09/28/2026
Update from Planning Commision - Sept 21 meeting
1) File 2026-30
This hearing was an appeal of the Planning Director’s decision about how the city’s code was being misinterpreted for multi-family housing. The applicant argued that the misinterpretation limited the production of multi-family housing in the city.
The applicant described his concern that the city’s code uses density calculations that result in an outcome where multifamily housing can only be as dense as single family dwellings.
The commission agreed that the code language could be improved, but didn’t accept the applicant’s interpretation. They felt the applicant had pointed out flaws in the code, and perhaps the rewrite presently underway should take on the issue. However, given the CURRENT code, they eventually voted to DENY the appeal and uphold the planning director's interpretation of the density standards.
2) 37-unit motel (File 2026-02 - applicant Pasquale Barone)
The public hearing for this project was continued until the October 19th Planning Commission.
Part of the reason for the delay was described in the letter Mr. Barone sent (see photos) and involved the eaves on the motel buildings in the project.
The city planning department put a “condition of approval” on the plan, saying that the roof eaves and balconies “are located entirely on the development site without encroaching into the public right-of-way.”
Mr. Barone pointed out that “with plans that have been under review by City Planning and Public Works for more than a year… why [is] this issue being raised only at this stage of the process.”
Good question. Maybe we’ll learn the answer next month. He also pointed out being unable to find anything in city code about eaves and balconies and the public right-of-way, mentioned that for 15 years his other building (Union Building) has had eaves/balconies projecting out; and downtown Hood River has multiple buildings with similar structures.
(CORRECTION : post modified 9/29/26 to remove a suggestion that the September 2 Landmarks Review board didn’t mention the issue. Per info from a review board member, “…we were not given any findings, drawings or analysis which would have allowed an informed decision” (ie about right-of-way problems). Further, their focus is not on code compliance, though they may point out something the Planning Commission should consider. )
3) Annexation of 3665 May Street - File 2026-29
The application for annexation was for one purpose - to allow connection to the city sewer. A 70-year old septic system had failed, and the City required annexation before connecting to sewer. A portion of the property is already within the city limits.
Apparently because the applicant intends at some point in the future to build additional housing on the property, the City of HR is requiring right now a number of conditions to be immediately required, including improvements to roads, etc.
Further, there is not even a copy of the annexation agreement in the record (despite the landowner asking for that since June 2), no actual information about the findings described in the staff report, etc.
Photos included. The attorney for the property owner then said that what the City of Hood River was requiring was unconstitutional (as per cases previously reviewed by the Supreme Court: Nollan vs California Coastal Commission, Dolan vs City of Tigard). Basically, a city cannot add on a bunch of conditions to a land use approval that has nothing to do with the request of the landowner.
In this HR situation, a property owner asking for annexation into the city in order to get sewer connection (required by the city due to the septic situation) is being required to do multiple conditions that have nothing to do with their request.
The requests by the city were called “patently unconstitutional,” and noted they were basically being asked to sign a blank check in order to move on with annexation.
The City of HR seemed to think there requests were reasonable because the property MAY be developed in the future in stages, so doing a “Nollan Dolan” analysis is challenging.
Another frustrated landowner … hearing continued to next month.
If you’d like to hear the landowner’s attorney describing his take on the city of Hood River’s constitutional problems with this annexation request, see this link and start at 3:09:45 into the video. https://www.youtube.com/live/rpkXjvY-jgg?is=yGK400FNO_BBC3UC
