melissa jenck - co.tillamook.or.us · my wife and i have been in the community a little over 5...

1

Melissa Jenck

From: Martin Bills <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 3:23 PMTo: Melissa JenckSubject: EXTERNAL: Kingfisher Project

[NOTICE: This message originated outside of Tillamook County ‐‐ DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]

Martin Bills & Jenn Gridley

Residents: Pacific City

34355 Big River Ct.

Pacific City, OR 97135

July 2nd, 2020

To: Melissa Jenck, Department of Community Development,

and Tillamook County Planning Commission

Dear Melissa & The Planning Commission,

My wife and I have been in the community a little over 5 years. In that time, it has become abundantly clear that additional workforce housing opportunities are required. As a business leader, I can say with certainty that housing is a huge obstacle when attracting & keeping new talent. It is with that in mind, that we place our unequivocal support for the Kingfisher Apartments project. It is my understanding that the need for housing has been studied by Tillamook County and the need is urgent.

From what Jennifer & I have observed, this development will serve functions beyond just the additional housing. It will greatly reduce congestion & ambiguity around the intersection of Pacific & Cape Kiwanda Drive. This will necessitate a 3‐way intersection which will definitely improve the flow, clarity & understanding of vehicular traffic in our area.

From what we’ve read & observed, there are some in the community who seem intent on creating misinformation and are overtly promulgating fear & discord around this issue. Their actual intent seems to be obstruct/stop/reverse any

2

development at all. Just because a vocal minority dislikes (or does not perceive value) in a project, does not mean that project is illegal or unwanted by the majority.

In closing, we support and strongly urge you to approve the Conditional Use & Variance for the Kingfisher project. We support the height variance, parking places, and setback at Sunset Drive. This project is needed, timely, well planned and does not appear to negatively affect surrounding property owners.

Thank you for your considerations.

Martin Bills & Jennifer Gridley

Pacific City, OR

1

Melissa Jenck

From: Cammy Pierson <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 3:07 PMTo: Melissa JenckSubject: EXTERNAL: Kingfisher apartments PCW-R3

[NOTICE: This message originated outside of Tillamook County ‐‐ DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Good afternoon Melissa Jenck and Board of Commissioners, I am writing to express my opposition to the building of the Kingfisher Apartments at the Sunset Drive location for several reasons. Though there is likely a need for these apartments, the location chosen is not suitable as proposed. This project needs to meet the criteria as mandated by Sec 8.030 , or select an alternate location to build their apartments. As this is currently proposed, it does not satisfy “ ALL” review criteria. As a property owner on Sunset Drive for 60 years, I have seen significant changes in our community. Most have been positive, however many have not been in the best interest of the community. This proposal if allowed, would be added to the worst of that list. 1) Requested height variance..... Visually, driving into PC from the south and looking west for your first glimpse of the ocean, this building would stand out like a sore thumb. Too tall and too wide at an already narrow and congested intersection. The height variance request is not a minimal amount, but eight feet, a full additional level of height. It is possible to build multi apartments on this location without changing the height, thus this request is self imposed. 2) Requested setback variance..... This request is I believe the most problematic. Sunset Drive is already a substandard road and has been approved to be widened and add one or two bike lanes as well. Since ODOT and Tillamook County changed the intersection from a stop to a thoroughfare, it has become even more problematic and dangerous for residents of Sunset Drive and visitors going to and from Straub State Park and the PC boat launch. Coupled with the proposed parking, the increased traffic on Sunset Drive due to the volume of visitors proposed to use the shuttle to the cape in the future and the impact street parking will have on neighbors, this proposal is not a well thought out or a viable option for the community. Increased activity and parking at the turnaround will further add to the congestion. Overflow resident and guest parking will be forced to park in the turnaround. I am surprised that this is even an option with the decreased visibility of being on a corner, let alone creating an actual almost blind corner. This building lot has appropriate setbacks in place in which a smaller structure can and should be built. Again, this is not a request for a slight or minimal variance. To request going from 15’ to 2’ on this corner, under these conditions is absolutely unacceptable. Again, multi apartments can be built on this property without this variance, therefore this request is self imposed. 3) Parking variance...... Addressed above with the setbacks, this would significantly add to the congestion of the area. Per the Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, this project would add approximately 140 trips per day to this already congested corner. Per Sec 4.005, this will force parking elsewhere. Though I believe there is a need for apartments in the Pacific City area, this is not the appropriate site for this project. In your response and action taken will you please also address the following questions and concerns the community has regarding this project?

2

1) Have there been incentives provided by the city, county or individual utilities to aid in building this project? 2) If this is the case, what incentives have been offered and by whom? Final note....... I have seen firsthand a project proposed to be built as one entity, then a short time later converted to another. These proposed apartments are “very” small. What is the possibility that this project could be converted to a hotel down the road? Thank you for your serious consideration in making the best decisions for our community and the future of our residents and visitors alike. Sincerely, Cammy Pierson 35160 Sunset Drive Pacific City

Tillamook County DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BUILDING, PLANNING & ON-SITE SANITATION SECTIONS

1510 – B Third Street Tillamook, Oregon 97141

www.tillamook.or.us

Land of Cheese, Trees and Ocean Breeze

_____________________________________________________________________________________

2 July 2020

Chair Heckeroth and Members of the Planning Commission,

My name is Jake Davis and I am the Tillamook County Housing Coordinator. My job is to advocate for housing policies and projects in response to the ongoing housing crisis. This letter is a follow-up to the June 25 evidentiary hearing for Tillamook County land use applications 851-20-000138-PLNG and 851-20-000139-PLNG, relating to the Kingfisher Apartments in Pacific City.

I would like to enter some additional evidence into the record, attached to this testimony, starting with some clarification on income limits and associated rents, and following up with a discussion of impact on neighboring properties.

Income Indicators & Rents

The following are the three most common data points used for evaluating incomes:

• Median Household Income (MHI) – A Census Bureau number for the median income any household earns

• Median Family Income (MFI) – A Census Bureau number for the median income a household earns if two or more people living in the household are related

• Area Median Income (AMI) – A Housing and Urban Development (HUD) number that utilizes MFI and adjusts for cost of living to estimate the income for a family of four

Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) is a State-level agency that is responsible for administering programs on behalf of HUD and who enforces the rent limits set therein. They have provided the applicant with a grant to offset System Development Charges as part of a pilot to help fund housing projects. Per that standard, the applicant will be required to rent units at some proportion of the AMI for 10 years. This is common practice. OHCS also administers grants for affordable housing projects, which typically rent no more than 60% of AMI. The Holden Creek Apartments recently approved in City of Tillamook are an example of this sort of project.

Building (503) 842-3407 Planning (503) 842-3408

On-Site Sanitation (503) 842-3409 FAX (503) 842-1819

Toll Free 1 (800) 488-8280

Of the three indicators, AMI is the most commonly used to set or adjust rent prices. While none of the measures are perfect, they are intended to give a general sense of what the median household can afford, which gives us some guarantees about how many people can benefit from a policy or project decision. The median is a particularly useful statistical tool because it gives us a sense of distribution: we can guarantee (within reason) that 50% of the population will fall below or above that number. The Housing Needs Analysis completed for Tillamook County in January goes into further detail on this point, including highlighting the projected need of several hundred rental units in the income bracket served by this project (Exhibit A, page 24).

We typically say housing is affordable if it costs a household no more than 30% of its gross income. For a simple example, if a family earned $12,000 per year, or $1,000 per month, we would expect them to spend $300 per month on housing ($12,000/12 months = $1,000 * 0.3 = $300). Thus, this is not an “affordable housing” project in the sense that it is limited to people making a certain level of AMI. Rather, it is affordable to people who fall in the workforce band of incomes, typically 50-120% of AMI.

This distinction is subtle but critical to understand how rents are set where they are and which populations they serve. Some testimony has suggested this project will not be “affordable” – they are conflating affordable housing (alternatively “low-income housing”, but for messaging purposes this is not often used) with housing that is affordable (only costs a certain percentage of a household’s income). In this case, the housing is affordable to Tillamook County’s workforce, which again is highlighted by the Housing Needs Analysis as a particular need (Exhibit A).

Assessing the Impact on Neighboring Properties

I would like to draw your attention to a map of properties along Sunset Drive and Rueppell Avenue, from which an overwhelming majority of opposition has come, color coded to show properties with tax addresses registered in Pacific City (pink) versus other cities (blue). These records are public and obtainable from the Tillamook County Assessor, and I have attached this map to my testimony for the record (Exhibit B).

As you’ll note, only 18 of 59 properties (30%) on Rueppell Avenue are registered to Pacific City. On Sunset Drive, the number is 9 of 86 (10%). This implies that the remaining properties are second homes or used as short term rentals. I do not want to serve as gatekeeper of whose voices matter in this discussion; however, it is critical to consider that many of the homes in this neighborhood are only seasonally occupied. There are more short term rentals on Sunset Drive, 16, than residents whose primary home is Pacific City (Exhibit B). I admit I am struck that many part time residents wish to prevent other community members from enjoying residency in Pacific City, given the relative privilege of owning more than one home.

I do not believe the opposition to this project is unaware of this fact, either. My final attachment is a flyer that has been in circulation by opponents to the project, Citizens on Sunset, in which the very first sentence affirms this truth: “Many on our street are concerned that since many are not here all of the time […]” (emphasis mine) (Exhibit C). This is a downright admission that many of the property owners along Sunset Drive, who claim the project will cause their property harm, are not even present for much of the year. How can we forfeit this opportunity for long-term housing for permanent residents on this basis? We cannot prioritize vacation homes for those with means at the expense of a place for others to call their only home.

Opponents suggest that the future of the community of Pacific City is at stake – and they’re correct – but only because this project represents an opportunity to continue to build the inclusive, welcoming place that we know Tillamook County deserves to be. I once again ask that you support this project as a result.

As before, I appreciate your consideration.

Respectfully,

Jake Davis, Tillamook County Housing Coordinator Attached:

• Exhibit A: Tillamook County Housing Needs Analysis, Final Revision • Exhibit B: Map of properties on Sunset Drive and Rueppell Avenue with a registered tax address

outside of Pacific City, Oregon, according to Tillamook County Assessor public record • Exhibit C: Flyer prepared by Citizens on Sunset in reference to this application

Tillamook County

December 27, 2019

Housing Needs Analysis

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work is made possible through input provided by County staff and the Tillamook County Housing Commission. We specifically recognize and appreciate the time and attention dedicated to this work by the following participants.

Tillamook County

David Yamamoto (Tillamook County Commission Chair)

Bill Baertlein, (Tillamook County Commission Vice Chair, Liaison to County Housing Commission)

Mary Faith Bell (Tillamook County Commissioner)

Sarah Absher (Tillamook County Community Development Director)

Jake Davis (Tillamook County, Housing Coordinator)

Tillamook County Housing Commission

Cami Aufdermauer (at-Large)

Sarah Beaubien (Major Employer)

Tim Borman (at-Large)

Mis Carlson-Swanson (Non-Profit)

Kari Fleisher (at-Large)

Ed Gallagher (at-Large)

Kris Lachenmeier (Major Employer)

Barbara McLaughlin (North County)

Gale Ousele (South County)

Erin Skaar (Non-Profit)

Mayor Suzanne Weber (City of Tillamook)

John Southgate, Strategic Partner, Project Coordinator

Interviews and Work sessions

During the course of this assignment, FCS GROUP collected information gleaned from the following property owners, business owners, developers, and local planning commissions. We sincerely thank these individuals and collective bodies for sharing their time and attention.

■ Todd Bouchard, developer/local resident

■ Julie Garver, Director, Innovative Housing, Inc. (nonprofit housing developer)

■ Thomas Kemper, nonprofit housing developer

■ Jeff Schons and Mary Jones, Pacific City property owners/developers/business owners

■ Paul Wyntergreen, City of Tillamook, City Manager

■ Manzanita City Planning Commission

■ Bay City Planning Commission

Project Consultants

FCS GROUP

Todd Chase, AICP, LEED AP, Principal/Project Manager

Timothy Wood, Project Consultant/Economist

Zech Hazel, Analyst

Cascadia Partners

Alex Steinberger, Partner

Alex Joyce, Managing Partner

Victor Tran, Associate

Tillamook County Housing Needs Analysis

December 2019 page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1

Section II. Market Trends and Forecasts ...................................................................................................... 2

II.A. Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 2

II.B. Demographics and Socio-Economics ........................................................................................... 2

Population ................................................................................................................................... 2

Factors Affecting Housing Demand ..................................................................................................... 4

Generational Cohorts ...................................................................................................................... 5

Income Characteristics .................................................................................................................... 6

II.C. Existing Housing Characteristics................................................................................................. 7

Seasonal Housing Inventory and Vacancy Rates ................................................................................... 9

Housing Construction Permitting Activity .............................................................................................10

Housing Affordability ......................................................................................................................11

Housing Cost Burdens ...................................................................................................................13

Workforce Housing Demand ............................................................................................................16

II.D. Future Housing Needs ............................................................................................................17

Scenario A: Baseline Housing Demand Forecast...................................................................................17

Scenario B: Baseline + Workforce Housing Forecast ..............................................................................18

Scenario C: Coordinated Policy Forecast ............................................................................................19

Comparison of Housing Forecast Scenarios .........................................................................................20

Projected Needs by Housing Type .....................................................................................................21

Projected Residential Land Needs .....................................................................................................24

Section III. Buildable Land Inventory ....................................................................................................... 26

Methodology ...................................................................................................................................26

All Areas of the County ......................................................................................................................27


December 2019 page ii

Tillamook county (unincorporated areas) ................................................................................................27

Section IV. Action Plan Policy Recommendations .................................................................................... 32

Recent Policies ................................................................................................................................32

Federal Policies ............................................................................................................................32

Oregon Policies ............................................................................................................................33

Key Findings and Policy Recommendations.............................................................................................34

Recommended Actions ...................................................................................................................34

Appendix A. Housing Attainability Analysis ..............................................................................................38

Appendix B. DLCD staff Input ..............................................................................................................40


December 2019 page 1

Section I. INTRODUCTION

Tillamook County is widely known for its dramatic coastline, misty beaches and award winning dairy and seafood products. Tillamook County is located along the breathtaking northern Oregon Coast within 50 miles from the Portland and Salem metro regions.

Like many coastal communities, portions of Tillamook County are experiencing strong housing demand by part-time seasonal residents, especially in coastal “resort” communities. Over the past decade, new housing production has not nearly kept pace with the demand generated by permanent residents and seasonal home owners. With the majority of its housing, now controlled by part-time residents, vacancy rates have plunged to near zero and rents/prices have increased to record levels. This has led to a severe housing affordability challenge that is exacerbated by: environmental flood zone and agricultural land use constraints; limited vacant land area with adequate water, sewer and roadway infrastructure; and a growing service economy with limited family wage job opportunities.

These challenges continue to mount as employers struggle to fill job positions since workers are faced with very limited housing choices.

The Tillamook Housing Needs Analysis (HNA) is being conducted to ensure that the County can plan for coordinated housing growth in line with community preferences and market forces. The HNA includes the following:

■ A determination of 20-year housing needs based upon long-term growth forecast of demand by permanent and seasonal population increases.

■ An analysis of buildable vacant, part-vacant and re-developable land inventory (BLI) for land that’s planned to accommodate housing.

■ Identification of new housing goals, objectives, and policy actions that address housing opportunities.



Section II. MARKET TRENDS

AND FORECASTS

This section of the HNA includes a forecast of housing needed to accommodate expected year round and seasonal population growth for Tillamook County. The housing needs forecast represents a 20-year projection from the base year (2019) through year 2039. These technical findings are also consistent with the State of Oregon requirements for determining housing needs per Oregon land use planning Goals 10 and 14, OAR Chapter 660, Division 8, and applicable provision of ORS 197.295 to 197.314 and 197.475 to 197.490, except where noted.

II.A. METHODOLOGY

The methodology for forecasting housing needs for Tillamook County considers a mix of demographic and socio-economic trends, housing market characteristics and long-range population growth projections. Population is a primary determinate for household formations—which in-turn drives housing need. Given the significance of coastal tourism and visitation, the demand for second homes and short-term rentals is also an important determinate in understanding future housing needs.

County-wide population, households, income and housing characteristics are described in this section using available data provided by reliable sources, such as the U.S. Census Bureau (Census and American Community Survey), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Oregon Department of Housing and Community Services, Portland State University (PSU) and Tillamook County’s Planning and Community Development department. Where trends and forecasts are provided by an identified data source, FCS GROUP has included extrapolations or interpolations of the data to arrive at a base year (2019 estimate) and forecast year (2039 projection).

The housing need forecast translates population growth into households and households into housing need by dwelling type, tenancy (owner vs. renter) and affordability level.

II.B. DEMOGRAPHICS AND SOCIO-ECONOMICS

Population

Since the year 2000, Tillamook County’s permanent year-round population (including local cities) increased 8.6%, from 24,262 residents in 2000 to 26,348 in 2019. Population within Tillamook County is projected to increase to 29,284 over the next 20 years (0.5% avg. annual growth rate).

As population increases, the demand for all types of housing will increase. This HNA supports long-range planning focused on expanding the local housing inventory to accommodate baseline population growth.



The long-range population forecast prepared by PSU’s Population Research Center (PRC) expects 2,936 additional people to be added to Tillamook County by year 2039. This equates to an annual average growth rate (AGR) of 0.5%. Baseline population growth forecasts for Tillamook County and its incorporated areas is shown below in Exhibit 2.1.

Exhibit 2.1 Population Growth Forecast

Tillamook County has a relatively older population in comparison to the Oregon average. In Tillamook County, nearly 24% of the population is 65 or older, compared to 16% for Oregon as a whole. The median age of residents in Tillamook County was 48 in 2017, compared with the State average of 39.2.

Tillamook County’s average household size is 2.41 people per occupied household, which is slightly less than the statewide average of 2.5.

Estimate Forecast Proj. Change Proj.

2019 2039 20 Years AGR (2019-2039)

Oregon 4,209,177 4,954,640 745,463 0.8%Tillamook County 26,348 29,284 2,936 0.5%

Bay City 1,448 1,796 348 1.1%Garibaldi 802 875 73 0.4%Manzanita 910 1,209 299 1.4%Nehalem 1,272 1,642 370 1.3%Rockaway Beach 1,590 1,862 272 0.8%Tillamook 5,643 6,439 796 0.7%Wheeler 415 486 72 0.8%Unincorporated 14,261 14,971 710 0.2%

Source: Portland State Population Research Center, 2017 estimate; 2017-2040 forecast, interpolated by FCS GROUP.

Compiled by FCS Group. AGR = average annual growth rate.

*Populations are based on Urban Growth Boundary



Factors Affecting Housing Demand

There is a clear linkage between demographic characteristics and housing choice. As shown in the figure below, housing needs change over a person’s lifetime. Other factors that influence housing include:

■ Homeownership rates increase as income rises.

■ Single family detached homes are the preferred housing choice as income rises.

■ Renters usually have lower incomes than owners and are much more likely to choose multifamily housing options (such as apartments or plexes) over single-family housing.

■ Very low-income households (those earning less than 50% of the median family income) are most at-risk for becoming homeless if their economic situation worsens.

■ The housing available to households earning between 50% and 120% of the median family income is crucial to middle-income residents, and is often referred to “missing middle” housing stock or “workforce housing.”

■ Seasonal housing demand by part time residents will continue to occur primarily in coastal communities that provide access to recreational areas and services.

Housing Life Cycle



Key definitions:

“Households” consist of all people that occupy a housing unit.

“Family” is a group two or more people (one of whom is the householder) related by bir th, marriage, or adoption and residing together.

The relationship between demographic changes and housing needs can be used to forecast future housing needs. Three main demographic changes affecting housing in Tillamook County include:

Generational Cohorts

As people age, their housing requirements change with time. Exhibit 2.2 summarizes the current (2017) distribution of major generational cohorts of people living in Tillamook County.

Greatest/Silent Generation (those born before 1925 to 1945)

This includes retirees better than age 74, who were raised during the Great Depression, Word War I or World War II. This cohort currently accounted for 9% of the county’s population in 2017. As they reach their 80s some move into assisted living facilities with convenient health care services and transit access. Meanwhile, others will leave the county to be closer to family or medical services.

Baby Boom Generation (those born 1946 to 1964)

Baby boomers (currently age 55 to 74) accounted for 32% of Tillamook County residents in 2017. The boomer population segment has been growing more rapidly than the other cohorts over the past 10 years and many are now entering their retirement years. Boomers usually prefer to “age in place” but may downsize or move in with family members, sometimes opting to reside in accessory dwellings off the main house.

Generation X (born early 1965 to 1980)

Gen X (currently includes people between age 39 to 54) accounted for 17% of Tillamook County residents in 2017. GenX households often include families with children, and many prefer to live in single family detached dwellings at various price points.

Millennials (born early 1980s to early 2000s)

Millennials (currently in their twenties or thirties) accounted for 21% of Tillamook County residents in 2017. Younger millennials tend to rent as they establish their careers and/or payback student loans. Working millennials often become first-time homebuyers, opting to purchase smaller single-family detached homes or townhomes.

Generation Z (born mid-2000s or later)

GenZ includes residents age 19 or less, which accounted for 21% of Tillamook County residents in 2017. This segment mostly includes children living with Gen Xers or Millennials.



Families with Children living at home

This category includes a subset of Baby Boomers, Gen Xers and millennials. Taken as a whole, this category constitutes a significant proportion of Tillamook County’s population; and is expected to increase moderately over the next two decades. Families prefer to live in a variety of housing types (detached homes or townhomes/plexes) at price points commensurate with their family income .

Exhibit 2.2

Income Characteristics

The median household income in Tillamook County ($45,061) is well below incomes observed statewide in Oregon ($56,119).

As shown in Exhibit 2.3, Tillamook County in comparison with Oregon, has a higher share of low-income residents (earning less than $30,000), and a lower share of middle- and upper-income residents (those earning more than $50,000). Countywide incomes vary significantly between communities, with Hebo, Pacific City, Rockaway and City of Tillamook residents having relatively lower incomes compared with Manzanita and Nehalem.

It should be noted that this analysis focuses on local cities and Census Defined Places, since those are the communities for which comparative data are available. There are additional small communities in Tillamook county, such as Oceanside, Netarts and Beaver, which do not have readily available statistics. While such small communities are vital, they are referenced here within the unincorporated county area.



Exhibit 2.3

II.C. EXISTING HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS

An analysis of historical development trends and local housing market dynamics provides insight regarding how the housing market functions. Findings indicate that changes in demographic and socio-economic patterns over the next two decades will result in a shift in housing demand from what is now predominantly single-family detached housing to wider mix of housing types.

Housing Inventory and tenancy

The existing housing stock in Tillamook County is dominated by single family detached (low density development) which accounts for just over three-fourths of the inventory. This is well above the state average of 63.7%. Mobile homes/other housing types comprise the remaining 11.6% of the inventory. Townhomes/plexes (medium density development) accounts for 6.5% of the inventory. Multifamily apartments and condos (with more than 5 units per structure) currently comprise only 4.3% of the inventory (see Exhibit 2.4).



Exhibit 2.4

The overall housing tenancy in Tillamook County mirrors the Oregon statewide average, with 69% of the permanent residents owning their homes, and the remaining 31% renting. As shown in Exhibit 2.5, most homeowners reside in single family detached homes or mobile homes (including manufactured housing). Renters occupy all types of housing, and constitute the majority of demand for townhomes/plexes and multifamily apartments.

Exhibit 2.5



Seasonal Housing Inventory and Vacancy Rates

The prior housing study that was prepared for Tillamook County, Creating a Healthy Housing

Market for Tillamook County, March 2017 (by CZB), noted that the housing market in Tillamook County has two distinct parts. There is a coastal market with strong demand from upper-income households, investors, second home buyers and retirees. And there is an interior market concentrated largely around Tillamook and other inland communities, such as Bay City. This market has a relatively older and less expensive housing inventory, which is more attainable to local residents. The demand for both seasonal housing and year-round non-seasonal demand is rising, as indicated in Exhibit 2.6.

Of Tillamook County’s 18,789 total housing units, 44%, were classified as having “seasonal ownership” in 2017, up from 38% in 2010, according to the U.S. Census American Community Survey.

Exhibit 2.6

The seasonal housing inventory varies significantly by location, with the City of Tillamook, Bay City and Cloverdale having the lowest rates of seasonal homeownership and coastal resort areas such as Rockaway Beach and Manzanita having the highest levels at 74% and 87%, respectively.

As shown below in Exhibit 2.7, the vacancy rates for non-seasonal (year round rental housing) is well below 1% in all areas and near zero in Cloverdale, Gribaldi, Hebo, Nehalem, Neskowin and Wheeler. In comparison, the statewide average housing vacancy rate was 9.3% in 2017.



