Loading...
2003-1158-Minutes for Meeting July 22,2003 Recorded 8/12/2003COUNTY OFFICIAL TES NANCYUBLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKS Q 2003-+151 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 0811212003 03:47:42 PM 1111111111111111111111111111111 2003,-1158 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.ora MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED HOME OCCUPATION ORDINANCE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TUESDAY, JULY 229 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 take public testimony regarding a proposed home occupation ordinance. Chair Dennis Luke opened the meeting at S: 32 p. m. He asked that anyone who wishes to testify or who might have a question, or anyone who wishes to be on the mailing list, 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 A) Commissioner Luke explained this is not a formal land use hearing; it is a public discussion, and no decision would be made at this time. Damian Syrnyk gave an overview of the handouts that have been made available to the members of the audience. (Copies are attached as Exhibits B, C, D and E.) SYRNYK: As Commissioner Luke mentioned, this is a public hearing on some proposed changes to the Deschutes County zoning ordinance. This isn't like a public hearing you may have attended on a land development proposal, where there are some strict rules on talking with the Commissioners, or testifying on criteria. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 1 of 59 Pages This is called a legislative matter. We're actually considering changing the laws that would apply to home occupations in unincorporated Deschutes County. This is the second public hearing for the Board, and the Board's fourth meeting on this matter. This is a project that the Planning Division began in the fall of 2002. We began with a public hearing in front of the Planning Commission in November, trying to get some input from folks on whether the County should entertain looking at changes to our regulations on home occupations. Right now, under our current zoning regulations, home occupations are allowed as a conditional use in most zoning districts. That means anywhere you might see a house as a permitted or conditional use, a home occupation might be allowed with what is called a conditional use permit. We have certain zones in unincorporated communities such as the residential districts of La Pine, Tumalo and Terrebonne where a certain type of home occupation is allowed without any kind of a conditional use permit, if you fall within certain parameters. And so the purpose of tonight's hearing is to start looking at changes that started developing before the Planning Commission, and that the Board considered at their last hearing in April; and have gone through some changes after work sessions that the Commissioners held in May and June. I wanted to point out that there are certain types of home businesses that wouldn't be affected by this ordinance, that are already described in the zoning code as having their own approval standards and definitions. These include things like bed and breakfast inns, family childcare providers, churches, schools, and residential homes and adult foster care. LUKE: The reason for that is that they are covered under state law, and usually have an exemption because of that state law. Is that true? SYRNYK: Some of them do, like residential homes and facilities, and family child care providers. Other uses, like bed and breakfast inns, the County has built its own standards for issuing permits for those kinds of uses. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 2 of 59 Pages So this is a category that is supposed to capture businesses that are either run out of the home, may or may not have employees coming to the property, and may or may not have customers that actually travel to the property. We are going to be talking about a gamut of different types of home occupations under this ordinance. One of the things that we tried to do is provide enough notice to folks to let them know that the Board was having this hearing tonight. Over the meetings and hearings that we've had, we've maintained a mailing list and we did mail notice everybody who was on our list. I've also maintained a gang e- mail list of folks who have corresponded with me by e-mail, and I tried also to send them a notice by e-mail. We did have it noticed in the Bend Bulletin, and then our Communications Coordinator, Anna Johnson, was kind enough to help me do a press release. That was on our website, and I think I also saw it on bend.com. LUKE: Did the Bulletin print the news release? SYRNYK: I don't know if they did. I also saw a brief article in the latest issue of the Cascade Business News. What I wanted to get to now is to start talking about what is before the Board right now, and really the nuts and bolts of what is before the Board in terms of material this evening. As I mentioned earlier, we have two kinds of home occupations under our zoning code. What is proposed before you is to increase that to three. The new type of home occupation that is proposed is called a type 2 home occupation. This is something that I heard in testimony before the Planning Commission, because right now under our rules there are certain cases where you don't need a permit; and then the other extreme, if you will, is a permitting process that might involve a six week application process, maybe a public hearing, and a fee of about $1,000. So the Planning Commission wanted to create a middle category that would allow folks to have a limited number of customers coming to their property. The Planning Commission did want to include changes that would allow employees; but also more clear and objective standards and a shorter administrative review process for things that wouldn't necessarily have impacts on the neighbors. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 3 of 59 Pages As part of the whole proposal, what we are proposing to do is relocating our standards for home occupations into one section of the code, so that no matter where you are reading - if you looking at the rural residential zone or an exclusive farm use zone - it would all point to one section, and that would be the one place that you would go to find what you need, depending on the type of home occupation. What I want to do right now is refer folks to the staff report, which is the white document. Starting on page 2, I wanted to go through and highlight some of the issues that have changed since the last Board hearing. LUKE: Does everybody who wants one have a copy of that document? Okay. SYRNYK: I would also like to highlight some areas where I'm still looking for some direction from the Board and from everybody who is attending this evening on whether this is the right way to go. Or, if there are proposals for changing it, what those proposals are. I also wanted to point out that even though I've highlighted certain issues in the staff report, since this is a public hearing and the Board hasn't made any final decisions on certain elements, everything is up for discussion, including the three types, the standards under those types, and how the standards are written. LUKE: Or if you need the ordinance at all. SYRNYK: That's still an open question. In terms of options before the Board, you could adopt the regulations as proposed; you could adopt them with changes; or you could do nothing and retain the current standards that we have in our code. You could use some of these standards that are before you tonight and include them in the code; or you could tell me to do something completely different. The first one I wanted to talk about tonight is what is called the Type.1 home occupation. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 4 of 59 Pages LUKE: Could I have a point of clarification? You mentioned that in Tumalo and Terrebonne, some of these things are already allowed. Is that because of some of the things we adopted previously when we did the unincorporated community stuff? Would these changes then affect them; would it supercede what we did before? SYRNYK: They would change what is already in our code in those communities. During the late 1980's, Deschutes County adopted zoning for the communities of La Pine, Tumalo, Terrebonne, Alfalfa, Sunriver, Black Butte Ranch, and the Inn of the 7 1 Mountain. Anyway, the zoning regulations treat them as unincorporated communities, as opposed to like a rural service center or destination resort community. And in several of the residential districts in those areas, there's a type of home occupation that is allowed outright, provided that it is limited to 25% of the square footage of the dwelling; there are no customers, and no employees. And it was really intended to capture somebody who might be working out of a bedroom, for example. That formed the model for what we are looking at under this proposal for a Type 1 home occupation. There are a couple of changes that are departures from what we already got in our code. One is that under a Type 1 as proposed by the Planning Commission, somebody would be allowed a limited number of trips every day. Right now the proposal before the Board is no more than five trips per day, for the occasional visits by customers. One of the changes that we made in the ordinance after the last hearing and the work sessions is changing where a Type 1 home occupation could be carried out. As proposed, it was limited to somebody's dwelling. The proposal that is before you would change that to either a dwelling or someone's residential accessory structure, such as a garage or a shop. Another change that is before you relates to employees. Under Type 1, no one could have employees travel off-site to their property to report to work. One of the suggestions that we heard, I believe at the last work session, was to not prohibit businesses where people might have employees who work off-site, or maybe work out of their own home, and correspond with their employer through e-mail and the phone and the mail. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 5 of 59 Pages Finally, I think the last change that was made with respect to Type 1 was this elimination of the floor area maximum that is currently in the code. Under our current zones, say in the residential districts of La Pine, for example, a home occupation can be limited to no more than 25% of the floor area of the dwelling. Staff understood that the Board wanted to eliminate that standard, given the limited scope of what is proposed under Type 1 and who might be using it. The second category that we'll be talking about tonight is this Type 2 home occupation. As I mentioned, this is one that the Planning Commission had proposed as a conditional use, but would be subject to different standards and processing requirements than our current requirements for a conditional use permit. There are several issues that I want to touch on that are listed on page 3 of the staff report. One of the things that has come up, and I'm looking for some direction from the Board, the requirement for a minimum property size. Right now, as proposed, in order for someone to make an application for a Type 2 home occupation, their property would have to be at least a half -acre in size. One of the changes that was made in the proposal before you was the elimination of a discretionary standard; that's under item number 2. This was one that was originally included, and is in our code right now for a conditional use permit; but staff is proposing to delete that standard since most of the standards for a Type 2 home occupation tend to be more clear and objective. And we've retained more of the discretionary standards for Type 3 when we are looking at a home occupation that might involve the exercise of some kind of judgment. One of the issues that came up under Type 2, like Type 1, is the issue of floor area. We are proposing a clarification on floor area so that it's clear that if you are using a portion of your home, and maybe your garage or accessory building, there's a cap of 1,500 square feet. That was an original proposal of the Planning Commission, but what we are proposing tonight is a clarification so that it is a little bit more clear. One of the issues that has come up in looking at Type 3 home occupations, as well as Type 2, is a limitation on daily vehicle trips. Under Type 2, there's a maximum number of trips, ten trips per day to the site, not including parcel deliveries, for example from UPS or FedEx. So one of the things that we are requesting your direction on is whether we should keep this standard in the proposal, or if it should be more discretionary and looked at on a case-by-case basis. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 6 of 59 Pages Finally under Type 2, and this is a section that we did change a little bit after the hearing and work sessions, there's a list of excluded uses that would not be eligible under a Type 2 home occupation application. DALY: I looked for that list, and I couldn't find it. DEWOLF: Page 2 of 3. SYRNYK: If you look under the Board hearing draft, the top of page 2 under "N". There are a couple of changes I wanted to highlight. One was that staff had deleted catering from this list, based on the last work session. One of the issues that came up was an original standard of 10,000 pounds of gross vehicle weight rating for certain businesses that use vehicles of that size. We had some testimony from a gentleman whose own truck exceeded 10,000 pounds of gross vehicle weight rating. To address this issue, I did some research on current personal vehicles that somebody might use for their business or personal use. I looked at several models of trucks that were anywhere from 11,200 pounds to 11,600 pounds, gross vehicle weight. If the Board decides to exclude certain uses under Type 2 based on the type of vehicles they use or the size of equipment, then you can decide whether the standard would be appropriate. If you do, staff recommends using a 15,000 pound standard, simply to account maybe for increases in size over time, so that no one is caught with a personal vehicle falling under this ordinance. Again, there's no need for a standard if the Board decides that they don't want to exclude anything from under consideration as a Type 2, and want to rely on the standards that are proposed right now. LUKE: Things change. I mean, who ever thought you were going to have the pickups that they have now. Would it be worth taking a look at the difference between a commercial licensed rig and a personal use rig? Instead of having a gross vehicle weight, an exception between a personal vehicle and a commercial vehicle. I'm just asking. Because if you have to revise your code to change the weight, that doesn't make any sense. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 7 of 59 Pages DEWOLF: I'm just talking out loud like you are. I don't know that changing it if something changes fifteen years from now, if it is that big of a deal. Part of what would be allowed here, it seems to me, are commercial vehicles. LUKE: Not commercial licensed vehicles. DEWOLF: Why not? If they are not creating the number of trips, the number of employees, and a nuisance to their neighbors. DALY: I think the only commercial licenses that Oregon has is PUC licensing. You either have PUC's, which is a certain weight category, or you don't. DEWOLF: I guess what I am hoping is that after we get through this tonight that we will get closer to settling on something. I guess what I am recognizing is that this is more art than science. And what we are trying to do is create something that works for people and keeps neighbors off each other's backs, and recognizing that we may have to modify this a year from now, due to unintended consequences. SYRNYK: I think the Planning Commission recognized that, too. They got to a point where they felt they had something that was worth going to the Board with, to get your input and initial public input. But they also recognized that this is going to be something that we'll have to monitor as people operate and come in for permits, and see how it works. But I think the question of this standard for vehicles is valid. Going back to what I said a moment ago, if the Board decides to look at adopting the proposal for Type 2 with some kind of listed excluded uses that might have to go through a Type 3 home occupation process, we can certainly do more research on this. If you decide not to, and rely on the standards that are already there, then it's one less step to take. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 8 of 59 Pages The final use that is proposed under the ordinance, the Type 3 home occupation, is proposed as a conditional use, and is essentially what we have in our code right now with some modifications. One of the major changes that the Planning Commission is proposing is allowing employees under a Type 3 home occupation. That starts on the draft, pages 2 and 3. That's actually a good segueway, because one of the issues that generated a lot of discussion is some of the property size requirements under Type 3. One of them is related to employees. If you look at the proposal before you, you can have a greater number of employees if you've got EFU or forest zoning, and you've got twenty acres or more. If I remember correctly, after the last hearing and before your May work session, staff had prepared a questionnaire for you to respond to that addressed this issue of employees. The Board did want to consider allowing employees as part of the changes to the home occupation ordinance. If you are still thinking in that same direction, the next question to answer is whether we should be looking at allowing employees as proposed under Type 3. And that might be predicated or related to whether somebody has a certain amount of land. Another property size requirement that is under Type 3 is related to outside storage of equipment and materials. Right now, the proposal before you is twenty acres. But I think we also heard some testimony that maybe it could be smaller if we use setbacks or screening. So that is one thing to consider as part of the overall review of the ordinance tonight. The last thing that I wanted to highlight under Type 3, and this is related to something we talked about under Type 2, is parking of business vehicles. If the Board decides to adopt a standard for that under Type 3, what we are recommending is increasing that gross vehicle weight standard from 10,000 to 15,000 pounds, as proposed under Type 2. The Board could also look at using the outside storage requirements that are proposed under Type 3. LUKE: Maybe we can get one thing off the table. I think we have to up the gross vehicle weight to at least 15,000 pounds, because many personal vehicles are that. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 9 of 59 Pages DEWOLF: The kind he drives is; the kind I drive isn't. But I have no problem with that. LUKE: The recommendation of the Commissioners is to raise the weight to 15,000 pounds, if we pass this. DALY: Let's clarify this 15,000 pounds. DEWOLF: That's before you get into the vehicle. DALY: What I'm saying is, we had testimony last time that the guy's F-350 pickup weighs more than 10,000 pounds. If we raise that to 15,000, then most of these medium size or larger pickups would be legal to actually drive home. Are we going to allow it to just be parked there? What is the reason for the classification? Under Type 2, what the Planning Commission was trying to get at is allowing certain classes of businesses that might have very little impact, but they might have employees or customers, under Type 2. One of the things that they considered was excluding businesses that use vehicles and heavy equipment. The purpose behind looking at a gross vehicle weight rating is that the rating would include the weight of the vehicle plus the weight of the passengers and the cargo it could carry. Say, it's all loaded up with people and material. DALY: What if it has a trailer? SYRNYK: I don't know if I have an answer for that. The gross vehicle weight rating would include people and everything in the truck. If the Board wanted to look at gross vehicle weight rating and whether that 15,000 pounds was still enough, we would have to look at if that would include a trailer, for example. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 10 of 59 Pages DEWOLF: Would the trailer be empty or full? I mean, we could get this so detailed that we will begin to look like the Bend City Council here. DALY: I agree. LUKE: We are talking about the gross vehicle weight of the vehicle being driven. The trailer is a separate issue. SYRNYK: Going back to your question about the trucks, I mean the idea is that these standards only apply if somebody were to come in to apply for a Type 2 home occupation. They wouldn't regulate somebody who just drove their own truck and didn't use it necessarily for business purposes. �:VVS I see here that we are requiring a Type 2 home occupation to be conducted within the house or accessory building by members of the family. We don't have a size limitation on the accessory building. It has to be at least a half -acre property, is that right? SYRNYK: Right below it, under C, there's a limitation on the combined floor area of the dwelling, including any floor area of the garage and accessory building that can be devoted to the business. And that is proposed with a maximum of 1,500 square feet. So if somebody was proposing to operate a Type 2 home occupation, they could use space in their house, maybe an accessory building like a shop and, provided that the floor area of that space combined was 1,500 square feet or less, they could be approved. CATHERINE MORROW: I think, to get back to your original question, under Type 2 you could have your vehicle that you drove off site to run your landscaping business or your carpet cleaning business, and as long as it was less than 15,000 gross vehicle weight, you can park it outside. And you could have your office and store materials inside a building as long as it didn't exceed 1,500 square feet. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 11 of 59 Pages But, if you had a vehicle that you used in your business that you parked outside that was greater than 15,000 pounds, then that kicks you into Type 3. LUKE: Or you have to park it inside. DALY: Okay. So vehicle size has a lot to do with whether you are a Type 2 or 3. That's what you're telling me. And you just mentioned that if you got in your vehicle and traveled to work off site, you aren't really a home occupation anymore, are you? LUKE: If your office is there and you are taking phone calls or orders there, and storing equipment there, it's a home occupation. DALY: Then technically that could go back to a Type 1. So we're only concerned about the size of the vehicle; is that what you are saying? MORROW: There are other requirements. You are Type 1 if you don't have any employees. If you have a truck that you drive home every night and that's your only piece of equipment, and you have an office in your home and you drive back and forth, you're fine at Type 1. What kicks you into Type 2 is if you have employees, if you have more trips that are generated by your business, through people or deliveries or employees or whatever comes to your house. That's the distinction. If you just have a carpet cleaning truck and you have clients calling you at home, and there is no other thing than your truck parked in your driveway and it is less than 15,000 pounds, you could be a Type 1. DALY: Is Type 2 a conditional use? SYRNYK: Type 2 is. Type 1 would not require any type of permit from the County. MORROW: Type 2 would be an administrative decision. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 12 of 59 Pages SYRNYK: They would apply for a conditional use permit, but one of the goals of the Planning Commission in looking at Type 2 is that the processing time would be less than what we have right now, we would be notifying the neighbors but necessarily having a comment period, and the fee would be significantly less than what they are paying right now for a conditional use permit. Before I forget, and before I open the hearing, I wanted to say that I placed a copy of the public testimony from Tina Lyons to be presented this evening. (A copy of this testimony is attached as Exhibit F.) And as part of the Board's packet for the work session that you had on Monday, I provided you with all the letters and e- mail messages that I have received from folks since the last hearing. MORROW: Excuse me. The other piece of material that you have received since Monday was in response to a question that Commissioner DeWolf raised on Monday about whether we were delaying code enforcement activity on any applications. We did some research on that, and I sent you an e-mail with a table attached. LUKE: I have a question of staff. Places like Sunriver and Black Butte Ranch, and some of our other subdivisions have CC&R's that regulate the activity in those areas. Do these ordinances supercede those, as far as home occupations go? SYRNYK: They wouldn't supercede them. If somebody wanted to do a home occupation in those communities, they would have to satisfy the requirements of the homeowners' association and the CC&R's, plus our zoning requirements. Since the last hearing I was contacted by Bill Peck, who, I think, is the director of development with the Sunriver Owners' Association. One of the things that I mentioned in my staff report is that he noticed home occupations aren't listed in the residential or multi -family districts of Sunriver. If the Board ultimately decides on allowing Type 1 home occupations as proposed, or with some changes, he had requested that we add those as uses permitted outright to the residential districts of Sunriver. I haven't received other communications from the Black Butte Ranch Homeowners' Association, for example, to know if -- Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 13 of 59 Pages LUKE: What about Woodside? SYRNYK: I don't think we've been contacted by Woodside. LUKE: There are some subdivisions that enforce their CC&R's more than others. I believe from other issues that have been raised, we are not the enforcers of CC&R's. So if a person meets all of the requirements of the County, then it is up to the local homeowners' association to enforce their CC&R's, and the County will not enforce those? SYRNYK: That's correct. LUKE: When we issue a permit, if they are in violation of, for example, Sunriver's CC&R's, then it is up to the development to enforce their CC&R's. The only rules that we have the ability to enforce are the ones that are actually adopted by the County. DALY: If someone came in and was clearly in violation of CC&R's, we wouldn't issue a permit, would we? SYRNYK: We wouldn't know if they were in violation. CRAGHEAD: Yes, we would issue a permit, because we don't have that in the criteria for approval for any of our permits. And I don't think we can have that as a criterion of approval. DEWOLF: Unless we adopt Sunriver CC&R's countywide as part of our ordinance. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 14 of 59 Pages SYRNYK: One of the things that Bill Peck sent me was a copy of the regulations, and they are very similar to what we have right now under the proposal for Type 1. But, then again, if we had somebody who was trying to apply for a Type 2 home occupation in Sunriver, in order to do that they would have to meet the County's zoning requirements plus whatever requirements are in the CC&R's for the Sunriver Owners' Association, for example. Not for the County, but for themselves. They wouldn't have to satisfy those requirements to get an approval from the County. I did want to let folks know that they can testify at the podium or at one of the tables. I'm going to move out of the way. LUKE: Before we take testimony, maybe we should see if there are individual questions out there that staff could answer. This wouldn't preempt you from testifying, but you may ask the question first. I see there are two of you. Why don't you both come up. You can ask your question of staff before giving testimony, if you want. WILLIAM KUHN: Good evening. My name is William Kuhn, and I live in the Tumalo Winter Deer Range, and I have a couple of questions. Is there an application expense for each of the three types of home occupations? Do you want me to go through all of my questions? LUKE: Why don't you; Damian can write them down and then answer them. KUHN: Is there an annual renewal process required for each of the proposed types? If not, why not? Is it possible that even more restrictive requirements be put on areas like the winter deer ranges? And then I had a question/comment, but I can wait. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 15 of 59 Pages SYRNYK: As proposed, Type 1 would have no fee, because it would be permitted outright. So it therefore would not have any kind of an annual review fee. One of the purposes of creating a Type 1 home occupation is that of the form of home occupation someone could conduct without getting any kind of permit. Type 2 is intended to have a fee, but that hasn't been set by the Board yet. The goal was to have something less than the current fee for a conditional use permit that we have now, which is about $1,040. That would be the fee for the Type 3 home occupation. As part of the Planning Commission's recommendation, they wanted us to look at creating some kind of annual renewal system to where, if we issued either a Type 2 or a Type 3 home occupation permit, there would be some kind of a fee. The range of fees that we talked about might be $25 to $50, and would be used to notify the applicant that it's time to renew their permit, make sure they are complying with all of their conditions of approval, and make a record of that for our file. It is also intended to perhaps cover a site visit, if that was required. I think if the Board ultimately decides on including a Type 2 home occupation in the proposal, then we would need to look at what the fee would be to cover the cost of permitting, and also what the annual review fees would be for both Type 2 and Type 3. Regarding the winter deer range, that hasn't come up yet that I can recall, in terms of looking at different standards for home occupations in areas that are protected under a wildlife area combining zone like the Tumalo Winter Deer Range. That is something the Board can consider in looking at the regulations that we have right now. Much of those areas are zoned either exclusive farm use, forest use, or may have rural residential zoning in place. One thing I wanted to point out is that in the EFU and forest zones, a type 1 home occupation wouldn't be allowed per state law. Per state law, a home occupation can only be allowed as a conditional use. Right now, under state law, home occupations are a use that the County can only allow as a conditional use. And that was also another purpose for looking at a Type 2 home occupation. If someone is looking at doing something like that, and they were in an EFU or a forest zone, there might be a shorter review process if they were looking at a home occupation that might involve maybe a limited number of employees, and maybe a limited number of customers. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 16 of 59 Pages In an EFU zone or a forest zone, we could not allow a Type 1 home occupation, one that would be permitted outright. If we allow any kind of a home occupation in an EFU or a forest zone -- DALY: What about farming? SYRNYK: Farming is already permitted outright. looking at right here. It wouldn't be covered by what we are LUKE: So, if I were a farmer with twenty acres, I couldn't have a separate home occupation, Type 1, without going through a conditional use process, according to state law. SYRNYK: That's correct. LUKE: I can have tractors, combines, pumps, and everything, but I cannot have -- DEWOLF: You can't do somebody's toenails, but if you'd like to be a State Senator and fix that, Mike and I can arrange that for you. (Audience laughter.) SYRNYK: I hear there's a position open. DALY: Nobody said that this stuff had to make sense, right? SYRNYK: We're just trying to make it work. LUKE: Any other questions? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 17 of 59 Pages SYRNYK: Expenses, annual renewals, and the winter deer range. LUKE: There are restrictions in travel in the winter deer range for non-residents. DALY: You certainly couldn't have customers showing up at your doorstep. LUKE: Please look into that a little bit more. KUHN: Was there consideration for annual renewal for the three types? SYRNYK: For Type 2 and Type 3 only. DEWOLF: And this is something that either I wasn't paying attention to when it was brought up, or I hadn't heard this before, because I didn't understand that we were talking about an annual renewal. Essentially what we are creating is a business license. They don't even have business licenses within the City of Bend. SYRNYK: The renewal would only be for the conditional use permit. MORROW: It was a recommendation by the Planning Commission. DEWOLF: But the renewal, we're not talking $1,000; we're talking ten bucks or something, right? SYRNYK: Exactly. The Planning Commission didn't see the renewal process being a revenue generator, but a process where we could contact somebody who got approval for a permit, do a site visit if necessary, and see if they are complying with all of the conditions of their approval. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 18 of 59 Pages DALY: My question would be, why would we worry about it if we don't have any complaints? LUKE: A renewal is also an opportunity, if you do have complaints, to take a look at whether they are operating under the rules that they're supposed to follow. If they are not, it could be a basis for non -renewal. DEWOLF: But Mike has a good point. If they are out of compliance, that in and of itself is a reason that you could be revoked on your conditional use permit. LUKE: But going through the complaint process sometimes takes a year or more. DEWOLF: It would anyway. LUKE: No, not if you are renewing every year. The most it could take is a year. SYRNYK: One of the things that I want to point out under Type 2 and Type 3, is that under Type 2, one of the criteria is that it may be subject to an annual inspection. So if someone is proposing something that is pretty innocuous, they might not need an annual renewal. If it was something that was a result of some kind of code enforcement action, it might be imposed as a condition of approval to make sure things are operating as was originally approved. Under Type 3, I believe it is a requirement if you are going this route, as there should be some kind of an annual inspection. LUKE: I would like to point out that we are looking at an ordinance that allows things in residential areas, where people have an expectation that this is their home, and certain types of activities happen in residential areas, and we are proposing to change the types of activities that occur in those residential areas. And I believe it is important to take a look at that and see which ones might be appropriate for some situations. