Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-02-10 - Planning Commission MinutesI. CALL TO ORDER Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MINUTES DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER 1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OREGON, 97701 FEBRUARY 10, 2011— 5:30 P.m. 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; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. III. DELIBERATION: — An Ordinance Amending Title 18 of the Deschutes County Zoning Code Regulations for Small Wind Energy Systems — Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner. Commissioner Turner asked about violations of public meeting rules in connection with emails. Peter said that if there are more than three exchanges, it would constitute a quorum and require a public meeting. The emails Commissioner Turner references were just providing information and no discussion took place. Commissioner Powell asked Peter if he had any recommended changes to the ordinance. Peter said there will probably be some substantive policy discussions this evening. One issue is that our current draft prohibits lighting unless you are in an airport overlay zone and subject to FAA requirements. Another issue is that the aesthetics provision contains a reference to a paint palette that was lifted from a telecommunication towers provision, but Peter felt that the panelists we had in attendance previously made a good argument that the manufacturers do a good job of selecting colors, so perhaps we should strike that language. Commissioner Turner discussed trying to determine the appropriate scale. Wind energy associations base it on 100 kW. But our previous discussions concentrated on a 3 kW to 20 kW size as recommended by the panel, so the question becomes more one of height. Quality Services Performed with Pride Vice Chair Brown felt we needed a three-step process — one level where it's so small that if someone could put up a barn, a wind turbine would be permitted; a second level where notification and/or approval are required (or some other protective mechanism); and a third level involving commercial use with permits, etc. In Deschutes County, 71% of the parcels are three acres or less. Having a "base level" makes this much easier to deal with, and we should not regulate things that may not be problems. Commissioner Powell had looked at Department of Energy recommendations (80 meters above ground). The highest wind speed is at Paulina, around 24 mph at 80 meters. If you use the Energy Trust figures, the only places that will meet their criteria are Terrebonne, Smith Rock, Deschutes River Woods, parts of Ward Road and a few others east of town that are all 11-10 mph. Everything else is below that and would not qualify for the Energy Trust. La Pine is only 7 mph. Sisters is only 8. Commissioner Turner felt that our consideration probably should not include economics. People who are ham operators, for example, spend a lot of money to build their antennas. People who want to put in a wind facility are doing it for other reasons besides economics such as making a statement, getting back some of their costs, etc. It's a no-win economic situation. Commissioner Powell said he had also looked at blade sizes. If you go to 12 kW, it requires a 22 -ft diameter. One to two kW is around 12 feet. Maybe we should look at 3 kW for a start if 71 % of the lots in the County are small. Commissioner Klyce mentioned seeing a single wind tower along the road and felt that one is not intrusive to an area at all — but a large group would be different. If the towers aren't allowed where physics indicates they should be, there is no point in putting them up. Commissioner Powell wondered about putting one up in Woodside. There are 2.5 -acre lots, CCNR's that prohibit them without a subdivision waiver, and you'd have to go up 60 feet. If we were going to allow 3 kW or less outright, up to a certain number of feet, and there would not be site plan review, would they need a waiver from the neighbors? How do you make sure people work with their neighbors? Commissioner Klyce spoke about submitting a plot plan for building a house. There is a reference in the Code to having a licensed professional do this, which he feels is not necessary and adds expense. If he builds a pole barn, it has to be engineered so it does not fall down, and it can be put right up next to the setback. Do we need a different type of setback for wind towers? If we use drawings that aren't site specific, maybe we do not need this. Commissioner Turner said that he did not think the setback is a safety issue. He sees the setback more as a neighbor issue, more of a noise issue, than a building (or in this case tower) safety issue. There are places in the County that are 6,000 feet versus places that are 2,000 feet with different load conditions due to weather, ice, etc. In his business, an Oregon stamp is required so that someone from out of state does not use canned information. Commissioner Klyce felt it would be easy to site towers in a place like Woodside Ranch. If you have a 70 or 80 -foot monopole due to the trees, the tower would blend in. If you use 1.5 times the tower height as a setback, a 2.5 -acre lot is about 225 feet across. When you throw in the setback requirement for that, you've eliminated using a tower. Commissioner Powell mentioned that the residents of Woodside, for example, would not like towers. We should be able to come up with some reasonable requirements. Vice Chair Brown agreed with Peter that we should remove the restriction of color from the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Turner agreed except that maybe we should simplify it so that someone does not use a kaleidoscope of color. Vice Chair Turner discussed using language from Jefferson County. Commissioner Turner suggested we instruct staff to use as a guideline 431.4 paragraph 8, Visual Impacts, from Jefferson County, specifically (b) regarding colors. The other Commissioners all agreed. Commissioner Klyce said he would be happy with 10-20 kW being permitted outright; Commissioner Criss talked about 50-100 kW being a commercial level. Nick and the Commissioners discussed 0-10 kW being permitted outright and greater than 10 kW requiring site plan review. Commissioner Powell wondered if we could tie part of this to lot size. If someone has less than five acres, they could go up to 3 kW without site plan review; if you have ten or more acres, you could go up in kW and height as well — without site plan review unless it is over a certain height, needs a lattice versus a monopole, etc. Vice