Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

call to order this meeting of the or the planning commission. The time is 6 o'clock and it is November 20th. I'm going to start with the flag salute. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Well, good evening. There's just a few of us tonight. Um, I don't even know if we'll go through introductions at this point. I think everyone knows who's who here and we'll just dive right in. Um, it didn't look like we have any guests. So, the first order is the approval of the minutes for the from the October 16th, 2025 meeting. So, hopefully everyone had a chance to peruse those and I'd be looking for a motion. Do we have a quorum? Yeah. Yes. With Brent. Brent's on on the line. Yes. Oh, you're Okay. It's okay. I'm looking at the owl. I'll just pretend that's your smiling face. So, it's it's better than looking at my face. No comment.

Uh I'd move to accept the minutes as presented. Okay. Second. Okay. Been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Okay. All in favor say I. I. I. I. I abstain. I was at the meeting.

Okay. That's the finding of um next item up is the finding of facts from IE engineering. This is um planning department file number 24-018. Um [Applause] actually that is a request also looks like planning department file number 2524. Um this is the set amendment to create 28 total lots instead of 14 lots on 31.11 acres instead of the 9.01 acres previously requested. So that is the finding of facts approved. Okay. Okay. I have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. Any other discussion? None being heard. All in favor say I.

I. I. I. Abstain. Okay. Motion passes. And the next item up and Jeff can get us started and I'll work on signing this finding of facts is the legislative hearing. um proposed legislative amendments to the land use and development ordinance eludo to include amendments resulting from laws passed in the state legislature. Um so Jeff, you want to get us rolling on that?

Thank you. I will give a little staff report kind of the summary be very brief but the uh round of legislative amendments before you are predominantly the result of laws that were passed by the state legislature as well as some additional housekeeping amendments and as of the writing of this staff report we received no written responses in uh when we sent out notice we sent them out to the plan advisory committees and um other agencies uh departments within the county. Um I did though receive some feedback from staff uh which was very helpful and also from public works uh early on. So there were some changes that were um made based on that. Uh, as far as notice requirements being met, the 35day uh notice was completed on October 15th um 2025 in advance of tonight's hearing and legal notice of this hearing was provided to the news review and published October 31st um 21 days prior to the hearing meeting the 20-day requirements for said hearing. So, planning department staff um recommends that uh you forward these proposed annual amendments to the land use and development ordinance to the board of commissioners with a recommendation for approval. And so, I will go into them. A lot of the bills that came out of the legislature I I won't spend too much time on. they relate to housing and there's a big push for housing. Um, affordable housing is something that they're they're really wanting to see, but it is something we haven't really had developers beating our doors down.

And so some of the changes help um with regard to uh the housing and because we have jurisdiction inside the city of Roseburg and the city of Myrtle Creek and these were um rule changes affecting these housing developments within urban growth boundary. That's why we have changes. So the first one is Senate Bill 48 and the change there it just has to do with a um time frame and I think part of this I can only imagine that with a lot of development there's it makes sense to have a time frame put in place because I think prior to time frames being established on land use applications it would be very easy for one to be receded in and then put over in a pile and then over on this pile and then buried and disappearing on someone's desk and then where's my decision? Um so in this instance now we have a new time frame for uh development of housing uh giving 180 days.

Do we have any discretion to make it 30 days? I mean,

yes. For example, uh for the longest time, we had two dates that we look at as a county, and that's 150day and 120day. 150day basically covers most everything. The 120day time frame covers rock quaries and land use applications that are within city limits. Yeah, those are relatively new, but our code has had internal time frames that uh were designed to try to avoid that very thing. But other jurisdictions might not have had it. So then we get the statute um passed that gave everybody that 120day time frame. But our for example administrative type decisions where staff is doing a notice to adjacent owners and then issuing a decision. Our code says 60 days.

For ministerial type decisions where we don't have to give notice but we still issue a decision. Those are 45 days spilled out in our code. So from a customer service standpoint, there's always been that mindset of having deadlines in place to give somebody a target and uh an idea of how long the process would take. And our challenge then as staff is to beat or you know meet or beat it if we can. I think a better way to ask my question is that is this like the maximum it could be when it's in statute. So we couldn't make it 260 days or something. Is that right? It's saying that a decision shall be done and and sorry to be so academic, but I'm just kind of

curious. Right. Yeah. It's it's trying to it's trying to make sure that a jurisdiction is keeping a process moving that there's you know it's not getting stuck somewhere on someone's desk and for 365 days. Yeah. Or Yeah. And kind of thing. But Right. And there's there's provisions too that allow for extensions to be given. So somebody could start off on a path that's administrative and find out that because they have a feud going with their neighbor, their neighbor's going to do everything they can to slow them down. So we need an extension because we're not going to get it issued in 150 days. Potentially based on an appeal to you guys as a planning commission potentially appeal of your decision to the board.

