[0:07] I call to order the September 9th, 2026 meeting of the White Salmon Planning

[0:12] Commission.

[0:15] Mariam, can you please take roll call?

[0:19] Carl Travon?

[0:20] Here.

[0:21] Rowan Brown?

[0:22] Here.

[0:23] Adam Elliott?

[0:24] Here.

[0:25] Erica Price?

[0:26] Here.

[0:28] Nate Loker?

[0:29] Here.

[0:31] Thank you. We have a quorum.

[0:34] Okay. And then the first item on our agenda today is

[0:40] approval of the minutes of our August 26th meeting.

[0:44] Thank you to Erica for running the meeting in my absence.

[0:49] Does anyone have any changes or corrections to bring up?

[0:59] I noticed that it showed Nate as absent, but then he seconded both of the motions

[1:05] to pass the previous meeting minutes.

[1:09] Yeah, I wasn't absent. I was there last, or whenever we last met.

[1:15] Okay.

[1:17] So do I have a motion to approve with that change?

[1:21] Actually, before we do that, I do have one change.

[1:27] My name is Adam Elliott with two T's in Elliott.

[1:32] I've made the correction for previous

[1:35] minutes, but it's still reflecting a single T in the

[1:42] roll call.

[1:44] Yeah, I see. I got it right in the second, but not in the first one, so I'll fix

[1:48] that.

[1:54] Motion to approve as amended with the

[1:59] reflections of Nate's presence and Adam's T.

[2:05] I second the motion. All in favor?

[2:09] Aye.

[2:11] Aye.

[2:14] Aye. Any opposed?

[2:17] Okay, passed.

[2:20] All right. And then next is public comment.

[2:26] Any members of the public can make comment.

[2:30] We limit it to things not later on the agenda.

[2:34] We will have a public comment section there as well.

[2:37] So if there's anyone wanting to comment on something not on the agenda tonight,

[2:44] please let us know.

[2:46] Nobody here in the room, nobody online.

[2:50] Okay, thank you. Then we'll move on to our one action item for tonight, and we're

[2:56] going to start with Rowan making a presentation.

[3:02] Hello, commissioners. So I have two things in your packet for you.

[3:07] First one is a brief memorandum that gives the procedural history

[3:12] for the site plan review that we had a hearing on in May for the Chavez project.

[3:20] Just a quick recap, that decision was appealed, and a hearing examiner heard the

[3:26] appeal about a month ago, reached a decision, and concluded that,

[3:32] one, the city failed to demonstrate the cost of paving the alley is proportional to

[3:38] the impact of the proposed development, so they struck condition number four.

[3:42] And secondly, that duplexes are a use that's not expressly prohibited or allowed in

[3:48] any zoning district of the city, and that the Planning Commission should have done

[3:53] the code interpretation under the municipal code section

[3:57] 17.12.030 to determine whether duplex dwellings are

[4:03] allowed in the R2 zone, and whether two duplex structures are allowed on a single

[4:08] lot. So this application was remanded to the Planning Commission to make these

[4:13] interpretations pursuant to that section of code.

[4:19] Adam wasn't here at the time, but you guys did have a pretty robust discussion

[4:23] about those zoning regulations, but we didn't make a formal interpretation.

[4:28] So I have prepared some draft findings and conclusion that were based on previous

[4:32] Commission discussion, which is just there as a draft.

[4:36] Please adopt or modify at your discretion.

[4:41] And let's see, I already said that.

[4:44] So this will affect that remanded application for the Chavez project.

[4:50] If the Commission interprets that two duplexes are allowed, then the applicant

[4:56] would like to go back to his original building plans that had the two duplexes

[5:00] connected by the breezeway.

[5:03] And if the Commission interprets the code similarly the same to how it was

[5:08] interpreted during that meeting, where two duplexes is not allowed, then that

[5:12] condition of approval, which I think was number 12, would still stand for this

[5:15] application. And then it will also be kept on file with the city, and affect

[5:21] future applications, so this will be the interpretation going forward until code

[5:25] changes.

[5:30] Okay. So in the memo, some relevant sections of municipal code, I tried to

[5:36] pull out everything that might be relevant to this discussion so it would be easy

[5:40] and on-hand for you all. And last thing is, I have

[5:45] some sample motions at the end of the memo to help you formulate your motion.

