1 00:00:07,110 --> 00:00:12,795 I call to order the September 9th, 2026 meeting of the White Salmon Planning 2 00:00:12,871 --> 00:00:13,305 Commission. 3 00:00:15,720 --> 00:00:17,581 Mariam, can you please take roll call? 4 00:00:19,530 --> 00:00:20,280 Carl Travon? 5 00:00:20,610 --> 00:00:20,820 Here. 6 00:00:21,451 --> 00:00:22,380 Rowan Brown? 7 00:00:22,470 --> 00:00:22,650 Here. 8 00:00:23,250 --> 00:00:24,149 Adam Elliott? 9 00:00:24,420 --> 00:00:24,810 Here. 10 00:00:25,290 --> 00:00:26,161 Erica Price? 11 00:00:26,940 --> 00:00:27,241 Here. 12 00:00:28,470 --> 00:00:29,491 Nate Loker? 13 00:00:29,550 --> 00:00:29,881 Here. 14 00:00:31,110 --> 00:00:32,340 Thank you. We have a quorum. 15 00:00:34,440 --> 00:00:40,080 Okay. And then the first item on our agenda today is 16 00:00:40,110 --> 00:00:43,649 approval of the minutes of our August 26th meeting. 17 00:00:44,040 --> 00:00:46,981 Thank you to Erica for running the meeting in my absence. 18 00:00:49,560 --> 00:00:53,670 Does anyone have any changes or corrections to bring up? 19 00:00:59,910 --> 00:01:05,071 I noticed that it showed Nate as absent, but then he seconded both of the motions 20 00:01:05,100 --> 00:01:07,110 to pass the previous meeting minutes. 21 00:01:09,961 --> 00:01:13,650 Yeah, I wasn't absent. I was there last, or whenever we last met. 22 00:01:15,211 --> 00:01:15,571 Okay. 23 00:01:17,100 --> 00:01:20,310 So do I have a motion to approve with that change? 24 00:01:21,270 --> 00:01:25,770 Actually, before we do that, I do have one change. 25 00:01:27,390 --> 00:01:31,740 My name is Adam Elliott with two T's in Elliott. 26 00:01:32,190 --> 00:01:34,110 I've made the correction for previous 27 00:01:35,400 --> 00:01:41,040 minutes, but it's still reflecting a single T in the 28 00:01:42,150 --> 00:01:42,690 roll call. 29 00:01:44,700 --> 00:01:48,510 Yeah, I see. I got it right in the second, but not in the first one, so I'll fix 30 00:01:48,570 --> 00:01:48,780 that. 31 00:01:54,540 --> 00:01:57,510 Motion to approve as amended with the 32 00:01:59,730 --> 00:02:02,940 reflections of Nate's presence and Adam's T. 33 00:02:05,760 --> 00:02:08,220 I second the motion. All in favor? 34 00:02:09,120 --> 00:02:09,421 Aye. 35 00:02:09,750 --> 00:02:10,200 Aye. 36 00:02:11,310 --> 00:02:11,671 Aye. 37 00:02:14,370 --> 00:02:15,750 Aye. Any opposed? 38 00:02:17,790 --> 00:02:19,380 Okay, passed. 39 00:02:20,671 --> 00:02:26,130 All right. And then next is public comment. 40 00:02:26,370 --> 00:02:29,010 Any members of the public can make comment. 41 00:02:30,810 --> 00:02:34,080 We limit it to things not later on the agenda. 42 00:02:34,141 --> 00:02:36,480 We will have a public comment section there as well. 43 00:02:37,290 --> 00:02:42,150 So if there's anyone wanting to comment on something not on the agenda tonight, 44 00:02:44,610 --> 00:02:45,540 please let us know. 45 00:02:46,860 --> 00:02:48,930 Nobody here in the room, nobody online. 46 00:02:50,820 --> 00:02:56,790 Okay, thank you. Then we'll move on to our one action item for tonight, and we're 47 00:02:56,820 --> 00:03:00,780 going to start with Rowan making a presentation. 48 00:03:02,790 --> 00:03:06,990 Hello, commissioners. So I have two things in your packet for you. 49 00:03:07,290 --> 00:03:12,809 First one is a brief memorandum that gives the procedural history 50 00:03:12,930 --> 00:03:18,570 for the site plan review that we had a hearing on in May for the Chavez project. 51 00:03:20,970 --> 00:03:26,610 Just a quick recap, that decision was appealed, and a hearing examiner heard the 52 00:03:26,671 --> 00:03:31,740 appeal about a month ago, reached a decision, and concluded that, 53 00:03:32,760 --> 00:03:38,476 one, the city failed to demonstrate the cost of paving the alley is proportional to 54 00:03:38,476 --> 00:03:41,940 the impact of the proposed development, so they struck condition number four. 55 00:03:42,870 --> 00:03:48,541 And secondly, that duplexes are a use that's not expressly prohibited or allowed in 56 00:03:48,601 --> 00:03:53,490 any zoning district of the city, and that the Planning Commission should have done 57 00:03:53,520 --> 00:03:57,330 the code interpretation under the municipal code section 58 00:03:57,360 --> 00:04:03,180 17.12.030 to determine whether duplex dwellings are 59 00:04:03,210 --> 00:04:07,980 allowed in the R2 zone, and whether two duplex structures are allowed on a single 60 00:04:08,010 --> 00:04:13,215 lot. So this application was remanded to the Planning Commission to make these 61 00:04:13,230 --> 00:04:16,154 interpretations pursuant to that section of code. 62 00:04:19,320 --> 00:04:23,595 Adam wasn't here at the time, but you guys did have a pretty robust discussion 63 00:04:23,640 --> 00:04:28,290 about those zoning regulations, but we didn't make a formal interpretation. 64 00:04:28,380 --> 00:04:32,341 So I have prepared some draft findings and conclusion that were based on previous 65 00:04:32,414 --> 00:04:36,091 Commission discussion, which is just there as a draft. 66 00:04:36,600 --> 00:04:39,540 Please adopt or modify at your discretion. 67 00:04:41,250 --> 00:04:43,260 And let's see, I already said that. 68 00:04:44,460 --> 00:04:49,050 So this will affect that remanded application for the Chavez project. 69 00:04:50,190 --> 00:04:56,160 If the Commission interprets that two duplexes are allowed, then the applicant 70 00:04:56,190 --> 00:04:59,835 would like to go back to his original building plans that had the two duplexes 71 00:05:00,300 --> 00:05:01,650 connected by the breezeway. 72 00:05:03,060 --> 00:05:08,160 And if the Commission interprets the code similarly the same to how it was 73 00:05:08,460 --> 00:05:12,270 interpreted during that meeting, where two duplexes is not allowed, then that 74 00:05:12,300 --> 00:05:15,900 condition of approval, which I think was number 12, would still stand for this 75 00:05:15,960 --> 00:05:21,690 application. And then it will also be kept on file with the city, and affect 76 00:05:21,720 --> 00:05:25,305 future applications, so this will be the interpretation going forward until code 77 00:05:25,410 --> 00:05:25,680 changes. 78 00:05:30,900 --> 00:05:36,781 Okay. So in the memo, some relevant sections of municipal code, I tried to 79 00:05:36,810 --> 00:05:40,110 pull out everything that might be relevant to this discussion so it would be easy 80 00:05:40,140 --> 00:05:45,930 and on-hand for you all. And last thing is, I have 81 00:05:45,990 --> 00:05:49,380 some sample motions at the end of the memo to help you formulate your motion. 