Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

They're sitting there. Nick is sitting here. He's all set up. Oh. Hi, Robin.

Hi, Robin.

How are you?

I'm better. Are you all right? I'm good.

We don't worry about anything.

What about it?

I think James or maybe we're going to sit here and play something that way. So you might be there today on the other side of you or with that last venue. Okay.

We have to sit down here at the dinner table. Bill Dayton happens. I will leave. Now I've seen you before. I'm guessing.

My father was very lucky to realize that they were just as stupid as you.

That is okay, Mr. Briggs. I'm very happy to see you. I'm very happy to see you. I'm very happy to see you. I'm very happy to see you. I'm very happy to see you.

Excuse me. Excuse me. Excuse me. Excuse me. Excuse me.

Yeah. All right.

Yeah, that's the only thing. We're not going to have any displays, really, so we're just going to have to kind of refer to, if anyone wants to refer to it, I think it's a page of the packet or diagrams.

Okay, let me bring up the packet.

Password, so it's the Corby Guest Room. In the password, it is 37811, capital S, capital H, and then 10. So I didn't mind that. Yes. Thank you. You can just change. I haven't heard of the other.

I see. Very good. Yeah. There is now. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Again. It's like.

Yeah. Yeah.

And Jeff, just to be clear, we don't have the video, for example. Do we have audio?

Yeah.

Okay, so there could be video.

Yeah. Wow. It's actually going to be, got it. Just saying, we have two more, just now, we have two more setups and teardowns to go. Wow. Wow. That's not even.

Okay, it's 5.59 to wait it out by six in the morning. All right, let's do this. Good evening.

Thank you for being here.

My name is Clay.

I'm the chair of the I'm Chair of the Planning Commission. I'm joined here by all of my fellow Planning Commissioners here. I'm not sure exactly why you're here, but I might have it for you. We are going to, I'll walk us through each of these items. To be kind of quick overview, and then we'll jump into our more formal presentation. So, Meg, I'm going to call the order, Yeah, I'll call her here and that's where a motion to approve our agenda. There are a lot of them. I'm going to review the end of the second or any further discussion.

That's what you're all over. Yes, yes, yes, yes, Missioners motion, yes. Yes, sure way that's true.

Yes, our agenda for this evening. Let's go to minutes from our May 28. The other even this. There are going to have a motion to approve this so that the discussion. So we call. Yes.

Commissioner Sinclair?

Yes.

Commissioner White?

Yes.

Commissioner Orloff?

Yes.

Commissioner Ridley? Yes. Commissioner Karras-Commission? Yes.

Chair Dugan? Yes. Move to our public comment portion of our meeting. If you have a public comment, we ask that you keep it within the purview of the Planning Commission. And when coming forward, we're being recognized if you're online, please state your name and address. And we will ask you to keep your comments to under three minutes. Is there anyone from the audience who has a public comment?

Anyone online? Okay.

So first,

Our first item, SR 2601, for a setback reduction.

SR 2601, panel construction, for a setback reduction to correct the construct in addition to a non-conforming structure. The subject property section 17.64 set that production. Does anyone object to the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission to fear this matter at this time? Does any Commission member believe he or she has a conflict of interest or personal As any commission member can add in the next part of the context, or may decide to... May we have the staff report, please?