[5:49] A couple different options there, depending on what the Commission decides.

[5:55] And then my staff recommendation, which you can take or not take.

[6:00] And then the second document is those draft findings and conclusions for code

[6:04] interpretation regarding duplexes in the R2 zone.

[6:07] So this will be the findings you might want to edit, the conclusions you might want

[6:10] to edit the wording of.

[6:14] And I think that's all that I have to say for my presentation.

[6:24] We'll move on to public comment.

[6:27] Please step to the microphone, state your name and whether you live in the city,

[6:31] and try to keep your comments to three minutes.

[6:37] Peter Holt. I do live in the city.

[6:40] I have a couple that are handed out here in addition to the one that you were

[6:44] given, and I emailed it to both of you.

[6:48] I didn't realize there'd be other Zoom people, but I'll pass it out, and hopefully

[6:52] the Zoom folks can get it as well.

[7:05] Nate and Erica, I will forward you that email really quick, so you should get it in

[7:09] your inbox.

[7:14] I will try to be brief here and stick with my three minutes.

[7:20] So I think the packet might overcomplicate the task a little bit

[7:26] tonight.

[7:29] And what I see as the issue is not just that

[7:35] there wasn't a formal interpretation made, but that the actual standard wasn't

[7:40] practically acknowledged in the decision.

[7:43] So,

[7:45] the standard isn't really about parsing the text.

[7:48] It's about making really a general character compatibility determination.

[7:53] So I think interpretation is a little bit of a misnomer in that respect because the

[7:58] standard is in general keeping. So whether two duplex

[8:04] or two duplexes are in general keeping with uses that are allowed in R2.

[8:12] And so that's really quite different from looking at the text to make

[8:18] a judgment if you can

[8:21] massage the text to make it work.

[8:24] And so my first handout I think really tries to, which is the one with the green

[8:29] background, tries to go through what is actually allowed in R2.

[8:36] And there's really nothing special about two duplexes when you look at it in

[8:42] context. There's already, with ADUs, you can already do multiple

[8:47] detached dwellings. And with multiplex, you can already have four units.

[8:53] And

[8:55] you can see that even that huge of a multiplex is still comfortably within the 75%

[9:00] lot coverage limit.

[9:03] And if you can imagine, if you cut that apart and put it into two buildings, you'd

[9:08] actually have less of an impact.

[9:11] So I think

[9:14] it's very difficult to say that two duplexes would somehow be out

[9:20] of character with that. And I think when you look at the

[9:25] row house example, that's where it really becomes pretty clear that row

[9:31] houses are really, when they're in two buildings like that, they're really

[9:35] physically identical to two duplexes.

[9:38] And so as far as character compatibility, there's really no difference.

[9:44] There's ownership lot lines, which in unit lot subdivisions,

[9:48] the commission and council approving that ordinance basically

[9:54] said that

[9:58] ownership is not a land use in that same way.

[10:02] So whether you have rental units or separate ownership units, there's not an

[10:06] important land use distinction there.

[10:09] And that's where I think pulling in my second handout becomes more relevant.

[10:15] And so this isn't a unit lot subdivision, but it functions much like one

[10:22] in that there were four approved row houses in this

[10:27] massed short plat.

[10:30] The first building was already constructed before the plat was approved.

[10:35] So that is a duplex on one undivided lot.

[10:39] And there's a proposal by approving those additional lots,

[10:45] there's an approval for that second building which if you

[10:52] make the lot lines disappear, that's two duplexes on one undivided lot.

[10:57] And so

[11:00] I think the suggested finding is really to look closely, the staff's suggested

[11:06] finding is to look closely at the continuous definition.

[11:10] But I think this example demonstrates that the character of R-2 is not dependent

[11:16] on

[11:17] all four of these row house buildings being continuous with one another.

[11:21] I think continuous is better read as continuous within that building.

[11:26] So if there's two buildings, that the two units are continuous with each other.

[11:32] And so that is primarily it. I think my

[11:38] ask this entire time has really just been to stick very closely with the language

[11:42] of the code and look at the code for guidance.

[11:47] What does in general keeping mean?