Sure. But that uh that's where the time frame is is helpful keeping things moving and allowing people that are expecting a development to happen giving them that you know goal of what my time frame is. Uh so number any other questions on you were like there weren't supposed to be any questions on this one. No, good to ask for sure. The uh second item is Senate Bill 75 that was uh

well maybe before we move on do you have is there any recommendation for something different than accepting this language Jeff before we well I does what what professional concerns or do you have any

No so one of the things too to keep in mind is that as a jurisdiction there are some of these rules or laws that are passed that we could have just left out of our code. We could have said there's not people going to be beating down our doors for affordable housing and all this stuff when some if and when someone comes in, we'll just have to get out all this we're going to revise statute books and go, "Okay, what are we doing and what's our time frame?" Okay. But because if you if you have a land use code that doesn't have stuff in there, it's very easy to

then not say, "Okay, this is our Bible. Where is this in here? Oh, it's not in here." And then how do you keep track of all those? So our our practice in Douglas County has always been to try to incorporate, not direct apply. But e, you know, that's another method that some jurisdictions do. They just say, "Okay, we know this rule's out there. We could direct apply that if anybody ever comes in and wants to do this big affordable housing development. Okay.

And here's the time frames and and and because we'd rather have it's almost like this is a placeholder to give us some direction and tell us which statute we need to go to if there is a need um to know all the all the ins and outs and um I guess rules that apply or don't apply because another thing that the some of these rules are trying to do is make it so that there's less red tape. Right. Which is good from a development standpoint. I've heard you say affordable housing. I don't see that was just generally

this just more housing is what in this first one. But that the the theme or the flavor of these laws and the push at the state level is on housing and and housing is just one of the types that we'll talk about coming up in some of these other ones. Yeah. Because I mean we need all housing. I don't care if it's what it costs. Mhm. There's not enough. So yes, I just want to make sure I was reading it right that this wasn't So I'm curious what a definition of affordable housing is. That's for

Yeah. Actually, at the very end, we'll we'll have a revised uh definition based on some statute changes that we can we can kind of, you know, walk through or read through it. Um, okay. So, moving on to number two, which is Senate Bill 75. This had to do with the um wildfire map project, which died. Um, it was flames. Yeah. Bad pun. Thank you. I know it it's it was you know when when those softballs are tossed I can hit those. So

So uh because those went away that allowed us to then change some of the restrictions that were in place for an accessory dwelling unit and rural land. So that's the first thing you'll see on page three where the striketh through occurs for that that language is now moot and it also was contained within uh article two, article three and article four. So those are the timberland resource farm grazing and the farm crop land all of our resource dwellings that had um that in there as it related to replacement dwellings. So we got to strike it from from those uh different articles. So that that uh is through page five. So that was a good thing and in a sense it deregulated the additional dwelling unit in rural and the uh replacement dwelling criteria. So that's pretty straightforward. Any any questions on that? I'm going to have comments the whole time.

Please do. No. And uh I appreciate deregulation especially for replacement dwelling and I don't have a recommendation or a very pointed ask but I am curious what we've learned about building in wildfire elevated risk outside of a map but just and I don't know what our des let me I need to phrase this eloquently what discretion does a planning commission have on I guess regulating risk or incorporating risk into land use development in resource lands. Mhm. Um we have a wildfire protection plan uh that is a separate document that that um I think would recognize some of those types of concerns in in development. Uh I think you know someone certainly could propose legislation and take another run at the idea of that map but go about it in a different way perhaps. Um it's it's it's definitely not a problem that um magically goes away

um without that without that map. But um in this case, we have a bill that strips that out. So we're just matching the state law. Okay. Um and is this the language is in there now? Is that consistent with what was previous? Is that fair assessment? Yes. Okay. So, previous being before the wildfire map was contemplated,

right? You know, there are things in place in the forested zones. Uh there's a covenant. It's a fire sighting covenant. The fire sighting covenant built into that is fire suppression. Um feel free zones. That's primary and a secondary water source. Um, but you could have a farm forest property and a farm grazing property right next door and they don't have to do all the same things unless they choose to do it on their own because it's the right thing to do. So, those two neighboring properties could have different sets of rules and regulations. So, it's not a perfect uh I call it a science as a joke. It's not a perfect science because it's not science land use. um my little joke, but you know, it's it's a it's a good point that you know, there's not um always the rules in place to recognize the the challenge with fire and developing in in our, you know, rural properties.

Thank you. I don't and I don't know if there's I'm not sure what the time frame is for the wildfire protection plan. Yeah. And I'm not sure I the regulation I don't know what the right tool is to manage the conflict between wanting to live rural or be that resource land manager and want to maintain the rights and and reduced risk um you know of doing that and I live rural so I I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth at times. It's

it's a conceptualized whenever like you said you've got two adjoining farm forest farm grazing one has to follow one set of rules the other does not in the event that this one that does not have rules has a fire and then it crosses over to this side and it destroys over it's it becomes a yeah there's think outside the box here yeah I mean and and not to joke about it but a fire doesn't care about zoning. It doesn't discriminate. It doesn't discriminate at all. It consumes everything. So, yeah. And and I also like people when they make that investment, if they're building a home out there, that that

that they're safe. I mean, and and that means physically safe, but financially safe that if something were to happen, an investment is because that affects more than just that particular land owner that spreads to. Yeah. Right.

