[0:04] Can you hear us?

[0:07] » Theory, you can hear. Okay,

[0:11] » she's >> Oh, great.

[0:13] » Yes, I can hear you. Sorry. >> Okay, thank you. I just wanted to double

[0:17] check. >> I'm at home because I have a cold.

[0:22] » That kind of worked.

[0:26] » That should be good in the middle. Okay.

[0:30] » All right. Good evening. It is 6:01 and I call to order the regular meeting of

[0:36] the Dubal Planning Commission for Wednesday, August 26th, 2026.

[0:42] Uh, please rise and join me for the pledge of allegiance

[0:50] to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it

[0:55] stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice

[1:00] for all.

[1:04] » Okay. Item number two on our list here is roll call. We have

[1:11] got vice chair William Chapel here. We got Abasha.

[1:17] We have Erie Ericson Brown online. >> We have Mala Matuba David.

[1:27] Um that's it. Item number three, approval

[1:31] of the agenda. Um, are there any additions, deletions, or changes to the

[1:38] order on the agenda? The chair will entertain a motion to

[1:42] approve the the agenda. I move to approve the agenda for August

[1:47] 26, 2026 planning commission meeting as present as presented. Do I have a

[1:53] second? >> Yes. All in those or sorry, it's been

[1:57] moved and seconded. Um, see no further discussion on this, I think we just move

[2:03] to pass the uh agenda. All those in favor say I.

[2:08] » I. I. >> Those opposed say nay.

[2:13] » The motion carries. Item four is the good of the order. This is an

[2:17] opportunity for the commissioners to raise announcements, scheduling matters,

[2:20] or items of interest. Uh, no action is taken under this agenda under this item.

[2:25] Do any commissioners have anything for the good of the order? Hearing

[2:31] nothing further, we'll move on. Item number five is the approval of the

[2:35] minutes from the August 12th, 2026 planning commission meeting which are

[2:40] included in tonight's packet. Are there any corrections to the minutes?

[2:47] Okay, there's no uh changes to the uh minutes. The chair will entertain a

[2:53] motion to uh

[2:58] approve the uh August 12th uh minute meeting minutes as presented. Do I have

[3:04] a second? Okay,

[3:07] that's been moved and seconded. And all those in favor to approve the agenda or

[3:13] sorry the minutes uh say I. All those opposed.

[3:20] The motion is to approve the minutes is uh is is approved.

[3:28] Uh item number six, city staff announcements.

[3:32] Uh we will now hear from staff. >> Um baby, director of community and

[3:38] economic developments. Uh good evening everybody. Um I would like to propose um

[3:44] a procedural item for the planning commission. Sometimes there's confusions

[3:48] when motions are made and amendments are made to motions. So any moving forward

[3:54] whenever we have an agenda item that requires um an action by the planning

[4:00] commission um I propose that we have a a word dock or a slide or something up on

[4:06] the screen where we can write out what the motion is so everybody can be aware

[4:11] and um um because I have been at countless

[4:16] hearings where a motion's made. It's not actually I've written down and then we

[4:21] have to go back and listen and then we do minutes and no that wasn't what we

[4:25] meant. So I just to save us all the confusion. So as a procedural item I

[4:30] this time raises great. Um are there any other staff announcement?

[4:40] » Okay.

[4:44] » Fantastic. Any other city staff announcements?

[4:50] » Item number seven is public comment. This is time for members of the public

[4:53] to address the commission on any matter within the commission's

[4:58] uh purview here. I think we do have some people coming in.

[5:05] Uh did anybody want to see?

[5:10] » Hi. Um Jessica here. sure where you all are at. So,

[5:17] » we're there. I mean, so you're the stage is yours.

[5:22] » Okay. >> I'm gonna run through the the rules

[5:25] here. We do have a cool little handy guide over here for all the public

[5:30] comment rules. You must be present and limited to three minutes and

[5:38] keep

[5:42] I'll do my notes. Hi.

[5:46] Um, everybody uh knows me as Boomer. Um, we me and my wife have been living here

[5:53] um since 2020. We moved uh here during co

[6:00] and um we really love living in Dubal and in

[6:06] fact we live kind of here in Oldtown. We're right here on Sherry Street and

[6:11] just above First Avenue. which means we're on the front lines,

[6:17] our house. Um, I

[6:24] uh have a lot of concerns about the proposals.

[6:29] Public safety is a big one. Um, we

[6:35] if any of you do live here in Duval and commute across the valley on a regular

[6:43] basis, you you know that we we flood every year and we have very limited

[6:49] access. Uh, I work at Udub, so I drive in the

[6:55] mornings to uh, Redmond Transit Center and I take the bus to university and

[7:00] commute back home. Well, when we're flooding

[7:05] the traffic because lots of really Woodenville Duvall Road becomes our if

[7:11] it remains open cuz this last year it was down also and there was no access.

[7:17] So I spend the night on the other side of the valley.

[7:21] Um but for the rest of the time,

[7:25] Woodenville Dupal Road becomes the only access in and out and that's for

[7:31] emergency vehicles. That's for commuters and it really gets backed up and it

[7:36] takes a long time to get back across now. Um so that is just one point that I

[7:45] would like to make. So I um I would like to know if the um if there is a

[7:55] projected population growth is there a number that we're looking to absorb

[8:02] and that's you know um so I would like to see those numbers and I want to see

[8:08] also um uh emergency evacuation plans

[8:16] because that affects everybody. That affects,

[8:20] you know, our first responders to be able to do their jobs appropriately.

[8:25] Um, yeah, I

[8:30] I'm going to stop there. I may have more.

[8:38] » Yeah. [clears throat]

[8:42] » I'll say something. >> Uh, hi. Hey, my name is Joe Porter. I'm

[8:48] the other half. We um we moved here from Isaqua after spending our whole lives in

[8:54] Miami, Florida, watching it get completely overdeveloped.

[8:57] We have a really sour taste in our mouth from those experiences. When I was born

[9:02] in South Miami, Florida, there were less than 10,000 people there. Now there are

[9:07] millions of people there and the development was pretty unchecked. So, I

[9:12] appreciate that you're having these meetings to discuss plans and try to

[9:17] figure out how we can accommodate um new people moving into the area. But

[9:24] the main reason we moved here is because we wanted to have a small town

[9:27] experience. If if another several thousand people

[9:31] move here and we're talking about really tall developments with super dense here

[9:37] in Oldtown and Uptown, it will not ever be the same. And a lot of the reason

[9:43] people come here is because it's, and you've all heard it, it's such a

[9:47] charming small town. We have a historic legacy here that I really think needs to

[9:52] be preserved. That's all I'm say. Thanks, Joe. Yeah.

[10:10] My name is Heather Morris. I've been a proud Juval resident for 25 years.

[10:17] We've um considered this place um our home. We raised our kids here.

[10:25] They've all grown up and gone. Um, and this has always been such a safe town

[10:32] and it's harbored so many family local family businesses.

[10:39] Um, one of the things that I'm very concerned about with the planning for

[10:48] high density population right in the in town, mixed

[10:54] use buildings that um will take away from

[11:03] the um take away from the the businesses.

[11:09] Uh and and these types of buildings cost way more to the business owners

[11:17] that are trying to run their business, their small businesses in town, which

[11:21] are by the way like brick and mortar. They're already just scraping by.

