Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

so uh for everybody's information we're delaying the meeting a little bit there's been some additional information submitted uh just here 10 minutes ago and I'm giving the council an opportunity to read it um does everyone online have it uh so some addition information has been submitted uh to the Planning Commission just within the last 10 minutes it's a few pages long so I'm giving the Planning Commission an opportunity to read it so they understand it um we have three commission members online Les two commission Les and Erin um Robert is there any way you can email what's been sent to Les and Aaron for the so they can review it I don't have any of the new exhibits okay there's no way to scan them in would probably be able to do that could read them in C can we ask Bill what our duty is to to read these five minutes before a meeting that's a great question is there a duty to even read these bill so um the the purpose of holding a hearing is to uh allow people to bring you information arguments and otherwise inform you of their thoughts you know in the same way that you may be thinking something else while that person is talking to you you know the expectation is that you read the materials um so is there a duty to do it there's a duty to make the decision informed by all the evidence and and uh information in the record it's a lot easier to do that if you have read it but if in fact there isn't an opportunity to then you know that that is where we are I don't know if that helps or confus

things more well what about the of having whoever submitted this in I can't read it into the record for the benefit of those online for the benefit of all parties I'm not again I haven't read it I don't know whether it's for a proponent opponent um but that's certainly something that that could be helpful and could uh be useful um you know depending on what it is if it's a relatively short letter that's one thing if it's you know a 20page letter that's that's a different kettle of fish appears appears to be two pages with them with a with a app of some sort yeah so that seems Seems doable well couldn't they just summarize what they indicate that they submitted a letter and if they want to summarize it as part of that testimony yes so for the benefit of those online and all parties involved I think what we'll do is whomever submitted this letter it is it was submitted 10 minutes ago it is titled appeal item one ask you to read in or summarize the um import sir what was your name Evan okay that Evan is the one who submitted the letter Mr towns Jeremy Townson you like instruction those are only his talking points he's going to address the council hey Mike I heard about I'm sorry thanks th the owner of sunset Lake Construction is going to address the council those are his talking point I got you and he is going to address the council and these are his talking um I don't know that we have I think there is some time

constraint this more that was just submitted oh yeah come on they can summarize is um there is another packet submitted at 554 it has a map on the front is that also from Mr it's from me that's from you just some things that I'll be talking about okay would it be fair to to have you summarize um what's in here um or I speak I will okay why don't we come back to this there's too much information for for us to read before we get this meeting started on time and we can decide more formally how we want how that down um the the a here is that we come back to these additional documents that have been submitted uh and discuss how to have them presented to us we have we have not read them um and uh In fairness to all parties want to make sure that we understand what's in these packets summarize them for us and and tell us what they believe is most important whether through their talking points or just bringing them holding up and reading in information um or we may decide we actually have to read it all in but let's come back to that decision when we get to that point we're kind of ahead of ourselves here in any other way than to say we don't have time to read all this okay uh let's begin our meeting here for our Planning Commission meeting this Thursday January 23rd I'll call the meeting to order may

I have an approval of the agenda for so moved that is there any discussion okay um Tessa will you call the role please commissioner Bates yes commissioner wait yes commissioner matus yes commissioner Sinclair yes commissioner Morris yes commissioner orof yes chair Newton yes the reason for my hesitation in asking you to call the role was I realized that we have a new member here and I was blindsiding you into your first vote with without really just talking at all one introducing our newest member and two talking a little bit about some protocol so uh our newest Planning Commission member Steve White thank you for joining us here and taking on these items that come before us uh we talked a little bit before the meeting Steve loves as we all do given the time commitment we've all made this community grew up around here on the coast proud to be back here has a background in um you told me in environmental Consulting worked in the transportation industry and is currently the vice chair of the Public Works committee so we're lucky to have you on board thank you it's honor voluntering to join and being appointed so now that you've been welcomed in and officially anointed uh let's get on with the meeting we uh you are have been on many committees or at least on the Public Works committee you're somewhat familiar if at any point you have a question about any of these protocols know and maybe you and I can get together afterward if I chair after the um and talk a little about some information that was given to me when I first joined and might be helpful to you in terms of just understanding how we operate I'd appreciate that all right so let's move on to consideration minutes I'll just spend one minute with Steve on this what we' talked about in the in um

in looking at minutes is these these meetings are recorded uh information if someone needs to go back and look at it is online for them if there's something about the minutes that you believe needs to be corrected we generally come to it but we're we're pretty quick the approval of the minutes these days given the electronic Ro so um I ask if there are any amendments to the minutes does anyone have any amendments to the minutes no one online no okay uh may I have a motion to approve minutes then motion to approve is there a second second any further discussion okay Tessa will you call the roll please commissioner Morris yes commissioner Bates yes commissioner Sinclair yes commissioner W yes commissioner matusik yes commissioner orloff yes chair Newton yes we move next into the public comment section of our meeting this is time for people to bring forward issues they believe in the purview of the Planning Commission we do ask you to keep them within the purview of the Planning Commission if you're here on behalf of a specific item well the only item tonight um you will have an opportunity to speak then uh so probably not at this portion but if there's something else you'd like the Planning Commission to consider as we consider planning and goals for the uh city um please come forward and I see a hand already yes please come forward we do ask that you limit your testimony to three minutes thought it was on the defended tonight and it's not oh Elena po bo so I'm here because I understand that the city is once again considering a fire reduction something they tried 20 years ago and I just want to go on record and saying that I think is a um terrible idea that I feel that is

a branch far from limit the size of a home including garage to 1750 Square when they tried this over 20 years ago um they did it they passed it from 60.5 and then we got a new Council and they changed it back to where it was I would tell you that um I've talked to a number of longtime residents who had no idea that this was even in the works I I actually had heard this was happening in uh 2022 because I sent a letter in to the um opposing it then and at that point there was chitter chatter about a 2,000 foot limit on homes and a 17 foot height restriction um put forward by somebody so that's what the chatter was then now they're talking about uh reducing the far to 3.5 but allowing you up to five uh5 if you build two structures um sounds like they're trying to get the citizens to solve the housing problem we had an apartment complex here that was built again a number of years ago to uh assist with the housing problem for locals and the city allowed that to be turned into Condominiums and sold privately Canon Ridge condos so I just want to go on record and saying that um I personally think it's a horrible idea I have talked to many locals who think it's a terrible idea folks who own vacant land here you will cut their values in half I'm sure that they will all rally together and do the city if the city makes these changes I'm also against the new tree

