Cannon Beach work session advances pro-housing code amendments, schedules Aug. 6 hearing and Aug. 11 work session

City staff presented a two-part package of zoning and incentive changes aimed at increasing long‑term and workforce housing in Cannon Beach during a June 30 city council work session, and councilors signaled support to advance the enabling ordinance toward a public hearing and a follow‑up work session.

Jeff Adams, community development director, opened the presentation by describing a “pathway to housing” and previewing two amendment packages: a larger pro‑housing package scheduled for a public hearing on Aug. 6 and a separate housekeeping package (including signage rules) heading to the planning commission on July 23. Adams said staff aims to adopt enabling language first and then return with detailed benefit and implementation policies after additional work sessions.

The pro‑housing package centers on proposed ordinance CO 2502 and a tiered public‑benefits system that would offer incentives — such as reduced or waived system development charges (SDCs), parking relief for certain mixed‑use projects and tax‑abatement options at higher tiers — in exchange for long‑term occupancy or deed restrictions. Adams said the city has averaged “2, on average, 2, new ADUs per year” over the last decade and argued incentives would increase production and diversify housing types.

A key draft provision discussed at length would exempt an 800‑square‑foot accessory dwelling unit (ADU) from floor‑area‑ratio (FAR) calculations if it qualifies as a public‑benefit dwelling. Staff described tier 1 benefits that may require minimal restrictions (for example, lease commitments) while tiers 2 and 3 would include deeper deed‑restriction requirements and stronger incentives.

Staff also presented option C/D alternatives that would consolidate some residential zones (R‑1, R‑2, R‑3), create two downtown zones (one preserving main‑street retail, the other allowing ground‑floor residential), or adopt form‑based code standards that set objective height, setback and facade rules to speed permitting and increase predictability for applicants.

Councilors pressed staff on timing and legal limits. One councilor asked whether restrictions and incentives would be simultaneous with adopting enabling language; staff replied that the enabling ordinance would be adopted first (the Aug. 6 hearing), with policy details (including any tax‑abatement referrals that require county or school‑district approval) to be developed and returned at the Aug. 11 work session.

Several councilors raised implementation concerns: administrative capacity to track deed restrictions and leases, potential costs to manage a public‑benefits program, and the risk that onerous conditions could disincentivize homeowners from building ADUs. Staff said the city recently added a housing‑focused position and is participating in regional housing partnerships to support implementation, but acknowledged additional staff work and possible ordinance changes (including an amendment to the city’s SDC order) would be required to deliver fee waivers.

Council discussion also touched on the effect of FAR reductions on existing homes. Staff noted the city’s nonconforming‑structure provision (transcript reference to 17.88.040) that, as written in the draft, restricts reconstruction when destruction exceeds specified thresholds; some councilors asked staff to review hardship and rebuilding rules before final adoption.

By the end of the work session, staff polled the council on four questions: what more they needed to decide, whether to expand or refine amendments, whether to hold the Aug. 11 public‑benefits work session, and whether they were in favor of moving the pro‑housing policy forward. Councilors agreed to the Aug. 6 public hearing and to an Aug. 11 work session focused on tier details, and indicated general support to move the enabling language forward with further revisions.

Next steps: staff will prepare additional materials requested by council — sample lease language for long‑term occupancy commitments, comparative examples from other jurisdictions, cost estimates for program administration, and proposed SDC ordinance language — and circulate packet materials ahead of the Aug. 6 public hearing and the Aug. 11 work session.