Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Am I there? We're here. Oh, good. We're ready whenever you are president.

All righties. I will now call this meeting to order. Welcome to the April 28th meeting of the Salem Planning Commission. Roll. Commissioner VR Brendell here. Commissioner F here. Commissioner Frybeck here. Commissioner Hiller here. Commissioner Slater. Commissioner Levin here. Commissioner Infante here.

Commissioner Rhodess absent. Uh, we have Commissioner Tav. Commissioner Tav, Commissioner Tv here.

Okay. I think we have quorum and I believe for our two absences, they had both uh both commissioners had reached out. So, they are excused absences today. I will note that I think it's a special day for Commissioner Slater. So, congratulations to him. Um, time for public comment. Uh, are there any interested citizens who are here to address anything other than public hearings? No. Okay. Uh, consent calendar. Do we have uh approval of the minutes? I believe that is listed as Commissioner Dev. Me again.

All right. Uh, I move that we approve the is it March? When was it? 10th. March 10th meetings as they are written. Second. Okay. Motion by Commissioner Tev, Commissioner Heler. Uh, are there any comments or discussion on the motion? Seeing none, I would move to vote. Uh, all in favor say I when your name is called. Commissioner Vieierre Brendell, I. Commissioner F. I. Commissioner Frybeck. Hi.

Commissioner Heler. Hi. Commissioner Tev. I. Commissioner Lavine. Here. Commissioner Infonte. I

motion passes. Okay. No resolutions. No active items. I guess we will go on to public hearings. Um an appeal of conditional use case number CU26-01 for2494 Crestbrook Drive Northwest. I'm getting the script in order. There's a lot of things here. Uh so, uh I would like to ask the commissioners if anyone has had any exparte communications or any conflicts of interest to state into the record. Okay. Um, sorry, there's a lot of sections here that I've definitely not read before. So, just one moment, please bear with me. Uh, can we get someone to read the statement of criteria? This is a public hearing to consider the appeal of the hearings officer decision to approve case number CU26-01 for property located at 2494 Crestbook Drive Northwest. The criteria applicable to this hearing are listed in the Salem Revised Code under chapter SRC240. 005D conditional use. Failure to raise an issue prior to the close of the public hearing with statements or evidence sufficient to afford the planning commission and the

parties an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the land use board of appeals luba on this issue. A similar failure to raise Constitutional issues relating to purpose relating to proposed conditions of approval. Approval precludes an action for damages in circuit court. Prior to the conclusion of the hearing, any participant may request an opportunity to be pres to present additional evidence or testimony. The planning commission will then either continue the public hearing or leave the record open for at least seven days.

Okay. Um, using my excellent powers of deduction, uh, M. Peterson, I assume you are the planner for this case. Can you, uh, begin your presentation? Right. Right. Let me share my screen. Great. Hello and good evening. Uh my name is Abigail Peterson. I'm a planner with the planning division and I'm here to present um the appeal of conditional use permit 26-01 for 2495 Crestbrook um Drive Northwest. Um, I request that the staff report, this presentation, and additional testimony supported or submitted by the West Salem Neighborhood Association, um, be entered into the record. All right. Um, the applicant requested a conditional use permit to allow a short-term rental within a single family residential zone. The subject property is located within West Salem and is currently developed with a 2,000 square foot residence and is abudded to the north by a local street um Crestbrook Drive Northwest um which is currently a dead end.

Um as you can see from the aerial overview of the subject property, um it's surrounded by single family Uh here is a view of the property from the street. The zoning of the property is single family residential. Um and adjoining properties are also zoned single family residential. Um as addressed within the hearings officer decision, um the proposed short-term rental use meets the approval criteria. Um the use is a condition the use is a conditional use within the RS zone as identified by the hearings officer. The reasonably likely adverse impacts of the short-term rental um on the surrounding properties um and area will be minimized through proposed conditions. Public comments were received during the original hearing by neighbors and the West Salem Neighborhood Association. A summary of the comments um were addressed within the staff report and the hearings officer decision. On March 25th uh 2026, appeal was filed by the applicant and on March 30th, appeal was filed by the West Salem Neighborhood Association. The applicant appealed um with arguments that condition six um is uninforceable. His arguments um include an alternative condition to limit the total number of uh guest vehicles to two and require that both vehicles park um on the driveway within the West Salem Neighborhood Association appeal. They objected to the hearings officer decision um citing that there are incomplete findings in response to their arguments. Um that a condition of approval terminating the condition conditional use permit upon

