Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We'll now call tonight's meeting to order. First action is approval of the agenda. Do I have a motion to approve the agenda? I move to approve. Any discussion? Could you please call the role? Commissioner, yes. Commissioner, yes. Commissioner Or, yes. Commissioner Mus, yes. Commissioner Lee. Yes. Vice. Yes. Agenda is approved. We will move to consideration of the minutes from the June 26th planning commission meeting. Are there any amendments?

I have a couple of amendments. Uh under the approval of agenda item number one. Uh under the vote. Uh Sinclair was absent and came late and was not a part of that vote. He's listed as uh voting. uh on that. Uh the second uh correction I have is under the second consideration of the meetings for May 22nd 2025 is also attached to on that one and uh I do not abstain. I've voted to approve the motion. So if you'll make those changes for it.

Any other amendments to minutes? Do I have a motion to approve the minutes as amended? Motion to approve as agend amended. Any discussion? Could you please call the role? Commissioner Musk. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner V. Yes. Commissioner, yes. Commissioner, yes. Vice Chair, yes.

We will now be moving to public comment. This portion of public comment is for items that are not tonight's agenda. If you are requesting to speak to a public hearing item, these comments will be considered during that item. If you have a comment that you would like to make related to issue that has been review of the planning commission, they're welcome to speak at this time. Is there anyone who would like to make public comments of any item that is not on our agenda? Do we have anyone online? Phone number 316. Hello.

Hello. We can hear. Can you hear me? We can. Uh, should I begin? Yes, please. Uh, speaking please. Yeah, I'm uh making public comment. Could you please provide your name, the address first? Yeah. Okay. Well, good evening. I'm Hans Lindstöm, 239 West Tanana Avenue, Canon Beach. Excuse me.

Speaking, were you going to be speaking on ordinance amendments tonight? Were you going to be speaking on the zoning ordinance amendments this evening? I'm speaking in opposition to ZO2502. Right. Okay. We will get back to you shortly. Right now, we're in the public comments testimony just in general. So, we'll be right with you when that item gets on the agenda. Okay. Do you want me to just sit aside and just uh wait till you call on me or what do you want me to do? Yes, please wait. We'll call on you after we call the items ordered.

Okay. So, I can listen and then you'll call. You'll let me know when to start.

Okay. Thank you. We will be moving on to the first item on the agenda. This is a type four legislative hearing regarding ZO2502 proposed text amendments to municipal code chapter 17 ZO2-02 city of Canon Beach request for housing related zoning ordinance text amendments to chapter 1704 definitions 1730 residential moderate density zone 1732 residential medium density zone R2 1740 limited The commercial zone 1760 general requirements and regulations 1768 off parking 1770 design review 1772080 accessory dwelling and new section 1760200 public benefit dwelling owner occupancy requirements. The zoning text amendment request will be reviewed against the criteria of the municipal code section 1794A amendments criteria and statewide planning goals. This legislative hearing to amend the municipal code is being held after providing written notice of hearing and proposed amendments to the code to DLCD in compliance with OS 197610. In addition, OS 227186 requires the city to provide written notice of amendments and hearing to owners of real property when the city proposes to amend or adopt this code in a manner that limits or prohibits land uses previously allowed in the affected zones. Notice of this hearing has been provided to parties entitled to notice as required by the statutes. Type four actions are made by the city council's adoption of an ordinance. Canon Beach Municipal Code 1714050C provides the type 4 actions shall be decided by the city after public hearing. The city council may also request that the planning commission

hold a public hearing in advance of the city council hearing to consider the proposal for public testimony and provide a recommendation. The city council has requested that the planning commission hold a public hearing in advance of the city council's hearing to consider the proposed amendments, public testimony, and provide a recommendation. Does anyone object to the jurisdiction of the planning commission to hear this narrative?

Do we have a staff report? turn now over to Marc and let her go ahead and start her presentation with me.

Robert, are you going to bring the presentation up or should I be Sorry. That just signif I say

recording progress. Okay, I think I've done so sharing this presentation.

Hello everyone. I'm Marcy Mcelli and can you hear me?

I'm Marcy Mcinelli. I'm with Herbs Works and I've been working with a a joint commission on the code rewrite project for a while now. This is the culmination of a year's worth of work. So I'd like to go through what the packet consisted of some of the background. Next slide. So this is an effort of the Canon Beach code rewrite project and the rewrite project is implementing recommendations of the code audit which was a project that we completed a while ago a couple of years ago. Uh the tasks that we completed so far that are part of the project involve uh amendments to comp to comprehensively reorganize the code. That was one of our first tasks that that was adopted. uh draft adopt amendments for a wetland overlay and that was adopted and then we launched into uh an policy related effort around housing that was intended to lead to the code amendments you have in front of you. So we conducted a public housing survey we formed a housing work group and we held a housing work group sharet and now we pair with to forward the housing related code. The housing work group consisted of people that were appointed to work closely with me on these amendments and they include Lisa Kerr, Brandon Bogby, Chad Morris, Mike Bates, Michelle Valera, Eric Ostringer and Jay Orof and um city staff Steve and Robert were always there and uh I facilitated a number of meetings with this group. But I'd like to go back for in time to the housing survey that we conducted in early 2024. This was a citywide survey um in English and Spanish. We received 281 responses uh in January and February of 2024, which is kind of an astounding

response rate for a city of the size of Canon Beach. We found that 80% of our respondents live in Canon Beach, 60% of them own their own homes, 36% rent, and 4% have some other arrangements. 78% of respondents work, 28 5% of respondents own a business in Beach, and the average household size was two. And that was just um information about the respondents. when they were asked to respond to some specific housing related questions, we found that 81% of respondents or

243 and number say that they agree with they agreed with this statement that county beach is failing to live up to its policy to encourage the development of housing which meets the needs of a variety of age and incomes groups as well as special needs. And this um is a statement that's important because it's from your comprehensive plan. And the goal of Sony code amendments is to implement the conference plan among other things. We also found that 89% of respondents or 243 people agreed with that the uh statement that there's lack of affordable housing in Canada Beach. And affordability is defined as housing that requires households to spend less than 30% of their income on housing. That's a national definition for affordability um found on the housing of housing under development website um or defined by cut. So, and some additional background um has recently been verified for us by work we've done with the class of county uh class of county recently completed a buildable lands inventory and housing um capacity analysis for all of the cities in the area as well as the county land itself. And the graph here shows or these series of pie charts on this poster show that Canon Beach amongst all the cities uh that have an issue with vacant homes for seasonal use and short-term rentals has the most. So what you see in the small circle at the bottom that represents

has the most what

has the most vacant seasonal housing and short-term rentals. So, blue represents vacant seasonal housing, red uh represents short-term rentals, and gray represents what's available for permanent um for long-term living. And this was done as part of a um tracking that was collected from all of the cities about recent permits. So we we prepared that graph um or that pie chart, but we also were able to track over the last 5 years what sort of housing has been built in each of the jurisdictions by year by type. when we agreed to go forward after the survey and conduct a uh sharet, one of the things that we looked at was information that some some some helpful information that county staff and Alyssa Girtler in particular have put together. These this information that I'm showing you right now is available on the class of county housing dashboard. And as an example, um, to help people picture what affordability means, this chart represents a family of two, family of four, the cost of housing for um, them in different jobs that are that are actually real jobs here in the county and what you would have to earn in order to be able to afford housing. and what that means in terms of 30 or in terms of area median income and percentages of that. And that was so that we could understand workforce housing affordability versus uh federally subsidized affordability and become sort of more fluent in affordability issues. Um so that was part of the the discussion that we had during the multi-day shared out of the

sharet which took place in May of last year. We were re, it was recommended that the group continue to work on housing issues that we revisit the public. Can somebody turn up?

We revisit the public benefits provision, which was a policy discussion that we started in 2022. That we enable middle housing such as duplexes, cottage clusters, maybe even triplexes. that we explore how to enable more accessory dwelling units or ADUs that we conducted design workshop. This was the sharet to test mail housing prototypes on prototypical canon beach sites and troubleshoot design compatibility and affordability issues and using uh we use the design workshop testing to inform our code amendments. Ma'am,

we also I'm sure through all this, but this is all right.