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 19 of 59 Pages This is still people's homes, and it is still their neighborhoods. And I think an annual renewal makes sense for Type 2 and Type 3. It gives the neighbors an opportunity, if things aren't being conducted like they are supposed to be, to step forward. DALY: I see an annual renewal as being a bureaucracy, with more employees and an awful lot of work. It may not be at the start, but I've got a feeling that as time goes on and more permits are issued, we're going to end up -- I much prefer having a complaint -driven situation rather than a required annual review or something like that. When you get complaints, people come out and investigate those. KUHN: Commissioner Daly, if it is complaint -driven, where are the funds coming from to pay for the inspection that would be required from the complaint. I'm not criticizing the concept, but if there are not enough fees in your budget, where is it going to come from. LUKE: Community Development is supported by fees, building permit fees, planning fees and others, that are not related to code enforcement. DALY: They have a code enforcement budget obviously, and if more complaints come up than they can handle, then they have to examine it during the budget process. KUHN: I'm just raising the question so that you are aware that this money would have to come from someplace. DALY: I understand. I don't think that there are going to be that many complaints. DEWOLF: Trust me. When somebody got upset with their neighbor because they had a basketball hook aimed out into the street, one of those kinds that sits on the sidewalk, and they complained to the paper. We had about three hundred of those things; it was the basketball hoop wars for a year, all complaint driven, and it drove the City's staff absolutely nuts for an entire summer. You just want to shoot these kids. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 20 of 59 Pages These complaints get started because they are mad at their neighbor, not necessarily because of what they are doing. TINA LYONS: Is the legal counsel here for you or for everyone? LUKE: Legal Counsel is here to answer any general questions they can. You can ask the Chair a question and I can ask Legal. LYONS: Mr. DeWolf, on Monday you asked about if the code enforcement was currently enforcing the home occupation regulations as they now stand. Is that correct? DEWOLF: Yeah. LYONS: And Catherine Morrow e-mailed you an answer, and I was wondering if we could know what the answer was. MORROW: I mentioned that Commissioner DeWolf had asked this question, if code enforcement was delaying home occupation cases. And I inquired with Linda Larsen, our code enforcement officer, and she said that there are four open cases that have been open since the Board received the recommendation from the Planning Commission, which was in February. And, in fact, those are all of the cases in this calendar year that are related to home occupations. And there are other code complaints on some of them. And I created this table which I sent to the Board that describes those four cases. Linda also said that any cases that were filed prior to the Planning Commission recommendation she is just treating under the existing rules and proceeding with enforcement under her normal procedures. On these four cases, I put in this table the characteristics, whether they would be allowed under the current zoning regulations, and whether they would be allowed under the proposal. On one case a conditional use would be required. Under the new zoning, it would be a Type 3. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 21 of 59 Pages On the second case it appeared, based on the information that we had to date, that the use was not permitted, and it wouldn't be permitted under the new proposal. The third case would have required a conditional use under the existing regulations and, depending on how many trips were generated by the business, it would be either a Type 1 or a Type 2. And the fourth one was not permitted under the existing regulations because it had employees and large vehicles; and under the proposed zoning it would be a Type 3. Based on this analysis when we met with Linda, we determined that there were other code violations that she was pursuing on one of them. And one that would not be permitted under either the existing or current rules, she was going to proceed with enforcement on that because there wasn't any chance that the rules would change to accommodate that. And she is pursuing the building -related issues on one of the cases; and on the other two she was just going to hold off and continue her regular caseload pending the outcome of these proceedings. LYONS: That does answer my question, thank you. I have comments, but they can wait. CAROL BRIAN: My name is Carol Brian. I have a question about Type 3. The storage that you related, is that a part of the 35% area? Even if you are able to store it inside, it is limited to 35%, as proposed. Does that include storage? If you have several large -- SYRNYK: The outside storage wouldn't be included in that 35%. The 35% that is referred to under 3-C would only refer to the combined floor area of the dwelling and any accessory buildings. Under a Type 3, you could also have outside storage beyond the 35%. BRIAN: Okay, if you had inside storage, would that be a part of that 35%? SYRNYK: If you had inside storage in a building, that would be part of the 35%. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 22 of 59 Pages BRIAN: And this is kind of rhetorical. In the old rules there are no limitations about 35% or any of that. And if you had a fairly large parcel, forty acres or more, I am just wondering why the need to now add that limitation. Because this is the one that you are making people jump through all the hoops for, the hearing and the whole thing. So if you say it's only 35% and they don't have that, and it's not like they can build another building and then you've got it, it's 35%. I would think that there have been some permitted in the past that exceed that. I'm fairly certain that we have. One of the things that the Planning Commission wanted to look at is trying to find some way to keep home occupations as home occupations. And one way of looking at that was limiting the amount of floor area that might be devoted to the business. But this removes your ability to look at things on a case by case basis in that Type 3 when you are doing that, because, again, if you are looking at a very large parcel, it doesn't matter. And it would have very little impact. SYRNYK: It is a tradeoff. It's a legitimate question because there's a tradeoff between looking at something discretionary on a case by case basis, and trying to create a standard that would be fair across the board. That's kind of a rhetorical answer. And my other question is about Type 1. I'm just trying to understand. We had a lot of discussion about the 15,000 pounds. I don't see a limit in here if you - with no employees coming - drove your truck home and left it there, is that permitted in a type I? LUKE: Yeah, if it's your personal vehicle. BRIAN: What if it is a commercial vehicle? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 23 of 59 Pages SYRNYK: Under Type 1 that wasn't a consideration. BRIAN: I guess then it would be limited about the noise, with a truck running at 4 a.m. DEWOLF: Exactly. If there wasn't a noise issue, it could be big; it's not a problem. SYRNYK: That's right. That was intended. MORROW: I want to clarify this, to make sure I understand it. If you had a business vehicle and you were doing Type 1, it wouldn't be Type 1 if it were greater than 15,000 gross vehicle weight. Because that puts you into a prohibited use in Type 2. BRIAN: But it doesn't say it is prohibited in Type 1. DEWOLF: Give me an example of a business that would be non -intrusive on your neighbors, so it would fit under a Type 1, but would require a vehicle that weighs over 15,000 pounds. Well, I don't know. If you had a quiet vehicle that was big, maybe -- LUKE: You could have a flatbed pickup that weighs more, and you go out off site with it, and all you have inside your house is a phone. There are no employees. DEWOLF: So, a tow operator. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 24 of 59 Pages MORROW: Okay. My understanding of the levels in the Types 1, 2 and 3 was that as you graduated from one to the other, they got more and more restrictive. And so I think the intent was that if you had a vehicle that was related to your business and it was over that weight, it is prohibited as Type 2. LUKE: Then you should spell it out in Type 1. MORROW: So that kicks it into Type 3. To make it clearer, to answer this question, I think the answer is that it is not allowed in Type 1, in my interpretation of the way the code is. We should clarify that. BRIAN: But Damian just said that was intended. MORROW: You raised a legitimate question that obviously needs clarification. SYRNYK: I think the clarification is the important part under Type 1. I was reading and making a note, but I think it is a legitimate question because the Planning Commission had looked at what would be some of the differences between a Type 2 and a Type 3. I think that highlights what might be a difference between a Type 1 and a Type 2. DENIMS COLLINS: I didn't catch it earlier, but is there a fee for Type 1? SYRNYK: No. No application. COLLINS: Why would you even want to apply, then, for a Type 1. MORROW: You don't have to. It's permitted outright. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 25 of 59 Pages DEWOLF: You just get to do it. If you are a writer and you've got a computer, you get to write. COLLINS: Or a real estate person or whatever. Until you get a complaint, and then you'd have to go get a permit. Obviously you don't want to advertise that very much. SYRNYK: The flip side of it is that if we do get a complaint, one of the possible outcomes is that it might be investigated and our code enforcement officer might inform the complaining party that this would be allowed as a Type 1 home occupation. MORROW: But if you exceed the standards that are listed, then the code enforcement officer might say, oh, you have to come in for a Type 2, because you are generating too many trips a day. COLLINS: Second question. What about, I don't understand all the zones and everything, an MUA or forest zone, and EFU. How does the MUA zone fall into this? SYRNYK: One of the proposals for the overall package, if the Board decides to adopt something like this, is staff is recommending that we add Type 1 home occupations to the rural residential and MUA-10 zones. Those are rural residential zones that are also exception areas. What it means is that we've gotten approval from the state not to protect those for farm and forest uses, so we've got a little bit more control over what we allow there. One of the original recommendations that we made to the Planning Commission is that we should allow that in the RR and MUA-10 zones. MORROW: So, currently, home occupations are listed in the MUA-10, but it is a full-blown conditional use, and you're not allowed to do the Type 1. COLLINS: So it's different than the conditional use that you are talking about. There are a lot of uses that you can do in an MUA-10, correct? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 26 of 59 Pages SYRNYK: Yes. COLLINS: There are a lot of pretty substantial things that you can do and that are allowed. Okay. MIKE MCFARLANE: On this conditional use, if you get a conditional use issued by Deschutes County and there is a complaint on it, and you guys just pull this conditional use, is that the way I'm taking this? That if you have a complaint on a conditional use, you just lose your conditional use. DEWOLF: No. Let's say you and Frank are next door neighbors, and you've got a conditional use, and he calls in a complaint. Somebody comes out and checks it out, and finds out it is bogus, and you're just fine. The way the system is designed is to go out and check out these to enforce the code. If there is compliance, there's no issue. And if they are out of compliance, then there's a process to go through to get back into compliance. That's our goal, to let people know what the rules are. If you are willing to live within the rules, you're fine. MCFARLANE: Since I have no employees or anything, I don't remember exactly what I'm on, R -S or R-5 or something. I have about thirteen acres. I still keep my equipment there when I'm not on the jobsite somewhere. Is this directed at us? People with no employees operating out of their homes? Should I even be worried about this? CRAGHEAD: When you say keep your equipment or vehicles there, are they over 15,000 pounds? MCFARLANE: I have nothing under 15,000 pounds. CRAGHEAD: That's the issue. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 27 of 59 Pages MORROW: You would be a Type 3, under this proposal. MCFARLANE: We have nothing under 15,000 pounds. MORROW: Oh, in Type 3, you can be over 15,000 pounds. MCFARLANE: I didn't read that, I guess. DEWOLF: What kind of business are you in? MCFARLANE: Excavation. DALY: That's the whole issue of why we are here. People like Mike and Dennis and some of these folks back there. They are in these gray areas, and we wonder where they are going to be when we pass this new thing. And that's what we are trying to iron out here, just exactly -- DEWOLF: Do all of these guys know it is your fault we're doing this? DALY: Oh, yeah. MCFARLANE: The other question I had was, to have a building to house this equipment in would be, in round numbers, 100 feet by 60 feet wide. I could get everything I use in this building. Except the County will not issue a permit to build any shop over 1500 square feet in the zoning that I'm in. MORROW: This code as proposed allows outside storage. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance P age 28 of 59 Pages MCFARLANE: That's what I'm interested in, outside storage. MORROW: It allows outside storage if it is over twenty acres, and you can have whatever size equipment that you want, if you go through Type 3 approval. MCFARLANE: I don't have twenty acres. DALY: We're still discussing that. That's up in the air. SYRNYK: That's still up in the air. FRANK PENNOCK: I'm from Deschutes River Woods. I've got a question, because I know I'm going to be asked this. Type 1 or Type 2 - you've got a business where you leave in the morning and you come home in the evening. You've got a truck or a pickup truck. Is this Type 1 or Type 2? Then if you hook a trailer to it -- and I'm talking about landscape people, who have a trailer with their rakes and that kind of stuff in it -- what is this? Type 1 or 2? SYRNYK: That's an unanswered question yet. Because it could be either way, or it could be Type 3. PENNOCK: No employees. Just themselves. SYRNYK: One option the Board can consider is allowing something like this under Type 1. Other businesses of this type might fall under Type 3, if they need some kind of outside storage. Another option you need to look at is modifying Type 2. There are several options here before you. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 29 of 59 Pages MORROW: The issue of trailers. I believe that this is the first time this has come up, and we haven't really addressed it. But the idea is that if they didn't have the trailer, for sure they'd be Type 1, if the vehicle is under 15,000 pounds. We haven't clarified the trailer issue. PENNOCK: I've got a neighbor up the street, and he leaves at 5 a.m., and he's got signs on the side of his truck and I never see him until he comes home at night. That's Type 1. LUKE: We are now opening up the meeting for public testimony. (6: 40 p. m) MIKE MCFARLANE: Well, I've testified here, and have been to almost all of these meetings, and I'm sure you guys are tired of listening to me. It seems to me like this is going to be a great deal of added cost, no matter how you do this. My options, what I see so far, are to go find twenty acres, go get some commercial ground, or just not bring my stuff home. All of the costs are really considerably higher than what I can afford to do. LUKE: What would you like to see? MCFARLANE: I understand that there has to be places. But I think that there should be like on a five -acre piece, screening can be trees or something that you can affordably build that will screen. I just think the cost has to be something that a guy can afford to live with. LUKE: Would you like to see a change in the size of the outside storage building, or maybe the total square footage of covered building area? MCFARLANE: Or five acres. If you are offset from your neighbors, and it's not impacting them by visual sight. If you had a row of aspen trees or several rows down a fence line, and you parked your equipment by there, they shouldn't be able to see anything but the trees, really. Or a fence or something, if that bothers them. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 30 of 59 Pages What I am trying to say is, we still have to live where we are working out of. And I understand that they need their space, too. I'm not saying that we should be able to just run roughshod over everybody. I do leave at 5:00 in the morning, and my road does not really impact anybody since it goes right out to the highway. I just want to be sure that everybody realizes that we have some rights, too, by owning this property. Anything that they do on this is going to cost us directly, and indirectly it costs those people. If we are permitted, usually it turns into a deal where it is a right to come inspect your place any time they want to, rather than a complaint. DEWOLF: Can I ask a question? What do you do on your property, related to your business? MCFARLANE: Usually maintenance of my equipment. A lot of times I will have pipe left over from a job, and I put it in a pipe rack; it's not just scattered. I have several buckets that I don't use, and it takes up quite a bit of area. And once in a while you'll bring home half a load of drain rock that you didn't use. It all takes space, but what are you going to do with it otherwise? I have seven acres of pasture. DEWOLF: I need some help in understanding something here. I don't see anything in the Type 1 that would impact this gentleman. SYRNYK: There are a couple of things I'll bring to your attention to think about. One is, under Type 1 we haven't talked about storage, for example. And we haven't talked about this issue of the size of vehicle, or if that should be an issue under Type 1. This is something the Board can consider when looking at a Type 1 home occupation. DEWOLF: It says what it is, within the dwelling. Well, other than maintenance, that is the only thing I've seen, right? Is there something else I'm missing? Pipes, but look at anybody's back yard. We all store pipes or 2 x 4's, or we take part of our fence apart. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 31 of 59 Pages Commissioner DeWolf, I understand that the way it is drafted you could interpret it that way. And if that's the case, it obviously needs some additional clarification. Because the intention of the Planning Commission with this recommendation was that there would be no outside storage; that the whole business and everything associated with it had to be inside the home and accessory dwellings. That's the intention. DEWOLF: Okay. I'm not sure it says that. MORROW: The idea was that no one would know you are doing anything. The impact would be the same as if you lived there and had friends come and visit, or UPS delivered something to you occasionally. That obviously needs clarification. DEWOLF: So, let's clarify the way that you are explaining this. Then he is either a Type 2 or a Type 3. If he is a Type 2, it has to be at least one-half acre in size. And he doesn't have more than ten vehicle trips, he has adequate parking and access. What is it that would keep him from being a Type 2. MORROW: It's the list of prohibited uses, which is that 15,000 gross vehicle weight. It kicks him into Type 3. DEWOLF: And then in Type 3, where we knocked him out is we say it's a twenty -acre minimum. And that's where I keep going back and bringing up this issue. If he's got twenty acres but he builds within twenty feet of the property line, who cares if he has twenty acres? The closest neighbor wouldn't be happy at all. With setbacks you could satisfy this issue with a five -acre piece of ground. C� With a conditional use. One of the things I wanted to point out, is that under Type 35 "L", there are a couple of things regarding outside storage. One is the twenty - acre size. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 32 of 59 Pages The other is a more discretionary standard where someone would have to show that they have adequate setbacks and/or screening. So if somebody had twenty acres, they might not necessarily put it right up next to the neighbor's property boundary. MORROW: So there are two standards. DEWOLF: I continue to believe that we ought to have a third standard, and that is that this can be modified with the use of appropriate setbacks. MORROW: You could just eliminate the acreage requirement altogether if think the screening can be reviewed on a case by case basis. DEWOLF: Because by the same token, you get out into Boonesborough, which is 2-1/2 acres, screening is probably not going to cut it. That's not all that big. MORROW: This is the proposal from the Planning Commission. And if you all think that the size of the acreage is inappropriate and that screening, on a case by case basis, will address the impacts, and with this conditional use, everybody gets notified before the decision is made, that may be fine. DEWOLF: It seems more logical to me, because it allows -- it is still arbitrary and it is subjective, but you are dealing with your neighbors and you are dealing with the staff or the Hearings Officer. I think with twenty acres, we don't really address the issue, unless we are dealing with setbacks. And if we deal with setbacks, then twenty acres becomes irrelevant. DALY: I agree. You've got two votes for that. I live on five acres, and the issue is, my neighbors on both sides of me are three or four hundred feet away. Five acres is a big piece of ground. Twenty acres is ridiculous. There is no reason to have that kind of a standard to do what Mike McFarlane wants to do. I mean, he's a one-man operation, goes to work someone where else. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 33 of 59 Pages MCFARLANE: There's one other question. I've lived there for twelve years, longer than the neighbors. Can you just grandfather me in? DALY: He's got a good point. There's an issue that we need to discuss. LUKE: John Tschunko? Did he leave? (Mr. Tschunko, off microphone) I just want to be on the mailing list. TOD GIRT: I have basically the same issues as Mike McFarlane. I've been in my house in the Terrebonne area for six years, and I have a five -acre parcel, and I also bought the five next to it. I do have employees, five, but they don't report there. We meet at the jobs, generally one or two will show up to grab a truck or a piece of equipment or something. You cannot see any part of my operation from the road, because of trees. We have had no complaints from the neighbors. I have looked for commercial property, just for the convenience of having everyone report to one place. But I'm looking at $250,000 for something to run the operation out of. So it is just not feasible. I've looked at Crook County, and I can buy a piece for $160,000, but then with travel time, and I'd have to build a shop, it doesn't make sense for a company our size. We can't compete if we have to do that. DEWOLF: How big is your property? GIRT: Five acres is what I'm using for the business. I think that the five acres would work, with screening. You can't see anything from the road. Like Mr. Daly said, if you are three or four hundred feet from your neighbors, it is a big piece of property. That's basically all I have. THOMAS BRAY: I have a business that I want to start in my garage, but I want to see what goes on with this. I have a couple of concerns. I live on an acre, and the business I want to do is restore vehicles for myself and my father-in-law. Basically a body shop. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 34 of 59 Pages LUKE: One vehicle at a time? BRAY: One at a time. I have a 28 x 28 garage that I just use for storage right now. LUKE: If a person lives on an acre, keeps it inside the garage, and there's not a great deal of customers, is that a Type 1? SYRNYK: Right now Type 1 doesn't address this. It raises a good question. LUKE: It's entirely inside, does it matter if he is working on his own car or someone else's? It's not outside. MORROW: Could be. CRAGHEAD: May I ask a question? When you do your body work, are you using toxic paints or anything that might cause an odor. That is one thing that is addressed in the Type 1. BRAY: I have plans, if I were to do this, I would have a spray booth with filters for both inlets and outlets. I've talked to the DEQ, and they told me that their restrictions are that if you are putting out more than 200 pounds of material per month. Then they worry about the toxins. If it is less than that, they don't have a problem with it. CRAGHEAD: What about odor? .., My property is surrounded by jack pines, and I don't think the odor would reach the neighbors. My father-in-law lives on one side, and the other piece is my brother-in-law's. There's really not a lot of people, neighbors, in the area, that I would have to worry about. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 35 of 59 Pages DEWOLF: But there are two things. One is, we couldn't make a determination because you're surrounded by family. Maybe they will all get mad at you and sell and move. The other piece of this is, what the Type 1 is, as I see it, the responsibility is kind of on you. If you can do the home occupation that you want to do inside the accessory building, and it's not generating trips, doesn't have employees and doesn't make smells, noise, dust, and stuff that could bother the neighbors, you're good to go. MORROW: And you're not storing mufflers outside. DEWOLF: What that does is put the onus on you to make sure that you stay within that Type 1. But if you are out there with a welding torch at midnight, making a lot of noise, and your father-in-law calls us up, you're in trouble. : '7- m So, with a Type l I could put a 3 x 3 sign out front? DEWOLF: No signs. But I could advertise in the paper, though. MORROW: Yes. DEWOLF: But if you have four cars stored outside and we get a complaint, then it gets expensive. Personal cars? I have a'52 Chevy pickup of my own. MORROW: If you have cars backed up, waiting to get finished, that would be a problem. Type 2 specifically prohibits what he is saying. Maybe it should be eliminated from Type 2. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 36 of 59 Pages SYRNYK: That's a good question, because maybe we should look at the exclusions under Type 2. DEWOLF: As long as they are carried out within the buildings. But even Type 2 doesn't allow any outside storage. SYRNYK: If the Board is thinking about this under Type 1, we recommend looking at the exclusions under Type 2, under "N". DEWOLF: Here is where I see a little bit of a difference. The goal here in Type 1 is, nobody knows. Type 2, people know, you have employees, which is different from one person operating from the home. I think that the reason under Type 2, what we are trying to get at is, this is still a residential area. What we are trying to do is to protect the integrity of that residential area. So I'm not sure we want to eliminate those out of hand. •"•W I think the reasoning about these prohibited uses was the perception by the Planning Commission that these particular uses do generate noise, or have the potential of generating noise and dust and those things. DEWOLF: So either they are a Type 1, because they haven't caused anybody problems. You either fit because you really are unobtrusive, or you don't belong in a residential zone. BRAY: That sounds reasonable to me. The only question is, maybe you have a competitor who finds out you are doing body work out of your garage, or restoration or whatever, and turn you in. They want to get you shut down. If they make a complaint -- DEWOLF: Our code enforcement officer comes out and sees that you are doing this entirely inside, you don't have mufflers and radiators and other vehicles being stored outside, you don't have a sign up, and you are doing everything so that your neighbors aren't aware of it. And they say, you're fine. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 37 of 59 Pages TINA LYONS: I have a question for Damian. Did you say under Type 2 that before the administrative decision is made on a conditional use permit, the neighbors will be notified? SYRNYK: One of the proposals the Planning Commission made was to make this an administrative process without prior notice. How that would work is someone would make an application, and if it satisfied all the requirements and was approved, we would be mailing notice saying that we've approved a home occupation, subject to these conditions. One of the goals of having a Type 2 home occupation is that if we do that, we'd have standards that are pretty clear and objective, so someone would have something to look at if they wondered if the neighbor was complying with the permit. LYONS: My neighbors just got a landscape management act review, and were approved. I was sent a notice, and given ten days to appeal it if I chose, but I didn't want to. But if I was out of town for two weeks, ten days would not have been enough time for me to have appealed. I wanted to thank Bonnie for posting the minutes of the meeting that I missed. I brought an outline of the things I wanted to discuss. One thing that I don't think has been addressed yet is that our garbage company sent us a flyer, and said that no commercial or business waste, radioactive, medical waste or explosives will be accepted. I'm wondering if you have thought about the garbage disposal issues of home occupations. DALY: They may have to haul their own garbage. DEWOLF: Our intention is not to regulate the relationship between people and their garbage haulers. Our intention is to try and quell difficulties that neighbors face with each other. If the garbage company won't pick things up, that's their problem and they'll have to deal with their garbage.. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 38 of 59 Pages LYONS: There's a potential for a home business to have waste products that the garbage company wouldn't pick up. Does anybody notify the garbage company? I &1J '14 What they are saying is that they don't take anything but household garbage, but they do handle commercial; they just charge more. It's a great opportunity for the garbage companies to charge more. The drivers know what's there. DEWOLF: If you try to hide a paint can in your garbage, you might get away with it. You might not. LYONS: The second point, I really feel that we should think about the infrastructure of the downtown core. I live in La Pine, and if home occupations are allowed, a lot of people will move home and we'll have a lot of spaces for rent. And we're trying to build the downtown core and the town. DALY: Some businesses depend upon a lot of traffic for their survival, and a home occupation wouldn't depend on a lot of traffic. LYONS: Which brings me to my next point, which is that under the home occupations Type 1, everyone says it has no impact. I saw in the minutes of the work session how Ms. Morrow said that no one knows what is going on because there aren't any trips generated, maybe some subcontractors but you never see them. And my question is, so everyone else except me agrees that five trips a day plus UPS is no impact? Is that what everyone thinks? DEWOLF: Yeah. And I'll tell you why. I probably make five trips a day. And you probably do. On average, people probably do. I think that having five cars come to a house a day, no, it's not "no impact". It is an impact. Is it enough to trigger somebody to not be allowed to be an artist in their home, or to redo cars on his own at home, and he has to drive to town and buy something at the auto body shop? It's a pretty minimal impact, five cars a day. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 39 of 59 Pages MORROW: Five clients a day. LYONS: If someone has a private residence and they have family coming and going, that's rural residential living. You add to that five -- but maybe seven -- clients a day, and a UPS truck. I have a business, and any business does get products, so there are more deliveries. On top of their family trips. That, to me, is impact. And I think it is impact to a lot of residential people. DEWOLF: And that's true. I'm just suggesting that it is impact. But if you and I live next to each other, about five years ago when I had three teenage daughters, all with driver's licenses, all with their own vehicles, and my wife and I each had a vehicle, we're generating a lot of trips. Personally, I don't see that as a huge impact. LYONS: There's nothing I can say about the teenage trips. But you add five or seven more trips on top of that, that is an impact. And when you live on a dusty road, that's a lot of impact. DEWOLF: And maybe we'll never get to an agreement on this. I'm just suggesting that a single individual living in a house is going to generate less trips than a family of seven. And that's a fact. The single person with a business, with five trips a day, is an impact; but it's still less than the family of seven. We're talking about people's ability to live their lives, do unobtrusive things. If in fact it is seven trips and not five, you have cause for complaint. Say it's a hairdresser. And they have clients coming, and bring in ten clients a day instead of five. That's a code violation, and they are no longer in compliance. LYONS: Then they say that two of those seven trips were my family. How are you going to prove that they weren't? DEWOLF: This isn't a perfect world. We're hoping that neighbors can get along. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 40 of 59 Pages LYONS: The traffic and the dust alone may ruin some of the quality of life for other residents. So, the home occupation cannot generate any dust or glare, or noise. Does that include the trips that are involved with the home occupation? DALY: No. I wouldn't think so. Not on a public road, because it is off-site. I think they are talking about dust on the site. LYONS: I'm just playing devil's advocate; the way it is written, I could argue that they are generating dust going to the site. Dust is a real problem in these rural areas. Most of the roads are dirt roads. This brings us to the non -paved roads and how they are privately maintained. They are not maintained by the County. There are fourteen of us that live on our half -mile road, and there are four of us who pay. We do have CC&R's but we don't have a formal homeowners' association. Those who can, pay; and we split it evenly. And I don't see how you can allow business activity on a road that I maintain. LUKE: It's a public right of way. There's nothing that says you have to maintain that road. It's dedicated toward public use. LYONS: We choose to. Okay. So I am recommending that you have zero trips a day for a Type 1 home occupation, because I think that would be zero impact. I think the language should be changed. Or they can do it only on rainy days when there is no dust, or on County maintained roads. Secondly, by deleting the 25% floor space requirement, there would not be a measurable standard. Which I think that part of this is about. I suggest that if it was limited to 1500 square feet, that when the business grew to be a Type 2, it would be an easier transition. Because if they were Type 1 and had 3,000 square feet, and suddenly they were Type 2, they would have to downsize and it would be a nightmare. I want to suggest that. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 41 of 59 Pages I think the building and safety codes, along with the environmental health standards, should also be required in Type 1, to insure public safety. Since you are going to have customers coming. F, They probably would be or they wouldn't have a house there. Unless they build something without a permit. LYONS: You're not going to know if they are following those rules. DALY: Our system is complaint driven right now, and that's where we discover whether they added a room on their house. LYONS: In my complaint, I asked Linda (Larsen) if I did not complain about building code violations, would she see them. She said no, that she would only look at what was formally complained about. CRAGHEAD: I have a question. When you say building code or environmental violations. Are you looking at wording specifically in the other types? You want the same wording in Type 1, or new wording? LYONS: No, the same wording. SYRNYK: That would be Type 2, "J". DALY: I would think that our code enforcement officer is not a building inspector. In most cases they wouldn't recognize an illegal structure, unless the complaint specifically says that this was done. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 42 of 59 Pages LUKE: By definition, no permit is needed, so you wouldn't know this was done without a complaint. CRAGHEAD: In a sense, this applies to all structures, whether we have this ordinance or not. LUKE: And we can't enter a property without permission. A building permit allows for this. If it is an illegal building, we can't enter without permission unless we have a warrant. LYONS: Going back to the privately maintained roads, what's going to happen in a neighborhood like mine is now my neighbor has all these trips, and I'm one of the people that pay for the road. I think now she should pay a larger percentage for the road. So, therefore, I may not pay this year. So now we are having problems with the neighbors. By allowing the home occupations in the rural areas, you are creating problems. That's my point. And the dust is another issue. Okay. And it says in Damian's staff report under Type 1 that it is to capture sole proprietors, although that's not the language in the proposed code. It doesn't say anything about sole proprietorships; so we could have an incorporation or a limited partnership there. Just to clarify. Moving on to Type 2, I think that the language that "the business shall be conducted in such a way that is compatible with the residential character, or in resource zones, resource -oriented character if its location" should still be included in the code and not deleted, Because I think this is a fundamental issue that should be considered with the conditional use permit, and also in the appeal process. So I'm voting that it not be deleted. Regarding Type 2, the half -acre, it is not large enough in my opinion. We have half -acre lots in our subdivision solely, and our CC&R's from the 1960's say your well has to be fifty feet from your standard septic system. DALY: That's state law. You have to be 100 feet from your drainline, and fifty feet from the tank. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 43 of 59 Pages LYONS: Our CC&R's say it is fifty feet from the septic tank. So, is it possible on a half - acre; is that still safe drinking water conditions? MORROW: That's state law. DEWOLF: That does not guarantee safe drinking water conditions. DALY: Depends on the configuration of the lot. LYONS: The idea behind the new neighborhood is that the County doesn't really want development on half -acre parcels. DEWOLF: We don't want too much of it. LYONS: Okay, well. I felt that water quality was a problem on a half -acre, because there wouldn't be adequate parking on the half -acre once you have the house, the drainfield and the well, for ten trips a day if all trips happened at the same time, or three people came over at the same time. I don't think there is enough room for adequate parking on a half -acre, so I propose that the language be changed to at least one acre in size. Regarding Type 2, "H", where it talks about no external changes that would give the outward appearance of a business, in Type 2 you don't want it to look like a business. Correct? So, then, in Type 2 "K", you can have a sign, though. That seems to conflict. You said earlier that Type 2 didn't have a sign, but in fact it does. SYRNYK: Type 1 is not allowed to have a sign. LYONS: I'm talking about Type 2 now. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 44 of 59 Pages DEWOLF: Type 2 can have a sign that's three square feet. SYRNYK: That's part of the original proposal from the Planning Commission, something small. LYONS: Why would they need a sign if you don't want to give the outward appearance of a business? The Planning Commission thought that somebody might need a sign in some cases for direction, some kind of marker. DEWOLF: Because the building itself doesn't look like a business. You've got something hanging out by the mailbox that says -- LYONS: So you are helping the ten trips a day get there. I see. Okay. I just wanted to let Mr. Luke know. Okay, there was a discussion about other requirements by the fire department to be notified regarding Type 2's and Type 3's so that things were addressed safely. And my neighbors got a facilities permit from the State of Oregon Health Department, Health Licensing, and they were told to also follow the city and county regulations, and the county regulations are no home occupations at this time. So, I feel there could be more interdepartmental communications to notify what's going on in the zones. And I think that the fire department is definitely one of them. So, back to code enforcement is not enforcing four cases at this time, from this year. LUKE: That's not what they said. I think there may be only one of the four. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 45 of 59 Pages MORROW: Actually, I think the one that Ms. Lyons is particularly interested in, they are enforcing building permit violations. And Linda (Larsen) is working on that aspect of the code enforcement. The complaint is active. The operator of that business has not filed for a conditional use permit, and Linda is proceeding with the building violations at this time. DEWOLF: Because that is irrespective of this. MORROW: Yes. So, she is going to proceed with one of those that wouldn't be allowed either under the old regulations or the new regulations. And a planner told one of the people that there were these pending regulations and it could change the situation. Certainly if the Board directs the code enforcement officer to take immediate action on these, she would do that. But at this point, she and her supervisor, pending this outcome on those three, are not pursuing them aggressively. LYONS: Can I ask how you feel about that? DALY: It depends on what it is. We're actually more interested in compliance, and typically try to give people some time to comply. We're not trying to be heavy- handed. LYONS: In the minutes to the meeting of the work session, Commissioner DeWolf told Frank Pennock to file a code enforcement complaint, and we'll follow up on it. That's not going to change. And then Commission Luke said you might as well start it now, and at the end of the year you'll be satisfied. So, I don't think that it -- my point is that you may decide not to change the rules, and you may take three or six more months to decide, and meanwhile people have formally complained about home occupation violations, and no action is being taken. LUKE: As I understand it, there is action being taken on the building violations. Is the business illegal? Is the business viewed as illegal under the current regulations? There are not very many. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 46 of 59 Pages MORROW: I believe so, because she has clients and is conducting business out of her home and, under the existing regulations, this would require a conditional use permit. LYONS: All four of them do require conditional use permits right now. LUKE: Is this business going to meet, is it anticipated that the business may meet the requirements for Type 2 or Type 3? MORROW: That's what I determined, based on the information that I had. It's conceivable that in this case it would meet Type 1. Two of them would be Type 3. LUKE: The specific one you are interested in, what would that be? MORROW: Depending on the number of clients, it would Type 1 or Type 2. LUKE: Type 1 would mean there is no impact. DEWOLF: Which is what you are disagreeing with. MORROW: Not necessarily no impact; it falls within that criteria. LYONS: There are more than five trips a day at this time. That's all I had. Thank you. FRANK BRIAN: My hats are off to you gentlemen again. I think you -- the first few meetings I went to, I don't think it was registering yet the impact of what was going on with this new regulation. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 47 of 59 Pages And I believe that with the continuing kind of people that are showing up at these things and asking the questions, I think that it is the ruse of unintended consequences. And I'm glad to see that you are addressing the possibilities of those. Again, I take my hats off to you. One point I would like to bring up, I have a problem with the current code enforcement process, and the way that is done. I have offered somebody who was in code enforcement a thousand dollars of my personal money to file a class action lawsuit against you folks, because I don't think it is equal protection. And I believe that we are entitled to, equal protection under the law. DALY: Protection? Well, prosecution. When Linda Larsen would drive by two places that are clearly illegal businesses to go to the third place and talk to the guy, and actually run him out of business and run him out of town, I think that's terrible. DEWOLF: Because of the complaint -driven nature, is what you are saying. Yes, sir. And I feel that is inappropriate. And that's a part of what drives the conflict in the neighborhoods. And, you may remember the guy who had the electrical place in Terrebonne or wherever it was up there. That whole thing, a neighbor moved in and didn't like what was going on, and there were three neighbors, and one had a truck repair business and one had something else. And he did the electrical stuff. The neighbor who moved in didn't like him, so he filed a complaint. Well, you have to drive by the other two neighbors to get to him. Anyway, the other point that I would make, and this just doesn't apply to this process of getting the Type 2 permit or whatever. If I understand the process right in general with the Planning Department, if somebody was given a Type 2, and you were given the ten-day notice to object to it or whatever you're going to have, to file the objection, you have to pay a fee. 0/. That's correct. The appeal fee on an administrative approval is $250. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 48 of 59 Pages In the regular process, the notice goes out, and you can file and make comments for free. But if you pass this and do an administrative approval, if you don't like it, is there a cost to complain? SYRNYK: I'd like to point out that under state law, there is no appeal fee; it is set at $250 for a land use decision if there is no public hearing required. For example, the Cascade Gardens appeal; the applicant's original application was approved, notice was mailed to the adjacent properties, and an appeal was filed for $250. This might be something to consider with a Type 2. LUKE: If I want to appeal since I didn't know about it, I have to pay $250 for you to reconsider? SYRNYK: $250 will get you a hearing. LUKE: To appeal something you didn't know was being made. CRAGHEAD: A different process could be set up for home occupations. The maximum amount allowed is $250. It doesn't mean that you can't do a different process with a different fee. LUKE: We need to talk about that. You look at the decision, and if there are no objections during ten days, you then grant the permit. CRAGHEAD: If there is a hearing, it covers the cost of the hearings officer. DEWOLF: That's part of the reason for a Type 2, so that the cost is less. It may not seem fair, but it is cheaper and faster than the conditional use permit process. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 49 of 59 Pages SYRNYK: Regarding Type 3, the Planning Commission is looking at what we are doing now. Regarding Type 2, we are trying to figure out how to provide someone who is applying for a permit a shorter review process with some kind of notice. The notice could be in advance, with comments in writing to be submitted within fourteen days. The Board could consider this. COLLINS: You could eliminate Type 1 and avoid opening up a huge can of worms for the County. DEWOLF: So, if I'm a screenwriter for a soap opera, and I work out of my house, I'm breaking the law, according to you. COLLINS: Yeah. Well, no. I just think, eliminate the whole Type 1. DEWOLF: Then what that means is nobody could have a home occupation — COLLINS: No, I'm not saying that. It's just out of sight, out of mind type thing. They are doing it anyway. DEWOLF: But that is what we are trying to do, is stop everybody from being criminals, which is what we have now. DALY: All we're going to have is a code that describes Type 1, which says we don't really care. COLLINS: I still think it's going to be a pain. DALY: Type 2 could be a can of worms maybe. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 50 of 59 Pages COLLINS: And I kind of wanted to tell a little story about when I ran into a problem with the County on this home occupation. We moved over here about five years ago from the valley, and bought an acre and a half. And I was running my business on this place, which is just the right size, really. It was in the urban growth boundary of Redmond, and we were there about four years. No complaints - you try to keep things neat so they're looking good and so forth. There was a piece of property that came up here just down the road a little ways, and it was zoned MUA, so we got interested in it. And the Realtor said no problem, you can have your business there, and so on. He kind of fibbed to us. We bought the property and moved there, and built a new house and cleaned up the mess that was there, and got this notice that we were in violation of the home occupation. Well, we hadn't even moved in yet. Well, it was thirteen acres. Just like what Todd said earlier, five acres is plenty to run a business. What is happening to me now, I wish I was back on that acre and a half, where nobody bothered me at all. Period. We had good neighbors. The complaint that I got, and it was kind of a freak deal, the complaint was written by Linda Larsen. And she has a note at the top of it that this is not me. What happened is I got the complaint dropped because I hadn't moved there yet and wasn't running my business there. I told Linda my intentions were to run my business there. I pursued it, and it was a guy about 1/3 of a mile down the road from me who turned me in. But why Linda Larsen's name was on it, I don't know. I got it closed and went to the guy and asked why he turned me in. He said, he didn't like the mess. If you could imagine this guy's place, it is a mess. A junk pile. He turns me in and I'd cleaned up, trying to make things look nice. Getting back to the five acres, I think it is really plenty. I'm in an MUA, and we've got water rights. That acre and a half really looks good compared to trying to take care of all of this property. The farming aspect of it, twenty acres, I don't know any farmer who can get rich on twenty acres; it's not going to happen. I really think five acres is plenty on this deal. I don't think you need any more property than that to run a business. The problem with our business, and there are several of us here tonight, is our tools are big. We operate with big tools. And really, in my eyes, it is no different than if you have a framing contractor who has ten guys working for him, and they leave with their four pickups and their tools in the back of the pickups. