcover variance.
At 47 percent hardcover, the property exceeds the Tier 3 hardcover limit of 35 percent. The proposed
addition will be constructed over existing hardcover and will not result in an increase. The change from
nonstructural hardcover to structural hardcover technically requires approval of a hardcover variance.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes [Page 13 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 14 of 21
The proposed addition will result in almost no change to the site layout or site usage. The addition will
not result in significant changes to access to the building or vehicular traffic patterns within the site. The
existing site plan is in compliance with past approvals. The overhead door for the portion of the addition
slated for vehicle storage is facing into the site to the south and should not impact properties to the north.
Staff finds that Items 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 13 of the conditional use permit section applies in this situation and
are outlined in Staff’s report.
It is Staff’s believe the proposed addition to provide additional office, storage, and locker room space will
not result in a notable intensification of the site as the vehicle and equipment use on the site will not
increase. The proposal should have virtually no negative impacts to adjacent properties nor will there be
negative impacts in terms of stormwater or site usage. Staff would recommend, however, that future
requests to increase the hardcover on the site not be approved.
Staff recommends approval of a conditional use permit for the proposed addition and approval of the site
plan, subject to the following conditions: One, adherence to the approved plan; Two, the building permit
application will be subject to engineer, building official, and fire marshal review; and Three, subject to
MCWD approval.
The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff.
The applicant had nothing to add to Staff’s report.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:58 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:58 p.m.
Leskinen stated the application is pretty straight forward and that she does not have any concerns with the
proposal.
Landgraver asked if the MCWD will be conducting any evaluation to determine whether the stormwater
pond constructed in 2000 is still functional.
Curtis stated as part of the building permit review, the building inspector will review it as well as the
MCWD. Curtis stated in her view it will be addressed if it is an issue.
Landgraver stated he did not know if this would be the appropriate place to determine whether it is still
functioning.
Leskinen noted the memorandum from the MSB does talk about the stormwater pond. Leskinen stated to
her recollection it triggers a stormwater management rule that requires best management practices to be
incorporated into the project. Leskinen stated the memorandum appears to address some of that.
Landgraver stated in his view he felt this would be a good opportunity to review that, but that he is not
sure whether it is within the Planning Commission’s purview.
Curtis stated she will make a note of that and consult with the City Attorney.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes [Page 14 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 15 of 21
Thiesse asked if they will be building the whole addition or not at this time.
Greg Moore, Hennepin County Construction Project Manager, stated the addition will be on the north
side of the building. Moore indicated a portion of the proposal was built as an alternate. The bid received
came in within budget so it will be built.
Lemke moved, Landgraver seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3704,
Hennepin County Property Services, 3880 Shoreline Drive, granting of a conditional use permit and
hardcover variance, subject to engineer, building official, and fire marshal review; adherence to the
approved site plan; and subject to MCWD approval. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
4. #15-3705 AMEND CHAPTER 78, ARTICLE IV, DIVISION 7 & 8 TO ELIMINATE
RR-1B-1 AND M-6 DISTRICTS, 8:03 P.M. – 8:05 P.M.
Curtis noted the Planning Commission discussed this change at their work session. The change in the
ordinance eliminates unused zoning district categories on the zoning map from the City Code. The
Planning Commission was in full agreement to delete these unused provisions within the zoning
ordinance.
Staff recommends approval of the zoning text amendment.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:04 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:04 p.m.
McGrann moved, Landgraver seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3705,
Amend Chapter 78, Article IV, Division 7 & 8, to eliminate RR-1B-1 and M-6 Districts. VOTE:
Ayes 6, Nays 0.
5. #15-3706 AMEND SECTION 78-1211 REGARDING CLARIFICATION TO THE TOE
OF BLUFF DEFINITION, 8:05 P.M. – 8:07 P.M.
Curtis noted this was also discussed at the Planning Commission’s January work session. Curtis stated
the proposed change in the definition clarifies the toe of the bluff definition to be consistent with state
shoreland rules and Orono’s historical consistent ordinance administration.
Staff recommends approval of the zoning text amendment.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:06 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:06 p.m.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes [Page 15 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 16 of 21
McGrann moved, Landgraver seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3706,
Amend Section 78-1211 regarding clarification to the toe of bluff definition. VOTE: Ayes 6,
Nays 0.
