Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Welcome everyone. I'm going to call to order the February 2nd, 2026 meeting of the City of Hood River Planning Commission. It is 5:33 p.m. and almost all of us are here this evening. I don't know if we have anybody if Bill's online or if Bill is not here today. It's fine. Uh just checking our roll call. We are here today to I guess I would describe it finalize the written decision for the line uh file number 2025-15 line 29 architecture Marriott hotel site plan review. Before we do that though, we are going to uh have a planning director's update. Correct.

Just a real quick more of a notice. Uh please note your next meeting is Tuesday uh February 17th. Uh we'll meet here. We have one item on the agenda, but just because of the holiday, it ends up being a Tuesday night. Okay. Thank you. Well, if that's everything, uh I don't know how much discussion there is on this topic this evening.

I've got some points. Okay. I think just for the the audience um the the purpose of this meeting is to discuss the findings and decision. Um the application for um the application was was denied. Uh now procedurally uh planning commission's role and task is to render that decision in writing. Uh since it was a split vote, it was a large application. There was a lot of pieces um and any appeal of this matter would be based only on the record, not on new testimony. uh felt it was important to make sure that you all had an opportunity to convene to discuss any amendments to the draft that you'd been prepared and you prepared uh and that your sentiment and those decisions make it into um that written decision uh which will as soon as you're completed will be published and will be your basis. So I just wanted to make sure that we got the sentiment of pling commission uh and its decision is is right. This is not an opportunity for you to renegotiate the matter. It's just making sure that does the decision accurately reflect the majority's opinion. So even if you disagree with it, um I think the goal is to make sure does it accur accurately reflect the majority of the findings. So I'm not asking you to change your mind. I just want to make sure is it true to form and where you all land if that makes sense. So, are we going to I mean, if there are edits to make, are we going to send you away with those edits and you'll make them or do you or do we need at the end of this meeting to uh vote on these findings?

Yeah. Uh I would like I would like anything that was edit would be really inconsequential. So, if there's anything of substance, I'd like you all to vote and make sure yes, this in, you know, either piece by piece or by um by various items accurately reflect what you want. So, um there was some some components in there that you felt were important and it was about five topics. um we could go through them one by one and I could take you through the application but yeah I want you all to say generally minus whatever grammatical features there are or any pros or you know continuity that you generally feel the substance of this is accurate. So what I'll do is I'll take your yes we all are in consensus uh with this and then I will have that signed by the chair

typically in a smaller this is a yes or no thing this is a yes or no type of situation here we agree or we don't agree it's no time we not time to uh put any kind of new testimony or any idea

no new testimony I think it's really looking at the the report and saying this is generally we we we as planning commission believe in these features. It this is based largely upon the staff report. I think we had some areas that that I well I went through and I adjusted it based on your conversation. Um we had some membership saying okay here's some additional items that we think should be included to uh they didn't change anything. It was just a little more uh a little more substance to it that that share their sentiment. We just want I just want to make sure that you all are are comfortable with the way it's written and again that it reflects what you all found here. So, uh it's not changing the opinion. It's just back to

does does this line does it seem to line up with what you discussed? And again being typically in uh similar applications um they're much um it's it's really uncommon that we come back to you all um with actually having a formal action to do this. A lot of times I'll just synthesize what you have um share it with the chair. The chair really takes the opportunity to represent the planning commission and make sure that it's right. Again, given the split vote, given the large amount of commentary, it just is a the abundance of caution, you know, and to respect the process, I just wanted to take this extra step. So, thank you all for spending your time to do this extra step.

Great. I feel like it accurately represented what I had to contribute to the feedback in there. I feel almost maybe that those who were opposed might have more if would likely to be the ones with more substantive changes. Yeah, I think I think the compatibility portion in particular I added in a lot quite a bit more detail there.

Okay. more from the perspective of me. And I think it's so it's probably important for uh commissioners that either voted no to to to read through that and believe that and um and say that this, you know, also represents maybe their perspective and how they evaluated compatibility and came to their determination. I think it would also be an opportunity for the yes votes to maybe indicate why they did believe it was compatible because that's missing because I I I couldn't represent that. I think this is going to be the document that if there is an appeal moves on and so we need to provide enough information for council for them to consider um and understand why we made the decisions we made. Uh the other thing I think it's also just becomes a document that will be referenced by future uh developers and so I think it's fair to provide them with as much context information about the decision-m as possible.

