Hood River zone code revisited on March 29

City council concluded the public testimony period for the ordinance on March 15, and began deliberating the future of the proposals designed to allow for greater density in most residential zones as a way to meet the demand for affordable housing in a community where the average home price purchase is above $400,000 and purchase and rental opportunities are scarce and expensive.

Contacted last week, City Planning Director Dustin Nilsen noted that it is likely that council will adopt the ordinance on March 29. The regular council meeting will be conducted remotely via Zoom, starting at 6:30 p.m. See cityofhoodriver.gov/public meetings for details on accessing the meeting. The proposed ordinance is included in the packet for the March 15 meeting.

In testimony March 15, a primary critic of the proposed ordinance, Susan Crowley, said, “At this point, very few people know what’s going on and I think you need to defer decision-making on this.”

The March 8 public hearing on the proposal was extended to March 15 after Nilsen acknowledged that public notification of the hearing, while made, had not accurately calculated the minimum number of days prior to the meeting the city needs to publicize the meeting, under state law.

According to Ordinance 2061, the revised standards are intended to support the city’s housing goal of more efficient use of urban residential land; support development of diverse housing types in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan Housing Needs Analysis; increase the variety of housing types available for households; provide opportunities for small, dwelling units within existing neighborhoods; increase opportunities for home ownership; and provide opportunities for creative and high-quality infill development that is compatible with existing neighborhoods.

The code update affects site area per unit, allowable building types, setbacks and site perimeter buffers, parking, building orientation and separation, and other issues.

Nilsen clarified that under the new missing middle rules, the number of dwellings on a lot would typically be between two and six, depending on the lot size, while another key concern expressed by the community is that as many as 12 dwellings could potentially be allowed. Underlying conditions and requirements would need to be met to build as many as 12.

Nilsen stated, “No more than 12 units would be allowed in any project and is the maximum number dwellings for projects currently located in a High Density Zone (R-3). In this zone, 12 units would only be allowed if the site has the area required for that many dwellings, which based on the code would be somewhere between 12,000 and 18,000 square feet (between a quarter and half-acre).

“Twelve units on a standard sized lot in any zone is currently prohibited and has never been discussed or contemplated in any version of the draft legislation,” Nilsen said.

“As drafted, no more than six units would be permitted per project in Low density zones (R-1), and no more than eight units in standard density zones (R-2). Not unlike the High Density R-3 example, the regulations in the code would still require the development to have sufficient area to accommodate the proposed number of dwellings. Based on the area requirements, we do not expect more than three units on a standard sized lot and never more than four.”

Council decided March 15 to ask planning staff to return a draft ordinance for consideration in the March 29 meeting. Critics have argued that the city needs more time to consider the rules, and refine them, before enacting the ordinance. Several noted that the ordinance as written does not sufficiently safeguard against smaller, lower-priced dwellings being purchased as second-homes instead of meeting the intended purpose of providing accessible opportunities for “the missing middle.”

On the key question of how much parking would be required under the proposed missing middle rules, Nilsen stated that, “as drafted, a minimum of one off-street parking space per dwelling unit would be required.” Critics have noted that in Hood River, most households have at least two cars, so a single-vehicle off-street requirement per unit will lead to more street congestion.

Crowley said that code changes should “tie middle housing developments to streets that can support them, ones that can provide sidewalks, in-street parking lanes for the inevitable overflow that is going to happen,” and the anticipated increase in both pedestrian and vehicle traffic.

Otherwise, “We are going to have just a mess and we won’t know about it until after the fact. There are streets that will support increased density,” Crowley said.

Tina McNerthney, who testified at the March 8 and 15 meetings, said, “Given that we are in the midst of a pandemic where particular working class and lower income households have been disproportionately burdened, I do find it a little concerning that those very households that the middle housing codes are intended to benefit aren’t likely to be at the table as much as they ought to be.”

Developer Mike Kitts said, “If people are skeptical of some of the ideas in the middle housing thing, people should go by 1200 McKinley Court, which we developed 20 years ago, six 1,100-square-foot stand-alone homes on a 15,000 foot infill lot, with 14 off street parking spaces.

