Remarks by Mark Abbe
50 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 2 of 2
- Play at 1:22:03
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Planning Commission · Aug 26, 2026
- Play at 1:22:54
“Apologies. All right, that's north-south. Okay, thank you. Let's see, so my understanding is that there is supposed to be There's a five foot setback on the west side, but we're saying for parking, it can go down to less than five feet?”
Planning Commission · Aug 26, 2026
- Play at 1:23:23
“All right, and I see on this, the warrants and exceptions, and it's got pink and green, and so it says east, west, It says side yard, five feet minimum, west exception two to 3.75 inches.”
Planning Commission · Aug 26, 2026
- Play at 1:23:57
“Oh, I'm sorry. I'm reading that wrong. Two feet, three and a quarter inches. Okay, sorry. That's accurate, yeah. Again, on the east side, two feet, eight and... Does staff have any concern being that close to the fence for the neighbors next door?”
Planning Commission · Aug 26, 2026
- Play at 1:25:12
“Could you go back to that other picture that we had, the north and south? Now, right on the alley, right next to it, It does look like it, and I think there was a diagram. I don't need them to come up yet, but when they come up, if the applicants could talk about that, It looks like a residence right on the alley. Tell us what's actually there.”
Planning Commission · Aug 26, 2026
- Play at 1:26:12
“Okay What's the lot coverage allowed on these parcels?”
Planning Commission · Aug 26, 2026
- Play at 1:26:56
“So there's no lot coverage standard that I'm seeing here. The town doesn't have a lot coverage? The farm-based code down there? That's what I'm hearing from you, correct?”
Planning Commission · Aug 26, 2026
- Play at 1:27:17
“Okay. Let's see. I want to go back to side setback. So regardless if the building is one story, two story, or three story, that side setback on the west side, well, I guess on either side, is only five feet, correct?”
Planning Commission · Aug 26, 2026
- Play at 1:27:58
“Okay, so whether it's one, two, or three story, it is five feet?”
Planning Commission · Aug 26, 2026
- Play at 1:28:03
“Wow, okay. See Okay, and I know it's in there but if you could help me with the parking how many required parking spaces under our code The applicant is saying eight and”
Planning Commission · Aug 26, 2026
- Play at 1:28:43
“So we have 19 units and we only require eight. There's nine being provided. That's according to our downtown specific plan. They only need like 50%.”
Planning Commission · Aug 26, 2026
- Play at 1:31:57
“There was a letter from the public. Thank you. There was a letter from the public that said that that was an especially narrow alleyway. They were concerned about having vehicles traveling there and it's too narrow and they were suggesting maybe it should be one way. So there were some issues according to this one letter writer and I was just wondering what is staff's opinion of that.”
Planning Commission · Aug 26, 2026
- Play at 1:47:36
“I just wanted to piggyback on that. I think it might have been condition 21. Can you pull that up on the screen? I remember specifically it said something about dark sky compliant.”
Planning Commission · Aug 26, 2026
- Play at 2:01:33
“Thank you, Chair Boussa. Yeah, the fact that this could have gone density bonus does put sort of a different spin on how one would look at the project. On the face of it, it looks very nice. facade architecture in the front. Commissioner Comden mentioned it starts out as two-story, and the third story is set back quite a bit from Main Street. So that's very thoughtful architecture. You have the, I don't know what it's called, plaza, but open space within the property. I'm a little concerned about parking being closer than the five feet, but I think I'm willing to overlook that. It's not a big…”
Planning Commission · Aug 26, 2026
- Play at 28:23
“This is the meeting I was not on, but I did review the video. Yes.”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:29:27
“Thank you, Vice Chair Zucker. Let's see. On the comments, I don't know if you can bring this up, but there was on the comments, so there was the draft July, I don't know if it was July 11th, and then there were comments from the public. On page 11, one of those comments that talked about item number three, transitional setbacks abutting a single family zone property with interior, rear, or side property lines. Okay. You were talking about there's objective design standards and there are design standards. Maybe I'm not using the right word, but.”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:32:02
“Okay, let's see. Okay, so there was a diagram, but the diagram doesn't really give you a sort of a wide component rise vertical versus setback horizontal, and is it from the property line and so forth. I just ran some different numbers just for argument's sake. If you do a 10, 10, 10 ratio, that's one. That's 45 degrees. For example, if you had a rise of 20 and a run or horizontal of 10, that's 2.0. So you have a difference between a 45 degree setback plane versus a 63.4% setback plane. Was there any consideration given for this transitional setback for using a setback plane as opposed to,…”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:34:43
“Okay, I have several more questions related to this, but I'll give my fellow commissioners another chance.”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 1:59:52
“Okay. So I saw several questions related to what I started out asking about. Let's see, there was questions from Robert Mather, Bob Guthrie. So I'll just kind of ask a series of questions that kind of incorporate their questions in the survey. So we talked about transitional setback abutting a single family zone property with interior rear side property line. So we talked about casting shade and what would be the proper proportions and so forth. I wanted to dig a little deeper. So the first question, and I think I already know the answer, and I think it's already been broached, but can this…”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 2:06:30
“Oh, go ahead. Okay. I have two more questions on this same topic, and then I have other questions. I'll wait for another round or another time. But I just want to drill down on this just slightly more. Okay. Could there be an ODS standard regarding transitional setbacks that is written or worded in such a way that it would be acceptable under density bonus law or not conflict with it?”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 2:07:27
“Okay. Let's see. Then I'll go to my last question on this topic. It was comment number 40 on page 17 of that July 17th draft. Citizen wrote, there were no sections written for ODS regarding building mass and scale. I might be misinterpreting this, but it says no section for building mass and scale, including pedestrian scale. Just wanted to see could pedestrian scale and I don't know if that includes sidewalk width sidewalk widths in relationship to heights of buildings and Whether that's a development standard or as could that be an objective design standard I?”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 3:29:16
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 3:32:02
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 3:35:21
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026
- Play at 4:10:41
“All right, this is gonna be a little scatter shot. So I'll just kind of piece different notes I have. 380 foot building length. It's just on the face of it seems way too big, so I would shoot for something more like 150, 160 feet. That's just, I know that's not in context, but that was one of the things that was in there. Okay, let's see. I would definitely reiterate what Commissioner Lagerquist said in her comment just before her final comment. I strongly agree with that. Let's retain as much local control as we can and fight for that. But still, we want to build housing. That's definitely…”
Planning Commission · Aug 20, 2026