Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

the same question. Okay. All right. Great. Hey, thank you. Nice seat. Yeah.

just can't stand,

right? Yeah.

I know. Not that I didn't think I I don't think that's the other Right there. All right.

We're going to wait just a couple minutes. There's some late correspondence that came in. I want to make sure everybody on the has a chance to read everything that that has been submitted for us. to catch up.

Who knew this was the place to be? He said very I'm going to get a perfect Are you serious? 25.

You have Thank you.

Okay, good evening everyone. Thanks for your patience. Name is Clay Newton. I'm your host or the chair of this meeting tonight. joined here by my vital online members of the planning commission. So tonight we have several items. We'll try to move through them as quickly as we can. Um we'll start with uh an opportunity for people to come forward with public comment that they believe is within the purview of the planning commission, but not specifically on an item we're addressing tonight. We will give you a chance to address any one of the four items that we have in front of us tonight before we begin that item. If you have something outside of those four items coming up here in just a couple minutes will be your opportunity to talk to us about that and we will take it into consideration.

So um we'll start by um call to bring them into order. Motion to approve approve the agenda. Second. Is there any further discussion? Okay. You call the please. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner Mus. Yes. Commissioner Sinclair. Yes. Commissioner Morris. Yes. Commissioner Wade. Yes. J.

Yes. Our agenda for this evening is approved. We'll move to consideration of the minutes from our February 26th plan commission meeting. Are there any amendments to the minutes? Okay, there are no amendments. May I have a motion to approve those minutes? I move to approve the minutes until last meeting. Second. There's a second. Any further discussion? Okay. Tessa, will you follow up, please? Commissioner Sinclair, yes. Commissioner Wade, yes. Commissioner Orlock, yes. Commissioner Ridley, yes. Commissioner Matus, yes. Commissioner War, yes.

Chair Newton, yes. Our minutes from the February 26th 26 planning commission meeting are approved. All right, we'll move to the public comment section. If you have something you believe is within the purview of the planning commission, something we can do something about or you want to let us know about it, this is your chance. We do ask that you limit that testimony to three minutes. Um, and if anybody has anyone, I'll start with those people here tonight. Um, raise your hand and I'll recognize you and please come over. State your name, email, address, and anything you might have to Okay, no one here. Anybody with their hand up online? No. Okay, we're moving right along here, folks. Move our first item.

CU2601 Daniel Gallagghan for a conditional use permit. CU2601 Daniel Gallagan brutal construction on behalf of Eric and Joan Whitaker for the installation of elical patterns on a wetland record in relation to the approval of conditional use permit 257. The subject property is located at the corner of North Hemlock and 6th Street. Tax Lot 035 3005 map 51019 AD residential meeting to the R2 zone. The application will be reviewed against the criteria of municipal code 17.102 overlay zone and 17.86 conditional uses. Does anyone object to jurisdiction of the planning commission to hear this matter at this time? Does any commission member believe he or she has a conflict of interest or person in file?

I would like I um must disclose that I'm on the Oregon Coast Alliance board for the state of Oregon which is called Orca. Also I do feel that I can be objective in hearing this case. Any issues with that? Any more commission? No. Okay. I think you're just fine. Thank you for disclosing me. Has any commission member had any expert contacts or made a site visit? Site visit. Site visit. May we have a staff report?

Yes. Good evening. This application is for a revision to conditional use permit CU number 257 for residential construction in a wetland proper area that was reviewed and approved by the planning commission in October of 2025. The approved construction will make use of an existing elevated steel frame. During its prior review, the planning commission found that due to the site's characteristics, there are no opportunities for development outside of the delineated wetlands for their property area. The dwelling will utilize portions of an existing 2470 ft piled driven structural framework and utility connections that were previously installed as part of a residential development that was never completed. The applicant's intention is to minimize ground disturbing activities that could adversely affect the wetland through the reuse of the framework. The approved dwelling will have a footprint of approximately 1,250 ft uh with an approximately 900 ft of build surface area will provide off street parking decks and stairways to access the dwelling. The applicant has determined that it will be necessary to place helical peers as structural variant points in various locations around the framework. Additionally, putting some of the stairs as well as excavation for new subterranean infrastructure will be needed for the development move forward. No changes to the previously approved dwelling, off streetet parking or other hardscape features such as decks or patios are proposed with this application. Moving into the applicable criteria for the wetland overlay zone development standards. The plan approved by CU2507 as stated previously will have a footprint of 1,250 square ft. out of the way.

Uh with an additional 900 ft of built surface area that will provide for off street parking decks etc. Uh the dwelling will make use of existing seal framework and the frame will be reduced in size and conformance with the conditions of approval privac. This has created the need for ground connection points in order to support the framework. A total of 20 hand driven helical paint peers will be installed and these are shown as the red dots on the screen this time and these will be located primarily around the perimeter of the structure. Additionally, the application proposes a new utility in excavation for natural gas line and the placement of four shallow concrete footings at the base of the four staircases descending from the hall by utility excavations not within either of the two delineated wetland sites on the property and the concrete footings will measure approximately 10 square ft in total area. Continuing on into the development standards and mitigation, the standard comment is that the approved development detailed following mitigation measures to be taken in order to minimize the long-term impacts on wetlands and barber area. This proposal will remain the same as the mitigation plan MCU 25507 includes a significant number of actions that will be taken. Uh the application materials indicate that the new ground distributed work is to be done on a minimally invasive manner and the use of manual placement of pylons and hand excavation will be preferred instead of using machinery. Continuing along to storm water management. There will be no changes to the previously approved storm water management. And then moving into conditional uses, the proposed placement of the helical peers is necessitated by structure modifications in order to

accommodate the reduction in size. Steel framework required by the planning commission's prior improvement. No change to the overall site layout or structural footprint were proposed by this application. As a result, there will be no changes in demand to meet us infrastructure public or traffic patterns from this proposal. And that concludes the standard report. Is there any additional correspondence coming?

Okay. Move the public testimony. The pertinent criteria to be considered are noted in the staff reports and listed on the criteria sheets on the meeting page of the city's website. Testimony, arguments, and evidence must be directed toward those criteria or other criteria in the comprehensive plan or the municipal code which the person testifying believes apply to the decision. Failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements read sufficient to afford the decision maker and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue that appealed based on that issue. Prior to the conclusion of the initial evidentary hearing, any participant may request an opportunity to present additional testimony, arguments or evidence regarding the applications. Planning commission shall grant such request by continuing the public hearing or leaving the record open for additional writt testimony, arguments or evidence. So persons who come forward shall first receive I'll recognize you if you have your hand up and the chair state their full name and mailing address and if appearing in a representative capacity identify whom they represent. Is there a presentation by the Hello Dan Gall with Riddle Construction and have Derek Sand here who's also construction the architect for the property. Um again like I said this is a this is a rendition so it's pretty straightforward. I don't want to over complicate it, but essentially we're just trying to add some some structural supports to this seal once we chop it all up. We got to support it. There's a few things that I think the previous conditional use just didn't outline. So, I think that's why we're here is we have it's actually 21. I know we said 20, but I think it's 21 helical biles to go underneath the footprint of that of that. So um hand excavation where possible like I said the helical files will be hand driven so we're not driving machinery on the

wetlands or anything we're trying to impact it as very little as possible. So I think everything that that previous conditional use was already approved is we're going to adhere to that as best as we can. Other than that, I don't know if you have questions for us on on our intents or methods we can expand on. I think I'm just curious. We were not informed that there would need to be pilings driven in the process of removing a portion of that frame. I'm just wondering why that wasn't raised in the previous conditional use application.

That's a great question. Honestly, I think that's probably why we're here. But, um, I don't I wasn't part of that. But, I think it just I think it just got overlooked, honestly. I think it was kind of glazed over looking at that that steel frame that's there. Yeah, we're going to reduce it based on the the ratios and I don't think anybody dove that deep to think about what happens when you cut those things out. They can't just hang there. Dan, I'm happy to answer.

Yeah. Yeah. Sure. Um, I'm Jacob Shadows. Um, I designed the the house. Um at at the time that of the uh the last um applicant application um there had been no structural design at that point. Um so uh the the idea was to you know design the house, understand the footprint, understand how it was going to you know set on on the property. Um and then after the the previous approval uh then we move forward with the structural analysis which was you know pretty costly um exercise one which they wanted to speculatively do I think before they had that approval. Um so after hiring the uh structural engineer having them do their analysis then determining that you know the location the exact location for those helical piles because we we could have made some guesses but they would have only been just that. So so now since they've done their full analysis we understand exactly where those piles would be and um and we're able to present that. And so I so I I we'd have to go back and look at the minutes from the previous meetings, but my my recollection is that the whole purpose of leaving the steel frame as is was that you weren't going to have to do anything to the to the foundation. And so we approved that plan and now you're coming back basically saying you're cutting up that foundation and need to place 21 hill helical piles. So I feel like on some level we were duped

consciously or unconscious with that.

Oh no. Yeah. It was never our intention. Um the the idea was to utilize as much of the frame as as we as we possibly could. Um we didn't want to make any assumptions as to what they the structural engineer could or couldn't achieve, you know. Um and so you know uh to you know the structural engineering is quite expensive and um and so to to do that before we knew that the footprint would be approved um was a little bit of kind of getting cart before the course. Um there were so many um items that you know other items that we had to discuss uh with previous approval that uh this this was one that you know just uh I think kind of got a little bit lost over all the other aspects that we were doing with it seems like the previous presentation was pretty comprehensive. In fact, it seems as I remember that there were even uh supports the uh piling supports illustrated in the elevations and the other drawings that were there. And so are those necessarily necessary still along with these additional ones? It seems like that's an awful lot to miss for instance on something that is so substantial as the foundation of the building. Um can you address uh it seems like we were shown how the building would be supported with the existing and reduced footprint in the drawing. Sure. But uh we we have some um some boards. If you'd like I can bring them out and show you. Um it it it just turns out that the uh the canal lever of the steel frame uh that was going to be required. Um I mean

those those steel items are 16 in deep. They're massive. Um so the the hope there was that we would be able to utilize the existing steel frames to achieve those can levers um along with some additional support. um as necessary. Um and uh when we went back to the structural engineer, uh he said no. Um really, you know, what we're going to need to do is support these. So after further review, the structural engineers said these 16 in beams are not going to be enough to support the house as designed.

They can't achieve those can levers. Exactly. Okay, thank you. What's the impact of your footies for the helicles? Um, I don't know the answer. You do not cap the helicles. They'll have a a bracket welded on the top of it that'll catch the beam so it carries it. So So no additional concrete. Correct. Yeah. And helicles, if you're familiar with them, just screw into the ground. So there's no spoils. You're you're really minimally disturbing the ground up there.

So you only have your 4 in or 5 in steel tube coming up with a weld bracket to the jeans that are structure. Correct. And then we have the added stairings as well, but that is separate from the helical. What size pad that you're 12 in deep? And that's outside of the wetland itself. Correct. Correct. I see one other thing is that you're requesting utility. Yeah.

You were a storm sewer run to the west which cuts through the west properly. What is the choice to go to the west rather than to the south on sixth street along the same lines that you're running your gas trench and your other utility? I think the storm all goes to the ground to the wet lines but I'm not mistaken. I think that was decided on the last one. Yeah. So all all surface water goes to the wetlands. We're not connecting sewer line. I apologize. Okay. The sewer is existing and it runs already under the house. So all we have to do is Yeah. All we have to do is excavate down and add a point. Correct.

We didn't scope that. All looks good. It's actually even farther under the footprint than we have on that drawing. natural parts. Now, I saw a mention of needing to excavate 3 ft around some of the pilings to make sure that they were in condition. Has that for every piling is there? There's a lot of them.

There's a lot. Some of them are just going to get cut off. So, some of the ones that we're deleting, just cutting off below service, we don't have to do that. But most of them currently, if you've been over there, they're already kind of excavated about 3 foot. So, it's only going to take just a little more chiseling to kind of hone that the ground water that's sitting in there out so we can kind of dry them out and look at it. So, it's it's pretty pretty minor. Most of it's already already complete.

Questions? Anything else you'd like to present to us? I we'll call for additional opponents and propon opponents and proponents. Um and you'll have one more opportunity if you'd like to speak like Is that you with your hand up? Yeah, it is. Go ahead. Yeah. Yeah. So, I was I was kind of wanting to have a little bit more information on the helical piles. How deep do you expect to to have to drill those? Uh we're scheduling because you never know exactly how far. Um 35 ft max 30 to 35. Okay.

Um and those are 2 and 78 with a sometimes 12 14 inch dish on them. So um there are some logs and the geotech says say there's some logs down there, you know, about 20 feet. So we're hoping that we can motor through those and miss those. But um it's one of the things we're up against. Okay. Question. Sorry. Good. Yeah, I think so. Um the installation of uh I think you noted that be done by a hand unit or

hydraulic. So it would be a hydraulic compressor be on a a cat a smaller. Nope. It's literally like a big generator with some hoses in there. It's like a big motor on top and it's two guys and they just aim that thing where they need to go and drill it into the ground so you don't have bigger impact. I do see that you use the best practices for fabric and y

we will import some gravel for that parking area. We can't really dictate what the nature's going to do there. I can't tell them to hand dig, but we're going to do as much as we can. Anyone else? Commission? No. Thanks very much. Are there any presentations by proponents of this project? People in favor of this project.

Yeah. Okay. How about anyone not in favor of this project? Okay. Uh, as the applicant, you have, uh, the final opportunity to come up and say anything you want, as final words. Are you guys satisfied? We said as much as you need to. I think I'm good. You're good. Okay. Any final questions of the applicant before we close the record?

Okay. And we'll close the record and move to our deliberation. Who'd like to go? Well, I think I am really concerned that the engineering wasn't done initially so that we could assess the impacts altogether. It once a really sticky spot where we've approved a potential project, but now we're being told there's more wetland impacts and that was exactly what the point of having initial conditional use was aiming to avoid.

Yeah, it's pretty frustrating. Well, I'm not surprised that we're back at this point. Just totally debated. They're following a natural course of development of the project. We have done car I surprise and I had already made the assumption that the additional support needed 21

again. There's a lot of a lot of count. So, so is that just something that we missed, Jay, during the initial hearings? Because I I don't I don't recall ever talking about having having to to to potentially come back and I mean, my understanding was that they were leaving that as is. And so, if I missed that, I'm shame on me, but I I don't recall that. I

I I think with any engineering project, especially one where you're trying to retrofit an existing framework, you're going to have reassessment and reassessments being done uh right up until you found your first nails about any kind of supports or structure or foundational work. you know, you have to review and re-review. And like I said, especially when they're retrofitting something, this is something that like Jay, I I think we could have foreseen or maybe we should have been told that, hey, there may be changes coming up because we're having to carve up this structure and we're not sure that as existing it can support the the weight of the uh the architecture as so I'm not surprised either. I do think they've taken a lot of steps to make sure to protect what's there. They've done what we've asked them to do. 21 is quite a few. Uh but I think they're going to do sounds like what they can to lessen the impact of the buffer and wetland. Uh and again, I think they're just using something like a PTO to screw those in and so it pretty minimal impact machinery.

Yeah. But What was the timing? We've seen this now. This is the third time we've seen them. How significant were the changes that we asked for in the first the first time we saw it? The second time we saw it. So I could see if the first time to the second time there was a significant change in the number of political appeals peers meeting. But if we didn't have significant changes between time two and three today, it seems reasonable that that question should have been at they asked for significant changes to this plan. We should probably figure out I mean I'm not a contractor or engineer, but it seems pretty straightforward that you would have to check to see how that would work.

Yeah, but I don't I don't blame them for going this route. The engineering on this project probably was tens of thousands of dollars and and again having that initial investment um ahead of this I I feel they follow the natural course of their development here. Um they're following our procedure.

They're not following this procedure in terms of discussing all of the potential impacts of the weather up front. Yes, you may not know where the helical patterns will be, but you should at least say we are anticipating that with this can we lever if you as an architect could anticipate that they could as well did not say that I think I would recall that was a conversation.

