Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-10-14 - Planning Commission MinutesV I. CALL TO ORDER 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 DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER 1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OREGON, 97701 OCTOBER 14, 2010 - 5:30 P.M. 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, Todd Turner, Bill Rainey and Richard Klyce. Staff present were Nick Lelack, Planning Director; Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner; Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary. Commissioner Criss left at 7:30 p.m. Minutes of February 11, 2010; June 24, 2010; and July 8, 2010 were approved. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. III. PUBLIC HEARING (continued): — TA -10-6, Proposed Comprehensive Plan Transportation and Land Use Policies for the Deschutes Junction Area — Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner. Peter summarized the process to date and said that we are still awaiting the property owner's submittal of a fee waiver request along with the application. There are three options to consider: (1) Open the hearing and continue it until January 13, 2011; (2) Open the hearing, take testimony and close the hearing, continuing it until January 13, 2011; (3) Open the hearing, take testimony, close and deliberate; then make a recommendation to the Board. Commissioner Irvine wondered if we follow #3, would that have any impact on the declaratory ruling that will be rendered? Peter said, no — it is a County system for resolution and will not affect the policies we are proposing. If we go with the status quo, the ruling from 2002 stands. If we determine the building is a secondary residence, there are many more steps to follow. Nick also said that #3 does not pre -determine acceptance of staff's recommendation. The Commissioners can also move forward and recommend changing the language. Chair Brown wanted to give people who were here tonight a chance to testify. He also asked Nick to provide information about fee waivers in light of the Board's recent decision on a fee waiver for event venues. Nick said that there is a different criterion for this request, so the fee waiver may be relevant. This also could be continued to October 28 — Quality Services Performed With Pride (take testimony tonight and deliberate then). Peter added that if the declaratory ruling determined that the structure is a residence, there is the rural service center question. Then the issue is whether the County or a private party would initiate a plan amendment/text amendment to establish a rural service center. Commissioner Rainey and Peter discussed procedures. Commissioner Powell asked Peter to discuss nonconforming uses. Peter said he recalled that a use had to continue for two years. Commissioner Powell discussed the hearings officer's decision saying that it was both the type and duration of activity; if the type of activity lapsed for longer than a year, the nonconforming use was no longer valid. Jon Jinings, Community Services Specialist for DLCD in Bend, said that they felt that the issue was pretty well vetted. He regularly drives through the area. Staff has done a good job covering the issues, and it is up to the Commissioners as to what they would like to do. He pointed out that people are not required to slow down when they enter the area, and it does not feel to him like a community. It might be less worthwhile to make it an unincorporated community than a rural service center. Dr. Powell asked about the changes ODOT has made and whether they impacted anything (Pleasant Ridge Road). Peter said it did not involve many vehicles and improvements have been made, so there probably is no impact. Public Testimony: James Lewis said that, with regard to options, he would like to have the Commissioners hold off making a determination until the decision is made on a declaratory ruling. Aside from the Fagens' property and the rural service center question, in 1997 the County did an internal review and decision process, but we do not have the data. There may have been other properties that qualified but we lack the history. Even if the definition of a rural service center is not met, the staff report mentions projects like Juniper Ridge, and area properties are being rezoned (250 acres mentioned in The Bulletin). Policies that state that we are going to wait until we see what happens can be disastrous. Nick and James discussed the designation of the area as a rural service center and the County's obligations. Robert Fair testified that there was no notification sent to them regarding a change in their zoning. He spoke about the status of the property. Commissioner Powell and Robert discussed a hearings officer's consideration of a request to verify a nonconforming use. Commissioner Powell said that Karen Green had outlined the histories of various tax lots based on information that the Faires had presented. He asked Robert if it was accurate. Robert said that it was, but it also applied to another properties. They did not have documentation at that time about the RSC zone. Marian Woodall of Boonesborough testified that she has never heard anyone say they lived in "Deschutes Junction." She agreed with Jon Jinings that it is not a community. She feels that creation of a rural service center will encourage sprawl between Bend and Redmond. It should not be a community, no matter what happens to Juniper Ridge and other areas. Residents want to see it remain as is. Paul Dewey testified on behalf of Central Oregon LandWatch, which has been following this for a year or so from the sidelines. They have been involved in 19th Street and addressed the concerns they had heard from residents