We also agreed to pursue other actions with Class of County such as that data collection that I was showing you and also the lease to locals pilot program which is starting because everyone understands that we can't address housing and um housing shortage in Canada Beach and the county without looking at things beyond zoning code amendments. But sending code meas are a really important part of this job and that's what we're going to talk about tonight. So I thought it would be interesting to share some of the slides from the housing sharet so you could see that what we talked about during that period of time. And just as a a reminder even at the sharet I needed to tell people that we had talked about public benefits proposal before which was a concept developed by Jeff Adams before he left um that we we needed further forward where we would use the floor area uh that's available on a site to incentivize different public benefits such as uh things that were under discussion in those days was preserving trees um saving an existing building uh and also incentivizing additional drawing. We looked at downtown sites as well and that has informed the C1 proposal. We looked at different massing proposals and parking the impact of parking requirements on the housing and um so that's a little preview of the shar results. If I could go through the amendments now um kind of one by one and just describe things in them. First of all, the purpose of these amendments is um to increase the local housing accessibility to persons who live and work in beach. Enable more housing overall. Encourage a greater mix of smaller dwellings. Make it easier for an applicant to get a

permit for an ADU or a duplex. encourage and incentivize long-term tenure housing and more variety of housing. And to go back to that quote from the conference of plan to encourage the development of housing which meets the needs of a variety of age and income groups as well as special needs. So starting at the top of the amendments, these are the contents of the amendments package. First, the first proposed amendment is the creation of a public benefit dwelling owner um occupancy requirements. It's a new section in title 16 that did not exist before. Um and it will entitle public benefit dwellings to receive the benefits described in the land use districts amendments which follow. to move then into the zoning title 17. We um starting with article one introduction and general provisions, we amended accessory dwelling to state that they are not eligible for short-term rental licensing and definitions to duplexes clarify that they can be attached, stacked, or detached configurations since that wasn't clear before. And this is compliant with uh Oregon revised statutes for housing and we also defined public benefit dwelling there. So those were new definitions introduced to article one. In article three, the land use districts we affected changes in R1 or 17.30 and R2 17.32. And I'm going to summarize them here. Um we reduced the permitted floor area ratio or F to 46 for one unit and 050 for duplexes exempting accessory dwelling units from F permitting public benefit dwelling at R1

and reference the new requirements in title 17 which I just read to you uh to permit public benefit dwelling and public benefit duplex dwellings in R2 and reference the new requirements in title 17 public benefit definition establish the new allowance for public benefit dwellings including dormer square footage floor area ratio exemption a reduced setback and tree code relief each of these are described more fullfully in the track change documents that follow this is just a summary we deleted the requirement for design review which state that new dwelling units are not eligible for short-term parental licensing And then for uh the land use district article in again in article 3 the land use district C1 section 17.4 floor. We amended this section to incorporate some modest housing related amendments that were identified by the housing sharet and um applied these to a test a testing area that's limited in area defined as lots of street facing property line on North Street between second and third avenues and also adding short-term rental prohibition on new housing and a requirement for these units to meet public benefit requirements. And then we approached u the development standards. Uh there was a oneoff section in 17.60 that um had duplex standards that were not consistent with state requirements and that those are those will be deleted. When we got to parking 17.68 68 we amended off street requirements for duplexes and ADUs and they are duplexes are reduced from two spaces per dwelling unit to one and for ADUs were reduced to none

and then we uh made amendments to development standards design reviews is article 4 section 17.70 we eliminated we proposed to eliminate the sign view requirement for accessory dwelling units. Eliminate the requirement for architectural model. Update the term modular home to align with state guidance and model code regarding pre-fabricated and modular housing for manufacturing housing. Um, which is mostly just a a name a terminology change. We amended we we proposed to amend um the entire design review to comply with state requirements for plan objective design standards for housing and eliminate the design review requirement for accessory dwelling units.

Okay. So I think I'm going close to the end. Yes. And um the last section then was accessory dwelling unit um 17.72.080. 080 striking the requirements for design and view striking the reference to required parking since parking requirements are covered in 17.68 and as I mentioned before there is no no parking requirement for an ADU any longer as proposed and striking other provisions that do not comply with the state ADU requirements. um also stating that new accessory dwelling units or substantial conversions are not eligible for short-term rental licensing. And then there was a table included in this document to help understand for R1 and R2, two separate tables to help lay out uh the types of dwelling options and the way that the floor area ratio applies, the public benefit allowances if there are any. um the maximum square footage that would be possible for that type of uh development scenario and any bonus or floor area ratio um or ADU bonus that would be available. And I'm not going to go over that um but it's in the packet and I recommend reading it because it it helps explain how these amendments would actually work on different types of dwelling. without Thank you, Marcy. Just for the record, I don't believe we already got your answer. If you could provide that on the record, that would be great. Marcy Minelli, 3845 Southwest Condor Avenue, Portland. So, for the rest of the commissioners, I propose that we hold questions for Marson. Is that acceptable? Okay. I know we received some additional correspondence.

Have we gotten a copy of everything that we have, Robert? Eric Ben closing business.

Perfect. Okay. Thanks, sir. I will now be calling for public testimony. This is a legislative hearing, so the qua judicial disclosures do not apply. As such, the planning commission will now commence with testimonies. Persons who testify shall first receive recognition from the chair. State your full name and mailing address and if appearing in a representative capacity, identify whom you represent. Yes, we have a full house tonight and we want to give everyone an opportunity to testify. I will be limiting testimony to no more than three minutes. And Robert, are you set up to time? Yes.

Perfect. Okay. When your time is up, I will give you a signal. Understand I'm not being rude, but we are trying to keep living. Please raise your hand if you would be interested in testifying. From online. Should we do everyone the person first and then take him? Let's do that. Eric,

just my name is Eric Ostrander, PO Box 97. Um, I was, as Marcian stated, I was part of the um, the group that helped craft um, a lot of this stuff. And I kind of wanted to give a little quick background on why I joined and what my goals were in terms of joining this committee. don't think I'll have time to explain how my goals were met or not met um throughout it, but um three main reasons why I volunteered to join this task force or this group back in February 2024 was I saw friends and neighbors being pushed out of places to live um either with accelerating prices of rent or um the purchase prices of homes or um conversions of into STRs or vacation homes. Um I was seeing a consistent trend of larger homes going in to replace modest sized homes um that had been existing for for decades in here. Um older cabins being replaced with more modern larger style homes that were a lot more blot line. Um maxing out the F that we currently have. Um, all of this reducing the village character and endangering the charming small-cale cabin development that's part of the look and feel of Canon Beach that's referenced numerous times throughout our conference plan. Uh, Jeff Adams presented a graph um that I had a ton of difficulty finding and I still haven't been able to refind it again. Um but it was showing the average size of homes built over the past 50 years or so and how they stayed relatively stable up until about the last decade and then there was a sudden acceleration in the size of homes being constructed and that's that again goes back to the comprehensive plan of the small scale buildings that are kind of getting left behind leaving us in a position where we may be losing the character that uh the kina beach has the reason many of us came to live here and the reason many people come to visit. Um the three main goals that I had when we started off the task force going in prior to the shared I I had three main goals. Um I wanted in my mind to increase density in town but

not just density overall density specifically of people living in town. Um which typically ends up being smaller structures closer together on on lots. Um, I wanted to look at encouraging multiple dwellings on single lots with residents occupying it while discouraging large single dwellings to sit empty the majority of the year. Um, encourage and discourage, not prohibit or require. Um, I wanted to reduce parking requirements. Um, I've seen this said numerous times. I think Alyssa Girtler mentioned it that we have affordable affordable parking development but not affordable housing development going in not just in Canon Beach but across across the state and across the country. In in general in town, it's not residents who create parking and congestion issues. That's typically day trippers that are coming down. Reducing parking on residences where people are living I don't in my in my opinion will have a negligible total effect of congestion within within town. Um I wanted to encourage new construction to be permanent residents um either long-term or own long-term rentals or owner occupied. And I wanted to see a reduction of the restrictions in the downtown area um on housing to encourage uh more mixed residential commercial development similar what Whiteboard Gallery versus Candy Kitchen has. I don't think this document is perfect. I think it still needs the public input that we're receiving tonight and hopefully we'll continue receiving. Um when I started this, I advocated for this to be a public process to start with just as um Marcy had proposed with a public share and all that stuff. It's unfortunate we didn't fulfill that exactly that. Um but I think um I want I only want to hear as much public input as possible to increase the affordability in Can Beach and I hope we don't get stuck on the DF discussion. Thank you.