Well, it's more it's more on us in the com, you know, the the commission's process at this point. I mean, if if that's the natural progression of how a design build goes, Jay, then then we should have anticipated that and ask the questions before we approved something that was obviously not fully thought through and and it sounds like a financial issue more than anything else. And and if that's the case, I mean, this is my last meeting. So, this is just something for y'all to think about for the next four years and the next eight years and the next 12 years is how do we if we're not looking at the

if we're not looking at the project as a whole, what's the point of looking at a a halfbaked project and approving it to come back to say, "Oh, yeah, by the way, we're going to cut up this structure and and and disturb the wetland." and and it sounds like they're going to do a great job and it's going to be minimal impact and all that, but but that's something that would have been nice to know from the beginning. That's my only point. I I I think it's on us, not them at this point, but I I I just don't know how our process or your process now gets fixed moving forward.

Well, this is less. So, um I don't know. I'm I'm troubled by the amount of changes uh as well and I I remember distinctly the the conversation about how that existing structure was going to be more than adequate to carry the load uh certainly in the first goround

and while I recognize that we requested that they scale that back and remove part of it I see helical pilings in the portion of the existing structure that was never touched. Um, I too believe that we were kind of sold a bill of goods that that that that structure was going to be adequate and that was the whole basis for this whole project and it's not true. I will say I was more concerned about what I thought was a new trench sewer line through the wetlands and now I understand that that's not the case. So, I'm happy with that. I think I question whether or not the existing mitigations that were part of the uh prior uh approved conditions is really adequate with this additional amount of work that's got to go on. Um I can't do that math personally, but it seems to me like we need more mitigations than what we were expecting to have put in place. That's my two cents. Um, is that Carrie or Karen? Yes, Carrie. You have something to say?

Uh, thank you, Chair Newton and Commission. I just want to uh point out that an applicant can always come in and apply to amend a land use approval and can't be punished because they're doing so. I mean, mistakes happen. Things aren't known all the time. Um there's nothing in the code that prohibits an applicant from seeking to modify the conditional use. Um I just want to point that out that if if um you we've got to stick I think with the criteria. Um that doesn't get to uh Commissioner Sinclair's point about mitigation. That's a per perfectly appropriate. I just think that this um sort of they should have known and so they we can't change it now. I don't think it's consistent with the code. It's an interesting question because the frame was already there and existing and what was allowed at the time that that frame was put in may not have been allowed today but well you know what do we want to one of the things we considered was why would we ask them to take it out it's already that that would be a waste. So the idea that that existing frame was there and could be used might have offset other conditions of the code which now because we're having to come back and basically get it seems like over half of those islands into a wetland we're having to think about it differently and you know I'm not I don't know where I'm at I I I I do feel like it might have been strategic. I can't say it was to not tell us that or not have a wetland person here tonight. It it might have just been an oversight and maybe it's while you have a new team, but I don't think we as a body can say we're going to look at this the same way because we might have given a little more leniency to our code based on something that was

already in place and was sold to us as this is already in place, we're going to use it. So I it's a it's a it's a I think gray area for me. Maybe you see something outside of that, but I I do think we have a gray area. So, you're saying that the that uh you you might want to reopen the whole conditional use permit, go back and take a look at everything. Not necessarily. No. I'm just saying that we may have been more lenient on that approval in certain conditions based on the fact that something was there and didn't have to disturb the wetland anymore. Now

Carrie, is it is it possible to go back? Sorry, Clay. Carrie, is it possible to go back? No. A conditional use permit. So, you would apply I'm sorry. I I want to clarify it is it is not in wet. It's in wetland buffer that we're talking about. Yeah. So, we have to make sure that we're speaking the same territory here, please. Good.

Do you disagree with that logic about the the the mentality of this body as we thought about it and as we're being presented here tonight? It would have been good to know if they had brought it, but I feel that they're following procedural duty that they have to continue with the project. Is there a way that they could relook at it so that it would be more gentle to the land? Um, is do you have other options? Well, because of that explosion.

Oh, sorry. Um, I think one thing because it looks like we might have I don't know how our vote's going to go, but I sense we might have a mixed vote. If if we were if we were going to do something or ask them to do something different, let's message on that so we're not just a no button or potentially no button. What would we like to have seen different?

I think for me it's I like Erin's sort of putting this on us. I raised my concerns more as a going forward recognizing that we did not receive full information here that going forward we need to actually ask has this been engineered that we need to ask the hard questions. I like less's point that yes I think there does need to be additional mitigation because there's now more ground disturbance. So I I could see approving this with additional mitigation. The previous presentations did seem pretty closed in and final and that bothers me too. But again, I'll speak to my previous statement also that as you get into any retro pit, you're going to have changes in design. These seem like quite a few changes to me are something that should have been foreseen if there were 21 additional supports needed. But um things occur during construction that are un can't be seen. Um whether we give them the benefit of the doubt that they couldn't have foreseen this and it wasn't an intentional can't get it now, let's come back later kind of a thing. No, I tend to believe that we can take them at their word. That wasn't the case. But um as Karen said, it's not for us to be punitive about it. It's for us to decide going forward what we want to accomplish with this.

Is the idea of additional mitigation something we could outline here tonight or I think the tough hard part but the hard part would be knowing what the square area disturbance would be, what the additional mitigation would be. I would actually like to see a proposal from their wetland specialists for what would be appropriate mitigation given this additional disturbance. But I know we have a timeline too. Yeah, we could leave the record open for an additional seven days for reopen the record. Yeah, I agree.

Uh not not at this time. Sorry. may feel we come back to that but how do other people feel about opening their don't like that visit generally just try to avoid that so we're going to get additional testimony on other mitigation possibilities if we don't reopen the record asking for additional mitigation of 22 * 4 in less than disturbance

I think that a there's 10 square feet of footers that should have been very foreseeable. But beyond that, it's the ground disturbance for the pilings themselves, but there will be significantly more ground disturbance system bringing the compressor. They're going to be doing extra excavation to dry out the pilings. And I think all of that together best practices are very active. They're following best practices, but it's still the service to the wetland, which is what the wetland code says. Yes. And you feel like we've had best practices tonight.

Do you feel like we've had best practices tonight in terms of they follow the path that is typical for this to again not be punitive knowing that that was not brought up earlier. We asked them to car. They did that. Should they have told us that they're or had foresight that they're going to additional? Yes. But that is that we hold to that that is a punitive decision. And I don't think anyone's saying we're holding to that, but I think it's reasonable to say that we had not had the full information around disturbance and therefore it makes sense to say that needs to be mitigated as well.

We've been asking for an additional report from specialists for mitigation. So Carrie, it to the extent this is material, is there an avenue to revert back to prior the prior hearing where we approve the conditional use? Is there a way for us to withdraw or amend our our in our our initial conditional use based on this new information? Not saying that I want to do that or that we should do that, but I'm just curious procedurally because if not then, you know, again, Clay or sorry, Les, I agree. We were sold a bill of goods and we're stuck with it. But if there's a way to revert back, then let's let's think about that. So when you have an application approval and you seek to modify that application approval, oftent times it requires application of the same criteria that you were reviewed at the initial time, right? Because the cake is baked in a different, you know, development. It's all it's different. So there could be some additional impact. So it wouldn't be unusual to have that previous approval where the criteria were evaluated and look at that and decide if the analysis that justified finding compliance with the conditions before remains the same today. What if we have a vote? Demo.

No. No. Can Can I Before you take the vote, can I just Can I just ask where we are with the 120day deadline on this? Do we have time for an additional um open record period? So the 120day filing um day is June 30th. Yeah. Thank you, Robert.

I think you know we have a team here that's looking for a yes. Just feeling good about a yes. So we have the time. It's not like it's going to go to city council. I I'm not going to speak for everybody, but I think it will. So that would be us opening the record to come up again and talk a little bit about some of the concerns we have and we can decide what to do from there and how they might mitigate the impact. Any objection to opening the record? No objection. Okay, we're going to open the record again. You guys want to come up? You kind of heard what our concerns are.

Well, our ELS vendor, the the engineer is on here and she's actually made the report. If we could if we could pipe her house at the same time. Absolutely. Looks like we need people to state their name for the record before they speak, please. Sure. Sure. That was me, Dan Gallan, the applicant. Uh Gabby, I see your hand is up. If you uh want to state your name, mailing address, you can go ahead when you're ready.

Yes. Thank you. Hi. Uh my name is Gabby Bender. I am a wetland biologist with Ecological Land Services. My mailing address is 11573rd Avenue, Sweet 220A in Long View, Washington, zip code 98632. And I do want to quickly correct, I am not an engineer. I am a wetland biologist. Um, and in this case, I have a few concerns about some previous conversation with when the commission was deliberating because an updated wetlands assessment was submitted and was part of the planning commission packet. Um, that assessment, let me just pull up the date, is dated February 24th, 2026. And we do evaluate the additional impacts from the proposed utility excavations, use of helical pilings, and the reconfiguration of the east stairwell to be compliant with building setbacks. And if I could, let me just get to the proper page so I can pull it up on the packet and direct everyone in the commission to the page number. We'll start with page 12 out of 258 in the planning commission packet. On that page, you'll see a table that details our impact size, which has been increased to 2,86 square ft with the addition with the additions you're seeing to the updated site plan. And it shows that we're proposing a 1:1 or 1.01:1 01:1 mitigation ratio for the proposed impacts which is above and beyond the required 1:1 while it's a very minimal above and beyond it is above the required amount and I think a really important kind of piece to acknowledge here and let me get to the code citation

is that Canon Beach Municipal Code 17102 2.070 J3 C II states that a 1:1 area ratio should be used. And while I certainly understand the commission's concern for impacts to the soil column, area is specifically different from volume or three-dimensional areas. So mitigation is proposed based on square footage rather than cubic feet or cubic yards and any impacts to the soil column. Um that being said, um I do believe our report emphasizes that we're we are meeting the minimum required mitigation ratios. Can I ask the commission um if we were to propose additional mitigation where and how they'd like to see it given that we're maximizing all the available on-site space?

Well, I think first of all, I I'm so glad you're here. Thank you for being here for us tonight. We did not know you were here. Had we known you were here, we probably would have asked some of the questions. um that you've just addressed um very useful as you can imagine and I'm I'll just speak generally we see a lot of reports in 300 pages of a packet and sometimes these reports can look similar so you pointing out some of the specific differences is very very helpful and to know that someone spent the time and money to look at that means a lot to us so thank you for that that may be enough for us I don't know I'll just broadly anybody else have question

I think that I I'm not clear on is whether those tables were taking into account the new pilots. I think that was not what's clear to me. So these this this is updated for the new distur disturbance. Correct. And if I could speak to the new pilings, those are all below the proposed disturbance of the home footprint. And because the code requires an area ratio rather than a volume ratio, the subsurface impacts to the soil column are not considered. I think that was my concern that because I did read that because you were viewing it that way, you were saying you were didn't need to add any mitigation for the pilings.

That is correct. It's just within the the area underneath the entire frame and therefore this was not updated for that ground disturbance.

Now, we are considering the additional 24 square ft of project area. that's different between our conditional use permit C-2507 versus today's proposal. Um, the previous application included 2,782 square ft of proposed permanent impact to wetland buffers and the current application proposes again 2,86 ft. And again, I I do certainly understand your concern about the soil column, but the the verbiage of the code stating area ratio does not allow for us to calculate volumes for mitigation requirements.

No, what I meant was whether you were taking into account the pilings as well or whether you were saying that because you'd already mitigated under the frame, you didn't need to do any mitigation for the pilings. So, I'm happy to see that you've added the the new area. Okay. Um, I I guess I'm not fully understanding your question then, Miss Ortiz. I think it's okay. No question. Any further questions? Okay, that was very helpful. Thank you.

Okay, there's no further questions. Um, the record's been open, so I got to run through this again. Are there additional or would anyone like to come forward as a proponent? Anyone like to come forward as an open? Last chance. Anything else? Okay, guys. Thank you very much. We'll close the record. Yeah. Okay. I have a motion. I move to approve uh CU1 of the support at uh the address here. for in relation to conditional use permit 25-07 for the subject property on north and 6 street 00305 map 51019 ab is there a second any further discussion Okay.

Commissioner Matus. Yes. Commissioner Mor. Yes. Commissioner Widley. Yes. Commissioner Sinclair. Yes. Commissioner Wade. Yes. Commissioner Orlock. Yes.

Yes. 2601 for conditional value use permit is all right we'll move on to our next item SR 2601 Michael Shelton for a setback reduction Michael shelter for setback reduction for an accessory structure at 231 Eastman Road Street back slot 2400 map 51029BC in a residential medium density R2 zone the appeal will be reviewed pursuant to Again code section seven conducted for setback reduction. Does anyone object to the jurisdiction of planning commission to hear this matter of? Does any commission member believe he or she has a conflict of interest or personal file? Has uh any commission member made had any extra contact or made a side?

Absolutely.

We have staff report and we ask this is a public hearing in consideration of setback SR 2601. Michael Shelton, owner advocate requests a setback reduction to reduce the rear yard setback from 15 to 5 ft to allow for the construction accessory structure. Property is located 231 East Monroe Street and is in the residential medium density R2 zoning district which requires a minimum 15T rear yard setback in front side setback. The press can be reviewed under Canon Beach use code section 176410 setback reduction provision is established. Um I'm going to just summarize that we got some late materials that came in at noon. Hopefully had a chance to uh review that material just to mention them. A5 which is candidate for pre-construction hardburst report or shelter produced for us from the applicant also African solar access protection on A6. A7 is an applicant response from Mber dated March 25th as well. And then we also have public comment from Mike Nor. And D2 would be uh the comments from reconcil today prior to the deadline. We did receive a presentation from the canons, but that made it about 3:30. So we're going to present that. So we'll have

time that that to you. Um, as far as the staff report, I'm going to since uh we also have the administrative appeal on the same property, I'm going to spend some time on this one because we're going to have to hopefully repeat a lot of that. So, sum summary background, uh, Michael Shell, the owner, request setback reduction at an estate at 231 Eastman row. It's a 1,257 square foot well for and we're requesting for 150 foot accessory structure. Uh the property like I said in our two district setback reductions 15 in the rear and five on the side property has already seen two permits regarding the proposed accessory structure. The first permit development permit 2523 began at the after the fact type two development permit that was approved by staff on Sep September 17, 2025 and appealed by the neighboring property owner at 39 Row on October 23rd 2025. After holding public hearing consideration, all oral and written evidence presented, planning commission were reversed. The planning department's decision and denied the application administrative 252. Um, planning commission denial was based on our findings. The structure does not meet two of the four design criteria for an accessory structure located within the required rear yard with respect to size and view impacts. On November 12, 2025 appealed the planning commission decision for the plan city council has spoken held on November 25th. Uh the city council voted to conduct anal record review and rejected all new evidence included within the notice of

appeal materials before the application at the council December's meeting. The applicant requested an extension of the application and of the 120day rule and that application was placed on hold. A second application was requested for a type two developer permit on December 23rd, 2025 through structure which was now identified as a guest house and was denied by staff on December 30th, 2025. without Michael Shelton appeal the administrative decision AA2601 and the bill was placed on February 2026 planning commission agenda. Prior to that we Mr. Shel request an extension of the application 120day rule and the application was continued to March planning commission agenda. This is the third application seeking a setback reduction. This one seeking a setback reduction from 15 to 5 ft. If this application is approved and the rear yard setback is reduced to five feet, then the accessory structure will no longer be located within the required rear yard and a type two development permit for an accessory structure is no longer required. In that instance, review of DP2540 by the planning commission will become unnecessary. Um so moving through the criteria for the setback reduction. I'm just going to highlight the uh main points it it meets uh the building coverage and the significant views no under A2 no ocean views mountain views or similar features have been identified in this record. The applicant argues that the views enjoyed by the neighboring house to the east at 239 East Monroe Street benefits by placing the structure further to the south within the rear yard. However, it is not clear this criterion is concerned with view impacts for all nearby