Exhibit 2.7 Vacancy Rates by Housing Type

Housing Construction Permitting Activity

During the past decade new housing construction in Tillamook County has been dominated by single family housing. Despite falling sharply following the recession, the county has issued an average of 117 single family permits annually for new construction since 2007. Issuance of new permits has picked up since its low of 2013 (Exhibit 2.8).

Housing production has not nearly kept up with the pace of demand. Between 2007 and 2017, about 120 new dwellings were added throughout Tillamook County annually with the vast majority as second homes. Most new housing construction has occurred in coastal “resort” towns, such as Manzanita, Neskowin, Pacific City and Rockaway Beach, where 66%-80% of the total housing stock is now owned by part-time residents. During this same time frame, it is estimated that about 80-90 existing dwelling units were converted to seasonal units or short-term vacation rentals each year. As such, the permanent year-round housing inventory in Tillamook County has been decreasing at a time when nearly 60 households were moving into the county each year.

39%

8%

0%

25%

42%

79%

23%

67% 65%67%

1%

29%

1% 1% 0% 0% 0%

6%

0% 0% 0% 2%0% 0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

TillamookCounty

Bay City Cloverdale GaribaldiCity

Hebo ManzanitaCity

NehalemCity

Neskowin Pacific City RockawayBeach City

TillamookCity

WheelerCity

Seasonal housing share Rental vacancy rate



Exhibit 2.8

Housing Affordability

The median home price in Tillamook County was approximately $323,000 (2019, 1st Q), which is slightly below the median home price in Oregon as a whole. As shown in Exhibit 2.9, year-over-year, home prices in Tillamook County increased by 12.2% from $288,000 in 2018 to $323,000 in 2019.

In general, home values declined following the Great Recession (2009 to 2014), then began a steady ascent. In Tillamook County, it is estimated that median home prices have increased by over 40%



between 2014 and 2019. During this same time frame, median household income levels in Tillamook County increased only 21%; thereby creating a major housing affordability challenge.

Based on active home listings and average sales over the past two years in Tillamook County, there is less than a three month supply of homes priced under $300,000; and only a four to five month inventory of homes priced $300,000 to $500,000. For comparison, a healthy housing market is considered to have a six month housing inventory.

Exhibit 2.9

Median rents are also slightly lower in Tillamook County compared with the Oregon statewide average. However, in many communities within Tillamook County, rents are now on par with or have surpassed the statewide average (Exhibit 2.10).

Sales Price Level

Recent

Sales (past

2 years)

Avg. Sales Per

Month (past 2

years)

Current

Listings

Remaining

Inventory

(months)Sales Price Level

Less than $100,000 175 7.3 4 0.5

$100,000 to $199,999 384 16.0 27 1.7

$200,000 to $299,999 556 23.2 61 2.6

$300,000 to $399,999 421 17.5 70 4.0

$400,000 to $499,999 270 11.3 57 5.1

$500,000 or more 298 12.4 124 10.0

Total 2,104 88

Aug-18 Aug-19 Change %

Tillamook County $288,000 $323,000 12.2%

Bay City $213,000 $244,000 14.6%

Nehalem $372,000 $415,000 11.6%

Neskowin $425,000 $457,000 7.5%

Pacific City $292,000 $323,000 10.6%

Rockaway Beach $255,000 $294,000 15.3%

Tillamook City $251,000 $283,000 12.7%

Source: Zillow.com; analysis by FCS 9/3/19.

Homes Sales and Inventory, Tillamook County

Median Home Price Sales Trends in Select Markets

Source: Zillow.com; analysis by FCS Group 1/24/18.



Exhibit 2.10

Housing Cost Burdens

According to the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) standards, households are considered “cost burdened” if they pay over 30% of their income on housing. Households are “severely cost burdened” if they pay over 50% of their income on housing.

Despite relatively low housing costs, the fact that there limited numbers of family wage jobs makes finding attainably priced housing difficult for many residents. Approximately 23% of the renters and 17% of the owners in Tillamook County are severely cost burdened (see Exhibit 2.11).



Exhibit 2.11

Severe rent burdens vary widely between local areas. For example, Wheeler faces severe rent burden rates of just 10%, while 30% of Bay City renters are severely rent burdened (see Exhibit 2.12).

Exhibit 2.13 further illustrates the link between lower incomes and housing cost burdens. Over 80% of households earning less than $20,000 were cost burdened in Tillamook County. In fact, almost 60% of households earning less than $50,000 are paying more than 30% of their income in housing costs.



Exhibit 2.12

Exhibit 2.13



Workforce Housing Demand

Representatives from local businesses, school districts, hospitals and emergency service sectors (e.g., police and fire districts) have voiced concern over the lack of attainable housing for their employees. Many workers now travel very long distances to jobs in Tillamook County. According to U.S. Census stats, almost one in four workers in Tillamook County commute greater than 50 miles each way (100 miles per day); which is double the statewide average. Nearly one in three local workers now reside outside Tillamook County.

Note: These findings are based on U.S. Census On-the-Map Longintudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) data which are based on tabulated and modeled administrative employer suvey data, which are subject to error. The Quarterly Workforce Indicators (QWI), LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (LODES), Job-to-Job Flows (J2J), and Post-Secondary Employment Outcomes (PSEO) are available online for public use.

Because the estimates are not derived from a probability-based sample, no sampling error measures are applicable. While no direct measurement of these joint effects has been obtained, precautionary steps are taken in all phases of collection and processing to minimize the impact of nonsampling errors.

As indicated in Exhibit 2.14, FCS GROUP has documented market gaps in Tillamook County’s available housing inventory. Conversion of homes to seasonal and vacation rentals, low vacancy rates, and inadequate housing construction levels result in market gaps that can only be corrected by supply additions. Based on relatively low market capture rates, as of year 2017, there is a housing gap of approximately 406 units for housing units needed for moderate income households at 50% to 120% of the area median family income (MFI) level.

In addition, there is also a significant market gap for government assisted housing available to households earning less than 50% of the MFI level. This analysis indicates that the market gap for rental housing at this price point equates to over 600 dwellings. In light of inadequate levels of state and federal housing grants, we have assumed a 33% market capture rate or approximately 200 units of low income housing demand is needed at this time.

Exhibit 2.14 Existing Housing Market Gaps, Tillamook County

Current Housing Market Gap for Housing at 50% to 120% MFI or higher, Tillamook County

Total Dwelling

Units Rental Units Owner Units

Existing Workers in Tillamook County 9,476

Long Distance commuters (over 100 miles per day) 2,030

Market Demand Sensitivity Analysis

Low Capture Rate 15% 305 152 152

Midpoint Capture Rate 20% 406 203 203

High Capture Rate 25% 508 254 254

Based on U.S. Census Bureau, On-The-Map data for Tillamook County, 2017.



This analysis conservatively assumes that the level of near-term pent up market demand could support development of over 400 units of rental housing, with about half needed for households in the 50% to 120% of the MFI level for Tillamook County.

II.D. FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS

The methodology includes three housing forecast scenarios which were reviewed and discussed by the Housing Committee. They include:

Scenario A Baseline Forecast

Scenario B Baseline + Workforce Housing Forecast

Scenario C Policy Scenario as modified version of Scenario 2

Scenario D Midpoint of low and high growth forecasts

Scenario A: Baseline Housing Demand Forecast

The future (20 year) housing forecast for Tillamook County takes into account the population and socioeconomic and housing characteristics described earlier.

The baseline forecast applies the long term population forecast by Portland State University, and assumes that current household size, group quarters demand, vacancy rates and seasonal housing rates remain constant. With the baseline forecast, Tillamook County is projected to add 2,936 people which will require 2,305 new dwellings over the next 20 years. If the future housing demand is distributed within Tillamook County based on the current housing mix, the 20-year housing demand in the unincorporated areas would equate to 510 dwellings, and the various incorporated area UGBs would need to accommodate the remaining 1,795 housing unit (see Exhibit 2.15).

Current Market gap for Housing at less than 50% MFI, Tillamook County

Affordable

Monthly Rent

Costs *

Current # of Renter-

Occupied

Households

Estimated

Available Rental

Units at this rent

level

Housing (Gap)

or Surplus

Capture

Rate for

Analysis

Housing

Needed

(units)

Less than $500 1,139 528 (611) 33% 202 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2017. * Assumes 30% of income towards rent.



Exhibit 2.15 Scenario A Baseline Forecast

Scenario B: Baseline + Workforce Housing Forecast

This scenario includes the baseline housing forecast based on future growth along with a capture of a portion of the current market gap for workforce housing.

As discussed earlier in this report, there is a demonstrated “market gap” for workforce housing in Tillamook County. In this scenario, it is assumed that the overall housing demand over the next 20 years equates to the baseline demand described in Scenario A plus an additional 400 units of pent up demand for rental housing. This would include approximately 200 units of moderate income rental housing attainable to households earning 50% to 120% of the MFI; and another 200 units for households earning less than 50% of the MFI level.

This forecast scenario assumes that the majority of the housing production would occur in communities that can provide water and sanitary sewer service, with capacity that can be increased as needed to accommodate new housing development. As shown in Exhibit 2.16, the housing forecast under Scenario B equates to 2,730 dwelling units over 20 years.

Net New

Population1

Group

Quarters

Share

Group

Quarters

Pop. 2

Avg. HH Size2

Occupied

Dwellings2

Seasonal &

Vacancy

Rate2

Seasonal &

Vacant

Dwellings

Total Dwelling

Need (excl.

group

quarters)

Unincorporated areas 707 2.6% 18.4 2.41 286 44.0% 225 510

Tillamook UGB 796 0.88% 7.0 2.47 319 8.5% 30 349

Nehalem UGB 370 0.00% - 3.43 108 25.0% 36 144

Bay City UGB 348 0.00% - 3.43 101 14.6% 17 119

Manzanita UGB 299 0.00% - 3.43 87 86.6% 562 649

Rockaway Beach UGB 272 0.00% - 2.27 120 73.7% 336 456

Garibaldi UGB 73 0.75% 0.5 2.62 28 31.8% 13 41

Wheeler UGB 72 1.45% 1.0 2.62 27 29.4% 11 38

Total 2,936 0.9% 27 1,076 53.3% 1,229 2,305

Notes: 1 population forecast from PSU Population Research Center, interpolated by FCS GROUP;

2 based on 2017 ACS. Numbers may not add due to

rounding.

Baseline Housing Demand Forecast, Tillamook County, 2019-2039



Exhibit 2.16 Baseline + Workforce Housing Forecast Scenario B

Scenario C: Coordinated Policy Forecast

This scenario assumes that same level of overall Countywide housing demand as with Scenario B, but takes into account the fact that many of the coastal communities may have achieved market prices for land and housing that is out of reach for most residents. Small cities and resort communities in Tillamook County may not be capable of accommodating all of the potential market demand. Limiting factors may include inadequate infrastructure (particularly sewer) and environmental risks associated with developing housing in floodways, floodplains and tsunami hazard areas.

As shown in Exhibit 2.17, with this scenario it is assumed that the share of housing demand that will be accommodated within incorporated cities is 59% of total demand, down from about three quarters of total demand in the prior scenarios. Hence, the level of demand that would need to be addressed within unincorporated portions of Tillamook County would increase to 41% of the Countywide housing demand, compared with 22% to 24% in Scenarios A and B.

Exhibit 2.17 Housing Market Share by Scenario

Demand Dist.

(Scenario A)

Demand Dist.

(Scenario B)

Pent Up Rental

Workforce

Housing Need

(units)

Baseline

Housing Need

(Scenario A)

Total Housing

Need

(Scenario B)

Tillamook UGB 15% 25% 106 349 455

Nehalem UGB 6% 5% 21 144 165

Bay City UGB 5% 5% 21 119 140

Manzanita UGB 28% 10% 43 649 691

Rockaway Beach UGB 20% 10% 43 456 499

Garibaldi UGB 2% 5% 21 41 62

Wheeler UGB 2% 5% 21 38 59

Subtotal UGBs 78% 65% 276 1,795 2,071

Unincorporated areas 22% 35% 149 510 659

Total Dwelling Units 100% 100% 425 2,305 2,730

Tillamook County 20-year Housing Need Forecast, Scenario 2

Demand Dist.

(Scenario A)

Demand Dist.

(Scenario B)

Demand Dist.

(Scenario C)

Total Housing

Need (Scenario

C)

Tillamook UGB 15% 17% 30% 819

Nehalem UGB 6% 6% 5% 137

Bay City UGB 5% 5% 5% 137

Manzanita UGB 28% 25% 5% 137

Rockaway Beach UGB 20% 18% 10% 273

Garibaldi UGB 2% 2% 2% 55

Wheeler UGB 2% 2% 2% 55

Subtotal UGBs 78% 76% 59% 1,611

Unincorporated areas 22% 24% 41% 1,119

Total Dwelling Units 100% 100% 100% 2,730

Tillamook County 20-year Housing Need Forecast, Scenario 3



Comparison of Housing Forecast Scenarios

These findings indicate that the future housing market in Tillamook County is expected to remain strong, barring natural disasters or global or national economic downturns. Population increases due largely to second home investors will likely account for just over half of the future housing demand. In order for housing prices and rents to be attainable to households at 120% or less of the local median income level for the County ($45,060), for sale housing would need to be priced at $299,000 or less and rentals priced at $1,352 or less (per month for 2 bedroom unit). For additional analysis of housing affordability levels, please refer to Appendix A.

Exhibit 2.18 provides a comparison of the housing demand within local areas for each of the three forecast scenarios. The findings indicate a low and high range of housing needs along with a mid-point demand forecast, which is referred to as Scenario D.

Exhibit 2.18

Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C

Tillamook UGB 349 455 819

Nehalem UGB 144 165 137

Bay City UGB 119 140 137

Manzanita UGB 649 691 137

Rockaway Beach UGB 456 499 273

Garibaldi UGB 41 62 55

Wheeler UGB 38 59 55

Subtotal UGBs 1,795 2,071 1,611

Unincorporated areas 510 659 1,119

Total Dwelling Units 2,305 2,730 2,730

Low High

Midpoint

(Scenario D)

Tillamook UGB 349 819 584

Nehalem UGB 137 165 151

Bay City UGB 137 140 138

Manzanita UGB 137 691 414

Rockaway Beach UGB 273 499 386

Garibaldi UGB 55 62 58

Wheeler UGB 55 59 57

Subtotal UGBs 1,141 2,435 1,788

Unincorporated areas 510 1,119 815

Total Dwelling Units 1,651 3,554 2,603

Tillamook County 20-year Housing Forecast Scenarios (dwelling units)

Source: prior exhibits.



Projected Needs by Housing Type

In light of the current housing affordability challenges, the future demand for attainably priced housing within Tillamook County will need to increase measurably in the future. This would require development of affordable “missing middle” housing types, such as market rate and government assisted plexes, townhomes and apartments as well as cottage homes, manufactured homes and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). As shown in Exhibit 2.19, these housing types can be delivered at a lower cost and rent level per square foot than other housing types.

Exhibit 2.19

The forecasted housing mix that addresses future demand will likely consist of: 1,562 single-family detached homes (including cottage homes), 286 townhomes/duplexes/ADUs, 364 multifamily housing units and 390 manufactured housing units (see Exhibit 2.20). There will also be some “group quarters” housing demand for about 30 additional residents that will require shared living arrangements (such as congregate care or interim housing).



The graph below juxtaposes the housing mix in Tillamook County today compared with the projected mix of units to be added in the next twenty years and the overall housing mix observed in the county after twenty years. As shown in Exhibit 2.21, the Policy Scenario D would increase the overall share of multifamily, townhomes, and plexes in comparison to the current mix. The share of single family detached housing would decline and the share of manufactured housing would remain relatively constant.

Exhibit 2.20

At midpoint of the forecast scenarios (Scenario D), the net new housing need is expected to consist of: 1,796 owner-occupied dwellings and 807 renter-occupied dwellings. As shown in Exhibit 2.21, the types of housing that is most suited to meet qualifying income levels for home ownership vary by family income level. The owner and rental housing forecast that’s suited to meet qualifying income levels is shown below



Exhibit 2.21 Current and Future Housing Mix, Scenario D

As we consider the demand for housing by affordability level, the vast majority of housing demand needs will be from households at 120% or below of the Median Family Income level for Tillamook County (see Exhibit 2.22).

For additional analysis regarding housing affordability price points for owner occupied and renter occupied housing please refer to Appendix A.

Current

Housing Mix

Net New

Housing Mix

(Policy

Scenario C)

Future Housing

Mix

Single Family 72% 60% 69%Townhomes/Plexes 7% 11% 8%Multi family 6% 14% 8%Mfg. home / other 15% 15% 15%Total 100% 100% 100%

Current

Housing Mix

Net New

Housing Mix

(Policy

Scenario C)

Future Housing

Mix

Single Family 7,501 1,562 9,063 Townhomes/Plexes 781 286 1,067 Multi family 641 364 1,005 Mfg. home / other 1,531 390 1,921 Total 10,454 2,603 13,057

Source: prior exhibits.



Exhibit 2.22 Forecasted Housing Demand by Affordability (Scenario D)

Projected Residential Land Needs

Using the mid-points of the housing demand forecasts, the buildable land that will be needed to accommodate planned housing production is shown in Exhibit 2.23. At the midpoint of the growth forecast scenarios (Scenario D), the overall amount of residential land that will be needed within all of Tillamook County over the next 20 years equates to just over 1,340 buildable acres of land area.

It should be noted that actual gross land needs could be much higher given the limited availability of sewer infrastructure capacity with in Tillamook County.

The forecast of residential land that is needed within each local community and incorporated cities is provided below by general land use type (low, medium and high density) for discussion and policy planning purposes.



Exhibit 2.23

Very Low

Density

(single

family

homes)

Low Density

(single family

and mfg.

homes)

Medium

Density

(townhomes,

plexes)

Higher

Density

(apartments

Very Low

Density

Low

Density

Medium

Density

Higher

Density

Total Land

Need

(buildable

acres)

Tillamook UGB 584 - 292 124 169 - 97 21 14 132 Nehalem UGB 151 - 75 32 44 - 25 5 4 34 Bay City UGB 138 - 69 29 40 - 23 5 3 31 Manzanita UGB 414 - 207 88 120 - 69 15 10 94 Rockaway Beach UGB 386 - 193 82 112 - 64 14 9 87 Garibaldi UGB 58 - 29 12 17 - 10 2 1 13 Wheeler UGB 57 - 28 12 17 - 9 2 1 13

Subtotal UGBs 1,788 - 894 378 518 - 298 63 43 404 Unincorporated areas** 815 407 326 81 - 815 109 14 - 937

Total 2,603 407 1,220 460 518 815 407 77 43 1,341

City/Town

Housing

Mix

Unincorp.

Area

Mix**

Dwellings

per acre

(avg.)

Very Low Density* 0% 50% 0.5

Low Density 50% 40% 3

Medium Density 21% 10% 6

Higher Density 29% 0% 12

Total 100% 100%

Tillamook County 20-year Housing Land Need Forecast at Midpoint

*Assumes mix and density as follows:

Total

Housing

Need

(Midpoint)

Land Need (Buildable acres)Housing Mix*

Source: compiled by FCS GROUP based on midpoint of housing forecast scenarios and expected market demand.



Section III. BUILDABLE LAND

INVENTORY

This section includes a summary of the residential buildable land inventory (BLI) in Tillamook County. The focus of this 2019 BLI analysis is on the following geographic areas:

■ Tillamook County, unincorporated areas outside existing urban growth boundaries (UGBs)

■ Tillamook UGB

■ Manzanita UGB

■ Bay City UGB

In addition to these locations, this report cites findings from prior adopted plans and BLI studies to ascertain buildable lands in the following locations:

■ Garibaldi UGB

■ Nehalem UGB

■ Rockaway Beach UGB

■ Wheeler UGB

METHODOLOGY

As part of Tillamook County’s Housing Needs Analysis process, an estimate of buildable lands was completed to assess the supply of available land for housing development in unicorporated areas as well as three cities that opted to update their land inventories at this time. The Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) was completed in accordance with OAR 660-008-0005 (2) and guidance provided by the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD).1

1 While Oregon state regulations pertaining to BLI methods apply only to UGBs of incorporated areas, the same methodology was applied to unincorporated portions of Tillamook County with one exception which was reviewed by the Housing Committee: the removal of 100-year flood zones from the vacant land inventory for unincorporated areas only. The BLIs for incorporated areas assume land within 100-year flood zones is considered to be unconstrained and buildable.



The objective of the residential BLI is to determine the amount of developable land available for future residential housing development. The steps taken to perform this analysis are as follows:

1. Create a unified environmental constraints layer. These are areas where land is unsuitable for development due to natural hazards

2. Generate the residential land base by identifying all taxlots that are zoned to al low residential development (either permitted outright or as a conditional use)

3. Subtract all environmentally constrained land from the residential land base

4. Classify land by development category (vacant, partially vacant, or redevelopable)

5. Calculate total net buildable acres by netting out land needed for public facilities such as roads and utility infrastructure and factoring a redevelopment rate for parcels deemed redevelopable

Please refer to the separate Tillamook County Residential Buildable Land Inventory reports by Cascadia Partners for additional details regarding the methodology used for each location.

ALL AREAS OF THE COUNTY

An estimate of the total buildable land for residential development is provided in Exhibit 3.1. The results indicate that overall there is over 3,700 acres of buildable residential land area throughout the county, with the vast majority located in unincorporated areas.

It should be noted that the term density is used to reflect the average number of housing units per buildable acre on a particular site. Density is a relative term that generally reflects the type of housing that a land use zone is planned to accommodate. Based on local construction trends and market activity in Tillamook County, the density and housing types generally fall into the following categories:

■ Very Low Density: 1 dwelling per 2 acres on average. Rural development typically relies on septic systems and connections to local water systems.

■ Low Density: average of 3 dwellings per acre. Typically single family detached housing or mobile homes.

■ Medium Density: 6-9 dwellings per acre. May include duplexes, townhomes and small lot cottage homes.

■ High Density: typically 9-18 dwellings per acre. Includes townhomes and apartments.

TILLAMOOK COUNTY (UNINCORPORATED AREAS)

Based on the BLI finding for the unincorporated portions of Tillamook County shown in Exhibit 3.2 and Map 3.1, approximately 2,135 acres of land are available in the residential buildable lands inventory. Not surprisingly, as most of unincorporated Tillamook County is rural, most of the land available falls under low density residential zoning (roughly 54%). Medium density residential and high density residential make up 34% and 10% of the residential buildable lands inventory



respectively. Only 2% of the residential land base is comprised of land zoned as commercial / mixed-use.

Vacant land represents by far the largest opportunity for development, comprising more than 95% of the land available in the buildable lands inventory. While less partially vacant and redevelopable land is available, the location of specific parcels are important as they may represent geographies where development is highly desired (i.e., areas close to commercial cores) or where infrastructure (water and sewer) is available.

Exhibit 3.1: Summary of Residential Buildable Lands Inventory, Unicorp. Tillamook County

(acres)

Relative Zoned Housing Density

Class

Location (BLI Source) Very

Low

Low Medium High Total

County Commercial (Cascadia 2019) 30

25

54

County Residential Zones (Cascadia 2019) 1,710 286 11 11 2,017

Manzanita UGB (Cascadia 2019)

52 69 6 127

Neahkahnie (Cascadia 2019)

13 25 76 114

Nehalem (2018)

207 95 43 345

Nehalem (COG 2007)

36 94 19 149

Neskowin (Cascadia 2019) 235 158 2 0 395

Netarts (Cascadia 2019)

59 56 18 133

Oceanside (Cascadia 2019)

82 1

82

Pacific City (Cascadia 2019) 30 49 34 83 196

Tillamook UGB (Cascadia 2019) - - 17 45 62

Wheeler (COG 2007)

61 18

79

Total 2,004 1,001 446 302 3,753

Source: various Tillamook County and local area Buildable Land Inventory studies, as noted.



Exhibit 3.2: Residential Buildable Lands Inventory, Unincorporated Tillamook County, 2019

Housing Category

Vacant

Partially Vacant

Redevelopable

Total Buildable

Very low density

Residential

1,097 27 21 1,145

Medium Density

Residential

694 29 4 727

High Density Residential 205 8 1 214

Commercial / Mixed-use 45 2 1 48

Total: 2,042 66 27 2,135

Source: Tillamook County Buildable Land Inventory by Cascadia Partners et al., September 2019.

Incorporated Cities

In addition to the 2019 BLI studies by Cascadia Partners and FCS GROUP, other communities in Tillamook County have completed residential buildable land inventories (BLIs) within the last 15 years. The objective of the residential BLI is to determine the amount of developable land available for future residential housing development within the UGB. BLI highlights include the following

■ Tillamook: draft findings by FCS GROUP/Cascadia Partners indicate that there is a current need for additional low- and medium-density zoned land area within the Tillamook UGB that ranges from approximately 48 to 76 acres of net buildable land area.

■ Nehalem: according to the City of Nehalem, no residential land shortages were identified for the planning horizon (2007-2027) with an overall residential buildable land surplus of 121.4 acres. The City is in the process of approving a new buildable land inventory which indicates a supply of 377.15 acres of residential land. That BLI work is still in process.