sale or lease of the property is allowed under the code and is warranted in this case um to minimize reasonably likely adverse impacts on the immediate neighborhood. The hearings officer found in his decision that the condition limiting ownership uh could not be placed um on the conditional use permit. Um, within additional research, staff found similar conditions have been placed on conditional use permits for short-term rentals in the in reviewing the impact of short-term rentals on neighbor neighbors um neighborhoods and in relation to decision criteria, we found that short-term rentals um to be compatible with neighborhoods Um the conditions of approval and licensing requirements are designed to minimize any potential negative effects um regardless of who owns the property. Um in our research um very few um complaints have been received. Um and these issues were generally resolved um voluntarily by operators. Short-term rentals typically have a similar impact um on neighborhoods as single family residences. Um and by implementing specific conditions, operations are ensured to remain compatible with neighborhoods um in which they reside. These regulations and licensing requirements apply to all operators, not just the current owners. Um like any other section of the code, um complaints regarding um not meeting conditions of approval are in

investigated and enforced um by our compliance division. Um lastly, it should be noted that the condition to limit the use to the current owner, um if it were to be placed on the permit, any new owner will be required to go through the process again, um which can be costly and time consuming. A license is required for all accessory short-term rental um rentals and uh short-term rentals. Licenses are based on the individual operators. So any new operator would need to get a new license. Um licenses um require that any operators be in compliance with the conditions placed on conditional use permits um as well as all other standards of the code. Um, planning staff recommends that the planning commission affirm the hearing officer decision. Um, thank you and I'm available for any questions.

Yeah. Um, I had a few questions. Uh, so the um subject properties 11,000 square feet. Um can you clarify uh single family uses are allowed here um as well as uh quadplexes and cottage clusters on a lot of this size in the single family zone I believe so yes is shaking her head so I feel more confident saying yes

perfect um I believe that is the I guess to also clarify we don't require parking for those uses in single Single family zones are in the city. Yeah. All I got.

Um, do we have our uh city attorney's representative on the line? I assume since this is a sort of a question of statutory authority, can we get your input on on how you read these two uh two statutes here and whether the the city has the authority to put a conditional use requirement um contingent upon ownership of the property?

Uh Tom Kapani, I'm of councel uh for the city of Salem. Uh yes, we uh took a look at at uh this issue uh a new and concluded that uh there was authority for um the uh uh either the hearings officer or the um uh body making the decision. they they could in fact limit uh the condition to the the uh uh present owner. Um but there was still the issue of whether or not there were sufficient facts that uh support uh that limitation. What's clear from uh the both both code sections that are in play which are I have to get my glasses on. Excuse me. um 300.820 A2 and uh 240.005 is that uh the uh code favors uh allowing the um uh conditional use uh to run with the land. Okay. Okay. So, just to make sure that I'm understanding, there is authority to put the restriction in, but there would have to be a finding that there's a reason to deviate from the norm of letting the um conditional use run with the land. And we don't believe that or or you don't believe that in your review of the facts, there are there are facts that would support making that finding. And so the um more legally compliant answer would be to impose the restriction without the uh or without the restriction to the single owner.

Uh I think at this point it's probably not appropriate for me to uh comment on the evidence since it we haven't gotten uh testimony from either the applicant or the uh other appellant. Uh and so um okay so let me rephrase it. That would be the assessment that we should be doing um is finding those facts about whether that um whether the condition is reasonably likely uh reasonably necessary to prevent a uh a likely uh uh uh negative impact on the neighborhood.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah. I'm just trying to clarify exactly what the um inquiry is that we should be looking at. Thank you. Sure. Mr. T. Um, okay. I have a couple questions. Um, one is, uh, is there currently like a paid parking permit in place for this area? No.

No residential street parking permit. Okay. Required. And then the other is um is parking allowed along West Faring Road. So you could if you wanted to pull the map up or just look in the packet the adjacent road that leads to Crestbrook Drive which is a dead end west Farthing Way. It looks like northwest. There weren't much. I looked on Google Maps and there wasn't very many cars parked on either, but that's a snapshot of course. So, um I don't I can't say that I looked into whether there's, you know, legal on street parking on that street, but I did notice when I did a site visit that there was at least one car parked on the street. Thank you. Then I apologize if this was more clear in some of the photos, but how big was the driveway? I mean, how many cars could fit in the driveway if it was going to be just parking in the driveway?