[11:27] So if we see any of these areas being wiped out

[11:35] um and replaced with these mixeduse buildings

[11:41] um that could be that could drive out so much local business.

[11:47] Um and that's one of the beautiful things about

[11:52] this town is that we support local. So, I'm just here on behalf of the support

[11:59] local voice and um and saying um I don't think this is the best thing

[12:07] for for Duvall businesses. Um

[12:12] thank you for listening.

[12:28] Oh, okay. [laughter]

[12:31] » Hi. >> Yeah. My uh my name is Pam Barton. I run

[12:36] a business here in town. I've been a resident for over 30 years. Historic

[12:40] Duvall is our legacy. It's important. Um, even as a business owner or not an

[12:45] owner but running a business, we haven't even been to put a sign up because

[12:48] they've had regist you know strict guidelines. Do not do not mess with

[12:54] historic downtown do all this is it's special. It's you know it needs to be

[12:58] left alone. I understand I know you guys are not trying to wreck town. We're just

[13:03] trying to figure out good options. Um but as as somebody that's been in the

[13:06] community for a long time, it would be devastating to see that gone. Um, that

[13:12] is why people come here. That is that is why we are a charming town. We're

[13:16] getting ready to have the art wine walk. We're trying to invite people from all

[13:19] other communities to come see our community. Um, if we lose what we have,

[13:24] that's going to be a real big loss. Thank you.

[13:28] » Thank you very much.

[13:36] Thanks for letting us

[13:44] all speak again.

[13:54] » Okay. Um >> comment from mission. Yes, you can

[14:02] if you want. Yeah, man. We're all we love this.

[14:09] » Thank you for all being uh there's no one else further

[14:15] who wishes to speak. Uh public comment is now closed.

[14:24] Uh item number eight is presentations. We have two this evening. Comprehensive

[14:28] plan appeal which included the status update and a discussion of title 14

[14:33] density, heights and design standards. Uh these are informal. So no action will

[14:38] be taken on any of these items tonight. They're just presentation. So

[14:43] we will start with item 8A which is the comprehensive plan.

[15:06] So um just to give a brief update we had as our open house last week we had about

[15:13] around 10 people in attendance for that uh some good discussion whatnot. I kind

[15:19] of described in the staff report some of the feedback that we had which included

[15:24] some of the comments that we heard tonight from citizens about uh concerns

[15:29] for emergency management traffic um and preservation of character in the overall

[15:36] town area. So um so so that's kind of um that's the gist of of what we we did so

[15:46] far. Um I have a brief presentation on kind of the appeal and as we approach uh

[15:54] amendments to the comprehensive plan for the um as part of our work plan with the

[16:01] state of basically what I'm going to do is kind of outline uh what amendments

[16:06] that we need to um to make to that. So this kind of tells you a little bit. We

[16:13] do have to um we're not looking at substantial updates to the comprehensive

[16:18] plan that we have now. A lot of the policy directives and everything are

[16:22] pretty much the same. Um I would say and I'll kind of dive into I guess a little

[16:29] more detail of that as in general right now. But um as far as the transportation

[16:36] element goes, because we are updating the land capacity analysis, we have to

[16:40] update our transportation analysis as well for that uh to support it and

[16:45] evaluate our level of levels of service and needs um to make sure that that's

[16:51] matching up. And um once we do complete that, we will be sending that to Puget

[16:57] Sound Regional Council for their certification and review as well. So um

[17:02] that'll be included in the analysis. Uh as far as the land use element goes, we

[17:09] will have some future land use map updates. Most of those updates are

[17:13] really actually for um what we're trying to do right now with

[17:20] our um interlandest map. We have some areas that are some of the mapping is

[17:26] just it it can be clarified on on how zones are designated. Um some zones are

[17:33] kind of separated out into different areas. We're looking at, you know, the

[17:36] mix zones now and residential zones. So, we'll be kind of putting those together

[17:40] as well. Um and so I'm I'm being very vague because we're going to be coming

[17:46] back to you with like actual things you can look at. So this is just kind of to

[17:50] give you an idea of the scope of work that we're looking into. So um we will

[17:55] be also updating the designation descriptions as well to make sense for

[18:02] um reorganizing the zone districts by designation. So that's going to make

[18:08] sense in the future. But um an example of a designation would be uh whether

[18:15] it's designated for public use or residential mix use uh light industrial

[18:23] and I feel like I'm creating one maybe

[18:28] there's another >> we tried to really simplify it

[18:32] » residential neighborhood residential moderate mixed use industrial public.

[18:39] » Yeah, those are in the subzones. So, we'll have to go through and kind of

[18:44] just update the descriptions in this land use element to basically make sense

[18:49] with the the zoning changes and whatnot we're doing. So, uh moving forward for

[18:54] the housing element, this is where most of our work will be. Um the rest is just

[19:00] kind of like small updates, I would say, in comparison to this. And I wouldn't

[19:04] say that it's uh the amount of changes that we have to do

[19:08] is really related to incorporating our I guess better incorporating our housing

[19:13] action plan that was done in 2023 into the comprehensive plan. Uh some of that

[19:19] is where was it King County and commerce kind of

[19:24] highlighted some errors and issues is that we didn't really incorporate the

[19:28] housing action plan fully into our housing element. And so we had some gaps

[19:32] in terms of demonstrating compliance with uh certain um policy directions

[19:39] from I guess countywide planning policies and also

[19:44] um at least I believe commerce as well on their guidance. Uh I wouldn't say

[19:50] that we didn't uh with this that we didn't do what we were supposed to. We

[19:55] have we had our housing action plan referenced in the comprehensive plan. we

[20:00] just really didn't do the work to like integrate that as well as we could have

[20:04] to show compliance. So, um some of this work will also be looking at I'll just

[20:10] kind of go a little more in detail. So, um

[20:15] so like I said, incorporation uh making those findings from the action plan

[20:20] clear uh a little more uh I guess it sounds like just a little more breath to

[20:26] it, but it kind of almost is that. Um, and so that's what we'll be doing there.

[20:32] We'll also be um or I just wanted to note too that uh we aren't starting over

[20:37] from this. We did a lot of work with that housing action plan as part of

[20:41] community outreach. Uh it was passed by council in 2023. So this is some work

[20:47] that's already been completed. So we did do quite a a bit of outreach and uh

[20:53] analysis under that. So, um, and I wanted to highlight too some

[20:58] of the things we heard from that process as well, which are some of the main

[21:03] things that we're trying to, I guess, solutions from it that we're trying to

[21:08] incorporate into the housing element. So,

[21:13] and here's just kind of a little bit of some uh basic data from there that's

[21:19] kind of interesting that we'll be including um I guess into the housing

[21:26] element as well. It just kind of highlights some of the the main issues

[21:29] or challenges that we're facing in the community with regards to housing. So,

[21:34] you can see medium home prices is pretty behind Duval. So this is why it's kind

[21:39] of I guess come to the attention of other agencies valid being able to um

[21:46] accommodate a variety of uh economic situations.

[21:51] So um just just kind of to further that uh as

[21:58] far as what that element needs to address, these are kind of the main

[22:01] themes here. So, um, what we have as far as, um, and I'll

[22:09] just kind of jump to because

[22:13] sorry, I'm getting a little out of order, but, um, what we'll do with this

[22:18] and part of what we've been doing with the title 14 updates is incorporating a

[22:24] lot implementing a lot of these policies when it comes to the housing types or

[22:29] special needs housing. And um yeah, so that's and then also displacement with

[22:36] things like the um mobile home park designation and zoning.