[11:49] How do you apply that to this type of development? Thanks.

[11:54] Thanks, Peter.

[11:58] Okay. Then we can move on to discussion.

[12:09] Who wants to go first?

[12:11] I'll jump in. Obviously, I wasn't here for the initial discussion.

[12:19] I think that

[12:21] it's nice to have all this in front of me now, and I think it seems

[12:27] like that was quite well articulated and kind of honing in

[12:33] on the

[12:36] problem. When I was first reviewing the stuff before the gentleman spoke his

[12:42] case,

[12:45] it felt like the most

[12:51] logical direction to take this collectively would be to find out, well, what is the

[12:56] intention of the code? What is the original intention, and is that in keeping with

[13:01] the current intention of

[13:05] the city planners and the commission?

[13:08] And,

[13:10] that's definitely, I still feel is kind of our mission.

[13:15] But

[13:18] I agree with... and I'm not sure who spoke.

[13:23] Did he introduce himself?

[13:24] You're right.

[13:25] Peter. That was Peter. I feel like

[13:30] Peter made a really good point about in general keeping

[13:35] with, right? That that was at the heart of it and not how the existing code is

[13:41] interpreted, but a bit more nuanced in trying to get to what's good for the

[13:47] city and in keeping with consistent

[13:53] decision-making around density, around access and parking and

[14:01] so, yeah. It'd be good to get some more thoughts from the background

[14:08] conversations, previous conversations.

[14:26] I tend to agree with you, Adam.

[14:30] My position when we first discussed this, I think remains unchanged, although

[14:35] maybe is now more well supported.

[14:40] I think there are several reasons why it makes sense to allow for two

[14:46] duplexes on the lot.

[14:49] The first being that it seems to be in keeping

[14:54] with

[14:57] our mission as a body to develop middle housing and to develop

[15:03] an architecturally inoffensive town.

[15:10] That seems to be better served by two duplexes than one quadplex or multiplex as

[15:16] the code defines them. So that's one layer.

[15:21] Forgetting the code, I think it just makes more sense for the town.

[15:24] I think it's better for the town to have two duplexes rather than one quadplex.

[15:28] And then there are the two different cases that Peter made, both of which I think

[15:33] are

[15:36] with merit. One being that I don't really see a meaningful difference between

[15:43] this already subdivided lot and this not yet subdivided lot, aside from the fact

[15:48] that there is

[15:51] not yet a subdivision. And I wonder if there is any sort of rationale that we could

[15:56] drum up for why that's okay post

[16:02] ULS and not pre, and then same case here.

[16:07] So I think

[16:10] my position remains unchanged on this one.

[16:12] I don't see why we don't allow the duplexes and make that the

[16:18] standard until we can change the code.

[16:26] Karica, do you have anything to add?

[16:30] I would agree with Brendan.

[16:34] Okay. Nate?

[16:37] I

[16:39] see Peter's point, and I guess in my opinion,

[16:45] is there a reason or do we have some kind of history or context on...

[16:49] It doesn't make sense to me to allow, this is completely

[16:53] a separate topic, but four units on R-2.

[16:56] When was the code changed to... I think Greg mentioned

[17:02] a long time ago that the code was changed.

[17:07] I don't see a reason why you can't have two duplexes.

[17:11] But to me, it doesn't make sense to allow four units in R-2.

[17:14] I know that's the way the code is written, and this is probably not the right time

[17:20] to bring up this larger issue. But, yeah, I guess I don't see any reason

[17:26] to forbid two duplexes if you're going to allow four townhomes.

[17:30] Seems kind of,

[17:33] I don't know the right word, but just like an arbitrary standard to say no two

[17:39] duplexes, but you can have one four multiplex.

[17:44] But in my opinion, four units on R-2 is way too much, but again, I realize it's not

[17:49] really probably the appropriate place for that discussion.

[17:55] I'd just like to jump in here, too, just in terms of the treatment of ADUs.

[17:59] I just want to make sure that we're not going to end up in a situation if we have

[18:02] two duplexes, then there's like each duplex can do an ADU, and you end up with

[18:07] eight units.

[18:11] So the language in the sample motion that Roan drafted explicitly indicates

[18:17] that the maximum number of units allowed would still be fixed.

