[0:01] It's 5:00 PM and we're at the Canyon
[0:03] Community Center for the July 1 meeting
[0:05] of the Springdale Planning Commission.
[0:08] From the town, we have Tom Dancy,
[0:11] Eugenie Ikium. Did I say that right?
[0:14] Welcome.
[0:16] Uh Nile Connelly and April Ratitz. On
[0:19] the dis we have Susan McPortland, Zion
[0:22] National Park representative, Rich
[0:25] Swanson, Terry Kruski, myself, Jennifer
[0:28] McCulla, Paul Zimmerman, and Melissa
[0:31] Labour,
[0:33] Kosh Bati is out tonight. Melissa, can
[0:36] you vote?
[0:37] >> Thanks. Is there a motion to approve
[0:39] tonight's agenda?
[0:41] >> I move that we approve tonight's agenda.
[0:44] >> Motion by Paul, second by Melissa. All
[0:47] in favor? Rich I.
[0:49] >> Terry I.
[0:50] >> Jennifer I.
[0:51] >> Paul I.
[0:52] >> I.
[0:53] >> Motion passes. Are there any general
[0:55] announcements from the town?
[1:18] Yeah, welcome.
[1:19] >> Welcome.
[1:21] >> Any other announcements?
[1:25] Are there any declarations of conflict
[1:27] of interest?
[1:30] Okay, for tonight's agenda, we have
[1:32] three action items. The first is a
[1:36] grading permit request. Mr. Adam Hyatt
[1:40] has request a grading permit to expand a
[1:42] sunken patio at 251 Anosi Way. Staff
[1:47] contact is Nile Connelly and Nile will
[1:49] be presenting.
[2:19] Okay, I think that works. Thank you. So,
[2:23] um yes, this is a grading permit
[2:26] application. Uh the applicant is Mr.
[2:28] Adam Hyatt. Um Mr. Hyatt wishes to
[2:32] expand the sunken patio at the back of
[2:35] his property. Um, so he'll do that by
[2:38] excavating into into the ground there.
[2:41] The proposed excavation would increase
[2:44] the usable patio space at the back of
[2:46] his home. Um, the engineering drawing
[2:50] shows a proposed cut slope of just under
[2:53] 10 ft in height at the rear of the
[2:55] property. I'll just go and scroll down
[2:58] to that.
[3:00] Um, so this is the proposed cut slope.
[3:04] And then there's also a shorter cut
[3:06] slope here of about 4 ft in height which
[3:09] is closer to the house. And the
[3:12] engineers assessment on slope stability
[3:15] um is that they expect the excavation
[3:18] won't need any retaining because of the rock that's there. Um
[3:25] the engineer states that the excavate
[3:27] excavation will be monitored and so if
[3:30] conditions are different than expected
[3:33] um a retaining wall or some retaining
[3:36] may be required. Uh so the staff report
[3:40] includes a few conditions that the
[3:41] planning condition planning commission
[3:43] could consider uh if you were to go
[3:46] ahead and approve the application. Um,
[3:49] I'd be happy to answer any questions
[3:51] from the commission.
[3:56] » I have a I have a few here. Um, so the line shown here, the the box around
[4:03] the outside, that is the um that's the
[4:06] perimeter of the of the property.
[4:09] Correct.
[4:09] >> That is correct.
[4:11] >> But but beyond that is open space
[4:13] because of the nature of the Anastasia
[4:15] development. Correct.
[4:16] >> It's the conservation easement. Correct.
[4:18] >> So that's why we can build right up to
[4:20] he can dig right up to the property
[4:22] line.
[4:23] >> Yeah. So in the in the Anastasia
[4:25] subdivision there aren't the same
[4:27] setbacks as apply in in
[4:30] >> places. Yeah.
[4:31] >> Okay. Um the other thing is in in 1015B
[4:36] there's some uh discussion of um
[4:39] drainage control 1015B 6 C and D. Um I
[4:44] didn't see anything about that. Is that
[4:46] not required here? I just did notice
[4:48] there was a small or box drawn in as a
[4:52] existing drain.
[4:55] » Could you give me that reference again?
[4:57] >> Uh 10 15B
[5:00] 6C and 6D discuss the need for uh
[5:05] drainage control and I wondered if the
[5:08] small box that's listed on the drawing
[5:11] is sufficient for that.
[5:14] So, let me just read out that section to
[5:17] make sure I got the right one. So, it
[5:18] says, "The grading contractor or general
[5:22] contractor shall take measures to
[5:23] prevent mud, dirt, rocks, and other
[5:25] debris from being transported to the
[5:27] construction site onto adjacent streets.
[5:30] If mud or debris are transported, the
[5:34] proposed grading contractor
[5:37] shall be responsible for cleaning
[5:40] uh within 24 hours and then temporary
[5:43] drainage structures shall be placed on
[5:46] site to control runoff during the
[5:48] construction phase. That that's the
[5:50] point specifically the temporary
[5:52] drainage control. There was nothing
[5:54] listed except that small box on the
[5:57] drawing that labeled as a drain which
[6:01] may well be sufficient. I just wanted to
[6:03] make sure I understood if that was
[6:05] sufficient.
[6:08] >> Yeah. So as you can see here there's the
[6:11] direct runoff to existing drainage
[6:13] system.
[6:15] Yeah. That that is what that's what's
[6:17] been provided for drainage in the
[6:20] application.
[6:24] Okay. So, as far as we know, that's the intended drainage.
[6:27] >> Yeah.
[6:28] >> I guess the question is, could this ever
[6:31] have a flood path to the road?
[6:35] » Yeah. I I mean, we we don't really have
[6:38] information in the drawings to indicate
[6:41] how the water would flow if it if this
[6:44] drainage got clogged, I guess, would be
[6:46] and where that would go. Um,
[6:52] so the information we have is just
[6:54] what's in the drawing at this time. Um,
[6:56] maybe I'll ask the applicant if they
[6:59] have any thoughts on that. Okay,
[7:04] those are my questions.
[7:06] >> Are there any other questions for Nile?
[7:11] >> Okay, we can move into planning
[7:12] commission deliberation.
[7:24] We're going to ask if the um applicant
[7:26] want to make any presentation.
[7:28] >> Does the applicant want to make a
[7:30] presentation?
[7:35] » Any questions?
[7:36] >> I do have a couple. So, I understand the
[7:39] intent is to uh install a patio
[7:44] in this in this cut area. That's is that
[7:46] correct?
[7:47] >> Uh first off, Adam Hyatt uh town
[7:49] resident.
[7:50] >> Oh, yeah. [clears throat]
[7:52] >> Yeah. So, that's that's my intention now
[7:54] is just to get a little bit more
[7:55] utilization out of my backyard. Um as it
[7:58] sits right now, it's on a ridge line. If
[7:59] I can drop that down and put like a
[8:01] barbecue and some tables and, you know,
[8:03] hangout area type there. So, so there
[8:06] would be construction of a patio once
[8:08] the um grading is done.
[8:10] >> I mean, it's not it's not just going to
[8:11] be flat flat like
[8:13] >> you're not going to just sit on
[8:14] >> Hey, I could put a pickle ball court
[8:15] there maybe. I don't know. I don't know
[8:16] if there's enough space.
[8:17] >> Um
[8:21] and so one of the questions I have is so
[8:23] there's a there's a four approximately 4
[8:26] foot rise um between the house and the
[8:29] main flat part of the patio there. Um,
[8:32] so is it it would be your intent to
[8:36] build stairs there? Right. So that's not
[8:39] an intent to cut into the rock to create
[8:42] stairs.
[8:43] >> No, it'll be to to to create stairs
[8:45] because that that 4 foot that's being
[8:48] left there is already in place. And so
[8:50] I'm just basically bringing the other
[8:53] the the back part of the lot down 10
[8:56] feet because otherwise 14t basically
[8:59] from my fixed elevation height from the the where we constructed our house
[9:04] to the back of the the lot. And so just
[9:06] bringing that down 10 ft gives me a 4ft
[9:09] gap basically at which point in time I
[9:11] would have to build stairs to get access
[9:13] obviously.
[9:14] >> So you would build stairs versus cutting
[9:17] stairs into
[9:17] >> Oh [clears throat] yeah. Yeah.
[9:18] >> Okay.
[9:20] um because they want to make sure of
[9:21] that. Um one other thing in the photo
[9:24] there in one of the photos at the bottom
[9:26] there's a there's a wall in the photo.
[9:29] Um it's not really part of a grading
[9:31] permit. Is is there an intent to build a
[9:32] wall?
[9:33] >> Yes and no. That's part of my HOA. Um so
[9:37] HOA says they're hesitant on that. The
[9:40] HOA only allows up to I want to say five
[9:43] foot walls. And by the way, I apologize
[9:45] for the very terrible Photoshop quality.
[9:47] Like I say, I just pieced that together.
[9:49] Um, HOA only allows, even if they did
[9:53] allow a wall, they only allow up to a
[9:55] five foot wall and the city only has to
[9:58] approve, I want to say, six foot and
[10:00] over. Is that right?
[10:04] » Yeah. And so, like my plan is to to do a
[10:09] wall, but again, that's going to be my
[10:10] HOA making that call rather than me.
[10:12] >> So, so the intent is it'll be short
[10:13] enough that it'll be under
[10:14] >> Yeah. It's going to be maybe a three and a half foot wall like yeah I
[10:20] don't I don't want to build build that
[10:21] any higher [laughter]
[10:24] >> just wanted to concern um
[10:27] >> this may be a question for the staff. So
[10:28] at the time that the applicant were to
[10:31] build um a patio there would that be
[10:33] something that would that would come to
[10:35] us or would that be just be done by
[10:36] managed by staff
[10:37] >> the wall there? Well,
[10:41] once the grading So, we're talking about
[10:42] a grading pyramid. Now, after the
[10:45] grading is done, there's an intent to
[10:47] build a patio and possibly build a wall.
[10:50] Um, though would those require a permit?
[10:52] Would they come to the town staff? Would
[10:54] they come to the planning commission? Do
[10:56] you have a sense on that? If that
[10:58] >> Sure. So, though if if uh if Mr. how it
[11:02] wanted to build the wall, that would be
[11:04] a wall permiss that would come to staff,
[11:06] but it wouldn't be sent to the planning
[11:08] commission. If you wanted to put a deck
[11:11] or or something out back in that area,
[11:14] that's that's not going to need a permit
[11:16] because it's, you know, just within
[11:18] >> it's a small enough construction, it
[11:20] won't need a
[11:20] >> Yeah.
[11:22] >> Okay. I just want to confirm that if a
[11:23] wall was built, there would be some
[11:26] review of
[11:26] >> that would require a permit from Yes.
[11:29] >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. do have a
[11:32] question. A three and a half foot wall
[11:34] requires a permit from the city.
[11:36] >> Yeah, it does actually. Yeah,
[11:38] >> let me know when I need to put that in.
[11:40] >> Okay. [laughter]
[11:42] >> Okay. Um, those were my questions. Any
[11:45] others?
[11:50] » I don't have any questions. Does anybody
[11:52] else have any questions for staff or the
[11:54] applicant?
[11:57] have questions for the staff, but
[12:00] um I'm a little confused with the you
[12:03] know there's not a geotech report or
[12:06] slope stability analysis. And when I go
[12:08] back and read 1015 F5, it appears to
[12:12] there's a requirement for both of those
[12:14] in this in this case. And so I'm I'm
[12:16] curious as to why
[12:18] we're uh
[12:20] kind of skating past that.
[12:23] >> Sure. So with with that, yeah, in 1015,
[12:27] if you're excavating
[12:30] um
[12:32] close to a property line um or one of
[12:34] those other sensitive features that list
[12:36] that's listed, uh slope stability is is
[12:40] something that needs to be looked into.
[12:43] Uh usually that would be part of a
[12:45] geotechnical report,
[12:47] >> right? Um
[12:49] in this case because of the kind of
[12:51] limited nature of of the um development
[12:57] a geotechnical report wasn't triggered. Um and so in this
[13:04] case, the applicant relied on an
[13:08] engineer, a letter from the engineer to
[13:11] um
[13:13] to to discuss that kind of slope
[13:16] stability uh piece um
[13:20] yeah, in an attempt to to satisfy that
[13:23] requirement. Um
[13:26] >> well I what [clears throat] my reading
[13:28] of 1015 F5
[13:31] um you know I I interpret that to mean
[13:35] that um you know any addition to an
[13:37] existing building when the combined area
[13:38] of the existing building and new
[13:40] addition exceeds 1,000 square feet in
[13:42] area the existing building's a thousand
[13:44] square feet in area and the new
[13:46] structure uh you know satisfies the
[13:49] condition the the require you know the
[13:53] statement of any addition
[13:54] So that would that would trigger the
[13:56] geotech report I would think. So I'm
[13:58] wondering why we we've not done that in
[14:01] this case
[14:03] >> or maybe should.
[14:05] >> Sure. Yeah.
[14:06] >> Slope stability would come with that
[14:08] geotech report. So
[14:10] >> yeah that that's correct. So in in this
[14:14] section you're referring to so 1015 F5
[14:17] it talks about the the when a
[14:20] geotechnical report is required. Right.
[14:23] So there's subdivision approval, there's
[14:26] DDR for a new building over 500 square
[14:28] feet. Um any addition to an existing
[14:32] building uh when the combined area of
[14:34] the building and a new addition is a,000
[14:37] square ft. Any structure intended for
[14:40] human occupancy and then number five is
[14:43] in any other circumstance where the DCD
[14:46] determines the site or soil conditions
[14:49] warrant a geotechnical report. So the um
[14:56] excavation
[14:59] kind of my reading of those was that the
[15:02] excavation
[15:04] didn't really trigger any of those those
[15:06] requirements. Um however there is the
[15:10] flexibility in the fifth point where
[15:14] uh in other instances where it's
[15:17] determined that the site or soil
[15:19] conditions warrant a geotechnical report
[15:22] there is that that ability to
[15:25] >> that's that's [clears throat] one uh
[15:27] instance but item three there says you
[15:29] know if it's a u an addition to an
[15:34] existing building or structure or
[15:36] structure the patio that's going to be
[15:38] constructed constitutes a structure um
[15:41] for this purpose I think and so
[15:42] therefore that would be a requisite uh
[15:46] under item three as well and the slip
[15:49] stability analys analysis is you know
[15:54] arguably something that where soil
[15:56] conditions warrant a report as well so
[15:58] again I think that's
[16:01] something probably that we missed there
[16:03] >> yeah I I think that's that's a valid
[16:05] point of view and that is something that
[16:07] you could request or you could
[16:10] deliberate on for sure.
[16:17] » Questions?
[16:20] >> Yes.
[16:21] I know sometimes
[16:26] » Wilson I I just have to say because I I
[16:31] did all this work when I built Adam's
[16:33] house and I I know the property line
[16:36] slope stability analysis requirement. I
[16:38] was just barely up against it. Tom and I
[16:39] know what we're talking about. I think
[16:41] that's a a rule to be enforced. However,
[16:43] I must say there is a geotechnical
[16:45] report on this. I have it. Uh, it does
[16:48] say that you can shave that wall
[16:49] vertically because it is rock and I sat
[16:51] on the tractor and shaved that wall the
[16:53] first time. And so I know I know
[16:56] personally speaking that is solid
[16:57] sandstone and it says it you don't need
[17:00] to stabilize that wall. And so I'm just
[17:02] sitting there and I know that's
[17:04] information you don't have. I also know
[17:06] that the drainage goes right into the
[17:07] drainage right below his house. It isn't
[17:10] muddy material. If there's rain during
[17:12] construction, it'll be clean water. It's
[17:14] not it's not going to plug anything up.
[17:16] I This this should be a slam dunk, but I
[17:18] know that's information you didn't have
[17:20] and I have it, but I do have that report
[17:21] and there is a geotechnical report. Um,
[17:24] we had to do it when I built the house
[17:25] and it does specifically say that that
[17:27] wall is fine to shave because it is
[17:28] rock. It's not sand or something else. I
[17:30] just wanted to let you guys know.
[17:33] >> Thank you.
[17:34] Does that report still stand valid for this purpose after
[17:41] >> it would the description of the soils
[17:43] and the material would would still be
[17:46] valid. Um
[17:47] >> does would it extend to the depth of the
[17:49] excavation
[17:51] >> going back quite a ways?
[17:53] >> I I think we'd need to read the report.
[17:55] Um it it wasn't on the file. Um, so I
[18:01] think we'd we'd have to source that if
[18:03] you wanted to look at it.
[18:11] If for some reason that there's parts of
[18:14] that crumbling and they have to build a
[18:16] wall, I know that's come to the city for
[18:18] a permit on that. Would a a report be
[18:22] necessary then to ensure the wall is
[18:24] adequate to stabilize the um
[18:28] >> Yeah, if there was a if there was a
[18:31] retaining wall built, it would need to
[18:33] be
[18:35] um designed by an engineer to determine
[18:37] that it was sufficient.
[18:45] » Any other questions?
[18:53] Um Paul, to your point about um the
[18:57] triggering of the patio being next to
[18:59] the structure,
[19:01] um I'm just wondering if it's
[19:03] appropriate at this point to consider
[19:07] that
[19:08] um for future because that will go
[19:11] through a future process.
[19:14] And if the grading permit is approved,
[19:18] then the next step would have to be
[19:20] compliant,
[19:22] meet the meet the requirements that
[19:24] you're referring to.
[19:27] Does that make sense?
[19:30] >> Yeah. I mean, I you know,
[19:34] I don't know the way I mean, the way
[19:35] it's currently drafted, I don't think we
[19:36] need to change the current drafting the
[19:39] ordinance. I think it's fairly to me
[19:41] it's fairly clear that um there's a
[19:44] requirement there
[19:47] um and and not just in one area but in a
[19:50] couple areas and you know arguably yeah
[19:52] maybe the conditions are such that based
[19:55] on you know previous excavation that we
[19:57] think that there's probably not much
[19:58] going to happen there but
[20:00] [clears throat] the reason we were we
[20:03] uh made changes some you know a while
[20:06] ago to require slope stability analysis
[20:09] when we were getting close to property
[20:11] lines like this was because we felt that was a a reasonable thing to do, an
[20:14] intelligent thing to do and and would
[20:16] prevent the possibility of, you know,
[20:20] excavating having a slope failure and
[20:22] then then trying to sort it out and
[20:23] figure out how to get it right after the
[20:25] fact. Um, you know, we need to, um,
[20:28] obviously we make the ordinances so that
[20:30] we uh do it in the right order. Um, when
[20:34] we do it in the wrong order, then we're,
[20:36] you know, potentially opening people up
[20:38] to all kinds of different things,
[20:40] liability or, you know, lack of, you
[20:43] know, intent or whatever. I mean,
[20:45] there's lots of different things that
[20:46] can happen. So, um, it seems smart to me
[20:49] to do it the right in the right order,
[20:51] but
[20:55] one of one of the thoughts I have is
[20:58] that
[20:59] we're not actually approving a structure
[21:02] here.
[21:02] >> Right. Well, we're not approving a
[21:05] structure, but we're approving
[21:10] a development where there will be a
[21:12] struct or there is an instruct a
[21:14] structure. And the way the ordinance
[21:15] reads it says, you know, a patio is a
[21:18] structure, whether it's attached to the
[21:20] building or not attached to the
[21:21] building. If that's if the intent of
[21:23] this dig is to put a patio in, then it
[21:27] meet then that requisite comes into
[21:29] play.
[21:35] In past discussions we've had about
[21:38] patios and part of it comes down to what
[21:40] how the patio is made. Um a concrete
[21:44] patio at ground level
[21:47] which I guess would be a a cut ground
[21:50] level. Um for example can go into a
[21:53] setback because it's not a structure in
[21:57] that sense. So on the other hand, a
[22:00] wooden deck might actually be a
[22:02] structure.
[22:03] There would probably have to be railings
[22:05] with the 4ft drop. So
[22:08] again, I'm a little thought what we're
[22:10] approving, we're discussing here is a
[22:13] grading permit. Although you're right,
[22:14] it does lead to an intended structure.
[22:17] It's part of why I asked the question
[22:18] about whether that would be whether that
[22:20] would come back. Um
[22:26] I don't know. Okay. So we could so one
[22:29] would be to require well if there is an
[22:32] original let me ask this question maybe
[22:34] the staff. So if there is an original
[22:36] geotechnical report that came along with
[22:39] the construction of the house we've
[22:42] discussed a little bit here about
[22:43] whether that would apply to this. Um
[22:47] would it make sense to have a condition
[22:49] to that the engineering firm that
[22:52] produced the report would produce a
[22:56] document say a letter indicating that
[22:58] this report also applies or would need
[23:01] some other adjustment.
[23:03] >> Yes. So just a couple of points. Um, so
[23:09] I I think if if there is going to be a
[23:12] requirement for a geotechnical report,
[23:14] it would be it would would be the the
[23:19] last point which is in any other
[23:21] instances where it's determined that
[23:23] this cider soil's conditions warrant a
[23:26] geotechnical report rather than the
[23:30] addition to the the building.
[23:34] This is kind of a technicality, but just
[23:36] the what it says here is any addition to
[23:38] an existing building where the combined
[23:41] area of the existing building a new
[23:43] addition exceed 1,000 square ft in area.
[23:46] Um
[23:48] so as as defined in the code, a building
[23:50] is, you know, a structure with a roof
[23:53] and walls. So the patio,
[23:57] I don't know that that really falls in
[24:00] there. However, if if the commission
[24:03] thinks that a geotechnical report
[24:06] is needed, it would be it would be on
[24:09] the that final point where in instances
[24:13] where it's determined that it warrants a
[24:15] G geotechnical report. But that's kind
[24:18] of an aside.
[24:20] the your question about whether it would
[24:22] be possible to take the previous
[24:24] geotechnical report and have an engineer
[24:29] or a geologist look at that and provide
[24:32] an additional
[24:34] study on slope stability to kind of
[24:36] augment that and and and
[24:40] kind of apply it to this situation. I
[24:42] think that would be something that would
[24:43] be possible. Yeah.
[24:46] What is the definition of slope
[24:48] stability? Because I mean, yes, we're creating a a hole, but we're not
[24:54] digging into a slope. That's pretty flat
[24:56] property.
[24:58] >> Well, there's an existing slope in the sense that it's even though it's
[25:02] vertical, there's a 10-ft slope that's
[25:06] going to get moved back. I don't know
[25:08] how how far back is this wall get moved.
[25:12] >> 16 to 18.
[25:13] >> Okay. So, we're going to move that
[25:15] vertical section back 16 feet and you'll
[25:18] have a 10- foot
[25:21] click cliff, for lack of a better term,
[25:23] which you know,
[25:24] >> yeah, we're creating that.
[25:26] >> Yeah.
