[0:50] >>we will start with the flag salute.

[0:55] if you could stand.

[1:03] >>[pledge of allegiance]

[1:04] >> roll call

[1:05] >> mr. Hauge here, mr. Johnson here,

[1:26] mr. Woodward here, mr. Demattei here,

[1:30] mr. Herzog here

[1:34] >> welcome, everyone. Today's meeting

[1:38] is open to in person in attendance and

[1:39] we will also be observed online through

[1:40] the placer county website. In an effort

[1:44] to encourage the public to engage in

[1:48] the process our public comment for the

[1:49] meeting will be offered in person and

[1:53] through remote virtual process.

[1:54] citizens who wish to comment virtually

[1:55] today should be prepared to comment via

[1:58] zoom platform. To join online click on

[2:00] the link on the planning commission

[2:03] homepage. Be sure your microphone is

[2:07] muted. You may also call in using the

[2:11] toll-free number. That number is

[2:25] 8887880099, or call 8778535247. Please

[2:26] enter the webinar id number 83694865277.

[2:38] please press star six to mute

[2:41] yourself. If you would like to make

[2:45] public comment virtually, please raise

[2:46] your hand with the hand icon at the

[2:48] bottom of the page. If you are calling

[2:51] in please press star nine to raise your

[2:56] hand. Please be prepared to speak at

[3:03] the time I open public comment for the

[3:04] specific item you would like to address

[3:05] which may include public comment for

[3:06] matters not on the agenda, a consent

[3:07] item or a timed item. If attending in

[3:11] person we request that once you have

[3:15] commented on your item returned here

[3:16] cedar leave through the hearing exit

[3:20] door to accommodate physical distancing

[3:22] and allow for others to provide

[3:27] in-person comment. Each commenter is

[3:31] entitled to three minutes. Thank you

[3:38] for your patience as we work to

[3:39] preserve the safety and health of all

[3:40] meeting participants and ensure each

[3:41] citizen who wishes to comment has the

[3:42] opportunity to do so. At this time I

[3:43] left the planning director report

[3:46] >> I want to clarify the id number I

[3:51] provided you with the incorrect web id

[3:55] number my mistake. The number is

[4:03] 81971524079. Once again 81971524079.

[4:12] >> is it correct on the website?

[4:13] >> yes just the know you had

[4:14] >> thank you and then I will start with

[4:21] my report. Reporting out on board of

[4:23] supervisors meeting past and upcoming.

[4:26] there was a board special board meeting

[4:30] on april 5. There were budget

[4:33] presentations from the county

[4:34] departments for the fiscal year 22/23

[4:37] budget. Those were initial department

[4:41] requests the board is actually going to

[4:43] take up the budget and adoption at two

[4:48] upcoming board meetings on june 14 and

[4:52] june 28. Next week which is the next

[4:56] board meeting april 19 several planning

[4:58] items going forward. The ridge

[5:01] subdivision which is a general plan

[5:04] amendment, next to the bickford

[5:07] project. The emergency shelter cup

[5:11] modification that will allow the

[5:13] extension of the permit for another

[5:17] five years. Also the base to base

[5:19] gondola which extends the construction

[5:22] season. Are there any questions on

[5:26] those? Also on the agenda april 19 the

[5:29] board will consider two appointments to

[5:33] the planning commission. The one you

[5:34] are aware is the at-large seat for the

[5:39] eastern sierra crest. That one there

[5:41] will be an appointment made on tuesday

[5:45] for that. And then we did hear from

[5:47] commissioner sam cannon that he

[5:49] regrettably has submitted a resignation

[5:55] for personal reasons. I want to wish

[5:57] him well and thank him for his service

[5:58] on the commission while he was here.

[6:02] that is the district 1 seat and that

[6:07] reappointment will be on the agenda

[6:10] next week. Are there any comments? May

[6:15] 10 looking out a month ahead the

[6:21] housing related code amendments, that

[6:22] is scheduled on that date. That's just

[6:26] where workshop the board won't take any

[6:29] action just provide direction to staff

[6:31] at that meeting. Are the questions?

[6:34] >> ej a couple if it's okay. I

[6:41] understood the community was going to

[6:45] appeal the bayside decision. As you know

[6:49] has that happened?

[6:50] >> we did receive an appeal on that

[6:53] project. I don't know if we have a

[6:55] tentative date when it will go to the

[6:56] board but it's probably 60 days out.

[7:00] thank you for bringing that up it was

[7:01] not on my list

[7:03] >> no problem. Now a comment if you

[7:05] don't mind. This is for public I guess

[7:10] public consumption. And to get it on

[7:13] the record. I am continuing to be

[7:16] concerned about a code rewrite that

[7:19] will take place or is taking place as

[7:24] we speak associated with mixed-use

[7:27] multifamily associated with the housing

[7:28] element associated with streamlining

[7:30] etc.. I continue to be concerned about

[7:33] hearing about the way this will

[7:36] proceed. For everybody to get it on the

[7:39] public record, I did ask for a meeting

[7:40] with the ceo on this because at the

[7:44] individual who could resolve the

[7:45] problem without question I think ahead

[7:48] of time. That meeting was acknowledged

[7:54] by his office, I haven't heard from

[7:56] them and I basically indicated this

[7:58] would be the time, this thursday would

[8:01] be the time it would need to take place

[8:04] or prior to that. Since that has not

[8:07] happened I withdraw that request for a

[8:11] meeting. I offer the same request to

[8:12] the lead attorney and county counsel

[8:18] office. If there's an interest in

[8:19] meeting with me on this I suggest it be

[8:21] done. I would love to have it happen. I

[8:24] will be gone for eight days leaving

[8:27] this evening. If we can do that when I

[8:28] get back it would be great. If not

[8:32] that's okay as well. I think it would

[8:33] be a good idea to meet

[8:39] >> thank you

[8:40] >> moving on to upcoming planning

[8:42] commission schedules. We have a meeting

[8:43] scheduled for april 28 in two weeks. On

[8:46] that agenda now granite bay medical

[8:50] office project down on the corner of

[8:53] berg and douglas boulevard, a general

[8:55] plan amendment, that will be up for

[9:00] your consideration. We also have an

[9:01] appeal of a sign variance also in

[9:03] granite bay at the next meeting. For

[9:11] may 12 meeting agenda yet to be

[9:12] determined so I can't confirm whether

[9:15] or not we will have that meeting or

[9:16] what will be on the agenda so stay

[9:23] tuned. Staffing update, the county has

[9:24] hired a new community development

[9:26] resource agency director. As of last

[9:29] friday. The gentleman's name is david

[9:33] wong, he is currently the community

[9:34] development director for

[9:37] [indiscernible] county. I believe he's

[9:39] also worked in the past for the city of

[9:43] sacramento in different capacities and

[9:44] also as the planning director. The

[9:48] start date is june 7 so we are about a

[9:51] month out in the interim james

[9:55] christensen acting as interim agency

[9:56] director will continue until that time.

[10:01] that's good news so thank you

[10:06] >> thank you. I will open up public

[10:07] comment for any matters not on the

[10:11] planning commission agenda.

[10:12] >> is there anyone here that wishes to

[10:18] comment on non-agenda items?

[10:23] >> anyone online?

[10:24] >> there's a little bit of a delay for

[10:37] online so I will wait.

[10:43] >> we will close public comment for

[10:44] items not on the agenda. We will move

[10:50] on to consent agenda. Would any

[10:51] commissioners like to remove an item

[10:52] from the consent agenda? I will remove

[10:57] item b

[10:58] >> we will pull item b and leave item a.

[11:09] I will ask the public if they would

[11:10] like to remove any consent agenda

[11:12] items? Anyone here in person? Anyone

[11:22] online?

[11:23] >> I move to approve the consent items,

[11:30] second

[11:31] >> let's take a roll call vote on item

[11:33] a on the consent

[11:34] >> mr. Hauge yes mr. Johnson yes mr.

[11:45] woodward yes mr. Demattei yes mr.

[11:52] herzog yes

[11:57] >> let's go ahead and move to the

[11:58] consent agenda item presentation from

[12:01] staff steve?

[12:04] >> before steve gets started maybe the

[12:09] it folks can jump to the plumpjack

[12:27] powerpoint slide? Good morning mr. Chair

[12:50] members of the commission supervisor

[12:51] planner out of the tahoe office today I

[12:52] bring the plumpjack in redevelopment

[12:53] project and requests from the applicant

[12:54] for an extension of time on the project.

[12:59] to help orient to you to where the

[13:03] project is located, situated at the

[13:06] northwest intersection of olympic

[13:07] valley road and shirley canyon road

[13:09] toward the west end of the olympic

[13:15] valley. The subject property is shown

[13:21] on the screen, the property was

[13:23] developed in 1959 in preparation for

[13:26] the olympics. The current site

[13:27] improvements include a 61 room hotel

[13:31] surface parking a restaurant and a

[13:36] related functions. Just for orientation

[13:38] purposes, to the north the area subject

[13:42] property is zoned village commercial.

[13:46] to the north of the subject property

[13:49] shown in the hash marks in the

[13:51] conservation preserve zone district is

[13:55] where it is located. Immediately to the

[13:57] east and across the roadway is the

[14:00] village of palisades. To the south of

[14:02] the subject property is the squaw

[14:07] valley lodge property. Area shown to

[14:08] the west is zoned high density

[14:12] residential and [indiscernible] condos

[14:16] property. Back in 2017 the planning

[14:24] commission approved a vesting tentative

[14:25] map and subdivision that allow for the

[14:26] demolition of existing structures on

[14:27] the property including the surface

[14:29] parking and in its place replaced with

[14:34] underground parking structure and above

[14:35] ground will be three separate buildings

[14:39] underground parking area is all

[14:45] interconnected. Contained within the

[14:46] buildings your approval allowed for a

[14:49] 60 hotel room and 34 residential units

[14:52] which will be dispersed amongst all

[14:55] three structures. The eastern structure

[14:56] is where the hotel itself is intended

[15:04] to be located. As I mentioned february

[15:07] 2017 the planning commission approved

[15:08] the vesting tentative map conditional

[15:13] use permit. Accompanying the proposal

[15:16] was an environmental document prepared

[15:17] for the project which was deemed to be

[15:18] adequate by the planning commission. In

[15:20] may 2018 the applicant proposed a

[15:25] modification to the previous approved

[15:29] entitlement essentially resulted in

[15:32] minimal exterior changes, the

[15:33] structures were going to remain the

[15:36] same. It was more the internal use of

[15:37] the structures at that point they were

[15:40] considering a reprogramming of the

[15:44] interior of the site which would cause

[15:47] a shift from the touristy uses two more

[15:49] residential uses. About that same time,

[15:54] the floodplain mapping for the area was

[15:56] updated by fema which created some

[16:04] design concerns for the applicant team

[16:05] the application was placed on hold and

[16:07] later withdrawn. In april 2020, the

[16:12] planning commission approved a two-year

[16:13] extension of time for the project which

[16:17] established a new expiration date of

[16:24] february 2022. In january 12th 2022

[16:26] prior to the expiration date, for the

[16:30] project the applicant filed a timely

[16:34] appeal I'm sorry a timely request for

[16:37] an extension of time to extend the

[16:38] expiration date of the project. Similar

[16:47] to the previous extension of time

[16:48] request there are a number of findings

[16:49] required for the planning commission to

[16:50] make to approve the extension of time.

[17:00] some of those include there are no

[17:01] changes or circumstances occurred that

[17:02] would've impacted the planning

[17:03] commission original approval of the

[17:07] project in 2017. Additionally, the

[17:08] planning commission will be asked to

[17:09] make the findings the applicant has

[17:10] been diligent in their pursuit of the

[17:15] implementation of the project. Staff

[17:16] has reviewed the applicants request for

[17:20] an extension of time and staff believes

[17:21] the planning commission can meet the

[17:23] findings. Speaking to the diligent

[17:28] pursuit of the project the applicant

[17:32] continues to evaluate design revisions

[17:33] or modifications that address the flood

[17:34] proofing of the underground parking

[17:37] structure that was impacted by the

[17:41] remapping of the floodplain. At the

[17:42] same time the applicant is pursuing

[17:45] obtaining capital to secure the

[17:46] financing that will allow the project

[17:49] to move forward. With all of that,

[17:57] staff recommendation is the planning

[17:59] commission approved the two-year

[18:00] extension of time request for the

[18:04] plumpjack inn vesting tentative map and

[18:09] conditional use permit 1400047 in

[18:15] reliance on the previously certified

[18:16] environmental impact report and modify

[18:17] conditions of approval as recommended

[18:18] by staff and based on the findings and

[18:22] the staff report. Speaking to the

[18:23] modify conditions contained in the

[18:27] staff report, there's one item

[18:29] condition 107 that needs to be

[18:36] modified, your planning packet and

[18:37] expiration date of february 23, 2025.

[18:41] that should be consistent with the

[18:42] two-year extension of time request

[18:45] before you. It should read february 23,

[18:49] 2024. I'm happy to answer any questions

[18:52] should you have any. The applicant is

[18:56] also on the line happy to answer any

[19:01] questions

[19:02] >> questions from commissioners for

[19:08] staff?

[19:09] >> I think we will have some

[19:12] >> I'd like the applicant

[19:22] >> can you hear me okay?

[19:23] >> we can hear you

[19:24] >> my name is hayes parzybok. Principle

[19:34] with paradigm eight we are in

[19:38] partnership with the plumpjack group

[19:39] and cnc the property owner on this

[19:40] project and have been working on it

[19:46] since 2018. Actually 2017 how the years

[19:55] go by. I wanted to sort of reiterate

[20:00] what steve mentioned. As you can all

[20:09] probably appreciate, the floodplain

[20:10] change while we were going through

[20:12] potential modification process was a

[20:16] substantial item relative to making

[20:17] sure we could meet the building code to

[20:22] do that with a subterranean garage as

[20:26] the project was approved. We believe

[20:29] that is feasible and relatively

[20:34] straightforward to design through. Just

[20:35] as we got the first extension, we were

[20:41] in a position to move the project

[20:44] forward quickly and pick up the

[20:50] improvement plan process where we left

[20:51] that off with placer county. As

[20:59] everyone knows we had done that and

[21:00] immediately after receiving or

[21:01] basically concurrent with receiving the

[21:02] first extension, we ran into all the

[21:05] challenges on the project relative to

[21:10] covid-19 including as you can

[21:11] appreciate with a complex project like

[21:14] this, getting design teams together in

[21:17] the summer of 2020 and the fall of 2020

[21:20] two the site to coordinate design

[21:25] modifications and things like that to

[21:30] address those complexities was not

[21:34] feasible. So, we've continued to do

[21:36] work on the project remotely. We are

[21:40] starting to get to a place where folks

[21:42] are comfortable reconvening on the site.

[21:47] we also have had a lot of good

[21:48] progress the last six months relative

[21:53] to the investment of capital stack

[21:56] needed for the project to move forward

[21:59] toward construction. So, we are excited

[22:03] about hopefully getting this extension

[22:04] and being in a position to move the

[22:09] project forward toward execution. I'm

[22:12] happy to stay on and answer any

[22:17] questions you may have. Also, we've got

[22:18] project council on as well if needed

[22:22] >> alright thank you hayes. Questions

[22:28] for the applicant?

[22:31] >> let's go ahead and move to public

[22:35] comment. Is there anybody in person

[22:36] wishing to speak on the item?

[22:41] >> anyone online?

[22:42] >> not seeing anyone in the public

[22:57] wanting to speak, we will close the

[23:00] public comment and bring it to

[23:05] commissioners for questions or

[23:06] clarification or discussion

[23:07] >> I have a question. I guess if I

[23:13] remember right when this project was

[23:14] first approved by the planning

[23:17] commission, it was also appealed to the

[23:22] supervisors. I was aware or not aware

[23:24] if it was gone beyond that to the court

[23:28] system or not. Is this involved in the

[23:31] court?

[23:32] >> it was not subject to litigation

[23:34] >> so it is separate litigation

[23:43] discussed in the letter we received?

[23:44] >> yes the litigation mentioned in the

[23:45] letter received pertains to a different

[23:49] project in the region or the vicinity

[23:50] >> okay thank you

[23:51] >> we can move to a motion if you have

[24:08] clarity

[24:09] >> move to extend for two years the

[24:16] request on the plumpjack 10 of map and

[24:17] conditional use permit pln 140-0047

[24:23] reliance on the previous environmental

[24:24] report and modify conditions of

[24:25] approval as recommended by staff based

[24:27] on the findings in the staff report

[24:28] >> do we have to modify 107 and 24

[24:38] months to 2024?it would be a separate?

[24:43] >> all one motion as commissioner

[24:50] hague, that includes [indiscernible]

[24:51] >> I am deaf today

[24:52] >> I will second that

[24:53] >> roll call vote

[24:54] >> first from mr. Hauge second from mr.

[25:04] demattei. Mr. Hauge yes, mr. Johnson

[25:09] yes, mr. Woodward yes, mr. Demattei

[25:13] yes, mr. Herzog yes

[25:18] >> we will move on to the first time

[25:22] the item winchester lot 35 and open

[25:25] space lot x conditional use permit

[25:32] subdivision modification. Members of

[25:36] the public may raise their hand or

[25:37] press start nine to queue up for the

[25:38] public item which will not begin until

[25:39] the presentation is complete. Chris

[25:40] schmidt will present on the item

[25:41] >> sorry chris I could have asked them

[25:55] to get that

[25:56] >> good morning commissioners, chris

[26:09] schmidt with planning services the

[26:13] project. Forward today is a conditional

[26:15] use permit modification for the

[26:17] winchester residential development in

[26:19] meadow vista. The project site involves

[26:24] one lot, one of the cottage lots and

[26:28] winchester. The zoning is residential

[26:29] agriculture minimum building site of

[26:33] five-acre it has a plan development

[26:35] combining district of .39 units to acre.

