Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

So I'll call the meeting to order. The Dallas Planning Commission on August 13th, 2026. Let's see. Will Benjamin please read the call of the roll, please?

Commissioner White. Commissioner Newell. Commissioner Schulte. Commissioner Banford. Commissioner Kowalsch. Commissioner Groh. Here. And our chair, Commissioner Swanson, let staff know he would not be here tonight. Quorum is present.

We will move on to the approval of the minutes. There's not much there as we had a record short meeting. So does anybody have any comments on the minutes as written? Or I will Invite, move to approve the minutes as written.

I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes as written.

Second. All in favor say aye. Aye.

Opposed? Unanimously.

All righty, we will move on to the public hearing. First one is Conditional Use Permit 2603 at 1866 Southeast Hankel Street for short-term vacation rental. I will read this script for this is a quasi-judicial Type 3 public hearing. And I already said the address, but I'll say it again. This public hearing is regarding the property at 1866 Southeast Hankel Street in Dallas, Oregon. This is an official public hearing before the Dallas Planning Commission. I now declare this public hearing open at 6.02 p.m. As the application is subject to land use proceedings recognized by state law, I will read the following statement. Failure to raise an issue with sufficient detail to afford the Commission and the parties an adequate opportunity to respond to each issue precludes appeal to the State Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue. Please direct all testimony to the record and the applicable criteria listed in the staff report or two criteria in the Dallas Development Code you believe applies to this decision. Applicable approval criteria are found in Dallas Development Code 4.4.040. At this time, I will ask if any member of the Planning Commission has a conflict of interest, site visit, or ex parte contact to declare. Seeing none, we will move on. This hearing will be conducted in the following manner. We will begin with the staff report, followed by questions of staff. Thereafter, we will hear from the applicant, including members of the applicant team, for a total of 15 minutes. This may be followed by questions from the Commission. Thereafter, we will hear from all others interested in presenting testimony on this item before the Commission. Each person will be provided five minutes to testify. We will then provide the applicant with five minutes of rebuttal. After we have heard all testimony, I will close the hearing and ask the Commission to deliberate and then ask if there is a motion in response to this proposal. In this case, the Commission's decision is final unless the decision is appealed.

at this time we'll start with the staff report may we have the staff report please yes um so as mentioned uh this project uh this airbnb would be up here on hinkle street uh so zooming in on the airman uh air photo it's a townhome structure um where it's split with common wall with another dwelling As we can see that there is a common alley that runs down the back. All of the residences in this area have a two-car driveway. So the approval criteria that are for conditional use permits, the first is that the site has to be adequate for the proposed use. And so when we look at that, there are specific requirements criteria that are spelled out for, uh, uh, short-term vacation rentals. Um, one of which is the provision of, uh, two parking spaces on the same property as, uh, the, the vacation rental, which again, alleyway in the back. So, um, there's parking as required. Uh, there's a requirement that, uh, garbage service be provided. Um, and the, the resident subscribes to garbage service. So that's, that's not a problem. Um, they have to have, uh, uh, a designated representative within, uh, uh, the Dallas urban growth boundary and the resident lives nearby. So, uh, or the applicant lives nearby. So that's, that's, uh, satisfied. Um, so kind of looking at the, the specific approval criteria that we have with regards to, uh, vacation rentals, um, those all appear to be satisfied. Um, we are as a condition of approval proposing a, uh, occupancy limit, which is specified in the code of a certain number of square footage per person. And so based on that, we are suggesting a condition of approval. But yeah, so main approval criterion for conditional use is that the site has to be adequate for the proposed use. Second criterion is that any adverse impacts can be mitigated. Any adverse impacts on the surrounding community can be mitigated either through conditions of approval or through other code standards. And so one of the issues that's been brought up is the potential of noise. And so the applicant has proposed quiet hours as a way to mitigate potential noise in the evenings. And then the third approval criteria for conditional use permits is that the public infrastructure has to have adequate capacity to support the development. In this case, the area is well served with water and sewer services, fire protection, all of the sort of city municipal services that one would expect. So that criterion appears to be satisfied. So staff conclude that it appears the approval criteria can be met. and are recommending approval with conditions as stated in the staff report.

Any more questions? Jess, please.

Just a couple of questions for staff. I'm just looking at the aerial photo that you have up there, and I'm just sort of looking. It seems to be it's a rear-loaded alleyway there, access to the garage. And so the only real open area would be the porch area there facing the street. Is that correct? There's nothing else for areas to – this is pretty much for short-term rental purposes. It's all indoor primarily.

It appears so, yes. Okay. So you're not going to have big backyard parties at this particular location?

Just a quick observation that I'm – making here. And then also, you mentioned as part of your oral that the applicant has proposed quiet hours. I didn't see a proposed condition of approval there. Might be something that I'll have as a question asked of the applicant, just kind of more of an understanding of how that might work. Maybe it's something that's just stated in the contract, or is it something that might be posted to the interior of the dwelling? And I don't know, does the staff have any comments? I mean, you made reference to it. And again, it's something I'm going to ask the applicant about. but is there any concerns about a condition of approval that would recognize some kind of notice posted inside, maybe behind the door or something like that?

So staff hadn't really considered that, but that's certainly something that the Planning Commission could discuss. It seems like a reasonable way to enforce conditions.

Okay, and I'll ask the applicant the same question.

Thank you.

Do you have any questions? I had a couple, one following on with Scott, the applicant has apparently talked about in quiet hours, did they say anything about how they would enforce those?

I do not believe that they discussed that particular mechanism. They do reside nearby. So in theory, if there are concerns, it would be possible that they would be able to address those because they're local. But yeah, the exact mechanism, I don't believe was specified.

Did the fire department review this proposal?

Yeah, they had no concerns.