Um, it's um for two cars. It's for a two-car garage, but again, like Google Maps snooping. It looked like side by side too, right? Would fit. Yes. You could show them that.

Um, yes. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Is the applicant here?

We're here on Zoom.

Oh, okay. Um the applicant has 15 minutes to present although I think uh reasonable allowances for Zoom issues are uh possibly warranted. So um applicant now is your time to present your case. Um hello good evening. Um, my name is Shantaa Pertrath and I'm the representative and for the um, conditional use permit. First, I wanted to thank the hearings officer and the city staff for approving the permit and we are not appealing the approval of the short-term rental itself. We appreciate the approval and we're um, committed to operating the property responsibly. Our appeal concerns only one condition. The requirement that the garage remain available for parking at all times. We understand the concern behind that condition is neighborhood parking and we share the goal of preventing guest vehicles from affecting the street. We previously accommodate up to four guest vehicles. Our request tonight is simply that the garage condition be replaced with a clear and more direct condition. limiting guests to two vehicles with all guests vehicles required to park on site in the driveway and not on the street. We believe that the condition addresses the parking concern more directly than the current garage condition. The current condition raises the question, what does it mean for the garage to remain available for for parking at all times? It's not entirely clear whether that means the garage must be must remain empty, whether storage is allowed, etc. Our concern is not with the goal of the condition, but with its clarity and whether it's the most direct

way to address the impact identified in the findings. On the other hand, a two vehicle limit is simple, objective, and easy to understand. It ensures all guests parking fits in the driveway, eliminates the need for street parking, and directly regulates the source of the concern, which is the number of guest vehicles. We're not asking to remove a parking safeguard, but to replace with the ones that are clearer, more precise, and directly tied to the impact being addressed. Planning staff has mentioned that they were neutral on the condition relating to parking. And the staff report also mentions that our proposal is similar in terms of the impact intended by the hearing officers of reducing on street parking. Planning staff also suggested in the staff report that an alternate condition could replace the current one which is guest parking shall be limited to two vehicles. All guests vehicles shall be parked on the driveway of the subject property. We respectfully believe that this request modification does not alter the findings supporting approval of the permit. It just simply refineses one condition while preserving the purpose behind it. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for the planning committee to modify the condition requested. Thank you for your time and for your consideration.

I didn't even need to set the timer for that. Um, do you commissioners have any questions for the applicant? Mr. Frybeck?

Yeah, I have one question. Um, I was wondering if uh you had any comment on the proposed condition seven uh by the West Salem Neighborhood Association. Uh the condition states uh that the uh conditional use permit shall be for the duration of the ownership of the subject property by the applicant. We wouldn't have an issue with that because of course once we sold the home it would go to the new owner. So I don't see us having an issue with it ending with us at that point in time. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome.

Any other questions? Yes, I have one. Okay, Commissioner Le, you're up. Um, Shantaa, do you represent the property owner or the neighborhood commission? Oh, I represent that. Let's get um Joey Jordan. Um, he's my um fiance.

Okay. Um so are you suggesting or proposing that there is no on street parking. If that is, you know, again, not possible, then we would again be fine with that. Uh just to again be able to use the driveway so that way we are able to access the garage. Again, if the city doesn't allow us to have guests park in the street, then we are fine with removing that

from the equation. So, so the question that I have is on street parking restricted in the neighborhood. In other words, do your neighbors and and you as an individual property owner have the right to park in the street? Yes. Yes.

Okay. Um, I need to suggest that uh parking in the street is a reasonable and lawful use and that a condition of um a conditional use uh should not fly in the face of what is already normal and usable. use and occupancy of the premises. So, so I don't understand why a self-imposed limitation about having let's say a single car park in the street um would be reasonable or appropriate. I feel like that would be, you know, if we would be able to have that as an option as well, but we were just trying to come up with a solution if that wasn't feasible. Um, we would limit the twocar and then that way the guests can park on our driving without having to again cluster let's say up the street and then we could still then be able to not have the garage available. So then we can use it for um historically we've had it for like maintenance of the property certain um and security and things along those lines. So that's why we would like to keep the garage.