They don't know the rate. there. Like I said, there could be another run at trying to make the the part of that um stick with the the meeting of the section R327 of the Oregon Residential Specialty Code because I think that's what has the home hardening language and requirements in it. But, you know, that's that's what that bill removed. So it would take the legislature rethinking and regrouping on how do we maybe still protect people from themselves which is a lot of what land use and building permits is what like it or not a lot of people don't do we have that discretion to institute that kind of thinking into

it's it's something where it needs the a an entity to you push that with a legislator and it have to be a legislative fix. We couldn't do this through a local I don't even know what the right jurisdictions are, Jeeoff. I'm This is civics's lesson. I'm sorry. It's kind um No, and that's where I'm not advocating either. Just I'm just You can put conditions, right? I mean, well, any uh land use application where we're reviewing something to have a decision that's being issued could have conditions related to you, especially do it.

Yeah. Yeah. But on a on a broader level, it's it's tricky. It's a good question, but it's not an easy answer. Okay. Because ours is more of a quasi judicial form and then the board of commissioners reviews these those things too. do so as well. So imagine if we were to make a recommend a change then it'd have to go to them anyway. I'd assume, but I don't necessarily know. It said

Yeah. And rulem is is is challenging like you know u just a citizen for example said I'd like us to consider in Douglas County that we do X. So do we take that advisement perhaps but there's not a requirement and there's not really Yeah. an avenue for citizen initiated rule changes for the local government to carry out

initiated decision then I mean I guess it's one of the same citizen but and I'm actually thinking of my own home when I'm thinking about this and like what should I have been required to to do and I don't even know that I and I don't like that but you know it was uh what time what do you know when it was built 1890. Oh, wow. Okay. I mean, or I mean, there's evidence that it was there in the early 1900s, but there's anecdotal that it was 1890s, but they had a fire,

you know, recently. And I felt like I mean, I'm a forester and I was very embarrassed that my property was not more fireproof and that threatened my neighbors. And so, like, okay, wait a minute. We definitely have a different look here. you know, um, and and I'm not comfortable with the idea that it's regulated. Thou shalt do this, but at the same time, my poor decisions to you with the example you gave, like, you know, I could have negatively affected my neighbors because I did not, you know, fireproof my property. Didn't quite get get around to clearing up that or

No, it was expensive. And then, but after the fact, I was like, "Holy smokes, it's a lot cheaper." And then now yes eye opening right where some like DFPA and there's a program the city of Oakton we entered into called firewise right and it's a pretty those are I think the avenues to really to head should pursue those yeah and I think even DFPA if if a homeowner is willing to I believe they'll even go out and do some of that work and it's fun yeah and I don't think it's super expensive either but I I don't know that for sure. Yeah. But anyway, I was thinking more of I think I'm rabbit trailing. Sorry. Stop. Good questions though. Good question. Just like I wanted to be done by 6:30. What is this?

Oh, no. Never set a never set a time or expectation. Yeah.

Um, good discussion. The next one, number three, Senate Bill 974. So this gets back to some change related to um residential development. In this case it's talking about within an urban growth boundary local government uh shall complete final review of final engineering plans. So uh chapter one of our code section 1.090 is where we have definitions. Well let's just add this definition in and then amend section 2.0 060 um to include this new language. So um there's multiple instances where these bills affected 2.060 because that's where we had the the time frames that I mentioned before. The 150 and the 120day have now been accompanied by these bills giving us some additional time frames. same concept. You know, it's it's in this case if you you know, you got somebody that's so close to being done and now they're being told, well, your final engineering plans are going to sit on five people's desks, you know, the fire marshall, the building. And it's it's really a different world, too, than you know, big city versus urban or I mean, sorry, rural Douglas County, but the same idea is that it's going to get looked at by potentially multiple people. How do you keep that process going? So you have a bill that makes sure it keeps going and that these final plans have a time frame.

Does this add cost to the land owner? I mean would these this isn't additional work they have to do? It just assures the timeline is met.

Just assures the timeline. Yeah. cuz cuz normally through if you have a a review, you start the process, you get approval through planning, then you're ultimately going to have and like I said, it's more complicated in in cities or or bigger metro urban areas, but you have planning is kind of that okay, you're blessed to now move forward. So now we're looking at um SDC's um system development charges through you know the city and fire marshall looking at things and then the building department looking at it and you know do they have a consolidated review. A consolidated review could go very quickly. This to help make sure that it does and that some some older developers not sit there like where's my

right

where's my approval my final approval. So um the changes there are then again underlined and in this instance if you look at on page 6H where I've made changes H and I um I went ahead and bolded that reference to OS 197A. Um and again that's that's more of helping staff. If we if we get this and we're kind of scratching our heads, we have ability to then say, "Okay, here's where we need to steer our um puzzle, you know, head scratch into this organ revised statute to help make sure we got it all. Um and as move through uh felt it was appropriate to have another definition u because part of that bill included a reference to this residential design standards. And so as I as I kind of mentioned before, some of the uh efforts that are being made was to streamline not only make sure there's a time frame that things were being done in, but make less red tape, make the process easier. So residential design standards are put in place. It says it's intended to preserve the desired character, architectural expression, decoration, or aesthetic quality of new homes, including standards regulating facade materials, colors or patterns, roof decoration, form or materials. So, there's a whole list there. And then for staff again there's kind of reference at the end where it's you know a note and the RS reference but um does not this does not apply to land use regulations requirements that are