properties or only that one directed impact by the required yard. If so, the criterion would only be concerned with view impacts of the home located south 38 to East Jackson. the city have not received any testimony and that no longer is true which we will speak to in the next review. Um and then we have about the proposed A3 is about proposed building location solar access. We had wind material which the applicants can speak to in that. Um and then as far as A4, it is the purpose of setbacks to provide for reasonable amount of privacy, drainage, lighting, air, noise reduction, fire safety between adjacent structures setback reduction permits may be granted where the planning commission finds that the above purposes are maintained and one or more of the following are achieved by the reduction in setbacks and these are the ones they have to provide a purpose to. So pre-p protection the protection or neighboring property's view of the ocean mountain or similar natural features. C the maintenance of a screen corridor avoidance of geologic hazards or other difficult topography. D the provision of solar access. E permitting construction on a lot with unusual configuration. F rehabilitation of existing buildings where other reasonable harm do not exist. G protection of a wetland and wetland buffer area or H permit construction on ocean front lot. Staff comments on this. The applicant application identifies two values achieved by allowing the setback reduction. A tree protection and E unusual life configuration. The backyard of the subject property contains three mature situs spruce trees. The one in the center of the property has a visible root structure of up to 15 ft. The

applicant argues that the location of these trees and supportive root structure significantly constrains the options for locating this structure. The existence of these trees create an unusual configuration further justifying setback reduction. To illustrate the nature of the concern, the applicant's presentation packet illustrates three orientation options. Orientation one, the accessory structure is turned 90° and located outside of the required rear yard. According to applicant, this option threatens the sit sitka's roots in addition to compromising privacy and leaving only 3 ft between a primary home and guest house. In orientation two, the structure keeps the same orientation but is moved to the north outside of the required yard. According to the applicant, this option would impair front door access given its close proximity to the existing residents and if rotated would decrease privacy to their neighbor. I highlight uh again that both of those options when they move it outside of the required rear yard, privacy of the neighbor does not matter. Okay, that is not a because no one wants to make any finding on it. that does not need to get the development permit. So they can have anything within that their backyard just like they could build an addition to their home coming back into the rear yard without getting into the required rear yard. So when the discussion of privacy and matter brought up later in the responses that doesn't apply to orientation one and two whether they move it back within the 15 yard or rotate 15 yards no one really you know if someone objects that's they can just do that that's their problem they can do that is

per okay other than general statements the applicant has offered no testimony from an or other qualified expert. I will note that has changed because they have new material from the hard workers. So I will note that in a minute. Further, it is important to highlight that the list of qualifying benefits that allow granting a setback for production place no value on the location of structures or a property with respect to access limitations or alterations to existing structures that might be necessary to accommodate an owner's desire for an additional structure. With respect to obligation in 17641084 to maintain a reasonable amount of privacy level of privacy one should expect is what that which would be provided if the government complied with the yard set requirements here as shown in orientation two. The structure could be located outside of the rear yard required in the rear rear yard while creating a no greater threat to the tree roots without any consideration of the impacts to privacy. Uh so none of the criteria speak to whether the accessory structures windows have a view or any other details regarding the functionality of an after the fact structure. They just stresses the point that each of these limitations are self-inflicted from an after the fact permitting process. Staff would also note that the image on page seven of A4 showing patient two does not provide evidence the door would be rendered inoperable as the height of the door fall below the needs and estate the bank there will still be very least 3 ft of space between the two structures for access. Um in probe A7 in the approach room setbacks will not substantially reduce the amount of privacy uh which is or would be enjoyed by providing property. As mentioned above the proposed approach setbacks which should not substantially reduce the amount of price in

neighboring properties. In fact, the proposed location is likely the least obtrusive site to the existing neighboring structures and it impacts and if it's impacts any property, it would likely be the rear yard adjacent southern land 232 East Jackson Misty which is not reg which has not registered to complain to any of the application submitted to um it's wouldn't fire my staff recommendation from that first staff or Based on the foregoing explanation, this application fails to establish that a setback for is necessary to achieve one of the recognized purposes under 176410, there is sufficient insufficient evaluation of the existing trees. Uh I'll speak to that in a second. Instead, what evidence shows is that by re reinating the structure as shown in orientation two or three or by reducing the structure size thereby not only protecting the tree but also eliminating the setback reduction. So I just want to uh summarize uh what the uh new materials were presented after there's been staffing work that's been received this week. So although the neighbor Mr. Morgan who owns the home to the south and is likely the most affected of the current and proposed position of the accessory structure has offered testimony. He has no objection to the setback reduction. Can each municipal code 17641084 still require the planning commission find that one more of those eight attributes I mentioned earlier from tree protection to racing front protections be achieved by the reduction in setbacks. And although they are worse, Mr. Wy states that it would be best and I quote, it will be best to be left

where it is. He also states the impact is both small and thatable. It is possible to move the structure to any location in the backyard with the same minimal impact to the tree. In retrospect, Mrs. Miss Galbert's applicant attorney most recent letter A7 staff would only like to clarify a couple points. The first is that on page four and that this is what I just said a second ago. She states that the staff report incorrectly concludes the proposed orientation move 10 ft north allow building located outside the rear yard without impacting privacy. Yet this isn't the case as privacy of the neighbor wouldn't be a concern under orientation too. It permitted outright by the zone curtain whether the neighbor objects or not. This orientation orientation two it is a Secondly, the staff report was not conceding that three situs spruce trees created a lot with unusual configuration. Staff was simply summarized in the applicants of an argument. In other words, given the new testimony, the planning commission is asked to find that either the setback should be reduced because Mr. key and the other evidence provided of persuasive arguing for tree production or that the various site plans and other materials provide evidence that would permit construction on a lot of perial configuration. Any questions? Thank you. So I'll ask if you've already addressed if there additional correspondence beyond came in late and you just went first.

Yeah, just Okay, so we'll move to public testimony. The pertinent criteria to be considered are not in the staff reports and listed in the criteria sheets on the meeting page of the city's website. Testimony, arguments, and evidence must be directed toward those criteria or other criteria in the comprehensive plan or municipal. The person testifying leaves your file to the decision. failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision maker and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal based on that issue. Prior to the conclusion of the initial evidentiary hearing, any participant may request an opportunity to present additional testimony, arguments, or evidence regarding the application. Planning Commission shall grant such requests by continuing the public hearing or leaving the record open for additional written testimony, arguments, or evidence. Persons who testify shall first receive recognition from the chair. State their full name and mailing address and if appearing in a representative capacity identify whom they represent. Is there a presentation by the please? Uh you if you want to introduce yourself I'm not sure I heard your question. Oh you can introduce yourself from the table or the podium whichever you're more comfortable at.

So I'm Mike Sh. I'm the owner at 231 East Street. Current primary residence is 7603 South Rosary Circle in Colorado. Casey Purdue. I'm coowner. I'm Michael's wife. I too um reside at 7603 South Circle in Centennial, Colorado. And just for um for clarity as it it's been stated, I've had to retain an attorney and so she she is out on the call right now. Should there be legal questions or anything that you guys have to ask? Um feel free, you know. Um do my presentation real quick.

Um I want to thank commissioners. I want to thank Mr. Jeff as well because his uh his Tik Tok of how everything happened was was correct and then you know have any dispute there. Just puts a little bit of stuff in context just from an orientation perspective. This is our property right here C231 from our neighbors to the east of the canoe are over here and then Mr. Morgan's house is to the south here. We got Morgan Street or Monroe Street here and Jackson. You can see these are the three large sitas that take up a predominant part of our rear yard. Um these drawings here something I've developed and it's actually the shed is in the northeast corner here northeast the southeast corner of the lot. Our home that we it was constructed in 1979 1977. It's 1266 ft. We sleep in a loft with our kid who's now 18 and it's not working. It has no um fossils. So, we've been planning like we've been planning the backyard for 10 years, including a inclusive of a a shed or guest house. We need extra space and yard work. We only um started to do this last year. I'm um 144 square feet is exactly what we need, no less. From a from a location perspective, we started to put it in the fire yard, but I was was trying to be sensitive just in the placement of the trees as the trees and protecting them was important and didn't want it up against the south side of our house.

The the Tik Tok that Jeff described as right. We started this a long time ago, but I need to start off here. I messed up in reading the relying on the FAQ, which I recognize is in the city ordinance. I misread the code. And so this starts with me. I can't unring that. When um when Mr. Butler came to visit me and you know said that there might be an issue, I stopped work that day. Later on is when I received the message from Mr. Sinclair in in August about 7 days later it was going to stop. Since then I've been trying to correct this thing and trying to stay good with the city. I submitted that that first type of development permit which was approved then then was appealed. I went to the uh we call it city council to to appeal that they shut it down as well and in theirs is when they suggested okay you just need a place to live you should resubmit again under a guest pass which I did that was the second type too which as Jeff said was subsequent to that conversation is where I then learned about the required rear yard setback application that's what I submitted and and I do this this conversation just basically sh say that well I missed that there was the fact there wasn't any misin I really wanted to to be whole and good with you guys and I've spitted three now maybe four applications based on the fact that that's what I learned you know and as soon as you guys or soon as the city made that department I tried to comply which brings us here today so like um uh Mr. Adamson said I think of the six criteria that are required in that bribery or setback application he's acknowledged that I we we meet six or six of them the two that that yes questions on our arbor side and the tree protection and solar access. So when it came to the you know the solar access criteria I went and did the math um found out like the uh the solar access uh is measured on the December 21st of the year and it only affects like you want to look at the south facing size

houses and if my shed casts a shadow and the south facing sides of the house then that's that's a some level of impact. Mr. Morgan's house is to the south so my shed doesn't cast any shadow on there. My name is to the east. They again doing the math at the what at the solar noon the shed goes directly north into my yard. They did the math again and I guess it's like 3 hours on other side of the what do you call the the solar noon the shadow simply doesn't reach the yard and doesn't cost the the sixoot fence and that I think what's the the larger issue is the existing vegetation around the the shed and my three sickness creases and some water. They actually provide a lot more substantial shade to the the neighbors of the properties for the North Street than my shed. Thanks. Sorry, I'm not in front of you guys. You know, not my fault, but I'm trying. Um, on on the other one, there there are two other criteria, and I'm trying to emphasize the unusual lot configuration. As I said, the I don't know if you guys can see it, but I I marked out there with red tape or where the rear guard blinds are. So, you can see the majority of the trees, the two trees here, and there's actually one to the back behind me. The majority of the trees are actually within the build portion of the lot um that I guess by by setbacks where I put the structure. Um over to the left side here you see the arborist's plan and it just basically shows the constraints that I'm I'm under. Again not quite not quite scale. I think this is a better representation. So as tracers we looked at all the possible locations to put this. We thought the the least least uh intrusive was that location right there. This is that orientation one that I shared with Jeff and then orientation two. The only reason that I started looking at orientation one and

orientation two was those conversations started to promote in the last hearing. And at the end of the day, what I really wanted to do was make the case to keep the shed where it is or the the guest house where it is just because it it limited the impact on the trees. And I thought, although others may not agree, that it was in the least intrusive part of the AR. Well, to Jeff's point, when I put it over here, one, the the arbor said that the application would be okay once it was set, but there was more concern that didn't show up in his letter about actually the moving of the structure. The um he said that the impact of the so the the shed is built on footers. They were all like hand dug and they're maybe 6 in deep. So, there's actually no like heavy penetration there. They were actually set up to avoid all of structure. So while the location of orientation one orientation two may be similar, the arburist was really concerned more about like how we would lift it and move it and additional damage beyond there. Um I I'll get away from the privacy uh comments because I understand from Mr. Adams once I move it there I guess there there is less concern about privacy because there's a it's a type two requirement isn't necessary. Um, going on the the three foot distance between the home and the guest house. There's in in either orientation, there's two concerns. One is the door. I've got a three-point door. So, it's not that the door would inter interfere with the eaves. I literally couldn't open the door. It it bang up against the side of the house. The other one is just from an egress perspective, and I I'm not an egress expert, but having these two structures 3 ft apart, I again, that's somebody else. I don't know that

that would be allowable at Marshall or I don't know how they would you allow that. And then even that 3T um that 3T distance the existing structure is 9 ft by 16. I know that there's probably a way to move it, but that so that what what we'd have was like a a 3ft by 16 ft corridor between two structures where 3T by 9 foot corridor between two structures and it still, you know, be in some of the claim view rights of my neighbor. No.

Um, I want to I want to state Michael and I are really role followers. Um, I've worked for the government my whole entire career supporting the United States Antarctic program and the Arctic program. Um, all of all of the things that we've been doing today, we've been trying to comply. It's true that we misread the code and we thought we need. As it turns out, we didn't need building permit. We did not know that type two developmental permit. We're not land use experts. um every step along the way, we've tried to comply. Um and uh really in in an act of good faith, um do what's right. Um it if the commission has told us we need to do this permit, we we do it. Um you know, I think we're on our sixth or seventh iteration. I I imagine you guys are probably pretty beaten down by the process. I know we are. Um, and we just want to do what's right, please. Um, that's all we've ever tried to do. We're not trying to affect our neighbors or impact anyone. Um,

we're trying to live here full-time. That's what we're essentially trying to do. And that was our plan all along. Um, I'm It's taken us a number of years of money to save up to make these changes to our yard. Um, yeah, now that we're in a position finally doing where that's that's essentially what we're trying to do.

I acknowledge that we started off on the wrong foot. And I think the the remedies though seem worse than to not just ourselves our neighbors who don't want it closer. The remedies seem worse than unfortunately what we have now. Um, and that's why we're, you know, we're seeking this setback request approval. Keep it where it is. I did wonder, are you adding plumbing? I know last time there was some unfitted plumbing. Well, I don't know that we are. Um, that was never our intent. That's why we put in a Chrono stink toilet.

Unless there's a sink, is there still a sink? There is a sink, but we weren't planning on necessarily. He did do it temporary, right? We honestly like we were thought yet there's I didn't attempt PEX line to go to the sink just to test it. It's nothing's installed. The electric was disconnected. I the whole intent was like to see if she could get like a bucket of water. And we got the compost. There was no intent for you know there's no services built to buy it necessary. Where is the sink trying to right in the Home Depot book?

And we actually never put water through it because we stopped everything on August 8th or September or whatever. And you didn't get a permit for your electrical work. We're not at that stage yet. No, no. I mean, I did the electric myself, but And again, no, it's not permanent. Once I get the land use covered up, I submit an electrical permit as soon as I, you know, obviously they said they're going to stay that until we or they're going to hold on to that until we get clarity from home. So everything's disconnected and sitting there. I I have a question too. Um those those permits are under Kata County, are they not? So they're not really part of this body's decision and we'll have to get it. Correct.

Yeah. So our intent is to do everything right. I think right now I got to figure out like if is is the location of this structure okay with with y'all do I need to move it in some form or fashion or modify once I do that then 100% like lesson learned whatever you know whatever kind of criteria I need to go to I will I acknowledge that mistake if I need to correct her can you clarify that this is the guest house and not a shed I I I don't even know what the structure should be called I mean well to Yeah, I've always called it a structure.

Well, wait. Well, John John Nelson from Coaster at one point referred to it as a sheed. So, the name

when Tracy brought up that she you paint there, that was the first time I heard she said, I'm like, I don't care what you call it, honestly. But, but that's where we went down that path for clarity. Like, it was all the intended use of like as we communicated. It's never been different. I think the the nomenclature change at the city council meeting is like, "Oh, you want the the guest house and we looked all that and you need to submit that differently under type two and I was like that's pretty similar to the previous type two per just the name changed." The reason why I asked is that there not qualifications in the ship. We've seen the high also see. So you're immediately put in my opinion in the the into the guest house and I just want to make sure and why I have the question. Well, in our initial conversations with John Nelson, anything under 200 square ft and under 12 or 14 ft height

that state Yeah.