[18:22] Okay, great. Thank you.

[18:25] Just for the, it says primary dwelling, so you could still have two accessory

[18:31] dwellings in R-2.

[18:33] Okay. So you could, the maximum then you could have two duplexes, so four units,

[18:38] and two of those could have ADU, so you could have six units.

[18:42] Yeah. The ADU code specifies two ADUs per parcel.

[18:46] If the-

[18:47] Yeah.

[18:47] ... obviously you need a big enough lot to do all that.

[18:50] That's right. But yeah, you could have two duplexes and then two ADUs.

[18:56] To Peter's point, what he brought up on his handout that the definition of an ADU

[19:02] specifically references single family dwellings.

[19:05] So by definition, you couldn't have an ADU with a duplex, which is maybe another

[19:10] thing that we might want to tweak when we do a code update, if we don't think

[19:16] there's a really good reason for that, if it seems a little bit arbitrary.

[19:21] Okay.

[19:22] But that's getting a little bit off track. I digress.

[19:29] Okay. I'm just looking at the handout that he gave us and trying

[19:35] to figure out where this is, because I know of a new duplex or two

[19:41] that Mast built.

[19:44] I think Washington and Estes. But this shows a house next to it where, the one I'm

[19:49] thinking of, that's Estes Street right there.

[19:52] So this must be further down the block or something, because the one

[19:59] that I'm thinking of has the two

[20:03] side-by-side units on Washington, I think it's Washington, but they're working on

[20:09] construction in the back, but it looks like a single unit there.

[20:14] So-

[20:15] It says 341 East Washington on the sheet.

[20:17] Yeah. But I don't know why that is relevant-

[20:19] Yeah

[20:19] ... with respect to Estes. It

[20:25] can't be the same one because there's not a street along

[20:29] the west side of the lot, as there is on the one I'm thinking of.

[20:35] So I'll have to go by this one on the way home, see what it looks like.

[20:40] Okay. So any additional discussion?

[20:49] Okay, then do we have a motion?

[20:57] Based on-

[20:58] Carl, you never gave us your thoughts. You have any thoughts on this?

[21:10] Oh yes, I did want to ask, are the two units in the front

[21:16] large enough to not be considered ADUs?

[21:20] There is a standard, an ADU specific standard, that they can be as big as, but not

[21:26] bigger than the primary unit. So the ones in front were smaller.

[21:31] And that's why the

[21:35] classifications didn't work in that case, because the big ones need to be in front

[21:39] for the back ones to be considered ADUs.

[21:41] Yeah. And, but an ADU can be up to two bedrooms, and the two in the front

[21:48] are less than two bedrooms, so they could be ADUs.

[21:52] But my question originally was, are they big enough to be considered not an ADU?

[21:59] They're basically efficiency apartments.

[22:02] Mm-hmm.

[22:03] They're not what I would call a single family home. But is there a...

[22:08] I think it's

[22:10] the minimum

[22:12] size for single family home is...

[22:19] I want to say it's like 400 or something like that.

[22:22] Yeah. I think that was right. It's

[22:25] 400, which I remember my studio apartment in college was 400 square feet.

[22:30] That wasn't very big. It was big enough for me, but not for anybody

[22:36] else. Okay. So,

[22:42] I'm

[22:44] conscious of the fact that if we make this decision that says two

[22:54] duplexes on an R-2 lot is acceptable, and it seems like we have an

[22:59] example here that was approved. This

[23:03] was approved more than two years ago, apparently because it wasn't during my term

[23:08] here.

[23:10] Or maybe it was a type one, so it just went through staff, but we didn't have any

[23:15] staff at the time. So I don't know.

[23:19] So we want to be careful not to make a decision tonight that would

[23:25] preclude doing this in the future on a more appropriately shaped lot.

[23:33] So given that, I think that all the discussion tonight

[23:39] supports going ahead and removing clause

[23:44] 12 of our original approval. If someone agrees with that,

[23:50] then you should be able to use sample motion number

[23:54] one.

[24:02] Oh, no, sorry. Number three.

[24:06] Is it worth us talking more about the potential for six units on an R-2?

[24:12] If-

[24:12] Yeah. I agree. You were going, so I'll let you continue.