82 00:05:49,410 --> 00:05:53,130 A couple different options there, depending on what the Commission decides. 83 00:05:55,260 --> 00:05:59,640 And then my staff recommendation, which you can take or not take. 84 00:06:00,000 --> 00:06:04,110 And then the second document is those draft findings and conclusions for code 85 00:06:04,140 --> 00:06:07,050 interpretation regarding duplexes in the R2 zone. 86 00:06:07,080 --> 00:06:10,845 So this will be the findings you might want to edit, the conclusions you might want 87 00:06:10,860 --> 00:06:11,880 to edit the wording of. 88 00:06:14,160 --> 00:06:16,980 And I think that's all that I have to say for my presentation. 89 00:06:24,540 --> 00:06:26,220 We'll move on to public comment. 90 00:06:27,570 --> 00:06:31,410 Please step to the microphone, state your name and whether you live in the city, 91 00:06:31,591 --> 00:06:33,901 and try to keep your comments to three minutes. 92 00:06:37,110 --> 00:06:38,940 Peter Holt. I do live in the city. 93 00:06:40,290 --> 00:06:44,730 I have a couple that are handed out here in addition to the one that you were 94 00:06:44,790 --> 00:06:47,190 given, and I emailed it to both of you. 95 00:06:48,331 --> 00:06:52,920 I didn't realize there'd be other Zoom people, but I'll pass it out, and hopefully 96 00:06:52,980 --> 00:06:58,050 the Zoom folks can get it as well. 97 00:07:05,040 --> 00:07:09,091 Nate and Erica, I will forward you that email really quick, so you should get it in 98 00:07:09,151 --> 00:07:09,660 your inbox. 99 00:07:14,701 --> 00:07:18,151 I will try to be brief here and stick with my three minutes. 100 00:07:20,311 --> 00:07:26,130 So I think the packet might overcomplicate the task a little bit 101 00:07:26,341 --> 00:07:27,030 tonight. 102 00:07:29,430 --> 00:07:35,010 And what I see as the issue is not just that 103 00:07:35,910 --> 00:07:40,770 there wasn't a formal interpretation made, but that the actual standard wasn't 104 00:07:40,800 --> 00:07:43,651 practically acknowledged in the decision. 105 00:07:43,770 --> 00:07:43,951 So, 106 00:07:45,510 --> 00:07:48,061 the standard isn't really about parsing the text. 107 00:07:48,120 --> 00:07:52,470 It's about making really a general character compatibility determination. 108 00:07:53,040 --> 00:07:58,350 So I think interpretation is a little bit of a misnomer in that respect because the 109 00:07:58,410 --> 00:08:04,350 standard is in general keeping. So whether two duplex 110 00:08:04,530 --> 00:08:10,410 or two duplexes are in general keeping with uses that are allowed in R2. 111 00:08:12,180 --> 00:08:17,640 And so that's really quite different from looking at the text to make 112 00:08:18,270 --> 00:08:20,010 a judgment if you can 113 00:08:21,480 --> 00:08:23,460 massage the text to make it work. 114 00:08:24,750 --> 00:08:29,460 And so my first handout I think really tries to, which is the one with the green 115 00:08:29,701 --> 00:08:35,489 background, tries to go through what is actually allowed in R2. 116 00:08:36,961 --> 00:08:42,030 And there's really nothing special about two duplexes when you look at it in 117 00:08:42,091 --> 00:08:47,640 context. There's already, with ADUs, you can already do multiple 118 00:08:47,700 --> 00:08:52,920 detached dwellings. And with multiplex, you can already have four units. 119 00:08:53,010 --> 00:08:53,505 And 120 00:08:55,080 --> 00:09:00,960 you can see that even that huge of a multiplex is still comfortably within the 75% 121 00:09:00,975 --> 00:09:02,010 lot coverage limit. 122 00:09:03,660 --> 00:09:08,070 And if you can imagine, if you cut that apart and put it into two buildings, you'd 123 00:09:08,100 --> 00:09:09,630 actually have less of an impact. 124 00:09:11,424 --> 00:09:11,934 So I think 125 00:09:14,154 --> 00:09:20,064 it's very difficult to say that two duplexes would somehow be out 126 00:09:20,094 --> 00:09:23,784 of character with that. And I think when you look at the 127 00:09:25,254 --> 00:09:31,014 row house example, that's where it really becomes pretty clear that row 128 00:09:31,075 --> 00:09:35,484 houses are really, when they're in two buildings like that, they're really 129 00:09:35,545 --> 00:09:37,764 physically identical to two duplexes. 130 00:09:38,364 --> 00:09:43,464 And so as far as character compatibility, there's really no difference. 131 00:09:44,184 --> 00:09:48,864 There's ownership lot lines, which in unit lot subdivisions, 132 00:09:48,955 --> 00:09:54,894 the commission and council approving that ordinance basically 133 00:09:54,955 --> 00:09:55,434 said that 134 00:09:58,344 --> 00:10:01,764 ownership is not a land use in that same way. 135 00:10:02,064 --> 00:10:06,894 So whether you have rental units or separate ownership units, there's not an 136 00:10:06,984 --> 00:10:08,545 important land use distinction there. 137 00:10:09,744 --> 00:10:14,754 And that's where I think pulling in my second handout becomes more relevant. 138 00:10:15,474 --> 00:10:21,174 And so this isn't a unit lot subdivision, but it functions much like one 139 00:10:22,045 --> 00:10:27,684 in that there were four approved row houses in this 140 00:10:27,744 --> 00:10:29,094 massed short plat. 141 00:10:30,624 --> 00:10:35,394 The first building was already constructed before the plat was approved. 142 00:10:35,634 --> 00:10:38,575 So that is a duplex on one undivided lot. 143 00:10:39,534 --> 00:10:45,414 And there's a proposal by approving those additional lots, 144 00:10:45,984 --> 00:10:51,354 there's an approval for that second building which if you 145 00:10:52,164 --> 00:10:57,084 make the lot lines disappear, that's two duplexes on one undivided lot. 146 00:10:57,744 --> 00:10:58,284 And so 147 00:11:00,564 --> 00:11:06,069 I think the suggested finding is really to look closely, the staff's suggested 148 00:11:06,144 --> 00:11:09,624 finding is to look closely at the continuous definition. 149 00:11:10,404 --> 00:11:15,924 But I think this example demonstrates that the character of R-2 is not dependent 150 00:11:16,104 --> 00:11:16,450 on 151 00:11:17,724 --> 00:11:21,474 all four of these row house buildings being continuous with one another. 152 00:11:21,564 --> 00:11:25,854 I think continuous is better read as continuous within that building. 153 00:11:26,575 --> 00:11:30,654 So if there's two buildings, that the two units are continuous with each other. 154 00:11:32,754 --> 00:11:38,214 And so that is primarily it. I think my 155 00:11:38,455 --> 00:11:42,594 ask this entire time has really just been to stick very closely with the language 156 00:11:42,624 --> 00:11:46,464 of the code and look at the code for guidance. 