[22:43] So um

[22:47] so what what I have listed here are some of the identified um in this slide and

[22:52] the next few slides uh the highlighted countywide planning policies that King

[22:58] County King County Housing Committee uh identified that we needed to better

[23:03] address

[23:13] Yeah. So, um, one of the the main things too is that

[23:19] we really have to identify um any or at least better explain uh historical

[23:25] barriers in Duval over time of um to housing and some of the um

[23:33] I guess uh discriminatory practices that may have occurred in the past. I will

[23:38] say from our housing action plan that did do an analysis of this. Uh they used

[23:44] um state and King County records and other sources to um analyze for history

[23:52] of redlinining and other types of discriminatory practices, but they uh

[23:58] they didn't find anything necessarily specific to Dubal. And it doesn't mean

[24:03] that that wasn't something that happened in Dubal. But it means that uh as far as

[24:09] we can find through our accessible sources, we can't find at the at this

[24:15] time. But there are things in terms of policies that we can recognize that

[24:19] maybe there have been barriers to housing in the community.

[24:24] So um some of the the goals that we'll be looking at to incorporate that uh the

[24:32] findings from the housing action plan will be uh these are some of the goals

[24:37] that we'll be trying to achieve and we'll have some implementation

[24:40] directives for to try to address and um part of this um I will say the

[24:47] comprehensive plan is it's a policy document it's meant to be broad a little

[24:51] more generic and uh not as specific code is where we get uh specific into

[24:58] implementation and things but uh this gives uh staff in the city and even

[25:04] planning commission a directive of what kind of the city's um goals and policies

[25:09] are how they want to address certain issues.

[25:14] Uh and then just to kind of u explain the connection to title 14. So, um, like

[25:21] I said, this is kind of, uh, the overall basis for implementing those, uh,

[25:26] policies with relation to allowing people a variety of housing types or

[25:32] things like an ADU or or

[25:37] housing. Um,

[25:42] and then wanted to mention as well, so like I said, most of the comprehensive

[25:48] plan is uh pretty much going to be the same. We're really incorporating a lot

[25:54] of the existing data in a more clear and functional way that we can um get

[25:59] through to compliance. We all are so also updating the uh land capacity

[26:05] analysis to make sure that uh before we were showing a gap or a deficit in

[26:11] housing that we were planning for which is really a no no go um you do have to

[26:18] have a solution for how you're going to address those gaps and plan forward. So,

[26:22] um, and so, uh, going forward when we bring

[26:28] drafts to the planning commission, uh, these are kind of the main things that

[26:32] we're looking for from you is really, um, and we'll provide you kind of like

[26:38] an outline of the housing action plan with, of course, the full version. uh

[26:42] and then also the draft updates that we're doing and try to connect those for

[26:46] you so that it's a little more clear about how we're implementing um that

[26:50] into the the copyright plan update. So, um yeah, just making sure that um

[26:58] do you think that those uh what we're the changes that we are making are clear

[27:04] enough to um I guess implement that housing

[27:11] and just further steps for that. So, we'll continue through planning

[27:15] commission review. Uh we're still working through some initial um

[27:21] revisions for that update. Uh we should have I believe by next meeting a draft

[27:27] available for you to uh dig into and take a look at and uh feel free to reach

[27:33] out and ask any questions. Uh happy to make staff hours available and whatnot.

[27:38] So uh we'll also be initiating the environmental review process as well.

[27:46] Yeah. And that's that's it. >> Okay. Thank you, Morgan. Any questions

[27:52] from commission?

[27:57] » Okay. So, uh next next is the title 14 discussion regarding density and

[28:02] heights. We will now hear from city staff.

[28:05] » Can you reopen the one that's in the folder the plan?

[28:12] Uh, would you hear me? >> Sorry. Beating that hearing. My

[28:16] apologies. >> Yes.

[28:18] » Yeah, it's still refresh. >> No, we did. I I had a typo.

[28:41] So, um, oh wait, not the design standards

[28:46] title 14. We appreciate your patience as we work

[28:51] through

[28:57] Sorry. Here we go.

[29:02] » Yay. All right. So, this is a presentation that I gave last week at

[29:08] city council. Um, so I want to present it to the planning commission. Uh, next

[29:14] slide, please. Um, I can't remember who all I've given this spiel to, so if

[29:18] you've heard it already, you get through it again. Um when the King County land

[29:23] capacity calculations were done, it was really looking at um the analogy we came

[29:29] up with is that each property is like a passenger van. The size of the property

[29:35] along with its setbacks um and other dimensional restrictions um create the

[29:43] size of the the passenger van. And however many seats you cram into that

[29:49] passenger van is its uh its density, its capacity. So what we have to do with

[29:56] these capacity analysis is to show that we can cram all these little airplane

[30:01] seats into um these passenger vans. But that doesn't mean anyone would actually

[30:08] want to. Someone could do big cushion captain chairs

[30:13] within that passenger van. Um and that's allowed and that's fine. Uh

[30:19] we just have to show the capacity is there for smaller seats even if it's not

[30:23] feasible for someone to actually build it because of land

[30:29] economics or demand or whatever it is. We just have to show it's possible. So

[30:33] that's where the capacity is. So it really is sort of just doing a

[30:37] mathematical exercise to show that those little seats could fit if anyone ever

[30:42] really really wanted to even though they might not. So that's where we're at with

[30:46] the the when we talk about the capacity numbers. Next slide please.

[30:51] So um

[30:56] so when the capacity analysis was done by Burke back in December um so there's

[31:02] a memo that we keep referring to the Burke memo um where they had to do math

[31:07] to show basic capacity and they had to assume a number they had to use a number

[31:11] to do math. Um and so the number that they used for uh the zoning districts

[31:18] was 20 30 17 17 and 21 dwelling units per acre to show the math. And with

[31:24] those numbers it show that we have capacity.

[31:29] So we don't need to have minimums in there to show that that capacity is

[31:37] within that passenger pan. the capacity is there whether or not we have those

[31:42] bookends on these numbers. So we went back through the Burke memo. Um we went

[31:48] back through the um the work that had been sent to the

[31:55] consultant BHC that did our initial drafts written up the initial drafts of

[31:59] the title 14 updates. It turned out they had used the numbers

[32:04] from the calculations to that they thought they needed to do at the minimum

[32:09] densities, but they weren't needed. So, the city engineer who's much better at

[32:15] math than I am, we went through all the numbers and she was able to verify and

[32:20] we got confirmation that we don't need to have density minimums in the MT

[32:26] Midtown, Oldtown, Uptown, and commercial zoning districts. So, we are proposing

[32:32] that those numbers come out and there's just no minimum density. Um, if someone

[32:38] wants to build something, they can. They're not required to.

[32:42] » Um, and so, and because Oldtown is such uh geographically um a small portion of

[32:49] the city, we don't need to have higher building

[32:54] heights to meet our land use capacity. So, we are proposing when we presented

[33:02] to council, hey council, why don't we just not change the height in Oldtown

[33:07] and only do slight building height adjustments for Midtown and Uptown and

[33:14] then um because commercial zoning district is along the more southern

[33:20] portion of um Main Street and then onto Big Rock Road, that's where it's more

[33:25] appropriate to have u mixeduse development. where you can have um like

[33:31] a solid um well-designed commercial height tenant space with, you know,

[33:37] three floors above it. Um and and but that's all contained within like one

[33:42] portion of town. It's not going into the neighborhoods. It's along main street.

