Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We're on camera, Cody.

I'm not going to tell you all my crazy stories right now.

See you later, guys.

See, Jared's going to tell on me.

How's it going this evening, guys?

Super good. How are you?

Doing good. Good to see you again, Steve. Good to see you as well. yeah this should be my last remote meeting just got my mom into a home this evening so oh excellent yeah it was time but yeah so you'll be seeing me a lot more perfect did you get her a spot get her into a spot here in the dallas Yeah, yeah. It was kind of a messed up situation because I had a place and then at the last minute everyone was like, she had a fall literally on the move-in day and everything got scrambled and it was a mess, but we found a group home here that has some really good ladies just locally because the other place we were looking at was in Hood River and I was like, I wanted to be able to just pop in and visit her, you know?

Yep, yep. Nice.

Yeah. So, all good things in the end.

Very nice. Still need another few. Okay, I'm going to go. Oh, good.

Okay.

All right. Planning Commission meeting June 4th, 2026, just a little after 530. I call this meeting to order. May we please have the roll call?

Melissa Alvarado? Here. Rudy Cornett?

Here.

Jared Gossin?

Here.

John Grant. Here. Steve Light.

Here.

Maria Pena and Carrie Pippin at your ass.

Excellent. The Pledge of Allegiance, please.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Thank you.

Next is the approval of the agenda. If everyone has read through the agenda, may I please have a motion to approve with a second?

A motion to approve the agenda as presented.

I second. All right. A motion has been made and seconded to approve the agenda. All in favor of approving the agenda, raise your right hand and say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you, unanimous. Next is the approval of the minutes from December 18th, 2025 and February 5th, 2026. May I please have a motion to approve those minutes from commissioners that were here? Yes. Oh, I need to do them separate. Okay, so first let's do the motion for the December 18th, 2025 minutes, please.

I make a motion to approve December 18th, 2025 minutes.

I'll second that. A motion has been made to approve the December 18 minutes. May I please, and seconded, may I please have a, excuse me. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Thank you. Sorry, I was having a moment there. I was present. Us three were present. We were not. I was not.

Iowa's not as well. But we can, as long as we have watched and looked over everything.

Okay, same thing for the February 5th minutes, please.

I make a motion to approve February 5th minutes.

Second. Excellent. A motion has been made and seconded. All in favor of approving the minutes from the February 5 meeting, raise your hand and say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Unanimous again. Next is the time for public comment. During this portion of the meeting, anyone may speak on any subject that does not later appear on the agenda. Five minutes per person will be allowed. Do we have any public comment on the Zoom call? I don't think so. Alright, moving on from that. Next is the legislative public hearing adoption of resolution PC 633-26 recommending city council approval of zoning ordinance amendment number 112-26 clarifying and conforming procedures related to the adopted hearings officer process and making associated technical amendments.

I actually think we may need a script. I totally forgot about that.

I was just thinking about that.

Hey, Jonathan? Yeah.

Stand by. Tell you what. Is there a world where we can do the discussion item first and come back to the legislative hearing? In that time, I'll have sent over a script.

Yeah, that works for me.

Sure. Let's do it. Thank you for your patience, everybody.

Okay. An adjustment. We'll move on to discussion item, housing code modernization and middle housing policy discussion.

Great Thank you and I actually think that this is probably going to be, you know the majority of our discussion I you know don't want to gloss over that zoning ordinance amendment, but it is very much a house cleaning amendment, so I was probably going to be breezing through that pretty quick, so it does give us additional time here i'd like to share my screen give me one second while I pull that up. right so first things first i would just like to introduce our new logo the city's just rebranded you'll start seeing a rollout of this logo city staff have been working on this probably for the past you know like six months or so um Really trying to stick to, you know, I think throughout it, we all, you know, still think that we have a pretty great city logo seal now. So we wanted to kind of stay true to that in some way, but also there is just some overall branding and streamlining of material that we're going to be moving forward with. So you'll start seeing this packet doesn't include it, but we've rebranded all of our staff reports, memos, everything that goes out, minutes and everything like. So this is the first presentation for it. I think it looks really great. And I want to just give a shout out to the city clerk, Amy L, for all her hard work on it. So the discussion this evening is a middle housing policy discussion. So tonight I'm gonna introduce some findings from a city's recent housing code evaluation that we conducted. We're gonna discuss the implementation of housing production strategy action 2.1. We're going to just get some additional feedback. We have some discussion questions. You'll see those in your staff report. We'll kind of go through them one by one. These are discussions, so it's a little more open-ended.

The family house plus ADU, you are not calling multifamily.

No. Okay. No. And we've, um, we've, we've run around about that. Um, even a single family with two ADUs granted it's, it's three units on the property with a straight face. You can't call two ADUs and a single family multifamily. There's, there's no way, you know, it's still, our code still considers it almost this multifamily and takes them through a process. We processed one just this last year. Um, We began to process it like a multifamily, start require certain, you know, multifamily requirements. And then it was a little bit of like pulling back, like this doesn't make sense. This doesn't fit. These are, you know, the ADUs in the basement, there's a garage in the back, you know, and it's not a multifamily development, right? So that's why when we talk about middle housing, middle housing is where Like I was saying earlier, they can just be tucked in and throughout the neighborhood. Not like a multifamily development. It's a bigger footprint. It's something you're really going to notice and see. It's going to jump out to you probably a bit more than middle housing is.

Okay.

Um, if I may just, just to go down the list, um, I don't, I, I don't think that review procedures should be different between low density through the zone. The first question I'm having a tough time today. Um, I think just, just be all the same review process. Um, no site team meeting for any middle housing. I think it should just be building permit for single family, duplex, triplex, quadplex. You're doing everything in the building permit process anyway. And if it's allowed in the code, there's no reason, and Jared, this is kind of contradictory to your point, and this is just my opinion, there's no reason to have public input on something that's It's either going to be following the rules, which you are looking at, or it's not. So I just don't think that the opportunity for public comment or having that be appealed is fair to the person doing the application. And if it's allowed, it's allowed. I mean, we've had plenty of experiences here. where we've wasted, we've spent a lot of time having meetings and listening to people's appeals for things that are just like completely and totally outright allowed. And it's a lot of just wasted time, frankly.