ordinance but I know that's passed your hands now and is up to the city council but a lot of these things are happening and the locals are not aware I mean I live here I'm barely caught up of these things I seriously talked to 15 people at the blood drive on Monday about this far issue and they were flabbergasted they had no idea that this kind of chitter chatter is happening in the city that the city's contemplating doing these things so I would just say that I think they are the changing of the far is a terrible idea it was tried and it failed and I would encourage you to not go down that route I again thank you thank you does anyone else have public comment they believe is within the purview of the Planning Commission they'd like to share at this time anyone online Robert no we next we'll move to our next item uh this is uh the first meeting of the New Year it's the election of our officers oh and introduction of new commissioner leave it to me to jump the gun so sorry Steve I I didn't do this in order here um so the first nomination for chair is there anyone who would like to uh feels like they'd like to be chair or is there someone who would like to make a nomination for chair I think you're doing a great job and I would like to nominate Newton for chair thank you Mickey I second that is there anyone else who would like to be considered for chair um or would like to add to this discussion B Newton for chair okay uh Tesla will you call the RO please commissioner matusik yes commissioner orof yes commissioner Morris yes commissioner W

yes commissioner Bates yes commissioner Sinclair yes Newton I seeing a note here I'm gonna abstain from voting for myself it feels odd but it looks like I did win or not or not yeah you call it winning or not thanks guys okay uh we'll move on to the nomination for vice chair is there a nomination for vice chair yes I nominate an mer second is there anyone else who would like to be considered or add to this conversation okay then Tessa will you call the role please commissioner orof yes commissioner Bates yes commissioner matusi yes commissioner Sinclair yes yes commissioner Morris I'll abstain commissioner W yes chair Newton yes congratulations okay we'll move to our next item a deposite Judicial hearing aa2 24-1 stac Benefield for an administrative appeal of development permit 24-50 AA 2401 stac Benefield for an administrative appeal of the city's approval of a development permit DP 2450 for the construction of a fence curb retaining wall at 716 North Laurel Street tax flot 5800 map 5119 AA the appeal will be reviewed pursuant to the Canon Beach Municipal Code section 17.18 request for review of decision does anyone object to the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission to hear this matter at this time double checking does any commission member believe he or she has a conflict of interest or personal bias I don't believe that I have a conflict of interest or personal bias but I will

say I was in the notification area for the appeal not for the original permit but we live far above and I don't think that our property is in any way shape or form affected okay the chair is last to go on this question so Bill any any comments so far I don't see anything okay so there uh lips no but I didn't hear now yeah sorry I thought I hit mute off took the mute off but I didn't but yeah I haven't heard anything that is problematic but you want to make sure people have an opportunity to object sure uh was voiced uh in writing you all probably read an objection to me remaining chair and for not the reasons that were voiced but other reasons including my property sits adjacent to this property uh and there potentially could be uh a financial impact to me if there were water flowing on my property I am going to recuse myself from this and you will be the chair and I've had I had a site visit and I mean I'm certainly no sub substantive X party contact but I was informed by one of the parties of tonight's hearing just in passing but um but didn't talk about the merits or any substance of the case so I don't I don't feel any bias in any way I'll add I've had xart take communication two years ago but not in regards to this specific issue that's that had I have nothing to say you guys waited till I'm I'm off so I'm out it I'll take instructions over here did I I thought I left I have an extra one if you need no I have it I and I away with the instruction yeah I was really trying to trick you

good and I did a side visit during which time I spoke with both the I spoke with the respondant for permission to get on a property and then with the appellant to see the rear of a property to this created but that was it I've had a site visit also but I didn't speak with anyone was there do we have any objections to those remaining on the commission okay let's move forward with the staff report please good evening the appellant Stacy Benfield ising the administrative decision to approve a development permit DP 2450 that was issued December 5th 2024 it was placing a fence curb SL retaining wall along the northern property line of 716 at North oral Street on November 25th 2024 city code enforcement and Community Development staff visited the subject property in response to a code enforcement complaint this visit City staff made contact with persons working on the property informed them that permits were required for the type of work being performed and issued a verbal stop work order until such a Time the permits were obtained on November 26 2024 townand of sunset Lake construction applied for a type 2 development permit for a fence curb measuring approximately 53 ft in length it would extend two feet below grade the permit was issued on December 5th 2024 the city received the notice Appeal on December 16th where it was stamped paid and received by the city on the same date within 14 con within the 14 consecutive day appeal period the appeal

is is based on the arguments argument number one the appeal relies on a stream cord or map that fails to accurately represent the location of a mapped stream and thereby fails to prove the proposed curb is not within the buffer of a mapped stream and direct violation of 17116 stream Corridor and protection the staff comment is the appellant argues that mapping information used by the city and its decision- making is incorrect and refers to the to an online copy of the local Wetland inventory moment while I bring the mapping how it refers to up okay this is the map that is referred to by the appellant and the appeal documents that is included in the staff report is figure one GIS mapping through um JS mapping for local Wetland inventory site number 18 at the time showed it terminating at the approximate Center of 716 North oral Street this is shown on the figure on the screen currently the city's GIS information appears to be based on a paper map that was produced for the city's local Wetland inventory an excerpt of which is shown in this image below which in this particular image shows site 18 truncating toward the top of the page approximately in the middle of the subject property

argument number two the application does nothing to address how the proposed structure will impact drainage patterns specifically how it will affect neighboring properties indirect violation of 1792 grading erosion and sedimentation control thir staff comment on December 3 the owner of the subject property sent an email to the city's code enforcement officer included as a exhibit A2 in which she stated that the project is exempt from permitting requirements under Municipal Code 1712 020 exclusions from development permit requirements the city staff does not concur with this interpretation of the code AS Municipal Code 17922 A1A which details requirements for grading and erosion control permit States quote the proposed clearing grading filling and excavation is located within 100 ft of a stream Corridor or a stream water course or Wetland close quote based on all available information the subject property and proposed work area is within 100 fet of lwi site 18 project schematics indicate that an existing covert on the Northern property line will be retained prior to the issuance of DP 24-50 the the Project's contractor provided clarification to City staff regarding the status of the culbert and plans to retain it argument number three the application fails to demonstrate that the curb will not cause overflow water to drain on the property of another indirect violation of 84140 surface water drainage staff comment is that this criteria was not evaluated as the proposed project does not involve

removal of an existing Culvert and that concludes the staff report um I know that um our public works department also had some information that was included in your uh packets this evening and there was a staff report and I was wondering it might not be a bad idea to uh director Karen leban to have the opportunity to present that staff report as well I think that would be very helpful thank you there's um Public Works does not uh work on private property uh but our concern with this particular uh case I think I summarized in the staff report uh kind of the history associated with this area um and the homeowners uh um in your staff report there is a very extensive view that the city an independent uh engineering firm that has uh the as well Wetland um um expertise they did an a complete evaluation of this area and the surrounding uh storm infrastructure that the city has the Gap in this report was the path of the uh flow of water that is in the um private party uh that we're talking about private property of Miss Logan so it is unknown the current condition um of that path of water flow