[33:46] Um and it's consolidated. Um so that was a discussion that we had at city

[33:52] council. Um so this is something that's being noodled on. I would like you guys

[33:58] to noodle on it also. Um, and if there's,

[34:05] you know, if planning commission wants to have any

[34:09] discussion about these numbers, uh, we may we may do so, but we're looking to

[34:13] not um make drastic changes um to those zoning districts and

[34:19] effectively no changes to Oldtown. Next slide, please.

[34:24] So the only change that we were looking at for Oldtown um was changing the

[34:29] minimum lot size from 2500 ft to zero. This is

[34:35] common in general. Um and I I checked with all

[34:39] of our neighboring jurisdictions. So Monroe, Carnation,

[34:43] Northbend, um Isiqua, Redmond, none of them

[34:49] bought the Langville. I checked a lot of zoning uh ordinances in non-residential

[34:54] zoning districts. There's not a minimum lot size. There are minimum lot

[34:58] dimensions. The 25 ft or the minimum lot width that is fairly common as a minimum

[35:04] um but not as a lot size. So this would be fairly standard. And so we were only

[35:08] proposing this as a way for because these older buildings are expensive to

[35:13] maintain. Um, the idea was to provide as much

[35:16] flexibility to those historic building property owners if there's something

[35:20] that they could sell off to their neighbor, do a boundary line adjustment,

[35:24] do a whatever, so that they can get some some

[35:29] money out of land that they're not using so that way they can help maintain and

[35:32] preserve their buildings. That was the idea behind changing that one um part of

[35:39] the of the development standards for Oldtown. Next slide, please.

[35:44] And then as we were doing this, double-checking all the math, um we

[35:50] looked at the residential densities because there had been some questions

[35:52] about um initial drafts had R8 with a maximum density of 15,

[36:00] which I didn't really understand when I first got here, but I had sort of

[36:04] trusted what the consultant had done, but we decided to double check

[36:07] everything anyways and decided, oh, we don't need those higher numbers, the the

[36:13] eight dwelling units per acre to match the zoning district. That was what was

[36:18] in the calculations done by Burke when they did the land use capacity. So we

[36:22] brought all of those um down to reflect the zoning district. And so for

[36:28] residential zoning districts like this, the common practice is that the number

[36:33] reflects the maximum density allowed within that zone. So that's what we have

[36:38] um here. And so this is what staff is uh is now recommending um and is going to

[36:46] going to be presented formally in writing to plan to city

[36:50] council next week. Um so please watch attend checkout agendas.

[36:59] Um and there will be more discussions next Tuesday. Um

[37:05] no that's okay. Go to the next go to the next slide. So this is the slide that

[37:09] I've I've brought before at least city council. I don't know if you have I

[37:13] shown you guys this slide. >> So this was me being curious about how

[37:19] Duval regulates and measures height.

[37:23] Um uh on a hill. We're on a hill. We're on

[37:27] a we're on a hilly island. Um so on the left is Duvall.

[37:35] We I and I don't know why our code is written this way, but we measure to the

[37:42] eve of the building and then you can have a sloped roof up from there. So in

[37:48] this illustrated diagram, I took an imaginary

[37:53] property on a slope, put in some property lines, and then the same height

[37:56] limit. It doesn't really matter what the number is, but I was going for what

[37:59] would look like 35 ft. Um, with a a you know

[38:04] two and a half story building um what would that look like? So left is Duvall.

[38:12] Some cities go in the middle. Some cities take the average elevation of

[38:19] where a building is placed and then they go up from there to their height limit

[38:23] and then the height limit is a horizontal plane from there. And so you

[38:27] can end up with something that's kind of boxy on the lower hill side.

[38:32] Some communities want that and that's fine for them. Um on the right is the

[38:39] hype limit and other cities do this where you basically measure along a

[38:44] slope and then that sort of requires um a a building to be more within the

[38:52] topography. Um I am more used to the rightmost height

[39:00] measurements. These height regulations have been

[39:03] something that staff has sort of kicked around and updating but required as part

[39:08] of this code work. But I do feel like there would be a lot of value for city

[39:15] council to consider directing staff to have us do this work. Um, so

[39:23] I'm going to be bringing this up again to city council and asking them if they

[39:29] want to consider as soon as we have to get through all these mandated code

[39:34] amendments before the end of the year. So as soon as we get through these,

[39:39] could I please start on this so that way it's all, you know, as close together as

[39:45] possible. Um, so I kind of want just want to give you a heads up. Um, and

[39:53] whenever we get to a public hearing, whenever we do finally get to a

[39:58] recommendation, you could, if you want, if you have it

[40:02] as part of motion and we can verify it in writing that

[40:06] uh you could in theory say the planning

[40:10] commission recommends adoption of this ordinance of whatever and also for city

[40:16] council to direct staff to do ABC subsequently.

[40:20] if planning commission so uh so I'm planting the seed.

[40:26] Um next slide. So if planning commission has any

[40:31] questions

[40:34] if you go back few slides >> to which one?

[40:37] » Uh yeah this one. Wait. Um >> can you go one more?

[40:43] » One more. Sorry. Yeah this one. Okay. So um what I wanted to see is I know you're

[40:48] this is the proposed right. So can we also see what is current? I think that

[40:53] was one of the asked during our workshop >> the frame. Uh yeah like what do we have

[40:58] currently >> currently what do we have

[41:02] » and if somebody is going to make a change you know like if you're proposing

[41:06] like for example if you take the you remember how I think I don't know I

[41:10] forgot the name of the person who was asking this

[41:12] » but if you're changing from R4 to R8 >> you know can we give an example of what

[41:17] an R4 will look like >> and then what do we currently have and

[41:22] then what is it going to >> so there there was a request for

[41:25] renderings of each iteration of what's allowed now and each iteration of what

[41:29] would be allowed under the proposed regulations.

[41:32] » Yeah. >> Um staff doesn't have this

[41:38] I don't think we have we don't have proper design software. It's expensive

[41:43] » and it's time consuming >> to do all of those. I would love to have

[41:48] » Yeah. But at least for the main street. >> Oh, but but for for Oldtown, if we're

[41:53] not proposing to change Oldtown, then there's nothing.

[41:56] » It would be the same picture. >> So So with So if

[42:01] » the current standards are on there, so >> we'll go to the next the next slide has

[42:05] the >> Yeah.

[42:07] » Um so for Oldtown specifically, >> yeah,

[42:10] » these are all existing in the middle and then proposed on the right. So nothing

[42:14] would be changing. So those rendering pictures of what's possible would be the

[42:19] city. >> Yeah.

[42:22] » I'm just curious like the minimum lot size.