[25:27] >> Well, I mean, it's existing, so we're
[25:29] just kind of moving it back. So,
[25:33] but the in the intent of the slope
[25:35] stability stability analysis is to make
[25:37] sure that you know by cutting into the
[25:39] into that ground there, you're not
[25:42] creating a hazardous situation. So, at this point we have a we have a
[26:02] letter from the engineering organization
[26:07] um indicating that they expect
[26:11] substantial sandstone in the excavation
[26:13] site.
[26:14] and that they will monitor the
[26:16] excavation.
[26:18] Um, and we're already talking about if
[26:21] something is found during excavation
[26:23] that that that would have to come back
[26:26] for a permit to build a wall, right?
[26:29] That's part of what we're talking about
[26:31] in conditions or what were recommended
[26:32] in the conditions. Correct.
[26:34] >> I don't know that it would require a a
[26:37] separate permit. Um, I think it would
[26:39] just be during during the construction
[26:41] process. um during our inspections if it
[26:46] was if issues were arising then they
[26:49] would need to provide an engineering
[26:51] drawing to to show that retaining wall
[26:55] and and how that would be built. So it wouldn't necessarily need an
[26:59] additional permit to kind of brace that
[27:02] wall if it was necessary.
[27:06] ah of you know mainly so in
[27:09] >> well I mean the other the other problem
[27:13] associated with that too is if it's if
[27:15] it's determined after you dig a hole
[27:18] that there's additional stability needs
[27:20] to there's additional expense associated
[27:22] with that increase in stability and it
[27:24] could be quite expensive which could
[27:26] potentially lead to a situation I'm not
[27:28] saying that's the case here but it's
[27:30] potentially in general leads to a
[27:32] situation where it may become
[27:34] unaffordable for the for the property
[27:36] owner to actually do the stabilization.
[27:38] And so then you get into a you know a
[27:40] case where you know it doesn't get done
[27:43] or doesn't get
[27:44] >> the letter from the engineer does
[27:47] address that
[27:49] saying that a retaining wall
[27:52] could be reinforced.
[27:55] Um it also mentions about flattening the
[27:58] slope to a safe slope
[28:01] or providing a retaining wall to
[28:03] stabilize the slope.
[28:05] So,
[28:07] it's documented that that would be
[28:09] monitored and addressed if needed
[28:13] and part of the recommended
[28:17] conditions of approval if we decide to
[28:20] approve it.
[28:44] I I see it as basically when you look at
[28:48] the property and I I've seen it in
[28:50] person too is just pushing that back
[28:55] and you know as long as there's already
[28:58] the proper drainage there
[29:00] um as far as the grading permit goes and
[29:03] with an engineer already looking at it
[29:06] and
[29:07] um following the grading of that
[29:11] property.
[29:13] I think with those conditions
[29:16] it seems okay to me.
[29:21] » Engineer also in the letter claims that
[29:24] they will indicates that they will
[29:26] monitor the excavation.
[29:28] Um, so
[29:31] we could add something that says that if
[29:33] something is found that they stop
[29:37] immediately rather than continue the
[29:38] excavation and come back with a plan so
[29:41] that
[29:43] if during the excavation some problem is
[29:46] found that they don't continue the
[29:47] excavation until uh there's an
[29:50] engineering solution. is that I mean I
[29:53] get your point that
[29:56] you do some excavation and then find the
[29:59] problem and then it's loose
[30:02] and then your concern is that
[30:05] rain might come or something might
[30:07] >> Yeah. I mean there's a lot of different
[30:33] personally I I'm not feeling that that a
[30:36] new report is necessary assuming
[30:40] and we make it at the condition that it the excavation is observed.
[30:44] >> It for me the bigger concern is the
[30:47] slope stability analysis. So which
[30:50] normally comes as a part of the of the actual survey and the report or
[30:57] may probably is best to come at the same
[30:59] time but um you know if we don't do one
[31:01] then do we not do the other or should we
[31:03] just require that a slope slope
[31:06] stability I mean one solution would be
[31:08] to go back and say hey let's go you know
[31:10] back to the the engineering company and review the uh previous engineering
[31:17] report, but then then supplement it now
[31:20] with a slope stability analysis that
[31:22] shows that it's going to be okay.
[31:28] I don't even know what that entails
[31:29] because I can see I know slope when you
[31:32] can like judge how much weight is
[31:33] pushing down. But since this is flat,
[31:36] you I don't know how you do this. Would
[31:38] you have to dig cores out to see what
[31:40] the heck is there to determine if those
[31:43] rocks are stable 60 feet out?
[31:47] I mean, not being a geotech engineer
[31:49] myself, I don't I don't know the answer
[31:51] to that question, but you know, we we
[31:54] were concerned about people building too
[31:56] close to the property line and and
[31:58] potentially undermining the neighboring
[32:00] slope. And that's, you know, a vertical dig immediately on the
[32:04] property line to me certainly meets that
[32:07] criteria. So, you know, why do we change
[32:10] the rules if we not going to abide by
[32:12] them? I just don't quite understand. I
[32:15] think in this case it's the
[32:16] circumstances of the um how the property
[32:20] lines are up at Anastasia.
[32:22] >> Well, I understand that is different,
[32:23] but it's still it's still potentially an
[32:26] issue, you know. I mean, it it's
[32:30] there's not a house next door that's
[32:32] going to fall down, but there is, you
[32:33] know, um
[32:36] >> there's property owned by the HOA.
[32:38] >> Yeah. That the HOA owns that's going to
[32:40] get potentially impacted. So, if the if the report came back and
[32:46] said it was unstable, the solution would
[32:48] be some kind of retaining wall would
[32:50] have to be created.
[32:52] >> And it seems like we already have
[32:53] agreement that they would do that if
[32:54] they find an instability
[32:59] » unless unless um some new report would
[33:04] recommend some mitigation during the
[33:06] excavation. Well, the Yeah, I mean, my
[33:10] understanding the letter is the letter
[33:12] says that the letter doesn't say that
[33:14] the engineering firm is going to put in
[33:15] a wall. The engineering firm is going to
[33:18] recommend a wall be put in and then
[33:20] somebody has to fund that and presumably
[33:22] that would be the applicant here. Um, so
[33:26] potentially you get into a situation
[33:28] where you create an unstable situation
[33:31] and then the engineering company says,
[33:32] "Hey, we need to do this to fix it." And
[33:35] the guy says, "Well, I can't afford
[33:37] that. So, what do we do then?
[33:40] >> Well, I'm comfortable with the condition
[33:43] language of the applicant must follow
[33:45] the engineers's recommendations during
[33:47] construction.
[33:50] Um, if loose rock, soils, or
[33:53] inconsistencies in the bedrock emerge
[33:55] during construction, the slope must be
[33:57] stabilized in accordance with the
[33:58] engineer's recommendations.
[34:01] In the event that a retaining wall or
[34:02] sections of the retaining wall are found
[34:04] to be necessary during construction, the
[34:06] applicant must submit details of the
[34:08] retaining wall material to the town for
[34:10] approval. The material used for the
[34:12] retaining wall must comply with the
[34:14] town's architectural standards and
[34:16] section 1016 of the town code.
[34:25] If the client does not want to install a
[34:29] retaining wall, then the land needs to
[34:30] be put back to its original condition.
[34:39] I'm using retaining a solution.
[34:41] >> Yeah.
[34:44] And and the other thing about that is is
[34:47] a geotechnical report
[34:50] you might still end up in the same
[34:51] condition right in the in the fact that
[34:54] it's possible
[34:55] >> something that is found and then a
[34:58] retaining wall is needed and and you
[35:02] know applicant hasn't financially
[35:03] planned for that. Um
[35:07] I don't know that it's our role
[35:08] necessarily to research financial
[35:11] planning of the applicant.
[35:13] >> Um but um
[35:21] I think we we're kind of at a point I
[35:23] think Paul you have one perspective and
[35:26] then some of us have another
[35:27] perspective. I don't know that do we
[35:30] have other discussion that's going to
[35:31] change any of our minds?
[35:34] Not sure
[35:37] maybe between us
[35:39] we could do a kind of thumbs up decide
[35:41] if which way the majority wants to go
[35:44] and
[35:45] >> yeah I I am I am comfortable with the
[35:48] letter provided.
[35:52] » Go ahead. I guess I guess my question is
[35:54] do do we think
[35:58] that do we therefore think then that
[36:01] there's no that a slopes building houses
[36:03] is not required in this case for some
[36:05] reason.
[36:06] >> Um
[36:06] >> is that the interpretation? My interpret
[36:09] my my my interpretation or my feeling on
[36:12] this is that geotechnical study was done
[36:16] on this original cut
[36:19] and the engineers come back and said
[36:21] they expect that they will encounter the
[36:25] same thing. Um
[36:28] and so in that sense in kind of that the
[36:32] original geotechnical study applies to
[36:35] the same piece of property the same area
[36:38] um especially with an engineer an
[36:40] engineer observing the cut going on. So
[36:45] versus not having any geotechnical study
[36:48] at all um my feeling is that the
[36:51] original geotechnical study can apply
[36:57] um given that the engineer has re
[37:00] reviewed the plan and stated their
[37:03] expectation based upon that.
[37:06] Um, I guess it kind of goes back to one
[37:09] thing Paul said is like if they did do
[37:11] another study, what would be done?
[37:14] Um, you know, would there have to be
[37:17] holes drilled? I don't know. You know,
[37:18] not being a geotechnical
[37:20] person myself.
[37:25] Um,
[37:30] » where is I and we can do a thumb poll
[37:32] just to see where we're at discussion
[37:34] wise like um [clears throat]
[37:37] who is for approval?
[37:41] >> I'll give it a thumbs up. And the reason
[37:42] I am is I think how tall is this? Like a
[37:46] 4 foot.
[37:47] >> There's a there's the existing cut.
[37:50] >> Yeah. And then after the new cut is
[37:52] done, it would be four feet up and then
[37:54] flat and then 10 feet up
[37:57] or just under 10 feet by looking at the
[38:00] drawings. Right? So if you were to walk
[38:02] out the back door of of the building,
[38:05] there would be a few feet and then there
[38:07] would be a 4ft rise and then it would be
[38:10] flat where the patio would go and then
[38:12] 10 feet.
[38:14] >> And I think I think the reason for that
[38:16] is 10 feet is the maximum we allow.
[38:21] Um,
[38:23] so
[38:25] the existing cut would occur,
[38:28] I don't know, it looks to me like it's
[38:30] something in the range of maybe four
[38:31] maybe five feet from the wall of the
[38:33] building to the existing wall today. So
[38:36] that's where the um grading would occur, the cutting
[38:42] would occur.
[38:43] >> So I don't see anything in this plan
[38:45] that you know a 10-ft retaining wall is
[38:47] not uncommon.
[38:49] If engineered correct, if needed first,
[38:51] and if it is, then if engineered
[38:53] correctly, that's not that uncommon. I
[38:56] don't see anything that would propose a
[39:00] an additional hazard.
[39:03] If they do have to put a wall up,
[39:07] I'd be more concerned if it was a real
[39:09] slope and it was really holding back
[39:11] more material.
[39:13] >> There was slope above that coming. Well,
[39:16] being that there was an engineering
[39:18] report done first and I don't see any
[39:21] reason for additional concern, I would
[39:24] give it a thumbs up,
[39:27] but definitely because they did have a
[39:30] an original assessment done when they
[39:32] built the house.
[39:36] » I I would give a thumbs up for for
[39:39] similar reasons. Um
[39:42] potentially we could um well within the
[39:46] conditions that we have and including
[39:47] the letter that we have that the
[39:50] combination of that to me um makes me
[39:54] comfortable that that it would be
[39:57] covered you know that issues would be
[39:59] covered um
[40:02] I I would be amanable
[40:04] potentially to adding a condition of
[40:07] requiring a review of the report
[40:09] directly with this in mind but we could
[40:13] talk about that further
[40:15] I think that sounds
[40:23] » No, that's okay.
[40:33] » Let me see.
[40:39] Um,
[40:46] so
[40:48] I could make a motion
[40:50] and
[40:51] >> discuss probably better than if I
[40:56] >> didn't if you made it. Yeah, we have.
[40:58] You made. So, I'll make a motion if if
[41:00] we think we're ready. Okay. Um,
[41:06] planning commission approves the grading
[41:08] permit application for an expansion of
[41:11] the sunken patio at 251 Anoszi Way as
[41:16] discussed in the July 1st meeting, 2026.
[41:20] This motion is based on the following
[41:22] findings. The proposed grading project
[41:25] meets the requirements of 1015B
[41:28] regarding grading standards and 1015F
[41:31] regarding the geological hazard zones
[41:34] regarding the requirement for
[41:36] geotechnical support in the town uh
[41:39] report of the town code. The planning
[41:42] commission finds that due to the limited
[41:44] scope of the project, the engineering
[41:46] drawings and the stamped letter from the
[41:48] engineer certifying the design of the
[41:51] cut slope and confirming the excavation
[41:54] will be monitored during construction as
[41:57] provided by the applicant
[42:00] is sufficient to meet the requirements
[42:02] of this section.
[42:04] Uh if this approval has the following
[42:07] conditions, the applicant must follow
[42:10] the engineering recommendations during
[42:12] construction. If loose rocks, soil or
[42:15] inconsistencies in bedrock emerge during
[42:17] construction, the show the slope must be
[42:20] stabilized in accordance with the
[42:22] engineer's recommendations.
[42:25] Additionally, in the event that the
[42:28] retaining wall or sections of the
[42:30] retaining wall are found to be necessary
[42:32] during construction, the applicant must
[42:34] submit the details of the retaining wall
[42:36] material to the town for approval. The
[42:39] material used in the retaining wall must
[42:41] comply with the town's architectural
[42:43] standards in section 1016 of the town
[42:46] code.
[42:50] » Is there a second? I'll second
[42:54] >> motion by Terry, second by Rich. Is
[42:57] there any further discussion?
[43:00] >> Uh, no.
[43:05] » No, I think I think
[43:06] >> All in favor?
[43:08] >> Rich? I
[43:09] >> Terry I.
[43:10] >> Jennifer I.
[43:11] >> All nay.
[43:14] >> Motion passes.
[43:18] The second action item
[43:21] is the design development review um from
[43:26] Luke Wilson at 50 Zion Park Boulevard
[43:30] for approval of an expansion to the
[43:33] parking lot at 50 Zion Park Boulevard.
[43:36] Staff contact is Nyall Connelly. Nyall
[43:39] will be presenting.
[43:42] >> Thank you. So,
[43:44] this item is a design development review
[43:46] application for an addition to the
[43:48] parking lot at 50 Z Park Boulevard. Uh
[43:51] the applicant's Mr. Luke Wilson.
[43:54] The commission reviewed this at the June
[43:57] 3rd meeting and requested some
[43:59] additional information. Um
[44:03] Mr. Wilson provided some additional
[44:05] information and that's included in in
[44:08] the packet.
[44:10] Uh the staff report includes some
[44:12] discussion on those points um as well as
[44:15] some potential conditions that the
[44:18] commission could use if you're reminded
[44:19] to grant approval.
[44:22] Um we've had two public comments
[44:25] received um which have been circulated
[44:28] to the commission uh and they relate
[44:32] both to potential geological hazards in
[44:34] this location.
[44:36] Um, I would be happy to to um give some
[44:42] information on that perhaps during the
[44:45] uh question time if if you would like uh
[44:49] later on in the meeting um or or now.
[44:53] So, I'm happy to answer any questions
[44:55] that that you have on the application.
[45:04] So I'll um start with in the June 3rd
[45:09] meeting um we were informed that the uh
[45:14] the work had been done and then
[45:16] discovered and and then um halted um and
[45:20] that um I think in the way in the way
[45:22] the notes were written a detailed
[45:24] engineering analysis was done
[45:27] um but it didn't say that it was a
[45:29] geotechnical report or a study. Do we
[45:33] have any more information on what
[45:35] engineering analysis was done
[45:39] um for this parking lot expansion
[45:42] in association with the grading permit
[45:44] the the postgrading permit?
[45:47] >> Yeah. So there was um a slope study done
[45:51] for the grading permit. This is this is
[45:53] it here. So you can see the kind of
[45:57] brown orange area is uh is 30% slopes.
[46:01] Um
[46:03] and um so that's that that shows kind of
[46:06] where the excavation was. Um and there
[46:13] was a letter provided from um Rosenberg
[46:17] Engineering
[46:18] um which is here. So these these were
[46:21] provided with the grading permit at the
[46:24] time.
[46:27] » And and the conclusion of the was there
[46:32] a conclusion included in in this um
[46:36] information from the engineer as to
[46:38] whether there was additional work needed
[46:41] or there was stabilization needing or
[46:43] any stabiliz stabilization issues.
[46:48] So what the letter says here is um
[46:54] the
[46:55] so based on the observation and field
[46:58] survey the parking lot expansion
[47:01] um is located within the 10% and 20%
[47:04] slopes and does not appear to pose any
[47:06] elevated risk associated with the
[47:09] proposed excavation and rock wall
[47:11] construction.
[47:13] Um and that was so that's um that's what
[47:17] we have.
[47:20] >> Okay.
[47:23] So what what we received then was a
[47:25] letter and some drawings showing the
[47:29] location of the problem areas.
[47:32] Um, and is it correct to understand that
[47:35] the extended the expanded parking lot
[47:41] in its walls are are were positioned as
[47:45] to not be in these uh slide areas.
[47:50] >> So, the the landslide area and the um
[47:54] rockfall area ex extend further out into
[47:58] the property. I I can bring up some maps
[48:00] if you like. Um, but the the excavation
[48:04] didn't extend into the 30% slopes, but the overall landslide hazard area is larger. Um,
[48:14] I can bring up some maps if that would
[48:16] be helpful.
[48:18] >> Yeah, that'd be good.
[48:20] >> So,
[48:20] >> and I'm confused because I went through
[48:22] this packet. I went through the third
[48:24] packet. I didn't see this letter. Where
[48:26] was this letter?
[48:28] So that was this letter was with the
[48:30] grading permit that was approved in
[48:34] January I think a few months ago. Okay.
[48:37] >> So it wasn't part of this application.
[48:40] >> So the grading was approved then
[48:42] >> the grading permit was approved. It was
[48:44] approved retrospectively but it was
[48:46] approved. And so
[48:49] this design development review is for
[48:52] the the use of the parking lot um kind
[48:56] of as a commercial development.
[48:59] So if you can see this um the property
[49:03] here is this triangular shape
[49:07] and the landslide hazard map. So you can
[49:11] see this red area [laughter]
[49:14] um is the the high landslide hazard
[49:17] and then the rockfall area.
[49:20] No, that's not it. Sorry. The rockfall
[49:23] area extends further out onto the other
[49:26] side of the road.
[49:33] So just so I understand correctly, the
[49:36] letter is addressing the the actual
[49:42] um during the excavation, but it
[49:46] specifically says temporary. Does that
[49:48] mean that it's not
[49:52] um saying that it's permanently stable?
[49:56] >> Yeah. So the purpose of the letter was
[49:58] at the time the so the the grading was
[50:00] done and so the um
[50:05] the town got in touch with with the
[50:08] property owner and so as part of that
[50:10] process we required a a grading or the
[50:15] plan showing where the slopes were and
[50:17] then the letter and so the engineers
[50:20] provided that information to
[50:24] um
[50:26] Yeah, to to kind of address the grading
[50:29] that had happened without a permit. Um,
[50:33] but it was it was really just for that grading rather than kind of looking
[50:38] forward.
[50:38] >> Do we have anything looking forward as
[50:41] to ongoing stability?
[50:44] >> So the um I can talk a little bit about
[50:48] the the geotechnical
[50:51] requirements and and that if that would
[50:53] be helpful.
[50:53] >> Yeah. So um
[50:58] so as you can see in the maps uh it is
[51:00] in the these geologic hazard areas. Um
[51:05] so the geologic hazard um the
[51:09] requirements for a geotechnical
[51:12] report where these geologic hazard would
[51:16] be considered is in so it's 105FA
[51:22] of the code and I'll I'll just read
[51:24] those out. So um the geotechnical
[51:28] report is required where a subdivision
[51:31] for a subdivision approval for DDR of
[51:35] any new building over 500 square ft
[51:38] um for any additions to buildings where
[51:41] the combined size will be over a th00and
[51:44] square feet
[51:46] or any structure intended for human
[51:48] occupancy.
[51:50] Um, so the the parking lot doesn't
[51:55] it isn't any of those types of
[51:57] developments. So it doesn't trigger
[51:59] that. However, as we were talking about
[52:01] earlier, uh the geotechnical report can
[52:04] be required in other instances where the
[52:07] DCD determines that the site or soil
[52:10] conditions warrant a geotechnical
[52:12] report. So in this instance, the parking lot um
[52:23] in itself
[52:25] isn't automatically required to provide
[52:28] this this hazard assessment. However,
[52:31] the code does does provide for if if the
[52:36] director of community development
[52:38] determines that it is necessary for
[52:40] other reasons to do this assessment,
[52:42] that is something that the town can
[52:44] require. And so that's that's maybe
[52:47] something for you to consider in your
[52:48] deliberations.
[52:50] >> So if it's in a landslide area, that
[52:53] could be a reason to require it.
[52:54] >> That could be a reason.
[53:08] Um maybe you can help with one other
[53:10] thing because
[53:13] 1015 F4
[53:16] uh talks about geologic hazard study
[53:19] area. So there's the list of things in
[53:21] which landfall or which a landslide is
[53:24] one of the items uh that um indicates
[53:27] that it would be in a geologic study
[53:29] area. Um and then it's 105
[53:34] F5
[53:36] um covers these points you've been
[53:38] talking about where uh a parking lot is
[53:40] not in the list of things that require a
[53:44] report.
[53:46] Is is there a difference between a study
[53:49] and a report?
[53:52] >> So the geologic uh hazard study areas,
[53:56] those those are essentially the
[53:58] landslide zones or the rockfall zones or
[54:02] the liquefaction zones. So that's in
[54:05] section four where it's talking about
[54:07] hazard studied areas. That's just
[54:09] referring to these areas that that have
[54:12] where these hazards apply. Um as far as
[54:16] the the reporting and the assessment
[54:18] goes the the first step is the
[54:21] geotechnical report and within the
[54:24] geotechnical report uh if if that's
[54:27] required the geotechnical report will
[54:29] make an initial analysis on whether more
[54:33] detailed assessment is required and that
[54:37] more detailed assessment may be required
[54:39] if there's geologic hazards and if
[54:42] there's signs of um you know concerning
[54:46] science to the geologists and then at
[54:48] that point if if uh if it's recommended
[54:52] by the geotechnical engineer that more
[54:54] assessment is required then you kind of
[54:57] move into the full-blown geologic hazard
[55:00] assessment um and that that would come
[55:03] next. So the the first step is always
[55:05] the geotechnical report and that does
[55:08] that initial analysis.
