Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-01-13 - Planning Commission MinutesCommunity 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/ MINUTES DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER 1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OREGON, 97701 JANUARY 13, 2011 — 5:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chair Merle Irvine. Members present were: Vice Chair Chris Brown, Ed Criss, James Powell, Bill Rainey, Todd Turner, and Richard Klyce. Staff present were Nick Lelack, Planning Director; Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner; Terri Payne, Senior Planner; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary. Minutes of September 9, September 23 and October 14, 2010 were approved. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. Laurie Craighead spoke about the destination resort remapping criteria. She recommended that the Commissioners not do anything to change it because we are in the middle of litigation. Commissioner Criss and Nick discussed the criteria and the agenda for the next meeting. Laurie said having a discussion on changing the criteria is not a good idea, but it can be discussed as it is being applied to the remapping process. Vice Chair Brown asked whether or not we should include all of the specific items in the Comprehensive Plan, which Laurie then indicated we should not discuss. Chair Irvine asked if there were any issues with the preamble. Laurie said in the last paragraph, where it says the Plan shall not be used for specific development projects, the Comp Plan is generally not used when discussing the Zoning Code unless it is to interpret the Code. Using "shall not' may be too specific. Perhaps something like "is not intended to be used..." would be better. Quality Services Perforrned with Pride III. PUBLIC HEARING (continued): — An Ordinance amending Title 18 of the Deschutes County Zoning Code Regulations for Small Wind Energy Systems — Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner, and Guests. Peter introduced the panel Vijay Satyal (via conference phone), senior policy analyst with the Department of Energy, said that we are all in a state of flux with the economy, and the agency is trying to cope. The DOE tries to make it easier to promote affordable and current technology. One type is not necessarily better, but there is a large effort to look at options and saving energy. Better technology is available to deal with design changes for wind energy. He took six calls today from residential land owners who want to build small systems on their properties and want to get the best information. There are environmental and/or aesthetic issues in some areas, but if planned correctly, there is a lot of growth potential in wind energy. Lizzie Rubado, of the Energy Trust of Oregon, said that its goal is to improve how energy is produced and used in Oregon. She manages the small wind program and ran a residential solar program until about six months ago. Small wind involves a pretty young market with a lot of potential. They want to insure that the systems installed are high performing, safe and long-lived. The program has several elements, including cash incentives, industry training, market development, qualified installers with technical training and licensing/insurance, rigorous standards, consumer education, quality assurance, inspections and ongoing performance evaluations. For a project to qualify for funding, a turbine has to be on the qualified list. The system has to meet installation requirements; the site has to be a minimum of one acre in size; wind speed must average at least 10 mph annually; and the tower must be over 60 feet (the average is substantially taller, more like 100 feet) because there is a very strong correlation between turbine height and energy production. Going from a 30 -foot to a 90 -foot tower averages a 75% increase in production, for example. The tower blades must be 30 feet from any obstructions. The setback requirement from adjacent property lines is the height of the tower plus half the length of the blades — for example, a 100 -foot tower with 20 -foot rotor needs a 110 foot setback. Phil Chang from COIC mentioned that wind resources and incentives are two significant local factors affecting the number, height and location of wind energy turbines. He discussed a map in his handouts showing average annual wind speeds at 30 meters. Some of the best winds are in areas with large private land holdings in the eastern part of the County, and there are some pockets in other parts of the County. Even in some places without the best winds, if you build the tower high enough you will hit at least 10 mph wind speeds, such as in Alfalfa. We have some of the cheapest electricity in the country, so the cost is not driving people to install wind turbines like those in California. Also, when you build one of these systems and calculate payback, in our state it is usually low and the payback period takes longer. What makes these projects happen in our area are the many incentives such as those from the Energy Trust. This is not the best county for wind energy, but there are many reasons to promote wind energy, such as reducing greenhouse gases. Dean Adkins of Xzeres spoke about bottlenecks caused by too many regulations. There is an ordinance limiting structure height to 36 feet which contradicts another one of 72 feet, which is also very low for the resource. There is a suggestion that some towers should be painted specific colors, which he feels is completely unnecessary. The manufacturers do 01 not make them that way, so it would be an additional expense. A small wind turbine on a 120 -foot tower from a mile away fades into the background, no