So there were no additional fire requirements for a short-term rental as opposed to a house? Okay. The other thing is, I know they said that they are required to provide garbage service. Is that included, inferred in the conditions that we've put in here as far as complying with applicable building and fire code? Or do we need to have an additional condition that they maintain the garbage service?

I mean, you could specify it as a condition of approval if you wanted to do so. I mean, it is specified in code that they have to do that. So it would be a code enforcement issue either way. So I don't know that making it a condition necessarily changes that aspect.

I think it would cost more to start and stop garbage service. So They're probably just going to keep it there, I would think, but that's a question for the applicant. And I believe your finding included that there are other garages as well as the parking spaces behind?

Yes, there are two-car garages. If we're able to pull up the Street View image, you can see they all have a two-car garage kind of behind them. Okay.

if there's nobody parked in the garage, they could use that for a party space or whatever else. So that could be an issue or whatever. I'd have to defer to the applicant on that. Okay, that's all the questions I had. Anybody else?

So in some jurisdictions that have short-term rentals for vacation purposes, they have a limit of how many cars can park with the unit at any one time. And since we have eight occupants, we could have eight cars. And so I just wonder if there's some kind of ability to limit it to say four cars, because that's how much they probably have either in front or behind the unit. Is there a way to put a limit on it so it's not eight cars?

That's an interesting question. Certainly, planning commission can impose whatever conditions they feel are necessary to address negative impacts. The enforcement of that becomes problematic, as would be the difficulty of communicating that to the renters. How do you communicate that to them that, hey, you can only show up with this many cars?

Jurisdictions, they usually make them put it in the contract that the person signs to rent it. And then they know that only four cars are... Or you can put it in your advertising. Yeah.

I mean, it hasn't really been an issue with the other... Airbnbs that we've issued approvals for.

This one is called out in the letter particularly that parking could be an issue. So I was trying to think of a way that would maybe keep that a little more manageable.

Essentially.

But the code only requires two off-street parking spaces, and they actually have four.

Yeah, if the garage is vacant, then in theory that's another two parking spaces.

That's a valid concern, but I'm just not sure where we go with what the code says.

At the end of the day, the public street is public. Anyone can park on it, so...

Yeah, and I assume everyone saw the letter regarding the concerns on this particular option. Okay, long as we're all familiar with that, we can move on from there. All righty, if we are finished with questions of staff, we will move on to the applicant's presentation. Do we have the applicant present this evening?

Doesn't look like it. They were notified.

Okay. All right. Then before we go on to people present, are there any people in the phone queue?

There are no callers in the queue.

Right. In that case, I will invite people in the audience, if you'd like to testify on this issue, please come to the front desk and state your name and address for the record, please. And you'll have five minutes, more or less. And if you have a written statement, you can also give that to the secretary and that can be put in the record. We're somewhat.

A crowded room tonight.

Yes, yes. So my name is Adam. I live near 1866 Hankel Street, literally across the street on Blueberry 1806. Your actual address and your full name, please. Adam Bolduc, 1806 Southeast Blueberry Street, Dallas, Oregon.

Perfect.

Thank you. I'm asking you to deny CUP-26-03 or at minimum require stronger conditions before approving it. My concern is whether a short-term rental is appropriate for this property and whether its impacts can actually be mitigated. This is a 2,210 square foot lot within an attached townhouse surrounded by other attached residential properties. The city code requires consideration of parking, traffic, noise, safety, and impacts on adjacent properties. My biggest concern is noise. The staff's report's reasoning is that because the rental will operate within an existing dwelling, excessive impacts can reasonably be expected not to occur. I respectfully disagree with that assumption. The building may already exist, but the use is changing. A normal household is being replaced by constantly changing short-term guests. Groups of six and potentially eight under the city's proposed condition may arrive and leave at different times, talk outside, load vehicles and use the property at night. The homes are very close together. The outdoor area is also a very small patio near neighboring properties, even if normal. Even normal guest activity, conversations, doors, vehicles, or people coming and going can affect neighbors when homes are this close together. I believe the city needs to evaluate the impacts of the proposed transient use itself rather than assuming those impacts are minimal simply because the structure already exists. The applicant proposes quiet hours from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. If the city relies on that as mitigation, I ask that it become an enforceable condition, along with no outdoor parties or amplified music. I also ask for a maximum of six occupants, which is the limit the applicant themselves proposed. Parking is another concern. I understand that two off-street spaces exist, but this is a very small townhouse lot, and a short-term rental can create more vehicle turnover than a normal household. I ask for a strict maximum of two guest vehicles associated with the rental at any time. Those vehicles should use the property's designated spaces and never neighboring private parking. I also want meaningful enforcement. The applicant says the owner lives within one mile and will respond to complaints. If that representation is being relied upon to mitigate impacts, it should be enforceable. Neighbors should have a clear way to contact the responsible person at any time. I ask that the current owner and local representative contact information be maintained with the city and posted at the property with a documented complaint response procedure. Complaints, violations, and responses should be recorded for the city to review. Finally, I ask that the permit be subject to annual review, specifically considering noise, parking, occupancy, trash, and emergency or law enforcement complaints. So if approved, I respectfully request six occupants maximum, two guest vehicles maximum, enforceable quiet hours, no outdoor parties or amplified music, clear contact information documented, complaint handling, and annual review. And I also, I thought I was going to be out of time. The previous short-term vacation rentals that have been approved with the city have all been, not all, but a large portion of them are detached single-family homes on very large lots. So this is a very different and I think it needs special consideration before being approved. And thank you for hearing my concerns.

Seeing no excited hands jumping up and down. I don't have the applicant to rebut. Um, so we have heard all testimony. I will now close the meeting at 618 and we will deliberate.

I just ask of our planner, is there anything that limits, um, a person who owns a home or townhome or whatever, from the number of guests they can have or number of cars they can have?