157 00:11:47,244 --> 00:11:48,804 What does in general keeping mean? 158 00:11:49,314 --> 00:11:53,589 How do you apply that to this type of development? Thanks. 159 00:11:54,205 --> 00:11:54,744 Thanks, Peter. 160 00:11:58,374 --> 00:12:02,964 Okay. Then we can move on to discussion. 161 00:12:09,684 --> 00:12:10,825 Who wants to go first? 162 00:12:11,904 --> 00:12:16,914 I'll jump in. Obviously, I wasn't here for the initial discussion. 163 00:12:19,224 --> 00:12:19,944 I think that 164 00:12:21,684 --> 00:12:27,534 it's nice to have all this in front of me now, and I think it seems 165 00:12:27,594 --> 00:12:33,444 like that was quite well articulated and kind of honing in 166 00:12:33,534 --> 00:12:34,553 on the 167 00:12:36,624 --> 00:12:42,264 problem. When I was first reviewing the stuff before the gentleman spoke his 168 00:12:42,295 --> 00:12:42,654 case, 169 00:12:45,624 --> 00:12:48,984 it felt like the most 170 00:12:51,265 --> 00:12:56,515 logical direction to take this collectively would be to find out, well, what is the 171 00:12:56,575 --> 00:13:01,464 intention of the code? What is the original intention, and is that in keeping with 172 00:13:01,524 --> 00:13:04,254 the current intention of 173 00:13:05,724 --> 00:13:07,644 the city planners and the commission? 174 00:13:08,304 --> 00:13:08,874 And, 175 00:13:10,344 --> 00:13:15,265 that's definitely, I still feel is kind of our mission. 176 00:13:15,894 --> 00:13:16,254 But 177 00:13:18,174 --> 00:13:22,795 I agree with... and I'm not sure who spoke. 178 00:13:23,394 --> 00:13:24,624 Did he introduce himself? 179 00:13:24,714 --> 00:13:25,075 You're right. 180 00:13:25,224 --> 00:13:27,654 Peter. That was Peter. I feel like 181 00:13:30,114 --> 00:13:35,814 Peter made a really good point about in general keeping 182 00:13:35,874 --> 00:13:41,335 with, right? That that was at the heart of it and not how the existing code is 183 00:13:41,364 --> 00:13:47,244 interpreted, but a bit more nuanced in trying to get to what's good for the 184 00:13:47,335 --> 00:13:51,954 city and in keeping with consistent 185 00:13:53,424 --> 00:13:59,258 decision-making around density, around access and parking and 186 00:14:01,164 --> 00:14:07,075 so, yeah. It'd be good to get some more thoughts from the background 187 00:14:08,934 --> 00:14:11,214 conversations, previous conversations. 188 00:14:26,754 --> 00:14:28,494 I tend to agree with you, Adam. 189 00:14:30,039 --> 00:14:35,934 My position when we first discussed this, I think remains unchanged, although 190 00:14:35,994 --> 00:14:39,564 maybe is now more well supported. 191 00:14:40,854 --> 00:14:46,164 I think there are several reasons why it makes sense to allow for two 192 00:14:46,195 --> 00:14:48,295 duplexes on the lot. 193 00:14:49,644 --> 00:14:53,244 The first being that it seems to be in keeping 194 00:14:54,684 --> 00:14:55,104 with 195 00:14:57,024 --> 00:15:02,754 our mission as a body to develop middle housing and to develop 196 00:15:03,325 --> 00:15:08,335 an architecturally inoffensive town. 197 00:15:10,344 --> 00:15:15,954 That seems to be better served by two duplexes than one quadplex or multiplex as 198 00:15:16,045 --> 00:15:20,034 the code defines them. So that's one layer. 199 00:15:21,085 --> 00:15:24,204 Forgetting the code, I think it just makes more sense for the town. 200 00:15:24,265 --> 00:15:28,224 I think it's better for the town to have two duplexes rather than one quadplex. 201 00:15:28,974 --> 00:15:33,714 And then there are the two different cases that Peter made, both of which I think 202 00:15:33,774 --> 00:15:34,015 are 203 00:15:36,835 --> 00:15:42,789 with merit. One being that I don't really see a meaningful difference between 204 00:15:43,945 --> 00:15:48,804 this already subdivided lot and this not yet subdivided lot, aside from the fact 205 00:15:48,864 --> 00:15:49,914 that there is 206 00:15:51,804 --> 00:15:56,589 not yet a subdivision. And I wonder if there is any sort of rationale that we could 207 00:15:56,634 --> 00:16:00,564 drum up for why that's okay post 208 00:16:02,545 --> 00:16:06,924 ULS and not pre, and then same case here. 209 00:16:07,884 --> 00:16:08,304 So I think 210 00:16:10,164 --> 00:16:12,654 my position remains unchanged on this one. 211 00:16:12,700 --> 00:16:18,354 I don't see why we don't allow the duplexes and make that the 212 00:16:18,474 --> 00:16:21,504 standard until we can change the code. 213 00:16:26,634 --> 00:16:28,195 Karica, do you have anything to add? 214 00:16:30,954 --> 00:16:31,974 I would agree with Brendan. 215 00:16:34,884 --> 00:16:35,844 Okay. Nate? 216 00:16:37,734 --> 00:16:37,765 I 217 00:16:39,564 --> 00:16:43,045 see Peter's point, and I guess in my opinion, 218 00:16:45,204 --> 00:16:49,284 is there a reason or do we have some kind of history or context on... 219 00:16:49,554 --> 00:16:52,344 It doesn't make sense to me to allow, this is completely 220 00:16:53,874 --> 00:16:56,934 a separate topic, but four units on R-2. 221 00:16:56,979 --> 00:17:02,934 When was the code changed to... I think Greg mentioned 222 00:17:02,994 --> 00:17:06,924 a long time ago that the code was changed. 223 00:17:07,015 --> 00:17:10,285 I don't see a reason why you can't have two duplexes. 224 00:17:11,575 --> 00:17:14,844 But to me, it doesn't make sense to allow four units in R-2. 225 00:17:14,874 --> 00:17:20,184 I know that's the way the code is written, and this is probably not the right time 226 00:17:20,244 --> 00:17:26,184 to bring up this larger issue. But, yeah, I guess I don't see any reason 227 00:17:26,244 --> 00:17:30,475 to forbid two duplexes if you're going to allow four townhomes. 228 00:17:30,624 --> 00:17:31,614 Seems kind of, 229 00:17:33,864 --> 00:17:39,054 I don't know the right word, but just like an arbitrary standard to say no two 230 00:17:39,114 --> 00:17:42,684 duplexes, but you can have one four multiplex. 231 00:17:44,424 --> 00:17:49,464 But in my opinion, four units on R-2 is way too much, but again, I realize it's not 232 00:17:49,494 --> 00:17:52,584 really probably the appropriate place for that discussion. 233 00:17:55,314 --> 00:17:59,694 I'd just like to jump in here, too, just in terms of the treatment of ADUs. 234 00:17:59,725 --> 00:18:01,989 I just want to make sure that we're not going to end up in a situation if we have 235 00:18:02,034 --> 00:18:07,029 two duplexes, then there's like each duplex can do an ADU, and you end up with 236 00:18:07,824 --> 00:18:09,624 eight units. 