MEMORANDUM EVERYONE INTERESTED IN THE VRD CONSENSUS BUILDING PROCESS RICHARD BIRKE & THE LINCOLN CITY VRD CONSENSUS BUILDING TEAM

Transcription

1 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: EVERYONE INTERESTED IN THE VRD CONSENSUS BUILDING PROCESS RICHARD BIRKE & THE LINCOLN CITY VRD CONSENSUS BUILDING TEAM UPDATES, NEXT STEPS DATE: SEPTEMBER 4, 2012 It s hard to believe that it s almost over, but the Lincoln City VRD Consensus Building Project is coming to a close. With only one meeting left to go, it s time for an update on what s been happening in the VRD Project and what s coming up. This update is divided into four parts. The first describes a proposal from the Working Group to create areas in Lincoln City where VRDs would and would not be allowed to operate. It s captured in a map that can be accessed on the Consensus website. The second part of the update is a list and description of the items about which the Working Group is near unanimous in its recommendations. The third is a description of the status of agreements associated with Roads End. The last section is a short description of the decisions that lay ahead for the Working Group and a summary of what we expect will happen after the last meeting is over. ITEM ONE THE MAP Between the July meetings and August meetings, members of the Working Group began to meet with their fellow stakeholders and with each other to further the work and conversations begun in our public meetings. Working Group members worked hard and long, discussing the various aspects of the VRD issue. As a result of those meetings and the discussions that took place, members of the group began to narrow down and evaluate the options available that would satisfy all stakeholder groups as well as could be managed. The Group agreed that it was important that all sides compromise to create a plan that would maximize interests of stakeholders and also to minimize harm to anyone affected. The members involved in this conversation proposed to create VRD free zones some which would be retiree friendly and located near the coast, and some which would be more family friendly and situated all around town. The Group recognized that Lincoln City is currently 100% VRD eligible and this status under serves the interests of residents or retirees who wish to live in neighborhoods that do not contain transient rentals. The groups also acknowledged that the current situation may serve to disrupt the creation of family friendly VRD free neighborhoods. 1

2 Simultaneously, nearly every one of the members strongly agreed that Lincoln City should not become unfriendly toward VRDs both because this would be bad for the economy and because many citizens like VRDs. Some neighborhood residents, and many local business people (restaurant owners and workers, tradespeople, grocers, realtors, property managers, owners and more) and others believe the best interests of the City are served by continuing to provide a welcoming environment for VRDs. Some of the city s retirees came here first as VRD visitors, so the promotion of Lincoln City as a good place to retire starts by Lincoln City being a good place to try on a house. A large majority of the members of the Working Group suggested that clustering VRDs would help everyone. Fewer fulltime residents would be disturbed by VRD occupants, who in turn might feel more comfortable knowing they aren t disturbing a purely residential neighborhood. Moreover, were VRDs to be more clustered, property managers might be able to more effectively keep an eye on their properties. (And everyone was agreed that a well run VRD is better than a lot of the alternatives.) Finally, clusters of VRDs increase the likelihood that VRD friendly businesses will locate in clusters nearest their intended clientele. This clustering activity could give rise to new economic activity zones which would provide benefits to the economy of Lincoln City. With these conclusions in mind, the subgroup proposed to change Lincoln City from its current status of nearly 100% VRD eligible to one in which VRDs are restricted to select parts of town where they are least disruptive and most economically viable. The members discussed, debated and drew lines to represent which parts of Lincoln City would be kept the same (all commercial, RC, multi family and VRD eligible PUDs would remain unchanged) and which would change. The members of the group coalesced around the idea that two coastal neighborhoods (Taft Heights and Lincoln Shores) would become purely residential as would all of LC east of 101 and many parts of the City west of 101. This was not a unanimous agreement, but it was one that enjoyed substantial support. Of course, even if the Working Group were unanimous in its line drawing, the City Council would remain free to redraw any suggested boundary. The lines drawn are not by any means set in stone. They do represent the outcome of a vibrant and multi sided discussion, street by street, about where residents live, where VRDs are currently situated, what neighborhoods had potential to be enterprise zones and which were best suited for purely residential purposes. The conversation included stakeholder representatives from every group associated with the VRD conversation. The lines drawn represent a compromise between the interests of those in favor of VRDs (tradespeople, owners and property managers, some residents, most businesspeople) and those who would be more inclined to oppose VRDs (motel owners, some residents). Most of the VRD areas are near the ocean. However, there 2