Anyone else? everything that Michelle 719 um I'm here as a member of the housing focus group I've said it from the start and I'll say it again the group was felt unbalanced from the beginning originally Marcy suggested that we had a public sharet meaning the collaborative process to create a design or a plan for a specific issue this issue being middle housing little side note middle housing refers to a type of housing for example duplexes or cottage clusters not middle income would keep caring people's life. Um uh so the h the group was consisting of all homeowners some of multiple lands that very possibly don't have a clear understanding of housing insecurity like not being dramatic when I say my first thought when I wake up is how long I'll be able to stay in my current 390 foot classic beach cottage that I love with all my heart uh is today the f day I find out that I have to move once again. At almost 53 years old, I've never experienced this looming feeling that seems to always be around the corner. Well, this group is a lovely sentiment and great opportunity to do something for the betterment of our community that have arised on so many different kinds of people from different tax brackets and backgrounds that make things run so smoothly 365 days a year. The public somehow instantly became private meetings meeting meetings within meetings. I would show up ready to talk about something like parking requirements and suddenly be talking about the reduction of area in the downtown zone that I was in the dark about. I can only imagine what it feels like at this moment for all the property owners that feel like they're in the dark. I rewatched the February 29th uh 2024 short work session when the focus group was formed on a whim to make sure I wasn't bonkers that we agreed to have an openhouse design workshop that somehow became private. I know that both me and Eric bought up our discomfort with these mediums not being public several times. If I knew what I knew then what I know now, I would have existed. As we as you can see now, the

backlash of the far reduction which we had anticipated, uh people feel left out of the conversation. reversibly bumped up the other community members that that I respect didn't get to see what I remember as an excellent 3-day presentation and Q&A from an extremely dynamic and well-versed planner from the city of Boston. I learned so much and I'm heartbroken that no one outside the this anointed group had an opportunity to see uh and there's no public record so most likely never will. I never wanted the housing housing to be a smoke screen for people to stop building and another way to push agendas. The original purpose for reducing FAR was to limit and the trend of giant unused homes and try to maintain the Cfield Canon Beach to follow the comprehensive plans vision statement that says the intent of the city spoke is to plan for a modest level of growth over the next two decades. This approach to the current small incremental steps that allow the community to evolve in a desired direction without disrupting the fabric fabric of life in the community. The fund fundamental principle of the plan is to foster a community with a strong sense of place where it provides its residents with the quality of life that they desire. I understand that it feels like something's being taken away and I totally agree um that some things to seem a little convoluted. That said, back to the comprehensive plans housing policy policies if people get up on page 18 in order to maintain the number one number is to order maintain the city's village character it diverse population. The city will encourage the development of housing which meets the needs of a variety age and income groups as well as groups of special needs. And then number three, to extent as possible to the extent possible, the city shall endeavor to accommodate affordable housing in a manner that this disperses it throughout the community rather than concentrating on specific locations. Also, the city should recognize almost done uh that they need to be a balance between employment, housing, and beach area. and the city not rely solely on other communities to provide rental. All this said after working on this group

for well over a year I believe the reduction is a good thing and but can be um and but again I live in 400 ft. and read submitted letters and agreed with so many points. For example, Tim's where he's projecting the city just three minutes. What? Three minutes for a while. I have like three more sentences. How about one more? Well, I'd like to pitch that we lean back into the shred and have it be. And that's it. Thanks. All right. So,

my name is Jim Hicks, HIGGS, PO Batch 461. I know nobody here, so if I say something that offends you personally, um, so I have two main items. One has to do with this letter that I received that I couldn't comprehend. Okay, I had two people call me and they said I couldn't understand what it means. Okay, what the heck happened? you know, something like this that goes out to every person who can beach to be simple and understandable. So, I really have a beef with it. Um, item one. So the second item is that I think it is extremely inappropriate for changes to be made on um establishing new rules for homeowners who bought homes years ago and now they're being told, "Oh, we're going to be making these changes. Oh, we're going to be making these changes." I talked to a couple of people who bought homes recently and now they're being told that, hey, you know, you're not going to be able to build this addition. So, I've lived here for only a year. However, I've owned my beach home for 35 years. So, I've used it for vacation home for many, many years. I think there's ways to resolve these kind of problems. You could say, "Okay, these modifications are going to be taking place five years from now. We're going to vote them in now, but they won't be implemented for 5 years." So, with a little thinking, I think there's ways to address that, but I think it's one thing unfair ways to be approached. The second, the other part of this, and I don't know the answer because I, you

know, I haven't been. It seems to me like this is really important stuff. I have no idea if it's really important for this letter and I think that it should necessitate every person, every homeowner uh having a vote. So I don't know what the condition can do, you guys can do by yourself or not, but I think everybody should have a vote. So there's some things again that could be considered in terms of the time delay. You could uh grandfather people who have perm homes, people who buy in the future. If they're told about all these restrictions, then they don't come in. But to go retroactive, it's like, well, let's establish some retroactive rules. That's why I have this Bob unleashed my PO box 1357. Uh please with the acceptance of the gentleman just I I would say I would make make a request to people who are speaking to talk more slowly I will understand more of your words because even with my ear earbuds functioning as per I'm probably hearing maybe a third of what people are saying. Uh, another thing is just for a clarification, I did not read all of what I found on on the city's website, but the I I came to

something on on the uh floor area ratio that I at least interpreted as making the floor area ratio 5% of the of the lot size. And I it sounded from something that somebody said earlier. Was Was there a typo in there that said 0.05? It was really supposed to be.5.

Okay, that's very short. Uh, I I hope I I think I I am at least in in a majority and I well I think I'm in a minority in living in a neighborhood where I have quite a number of neighbors that are that live there all the time. And I would like to have more and I would like to encourage whatever changes you can see a way to to uh to push in that direction. I don't know whether that's when I was sitting where you're sitting, I felt like one of the things that I was there to do was to keep Canon Beach the way it was 10 years before I came. I don't know whether you're pushing for the same thing but more

else uh Tim Remy Pox 429 Pan Beach. So, I was at that February 29th joint session that we all were at. I remember being asked to sit on this housing committee or asked if I would like to and I declined. I said, you know, this is going to add a year to the process. It's just going to slow it down. And I probably probably like to go faster than than maybe that's even possible. But it's hard to imagine going slower than we are. Um, I think we're overconulted. I think we're overcommitted. I think we're over analyzed and I think the people in this room have great ideas and we could figure this out in a relatively short period of time. Um, this goes back to the code rewrite, which I totally support, but some really mysterious things happen. Marcy has has testified numerous times duplexes are not subject to design review board review. I'm on the design review board. It's illegal in in the state of Oregon for some reason. political. I don't know why that's not in this draft. It doesn't make any sense. That needs to go back in the draft. I'm pretty skeptical of the whole concept of bar reductions for points that have been made here tonight. But I think there's so many better ways

to approach this. I mean, if you want to offer incentives to people, don't say you used to have 6, but now you have 46, but we'll put you back to 0.5 if if you do the right things. Now, if the incentive here is to build middle housing, which I think is supposedly the stated goal, going from 6 to 0.5 for duplexes is an to that goal. It's absolutely wrong. Okay. So any kind of reduction in FAR for duplexes is completely wrong. Then if you want to do public benefit, great. Make it 65. Make it 7 for triplexes or quadplexes. I don't know if you want those. It's a reasonable question. But to to essentially take something away from a property owner and then say, "Well, I'm going to give it back to you if you do a public benefit is relatively illogical in my opinion." Second, let's make it kind of worth the the lift. I mean, this whole concept was we're going to give you 200 square ft. If you deed restrict your property for eternity, you're going to say, "10 years from now, when I sell my house, the only people I can sell it to is somebody that agrees to live here full-time." That's ridiculous. No one will do that. No one will do that. I mean, it just is a it's a it's a bad business decision. So, let's let's get back to business. Let's figure this out. Nobody wants to do affordable housing more than me, but I think we've moved the ball zero on affordable housing with this set. Thanks a lot.

Thanks. Thank you. Anyone else? Please.

Hi, I'm Catherine Kiddo. Um, my address is 1723 East Beaver Lake Drive in Samish, Washington. However, I have home owned my beach cabin since 1976. I've been here uh every summer and fall as long as I can remember, including when I was four years old, we first came to the neighborhood. Um but I have had so many hopes for my poor beach cabin built in 1910. It's falling down. I'm surprised the city hasn't asked me to remove it. Um, but I've been planning a remodel. I would move forward to doing that. And this change to the four area ratio seriously disturbs me. I have owned that property so long and just as another speaker said, we need some warning and a grace period before you do anything like that to give us a chance if I don't even think I'm it's going to be a problem for me because I have a fairly big lot. But it's it's a threat. I don't know yet what's going to be built. In any case, I don't understand how reducing floor area ratio when somebody's rebuilding their cabin, how does that help increase affordable housing? Unless my intent would be to make it available for rental, but I don't I

don't do short-term rentals. It's a family habit. Um, so That's an issue. I don't see where you're going with the reduced poor area ratio, at least in the context of rebuilding the house. And I don't want to end up being the smallest house on the street, which is what would happen right now. That's how it is right now. Um, and I I don't see how the reduced floor area ratio is going to increase density or provide full-time housing for people maybe in the context of the duplex or the ADUs, but just for somebody remodeling their home doesn't make so much sense. So that's all I had to say. Thank you. Anyone else? Please come up. We say second or we done.

Okay.