Chair Brown wondered if it would be better to use a setback rather than lot size — if the tower is 50 feet tall and the setback is 100 feet, the lot would have to have at least 100 feet in all directions to the property line, for example. Commissioner Powell thought that the smaller lots were going to be in platted subdivisions where there is more population density. Larger lot sizes would solve the problem with density. Commissioner Criss said he had spoken to an insurance agent and asked about the liability insurance requirements for a tower. There is no threat because a tower failing is such a rare occurrence — insurance companies do not consider it a risk, and a tower does not increase insurance costs. Commissioner Rainey felt that setbacks are important so that a tower does not impinge on neighbors' views — a neighbor could put one in a setback so that it does not interfere with his own view but which might bother other neighbors. Commissioner Klyce spoke about the advantage of putting a tower closer to the house due to power loss with increased distance. Chair Irvine felt that setbacks would help the process of reducing the amount of regulations. Commissioner Turner felt that connecting tower height to setback provides a lot more flexibility; there are a lot of differently -shaped parcels. Peter said that the current setback is 1.5 times the height of the wind tower to the nearest property lines. Vice Chair Brown felt that the guy wires should not be included in the setback. Commissioner Turner asked if there was any consensus about the noise — can we go with 60 dB at the property line? The other Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Klyce wanted to delete (C)(7)(b) regarding using a design professional for the site plan, page 1 of Exhibit B. If a site plan by a design professional is required, this adds to the cost of the system. A licensed professional isn't required for a site plan for a house/barn/garage now. Peter mentioned that 7(a), (b) and (c) were recommended by our Building Division, so we would check with them and convey a difference of opinion to the Board. The Commissioners agreed that this was not necessary for a tower. Chair Irvine felt it would be necessary to have a licensed professional for the tower foundation but not the site plan. The Commissioners agreed with Commissioner Klyce. Chair Irvine suggested permitting 0-10 kW outright if a tower meets other criteria, and a site plan be required from 11 kW up. The Commissioners agreed. Commissioner Klyce suggested requiring a conditional use permit for 100 kW, and Commissioner Turner suggested 50. Peter asked if we would be requiring a site plan as well as conditional use and Nick said yes. The Commissioners discussed requiring a conditional use permit for 50+ kW to 100 M. Commissioner Turner added that height and noise limits would be constraints, as well. The Commissioners discussed how to measure height — whether it is blade height or tower height, and how it relates to setbacks. Commissioner Klyce discussed lot sizes and restricting the majority of the properties in the County since they are under three acres. It is written into the Comp Plan that we need to consider alternate types of energy, so we should not be restrictive. Nick suggested using different ratios for setbacks — under 10 kW would be .5, for example, over 10-50 is 1.0, and above 50 would be 1.5 times the tower height. Commissioner Klyce and Commissioner Turner wondered whether the word "commercial" should be used, when people would be selling power back to the power company in a residential situation. Commissioner Turner wondered about people who are off the grid and want to generate electricity for themselves and their neighbors, charging a reasonable fee. Are they considered commercial? What if the neighbors have access to the grid but choose not to use it? Nick and Vice Chair Brown spoke about other height limits in the County for ham radio antennas, cell towers, etc. Peter discussed land use distinctions in the Code. Commissioner Criss spoke about tower height in relation to wind speed and productivity. Chair Irvine requested that staff propose a matrix and also come back with some examples of setbacks. Peter and Commissioner Turner considered the .5 height/setback ratio, which may allow towers that are very tall on smaller lots. IV. PLANNING DIVISION WORK PLAN UPDATE — Nick Lelack. Commissioner Rainey asked if South County was happy with the Board's decision to wait to start their plan. Commissioner Criss said they discussed this last week both with the CAG and a number of private citizens who were all fine with the concept. Vice Chair Brown asked about the Board's direction on event venues. Nick said in mid to late March/early April, staff will prepare a matrix of options to give us direction as to what they would like to see in a draft ordinance. Staff will draft the ordinance, issue the 45 -day notice and during that time we will have work sessions with the Planning Commission (no public hearings). They can review the ordinance, forward it without changes, make recommendations, etc., and then hearings will be conducted with the Board. Vice Chair Brown asked if code enforcement cases were proceeding, and Nick said that had been the Board's direction but we can raise it and see if it is the same now that we have a new member. V. PLANNING COMMISSION & STAFF COMMENTS. Nick said that the draft Comprehensive Plan is now on the website. Chair Irvine asked what we are submitting to the Board. Nick said there is now only one version and anything that staff did not agree with is shown with brackets (there are not many). Chair Irvine requested a hard copy of what is being submitted to the Board. Vice Chair Brown suggested only printing pages that showed changes. Commissioners Criss and Powell said they did not need new copies. Commissioner Rainey asked if we needed to have public hearings about the changes in the wind energy ordinance. Nick said we did not but could if we wanted to. Commissioner 0 Rainey felt it might be good practice if there are substantial changes, and Nick mentioned that it would go to the Board for public hearings. Commissioner Criss mentioned the draft legislation regarding Sunriver and wondered if staff or the Board had anything to do with drafting the legislation. Nick said no in both cases. VI. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Resp ctfully submitted, Lk Sher Buckner Administrative Secretary NEXT MEETING — March 10, 2011, at 5:30 p.m. at the Deschutes Services Center, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, OR 97701