By QUINTON SMITH/YachatsNews.com
The city of Yachats has postponed a hearing on a proposal to build a motel on a half-acre of land along Yachats Ocean Road after the two brothers seeking permission for the project asked for a delay because of opposition to it.
City Planner and interim city manager Katherine Guenther on Monday cancelled the 3 p.m. Tuesday hearing on a conditional use permit and indicated to a consultant helping with the proposal that she would try to re-schedule it in November.
In an interview with YachatsNews on Friday and a letter published Sunday, Jonathan and Chris Fletcher of Newport Beach said they were unaware of opposition to the project – and disappointed that no opponents tried to talk to them about it. The Fletchers said they will consider holding a meeting – in person or via Zoom — with anyone interested to discuss their proposal.
The Fletchers said they were surprised by the outpouring of negative comments on the Yachats Village Residents Facebook page and by the nearly 100 letters sent to the Planning Commission.
“We were just taken aback,” said Jonathan Fletcher, adding that neither he nor his brother are on Facebook and were unaware of the opposition until reading a story Friday on YachatsNews. “We had no clue. No one had said there was this groundswell. And now it’s reached a bit of a frenzy and it’s hard to lower the temperature.
“We don’t want to go into a Planning Commission meeting with 100 angry people if they don’t have the full story,” he said.
The Fletchers are proposing to put seven modular units with nine rentable rooms on .57 of an acre at the end of Shellmidden Way, overlooking Yachats Ocean Road. The land is zoned R-4, which means it could be used for anything from a motel, to a fourplex to a house.
They need to get a city conditional use permit to proceed with plans because Yachats ordinances require that motels be located on at least one acre of land and have direct access to U.S. Highway 101. There are also questions if the width of Shellmidden and because it dead-ends in front of the proposed motel would prohibit locating it there.
The Planning Commission would also need to decide if the project could operate as a motel or be classified as 7-9 vacation rentals, which would require hard-to-get licenses because of the city’s cap on vacation rentals.
Even if the Planning Commission approves – and no one appeals to the City Council — the Fletchers have to work with the Oregon Department of State Lands to determine how much of the site is considered wetlands before proceeding with any development.
Opposition focuses on wetlands
Opposition to the project blossomed and was organized through the Yachats Village Residents Facebook page, which is a private, closed group of 1,100 members who live in the 97498 Zip code.
Opposition mostly concerned impact on the property’s small wetlands, increased traffic to and from the project, and impact on the neighborhood, which is a mix of year-round residents, second homes and vacation rentals. Opponents even staged a demonstration Tuesday in front of City Hall and along Highway 101.
In a long letter to YachatsNews, Chris Fletcher said he found the information in the Facebook posts to “be not only inaccurate, but quite offensive…”
In the letter, Chris Fletcher outlined what steps they had taken to work with the city, neighbors, investigate the wetlands issue and worked to have the project meet development standards.
“Throughout this process we have been as open and transparent as we possibly could,” he said in the letter. “You know how much feedback we have received, either constructive or negative since July? Not one phone call. Not one email. It is apparently easier to lob criticisms from your three-story condominium than it is to engage in real dialogue about what the best kind of project this could be.
“Conjecture, misinformation and outright conspiracy theories have become the norm without any interest in discovering the true facts or seeing both sides of the issue,” he wrote.
Chris Fletcher said in his letter and Jonathan Fletcher said in an interview with YachatsNews that the project might not get city approval and might ultimately die.
“It’s a very good chance that this project is dead,” Jonathan Fletcher told YachatsNews. “We don’t want to go against community sentiments.”
In his letter, Chris Fletcher said he understands that “many people are against development of any kind, particularly those that have a beautiful environment that they are reluctant to share.
“It is easier to reject something outright than it is to respect property rights and do the difficult work of engaging, understanding and building consensus,” he wrote. “What I don’t understand is not wanting to engage to create something that is better. We may not be approved for this development, but I would feel better about it if the community had tried to understand rather than simply reject it.”
9 motel units on half-acre lot
The proposed motel would consist of seven standalone units totaling 6,342 square feet constructed by Idea Box, a Salem-based builder of modular homes. They would range in size from 450 to 550 square feet, with four studio units, a single one-bedroom unit and two two-bedroom units. The two larger structures have one-bedroom “lock-off” units with kitchens that could be rented separately, bringing the total number of units to nine.
The buildings would be 14 feet high. Two fire pits are proposed along the north side of the 24,000 square foot lot.
There would be 16 parking spaces on the east side of the property coming off Shellmidden.
To avoid coming under the city’s cap on vacation rental licenses, the Fletchers propose that Agate Point be operated as a motel, managed by Sweet Homes Vacation Getaways of Yachats. It is not clear in the city planner’s report whether that will be allowed outright, or if the Fletchers would have to apply for a vacation rental license.