■ Wheeler: according to the City, no residential land shortages were identified for the planning horizon (2007-2027) with an overall residential buildable land surplus of 66.7 acres.

■ Rockaway Beach: according to the City of Rockaway Beach, no residential land shortages were identified for the planning horizon (2007-2027) with an overall residential buildable land surplus of 57 acres.

■ Bay City: Buildable Land Inventory is in process; however Housing Needs Analysis appears to be outdated.



■ Manzanita: FCS/Cascadia identified a total land inventory of 122 net acres (residential zones) plus 4 acres of mixed use zoning (BLI adopted by City in Sept. 2019). This level of supply appears to be adequate for meeting the 20 year demand identified earlier in this report (94 acres at midpoint of low and high forecast scenarios).

These findings indicate the City of Tillamook may be able to justify a UGB expansion or a Comprehensive Plan amendment and with changes in zoning to allow for more housing. However, it is unlikely that other cities can do so in the near future. In light of the significant level of housing demand outside the incorporated cities and their urban growth boundaries, and the desire to encourage more development in those locations, several local and state policy actions are identified in the next Section of this report for additional consideration.



Map 3.1 Residential Land Base, Unincorporated Tillamook County



Section IV. ACTION PLAN

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

This section summarizes relevant federal and state housing policies and identifies a set of Action Plan recommendations.

RECENT POLICIES

Several recent policy changes have occurred at the federal, state and regional level that may affect the future housing supply and demand in Tillamook County.

Federal Policies

Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

Passed in 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act initiates large scale federal tax reform. The reform made changes in many ways but most notable was the shift in the federal corporate tax rate, decreasing from 35% to 21%. The new tax cuts also lower most individual income tax rates, including the top marginal rate from 39.6 percent to 37 percent. The lower tax rates potentially affect Tillamook County and its municipalities because it makes tax free municipal bonds and affordable housing tax credits less attractive to investors because the relative advantage of lowering taxable income by investing in tax exempt bonds would decrease in most cases. However, with the adoption of measure 102 (see below), Oregon voters have expressed the need for investing in affordable housing bonds, and these state measures should mitigate the impact of this federal act.

Low Income Housing Tax Credits

The Low Income Housing Tax Credits program is a series of tax incentives administered by the IRS to encourage developers to construct affordable housing. Currently the program accounts for the largest source of new affordable housing in the U.S. In securing these credits, developers agree to rent out housing at an affordable level, often below market price (this is referred to as a use restriction). State agencies distribute credits to developers based on a state designed application process. These credits come in two forms, 9% (this raises about 70% of total cost) and 4% (this raises about 30% of the total cost), where 4% tax credits are often complimented with support from state bonds. In Oregon and in Tillamook County’s case, Measure 102 (see below) should enable more funding of housing tax credit bonds and strengthen the effect of these tax credits on a for affordable housing development in Tillamook County.



Oregon Policies

Oregon’s Statewide Housing Plan: “Breaking New Ground”

Oregon’s 2018 Statewide Housing Plan is a long-term plan designed to increase housing in Oregon. The plan was researched and developed by Oregon Housing Community Services (OHCS) and its implementation will rely on OHCS in conjunction with local governments and private businesses. OHCS is Oregon’s housing finance agency and as such the organization issues grants and loans to help facilitate home ownership in the state. OHCS regards housing in Oregon as a statewide crisis. Housing production has failed to keep up with Oregon’s population growth therefore demand has outpaced supply, pushing up home prices. From 2000 to 2015, an additional 155,156 housing units would need to have been built throughout Oregon to keep up with demand.2

The Statewide Housing Plan calls for over 85,000 new units to be constructed for households earning below 30% of Median Family Income (MFI). The plan is outlined in six priorities and each promotes increased housing supply. Priorities include an increase housing supply that: (1) improves racial equity; (2) combats homelessness; (3) increases housing stability for families; (4) makes rent affordable; (5) proliferates homeownership; and (6) empowers rural communities. With this in mind, OHCS will triple the existing pipeline of affordable rental housing — up to 25,000 homes in the development pipeline by 2023.

The plan proposes increased access to housing through partnerships with community organizations, loans with low interest rates, better access to OHCS resources, funding grants for housing projects, improved technology, and streamlined processes with a foundation of collaboration. Implementation seems to rely on each area’s ability to utilize and engage with OHCS as the plan clarifies goals and does not specify implementation policies.

Senate Bill 1533

Enacted by the 2016 Oregon Legislature, this bill aims to promote affordable housing development through local regulations and a new source of funding: the Affordable Housing Construction Excise Tax (CET). The bill allows municipalities to adopt regulations that impose conditions on development for new multifamily structures (20 units or more per project), including: requirements for the inclusions of some affordable housing; or the option of paying an in-lieu fee (construction excise tax) not to exceed $1 per square foot of floor area for residential, and $0.50 per square foot for nonresidential structures (with a maximum cap of $25,000 per building or structure). For new

2 Up for Growth, “Housing Underproduction in the U.S.: Economic, Fiscal and Environmental Impacts of Enabling Transit-Oriented Smart Growth to Address America’s Housing Affordability Challenge,” Up For Growth National Coalition, 2018, 9.



affordable housing projects, this legislation supports special incentives including: full or partial exemption of ad valorem property taxes, SDC waivers or reductions and other incentives.

Tillamook County voters soundly defeated a local CET ballot measure in 2017, and there is little appetite to pursue another CET at this time.

Measure 102: Passed by Oregon voters in November 2018

Measure 102 is intended to empower the collaborative partnerships described in Oregon’s Statewide Housing Plan. Measure 102 amends the state’s constitution to allow cities and counties to issue bonds for the construction of affordable housing construction without retaining 100% public ownership of the property. The goal is to allow local governments to pursue private public partnerships to better facilitate demand for housing.

KEY FINDINGS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the 20-year population growth forecasts for Tillamook County (forecasted increase of 2,936 year-round residents) and seasonal housing and demographic characteristics, the recommended housing needs for Tillamook County requires 2,305 to 2,603 net new dwelling units. The Tillamook County Housing Needs Analysis supports a variety of housing is needed over the next 20 years, including approximately 1,692 owner-occupied dwellings and 911 renter-occupied dwellings.

Recommended Actions

Market factors combined with limiting state and local land use policies have led to unprecedented housing challenges facing Tillamook County today. Addressing these challenges will require a coordinated effort by local and state government officials.

Vacancy rates for long-term rental units are now near zero in most communities in Tillamook County. While there is a strong and stable level of near term and long term demand for new housing construction throughout Tillamook County, there are very few local builders/developers that are focused on constructing the missing middle housing types needed for the workforce. To attract private investment and development of new workforce housing, a mix of local, state and federal policies, incentives and actions need to occur.

Local Policies and Actions

Challenge: Relatively high land and development costs in coastal areas hamper financial

viability of developing attainable workforce housing for permanent residents. As a result,

Tillamook County has an existing deficit for “missing middle” housing.

Tillamook County is tied for the second highest rate of economically distressed households in Oregon. Cities including Tillamook and Bay City have the highest share of severe rent burdened households at 28% and 30% of households, respectively.

To help encourage or incentivize construction of missing middle housing priced at 120% or below of the median family income levels, the County should continue to pursue state OHCS housing investment grants and work with local cities to consider the following policies:



Short-term Actions (1-2 years)

✓ Identify public-owned properties (excluding park/open space areas) that could be developed for a mix of housing types.

✓ Work with cities and sewer districts to update SDCs so that they are lower for smaller housing units than larger homes. Encourage SDC deferrals so that payments can be deferred for a period of time after building permit issuance for developments that contain deed restricted housing units.

✓ Consider a tax abatement program, such as the multiple-unit limited tax exemption program to promote development of affordable housing.

✓ Embark on a program that encourages Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and “Cottage Homes” and “Tiny Home Communities” as an allowed use or conditional use within low density zones.

✓ Allow “lot size averaging” so that the site of individual lots in a short -plat development can vary from the zoned minimum or maximum density, in a manner that the overall development still meets average lot size requirements.

✓ Encouraging upper-level redevelopment and conversions in downtown Tillamook and other locations through financial assistance programs, such as use of urban renewal funds as loans.

✓ Tillamook County and its eligible local communities should leverage CDBG funds, state grants and bonds to help communities expand water, sewer and transportation infrastructure within areas planned for workforce housing through establishment of local improvement districts or reimbursement district programs.



Long-term Actions (2-5 years)

Challenge: locations with available sewer capacity are limited to areas such as the city of

Tillamook.

✓ Support Tillamook UGB expansion and potential rezoning efforts that result in additional housing development opportunities. The current Tillamook UGB contains 98 acres of buildable residential land inventory, yet residential land needs are forecasted to be up to 175 acres. In light of this finding the City and County should identify ways to increase low and medium density housing development opportunities through a UGB expansion

✓ Work local sewer and water districts to document their current and planned capacity levels to address future housing needs and inform the county wide housing strategy.

Challenge: Tillamook County like many rural locations has a short supply of qualified

residential construction workers and specialty contractors. This results in higher housing prices as construction workers and crews must be obtained from the Willamette Valley region and temporarily housed.

✓ Facilitate development of trade related certification programs for people interested in residential construction and trades offered by Tillamook Bay Community College and Tillamook High School in partnership with home builders and general contractors.

State Policies and Potential Actions3

Challenge: Oregon planning requirements for urban areas hamstring local cities and

counties ability to create coordinated and creative housing strategies.

✓ Engage DLCD and Oregon Legislature to draft new planning guidelines for rural counties (e.g., population under 50,000) to adopt a coordinated county-wide Housing Needs Strategy. This would enable jurisdictions to prepare housing strategies that meet PSU’s baseline forecasts countywide and allows for a localized allocation of housing and population (among cities and rural centers). This regional HNA approach would be intended to reflect unique market conditions and development opportunities and constraints in order to optimize the provision of more attainable housing.

✓ Engage DLCD and Oregon Legislature to include new state rules that allow rural development centers (outside UGBs) to rezone land for housing as long as there are adequate public facilities.

3 Input received from DLCD staff regarding current interpretation of state rules applying to local HNAs and Economic Opportunity Analysis (EOA) compliance is provided in Appendix B.



Challenge: Tillamook County has a large share of vacant lands in areas that are subject to

frequent flooding and agricultural use restrictions . This restricts the amount of development that is likely to occur in rural residential zones (see Map 3.2).

✓ The County should pursue Oregon Legislature initiated amendments to the Oregon Administrative Rules to allow property owners to transfer future development rights (TDRs) from environmentally sensitive areas (such as vacant land within floodplains and tsunami hazard zones) and agricultural areas onto receiving areas that are located in communities that can provide adequate public facilities, such as roads, sewer and water services.

Map 3.2 Constrained Land Areas



APPENDIX A. HOUSING ATTAINABILITY ANALYSIS

Median Family Income Level (2017)* $45,061

Market Segment by Income Level Lower-end Upper-End

High (120% or more of MFI) 120%

Upper Middle (80% to 120% of MFI) 80% 120%

Lower Middle (50% to 80% of MFI) 50% 80%

Low (30% to 50%) 30% 50%

Very Low (less than 30% of MFI) 30%

Qualifying Income Level Lower-end Upper-End

High (120% or more of MFI) $54,073 or more

Upper Middle (80% to 120% of MFI) $36,049 $54,073

Lower Middle (50% to 80% of MFI) $22,531 $36,049

Low (30% to 50%) $13,518 $22,531

Very Low (less than 30% of MFI) $13,518 or less

Available Annual Housing Payment (@30% of income level) Lower-end Upper-End

High (120% or more of MFI) $16,222 or more



Low (30% to 50%) $4,055 $6,759

Very Low (less than 30% of MFI) $4,055 or less

Available Monthly Rent or Payment (@30% of income level) Lower-end Upper-End

High (120% or more of MFI) $1,352 or moreUpper Middle (80% to 120% of MFI) $901 $1,352Lower Middle (50% to 80% of MFI) $563 $901Low (30% to 50%) $338 $563Very Low (less than 30% of MFI) $338 or less

Approximate Attainable Home Price** Lower-end Upper-End

High (120% or more of MFI) $299,000 or moreUpper Middle (80% to 120% of MFI) $199,000 $299,000Lower Middle (50% to 80% of MFI) $104,000 $166,000Low (30% to 50%) $62,000 $104,000Very Low (less than 30% of MFI) $62,000 or less

Appendix A. Housing Attainability Analysis for Tillamook County

* based on U.S. Census American Community Survey 2013-17.

** High and upper middle income levels assume 20% down payment on 30-year fixed mortgage at 5% interest.

Source: Housing and Urban Development guidelines, and U.S. Census data, analysis by FCS Group

** Lower middle and low income levels assume 0% down payment on 30-year fixed mortgage at 5% interest.



Tillamook County Owner-Occupied Housing Needs, 20-year Forecast*

Family Income Level

Upper Range

of Qualifying

Income

Upper Range

of Home

Price*

Attainable

Housing

Products

Estimated

Distribution of

Owner-

Occupied Units

Projected

Owner-

Occupied

Units Needed

Upper (120% or more of MFI)Greater than

$54,073

Greater than

$299,000

Standard

Homes44% 790

Upper Middle (80% to 120% of MFI) $54,073 $299,000Small Homes,

Townhomes36% 647

Lower Middle (50% to 80% of MFI) $36,049 $166,000Mfgd. Homes,

Plexes15% 269

Low (30% to 50% of MFI) $22,531 $104,000 Govt. Assisted 5% 90

Very Low (less than 30% of MFI) $13,518 0% 0

Total Dwelling Units 100% 1,796

Tillamook County Renter-Occupied Housing Needs, 20-year Forecast*

Family Income Level

Upper Range

of Qualifying

Income

Upper Range

of Monthly

Rent*

Attainable

Housing

Products

Estimated

Distribution of

Units

Projected

Renter-

Occupied

Units Needed

Upper (120% or more of MFI)Greater than

$54,073

Greater than

$1,551

Standard

Homes,

Townhomes,

Condos

21% 166


Small Homes,

Townhomes,

Apartments

17% 135


ADUs,

Townhomes,

Mfgd. Homes,

Plexes, Apts.

20% 163

Low (30% to 50% of MFI) $22,531 $646 Govt. Assisted

Apts.23% 190

Very Low (less than 30% of MFI) $13,518 $388 Govt. Assisted

Apts.19% 153

Total Dwelling Units 100% 807

*Assumes 30% of income is used for rental payments.

*Assumes 30% of income is used for mortgage payment, with 5% interest, 30-year term with 20%

downpayment for upper middle and high income levels, and 5% downpayment for lower income levels.



APPENDIX B. DLCD STAFF INPUT

_________________________________________________________________________________

From: "Phipps, Lisa" <[email protected]> Date: Monday, December 16, 2019 at 10:40 AM To: Paul Wyntergreen <[email protected]> Subject: FW: HNAs and EOAs

HI, Paul, Here are the answers to the questions regarding the life span of a document and HNA approach. I met with Kevin Young in Salem to address these questions:

1) Do EOAs have a lifespan? The City of Tillamook had an EOA completed around 2013 and are now looking at updating their HNA, etc. Is it possible that a review of the EOA could show that it is still relevant (or mostly still relevant)? Would a letter just accompany that review showing it is still relevant? Or regardless, do they need to go through a full-blown process?

In 2013 it should have projected a 20-year need for employment lands. Since then, best practice would be to track what has developed since that time so they have a current understanding of their inventory of employment lands. There’s no requirement for periodic updates of EOAs at this time, but what often drives a local gov. to do that is running short on land supply. The most recently adopted EOA remains valid until it is replaced by an updated EOA. There’s no expiration date, but if they run out of land it becomes pretty irrelevant.

2) The City of Tillamook is currently having a BLI completed. I held a Planning Commission 101 workshop for the city before Thanksgiving and one of the questions that came up was whether it was acceptable to do a regional HNA? I know that 10-13 years ago, three of the cities and Tillamook County did a regional BLI and HNA with each community getting a HNA that was unique to them as well. So there was this broad overview of the area and its needs and then the community-specific HNAs were completed. Are you comfortable with this approach? Also, the commission asked about Safe Harbor and what pitfalls there might be in moving in that direction.

mailto:[email protected]




I think a regional HNA makes sense, as we discussed. I would not encourage use of the safe harbor

methods from Div. 24. Reportedly, those have not worked that well. They created quite a bit of confusion

with the recent Dallas HNA.4

Paul, I talked to Kevin about several different ways to approach the HNA. The first was to do an HNA just for the city, but one that included a regional overview given the City’s place as the County seat and home of most of the industry. He thought that made good sense but wanted to make sure that in terms of any decisions that might come out of the HNA with this approach, that it was related to the city limits only – but that the overview could provide good context. The second was that the City partner with the county (and other cities), to do a broader and more global HNA – however, in order for it to be of value for the City (in terms of UGBs, etc.) it would also need to include an HNA specific to the City of Tillamook (and the other cities). Does that make sense? I did ask, that as you get closer, if we could hold a workshop for Tillamook and he said yes…if you want one! Thanks! Lis

Lisa M. Phipps

North Coast Regional Representative | Ocean/Coastal Services Division Cell: 503-812-5448 | Main: 503-842-8222 ext 4004 [email protected] | www.oregon.gov/LCD

4 Note by T. Chase, FCS GROUP with respect to Safe Harbors. "Safe harbor" means an optional course of action that a local government may use to satisfy a requirement of Goal 14 (urbanization) based on projected population, and residential zoned density levels; and if the city needs to expand their urban growth boundary, a safe harbor analysis lends protections from appeals on certain elements which can cost time and money. A safe harbor approach per OAR 660-024-0040(1)-(8) is not the only way or necessarily the preferred way to comply with the requirements of a housing needs analysis. It was employed for the city of Dallas (along with other approaches) as an alternative way of looking at residential land need scenarios for the 20-year forecast. The Dallas City Council successfully adopted their HNA in December 2019 without appeal.


http://www.oregon.gov/LCD



_______________________________________________________________________________

From: Paul Wyntergreen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 2:11 PM To: Phipps, Lisa <[email protected]> Cc: Debbi Reeves <[email protected]> Subject: Re: HNAs and EOAs

Thank you Lisa; this is very helpful and yes let’s schedule up a workshop for February or March. It is wonderful to see that a regional approach is a possibility. I am still a bit confused by your last couple of paragraphs; I understand that the City and the County (with other cities) would each do an HNA, but it is unclear as to whether the project demand could be allocated. Since High-premium cities at the beach will probably not produce sufficient approachable housing at rent levels that its service workers could afford, but places like Tillamook City could, is it allowable to assign additional growth allocation to certain cities if agreement is reached between communities?

Paul Wyntergreen

City Manager

City of Tillamook

210 Laurel Avenue

Tillamook, OR 97141

_________________________________________________________________________________

From: "Phipps, Lisa" <[email protected]> Date: Friday, December 20, 2019 at 1:29 PM To: Paul Wyntergreen <[email protected]> Cc: Debbi Reeves <[email protected]> Subject: RE: HNAs and EOAs

Hi, Paul, That is a great question with a good philosophical foundation. But, I am not sure that the laws have caught up with the realities of what regions like ours face. I will reach out again with the nuance described below, but my initial reaction, that while the regional approach will give people a better understanding of the how and why, the growth will still be confined to the PSU estimate for each city. But, I will follow up. Thanks, Lisa

Lisa M. Phipps North Coast Regional Representative | Ocean/Coastal Services Division Cell: 503-812-5448 | Main: 503-842-8222 ext 4004 [email protected] | www.oregon.gov/LCD








http://www.oregon.gov/LCD

Applicant Property

Short Term Rentals

Tax AddressPacific City

Others

Applicant Property

Short Term Rentals

Tax AddressPacific City

Others

Exhibit BSecond homes and Short Term Rentals on Sunset Drive and

Rueppell Avenue, Pacific City, Oregon

The information on this map was derived from digital databases on GIS software. Care was taken in the creation of this map. Tillamook County cannot accept anyresponsibility for errors, omissions, or positional accuracy. There are no warranties, expressed or implied, including the warranty of merchantability or fitness for aparticular purpose, accompanying this product. The maps and map data are provided "as-is" and are not legal surveys or legal descriptions. However, notifications ofany errors will be appreciated.

The information on this map was derived from digital databases on GIS software. Care was taken in the creation of this map. Tillamook County cannot accept anyresponsibility for errors, omissions, or positional accuracy. There are no warranties, expressed or implied, including the warranty of merchantability or fitness for aparticular purpose, accompanying this product. The maps and map data are provided "as-is" and are not legal surveys or legal descriptions. However, notifications ofany errors will be appreciated.

mary

Highlight

mary

Highlight

1

Melissa Jenck

From: Sue <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 1:40 PMTo: Melissa JenckSubject: EXTERNAL: Kingfisher ApartmentsAttachments: Scan0056.jpg; Scan0057.jpg


Melissa, I have enclosed a 2 page letter concerning the Kingfisher Apartments due July 2nd 2020. Please include them in your file.Thank you, Sue and Norm Helgeson 503‐630‐4666

Subject: Kingfisher Apartments- Re: #851-20-000139-PLNG (Conditional Use); #851-20-000138-PLNG (Variance)

Hello Melissa Jenck & Tillamook County Planning Commission,

We are writing to provide comment regarding the Kingfisher Apartments development application for a Conditional Use permit and Variance request.

As a homeowner next door to the proposed Kingfisher Apartment Complex (Tax lot 900) on the south side of the development, in Pacific City/Woods we oppose both the request for Conditional Use and Variance for the Kingfisher Apartments.

We oppose the Conditional Use request because the requested conditional use zoning for this parcel (PCW -R3) requires that 'public facilities and services can accommodate a high level of use' . The public facilities and services cannot accommodate the proposed level of use.

I. Sunset, Pacific and Kiwanda roads are currently substandard with no shoulder, no sidewalks, and are very confusing and dangerous to both pedestrians and drivers.

2. A 25 unit apartment building will add an additional~ 140 trips per day (based on Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual-"Multi-family Mid-Rise Building")

3. The planned parking for this apartment will add to already overburdened parking infrastructure by forcing both residents and guests out on to Sunset drive, to the TurnAround public parking area, or into the downtown area- all of which have limited parking options.

We also oppose the Variance Request for both height and setbacks because the need for this variance is entirely self-created and there are multiple reasonable alternatives to the building as designed. This means that the variance request application fails on 2 out of the 4 review criteria.

Per the Tillamook County Land Use Ordinances Section 8.030, the variance request must satisfy all of the review criteria, not half.

1. Designing a building that is too tall, requiring a 30% height variance, is entirely selfcreated.

2. Designing a building that is too wide requiring a setback variance of 15 feet to 2 feet is entirely self-created.

3. There are many other economically and physically feasible designs for this parcel.

We also oppose the Variance Request for additional on-street parking. Per Land Use Ordinances Section 8.030, the Commission must also refer to Section 4.005 as part of the review process. Section 4.005 notes that land use standards must allow:

1. Private land uses that can be reasonably expected to occur on private land can be entirely accommodated on private land ( eg parking & safe access).

a. The applicant is going to burden local public infrastructure with overflow parking for both residents and apartment visitors. The number of parking

spots currently planned is: 1 vehicle per apartment plus 5 additional spaces, and 2 handicapped accessible spaces for a total of 32.

2. That " ... safe access to and from common roads" must be ensured. a. The proposed on street parking will require the accessible spots to back out

onto an already congested road on a near blind corner. b. The proposed parallel parking is going to require driving down to Bob Staub

State Park (or a neighbor's driveway which will be our driveway) to make auturn or potentially park facing the wrong direction into incoming traffic.

Please consider the Sunset neighborhood and the detrimental effects that this large apartment complex will have on the livability of the neighbors in this area such as traffic congestion, pedestrian safety, the burden to the local public infrastructure parking and the enormous size of the Kingfisher Apartment Complex compared to the neighboring properties.

We urge the Tillamook County Planning Commission to not simply be a rubber stamp for development, to consider the above carefully, and to reject the Conditional Use and Variance requests.