[26:39] located at the corner of legends drive

[26:43] and lodge view drive, across the street

[26:44] from the community clubhouse and pool.

[26:47] a couple photos of the site, a highly

[26:52] constrained property if you have driven

[26:56] through winchester the lots are highly

[26:59] constrained with outcroppings slopes

[27:00] cottage lots very small buildable areas.

[27:03] on the slot in particular is a

[27:04] significant boulder in the middle of

[27:10] the lot. You can see there are cottage

[27:15] lots developed adjacent to this this is

[27:16] one of the last lots that has not been

[27:18] built on in the background is the golf

[27:22] course clubhouse. A couple more

[27:26] pictures of the rock. The back of the

[27:27] property is a highly sloped, so the

[27:31] house will be built closer to the

[27:32] street like most of the lots here. The

[27:40] applicant is a potential buyer of the

[27:41] property proposing a single-story 1758

[27:42] square-foot house designed to work

[27:45] around the boulder instead of trying to

[27:49] remove it. A little history about

[27:55] winchester, the project was approved in

[27:59] 1993 for 409 units including 385

[28:03] single-family lots. And 24 cluster home

[28:05] lots closest to the clubhouse. These

[28:10] are smaller .1 acre to quarter acre

[28:13] smaller homes. There's an 18 hole golf

[28:16] course, the clubhouse swim and tennis

[28:19] club and eight acre public park and 10

[28:21] miles of trail throughout the property.

[28:24] the subject site is at the center of

[28:28] the community. When the project was

[28:32] approved, there was an open space lot

[28:38] called lot x set aside because it was

[28:39] deemed done buildable on the final map

[28:41] lot x is labeled open space. In 2002

[28:51] there were a bunch of boundary line

[28:52] adjustments on cottage lots. For

[28:56] unknown reason, lot 35 which was a

[28:59] residential lot x south of it there was

[29:03] an adjustment on these lots, so the

[29:08] open space lot grew by 1800 square

[29:11] feet. Strangely enough the rock

[29:14] outcropping stayed on lot 35 so no

[29:16] adjustment to avoid the rock. I'm

[29:20] unclear why the boundary line

[29:23] adjustment was done but it was recorded

[29:27] in 2002. In 2015, the owner of the

[29:32] common area lot the homeowners

[29:36] association agreed to sell this to the

[29:39] golf course owner. The golf course

[29:42] owner also when they purchased the

[29:43] property purchased a vacant residential

[29:46] lot and they were developing and

[29:47] selling them off to individual buyers.

[29:50] the original ccr for the project list

[29:57] lot x as common area and says it was

[29:58] him buildable property between lot 35

[30:01] and 36. The hoa members of the

[30:06] community agreed to sell the property

[30:10] in a boat, sold lot x to the golf

[30:15] course developer in 2015. Later removed

[30:16] any mention of lot x in the ccr were

[30:24] rewritten in 21. Last year the applicant

[30:34] applied for a merger between lot x and

[30:35] lot 35 to create .36 acre lot it was

[30:36] approved and recorded at the end of

[30:41] last year. Unbeknownst to us at the

[30:46] county, discovered by the title company

[30:50] was language in the transfer document

[30:55] when the community was developed

[30:56] between the developer and hoa. It

[31:01] transferred the common area and

[31:02] preserve lots to the hoa that had a

[31:06] clause that said if the property is no

[31:08] longer needed as protective preserve

[31:13] open space, a document must be recorded

[31:23] and it must be signed by the county

[31:24] executive officer or chairman of

[31:25] supervisors which confirms placer

[31:26] county no longer imposes restrictions

[31:27] on the property restricted as a

[31:28] protective preserve. That's what we are

[31:29] here to do today. We did look to see if

[31:32] this common area lot was part of the

[31:35] required open space for the residential

[31:37] development and winchester when this

[31:40] was approved, our rules were less

[31:44] stringent than today. To do a pd today

[31:45] at least 20 percent open spaces

[31:48] required. When this was approved it was

[31:52] only 12.5 percent. They needed 139

[32:00] acres of open space,. 335 acres of open

[32:01] space that does include 228 acres of

[32:04] golf course property. There's nothing

[32:06] in the conditions of approval that

[32:09] mention lot x. It is not listed as a

[32:13] preserve system. Even if it was

[32:16] included in the 335 acres they are well

[32:17] above the open space required for the

[32:21] project. There is nothing recorded on

[32:25] the property that says this is

[32:29] restricted open space. There is no

[32:30] restriction listed in the conditions of

[32:33] approval. With that I'm here before you

[32:41] to ask you to approve the subdivision

[32:42] modification subject to modify

[32:43] conditions of approval attachment of

[32:44] the staff report findings in the staff

[32:45] report approved the conditional use

[32:58] permit modification for the winchester

[32:59] planned unit development subject to

[33:00] modify conditions lot x is no longer

[33:01] restricted as open space subject to the

[33:02] findings and recommend the county

[33:03] executive officer sign a letter of

[33:04] determination to document

[33:05] abolishment of previous space

[33:06] restrictions on lot x. I have one

[33:07] change similar to the previous item

[33:11] condition one on the first page

[33:13] mentions the march 28 22 planning

[33:18] commission date, this was scheduled to

[33:19] go the last meeting but we did have

[33:23] scheduling problems so we did have to

[33:26] delay that to today's date. So that

[33:29] needs to be updated to april 14

[33:30] >> happy to answer any questions

[33:37] >> thank you chris. Commissioners,

[33:39] questions for staff?

[33:40] >> good morning my name is les carter,

[33:47] I hope the commission can hear me well.

[33:50] I don't have anything to add. I believe

[33:57] mr. Schmidt has covered as addressed

[33:58] all of the specific findings or

[34:05] considerations. I do appreciate the

[34:07] commissions consideration for approval

[34:10] of the item but I'm here to answer any

[34:15] specific questions the commission may

[34:16] have

[34:18] >> thank you lester. Do you have any

[34:19] questions for the applicant? Standby,

[34:25] we may have some. We will go ahead and

[34:26] open up the public comment. Is there

[34:29] anyone here in person to speak on the

[34:33] item? Anyone online? We will close

[34:45] public comment and bring it back to the

[34:47] commissioners for clarification for

[34:51] staff applicant for discussion?

[34:52] >> has there been any feedback from

[34:53] neighbors on either side of the lot

[34:55] that they don't want this done?

[35:01] >> no we have not got emails or calls

[35:05] on the project. I believe the applicant

[35:07] has talked to the immediate neighbors

[35:08] and no hesitation at this time. The hoa

[35:14] has not commented. There has been

[35:15] nothing

[35:16] >> so this whole lot is residential?

[35:17] >> it's in the yellow area that will be

[35:24] buildable. The balance of the site is

[35:29] steeply sloped in the rear

[35:32] >> that's all I have

[35:33] >> ready for a motion

[35:46] >> move to approve the subdivision

[35:47] modification subject to the modified

[35:49] conditions of approval and findings in

[35:50] the staff report

[35:52] >> second

[35:54] >> roll call vote

[35:55] >> first from mr. Hauge, second from

[36:04] mr. Demattei. Mr. Hauge yes mr. Johnson

[36:11] yes mr. Woodward yes mr. Demattei yes

[36:19] mr. Herzog yes. Move to approve the

[36:24] conditional use permit modification for

[36:25] winchester planned development subject

[36:26] to conditions of approval attachment b

[36:33] as modified today to note lot x is no

[36:34] longer restricted as open space and

[36:35] subject to the findings in the staff

[36:36] report

[36:37] >> roll call vote

[36:39] >> first from mr. Hauge, second from

[36:44] mr. Demattei. Mr. Hauge yes, mr.

[36:49] johnson yes mr. Woodward yes mr.

[36:55] demattei yes mr. Herzog yes

[36:56] >> finally recommend the county

[37:06] executive officer sign a letter of

[37:07] determination to document abolishment

[37:08] of previous open space restrictions on

[37:09] lot x

[37:10] >> roll call vote

[37:11] >> first from mr. Hauge second from mr.

[37:17] demattei. Mr. Hauge yes mr. Johnson yes

[37:21] mr. Woodward yes mr. Demattei yes mr.

[37:26] herzog yes

[37:27] >> we will move on to the second timed

[37:30] item sterling point estate subdivision

[37:35] map modification. Members of the public

[37:39] may raise their hands press star nine

[37:40] to queue up for public comment on the

[37:41] item which will not begin until the

[37:46] project presentation is complete.

[37:52] kally, senior planner will present on

[37:53] the item

[37:54] >> good morning commissioners kally

[37:55] kedinger cecil senior planner of the

[37:56] planning services division. The item

[37:57] this morning as a request to modify the

[37:59] subdivision map for the sterling point

[38:04] homeowner association for lot 19 to

[38:07] eliminate open space riparian

[38:11] protection easement redesignate that

[38:12] drainage easement and modify the size.

[38:20] project site is in the sterling point

[38:21] estate subdivision located east of

[38:22] folsom lake and west of auburn fulsome

[38:23] road. Here we have the sterling estate

[38:27] final map in aerial. The lot in

[38:28] question is shown here in red. The

[38:44] sterling points estate subdivision was

[38:45] approved by the board of supervisors in

[38:46] 1990 includes 60 lots on 157 acres 14

[38:47] of the lots created with open space

[38:48] protection easements and the final map

[38:49] includes a note. I will read that so

[38:52] everyone understands the restrictions.

[39:00] the final map states and easement for

[39:01] the protection of folsom lake water

[39:02] quality and native oak woodlands across

[39:03] the areas designated here on as scenic

[39:04] setback and natural area easements and

[39:22] an easement for the protection of

[39:23] wetlands and endangered elderberry

[39:24] beetle habitat across the areas

[39:25] designated here on open space riparian

[39:26] easements notification to all future

[39:27] lot owners no homeowner or tenant shall

[39:28] place fill materials lawn clippings oil

[39:29] chemical or trash when the open space

[39:30] and riparian easement in scenic setback

[39:31] and natural area easements nor shall

[39:32] grading vegetation removal or

[39:33] alteration be permitted including

[39:36] domestic landscaping and fencing

[39:38] accepting fencing or other activities

[39:39] approved elsewhere in the conditions of

[39:42] approval a provision for the

[39:43] enforcement of the restriction by the

[39:47] hoa shall be provided. Trending or

[39:56] other maintenance are allowed for the

[39:57] purpose of fire prevention elimination

[39:58] of deceased growth for sending

[39:59] necessary for the maintenance of

[40:00] natural vegetation only with the

[40:01] written consent of the drc. The drc is

[40:04] the development review committee. Shown

[40:12] here is a selection of sterling points

[40:13] final map shown in red is the open

[40:14] space riparian easement in question.

[40:22] the easement affects three lots

[40:23] including 1819 and 21 the majority of

[40:24] the open space lot is on lot 19. The

[40:30] 1.4 acre site at 9700 rim rock circle in

[40:34] loomis, zoned out agriculture with

[40:39] minimum building site of 4.6 acres and

[40:40] planned development of .44 dwelling

[40:43] units per acre. It is developed with

[40:44] single-family residence driveway and

[40:47] landscaping. The property owners are

[40:56] requesting approval of a map

[40:57] modification to change the designation

[40:58] of the easement from open space and

[40:59] riparian protection to a drainage

[41:00] easement for the portion of the

[41:01] easement that affects their property.

[41:02] they are proposing to modify the width

[41:06] of the easement so will be reduced from

[41:07] 75 feet on their lot to 10 feet. The

[41:11] portions of the easements on the

[41:12] adjacent parcels will not be modified.

[41:15] for some background on this project, in

[41:21] april of last year the county received

[41:23] a code complaint violation for

[41:27] unpermitted grading activities. The

[41:28] complaint noted the area had been

[41:29] widened filled with weed barrier fabric

[41:36] and lined with landscape rock raised

[41:37] planter beds and concrete walkway

[41:38] constructed in easement area. This

[41:42] photo shows the disturbance., in april

[41:46] 21 the county sent a notice of

[41:49] violation to property owners notifying

[41:54] them a grading permit would've been

[41:55] required and work within the easement

[41:56] continued after the notice was

[41:58] received. On may 4 of last year a

[41:59] second notice of violation was sent and

[42:03] requested a grading permit submitted to

[42:04] the county by may 21. On august 11

[42:11] staff met with the property owners to

[42:12] discuss a resolution to the code

[42:14] enforcement complaint. There were two

[42:21] potential resolutions including

[42:22] restoring the site to pre-disturbed

[42:23] conditions for submitting an

[42:24] application and supporting information

[42:25] to request a modification to the map.

[42:26] on october 6 an application for map

[42:30] modification was submitted.. There are

[42:41] two other lots within the subdivision

[42:42] that have approved modifications to the

[42:43] easement area including lot 17 and 56

[42:44] here we have lot 17 they submitted a

[42:45] request to modify the easement in 2002,

[42:53] a biological assessment determine the

[42:54] wetland was no longer functioning as a

[42:55] wetland but did function as a drainage

[42:57] feature. They were required to dedicate

[42:58] a 10 foot easement to the homeowner

[43:02] association. The modification was

[43:06] approved july 25, 2022. They pulled a

[43:07] building permit november 24 for the

[43:10] pool after the modification have been

[43:13] approved. We also have lot 56. Here we

[43:18] have the easement area. A biological a

[43:23] sub submitted determine the easement

[43:25] area no longer supported wetlands but

[43:26] functioned as a drainage easement. It

[43:28] was approved december 11 2003 and

[43:35] dedicated to the county. Grading permit

[43:36] issued on august 25 2004. What these

[43:45] property owners did after the

[43:46] modification is some grading and

[43:48] extensive landscaping. The tree cover

[43:49] hides it but they did do some work. Lot

[43:54] 19 is proposing a modification in order

[43:59] to redesignate the property. In support

[44:02] of that, the applicant provided a

[44:05] biological resource assessment channel

[44:09] analysis and grading plans. The

[44:10] biological report determine the wetland

[44:12] area was 0.09 acres and was expanded to

[44:20] 0.24 acres. The no there was no

[44:26] understory vegetation or special

[44:27] species and there was no suitable

[44:28] habitat on site for special status

[44:29] species the project description

[44:31] submitted with the request because

[44:34] there is no habitat or any special

[44:38] status species, the area is no longer

[44:40] functioning as a wetland or providing

[44:43] biological benefit and therefore should

[44:45] be changed to a drainage easement msi

[44:49] should be reduced. A channel analysis

[44:57] prepared for the project determine the

[44:58] existing channel would need to be

[44:59] widened to six feet and excavated to

[45:00] two feet to convey floats. Before there

[45:03] was disturbance, the storm water

[45:04] entered at the southeast corner and

[45:05] sheet flowed across the site. The size

[45:11] of the easement and vegetation allowed

[45:12] natural filtration of storm water. Here

[45:13] we have photos of the site. This is a

[45:21] pre-disturbance and post disturbance.

[45:22] you can tell it is the same location

[45:23] because we have the solar panels here.

[45:26] there was blackberry bushes and

[45:29] cattails. We can see the area slopes.

[45:34] this area is lower than all of the land

[45:39] surrounding it. These photos are closer

[45:42] down the easement. This is forest drive

[45:45] here. Lake forest drive here. We have

[45:49] the same tree and we know it's the same

[45:53] location we have cattails that have

[45:56] been removed. The landscaping has been

[45:57] installed within the easement area.

[46:02] staff considered all of the information

[46:04] that was provided and determined the

[46:08] information provided did not support

[46:12] the request. Staff is recommending

[46:16] denial of modification. The first

[46:18] reason is elimination of resources is

[46:19] not justification for removal of

[46:21] protection. The easement limitations

[46:22] noted on the final map the development

[46:26] notebook for lot 19 within the

[46:27] conditions of approval and ccr. The

[46:32] property owners continue ground

[46:33] disturbance after receiving a notice of

[46:37] violation. The disturbance to the

[46:47] easement without the necessary permits

[46:48] is inconsistent with the placer county

[46:49] general plan the horseshoe bar penryn

[46:50] community plan the zoning ordinance and

[46:51] the grading ordinance. Where

[46:52] modifications have been authorized

[46:53] approval was sought prior to ground

[46:57] disturbance. If there are properties

[46:58] within the subdivision that have

[46:59] changed their drainage without permits,

[47:03] they may be expected to go through a

[47:07] similar process. Staff recommends the

[47:12] commission denied the modification

[47:13] request as supported by the findings in

[47:16] the staff report. I'm available for

[47:24] questions and before I conclude my

[47:25] presentation I want to know we received

[47:26] one comment letter from the property

[47:27] owner to the south in opposition to the

[47:28] map modification request. You should

[47:29] have received that letter prior to

[47:31] today's hearing. I'm available for

[47:32] questions

[47:33] >> thank you kally. We will open to

[47:36] questions from commissioners

[47:37] >> the wetland area expanded how did

[47:43] that happen? What was the analysis of

[47:48] that?

[47:49] >> that happened when the grading

[47:52] occurred to the channel. I will go back

[47:53] to one of the slides. The open space

[47:59] riparian protection area encompasses a

[48:02] large area. Within that, there is a

[48:05] channel. When that was disturbed, that

[48:07] widened it a little bit.

[48:10] >> that's helpful thank you

[48:11] >> was this area fenced?

[48:18] >> no

[48:19] >> it is now though?

[48:22] >> yes there is fencing there now. It's

[48:27] around the property boundaries there

[48:31] was a conditional of approval from the

[48:39] subdivision that fencing was supposed

[48:40] to be placed around the protection

[48:41] easements it's not clear that fencing

[48:42] was in place it's not in any of the

[48:43] photos I have seen of the site so I

[48:44] don't know if the cable fencing was

[48:47] ever installed around the wetland area

[48:48] but there is perimeter fencing

[48:50] >> the photograph is confusing because

[48:54] the fencing crosses drainage and it's

[48:56] on the side so that gives the

[49:00] impression...

