Motion by Member Jim Martzke, Second by Member Gerry Gonzalez

Vote: 6 - 0 Approved

Motion by Vice Chair Robert Montgomery, Second by Member Randall Limbach Case planner Taylor provided a presentation, which is preserved in the files. Ernesto DeLaCruz, applicant, provided an applicant's statement.

Chair DePew opened the public hearing. Russell Lyle Gann had questions regarding the fencing and hours of operation. David Lancaster stated he was in favor of a conditioned approval. Lisa Obal spoke in opposition to the request. Chair DePew closed the public hearing. Ernesto DeLaCruz, applicant, provided a rebuttal.

Commission discussion:

Vice chair Montgomery asked about the type of business conducted and use of the yard to support the business. He stated a block wall would be helpful. Vice-chair Montgomery asked the applicant to verify that he could comply with all dust, noise, and light regulations. He asked staff to verify the zoning of the lot and surrounding area. He also asked for a legal opinion on how this would affect the residential or non-residential classification of the property. Vice chair Montgomery asked whether the applicant had cleared the wash. The applicant has been working on cleaning the wash. Member Limbach asked the applicant about the cleaning of the wash and whether that would continue and how operations would impact the wash. He stated he did not believe the business was compatible with the neighborhood conservation land use classification. Chair DePew asked about the status of his house. She also asked whether he inherited the debris on the lot. The applicant confirmed this was true.

Staff recommended conditions for land clearing permits, a combination of parcels, hours of operation, screening, dust mitigation, and establishment of a house.

Vote: 6 - 1 Approved

NO:

Member Randall Limbach

Motion by Member Randall Limbach, Second by Member Jim Martzke Case planner Taylor provided a presentation, which is preserved in the files. Pamela Colabella, applicant, provided a statement.

Chair DePew opened the public hearing. Eleanor Angel spoke in opposition to the request. Corey Larson, spoke in opposition to the request. James Angel spoke in opposition to the request. Steve Palm spoke in favor of the request. Tabitha Nagle spoke in opposition to the request. Brian Lee spoke in opposition to the request. Chair DePew closed the public hearing. Pamela Colabella, applicant, provided a rebuttal. Bert Whitehead, deputy county attorney, advised deferring the docket to provide time for additional legal review. Case planner Taylor clarified that Calle en Cielo was a public easement. Member Limbach made a motion to table the motion to the motion until the July 9th meeting. Member Martzke seconded the motion.

Commission discussion: The commission voted (4-3) to table this docket until July 9, 2025, to provide time for additional legal review.

Vote: 4 - 3 Approved

NO:

Chair Kim DePew
Member Nathan Watkins
Vice Chair Robert Montgomery

Motion by Member Randall Limbach, Second by Member Gerry Gonzalez Case planner Taylor provided a presentation, which is preserved in the files. Chris Brinkmeyer, applicant, provided a statement. Chair DePew opened the public hearing. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the request. Chair DePew closed the public hearing. Member Watkins asked whether the Active Management Area (AMA) designation had impacted his property. Chair DePew asked the applicant to clarify the reasoning for the 40,000 gallon limit. The applicant explained it was a state farmhouse winery requirement limit. Member Watkins asked staff whether the gallon limit needed to be a condition of the special use. Case planner Taylor stated it was to help align the state and zoning applications.

Vote: 7 - 0 Approved

Motion by Member Nathan Watkins, Second by Member Randall Limbach Case planner Taylor provided a presentation, which is preserved in the files.

Chair DePew opened the public hearing. No one spoke in favor or opposition to the request. Chair DePew closed the public hearing.

Member Limbach asked how accessory size could be limited if no specific size limitations were included. Director McLachlan responded that accessory structures would need to be customarily incidental to the principal. This left some administrative flexibility. Member Limback asked if there could be a timeframe to construct a principal use included. Director McLachlan stated that can be difficult to track. The incentive to build a principal is to have a place to live on site. Chair DePew asked about the height limitation and addressing. Vice-chair Montgomery asked approximately how many antiquated subdivisions there are and how they are being monitored. Director McLachlan stated Development Services was doing a comprehensive land assessment. Vice-chair Montgomery asked how this would impact land assessments and the county budget and whether that was the impetus for change. Director McLachlan stated that while she hoped it would increase the opportunity for development, the change was initiated by a request from the commission and board, were controversial. Vice chair MOntgomery asked what impact this regulation will have existing residents. Member Watkins thanked staff for addressing this issue.

Vote: 7 - 0 Approved

A strike-though and underline version of the by-laws was placed on screen for the commission to review. Director McLachlan stated the commission had discussed specific changes to the bylaws at the previous meeting. Changes were made to the draft on the screen based upon that discussion. Director McLachlan stated this was not a public hearing but at least six of the commissioners needed to vote in favor of the request for it to be approved. Chair DePew asked the commission if there were additional questions or discussion. Chair DePew pointed out the change in procedure. A roll call vote was taken.

Vote: 7 - 0 Approved