[55:27] Are there any other questions for Nyall
[55:30] or the applicant at this point?
[55:34] >> I have a question. What was the extent
[55:36] of excavation that was done in the area
[55:40] adjacent to the, you know, the back
[55:43] perimeter, if you will? I mean, it
[55:46] wasn't a 30% slope, but was it a 10 or
[55:48] 20% slope and a large amount of soil was
[55:50] removed or do we know?
[55:54] So,
[55:56] I think this this map probably
[56:01] gives some answers on that. So
[56:05] um so the white area down here is the
[56:09] original area of the parking lot. This
[56:11] hatched area is the area that was
[56:13] excavated and this is the the hillside
[56:17] and the orange areas are the those 30%
[56:21] slopes.
[56:23] >> So what was the slope of the area that
[56:25] was removed? Was it just flat?
[56:28] >> It was it was in the range of 10 to 20%.
[56:31] So 10 to 20% supporting a 30% uphill
[56:35] from that that was in a geo active area
[56:39] potentially.
[56:41] >> Correct.
[56:44] >> So ju just to clarify. So
[56:47] what we understand from the from the
[56:49] engineers letter is that the actual
[56:51] grading occurred
[56:54] in an area that was less than 30%. but
[56:58] adjacent to an area that is 30%.
[57:02] That's correct.
[57:31] And I have a question for the applicant
[57:33] about the surface water drainage. It
[57:36] wasn't included in the information that
[57:38] came back to us. So I was wondering if
[57:40] you had any information on on that.
[57:49] I think I read in the staff findings or
[57:52] whatever Nile sent to me that that would
[57:54] need to be done for that addition.
[57:57] Couple of things. I I didn't know if
[57:59] we're here for a grading permit.
[58:03] Are we here for a grading permit?
[58:06] >> No, it's the design development review,
[58:08] >> right? As a design and development
[58:10] review.
[58:11] >> Not any building being built. I think I
[58:14] have a grading permit.
[58:17] I think all the engineering requirements
[58:19] were met, but these guys.
[58:23] I mean, we talked about all this stuff.
[58:27] The the wall that's there is three and a
[58:30] half ft tall.
[58:32] That's over 24 ft wide at the thinnest.
[58:34] You can calculate that angle. It's very
[58:36] flat. So, but we've gone through all
[58:38] this stuff. I thought we were coming to
[58:40] make sure that the small expansion met
[58:41] those requirements that we talked about
[58:43] last time. Some landscaping things. You
[58:46] guys you guys made a few things that I needed to clarify.
[58:51] I think we can go through all the geo if
[58:52] we need to, but I think I have a legal
[58:54] grading permit.
[58:59] » As far as
[58:59] >> I was just confused when I'm listening
[59:01] to the conversation.
[59:03] >> Well, I guess the question to staff is
[59:05] that that's correct. He does have the
[59:07] grading permit, but um
[59:10] we did have questions about the
[59:12] obtaining that. So is that like we're we don't go back and talk about that at
[59:17] some point or
[59:18] >> I think he determines all of that and
[59:20] they did that.
[59:21] >> Yeah.
[59:21] >> I mean we went through all I I did lots
[59:24] of mapping, surveying. I had letters
[59:26] written. We had people come out and
[59:28] observe. We did slope stabil sorry slope
[59:30] calculations everywhere on that property
[59:33] to make sure I was outside of the 30%.
[59:35] And I'm not building any structure.
[59:38] We were just adding a few spots. So, I
[59:41] didn't know we were here to talk about a
[59:42] grading permit excavation or any
[59:44] geotechnical things. I thought what we
[59:46] talked about last time were the things
[59:48] that I needed to do so that I met the
[59:51] Nile's requirements for the the few
[59:54] extra stalls that we want to put in
[59:55] bathroom and
[59:57] landscaping and that kind of a thing. I
[59:59] think that was what we were
[1:00:00] >> Yeah. So, one of the things we did talk
[1:00:02] about was the drainage last time. Yeah.
[1:00:04] So, that was my question.
[1:00:06] >> And I'm aware that the drainage has to
[1:00:07] be done and that it has to meet Yeah.
[1:00:10] I have
[1:00:10] >> and and and to your point, it does seem
[1:00:13] like a lot of us had questions about the
[1:00:15] original grading permit. So, is it
[1:00:17] inappropriate for us to address any of
[1:00:19] that at this point?
[1:00:20] >> So, if I can just give a little
[1:00:21] >> I can give a review of all of it if you
[1:00:23] want real fast in two minutes like
[1:00:26] >> Yeah. So, ju just to give some context.
[1:00:28] So, the the grading permits already been
[1:00:30] approved. Um and that's that's not the
[1:00:33] subject of this discussion. the
[1:00:35] discussion on the geotechnical and the
[1:00:38] geotechnical uh report and kind of that
[1:00:41] aspect um
[1:00:45] that so a geotechnical report can be
[1:00:48] required for any design development
[1:00:51] review under those particular
[1:00:53] circumstances and I think the reason why
[1:00:55] the planning commission is is exploring
[1:00:58] this topic a little bit more is because
[1:01:01] there has been a few um public comments
[1:01:04] relating to to the geologic hazards. Um,
[1:01:09] and so it is reasonable for the planning
[1:01:12] commission to to explore that a little
[1:01:15] bit, not necessarily to to go over the
[1:01:18] grading permit again, but to understand
[1:01:21] whether or not it more analysis is
[1:01:24] required as part of this design
[1:01:27] development review. So I I think that
[1:01:29] kind of explains where the planning
[1:01:31] commission's coming from
[1:01:32] >> in which a geotech report would could be
[1:01:35] appropriate for this
[1:01:36] >> because this is a design development
[1:01:38] review. A geotechnical report may be
[1:01:41] required in some instances for design.
[1:01:44] >> Is that determined by the DCD or by
[1:01:45] them?
[1:01:47] >> It's it's determined by the DCD but the
[1:01:50] DCD would take guidance from the
[1:01:53] planning commission.
[1:01:54] >> I thought we already passed that. Do you
[1:01:56] want me to tell you kind of where we got
[1:01:57] with it and why we're here?
[1:01:59] >> I think some of you weren't here last
[1:02:00] time.
[1:02:01] >> Yeah. So, let me let me just make one
[1:02:03] other statement then I actually would
[1:02:04] like to hear some of your thoughts. Um,
[1:02:06] from my perspective, it wasn't about
[1:02:09] questioning the grading permit as much
[1:02:11] as about understanding for this DDR
[1:02:15] review
[1:02:17] um what the conditions of the local
[1:02:21] environment were. And since last time we
[1:02:25] didn't investigate the details of how
[1:02:30] um the geotechnical work was done and
[1:02:33] there was simply a statement that there
[1:02:34] was an engineering analysis that we need
[1:02:37] to come back and make sure we understand
[1:02:40] that a detailed engineering analysis and
[1:02:42] we understand kind of what was done in
[1:02:43] the engineering analysis so that we can
[1:02:46] decide whether or not additional
[1:02:48] analysis would be required for DDR. not
[1:02:51] that we would go back and somehow change
[1:02:53] the grading permit.
[1:02:56] >> Um,
[1:02:57] >> just for you, some of you weren't here
[1:02:59] last time, uh, where I failed as I did
[1:03:02] what I've done on many other properties.
[1:03:04] I I bought the property from Janet. Um,
[1:03:09] there was an area in the back and the
[1:03:12] map that she had originally was not
[1:03:13] correct. It showed that it was 30%
[1:03:15] slopes and I've excavated everywhere in
[1:03:17] Springdale and I know what those look
[1:03:19] like and it was very flat and I thought,
[1:03:20] "Oh, there's a little more usable space
[1:03:23] um for a few more parking stalls, maybe
[1:03:25] again the public lounge at the top,
[1:03:26] whatever." And I've done this on other
[1:03:29] properties and I and I didn't mean to
[1:03:30] cause a problem, but I I I made the
[1:03:32] example to Tom and Nile about the two
[1:03:34] little homes across the street from my
[1:03:35] other parking lot that I recently fixed
[1:03:37] up. I graded them, fixed the drainage,
[1:03:38] put rock walls around them. Anything
[1:03:40] less than a 4 foot wall is a
[1:03:43] non-engineered, we call it a landscape
[1:03:45] wall. It's where I stack boulders. Over
[1:03:47] four feet require some engineering. So, I did the same thing. I I went to to
[1:03:53] uh clean up the grading, add a little
[1:03:56] bit of space, and in doing so, and this
[1:03:58] hadn't happened before on on another
[1:04:00] property, so I didn't realize it was an
[1:04:01] issue, but Tom came over and he's like,
[1:04:03] "What are you doing? We we we need to
[1:04:05] get a permit, whatever." So he stopped
[1:04:06] me and we stopped for like a month or
[1:04:08] two months or something while we had
[1:04:10] mapping done. Um very clear delineation
[1:04:13] of where that 30% slope began, making
[1:04:16] sure we weren't over the 4ft cut,
[1:04:18] letters about temporary cuts, everything we had to go through. Um
[1:04:25] and so we stopped went through and got
[1:04:28] all of that stuff and and then
[1:04:30] proceeded. And I know that we have a
[1:04:32] legal grading permit currently. Um, what
[1:04:35] Nile's purpose of all of this is is that
[1:04:38] because I've added a few parking spaces
[1:04:41] to an already parking lot, that's an
[1:04:44] expansion of an existing use, which now
[1:04:46] triggers complying with some new parking
[1:04:48] lot rules that you guys have that I
[1:04:50] didn't know about. One of them was to
[1:04:51] have a bathroom. Um, one of you, well,
[1:04:55] whatever's on the list, you guys know
[1:04:57] what they are.
[1:04:58] >> And so, the difficulty in that, of
[1:05:00] course, is there's no sewer. So, we the
[1:05:01] workaround there was to do a
[1:05:02] self-contained unit and some kind of a
[1:05:04] business that doesn't require sewer. Um,
[1:05:07] I'm trying to comply with those things.
[1:05:09] Um, I know that parking lots in general,
[1:05:13] when I did my other parking lot on the
[1:05:15] west side of it, we're up against like a
[1:05:18] 40% slope. And on this very parking lot,
[1:05:21] not the back where I've excavated where
[1:05:23] it's relatively flat, but on the left
[1:05:25] side when Allan Lee did the work
[1:05:26] originally, the the parking goes right
[1:05:29] up to a very very steep slope, far
[1:05:31] steeper than the than the one that we're
[1:05:32] talking about. And on my other parking
[1:05:35] lot, when I've applied for any kind of a
[1:05:38] building that has, as the code says,
[1:05:40] occupancy, human occupancy, they've been
[1:05:42] very sensitive to the areas that that
[1:05:45] are up against those slopes and that
[1:05:47] fall into that, you know, liquefaction,
[1:05:50] rockfall, or slope stability.
[1:05:53] Um, that's why at the back of my other
[1:05:55] property, it's just like a bike shed. I
[1:05:57] don't have any living units because it's
[1:05:59] close to those slopes. So, I don't
[1:06:01] anticipate doing any of that. But as as
[1:06:03] it sits, I understand that those
[1:06:05] additional spaces of parking that I've
[1:06:07] created by flattening out that area
[1:06:11] trigger a few requirements that I have
[1:06:12] for landscaping, bathrooms, stuff like
[1:06:14] that. And that area, none of it was out
[1:06:18] of the 30% slope. So I tried to go back and and work with
[1:06:25] these guys to make sure that everything
[1:06:26] that we did was within their code, and
[1:06:28] they approved all of that. So I guess we
[1:06:31] can talk about
[1:06:33] uh geotechnical or [laughter] or grading
[1:06:35] or whatever all we want, but I feel like
[1:06:37] that's done and approved. We have the
[1:06:38] permit for that and the parking lot is
[1:06:40] built. Just which things do I need to do
[1:06:43] um so that I can use those spaces
[1:06:46] because we've triggered the additional
[1:06:48] spaces, additional use, uh expanded use
[1:06:51] of a current parking lot. Does that make
[1:06:54] sense? Does anybody have a question
[1:06:55] about that?
[1:06:57] >> That was my understanding of the
[1:06:58] meeting. So, I'll I'll I'll add a
[1:07:00] comment. Part of part of our role here
[1:07:02] is to ensure the safety and and of of
[1:07:06] citizens and visitors. Um and so for me
[1:07:10] the concern is
[1:07:12] given that that's a high slide hazard
[1:07:15] area was enough engineering work um
[1:07:20] engineering analysis done to in to
[1:07:24] create um enough a level of safety for
[1:07:29] the typically probably visitors in most
[1:07:32] cases who would be parking there during
[1:07:35] let's say a rainstorm or something that
[1:07:37] might lead to a potential slide. Um, I
[1:07:41] think some of the discussion we've had
[1:07:43] here is helping me understand that there
[1:07:45] was at least some engineering analysis
[1:07:47] done. I haven't heard anything yet that
[1:07:50] really said that that engineering
[1:07:52] analysis considered
[1:07:55] slide hazard, but I have assumed that
[1:07:58] was standard. So, that would be the one
[1:07:59] question I have. did the engineering
[1:08:00] analysis that was done include slide
[1:08:03] hazard um and consider the safety of
[1:08:07] customers who were using the parking lot
[1:08:08] >> and and because it's a parking lot I
[1:08:10] think it didn't I mean uh right there
[1:08:12] below me on the SR9 um you guys have
[1:08:15] parking at the bottom of a massive you
[1:08:17] guys have seen that massive slope they
[1:08:20] allow parking there as well and I think
[1:08:21] because it's not a building that's
[1:08:23] triggered by the ordinance that we had
[1:08:25] to do a lot of engineering and and there
[1:08:27] was monitoring and stuff going on but
[1:08:29] they didn't do do that because I'm not
[1:08:30] building build building.
[1:08:30] >> Yeah, it's not a building and there's no
[1:08:32] there's nobody going to be living there.
[1:08:33] >> But if you go up and if and I hope you
[1:08:35] guys have all walked up there. I hope
[1:08:36] you walked up there. The landscaping
[1:08:38] wall at the back is like this high.
[1:08:40] It's like four four feet and then it
[1:08:43] goes back about five feet and then it
[1:08:45] starts to crawl up the slope. The net
[1:08:47] cut is very very minimal.
[1:08:50] But compared to a lot of places that we
[1:08:52] park in town, I think I think it's a a
[1:08:54] pool table. But um yeah, I I was
[1:08:58] understanding that we were here for
[1:09:00] those other architectural landscaping,
[1:09:02] bathroom, like the metal screening
[1:09:04] around the bathroom, those kind of
[1:09:05] things, too.
[1:09:06] >> Well, we we are here for those too. And
[1:09:08] personally, I looked all over those and
[1:09:10] was satisfied other than we didn't get
[1:09:13] >> I realize the drainage
[1:09:14] >> drainage thing. And that's a condition.
[1:09:15] I know that. Yeah.
[1:09:18] I just had one trivial question and it
[1:09:20] was in there that you have to move the
[1:09:22] coffee truck every 3 to four hours per
[1:09:25] the code. Where do you move it to? And I
[1:09:28] Well, I can I I can move it anywhere.
[1:09:29] I've got a lot of property up here, but
[1:09:31] um I
[1:09:34] don't want to have a coffee trailer. I
[1:09:37] just felt like because the town can't
[1:09:39] provide sewer and and I've offered to
[1:09:41] put in a septic system or a sealed tank
[1:09:43] and in speaking with many of the council
[1:09:45] members, they just didn't like I I was
[1:09:47] trying to think of a business. Your code
[1:09:49] reads develop a business complimentary
[1:09:51] to the use of the part and I thought
[1:09:54] this is a self-contained unit that
[1:09:55] doesn't require sewer. It doesn't
[1:09:57] require power. This could work. Do I
[1:10:00] want to have that there long term? No.
[1:10:01] In fact, if I speak openly, I'd like to
[1:10:03] do something different through the
[1:10:04] winter. That's a business that doesn't
[1:10:06] need sewer. Um, I'm potentially
[1:10:10] considering a small, very, very small
[1:10:12] version of the ebike business that I
[1:10:14] have on my other parking lot because I
[1:10:16] like the location. It's right across the
[1:10:17] street from the gate. People don't have
[1:10:19] to ride through town. It's not
[1:10:20] hazardous. I realize I haven't put that
[1:10:22] forth yet, but that would be a permanent
[1:10:25] steel building that's not designed for
[1:10:26] human occupancy either because I realize
[1:10:28] there's a slope there, but I feel like
[1:10:30] it would fit better. But for now, we
[1:10:31] would have that and it would have to be
[1:10:33] moved. Yeah.
[1:10:35] But I have lots of property that I could
[1:10:36] put that on.
[1:10:39] >> I just want to make sure it wasn't
[1:10:40] >> and it is a nuisance. We don't want to
[1:10:42] do it. But we realize that I'm just
[1:10:43] trying to figure out a business that
[1:10:44] works to meet your code.
[1:10:45] >> That works. Yeah.
[1:10:46] >> And I feel like it meets the code.
[1:10:49] [snorts]
[1:10:52] I have a question with the So, right now
[1:10:55] you have that upper parking um fenced
[1:10:59] off, but it looks like there's some
[1:11:01] lower spots in the corner.
[1:11:05] Um is that part that's part of the new
[1:11:08] parking spaces, right?
[1:11:09] >> The map that they put up, can you put up
[1:11:11] that original map where it showed the
[1:11:12] original and the new? And do you
[1:11:14] possibly have
[1:11:17] >> because it looks like that
[1:11:18] >> possibly have a Can you overlay that
[1:11:20] with like the real
[1:11:22] that that isn't that isn't accurate
[1:11:25] because um Yeah. Can you go to the
[1:11:27] original? Yeah. On the left side it
[1:11:30] already went way back to the tree. See
[1:11:31] the big tree there? There's a large
[1:11:34] tree. I gain I I added two spaces
[1:11:37] farther back past that tree. See the
[1:11:39] tree on the left now? Right more to the
[1:11:42] left there.
[1:11:43] I went, I think, two spaces past that
[1:11:46] tree and then it began that 30% line,
[1:11:49] the no touch line. In the drawing, it
[1:11:52] doesn't show any of that left side
[1:11:53] already being there, but it was already
[1:11:55] there. The the bigger addition that
[1:11:57] they're talking about is just behind the
[1:11:59] wall. It affords, I think, six spaces or
[1:12:03] seven. Well, with the change for the
[1:12:06] acute parking that you mentioned last
[1:12:07] time, I think it's only five.
[1:12:10] because of the cute angle parking.
[1:12:12] >> It's not a big difference. [laughter]
[1:12:14] It's getting down to
[1:12:16] >> So, what's fenced off right now is like
[1:12:18] nine spaces.
[1:12:19] >> Yeah. Tom as he said he go he he felt
[1:12:23] >> Okay. And then currently the other spots
[1:12:26] are being used.
[1:12:28] >> Uhhuh.
[1:12:28] >> Yeah.
[1:12:29] >> Which I I guess is what was asked,
[1:12:32] right?
[1:12:33] >> Yes.
[1:12:36] » Yeah. Generally, the new parking lot
[1:12:38] that that we fixed up is all within the
[1:12:41] footprint, a little bit beyond on the
[1:12:44] left side, but most of it is behind that
[1:12:46] wall. That's the new space that they're
[1:12:47] more more sensitive to.
[1:12:49] I also disturbed well uh yeah, all along
[1:12:52] the road I put in some improvements. You
[1:12:54] guys have seen those, too.
[1:13:13] So, I I feel like at this point um we at
[1:13:17] least need
[1:13:19] going back to the the request the the
[1:13:22] drainage.
[1:13:24] And
[1:13:27] do we have any other questions
[1:13:29] for the staff or the applicant at this
[1:13:31] time?
[1:13:36] So, one of the other things we discussed
[1:13:38] in the last meeting was the um addition
[1:13:42] was more detail on the landscaping to
[1:13:44] ensure that it met the minimums. Um, and
[1:13:49] there wasn't a lot of a new detail on
[1:13:52] the um on on the landscaping in terms
[1:13:56] of, you know, I didn't see like
[1:13:59] landscaping lists or an indication for
[1:14:04] example that there I think I think it's
[1:14:05] a this property has a 30% minimum
[1:14:08] landscaping. I think
[1:14:11] >> it would be
[1:14:12] >> landscaping or or open space
[1:14:13] requirement.
[1:14:15] >> Yeah. So let me just find that
[1:14:18] >> because in some of these properties
[1:14:20] there's there's open space requirement,
[1:14:23] there's landscaping requirement and
[1:14:25] there's total together requirement and I
[1:14:28] didn't really see anything that said we
[1:14:31] met those requirements. You got plenty
[1:14:32] of open space in the property, but was
[1:14:35] there enough lands? I think when I count
[1:14:37] the well we went we went all around the
[1:14:39] back and when we count the state right
[1:14:41] away I mean we were way because I get
[1:14:43] half the credit for that
[1:14:45] >> what
[1:14:46] >> I get a 50% credit for what I do in the
[1:14:48] rightway right the landscaping
[1:14:50] >> yeah so it's quite a lot
[1:14:52] >> so I mean I don't expect that there's
[1:14:54] not enough but I just wanted to confirm
[1:14:56] maybe with the staff that we might
[1:14:58] >> and on the and on the wall the the wall
[1:15:02] that we were going to make green I don't
[1:15:04] know if you guys are still considering
[1:15:05] that headto-head parking now that I
[1:15:07] don't have the acute angle parking
[1:15:08] there. And the other option was to flip
[1:15:10] it to the left side against the rocks so
[1:15:12] that it's not headtohead. I'll still put
[1:15:14] it on the wall if you want me to just to
[1:15:16] green up the wall and make it look
[1:15:17] pretty and not so much like concrete.
[1:15:19] But I don't know if that really even
[1:15:21] applies because we eliminated that
[1:15:23] headto head. I think it's it's only
[1:15:25] headtohead for a few stalls now, I
[1:15:27] think,
[1:15:27] >> and they're on different levels. So, I'm
[1:15:29] still happy to do that, but I don't know
[1:15:30] if that even applies because and if
[1:15:33] there's any issue, I'm happy to flip the
[1:15:34] cars to the left side where it's against
[1:15:36] the back wall, not the front wall, so we
[1:15:38] eliminate the entire head-to-head issue.
[1:15:40] >> Does that make sense?
[1:15:41] >> I I think in the last meeting, we
[1:15:45] >> we said that we wanted to have the
[1:15:48] required amount and would offer some
[1:15:50] flexibility in the location
[1:15:52] >> of and so my concern more is about that
[1:15:55] we've meet met the required amount.
[1:15:58] Sure.