Thank you. This application is for the approval of a setback reduction for the purpose of expanding a structure that does not conform to minimum front yard setback requirements of 15 feet. Excuse me. Nonconforming structures may be expanded in a way that does not increase the nonconformity however the proposed project would exceed 50 percent of the value of the structure although the addition is not impinging upon the front yard setback the applicant requests the 10-foot setback reduction to the front yard to allow the expansion of the non-conforming structure beyond the limitations set forth in municipal code 1788040 And for this staff report, I will be referring to the site plan, which is page 17 of your packet. Moving into the applicable criteria for nonconforming structures. Excuse me. The staff comment is... that the existing structure was built in 1937, as per Clatsop County Assessor's Records, and does not conform to the minimum 15-foot front yard setback required by the RL residential lower density zone. The residence has a real market value of $146,097, and all structural improvements on the property have a real market value of $212,000. The job valuation on the building permit is $250,000, which exceeds the 50% valuation criteria. The proposed expansion is on the northern portion of the building and will conform to established setbacks. The non-conforming structure would be rendered conforming by the proposed setback reduction and permitting the construction of the addition. Moving into the criteria for setback reduction, the staff comment is that the proposed addition conforms to the established development standards of the RL residential lower density zone and will not affect established or undeveloped public rights of way adjacent to the subject property. The proposed work will expand the house northward, which approaches the steeply sloped area that leads to local wetland inventory site number three on however no work will take place within the stream site or the 10-foot buffer it is noted that the site plan does not show the location of site 3. continuing on the total building coverage would bring the footprint of the building to 1466 square feet or 12.8 percent of the lot meeting standard one The proposed addition and its location would not impact views or solar accesses defined by Standards 2 and 3. The applicant has requested the setback reduction on behalf of 4E permitting construction on a lot with unusual configuration, and yet with the geological survey, topographic challenges, maintenance of stream corridor and tree protections, the Planning Commission could find a number of enumerated purposes being achieved by this application. Excuse me. Staff would note, however, that if parking is as shown on the site plan, located across from Logan Lane and not on the lot of the structure in addition, before a building permit could be approved, a parking variance would need to be sought under Municipal Code 1790070 in order to satisfy 1768020A and 68010E, off-street parking spaces for one or two family dwellings shall be located on the same lot as the dwelling. And that concludes the staff report.

Does anyone have any questions for Robert? I do.

Robert, this is Les Sinclair. The lack of a plat showing the existing structure as it sits today had in some way confused me as to why there's even been a request for a

The existing structure is shown on Exhibit A3, which is page 17 of the packet. That shows the existing house and the addition on the northern portion of the house.

Well, my problem with it, Robert, is that, A, that isn't a third-grade flat. That is an engineered grade grade. And B... Although it's got a cross-patched area showing the existing house, it's also got the addition. And I'm particularly curious about the little extension that seems to cross the boundary actually into the right-of-way to the east side of the structure. I think if I had a plant that was So the structure as it exists today, not including any additions or amendments, it would have been easier for me to understand. Because the addition as drawn on page 17 is clearly marked 15 feet back. It doesn't require any kind of a conditional improvement. And I'm not clear on the reason here.

It's because the addition exceeds the value of the non-conforming structure. And so because of that 50% valuation threshold, that's what is triggering this hearing tonight. Now, regarding a planted right-of-way, it is not our understanding that there is a right-of-way to the north of the property, that this property simply consists of two lots.

No, no, I don't mean to the north, to the east.

Yeah, I'm referring to the north. Okay.

I believe that's the dimension line that you see across. Yeah, that's the dimension line.

I agree with that. Then I would go back. I would prefer to see a real class showing the structure as it exists today and not look at this engineered drawing.

Robert, I have a question as well. The string to the manure also has an associated wetland with it.

No, it is simply a stream corridor only. It's not designated as a wetland site. It's a stream corridor only.

It would be a 10, yeah. Yeah, it would be a 10-foot buffer only, not a 50-foot buffer. Yeah, and I'll note that it doesn't show the 50-foot buffer on that, and it doesn't show the completion of the water force going down to to the west. You can see that top of the bank on what's been given us in the site plan kind of peters out to about 40 feet or so, 30 feet. And so that does continue to run down to the beach course. And so we would condition any approval that a stream It needs a 10-foot buffer setback or they would have to see the condition.

Now, even by the improvement in our city web, it shows the street corridor much further away from the house, but there's a green strip that goes along as well.

That's just a highlight of the unit.

Yeah, so the online map is a little misleading. It is going to show the green blob, but when you actually read through the text of the LWI, this is not an inventoried wetland site. This is inventoried as a stream site.

Okay.

I'm sorry, what was that?

We don't have a specific report in consideration of preservation of the tree structure.

We have not received any tree applications or tree reports with this application. Thank you.

Any other questions for Robert?

Okay, let's move to our public testimony. Part of the criteria to be considered are noted in the staff reports and listed on the criteria sheets on 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 will be applying to the decision. There is an issue coming by state of those mission to afford the decision maker and part of an opportunity to respond to the issue of the appeal based on that issue. Part of the conclusion of the initial evidence you're getting any participants may request an opportunity to get additional testimony or evidence regarding the application. My mission should grant such requests by continuing the public and we're leaving the record for additional written testimony or evidence. Persons who testify shall first receive recognition from the chair, state their full name and mailing address, and, appearing in a representative capacity, identify whom they represent. Is there a presentation about the outcome?

Is that you? Are you here on behalf of the other?

