Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Missing Middle topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission overturns staff, approves contested "missing-middle" housing appeal for Moses Avenue lot
Summary
The Planning Commission overruled staff and approved an appeal for a missing-middle application at 1411 Moses Avenue after debate over definitions—commissioners split on whether the design is a triplex or a townhouse form but voted to allow the proposal.
The Planning Commission voted to overrule staff and approve a missing-middle housing appeal for a development at 1411 Moses Avenue, after an extended hearing about whether the proposed building meets the city’s middle-housing standards or constitutes a disallowed townhouse-type “slot house.”
Developer R. Bentley Marlo and designer Parker Bartholomew argued the project met the triplex definition under the ordinance and said the design matched earlier approvals nearby. Bartholomew told the commission his team had full construction drawings and that previous similar plans had been approved: "This is the same building that...that's two lots away from the previously approved triplex," he said, pressing for consistent application of definitions.
Staff and some commissioners raised concerns that the structure’s townhouse-like form and repetitive lot design may not match the middle-housing intent to create smaller, house-like multifamily units compatible with single-family blocks. Commissioner Midas said the design is "townhouse-type" and injurious to neighborhood character.
Commissioner Anderson moved to overrule staff’s determination; the motion was seconded and carried after discussion that emphasized the need for predictable permitting and equal application of standards. Commissioners who supported the appeal said the project met the numerical and dimensional standards and that the commission should provide a predictable path for missing-middle product types.
What’s next: with the appeal approved, the applicant may proceed toward permitting and building approvals, subject to site-level design and construction requirements and any additional conditions the commission or staff attach during review.
Why it matters: the vote highlights continuing ambiguity about design categories in the new missing-middle rules and signals the commission’s willingness to favor applicants when code definitions are contested, making further ordinance clarification likely.
