Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I call this meeting of the seaside planning commission to order. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. To the flag, stands under God. Debbie, will you please take role? Uh, Vice Chair Mitchell here. Commissioner Clelesic.

Commissioner Monttero here. Commissioner Rose, that's it. Commissioner, I'm here. Commissioner Clelesic is here. Sorry, couldn't get to the unmute. Got it. Thanks.

Are there any corrections, deletions, or additions to the draft minutes for March 7th, 2026? Hearing none, the minutes are adopted as written. Welcome everyone. This is the time and place duly advertised for the seaside planning commission to hold its monthly meeting. Agenda items can be initiated by the general public, any legal property owners, seaside city council, city staff, and the seaside planning commission. Does anyone present feel the commission lacks the authority to hear any item on the agenda? It is standard procedure for the members of the commission to visit the sites to be dealt with at these meetings.

Uh, Commissioner Klesic has her hand up. Go ahead, Commissioner Cleles. Yes, sorry. Um, can I couldn't hear. Are there only three of us present? Yes, there is only three present right now. So, we don't have a quorum. We can't conduct any business even adopting the minutes. That's That's correct. Yes. Uh, we're we're kind of hoping that Commissioner Rose shows up in the next few minutes as he has not uh stated he wasn't going to be here. Uh but the commission can also go in uh to recess for 10 or 15 minutes to see if he does show up.

Yeah. And I will be there by then in person. Recess. Should we do that? Go to recess. All right. Take a motion. I will take a motion to go to recess. I have a motion. No, you just Yeah. Let's go to recess. We can't motion. Let's go 15 minutes. So we'll Oh, we can't. We can't. this up. Just just call a recess. Yeah. For 15. All right. Let's go to recess. 6:15. We'll we'll be back.

All right. So, it looks like we don't have enough um commissioners present for a quorum. So, we are going to move uh to Scott so that he can present his uh yeah, we'll we'll set the public hearing over for the next um planning commission meeting. Uh it'll be June uh 2nd at 6 PM uh right here in city hall. And we'll just go ahead and move on to Scott with 3J Consulting. He's going to present to us on our middle middle housing code updates. Scott.

Excellent. Thanks Jeff for the introduction. Um chair and commissioners, thanks for having me tonight. Um got a small group, but at least we can have a discussion about moving forward uh the middle housing code work that we've been doing. Uh as you know, uh you are are technically our steering committee as part of this effort. Uh this was a GLCD grant to try and help Seaside get the code uh into conformance with some of the newer state laws uh regarding some of the housing types that you're required to allow. Um so we'll do that update today and then answer any questions and then I have a little bit of homework. Hopefully it's not too hard, but we'll talk about that too u as we get through this. Uh next one please. So I mentioned this when we did our uh project kickoff uh previously but really the whole idea behind this is we're trying to um you know produce housing that meets the needs of uh the future citizens and the citizens of the day seaside and basically expand those opportunities for middle housing types you know things like duplexes quadplexes cottage clusters and whatnot and again I mentioned this already but to bring you into compliance with some of the new um Oregon uh rules that have been passed in the last uh uh four or five years. Next one, please. So, I mentioned this before, too, but ADUs, duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, town homes, and cottage clusters can help increase affordability. Typically, they're less expensive than a single family home. Plus, they're more feasible to build many times just because they they can pencil better and you can have higher return on investment. So you'll see this is a big push across the state and across the nation to allow for more of these types in some of your single family zones. And these code updates, the whole idea is to remove barriers to development to allow for more housing. Now, I always say they're not

