Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-08-26 - Planning Commission MinutesN Community Development Department ..{ Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MINUTES DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER 1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OREGON, 97701 AUGUST 26, 2010 - 5:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chair Chris Brown. Members present were: Vice Chair Ed Criss, James Powell, Merle Irvine and Todd Turner. Absent: Richard Klyce, Keith Cyrus. Board members present were: Chair Dennis Luke, Alan Unger, Tammy Barley. Staff present were Nick Lelack, Planning Director; Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner; Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner; Will Groves, Senior Planner; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS Gary Farnsworth and Amy Pfeiffer of ODOT testified regarding Wickiup Junction and the railroad crossing at BNSF/US 97 (see submittal). Dennis Luke and Amy discussed the number of public meetings that have been held and the amount of input received. The railroad wanted more room for additional tracks and room for a park and ride. Commissioner Unger said he liked the fact that this project is moving forward but wondered how long it can stay on the shelf. Gary said that depends — the transportation environment, funding, etc., change on a rapid basis. Commissioner Irvine and Amy discussed access to 97. III. PUBLIC HEARING: — TA -10-5, Text Amendments to Allow Structural Height Exceptions for Utility Facilities in the Industrial District of the La Pine Urban Unincorporated Community Zone — Will Groves, Senior Planner. Will Groves gave a staff report and slide presentation. Commissioner Luke mentioned that the County owns the land where this project is slated for construction . Commissioner Luke asked Laurie Craghead whether one opening statement is sufficient for both the Board and Planning Commission, and she said it was; Chair Brown read the statement. Commissioner Luke asked about the color of stacks and screening requirements. Will said that in the current proposal, there are no color requirements but that they would be addressed in the site plan review. Commissioner Luke and Will discussed the text Quality Services Performed with Pride amendments allowing applications but not being approvals themselves. Will mentioned public comments about noise from vent fans and banging from "wrappers" on exhaust stacks to release soot. Commissioner Baney and Will spoke about color standards. Commissioner Turner asked if these text amendments are specific to utility facilities in the industrial district; Will said they are specific to facilities only in industrial districts and not adjacent to residential districts. They must be located at least one parcel away from residences. Commissioner Powell asked why this did not address Biogreen specifically. Will said that when new Code is contemplated, it is often limited to a specific application. We try to provide something that will be useful to others in the future. There was originally a longer description of the utility facilities, but it has been narrowed down by staff. Commissioner Powell asked if County Code would be replaced by City Code when La Pine has established it. Will said that the City of La Pine will be adopting its own Code; this use, if allowed, will continue to be a conforming use but could be changed to non- conforming by the City. This application will "fit' only during the period between now and when the City adopts its own Code. Will said that the City of La Pine recommended unanimously that the Planning Commission and Board adopt the proposal. Vice Chair Criss asked if the 150 -foot requirement was measured from the ground up, and Will said yes. Commissioner Baney and Will discussed setback requirements. Commissioner Turner and Will discussed screening requirements and the business park users having a clear view of this facility if it is built. Will mentioned that there was more concern about residential areas being sheltered from view of the facility. Liz Fancher spoke on behalf of the applicant. The applicant has selected a plant design that is lower than 150 feet and could be built at 110 feet. Commissioner Luke spoke about whether the application would be going to the City of La Pine rather than the County — the County would be doing the work under contract to the City. The applicant has agreed to language requiring screening to the extent practicable being part of this Amendment. Commissioner Unger asked about the height — he understood it would be 150 feet or whatever DEQ would recommend, so does it matter what we choose? Liz said that the applicant is comfortable with 110 feet. Matt Steele also spoke on behalf of Biogreen. He showed photos of the area along with depictions of what the potential plant and modifications such as the addition of trees would look like. Commissioner Luke asked if the geo-tech had been done yet, and Matt said no. He did the civil engineering on the MidState electric site not too far away. Rob Broberg, President of Biogreen, testified about the furnace system. They feel they have chosen a system that keeps even temperatures and raises efficiency; it also requires the least power to run the fans. The cooling tower fans are low -speed and do not create buzz/hum. The hammers that Will discussed hitting the exhaust pipes are very quiet and cannot be heard near the building. He came from a small town and believes in a collaborative approach and working with people. Commissioner Baney spoke about the possibility of other companies coming in, without choosing to invest in quieter, insulated stacks. Rob said this was a possibility. Commissioner Unger mentioned the "emergency' part of the proposal, and Rob talked about the grants available from the federal government. This project would need the "emergency" designation because of the tight timeline. Liz Fancher added that the County could address specific criteria during the site plan process. Commissioner Luke again mentioned that the K City of La Pine has full control over this project and hopefully next summer will have its own development code. Any appeal will go to the La Pine City Council. Chair Brown asked about the water supply. Matt said there is an agreement with the Irrigation District. The average demand is 300 pounds/minute, minimum 150. To make up part of that demand, there is an agreement with the sewer district to use part of their effluent (treated again by Biogreen for use in the cooling towers). This might be from 50 gallons/minute up to 250 gallons/minute. A good part of the water will therefore be provided via treated effluent from the treatment plant. Chair Brown and Matt discussed minimum requirements for fire protection. Chair Brown asked about the depth of the water table under this facility. Matt said there is a big well at the high school; but this is a different aquifer than is involved in this facility. Rob said they will be drilling at an existing site that is 250 feet deep. Chair Brown mentioned the possibility of lowering the storage pile. Commissioner Luke and Rob discussed trucks coming to the facility and the possibility of rail as an alternative. Vice Chair Criss asked about the content of the water coming out of the cooling tower. Rob said it is cycled five times through the tower, and the minerals would have five times the concentration, but they are not adding contaminants. It then goes to settling ponds and through the sewer district process; it exits the tower at 91 degrees. Commissioner Luke said that it would be a problem if DEQ requires 120 feet; maybe the amendment should be left at 150 feet even if the facility is built at 110. Rob said they have talked to DEQ quite a bit and are very confident that they would not need more than 110 feet. Commissioner Baney reiterated that a 150 -foot limit may benefit someone else since it would not only apply to Biogreen. Public Testimony: Roger Lee testified that there is no place to put this facility where it would not be seen. The La Pine Industrial Group is trying to attract facilities to the area also, and Biogreen is trying to do the right thing. Donald Greiner and Adele McAfee of the La Pine City Council spoke on behalf of the Council. On July 21 the Council met with County planners to discuss the application. A unanimous motion was approved to encourage the Board and Planning Commission to approve the proposed amendments. This project is important to the community from an economic standpoint. Ted Scholer, a member of the La Pine Industrial Group Board, testified that this has been industrial ground for many years. It was designated by the State as a shovel -ready site for this kind of operation. It was only through an oversight of the designers of the original Code that this was not settled previously. Clark Jackson felt that this project fits with sustainable, clean energy and can be a catalyst for La Pine as Facebook is for Prineville, and he supports the proposal. Lance Zipka, of Electrical Workers Local 280 and the building trades, testified that the proposed changes would allow a project that is too large for La Pine. They would be happy to work with the developer to make this project more compatible with the community but do not support it as proposed. Commissioner Luke asked if the membership had voted on this, and Lance said no. Chair Luke asked if their executive committee voted on this, and Lance said no because they are not in this area. Commissioner Irvine asked Lance what the 0 members meant by "too large." Lance said that this is a tourist area and this project would be an eyesore; Facebook is up on a hill, away from town, no one has to look at it while driving through town. This project would be fine if it was outside the city limits. John Williams said his noise expert had submitted detailed comments and he was testifying on behalf of Citizens for Clean Air. A year ago, when the applicant applied to DEQ, they mentioned an energy fuel storage building. The issue of the noise from the "wrapping" is 17 meters tall, over 50 feet, and would exceed the height limits — the folks at DEQ also said there would be a noise issue as did his noise expert. The height would affect the noise being broadcast. The applicant being under a financial deadline is not a good reason for the "emergency" proposal. He has the DEQ application saying the applicant will be adding copper to the water supply. Residents bought their houses knowing there was a 45 -foot height limit across the street - although the applicant showed the building farther back from the street, it would be located much closer than indicated in the presentation. The stack is much thicker than the nearby cell tower and would have to have blinking lights. The storage piles of 60 feet would not be allowed under the old restrictions; they would need sprinklers. DEQ also does not have stack height requirements. They will accept whatever a developer proposes as long as it fits with "good engineering practices." John Huddle testified that this is startup company looking for over half of the cost from grants. There might be a projected life of about 20 years — what is it going to look like then? We need to remember that the reason for the stack is to exhaust the gases above where they will affect people. The distance between the plant, schools, residences, assisted living, etc., may not be enough and may be too low. The EPA has rated these the same as coal-fired