Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-02-24 Work Session Minutes 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 Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, February 24, 2010 Page 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.