[49:01] >> you mean this one?

[49:06] >> dispensing was installed without

[49:07] written consent of the drc as noted in

[49:13] the final map note. Any landscaping or

[49:15] fencing is not supposed to occur there.

[49:21] the fence was installed without benefit

[49:22] of county purview

[49:23] >> okay thank you

[49:24] >> commissioner woodward

[49:26] >> can you go to 28?I may not have a

[49:34] question, I want to look at the slide

[49:38] one more time. The biological resource

[49:45] assessment is a product of the

[49:49] applicant in other words they went

[49:51] under contract to get this assessment

[49:53] done?

[49:57] >> that's correct that is consistent

[49:58] with how the other two provided their

[50:02] assessments

[50:03] >> so, the county differs with the

[50:11] project description alleges because

[50:12] there's no habitat designation should

[50:15] be changed. You differ from that

[50:18] principally because the reason there is

[50:22] no wetland habitat is that the site has

[50:24] been disturbed eliminating the wetland

[50:26] habitat?

[50:28] >> that's correct

[50:29] >> okay thank you

[50:32] >> the packet we got the pictures of

[50:36] the backhoe is that in the drainage

[50:40] easement area?

[50:41] >> I believe that is within the

[50:44] drainage easement area that photo was

[50:49] provided by public comment. I'm pretty

[50:51] sure it's within the easement area

[50:52] >> and that fence was put up by the

[50:53] property owner and then all this work

[50:55] was done in an area that was not

[51:02] supposed to happen?

[51:03] >> correct

[51:04] >> okay thank you kally. We will open

[51:10] it up to chris cox with e green legal

[51:15] on behalf of the property owner scott

[51:22] and belinda zhang

[51:24] >> if I could interrupt I know the

[51:28] applicant has a powerpoint. Are you

[51:31] going to rely on that powerpoint

[51:32] because of so we need to take a five

[51:33] minute recess so we can get it uploaded.

[51:39] I will leave that up to the chairman

[51:40] whether you want to take a recess now

[51:44] while we do that?

[51:45] >> yes we will take a recess. We will

[51:47] take a five minute recess.

[51:48] >> we are back in session. Chris, go

[55:46] ahead and continue with the

[55:52] presentation.

[55:53] >> I am representing mr. And mrs. Zhang.

[56:00] you just heard about the issues on

[56:01] their property and we are not refuting

[56:03] that. But we would like to go through

[56:08] some more clarity on the history of the

[56:09] property from a content perspective and

[56:11] get to the potential remedies that

[56:15] could be at hand here. Similarly to

[56:22] what the planner just mentioned, the

[56:25] subdivision was built in the 1990s.

[56:29] retraced historical aerial photos to

[56:33] that time period to show what the

[56:34] property look like at that point in

[56:36] time. This is 2007 after some

[56:40] development. You can see there's

[56:44] generally a grassy swale that was here.

[56:50] I'd like to point out the biological

[56:51] assessment that was brought up earlier

[56:55] about lot 19, the actual biological

[56:58] opinion indicated it is unclear why the

[57:03] open space/riparian easement on lot 17

[57:06] was established if the intent was to

[57:10] protect riparian habitat, the site is a

[57:12] functioning drainage corridor that

[57:16] carries and dries up too quickly to

[57:19] support wetland vegetation it was never

[57:23] a riparian corridor. We found the same

[57:26] thing on lot 19. We prepared a

[57:30] biological study, went out and looked

[57:32] at existing as well as forensic

[57:33] evidence from topography and vegetation.

[57:37] there was no evidence of any sort of

[57:38] elderberry bush on the property. I'd

[57:42] like to point out in order for an

[57:45] elderberry bush to be jurisdictional it

[57:46] has to have one inch stems. The photo

[57:50] presented in the letter you received

[57:51] does not have any stems as my biologist

[57:56] can attest to. You can see in the photos

[58:02] that what we have deemed was a grassy

[58:06] swale up through 2011 definitely

[58:07] changed over time and was not the zhang

[58:11] that changed it it was the surrounding

[58:16] development. This is a more current

[58:17] photo you can see the houses are

[58:19] popping in including the one that filed

[58:21] the complaint. We get to a point here

[58:26] in 2021, let me go back one, this one

[58:34] it's a little faint but you can see how

[58:36] the drainage has incised quite a bit.

[58:41] >> you have is laser pointer

[58:45] >> this here is the drainage and in

[58:49] previous slides you can see that this

[58:52] was more of a grassy swale. There is

[58:58] actual grass and trees but by the time

[59:04] you get to 2020, this area was entirely

[59:07] incised. The representation of the

[59:10] channel is three or four feet deep and

[59:14] two feet wide. This is indicative of

[59:16] more of a drainage channel that carries

[59:18] water flows in periods of storm events

[59:24] otherwise is relatively dry with no

[59:25] capability of supporting a riparian

[59:28] easement. We'd also like to point out

[59:32] and I brought a map and passed it out

[59:34] that shows the riparian easement

[59:37] overlaid onto the current aerial for

[59:40] the property. What's interesting is the

[59:47] development here is only the latest of

[59:48] a series of events that have changed

[59:49] the area. The map shows that the water

[59:56] coming into the drainage starts

[59:58] primarily from up here and is under

[1:00:03] grounded into a catchment and then

[1:00:08] there is a rock lined what looks to be

[1:00:09] a channel but we have confirmed after

[1:00:10] talking to property owners last week

[1:00:15] that this supposedly channel is a bunch

[1:00:16] of rocks on the surface and there's a

[1:00:19] pipe under the ground that conveys

[1:00:20] water all the way down to this point

[1:00:24] here. Additionally, this person did the

[1:00:25] same thing and it forks into there. We

[1:00:29] essentially have an outfall from two

[1:00:31] properties going into the drainage

[1:00:34] channel. Nothing riparian about that.

[1:00:39] additionally on our map, we show the

[1:00:40] property that filed the complaint also

[1:00:49] build a cage structure in the riparian

[1:00:50] area that is in violation of the codes

[1:00:52] mention recently they also have two

[1:00:55] drainage outfalls that are taking

[1:00:58] overland flow from this property and

[1:00:59] conveying it through a drainage outlet

[1:01:03] into the channel. In summary what you

[1:01:04] have is instead of overland sheet flow,

[1:01:07] because of all the other development,

[1:01:11] we now have an incised channel as of

[1:01:13] 2020. That's what was modified by the

[1:01:20] zhangs. You mentioned earlier you

[1:01:23] question an increase in the wetland

[1:01:24] area it was because the incised channel

[1:01:28] only one and a half to two feet wide

[1:01:29] was widened out through some grading.

[1:01:32] so surface wise you get more surface.

[1:01:38] the planner was correct that both our

[1:01:41] engineer and the county came back and

[1:01:42] said the drainage in the area is not

[1:01:46] adequate, not designed properly. Is

[1:01:47] going to continue to degrade. They

[1:01:49] suggest a rock line drainage. We get to

[1:01:54] what is the remedy for handling the

[1:01:57] situation. The county is suggesting you

[1:02:02] deny the map modification and change

[1:02:06] the center drainage easement. But in

[1:02:07] fact we feel it is the most appropriate

[1:02:11] approach moving forward, not because

[1:02:12] they should be given any preferential

[1:02:15] treatment but because any other remedy

[1:02:16] to try to put a riparian easement and

[1:02:19] riparian corridor in the area would not

[1:02:23] function. Those things can only control

[1:02:28] what's on their property. Even if they

[1:02:39] try to change this corridor into

[1:02:40] something whatever that is and remove

[1:02:41] their portion up here you still have

[1:02:42] the property owner to the south in

[1:02:43] violation dumping water into the

[1:02:44] channel and these over here. This

[1:02:48] entire area really all the way up to

[1:02:49] this point needs to be change for this

[1:02:50] to be any sort of a grassy swale again.

[1:02:53] we talk to the county about potential

[1:02:57] remedies. It wasn't that this was the

[1:02:58] only option available to us. We talked

[1:03:02] about restoring the area through a

[1:03:06] restoration plan. The response we got

[1:03:07] from the county was vague and bring us

[1:03:13] a proposal. We don't feel comfortable

[1:03:18] about bringing a proposal to change the

[1:03:19] hydrologic regime and put in a riparian

[1:03:22] area when nothing in the area supports

[1:03:24] that and we will be fighting. Pretty

[1:03:27] much the zhang will be forced into

[1:03:32] filing a complaint on their neighbors

[1:03:33] to get a comprehensive remedy. That's

[1:03:35] where we are at right now.

[1:03:36] >> do we have any questions at this

[1:03:48] point for the applicant?

[1:03:49] >> I have a few we can go through

[1:03:54] quickly. This is may be a difficult

[1:03:58] question because it's in your dialogue

[1:04:00] so was back quite a bit you may not

[1:04:06] even be able to recall the context of

[1:04:07] this and unfortunately I was not able

[1:04:10] to write it down. You made a quote

[1:04:13] about riparian habitat and then you

[1:04:14] said the same was found zhang in the

[1:04:22] study. It was unclear to me what you

[1:04:26] were discussing. What study you were

[1:04:32] discussing

[1:04:33] >> sure. Our research we were trying to

[1:04:36] pull out whatever biological evidence

[1:04:37] there was for what happened on lot 19.

[1:04:40] what we did find was a biological

[1:04:42] assessment completed for lot 17, which

[1:04:49] is two doors down. That biological

[1:04:53] assessment concluded there was no

[1:04:54] reason for the riparian easement to be

[1:04:58] in the location where you saw the pool

[1:05:03] and the planner presentation. That it

[1:05:05] really was supposed to be drainage

[1:05:06] easement in the first place. And there

[1:05:13] was no endangered species habitat there

[1:05:14] we are saying through our research and

[1:05:17] observations on lot 19, we understand

[1:05:19] lot 19 to be a similar situation

[1:05:20] >> okay thank you for that. In one of

[1:05:23] the photographs presented by staff,

[1:05:27] there is a significant area of cattails.

[1:05:33] you can see that in the photograph in

[1:05:36] the staff report on page 5 it says the

[1:05:42] photographic evidence at the site

[1:05:43] pre-disturbance shows cattails in the

[1:05:46] area which is potentially indicative of

[1:05:50] an aquatic resource as the area was

[1:05:51] disturbed before the biological

[1:05:53] assessment was conducted aside from the

[1:05:59] photographs there's no way of knowing

[1:06:00] with certainty what was on site prior

[1:06:03] to the site disturbance. But there was

[1:06:05] evidence of cattails would you agree

[1:06:07] that's indicative as they claim that

[1:06:12] there is an aquatic

[1:06:13] >> that is absolutely evidence of

[1:06:16] water. There has been water flowing

[1:06:19] over the site forever. The question is

[1:06:24] if it's a riparian habitat what we are

[1:06:25] saying is the cattails were living in

[1:06:27] an incised channel 3 to 4 feet deep and

[1:06:30] two feet wide. There was no riparian

[1:06:31] edge to it at all and the biologist can

[1:06:37] attest to the fact that no habitat

[1:06:38] could live on the banks of something

[1:06:42] like that. I would also add that

[1:06:45] cattails are not an endangered species

[1:06:50] and are invasive. They can grow

[1:06:51] anywhere there is water

[1:06:52] >> alright thank you

[1:06:53] >> looking at the photograph, it's hard

[1:07:05] to tell are there solar panels

[1:07:07] installed in the easement area?

[1:07:10] >> it does not look that way but it

[1:07:20] does look like the outfalls from the

[1:07:21] two neighbors to the east as well as

[1:07:22] the two neighbors to the south are

[1:07:23] within the riparian easement. All of

[1:07:24] that was done without a permit, we can

[1:07:29] pull up the historical records for

[1:07:30] permitting and there has been no

[1:07:32] permits for any. The cage structure here

[1:07:38] pretty significant about 10 feet in

[1:07:39] the riparian easement and there's two

[1:07:40] outfalls here in addition to this one.

[1:07:44] >> go up a little bit into 19, there's

[1:07:54] kind of a grassy

[1:07:55] >> this is 2020 you can see the

[1:07:58] incision, if you go backwards in

[1:08:00] history you see that this is 2011,

[1:08:05] there's more incision. You can see some

[1:08:06] level of something going on here.

[1:08:11] whether it's this as a riparian

[1:08:12] endangered species habitat is highly in

[1:08:15] question. There's obviously drainage

[1:08:19] here. In 2007 you can see it was even

[1:08:25] more of a grassy swale rather than

[1:08:26] incised ditch or riparian area. This is

[1:08:31] pretty common, you are planning

[1:08:33] commission when development goes into

[1:08:34] an area you see this happen

[1:08:35] >> can you drop the map we have in the

[1:08:41] table?

[1:08:42] >> I do not have that in the slide

[1:08:43] >> I just have it in the paper that's

[1:08:48] why I handed it out to you

[1:08:49] >> you have a current one?

[1:08:54] >> it was in the previous presentation

[1:08:57] unfortunately. I only have the historic

[1:09:01] aerials.

[1:09:02] >> that's what I'm looking at our

[1:09:04] historic aerials. Do you have one that

[1:09:07] is current?

[1:09:11] >> oh yes. One second. This is current.

[1:09:25] >> okay I guess where there is a

[1:09:26] concrete trail that comes in it looks

[1:09:29] like there are solar panels or

[1:09:30] something there at the end of the trail

[1:09:34] >> this looks like the trail but this

[1:09:39] is a cobbel line

[1:09:40] >> on lot 19

[1:09:41] >> those are raised lanterns. The

[1:09:56] zhangs installed those, raised plant

[1:09:57] beds but not within the drainage. They

[1:09:58] are within the riparian easement

[1:10:03] because it extends 75 feet into the

[1:10:06] property but what we are saying is this

[1:10:10] riparian area was never actually a

[1:10:13] riparian area it was a line on a map

[1:10:14] but there's no endangered species and

[1:10:17] riparian has to be supported by water

[1:10:25] and it has a specific regime of

[1:10:26] vegetation and there's no evidence in

[1:10:27] this area there's any riparian habitat

[1:10:28] >> it is in the easement area that is

[1:10:35] recorded?

[1:10:36] >> yes

[1:10:37] >> I guess this is for the county, has

[1:10:53] there been any notifications to the

[1:10:58] residents at 4569 that they have built

[1:11:02] within the riparian area?

[1:11:03] >> [indiscernible]

[1:11:04] >> okay

[1:11:05] >> thank you. We will open it up for

[1:11:14] public comment. Is there anyone here in

[1:11:17] the public in person that would like to

[1:11:20] speak on the item?

[1:11:21] >> please state your name for the

[1:11:29] record and you have three minutes

[1:11:30] >> my name is jared taylor I'm the

[1:11:31] property owner to the south on lake

[1:11:37] forest drive. I'm the one that provided

[1:11:38] the letter thank you for meeting here

[1:11:41] today you probably reviewed my letter

[1:11:42] and everything I'm concerned about is

[1:11:46] in there. One thing really important to

[1:11:47] look at is the very last page of packet

[1:11:52] from staff. The existing what was the

[1:11:54] map when the subdivision was built. If

[1:11:58] you look you can see there is contour

[1:12:01] lines. You see there is a depression

[1:12:02] that needs to be there. That super

[1:12:05] important that provided attention for

[1:12:08] the water and held it there and that's

[1:12:12] where the cattails grew. That's what

[1:12:13] kind of help the water from flowing

[1:12:16] down through the wetlands area and it

[1:12:19] was infiltrating through the natural

[1:12:21] grasses. Before they moved in there was

[1:12:24] an awesome population of frogs. I'm not

[1:12:29] a biologist but critters you could hear

[1:12:30] every night and it was a nice. I feel

[1:12:34] they are deflecting responsibility for

[1:12:37] their legal actions here trying to

[1:12:38] point fingers at everyone else and

[1:12:39] that's okay I get it. The fact that

[1:12:44] they openly knowingly graded work in

[1:12:51] the wetlands area I'm really feeling

[1:12:52] they are above the law wealthy grand

[1:12:53] bay landlord that can come in and do

[1:12:54] what they want and if they get caught

[1:12:55] they get caught at the expense of

[1:12:56] consultants to help them out. That's

[1:12:59] what's being presented today I'm sure

[1:13:03] you can see that I really feel approval

[1:13:07] of the application will eliminate the

[1:13:08] open space and previous wetlands that

[1:13:09] makes this neighborhood unique and

[1:13:12] desirable. Not houses right on top of

[1:13:15] each other. Such an important part of

[1:13:19] the neighborhood. I want to point out

[1:13:21] also useful in my letter they are only

[1:13:22] proposing the wetlands area on their

[1:13:25] property that contains the wetlands

[1:13:28] area. My property is significantly

[1:13:30] above the majority. You will see the

[1:13:34] creek or the wetlands area runs

[1:13:37] parallel between our two properties and

[1:13:38] it does return back onto my property

[1:13:40] toward lake forest drive where there is

[1:13:44] a drain.. I can give you in a photo

[1:13:48] adjacent to our fence line I'm concern

[1:13:49] without the previous detention we had,

[1:13:59] and the fact that county engineering

[1:14:00] confirmed their water flow analysis and

[1:14:01] what they are proposing and have

[1:14:02] installed is not adequate I may

[1:14:03] potentially have flooding on my

[1:14:04] property that will go cross my driveway

[1:14:05] and into the street. I also want to

[1:14:08] point out their biological assessment

[1:14:10] was completed after they completed the

[1:14:13] grading. So of course they're not going

[1:14:16] to find anything if you tear it all out

[1:14:17] and then do the biological assessment.

