Loading...
2010-137-Minutes for Meeting February 24,2010 Recorded 3/5/2010DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS CJ 7010.137 NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK III 11111111 IIIIIIII 03/05/2010 09:20:41 fP 2010-1 I 37 Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244- Re-recorded at the request of [give reason] previously recorded in Book _ or as Fee Number to correct and Page Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2010 Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; and Nick Lelack, Will Groves, Peter Gutowsky, Anthony Raguine, George Read, Terri Payne and Chris Bedsaul, Community Development. No representatives of the media or other citizens were present. Chair Luke opened the meeting at 1: 30 p.m. 1. Update on County Historic Preservation Resources. Nick Lelack stated that application was made for funds to update the historic preservation Code. They received a small amount of funding for this purpose, and two work plans were developed. The City of Bend was to receive much of the funding as this work was previously contracted out to the City. It has now gone back to the County. This project will be added to the work plan, as the funds need to be used before the end of August 2010. Peter Gutowsky said he is not that familiar with the historic designations. This plan would just bring the information in line with that of the City of Bend. Parts of what is going to be included are sites located on federal land. Commissioner Baney asked if the Historic Landmarks Commission has been of any assistance. Mr. Lelack replied that Pat Kliewer of that group has been very helpful. Commissioner Unger said he would like to see a complete list that includes sites that need preservation. Mr. Gutowsky stated that there is one site in Terrebonne that is noted, but two others that are not officially listed. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 24, 2010 Page 1 of 9 Pages 2. Briefing on TA-09-2, a Text Amendment relating to Wireless Communication Facilities. Anthony Raguine said this is a staff-initiated text amendment to clarify this portion of Code and bring the language up to today's standards. The major changes have to do with the various types of facilities. Some are simple and do not require a lot of review. This will also help to facilitate co-location, which is to be encouraged. The existing language requires the cabinet to be within the lease area, but that area is often too small. Planning staff determines at what level the application needs to be addressed. Mr. Raguine said there is specific language for specific zones to help determine if it is a 1, 2 or 3. Tier 1 is low impact and an allowed outright use at this time. Commissioner Unger asked about the mono-pine concept. Mr. Raguine replied that the Count has no say over what it looks like. Some tower heights are much taller than any trees in the area. Stealth technology may not work in some cases. Mr. Raguine stated that in tier 3, a neighborhood meeting is required. However, the applicant does not always hold the meeting in the area where the equipment would be installed. Chair Luke said that there is not always a suitable meeting location available. The idea is to require a meeting be held in the area if possible. Mr. Raguine said the most that can be done is to encourage the use of stealth technology. This issue will be reviewed at the Monday Board meeting, but is a separate issue from the Cine Falls telecommunications tower event. 3. Discussion of Wind, Solar and Energy-Related Code Amendments. Nick Lelack said that this was discussed last fall. There is a variance procedure already available for the solar Ordinance. They asked for citizen input during outreach meetings. There was overwhelming support for small wind generating facilities. AOC has been tackling this issue, as has Polk County. The wind energy Ordinance would have to be noticed generally, as it would be cost prohibitive to do individual mailings. The structures can be anywhere from 30 to 150 feet tall. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 24, 2010 Page 2 of 9 Pages This has to do with just the text amendment. Polk County did not provide a Measure 56 notice since it does not restrict a use. If notice is not given, Chair Luke said that staff should meet with local media so they can do a story. Commissioner Unger stated that citizens usually will be more receptive to smaller projects. Commissioner Baney said that people sometimes envision wind farms and react accordingly. Will Groves stated that there is an Ordinance that protects two types of solar - passive and active. They want to protect the passive sunlight of peoples' residents. Sometimes there is an unanticipated consequence when a new home shades another. The Ordinance would protect all potential structures. The City of Ashland has a variance procedure where the neighbor can agree to give up the right to solar access. Chair Luke said he has had to deal with the current Ordinance because of a home that could not be built where it was logical to do so because of the shadow that would be cast on December 31. Mr. Groves stated that the house needs to be placed as far south as possible on the property, which reduces the standard. This covers the siting of most homes. The calculations are complicated. Commissioner Unger said that houses in Redmond ended up being built on streets that went east and west even though it might not make sense and perhaps no one cared. He asked if the neighbor does not object, perhaps that right can be signed off. Chair Luke said that the rules do not always make sense. Mr. Groves stated that the owner to the right should have the right to waive whatever right they want in this regard. Chair Luke said the major cities have modified their solar access rules, and can do more in the cities than in the County. Mr. Groves said there is a significant diversity of lot styles in the County. This does not hold as true in the cities where lots are much smaller. Chair Luke added that solar access should not take precedence over where a drainfield should be sited. There are two standards; trying to allow no shading at the lowest point of the sun; and if the southerly neighbor moves their house as far south as possible, that the roof of the other house be protected. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 24, 2010 Page 3 of 9 Pages Commissioner Unger stated that a two-story house could be an issue. Mr. Groves replied that there have been just a few cases where this was a problem. In Sunriver, they may require the ridgeline to be adjusted; or the roof can be hipped. Chair Luke said the City waived this requirement because many new houses are two stories. Mr. Groves stated that in some cases where the lots are smaller, the right to solar access might be limited. Chair Luke stated that some people use heat sinks in addition to or instead of solar panels. It might be worthwhile to bring in some designers or architects to get their feedback. Mr. Groves will continue with this project. Mr. Lelack said that these Ordinances will likely not get before the Planning Commission until mid-year. The City UGB project will likely not be back for consideration until sometime in 2011, as it is now in the hands of the LCDC. Mr. Bedsaul said he has had two applications for wind turbines, along with a lot of phone calls. AOC did not come through with a template for a small turbine facility, so it has to be an applicant-driven text amendment or the County has to initiate it. Wallowa County has a generalized Ordinance for small wind turbines, but most others consider it an accessory use with residences. All would violate the height limit of 36 feet. It could be a simple exemption with a site plan review, or a full-blown process such as those used for cell towers. Chair Luke asked why there is a 36-foot limit on a two-acre lot. And why could he do a wind turbine taller than 36 feet, but not the house. And a riding arena would be permitted even if it were taller. What is the justification? Mr. Groves said that the fire department needs special equipment to serve taller structures. Commissioner Unger asked about removing when it is through, and what kind of noise is generated. The fees are too expensive to justify installation. Commissioner Baney stated that the cost if applicant-driven does not make sense financially. A variance will not work and it does not seem to matter what size parcel it is. Should a text amendment be done for one? Maybe it would be used more if that was in place. Chair Luke said he would like to see some kind of schedule of Community Development projects so they do not end up with too many projects to handle. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 24, 2010 Page 4 of 9 Pages Dave Kanner said the Comprehensive Plan update should be done by October, which should free up some long-range planner staff time. He suggested that perhaps some other counties or states might have sample Ordinances. Mr. Bedsaul said that he has obtained information from other areas, mostly from dealers. He said he has reviewed half a dozen Ordinances from other states, and they all use the same references as suggested by the industry regarding height, setbacks, noise, environmental impacts and other potential issues. He can put this together in a matrix format. Commissioner Unger said that this might be allowable in some areas but it might be a problem in others. Mr. Bedsaul said that the interest has been minimal thus far but if it becomes a full-blown process, there will be a lot of comments that may not be necessary or justified. There needs to be the ability for local input. Mr. Bedsaul stated that most of the examples he has relate to small turbines on small lots. Mr. Lelack will bring back information to start, something simple that can move forward. Polk County decided to allow these as outright permitted uses, with conditions. The County might require a site plan review, though. Commissioner Baney asked about the current fee. Mr. Bedsaul said it is over $1,000 for a permitted use. Site plan review is about $1,000 as well. This approach would eliminate a conditional use fee. Commissioner Unger noted that it would take a long time for payback on the equipment and use. Mr. Bedsaul said a 4-KW unit costs $3,000 to $6,000, plus the fees and permits. Energy credits may be available federally for part of this for a period of time. 4. Comprehensive Plan Update. Terri Payne passed out a schedule for the Comprehensive Plan review schedule for the Planning Commission. It is an aggressive schedule, and goes through October, at which time public hearings would be initiated. Chair Luke asked if a joint meeting could be scheduled, in the event that the Planning Commission would like to discussion certain issues. Commissioner Baney said that she prefers they attend a Board meeting instead. Ms. Payne said that when public comments and staff recommendations are in information provided to the Board, it would be made clear that the information is not directly from the Planning Commission. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 24, 2010 Page 5 of 9 Pages Mr. Lelack asked if the schedule works for the Board. The Board of Commissioners will not be involved directly until after the Planning Commission has completed its work, which would be in 2011. The only public comment that will be allowed until the Planning Commission hearings begin late in 2010 would have to be in writing. Ms. Payne said that it would be difficult to speed the schedule up because the Planning Commission wants to have adequate time to discuss every aspect of the Plan. Mr. Lelack said they would like to use the DeArmond Room so that they can sit more face-to-face. The Commissioners are not sure about this, because it would make it more difficult for the public to see and hear what is going on. Mr. Kanner stated that this process has gone on a lot longer than originally hoped. He thinks that the Commissioners need to insist that there be a draft Comprehensive Plan in place by December so that the Commissioners have something to review. The Commissioners said that they would like this promise from the Planning Commission in writing. Commissioner Unger stated that he still sees a train wreck coming, but is not sure how to convey concerns to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Baney asked that perhaps they have a joint meeting over dinner to discuss this. She would like to hear things directly from them and not through staff, so it is clear what direction they are heading. Commissioner Luke would like them to remain an independent body without undue influence from the Board, so caution is necessary. Mr. Lelack said the Planning Commission seems to be of one mind going in one direction, while staff is trying to achieve balance, a local focus and partnerships. He feels that they may go a different direction. Perhaps the Board of Commissioners can provide some idea of what is important to the Board. Commissioner Luke said that originally the update was to correct conflicts with State law and to adjust to changing conditions. He does not think that throwing out the entire Comprehensive Plan makes any sense. Mr. Gutowsky said that with the increasing population, a balance has to be reached. Property rights need to be considered along with protecting the area. All has to be in concert with State law. Good land use planning is important to everyone, and it has to make sense for everyone. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 24, 2010 Page 6 of 9 Pages Mr. Gutowsky said that the subject could become polarizing and won't get anyone anywhere. The question is how to handle interests that are not necessarily broadly representative of the entire community. The intent was not to be so controversial. Mr. Lelack added that the negative economy has had an impact, and has the potential of long-term effects. Another issue could be some members want them to be more of an advocacy group. Chair Luke said that the members were thought to be more balanced. 5. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules. Dan Swearingen's retirement party is scheduled for next week and the Commissioners will likely attend. Erik Kropp asked about the single file riding requirement for Skyliners Road events. Chair Luke said that if the type of event requires bicycles to pass, that should be noted in the permit. Commissioner Baney said that this restriction was meant primarily to apply to recreational users. 6. Other Items. Peter Gutowsky said there is a continuation of a public hearing on destination resort remapping scheduled for Monday. The Planning Commission was allowed more time to deliberate, but they have not yet made any suggestions. However, they meet on Thursday to discuss this further. They are very opinionated about property rights and farm designations. They have questioned why staff was introducing restrictions. This could theoretically leave acreage at 112,000, but it could go up to 170,000 acres if someone chose to be designated. He thinks the vote will be unanimous to 6 to 1. One Commissioner has been abstaining from some discussions and not voting. Mr. Gutowsky will know more after the Thursday meeting. This issue will probably continue to be contentious. The Planning Commission has met and reconsidered the issue as a full Board as the Commissioners requested. Mr. Lelack said the grandfather clause may be revisited, and they will want to leave that in, with people choosing to opt out. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 24, 2010 Page 7 of 9 Pages Chair Luke said the Planning Commission is advisory and needs to operate independently of the Board. Commissioner Unger said the Board should draw a line in the sand, which may not be the same line. Peter Gutowsky said that the Board of Commissioners as a policy-making body is in a better position to see the big picture and make a more logical decision. Planning Commission input can make the issue more complicated in the long term. Commissioner Baney is concerned about potential conflicts of interest as well. Mr. Lelack said that some Planning Commissioners are actively recruiting for the empty seat on the Planning Commission, and reportedly want to have a specific type of person appointed. However, the Board of Commissioners is the body making this appointment. In regard to the continued hearing on destination resort remapping scheduled for Monday, staff recommended that the Board hear the Planning Commission recommendations and continue the hearing so that there is adequate time to review the information and address it with a clear mind. Mr. Gutowsky said the Planning Commission is very displeased with the 1992 farm study. Lot sizes and residence placement changed. During that time, destination resorts were brought up, so at that time the Board of Commissioners decided to not revisit the EFU land designations. The Planning Commission feels that circumstances have changed since then and they will want the Board to reevaluate this. Chair Luke said the DLCD made the farm plan much more complicated. Mr. Gutowsky said that this made it significantly more difficult for the Counties to allow certain things. Chair Luke said that he does not think there will ever be another destination resort in this area. It is so expensive and there is so much competition, it is unlikely that anyone will want to make this kind of investment. Mr. Gutowsky stated that there are areas near subdivisions that might want to convert to a destination resort. Commissioner Luke stated that he would like to be able to take oral testimony from the public perhaps a few weeks after the Planning Commission recommendations are received. Commissioner Baney agreed. A date of March 25 for a joint meeting was discussed and will be considered. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 24, 2010 Page 8 of 9 Pages Being no further items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 4:10 p. m. of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary Dennis R. Luke, Chair Alan Unger, Vice Chair Tammy Baney, Com 'ssioner DATED this 24th Day of February 2010 for the Deschutes County Board Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 24, 2010 Page 9 of 9 Pages Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.ore WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2010 1. Update on County Historic Preservation Resources - Pat Kliewer, Historic Landmarks Commission; Peter Gutowsky & Nick Lelack, Community Development 2. Briefing on TA-09-2, a Text Amendment relating to Wireless Communication Facilities - Anthony Raguine 3. Discussion of Wind, Solar and Energy-Related Code Amendments - Nick Lelack 4. Comprehensive Plan Update - Nick Lelack & Planning Staff 5. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules 6. Other Items PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), pending or threatened litigation; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572. Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. 0 A,A I< Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner Nick Lelack, Planning Director DATE: February 16, 2010 MTG: February 24, 2010 SUBJECT: Historic Preservation / Certified Local Government Grant SUMMARY: The two (2) purposes of this work session agenda item are to: (1) Seek the Board's approval for staff to initiate a six-month program, starting in March, to amend the Deschutes County Code (DCC) Chapter 2.28, Historical Preservation and Historic Landmarks Commission; and (2) Provide an opportunity for Deschutes County Landmarks Commissioner Patricia Kliewer to present/discuss half of the County's historic buildings and properties (the other half will be presented in about six months), and an update on Landmarks Commission activities. BACKGROUND: Deschutes County received a $3,000 Certified Local Government Grant (CLG) to update DCC Chapter 2.28 in conjunction with the City of Bend to create one set of regulatory controls and procedures for both jurisdictions. The reason for creating consistent historic preservation ordinances is to establish a consistent, user-friendly set of standards for the Deschutes Landmarks Commission (DLC). The DLC makes serves as a hearings body for matters concerning historical districts, buildings and structures and sites within the county and the cities of Bend, Redmond and Sisters. The grant deadline is August 31, 2010, and a proposed project timeline is on the next page. Quality Services Performed with Pride . -.V- C_ TIMELINE: • Update Planning Commission and Landmarks Commission March • Coordinate with City of Bend and draft amendments to DCC Chapter 2.28 • Prepare findings April • Initiate Department of Land Conservation and Development 45-day notice • Initiate Measure 56 notice to all affected property owners (if required) May • Conduct work sessions with the Historical Landmarks Commission and Planning Commission June / July . Conduct Planning Commission public hearing and deliberation August 0 Conduct Board of Commissioners public hearing and deliberation Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ STAFF REPORT TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner DATE: February 4, 2010 HEARING: March 1, 2010; February 24, 2010 Work Session SUBJECT: Text Amendment TA-09-2: Deschutes County Code; Sections 18.116.250, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, and 18.128.340, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. The Deschutes County Planning Commission held a work session on December 17, 2009 and a public hearing on January 28, 2010 to discuss a text amendment initiated by Deschutes County staff to Deschutes County Code (DCC) Sections 18.116.250 and 18.128.340. Sections 18.116.250 and 18.128.340 of the code were adopted via Ordinance 97-063', on November 12, 1997. Since that time, the Planning Division has processed numerous wireless telecommunication facility applications, with 27 applications processed since November 2008 alone. The purpose of the proposed text amendment is to update the above-referenced code sections based on staff's experience and recurrent issues identified by the wireless telecommunications industry. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 in favor of recommending approval of the text amendment. No comments from the public or from representatives of the wireless telecommunications industry have been received. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT The proposed text amendment is detailed in the attached exhibit with text underlined for new language and shown as StFike#hiceE►gh for deleted language. Below staff provides explanations for the major proposed changes. ' Prior to adoption of Ordinance 97-063, Deschutes County adopted interim regulations for siting wireless telecommunications facilities via Ordinance 97-017. Quality Services Performed zuith Pride DCC 18.116.250. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities 18.116.250(A) Staff proposes to change the maximum equipment cabinet or shelter square footage from 120 square feet to 200 square feet. When the original ordinance was drafted, a structure that was 120 square feet or less in size did not require a building permit. Since then, the building code has been changed to allow a structure up to 200 square feet in size without a building permit. 