237 00:18:11,604 --> 00:18:17,304 So the language in the sample motion that Roan drafted explicitly indicates 238 00:18:17,364 --> 00:18:21,564 that the maximum number of units allowed would still be fixed. 239 00:18:22,134 --> 00:18:25,269 Okay, great. Thank you. 240 00:18:25,314 --> 00:18:31,044 Just for the, it says primary dwelling, so you could still have two accessory 241 00:18:31,074 --> 00:18:32,334 dwellings in R-2. 242 00:18:33,414 --> 00:18:38,049 Okay. So you could, the maximum then you could have two duplexes, so four units, 243 00:18:38,094 --> 00:18:40,824 and two of those could have ADU, so you could have six units. 244 00:18:42,444 --> 00:18:45,984 Yeah. The ADU code specifies two ADUs per parcel. 245 00:18:46,494 --> 00:18:46,824 If the- 246 00:18:47,094 --> 00:18:47,364 Yeah. 247 00:18:47,725 --> 00:18:49,914 ... obviously you need a big enough lot to do all that. 248 00:18:50,244 --> 00:18:54,984 That's right. But yeah, you could have two duplexes and then two ADUs. 249 00:18:56,394 --> 00:19:02,064 To Peter's point, what he brought up on his handout that the definition of an ADU 250 00:19:02,154 --> 00:19:05,004 specifically references single family dwellings. 251 00:19:05,664 --> 00:19:10,374 So by definition, you couldn't have an ADU with a duplex, which is maybe another 252 00:19:10,404 --> 00:19:16,164 thing that we might want to tweak when we do a code update, if we don't think 253 00:19:16,194 --> 00:19:19,074 there's a really good reason for that, if it seems a little bit arbitrary. 254 00:19:21,204 --> 00:19:21,384 Okay. 255 00:19:22,614 --> 00:19:24,654 But that's getting a little bit off track. I digress. 256 00:19:29,844 --> 00:19:35,725 Okay. I'm just looking at the handout that he gave us and trying 257 00:19:35,754 --> 00:19:41,274 to figure out where this is, because I know of a new duplex or two 258 00:19:41,304 --> 00:19:42,894 that Mast built. 259 00:19:44,484 --> 00:19:49,029 I think Washington and Estes. But this shows a house next to it where, the one I'm 260 00:19:49,044 --> 00:19:52,704 thinking of, that's Estes Street right there. 261 00:19:52,824 --> 00:19:58,225 So this must be further down the block or something, because the one 262 00:19:59,004 --> 00:20:00,834 that I'm thinking of has the two 263 00:20:03,414 --> 00:20:09,294 side-by-side units on Washington, I think it's Washington, but they're working on 264 00:20:09,324 --> 00:20:12,294 construction in the back, but it looks like a single unit there. 265 00:20:14,064 --> 00:20:14,244 So- 266 00:20:15,174 --> 00:20:17,844 It says 341 East Washington on the sheet. 267 00:20:17,994 --> 00:20:19,794 Yeah. But I don't know why that is relevant- 268 00:20:19,869 --> 00:20:19,869 Yeah 269 00:20:19,869 --> 00:20:22,074 ... with respect to Estes. It 270 00:20:25,464 --> 00:20:29,754 can't be the same one because there's not a street along 271 00:20:29,814 --> 00:20:35,454 the west side of the lot, as there is on the one I'm thinking of. 272 00:20:35,515 --> 00:20:38,574 So I'll have to go by this one on the way home, see what it looks like. 273 00:20:40,015 --> 00:20:44,694 Okay. So any additional discussion? 274 00:20:49,614 --> 00:20:52,374 Okay, then do we have a motion? 275 00:20:57,594 --> 00:20:58,074 Based on- 276 00:20:58,194 --> 00:21:02,454 Carl, you never gave us your thoughts. You have any thoughts on this? 277 00:21:10,225 --> 00:21:15,024 Oh yes, I did want to ask, are the two units in the front 278 00:21:16,015 --> 00:21:18,774 large enough to not be considered ADUs? 279 00:21:20,964 --> 00:21:26,604 There is a standard, an ADU specific standard, that they can be as big as, but not 280 00:21:26,663 --> 00:21:30,653 bigger than the primary unit. So the ones in front were smaller. 281 00:21:31,554 --> 00:21:33,444 And that's why the 282 00:21:35,574 --> 00:21:39,414 classifications didn't work in that case, because the big ones need to be in front 283 00:21:39,564 --> 00:21:41,484 for the back ones to be considered ADUs. 284 00:21:41,934 --> 00:21:47,874 Yeah. And, but an ADU can be up to two bedrooms, and the two in the front 285 00:21:48,265 --> 00:21:52,824 are less than two bedrooms, so they could be ADUs. 286 00:21:52,914 --> 00:21:58,044 But my question originally was, are they big enough to be considered not an ADU? 287 00:21:59,768 --> 00:22:02,874 They're basically efficiency apartments. 288 00:22:02,904 --> 00:22:03,144 Mm-hmm. 289 00:22:03,234 --> 00:22:07,704 They're not what I would call a single family home. But is there a... 290 00:22:08,169 --> 00:22:08,754 I think it's 291 00:22:10,044 --> 00:22:10,854 the minimum 292 00:22:12,475 --> 00:22:15,864 size for single family home is... 293 00:22:19,194 --> 00:22:21,864 I want to say it's like 400 or something like that. 294 00:22:22,209 --> 00:22:24,114 Yeah. I think that was right. It's 295 00:22:25,374 --> 00:22:30,759 400, which I remember my studio apartment in college was 400 square feet. 296 00:22:30,774 --> 00:22:36,144 That wasn't very big. It was big enough for me, but not for anybody 297 00:22:36,234 --> 00:22:38,484 else. Okay. So, 298 00:22:42,744 --> 00:22:43,015 I'm 299 00:22:44,664 --> 00:22:50,483 conscious of the fact that if we make this decision that says two 300 00:22:54,234 --> 00:22:59,664 duplexes on an R-2 lot is acceptable, and it seems like we have an 301 00:22:59,694 --> 00:23:02,034 example here that was approved. This 302 00:23:03,654 --> 00:23:08,304 was approved more than two years ago, apparently because it wasn't during my term 303 00:23:08,364 --> 00:23:08,634 here. 304 00:23:10,884 --> 00:23:15,504 Or maybe it was a type one, so it just went through staff, but we didn't have any 305 00:23:15,624 --> 00:23:18,504 staff at the time. So I don't know. 306 00:23:19,884 --> 00:23:25,794 So we want to be careful not to make a decision tonight that would 307 00:23:25,854 --> 00:23:30,444 preclude doing this in the future on a more appropriately shaped lot. 308 00:23:33,744 --> 00:23:39,339 So given that, I think that all the discussion tonight 309 00:23:39,384 --> 00:23:44,904 supports going ahead and removing clause 310 00:23:44,934 --> 00:23:50,858 12 of our original approval. If someone agrees with that, 311 00:23:50,904 --> 00:23:54,294 then you should be able to use sample motion number 312 00:23:54,384 --> 00:24:02,140 one. 313 00:24:02,140 --> 00:24:03,894 Oh, no, sorry. Number three. 314 00:24:06,654 --> 00:24:11,964 Is it worth us talking more about the potential for six units on an R-2? 