[24:19] Yeah, I just think if that is a possibility that could come into play, especially

[24:23] on larger lots like this. Not going to happen on Wyers in this case, but there are

[24:28] bigger lots, and I'm wondering is that something that we're okay with?

[24:32] Because

[24:34] I can imagine that if Peter's just plugged into this, there are probably other

[24:37] people that are just plugged into this who might be waiting for the moment to get

[24:42] an application in before we can actually modify the code.

[24:45] I think we should be pretty intentional about it.

[24:48] Yeah, it seems to me, and I guess I want to just back up and have a question about

[24:54] procedural allowance. Like

[24:57] how far is our authority in making decisions go today?

[25:03] If we make a recommendation that we, the motion number

[25:08] three with the additional clause that

[25:14] we are capping the total number of residences to a certain number and not

[25:19] allowing for the potential effect of

[25:25] having six ADUs.

[25:29] Is that something that we could enact today, or is that just a recommendation for

[25:33] future editing of the code when that time permits?

[25:40] I think the recommendation would be to stick pretty narrowly to the question that's

[25:44] in front of us for now. But if we wanted to do that in a future meeting, that's

[25:48] definitely doable.

[25:52] Because it seems like, both the particulars, the instances of what's been

[25:58] presented today, it makes sense that we're, by approving motion

[26:04] number three, that we're in accordance with the intention of the

[26:09] code, but also we would need to further constrain the intention of the code to

[26:15] limit unbridled density. So that's-

[26:21] But in the meantime, we would be establishing a

[26:25] pretty significant precedent.

[26:29] I'm just looking at the ADU chapter real quick here.

[26:35] Okay.

[26:56] So looking at this accessory dwelling units chapter, which is 17.64 in the

[27:01] municipal code,

[27:06] it does talk about, it says once or twice the principal dwelling, but doesn't

[27:10] really say

[27:13] In here at all that ADUs are restricted to lots that just have one single

[27:18] family home on them. And they do say that you can have two ADUs in R-2 and three in

[27:23] R-3.

[27:26] So there's really just the in definitions that ADUs are linked to single

[27:32] family homes. It's not really reflected here.

[27:36] So I think that's another thing that could reasonably use a code interpretation, a

[27:41] planning commission

[27:43] about whether ADUs are even allowed with, in conjunction with townhomes or duplexes

[27:47] or anything but a single family home.

[27:54] The definition of R-2 caps it at four

[28:01] proper dwellings.

[28:03] Primary, yeah.

[28:04] Not four dwellings, period.

[28:06] Right.

[28:07] Okay. Now, I think we would be well

[28:12] advised to get on that and get it fixed.

[28:18] That it's four total dwellings, not four primary dwellings in R-2,

[28:23] because when the next one of these comes up

[28:28] and it has

[28:32] two duplexes and two ADUs, the neighbors are going to be even more unhappy than the

[28:37] neighbors are with the one we're talking about tonight.

[28:43] Right. And to Adam's earlier point, if we go that direction, it might be worth

[28:49] looking back at the ordinances when we passed maybe the minutes and the recordings

[28:54] and see what the discussion was, because the intention to allow up to six dwellings

[28:59] per lot, was it just like a slip of the mind?

[29:11] Everybody's unmuting.

[29:18] We're

[29:24] getting some feedback from your mic.

[29:30] Thank you.

[29:34] Brandon, I see your finger by the button.

[29:36] Are you going to

[29:39] talk some more?

[29:40] Making sure that there's value before I accept.

[29:45] All is

[29:46] good.

[30:00] I suppose I will offer my perspective as I think the lone

[30:06] renter in the room.

[30:08] As long as the other standards are met, lot coverage, setbacks, parking and

[30:14] everything.

[30:17] If an R-2 lot allowed for two duplexes plus two more ADUs

[30:27] and it was not offensive,

[30:31] I suppose that I would not have a problem with that personally, and I think that

[30:36] that would be in keeping with our goals of creating more middle

[30:41] housing,

[30:44] provided it doesn't erode the

[30:49] loveliness of our town.

[30:54] But also that feels crazy to say that we would allow for six units on an R-2 lot.

[31:03] It's twice as many as are allowed in R-1, though.