plants. A blanket variance may result in lowering the quality of life for residents. There is a lot of fear of the unknown. We do not want to do something that will impact the future for La Pine and affect tourism. He questions the "emergency" nature of the proposal. Lee Smith, General Manager for the La Pine Industrial Park, spoke specifically about the text amendment proposal. Other companies have looked at this area, and it is not a question of "if' someone will build in the area but rather "when." This would be an enabling act to help people if the text amendment is approved. They support the passage of the proposal with the "emergency' clause. Vic Russell testified about ways we can move forward. We need to allow things to move ahead. He applauds Biogreen for its entrepreneurship. Complaining about a noise impact that is already regulated is unacceptable. He thinks Biogreen will be a quality business and has indicated they will be involved in the community. Nick Lelack spoke about the options for the Board and the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission could recommend approval, approval with revisions, or denial. The record may be kept open until the next meeting on September 9. If a recommendation were made this evening, the Board would deliberate and provide direction to staff. Commissioner Luke and Chair Brown asked if the applicant would like to respond to any of the comments they felt were inaccurate. Rob Broberg spoke about smoke being seen from the stack. You will not see this due to emission controls. The DEQ permit was filed on June 16, 2010. The climate around La Pine enables 4-5% efficiency gain due to being dry, as far as the use of the storage pile is M concerned. Sprinkling is not the most effective way to control fire; rather, moving and burying the pile would be preferable. They have a strong partner who has 90% of the market share for boilers; Biogreen is not a startup company. Regarding the plant life, he plans on it running longer than 20 years. That number came up in relationship to amortization of the equipment and payment of the debt, but plants commonly run over 30 years. Matt Steele said that the manner of burning proposed is 90% more effective. Also, the appeal period for this partition ran out last week. The location of the project as shown is where it will be, not closer to the residential area as has been suggested. They are at least 650 feet away from the nearest residence. Liz Fancher spoke about the current zoning ordinance which covers the building height, not storage pile height. Commissioner Luke discussed the City of La Pine's incorporation and their City Council and Planning Commission representatives endorsing this proposal. Motion: Commissioner Irvine motion to close both written and oral records. Seconded by Commissioner Turner. Motion approved unanimously. Motion: Commissioner Turner motioned that the Planning Commission recommend the project. Seconded by Vice Chair Criss. Motion approved unanimously. IV. BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Baney suggested that distance and stack heights to be more specific. Will said that staff had been concerned that materials would be stacked too high and limits should be set. If there is a limitation on stack heights, however, it would require a Measure 56 notice, since there is no limit at this time and all people in the industrial zone would need to be notified and a public hearing held. Commissioner Luke asked if the stack height was unique to this area. Will said most zones have no provision for a maximum height of stored materials although sometimes they must be screened. Commissioner Unger said that supporting local government in La Pine is important. Conditional use is for mitigation of items such as stack height. We need to get things moving forward in La Pine. He supports this proposal. Commissioner Baney asked if someone came in on the other adjacent property and wanted to put a facility 100 feet away, could this be restricted at the conditional use phase? Will said there would need to be at least one buffer parcel, but it could be five feet wide. Commissioners Luke and Baney spoke about a 500 -foot setback and requested staff add that to the ordinance. Laurie Craghead asked whether they were going close the Board section of the hearing, and Commissioner Luke said not yet. Commissioner Baney said she appreciated the unanimous decisions of La Pine and the Planning Commissioners. V. BOARD ADJOURN Commissioner Luke closed the Board record. Will said staff will bring findings to the Board on September 8. VI. PUBLIC HEARING: — Tumalo Community Plan — Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner. Peter gave a staff report and slide presentation on the history of this project. Chair Brown spoke about sewer systems and where they apply. As he understands it, Tumalo would be eligible but wants to keep its rural character, which would be changed for the service area. Should there be language in this regarding the endorsement of looking into a sewer system, applying for grants, etc? Peter said that the Comp Plan can have additional language about working with stakeholders on a centralized or clusters system. The state planning laws do not restrict sewers in unincorporated communities. We should let residents weigh in and then the Planning Commission could also comment. We could strengthen our public facilities policy. Peter also mentioned the Health Impact Assessment that was performed. Commissioner Powell mentioned emails he had sent to Peter. Regarding open space, the policy said to preserve lands by designating them "open space," and the old policy said "public lands." What is the reason for the change? Peter said that Tumalo State Park provides much of