315 00:24:12,024 --> 00:24:12,234 If- 316 00:24:12,864 --> 00:24:18,234 Yeah. I agree. You were going, so I'll let you continue. 317 00:24:19,434 --> 00:24:23,574 Yeah, I just think if that is a possibility that could come into play, especially 318 00:24:23,634 --> 00:24:28,674 on larger lots like this. Not going to happen on Wyers in this case, but there are 319 00:24:28,704 --> 00:24:32,124 bigger lots, and I'm wondering is that something that we're okay with? 320 00:24:32,154 --> 00:24:32,604 Because 321 00:24:34,314 --> 00:24:37,763 I can imagine that if Peter's just plugged into this, there are probably other 322 00:24:37,794 --> 00:24:41,244 people that are just plugged into this who might be waiting for the moment to get 323 00:24:42,084 --> 00:24:45,384 an application in before we can actually modify the code. 324 00:24:45,594 --> 00:24:48,083 I think we should be pretty intentional about it. 325 00:24:48,924 --> 00:24:54,024 Yeah, it seems to me, and I guess I want to just back up and have a question about 326 00:24:54,324 --> 00:24:56,394 procedural allowance. Like 327 00:24:57,954 --> 00:25:02,484 how far is our authority in making decisions go today? 328 00:25:03,144 --> 00:25:08,515 If we make a recommendation that we, the motion number 329 00:25:08,634 --> 00:25:12,294 three with the additional clause that 330 00:25:14,004 --> 00:25:19,839 we are capping the total number of residences to a certain number and not 331 00:25:19,884 --> 00:25:25,794 allowing for the potential effect of 332 00:25:25,854 --> 00:25:27,324 having six ADUs. 333 00:25:29,034 --> 00:25:33,084 Is that something that we could enact today, or is that just a recommendation for 334 00:25:33,234 --> 00:25:37,884 future editing of the code when that time permits? 335 00:25:40,014 --> 00:25:44,230 I think the recommendation would be to stick pretty narrowly to the question that's 336 00:25:44,274 --> 00:25:48,429 in front of us for now. But if we wanted to do that in a future meeting, that's 337 00:25:48,444 --> 00:25:49,194 definitely doable. 338 00:25:52,225 --> 00:25:58,209 Because it seems like, both the particulars, the instances of what's been 339 00:25:58,254 --> 00:26:04,165 presented today, it makes sense that we're, by approving motion 340 00:26:04,225 --> 00:26:09,804 number three, that we're in accordance with the intention of the 341 00:26:09,864 --> 00:26:15,654 code, but also we would need to further constrain the intention of the code to 342 00:26:15,745 --> 00:26:20,679 limit unbridled density. So that's- 343 00:26:21,564 --> 00:26:23,995 But in the meantime, we would be establishing a 344 00:26:25,465 --> 00:26:27,264 pretty significant precedent. 345 00:26:29,844 --> 00:26:34,764 I'm just looking at the ADU chapter real quick here. 346 00:26:35,844 --> 00:26:37,284 Okay. 347 00:26:56,304 --> 00:27:01,824 So looking at this accessory dwelling units chapter, which is 17.64 in the 348 00:27:01,840 --> 00:27:02,454 municipal code, 349 00:27:06,114 --> 00:27:10,855 it does talk about, it says once or twice the principal dwelling, but doesn't 350 00:27:10,884 --> 00:27:11,874 really say 351 00:27:13,236 --> 00:27:18,877 In here at all that ADUs are restricted to lots that just have one single 352 00:27:18,937 --> 00:27:23,796 family home on them. And they do say that you can have two ADUs in R-2 and three in 353 00:27:23,916 --> 00:27:24,427 R-3. 354 00:27:26,346 --> 00:27:32,151 So there's really just the in definitions that ADUs are linked to single 355 00:27:32,226 --> 00:27:34,506 family homes. It's not really reflected here. 356 00:27:36,366 --> 00:27:41,196 So I think that's another thing that could reasonably use a code interpretation, a 357 00:27:41,226 --> 00:27:42,096 planning commission 358 00:27:43,687 --> 00:27:47,586 about whether ADUs are even allowed with, in conjunction with townhomes or duplexes 359 00:27:47,646 --> 00:27:50,256 or anything but a single family home. 360 00:27:54,877 --> 00:28:00,096 The definition of R-2 caps it at four 361 00:28:01,536 --> 00:28:02,886 proper dwellings. 362 00:28:03,067 --> 00:28:03,846 Primary, yeah. 363 00:28:04,146 --> 00:28:06,216 Not four dwellings, period. 364 00:28:06,486 --> 00:28:06,726 Right. 365 00:28:07,386 --> 00:28:12,741 Okay. Now, I think we would be well 366 00:28:12,756 --> 00:28:17,556 advised to get on that and get it fixed. 367 00:28:18,906 --> 00:28:23,826 That it's four total dwellings, not four primary dwellings in R-2, 368 00:28:23,916 --> 00:28:26,646 because when the next one of these comes up 369 00:28:28,116 --> 00:28:30,891 and it has 370 00:28:32,256 --> 00:28:37,687 two duplexes and two ADUs, the neighbors are going to be even more unhappy than the 371 00:28:37,716 --> 00:28:40,326 neighbors are with the one we're talking about tonight. 372 00:28:43,687 --> 00:28:49,266 Right. And to Adam's earlier point, if we go that direction, it might be worth 373 00:28:49,326 --> 00:28:54,786 looking back at the ordinances when we passed maybe the minutes and the recordings 374 00:28:54,817 --> 00:28:59,437 and see what the discussion was, because the intention to allow up to six dwellings 375 00:28:59,496 --> 00:29:01,957 per lot, was it just like a slip of the mind? 376 00:29:11,016 --> 00:29:15,966 Everybody's unmuting. 377 00:29:18,786 --> 00:29:24,576 We're 378 00:29:24,606 --> 00:29:26,046 getting some feedback from your mic. 379 00:29:30,127 --> 00:29:30,877 Thank you. 380 00:29:34,806 --> 00:29:36,877 Brandon, I see your finger by the button. 381 00:29:36,937 --> 00:29:37,416 Are you going to 382 00:29:39,396 --> 00:29:39,996 talk some more? 383 00:29:40,116 --> 00:29:44,286 Making sure that there's value before I accept. 384 00:29:45,846 --> 00:29:46,192 All is 385 00:29:46,356 --> 00:29:57,785 good. 386 00:30:00,636 --> 00:30:06,187 I suppose I will offer my perspective as I think the lone 387 00:30:06,246 --> 00:30:07,446 renter in the room. 388 00:30:08,976 --> 00:30:14,721 As long as the other standards are met, lot coverage, setbacks, parking and 389 00:30:14,736 --> 00:30:15,726 everything. 390 00:30:17,796 --> 00:30:23,046 If an R-2 lot allowed for two duplexes plus two more ADUs 391 00:30:27,695 --> 00:30:29,616 and it was not offensive, 392 00:30:31,506 --> 00:30:36,096 I suppose that I would not have a problem with that personally, and I think that 393 00:30:36,111 --> 00:30:41,886 that would be in keeping with our goals of creating more middle 394 00:30:41,946 --> 00:30:42,457 housing, 395 00:30:44,226 --> 00:30:47,451 provided it doesn't erode the 396 00:30:49,266 --> 00:30:51,067 loveliness of our town. 397 00:30:54,636 --> 00:31:00,366 But also that feels crazy to say that we would allow for six units on an R-2 lot. 398 00:31:03,396 --> 00:31:05,766 It's twice as many as are allowed in R-1, though. 