[1:14:19] that's it. I'm against it thank you

[1:14:24] >> thank you jared

[1:14:25] >> [speaker off mic]

[1:14:31] >> I majority up hill. You have to be

[1:14:37] there to understand it. This is my

[1:14:42] property here. I got a grading permit

[1:14:44] for all the work I've done on my

[1:14:45] property and have worked with the

[1:14:48] county about that.. All my inspections

[1:14:52] closed out so that's how I knew the

[1:14:53] process so well you had to have it and

[1:14:55] how sensitive it was. Here is the

[1:15:01] wetlands area. Water is collected from

[1:15:04] all of this area, all the way up here

[1:15:06] it all comes down into this area and

[1:15:09] returns on to my property here. This is

[1:15:15] a low spot here. I'm flowing down here,

[1:15:20] they are flowing this direction, and

[1:15:23] then it comes on to my property here

[1:15:25] and goes into my drain and

[1:15:30] plugs there goes across the

[1:15:31] driveway and into the street and it's a

[1:15:35] big concern.

[1:15:39] >> [speaker off mic]

[1:15:40] >> I have some questions but it looks

[1:15:46] like in some of the photographs you put

[1:15:47] drainage lines going toward their

[1:15:48] property

[1:15:49] >> I have drain lines that come out

[1:15:53] here. I have to drain somewhere. That

[1:15:58] was included with the inspections when

[1:15:59] I got the grading permit

[1:16:04] >> so it's okay for you to drain into

[1:16:05] their property but not okay for them to

[1:16:09] drain into your property?

[1:16:10] >> I'm not saying that they drain onto

[1:16:13] my property here and that's fine

[1:16:14] >> that was an easement put in by the

[1:16:18] county

[1:16:19] >> that's fine what I'm talking about

[1:16:20] is the management of the flow of water.

[1:16:28] the fact that if you look at the last

[1:16:29] page in the packet there used to be a

[1:16:30] natural depression and that acted as a

[1:16:32] detention basin to hold the water so in

[1:16:34] large events it doesn't all hit my

[1:16:36] drain at one time and it doesn't

[1:16:38] overflow the drain. That's what I'm

[1:16:43] concerned about. I'm not saying they

[1:16:50] should not be allowed to drain on my

[1:16:51] property I get that and that's fine I

[1:16:52] want to make sure it's engineered so

[1:16:53] it's going to work and I'm not going to

[1:16:54] have a future problem. To me, it's a

[1:16:58] little crazy they are proposing to not

[1:16:59] look at the wetlands area as a whole.

[1:17:10] is not just their property is three

[1:17:11] properties they never once approached

[1:17:12] me about this and should we get rid of

[1:17:13] this they are trying to muscle their

[1:17:14] way through to get your approval that's

[1:17:15] their goal. To answer your question, I

[1:17:16] agree it should continue to drain onto

[1:17:19] my property.

[1:17:22] >> in addition, the drainage you have

[1:17:24] arrange their was done in compliance

[1:17:31] with the county. Is that correct?

[1:17:36] >> yes the existing drain and let all

[1:17:37] my property that receives drain from

[1:17:38] their property was there before I

[1:17:39] bought the house. And all the drainage

[1:17:43] I did was part of the permit that was

[1:17:44] inspected

[1:17:47] >> by the county

[1:17:48] >> this picture presented to us with

[1:17:52] these drain outlets

[1:17:53] >> I haven't seen those that was not

[1:17:55] shared with me

[1:17:56] >> I'm trying to get clarification of

[1:18:06] what it looks like I've driven by

[1:18:09] numerous times I have friends but I

[1:18:10] never paid attention to it so now I'm

[1:18:13] paying attention to it

[1:18:14] >> [speaker off mic]

[1:18:15] >> so all this rock area, this is the

[1:18:25] drainage canal in question

[1:18:26] >> can you go back to the microphone

[1:18:27] >> to clarify the canal they made, yes

[1:18:36] >> but that drainage is compliant with

[1:18:41] the county?

[1:18:42] >> the drainage on my property that's

[1:18:45] my understanding. I had it all

[1:18:48] inspected. The county inspector guy

[1:18:50] came out. When I submitted the

[1:18:53] complaint he came out and walked the

[1:18:56] whole thing as well

[1:18:57] >> okay thank you for your time

[1:18:58] >> but stay focused on this property we

[1:19:04] are reviewing. Is there any other

[1:19:07] public comment?

[1:19:08] >> no one here, no one online. We

[1:19:22] will close public comment.

[1:19:30] clarifications, we can bring up scott

[1:19:31] again and the applicant representative

[1:19:32] for discussion

[1:19:33] >> I'd like some clarification on the

[1:19:34] riparian easement area. It looks like

[1:19:36] we have two different proposed or

[1:19:40] drawings here. One is on both lots and

[1:19:41] one is on lot 19. [indiscernible] on

[1:19:49] the last page I guess it is

[1:19:50] >> the last page of the staff report

[1:19:51] >> what is the question about?

[1:19:57] >> in the area highlighted in red is

[1:19:59] that the riparian area?

[1:20:00] >> you are asking if that's a true

[1:20:08] riparian area?

[1:20:10] >> the map presented by the applicant

[1:20:11] shows that falls into two other lot

[1:20:16] lines

[1:20:17] >> it does encompass three different

[1:20:19] lots. I don't know if my slide is on

[1:20:22] here. Can it get my site back up. While

[1:20:28] we are waiting for it to do that, one

[1:20:30] thing I do want to note there are many

[1:20:37] subdivisions within the county that

[1:20:38] have open space riparian protection

[1:20:39] easements. On the final map is not

[1:20:44] unique to sterling point. The reason I

[1:20:47] mention this is because conditions

[1:20:50] change over time and when development

[1:20:54] occurs it does change the overall

[1:20:55] hydrologic function of the area. Where

[1:21:01] changes occur and someone wants to

[1:21:02] modify the easement there is a process

[1:21:03] in place for that. That is what we are

[1:21:09] discussing today. Commissioner demattei,

[1:21:11] what I'm trying to show is the

[1:21:13] selection from the final map. That

[1:21:19] shows the location of the easement

[1:21:20] relative to all three properties. Is it

[1:21:42] still working? Here we go. The easement

[1:21:44] is open space riparian protection

[1:21:45] easement that encompasses three

[1:21:47] properties. The majority is on lot 19.

[1:21:52] it doesn't specify where the os open

[1:21:54] space riparian is, it just designates

[1:21:57] the entire thing.

[1:21:58] >> okay. I'd like to emphasize and ask

[1:22:07] you to emphasize that this is an open

[1:22:10] space riparian easement. We are not

[1:22:12] just talking about riparian easement.

[1:22:20] it's also open space which implies

[1:22:21] other values

[1:22:22] >> that is true that is correct

[1:22:23] >> just an observation and maybe

[1:22:30] comment on this, obviously the

[1:22:31] hydrology has changed in that

[1:22:33] subdivision. Originally, this area was

[1:22:39] providing retention and what's being

[1:22:40] proposed here is no detention which

[1:22:43] hydrology hydraulically is not good my

[1:22:46] own thought is that detention needs to

[1:22:50] come back and that function as far as

[1:22:52] riparian habitat through that boundary

[1:22:59] [indiscernible] it's open space. So

[1:23:03] those are my observations. The

[1:23:04] detention basin in that area needs to

[1:23:07] be brought back to what it was

[1:23:08] >> are there any other questions I can

[1:23:15] answer?

[1:23:16] >> I have a couple of questions. For

[1:23:22] the applicant

[1:23:23] >> we can move to the applicant.

[1:23:30] >> and then I will probably ask staff

[1:23:31] to come back up

[1:23:32] >> that's okay

[1:23:33] >> we have questions for you chris

[1:23:39] >> thank you very much. The nature of

[1:23:47] the disruption of the area, however you

[1:23:52] term it, that's the word that came to

[1:23:54] mind, anyway the nature of this. Why is

[1:23:58] it that when there are provisions that

[1:24:03] homeowner association set forth

[1:24:04] provisions associated with the final

[1:24:06] map one of the first slides why is it

[1:24:10] the applicant elected to ignore those

[1:24:13] and proceed with the process? Why did

[1:24:16] that happen?

[1:24:17] >> their response was that they were

[1:24:23] talking to their neighbors and did what

[1:24:27] their neighbors did. The rock line

[1:24:30] drainage you see on the neighboring

[1:24:31] properties upstream was done before

[1:24:34] theirs and they claimed ignorance. I

[1:24:42] can't say I can't speak for them they

[1:24:43] are sitting in the back row here so

[1:24:44] they can speak for themselves. I'm

[1:24:46] trying to go with what is the past

[1:24:50] historical conditions of the area and

[1:24:53] what we can do to remedy the situation

[1:24:56] moving forward. They understand they

[1:24:58] did something wrong. There's no

[1:25:02] question about that. But I think the

[1:25:04] question on the table now is what do we

[1:25:05] do to modify the situation. In contrast

[1:25:10] I came up to explain the contours

[1:25:13] brought up previously about the

[1:25:15] depression are very old and there's no

[1:25:17] evidence that was the recent history.

[1:25:21] our biological assessment did not show

[1:25:24] any sign of a previous depression in

[1:25:28] the area. You can see we pointed out

[1:25:30] the outfalls from the neighboring

[1:25:34] properties. What might have been a

[1:25:36] depression long before they put those

[1:25:37] outfalls in is no longer there, even if

[1:25:43] the zhangs did nothing the 2020 aerial

[1:25:47] shows a channel, there's no question in

[1:25:53] that. Going forward, what is the remedy

[1:25:54] here is more important in my mind. I

[1:25:58] think the remedy seems to hit on all

[1:26:02] the properties here. You have a

[1:26:03] riparian easement that covers 25 feet

[1:26:08] of the complaint. That water coming in

[1:26:11] from their property which should have

[1:26:13] been sheet flow and probably going

[1:26:17] south to the drainage, rather than

[1:26:19] being directed to the back of the

[1:26:20] property and into this drainage. That's

[1:26:22] part of the problem so what do we do

[1:26:26] about it?

[1:26:32] >> that was excellent and I do

[1:26:33] understand the question you want

[1:26:34] answered but there are questions on the

[1:26:35] table as well and I would appreciate if

[1:26:36] you would answer those. For example,

[1:26:38] why is it the first code violation went

[1:26:43] to the zhang was ignored?

[1:26:47] >> I can let them speak about that if

[1:26:52] you don't mind. I did not start working

[1:26:56] on the project until august when they

[1:26:57] brought me in to remedy the situation

[1:26:58] >> you are representing them.

[1:27:05] >> we can bring up the zhangs

[1:27:12] >> good morning. My name is scott zhang

[1:27:17] the owner of [indiscernible] when we

[1:27:22] got the notice, I came to there is a

[1:27:26] property he was doing his swimming pool.

[1:27:32] I came to his property and he

[1:27:33] mentioned you were working on the

[1:27:34] riparian area. I said why what about

[1:27:47] this? But I did not get a clear answer.

[1:27:49] when I was asking him about this

[1:27:54] grading area for the cage and also I

[1:27:58] did not get a clear answer so that is

[1:28:02] why I do not think there was anything

[1:28:07] wrong [indiscernible]

[1:28:08] >> after I got the notice

[1:28:09] >> they are asking why you did not

[1:28:15] respond to the first notice

[1:28:26] >> oh. Um. . I don't know how to

[1:28:35] respond.

[1:28:36] >> okay. That's it, thank you very much.

[1:28:45] >> I thought I heard you say earlier

[1:28:49] that cattail is an invasive species

[1:28:51] >> they are native aren't they

[1:28:55] >> there are multiple species of

[1:28:59] cattails. I can have the biologist

[1:29:00] speak about that if you'd like

[1:29:04] >> I'm just wondering, every place you

[1:29:06] see a wetland you see cattails

[1:29:11] >> so I'm just trying to get

[1:29:15] clarification of what's wrong with the

[1:29:20] cattails

[1:29:21] >> my name is doctor barnett, barnett

[1:29:28] environmental. I did the biological

[1:29:29] assessment and the historical analysis

[1:29:31] of the area. In the early 90s, there

[1:29:36] used to be intermittent stream that

[1:29:39] passed through the area. As the area

[1:29:44] built out, the integrity of the stream

[1:29:48] essentially disappeared because you

[1:29:50] chop it up. There's a theory of an

[1:29:58] island by geography. You create these

[1:29:59] little islands and each island has less

[1:30:02] value than the larger habitat that was

[1:30:06] extracted from. As this area developed,

[1:30:11] you started creating islands, little

[1:30:15] islands of habitat. I think that's what

[1:30:16] the riparian easements are trying to

[1:30:20] get to. Here is this little island but

[1:30:21] we better save it because it's the last

[1:30:28] island we have. But what it did not

[1:30:30] acknowledge is the island in and of

[1:30:32] itself can't support itself. It needs

[1:30:36] everything around it. So as you remove

[1:30:37] the resource that moves into this

[1:30:42] little island, gives that water and

[1:30:43] animals and seeds and things like that,

[1:30:45] then you remove the value that comes

[1:30:48] into it and it essentially languishes

[1:30:55] and synapses. It does not survive as an

[1:30:56] ecological island in a more. So

[1:31:03] ultimately as the build out continued

[1:31:04] in the area the riparian easements look

[1:31:07] more like artifacts, artifacts of past

[1:31:08] wishful thinking that we could save the

[1:31:11] area. But what has developed in the

[1:31:12] area is a drainage problem. People have

[1:31:18] put catchments in and they concentrated

[1:31:19] drainage and put it in a pipe and pipe

[1:31:22] outfalls before the zhang property and

[1:31:25] water dumps onto the property. The

[1:31:29] neighbor to the south has two outfalls

[1:31:31] into the zhang property. It was

[1:31:35] convenient prior to 2020, it looked

[1:31:39] sort of natural. Cattails are as much

[1:31:43] an indication of a disturbed and

[1:31:47] distressed system as anything like at

[1:31:52] the marshes and you look at a healthy

[1:31:53] marsh you see cattails but you won't

[1:31:54] see a channel clogged with them.. What

[1:31:59] we see here is a channel clogged with

[1:32:00] cattails as soon as there's water in a

[1:32:02] dry area these things will jump in and

[1:32:06] grow. But what happens is while it may

[1:32:10] have some value in red wing blackbirds

[1:32:14] for example nests there, not here

[1:32:15] because it's in the middle of a

[1:32:18] residential area. As you clogged the

[1:32:19] areas with cattails the drainage

[1:32:21] function is disrupted because you

[1:32:25] clogged a channel. Even if you want to

[1:32:30] do anything you should remove the

[1:32:31] cattails because you increase the flow

[1:32:32] capacity of the drainage line. What we

[1:32:35] are trying to do is say how is best to

[1:32:38] incorporate whatever conservation we

[1:32:41] can which is important no question

[1:32:43] about it this area has been converted

[1:32:48] to residential subdivision. What seems

[1:32:49] to be more important now even expressed

[1:32:54] by the complainant is there could be a

[1:32:58] potential drainage issue. It's not

[1:32:59] because there was a slight depression

[1:33:03] on the zhang property. That slight

[1:33:04] depression probably didn't do a whole

[1:33:06] heck of a lot. But what is the problem

[1:33:08] is they started getting dumped on, you

[1:33:13] had a very small in size and ditch that

[1:33:17] went over top anyway. So these guys

[1:33:24] figured I will do what they are doing

[1:33:25] because the drainage will flood my

[1:33:26] property so I will do this they did it

[1:33:27] wrong they should've talk to somebody

[1:33:28] first. After the whole thing happen

[1:33:30] they said can you help us and that's

[1:33:31] what we are trying to do. How to best

[1:33:35] solve the problem. We believe rather

[1:33:36] than restore an area to some riparian

[1:33:38] which is and even accurate, much more

[1:33:42] on the streamside for habitat, we

[1:33:49] believe the best function and use as a

[1:33:50] drainage easement to protect the

[1:33:53] properties. What we are trying to do is

[1:33:57] request a map modification and turn

[1:34:03] this archaic artifact into a much more

[1:34:06] functional [indiscernible] and that

[1:34:10] drainage easement serves not just their

[1:34:11] property but everybody upstream and

[1:34:13] surrounding. Ultimately that's going to

[1:34:16] draw the county in to redesign the

[1:34:20] drainage in the subdivision. That's an

[1:34:24] important thing and maybe this is a

[1:34:25] good thing that forces the county to do

[1:34:26] that but at least this is a beginning.

[1:34:27] we expanded the capacity of the

[1:34:31] channel. We remove the obstructions so

[1:34:33] at least it will conduct more water than

[1:34:37] a four foot deep by two foot wide

[1:34:40] ditch. It will clog with the cattails.

[1:34:44] we are trying to piece by piece improve

[1:34:48] the drainage. The first step is to turn

[1:34:50] it into what it is which is drainage.

[1:34:54] we can plant plants around it and make

[1:34:58] it beautiful and that's a good idea but

[1:35:01] the most important thing is how does it

[1:35:02] function as drainage for the

[1:35:04] surrounding properties because in 2018

[1:35:07] storm event and these people are going

[1:35:10] to be flooded out because they don't

[1:35:13] have adequate drainage. They are trying

[1:35:16] to start the process to get better

[1:35:17] drainage but now we have to go to

[1:35:19] [indiscernible] that's why we are

[1:35:20] requesting this change

[1:35:21] >> a couple of questions. You use we a

[1:35:25] lot. Are you involved in designing the

[1:35:30] zhang? Did you have any clue what they

[1:35:31] are doing?

[1:35:33] >> no

[1:35:34] >> so it's not we it's of them. You

[1:35:43] were hired after the fact to explain to

[1:35:44] us [indiscernible]

[1:35:45] >> yes

[1:35:46] >> are the professionals at hydrology?