18.116.250(A)(1) One of the underlying principles in the current ordinance is to encourage co-location anc minimize the need for more towers or monopoles. The county provided an incentive tc operators to co-locate by including streamlined procedures under Tiers 1 and 2, which do nol require a conditional use permit. However, we have found that the limitations in the lease area language in this section has frustrated that effort to encourage co-location. As currently written, this subsection would require all equipment cabinets and shelters to be located within the existing lease area for carriers that wanted to co-locate an additional set of antennas on an existing tower or monopole. What staff has found is that many of the existing lease areas for approved wireless telecommunications sites are too small to accommodate additional equipment cabinets or shelters. As a result, carriers have been required to apply for a conditional use permit when co-locating only because their equipment cabinets were sited outside of the existing lease area. This change would continue to promote co-location without unduly exacting additional land use permits or fees when the necessary equipment cannot be sited within the existing lease area. 18.116.250(A)(2 & 3) Similar to the co-location discussion above, the county provided an incentive to operators to co- locate on existing vertical support structures or buildings. However, this incentive has been underutilized because of the date limitation present in the current code. Subsections 2 & 3 allow co-location of antennas on a vertical support structure or building. However, the vertical structure or building must have been existing on or before November 12, 1997, the date of adoption of Ordinance 97-063. This restriction was included in the original wireless telecom ordinance because of fears that antennas on top of buildings and other vertical support structures would proliferate across Deschutes County. This has not been the case. Based on staff's experience, the vast majority of wireless antennas require much greater height than can be achieved via co-location on an existing vertical structure or building. However, staff has encountered a few situations where co-location was a viable option except that the structure was not in existence as of November 12, 1997. This change would provide greater flexibility to carriers when determining possible antenna locations and may preclude the need to construct a new tower or monopole. DCC 18.128.340. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities 18.128.340(A)(1) This subsection requires the applicant to hold a pre-application neighborhood meeting. In a few cases, members of the community have expressed frustration that the meeting was not held 2 near the proposed wireless telecom facility location. This change would put a greater emphasis on holding the neighborhood meeting in the general vicinity of the proposed facility location. REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The proposed amendment revises sections of Deschutes County Code Title 18 specific to wireless telecommunications facilities. Deschutes County lacks specific criteria in DCC Titles 18, 22, or 23 for reviewing a legislative zoning text amendment. Therefore, the county mus° determine that the proposed Title 18 text amendments are consistent with the Federa Telecommunications Act of 1996, state statute if the County Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan have not been amended to adopt required changes in state statute, the Statewide Planni% Goals ("Goals") if the County Comprehensive Plan has not been amended to adopt requirec changes in the Goals, the County's Comprehensive Plan to the extent it has beer acknowledged by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development as complying with the Statewide Planning Goals, and the County's zoning code. The parameters for evaluating these text amendments are based on whether there are adequate factual findings that demonstrate this consistency. State Statutes Other than those statutes specific to allowed uses in the Exclusive Farm Use, Forest Use, ano Surface Mining, staff is unaware of any state statutes that specifically regulate the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities. The proposed text amendments do not alter any allowed uses or propose to add uses not already allowed in the above-referenced resource zones. Additionally, the statutes regarding siting of facilities in these resource zones have already been incorporated into the County Code. Thus, staff believes no state statutes are relevant to the proposed text amendments. Statewide Planning Goals No changes to the Goals have been adopted by the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission since the County's Comprehensive Plan was last acknowledged as being in compliance with the Goals. Therefore, because these proposed changes are to the County's zoning code that implements the County's Comprehensive Plan, the Goals are not applicable to these changes. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Based on staff's review of the Comprehensive Plan, an argument could be made that any number of chapters in the Comprehensive Plan, such as Chapter 23.24, Rural Development; Chapter 23.88, Agricultural Lands; Chapter 23.92, Forest Lands, could be affected by changes to the wireless telecommunications facility regulations since these towers are allowed in most of the county zones. The proposed changes, however, are minor. The change from 120 to 200 square feet for the equipment cabinet does not result in much more land being used by any future facility. The other suggested changes to both DCC Chapter 18.116 and Chapter 18.128 provide primarily clarifying and few additions to or reductions in the existing application requirements and approval criteria. Furthermore, as stated above, many of the proposed changes are intended to encourage co-location, which will likely minimize the number of towers built resulting in less impact to each of the zones. Thus, a thorough discussion of each of the Comprehensive Plan chapters is not necessary. 3 RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Board; Listen to public testimony, discuss the proposed text amendments, and determine whether to approve and sign Ordinance No. 2010-011 or deny the text amendments. Attachments: 1. Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions 2. Chapter 18.128, Conditional Uses 3. Proposed Ordinance 4 18.116250. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. A. Tier i Facilities. Wireless telecommunications facilities that do not require aviation lighting, that utilize natural wood colors or muted tones from amongst colors approved by Ordinance 97- 017, that utilize a radio equipment cabinet or shelter that is less than 7,100 square feet in area and less than 10 feet in height, and that meet the following standards are allowed outright in any zone other than the Exclusive Farm Use, the Surface Mining Zone, and the Forest Zones and shall not be subject to any other provision of the zone: 1. Facilities established by co-locating an additional set of antennas on an existing wireless telecommunications tower or monopole that do not exceed the County approved height of the tower or monopole„ Notwithstanding any provision of DCC 18.116.250(A),-facilities established under DCC 18.116.250(A)(1) are permitted outright in any zoning district. 2. Facilities that make use of existing vertical, (a:vruily established structures, including but not limited to power or telephone utility poles or towers, parking lot or street lighting standards or flagpoles. A pole_ location in a public right of way shall not be fenced. Antennas established on an existing vertical structure shall be installed so that they do not exceed the height of the existing vertical structure by more than 15 feet. New structures in this category are limited to equipment shelters that do not require a building permit. Walk- in equipment shelters shall be set back out of any road right of way at least 20 feet back from the pole location. Any necessary road right of way permits shall be obtained from the Deschutes County Road Department. Equipment cabinets shall be subject only to the road right of way setback requirements. 3. Facilities that are established by attaching or placing an antenna or set of antennas on an existing, iawrulfr established building not designated as an historic structure, where the antenna array does not exceed the height of the building by more than 15 feet. All equipment shall be stored inside a building,_ 4. Facilities that include installation of a new wood monopole that does not exceed the height limit of the underlying zone, and does not exceed 45 feet in height. All equipment shall be stored in a building that has a Lo ILarea that does not exceed _)I00 square feet in areattnd 4i.7c.. 11,?t_~._c„ 0 feet in height. _ The monopole, and any building, shall be set back from adjacent property tines according to the setbacks of the underlying zone. Any microwave dishes installed on the monopole shall not exceed a diameter of L6ur,feet. No_more than two dishes shall be installed on a monopole or tower. The perimeter of a lease area for a facility established under DCC 18. l 16.250(A)I 4j shall be landscaped with shrubs eight feet in height and planted a maximum of 24 inches on center. B. Tier 2 Facilities. Wireless telecommunications facilities that do not require aviation lighting, that utilize a wood monopole for supporting antennas and/or microwave dishes and that meet the criteria in DCC 18.116.250 are allowed outright, subject to site plan review under DCC 18.1)6.250(8) (and not DCC 18.124.060) in the following zones: La Pine Commercial District (LPCD), La Pine Industrial District (LPID), Rural Industrial (R1), Rural Service Center (RSC), Rural Service Center-Wickiup Junction (RSC-WJ), Terrebonne Commercial District (TeC), and Tumalo Commercial District (TuC). Lattice towers or metal monopoles are not permitted with a Tier 2 facility. I. An application for site plan review for a Tier 2 wireless telecommunications facility shall meet the following criteria: a. Maximum Monopole Height. In the LPCD, LPiD, RSC, RSC-WJ, TeC, and TuC zones, the maximum height of a monopole. iucitltii, , antennas and microwave dishes for a wireless telecommunications facility shall be 60 feet from finished grade. In the i Deleted: 12o - - - - - Deleted: , and do not add g ound based equipment outside the existir 1 least area Deleted: For the purposes W DCC 18.116.250(A), a vertical str cture is "existing" if it was constnte A after I receiving all required land u c and/or building permits on or befot November 112, 1997, the date of adopti i of I Ordinance 97-063. Deleted: For the purpm : of DCC 18.116.250(A), a building xists if it was constructed after receiving all required land use and/or building p rmits and was occupied on or before Nov :mber 12, 1997, the date of adoption if Ordinance 197-063. I Deleted: roof Deleted: Deleted: 12o Deleted: or Deleted: three Deleted: Deleted: that support - - Deleted: /or Chapter 18.116 (1112008) RI Zone, the maximum height of a monopole,:,tcludi ~ antennas and, microwave dishes, fora wireless telecommunications facility shalt be 75 feet from finished grade. b. Setbacks. All equipment shelters shall be set back from property lines according to the required setbacks of the underlying zone. A monopole shall be set back from any adjacent dwelling a distance equal to the height of the monopole,_ ^l s;it► ar.t„'= 711 .,net :niumdvav~ di_,hcyfrom finished grade, or according to the setbacks of the underlying zone, whichever is greater. c. Shelters. Any equipment shelter shall be finished with natural aggregate materials or from colors approved with Ordinance 97-017. d. Landscaping. The perimeter of a lease area shall be landscaped with plant materials appropriate for its location. The lessee shall continuously maintain all installed landscaping and any existing landscaping used to screen a facility. e. Cabinets. Any equipment cabinets shall be finished with colors from amongst those colors approved with Ordinance 97-063. Such colors shall be non-reflective and neutral. f. Fences. A sight obscuring fence, as defined by DCC Title 18, shall be installed around the perimeter of the lease area. The sight obscuring fence shall surround the monopole and the equipment shelter. C. Tier 3 Facilities. Wireless telecommunications facilities (or their equivalent uses described in the EFU, Forest, and SM Zones) not qualifying as either a Tier i or 2 facility may be approved in all zones, subject to the applicable criteria set forth in DCC 18.128.330 and 18.128.340. 