which meets our city infrastructure and goes on to the Wetland area um so it is unknown the condition uh any maintenance uh is unknown uh any obstruction if it's been even checked that there's any kind of obstruction in that uh path of water flow I think that is crucial for us to know to really make a final uh assessment of that surrounding area it's not appropriate for the city to take any action without knowing that uh the engineering firm can't even make recommendations us without knowing that information um and it's important for the city to understand uh the potential impact to water flow associated with the proposed construction I have to be prepared to receive that water and get that water navigated where it needs to go I have no idea what the impact of this could be I can speculate uh but I don't know so that's what public works that's our only dog in the fight is that we just need that information so that we're prepared should you allow this to go forward that we can manage that water and prepared for any other private property owner that could be impacted by that and the city's having to receive that water and take it somewhere so that would be my only request of you is the importance of that information does the city even deep is the the report that was done were they even able to obtain that information we don't have any information relative to the path that's on that private property we could only

do anything in that surrounding area that is City's own property uh the adjacent homeowner did allow us to go on their property to look at that see if there was any obstruction that could be contributing to how that water is coming off the hill that's the limitation of what we were able to do firm you end at the at the property line right but you're allowed through the properties on the North and the South or North just the north okay Karen did you say that the the covert now connects with the city's water system uh storm water system which Culvert are you talking the Culvert on the private property you referring to it goes through Miss Logan's property and connects to our property from there our RightWay connects to the property but not to the system pipeline there's a gap and the water runs freely then and then into the city system right so as you see in the map that was included that goes from the covert on the Northern property the benfields through the path of Miss Logans and meets our city rightaway storm system and goes on to the wetlands okay thank you okay I I saw a reference it's called a private covert is there any idea that covert but there are why or when turn anywhere in the records you know I'll be honest with you I mean it's been there for a very long time the why I could only speculate that that intersection as a whole receives a magnitude of water from various locations that comes down through our infrastructure and goes onto that Wetland so that that area receives quite a volume of

water any other questions thank you much let me weigh in so the next question is additional correspondence I believe we do have up to the minute uh correspondents received yeah you all received the a packet and then received the letters that we the most recent um there was a brief discussion earlier about the fact that we do have some very late additions to the record I am suggesting that the best way to move forward would be that the individuals who provided this plan to address it in oral argument in your com in in what you present today so that you can tell us what's important and make sure you summarize what you want us to know from this at this time I will be calling for public testimony the pertinent criteria to be considered are noted in staff reports and listed on the criteria sheets the meeting page of the city's website testimony arguments and evidence must be directed toward those criteria or other criteria in the comprehensive plan or Municipal Code which the person testifying believes to apply to the decision failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision maker and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal based on that issue prior to the conclusion of the initial evidentiary hearing any participant May request an opportunity to present testimony arguments or evidence regarding the application Planning Commission requests by continuing the public hearing or leaving the record open for additional written testimony arguments or evidence persons who testify shall first receive recognition from the chair State their full name and mailing address and if appearing in a representative capacity identify whom they represent I'm going to talk about terminology here briefly I will be

discussing applicant proponents opponents applicant in this case is the person bringing the appeal and opponents would be the person who is defending against that appeal is there a presentation by the applicant Stacy Benfield box 1424 good evening Commissioners and dedication to the C thank you City staff for all the hard work for the nearly 20 years we have been in Canon Beach we have stewarded and enjoyed the beautiful stream that flows through our property several times a year we walk string bed clearing debris and notice that if there are any changes in the rain season we check frequently to make sure the covert opening is clear and that water is Flowing freely it is very important to us to maintain the Integrity of this natural course in my years in I've been involved in environmental efforts including the friends of H Beach and others I'm also the recipient Nelson on the surface the matter before you appear to be without offense this issue were just a matter of replacing existing I would not have filed this appeal I'm appealing DP 2450 for the construction of a dyke and a stream buffer this steel reinforced contri concrete structure will be 53 feet long three and a half fet high of which will be underground and half ft above ground and one foot wide this is not merely occur for off fence this is a dyke there is a potential for the proposed project to direct added storm water onto the

adjoining property to the north and very likely to the east and west for this application to have been approved an analysis of storm water flows should have been conducted by a qualified individual that shows the permitted Project's impact to adjoining properties created by restricting converting the natural drainage pattern of water it is very concerning that we know nothing about condition of the Culvert and catch Bas it on subject property I did a public records request to the city of Canon beef organ Department of State lands and the Army Corps of Engineers I have submitted the documentation for the record that's some of the stuff I there's no record of any permits being issued for the Culver or catch Basin on this property did not know when it was constructed or if there was any engineering study performed prior to installation because they are on private property and maintenance is the responsibility of the property owner have no Assurance of the Integrity of these structures it is not known if the covert has been properly maintained but if the Culvert or catch Basin get plugged or partially plugged what if the Culvert collapses the Dyke in place the natural flow of storm flow of storm water will be altered I'm appealing order 2450 on the following grounds number one the application does nothing to address how the proposed structure will impact drainage patterns specifically how it will affect neighboring properties in direct violation of 17.92% control number two the application fails to demonstrate the structure will not cause Pulver overflow water to drain onto the property of another direct violation of 8.4.4 surface waters drainage number three the the approval relies on a stream Corridor map that fails to

accurately represent the location of a map stream and thereby fails to prove the proposed structure is not within the buff map stream direct violation of 7116 stream Corridor protection I have a few photos and videos to share with you to give you an idea of the terrain thank you Robert that's this is a close view of the fence and covert and where you see the fence that'll be close structure would be this is a view looking North uh as the stream enters my property this F uh photo shows the the stream as it leaves our property and enters the Culvert on subject property the stream then flows through a culvert on subject property into the city storm water system and into the Wetland at 7th Street and Laurel Street and flows through the North End of Canon Beach and into Logan Creek I've included a map from the canab beach local Wetland inventory I sent that in yesterday showing its course the proposed D is where you see the fence in the photograph I also have two videos to share with you the day before a big storm and one during the storm so this video was taken December 4th 2023 stream is Flowing freely into the Culvert short video

the next video was taken the next day on December 5th 2023 as you can see the water has backed up onto our property the rainfall total that day was 4.28 in which is an excessive amount of water thank you very much where will this water go if there's a 1 and a half foot high by one foot wide 53 foot long concrete Dyke blocking the water currently this backed up water flows onto subject property under the fence with the Dyke in place the water will be diverted elsewhere onto adjacent properties it will back up even further onto my property and will be diverted onto other properties as well this is in direct violation of SE section 17.92% in section 8.04 140 surface waters drainage the code states that no owner or person in charge of a property shall allow overflow water to drain onto the property of another as this would create a nuisance the proposed structure along the north side of the subject lot in conjunction with the existing existing house foundation will restrict the flow of storm water overflow from its natural path and and divert it toward the street and adjacent properties and

