Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning October 7 2008WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Planning and Development Committee October 7, 2008 Committee Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Laurie Caskey- Schreiber Also Present: Barbara Brenner Sam Crawford Absent: Carl Weimer COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL 1. AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN WHATCOM COUNTY AND THE CITY OF BELLINGHAM FOR THE PURPOSE OF ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 265 ACRES IN THE VICINITY OF PACIFIC HIGHWAY AND ALDRICH ROAD (AB2008 -347) Kate Cook, Planning and Development Services Department, stated this is a typical amendment. It is amendment #15 to the interlocal agreement. The City of Bellingham approved this amendment on September 29. Fleetwood asked if there is anything controversial about this. Cook stated there is not. One thing that makes this amendment different is item two of the amendment. It says the City and County public works departments will coordinate to manage flooding in the annexed area. There is a drainage that isn't being annexed that affects the annexed areas. County staff is comfortable with the language to address that issue. Both parties are aware of the situation and there are a number of solutions. Brenner stated they keep annexing more property. Interlocal agreements, including this one, should include wording that says services provided for development should be provided either by the developer who pays for the services and collects a latecomer fee or by the jurisdiction who pays for it. She doesn't want to see a situation similar to what happened on Bakerview Road. The City made an improvement district and charged an enormous amount of money to people on the road. Two people lost their homes because of it. Others barely made it by. People expressed their concerns about making the improvements to the City Council. People who don't develop right away or who don't want to hook into services should not be charged for services. Caskey- Schreiber asked Councilmember Brenner to write out her proposed amendment so they can consider it. She's sympathetic to the concern. Brenner stated she suggests adding language to the agreement, "All annexations shall provide for two options for service extension. Option one would be developer- financed with latecomer fees. Option two would be the funded by the municipality as part of their capital facilities, with latecomer fees as people hook on to the service." Cook stated the Planning and Development Committee, 10/7/2008, Page 1 City of Bellingham passed this agreement already, and an amendment would have to go through the City of Bellingham process again. Brenner asked when the appropriate time is for her to bring this up for any annexations. She's always told that the time is not appropriate. Cook stated they are working on the 1997 interlocal agreement next year. They are going to do substantial changes to the existing interlocal agreement at that time. That would be a good time to add that language to the agreement. David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Department Director, stated this is an amendment to the exiting agreement. The existing agreement provides the basic framework for how annexations occur between the City of Bellingham and Whatcom County. Adding a new subject would be outside the framework of the existing agreement. The original Act covering annexations doesn't even require an interlocal agreement between the City and County. The State law says the County sets urban growth areas, and the cities can annex from it. Anything they work out regarding how annexations work has to be cooperative with the City of Bellingham. The County has no jurisdiction over annexations, other than through the Boundary Review Board. Things like this must be negotiated between the City and County. Introduce this subject at the time of the next annexation agreement, due in January. It expired, and has been extended twice. They are collecting comments. He would like more details about the concern so they can have that specific negotiation with the City. Brenner stated last time this was extended, she brought it up then, and was told the exact same thing. It always seems like this is not the time. Those kinds of agreements are found in other jurisdictions. Stalheim stated this is just an amendment. The only reason there is an amendment is to recognize the new area. In this case, the one unique circumstance was the drainage issue. Caskey- Schreiber asked if this is not the right time to bring this issue forward, and if they will draft a new agreement in January. She asked that process. Stalheim stated that draft agreement would come to the Planning Committee. Caskey- Schreiber stated that would be the time to address the change. The suggested language doesn't really get at the issue. There are always protests about latecomer fees. She wants a true option for those citizens who aren't financially able to hook up to services when they become available. Crawford stated they would deal with that issue when designating urban growth areas. He asked the problem with annexations. Brenner stated people along Bakerview Road did nothing to their properties, and were charged for the upgrades. The Council should take a position that this is how they want to do this from now on. The County represents those people. Fleetwood stated discuss that very item during Planning Committee and request that it be considered in the negotiation. Caskey- Schreiber moved to recommend approval to the full Council. Motion carried unanimously. Planning and Development Committee, 10/7/2008, Page 2 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 1. DISCUSSION OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO AMEND WCC TITLE 20 TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES FOR THE INSTALLATION OF WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS IN WHATCOM COUNTY (AB2008 -270A) David Stalheim, Planning and Development Services Department, stated this effort was a collaboration between the Planning Department and Executive's Office. The Council isn't required to schedule a public hearing, which the Planning Commission held. If the Council wants to schedule a public hearing, give staff and the Council Clerk that direction. At this point, it's not scheduled. Alex Cleanthous, Planning and Development Services Department, stated this was a group effort among the Planning Department, Executive's Office, and local renewable energy installers. He gave a staff report on what this code change would and would not allow. This proposal is consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals, specifically those in the utilities chapter. It is also consistent with Growth Management Act goal ten. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) official determined non - significance. The Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval. Fleetwood asked if anyone objected to this to the Planning Commission. Cleanthous stated no one objected. Cleanthous stated there is a substitute version, submitted earlier. Terry Meyer, Convivium Renewable Energy, stated he worked to develop this ordinance with County staff. The ordinance is about small wind energy systems, which are up to 100 kilowatts (kW). A second category of medium -scale wind energy system is larger than 100 kW. Puget Sound Energy allows small generators of renewable energy to sell that energy back to Puget Sound Energy at a fixed rate. Their limit on that rate is two megawatts, which is 2,000 kW. Use 2,000 kW number as the maximum size allowed outright. That would be from one single large wind turbine. It is much below what a utility - scale installation would look like, which would be 50 of those turbines. It would be appropriate for a rural, farm, or industrial facility to power itself and possibly generate some additional income. This is information he came across after the Planning Commission public hearing. Caskey- Schreiber asked how many kilowatts is needed for an average home. Meyer stated an average American home draws 1.5 kilowatts. An average turbine in Whatcom County will operate at 15 -25 percent of the maximum output capability, on average. Fleetwood asked if County staff have considered Mr. Meyer's suggestion. Meyer stated they have not. Stalheim stated the larger turbines are allowed as a conditional use permit in certain zones. The intent was to allow smaller systems as an administrative approval use and the larger would be allowed with a conditional use. Meyer stated allow larger than 100 kW in agriculture and forestry zones. Above 100 kW, there are rebuilt old turbines from the 1980's. The smallest new turbine above 100 kW is 600 kW because the industry is moving to that scale. Change the number 500 kW to 2,000 kW for the four zones. Planning and Development Committee, 10/7/2008, Page 3 Caskey- Schreiber stated that's too big for her comfort level. Fleetwood asked the specific issue. He asked if the issue is the size of the turbines and the nuisance to neighbors. He asked if the issue is a visual thing. Crawford stated they would want some public input on that size of operation. Brenner stated they would only be allowed in the resource zones. Crawford stated the windmill has three blades, each over 185 feet, and the tower would be 300 feet tall. Caskey- Schreiber stated anything over 500 kW should have to include public input. Brenner stated allow a unit in- between those sizes that are approved administratively in those resource zones. Meyer stated the ordinance is very good as it is. He supports it. Brenner stated the ordinance is great. The ordinance should indicate that it was sponsored by and proposed by Councilmembers Brenner and Weimer. She asked if the tower heights are from the ground up. She asked if they can go on top of houses. Cleanthous stated they didn't list it as a specific use. Wayne Harrison, Planning and Development Services Department, stated people can put the generator on their roof. The height is measured from the closest adjacent grade, which is the ground, to the hub of the generator. Brenner asked if it should be measured to the top of the arc of the blade. Harrison stated they didn't try to address blade height because that could change when the generator is eventually replaced on the top of the tower, due to changing technology. Cleanthous stated it would also affect the setbacks to the top of the blade. Brenner stated that rooftop towers should be measured from the top of the building, not the ground, because the entire building would have to fall over. If people can put them on top of their homes, they may have access to more wind. Harrison stated a potential limiting factor of a turbine on a roof would be the forces that transfer to the structure from the tower. The building has to be able to support the tower, the torque from the generator, and the wind. Practically, it would be difficult to put large, tall generators on the roof of a structure. Most people who mount generators on their roofs will put in a relatively small, low -scale system. Brenner stated the worst that would happen is that it would damage the property of the system owner. The setbacks from the property line should be the height of the tower only, not the whole building. Harrison stated it depends on where the building is located and where the neighbors are. Part of the setback requirement is to address aesthetics and neighbor concerns. Brenner stated they make energy, so they are beautiful. Someone might not like it, no matter what it is. This is important. A system on top of a roof would be less obtrusive. Planning and Development Committee, 10/7/2008, Page 4 Caskey- Schreiber asked how they are going to address concerns of allowing these things in urban growth areas (UGA's) and high density areas, and how to handle wildlife safety. She asked the wildlife protections and protections for neighborhood aesthetics. Cleanthous stated the setback requirement limits possible locations for these systems. Urban size lots won't likely be able to have a wind tower. If property owners don't exceed the zoning type, they would meet the setback requirements of that zone. Setbacks could be less as long as they