[31:05] So that if the R-1 conversation is

[31:11] concluded, then it doesn't seem to be a major departure.

[31:15] You get three in R-1, you get six in R-2.

[31:18] And how many in R-3?

[31:22] R-3, I think you can have up to eight townhomes.

[31:26] Okay. Yeah. Well, the one on Wyers has

[31:33] 10, actually in one row, not completely connected.

[31:38] There's a three and a five and a two, I believe, but it might be three parcels.

[31:44] Yeah. And I know that there's a PUD in that area as well, so we might be talking

[31:48] about the PUD.

[31:52] That's the woodwork units that are like three stories tall, which are coming into

[31:55] town.

[31:56] Right.

[31:56] Yeah.

[31:58] Okay. Just want to say one thing to your comment, Brandon, you

[32:04] added, "And if it wasn't offensive." We can't make decisions based on that, though.

[32:10] That's one of the reasons that this one was people didn't like it because it was

[32:15] sort of offensive, and it's also 69 people wrote in about Center Market

[32:21] being offensive. But if it meets the codes, we got to approve it.

[32:29] We do review

[32:32] R-2 developments, though. Right? Correct me when I'm wrong.

[32:39] That is a function that this body did not assume for a number of years,

[32:44] but now in recent months has recently started assuming again.

[32:52] Yeah, I think there were projects around town before I got here that were de facto

[32:56] approved and didn't come to the planning commission.

[32:59] But once we looked at the code, being fresh here, it said site plan reviews are

[33:03] required for everything except single family homes, and accessory dwelling units.

[33:09] And so that was why it came to the planning commission and trying to keep closer to

[33:13] the text of the code.

[33:17] But my point was, yes, we would review it, but that doesn't mean we can say we

[33:22] don't like it. We have to look at the code and say, "Does it meet the code? Yes.

[33:27] Pass."

[33:30] Yeah. It does align with the language of the code and not does it offend our

[33:34] sensibilities, our aesthetics.

[33:40] I have just an, it seems to me that this

[33:46] scenario to satisfy all those various conditions

[33:52] that you laid out, Brandon, it seems like there's very few parcels that are big

[33:56] enough to allow for this

[34:00] potential scenario,

[34:03] regardless of how we feel about them.

[34:05] But it's nice to know, right, that there's lots of good language and parameters

[34:10] built into the code that protect us from going super

[34:16] dense and... But I don't know

[34:22] the lot that we're talking about, and so

[34:27] from my perspective and being new to this instance, this particular

[34:33] scenario, it seems like we should move to adopt

[34:39] number three, motion number three, and also make

[34:45] the intention stated that we're going to review the code to

[34:50] at least revisit this bigger question of ADUs on top of

[34:57] duplex and townhome density.

[35:00] Okay. So for your information, Adam, this is a lot

[35:07] just sort of behind the empty lots on Jewett next to the

[35:12] tattoo parlor. It's a non-conforming lot that was platted

[35:18] before any of our codes. It would not be able to be created today

[35:23] because the width of the lot at the street, which is Wyers, one

[35:29] block off of Jewett, is 27 and a half feet. It has to be at least 30 feet now.

[35:36] In the back, it's 67 feet, I think. So the design of

[35:42] this unit is two fairly big units, duplex, like two bedroom ones

[35:49] on the alley, and two little bitty ones on the front because they have to have

[35:54] parking spaces. So basically the whole front yard is driveway on Wyers,

[36:01] and the whole front yard against the alley in the back is parking

[36:06] spaces. To get four there, you need two for the two small units, one each, and

[36:12] four, two each for the ones in the back.

[36:14] So all along the street and all along the alley is parking

[36:20] And then from there to the front door is just room to walk on each

[36:26] case. And then the two units are

[36:30] six feet apart, the backs of them.

[36:33] So the windows on that wall look at the windows on the other unit's wall,

[36:39] not at nature or light or anything.

[36:45] Ro, can you explain why you recommended motion number one?

[36:52] Sure. So the language overall is pretty vague, and I feel like it could

[36:58] reasonably come down one way or the other.