So outside of the short-term vacation rental, there really isn't a limit on that other than the city's ordinary noise ordinance that prohibits excessive noise during the overnight hours. So, yeah, there isn't really anything that says, hey, if you live in Dallas, you only get to have X many cars. But there is something for short-term rental that says that? Yes. Okay. Yep. That covers the points where you're talking about your cars. So not specifically. It talks about the availability of parking. Short-term rentals have to have at least two parking spaces that are off-street. It doesn't really address the issue of noise specifically, but that is one of the potential points of evaluation for a conditional use permit are things like noise, glare, smells, vibrations. things that could potentially emanate from the property and affect the surrounding community. So those are things that are kind of specifically called out when you're evaluating any conditional use permit. It's tricky because the conditional use permit process is kind of a one-size-fits-all set of language. Yep.

So, Tori, I understand what they're being suggested for off-street parking, with it being a townhome, both sides are being proposed for this use? No, just the one side. So where are the four? I see two off-street. There's two garage spaces. Oh, inside the garage. Assuming they can use the garage most of the time, that's off limits for... I struggle with this type of use in a high-density. I agree that most of them have been single-family, detached. So I'm finding this difficult. I think we have a housing needs situation. Rental should be available for high-density residential, not for short-term rental. That's how I feel about this situation. It's already... densely, um, residential area with local streets. So the off street parking and the noise and those concerns that are been shared, I feel are warranted. Um, so that's kind of where I am with this.

I sure. Just look at the picture. Yeah. And that just says a lot to me. Yeah. It's different.

Of course, one thing I'm thinking of with this being so small and so tightly packed, there's not a big yard where somebody could have a giant party. The house is small enough. You can only allow eight people maximum. And I'm not sure anybody would want to try and put eight people in a 1600 plus square foot size. So some of those things I think are going to limit the problems. But that's just my opinion.

And if the commission did want to limit it to six instead of eight people, that was the limit that was proposed by the applicant. So you would be within your ability to do that even though it's less than the code standard because it was proposed by the applicant.

The applicant is certainly allowed to only allow to rent it out to six people. I'm not sure which way, whether we'd want to do that or not, but it sounds like, yeah, anyway, whatever. No more comments.

Mr. Chair, I'll express something here. We don't have an applicant here. I'm disappointed. We had That opportunity usually when the applicant attends to ask some questions and we don't get that opportunity here and all of a sudden we start to speculate on what the applicant would or would not be receptive to, you know, I kind of, you know, I've seen a lot of short-term rentals. And as a planner, I speak that I have approved them in certain cities to this type of size. I'm not really that concerned with the fact that it's attached. In fact, I think there are certain characteristics of the house being not single-family detached. There might be less inclination to have a big party outside and make a bunch of ruckus. I think this might be a rental that would be somebody who may need to live in the area for a little bit for whatever reason. Maybe there's not a market for this. I'd really like to hear that, though, from the applicant. Those are questions that I'm disappointed here because this is something I think that things that could be ironed out. So hence what I'm thinking here. Is there a possibility? Let me ask back to staff on. the possibility of continuance. The applicant didn't say just an hour or so before this meeting, hey, I'm not going to be there. Nothing was received by the applicant. I know 120-day issue is kind of, but I'm just kind of wondering about the potential for a continuance.

Yes, we could certainly do a continuance. We are within 120 days and would be able to do that if that was the commission's choice. My recollection of... Receiving this application, we had received it not long after the cutoff for last month's Planning Commission meeting, and the applicant was quite distressed that we weren't able to make that agenda and would have to push it to this agenda. Um, and so the fact that they aren't here as a little disappointing, but, um, no representative to show in lieu of, you know, so I, so yeah, if the planning commission wants to do a continuance, uh, we are, we are well within the 120 days. Uh, so yeah.

So that would be the next, next regularly scheduled meeting date, but still be within the 120 days.

Yes, while still leaving adequate time for it to be appealed if it were to be appealed.

Hmm.

Is it your view there is an opportunity then to discuss these key points that these folks have brought up?

Yeah, the applicant there. So we got the letter that I don't know if it's part of the certainly not part of the staff report. But we did have a letter to the staff. Enter this into the record here that we have. Wendy Talbert is a letter. And we have the oral testimony tonight that's a different person. So we have two people that have raised concerns. The applicant would have the normal opportunity to rebuttal or rebuttal, I should say. And I'm thinking that's important. I'm just thinking that we should have the ability to ask the applicant questions and the applicant should have the ability to rebut questions. this testimony and say what they can, what they're voluntarily willing to do.

And the fact that this is an unusual instance of a short-term rental. We've always gotten single-family detached. This is the first time we've ever had a deal. They may have some things that they're intending it for that we don't know because we can't ask them. So I would certainly... It sounds like there's enough concern on the Planning Commission that I would... I would entertain a motion to continue this until the next meeting.

I mean, now we can't compel them to be here. We'll need to state, for the record, the date certain of that meeting is... September 10th.

Okay. Could be on the front, isn't it? Yep, September. So...

Mr. Chair, I move continuance of this hearing to the date certain of September 10th.

Second?

Second.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Let's have a voice vote. Still discussion, right? Certainly.

continuation of the hearing is going to change where I am in this, unless they come back to say that it's not intended to be, you know, it's a short-term rental, let's say for health services. You know, if there's a need for doctors or for nurses to house temporarily, given the hospital uses we have here, then it would be a fit for me. But as far as a vacation rental, it's not going to persuade me really to hear from the applicant. I'm pretty much a no.

Curiosity, do we have a lot of folks using the vacation rental aspect of things? I mean, is there any way to know?

You mean in terms of people using it for vacations versus other potential uses?

Just in general, I mean, do we have...

I mean, there's going to be records in the collection of the hotel motel tax. So perhaps that might be something we could get for the next meeting. Mr.