I'm definitely in agreeance. I mean, if somebody buys a property and wants to develop it and they're going through and all the red tape and doing everything that's required of them, they should be able to make it a little bit easier than going through the site plan review.

Yeah, and going along with that, if it's a site plan review, when you're getting to five or more, I think that's a good threshold for like, that's a lot more traffic on that street or, you know, that, that really turns into a different kind of parking issue or whatever it may be. So I think that's a good line to draw that site plan review at, but anything less than that, it's, we should just let those things go, go through a building permit process.

Okay. Yep. And I think a couple points to that before we get to Commissioner Goss in here, I think a couple points to go with that is we have to process housing applications with clear and objective standards. And when you're going through a site plan review process, that's a process. it almost, in my opinion, it's not really needed if you're processing things through clear and objective standards. Like this is your height, you meet the height. This is your setback, you meet the setback, whatever the case is. And that's how we have to treat. We can't apply unclear and subjective criteria when we're approving housing. And then there's also something to throw out there. There's a new house build that is coming through HB 4037. I could be blanking on that. Jonathan could probably correct me. This is a new house bill that has actually taken effect July 1st, and the state has come out, continued to push this, where applications for needed housing may no longer be appealed by anyone other than the applicant.

What's needed housing? What's that mean?

All housing.

Okay. Got it.

Yeah. Um, so it's effectively applications that we've seen in the past subdivisions that we've seen in the past that have drug on for a long time. Those would not be able to be appealed unless the applicant is the one appealing it. So that is new legislation goes into effect July 1st. We'll be working on some code amendments on that. So to that point, I think it kind of goes that neighborhood input. There's, we always like to hear from, we love community engagement. We always like to hear from people, but if there's no real right for them to, no real process for them to appeal an application, then it makes you kind of question why are we going through the process?

Yeah. And, and also why give them the, why give them the false hope of an opportunity? Like they could say all they want. It's not going to change anything. Why give them the opportunity to,

Yeah, so yeah with that with that knowledge that there's like that process will be essentially null and void and just kind of a waste of everyone's time. Maybe we could look at instead of instead of a notice or appeal, just a notice, some sort of notice that this sort of unit is being put up, like not a notice of appeal, but at least letting people know in the neighborhood that this is coming up. Because one of my concerns in allowing that just all middle housing is my understanding is the difference between like the triplexes. And as you go up in units, I'm sure the allowing height difference probably changes as you go up in size. So like where you have an area where you just have single family homes and you can only build so high, well, then you have this big unit that comes in and, you know, blocks your view completely. The fact that you can't appeal is one thing, but maybe at least we could curb the process of having these larger units coming into these small neighborhoods. Maybe that's something we should consider because otherwise we're just going to be having these large units pop up around us sometimes in places we might not want them as far as around density. And you mentioned the parking matter on top of that, but I think a visual space and the views of the gorge is something to consider. And, you know, someone might buy a house and then just to have someone block the very reason they bought that house a year later, it might leave a sour taste in people's mouths. So. Okay.

So some other comments, um, well, some other things here that I do want to touch on and to get this out there as we're talking middle housing, those triplex and quads, as you mentioned, chair, Cornette, um, I think there is a distinction to be made with townhouses and cottage clusters, though, to the point of a cottage cluster is effectively a small group of homes built on one lot. You're effectively building a multifamily development. Those cottage clusters, you could have eight, you could have 12. So then it's kind of that consideration. My thought has been that is likely something that would require a site plan review. However, just wanted to kind of plant the seed in that discussion with all of you because it's a little more than just a quadplex, everything contained in one building potentially.

Yeah, I agree with that. that a cottage cluster should be a site plan review because with the different buildings and elevation and drainage and stormwater and everything else, it just turns into a lot more. And of course, you know, again, the code will pick that up, but I think a site plan review would be a little more. Yeah, that's what I think.

Do you think anything to do with the number of townhouses would impact your thoughts on where to go? Because when we're talking about, you know, when we say like five units or more, we're talking about five units or more on one piece of land. But a townhouse, of course, you're stacking a unit and everybody's zero lot line. Everybody's butted up against each other. So any thoughts on those may be processed are they going to be i mean that's that's effectively one unit of land that that's one unit on a piece of land but they just happen to be connected so it's a larger combined footprint so i just kind of wanted to get that thought out there for the group too and any thoughts you had on that uh commissioner gossan

Yeah, I don't know about you guys, but I would say anything above four because that's going into that cottage cluster where you're having these larger, more complex needs for utilities and parking and everything at that point. I don't know if anyone else thinks that that's too low of a number, but that makes sense to me anyways.

That makes sense to me as well.

Or makes sense to me as well.

Would that be for cottage clusters and townhouses, you think?

Are we able to differentiate between the two? Like set a number of units for one and set a number of units for the other?

Yeah, I think this is the time to get all that figured out, definitely.

I think it's hard because you would have to also take into account the land size and make sure that the infrastructure is there for it. you're doing five units on an acre, or if you're doing 15 units on an acre, you just, that would, it just, yeah, you'd have to be too, there's a lot more information that you would need in order to set a number, I think.

For the townhouses?

For either, for both. Yeah.

In my opinion. Any thoughts on what, because we do have density requirements. So, Just trying to think of what a number could be, I guess, if you're meeting your density. I guess it would be something for us to look into further. It's just hard.

There's so many different types of land and sizes and everything out there, too. So it's hard because it kind of is a case by case. But I know that you have to set something in place to follow.

Right, right, right.

So quick question. So we can do, or a person can do a single family home with two ADUs, right? Just via a building permit.

That's the thing right now is that. The second ADU requires a site plan review. Okay.

So I feel like that, yeah, because if it's more than two, it kind of starts to turn into a college cluster, even if the single family home is huge. So I feel like for a college cluster, it should also be cut off at four for sure, but maybe five. I was going to say maybe three just because that's.

You're saying three ADUs and a single family home?