[42:26] » That was a question. You have a minimum lot to exist that

[42:32] subscribes

[42:39] that is the access requirements because each lot to be a legal lot you have to

[42:45] have access to that lot. And so that's what really drives that 25 ft of at

[42:50] least having some kind of minimum there for that. And that that's my

[42:55] understanding of why we have that. Um and and the idea what's most likely um

[43:01] to happen because because the lots in Oldtown are very small. Um and the 25 ft

[43:07] reflects the historic loting pattern from 1911

[43:13] or when whenever the the the first class for for downtown Dubal were created were

[43:18] 25 wide lost. So that's sort of a even a historic number that has always been

[43:23] there. Um, so, so what would be most likely to

[43:27] happen is that you would have two adjacent properties and if you have an

[43:32] existing older building with no parking and nothing else, it's already legal

[43:37] non-conforming. So, if you have a back portion of your lot that you're not

[43:42] using and it's already not parking, to not have that property

[43:48] doesn't put your building anymore out of conformant because your building's

[43:53] already grandfathered. But if you have a property next to you

[43:58] that wants to maybe put in some parking or maybe do a, you know, an outside

[44:03] patio or or do an addition or do a little um

[44:09] there's been chatter about having um better places to have like food truck

[44:14] gatherings. having that sort of ability where it

[44:19] wouldn't be really um as much of lot splits as just boundary line adjustments

[44:23] so that properties could shift to adjacent owners and that but whomever

[44:28] has the the older buildings you still have to meet building code. So, if you

[44:34] have a historic or an older building and you want to do a boundary line

[44:38] adjustment to sell some part of your property to your neighbor, you still

[44:44] have to have a your the new property line a minimum distance away from the

[44:48] building depending on the construction of the building for fire safety

[44:52] purposes. So, there's still those sort of regulations that would come into

[44:56] effect. So, it's not like something would be be on a property line all the

[45:01] way around. So that wouldn't quite happen, but it just wouldn't be less

[45:06] grandfathered in than it already is. Am I

[45:10] » commercial? >> Um, Oldtown is mixed. What Oldtown what

[45:16] we are proposing is commercial and then um residential would be allowed above

[45:24] ground floor commercial. Um, so if someone wanted to have like an

[45:30] apartment over their shop or or whatever, that would still be allowable.

[45:36] » Yeah. You have to meet the 25 or the 35. >> I mean, it seems like the minimum there

[45:43] you get. >> Well, if you if you already have an

[45:44] existing lot, you don't have to worry about your lot. But

[45:48] » this is just if you're changing lot boundaries.

[45:51] » Yeah. But the mass on building height would be

[45:55] still be 35 ft. >> Oh, sure.

[46:01] » There is just wonder to do that.

[46:07] You got a minimum on that width and Oh, it's just width and height. Okay. Okay.

[46:13] So, I was thinking depth, too. I'm like, well, then you're going to have to be at

[46:17] least 875 ft or so square feet. But I was reading that height is depth.

[46:23] » Oh, okay. Okay. Gotcha.

[46:28] » Yeah. >> Anything else from staff?

[46:34] » No. No. I just think um uh the none is what's existing.

[46:42] Just clarify. The none is what's existing and the 35 ft is what's

[46:46] existing. So we're proposing keeping >> get rid of the pink.

[46:50] » Yeah. um

[46:55] keep 35 in old town, do uh small increases to empty UT and then 10 ft in

[47:02] the commercial but and yeah and then city council will

[47:06] be discussing this further and then hopefully in the near future

[47:11] um we'll finally have everything done enough

[47:15] to after some more discussion with title public hearing but that's still going to

[47:18] be couple months

[47:23] Any other questions? Okay.

[47:27] Um, is the design stand?

[47:35] » Okay.

[47:38] » I don't need the procedural uh switch.

[47:48] Okay. So um in our very lengthy title 14 we have a chapter on design standards.

[47:58] So development standards are limitations of the physical placement of a structure

[48:05] building on a on a property how tall how big if there's a flurry ratio if there's

[48:10] a limit to imperous surface things like that. So it's what is the bulletin

[48:15] placement of the building. The design standards are what does it look like?

[48:20] How does it interact with the public interface? Um does it have articulation?

[48:26] Um or is it allowed by right to be ugly? We've all not allowed our right to be

[48:31] ugly. Um so uh next slide please. So there was a Senate bill that was passed

[48:37] last year that said hey cities I'm paraphrasing. Hey cities if you have

[48:43] design guidelines they can no longer be guidelines. They need to be standard.

[48:47] They need to be objective. And someone needs to be able to read them and say,

[48:51] "Yes, I meet the standard or no, I do not." So, it has to be clear and

[48:56] objective. And our current regulations are more like guidelines and

[49:03] it says you should do this or you should do that. And so, we're taking all the

[49:06] should out. Although, please look in the draft, see if we missed any. Um,

[49:13] take the should out. do that. You must have articulation. You must have

[49:18] whatever sloping for your roof. You must have windows. Fenestration is a fancy

[49:23] word for window. To defenistenate does not mean to remove windows.

[49:28] So just um so so it has to be objective and it has to be done now. We have to do

[49:36] this this year. Um next slide please. So the approach we did um so words are

[49:44] important. We now will have standards and not guidelines.

[49:48] The current chapter is a little disorganized. It's a little messy and

[49:54] it's a little long-winded. So we're going to be reorganizing it.

[50:00] We're going to try and make it more concise, easier to implement, easier to

[50:04] have applicants understand it, easier for staff to find conformance

[50:10] um with uh this code. Um, and also to more clearly set up expectations of

[50:17] developers because I don't know how many times a developer has come in with their

[50:24] little napkin sketch that does not look fantastic and they claim like, "Oh, but

[50:30] I thought this is what you wanted." No. So, we're going to have lots of

[50:34] illustrations to establish what the community actually wants so that they

[50:40] can't claim they didn't know unless they're legally blind, they're going to

[50:44] know. So, that's that's the goal.

[50:49] So, um there's illustrations that are going to

[50:54] be throughout this chapter. So, we're first going to be um having as as most

[51:00] of you as most of you can see in the draft um there's building types by

[51:06] zoning district like what the intended types are and then after that we have um

[51:13] a reference to the development standards. So, and there is caveat

[51:17] language that anything that's in the other development standards chapter if

[51:21] there's a conflict that information prevails. um but to give people an

[51:27] understanding of where exactly are these setbacks and how would you place

[51:31] something on a site. We're trying to spoon feed what we want as best as

[51:36] possible. And then also further examples within

[51:40] the design standards uh sections of what we mean by articulation and setting

[51:47] things back and what we want for dormers and what we want for breaking up the

[51:51] facade of a building. So, as many pictures as we can cram into this thing.

[51:56] And we have confirmed we can't do color photos or color pictures. So, these

[52:01] won't all be black and white. So, we're very excited about that because we're

[52:04] dorky. We like colors and municipal codes. Next slide, please.

[52:10] So, um a part of these design standards are how they are administered,

[52:17] when do they apply, what is exempt. So, you don't have to answer right now,

[52:23] but if you could please get back to me in the next week or so, so that way we

[52:27] can I can modify these things. Um, is when

[52:32] when are they applicable? We're saying right now we're saying all new

[52:36] development, which includes single family. [clears throat]

[52:39] » If that feels like overreach that maybe single family shouldn't be under these

[52:44] regulations, give me feedback. Um, should this only

[52:49] apply in certain zoning districts? Maybe it doesn't apply to R4, R six, and R8.

[52:55] That's an option. Um, right now we we decided to throw all the spaghetti on

[53:01] the wall. So, right now, we have it drafted to apply to everything. Um,

[53:05] there are some exemptions if if you're remodeling the inside of your house,

[53:10] like you're redoing your kitchen. I don't I don't want to have to do design

[53:15] standards for your kitchen remodel. So, if it's inside, I don't want to have to

[53:18] worry about it. I'm sure staff also doesn't want to have to worry about it.

