Loading...
2010-211-Minutes for Meeting April 07,2010 Recorded 4/19/2010DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS OJ ZO10'~ll NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK COMMISSIONERV JOURNAL 04/19/2010 08:20:34 AM 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.ora MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 2010 Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator, and, for a portion of the meeting, Tom Anderson, Nick Lelack and Chris Bedsaul, Community Development Department. Also present was media representative Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin. No other citizens were in attendance. Chair Luke opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. 1. Discussion of Wind Power Generation. Chris Bedsaul referred to a recent memo detailing information on this issue. He investigated how other areas of the state are addressing this. One option is to do nothing; another is to have the applicant initiate a text change, but the cost is prohibitive. He said most counties do not address scenic views. Windmills for farm use purposes are not regulated, nor do they have height restrictions. It is an outright permitted use. Commissioner Unger said that if the person wanted to sell back power, this might be different. Commissioner Luke noted that probably not that much power would be produced. Mr. Bedsaul concluded that there could be a text amendment removing the height restriction, or allowing up to a certain height with site plan review. Another option would be a new section regarding wind energy systems, but this might expose the county to comments similar to those regarding telecommunications facilities. Some counties have height restrictions in place in a variety of zones. Some allow small-scale wind turbines. All counties regulate commercial use. Commissioner Baney asked how much interest there is in this issue, and what the trends are. There is a big difference between commercial and residential uses. Commercial use may not be viable in this area. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, April 7, 2010 Page 1 of 5 Pages Mr. Bedsaul stated that many of the calls he has gotten are from dealers, but a few were from property owners that may be interested. Commissioner Luke said that many people do not want to have to look at telecommunications towers, and there may be issues with windmills as well. Mr. Bedsaul said that Polk County is the only county that has gone through the process. The others do not regulate scenic views or potential noise in this way. DEQ standards for noise are at 60 db. He said it is hard to explain exactly what kind of noise that is. Commissioner Unger likes that people are interested in alternative energy, and would like to see this investigated further. Mr. Bedsaul stated that lighting is generally not allowed nor required. Any of the resource zones might be appropriate. Commissioner Luke said that MUA and RR-10 lots might be just an acre in size and it probably would not be appropriate. Mr. Bedsaul indicated that lot size could be a criteria. Recommendations for the best results are 35 feet above obstructions, so it could be 65 feet or taller. Commissioner Baney would like to have a path to have this go forward, but restrictions are obviously needed. Commissioner Unger stated that no one would want to pay $5,000 for an application fee for this, as it would not be cost effective. Commissioner Luke asked why homes are limited to 30 feet tall. Mr. Bedsaul replied it is due to fire protection laws. If the fire department has a hook and ladder truck, homes could be taller. Discussion occurred regarding distance from other property, or the same as is used for cellular towers - requiring more distance relative to height. Dave Kanner suggested starting with a ten-acre minimum lot size. Include an exemption for small turbine to allow for this to be pursued, and any concerns can be identified. A chart will make it a lot easier for people to understand. They will bring something to the Planning Commission and proceed from there. Commissioner Baney asked that any people who have expressed an interest in this issue be notified that it will be addressed. Mr. Bedsaul is retiring from the County, and this item will be incorporated into the Community Development work plan. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, April 7, 2010 Page 2 of 5 Pages 2. Discussion of Planning Commission Appointments The Commissioners agreed that all of the candidates had much to offer. There was no shortage of knowledge and ability. Commissioner Luke said in his opinion, the selection is down to four or five possibilities. Other Commissioners concurred; these individuals are James Powell, James Lewis, Nathan Hovecamp, Brock Stenman, and Stephanie Hicks. Commissioner Baney asked if these are established by area. She is not in favor of extending the seat for the Sisters area for an additional period of time for Keith Cyrus. Commissioner Unger said he talked with Christen Brown about the Planning Commission meetings. There is a perception that they are not listening to the public and