about Bend and Redmond growing together. This would also encourage that growth, and the Starwood and Boonesborough areas have come out against this. It is a road junction and a bit of a railroad junction. It is not a community or a rural service center and really may not get anywhere under Oregon's 2 land use system. The four proposed polices look reasonable — they only have a problem with subsection (c) where it mentions a frontage road along Highway 97. There may not be a demonstrated need for this road. If there are many driveways along a road, it makes sense; but there may not be enough in this case. He has not really seen much change in Deschutes Junction over the last 30 years. Tony Aceti said he had previously submitted some photos he obtained from the archives, showing the gas station and other commercial uses. He feels that Deschutes Junction has been an unincorporated community — there were critical errors made in the 1997 and 2002 determinations. There is activity occurring, and Tumalo and Terrebonne wanted an overpass. There is a public investment there — the reason it has not changed is that everything is locked up. Land use in the area changed once the overpass was added. People who say there is no community only spend 30 seconds getting over the overpass. Some are now complaining about weeds on his property — he cannot afford to add a city park for their convenience and still make a living. He would like to see the record kept open. It has been almost 15 years for him. He would be happy with a rural industrial area. Peter Russell responded to Paul Dewey's comment about the frontage road. Chair Brown asked if ODOT was considering closing the entrance on Gift Road if a frontage road was added. Peter said there is concern about the high-speed volumes on 97 and crossover accidents, especially during bad weather. ODOT typically puts up a crossover median. Because there is no network, this would be a huge inconvenience for traffic. ODOT wants to be able to send people to an alternate route. They are working on a design for a frontage road from Tumalo Road up to Gift. The concern is where it ties in at the south end. ODOT won't put up a raised median until they can answer the traffic issues on the west side. Chair Brown asked if there was a timeline, and Peter said no. It could be five years. ODOT has just released a draft statewide improvement program which extends to 2014, and this issue is not included. Peter also said that there are 250 acres of Juniper Ridge which will be developed, but they are all within the urban growth boundary, not in Deschutes Junction. We (the County) also may not have to do the designation change if the declaratory ruling is approved, as Mr. Lewis had suggested. Nick spoke about this question. Peter and Vice Chair Criss discussed the 2002 meetings held by both the Planning Commission and the Board, and Peter said that no appeal was filed. From transportation and land use standpoints, there really have not been any substantial changes in the area over the years. Rick Coffin testified that he does see changes happening that affect Deschutes Junction such as the closure of Pleasant Ridge. The median be constructed down the center fairly soon and fairly inexpensively. As we close the possibilities for people to access businesses we have seen, very clearly, a piece of property sitting vacant at the south end, probably forever. He feels that the median will go in much sooner than any decision will be made about the frontage road. He is concerned that ODOT has such power to make changes and decisions for access. Chair Brown questioned the length of the median and whether it had to extend the entire length of the road. Peter said ODOT can put a median up tomorrow because this would fall under its authority to manage the state transportation system. However, ODOT has indicated it would not do this because of the potential for someone to go to the end of the median and cause safety issues. You can't have a raised median without a frontage road. There will be public workshops and open houses for public comments. Jon Jinings said that the County did go through the process of deciding whether this was an unincorporated community. If this was a clear-cut question of an area meeting the 3 standards that define it as one type or another of unincorporated community, and the County said it was not right for the County, they would side with the County decision. The County has that ability. This not a clear-cut case even if there are two dwellings out there. That does not necessarily tip the balance — there are other parts to the definition. He does not think the County is obligated in this instance one way or the other. The County could say that it has done this before, and it's good enough. He does not think the County is out of balance with any of the options. Commissioner Powell wondered if the DLCD's approach would be changed if no boundaries were established by the County's 1979 plan for Deschutes Junction (but boundaries existed for every other rural service center), and it was later designated as a rural service center. What if the boundaries were drawn differently and included residences? Jon said it would make a difference but probably not much. In unincorporated communities, some areas function like communities with urban -type privileges. It isn't clear that Deschutes Junction provides goods and services to the rural area or to people traveling through it. Chair Brown and Nick discussed the status of the declaratory ruling. Peter said Mrs. Fagen had indicated they hoped to get something in next week. If the Board does not approve the fee waiver, they may not apply at all. Nick and Peter spoke about the timelines. Peter said that it