therefore the permit as approved will allow surface waters to drain onto the property of another which violates this section of the code in addition this project does not meet the standards in 17 chapter 17116 stream cordor protection because building what is described in the application as a fence curb or retaining wall but effectively will act as a dyke in a stream Corridor will not allow the stream or storm water to maintain its natural course in excessive rain events or potential Culvert blockage stream will seek alternative flow routes the proposed project is clearly within 10 feet of the bank you will have a concrete structure over under and on both sides of the culverted stream conu construction of retaining wall Dyke across a stream is not perit a permitted use or activity as listed in the code the stream quarter protection code requires an applicant to consider less impactful alter alternatives to the proposed project and a permit from the Oregon Department of State lands required under ORS 22735 and the Army Corps of Engineers must be applied for prior to any excavation activity in protected Waters of the state so uh one of those documents that I uh submitted to you um is osss 27350 it also includes the um information about what is required for notifying the state when um when a complete development permit has been submitted to the and that um the requirement is that a wetland land use notification be submitted that information is in there as well the applicants filing did not

include any of this information this stream is in the state wide wetlands and that map you'll see identif um which which I furthermore an erosion control plan to protect the stream and adjacent upin areas from erosion and siltation is not submitted approximately 5 feet north of the proposed structure is an open stream which certainly will be ined I'm asking you to uphold AA 24-1 and deny DP 2450 for the construction of a dyke in a stream buffer which will likely alter the natural flow of water and more than likely cause increased flooding on our property and divert the flow of water onto other properties in the neighborhood thank you I will now call for other presentations by proponents that would be those supporting the appeal please come forward hi Diana Turner PO Box 211 Canon Beach um I just want to I sent something in last night but I guess there were some email bugaboos and it wasn't received until late this morning and I'm not sure that you guys had a chance to to read it so I wanted to check in with you guys and see if you did receive it and have a chance to read it if not it's uh just a couple pages and I'll read it now you read it please the record sure you did receive it yeah okay go ahead and read it um so dear planning Commissioners oh and I have copies for you guys because there are a couple of we do have copies in the packet that we just received does anyone need need a copy right now can I pass it

okay um dear planning Commissioners I'm writing in support of appeal AA 24-1 of the administrative approval of permit d P 2450 to install a cement Dyke on the property line between 716 Laurel Street and the adjacent undeveloped lot to the immediate North though the applicant asserts they seek to install a landscape curb for offense this is disingenuous to demonstrate that the applicant is actually seeking to install a dyke to redirect water away from their property and thereby onto neighboring property I'd like to share the conversation I had with Miss Logan's contractor on November 25th 2024 around 7 a.m. that morning four workers began construction work in Miss Logan's backyard because I worked from home and had a zoom meeting scheduled I was concerned the noise from this construction work might be too much to remain working from home so I went outside and introduced myself to the workers and asked what noise level they anticipated making and how long they would be working at the location the workers referred me to their supervisor who just shown up with a trailer hollowing a backo vehicle this gentleman explained they would be building a cement curbed fence first he said they would use the backhoe to excavate a trench along the property line then insert wood forms that would be filled with concrete I'm sure I looked puzzled because I didn't understand then why a cement curb was needed to replace the current plain old wood fence I asked quote you're building a cement fence he said no it'll be like a retaining wall still puzzled me and then he added to act like a dyke though I admit I still did not understand exactly what was being constructed re return to the issue of how loud the work would be he was very polite answered my questions and I

thanked him as the excavation work continued and a large wooden form was placed the pictures attached my concern grew regarding the unexamined consequences for stream 18 a tributary of Logan Creek which runs through M Logan's property and adjacent to my property and a non-permitted decades old small 18inch culbert plastic Colbert if the water is stopped by the Dyke as intended where will it go who then of us neighbors will inherit M Logan's problem M Logan purchased a lowline piece of land that occasionally floods during times of exceptional rainfall this was disclosed to her by numerous people PRI to purchase and was in my opinion reflected in her low purchase price while it appears Miss Logan is now unhappy with the reality of her lowline property it is unreasonable to allow the construction of a cement Dy on top of an old plastic covert shifting her problem to the stream 18 Wetland Corridor and her neighbors until the applicant provides an analysis by a hydro engineer and the appropriate state agencies including this concrete D built on top of a plastic CED stream in number 18 will not number one redirect water onto neighboring property this application must not or must be denied for cbcc 1792 braiding erosion and sedimentation control and cbcc 8.3.1 40 surface water drainage two will not be within the West L buffer zone this application must be denied per cbcc 17116 stream Corridor in protection will not negatively impact stream 18 and the

Flora and Fauna who rely on it this application must be denied for cbcc 17116 stream Court protection this Pro this project cannot be approved as it is before today please endorse this appeal reversing the administrated approval of 24- and then Mike I just have a little bit of knowledge to add to your question about the cobbert um so we uh own the home next to miss Logan's to the South our house was built in 71 and during the purchase process we spoke to the nephew of the elderly lady who was selling who we were buying from and he told stories of an open Creek that ran through Miss Logan's property and adjacent to ours and talked about that he and his siblings had played in that open Creek and then one day the people who owned um Miss Logan's property prior to her culverted it so this isn't a lot of information but at least we know that it happened after 71 yeah so thank you thank you are there other presentations by please come forward hello my name is Kay newon my mailing address is Gbox 211 can Beach 97110 my wife and I own the house at 3247 Street as she mentioned is adjacent to miss L while attempting to address some of the malign comments that have been put in the public record not to do that I don't believe it would be helpful or useful to you in making a decision I'm also not going to dive into the code which I think address you have

in the record I would like to share a unique perspective for your consideration I'm thinking about my wife and I have owned the property at 3247 since 2008 in that time joining us prob we're discussing tonight has had four different ownerships there have been several FL events during that time that we've owned the property um to our knowledge it has never been reported to us that the flooding has gotten into the living area of Miss Logan's property but there have been some pretty expensive floods into the yard so one day in this late spring maybe early summer I was in my yard and Miss Logan came up and introduced herself to me the prospective purchaser how she n she asked me a lot of the types of questions one would expect to person buying a home did we like the area what was it like in the summer but she also asked me a question that was not got me a little off guard she asked me what I knew about the flooding next door and it was a tough question because I could see it was an upsetting question for her it's an upsetting thing she was considering but it was also something that we had heard of before from other buyers I know was a difficult situation for my neighbor who was having trouble selling the house um but I shared with her what I just shared with you this exactly what I knew about it it had flooded many times but in offer in in somewhat of a massage to maybe a leave some of the anxiety I said but we had never known about it getting into a living area we talked her a little bit more and then miss Lo went her way and I remember going in and telling my wife I just had a tough tough conversation it was tough because I felt like I possibly was deflating someone's dream of owning in Canon Beach and we all know

it's a beautiful place to live and I didn't feel good about it but I also wouldn't have felt good about saying anything about what I knew and also felt bad for my neighbor who was trying to sell her house she was having a really hard time doing that so one thing that's very clear to me is it has always been clear to miss Logan that she's had a flooding issue I was told that she dropped out of contract shortly after our conversation I never knew why I could make assumptions but I never knew several months later I told she was backing contract and that she actually closed on the property again I could make assumptions about back and purchase the property but again I never knew for sure what I can tell you unequivocally she didn't know that the property flooded she knew because I told her and she knew because she asked the question she did even if she doesn't remember our conversation which sometimes happens there's no way she didn't know based on the conversation she had and it's reasonable to expect that she was told by a real estate agent that's a pretty big disclosure if your client knows that their property floods they have to disclose that as a part of the sale process um it could have been disclosed in an inspection report that she had done I don't know it could have been disclosed by other people who looked at the property I'll never really know anything other than she knew it BL but to come before you today and put the record that we have in terms of the testimony uh that says that this is a landscaping curb and it is not really what it is which is a dyke to redirect flooding storm water off of her property onto another is disingenuous and I'll ask you do you feel benefit that before you thank you are there presentations by other