Uh Andy Stewart's PO Box 742 H. Um I've been hearing a lot of things. One about affordable housing. This is a resort town. Everybody knows that. Everybody comes here to visit. people with a lot of money come here to live here. And so what we're talking about here, unless you actually own the stuff and you're willing to rent it out at lower prices, it affordable housing ain't going to happen. It just doesn't it doesn't work like that. People that live here either bought it outright or like me, I had to build it myself. I couldn't afford contractors. So, I bought land, built it myself, now we're here. But it just doesn't make sense. You guys keep talking about this, especially this far plan. That is that doesn't make sense to me at all as far as housing. All it does is reduce the square footage of the house. You still have major expense of the property and you still have major expense of the contractors around here that charge an array to build the house. So, I mean, if you're going to build a house, you're starting at like 600 grand, you know, for a modest 1,200 foot home. I mean, that's that's that's not affordable housing, you know, and people like when you reference affordable housing for HUD. That's like HUD is low income, super low income areas. And then it just doesn't it just doesn't work unless the city owns it. There's just no way to have affordable housing unless you actually own it here, the city, and they're actually renting it out to people that can afford it. Otherwise, you got people coming in from all over the country, you know, to live here, but it's obviously

it's beautiful. This is probably they say what's the top 10 place in the world, beaches or something like that. Do you always have these ads? Anyways, so I think that's basically it as far as far goes. I you know I understand I I like having small homes, big properties. You know, we're on a quarter acre up in the woods. It's just it's beautiful, right? But it's the way you like them. They like views. We've been coming here for or as I have for early '7s, you know. So, just one of those things, you know, that's why we come here and I would love it if you guys moved to World. I don't think that's realistic in this area, right? And I don't like the idea that I can't build a I'm restrictive. I want to build a garage, but I do want to build. But the idea of having a And we haven't even talked about trees. I don't know what's going on with the tree orchards. Has it been reduced because of this? Because you guys basically talked a little bit on this just a little bit. I don't hear anything what that means. And if there was anyone else wishes for version two. Absolutely. Diego He real quick second the uh person that said they want clarity in notices. My wife and I both have engineering backgrounds and I'm also a construction builder. So the fact that the letter was confusing to me, sure it was confusing to a lot of people. Um so brevity and clarity would be better on future

notices. I just want to say I'm for affordable housing. I'm for more parking solutions. I'm for housing for workers. I'm for preserving the character of Canon Beach. I'm for preserving our natural environment and preserving trees. That's just where I stand. People have different opinions. We all come from different sides. There's people here that have a business in renting, so they want more rentals. There's people here that just want a really nice vacation home, so they want larger homes. And I know that there's areas that we're not all going to agree, but I think an area that we can all agree is that we need a place to eat and we need a place for the people that work and maintain the city to be able to live. And um full disclosure, I'm Canon Beach builders. Um and what I have seen is a lot of dilapidated homes and a lot of people can't afford to fix their homes, which degrades the character and the value of our community. Um and that is because there's no place for trades people to live. Um so I think an area that we can all come together I don't know all the answers to the solution but where where we can agree is that there has to be a place to um house a workforce and house jobs and um let even us that have really big homes or small homes be able to not be paying a three times premium on every cost of labor. Um, and I say that both as a homeowner and employer. And the other thing I just want to recap real quick is we bought land and moved here in um, 2016. And we wanted to build a 350T tiny home and we hit hurdle after hurdle of just wanting to build a small house um, because the codes were so vague. And now all I see is and we turned our house to save the huge tree on our lot. And now all I see is all the trees getting cut down. And I see all these huge houses taking up all the lots. And I I am a builder. I get it. The more bigger house you build, the

more money you make. But I also see from being here 10 years, the bigger the house, the longer it sits empty. So those are just my thoughts I want to share um as a part of the community. Thanks.

We have any we have shown back. Randy Neil, PO Box 1092. Um, I'm not a fan of the process that was used. Uh, nor can I support some of these outcomes. Changes of this magnitude and consequence should not be such a surprise or a mess. Uh, there were major shortcomings in this process. Public meeting pro protocols are in place to both inform and gather feedback. The group creating these changes should have had published agendas, public meeting schedules, minutes, zooms. We should be able to do better. Uh there's really been no effort to educate or inform besides this mailing in a mailbox. This is also wrong. Uh some topics seem supportable, but they're so intermixed with other unreasonable restrictions and concepts that it's really hard to give uh good input. Um, I came tonight wondering who's going to be in charge. Um, I feel sorry for Marcy to uh have to explain all of this to our own citizens who put this together. Um, there's several major topics that we talked about that seem unreasonable. Residential over commercial. Why is this just one half of one block? It's either a viable concept or it's not. That should apply to all a far relief for an ADU doesn't make any sense. You're making somebody undertake a costlier and more complex design. Um why would anybody want to undertake that? Requiring a developer or a new residence to become a landlord again doesn't make any sense. Nobody's going to do it.

um adding a permanent deed restriction to pass along to future owners not going to happen either. It's probably not going to be enforcable. Might not even be legal. Um you know, I wonder if someone's hoping all the ridiculousness of these incentives just make FAR restrictions pale by comparison so they can slide through. Most of these strategies are aimed at the incoming dreamers who really don't give a crap about our housing crisis. market forces of uh supply and demand are just too too powerful to be stopped by these kinds of restrictions. Um in my written package that I submitted um I believe we should be following a community housing uh trust, community land trust. Um I ask everybody to go out and look at that. I you know we don't have a capacity probably of middle housing. We have lots of middle housing. It's just an is not it's not affordable for the people who want it and it's owned by people that don't want to live here. Um I believe like a community to land trust is the way to go. North Coast Land Consery preserves our our natural spaces. We need something like a community to land trust to to protect our community spaces.

Do you have anyone else? I'm not going to say a word. Am I ready? Do we have anyone else in the room? Yeah, we want to do the Mr. Lro first.

Who wanted to? Yes.

Hello. We are ready for your public comment. Okay, thank you. Let me know if you can't hear me on the phone. On Flintstrom, 239 West Tanana Avenue, Canon Beach. I'm speaking in opposition to ZO2502. First, I encourage all Canon Beach residents to go to the city's website and read the letters from the Canon Beach residents that oppose these new code amendments. The letters are an easy read compared to the large volume of city information and you'll get a good perspective on why to oppose these code amendments. Second, the city's purpose for providing housing accessibility or in other words affordable housing and rentals is not realistic in my opinion with the expensive real estate on both sides of third. Has the city considered other studies or alternatives to try and meet their goals for accessible housing? Fourth, to me, the current codes regulating FRS and ADUs work well and should be left alone. Fifth, I believe the PBD, public benefit dwelling, is not a good idea. I assume any agreement with the city would be recorded on owner's title. This opens the door to future disputes with the city. Six, Oregon Measure 7, a state law provides for commercial for compensation to be paid to owners if their property is taken or values diminished. The new F would be 46% versus the current 60%.

again opens the door to disputes. Lastly, I recognize a lot of work by many has gone into bringing these new code amendments to the forefront, but I believe they do not protect and are not in the best interest of the city's residents overall. Nor do I believe they'll be of much help for the city in achieving their intended purpose. Thank you. Thank you. There's no one else in the room. I'll let you have one more. Great. Wim.

Hi, this is Laya Wickham and I live at PO Box 208, Tolana Park, um 97145. Um, affordable housing is key for workers, but it's also key for emergency preparedness. As the Canon Beach Medical Reserve Corps coordinator, I know that the people who live here are the ones who are going to respond and try to save other people's lives in an emergency. And the fewer of those people there are, the less chance we will have of doing well in an emergency. Um, I have a couple of questions and the first is Eric said that the there would be ne neg sorry negligible impact on parking by decreasing the duplexes and and I'm just wondering what negligible is because parking is so frustrating in Canon Beach that how minimal is minimal is that negl negligible impact act. I don't know if that question is for Eric or who it's for, but I'm just wondering about the parking.

Hi, uh this is uh Melissa Ryan, the uh city's attorney. I just wanted to clarify for the um people who are attending today to give their thoughtful comments. This is the time for the planning commission to hear your comments, but it is not the time for you to ask questions of planning commissioners. Thank you.

Okay. So, so then I'll make a comment instead of a question, which is um that I really am concerned about parking and it it worries me that the proposal includes decreased parking restrictions and that will make it more difficult for residents to um find parking. And my other one was a question, so I won't ask it because I can see that that's not the right time. But anyway, um overall I really appreciate the people who worked on this. I know how much work it is to do this, how much reading it it requires and how much effort it requires. I do admit that I did have trouble understanding it and um even though I read it a couple of times and so I don't know um if there's a way to make it more clear for people so that they know exactly um the implications and the last thing I would say is that when we built our house in 2007 the um the FAR had a restriction on the overhang like over our deck. and it reduced our um ratio. And I see that in your proposal that that no longer exists and I applaud that because I never understood why the overhang on my deck would increase my floor area. So anyway, the bottom line is um thank you for all your work and um if there's an opportunity for to get my questions answered or whatever that venue should be, I'd really appreciate that. Thank you, Lana. Do we have anyone else online?

No. Oh, I see someone back. Wait, we have someone.

That's right.