So w with an 11,000 square foot lot for a single family residence. Um, is there the potential available area to add an additional parking space um, off streetet um, in addition to what lines up in front of the garage? No, would not be. Okay. Is there room in front of the garage to potentially double stack a car? No, it would just fit two vehicles in the garage in the driveway, I'm sorry.

Okay. So, if you have a twocar garage and you have two spaces off street, then the potential conditional use would maybe in odd circumstances add a car on the street. And that doesn't seem to be or does that doesn't occur to me to be considered an offensive use of the property.

I have I have no further questions. So I think one more question. And I think Commissioner Levin's probably a little more savvy about what the size of a house and a lot implies for how many people might be there. But how many bedrooms are in this house? Four. Four. Okay. I don't have any other questions. Does anyone else No.

Okay. Uh, thank you applicant. Um, we will move on. Is there anyone from the neighborhood association here to testify? Come on up. Abigail, you can move. And the neighborhood association has 10 minutes to um speak today. Please state your name and address or ward um if you prefer into the record.

Yeah. Steven Anderson, Ward 8, Westam Neighborhood Association. Thank you, commissioners. Um, regarding this case, the neighborhood association is asking the planning commission to modify their the decision of the hearings officer and conclude a seventh condition which reads the condition use permit shall be for the duration of the ownership of the subject property by the applicant. Okay. Staff report has provided evidence saying that this is possible. They go specifically in that report where they say SRC 11080 a condition approval may be established in the review authority under SRC 240 without violating SRC 3820A2. That is the big issue in this case in that the hearings officer was prejudiced in his decision and I'll get into that in a few minutes but on a previous case this was approved as a condition on CU25-05. Um last give me let me give a little background. I had a chance to talk with Lisa Anderson last Thursday to explore possible solutions for this. She made it known that the requested condition 7 was indeed possible and supported in the staff's decision. I appreciated that. She mentioned that staff would be here neutral before the planning commission and leave this decision up to the planning commission. Frankly, I find this a little bit strange, but I really appreciate Lisa's working with the neighborhood association to kind of find a resolution on this. Um and uh the reason for this was in CRU25-05 the hearings officer found on that 925 uh terrace drive that this condition of limiting it to the ownership of one member was a valid mechanism for mitigating any reasonable likely negle impact of a short-term rental on the

immediate neighborhood per applicable licensing requirements including the short-term rental under SRC chapter 30. So in that case his findings was that this was a reasonable mitigation. It met the the test of the uh conditions and that it was a reasonable step to mitigate any adverse impacts in the neighborhood. And that's an important qu question as we get down to the balancing issue. Um the neighborhood association provided comments and uh included u this condition. However, what was interesting in this whole process was is in somewhere in the process there was some sort of exparte conversation with the hearings officer because he initially believed that this was possible but in this case he did not address that at all. In fact, we provided two conditions in our arguments that said that this was possible under the code and that if it was it was a reasonable process to go forward. And yet in his final opinion those two conditions were not met. So his statutory requirements to address all conditions and stuff was left moot or silent for some reason. There was some confusion on his part. So as we look at our proposed condition 7, we does meet the requirements of SRC 300820 PN A PN 2 and it's supported in the staff findings in their report. What you had the conversation tonight with the city attorney was was it a balancing issue? We have the precedence of CR 25.05 05 that it was a essential necessary part to mitigate impacts in the neighborhood and be consistent with the provisions of chapter 30 and the needs there. What's interesting though

in this process though, what's forgotten in in section 8 30820 is that there's a second sentence in there that says conditions can be imposed by the authority under that section as long as they are reasonable. And we believe that even if you accept that clause that this condition is reasonable, there are enormous cities in the area that currently have this condition. Hearings officer meant that. It mentioned that several times. The city of Salem's public works department has a provision for their field permits which says that it goes with the owner. Does not go with the owner. It stays with the applicant. So you got a department within the city as itself that has this condition in their their requirements. It's different because it's in a different code, but still a field permit is harder to get than a conditional use permit. And the public works department requires that it stays with the owner and does not go with the applicant. And finally, as you look at that um being reasonable, there has been no definition as what it is, but it seemed to be reasonable since other cities do it. the current city does it and it's not ownorous to have to get another conditional use permit to mitigate a bad owner. There's been a lot of talk about the um process of the annual licensing and in the staff report. However, conversations off the record during the hearing, the hearings officer asked staff about this, they honestly said, "We don't have the resources to enforce it. We rely on neighbors to bring up issues." So we believe if we had a bad owner in there abs you know subject to this owner we're not having a problem with this. We agree with the what's said before the hearings office the report this owner but a new