[1:15:59] >> And that we've allowed some flexibility
[1:16:01] in the location because of the structure
[1:16:04] of the
[1:16:05] >> And I did and you were sensitive to
[1:16:06] this. You you mentioned something about
[1:16:08] a heat island in the middle of it having
[1:16:09] that one triangular um behind the little
[1:16:13] building large enough and it does it
[1:16:15] meets its 90. It's bigger than code but
[1:16:18] asked for 80 or 90 and it's bigger than
[1:16:20] I
[1:16:20] >> think it's 80 square feet. So it's long.
[1:16:21] >> Yeah. So, we have it at 90 and
[1:16:25] so we we shouldn't have to really make
[1:16:27] any bends on any rules. I think we met
[1:16:29] them all.
[1:16:34] » So, I have a question. I don't I'm not
[1:16:36] sure if you know or the staff can answer
[1:16:38] this. These other parking lots that are
[1:16:40] referred to in town that are right up
[1:16:42] against um steep slopes, are they in
[1:16:45] landslide hazard zone areas as well? So
[1:16:49] the I think the the spaces he's
[1:16:51] referring to are the town uh on street
[1:16:54] parking that would be just kind of near
[1:16:56] the entrance to the park.
[1:16:58] >> Okay.
[1:16:58] >> And yeah, the the um hazard zones do
[1:17:03] extend across SR9 in those areas. Um
[1:17:07] >> those slopes are like 20 30 feet
[1:17:10] vertical. They're huge. He means right
[1:17:13] up there. Yeah.
[1:17:15] >> And they're actually Yeah. In the zone.
[1:17:17] >> Yeah. the Rockfall area
[1:17:21] as is a lot of the town.
[1:17:24] >> Yeah, that's what I was asking. Thank
[1:17:25] you.
[1:17:28] » So, forgive my ignorance, but I don't
[1:17:31] quite understand what the town's
[1:17:34] ordinance are for rock fall hazards.
[1:17:42] So that part of the of the ordinance we were talking earlier about there's
[1:17:48] two lists. There's the hazard study list
[1:17:52] and then there's the you know requires a
[1:17:54] report list. So the hazard study list
[1:17:57] talks about landslides
[1:18:00] liquefification
[1:18:02] um and there's several others in in that
[1:18:04] list. Um and those are indications that
[1:18:10] it's a hazard study area.
[1:18:14] So that means if that defines the land
[1:18:16] where hazard studies would be done. And
[1:18:19] then the other list, the required
[1:18:20] geotechnical report says it, you know,
[1:18:22] it's either a property design or a
[1:18:25] building designed for people to live in
[1:18:27] or it's um and again there was a list we
[1:18:30] went through um it was a 500 square foot
[1:18:35] building or 500 or more than a thousand
[1:18:38] if you're adding uh design any building
[1:18:42] designed for
[1:18:43] >> for human occupancy.
[1:18:45] which obviously this doesn't
[1:18:46] >> this isn't so this doesn't meet any of
[1:18:48] the human occupancy the thou 500 or
[1:18:50] thousand square foot of a structure or
[1:18:52] any of those things that are in the list
[1:18:55] that says you must have a geotechnical
[1:18:57] report
[1:18:59] um but being in the landslide area it is
[1:19:02] in the hazard study area so if we all
[1:19:06] agree that yes this is a rock h fall
[1:19:10] hazard area what does that imply to the
[1:19:14] usage.
[1:19:15] >> Well, if if you're not in one of these
[1:19:17] hazard study areas, then you can build
[1:19:21] more than 500 square f feet without
[1:19:23] needing a geotechnical report.
[1:19:24] >> We're not building anything here. Right.
[1:19:26] >> Correct. But we're not building
[1:19:27] anything. So, and maybe the staff can
[1:19:29] help me if I'm wrong, but you kind It's
[1:19:31] kind of like going through two tests,
[1:19:34] right? The first test is are you in one
[1:19:36] of these hazard zones? And the second
[1:19:38] test is if you're in the hazard zone and
[1:19:41] you are building one of these things,
[1:19:43] then you have to have a report,
[1:19:45] >> right? So if you're if you're not in a
[1:19:48] hazard zone, then you don't even bother
[1:19:50] to take the second test. Um, is that a
[1:19:53] good explanation of it?
[1:19:54] >> So So almost
[1:19:57] >> almost. Okay. Sound good to me.
[1:19:59] >> Um, so there are instances where
[1:20:02] geotechnical reports are required no
[1:20:04] matter what zone you are in. So if it's
[1:20:07] a new house or something, you're you're
[1:20:09] going to always need a ge geotechnical
[1:20:11] report. Um
[1:20:14] but um
[1:20:16] but yeah, in this instance, um I think
[1:20:19] the the question is that okay, it's it's
[1:20:23] not one of the listed items that
[1:20:24] requires a geotechnical report. However,
[1:20:27] bearing in mind these other factors,
[1:20:31] does it warrant that assessment?
[1:20:32] >> Yeah, we we we could decide that it
[1:20:34] warrants based on other factors. Yeah.
[1:20:37] Well, but let's say we had one and they
[1:20:39] say, "Yeah, you're in the Lion Slide
[1:20:40] area or Rockfall area." What does that
[1:20:43] mean?
[1:20:44] >> I don't think I didn't see any code that
[1:20:45] says I can't build a parking lot in that
[1:20:47] area.
[1:20:48] >> Right. In fact, you could
[1:20:51] >> Yeah, the obviously
[1:20:53] I I you'd have to see what the report
[1:20:56] would say, but I I think it might offer
[1:20:58] some mitigation potentially or or that
[1:21:00] kind of thing. But um and if it was if
[1:21:04] the report,
[1:21:06] you know,
[1:21:08] determined that it was very unsafe, then
[1:21:11] there may be other mitigation. the the existing parking lot is already
[1:21:18] there, right? So, it's just these extra
[1:21:21] spaces that would be the subject of that
[1:21:25] kind of assessment.
[1:21:31] » Yeah. So if a report was
[1:21:35] done
[1:21:38] and it just because it's in a landslide
[1:21:41] hazard zone won't necessarily change
[1:21:44] anything.
[1:21:47] It it might it might recommend
[1:21:50] mitigation potentially.
[1:21:52] Um but it it doesn't automatically mean
[1:21:55] that a parking lot couldn't be there
[1:21:57] >> and
[1:21:59] the new spaces are
[1:22:03] um pretty much the same existing risk
[1:22:06] that the old spaces are.
[1:22:11] >> So I'll just put on the hazard layer. So
[1:22:14] the landslide hazard layer
[1:22:17] is this. So obviously the the closer you get to the road the
[1:22:22] >> the more the risk is reduced.
[1:22:25] >> I think all the cars on the highway
[1:22:26] would have to move if that was being
[1:22:29] required.
[1:22:35] » Rockfall
[1:22:37] and parts of the existing
[1:22:40] parking lot were also in that area.
[1:22:42] affect the entire right so um
[1:22:47] again I you know my my feeling is it is
[1:22:50] a parking lot there's no there's no
[1:22:52] residential occupancy
[1:22:55] expected here um the concern of safety
[1:22:59] would be a the safety of the cars that
[1:23:03] are parked there and the people who
[1:23:04] might happen to be in the parking lot at
[1:23:07] the time something happened um versus
[1:23:10] people who would be sleeping
[1:23:12] And we don't allow overnight parking.
[1:23:14] >> No, you don't allow overnight parking.
[1:23:16] So it would be it would be daytime only,
[1:23:19] right? Um and
[1:23:22] so you know, I think the ordinance is
[1:23:24] written with that in mind that a parking
[1:23:26] lot um by it by itself is is less of a
[1:23:30] danger situation because it's not
[1:23:33] occupied on an ongoing basis.
[1:23:36] Um,
[1:23:39] I think the concern more that I had in
[1:23:42] wanting to know more about this is that
[1:23:44] the is that we haven't increased the
[1:23:46] risk to surrounding areas
[1:23:49] um to the road or to something else by
[1:23:52] the grading,
[1:23:53] >> right?
[1:23:54] >> Um, but it sounds as though a
[1:23:55] significant amount of uh engineering
[1:23:58] energy went into
[1:24:02] re retroactively looking what was done
[1:24:06] um and came to the conclusion that
[1:24:07] there's not a significant increase in
[1:24:10] the risk to the surrounding areas.
[1:24:13] Um
[1:24:15] so I think other than requiring
[1:24:18] uh the drainage study be provided and uh
[1:24:22] you know things like the business
[1:24:24] fulfill its commercial responsibilities
[1:24:26] and I might add a requirement that the
[1:24:29] staff verify that the amount of
[1:24:32] landscaping was is sufficient.
[1:24:35] um that those would be conditions I
[1:24:37] would add if I were to make a motion to
[1:24:40] approve.
[1:24:42] >> And last time I asked a a question of
[1:24:44] you just about the stability you thought
[1:24:47] of whatever business was going to be on
[1:24:49] there and then we realized that it would
[1:24:52] be one of your your businesses. Um, I'm
[1:24:56] wondering if the town has concerns about
[1:25:01] monitoring or or enforcing the
[1:25:03] three-hour
[1:25:05] limit or and or just that a business is
[1:25:10] continuously operating on that site.
[1:25:13] >> Yeah, there there are concerns about the
[1:25:16] practicality of that. Um the code what
[1:25:20] the code gives us is it says um you know
[1:25:23] integration with a commercial use. So
[1:25:25] this is the text here. It doesn't mention temporary like food
[1:25:32] trucks or that kind of thing. It's it's
[1:25:34] probably not what was envisaged.
[1:25:36] However, it it doesn't specifically
[1:25:40] say one way or the other as far as um
[1:25:44] monitoring that the business is there
[1:25:47] enough to justify that it is a genuine
[1:25:51] commercial use but then also that it's
[1:25:54] goes after 3 hours. Um yeah, that
[1:25:58] practically that's going to be difficult
[1:26:00] to monitor.
[1:26:01] >> So a thought about that too. What um
[1:26:05] my people come in the morning, right?
[1:26:07] They come for like depending on the
[1:26:09] season, 7 or 8 in the morning to like 10 or 11. Then they're parked and then
[1:26:13] they stay. So we feel like even though
[1:26:15] it's only three hours, it picks up the
[1:26:16] bulk of convenience for the people that
[1:26:18] do park there and then moving it out of
[1:26:20] the way is is
[1:26:24] not a problem. Um
[1:26:26] I would even be amiable to say because
[1:26:28] to be I know you guys don't want to see
[1:26:30] that there. I just know and I don't want
[1:26:33] it there. I'm trying to meet your code
[1:26:35] with no sewer, with the three-hour
[1:26:37] thing, with whatever. I'd be fine to
[1:26:39] even agree to say I'll put back up this
[1:26:42] barrier fence at the end of this at the
[1:26:44] before we start business next year if I
[1:26:46] haven't got something else in there. I I
[1:26:48] very much want to build something. I get
[1:26:50] it. There's there's there's um
[1:26:53] limitations [snorts]
[1:26:54] with the things we just talked about,
[1:26:56] landslide, whatever, with no sewer
[1:26:58] again, but I would very much like to
[1:27:00] build some small business that works
[1:27:02] well and that isn't a mobile coffee
[1:27:04] trailer. And that's very much my plan. I
[1:27:07] just don't have that here. But I I feel
[1:27:09] like in the meantime, this meets the
[1:27:10] ordinance, and that's what I'm trying to
[1:27:12] do.
[1:27:14] I don't want to have that there long
[1:27:16] term either.
[1:27:21] But we do understand it has to be
[1:27:23] removed
[1:27:24] and I will be bringing in um something
[1:27:27] through the off season that would look a
[1:27:29] lot better. That's what my plan is.
[1:27:32] You'll see me probably in November.
[1:27:38] » You mean you're referring to like a
[1:27:40] something more permanent?
[1:27:41] >> Yeah.
[1:27:42] My idea to be candid with you, and
[1:27:44] I know people see a lot of bikes around,
[1:27:45] but my idea would be some bikes. I can
[1:27:48] get power from across the road, it's
[1:27:51] expensive, but I can get it there. I
[1:27:52] don't need sewer for that. It's not It's
[1:27:54] not a nighttime occupied property. I can
[1:27:56] set it at the very back. It will look
[1:27:58] well. It looks nice. I think it's
[1:27:59] convenient for people who I think it
[1:28:01] would work a lot better than than this.
[1:28:03] But I think for the meantime, this meets
[1:28:04] the code.
[1:28:11] I think it
[1:28:12] >> that's not here or there. I'm just
[1:28:13] telling you.
[1:28:14] >> Yeah.
[1:28:16] >> And I appreciate that.
[1:28:17] >> And it would be small. I know it would
[1:28:18] have to be less than, you know, like two
[1:28:20] maybe two parking stalls. I'm talking 20
[1:28:22] bikes. Not like my other one where we
[1:28:24] have 150
[1:28:26] 20 or 30 bikes. Something where the
[1:28:27] people that show up if there's if
[1:28:29] there's 50 or 60 people parking and
[1:28:31] every other one of them wants a bike,
[1:28:32] maybe maybe there's enough to service
[1:28:34] the parking lot there or something. So,
[1:28:36] I think it would do well. But
[1:28:39] in the meantime, this is what
[1:28:42] we're talking about.
[1:28:45] >> I think you may have addressed this
[1:28:46] question. It's really just a wondering
[1:28:48] thing, but I have to ask it. Um, you
[1:28:51] didn't originally apply for a permit and
[1:28:54] so did you not realize you needed it
[1:28:57] until after you were digging in or what happened there? So, so I'm an
[1:29:02] excavator and I've sat on lots of slopes
[1:29:05] around town and when I got there, I saw
[1:29:08] from the back of that wall and I mean
[1:29:10] you the dirt's not there now, but any person can do the math. If you go to
[1:29:14] the top of that concrete wall that's
[1:29:15] there and then you look at the height of
[1:29:16] my wall at the back, you can calculate
[1:29:19] how many feet it gains and how far it
[1:29:20] was. It was very flat. And I I had
[1:29:24] recently done and maybe it maybe it
[1:29:27] feels like I was taking too much liberty
[1:29:28] and I apologize for putting the cart
[1:29:30] before the horse or however, but but I
[1:29:32] had just done far more excavating on
[1:29:34] those little homes across the street
[1:29:35] where it was a bigger cut and a bigger
[1:29:37] feel and and I received a lot of
[1:29:39] comments from from people around town
[1:29:42] saying, "Thank you for cleaning that up.
[1:29:43] That rock wall looks better." The
[1:29:44] neighbor below me, which is Kyla Topham,
[1:29:46] she goes, "Thank you. You fixed the
[1:29:47] drainage." and and and I thought, okay,
[1:29:50] I can go in and smooth out these spots.
[1:29:52] It's only a few feet of a cut. It's not
[1:29:54] the net difference was not a lot.
[1:29:56] Meaning like it wasn't like I hauled and hauled out. We just took and
[1:30:01] smoothed out what was there and did haul
[1:30:03] out some. And I know in the code it
[1:30:04] allows for so many yards of excavation
[1:30:06] without a permit. I know I did exceed
[1:30:08] that. Anyway, I I knew when once I got
[1:30:11] going and when Tom came up, he's like,
[1:30:12] "No, you need to stop. This is it. We
[1:30:14] need to get a permit."
[1:30:16] But um I had I have done that on other
[1:30:18] properties of mine lots of times and and
[1:30:22] usually it's if it's just a landscaping
[1:30:24] sized wall, it's to fix drainage, to
[1:30:26] improve the look, whatever. It's
[1:30:27] wellreceived and I I I wasn't trying to
[1:30:29] cause as big of a problem as has landed
[1:30:31] on on me. No.
[1:30:33] >> So hopefully that answers your question.
[1:30:34] >> Yeah. Thank you.
[1:30:40] » Are there any other questions?
[1:30:45] Should we go into deliberation?
[1:30:47] >> Thank you. Yeah. Yeah, we can go into
[1:30:49] deliberation.
[1:30:54] So I guess the the
[1:30:57] still a little bit question in my head
[1:30:59] is like
[1:31:02] um it does sound like it's possible to
[1:31:06] ask for a geotechnical report, but
[1:31:10] in listening to everything we've just
[1:31:12] heard, what does that accomplish?
[1:31:16] Um possibly some mitigation.
[1:31:21] Um, maybe not.
[1:31:24] >> I have one dumb question. Let's say
[1:31:26] there are recommendations. I didn't see
[1:31:28] anything in our code that says you have
[1:31:30] to follow that recommendation to use it
[1:31:32] as parking lot.
[1:31:34] >> I think if
[1:31:35] >> it does require you to implement
[1:31:37] mitigation
[1:31:39] if if it's if it's identified in the
[1:31:43] report, you are required to implement
[1:31:45] it.
[1:31:45] >> Yeah. and and we could add words to that
[1:31:49] nature to the condition if we
[1:31:51] conditioned the a report.
[1:31:55] Um,
[1:31:56] from everything I've heard, it sounds to
[1:31:59] me like there was a an significant
[1:32:02] amount of engineering analysis done
[1:32:06] obviously after the the grading was
[1:32:08] done. Um,
[1:32:11] it it appears to me that that an
[1:32:14] additional engineering study is not
[1:32:16] likely to find anything new that
[1:32:18] wouldn't have already been known.
[1:32:21] Um
[1:32:25] and again
[1:32:29] I think from a the safe we've reached
[1:32:32] enough safety for a parking lot which is
[1:32:35] not
[1:32:37] a um
[1:32:40] you know an an occupied structure. I
[1:32:43] think, you know, if he comes with
[1:32:47] >> some plan for for a permanent building
[1:32:49] that will require additional things,
[1:32:53] but we're not looking at that at this
[1:32:54] point.
[1:32:58] Other thoughts?
[1:33:03] Yeah, I just my I'm just trying
[1:33:06] grappling with like permanent building
[1:33:08] or mobile business like still people and
[1:33:12] people gathering and
[1:33:18] » well at this point the proposal is the
[1:33:20] mobile business
[1:33:21] >> and there are no
[1:33:24] ordinances that would stipulate
[1:33:27] the same
[1:33:30] as a permanent structure.
[1:33:34] Right. Correct. Yeah. So, we really
[1:33:36] Yeah.
[1:33:36] >> And then there's also whether or not
[1:33:38] that structure is intended as a to house
[1:33:42] appropriately house people. Um
[1:33:46] in in you know you you think by this
[1:33:47] point people will come in general the
[1:33:50] behavior would be you drive in park
[1:33:53] possibly stop at the coffee shop for 5
[1:33:57] 10 minutes.
[1:33:58] >> Right.
[1:33:59] >> Yeah.
[1:34:01] So I think in the present in the present you know iteration of what's
[1:34:06] being presented
[1:34:08] um there won't be people staying there
[1:34:11] other than and even the employees
[1:34:14] who work in the work the truck would
[1:34:17] only be there three hours
[1:34:23] comes close to meeting sort of a
[1:34:25] permanent residency sort of
[1:34:31] I don't know.
[1:34:32] >> Yeah. So, even you're referring even to
[1:34:34] like
[1:34:36] stability is kind of been addressed in
[1:34:39] the engineering process and to a degree
[1:34:43] where it makes sense to have a parking
[1:34:44] lot, right? Is that that's what you're
[1:34:46] saying,
[1:34:47] >> right? Yeah. I'm saying given that it's
[1:34:48] a parking lot and given our ordinances
[1:34:51] and the way they're written, um it's not
[1:34:55] clear that that we even would have
[1:34:58] required an um a full uh geotechnical
[1:35:03] report. Um
[1:35:06] again
[1:35:08] other than through that fifth item where
[1:35:11] the DCD and we could recommend to the
[1:35:13] DCD that that they request that um
[1:35:18] I I don't know I I I
[1:35:22] think personally I'm not in in feeling
[1:35:25] the need to require a a geotechnical
[1:35:28] report but if if the rest of the board
[1:35:31] committee were felt that that was
[1:35:33] necessary
[1:35:34] You know, obviously I would be outvoted.
[1:35:37] So, I think that's where I stand. I'm
[1:35:40] curious where other people stand and
[1:35:41] whether we should require it. I think
[1:35:43] we're down to just whether we should
[1:35:44] require a geotechnical report or not.
[1:35:47] >> I would feel comfortable if you went
[1:35:49] down that route that that should be a
[1:35:50] requirement. If you're in a hazard zone,
[1:35:52] you have to have the report. Otherwise,
[1:35:54] I feel like it's just an opinion from do
[1:35:57] you need it, don't you need it. I don't
[1:35:58] know how to decide when you need it or
[1:36:01] don't need it because right now it's not
[1:36:03] a requirement. It's just a
[1:36:05] recommendation from us that you need the
[1:36:06] report.
[1:36:08] >> Well, it is a requirement if you are
[1:36:10] going to build a a structure intended um
[1:36:14] for employ you know people to reside.
[1:36:16] >> Yes.
[1:36:17] >> Or if you're going to build more than
[1:36:18] 400 500 square feet or if you're going
[1:36:21] to add
[1:36:22] >> that's not the case here.
[1:36:23] >> Right. So in this case um by the
[1:36:26] ordinances it's not required unless we
[1:36:30] go through the that fifth item which is
[1:36:33] we can decide on a you know we can
[1:36:35] recommend to the DCD that that that in
[1:36:38] this case there's additional
[1:36:39] requirements right and you're right
[1:36:42] that's something that is something we
[1:36:45] would decide on you know that we would
[1:36:47] decide without I don't know that you can
[1:36:52] list every possible reason we might
[1:36:54] decide that and include that in the
[1:36:55] ordinance. I think that would be
[1:36:57] difficult to do.
[1:36:59] Um, so I guess what I'm saying is I'm
[1:37:02] feeling like I don't feel a need to go
[1:37:05] through that fifth option
[1:37:08] >> of saying
[1:37:10] we're going to require it because we
[1:37:11] think that this is such a problem given
[1:37:15] that engineering analysis was done given
[1:37:18] that it's not anywhere in the 30% um
[1:37:22] that it's only up to the 30% but not
[1:37:23] within no grading was done at 30%. Um,
[1:37:27] and given what I've heard about the
[1:37:29] analysis that was done,
[1:37:31] um,
[1:37:34] there will always be a risk and no
[1:37:36] matter what we do, we you can't
[1:37:38] completely eliminate the risk.
[1:37:40] >> Well, and there's a precedent already of
[1:37:42] other parking around town in the same
[1:37:46] hazard zone.
[1:37:47] >> There are other parking areas in in
[1:37:50] hazard zones, similar the same or
[1:37:53] similar hazard zones. Yes. Um,
[1:37:57] and
[1:37:58] you know, we could take that as a side
[1:38:00] item we might put on our list someday
[1:38:02] to,
[1:38:02] >> right,
[1:38:02] >> view whether or not we want to make
[1:38:04] something more restrictive,
[1:38:06] >> because it is concerning to me to look
[1:38:08] at these maps and see parking right
[1:38:11] below or in the landslide area.
