Warrenton Planning and Zoning Commission members recommended approval Thursday of an ordinance amendment to Chapter 405 that rewrites residential-use definitions, updates the planned unit development (PUD) process and adjusts setback and firewall language.

The ordinance, identified in the packet as ADM 142, "cleans up a lot of the definitions," Planning and Zoning Officer Mr. Burks told the commission. He summarized the principal changes as three residential categories — single-family detached; single-family attached (two to four units); and multifamily (five or more units, which continue to require a PUD) — and updates to the PUD and conditional-use standards to reflect recent case law.

The revision matters because it reshapes how housing types will be classified and reviewed in Warrenton. The new single-family attached definition is a conditional use only in the C-3 district, the amendment says, and the packet adds a simple administrative boundary-adjustment process for commonly owned 2-, 3- or 4-unit properties that a future owner wants to divide for separate ownership.

During discussion commissioners asked for two clarifications the ordinance text did not clearly resolve. First, commissioners questioned the ordinance language describing the common vertical wall for single-family attached dwellings. The existing draft said the common wall "creates a partition between the roof section above each dwelling unit." Commissioners said that wording could be read to require parapet or roof‑penetrating walls. Commissioner Durbin proposed, and the commission approved, a revision to require the separating wall to extend through the attic space up to the underside of the roof sheathing rather than through the roof itself. That revision was adopted as part of the commission's recommendation.

Second, commissioners noted a change in how building setbacks are measured. The amendment defines the setback measurement as taken from the eave of the structure (the roof overhang) rather than from the foundation. Commissioners discussed whether projections that do not rise above the eave — for example, some bay windows, decks or exterior staircases — should be treated as within or outside the setback; the commission agreed the eave-based measurement is the intended change and asked staff to confirm how common projections will be handled in final language.

Mr. Burks also told the commission that various PUD and conditional-use approval standards were updated to comply with recent case law; the packet included an explanatory memo with the substantive changes. The draft retains a requirement that multifamily projects of five or more units go through the PUD process.

Action and next steps: Commissioner Durbin moved to recommend approval of ADM 142 with the specific revision limiting the required common-wall firewall to the underside of the roof; Commissioner Madden seconded. The motion passed 7–0, with two members absent and one vacancy. The commission's recommendation will be reflected in the meeting record and considered by the city as the ordinance advances according to the city's code-adoption process.

The meeting record shows no public comments on ADM 142 at the hearing.

Ending: Commission members closed the evening by noting two items on next month’s agenda and announcing a commissioner resignation. The commission did not adopt final ordinance language at the meeting; the action recorded is a recommendation to approve ADM 142 with the single, specified revision.