Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-02-24 - Planning Commission Minutes0 1- I. 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 24, 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 and Richard Klyce. Absent: Todd Turner. Staff present were Nick Lelack, Planning Director; Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary. Minutes of November 18 and December 2, 2010 were approved with minor changes. The Commissioners decided to show only the vote results for motions in the future. H. PUBLIC COMMENTS III. DELIBERATION (continued): — An Ordinance Amending Title 18 of the Deschutes County Zoning Code Regulations for Small Wind Energy Systems — Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner. Peter discussed his Memo to the Planning Commissioners. Chair Irvine and Peter discussed utility lines and easements. Commissioner Klyce discussed making it as easy as possible for people who want to put up towers. Peter and Commissioner Klyce discussed needing certification for construction but not for a site plan. A non-professional can submit an application, but a professional would need to sign design plans for the tower. Chair Irvine and Peter spoke about a 15 kW/36 foot high system being permitted outright. Peter suggested adding language about a system "other than described in (b), above," so there is a condition that warrants an outright use, i.e., a 37 -foot system that is still 15 kW would need site plan review. Nick, Peter and Commissioner Powell discussed site plan review and conditional use permits, and a matrix of requirements and permitted systems. Commissioners Klyce and Powell discussed towers that would be permitted by the County but located on properties with CCNR's that ban wind towers. The County is not in the position of enforcing them, so the homeowners' associations would be involved. Commissioner Rainey said the County would issue a permit, but if the CCNR's would not Quality Services Perfonned with Pride permit a tower, the recourse is for the homeowners' association to take action to enforce the restrictions. This does not need to be mentioned in a County document. Vice Chair Brown felt that height and setback should be mentioned together. Once you get past the 60 dB restriction, if you can stand at the property line, look at an angle of declination and use a ratio as a primary consideration, it does not matter if you have a 1 -acre parcel or a 30,000 -acre parcel. If you have a 0-10 kW tower or 50 feet, whichever is less, this could be a setback, for example. In the 10-50 range, if the ratio is 1:1 it would stay that way. The height of the tower could be limited to the setback from the property line. Commissioner Klyce said this would be a problem with the number of small lots in the County. Commissioner Powell mentioned that we are talking about an outright use, too, not outright prohibition. If someone wanted to put up a 100 -foot tower on a 1 -acre lot, they'd have to have a conditional use permit. Nick summarized the County's process for site plan review and approval. Staff could be directed to develop a fee for site plan review for small wind energy systems since we do not have one that fits neatly with these systems. Peter mentioned that we would probably see systems that are between 0-10 kW, which under the current thinking would be outright permitted. Larger systems would require additional scrutiny. Commissioner Klyce felt that small systems should be permitted with the least hassle possible. Commissioner Rainey and Commissioner Klyce discussed systems being allowed on smaller acreages and whether this was a problem. Peter discussed the issue of the drop zone falling on a right-of-way or another person's property. If the setback ratio goes below 1:1 and there is an application filed, we will be hearing about it from the neighboring property owner. The County may be put in an awkward position. Other localities and states have a process where if the drop zone interferes with the property line, the neighbors become involved. Commissioner Rainey said he liked the recommendations proposed by Peter, plus prohibit systems on lots smaller than one acre. Commissioner Klyce asked if the 36 -foot systems could be permitted on smaller acreages, and Commissioner Rainey said he would be in favor of this. Commissioner Powell asked if having a condition to deal with some of these issues, such as a 1 -acre lot and someone wanting a 100 -foot tower — if is there something saying that if the height of the tower exceeded setbacks, if the landowner had waivers from adjacent property owners, then the owner would not have to go through a land use action. Vice Chair Brown felt that it was not the Planning Commission's job to protect the landowners from each other. We should not try to protect adjacent property owners from a wind tower — we should come up with a reasonable set of guidelines. Commissioner Powell wondered if this should be part of the second tier/conditional use. Motion: Commissioner Klyce motioned to adopt the criteria he set forth in his table and eliminate the "'/z" reference and instead indicate "the tower height or 50 feet, whichever is less," on the first line, and 75 feet or less," on the second line (i.e., disregard the handwritten additions). Seconded by Vice Chair Brown. Discussion: Commissioner Klyce said that the towers are assembled lying down on the ground, so there has to be an area on the lot long enough to lay out the entire tower, just to provide the information. Chair Irvine questioned the 0-10 or 10-50 kW - if someone has to go up 100 feet for a wind source for either height, there might be different setbacks 2 because of generator size. Commissioner Klyce spoke about necessary sacrifices for reducing the carbon footprint. Perhaps in the future this would even generate a certain social status in the future and not be regarded as an eyesore. We should keep the doors as wide open as possible. Commissioner Rainey spoke about having more of a gradual approach and permitting more as time goes on, rather than having more permissibility now. He agrees with the 1:1 on lots of more than one acre and feels that the limits set forth in the staff recommendations are valid. Peter spoke about Commissioner Klyce's submittal permitting a tower height of 36 feet or less outright. Vice Chair Brown mentioned that he had an issue with (c) — a renter or tenant could have a say in this, so it should say "landowner." Vote: A straw vote was taken. The vote was split 3-3. Commissioner Powell said he was okay