[1:38:15] Um, but considering
[1:38:18] the other parking that's been pointed
[1:38:21] out,
[1:38:22] >> well, and SR9 careful that we can't we
[1:38:26] can't look at the surrounding area and
[1:38:28] make a determination on what is already
[1:38:30] existing there.
[1:38:31] >> Well, that's true.
[1:38:32] >> Forward because, you know, that could
[1:38:34] have been done under some pre-existing
[1:38:36] rules or ordinance or lack thereof or
[1:38:39] whatever and
[1:38:40] >> not always whatever our current
[1:38:42] standards are. So, you know, we don't
[1:38:43] want that happen.
[1:38:45] >> Yeah, definitely. Um, I'm just trying to
[1:38:49] look at the actual ordinances and see
[1:38:52] if the requirements are being met.
[1:38:55] >> Can you put the map of the geolog geolog
[1:38:59] geologic hazard study area back up? So
[1:39:03] this is the landslide
[1:39:04] >> that that
[1:39:06] there depicts an area that encompasses
[1:39:09] part of this property
[1:39:12] >> and then the rockfall is here
[1:39:15] >> that encompasses all of it. So by those
[1:39:17] two measures under
[1:39:21] 1015
[1:39:23] F5D
[1:39:25] a report is required and that's not at
[1:39:28] the discretion of anybody. It's just
[1:39:30] because it's in a geologic hazard study
[1:39:32] area.
[1:39:36] Is that correct?
[1:39:38] >> So this section here, it says a
[1:39:41] geotechnical report is required in any
[1:39:43] of the following. And number five is
[1:39:45] >> go down to section D in that down a
[1:39:48] little bit.
[1:39:53] So it says, yeah, the geologic hazard
[1:39:55] investigation report for properties in a
[1:39:59] hazard studied area study area such as
[1:40:01] this. If the initial analysis of
[1:40:04] geologic hazards in a geotechnical
[1:40:07] report
[1:40:09] uh identifies sight specific risk, then
[1:40:13] the geologic hazard investigation and
[1:40:15] report is required. So this that's kind
[1:40:19] of step two. But but that I mean
[1:40:22] normally in a normal situation an
[1:40:24] initial study would be done. In this
[1:40:26] case because the cart's before the horse
[1:40:28] the study wasn't done. And so I think we
[1:40:31] can eliminate that first requirement and
[1:40:33] say therefore we need to at least do
[1:40:36] that and probably do the whole study.
[1:40:40] Well, I I think
[1:40:43] part of the concern is that if if you go
[1:40:45] to 1015 F5 A and B, those are the those
[1:40:51] are what or A and C actually um are what
[1:40:55] drive whether or not the initial report
[1:40:59] needs to be done. And I think that's
[1:41:02] where we're at is that
[1:41:04] >> well so I mean if you want to if you
[1:41:07] want to take that logic which I don't
[1:41:09] think I don't necessarily agree with but
[1:41:11] if you were to go along that logic then
[1:41:14] it then it falls to item five where the
[1:41:17] DC or the the town looks at it and says
[1:41:20] you know maybe we ought to do it in this
[1:41:21] case because of these other extenduating
[1:41:23] circumstances. And when you look at
[1:41:26] these maps where, you know, we're at the
[1:41:28] base of a a huge 30 cent slope that's
[1:41:30] been geoactive and had problems in the
[1:41:33] past, one would reasonably conclude that
[1:41:36] maybe we ought to do that or could
[1:41:38] reasonably conclude it.
[1:41:40] >> Yeah. So, so, so, and that was one of
[1:41:42] the things I said is
[1:41:43] >> and because we weren't asked about it on
[1:41:45] the front end, it didn't happen. And now
[1:41:47] we're being asked after the fact that
[1:41:49] well, just, you know, and we're saying
[1:41:51] suggesting that we we shouldn't do that.
[1:41:53] And you know that probably maybe not a
[1:41:56] good idea.
[1:41:57] >> Well, okay. So,
[1:42:01] I'll interpret what you said as you know
[1:42:03] when I I says I'm I'm of the mind that
[1:42:06] we don't need to exercise item five. And
[1:42:10] what I'll interpret you is you you're
[1:42:12] saying you prefer that we exercise item
[1:42:14] five, which is that we recommend to the
[1:42:16] DCD that they get a geotechnical report.
[1:42:22] um this initial the the item one report
[1:42:25] um because we feel that there uh that
[1:42:29] the soil conditions warrant a
[1:42:32] geotechnical report.
[1:42:36] » Yeah. And like I said, I'm not
[1:42:39] necessarily opposed to that if the
[1:42:41] majority of the of the board of the
[1:42:44] commission feels that that's because
[1:42:47] there are circumstances here. Um, but
[1:42:50] there are many places in town that have
[1:42:53] both of these geologic hazards. That's
[1:42:56] true. And um,
[1:43:00] and not all of them have required
[1:43:02] reports. If they're not all of them,
[1:43:04] some
[1:43:05] >> have required, but should maybe should
[1:43:07] require in the future perhaps. Right now
[1:43:10] that the way the the way the ordinances
[1:43:13] are written,
[1:43:15] >> things like the unfortunate thing in
[1:43:16] this in this circumstance because the
[1:43:18] because it wasn't done in the proper
[1:43:20] order. The town didn't have the
[1:43:21] opportunity to to you know recommend
[1:43:24] this previously and so now we're trying
[1:43:26] to sort of clean it up and you know we
[1:43:29] need to be careful that we do it. So, so
[1:43:30] I think there was an opportunity to do
[1:43:32] it previously and that is when the town
[1:43:35] met with the owner and said stop
[1:43:39] and then they said we need you need to
[1:43:41] get a grading permit and so during the
[1:43:44] act of getting a grading permit would be
[1:43:47] when would be one of the times when
[1:43:51] >> one spot right
[1:43:53] >> um
[1:43:53] >> but again the grading permit was done
[1:43:55] after the fact not before the fact
[1:43:58] >> right but at the time that the grading
[1:44:00] permit was done, a geotechnical report
[1:44:03] could have been required
[1:44:06] to before before the grading permit the the grading permit was was was
[1:44:12] given.
[1:44:14] So I think in a sense there was an
[1:44:16] opportunity
[1:44:17] and it didn't come to us but it was
[1:44:20] taken at the time um and decided at the
[1:44:23] time that the engineering data that was
[1:44:26] available was sufficient.
[1:44:29] Um so I think it's you know to us to say
[1:44:32] whether we feel that for the safety of
[1:44:36] the c you know their customers that we
[1:44:38] require it
[1:44:41] not with a grading permit but now with
[1:44:43] the DDR which we also have the
[1:44:46] opportunity to to do.
[1:44:49] Um,
[1:44:53] okay. So, it seems to me like we've got
[1:44:55] one who says we should require the or
[1:44:58] recommend that the DCD require the
[1:44:59] report, one that says perhaps not. Be
[1:45:03] curious. The other three.
[1:45:10] Yeah, I I'm stuck that this wouldn't
[1:45:12] even be here if he if we didn't have
[1:45:14] this many parking spots where this rule
[1:45:17] should actually apply to even one
[1:45:18] parking spot. Tech
[1:45:21] technically, if we're worried about
[1:45:22] this, any parking spot should have this
[1:45:25] done.
[1:45:25] >> Well, I'm not worried about whether
[1:45:27] there's a parking spot or not. I'm
[1:45:28] worried about the fact that, you know,
[1:45:30] this is in a a geoactive area that is,
[1:45:33] you know, substantial slope ups slope of
[1:45:36] it and we've moved some soil down at the
[1:45:38] bottom and maybe it doesn't happen to be
[1:45:40] 30% right there. But, you know, if it's a geoactive slope that's fairly
[1:45:46] steep and you you know, you take the
[1:45:49] last rock at the bottom that's holding
[1:45:50] it up, the whole thing comes down.
[1:45:52] That's a real problem. But
[1:45:54] >> then that should have been taken care of
[1:45:56] in the grading permit.
[1:45:58] I didn't have a vote on that.
[1:46:01] >> So that's where I'm
[1:46:03] >> have a vote on this
[1:46:03] >> stuck is um so the grading permit was
[1:46:07] approved
[1:46:08] and so it's been
[1:46:11] graded
[1:46:13] >> and
[1:46:15] what's are we looking for mitigation
[1:46:18] recommend?
[1:46:19] >> It was graded before the grading permit
[1:46:20] was approved.
[1:46:21] >> Right. But
[1:46:22] >> that's fine. But they they back and got
[1:46:24] it.
[1:46:24] >> Yeah. So that's like
[1:46:26] >> that's that's [clears throat] water
[1:46:27] under the bridge that they have a
[1:46:28] grading permit.
[1:46:29] >> Yeah. So we're approaching this that
[1:46:32] there is a grading permit
[1:46:34] that's graded
[1:46:37] and
[1:46:39] if we're approving the the the DDR and
[1:46:41] if we're requiring this report what is
[1:46:44] it that we're looking to accomplish
[1:46:46] possible
[1:46:46] >> mit two things I'm looking to
[1:46:48] accomplish. One is some assurance that there isn't a problem there. Okay.
[1:46:53] and we don't know because we didn't do
[1:46:55] the study but I want to you know we
[1:46:57] should make sure the town we have an
[1:46:58] obligation to make sure that there isn't
[1:46:59] a problem there and the other is
[1:47:01] potential you know is there potential
[1:47:02] liability that's been assumed by the
[1:47:04] town because uh you know we we ended up
[1:47:08] in this situation and we need to do we
[1:47:10] need to correct it so
[1:47:13] >> can I offer a suggestion
[1:47:15] >> just an observation um both positions are compli liant with the code. Right?
[1:47:24] So either way you go, whether you decide
[1:47:27] that a geotechnical report is required,
[1:47:30] uh that's backed up by the code. If you
[1:47:33] decide that it's not required, that's
[1:47:36] also backed up by the code. So just to
[1:47:38] kind of give you the insurance that that
[1:47:40] either way with this being a design
[1:47:43] development review, a geotechnical
[1:47:45] report is is a requirement of design
[1:47:50] development reviews in certain
[1:47:52] instances. So the fact that it wasn't
[1:47:54] required for the grading permit doesn't
[1:47:57] preclude you from asking for it. Now, if the commission thinks that it it is
[1:48:02] needed,
[1:48:06] » I think it could be helpful
[1:48:09] even if it, you know, there was, like I
[1:48:12] said, I look at these maps of the hazard
[1:48:15] areas and
[1:48:19] just uh being responsible to the
[1:48:22] community from a safety perspective and
[1:48:24] visitors and
[1:48:28] It's kind of
[1:48:31] better safe than sorry kind of mentality
[1:48:33] I guess
[1:48:42] » and that's kind of what to Terry's point
[1:48:44] was with through the engineering
[1:48:48] question.
[1:48:50] >> No, go ahead.
[1:48:54] Wilson, my question is,
[1:48:57] I mean, that's a lot of red. It goes
[1:48:59] across the street. It goes everywhere.
[1:49:00] We know that there's parking just to the
[1:49:02] north that's that's under a very, very
[1:49:05] tall, very, very steep slope, far
[1:49:07] steeper than mine. My question is, if we
[1:49:10] go through the through the time, money,
[1:49:12] effort to get a report, and they say,
[1:49:14] "Yep, that's a landslide."
[1:49:17] Then what?
[1:49:20] Well, the real I mean, is parking still
[1:49:22] legal? And and and if and if it isn't,
[1:49:26] >> that landslide applies to everything
[1:49:28] there that's parking that the town's
[1:49:29] aware of. And and and those are my
[1:49:31] competitors, whether it's the Heatons or
[1:49:33] the Town or whatever. Those are
[1:49:34] competing. They're allowed to park
[1:49:36] there. Does it change anything? That's
[1:49:38] what I'm really asking.
[1:49:39] >> Well, the the report would recommend a
[1:49:41] mitigation if there was a if there was
[1:49:44] any possible mitigation.
[1:49:47] >> If if if the report says, "Yeah, there's
[1:49:48] a landslide.
[1:49:50] Does everybody do mitigation there?
[1:49:51] >> Well, this is rockfall, not landslide.
[1:49:53] But
[1:49:53] >> well, no, actually, well, there's both.
[1:49:55] >> But I mean, if you pull if you pull
[1:49:56] lands,
[1:49:56] >> it falls in both.
[1:49:57] >> And I want to just make a point. Pull
[1:49:58] the landside one where where the town
[1:50:00] has people parking along the highway is
[1:50:02] far farther into the red by far and
[1:50:05] under a steeper slope than where I am.
[1:50:07] My question is if they say, "Yep, that's
[1:50:09] a landslide." Because we all know they
[1:50:10] will.
[1:50:12] Does it mean I I get it. We're not
[1:50:14] building a building. And that would be
[1:50:15] affected. They would say you can't have
[1:50:16] human occupancy because but it's a
[1:50:18] parking lot or or or whether it's a
[1:50:20] planter or a lounge or a drinking
[1:50:22] fountain. Does it preclude it anyway?
[1:50:25] Are we gaining anything by that report?
[1:50:27] And if it does, does it make my
[1:50:29] competitors do something who are parking
[1:50:32] right next to it in the same space?
[1:50:34] That's what I was wondering. Because I'm
[1:50:35] happy to get a report. I don't mind the
[1:50:36] money, the effort, whatever. Does it
[1:50:38] actually accomplish anything? So, so
[1:50:40] here here's what I feel like it would it
[1:50:43] could accomplish and it's it's yes,
[1:50:46] you're right. It's a landslide. We all
[1:50:48] kind of know that and the engineer is
[1:50:50] going to say that. The question is for
[1:50:52] this particular project, are there
[1:50:56] mitigations that the engineer identifies
[1:50:59] should be done or need to be done?
[1:51:01] >> Say it's a risk. There needs to be a
[1:51:03] mitigation.
[1:51:03] >> There needs to be a mitigation to the
[1:51:04] risk. It doesn't say you can't have the
[1:51:06] parking lot. that says maybe that maybe
[1:51:09] there needs to be some reinforcement in
[1:51:11] the wall or maybe there needs to be some
[1:51:13] other thing. Um us not being
[1:51:15] >> would that be like a a letter from him
[1:51:17] saying we know there's a risk because
[1:51:19] there's a landslide here. But
[1:51:21] >> the thing the thing that we need most is
[1:51:23] what are the recommendations?
[1:51:25] >> It's not so much if there's a landslide,
[1:51:27] but is there any work that's been done
[1:51:29] that's going to you know induce a
[1:51:30] landslide or potentially
[1:51:31] >> I mean like the road cut, right? The SR9
[1:51:34] road cuts huge. So
[1:51:37] >> we're not talking about that one. We're
[1:51:38] talking about this one,
[1:51:39] >> but it's right there and it's
[1:51:41] competitor.
[1:51:42] >> It's irrelevant for this discussion.
[1:51:43] >> Okay. Okay.
[1:51:44] >> So, and to answer your second question
[1:51:46] on that, if any of these other fac you
[1:51:50] know other facilities in the area came
[1:51:52] with a plan to do some more work, they
[1:51:55] would also
[1:51:57] >> go through this. So it's we really take
[1:51:59] care of when work is done. If it's been
[1:52:02] done before we don't have authority to
[1:52:04] go in and make them change. I mean by
[1:52:06] the same in that same area I put in far
[1:52:10] more concrete
[1:52:11] 400
[1:52:13] 2,000 square feet of concrete where
[1:52:16] pedestrians get out of their car and
[1:52:19] walk.
[1:52:21] There's no problem with that it seems.
[1:52:23] But the smaller area that I'm talking
[1:52:25] about six parking stalls or seven I
[1:52:27] think
[1:52:29] like why is that being scrutinized in
[1:52:32] the same development? I mean, they seem
[1:52:33] to be happy with the sidewalk that I put
[1:52:34] in. But that's the same thing. I whether
[1:52:36] it's concrete or asphalt or whatever,
[1:52:38] parking, pedestrian, whatever. I guess
[1:52:40] I'm just saying, are we actually
[1:52:41] accomplishing anything with that if
[1:52:44] because we know they're going to say
[1:52:45] it's a landslide?
[1:52:47] >> Question is, are they going to recommend
[1:52:50] specific mitigations for this particular
[1:52:52] project?
[1:52:53] >> Thank you for the clarification.
[1:52:55] But in in my opinion on that is if you
[1:52:57] want to stop a line landslide, it's
[1:53:00] going to have to be a big it's going to
[1:53:02] affect more than just what he's done.
[1:53:04] >> I I don't think it's the objective to
[1:53:06] stop a landslide for what we're doing
[1:53:09] >> to mitigate it.
[1:53:10] >> It's to mitigate this particular
[1:53:13] project, right? To mitigate if a
[1:53:15] landslide does occur, mitigate the
[1:53:17] damage that would occur or the danger
[1:53:19] that would occur in this project in this
[1:53:22] parking lot.
[1:53:29] is up to my discretion
[1:53:31] >> if you'd like to. Yeah.
[1:53:32] >> Okay. Sure.
[1:53:44] » The whole area
[1:53:46] is
[1:53:50] we saw what happened in 1992.
[1:54:00] and some rain on the slide and it it
[1:54:02] slid down and and did um you know
[1:54:05] massive slide on State Road 9 and and
[1:54:08] threatened one of the hotels on the
[1:54:10] other side of the road.
[1:54:12] This landslide has been mapped. It's
[1:54:14] considered to be hazardous. It's a red
[1:54:17] zone as you can see uh the highest uh
[1:54:20] landslide. It's active as well.
[1:54:23] And so the um I spoke within the last
[1:54:27] week a couple times with the guy at the
[1:54:30] Utah Geologic Survey who is an expert on
[1:54:33] the Utah on excuse me the Springdale
[1:54:36] landslide.
[1:54:37] and he says that he when he drove
[1:54:40] through town a couple years ago,
[1:54:43] he saw that a parking lot had been put
[1:54:45] up u you know the one that we're talking
[1:54:48] about tonight and he was very concerned
[1:54:50] at the safety associated with that
[1:54:53] parking lot because he looked at the
[1:54:55] concrete walls. He questioned whether
[1:54:58] they'd been done done correctly, whether
[1:55:00] there'd been any engineering at all done
[1:55:03] to substantiate risk. And so he's
[1:55:07] Uh I brought to his attention that more
[1:55:10] spaces were being added. He said he's
[1:55:13] very uncomfortable with the safety
[1:55:15] associated with those spots. So, it
[1:55:19] seems to me that, you know, a step that
[1:55:21] could be taken would be to have the town
[1:55:24] sponsor a study, a geologic study or,
[1:55:29] you know, I'm not good with the
[1:55:30] terminology, Terry, but a a geologic
[1:55:34] geolog the geologic work that's needed
[1:55:37] to map the landslide and determine
[1:55:39] whether there's a danger or not.
[1:55:42] When I spoke with him today, I said,
[1:55:45] "Could that landslide come down and and
[1:55:48] block State Road 9?" He said, "Most
[1:55:50] definitely it could if there, you know,
[1:55:53] if if it were to give way,
[1:55:56] uh, you know, and and it could slide
[1:55:58] across State Road 9. Another thing that
[1:56:00] could happen is that because of the cuts
[1:56:03] that have been put in, there could be a
[1:56:06] slough of earth that comes down on the
[1:56:08] surface that would cover the cars or or
[1:56:11] you know damage the cars within the
[1:56:13] parking lot. So I personally think that
[1:56:17] the Utah Geologic Survey should be um
[1:56:20] consulted with um before we make
[1:56:24] decisions regarding
[1:56:26] um you know our our visitor safety. Uh,
[1:56:30] and you know, we could accomplish that
[1:56:33] by having the town's engineer look at
[1:56:35] the property and and see what the safety
[1:56:38] factors are.
[1:56:41] >> Thank you.
[1:56:44] » Please.
[1:56:48] » Hi, Gil Kefir. Um
[1:56:52] the person that Tom talked to, the uh
[1:56:55] engineer,
[1:56:56] um Tom kind of played it down a little
[1:56:59] bit, but his uh his hair was on fire
[1:57:03] when he talked to Tom. Uh I also talked
[1:57:06] to a local uh structural engineer over
[1:57:09] the weekend and her hair was on fire. Um
[1:57:14] they're uh very concerned that even the
[1:57:18] existing parking lot is in a slide zone.
[1:57:21] Um
[1:57:23] the parking on State Route 9, that's the
[1:57:25] town's problem. They put that in. Who
[1:57:28] cares? I mean, that's that's that's a
[1:57:30] what aboutism that has nothing to do
[1:57:33] with this discussion. Uh the discussion
[1:57:36] is about what is happening with that um
[1:57:41] uh parking lot as well as the additional
[1:57:43] spots. And um if you want to understand
[1:57:48] why these people's hair are on fire,
[1:57:52] Google um or get on uh AI, Google,
[1:57:57] Gemini or what whatever ask them the
[1:58:00] question,
[1:58:02] what would happen if I make a 50 foot by
[1:58:05] 70 foot cut into the toe of a 65 degree
[1:58:09] hill? Now he says less than 30. I doubt
[1:58:14] that but we don't know that until we get
[1:58:16] a geological study done on that hill. I
[1:58:19] believe it's 65. I looked at uh also on
[1:58:25] they will give you if you look under AI
[1:58:28] they will give you what it looks like to
[1:58:31] be a 30 foot slope versus a 65 slope.
[1:58:36] Also in this discussion we're talking
[1:58:40] slope versus grade. And uh what's
[1:58:44] happening is uh those two terms are
[1:58:47] getting confused.
[1:58:50] Slope of a hill is about um twice the
[1:58:53] amount of grade. So you have to look at
[1:58:58] what you're you're actually talking
[1:58:59] about. So, um, we probably could use a
[1:59:02] little primer on those two different
[1:59:05] definitions. Okay. So going back to um
[1:59:13] response from AI,
[1:59:15] making a 50 to 70 foot cut into the toe
[1:59:19] of a 65 degree slope will severely
[1:59:23] compromise its stability and likely
[1:59:26] trigger a localized or widespread slope
[1:59:30] failure.
[1:59:32] Um let's see, the last one is actually
[1:59:37] Well, that's that was the first. Then it
[1:59:39] gets into some some definition of what
[1:59:43] they talk about.
[1:59:45] Uh
[1:59:47] summary of the results. Slope failure
[1:59:50] guaranteed.
[1:59:52] Cutting into the toe of a 65 degree hill
[1:59:57] removes the structural foundation of the
[1:59:59] slope causing an immediate or highly
[2:00:03] imminent localized landsc landslide that
[2:00:07] poses a severe threat to life and
[2:00:10] property.