Sincerely,

s~ t~~-....-(\tjU~V\_ ~

Sue and Norm Helgeson 35085 Sunset Dr Pacific City

1

Melissa Jenck

From: Melissa Kenney <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 1:12 PMTo: Melissa JenckSubject: EXTERNAL: Kingfisher Apartments - Re: #851-20-000139-PLNG (Conditional Use); #851-20-000138-

PLNG (Variance)


2 July 2020 Dear Tillamook County Land Commissioners, Today at 4pm is the deadline to submit public comment in regards to Kingfisher Apartments - Re: #851-20-000139-PLNG (Conditional Use); #851-20-000138-PLNG (Variance). It is probably no surprise as I wrote an emotional objection which I dropped off at the Department of Community Development for consideration for the packet on June 18th. This was before I realized that should an application get approved, in an appeal process which goes before the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals only testimony that can be considered as evidence must use "relevant criteria" as described below and excerpted from the public notice for these applications: Subsequently on June 25, 2020 during public comments via telephone I again objected to both of these application requests and for the record here is a transcript of my testimony so that if need be this letter might have it's day in court should unfortunately we find ourselves there in the future. Planning Commissioners, My name is Melissa Kenney, Pacific City. Thank you for your time and audience. While I do not disagree that diverse housing is needed in Tillamook County, and I applaud the Shlukas for their well intended project, I object to the request for the Variance and Conditional Use Permit regarding the Kingfisher Apartment complex. I do not believe that this parcel in Pacific City can support the proposed project without significant negative impact to neighbors, residents on Sunset Drive and traffic both now and in the future. And at the end of the day zoning exists for very good reasons. In regards to the Request for a Variance: Section 8 of the Land Use Ordinance states that the application must meet all 4 metrics for approval. In this case, they failon 2 of the 4 required criteria.

1. Designing a building that is too tall, requiring a 30% height variance, is entirely self-created. As well as designing a building that is too wide, requiring a setback variance of 15 feet to 2 feet, is also entirely self-created.

2. There are many other economically and physically feasible designs for this parcel. Regarding the Conditional Use Permit: It should be declined based on the PCW-R3 zoning requirements. The current zoning is PCW-C1. A multi-unit dwelling is not an outright permitted use of this parcel, but multi-unit dwellings exceeding 4 units is a ‘conditionally permitted use’ for the parcel. The applicants still need to adhere to the PCW-R3 requirements as part of the conditional use application review & approval process. The public facilities and services related to sidewalks and roads cannot safely accommodate the proposed density and this should be taken into account when reviewing the conditional use application. To address a few topics from this evening:

2

Regarding fire and rescue, it is a relief to know that Nestucca Valley Fire can handle the proposed project in an emergency, but it is disheartening to note that the chief neglected to address the impact of this project to the rest of the street and neighborhood if the variances are allowed. In my opinion a traffic study is definitely warranted yet, during a pandemic with the majority of workers in this country unemployed, I question when that resource will be an accurate resource. Just to give you a bit of an insight, since the roads department installed a digital sign at the turnaround directing Northbound traffic down Sunset Drive for public parking, we have had a hit and run accident, as well as having a vehicle just two or three days ago go over the guardrail in the boat launch landing a vehicle on the riverbank. This type of traffic is a new element to life on Sunset Drive and it is dangerous and frightening. To grant these requests would most likely open Tillamook County government up to litigation in the future, proving to be fiscally irresponsible. Thus, it would be negligent in your DUTY as a Land Commissioner to the residents and property owners of Tillamook County to grant these requests that could invite such litigation. In conclusion, I have to ask, how could granting these requests be fair to property owners who have abided by the zoning rules for decades? Would it be fair to grant one property owner special conditions that will negatively impact the views and property enjoyment for the rule abiding neighbors and owners? How would you like to be the Helgesons losing 13 feet in a variance? In addition, from a design standpoint there are many flat-roofed homes on Sunset Drive which are in compliance with County Ordinances. It could be said that in the event of granting such unqualified requests it could be perceived as exhibiting favoritism, discrimination or abuse of power. I ask you to follow the zoning rules and support a project such as this on a more appropriate parcel than this one. Thank you. And good luck with this. Melissa Kenney PO BOX 1041 Pacific City, OR 97135

1

Melissa Jenck

From: Cameron La Follette <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 12:23 PMTo: Melissa Jenck; Sarah AbsherCc: Sean MaloneSubject: EXTERNAL: ORCA Testimony on Kingfisher Apts, #851-20-000139-PLNG & -000138-PLNGAttachments: ORCA to Tillamook Co PC re Kingfisher Apts July 2020.pdf

[NOTICE: This message originated outside of Tillamook County ‐‐ DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Dear Melissa and Sarah, Attached please find the testimony of Oregon Coast Alliance in the matter of Kingfisher Apartments conditional use and variance requests in Pacific City. Please place this testimony in the record, and notify myself and Sean Malone that you have received this email, opened the attachment and placed it in the record. Please also place both myself and Mr. Malone on the notice list for further action on this application. Thank you, Cameron — Cameron La Follette Executive Director Oregon Coast Alliance P.O. Box 857 Astoria, OR 97103 (503) 391‐0210 [email protected] www.oregoncoastalliance.org

1

Sean T. Malone Attorney at Law

259 E. Fifth Ave., Tel. (303) 859-0403 Suite 200-C Fax (650) 471-7366 Eugene, OR 97401 [email protected] July 2, 2020 Via Email Tillamook County Planning Commission c/o Melissa Jenck Tillamook County Department of Community Development 1510-B Third Street Tillamook, OR 97141 [email protected]

Re: Oregon Coast Alliance testimony for a request for consolidated review of Conditional Use #851-20-000139-PLNG and Variance #851-20-000138-PLNG Dear Members of the Planning Commission, On behalf of Oregon Coast Alliance, an Oregon nonprofit corporation whose mission is

to protect coastal natural resources, please accept this testimony in opposition to a conditional use request to establish a 25-unit apartment on a property located in the Unincorporated Community of Pacific City/Woods. Concurrently, with a variance review request to reduce the street-side yard setback from 15-ft to 2-ft, allow for (6) on-street parking spaces and increase the height limit from 24-ft to 32-ft.

The subject parcel is zoned PCW-C1, and a multi-unit dwelling is not an outright permitted use in that zone. While the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit, PCW-R3 governs the requirements for multi-family units. This raises the legal issue of whether the requirements of PCW-R3 for multi-family units, which this project is, should also apply.

Plainly, because the applicant is requesting so many variances, the parcel is not suitable for the proposed use considering its size, shape, location, topography, existence of improvements and natural features.” TCLUO 6.040(3). The property is not suitable because it cannot even accommodate the amount of paring necessary for the proposal. Similarly, as it relates to the impacts on adjacent properties as a result of the variances, it is evident that the “proposed use will not alter the character of the surrounding area in a manner which substantially limits,

2

impairs, or prevents the use of surrounding properties for the permitted uses listed in the underlying zone.” TCLO 6.040(4). In fact, even the parking accommodations for the subject property have been pushed on to “on-street parking,” in an area that is already starved of such space. If the applicant were to scale back the proposal significantly, then the parking issue (including variances) would be resolved, but, again, the issues here arise from the applicant’s own doing.

Under TCLUO 8.030(1), the applicant would not be sacrificing a property right by scaling back the proposal so that no variances would be necessary. The applicant is not entitled to a 25-unit apartment building, any more than the applicant is entitled to a 5-unit apartment building as a substantial property right. The applicant alleges that it is the protections afforded to riparian areas, estuarine areas, flood zones, and so forth that create the need for variances, but that is not a reason to throw out valid county requirements for less stringent ones. If that were the case, then variances would be handed out for every such proposal. The applicant has not demonstrated that it is impossible to site an apartment building with some lesser number of units that would not require variances. Until the applicant demonstrates that it has no other options available, in terms of the scale of the proposal, then the applicant’s proposed variances should not even be considered.

The applicant also cannot satisfy TCLUO 8.030(2) because the same “use” i.e., multi-family housing, can still be realized on the parcel, just not at the scale the applicant currently proposes. The requirements are not so onerous that it would preclude the applicant from obtaining some smaller scale apartment building.

Under TCLUO 8.030(3), the proposed variance is not consistent with the purpose “[t]o ensure that all private land uses that can be reasonably expected to occur on private land can be entirely accommodated on private land, including but not limited to dwellings, shops, garages, driveway, parking, areas for maneuvering vehicles for safe access to common roads, alternative energy facilities, and private open spaces.” Clearly, the applicant is not utilizing the private property for the entirety of the apartment’s parking.

Finally, as for TCLUO 8.030(4), the applicant has not demonstrated that some lesser number of units would result in the same variances being sought. The applicant simply alleges that because the applicant desires affordable housing, the number of dwelling units must be 25. This argument is irrelevant to the standard. The applicant must demonstrate that some lesser number of units would also require variances, or, put another way, demonstrate that the applicant can have multi-family housing with some lesser number of units that would not require the variances that have been requested.

There are additional issues which the county indicates in the staff report have been incompletely considered or resolved, including the fact that the property is subject to the

3

Tsunami Hazard Overlay Zone, TCLUO 3.580; and, as it is located on a recently stabilized foredune, is subject to the Beach and Dune Overlay zone, TCLUO 3.530; and parts of the property lie within the Flood Hazard Overlay zone, TCLUO 3.510, especially as the setback requirements of the PCW-R3 zone cannot be met on this parcel without granting a variance.

For the above reasons, the application must be denied.

Sincerely,

Sean T. Malone Attorney for Oregon Coast Alliance

Cc: Client

1

Melissa Jenck

From: Jeff Schons <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 9:47 AMTo: Melissa JenckSubject: EXTERNAL: Kingfisher Apartments Attachments: Jeff's letter of support.docx


Hi Melissa: Please see attached. Jeff Schons Nestucca Ridge Family of Companies Office 503‐965‐7779 Ext. 1326 Cell 503‐550‐1342 Check us out on the web at http://www.yourlittlebeachtown.com

July 2, 2020

TO: Tillamook County Planning Commission

C/O Melissa Jenck, Department of Community Development Via email: [email protected]

Dear Melissa & Planning Commission:

Please accept this letter as support for the Kingfisher Apartments conditional use and variance requests. As you know, workforce housing is a critical need, not just in our area but across the county, and this project would be a great start on solving this major problem. A few points I’d like to make:

1. The applicants, Katie & Kevin Shluka are local business owners, trying to do something good for the community. Financially, there are many other projects that would be more favorable for them, but they are committed to providing respectful, quality housing opportunities for local residents. They have been working hard to find the balance between providing quality housing with the financial realities of a project like this – it’s not easy to get a project like this done.

2. The idea that “no development” is an option is not feasible. Someone is going to do something on that property eventually. During the periodic review process there was a clear message from the community that most residents would prefer limited additional commercial development. The proposed project takes away the potential for a large commercial project by putting that parcel into residential use.

3. There are many outright uses that would require no conditional use or variances that would have much higher potential negative impact than the proposed project. In spite of the loud voices of opposition from the people immediately around the project site, given the choice of a commercial project versus apartments for workforce housing, it is clear that apartments better suit the needs of the community.

4. The applicants are willing to provide a public easement for access to the riverfront. Their plans to enhance the riparian zone and pedestrian access will be a great benefit to the community.

5. The variances requested do not, in my judgement, impact negatively the surrounding properties or the community in any substantial way and provide an opportunity for the applicants to make the project more attractive and assist with making it financially viable.

o Height restrictions, for the most part, are intended to protect view from other properties. In this case, no views will be affected by the variances requested.

o The variance for parking is intended to assist with providing good access for their ADA units, which is a very positive feature.

o What is the point of denying a variance that hurts no one and could help a project be more viable and more attractive?

In summary, I believe this is a very well-planned, timely and suitable project and provides a rare opportunity to make a significant dent in the workforce housing problem.

Sincerely,

Jeff Schons, PC resident & business owner [email protected]

1

Melissa Jenck

From: Mary Jones <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 9:45 AMTo: Melissa JenckSubject: EXTERNAL: Kingfisher Apartments CU & VarianceAttachments: Mary's letter of support.docx


HI Melissa: Please see the attached letter regarding the Kingfisher Apartments. Thank you, Mary J. Jones Cell: 503‐550‐7194

Nestucca Ridge Development, Inc. PO Box 189 ꞏ Pacific City, OR 97135

July 1, 2020

TO: Melissa Jenck, Department of Community Development, and The Tillamook County Planning Commission Via email: [email protected]


I have had the opportunity to work with and provide input to the applicants on the proposed Kingfisher Apartments and, while it certainly is a contentious topic at this point in the community, it is my opinion that the project is timely according to the services available, and will fit the character of Pacific City.

Unfortunately, there have been some false statements circulated in the community (like a letter circulated by a Sunset Drive resident claiming that the applicants “…already have commission approval to expand Sunset Drive to 3 lanes so they can set up a shuttle….” which is completely false, and “…rumoured to be only paying Pacific City Joint Water – Sanitary Authority – for one hook-up (@ $28,000) vs 25 (again). This is also completely false and the “(again)” is obviously intended to accuse the applicant of not having paid water & sewer connection fees appropriately in the past, which is absurd and an obvious attempt to create false negativity with regard to the applicant.

Having been through a few of these kinds of hearings, I have personally experienced these sorts of lies, attacks and mis-characterizations of a developer’s intentions and realize that this is a common technique utilized by people in opposition that don’t really have a substantive objection - just that they personally don’t like it (or have been led to believe they won’t like it with untruths from others). While disheartening, and gets a lot of people unnecessarily upset, I am sure that you will not let that kind of purposeful chaos-generation in our community affect your judgement on this matter.

A few important things for you to consider:

There have been some statements made like “Zoning ordinances must be adhered to; there should be no variances”. I submit that there would not be a variance process if it was the intention that zoning laws (which may have been formulated 50 years ago or more) were unable to be altered to suit a particular circumstance. There would be no way for a County to foresee how every specific parcel should be utilized at the time that such Zoning ordinances are written and therefore a Variance process is included to ensure that a proposal that fits the needs of the community can be approved.

The reality of our housing situation, proven by County studies and data, is that this type of workforce housing is desperately needed in South Tillamook County. We all know (and even the naysayers admit this), that workforce housing is very scarce in our community. Why would we as a community not want to encourage this to happen on one of the very few parcels that are of a large enough size to accommodate it?

The applicants, Kevin & Katie Shluka, have designed a quality, nice looking building. This could easily have been designed as a large ugly “box” with low quality materials which would be a detraction to our community rather than an enhancement. That type of design would, of course, be less expensive to build and more feasible financially, but a low-quality building is not the goal of the applicants, nor should it be our goal as a community or County. This is precisely why the Variance process exists; it is to allow for something that needs a little latitude to fit the needs of the community better.

Tillamook County Planning Commission July 1, 2020 Page 2

There is some assistance from the State of Oregon currently available to assist with workforce housing development which will help enable this project to be feasible. As one of the Governor’s Pilot Projects for workforce housing, this project will receive funding for 16 of the 25 water & sewer connection fees which will need to be paid by the Developer. As a community, I believe we should be grateful to receive such help from the State to assist with resolving one of our largest problems.

The intersection of Pacific and Cape Kiwanda Drive is currently confusing, as many have pointed out. This project, as currently designed, will close off the ingress/egress to the subject property at that location and therefore will eliminate the most dangerous element at that intersection. I believe that is a good thing and does not make that intersection more dangerous. On the contrary, I believe that it will be much safer to become a 3-way intersection when a driveway is not a 4th element in the middle of it.

In my opinion, the folks in opposition simply don’t want an apartment project on their street (in fact many of the opposing views I’ve read actually state this). And I believe this will be the case no matter where a project like this is proposed. The NIMBY issue, while understandable, should not stand in the way of a great project that will enhance our community by providing high quality residences for the people who live and work in our community.

In summary, this project is timely, services are available, the project is well planned, it does not affect surrounding property owners negatively in any substantial way, and brings a State grant to our area that will be of great benefit to the many people who desperately need access to quality affordable housing.

Thank you for considering these points and I strongly urge you to approve the Conditional Use request and Variance request.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this project,

Mary J. Jones Nestucca Ridge Development Email: [email protected] Cell: 503-550-7194

1

Melissa Jenck

From: Judd Moore <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 12:11 AMTo: Melissa JenckSubject: EXTERNAL: Kingfisher Apartment Review CommentsAttachments: Beach Response.doc

[NOTICE: This message originated outside of Tillamook County ‐‐ DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Melissa: Please find my comments with regards to the above noted project in the attached document titled….Beach Response. Comments are in regards to both the published Staff Report and the June 25 Hearing. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Please send me an ‘E’ Mail response verifying receipt of this document! Thank You:………….’R’ and ‘M’ Properties LLC Judd Moore

Planning Commission Hearing Comments Planning Commission Hearing held June 25, 2020. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conditional Use and Variance Comments Kingfisher Apartments – Pacific City, Oregon Attention: Melissa Jenck – Land Use Planner II Tillamook County – Department of Community Development ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The following are comments in response to Planning Commission Hearing held June 25, 2020: Comment Code: Blue – Excerpts from Applicant Proposal Red – Excerpts from Section 3.510: Flood Hazard Overly Zone

Purple – Excerpts from Applicable Codes, Ordinances, Regulations and or The Staff Report

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITEM NO. 1 - Conditional Use: #851-20-000139-PLNG: Although I do not object to the Condition Use Concept, it appears that in this case The Applicant fails to meet the criteria set-forth in order to approve this Conditional Use Application and for that reason I would object to an outright approval of this request. The following comments address the criteria, which must be meet in order to consider a Conditional Use Application. Reference: Article VI - Tillamook County Land Use Ordinance: SECTION 6.040: REVIEW CRITERIA “ANY CONDITIONAL USE …… shall be subject to the following criteria,…”

The Proposed development appears to meet all the criteria for Conditional Use except for requirements numbers 3and 4:

(3) The parcel is suitable for the proposed use considering its size, shape, location, topography, existence of improvements and natural features. This parcel is not suitable for this particular proposal for the following reasons:

a. The scale (Physical size) of this project over-burdens this property when you take into account the effects that the Riparian Area and the Flood Zone. These two elements appear to be driving The Applicant to position his building and surface parking in the remaining portion of the property in such a manner that the remaining ‘open-space’ is not sufficient enough to allow future tenants any reasonable ‘out-of-doors’ activities. b. The “…topography…” of the property does not allow The Applicant to comply with the basic height limitation for this property; based on floor to floor dimensions as indicated on The Applicant’s Building Section. 1.

An analysis of the vertical dimensions of the indicates that even without approval of the requested height variance, The Applicant can not meet the minimum height (24 feet) limitation without placing the lowest grade level elevation below the documented Flood Zone level. The fact that The Applicant has presented this proposal with a ‘Below-Flood-Zone’ level would not be considered ‘Good-Practice’ and in fact put future tenants at risk. For further clarification of this point, see “Height Analysis” in the ‘Request for Height Variance Comments’

(4) The proposed use will not alter the character of the surrounding area in a manner which substantially limits, impairs or prevents the use of surrounding properties for the permitted uses listed in the underlying zone.

Although this project will have little impact on “…surrounding properties for the permitted uses…”; it will “..alter the character of the surrounding area…”. The residential character of the current area will be altered.

Excerpts From The Staff Report:

(1) “These properties are zoned for low density residential development on the area west of Sunset Drive and zoned for medium density residential development on the east side of Sunset Drive.”

High-Density development of this type does not compliment the existing density classifications.

(2) Section 3.334: Pacific City/Woods High Density Residential (PCW-R3) Zone The purpose of the PCW-R3 zone is to designate areas for a medium to high-density mix of dwelling types and other, compatible, uses. The PCW-R3 zone is intended for densely-developed areas or areas that are suitable for high density urban development because of level topography and the absence of hazards, and because public facilities and services can accommodate a high level of use.

a. High-Density development of this type is does not compliment the existing density classification and residential character of the neighborhood.

b. The topography of the property does not allow for compliance to the basic building height limitation.

For further clarification of this point, see “Height Analysis” in the ‘Request for Height Variance Comments’

(3) Section 3.510: Flood Hazard Overlay (FH) It is the purpose of the FH zone.....to minimize public and private losses or damages due to flood conditions…”

Again, this development, although outside the technical ‘FH-zone’, is ‘By-Design’ exposing itself (and tenants) to all of the hazards associated with the FH zone, including those listed below: (a) Protect human life and health;

By building this project at a level below the documented Flood Zone level, The Applicant does not “…Protect human life and health”

2.

(b) Minimize expenditure of public money for costly flood control projects; By building this project at a level below the documented Flood Zone level,

The Applicant may be exposing the need for “…public money for costly flood control projects

(c) Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of the public;

By building this project at a level below the documented Flood Zone level, The Applicant does not “…Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding…”

(d) Minimize prolonged business interruptions;

This requirement appears not be a issue with this project.

(e) Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains, electric, telephone and sewer lines, streets and bridges located in areas of special flood hazards;

It does appear that The Applicant has placed the primary utility service area (room) at the Lowest Grade level subjecting it to flooding.

(f) Help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development of areas of special flood hazard so as to minimize future flood blight areas;

By building this project at a level below the documented Flood Zone level, The Applicant is not “…providing for sound use and development of areas of special flood hazard so as to minimize future flood blight areas;”

(g) Ensure that potential buyers are notified that property is in an area of special flood hazard; and Ensure that those who occupy the areas of special flood hazard assume responsibility for their actions. Future Tenants must be “…notified that property is in an area of Special

Flood Hazard;…’ area.

(i) Maintain the functions and values associated with Special Flood Hazard Areas which reduce the risk of flooding.

By building this project at a level below the documented Flood Zone level, The Applicant does not “…Maintain the functions and values associated with Special Flood Hazard Areas which reduce the risk of flooding.”

Excerpts From The Staff Report: “…the proposed location of the apartment structure avoids impacts to the Area of Special Flood Hazard….”

This comment is not entirely accurate. The proposed location of the apartment structure does not avoid the impacts to the Area of Special Flood Hazard. While technically out of the zone, finish elevation as designed (15 inches below FZ) at the lowest grade level will in-fact contribute additional hazards to not only the development itself, but to adjacent properties.

3.

Section 3.100 describes estuary zones as estuarian waters, intertidal areas, submerged and submersible lands and tidal wetlands up to the line of non-aquatic vegetation or the Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) line, which ever is most landward. Excerpts From The Staff Report:

1. Findings: Applicant has provided a site plan depicting the locations for proposed development and this plan confirms all proposed improvement is located outside of the estuarian boundary and above the MHHW line. Because development is located outside of the estuarian boundary, the ECl zone standards are not applicable to this development request.

2. Findings: “Staff finds that the proposed apartment is not subject to the standards and criteria of TCLUO Section 3.510 'Flood Hazard Overlay', as the improvements are to be located outside of the Special Flood Hazard Area….”

This findings is not entirely accurate. While it is true that the development is technically outside the “…Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) line, …” (Flood Zone), the development appears to negatively impact the limits of the Flood Zone as the development actually extends the westerly limits of the Flood Zone a distance (?) into the building footprint, as well as around the building perimeter. The result of allowing the Flood Zone boundaries to extend to the west, may also have a negative impact on the property directly to the south. The Applicant should provide documentation describing any effects his development may or may not have on that property with regard to this issue.

It appears that the current proposed development places the Lowest Ground Level below the Flood Zone Elevation.

- Flood Zone Elevation at this site is 16’-9” (subject to verification) - Lower Level Elevation is 15’-6”

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONCLUSIONS - Conditional Use: Although this development appears to meet the criteria for a Conditional Use approval, there are several issues that this development creates which would suggest that the Conditional Use request be denied.

This project is a ‘High-Density’ development which results in a building footprint which, while capable of being build on the site, would over-burden the sites ability to provide exterior ‘open’ spaces of sufficient size and location to support the “Community” environment to which The Applicant’s Architect spoke to during the

Planning Commission Hearing held June 25, 2020.

This particular parcel is located at the west end of the Beachy Bridge. This unique location is ideally position to become the focal point for all future development which will occur on the remaining (3 +) mixed-occupancy properties which lay to the north, and west. 4.

These parcels, along with this particular lot will become the central commercial-tourist facilities as well as the ‘gate-way’ to an improved County Park located at the end of Pacific Avenue; thus completing what should be a strong connection with the current ‘Down-Town’ area and the beach experience. This property will play a major part in what has the potential to become a well designed and vibrant community development at the intersections of Pacific Avenue and Cape Kiwanda Drive, and Pacific Avenue and Sunset Drive.

Although high-density housing may be needed in the Pacific City community, this parcel is not the appropriate location and this building is not the appropriate facility. The Applicant’s desire to provide ‘Work-Force-Housing’ is an admirable thing to do, and were the design of the proposed building something other than an example of ‘Vanilla Architecture’, in realality the project is ‘Low-Income-Housing’. The addition of a facility with this perception will certainly have a negative effect on the properties adjacent to it as well as the surrounding community. As noted above, the property would be an over-burden with the construction of a 26 units complex. The number and nature of the variances requested by The Applicant indicates that the various restrictions (Flood Zone and Riparian Areas) are real conditions which The Applicant has addressed in a compromising manner.