1. A request for a written determination from the County as to whether a proposed facility falls within Tiers I or 2 of DCC 18.116.250 shall be submitted to the County in writing and accompanied by a site plan and proposed schematics of the facility. If the County can issue a written determination without exercising discretion or by making a land use decision as defined under ORS 197.015(l 0), the County shall respond to the request in writing. 2. A request for a written determination from the County as to whether a proposed facility falls within Tiers I or 2 of DCC 18.116.250 that involves exercising discretion or making a land use decision shall be submitted and acted upon as a request for a declaratory ruling under DCC 22.40. (Ord. 2000-19 § 1, 2000; Ord. 97-063 § 1, 1997; Ord. 97-017 §7, 1997) j Deleted: that summrts odeled: to, Deleted: - - - - - - Chapter 18.116 (11/2008) i , oek ted: - - - - 18.128340. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. An application for a conditional use permit for a wireless telecommunications facility or its equivalent in the EFU, Forest, or Surface Mining Zones shall comply with the applicable standards, setbacks and criteria of the base zone and any combining zone and the following requirements. Site plan review under DCC 18.124 including site plan review for a use that would otherwise require site plan review under DCC 18.84 shall not be required. A. Application Requirements. An application for a wireless telecommunications facility shall comply with the following meeting, notice, and submittal requirements: I Neighborhood Meeting. Poor to. uF,mis.in+n tai' ,t ' i6 _~o -,ippligtion for nvirclc~;s Deleted: scheduling a pre-a ~plication _,:1 unununicntion; facility, the applicant shall provide notice of and hold a meeting with I conference with Planning Di% aion cuff interested owners of property nearby to a potential facility location. 1-t, nIie -recto r -extent r.,~ricatnlc, xhE• nCiuhhorh(rod meeting hall b . d in dic lcneral - iciniV f the~re111L)~i4 sa tc1cenimnunication t tciFt^.._Notice shall be in writing and shall be mailed no less than 10 days prior to the date set for the meeting to owners of record of property within: a. One thousand three hundred twenty feet for a tower or monopole no greater than 100 feet in height, and b. Two thousand feet for a tower or monopole at least 100 feet and no higher than 150 feet in height. Such notice shall not take the place of notice required by DCC Title 22. 2. Pre-Application Conference. Applicant shall attend a scheduled pre-application conference prior to submission of a land use application. An application for a wireless telecommunications facility permit will not be deemed complete until the applicant has had a pre-application conference with Planning Division staff. 3. Submittal Requirements. An application for a conditional use permit for a wireless telecommunications facility shall include: a. A copy of the blank lease form. b. A copy of the applicant's Federal Communications Commission license. c. A map that shows the applicant's search ring for the proposed site and the properties within the search ring, including locations of existing telecommunications towers or monopoles. d. A copy of the written notice of the required neighborhood meeting and a certificate of mailing showing that the notice was mailed to the list of property owners falling within the notice area designated under DCC 18.128.340(A)(1). e. A written summary of the neighborhood meeting detailing the substance of the meeting, the time, date and location of the meeting and a list of meeting attendees. f. A site plan showing the location of the proposed facility and its components. The site plan shall also identify the location of existing and proposed landscaping, any equipment shelters, utility connections, and any fencing proposed to enclose the facility. g. A copy of the design specifications, including proposed colors, and/or elevation of an antenna array proposed with the facility. h. An elevation drawing of the facility and a photographic simulation of the facility showing how it would fit into the landscape. i. A copy of a letter of determination from the Federal Aviation Administration or the Oregon Department of jN%intian as to whether or not aviation lighting would be Deleted:Transportatior -Aeronautics required for the proposed facility. - - I Division B. Approval Criteria: An application for a wireless telecommunication facility will be approved upon findings that: 1. The facility will not be located on irrigated land, as defined by DCC 18.04.030. 2. The applicant has considered other sites in its search area that would have less visual impact as viewed from nearby residences than the site proposed and has determined that any less intrusive sites are either unavailable or do not provide the communications coverage necessary. To meet this criterion, the applicant must demonstrate that it has made a good faith effort to co-locate its antennas and micniw,ivc disirv: on existing monopoles in the area to be served. The applicant can demonstrate this by submitting a statement from a qualified engineer that indicates whether the necessary service can or cannot be provided by co-location within the area to be served. 3. The facility is sited using trees, vegetation, and topography to the maximum extent practicable to screen the facility from view of nearby residences. 