technically affordable in the in the in the terms of, you know, um average median income, but they're typically less expensive, as I already mentioned. So, we updated the project schedule. We're kind of here in May. Um um one of the things that we've done as we had our kickoff meeting and then we have three more kind of committee planning commission meetings with you all and before we get to hopefully um uh adopting this at the council level. So I think this this schedule may be a little aggressive but it basically outlines the four or five key tasks um that we're doing throughout the process. So here we are in May um and um we will brief you again probably in in July and we'll have a public um a meeting during that period of time too once we have some code language ready to to release publicly. So this is our project approach. The good thing is we've done we've been through the review of your existing standards. We've done stakeholder interviews which I'll talk a little bit about that. Um, and then we've also done our code audit and code concepts, and that's really going to be kind of the homework and survey that I'm going to ask you to work on. So, right now, we're obviously reviewing that with you as a planning commission and um advisory committee. And then we'll move on to the again, I mentioned this, but we'll do another comm uh community meeting online survey. Um, once we have those draft code updates, we'll again review those with you, maybe have a work session with um the city council. Then we'll develop those final code language which will be technically a red line that says here's your code today and here's the code changes that need to be um we'll go through the whole uh pop-up process where we notify the state on on code changes and do our public noticing and move into adoption at that point. Next please. So I mentioned we did three um stakeholder interviews. We we um this

was back in late February. We um actually interviewed three different developers who have done different types of projects, primarily housing projects in Seaside, so they're familiar with the current code. Um we had a list of stakeholder questions. If you're interested in seeing those, I can share them with you. Um we do have a stakeholder interview summary document that um is part of your packet. I believe we have an updated version that we'll make sure we get out to you as well. But really the interesting thing was there's kind of three major things that came up that was consistent between all three of those interviews and one was dealing with um vacation rentals. Um all the people we interviewed said you know looking at increasing regulation uh for STRs was something especially in new developments uh was important and it also aligns with the recent changes you've already done to your ordinance. So they had seen that that ordinance was in place uh and the work that had gone behind it and and had kind of commended the city on that and wanted that to continue. Um one thing that did did come up is if we do make some changes to the code to allow some of these other housing types um there will be a need to update some there could potentially be some need to update that even though you made some recent changes to that STR ordinance to do due to that. Can one thing that came up again across the board was looking at suggesting uh a minimum lot size reduction um in the R2 and the R3 to about 2500 square ft. And I'll get into that uh in a little future in the future slide because we do actually as part of the code audit that did end up being one of the recommendations um that we had recommended not just because of the stakeholder interviews but because of our experience um doing these code updates and also looking at um uh some peer cities specifically Atoria. Um and then upzoning um in terms of um a lot of them cited some specific examples of parcels um where you could look at

comprehensive upzoning u we'll we'll discuss that too. It's it's not something that necessarily we uh recommended, but in a couple of the zones, we are technically uh recommending upzoning by allowing uh smaller lot sizes and uh more more uh middle housing types. So again, I'll provide that um that summary for those interviews um if you want to take a look at those. I think we pulled the names of the developers because there's they're you know they were done in confidentiality because when we do those types of interviews we get a lot better information if we say we're not going to use your name publicly so they they're they're more candid about their experience um with development in Seaside. So now I'm going to get into the proposed um changes. So these are really based on the code audit that we've currently completed and the interviews we've made some recommendations. Um, now we have a what's called a code audit memo that we will uh share with you um after tonight. Um that goes kind of more into detail about the exact changes and what's there um what's in the code today and what we recommend changing. So these are kind of overarching recommendations at this point just to kind of get the ideas out there and make sure that we're all comfortable with them. Um, one of the other things I'll point out is you'll notice throughout the memo and in this presentation, you'll see required and recommended. Um, there's some things that we have to do to update the codes to be in compliance with House bills or Senate bills. Um and then there's some things that are recommendations that came out of either the DLCD model code our work doing um code updates um and and and other existing pure cities that have been successful with this type of uh update. So one of the things that required is um that the code will change is more procedural but this is a new