Apart from the Condition Use request, the fact, that in it’s current state of development; This building is proposed to be build below the Flood Zone Level should be reason enough to deny the Condition Use request. This project would better be built on a parcel more forgiving than the current lot proposed. I find it hard to believe that with all of the studies undertaken to develop the Pacific City/Woods Community Plan and the apparently well documented need for ‘Work-Force-Housing’ it would seem that the community would have identified more appropriate properties for such a project. Not to mention that there are certainly more suitable properties within the Pacific City-Woods-Cloverdale areas which would address the proximity issue. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITEM NO. 2: Variance No. #851-20-000138-PLNG: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Item No. 2A: Request to decrease the front yard Set-Back requirements

The Applicant is requesting a reduction to the basic 15 foot set-back to 2 feet. The following is the criteria, which must be meet in order to consider a Variance Application. Reference: Article 8 - Tillamook County Land Use Ordinance

SECTION 8.010: The purpose of a VARIANCE is to provide relief when a strict application of the dimensional requirements for lots or structures would cause an undue or unnecessary hardship by rendering the parcel incapable of reasonable economic use. No VARIANCE shall be granted to allow a use of property not authorized by this Ordinance.

5.

SECTION 8.030: “…..a Variance may be authorized if the applicants….. satisfies all relevant requirements, including all four review criteria in Section 8.030…... including Section 4.005 Residential and Commercial Zone Standards.”

SECTION 8.030: A VARIANCE shall be granted, ……if the applicant adequately demonstrates that the proposed VARIANCE satisfies all of the following criteria: (1) Circumstances attributable either to the dimensional, topographic, or hazardous

characteristics of a legally existing lot, or to the placement of structures thereupon, would effectively preclude the enjoyment of a substantial property right enjoyed by the majority of landowners in the vicinity, if all applicable standards were to be met. Such circumstances may not be self-created.

Excepts From The Staff Report: The Applicant states that the development is concentrated on the lot due to the flood zone, marine estuary and riparian setbacks that dominate the eastern portion of the property.

The Applicant is requesting the Set-Back Variance in order to avoid construction within the Flood Zone for the sole purpose of avoiding additional construction costs, and possible insurance issues. Positioning the development as requested is a ‘self-created’ condition.

Avoiding construction costs, which appear to be driving the request to reduce the front yard set-back requirements, does not constitute “…an undue or unnecessary hardship….” And by no means renders “… the parcel incapable of reasonable economic use.”

(2) Is necessary to accommodate a use or accessory use on the parcel which can be reasonably expected to occur within the zone or vicinity.

This project appears to comply with this requirement. (2) Will comply with the purposes of relevant development standards as enumerated

in Section 4.005 and will preserve the right of adjoining property. owners to use and enjoy their land for legal purposes.

SECTION 4.005: Residential and Commercial Zone Standards of the Tillamook County Land Use Ordinance lists the purposes of the land use standards in each of the residential and commercial zones as follows:

Of the 10 criteria listed, it appears that all criteria appears to be meet by this development;…except for Criteria Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 8. (1) To ensure the availability of private open spaces;

This project does not allow area for ‘reasonable’ private open and gathering spaces. The Building Footprint, Grade Level Parking and Drive Entry are of such area so as limit the remaining areas ability to provide ‘reasonable’ community areas. 6.

(3) To adequately separate structures for emergency access:

This project has limited emergency access caused by the following conditions: a. Narrow drive access with a ‘dead-end’ condition, limiting access to the SE portion of the property.

(4) To enhance privacy for occupants or residences;

Should the set-back variance be approved, it will increase ground floor tenants exposure to pedestrian, biking and auto traffic exposure. Apartment windows and access would be adjacent to pedestrian, biking paths and auto traffic and proposed parking lanes.

(5) To ensure that all private land uses that can be reasonably expected to occur on private land can be entirely accommodated on private land, including but not limited to dwellings, shops, garages, driveway, parking, areas for maneuvering vehicles for safe access to common roads, alternative energy facilities, and private open spaces;

This property appears to provide “private land….reasonably expected…” to private land for all items except the additional parking requested for street parking, which is a ‘…self-created.” condition.

(8) To ensure that pleasing view are neither unreasonably obstructed nor obtained;

This project will obstruct the views of property Lot No. 1100 to the west of the project.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONCLUSION: It appears that The Applicant is requesting this variance in order to avoid building in the Special Hazard Flood Zone as defined by FEMA; thus avoiding any special requirements which may or may not result in addition construction costs. All construction conditions required by code can be meet within the boundaries of the property. This development appears to only comply with (5) of the (10) requirement of Section 4.005 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Item No. 2B: Request to increase the height restriction: The Applicant is requesting an increase to the maximum height by 8 feet to 32 feet.

“….from the allowed 24-foot height to the requested 32-foot height …due to topography of the site …., as well as utilizing a sloped roof due to the climate of the area…”

The following comments address the criteria, which must be meet in order to consider a Conditional Use Application. Reference: Article 8 - Tillamook County Land Use Ordinance


7.


SECTION 4.005: Residential and Commercial Zone Standards of the Tillamook County Land Use Ordinance lists (10) purposes of the land use standards in each of the residential and commercial zones as follows:

Of the 10 criteria listed, it appears that all criteria appears to be meet by this development;…except for Criteria No. 8.

(8) To ensure that pleasing view are neither unreasonably obstructed nor obtained Excerpts from the Staff Report:

“The location of the improvement is located on the backslope of a foredune, and based upon the topography in relation to the height variance, no views expected to be obstructed or obtained.”

This comment is not entirely accurate. Although several of the properties to the west currently can take advantage of the 35 foot height limitation without requiring a variance, there is one parcel (Lot No. 1100) which is limited to the 24 feet height as defined for “…ocean or bay frontage lots…. located downstream from the Beachy Bridge …” This particular parcel would therefore be subject to “… an undue or unnecessary hardship…” in terms of possible view restrictions to the east and north-east.

SECTION 8.030: A VARIANCE shall be granted, ……if the applicant adequately demonstrates that the proposed VARIANCE satisfies all of the following criteria:

Of the 4 criteria listed, it appears that criteria 2 and 3 do not apply and it appears to The Applicant does not comply with criteria 1 and 4.

(1) Circumstances attributable either to the dimensional, topographic, or hazardous

characteristics of a legally existing lot, or to the placement of structures thereupon, would effectively preclude the enjoyment of a substantial property right enjoyed by the majority of landowners in the vicinity, if all applicable standards were to be met. Such circumstances may not be self-created.

(4) There are no reasonable alternatives requiring either a lesser or no VARIANCE

The fact is that although the majority of residences along Sunset have sloped roofs, there are several examples of ‘Flat-Roofs’ The conscience decision to design of a structure which exceeds the required building height limitation clearly qualifies as a “….self-created….” condition. Although The Applicant is justifying this design decision, as “….maitaining the character of the neigborhood…..” it is clear that the neighborhood is diverse in design, with both ‘sloped-roofs’ as well as ‘flat-roofs’.

(It should be noted that the issue is NOT the flat-roof, but the design and appearance of the parapet, or the most upper limits of the building.)

There are many examples of creative and visually appealing residential ‘flat-roof’ designs, incorporating distinctive parapet designs to be found, which would preclude the need for the requested height variance. 8.

A properly designed ‘Flat-Roof’ which incorporates a distinctive parapet designs is a “….reasonable alternatives…” and would not require a variance. (Subject to The Applicant demonstrating the ability to comply with the height limits.) A properly designed ‘Flat-Roof’ with proper ‘slope-to-drain’ will perform as well as a ‘sloped-roof’ when subjected to coastal weather conditions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Height Analysis: It appears that The Applicant may be requesting this variance in order to avoid the following issue:

1. Should this project be designed with a ‘Flat-Roof’ concept, and based on the floor to floor heights currently indicated in the The Applicants documents, The Applicants are unable to comply with the minimum (24 foot) height requirement without positioning the lowest grade level (parking level) below the Flood one level.

2. Should The Applicant position the lowest grade level (parking level) at Flood Zone level; the finish height would be a minimum of 1 foot above the required height. (Based on the assumed medium site elevation of 22’-6”…..The Applicant documents do not identify the medium elevation….so by working backward… it appear that the medium elevation is 22’-6” – this should be verified.)

3. Accepting the fact that building below the Flood Zone is not ‘Good Practice’ and will exposing Tenants to possible hardships.

CONCLUSIONS: The Topography of this property and the effects of the Flood Zone make the magnitude of this project over-whelming for this particular parcel of land and there-by should be denied or at least, sent back to The Applicant for a redesigned proposal. This development appears to comply with (9) of the (10) requirement of Section 4.005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Item No. 2C: Original request: To Add 7 additional on-street parking spaces

Amended request: To Add 6 additional on-street parking spaces The Applicant is requesting that he be allowed to place 6 additional parking spaces with-in the Public Right-Of-Way.

The following comments address the criteria, which must be meet in order to consider a Conditional Use Application. Reference: Article 8 - Tillamook County Land Use Ordinance



9.

SECTION 8.030: A VARIANCE shall be granted, ……if the applicant adequately demonstrates that the proposed VARIANCE satisfies all of the following criteria:

Of the 4 criteria listed, it appears that criteria 2 does not apply and it appears to The Applicant does not comply with criteria 1, 3 and 4.

(1) Circumstances attributable either to the dimensional, topographic, or hazardous characteristics of a legally existing lot, or to the placement of structures thereupon, would effectively preclude the enjoyment of a substantial property right enjoyed by the majority of landowners in the vicinity, if all applicable standards were to be met. Such circumstances may not be self-created.

All 26 required parking spaces can occur within the boundaries of the property. Placing all the parking within the property boundaries, requiring placement of parking spaces (and drive entry-exit) adjacent to the south property line will negatively impact that property.

(3) “Will comply with the purposes of relevant development standards as enumerated in Section 4.005 and will preserve the right of adjoining property owners to use and enjoy their land for legal purposes.”

The request to place 6 parking spaces, in particular those identified as parallel, along the western edge of Sunset will also create a “… undue or unnecessary hardship…” for the property owner directly to the south.

By nature, parallel parking is directional, meaning, in order to access a parallel spot, a vehicle must approach said spot in the direction of travel. In order for any vehicle to approach the spot it will be necessary for that vehicle to turn-around. (the assumption is that all vehicles ……both complex residence as well as the general public …… will be approaching parking from the north, thus having to turn-around at some point beyond those spots.

Turn-around options are: 1. Apartment entry drive 2. The driveway of the most convenient residential

driveway to the south 3. Drive to the boat launch and drive back

The most probably option (2) will happen at the neighbors immediately to the south. (?)

(4)“There are no reasonable alternatives requiring either a lesser or no VARIANCE.”

The Applicant, as indicated on his current site plan the capacity to place the minimum required number parking spaces (26) at the Lowest Grade Level. (Note that the (2) extra disabled parking spots requested are actually required as part of the total parking count and therefore are not technically required at street level) It is “…reasonable…” to provide all parking requirements within the limits of The Property. Any additional parking is “self-created.”

10.

EXCEPTS FROM STAFF REPORT

Findings: “The applicant is proposing to provide (32) total parking spaces….. proposing to locate (6) additional parking spaces along Sunset Drive,….

The on-street parking spaces include (4) parallel parking spaces, and (2) perpendicular ADA parking

This statement is not entirely accurate: Provide disabled parking in a parallel parking scenario is at best difficult for the following reasons:

1. It positions a disabled driver to the traffic side of his vehicle. 2. It positions a disabled passenger to an elevated curb condition, which is not

allowed per ADA Standards for Accessible Design

2010[208.2]ADA Standards for Accessible Design: (The U.S. Department of Justice)The minimum number of parking spaces required to be accessible is listed in Table 208.2 and based upon the total number of spaces in the garage.

Table 208.2 indicates that for parking spaces of 26-50 require 2 accessible parking stalls.

Accessible stalls shall be served by an adjacent access aisle…..five feet wide. AccessAisles[502.3]Accessible stalls shall be served by an adjacent access aisle that is a minimum of five feet wide. Access aisles shall be at the same level as the parking spaces they serve. Changes in level are not permitted.

SECTION 3.337: Pacific City/Woods Commercial One (PCW-Cl) Zone This development does not satisfy the following items : c, d and e requirements:

(c) Can obtain access to a public road without causing traffic hazards or congestion,ꞏ (d) Will not cause significant conflicts with nearby residential uses; and

While this development will not cause ‘significant’ conflicts with all nearby; it way cause adjacent property owners “…. to preclude the enjoyment of a substantial property right enjoyed by the majority of landowners in the vicinity,…”

(e) Has sufficient land area to accommodate off-street parking. Although this property has “…sufficient land area to accommodate off-street parking…” ; The Applicant has chosen not to comply with this requirement.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐DAGeneral Comments:

a. Excerpts From The Staff Report: “The Applicant states that siting the proposed building to the north westerly portion of the property will provide the least impact to neighbors by concentrating development near the PCW-C1 zoned property, instead of the PCW-R2 areas.”

This statement is not a entirely accurate: In positioning the building to the NW portion of the property, The Applicant has inadvertently (?) created another “… undue or unnecessary hardship…” for the property owner directly to the south. 11.

b. Excerpts From The Staff Report: “The applicant…indicates an 24-foot wide access to the subject property off of Sunset Drive.”

SECTION 4.005: “…the purpose of land use standards are the following:” Item No.4: “…to enhance privacy for occupants of residences.”

This drive is intended to be the primary access and egress to this facility, and will have a “… undue or unnecessary hardship…” with regards to constant in and out traffic as well as auto noise adjacent to the residence directly south and adjacent to the drive. It also appears that sanitation collection will occur at this access point, contributing additional hardships on this particular residence.

To allow for the approval of the Set-Back request, The Applicant would not “enhance” the privacy for the majority of the occupants at the street level. The 2 foot Set-Back would place the front façade windows within 2 feet of any walkway, bikeway, or street curb line, thus making it very unlikely that The Tenant would want to ‘open-the-blinds’. Keeping in mind that the apartments as currently laid-out are compact at best and none have any opportunity for out-of-door activity.

By positioning the building to the NW portion of the property, The Applicant may be inadvertently restricting the ability to built a Round-About as described in the 2010 transportation study done by the ‘IBI Group’ for the intersection of Pacific Avenue and Cap Kiwanda Drive. The proposed Round-About would also interact with the intersection of Pacific Avenue and Sunset Drive.

1. (PCW-R3) “….public facilities and services can accommodate a high level of use…” a. Both Pacific Avenue and Sunset are currently, despite being paved,

unimproved roadways lacking clear boundaries (curbs and/or sidewalks) as well as clearly identifiable traffic control information.

b. The additional traffic generated at the intersection of Pacific and Sunset as well as that section of roadway extending the NS length of the propose development, will create a higher level of danger for pedestrian traffic in this area, should improvements not be implemented at this time.

c. Street parking will further congest and confuse auto and pedestrian traffic in this immediate area.

d. It was indicated that a TRAFFIC STUDY was being prepared by The Applicant.

12.

Excepts from The Staff Report: Findings: “The proposed development is consistent with several of the policies outlined in these Comprehensive Plan goal elements. Specifically, concerns of development in relation to threat of flood, tsunami and erosion hazards…..”

It would appear that The Applicant is in-fact going ‘out-of-his-way’ to avoid making any concessions with “…concerns of development in relation to threat of flood, tsunami and erosion hazards…..”

This condition in-itself should trigger a ‘red-flag’ with respect to the though put forth in the design of this project.

There Appears to be a possible discrepancy with regard to the west property line. The Applicant’s Proposal package indicates the property to be a continuous ‘arc’.

Without having looked at a property map of this area for some time, and assuming that there have been no property line revisions in the last 10 years, it is my believe that The Applicant may have inadvertently misrepresented the actual configuration of that particular property line. My believe is that the line is actually made up of 2 straight lines, each running in an easterly direction from the both the NW and SW corners of the property and meeting at the approximate center of the property at an off-set which was in alignment with the now closed Weeb Street. This might be a point of clarification and verification The Applicant as well of the review committee might want to review.

ADA Standards for Accessible Design

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please review the comments and should you have any questions, please contact me.

Thank You: ‘R’ and ‘M’ Properties LLC Judd Moore – Architect – Retired 7806 SE Alta Verde Drive Portland, Oregon 97266 Land Phone - 1-(503) 761-3664 ‘E’ Mail – jlm@cnnw. 13.

1

Melissa Jenck

From: Robert Matson <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 10:19 PMTo: Melissa JenckSubject: EXTERNAL: Kingfisher Apartments


Email to: [email protected] Subject: Kingfisher Apartments - Re: #851-20-000139-PLNG (Conditional Use); #851-20-000138-PLNG (Variance)


I am writing to provide comment regarding the Kingfisher Apartments development application for a Conditional Use permit and Variance request.

As a [homeowner, resident, business owner, etc] in Pacific City/Woods I oppose both the request for Conditional Use and Variance for the Kingfisher Apartments.

I oppose the Conditional Use request because the requested conditional use zoning for this parcel (PCW-R3) requires that ‘public facilities and services can accommodate a high level of use’. The public facilities and services cannot accommodate the proposed level of use.

1. 2. 3. Sunset, Pacific, and Kiwanda roads are current 4. substandard with no shoulder, no sidewalk, and are very confusing and dangerous to

both pedestrians and drivers. 5. 6. 7. 8. A 25 unit apartment building will add an additional 9. ~140 trips per day (based 10. on Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual - “Multi-family Mid-Rise

Building”). 11. 12. 13. 14.The planned parking for this apartment will 15. add to already overburdened parking infrastructure by forcing both residents and guests

out on to Sunset drive, to the Turn-arounds public parking area, or into the downtown area - all of which have limited parking options.

16.

2

I also oppose the Variance Request for both height and setbacks because the need for this variance is entirely self-created and there are multiple reasonable alternatives to the building as designed. This means that the variance request application fails on 2 out of the 4 review criteria.


1. 2. 3. Designing a building that is too tall, requiring 4. a 30% height variance, is entirely self-created. 5. 6. 7. 8. Designing a building that is too wide, requiring 9. a setback variance of 15 feet to 2 feet is entirely self-created. 10. 11. 12. 13.There are many other economically and physically 14. feasible designs for this parcel. 15.

I also oppose the Variance Request for additional on-street parking. Per Land Use Ordinances Section 8.030, the Commission must also refer to Section 4.005 as part of the review process. Section 4.005 notes that land use standards must allow:

1. 2. 3. Private land uses that 4. can be reasonably expected to occur on private land can be entirely accommodated on

private land 5. (eg parking & safe access). 6.

a. b. c. The applicant is going to burden local public d. infrastructure with overflow parking for both residents and apartment visitors. e. The number of parking spots f. currently planned are 1 vehicle per apartment plus 5 additional spaces,

and 2 handicapped accessible spaces for a total of 32. g.

7. 8. 9. That “...safe

3

10. access to and from common roads” must 11. be ensured. 12.

. a. b. The proposed on-street parking will require c. the accessible spots to back out onto an already congested road on a near blind

corner. d. e. f. g. The proposed parallel parking is going to require h. residents to drive down to Bob Staub (or a neighbor’s driveway) to make a u-turn

or potentially park facing i. j.

I urge the Tillamook County Planning Commission to not simply be a rubber stamp for development, to consider the above carefully, and to reject the Conditional Use and Variance requests. Sincerely, Robert Matson, Pacific City resident

Sent from my iPhone

1

Melissa Jenck

From: Bonnie Matson <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 10:17 PMTo: Melissa JenckSubject: EXTERNAL: Kingfisher Apartments


Email to: [email protected] Subject: Kingfisher Apartments - Re: #851-20-000139-PLNG (Conditional Use); #851-20-000138-PLNG (Variance)



As a [homeowner, resident, business owner, etc] in Pacific City/Woods I oppose both the request for Conditional Use and Variance for the Kingfisher Apartments.


1. 2. 3. Sunset, Pacific, and Kiwanda roads are current 4. substandard with no shoulder, no sidewalk, and are very confusing and dangerous to

both pedestrians and drivers. 5. 6. 7. 8. A 25 unit apartment building will add an additional 9. ~140 trips per day (based 10. on Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual - “Multi-family Mid-Rise

Building”). 11. 12. 13. 14.The planned parking for this apartment will 15. add to already overburdened parking infrastructure by forcing both residents and guests

out on to Sunset drive, to the Turn-arounds public parking area, or into the downtown area - all of which have limited parking options.

16.

2



1. 2. 3. Designing a building that is too tall, requiring 4. a 30% height variance, is entirely self-created. 5. 6. 7. 8. Designing a building that is too wide, requiring 9. a setback variance of 15 feet to 2 feet is entirely self-created. 10. 11. 12. 13.There are many other economically and physically 14. feasible designs for this parcel. 15.


1. 2. 3. Private land uses that 4. can be reasonably expected to occur on private land can be entirely accommodated on

private land 5. (eg parking & safe access). 6.

a. b. c. The applicant is going to burden local public d. infrastructure with overflow parking for both residents and apartment visitors. e. The number of parking spots f. currently planned are 1 vehicle per apartment plus 5 additional spaces,

and 2 handicapped accessible spaces for a total of 32. g.

7. 8. 9. That “...safe

3

10. access to and from common roads” must 11. be ensured. 12.

. a. b. The proposed on-street parking will require c. the accessible spots to back out onto an already congested road on a near blind

corner. d. e. f. g. The proposed parallel parking is going to require h. residents to drive down to Bob Staub (or a neighbor’s driveway) to make a u-turn

or potentially park facing i. j.

It is unfair to the residents that have followed the zoning rules to have this project get special variances that will ultimately cause an overuse of the area and have major consequences to our town. If the work force needs housing they should go where the infrastructure is capable of handling it. The strain on ours is again not fair to the residents that foot the bill.

I urge the Tillamook County Planning Commission to not simply be a rubber stamp for development, to consider the above carefully, and to reject the Conditional Use and Variance requests. Sincerely, Bonnie Matson, Pacific City resident

Sent from my iPhone

1

Melissa Jenck

From: Carol Scherman <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 8:12 PMTo: Melissa JenckSubject: EXTERNAL: Letter of supportAttachments: Letter of support.docx


Please see attached letter in support of the Kingfisher Apartments' project. Respectfully, Carol Scherman Human Resources Nestucca Ridge Family of Companies (949)933‐2541

July 1, 2020

TO: Melissa Jenck, Department of Community Development, and The Tillamook County Planning Commission


It is my opinion that the proposed Kingfisher Apartments project is timely in relation to the services available, and will fit the character of Pacific City. And, most importantly, provide needed housing to current and potential employees of Pacific City businesses, that benefit us all.

A few important things for you to consider:

The reality of our housing situation, proven by County studies and data, is that this type of workforce housing is desperately needed in South Tillamook County. We all that workforce housing is very scarce in our community. Why would we as a community not want to encourage this to happen on one of the very few parcels that are of a large enough size to accommodate it?

The applicants, Kevin & Katie Shluka, have designed a quality, nice looking building. This could easily have been designed as a large ugly “box” with low quality materials which would be a detraction to our community rather than an enhancement. That type of design would, of course, be less expensive to build and more feasible financially, but a low-quality building is not the goal of the applicants, nor should it be our goal as a community or County. This is precisely why the Variance process exists; it is to allow for something that needs a little latitude to fit the needs of the community better.

There is some assistance from the State of Oregon currently available to assist with workforce housing development that will help enable this project to be feasible. As one of the Governor’s Pilot Projects for workforce housing, this project will receive funding for 16 of the 25 water & sewer connection fees which will need to be paid by the Developer. As a community, I believe we should be grateful to receive such help from the State to assist with resolving one of our largest problems.

The intersection of Pacific and Cape Kiwanda Drive is currently confusing, as many have pointed out. This project, as currently designed, will close off the ingress/egress to the subject property at that location and therefore will eliminate the most dangerous element at that intersection. I believe that is a good thing and does not make that intersection more dangerous. On the contrary, I believe that it will be much safer to become a 3-way intersection when a driveway is not a 4th element in the middle of it.

In my opinion, the folks in opposition simply don’t want an apartment project on their street (in fact many of the opposing views I’ve read actually state this). And I believe this will be the case no matter where a project like this is proposed. The NIMBY issue, while understandable, should not stand in the way of a great project that will enhance our community by providing high quality residences for the people who live and work in our community.