Let me step up a little. My hearing aids tied. Oh, so I'm sorry.

Sure. Yeah, no. Let me get a little closer. If I speak up a little louder. Yeah, that would be good. I'm sorry. Are you here tonight to present on behalf or present? Yes, then now is your opportunity to make your presentation.

If we could have your name and address first, then go ahead with whatever you've got to do. Say my name first? Yes, your name and address. Jamie Reach from Animal Builders. And your mailing address? 2964 Highway 101 North, Seaside Wagon. 7138.

Thank you.

I caught most of what he was saying, but something about parking?

Well, there is question, but no, I think we'll have a chance to ask questions of you after you make your opening comments if you'd like to make some, but otherwise I'll be happy to go on with my concerns.

What we'll do is, did you come prepared with any kind of a formal presentation, or are you here more to answer questions? I just gave you answer questions. OK. Then we'll .

Yeah, thank you. I appreciate it. I have been unable to ascertain, at least to my own mind, why a reduction, setback reduction has been requested. The one diagram that I can see, which is page 17 of the packet, clearly shows that the initiative doesn't get any closer than 15 feet to what I assumed was the property line. I believe it is, actually. And so there shouldn't have been any conditional use permit required.

Can I clarify first? Let me clarify. He has to because it's a non-conforming structure and it's exceeded the amount Yeah, but how does my grant being a setback reduction fix that? Because what a building that is within, say, if this is a correct survey or close enough, it's within five feet of that property line. When you've had a grant with 15 of those, then you're getting to know that he's already got a building stuck out there in the setback reduction. It's going to be ruined. But the way you need instead of introduction, you'll be waiting that.

So what it does is it bypasses for 50% the evaluation improvement over the three-year period. And essentially, that's what this is really all about.

That's my understanding.

That's correct. What triggered, whenever you had an improvement in triggers, then it went on forming them? that it needs to be modified or reformed. So that's per individual. Okay, so we're saying you can have this addition at a rate of 50% without the need to conform going forward.

When you create a conformance. Right.

Yeah, I agree. So the addition that we're proposing is within the setbacks, but the front little garage enters into the setback. And that's what makes it non-conforming. What we're adding on doesn't go into the setbacks.

And that was my observation, and I was trying to understand why. Because the way I read it, as long as you don't do anything that increases the amount of non-conformance, you don't have to do anything.

Unless they increase the value. It's because the value of the structure will be increased. If this were a...

Okay. Okay. But that's where I'm continuing to get messed up. So, okay.

So the county is saying the value of the house is $200,000. It's saying we can only spend $100,000.

So if the structure, I'm sorry, I really want to understand this because I was completely sure that I did before. So if this were a conforming structure with the same exact value as the house that we're talking about now, we wouldn't even have to be here. There is no 50%. It was less than 50%.

If it was conforming.

If it was conforming. If it was conforming, then it doesn't need to be here. It's really a conversation. I think I understand now what I'm trying to say for your patients.

So now you are rebuilding the garage structure. The garage structure will not change in its design. The walls aren't being rebuilt. We were planning on building the roof, but if that messes with us, we'll just leave the old roof. We were just, the whole rest of it was gonna get a new roof, so we were like, but we weren't gonna change the height or the shape or anything where it's impeding on the setback. Is the garage going to be used as a garage again, or is there going to be something different? It sounds like a taller garage. I don't think you can even fit a microcar in. It's going to become the 1937 Verlager. Yeah, it's very small. I don't think any car could fit in it. Okay. So it was going to just turn into the foyer where you just walk in. But the walls were going to stay. We were planning on a new building roof just because the rest of it was blinded. But if that conflicts because it's in setback area, I've only done one is once like 12 years ago. And the issue was we were in the setback and raising a wall. And so you were impeding and raising. So I kind of understood that one. This one's a little more foreign to me. So I just want to make sure we're doing everything correctly.

So does the FOIA need to continue out into the setback or could it still be functional if it was conforming to the current 15-foot setback? So you're suggesting demoing it? Right. Like if you were to do that, would it change the functionality out of curiosity?

Well, it would. It's where our electrical panels and everything should be. Because that's the other thing that I think was required here that we did is we have, we actually planned on doing it before you guys messaged us about going underground. I think that is also triggered by this maybe, I'm not sure. But the pole's like eight feet away or something like that. So we're like, why go overhead? Let's just go over the ground. We've already talked to them, gotten a bid for them to do that. It would create a dead space that you couldn't get a car in. And she would essentially lose her prop room. So I mean, it's a possibility, but it would definitely change the design. Because I believe it's still a very big garage.