would take about 40 hours of staff time if it was County initiated. We also need to work with legal counsel, so it might be a month. Commissioner Irvine and Peter spoke about procedures if it is staff initiated. The criteria are not clear. This boils down to the Fagen property and what is meant by "permanent." The Board has said that the administrative decision would be called up for a public hearing if made by staff. This could be appealed to LUBA. Commissioner Turner said he was ready to deliberate and make a recommendation. Commissioner Rainey wanted to adopt #2 and continue the hearing. Commissioner Klyce wanted to wait for a declaratory ruling. Vice Chair Criss voted for #2. Commissioner Irvine was also in favor of continuing the hearing until after the declaratory ruling. Chair Brown mentioned the comment that the declaratory ruling has little to do with the decision. Nick said that the policy options were to support the staff -recommended policies, in which case the declaratory ruling is important for a subsequent step but not this one. The Commissioners could also support creating an unincorporated community and state that tonight with some parameters; whether we take the next steps for a declaratory ruling would be evaluated on subsequent work plans. If we are in the balance, it may be more important to wait. The extremes would be either to support the status quo or support change. Chair Brown spoke about the decision made on destination resorts where we did not have a full panel and the decision was brought back. We do have full representation tonight. Motion: Vice Chair Criss motioned to open the public hearing, accept additional testimony (which we have done) and continue the public hearing until January 13, 2011. Seconded by Commissioner Klyce. Motion passed, with all Commissioners voting in favor except for Commissioner Turner, who voted nay, and Commissioner Powell, who abstained. IV. PUBLIC HEARING (continued): — Tumalo Community Plan — Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner. Peter spoke about revisions to the Plan and scenic waterways designation. Public Testimony: Paul Dewey testified regarding comments they have received about the process. The one concern he has is that the document does not capture the continuing concern about traffic safety. ODOT is taking longer than people thought they would take. There is no discussion in the document about deaths occurring along Highway 20, and he would like to see this mentioned. Overall it has been a good planning process. Peter Gutowsky said that some excerpts do contain references to transportation, such as Policy #8 which specifically mentions Cook Avenue and Highway 27. Chair Brown and Peter Gutowsky discussed sewer districts and whether they should be mentioned. Peter said this would be the will of the property owners. There is a mention of residents wanting to keep the community the way it is, except for exploring a possible sewer option as mentioned in #8. It is not a governmental responsibility but comes down to the residents wanting to establish and pay for that kind of service. Nick mentioned adding something in another location in the document, perhaps page 18. Motion: Vice Chair Criss motioned to close the oral and written testimony. Seconded by Commissioner Irvine. Motion passed unanimously. Motion: Commissioner Turner motioned to accept the Plan as amended. Vice Chair Criss seconded. Commissioner Powell also clarified that the language about sewer would be added. Motion passed unanimously. V. PUBLIC HEARING (continued): — An Ordinance Amending Title 18 of the Deschutes County Zoning Code Regulations for Small Wind Energy Systems — Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner. Peter discussed the proposal, decibel levels and State requirements. Commissioner Turner asked if the ordinance is adopted, will it be administered through the site plan review process? Peter said that if the height is 36 feet or less and setbacks are met, it would go straight to building permit. Anything above that threshold would be part of the land use process including notice to surrounding property owners. Commissioner Turner and Peter spoke about establishing a height limit and what the process would be if someone wanted to exceed that. Commissioner Turner asked when lights are required — Peter said it has to do with distance from an airport. It would be administered by notification to the FAA and giving them an opportunity to comment. Commissioner Criss left the meeting at this point. Commissioner Irvine wanted to clarify whether the top of the blade is used for the height measurement. Peter said that was correct. Public Testimony: Paul Dewey testified that visuals can be a huge issue in the County. He is concerned that there is not more public testimony this evening. He agrees with Commissioner Turner about the issues raised. Sixty dB is loud and will disturb the quality of lives. The heights and noise being proposed here are a little bit excessive. The 100 kW strikes him as a commercial venture, as opposed to 20. The Code should distinguish between those systems that are for self-sufficiency and those that are commercial in nature. Wind is a great resource and he is glad the County is addressing jt. Chair Brown spoke about selling back to a utility company and the net effect of drawing out of and putting back into the grid. Perhaps putting back is a definition of a commercial activity. Commissioner Powell mentioned the amount of kW required to produce enough for a single household. Chair Brown felt that rather than doing the math, if the net effect is that the power is used on site, perhaps that is a personal application. Commissioner Turner mentioned the scenario of the Alfalfa Store wanting