[37:01] But the thing that I ultimately noticed was different is that it's in

[37:07] my findings number seven, when we talk about houses forming a

[37:13] continuous group, and multiplexes means a building, which I interpret to mean a

[37:19] single building, are going to be occupied by more than two families.

[37:23] So houses and multiplex are both allowed in R-2 in those

[37:29] permitted uses, and they both specify that they're continuously grouped or it's one

[37:34] building. So that's how I came to that conclusion, but I think it's vague enough to

[37:38] go either way.

[37:41] You said definition number seven?

[37:44] What-

[37:45] Yep, number seven for house and multifamily residential multiplex.

[37:55] It's on page 11 of our handout for the meeting

[38:00] tonight.

[38:01] Okay.

[38:12] And then for sample motion number three, I would maybe edit it one

[38:18] little bit to say the total number of primary dwellings, just to specify that we're

[38:23] talking about those four, and we can leave the AU six dwelling question for another

[38:28] time. I'm looking at the section about planning commission interpretations, and it

[38:33] doesn't say that it has to be tied to a specific application, so we could consider

[38:37] that at our next meeting if you wanted.

[38:51] I would be okay with giving it more time to think it over.

[38:53] But, yeah, the language is so ambiguous that it does seem kind of arbitrary

[38:59] to say. I don't really like the idea of two duplexes, but it seems arbitrary to me

[39:04] to say you can't do that when you can have one

[39:10] multiplex with four units.

[39:15] But yeah, I don't know. I'd be okay with waiting a little bit longer, but I don't

[39:20] know if I'll come to a different conclusion.

[39:37] Stall this vote, you know?

[39:41] Can you say that again, stall this?

[39:43] Stalls allowing this vote.

[39:46] Is that where you take a pre-vote?

[39:49] Let's check our handy-dandy bylaws.

[39:52] Or we could just make a motion. We could see what happens.

[39:55] That's true. You could do that as well.

[39:57] That seems to be... The city council did that last week with Marla's pet

[40:02] project. Somebody made a motion and then voted against it.

[40:09] I move the planning commission interprets the code to allow duplexes as a principal

[40:14] permitted use in the R-2 multiplex residential district when the total number of

[40:18] dwellings does not exceed the maximum number for primary dwellings

[40:24] based on the findings above with the addition/deletion of the following

[40:29] finding.

[40:30] You don't have to say that. It's not relevant.

[40:32] It's not.

[40:33] Okay. Strike that.

[40:38] Oh, actually, yeah, if you're doing number three, we might need to revise

[40:45] one of the findings to make that make sense.

[40:49] Where am I at? Different versions.

[41:04] I think maybe...

[41:07] Sorry to interrupt your motion here.

[41:10] The addition could be that two duplexes is in general keeping.

[41:16] Maybe that would just be the way to round that out.

[41:23] Since we don't have a second yet, I think you can amend it without-

[41:28] Okay

[41:31] ... doing anything special.

[41:36] Hmm.

[41:45] Are we waiting for someone to second?

[41:47] No, we're waiting for a rewording of the motion.

[41:51] Okay.

[41:52] I move that the planning commission interprets the code to allow duplex as a

[41:56] principal permitted use in R-2 multiplex residential district when the total number

[42:00] of dwellings does not exceed the maximum number for primary dwellings,

[42:10] period.

[42:23] Okay, now we're waiting for a second.

[42:25] Well,

[42:27] sorry, it seems like we needed to add the, as part of it, based on the findings

[42:32] above with the addition/deletion of the following finding that two duplexes

[42:40] in a single lot is in standard keeping with the intent.

[42:45] That was the final clause, right? We needed to amend that.

[42:50] Yeah. My findings and conclusions were from the angle of my staff recommendation.

[42:55] So, I think we would just want to add one sentence onto finding number seven that

[43:01] says, "Two duplexes is nevertheless still in general keeping with the uses in the

[43:06] zone."

[43:28] Well, actually, no, we've already kind of got that in the conclusions.

[43:36] Yeah, conclusion number two could be edited to just strike not and not, and then

[43:42] it would say, "More than one duplex is similar to and in general keeping with the

[43:46] principal uses authorized in the R-2 zone." And then strike that second sentence

[43:51] altogether.

[44:04] Is explaining the rationale in the motion necessary?

[44:10] No, I don't think so. That's what the discussion's for.