But but I think though when there was more clarity on and this is where we bring in our our attorney when there's more clarity like our second type two permit the application is much simper than the first one, right? The first one was two sheets which which had you know which is why it took me four hours to turn it around. so simple. You know, our attorney that's and after that when I brought in the land use council to help me with the second type permit and it's a lot more thorough and based on our, you know, based on based on the like our submission, we think it's compliant with the tax department has even though the you know recognizing that it's denied and that's why we submit that. But this is an application for accessory structure not accessory structure which is 120 square feet but that was the original per what we're talking about right now

right now what we're talking about so there's two things I guess on the agenda today one is like the the rear yard setback reduction if that recognized and accepted that's what we're talking about right now just an accessory structure which if you receive a setback reduction does need to 120 ft and you're at 144.

Jeff, was there a reason why we're doing setback reduction prior to Yes. So as as I I stated in the first probably didn't hear you know so why we chose to do the setback reduction first is because if if you were to approve that then the other goes away right you understand you increase that setback to allow them to create a structure so there would be no administrative require unless they chose to bring that

now with setback reduction to prove would that they would still have to go through a type development and the building per uh yes not a type two they would do building but it would still be required yeah exactly would that also follow the same requirement for pre preservation the type two is the one that you know in other words they skew the back door orientation is that one or two the ones one building rear yard. That's the type

submit a building. Well, yes. August and then Hill and just to clarify for me in either whatever orientation one or two both of those requirement. Is that right? You you mentioned John Coast said it was a sheet. Did did you work with co instruction? We did initially. Um well for the first five years talking about it but we never could get on and do it. Other questions you'd like to add? Yeah. Your council is here today.

Um they are. Yes. So Mark, is there anything that you'd like that we expect that you're on mute?

Thank you. Yes. Uh Maren Calbertt. Uh it looks like I'm frozen. Uh Maren Calbertt from Schwabi Williamson and Wyatt. My address is 700 Washington Street, Sweet 701, uh Vancouver, Washington. Um just a few items that I would like to address. Um, having reviewed the supplemental uh, information that the staff report addendum provided, I wanted to point out just a few things. Uh, first, as the staff report points out, there are two what we call goals in the the submission that we provided that need to be met. The two that we've targeted are the odd configuration of the lot and the other is saving the trees. And in both circumstances, I think it's important to point out that Canon Beach Municipal Code does not require that the applicants demonstrate that it's necessary to grant this setback reduction. It variances require certain higher burdens of proof such as demonstrating that the conditions cannot be overcome that there are no other options. But that's a variance standard. The setback reduction standard is slightly different and does not have that level of burden of proof. And that distinction is actually discussed in a previous decision of the planning commission that we attached to our letter. It's um exhibit three to our letter provided at page 19 of the staff report addendum where the planning commission approved a setback reduction and there was a detailed discussion about the difference between the setback reduction and the variance and why one requires certain levels of proof and the other does not. So for the circumstance that we're faced with today, the question is only whether the criteria that are listed have been met and if they're met, are one of those two goals that we've identified satisfied? One is tree preservation. And here there's no

proposal to cut down any trees, trim any limbs. Um there's been a significant effort to try and stay away from the roots of the trees to try and preserve the trees as much as possible. Um they've yes they have built a or are in the process of building 144t shed um but they're intentionally at the moment not trying to go up to the size that would be required for an ADU to add a bathroom and a kitchen and all of those things because that would take up a greater footprint in the backyard causing further damage to the trees. So they're trying to work within the small confines that are available um for the space that they need and to preserve everybody's rights. And on that issue, the two orientations we've discussed, one just sliding it further um toward the primary residence, which would also be closer to the canvans. Um and the Canubans have previously objected and filed some comments uh in preparation for today's hearings, saying that they don't appreciate the the she-shed or the guest house and they would prefer that it's not there. Part of what the applicants are doing is trying to keep that building as far away from the canoeans as possible to provide them as much privacy and um security as they can by putting the sheh shed or guest house as far toward the um northern boundary of their property as possible over by Mr. Morgan. And Mr. Morgan is the one who's being encroached upon by the request for the rear yard setback reduction. And Mr. Morgan says it's fine. He thinks the location is actually acceptable. And in fact, the staff report says among all of the places this shed could go. This is probably the least intrusive for everyone. And that I think sums up the best. What the applicant was trying to do here is to find a location that providing them a guest house for someone to sleep in because they don't have room for that. In fact, their son is sleeping in the

loft with them. So they have a place for guests to sleep that is out of the way for everyone, tucked in under the trees, tucked in behind the bush, in the safest place for the trees. So all of those issues were what they took into consideration when trying to choose a location for the the shed. Um there are is a lot more that I can go into, some of which I think I will do on reply if that's accept acceptable to the panel because I don't want to get into things um that are unnecessary at this point. Um, if there are questions about impacts on the trees or questions for the arborists, please let us know that. We might then request that we leave the record open. The arborist was unable to be here tonight, so we couldn't um bring him here for you to answer questions if you do have them, but we would be happy to go get more detailed analysis of the tree impacts if you would like. Um, I think that's what I have at the moment and I will address any questions that you may have for the applicant about the legal requirements and criteria. Okay, thank you the opportunity heard from some to speak on time if there's anything you would like to add or respond to. Thank you.

Okay, we move on to presentations by those people who are these people that like to come forward now. Okay, no one online. Okay, we'll move to opponents. Are there presentations from people opposed to or opponents of this? Yes.

Thanks. This is going to take a Okay. That would be What's that? just working Yeah. Sure.

I'm fine. for all special. This is Ready?

Are you ready? Are you ready? Go ahead.

Hi, I'm Sally Canuben. Um 5200 Southwest Farms Road, Portland, Oregon. And our property here is 239 East Monroe in Can Beach. Rick and Sally's husband, same 239 Eastman Road. Our mailing address is actually Portland 52000 Southwest Bars 9722. Thank you all for supporting us here tonight in all the ways that you have. Um, this rebuttal is submitted in support of the city's denial of the development permit. I have the step back and and the other part in my comments. Is that possible?

Yeah, in the back we can we can hear you. If you guys could talk just a little quieter outside, it would be great.

I'm sorry. Okay. Um, we combined our comments on this for the setback reduction as well as the others. So, I didn't realize exactly how this year was going to work. So, you may have to tolerate the way we put it together. The applicant criterion um for development permit criteria the propos the proposal shall not be detrimental to adjacent property. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal avoids detrimental impact to neighboring propert. The structure sloped roof drag storm storm water runoff for the adjacent property without gutters dispersion or drainage control. Given Canon Beach's high annual rainfall, this results in a significant and concentrated discharge of water onto neighboring land on the ground. On the ground evidence demonstrates increased soil saturation and vegetation consistent with excess moisture on our property. Privacy impacts. The structure is located close to the property line with a door facing the neighboring deck. This configuration reduces reasonable residential privacy and constitutes a direct adverse impact. Visual impacts. The structure obstructs views from adjacent property. The applicant's installation of screening materials to conceal the structure confirms the existence and significance of this visual intrusion. Unintended consequences. The introduction of bamboo as a landscape tool to screen views can be

problematic as it is an invasive plant that can escape from pots and spread causing it to infest the ground as a noxious weed. It is known to attract mosquitoes and rodents. Precautions along with regular pruning and repotting are required to maintain the plant so the root system doesn't overcrowd and escape from the pots. This is a reminder of where we began with this building's designation. Structures and buildings accessory to residential use shall comply with all yard requirements except that accessory structures and buildings may be located in the rear yard where a type 2 development permit is issued pursuant to section 17.14.030 030 and we came to you in October saying that we did not feel that the accessory structure as it was called at the time met criteria 1 or4 which are the structures or buildings do not have a total area of more than 120 square ft and the structures or buildings are located in such a way as to not be detrimental to a budding property and shall not obstruct views from adjacent buildings. The applicant has failed to demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards governing accessory structures or guest housing. The record reflects inconsistent descriptions of the structure intended use, including but not limited to office, storage, accessory structure, and guest house. These shifting representations undermine the credibility of the application and prevent the city from making required findings. Moreover, the structure includes electrical service 120 volt and

240 volt and heating capability and references have been made to sanitation facilities. These features are indicative of habitable use contrary to the proposition that it's an accessory structure. The applicant has not demonstrated that the structure complies with the standards applicable to either an accessory structure or guest scouts. Accordingly, this criterion is not met. Submission of complete and accurate application materials. Approval requires sufficient and reliable information to evaluate compliance. The applicant has repeatedly failed to provide a consistent and accurate description of use, complete site plan information, full disclosure of installed improvements, including electrical systems. In the absence of complete and accurate materials, the city cannot make the findings required for approval. This failure independently requires denial. Setback reduction criteria. The applicant requests a reduction from the required setback. This request fails to meet the mandatory criteria. Reduction of setback requirements without variant procedure but following the procedures required by chapter 17.16 of this code may be approved by the planning permission where the following criteria are met. And you all they've been gone through already so I will not repeat them. But we submit that the set bath reduction request should be denied because it amplifies problems that already exist. The oversized structure positioned 10 ft in the setback violates the rule that any structure over 120 120 ft cannot be located in the setback.

It is detrimental to the adjacent property because of view obstruction and privacy invasion. It will cause stress to the sick roots by diverting water, thus rendering it dangerous to the surrounding properties. The slanted roof draining east poses a drainage problem for the adjacent neighbor. The lot does not have an unusual configuration. It is the building that is too large. Round pole square peg issue. It represents a fire and safety risk to the city and neighbors because electrical connections without permits have been installed and connected to the main house. As demonstrated throughout our argument, Mr. Sheldon has failed to adhere to Can Beach code require regarding permitting. who has repeatedly failed to comply with required conditions for approval. A setback reduction requires a hardship related to the physical characteristics of the property. No such hardship exists here. The lot is a standard size residential partial approximately 4,972 square ft. The parcel is not irregular in shape. The presence of mature trees is a pre-existing and natural condition. A hardship cannot be self-created or based on design preference. The application does not constitute a hardship under the code. This criterion is not satisfied. Any approved reduction must be the necess minimum necessary to alleviate the hardship. The proposal does not meet

this requirement. The structure extends significantly into the required setback approximately 10 ft into a 15 ft setback. The encroachment reflects discretionary design choices rather than necessity. feasible alternatives exist including reducing the structure size or relocating it within compliant areas of the lot. Because this request is not the minimum necessary, this criterion is not met crit consistency with prior determinations. The structure of issue is materially the same as that previously reviewed and found non-compliant by the city in EP25-40. The same physical constraints apply. The same code provisions governed. No new evidence justifies a different outcome. The applicant knew or should have known of the conditions in the backyard when he bought the property. He was on notice that building an accessory structure or guest house in the backyard that complies with the city code might not be possible given the size and location of the large trees. The record indicates that electrical systems have been installed connecting the structure to the primary dwelling without required permits. This includes 120 volt electrical and 240 volt electrical. Unpermitted work raises significant concerns. The structure cannot be properly inspected for safety compliance. The city cannot verify adherence to afflicting building codes. The existence of unpermitted development further demonstrates non-compliance in ways against approval. Failure to meet burden of approve. The applicant bears the burden of proving

compliance with all applicable criteria. The record instead shows inconsistent and shifting representations, incomplete and inaccurate submissions, physical development undertaken without required approvals, the claim that a denial of the guest house permit undermines the city's priority for housing. A guest house is not housing. The applicant has therefore failed to meet the burden of proof. In our conclusion and before our slideshow, because the applicant has failed to satisfy the applicable criteria under CBMC 17.18 and CBMC 17.64, the planning commission must deny the administrative appeal of DP25-40 and deny the setback reduction request. Setback reduction 2601. Consistent enforcement of the mun municipal code requires that non-compliant development not be approved after the fact. We respectfully request that the planning commission deny the appeal in its entirety. Affirm the city's prior denial. Require compliance with all applicable code provisions. A law is only as good as its enforcement. We have a um we have a PowerPoint here. And it's good that we did this again because some of you weren't here the first time we came through back in October. So, we're going to run through this and get to the point at the end. This is our home, 239 East Monroe. It's adjacent to the property at 231 East Monroe on the

east. Our already said this, so we'll pass that. This was our view out the back deck prior to the structure being installed. This is what it looks like now from our deck with the structure installed. This is inside our house looking out the window because we have windows all the way across the back of the house. This shed defines our view. So, this is stepping back further into the living room. This is 20 ft into our living room and it shows we still have a view of the building out the window. This is 30 ft into our home. The red arrow back.

It's okay. Go.

The red arrow shows the shed. This is a video from the front door. When we open the front door, what we see of the shed, you can see it to the right. Now I'm walking to the right in the living room across the across the room. All right. From the ground, this is looking over a sixoot fence at the building. This is the shed shown next to the significance spruce that we are talking about. This is from the upstairs looking down upon the backyard. This structure sits on six temporary footings and you can see the electrical connection coming from the shed through the ditch in the backyard out from the building. This is the electrical connection from the main house to the shed. also installed without permit. This is the distance from the edge of

the shed to our deck. It's 14 ft. The papers on the left side of the photograph show we do not have any way to block the view of the shed because those papers lead to the um what is it? It's a crawl space. So we can get under the house, right? It's underneath the deck. So that's that's permanent.

This is before and after. Again, what it was, what it is. By softening the visual impact, the applicant is acknowledging his structure negatively affects our view. And applicant stated on the record that we were not entitled to a view. This assertion ignores the fact the structure is out of compliance with the code. This is something you've already seen. It's it shows where the 231 East Monroe is next door. their deck, the shed in the in the rear yard and that tight distance between the 5 foot 5t between the fence and our properties. Just to augment what Sally is saying, if you recall in our first presentation, um I actually illustrated how that shed could move and it could have been in their landing site. It could have been on the west side of the property. And you recall too in our conversation that we didn't push that on any we didn't want the Websters to experience it. We certainly didn't want to experience it, but actually it could figure. So the the the drawings that were illustrated saying the shed could be moved from here north or flipped 90°. Okay, it could fit here too. Um, ignoring the fact that if it was the right size, it would be very thick at any rate.

Yes. I can't see very well. Where is that placement that you're referring to? Where is it? Yeah, the shed. Yeah, this our yard is on the other side of the shed. We run. So, the north is to the left, south is to the right, and the left. Yeah. And this is actually it's not our schematic. It's Mr. shelf of schematic and others. We're actually on top. Yeah, on the top. Yeah, we'd be on the top. Okay. Thank you. Can I ask just a question? Yeah.

Uh did you understand my staff reported out that they could move this uh to or edition one or two and that it would matter what you had to say, right? that I just wanted you to understand that too. You brought up also that they can cut down the trees. They can cut down those trees if they're within their building within the lot. So, they have the right to pull lip building permit and remove those trees.

They have to get permit to do that. I would also want to clarify that budget your statement mentioned that it was the trees that were doing but it's not tree removal order 1711440 allows construction you know to to we understand that trees could be paid it would require permit to take the trees out

yes but it's just a per you know it's not it's admin right did Um, we wanted to address a couple things that were in the response packet, uh, suggesting that other other there were other two other examples where applicants got permit, excuse me, permits granted in the rear setback. So, we went and looked at them. 132 Elliot Way owned by Daniel Pop. Pop requested a permit for an oversized accessory structure located in the required rear yard setback. No reason was given for approval by Mr. St. Clair. Without knowing the circumstances, it is possible an approval was given if no appeal was filed by surrounding property owners. We don't know. The property was approved for one detached accessory structure, but there are two sidebyside structures on the property, 12x 22 each, listed on the real estate listing as detached studios that can be used as a rental on a separate meter. Each has a front door, twinkle lights, and curtains. Okay, so the pop house backs up to a C1 commercial.