No, I'm just saying if it's like a cottage cluster, if there's three or more cottages, that should be a team.

Yeah.

Okay.

Because right now it's a single family home with two ADUs, which is the same thing, just different size buildings and basically just different nomenclature also requires a site team.

And that would be part of this discussion too, is ADUs are not included in middle housing. When you look at definitions of ADUs, they're accessory dwelling units. They are extras. Even in our density code, when you're talking about density, if you want to talk about maximum density, I think it's the maximum density element. you don't, we don't even count ADUs. ADUs are counted as zero units if you want to maximize your density. So if your density on your site is, you have 10 units allowed on the site, well, you could build five ADUs and we're still going to look at it as your max, you've only met, there's only 10 on the site because those ADUs are extra. And that's the ability to continue to encourage ADUs because they are just really pretty, pretty small little pieces. So that's also the conversation here of, If the board is interested in the second ADU, should that really require a site plan review or should it just be a building permit?

I mean, I would definitely like to see that as just a permit. I think because take a look at the city and the workforce, and a lot of people are going into using ADUs or renting out rooms, those types of things, and it just gives more ability to people to... you know, get more housing, cheaper housing, just because the market isn't flooded. You know, we have tons of people that work right downtown, and the service industry is definitely one of them. And, you know, that would be a great opportunity for the DALs to bring in more Affordable housing. Yeah, affordable housing for the workforce. I think that a lot of the businesses around here need more.

Yeah, the purpose industry in particular. And right now, a quadplex or a sixplex has to go through a site review?

Yeah, right now a triplex does too. A triplex does too. Yeah, yeah. So I'm kind of hearing maybe you're looking at that

five is the threshold you know it's five is the number of units if you're building more than five units it's going through a site whether it's a cottage cluster or a townhome or a multifamily and all goes through multifamily yeah and that just makes it easier for people to remember too or you know like i mean i'm kind of being selfish because i gotta remember these things when i'm talking to people and so does everyone else i guess but You know, if it's like four is the number, whether it be a Plex or a cottage cluster or a townhome, like anything after that, it's a little more of a rigorous permit process.

So I think we're talking about two different things because I've heard over five and five and over, but I think we're looking at five and over. So if you have five units or more, that's kind of where we're all sitting. Okay.

I think so. And, and on the side, and we'll get into the terminology thing that actually aligns with definition of multifamily per state code is it's anything more than five is your multifamily. So it's really, it it's cleaner. Um, five is the unit that, um, when you're, you're paying your parks, SDCs, um, five is the threshold when you start to get a break as well. Um, Okay, well this was, yeah, very, very helpful, very insightful. So I really appreciate this. I'll keep going unless anybody has other questions.

Let's keep rocking.

Another thing that we took a look at is development standards. Development standards, I'm sure you're all familiar. We look at area, width, depth, setbacks, height, open space, density, landscaping. All of these are factored into a building permit process and a site plan review process. So in doing some comparisons of communities around the state, there's been less of an emphasis in some newer codes on lot width and lot depth. Then there's greater emphasis on the area, the setbacks, and the height. For the conversation here, the other thing that we wanted to highlight is we have our NC overlay, which is a neighborhood center overlay. These are effectively... overlay it's it's it's a second zone if you want to look at it that way that is laid on top of a residential zone this is what allows for your little neighborhood markets to pop up so we have a couple of neighborhood centers around town and those you know neighborhood centers are extremely important when you're talking about just like overall walkability for neighborhoods And our NC overlay is something we're going to take a closer look at. Don't have all the information for you right now, you know, for us to take a deeper dive, but it's actually the NC overlay has created more. Once you apply the NC overlay, it's actually more restrictive than the zone that's underneath. For instance, like lot sizes, if you have an NC overlay, it requires a larger minimum lot size than the than what's underneath that. So it's a little counterintuitive there. But for the other two aspects here, the idea and just kind of wanted to get everybody's opinion on this lot width and depth. We've brought in front of the planning commission before an adjustment application. This was a few years ago now where Habitat for Humanity actually wanted to develop on the corner of it was like 13th and Kelly. It was a 50 by 100 lot. That's our typical lot in our downtown, right? So they wanted to divide it up into two 50 by 50s. One was going to face 13th. One was going to face Kelly. The one that faced Kelly, they had to go through an adjustment process to reduce the lot depth because the lot depth is 60 feet. So what seemed like a very practical, straightforward splitting of the lot, both of them facing other streets, perfect development scenario, really. They had to go through that additional step. to the planning commission. Planning commission did approve it, but it's just that additional step. So when you're looking at lot width and depth, there are weird shaped lots all over the place. Sometimes it makes it a bit more difficult for people to develop. For instance, we also went through a middle housing land division process, which is the state code process. It's not codified into our code yet, but there is a new, I actually have a plot for you to sign after this meeting's over. uh so there's a six plex um townhouse development over on ninth street they did not meet the lot width standard so it couldn't go through the typical subject subdivision process then we had to take it through the middle housing division process so there was a little more flexibility in that process but that's all because the width it wasn't wide enough so this townhouse model had like it was like you know they were like 16 and a half feet wide 17 feet wide six units stacked next to each other minimum lot width is 20. so they couldn't go through a typical subdivision process they had to go through this extra process so this idea of getting rid of lot widths and depths may sound a little maybe extreme for those of us who are like really used to the lot width and depth we're still going to apply a lot area So if the lot area is 2,500 square feet, if that's your minimum, but you just so happen to only have, you know, 19 feet on the front, you don't go have to go through some extra step. So that is one thing that we wanted to consider with this and just wanted to get like overall thoughts on that. I'll get into some other discussion points here. I just wanted to plant the seed with those development standards. So the questions here for this part of the conversation, what dimensional or overlay standards should be revisited overlays? We didn't just touch on them. We didn't touch on them too much here. But if anybody's familiar with the NC overlays, that would be, you know, any questions that you may have with that. Which standards are the most important to retain of all of those that we mentioned? And then where can there be flexibility? Where can flexibility be increased while maintaining those predictable outcomes? So overall, I think the basis of the conversation is just like, what's the board's take on flexibility with development standards? Kind of a broad question. I'm happy to walk through the steps and answer any questions you have.