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 51 of 59 Pages I mean, they are going to the job. We do the same. That's how we operate. We're not there on this piece of property trying to make a living. We're just parking our equipment at night. It just looks bad when you have large tools. I've rented a yard before to park some of my equipment, which I can't really afford. I'd rather keep it all at my place. I agree with the gentleman who was up here about the complaints. That's not right that somebody driving by can turn you in. It's not a fair system at all. I think it should be a neighbor, and any adjoining neighbor should have a full say. No one else, unless he is impacted by something that might be going on there. If the dust is a problem or something. I think it should be adjoining. What I would like to see, instead of going through this appeal process, is that if you are going to go in for a Type 3, why couldn't go to your neighbors yourself. You would save the taxpayers a lot of money. Get a letter saying that it's okay, as part of the process, instead of charging what they do. I know that money is tight anyway. Why couldn't the person applying go ahead and do some of that footwork themselves? MORROW: They do sometimes. When they submit their applications. Everybody still gets notified. DALY: So what you are saying, Dennis, is that even on a Type 3, depending on the circumstances, that possibly a administrative decision could be made rather than going through a full-blown conditional use. COLLINS: I think so. You know, if you get the neighbors, whatever criteria you use, to sign, that should cut a big process and time off of this. The rest of the criteria, the screening and everything, that's probably one visit out for a County employee, and that won't be a huge impact or huge cost. I think it could help. That's pretty much it. LUKE: Mr. Kuhn is the last one I have on the list, so if there's anyone else, please let me know. (Two people speaking off the microphones) Minutes of board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 52 of 59 Pages LUKE: Okay, we'll take you after this. WILLIAM KUHN: I live in the Tumalo winter deer range. During the testimony that has been made, a couple of questions came up. First of all, how many applications are you expecting initially and also on a renewal basis, each year? MORROW: When I did this research on the number of pending applications that were related to code enforcement cases in regard to home occupations, there appears that over the past three years, which is as long as Linda Larsen has been working on this, there have been about six a year. And we would have to do additional research to see how many there have been in previous years. Four to six a year. KUHN: So, this isn't hundreds or thousands. MORROW: Oh, no. KUHN: If there are only six, and let's say that we multiply that times ten, then you have sixty. And this is just a brainstorm idea, and if you want to shoot me down, feel free. But, is it possible to have a community home occupation review committee that would look at the occupation that is being applied for and make a determination, or ask the questions that are necessary to ask, to find out whether this person is going to be a jerk or not? Because that is the basic question. Is the person going to respect their neighbors, be honorable with their intentions, or are they going to be running roughshod in the neighborhood, disrupting the living conditions of the area. That's basically the question that we are dealing with. So, if you only have six or sixty per year, why don't you just say, let's have a committee that reviews this. And have a citizen's voluntary group that looks at criteria. Look, you have to make sure that you are not being arbitrary and capricious. I respect that. But there are so many different types of businesses that have different criteria that offset each other. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 53 of 59 Pages I, for one, can't be a Type 2 because my business starts at 5:30 in the morning and goes until 5:00 in the afternoon. I'm one of those people who has the TV on for 12-1/2 hours a day. I don't watch it all the time, but if I see something that is on the news or a ticker going by that I have to see. I wouldn't be able to do my newsletters on weekends, even though that's the best time to be doing it. So I would have to be a Type 1. This kind of differential that has to be made between what type of business are you. We don't have any impact on our surroundings. DEWOLF: Wouldn't you rather be a Type I? There's no fee, there's no process. KUHN: Yeah, but I can't have an employee come to my place of business to help me do those newsletters, or to run the business when I'm not there. In other words, how do I deal with those kinds of situations? DALY: You only have to deal with it if someone complains. KUHN: Correct. But I don't want to be -- in my business, I can't have people complaining. DEWOLF: And you still know. Ethically, if you know you are breaking the rules -- KUHN: I'm just asking, is there a way for you to open this up more to allow -- I would personally rather have a considerate well driller that is in a home occupation next to me, rather than an inconsiderate beautician with seventeen trips a day, where they are coming down a dusty road. Is there a way for you to take into consideration these different types of businesses? Is the person a jerk or aren't' they? That's what you are trying to determine. DALY: In most cases, you wouldn't be able to determine that until after the fact, I would think. DEWOLF: They'd be on their best behavior when they are applying. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 54 of 59 Pages CRAGHEAD: I have a question on how you write criteria on are you a jerk or not. I'm just wondering -- it would be a great idea if we could figure that out. In the land use arena, I don't know how to write this so that you are treating all well drillers equally, but this one well driller might be a jerk. Again, how do you ferret that out at the beginning. KUHN: I just want to toss one idea out. And that is, if you want to have this committee, and you've got somebody coming in to make a presentation to you, well then have that person bring in a letter from each of the four neighbors on each side of the property, or actually six or eight corners, and just have them say yes or no. Or, is this business going to disrupt your enjoyment of your property. Either they are going to say yes or no. And if they say no, well why not. They have an opportunity to come to this committee and give their piece of mind also. Another very important question that I have is regarding retroactivity. Legal Counsel, I would specifically ask you the question. How are you going to deal with retroactivity. If somebody already has an established business within a home, and you put this ordinance into effect, how is that going to -- how do you deal with it? Because I'm going to point the finger. You have specifically said that certain other ideas aren't going to work because of retroactivity. CRAGHEAD: It's a different situation. One is that they are currently engaged in an activity. Now they may say that they've done it for years. Then we have a verification of a non- conforming use. So they may end up having to file for an application on a verification of a non -conforming use. So each situation will be different on that. It's a current application of what they are currently doing. Again, I would have to look at it on a case by case basis. KUHN: So there is the concept of, if a business is already there and if it has been run in a non jerk manner, then there is some consideration for the fact that this is an existing situation. CRAGHEAD: Under state law, under non -conforming use, twenty years or more, we'd do a verification of a non -conforming use. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 55 of 59 Pages KUHN: The concept of grandfathering. I would like to at least suggest it, that if there is a business that has already been in existence and you put this ordinance into effect, is there a possibility that you could at least consider a grandfather clause type of situation? I encourage you to do so. LUKE: I have a request for a short break. How long is your testimony? KUHN: I'm through. I've covered everything that I have. LUKE: We'll take a brief break now. But, first, I would point out, typically once you have testified, I'm very reluctant to let people continue to testify. If you have some questions of staff that they might be able to answer, that's great. If you have additional points, I would suggest that you do it in writing. Staff will be here for a little bit if you have questions. A brief break was taken at this time (from 8: 00 to 8: 08 p. m) JACKIE PENNOCK: I had a question regarding signage, but it has been answered. I understand it is not allowed on a Type 1, and a small sign is okay for Type 2. My comment is, considering that these home occupations will be in residential areas, I don't feel signs are appropriate. If they need signs, they should be in a commercial area. MORROW: Ms. Lyons has a point of clarification. LYONS: When the gentleman said Type 1 should be thrown out, Commissioner DeWolf said that he wanted to allow Type 1 for the painter or telecommuter. I wanted to point out that right now, that is permitted outright. We have regulations right now that allow for that person to do the home occupation. The only difference is, there are no customers coming to his house. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 56 of 59 Pages MORROW: And I think the point of clarification is that section of the code that Ms. Lyons is referring to, where certain things that are kind of like Type 1 are allowed, is in the unincorporated communities. But the distinction of what is allowed outright in the unincorporated communities now is, what is proposed now does not allow clients. Type 1 as it is proposed would allow up to five clients a day. MORROW: I wanted to make sure that was clarified for all of us. LUKE: We're going to close the public testimony now. Does staff have any questions or directions? MORROW: As soon as you all are ready to make some calls on these outstanding issues and new issues, we can make those changes. You have to make the decisions. LUKE: July and August aren't good times. DEWOLF: We need to find an hour or two sometime soon. SYRNYK: You could have a work session and go through this point by point. DEWOLF: I want to get it done. We need to find out where the flaws are and fix them. MORROW: You probably are going to have to, on some of these issues, vote on them as you go through them, and get them off the table. DEWOLF: I want this to happen sooner rather than later. LUKE: It's okay if we can find some time in August. Two hours. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 57 of 59 Pages Since this is a legislative matter, written testimony is always allowed, right up to the time of the decision. Except for a few people, the majority of people here are people who have or want to have a business on their property. There are a vast majority of people out there who don't necessarily not care what happens here, but won't find out until it's done. There will probably not be a consensus on all issues. DALY: Government is run by those who show up. MORROW: If you have a work session, it should be scheduled with enough notice, but I don't think it has to be in the evening. LUKE: You aren't going to take testimony at the work session. We need to come to a consensus. Once we have an ordinance put together, we can then have a public hearing on the ordinance. I think we've opened this up enough, and have an idea of what people would like to see, and we've got to get through that process. MORROW: That's fine with me. You may not need to have another public hearing once you've done your thumbs up and thumbs down on the various issues. The reason I raise this notification issue for the work session is because it will be a public meeting. We have told people all along through this process that they would be notified even of the work sessions. LUKE: Public notice is always appropriate to people who have signed up on this. MORROW: It would only be those people. And I think we have all the information we need at this point for you to make a decision. Being no further testimony or comments made, Chair Luke adjourned the meeting at 8: 30 p. m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 58 of 59 Pages DATED this 22"d Day of July 2003 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: r6U"'jZjUA_ Recording Secretary 6,t, h Dennis R. Luke, thaIr Tom DeWolf, Commissioner M cha M. Daly, Co missioner Attachments: Exhibit A: Sign -in Sheet to Testify and/or to Receive Mailings (1 page) Exhibit B: Staff Report to Commissioners, dated July 15, 2003 (4 pages) Exhibit C: Board Discussion Draft on Home Occupation Ordinance (3 pages) Exhibit D: Current Rules on Home Occupations (1 page) Exhibit E: Summary of Issues, April 23 Public Hearing (11 pages) Exhibit F: Public Testimony dated July 22, submitted by Tina Lyons (3 pages) Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing Tuesday, July 22, 2003 Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance Page 59 of 59 Pages `l Page of �_ O N � ti 3 V � C m � LL C � p C 00 O bQ JN a c _ a Q CLI—.c O ME -b 6 G1 C A �1) a 43 ILCL j O ~ �� d Ecm m J t Z `l Page of �_ TE Community Development Department >z� C s. Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division b 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: July 15, 2003 SUBJECT: July 22, 2003 public hearing on Ordinance 2003-003, regarding home occupations in Deschutes County (File No. TA -02-12) Purpose The purpose of this report is to present a Board Hearing Draft of the above -referenced ordinance proposing new regulations for home occupations. The Board will hold a public hearing on this draft at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 22, 2003. You will also find enclosed several documents for your reference in evaluating this draft: • Summary of Issues Raised at April 23, 2003 Public Hearing; • Summary of Results of Board Questionnaire; • Commissioner Responses to Home Occupation Questionnaire, and; • Summary of Board Work Session on May 14, 2003. Staff has included these documents with the staff report for the reader's reference in evaluating the version of the ordinance before the Board now and the Planning Commission recommendation that was before the Board at the April 23, 2003 public hearing. Background The public hearing scheduled for July 22, 2003 will be the second public hearing before the Board. The Board also conducted two public work sessions (in May and in June) to discuss the proposed ordinances and to discover areas of agreement and disagreement. The Board conducted its first 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 held a work session on May 14, 2003 and 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 this work session that is enclosed with this report. The Board held one more work session on June 18, 2003 during which the Board decided on what elements to retain in the ordinance for the purpose of obtaining additional public input on the proposal. Much of the focus of the last two work sessions was on the proposed rules for Types 1, 2, and 3 home occupations. The initial proposal in Ordinance 2003-003 included listing Type 1 home occupations as a use permitted outright where that type of home occupation was already Quality Services Perfonned with Pride Exhibit ,e Page / of _�6 permitted outright in a zone district. The ordinance also proposed adding Type 1 home occupations as a use permitted outright in the Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10) and Rural Residential (RR10) Zones since such uses ana not already allowed outright in these zones. Bill Peck of the Sunriver Owners Association (SROA) contacted and communicated to staff that the zoning ordinance language for the Sunriver Community (DCC Chapter 18.108) does not list home occupations as a permitted or conditional use in the Residential or Commercial zones. If the Board decides to ultimately include Type 1 home occupations in the zoning ordinance, staff will recommend adding Type 1 home occupations to the Single -Family, Multi -Family, and Commercial zones of DCC Chapter 18.108. The proposed ordinance also lists Type 2 and Type 3 home occupations as a conditional use in zones where such uses are already allowed as conditional uses. Staff has not proposed adding Type 2 or Type 3 home occupations to zones where such uses are not already allowed. Staff has not proposed changing this element of the! proposal. Board Draft of Ordinance - Discussion This portion of the staff report highlights the changes made to the Planning Commission Draft based on direction from the Board and public testimony before the Board. You will find enclosed a "Board Hearing Draft" that shows the requirements for all three types of home occupation. The discussion below focuses on outstanding issues raised by the Board and through public testimony. Type 1 home occupation. As proposed, this type of home occupation would be permitted outright in most zones except exclusive farm use and forest zones. This type is intended to include businesses that would generate no impacts and would be operated by only a sole proprietor. The following lists the changes and issues for additional discussion before the Board takes final action on the ordinance. 