[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.