[53:21] And then if you're doing any exterior replacement in kind repairs, if it

[53:28] already looks a certain way and it's still going to look the same way, but

[53:32] it's better, newer materials, that's fine. I'm not going to have

[53:36] someone redesign their house because they need to do new sighting. Um

[53:41] so so these considerations for you um

[53:49] as you as you read through the draft let me know um next slide please.

[53:54] So more administration right now there's a process called departure requests. So

[54:01] we talked about them with some of the design review items and that's where the

[54:06] director can wave design requirements if certain criteria are met which sounds

[54:14] good on paper because you can't you can't for cast every single possible

[54:19] project that might come in the door but right now there is no appeal process.

[54:24] There's no checks or balances to it. I like having

[54:30] checks and balances on me. And so, do you want to keep you can keep the

[54:37] process as is? And you could trust me, I'm human. I'm also not immortal. I'm

[54:43] not going to be here alive forever. So, I don't know what the next person's

[54:46] going to be like. Um, you can keep the the current process and I'll just deal

[54:52] with it. That's fine. It's my job. Um or it could be the design review board

[54:57] makes a decision that and staff makes a recommendation to you. It could be I

[55:02] make an administrative decision and it's appealable to the design review board.

[55:07] Um so these are questions I would like answers to. How involved do you want to

[55:15] be? Do you just want it to be on appeal because something wasn't reasonable and

[55:19] appealable by the applicant? Appealable by the public? It wouldn't matter.

[55:24] Um, next slide, please.

[55:28] And in doing this work,

[55:32] I love how complicated all of this gets. There were sections in our permit

[55:39] processing chapter that talked about design review

[55:45] um that I learned about today or yesterday.

[55:48] that we have different types of design review.

[55:51] That type one and two land use applications are reviewed

[55:54] administratively. Whereas type threes which are subdivisions, site uh site

[56:00] plan, site, >> conditional use permits, those are type

[56:04] threes. They come to planning commission and those would need to be the design

[56:11] review board would then act on the the design of those buildings.

[56:16] Um this language is not very clear

[56:23] about um any appeal like should there be

[56:31] um so

[56:36] this isn't something that's in our policy window to change but with a

[56:42] recommendation to city council when these code amendments come through could

[56:47] be a recommendation of city council should also direct staff to clean this

[56:52] up um if the planning commission. Uh next

[56:56] slide please. So if you could give me feedback on the

[57:01] design standards on the questions that we asked and we

[57:05] can email those slides so that you don't have to use your photographic memory. um

[57:12] it would be greatly appreciated and just like all the other things that we have

[57:15] to get done by the end of the year. Um, this item will be presented to city

[57:20] council next week and then through September and October, we're going to

[57:24] try to work out the wrinkles and then have it uh ready to go for adoption

[57:30] November trying to trying to get things adopted before December so that we have

[57:35] a little bit of cushion and it's not so it's at the 10th hour instead of the

[57:39] 11th. So, um, next slide

[57:45] and I'm here for any questions.

[57:52] Um, sorry. I I think the main one from there that we need direction on is the

[57:57] thing about the design departures. That's a that's a big one for staff.

[58:02] Yes. because it is it's one that we see a concern with in our current code that

[58:08] we would like to or we think plan commission should should maybe have be

[58:13] more involved in that process just as part of our recommendation after but

[58:18] what we know like applicants asked for in that process to have some kind of

[58:22] oversight over that that's what

[58:29] » yeah can you say a little more about the pros and cons of like how we're doing it

[58:35] now and maybe what you're ask I'm I think I'm a little lo confused about

[58:39] what the question is. So with departure request,

[58:46] if an applicant feels that they can't meet um some component of the design

[58:53] standards, they only want their foot their commercial facade to have 50%

[59:00] windows instead of 60% windows. um if it's just because they don't want

[59:06] to versus they can't because this is the

[59:10] only place where they can put um an elevator for ADA requirements

[59:18] like those are different reasons to not meet that standard. So, if it's um

[59:25] so if it's a quote unquote good reason, that feels reasonable. But if it's not,

[59:31] they just don't want to and I I agree and I'm like, "Okay, you don't want to.

[59:35] No problem. Let me just sign that off." There's no there's no one that says,

[59:39] "Hey, they didn't have a good reason. You need to reconsider that." So that's

[59:45] why staff right now it's just under staff and we can have all of these

[59:51] really great regulations on design and if the director just waves away all of

[59:57] those requirements um then what's the point of those of

[1:00:02] those regulations? So having putting some more checks and balances I I'm

[1:00:07] basically trying to take away power that's been assigned to my position.

[1:00:12] » Yeah. And I I can clarify maybe a little bit too because in the past so we we

[1:00:18] typically include the departure requests that are recommended in our staff report

[1:00:24] when you are design review board. So we're putting the departure request in

[1:00:31] the staff report but

[1:00:35] technically that is not a planning commission decision now it's a director

[1:00:40] decision. So, us putting in the departure request

[1:00:44] is basically simply a courtesy or um kind offormational

[1:00:50] moment. That make a little more sense to me.

[1:00:54] » Yeah. If it's okay for me to ask a follow-up question. Um how often is this

[1:00:59] happening? Is this like every week or is this like a couple times a year?

[1:01:05] So we've we've since I started March 30th, we've only had two projects come

[1:01:10] forward to the planning commission and the design review board. So we have

[1:01:14] Acres of Diamond and the Jane Society. Um did Acres of Diamond have departure

[1:01:19] requests? >> Yeah.

[1:01:20] » Yeah. >> Yeah.

[1:01:24] And it's it's pretty common for uh projects to have departure requests um

[1:01:30] for a variety of reasons. >> There's typically something that it

[1:01:34] makes it difficult for them to meet every single design guideline. So I I do

[1:01:40] agree that it's good to have something that's a relief valve,

[1:01:45] but the way it's administered so that the director, you know, doesn't lose

[1:01:51] their mind and like has no standards, right? Like I don't I don't want that

[1:01:57] for the city. Um, so

[1:02:03] that's where that's why we want um the the planning commission to to consider

[1:02:08] this. Um, but if you think it's working fine and

[1:02:14] » well, if it's okay, I'm no, I can't really see if I'm getting called on or

[1:02:18] not, but my my the things I think um maybe are in like the tradeoffs that I

[1:02:25] could imagine here are just a lot more meetings that the applicant has to

[1:02:31] attend with all of their design staff. And I guess I'm interested in making

[1:02:36] sure we're not adding unnecessary cost to potential especially like affordable

[1:02:43] housing projects in this city. So that sounds to me like while we might want to

[1:02:48] avoid some really ugly things and I agree with that, I also don't want there

[1:02:52] to be a bunch of unnecessary process. So those are my comments and you can answer

[1:02:57] if you want to or not.