So that's this is my perspective and that's why I added in quite a bit more detail. So I think we should probably review the compatibility section and just make sure that everyone sees that the same way. Yeah. Is that in what we were provided already or that's in the the the one that Dustin sent the draft the the second version? Yeah. Okay. I don't know that I got that or saw that. So So he can So that can be part of the record his his uh his new commentary. This is our this is all our record. So there's there's only one document. Uh so we should that's why I wanted to so we could bring it up Dustin and we can all look at it.

I have uh I have it. Um you're this was sent to you all um yesterday for just the the added comments. So, uh, and I have access they're they're not it's not a significant amount, but, um, what this is, if you go to your document on page 20, and I can bring it up, uh, for you all to view on your, uh, on your, you hand raised. Oh, yes. Tina, are you here in the audience this evening, Tina? as an attendee. Okay.

I just I'm not sure what time you want the adversity. Yeah. Is there I wonder is there a procedural issue here because this is not a public hearing. This is really for you all. So, can you bring Tina? Do you have a you have a hand up? Do you have a process issue? Sorry. Uh, sorry, that was a mistake. I lowered my hand. I didn't I'm on my phone, so I'm I apologize. I didn't know I pressed that button. Okay. Thank you. Keeping us on our

Okay. Okay. Our draft. This is uh hopefully on the screen before you. Oh, perfect.

So, this is page 20. Um, you could see I left some of this highlighted because it was probably one of the most um discussed and deliberated pieces. So, I left this open for you all. Um, added to this is some of the additional commentary which came um to be incorporated in the decision if you all see fit and accurate. And uh I don't necessarily want to read it to you, but um it is it is there for your for your reading and and once I get a couple of you to uh to raise your hand, I will move on to the next page. So

So I I suppose I guess I just have a question on how this all works. on other boards that I've been a part of, uh, typically you once we come to a decision, we kind of just stand by the decision. Um, and so would this be a moment to like just give my points of view as to why I I vote I had a yes vote? No. I'm So I I don't need you to defend a yes vote. I just need you to make sure what comes out of this board is somewhat accurate to the majority's decision. Oh, okay. Gotcha. Yeah. Yeah.

So, and both ways. I don't need to defend a no. I don't need to defend a yes. Um, the decision in has been verbally. It was voted upon. Is this accurate? Similar to minutes. It doesn't necessarily have to It no longer reflects your own personal view. It now reflects that. Is it accurate by way of what happened in front of the planning commission and is it an accurate representation of what is to be forwarded into the record or is there something you want to add to say you know between the discussion of criteria I think this is you know this was a part of our discussion a sentiment that was you know between the lines or something that I think is you is not just turned into the written form or you could say you and I don't believe this is what we came to. I think this is a different statement. So, it it's really commentary on on the message. Um not necessarily on your own personal belief to the matter.

Yeah, sounds good.

I'm ready to move on if other people have read Yeah. And just to be clear, I I I only put things in here that were said during the hearing. So, I just wanted that to be clear. I just didn't didn't want the detail to be lost around why

Gotcha. was made. Yeah, you can uh continue scrolling.

Good job. Thank you. Um the um I will probably likely so in terms of grammatical whereas it says the commissioner cited uh I'll probably change that to the commission. Again, this is the idea of like there's points where you want to like I think it's useful to say, you know, there was differences and I think that works, but at some point you now speak as one you're one voice now.

So, I would I would say that the majority should be specifically paying attention to this to make sure it reflects all of you. So, similar to the commissioner also raised concerns with the applicant. Um, it should technically coming from the planning and zoning commission, it should say the commission. So, I wouldn't consider that a substantive change, but likely one of those things I'll just clean up on your behalf. The only other comments I had in this area were kind of related to those images below. Um, they're not attributed and I think we probably should attribute those as maybe applicant. They just don't have any text around them. So, it's unclear what they're intending to represent or where they came from. I would add some details around that.

It does. uh the the first part actually with when I was reading it as audience um I think it flows within the section so I think that you know whether they're addresses I think there's a general sentiment that seems to make sense and again just as a reader um you know there's the entire body of work that goes along with this but certainly this is your decision um you find it needs more substance out of it happy to do that I don't know if they I'm not sure that they represent the commission's findings around compatibility. So they they really kind of represent the applicants um argument for around compatibility.