In summary, this project is timely, services are available, the project is well planned, it does not affect surrounding property owners negatively in any substantial way, and brings a State grant to our area that will be of great benefit to the many people who desperately need access to quality affordable housing.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this project,

Carol Scherman Human Resources Nestucca Ridge Family of Companies

1

Melissa Jenck

From: NANCY HATHAWAY <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 11:27 AMTo: Melissa JenckSubject: EXTERNAL: Kingfisher apartments, special variance requests


Subject: Kingfisher Apartments, Conditional Use and Variance Attention: Melissa Jenck & Tillamook County Planning Commission As a property owner on Sunset Avenue, I oppose both the Kingfisher Apartments request for a Conditional Use permit and a Variance request. Why would the county grant both extra height, extra set-back, and few parking spaces to a business proposition that does not even fit the neighborhood and requires “special” considerations. The corner where the apartments are proposed to be built is already a crowded and confusing corner. Part of the charm of Pacific City has been the ability to ride bikes and let children roam and ride somewhat unsupervised. That has all changed now due to widening Sunset to accommodate businesses and planning on a shuttle bus to continually be making trips back and forth. You are giving up the charm to accommodate business and summer visitors who have no vested interest in preserving Pacific City as a retreat. Public parking is an issue and you have forced it upon a neighborhood never before heavily used. In light of potential future tsunamis (or other public danger) you have chosen the wrong location! The one bridge will mean that all on the ocean side would die as the bridge would immediately be clogged, trapping everyone there. Why is it that a vacant lot has not been purchased on the East side of the river, so that a multitude of cars going over the bridge would not even be an issue? If there ever is an emergency in which people try to get to higher ground, you can bet there will be law suits against the county. I believe the bridge would be considered a public facility and cannot accommodate a high level of use—especially in an emergency when people operate under panic mode. Giving variances to a business proposal does not sit well with the retirement, leisure, and working people of Pacific City. Please do not allow this to further devalue the ambiance of P.C. You would be opening up a can of worms with unintended consequences if this passes. I am not against progress, but any such progress should have sound, sensible reasoning behind it. I do not see that in this proposal, not does it meet Land Use Ordinance requirements. Sincerely, Nancy Hathaway 541-905-4110

1

Melissa Jenck

From: tim perrine <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 9:25 AMTo: Melissa JenckSubject: EXTERNAL: Kingfisher Apartments - Re: #851-20-000139-PLNG (Conditional Use); #851-20-000138-

PLNG (Variance)


To: Melissa Jenck, Tillamook County Planning Commission We are writing to provide comment regarding the Kingfisher Apartments development application for a Conditional Use permit and Variance request. As a family who has been property owners in Pacific City/Woods area for over 90 years, we OPPOSE both the request for Conditional Use and Variance for the Kingfisher Apartments. We OPPOSE the Conditional Use request because the requested conditional use zoning for this parcel (PCW-R3) requires that ‘public facilities and services can accommodate a high level of use’. The public facilities and services cannot accommodate the proposed level of use.

1. Sunset, Pacific, and Kiwanda roads are current substandard with no shoulder, no sidewalk, and are very confusing and dangerous to both pedestrians and drivers.

2. A 25 unit apartment building will add an additional ~140 trips per day (based on Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual - “Multi-family Mid-Rise Building”).

3. The planned parking for this apartment will add to already overburdened parking infrastructure by forcing both residents and guests out on to Sunset drive, to the Turn-arounds public parking area, or into the downtown area - all of which have limited parking options.

We also OPPOSE the Variance Request for both height and setbacks because the need for this variance is entirely self-created and there are multiple reasonable alternatives to the building as designed. This means that the variance request application fails on 2 out of the 4 review criteria. Per the Tillamook County Land Use Ordinances Section 8.030, the variance request must satisfy ALL of the review criteria, not half.

1. Designing a building that is too tall, requiring a 30% height variance, is entirely self-created.

2. Designing a building that is too wide, requiring a setback variance of 15 feet to 2 feet is entirely self-created.


We also OPPOSE the Variance Request for additional on-street parking. Per Land Use Ordinances Section 8.030, the Commission must also refer to Section 4.005 as part of the review process. Section 4.005 notes that land use standards must allow:

2

Private land uses that can be reasonably expected to occur on private land can be entirely accommodated on private land (eg parking & safe access).

The applicant is going to burden local public infrastructure with overflow parking for both residents and apartment visitors. The number of parking spots currently planned are 1 vehicle per apartment plus 5 additional spaces, and 2 handicapped accessible spaces for a total of 32.

a. That “...safe access to and from common roads” must be ensured.

b. The proposed on-street parking will require the accessible spots to back out onto an already congested road on a near blind corner.

c. The proposed parallel parking is going to require residents to drive down to Bob Staub (or a neighbor’s driveway) to make a u-turn or potentially park facing the wrong direction into incoming traffic.

We concerned that if this variance is approved it could be precedent setting and what approval of this variance would do for the safety of pedestrians and drivers in this already congested area. We urge the Tillamook County Planning Commission to consider the above carefully, and to REJECT the Conditional Use and Variance requests. Sincerely, Tim and Alice Perrine 503‐620‐7315

1

Melissa Jenck

From: Valerie Hendon <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 8:20 AMTo: Melissa JenckSubject: EXTERNAL: Kingfisher Apartments




As a homeowner in Pacific City/Woods, I oppose both the request for Conditional Use and Variance for the Kingfisher Apartments.


1. 2. Sunset, Pacific, and Kiwanda roads are current substandard 3. with no shoulder, no sidewalk, and are very confusing and dangerous to both pedestrians

and drivers. 4. 5. 6. A 25 unit apartment building will add an additional ~140 7. trips per day (based on Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual -

“Multi-family 8. Mid-Rise Building”). 9. 10. 11.The planned parking for this apartment will add to already 12. overburdened parking infrastructure by forcing both residents and guests out onto Sunset

Drive, to the Turn-arounds public parking area, or into the downtown area - all of which have limited parking options.

13.



2

1. 2. Designing a building that is too tall, requiring a 30% 3. height variance, is entirely self-created. 4. 5. 6. Designing a building that is too wide, requiring a setback 7. variance of 15 feet to 2 feet is entirely self-created. 8. 9. 10.There are many other economically and physically feasible 11. designs for this parcel. 12.


1. 2. Private land uses that can be reasonably 3. expected to occur on private land can be entirely accommodated on private land (eg

parking & safe access). 4.

a. b. The applicant is going to burden local public infrastructure c. with overflow parking for both residents and apartment visitors. The number of

parking spots currently d. planned are 1 vehicle per apartment plus 5 additional spaces, and 2

handicapped accessible spaces for a total of 32. e.

5. 6. That “...safe 7. access to and from common roads” must be ensured. 8.

. a. The proposed on-street parking will require the accessible b. spots to back out onto an already congested road on a near blind corner. c. d. e. The proposed parallel parking is going to require residents f. to drive down to Bob Staub (or a neighbor’s driveway) to make a u-turn or

potentially park facing the wrong direction into incoming traffic. g.

Other concerns include:

Fire and emergency equipment ingress and egress. The area where the proposed apartments are to be built is already a congested area, which means delayed response by emergency equipment. When every second counts, this could be life threatening. Adding additional parking along the street is likely to create a bottleneck, since cars wouldn’t have room

3

to move out of the way, which would further impede emergency responders. And if there is a fire in the park, a delayed response could mean a loss of houses and lives.

Increase in road traffic - Safety issue. As stated above, Sunset Drive is a narrow, moderate to heavily used road that accesses permanent, rental and seasonally occupied homes, horse trails, a boat launch, the beach and Nestucca River. There is just enough space for two cars to pass, there is not enough room for two cars and a pedestrian. One car will have to stop, or the pedestrian will have to move further off the edge of the road for the cars to safely pass without running over someone or risking a collision. And if you’re walking a dog or toting children, it’s even more dangerous. I’ve seen plenty of close calls; it’s just a matter of time before an accident to happen. Adding an additional 25+ people/vehicles to this street, is not safe, and is just plain irresponsible! Locating a MDU in a floodplain is also irresponsible!

Impacts our time to get to safety, in the case of a tsunami. Sunset Drive runs down the middle of the spit we live on. In the case of a tsunami, we have 15 minutes more or less to get to high ground and there’s only one way out. In our case, the closest tsunami access road is Nestucca Ridge Road, which is a mile north of us. With no traffic, it takes us all of 15 minutes to gather our things and drive there. Imagine, 25 families right at the point of congestion, where we’re all going to converge, trying to get to safety, as well the rest of the ~ 77 residences on Sunset Drive...all under 15 minutes. Not going to happen because the egress will create a bottleneck that spells doom for those who can’t reach safety. So now my family and our neighbors’ safety is compromised? This is unacceptable!

I urge the Tillamook County Planning Commission to not simply be a rubber stamp for development, to consider the above carefully, and to reject the Conditional Use and Variance requests.

Valerie Hendon 35735 Sunset Drive Pacific City, OR 97135 503.483.1112 [email protected]

1

Melissa Jenck

From: Boatchicks <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 8:19 AMTo: Melissa JenckSubject: EXTERNAL: Kingfisher Apartments




As a homeowner in Pacific City/Woods, I oppose both the request for Conditional Use and Variance for the Kingfisher Apartments.




“Multi-family 8. Mid-Rise Building”). 9. 10. 11.The planned parking for this apartment will add to already 12. overburdened parking infrastructure by forcing both residents and guests out onto Sunset

Drive, to the Turn-arounds public parking area, or into the downtown area - all of which have limited parking options.

13.



2











Other concerns include:

Fire and emergency equipment ingress and egress. The area where the proposed apartments are to be built is already a congested area, which means delayed response by emergency equipment. When every second counts, this could be life threatening. Adding additional parking along the street is likely to create a bottleneck, since cars wouldn’t have room

3

to move out of the way, which would further impede emergency responders. And if there is a fire in the park, a delayed response could mean a loss of houses and lives.

Increase in road traffic - Safety issue. As stated above, Sunset Drive is a narrow, moderate to heavily used road that accesses permanent, rental and seasonally occupied homes, horse trails, a boat launch, the beach and Nestucca River. There is just enough space for two cars to pass, there is not enough room for two cars and a pedestrian. One car will have to stop, or the pedestrian will have to move further off the edge of the road for the cars to safely pass without running over someone or risking a collision. And if you’re walking a dog or toting children, it’s even more dangerous. I’ve seen plenty of close calls; it’s just a matter of time before an accident to happen. Adding an additional 25+ people/vehicles to this street, is not safe, and is just plain irresponsible! Locating a MDU in a floodplain is also irresponsible!

Impacts our time to get to safety, in the case of a tsunami. Sunset Drive runs down the middle of the spit we live on. In the case of a tsunami, we have 15 minutes more or less to get to high ground and there’s only one way out. In our case, the closest tsunami access road is Nestucca Ridge Road, which is a mile north of us. With no traffic, it takes us all of 15 minutes to gather our things and drive there. Imagine, 25 families right at the point of congestion, where we’re all going to converge, trying to get to safety, as well the rest of the ~ 77 residences on Sunset Drive...all under 15 minutes. Not going to happen because the egress will create a bottleneck that spells doom for those who can’t reach safety. So now my family and our neighbors’ safety is compromised? This is unacceptable!


June Lowman 35735 Sunset Drive Pacific City, OR 97135 503.483.1112 [email protected]

P.S. I would also like to add I was unable to find the link for the commissioner's meeting on June 25th.

1

Melissa Jenck

From: Chris LaitySent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 6:11 PMTo: Kevin Shluka; Melissa Jenck; Sarah Absher; Alan Jones; Meaghan Bullard; Coyote GardensSubject: RE: EXTERNAL: Stamped copy of Kingfisher Traffic SudyAttachments: KingfisherTrafficStudy.pdf

Sarah, I’ve reviewed the attached Traffic Study for the Kingfisher Apartments and find that it is acceptable and conservative. I’ll provide a more detailed review prior to the next Planning Commission Meeting on July 23rd. Sincerely,

Chris Laity, PE | Director Tillamook County Public Works 503 Marolf Loop Road Tillamook, OR 97141 Phone (503) 842‐3419 [email protected]

From: Kevin Shluka <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2020 12:34 PM To: Melissa Jenck <[email protected]>; Chris Laity <[email protected]>; Sarah Absher <[email protected]>; Alan Jones <[email protected]>; Meaghan Bullard <[email protected]>; Coyote Gardens <[email protected]> Subject: EXTERNAL: Stamped copy of Kingfisher Traffic Sudy


Submitted for your approval... Hope everyone had a nice weekend. Kevin

1

Melissa Jenck

From: Sandra Norman <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 4:53 PMTo: Melissa JenckSubject: EXTERNAL: Gary & Sandra NormanAttachments: SKM_C3350200630160300.pdf


Please see attached for comments regarding Kingfisher Apartments.

1

Melissa Jenck

From: Kathy Tinkler <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 2:30 PMTo: Melissa JenckSubject: EXTERNAL: Kingfisher Apartments - Re: #851-20-000139-PLNG (Conditional Use); #851-20-000138-

PLNG (Variance)




As a homeowner in Pacific City/Woods I oppose both the request for Conditional Use and Variance for the Kingfisher Apartments.











1. Private land uses that can be reasonably expected to occur on private land can be entirely accommodated on private land (eg parking & safe access).

2

a. The applicant is going to burden local public infrastructure with overflow parking for both residents and apartment visitors. The number of parking spots currently planned are 1 vehicle per apartment plus 5 additional spaces, and 2 handicapped accessible spaces for a total of 32.

1. That “...safe access to and from common roads” must be ensured. a. The proposed on-street parking will require the accessible spots to back out onto an already congested road on a near blind corner. b. The proposed parallel parking is going to require residents to drive down to Bob Staub (or a neighbor’s driveway) to make a u-turn or potentially park facing the wrong direction into incoming traffic. Please consider the congestion, safety and possible precedent setting action of this decision!

I urge the Tillamook County Planning Commission to not simply be a rubber stamp for development, to consider the above carefully, and to reject the Conditional Use and Variance requests. Sincerely, Kathryn Tinkler Pacific City Home Owner for over 20 years

TILLOCO 851-20-000138-PLNG, Kevin and Katrie Shluka

John Pouley, M.A., RPAAssistant State Archaeologist

4S 11W 25 TL800, Pacific City, Tillamook County

Dear Ms. Jenck:

RE: SHPO Case No. 20-0846

Construct 25 unit apartment

The Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) received a request to review an application for the above referenced undertaking (project). According to the SHPO statewide database, archaeological sites are not known to exist within the proposed project location. Based on the information provided, Oregon SHPO does not have any concerns with the project proceeding as planned.

During project implementation, if an archaeological object or feature is encountered, please stop all ground disturbing activity at that location, and contact our office (503 986-0980) to report the find. According to Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 358.905(a)(A-C), “archaeological objects are at least 75 years old, are part of the physical record of an indigenous or other culture found in the state or waters of the state and are the material remains of past human life or activity.” Archaeological objects can include historic items (e.g., bottles, cans, bricks, window glass) and prehistoric items (e.g., stone tools, chipped stone flakes, butchered animal bones, ground stone implements, fire-cracked rock, charcoal, lithic quarries, house pit villages, camps). Archaeological features can be historic (e.g., foundations, privies, ships, homesteads, townsites) or prehistoric (e.g., housepit villages, hearths, cairns [clustered or piled rocks], rock images, shell midden). Under state law (ORS 358.905 and ORS 97.74) archaeological sites, objects and human remains are protected on both state public and private lands in Oregon. A person may not excavate, injure, destroy or alter an archaeological site or object located on public or private lands in Oregon unless that activity is authorized by a permit issued under ORS 390.235.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office at your convenience. In order to help track your project accurately, please reference the SHPO case number above in all correspondence.

Sincerely,

1510 B Thrid Street

Ms. Melissa Jenck

Tillamook, OR 97141

Tillamook County

June 30, 2020

Community Development

(503) [email protected]

1

Melissa Jenck

From: Amy Halligan <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 2:54 PMTo: Melissa JenckSubject: EXTERNAL: Kingfisher Apartments Application Resident Disapproval



I am writing to provide comments regarding the Kingfisher Apartments development application for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance request.

As a [homeowner in Pacific City/Woods I oppose both the request for Conditional Use and Variance for the Kingfisher Apartments.







1. Designing a building that is too tall, requiring a 30% height variance, is entirely self-created, while NOT using the natural grade for calculations is disingenuous.



2



a. The applicant is going to burden local public infrastructure with overflow parking for both residents and apartment visitors. The number of parking spots currently planned is 1 vehicle per apartment plus 5 additional spaces, and 2 handicapped accessible spaces for a total of 32.

2. That “...safe access to and from common roads” must be ensured. . The proposed on-street parking will require the accessible spots to back out onto

an already congested road on a near-blind corner. a. The proposed parallel parking is going to require residents to drive down

to Bob Staub (or a neighbor’s driveway) to make a u-turn or potentially park facing the wrong direction into oncoming traffic.

Property owners in Pacific City lost significant property value during the Great Recession and properties here have failed to regain value the way properties have in other parts of the state. For instance, when we built our home in Shorepine Village in 2006 the home was appraised at over $650k and this year when we had another appraisal done of our property it has only returned to $440k from a low of $350k. Constructing the Kingfisher project in the proposed location will potentially lower values of homes along the West side of the river and then all those that are along Kiwanda Drive. Pacific City has had increasing transient traffic in our town over the last several years and the apartment development will continue to increase that segment of our population. We, as full time residents of Pacific City, do not want or welcome this type of resident especially since we do not have adequate or ANY law enforcement in our little town. We discovered this two years ago when our home was broken into and someone squatted there for several nights before we returned after being out of town. Additionally, we were informed that there was a traffic impact study done last Saturday for a short number of hours. Both Scott and I are real estate professionals from the Central Oregon and Portland Metro markets and we have represented developers in the process of new construction projects. In our combined 40 years of experience, we have never known of a viable traffic impact study only lasting one day. These studies are always done over a number of days including both weekend and weekdays from sun-up to sun-down. The traffic impact study that was done two weeks after Tillamook County entered Governor Brown's Covid-19 Phase 2 reopening simply does not provide for an accurate study of what "normal" traffic is in that area especially with the closures of the Bob Straub park area and the closure of the parking lot at the public entrance of the beach at the west end of the bridge. At a minimum this project needs to be tabled until Pacific City is back to a "business as usual" model to be able to truly evaluate the impact this project will have on the roads, traffic and current residents of Pacific City. Unfortunately, we do not believe that this can be determined until this time next year at the earliest. Lastly, we are concerned about how we can be guaranteed that these apartments will be used for long term rentals only. It seems that it would be a great opportunity for someone to execute a long term lease on these apartment units and then sublet to nightly renters without the county being aware of it. If this happens it will guarantee that the traffic impact to that area will increase significantly. The intersection there at the bridge is difficult and congested most days, with additional residents in that area the amount of cars heading down Sunset Drive will be significant with a negative impact with people trying to park on the road and using residents driveways to u-turn out of the area.

3

We are not opposed to apartment/more affordable housing being part of the Pacific City community but it must be better thought out and within the current building restrictions and in an area that makes more sense. We urge the Tillamook County Planning Commission to not simply be a rubber stamp for development, to consider the above carefully, and to reject the Conditional Use and Variance requests.

Respectfully,

Amy and Scott Halligan 5725 Barefoot Lane Pacific City, OR 97135

‐‐

Amy Amy B. Halligan Real Estate Broker John L Scott Real Estate (541) 410-9045 [email protected]

Licensed in the State of Oregon Since 1998

1

Melissa Jenck

From: Dick Hall <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 2:22 PMTo: Melissa JenckSubject: EXTERNAL: Sunset Drive Development


Subject: Kingfisher Apartments - Re: #851-20-000139-PLNG (Conditional Use); #851-20-000138-PLNG (Variance) Hello Melissa Jenck & Tillamook County Planning Commission, I am writing to provide comment regarding the Kingfisher Apartments development application for a Conditional Use permit and Variance request. As a homeowner at 35365 Sunset Drive in Pacific City/Woods I oppose both the request for Conditional Use and Variance for the Kingfisher Apartments. I oppose the Conditional Use request because the requested conditional use zoning for this parcel (PCW-R3) requires that ‘public facilities and services can accommodate a high level of use’. The public facilities and services cannot accommodate the proposed level of use.

1. 2. Sunset, Pacific, and 3. Kiwanda roads are current substandard with no shoulder, no sidewalk, and are very

confusing and dangerous to both pedestrians and drivers. 4. 5. 6. A 25 unit apartment building will add an additional ~140 7. trips per day (based on Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual -

“Multi-family 8. Mid-Rise Building”). 9. 10. 11.The planned parking for this apartment will add to already 12. overburdened parking infrastructure by forcing both residents and guests out on to

Sunset drive, to the Turn-arounds public parking area, or into the downtown area - all of which have limited parking

13. options. 14.

2





1. 2. Private land uses that can be reasonably 3. expected to occur on private land can be entirely accommodated on private land (eg 4. parking & safe access). 5.





. a. The proposed on-street parking will require the accessible b. spots to back out onto an already congested road on a near blind corner. c. d. e. The proposed parallel parking is going to require residents

3

f. to drive down to Bob Staub (or a neighbor’s driveway) to make a u-turn or potentially park facing the wrong direction into incoming traffic.

g.

For the past thirty years, Sunset Drive has been neglected by the county and now it seems to be the "solution" to the parking problem at the cape and the Pelican Pub. Honestly, don't you think the street will become a very busy and dangerous county road for the benefit of NO ONE that lives on the street! Why doesn't the county provide parking on the Kawanda Road near the cape by marking and paving it? It really doesn't take much imagination to visualize what Sunset Drive will become; a dangerous and over traveled street and reducing our property values and threatening our safety. Does anyone on the commission live in PC? This is a crazy solution. I urge the Tillamook County Planning Commission to not simply be a rubber stamp for development, to consider the above carefully, and to reject the Conditional Use and Variance requests.

Respectfully Submitted, Richard E. and Francine Hall 35365 Sunset Drive Pacific City 503 930 0965

1

Melissa Jenck

From: George Brummer <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 9:02 AMTo: Melissa JenckSubject: EXTERNAL: Kingfisher Apartments - Re: #851-20-000139-PLNG (Conditional Use); #851-20-000138-

PLNG (Variance)


Hello Melissa Jenck & Tillamook County Planning Commission, I am writing to provide comment regarding the Kingfisher Apartments development application for a Conditional Use permit and Variance request. As a homeowner at 35130 Sunset Drive, two houses south and across the street from the proposed apartments in Pacific City/Woods I oppose both the request for Conditional Use and Variance for the Kingfisher Apartments. We oppose the Conditional Use request because the requested conditional use zoning for this parcel (PCW-R3) requires that ‘public facilities and services can accommodate a high level of use’. The public facilities and services cannot accommodate the proposed level of use.




We also oppose the Variance Request for both height and setbacks because the need for this variance is entirely self-created and there are multiple reasonable alternatives to the building as designed. This means that the variance request application fails on 2 out of the 4 review criteria. Per the Tillamook County Land Use Ordinances Section 8.030, the variance request must satisfy all of the review criteria, not half.

1. Designing a building that is too tall, requiring a 30% height variance, is entirely self-created. 2. Designing a building that is too wide, requiring a setback variance of 15 feet to 2 feet is entirely self-created. 3. There are many other economically and physically feasible designs for this parcel.

We also oppose the Variance Request for additional on-street parking. Per Land Use Ordinances Section 8.030, the Commission must also refer to Section 4.005 as part of the review process. Section 4.005 notes that land use standards must allow:

1. Private land uses that can be reasonably expected to occur on private land can be entirely accommodated on private land (eg parking& safe access).

1. The applicant is going to burden local public infrastructure with overflow parking for both residents and apartment visitors. The number of parking spots currently planned are 1 vehicle per apartment plus 5 additional spaces, and 2 handicapped accessible spaces for a total of 32.

2. That “...safe access to and from common roads” must be ensured. 1. The proposed on-street parking will require the accessible spots to back out onto an already congested road on a near blind

corner. 2. The proposed parallel parking is going to require residents to drive down to Bob Staub (or a neighbor’s driveway) to make a

u-turn or potentially park facing the wrong direction into incoming traffic. The applicant knew or could have known the zoning regulations before they purchased the land. If they failed to account for the effect that existing building codes would have on their designs they should have purchased a different piece of land. Their failure to research, plan or design accordingly (or to assume they would be granted a variance) is not a reason to provide a variance, which pushes the cost of their failure onto their neighbors, the environment and the public. Therefor, the application should be denied. Extending the height restriction from 24’ to 32’ will impact our views of the river and town. To say that the variance will minimally impact our views implies that there is no option for a lesser impact to our views. This is incorrect and misleading. Prohibiting the variance by maintaining the integrity of the existing code preserves and makes no impact to currently existing views. No impact is less than minimal impact. To properly affirm the existing value of neighbors’ views, the application should be denied. Eliminating the 15 foot setback to accommodate the proposed design would not fit with the rest of the neighborhood. The application claims a transition is needed, but fails to explain or define what a/that transition is and why such transition is needed. Additionally, the proposal fails to explain how a building and layout designed to be fundamentally different from any other structure or land around it creates that transition. The

2

extraordinary measure of eliminating the 15 foot setback indicates the proposal neither understands what a transition is nor what it entails. It is the responsibility of the applicant to explain their terms and claims, which they have failed to do. The application should be denied. Reducing setbacks will impact the parking on Sunset Drive. There will be spillover into the neighborhood because many cars already park on Sunset Drive to access the beach wayside, the horse rental business across from the site, and the river for fishing. The application claims that impacts to parking and traffic have been accounted for by transferring vehicular access to the south of the land instead of the north and creating on-street parking. The proposal fails to explain how the southerly access driveway and on-street parking address the safety and mobility concerns of increased traffic and congestion brought on by high-density residential buildings. The higher number of residents means on-street parking will be used by those new residents and not consistently available to the general public. Twenty-five units will almost guarantee that more than twenty-five parking spaces will be needed by the apartments and that extra cars would seek parking immediately along Sunset Drive. There are no sidewalks along Sunset Drive, nor is there space to protect pedestrians if existing shoulders are eliminated by spillover parking. In fact, the addition of the street-side parking spaces ensures that pedestrians must enter the lanes of vehicular traffic in order to move around vehicles parked in designated spaces. Safety has already become a concern with increasing use of the beach access point. Building a high-density housing unit that will require street parking at this already high-use intersection increases the chance for congestion, accidents, and injury. The proposal fails to address these concerns for safety and mobility and so the application should be denied. The application attempts to connect the need for a variance with the goal of addressing a housing crisis in Tillamook County. The application claims that addressing the housing crisis can be done, in part, by building affordable “multi-family workforce housing” which is targeted at families earning 80-120% of the area median Tillamook County income. This appears to mean families who have members employed and earning money, which we will call “working families.” The application argues that it would, with a variance, be able to build affordable housing for families with this range of income. If we accept the working families designation, how many of these families exist? No information is provided by the applicant. What portion of those families experiencing a housing crisis are working families? No information is provided by the applicant. Do working families represent the largest portion of people or households in need of housing? No information is provided by the applicant. Are families without work in need of housing? No information is provided by the applicant. If so, what proportion of housing needs are represented by families without work? No information is provided by the applicant. How much of the applicant’s housing crisis is represented by working families versus families without work? No information is provided. How many working families earn 80-120% of the area median Tillamook County income? No information is provided. How many working families in Tillamook County fall within the 80-120% area median income range? No information is provided. What percentage of working families in the 80-120% area median income range face a housing crisis? No information is provided. Do working families in the 80-120% area median income range for Tillamook County and facing a shortage of housing represent the most at-risk group of people needing affordable housing? No information is provided. Even of those families earning the 80-120% area median income for Tillamook County in 2018, how many could actually afford the rents as stated given other costs and debts associated with their aggregated circumstances? No information is provided.