The illustration to the left shows two 12x 22 detached accessory structures in the rear yard of the pop house. See how they're configured that so they're not side by side if they're like an owl. Okay, this is walking into the potyard and you can see the main structure with the green bushes by it and the beginning of one detached structure. These are the two detached structures 12x 22 positioned side by side. This is the C1 zoning right behind those two detached structure for beachcom or property management and it's where their office their headquarters are and where they store trucks, trash cans and all their equipment. So um it's possible that a commercial property owner would not object to such a structure in the rear yard because nobody lives there. No appeal was filed in the pop case. These are the Okay, this is just proving who owned it. The next one. Now, when you look up that property on a real estate listing, it says two detached studios that could be used as rental on a separate meter. Not sure how that happened with uh the approval of an accessory structure, but it's, you know, to us strange and curious. Okay. The second example of a permit granted for an accessory structure in the rear yard was at 4280 South Pemlock Street owned by Craig Gobble. This property is on the far south side of Canon Beach. The lot is.20 20 acres or approximately 8 8,712

square ft considerably larger than the lot at 231 East Monroe. The lot is long and narrow. A permit was requested for a 10x20 preab prefab accessory structure in the rear yard. No reason was given for approval of this oversized structure, which is a standard outdoor shed like you would find at Home Depot. Possibly no one objected to the permit application. Here's the house. Here's the ownership. Here's the accessory shed behind the house. Here it is in the yard and it's surrounded by bushes. It it appear no appeal was filed in the fog case. It appears the neighbor did not object to the placement of the structure in the rear yard. When we visited the property, we noticed that the windows of the house behind were elevated and may not have a view of the accessory structure below. The shed is surrounded on two sides by high bushes. Okay, this is a this is a photo we just took last weekend. We went out to the can beach house and there was bamboo on the other side of the fence line inside metal containers. So, it's obvious that the applicant is attempting to shield the structure and hide it and you know problem solve. Adding plant material doesn't change the facts or the impact on the adjacent property. We can still see this yet. If the permit is approved, would a plant

would a plant screen be a condition of approval? Can a screen requirement be attached to the property? Consequences. The invasive nature of bamboo. It can escape the container if not properly and regularly maintained. Bamboo is not on the list of recommended plant material for Canon Beach. Rodents and mosquitoes are attracted to bamboo. We're not sure about plant survival. I think it's non-native and it's not fire resistant. We'd like to point out the shed's sloping roof seen from our second story window. So you get a picture that is high on one side and lower on the other side. This is a photo of the bamboo and metal containers on the other side of the fence. Temporary containers. I would like to close my part of it by saying please enforce the code that pertains to the permit application and deny the applicants the field and setback reduction requests. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there other presentations fire? Yes, I'm Philip Guard. I live at 1832 Northwest Meadowwood Drive in Alton, Oregon on the private sally. Mr. Gard, I'll ask just one thing of you. I allowed the new go on a little longer if it's their talk there. If we can limit it to three minutes, would you like a little background about me or uh Yeah, I would.

Okay, very quick. Talk to everyone. I have a BS in biology. I have minors in chemistry, physics, and math. Um, I worked in construction for four years while I was going through college. Um, had a list of those if you'd like to see it. I built my own addition on my own house in Corbalis when I lived there with permits with inspections. Built a 24x 36 garage in my present home in Albany with permits and inspections. So, I've got some experience of doing this. Plus, I also own approximately 36 rental units, most of them single family homes that my wife and I manage. Um, and I in the past was doing most of the maintenance and repairs on that. I'm getting older now. I already done a lot. I do have a little bit of experience and has some concerns that I'd like to raise. Number one, Sally did a great job of pointing out that, you know, things were not done appropriately to begin with. Um, if he had done things appropriately and worked at things, he should have either a applied to remove a tree so that it could have been put on place. I had to do that when I built my own garage. Um, or he could have easily placed it to the west of his house. There's plenty of room there without disturbing any trees, without doing anything. Second thing is I want to point out, you know, you guys have got a huge amount of rainfall here. Um, your rainfall, average rainfall here, Canon Beach runs 71 to 94 inches. So, if you take a mean rainfall, that's approximately 82 in a year or 6.8 ft of rainfall. uh with the square footage of space that he has on there, you end up with approximately 170 square ft of collection space

because I took in an additional 6 foot of or excuse me, 6 in of overhang on there. So, you end up with approximately 1,168 cubic feet of collection space per year. meaning that you end up with and that comes out to 7.481 gallons per cubic feet. So you're talking almost 9,000 gallons per year of runoff from that. Um, and I'd like to point out that you have this root protection zone that this thing is sitting over. I would really question whether that doesn't impact the tree to starve that tree that 9,000 gallons of of uh of water every year because the it's going down and it's well within that root system area. In fact, it's it's traveling a lot and so I think it's going to impact a significant portion of that tree um and weaken it. So I think that's that's a concern. Okay. The other thing is is that he also impacted the root or the root protection zone when he trenched to put in his electrical line. That's well within that root protection area there already. And he didn't impact those roots as he was doing it. He didn't put it deep enough to meet the code. Say that. So I I have a couple questions. So if if you reach out,

we're really not a it's not a question and answer forum. Um if you have a couple more statements that'd be great, but we are over that three minute line. If you have just any points, go ahead.

Well, the water flowing ports that move this property. Um and I know from experience when I have done things with with water, I was warned, you know, if it impacts the neighbor, you're liable for that. So that's going to be, you know, one of the the concerns there. He's done nothing at all to provide for any type of drainage on there. That's a that's a major concern. Um concern is, you know, if it impacts the trees with the way that it's sitting there, major storms in this area come from the south southwest. If that impacts that tree and it weakens it, that's going to blow right on their property. Um you know, so that's a big concern for them. and knowing that that's a concern of, you know, who's insurance is going to take care of that. That's a big big issue there. You know, the electrical hookup, it was stated that it was unhooked. Uh if we look at some of the pictures that were you

like hook up those people for us tonight. I'm sorry to be brief but I have to cut all these people concern just Sure. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Uh there is one question for um um I would be curious to know if we're considering potentially granting some level of permit. Is it preferable to you that the shed be moved further to the south into the rear yard? It's already

it's already 5T from the fence. So let me put it this way. What if they weren't allowed to be further to the south and they had to pull the shed north? Would that be more of a problem for your view? Yes. Yes. I think the other way to phrase that though is if they simply abided by the code, if it were 120 square feet, people wouldn't be here. Well, if they had applied for permits from a kid for someone who's been doing this for 30 years, they would they don't care. Well, the problem is it's too big of a building.

But speaking, but if it is moved closer to your house within the set, either either angle that they show, it can be as big as they understand. And so, uh, I think that was the question being asked. Yeah, we understand. We just don't We're not sure that they would want it there either. Okay, that's fine. I was just curious for you from review standpoint. What What would be more obtrusive? That was my question. I don't know how it could be improved, honestly. What are

the questions you got for another question? Thank you very much. Thank you. Other uh other appointments. Okay. Yeah. Uh well, I guess I'd like to comment on I'm in the west here. Okay. Uh you're coming forward as

Okay. U my name is Lane Webster. I my address is P Box 721 Ham Beach Order 97110 and I'm on the west side and whereas Rick and Sally are on the east side and Mike go between us and I'm I like both my neighbors and I've been wanting to stay neutral on this which I pretty much have. I've spoken to Jeff one time and uh the my personal concern is that the solution is not to bring the the unit the shed over to the west side and uh Rick's schematic was a little misleading. Michael's had his deck in it earlier that he has a deck that extends I don't know you know the numbers but it extends so far that they would have to cut into their deck in order to fit the house on our side the west side and so that's not really an option in my view and also it's their main access point of their backyard. It's also where our our master bath master uh bedroom and guest would are and that it would be a noise issue as well as a lighting issue for us in the sun. So, I just wanted to make that input to the commissioners before you go into your session to to think that that might be the solution. That's not a solution from our point of view. Now, as I was listening, it seems to me that both of us on both sides on the east side and west side have an issue with the unit. But this other alternative of the south facing side, it sounded like the Morgan Mike Morgan

doesn't have a problem with that either the setback or the south facing side. And then you have all that room to screen the Morgan cottage in the south facing side. So if if if we keep the size of this shed, it seems to me that that is the compromise to send it south of window side south. And then I I think the best solution would be to have a uh you're probably not going to like to hear this, Michael, but to hear to have a customuilt unit for them that fits all the criteria rather than the standard kit that that they built from. So anyway, I wanted to to give you that for the record and then say I think there is that the compromise is South. Thank you. Any other opponents or Yeah, um okay. The applicant uh is afforded the opportunity to respond to you. Thanks.

Is there anything you've heard or anything you want to add? Um yeah, I'll try to go quick. Um um the can mention gutters. I stopped construction fully intended to install gutters in the bag. But when I stopped stopped um no evidence of water retention that goes back to the gutters from bamboo I said we've been planning the shed for a long time. We're having conversations seven days, right? So since 2016 it just gradually now started. Um they're containerized. I mean we've got guarantees from seven days that we I've ridden my backyard of in the past. I know how they do offshoots which is why I've got these containerized uh

I defer to the that MDs and I asked him very specifically is there any issue with these? This is my biggest fear. They said no we did not do it. You could keep your concept. You can keep your cont and and you know we have a whole plan that we can share with you guys. When this we were discussed in the 70s when this thing started our conversation we stopped right but let's not do any plantings because I don't know obviously what the final arrangement on on the shed's going to be but the abundance of caution in the bamboos in a container because they guarantee us the sympathy can that we're not going to have an issue. Randy been talking with them too about maintenance on the bamboos and everything. It's, you know, everything in the backyard because look happy space.

Well, it's part of our whole landscape. Right. Right. Um,

can I also address the camouflage? To be honest, it wasn't about camouflaging our unit. When I saw the views from their second floor into our backyard and what they were able to see, we host movie nights for our neighbors in the backyard. We have various events. It kind of creeped me out and I wanted privacy. They have nine windows that face into my backyard. And after seeing the photos that they shared in the first year, I was concerned about my privacy. So, I started um yeah, not to conceal our shed, but actually to provide some level of protection for me.

Yeah. Well, I said it earlier. I don't It's unimportant. Sort from a legal perspective. shed she shed accessory structure uh the nomenclature has shifted as I've tried to adapt to what I understand the city need the use has always been the same arc storage sleeping and so again our 100 is just a home doesn't have any it's it's for habitation and I'm happy to call it whatever the city tells me if they vote still honestly have question marks on it um rayon for trees um the arborist I discussed with him because the structure is built on stilts he didn't see any impact of trees. It is within the the what do you call RCB or the ball zone, but he doesn't see it as an issue. I don't think it details that in the arbor report. I'm happy to work with with them to get that clarified. Um talking about the trench, you know, mentioned the electrical trench damage trees. No, I I followed I followed the I called 7Ds on that and and the arborist and I had my 18-year-old son because he was home for the summer dig a three-foot deep trench around, you know, specifically around roots. So, I don't think there's been any impact there um argument. I'm probably going to let Lauren talk to that a little bit honestly. She's still on customizing it. I appreciate what you're saying. Honestly, in in the 10 years we've been looking at sheds, I've looked at, you know, coaster doing some kind of stick build unit. I've looked at hexagons, octagons, all these different shapes. None of them make sense. And even in in the layout, it would still kind of reside in some one of these, you know, three or four locations in the um in the application I sent before, I didn't show any slides on it. Yeah, I did throw out I think Jud called it scenario three on the west side. Kind of run into the same issues. I have a deck that wasn't to scale in what Mr. Kuban showed, but in mine it was. You know, I have probably have to rip about 6 or 8 ft of depth to maintain the 5ft set back on right and then have some reasonable,

you know, egress on on the right side of mine. Kind of opens up the same issues and I know it's that wouldn't be in the regard where you are, but I I did the solar math for that to, you know, it would go north, but there's been some impact like whatever 30° to the northwest. Um, but it was something that I considered in almost all like the location we put in the backyard thought in the backyard the last 10 years that southeast corner we thought was the least impact. Is there anything that you think I missed or you should touch on?

Yes, thank you. I will be brief. I know a lot has been thrown at you tonight and you still have other things to decide. Um, we worked with Miss Richter and Mr. Adams in an attempt to try and make this as efficient for you as possible by having the required rear yard setback application heard first because if this is granted then we don't have to do the appeal portion. I mentioned that in part because I understand the confusion about the different standards between the appeal and the required rear yard. Uh, but a lot of the standards that Miss Kenuven just went through apply to the appeal. they don't apply to the required rear yard setback decision which is the one that's currently before you. I of course defer to your council and she can advise you on on what the standards actually are. I'll try to run through them from our perspective and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. But for example, uh there was some discussion about when we came before you in October that standard was found to be not met and the consideration was whether there was an adverse impact on the neighbors. That's the appeal standard. the appeal question. It is not the standard for a required rear yard setback. There was some conversation about um he should have gotten a building permit. They they tried they applied for building permits and they were told on the building permit and the electrical permit both that they could not get those permits until this land use decision was finalized. And so they are trying to do those things and they are trying to comply. One of the things Miss Kenubin said was we can still see the shed despite the bamboo. whether they can see the shed or not is not a standard. It's not a requirement or a criteria for decision making today. There's a conversation about drainage. I would refer your attention to uh the staff report. I believe it is page uh 76 of your packet. It says the public works department and road fire department both had an opportunity to review and they say that there appear to be no drainage impacts from the shed for the door

facing the neighboring deck. Um, not only is there a door, there are also windows. So, if the building were shifted and turned sideways so that it was within the three feet of the building, I believe that was orientation two. Um, but I get the numbers confused all the time. The windows of the shed would then face Mr. Morgan. So, there's always a window issue as it relates to this shed. And so, that's why the chosen orientation was believed to provide the most privacy for everyone. And the bamboo then provides privacy as it relates to the door. Visual and views comments by the canoeans for the required rear yard setback. The only views that are protected are views of the ocean and mountains. Those are not an issue here. So that standard is not for this portion of the conversation. There was a comment about municipal code 17.72.030 and satisfaction of those criteria. That applies to the appeal. It does not apply to the rear yard reduction application, which is why we brought that one first to see if we can avoid those more difficult questions as it relates to chapter 17.72. There was a comment about chapter 17.18. That's the appeal chapter. That does not apply to this application. There was a comment about the application being incomplete. As the staff report indicates the criterion for this application which is a required rear yard setback those uh criterion were satisfied through the application. So for this portion the application is complete. There were was conversation about the elements as they released specifically to chapter 17.64 that is the rear yard reduction standard. There was a comment about um the shed being 10 ft in the setback. I want to talk briefly about the difference between a setback and the required rear yard. It's was very confusing for me. I finally got it all figured out. I think the setback from the sideyard in the rear yard is 5

ft. In addition to that, there is a required rear yard um minimum that there must be a rear yard of 15 ft. This yard has more than 15 feet in its rear yard, but the required rear yard measurement as I understand it and I defer to Miss Richter is measured from the property boundary. So 15 ft in is what is measured as a required rear yard. That is the reduction that this application is asking to re is asking for. The 5-ft setback will be maintained. There is no invasion of any of the setbacks. There's only an encroachment on the required rear yard requirement. And as you've heard from all of the testimony today, the goal there was to try and protect as many of the neighbors as possible. Um the conversation about the stress for the situist and um I would relate that also to the comments by Mr. Gart and concerns about the water impact to the trees. The arborist did not identify any concerns about water impact from the trees, but we will certainly ask the arborist those questions and provide more information to you should you require it. Uh concerns about fire and safety. As I mentioned, there is absolutely an intent to get a building permit. Um and there were concerns that, you know, if uh the applicant had just adhered to the code, we wouldn't be here. Chapter 17.64 is the code. The whole point of this application is to try to apply to the code and fit within the requirements for a rear yard reduction as long as the criteria are satisfied which we believe we have shown and the uh odd configuration of the yard and trying to save the trees and not cut any down indeed not any cut any branches off is the whole point of the application and to comply with the code hardship and minimum necessary standards. Those are variance requirements. They're not required rear yard setback requirements. So none of those are necessary here as well. Finally, if I may, as to the uh

consistency with prior decisions, the planning commission granted three required rear yard setback applications in the last 5 years. I have not been able to divine from the information that's available there, the argument today or the information I could find, why this application is substantially any different. As you heard from Mr. Webster who spoke at the end, he too is concerned about the placement of this shed. Among the neighbors who have opinions, Mr. Morgan is the one who said this is the best location. The staff report says the location is probably the best. It's the least intrusive for all of the neighbors. Trying to balance all of the interests and all of the concerns. I believe the required rear yard setback title was pre created precisely for this situation. where there is no good place. We could cut down trees. We could make the shed smaller and move it closer to the canoe, but they don't want that. The goal here is to try and make everybody as happy with as much privacy and protection as possible. And I believe that the rear yard setback reduction, whichever words we use, is the vehicle that will accomplish that for everyone. Thank you for your time and attention, and I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

Thank you. Any questions? Anything further? You all like that? No. Okay. Thank you very much. With that, we will close the record to move to our deliberation. Who would like to start? Okay. Really helpful. Sure. We'll try. C can we clear up the arbor the arbor arborist issue? I thought Jeff said there was no arbor arborist report.