Chair, I can modify my motion reflective of Commissioner Banford's comments there. I, too, have interest in knowing the city's current housing stock versus how many. I'm betting that it's really low. We don't see them here very often. And maybe once a year, I would think. Other cities, yeah, where it's destination resort oriented, the coast is hit with them a lot. But my guess is that as a percentage of our housing stock, it's pretty low. But I would entertain that for staff to come back as part of my motion for continuance. Also, staff is instructed to provide some information on What we've done in the last five years, ten years.

Since we did the housing need analysis.

And can staff let the applicant know that there is a large interest in them coming to clarify situations in the letters, particularly? And they can still choose not to come, but at least they're fully informed that that might be a problem.

Right. Worst case, they could always respond by letter as well.

That's fine. I mean...

I agree with you with the caveat, though, that there might be something we don't know. And just in fairness, I would vote for a continuance. But I think I'm with you.

Have we had a sufficient amount of discussion? All right. Can you restate your motion?

Motion is for continuance, again, for the date certain, September 10th, and for the applicant to be answerable to some of the questions that have been raised, which staff will convey to the applicant. And for staff also to provide some statistical data on housing needs and short-term rental approval and our stock and the percentage of these. Maybe just to summarize, not to go into great detail with that, but just how many short-term rentals we have out there.

And also, if you don't mind, and how much they're being used since we've been approving these. Just because if they're sitting vacant all the time. If there's data available. Yeah. If they're actually being used or not.

Yeah. I'm not sure if that's something that staff will have the ability.

Sure they can.

Maybe with the licensing, if they're getting their license, that's a source for accessing. Yeah. Yeah, okay. They better be paying the taxes.

Yeah, that's the continuum. An easy way to check. Anyway, so moved. Good luck, Benjamin. If you would please read the roll, we will vote. Can I get a second? Oh, yeah. Moved and seconded. Thank you for asking. Nice having been checked on. If you would please.

Commissioner White.

We are, just to be sure, we are voting on whether to continue this motion, not whether to pass it or fail it. Continue the hearing. Yes, continue the hearing.

Commissioner White. Aye. Commissioner Newell. Commissioner Schulte. Commissioner Banford. Aye. Commissioner Kowalsch? Commissioner Groh?

Yes.

Unanimous?

All right. The motion or the continual use permit will be continued until next meeting on September 10th. Staff to provide the requested information and the applicant to be provided. I would imagine the two written pieces of information we got and any additional comments you want to forward on to them. In that case... We will continue. All right. Moving on to variance 2601. Sorry. Oh, excuse me. What? Yeah. September 10th.

Yeah.

Well, I was hoping I could say it.

No, we're closed. September 10th at 6. Okay. Okay. Thank you. And thank you for your interest in giving us something.

It helped.

All right. Uh, moving on to variance 26, zero one. Um, I'm going to start reading my thing so I don't have to say the address twice. Public hearing is regarding the property at 1866 Southeast, whoopsie, 442 Northwest Jasper Street for the variance number 2601. This is official public hearing before the Dallas Planning Commission. I now declare this public hearing open at 634. All right, the application is subject to land use proceedings recognized by state law. I will read the following statement. Failure to raise an issue with sufficient detail to afford the Commission and the parties an adequate opportunity to respond to each issue precludes appeal to the State Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue. Please direct all testimony to the record and the applicable criteria listed in the staff report or two criteria in the Dallas Development Code you believe applies to the decision. Applicable approval criteria are found in Dallas Development Code 4.4.040. This time I will ask if any member of the Planning Commission has a conflict of interest, site visit, or ex parte contact to declare. Hearing none. uh... this hearing will be conducted in the following manner we will begin with the staff report followed by questions of staff thereafter we will hear from the applicant including members of the applicant team for a total of fifteen minutes this may be followed by questions from the commission thereafter we will hear from all others interested in presenting testimony on this item before the commission each person will be provided five minutes to testify We will then provide the applicant with five minutes for rebuttal. After we have heard all testimony, I will close the hearing and ask the commission to deliberate and then ask if there is a motion in response to this proposal. In this case, the commission's decision is final unless the decision is appealed. At this time, we'll start with the staff report. May we have the staff report, please?

Yes. So I will correct the approval criteria are 5.1, not 4.4. So I apologize for any typos that may have occurred in that. So as mentioned, this property is on Jasper. And the request is for an accessory dwelling in the rear yard. And I believe it's this one. I should have double checked this. Yeah, because it was, what was the address again? 442 Northwest Jasper Street. It's this one. But let's assume then. Yep. Picture three. Yes. And so as the staff report goes into, the request is for a variance to the size limit for accessory dwellings. The way that the code is written in terms of size limits, it specifies that the accessory dwelling is limited to 50% of the floor area of the primary dwelling up to a maximum of 800 square feet. In this case, they're asking for a variance to the 50% limit so that they can have 750 square feet, where 630 would ordinarily be the limit that's allowed based on the size of the existing dwelling. So when we're looking at variances, there's a couple key criteria. The first being that there is some sort of physical hardship with regards to the subject property and the one-size-fits-all code kind of not really fitting the property, the needs of that property. The second is that what's being requested is kind of the minimum variance necessary to address that hardship. And then the third being that it doesn't necessarily conflict with other City policies, those sorts of things. Obviously, this is an existing subdivision, so there's already adequate water and sewer and public infrastructure to support further development in this area. And indeed, accessory dwelling units in and of themselves do not require any special approvals. assuming they meet that size limit. So if the proposal was slightly smaller, there would not be any need for planning commission review. It's only because they're trying to exceed that size limit that it comes to you. But yes, so staff report kind of goes into greater detail. They are attempting to make this accessory dwelling wheelchair accessible. And so that does require more space for wider doors, wider hallways, those sorts of things. So it would logically occupy more square footage than a comparable dwelling for the able-bodied might. So yeah, the staff report goes into greater detail, but staff feel that this This variance is able to meet those approval criteria and recommending approval with conditions. That's what I got for you.

