City planning staff told the Policy and Finance Committee on Aug. 21, 2025, that the planning commission’s housing committee revised its recommendation to allow duplexes, triplexes and quadplexes in single-family residential districts by conditional use permit (CUP) rather than by rezoning. Dan, a planning staff presenter, said “this is is in regards to duplex, triplexes, quadplexes being allowed in single family residential districts.”

The recommendation would require applicants who propose duplexes, triplexes or quadplexes to seek a CUP, which staff described as a public process that includes notice, a planning commission public hearing and a development plan tied to the CUP. Planning staff explained that a CUP “does not change zoning on property,” while rezoning would change the parcel’s zoning and bring in other uses tied to that new zoning designation.

The change was framed as a procedural compromise. Under the committee’s earlier recommendation, duplexes would have been approved by building permit under special standards while triplexes and quadplexes would have required CUPs; the revised recommendation would place duplexes, triplexes and quadplexes all under the CUP process.

Why this matters: CUPs include neighbor notification, a public hearing before the planning commission and an additional layer of review using CUP guidelines, staff said. For neighbors and council members, the CUP keeps the existing zoning in place while allowing staff and the planning commission to review site-specific details such as site plans and building elevations.

Details and next steps: Staff told the committee it would notify nearby property owners (staff suggested notifying within 300 feet as part of a neighborhood information meeting, while the legal minimum notice from state law is 200 feet). Building permits and code inspections would still be required for new construction or conversions. Planning staff said the next step is a planning commission public hearing in September; the planning commission will then make a recommendation to the governing body.

Council reaction: Jim Kalp, identified at the meeting as “Jim Kalp. I’m the councilman, chairman of the housing committee. I’m a member of the planning commission,” urged that the full planning commission engage in a collective discussion after the public hearing so council members have the commission’s formal direction before the governing body considers changes. Council members also asked staff to clarify how conversions would be treated and to confirm that building-code and inspection requirements would remain in force for any new multifamily use.

What was not decided: The committee did not adopt an ordinance or take a final vote. Committee members asked that the item return to the committee after the planning commission’s public hearing and recommendation so council members can consider the planning commission’s formal position.

Ending: Planning staff will present the proposal at the planning commission public hearing in September and the committee requested that the planning commission’s recommendation be returned to the Policy and Finance Committee before the matter proceeds to the full governing body.