[1:03:02] Um, okay. Cool. Yeah, I I agree with what you're saying. Uh,

[1:03:08] time is money and when you're building something. So, I agree. Well,

[1:03:14] » I completely agree with what uh Terry was saying as well. Um, and my current

[1:03:22] I'm also agreeing with Dr. Brady and I but I don't really have a a problem with

[1:03:28] the way we're doing it now. My biggest problem, well my biggest problem is

[1:03:32] someone that is not you. >> You know the opposite problem. Someone

[1:03:36] who doesn't approve anything represent absolutely not. And we don't we're not

[1:03:40] have no flexibility and then there's no people. That's much more troublesome to

[1:03:45] me. Um but to have an applicant um you know me I want to see the world's

[1:03:52] gone. So but so to have an applicant have to go through another step I don't

[1:03:56] want to avoid either. But I also don't want um it siloed in in the in the in

[1:04:02] the stack. So an option would be if there is something that goes through

[1:04:07] administrative review could be the decision of the director that could then

[1:04:11] be appealed to the design review board and then for anything that would be

[1:04:16] decided on by the design review board the staff could make a recommendation on

[1:04:21] the department >> and that way it shouldn't most of the

[1:04:25] time probably would not add more product >> and they can and the applicant could

[1:04:29] choose to appeal it or not. >> Exactly. So they can it would be so be

[1:04:34] appealed based on the rules or and you'd still you still could approve request if

[1:04:40] you wanted to or recommend approval >> right

[1:04:43] » but uh if you said no you can't have it you don't want you know you have to have

[1:04:48] 60% windows let's say you say example and uh you and they say no I need to be

[1:04:53] 50% you say no this is what it is they can then choose to appeal or not they

[1:04:58] can choose to go forward with the with Right.

[1:05:01] » And and so if it's a recommendation where then staff said, "I don't

[1:05:05] recommend this 50%." Um but at the design and review board, then the the

[1:05:11] planning commission could decide we're fine with the 50%. Or we're, you know,

[1:05:18] and and then the planning commission as design review board could be the

[1:05:21] ultimate. Would in that case of of a denial and an appeal, would the um city

[1:05:28] act as a the prosecuting side or would you provide a defense and a rebuttal or

[1:05:35] would it be an applicant coming to us this is what I would like to do?

[1:05:39] » So it would be so anything that would need to go through the design review

[1:05:42] board. Oh, so if it's an administrative review and and

[1:05:49] um staff recommends or or you know approves some and not others and the

[1:05:54] applicant wants those others approved then they decide to come to the appeal

[1:05:57] review board then staff would be saying we we approved these because of these

[1:06:01] reasons. We didn't approve these because of these reasons. The applicant as

[1:06:06] appellent could then state their case and then the planning commission could

[1:06:09] decide as they seek it. Well, we did have a GB model like sorry

[1:06:17] put it like a limit on process that you should take and the number of times an

[1:06:22] hour get >> um I

[1:06:28] I don't think we would need to limit >> my point is like we an applicant should

[1:06:34] not be like left hanging they don't get an answer but like the process itself is

[1:06:39] like take so much time that extendable. >> So if an applicant and the staff are at

[1:06:46] an impass um

[1:06:50] and because right now if if that says no then

[1:06:55] um the applicant might try something else and then staff says no that we

[1:07:00] might try something else. Whereas if there was an appeal to the planning

[1:07:04] commission/design review board, then all of it would be brought and then that

[1:07:10] decision would be made by the planning commission

[1:07:13] and it's it's it would be your decision. That's fine. I would support whatever

[1:07:18] you approve and then we would just make sure it gets implemented. Um so it in so

[1:07:24] both ways like the applicant could say I want to go right now to the design

[1:07:28] review board. It's what I have. Let's go. Okay, that's your due process. Let

[1:07:31] go and then we'd be here for you to make a decision and then we could finish up

[1:07:35] with, you know, the other nuts and bolts of a project to get it through.

[1:07:40] » Isn't that isn't there a new state mandate uh saying that there's a maximum

[1:07:46] number or maximum length of time >> there are feature? So that would also

[1:07:52] apply to these applications. If there's mutual agreement by the staff uh by the

[1:07:58] city and the applicant to have additional time, that's that's fine. And

[1:08:02] then it it's whatever the time ended up being. Um the that shot clock is to a

[1:08:10] decision. So if they're so if an applicant comes in with an

[1:08:17] application where they are not conforming with whatever standards,

[1:08:21] design standards, development standards, use conditions, excuse me. Um

[1:08:27] and we keep going back and forth. You need to update this. You need to change

[1:08:31] this. You need to provide us more information. They don't do it. They

[1:08:34] don't do it. At that point, if we've hit that shot clock, okay, applicant, you

[1:08:40] have not performed. I cannot find your project in conformance. I have to deny

[1:08:43] your project and then it gets denied and I've met the conditions of the law as

[1:08:48] far as that chaka goes. Um >> yeah, and on the flip side, if they're

[1:08:53] working with us well and they're providing they're making those

[1:08:56] provisions that we're requesting, then it's on us to make sure that like we are

[1:09:02] we are still making sure we're in compliance with that the clock. Um, so

[1:09:06] it's also a motivation for us to move relatively quickly on our side by

[1:09:12] review. >> Yes.

[1:09:16] » And I don't know if this is what Commissioner Chapel you were referring

[1:09:19] to, but we also can only hold one design review meeting.

[1:09:23] Yeah, actually I saw that on one of them.

[1:09:29] That's um

[1:09:34] a detachment to applic >> to just have one or

[1:09:40] » Well, I mean, it's one design review for a project,

[1:09:46] not for a request, right? So, they have to bundle all their requests, all their

[1:09:50] departure requests into a single thing. and if something's uncovered later,

[1:09:54] they've used their design review appeal up.

[1:09:57] » Um, generally when it comes to like conceptual architectural designs, um,

[1:10:03] once you're ready to go through to present like you, you know what your

[1:10:09] project's going to be. There are in practically every single project once

[1:10:15] you go to construction documents, there might be something that shifts a little

[1:10:20] bit or tweaks a little bit or you know whatever it is and and

[1:10:26] we are allowed to legally find something in substantial compliance. So if those

[1:10:32] windows were at 60% of the wall and then energy code calculations come in,

[1:10:37] they're like we have to make it 59. Okay, that's substantially incompliant.

[1:10:42] Like that's fine. So, so life allows us to account for those sort of like minor

[1:10:49] tweaks. What? Because you're not doing construction documents when you come.

[1:10:54] You don't do that. You do the architectural plans. So,

[1:10:57] that's fine.

[1:11:05] » Any other questions? Is there a way to make it appealable

[1:11:12] to us without the formal designation of a designer review board? Like we just

[1:11:16] want to pres just see what you know get your buy in before we go to the full

[1:11:22] design review board. >> Um,

[1:11:25] no. >> They're still going before planning

[1:11:28] commission to the planning commission as a as a separate agenda item. So I don't

[1:11:33] know if the only thing I could think of is if there were

[1:11:40] uh so this would be a future work plan item to come up with some sort of

[1:11:43] process >> where it would be

[1:11:47] could a preapp a pre-application so this wouldn't kick in yet

[1:11:53] could get informal feedback from a review board

[1:11:59] could make we make the recommendations to the design board just give initial

[1:12:04] feedback. You know what I you know I don't know if other cities do that. I

[1:12:09] don't know what that code language would look like, but it's something where um

[1:12:13] so >> girl, they don't want to see the

[1:12:16] » preamp. Well, and and we're stepping on and

[1:12:20] we're stepping on commissioner and >> design hopefully. How about this? This

[1:12:26] is me being optimistic. Hopefully, our design standards are clear enough

[1:12:30] » and objective objective, not objectionable. Objective

[1:12:35] enough that it would be relatively straightforward for a a

[1:12:42] architect to say, I see all your illustrations. I see your clear

[1:12:47] language. I know what the city wants. I'm going to design it accordingly and

[1:12:51] we are going to get through lift squid and I just have minor um deviation

[1:12:57] requests because I have to put this elevator here or I have to put this um

[1:13:02] you know ramp here or whatever it is >> and and we can work through it quickly.