the frontage and then there is private property. It may have been geared for either public or private. Nick mentioned it may have been to provide more flexibility for private property owners in terms of grants, so the Plan does not only target public space, in case private property owners want to sell/donate land. Someone may be willing to donate access to the river, for example, if the County took over management of the land. Commissioner Brown asked about the classification of "Oregon Scenic Waterway." Peter said that once the river is recognized by the State as an Oregon Scenic Waterway, activities can be subject to the State Parks' control. It brings notoriety to a stretch of river but also requires more oversight. Peter mentioned that the language indicates support for the role of the community in this designation, not the staff's designation. Commissioner Powell mentioned part of the river that already had this designation, the intent of which was to discourage hydroelectric development. Public Testimony: Therese Madrigal testified that a Health Impact Assessment was completed and submitted written comments. They were grant funded to do this project and approached by the Oregon Environmental Health Office. Health Impact Assessments are relatively new. They got an advisory council and work group together. They looked at the safety of Highway 20 access; creation of a multi -modal transportation system; and improving public access to open space/recreational opportunities. Commissioner Turner asked about the amount of the grant, which Therese said was $10,000. Chair Brown asked about waste disposal issues, which Therese said did not rise to the surface or seem to be an issue with folks they spoke to. Chair Brown asked if the DEQ was involved; Therese said no, but ODOT was. Commissioner Powell and Therese spoke about "complete streets," to connect destinations, which can be trails, sidewalks, anything where there is connection within the community for other modes of transportation than automobiles. This could include horses in Tumalo, along with cycling and walking. Therese said this could be adopted by a city or unincorporated area, not usually a County. Bruce Ronning, Director of Planning & Development for the Bend Parks & Recreation District, testified about the planned trail connection between the State Park and Tumalo. The District would like to see a complete urban trail from Bend to the State Park eventually. They support all of the segments to this end. On page 20, there is a sentence referring to accommodating pedestrians, and the Parks & Rec Department should be included. Under Goals & Policies, pages 23-24, there is support for annexation of the 0 unincorporated area of Tumalo into the Parks & Rec District. The District has not discussed annexation since 2003. They would like to also amend #16 to say "...explore future expansion of the Bend Metro Parks & Rec District to include the Tumalo area." Carolyn Perry testified about two issues, #10 — she never saw any evidence of public input and wondered about the source; and #13 — what is the source of limiting access? This conflicts with #11, under Highway 20 policies. She has not heard support for limiting access from Highway 20. The Tumalo Community Association and Business Associations have talked about sewer and parks districts, and keeping the existing boundaries may no be beneficial if districts were to form. If this were to happen, would the Planning Division automatically consider changing boundaries at that point? Peter and Nick discussed this. Peter suggested they meet with Oregon Dept. of Land Conservation and Development. Even though Tumalo is not a municipality with an unincorporated boundary, there is still a boundary and there has to be a demonstrated need for the expansion and evidence that the need cannot be met within the existing boundaries. The DLCD is the expert on Statewide Goal 11. Nick said we could use language about exploring boundary alternatives. Paula Kinzer expressed support for the Tumalo Community Plan. She felt that, as a parent who has kids at the schools, the discussions were often about the boundary of Tumalo. The school serves the area past Deschutes Junction and there is limited transportation for kids to get to school. The whole Tumalo area is a nightmare during the times when parents are driving to schools. It would be nice for students to have more opportunities to get to school by biking or walking. The new high school will have an impact on transportation as well, and students needs safe modes of alternative transportation. Peter Russell said that ODOT was also working on a short-term fix during this Plan, and a long-term solution for Tumalo with different designs for grade separated crossings. There is a need for a transportation solution in Tumalo. Regarding the schools, he and George Kolb visited the area. They might be able to use the playground for some of the circulation and more kids might ride the buses to reduce traffic. The new school will not increase traffic because children who already go to Redmond will not generate additional trips to the new school. Nick spoke about a sewer district and how it might affect the rural flavor of the area. There is support for maintaining a smaller scale. Tumalo is one of our most forward -thinking communities. Population there is projected to increase by around 60% over the next 20 years (it is currently 375). Carolyn Perry also said that any discussion about a sewer district has to recognize the disparity in U.S. Census information which shows the population as much higher. Peter mentioned the challenges with State Goal 11. The State places major emphasis on protecting rural and agricultural lands. Motion: Commissioner Irvine suggested