matter what color it is. Some ordinances give neighbors the opportunity to have input — what made this country great is private property rights. We came from zero to leading the entire planet based on private property rights. These allow people to determine the best use of their assets. If we give neighbors the ability to squelch these projects, it is absurd. If the neighbors want to protect their views, they need to purchase more property. The cost for electricity in Oregon is low for now, but this will not always be the case. Hydroelectric dams have already been exploited and some are even being removed. The cost of dealing with nuclear waste is prohibitive. Incentives and reducing barriers are some ways to encourage wind energy. We need to think about small regulations, small government. Dean Abney, of Abney Solar Electrix, is a local installer. His customer base is 90% battery based systems, not with the Energy Trust. He just completed a cell tower in Washington that is 100% solar. Times are changing. Most of his customers are off the grid. Solar does not provide 100% of their energy, and they do not want to use a generator backup. Wind, even if it doesn't qualify for the Energy Trust, is still viable. His systems are hybrid systems that feed batteries — wind/hydro/solar in the same system. He has a UL testing facility and has been through all of the engineering training. He has worked here for 20+ years, employs local contractors. He sticks by the Energy Trust requirements, whether the job is an Energy Trust job or not — he hires licensed contractors, electricians, etc. The wind in this County is not always the best, but there are customers within three miles of here who are off the grid. The height restriction is a problem — people are hesitant to invest in wind until they are sure about the rules. The public will complain about the noise and height, but keep in mind the higher the tower, the less the noise. He does not install anything less than 1000 watts; anything smaller is a waste of time. He has built an electric pickup that is delivering solar panels in Portland right now. People want to do the right thing. There are other people watching Deschutes County to see what we do. He also obtained permission from all of his neighbors in writing. Mark Patt with Think EverGreen Home felt that our younger generation is watching to see what we do for the future. They deal with sales and hire local installers, although sometimes clients want to do it themselves. He would challenge the one -acre issue in the ordinance — a drop zone would be more appropriate (i.e., would it drop on the neighbor's house). He showed some examples of vertical turbines that start producing energy at 6 mph. He feels that with the vertical turbines, wind can be caught from any direction and at any speed, and perhaps the Energy Trust should consider this. Darin MacDonald, of Green Light Renewables, said that the Code as it reads today makes it difficult to provide an optimal system. Allowing wind turbines to exceed the existing height restrictions will provide more homeowners with the opportunity to become energy independent. Installers are not going to flock to the County to install a small system. Typically, turbines cut in at 5-10 mph. If the turbines only generate a minimal amount of energy, installation at a low height does not make sense. The permitting process also needs to be streamlined, and neighbors should not be involved or it will never get done. An easier process will keep costs down. Also, many property owners will adopt these systems assuming they will function at optimal levels, and a progressive process which allows good height will encourage independence. Bill Watts of Madras spoke about installation. They use two categories — one for the average homeowner and one for commercial. He showed a video of his system and how he installed it. The systems are all pre-engineered and most are AC generators, which is what homeowners want. In Jefferson County, homeowners only take out a standard electrical permit for the footings and foundations, which allows up to 200 feet on the same sized footing. Most homeowners install towers in the 35-60 foot range so the towers can be serviced easily. The colors used by the manufacturers are usually the best and blend in with the landscape. Commissioner Criss asked Lizzie how the wind speed map is created. She said the Wind Trust purchased the data for 15- and 30 -year wind speeds from a nationally recognized source (one of two) which used algorithms, GIS and terrain data, etc. Commissioner Criss asked about bird and bat issues and if there is anything similar to deer whistles that can be used to deter them. Dean Abney said that the higher -quality wind machines do not run fast rotor speeds — the old windmills are totally different. All of the machines now self regulate and turn off at a certain speed, so the birds are not sucked into them and fly right through. Lizzie spoke about differences in smaller systems, and there are actually some problems with raptors nesting in the cells. Lizzie also spoke about groups of property owners investing in a single turbine of at least 100 kW in size, or in a cluster of systems. There is only one successful community scale wind project in Oregon so far. Phil Chang said a whole community can benefit from such a system. Dean Adkins added that the thought process which is appealing is that people can own their electricity. Vice Chair Brown asked about the size system that would be required for a small farm. Where is the upper end on small systems? Dean Abney spoke about asking for someone's electric bills for the last three years and other information he would require. A licensed installer would need to