[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.