proponents at this time I will ask her their presentations by opponents I believe um sorry protocol I apologize I'm Susan Lan he box 484 I'm the property owner I know that my contractor has more to speak about than I do um and I would like to share a little bit more later but I have to just respond to what was said um I do remember a conversation with Clay Newton and I was considering purchasing this house I knew that there was a culvert that ran somewhere in the backyard um I knew that I needed to do my due diligence and I contacted the county and asked them um the situation with that I was told that there was water from somewhere up the hill um and there's culs all over the North End of Canon Beach and um I was scared about that so I asked everybody I could if there was a big problem there clay Newton never told me that that house flooded or the yard flooded um and it was never disclosed in anything I read that the house flooded on a regular basis um in addition so nothing was in my disclosures about that um I don't know why the previous property owner would have purchased a house and owned it for eight years if she knew anything about that um and I didn't pray some kind of a low Ling flooding property low payment for my house either uh at the time of my purchase I was considering either that

Cottage or a condo at Breaker Point and they were the same price so um I made my choice for the cottage that I fell in love with um I am diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder and had I known that I was purchasing a house that was going to be flooding on a regular basis uh that would not have been something I would have chosen to do I wanted to also clarify for Mr way you had asked um Miss leonte if um the covert continues from my property out to the street and it does it's continual there is no uh break in the Culvert between Mrs benfield's property and the corner of the street and I would like to also reiterate that that Culvert begins on Mrs benfield's property not my property so all I knew when I bought my house was that there happened to be some covert from somewhere up the hill that went across my property and onward down the hill and North Canon Beach is full of cobt and that's what I knew thank you do we have other presentations by app yes we do have Miss Logan's contractor thank you his name the J what's your contractor's name Mr Townsend he be under the name Tracy Rocky Tracy is with okay yes can you guys hear me now yes all right thank you

hi uh good evening my name is Jeremy town uh my address is 89187 Manion Drive warington Oregon 97146 I am the owner of sunset Lake construction and in a contract with Miss Logan to give her this fence curb and to do a new fence with her we're here to appeal the trying we're here fighting theal um we should believe we believe the project should be allowed to proceed a couple reasons um in appeal item was and I apologize for getting these to you guys late I was just told that they needed to be for the record um so we did this permit and the plan per the maps that were available to the city of Canon Beach I've also looked on other maps and some of them show it going through the property others show it not even on her property if you look at the National Wildlife or the national map it doesn't even show it going through her property it goes around the northeast corner of her property so on this one um it says I want to talk to the the codes 17116 it has a 10- foot buffer and a 15 foot buffer we are actually two feet inside of the fence which I believe will put us outside of that 10-ft buffer and we're also that's from the Culvert and the stream according to the city of Canon be starts at the catch Basin on the south side of Miss Logan's property and we are the excavation is 45 feet from there um the also has the permitted stream

buffers established to issue a development permit it has a list of six things there nothing we're doing is in that list of mater of requirements and the biggest thing is we don't need a structural permit or a building permit for a fence per city code because it's going to be less than six feet so that would be the only one on there that we would have to fight so so any change or repair to a building or other structure that does not alter or expand the use would therefore require a building permit the fence does not require building permit so that's so we don't fall under that one number two the application does nothing to address how the proposed structure will impact drainage patterns the according to the city of Canon Beach the stream that is present as number 18 starts on the south side of Miss Logan property as we said and we're 45 from that theity staff does not concur with the interpretation of this code the proposed grading filling or excavation is loaded within 100 feet of a stream water course now was there argument for me to get the permit the following items in the 1792 z20 B the exceptions are exempt from the requirements of subc a which requires us to get permit residential Landscaping and Gardening activities up to 2,000 ft in area the area were Disturbed ing is literally if we go 53 feet long I have 55 on here just in case is 55 Square F feet a far cry from the 2,000 square feet that we're allowed without a permit and then number three it fails to demonstrate that the Curve will not cause overflow water to drain on the property of another in direct violation of

84-14 this code doesn't pertain to the curb as the water will be coming from the neighboring property it does not or made on Miss Logan's property and exhibit A1 that the complaintant shows that it's coming from the benfield's property towards Miss Logan's so she's not allowing it to flow onto their property it is already originating there and I understand there's an ongoing issue between the two neighbors I'm not trying to get involved with that I'm just trying to do my job as a contractor I got the permit and now we're in this process they have So benil Pro provided the map that the Ben aills provided shows that the stream originates near a cola Park Road that I have enclosed shows that the stream doesn't actually Flo the property at all and that was the one I was talking about the DSL National Wetlands inventory map that should be included in that packet that uh my superintendent Evan gave to you guys and then as I was doing my research for this hearing I began to wonder about the creek and all the structures built there and around it I found the benil home is directly over the creek as well there was an article in the as story and from when they first moved in on how nice their house was above the creek great I love that that's a beautiful home they did a lot of nice work to it but I was reading that and I'm assuming they were grandfathered in to be over the creek so the same courtesy to me should be extended Miss Logan for the covert that was played in her backyard before she bought it's an 18inch Hy covert we're not technically going around the covert we're going over the top of it because we're only going feet deep in my opinion and according to the

codes that I've read if we didn't need the permit we should not be in this process but we are so I want you guys to understand that according to the codes we should still get to continue with this landscape curb and let her get her fence built as I understand part of it has fallen over in this last week so I also after I typed this up um on that article that I was reading in the atorian when the benfields redid their house in 2013 they ended up Drilling in 7 feet deep s foot deep piles near the creek to resupport their addition and I'm sure this is permitted I don't believe that they would do it without getting permits but again if it's good for them it should be good for their neighbor so if there's any other questions I know Miss Logan wanted to talk about some other things and she can take it from here so you can uh continue this for now thank you for uh listening and I appreciate you guys' time and your services thank you than speak again yes you um my letter has already been circulated to the staff um to the commission um but because there's also been information running around the neighborhood I would like to go over this argument that was