don't exceed the maximum height allowed in the zone. Research shows there are minimal affects to birds. Buildings and glass have more effects on injuring birds. The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Audubon Society support wind energy. The Department of Fish and Wildlife commented on the proposal and asked the County to follow its wind power siting guidelines. The County staff didn't feel that set of guidelines was appropriate for every applicant. They're trying to streamline the process. The larger utility scale size would go through those guidelines during the conditional use permit procedures. All towers will have to go through SEPA. Caskey- Schreiber asked if there is no scenario where a wind tower would block a view in Birch Bay, and the County would get sued. Cleanthous stated court cases have determined that they can't justify taking down a wind tower because of visual impacts. They didn't add anything to the code. Crawford stated that. Birch Bay Village will probably soon adopt a covenant saying they can't be built. Harrison stated the ordinance has an. exception to allow a system if the height doesn't exceed the height restriction of the underlying zone. Under that circumstance, the setback applied is simply the setback of the underlying zone. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Crawford asked if multiple towers on a large parcel of land would affect a potential subdivision layout. He asked if he would have to draw his property lines based on the location of the already- existing towers. Stalheim stated he would have to. They have to conform to the requirements. Otherwise, the land division process would create a non- conforming situation, which they don't allow. The choice would be to take down the towers or redesign the subdivision. Crawford asked the cost of a 100 -foot tower and how many kilowatt hours of energy will generate per year, relative to the use of the home. Cleanthous stated most systems will generate about 20 percent of their maximum output capability. Every system comes with a rated kilowatt hour output, which is the system at its maximum. Crawford stated the kilowatt hour is purely a factor of how fast the wind can turn the turbine. In reality, that has nothing to do with what it's going to actually generate. If the average power generation is 20 percent of 9,400, then it generates about 1,850 kilowatt hours per year, compared to the draw of 9,400 kilowatt hours that a residence needs. He doesn't understand why anyone has any motivation to sell electricity to the utilities if the unit produces only one -fifth of the electricity needed for the house. Caskey- Schreiber stated it reduces the power bill. Meyer stated a ten kilowatt turbine may generate an average of ten percent capacity on a fairly windy site. That would produce an average of one kilowatt, which is a modestly Planning and Development Committee, 10/7/2008, Page 5 efficient household. A 100 kW wind turbine could power a small farm operation. The larger residential turbines, in the range of 10 to 20 kW, can power a house. Crawford asked how much they cost. Meyer stated a ten kW turbine costs between $50,000 and $80,000 to install. Crawford stated there is no payback on that. Caskey- Schreiber stated some people want to stay off the grid. Meyer stated there are federal tax incentives that will pay for 30 percent of that cost. There are other grants that will support the systems. Puget Sound Energy will pay a rate for the excess electricity. Brenner stated these units will come down in price as more and more people build them. They need to leave the door open to being flexible. This is about developing green energy. Crawford stated they will go up in price, not down. Brenner referenced section 20.14.030, the language that says a wind energy systems not used for 12 months has to be upgraded to meet this ordinance. She asked why that language is included. Harrison stated that unlike a tower maintained by a utility or company, these systems will be on private property. They may initially be installed by someone who is knowledgeable and motivated to maintain the system, but property owners and circumstances change. The next property owner may not be responsible and not maintain the system. Staff wanted language that allows the County to address a situation where a system became a hazard. Brenner stated they could say that about many things. Require an inspection at time of sale, similar to onsite sewer system (OSS) regulations. The effect of the language is that the system would have to be torn down, and an entirely new system would have to be installed. Harrison stated one could hire a third -party . consultant to help upgrade and maintain the system. Brenner stated she doesn't know that. Harrison stated a system could be repaired, upgraded, and made operable. He doesn't know how much that would cost. Brenner stated provide flexibility. They already have setbacks to protect neighbors. At some point, they have to allow for personal responsibility. Fleetwood asked whether they should put this out in a public hearing, even though it's not required. Stalheim stated it's up to the Council. Staff could schedule a public hearing if the Council wants. He's concerned about the staff work plan schedule if this goes on. He has very limited staff time to assign to this subject. Crawford asked if white is an acceptable color for a system. Harrison stated it is, if that's what the manufacturer provides as a standards color. That part of the code was based on contractor feedback. Most taller towers will have a brushed metal finish, and will not be painted. Nothing in the ordinance prevents a white windmill. OTHER BUSINESS Planning and Development Committee, 10/7/2008, Page 6 1 2 There was no other business. 3 4 5 ADJOURN 6 7 The meeting adjourned at 4:09 p.m. 1 11 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription 12 13 14 ATTEST: 17 Y C ee 18 • • �� 19 O . 20 Da—a Gown- a *s�ounr i derk 21 = •. _ STATE OF* 9sH1NG�� ON WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON J eth Fle ood, Committee Chair Planning and Development Committee, 10/7/2008, Page 7