[1:35:51] >> not to my knowledge

[1:35:53] >> thank you

[1:35:56] >> one of the things that puzzles me

[1:36:02] it's listed as open space riparian. Not

[1:36:09] just riparian. What's being talked

[1:36:10] about here is just riparian. If you

[1:36:14] could come up with a solution on this

[1:36:20] then why change this to just a drainage?

[1:36:26] >> that would be totally fine with us

[1:36:27] we were just coming up with the

[1:36:30] proposal. We were given this option by

[1:36:34] the planning department literally. They

[1:36:35] told us look at lot 17 and follow what

[1:36:37] they did. So that's why we came here

[1:36:39] today. But we are happy to modify the

[1:36:43] area to a more appropriately fit what

[1:36:45] the original intent was from open space

[1:36:49] no problem. We just don't think the

[1:36:55] zhang should be the only ones facing

[1:36:56] ramifications from their efforts

[1:36:57] because the other property owners did

[1:36:58] the same thing

[1:36:59] >> I don't believe there's a lot of

[1:37:01] ecological value to a riparian habitat

[1:37:04] at this location

[1:37:05] >> in the original plan it was called

[1:37:12] open space

[1:37:13] >> sure and you can incorporate open

[1:37:14] space into a drainage

[1:37:16] >> reduce that to a 10 foot wide

[1:37:22] [indiscernible]

[1:37:23] >> our understanding from county staff

[1:37:25] was we have two options. Pursue a map

[1:37:31] modification or propose a restoration

[1:37:35] of the area. The question is if we went

[1:37:40] with the restoration option meaning

[1:37:41] turning it into pre-disturbance

[1:37:42] conditions as they pointed out in the

[1:37:43] slide, what is that condition because

[1:37:49] we are showing an aerial from 2020 that

[1:37:50] has an insights channel 4 feet deep and

[1:37:51] two feet wide. Is that the remedy?

[1:37:56] otherwise the zhang don't have control

[1:38:00] on anybody else's property. We are just

[1:38:03] trying to figure out a path forward

[1:38:04] >> you can easily incorporate open

[1:38:05] space into a drainage easement

[1:38:06] >> [indiscernible] 35 feet

[1:38:07] >> that encumbers anybody on the

[1:38:20] property

[1:38:21] >> they want the property with a 75

[1:38:22] foot easement

[1:38:24] >> we understand that

[1:38:25] >> at any rate that's one thought. As

[1:38:30] far as restoration I guess that's a

[1:38:33] challenge. Cannot be met somehow

[1:38:36] >> sure it can. We are asking for a

[1:38:40] hybrid solution. Turn it into primarily

[1:38:43] a drainage easement and then we will

[1:38:46] landscape around it, make sure it has

[1:38:48] native characteristic, we will do that

[1:38:52] kind of thing. You want to put

[1:38:55] elderberries, that's fine. But the

[1:38:56] important thing is so it functions.

[1:38:59] because it will not function as a

[1:39:02] riparian habitat it won't I'm telling

[1:39:05] you it won't

[1:39:06] >> this is a bit of a debate I admit

[1:39:09] that

[1:39:10] >> I'm not debating with you

[1:39:13] [indiscernible] we continue to hear we.

[1:39:17] but this was done by people and not you.

[1:39:23] >> that's correct

[1:39:24] >> this is a county responsibility. The

[1:39:34] drainage is not adequate here than it's

[1:39:35] a county responsibility not the

[1:39:36] responsibility of the zhang to solve

[1:39:37] the problem is the counties

[1:39:38] responsibility. It's not about we it's

[1:39:39] about this issue. You were involved in

[1:39:42] this. You are not coming in after the

[1:39:43] fact hired by the zhang to make their

[1:39:47] case. [indiscernible]

[1:39:52] >> do you agree it was historically a

[1:39:55] riparian area?

[1:39:56] >> I would say prior to the initial

[1:39:59] development. It was a scrub area. When

[1:40:03] you think riparian you think cottonwood

[1:40:07] trees. There's a scrub riparian where

[1:40:13] there's the occasional oak bush and the

[1:40:14] occasional elderberry bush along a

[1:40:15] watercourse. That could be called

[1:40:21] riparian.

[1:40:22] >> thank you

[1:40:24] >> are there any other questions? A

[1:40:30] couple questions for staff

[1:40:32] >> I do want to note candace with

[1:40:38] engineering and surveying is here as

[1:40:39] well so if you have questions about the

[1:40:41] preconstruction drainage conditions she

[1:40:42] can provide information

[1:40:43] >> perhaps [indiscernible] I'm curious

[1:40:51] about whether or night there might be

[1:40:52] value in examining the area. It does

[1:40:54] appear to be some concern from the

[1:40:57] applicant and the plaintiff in the back

[1:41:03] of the room, regarding the drainage in

[1:41:05] the area there's value in going out and

[1:41:06] evaluating that is the county

[1:41:08] >> perhaps. An candace if you want to

[1:41:10] speak to drainage?

[1:41:11] >> good morning. With this project, the

[1:41:23] drainage analysis was provided. It did

[1:41:26] not identify significant preproject

[1:41:30] condition. It identified the swale was

[1:41:36] constructed undersized so the proposal

[1:41:37] was to reconstruct it larger to

[1:41:40] facilitate flows. If there was on-site

[1:41:43] drainage problems, that would be

[1:41:44] something that zhang could apply for

[1:41:46] grading permit to resize their on-site

[1:41:50] drainage. [indiscernible] to correct

[1:41:55] those issues on-site. It wouldn't

[1:41:58] necessarily be the county

[1:41:59] responsibility we would just help

[1:42:02] facilitate the grading process to size

[1:42:03] it appropriately and we would do the

[1:42:07] calculations

[1:42:08] >> [indiscernible] I'm still, we are

[1:42:12] talking about a drainage easement, a 75

[1:42:19] foot open space easement. That's kind

[1:42:20] of one issue I'm thinking about. And

[1:42:22] then we are talking about how do we fix

[1:42:26] the problem. It seems like to fix the

[1:42:27] problem with open space easement as

[1:42:30] well as what they have now. Are there

[1:42:33] other options available to fix the

[1:42:39] problem?

[1:42:40] >> apart from the riparian open space

[1:42:47] restrictions on construction in the

[1:42:48] areas purely from the grading permit

[1:42:49] and easement perspective there are

[1:42:50] options they could've applied for

[1:42:51] grading permit to reconstruct or

[1:42:57] reconfigure the drainage on their

[1:42:58] property apart from open space

[1:42:59] >> I guess what you are talking about

[1:43:00] is they could do some engineering and

[1:43:04] some biological evaluations can come to

[1:43:05] the county with a solution

[1:43:07] >> that you could look at

[1:43:14] >> yes with this project it's going

[1:43:15] through environmental review when it

[1:43:16] went for approval. We ask for a revised

[1:43:26] to analyze off-site downstream impacts

[1:43:27] because it would be less pervious so

[1:43:28] would affect downstream facilities to

[1:43:29] make sure everything is sized

[1:43:31] appropriately. That would be something

[1:43:34] we would review with improvement plans

[1:43:35] and drainage analysis to make sure it

[1:43:36] functions appropriately

[1:43:37] >> so they could meet with you and get

[1:43:38] an idea of what criteria they should be

[1:43:43] evaluating

[1:43:44] >> yes there is an approval process

[1:43:49] drainage outside of the open space

[1:43:50] riparian restrictions on the lot

[1:43:55] >> okay thank you

[1:43:56] >> does the drainage area outside of

[1:44:00] the riparian area, is it restricted by

[1:44:04] anything? Is it the same size of the

[1:44:08] riparian area two feet wide three feet

[1:44:09] I don't know what the dimensions are.

[1:44:13] does that get backed up there if the

[1:44:17] riparian area is brought back to

[1:44:23] standards? I'm trying to think is that

[1:44:27] really going to be big enough is the

[1:44:30] drainage area adequate [indiscernible]

[1:44:31] on to the zhang property and on to lot

[1:44:37] 19 as well

[1:44:38] >> I'm not familiar with the specific

[1:44:41] off-site conditions. I know with this

[1:44:49] project when they provided drainage and

[1:44:50] alice they provided area for off-site

[1:44:51] coming on site it was not large enough

[1:44:52] to encompass off-site flows

[1:44:53] [indiscernible] sized appropriately for

[1:44:54] all off-site flows coming to the

[1:44:59] project.

[1:45:04] >> it looks like there was a depression

[1:45:05] before hand where maybe there was a

[1:45:07] raised garden bed. Did you evaluate

[1:45:09] that?

[1:45:10] >> from the looks of it it looked to me

[1:45:14] like there was a shallow depression

[1:45:16] across part of the open space easement.

[1:45:19] it was kind of overland flow but

[1:45:22] channelized because of the depression.

[1:45:26] I'm not sure if the flow is reached

[1:45:28] where their current planter boxes are

[1:45:32] >> expectation of retention for this

[1:45:35] property?

[1:45:41] >> there is some assumed detention

[1:45:42] because it's natural vegetated state

[1:45:43] versus rock line ditch which would have

[1:45:45] less detention. They could design grass

[1:45:46] line swale instead of rock line ditch,

[1:45:50] that was part of the proposal

[1:45:51] >> it safe to assume the changes made

[1:45:56] on this property will affect the water

[1:46:00] flows?

[1:46:01] >> yes and designs can incorporate

[1:46:05] remedies to that

[1:46:06] >> if it would have contacted before

[1:46:07] hand that could've been figured out?

[1:46:21] >> yes apart from the restrictions are

[1:46:22] construction in this area a grading

[1:46:23] permit needs to be obtained to modify

[1:46:24] drainage on-site

[1:46:25] >> thank you

[1:46:26] >> if they removed the cattails which

[1:46:27] grow wild, I've taken out thousands of

[1:46:28] them myself to have better water flow,

[1:46:32] they would be a problem for water flow

[1:46:33] to have cattails in there it would be

[1:46:37] restricted so by them removing the

[1:46:41] cattails it would benefit all their

[1:46:45] neighbors to let water flow because if

[1:46:46] you stick a tree in the middle of the

[1:46:47] canal you will have disturbance if you

[1:46:49] pull it out water will flow easier and

[1:46:52] get out

[1:46:53] >> I'm not sure on how much cattails

[1:46:58] restrict flows but I guess there could

[1:47:01] be benefits of sewing with water

[1:47:02] flowing downstream facilities by having

[1:47:07] bigger response times and water moving

[1:47:11] quicker

[1:47:12] >> but if it's all rock [indiscernible]

[1:47:18] from what I see here it's all rock with

[1:47:19] underground pipes in some areas. So I

[1:47:23] don't think you erosion [indiscernible]

[1:47:26] [speaker off mic] thank you for all

[1:47:27] that I appreciate it

[1:47:28] >> I have one more question for you.

[1:47:38] you said there are, the first slide you

[1:47:41] put up with the whole breakdown which

[1:47:43] was an excellent slide of what's

[1:47:45] involved in this particular subdivision.

[1:47:50] the restrictions and that sort of

[1:47:54] thing for this area. This is found in

[1:47:55] multiple areas across the county is

[1:47:57] that true? That is absolutely true. So

[1:48:03] would you agree that although each case

[1:48:06] would have to be considered separately

[1:48:09] in terms of situation, if in fact we

[1:48:10] were to permit this to go forward, with

[1:48:15] that not be precedent-setting in that

[1:48:16] we are allowing this violation to take

[1:48:18] place when proper permits are not

[1:48:19] granted in the first place. In other

[1:48:23] words you could theoretically say to

[1:48:24] the rest of the neighbors, this

[1:48:28] violation took place, the commission

[1:48:32] approved it, so everybody else can do

[1:48:36] what they choose to do as well

[1:48:37] >> I would agree it is

[1:48:41] precedent-setting. There are multiple

[1:48:45] subdivisions that have these open space

[1:48:46] riparian protection easements or

[1:48:47] similar easements with that language

[1:48:48] that you can't do any kind of work

[1:48:50] within it landscaping you can't put

[1:48:57] clippings in the easements. That

[1:48:58] language is found in multiple

[1:49:01] subdivisions. When someone wants to

[1:49:02] modify the easement or do work in

[1:49:06] easement, they have to come to the

[1:49:07] county to get written permission from

[1:49:11] the drc. For example, if there is an

[1:49:18] open space area managed by an hoa and

[1:49:19] they want to do vegetation management

[1:49:20] for fire safety, they get a tree permit

[1:49:24] from the county we may require

[1:49:27] biological assessment and ensure the

[1:49:28] work is done in an appropriate manner.

[1:49:29] it could be precedent-setting yes if

[1:49:33] someone is removing habitat or resource

[1:49:41] the subject of the easement and then

[1:49:42] request the easement to be eliminated

[1:49:43] using a lack of resource as

[1:49:45] justification.

[1:49:46] >> thank you

[1:49:47] >> if I can just add to that. Whether

[1:49:52] or not there's an easement there there

[1:49:56] is a process to fix any drainage issues

[1:50:00] or concerns conditions of approval are

[1:50:02] written where you can ask permission.

[1:50:07] and make those adjustments necessary

[1:50:08] the first issue for the commission is

[1:50:13] we have a recorded open space riparian

[1:50:14] easement on a subdivision map. Every

[1:50:17] property owner around there should be

[1:50:20] aware of that even the neighboring

[1:50:21] property when they bought their

[1:50:26] property, they were aware there's open

[1:50:29] space riparian area. The first question

[1:50:31] to be answered, is the commission okay

[1:50:36] suggesting the easement based on the

[1:50:38] work unauthorized work that's been in

[1:50:40] there. If there's a drainage issue,

[1:50:47] there's a mechanism to get that

[1:50:48] addressed even if the open space

[1:50:49] riparian easement stays in place. If

[1:50:51] it's reduce the open space riparian

[1:50:58] easement. That will allow for other

[1:51:00] improvements it looks like the zhang

[1:51:01] already put in garden boxes and other

[1:51:02] things in that easement area. They

[1:51:07] could potentially put a structure in

[1:51:08] the area if the open space riparian

[1:51:09] easement is reduced. The commission has

[1:51:12] to consider that. If there are no

[1:51:15] resources whatsoever and the commission

[1:51:18] does want to entertain adjusting that

[1:51:22] boundary, that is something the

[1:51:23] commission can take a look at. If the

[1:51:27] commission does go down that path, we

[1:51:32] would be looking for a tentative

[1:51:33] approval and staff will have to go back

[1:51:35] and look from an environmental review

[1:51:37] standpoint what that will require

[1:51:40] before we bring something before the

[1:51:43] commission. That is an option as well

[1:51:44] >> thank you kally. We will move to

[1:51:57] discussion. If there's more

[1:52:01] clarification needed?

[1:52:02] >> it's obvious to me there's a problem

[1:52:03] that needs to be fixed. It's going to

[1:52:08] require some biologic work, engineering

[1:52:15] work. Personally, they bought the

[1:52:16] property with an easement on it. I

[1:52:20] think they have to look at that and

[1:52:21] honor the easement they have. And doing

[1:52:26] work on the drainage that needs to be

[1:52:30] done. It's beyond our commission to

[1:52:31] tell you what to do, it's going to take

[1:52:35] some work with the county as well as

[1:52:39] engineer and biologists to figure that

[1:52:44] out. At any rate, I'm going to

[1:52:47] recommend we follow the denial process.

[1:52:52] >> kally can you put up the

[1:52:56] recommendations

[1:52:57] >> if we are still in discussion that's

[1:53:08] okay? Or do you want a motion?

[1:53:11] >> I'd like a bit of the discussion but

[1:53:15] I have a degree of knowledge

[1:53:20] re-creating a riparian habitat given

[1:53:26] modification of adjacent properties. I

[1:53:27] think the staff needs to look at

[1:53:29] adjacent properties for violation, need

[1:53:30] to take a look at the 9714, there is no

[1:53:35] vegetation whatsoever in that easement.

[1:53:38] and you have a structure within the

[1:53:41] other easement. The county has to look

[1:53:45] at violations. Understand the

[1:53:46] properties started putting drainage and

[1:53:48] so there is a drainage problem that

[1:53:49] needs to be looked at. I think again

[1:53:54] there was an open space easement that

[1:53:56] needs to be respected

[1:53:57] >> I do agree on both comments. Real

[1:54:07] quick rich one thing is I do think that

[1:54:11] would be appropriate for homeowner

[1:54:15] association or whomever if necessary to

[1:54:18] file a violation if that is the

[1:54:20] mechanism to get the county involved in

[1:54:24] this area.

[1:54:25] >> we can't allow that to be the

[1:54:26] driving force.

[1:54:30] >> I agree. What they did was wrong.

[1:54:33] whether they knew it or not. That needs

[1:54:38] to be addressed. There is a huge

[1:54:41] drainage issue and with my own personal

[1:54:45] experience I drain water off of a lot

[1:54:46] of acreage and I cleaned the canal, it

[1:54:54] looks like from pictures it has been

[1:54:57] modified in other areas. I'm not ready

[1:54:58] to vote on this. I think from my

[1:55:01] perspective it should be postponed

[1:55:04] until we can take a better look at this

[1:55:06] so this is done properly. And the

[1:55:15] drainage is suitable for all these

[1:55:16] houses and the zhang are not stuck with

[1:55:17] the water on their property. Maybe at

[1:55:22] that time the pipe put underneath lot

[1:55:25] 18 was big enough and sufficient enough

[1:55:26] and it's not sufficient anymore you

[1:55:34] have underground less penetrated water

[1:55:35] and run off I don't want to see anybody

[1:55:36] have any kind of flooding issues I've

[1:55:40] been through 20 feet of water and I

[1:55:41] don't want to feet of water in this

[1:55:42] property my recommendation right now is

[1:55:48] we postpone any recommendations until I

[1:55:49] think we get better information on the

[1:55:51] drainage and maybe an adjustment for

[1:55:54] the boundaries of the open space

[1:55:55] >> I think it's obvious to me there's

[1:56:00] going to be had to be some work. No

[1:56:05] matter what we do it's going to take

[1:56:07] some work. I really can't see where

[1:56:10] [indiscernible] is going to help any.