399 00:31:05,826 --> 00:31:11,466 So that if the R-1 conversation is 400 00:31:11,526 --> 00:31:14,976 concluded, then it doesn't seem to be a major departure. 401 00:31:15,246 --> 00:31:18,096 You get three in R-1, you get six in R-2. 402 00:31:18,696 --> 00:31:21,861 And how many in R-3? 403 00:31:22,026 --> 00:31:24,996 R-3, I think you can have up to eight townhomes. 404 00:31:26,016 --> 00:31:31,177 Okay. Yeah. Well, the one on Wyers has 405 00:31:33,666 --> 00:31:38,826 10, actually in one row, not completely connected. 406 00:31:38,871 --> 00:31:43,536 There's a three and a five and a two, I believe, but it might be three parcels. 407 00:31:44,826 --> 00:31:48,890 Yeah. And I know that there's a PUD in that area as well, so we might be talking 408 00:31:48,906 --> 00:31:49,596 about the PUD. 409 00:31:52,296 --> 00:31:55,536 That's the woodwork units that are like three stories tall, which are coming into 410 00:31:55,567 --> 00:31:55,836 town. 411 00:31:56,166 --> 00:31:56,437 Right. 412 00:31:56,526 --> 00:31:56,736 Yeah. 413 00:31:58,746 --> 00:32:04,416 Okay. Just want to say one thing to your comment, Brandon, you 414 00:32:04,536 --> 00:32:09,937 added, "And if it wasn't offensive." We can't make decisions based on that, though. 415 00:32:10,296 --> 00:32:15,756 That's one of the reasons that this one was people didn't like it because it was 416 00:32:15,817 --> 00:32:21,246 sort of offensive, and it's also 69 people wrote in about Center Market 417 00:32:21,937 --> 00:32:26,616 being offensive. But if it meets the codes, we got to approve it. 418 00:32:29,976 --> 00:32:31,476 We do review 419 00:32:32,707 --> 00:32:38,046 R-2 developments, though. Right? Correct me when I'm wrong. 420 00:32:39,276 --> 00:32:43,791 That is a function that this body did not assume for a number of years, 421 00:32:44,346 --> 00:32:49,567 but now in recent months has recently started assuming again. 422 00:32:52,296 --> 00:32:56,466 Yeah, I think there were projects around town before I got here that were de facto 423 00:32:56,646 --> 00:32:58,927 approved and didn't come to the planning commission. 424 00:32:59,286 --> 00:33:03,817 But once we looked at the code, being fresh here, it said site plan reviews are 425 00:33:03,832 --> 00:33:08,286 required for everything except single family homes, and accessory dwelling units. 426 00:33:09,546 --> 00:33:13,281 And so that was why it came to the planning commission and trying to keep closer to 427 00:33:13,296 --> 00:33:14,166 the text of the code. 428 00:33:17,677 --> 00:33:22,506 But my point was, yes, we would review it, but that doesn't mean we can say we 429 00:33:22,536 --> 00:33:27,576 don't like it. We have to look at the code and say, "Does it meet the code? Yes. 430 00:33:27,906 --> 00:33:28,296 Pass." 431 00:33:30,276 --> 00:33:34,536 Yeah. It does align with the language of the code and not does it offend our 432 00:33:34,627 --> 00:33:36,696 sensibilities, our aesthetics. 433 00:33:40,716 --> 00:33:46,146 I have just an, it seems to me that this 434 00:33:46,416 --> 00:33:52,266 scenario to satisfy all those various conditions 435 00:33:52,296 --> 00:33:56,916 that you laid out, Brandon, it seems like there's very few parcels that are big 436 00:33:56,976 --> 00:33:59,346 enough to allow for this 437 00:34:00,666 --> 00:34:01,957 potential scenario, 438 00:34:03,396 --> 00:34:05,466 regardless of how we feel about them. 439 00:34:05,496 --> 00:34:10,761 But it's nice to know, right, that there's lots of good language and parameters 440 00:34:10,776 --> 00:34:16,506 built into the code that protect us from going super 441 00:34:16,567 --> 00:34:22,506 dense and... But I don't know 442 00:34:22,627 --> 00:34:24,817 the lot that we're talking about, and so 443 00:34:27,396 --> 00:34:32,797 from my perspective and being new to this instance, this particular 444 00:34:33,366 --> 00:34:38,496 scenario, it seems like we should move to adopt 445 00:34:39,576 --> 00:34:43,896 number three, motion number three, and also make 446 00:34:45,576 --> 00:34:49,011 the intention stated that we're going to review the code to 447 00:34:50,707 --> 00:34:55,687 at least revisit this bigger question of ADUs on top of 448 00:34:57,067 --> 00:34:59,526 duplex and townhome density. 449 00:35:00,606 --> 00:35:06,156 Okay. So for your information, Adam, this is a lot 450 00:35:07,086 --> 00:35:12,726 just sort of behind the empty lots on Jewett next to the 451 00:35:12,786 --> 00:35:18,216 tattoo parlor. It's a non-conforming lot that was platted 452 00:35:18,306 --> 00:35:23,406 before any of our codes. It would not be able to be created today 453 00:35:23,826 --> 00:35:29,586 because the width of the lot at the street, which is Wyers, one 454 00:35:29,646 --> 00:35:35,346 block off of Jewett, is 27 and a half feet. It has to be at least 30 feet now. 455 00:35:36,906 --> 00:35:42,786 In the back, it's 67 feet, I think. So the design of 456 00:35:42,817 --> 00:35:48,741 this unit is two fairly big units, duplex, like two bedroom ones 457 00:35:49,446 --> 00:35:54,906 on the alley, and two little bitty ones on the front because they have to have 458 00:35:54,966 --> 00:36:00,321 parking spaces. So basically the whole front yard is driveway on Wyers, 459 00:36:01,297 --> 00:36:06,336 and the whole front yard against the alley in the back is parking 460 00:36:06,396 --> 00:36:12,201 spaces. To get four there, you need two for the two small units, one each, and 461 00:36:12,276 --> 00:36:14,286 four, two each for the ones in the back. 462 00:36:14,766 --> 00:36:19,626 So all along the street and all along the alley is parking 463 00:36:20,724 --> 00:36:26,154 And then from there to the front door is just room to walk on each 464 00:36:26,574 --> 00:36:28,494 case. And then the two units are 465 00:36:30,355 --> 00:36:32,633 six feet apart, the backs of them. 466 00:36:33,924 --> 00:36:37,914 So the windows on that wall look at the windows on the other unit's wall, 467 00:36:39,534 --> 00:36:42,414 not at nature or light or anything. 468 00:36:45,234 --> 00:36:50,184 Ro, can you explain why you recommended motion number one? 469 00:36:52,734 --> 00:36:58,464 Sure. So the language overall is pretty vague, and I feel like it could 470 00:36:58,525 --> 00:37:00,444 reasonably come down one way or the other. 