6. #15-3707 AMEND SECTION 78-1405(A)(5) TO CLARIFY RETAINING WALL AND
LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE SETBACKS, 8:07 P.M. – 8:22 P.M.
Curtis stated this change clarifies language pertaining to permit restrictions for retaining walls of any
height which cannot be closer than five feet from any side or rear lot line, nor located within an easement.
Staff recommends approval of the zoning text amendment.
Schoenzeit asked what the City is attempting to prevent with this change.
Curtis indicated it would prevent structures from being constructed right up to the lot line.
Schoenzeit asked if it is the use of the easement for utilities.
Curtis stated it is primarily for drainage and the ability to create a swale or maintain drainage and the
structure without trespassing on to the neighbor’s property.
Schoenzeit asked what happens if the wall is correcting the situation.
Curtis stated typically in drainage situations, if a property owner needs to correct the drainage near the
property line, the City does have cooperative drainage plans between neighbors. Curtis stated typically a
permit or a temporary easement is put into place to allow that to happen, but from the standpoint of
changing the grade or changing the direction of the runoff, it would need to stay on the person’s property
and not go onto the neighbor’s property. Curtis stated as was discussed at the work session, this change is
not to regulate garden border type situations but retaining walls.
Schoenzeit stated it seems kind of arbitrary in that the City would allow a fence or a row of 50-foot oak
trees on the property line, but if someone is trying to landscape their yard, the change seems to negate
property owner rights. Schoenzeit noted it does mention the ability to get an encroachment agreement,
but given the fact that it is somebody’s property and also given all the things that the City allows along
the property line, it seems arbitrary to not allow it on the line.
Curtis stated it is a non-encroachment to a setback requirement. Curtis stated if either property owner
needs to encroach further into the setback or closer to the lot line, the City does have a variance process
for that.
Schoenzeit noted the applicant would need to pay a $700 application fee for a variance but someone can
build a fence or plant trees along the property line. Schoenzeit stated if someone puts up a fence and it
encroaches, that situation would pit two neighbors against each other to resolve it. Schoenzeit stated in
this situation, someone cannot construct a retaining wall on their own property. Schoenzeit stated it
seems like the City is picking and choosing what can be put on the property line.
Gaffron stated with every zoning ordinance, the City regulates what someone can do on their property to
limit the impacts to the neighbors.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes [Page 16 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 17 of 21
Schoenzeit stated it appears that people can do something that is more impactful without a permit but that
in this scenario someone cannot do something on their own property.
Gaffron stated the City has never regulated trees and that fences are considered a structure that needs to
be maintained on both sides. Gaffron stated the neighbor is supposed to have the nice side of the fence
facing their property. The issue comes down to changing the grade or altering the land as well as
maintenance of the wall.
Schoenzeit stated he takes issue with the zero height of the retaining wall and that it used to be for walls
that are four feet or higher in height. Schoenzeit stated if you go around the City, you will see there are
thousands of these and that with the change they are officially nonconforming. Schoenzeit stated the City
should try to look at ordinances that make people more compliant rather than less. Schoenzeit stated in
his view the language is too broad, especially at no height.
Leskinen noted the wall at any height came after a long discussion at the Planning Commission’s work
session.
Schoenzeit noted he disagreed with it then and that he would like to reopen that discussion. Schoenzeit
stated the 3’/11” or 4-foot height is a magic height where other things kick in and is somewhat
manageable. Schoenzeit stated to say at any height they are not allowed is too broad. Schoenzeit stated
in his view anything under 3’/11” could be administratively approved.
Leskinen asked if he is saying there are thousands of these that are closer than five feet to the property
line.
Schoenzeit stated they are all over the place and that the average homeowner would put one of these in as
part of their normal landscaping. Schoenzeit stated the City allows other things along the property line
that are as easily consuming of that line as a retaining wall and that the City does not regulate those.
Leskinen stated in her mind Commissioner Schoenzeit has made the case that there needs to be
clarification, which this change attempts to do.
Landgraver asked if Commissioner Schoenzeit is okay with the 5-foot distance.
Schoenzeit indicated he is not since the City already allows, without any regulation, many other things
right on the property line.
Gaffron asked what about the language suggests the existing retaining walls have to go away.
Schoenzeit stated he is not saying they would not be grandfathered in but that it is not allowing people to
use a portion of their property unless they want to pay a $700 application fee.