house bill 4037 which recently passed and it it requires that this the code uh that the staff level can make staff level decisions to allow ADUs. So you can't ADUs cannot be conditional. They can't be sent to um planning commission for review or design standards. They have to be a staff level decision. So that's a procedural thing that will change in your current code. One of the things that did come up that we recommend looking at is currently you have a pretty small size um in terms of what you require. Right now you allow up to 525 square ft um without a conditional use uh permit that you would see as a planning commission. You can allow up to 800 with a with a conditional use permit uh through a planning commission. Currently, um the DLCD model code suggests you shouldn't exceed 8 or 900 square ft uh or 75 to 85% of the primary dwellings floor area, whichever is smaller. This is kind of a pretty standard measure that has been used um kind of across the state and we've seen some success in that. So, you know, there's a recommendation there to maybe just allow up to 8 or 900 square ft um without having to go to a conditional use permit. Um the other thing is right now um you currently can't exceed one story. So you can't have a twotory or story and a half uh ADU unless it is um incorporated in the second story of a detached garage. That would be the top which is a pretty pretty specific um rule there. So, one of the things that we're recommending is considering changing that maximum height to about 26 ft um or 75, which is about 75% of your base zone height. So, you allow up to 35. So, it would be about, you know, 75% of the um main building wouldn't be allowed to be as tall as the primary dwelling, but about 75% of that. Um and then add ADU standards to each zone

section where they're permitted. So right now you don't have ADU standards by zone and our recommended recommendation would be to add that. Can can I ask a quick question? Yes, please. Um so for example, what zones would ADUs not be permitted in? Right now they they are right now actually you permit them in all of your zones except for I believe R1. Jeeoff, correct me if I'm wrong, but or maybe you do actually allow an R1, but right now um you already allow them in all your residential zones is my understanding. All the residential zones are allowed. Yes. Okay. So, residential zones. Residential zones. Yeah. Okay. Thanks.

And this project is really specifically looking at residential zones only. So, we didn't do a code audit on any uh commercial residential office or any other zones other than res the R zones. So, that's a good clarification. Thank you. Um so for duplexes um right now um per uh to you're required to permit duplexes outright in all zones where single family detached is permitted. So right now you allow them in R1 R2 and R3. So we're going to be required to then allow duplexes to be allowed in the R1 as well. So, it's just more mostly information, not much feedback there, but good to know that we are going to need to change the code to allow them in in R1 as well. I guess I should point out here we have a picture of new of attached and detached duplexes. So, this is another thing that we'll be required to allow is that the duplexes won't don't have to be have an attached wall. Next one, please. Uh, okay. We're moving into some proposed changes for triplexes, quadplexes, and cottage clusters. I'm I hope you guys I I think we've discussed cottage clusters in the past and you guys are familiar with what those are, but if you need some explanation, just let me know and I can do that. Um, but this is these are not required because you're not um of the size yet, but you will be soon. So, our recommendation is you start doing these things now and implementing your code so once you do grow to over 10,000, you'll be compliant with state law. Um so we recommend permitting duplex triplexes um quadplexes and cottage clusters in R2 and R3s. Again duplexes are already permitted and then consider permitting middle housing types in R1. So um you know it is technically your lower density zone but uh and you will be required to allow um duplexes. So, one of the things we want to test with you and with the with the community and when we do some of our public outreaches, you

know, what's the appetite for even looking at allowing um some of those other types maybe triplexes or quadlexes or or cottage clusters in that R1 zone. And then one other thing is you don't have definitions in your code currently for all of these types. So, that's an important thing to do when we do the code update is have clear definitions for these new middle housing types in your code. So, we'll be doing that as well. Can I I just have a comment because it sure um I think this goes to the perception of what density does to a neighborhood and it really I

it irks me that you have the phrase in there that says preserve the lowdensity character because adding some of these h middle housing types to a um R1 zone that is now single family doesn't change the character inherently of that neighborhood. um depending upon the style and the zoning building requirements for those um housing units. That is a misconception that it changes the character of a neighborhood. And so I I really don't understand why you're using that language.

Well, I don't mean to irk you. Um but I do believe that that's a very debatable uh argument on perception. Perception, everyone has their own perception and you can't put your perception on someone else. So what I would say is that we can change that language. But my point is that if that's supposed to be low have low density character, there are ways that you can preserve character of existing neighborhoods while still allowing um multi or middle housing types. That's my point. Um um one other thing uh is there any other questions on this? Yeah. Or did I?

Scott, I have a quick question and maybe it's further down in your presentation. And I was just uh recently reading uh some work done on the LOC regarding manufactured housing. Now is is that now um available to put into an R1 zone according to this latest house? I believe Scott get to that here in a minute.