presented and give my interpretation of the facts as they differ um in argument one presented in this appeal I quote approver relies on a stream quor map that fails to accurately represent the location of a mapped stream and there thereby fails to prove the proposed curve is not within the buffer of a map stream and direct violation of steam qu and protection I have to say before I continue that for almost two years I have talked to everyone at the city about the fact that the GIS mapping system in my property is completely false and inaccurate and I've had nothing but people ignoring me for over two years the second appeal argument is that the applicant the application does nothing to address how the proposed structure will impact drainage patterns specifically how it will affect neighboring properties in direct violation of grading erosion and sedimentation control dear Planning Commission the proposed structure is a landscape curve I will let my contractor address this specifically but more importantly I would refer you to the photo which Miss Benfield has provided for this appeal that photo represents her property completely her property the fence that you see on the left side of that photo represents the legal boundary between our properties my house is out of view of that photo as is evident in that picture flooding has been taking place on the Benfield property and records of photos taken on additional dates demonstrate additional flooding on their property I'm not sure I understand why Mrs Benefield presented this photo but I'm

happy that she did it represents proof of the flooding which has already occurred on her property and her knowledge of that fact in addition to the threat of overflow water to neighboring properties not only my own but everyone's please understand the source of the storm water which was flooding the benafield property is located on the hill above them on that Hillside is a deep and massive Ravine which recently has been referred to as stream 18 I understand this determination comes from an outdated Wetland study accomplished over 30 years ago handwritten with interpretation challenges several culverts currently empty into this Ravine from both East and West creating an intermittent Waterway that flows during winter and spring the storm water traverses down the Ravine collecting sediment wood debris Boulders and anything else that goes through the Ravine as it flows toward the benafield blots the storm water then flows into a culvert which begins on the Benfield property and when that access is not maintained properly on her property the covert clots and floods the city is a well of these factors and they're worth repeating today Mrs benfield's expressed concern for grading erosion and sedimentation control has nothing to do with the placement of a landscape curb on my property and everything to do with the circumstances which currently exist on her property the photo in exhibit a demonstrates grading erosion and sedimentation control issues exist on her property and should be managed Miss benfield's apparent Newfound concern for future flooding on her property or neighbor prop property is already an issue with or without a curb fence which I propose to construct in argument three the appeal

presented States the application fails to demonstrate the curb will not cause overflow water to drain onto the property of another in direct violation of surf surface water damage as just clarified there is already historic proof of overflow water draining onto the property of another and indirect violation of this code and this violation has already existed on the Benfield property no violation however has been issued to the Bena fields for flooding which occurred on my property as a result of the Overflow Additionally the city has stated more than once to me that this is a civil matter and not their problem to resolve please understand this fact a landscaped curb to the south of Mrs benefi F's property will not affect the flow of a covert the landscape curb does not enter the covert I would additionally like to address stream quarter protection code to which Miss Benfield refers in number one of her application criteria and I would also like to state that there is a serious probability that the Canon Beach mapping delineation of stream 18 has been inaccurately designated given the serious inaccuracies which exist in the city mapping system this could be expected and here's why additionally as mentioned the designation of this stream is based on a 1994 Wetland study as recently as 2018 The Windsor report commissioned by the city of Canon Beach to study Flooding at sth and Laurel referred to this same Waterway as an unnamed stream additionally the Windsor report Engineers confirmed in their study that Windsor that Oregon Department of Transportation and Oregon parks and wreck department were reached out to

provide information on the infrastructure in E Cola State Park and the surrounding areas and no records were found the Windor report has also warned that the storm water which traverses down the mountain Ravine between Ash Street and a cola Road and appears to begin at 8th Street is unstable section 5.2 soil characteristics of the study reads and I quote most of the drainage basin is sloped with slopes ranging from 30% to 80% and small areas of flat Theon also has a geological Hazard overlay and Landslide susceptibility according to the classup County GIS mapping and yet to this day the city continues to dismiss this warning regardless of the historic Eola Park Road landsliding which has already occurred again the stream or more accurately the flood water emptying through a variety of culs into a deep ravine and flowing into a covert beginning on Miss benfield's property is already no longer in its natural state it's in a covert I repeat the stream is no longer in its natural state beginning on Miss benfield's property it's in a culvert Miss benfield's knowledgement of the 10-ft buffer established in this code is curious since her property is itself in violation of this buffer zone if there are special circumstances which apply to per property with those not apply also to my Cottage built in 1924 for clarification of facts my contractor is constructing a landscape curb not a retaining wall more importantly since the stream to which Miss Benfield refers has already been culverted on Miss benefield's property there is no stream located on my prop property through which a constructed curb would be Crossing it is still my contractor's

understanding that permits for this curb were not required for the record further investigation and legal ramifications will be ascertained for the following code subjects cited in this appeal including but not limited to buffer zone violations which have either been ignored or for Which special circumstances have been provided as compared to my own property rights grading erosion and sedimentation Control Management as may be required for the Benefield property in recognition of the resultant effects of overflow flooding to neighboring property surface water damage is applied to any overflow of water which may Traverse from the Benefield property to my own or to other neighbors Miss Benfield also mentions The Windsor report and The crucial findings which should be addressed by the city and have not been the city paid 15 for thiser report and I don't believe that any single recommendation from that report has ever been implemented by the city the Topography of the area which includes a ravine filled with culverts that send storm water gushing down and eroding Mountain filled with sediment Boulders and wood debris is actually not mine to resolve as Miss Benfield has suggested the issue of private storm water systems which have not been fully documented or public Coldwater storm water systems which are several decades old and in drastic need of repair on the North End of Canon Beach is also not my responsibility to solve as Miss Benfield has suggested that is the job of the city and rather than providing that service Believe It or Not Public Works has recently determined to double down on their lack of responsibility for maintaining the North End stormw waterer system stating that they will no longer be managing the system which includes the corner of North Laurel Street and Seventh

Street we know that this stream begins somewhere up in the aola park although there's no direct lineage to where it comes from and it drains approximately 54 Acres of total draining into the to the seventh and Laural intersection and now we have been informed by public works that they no longer plan to maintain that intersection what next will this city ignore thank you very much for your time are there other presentations by opponents do we have anyone online no is there a staff response the only response that I'd give is there's been a lot of comments about being ignored um I would tend to say that Mrs Logan hasn't been ignored I would tend to say that some of the answers that have been given in terms of the stream itself um I guess there would be a difference in opinion thank you for that does the applicant wish to make additional statements thank you very much in closing I just wanted to say that this permit violates 17116 stream Corridor protection 17.92% control 8.04 nuances I ask that you uphold AA 24-1 and deny DP 2450 permitting this Dyke to go forward would set a very bad precedent for the streams and waterways of this city and could negatively impact surrounding Property Owners question for you yes um the

assertion was just made that um the problem is originates on your property the covert is placed on your property I'm assuming you get no benefit from that do you I get no benefit from that uh we do try and keep always keep the Pulver area clear um my understanding is that started on our property but it's not for our property it's for the 716 North oral so as far as you're concerned you could cut it off right at the property line and not care except that of course you would change the drainage patterns and you don't want to do that okay any other questions thank you very much we have one more staff comment I'd like to just go on record and say that from a public works perspective we do routine maintenance in that area as we do all of our storm uh culs throughout the year especially preparing for the winter season following the winter season going into the dry season that means visual inspections uh sometime inspections of the line themselves to make sure they're not collapsed there's no obstructions uh no one has dumped anything down it to create uh some sort of obstruction we do the same thing on our annual maintenance associated with the Wetland to we are allowed at the mouth of the Wetland to maintain that area so that any water coming from the storm system meeting that and flowing on down its path is free of obstruction that is part of our routine maintenance we continue to do that I just reached out to two of my lead staff members to verify if there had been any discussion whatsoever uh regarding the slogan claim that we no longer maintain that neither of them have spoken and neither have I we wouldn't make a claim such as that because that is City infrastructure and