“It works really well, fits the neighborhood and fits the example of an infill lot,” Kitts said. (McKinley Court is located near 13th off of Eugene Street.) He asked that it be compared to a development that was denied a few years ago with similar array of homes, the so-called Tanner Ranch, which would have created 40 small homes in west Hood River off 30th.

“If this (code) had been in effect, there would be a cute little neighborhood of cottage homes started and occupied instead of what will happen — 30 gigantic townhomes on that property.”

Hood River resident Matt Rutledge testified that he has seen Hood River change dramatically in his 21 years here, with real estate prices skyrocketing.

“I agree we are in a housing crisis that needs to be addressed, but while these changes may increase the quantity of developable land, it does not ensure these developments will fit middle housing needs. There is no assurance the developers will build developments that fits pricing required by middle income residents. What it does is provide the opportunity for developers to cash in on more dense zoning and dwellings that maximize profits in a demand-driven economy.”

Realtor Doug Archbald agreed, saying, “Now is the time to take dramatic action to create affordable housing in the future, but the ordinance does not provide any mechanism where these new projects will provide more affordable homes. Increasing the supply alone has not, and will not, drive prices down.”

Nilsen responded to questions from the Columbia Gorge News on the ordinance and process, as well as to questions raised by Crowley in a letter critical of the legislation, in the Our Voice section of the March 24 edition. It was Crowley who drew attention to the errors in the notification process, leading Mayor Kate McBride and council to agree to extend the hearing period one more week.

When asked about local builders’ responses to the new code specifics and their viability, Nilsen said that he knows of one local developer who said he could proceed with a development under the proposed rules.

“Before we got into code-writing, we used an outside architectural firm to run some test fits (variable designs of building sizes and placements) to see what would be possible under some revised regulations,” Nilsen said. “From that look on, we took some council direction designed to address what was already allowed under our code and started to break down some of the individual code issues and parameters. We blended some of the existing regulations with some of the amendments to address code issues we have now and adapted them to what some industry neighbors that incorporate these regulations today.”

Nilsen also responded to Crowley’s statement that “the city admitted that its notice of the initial public hearing was legally inadequate, but refused to re-issue notice” this way:

“We heard that several people wanted more process and that is what the council provided when it moved to continue the hearing. Oregon Land use case law is relatively clear that the most common remedy where there has been issues over noticing requirements is to provide more public participation opportunities, not to stop the process and start over with new notice. Although the meeting was the first ‘Public Hearing’ before council it was, in fact, the 12th public meeting at which public comment or testimony was taken.”

Crowley also wrote that on March 15, the mayor “cut off additional public comment,” although final decision won’t occur until March 29 (or later, Nilsen noted).

“At the 13th public meeting, the council voted to close the public testimony portion of the hearing and continue its deliberation to March 29,” Nilsen said. “Council may or may not conclude its deliberation on the 29th; however, a final ordinance will need to be completed and read for any decision to be final. Hundreds of pages of written comment was logged into the record. It will take some time for all members of the council to digest that record and then deliberate toward a decision on every issue and sub-issue that has been raised. I would anticipate that March 29 will not be the last appearance of the legislation before council."

Asked if March 29 would be the date of final decision, he said, “Not necessarily. It’s the next (possible) date.”

In response to Crowley’s statement that developers would receive automatic approval once criteria on paper are met, with no public hearing, Nilsen said:

“As drafted and upon compliance with all building, engineering, and zoning standards, approvals would be by building permit, just like approvals for duplexes, townhouses, or single family dwellings that do not notice to surrounding property owners. The intent of the code and legislation is to have applications evaluated against clear and objective criteria, which is similar to building permits. There is no public process associated with building permits and the Oregon Legislature anticipated that there would be no public process associated with missing middle housing programs that are designed to implement HB 2001.”

HB 2001 aims to provide Oregonians with more housing choices, especially housing choices more people can afford,” according to Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development website.

“The law, passed by the 2019 Oregon Legislature, expands the ability of property owners to build certain traditional housing types, like duplexes, in residential zones. These housing types already exist in most cities, but were outlawed for decades in many neighborhoods. These limitations contribute to increased housing costs and fewer choices. House Bill 2001 will require updates to local laws that currently limit the types of housing people can build.”