[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.
[2:09] 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.