[1:56:12] there's work they have to do, and they

[1:56:14] need to do the work with the county. As

[1:56:19] it stands right now, I make a motion we

[1:56:27] go with the staff recommendation to

[1:56:28] deny a map modification as supported in

[1:56:29] the findings contained in the staff

[1:56:34] report

[1:56:35] >> still part of my complaint is water

[1:56:44] flows where nothing grows and if there

[1:56:48] are things growing their it will make

[1:56:49] this problem for the neighbors

[1:56:50] [indiscernible]

[1:56:52] >> I concur this does need to be

[1:56:57] studied. So I second that motion

[1:56:58] >> roll call vote

[1:57:01] >> quick question of ej if they were to

[1:57:07] come back because right now this is

[1:57:08] open space and riparian so the county

[1:57:10] says you have to replace riparian I'm

[1:57:13] concerned about that because I don't

[1:57:17] think you can. If they came back and

[1:57:18] re-address this in the future is that

[1:57:21] possible?

[1:57:26] >> if we deny the application

[1:57:27] >> as the motion stands if this was

[1:57:30] denied it would be go back to code

[1:57:32] compliance and they would be required

[1:57:39] restoration plans to the planning

[1:57:40] division which will include review of

[1:57:42] the drainage. That's one option. The

[1:57:46] other option is if the commission wants

[1:57:50] to give direction for us to further

[1:57:53] study the drainage issue, also take a

[1:57:57] look at what the restoration plan would

[1:57:59] look like, we can do that as well

[1:58:04] >> I suggest we do that

[1:58:05] >> what I'm questioning is would that

[1:58:10] happen right away? What you are talking

[1:58:13] about?

[1:58:14] >> if you deny it, what would be

[1:58:21] happening is the open space riparian

[1:58:22] easement will remain the same. What

[1:58:23] goes on in the area can still be

[1:58:29] resolved. But the actual boundaries of

[1:58:30] the open space riparian easement will

[1:58:35] remain the same. So if the commission

[1:58:39] was to elect to reevaluate that

[1:58:43] boundary, as well as look at the

[1:58:47] restoration drainage, that is not the

[1:58:48] motion on the table but that is an

[1:58:52] option

[1:58:53] >> what I'm questioning is with the

[1:58:58] motion on the table, what would happen

[1:59:01] if this would become an abatement

[1:59:04] issue? Would it go back to that?

[1:59:07] >> our hope would be the property owner

[1:59:11] would work with the county and we would

[1:59:12] get a restoration plan for the area and

[1:59:15] at the same time we can address

[1:59:18] drainage issues

[1:59:19] >> so they would still have to do that

[1:59:23] anyway

[1:59:27] >> to resolve the violation, correct

[1:59:28] >> it seems denial is a force of

[1:59:30] function

[1:59:31] >> but if they want to come back with a

[1:59:35] proposal on an adjustment, we can

[1:59:36] evaluate that separately

[1:59:37] >> if it is denied

[1:59:39] >> they would have to appeal to do an

[1:59:46] adjustment on the easement. If we don't

[1:59:48] deny it and let it stand, and they go

[1:59:52] in a process for an application to

[2:00:01] readjust that easement, without I think

[2:00:05] it's too big personally.

[2:00:06] >> we have a motion let's take a vote

[2:00:07] >> the motion is to deny

[2:00:08] >> first from mr. Johnson second from

[2:00:23] mr. Woodward. Mr. Hauge yes, mr.

[2:00:27] johnson yes, mr. Woodward yes mr.

[2:00:33] demattei no mr. Herzog yes.

[2:00:34] >> we are going to move on

[2:00:35] >> the appeal language

[2:00:36] >> decision of the planning commission

[2:00:53] can be appealed by anyone who appeared

[2:00:56] at today's hearing or anyone who

[2:00:57] submitted written comments on the item

[2:01:04] in appeal must be filed within 10 days

[2:01:05] and shall be accompanied by filing fee

[2:01:08] of $641.

[2:01:09] >> now we will move on to the third

[2:01:16] time the item appeal of the zoning

[2:01:17] administrator denial of the sorenson

[2:01:21] setback variance. Members of the public

[2:01:26] may raise their hand to queue up for

[2:01:27] public comment on the item which will

[2:01:28] not begin until the item presentation

[2:01:30] is complete. Assistant planner will

[2:01:31] present the items

[2:01:35] >> good morning. Good afternoon chair

[2:01:42] herzog and planning commissioners. Adam

[2:01:43] anderson, representing the planning

[2:01:47] division. I will be presenting the

[2:01:48] staff report for the sorenson appeal.

[2:02:01] we are here to consider an appeal from

[2:02:02] mr. Sorenson to the zoning

[2:02:03] administrators denial of a variance to

[2:02:04] allow an existing shop to be located

[2:02:05] 3.74 feet from the northern property

[2:02:09] line 80 foot setback for a nine foot

[2:02:13] retaining wall on the north property

[2:02:14] line where a 30 foot setback is

[2:02:18] required. This property is located in

[2:02:24] colfax. You will see it as the red

[2:02:27] highlighted property in the middle. The

[2:02:32] blue line is indicating the county line

[2:02:37] and also the river. The colfax general

[2:02:39] plan calls for this property to be

[2:02:44] split. You will see another thin line

[2:02:49] that runs here. This portion of the

[2:02:52] property as part of the estate 1.1 to

[2:02:53] 1.5 acre minimum general plan. This

[2:02:57] portion of the property on the side

[2:03:00] following this line up as part of a

[2:03:01] special study corridor in colfax. We

[2:03:04] also have ben taylor road through here

[2:03:06] and that's a major thoroughfare for

[2:03:14] people familiar with colfax. The blue

[2:03:17] area is similarly zoned they are all

[2:03:18] zoned farm with one acre minimum. The

[2:03:27] yellow area is also zoned farm with 2.3

[2:03:28] acre minimum the orange is residential

[2:03:29] single family three acre minimum and

[2:03:33] the green is timber production zone and

[2:03:34] follows the area along the river. I

[2:03:46] have a question maybe you could

[2:03:47] elaborate on what the special study

[2:03:50] area?

[2:03:51] >> I have some quotes on that. In the

[2:03:54] general plan for the colfax area, it

[2:03:59] states careful attention for the

[2:04:02] special study corridor should be given

[2:04:06] to protecting the natural scenic

[2:04:07] recreational resources encourage

[2:04:08] limited development in the area. Some

[2:04:09] part should be preserved in their

[2:04:13] natural state others careful control

[2:04:18] development for recreation encouraged

[2:04:21] and properly control development will

[2:04:22] harmonize with the natural settings and

[2:04:23] attract visitors to the area. In the

[2:04:26] colfax area you have this portion for

[2:04:30] special study corridor, on the other

[2:04:31] side of colfax where ridgeline is a

[2:04:36] special study corridor. This is an

[2:04:41] aerial image of the site. I wanted to

[2:04:48] show this because it's important to see

[2:04:49] this is the fire scar that came up from

[2:04:50] the river fire. It is surrounded the

[2:04:53] [indiscernible] property and burned a

[2:04:57] lot of the western portion. Also burn

[2:05:03] down the neighbor to the south and it

[2:05:04] burned the area to the north. This

[2:05:06] house remained in this house is burned,

[2:05:09] so were homes down here. This is one of

[2:05:14] the few homes that remained along the

[2:05:18] street and the ridgeline. The site

[2:05:29] itself is sloped. It is the developed

[2:05:31] portions sloped at a 16 percent grade.

[2:05:37] the rest of the property is sloping

[2:05:38] down toward the river at a 22 percent

[2:05:41] grade. Background on the site, this has

[2:05:52] a history and I want to go over that

[2:05:53] because it's important for where we are

[2:05:56] today. The retaining wall in question

[2:05:58] was constructed in 2011 without a

[2:06:02] permit. And then a shop was constructed

[2:06:07] in 2014 finished in 2015 without a

[2:06:11] permit. The county received a complaint

[2:06:14] in january 2018 for buildings without

[2:06:18] permit on-site. After the fact permit

[2:06:21] was issued for the site in april 2019

[2:06:22] for the wall and shop. The

[2:06:26] after-the-fact permit did show the

[2:06:28] property line was 30 feet from the

[2:06:30] retaining wall and from the shop. It

[2:06:35] was only after the second complaint

[2:06:38] received regarding setbacks that we

[2:06:40] identified the property line was closer

[2:06:42] to the structures than initially

[2:06:46] believed. A survey was created in

[2:06:47] september 2020 detailing the property

[2:06:50] line. When we came out for a setback

[2:06:54] inspection, the after-the-fact permit

[2:06:58] failed in march 2021. Variance was

[2:07:00] applied for and a hearing held in

[2:07:02] january 22. That brings us to today.

[2:07:10] this is a site plan. You can see the

[2:07:17] shop is located here. This is the

[2:07:18] retaining wall that stretches here. It

[2:07:20] extends into the neighbors property a

[2:07:31] little over four feet. We also have the

[2:07:32] corner of the shop here and it's about

[2:07:33] 3.74 feet from the property line. This

[2:07:40] is the portion of the property that is

[2:07:41] 16 percent slope and the rest of the

[2:07:44] property is 22 percent. I will have a

[2:07:45] picture later that depicts the slope

[2:07:49] for you. This is from the corner of the

[2:07:56] shop. This is three feet from the

[2:08:03] property line starting here. This is

[2:08:04] from the other portion of the property

[2:08:07] line looking north along the shop. This

[2:08:10] is the beginning of the retaining wall

[2:08:16] and it continues. This is from the

[2:08:18] north property line looking west. This

[2:08:22] is a steak showing where the property

[2:08:25] line is. If you take it up you continue

[2:08:28] that here.. That point that little

[2:08:32] orange dot is the property line for the

[2:08:37] site. That shows we have a good portion

[2:08:38] of the retaining wall on the site with

[2:08:42] the shop being a little over three feet

[2:08:48] from the property line. Lastly, this

[2:08:50] shows the burn scar in the area and the

[2:08:55] slope. This is the developed portion of

[2:08:58] the home and this is sloping down 22

[2:09:00] percent toward the river in this area.

[2:09:09] a variance hearing was held on january

[2:09:14] 20, 2022. The appellant mr. Sorenson

[2:09:16] stated he was under the initial belief

[2:09:20] the shop, that since the shop did not

[2:09:21] include water or power it did not

[2:09:26] require a building permit. As soon as

[2:09:29] he became aware of the building permit

[2:09:30] being required he worked with the

[2:09:31] county to bring the building into

[2:09:32] compliance. The appellant requested the

[2:09:36] variance so we would not lose the value

[2:09:39] he put into the property at the time of

[2:09:40] his submittal he did believe the

[2:09:43] property line was 30 feet away from

[2:09:48] where he was constructing. He did

[2:09:49] receive two public comments during the

[2:09:52] variance hearing. One was a verbal

[2:09:55] opposition because they were concerned

[2:09:56] about the safety of the retaining wall.

[2:10:00] they requested the shop and retaining

[2:10:04] wall be removed completely. We received

[2:10:05] a second comment regarding a second

[2:10:07] concern, not relevant to the variance

[2:10:09] being heard. The zoning administrator

[2:10:12] took action to deny the variance for

[2:10:15] finding the property was uniform in

[2:10:19] shape and meets the one acre minimum

[2:10:22] zoning size and the shop could be

[2:10:26] located in the manner that complied

[2:10:27] with the setback requirements without

[2:10:30] relief from the standard. The zero foot

[2:10:33] setback for the retaining wall did not

[2:10:34] meet the minimum departure of standard

[2:10:37] requirements. Mr. Sorenson filed an

[2:10:44] appeal of the decision on january 21st.

[2:10:53] that appeal letter. Have three main

[2:10:55] points it contended the topography of

[2:10:56] the site limits buildable area and

[2:10:57] required a retaining wall be built. The

[2:11:00] location of the shop was necessary to

[2:11:04] allow for fire access and lastly it

[2:11:08] contended the construction of the shop

[2:11:09] and wall was placed due to a

[2:11:10] misunderstanding of where the property

[2:11:12] line was located. The site is sloped.

[2:11:15] the slope does not prevent development.

[2:11:19] a retaining wall could have been

[2:11:20] designed to meet the site setback and

[2:11:26] create a path it's not uncommon for

[2:11:27] these types of slopes to be constructed

[2:11:30] or to have constructive retaining walls

[2:11:34] to support a pad. Slope is often

[2:11:41] special circumstance used to support a

[2:11:42] variance however in this case the

[2:11:43] zoning administrator determine the

[2:11:44] property does have buildable area on

[2:11:51] site and the property was not limited

[2:11:52] to building site locations the area in

[2:11:53] front of the retaining wall shop

[2:11:54] structure toward the center of the

[2:11:55] parcel, that was relatively flat and

[2:11:56] could have been a building location.

[2:11:59] also in regards to retaining walls,

[2:12:04] retaining walls within setbacks are

[2:12:06] limited to six feet and you could have

[2:12:09] designed it with a stepped-up nature

[2:12:11] described here where you might do six

[2:12:16] feet and then step back and then

[2:12:17] another three feet to get the total. If

[2:12:22] you have enough distance between the

[2:12:23] two we would count those as two

[2:12:26] separate heights. I mentioned on the

[2:12:38] previous slide there was potential

[2:12:40] buildable area. This is a flat portion

[2:12:45] in front of the shop constructed. This

[2:12:51] is approximately the shop is 5540 area.

[2:12:57] you can see there is some space here

[2:12:58] where they could be meeting that 30

[2:13:01] foot setback. They also made the

[2:13:06] contention that the fire access was

[2:13:11] necessary for the site. This area was

[2:13:12] reviewed by county fire planners. They

[2:13:16] determine the existing driveway in

[2:13:18] hammerhead was sufficient for the fire

[2:13:22] safe turnarounds. While additional fire

[2:13:24] turnaround down here is appreciated, it

[2:13:29] is not a requirement to go beyond the

[2:13:33] minimum. Lastly the contention that the

[2:13:55] construction of the shop and wall was

[2:13:56] placed to a misunderstanding of where

[2:13:57] the property line was located. Zoning

[2:14:02] administrator did take into

[2:14:03] consideration the circumstances the

[2:14:04] retaining wall and shop were built. The

[2:14:07] zoning administrator did not find

[2:14:08] special circumstances applicable to the

[2:14:11] property that included size shape

[2:14:16] topography location or surroundings.

[2:14:19] since a stated hardship is not a

[2:14:20] finding we can take into consideration

[2:14:22] when viewing the variance, there was a

[2:14:26] portion of denial. The property owners

[2:14:27] responsibility to know that where the

[2:14:29] property lines are and depict them on

[2:14:34] site plans. If the project that

[2:14:36] followed the building permit process,

[2:14:43] the property lines and setback issues

[2:14:44] would've been addressed before

[2:14:45] construction of the shop and retaining

[2:14:47] wall. At that time they would've

[2:14:50] qualified for a variance due to slope

[2:14:53] but at this time it's not a minimum

[2:14:57] departure. Based on the analysis, staff

[2:15:07] recommends the planning commission

[2:15:08] uphold the decision of the zoning

[2:15:09] administrator to deny the variance

[2:15:10] supported by findings in the staff

[2:15:11] report.

[2:15:14] >> thank you adam.

[2:15:15] >> would question what is the size

[2:15:16] limit before you have a permit? They

[2:15:19] said they did not know what the size

[2:15:23] limit was

[2:15:25] >> in a structure that has power or

[2:15:26] water over 120 square foot or over

[2:15:28] eight feet in height

[2:15:29] >> I have a quick question. Is it even

[2:15:40] in the authority of this commission to

[2:15:48] authorize any kind of structure being

[2:15:49] constructed on someone else's property

[2:15:52] and say that's okay? We literally have

[2:15:58] a retaining wall built on somebody

[2:15:59] else's property by the applicant

[2:16:03] >> [indiscernible] part of this

[2:16:05] variance request is to include that

[2:16:08] extension onto the neighbors property

[2:16:10] would have to be reengineered to be a

[2:16:14] zero foot setback. We are only granting

[2:16:18] a retaining wall request with a zero

[2:16:21] foot setback. He's aware there is four

[2:16:23] feet would need to be removed

[2:16:27] >> okay thank you

[2:16:28] >> I don't know the rules well enough

[2:16:38] but if this was an adu, is there

[2:16:44] anything that changes?

[2:16:47] >> yes if this was an adu it would be

[2:16:50] allowed five feet from the side

[2:16:53] property line. So that would be that

[2:16:59] change. However, the structure, the

[2:17:00] retaining wall itself since it is over

[2:17:03] height since it [indiscernible] it

[2:17:04] would still not be allowed at that

[2:17:08] distance. It would need to be

[2:17:10] redesigned to step back or if they

[2:17:11] wanted to do a nine foot wall it would

[2:17:13] have to be completely [indiscernible]

[2:17:14] >> with an adu they could get four feet

[2:17:19] from the property line

[2:17:22] >> I'm sorry, I thought it was five

[2:17:26] >> does it currently have water or

[2:17:29] power?

[2:17:30] >> I don't believe it does. No, it does

[2:17:40] not

[2:17:41] >> ordinarily I would think a shop

[2:17:42] would at least have power. At any rate,

[2:17:45] I guess in the county, some structures

[2:17:51] in the farm zones don't require

[2:17:56] [indiscernible]

[2:17:57] >> if this was an agricultural building,

[2:18:02] it could be an exempted agricultural

[2:18:05] structure from the ad commission. It

[2:18:10] could also be on minimum 10 acres. It

[2:18:13] would also still need to meet setbacks.