Denise Wilson 1232. You guys keep talking about affordable housing. During the winter, Anna, the the workforce is not being used as much during the winter time. I businesses have summertime ups and they hire people and everything and then in winter time they're down. So to require me or somebody to have affordable housing, I have I have um I have one unit that I rent and one unit that I live in and I count on that unit for part of my income. So and I live here full-time. And I just think that when you're talking about affordable housing, you have to realize that you only need affordable housing for half the year. I've had actually had people chew me out because they workers uh felt that my housing wasn't affordable enough. Well, I feel like I don't have to give them a free ride either, which is kind of what they wanted. And um so that didn't happen. But just when you're talking about all that stuff, remember about the people who are using like their Airbnb or whatever to supplement their income. I know a lot of people do. I have a lot of full-time residents on my street. Um, but people do use that to supplement their income. I have to have it. Well, yeah, I have to have it to be comfortable. I could survive without it. And this year, and I don't know if it's what's going on, I've had really a hard time renting it out. So, you know, the prices drop and all of that. is just I like to rent to people who are working here, but pretty much I rent to people who work in Warrington or work in New York or work somewhere else and they come here to work out of the unit for like four months and then I run to somebody else who's working. So all of

my stuff goes to people who are working and I'm probably now. So anyway, when you're talking about affordable housing, what part of the year do you actually need housing for? Cuz I don't think it's all year round. I saw someone at the back. I'm Stephen Day. Um, don't know which address to give you, but uh, as of May next year, 3216 South Pacific in Canon Beach.

Yeah.

And um, we had the same experience of receiving this letter in the mail and was a complete surprise and it was very frustrating to see this level of activity on something is obviously very important to us. and receive a note, you know, just a couple of weeks before a very important meeting like this that said, I I do recognize the difficulty in running a process like this and also there's got to be a way to include the stakeholders who really are involved and impacted uh particularly to the the previous speaker on online. There has to be a time when these questions could get answered and and we have, you know, there's a lot of questions from the presentation, etc. that just haven't been answered or maybe they're you go through so so quickly that we lay people can't keep up and ask the questions that that we want to. So that's that's very important. One of the things that I sort of pause at is this notion of all of these huge houses and all of these McMansions. I think one of the official documents actually used the word McMansion. Like how inappropriate is that to reverse condescend against a group of people? And that just doesn't seem like the spirit of Canon Beach that I grew up with. My father in the 1950s lived above a barn in Warrington so that he could open a print shop. And on the side he raised rabbits and skinned them and took them around to the restaurants so that he could make ends meet. That's the nature of this whole community up and down this corridor. People who are willing to work, people who are willing to get what they want because they want to be here. After a 40-year career, my wife and I are going to be here. And we're doing it the way

within the current rules. And we have fought for four years just to have people agree to the current rules and not put their finger in our eyes every step of the way. And we've persevered almost selling the property three different times along the way because of the difficulty. Just yesterday in talking to our contractors, we were talking about a certain issue and once again he who works in in in this area all the time building says, "Well, welcome to Canop Beach." That's not who we want. That's not it at all. I think the far reduction is a misdirect. That's a curveball that's being thrown into somebody's pet peeve that doesn't like the idea that some have more than others. And and I sympathize with that growing up the way that I did and now being able to get what I want. But the real answer here goes back to a couple of different people who spoke earlier, which is the affordable housing issue needs to be addressed and it needs to be addressed with the power that the city and the leaders in the cities have at their disposal. Not to attack the people who actually make the city run and here for whatever reason that they're here, but to do something around expedited earnings and around having land trusts and around doing things that actually bring affordable housing to be. Do we have anyone else? Never.

Hello. I was not planning on speaking. My name is Brian Stone. Uh, address is 141 Southeast 25th Circle, Vancouver, Washington. Uh I am one of the beloved uh second homeowners here in town. Uh my wife and children and I bought our house in 2018. Uh and we were lucky enough when I could move here due to my job uh allowing me to work remote uh live here for two years from 2020 to 2021.

Um so we have kind of had a fun mixture of being a second home family and business family. They required us to go back to the office and come here as often as possible. we purchased here in Canon Beach because we love it here. We love the community. We love the way it is and has been. Um, and I grew up coming here as a kid and uh we love for it to stay the same. I understand it's very hard to do the job that this council does and I also understand that people hate change, so that makes it even harder. Um, with that being said, I work in uh mortgage lending, so I deal with a lot of first-time home buyers or people who are struggling these days. Um and I understand a lot of that that plight people go through. With that being said, I think what you see in other states and cities and counties um is you will notice a trend where they are seeing the less restriction they put on development uh specifically to multi-units and ADUs. The more that development then takes place because it then becomes cheaper and faster. That will increase your ability to have more long-term rental units. Uh, of course, you have to put a a bit of a cap and control on your short-term rentals, which you've done for years, which is great. Um, and I'm coming from a position of uh, you know, luxury where luckily the home that we purchased already had established in it, so I don't have to go through and this isn't a plea for me to try and build one. But what I am saying is from my expert opinion in being in the the residential world um at residential mortgage world is the more restriction you put on those building codes and these people and the more red tape you put on the the developers and builders trying to build those units, more expensive it is. Therefore, the less affordable your long-term housing is going to be. I don't know how much that all gets thrown into consideration.

Sure. Dr.

Mary Beth. Mary Beth, would you like to provide comment? Yes.

Um, PO Box 492. And um I do agree with Llaya Wickham that we need more workforce housing in Canon Beach and more affordable housing and the two are different. Um and we need both. ADUs may provide um affordable housing. Workforce housing is going to be a little different. Anyway, um we do need people who work here in Canon Beach to live in Canon Beach to be able to live in Canon Beach because in an emergency we are going to depend on the people who are present to help with um everything that needs to happen and that is um speaking as a community emergency response team person. Um the other thing that I had in mind to say is that um a lot of vacation homes are purchased and financed through short-term rental money. Um, if there was a waiting period before they could be licensed of perhaps like five years, that would disincentivize people from buying it mostly as an income stream and investment and more as a place that they want to live. That's pretty much all I have to say. Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else online? [Music]

Sure. This is my first um Oh, Lisa Su. I'm 139 West Adams. Original build. Haven't done anything or plan to. Um but my concern is the letter. I I saw it what three weeks ago showed it. my husband couldn't come tonight. We are huge supporters of just the the community. Um, but I feel like the tree thing is a whole another issue which I I don't know why so many trees are going down, but that's that's different. But we thought maybe there should be a if there's a way email or docy sign or just suggesting how this is how many people showed up. It's my first one. I think this is a bigger issue. That's all. I just think it should be I mean I'm sorry I didn't see it before, but I'm also like that letter maybe, you know, show up. So, I just think I guess that's just I know it's a hot job to make us all aware and we're all doing our own thing, but it it's a big deal. And uh I'm not I'm not looking for all that, but I also want to preserve the people who are. And I do rent it out because if I need a new roof or whatever it is, it it's a big deal to be able to to keep it up. It's 1915 is when it was built. So anyway, looking at you, it's not you. I'm just saying that you have to. So thank you. And um yeah, I think docu sign or some kind of way to let everyone know be part of this. And yeah, affordable housing. I'm all about that too. But you have a t for humanity like maybe there's an area being met in an area we live in. So anyway prepared this.

Okay. Do we have anyone else? I think it's finally

okay. All right. I try not to I didn't last time. Yeah. So um I agree actually with most of the comments that were made. So So that's great. And it looks like a lot of effort has gone into getting us to this point. On the other hand, from my standpoint, when I got this letter, I looked at it and said, "Well, I've gotten letters like this in the past. They're usually about some kind of street or some kind of block and it's no big deal. I don't care about it." And then there's a little something said, "Well, I better check it out." So, I went to them to the planning department, talked to somebody, and then the light went on. that I understood, holy smokes, this is a big deal. My point is that I think that a lot of people who got this letter, like me, didn't understand the letter and that's why we don't have very many people here. And of course, it's the summer. That's another issue. But I I think that that's pretty germanine. I think the issues about the education is also really important. And maybe you guys have done this kind of thing. I I just don't know. But the thing that I would envision to be kind of a town hall kind of thing with the planners here and anybody who wants to come in, you know, for a two or three hour time period could come in and just bombard them with questions because when I went and talked to somebody uh who was a planner, I found out and about one minute in terms of okay, this is the main issue that I need to understand. I didn't get any of that from the letter. So, um, so I think that that's important. Um, I don't really understand what appears to be, and I know you I don't I'm not trying to regurgitate all the history. I don't need to know it related, but I don't understand the need to emulate other talents. I mean, having data that says, well, this is the average and this is this and this is that in all respect,

I'm sure that's what you were asked to do, but it's kind of carrot. I mean, I I want to support people who need homes, okay? But I think we've kind of gone overboard. I mean, vehement difference of opinion in terms of this ratio thing. The ratios, I think, is just a bunch of baloney, completely unfair to people who've already own homes. And I think that's it. Thanks.

Thank you. At this time we will beating public we'll do that once we publication um at this time I'll be closing the public testimony portion and we will be moving to deliberation. Oh, David, would you like to begin with a comment?

I what I wanted may have not spoken or closing public commentary. be a lot of people that are do have come on to say something they don't they're going to repeat something that I heard but that's effort

but I will say that I really appreciate everyone's comment and I also do appreciate the fact that we have received a lot of input in our work sessions I still remember the session when we had 50 people come and speak about their Thanks So, I appreciate not only the input tonight, but I appreciate the input that we've had over the many work sessions that we've held. And vice chair, hi, excuse me, vice chair. Uh, could I offer some some explanation um in response to some of the comments tonight about the notice and the timing?