Okay, sounds good. I assume everyone's read the letter that we got regarding the concerns.

Questions from staff when we got a moment.

Yeah, I'm just pointing that out. And yes, people have any questions for staff?

of course i um yeah i've read the materials here i also can i guess um clarification more so to this property which we just got a street view here and there was a quick shot of uh an aerial view there of where the property is located in the neighborhood um Is there, I guess, to staff, I'd like to know if there's anything unique about the subject property with respect to its size, its shape, or its topography. Look like a regular rectangle-shaped lot. I don't assume that this lot is less than the standard lot size of the RL zone. I'm just kind of wondering, is there something of a physical hardship? I understand the applicant will be up here in a moment here to also testify, but it seems to me that the narrative is focused more so on the ADU to accommodate a person and the physical hardships of the person, less the physical hardships of the property itself and being able to accommodate You know, that can't meet a setback or something like that. A setback is not the case here. But I'm just kind of wondering, can staff embellish anything? Because I'm looking at that criteria. It says special or unique circumstances of the subject site. Existing development patterns or adjacent land uses are also that follow that criteria. So I'm just kind of, you know, maybe I'm just trying to get some better understanding of is there any physical hardship of the land?

So, to the extent that existing development patterns is one of the things that's listed there, the existing development is a single family dwelling. It is of a specific size. If that dwelling was larger, then the ADU of the desired size could be built by right because the existing dwelling is the size that it is, that it would push it into the realm of a variance to build it the size that's desired. So that's unfortunately the best that I can really do.

That's what I'm kind of wondering. Could they build... an addition to the main dwelling and qualify and the proposal that they have for the amount. I mean, I think I did a quick math and it was what, 200 something. I don't know where I had my Yeah, 240 square foot addition. If they built the 200, they have the land for that, though, in the back of the property. So conceivably, they could do that, not go through this variance and be answerable to hardship criteria due to the size, shape, topography of the land, which is typical of variances where to examine the physical constraints of the land. understand the wheelchair needs of the commission may feel different than I do, but it's just kind of my experience in processing variances is coming through here and knowing that we have criteria that we have to focus on and make our decision based on these criteria.

Certainly, yes. And so one potential workaround to the variance request would be to construct an addition to the dwelling, thereby increasing its floor area. Is that feasible? Yes, absolutely. Is that possible? practical, that's a different question. But that is certainly a path forward that does exist. I think one other thing to kind of keep in mind as we talk about this is that the standards that we have for accessory dwelling units, they are in many ways somewhat arbitrary. Different communities have different standards. And so the state doesn't specify a specific threshold. The local communities kind of specify those thresholds and they are essentially somewhat arbitrary. So my thinking as staff has kind of been when you have arbitrary numbers, those are usually a little more squishy than when you have something that's more hard and fast based on some kind of physical constraint, things like fire codes or what have you. So that's just kind of my own personal opinion on the matter, but... To follow up, there isn't anything that...

The 50%, though, isn't anything in violation of state law. Most cities... follow state law and because of the mandate that says you must must allow adu that's not a question about it but uh and i think that they have to be allowed to 800 square feet i think that that's the way that this In all jurisdictions, there is a Senate bill that was passed several years ago, and this commission was presented with it years ago. I think I processed it, if I recall. But it was pretty much, here's the things you can and cannot regulate. And so I'm just making sure that we're looking at it that perspective, too, is that we do have 50%, at least, Seems fairly recent. simple and uh does it need it or not and so i know some other cities though have chosen a higher standard of you know 75 or no percentage standard at all so some cities have chosen that but dallas in this case unless we do something in the future a future uh text amendment uh or maybe the legislature will pass another uh but we're stuck with what we have today in this hearing Correct. Okay. That's my question to Stan.

From my understanding, does not this wheelchair use tick the box of hardship?

Well, and that's kind of what the Planning Commission is ultimately going to have to decide is does that constitute sufficient justification under the criteria for variances or not?

That is the question.

Yes.

Okay. The maximum of 800 square feet because they're only asking for 750, correct?

That is correct, yes.

I see the 800 as more of a hard and fast limit than the percentage thing is.

Here's my follow-up wrinkle to that question. How does the American Disabilities Act Trump or relate to this issue as far as if we limit it so much that they can't get a wheelchair through the halls and we knew that going in, are we somehow causing problems with that act?

You know, that's a question that I would actually be interested to hear the response from Chris Reichelt, our building official, who is sitting in the back and being very careful to pretend he's not hearing me. But do you know, is there anything in like ADA law that would trump city land use codes in this kind of instance? Okay. So it sounds like just off the cuff, he's not able to think of anything, so...

Right. And my experience is in commercial. So that's why I was asking the question because I didn't know how it applied in this situation as clearly. I know if it was commercial, there would be no question. You would just do a reasonable accommodation and move on.

So then being set here that would disturb anything in the future.

Oh, and that's the thing is that each, each variance is reviewed on its own merits. It does not set precedent for a future, uh, Prof. That's an important point.

The context for this, it's just like.

Prof. The applicant, including members of their team, if they have a team, come on up. State your name and address, please, for the record.

And this is my husband, John.

We brought the owner of the property.

And this is my builder, Mike Smith. And he said the address. Well, we're without an address right now. But the address is 442 Jasper. We're chairs here. Try to make sure we get you on, Mike. Northwest Jasper. What did you say?

Your name and address. That's it. And then whatever you want to say.

This is something we've thought about for a long time, and our daughter's an RN, and she plans to be our caretaker as we age. I don't know. We brought Mike in case you had technical questions.

Yeah, I'm here just to answer any building questions and maybe address the constraints of trying to build a job. Well, it does take a little more space. You guys have said it, wider doors, wider hallways, a little more room in the bathroom. So we have some issues that we're trying to address.