1) Location. Staff changed the language under (13)(1)(a) to allow a Type 1 home occupation to be carried on within a dwelling and/or a residential accessory structure, such as a detached garage. 2) Employees. Staff has changed (B)(1)( a) so that Type 1 home occupation could employ contractors or employees who work off site, such as their own home or a separate office. 3) Trip Limitation. Staff proposes adding the language "not including parcel delivery services' to the trip limitation standard under (13)(1)(b) so it would be consistent with Types 2 and 3. 4) Floor Area. Staff deleted the floor area limitation as directed by the Board 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. This type of home occupation represents a new addition to the Zoning Ordinance. As proposed, a Type 2 home occupation would require a conditional use permit. However, unlike a Type 3 home occupation, it would be subject to a lower application fee, more clear and objective criteria, and shorter administrative processing timelines. The following lists the changes and issues for additional discussion before the Board takes final. action on the ordinance. Staff Report to BOCC July 15, 2003 Page 2 of 4 Exhibit Page vZ of �_ , 1) Property Size. This type of home occupation includes a minimum property size requirement of one-half (1/2) acre. The questions before the Board here are whether the County should require a minimum size of property (e.g. 1/2 acre) in order for a proposal to qualify as a Type 2 home occupation, and if so, is the proposal for one-half acre adequate? 2) Discretionary Standard. Staff deleted the following language from Type 2 home occupations: "Is conducted in such a way that it is compatible with the residential character, or in resource zones, resource -oriented character of its location." Staff made 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. The current proposal includes the following new language under (2)(c) —"The maximum amount of floor area that can be devoted to a Type 2 home occupation is 1, 500 square feet." 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. Staff recommends keeping this standard as a measurement for code enforcement and to define impacts to surrounding property owners. 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). Staff deleted "catering" from the list of excluded uses in this draft as directed by the Board. The related issue for discussion here is the size standard of 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight. If the Board ultimately decides to adopt a list of uses that would be excluded from consideration as Type 2 home occupations, Staff recommends the Board adopt a standard of 15,000 pounds. Staff performed some brief research and found several models of trucks that had gross vehicle weight ratings of 11,200 to 11,500 pounds. If the Board decides to exclude certain uses from consideration under a Type 2 home occupation, Staff recommends the inclusion of the 15,000 pound gross vehicle weight rating standard so that personal trucks are not affected by this proposal and to account for potential increases in gross vehicle weight rating over time. Type 3 home occupations. The third category of home occupations represents the current model of regulation that exists under the Zoning Ordinance with changes proposed by the Planning Commission. The basis for this type of home occupation is the current rules under DCC 18.128.110 for home occupations that require a conditional use permit. The following lists the changes and the issues for additional discussion on Type 3 home occupations before the Board takes final action on the ordinance. 1) Employees. The question before the Board is whether the county should limit the number of employees as proposed. Staff recommends using the Planning Commission Recommendation for this standard. Staff Report to BOCC July 15, 2003 Page 3 of 4 Exhibit 16 Page 3 of _ 2) Property Size Requirement. The proposed rules for Type 3 home occupations include two (2) property size requirements. One 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 of equipment and materials. 3) Daily Trips. 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. The Planning Commission recommendation on this standard has not been changed. 4) 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 recommends the Board adopt the gross vehicle weight rating of 15,000 pounds to be consistent with Type 2. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Board of Commissioners take the following actions: 1. Conduct a public hearing on the Board Hearing Draft dated July 15, 2003. 2. Consider testimony received on this draft and on the issues raised and questions posed in this report. 3. Provide Staff Direction on what changes to make to the final draft that will be adopted by the Board or that will be the subject of additional public review. Please contact me at 385-1709 or at damians a )co.deschutes.or.us if I can answer any questions before the public hearing. /DPS Enclosures: 1. Board Hearing Draft 2. Summary of Issues Raised at April 23, 2003 Public Hearing 3. Summary of Results of Board Questionnaire 4. Commissioner Responses to Home Occupation Questionnaire 5. Summary of Board Work Session on Maty 14, 2003 Staff Report to BOCC July 15, 2003 Page 4 of 4 Exhibit 46 Page � of e Board Hearing Draft on Home Occupations July 15, 2003 18.116.280. Home Occupations. A. Purpose. The purposes of this section are: 1. To provide a process through which citizens of unincorporated Deschutes County can establish home occupations. 2. To ensure home occupations are established that are compatible with residences and other land uses. B. Types. The following describes the types of home occupations allowed in Deschutes County: 1. Type 1. Where permitted outright, a Type l home occupation shall be subject to the following limitations. A Type 1 home occupation is one that: a. Is carried on within a dwelling and/or a residential accessory structure only by members of the family who reside in the dwelling, excluding employees and/or contractors who work off-site and do not travel to the subject property to report for work; b. Does not generate more than five (5) trips per day to the site while serving clients or customers onsite, not including parcel delivery services; c. Does not produce odor, dust, glare, flashing lights or noise; d. Does not involve the on -premise display or sale of stock in trade, and; e. Does not involve the use of a sign to advertise the location of the home occupation. 2. Type 2. Type 2 home occupations may be allowed as conditional uses with an approved conditional use permit. Such uses are subject to the standards of the zone in which the home occupation will be established and the following criteria. A Type 2 home occupation is not subject to the approval criteria for a conditional use permit in DCC Chapter 18.128 or site plan review under DCC Chapter 18.124. A Type 2 home occupation is one that: a. Is conducted from a property that is at least one-half (1/2) acre in size. b. Is carried on within a dwelling and/or an accessory building by members of the family who reside in the dwelling and no more than two (2) employees who report to the property for work. c. Does not occupy more than 25 percent of the combined floor area of the dwelling, including attached garage, and one (1) accessory building. The maximum amount of floor area that can be devoted to a Type 2 home occupation is 1,500 square feet. d. Includes on-site sales of products associated with the home occupation that are incidental and subordinate to the home occupation. e. Creates no more than ten (10) vehicle trips to the site per day by employees, customers or clients, not including parcel delivery services. f. Has adequate access and parking for employees and customers. g. Is limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, for operation. h. Does not involve any external changes to the dwelling or the accessory building in which the home occupation will be established that would give any building an outward appearance of a business. Any structure on the property where the home occupation is conducted shall be of a type normally associated with the zone where it is located. No structural alterations affecting the residential appearance of a building shall be allowed to accommodate the home occupation except when otherwise required by law, and then only after the plans for such alterations have been reviewed and approved by the planning division. i. Does not use materials or mechanical equipment which will be detrimental to the residential use of the property or adjoining residences because of vibration, noise, dust, smoke, odor, light, interference with radio or television reception or other factors. j. 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. For July 22, 2003 Public Hearing Page 1 of 3 Exhibit (�' Page l of Board Hearing Draft on Home Occupations July 15, 2003 Compliance with the requirements of the County Building and Safety Division shall include meeting all building occupancy classification requirements of the state -adopted building code. k. May have one (1) sign, ground -mounted or wall -mounted, as defined in DCC Chapter 15.08, that is no more than three (3) square feet in area, non -illuminated, and located on the property from which home occupation will operate. Such signs do not require a sign permit under DCC Chapter 15.08, Signs. 1. May be subject to an annual inspection„ as a condition of an approval, to ensure compliance with the conditions of an approved conditional use permit. m. May not include outside storage of equipment or materials used in operation of the home occupation. n. The following uses are not allowed as Type 2 home occupations: i. Repair, towing, or storage of motorized vehicles and equipment, including but not limited to automobiles, trucks, trailers, recreational vehicles, and boats. ii. Detailing, painting, and upholsteryof motorized vehicles. iii. Businesses that store and use vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of greater than or equal to 15,000 pounds or equipment with an operating weight greater than or equal to 3,000 pounds. iv. Appliance repair. v. Welding or machine shop. Type 3. Type 3 home occupations may be allowed as conditional uses with an approved conditional use permit. Such uses are subject to the standards of the zone in which the home occupation will be established, the applicable provisions of DCC Chapter 18.128, and the following limitations. A Type 3 home occupation is not subject to site plan review under DCC Chapter 18.124. A Type 3 home occupation is one that: a. Is conducted in such a way that it is compatible with the residential character, or in resource zones, resource -oriented character of its location. b. Is carried on within a dwelling and/or an accessory building by members of the family who reside in the dwelling and no more than two (2) employees who report to the property for work. A home occupation proposed on property that is located in an EFU or Forest Zone and that is at least 20 acres in size may have not more than five (5) employees who report to the property for work. c. Does not occupy more than 35 percent of the combined floor area of the dwelling, including an attached garage, and one (1) accessory building. d. Includes on-site sales of products associated with the home occupation that are incidental and subordinate to the home occupation. e. Creates traffic that will not be of a volume or frequency that will cause disturbance or inconvenience to nearby land uses. A Type 3 home occupation can create no more than twenty (20) vehicle trips to the site per day by employees, customers or clients. f. Has adequate access and parking for employees and customers. Vehicles used by the operator to conduct the home occupation that have a gross vehicle weight of 15,000 or more pounds must be parked in a garage, a detached building, or screened according to the requirements of DCC 18.116.280(Bx3)(1)(i) through (v). g. Is limited to the hours and days of operation proposed by an applicant and approved with a conditional use permit. h. Does not involve any external changes to the dwelling in which the home occupation will be established that would give the dwelling an outward appearance of a business. Any structure on the property where the home occupation is conducted shall be of a type normally associated with the zone where it is located. No structural alterations affecting the residential For July 22, 2003 Public Hearing Page 2 of 3 Exhibit C_ Page of 3 Board Hearing Draft on Home Occupations July 15, 2003 appearance of a building shall be allowed to accommodate the home occupation except when otherwise required by law, and then only after the plans for such alterations have been reviewed and approved by the planning division. i. Does not use materials or mechanical equipment which will be detrimental to the residential use of the property or adjoining residences because of vibration, noise, dust, smoke, odor, interference with radio or television reception or other factors. J. 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 Building and Safety Division shall include meeting all building occupancy classification requirements of the state -adopted building code. k. May have one (1) sign, ground -mounted or wall -mounted, as defined in DCC Chapter 15.08, that is no more than three (3) square feet in area, non -illuminated, and located on the property from which home occupation will operate. Such signs do not require a sign permit under DCC Chapter 15.08, Signs. 1. May include outside storage of equipment and materials if the subject property is 20 or more acres in size and the applicant shows that adequate setbacks and/or screening or buffering is provided, and will be maintained, to screen materials and equipment from adjacent properties. The form of screening may include, but is not limited to: i. A sight -obscuring fence, as defined by this title. ii. Intervening mature tree cover. iii. Topography. iv. Existing buildings on site. v. Introduced landscape materials, including, but not limited to, trees and/or shrubs on an earthen berm. in. The home occupation approval shall be reviewed every 12 months by the planning division to ensure compliance with the requirements of this section and the conditions required for approval of the use. For July 22, 2003 Public Hearing Page 3 of 3 Exhibit a_ Page 3 of 3_ Current Rules on Home Occupations Conditional Use Permitted Outright When permitted as a conditional use and conducted as an accessory use, a home Home occupation that: occupation shall be subject to the following 1. Is carried on within a dwelling only limitations: by members of the family who A. The home occupation is to be secondary to reside in the dwelling; the residential or other use for which a 2. Does not serve clients or dwelling has been permitted. It shall be customers on-site; conducted only by members of the family 3. Does not produce odor, dust, residing on the property. The home glare, flashing lights or noise; occupation shall be conducted in such a way 4. Does not occupy more than 25 that it has no adverse impact on the percent of the floor area of the residential, or in resource zones, dwelling; and resource -oriented character of its location. 5. Does not include the on -premises display or sale of stock in trade. B. Any structure on the property where the home 6. Does not have any outdoor occupation is conducted shall be of a type storage of materials used in the normally associated with the zone where it is home occupation. located. No structural alterations affecting the residential appearance of a building shall be allowed to accommodate the home occupation except when otherwise required by law, and then only after the plans for such alterations have been reviewed and approved by the planning division. C. The subject property shall have adequate access and parking for the home occupation. Traffic created by the business or customers of the business shall not be of a volume or frequency that will cause disturbance or inconvenience to nearby land uses. D. All uses conducted on the subject property shall comply with all requirements of the Deschutes County Building and Safety Division and the Environmental Health Division and any other applicable state or federal laws. E. The home occupation approval shall be reviewed every 12 months by the planning division to ensure compliance with the requirements of DCC 18.128.110 and the conditions required for approval of the use. F. No materials or mechanical equipment shall be used which will be detrimental to the residential use of the property or adjoining residences because of vibration, noise, dust, smoke, odor, interference with radio or television reception or other factors. Exhibit _D Page / of t Categories Board direction required Refer to staff for re -drafting Separate Process Summary of Issues April 23, 2003 Public Hearing on Ordinance 2003-003, Home Occupations ->ununary vi issucs Adequate rules for regulating home occupations Definition of "home occupation" Proposed Questions Should count retain existing zoning regulations or consider making changes proposed through Ordinance 2003-003? Should any changes adopted include the three proposed types of home occupations? Should county make changes to existing definition of home occupation? Policy for businesses where Should new zoning regulations address work is performed off-site home-based businesses, which perform work off-site? (e.g. contractor) Equipment/vehicle storage Should county consider and adopt different standards for parking and storage of business vehicles and personal vehicles? Should such standards address limitations on numbers of vehicles, vehicle weight, or requirements for parking and screening vehicles? Compatibility/Impacts on neighbors (e.g.) traffic, noise, appearance, solid waste, smoke/ Clarify proposed standards and terms: property size, hours of operation, trips, vehicle weight Employees - numbers allowed; definition of "employee" Refer to staff to revise proposed standards. Focus on performance standards. Refer to staff to clarify Refer to staff to prepare draft. Staff will coordinate with Legal Counsel. May need to define employee of home occupation. Code Enforcement Not part of code amendment process Impact on approved CUPs None required - CUP approved under for home occupations rules in effect at time of application Page 1 of 1 April 29, 2003 Exhibit Page of // Home Occupation Questionnaire — Summary of Results 1. Areas of Consensus Question No. 1 7 12 Question Response Change Regulations Employees OK Outside Storage OK With Limits All three commissioners agreed that the County should change the existing regulations for home occupations. The commissioners also agreed the regulations should be changed so that home occupations can have employees and outside storage. 