Right. So I guess from from your perspective it's the statement the applicant included these features to justify their compatibility. Yeah. I think in other places when it's written text you indicate that this is from application. Yep. which is great um because it's not always uh it doesn't always mean that it's you know consistent with that criteria. Yeah. In this case they just aren't they aren't attributed I would attribute them to the Okay. Attributing it to the applicant. Okay.

Yeah. Certainly please note whenever I write that it's from the applicant is not necessarily the staff believing it. It is factually been provided by the applicant. We could easily do that here. Uh, anything else? Uh, so are generally you all comfortable with the the sorry the first additions that were in uh in the paragraphs as far as BC representation. Do we need an official vote on this or three of you? I I feel good about about what was written. Yep. Okay.

Switching it to the commission instead of the commission. Yeah. Again, as long as the substance is represents you all, that's that's really what I'm I'm looking for. Oh, sorry. Mike, how do you feel about it? Yeah. This is what what I'm reading here is uh Commissioner Pro, correct? The dark here. Yeah. Okay. So, that's what's getting added. Yeah, his comments are getting added to the bullet to the findings. Yep. And we all are agreeing that that's fine to do that. So, yes, I'm agreeing with that for sure. Yes. Okay. Thanks.

The only other edit I had on top of my edits was uh since I made them, I I didn't know if um where I added that the surrounding area should be limited to the 250 foot notice area. I didn't just pull that out of thin air. that came from um a a decision document from 2008 that the planning commission made about another hotel down Cascade. And so I think it's it may be worthwhile if we're kind of referencing that just to again indicate that we are being consistent and we should be predictable over time because we're using same methodology. So I didn't know if that was important to just reference where that seeming arbitrary. I think that I think it's really important to use that as a precedent. I don't know. I'm not sure why we're not allowed to, but I think it's a good that's a good thing, a good point to make.

Yeah. And I don't know. I mean, I you know, the word precedent I think probably has a legal definition, I think, but at least from my perspective, it's it's a consistency very and some predictability. Okay, you're all generally good with call it back referencing it to a previous land use decision.

Okay. Okay. The next one uh that really came up um was as it relates to parking. I'm going to stop sharing for a minute so we don't have everyone miserable while while I while I review and scroll through this. So if you go to this would be page 23 in your packet or on the application. It references uh the parking standard. Oops. Oh, I'm sorry. That's too far ahead. six I think

page six wrong parking section. Uh the discussion uh focuses on the number of parking spaces required the number of parking spaces provided and uh within that I initially talked about the idea that um there's just a discussion of parking places. One of the elements that was included was um the applicant's analysis um of the parking requirement um and the demand I think um it it came up that although that is factually in the record um making the statement that uh although this is this is shown in the record this is actually not the code that you that you're required to enforce. So, uh, within its argument and within the findings, the applicant talks about or we we referenced, uh, that the traffic engineer says they have certain number of spaces. Um, and then I proceeded and now you're going to proceed, uh, to say this is actually how the code is administered. So, we can leave the traffic analysis in there as reference. However, there is a uh there was a request and and I agree with this to differentiate what is in the review and what is the code criteria. So, uh within that I think we discussed the idea that the adding a caveat to say uh although included as a part of the application um this is the parking code that's that's enforced and required. So, um, just kind of determining what what did we look at and what what what was the driving force behind it. So, you're comfortable making that. That's I think that's pretty grammatical, but I think it's was the reason to leave something in there and determine, you know, it was here, but it's not it's not code criteria.

So, if you're there additional edits to that section, too. Um, it would basically be a caveat statement of although included this is not required as a part of the code. Yeah. Essentially the parking study that the applicant did is of you know we don't consider that uh so I guess that's the point it was provided but it's not part of our consideration in terms of conditions of the criteria just make sure that method's off we just use square in this case. Okay. That sounds great to me.

Okay. As long as you're long as there's no dissenters, I will add that in. Uh that was really the big two that was that were provided ahead of time. Uh if there was anything else from the written version that you want to add. Um there are, you know, a total of 42 pages. And again, the purposes of this is to kind of leave a record for um for the decision um either for appeal or for future reference. Um and just wanted to make sure that you guys were all comfortable with it. Have a few more comments and notes that if we got time.