Well, I think that the lot width should be removed. And it should just be based on square footage, square area.

Lot width and depth?

Yeah, within depth.

Yeah.

Because you're right, there are a lot of really odd-shaped lots.

Yeah.

And, you know, considerations in cul-de-sacs, for instance, or front is something to consider, yeah.

So you're looking at just doing a square space area. Like, is this space really big enough to have a development versus it needs to be this wide, essentially?

Right. The 2,500 square feet, is that the minimum?

I think it's the minimum in our high density area. yeah what are you doing now um i think yeah when we're talking about attached single family or like townhouse units i think you can get them down as low as 1500 okay yeah but it kind of brings up that example about that townhouse development that was just it took when we can't get something to fit into the box we have to go through all these processes You know, and finding that other communities are just dropping the lot width and depth. It seems like a great example, especially, yeah. Your idea of a cul-de-sac lot. They're funky.

Yeah. And also as long as those setbacks are still there and appropriate, it's creating, it's creating parameters for how small that's actually going to get. Yeah. I mean, you're not going to have, yeah.

The one thing to consider with setbacks and just want to throw it out there, I didn't have it up here on the screen. Some recommendations from our consultant team was the idea of reducing the front yard setback in the low density zone. Currently it's a 15 foot setback. All the other zones, the medium and high, it's 10 foot. So there's just a little more of it being set back, you know, and at the end of the day, like before HB 2001 came through and you could look at our housing, you know, our low housing or excuse me, our low density zone is that like. that American dream single-family home type of zone, right? So houses are a little more setback on the property. But in the event someone wants to move it forward five feet, is that something that the board could consider? Keep in mind, this would not impact garage setbacks. We're not going to have those conversations. I don't support reducing garage setbacks. They're at 20 feet, and that's because most cars out there, Just under 20 feet, probably. And if you have them go any further, you're going to be sticking out in the street or sticking into sidewalks. So those are heavily enforced, but just any thoughts on reducing, you know, the setbacks in the low density zone, considering that middle housing is now going to be in the low density zone.

What are the sides, side, side setbacks are five feet everywhere, right?

Yeah. Yep.

I think, I mean, I'm fine with... Speak into your mic, please. I think I'm personally fine with the 10-foot setback. I don't think that we should be adjusting the height limit, though. I don't think... Just because I don't think we're quite there yet, I don't think we need it. And just to kind of create a little bit of a balance between all the changes that we are making... No one wants to be living somewhere with a vacant lot or a teardown house next to them and have something go up that's 45 feet high or 40 feet or anything above 32 feet, which I think it's 32 feet, right?

32 in the low density, yeah. 35 in the high density. And in the high density and medium density, it actually goes up incrementally depending on how many units you have. So that would then... What's that, 45 feet? Okay. So when it's a multifamily in those zones, it's 45. Um, but that's a good thing to consider in the low density zone to your point earlier, commissioner Gossin, that's, um, you know, I'll We'll discuss potential notices or whatever of development. I think that's something that we need to kind of contemplate, although no noticing to, you know, like no comment period. But if you keep it what it is and still allow those quad plexus, then you're still making those quad plexus kind of fit into the overall height of those zones. So because that was actually a recommendation from the consultants increasing the height. So. I'm glad that you brought that up and just stay into what it is. You kind of have, it's a little bit lower of a building. We are talking only three feet though, but yeah. Yep. Okay. Any other thoughts on, on these from commissioners?

No, I think keeping that height limit in places is good.

I can hear.

All right, well, with that, we'll go on to the next. Parking is probably everybody's favorite topic whenever we talk about planning and land use. So I think I prepared a few slides for us to discuss. Something to look at here is just a breakdown of our current parking requirements. So if you're building a single family home, you're required to provide two spaces. build a duplex you're required to provide two spaces meaning one for each unit and then middle housing all of them that you can see in here one for each unit you get to the second adu the things with adus how how they work you build an adu on your property one adu doesn't require parking but that second adu does require parking so some topics for consideration here um the two really are reducing the requirements for single family homes to just one parking space and also evaluating whether adus that second adu should be required to provide parking some other thoughts here that we'll get into i have some other slides for it considering parking flexibility in the central business commercial zone so our downtown zone and supporting the housing and feasibility redevelopment opportunities through parking changes, parking exemptions, reductions, things of that nature. So the CBC, this parking example here, probably an incorrect title for you, but looking at the CBC zone, it consists of three sub-districts, CBC two, where parking is exempt. CBC-1 and CBC-3, we call those the CBC-3, we call it the fringe. It's the properties on the fringe of our CBC zone. I have a map that I'll show here in a second. And then CBC-1 includes both of our historic districts. And one of the issues that comes up is that these older lots, the Dalles is very old. many of the houses were built before the automobile. So there were many properties that were built, larger properties, a lot of square footage in some of our historic zones, they don't have parking. So if you have a single family home, you wanna convert it. If you have a large 3000 square foot old Victorian single family home, you wanna turn it into a triplex and you're in CBC1. wouldn't be able to do it because you have to apply parking standards so For everybody here, I just wanted to show, and hopefully this is easy to see here. The reason we have the hashed out there is because there is how our CBC zone works is it's, there's two zones laid on top of each other. It's kind of confusing, but basically what CBC one is, that's the light blue. That's the CBC one. That is to the left. You have Trevitt's addition to the right. You have the downtown historic district. And then the central square is the CBC2. That is our commercial core. Everybody knows that's the center part of our downtown. It is possible for a property to be CBC1 and CBC2. A little confusing there. But then the outside is the CBC3. You're going to see more businesses on the right-hand side to the east. And then to the southern side, you're going to see You know, there's, there's definitely a collection of houses there on fourth street, some older houses. So some redevelopment challenges brought up some of these, you know, it's an example that we've been working through. A large multifamily development in portions of the CBC may qualify for parking exemptions. We saw that through the Basel Commons project. They did provide parking on their property. They did not provide a one-to-one. It's 116 units. And I think they provided, you know, 37 parking spaces, something like that. However, two blocks away in the CBC3, we're working with an individual who wanted to turn his small historic, small thousand square feet, maybe. He wanted to turn it into a duplex. We were going to require that he had two parking spaces. He could not provide it. Had some challenges with his development. Ended up pulling back. Wasn't able to move forward with his application. So just kind of looking at that difference between the two, you have a pretty small typical middle housing conversion compared to a multifamily development and no shade thrown at either type of development by any means. This is just showing what we're working with. So to touch on the 2025 downtown parking study, did that study, it did show that there is adequate parking supply in our downtown area. So for those thoughts, I wanted to kind of plant the seed before we kind of talk about this. Should there be parking flexibility considered? What different housing types should have different parking requirements? Should parking standards vary by the zone? What types of projects should qualify for parking reductions? And then should the detached homes or the second ADUs have reduced parking requirements? I just want to open it up to the group here.