we're responsible for maintaining that on an ongoing basis hang on have a for clarification the overpipe starts on the Ben Fields property flows under and through subject property correct the storm grate on subject property and it exits at the property east of seventh at the Wetland there correct correct okay who who is responsible for maintenance of that culvert on private property is that the owner or is that the city that is the owner's responsibility and they have to adhere to any guidelines relative to protected waterways where it's a natural spring uh natural Waterway whatever uh the body of water involves they have to adhere to that just like we do now you had this report done by Windsor engineer yes stated that the subject property was not included that included in that and that Culvert from the point of benfields to7th and Lal would have been inspected in that wind report the we wsor report did not include the private property of Miss Logan they were allowed to look at the covert on the benefield's property if they but the for the benef fields approval correct M Logan had allowed the Windsor be able to expect that call they would have done from start to finish correct correct the report would be complete and they would be in a position to make some recommendations so they we would know if there had been any obstruction between Benfield correct thank you another thing even though that starts on the benefield's property assume that it does not belong to the benfields and was probably not put in by the benfields or do we know that um pardon me the the people who owned the

property prior to the benfields at the time I I have no awareness of who or when that was put in I have staff members that been on my team for more than 40 years and that covert existed to their awareness when it was put in we don't know and when we say property owner is responsible for that covert we're not talking about the benef fields we're talking about the slogan is that correct well wherever the pro the cover resides on a private property it is that private property's owner responsibility so we have two people who are responsible the cber looks like maybe uh less than 10 feet on the benfields and the rest of it on other private property including Miss Logan's yes I mean we we have documentation that the the uh path going through Logan property has always been part of the path of that water coming from above of benfields wherever it originates Eola Park wherever that comes down that is her property is part of that path it always has been whether it was opened closed when that happened that path existed for years and that is what meets um our city infrastructure okay okay and Karen do you do you have emergency authority to go on to say benefield's property if they're not if if the Creek's totally backed up or on the Logan's property if it's backed up you you couldn't enter on for some emergency purpose to clear out the the the Culvert for for free flow of the stream public uh Public Works does not enter private property even during an emergency without reaching out to the private property owner and you're ignored in perpetuity we'll just let the water go wherever the water goes if you're

ignored I would expect that if we had a situation where uh There Was You Know public uh danger public safety uh at risk uh we could act under emergency to be able to address that water backing up would not come into that uh Arena from my perspective I would have to evaluate that whatever the situation presented may I speak once more I interrupt protocol but before we close so we any other questions for me I got one was the Newton proper included in the report uh I don't believe so but the right away between Newton and along Laurel to all right away was part of the report any of the city's property was part of that report and then the specific cul on the Beni property was allowed to be reviewed I believe Bill we have a question here yes I believe the opponent has asked to speak but I know that the applicant always has a chance for rebuttal if we wished to keep the record open long enough for the opponent to speak we would still need to offer the applicant the final rebuttal correct so this is a little bit of an unusual situation in that the app the applicant for the original permit is the opponent of the appeal yes but in Oregon land use law the applicant who is proposing to do something always Bears a burden of proof so they always should get the last word so it it is the opponent in this situation but the applicant for the original permit should be the one who is allowed to have the

last word thanks Phil Miss Logan if you'd like to speak um my neighbor Tom suple had a meeting with Miss lante in her office where it was explained that the maintenance of the corner of that street was not going to be done anymore or if it was it was going to be minimally done so I guess my question is if you're going to take 54 Acres of water and drain it down seventh Laurel and then you're not going to keep the area clear for the water to Traverse any further than the corner of the street um it's probably going to just start backing up right we follow what is allowed under the Wetland uh Provisions for maintenance okay period um and I would like to just pass this map around which is the map from the Comm that I am aware of of my property and which I was aware of when I purchased my property if you wouldn't mind taking a quick look at it uh I would really very much appreciate it we'll need a copy for the record is that already been entered into the record I think it was I'm not sure a question Miss Logan while you're us I I okay just left so I think that's fine yeah so this as far as I know is the last item being entered into the record we've had a rebuttal is everyone ready for me to close the record I know Mike had a question I also have a question for M Logan is there any way that we can address our concerns sure so we'll keep the record open long enough slogan there are two questions from Commissioners for you if you

wouldn't mind please coming back up yeah yeah you know this discussion over whether the stream is here or there seems irrelevant do you disagree do you agree with me that the stream runs through your property right now how is it irrelevant if if that is the information that I received when I was looking to purchase my house the the if I knew there was a covert in the back of my or coming from my neighbor's property and going through mine I don't know if it's a stream or if it's a a creek or if it's a place that floods on their property that has to go somewhere I don't know that how much am I supposed to investigate that before you purchase a property I'm not asking about when you bought right now do we have any disagreement that that is stream 18 um yes and on what basis you think there's another stream out there that's this is a stream that goes by another name perhaps not 18 I'm not even sure if it's a stream it begins at uh Ninth Street and between Ash and the cold Road has covers running into it from every direction is that affected if it's been Chang ched por Z it's in the code not that's not for discussion right now your question thank you J you had one question have you ever had Albert that's on your property inspect have you ever had the calber on have you ever had that inspected you may have an entry from the benfields but you do have a storm grade on your property have you ever looked either direction or have someone looked either direction it's completely clear I have a video you can see down in to between the Gres oh well I mean that that's just one point that's not that's that's a small point I mean have you had it scoped from start I had um I had some

other uh pipes um what do you call it rotor rooted and the same guy looked at that one but he couldn't take the grade off it's permanently on there so I know I haven't done that okay thank you at this time we'll be closing the record and moving to deliberation does anyone have opening thoughts or comments I think there has be a discussion on web streams we have the we have two maps that I'm looking at right now one is a a national Wetland inventory but there's also a local Wetland inventory so there is some expression between the two Lo runs right through the property through benfields through Newton's we know where it exits on the seventh um I think typically when we have things I want to is that we get a weapon mediation stream Corridor information and that would have cleared this up and I would also have brought in the reason for one one second please triggered 1716 if it was outside the stream corridor outside of the 10 foot buffer there would be no questions but see now we do not know that we have to I think by default follow up on that I'm not sure why we do not know that we know there's a stream8 scene correct we is actually a tribut named tribut Logan cre in the code AS streamate and it's under our our local we and that is what the code if you up in the code does identify that these streams from the local Whitland inventory are regulated by this section