Yeah, please. Um, so page nine, this is of the I think the the you can have either the original or the or the updated. Um, it just indicates in the findings that it was recommended by staff as a condition of approval that the Eastern State Street entrance, storefront and entry be expanded through the use of transom glaze lighting, etc. And I and there isn't a condition of approval in there um around that. I didn't know if maybe we just missed the opportunity to add that in. I just wanted to note that it's a recommendation. We never discussed it. Maybe the time has passed for us to discuss it, but I just wanted to throw that out there. But maybe the time probably has passed to discuss adding any conditions of approval because

well, we made our decision. Yeah, it's been denied. So any condition is mute. Um maybe I mean at this point we can't okay we cannot add additional sounds good anything to the application sounds great other than our editorial feedback on how it's factually written meaning like like so that it's something that's there as part of the appeal if they decide to appeal. Correct. Uh I see. Gotcha.

It's not particularly consequential because of the denial. the really the only reason why I left the conditions in there. So, they're really kind of they're not they're not consistent with the decision that you rendered. But I think what I consider important in leaving them there is again for if anyone wants to consider it else, I would want them to not come out and then leave everyone guessing at what were kind of the the terms that made some of these issues that you found to not be issues. Okay. um that you know some of these conditions are used to demonstrate compliance. Um it didn't demonstrate compliance with all the conditions but I think there is some utility there leaving them for whoever else uh can see what what was missing and what wasn't rather than them trying to reconstruct that from from the record. So I don't think it's inconsistent if it said condition um to add it in there. Um, it's it's not actually adding. I mean, I think it was intentionally left as this is a condition of approval. I think if you were all comfortable with that, I could add it in there and it doesn't materially change anything.

So, if this does get appealed um and it and it passes on compatibility on that appeal, is this is this the all these conditions go with it, right? there's no new

it it could be a it could be interpreted completely different. So I mean it doesn't mean all the conditions go or don't go. It's the material in the record. There would need to then be a city council decision. We would go through and recreate these. So it it's not a we take planning commission's decision or don't take it. It is we've evaluated it and this is how we interpret the circumstances based on the record. So it um it's it's not an all or nothing. So I think there is some utility there to to input to input that as necessary. So,

oh, um, yeah, I was really quiet.

Um, the other thing I I just on on page 10, there's a an image of the U State Street uh facing facade. Um, and I I'm I'm not sure that's the latest and I'm really unclear around what the I kind of tried to dig back through all the applicants um documents and the this particular facade seems to change and I'm not sure if it matters. This seems to be indicating something about uh doorway and entryway and things like that. And um if you look at newer renderings, it seems to have shifted. So I don't know if it's important at all to have the most uh H10 I think in visa. So Dustin up to you. I This is probably the one that was in the staff report. Not sure it was the latest one.

Yeah, this is the one that was in the staff report. Uh I can put both side by side like kind of juxtapose of this particular elevation, the latest version of the elevation. I don't think we saw anything change in terms of consistency, but dual images I don't think necessarily harms the the application. We got if you wanted if you wanted to see them side by side or s slightly uh incorporated. I guess we're this is put in here because there's a finding that's that's related to it and that finding I guess is potentially no longer accurate if if the facade has changed. And so I just want to make sure that the finding is accurate based on the latest uh proposed saw or state street.

Yeah, I don't we didn't you did not find that it was not accurate based upon the revised. So, um I could put it in there and see if there's if there's any conflict, but the the finding from planning commission was this particular code criteria as it related to large scale buildings and the amount of glaze material was that it met it. So,

okay. Okay, that's Yeah, that's fine. And we didn't bring it back up. Yeah, fair enough. Uh my only other there was some followup on on page 15 related to grading. um uh kind of later in the record, the the um applicant provide information about um their engineers conversation with um folks from the adjacent uh church property around the around retaining that retainable. Um, and so I just didn't know if it was if we want to uh put any of that in as again maybe we can't add condition at this point which was what I was going to consider but do we want to add a little bit more detail to that um kind of a agreement that was made or is it just in the record and so that's enough detail?

That's my feeling. That's all. That's what I was going to say about the conditions. Those were recommendations from the staff. So like if we were to like say if our we had motion to approve, we could have set our conditions. But those are the recommendations. So I think the this document what we're kind of giving back as our decision is more a reflection on the application. And so that's why I think so much of it is just left as is and that way it reflects what the application was and what the what the recommended condition was. But I think moving forward like for instance I think it goes to go to the uh city council.