[1:13:09] So that's that's my my hope. >> We have the deviation request. We have

[1:13:14] the deviation request actually to not request or Yeah. Departure request to uh

[1:13:22] not to not comply with the city code, but they wanted to do something extra on

[1:13:26] top of it that no one asked for. It was like a

[1:13:32] » It's like a giant shipping container built thing. You remember this? Somebody

[1:13:37] came in. It was somebody wanting to actually get rid of this feature.

[1:13:42] This was only a month ago. >> Oh, this is the daycare. We're Yeah,

[1:13:46] » the daycare. Yes. It's a weird departure request, but like the person coming in

[1:13:51] had bought the project from them didn't want to do the feature and we found out

[1:13:56] it was a departure request to do the feature anyway because the applicant

[1:13:59] wanted to do it at the time. >> It was never something we required.

[1:14:03] » Yeah. >> So, so if someone through their through

[1:14:06] their construction documents figures out I can do something without this

[1:14:11] departure request that was approved, that's also fine.

[1:14:16] Um yeah, the shipping container. That's right. Okay. Sorry.

[1:14:20] » Um any other question? >> So any any feedback on any of it um by

[1:14:28] the next week would be fantastic. >> Thank you so much. And hopefully we'll

[1:14:33] get you a computer that works. >> So

[1:14:36] that's what I'm planning. >> Okay. We'll be Yeah. And I can I'll

[1:14:40] write up also as to what happened. Thank you.

[1:14:46] » Okay. Thank you, staff. Uh item nine is new business. Seeing that we have none,

[1:14:51] we'll move on to item 10, unfinished business. Do we have

[1:14:56] any? >> Oh, thanks, sir. Okay. Uh let's just

[1:15:01] move on to adjournment. Uh before we adjourn, uh just want to make a reminder

[1:15:06] that next meeting is September 9th, 2026, 6 p.m. here. Uh, anything further

[1:15:13] for the commission or to the commission for tonight?

[1:15:21] » I think so. Um, if if I may. Um, it I I think I want to address some of the

[1:15:29] items brought up by the community members. Um,

[1:15:36] I can't speak for the rest of the council, but

[1:15:40] I am of a very similar lifeline to people that spoke today. And uh, I have

[1:15:45] been frustrated by um

[1:15:52] the niceness of of of

[1:15:59] maybe it's not maybe I'm just I'm just a horrible person. But there's things we

[1:16:03] don't say and I I don't say them either and I don't think other people say them

[1:16:06] because there's it's just not who to say. Um we're also frustrated by the uh

[1:16:15] when the state makes a mandate, it comes with

[1:16:19] threats. That's probably the wrong word to use. Uh there is the potential of a

[1:16:23] city that doesn't come into compliance with the state mandate to be sued. That

[1:16:28] could cost us a lot of money. There's also a worse thing that being sued and

[1:16:32] that's coming into uh ownership. Not what's the word?

[1:16:37] There's a word for it where they it's like receiverhip from the state and they

[1:16:41] come in and they decide what our rules are. Is that the right word? That's not

[1:16:45] the right word. There there are >> sometimes there are there are state

[1:16:49] legislations that get adopted that say if you cities don't adopt your own

[1:16:54] versions of of these regulations that are tailored for your city the state

[1:16:58] regulations apply >> they'll invalidate parts of our

[1:17:03] conference >> and they will invalidate. Yeah. Um so it

[1:17:07] the most charitable view of of uh us and city council um that has the real power

[1:17:16] uh is that there it's just wanting being a quiet um

[1:17:23] the thing that sparked a lot interest I'm I'm going on too long I'll try to

[1:17:27] wrap up thing that sparked that Facebook that sparked uh the uh the whole

[1:17:33] interest in these planning questions It's it wasn't really fair. Um I'm a

[1:17:38] real estate agent. I come from the development side. We they just don't

[1:17:41] want to do things that don't fit with the city. It's not good business

[1:17:45] practice. I can I can draw a horrible, ugly, disgusting building that nobody

[1:17:53] would put on Main Street that is perfectly compliance and they can't uh

[1:17:57] nobody's going to do that. That's just not in the best interest of the owner of

[1:18:00] that property. And that's really my philosophy when I look at all these

[1:18:04] things. What's the best interest of the the owner of property and secondarily

[1:18:09] what's the best interest of the community? Um there's third or fourth

[1:18:16] tank. So it's not a priority. But um I I just want you to know we have the same

[1:18:21] frustration and we have a hard time balancing that. I know I do. There are

[1:18:26] certain things that I want the city to be that I may or may not say because not

[1:18:32] every wants. Right now you guys are are seemed pretty unified with what you're

[1:18:37] talking about. That's not the case with everybody. Um

[1:18:43] » I think I think that's that's good. It's just it's a it's a top a top uh problem

[1:18:49] we have. And just because we bu we zone it and say you we can do this here that

[1:18:55] meets in many cases meets the what the state's asking us to do. It's still on

[1:19:00] the builders the the people developers to come and and do that. And as we've

[1:19:07] seen they have very little interest in building low-inccome housing.

[1:19:11] And again, low income housing, when you hear those words, that's $600, $700,000.

[1:19:20] » Most of us are not even concerned about the low-inccome housing. We realize the

[1:19:25] importance of it and are willing to accept that within uh

[1:19:32] acceptable standards. Um but I think we also know

[1:19:37] that um that this is being mandated by the state and this was mandated before

[1:19:44] co happened with tremendous growth from the tech industry

[1:19:51] and co changed all of that >> and I sorry

[1:19:57] » you're right >> I'm so sorry we don't have a public

[1:20:01] comment >> section but it talk

[1:20:08] Um so so we welcome everybody to come to city council. There'll be more chance

[1:20:14] for public testimony. Please come and and speak. Um there's always public

[1:20:19] comment at our planning commission uh meetings as well. Um

[1:20:24] the it's already going to be September next

[1:20:28] week. No. So, September 1st, um the updated

[1:20:34] draft of the title 14 code changes will be posted online and um then I will be

[1:20:41] able to update the web this the city web pages where I've been linking all the

[1:20:47] things. So, once they're presented in the council agenda, I'll be able to post

[1:20:54] all the updated information. So everybody,

[1:20:57] it'll coming soon.

[1:21:02] » Yeah. Uh I want to say something too. I mean it kind of reminds me of an analogy

[1:21:06] I heard years ago. It's like how do you make a pair of shoes last a really long

[1:21:12] time? Do you buy expensive shoes? Do you only wear those good shoes when you need

[1:21:17] to? Or do you repair them when they need repair? And the answer is all. So this

[1:21:23] the height stuff the jam-packing density in. I mean it's it's a portion but it's

[1:21:29] not it. So it's it's kind of more of a big big picture everybody has to look

[1:21:34] at. So that's all I got to say. >> Thank you so much for coming in. Great.

[1:21:39] » Uh I'll I'll adjourn the meeting. Anybody else have anything?

[1:21:44] » No. Let's go ahead and adjourn. 7:22. >> Thanks so much.

August 26, 2026 Meeting of the Duvall Planning Commission

Transcript