Well, really, it'd be just losing the energy if you went back home. That's all. That's right. There's a city that puts that back in its place.

There's new water.

Yeah.

I don't know if you can picture it or not, but this is the spot that we're talking about.

Yes, yes.

And the addition actually starts back here, and that's where we have the 15 feet. Right, right. And then we use a little bit there.

Okay, thank you. For the parking, can you explain what's going on with the parking across the street?

So Grace has, are you guys familiar with this loaded lane that goes to nowhere? Right in the remainder of the road? So Grace, I believe, has bought a lot next door. That's the ravine. Doesn't matter if I do anything with that. And then bought that off her as part of her parking use. In the future, she would like to go in the garage there. That's for this house. She did it all at one time. So that's where her parking is, because the house has, I don't know if it's ever had legitimate street parking. Because you're right on moving lanes. Yeah, I'm telling her. Let me sit down. Make yourself comfortable. Sorry, I have to do that in three. So, When she bought that, that was her intention, was to have a spot to build the park. Because there's no face from parking on her property.

But right now, they are separate lots, correct?

Yes.

Divided by... There's no easement on that second lot for the parking.

There's no easement?

Right, that's what I'm asking because I'm saying, it's a legal matter if she was to sell the house today at Long Lane. It has no parking.

Okay.

So putting an easement on it will maybe rectify that issue. We can't because there's a driveway. You're going to have to get a parking variance to allow that to be proposed. Okay. If this is approved, they can condition that at home.

Would that be considered by this group as well or could it be another use barrier?

I guess my question would be, if you did demo the garage, you would then have parking in that space, right? I don't know if it's big enough. So, um,

The way this format works, we're asking you a lot of questions because at some point we're going to close the record and then we can't take any more input from you. So I'm going to ask Jeff a question and it might come back to you. It's a larger question I had about one of the reports. In one of the engineering reports, I saw that the comment was basically we wish we had a better building plan so that we could see how that impacted this high-land slide area. We'd like to make more comment on that. My question for you, Jeff, is what's your opinion as to whether that is something we consider in this body in a setback reduction record? And we may have a question. You may repeat it.

Honestly, that's a building question as much as anything. I mean, I don't know how long it requires when you need

So what is he going to require?

Yeah, he'll require that of the applicant. You know, if they've asked for that in the geotech report or whatever, that's really in the building official's domain, whether they require it.

Okay, so that's how it should be in there. Okay. So potentially, I don't know. Oh. The other thing that I was curious about, there was a free root that was mentioned in here, and I would like to see an arborist report about the impact. I didn't get that.

The arborist didn't report on that.

Okay. Yeah.

And I'm sorry.

If there are any other trees that are impacted at all, I'd like to see those also. If that's the case, then I'd like to see that in the report, any roots that none other will be impacted.

Yep.

Okay. Thank you. No, I should have put it, I thought I put it in there, but we do have a report.

Other questions?

Did you, that's kind of tricky because we need to talk about what they're seeing in the burger.

So I'm not going to ask you this question yet, but I'm going to ask my fellow commissioners what do you guys think of this larger scope? I mean, with the potential for the structured name and having some sort of impact on the land hand out, I landslide Chris Gehrig. Do we stay away from that and let that thought just play out? Or is that something we believe we need to be a part of?

I don't think it's part of our purview to determine landslide. potentials or whatever, movement potentials for a structure. I think that's more on the engineering side of things, the city. I don't know. That's how I feel right now. I mean, how do you feel?

I feel the same way I would speak right now. I don't think it's part of our preview. We shouldn't be concerning ourselves with that.

I agree. I see part of it here. You just spoke about that. We wish we had more inclusive plans to be able to determine that. They do make no deep foundation, but I think that was sort of a building on that level review. They have some in that possibly because of the tree root that are not involved. That's very hard to support, but it would be nice to have in that section, but specifically for foundation, I don't think that's quite enough in our gatehouse right now.

So it sounds like we're talking about some of the geotech information. And Alton has given me a call asking me about some updates from them. And the engineer did some calculations for the concrete that they were asking about. And they pretty much approved everything. They just want to finalize with the connection. Because you guys have the geotech report, I believe. But they want us to do a picture of the old connection to the new connection. and how they're being put together to make everything sturdy. They have a technical word for this above some of my education. But our engineer is in Stockholm right now. He gets here this weekend, and then he's going to draw that up and submit it to the geotech firm.