[2:00:12] That that's one definition. So, uh I
[2:00:16] I've got another definition here if
[2:00:18] you'd like to hear it. But this is not
[2:00:20] good. This is why those those two
[2:00:23] engineers hair was on fire about
[2:00:26] anything happening in this parking lot
[2:00:30] or this new it's not that not
[2:00:32] necessarily parking lot but it's cutting
[2:00:35] into the toe of that hill and the hill
[2:00:38] the grade comes down at 65 and then it
[2:00:41] comes across. That's the toe of the
[2:00:44] hill. It's like your your foot.
[2:00:47] you start cutting off the toes of your h
[2:00:49] the hill, all of a sudden it removes all
[2:00:51] the structural stability of that hill
[2:00:54] and
[2:00:56] um I'll stop there.
[2:00:58] >> Thank you.
[2:01:10] I can't help but be in a place um I my
[2:01:16] interest is not to shut the parking lot
[2:01:19] down, but just see if there's anything
[2:01:21] we can do so that everybody feels
[2:01:24] comfortable in the community and um that
[2:01:27] it's a successful
[2:01:29] project. And
[2:01:32] um I'm leaning on the side of the
[2:01:35] report. I I mean the fact that there was
[2:01:40] engineering done on it um
[2:01:45] I mean that is important and resonates
[2:01:48] with me but I think given this this
[2:01:52] circumstance
[2:01:53] it could be beneficial to get that
[2:01:55] report just from a responsibility
[2:01:58] perspective.
[2:02:05] thoughts?
[2:02:07] >> No.
[2:02:12] » Yeah. My my question is
[2:02:16] the report covers a parking lot. This
[2:02:18] seems like a bigger issue than the
[2:02:19] parking lot. Do we need to have a study
[2:02:22] for this whole area?
[2:02:27] This could be something that we could
[2:02:28] discuss separately. It's wouldn't be a
[2:02:31] gerine to this action item. It's
[2:02:35] probably something that might really
[2:02:37] need to go to the town council,
[2:02:39] but we could as planning make a
[2:02:42] recommendation to the town council.
[2:02:46] >> In this instance, any report that you
[2:02:49] would condition would be sight specific.
[2:02:51] >> Yeah. anything that in this case it
[2:02:53] would be a sight specific report.
[2:02:55] >> I feel like you know if we've
[2:02:58] >> maybe in a sep separately discussed in a
[2:03:01] work meeting the whole issue of high um
[2:03:06] high high danger landslide andification
[2:03:09] type of things. We might come up with a
[2:03:12] recommendation for the town council
[2:03:14] about how ordinances might be modified
[2:03:16] or we might deal with that, but it
[2:03:20] wouldn't apply to this specific case. I
[2:03:23] don't think
[2:03:24] >> my my concern and I guess I
[2:03:27] >> go ahead.
[2:03:28] >> If I could
[2:03:30] Utah Geologic Survey came down about
[2:03:33] five years ago and gave a talk and
[2:03:35] they'd be willing to come down again to
[2:03:37] talk about landslide risk. um with the
[2:03:42] guy who's the specialist on the
[2:03:43] Springdale landslide. Uh he could focus
[2:03:46] on that if you'd want. So that's an
[2:03:48] option for you if you'd like to do that
[2:03:50] u some sort of training or presentation
[2:03:53] uh going forward. But at this point I
[2:03:56] think we need to understand the uh the
[2:03:59] impact that this particular project has
[2:04:02] on the the stability of the surrounding
[2:04:04] area whether it whether it's
[2:04:06] contributing to instability or degrading
[2:04:09] the stability of the existing situation
[2:04:11] or it's or if it's benign and you know
[2:04:14] it's a I mean I recognize there's some
[2:04:16] expense involved in that for somebody
[2:04:18] but you know it seems a reasonable thing
[2:04:20] to do given the circumstances and the history of this particular area
[2:04:25] right here. So,
[2:04:33] » no.
[2:04:37] » Mr. Wilson, do you have any other
[2:04:39] comments since you know what you
[2:04:40] actually did?
[2:04:45] » Yep.
[2:04:49] Um,
[2:04:53] well, we could do a motion. Okay, just
[2:04:55] we could do a motion to approve and add
[2:04:58] a condition that a geotechnical report
[2:05:00] needs to be done and the recommendations
[2:05:03] followed.
[2:05:04] We could do a motion to deny
[2:05:08] with these reasons or potentially we
[2:05:10] could even table it again and ask for
[2:05:13] this information back before we decide.
[2:05:15] >> Could I make a suggestion on on that
[2:05:18] procedure- wise? Um if you if you are
[2:05:21] minded to require the geotechnical
[2:05:24] report the procedurally probably the
[2:05:26] best thing would be to table that so
[2:05:28] that it would come back to you for
[2:05:30] review. If it's a condition, h it
[2:05:34] doesn't automatically come back to the
[2:05:36] town council and I I probably wouldn't
[2:05:39] recommend denying it without first
[2:05:43] having a look at it.
[2:05:44] >> Well, and I guess there's a maybe an
[2:05:46] additional option.
[2:05:49] >> The information, you know, we had seven
[2:05:51] specific items at the at the prior
[2:05:53] meeting uh that we needed information.
[2:05:56] We didn't get all of that. There's one
[2:05:59] >> one that didn't come out. So in my in in
[2:06:01] one one way look at it is it's still
[2:06:03] tabled you know we can continue to leave
[2:06:06] it tabled uh and then add the additional
[2:06:09] >> requirement that they need we need to
[2:06:13] the review
[2:06:18] » you want to do it you want me to do it
[2:06:19] >> you go ahead [laughter]
[2:06:21] >> I got a roll on a roll here okay
[2:06:24] >> one one comment since the grading permit
[2:06:26] was already
[2:06:28] given And
[2:06:29] >> this is for the DDR, not the grading
[2:06:31] permit.
[2:06:33] >> Yeah. But can we make them put the
[2:06:35] >> Yes.
[2:06:37] >> Put the soil back? I mean, what's
[2:06:41] Let's say they come and say, "Yeah, you
[2:06:42] should have took that much soil. Put you
[2:06:44] know,
[2:06:45] >> well, that's that's up to the engineer
[2:06:47] to come back and say, "This is the
[2:06:48] mitigation." If they find that there's
[2:06:50] an issue
[2:06:51] >> or what you're saying is if the
[2:06:52] mitigation is we have to re to return it
[2:06:55] to its natural state.
[2:06:56] >> Yeah. The engineer says there's no other
[2:06:58] choice other than to remove. Um I think
[2:07:01] we would have to deal with that at the
[2:07:02] time it comes back. And I think that's
[2:07:03] actually
[2:07:04] >> but since they already had the grading
[2:07:05] permit,
[2:07:07] >> we already say it's okay to take it
[2:07:09] away.
[2:07:10] >> So that's my question.
[2:07:11] >> The grading permit has been approved,
[2:07:13] but the design development review has
[2:07:15] not been approved. Um and so
[2:07:19] any conditions that would arise from this assessment could be could be
[2:07:26] um incorporated or
[2:07:28] >> Okay,
[2:07:30] good to know. Thanks.
[2:07:33] >> We all comfortable with the table then?
[2:07:37] >> Okay. The planning commission requests
[2:07:40] to table the design development review
[2:07:42] application for the expansion of the
[2:07:44] parking lot at 50 Zion Park Boulevard as
[2:07:47] discussed at the July 1st meeting 2026.
[2:07:51] This motion is based on the following
[2:07:54] findings. Parking lot expansion in
[2:07:57] encroached into a landslide hazard area
[2:08:00] as designated by the Utah Geologic
[2:08:03] Survey and the required geological study
[2:08:06] has not been submitted.
[2:08:09] um the condition and we would like to
[2:08:12] get a geo we'd like to request that the
[2:08:15] DCD request a geotechnical report and
[2:08:19] that that any uh recommendations from
[2:08:22] that report be followed and that report
[2:08:25] focus on the landslide and rockfall risk
[2:08:28] to ensure that um there that we've
[2:08:32] properly mitigated any risks associated
[2:08:36] with the landsaw landslide side and
[2:08:38] rockfall um issues. Um we would also
[2:08:43] request that the drainage study uh did
[2:08:47] the drainage study for the surface water
[2:08:49] be submitted as it was missed uh in this
[2:08:52] iteration.
[2:08:55] >> Did you want to include a slope
[2:08:56] stability analysis as well? Well, I
[2:08:59] think my understanding is the
[2:09:02] geotechnical report by requiring that it that it include dis include um
[2:09:12] >> information on the landslide and
[2:09:14] rockfall stability in the geotechnical
[2:09:17] report.
[2:09:20] Yeah, it would. And you can specifically
[2:09:22] state that if you want the that
[2:09:24] >> I think we just want to confirm that is a thing we are specifically
[2:09:28] interested in.
[2:09:28] >> Yeah.
[2:09:29] >> So that the engineer would know to
[2:09:31] provide us potentially more clarifying
[2:09:34] information if if needed.
[2:09:39] » I would second that.
[2:09:41] >> Okay. So we have a motion second.
[2:09:44] >> Any further discussion?
[2:09:48] All in favor?
[2:09:50] >> Rich I.
[2:09:51] >> Terry I.
[2:09:52] >> Jennifer I.
[2:09:53] >> All I.
[2:09:56] >> Motion passes.
[2:09:59] Okay. The third action item
[2:10:02] is DDR
[2:10:05] watchman lot 8 and 11. Mr. Wendel
[2:10:09] Bernett request design development
[2:10:11] review approval for a single family home
[2:10:13] with accessory structure at 2011 North
[2:10:17] Fork Drive and a single family home at
[2:10:19] 211 North Fork Drive. Um staff contact
[2:10:22] us Nile Connelly. Um presentation by
[2:10:25] Nile.
[2:10:26] >> Thank you. So as you indicated, this is
[2:10:29] a design development review application
[2:10:31] for two homes in the Watchman
[2:10:34] subdivision. Uh, one of these homes has
[2:10:37] an accessory building which will be used
[2:10:39] as a guest house. Um,
[2:10:43] at the last meeting the commission
[2:10:47] approved an amendment to the subdivision
[2:10:49] plat here. So, this uh that facilitated
[2:10:53] this um this development.
[2:10:56] So, the proposal for lot 8 is for a main
[2:10:59] house which will be positioned in the
[2:11:01] location of um an old excavation that
[2:11:06] exists from a a development that was
[2:11:08] started but never completed several
[2:11:10] years ago. And then there will be a a
[2:11:13] guest house which will be on the same
[2:11:15] property but a little bit further up
[2:11:16] that hill. Um and then the other home is
[2:11:21] on lot 11.
[2:11:24] Um so just a few points to note. Uh the
[2:11:27] applicant is not availing of the
[2:11:29] residential height and size bonus. So um
[2:11:33] they're not they don't need to comply
[2:11:36] with the town's architectural design
[2:11:38] standards or materials or color palette
[2:11:40] or the landscape requirements. Those um
[2:11:44] those requirements are don't apply in
[2:11:46] this case.
[2:11:49] Um
[2:11:50] the house on lot 11 uh has a cantal
[2:11:54] lever over slopes of 30%. Um this is a
[2:11:59] potential concern because the 30% slope
[2:12:02] should not be uh disturbed during
[2:12:05] construction. uh and the the architect
[2:12:08] and the contractor who who are both here
[2:12:10] actually have said it will be possible
[2:12:12] to construct um without any disturbance
[2:12:16] um if the commission is minded to grant
[2:12:19] approval there's there's a condition
[2:12:21] that that I've suggested that you might
[2:12:23] want to apply there um to address that
[2:12:27] point um and finally um
[2:12:33] I think tonight is the night for
[2:12:34] geotechnical called geologic hazard.
[2:12:37] [laughter]
[2:12:38] So following a similar theme, uh both of
[2:12:42] these properties are in geolog geologic
[2:12:44] hazard study areas. Um the applicant has
[2:12:48] request that the the geotechnical report
[2:12:51] be deferred until the building permit
[2:12:53] approval stage. So
[2:12:57] um usually it's required for the design
[2:12:59] development review. Um once design
[2:13:02] development review is approved then the
[2:13:05] applicant submits the engineer drawings
[2:13:07] to staff for the building permit. Uh so
[2:13:10] they've requested in this instance that that assessment take place at that
[2:13:14] stage. Um so the commission should
[2:13:17] deliberate on whether or not that's
[2:13:19] appropriate. Um if if granted um any
[2:13:25] approval should be conditional on that
[2:13:28] assessment being completed prior to
[2:13:30] issuance of a building permit. Um so I'd
[2:13:34] be happy to answer any questions. The
[2:13:36] architect is here also and the
[2:13:38] contractor and the engineer. So you have
[2:13:41] lots of people to answer your questions.
[2:13:48] So you'll be given an opportunity to go
[2:13:51] up to the stand and kind of make those
[2:13:54] comments.
[2:13:55] >> Yeah.
[2:14:01] » Sure. Yeah. As soon as um we're done
[2:14:03] asking Nile questions, if you could step
[2:14:05] up to the microphone, that would be
[2:14:07] great. Does anybody have any questions
[2:14:09] for Nile at this point? No, I actually
[2:14:12] have a question for the
[2:14:13] >> Okay. Yeah, please. Um, you can um come
[2:14:15] forward.
[2:14:17] >> Um, so my name is Wendell Bernett. I'm
[2:14:20] the architect uh and I'm um the
[2:14:23] applicant on behalf of of our client and
[2:14:26] the owner of this property. Also, Jared
[2:14:29] Bates uh is our civil engineer on this
[2:14:32] project. And um and Jared uh and I have
[2:14:36] been working closely on this uh since uh
[2:14:39] last uh October
[2:14:42] u when the property was closed upon.
[2:14:46] So basically what I wanted to just say
[2:14:50] uh on just to to add some clarification
[2:14:54] is
[2:14:55] we [clears throat] are we know full well
[2:14:58] that we're doing a geological
[2:15:02] investigation report. There's no
[2:15:04] question that we're doing it. We're in
[2:15:07] fact doing it.
[2:15:09] But what we were proposing is simply
[2:15:12] that
[2:15:14] the that's um it's an involved process
[2:15:18] um and we're taking it very seriously.
[2:15:21] were working with the expert in the
[2:15:24] state on the issues here in Springdale
[2:15:28] and um and uh we simply wanted to defer
[2:15:35] the signing of the part C of the geo haz
[2:15:41] geologic hazard checklist.
[2:15:45] um until the report is finalized and all
[2:15:49] the testing has been finalized, what
[2:15:53] happens is there uh are numerous borings
[2:15:57] on the site. Uh that material is pulled
[2:16:00] out of those borings and it takes uh a
[2:16:06] month or more to analyze and do all the
[2:16:10] various tests that are required to
[2:16:13] assess uh what should be done
[2:16:17] structurally.
[2:16:18] And so the report is finalized and
[2:16:22] that's not the end of it. Then there's
[2:16:24] our structural engineer who's an expert
[2:16:27] in seismic design
[2:16:30] um and is familiar with this type of
[2:16:33] seismic condition. They will then design
[2:16:37] the structure
[2:16:39] to um to to achieve uh partial or full
[2:16:45] mitigation which is allowed by the code.
[2:16:48] uh we were simply wanting to not expend
[2:16:52] all of that expense
[2:16:56] uh without knowledge that the design is
[2:16:59] approved.
[2:17:01] My uh assessment of the review
[2:17:06] uh just to let you know we've been
[2:17:08] working very closely with Tom Dancy
[2:17:11] before he became town manager. It was
[2:17:14] Nile Conny's project for six months. So
[2:17:17] we we have been working through the
[2:17:20] design January February
[2:17:24] um then you know got everything where
[2:17:28] they were comfortable with it that it's
[2:17:30] meeting all the provisions of the code
[2:17:32] relative to height etc etc etc. There's
[2:17:36] a poll test that's been done on this
[2:17:37] site. Uh then we submitted the DDR in
[2:17:42] sometime in March or April I can't quite
[2:17:44] remember. Um, and there's uh a replat uh
[2:17:49] which has been approved. Uh, there was a
[2:17:53] driveway variance that was approved. Uh,
[2:17:57] we offered alternates that
[2:18:01] um we presented were less compliant than
[2:18:05] the the one that was in a non-compliant
[2:18:10] 30% slope. and and that was agreed upon
[2:18:13] by the by the the the hearing officer
[2:18:17] and that's all in Nile's report.
[2:18:20] [clears throat] And so um what we're I
[2:18:24] think we're different than the first two
[2:18:26] cases. We're well aware that we're in in what we're in and we are just asking
[2:18:34] for time to to
[2:18:38] um well we don't want to be doing all
[2:18:41] that without knowing that we can be here
[2:18:45] be where we are located and the design
[2:18:49] is approved
[2:18:51] meaning the height of the building etc where it is all that stuff
[2:18:55] everything that complies ies with the
[2:18:57] land use ordinance
[2:19:00] and what the the thing that Nile has not
[2:19:04] read is you know he ticks through all
[2:19:06] the things that are compliant.
[2:19:09] So the only thing that we ask to be
[2:19:12] deferred is to do to present not just
[2:19:18] the geologic hazard the geolog geologic
[2:19:23] investigation report
[2:19:26] which addresses geologic hazards as well
[2:19:29] as normal subsurface conditions for any
[2:19:33] building anywhere [snorts] you are doing
[2:19:36] a geotechnical investigation report to
[2:19:38] determine the sole bearing values etc etc. But in order to
[2:19:45] um to
[2:19:47] show what what the structural design is
[2:19:51] we we have to do we have to basically
[2:19:55] get into full construction documents to
[2:19:58] do that. So the simplest way of saying
[2:20:00] this is it's a chicken and the egg
[2:20:02] situation. Um we we we we we're asking
[2:20:08] to just simply do that in our view for
[2:20:12] this particular project for at the more
[2:20:14] appropriate time. Nothing's getting
[2:20:17] built. Nothing is happening uh until we
[2:20:22] get the building permit. [snorts] and we
[2:20:25] understand and respect the uh uh the
[2:20:29] I've been doing this 45 years or more
[2:20:32] may not look like it but I have and so
[2:20:37] we we we just trying to do our due
[2:20:39] diligence and do our normal thing that
[2:20:42] we know we have to do and to present
[2:20:45] that along with the full structural
[2:20:48] engineering and we do that prior to the
[2:20:52] building permits. So what Nile is saying
[2:20:55] here is to approve
[2:20:59] or deny con with the following
[2:21:02] conditions that either the geotechnical
[2:21:06] investigation report is allowed to be
[2:21:09] deferred
[2:21:10] prior to the building permit being
[2:21:14] pulled
[2:21:16] and prior to the building permit being
[2:21:18] reviewed.
[2:21:20] Um, so we will be submitting that to to
[2:21:26] Nile and then Nile will say that this uh
[2:21:29] has been done. I don't know if you've
[2:21:31] read the geologic hazard checklist, but
[2:21:34] it essentially
[2:21:36] um it's a hold harmless agreement
[2:21:39] basically
[2:21:40] and it and it also talks about the the
[2:21:44] mitigation etc. and you're you're all
[2:21:47] that's going to be there.
[2:21:49] So uh and then the second item is the
[2:21:53] 30% slope that he mentioned. Uh we're
[2:21:56] confident that we can we are going to
[2:21:59] build within the the the 10
[2:22:04] within the 20 to 30% slope area up to
[2:22:08] the 30% slope area. [snorts]
[2:22:12] We will we're on one part we're
[2:22:15] canolvering a walkway 3 ft over. We can
[2:22:20] form that leave the formwork in. It can
[2:22:23] be attached to the stem wall that's
[2:22:24] within the uh allowable area. [snorts]
[2:22:28] And the other we're going to can lever a
[2:22:31] little further. We're going to construct
[2:22:32] a platform that can be craned in and
[2:22:36] then we have a work platform and we
[2:22:39] protect all of that area. We're very very serious about protecting the
[2:22:45] uh native vegetation
[2:22:48] and uh and in the the 5 to 7 foot area
[2:22:52] that we're going to fence around the
[2:22:53] construction site, we will uh we will
[2:22:56] save cryptobotic soil. We will save uh
[2:23:00] small um detritus sticks and rocks and
[2:23:05] I'm from Phoenix so we work in the
[2:23:07] desert a lot. we will restore that
[2:23:10] uh at the at the highest level that's
[2:23:13] possible and we have a lot of experience
[2:23:15] doing that. So we're very confident
[2:23:18] there. Um I think Nile talked to one of
[2:23:21] the two contractors that we're talking
[2:23:23] to. One is here Mark Farenamp who is
[2:23:27] also confident we can do this and we've
[2:23:29] talked to our contractors about that. Um
[2:23:33] he he's basically saying we are showing
[2:23:36] that we can do it. He's just concerned.
[2:23:39] Can we actually do it? And I feel like
[2:23:43] we need to get be given the opportunity
[2:23:44] to do that and we will be doing that. We
[2:23:48] take all of this. Our client takes it
[2:23:50] all very seriously too. He wants the
[2:23:52] site to be as natural as possible. The
[2:23:54] third item, this is on the last page of
[2:23:57] the staff report. The subdivision plat
[2:24:00] amendment which was approved on the by
[2:24:02] the town June 17th must be recorded with
[2:24:05] Washington County prior to issuance of
[2:24:07] the BU building permit which will be
[2:24:10] done. But there's a couple of there's
[2:24:12] one or little one or two little details
[2:24:14] there that are kind of chicken and egg
[2:24:16] situation.
[2:24:18] So
[2:24:19] that's um so I I just want to be clear.
[2:24:22] We're not we're not we didn't build
[2:24:25] something.
[2:24:26] Nothing is and and we're not um we're
[2:24:29] not not going to do what we have to do
[2:24:33] here. We're just asking for it to be
[2:24:35] deferred
[2:24:36] so that we can submit
[2:24:40] a signed part C that we're confident
[2:24:44] that everything can be met per the code.
[2:24:50] I to ask some questions.
[2:24:53] >> Yeah, some questions.
[2:25:00] Oh, so just so I understand you
[2:25:02] correctly, um, just in your experience,
[2:25:06] this this is what I think I I'm hearing
[2:25:08] you say. In your experience, it in
[2:25:11] general makes more sense to do it in
[2:25:14] that order that there's not anything
[2:25:16] that's necessarily unique to these
[2:25:19] structures. Is that right?
[2:25:22] It's just the site is we're at the toe
[2:25:26] of a landslide that is a mile by a mile.
[2:25:30] >> Okay. and but when and we we're into it
[2:25:34] enough that we're it's look it uh RG a
[2:25:38] technical engineer who is uh Jim
[2:25:40] Norquist with AGC is is um we've
[2:25:45] recently received some uh analysis that
[2:25:49] you know we are u he's he's very
[2:25:51] confident and he's been confident from
[2:25:54] the minute you know he gave us a
[2:25:56] proposal and so forth. We just have to
[2:25:58] go through the steps and then we have to
[2:26:00] work with our engineer to to demonstrate
[2:26:04] through the design and through the
[2:26:06] drawings that we're achieving uh partial
[2:26:09] or full mitigation which is allowed by
[2:26:12] the code.