3 are dedicated oceanfront areas in Lincoln City, in contrast for example, to Seaside where they are no similar residential oceanfront reserves. VRD eligible neighborhoods are all located quite near the coast primarily for economic reasons (oceanfront is a more desirable rental, there s already more existing development near the ocean, tourist trade strongest nearest the water, relatively few retirees or fulltime residents can afford generally expensive oceanfront properties, and the cost of oceanfront homes upkeep and taxes makes it more necessary to defray costs via renting). We offer this map as a stimulus for further discussion. It should not be read as the unanimous product of the Working Group, and certainly not as something binding on City Council. The map is accompanied by a description of the boundaries. We tried to ensure that the map and the descriptions are consistent, and we apologize in advance if there are inconsistencies we didn t find before publication. Here s the rough descriptions of the boundaries: AREAS LEFT AS IS WITH NO CHANGES RECOMMENDED All areas currently zoned Commercial, Mulit Family, Mixed Use or otherwise not solely residential. (This is a large amount of land.) All Tribal Land Roads End Continue County Zoning Need to refer to separate Roads End discussion (A ROUGH DESCRIPTION OF THE ) AREAS THAT WILL BE RESERVED AS RESIDENTIAL/VRD FREE (Except as otherwise zoned; Grandfathering/Sunset provisions for existing VRDs to be worked out in a separate conversation) Everything east of 101 STARTING AT THE NORTH END OF TOWN AND WORKING SOUTH Leave Roads End to County zoning. Lincoln Star Resort Current rules prohibit VRD but may be changed by an owner s vote. This move would prevent a future vote allowing VRDs. Everything east of Neptune from NW39 th to NW34 th. 3

4 Everything east of Lee from NW34 th to NW28 th. Everything east of Keel from NW28 th to NW21 st. Everything east of Jetty from NW21 st to NW19 th. FROM NW19 th to SW 6 th, all zoning remains as is. Everything east of Ebb from SW3 rd to SW6 th, then to Fleet for one block, then to Galley, then west to Dune and 11 th. Everything east of Dune south to SW24 th. Everything east of Beach north to SW28 th. From 101 and SW Beach Avenue (by the Ocean Terrace Condominiums), heading south to the Siletz Bay and east until Taft Village Core Cutler City east of SW 62nd to Fleet, east of Fleet to 69 th, and those south of SW 69 th between Fleet and Harbor that do not abut the water. ALL OTHER AREAS WILL CONTINUE TO ALLOW VRDs ITEM TWO OTHER IMPORTANT ITEMS ABOUT WHICH THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL AGREEMENT The following is an incomplete list of topics about which the Working Group has arrived at consensus or near consensus. WE SHOULD STRIVE TO AVOID SURPRISE FOR NEW BUYERS The members are agreed that uncertainty and surprise aren t good for anyone. People who bought in the belief that their neighborhood was strictly residential were surprised and disappointed that it wasn t. People who bought into areas where they believed they would be welcome to rent their houses have become insecure about possible loss of income. The members are clear that a simple, easy to manage ordinance would serve everyone in the town better than the existing state of affairs. We recommend that the new rules be made available easily to prospective buyers of property and we encourage realtors to accurately inform prospective buyers of the restrictions on VRD location. WE SHOULD ADDRESS DANGEROUS PARKING SITUATIONS INDEPENDENTLY OF VRDS The Group agrees that parking is a problem, not just a VRD problem. Some streets are simply too small and dangerous or inadequate for the volume of parking 4