That's great.

Don't we all with the structural review is getting that information or something to bring our message into the body of something that was we do all of them and anything.

I would just say on that point, I think that there would be times that it would be appropriate for us to consider. We definitely have an ability to take it into account. So I'm not agreeing that we would never. But in this instance, it sounds like there's been sufficient due diligence that That was the way I remember.

I can think of a specific example. In this case, I agree. I was on the fence. I'm glad you're right. Yeah, that's important. Just to kind of make sure we understand our properties. And some of you have a good one. So anything else for? Yeah.

So it speaks to the foundations and you just mentioned the concrete boring and so forth. I want to make sure they're adequate protections for the embankments and the stream and everything else that you're doing there so there's minimal impact to those sensitive areas. Are you talking about erosion control or when we are working against? Yes. Yeah, that's contaminating control for, you know, if you're using a silt fence or something that's properly installed and it's kept up during the construction period, the entire construction period. Yeah, I don't know if there's a repairing area down there, but there seems to be some. There's a creek down there. It's definitely wetlands.

And you have not had a wetlands specialist or a stream specialist come to analyze the effect of that excavation and building on the Kitt Corridor?

There's really not much excavation happening. That side spot has been packed down with like rock for I don't even know how long. So we're just going to go down a little bit of a grade. It's not going to be like digging like a big footing foundation for a new house. And we're about, I think, eight feet from where the hill starts. So we're going to be plenty far away where we can put up barriers or anything that might go over the edge and block it with hay and those usual types of things as you're out. Yeah. I'll try to strap.

OK. Yeah. Straw walls and so the fence and so anywhere.

that's part of the development any other questions just i just would note that uh you know i didn't hear anything about uh at least and i don't know if you heard the staff report that we will require 10 foot uh from that stream, showing, and if you're within that buffer, we have a situation. Ten feet from the stream?

Yeah, from the top of the end of the stream. The stream's quite a bit away. Okay, yeah.

The thing is, it's only eight feet away from the bank.

Are you eight feet away from the bank? No, we're eight feet away from when it starts going, the new construction is eight feet away from when it starts going down, but The stream's like, I don't know, 30 feet from there. Yeah. So there is a building halfway. I don't know what that was for, but it's still sitting on the side of the building. Down below where you're doing your construction? I don't know. It was like a water hut 100 years ago. They pumped water or something. It's like a little shed.

It's kind of nice, but I don't know what it's for.

That was before there were weapons, probably. Well, not before wetland, before they were wetland and returning. These are exactly protections.

And you do plan on building during the summer or the dry time?

That's our intention because we can do our interior work in the winter.

Right.

Yeah. But once again, it, it, yeah, we don't want to be doing that. But it's not going to be muddier. It's like all packed gravel. And I think it's like a foot up it. Like, uh, one inch minus or something that has been there for, I don't know, at least five or six years, maybe more. So it's packed down with weather and rain and it's pretty solid there. But yeah, we don't want to be there in October, November doing that stuff. We want to be inside doing finished work.

Robert, do you have anything else?

No, I don't.

All right, thanks.

Any other questions? Okay, thank you, you will have so we're going to run through. While there's no one else in the room, you're going to have an opportunity to have the last word and then we'll close the record and then there will just be one. So we'll run through some more formalities here and come back if you want to last back order. Okay, are there presentations by opponents? Are there presentations by opponents? Is there a staff response?

The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning Commission approve the application with the condition that the applicant will satisfy off-street parking requirements before building permit by applying for a parking variance for off-street parking. The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning Commission approve the application with excuse me with the condition that the applicant satisfied the off-street parking requirement before building permitting by applying for a parking variance for off-site parking thank you yeah the the text is in the staff report if the audio isn't on a little unclear uh yeah it just looks for a minute but it's clear thank you okay uh you have the opportunity to

have any final comments you'd like us to consider before we close the record and then we'll move to our deliberation when the record will be closed at a further time.

I think we talked about it most. We did our due diligence with the geotech. We have one last thing, but they have approved it before. They just want to be able to see the calculations of the engineer. They do at Arbor, but for some reason didn't send you it, so I'll get that to you guys. That's it. Great.