of Code 17 116 right and and even beyond that in there we would have had the Wetland delineation but then it would have also had to gone in front of uh DSL Department of State lands and army Corp Engineers whether they determin what their determination would be would be either that is part of it or it would be a no perit required so there would there there would have been two steps steps that would have sort of follow would have clarified what is actually happening here well you know I we can go down that path and I certainly think Miss Logan needs to have some I don't know what kind of expert you have come in and verify what she needs to verify and tell us there's not going to be a backup in that stream back into the Grand's property but I you know even if you assume that the stream ends right to that cobbert you take a 10t um um radius around that and they can't build um that curb on on 5T of either side of the stream anyway or the covert anyway so the reality is there they are um they they are asking to do something in the code uh under the the riparian overlay that is not permitted use is not conditional use um there's even an admission here that says the project we we are um trying to complete does not fall under any of these categories uh you know that's almost an admission that um they probably are with you know that this that they are in the wrong so I I think really this is cut and drive if you want to take the most restrictive definition of stream and have it end at that cover and I and I and I I'll allow you to do it you'd still have to have a big hole in that

that curb I think the reality is even with you know as it is now that stream is now flowing down its natural course over her property um that is part of the stream now so she's actually proposing to put her fence in it oh was there yeah so I think it's it's pretty cut and dried and and we should support the application but provide some guidance or the uh appeal and but provide some guidance on what would be expected you know for something like this to be considered by the Planning Commission and approved that's my personal opinion I think that uh regardless even if it stands how it is right now with the covert that's not the question of whether or not uh a 10-year event is going to back up onto somebody else's property in this case the benefit's property I think uh uh the pertinent question before us is is this new construction going to further uh Channel water into other areas that it's not going into right now because we already have a backup on the benef fields regardless of whether that uh Dyke or landscape fence fence is there or not so I think the real question before us is can we uh with some certainty say that this uh three three and a half foot um retaining wall is going to divert water into areas and cause other unintended consequences um because it's already backing up into the Pils correct and as it backs up it flows back under a property just because of the slope of the land um you know it's an interesting question Steve I think the reality is we're all work required to do is apply the code not resolve the equities of this thing and the code is pretty clear to me

that you know she is within the buffer potentially within the stream itself um she's asking for what amounts to a variance almost um but provided no evidence other than the city screwed up and Mrs benfield's bad and everybody is bad that you know she's she's providing no evidence that she's uh that that that conclusion is incorrect yeah I agree with Mike in that it's it's cut and dry in terms of the the zone that she's proposing to work in um I don't see how you know as Layman uh without reports that would have been helpful from you know various uh different professionals if she would have provided them to us maybe we could have more accurately assessed whether water would back up onto the benefield's property I mean you know again is a a non hydrologic professional I would say yeah if she builds this curb Dyke fence whatever it is it's likely to to cause problems Upstream but she didn't provide any any evidence other than her contractor saying oh we should just be allowed to do this so I don't think it gets there I think I think Mike hit the nail on the head and uh the discussion's over at that point for me Les do you have any comments yeah I think I do um I I've struggled with this because uh what I know of the backstory this is an unfortunate situation for pretty much everybody involved um my gut feeling though is that our our

stream Corridor protection codes should rule and to that degree I agree with Mike um it's pretty obvious to me that they're working within um the historical stream uh Corridor um there there are some things that I didn't see that would have made me feel better about it uh you know how they're going to protect the existing CT through this construction process um I even tried to do some simple math with with elevations and adding 18 in to it to see kind of where would the water go and 18 in above the mean grade is actually even higher than than uh the street I mean conceivably the water could be diverted right down the the right way or the street I don't know but um I just know this is a difficult situation and uh we're not going to solve the real problem but I do agree that this um this application or this um appeal should be upheld thank you would anyone like to make a motion I'm I move to to vote one question before you know this is just going to be a cut and DED rejection NOS okay and maybe this is not not appropriate for us how do how would she solve her problem or is that just beyond our scope that's not our scope our question is should this application be reversed and the reason it sounds like what I'm hearing here is that we all agree that this is in stream 18 and therefore the streem court are provisions of

17116 apply okay and in that case there needs to be a different development process go ahead I I move to a vote what would your I move to uh approve the appeal and so this is where it gets turkey and whale screw up with exactly you have to be pretty specific about how you Mo so the mo mo did you write it down uh I don't I think there is a draft decision if you look at oh yeah yeah St report there is some draft l very brave to wait into this first meeting always tough that Robert I don't know if uh maybe I could looking at the motion that Robert is pointing to it kind of gives some options and I think what you want to do is have a a motion um to T to reverse and whole the administrative decision to approve the development permit with regards to V Ben Benefield appeal so essentially you want to uphold the appeal reverse the administrative decision what I've heard okay I I move to reverse the development permit DP number 24-50 and one more question do we want this to be tentative and look at findings first first stve has a comment yeah I mean if you'd like um oftentimes the the plan commission makes a tenative decision um in this particular case it's fairly straightforward it might be one that staff would be able to uh complete with the work of the attorney and bring

it back to the chairperson to sign um I would recommend that but oftentimes you do have make a tentative decision let's do that okay so the tenative would would come back to the chair is that what what staff is recommending is that you make a decision to deny with um staff to draft findings to have the chairperson sign uh the denial okay that make sense Bill uh yes you know the there's sort of three op the two options so what what happens is there's got to be written findings and conclusions you know historically if you go back 10 15 years ago what would happen is a Planning Commission would affirm or deny and then authorize the the chair to sign the appropriate decision documents five six years ago I don't know the the number we kind of moved away from that a little bit uh because of some complex decisions and you know the Planning Commission wanted to make sure we got it right and what there would be would be a tenative decision and the findings would come back to the whole Planning Commission to review and and to edit I think what I hear Steve saying is and what I what I heard some of the discussion was this is pretty cut and dried straightforward in in the planning commission's uh view in which case it might make more sense to just vote to approve and authorize a Planning Commission chair to sign the appropriate documents uh sort of reviewing what ke did and that way the Planning Commission doesn't have to have a a special meeting to come back and review the the finding but if the Planning Commission does want to see the findings um that's certainly something we can do as well okay so I'm hearing everyone is happy with having the chair sign the findings yeah you can finally read your motion

okay uh I move to uh reverse the permit the development permit DP number 24-50 with regards to the benefit uh pardon me Benefield appeal application AA number 24-1 I second okay Tessa would you please call the role commissioner Sinclair yes commissioner wait yes commissioner Ora commissioner Bates yes commissioner matusik yes Vice chair Morris yes appeal is upheld and permit is this item bite the chair back back our next uh Mickey would you like to keep the chair would you me you may you may finish all right thank you our next item our informational items we have the tree report please yes during the month of December a total of six trees were removed four of which were dead two were Hazard trees and there was a replanting requirement of five okay questions about the tree report no no we'll move to the good of the order does anyone have any items for the good of the order

no mine no okay then we'll adj the order is good exactly everyone good night night