owner we think to meet the needs of the city of the community and our bylaws and our equity statement that this condition is applicable. So in conclusion we believe that we've met the balancing test. We show that this is important for the necessary nature of the community. It's a mitigation strategy. It's not ownorous. It's reasonable and so and it is like it is conditioned under section 3820 in addition to to just generally being accepted. We don't believe that this the count the city has met the burden of proof to prove that it goes with the land. The applicant has expressed tonight no problem with it. So we would ask that the commissioner commission tonight approve this application with the modification of condition seven. The conditional use permit shall go with the go shall be for the duration duration of the ownership of the subject property with the land. I appreciate again the working of staff Abigail and Lisa and working with us but this issue has been murky but we believe we provided sufficient evidence to say that this is a reasonable mitigation. is not ownorous on the applicant and anybody in the future if they want to have it can go through the process again. Thank you. Any questions

commissioners commissioner? Um so here so what specific impact on the neighborhood would this proposed condition seven mitigate for um that is not mitigated by the other uh conditions.

We have seen recently several of these applications come forward and they've been based on non-compliance. People have just been doing it and um we have a hilly neighborhood pretty much in West Salem. We have found that there are applicants that are willing to, like this one here, talk about possible parking and other kind of mitigations. They have been able to show and come to the neighborhood association and say they're willing to do certain things to communicate with neighbors and make it open. And uh we do not believe that a new owner coming in may have that same credentials. In addition, we're seeing corporate people buying up properties with these kinds of agreement. This is a commercial activity being permitted in a neighborhood in a residential neighborhood. We understand it's approved under the code, but we believe because it's a commercial activity providing benefit to the owner that there needs to be conditions that protect the community. And in CU25.05, the hearings officer said this will provide protection for the community. He set that precedence. We believe that this precedence should be continued in our community and we're asking the commission just to grant it. Let a new owner come forth and produce their abilities and their credentials and willingness to work with the neighborhood.

So, if you have a quote unquote bad owner of a short-term rental, how would that be different than a like a bad owner of a single family home that's permitted in the same zone? Um the city would enforce city code violations like trash in the front yard or a derelict vehicle the same way that they would enforce a uh you know a garage that's being used.

You still go through enforcement. That's the point. But this activity is a conditional use permit to allow a commercial benefit to the individual that holds that permit. We believe it has a higher standard and we believe that this higher standard should be applied. the code allows for it. We have a precedenting case set in in the record that says that this is a reasonable request. We have an applicant that agrees to it and we're just asking you to grant that. It's something that the neighborhood wants to have as part of our quality of neighborhood that each owner if they want to do this needs to go through the process. And currently the city is talking about making this a licensing agreement. It may not be a conditional use in the future. So, we don't believe that just because you have a permit to do this commercial commercial activity, it should continue in perpetuity.

I had a question for staff. Um, if a property sale does occur, do they have to reapply for a permit to operate this short-term rental? Um, they there's an annual license. So, it the license is tied to who the current operator is, but the conditional use with no condition. uh would just transfer to the new owner and they would just be bound by how you know it was laid out that they were going to operate it and the conditions on the conditional use. Um unless the planning commission adds a condition that it doesn't transfer

and the um continuation of this operation license is based on whether or not this property is operating and compliance with these conditions and other you know the other requirements. Yes, they have to submit stuff every year about how they're operating and how many people, their guest logs, stuff like that. They update their insurance, etc. And so it's re-evaluated every year. Okay. Thank you.

So, just in conclusion, the community has no problems with us in the community. We've had good work with staff, but we believe it's important that this condition be there to, you know, represent the values of the community. We don't see it as a as a negative impact on a new owner. if he wants to go through the process. Thank you.

Thank you. Sorry, there's just so much on these papers and I'm I'm thinking to myself, have I just not been looking at these for the previous meetings? Um, does the applicant wish to do any Oh, sorry. Is there any public testimony um beyond the neighborhood association?