471 00:37:01,855 --> 00:37:07,704 But the thing that I ultimately noticed was different is that it's in 472 00:37:07,734 --> 00:37:13,494 my findings number seven, when we talk about houses forming a 473 00:37:13,554 --> 00:37:19,134 continuous group, and multiplexes means a building, which I interpret to mean a 474 00:37:19,164 --> 00:37:23,334 single building, are going to be occupied by more than two families. 475 00:37:23,424 --> 00:37:28,674 So houses and multiplex are both allowed in R-2 in those 476 00:37:29,275 --> 00:37:34,194 permitted uses, and they both specify that they're continuously grouped or it's one 477 00:37:34,254 --> 00:37:38,724 building. So that's how I came to that conclusion, but I think it's vague enough to 478 00:37:38,784 --> 00:37:39,384 go either way. 479 00:37:41,994 --> 00:37:44,064 You said definition number seven? 480 00:37:44,574 --> 00:37:44,754 What- 481 00:37:45,954 --> 00:37:51,234 Yep, number seven for house and multifamily residential multiplex. 482 00:37:55,374 --> 00:38:00,025 It's on page 11 of our handout for the meeting 483 00:38:00,054 --> 00:38:01,494 tonight. 484 00:38:01,614 --> 00:38:01,884 Okay. 485 00:38:12,204 --> 00:38:18,144 And then for sample motion number three, I would maybe edit it one 486 00:38:18,174 --> 00:38:23,064 little bit to say the total number of primary dwellings, just to specify that we're 487 00:38:23,124 --> 00:38:28,719 talking about those four, and we can leave the AU six dwelling question for another 488 00:38:28,734 --> 00:38:33,624 time. I'm looking at the section about planning commission interpretations, and it 489 00:38:33,684 --> 00:38:37,434 doesn't say that it has to be tied to a specific application, so we could consider 490 00:38:37,494 --> 00:38:38,934 that at our next meeting if you wanted. 491 00:38:51,384 --> 00:38:53,484 I would be okay with giving it more time to think it over. 492 00:38:53,574 --> 00:38:59,514 But, yeah, the language is so ambiguous that it does seem kind of arbitrary 493 00:38:59,544 --> 00:39:04,944 to say. I don't really like the idea of two duplexes, but it seems arbitrary to me 494 00:39:04,974 --> 00:39:10,284 to say you can't do that when you can have one 495 00:39:10,344 --> 00:39:12,054 multiplex with four units. 496 00:39:15,264 --> 00:39:19,989 But yeah, I don't know. I'd be okay with waiting a little bit longer, but I don't 497 00:39:20,004 --> 00:39:22,284 know if I'll come to a different conclusion. 498 00:39:37,014 --> 00:39:39,114 Stall this vote, you know? 499 00:39:41,454 --> 00:39:43,824 Can you say that again, stall this? 500 00:39:43,884 --> 00:39:44,994 Stalls allowing this vote. 501 00:39:46,344 --> 00:39:47,784 Is that where you take a pre-vote? 502 00:39:49,284 --> 00:39:50,874 Let's check our handy-dandy bylaws. 503 00:39:52,900 --> 00:39:55,344 Or we could just make a motion. We could see what happens. 504 00:39:55,764 --> 00:39:56,814 That's true. You could do that as well. 505 00:39:57,174 --> 00:40:02,724 That seems to be... The city council did that last week with Marla's pet 506 00:40:02,754 --> 00:40:06,804 project. Somebody made a motion and then voted against it. 507 00:40:09,804 --> 00:40:13,959 I move the planning commission interprets the code to allow duplexes as a principal 508 00:40:14,034 --> 00:40:18,804 permitted use in the R-2 multiplex residential district when the total number of 509 00:40:18,864 --> 00:40:22,734 dwellings does not exceed the maximum number for primary dwellings 510 00:40:24,144 --> 00:40:28,824 based on the findings above with the addition/deletion of the following 511 00:40:29,874 --> 00:40:30,414 finding. 512 00:40:30,775 --> 00:40:32,124 You don't have to say that. It's not relevant. 513 00:40:32,664 --> 00:40:33,025 It's not. 514 00:40:33,234 --> 00:40:34,314 Okay. Strike that. 515 00:40:38,634 --> 00:40:44,605 Oh, actually, yeah, if you're doing number three, we might need to revise 516 00:40:45,714 --> 00:40:47,724 one of the findings to make that make sense. 517 00:40:49,674 --> 00:40:52,014 Where am I at? Different versions. 518 00:41:04,134 --> 00:41:04,855 I think maybe... 519 00:41:07,554 --> 00:41:08,994 Sorry to interrupt your motion here. 520 00:41:10,404 --> 00:41:16,224 The addition could be that two duplexes is in general keeping. 521 00:41:16,944 --> 00:41:19,494 Maybe that would just be the way to round that out. 522 00:41:23,605 --> 00:41:27,804 Since we don't have a second yet, I think you can amend it without- 523 00:41:28,344 --> 00:41:28,525 Okay 524 00:41:31,314 --> 00:41:32,754 ... doing anything special. 525 00:41:36,819 --> 00:41:37,074 Hmm. 526 00:41:45,114 --> 00:41:46,374 Are we waiting for someone to second? 527 00:41:47,484 --> 00:41:51,084 No, we're waiting for a rewording of the motion. 528 00:41:51,894 --> 00:41:52,779 Okay. 529 00:41:52,855 --> 00:41:56,214 I move that the planning commission interprets the code to allow duplex as a 530 00:41:56,275 --> 00:42:00,474 principal permitted use in R-2 multiplex residential district when the total number 531 00:42:00,504 --> 00:42:05,454 of dwellings does not exceed the maximum number for primary dwellings, 532 00:42:10,494 --> 00:42:11,124 period. 533 00:42:23,454 --> 00:42:24,954 Okay, now we're waiting for a second. 534 00:42:25,494 --> 00:42:25,674 Well, 535 00:42:27,894 --> 00:42:32,319 sorry, it seems like we needed to add the, as part of it, based on the findings 536 00:42:32,394 --> 00:42:38,304 above with the addition/deletion of the following finding that two duplexes 537 00:42:40,194 --> 00:42:44,844 in a single lot is in standard keeping with the intent. 538 00:42:45,069 --> 00:42:49,584 That was the final clause, right? We needed to amend that. 539 00:42:50,694 --> 00:42:55,344 Yeah. My findings and conclusions were from the angle of my staff recommendation. 540 00:42:55,464 --> 00:43:01,194 So, I think we would just want to add one sentence onto finding number seven that 541 00:43:01,254 --> 00:43:06,669 says, "Two duplexes is nevertheless still in general keeping with the uses in the 542 00:43:06,744 --> 00:43:08,364 zone." 543 00:43:28,134 --> 00:43:30,744 Well, actually, no, we've already kind of got that in the conclusions. 544 00:43:36,864 --> 00:43:42,849 Yeah, conclusion number two could be edited to just strike not and not, and then 545 00:43:42,864 --> 00:43:46,464 it would say, "More than one duplex is similar to and in general keeping with the 546 00:43:46,494 --> 00:43:51,504 principal uses authorized in the R-2 zone." And then strike that second sentence 547 00:43:51,534 --> 00:43:55,525 altogether. 