related to setbacks building height. So it's you know it's kind of hey you get you don't get a full pass. We can, you know, be less regulatory on certain things, but we still get to apply some of the standard things like setbacks, building height, accessibility, fire, ingress or egress, public health or safety. So, those are all um some of these some of these bills you you know, you kind of read through it's like, okay, I got it. And it's like, nope, keep reading. Nope. There you just had to keep there's layers and layers and um some of this took some time to get through all those layers to figure out how do I incorporate that into the code and again not not wanting to avoid it and not saying we'll just direct apply it. Let's put something in there. So

me reading this five times and not exactly sure what I just read is okay. Yes. Is a lay person. Yes. And that's why that's why cuz staff will even how you know someone will say I want to do this development where I'm going to have to pow-wow and say okay what what are we doing? What's the what's this new thing about? What can we can't we apply? And you know, we we will struggle as well. Especially I can see that where we've we have situations where you get you get one of something

and you get all worked up. You do it and then nothing comes along like that forever and then you lose everything that you just learned from doing the first one. Good news is that they are trying to deregulate. So that's a yes. Typically that means hopefully it's going to be less complicated and less regulation. You hope. Yeah. Yeah. Lead to more houses.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And that's a good segue to the next one, number four, which was House Bill 2138. So now you have different some additional definitions that we're going to add, but this was um expanding allowable middle housing to include urban uninccorporated lands. That's the distinction between urban growth boundaries that are outside of cities and urban unincorporated areas. Our biggest one is green urban unincorporated for example. Um and it it provides for expedited land division and middle housing land division. Uh also there was included in that um a revised definition of single room occupancy provision. So again that single room occupancy is another example that's that came out of I think the 2023 legislature. It it might work in some big city somewhere but it's it's a foreign concept here.

Yeah. So it's just it's a different animal but you know um I would say I I have heard it mentioned locally so it it may be you know novel and outside of what we're comfortable are used to. Yes. Yeah. But gaining traction potentially when people are starting to look for alternatives and that people are staying in their homes longer and have space. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. So that uh again chapter one where we have our definitions we added expedited land division um and and housing middle housing. So making that distinction there all from that bill and the single room occupancy change. And then last lastly um the 2.060 in the code currently just is the 150 and 120day and I went ahead and this was actually I I've added these time frames but then it was like staff would be well what what is what's 100 days? I don't it's like that's that's a fair question. What's 100 days? What's 63 days? So um that was good feedback from from staff when we went over. So put the asterisk then the asterric then can refer to what is different than what we're you know normally processing with 150day I spelled out 120 days for urban growth boundary or middle aggregate 100 days for application for development affordable housing and then 63 days for an expedited land division. So, we have all that covered from from that bill.

On page seven of that definition of middle housing, what's a cottage cluster? I recognize all the other ones, but I don't know what a cottage cluster is. Do we have any I, you know, as far as examples, just trying to think of what does that look like? I can envision a duplex try. I mean, all the other ones, but the light area, I would envision it I don't I don't know what that is. I to tell you the truth I do not remember. I'm sure there's a picture somewhere in our definition. It's got a a divide engineer.

Okay, thanks. I just I'm not nuts for not No. And again, it's just they're different. Sure. Yeah, I can see different concepts, but I Yeah, I probably at one point when these were fresh and I was working on them new and then fine. Yeah, I apologize. Don't know. I'm assuming a cottage cluster would be like more than five. You think it's more than five in a single story? Oh, I see. Okay. But not one not an apartment. Mm. Yeah. or town houses that are Yeah, I like that one. And town houses. Yeah, you kind of have a

vision of a townhouse, right?

You can type trader information. Oh, she has to Google. We have We have a a Google Google break. The cottage cluster is grouping of smaller detached homes arranged around a common open space designed to create a walkable community oriented neighborhood pattern. It is an alternative housing type that supports missing middle density between single family and multif family developments and somewhat but they're detached as opposed to right. Okay. Thank thank you internet.

So moving on to number five. This is this one's definitely interesting. It'll it'll we have a new definition of homestart lands. So allowing the designation of homestart lands on stateowned property to be used for housing in urban growth boundaries. Sounds like a very specific point on the earth.

Yeah. So, it's land designated by Oregon Department of Administrative Services either A by state designation or B by nomination by a local government. So again, rather than just saying we're going to direct apply that because it's we we wanted something in the code to let us know if somebody ever came in and said, "I want to do a home start land." And we'd be like, "Oh, we have that defined. Let us go check the statute to see how we would carry that out now." So it's it's it's again it's a a placeholder to have something in the code for us to refer back to and know and it the way because this was new there's not some pre-existing OS. So, I will ultimately have to amend this to reflect where where they where this landed if it's in RS 197A or some other RS that that um House bill will land in because a lot of these other ones they're amending they're amending rules and and then that changes an existing RS citation. So, it seems like a good concept because I I know of many instances where the state may be just sitting on a property and why why not see if somebody can use it for housing and if they're willing to get it designated then let's make sense. Number six, House Bill 2658, uh, relating to municipalities being prohibited from exacting frontage improvements for a quote construction