keeping the oral and written record open and continuing the public hearing until October 14. Seconded by Vice Chair Criss. Discussion: Commissioner Irvine asked how this would fit into the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Update. Peter discussed the upcoming schedule. Commissioner Turner asked if they 7 could have the revisions suggested Parks and Rec, which Peter Gutowsky said could be available in the packets for that meeting. Motion approved unanimously. Commissioner Powell mentioned that some of the language suggested that plans were in process when some of the projects had been completed, and the text should be changed. Peter and Commissioner Powell discussed an aerial photograph and the undeveloped commercial parcels. Peter said he could provide more information as to how our GIS analyst came up with our map. VII. PUBLIC HEARING: — TA -10-6, Proposed Comprehensive Plan Transportation and Land Use Policies for the Deschutes Junction Area — Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner. Peter gave a PowerPoint presentation summarizing this project. Chair Brown asked about the classification of a "general building" by the Assessor and whether that meant the building could not be used as a residence. Peter said he understood that is true. Chair Brown and Peter discussed the 1.77 -acre parcel and a potential plan amendment/zone change. The maximum building size would be 2500 square feet for commercial use and 3500 for ag use. Chair Brown asked if he could partition that parcel into four parcels, and Nick and Peter said no, due to minimum lot size requirements. Vice Chair Criss spoke about considering creating a Deschutes Junction master plan in the future. Peter said that if the Oregon Administrative Rules have not changed, you would not do one. State rules and public sentiment have to meet. Nothing prevents a private party from applying for a declaratory ruling or trying to establish a rural service center. Vice Chair Criss asked about properties in the area that would be used for roads/transportation and whether they should be recognized. Peter said building roads is implied for increased land use. The development code does not specifically call out roads. LUBA is reviewing the 19'h Street issue right now. The DSL property is not in the Redmond Urban Area Reserve yet and there are more hurdles ahead. Commissioner Powell thought that since we did not know what was happening with Juniper Ridge, DSL, 19`h Street, etc., we had to use more general language. Commissioner Turner asked if the area has a boundary. Peter said no — the maps used over the years gave us a de facto sort of boundary. Some tax lots and land uses are identified in the Comp Plan but there is no "area" defined to grow into. Rural commercial and rural industrial could be thought of as "legacy" zoning because nothing else fit. Public Testimony: Paula Kinzer wanted to clarify that the map we are looking at is not topographical. There is a butte with homes that are accessible by dirt roads. Many of the people moved there for the rural nature and practice agriculture on the land. They do not want convenience stores or gas stations at the bottom of the butte. She likes the improvements thus far and feels safer. She feels that some of the comments in favor of development were made before there were changes, and no one wants more change after the last improvements. Rick Coffin said he lives on the northwest side of the highway. He is not in favor of dividing the highway. Some limited rural development would be appropriate. The 7'h Day 9 Adventist school is important to the area. A small convenience store would be good, but we do not need a topless bar. Tony Aceti spoke about the Funny Farm owner saying he had lived in the pink building until 1994. The record shows that the permits for sewer, electrical, etc., were all for residential. The question is if there are two homes established on non -resource lands in the area. The record shows it is now a "'general purpose" building; the County made a mistake by not creating a boundary in that area. This is piecemeal progress, and the State recognizes impacts in an area such as this. It is time to master plan. The pink house was established as a second residence. James Lewis testified that the second -dwelling issue has to do with whether a rural service center could be created under State law. Many of the uses there supported the area historically. There has been an increase in impacts to the area. There are 1750 platted lots, the same population as that surrounding Tumalo. The first three policies say no change will occur in the area. The fourth says we will review and, if there are any changes, we will create a master plan. This is too late. The planning has decreased and impacts have increased. We need to define an area. At one time no one wanted sidewalks, and things have changed drastically. Nick said that the rural commercial designation is an interesting issue. The potential business owner under Code Enforcement for sign violations at the pink building came into the County and felt it was an accepted use. If that is accurate, then the building is not a residence. We probably need a declaratory ruling to determine whether this area is eligible as an unincorporated community or not. If it is an acceptable use, then it is an issue for the County and a decision on a potential master plan. If it is not an unincorporated community, a master plan may not do much. There is not much to plan for outside of trails, open space or road connections. Chair Brown wanted to recognize the Planning Commission's role in this. It is not to make a determination as to whether there is a second residence on the property. We do not know whether the land owner will make