evaluate the wind load. There is no maintenance on the new machines, and homeowners can raise and lower their own towers. Dean Adkins said the industry standard for small systems is 100 kW and lower. If you are talking about a 3000 square -foot house and barn, a 10 kW machine is probably not enough. They try to size systems to provide about 80% of the electricity used on a particular site. Dean Abney said most homes get by on 3 kW, and the actual rating is 1.8 to 2.4. In Vice Chair Brown's case he would probably need a 10-12 kW system plus solar. Lizzie pointed out that we are also emphasizing residential — the industry standard of 100 kW has to be considered for commercial. There isn't every color in the crayon box between 10 and 100 kW, and sizes are limited. Ranchers and vintners may go larger — some vintners in the valley are installing 50 kW systems right now. Dr. Powell wondered, considering the variety of zones and uses, if it would be reasonable to look at something like a resident in a farm zone having one limitation, say a 50 kW unit; versus someone in an RR10 zone with residential being limited to 10 kW. Also, would the same thing be reasonable for tower heights? If you were on a large parcel with low density, tower height would not be as much of a problem. Mark Patt discussed a system made by Honeywell that can be roof mounted. Lizzie spoke about creating ceilings versus limitations within categories and said that that taking property and zoning into consideration made sense. Someone could apply for an exemption based on special circumstances, too. Dean Adkins mentioned the cost of a very tall tower, which is exponentially more than a tower of more reasonable height. The chances are slim that most people would need a 150 -foot tower, and the cost is much more. Bill Watts mentioned FAA clearance. The FAA doesn't even look at towers unless they are over 200 feet. Small windmills don't come close to that. Large towers would also require guide wires which are not feasible on a city lot, for example. Dean Abney spoke about how it makes much more sense for someone in Brothers who wants to pump water for his cattle to have a turbine. Lizzie said we need to be flexible as new technologies are developed. EI Commissioner Turner asked Lizzie whether there were any noise requirements for the Energy Trust. She said that there are tests that can be done by third party testing facilities and they use benchmarks. Every time you double the distance of the tower, you reduce the noise fourfold. Commissioner Turner asked about the dB level, and she said she could provide this information. Dean Abney said the standard is 60 dB at 100 feet. There are several machines that are not what he considers quality machines, but the 60 dB at 100 feet is not hard to meet. Commissioner Turner and Darin discussed 100 kW systems and Darin said you have to draw the line somewhere. A limit of 45 kW in one jurisdiction and another of 100 kW does not make sense. Also, we need to keep in mind whether single or aggregate systems are involved. Commissioner Turner asked Dean Abney about using a turbine for an irrigation pond and whether one would be tied into the grid during "non wind" times. Dean said that is correct, and batteries are a pain. Chair Irvine asked about multiple systems and how close they can be located. Dean Adkins spoke about three rotor blades apart as a distance, depending also on prevailing winds. Each generates turbulence which can cut into the power production if they are located too close together. They also do not think rooftop turbines are a good idea — the wind hits the building and goes up, so a good percentage is turbulence from the front side of the building. You really want clean air flow. A car going down a clean road might get 30 mpg, while one running over a rocky field might get 5 mph. The choppier the air flow, the less momentum is available for the turbine. Commissioner Powell asked about birds trying to crest higher land masses that are packed with turbines and whether there is consideration for leaving access channels. Commissioner Klyce and Lizzie spoke about issues with birds and bats and commercial versus residential systems. Commercial Criss asked Mark about rooftop systems and building turbulence, and Mark said they are high enough to miss most of the turbulence. They also produce power starting at 2 mph as do many of the newer systems. They also shut down at 36-40 mph. Commissioner Klyce asked if the group would consider drafting some guidelines, and they were in favor of this. The Jefferson County guidelines may be a good start. Peter Gutowsky said that considering time management, staff has not proposed guidelines but a fast tracking and land use entitlement process. There are also no FAA restrictions unless someone is in the overlay zone. An alternative may be to get specific questions and forward those to the panel, as opposed to trying to corral this group with that work responsibility. Commissioner Rainey thought that it sounded a bit like delegating a staff function to the committee, and he would be more comfortable with direction from staff. Chair Irvine agreed. Commissioner Turner said that we are still in the public hearing phase and will need to decide whether to continue testimony. Peter Gutowsky asked if the Commissioners wanted to allow the public to question the panel, and Chair Irvine asked if there was anyone in the audience who wanted to speak. No one asked to testify. Motion: Commissioner Klyce recommended closing the oral testimony and leaving the written testimony open until February 10. Seconded by Commissioner Turner. Discussion: The Commissioners discussed whether to leave the oral testimony open, and Commissioner Powell asked if