permit unquote in certain circumstances. So, I don't want to go too deep into the weeds with this, but one of the things with land use is that when you are approving something and there may be um rules and and regulations, there could be um a new uh a new a new store going in. And you know with a new a new store going in, you have new impacts with parking or a restaurant parking drive-thru, lots of trips generated. So sometimes when there's a development and you are trying to protect something through a zoning overlay or something else, there's kind of a balance. But one of the things that you can't do in land use is exact more out of some development than than what their impacts might be. This is called the takings. And so this to me is kind of an example where they wanted to make it very clear up front that if you have a construction permit, which is a building permit or a permit for electrical work, mechanical work or plumbing work in a building that a municipal municipality may not require in or a condition of obtaining a construction permit to renovate or otherwise alter an existing building that the holder of the construction permit install frontage improvements. So there's no nexus there. You're It would be something trying to exact way more out of a developer when they're trying to uh renovate something that's existing that arguably already has most of the impacts in place. Would requiring a developer to install speed bumps on a

road adjacent to or providing access to property that's developable fall into this kind of category? Not not typically. It wouldn't be seen as an unreasonable

that cuz that that arguably would be more like when an development is initially being proposed and you're looking at what type of the development is, what the traffic generation is. Um some of the some of these developments have such a um large amount of traffic that there's a um traffic impact study that would be required and from that traffic impact study they may be required to put in traffic caling devices

uh like bumpouts in the sidewalk like a pinch point that slows everybody down or speed bumps. So maybe maybe in that you know looking at it from an initial development on a vacant property versus this was make trying to make it clear that when we're just kind of coming in to do renovation. Okay. Yeah. It's one of those that didn't seem like it would be broken, but sometimes rules that come out of the legislative process are because some jurisdiction somewhere was maybe having flirting with it,

having trouble with and having issues these types of things. Where that can be bad is when you might say, "Hey, Douglas County, we have a new rule." And it's like, "Well, it wasn't broken. If it ain't broke, don't fix it." But then there's we all get stuck with the same rule the way organs land use and legislative process is set up. So okay.

All right. Well, that concludes the state laws from the legislative pro process. So on page nine, we're moving now to amendments that we've recognized may improve the effectiveness effectiveness of the land use ordinance. And so the first one is to amend chapter 4 uh for more flexibility in the department environmental quality rules regarding who is qualified to provide a septic system evaluation. And we had some older language that we are striking from the code that is in keeping with DEQ's rules because they used to be more specific. And so our list or sorry rather our code said and listed on DEEQ's current list of qualified existing system inspectors. And so we just struck that because we don't have to be that specific. If if their rules allow it very generally and broadly, then that's that's great. So whatever their rules say and whoever they have as a list will happy to go with. So that one that's that was just a deregulation clarification one that was um helpful. It was kind of a what sometimes when you're working through things with clients, you find things. So this is example where a client was trying to fulfill conditions of approval to finalize a division of land and was reaching out to and trying to use the right person and said well I I got this list from DEQ and it you know here's

it's like yep that seems much much better and more they're they're broader so we have antiquated language let's fix it. So sometimes we get, you know, uh, by by chance, by happen stance, we get to fix things because it's like, oh, good. We didn't know we were being more restrictive. That's Yeah. Okay. Because I read this as almost like housekeeping. If someone showed up and had could demonstrate that they were qualified under DEEQ and DEQ just doesn't keep their list up to date,

right? then which what what prevails and it's a redundant exercise and so just for not having to require the list to be current but the credentials are still required. Yeah. DEQ is going to the purpose of what we're trying to do here is accomplished. Mhm. Okay.

Yeah. Yeah. It's DQ's say and Right. We're we're happy with that. So yeah that was was that provision. So number two, number number two. So amendment to chapter one again our definitions. Um there's been we're pretty pretty quiet for a long time on child care and then fairly recently child care has been a lot of a lot of inquiries a lot of hey can we do this here can we do it that and we actually didn't have this in our code. So it was another example of you know we could direct apply which we you know we always can direct apply but it was like we need this in our code because it makes it so much easier um and it's it's it's become a thing where um we need to know so one of the good clarifications that came out of the child care revamping which I think I can't remember if it was 2021 or 2023 Um it's allowed if we look at uh a family childcare home is considered a residential use of property for zoning purposes and is a permitted use in all areas zoned for residential or commercial purposes. So that's that's a key. Um, and we may not enact or enforce land use regulation prohibiting the use of a residential dwelling located in area zone residential or commercial. And then another big one, if we drop down to E, um, local government may not impose language regulations, special fees or conditions on the establishment or maintenance of a childare center in an area zoned for commercial or industrial

use. Um, and so it the above that was that became big because we had some people that were actually wanting to do it in an industrial area. And it clarified that you can do it in industrial area as long as it's not designated for heavy industrial use, which makes sense because you wouldn't want a bunch of kids around some of the uses that are allowed in the M3 zone, which are belching out smoke and dust and noise and big machines,

lots of Yeah. not not a good um but that again opens the door because we need you know kind of we need child care like we need housing in in some areas. And so with that definition um we had some antiquated definitions that we went ahead and just kind of rather than deleting completely because they're interspersed within the code elsewhere we just said where those are interspersed in the code and you go to look it up you now could go oh day nursing see child care.