I'm glad you I'm glad you brought that up and I will get to that. That is something that we are required to do. Um, so another big thing here, and this is another thing that I really would love your input on, and I think we need to get some community um, input on this as well, is potentially changing some of your parking requirements for some of these residential zones. Um, you will uh you will have to once you get larger. So again, it is um once the city grows. So it is nice to think about it now. But currently, one and two family dwellings along with apartments, condos, and time shares must provide two spaces per dwelling unit. So, we're going to give you some ideas in the memo to take a look at to see if um you know, if this makes sense. So, it's not something that um is easily done because parking is is always important, but it also can really shape the dynamics of allowing for some more dense denser housing in some of these neighborhoods. So, you know, maybe you want to continue to require two for a condo or an apartment, or maybe you want to look at just uh only requiring them for time shares, you know, those types of things. But I think it's important to think about maybe looking at reducing some of those requirements for these middle housing types. Next one, please. Um this was kind of I think to me this was one of the bigger things that came out of this and um it's something that a lot of cities are doing and I think it's something that would work well in uh in seaside as well but really this came up I mentioned this in the in the interviews and also part of the pure city review but um we're recommending that you reduce minimum lot sizes and reconsider some of the minimum setbacks. So, one of the main things that we're looking at is is is is we're proposing if if really this flies is to reduce those minimum lot sizes in all three, R1, R2, and R3 down to 2500 square ft.

R1 is currently 10,000. R2 is currently 5 or 7,500 for a duplex, and R3 is 5,000 or 3,000 for an attached uh for attached units. Uh, so the big one I I I really don't see this being much of an issue for R2 and R3, but that is a big shift in R1 to allow one large 10,000 ft lots to then become uh four. Now, there could be a compromise there. You know, if we discuss that and if we hear from the community that they would don't prefer that, then I think maybe there could be a compromise at maybe 5,000 or something in between, 3500. Um, interestingly enough, looking at Atoria, um, their R1 zone allows for down to, uh, 3,500 ft² for a single family or a duplex in their R1 zone. And then they're actually going smaller than the 2500 in the R2 down to 2500 or 1,500 uh, for units with multif family dwellings. So, those would be like attached town homes. they're even they're going even further and saying we we can even do skinnier lots and smaller lots if you're doing attached multif family housing. So again something to consider. We think a good place to start would be just looking at 2500 across the board. Um another thing that that's a recent house bill that passed is that child care and manufactured housing just like uh was mentioned is now required to be allowed in all zones. So allowing child care facilities in all zones where multif family units are per permitted or zones that are commercial industrial. So the commercial industrial are kind of out of the scope of this but it is something that we should that the city does need to consider when doing zone changes because those are now required. You don't technically have to change your code to allow them but you just have to kind of default to those new state rules. Um and here it is allow manufactured housing in all zones where single family units are permitted. So that is a that's a big change. Um, and it's not necessarily a manufactured

housing part, but someone can come in with a prefab home or a different type of construction, uh, you know, a manufactured home, and those need to be allowed in all residential zones. They can't be excluded. Scott, it sounds to me like you're you're calling manufactured and prefab the same things. As far as I know, they're different things under the law.

They're very different. Um, but they would still be allowed under they still need to be allowed. And there's other things like the the print 3D printed homes. So, it's all about definition. So, I think that's another important thing here is that we need to allow manufactured homes, but right now you do you would you would um you do you allow prefabed homes in your single family. So, it's not an issue. The the the the state law is specific about manufactured homes that are typically single or double wide traditional single family homes. But yes, thank you for

