No preview available
2003-1054-Minutes for Meeting June 18,2003 Recorded 7/8/2003DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS ^} NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK w 2003.1054 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 07/08/1003 04;06;55 PM IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII IIII III IIII 2003-1054 DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK CERTIFICATE PAGE This page must be included if document is re-recorded. Do Not remove from original document. Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1130 NW Harriman St., Bend, OR 97701-1947 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 388-4752 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION ON PROPOSED HOME OCCUPATION ORDINANCE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 189 2003 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1130 NW Harriman St., Bend Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Tom De Wolf and Michael M. Daly. Also present were Catherine Morrow, Tom Anderson and Damian Syrnyk of Community Development; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; and nine other citizens. No media representatives were present. The purpose of the meeting was for the Commissioners and staff of Community Development to discuss questions raised by citizens and by the Commissioners at a previous public hearing regarding a proposed home occupation ordinance. Chair Dennis Luke opened the meeting at 2: 00 p.m. He clarified that Legal Counsel has said that it is up to the Commissioners as to whether they will take public testimony at this work session. He said he personally does not have a problem with that. The other two Commissioners concurred. He then said that when staff is done, public comment would be allowed. He asked that anyone who wishes to testify or who might have a question to please sign in and be sure to come to the front to use the microphone. (A copy of the sign -in sheet is attached as Exhibit D) Damian Syrnyk explained the new documents that he distributed, which were provided to the Commissioners last week. These documents include a staff report, a discussion draft in color showing highlights and changes, and a one-page summary of the work session of May 14. He added that they have also been posted to the County website, and copies are available at today's meeting. (Copies of these documents are attached as Exhibits A, B and C.) Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 1 of 42 Pages He stated that this is the Board's second work session on the proposed home occupation ordinance. He also said for the record that he received two new pieces of written testimony. One was a June 9 e-mail from Mr. Thomas Bray, which was forwarded to the Board last week. And on Monday a fax from Tina Lyons was received. Copies of this fax were made available to the Board at this time. LUKE: For the public's benefit, could you summarize those? SYRNYK: I'll do my best. Mr. Bray did a fairly lengthy letter. If I remember correctly, he is interested in doing a home-based business involving auto body repair or auto repair. He had asked the County to consider home occupations as a way for folks to get started in their business. The letter that I have in front of me from Tina Lyons addressed her concerns about having to submit a code enforcement complaint regarding a home occupation involving a manicure business. There are a couple of goals that I would propose for the Board today. One is getting your recommendation on what the next review draft would include. The other is getting your direction to see if that draft would be better for a public hearing, and setting a date so we can notify folks who have participated throughout this process about when the next hearing date will be. One of the things that we did do for this work session is mail a notice on June 5 to everyone who is on our mailing list. I also sent out an e-mail version of that notice on June 4. So, I am hopeful that we either notified folks through e-mail or regular mail, or both. Also, Anna Johnson did a press release on June 6. Hopefully folks got the word that you would be meeting today and talking about this ordinance. LUKE: There is another option, I guess; that is that we decide to leave things just like they are, and not proceed with any changes. SYRNYK: That is an option. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 2 of 42 Pages So, what I am going to do now is not go through all the issues that I've laid out in the memorandum or in the draft. What I would propose is to begin going point -by - point and getting your direction and input, if you're satisfied with the change or if you've got something you want to discuss with other members of the Board on the record while you're here. And then, once we've gone through all of those issues, you'll see this is nearly ready or can be ready for a public hearing. Then we can see if there are any public comments. CATHERINE MORROW: And I'd like to know, so that we allow ample time to hear from the public, how much time you have. We were hoping to wrap this up in an hour. LUKE: So am I. MORROW: Okay. So, I'm glad to see so many members of the public here. It would be useful for us to know how many of them want to say something, so that we can allow plenty of time for that. DEWOLF: They may not know at this point, until we've been through some of this stuff. MORROW: That's true, too. Two of them for sure want to say something. So, I guess, as Damian said, our idea is to have this be the final work session so that, if the Board chooses, we can take a document forward for public hearing. So these points that we want to go through that are in this staff report, we don't have to reach a recommendation from you, or even a consensus. If that's not easy to do, we're probably going to say, okay, we're just going to make something up and take it to public hearing, so that we can get through this. I just wanted to tell you that this is our strategy. LUKE: One thing, going through the one that was e-mailed to us. I have three questions. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 3 of 42 Pages One is, in type 1 businesses, which is in most residential areas that we have in the County, you took out "does not occupy more than 25% of the floor area of the dwelling, not including the attached garage." Evidently that was a two -to -one vote, because I don't believe -- I don't support that. This is a primary residential area, and to say that a business -- according to this, a business could occupy 95% of the residential area, and people could have a little apartment in there. That, to me, takes away the entire character of the residential neighborhood. So, if it was a two -to -one vote, that's fine. I'm just pointing that out. In the type 2, the following are not allowed: catering. I'm not sure -- there are some caterers that could be a small one-person with two employees. Even with one employee, they could cater a reasonable sized event. In fact, I think some of these people do it here. I am just wondering why catering was left out. Any idea? SYRNYK: If I recall, the Planning Commission had discussion about catering and the concern about it growing into something involving a commercial kitchen in a residential area. LUKE: Oh, you mean, if it took more than 25% of the building? Turn the whole house into a kitchen. SYRNYK: You raised a legitimate question about whether this or other uses should be excluded from consideration. I think catering is pretty non -intrusive on people. It's no more than what you do in a house anyway, is to cook. I just asked if there was a reason. But that was from the Planning Commission? SYRNYK: Yes. LUKE: Now, the 10,000 -pound vehicles and the 3,000 -pound vehicles, does that take care of your concern, Commissioner Daly? Is that a pickup? What's a pickup? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 4 of 42 Pages DALY: Well, that one person who testified here, he had an F-350 Ford pickup, which weighs more than 10,000 pounds. LUKE: I thought we were going to adjust that. MORROW: And on page 3 of the staff report, we're proposing that it be adjusted upward to 15,000 pounds. So that should take care of that issue. LUKE: Okay. SYRNYK: It was in two places. One was under type 2, and it was a standard addressing uses that would not be considered under a type 2. It was also addressed under type 3, under letter F, regarding parking of business vehicles. So if I can go back to type 2 for just a second, if the Board decided that it wanted to consider excluding some uses from consideration as type 2 home occupations, we could consider that standard of a gross vehicle weight, and increasing it up to maybe 15,000 pounds. If you decided not to exclude any uses from consideration as a type 2 home occupation, it could simply go away altogether under type 2. LUKE: If a dually diesel pickup is over 10,000 pounds, and you are keeping somebody from driving their own personal vehicle, it doesn't make a lot of sense. SYRNYK: Again, the discussion before the Planning Commission was to try not to do that, but to prevent, under a type 2 home occupation, large equipment or vehicles from being stored in, say, a rural residential area. Again, that is part of the whole discussion that I'm hoping we'll have today about whether certain uses should be excluded under type 2, or whether the standards that are proposed would be adequate to protect adjacent landowners if we received a request for a type 2 home occupation permit. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 5 of 42 Pages However, in our recommendation in the staff report, we are proposing to boost it to 15,000 pounds. DALY: Where does the 3,000 pounds come in here? "Businesses that store and use vehicles or equipment of a gross weight of equal to or greater than 10,000 pounds, or the operating weight is equal to or greater than 3,000 pounds." That doesn't make a lot of sense. What do you mean by operating weight? Just dead weight, without it carrying anything. You know, if you're getting a piece of equipment like a bulldozer, that would be its weight if you put it on a scale, for example. LUKE: The load shouldn't be more than 3,000 pounds. Is that what you are trying to say? SYRNYK: The weight of the equipment could be 3,000 pounds. II RKI The vehicle can weight 10,000 pounds, okay. All by itself. And then it can't carry more than a 3,000 -pound load on top of it. So the total vehicle plus load would be 13,000 pounds, under the original proposition. Is that what you are trying to say? SYRNYK: What you described is the gross vehicle weight. What it weighs itself and what it could possibly carry. The operating weight is, you know, if I am taking a piece of equipment in its weight without carrying anything. MORROW: A landscaping bobcat, for example. SYRNYK: It's not designed to carry anything, but it might be used like at a construction site. One of the things the Planning Commission was considering, as part of a type 2 home occupation, is excluding uses that would use that kind of heavy equipment on site or stored on site. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 6 of 42 Pages LUKE: I'm still not there. I'm just trying to figure out where you are trying to get to. The gross vehicle weight is 10,000 pounds, say, of a pickup, but the operating weight is greater than or equal to 3,000 pounds. Operating weight of what? The pickup or the equipment they are carrying? SYRNYK: The actual equipment that they would be using. DEWOLF: A bobcat, a riding lawnmower, equipment. SYRNYK: A dozer. MORROW: A backhoe. LUKE: This is equipment you are storing on the site? SYRNYK: Exactly. MORROW: And it may not be -- the wording may not be crafted to make that clear enough. DALY: Yes, it's not at all clear. Most of your regular cars weigh more than 3,000 pounds. MORROW: So, would you like to go through the issues in this staff report that we think we still don't have direction on? DEWOLF: Yeah, because we've blown off the first fifteen minutes and we haven't done anything so far. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 7 of 42 Pages MORROW: That's correct. I think we should do that, because I would like, you know, by 20 or 25 of the hour to be able to listen to the public. So, I'm going to be the taskmaster. Go, Damian. SYRNYK: The first issue that I wanted to address and that Commissioner Luke brought up was this limitation on floor area. LAURIE CRAGHEAD: Could I interrupt for a second? If you could tip the microphone up, because you are cutting in and out. SYRNYK: How's that? Is that better? Okay. As I mentioned, one of the first issues I wanted to talk about under type 1 is the floor area limitation. Because what I understand is that the Board wanted eliminate that from the proposal for type 1. And it sounds like there might have been a difference of opinion on that. DALY: The floor area, you're talking about? MORROW: In type 1. In other words, the business that has no impact on the neighbors at all. Do we care. DEWOLF: How do you enforce it? It's a type 1, it's allowed, it's not enforceable unless they are pissing somebody off. LUKE: Right. So you piss someone off, and there will be some criteria to go to. MORROW: Okay. We're going to leave it, I think, as proposed, just for the purpose of taking something to the public. DEWOLF: What's the proposed? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 8 of 42 Pages MORROW: To not have a floor area limitation for type 1. DEWOLF: And we can fight about it later? Cool. DALY: Okay. SYRNYK: One of the other questions under type 1, and I think this came up during the last work session and at the hearing, was whether it should be limited to a dwelling, or also possibly a residential accessory structure. DEWOLF: Where are you reading off of? SYRNYK: I'm reading off the discussion draft and the staff report. DALY: Staff report, too? MORROW: Three page staff report. DEWOLF: I've got that, but I don't see anything about the 25%. DALY: I didn't get the staff report. Is this something new? SYRNYK: I sent the packet by e-mail last week. LUKE: Right here, Mike. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 9 of 42 Pages R What I provided for the Board today were just color copies of the draft ordinance. W lM If you printed out the one sent by e-mail, it's all in there. There's stuff that is lined in, and stuff that was added. SYRNYK: Last time, one of the things that the Board discussed with this idea, and I think it came up at the hearing, was whether to limit a type 1 home occupation to being carried on within a dwelling; or also having the option of possibly a residential accessory building, like a garage. One of the things I wanted to get the Board's direction on is whether it should be left as -is, or give somebody the option to do something like a type 1 occupation, but maybe in their garage or their shop, depending on the nature of the business. LUKE: I would point out, in the original that was sent by e-mail, it says that 25% of the floor area, not including the attached garage. So it could be 25% of the floor area plus the entire garage, if you read it like that. To me, that's what it says. I can use my garage, and not more than 25% of my house. mf/. The language on the floor area, the 25%, that was what I understood was to be deleted from the proposal. LUKE: I understand. But in the original proposal, I'm not sure that the garage wasn't included. That's what I'm saying. Because it says, "does not occupy more than 25% of the floor area of the dwelling, not including the attached garage". That tells me that the garage isn't considered as part of the 25% that can be used for the business. MORROW: The intention, I believe, from the recommendation of the Planning Commission, was that if it was type 1, it had to be in your house. And then subsequently we have heard testimony and I think that at least one Commissioner says, what difference does it make if you do your thing in your garage. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 10 of 42 Pages So, the proposal I think as staff is proposing to take it forward is, if it is type 1, you're doing it inside. There's no exterior work. In your garage or in your house, we don't care. DALY: I agree with that. MORROW: That's what we are trying -- that's the proposal that staff would like to bring forward, without a size limitation or a specification whether it's in the garage or an accessory building. As long as it is in a residential -type building on your property, and no one knows what is going on. DALY: And a detached garage would be considered residential, too. MORROW: An accessory structure. DEWOLF: Next. SYRNYK: Trip limitations. Right now, as proposed under type 1, someone could not generate more than five trips to their site while serving customers or clients. And staff is proposing as a clarification that is part of types 2 and 3, that this would not include parcel delivery services like maybe a daily visit from UPS. MORROW: And we just noticed that there was an inconsistency between how we worded the trips between all three types, and we wanted it to be the same. So that's what we are proposing for that. DEWOLF: What is considered a trip? SYRNYK: For the purposes of the ordinance, it would be one trip to the site. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 11 of 42 Pages DEWOLF: So, leaving is a freebee. DALY: I'll go for that. SYRNYK: We're done with type 1. LUKE: I want to point out, it sounds very easy to include a garage or detached garage, but we've gone to a lot of trouble in this county to make sure that people don't convert garages to living quarters. As a matter of fact, we've had code enforcement, we've had people using the ground for septic who didn't have septic permits. So I'm just explaining to you that there could be a problem in some areas if we do that. I'm just pointing that out. Let's move on. SYRNYK: With type 2, there's a longer list of things to go through here, so I'll get going. One of the things that the Board touched on but hadn't talked about at the last work session was standard 2-a, which talks about the size requirement for a type 2 home occupation. Right now it is proposed to be at least one-half acre in order to be eligible to apply for a type 2 home occupation permit. And this is a recommendation from the Planning Commission, to insure there would be sufficient distance between neighbors, especially if someone was looking to apply for a type 2 home occupation. So I wanted to get the Board's feedback on what they think; whether this should be in the next public review draft, or if there are other ideas. LUKE: For the record, just a couple of type 2 occupations that people might want to be shielded from? Anything with employees that come from offsite could be type 2. And it generates more trips than what we described as type 1. So, the assumption was that it would have a little larger impact than just somebody living next to you would. The idea was that maybe it should be a little larger piece of property. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 12 of 42 Pages JA i At least a half -acre in size. I mean, 20,000 square feet, basically, which is larger than most subdivision lots, unless they are rural. DEWOLF: Whispering Pines. LUKE: If you have a 3,500 square foot lot in the new neighborhood in La Pine, I don't think you're going to want two or three employees there. DALY: I guess, let me ask you again. I need to refresh my memory. What were we trying to accommodate with type 2? MORROW: Employees. SYRNYK: Type 2 is designed to be a middle category between something that would require maybe a public hearing and a full-blown conditional use permit process, and something that would be permitted outright. These are in the middle category where the standards are intended to be more clear and objective, but we would still notify adjacent landowners of what was approved. MORROW: The biggest distinction between type 2 and type 3 is the number of employees, and the fact that in type 3 we are allowing you to have outside storage, where in type 2 everything has to be inside. LUKE: Inside the home? MORROW: Inside the home or accessory buildings. DALY: When you say everything? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 13 of 42 Pages MORROW: All the equipment, materials, work has to be in a building. In type 3, that's not necessarily true. DALY: Would a cabinet maker qualify as a type 2, if he's just making cabinets in his garage or accessory building, on a half -acre or larger parcel? MORROW: Yes. As long as he didn't pile up a bunch of boards outside. All enclosed. He could have a couple of employees. DALY: And that would not be a conditional use? It would be a conditional use, but it would be subject to the type 2 standards, with the idea being that it would be a shorter process than a typical conditional use permit. And ideally, we haven't gotten to that point yet, but ideally a lower fee than what people pay right now for a home occupation. DEWOLF: And handled administratively? SYRNYK: Exactly. LUKE: But a cabinet maker could produce sawdust, maybe lacquer fumes, maybe dust and odor. Does that technically, I thought you couldn't do that. I thought none of this was going to be able to produce dust and odor. MORROW: There's a standard. "Does not use materials or mechanical equipment which would be detrimental to the residential use of the property or adjoining residences." So, he's inside, it's pretty broad. But that's the standard that's in our code now, that is reviewed as a conditional use. They'll have to address that either under type 2 or type 3. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 14 of 42 Pages LUKE: Okay. DALY: Wait a minute. External. Does not involve any external changes to the dwelling or accessory building. In other words, if you're going to apply for a conditional use for type 2, you can't do any alteration externally of the building. SYRNYK: To make it appear like a business. MORROW It has to be residential in character. LUKE: No sign outside; those kinds of things. SYRNYK: For example, going back to a cabinet maker, one person working out of his garage, and under type 2 they could conceivable get approval as a home occupation. LUKE: If it's one person working in the garage under type 1, if it's a person with one or two employees, then they are type 2. That's the difference. MORROW: Right. SYRNYK: Also the number of trips. Going back to the acreage size for a minute, is there any input on that half -acre? MORROW: We'll take it forward with that unless we hear otherwise. DEWOLF: You go to a half -acre? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 15 of 42 Pages LUKE: I don't know of very many lots in the county less than a half -acre, unless they're in La Pine or Terrebonne. MORROW: That's right. Basically what we are saying is that if you are smaller than that, you are limited to a type 1. DALY: You've got this floor area that can be devoted to type 2 at 1,500 feet. This restriction -- MORROW: That was a recommendation from the Planning Commission to address the sort of issue that one of you was talking about. You build a giant accessory building and you're using it for your business. They thought, for type 2, that was not residential in character to have that much interior space devoted to a business. So that's why type 2 has that limitation. LUKE: I'd point out that in the city, a half -acre lot is a pretty good size lot because you have sewer and water and stuff hooked in. In a rural residential area, you typically have a septic area with a reserve area. If you are using the septic or the reserve area for parking, you are probably in violation of your septic permit anyway, and will damage your fields. So, a half -acre lot in a rural residential area isn't all that big because of the different requirements that you have on it. No, it's a small one. But there are quite a number of those in the South County that are that small. DEWOLF: The question you brought up, though, Dennis, about lacquer or dust or whatever. We're not talking again about any setbacks here. So you have a half -acre lot and you're within whatever the zone allows, maybe twenty feet from the property line. Or fifty feet, whatever it is. That's where I could see issues coming up. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 16 of 42 Pages If we're going to do this and have size limitations on the lots, it seems like to build in protection for the neighbors there ought to be a setback. You'll smell a lot more lacquer and get more dust from twenty feet away than you will from 150 feet away. None of that is in here. MORROW: No, that's not in here. DALY: That ought to be from the neighbor's house or dwelling rather than the property line. DEWOLF: Property lines can change, too. MORROW: Yeah. People could not have a house and a house could be built. The Planning Commission dealt with this issue of setbacks, and they decided it was just too complex, because there are so many existing houses and existing garages and everything out there that people might want to do a business in. And they'd be precluded just because their garage happens to meet the property setbacks. And that's why these other, more subjective standards about noise, dust and odor are in there. So that for any of these, if there's an impact that violates that sort of subjective standard, it's a violation and people can complain, and they'd be shut down. It happens. We understand -- DEWOLF: We barely enforce anything now. MORROW: I wouldn't say that. LUKE: Commercial cabinet sites, such as Brian's Cabinets, are required to have fans in there and catchers for the sawdust, and the odor, although you still see it once in a while. Where these would not have those. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 17 of 42 Pages DEWOLF: I just don't want to create a situation where you've got a neighbor upset with a neighbor, and they're going to use this ordinance as a pretext to start putting in code enforcement complaints. We're going to be overwhelmed; we have two people to perform this function. And they can't keep up with what we have now. MORROW: So then we're back to the fundamental question. Should we do what we are doing now, or should we do something different. You know, what we are doing now generates complaints, and we try to enforce them. As staff, and I think the Planning Commission's recommendation, is that with this system we would have more clear and objective standards to be able to determine whether someone was in violation. DEWOLF: Do you think this would work better? chance of working better? MORROW: Yes. Let me ask this. Do you think it has a DEWOLF: Okay. Because we can change the ordinance a year from now if it's not working. MORROW: Or you can stay with the system that we have now, which is everything is a full- blown conditional use, and there's not this distinction. Or standards, really. We don't really have any standards. You know, the cabinet shop wants to come in, they come in and apply, and get approved. But there's no threshold to say when they are exceeding what they proposed. DEWOLF: Okay. LUKE: Type 3. SYRNYK: We're not done with type 2 yet. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 18 of 42 Pages MORROW: We need to do it quickly. DEWOLF: Go ahead. Let's go. SYRNYK: So, just to be clear, we'll leave one-half acre in the ordinance as proposed. The next item was a discretionary standard that staff is recommending that we remove. This is one that is currently in our code and we are proposing to leave it in type 3. It's worded, "is conducted in such a way that is compatible with the residential character or in resource zones, the resource oriented character of its location". And we recommend not including that under type 2, for the reasons that were discussed here a moment ago. We're trying to keep a type 2 process more clear and objective. And that criterion was determined to be more discretionary and more appropriate for a case-by-case review. So, I wanted to get the Board's direction on whether to leave it out as proposed here, or put it back in. DALY: You're going to have to summarize that again for me. Okay. Right now, in our code, someone is applying for a CUP for a home occupation. One of the criteria is that they have to show that their home occupation will be conducted in such a way that it is going to be compatible with the residential character, like a rural residential area, or in resource zones, resource -oriented character of its location. LUKE: So what criteria will you use to determine if it fits within the character of the area? If you take that out? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 19 of 42 Pages MORROW: In type 2, we would, the proposal is that those standards, the number of employees and number of trips, and the other standards that are in there regarding noise, dust and odor and all that, and that it has to be all entirely indoors, would assure that it would retain its residential character. And it's in type 3 where people might be pushing that envelope where we'd want to have that discretionary criteria. Igo] 4 You don't think they're going to push it in type 2? Especially if they get bigger and have not quite made it to type 3, but they are a little bigger than type 2? MORROW: We drew the line, and that was the recommendation. If the line isn't drawn in the right place between type 2 and type 3, it's up to you. DEWOLF: Well, there will always be people who will push that envelope. They'll go for a type 2 because it's cheaper and faster than a type 3. And they'll try to squeeze ten pounds of salami in a five -pound bag. They'll push the envelope and the neighbors will get upset, and we've got code enforcement issues. MORROW: And then they have to reapply for a type 3 if they are exceeding the thresholds. SYRNYK: Okay. One of the bigger issues -- LUKE: Lack of comment doesn't mean acceptance. It means we're moving on and are leaving it in for the public hearing. MORROW: You are not making decisions today. We understand that. SYRNYK: And it's our understanding as well. We're looking at what to leave in and take out in the next draft that would go to the people in a public hearing. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 20 of 42 Pages One of the bigger issues that I wanted to get some direction on from the Board is this idea of limiting daily trips, as proposed in the ordinance. There was some discussion about it last time, but I wanted to find out where you are thinking, whether to pursue that, leave it out, change it; what thoughts you have. DALY: The ten trips, you're saying? SYRNYK: Right. DEWOLF: Yeah. MORROW: It's sort of fundamental to the concept. DEWOLF: It's exactly fundamental to it. Because if you are talking about noise, if all of a sudden you are going from a residential area where each house has three or five or eight trips a day, and you are all of a sudden generating sixty. I mean, you've got to have some line in the sand of what is reasonable. lu[•;:• . So we will leave the standard in there as proposed. If there is debate about the numbers, we can talk about it later. Okay. DEWOLF: Maybe we should tie the number of trips to the size of the vehicle. So a 5,000 - pound gross weight vehicle could do more trips than the 15,000 -pound vehicle. What do you think? LUKE: No. Move on. He was joking. SYRNYK: The next thing under type 2 is hours of operation. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 21 of 42 Pages As proposed under type 2, these kinds of home occupations would be limited to from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. And we've received some testimony that this was maybe too confining or maybe just right. DEWOLF: Well, it's going to be one of those two. DALY: I think it's too confining in a way. Because if you have a home occupation and you're not allowed to work on weekends -- IaA.14�1 No. That's employees. The employees aren't allowed on weekends. You can work in your house all you want as an individual. You're talking about the employees in a type 2. SYRNYK: Employees and customers. DEWOLF: That's not what it says. Maybe it's not clear enough to me. MORROW: It isn't clear enough. DEWOLF: What you are saying makes sense, but I don't get that from reading this. LUKE: My suggestion is that you leave this in here, and allow for a conditional use for anyone who wants to work different hours, so you can inform the neighbors and get comments. That was the idea, that they would come in, and if they want to be type 2, they would propose that they were going to do these hours of operation. If they want to work beyond that, they have to apply for type 3. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 22 of 42 Pages LUKE: No matter what size they were or how many employees they have? MORROW: Right. In other words, if you don't meet the threshold for type 2, whatever it is, whether it is employees, trips, size, anything. And then the neighbors all get notified. DEWOLF: I think this is too restrictive, but it's okay for discussion purposes. SYRIVYK: We'll leave it as is, and we'll see what kind of input we get. DEWOLF: I'm just thinking of a hairdresser. I mean, can't work Saturdays. MORROW: Damian, I would suggest, so that we can allow time for public testimony, that we skip to the two issues on page 3 of the staff report that seem to be the bigger issues. DAMIAN: Okay. The final two big issues that I think will involve more discussion are whether we should consider changes to the County's definition of home occupation; and then this final issue of parking and storing of heavy equipment. On page 3, what we propose is changing the definition of home occupation to recognize that it could be carried on within a dwelling and/or a residential accessory building, and that there might be a limited number of employees who are not residents of the dwelling who might be allowed for certain types of home occupations. So I wanted to get the Board's input on if that is the direction you are thinking on definitions, and if that was good for getting initial input. DALY: Are you still on type 2? MORROW: We are talking about the definition in general that would cover all three. Page 3 of the staff report. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 23 of 42 Pages DEWOLF: She just handed you one. There you go. LUKE: It's fine for discussion purposes. And the next issue is one that generated a lot of testimony; the idea of parking and storing of heavy equipment, maybe trucks for example. And this kind of issue captured a lot of folks that work as contractors, where they might perform most of their work offsite but they do store their equipment at their residence. They might perform some functions of their business, like taking phone calls, storing records, and so what we are recommending, in terms of how to treat these kinds of situations is to treat them as a home occupation, under the type 3 category. One of the purposes is that if they wanted to store onsite, we have proposed outdoor storage standards that we could apply to situations where it might be appropriate to have screening like a fence or existing tree cover. LUKE: This is only type 3. MORROW: Right. Only type 3 would allow this. One of the discussions that you had and heard testimony about was that these things aren't even home occupations, since most of the business is done offsite. And we talked about this at length, and should be come up with a different category. Well, we don't regulate people parking stuff on their property. Vehicles, unless they are inoperable and then they're junk. That's a whole different part of the code. DALY: I agree with that. LUKE: Unless you wake up to a log truck starting up at three in the morning so you can be out in the woods by 4. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 24 of 42 Pages MORROW: And then it's a noise issue. Again, we don't regulate it under this code. And the other discussion was, well, if they have employees coming to pick them up, then they really are doing some of the business on their property. So we decided, staff s recommendation is that we don't make this a separate kind of thing. That if someone is conducting a business from their home that requires their storage of equipment and that employees come there, that it be type 3. That's our recommendation in response to this issue about how to deal with heavy equipment. DEWOLF: What do you define as heavy equipment? MORROW, Over the 15,000 pound limit. DEWOLF: So, if I've got a large pickup truck that's under the 15,000, and I'm a concrete contractor, so I've got forms and tools, but not really much equipment per se, but it's probably stored leaning up against the garage. You're type 3. And you go through the whole type 3, notify the neighbors, conditional use permit process. DEWOLF: Oh, my God. MORROW: Because, if you surpass any of the thresholds in type 2, and one of the things in type 2 is that it all has to be in buildings. So if you are going to have stuff that's not in buildings, it automatically takes you to type 3, because your neighbors are going to see your stuff that's associated with your business. DEWOLF: And my neighbor is one who's got four children and a swing set that's broken, and the slide is falling over, their bicycles are all over the yard, and they've run over the picnic set that was left in the driveway. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 25 of 42 Pages And they've got a basketball hoop right out next to the street where the kids are playing in the street, but they don't have to have a type anything to have their kids making a complete trashy mess of the whole neighborhood, plus they forget to water their lawn in the summer and it's brown and dusty. LUKE: A residential neighborhood. DEWOLF: But because I park my pickup truck there and lean my concrete forms against the wall, I've got to spend $1,500 to get a CUP. That seems a little cockeyed. I&[• ; ; • . Well, right now you do. Under our existing rules. DEWOLF: But nobody does. MORROW: Well. LUKE: Unless somebody complains. That's how it works. MORROW: And that's still going to be the case. DEWOLF: That's true. DALY: Even if they apply for a conditional use permit under today's rules, they wouldn't get it. MORROW: Why not? DEWOLF: You'd let them do it. Whatever they want. minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 26 of 42 Pages I R N 114 Tom, do you see why we didn't open this up in the first four years we were here? DEWOLF: Yeah. It's all Mike's fault. MORROW: The description of what Tom just described could be approved today, as long as he didn't have employees. The big issue is employees. DALY: And that's the whole point. The employee issue is one of the main issues. We've heard from the public that people have employees. I guess what we are asking here is, can we go forward with the proposal where all of this issue of outside storage of equipment is dealt with under type 3? DEWOLF: I'm willing to go forward with it for discussion. I don't like it. LUKE: Again, these areas are not designed -- if they were commercial or whatever type of zone, if you had a zone like that and bought a home in it, you'd understand it would be there. We are talking about existing rural areas, subdivisions that you're going to insert commercial activity into. And it's different. DEWOLF: Did you have a separate office when you were a contractor, or did you work out of your house? LUKE: I didn't offend my neighbors. I was very careful not to offend my neighbors. And, yes, I did have a form trailer, but it was kept out on the farm. ►I•::• That's one of the criteria that is in here. If you do want to have this outside storage, there's a property size requirement and a screening requirement. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 27 of 42 Pages DALY: I don't agree with the property size requirement. It's way too big. MORROW: That's how we deal with that issue of, if you are going to do it, you get kicked into type 3 because you have outside storage, and there are standards for it. DEWOLF: Without setbacks, it doesn't make sense. MORROW: That can be a discussion item. LUKE: And the other option is to leave things as they are. MORROW: And that's absolutely true. We don't have to take this forward. DEWOLF: But it's so much fun, Catherine. MORROW: Okay. I think it's -- is there anything you want to tell us in terms of how we take the draft forward before we hear from the public? DALY: Well, the type 3, I'm not comfortable with the twenty acres they came up with. If we're going to discuss it, that's fine. I want you to know up front that that eliminates most type 3's by using that twenty -acre standard. MORROW: Is there any possibility that you could come up with another recommendation for the next draft? LUKE: Mike would like it so that his property becomes legal. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 28 of 42 Pages MORROW: Should it be five acres? DALY: That's a good discussion item. There are different five -acre pieces. Tom's idea about a setback -- I've got an aerial photograph of my place, and I'll bring it out when we talk about it. I've got two dump trucks and a backhoe and stuff sitting there, and you can see it in the aerial photograph. My neighbors are a thousand feet away from me on both sides of me. But I've only got five acres. So five acres, depending upon the configuration, is plenty big enough. MORROW: And the fact that you screened it. DALY: No, it's not screened. I mean, my neighbors can look over and see that stuff, but they are a thousand feet away on both sides. My point is, I only have five acres but there is lots of room in between us. MORROW: So you think that five acres is sufficient, maybe with setbacks. DALY: Depending upon the configuration and the setbacks. Yeah. LUKE: For discussion purposes. MORROW: We will do our best effort to bring forward a draft. LUKE: I don't agree with that. I think that if you are going to have commercial activity, you should be on a larger acreage. Are you suggesting that you will come back for the public hearing with a smaller piece in it? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 29 of 42 Pages MORROW: No. I have heard varying opinions, and with no consensus, I think the best we can do is go forward with the Planning Commission's recommendation, unless we've gotten another direction from you. SYRNYK: We can address these issues in the staff report. DEWOLF: Can you explain twenty acres instead of ten. I mean, there is so much out there that is ten -acre minimums. It seems like ten acres would be more logical. MORROW: Most of the land that we have as ten -acre minimum is in fact less than that. LUKE: Most RR -10 is one acre. Deschutes River Woods is RR -10. DEWOLF: Well, they wouldn't qualify, would they. •' ' • No, they wouldn't. And so that could lead credence to Commissioner Daly's argument that there aren't that may properties out there that would fit this classification. DALY: Twenty acres eliminates everybody almost. MORROW: And if you want information about how many rural residential lots, we can get the median size for you, and all that kind of stuff. DEWOLF: Is that pretty simple? MORROW: Yeah. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 30 of 42 Pages DEWOLF: That would help. LUKE: If you can afford twenty acres in Deschutes County, you can afford to open your own business in a building. DEWOLF: In a commercial zone. LUKE: Well, let's open this up. We need to move on. There's a sign up sheet. Please come up and fill out the sign up sheet to testify, and identify yourself on the record, please. When this is over, if you don't want to testify but you want to be on the mailing list, please put your name on the list and you'll be notified of any action or paperwork that's generated in this. You can both come up if you want. RANDY COSSAIRT: I'm from south County. I'm on rural twenty. I'm lucky enough to live across the road from a twenty-four hour towing operation, which tows everything from small vehicles to semi -trucks. My question is, the way the third tier is written, is there a chance that -- I'm assuming -- I don't believe there's a CUP on this. But if there was, and this also involves vehicle storage. We live in an open meadow, so what you see is what you get. I'm wondering, the way the third level is written, is there a possibility that a CUP could be granted in an instance like this. I'm talking 18 -wheelers get towed in there. DEWOLF: If somebody applies, and correct me if I'm wrong, Damian -- if somebody applies for a conditional use permit under any of our various ordinances, and no one appeals, they hold a public hearing and everybody says, great. They're going to get it. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 31 of 42 Pages CRAGHEAD: Assuming that they meet the criteria. DEWOLF: Right. And when they appeal to us and to LUBA and what have you, I mean there is always a possibility. But, if somebody is doing something and all of the neighbors are going, this is ridiculous because it doesn't meet these criteria, then, as convoluted as this seems, what we're trying to do is establish some more objective type of criteria within a really subjective world. COSSAIRT: Well, the way I read the rural residential code, as well as your planned proposal, it wouldn't fit the criteria anyway. But I was curious to know if they would file for a waiver or whatever. I don't know what the process is. And my second question would be -- DEWOLF: If this individual doesn't have a conditional use permit now, if it's even an allowed use, what is being done currently. LUKE: That's what I was going to ask. It's your contention that what they are doing now is illegal. COSSAIRT: Right. LUKE: Have you filed a code enforcement claim? COSSAIRT: No. The process for -- I guess, how would you go about enforcing these things if they did pass the way it's proposed. DEWOLF: The way that it is currently, and if this is in violation now, and it is in violation in the future as well, either way, code enforcement works basically the same way. A neighbor files a complaint with the County, and we have a code enforcement officer within the Community Development Department that starts the process. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 32 of 42 Pages It may be that we also bring in a code enforcement officer from the Sheriffs Office. I mean, a uniform can sometimes get a little better action. But it's not necessarily an easy or quick process because it has to go through the courts potentially if they are disagreeing. Code enforcement is a messy process, but it's what we've got. COSSAIRT: So the CUP, if it were applied for, everybody would know about it. DEWOLF: For hundreds of feet around the property. SYRNYK: It would be 250 feet from the boundary of the property that's the subject of the permit. DEWOLF: Is there a limited number of people? SYRNYK: That was just done with the towers. DEWOLF: So the people who are contiguous are going to get notification by mail that there will be a public hearing. LUKE: I'd point out that code enforcement has improved a lot in the last four years. They've eliminated a lot of the back caseload, and bringing a uniformed officer from the Sheriffs Office, I don't know if you've seen Mr. Jones, but he's very tall and very big and very friendly. When he comes up and talks to you, you listen. COSSAIRT: It would be great, you know, if it could all be handled on that level. LUKE: But the problem is that we do require a formal complaint. We can't take anonymous complaints because you get neighbor versus neighbor on that. But if a person is willing to sign a formal complaint, then we'll be investigating it. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 33 of 42 Pages CRAGIAEAD: Before you leave, I want to make sure that everybody who signs in is sure to put their address down, because that's the only way we can give you notice, by law. DAVID MCCONNELL: David McConnell, South County. I'm already on a mailing list; do I need it to go on again? DEWOLF: No. LUKE: As long as you sign the sheet, you're okay. As long as we have your address. MCCONNELL: In regard to your cabinet shop in a residential area, body shop, they both involve volatile chemicals. Should they not have a Fire Marshall's permit to operate? SYRNYK: If we were to adopt the code as proposed, under a type 2, as it is designed right now there would not be a comment period for public agencies. Right now in our Code, if someone is applying for a conditional use permit -- say somebody came in today to apply for cabinet maker business -- what we would do is notify the County department and other public agencies that might have a say in how this is conducted. If, for example, in South County it would be the La Pine Fire District. This is something for the Board to consider. Under type 2, there wouldn't be that kind of a comment period brought in. You might have to somehow have the applicant contact the fire department on their own, or contact the fire department before they apply so the two can communicate about what was being proposed. MORROW: There is a criterion that says, under type 3 and it probably should say under type 2 if it doesn't. But it does. Under both type 2 and type 3, it says, "complies with all requirements of the Deschutes County building and safety division, and the environmental health division, and any other applicable state or federal laws. Compliance with the requirements of the County's building and safety division shall include meeting all building occupancy classification requirements of the state adopted building code." Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 34 of 42 Pages So, if there are building code requirements that deal with this issue of volatile chemicals, then if an application came in, we'd be talking to our building department and making sure that the building that they are proposing to do that in met those requirements. LUKE: For a type 1, if you had a one-person cabinet shop working out of their garage, they wouldn't be coming in to talk with you guys anyway. SYRNYK: They might not. LUKE: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else who'd like to talk? FRANK BRIAN: My name is Frank Brian, and I've been watching this all along. Your comment about the twenty acres, and if they had enough money to buy twenty acres, they could go buy a commercial building. Well, then they have all their money tied up in a building and may not be able to conduct their business properly. So, I take a little bit of umbrance with that position. Also, relative to anything that's a type 2 activity has to be confined inside a building, off the top of my head I can't think of anything other than just storage of equipment and how big a building you are going to let somebody store equipment in. LUKE: Well, it depends on the building codes and what is allowed in that area. There are restrictions on the size of accessory buildings that you put in a residential area. You're talking about a residential area, and the thing I've discussed with you folks before is the thing, depending upon the type of business. Some businesses are more appropriate in a residential area versus they may need larger acreages, ten acres, to store a couple of dump trucks, and they're not an offensive business. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance P age 35 of 42 Pages I'm sorry, but you have a lot of folks in Deschutes County that operate illegal businesses. And you've got a big bucket of worms if the code is not written so that it's specific to encourage those people to continue their business, so that just because they get a grumpy neighbor, they're not hampered. Or somebody new moves in and doesn't like that deal. You know, he doesn't have a permit for that, and I'm going to put him down. And so I'm real concerned with that. LUKE: What would you suggest, that anything be allowed in any residential area? Oh, when you say residential, is that a residential half -acre? Is that a rural residential five acre? Is that an MUA? Is that an MUA-10? You know, where is the -- LUKE: Deschutes River Woods is a rural residential 10, and every lot out there is one acre. Yeah, and I know that area. And there are a lot of people who conduct home based businesses out of there. And I would say, by and large, most of them are nice folks and they are taking care of their neighbors, so their neighbors are going to see that they are taken care of. But every once in a while you're going to have a neighbor move in next to one, and he's got a problem with the guy that's running the business next door, and that isn't what he bought the property for. And I'm sure you run into that all the time out there, with this group. And I don't have an answer for that end of it, other than to say that when you look at developing the criteria, size of the property makes a difference. Size of the property, setbacks, you know, all of that stuff is important. And I'm encouraging you to weigh those into the factors. I read a statistic the other day that eighty percent of the people that live in the rural areas have to have another job; they can't make a living off the land. Only twenty percent can make it farming. LUKE: I'm trying to get back to what you were talking about. Do you think we are too restrictive, or not restrictive enough on the dealing with the acreage and the type 1, 2 and 3 businesses? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance P age 36 of 42 Pages BRIAN: I'd like to see a better definition about what is involved in those. A half -acre for the guy who's not doing anything -- the artist or the painter or whatever. Who cares what he does or where he does it, because he's not affecting anybody. But there's the gray area where you get one employee or two employees. You could have five employees show up. And they all left the property, and left in a crew cab pickup. They don't stay there; they're gone. They took whatever with them in the pickup and went and did their work. To me, that's not an offensive business. LUKE: Under this code, that doesn't fit type 2, but it fits type 3. You simply go in and apply for a permit, tell them what you are going to do, and you stick to it. And the type 3 permit process is onerous. That's an involved process, and it's expensive. And that's why there are so many little guys in the County who don't do that. CRAGHEAD: And do you have specific language on how you'd like to change it, to tighten up the definition? BRIAN: You know, I was asked that by some of the planning folks, do I have an idea for that. You know, I'm not a planner. I'm not paid to do that job. They are. And this can't be a thing that is unique to Deschutes County. And I think those folks should do their job, and come up with the right answers. DEWOLF: But, jumping back into this, right answers from whose perspective? BRIAN: You guys; because you are subject to public pressure. You volunteered for the job. I realize that it's a difficult process. But that's why the guys who are the smart guys are sitting here, because you guys get to weigh all of that process and put it all together. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance P age 37 of 42 Pages And it's not just my input or Damian's or whoever. There is a whole group of people that you are relying on to develop this process, and it's your background. It's your knowledge of the County and this place works. And this is an isolated community in the middle of nowhere. I mean, when you drive thirty miles away from here, you're on two-lane roads. People can't believe that I live two and one-half hours from the nearest freeway. So that's why the development of this criteria is so critical to the good health of this entire community. And I'm proud of you guys for trying this process. LUKE: Are you saying we will probably grow faster? BRIAN: Well, I'm saying that you need to do it in a way that it encourages growth without breaking the heart of the community. I mean, you don't want to be a downtown L.A. LUKE: It's a real fine line between the rights of the person to use their property for a business or to help earn their money, and the right of their neighbor to enjoy their peace and quiet and their home. It's a real tough balancing act we're facing. That's what we are trying to do. Any suggestions will help. BRIAN: Well, the other thing I am gratified about is the number of people that showed up today. That's different than last time, and I think that's due to some concerted efforts to get the word out. And I appreciate that, also. Thank you. FRANK PENNOCK: My name is Frank Pennock, and I'm president of Deschutes River Woods Homeowners' Association. I came to listen and find out what is going on, and I hope you can get this thing settled once and for all, because I'm getting phone calls at home on "what can I do about the people down the street". I've even had real estate people saying, yes, your property is worth that, but you should see all the places you have to go by to get to your house. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance P age 38 of 42 Pages Even one I watched the other day apparently went out and built this building, and now he's having steel brought in and dumped right at the building, and it's stored outside. And he's doing some kind of steel work, I don't know exactly what he is doing there. And there are other places that are bringing in trailers and mobile homes, and apparently they are stripping those, and of course they are stored all around like used car lots and so forth. DEWOLF: That's the type of issue the gentleman brought up earlier. I mean, if there are code violations going on now, this isn't going to change that. If there are people who are breaking the law now, you can file a code enforcement complaint and we'll follow up on it. This isn't going to change that. PENNOCK: Yeah, I know. And what I was going to say is, when this thing get finalized, Ken Jones is going to be very busy. In fact I talk with him now, and we are trying to get rid of that one there at Cheyenne and Comanche, and he told me that it is probably going to take at least a year to get rid of that thing, that situation. LUKE: But how long would it take if you don't start the process? It would still take a year. So you might as well start it now, and at the end of a year you'll be satisfied. PENNOCK: What do I tell my people? What I usually tell them is, this is going on now. And when it gets finalized, then we can do something. Because somebody else mentioned that what is already out there is already illegal. LUKE: Frank, this might legalize some of what you are looking at out there. This isn't going to make it any easier. It's actually going to legalize some of the stuff that is already there. PENNOCK: You mean like the steel stuff? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 39 of 42 Pages LUKE: It depends on what kind of, how they would qualify and how the ordinance is written. But this isn't going to make it any easier. It might make it easier for the person who already has the stuff. DEWOLF: Unless you don't like them. Then we'll get rid of them, Frank. PENNOCK: I would say, it's rural residential, and type 1 is enough. That's it. LUKE: Okay. CAROL BRIAN: My name is Carol Brian, and the only point I wanted to make is that when you have your public hearing, you have it in the evening. I spoke to several people and they couldn't come today because they're working. DEWOLF: This is just a work session; it wasn't actually designed as a public hearing. But we'll definitely do that. WILLIAM KUHN: I'm William Kuhn, Sizemore Road. There are people who abide by the law, and there are people who respect their neighbors; and there are those who don't. I encourage you to -- I thank you for considering what it is that you are considering. I do have a question. And that is again in regard to type 1 versus type 2. If I have an employee who does not come to my residence, and he may even live out of state, am I type 1 or am I type 2? MORROW: Type 1, because there aren't any trips generated. KUHN: Type 1, letter A, says "only by members of family who reside in the dwelling" And I'm concerned with that specific language. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance P age 40 of 42 Pages LUKE: What suggestions would you make in this regard? MORROW: That's exactly what I was going to say. Any way we can clarify this would be fine. The intent is that if you are in your building and you are conducting your business, and you're talking with employees or other people, clients or whomever, on the phone, and they are off premises, we don't care. There might be subcontractors, but you never see them. I think the issue is that on the site there are no employees. LUKE: Did you have a question on the other language? KUHN: My comment is to try to encourage you to do something with letter A under type 1, to possibly say, "that do not report to the site". CRAGHEAD: What about an "or"? "Only by members of the family who reside in the dwelling or has no employees that report to the site", or something to that effect. KUHN: And I would suggest that it might be possible to have a semi-annual meeting or something like that. LUKE: Certainly. You're talking about an occasional thing as opposed to a daily thing. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Do any of the Commissioners have any questions of staff? SYRNYK: We had a work session set for the 26th as a backup if you needed it, but it sounds like you're ready to go to a public hearing in the evening. Is that correct? Okay. So we'll work on setting a date. Being no further testimony or comments made, Chair Luke adjourned the meeting at 4: 20 p. m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 41 of 42 Pages DATED this 18th Day of June 2003 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. /L Ne - is R. Luke, Chair , Tom DeWolf, ATTEST: Mi ael .Daly, Co missioner Recording Secretary Attachments: Exhibit A: Staff Report to Commissioners, dated June 11, 2003 (3 pages) Exhibit B: Summary of May 14 Work Session (1 page) Exhibit C: Board Discussion Draft on Home Occupation Ordinance (3 pages) Exhibit D: Sign -in Sheet to Testify and/or to Receive Mailings (1 page) Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance P age 42 of 42 Pages 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ STAFF REPORT TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Damian Syrnyk, Senior Planner DATE: June 11, 2003 SUBJECT: June 18, 2003 work session on home occupation ordinance (File No. TA -02-12) Purpose The purpose of this report is to present a Board Discussion Draft of the above -referenced ordinance on home occupations. Staff prepared this draft based on the direction of the Board of Commissioners after the May 14, 2003 work session. You will find a copy of the draft enclosed. The Board conducted a public hearing on the Planning Commission Recommendation (Ordinance 2003-003) on April 23, 2003. After the hearing, Staff prepared and the commissioners responded to a questionnaire that asked 17 questions on the issues raised in public testimony and addressed through the ordinance. The Board provided staff direction on areas of agreement and areas where more work was required before soliciting additional public input on the ordinance. Staff prepared a one-page summary of the work session that is enclosed with this report. Board Discussion Draft This portion of the staff report outlines the proposed changes to the Planning Commission Recommendation. You will find enclosed a `Board Discussion Draft" that shows changes highlighted in gray and noted with marginal notes to the right. The following discusses the proposed changes and discussion points by type of home occupation. Type 1 home occupation. The ordinance before the Board would add this use as one permitted outright in the Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10) and Rural Residential (RR10) Zones. This type is intended to capture businesses that would generate no impacts and would be operated by only a sole proprietor. There are three matters to address with respect to the proposal for Type 1 home occupations. 1) Location. Staff requests Board direction on whether the proposed language should allow work from a residential accessory structure (e.g. detached garage). Currently, this type of home occupation is permitted only in a dwelling. 2) Trip Limitation. Staff proposes adding the language "not including parcel delivery services" to the trip limitation standard so it would be consistent with Types 2 and 3. Quality Services Performed with Pride Exhibit A Page 1 of 3 3) Floor Area. Staff deleted the floor area limitation as directed so that the amount of floor area devoted to a Type 1 home occupation would not be limited in the ordinance. Type 2 home occupation As proposed, a Type 2 home occupation would require a conditional use permit. However, unlike a Type 3, it would be subject to a lower application fee, more clear and objective criteria, and shorter administrative processing timelines. The following discusses the proposed changes to the language for a Type 2 home occupation and matters for Board discussion and direction. 1) Property Size. This type of home occupation includes a property size requirement. One of the questions before the Board is whether to require a certain amount of property in order to qualify for a Type 2 home occupation. 2) Discretionary Standard. Staff proposes to delete the following language from Type 2 home occupations: "Is conducted in such a way that is compatible with the residential character, or in resource zones, resource -oriented character of its location." Staff proposes this change because most of the criteria for a Type 2 home occupation are more clear and objective that the criteria under Type 3. Staff believes this criterion is more discretionary and would be more appropriate to retain under Type 3. 3) Floor Area. Staff proposes a change to criterion (2)(c) to clarify the floor area maximum under Type 2. 4) Daily Trips. Staff requests Board direction on whether to limit daily vehicle trips for Type 2 and Type 3 home occupations as a criterion for approval of a conditional use permit. 5) Excluded Uses. Staff requests Board direction on whether to exclude certain uses from consideration as Type 2 home occupations. You will find this list under (2)(n). The related issue for discussion here is the size standard of 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight. You will find Staff's comments on this issue in the marginal notes. If the Board ultimately decides to adopt a list of uses that would be excluded from consideration as Type 2 home occupations, Staff proposes to increase this standard to 15,000 pounds. Type 3 home occupations. The third category of home occupations represents the current model of regulation that exists under the Zoning Ordinance. Staff believes that there are four (4) issues for Board discussion related to this type of home occupation. 1) Employees. The first matter is number of employees. The question before the Board is whether the county should limit the number of employees as proposed. If so, Staff requests the Board's direction on whether the current proposal would suffice. 2) Acreage Limitation. The second is the limitation on acreage similar to the standard addressed above under Type 2. One property size requirement addresses the number of employees that could be allowed with a Type 3 home occupation proposed in an EFU or Forest zone. This proposed standard is 20 acres in size. Criterion (3)(1) also requires a 20 -acre minimum for outside storage Staff Report to BOCC June 11, 2003 Page 2 of 3 Exhibit A Page 2 of 3 of equipment and materials. The question before the Board here as in the case of Type 2 home occupations is whether the county should include a limitation on daily vehicle trips to the site of a home occupation as a criterion for approval. 3) Vehicle Weight. Type 3 includes a proposed limitation of vehicle weight under criterion (3)(f) relating to parking of businesses vehicles. If the Board decides to adopt such a standard, Staff proposes to increase the size of vehicles from 10,000 pound to 15,000 pounds to be consistent with Type 2. Additional Issues for Board Discussion. In addition to the issues outlined above in the draft, Staff provides the following for your consideration and discussion. Definition of home occupation. Staff proposes the following changes to the proposed definition of home occupation (See Ordinance 2003-003): "Home occupation" means an occupation or profession carried on within a dwelling andlor a residential accessory structure by a member of the family residing in the dwelling. The occupation or profession shall be secondary to the residential use of the dwelling and the residential accessory structure. A limited number of employees who are not residents of the dwelling may be allowed for certain types of home occupations. Staff proposes this definition to address two issues. The first recognizes that -under Types 2 and 3 employees would be allowed with an approved home occupation. The second is that under both Types 2 and 3, the home occupation could be conducted from a dwelling, a residential accessory structure, or both buildings. 2. Parking and storage of heavy equipment. One of the more complex issues presented in testimony is how to addresses businesses where the owner/operator stores heavy equipment at residence and performs most of the work off site, such as a contractor. Staff proposes that the Board treat such businesses as Type 3 home occupations. The testimony indicates that while most of the work engaged in is off-site and not at the operator's residence, some business functions still occur at the residence. These functions may include communications with customers over the telephone, completing paperwork, and storing vehicles and equipment outside of a detached building. This last element, parking and storage of vehicles and heavy equipment, could be addressed through the requirements of outside storage proposed under Type 3. If the Board decides to pursue this course Staff believes there are two additional decisions for the Board to make. First, the Board needs to decide on whether to incorporate an acreage or property size requirement for outside storage (e.g. five or 20 acres). Second, the Board must also decide on whether the requirements for outside storage are clear enough and would provide adequate screening. Please contact me at 385-1709 or at damians(cDco.deschutes.or.us if I can answer any questions before the work session. /DPS Enclosures (2) Staff Report to BOCC June 11, 2003 Page 3 of 3 Exhibit A Page 3 of 3 Summary of Board of County Commissioners May 14, 2003 Work Session on Home Occupations At 9:00 a.m. on May 14, 2003, the Board of County Commissioners conducted a work session on proposed changes to the County Zoning Ordinance regulations on home occupations. The Board conducted this work session after completing a questionnaire asking 17 questions of each commissioner on the issues brought up in public testimony on the proposed changes. Areas of Consensus The Board agreed on the following issues: 1. Create three (3) tiers of home occupations. One of these (Type 1) should be permitted outright. Type 2 and Type 3 home occupations would have different fees and processing requirements. 