Any final questions before we close the record? Okay, I could close with a loop for our deliberation. You know, Jay, a couple of meetings ago, you did a really good job of walking us through the applicable criteria, step by step. And in our last meeting, in the last meeting I was at in the United States, I think it's a really good idea. Some of these things are what we might consider obvious, But I think from a procedural standpoint, it's pretty important to describe why not, please. So why don't I do that? All right, we'll start with 178804, non-conforming structures. The following provisions apply to non-conforming structures. Where a lawful structure exists and the effective date of adaptation or amendments of the ordinance codified from this chapter that had no longer rebuilt under the terms of this chapter by regional restrictions on area of building coverage, height, yards, its location in the lot, or other requirements concerning the structure. Such a structure may continue so long as it remains otherwise involved. Okay. Let me go ahead and check this. A nonconforming structure may be altered in a way that does not increase its nonconformity so long as the proposed alteration within a three-year period does not exceed 50% of the fair market value of the building, as indicated by the records of the assessment. Alterations in excess of 50% of the fair market value of the building may be authorized in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 17.64, setback reduction. So it seems like we could come back to that.

This is the reason why we're looking at setback reduction.

Right. So do you want to go through the rest of these two, or is that pretty much the trigger to set up your fix form? I think we can go to 17.642. I think we can go to 17.642. So let's move to 17.642. The reason we are going to set back the direction. 17.6401 of provisions established. Reduction of the setback requirements without various procedures, but following the procedures required by Chapter 17.06 of this code may be approved by the Planning Commission where the following criteria are met. One, total building coverage shall not exceed 40%. Do you guys want to stop on everyone and talk about this? Or do you want to leave them?

Last week, we did a very brief conversation. Okay. So, yes, that's how I acknowledge what's happening.

Yeah. Total building coverage will not exceed 40%.

And it looks like the standard reporting would take 12.8% a lot. So, that's under the 40%.

Well, you know.

Anybody else? Moving on. 2. Significant use of the ocean mounds or similar features from nearby properties will not be obstructed any more than would occur if the proposed structure were located as required by the zoning district. The proposed building location will not interfere with solar access of buildings on a zoning property. 4. It is the purpose of setbacks to provide a reasonable amount of privacy, drainage, light, air, noise, noise reduction, and fire safety between adjacent structures. Setback reduction permits may be granted where the Planning Commission finds the above purposes are maintained and one or more of the following are achieved by the reduction in setbacks. A. Tree protection. B. The protection of a neighboring property's views of the ocean, mountains, or similar natural features. C. Maintenance of a stream corridor or avoidance of geologic hazards or other difficult topography. D. The provision of solar access. E. Permitting construction on a lot with unusual configuration. So they are planning unusual configuration. Yeah. Do you want to go back? Do you want to go through each one of these?

Let's go ahead.

Let's start with a tree protection. Yeah.

I'm actually worried about the tree protection piece because we don't have the arborist report. In the past, we have approved projects only to find out later there was a concern that we wish we had noted. So I have some misgivings with regard to trees given that potential tree root comment and yet we don't have them.

a report to back up, but that's not actually a concern.

Yes. And so you have the ability to continue with your... That's right. That's why I'm wondering if... Yeah. Because if he's saying he's going to get you a report, you would just continue there. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So there's an option to resolve that.

Any other comments on tree protection, or do we feel like that's a good resolution to that concern?

I feel satisfied. Good. B, the protection of neighboring properties and use of the ocean, mountains, or similar natural features. Any concerns there? No, I don't think that applies. Okay. C, the maintenance of a stream corridor or avoidance of geologic patterns or other difficult topography.

Again, I'm saying the concern that we don't have an indication exactly what the same quarter is and I'm not questioning that you're wrong. I'm not. No, I'm just trying to find the calendar, but I would prefer to see a plan that has mapped the stream corridor and it's 10 foot buffer so that we can be certain there is no impingement there. Yeah.

Rebuilding the addition of the stream location.

Yeah.

Because from the photos, it looks pretty darn close. It looks like it's not 10 feet. Licensed. Yes, licensed. Yes, yes.

And not just hand-drawn. Thank you for pointing that out.

Okay. Any other comments on that?

Okay. The provision of solar access. There's a lot of time.

The permitting construction might a lot with an unusual configuration.

I actually was intending to challenge that. I don't ever see it as a lot with unusual configuration. It's just a very difficult lot to build on.

But it sounded like from a previous discussion, it doesn't.