But I I yeah I'm deep with that. I think it's just just what's in the record. It's because it'll still be in the record. Yeah. I think that part of the attachment materials for the last version included a fairly detailed letter from someone that's the Riverside Church themselves. I can't quite remember who at this point, but it seemed to me that they've outlined their issues and it's in the it was resolved. Yeah, they they they did have a letter after the fact because they they did have a letter initially with the concern about the retaining wall, but then uh

subsequently they sent a one that includ included details about their conversation. So yeah. Yeah. I think that's and I think if if I were to, you know, um in my time capsule, I guess I would probably want to have made that a condition of of the approval um potentially. So, I'm not sure if that's legal or not, but just the like the maintenance of that retaining walls.

I think for for this certainly, it was something that was discussed. If you think it's material to your findings of compliance, I' I'd be happy to put and kind of synthesize a statement of, you know, in its revi something along the lines of in its revised submission provided materials regarding the church. These materials are in the record, you know. Yeah. I think it can't hurt, you know, just to say that this exists and just in case anyone goes looking references. Yeah. Like that it's not changing directions. I think this is the where it's like it's just an it's an and statement.

So, and this came, it was material, it showed up in the record. Um, to point towards it that it it had impact on your deliberation and you think it's worthwhile there, you're all there. I could easily synthesize that. That's just Mr. Pope. Was that all of your Well, I just imagine Okay. Those sound like things that maybe you can just email. Yeah. Square. But page 20, but I can set over.

You can do stuff. You tell us what the word is and then quiz us all and see if we know how to spell it correctly. Uh, English is my second language. I know. Please don't I will not collect correct the grammar of the code when it's not right. So, a lot of times you'll see and I'll find the code actually is are quotes. Um, yeah, they're not worded the way I would word them. I won't go back and change that. I leave intentionally leave them as true to form although grammatically challenged. Okay. Any other comments to finalize? Well, sort of you're going to make the final draft for us then. Yeah. Based on the notes and what you provided here.

Yeah. I will make the final draft and write up. You will get to ensure that I I did them accurately. Um and then what happens at that point is we will produce the draft. You will sign it. I will then mail out a notice of this decision to um or email depending on how the participants um participated to everyone who participated in the hearing um serves as their notice. That will open up a 12-day appeal window and at which time we will see where it goes next. Okay.

Can we pause for just a moment? I had one more comment. respond to I think it was around on page 11 there's the development shall divide large building masses into heights and sizes that relate to human scale by incorporating changes in building mass or direction uh and it goes on and I just and I think and maybe in the findings we're just stating that the applicant sorry I just thought there was some reference to human scale in there. And I just want to make sure that this is uh consistent with our compatibility uh determination. So, we could just maybe just read that and just make sure that that does is consistent. The uh page 11 says sheets A1 100 through A 110. No, I just want to make sure that we're not uh contradicting our compatibility uh determination. No, I think it's I think it's okay. Just in the in the uh code it does say uh yeah, it talks about building masses and it talks about human scale. And so I just want to make sure that we're not not contradicting ourselves across criteria 25,000 to 5,000 or excuse me 25,000 to 50,000 square feet. There's a little more I would call them um they're a little more discreet. That's where it talks about some percentage of windows. Uh, I don't think it necessarily I think you can hit all those points and not necessarily

um upset or internally conflict with the compatibility statement. They're not, you know, there is some overlap there, but they do have some of their own they do all stand on their own.

Okay. Thank you very much, Commissioner Pope. Any other comments from any other commissioner this evening on our draft? Okay, then we're all in agreement that with the edits that Dustin made, Dustin will send them to me. I'll more than likely run them by you to make sure that everything is covered. Even though I've taken notes, uh I think it sounds like we're good to go. Yeah. Uh please remember Tuesday. Yes. February 17th holiday.

It is. it sometimes it can be hard to remember that but uh coming up you will be asked to evaluate uh next in line it's it's already been advertised that um in terms of public hearing it's a zone change um multif family development you will be for you all you are the deciders on the quasi judicial and planning aspects you are recommending body to city council on change so uh we will have some materials out to you either this week or next week Um, we'll see you there. Thank you very much, Justin. And I believe we're going to go ahead and adjourn the meeting now at 6:10 p.m. Thank you everybody for being here this evening.