And which legislation was that that passed the manufactured and all zone? Oh, I I I think I might have it listed here in a little bit. I can pull that I can get that for you. Um, so, you know, when we're doing these code um, audits, one of the things that you find out is that you notice other things in the code that need to change that may not be totally in the scope of middle housing. So, one of the big things that that we're going to have to do with this is that you have design your design standards for most of your residential types. Now, those aren't we don't currently have those for your middle housing types. So, not only do we need to define them, but if you if if necessary, I think you could have some design standards that that are appropriate for those types. Um, one of the other things is that the current code language regarding procedures is outdated in terms of staff level review. So, this is another one that I don't believe is required yet, but I think the end of June is when it or or 1 July is when this goes into effect. And there are several different housing types that that are now required to be staff level only and they reduce the time uh allotted for permitting. So this is a a goal by the state to really um not have to go through public hearings and conditional use permits and things like that and design review if uh they meet certain criteria that's clear and objective. So that is a big procedural change. Um, so again, while not in in in the scope of this project, it's probably something that you'll need to look at revising next go around. Again, this is not something that you you have to change your code to be able to be compliant with. It's just procedurally city staff will be doing it a little different on some of these applications. And then again, there's depending on the changes u made to permitted densities, I think we are going to have to take a second look at your short-term rental ordinance just to make sure everything is satisfactory between the the zoning

code updates uh that are make making and the and the recent um changes that you made to your STR ordinance. I think that's almost it. So yeah, this is this is your your homework and I'm I'm more than happy to have a conversation after we get through the um presentation, but we we have our code audit memo that I mentioned that I'd like to get sent out to you probably tomorrow or the next day um that you can really look at the detailed code changes. I know this is kind of high level overview and then we have a um a uh survey that we've done that we'll send you the link to to hopefully have you be able to review that code uh update memo and then just leave any feedback in that survey. We we thought it'd be easier rather than to have you mark up the the memo to just kind of give you a format to open up when you're reading through the memo and and kind of give us some feedback on that. I don't have a timeline that that's really tight on this, so we can leave it open open for a few weeks or three or four weeks till we get that input. Um, but expect see to see an email with the survey link, um, the code audit memo and the updated um, uh, stakeholder interview summary so you can see a more a more uh detailed uh, outline of what we heard from the the interviews. And I think that's it for presentation wise. Yeah, that's it. So,

again, happy to answer questions, have a discussion. I have a I have a question. It's more for for Jeff Scott.

So, uh since uh STRVD has moved out of land use and into business regulation, uh is the planning commission involved in any way, shape, or form of the uh policies? uh not in making the decision on the policies, but since the planning commission is making uh the decision or making a recommendation on these changes, it wouldn't hurt for the planning commission to also make recommendations uh regarding our STR ordinances um to the city council because it's it's it's tied in together. When we talk about reducing lot size requirement and lowering density requirements, that potentially could create a proliferation of of short-term rentals. And so, um, if the commission's and the and the council's wish is to maintain the status quo with short-term rentals, we we're going to have to make some changes to that ordinance in order to keep that harmony that's that we have right now.

I think that's a discussion we should probably have sooner than later. Yeah, agreed. Hey, Scott, I had a question for you regarding the cottage courts and what distinguishes them from, say, a multifamily zone. like could you build a cottage court already in a multif family zone or is there something about that specific zone that distinguishes it?

Yeah, it that's a really good question. So, one of the cool things about cottage clusters is typically they're they're ownership products whereas a multif family, you know, an apartment complex would be rental typically, unless it's condoized. Um, and what the the way they work is that they're um it's a single lot, so you don't have tax lot lines and setbacks between each of the units and they share a common green. So, um, typically there's a homeowners association HOA with that's involved in that because if there's improvements and things like that, it's kind of like living in a in a in a small co-op where everyone owns their um their structure, their their home, um, but they share the land. Uh, so that's kind of that differentiates it a little bit. It also typically these units are are are generally smaller detached units and usually they're uh between five and you know 10 uh uh smaller homes. So hopefully that helped a little bit. I don't know if anyone else has has experienced these or wants to share their thoughts on them. Interestingly enough, I think I know of at least three of those developments that exist today in Seaside that predate all of our ordinance requirements. There's six or seven cottages. Each cottage is owned by a separate person, but the lot is owned by one entity. And it's just an a business agreement between all the owners on how that property ownership it breaks out.