So same with family child care providers. So it it worked out to be some good good housekeeping overall with with adding that. So that one's that was pretty straightforward. The third item is an amendment to chapter two. This is something that is to work towards consistency. We have a provision that allows uh land partitions that are in certain circumstances processed ministerially. And ministerial then means where we aren't giving notice to adjacent property owners. And where the code did not make sense is that you could do a ministerial land partition in an urban area as long as you provided these uh factors were met, which was one, parcels created conform to the minimum parcel size. The new parcels will utilize a public road for access. Uh the new parcels can meet the sanitation and water requirements of chapter 4. And lastly, um, an engineer statement is received certifying there will be no adverse drainage impact on adjacent properties. So those those four items that I read were in place for urban ministerial partitions. But if you were to say you want to do a ministerial partition in resource land, you didn't have any standards at all. You could just do a ministerial partition. The only thing you had to do is provide notice to the state to the LCD. So it was bringing them

bringing them consistency between because they're both ministerial partitions and just because you're resource doesn't mean that you don't have similar impacts that you need to address those things up front. So like kind of an equity issue too when you think about it from the standpoint adjacent property owners should have some assurance that these things are being provided and if they can be provided up front um that usually takes care of the concerns that a neighbor would have because you could have resource land but have the houses just happen to be both located right right by each other just because of the lay of the land topography etc. And so we just this seemed like one if we have the provision let's make them consistent between non-resource i.e. urban uh ministerial partitions and then these resource ones

did I hear that there isn't a notification required with the ministerial resource or I'm not sure I yeah adjacent land owner need to be notified when these are being done the ministerial process does not notify neighbors so therefore there's a decision issued at the staff level with no notice and that means There's no um decision going out to adjacent property. There's no appeal period other than if someone was was to be opposed to any type of ministerial decision that would be an appeal directly to the state level through the land board of appeals. Interesting. Okay. So, it's it's yeah structured differently.

I've not seen one of those come across our they wouldn't come down. Right. Right. Yeah. there the because it skips the local process on appeals. It would it would have to be directly approval. It sounds like it would be done ministerial

part of and part of ministerial the the concept or idea with ministerial is that they're so clear and objective that it's kind of meant to be you know should be who cares should be minimal to no impact to neighbors. fault. That doesn't mean everyone always, you know, goes with that if they feel that they're affected once they find out about something. And that's why there's a process. You have a certain window of time that you find out about the neighbor did something and you don't like it. It's like, well, they went through the legal process. I still don't like it. It's like, we'll talk to an attorney and they'll guide you on how you might be able to appeal. And that happens. All right. Uh number four is to this was really some housekeeping so again kind of complicated but we had in section 2.800.5 800.5. There were rules regarding how long residential development was approved for and the extension time frame and it's been very it's had a it's been challenging as it relates to replacement dwellings. So in reviewing the Oregon revised statute and Oregon administrative rules, it was determined that those provisions that allow approval to be four years and potentially extended for two and then up to five additional as it relates to replacement dwellings only are for forest dwellings. I'm not sure. It it begs the question to me as a planner. like that seems reverse because again you're giving more time to uh well maybe not reverse but it's it doesn't seem equitable because it's like they've now

not a they've prohibited exclusive farm use grazing exclusive farm use crop land from having the same time frames. So again going back to like the the two neighboring properties that are farm forest and farm grazing. You have one that has a house then tear it down. They want to come in and replace it. They have this whole window at the same house in the farm grazing next door. You got one year that your worksheet's good for and and then there's a there's a whole another set of standards on time frames with it. It's three years if it's been um removed and have to show that it was taxed as a dwelling. So, it's it's complicated

even within the department. It seems like that be complicated to Well, wait a minute. What are your department? what what designation,

right? And so that's that's the big part of this was actually just kind of really help staff to know, hey, as we're dealing with replacement buildings, it's just this this particular provision now only is for the TR, FF, and AW, not the FG and FC, you know. And again, if if somebody in was finding that that's not um equitable, they you that would be a potential rule change that somebody would put forward to the legislative um process to to to remedy. Okay, this one is uh so number five is this affects multiple chapters 1 2 3 4 6 9 and 10. What we were striving for is and it's sort of um a long time coming so to speak but paperless society heard that term for forever. Um there was an effort though to try to minimize the amount of paper and mail. So we wanted to see about getting notices or decisions out via an electronic method of conveyance email. But when we first looked into it, we recognized that our code because it was written babies um when it was acknowledged it that was the thing.

Snail mail didn't exist. So all of this is to go through and find all the instances where it said mail and just simply say mail or email. So, that's a big chunk of the next few pages, but um it's actually something, you know, clerical staff uh you know, pushed for and we we kind of said, "Yeah, it's great, but uh we need to get the code to catch up with the the concept." And that's what this is all about. There there isn't a verification in any I mean with conventional mail that it was received.