taking their input seriously. Commissioner Unger is concerned about this attitude, real or perceived. Mr. Brown told him that there has been a lot of turnover in the Planning Commission membership, and it has been hard to focus on some of the issues. Commissioner Luke indicated Mr. Powell would be first choice; and Broc Stenman second. Commissioner Unger prefers Powell, Hovecamp and Broc. He is concerned about Mr. Lewis' past involvement as staff and Community Development, and past contacts. Commissioner Luke said that the same applies to Ms. Hicks.. Commissioner Baney indicated that she would like to see complete neutrality. Both Mr. Lewis and Ms. Hicks have or might have clients that could cause them to recuse themselves at some point. She is interested in Mr. Powell, Mr. Stenman and Mr. Hovecamp for that reason. Mr. Stenman comes from another area and could bring in new ideas. Mr. Lewis has been involved in local issues for a long time. Upon being asked, Mr. Lelack said that both are well qualified, do their homework and bring a measure of neutrality. Commissioner Baney stated that she liked Mr. Powell's perspective of regulation being necessary. He has a knowledge of the history of the process, and in hindsight, what changes might be needed in the future. Commissioner Luke said that this might help open the discussion further at the Planning Commission meetings. Commissioner Luke stated that Mr. Stenman was involved in some controversial land use issues in his previous location, Monterey County. There are great social and economic differences in the various towns there. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, April 7, 2010 Page 3 of 5 Pages Commissioner Unger liked Mr. Stenman because he has a lot of natural resource knowledge. However, Mr. Powell has dealt a lot with natural resource and especially water issues locally. He has been in the community longer and has more experience in what has happened locally. Other Planning Commissioners have been in the area for a while but this has not necessarily been beneficial. Commissioner Unger suggested that Mr. Powell might be the best choice. Commissioner Baney likes the fact that Mr. Powell has a natural history background but also appears to be well balanced. The Board decided that Mr. Powell is the first choice, and Mr. Stenman would be the next choice. They would like to find out if it is possible to have an ex officio member, perhaps for the at large positions or Bend positions. The positions are defined by townships and population. The two positions coming up for renewal are those held by Klyce and Cyrus. Commissioner Baney asked if it is realistic to extend the term of Mr. Cyrus given that the larger projects, including the comprehensive plan, will likely not be done within that period of time. Commissioner Luke said that he feels there are some very good minds on the Commission, even though he may not always agree with them. 3. Other Items. Mr. Kanner will be gone the end of June to attend a family wedding. The Commissioners agreed that they want Mr. Lelack to continue being involved in the destination resort issue at the State level as much as he can, even if just to monitor what is happening, as it has huge ramifications on Central Oregon. The Association of Oregon Counties is also involved in this issue. Commissioner Baney would like to be appointed to the committee addressing this issue. Commissioner Luke said that there is likely a policy committee and a planning committee. There will be a lot of private interest, from wineries to developers and Realtors; more than just government. Mr. Lelack said that he tries not to weigh in on policy, but instead wants to pass on the technical information and potential ramifications of various actions so that others are aware. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, April 7, 2010 Page 4 of 5 Pages Commissioner Unger said that there should be balance on various uses and a limit to how many events would be allowed in some cases. This still has not been well defined. Mr. Lelack said that the general feeling is that farm regulations have not kept pace with those for other types of uses. The question is how to mitigate urban type uses on farm ground. Rural land use laws are not up to date compared to others. At this point, there is a mishmash of what is allowed in the different counties all over the state. Another issue is how to define what is truly farmland, as that can vary widely depending on the area. Commissioner Baney attended the Veterans Outreach Center grand opening earlier in the day. She said that it might be possible for the County to partner and help provide services or property to assist local veterans. Being no further items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 3: 00 p.m. DATED this 7th Day of April 2010 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Dennis R. Luke, Chair Alan Unger, Vice ATTEST: recording Secretary Tammy Baney, Commissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Page 5 of 5 Pages Monday, April 7, 2010 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, APRIL 7, 2010 1. Discussion of Wind Power Generation - Chris Bedsaul 2. 