I believe you are given uh five minutes to speak. Please state your name and address or award into the record. uh emasterly ward 8. Uh I am here supporting the neighborhood association's request that condition seven be added to this current commercial uh use within a residential district. I don't really have anything more than that to say at this point. Uh, I wanted to be on the record and indicate this action was taken by the board of the West Salem Neighborhood Association and therefore I am affirming the arguments presented by Mr. Anderson.

Okay. Any questions from commissioners? No. Thank you for coming out. Thank you. Okay. Now I believe does the applicant have any questions of questions of staff before the applicant's rebuttal. If you have any additional questions of staff we have any additional questions for staff. I do question.

Okay. Commissioner So, the question that I have uh for staff or um the city attorney's uh representative uh member is um what is the enforcement procedure and authority if there is a uh temporary occupancy uh permitted And and there are uh issues with the behavior uh such as uh noise, multiple cars, um etc. uh speeding in the streets, uh ex you know the kinds of offensive neighborhood activities that that um would be subject to a complaint. What does the city have um in its uh pocket as far as how to restrict, restrain, etc. inappropriate behavior.

Uh Lisa, you want to start or shall I?

Um I can handle that. I guess Tom, you can jump in. Um just like any uh complaint that our code compliance division would get. They would um investigate the complaint. uh you know make contact with the owner um try for voluntary compliance and then um if that fails we go through a more formal process where we provide uh written correction notice um maybe enforcement order civil penalties they can appeal that if they feel like they didn't um violate the code in the ways that were alleged or that we didn't have the evidence that they did. So we just take them through a normal um code compliance process. Our goal is always to get voluntary compliance. So we always just start with a conversation um and try to you know make them understand what what they need to do to correct the behavior.

Thank you.

Uh and so Mr. Anderson made uh a comment about resources and I I think what uh may have been misconstrued there was that we don't have uh code compliance officers going out looking for violations. the uh the process that we have is based on uh complaints received uh uh to the city about uh behaviors that might be in violation. So the way that we learn and the way that uh we prioritize uh those um uh types of issues are dependent upon people coming to the city saying, "Hey, there's a problem here." And that alerts us then to uh um that it's something that needs to be looked into.

I had a I had a question uh kind of tailing off with uh Commissioner Levin. Um, so with violations, if there is a repeated violations and uh complaints to the city with inappropriate behavior um that might violate the permit for the short-term permit or Airbnb, whatever will be operated here. If there's and it doesn't get resolved, um does the city have the right to pull their permits or revoke it or give uh penalties on that? So I think we need to be careful about uh terminology. The the conditional use permit is the land use decision. The uh lensure is um the uh annual process. And so city does have the ability to uh pull the license uh uh for somebody who's non-in compliance or choose not to renew their license if we've had a period of non-compliance. Okay, thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other questions? Okay, so now do I get to say applicant rebuttal? Is there any applicant rebuttal? Nothing further for me. Thank you. Thank you. Um, I don't think anyone requested to keep testimony open. I don't think there's any discussion about entering in exhibits later. Um, so then I guess may I have a motion? Close it.

Oh, yes. No. Yeah, that's right. Thank you. I have to close the record. I have a gavl. I'm using it. Close the record. Oh. Oh my god. You should just say close the hearing. I'm just going to close the hearing. Okay. So, may I have a motion? Mr. Fbeck.

Yeah. I uh move to modify the see here appeal conditional use case CU2601 uh for 2494 Crestbook Drive to uh remove condition 6 um from the uh from the uh hearing officer approval. That's is that the entirety of the motion? Okay. May I have a second? Second.

Okay. Motion by Commissioner Rybeck and a second by Commissioner Tav. Um I can provide discussion on

