Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sensitive Areas Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Duvall staff present draft DMC 14.42 updates to align buffers with state guidance; public hearing targeted June 24
Summary
City staff previewed proposed amendments to DMC 14.42 (sensitive areas), saying the draft uses Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife guidance on riparian buffer methodology (site potential tree height as baseline) with targeted exceptions for developed lots and reasonable‑use provisions; staff are scheduling a public hearing June 24 and plan council action in July–August.
City planning staff on June 10 presented draft updates to DMC 14.42, the city—s sensitive‑areas code, and told the Duvall Planning Commission they plan a public hearing for the amendment later this month as part of a periodic state‑mandated update.
Director Adal Batty and Principal Planner Morgan Dorner said the amendments are mainly a technical update to align local rules with current best available science and state guidance from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). "About every 10 years cities and counties have to update our sensitive areas ordinance to make sure the regulations are the most current and best available science," Dorner explained.
Key change under discussion: adopting the state guidance approach for riparian buffers using site potential tree height as a baseline. Staff said the approach provides a consistent baseline but acknowledged that applying a literal tree‑height buffer in an already developed city can cause substantial nonconformities. The draft includes allowances to reduce impacts on developed properties, reasonable‑use exceptions to avoid takings, and explicit allowances for public agency work such as utilities and parks.
Staff noted the packet includes draft amendments informed by consultant work (HPL), prior public comments and agency feedback. The timeline: staff targeted a public hearing before the planning commission for June 24, then anticipated forwarding the code amendment to City Council for review and adoption in July–August to meet state update timelines.
Commissioners asked technical questions about buffer triggers, the choice to use state guidance as a baseline, and whether the update would affect housing capacity calculations. Staff said the chosen approach is defensible and easier to administer than some more complicated local methodologies, that there are exceptions for small expansions on legally constructed properties, and that reasonable‑use exceptions exist so a property owner with a stream bisecting a lot could still build minimal housing without unconstitutional takings.
What comes next: staff will publish hearing notices and accept formal comments ahead of the June 24 public hearing; subsequent council review is expected through July and August.