And that's not a particular concern. At some point in here, there's got to be a reason that we have to approve this solely to make it an informing structure. And I don't see it written there, but I'm willing to go all out.

I would agree. I'm not sure that I agree this is actually an unusual configuration. We have seen similar laws that we said were not unusual.

I think it's not a law that's unusual. It's a place similar to the existing house that's unusual. Right, I don't think this would apply to me.

Rehabilitation of existing buildings where other reasonable alternatives do not exist.

And here I can see that this is allowing them to save a cottage. and make it a functional size without needing to demo the entire thing and build it in different locations. I am somewhat open to the concept that this is somewhat rehabilitation of the existing structure.

Yeah. I mean, what's a reasonable alternative, right? I think the only one that might be an alternative is to demo the whole thing and build back a little bit. So I think it's reasonable to do this for expansion, that would be inevitable for them. I would be much more comfortable with that as being a criteria that did apply.

I think if you developed the whole thing and it applied to current setback requirements, there would be virtually nothing to build on, in my opinion.

Moving to G, protection of wetland or wetland buffer area. Again, I'd like to see a little bit of it again.

If anything, you're pushing not protecting it.

So you don't have to raise your hand.

H, permitted construction on an oceanfront lot with the effect of the application on the oceanfront setback requirement of 17.100.050A Section 6 reduces the death of the lot located within the required setbacks to less than 40% of the lost debt. Under this standard, a reduction in the required setback shall be considered only in the setback opposite of the required oceanfront setback.

That was kind of what's happening.

Yeah, that's certainly around our survey. Jack, there is an oceanfront. Setback requirement to this is nice to see that with Mars survey and buy out of that and where that would be. So you guys want to see the full survey all the way out to the beach. We want to know where the oceanfront setback is in relationship to the existing house. The oceanfront setback line is specifically for this. Okay.

Jason writes a letter that's efficient with a utility placement and other public purposes.

A sense is that there was no concern from finding on that piece. So Rachel.

Just saying, I was taking a note there.

So this is a number five adjacent rights of way that's efficient with for utility placement or other public purposes. Yeah.

Yeah, no issues were identified talking to public works.

The reduction would not be a traffic hazard or impinge upon a public walkway or tread. Any encroachment into the setback will not substantially reduce the amount of privacy, which is or would be enjoyed by an abutting property. That was not 25. Right. Okay. Eight. The proposed building location will not interfere with the ability to provide fire protection to the building to the building or adjacent buildings.

Yeah, it doesn't sound very tight.

So we have three years.

I think if we're leaning toward a continuation of these careers, we can see you were

leaving the Arbors on section initially. Yeah. I wasn't seeing the Arbors report stating that what the potential of, well, damage or effect of construction removing that roof or whatever you're going to do with that roof. We're not touching it.

So we would just like a copy of the Arbors report. Well, yeah. That's what His report said we don't need to touch it and it won't affect it. So we're not touching anything but the tree.

I'd also like to speak to make sure there's no other impact on the tree. If you can say that also, I don't know if that's the correct answer. So in his report, speak to that root. I'd like to see that and then make sure you're not touching it. It was the whole reason we called him because of that tree.

We saw the root going. Specifically the root and rooting the foundation over that root for time frame of lifespan of that tree where the root is going to grow and potentially impact the foundation in that area or any other area.

In the plans, we have a foundation job. I see. I saw that. Yeah. So are we are testing out the root? The root's not messing with us. Not ours to speak to that. Yep.

And we are going to open the record and have a conversation. We can do that. We can close the record. Technically, we're not supposed to have a conversation, but now I'm going to open the record with approval from everybody and we can have a talk about it. Sound good? Yes. We're not supposed to be talking. Our bad. Please speak to me.

I think we got that clear. I don't know if I would like that specific addressing, addressing not just that, but any group in our relationship with Reggie going over around what, you know, what the setting there is suggesting there that's applicable. Yeah.

Yeah. I'd like to make sure that John is far enough away from that route that it doesn't affect the foundation going forward because We don't want you to come for the representative of the property owner to come forth in several years and say, well, now we start with three because this was absolutely the reason why we called them was because of that.

And I'll get the report to you because this was like last July, I think. And I don't, Even though if he was requiring us to jog the concrete, the architect might put that in as an extra safety precaution to not have any concrete over it. But I'll check it out. And I'll get his report. All right. Yeah. I'd like to see that. It all went around on one tree and that one roof was the oldest we got in there.