[2:26:12] >> Okay. Thank you.
[2:26:17] » State your name.
[2:26:18] >> Jared Bates with Rosenberg Associates. I
[2:26:21] think maybe to help answer your question
[2:26:22] as well too, um you know, due to the
[2:26:24] complexity of the site, um the
[2:26:26] recommendations that that the geological
[2:26:28] engineers are going to make are very
[2:26:30] specific to the exact location. And so
[2:26:33] if if we have to move this building 20
[2:26:35] ft one way or the other, we're going to
[2:26:36] have to go back and and do another
[2:26:38] boring that's 80t deep. And so because
[2:26:41] it's it's so specific, I I think that
[2:26:43] the idea is, hey, let's make sure we
[2:26:44] know where exactly where the house is at
[2:26:46] so we can be confident that that we got
[2:26:47] the ideal places to make the borings to
[2:26:50] determine that it is the right
[2:26:51] mitigation because if if it's not, then
[2:26:53] they're going to have to redo it. I
[2:26:54] think again I think everyone understands
[2:26:56] the risk of the site and so we're ready
[2:26:57] to to adequately deal with it. We want
[2:26:59] to make sure that we're in the right
[2:27:00] spot.
[2:27:01] >> Yeah, that's helpful. [clears throat] I
[2:27:02] hear from both of you that it's that
[2:27:03] it's site, not necessarily structure.
[2:27:06] Yeah,
[2:27:06] >> that's a great point. I mean, we we
[2:27:09] wanted we had
[2:27:12] um
[2:27:14] after the driveway variance was
[2:27:16] approved,
[2:27:18] um we we have proceeded to do the
[2:27:22] borings
[2:27:24] because we were confident that we could
[2:27:27] be where we were proposing
[2:27:30] uh that also we could have, you know,
[2:27:32] the driveway access. We had alternate
[2:27:35] proposals. We had also reviewed those
[2:27:37] proposals with the fire marshall
[2:27:39] relative to fire access and all of that.
[2:27:41] So, uh you know, it's been a kind of
[2:27:45] multiple things that need to get
[2:27:47] approved and and then it's we we do not
[2:27:51] we will not be moving anything from
[2:27:55] where we are. we will be able to achieve
[2:27:58] uh everything but we need time to
[2:28:01] demonstrate that through the normal
[2:28:04] process of doing
[2:28:07] what I would describe the DDR as a
[2:28:09] design development which is like a 30
[2:28:11] 35% of our contract
[2:28:14] uh there's 40% to go to do the remainder
[2:28:17] of the construction documents the
[2:28:19] blueprints and then of course we're
[2:28:21] involved in construction
[2:28:24] as will be the geotechnical engineer and
[2:28:27] the structural engineer etc. So we we
[2:28:30] just you know re really we're just
[2:28:32] feeling it's uh we wanted def we we're
[2:28:36] just simply asking to defer it. We're
[2:28:38] not asking to not do it. Uh we and I I
[2:28:42] can assure you that we're uh you know
[2:28:45] we're protecting our clients investment
[2:28:49] in in this property and the the project.
[2:28:54] And uh we just can't, you know, just
[2:28:58] sign it and not have done the work to
[2:29:02] show that it we we're confident that and
[2:29:05] present that that when we're signing it,
[2:29:08] we're not just signing it. we actually
[2:29:09] know we can do everything we're signing.
[2:29:16] » So, um,
[2:29:18] one option I I can think of is we could table this based upon saying
[2:29:26] that we need the geotechnical report.
[2:29:29] Um, but before we do that, we could have
[2:29:32] our discussion and deliberation. It
[2:29:35] sounds to me like your primary concern
[2:29:38] is that the locations defined in the
[2:29:41] drawings at this point can be that we
[2:29:45] would have discussed them and felt that
[2:29:47] they are fine and you could then move
[2:29:50] forward. Is that a good enough
[2:29:52] understanding?
[2:29:53] >> Yeah. If you roll this back to the site
[2:29:55] plan um that was at the beginning I
[2:29:59] think here right there. Yeah. I mean,
[2:30:03] generally speaking, we feel comfortable
[2:30:06] with the process that we've gone through
[2:30:10] with the town. I mean, I would um I
[2:30:13] would I've been saying
[2:30:16] this is the most uh
[2:30:22] complex and say integrated uh code that
[2:30:28] I've worked in in my entire career. And
[2:30:32] I would additionally say that the people
[2:30:34] that are helping you administer the code
[2:30:38] over here are some of the most competent
[2:30:42] people I've ever worked with. So we
[2:30:45] we're we're we're
[2:30:47] not skirting anything here for sure. And yes, I I my hope was that we could
[2:30:56] have approval just so that we have the
[2:30:59] approval and and meaning it's a
[2:31:01] conditional approval and there's no
[2:31:04] chance that something's going to come up
[2:31:06] that you don't agree with the planning
[2:31:10] department and giving us comments which
[2:31:14] we've addressed and we got it down where
[2:31:16] there are no more comments. We revised
[2:31:19] the DDR. There were a few a couple of
[2:31:22] weeks ago when we finally got the
[2:31:23] comments. Nile agrees that those are
[2:31:27] that we're complying and compliant with
[2:31:29] all those now.
[2:31:31] And then there are just these three
[2:31:33] items that are mentioned at the last
[2:31:35] page. So yeah, I I would love to I on
[2:31:40] behalf of our client would love to know
[2:31:43] that
[2:31:45] the design is approved. we can be where
[2:31:48] we are and the only thing is that uh we
[2:31:53] have to submit that geotechnical
[2:31:55] investigation report before we go into
[2:31:58] plan review and before we go to submit
[2:32:02] for building permit
[2:32:04] >> one one question there was some talk
[2:32:06] about it's can levers which sounds
[2:32:08] really cool and then in the text here it
[2:32:10] says it's something we should discuss
[2:32:12] well I actually have no idea what to
[2:32:14] discuss so you say you're confident you
[2:32:17] and do the can lever can levering. Is
[2:32:20] there a backup plan if something goes
[2:32:21] wrong?
[2:32:22] >> The backup plan is we don't do the can
[2:32:24] leave.
[2:32:25] >> That's a good backup plan. Yeah, I'm
[2:32:27] sure you don't want to do that, but that
[2:32:29] works.
[2:32:30] >> Be over the 30% slope in a way that does
[2:32:34] that nothing is damaged.
[2:32:36] >> We don't do it. That's the backup plan.
[2:32:40] And we, you know, I think it's pretty
[2:32:43] clear that that we we the contractors
[2:32:47] and we know that y'all are out there
[2:32:50] inspecting this stuff. We know we have
[2:32:52] to comply with everything. We, you know,
[2:32:54] it's not like we can say it and then not
[2:32:56] do it, you know, and we also gen
[2:33:00] genuinely want to protect the site. This
[2:33:03] is a little bowl back there. So, let me
[2:33:07] point to this so you can see what I'm
[2:33:08] pointing to. that lot 11
[2:33:12] is just a special little spot that's at
[2:33:14] the bottom of this bowl that is the
[2:33:16] quietest part on the site, the quietest
[2:33:19] place on the site.
[2:33:22] Uh where you literally can hear a plane
[2:33:25] flying overhead at 30,000 ft and that is
[2:33:28] all you can hear. And then you can hear
[2:33:30] the baby big horn being trained by their
[2:33:33] parents on Johnson Mountain. That's all
[2:33:36] you can hear. you can't hear even a loud
[2:33:38] motorcycle on State Road 9. So, we just,
[2:33:41] you know, the client wanted this
[2:33:43] different experience there. Um, and so,
[2:33:47] you know, that's u we we've just pushed
[2:33:50] it
[2:33:52] um back in it just happened to be that
[2:33:55] shape.
[2:33:57] There are two parallel sides and then
[2:33:59] there's the back and then there's a
[2:34:00] little perennial wash that runs there.
[2:34:02] We're at the uh you know above the the
[2:34:06] flood line on that. So anyway, all this
[2:34:10] is is just we want we want to be there.
[2:34:12] What's canievering out over there is a
[2:34:14] dry sauna with a great view. And then
[2:34:17] there's a little canal lever plunge pool
[2:34:20] that is a is is a plunge a after you're
[2:34:24] in the sauna. And then on the other side
[2:34:26] is a is a little
[2:34:30] relaxation cave that looks up the west
[2:34:33] slope and it's just a walkway to get
[2:34:36] around that and to the front of the main
[2:34:39] house there. So but if if we if it
[2:34:44] doesn't if we cannot do it with but if
[2:34:47] we cannot uh adhere to the code which is
[2:34:50] very clear uh then the backup plan is we
[2:34:53] don't do it.
[2:34:56] >> So you feel you you at this point you
[2:34:58] believe you can do these can levers
[2:35:00] without disturbing the 30% slope.
[2:35:03] >> Absolutely.
[2:35:05] and um the town would inspect that
[2:35:09] process and make sure that that they
[2:35:14] succeed.
[2:35:15] >> Yeah. So, the the way that works is at
[2:35:17] the beginning of a construction project,
[2:35:20] uh we'll meet with the contractor to um
[2:35:23] and they'll they will have fenced off
[2:35:25] all the 30% slopes and then we do
[2:35:28] inspections every week. We stop by to
[2:35:31] make sure things are on track. So if um
[2:35:36] I if if it's not working, we will know
[2:35:40] within a week. So
[2:35:43] I have something um separate. Um so the
[2:35:47] finished floor elevation in that can
[2:35:51] levered section. As I looked at the
[2:35:53] drawings, it appeared possibly that it
[2:35:56] might be more than 4 feet vertical
[2:35:59] distance above the natural grade.
[2:36:02] Um, and I don't know that you would know
[2:36:04] that off the top of your head, but part
[2:36:06] of our ordinance is uh 1019A
[2:36:10] 10 C um talks about this. And um
[2:36:15] basically it says if the vertical
[2:36:17] distance between either the natural
[2:36:19] grade or cut grade and the finished
[2:36:22] floor elevation of the first floor of a
[2:36:24] structure at any point on the exterior
[2:36:28] building surface such as basement walls,
[2:36:31] crawl spaces, etc.
[2:36:33] um exceeds 4 feet, then the area of the
[2:36:37] structure below the the FE the first
[2:36:40] floor elevation um shall be included in
[2:36:44] the building square footage.
[2:36:46] So part of uh what has proposed here are
[2:36:51] three buildings that are less than 3,000
[2:36:53] square feet and therefore we're not uh
[2:36:57] implementing the colored pallets and
[2:37:00] other things because that part's not
[2:37:02] been signed. Um I want to confirm or
[2:37:05] would like maybe somebody to check that
[2:37:09] if that's more than four feet, do we
[2:37:11] have to include this the square footage
[2:37:13] underneath it? Does that bump it above
[2:37:16] 3,000 square ft? I think that's a
[2:37:18] consideration to look at.
[2:37:20] >> Yeah, I think that's a good point. Um
[2:37:23] that's that's that part of the code is
[2:37:27] generally applies to where there's a
[2:37:29] basement. And so it's I think the
[2:37:32] intention is that um if if your first
[2:37:36] floor elevation is higher up, then you
[2:37:39] start counting the basement square
[2:37:42] footage. Um yeah, this is kind of an
[2:37:45] unusual circumstance, right, with with a
[2:37:47] cantal lever. Um do you do you have that
[2:37:51] reference there?
[2:37:53] >> What was that?
[2:37:54] >> Reference. Yeah.
[2:37:55] >> Yeah, it's um let me pull it up here. It
[2:37:58] is um
[2:38:00] where is it? Where do I have it? Here.
[2:38:03] There we go. um 9A,
[2:38:06] you know, se section 9A
[2:38:09] and then um
[2:38:12] you know 9A-10
[2:38:14] which is building size and height
[2:38:17] and then if you go down to paragraph C
[2:38:20] and underneath that uh item one under
[2:38:23] paragraph C was where I was reading from
[2:38:28] >> and I'm assuming that area is not
[2:38:30] finished.
[2:38:30] >> But now one thing I want to
[2:38:33] Niles pointed this out to us on the U.
[2:38:38] So we I'm familiar with what you're
[2:38:40] talking about and I just pulled up the
[2:38:43] drawings and basically if u we and if we
[2:38:49] opened up the DDR submission
[2:38:53] um now if you go to page
[2:38:57] 49
[2:39:06] basically we're talking about the wash
[2:39:08] area and
[2:39:11] that's why we kind of have this
[2:39:14] condition. Um,
[2:39:17] sorry, I'm I'm
[2:39:20] That's the total pages. Sorry. 24. 24.
[2:39:24] It's going 49. I don't remember it being
[2:39:26] that long.
[2:39:27] >> Page 24. Yeah.
[2:39:31] Sorry.
[2:39:38] Well, wait. Do you have I hope I have
[2:39:41] the right I have the updated version. Do
[2:39:44] you have the updated version?
[2:39:47] >> Yeah. What? What the drawing number?
[2:39:59] » Right. It's it's it's the um lot 11
[2:40:01] property, I believe.
[2:40:04] right here.
[2:40:06] >> So
[2:40:09] you can see where the 100 is there's
[2:40:13] 3840
[2:40:15] >> right
[2:40:16] >> and 3844 is the floor. So,
[2:40:21] um I would say
[2:40:24] everything
[2:40:27] to this side of that blue line which is
[2:40:31] pretty close
[2:40:33] a little.
[2:40:36] The only thing that that is the building
[2:40:40] covered area is defined by the code is
[2:40:43] that little tip of the sauna there has a
[2:41:00] You're asking,
[2:41:07] » right? So, so you would build this can
[2:41:09] leave the structure. It would have a it
[2:41:11] would have a floor finished floor
[2:41:12] elevation like you said you read third I
[2:41:15] get the number but and it would be over
[2:41:17] top of natural grade which might be more
[2:41:21] than four feet lower than the finished
[2:41:24] floor which would potentially trigger
[2:41:27] this although the staff is telling us
[2:41:30] that may only apply in case there's a
[2:41:32] basement.
[2:41:33] >> Can I just read this section? I think I
[2:41:36] think it so if the vertical distance of
[2:41:39] either natural grade or cut grade and
[2:41:41] the finished floor elevation of the
[2:41:43] first floor at any point on an exterior
[2:41:46] building surface such as basement walls,
[2:41:49] crawl space, foundation walls, pool
[2:41:51] decks, etc. exceeds 4T, then the area of
[2:41:55] the structure below the finished floor
[2:41:57] elevation shall be counted as building
[2:42:00] square footage. So I think where it says
[2:42:04] any structure on the point of an
[2:42:05] exterior building an exterior building
[2:42:09] surface
[2:42:10] um
[2:42:13] that that suggests to me that it would
[2:42:17] wouldn't apply where there's a cantal
[2:42:19] lever because there's if if if the
[2:42:21] building kind of um
[2:42:25] is connected to the ground by a stem
[2:42:28] wall or a basement wall or something
[2:42:29] that's where it would apply.
[2:42:31] where it where it says, you know, on an
[2:42:34] exterior building surface such as
[2:42:36] basement walls, crawl space walls,
[2:42:39] foundation walls, etc. So, I I don't
[2:42:42] know that that applies in this case. So
[2:42:45] yeah, you're
[2:42:46] >> the diagram if you were to look at the
[2:42:48] text
[2:42:49] >> in any
[2:42:50] >> what my my assessment of the code why
[2:42:52] it's written this way is that 4 feet
[2:42:56] more than four feet allows you to bring
[2:42:58] light into a occupied area.
[2:43:03] And so if you are more than 4 feet, it
[2:43:07] needs to be counted as a story
[2:43:11] essentially or as area
[2:43:13] >> part of your square footage.
[2:43:14] >> And because you could make it a
[2:43:16] habitable space by bringing in light
[2:43:20] from above the ground. And so it's a way
[2:43:24] to to um limit height and limit
[2:43:30] volume, massing, etc. Uh it's it's
[2:43:34] that's my we were dealing with that on
[2:43:37] the existing construction site for the
[2:43:40] main house on lot 8 and we you know
[2:43:43] we're within it there. So that's why I
[2:43:45] was aware of it because it came up when
[2:43:48] we were discussing what we were doing on
[2:43:50] this abandoned construction.
[2:43:52] >> That's right. But if this structure is
[2:43:55] 1830 square feet as it says on that
[2:43:58] diagram that we're nowhere near
[2:44:00] >> that 50 square feet underneath there
[2:44:01] even if we counted is irrelevant right
[2:44:05] >> it's a good question that we are more
[2:44:07] than four feet right there you're
[2:44:10] looking at this very close
[2:44:11] >> but you'd have to come up with almost
[2:44:13] 1,200 to get to kick you over 3,000
[2:44:16] >> right right I was more asking you just
[2:44:18] to confirm and to decide whether we need
[2:44:21] to like really look at all of the areas
[2:44:23] and do we need to add it up? Because I
[2:44:26] didn't I did not necessarily expect it
[2:44:28] would go over 3,000. It was more trying
[2:44:30] to confirm that we wouldn't. Um but I I
[2:44:33] think the staff and your explanation
[2:44:36] does make sense. Um and the code itself
[2:44:41] talks about walls but doesn't say, you
[2:44:43] know, extending to the ground, but
[2:44:45] that's a minor detail. So I I think
[2:44:48] probably that explanation makes sense to
[2:44:50] how the code is intended. Um but um
[2:44:56] okay
[2:45:00] [clears throat and cough]
[2:45:03] there other questions.
[2:45:07] [clears throat]
[2:45:10] » Thank you.
[2:45:12] >> into deliberation.
[2:45:17] As far as the structure is concerned, I really haven't seen anything that
[2:45:21] jumps out as to me as an issue.
[2:45:24] >> Yeah. Um I was going to say the same
[2:45:25] thing. I think in terms of the drawings
[2:45:28] we have of the three structures, they're
[2:45:31] all within the height limits. Um they
[2:45:35] all look like they would fit very well.
[2:45:37] Many of them are actually buried
[2:45:39] significantly at one end or the other.
[2:45:42] Um, so I think that there actually be
[2:45:44] very inconspicuous structures and I was
[2:45:47] actually one of the members who was
[2:45:48] there for the poll test and that ridge
[2:45:51] line pretty much hides it from SR9 and the rest of the valley. Um,
[2:45:58] so overall I think the design is uh I'm happy with all the designs. Um,
[2:46:07] my only concern is that I'd like to see
[2:46:10] the geotechnical report, which is part
[2:46:12] of why I asked the question that maybe
[2:46:13] we have discussion if we all agree
[2:46:17] that this design looks good that we
[2:46:19] would table waiting for the report,
[2:46:22] letting the applicant know that we are
[2:46:24] comfortable with the placing of the
[2:46:27] houses and the general design and
[2:46:29] layout.
[2:46:31] But I mean, open it up to others and see
[2:46:33] what they think.
[2:46:36] I I would like to and maybe this my own
[2:46:38] curiosity but when the geological report
[2:46:42] is done I would like to see that for our
[2:46:45] own benefit to see what kind of
[2:46:47] mitigation was required to help us in
[2:46:49] other parts of the
[2:46:51] >> right and that would be the reason
[2:46:52] >> for table
[2:46:53] >> so that way it would come back to us
[2:46:56] with a completed geotechnical report
[2:46:58] that we could see any required
[2:47:01] mitigations
[2:47:03] um and also potentially see if it turns
[2:47:05] out to the geotechnical report changes
[2:47:09] the design somehow.
[2:47:10] >> Right?
[2:47:11] >> So that's why I would prefer to table um
[2:47:15] but giving the applicant the indication
[2:47:18] that
[2:47:19] >> rather than approving it we table it but
[2:47:22] by having our discussion we can indicate
[2:47:25] if we are comfortable with the layouts
[2:47:28] and the pl positioning and where things
[2:47:30] are. Um, personally I think I am and and
[2:47:35] again I think one of the conditions we
[2:47:37] talked about was that the plat uh get
[2:47:39] gets um recorded because the movement of the property line is is important to
[2:47:46] the setbacks and confirming the
[2:47:48] setbacks.
[2:47:49] Um
[2:47:50] >> yeah please
[2:47:51] >> please have a question
[2:47:54] on that. So that the the plat has been
[2:47:56] approved you guys have seen it and the
[2:47:58] only concern I have with recording is
[2:47:59] typically a A plat is recorded uh and
[2:48:02] that's based on
[2:48:14] typically if there's improvements
[2:48:15] required with the plat they have to be
[2:48:17] built or bonded for and so at this point
[2:48:19] I don't know what improvements I need
[2:48:21] because I don't I haven't done the the
[2:48:23] plans the civil plans does that make
[2:48:25] sense so like for example if we're in a
[2:48:27] regular subdivision I would have to spec
[2:48:28] out you know the water me the sewer
[2:48:30] laterals I'd have to have there's any
[2:48:31] road improvements. And so those
[2:48:34] improvements are required to record the
[2:48:35] plat. And so typically in this case, I
[2:48:37] don't know what those improvements are.
[2:48:38] So it doesn't make sense for me to to
[2:48:40] record it or I don't you almost can't
[2:48:42] without knowing what those improvements
[2:48:44] are. It's already been approved by the the town. So whatever. I mean, if
[2:48:49] unless you wanted to to wave something
[2:48:51] or or I'm missing something, I don't
[2:48:53] know.
[2:48:54] >> Um
[2:48:56] >> yeah. So the the the development is in
[2:49:00] compliance only because the the the
[2:49:03] property lines have moved. So it is kind
[2:49:05] of a an important do you want to add
[2:49:08] something Tom or you're looking
[2:49:10] expectantly.
[2:49:12] Go for it. So unlike with a with a brand
[2:49:16] new subdivision plat the process you
[2:49:17] described Jared would be would be
[2:49:19] correct where you have to do the
[2:49:22] improvements or bond for them before you
[2:49:23] can approve before the final plat can be
[2:49:26] recorded. You're doing a plat amendment
[2:49:28] which is different. So you you don't
[2:49:30] need to have those improvements in or
[2:49:32] bond for them. All you need to do is
[2:49:34] take that document that's already been
[2:49:35] approved and have that recorded. you
[2:49:38] don't need to the that's independent of
[2:49:41] when the um infrastructure improvements
[2:49:43] are made.
[2:49:43] >> So like I said it's it's been approved
[2:49:46] by this group and I think the engineers
[2:49:48] have looked at it as well. So when we've
[2:49:50] made the one correction they asked for.
[2:49:51] So I could go out there I I could print
[2:49:52] that tomorrow and take it to the county
[2:49:54] and get it recorded. Okay.