Yeah. Commissioner Fick starting discussion. So, I feel like any um uh requirement for off- streetet parking, uh whether or not that be the requirement for the garage to be able to be parked in or the limitation of two vehicles on the property, uh kind of conflicts with the already allowable uses on a lot of this size. The lot's roughly 11,000 square feet. And we allow cottage clusters, quadplexes, other types of uses on that type of land. And if the property owner so wanted to, they could build a quadplex or cottage cluster on this property. And I believe that the parking demands from that use would be greater than the parking needs of the proposed short-term rental facility or short-term um I forget the proper term. Um, and those we don't we don't require parking minimums anywhere in the city. And so like if we require say off streetet parking for this use in single family zone, um, we're not outright saying that we require two spaces. I guess one of the conditions were um, but I I don't feel like that's consistent with our other things in the city code. we don't require off- streetet parking and I don't think that this uh con condition six really kind of lines up with that and um I would be worried that we would actually uh be close to not following state law which doesn't I guess the city adopted an option to the state law that and we've said that we aren't going to require off streetet parking for development and if we adopt a condition to do that um that's that just kind of gets really weird

legally pretty quick and I'm not comfortable um going there. And then to the proposed condition seven. Um I'm not wait I think in this motion are we only addressing condition six? Yes. Just condition six. Um so that's that's my motion for condition six. Nothing further.

Any other discussion? I guess I my thoughts are that the requirement that the garage be available um doesn't actually help address the concern nearly as well as parking in the driveway. And then I also do find uh what I believe Commissioner Levin was getting at and what uh Commissioner Frybeck is saying fairly compelling that uh preventing on street parking too also isn't something that is necessarily where we want to go with this. I do think that it's not uh entirely unreasonable to to make a restriction that there wouldn't be more than maybe two cars on the street or what an allowable amount. Um just cuz if the concern that we're trying to address is a surplus of cars there that would be more than the non-conditional use use the standard use if if we're trying to prevent that situation um I think we should allow up to whatever that situation is. And if it's reasonable that a cottage cluster might have a number of cars or a four-bedroom house might have four adults that are running it out with four cars and two are in the driveway and two are in the street, I I I think it's reasonable to allow a short-term rental to have the same level of on street parking as as a use that wouldn't require a conditional use permit.

Yeah, I sorry. Um, I was just going to comment that, um, I also agree with that assessment that we, um, I'm not comfortable with restricting the use of this property any more so than it's been restricted as a single family residence. Um, and since there is no um, existing on or on street parking restriction, then it would be unreasonable to impose that upon this property. uh individually.

Yeah. And then I guess I would add also that if this was a cottage cluster, I think we'd allow up to 12 cottage cottages. I don't know if you can actually fit 12 on a site like this, but I guess technically they could build 12. And um that's, you know, a lot of vehicles and there's no limit on how many guests person in a cottage could have. So, like you could have 12 cottages and each person's throwing like maybe they're having Thanksgiving or something and they invite their entire extended family and you know you could have 20 or 30 cars parked in the neighborhood and technically that would be allowed um just based on the use. So, yeah,

comment. As I said, Commissioner Levin, I assume you have some words. I was hoping you'd speak up.

Yes. Um I I think that the proposed addition uh by the neighborhood commission um the um allowance of a short-term rental uh only to the existing property owner. Um, it creates a substantial burden of enforcement for the city because that's some not something they would routinely monitor and it puts a whole new layer of obligations on code enforcement. Um, I think the other thing that is pretty clear and specific is that uh there are rules uh that are complaint driven by uh problem situations that allow code enforcement uh to act with some clarity. And with the reality that the city could not continue a license predicated on errant behavior um pretty well solves the problem. So I think that additional conditions I agree with the other commissioners that I think that additional con restrictions into the conditional use uh do not accomplish anything. Thank you.

So that was little on condition six and seven but with the hybrid meeting format that's correct. Consider that part of both discussions. Uh so is there anything else for condition six and remind me what we do if we want to have a motion to amend for or modify for condition seven as well.

Yeah. So the main motion right now is to modify the decision by approve it and remove condition six. So if you vote on that that'll that's that's the only motion and that would be that. So, if anybody wants to make a motion to add additional conditions or remove additional conditions, you would need to do those now as amendments to the motion and consider those amendments before you go back to this main motion. Okay. So, I would move to amend the motion to consider approval or to to approve condition seven. Did I did I do that right? To add condition seven. I object to that. I think they should be considered separately. No. So, sorry. Can I

Yeah, actually Lisa, you can probably

Yeah. So, he's making the motion and if he gets a second, then you would consider just that if you want to add condition seven and then you would vote on that and either go yes or no and then you go back to the main motion either adding that condition or not having that condition. So, I think he's waiting to see if he gets a second first. Did we hear was there I'm sorry I didn't Was there a second? So for for clarification purposes, does the friendly amendment um the the motion on the table is to remove condition six. And does the friendly amendment also remove condition 7 uh that was requested or does it does it remove condition six and approve condition seven that is requested by the homeowner uh the neighborhood association.

