Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zone Change topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hood River council approves conditional rezoning to allow 11 townhomes at 1225 Wasco Street
Summary
After public testimony and staff review, the Hood River City Council approved a zone change from industrial to C‑2 for 1225 Wasco Street, pairing the change with conditions tying the land to an 11‑unit planned unit development and limits on short‑term rentals; the motion passed with one recorded nay.
The Hood River City Council voted June 22 to rezone 1225 Wasco Street from industrial to general commercial (C‑2) to allow an 11‑unit planned unit development, contingent on conditions that tie the zoning to the approved PUD and limit short‑term rentals.
The council’s decision follows a staff report and a long public hearing on file 202532. Jacob, the city’s planning staff, told council the parcel is roughly 0.33 acres and that staff and the planning commission had examined the request against the city’s housing needs analysis, economic opportunities analysis and statewide planning goals. Planning staff noted a surplus of industrial land for parcels this size and said the change could help deliver housing the city’s housing analyses identify as needed.
Zoelyn Powers Radler White, representing applicant Benjamin Dow, urged approval and said the planning commission had already approved the associated PUD (which was not appealed). She told council the PUD-design project will provide 11 townhomes with 22 off‑street parking spaces, sidewalk and stormwater improvements, and that the project would be built to residential code. She said the project’s traffic study showed a net increase of 12 daily weekday trips and a net reduction during peak hours (three fewer morning peak trips and four fewer evening peak trips), and proposed conditions tying any future development on the lot to minimum residential density and compatibility requirements.
Residents who live near the site raised concerns about parking, traffic, neighborhood compatibility, loss of views and the risk that rezoning could enable incompatible commercial uses in future if the PUD does not proceed. Linda Bailey, who lives on Waskow Street, said the traffic counts in the applicant’s study did not match what she observed in winter and called for denial. Steve Lambert, an adjacent resident, warned approval could create ‘spot zoning’ and allow taller, more intensive uses under the C‑2 designation.
Council discussion focused on enforceability of conditions, whether STR (short‑term rental) limits can be recorded or otherwise run with the land, and what minimum residential density to require if the PUD never gets built. Legal counsel explained options for making conditions binding — including recording notices with title or incorporating restrictions into covenants and CC&Rs — and staff described how code and licensing will be used for enforcement.
Councilor Cavalieri moved to approve the zone change with the applicant’s proposed conditions (conditioning the C‑2 on substantial conformance with the approved PUD; setting a minimum residential density if the approved PUD is not built; and restricting STRs to the same terms as neighboring residential zones), and the motion was seconded by Councilor Stepina. Mayor Paul Blackburn called the question; the motion passed, with a recorded nay from Polson. Council directed staff to prepare the final ordinance reflecting the conditions.
What happens next: staff will draft the ordinance and return it for final adoption in written form; if a future developer proposes something other than the PUD, that project must meet the minimum density and compatibility requirements and would be subject to notice and review, giving neighbors an opportunity to comment.
Votes and formal action: The council approved the zone change (file 202532) with the two conditions presented by the applicant and directed staff to prepare a final ordinance.