I'll throw some thoughts out there.

I think if we are adding exemptions for our larger units, we should look at some exemptions in the CDC zones for smaller units like that duplex example. Currently, it's essentially one parking spot per unit for duplexes. I don't know if we would want to, in those CDC zones, CDC 3 in particular, allow people to have duplexes or those houses to do like a, what is it? Right now, it's a one-to-one, but maybe a one-to-half. So if you have a duplex, you only need one parking spot. available uh and that would be something that you could potentially scale you know as you go up if you have that simple change in requirement i don't know if anyone else has any other thoughts on that well looking at the uh single family um

single family development and having two, I think if you were able to reduce that to one, and then if you do have a second ADU, then that's when you would need to have come up with the two. I think that would be appropriate. Yeah, I agree with that.

Yeah. What I don't agree with is the basalt commons getting exemption when they are, I mean, that's within a block of my business and having 116 units and only being able to provide 37 spaces is it's going to put a lot of pressure on the, not only just the main arteries downtown, but all of the side streets within several blocks of that location. It definitely is going to affect business that will, that will create a significant parking issue around my business for certain.

So I'm guessing you're saying no more leniency on CBC parking exemptions.

Yeah. Any consideration for a middle housing conversion in your eyes? that example, like we used with that individual. Cause, cause I think we do there, there, there's not a huge housing supply in the CBC zone. Right. I mean, there it's cause it's mixed use. Right. Um, but there is, I think that I was just thinking of that one example, this individual just wanted to add another 700 square foot unit in the basement and was, couldn't do it because there was this, this parking cap that he had to deal with. And, I think he had the same thing as he didn't want to. His concern was his concern was wanting to bring, you know, wanting to make sure he can provide it because of impacts that could come from other developments in the area, larger developments that aren't required as much. So just wanted to throw out that thought. If there's any thoughts on considerations for parking reductions or exemptions or tweaking the ratio within the CBC for middle housing specifically.

I mean, I think, you know, it, In my mind, it would be acceptable if it's one or two and it's an old property and there's no way feasible to create a parking on that property. Um, that's a little bit more acceptable for moving forward than, you know, something where we're looking at 70, you know, in, in a negative 70 on, on our parking. Um, you know just from the basalt commons like that uh um example you know we're looking at 37 we got 100 i mean that's quite a bit of a gap so i think if there's a certain gap um you know for a building that just has already existed for x amount of time um I mean, I would be interested in having that conversation and a little bit more leniency on that. I think that part would be acceptable. But when it gets to being like 5 to 10, then we're talking about like, okay, that's putting stress on our parking situations in the area.

Yeah, so maybe a thought could be considered – if there's parking reduction specific to conversions, if you have a vacant lot, you can make parking work, right? Yeah. If you have a building that's taken up 80% of the land, 90% of the land and they want to convert it, maybe there's, Exception there. Is that maybe a thought?

Yeah.

That sounds very cool. Two, four units, because we can stay within this category of middle housing. We're not going to say that if you have a larger development and you want to convert the 5,000 square foot building, there isn't one downtown that would be converted into so many units. But not talking multifamily at all, but just maybe like a middle housing conversion, having some type of parking exemption.

I think that's fair.

Yeah.

Real quick, should we take this time, this discussion, and these upcoming code changes to adjust the parking exemption in CBC1? Is this the time to do it?

CBC2.

I'm sorry.

So... That was actually approved by this board for there was some gray area in our code that we cleaned up with the last code amendments that we did. The language used to say may be exempt. Now it says shall be exempt. If there's consideration for that, I would say we do it another time. Probably not muddy the water with the housing, but some we can definitely look into to see if it, yeah, I'll definitely make a note.

Yeah.

Josh, do conversions also, uh, consider commercial properties downtown? Um, yeah.

Yeah.

I'm thinking about like last stop for instance.

Yeah.

Where that has potential on that second and third floor for development.

Yeah. So that one is probably just that example specifically, uh, would be multifamily and it's CBC two. So it already has an exemption, but let's say it's outside of that. Let's say it's in CBC three. Yeah. I guess somebody could potentially convert right now. The requirement in CBC2 requires the ground floor to be commercial, but when you get into CBC1 and CBC2, that requirement goes away if you're building multifamily. So someone could build a multifamily unit or convert an existing building to a multifamily unit and not be required to provide commercial on the bottom. So to your point, like I said, you could still limit the conversion to middle housing conversions. Yeah. That be within nine units.

Mm hmm.

And still get that parking waiver or exemption or something. Yeah. Okay.

I guess I had the thought I've had my hand up for a while, but I don't know if anyone noticed. Yeah. But on the on the talking about the CBC exemptions and talking about, you know, the multifamily housing versus these bigger units, that we try to follow the rule of five. that we talked about earlier, if there's five or more units, then we, you know, you look at a different rules, but if it's less like four essentially or less, then we could follow that like half rule on a reduction of parking requirements. That would kind of fix that duplex example all the way to a quadplex as long as, you know, you'd need two spaces for a quadplex versus one for a duplex. And then I guess that would fit into the triplex, two for a triplex. But that would ease up, I feel like, a little bit of those requirements on the CDC if that's not already exempted.