Um the amendment would just be adding condition seven to the main motion. The main motion is removing condition six. Okay, then I would like to propose a friendly amend amendment to the amendment. We're waiting to hear if Commissioner Via Brenell gets a second on his motion before we before we move on to anything else. So, the motion on the floor is to amend uh uh and add a add condition seven as written, I assume, in West Salem neighborhoods letter. That's the condition. Yes.

Yes. So, is there a second on that one? No. So, I guess we're back back to the main motion, which is to modify the decision, approve it, and and strike condition six. So, if somebody wants to make another amendment, um that's available at this time. With your um permission, I'd like to be recognized to offer a friendly amendment. Go ahead, Quen. Um, I would propose that uh condition six as stated um be removed and that uh proposed condition seven be denied.

I think that um there is no proposed condition seven because that uh amendment failed and uh the main motion is already removing condition six. So that's the main motion that that the commission would be voting on. Okay. Then I would um second the proposed motion to remove six. I think we had it by Commissioner Tev. So it's on the floor. So we're just waiting I guess now again if ready to vote. Yeah. Maybe ready to vote if there's no other amendments. Okay. Um no other amendments. Megan. Can we get a vote before we amend again?

Commissioner Vieier Brendell, I. Commissioner F. I. Commissioner Frybeck. Hi. Commissioner Heler. Hi. Commissioner Tev. I. Commissioner Levvin. I. Commissioner Infante. I. Motion passes unanimously.

Okay. Uh, do I get to bang the gabble again? Sure.

Um, that is our only public hearing for the evening. Uh, are there any special orders of business? Look back to the agenda. Seeing none, moving on. Information reports. Hearing none. Moving on. Uh I we do have a wetland subcommittee meeting after this meeting. I believe that's our only active subcommittee. So there's no report for that right now, but we will be meeting immediately after this meeting adjourns. Uh planning administrators report.

Um just looking at the fly sheet, our next meeting, wait, do we have a meeting between? We have no items for May 12th. So the question is, should we be cancelling May 12th? Um we do have three items for May 19th. Um, so we'll have a presentation from engineering staff on the capital improvement plan. We sent out a link to that document if you want to look at it ahead of time. And then we're going to have um two public hearings, both comp plan zone change requests. And we are at a different location. We'll be back at the police station. This room is unavailable to us on that night on the 19th. And we'll send a reminder. But

okay, I would support cancelling the the 12th meeting if we have no agenda items and it looks like the 19th will be long. Great. Oh, and I just wanted to um introduce one of our new planners in the back. Um Veronica Allen is here. She's one of our planner twos um in the planning division. So, she came to watch. Mr. Fback, did you have a question for me? Yeah. I was curious what level of feedback if any of you guys are looking for on the CIP. Like are we just like in are you just telling us that CIP is happening or are we making changes to CIP or

Yeah. Um it's the timing is a little odd. So um it had a public hearing at the budget committee last week and I can send you the link if you want to watch it. Um but the council's not adopted it. They won't adopt it till later this year when they adopt the city budget. So um they are looking for feedback but I don't know how much room there is necessarily to change items. It is a like a financial document so they'll explain the CIP how they you know how they put it together what it means what the projects are um and then can provide you know clarity on details of the projects. I think this will be the third year now that engineering staff has brought the CIP of the planning commission for review. So,

so are we strictly reviewing the CIP and then advising council on our thoughts? I think it's to provide um comments to the staff that are presenting it. Yeah. Are we able to advise council? You can um testify at council the night it goes as an individual. Okay. We can't make a comment on it as a body. Um it's a good question. I don't know. It's not here for formal review. It's an information item. Yeah, I think that we could provide comments as a body if we decided or wanted to. Um, but I don't think that we would be making like direct changes to the

Okay. Let uh let me ask Tom about it outside of the meeting and we'll we'll provide clarity on that.

So, what I'm hearing is that we don't get to tell the budget committee what to do. That'll be open to some people about that. Um, commissioner comments for the good of the order. No. Okay. Uh, any public comment outside of agenda items? No. Okay. I am certain I get to use it this time. We are adjourned.