Fletcher, his development consultant, the owners of Idea Box, and Jamie Michel of Sweet Homes met with neighbors in July to explain the proposal. Concerns ranged from traffic and the condition of Shellmidden, wetlands issues, to a general opposition to vacation rentals in the neighborhood.
That Yachats neighborhood already has a handful of vacation rentals and is predominately made up of second homes.
Guenther’s 10-page staff report on the Agate Point proposal says it meets most conditions but that no development can occur until the state settles the question over the size of the wetlands.
In addition to determining whether to grant a conditional use permit because of its size and lack of access to Highway 101, Guenther leaves it up to the commission to say if the structures qualify as a hotel, motel or are really vacation rentals. If the commission determines they are vacation rentals, then the Fletchers would need vacation rental licenses from the city – which has a waiting list for them because of its cap of 125 licenses.
The project meets city codes for density and how much of the lot is covered by buildings, Guenther wrote.
But Shellmidden Way presents several obstacles for the project, the report said. City ordinances require motels or multifamily dwellings to be served by streets that are 35 feet wide and cannot be a cul-de-sac. Shellmidden is 30 feet wide and dead-ends in front of the proposed project, Guenther said.
Wetlands are a state issue
The project is also affected by a small wetlands on the property and related wetlands just to the north and east. But the wetlands issue is not under Yachats’ jurisdiction because the City Council has not adopted a wetlands inventory, an issue being blamed on a recent changeover in staff.
It is up to Oregon’s Division of State Lands and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to decide how much of the land is technically wetland – and how or if the Fletchers can “mitigate” if they are allowed to fill it in.
Fletcher hired an environmental consulting firm from Aurora, Ore. to survey the wetlands and prepare a report for the project. The consultant visited the area twice and found two sections totaling 1,000 square feet that met Oregon’s wetlands designation.
A visit and review by Corps technicians tentatively expanded the area to 4,000 square feet – or about 16 percent of the site. The state is currently studying both reports to determine how much of the property qualifies for wetlands designation, or if the state needs to conduct its own examination.
“Our first preference is to avoid developing wetlands, the second is to restore it, and the last is to go to the mitigation bank,” said Ali Ryan Hansen, a spokeswoman for the Department of State Lands.
“But not all wetlands are created equal,” she said, and technicians need to determine the size and quality of the land there. “We’re just at the beginning of the wetlands study on this property.”
If it stays at 1,000 square feet, the Fletchers would not need a wetlands removal-fill permit from the state. But they would if the wetlands are more than 4,000 square feet.
The Fletchers then have a choice – avoid touching the wetlands or get permission to fill them in. If the wetlands are filled, there is a formula that specifies how much the Fletchers would pay into a state wetlands mitigation “bank”, which is used to restore high-valued wetlands in the region.
Congratulations on your article concerning the Agate Point land use proposal. This is fair and balanced journalism at its best, which is so essential for the Yachats community. Keep it up.
Yes, I agree with Layne on your excellent and helpful reporting on this proposed development.
“If you don’t approve our motel, we will just sell it” and someone else will ruin the wetlands so there! I hope that the convenient 1,000 sq ft measure of the fletchers paid consultant is not believed
What a joke. They are blatantly trying to work around the STR issues that plague all of Lincoln County. If Sweet Homes is managing their motel it is an STR. A hotel/motel would have daily on site management and employed housekeepers that do not zoom in and out of your neighborhood with each check in/check out. The trash would not overflow, etc. This proposal seems like a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
The attitude of the developer is plain to see in his last statement, “ and someone could build a 30-foot high, 6,000 square foot house on it.” The reality is that as much as this might be an eyesore (if the city allowed such a structure) it is still preferable to the noise and traffic of a hotel back there.
All of the complaining about a motel going up yet no complaining about the historic See Vue Inn being destroyed and removed from the area. You would think you would want to replace what you lost as far as places to stay for people who want to visit. But I guess that’s only if you want some sort of economy.
I’m a bit confused by the “hotel or nothing” attitude here. Without even checking the zoning I imagine the R-4 designation allows for high density mutli-family development(s). Why not invest in building some much needed long term housing stock and place the onous on the city to help the developer bring that kind of project to fruition? We have hotels here. We have STRs. We need affordable long term housing. It may mean smaller initial returns, sure. But it sure as hell is better buisness for everyone in the community. And I doubt very much there would be the this level of push back to that kind of project.
I may be wrong but I’m also willing to put my money where my mouth is. So if you want to build long term affordable rental housing and you want an equity partner, don’t hesitate to contact me.
Agreed regarding long-term housing. I would support development for that purpose.
– Eddie Taylor