And then the stream, how do we want to better understand the stream and potentially... I would like to see an actual... measurement of how far the stream bank is from there with an overlay of wetland and wetland buffer.

So do you want us to get, am I still part of the conversation? Okay, sorry. The property, this is an exact, property goes like this and there's a ruby. So do you want a measurement that goes from top to here or do you want a horizontal measurement that goes from here to

A measurement that goes to where the stream bank is. So the stream bank and the stream are two different things. A bank is the potential where that stream would come up to in a heavy rainfall year. So that stream could be much more than the corridor that you see it in right now. I'm sure it's one of those. Can I ask a dumb question? I probably already have to, I don't know.

Is there a recording of stream banks somewhere?

What might be the wetland specialist if they come to a delineation?

Specifically what we're looking for is the stream itself or all this high water rush.

Yeah. A surveyor can produce the document that we would need. They would just have to identify where the stream bank is and then they can establish where the buffer is.

All right. I think the staff has already put in here the Conditions for the permit. But we don't know what that is. And we really don't know if we're complying or not.

And then you also asked as part of that survey that included an ocean front setback. A what? Ocean front setback.

Anything else on that? I have a stream. I know I shouldn't. or a survey that's for the stream or an oceanfront setback.

And then if you're going to keep the parking over there, it would probably be best just to come in with a parking variance in the next meeting and get it all done.

That's all on my list right now, just the first one. And I apply for that and then come to another one of these meetings for it, because I don't do this. Everything next to me walks through at one time.

Okay, well, thank you for being here tonight. Obviously, we have some concerns, but I'll speak for myself. I think I'm out of turn. I think it's a project that with this additional information we've read about, we're going to continue our meeting to the next to our July meeting. And... If that's enough time. Is that enough time? That's a great question. Is that enough time? So our next meeting is July, about a month from now. Yeah. Is that enough time to get surveyed?

Yeah. Okay. And if not, he can request a engagement. Okay.

Jeff will be able to reply for that sub-advocacy. Are you planning to bury this as well? Yeah. Okay.

Yes, July 23rd.

Yeah. I was just asking. To do that.

Is there a motion? I move that we continue this item to the July 23rd Planning Commission. And just in short, do we Do you need to do anything in the 120-day?

I think we're going to be OK with that, if we're asking through the- It's in October, right?

Yeah. You think we want to do the exact list? What would we ask for?

I can run through the four items as noted, and then you can just say, So we're requesting an arborist report specifically discussing construction advance. Number two, the site plan along with the stream corridor in buffer at the by a licensed surveyor, showing also the oceanfront setback, which is item three, and then a parking variance application, number four.

Was it for all the trees that you've mentioned, or just that tree?

Well, I have a list. Can I say my list? You can tell me if I missed anything. Oh, am I out of the conversation? Yeah, technically. That's true. Yeah, I was bad. You're fine?

Yes.

Okay. I've got the harvest report. the parking variance, the stream location, which we'll just do a cross-section with the high water mark, showing what our erosion control is, the oceanfront setback line. And I said that twice on that. Does that sound like everything that we're...

Right, and you did want that as a licensed survey.

Yeah, we'll have the same person that did the survey And it sounds like you can do the high one are you know she got off and have to.

You know I said. Today's I would like to see in our report that says there's no other impact or other crews and explain whether or not I've been back in. We're going to be more so it's going to be more comprehensive than just the figures of.

John.

Okay, so I think we've got we're pretty sure the conditions are I second the motion then and for the session. Okay, so we go.

Mr. Christian, yes. Mr. Yes. Yes. Mr. Yes. Yes.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

And everything sure is. Yeah, but we will be back in our normal place or the the chamber right next morning. Yeah. And so then I'll also have the TSP process. I'll give you a presentation on that. Discuss that. I've given it to the Public Works Committee, the past one. Thank you. And then we will also have, like, a short-term enrollment seminar away. And we have one other thing. Signage? Yeah, that as well. I think signage, I think, is coming around as well. Yeah.

Anything else for the good of the order? I have a question for Jeff. So the council's work session next week is solely on the House and So there were three big attachments. Yeah. That has never come before the Planning Commission.

Yeah, it doesn't even look familiar. Yeah, they look familiar. Yeah, like a weird group. Okay. Okay.

Anyone else want to go to the order? Then we're adjourned. yeah we just we can we can get our identity