This is just moving to that, but if you would like to speak to extent that would be fine. That was

Okay, great. Thank you. So, um I guess if I could just uh back up, uh the the notice that you received in the mail is brought to you by anyone who voted in the general election in 1998 in Oregon because we the voters enacted ballot measure 56, which is codified at OS227.186. And it's very specific as to when as to the the notice that is required to be sent when a a development code amendment is under consideration. It can't be sent more than 40 days or less than 20 days before the first hearing on the matter. In addition, the state uh department of land conservation and development has its own time frame for when notices of hearings can be sent. Ballot measure 56 also is very specific as to what the notice has to say. And if you open up that statute that I just cited, you will see that the city uh said exactly what the statute told it to say. Uh so that sort of hopefully takes care of that that question. The second thing I wanted to just big picture is that the the planning commissioners

the planning comm you hear me now?

Go ahead. The planning commissioners who are sitting here tonight and online uh have all been appointed by the city's city council after applying to be appointed and uh receiving serious and thoughtful consideration by the city council before they were appointed. And the planning commission is the body under the code that is tasked with considering these amendments. And so they are volunteers uh and are do are doing this thoughtful consideration, you know, in that capacity. And I so I just wanted to point that out. Uh that I think that was all I wanted to say as uh regarding the two com the majority of the comments unless you have more that you would like me to address.

Thank you, Melissa. We will definitely let you know if we have questions as we go. I think at this point it would be helpful if maybe we begin a deliberation over some of our more specific concerns. I do want to say first that this is one piece of a solution that we've been talking about throughout all the work sessions. We have talked about the release to locals program. As Marcy mentioned, the city is considering other options as well, but this is a really complex problem. And so I recognize what we're doing here tonight is one piece of solution and is certainly not designed to be entire solution. But I would like to open it up to my fellow commissioners if you have specific comments or questions you'd like to take out. And we can also ask Marcy questions at this time.

Yeah, I'll have to start. Um, there was a and I'm sorry I can't respond to questions directly, so I'm going to pretend that I'm not talking to them, but I'm asking the question and it makes it really hard to do this. I like feel like there might be misconception about what this zoning amendment is attempting to accomplish. Anybody can go and build a duplex at any time and they don't have the city's fingers in their pockets. I mean, they have to go through the normal process and they can have their duplex built. The public benefit was intended to say, can we come up with a set of incentives? We can argue whether the incentives are the right ones, but a set of incentives that would motivate somebody to want to build a duplex and met certain conditions. So, anybody apart from the farm, and I'll get to that, anybody can do whatever they want with their property under the as they can under the crim provided they comply with the code. The FAR thing has been really hard to get our head around, but it's not unique. And what we found was that these bigger houses aren't some way contributing to the lack of afford, and I'm going to use affordable housing broadly, but the kind of housing we want to stimulate to incentivize. So um whether we hit the targets right or not I happen to think that you know where this my personal opinion is not speaking for anybody else for the zone the zones that we targeted 46 and a half% is probably pretty good

for what we see outside that if somebody wants to um build under the current code and that what that ratio is that's fine but what we want to do is create some density but also create a situation in this part of the city where um the homes become a little bit more affordable. Can I ask a question just for clarification not to argue? We really are. I know.

Thanks. So the misconception to me was that we were tying anybody's hands. We're not. What we are trying to do is create an incentive for a certain kind of housing which leaves alone all the other stuff that people want to do with their housing with the exception of that bondage. Now well that that was misconception but that's not the proposal. It is

I have some specific questions about the code but I think there might be general comments from one of the commissioners would walk first. Uh I'd like to say that uh the reason we're not answering any questions evening is because we have our own questions and this is a first run at this. So be welcoming all the ideas and we're going to deliberate and try and answer these questions ourselves because a lot of the questions you a lot of the questions that you brought to us thank you been brought to us this evening are questions that we might have also. This isn't the end all be all. This is the process right now. And uh everybody who came this evening, we really appreciate that. Thank and uh that letter was intended to uh give people some information, but not all information. No letter can give everybody all the information or answer all the questions, but it should arouse their attention enough to go to the city's website and to attend the meeting this evening. um because this is the process that who knows how long it's going to take. But what we would like to do is keep in my opinion the village appeal of Canon Beach, not have something that's built from lot line to lot line. Uh that leaves room for nature. uh also when we have a little bit smaller houses. Now where the property rights start and where the city rights start uh with respect to anybody's property is that gray area where we try and come to some kind of consensus about what's what do we want to see in the next 10 years for Canon Beach. uh what kind of uh housing do we want to have that will attract people to live here full-time year round because that's what really builds a community for me is to have people live here and to have people involved in processes like these and

what brings me to this uh area like so many others born on the coast uh have been coming here forever uh is the nature you know that's what brings little tourist here is the nature, not only the coast, the trees and the general general nature of the area that's so beautiful. Jacustoau back in the 70s asked, "Where's the most beautiful coastline that you've ever seen?" And Jacqu Kustoau responded the northwest of the United States. So that really says something about Canon Beach. And uh once we uh stop preserving this and it's gone, it it'll pretty much be gone forever. Uh trying to get something like that back, uh it would be impossible. So, um this is a collaborative process. It not only includes us, the the commissioners, but it includes everybody here tonight and everybody else that that lives in town. and they will impact us. Uh what we decide going forward with the codes not only in this meeting but meetings to come uh is going to be heavily impactful over the next few decades. And we need to think very carefully about what we're willing to give up um as far as you know making larger homes or what we want our neighborhoods to to look like. So, I'm looking forward to uh deliberation, collaboration for anybody who has has ideas. Um, and I also agree that affordable housing may not ever come to fruition in Kenny Beach. It's a it's a tourist town and um, you know, it's going to be expensive. Uh we can look at maybe other cities uh in Idaho for instance uh Sun Valley they

they've done some things I know to try and enhance housing for their emergency first responders for their school teachers and so forth. Maybe something like that can be looked at. Uh I know Park City Utah has also had their problems and pretty much every other resort community. So maybe we can build on some of the things that they've done or at least extract some ideas and put our own topic. Thank you.

Other comments for commissioners. I I have one question for either Marcy or and that's in regards to rating about the galler. [Music] We have the TV letter here in the packet which indicates that small cities are but Missy might be able to speak to that. I am having such a hard time. Could you repeat your question, Commissioner Olaf? Yeah. Are by Oregon

statute are duplexes not subject to BRB review based on our city size? Duplexes are housing and so to the extent that DRB review includes discretionary criteria, they are not subject to that criteria and it doesn't have anything to do with the size of the city. Illegal.

So Marcy, I think we had this conversation. We have a DLCD letter in our packet that indicates clear and objective standards imposed by a DRB would still be allowed in a small city for duplexes, but larger cities are not allowed to have DRB reviewed. Is that correct? I feel like we've had this conversation in the past four sessions. It's um I'm not I I don't I'm not going to disagree with our land use attorney because she's an expert Um, I will say that it's a bit of a um, fuzzy area. We've reached out for a lot of guidance over the years that we've been working on this and the DLC letter does reflect on interpretation which will become moot as soon as the 2138 passes because cities will will be new will be required to be not subject only to clear and objective criteria. ADUs right now cannot be subject to design review, but it's a little bit uh unclear whether duplexes are currently in the city of county beaches size required to be u exempt from designer. So do you know the status of bill 2138? It's been it's now being made into rules that go into effect in 2028. I think my proposal to the group was that get ahead of it while we're deleting uh housing types from design review to strike duplexes too. But that was people were concerned about the lack of having clear and objective standards in place and that's the very next effort as part of this code rewrite project is to establish clear and objective standards that are administered by staff that would apply to all housing.

So would it be possible? So we would not be out of compliance if we didn't make changes to the DRB provisions now because they're the next thing to be addressed because at this point we're not out of compliance since duplexes are not required to be exempt all my research points all of my discussion with DLC. Great. Thanks. Anyone else have a question at that point?

Well, I I just wanted to say that I I recognize all of the effort that went into getting us to where we're at today and and but I do appreciate all the comments and feedback that we're getting. Uh that helps us in I think that helps inform us of what the community really wants to see. Um there was a couple of comments about uh not just duplexes but triplexes, quads, you know, higher density type options. Um is that something that could be considered in the future? Yeah. Is that us? Absolutely. We in the future

the process has been to carry some concepts forward from the housing sharet. You probably remember along the list of housing concepts and that's one of the concepts what we're what we have tried to present here tonight is what we think are doable as adoptable amendments now and that remains a concept for consideration in the remaining code rewrite project more community discussion would probably be

but but it's and again just my opinion Um it's my impression that what we what has been provided to us is a framework that um can be tweaked easier than starting all over again. So if you have duplexes and I I think I recall some of the discussion, you know, triplexes and quads, you know, they were out there, but you know, we were concerned about people here didn't want a lot of changes. So we thought, okay, can we manage this and then if somebody needs to in a future date easily with the framework amend it and triplex is now they're already zoned, they're already permitted in those zones. Again, nothing that I'm aware of changes that, right? I mean,

we still flaps or uh cluster housing is still where it wasn't before, you know, we're not stopping anywhere. I guess adoption for a duplex with an ADU would be maybe a version of it.