perhaps someone local would want to come in and offer testimony. Commissioner Rainey wondered if someone from tonight's panel would like to return. He asked if staff had a viewpoint on whether the oral testimony should be closed. Nick said it depends on the nature of any changes — if the height would be 5 changed based on the testimony heard this evening, for example, written responses could be requested. Commissioner Criss thought that if the height was changed, the public might want to comment. Vice Chair Brown mentioned that this would be going to the Board and the public would have an opportunity to testify. Motion passed unanimously. IV. PUBLIC HEARING (continued): — TA -10-6, Proposed Comprehensive Plan Transporta- tion and Land Use Policies for the Deschutes Junction Area — Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner. Peter gave an update on the status of the proposal. Staff ruled that the pink building was not a residential dwelling, and the Board agreed to call up the staff decision for a public hearing on March 28. The Commissioners can issue a decision or wait until after the Board hearing. Commissioner Turner asked Peter if this implements an ordinance — Peter said yes, and the numbering has also changed because we had a change in the year. The policies that would be implemented would be in a new section in the Plan. Commissioner Turner mentioned an October 5 memo about this which included two different policy approaches. Are those still relevant now? Peter said they are both still fair game as the Commissioners did not vote for one or the other. Commissioner Powell asked Peter about the text section on the history of Deschutes Junction - was there any interest in going back to the dark ages when Deschutes Junction was platted? Peter said there were many things considered that predated the Oregon Land Use program, but no. Commissioner Rainey asked if the Board could still determine that the pink building was a residence. Peter said the Board could either agree or disagree with staff after its public hearing. Jon Jinings has also sent a letter stating that even if the pink building was declared a residence, the community still does not meet the criteria for a rural service center. It would be an uphill battle. Commissioner Powell mentioned a link to a LUBA decision he sent to Peter with some of the parcel's history, and Peter said he had included it with other information he researched. Motion: Vice Chair Brown moved to close the written and oral record. Seconded by Commissioner Powell. Motion passed unanimously. Vice Chair Brown spoke about changing the language in (d) to say "encourage the County to establish an unincorporated community or a rural service center as an option." He felt that this will be a continuing problem in Deschutes Junction until there is a plan. There are many conflicting views from residents in the area, and this will continue to be an issue. Nick and Vice Chair Brown discussed adding the language as the last part of (d), after the word "amended" and keeping the rest of the paragraph. Nick said we could keep the first sentence as is and add Vice Chair Brown's suggestion at the end, so we would do a Master Plan either way. Commissioner Rainey and Nick discussed using a period at the end of the sentence regarding the Master Plan and then adding Vice Chair Brown's sentence. Motion: Commissioner Turner motioned to recommend that the Board approve TA -10-6 inclusive of Ordinance 23.40.65 with (d) amended per the prior discussion. Seconded by Commissioner Klyce. Discussion: Commissioner Powell said he could not support this and did not want to predetermine that the area should be designated as an unincorporated community or rural service center. Commissioner Criss felt that the area will be a major transportation hub and we should master plan this as soon as we can. With 19'" Street, Cooley Road and Juniper Ridge, there will be more issues. Commissioner Turner said that he thought the area is probably one of the most critical areas needing a master plan. The only appropriate designation that will allow for uses to make that area successful would be a rural service center. He felt a master plan would only be a transportation plan, if it did not include the land uses which are possible in a rural service center. Peter discussed the Oregon Administrative Rule and an attempt to designate places with economic activity outside land use boundaries. Sometimes there is an expectation that there will be a master plan for more intense use, and the State may not agree with that thought process. From the State's perspective, it was a "one and done." When he has talked to the State, there is no other place that has upgraded to a rural service center or other form of unincorporated community. Commissioner Powell said that Hearings Officer Karen Green's findings were a good summation of the history of the area. She, too, would like to see the continuation of commercial use but that is not the law. Motion passed. V. DELIBERATION (continued): Ord. 2011-003 Updating the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan — Long Range Planning Staff. Commissioner Rainey was in favor of Legal Counsel's suggestion: "The Plan is not intended to be used to evaluate specific development projects. Instead, the Plan is a 20 - year blueprint to provide growth and development." Chair Irvine asked if anyone had changes to the goals or policies. Vice Chair Brown mentioned wildlife policies on page 52, Section 2.6.3 which are not bracketed. Nick said that Terri did not hear any specific motions to bracket them, but brackets could be added. Commissioner Powell and the rest of the Commissioners agreed, except for Commissioners Rainey and Turner. Commissioner