[2:18:19] and agriculture exempt building does

[2:18:20] not exempt setbacks

[2:18:21] >> okay thank you

[2:18:22] >> to be clear, can the buildings still

[2:18:33] be there if the retaining wall is moved?

[2:18:37] >> that's a question for an engineer

[2:18:38] >> I know the applicant is working with

[2:18:46] an engineer to have the retaining wall

[2:18:47] redesigned so will meet the zero foot

[2:18:49] requested but I don't know if that's

[2:18:56] everything is possible in engineering

[2:18:57] but I'm assuming not

[2:18:58] >> can we have that answered question

[2:19:03] or that question answered?

[2:19:04] >> [indiscernible]

[2:19:11] >> hello commissioners [indiscernible]

[2:19:14] from engineering and serving they could

[2:19:18] do it without the retaining wall but

[2:19:19] they'd have to have [indiscernible]

[2:19:20] saying the slope is stable

[2:19:21] >> they have been working to redo the

[2:19:29] retaining wall however it still going

[2:19:32] to be [indiscernible]

[2:19:35] >> you have to take the building down

[2:19:37] to do that?

[2:19:40] >> no, the engineer is redoing

[2:19:43] calculations without taking it down

[2:19:46] >> any other questions? Adam, how big

[2:19:53] is the building?

[2:19:56] >> 30 by 40.

[2:19:59] >> okay thank you.

[2:20:00] >> can we bring up the applicant, would

[2:20:01] you like to come up, I don't know her

[2:20:08] name

[2:20:09] >> the applicant

[2:20:11] >> her name is sue

[2:20:12] >> susan sorenson. First of all I'd

[2:20:28] like to say is a garage not a shop. He

[2:20:30] has electric in his shop as part of the

[2:20:35] house. We don't need any electric

[2:20:39] attached. I just have the a statement

[2:20:45] I'd like to read. I know there will be

[2:20:46] repetition so I'm sorry to take up so

[2:20:50] much of your time. Adam presented so

[2:20:52] well and covered all the details. We

[2:21:03] are making an appeal to protect our

[2:21:04] investment because of the changes we

[2:21:05] have made to the property clearing our

[2:21:06] land for fire access and building the

[2:21:07] garage in question the fire department

[2:21:08] was able to save our home on all four

[2:21:10] sides of us was consumed by the river

[2:21:15] fire. A firefighter told us after the

[2:21:16] triage of homes in the area a crew was

[2:21:19] sent to our property to use it as

[2:21:23] defense, the neighborhood refers to our

[2:21:24] house as the one that did not burn.

[2:21:30] with no intent of malice but only

[2:21:31] improving the property and clearing it

[2:21:34] to allow better access, we began

[2:21:39] removing combustible vegetation and

[2:21:40] spreading gravel for the drive which

[2:21:41] required a retaining wall as the

[2:21:45] property is steep we assumed a building

[2:21:48] permit for the wall and outbuilding

[2:21:49] structure with no electricity or

[2:21:53] plumbing was not needed. The

[2:21:55] construction of the retaining wall was

[2:21:56] completed without permit and the help

[2:21:57] of a neighbor from bordering property

[2:21:58] who we hired to upgrade the tractor. At

[2:22:02] that time it was not clear where the

[2:22:06] property line was. None of the

[2:22:07] properties in the neighborhood were

[2:22:08] given information as to surveys. At the

[2:22:15] point they were sold. Mr. Mantzey

[2:22:27] agreed this was not an issue and we

[2:22:28] have been friends with him for 30 years

[2:22:29] and he has constantly used our

[2:22:30] equipment for the excavation of his

[2:22:31] land the adjoining six acres which were

[2:22:32] almost 40 years he has used for salvage.

[2:22:35] he has no residence there while we

[2:22:36] were building the retaining wall he had

[2:22:37] the opportunity to speak to county code

[2:22:38] enforcement. And spoke favorably on our

[2:22:42] behalf when the construction of the

[2:22:43] garage began we were notified by the

[2:22:46] county for a building permit which was

[2:22:49] immediately applied for after-the-fact

[2:22:50] and hired an architect to help with

[2:22:53] proper planning. The architect led us

[2:22:57] to believe the construction was far

[2:22:58] enough from the property line and he

[2:22:59] depicted as such on the permit. The

[2:23:00] permit was approved by the county. The

[2:23:02] discovery that four of the

[2:23:06] [indiscernible] came after the

[2:23:10] construction. We are working with an

[2:23:17] engineer to rebuild and make sure the

[2:23:18] structure does not encroach on

[2:23:19] adjoining land though it isn't possible

[2:23:20] for mr. Mantzey to build a structure

[2:23:21] there due to public utility easement

[2:23:22] rights as power lines are overhead..

[2:23:35] also our garage was discovered to be

[2:23:36] three feet from the property line where

[2:23:37] 30 feet is required we want to comply

[2:23:38] with all requirements but do not want

[2:23:39] to lose the investment we have put

[2:23:40] toward improving our property. We've

[2:23:42] never had the intent to go against

[2:23:43] county laws or displease neighbors were

[2:23:44] encroach on the land of others county

[2:23:49] through the permitting process led us

[2:23:50] to believe we were putting it in the

[2:23:53] right place. This endeavor to improve

[2:23:54] our land has been a costly investment.

[2:23:58] >> but we wish to make it right

[2:24:00] >> I have a question. The gentleman who

[2:24:04] helped build this for you is the

[2:24:07] neighbor and it's on his land?

[2:24:10] >> the four feet of the wall

[2:24:13] >> he helped build for the property?

[2:24:19] >> we hired him and a tractor

[2:24:21] >> okay thank you

[2:24:22] >> you say the county led you to

[2:24:31] believe the permitting process you were

[2:24:34] doing correct

[2:24:35] >> yes because at that time the

[2:24:36] property line was not discovered. There

[2:24:40] was no survey done until after

[2:24:41] >> [speaker off mic]

[2:24:51] >> the area in the colfax area are

[2:24:54] generally identified on the assessors

[2:24:57] map at this time. We don't have parcel

[2:25:00] maps for a lot of the properties

[2:25:01] because they were created prior to the

[2:25:04] subdivision map. It's not uncommon for

[2:25:05] us to take a property owners

[2:25:11] representation as gospel until the

[2:25:15] inspector goes out.. There wasn't a

[2:25:20] survey property line map in our offices

[2:25:21] there's only the assessors map created

[2:25:24] by the assessor's office. If that

[2:25:26] clarifies anything

[2:25:27] >> when was the permitting process take

[2:25:29] place?

[2:25:30] >> that was after the initial

[2:25:31] complaint, that would have been in

[2:25:49] after-the-fact permits were issued in

[2:25:50] april 2019

[2:25:51] >> who made the complaint? Is it the

[2:25:56] person that helped build the wall?

[2:25:57] >> so we issued a permit in april 2019

[2:26:10] for this building?

[2:26:12] >> correct we issued a permit for the

[2:26:19] grading permit for the retaining wall

[2:26:20] and a permit for the structure

[2:26:21] after-the-fact and how was depicted

[2:26:23] from the property line

[2:26:24] >> okay.

[2:26:33] >> I did not add it in here but it has

[2:26:36] this shifted up.

[2:26:37] >> they did a lot line adjustment and

[2:26:41] they wanted to sell a portion of the

[2:26:42] property but it will be in compliance.

[2:26:45] we could potentially design it for

[2:26:49] that, the only concern you'd have to

[2:26:50] take the full 30 feet to be the

[2:26:53] retaining wall to meet the nine foot

[2:26:56] requirement but that would be a

[2:27:01] potential remedy. At this time I don't

[2:27:02] believe the neighbors are interested in

[2:27:04] that remedy

[2:27:05] >> I'm thinking out loud since he

[2:27:10] helped build it maybe he will sell you

[2:27:11] property to help fix it

[2:27:16] >> we tried that.

[2:27:17] >> I'm just trying to process thank

[2:27:21] you

[2:27:22] >> adam, has this happened in the past

[2:27:27] to your knowledge and what we have done

[2:27:29] in the past when we've given a permit

[2:27:33] and after-the-fact realized the

[2:27:36] property line was not discovered

[2:27:39] correctly. Has this been done before?

[2:27:40] >> there are circumstances where we

[2:27:46] have had structures built similar to

[2:27:50] this. There was one recently. There was

[2:27:58] the crowley variance that was heard by

[2:28:00] the zoning administrator and denied.

[2:28:03] also denied by your commission.. It

[2:28:10] went to the board I was not the planner

[2:28:11] on that so I don't know the

[2:28:14] circumstances and that one. But I know

[2:28:15] it was approved by the board a five

[2:28:16] foot setback for a structure they built

[2:28:21] and then there were existing structures

[2:28:22] on the site approved with a 10 foot

[2:28:26] setback. So this is not the zoning

[2:28:34] administrator made his findings...

[2:28:35] >> yes

[2:28:38] >> adam, given the topography and the

[2:28:44] adjacent neighbor appears to the north

[2:28:45] how close can they build to their

[2:28:48] property line?

[2:28:49] >> the neighbor to the north there's a

[2:28:52] 30 foot setback. As mr. Sorenson noted,

[2:28:55] there is a power line that runs through

[2:29:02] there. I'm not sure if there is an

[2:29:04] easement as described because usually

[2:29:05] easements are listed on parcel maps. I

[2:29:06] don't have access to those titles.

[2:29:12] there is a power line that starts here

[2:29:16] in the corner and stretches this way.

[2:29:19] you can see a little bit of it here.

[2:29:27] >> this would be the more level portion

[2:29:30] of the neighboring property. It also

[2:29:33] slopes down and levels out down here

[2:29:37] where we had some [indiscernible] as

[2:29:41] well

[2:29:42] >> are there any other questions? I

[2:29:47] will open it up for public comment.

[2:29:48] >> thank you we will open it for public

[2:30:00] comment. Is there anyone in person that

[2:30:01] would like to speak? State your name

[2:30:05] for the record and you have three

[2:30:08] minutes

[2:30:09] >> [speaker off mic]

[2:30:10] >> we were friends for 25 years. I

[2:30:19] helped him, a backhoe he said I could

[2:30:22] borrow anytime I want. And then

[2:30:25] covid-19 came and we put the

[2:30:30] [indiscernible] to that. I got a friend

[2:30:31] of mine that is a contractor

[2:30:32] construction, he did the wall. I helped

[2:30:38] him with his and paid him to do the

[2:30:42] wall. They put the wing wall in all my

[2:30:43] property I was not there, I was having

[2:30:48] medical problems. Before the beginning,

[2:30:52] I asked him to have a survey. I don't

[2:30:58] need it surveyed. The top part of his

[2:31:00] property and my property there is a pin

[2:31:03] by the telephone pole that did with a

[2:31:08] metal post on it and you can tell, we

[2:31:11] are in the property line is. I asked

[2:31:13] him to have it surveyed. That was a

[2:31:19] denial. That's all I have to say

[2:31:24] >> thank you.

[2:31:27] >> this might be a little bit one of

[2:31:33] the surrounding issues but not the

[2:31:37] issue. A note from the property owner

[2:31:41] indicates you used your property for

[2:31:43] storage?

[2:31:44] >> I have yes I have some old cars it

[2:31:50] burned and now I'm in the process of

[2:31:53] clearing everything out. I lost

[2:31:54] everything on the property

[2:31:55] >> okay so did you have some kind of

[2:32:01] storage?

[2:32:02] >> I did not everything is gone, it was

[2:32:10] burnt it burned everything. I'm in the

[2:32:14] process of cleaning

[2:32:15] >> okay thank you

[2:32:16] >> are there any other people here?

[2:32:25] anyone online? We will close the public

[2:32:26] comment and bring it back. We can bring

[2:32:32] up staff. And have a discussion.

[2:32:33] >> can you put the timeline chart

[2:32:47] backup?

[2:32:48] >> there was a survey september 2020.

[2:33:08] [speaker off mic] and that's how we

[2:33:13] determine these.

[2:33:18] >> [speaker off mic]

[2:33:22] >> the complaint received in 2018 was

[2:33:32] only for the lack of building permit

[2:33:33] for the retaining wall and the shop. It

[2:33:36] was only identified the setbacks were

[2:33:40] also a concern in the second complaint

[2:33:43] that highlight setbacks.

[2:33:46] >> after-the-fact permits, we issue

[2:33:49] building permit what happens with a

[2:33:51] permit is issued?

[2:33:52] >> and after-the-fact permit? Usually

[2:33:57] in after-the-fact permit is a customer

[2:33:59] coming in and applying to the building

[2:34:01] department. They provide a site plan

[2:34:05] and internal diagrams of the structure.

[2:34:10] they also provide letters from a

[2:34:13] structural engineer, a contractor

[2:34:15] electrician whatever it is for the work

[2:34:17] that was done that will sign off on the

[2:34:23] work in the construction. And then the

[2:34:26] application goes to planning. Planning

[2:34:27] reviews it for meeting setbacks and

[2:34:32] then it goes to it runs the route and

[2:34:36] goes through engineering serving,

[2:34:37] through environmental health for

[2:34:38] septic, it goes to plan check,

[2:34:41] eventually gets issued to the applicant

[2:34:44] >> did I hear you write that the

[2:34:48] original complaint had nothing to do

[2:34:55] with the setback? They thought it was

[2:34:57] 30 feet from the property line

[2:34:58] >> the original complaint did not

[2:35:01] mention the setback, it was the

[2:35:04] original structure built without a

[2:35:05] permit and they were concerned about

[2:35:06] the safety of the wall

[2:35:07] >> complaining parties are usually not

[2:35:13] listed [indiscernible]

[2:35:14] >> I guess I'm hearing that regardless

[2:35:25] of what we determine today, one issue

[2:35:30] is the wall has to be rebuilt to meet

[2:35:36] the current standard

[2:35:37] >> it would have to meet the zero foot

[2:35:38] setback or be accepted by engineering

[2:35:43] [indiscernible] standard is

[2:35:44] >> the current wall does not meet that?,

[2:35:49] >> it needs to be redesigned it could

[2:35:50] not be on the neighbors property. The

[2:35:59] setback will be shop, it could be

[2:36:00] approved at that three foot if you

[2:36:06] decided to but that's not the

[2:36:12] application

[2:36:13] >> but on their property they still

[2:36:14] have to rebuild the wall

[2:36:15] >> it's up to their engineer designing

[2:36:17] the retaining wall it won't be allowed

[2:36:21] to extend I don't know if they have to

[2:36:28] rebuild the whole thing is up to the

[2:36:29] engineer they hired to design that to

[2:36:30] not encroach on the neighbors property

[2:36:31] and still hold the structure as it is

[2:36:32] >> so I'm confused because the permits

[2:36:36] were issued for the wall in 2019. The

[2:36:40] county at that time felt the wall was

[2:36:47] up to standard?

[2:36:48] >> we accepted plans and calculations

[2:36:51] on the wall. I don't believe that

[2:36:54] grading permit was for the wall was

[2:36:59] ever finalized. At the time the plans

[2:37:06] and were issued we received were

[2:37:09] excepted and issued but with the

[2:37:10] changing of the retaining wall we'd

[2:37:13] have to reengineer

[2:37:14] >> so the existing wall on their

[2:37:20] property could be okay? He

[2:37:24] >> it depends if we can take off that

[2:37:25] forefoot wing wall and have it still

[2:37:30] meet whatever engineering.

[2:37:31] >> okay thank you

[2:37:35] >> it is determined that the slope it's

[2:37:39] necessary to have a wall on that slope,

[2:37:44] then could it extend into the neighbors

[2:37:45] property for example to protect erosion

[2:37:54] or landslides or engineering. Could it

[2:37:57] be determined it's necessary to have a

[2:38:01] retaining wall for that area regardless

[2:38:02] if there's a building or not?

[2:38:03] >> while a retaining wall is most

[2:38:13] likely required to build a pad in the

[2:38:17] area, I don't believe it's required to

[2:38:18] maintain soil on the site because as a

[2:38:24] natural slope that hasn't been eroding

[2:38:30] naturally.

[2:38:31] >> if you take it off it will leave

[2:38:35] some kind of [indiscernible]

[2:38:36] >> if we remove the retaining wall? If

[2:38:40] we remove the wall I assume we also

[2:38:41] have to remove the structure. And make

[2:38:47] sure there's going to be some erosion

[2:38:53] problems.

[2:38:54] >> if you remove the retaining wall you

[2:38:59] have to have an engineer with a grading

[2:39:01] permit saying the soil is stable.

[2:39:04] currently the plan I looked at is they

[2:39:09] are taking [indiscernible] and turning

[2:39:12] it back onto there's and with the

[2:39:17] [indiscernible] two feet buffer between

[2:39:18] the property line so we are asking for

[2:39:20] [indiscernible]

[2:39:21] >> no matter what we do with the wall,

[2:39:24] it still has to be approved with the

[2:39:27] setback. With the structure currently

[2:39:32] there. So the wall will be too high

[2:39:38] from the property line, also need to be

[2:39:39] a variance for the wall.

[2:39:43] >> what I'm getting at is if we allow

[2:39:47] this to happen like commissioner

[2:39:48] woodward said in the past let people

[2:39:51] build 3 1/2 feet from the property line

[2:39:55] without issuing a permit and coming

[2:39:56] back and asking for forgiveness

[2:40:01] >> so it is your hearing body

[2:40:07] determination and you can make

[2:40:09] different determination on different

[2:40:14] properties.