Yeah. It turns out the best way to demand is push it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I just, you know, there just were a lot of good ideas that were floated um in the written comment as well as in the verbal. You know, obviously there's things that could this could continue on for some period of time and and so I think it's important to understand that this is a document that's going to be ever changing. We're not going to be cast in stone necessarily at this point. We don't know. We don't know that. We don't know what happens to him. We have no idea. You know, it's a best effort on the part of, you know, a good group.

But you're close. So, it's just a liberation group, but you're sorry, Mr. You had an opportunity to speak and now it's time for the planning commission. So, thank you. Part of the problem is speak.

Thank you, Steve. Marc some specific questions. Do you mind? So 176200 um is the definition for the public benefit dwelling and I think I am still confused by the language and how if we were to read this language it would indicate that each dwelling can be rented and that still counts as full-time residency. So I am seeing um once sold dwelling unit may occupy the principal residence of the title holder. Do we need to add something saying or dwellings may only may be rented for periods exceeding periods. In other words, we would take clause one add an or and join that with clause three. So, clause one says, "Once sold to the initial buyer, the dwelling unit shall remain occupied as the principal residence of the title holder receiving the public benefit housing allowances." Part three is dwellings may only be rented for periods exceeding 12 months and are not eligible for short-term rental licensing. And you're saying it would be it's not clear because if it says that they must be that must be occupied as the principal residence of the title holder. I feel like we should also say or may be rented for periods of more than 12 months so that it doesn't sound like it must be occupied by that owner at all times. I'm just worried that a literal interpretation

might not end up in the correct result. I agree with that. So maybe we could just come back with some proposed language that could clarify that. So is this the time to discuss the public benefit dwelling offensive requirements and whether or not this time

we we even want this policing for years and years and years to go and make sure that the occupant is also the deed holder and make sure they have proper ID and match their deed and I feel like that this is going to go down a road that I'm not sure that we want to go down. uh in perpetuity. I I uh I understand what we're trying to do here by uh you know helping people or giving people incentive to to live here and be part of the community full-time. But I also think that this could be an area that um the city may not want to police. Uh, also I think there probably should be uh an exception for family members of the pet holder. Um, and then we get into the definition of what's a family member and do they have to be married or can they be a partner and does a cousin count? Those types of things. I think that this this could uh open up uh more trouble than than it's worth and there may be different ways of creating public benefit dwelling u and occupancy than uh creating an restriction. And

what would be your alternative right here? Well, um I'll go back to if the housing was a little more affordable here, then we of course had probably more people in the community particular,

right? So I So, you know, there are a lot of um issues here that uh don't have an easy solution. Um, I'm just thinking out loud that this uh this deed restriction, especially if you're trying to sell the home down, you know, a decade from now, uh, leasing that again and requiring that uh, somebody live there may also reduce the the value of that home. Of course, the flexibility that the owner has. Um, I don't have a solution right now, but I think this opens a lot of can of worms going forward. I mean, I guess we could do inspections on it similar to inspections we do on STRs from time to time to make sure the person living there is also the holder, but this sounds like a lot for the city. We kind of went through that.

I'm I'm I'm gonna volunteer for everybody even though I'm not telling. I was not on the committee. All right. So, if anybody wants to know then or or at least seem to have some commission um I don't think anybody wants the deed restriction per se, but how do you enforce something? We we worked with um the city and you know but those objections came in and we kind of got in the spot where we felt like with most things here you get to 80% 90% of course that you just don't touch everything right and we felt like like everything else it's probably a win. So um you know if this will develop with Trump a lot this proposal and through this process you know if we could come up with a set of incentives that put a lot of cash in somebody's hand and didn't want to say no to it and then just got it back on a prorated basis when we sold that would be one thing to do but there's some policy issues here that we need to does the city want to set aside funding to create in this environment the kind of incentive we need to to overcome the issues that, you know, people brought up about this being a a vacation community, right? I mean, there are things we can do, but they're not things that planning commission can decide. What we can decide is it right now, but we can we can tax vacant homes. The states now coming down with legislation to allow cities like ours to tax vacant homes. We could create a fund where we could go out and give lots of money to a handful of people who are going to create housing. And if they have to sell it because they see a cash opportunity is too good to pass up, get the money back plus cent. I mean, there's a lot of things you can do, but all we want to do is get a framework in place. So, as the

city decides those policy, then they will come up and right away um they have our framework to plug into. So, yeah, I'd be research that's not ideal. Nobody wants that. But that's all we have right now. We've been out of the thing. And again, it's only if someone chooses to take advantage. So it's not as though every new homeowner must do this, but it might be a very considered option for some people. So I think to me, it's a menu. It's this is one piece that says here's one way that I might do the policy options. There might be a program. And so some people might take a gift but it's not going to require people to come in or have a team restriction. Then to respond to the question can a you know streamline process yeah that could be part of it right I mean what um was saying is our code our design guidelines are inadequate for what we need to do let's fix it and in that you could say hey build something that looks like this you're fast track you know there's a lot we can do but we need to get a framework in place to allow the city to looking through to find my other question first. I had a couple typos I'll just send to you separately maybe that you may have already know there's some questions on the reduction of landscaping requirements for the C1. But I know C1 is just the test case. That's why we have that limited area. It wasn't clear to me. So what is the

new land change from C1? I combine that. I'm just looking for. So it says um right now what's required I'm seeing is a minimum landscaping border of three feet between the sidewalk and frontage of all buildings facing the street. I'm reading language that's currently in their code. Okay. The planning commission may grant exceptions to the standard curved doors and entries to buildings or where a combination of seating and landscaping is provided. Such landscaping may be part of the required landscaping specified in section 17.70.10110 10 1110 and just as a reference examples of what we are trying to make possible are be like at Bruce's candy kitchen or something like that where there's not um landscaping there but there's a vent instead. So what we added here to make it possible to um because the what we found in our study during sh was that additional step back the landscaping actually prevents from having some housing not that only but but parking requirements all these other things just down the potential development area and it's not especially in character with your main street to have that landscaping. In fact, there are a lot of exceptions to it. So, we wrote in lots with a street facing property line on this area, this estimate area exempt um from the 3-ft border between site over building frontage instead of landscaping requirements may be met with a combination of benches, walkways, seating, and landscaping distributed across the entire site and including vertical landscaping such as green balls.

And so design review would still be approving that alternative, but they're no longer required to 10 time three foot, right? Okay, Marcina, one of the things that I just I wanted to make sure I was clear on the language in the proposed language talks about accessory dwelling specifically, uh, whereas in the past I was more used to hearing the the term ADU. Are those still pretty interchangeable? Yes, they're interchangeable. Okay. And is there still the 600 foot max? Yes. For an accessory dwelling? Yes. Okay.

Seems like the big sticking point is the FAR reduction at least, you know, from the public comment. So does it Mike or Marcy you both being part of the sharet if we if we eliminate that proposed amendment and just keep it at 6 does it make both sides unhappy? Does it do we still I mean it doesn't seem like there's been any push back to any of the other proposals or at least meaningful push back. So, do we do we get to a point tonight where we could say to the city council, everything's a go except for the the F reduction. Otherwise, we're just we we will just continue to spin spin our wheels and get nothing done and have more meetings and and so is that something that does that just destroy the entire intent of the Cherret if we leave it at 6 and go forward with everything else? I mean, I've been saying for years now and will continue to say that the city should get more involved in building affordable housing or workforce housing or both. I think we need to build a larger building on city- owned land, South Wind, the RV park potentially. Um, so this do we do we just keep spinning our wheels if we have more meetings on this and get nowhere or could we leave here tonight with some way to tell to to give guidance to the city council that we think this is a go except for the FAR reduction. So, I'm not sure how you envision that working because then what's the incentive?