Leskinen noted this applies if people want it closer than five feet. Leskinen stated the whole point of the
change was to prevent it from having an impact to surrounding properties.
Schoenzeit noted the retaining wall would be on that person’s property and that a fence and trees are far
more impactful.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes [Page 17 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 18 of 21
Leskinen noted a fence or trees would not impact the drainage as much as a retaining wall.
Thiesse stated if you are looking at a lakeshore lot that is 45 feet in width, this change would require them
to go five feet in from the property line which would leave them with a 30-foot lot. Thiesse stated it
essentially is usable property for the neighbor but not for you.
Schoenzeit stated there might also be a drainage problem that needs correction and the property owner is
not allowed to correct it.
McGrann stated the property owner is allowed to correct it but that they have to comply with certain
regulations.
Schoenzeit stated in his view some height should be allowed.
McGrann stated there are remedies for property owners who want to encroach within that five feet.
Leskinen stated many people have come in and have requested the Council waive the fee. Leskinen
concurred that there are a number of remedies that are available.
Curtis noted City Code already prevents grading within five feet of the lot line.
Landgraver stated at this point he would like to call for a vote.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:21 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:21 p.m.
McGrann moved, Lemke seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3707, Amend
Section 78-1405(A)(5) to clarify retaining wall and landscape structure setbacks. VOTE: Ayes 5,
Nays 1, Schoenzeit opposed.
7. #15-3708 AMEND SECTION 78-1405(A)(8) TO CLARIFY THE DEFINED FENCE
HEIGHT AND RESTRICT TEMPORARY FENCE MATERIALS, 8:22 P.M. – 8:27 P.M.
Gaffron stated this change is supposed to clarify the applied definition of maximum fence height for
riparian shoreland lots and establishes minimum material permanence criteria. Gaffron stated there was
also a question raised at the work session about whether or not some standards should be developed for
landscaping barriers, such as a densely planted row of junipers or arborvitae, particularly on lakeshore
lots where they can or do create a visual obstruction toward the lake. Gaffron stated that subject will be
added to the master rank priority list for code changes and considered at a future point in time.
Gaffron noted the draft ordinance inadvertently does not address the temporary materials item and that
there is a conflict with the language regarding lakeshore lots in Items B1 and B2. Gaffron indicated he
would prefer the application be tabled to allow Staff to correct that.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes [Page 18 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 19 of 21
Landgraver stated the language has average setback line as defined by the most lakeward projection of the
fence owner’s principal residence and the most lakeward projection of the adjacent affected principal
residence structure. Landgraver asked if there should be two lines.
Gaffron noted the City changed this piece of code years ago because the impact of a fence affects the
owner of the fence on the one side and the neighbor on the other side but not the other adjoining neighbor.
The City elected to define it using the property of the owner of the fence as opposed to using a line that is
established by properties on either side of the fence owner. Gaffron stated there is a different average
lakeshore setback line for a fence than it is for anything else.
Gaffron stated he would recommend this application be tabled.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:26 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:26 p.m.
Leskinen asked whether different language can be put in there with regard to the average lakeshore
setback line.
Gaffron indicated he can insert language to distinguish it from the general average lakeshore setback line,
such as a fence average lakeshore setback line.
McGrann moved, Landgraver seconded, to table Application No. 15-3708, Amend Section 78-
1405(a)(8) to clarify the defined fence height and restrict temporary fence materials.
VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
8. #15-3709 AMEND SECTION 78-1001(6) TO ADD NAVARRE AREA TO PUD MIXED
USE PROVISIONS, 8:27 P.M. – 8:29 P.M.
Gaffron stated in the 1990s or late 1980s, the City created a PUD process and had it apply only to the
Highway 12 corridor area but not apply to the Navarre area. Gaffron stated this change adds the Navarre
Area to the eligibility for mixed use PUD standards similar to that allowed for the Wayzata Boulevard
corridor.
Staff recommends approval of the zoning text amendment.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:28 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:28 p.m.
Lemke moved, McGrann seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3709, Amend
Section 78-1001(6) to add Navarre Area to PUD mixed use provisions. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes [Page 19 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 20 of 21
9. #15-3710 AMEND SECTION 78-1286(B & D) REGARDING CHANGES TO THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR TOPOGRAPHIC ALTERATIONS/GRADING AND FILING
ACTIVITIES, 8:29 P.M. – 8:33 P.M.