3

The application provides a design table indicating that 72% or 18 of the 25 units it wants to build would be studio apartments. Studio apartments are generally desirable to, and often can only legally house, single people or adult couples who are child-free. This would indicate that the design is overwhelmingly concerned with families comprised of working single people or child-free couples.* How many families in Tillamook County are comprised of working single people or child-free couples who earn 80-120% of the median income range of the county and are facing a housing crisis? No information is provided. The application fails to connect the focus of its design (studios for working single people and child-free couples) with the pressing need for housing. Without an identified and quantifiable group with an established need for housing, the application fails to uphold the claim that this variance is needed or even able to help address a housing crisis (or any specific part of one) in Tillamook County. Further, the proposal fails to show how a variance on this land is a better means of addressing a need for affordable housing rather than building on land already able to accommodate higher-density housing without requiring a variance. Therefor, the application should be denied. The application includes a table of monthly estimated rents based on the area median income for Tillamook County in 2018 attributed to Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS). (Again, there is no covenant with local or municipal authorities to require renting units at affordable prices in perpetuity or even initially, so the table is more an exercise in imagination than any true estimate of cost.) The application does not appear to identify what Oregon Housing and Community Services is, how they produce their data and who administers their reports. The application does not explain why OHCS figures instead of another set of figures should be used as the basis for determining affordability and estimating rents. The application does not explain why figures from 2018 are to be used instead of another year’s data set. For example, the application says that, according to OHCS, the area median income for Tillamook County in 2018 was $54,700.00 (presumably per household). According to the US Census Bureau’s quick facts data, the median household income in 2018 was estimated to be $47,500.00 in Tillamook County taking into account the data available from 2014-2018 (https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/tillamookcountyoregon). That is a difference of more than 15% or $7,200.00 in total between OHCS’s figure and the US Census’ figure. Presumably the applicant is also to be the landlord or owner of the building it wishes to construct, rent or sell. To claim a higher median income means that “affordable” rents can be set (or, rather, advertised in this applicaiton) at a much higher rate and still be given the label “affordable,” even when simply swapping the data source results in a profound reduction of imagined rents. Higher rates means greater income for the landlord. This is a conflict of interest when attempting to claim that one’s primary concern in applying for a variance to accommodate design is to provide affordable housing. This does not mean that US Census Bureau figures should be used over OHCS figures. This is simply to demonstrate how the applicant has failed to provide necessary source, context and reasoning for the figures they selected and how those figures were used as a result. Because the application was filed in early March 2020, it was not able to account for the unprecedented, devastating effects of COVID-19 on Tillamook County’s employment rate. In March 2020, Tillamook County had an unemployment rate of 4.1%. In April 2020 that number has climbed to 18.4%, the last full month for which data is currently available (https://yachatsnews.com/lincoln-county-unemployment-rate-jumps-to-26-2-percent-in-april-highest-in-oregon/). Skyrocketing unemployment rates means greater numbers of working families losing their jobs and becoming non-workforce families. Non-workforce families cannot afford housing designed for workforce families. Therefor, the argument for a variance from a need to provide affordable housing to working families does not hold and the application should be denied. Using a median figure for any calculation without providing all the figures in the series is misleading. The median for a series is the figure that separates the lower half from the higher half. For examaple, if you have nine households of which three earn $25K per year, three earn $50K per year and three earn $100K per year, the median income for the whole series is $50K per year. If the cost of living is $50K per year, then to look only at the median household income as representative of the series gives the impression that all households in the series can presumably meet their needs. This is obviously not true. The median should not be used to determine at which point an average or affordable rent should be fixed. Nor should the median alone be used to determine whether and who gets access to “affordable” housing in a complex housing crisis. The application does not provide or reference real household incomes (instead of medians or averages) and completely ignores even considering households without income when claiming affordable housing as a reason for granting the variance. Therefor the application should be denied. The proposal provides no guarantee that units would be permanently rented or sold at affordable levels nor does it guarantee a permanent, and legally identifiable group of people (such as those in a housing crisis) to which the units *must* be rented. If the claim is that a variance is required to address a need for affordable housing, then the building should be permanently designated as affordable housing and the parameters for that designation fixed by law in perpetuity. No such designation has been made or proposed within the application, which indicates the applicant’s claim of concern in addressing a housing crisis appears limited to the grant of a variance and no further. Single people and child-free couples (a collective demographic having larger disposable incomes relative to other income-earning demographics) make up a large portion of short-term vacation renters. The overwhelming focus of the design in creating what would otherwise be high-demand, short-term rental units is suspicious when the original claim was a concern for affordable long-term housing to address a housing crisis. The application’s design lends itself to the idea that this building could likely become a short-term vacation rental complex. This is reason enough to reject the application. When the design is combined with no lasting, durable provision for affordable rates to long-term renters or buyers, the application should certainly be denied. If and when the building is or individual units are sold, there is no provision for the maintenance of affordable sale or rents. This means the variance, the resulting building and all its real costs (pollution, traffic, etc.) will be permanent while the primary reason the owners claim to be needing the variance (providing affordable housing) can be ignored even in the initial and certainly in subsequent sales or leases. This is unacceptable and the application should be denied. The application for variance claims that if the variance is not granted, then it may not be “feasible” to build a multi-family structure on this parcel. This is correct by definition and not an argument. The current building codes are in place to prevent exactly the kind of building the variance seeks in the first place, to protect the environment, mobility, safety and, to borrow the applicant’s word, “dignified” aesthetics. Again, if the intent of the applicant was to build a high-density, mulit-family home on this land, then the parameters under current building codes should have been

4

researched beforehand to avoid regrets (see 1). The regret of the applicant or their failure to know, understand or accept the impact that existing building codes would have on their plans does not function as an argument to allow a variance. Therefor the application should be denied. We urge the Tillamook County Planning Commission to not simply be a rubber stamp for development, to consider the above carefully, and to reject the Conditional Use and Variance requests. Thank you for reading Sincerely, George and Pam Brummer 3139 SE 73rd Ave Portland, OR 97206

1

Melissa Jenck

From: Peter Kotkas <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2020 9:00 PMTo: Melissa JenckSubject: EXTERNAL: Kingfisher Apartments Pacific City


Hello Mrs. Jenck, I’m a landowner in Pacific City, part time resident. I am pro development as long as it is done in a smart way. I feel there are much better spots for a 25 unit apartment complex than the proposed Kingfisher Apartments. The current location is already congested, has no parking and is in the floodplain. I own three lots on the river in town so I know how problematic the flooding can be. My small hometown of White Salmon Washington is facing the same growing pains as Pacific City. The town has halted all permits while it takes a closer look at how to develop in the coming year’s to meet demand and rebuild aging infrastructure. White Salmon is asking developers of units like Kingfisher to foot the bill for new water mains on the whole block or street where they plan to develop, as well as new sidewalks etc. Could be something to consider in Pacific City as there are no sidewalks, bike paths etc. The tourist activity is only going to increase, as I’ve seen happen everywhere in the past twenty years. I like the parking plan you guys sent out last year. I hope you can bring some of that plan to fruition in the future. Again, for the record I am against the variances and conditional uses being proposed for the kingfisher apartments in Pacific City. Thanks, Peter Kotkas 35510 Ruepell Ave Pacific City Get Outlook for iOS

1

Melissa Jenck

From: Scott Lane <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2020 6:11 PMTo: Melissa JenckSubject: EXTERNAL: Kingfisher Apartments - Re: #851-20-000139-PLNG (Conditional Use); #851-20-000138-

PLNG (Variance)



We are writing to provide comment regarding the Kingfisher Apartments development application for a Conditional Use permit and Variance request.

As homeowners in Pacific City we oppose both the request for Conditional Use and Variance for the Kingfisher Apartments.

We oppose the Conditional Use request because the requested conditional use zoning for this parcel (PCW-R3) requires that ‘public facilities and services can accommodate a high level of use’. The public facilities and services cannot accommodate the proposed level of use.



“Multi-family 8. Mid-Rise Building”). 9. 10. 11.The planned parking for this apartment will add to already 12. overburdened parking infrastructure by forcing both residents and guests out on to

Sunset drive, to the Turn-arounds public parking area, or into the downtown area - all of which have limited parking options.

13.

We also oppose the Variance Request for both height and setbacks because the need for this variance is entirely self-created and there are multiple reasonable alternatives to the building as designed. This means that the variance request application fails on 2 out of the 4 review criteria.


2











We would also add that the proposed apartment complex is so large and unseemly that it will detract from the natural setting and obscure the surrounding area, especially with the requested variances. Our children and grandchildren frequently are pedestrians on Pacific Avenue as well as Sunset Drive and we worry for their safety with the additional traffic volume and parking challenges this development will create.

3

For all these reasons we urge the Tillamook County Planning Commission to not simply be a rubber stamp for development, to consider the above carefully, and to reject the Conditional Use and Variance requests.

Respectfully,

Scott Lane Wendy Ackley 35075 Rueppel Ave Pacific City, OR 97124

503-440-7138

1

Melissa Jenck

From: Sarah AbsherSent: Sunday, June 28, 2020 2:50 PMTo: Joy Wilson; Melissa JenckSubject: June 25th Land Commission Meeting

Importance: High

Good Afternoon Ms. Wilson, Thank you for the email and for sharing your thoughts. I will work with Melissa tomorrow to make sure the Applicant’s slides from their presentation are available on the website. The live stream of the hearing has been posted at tctvonline.com. You can also visit the DCD homepage for the link: https://www.co.tillamook.or.us/gov/ComDev/ The audio of the hearing was also posted on Friday and can be accessed here: https://www.co.tillamook.or.us/gov/ComDev/hidden_Kingfisher.htm Sincerely, Sarah Absher, CFM, Director Tillamook County Department of Community Development 1510‐B Third Street Tillamook, OR 97141 [email protected] 503‐842‐3408x3317

From: Joy Wilson <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2020 12:03 PM To: Melissa Jenck <[email protected]>; Sarah Absher <[email protected]> Subject: EXTERNAL: June 25th Land Commision Meeting


Dear Melissa Jenck, Hoping you can direct me, but I cannot find the video recording of the Land Commission Meeting on June 25 anywhere on the Tillamook County web site. There was content in the form of a slideshow presented by the applicants and their engineer that was only available to those able to video stream the meeting or who were present. Listening to the audio, I would like to note that speakers are not introducing themselves as they speak, so one cannot tell who is commenting and has lead to some confusion about who to address with any comments, questions, or concerns. For example, someone at 2:59:13 said, they would post everything on Friday so we had time to reply to the information being shared, but I am unsure who that was upon review.

2

In the case of the slideshow‐ I do not believe those presentations were included as exhibits, thus creating a disadvantage to myself or anyone who was unable to view or review the meeting. If I am mistaken, can you please let me know where the video was uploaded? I'm concerned that every day that goes by without the meeting video is a failure to provide sufficient time for the county’s constituents to review and provide public comment. ***Also, please provide this email feedback as public comment to the Land Commission, as I am concerned about the fair and timely access of information to my community. The audio file is, unfortunately, poor quality, and the video’s absence is a disservice on the 3rd‐day post‐meeting with only a time frame of 7 days to respond. Sincere appreciation, Joy Wilson

1

Melissa Jenck

From: Barbara Baltzell <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2020 10:08 AMTo: Melissa JenckSubject: EXTERNAL: Fwd: Kingfisher Apartments. Re: #851-20-000139-PLNG (conditional use); #

851-20-000138-PLNG (variance)


I am resending this email that I sent June 27 because I realized my phone number was wrong. It is 503‐320‐6981 Barbara Baltzell Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message:

From: Barbara Baltzell <[email protected]> Date: June 27, 2020 at 5:25:43 PM PDT To: [email protected] Subject: Kingfisher Apartments. Re: #851‐20‐000139‐PLNG (conditional use); #851‐20‐000138‐PLNG (variance)

Melissa Jenck and Tillamook County Planning Commission, We are writing to comment on the Kingfisher Apartments application for a conditional use permit and variance request. As homeowners on Sunset Blvd in Pacific City for 28 years we strongly oppose both requests. Our opposition to the Conditional Use permit is that we don’t believe that the public services and facilities can accommodate the high level of use that is required. The apartment building will add far more stress than our roads can handle. And the planned parking for this complex will only add to the already overburdened parking and force residents and guests onto the Turnaround public parking and further down Sunset. With that said, our biggest opposition is to the variance requests for both height and setbacks because they are entirely self‐serving and self‐created. Designing a building that requires a 30% height variance and requiring a setback variance of 15 feet (down to 2 feet) are totally self‐serving. The designers and owners of the property knew perfectly well what the design requirements were when launching this project and could have designed accordingly. There are other alternatives that are completely reasonable. When we built our house, the design called for a steeper roof and therefore more height. When we realized this we made the design adjustments needed to bring it into compliance with County codes. And we had to comply with all setback restrictions. These people can too. The variance request application fails on 2 of the 4 Review criteria. According to the Tillamook County Land Use Ordinances Section 8.030, the variance request must satisfy ALL of the criteria.

2

We are also opposed to the variance request for additional on‐street parking. Under Land Use Ordinance Section 8.030, the commission must also refer to a section 4.005 which states that land use standards must allow that: Private land uses that can be reasonably expected to occur on private land can be entirely accommodated on private land (parking and access). The proposed parallel parking will require residents to drive further down Sunset to turn around ‐ most likely on neighborhood driveways. This property and area is totally unfit for the size of the intended project and potential added traffic. Dennis and Barbara Baltzell Owners of 35250 Sunset, Pacific City 503‐320‐6971 Sent from my iPhone

1

Melissa Jenck

From: Dale Van Lydegraf <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2020 8:59 AMTo: Melissa JenckSubject: EXTERNAL: Opposition of develement and


Hello Melissa Jenck & Tillamook County Planning Commission, I am writing to provide comment regarding the Kingfisher Apartments development application for a Conditional Use permit and Variance request. As a [homeowner, resident, business owner, etc] in Pacific City/Woods I oppose both the request for Conditional Use and Variance for the Kingfisher Apartments. I oppose the Conditional Use request because the requested conditional use zoning for this parcel (PCW-R3) requires that ‘public facilities and services can accommodate a high level of use’. The public facilities and services cannot accommodate the proposed level of use.




I also oppose the Variance Request for both height and setbacks because the need for this variance is entirely self-created and there are multiple reasonable alternatives to the building as designed. This means that the variance request application fails on 2 out of the 4 review criteria.Per the Tillamook County Land Use Ordinances Section 8.030, the variance request must satisfy all of the review criteria, not half.



3. There are many other economically and physically feasible designs for this parcel. I also oppose the Variance Request for additional on-street parking. Per Land Use Ordinances Section 8.030, the Commission must also refer to Section 4.005 as part of the review process. Section 4.005 notes that land use standards must allow:


1. The applicant is going to burden local public infrastructure with overflow parking for both residents and apartment visitors. The number of parking spots currently planned are 1 vehicle per apartment plus 5 additional spaces, and 2 handicapped accessible spaces for a total of 32.

2. That “...safe access to and from common roads” must be ensured. 1. The proposed on-street parking will require the accessible spots to back out onto an

already congested road on a near blind corner.

2

2. The proposed parallel parking is going to require residents to drive down to Bob Staub (or a neighbor’s driveway) to make a u-turn or potentially park facing the wrong direction into incoming traffic.

[Emotional reasons to deny request go here] I urge the Tillamook County Planning Commission to not simply be a rubber stamp for development, to consider the above carefully, and to reject the Conditional Use and Variance requests. To give public oral testimony on 6/25 Contact Melissa Jenck ([email protected]) prior to 6 PM On 6/25 to make arrangements to speak. Frankly, I’d email her tomorrow if you want to speak on 6/25. The email must include the telephone number you want to be called at to provide oral testimony. Melissa Jenck will call those who’ve emailed her when the public comment period opens. The order of callers will be announced at the beginning for the public comment period.

Conditional Use and Variance Summaries + Talking Points The following are the points the Planning Commission should consider when reviewing these requests:

Conditional Use Summary: 1. The relevant portion of the Land Use Ordinance relating to approval of conditional use

permits are found in Article 6 (https://www.co.tillamook.or.us/gov/ComDev/documents/luo/05272015LUO/Article%206%202017.pdf). There are 6 metrics to review the conditional use application - the County Planning staff have reviewed and feel that the application for the Kingfisher Apts meets the 6 criteria. It’s going to be challenging to argue against the conditional use permit based solely on the Article 6 metrics.

2. The current zoning for this parcel is PCW-C1 currently. A multi-unit dwelling is not an outright permitted use of this parcel but multi-unit dwellings exceeding 4 units is a ‘conditionally permitted use’ for the parcel.

3. PCW-R3 governs the requirements for multi-family unit dwellings - An argument can be made that while the conditional use of multi-family dwellings exceeding 4 units is within PCW-C1, the applicants should still need to adhere to the PCW-R3 requirements as part of the conditional use application review & approval process. We can clearly state that the public facilities and services related to sidewalks and roads cannot safely accommodate the proposed density and that the commissioners should take this into account when reviewing the conditional use application. (1) PURPOSE: The purpose of the PCW-R3 zone is to designate areas for a medium- to high density mix of dwelling types and other, compatible, uses. The PCW-R3 zone is intended for densely-developed areas or areas that are suitable for high- density urban development because of level topography and the absence of hazards, and because public facilities and services can accommodate a high level of use.

Conditional Use - PCW-R3 Talking Points 1. This area is not suitable for high density urban development as it will increase the

already hazardous nature of the Sunset Drive/Beachy Bridge/Kiwanda intersection; the public facilities & services clearly cannot support the additional burden.

2. Currently the intersection at Sunset/Beachy Bridge/Kiwanda is congested, confusing, and dangerous.

3. 25 units will add up to approximately ~140 additional trips per day through this intersection. Adding this to an already congested tourist area will increase fender benders and confusion.

3

4. Currently crossing Kiwanda drive/Sunset drive as a pedestrian is dangerous and confusing. The dog-leg intersection means that one needs to look behind/before/around with cars coming from all directions.

5. There is no note made in any of the planning materials of any plans to ameliorate the traffic or pedestrian issues in this intersection that will only be exacerbated by additional vehicles.

6. Per Pacific City Woods Citizen Advisory Council - the conditional use permit was denied by 36 residents to 13

Variance Request Approval Rules Summary: 1. The relevant portion of the Land Use Ordinance for variance request approval is found in

section 8 (https://www.co.tillamook.or.us/gov/ComDev/documents/luo/05272015LUO/Final%20Article%208.pdf). This is the strongest argument we currently have against approval of this request as the application must meet all 4 metrics for approval. Section 8.020 states that the circumstances requiring the variance cannot be self created and there must be no reasonable alternatives available. A VARIANCE shall be granted, according to the procedures set forth in Section 8.020, if the applicant adequately demonstrates that the proposed VARIANCE satisfies all of the following criteria:

(1) Circumstances attributable either to the dimensional, topographic, or hazardous characteristics of a legally existing lot, or to the placement of structures thereupon, would effectively preclude the enjoyment of a substantial property right enjoyed by the majority of landowners in the vicinity, if all applicable standards were to be met. Such circumstances may not be self-created. (2) A VARIANCE is necessary to accommodate a use or accessory use on the parcel which can be reasonably expected to occur within the zone or vicinity. (3) The proposed VARIANCE will comply with the purposes of relevant development standards as enumerated in Section 4.005 and will preserve the right of adjoining property owners to use and enjoy their land for legal purposes. (4) There are no reasonable alternatives requiring either a lesser or no VARIANCE.

Height & Setback Variance Request Summary 1. The applicant has requested a height variance to allow a building of 54.5 feet with a

calculated height of 32 feet. Current regulation requires a maximum height of 24 feet in this area.

2. This is a 30% increase in height from maximum allowed height. It is only the applicant’s design that requires this 30% height increase; there is no real logistical or topographical issue that truly requires a variance of this magnitude.

3. The applicant points to the fact that 78% of the buildable lots within a 1000 foot radius are able to exceed the 24 foot height restriction. Zoning varies by location - the property is located in an area where the height restriction is 24 feet based on its proximity to the Nestucca river/bay based on Tillamook County Planning Commission regulations and the Pacific City/Woods Community Plan. If the applicant is pointing at properties south of Beach Bridge on the bay side that exceed 24 feet, this is rather an argument AGAINST variances than an argument for. Likely these were grandfathered in prior to the current zoning or illegally built.

4. The applicant has requested a setback variance to reduce the amount of setback from 15 feet to 2 feet.

Variance Request Talking Points: 1. A variance for a building that has been designed as too tall and too wide for the zoned

use:

4

1. Is a self-created circumstance that does not allow for a variance based on Chapter 8, Section 8.030.

2. Designing a building that is both too tall and too wide for the lot does not meet the legal criteria for variance approval.

3. Many residents would like a taller house or a house that has smaller setbacks - ‘wanting to build what one wants’ is not a legal metric for approval of a variance request.

4. Should the applicant choose to build a smaller building there would be no variance required.

2. Per Pacific City Woods approved community plan, zoning height restrictions south of Beachy Bridge are: (f) The maximum building height shall be 35 feet, except that the maximum building height shall be 24 feet on ocean or bay frontage lots. Bay frontage lots are defined as those bay/river frontage lots located downstream from the Beachy Bridge (Pacific Avenue).

1. Instead of requesting a variance, the applicant should be attempting to change the height restriction for ocean/bay front lots by the currently accepted mechanism - a vote of the people or a change to the zoning for ocean/bayfront lots.

2. To allow a height variance of this magnitude to be approved will open up the County to lawsuits both current and future:

1. In the near term, it will be challenging for the County to argue that this variance was approved based on section 8.030 of the Land Use Ordinances. “The majority of land owners in the area” do not currently enjoy a 30% taller building height. Nor does the current height restriction on this property preclude development - but it does preclude the proposed development.

2. In the long term, if the County approves this variance, all future development in Pacific City will potentially be a catalyst for law suits against the County if new developments are not also approved for a 100% taller building by special variance.

3. It would be unethical to approve this variance and open the County up to potential lawsuits and/or by setting future precedent due to the magnitude of the request. Codes are codes for a reason and the rules that lay out requirements for granting a variance are clear - “circumstances may not be self-created,” which on strict reading applies to trying to build a building that is taller AND larger than code allows.

2. Setbacks are required on corner lots for various reasons - 1. Safety, future potential needs for development to ease congestion (eg a

roundabout). 2. To reduce the setback requirement on this property would be detrimental to future

ability for Tillamook County or an incorporated Pacific City to amend what is already a congested and confusing intersection.

3. The applicant points to zoning PCW-C1 setback of 1 foot as a reason to ignore the setback requirements for PCW-R3 - the applicant cannot leverage both the existing zoning + the conditional use zoning in order to ignore legal requirements because it is expedient.

3. The Pacific City Woods Citizens Advisory Council voted 37 to 12 against granting the variance.

Parking Variance 4. The applicant has requested the ability to create 6 additional parking spaces on Sunset

Drive.