Well, it's certified. Is it does this called say certified in this? Doesn't require a certified email. No. Yeah. That's an additional expense, but you can do a read receipt on an email. That's where I was going is Yeah. And we do So, we have we do a affidavit of mailing. So, when we're mailing things out, we still uh you have a record that it went out a recognizing and saying, "Yeah, this is a record of what went out and it's notorized by staff." So one person's, you know, notoriizing that this was done and yeah, with with email then you you also that's convenient because you can say, "Yep, here's proof it was sent sent out." Yeah. That doesn't mean they get it though. That's the other caveat. But that's a whole other

Yeah. But but that happens with real mail. That's what I was going to say that it's, you know, so it's it's and and I don't know how many times we sometimes have a file where there's three envelopes in there because we send out a notice, right? And then we send out a decision and you know the post office sends it back and able to forward. They put their little scribbling on it. And

do you guys have a like on certain where you do both where you'll be required on major changes? like let's say it's something that's fairly major that you need to make sure that they you know they've seen it. If if we have the email then yeah we I mean there's there's times where that makes sense to do both but probably case by case this is a replacement it's it's or so it allows the department to do one or the other one or the other um and I think I still have a responsibility as a land owner to check my mail be a land

just does if it if it doesn't get spammed or lost in the junk in the junk. That's where one thing with physical mail it is more um I don't know about this day and age but I know a lot of times on legal stuff I mean it's yeah I mean you dealing with the states or anything like that email will never work you know it's always a paper but I mean having the option there just something to think about Jeeoff did you have something Brent nope I just was thinking about how much junk mail I get in the mail true very True. Another another form of spam, right? Stamp is for 74 cents.

I was going to say, I mean, I was just thinking the the it's a it's a fiscal reality, too. Yeah. Oh, yeah. It's a couple of bucks to send this stuff out. Plus, it's time to assemble. It's insane. So, I recognize that, but I'm I'm just trying to be like there there's also a line of like, well, where is it? You know, my responsibility to pay attention to what's going on around. Yeah. And I, you know, it's it's going to be, I think, where we're saving staff time. We're saving some cost, but we won't have, you know, everyone's emails, but we'll have, you know, where we might be able to acquire from different state agencies, and you have the applicant owner that say they both agree um to it, and it's like,

we just saved this much money for this file, and then add up the next file and all that. So, yeah, it's real. Yeah, this is more for applicants, not like people that are against criticism. It's more I think meant for applicants and agencies, right? Agencies could off if if they choose to and then Right. You're still doing it the old fashioned way to all the neighbors because we aren't going to have emails. Yeah. Yeah. That's what I'm worried about is like Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Or I'm not worried. I was just thinking of the ways to verify that Yes. people were notified,

right? Because that's I mean that's definitely a huge part of it because you don't want a flaw in the process. You don't want um you know, you want you don't want to start seeing appeals of things because someone said, "I didn't get this." Um that that would you know then that counter you could have the same thing. It could get lost in the mail just as much as it could in someone's spam box. So,

Mhm. Yeah, it's good good discussion and that's that's part of what we as a staff kind of had to talk through and think through um in in kind of trying to implement it. All right. So, that gets us through to page 15. Item item six is an amendment. This is just again some housekeeping. Uh for chapter three we have within chapter 3 u article 35 regarding a type of overlay. It's a potential water impalment overlay and typically in the zones there is a a kind of a hierarchy if you will of permitted uses that are outright permitted and then permitted with standards and then the third tier is conditionally permitted. So this particular overlay left out permitted with standard. So again just housekeeping to say where are permitted or primitive standards by the underlying zone. So it's just recognizing there's other uses here that also would be lumped within that and need to be taken into account when staff has to um work through if they see this potential water impelment. uh overlay, which doesn't happen very very often, but

I bet this is a highf flyier, you know, right? Well, every once in a while, there's surprising how way back when the county had visions of a water impoundment on Bachelor Creek, right, up off of um Oakhead Road and you know, some smaller ones interspersed throughout. But that was 20 years ago. That's Yep. Yeah. That's why it's potential. Yeah. I'm just I remember but it's been 20 years.

And then number seven, this one um I've actually kind of thought about this one for a while and this is a proposed amendment chapter 4 to provide an additional means for a turnaround at the end of an internal street. So you have a any land division where it it triggers road improvements and you have to put in a dedicated public street then we wanted to offer instead of what's what's traditional and the only option that has been in our code is a culde-sac and that culde-sac has a radius of 50 ft. Uh, this provision would say that if okay with public works and no objections from a fire district, if you're within a fire district, you could have a T-shaped or hammerhead style turnaround. And in working with public works, coordinating with them, they were all for it. They didn't have any objections. is actually, you know, kind of doing the pros and cons list. There's one of the pros is that you take up a lot less area and create a lot less impervious surface surface area when you do a T-shape versus the radius, the 50ft radius. Now, a drawback though is that sometimes you might have a property where the the bulb or the radius of the closack allows a few more lots to be squeezed in with the pies-shaped wedges at the end. And so your design, you know, it could could be one of those where you do the trade-off. Do I get this many lots and do my culde-sac or do I sacrifice a lot have less uh impervious surface less money for my road? So it's it gives the developers an option where there previously wasn't one. So that's kind of a opportunity to in a sense deregulate and give give developers an option.