Um, the biggest one is probably over off of Franklin, north of uh 12th. One of the great things about the middle housing that is being introduced now and just into discussions is that really most cities across the country actually have some examples of these that are still existing. They haven't completely been demolished yet, but they've been they've been reg they've been out regulated out of practice o since the 1920s uh 1940s at the latest in a lot of places. and so different zoning and lot size requirements and what you needed to have and has regulated them out of existence. So once they've fallen into disrepair, people have just torn them down and built single family homes. And so cottage clusters could fit on a single family home lot basically. And so it's a it's bringing back something that worked in the past. And so that's one of my issues with the description of the

preserving the character the character because yeah that's fair because during that time when these housing types were redlined out zoned out there's all kinds of things that came along with that and preserving the character was code language for not allowing certain types of people in a neighborhood. And that's part of why it bothers me is that I I I I don't understand why we're using that language right now. Um and so that is why it it it's a little bit more than irk. I was trying to be really nice. That is code language and it is called out in a lot of um planning books that that is code language for redlinining.

Well, I guess then we won't have it in ours, will we? Um, so what used to exist in a lot of communities was larger looking structures that look like a single family home and have now often been turned into single family homes, but they were actually separate se built as separate residences on the different floors or in different apartments. Atoria has some great examples of them. They look like single family homes, but they weren't built that way. They were built as apartments. They were built as boarding houses. they were built as, you know, multi-unit housing. So, it doesn't change the character to allow people that are going to live in the same building together to afford to do that.

So, Jeff, I have a question for you. Um, this is strictly, of course, all designed around residential zones. Um do we foresee this uh being applied into the other zones down the road uh commercial let's say of course that will not require a conditional use

that's up to that's up to the commission and how how far you want to take this right now in our C3 general commercial zone apartments are a conditional use but what only the only thing that really guides the density of those um is the parking requirements, but Senate Bill 1537 parking requirements can be uh mandatory adjusted out. So really the density comes down to is what does the developer want to build? Um, do they want, for example, the four three-bedroom units, which in my opinion, we are really short on three-bedroom units, so I was happy to see some three-bedroom units come in, or, you know, 15 or 28 um single units that you've seen recently as well. It it just comes down to what the what the developer wants to build and what pencils out.

And I I would add a caveat to that. not always what the developer wants to build, but what can be financed,

which is in a lot of communities is the big thing that, oh, you're not you're not going to require this parking, you're going to take all these require parking requirements out for cities that are eliminating parking minimums and required parking in general. Um, the community gets concerned that then apartments and things will be built and no parking will be going along with it. Well, financers require parking because that is what is in demand and often that is balanced out on one side by you know that so that doesn't mean that suddenly by removing parking minimums or lowering them that the minimums are lowered doesn't mean that the parking that's going to be created will be suddenly eliminated otherwise.

That's a really good point. I totally agree and I you know we saw this when quote unquote newfangled mixeduse buildings were really cool 20 years ago and the banks did not know how to finance them. It's the the banks know they they kind of get comfortable with doing standard things like standard single family homes, standard parking requirements and you know when you're adjusting these things sometimes they can be a little fickle about what they want to finance. So I really appreciate that point. There's a local developer that's been in front of this commission several times who tries to absolutely refuse to park less than two unit or two spaces per unit even though our code allows for less. They don't want that. They don't want to manage that. They want more parking than what's required. And that's been pretty standard for the developments that person's been involved in uh because of the management style of the end product. Uh so while parking adjustments can generate more housing, it still doesn't incentivize all developers to to follow those standards.

And and I would just add on that often the mandatory adjustments are used not so that they can move parking to a different place. It's so that more units can be created rather than the move park add more parking but someplace else. That's that's not that wasn't that's not the intended goal of the mandatory adjustments. Yep. Thank you, Scott.

Yeah, thank you. So, um I appreciate your time tonight. Um I said we'll we'll send you your your homework assignments and hopefully you won't be frustrated with me, but we got some time to do it. And if you don't, you know, if you just want to focus on on one section, that's fine, too. We'll take whatever input you want. Um, and again, we're going to be back and back with you once we get some more detailed um, you know, red lines of the code changes and then we're going to ask you to help us with, you know, getting an online open house pulled together somehow. So, I appreciate your time. Thank you. But, can I ask a question that may be pertinent to you, Scott, but I think it's Sure.