So in that, I guess in that scenario, yeah, it's something that we could consider. Would you be talking, would that be new development or conversions?

I'm talking about conversions. Conversions, I mean... you probably need to do new development just because the lots there aren't big enough, right?

Yeah, it would depend, yeah. So if I'm maybe reading the room here, new developments would have some type of that half, parking in half, but maybe conversions are, middle housing conversions are exempt. Is that?

That's how I feel.

Maybe.

I agree with that.

Yeah. Okay. Well, any other questions anybody has?

Not on this one.

Okay. Well, thank you all for all the comments on this. It's really helping us put this together, shape this thing. So code monitorization and design standards. Why are we revisiting our definitions? Again, it seems like every time we do a code update, we're always changing our definitions. We look at our definition section. It's probably one of the most common sections that we look at. So the reason we're looking at it now that the current terminology predates recent housing legislation, there's limited distinction between middle housing and multifamily. The Oregon Housing Needs Analysis model code and recent Oregon codes utilize updated housing classifications. And the goal is to improve the clarity, consistency and administration of housing regulations. And I think one of the biggest things here is that distinction between middle housing and multifamily that we've been talking about repeatedly tonight. So here's a infographic for you that really shows what our current code is and what we would be proposing. And so the current code, this is a list of the unit types that we have. ADU, cottage cluster, duplex, townhouse, multifamily, single detached, single attached, zero lot line. These are all currently in our code. A lot of those, some of them would stay the same with what we're proposing, which with the ONA model code, but it just clarifies a little bit. And it kind of that distinction that we've been talking about all night about five units plus, it's really going to start breaking that out. So it goes into your duplexes, which we have. It's actually specifically going to call out a triplex, a quadplex. And then townhouses are actually in the model code. Townhouses are listed as two units that are attached. Currently in the Dallas Municipal Code, it is a bit odd. We have a single family attached zero lot line, which is two units that are attached to each other. It's basically a two unit townhouse. but it's not a townhouse by definition. A townhouse in our code is when you have three units or more. So to kind of clarify that a little bit, we just are going with the, we're proposing going with the townhouse definition in the model code because it just really, it seems like it makes sense. I mean, I think obviously in the realtor world, I imagine you come across two houses that are butted up side by side and they're on different lots and you're probably thinking that's a townhouse. Well, in the DALs, it's actually a single family attached zero lot line, right? You know, so it's just kind of this trying to get real with the times and the definitions. And the big distinction is that multifamily five units plus. So any thoughts on this?

I'm happy with the owner model code. Okay.

Yeah. So touching on some design standards, this is something that we won't go into all the detail on them, but we're trying to shift away a little bit from what we have with our design standards. Currently, we have a menu-based... We have menu-based standards. We have 10 standards listed in our code. The 10th standard is director approval. So if you come in for a single-family home or a duplex, you have to meet six of the 10 listed standards. If you can only meet five, the director can approve that sixth. And basically what the process is, very informal. Individuals submit some photos, what it's going to look like. And I'll tell you what, every single time I'm approving these photos, these standards. Another director may come and think that that design doesn't fit. Well, that's a little too subjective in my opinion. It shouldn't be up to an individual to be really making a decision on what one person might think is a good architectural feature compared to another individual. So these apply to detached homes and duplexes. What we're looking at is you know, digging back into the owner model code, they have additional standards that apply. One thing with our six out of 10, the 10 standards that we have, they are a bit older. They are for an older model type of house, meeting those design standards for new modern houses, for instance, like a shed style roof, which is very common now with modern construction. That's not one of the standards that's called out. You know, there's these different things. There's window sills, for instance. There's there's gabled windows. There's there's certain things that are very specific design standards that are very specific to an older style home and don't really meet these newer, you know, newer standards. So we would be looking into updating all of that, having a set of clear objective standards. And this would apply for all middle housing types. So and single family homes. So the thoughts here, questions here, should design standards be updated for middle housing and newer housing types? Where can residential standards be simplified? Should simpler standards apply across detached homes, you know, middle housing? And should discretionary standards be replaced with more objective criteria? I think I kind of walked through some of these. I saw some head nods, but I was just wondering if there was any. any any commissioner that's interested in digging further into our design standards or questions that you may have or giving staff your blessing to move forward it all sounds good to me yeah i agree i agree i i agree mostly um i think that there should be like

a few no-nos that are just like your house can't have this. Um, for example, like you can't have a full, like a run of 20 feet with no windows or, um, you have to have eaves to some degree, like, like there should be some stuff that I think should be in there that just makes things look like a house as opposed to a shed or something.

Okay, one one thing to keep in mind if you're putting those sort of standards in place is a lot of not the townhouses. But the if you have those packed in units, a lot of the times between the houses where you have like 10 feet between each other, they don't have any windows or they have one window in the whole side of the house. So that might put some restrictions on those sort of developments.

Yeah, I know that people should be able to do what they want with their house and their property and all that other stuff. And I know that even going there, one restriction could turn into 10, could turn into 20 pretty quickly. I don't know. I think there should be something. I'm just maybe not sure totally what it is.

OK. Yeah. Maybe something vertical, like at least vertical or horizontal, like on one facing wall within that range. I'm just thinking make it a little bit more loose. So that way they can put a window. But that's kind of how those houses are designed. And that'll probably turn a lot of people away who have their templates already to go with those one windows. So that would be my only comment on that sort of restriction.

So effectively, we still want to see some enforcement of design standards, but maybe be a little more flexible or maybe have more options. So instead of choosing, maybe a thought is instead of choosing six out of 10, you're choosing six out of 20. Sure. Maybe something like that. So you're still making sure that the buildings being built in the Dalles still have a design and aesthetic, but not necessarily shoehorning and everybody into those that we currently have. Maybe a thought. Yeah.

And you're tiptoeing into some type of like a CCNR HOA thing. And then that's going to piss people off too, because if you want to build something, you're building what you're building. So I feel like you're kind of leaning more towards setting CCNRs.

Yeah.

And that's... A neighborhood.

Yeah. And that's what I'm trying not to do.

And that's kind of defeating the purpose of what's being proposed, I think.