And that leaves number eight. Is there any I mean these are even still prescriptive this way. Is is there be is it possible to even write language? It just doesn't prescribe but just says that it had must be you know accessible for emergency equipment to turn around or is it better to be prescriptive? I

think that's pretty much a standard, isn't it? I've seen that before with that style of turnaround. That's kind of the standard. I mean the out the desired outcome is that the emergency equipment can turn around. Correct. Correct. And so I just heard So So you're Yeah. Where where the where we have currently the specification of the 50ft radius. Were you thinking this is I I just it's another prescription. Yes. It's an option. I like the the the the intention of creating optionality to meet the desired outcome. Um, I just wasn't sure if prescribing, you know, somebody could come up with another better way to turn something around.

I think that's pretty much the standard, though. Yeah, I think that T-shaped or hammerhead is a I've seen that before, like at a we did a project in near a school and they did that. No, I I I understand, but I I just um it's not a die on the hill. I was just curious if if we hear about it, someone will bring it up and then we'll Yeah, we'll fix it. Fair enough. Okay. Yep. I'm good. It it is it's a good point because it's like if if you don't specify is someone going to try to what what are they going to in a sense get away with? What's the bare minimum? Do I care? As long as they can turn the thing around, do I care?

Well, and that's that's why it was subject to approval for public works and a fire chief because it still then has they they know what is to what's Yeah. what's appropriate and necessary for proper vehicle maneuvering for for cars and then the life health safety of ambulance or fire. I think this is great. I think Oregon fire I think Oregon fire code has a standard. I but I don't know if the orchid fire code standard is is you know okay with public works or do they do they meet somewhere in the middle of the two different standards

but there there's uh a lot of per on purpose there's a lot of gray to Douglas Countyy's code sure and so this would be another example where it's like providing that flexibility of another option but also So, you know, you're not completely pinned in, you know, pigeon holes or whatever the right phrase is. You said it has to be approved by public works and or fire district if it's inside one. Yeah, I see that too, bro. Yeah, good call though.

Any any further discussion on that one? Yes, eight is eight is an interesting one. There's um some doesn't happen very often, but we have a provision under article 37 where that recognizes pre-existing non-conforming uses. So, a simple example of a pre-existing non-conforming use is an old house on commercial land or old house on industrial land. But we occasionally will have a situation where we have a whole area that was zoned with a broad brush stroke and it might be say a rural residential zoning. But within that rural residential zoning, here's this historic structure or maybe several historic structures, one of which is an old historic store. So this provision is to say if if by chance we didn't recognize and zone this historic store as a commercial zone, but we want to recognize that it's a store, it's been a store. Let's let it stay a store. um like an old general store in a rural residential zone is my example there that um that's that's what this provision uh is attempting to recognize. These may be one of those. There might be only two of these in the county, but they they may

and um this just helps provide an opportunity to because other you know that seems logical Jeeoff every once in a while and we joke about that because there's frustration for for us and our clients that logic does not factor into planning does not prevail. Yes. But every once in a while, this is a win for Logic. Yay. Yes. All right. So, this is not a pot store. They're not historic yet.

Yeah. Um the last part of the amendments and tech technically the there's a provision in the code that we could make scribers type errors at any point in time but when the when the patients on the table so to speak. It's like we might as well call them out

in the formal manner that I've done here with all the other amendments. Uh and so this is again is just more more housekeeping when reviewing um the accessory dwelling unit rural definition and the provision and this happens occasionally when rulem happens. It's stuffed into one statute and then

doesn't all of a sudden it's moved to a different statute. So uh uh another member of the staff found that that was an old citation and uh I I this is uh to clarify and correct that. And then similarly and here's the definition of affordable housing on that. Yes. Yes. Um and affordable housing for religious corporations which is another one that Yeah. We haven't had people beating our doors down for that. But the the uh same thing happened where

um there was a OS 197 series and then they created a whole bunch of new um rules and moved things to the 197A and so affordable housing fell subject to that. And all these citations then are um corrected to reflect that change in the OS. [Applause] Go back to page one and start over. I'd be happy to. Brent, we're losing you, Brent. Now, the owl,

if you could only see how excited Jeff was to geek out on this stuff, I you know, I you would appreciate that. Yes, he would love to do this again. All the things we didn't ask. I make a motion to approve the amendments to the Ludo as written. I second. Can I clarify for the record that we're we're saying it's a it's a recommendation to the board. Yeah, correct. Recommendation to the board of commissioners to approve it. Excellent. Okay, I second. Moved and seconded. Any other discussion? All in favor say I. I. I. I. Okay. Passes. On. It goes to the commissioners. Thanks, Jeff. You're welcome.

Sure. That is I do appreciate the indulging the questions and making the time to walk us through that, Jeeoff. It's You're welcome. Well, that's that's all part of it. And it's it's good to have those discussions. I don't think we have any business from the audience. Business from the planning commission. Anyone got anything? Happy Thanksgiving. Yeah. Yeah. Ditto. Ditto. and business from the planning department. Sounds like Jeff doesn't think we'll have anything in December now. We've just doomed ourselves. But yeah, no, I think I think even if something came up, it would be the time frame would bump bump it to January. Okay. So, I would also say happy Thanksgiving.

With that said, yeah, happy Thanksgiving. Merry Christmas everyone. We'll see you guys in the new year most likely. meeting journey. All right.