[2:40:15] >> what's good for one person should be

[2:40:16] good for all. Consistency is important

[2:40:22] >> is it possible, could they move the

[2:40:26] shop 30 feet. Could be picked up and

[2:40:30] moved cheaper than having this

[2:40:31] reengineered and putting a wall up? We

[2:40:33] move properties and buildings before

[2:40:36] it's only 700 square feet. 1200 square

[2:40:43] feet. But no electrical or plumbing

[2:40:44] >> would it be possible to lift it and

[2:40:53] move it

[2:40:59] >> because the footings for the walls

[2:41:02] on the side, you'd have to move the

[2:41:04] footings all the way out. It's not

[2:41:11] feasible. My age says I can't do that

[2:41:13] >> I'm not asking you to. I'm just

[2:41:16] asking is it feasible to do that.

[2:41:19] trying to help you save your building

[2:41:20] >> it's not feasible

[2:41:21] >> [indiscernible]

[2:41:22] >> get closer to your microphone

[2:41:23] >> I'm at a standstill because what I'm

[2:42:00] hearing, a neighbor helped build the

[2:42:03] wall and he deferred to somebody else.

[2:42:08] if he knew where the property line was

[2:42:09] but agreed to help build it, it was

[2:42:13] built without a permit which was wrong.

[2:42:19] I'm thinking out loud but I guess we go

[2:42:23] with the county and deny it. I can't

[2:42:29] see letting it go through and giving

[2:42:30] someone else the same permission to do

[2:42:31] the same thing and come back and ask

[2:42:33] for forgiveness

[2:42:34] >> [indiscernible]

[2:42:35] >> I don't have any information to make

[2:42:53] a different determination that was made

[2:42:58] by the zoning administrator.

[2:42:59] >> me either

[2:43:03] >> I can't have any findings that would

[2:43:07] change that decision. I have the same

[2:43:09] information same evidence nothing new.

[2:43:12] there are changes that need to happen.

[2:43:18] I'm kind of at the point of going along

[2:43:21] with this recommendation.

[2:43:22] >> when I was looking at, this is

[2:43:25] pretty straightforward to me initially,

[2:43:28] you violate the guidelines and rules

[2:43:30] and you have to face the consequences.

[2:43:38] if you get caught. I was trying to

[2:43:41] understand if maybe the county was

[2:43:43] partially culpable here with the

[2:43:45] issuing of a building permit and that

[2:43:48] sort of thing but I have to say I don't

[2:43:53] think so. I'm where you guys are.

[2:43:59] >> I really feel for these people I

[2:44:02] really do because this has been around

[2:44:03] since 2014 for crying out loud. It's

[2:44:08] really too bad

[2:44:09] >> do you put up a fine for violating

[2:44:17] the permit process and still allow them

[2:44:18] to keep the structure? And fix the wall?

[2:44:26] >> it has to come into compliance. And

[2:44:32] that is the process

[2:44:33] >> we could allow a 3 1/2 foot setback.

[2:44:38] so if we allow the 3 1/2 foot setback

[2:44:40] and go back to property, like

[2:44:51] commissioner woodward said there's a

[2:44:52] lot of miscommunication between a lot

[2:44:53] of people this was approved and now

[2:44:54] denied, I do feel sorry for the

[2:44:58] applicant as well. But if there's a way

[2:44:59] to help them keep this with less costs

[2:45:04] out of their pocket, I'm up for that.

[2:45:09] if the county would allow that to

[2:45:13] happen. If we approve a 3 1/2 foot

[2:45:14] setback and put that in the

[2:45:18] recommendation

[2:45:20] >> what I would need to tell you is if

[2:45:26] the commission decides to go down that

[2:45:27] route of approving the variance, it

[2:45:31] would be a tentative approval and we

[2:45:34] would send that back to prepare

[2:45:39] findings for approval, we'd have to

[2:45:45] make the findings or the commission

[2:45:46] would have to make the findings for

[2:45:47] approval and we bring that back to the

[2:45:48] commission for you to take final action.

[2:45:51] >> okay.

[2:45:52] >> what are the findings required again?

[2:45:56] >> they are listed in the staff report

[2:45:57] >> I refer you to page 19 in the staff

[2:46:10] report packet. Page 20. We all need to

[2:46:15] get on the same page. Right before the

[2:46:21] analysis where it says findings

[2:46:22] necessary for granting a variance. The

[2:46:29] first one special circumstance the

[2:46:35] property including size shape

[2:46:36] topography location surroundings or

[2:46:37] circumstances restrict application

[2:46:38] private property [indiscernible]

[2:46:39] adjoined by other property vicinity

[2:46:45] [indiscernible]. The variance

[2:46:46] authorized not constitute special

[2:46:48] privilege locations upon other

[2:46:50] properties vicinity and same district.

[2:46:53] the variance is not authorize use that

[2:46:56] otherwise is allowed in zoning district.

[2:47:01] the variance does not under

[2:47:04] circumstance conditions apply adversely

[2:47:10] affect the public safety, not

[2:47:11] materially detrimental to public

[2:47:15] welfare to nearby property. The

[2:47:16] variance is consistent with the general

[2:47:18] plan and the community plan or specific

[2:47:23] plan. And the variance is the minimum

[2:47:25] departure from the requirements of the

[2:47:27] ordinance necessary to grant to the

[2:47:29] applicant subsections a and b. You'd be

[2:47:35] asking the staff to come back with

[2:47:39] that

[2:47:40] >> [speaker off mic]

[2:47:50] >> I'd be in tune to what is here to do

[2:47:59] what we can to help them keep their

[2:48:00] structure but be in compliance with

[2:48:04] engineering and allow this 3 1/2 foot

[2:48:09] setback considering [indiscernible] if

[2:48:14] there are power lines. May be the

[2:48:17] county or whoever [indiscernible] I

[2:48:20] would recommend we do what ej was

[2:48:22] saying, have them come back to us with

[2:48:27] a ruling or something that gives us the

[2:48:30] proper engineering that lets them keep

[2:48:31] their structure and move forward

[2:48:32] >> I guess I kind of struggle with the

[2:48:41] coming back part. Because the answer is

[2:48:44] going to be is going to change if they

[2:48:46] come back? To me it seems like if we

[2:48:50] were to support the staff

[2:48:57] recommendation. It sounds like no

[2:48:58] matter what something has to happen

[2:48:59] with changes to the wall. And work has

[2:49:04] to be done. It would be a possibility

[2:49:09] of changes are made, and the various

[2:49:12] items we just heard can be met, they

[2:49:18] could go back to the zoning

[2:49:19] administrator and ask for a variance.

[2:49:23] that would be the come back

[2:49:25] >> I think the wall has to be dealt with

[2:49:28] >> for sure

[2:49:29] >> that's what this finding is all about

[2:49:35] >> so this finding is the wall, it

[2:49:38] doesn't mean they tear down the

[2:49:40] structure?

[2:49:44] >> it means the wall needs to be fixed

[2:49:50] >> then they can come come back and

[2:49:56] apply for a variance

[2:49:57] >> they can go to the zoning

[2:49:59] administrator. The zoning administrator

[2:50:03] initially said [indiscernible] so

[2:50:04] that's going to be an issue they have

[2:50:07] to deal with.

[2:50:09] >> there were other buildable space on

[2:50:12] the property etc.. So the building the

[2:50:16] zoning administrator basically applied

[2:50:17] those guidelines to the entire project.

[2:50:20] we are affecting the entire project.

[2:50:24] not just the wall. But the building as

[2:50:28] well correct?

[2:50:30] >> yes so the decision today affects

[2:50:36] both.

[2:50:37] >> I think the thing we don't know is

[2:50:42] if they can't do the wall then the

[2:50:43] building has to come down. So we don't

[2:50:51] know. I don't know that we have enough

[2:50:52] information to try to save the building.

[2:50:56] >> the applicant has a question.

[2:50:58] >> we are in discussion.

[2:50:59] >> are there any issues with allowing

[2:51:10] the applicant to make another comment?

[2:51:13] >> it's up to the chair

[2:51:17] >> would you like to hear something

[2:51:20] from the applicant?

[2:51:21] >> come on up to the microphone

[2:51:22] >> [indiscernible] move the wall we've

[2:51:30] got an engineer working on it now. We

[2:51:35] are going to turn that one wing that

[2:51:36] goes onto the other property back into

[2:51:40] the site and then we will put still

[2:51:45] pylons alongside the wall and tie the

[2:51:46] wall back into the slab. Tear the slab

[2:51:51] out and report the slab where there is

[2:51:57] cable. We will put the cable into the

[2:52:05] wall that's what my engineer is talking

[2:52:06] about right now how to fix that. The

[2:52:10] other question you people have asked is

[2:52:14] if I could move. The building forward

[2:52:18] if you move the building forward more,

[2:52:21] you actually put the building over the

[2:52:26] top of my septic. And that is mainly

[2:52:30] one of the reasons we set it back so

[2:52:34] far. So we weren't over the top of the

[2:52:36] septic and interfering with that.

[2:52:37] >> so is part of the buildable area

[2:52:48] where the septic is?

[2:52:49] >> I did not get a confirmation on

[2:52:55] where the septic field is but that is

[2:53:01] the area we identified. On his site

[2:53:07] plan, it showed the repair area being

[2:53:13] here. So there's a little bit of a

[2:53:20] distance. But without getting tracings

[2:53:22] or something that tells us for sure

[2:53:23] where the repair area is, we usually

[2:53:28] take the applicant were property owners

[2:53:29] word for the septic lines, compared

[2:53:32] with whatever environmental health has

[2:53:34] on record.

[2:53:35] >> I don't know for sure

[2:53:36] >> the slab you are removing, is that

[2:53:44] the slab the garage sits on? You said

[2:53:48] you are going to remove a slab

[2:53:53] >> the slab at the back on the west

[2:54:00] side of the building. Where the trailer

[2:54:07] is sitting. The concrete slab, we will

[2:54:13] remove that slab. Input the retaining

[2:54:16] wall in, and put the concrete over. So

[2:54:20] pins will come off the iron set in the

[2:54:23] ground and pulled back into the slab

[2:54:28] and then we for the slab so you get

[2:54:33] pressure going back into the building

[2:54:38] to help it, so you don't tip the wall

[2:54:43] over the building. That's talking, I

[2:54:49] don't have an engineer, but that's what

[2:54:50] my engineer has talked to me about. I'm

[2:54:54] okay with that. Whatever it takes to

[2:54:56] fix it. That's what I'm going to do.

[2:54:58] short of taking the building down. I

[2:55:07] can't do that. [speaker off mic]. This

[2:55:49] was my house, the septic sits right

[2:55:51] about there the leach field goes out.

[2:56:05] >> so thank you. If we uphold the

[2:56:14] zoning administrator's decision, what

[2:56:15] kind of timeline do they have?

[2:56:16] >> I want to make sure I hear this

[2:56:26] right. If you uphold the zoning

[2:56:27] administrator's decision to deny it, I

[2:56:36] don't think we have put anything in the

[2:56:37] conditions of when everything has to be

[2:56:42] brought into conformance. They can

[2:56:43] appeal they have appeal rights. Like in

[2:56:51] the past, the commission can require

[2:56:54] removal of the structures or compliance

[2:56:56] within whatever period of time you

[2:56:59] think fits

[2:57:02] >> I have a question for the engineer.

[2:57:06] how long if we give them an extension

[2:57:09] of time do you feel they would need

[2:57:13] from an engineer and start of

[2:57:15] construction to get to the point they

[2:57:16] can save the wall and property?

[2:57:19] >> as far as issuing the permit?

[2:57:23] >> correct if they go to step two and

[2:57:25] say we have the engineering and we go

[2:57:29] to permitting and it gets approved, how

[2:57:34] long is the process if we want to give

[2:57:38] them extension of time, what we can

[2:57:41] extend to get this done

[2:57:42] >> the typical process for getting the

[2:57:44] permit [indiscernible] ahead of

[2:57:47] schedule. If they give us a complete

[2:57:50] packet where the calculations are

[2:57:53] correct [indiscernible] it could be

[2:57:54] done in three weeks or four. But after

[2:58:00] we need corrections is just however

[2:58:02] long it takes [indiscernible] once they

[2:58:03] give us the grading permit we

[2:58:07] distribute it to environmental health

[2:58:08] and they look at the septic and then

[2:58:11] look at it for a variance on the size

[2:58:14] of the wall with the setback

[2:58:15] >> usually we wouldn't approve those

[2:58:20] grading plans unless we have approved a

[2:58:32] variance.

[2:58:33] >> currently, we have not distributed

[2:58:34] anything for the grading [indiscernible]

[2:58:36] >> so the variance of 3 1/2 feet

[2:58:43] [indiscernible]

[2:58:44] >> [speaker off mic]

[2:58:45] >> in your opinion what he stated from

[2:59:17] his engineer, do you feel an educated

[2:59:18] guess that that would work?

[2:59:23] >> I have talked to his engineer a

[2:59:24] couple times and I feel like that would

[2:59:25] work

[2:59:26] >> okay

[2:59:29] >> I was wondering where the zoning

[2:59:33] administrator identified a place the

[2:59:37] structure could be built within the

[2:59:42] setback? Where was that?

[2:59:43] >> I believe that could have been

[2:59:45] located here. On the site plan this is

[2:59:47] the one we were shown and it did not

[2:59:51] show there was a septic field there at

[2:59:53] the time. So that's news to me. That

[2:59:57] there's a septic field here. I thought

[3:00:01] this was a septic field down here. We

[3:00:04] have a repair area identified.

[3:00:09] >> it's over the septic system

[3:00:12] >> if the septic system is here as the

[3:00:15] applicant described that will not be

[3:00:19] buildable

[3:00:24] >> so will have to shift to the south

[3:00:25] >> it would have to shift further south

[3:00:26] or they'd have to build an increased

[3:00:28] retaining wall or an increased there

[3:00:35] were other places but this was the

[3:00:37] easily identifiable level location they

[3:00:38] could have built and still not have the

[3:00:41] 30 foot setback

[3:00:44] >> it's already done

[3:00:46] >> we have to think about the neighbor

[3:00:51] and the setback that is expected from

[3:00:53] the neighbor or any future neighbor. I

[3:00:58] don't have any new information for me

[3:01:03] to change the zoning administrator

[3:01:06] original decision. I know we are trying

[3:01:08] to figure this out but I don't think we

[3:01:12] can. I'm feeling like I still need to

[3:01:17] go along with the zoning

[3:01:21] administrator's recommendation, allow

[3:01:22] them to appeal to the board of

[3:01:23] supervisors where maybe they can figure

[3:01:29] it out. I'm sorry but I don't see a way

[3:01:32] that we can change that decision

[3:01:34] >> I tend to agree. I think we want to

[3:01:40] be able to exercise the zoning

[3:01:45] administrator checklist. We are going

[3:01:46] to try to apply to this but at this

[3:01:49] point this would be a special

[3:01:54] circumstance etc.. I don't see

[3:01:59] justification for allowing this to

[3:02:03] proceed

[3:02:04] >> I don't know, I'm still trying to

[3:02:11] figure out how to help them. If there's

[3:02:17] a way to recommend a change in the

[3:02:18] setback and extend time for the

[3:02:22] engineer approval, considering there is

[3:02:23] high power lines going next to the

[3:02:29] property.

[3:02:30] >> we kind of expect the neighbor

[3:02:33] approval. If we are going to change a

[3:02:34] setback it puts it someone else's

[3:02:36] property, we want the neighbors

[3:02:40] blessing on that. And it does not seem

[3:02:43] likely have that.

[3:02:48] >> [indiscernible] the neighbor is here

[3:02:49] and we can always ask. He helped to

[3:02:53] build the wall and knew where the

[3:02:56] property line was.

[3:02:57] >> I'm getting this information. They

[3:03:08] hired somebody [indiscernible]

[3:03:10] >> that's not for me to judge. I'm

[3:03:14] ready to make a motion

[3:03:15] >> I tried to help these people as much

[3:03:19] as possible but I don't know that

[3:03:20] there's a way to do it.

[3:03:21] >> I move the planning commission

[3:03:29] uphold the decision of the zoning

[3:03:33] administrator and the findings stated

[3:03:34] in the staff report

[3:03:35] >> second

[3:03:36] >> [indiscernible] I'd like to make a

[3:03:44] comment on that. That does not stop the

[3:03:50] process. It's just that you have to

[3:03:53] look into this and come up with

[3:03:57] solutions. If the septic system is

[3:04:00] placed it has to be on a map, somebody

[3:04:04] has to know. And take a serious look at

[3:04:06] where you can put the shop. Right next

[3:04:12] to the property line. It depends on

[3:04:15] your analysis as the owners of the

[3:04:19] property. What you communicate with the

[3:04:23] planning department, it does not

[3:04:26] prevent you from coming back if you

[3:04:27] have more information that supports a

[3:04:28] variance, that would be a reason to

[3:04:30] come back. It seems like right now, we

[3:04:33] are still open ended question. So it's

[3:04:40] hard for me anyway to disagree with the

[3:04:44] zoning administrator.

[3:04:45] >> we have a first and a second. Roll

[3:04:49] call vote

[3:04:50] >> first from mr. Woodward, second from

[3:04:55] mr. Demattei. Mr. Hauge yes mr. Johnson

[3:05:03] yes mr. Woodward yes mr. Demattei yes

[3:05:08] mr. Herzog yes.

[3:05:19] >> the decision of the planning

[3:05:20] commission may be appealed by anyone

[3:05:21] who appeared at today's hearing and

[3:05:22] provide comment first written comments

[3:05:23] on the item in appeal must be filed

[3:05:24] within 10 days of today's date and

[3:05:25] shall filing fee of $641. I do want to

[3:05:29] thank my commissioners. I think we do

[3:05:30] our best to really think and read all

[3:05:35] the documents and taken public comment.

[3:05:38] we think about the best decision. You

[3:05:40] guys put in a lot of work and talked to

[3:05:46] people. I want to thank you because you

[3:05:50] do really good job. We will conclude

[3:05:52] the meeting and the meeting is

[3:05:58] adjourned.

Planning Commission

Agenda

Transcript