to put in a turbine. They would need more power. The amount of kW produced by a small scale system is mentioned in the Comp Plan. Chair Brown and Commissioner Turner discussed how to judge commercial versus personal systems, and Commissioner Rainey asked why there is a concern. He would be worried about visibility and noise, no matter what the system. Commissioner Klyce agreed and said that an argument can be made that by allowing individuals to put up larger systems, the demand on commercial use and the number of systems needed will be less. He felt that a 40dB limit is not a bad idea. Commissioner Klyce suggested getting some industry people to discuss this. One of the issues he has is that we are talking about, for example, 40 feet for 1-2 acres which eliminates a substantial portion of South County. There may be visual impacts, and there will be arguments. He would like to see wind energy helping to reduce carbon emissions. Commissioner Rainey spoke about d6 limits and noise measurement points. Peter said we felt it was more beneficial to measure from the closest residence rather than the property line. Commissioner Turner mentioned research on residential neighborhoods at night. There may not be a residence on an adjoining property when a tower goes up, so it may be better to measure at the property line. Commissioner Turner also thought the generator noise would change with the wind speed. Commissioner Klyce felt that as the turbines become more popular, there will improvements in noise reduction. Commissioner Turner said that putting in 100 kW wind turbines is a completely different issue than turbines for someone who wants to be off the grid. Commissioner Powell thought that the graduated approach is very reasonable. In Bend, there really is not a need for anything large. Maybe there could be more leniency on EFU or resource lands. Placement makes a huge difference, and there isn't one answer that fits all. Commissioner Turner asked what would stop someone from going out on a large acreage and putting up a dozen of these — it goes back to a commercial use. Maybe someone would question why we would want to stop that, but there is a visual impact. Peter said we could further refine the use — it has to be accessory to a primary use. Commissioner Klyce asked if that is a problem —what if he wants to put solar cells on half of his property? There has been controversy in Christmas Valley over solar cells. Commissioner Irvine agreed with Commissioner Powell regarding a graduated scale. If we talk about large acreages, can you really have this discussion without including commercial wind farms? Peter said that the State plays a significant role in commercial use. There is another regulatory process in terms of scale, grid -related issues, impacts on wildlife and other concerns. He would recommend we focus on small wind energy systems. We could add language in the Comp Plan update to revisit this issue. Maybe we should open the door and wait for technology to improve. We used 100 kW as a starting point. Commissioner Powell and Peter spoke about solar versus wind systems. Commissioner Rainey thought there should be a limit on the number of towers allowed on a particular parcel. Chair Brown felt that in some cases, it might make sense to have more than one tower - perhaps four 36 - foot towers rather than one 120 -foot tower depending on the wind. W i Peter summarized information on requirements for lights on towers adjacent to airports in California. Nick asked if "accessory to a primary use" limits the towers, and Paul Dewey also questioned this. Chair Brown thought that we needed to have some testimony from locals about patterns of use and experts. Peter said we have leaned heavily on the Department of Energy in Salem for information. He also had provided an attachment regarding the Southwest Wind Power Consumer Guide, showing a map where we could find out if someone had installed a certain type of system in our area. Perhaps we could get that property owner to share his/her experience. Chair Brown also wanted to hear from the contractor/installer who designed and installed the system. Paul Dewey said we also need to assure the public that they are going to be given the opportunity to protect themselves. Graduated use is probably good. It is really important that this process works — everyone hates cell towers and they are very invasive. It would be nice if this wind resource were embraced more. If someone can produce more power than they use, that is an incentive to invest. The key is balance. He does not see EFU and forest lands as any less sensitive. He feels that the 100 kW limit has to do with the Energy Facility Siting Council taking jurisdiction over local land use. Motion: Commissioner Turner motioned to continue the hearing to January 13 to get more information from businesses and the public. Seconded by Commissioner Klyce. Motion passed unanimously. — Nick Lelack, Planning Director. Nick summarized elements of Chapter 5 and the Commissioners discussed timing and the Comp Plan update. VII. PLANNING COMMISSION & STAFF COMMENTS. The status of the Biogreen application and the recent Board decision on the fee waiver for an event venue application were discussed. Peter Gutowsky relayed information from Tom Anderson regarding proposed changes to the DIAL system. Commissioner Powell asked Nick to comment on the presentation last evening by John Fregonese on urban design, the Big Look task force and the era of sprawl being over. VIII. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, 4Sh Buckner, Administrative Secretary NEXT MEETING — October 28, 2010, at 5:30 p.m. at the Deschutes Services Center, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, OR 97701