There was a subsequent uh report. It was submitted uh this afternoon to my defense. Thanks. We got it today.

Yeah. Let's see how it works. Does anybody have any? Well, I'll start. I you know I it's been a tough spot to show I think we're all trying to encourage happen and we Yes, we have granted variances before. When I started on this commission, one inch was seem like one mile. It was not done. And we have slowly moved to a few instances where we have. But when you have a neighbor coming in who's affected by that decision, it's a lot harder, at least in my to overlook some sections maybe where gosh, you know what's who's going to hurt me? That's a tough one for me personally to kind of where I just go, yeah, want to see something here, you know, want to have like a group meeting in the back where we can come out of this form. Okay, let's sit down and bring stuff together. Unfortunately, we're stuck in this form. We are

and we have to work in the the compounds we do. But for me, and I think I've heard from many of you, it's tougher when we have that the testimony from neighbors objecting to something different than what was very um

we don't have to decide where it should move. We only need to decide about the setback and that it should be adhered to in my mind. let people decide where else it can go and then it we may get to see everybody back again but I personally feel that the setback should be honored

other well they're here for setback reduction so I think it may be necessary that we walk through every section 410 Okay. First one better than Sorry. Could you all speak a little bit why I'm also having weird dynamic? Yeah, we'll do that.

Section 17640 section 8 is our specific requirements that we're talking about here before I said that reduction. Number one is total building cover shall last 40%. It does not. So that's okay. Significant views of the ocean mountains are similar features for nearby properties will not start any more that would occur if structure were located as required by zillion. We're on the east side. No, not looking in any of those directions. I feel the proposed building location will not interfere with solar access buildings on adjoining property. I think they move that it is purpose step for wide range of privacy and drainage light air noise reduction fire safety basic structures setback reduction permits being granted where planning commission find the above purposes are maintained and more and more following are achieved by reduction setback and this is where their big ask is and Jeff what are the two things that they're talking about

they uh they said a trooper protection and e permitting instruction are a lot better than usual configuration. Do we want to talk about tree protection? I'll talk a bit about privacy again. Um privacy, drainage, light, air, noise reduction, fire safety between adjacent structures. So that's the purpose specific. with them. So section A is pre-fection and according to our first report any location will be workable.

Yeah, I think those small footings they probably would be workable anywhere. Bigger concern of mine is keeping the water on property trees there 9,000 gallons or so that was calculated. Um it's a lot of water for from large trade. Um yeah the the impacts seem negligible according to reports. So I don't know whether that's even and no matter where no matter where the structure is going to get it's drained back the property again doesn't it's not that important

now it is already there which is state one they have taken steps for true protection ction by using a small footprint for mitigating root structures, right? But again, that doesn't go to location. Put it on could be anywhere and still achieve the same level, right? Unless they take a tree down to put it there, right? But again, we're talking about the reduction in the rear yard. But it has to justify being in the rear yard to achieve tree protection that would not otherwise be achievable in another location.

Though we may not agree on tree protection just one uh B protection neighboring properties use the ocean mountains or similar features. I mean that is questioning our bus stream not solar access unusual sorry configuration

so I think the unusual configuration has to create a hardship and I don't see that this configuration has a hardship on the existing property forcement You don't feel that trees actually create a hardship because of their location. We're talking about the lock configuration part of the lockation.

Um rehabilitation buildings question. So really we now have the only one point in that section. Moving on this was necessary.

Um five adjacent ways of rightways utility for other purposes at Walmart traffic. uh seven reason privacy which would be enjoyed by above property and then lastability location and favorability fire protection. So

with those I think that is where we have our basic decision made. code the two uh items that you know tree protection and unusual lock configuration which require one protection for well I think those are the two fast foression I mean that's that's our that's our criteria Yeah. Anyone else? Well, function. Uh, I move to deny the setback request uh for SR 2601. Um, finding that they did not meet all the necessary criteria to create a hardship or tree protection based on the evidence given. Second.

Any further discussion? Okay, that's what we call the Commissioner Ridley. Yes. Commissioner, yes. Commissioner Matus, yes. Commissioner Sinclair, yes. Commissioner, yes. Commissioner, yes. Newton. Yes. Two and a half hours into this meeting. Let's take a 3 minute 5 minute break. Take a five minute break.

Okay.

Okay. Our next item, administrative appeal. Um 2601 Michael Shel for administrative repeal AA2601 Michael Shel for administrative my development DP-40 I can't hear you at all.

All right I'll try too the acoustics are really bad but I'll I'll really try here. All right, starting with AA 2601, Michael Shelton for the administrative appeal of the city's denial of development permit DP25 for the construction of an accessory structure at 231 Monroe Street, tax slash 2400510 29B C in a residential medium density R2 zone. The appeal will be reviewed pursuant to Canon Beach Municipal Code 17.18 request for review decision. Does anyone object the jurisdiction of the planning commission to hear this matter at this time? Does any commission member believe he or she has a conflict of interest or person in violence? Has any commission member had any expart contact or made a sight?

May we have a staff report, please?

Now I'm going to turn this over to Miss Rick. Um, thank thank you, uh, Chair Newton and commissioners. Uh, Carrie Richtor, contract attorney for Canon Beach. Um, this is an appeal of, um, an administrative decision to deny a type two development permit for an accessory structure in the rear of the dwelling located at 231 East Row. This is the same accessory structure that the planning commission just considered. here. Rather than seek a setback reduction, the applicant argues that the application for an accessory structure within the rear yard must be permitted because the accessory structure is a guest house. And because it's a guest house, it is needed housing and is eligible for greater protection under state law. The term housing is not defined uh in OS 197A. 400 or elsewhere. Um the definition staff relies on in their report is from the dictionary and relies on um local code. The dictionary defines the term housing as quote shelter, lodging, dwelling for people. And then we we've keyed into the word dwelling. Um, and a dwelling unit is defined in the code as a um a a a housing a housing unit that has that provides permanent accommodations as opposed to temporary housing. And what's the key feature is it includes kitchen facilities. The accessory structure does not include a kitchen. As such, staff recommends a finding that a guest house is not needed housing as the term is used in state law. Since it is not needed housing, an accessory structure may be subject to all the applicable standards and

criteria for an accessory structure, even those even those that are discretionary. In the alternative, should the planning commission conclude that this is needed housing, application of the 120 square foot size limitation is a clear and objective standard. Determining whether this structure is located within the rear yard does not require the exercise of discretion, nor is it subject to multiple reasonable interpretations. The same is true with the 120 square ft size limitation. It is an objective and quantifiable measurement. The applicant is trying to create sorry a pallet is trying to create ambiguity suggesting an implication that the 120 square foot limitation applies only to that portion of the building located in the rear yard. Nothing in the text or context supports the appellence interpretation which is then used uh to suggest that there's ambiguity in the standard. Right? they can find an alternative definition or an alternative interpretation and that creates ambiguity. Something is capable of more than one re um more than one interpretation. So it must not be clear and objective. Uh and then it does not apply if this is needed. Housing is the way their argument goes. Um this is very very similar to um the court to an issue that was raised by Roberts in the Roberts versus Canon Beach case where Roberts argued that things like the lot area um the oceanfront setback uh calculation, the question of where a ride ofway is

are ambiguous terms because they created ambiguity. And what the court said is no, these words are things that are known from the dictionary. These things are set out. Just because it's not simple doesn't mean it's not clear and objective. And I think that that's would be some guiding precedent that a court would use if they were to look at this question about whether 120 square foot size limitation is clear and objective. And I think a court would find that it is. Um the appellants also tried to make something of the fact that the um planning director's initial decision was approval and that must suggest that the planning director thought that the um that the setback um or the 120 foot requirement only applied to the rear yard. And we don't that that's not in this record. I don't know why the planning director made the decision they made. um it doesn't matter because you are the ones charged with applying the code. That's why we have appeal rights. Um and so I I think that's uh largely irrelevant. Um I'd be happy to answer any questions, but if not, that concludes my report.

Thank you. Any questions? Yeah. Um we'll ask this because we do uh the correspondence we have is uh there's nothing late uh just the missions which she's already presented that is and then in the summer we had uh let's see well Miss Cal so those are the only period

okay we'll move to public testimony The pertinent criteria to be considered are noted in the staff reports and listed on the criteria sheets on the meeting page of the city's website. Testimony, arguments, and evidence must be directed to those criteria or other criteria comprehensive plan or municipal code which the person testifying believes apply to the decision. Failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision made and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal based on that issue. Prior to the conclusion of the initial evidentiary hearing, any participant may request an opportunity to present additional testimony, arguments, or evidence regarding the application. The planning commission shall grant such requests by continuing the public hearing or leaving the record open for additional written testimony, arguments. Persons who testify shall first receive recognition from the chair, state their full name and mailing address, and if appearing in a representative capacity, identify whom they represent. May we have the presentation by the African police. Thank you. Yes. Uh if I may, Maren Calbertt on behalf of the appellent applicants, the U. Michael Shelton. My address is 700 Washington Street, Sweet 701, Vancouver, Washington. Miss Richtor succinctly distilled the focus of this appeal for you. There are essentially two issues being presented on appeal. The first is whether a guest house constitutes housing under state law. The first statement is the word house is actually in the name of the structure suggesting that it is in fact housing. The second statement is under Washington law courts are very clear that we understand the intent and the meaning of statutory language or ordinance language from the plain language of the statute of the code itself. also from the context in which

the code is written and from the scheme uh the general housing scheme in this circumstance as a whole. All of the statutes related to housing provide that context that that summary comes from two important cases both of which are cited in the uh responsive brief that we filed yesterday. The first is Capillas v Sage and and society 337 Oregon app 67. That's a Luba case that applied to non-farm structures and the argument was that the farm structures could never be used for any other purpose. The court resoundly rejected that saying that could not possibly have been the intent of the u of the the drafters of the code at the time. There's another case cited in our brief that uh is called Lake Asiggo 360 Oregon 115. And in that case, the court said talked a lot about context and a lot about what the legislature or or uh enacting bodies could possibly have meant when they said that historical buildings are protected and so therefore you could never use these for any other reason. Those two decisions combined basically say if what your interpretations required in the circumstances of those case would be that the landowner destroys the building, tears it down and builds another one back in its same place so that it's not an agricultural building. That makes no sense. It makes more sense that they that the application to use that building for a different purpose must go through the processes. But to say that an agricultural building can't be used for any purpose, any other purpose, doesn't mean we're stuck in a land of stasis where an agricultural building has to be an agricultural building till the end of time until it's torn down and rebuilt. The analogy is the same thing here. If a guest house is called a house, it's probably housing. But there is also other indications in

state law that suggest the state considers guest houses to be housing. And the first place that appears is in the housing regulations themselves and most specifically in the uh or most recent Oregon statutes that require housing regulations to be clear and objective. In those regulations, they explicitly say that the purpose of the legislature was to make sure that we had more housing of every kind everywhere. That we increase the diversity of the types of housing, that we give people more options in what type of housing, what size, what location, what configuration. So, the decision by the city to not call a guest house housing simply because it doesn't have a kitchen and it's not a room in a house because a room in a house without its own kitchen is fine. But a room on its own without an its own kitchen doesn't constitute a dwelling under city code and so therefore it can't be housing under state law. Those two definitional categories are not analogous or remotely connected. City code can't define what housing means under state law. We have to look to state law. And under state law, as evidenced on pages 113 to 114 of your packet for this evening, there are numerous citations to state statutes that refer to what housing includes. And it includes a litany of things including manufactured housing, single room occupancies, and the purpose of the most recent statute was to expand that definition, not contract it. Knowing that that's the context of Oregon Revised Statute 197A, as cited in our brief, then we must know that a guest house that's provided for housing for a per a place for a person to sleep certainly must be housing. And

if it's housing, then the clear and objective standard applies to this application. If the clear and objective standard for housing applies, then the view standard that is undefined doesn't explain what view from what location in what direction of what types of things, including the sky or a view from a second story window down into the backyard. Or as Miss Kuven said earlier today, I can still see it. Well, if they can see the building, it's not allowed. That is an extremely subjective unclear standard that violates the clear and objective requirement under state law. The second issue to be discussed today, as Miss Victor pointed out, is the 120 square foot requirement for uh accessory structures including guest houses that are located in the required rear yard. 120 ft is clearly objective, clearly can be measured. The problem is the code says 120 square ft located in the required rear yard. There are not 120 ft of this building located in the required rear yard. It is undisputed that there are only 90 square ft in the required rear yard. Yes, the building itself is 144 square ft, but 54 of those square feet are not located in the required rear yard. And that is what the code mandates is that it be located in the required rear yard. As mentioned in the brief that we filed the other day, the interpretation that the city is offering would change the phrase located in to that encroach in any way into the required rear yard. If that were the language, certainly we could look at the entire size of the building, no matter where it's located, if it encroached at all into the required rear yard. But that's not what city council wrote. That is not what city council intended. City council said located in the required

rear yard. Miss Richtor said she doesn't really know why the permit was granted in the first instance and it doesn't matter. But it does because if if the permit were granted because the land use planner thought this meant located in the required rear yard and there was only 90 square feet. That would show that there are multiple interpretations of what this code means and it's not clear. It's not objective. And it turns out Mr. Sinclair is in the room. We could ask him what he thought or why he thought that way. I agree that's not dispositive. The point is he thought it was permissible. He thought it was allowed and he acknowledged that only 90 square feet were in the required rear yard and he granted the permit. It's possible that was a mistake, but it's happened at least twice. And as Miss Canuven's uh demonstration earlier this evening showed the pops have a shed that was located in in the required rear yard and the goals also have an oversized shed in the required rear yard. So there's three examples of how that has happened. It could be that there are mistakes. It could also be that it's not entirely clear what this language means and since this code was written, state law has changed. State law now says that's not okay. It didn't say that when the code was written. I I grant you that. And so I recognize that the planning commission is kind of in a sticky position because you're being asked to interpret code that was written before the state law disallowed the words that were used. But that's where we are. And so under the current stature of state law that says it must be clear and objective and a code section that has been interpreted at least three or four different ways just in the last few years. I would suggest that there's no doubt that there is confusion and a lack of clarity about what these code

sections mean and based on those provisions, these code sections cannot be applied to housing. The very last issue that we addressed in our brief was uh highly contextual. I can address it if you would like me to, but basically it boils down to the last line that talks about um view standards. I'm sorry. I need to get the text done in front of me quickly. Uh, and perhaps what I'll do is save this for rebuttal so I don't waste any time. And if if there is no other objection, would like to do is just reserve two minutes so I can point out this last argument to you with the citation to the code if that would be helpful. Does that work for you?

That works. We will come back to you. Excellent. Thank you very much. Sorry, I have a question for uh Miss Calbertt. Yes, sure. Is it your position that a hotel room is needed housing?

I to be honest, I must say I didn't research whether hotel rooms were housing. Uh the definitions that I saw in state law that def that refer to housing do not talk about hotel rooms. They talk instead about residential units. Um, and I would have to look at that specifically. Uh, but this is not a hotel room, so I don't think that that would be dispositive of the decision to be made today. And I can point to the specific statutes and the the the terms that are used in the housing law. Um, if you give me just a second to grab that specific statute.

What is the difference in uh guest house and a hotel room from a use perspective? Mhm. Um well, first of all, it's possible that state law would consider a hotel room to be housing. It was in fact used as housing during the pandemic on a regular basis. So, I don't know that it isn't housing. Um the difference between a guest house and a hotel room from a used perspective is a guest house to my understanding is typically not used for commercial rental purposes. It's not subject to a hotel tax. um both are used for temporary occupancy, temporary sleeping and living. So there there are similarities and there are differences.