4. A tower or monopole located in an LM Zone is no taller than 30 feet. Towers or monopoles shall not be sited in locations where there is no vegetative, structural or topographic screening available. 5. In all cases, the applicant shall site the facility in a manner to minimize its impact on scenic views and shall site the facility using trees, vegetation, and topography in order to screen it to the maximum extent practicable from view from protected roadways. Towers or monopoles shall not be sited in locations where there is no vegetative, structural or topographic screening available. 6. Any tower or monopole is finished with natural wood colors or colors selected from amongst colors approved by Ordinance 97-017. 7. Any required aviation lighting is shielded to the maximum extent allowed by FAA and/or ODOT-Aeronautics regulations. 8. The form of lease for the site does not prevent the possibility of co-location of additional wireless telecommunication facilities at the site. 9. Any tower or monopole shall be designed in a manner that it can cant' the antennas of at least one additional wireless carrier. This criterion may be satisfied by submitting the statement of a licensed structural engineer licensed in Oregon that the monopole or tower has been designed with sufficient strength to carry such an additional antenna array and by elevation drawings of the proposed tower or monopole that identifies an area designed to provide the required spacing between antenna arrays of different carriers. 10. Any approval of a wireless telecommunication facility shall include a condition that if the facility is left unused or is abandoned by all wireless providers located on the facility for more than one year the facility shall be removed by the landowner. (Ord. 2000-019 §2,2000-, Ord. 97-063 §2,1997; Ord. 97-017 §8, 1997) REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Amending Deschutes County Code Title 18, Section 18.116.250, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, and Section 18.128.340, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, to Provide Greater Siting Flexibility for Co-Location by Removing Specific Restrictions. * ORDINANCE NO.2010-011 WHEREAS, Deschutes County Planning Division staff initiated a text amendment to Deschutes County Code ("DCC") Title 18, Section 18.116.250, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, and Section 18.128.340, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities., to provide greater siting flexibility for co-location by removing specific restrictions; and WHEREAS, after notice was give in accordance with applicable law, a public hearing was held can January 28, 2010 before the Deschutes County Planning Commission and, on January 28, 2010 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the text amendments; and WHEREAS, after notice was given in accordance with applicable law, a public hearing was held C n March 1, 2010 before the Board of County Commissioners ("Board"); and WHEREAS, the Board considered this matter after a public hearing on March 1, 2010 and concluded that the public will benefit from changes to the land use regulations; now therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC Title 18, Section 18.116.250, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "A", attached and incorporated by reference herein, with new language underlined and deleted language setforth in strike. Section 2. AMENDMENT. DCC Title 18, Section 18.128.340, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "B", attached and incorporated by reference herein, wit i new language underlined and deleted language setforth in strikethr-e tgh. PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2010-011 ([DATE BOARD IS SCHEDULED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE]) Section 3. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings in support of this decision, the Staff Rep art attached as Exhibit "C" and incorporated by reference herein. Dated this of 12010 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON DENNIS R. LUKE, Chair ALAN UNGER, Vice Chair ATTEST: Recording Secretary Date of I" Reading: Date of 2nd Reading: Commissioner Dennis R. Luke Alan Unger Tammy Baney Effective date: TAMMY BANEY, Commissioner day of 32010. day of 12010. Record of Adoption Vote: Yes No Abstained Excused day of , 2010. PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO.2010-011 ([DATE BOARD IS SCHEDULED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE]) Draft Comprehensive Plan Review 2010 Deschutes County Planning Commission Review Schedule DATE NEW SECTIONS REVISED SECTIONS Feb 11 1.2 Community Involvement 1.3 Land Use Planning Feb 25 4.2 Urbanization 4.3-4.9 Unincorporated Communities March 11 New items for the record March 25 2.2 Agriculture Review revisions made on 2.3 Forest Feb 11 and 25 to Sections 2.4 Goal 5 Introduction 1.2; 1.3; 4.2-4.9 April 8 New items for the record April 22 2.5 Water Quality and Quantity Review revisions made on 2.6 Rivers, Streams and Fish March 25 to Sections 2.2; 2.3; 2.7 Regional Problem Solving for south 2.4 Deschutes Count May 13 New items for the record May 27 2.8 Wildlife Review revisions made on 2.9 Open Space and Scenic Views April 22 to Sections 2.5; 2.6; 2.10 Energy 2.7 2.11 Environmental Quality June 10 New items for the record June 24 2.12 Surface Mining Review revisions made on 2.13 Cultural and Historic Resources May 27 to Sections 2.8; 2.9; 3.3 Rural Housing 2.10; 2.11 3.4 Rural Economy Jul 8 New items for the record July 26 3.5 Natural Hazards Review revisions made on 3.6 Public Facilities and Services June 24 to Sections 2.12; 3.8 Rural Recreation 2.13; 3.3; 3.4 3.9 Destination Resorts August 12 New items for the record August 26 Wrap up Review revisions made on July 26 to Sections 3.5; 3.6; 3.8; 3.9 Sept 1 Issue 45 day DLCD notice Oct 28 Initiate public hearings This schedule is subject to change Revised 2-16-10