[2:50:01] » Sorry. Yes, that's correct.
[2:50:06] » Yes.
[2:50:08] So I
[2:50:11] just on what you were just deliberating
[2:50:13] on, I would just offer the other option
[2:50:16] is what Nile has stated here is that you
[2:50:22] can give us a conditional approval,
[2:50:26] which to me is more official, that it is
[2:50:29] approved
[2:50:30] pending that we submit the geotechnical
[2:50:36] report
[2:50:37] Really what's required is the geologic
[2:50:39] hazard checklist part C is signed which
[2:50:44] absolves the town of all responsibility.
[2:50:47] um you know it it it so you know
[2:50:54] that to me that would that's a that's
[2:50:57] more concrete
[2:51:00] uh that it it is approved
[2:51:03] with the conditions
[2:51:05] whatever conditions you want to add here
[2:51:08] that the plat is recorded the 30% slope
[2:51:11] is adhered to in terms of the canal
[2:51:15] lever on lot 11 and and that we we we're
[2:51:21] not asking to not do it. We're asking to
[2:51:24] do it when we have it all together. And
[2:51:28] it will not affect where we are. We're
[2:51:32] going to be where we are. And it's just
[2:51:35] a matter of of of us submitting it when
[2:51:39] we have the opport, you know, when we
[2:51:41] can get everything together that we, you
[2:51:45] know, we're, you know, that that would
[2:51:47] just be preferred if you I I don't know
[2:51:51] that it's different than what you're
[2:51:52] saying about tableabling it. I just
[2:51:55] think tableabling it means that there's
[2:51:57] been no decision.
[2:51:59] Um, yeah, tableabling would would mean
[2:52:02] that there's not a decision and that you would come back again when the
[2:52:08] geotechnical report is complete.
[2:52:12] Um, and what you would have going
[2:52:14] forward is the discussions that we've
[2:52:16] had here. And I'll let others speak for
[2:52:19] themselves, but my my perception is that
[2:52:21] we all feel pretty comfortable with the
[2:52:24] layouts, the buildings, the positions,
[2:52:26] and the locations of the buildings, and
[2:52:28] the things that you've said are a
[2:52:31] concern that you want to know that
[2:52:33] they're final before you complete the
[2:52:36] geotechnical report. Um and so but we we
[2:52:41] feel that we need to see that the see
[2:52:43] the geotechnical support report in a
[2:52:46] before we can approve the completely
[2:52:48] approve the DDR.
[2:52:49] >> So are you saying there's an issue by
[2:52:51] saying approving it with the condition
[2:52:54] that they have to come back with the
[2:52:55] geotechnical report and no significant
[2:52:58] changes to plans have been made. Um well
[2:53:02] I I I might ask the staff to comment but
[2:53:06] to correct me but my understanding is is
[2:53:08] that if we approve with a condition then
[2:53:10] it never then it does not come back to
[2:53:13] us
[2:53:14] that the staff takes care of making sure
[2:53:17] the conditions are met which is an
[2:53:19] option because they will make sure that
[2:53:22] the that the report is there but we will
[2:53:25] not see it. Can't we put the can't we
[2:53:27] put a um a condition in that they have
[2:53:29] to come back to us?
[2:53:31] >> Do we do that? Is that
[2:53:33] >> can I say something?
[2:53:35] >> Sorry to interrupt but
[2:53:37] >> yeah I mean I think what would happen is
[2:53:40] that um the approval then they can move
[2:53:43] to the building permit and then the
[2:53:45] building permit is staff approved. So
[2:53:47] the geotechnical
[2:53:49] study would be part of the building
[2:53:51] permit application that that doesn't
[2:53:53] come back to the planning commission.
[2:53:56] >> I guess my concern is that there's you
[2:53:59] >> my one thing I want to say my
[2:54:01] understanding
[2:54:02] the the only I this going to sound
[2:54:08] maybe too bold or maybe I'm being
[2:54:10] presumptuous or too bold.
[2:54:15] My I if we had signed this and submitted
[2:54:18] it,
[2:54:20] the staff report would say that it has
[2:54:24] been submitted
[2:54:26] and I don't know that you're seeing it.
[2:54:30] I mean I you know I don't think y'all
[2:54:32] are reviewing a geotechnical
[2:54:35] investigation report.
[2:54:36] >> Actually we do. I mean sense of
[2:54:42] >> are you questioning the engineer that
[2:54:45] says they're comfortable building here
[2:54:48] and that they have that that's what
[2:54:51] they're signing. They're the ones
[2:54:53] signing it
[2:54:55] >> and so they're only going to sign it if they're
[2:55:00] comfortable and they're the expert. And
[2:55:05] so uh the the only thing that
[2:55:09] I think that uh if I understand it
[2:55:13] correctly that there is either partial
[2:55:15] or full mitigation and my understanding
[2:55:18] is no one is achieving full mitigation.
[2:55:21] The only thing that one can do in this
[2:55:24] area is partial mitigation.
[2:55:27] And also my understanding is that it is
[2:55:29] a property owner's right to assume all
[2:55:32] risk and to build on the property
[2:55:38] per the state code. And that's the the
[2:55:43] um Utah geology
[2:55:46] uh survey code that is tied to this
[2:55:51] code. So, you know, I think that that's my understanding.
[2:56:02] » So, I've been on the commission a number
[2:56:04] of years and uh have read numerous
[2:56:07] geotechnical reports. I don't ever
[2:56:10] consider myself to question the uh
[2:56:14] report or the recommendations of the
[2:56:16] engineer. It is more to see what those
[2:56:20] recommendations are, what what the
[2:56:23] issues were reported and what and to see
[2:56:26] that they have been implemented in the
[2:56:29] plan. Um, and so we're not questioning
[2:56:32] the engineers as much as ensuring that
[2:56:36] the report has been completed and that
[2:56:38] it was included
[2:56:40] in the plan. and if a property owner
[2:56:43] decides not to follow certain things
[2:56:45] that we understand that in our approval
[2:56:48] or disapproval of the DDR so it's not to
[2:56:51] question the engineer per se. Um that's
[2:56:55] certainly my perspective on how I view
[2:56:58] geotechnical reports.
[2:57:00] >> I think that's I'd agree with that.
[2:57:06] So kind of circling back to the qu the
[2:57:08] question before that can we approve it
[2:57:11] with the condition that we see that
[2:57:14] report?
[2:57:16] >> No it's it's it wouldn't be part of the
[2:57:19] process.
[2:57:19] >> Yeah I okay I understand.
[2:57:21] >> Yeah it would go to the building permit
[2:57:23] which the staff approves. So, if we want
[2:57:26] to see
[2:57:26] >> I I guess I'm a little confused because you you
[2:57:31] initially stated that you were concerned
[2:57:33] about doing the geotech report before
[2:57:37] you had final sighting uh information.
[2:57:41] And then you followed on by saying
[2:57:43] you've done most of all the cings anyway
[2:57:45] where you think the site's going to be
[2:57:47] and
[2:57:50] the part of part of that is also the
[2:57:53] structural engineering that demonstrates
[2:57:56] how we comp.
[2:57:59] >> Correct. Right.
[2:58:03] Yes.
[2:58:11] » Um when the driveway request, the
[2:58:15] driveway variance request was approved,
[2:58:18] we
[2:58:20] did proceed with the beginning steps
[2:58:24] which were doing the borings and the
[2:58:26] report is not finalized.
[2:58:29] Um but there's enough there's a recent
[2:58:32] uh
[2:58:34] long-term analysis that had have been
[2:58:38] con concluded and was just talking with
[2:58:41] my structural engineer and my
[2:58:43] geotechnical engineer yesterday and um
[2:58:47] you know he's he finally has enough
[2:58:50] information. He feels confident that um you know that we we're we're going to
[2:58:57] be uh in a position to to uh to comply
[2:59:02] with all their recommendations and be
[2:59:04] where we are and all that that I've
[2:59:05] said, but it's not done. And so, yes, we
[2:59:10] did pull the trigger on the borings.
[2:59:15] Um but we still have a lot of work to do
[2:59:18] and and yeah it's and our client has
[2:59:22] agreed with you know but it's just you
[2:59:25] know I I guess I'm just it you all do
[2:59:28] what you need to you know I appre
[2:59:30] appreciate what you just said and um if
[2:59:34] it needs to be tabled so that y'all can
[2:59:36] see it um I don't think it's going to
[2:59:40] change anything. Um, so whatever y'all
[2:59:43] need to do to be comfortable. I was just
[2:59:45] seeing if we could get that and it'd be
[2:59:48] conditional, but Nile is saying that the
[2:59:50] process doesn't work that way. If you
[2:59:53] want to see the report
[2:59:57] u my you know conventionally a building
[3:00:01] department that's issuing it that's
[3:00:04] doing plan review
[3:00:06] uh and issues building permits
[3:00:10] um are usually
[3:00:13] you know the the the higher standard of
[3:00:15] review
[3:00:17] um in terms of
[3:00:20] compliance with every the code, the
[3:00:23] building code. Um, and I understand this
[3:00:26] is, you know, part of the uh the code.
[3:00:32] Uh, but it it's um it's in a planning
[3:00:36] process versus the building
[3:00:39] plan review process. So I don't know we
[3:00:42] just feel that uh our understanding of
[3:00:46] this is that the the that our client is
[3:00:50] paying for your the town's geote
[3:00:54] technical engineer to review this report
[3:00:58] that's in the geologic hazard checklist
[3:01:00] on page one on the front page. So we we
[3:01:03] know that our client is going to be
[3:01:06] paying the town for the town to review
[3:01:09] it with a technical engineer.
[3:01:14] And then there's also the plan the plan
[3:01:17] review department. The building plan the
[3:01:19] building department has a structural
[3:01:22] engineer that's going to be re reviewing
[3:01:23] our structural plans. And so to me
[3:01:27] that's all happening in that process.
[3:01:32] So it I I don't think it's going to
[3:01:34] change anything with the land use or the it it's it's a technical review, you
[3:01:41] know, does does the structural
[3:01:43] engineering follow the geotechnical
[3:01:45] engineers recommendations and vice
[3:01:48] versa. So anyway, that I'm getting into
[3:01:51] the weed a little bit. I I
[3:01:54] >> But I do think there's a I said to Nile,
[3:01:57] "Honestly, I feel this is a little
[3:01:59] backwards."
[3:02:01] You know, I get it. You y'all want to
[3:02:04] know if you're approving something here
[3:02:06] that it meets the pl the land use
[3:02:10] ordinances relative to planning,
[3:02:13] protecting the gateway to the biggest
[3:02:16] asset this town has. I I get all that
[3:02:18] and it's very a very very good code. But
[3:02:21] I just think this is a is a considering
[3:02:24] the complexity of the area we're in. It
[3:02:28] uh there's a lot of work going into
[3:02:31] doing this and you know it's pretty
[3:02:34] technical stuff that I appreciate that
[3:02:38] you you're used to reviewing that and
[3:02:40] I've heard you speak today and know
[3:02:42] you're very technically oriented. So I'm
[3:02:46] I just am saying there's these other
[3:02:48] steps that are also going to be looking
[3:02:50] at all of that.
[3:02:54] I
[3:02:56] when we went into this discussion um
[3:02:59] especially after all the talk of horse
[3:03:02] before the cart and chicken and eggs and
[3:03:04] stuff that I was like we like we need to
[3:03:07] get that geotechnical report like you
[3:03:10] know just keep everything in alignment
[3:03:12] with how it's supposed to go but then
[3:03:16] after understanding this project better
[3:03:19] and um really looking at the site I I
[3:03:22] can understand why you would be
[3:03:25] requesting that. I am comfortable with
[3:03:28] doing a conditional approval and I would
[3:03:31] want to have something more concrete
[3:03:33] than just our word of mouth that it
[3:03:35] looks good. So, I understand that and
[3:03:38] I'm also comfortable um with not seeing
[3:03:42] the report knowing that it would be in
[3:03:44] the hands of the of the staff and what's
[3:03:49] in your plans. So that's that's where I
[3:03:52] sit. I guess the concern that I have is
[3:03:55] that I mean while it's not a a large
[3:03:59] probability there is the possibility
[3:04:01] that um the geotechnical report requires
[3:04:06] um site modifications or or resiting the buildings if you will which you know
[3:04:13] um would be something that this this
[3:04:16] committee would be interested in doing
[3:04:18] or looking at as opposed to you know
[3:04:21] pushing it um uh the road if you will
[3:04:24] and having somebody else look at that
[3:04:25] and say yeah it's okay because
[3:04:28] >> the staff was doing that. Yeah,
[3:04:30] >> I'm comfortable with it.
[3:04:31] >> But to to just sorry I if you go to the
[3:04:36] last page of the staff report that's
[3:04:40] Nile's saying the planning commission
[3:04:41] approves denies.
[3:04:44] So it's a choice the design development
[3:04:46] review application for this project
[3:04:50] the the applicant must comply
[3:04:54] with the thing with the building permit.
[3:04:57] It also says
[3:05:00] um if the geologic hazards are found
[3:05:03] this is what you could just agree to
[3:05:06] approve that is already the condition
[3:05:08] that's written
[3:05:10] if the geologic hazards are found to be
[3:05:12] significant [clears throat]
[3:05:15] must be submitted. Well, we we know
[3:05:17] we're doing that. That sorry, the next
[3:05:19] line, the development will incorporate
[3:05:21] any recommendations arising from these
[3:05:23] assessments. If significant changes to
[3:05:26] the design are found to be necessary,
[3:05:27] the applicant will gain any necessary
[3:05:31] approvals from the town for such design
[3:05:33] changes,
[3:05:35] which I I which I think means we have to
[3:05:40] go back through the DDR process. So,
[3:05:42] that's in there. you know if we have to
[3:05:45] do something to Paul to your comment we
[3:05:48] have to come back through the DDR
[3:05:50] process there's no question about that
[3:05:53] and that can be in the conditional
[3:05:55] approval
[3:05:58] that correct
[3:06:00] >> that's what I heard
[3:06:01] >> so the condition that that I included as
[3:06:06] a possibility
[3:06:11] says that if Um, yeah,
[3:06:16] there we go. Kind of like Wendell was
[3:06:18] saying that if the geotechnical
[3:06:21] report requires changes that
[3:06:24] um that approval for those changes would
[3:06:26] be required,
[3:06:32] » but that approval would be given by town
[3:06:35] staff.
[3:06:35] >> Correct. Right.
[3:06:38] usually changes to plans partway through
[3:06:41] we don't bring that to planning
[3:06:42] commission in most cases that's correct
[3:06:45] that that would mostly be reviewed by
[3:06:47] staff
[3:06:49] so I mean one of the things this sort of
[3:06:51] opens up is like
[3:06:54] you know does I mean okay let me back up
[3:06:56] a second so I've done many DDRs here and
[3:06:59] they've all included the technical
[3:07:01] report so many plans have come through
[3:07:06] and they were able ble to provide a
[3:07:08] finished geotechnical report at the time
[3:07:12] of the DDR.
[3:07:13] >> Um,
[3:07:15] now if that really if we've really
[3:07:19] driven everybody to go backwards or to
[3:07:21] go in reverse order, that might mean we
[3:07:24] should change the process. Um, and maybe
[3:07:28] we would discuss that in work meetings
[3:07:30] and stuff. But I I really feel like we
[3:07:32] have put all these other DDRs through
[3:07:35] the same process and they've all
[3:07:37] provided this and and we've we've
[3:07:39] considered it. Um and and like I said
[3:07:42] myself, I I I look for what said and
[3:07:45] kind of compare it to what's provided so
[3:07:48] that I can understand that. Yep. Sure
[3:07:50] enough, they followed the
[3:07:52] recommendations. Um so my mind is that
[3:07:56] this is this is the way it's designed to
[3:07:59] be done.
[3:08:00] If we need a design to do it different,
[3:08:02] that's a we should fix process. We
[3:08:03] should fix that.
[3:08:17] There's, you know, I understand a
[3:08:20] majority of the things built here
[3:08:22] require this, but this is
[3:08:27] um I I don't think it's
[3:08:31] a common site
[3:08:34] relative to the the you know it it it
[3:08:39] there's a there's a greater assessment
[3:08:41] that has to be done on this site.
[3:08:44] >> Yeah, I think
[3:08:45] >> more more involved due to the fact that
[3:08:48] we're at the toe of the Johnson
[3:08:52] landslide Johnson Mountain landslide
[3:08:54] area which is
[3:08:57] a mile by a mile. It's not, as our
[3:08:59] geotechnical engineers said yesterday,
[3:09:02] it's not small potatoes,
[3:09:04] >> but but so it's a it's it is a unique
[3:09:08] uh case relative to other things. And I
[3:09:13] guess I don't want to if I would say, do
[3:09:16] you need to change it? I don't know that
[3:09:19] you do. this is a unique
[3:09:21] >> Yeah, I think that that
[3:09:22] >> and and and lastly that
[3:09:26] um you know it uh
[3:09:30] Yeah, I I just don't I just think that's
[3:09:33] the we're I don't want to be penalized
[3:09:35] for doing a better job.
[3:09:39] >> Yeah. And I think
[3:09:41] >> being sure we know what we're signing,
[3:09:44] we've done the engineering, the
[3:09:45] structural engineering that follows
[3:09:47] this. And I can assure you the amount of
[3:09:51] money being spent on just the fees alone
[3:09:54] are far in excess of probably most
[3:09:58] things you're you're looking at here. So
[3:10:01] we're just doing we're just trying to do
[3:10:05] the job that we think is required. And I
[3:10:09] think we and I don't want to cut you
[3:10:10] off, but I think at this point we need
[3:10:12] to um
[3:10:14] kind of wrap up our planning commission
[3:10:17] deliberation of where we sit with this
[3:10:18] with all the information that we've
[3:10:21] >> I do want to make one point. Although
[3:10:24] it's not necessary it comes back to the
[3:10:26] DDR that had happened before. You made
[3:10:29] the choice to bring things back because
[3:10:31] you felt the change was significant.
[3:10:34] >> That's true. That's true. So can we put
[3:10:37] a stipulation that we request this to be
[3:10:39] brought back for staff to bring it back
[3:10:43] >> could even include if the change is
[3:10:45] significant.
[3:10:46] >> So
[3:10:47] >> sense if it doesn't cause any changes
[3:10:51] >> then it won't come back. Yeah. But
[3:10:54] then what are we reviewing?
[3:10:57] >> Then we wouldn't be reviewing it.
[3:10:58] >> Right.
[3:11:00] So the scenario I think you're
[3:11:02] describing is where
[3:11:04] >> what the applicant just stated is that
[3:11:06] the reason one of the reasons they want
[3:11:07] to wait on this is because you know this
[3:11:09] isn't a very geo technically active and
[3:11:12] very you know difficult site which
[3:11:15] didn't help me feel better about this it
[3:11:18] makes me feel more like I want to see
[3:11:20] that
[3:11:20] >> geotech like you really do need to yeah
[3:11:23] because it is such a complicated
[3:11:24] >> yes it is so we need to we need to see
[3:11:27] some assurances from uh engineering
[3:11:29] people that this is what their
[3:11:32] recommendations are and that how it's
[3:11:34] going to impact what the actual design
[3:11:36] of the development is.
[3:11:39] >> I I think we have to stick to just our
[3:11:42] deliberation. I'm sorry.
[3:11:44] >> Yeah, we are kind of running a little
[3:11:45] long, aren't we? Yes. Um so,
[3:11:50] do we want to do a uh
[3:11:52] should I do the third one?
[3:11:54] >> Go for it. You're done. Um should do we
[3:11:56] want to do a um table or do we want I
[3:12:00] mean I'm for a table myself. I think
[3:12:02] you're for a table.
[3:12:03] >> Yeah, I would be up. Although I
[3:12:06] understand the concerns and the
[3:12:08] different requests and stuff. I think
[3:12:10] where we're at at this juncture, a table
[3:12:13] probably makes sense.
[3:12:17] >> All right.
[3:12:18] Um, so the planning commission desires
[3:12:21] to table the design development review
[3:12:23] application for a single family home and
[3:12:26] accessory guest house at 201 North Fork
[3:12:30] Drive and a single family home at 211
[3:12:33] North Fork Drive as discussed in the
[3:12:35] July 1st, 2026 meeting. This this is
[3:12:39] based on the following this is uh has
[3:12:43] the following findings that the um plan
[3:12:47] as presented overall looks good. The
[3:12:50] location and position of the of the um
[3:12:54] site in the home built looks good to us.
[3:12:57] um but that the geotechnical report is
[3:13:00] not complete
[3:13:02] and we therefore would like a return
[3:13:05] with a complete and submitted
[3:13:07] geotechnical report um with a plan that
[3:13:11] is substantially the same as what we're
[3:13:14] looking at today.
[3:13:17] Did I miss anything?
[3:13:19] Okay.
[3:13:20] >> What about these other conditions that
[3:13:22] >> Oh, yeah. Yes. There were threat there's
[3:13:24] other conditions.
[3:13:25] Um,
[3:13:28] so let's see. So,
[3:13:29] >> sorry Terry, if if you're tableabling,
[3:13:32] you don't have to
[3:13:32] >> don't have to have the other
[3:13:34] >> because you would add those when you
[3:13:36] make the decision.
[3:13:39] >> Okay,
[3:13:39] >> then is there second? Will you second?
[3:13:43] >> Motion by Terry, second by Rich. All in
[3:13:47] favor?
[3:13:48] >> Rich, I.
[3:13:49] >> Jennifer I.
[3:13:50] >> All I.
[3:13:52] >> Motion passes.
[3:13:55] Moving on to the consent agenda. Is
[3:13:58] there a motion for the approval of the
[3:14:00] minutes from May 20th, 2026, June 3rd,
[3:14:03] 2026, and June 17th, 2026,
[3:14:08] or any revisions that anyone would like
[3:14:10] to suggest.
[3:14:11] >> I'll make a motion that we approve the
[3:14:13] consent agenda for the minutes for May
[3:14:16] 20, May 20th, June 3rd, and June 17th of
[3:14:20] 2026.
[3:14:21] >> Second. Motion by Terry, second by Paul.
[3:14:24] All in favor?
[3:14:25] >> Rich I.
[3:14:26] >> Terry I.
[3:14:27] >> Jennifer I.
[3:14:28] >> Paul I.
[3:14:29] >> I.
[3:14:29] >> Motion passes. Is there a motion to
[3:14:32] adjurnn?
[3:14:35] >> I'll second.
[3:14:37] >> A motion by Melissa, second by Terry.
[3:14:40] All in favor?
[3:14:41] >> Rich I.
[3:14:41] >> Terry I.
[3:14:42] >> Jennifer I.
[3:14:43] >> All I.
[3:14:44] >> Melissa I.
[3:14:45] >> Meeting is adjourned.
[3:15:00] So, we've been