Gaffron stated the amendment before the Planning Commission modifies the conditional use permit
provisions for site grading by increasing the administrative permit threshold from 10 to 50 cubic yards for
shoreland properties within the 0-75 foot setback area. It establishes new standards and streamlines
administrative zoning permit approvals for grading in the 0-75 foot lakeshore setback for things like in-
ground stairways, ice ridge corrections, landscaping, etc. Staff is in favor of raising it to 50 cubic yards
since it would avoid the need for people to go through a long-drawn out process for something that may
be very minimal.
Gaffron noted the Planning Commission supported changes to increase the 10 cubic yards to 50 cubic
yards but did not support changing the 500 cubic yard threshold to 1,500. The reason was that there are a
very small number of these cases that come up per year and the amount of trucks associated with 500 or
more cubic yards and the potential for substantial disruption without a building project warrant an
opportunity for neighborhood notices.
Staff recommends approval of the zoning text amendment.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:32 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:32 p.m.
Leskinen noted the Planning Commission discussed this at their January work session and that she is
comfortable with the change.
Schoenzeit moved, Landgraver seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3710,
Amend Section 78-1286(b & d) regarding changes to the requirements for topographic
alterations/grading and filing activities. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
10. REPORT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ON CITY
COUNCIL MEETINGS HELD ON NOVEMBER 24, 2014, DECEMBER 8, 2014, AND
JANUARY 12, 2015
Thiesse stated he attended the November 24 Council meeting. The Source Land Capital comprehensive
plan amendment was approved and the Marquardt application was tabled at the request of the applicant to
allow them time to reduce the size of the deck.
Landgraver stated at the December 8 Council meeting the Land Source preliminary plat was approved.
Curtis noted the portion of the Marquardt application for the deck was denied.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes [Page 20 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 21 of 21
Landgraver stated the Sharratt design was approved as well as the WJM application. The Council also
had a discussion about compensation and employment agreements for the city administrator and police
chief.
Schoenzeit noted the foundation for the first house has been put in at Red Oak. Schoenzeit commented a
tremendous amount of dirt work will be required for Lakeview given what has been done at Red Oak.
Gaffron stated the anticipated amount to clean up the mercury at the Lakeview site is a quarter to a half
million dollars.
Gaffron stated Source Land Capital will also be marketing the site through a website and that he will
provide that link once it is up and running.
OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
None
ADJOURNMENT
Leskinen moved, Schoenzeit seconded, to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at
8:43 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
_______________________________________
Denise Leskinen, Chair
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes [Page 21 of 21]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3717 [Total Pages 32]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3717 [Total Pages 32]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3717 [Total Pages 32]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3717 [Total Pages 32]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3717 [Total Pages 32]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3717 [Total Pages 32]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3717 [Total Pages 32]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3717 [Total Pages 32]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3717 [Total Pages 32]
I
t
e
m
#
0
2
-
P
C
A
g
e
n
d
a
-
0
2
/
1
7
/
2
0
1
5
F
i
l
e
1
5
-
3
7
1
7
[
T
o
t
a
l
P
a
g
e
s
3
2
]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3717 [Total Pages 32]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3717 [Total Pages 32]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3717 [Total Pages 32]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3717 [Total Pages 32]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3717 [Total Pages 32]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3717 [Total Pages 32]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3717 [Total Pages 32]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3717 [Total Pages 32]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3717 [Total Pages 32]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3717 [Total Pages 32]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3717 [Total Pages 32]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3717 [Total Pages 32]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3717 [Total Pages 32]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3717 [Total Pages 32]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3717 [Total Pages 32]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3717 [Total Pages 32]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3717 [Total Pages 32]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3717 [Total Pages 32]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3717 [Total Pages 32]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3717 [Total Pages 32]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3717 [Total Pages 32]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3717 [Total Pages 32]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3708 [Total Pages 17]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3708 [Total Pages 17]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3708 [Total Pages 17]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3708 [Total Pages 17]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3708 [Total Pages 17]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3708 [Total Pages 17]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3708 [Total Pages 17]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3708 [Total Pages 17]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3708 [Total Pages 17]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3708 [Total Pages 17]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3708 [Total Pages 17]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3708 [Total Pages 17]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3708 [Total Pages 17]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3708 [Total Pages 17]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3708 [Total Pages 17]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3708 [Total Pages 17]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 02/17/2015
File 15-3708 [Total Pages 17]