2. Change regulations 3. Allow some home occupations to have employees 4. Type 3 home occupations can have outside storage of equipment and materials with limitations. 5. Clarify definition of home occupation —working from home. 6. Limit home occupations to a dwelling and/or a residential accessory structure 7. Allow home occupations to engage in incidental sales (e.g. hair stylist that sells hair care products). 8. Develop a definition and/or standards to address parking and/or storing of vehicles and equipment of a certain size — to address businesses that work "off-site." 9. Limit floor area devoted to home occupation for Types 2 and 3, as proposed by the Planning Commission. Do not limit floor area for a Type 1 home occupation. Next Work Session Discussion Issues. 1. Limiting daily trips for home occupations under Types 2 and 3 2. Regulating hours of operation 3. Re-examining County code enforcement policy and procedures 4. Adopting a property size standard for home occupations 5. Requiring inspections with certain home occupations 6. Excluding certain uses from consideration as home occupations Next Steps Staff will coordinate with Bonnie Baker to schedule the Board's next work session. We will notify all participants in this process of the time, date, and location for the next work session. Staff anticipates that the Board will hold one or two more work sessions on this mater and will then hold another public hearing on a final Board proposal for public review and testimony. Staff will also notify the participants in this process of the time, date, and location of the next public hearing before the Board of Commissioners on the next draft proposal. Exhibit B Page 1 of 1 -'' I I I If I I C O I I I f ii I I a I I I I y I I y I'y I I O 10 I 1 0 1 N I I 0 �I O ply I I N N1 IN U. IN I I O N•�I � I I �I U �IIL � I FIs.. sl 3 I I cd;YI y •--�� ti I a»�W: o ' c y C i Y; 0 o;'a U 4.1 cd 10 'n- UO O I'C7 y4. O' y N yi y: 0I.I � O I •. N ' cl C 01w I ul �b bq�` cid v ailc.0. �� oil' � I•b `cl O' 1in01�: _ S C O I'C OI O. i. t 3 ami O 'en � O 01 0 .ta I 0' 0 0'0 In Vogler F O cd -6 d -6 O y O Q �^cam rn O .Ni N O O cis o U �sU NU 0 Qco 3 3 0 ;� • U cOC cbo 0 c a U 3 N O N .-. rn ` qO+ O 0.0 00 co N.. cc o0 s.II i 3 w.Ns s U i ^U^ c •O U C +� N N O 7 O C cd y O U s o '•o N U Esq• 00 U c0 U • C ^' U O � EN > cd a� O O D. 0 ID CL N y 5 E E+ G 0 N 0cYi N a� y U a� F- 4 H N I CI �, yl m •„ COCQ U � GI O U' I N� c1 c O0I O v O} c -a w = �I L Y 3 ' c l � � •� ii': 01 fes+ •C. QS'. I "I C C r- 01 N, O 3 U I Vf 1 Y LI --tom' .M Y r O •yi �; O o c E cis C U V•€�I L> 0 , LIS i. 00 -0y.,� = E U , CIDs_ s,i U .'� ' cd vlc° cc) b0` Quit: Y �cclUW r:3i N'0f p O C cd U �_"1a� C 0' a� y - cC +a; C 0 � O C p N C sI o 0 '-CIO y O O A O O E' y T H a V U HC yclG.Us � E ,U�•�IN �� C .••. O O y u U - v'Ct Uo oU. U In ti 3Ca�SC a CO � U� •CI ti cYC 'II N UN acd Y - A N O 0.- O N• U ti 'o U Q O O s .Y T N o � O 'y to N . 42 0 > ^O U Z U C M U Q O �-: +�•+ c •N O N ibu23 3 o c [; c 03 1..� N O O N •p N N O y 6 0CIS C M cis U y U fti' U L O 00y G > o c «Y N c0 a x�' 0 to a� c O cC O n= 0-0 Cd 0 lcis o c� � C N D N p! > >, a, s Cis >O 0 0 bo U cUw.SN bo 0 : 0 iO.0 O4" cil A 0 0 cccl W Cal 3 o n. J c 0 CION x O M 3W 0 CDM to De 00. Exhibit C Page 1 of 3 v E E CSL O ti I o .fl d ! •, Q' � CU '� � 7� I E O '� Ir' O w. o o HOj �°,°� ❑ Cas °D !w� E„•� V sd y 1-5 L £ o £Y £•a^- wQ nr 4i o ££ T.y m� ,s ul £,U'. aQOUa o° U m a�, O o V 3 I y d! p. D 0.c til Oi VO�ivr%iu0. y V 3i UO�ivina! I I I If I I C O I I I f ii I I a I I I I y I I y I'y I I O 10 I 1 0 1 N I I 0 �I O ply I I N N1 IN U. IN I I O N•�I � I I �I U �IIL � I FIs.. sl 3 I I cd;YI y •--�� ti I a»�W: o ' c y C i Y; 0 o;'a U 4.1 cd 10 'n- UO O I'C7 y4. O' y N yi y: 0I.I � O I •. N ' cl C 01w I ul �b bq�` cid v ailc.0. �� oil' � I•b `cl O' 1in01�: _ S C O I'C OI O. i. t 3 ami O 'en � O 01 0 .ta I 0' 0 0'0 In Vogler F O cd -6 d -6 O y O Q �^cam rn O .Ni N O O cis o U �sU NU 0 Qco 3 3 0 ;� • U cOC cbo 0 c a U 3 N O N .-. rn ` qO+ O 0.0 00 co N.. cc o0 s.II i 3 w.Ns s U i ^U^ c •O U C +� N N O 7 O C cd y O U s o '•o N U Esq• 00 U c0 U • C ^' U O � EN > cd a� O O D. 0 ID CL N y 5 E E+ G 0 N 0cYi N a� y U a� F- 4 H N I CI �, yl m •„ COCQ U � GI O U' I N� c1 c O0I O v O} c -a w = �I L Y 3 ' c l � � •� ii': 01 fes+ •C. QS'. I "I C C r- 01 N, O 3 U I Vf 1 Y LI --tom' .M Y r O •yi �; O o c E cis C U V•€�I L> 0 , LIS i. 00 -0y.,� = E U , CIDs_ s,i U .'� ' cd vlc° cc) b0` Quit: Y �cclUW r:3i N'0f p O C cd U �_"1a� C 0' a� y - cC +a; C 0 � O C p N C sI o 0 '-CIO y O O A O O E' y T H a V U HC yclG.Us � E ,U�•�IN �� C .••. O O y u U - v'Ct Uo oU. U In ti 3Ca�SC a CO � U� •CI ti cYC 'II N UN acd Y - A N O 0.- O N• U ti 'o U Q O O s .Y T N o � O 'y to N . 42 0 > ^O U Z U C M U Q O �-: +�•+ c •N O N ibu23 3 o c [; c 03 1..� N O O N •p N N O y 6 0CIS C M cis U y U fti' U L O 00y G > o c «Y N c0 a x�' 0 to a� c O cC O n= 0-0 Cd 0 lcis o c� � C N D N p! > >, a, s Cis >O 0 0 bo U cUw.SN bo 0 : 0 iO.0 O4" cil A 0 0 cccl W Cal 3 o n. J c 0 CION x O M 3W 0 CDM to De 00. Exhibit C Page 1 of 3 0 C U w N N r C vi 0 Or a - D n •E j: O cn Ctl ^ Cl. 0. O U ycl •• w Y Y Ocd° O N •y C O Qx > o O w Y C C Q a O O •o N +-' O ti Eb `c. Ecd a 0 co') C U 4. Y 0 a N y C5 C w u � � p ft1 �i � m G GO y o eo CQ aq O o T 0 ;o C •C ,� _ o a� Q G d w = Ca U o U Utn. N U wo 0 /^ U� U C O 0 c° •0 ^ ... it N C4 E •% '. Cd N CC E �"• N O y � c end °w•C > o E'v O' '"' 'a • V .D L O y S.• p. (� to Cl,Y 0 o 0 �i a�i N V •O � 's 03._oT T a O a�y0.0 Cd .c Y 'a - N O U N Q yIn cd U fn C a o U O W 3 p U U U E a U D E U'G � � � •E E E E ami c. 0 0 $ .0 y W. O -. c C > 0 N pp M o c U 0 g U Cally 0 a 4 «S c C' 0c°a.. a; ET oona�0.0 OC13 C C C N O 0-0., Ob E °' O y O C N L1°L'UoE�.Ea�v ce C y cC Y U .J -I J �I a O In N En 3 0 w 0 to N N W oo" a Exhibit C Page 2 of 3 q 'C. 'fl 'u •• w d� I O C w u � � p ft1 �i � m G GO y p. e' �'• E. O 7 C V G d M ° v E'ab_d` E H E or� E I o¢� pT, Q p y d � E'v ' [••' V fq N �tl ':f �.i J �i Li U W �i a�i N V •O T :U O .. 'a N E0.. p Cod `�� E E a 7¢ co c N= = C W U ° iO,i o,: N pp M o 'a .a c a; ET oona�0.0 Cl o oEn y cC Y U D O o B CY: N NUS ti .0 •Y �.N C 03"x'' •� as ° cc Q%s . U N O •Vl U O� - O `A N` ., > U U p.to>,p1 O p. �C CC 0, . O � -0 0 o p CIS 0 ° o� i '010:3 L >, cu 3C D 0 I tin > 0 c _ 'n7»-..— o 0`0.oo tn p. C. O ca U Ca . 7 U r as..• > fC H O O E Q: tu Cd cd E _'� - �; cr CIS > N O N oEp CCA'6: 03Y s .000 a�0o3 U0o_c° 3�� tea, Npo 3 > 0 Cd N -a E o° o` N 4. ti 0 cd 0. p, N '" = 0 0 N cd y � �G? � y .� � E rn > OCO .O U U O N,•y N Vl O o O y EY E L°.' M p. o s ti 0 t on 0° 0 � a 3 -0 � a C O C ° Y c O, E C U CC 'a a+ •t�, 'A�3c M .ii T Cd •^ p. °'°'C4, to 0 00 caOc� tv 0.2 C r_ 'N C >cl- 'm E c y cd 'n M s N 3eaaIn3'- L C ° N N f� Ga�csC Y �, >, T -a •3 of C: a��Yo; •N U1 OA to W 2 U ❑ Cn C• C C S N t+'i fYC U ': ¢ cc3 C _ O 'cC C •y •rNC O .'-' O U V O •'C• O C U N V D M U CO C C O U)6; }' N W O¢ 'a C •Y C. cy O U U N V1 "C Cd y U a•C o. .� «S ' ' U E, ;.. ? > > U y o 0-4.2 'A 4� N C_0 E U, CL U =wog 6 -6d; M a O In N En 3 0 w 0 to N N W oo" a Exhibit C Page 2 of 3 0 00 -0y Y •Y N C O Y 'O 00 - 3c O N 3 U C c N N� Y= cs_ tc O 0 4 •Oc0.— -0°s O c0 L Q. cda •" cU=cO s O�•o ca R:LdY'V.0AO Ri ° U E0 cu s c c 3 _o E u c E e o E x a� W "U Y 0 o > c: Y .� to.- w s We U O L .� Y .9 L Cp. L' co A oc' Z �°� ,3Yo3c'3' CCsYo o c�ivII��E�� O U 0. — O 7 v c cA „ ami x s ° 3 o vc=a o° O°0.« 3 x U= E a> Q �0 a .D v O.� a=i E N cd 0 O .0 >, Lo c a� ,= o. •v L O .� O ate.+ `n Y U> .¢' H h G O .r. IM E $� °_ o a a°i v A U w c c ti to O C4 o cu 3 E- Y t+•• N >, — 7 N Y v C tj 'fl O 0- ���7+� -o 0 4. Y to —LLE a� a o to rn O' U O c=0 i N O N C y R itY C y> H Y O R y°� 0 O cC � c °� o 0 c tiE � o c's 0:o 'a�� c o 4.0 cd >•�°E Ow osdc`om O c A° X ��c-0 cc: �U o E: •— t.: ob .t ... .1C N zo N O U Q N s •3 M O 0 c+� 0 0 N N U c c .N Exhibit C Page 3 of 3 T •U y .D � Y 40to" �•••' = L Li O 0o c V D C v ° = T T'D y Oo S7 cz N 00 ',; > O cd to O 2 A o tc M WOO -0.0 "0 — ,C c Cd ° °: ami C L c °c n a� w oL c= E 3 `� s �' x Q Y O C a y (u "o ami p ;� Y cu O In Y L. Y U cs O Q 0 GH O C bo•tC = b =O ,Q' = c ti O O O O Y •�•� O = U 0 00 -0y Y •Y N C O Y 'O 00 - 3c O N 3 U C c N N� Y= cs_ tc O 0 4 •Oc0.— -0°s O c0 L Q. cda •" cU=cO s O�•o ca R:LdY'V.0AO Ri ° U E0 cu s c c 3 _o E u c E e o E x a� W "U Y 0 o > c: Y .� to.- w s We U O L .� Y .9 L Cp. L' co A oc' Z �°� ,3Yo3c'3' CCsYo o c�ivII��E�� O U 0. — O 7 v c cA „ ami x s ° 3 o vc=a o° O°0.« 3 x U= E a> Q �0 a .D v O.� a=i E N cd 0 O .0 >, Lo c a� ,= o. •v L O .� O ate.+ `n Y U> .¢' H h G O .r. IM E $� °_ o a a°i v A U w c c ti to O C4 o cu 3 E- Y t+•• N >, — 7 N Y v C tj 'fl O 0- ���7+� -o 0 4. Y to —LLE a� a o to rn O' U O c=0 i N O N C y R itY C y> H Y O R y°� 0 O cC � c °� o 0 c tiE � o c's 0:o 'a�� c o 4.0 cd >•�°E Ow osdc`om O c A° X ��c-0 cc: �U o E: •— t.: ob .t ... .1C N zo N O U Q N s •3 M O 0 c+� 0 0 N N U c c .N Exhibit C Page 3 of 3 I� Page 4 of 4 N C C O m O E N y f6 N rR) C '�! tJ L V r j 1 40 V jJ bq UO CZ M Zi � � h � Ci t U .CL C ti S F.Yhihir n G Page 4 of 4 N C C O m O E N y f6 N rR)