5 that takes place on these streets. While it is still appropriate to regulate off street VRD parking, according to those responsible for enforcement it is impossible to regulate off site VRD parking without instituting a comprehensive permitting system. While they recognized that such a system might become necessary, the majority of the group did not wish to recommend instituting a city wide parking permit system until the streets were more properly signed and lined. LANDSCAPING RULES ARE INEQUITABLE AND DO NOT POSITIVELY IMPACT PARKING OR CROWDED VRDS Many members suggested that landscaping standards are a poor way to control parking and that the interests of the City would be better served if LC were to institute a single uniform standard for all new homes, sales, and VRDs. Some members suggested these standards might apply to longterm rentals as well. THERE SHOULD BE MORE CLARITY ABOUT WHO GETS FINED IN THE CASE OF A VRD VIOLATION When it s a noise complaint or a crime, the occupant of a VRD is solely responsible for the problem. When it s trash or overcrowding or overparking, the owner is responsible. These distinctions are drawn as a practical matter as to who is in a position to enforce the rules in a timely way. (By the time the trash problem is discovered, the renters are long gone, and by the time the owner shows up to take care of a noise problem, it s too late.) As to who pays as between the owner and the property manager, this can be negotiated between the property manager and the owner. ILLEGAL VRDS SHOULD BE STOPPED The group agreed that illegal VRDs need to be punished harshly, with very stiff fines that actually deter such behavior. The Group has yet to arrive at a suggested fine, but everyone was very clear that the fine had to be much higher than the revenue from operating the illegal VRD or the disincentive to operate would not prevent an unscrupulous owner from engaging in repeat violations. ALL CITY AGENCIES NEED TO ENFORCE THE RULES IN A CONSISTENT, PREDICTABLE AND EVEN HANDED MANNER Members are pretty clear that if the police, code enforcement and the Municipal Court don t strictly enforce the rules, there s not much point in having rules. OCCASIONAL USE IS OUT; MULTIPLE OWNERSHIP POSSIBLE The historic use of the phrase that owners could rent their homes on occasions when they weren t using them has lead to unproductive debate about how much use is appropriate and has also lead to a rule that no LC resident could own a VRD other than their own home. Most members agreed that this debate is not worth perpetuating and that if VRDs are contained in smaller areas, it might be appropriate to relax existing rules regarding ownership by residents and ownership of multiple VRDs. THE CITY SHOULD RECOMMEND BUT NOT MANDATE A BEST PRACTICES GUIDE FOR VRDS Members agree that a well run VRD is a positive addition to the 5

6 community, but they acknowledge that not all VRDs are well run. To the extent that managers and owners have collected wisdom about everything from screening prospective renters to dealing with complaints to filing proper TRT receipts, it made sense to write or record these best practices for new VRD permit holders or existing permit holders who are seeking to improve their businesses and their relationships with the community. A CENTRAL COMPLAINT LINE WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL Residents and visitors don t always know who to call if there s a problem. Some noise complaints are about long term renters and others are about VRDs outside the mandatory notification zone. Some residents get notice but can t find the number when they need it, or they call and get no response from someone close by. To facilitate prompt resolution of problems, there should be a dedicated city wide complaint line/phone number for noise, garbage, illegal rentals, etc. and the keeper of that line should have a current list of VRDs and contact info. If the call comes in during daytime working hours, is occurring at a VRD and is not a police matter, the call shall be referred to Timothy Novak. If the call is not at a VRD or is a police matter, the call shall be referred to code enforcement or the police, as appropriate. If the call is a VRD call, and not a police matter (e.g., a noise complaint would be a police matter but a trash violation would not), the matter will be referred to the local VRD contact and will be reported to Timothy Novak at the start of the next work day. COMPILING STATISTICS AND ENCOURAGING GOOD MANAGEMENT During the Working Group process, we found data that show that some owners and managers are responsible for an unusually high percentage of incidents, while some owners garner few or no complaints. This information would be useful to distant property owners who were considering which agency to hire, and it would be useful should the City ever need to declare a property in violation of nuisance statutes. The Group recommended that the City maintain a listing of VRD complaints and report which property management organizations were responsible for what percentage of complaints and violations. This would help owners of VRDs make choices to reward well run agencies and to reduce the portfolios of serial violators. This list should be available on the city s website ITEM THREE ROADS END There s some pretty broad agreement about Roads End. From what I understand, there are three driving influences in Roads End in respect to VRDs. First, there s concern that there are a large number of VRDs in Roads End that cannot conform to Lincoln City VRD requirements for parking or landscaping. There is concern that given that Roads End was planned and built with County Code as the backdrop, adjusting to Lincoln City Code would be difficult in many sites and impossible in others. 6