[44:15] I'm just saying that we'll need to edit these findings and conclusions to reflect

[44:19] the decision because this lays out our reasoning for future people to look at.

[44:35] And I just want to make sure that I am reflecting what the commission finds and not

[44:40] reinterpreting later on.

[44:53] I have to admit, I'm a little lost on exactly

[44:58] what you would say for the motion. That's why I'm not volunteering to resay the

[45:02] motion. But we had the motion been said, and now we're waiting for a second, or

[45:08] do we have to restate the motion?

[45:13] I think the chair restates the motion once it's been finalized.

[45:20] Yes, I guess I could do that. And the current motion, I can

[45:25] say-

[45:32] I move the

[45:34] proposed motion by Brendan is, I move that the planning commission interpret the

[45:38] code to allow duplexes as a general permitted use in the R2 Multiplex Residential

[45:44] District when the total number of dwellings does not exceed the maximum

[45:49] number for primary dwellings,

[45:53] period. That's what he said.

[45:59] And yeah, so I'm going

[46:05] to abstain from doing discussion yet because we don't have a second.

[46:22] I'll second the motion.

[46:24] Thank you. We have a second, and then we can move on to discussion on

[46:29] that. And

[46:36] so I want to go back to Rowan,

[46:39] your concerns.

[46:42] Can we

[46:44] update your findings

[46:48] such that that motion will work?

[46:54] Yes. I can update my findings and conclusions to

[47:00] reflect that.

[47:05] And then, Carl, you have to sign it ultimately, so then you'll get a final chance

[47:09] to review what the findings and conclusions are.

[47:12] Alternatively, we could just include it as in the next packet and make sure that

[47:17] it's exactly what you all want.

[47:22] Like I said, the tricky thing is that our code does not give us any guidance for

[47:25] how this process should unfold, so we're kind of making it up right now.

[47:37] Are we

[47:40] in danger in any way if we take a vote before the findings are

[47:45] updated?

[47:50] I don't think so. Unfortunately, Shawn couldn't be here tonight. He's traveling.

[47:56] But I think we've got the recording, we'll have the minutes.

[47:59] I think the intent is pretty clear, and I can update findings and conclusions to

[48:03] reflect this discussion.

[48:06] Okay.

[48:10] Any additional discussions?

[48:13] Is that process that you noted was ill-defined, we're figuring out, is that the

[48:18] process of going from our decision on this application to

[48:25] actually modifying the code? Or what was that process you were referring to

[48:28] specifically?

[48:29] Specifically, the code interpretation process.

[48:32] Our code gives the authority to planning commission to interpret things in the

[48:36] zoning ordinance but doesn't give any guidance for how that process should go.

[48:48] Okay. Any additional discussion?

[48:54] Okay, Marian, please take a roll call vote.

[48:58] Brendan Brown?

[49:01] Yay.

[49:03] Aye.

[49:05] Adam Elliott?

[49:06] Aye.

[49:09] Erica Price?

[49:10] Aye.

[49:15] Could you repeat that, please?

[49:17] Yes. Aye.

[49:20] Amit Walker?

[49:22] Can I abstain? Is that an option?

[49:25] Yes.

[49:26] All right, I abstain.

[49:28] Carl Tabon?

[49:30] I'm going to abstain as well.

[49:33] Thank you. Let the record reflect the motion passes with a vote of three ayes and

[49:39] two abstains.

[49:45] Okay.

[49:49] So I believe that's our agenda for today.

[49:56] Just one quick staff announcement is that next meeting, we will have our first

[50:01] public hearing for the short-term rental in commercial zones ordinance.

[50:08] Oh, and

[50:10] for Center Market, they are aiming to get the revisions back to me in time for the

[50:16] October 14th meeting.

[50:19] So that's just a sneak peek.

[50:22] So when you say our next meeting, are you talking two weeks from today?

[50:25] Are you talking on the October 14th?

[50:28] Two weeks from today, September 23rd.

[50:31] I know you will be absent, Carl, and so we will have Erica chair the meeting in

[50:37] that case.

[50:41] Okay. Thanks. Adjourned.

[50:47] Thank you.

Planning Commission Meeting - September 9, 2026

Transcript