HOOD RIVER — After receiving a Housing Assistance Grant by the Department of Land Conservation and Development in 2023 to support making updates to its municipal code affecting housing development, Titles 16-17, the City of Hood River began auditing its development code.
Now, with the Phase 1 audit completed, city staff are working on Phase 2, and Hood River City Councilors got an update at the June 23 board meeting.
“The purpose of this project is not to address policy issues, but to improve the useability of the code, make the standards and objectives of the code easier to understand, and ensure consistency with state law,” reads the meeting packet summary.
City Planning Director Dustin Nilsen and Senior Planner Kevin Liburdy were joined by Matt Hastie and Carrie Brennecke, part of the consulting firm MIG, Inc., project management team to discuss Phase 2 goals, tasks and timeline, and discuss public engagement and what is being referred to as Modular 1, the first of four batches of code material to be drafted.
Hastie walked councilmembers through six questions that had also been given the city’s planning commission:
1. Does the council have any recommendations or comments regarding the use of a zoning checklist as part of land use applications for the purpose of verifying city requirements prior to starting a project?
Planning commissioners were generally supportive of using a checklist, and councilmembers agreed.
“I think this is an important step to make sure we don’t get too far into design without some checkpoint,” Nilsen said. “So although it’s an extra step, the way we looked at it was, it’s easier to complete a checklist than it is to redesign your development because you didn’t understand the code.”
2. Does the council have any recommendations on allowing some expansion of non-confirming uses?
Planning commissioners generally supported flexibility and variability of decision making based on the size, scope and type of the change. Councilors had a lengthy discussion concerning this question; some liked the idea of flexibility while others questioned why any nonconforming use would be permitted.
Liburdy gave the example of an existing commercial building with a variety of tenants and expanding one of those tenants in existing floor space. “We also talked about, procedurally, this being a conditional use permit, a request that would go back to the planning commission for their review,” he said.
Hastie said he would come back to the council with more criteria and approval procedures.
3. Does the council have any recommendations on allowing for some alterations to nonconforming development or structures? Should expansion be allowed if they increase the degree of nonconformity or only if they do not increase the degree of nonconformity?
Planning commissioners generally supported retaining existing previsions that wouldn’t allow the structure to become more nonconforming; councilors agreed.
4. What are the council’s recommendations or comments regarding an owner’s ability to replace nonconforming structures that have been damaged or destroyed?
Planning commissioners generally supported retaining current provisions that allow for replacement in the same footprint, regardless of the reason for damage or destruction; the council agreed.
“Currently, your code allows for this, and it allows it no matter how much of it was damaged or destroyed, or the cause,” Hastie said. “If something was there and there’s a fire and it burns down, you can replace it in essentially its existing form or footprint.” This would include any structures that are demolished.
5. Does the council have any recommendations on retaining expectations to nonconforming requirements for residential uses and telecommunications towers?
Planning commissioners generally supported retaining these exceptions; councilors agreed with this one as well.
“The planning commission had some sentiment that if, in a housing circumstance, there may be opportunities for us to investigate expanding the limits of housing under certain circumstances rather than just a hard no,” Nilsen said.
6. Does the council have any comments or recommendations regarding the use of the state’s model code as the basis for updating procedures related to code enforcement rather than relying on the civil procedures outlined outside the zoning code itself?
Planning commission generally supports providing more clarity; Hastie said some felt existing language in the development code was vague and providing clearer language would be helpful; and they found the model code language to be relatively straightforward.
Dan Kearns, city legal council, said his preference would be to keep enforcement provisions specific to land use out of the code. “It’s a civil matter and we have a civil enforcement chapter in Section 1.10,” he said. “The whole purpose, the whole focus of code enforcement is to obtain compliance, and that’s what the civil enforcement chapter is geared to obtain.”
Council agreed with Kearns.
Phase 2 will continue through spring 2026, prior to public hearings to consider the adoption of code amendments, Liburdy said. Next steps include updating Module 1, organizing and conducting meetings with interested parties, and conducting brief questionnaires or surveys.
Nilsen highlighted the project webpages that provide “unlimited opportunity and touchpoints for people to submit comments in writing” in English and Spanish.
As a reminder, the city council will meet next on July 21.
Commented