Thank you. Uh again, we will come back to you uh before we close the record. Uh so you have some time to look up what you couldn't find. Are there questions for the representative? Is there anyone else on the applicants team that's going to speak at this time? Okay. Thank you. We'll move to proponents. Are there proponents of what we're discussing? Okay. Opponents, we have nothing further to add. We already said our piece. And so technically this is a new record. Nothing that you've added unless you put it in writing is in our record.

You have that in writing. Okay. Uh are there any other opponents or other opponents? Okay. We'll move back to the applicant. That's kind of quick. So, um hopefully you've had a chance to find what you're looking for. Be patient if you have any. Okay. One moment, please. I need one more citation and then I'll be ready. Okay.

Um, no, we don't have Sorry.

Okay. Um, I have the citations for you. Uh, the one that I mentioned that I needed to pull up for you is Cana Beach Municipal Code 17.72030 A4 and it falls within the language that requires analysis of structures and buildings located in the required rear yard. So that same located in language and it says the structures or buildings are located in such a way as to not be detrimental to abuing property and shall not obstruct views from adjacent buildings. That is an issue that was very hotly debated in the prior proceedings with the Canuans and you heard the Canuans talk about those um earlier this evening. The objections that the Canuans made about the visibility of the the guest house or shed related to the portions of the building that are not in the required rear yard. They related to the end of the building that's closest to their house, that 54 square feet that is not located in the required rear yard. Under the code, subsection 4 says structures or buildings located in the required rear yard shall not obstruct views from adjacent buildings. The portion of the building that obstructs views from the canoe house is not located in the required rear yard. So if located in means the entire building anywhere on the yard even if it object obstructs views no matter where you put it. This is no longer regulating located in the required rear yard. And that view standard is not as clear as 120 square ft. Located in is is the problem. And how do we measure views of a building that's not actually in the required rear yard? The city council intended to regulate the required rear yard, not the entire backyard. And and what this broader interpretation

is doing is applying this standard even in areas outside the required rear yard. To Miss Richter's questions about whether a hotel rooms are considered to be housing or not. Um in the notice of appeal hour, page two, I'd have to look at the record to find exactly what page that is. Um I assume it's around 113 or somewhere nearby. the bottom of that page, residential use is defined and used in 197A, then subsection 15, 18, 420, 425, and 430. And those sections each identify and explain that residential uses include single and multif family homes, manufactured and mobile homes, single room occupancies, duplexes, accessory dwelling units, and single room occupancies. I grant you it does not expressly say guest house. But in the paragraph quoted above that, Oregon Senate Bill 1537 said, "Housing law means that it applies to residential development or pertains to a permit for residential use. Guest houses are allowed in residential areas. They are not allowed in commercial areas or industrial areas. There is no debate that a res a guest house is used for residential uses. The footnote on that page defines Senate Bill 1537 as housing law includes this long string of of cit statutes. Um, three lines long, single spaced across the page. I could read them all to you, but it's in the record that will probably be faster and more helpful to you to actually look at the document itself. When the clear and objective standard was adopted, it was intended to require municipalities to develop housing production strategies to increase housing diversity, affordability, housing choice, and greater flexibility in location, type,

and density. So the point was to make this housing production as broad as possible, which suggests to me, and I would posit under the case law that I cited to you before, that the state intended housing to be broadly defined to make sure that we had as much housing everywhere, anywhere as possible to help combat the housing shortage. Thank you for your time and consideration of this appeal and application. Thank you. Is there anything further you'd like to add? We will close the record then and move to our deliberation. Who would like to start?

I would start by saying that I find 120 ft option or say definition to be very objective. So I don't know that we need to get to whether or not this is housing. It says, "Structures and buildings accessory to residential use located in the rear rear yard shall comply with the following standards. The structure or building do not have a total area of more than 120 square ft. This structure has a total area of more than 120 ft." That feels clear and objective to me. And so there's no need to determine whether it's in a required yard or not because the toll itself is 144 or greater than 120. I think I think I think their representative argument is very creative in their approach but I think the word total is what is the robot in that

and beyond that we're still construct the height we're still we're still in the height the height is still about less than 12 ft so I think it is important for us to at least talk about this guest house versus structure. I I to see how a guest house helps combat housing shortage for one thing.

The other thing is that I feel like it's more of a hotel room and not really housing. U as far as some kind of a permanent housing that helps combat housing shortage. there housing shortage. I guessly it could be used uh they wanted to take somebody in but then it doesn't have a kitchen and it have some of the amenities that are necessary for permanent res. So

I in my mind it doesn't really call a housing shortage. It's more like a hotel room than it is housing my house. Um well I you know these definitions can be trickier. Uh but I don't for me I don't see a compelling argument to come over our stash recommendation to say anything like that. So um I can see why one would try that approach and if if maybe it's a standard but I just I I don't see

but even if it is housing we have some very objective standards that I if it was housing you could you could argue on 120 I don't think so it says that the structure itself will have a total area of 120 square ft. So regardless of how you want to read that previous section located in you come down a says total area it doesn't say area within is 120 square it says structured total area well yeah what's total for an ADU

would be the square footage of the unit it's not the portion of it located. No, I totally agree with not creative but not um anybody else. Okay. Can uh does anyone want to put a motion? I I just want to give Miss Calbertt kudos for making some some good legal arguments. Okay, thank you.

Can I get a motion from someone? Having considered the evidence on the record, I move to we're doing we are affirming the administrative decision to deny the development permit DP25-23. 331 East Nursery AA2502 as discussed at this hearing.

Second. Any further discussion? Test open. Commissioner Widley. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner. Yeah. Yes. Commissioner Wade. Yes. Commissioner Musk. Yes. Commissioner, yes. Yes.

The city's denial is upheld by the Okay. This is a work session item. So, we have a slightly different format. We do ask because we do have a number of people back if she um that you limit your testimony to three minutes. This is a work session because us listening to you, we're trying to get everybody in. If you've got a little more, I'm not going to be looking at my watch, but that's where everybody wants to speak tonight. You do actually even though that doesn't end. And we may continue this conversation depending on if we feel like we've heard everybody want. We have very sympathy about listening to the community relative to these items that that change the code the very code that we're talking here about here tonight. So, uh we'll start our work session. Uh this is review of chapter 17.84 short-term rentals the discussion regarding the ordinance amending chapter 17.8 over short-term rental seeking to cap the total number of short-term rental permits to 165 per year while abolishing and deleting references to the 5-year program. This is a reminder that the planning commission work sessions are an opportunity for the planning commission to gather and discuss information pertinent to a specific topic and it's solely at the commission's discussion to allow public input on such topics after the presentation by the staff of the relevant material and public and planning commission question. I will ask the planning commission whether we would like to I will ask the planning commission whether we would like to hear from the public at this time. Okay. So I just voiced my opinion about what we might do. Yes.

I would like to ask for the staff's presentation at this time. First, I would like to show my appreciation to the public who has stuck around. Amen. Amen. Thank you all.

Staff will be as brief as you possibly can. Okay. I just want everyone to know that in your packets, we got some related materials. Mr. Neil uh is in room two uh D3 Herbert floor email corresponds in four and uh so those were all provided to you in your packet uh just to do a quick summary um and I'll start with the original staff report is that I didn't really had too much from last I did put in some materials regarding enforcement and language on that from various jurisdictions that are somewhat singish community and then our neighboring communities and put their code in there just so you can see our uh ours compared to that. Um, and then I also provided you some just the data that I'm providing the flats of original housing task force which is those that slideshow that uh I put in there uh explaining uh short-term rentals across the region. uh specifically wanted to point out that uh when you get to that section uh which is called regional housing occupancy in Tennessee with short-term rentals well that on those slides you know that shows you classic county all county I called up the actual jurisdictions got all of their central so that you can see a compared to breakdown in percentages across the all the various juris jurisdictions and how the quite the difference between those kind of working communities like Atoria and Warrington

uh and city of Tilloke as compared to uh your Canon Beach, Manzanita and Bay City and then the total numbers also throughout the region in those uh because I think that's come up a number of times and I think Mr. even talked about in his summary there about, you know, it's often seen in displacement and um short-term rentals taking up for long-term rentals, but uh we we don't we haven't seen that in our data here. So just my summary from the addendum, staff agreed that it will be appropriate to strike the recital language tying availability of long-term rental housing for local workers due to the conversion of housing use units to short-term rentals. I agree with that. What hasn't been directly discussed is the administrative and cost of various components of the program and the demands placed on staff and resources for changes to the program. Capping the number of short-term rental permits by number proximity zones possibly creating waiting risk and other oversight and enforcement concerns followings. If changes to the ordinance require a measure 56 notice of the entire beach history, that change initiates nearly a week's worth of processing at a cost of over $3,000 for the department's budget. Not to mention the very real impact has on property owners and the relationship to the local government. staff request consideration of the timing of any measure notices be coordinated with city council and staff so that they can be prioritized for all concerned. Similarly, as has been pointed out in previous discussions, there are staffing

resources concerned with each of these changes. Whether it involves creating administrating new waiting list or policing or missing dealing with regard fireplace or other consider each has a new level of recurring and response that should be considered. The reason I bring this up is that it's budget time for us and uh and so we're going to have a lot of stuff with the regular next year. And so I bring this up is that you know even if you guys consider moving this forward and everything the thought is that uh and we're going to be before the city council Marcy and I and we code rewrite process and we're going to suggest to them at those at the next two meetings over the next two months that we combine and make uh two or three packages that we'll move through so that we're not going with these um public notices to everyone every three months or so and you know getting people upset with the entire process and burning people out let alone city staff and resource. So uh I just want us to keep that in mind as we move these forward or move these things. Uh what are the prior works? You know is this crucial is it necessary? If it's not, then it's something that you can suggest when you make your recommendation, city council, that we uh, you know, we we can hold off on this one and put this with another package of materials and so that we're not continually coming at you coming out public with with changes. Uh we just went through the uh one for the fire pits and so the next one, you know, will be the likely this one is the next one with the housing one on the agendas. And so um even combine those could could save us some time and money. And so just

wanted to keep those uh that in any other questions of nuance to discuss them. So, are you saying that we should tonight come together and decide? Do we think this needs to be part of a different package or how how would you like us? But I like the idea of saying don't just have this single change that doesn't seem to be crucial in time. But are you how are you recommending that we handle that in terms of

I'm I'm just saying that this one personally I think this one could be deferred until you have the next package that's coming through because I believe right now the housing one that's at the for what's called a public benefit I call it I think that would likely go through first.

Okay. But we want to immediately start and that's what I'm saying probably I'm hoping uh in June to be starting the next one with work sessions to you and so this would just I would prefer this that just joining that because I think we'll have more um more housing changes to go along with that possibly some parking changes and other other things to package with that. So, not to say you like Clay, you mentioned, you know, you could delay this to another work session or another uh time, but I just want you to keep that in mind as you're starting to discuss how you want to do this. I appreciate that. Okay. Thank you. Public testimony.

Yes. Okay. Universal. Yes. Three minutes. Three minutes. Three. Okay. So, we will take public testimony tonight. We'll ask you to move it to three minutes. I guess thank you for your patience here tonight. Apologies. So, if you would like to um come forward, I see you're standing. So, I'll recognize you first. Please give us your name and mailing address. Sure. From here, you can do it here. I hear the acoustics are bad. It might be better up here. Okay. Very very well back there. Anyway, I'll be really short.

Uh Kathy Chadwell, PO Box 134, Ken Beach. Uh, my family has been here since ' 67, so I'm used to I I really appreciate all the work that you've done. And we reviewed the packets and worked at all of those. So, we had for 40 years we lived in the presidentials and we sold that house. We have one house that does have a hotel rental on it. That thing's always used. Both houses were on the west side. I purposely chose to move east because I grew up with the tourism. I don't want I don't want to be around it anymore and I could never get into the driveway. There were always people in the yard. I know that the town needs the money. I know that we wouldn't be here if we didn't have tours. I know that we need the rents. We need the income from that. But I think we can have a balance. And so the neighborhood I chose to live in is I'm one of the haystack Heights people that brought all this up, you know, the um the application petitions we put forward last year. And I'm aware of we've studied this and picked this can down the road many times and we had approached it back before CO had to disband the whole thing because of that situation. So with Marca and Ken, my neighbors across the street, she put together a beautiful packet, got the whole neighborhood involved. You had 56 of us, you know, that signed off on that. I I appreciate that we can't do any zoning, how complicated that's going to be, and as a whole network, that's going to take months and months of discussions. But I do think the 165 cap is something that we could act on now. And up in our neighborhood, I believe we only have seven houses up there that are short-term rentals. We

had a few more, but they've dropped off. And I am surrounded. They're around my house, which drives me crazy. So, I have four on one side. I had another one that is down at the end of the block. I'm on co and luckily my two houses that sold, one in front of me and one beside me are going to be full-time owners. I'm not going to have two renters there. Our neighborhood, we've got a speed limit reduced down to 15. We have little kids that play in the streets all the time. The renters that are up there don't understand that it's a neighborhood. It's a local neighborhood with children playing and they go above our speed limit as it is. They don't respect any ordinances at all. We had one house that Josiah luckily bought that was always in violation of noise and they had parties and they got fined. They finally paid off their fines that were I believe I was told they were $30,000 in the end that they paid off when they sold the house to Josiah. And we were really lucky we lost that short-term rental because it was obnoxious. And I think that there's a a place for it. I think everything on the west side could definitely support any rentals that we can put in there. That's where the tourists like to stay. It's on the ocean. That's where downtown is. Places like our neighborhood. There's a one way in and a one way out. And there's really no room for people to be running around. You know, they can't see the ocean from where we are anymore. So, I think we have to have that path. And I think 165 is doable. I understand that we have 200 that are in currently is what our cap is and that those are full and so if you did a 165 I'm told that as they would fall off for renewal when when they

didn't renew if you had one expire then we slowly would work our way back down to 165 and that we're not going to see it overnight but I would love for the council to consider that we have to have a balance the full people need to be able to enjoy our town, too. We pay property taxes, you know, and and so we know that we have to give our time over to the tourists for several months out of the year, and that makes our town exist. But we have to have a balance, and there has to be a safe neighborhood for our children. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you.

Yeah. I have a question. Sorry. All right. So, were you advocating for uh eliminating east side str?

I would like that down the road. You know, I would support, you know, um a different type of zoning, but I know that is a tough question to put forth tonight. And I I understand when he was mentioning, you know, I really liked your idea that was put forth in the last meeting. Uh we have those 14-day rentals. And I I thought it was a good idea to instead of every time you do a rental and you have to wait 14 days to do another where if you have that our short-term rentals for that month, you could rent as many as you could during that month because that would help with the income coming in on a rental. And I I like that idea. I like the other idea also of of I think how many what was it? 200 feet was the distance someone suggested. I thought that was a great idea, too, because then you don't have like in a neighborhood like ours, one street on my street, like on the Elk, I've got three rentals that are right close together and they don't understand that it's a mortal neighborhood, you know, they don't understand that when they backing up, they got to watch out for the kids on skateboards, you know, and they just it's a a tourist mind is you know, I don't care what's going on in the neighborhood. So, yes, I would love to see zoning. I think if anything happened where we be excluded, it would be our neighborhood because it's one way in, one way out. I you know, seaside is east side is is no tourists restrictions up there.

Yeah. I mean, man's gone starting to go that way as well. And it it just seems odd for me that in our town we I I I believe the facts are that there's only 200 homes now that are owner occupied and everything else is is second homeowners and rentals, hotel space, and everything else. We're kind of a dying breed up there. And I'd hate to lose that because I'm retired now and I work my ass off to live here, you know, full time. And I think we need to have a safe for our kids. Thank you very much for your intro.

Anyone else like to come forward for this?

