Yachats Planning Commission chair Marc Sakamoto, center, gestures as he responds to commissioner Steve Chase, third from left, during Thursday’s meeting. (Quinton Smith/Lincoln Chronicle)By QUINTON SMITH/Lincoln Chronicle
YACHATS – Bowing to controversy over a complete reworking of the city’s codes to encourage a variety, more flexible and possibly less expensive housing, the Planning Commission has decided to break down issues into more bite-sized, digestible and debatable chunks.
The commission – and at times the city council – has been wrestling for more than a year how to incorporate new state-mandated housing codes with changes suggested at the local level to help create more affordable housing. But the plans have been met with questions, uncertainty and pushback by an increasing number of residents, some personal attacks on those involved in the process, and a threat to force a public vote on any changes.
During a three-hour work session Thursday, the seven-member commission said they will vote at its Sept. 15 meeting whether to separate the state-required housing code revisions from those that are purely optional for small cities such as Yachats. The consensus Thursday is that the commission will approve splitting the state and local revisions and then take months more to discuss the local issues.
“I’m sure everyone on the commission has an opinion on this,” commission chair Marc Sakamoto said before polling other members. “It’s not a small deal. Do we want the code in one piece or two pieces?”
Vice chair Mary Aebi suggested letting the city council decide, but the commission majority indicated they should recognize the questions and concerns in the community and deal separately with the most divisive issues.
Commissioner Jolene Gosselin, who has raised most of the questions on some of the changes, advocated for the split because she thinks mixing the state-required and local, optional proposals in the massive housing code is confusing.
“I’m not interested in rushing it,” she said. “I’m interested in understanding it.”
Commission members agreed with Steve Chase to first vote on the split and then vote item-by-item Sept. 15 whether to proceed with discussions on everything from accessory dwelling units to duplexes to manufactured home parks.
“Do the state minimums and then spend more time on the local options,” he said.
Commissioner David Diamond said there was little local opposition – and little they or the city could do — on the state-mandated changes, so they should split them out, approve them and then dive deeper into local options.
Rock Park Cottages on West Second Street in downtown Yachats was originally a motel built in the 1940s but now would be considered a cottage cluster under proposed housing rules. (Quinton Smith/Lincoln Chronicle)The commission’s next meeting is 1 p.m. Sept. 15. It plans to vote on the state versus local split and then decide in brief subject-by-subject votes which of a dozen local issues to eventually discuss further before taking public comment at 2 p.m. Sakamoto said the public comment would be broken into two 30-minute sections: the first to hear no more than 3 minutes per person and the second for commissioners to respond.
Commissioners were quick to point out Thursday that even if they voted to continue discussing certain items, they could later decide to eliminate them. There would also be a formal public hearing – likely late this year or early next year – on any final proposal, which would then go to a state agency to double check. Only then, would it go to the city council for more discussion and review, more hearings and eventually a possible decision next year.
City manager Bobbi Price said she would ask Cascadia Partners, the city’s housing consultant, to see how long they would need to separate the state-required code changes from the local options and have that timeline for the Sept. 15 meeting.
Aside from some more technical wording suggestions, major items on the local decision list from Thursday’s meeting includes:
- Whether to allow duplexes and cottage clusters in single-family (R1) residential zones;
- Whether to allow triplexes, cottage clusters and townhouse projects in neighborhood zones (R2) that now allow duplexes; also discuss proposed building setback changes in R2 zones;
- Whether to allow cottage clusters, townhouse projects and manufactured home parks in areas zoned for multifamily housing (R3); create design standards for townhouse projects; and, vote on front and side yard setbacks;
- Whether to allow manufactured home parks in areas of Yachats zoned for motels (R4);
- Deciding guidelines such as height, size and use of accessory dwelling units, and then whether to allow ADUs in all zones; and
- Increasing the number of required off-street parking spaces from 1½ to two for all types of dwellings.
The commission did not discuss Thursday whether it should recommend banning new residential construction in the city’s commercial zone, which has been allowed and is eating away at available land for businesses.
- Quinton Smith is the editor of Lincoln Chronicle and can be reached at [email protected]
The following message is my opinion as a resident and does not represent the Yachats Planning Commission.
As I started to discuss at the Planning Commission meeting, I believe that the State Legislature got it right with requiring cities with less than 2,500 populations to allow SRO’s.
This is the reason I am supportive of having the consultants create a draft comprised of only state required code changes. I feel that the Yachats Chamber of Commerce could create a co-op of interested members and procure appropriate property to develop detached 4 or 6 unit SRO’s with each having integral bathroom facilities and one additional building for communal kitchen facilities. These could be configured like cottage clusters and nicely fit into the community. Such SRO developments would not be attractive to tourists as vacation accommodations as they would have communal kitchens (or bathrooms.) The city could participate with policies to assist the Chamber members to forgive development charges etc.
My greatest opposition to ADU’s and middle housing solutions proposed in the current optional draft is they become more vacation and second homes. I have no concern of any such fate for SRO’s. SRO’s are truly a focused lower cost solution for urgently needed work force housing in our community.
Here is a brief description of SRO’s:
Legal Definition of an SRO
To qualify under the state law, a new SRO project must meet the following criteria:
* Unit Minimum: A development must feature no fewer than four units. Recent updates allow these units to be either attached or detached (e.g., small individual cottage-style rooms). [, 2, 3, 4]
* Exclusivity: Each unit must be independently rented and lockable, providing private living and sleeping spaces. [, 2]
*
* Shared Amenities: To prevent these from being classified as standard, more strictly regulated apartment units, the layouts must require occupants to share sanitary (bathroom) or food preparation (kitchen) facilities. Multiple sets of shared spaces are legally permitted acrossa development. [, 2]
Your proposal actually seems to have the possibility of creating housing that locals in less than high paying jobs could afford. I hope that it will be seriously considered by the Planning Commission. So many of the optional upzoning changes that are being considered seem more likely to increase costs than to reduce them…