Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Waterfront Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission debates specifics for waterfront design standards, public paths and materials
Summary
The city planning commission spent most of its Dec. 4 meeting refining proposed waterfront design guidance — including window percentages, trim dimensions, materials and building lengths — and heard a developer say he will try to incorporate the standards into a pending project while asking whether proposed public-path and solar/rainwater rules are feasible.
The Planning Commission spent its Dec. 4 meeting in an extended review of draft waterfront design standards, questioning rigid prescriptions for windows, trim and materials while urging clearer, less subjective language.
Commissioner Doug Proctor led the review, saying the draft’s 50% primary-elevation glass requirement is appropriate for retail but not other uses and recommending the standard be limited to retail fronts. He criticized a proposed minimum 6-inch trim (a 1-by-6) as disproportionate on small buildings and suggested scaling trim requirements by elevation or making them optional for smaller structures.
The debate ranged from shutters and decorative gable vents to the use of stone veneers. Commissioners agreed that phrases such as “high quality materials” and “sense of permanence” are vague and should be replaced with specific examples or objective standards. Anna Saint John and Shannon Budge repeatedly urged flexibility, noting cost and product-availability concerns for elements such as true stone, copper downspouts or specialty multi-pane window patterns.
Commissioners also discussed building orientation and massing. The draft limits the maximum length of a new village building to 40 feet; members questioned whether that limit applied regardless of orientation and suggested encouraging designers to break larger structures into smaller masses or use projections and porches to preserve waterfront views.
On public access, the commission reviewed draft language that would incorporate a walking path into new waterfront developments. Members and staff said the city likely cannot compel private property owners to build and maintain a publicly accessible trail without legal mechanisms; they recommended asking the city attorney and city planner for a formal legal determination and discussed voluntary easement arrangements and partnership models such as the Salmonberry Trail Foundation and the Oregon Coast Civic Railroad, which maintain their own trail segments.
During public comment, project applicant Ken O’Rourke told commissioners his team is prepared to “embed” the design standards in an ongoing project. O’Rourke said his development team plans public walkways and that the rails-and-trails group prefers a packed rock surface; he asked whether a packed “3/4 minus” rock path could meet ADA expectations. He also asked whether metal roofs and solar panels — used to capture rainwater for irrigation — would be acceptable given coastal cost and exposure concerns.
Staff and commissioners advised the applicant to confirm ADA and county permitting requirements for trail surfacing and to consult the city attorney about requirements and maintenance obligations. Commissioners reiterated that features such as porches, battered or four-post columns and certain decorative elements could be specified only where an overhang exists, and that many design suggestions should remain as examples rather than mandatory code language.
Next steps: commissioners asked staff to refine the waterfront draft to remove subjective language, add clearer examples or dimensional rules where appropriate, and return with legal guidance about public-path requirements. The planning commission indicated the items will be folded back into the waterfront overlay (section 9.3 and related design-review sections) for further review before formal action.