Um, so the comp plan after we re revised it was submitted to DLCD, correct? the um the revised version has not been submitted yet. We still are waiting for 3J to get that to us. Um so DLCD has a copy of it through the pop-up notice, but we'll be updating that hopefully this week in the crosswalk, the Excel sheet with the cross the that'll be sent out to you guys as well. At the same time, we'll we'll we'll send you the because I believe you guys are still working on the crosswalk, right? Yes, it's Yeah, it's Maya. I actually met with her today. It's almost complete. it should be ready and and again we'll send that out to you so you have plenty of time to review it. It'll be very helpful. Okay. Thank you for asking that question.

So what was submitted to DLCD was what we went through and then revised or it's the already revised version. It's not the already revised version yet. The latest version will be submitted. Okay. Thank you. And the public notice for the public hearing I was going to do this at the end of me. We'll do it now. um public hearing will happen on um June 2nd for the comprehensive plan and again that's the public hearing that's not necessarily when the commission wants to make the recommendation to the city council. So if the commission is not ready then it just a presentation at that point.

Yeah. So we'll we'll get a public hearing. Um you guys are also welcome to hold additional public hearings if you'd like. Um but just get the ball rolling and get the information out. Um, we've we've Debbie was working on it today, getting the mailer out to 3,823 property owners in Seaside. So, uh, that's in the works. Great. Awesome. Anybody have anything else for Scott? No. Thanks, Scott. Thanks. Have a great evening.

Thank you. So next up, ordinance administration conditions of approval discussion, standard conditions, minor modifications versus major modifications. Is that something that we're going to discuss or is that something we need a quorum for? Well, the no decisions can be made. Um there's only three commissioners here and the the one of the commissioners that was involved in bringing that to the table is also not here. So, it would it it it it would probably be good just to set this over and have this discussion at a later date.

All right. And then we have a comment from Commissioner Craft that he'd specifically like to hear an update on what the department has been working on and projects approved since our last meeting. Um, I don't have any significant developments uh right now that have reached the point of approval. Um, we've had some single family dwellings, we've had some remodel stuff, but nothing nothing of note uh at this point.

All right. And then the next one was, are there any asks of the commission that we can add to an agenda to discuss? I think we've got a pretty full plate coming up uh with the housing code. You'll see um in the code audit that we'll sub send out to you tomorrow the the amount of work that went into it. There's several pages of of code um that you guys will be reviewing. So, you're going to have your hands full and then uh finalizing the comp plan uh to the point that it's ready for your recommendation to the city council is going to take up some of your time. So, I don't I don't think we want to overload the agenda with other items. Um, I don't I don't believe we're going to have a public hearing at the next meeting except for the one that was supposed to take place tonight. So, that'll hopefully make for uh a a meeting where we can spend majority of time on the comp plan.

Great. Is is the microphone catching the conversation? Yeah, it should be. Okay. Again, I can't tell. VR DSTR. Depends which town you're in and how they're referred to. And I would I would recommend on holding off on that discussion till we just to put it on Brandon's till we have something finalizes what our final code is going to look like because that's going to guide how those regulations change. A tickler for the future.

Yeah. All right. Comments from the commission. Commissioner Clelesac. Um, I think some of these conversations coming up are going to be really interesting and and could have a big impact on how we infill our housing in Seaside and overcome some of our challenges. So, looking forward to it. Commissioner Monto,

um, thanks to Scott and thank you to you two for doing all this. I know it's a lot of work, but it's very exciting. That comp plan is everything. It's the mother umbrella and that everything else, you know, falls to. So, um I'm just really excited in getting that in and getting everything else worked out and to the future. And for me, uh thank you both of you for showing up. Um the um I did uh the only comment that I had was that the SDA has adopted the um the Main Street or so. So, they're going to be they're going to begin implementing that. So, that's a that's a very positive thing. I've seen that do some really good things

that can bring some good money energy to the to the core. Yeah. So, yeah. All right. Take a pink. With that, we are adjourned. Congratulations. Yes. And and now that we have some