an application, but it is unresolved. We have a set of policies for the Junction that have been very cyclic and all of the meetings came up with different public opinions. Commissioner Powell agreed that Carsey had lived in the house, there was an intricate set of chicken wire tunnels that ran from window to window with cats running around, and business was done there. They were shut down in the early 1980s for operations and not being a recognized business. Something may have been moved; the building went fallow. There were concrete barriers and equipment on the corner. There is something in the County records that at least shows the action that moved the Carseys out. How can you make just an industrial area and some nonconforming land uses into an unincorporated community? Nick said they have to fit State definitions. Unincorporated communities can be one parcel. Nick further stated that a declaratory ruling is a land use decision which can be made by the Planning Director or a hearings officer and can be appealed. Chair Brown felt that this may not be resolvable and perhaps this should be stated to the Board. Commissioner Powell asked if more research could be done. Peter said he had spoken with Kevin Harrison who had provided decisions regarding commercial uses on the site. 9 Bob Baird testified that he had all the records of Planning Commissioner meetings when Karzi had his approval and permits issued. Nick and Chair Brown discussed making a decision. Commissioner Powell suggested leaving the hearing open and getting information from Bob to hopefully give guidance. We could discuss it on October 14 and consider the declaratory ruling at that time. Nick said we could take this to the Board. Commissioner Irvine favored the declaratory ruling. Commissioner Turner asked Bob to show him on the map where his property is located. Commissioner Turner asked if this was to be inserted into the current Comp Plan that we are in the process of rewriting. Why not do this when we do the new Comp Plan? Peter said the original intent was to finish the community plans for Terrebonne, Tumalo and Deschutes Junction before the Comp Plan — that they would be easier to accomplish. Commissioner Turner and Chair Brown discussed whether we should move forward with this or let the Board make a decision. Commissioner Powell asked if this was a question of who pays for planning for this area. The policies allow for an applicant to come forward and apply for a designation, ruling, etc., versus the County footing the bill. Is that the bottom issue? Chair Brown spoke about trying to apply for his fruit stand. Nick said that staff's opinion is that there may be a significant likelihood that it is a commercial use. We have seen completely divided opinions as to what residents want. The Planning Commission can go in any direction. Commissioner Irvine thought we should go for a declaratory ruling. Nick said our inclination would be to send it to a hearings officer. This could be continued to the 14`h and see what the Board says. Motion: Commissioner Irvine moved to continue the hearing until October 14, advising the Board that we like a declaratory ruling. Seconded by Vice Chair Criss. Motion approved unanimously. VIII. PUBLIC HEARING: — An Ordinance Amending Title 18 of the Deschutes County Zoning Code Regulations for Small Wind Energy Systems — Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner. Peter summarized the proposal. Commissioner Turner said he had brought more information — a 100 kW unit is a large unit. On a parcel larger than two acres, there is no height limit. We need to do some major editing of this ordinance. There needs to be a balance with the impact on scenic views and he is concerned about the size. Commissioner Powell felt that even the DOE brochure encourages people to raise the height of the towers. There are three types of towers — monopole, lattice and radio. He was not clear as to whether the type was a limiting factor as to what you could do with the site plan based on lot size — some need more space than others, and you can't put something as high on a monopole as you can on a lattice, etc. Public Comment: Paula Kinzer testified in support of this ordinance. We need to encourage the use of alternative energy. She does public outreach for energy, and people are frustrated with not being able to put up small wind turbines. She appreciates the concerns about visual blight — this is in the eye of the beholder, and she feels it is very nostalgic to see a wind turbine. We need to consider the benefits. Farmers pay very high demand charges during months when they use no power. This could be a huge help for agriculture. 10 Commissioner Powell asked if Paula would be okay with looking down on smaller turbines — she said it would be much preferable to looking at Willamette Greystone right now. Chair Brown and the Commissioners discussed timelines. Nick said we could continue this to October 14. Commissioner Powell asked for Peter's comments and wanted to see his presentation. Peter gave a slide presentation summarizing the proposal to amend Title 18. Commissioner Turner mentioned that the towers in the presentation were all smaller output and more acceptable. The Commissioners agreed to continue the hearing until October 14 and leave oral and written testimony open. IX. PLANNING COMMISSION & STAFF COMMENTS. Nick said that next Wednesday, the Board will have a work session on whether to move forward with the destination resort remapping effort. Legal counsel feels we are obligated to do so. X. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary NEXT MEETING — September 9, 2010, at 5:30 p.m. at the Deschutes Services Center, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, OR 97701 11