Basically, if you make all the halls and everything bigger, if the house isn't bigger, then everything else becomes smaller and you're just trying to make it livable. And it sounds like if you're not even going for 800 square feet, you're just doing what you have to and what you can do.

Trying to keep it as small as we can to meet the requirements. We know what it is.

Okay. Okay. Is that all you were going to say?

I don't know if it really matters or takes into account, but at the back of the house...

Thank you, you are.

Oh, I'm sorry. My name's Casey Broyles. This is my house. But the... The access back there is really good, and there's a lot of parking. I don't know what issues we would have to worry about, but there's parking everywhere. There's no issues with anything like that. And then at the back, there's a strip of city land separating the houses, and I just think that plays a factor because it's more space, and there's no real close neighbors that it would impact back there.

Okay.

Awesome.

The extent of your presentation? Well, don't leave. We're going to ask you questions, I'm sure. Okay.

Does the commission have questions, please? Casey, I'm curious about any land constraints on the property, anything that would preclude. I kind of mentioned questions of staff. I asked about the land constraints, and I'm still perplexed on this, just one criterion here. And I just want to explore that to knowledge that you're the property owner. any you know like sometimes there's a sewer easement along that side or something that would stop the ability to to build an addition to because what and you could build a 240 square foot addition to the house regardless of how much it costs or anything like that it you know you could at least because you could still meet the setbacks of the house I'm just kind of an opportunity for you To what you know of this property, being the owner, is there any physical constraints to building on this? Building out addition, really, is what I'm...

I guess I'm not sure what kind of constraint you're referring to.

That would stomp the ability. I just kind of looking at the aerial photograph that staff had up there, it looked like it was a decent-sized property that had the ability that you could build out. And if you did that, we wouldn't be here for this variance. We wouldn't be perplexed about trying to talk about the variance. Maybe the commission, some of the other commissioners may not feel the same way that I am, but I'm kind of just looking at this one criterion. it speaks to the physical unique circumstances of the property. And so that's what I'm just kind of, is there anything, is there a large tree that's healthy and would have to be removed or anything like that or a drainage ditch that, yeah, okay. Okay, all right, well, thank you.

Should we look at would it be better to just build off of the house? the first place but the way the house is set up their bedrooms take the back so you have to go and there's no place to put a hall through the bathrooms are in the middle um you explored doing a duplex on your property the staff not mentioned anything about that possibility

But there's some separation there. All right. All right. Well, thank you.

I had a couple of questions regarding the letter that we got. Were you able to read the letter? Did you have a chance to read the letter that we got? Okay. So one of the things that I see what they're concerned about is they're talking about you've got a fifth wheel on the property and somebody's concerned that somebody was living in that. I don't know if that's legal under code. I don't see it obviously in the picture there. Is the fifth wheel still there and is somebody living in it?

because we just literally sold our home in Salem and moved there waiting to find out what we could hear, then Mike can move forward on the building and we would need to leave because that's the way he'll get through the access. Does that make sense? Yeah. Okay.

Okay.

Let's see. I'm concerned about parking, but as far as I'm concerned, that's kind of up to you.

All of that area you see would still be open.

And the parking across the street. There's hardly ever a car park there at all. Okay. Okay.

That's all the questions I had. Anybody else?

I think that's everything. You may be dismissed. And if someone has something to say about it, you'll have a chance to address those concerns. All right. We will ask for any other interest in people speaking. Do we have anyone in the phone queue changed?

There are no callers.

Do we have anyone interested in... That looks like everybody who was going to be here. Okay, seeing no one else, unless one of you wants to complain about your own application, and I don't see that. Okay, we're good there then. Then you don't need to rebut the testimony. I will close the hearing then at 6.57, and we will deliberate. Proceed anyone have a can go ahead.

I'll start off and I don't know planning commission feels the same way. I am stuck as I've already mentioned part of the record. With criteria a, or number 1 here again, it's really a matter of the site and not the occupant. I. Respectfully disagree that precedent. There's potential for that if we go down the road of approving variances that are based on what applicants have as ailments or issues. It warrants considerations of all kinds of things here. The criteria speaks specifically to the physical constraints of the property. It is apparent as part of the applicant's testimony and the staff that they have the ability to build a 240-edition property. They also have the ability to build a duplex on this property as well. In the future, there might be state, new state legislature. I'm sure it will pass. Again, more things that say cities don't put these 50% requirements, or just allow, don't even put a restriction of 800. That will be next year. So I fully expect That there'll be more mandates to ensure that we're able to increase the housing availability and choices. I'm all for that. I'm also in support. of an initiative that some kind of action that the city might initiate, I should say initiate a text amendment to remove or loosen that 50% requirement. So I'm just so old school with criterion A that I cannot support the application as proposed as I see an administrative remedy clearly available. So that's my thoughts on this.

Okay. Anybody else?

So I appreciate the... your perspective on it as far as the technicality. And I think it's a valid discussion. Maybe it's something we should be evaluating in the code as far as the text amendment. In the interest of housing, it feels like this contextually works. I understand the perspective of the applicant trying to work with the single family and accommodate an additional housing unit on the property. So in the interest of accommodating mixed housing options, I'm supportive of the effort.

I would concur with that analysis. I think that this seems reasonable based on trying to allow a wheelchair to function in the unit. If the house were even slightly bigger, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. So the house is taking up a small footprint on the property, and therefore it allows to have more room for the accessory dwelling unit. So I'm in support of it.

I'm focused on the hardship issue that we talked about before. And to me, that is met in two ways. In order to have wheelchair accessibility, it needs a certain size to do it. And the other criteria is that it be detached for obvious reasons. So to me, I would say yes.

I ask a question of staff. Staff, does it need to be attached? Does it need to be detached, I guess? Or can the ADU be attached?

So if the ADU was attached, it does not change the percentage requirement. So the percentage requirement applies either way.

All right. I'm just curious about that. Yeah. You can attach it.