I think, you know, the design standards, I think maybe if you were to increase that list to 20... and and still have people choose to meet six of those think about the last 10 applications that you did and which ones you said are okay this is my this is my director decision and at like closed soffits for instance like you know what you did for mine yeah yeah yep yeah and that's that's common we're seeing more of the more and more and then yeah they look clean they're nice um

Yeah, okay. Well, we'll take some additional look, and I think there's additional options in this ONA model code, but just something for us to consider.

But I do agree with everyone. It shouldn't be like more CCNRs for telling people that it has to look a certain way.

Yeah, forefoot, white picket fences, correct. We won't do that. Right. So I just really wanted to touch, go on this list. We've kind of touched on it a little bit. We won't get too far into it. I think this was more, and it's really the fifth part of your staff report. And I just wanted to kind of bring it up. That is something we'll continue to look into. However, there are two specific HPS actions that we'll really dig into this. We're housing and commercial areas and adaptive reuse and conversion. We talked about some adaptive reuse and conversion tonight, so that was helpful. But really looking at the adaptive reuse of existing buildings, this is gonna be kind of diving into our non-conforming code section. We've had times where an individual reaches out and they have a non-conforming development. Dealing with non-conforming structures and non-conforming development can be kind of tricky. There's language in there talking about increasing the non, there's this level threshold of increasing non-conformity. If you have an existing building that's built too close to the street, is it able to be converted into housing or what's the steps for them to go through? So the goal with this is to kind of potentially look at those and loosen up the standards. I can think of one pretty neat house right by or an old storefront over by the high school. You're going up to the high school. I think it's on should be maybe on Court Street. You go up. It's on the eastern side. It butts right up to the street. There is no setback to it. It doesn't comply with any standards. It's not conforming. But is that an opportunity for a residential unit? I mean, the building is there. What development standards do we really need to apply to a building that is already there if they are just converting it into a house, right? So that's what this idea stems from. NC overlay, as we touched on, you know, I'll bring back some more information at a later date on those and what we're kind of looking at. And then the CBC housing flexibility, we talked about that, I think with the parking. So just some questions here. We didn't really touch on this too much. So I may, I have these slides up here. Are there anything, I mean, You know, we have two realtors here. We have two individuals working downtown. Jared, apologies, I don't know where you work or your profession, but hey, you're involved in the group here anyways. Any thoughts that people may have on some of this adaptive reuse? You've probably seen these buildings. Like I said, the Dalles is old. The Dalles is old and our code was adopted in 1998. A lot of stuff happened before 1998. There is a lot of nonconforming development. Any initial thoughts, barriers for adaptive reuse that maybe you've come across? Flexibility for these? Go from there.

I think flexibility is going to be something that not only just the city of the Dalles, but overall throughout, you know, cause after, after we went through COVID, you know, a lot of businesses went away from using offices and a lot of people are working from home now. So those commercial spaces that have been used in the past, you know, businesses aren't willing, don't really want to, pay for all of all of those so uh if we can utilize space and make it a little bit more flexible um but i think our variance is a thing that you are still seeing today

Um, at times this would apply here.

Like for example, that building that you're talking about on court street that butts up to the street, would it be a situation where in those certain instances, somebody could apply for variance and get some sort of leniency or exemption, but not necessarily change anything to where.

Yeah. I mean, right off the top of my head, I think it's more that you would just, just follow through the process of the non-conforming, uh, the nonconforming section rather than the variant section, I'd have to take a closer look at it. Variances, yeah, we see them at times. I'm not the best salesman for variances. If you come into our office, variances are very difficult to meet in my opinion. Um, there are, but the nonconforming code section, I think touches on those types of things. Um, variances, I see more applied to an individual wants to build a building up to the street, but there's a 10 foot setback or, Um, recently we had a variance for that subdivision block block width. Right. Um, that was something that was, they had issues with the slope of the property type of thing, but, um, We also have like many variances, which are adjustments. So adjustments are a straight, more of a straightforward process. If I can talk to someone about a variance, I try to lean them towards that adjustment process. You can get a little more flexibility on certain standards, but hopefully that answers the question somewhat.

A little bit. So would that be an approach that maybe we could apply here for certain buildings that are Nonconforming.

Yeah. Yeah. Potentially. Yeah. The variance route or kind of using the mindset of a variance and just trying to clean up the nonconforming structure section might be something, you know, I nest, I don't necessarily, if I would want to put people through the variance process, it's, it's a tough one, you know, it's a really tough one at the time, since I've been with the city, we have not approved very many variances.

Okay, Jerry, go ahead.

Yeah, I just wanted to agree with the other commissioner here on the NC and kind of opening things up a little bit. In particular, if you have grandfathered buildings where it's not new construction in particular, you know, and they do want to do, for example, that building, you know, specifically on grandfathered buildings, I think that that's really, we have some opening up for people to reutilize buildings for other purposes if it's needed for housing in particular. And I would say to put that towards housing in particular, not, you know, because we're talking about buildings where there used to be business fronts. Now there's no more business front and it's just sitting there idle. We want those used for housing. So maybe just do horn in. grandfather to allow for these non-conformings to allow housing but still go through obviously a review process but that way you know you're using these buildings that weren't in use before and it kind of the idea is it fast tracks it is my idea of what we're more or less trying to do open up more residents make more building lots and units available i feel like that kind of would go towards that any other thoughts on that commissioners

Real quick, what is the nonconforming procedure that you're talking about? Like when you get into the nonconforming section of the code, what's in there? What's that mean?

The nonconforming, it just talks about standards that apply to a nonconforming structure or use. So if something comes in front of us, individual wants to do this to their property, but it currently doesn't meet setbacks. We just have to ensure that it doesn't increase the nonconformity of that use. If you have a 10-foot setback requirement, let's say, and the house is eight feet, we're not going to allow you to go to seven feet, right? Um, you can stay at eight feet, but then there's also some language in there about the different modifications that you make to it. If you make a modification or if you change, if you, if you take out that April, let's say it's the front of the house. If you're making those changes, you can't, you're not. Um, given the right to like tear it out and then build it back to the eight feet. Right. If you do any of that, you have to take it back. You have to meet those standards. So it's just, um, Overall, I think it's just worth revisiting that section of the code just to make it a little easier, the language to be easier. But there's not necessarily a non-conforming application or something. It's just when you're doing any kind of remodel or redevelopment of non-conforming building, it just requires a little more understanding. everybody's end to kind of figure out what exactly is happening. Sure.