with the 1:1 but would like to see an escalation reviewed; 0-10 kW permitted outright is fine but larger systems should require a site plan. Commissioner Klyce agreed with site plan review from 10-50 kW but not with conditional use permitting for larger systems, because of the costs involved. Commissioner Powell wanted review and public input with larger systems — if we look at a majority of units being in the 1-10 kW range, once you start getting into the larger systems, you would want these systems higher due to needing more wind. Would a site plan review be adequate for a 100 kW unit? If this was considered for Knott Road, would site plan review be sufficient? Vice Chair Brown referred to the County doing an intuitive review as to whether the view was affected, which Nick mentioned previously. Nick said the other issue that will come up is that if there are any objections from neighbors, it will automatically be sent to a public hearing which requires a $3,000 hearings officer deposit. This may be enough to kill a project. Vice Chair Brown said that he personally went to every neighbor on his project, so we need to recognize that an applicant who is serious about a wind tower would probably do the same thing. Amended Motion: Vice Chair Brown and Peter discussed permitting 0-10 outright; if it's 10-50 it would need a site plan review; and over 50 it would be the same approach. Commissioner Klyce said that the problem is if you have a 1:1 ration on a 1 -acre lot, you have only a 50 -square -foot area to put an 80 -foot tower, which cuts out too many of the smaller properties. Vice Chair Brown withdrew his amendment. He said there are two things we need to address — even with the 1:1, in a 1 -acre lot you could put up an 80 -foot tower, less as you move from the center of the lot. A 1 -acre lot is not a big piece of property. We have not yet addressed a landowner being able to pull a permit, but then the property is zoned for 1 -acre lots. The size of the lot is not as important as the zoning. Chair Irvine agreed with Commissioner Rainey that we should take a gradual approach. He wants to be conservative initially and if it is too restrictive, we can revisit it later. Commissioner Criss said there is also a natural restriction of necessary height to get sufficient wind. Amended Motion: Vice Chair Brown amended his motion to include site plan review for 10-50 kW. Seconded by Commissioner Klyce. Amended motion passed. Motion: Commissioner Powell suggested making the setbacks 1:1 instead of 50 feet and 75 feet. Seconded by Commissioner Rainey. Vote split 3-3. Motion: Commissioner Klyce proposed amending the original motion to increase the 0-10 kW, 50 -foot height to 70 feet. Motion seconded by Commissioner Criss. 3 Discussion: Commissioner Klyce said he is trying to preserve an area in as small a parcel as possible to do some good and get the best wind access possible. We are probably looking at towers in the 70- to 80 -foot range. Commissioner Rainey felt that the setback should be the height of the tower. An adjacent property owner would not want to look at a disproportionately tall tower or worry abut it falling over. He went to the recent earthquake presentation and saw some real examples of things falling over. We are overdue for the earthquake of large magnitude — this probably won't impact us as much as it will on the coast, but big towers may be affected. Vice Chair Brown was opposed to the 70 -foot change. Maybe we should not go that far at this time, and he is comfortable using the height of the tower for the setback. Vote: Motion did not pass. Vote on original Motion to adopt Commissioner Klyce's chart changing the 10.1 and 50 kW to permitted with site plan. Motion did not pass. Motion: Commissioner Rainey moved to use Commissioner Klyce's chart but eliminate the 50 and 75 feet for tower height, include the 60 dB limit and include site plan review for 50.1-100 kW. Motion passed. Commissioner Criss felt that the Commissioners should consider 15 kW rather than 10 Motion: Commissioner Criss motioned to use 0-15 kW rather than 0-10 kW on the first tier of Commissioner Klyce's chart, and change the second tier to 15.1-50. Seconded by Commissioner Klyce. Motion passed. Motion: Commissioner Rainey motioned to limit criteria to lots of one acre or greater. Seconded by Vice Chair Brown. After discussion, Commissioner Rainey withdrew his motion. IV. WORK SESSION: Transportation System Plan Update — Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner. Peter discussed Tech Memo #4 and handouts showing proposed intersection improvements and proposed travel/turn lane improvements. He discussed the economics of roundabouts versus grade -separated interchanges. Public hearings on the TSP should begin sometime in June. Vice Chair Brown and Peter spoke about roundabouts and funding. Vice Chair Brown was concerned about using a large truck for his business on a roundabout proposed on Knott Road. Commissioner Klyce asked about capacity for roundabouts for double- and triple -trailers. Commissioner Criss mentioned problems in la Pine with the McDonald's area and Finley Butte and wondered why they are not addressed. Peter said they are within the City of La Pine but the County is still involved and has helped with funding. V. PLANNING COMMISSION & STAFF COMMENTS. Peter Gutowsky said that Richard Whitman has been selected by the Governor to be his Interim Natural Resources Advisor. He also spoke about the bill proposed by the Cyrus El family which would permit Aspen lakes to develop outside of the State's land use system. The 2010 census population numbers have been released. There is a three-page spreadsheet comparing the numbers with Portland State's estimates and a Deschutes County Coordinator's forecast. Commissioner Criss spoke about the Pine Forest Development. The portion of the bill regarding the sanitary authority has been dropped from the bill. There is concern in South County about creating any new lots. Vice Chair Brown asked Peter Gutowsky about the status of the Comprehensive Plan. Peter said the hearing dates have been scheduled and there is one more work session with the Board. Chair Irvine said he had attended the Board's work session last Wednesday and staff did a good job of explaining the process and answering questions. Peter added that we are expecting the LUBA decision on destination resort mapping this coming Monday. VI. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, tt 756,C_A, 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