OK. Let me know. Questions or comments or anything, OK? All right. Let's see where I am here. Okay. We need a motion now on whether to do something with this particular proposal. Second. With the conditions, I assume there are conditions. I didn't read them again.

actually have that in front of me.

All right. It just says move to approve the application. So there are no conditions.

There's no condition.

Okay. So your motion.

And we got seconded.

Seconded. All right. Moved and seconded. Is there any discussion on the motion? Probably discussed the heck out of it already. All right. I will call for a vote on the motion. The motion is to approve the application as stated without conditions. Please call the roll, Benjamin.

Commissioner White? No. Commissioner Newell? Commissioner Schulte? Commissioner Banford?

Yes.

Commissioner Kowalsch?

Yes.

Commissioner Groh?

Yes.

Motion passes. All right.

Thank you very much. The motion passes. An order reflecting the commission's decision tonight will be mailed to the applicant and all participants of record within 10 business days. And I assume that also includes the person who wrote the letter. So we are finished with that business. Are there any commissioner comments to be entered this evening? If not, we're almost on. Well, it's not the shortest meeting we ever had, but we came close.

Oh, Commissioner Campbell said what? Yes. So we're through.

Yeah, we're finished with that. Yes.

Just real quick. I had the privilege to participate in a training session here a few weeks ago called Planning in Oregon. Did any of you do that? I just want to mention it because it's a Zoom presentation. A consultant put this on, a fellow named John Morgan. It's about five hours plus lunch and so on. It was absolutely outstanding. It was so helpful to me. And all I kept thinking during those five hours is, why didn't I know this three years ago? And the importance to me of this, Benjamin or Jess or somebody, this was videotaped and it's available to us for free. And I said, we need to have a training program for new commissioners who don't come from this background. There it is. We already paid for it. If we can download that and catalog it and have it for new commissioners, it's an outstanding program. And there are a couple of things about it that the first half of it basically was everything you already know, SB100 through all this and everything we do. The other half of it is what I've been talking about for three years is the other half of our job. And he went through that in wonderful kind of summary detail. It's there if we ever want to have that conversation about in the real world, in real planning commissions, how can we be more helpful to our city council that's looking for it, that's looking for policy advice from us. And someday, because we have the material, And I didn't, I don't have to make it up, he did it. Can we someday, for 45 minutes or so, have a discussion about what he recommends to us about the other half of the job that we should be doing? So I leave it in your hands, but it's a request that someday can we please informally have that come from an expert. By the way, this guy, John Morgan... I'll tell you a real quick story because it's funny. We don't do a lot of funny stuff here, but this one's funny. This guy graduated from some college with a master's, I guess, in planning in the early 1970s. So he's been at this for 50 years. And think about who you know who's been around planning for 50 years. So SB 100 was what, in the early 70s? It's like he's been there forever. And he's been a planner, he's been a city manager, just you name it, this guy's done everything. He told us the most important story that he could relay to us about the people who come and give testimony here. And about how, he said, I want you to relay this to your commission, how important it is to show empathy who do this. Who comes into a courtroom with stern-looking people, right, that we look like judges and feels comfortable at this? And he told this story. And I'll never forget why we should have empathy for people who come here. He's a kid right out of school, and he was dispatched to go to Harney County. Anybody know where Harney County is? Okay, bigger than six states. So if you've been to Harney County, you've been to a different planet, and you understand anybody from western Oregon is a zombie, right? So his first charge was to go to Heinz, Oregon, and meet Hines. Edward Hines, love our company. H-I-N-E-S.

So Burns Hines.

His first charge out of school was to go to Hines, Oregon and meet the judge. And the judge had one hat, was a judge. The other was a county commissioner. And the county commissioner says, I want you to come with me to a town hall meeting. and it's going to be in the city of Fields, Oregon, which today has a population of about 70. And so back then, it had a population of maybe 30. And so this guy says he walks into the one-room schoolhouse next to the judge sitting next to him, and there's four cowboys there with their hats on and poop on their boots, right? And the judge says, well, why don't you tell these people what land use policy in Oregon is about? And so the guy, fresh out of school, starts to give his story, as you can imagine. I'm going to paraphrase now. But a little bit into his speech, one of the cowboys stood up and said, son, shut up. We've been farming this land for five generations and no punk from the West is going to come out here. And this guy was getting more and more animated. And he got up on his feet and he's shaking his fist at the young guy. And the young guy's sinking down in his shield. He's got to kill me. And he was really getting concerned for his well-being. And he felt a tap on his knee. And the judge says, son, that's just Harold. He's only half drunk tonight. It doesn't appear to be packing. You'll probably be all right. That's pretty good. And so the moral to his story is, remember, people are terrified to do this. And try to relate to them. And I'll be done with it. He said the way to do that, a way to do this, is to say we're just citizens just like you. We're just volunteers. And we're not judges. So, you know, just kind of relax. Anyway, I'll never forget that story. Thank you for sharing, John.

All right. Anybody else? I have a quick comment. Yes. So I understand. Are there other code amendments or anything coming? I think that Scott brought up a valid point. We've had these short-term rentals. I don't know if there's something applicable to higher-density housing areas that we should be considering potentially. But in the interest of encapsulating some of these things that are being – raised um i might be worthy of having understanding what might be coming i've heard of rumors of uses downtown and those kind of things i don't know if it's making its way to the code but at some point it'd be nice to include some of the things that are raised from these meetings yes so the downtown uses um i believe is that still at edc or is it urduck

Um, neither at the moment, we can get you an update on that. Um, has that come through us yet? Okay. So we're probably going to be one of the first stops for that.

So yeah, there is a discussion of downtown uses. Um, and to the extent that, uh, we are always, uh, on the lookout for potential refinements to the code. If you have suggestions that you want to discuss, those are always something that we can have some time for. Scott, do you have a list, including the ADU?