Powell did not vote, so the Commissioners voted 4-2 in favor. Commissioner Klyce spoke about making some changes to language regarding wind energy in Section 2.75. Commissioners Turner and Powell felt that the statement was general enough. Commissioner Klyce was concerned about the term "protect scenic views." Commissioner Criss asked if the Comp Plan would be amended after the wind energy discussion, and Nick said no. Commissioner Rainey suggested removing the words "including sign and cell tower Code," and the Commissioners agreed. Vice Chair Brown spoke about page 45, policy 3.9.2. He had added language at the end regarding criteria on the destination resort map which includes all parks, "except as provided in DCC 22.23." Peter Gutowsky and Commissioner Turner discussed the LUBA destination resort appeal. Legal Counsel had said the procedures adopted this summer are under litigation. Commissioner Turner said he did not see these discussions as going back to the mapping criteria. Peter said he could discuss the LUBA appeal. Anything recommended as a modification to this chapter will be received by the Board and evaluated by the appellant, and it could be used as an argument that the changes the Board made were inconsistent. Oral arguments start next week, and LUBA will issue a decision. Commissioner Powell asked if the LUBA decision could be incorporated into the Comp Plan. Peter said if LUBA remands the destination map amendment procedures, it can render the formal map amendment as totally void. Ideally, once the remand order occurs, the County has 90 days to fix the deficiencies upon initiation of a program to address that remand. The Board opens a hearing, takes public testimony, deliberates, decides, etc. That decision can be appealed to LUBA. The Planning Commission's recommendation would stay in limbo until we hear from LUBA. Peter said we have legal vulnerability when it gets to the Board. It's cleaner to leave it alone right now and consider it when the Board takes up the Plan over a series of public hearings that will likely go beyond March. If we have the LUBA remand, this Planning Commission would recommend that we carry it forward to the Board. Commissioner Rainey agreed — if we make a change, we will undermine what we really want to accomplish. Vice Chair Brown said that he is not talking about the criteria. This section has been cited in 3.9.3 and we have overlooked it in 3.9.2. He would at least like to see this much brought back to the Board after March. Commissioner Criss asked if this was dependent on the date of the LUBA appeal filing. Peter said this happens to be the timing of these deliberations. Commissioner Criss mentioned the change in 3.9.4, and Commissioner Rainey said it does not contain language that would undermine Legal Counsel's opinion. There was no motion on the above, so the section stands as written. Motion: Commissioner Turner motioned to accept the changes of the January 6, 2010 memo with the corrections that were previously noted, policy 2.6.3 including brackets, and 2.7.5 to remove the language after "Code" and before 2. Seconded by Commissioner Powell. Motion passed. The Commissioners discussed the preamble. Commissioner Turner said that he did not intend to rewrite the last paragraph when he emailed to staff that he thought the last section needed to be edited and shortened. Staff did that, and he approved the changes. Vice Chair Brown submitted suggested language to be added to the preamble submitted by staff. The majority of the other Commissioners agreed that the first paragraph did not need to be added. They discussed the remaining two paragraphs of Vice Chair Brown's proposed paragraphs. Commissioner Powell and Vice Chair Brown discussed the definition of property rights and how to balance multiple interests. Commissioner Criss questioned the use of "wherever possible,"... in the third line of the staff preamble and asked when this would not apply, or whether it was ambiguous. Commissioner Criss felt the Plan had not adequately addressed property rights, and these needed to be more strongly stated in the preamble. He would like to strike the words "wherever possible," and was also interested in Vice Chair Brown's third suggested paragraph. Commissioner Rainey agreed with striking "wherever possible." He is not in favor of Vice Chair Brown's third paragraph. Commissioner Turner said he did not support Vice Chair Brown's sentences, and they brought to light that he said he had heard a desire expressed by the community for a balanced document. When Commissioner Turner sees the word "balanced" in the preamble, though, he wonders if people realize what that means. It may have different meanings depending on the situation. What is the expectation of "balanced"? Commissioners Rainey and Powell discussed more language options. e Motion: Vice Chair Brown motioned to accept the language as amended with changes above and as indicated in the strikeouts/additions on the page submitted by staff. Seconded by Commissioner Turner. Motion passed. Motion: Vice Chair Brown moved Comprehensive Plan as approved for Commissioner Turner. Motion passed. that the Planning Commission forward the consideration by the Board. Seconded by VI. PLANNING COMMISSION & STAFF COMMENTS Peter Gutowsky mentioned the public hearing on the destination resort map amendment on January 27 and the submittals sent in by Tia Lewis. Nick discussed the recent Board session on the work plan, which will be continued on February 2. VII. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, 4� Sher Buckner Administrative Secretary NEXT MEETING — January 27, 2011, at 5:30 p.m. at the Deschutes Services Center, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, OR 97701 0