7 Second, there is a desire to keep Roads End from becoming significantly more commercial in nature there is uniform dismay at the idea of a large oceanfront hotel in place of single family houses. Third, there is a desire to bring back some limited commercial activity that promoted neighborhood gathering something that I m told was associated with the Dory Cove. Whether a coffee shop, restaurant, tavern or shop, if the activity level could be contained and discrete, it would provide a benefit to the community. Driven by a desire to arrive at a Roads End agreement, a subgroup of the Working Group who live or own property in Roads End acted in their capacity as private citizens and took it upon themselves to talk to their neighbors about the VRD process, Roads End and annexation. They drafted a rough document that is an expression of the position they suggest is a widespread view of Roads End owners and residents. They have conveyed to the Working Group publicly that they have substantial support for a recommendation worded something like this: The City of Lincoln City should adopt a formal policy that if it annexes Roads End, the City will maintain all county zoning regulations as they exist today (with the exception of the former Dory Cove property). This policy should also specifically state that any current or future subdivisions, Planned Developments, landscaping, setback, and height limits and measurements will be regulated under the county code as it exists today including but not limited to disallowing hotels and allowing vacation and monthly rentals. While the Roads End annexation discussion is beyond the scope of the VRD project, it is clear that one of the concerns that Roads End property owners might have about annexation is a concern about how the VRDs in their neighborhood would be affected. Unless they can be offered some concrete reason to expect the VRD transition to be gradual and non threatening, it is perfectly rational for the Roads End residents to prefer no change. However, in the face of a guarantee of some sort that there won t be a big hotel, and reasonable assurance that VRD owners won t be whipsawed into abandoning VRDs that are not able to conform, the residents might be more amenable in annexation discussions than they would without such guarantees or assurances. WHAT S COMING UP? The Working Group will meet one last time and we will take public testimony at that meeting. The Working Group still needs to consider a slate of items, including grandfathering in existing VRDs. On this topic, some Working Group members suggested 5 years and others 20. Some suggested the termination might be based on sale or transfer, and all members were sensitive to the need for some form of extension in the case of death of owner and the need to clear probate. There will 7

8 likely be other items on our agenda as well. We ll discuss as many as we can in the time that we have left. The Consensus Building Team will then prepare its final report a summary of what occurred at all the public meetings and at the meetings of the Working Group described as neutrally and accurately as possible. Members of the Working Group will be given the opportunity to review that part of the document that relates to their activities and to indicate their level of support to those aspects of the document that describe recommendations to the City Council. Where a member wishes to indicate why support was withheld or whether there is a dissent from any aspect of the report, they will have the option to include a brief summary of their concerns in the final report. This report will be provided to the City Council and made available to the public. It s been a long and interesting conversation so far. Thanks for your past and continued participation. We look forward to seeing you at the next and final meeting. Sincerely, Richard Birke 8

9 ANNOUNCEMENT VRD CONSENSUS BUILDING FINAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, :00 p.m. 8:30 p.m. At the August 14th meeting of the Working Group for the Lincoln City VRD Consensus effort, the Group requested additional time between meetings to carry out tasks needed to reach consensus on the issues associated with VRDs in Lincoln City, and because unforeseeable scheduling conflicts had arisen for several group members for the August 15 th date. As a result, the meeting planned for August 15 th was spontaneously rescheduled to September 12, We apologize for any inconvenience this unforeseen postponement may have caused. In order to accommodate public testimony at the final meeting and to reserve sufficient time for the Working Group to complete its remaining work, we have expanded the meeting time from the usual three hours (5:30 to 8:30 p.m.) to fourand one half hours. The meeting will begin one and one half hours earlier and will run from 4:00 to 8:30 p.m. The agenda will be as follows: SEPTEMBER 12th MEETING TIME AND AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD I WORKING GROUP SESSION I 4:00 4:30 p.m. 4:30 6:00 p.m. BREAK 6:00 6:15 p.m. WORKING GROUP SESSION II PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD II 6:15 p.m. 8:00 p.m. 8:00 p.m. 8:30 p.m. The meeting will take place in the Auditorium of the Lincoln City Cultural Center, 540 NE Highway 101, Lincoln City, OR As always, please feel free to address concerns and send ideas and comments to us at CONSENSUS@LINCOLNCITY.ORG. Thanks in advance for your patience, understanding and continued active participation in this important process. Richard Birke VRD Consensus Builder 9