I know that there will be a legislative session starting in February, and housing is always the key thing. I mean, I don't think a year has gone by buy yet that there hasn't been some bill uh bills plural that uh that impacts uh cities and it's more so to the larger cities like salem of course that get hit with the bulk of things but uh Yeah, I mean, I've been monitoring it for years, all of the legislative activity, and that's what the role of staff has been to relay all of that wonderful things.

And the Oregon Planning Association, I'm blanking on their name, but they do an annual legal issues workshop. One of the things that they do is legislative review new regulations that are coming down from the state. So that's usually in November, right? December, thereabouts?

Yeah, usually the first week they do a summary of what occurred, and sometimes that's a good opportunity for people to kind of say, okay, are we in need of some omnibus changes? I think Dallas is pretty good, though, from what I understand from some of the major... major House bills and Senate bills that impact the city of this size.

Yeah, I don't imagine there's any major changes that we have to make based on rules that have already been passed. But of course, there's no way of knowing what the state's going to come up with.

I guess where I'm coming from is this criterion that you mentioned with the 50%. Like if this is if Dallas is one of a few that has the 50%, and I understand the I mean, I get where it's coming from, but if it's this thing where it's necessitating a variance that doesn't fit and we're hung up on this situation, that's one that I would suggest.

Yeah, and there's certainly different ways that could be addressed. You could change the number. You could build some kind of administrative variance into it for, what, 10%, 20%, whatever. So there's a number of different ways that that could be addressed if the planning commission feels that that's a pain point that needs to be resolved.

I know that from working in other cities as staff throughout the region here, that that number is higher in other cities or doesn't exist at all.

I know that a number of jurisdictions have a 900-square-foot cap. I believe Monmouth and Independence both have 900 square foot. And so our 800 square foot sometimes catches the builders by surprise because it's less than other jurisdictions allow.

But yeah. It has 600 square feet.

Right. So as you can see, it's kind of all over the map. So yeah.

So.

I mean, one of the things too, just although, hey, we can kind of come up with strange findings. Anytime that there's an applicant out there that's opposed to it, it can raise this type of thing too. Just that's kind of, I'm sorry to kind of be the purist of just my background on this. I have to kind of be that person.

Yeah. Yeah.

But that's sometimes an applicant can pick up on that. What's the physical hardship of the property or something like that. I just kind of, there is that always that possibility of, I would prefer, yeah, this type of thing not go to a hearing level and be subject to criteria that speaks to hardship. I think that, yeah, if the commission and the council, too, eventually it's the council's decision on any kind of code change, but that would be one future issue. potential there for removing or adjusting that percentage.

So you mean administratively take care of hardship situations?

We wouldn't see it. Staff would just process it.

That's what I'm saying. If we had that caveat, then we wouldn't have even had to worry about it.

There is sort of a built-in 20% adjustment process for a lot of other numerical standards in the residential zones. This is a completely different section of code, which isn't covered by that wiggle room. But that doesn't mean that the code couldn't be reconfigured to grant that same kind of flexibility. So, yeah.

It's taking away more of our work.

I mean, I would still like in some ways to see it.

Sorry, did you think we were done? Yeah.

I like to say something.

I assume I turn my computer off.

So I don't have the, what you guys are supposed to do in front of me, but I assume one of the things that the planning commission can do is recommend code changes to the city council.

And this might be a good topic for a planning commission recommendation to the city council.

And somebody mentioned that some cities have 75%. We could, instead of getting rid of the 50%, move it to 75%, and then we'd probably never have to deal with it. Because I think the only reason the 50% is you don't want a giant structure behind another little tiny one.

That and also our system development charges are set at 50%. So if you allowed us to, would you then have to have a larger development charge?

Yeah.

So, um, but yeah, if, if the planning commission wants to pursue this, uh, staff are happy to try drafting some language for further consideration.

I would just be curious of what the legislature, I mean, every year there's the loosening of regulation, or I should just say that word mandate, that I'm certain there'll be something that Jess will present and say, hey, yeah, this is something that the state came up with, and we're here to implement it, and we'll have no say on it in

There's going to be a rule on affordable housing, either expanding the benefit of affordable housing or lowering the percentages of qualification so that the rents are lower. Big shock. That would be so lovely. But right now we're only serving 60% of area median income rather than having some caveat for 40, 30, 50% And which lowers the rent for the individuals that make less money. Sure would be nice to see that on the table again.

As far as housing goes, next year we are doing a housing needs analysis or housing capacity analysis, I think is what they're calling them now. And that will be followed by a housing production strategy. So that kind of opens Pandora's box with regards to anything related to housing. We can start monkeying to our heart's content at that point.

And that's just kind of the stickler for seeing that be done. If that's on the docket, then that's where work sessions with council can be established, where we can get some direction from council and get the vibe on what I hate for us to kind of, although acknowledging the city attorney and saying that we have the ability to make some recommendation. I don't know how far it goes. Most of it was stripped, as I recall. Carol was the last time the city went through housing needs analysis when I was the director of planning here and Carol was the rep. the committee did come up with various recommendations. One was a housing excise tax. So some good recommendations by the committee and yeah, not, I guess there were a couple of them maybe that were, but a couple were implemented, but there are others that the council, this commission accepted, but the council did not. Yeah. The council said no. And so there's, there's, a whole bunch of interest of different perspectives out there. And so that's the only thing I'm careful about, just kind of knowing the politics.

Yes. So I'm still waiting to get some revisions back from our current department. crop of applicants, but assuming that those come in a timely manner, we'll be looking at two different convenience stores, one of which, no, a convenience store with an apartment building and a gas station, very similar to the concept that we've seen before, but different. Same location? Yeah, same location. And a drive-thru coffee shop with some additional retail spaces. So those are kind of the two big ones that are on the docket.

What parts of town are they looking at?

Yeah. Yes. Save me.