Wave fees. I I mean, what what is the incentive? I don't know. Do we have to have an incentive? I mean,

I think we need an incentive to convince people, as some of the commenters have said, to become landlords. So I I think that was why Jeff Adams originally came up with the concept of an F in Senate and I don't think anyone wants to see larger than a 6 F because we're already hearing a lot of concern about large buildings. So I I understand that's why they stepped back. I think Marcy you had a comment. Well, I I do think I I'm hearing in the comments that there's a lot of misunderstanding about the way the F has been applied on the public benefit line. And I think it might be helpful for me to just go through um some examples of how this would work. So, I think there was a misunderstanding that in order to build an accessory growing unit, you have to sign up for the public benefit. That's not true. Um the proposal is to you can build a single dwelling. Um let's just say that the F you know is it's the reduced F. Um now maybe that's not exactly the right number but I just wanted to make sure people understand the concept. The number 46 from 6 may change. Maybe that's not the right number. But let listen to this idea. So a single dwelling could be built within a F. No city hands in your pockets, no business, it's just straightforward like it is today. Um, a single dwelling with an ADU can also get within that. No public benefit dwelling responsibilities. Um, what we have done though is by reducing the parking requirement for Amy news, we have made them more likely that we will see a news and by removing the design review requirement, we're also making it more likely let's say 80

something. Okay. So, if you decide though that you'd like more of more F than whatever that number is, then you can provide a public you can sign on to the public benefit dwelling program. Provide a single dwelling and you uh you get more F. Um, and if you design this public benefit dwelling ADU, you actually get the the ADU exempted from your F. So you get 600, not counting, not counting FA for the F. That's how that program works. So it's intented to be that getting F additional F is an incentive to sign up for the public benefit dwelling program otherwise if we don't have an F give give giveaway I don't know what we what incentive we do have or the public benefit

um maybe Mike or J speak to this Mars grandfathering the current properties that are above 146. They wanted to rebuild on the same footprint. Can you talk about discussion after went on about that and whether or not that's viable? There's um there's already a provision in the um zoning ordinance and I have to admit it's really confusing and that's something that we talked about fixing as far as maybe we should look at quickly but it it's intended to allow people to rebuild their homes even if they were out of compliance before if they're going to rebuild their homes. We just need to fix there's a there's one little ambiguity in that provision that needs to be taken out so that it's a guaranteed result.

I could just clarify that it allows you to build what you have. Yeah. What you have in you can build and rebuild your own but it does put new restrictions people have not built yet. It does but you know sorry let's talk offline. I think that's the nature of code amendments. At some point, if you want to move forward or make change, yes, you're going to have to you're going to have to change what was in the past and new land.

And I will note that at one time it was probably 40% and all those people that built their houses before it changed to 50 got screwed over

and the ones that build at 50% when it changed to 60 got screwed over. reality is we learn as we're going that our community needs to change with, you know, the population trends. And if that means we come back, yeah, some people might get a a smaller house than they want or may not get everything they wanted out of their house, but it's been the same throughout um in the um pre-existing use or non-conforming use provision. It says, "We realize people are out there with homes that don't perform. We don't want to hurt them at all, you know, and that is the intention of all of us. If your house doesn't conform after you're grandfathered in, now if you want to make a change, then

I understand there we definitely can have the people reach out. So, tonight is not the night to get that back, but definitely conversation. You know, it seems seems to me that um what I'm hearing is that most people when they when they try to understand this proposed change are thinking, you know, I'm going to build one house and they're not really thinking about the ADU or duplex. I want to build one house and it just feels like I've been told I can't build it as big as I could have before. It's that 6 down to 046. It's really the the math that people are thinking about. But I think Marcy's explanation helps shed a little bit of light. How can we build on that? because I think that that understanding needs to be made more public because I I mean as I read some of the things in there if you really start looking at the the effect of of the uh the benefits that you can get you actually can get up to a 62 effectively

and so but that doesn't come across and I don't think it's come across for many people you know we could I people are not need to be and maybe at that point there would be sure for more information I make a comment this one little comment sorry this is a ridiculous way to have a meeting where we can't have any exchange backs we've asked you several times unfortunately we have rules that we have to comply with for purpos do we have other comments on our

I just want to isation with life on the you know nonforming structure there actually is a restriction on non structures that's 50% of the valuation for years so they may not be able to get there's a pre-existing use to go to that which also contemplates structures for a new you know for a new and pretty clarifying

yeah you know it's just that It's those two are kind of confusing when they work with one another and that's definitely something that needs to be cleaned up just from an administrating perspective. public staff um everyone you know so so I think that section in particular there's the non-conforming and there's a pre-existing there's certain dates and so somehow someway we have to make sure that whatever we do addresses that and and and very much clarifies this issue because it's a key aspect to this if something was to happen that we want to be able to in my mind um you know it's up to the plan commission council. But if there was a fire and it was a map of God and something happened, then I think we want to make sure that people have the opportunity to rebuild to what they had previously. And I think it's real important that we make sure that we address that accordingly.

Yeah, J, I don't disagree with you. It is really confusing, but I I I really think the intention is to give people that and we need to make sure the intention is clear. That falls along the line. Yeah.

And and also, you know, did their change to their I believe they put more to it back. I was trying to find that information, but I don't know. I've heard about that. So I don't know if that's something that we might want to consider when we get to the point of sending to city council that there would be a moratorum um on taking effect because and in fact if it gets to city council city council approves it there's 30 days there's a 30-day window for that paper and people that may have been resigning home the past year or so they don't meet that 30-day deadline they're going kind of problem. So I don't know what more what a decent moratorum time would be but I think we need to consider that and take that take that in our goal to the city council. What do you think a reasonable phase in would you?

I've read in some searches that you know some people get five years. I think that's a scary model. I would think at least 12 months a year that minimum eight months to be able to turn around and move things ahead to get to a permitable state of plan if they're in process already. and and obviously council would make that decision in the end. But um I think there yes it's 30 days that's typically for an ordinance for it to take an effect but

but I believe that um there would be an ability to potentially extend the effective date as to when that ordinance could take into effect. So that would something be something that we could work with the attorney on to just verify that instead of going with a moratorum just go with an effective date and maybe that gets extended out to it specific time period. But would that be something you would recommend?

I would say that would be uh if if the planning commission is thinking that I would strongly make that type of recommendation to them. So where are we in terms of whether we feel that this is something that we can decide tonight in terms of making a recommendation? Do we feel like we need more information?

Personally, I'd like to go over these documents that that changes. Uh again, uh I think there's a lot there, a lot to digest, and I think that it might be premature for me to make any decisions this evening that are permanent. Uh recommendations. I'd like the opportunity to go back through it, digest some of the comments that were online and that we presented this evening and uh even come up with uh some ideas from myself or from others that uh may add to this document some some different thoughts to take. I was approached to see that we probably should have time take some time to review for ourselves come back make recommendations to the housing focus group and have another

so are you thinking you want to send it all the way back to the housing focus group when um when we stop if there's continuous One of the questions I just uh Melissa, you could help me out on this a little bit. Um, you know, the measure 56 notice went out to everyone. Um, would we need to set a date certain for the next meeting if we were to continue this or would we just have to send a another public notice out in terms of certain the paper? But could you uh help me out with a little bit of understanding of a continuence on dates?

Yes. Thanks, Steve. Uh the there's no more legally required notice that the city's required to send, but you do need to continue the public hearing to a date certain. Uh and it could be 30 days or it could be 60 days. Uh it's entirely up to you. This matter is before the planning commission and so I'm a little bit hesitant to talk about sending something back to a working group. I think that um the planning commission commission can certainly work on it and uh come back with recommendations to the city council, but it it is you know sort of before you all I guess I would say. Um, if I could just mention one other thing too that uh that Marcy touched on uh just a little bit and I believe Commissioner Orof and all of you know about, but the state legislature and the governor are very very active in every session enacting a lot of complex legislation encouraging uh the development of housing. And that continues to um apply to smaller and smaller cities each session. And so uh many cities who are considering these issues um choose to move forward so that they are sort of in charge of their own destiny uh rather than have the legislature come in next session for example and tell cities this is how you're going to do it. So I I just wanted to sort of uh point out that that is happening on a you know weekly and monthly basis. The legislature also did create something new called the housing accountability and production office.

That office doesn't consider any cities exempt from its purview and scrutiny of how cities are doing on uh addressing the housing shortage in our state. So I just wanted to leave you with those two thoughts. Thanks Melissa. And then I got different dates as far as third 60. So whenever you guys want to I would like us to keep this moving. So we've already

So that would be the next meeting which would be on August 28th. Correct. August 28th. Correct. August 28th. Do I have a motion to continue this hearing until August 28th? So moved. Second. Any discussion? Could you please call the role? Commissioner, yes. Commissioner, yes. Commissioner, yes. Commissioner, yes. Commissioner, yes. Vice,

yes. this meeting and this hearing is continued to the August 28th meeting. May I just So, so what that means for everyone in the following is just that uh no action is being taken tonight. Typically for zoning ordinance amendment, the planning commission makes recommendations and it has to go to the council for final action at at uh this evening. They heard the testimony. they've elected to continue it until our meeting on August 28th. Um, you won't receive a specific notice again. So, we're telling you now and it'll be noticed just in our typical city stuff that meetings on August 28th.

That will be listed on the city's website along with the agenda for the 28th, right? So uh and also any other information regarding the meeting on the 28th so that you'll all be aware.

So the next item on our agenda is the tree report. Robert Okay. In the month of June, there was a total of 13 trees removed, both of which were related to construction, of which was dead. There was repainting of apartment for one. this size of the rocks and um most of those were coming from 196 by the position um earlier this year.

Any question in the report? Thank you. We will now be moving on the good of the order. Does anyone have items for good?