So I think like taking that building on Court Street, for example, if someone wanted to convert that into housing, I think it should go back through just a standard building permit process. I think for houses that are that old and we may need to like I don't even know if putting a year on it, I think it should probably go through a structural engineer process. Like, is this thing even safe to be in? Can you start making these changes? And then it goes to the regular building permit process of update electrical, updated plumbing, updated mechanical, all that stuff. Otherwise, we're just allowing retrofitting of old houses that are ultimately just going to be unsafe.

Yeah, and that would be... that structural engineering would definitely be triggered by building codes, you know, depending on what it was, depending on what it's going to be, you know, um, there's also, you know, as you probably all know, there's a lot of difference between residential and commercial building code too. And what's the threshold, you know? So, but yeah, all good, all good suggestions. So with that, we've got a lot of feedback here. Thank you all for your comments on this. We're going to take this back, going to start looking at the code a little bit further. I think we've checked off some of the big questions that we have and the guidance to move these things forward. I think if there's any that are either in a gray area or we don't feel that They're going to make it into this package. Maybe it's a conversation for another day or we bring these back forward. Staff will definitely take a look before we bring something in front of you. Typically how we've done this, we have a discussion and then we bring the code amendments to you. I'm pretty confident we could bring some code amendments in front of you just from this conversation that we had, but we'll go back to see. See, I don't want to bring any surprises in front of the commission when we're actually reviewing the code amendments themselves. However, as we know the process with code amendments, if we bring something in front of you, you can always strike a certain standard that night and it can be an amended code amendment that you. adopt some evening. So we'll just take a closer look to make sure that, um, you're not presented with any surprises that wasn't included in this presentation or in the staff report when we bring those back forward. But the goal is, yeah, like I said, we'd like to see some adoption of this, uh, middle housing, get it moving forward this summer. Um, so yeah, um, with that, I'm happy to answer any other questions, but I think there's been a lot already.

Yep. This summer, we'll be looking to get this to city council?

Yeah, that's the goal. At this point, we've said August to bring this back in front of the planning commission. I just want to make sure that after we go through all of this, like I said, you guys won't be surprised if we make any tweaks here and there, whatever the case is. There's probably some aspects of it that may just occur like maybe we're talking the adaptive reuse or those those potentially could be packaged up in future future h hps actions all right ready to move on to the next step next step okay next stop um going back to legislative public hearing um okay

Zoning Ordinance Amendment 112-260, the Dallas. Adoption of... I'm just going to get into the script. Now is the time specified for the commission to conduct a legislative public hearing to consider the following matter. Consideration of zoning ordinance amendment application number 112-26, City of the Dalles, and adoption of resolution number PC633-26, recommending City Council approval of amendments to Title 10 of the Dalles Municipal Code, clarifying and conforming quasi-judicial land use procedures to the City Council's previously adopted hearings officer review process and making associated technical amendments. This hearing requires the commission to consider explanation of the relevant criteria, standards, policies, and laws, a statement of basic facts relied upon in rendering the recommendation and the evidence in the record. The criteria on which the commission will base its consideration of this matter are found in the city's comprehensive plan, the Dallas Municipal Code Title 10, applicable state laws and administrative rules, and the staff report. Anyone who wishes to testify must be recognized by me before testifying. When I recognize you, please proceed to the microphone or unmute if participating by Zoom and state your name and mailing address for the record. The hearing is also required to be recorded. Generally the public hearing procedure will go as follows. Prior to the public hearing, we will begin with the staff report and any questions the Commission may have for the staff. Next, I will ask for testimony from anyone who wishes to offer relevant testimony or ask relevant questions to this matter, limited to no more than three minutes per testifier. After a public testimony, staff will have an opportunity to respond. When this process has been concluded, I will close public testimony and the commission will deliberate towards recommendation. To expedite the hearing, commissioners may ask questions of persons as they testify and I may exclude or limit cumulative, repetitious, or immaterial testimony consistent with the planning commission bylaws. During the hearing, some important standards apply. First, if you testify, please address your testimony to the applicable criteria or other criteria which the person believes applies to the recommendation from the Comprehensive Plan or the Dawes Municipal Code Title 10. Second, failure to raise an issue with enough detail to allow the commissioners, staff, or other participants an opportunity to respond to that issue prohibits an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on that issue. Third, failure to participate in this public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals. These are the rules. Are there any questions?

No.

Do any of the members of the commission wish to make any actual or potential conflict of interest disclosure or abstain from participating or voting on this matter because of the possible financial benefit or detriment resulting from the legislative action?

No.

No.

No. No for me as well. Okay. We're opening the public hearing and staff report.

Great. Thank you. As Matt should touch on this a little bit. This is ultimately a cleanup from a little bit of house cleaning. what was adopted general ordinance number 26, 1424 in January. That's when we implemented the hearings officer. We also changed the frequency of planning commission meetings. Planning commission is gonna be focused more on these discussions like we just had and these legislative actions. Ultimately what happened after we adopted, we started meeting with some potential hearings officers and we noticed those that are already in the business, they noticed there was just some items that we needed to clean up, really basically the final actions ultimately, like clarifying the hearings officer decision to notice procedures, certain things went into it, some of the language, specifically there's a resolution that the planning commission signs. hearing's officer does not sign a resolution so these types of changes ultimately nothing's changing nothing's changing other than the procedure to ensure that this hearings officer process is implemented smoothly um So in addition to that, revising quasi-judicial hearing procedures to distinguish between a hearings officer and a multi-member hearings body, clarifying the appeal procedures, and identification of the city's final local decision, aligning quasi-judicial zone changes procedures with the adopted comprehensive plan amendment. I won't bore you too much with the staff report on that one. It's going to be