5

1. From the schematic, it appears that 1. The 2 accessible parking spots are head-in nearest the corner of Pacific &

Sunset. 2. The 4 additional parking spots are parallel which means that

1. residents will need to drive down the street to Bob Straub (or someone’s driveway) to u-turn to return and park on the correct side of the street OR they will be parking facing the wrong direction in order to dive into the spot - neither are a good, planned use for parking.

2. The above (both head in and confusing parallel parking scenario) means that pedestrian access will be further compromised.

3. Additional parking in a residential area should be part of a long term parking plan vs to support one single development.

Additional Talking Points: There is nothing in the proposed development that outlines

Improvements to the sidewalks and accesses. The cost of the development should be born by the developer - prior to any potential future approval, the commission should mandate infrastructure updates including the addition of sidewalks so that the citizens are not in the position of back-filling required infrastructure on behalf of developers.

Impacts to traffic patterns and parking in the area. Any requests by the County Commission for infrastructure improvements to support either

the increased traffic (sidewalks, crosswalks, etc) or the potential issues with parking overflowing to downtown & the turnarounds.

Further, the variance review criteria state that one should also review section 4.005. Important points highlighted.

SECTION 4.005: RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL ZONE STANDARDS PURPOSE: In all RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL ZONES, the purpose of land use standards are the following: (1) To ensure the availability of private open space; (2) To ensure that adequate light and air are available to residential and commercial structures; (3) To adequately separate structures for emergency access; (4) To enhance privacy for occupants of residences; (5) To ensure that all private land uses that can be reasonably expected to occur on private land can be entirely accommodated on private land, including but not limited to dwellings, shops, garages, driveways, parking, areas for maneuvering vehicles for safe access to common roads, alternative energy facilities, and private open spaces; (6) To ensure that driver visibility on adjacent roads will not be obstructed; (7) To ensure safe access to and from common roads; (8) To ensure that pleasing views are neither unreasonably obstructed nor obtained; (9) To separate potentially incompatible land uses; (10) To ensure access to solar radiation for the purpose of alternative energy production.

Dale Van Lydegraf CR, Certified Remodeler Dale's Remodeling Cell: 503‐932‐2298 Office: 503‐370‐7609 Fax: 503‐370‐7677 www.dalesremodeling.com

1

Melissa Jenck

From: Dale Van Lydegraf <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2020 9:07 AMTo: Melissa JenckSubject: EXTERNAL: Fwd: EXTERNAL: Opposition of develement and


Dale Van Lydegraf CR, Certified Remodeler Dale's Remodeling Cell: 503‐932‐2298 Office: 503‐370‐7609 Fax: 503‐370‐7677 www.dalesremodeling.com

From: Melissa Jenck <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2020 8:59 AM To: Dale Van Lydegraf Subject: Opposition of develement and Hello, My name is Dale Van Lydegraf Patti and I reside at 34660 NesStucca Blvd. Pacific city Oregon just one block away from this development proposal. We commonly walk or ride bikes across the bridge and down Sunset. The conditional you should not be allowed to supersede the height restriction of 24 feet and or any other setback variance requested. We understand the need for housing however the rules should not be broken for Any one entity. Please deny the application, thank you Dale Van Lydegraf Patty Bolstad MELISSA you have my permission to cut copy and paste this into the other comments I’m working from my mobile phone and it doesn’t allow me to do certain operations we are in opposition of the request for height and setback variance. Thank you

1

Melissa Jenck

From: Joy Wilson <[email protected]>Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2020 8:46 AMTo: Melissa JenckSubject: EXTERNAL: Kingfisher Apartments application comments- please submit


6/28/20


I am writing to provide comments regarding the Kingfisher Apartments development application for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance request.

As a [homeowner in Pacific City/Woods I oppose both the request for Conditional Use and Variance for the Kingfisher Apartments.







1. Designing a building that is too tall, requiring a 30% height variance, is entirely self-created, while NOT using the natural grade for calculations is disingenuous.




2


a. The applicant is going to burden local public infrastructure with overflow parking for both residents and apartment visitors. The number of parking spots currently planned are 1 vehicle per apartment plus 5 additional spaces, and 2 handicapped accessible spaces for a total of 32.

2. That “...safe access to and from common roads” must be ensured. . The proposed on-street parking will require the accessible spots to back out onto an

already congested road on a near-blind corner. a. The proposed parallel parking is going to require residents to drive down

to Bob Staub (or a neighbor’s driveway) to make a u-turn or potentially park facing the wrong direction into oncoming traffic.

We have concerns after reading through the Staff Reports & Exhibits about some obvious bias towards the applicant & advocacy by Sarah Absher in her communications with the fire chief- James Oeder. Hearing that Gale Ousele the vice-Chair is friends with the applicant as well as on the housing commission was of concern as well. We do not believe a person with that relationship and position could be impartial going forward. We urge the Tillamook County Planning Commission to not simply be a rubber stamp for development, to consider the above carefully, and to reject the Conditional Use and Variance requests.

Thank you for your attention and consideration, Joy Wilson Kevin Wilson 35105 Sunset Drive Pacific City, OR 97135

1

Melissa Jenck

From: [email protected]: Saturday, June 27, 2020 6:27 PMTo: Melissa JenckSubject: EXTERNAL: Kingfisher Apartment VariancesAttachments: Tillamook County Letter.docx


Please see the attached letter and provide to the Tillamook County Planning Commission. Thank you! Ken and Martha Johnson

June 27, 2020 Attn: Melissa Jenck and the Tillamook County Planning Commission: Subject: Kingfisher Apartments - Re: #851-20-000139-PLNG (Conditional Use); #851-20-000138-PLNG (Variance) Email to: [email protected]

This letter is to provide comment regarding the Kingfisher Apartments development application for a Conditional Use permit and Variance request. My Husband and I have been residents of Pacific City for over 30 years. We oppose both the request for Conditional Use and Variance for the Kingfisher Apartments. I oppose the Conditional Use request because the requested conditional use zoning for this parcel (PCW-R3) requires that ‘public facilities and services can

accommodate a high level of use’. The public facilities and services cannot

accommodate the proposed level of use.


2. A 25 unit apartment building will add an additional ~140 trips per day (based

on Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual - “Multi-

family Mid-Rise Building”). 3. The planned parking for this apartment will add to already overburdened

parking infrastructure by forcing both residents and guests out on to Sunset drive, to the Turn-arounds public parking area, or into the downtown area - all of which have limited parking options.

I also oppose the Variance Request for both height and setbacks because the need for this variance is entirely self-created and there are multiple reasonable alternatives to the building as designed. This means that the variance request application fails on 2 out of the 4 review criteria. Per the Tillamook County Land Use Ordinances Section 8.030, the variance request must satisfy all of the review criteria, not half.






1. Private land uses that can be reasonably expected to occur on private land

can be entirely accommodated on private land (eg parking & safe access). a. The applicant is going to burden local public infrastructure with

overflow parking for both residents and apartment visitors. The number of parking spots currently planned are 1 vehicle per apartment plus 5 additional spaces, and 2 handicapped accessible spaces for a total of 32.

2. That “...safe access to and from common roads” must be ensured.

a. The proposed on-street parking will require the accessible spots to back out onto an already congested road on a near blind corner.

b.The proposed parallel parking is going to require residents to drive down to

Bob Staub (or a neighbor’s driveway) to make a u-turn or potentially park

facing the wrong direction into incoming traffic.

➢ The location for the proposed Kingfisher Apartments is not the best location

for the project. The county is being asked to make severe concessions to county standards all for a building that could be constructed in several other locations in the vicinity without any variances. The burden this project puts on our water/sewer district is unreasonable for the other residents who have been paying taxes for several years to maintain the lifestyle of Pacific City.

➢ The addition of this many residents in a very tight environment will cause

significant additional burden on our volunteer fire department and our local Fire and Rescue team. The infrastructure of the city has not been created to add such residential structures with creating high risk to other residents.

I urge the Tillamook County Planning Commission, to consider the above carefully, and to reject the Conditional Use and Variance requests. Sincerely, Ken and Martha Johnson 35090 Rueppell Ave Pacific City, Oregon 97135

1

Melissa Jenck

From: Barbara Baltzell <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2020 5:26 PMTo: Melissa JenckSubject: EXTERNAL: Kingfisher Apartments. Re: #851-20-000139-PLNG (conditional use); #851-20-000138-

PLNG (variance)

[NOTICE: This message originated outside of Tillamook County ‐‐ DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Melissa Jenck and Tillamook County Planning Commission, We are writing to comment on the Kingfisher Apartments application for a conditional use permit and variance request. As homeowners on Sunset Blvd in Pacific City for 28 years we strongly oppose both requests. Our opposition to the Conditional Use permit is that we don’t believe that the public services and facilities can accommodate the high level of use that is required. The apartment building will add far more stress than our roads can handle. And the planned parking for this complex will only add to the already overburdened parking and force residents and guests onto the Turnaround public parking and further down Sunset. With that said, our biggest opposition is to the variance requests for both height and setbacks because they are entirely self‐serving and self‐created. Designing a building that requires a 30% height variance and requiring a setback variance of 15 feet (down to 2 feet) are totally self‐serving. The designers and owners of the property knew perfectly well what the design requirements were when launching this project and could have designed accordingly. There are other alternatives that are completely reasonable. When we built our house, the design called for a steeper roof and therefore more height. When we realized this we made the design adjustments needed to bring it into compliance with County codes. And we had to comply with all setback restrictions. These people can too. The variance request application fails on 2 of the 4 Review criteria. According to the Tillamook County Land Use Ordinances Section 8.030, the variance request must satisfy ALL of the criteria. We are also opposed to the variance request for additional on‐street parking. Under Land Use Ordinance Section 8.030, the commission must also refer to a section 4.005 which states that land use standards must allow that: Private land uses that can be reasonably expected to occur on private land can be entirely accommodated on private land (parking and access). The proposed parallel parking will require residents to drive further down Sunset to turn around ‐ most likely on neighborhood driveways. This property and area is totally unfit for the size of the intended project and potential added traffic. Dennis and Barbara Baltzell Owners of 35250 Sunset, Pacific City 503‐320‐6971

2

Sent from my iPhone

1

Melissa Jenck

From: Nan Thompson <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2020 3:07 PMTo: Melissa JenckSubject: EXTERNAL: Kingfisher Apartments - Re:#851-20-000139-PLNG(Conditional Use); #851-20-000138-

PLNG (Variance)

[NOTICE: This message originated outside of Tillamook County ‐‐ DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] To Melissa Jenck and the Tillamook County Planning Commission Concerning the Kingfisher Apartments wanting to build on the corner of Sunset, Pacific and Kiwanda roads. I am an owner at 354 Sunset Drive and me and my family use that intersection to access our home often. It is a hazardous intersection with lots of traffic. To put a 25 unit apartment there to add to the traffic, with not enough parking spaces seems unwise. When you have 25 units, most of those units will have more than one occupant. Even if half of them have one renter, that will leave at least 12 units with more people. At this day and age most couples have 2 cars. That leaves the needs of parking to 24 spaces plus 13 single one car units totaling 37 of the 32 they are planning, which is probably actually short by quite a few. Also there will also need to be visitors parking. This will mean that a lot of cars will have to be parking along the road. There are a lot of cars in this area because of families parking to access the beach. Also cars parking in this area to rent horses for rides. This does not also take into consideration the traffic it will add to that very busy, my estimation hazardous, intersection from the apartments. There are several other issues that concern me about adding this apartment complex on that corner, but the traffic, parking situation is one of my main ones. I hope that you will take a long hard look at all the issues before granting these permits. N. Nanette Thompson 11960 SW Tremont St Portland, Oregon 97225 503‐747‐2526

1

Melissa Jenck

From: Laura Beebe <[email protected]>Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2020 7:39 AMTo: Melissa JenckSubject: EXTERNAL: Sunset apartments

[NOTICE: This message originated outside of Tillamook County ‐‐ DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] To whom it may concern, I am writing in support of the housing complex on Sunset in Pacific City. We desperately need workforce housing. This location is a great location for easy walking to any location in Pacific City. Sometimes variances must be reconsidered in special circumstances. The impact from set backs, traffic, height and river access has little effect on Our community. It is more important to provide housing for workers in our community. For the good of our community please allow the Sunset housing project to continue. Laura Beebe 7840 Brooten Mountain Loop Pacific City, OR 97135

1

Melissa Jenck

From: Carol Boylan <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 2:36 PMTo: Melissa JenckSubject: EXTERNAL: Fwd: Subject: Kingfisher Apartments - Re: #851-20-000139-PLNG (Conditional Use); #

851-20-000138-PLNG (Variance)


Carol

From: Carol Boylan <[email protected]> Date: June 25, 2020 at 4:28:45 PM P



I would like to attend the teleconference on 6/25

My phone number Is 541-921-7631

Carol Boylan

As a [homeowner, resident) in Pacific City/Woods I oppose both the request for Conditional Use and Variance for the Kingfisher Apartments.


1. 2. Sunset,

2

3. Pacific, and Kiwanda roads are current substandard with no shoulder, no sidewalk, and are very confusing and dangerous to both pedestrians and drivers.

4. 5. 6. A 7. 25 unit apartment building will add an

additional ~140 trips per day (based 8. on Institute of Transportation

Engineers Trip Generation Manual - “Multi-family Mid-Rise Building”).

9. 10. 11.The 12. planned parking for this apartment

will add to already overburdened parking infrastructure by forcing both residents and guests out on to Sunset drive, to the Turn-arounds public parking area, or into the downtown area - all of which have limited parking options.

13.



1. 2. Designing 3. a building that is too tall, requiring a

30% height variance, is entirely self-created.

4. 5. 6. Designing 7. a building that is too wide, requiring a

setback variance of 15 feet to 2 feet is entirely self-created.

3

8. 9. 10.There 11. are many other economically and

physically feasible designs for this parcel.

12.


1. 2. Private 3. land uses that can be reasonably

expected to occur on private land can be entirely accommodated on private land

4. (eg parking & safe access). 5.

a. b. The c. applicant is going to burden

local public infrastructure with overflow parking for both residents and apartment visitors.

d. The number e. of parking spots currently

planned are 1 vehicle per apartment plus 5 additional spaces, and 2 handicapped accessible spaces for a total of 32.

f. 6. 7. That 8. “...safe 9. access too and from common roads” 10. must be ensured. 11.

. a. The

b. proposed on-street parking will require the accessible spots to back out onto an already congested road on a near blind corner.

c.

4

d. e. The f. proposed parallel parking is

going to require residents to drive down to Bob Staub (or a neighbor’s driveway) to make a u-turn or potentially park facing the wrong direction into incoming traffic.

g. h.

i.


Conditional Use and Variance Summaries + Talking Points The following are the points the Planning Commission should consider when reviewing these requests:

Conditional Use Summary:

1. 2. The 3. relevant portion of the Land Use

Ordinance relating to approval of conditional use permits are found in Article 6 (https://www.co.tillamook.or.us/gov/ComDev/documents/luo/05272015LUO/Article%206%202017.pdf).

4. There are 6 metrics to review the conditional use application - the County Planning staff have reviewed and feel that the application for the Kingfisher Apts meets the 6 criteria.

5. It’s going 6. to be challenging to argue against

the conditional use permit based solely on the Article 6 metrics.

7. 8. 9. The

5

10. current zoning for this parcel is PCW-C1 currently. A multi-unit dwelling is not an outright permitted use of this parcel but multi-unit dwellings exceeding 4 units is a ‘conditionally permitted use’ for the parcel.

11. 12. 13.PCW-R3 14. governs the requirements for

multi-family unit dwellings - An 15. argument can be made that

while the conditional use of multi-family dwellings exceeding 4 units is within PCW-C1, the applicants should still need to adhere to the PCW-R3 requirements as part of the conditional use application review & approval process.

16.

17. 18.

We can clearly state that the public facilities and services related to sidewalks and roads cannot safely accommodate the proposed density and that the commissioners should take this into account when reviewing the conditional use application.

(1) PURPOSE: The purpose of the PCW-R3 zone is to designate areas for a medium- to high density mix of dwelling types and other, compatible, uses. The PCW-R3 zone is intended for densely-developed areas or areas that are suitable for high-density urban development because of level topography and the absence of hazards, and because public facilities and services can accommodate a high level of use.

Conditional Use - PCW-R3 Talking Points

a.

6

b. This c. area is not suitable for high density urban development as it will increase the already hazardous nature of the Sunset Drive/Beachy Bridge/Kiwanda intersection; the public facilities & services clearly cannot support the additional burden.

d. e. f. Currently g. the intersection at Sunset/Beachy

Bridge/Kiwanda is congested, confusing, and dangerous.

h. i. j. 25 k. units will add up to approximately

~140 additional trips per day through this intersection. Adding this to an already congested tourist area will increase fender benders and confusion.

l. m. n. Currently o. crossing Kiwanda drive/Sunset drive

as a pedestrian is dangerous and confusing. The dog-leg intersection means that one needs to look behind/before/around with cars coming from all directions.

p. q. r. There s. is no note made in any of the

planning materials of any plans to ameliorate the traffic or pedestrian issues in this intersection that will only be exacerbated by additional vehicles.

t. u. v. Per w. Pacific City Woods Citizen Advisory

Council - the conditional use permit was denied by 36 residents to 13.

x.

Variance Request Approval Rules Summary:

1. 2. The

7

3. relevant portion of the Land Use Ordinance for variance request approval is found in section 8 (https://www.co.tillamook.or.us/gov/ComDev/documents/luo/05272015LUO/Final%20Article%208.pdf).

4. This is the 5. strongest argument we currently

have against approval of this request as the application must meet all 4 metrics for approval. Section 8.020 states that the circumstances requiring the variance cannot be self created and there must be no reasonable alternatives

6. available. 7.

A VARIANCE shall be granted, according to the procedures set forth in Section 8.020, if the applicant adequately demonstrates that the proposed VARIANCE satisfies all of the following criteria:

(1) Circumstances attributable either to the dimensional, topographic, or hazardous characteristics of a legally existing lot, or to the placement of structures thereupon, would effectively preclude the enjoyment of a substantial property right enjoyed by the majority of landowners in the vicinity, if all applicable standards were to be met. Such circumstances may not be self-created. (2) A VARIANCE is necessary to accommodate a use or accessory use on the parcel which can be reasonably expected to occur within the zone or vicinity. (3) The proposed VARIANCE will comply with the purposes of relevant development standards as enumerated in Section 4.005 and will preserve the right of adjoining property owners to use and enjoy their land for

8

legal purposes. (4) There are no reasonable alternatives requiring either a lesser or no VARIANCE.

Height & Setback Variance Request Summary

1. 2. The 3. applicant has requested a height

variance to allow a building of 54.5 feet with a calculated height of 32 feet. Current regulation requires a maximum height of 24 feet in this area.

4. 5. 6. This 7. is a 30% increase in height from

maximum allowed height. It is only 8. the applicant’s design that 9. requires this 30% height increase;

there is no real logistical or topographical issue that truly requires a variance of this magnitude.

10. 11. 12.The 13. applicant points to the fact that 78%

of the buildable lots within a 1000 foot radius are able to exceed the 24 foot height restriction. Zoning varies by location - the property is located in an area where the height restriction is 24 feet based on its proximity

14. to the Nestucca River/bay based on Tillamook County Planning Commission regulations and the Pacific City/Woods Community Plan. If the applicant is pointing at properties south of Beach Bridge on the bay side that exceed 24 feet, this is rather an argument

15. AGAINST variances than an argument for. Likely these were grandfathered in prior to the current zoning or illegally built.

16. 17. 18.The

9

19. applicant has requested a setback variance to reduce the amount of setback from 15 feet to 2 feet.

20.

Variance Request Talking Points:

1. 2. A 3. variance for a building that has been

designed as too tall and too wide for the zoned use:

4. a. b. Is c. a self-created d. circumstance that does not e. allow for a variance based on

Chapter 8, Section 8.030. f. g. h. Designing i. a building that is both too j. tall and too wide for the lot

does not meet the legal criteria for variance approval.

k. l. m. Many n. residents would like a taller

house or a house that has smaller setbacks -

o. ‘wanting to build p. what one wants’ is not a

legal metric for approval of a variance request.

q. r. s. Should t. the applicant choose to build a

smaller building there would be no variance required.

u. 5. 6. Per 7. Pacific City Woods approved

community plan, zoning height restrictions south of Beachy Bridge are:

8. (f) The

10

9. maximum building height shall be 35 feet, except that the maximum building height shall be 24 feet on ocean or bay frontage lots. Bay frontage lots are defined as those bay/river frontage lots located downstream from the Beachy Bridge (Pacific

10. Avenue). 11.

. a. Instead

b. of requesting a variance, the applicant should be attempting to change the height restriction for ocean/bay front lots by the currently accepted mechanism - a vote of the people or a change to the zoning for ocean/Bayfront lots.

c. d. e. To f. allow a height variance of this

magnitude to be approved will open up the County to lawsuits

g. both current h. and future: i.

i. ii. In iii. the near term, it will be iv. challenging for the County to

argue that this variance was approved based on section 8.030 of the Land Use Ordinances. “The majority of land owners in the area” do not currently enjoy a 30% taller building height. Nor does the current height restriction on

v. this property preclude development - but it does preclude the proposed development.

vi. vii.

viii. In ix. the long term, if the County x. approves this variance, all

future development in Pacific City will potentially be a catalyst

11

for law suits against the County if new developments are not also approved for a 100% taller building by special variance.

xi. xii.

xiii. It xiv. would be unethical to

approve this variance and open the County up to potential lawsuits and/or by setting future precedent

xv. due to the magnitude of the xvi. request. Codes are codes for a

reason and the rules that lay out requirements for granting a variance are clear - “circumstances may not be self-created,” which on strict reading applies to trying to build a building that is taller AND larger than code allows.

xvii. 3. 4. Setbacks 5. are required on corner lots for various

reasons- 6.

. a. Safety,

b. future potential needs for development to ease congestion (eg a roundabout).

c. d. e. To f. reduce the setback

requirement on this property would be detrimental to future ability for Tillamook County or an incorporated Pacific City to amend what is already a congested and confusing intersection.

g. h. i. The j. applicant points to zoning

PCW-C1 setback of 1 foot as a reason to ignore the setback requirements for PCW-R3 - the applicant cannot leverage both the existing zoning + the

12

conditional use zoning in order to ignore legal requirements because it is expedient.

k. 7. 8. The 9. Pacific City Woods Citizens Advisory

Council voted 37 to 12 against granting the variance.

10.

Parking Variance

4. 5. The

6. applicant has requested the ability to create 6 additional parking spaces on Sunset Drive.

7. a. b. From c. the schematic, it appears that d.

i. ii. The iii. 2 accessible parking

spots are head-in nearest the corner of Pacific & Sunset.

iv. v. vi. The vii. 4 additional parking

spots are parallel which means that

viii. 1. 2. residents 3. will need to drive

down the street to Bob Straub (or someone’s driveway) to u-turn to return and park on the correct side of the street

4.

5. OR 6.

13

7. They will be parking facing

8. the wrong direction in order to dive into the spot - neither are a good, planned use for parking.

9. e. f. The

g. above (both head in and confusing parallel parking scenario) means that pedestrian access will be further compromised.

h. i. j. Additional k. parking in a residential area

should be part of a long term parking plan vs to support one single development.

l.

Additional Talking Points:

There is nothing in the proposed development that outlines

Improvements to the sidewalks and accesses. The

cost of the development should be born by the developer - prior to any potential future approval, the commission should mandate infrastructure updates including the addition of sidewalks so that the citizens are not in the

position of back-filling required infrastructure on behalf of developers.

Impacts to traffic patterns and parking in the

area. Any requests by the County Commission

for infrastructure improvements to

14

support either the increased traffic (sidewalks, crosswalks, etc) or the potential issues with parking overflowing to downtown & the turnarounds.

Further, the variance review criteria state that one should also review section 4.005. Important points highlighted.

SECTION 4.005: RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL ZONE STANDARDS PURPOSE: In all RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL ZONES, the purpose of land use standards are the following: (1) To ensure the availability of private open space; (2) To ensure that adequate light and air are available to residential and commercial structures; (3) To adequately separate structures for emergency access; (4) To enhance privacy for occupants of residences; (5) To ensure that all private land uses that can be reasonably expected to occur on private land can be entirely accommodated on private land, including but not limited to dwellings, shops, garages, driveways, parking, areas for maneuvering vehicles for safe access to common roads, alternative energy facilities, and private open spaces; (6) To ensure that driver visibility on adjacent roads will not be obstructed; (7) To ensure safe access to and from common roads; (8) To ensure that pleasing views are neither unreasonably obstructed nor obtained; (9) To separate potentially incompatible land uses; (10) To ensure access to solar radiation for the purpose of alternative energy production.

Sincerely, Carol Boylan 6400 Tent Street

15

Pacific City. Oregon 97135

melissa jenck - co.tillamook.or.us · my wife and i have been in the community a little over 5...

Documents