2. Two of Three Commissioners The following lists the questions and the subjects on which at least two commissioners answered "yes." Question No. Question Response 3 Change Definition of Home Occupation 4 Home Occupation In House And/Or Residential Accessory Building 5 Create Definition for "Off -Site" Home -Based Business 8 Traffic — Limit Trips 10 Incidental Sales 11 Have Standards For Vehicle Parking and Storage 13 Regulate Hours of Operation 17. Re -Examine Code Enforcement Policy Two of the three commissioners said "yes" to changing the definition of home occupation in the zoning ordinance and to limiting home occupations to a residence and/or a residential accessory structure. In addition, these commissioners agreed the county should create a definition to address home-based businesses that engaged in their business off-site, but might also store equipment and vehicles at the residence of the proprietor. With respect to off-site impacts, two of three commissioners agreed the county should limit daily trips, incidental on-site sales, parking and storing of vehicles, and hours of operation. Finally, there were two commissioners in support of re-examining the county's code enforcement policy and procedures in light of these proposed changes. Page 1 of 2 7/3/2003 Exhibit rC Page �_of 3. Areas for More Discussion. The following lists the questions and the subjects of these questions that received two "undecided" or two "no" votes or different answers from each commissioner: /DPS Question No. Subject of Question 2 Adopt Three -Tier System 6 Adopt Property Size Standards 9 Limit Floor Area 14 Require Inspections 15 Excluded Certain Uses 16 Processing of Applications Page 2 of 2 7/3/2003 Exhibit E Page 3 of Commissioner Responses to Home Occupation Questionnaire Question Daly DeWolf Luke 1. Change Regulations? No No No Should the county retain the existing zoning regulations for home occupations and treat most home occupations as conditional Undecided Yes uses? site is not a home & would like to discuss this Comments? occupation nor should it be We should revise the code and the other permitted as a included in the home so that non -impact home conditional use? occupation ordinance occupations are allowed Comments? outright Question Daly DeWolf Luke 2. Three-tier system? Undecided Undecided Yes Should the county adopt a three system such as the one proposed (with modifications)? If no, should the county Undecided Yes retain a two-tier system with site is not a home & would like to discuss this one type permitted outright occupation nor should it be further and the other permitted as a included in the home conditional use? occupation ordinance Comments? Whether 2 or 3 tier, we need one set of "permitted outright" home occupations Question Daly DeWolf Luke 3. Definition? Should the Undecided Yes Yes county change or clarify the existing definition of "home occupation" in the zoning ordinance? Comments? Work being performed off- I'm not 100% on either one site is not a home & would like to discuss this occupation nor should it be further included in the home occupation ordinance Exhibit E Page 1 of 7 Page �(_ of f / Commissioner Responses to Home Occupation Questionnaire Question Daly DeWolf Luke 4. Definition location? Yes Undecided Yes Should the county continue to limit home occupations to a residence and/or an accessory building? If not, should the county also allow outside storage of equipment and Would like to discuss it but materials? I question the if it is even Comments? needed I'm not convinced that all The proposal is a good and a residence? Type 1 home occupations start Comments? I think Type 3 is an attempt need to be all indoors. The proposal is ok to address businesses Painters? Writers? conducted off-site like well Sculptors? Massage drillers or contractors. therapists? Question Daly DeWolf Luke 5. Definition —Off site Undecided Yes Yes business? Should the county create a policy or a definition to address such businesses described in 3 above where most of the work is performed off-site? Comments? Would like to discuss it but to retain some distance I question the if it is even between a home occupation needed Question Daly DeWolf Luke 6. Property Size? Should Undecided Undecided Yes the county require a minimum property size for a home occupation? If so, should this standard vary by type (e.g. Type 2 or 3) or by zone? Should the county also use a setback to retain some distance between a home occupation and a residence? Comments? I think Type 3 is an attempt Perhaps both. Yes in The proposal is ok to address businesses certain zones conducted off-site like well I need more discussion on drillers or contractors. this. This is not a home occupation in my opinion Exhibit C Page 2 of 7 Page of / / Commissioner Responses to Home Occupation Questionnaire Question Daly DeWolf Luke 7. Employees? Should Yes Yes Yes the county allow home occupations to have employees other than those members of a family No Yes Yes residing in a dwelling? If so, should the number Perhaps in different Percentage with Cap – employees be limited by situations Yes type of home occupation? This would be impossible Current code is subjective. I support the proposal On a case-by-case basis? to enforce Perhaps in different Or, a flat percentage such situations Comments? Probably I don't know. It might I support the proposal and 3? depend on the situation Question Daly DeWolf Luke 8. Traffic? Should the No Yes Yes daily automobile trips generated by a home occupation be limited? If so, should the number of No Yes Yes trips be limited by type of Home Occupation Type 1, 2 Percentage with Cap – and 3? Yes Comments? This would be impossible Current code is subjective. I support the proposal proposed under Type 2? to enforce Not sure on #'s of Or, a flat percentage such proposal, but theory is as proposed under Types 1 good Question Daly DeWolf Luke 9. Floor Area? Should the No No Yes county limit the size of floor area of a residence and/or an accessory building devoted to a home occupation? If so, what should this Percentage with Cap – limitation be? A percentage Yes of size with a cap such as proposed under Type 2? Or, a flat percentage such as proposed under Types 1 and 3? If not these options, how It depends with "no impact" would you propose such as business, no one cares. standard? We need to discuss merits of others. Exhibit C Page 3 of 7 Page 10 of —� Commissioner Responses to Home Occupation Questionnaire Comments? If the business is No restriction on I support the proposal Yes conducted inside "permitted outright' someone's home, why should we care how much floor area they use? Again, impossible to enforce. Question Daly DeWolf Luke 10. Sales? Should the Yes Undecided Yes county allow home occupations to conduct on- site sales of products associated with a home occupation? If so, should they be Yes Undecided Yes incidental and subordinate to the home occupation as proposed in Ordinance 2003-003? 10,000 lbs gvw too small The weight needs to be If not, how would you increased to allow for propose to allow on-site most pickups sales? Comments? Let's discuss further I support the proposal Question Daly DeWolf Luke 11. Vehicle parking & No Yes Yes storage? Should the county adopt standards to address parking of business vehicles associated with a home occupation? Should the county limit the No Yes, depends on zone Yes storage of business vehicles of a certain gross vehicle weight? Comments? 10,000 lbs gvw too small The weight needs to be increased to allow for most pickups Exhibit 6 Page 4 of 7 Page of / Commissioner Responses to Home Occupation Questionnaire Question Daly DeWolf Luke 12. Outside storage? Yes Yes Yes Should outside storage of equipment and materials be permitted? If yes: • Should property size be Yes Yes a factor? • Should screening be Maybe Perhaps required? • Should there be Probably Yes What happens inside the setbacks from adjacent depends on the impact to house does not need to property? neighbors be regulated if it does Comments? 20 acres is much too large The proposal needs to a parcel. 2.5 to 5 acres is be strengthened more realistic Question Daly DeWolf Luke 13. Hours? Should the No Yes Yes county regulate the hours of operation of home occupations? If so, should this occur as proposed in the proposal before the Board? If not, how would you propose to address this? Comments? Noise is a big factor, so it What happens inside the depends on the impact to house does not need to neighbors be regulated if it does not bother the neighborhoods Exhibit__ Page 5 of 7 Page of I Commissioner Responses to Home Occupation Questionnaire Question Daly DeWolf Luke 14. Inspection? Should No Undecided Yes the county require an annual inspection for an approved home occupation? Car repair, the kinds of If yes, should this occur with Maybe all home occupations that negative impacts on require a permit (Type 2 neighbors and 3)? Let's talk Any home occupations? No Comments? Annual inspections require I support the proposal regarding trips, employees, staff. This should be screening of outside complaint driven only Question Daly DeWolf Luke 15. Excluded Uses? Undecided Yes Undecided Should certain use be excluded from consideration as home occupations? If yes, what uses are you Car repair, the kinds of thinking of? things that create too much negative impacts on neighbors In certain zones? Let's talk If no, what limitations besides those proposed regarding trips, employees, screening of outside storage etc. would you propose? Comments. The proposal is a good start Page 6 of 7 Exhibit E Page _ of // Commissioner Responses to Home Occupation Questionnaire Question Daly DeWolf Luke 16. Processing? Should Undecided Yes Undecided the county examine the processing of conditional use permits in conjunction with considering changing the rules for home occupations? Comments? Convince me More complicated uses above)? should have more What ideas do you have for complicated processes Question Daly DeWolf Luke 17. Code Enforcement? Undecided Yes Yes Should the county re- examine its current policy for code enforcement in relation to home occupations? If so, should this include annual inspections (See 14 above)? What ideas do you have for improving compliance through code enforcement? Comments? I look forward to the It's all timing... discussions Exhibit E Page 7 of 7 Page _/ CI) of /( 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 E Page/(of�( PUBLIC TESTIMONY JULY 22, 2003 PUBLIC HEARING ON HOME OCCUPATIONS Tina Lyons PO Box 2249 Lapine, OR 97739 (541) 536-5466 -Our garbage company sent out a flyer with tips on proper disposal which includes "NO commerciallbusiness waste, medical waste, radioactive waste or explosives." If businesses are located in residential areas, this might be a problem we haven't considered yet. -Again, the infrastructure of the downtown cores are going to be jeaopardized by allowing home occupations in rural residential areas. I will be referring to the July 15 Staff Report, the Minutes of the June 22 Work Session and the Board Hearing Draft in the following comments. TYPE 1 1) Staff report and June 22 Minutes both indicate that Type I will have no impacts. How can anyone say 5 trips a day has no impact? The traffic and dust alone may ruin some of the quality of life for other residents. The trips generate dust on our non -paved roads, no matter how slow you go. Yet in the proposed ordinance, no dust can be produced by the home occupation. If the trips to the home occupation produce dust, then isn't the home occupation producing dust? Therefore type 1 home occupations cannot be granted outright to people who reside on non -paved roads. MOST IMPORTANTLY, the county does not maintain the non -paved roads in rural Deschutes County. How can the county allow business activity on privately maintained roads? Does the county have that kind of legal jurisdiction? I posed this question in the last public hearing and the Planning Division said the impact on the privately maintained roads would be addressed in the CUP. But no CUP is necessary for Type 1 and so Exhibit r Page of _3 this issue is not being addressed. ***The language needs to be changed to 0 trips per day for Type 1, or allow some trips per day on only county -maintained roads. 2) By deleting the 25°x6 floor space requirement, there would not be a measureable standard. If It was limited to 111500 sq. ft., then when the business grew to Type 2, it would be an easier transition. 3) Building and safety codes along with Enviornmental Health standards should also be required to be met in Type 1 to ensure public safety. 4)The intention of Type 1 is to capture sole proprietors, although that is not the language in the proposed code. TYPE 2 1) 1 think the language "shall be conducted in such a way that is compatible with the residential character, or in resource zones, resource -oriented character of its location" should still be included in the code, and not deleted. This is a fundamental issue that should be considered with a CUP and an appeal process_ 2) Regarding item 2 a) A 112 acre is not large enough because many of the existing 1/2 acre parcels have standard septic systems on them and they are not 100' from the wells. This is why the "new neighborhood" is being developed. Public health safety regarding water quality oil 112 acre parcels is an area of great concern. There is not enough room on a 112 acre parcel, given the septic system and reserve area required for "adequate parking." ***The language needs to be changed to "at least 1 acre in size." 3) Regarding Type 2, item 2 h) where it talks about "no external changes.... that would give the outward appearance of a business" is good, but it conflicts with item 2 k) which allows a sign. Why allow a sign if you don't want it to look like a business? Signs destroy the rural character. ***The language in 2 k) should be changed to read, no sign is permitted. 4) The discussion about other requirements by the Fire Dept., for example, does need to be addressed. My neighbors got a Facilities Permit from the Oregon Board of Health Licensing, which states they also need to follow city or County Exhibit t regulations as well. But the State did not notify the County of the licensure, and Page �— off 3 there is no communication or continuity. what's happening in the different zones, followed. Agencies do need to notify eachother of so that all applicable laws will be 5) Trips that are generated by home occupations on privately maintained roads needs to be addressed. TYPE 3 1) Trips that are generated by home occupations home occupations on privately maintained roads needs to be addressed. IN CONCLUSION: The Code Enforcement is currently not acting on any Complaints on home occupations, including mine. Linda Larson says she has about 5 complaints that are waiting for the home occupation regulations "be relaxed." In the minutes from the last work session, Mr. DeWolf told Frank Pennock to "file a code enforcement complaint and we'll follow-up on it. That isn't going to change." Mr. Luke said "you might as well start it now, and at the end of a year you'll be satisfied." This does not appear to be true. Why aren't the codes being enforced now? With Code Enforcement not enforcing the current code, we are at a stand still. believe this applies undue pressure to the Commissioners to make a decision soon. I do not think it is wise to change the laws and see how it goes and then change them again. Careful thought is necessary to avoid appeals and legal procedings. The laws don't have to change, this is an exploratory process, one that is very complicated, affecting so many different types of people and their desires. i go back to the State's original philosophy, of keeping the commercial areas commercial and rural areas rural. Thank you so much for your consideration. Exhibit F Page 3 of 3