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. 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 ADDITION TO WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 2010 1. Discussion of Planning Commission Appointments 2. 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. Ifyou 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. ,I -E r~ 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/ March 29, 2010 MEMORANDUM To: Deschutes Board of County Commissioners From: Chris Bedsaul, Associate Planner Subject: Using wind for generating electricity in Deschutes County. USE OF WIND POWER The use of the wind's power is both old and new. From moving everything from large and small sailing ships across the oceans of the world, pumping water out of the ground and producing electricity for personal or commercial purposes. The use of wind powered structures, such as "windmills" or turbines has been used for many years prior to creation of any governmental regulations that may restrict their use. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) located in Washington D.C. provides nationwide information on the use and operation of micro to major commercial wind power producing facilities. My research of AWEA and other internet data sources has determined there are various zoning ordinances created by Counties and Cities throughout the country for the regulation of personal use wind powered turbines for generating electricity. Almost all of the zoning ordinances I reviewed contain regulations regarding minimum lot size, setback distances, noise levels, tower height limits based upon property size, clearance of the turbine blades above the ground, safety issues regarding FAA, restoration requirements due to abandonment, maximum tower heights up to 75 feet for residential purposes, visual impacts and prohibition of advertisement signage. According to AWEA, the 35-foot height limit in many zoning ordinances dates back to the early 1900's as the typical height that firefighting engines could pump water, and this restriction is clearly not applicable for today's modern fire fighting equipment that may respond to the site of a residential wind powered turbine mounted on the top of a metal pole or lattice-work structure. AWEA and wind powered turbine manufacturers recommend that an electricity producing wind turbine blade be at a minimum height of 25 to 30 feet ABOVE any physical barriers such as trees, buildings, bluffs or other obstructions within 300-500 feet from the tower supporting the wind turbine. Quality Services Performed with Pride REGULATING WIND POWER IN DESCHUTES COUNTY A "structure" is defined in Deschutes County Development Code as "something constructed or built having a fixed base on, or fixed connection to, the ground or another structure. A wind powered turbine is typically installed on the top of a metal mono-pole or lattice-work tower that is attached to the ground by a fixed base typically made of concrete and, therefore, is a "structure". The Deschutes County Code (DCC) currently has language that regulates utility facilities, including major structures owned or operated by a public, private or electric cooperative for the generation, transmission, distribution or processing of its products. The small-scale wind powered turbine, generating electricity for personal use, is not defined as a utility facility structure and, therefore, is subject to height restrictions in any zone. DCC requires a 30-foot maximum height for "structures" in all zones. However, an exception to this limitation may be approved up to 36 feet subject to certain conditions as described in DCC 18.120.040. "Structures" associated with telephone or power transmission lines, public schools, structures necessary for public safety and flag poles may exceed the 36-foot height limitation based upon a site plan review process, except in Landscape Management and Airport Safety Combining zones. No variance to the maximum structure height of 36 feet is available in the code. OPTIONS FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY TO CONSIDER REGULATING WIND POWER STRUCTURES FOR PERSONAL USE 1. No change in the DCC and continued height restriction of 36 feet for personal use wind power structures. Effect: Will continue to significantly limit the use of and/or location(s) for the efficient operation of wind powered structures for generating electricity for personal/residential use. See Attachment "A" for selected Oregon Counties that have existing development codes that regulate the establishment of Small Scale Wind Power structures for personal use. 2. Require an applicant to initiate a DCC Text Amendment to allow the use. Effect: This option would place a financial burden on an applicant when compared to the installation cost of a single location for a personal use wind powered turbine and tower structure. However, it would cover the costs of creating the policy necessary for the use. Staff Note: The current minor code changes application fee is $5,000. This fee amount would be for adding a height exemption for personal use small scale wind power structures and because the change would not plan additional restrictions on the use of the property, it would not require Measure 56 Notice. COUNTY REGULATIONS FOR WIND POWER STRUCTURES Page 2 of 6 3. If the BOCC determines there is a County-wide interest in promoting and regulating the siting of wind powered structures for personal use generated electricity it could direct CDD to conduct a legislative process to amend the code. Effect: Permitting wind power structures for personal use electric power generation would require a code Text Amendment. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment may also be required to recognize the County-wide importance of wind power generating facilities for personal use. Financial impacts to CDD for staff time in completing a Text and Comprehensive Plan Amendment would be the $5,000 in fees not paid. BOCC Options To Consider For Text Amendment Process Based on Attachment "A" Summary Text Amendment to exempt the height limits of non-commercial small scale wind power structures and define as an accessory to residential use in all zones. 2. Text Amendment to exempt the height limits of small scale wind power structures up to 75' (including turbine blades) in rural residential zones, subject to Site Plan Review. 3. Text Amendment to add a new "Wind Energy Systems", in Title 18, Chapter in 18.116, Supplementary Provisions. COUNTY REGULATIONS FOR WIND POWER STRUCTURES Page 3 of 6 ATTACHMENT "A" COUNTY CODE REGULATION FOR SMALL SCALE WIND POWER STRUCTURES Clackamas CZO cites a small wind power production facility is not greater than 80 megawatts; and such facility is more than 50 percent owned by a person who is not a public utility. Low density zones have a 35' height restriction and additional setbacks. Resource zones do not have any height restrictions. Small wind power facility is outright permitted in EFU zones for personal use up to 5kW. Crook CZO has a height restriction of 30' in residential zones. No height restrictions in the resource zones. Deschutes DCC structure height limit of 36' with minor variance approval. No other provisions for small scale wind power structures Harney HZO only regulates commercial wind facilities. No height restrictions on small scale wind power structures for personal use. Jefferson JZO exempts "windmills" from height restrictions, unless penetrating airport imaginary surfaces. Klamath KZO has no provisions or restrictions for small scale wind power structures, therefore, outright permitted. Residential zones have a 35' height restriction; however, small scale wind power structures may be exempt due to code accessory uses language. COUNTY REGULATIONS FOR WIND POWER STRUCTURES Page 4 of 6 Lake LZO (Section 24.18) identifies Renewable Energy Facilities and lists conditional uses that apply. Small scale wind power structures are subject to guy wire location, height limits for the rotor of no less than 75' from the ground with lower rotor heights conditionally permitted and wind access setback distances from property lines. Marion MZO identifies small scale wind power structures are outright permitted in the resource zones (EFU) and Acreage Residential (AR) zone. All other zones have a 35' height restriction; however, a variance may be applied for and typically granted in a rural area. Polk PZO has a new zoning ordinance in Chapter 112.130-137 for "Wind Energy System" for non-commercial purposes. Umatilla UZO small scale wind power structures that are not commercial (1mW or smaller) are defined as a utility facility in resource zones and may be reviewed as a conditional use. Rural Residential zones contain a 25' height restriction for structures. A conditional use permit and variance review can be applied for in the Rural Residential zones to increase height limits for a wind power structure. Wallowa WZO, Article 57, Section 57.015 exempts wind generation towers for residential or agricultural uses which generate less than 50 kW (including height restrictions). Wasco WZO regulates only commercial wind energy facilities. No apparent height restrictions in the resource zones. Washington Small scale wind power structures are considered as an accessory structure and have a 35' height limit. Staff Conclusion: 1. Eight (8) out of thirteen (13) Counties noted above have Zoning Ordinance language that exempts wind power structure heights, location setbacks, scenic restrictions, etc. when constructed in resource zones. 2. Eight (8) out of thirteen (13) Counties noted above have Zoning Ordinance language that restricts height of small scale wind power structures between 25 and 75 feet when located within rural residential zones. COUNTY REGULATIONS FOR WIND POWER STRUCTURES Page 5 of 6 3. Four (4) out of thirteen (13) Counties noted above require a conditional use review of small scale wind power structures that produce non-commercial (agricultural or residential) use power between 50 kW and 80 mW 4. All Counties zoning ordinances typically contain language to conditionally regulate commercial utility facilities. COUNTY REGULATIONS FOR WIND POWER STRUCTURES Page 6 of 6