548 00:44:04,374 --> 00:44:07,044 Is explaining the rationale in the motion necessary? 549 00:44:10,855 --> 00:44:12,775 No, I don't think so. That's what the discussion's for. 550 00:44:15,144 --> 00:44:18,984 I'm just saying that we'll need to edit these findings and conclusions to reflect 551 00:44:19,014 --> 00:44:23,694 the decision because this lays out our reasoning for future people to look at. 552 00:44:35,094 --> 00:44:40,074 And I just want to make sure that I am reflecting what the commission finds and not 553 00:44:40,134 --> 00:44:41,394 reinterpreting later on. 554 00:44:53,454 --> 00:44:56,484 I have to admit, I'm a little lost on exactly 555 00:44:58,134 --> 00:45:02,664 what you would say for the motion. That's why I'm not volunteering to resay the 556 00:45:02,844 --> 00:45:08,754 motion. But we had the motion been said, and now we're waiting for a second, or 557 00:45:08,784 --> 00:45:10,299 do we have to restate the motion? 558 00:45:13,584 --> 00:45:17,574 I think the chair restates the motion once it's been finalized. 559 00:45:20,094 --> 00:45:24,775 Yes, I guess I could do that. And the current motion, I can 560 00:45:25,914 --> 00:45:26,094 say- 561 00:45:32,124 --> 00:45:32,904 I move the 562 00:45:34,164 --> 00:45:38,184 proposed motion by Brendan is, I move that the planning commission interpret the 563 00:45:38,244 --> 00:45:44,139 code to allow duplexes as a general permitted use in the R2 Multiplex Residential 564 00:45:44,214 --> 00:45:49,704 District when the total number of dwellings does not exceed the maximum 565 00:45:49,764 --> 00:45:51,999 number for primary dwellings, 566 00:45:53,214 --> 00:45:55,314 period. That's what he said. 567 00:45:59,334 --> 00:46:04,584 And yeah, so I'm going 568 00:46:05,934 --> 00:46:10,044 to abstain from doing discussion yet because we don't have a second. 569 00:46:22,074 --> 00:46:23,004 I'll second the motion. 570 00:46:24,234 --> 00:46:29,079 Thank you. We have a second, and then we can move on to discussion on 571 00:46:29,154 --> 00:46:31,464 that. And 572 00:46:36,084 --> 00:46:38,424 so I want to go back to Rowan, 573 00:46:39,954 --> 00:46:41,484 your concerns. 574 00:46:42,834 --> 00:46:43,494 Can we 575 00:46:44,934 --> 00:46:47,214 update your findings 576 00:46:48,564 --> 00:46:52,584 such that that motion will work? 577 00:46:54,684 --> 00:47:00,264 Yes. I can update my findings and conclusions to 578 00:47:00,355 --> 00:47:02,124 reflect that. 579 00:47:05,574 --> 00:47:08,964 And then, Carl, you have to sign it ultimately, so then you'll get a final chance 580 00:47:09,023 --> 00:47:12,204 to review what the findings and conclusions are. 581 00:47:12,864 --> 00:47:17,829 Alternatively, we could just include it as in the next packet and make sure that 582 00:47:17,874 --> 00:47:21,234 it's exactly what you all want. 583 00:47:22,614 --> 00:47:25,824 Like I said, the tricky thing is that our code does not give us any guidance for 584 00:47:25,884 --> 00:47:28,929 how this process should unfold, so we're kind of making it up right now. 585 00:47:37,525 --> 00:47:38,004 Are we 586 00:47:40,074 --> 00:47:45,624 in danger in any way if we take a vote before the findings are 587 00:47:45,654 --> 00:47:46,284 updated? 588 00:47:50,454 --> 00:47:54,355 I don't think so. Unfortunately, Shawn couldn't be here tonight. He's traveling. 589 00:47:56,514 --> 00:47:59,154 But I think we've got the recording, we'll have the minutes. 590 00:47:59,424 --> 00:48:03,264 I think the intent is pretty clear, and I can update findings and conclusions to 591 00:48:03,324 --> 00:48:04,734 reflect this discussion. 592 00:48:06,025 --> 00:48:06,474 Okay. 593 00:48:10,794 --> 00:48:12,504 Any additional discussions? 594 00:48:13,525 --> 00:48:18,114 Is that process that you noted was ill-defined, we're figuring out, is that the 595 00:48:18,444 --> 00:48:23,064 process of going from our decision on this application to 596 00:48:25,044 --> 00:48:28,464 actually modifying the code? Or what was that process you were referring to 597 00:48:28,525 --> 00:48:28,974 specifically? 598 00:48:29,304 --> 00:48:32,124 Specifically, the code interpretation process. 599 00:48:32,964 --> 00:48:36,264 Our code gives the authority to planning commission to interpret things in the 600 00:48:36,324 --> 00:48:41,844 zoning ordinance but doesn't give any guidance for how that process should go. 601 00:48:48,444 --> 00:48:50,394 Okay. Any additional discussion? 602 00:48:54,264 --> 00:48:56,724 Okay, Marian, please take a roll call vote. 603 00:48:58,794 --> 00:48:59,754 Brendan Brown? 604 00:49:01,044 --> 00:49:01,525 Yay. 605 00:49:03,355 --> 00:49:03,804 Aye. 606 00:49:05,304 --> 00:49:06,114 Adam Elliott? 607 00:49:06,954 --> 00:49:08,424 Aye. 608 00:49:09,114 --> 00:49:09,954 Erica Price? 609 00:49:10,614 --> 00:49:10,824 Aye. 610 00:49:15,264 --> 00:49:16,374 Could you repeat that, please? 611 00:49:17,874 --> 00:49:18,953 Yes. Aye. 612 00:49:20,334 --> 00:49:20,980 Amit Walker? 613 00:49:22,855 --> 00:49:24,444 Can I abstain? Is that an option? 614 00:49:25,254 --> 00:49:25,584 Yes. 615 00:49:26,304 --> 00:49:27,174 All right, I abstain. 616 00:49:28,584 --> 00:49:29,304 Carl Tabon? 617 00:49:30,534 --> 00:49:31,944 I'm going to abstain as well. 618 00:49:33,834 --> 00:49:39,369 Thank you. Let the record reflect the motion passes with a vote of three ayes and 619 00:49:39,444 --> 00:49:40,404 two abstains. 620 00:49:45,324 --> 00:49:45,864 Okay. 621 00:49:49,644 --> 00:49:53,964 So I believe that's our agenda for today. 622 00:49:56,784 --> 00:50:01,254 Just one quick staff announcement is that next meeting, we will have our first 623 00:50:01,314 --> 00:50:05,799 public hearing for the short-term rental in commercial zones ordinance. 624 00:50:08,454 --> 00:50:09,114 Oh, and 625 00:50:10,704 --> 00:50:16,044 for Center Market, they are aiming to get the revisions back to me in time for the 626 00:50:16,105 --> 00:50:17,754 October 14th meeting. 627 00:50:19,855 --> 00:50:21,294 So that's just a sneak peek. 628 00:50:22,014 --> 00:50:25,314 So when you say our next meeting, are you talking two weeks from today? 629 00:50:25,374 --> 00:50:28,014 Are you talking on the October 14th? 630 00:50:28,614 --> 00:50:31,734 Two weeks from today, September 23rd. 631 00:50:31,855 --> 00:50:37,419 I know you will be absent, Carl, and so we will have Erica chair the meeting in 632 00:50:37,434 --> 00:50:37,944 that case. 633 00:50:41,275 --> 00:50:44,334 Okay. Thanks. Adjourned. 634 00:50:47,544 --> 00:50:48,023 Thank you.