My name is Randy Neil 1092. Uh when I first heard this uh cap was like it doesn't solve uh the haststack heights problem, you know. So, I came a month ago and said in, you know, I don't care if there's a cat or not, but I do care that there is either an exclusion zone and, you know, Haystack Heights deserves one uh across the street from uh the RV park, you know, east of Highway 101. You know, we don't have that many. These guys have gone from two to five to seven, and they'll continue to go up even with a cap because they're affordable homes that people that move in here will want to turn around and make it a short-term rental. The only way to pres pro protect our working family kinds of places. You know, we need that exclusion zone east of Highway 101. And then the second one is, you know, this is not a housing issue. This is a livability issue. And we can solve that problem. We still have problems all around the rest of the city, you know, and something as simple as 100 square feet means you at least or 100 feet distance means you're at least not surrounded by more than one. Um, we have, you know, 35 different situations around town where short-term rentals are adjacent to another and that makes like 50 homes that, you know, we could make go away just by creating something as simple as a 100 foot uh density restriction. um you know it's you know do you need the cap you know basically over time those things will disappear and people will not be able to you know buy a house if there's already a rental um you know uh nearby that they want to turn into a

short-term rental. So, we'll eventually space those out. Um, right or we'll reduce them and we'll get to the point of it's only 165 because, you know, we people don't want to rent the houses that are far, you know, furthest away from the beach and whatever. Um, so I come with those two things. Each of them are two sentence changes to the ordinance. It's basically, you know, we'll have no short-term rentals east of Highway One. one exists, you know, as it expires, it'll go away. Uh likewise, the same thing on the 100 foot one is we'll, you know, add no new permits within 100 ft and as people, you know, return theirs or expire. Um, you know, they can continue to have them until that point in time. So, nobody's losing anything with that worrying. um you know, Haystack Heights and the RV park would, you know, gain protection and not affect, you know, very many people. There's only one on the RV park side and these guys have seven. Um so we're not, you know, eventually they'll, you know, it may take some time to make them, you know, short-term rental free, but it won't take, you know, they'll they'll get their impact. Um, you know, I do have suggestions or thoughts about penalties and whatever, but I also respect the fact of you can't get agreement on all those kinds of things and you don't want to delay things and you don't want to dribble them out in little drips and drafts. So my suggestion is do these two changes exclusion um and uh density and then you know a year from now we do a lot of work and we work about you know penalties and violations and appeal process and whatever because we're not very good at that and you know it's sort of funny

when we sit around and some people say we don't have an issue because we don't get complaints and then lots of other people say you know the STRs are a big problem. I don't know what you know I don't know what's in there between and we needed to figure that out too. We need to have some basis so that we're sort of scoring ourselves of you know what's our happiness uh score related to short-term rentals. I don't think anybody knows today. Thank you. Thank you. Would anyone else like to

Good evening. My name is Herbert Glover, EOS 546 NIM Beach. Um, and I will definitely try to keep this under three minutes having done a couple terms on the planning commission. I'm sure you all want to get out of here. Uh, first of all, I wanted to say thanks to the staff for their staff report. I think they've given better information on this topic than I've seen in a long, long time. Um, you got a letter from me. There's a lot going on and it sounds like you're probably going to be going through this for a little while. So, I think I'll just keep it short to a couple things. Um, first of all, I use the words uh remarkable consistency on the levels of short-term rental um permits. And I'm using short-term rental would cover all the various categories cuz I can't keep track for myself. Um at around 200 plus or minus and I think the last meeting you had it was at 195. I don't know what it is today but I assume it's pretty close to that. Uh so my first uh thought in looking at this is why do we need a gap? It's been constant since 2015. with very little change. If we do need a cap, a cap's a cap, 165 would be a reduction, not a cap. Why not just go 195 what it is right now? Second, and I will just do this briefly because you know it's going to be a process. So I may be speaking here again and I really do want us all to get out of here. I think there's a lot of conflating of different topics here. The

the topics of complaints being one, the topic of affordable housing, which we all want in town. I mean, it's a tourist town. Tourist town means we need to have people working. They need a place to stay. And third is short-term rentals. And I'm not going to bore you with all the numbers right now. You probably heard them. You're probably all aware of them. But just right off the most important one, medium home price in Canada is a million plus or minus, but a million is a lot of money. If somebody has that home, their mortgage, their insurance, everything else, that home is not going to be rented as affordable housing. It It isn't. So, we're talking, I'd say, apples and oranges, but it's much more disparit than that. uh they just are separate issues and I wish we could finally recognize that and work on the importance of affordable housing and stop blaming short-term rentals for something that it's not. The 200 level has been so constant that there's no way that we can say that since 2015 it has had a negative impact on affordable housing pool in town. It's constant. Um that's all I want to say for tonight. Again, thank you so much for your time and I hope you have a great evening. Appreciate your time. Thank you. Anyone else?

Can I ask a question? Uh you can go twice. Sure. Well, hold on. Sorry. Let me let me make sure no one else I'll give you another opportunity, but if anyone hasn't spoken on anyone else over there. Yes. Oh, I don't

uh we can't really hear you that well. Maybe you can come up or if you don't want to come up, you're more comfortable there, you know, accommodation. I had a question more about if there was a cap implemented on the number of short-term rentals then wouldn't that uh cause people who own them to sell them at a much more reduced rate therefore causing more I can just say from the data across the nation that it's not it doesn't matter Yeah. Anyone else?

Say Clay. Uh, I have a question to pose to Jeff if I may. Uh, can we come back to it, Les? Unless you think it to the testimony we're receiving. Well, it it does, but I don't mind waiting. I just wanted you to ask a clarification. Go ahead.

Yeah. So Jeeoff, my understanding because there's there's been a lot of discussion about 165 and oh it's a reduction, but in fact that's only 165 for the 14-day rentals. The 41 uh lifetime unlimited remain. And so you have to add those numbers together. As I understand it, we've actually got uh I'm looking at Bruce's report from last month or from the start of this month, 154day STR permits currently. So 165 would actually be 11 more than what we see today. Am I missing that?

No, if that's correct. But I think a lot of folks are confused. They think that 165 is some total number and it's and it's not. I agree Leslie. Even even some of the materials that have come in have I think got that wrong. So yeah. Anyway, that that was my clarification. Thank you, Jeff. Thank you. And we look at a cap. It doesn't have to be 165. It can be some other number if you want to make a reduction. Did you want to come?

Yeah. So I just didn't know the answer to this question is when we were talking and you brought it up so about affordable housing and I just want to ask is it possible for to turn the RV park into smaller housing units for our workforce rather than having RVs because if that if the city owns that would that not be an option

that has been discussed it has been typically seen as a hornets net. So we do have 51 people that signs was sent to it or we're talking about tonight also were behind that. I think we have response. Go ahead.

Yes. April 28th at the city council 6 pm right here is the discussion on housing opportunities where we will have a discussion about the RV park with four um representatives from four different entities giving us this translate of what could happen there. Yeah, I just didn't know the answer to that, you know. So, I was curious as a person who's been here for another day.

If you if you um feel like you have other neighbors who would also be interested in exploring that more, it would be good to hear that way. The city council would um I think that would help them in getting away from the perception that that is a something they're just not ready to take on. That been my take away from it. We all agree that we have a problem with what's happening. You know, we need to find a solution to it. And I know that they've been addressed in like the ADUs things. I know there's a lot of ideas. I just didn't know the answer to that one if that was even something that was in there. So, I appreciate that. Anyone else?

Okay. Well, we'll move to our discussion here. Um, who'd like to start? Um, I'll start. Uh, the exclusion of, uh, the properties on the east side of Toronto. I'm a little conflicted there because I think we're going to allow STRs in the city. I'm not sure if we need to have them all on the west side that impact the west side. And the people on the east side homes, I consider that property right to have an STR if they're within the city boundaries. Um, so I I don't know that I would, you know, exclude everything on the west side to impact my neighbors to the east uh any more than I would really want them to request that to exclude their neighborhoods to impact their neighbors to the to the west. That's kind of how I see that because I think we can all agree that that's not going to impact affordable housing. it's not going to impact the number of long-term rentals that we have because the facts bear out that they're going to remain second homes and be vacant rather than become long-term rentals. Um, and I think that if if they own a property and you know it's and they follow the rules uh of STRs and uh then they should be allowed to have STRs on the east side as far as Canon Beach City. It's funny that you say that because I came into this meeting thinking what invest how do we exclude some but I really appreciate the transition tonight around eligibility

in areas where there is a high density of permanent residents and I have to respect that I really do and I came in kind of with a similar attitude and then you know other communities talking and I haven't verified it personally but other communities doing it I I think there might be a way to help with it over there where you uh the buffers on it. They're going to do something with that.

Yeah, I I think that rather than the cap, I would go with the a buffer zone 100t in any direction or whatever that amount of feet is. I think that that would help reduce the density in certain neighborhoods and spread the spread the STRs out or spread the pain out as as it were in some in some receptions, but uh you know, I've said before that uh I've enjoyed some of the STR visitors that we that we've had on our street. Uh I I'm in close proximity to a few STRs and uh sometimes it's nicer to have people in them uh as guests than it is to have a vacant home. It makes, you know, it's not like you had neighbors per se, but it does there's some activity in the neighborhood and as long as they're uh, you know, abiding by all the ordinances with parking and noise and other restrictions, then I really don't have a problem with them being my neighbors. Uh, but I do think that the density is a good idea. they lend your fee uh around an existing SPR. Um what were the other uh brought up besides that? I think that was for the east side and um the corporate but I I really don't see the need for a cap. The number has been rising so rapidly that we're going to be overcome at this point. For the last 15 years, we've spent right around this same number. And the CAT requires a little more uh babysitting or staff attention than what the 100 foot linear. You can go out check in a matter of uh you know 15 or 20 minutes whether or not there are STRs. You don't have to go out in the field. You can look on on a map

and see where the STRs are and you can take care of that in a matter of minutes rather than trying to maintain a list of how many we have who's on and who's off and contacting people waiting for them to respond. If they don't respond then we have to contact the next person on the list and uh you know that it takes a lot of staff effort to do that. Well, actually, I'm questioning how much effort that actually takes, but it sounds like if we set the cap at 165, there's not likely to be a waiting list, and I think it just creates a safety net.

So, for me, I feel like I want to know if there's a safety net. I like the density approach. I think that completely makes sense. And I would be open to exclusion zones or not. At this point, I feel like there's there are principal plays. Should we exclude the entire west side then? There you go. serious about

well what I'm saying is the same impacts that impact the neighborhoods on the east also impact neighborhoods on the west now I understand the density of residents is greater in that particular area u and I'd like it to be greater in my neighborhood also uh but the fact is it's not greater But I still enjoy my neighbors and um but the STRs still are impactful. The speeds I mean they're by state law they're 15 miles an hour on every uh gravel road whether it's posted or not but nobody pays attention to that. No, we did suggest for kid they don't love to see them kids and animals too. I hear them.

Yeah, I will say I have to say young kids to my own and we are the only family

within our region. So I do understand the east side has a much higher density of families. That's where all my kids friends are. Um so I think there's a legitimate concern for the young families. Well, and I think in Seaside with density, they allow two houses um to be next to a a house that could be allowed to be a rental. So, maybe parring down the density a little bit, but um I do agree with that. And to be quite honest, I'd like to see 195 as a cap if we're going to do it. I really think it'll take care of itself.

Yeah, it's and so I think it's 200 two STRs within 250 ft though at seside, right? So it's almost the equivalent of they're next if you're next to one. Yeah, you're next to one. You can have one over here, one over here, but you cannot have one over here or one over there.

Yeah, I think it's 250. So the the notion that comes up and I think I brought it up in the last time is if you do go to some kind of ber thing I would give it I would suggest also and and if you do a cap with the kind of proximity that I I think you need to also have language that most of the jurisdiction that do do this have language that they have to show that they're actually renting a or so that you know people aren't just buying them to put a buffer around themselves. Yeah. Restrict their neighbors,

right?

Are these things we want? Well, I mean Jeff started by saying this is something we could package later, something we could dive into tonight. How are you guys feeling about? I think we can we need to have a robust discussion about this and really, you know, bring these up at a later meeting so we can package it up into one recommendation for the council peace mealing this whole thing. Um, I think these are good discussions to have. I hope that more people show up. And of course, my comment about restricting the west was tongue and cheek. wasn't anything I'm actually proposing.

You may one I had coming in just saying, you know, it's good for the goose, good for the gander kind of thing. Um, so we have to think about that, but I do respect the families and the full-time residents. I wish there were more people that actually lived here full-time. Uh, I I understand the kids and the families. Okay. You know, might be helpful to check is if we if we had a better understanding of how some other communities were were enacting these districts. Yeah, I can. That'd be awesome.

I can bring you together. Uh and this is why I miss local news because that would have made the local news. Yes. If this might be funed,

well, I've worked with seaside or looked at seaside restrictions they have on STR and I can tell you that it's a little bit confusing because they have zoning areas and they have, you know, linear feed restrictions, density restrictions, uh, and then there are a couple of other things thrown in there and and the city staff there have had a heck of a time trying to make heads or tails of what was intended by the quagmire. So in my opinion, I don't think we want to go down that route. I want to learn from the lessons that they're learning right now and be clear.

Anyone else?

All right. So, what's our takeway? uh we all agree it seems like that the density zone or density area is uh something we can work with and then there are good points for the cap which is uh you know with the safeguard going forward that we can not have to address it again in a few years if we do find ourselves wanting a cap or getting a lot more STR. We may not see that now, but there's no reason not to put a cap that's a reasonable cap in place. There you go. Judge on it. Uh so that we don't uh have to re readress this in a few years. So no, I I think from what I'm hearing, I think we can agree on those two points. think that you know we can talk more about the east side and whether we want to reduce or eliminate everything on the east side 101. I have to agree that it's not as uh lucrative or as u attractive to have an STR on the east side because can't see the ocean and you got to take your car to the beach. Uh, and it's set up more for uh residential neighborhood. There's that East as good as we need to. Okay. Okay. Good.

Sounds good. Thank you. Yeah, you bet. Thank you everyone for your comments. Those are very helpful to us. Bring all your friends. Get a question. Hey, how are feeling? Okay, so uh let's see if I can do this off the top of my head. Tree recorder. Thank you.

Yes, the three or fourth of the month of February. We had trees removed primarily one property on relationship. This was a property. A significant number of trees were able to paint on property. So there was no plant there. Any questions?

All right. So good of the order. Anyone have anything uh for the good of the order? Tonight is Aaron Matusk's last night with us. Erin, I am going to miss your omnipresent voice coming with words of wisdom. You have been an instrumental piece of this group. We will dearly miss you. Um, thank you for your time with us and all the ways you helped us. We look forward to seeing you out in front of us and on the podium asking for something.

Yeah, you'll probably see me in person a lot more now than you did the last four. Uh, yeah. Thank Thank you to everyone, the staff. You all are great. Tessa, Jen, Jeff, and and Robert, you're professional and helpful and smart and sharp. And thank you, Clay and Mickey and Les. You've you've been here my entire four years and your commitment to this group is incredible. Steve and Jay, you've been great additions and um I hope you all stay on for however many terms you're able to well I guess two terms and then you're you're termed out. I uh could see myself coming back after I retire and have more time to devote to volunteer things. Um, I, you know, I could probably and complain for hours about the process and how I'm not happy about how slow things go, but I will reserve that because reality is this is a volunteer group that is super committed and and does great work um, you know, as best we can giving the resources that we that we have. And so, uh, yeah, don't be, um, disenchanted with, uh, the way the the slow process of things. I really challenge and encourage, uh, affordable housing. I tried. I came in hot, thinking, you know, we could get something done. We didn't. Um, but I will continue to to work behind the scenes and try and build some affordable housing in this town because I think that that really is an ex existential crisis that we have in in these, you know, popular sort of resort towns uh, in Oregon, all over the country really.

But, um, yeah, I digress. Thank you all for for putting up with me and um yeah, I I assume I will be in front of you sooner than later complaining about something. So, keep up the good work. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Anyone else for the good of the I didn't want to follow one. Um the helicopter it didn't used to circle over the beer. Do we have any control over that? Am I the I'm not the passive ordinances that not the first one to bring it up. Okay.

Fly over the Federal Reserve here, but are we going? Yeah, they're close. Might be able to make

All right, there's nothing else. We return. Thank you ever.