Wildlife_habitat

27:55 Let's see exhibit 85 was an email from the applicant regarding the 30 foot setback on lot one. That was the exhibit where he indicated that they plan to shift that Northwest lot line a little bit to meet the 30 foot setback to a garage to keep that garage on lot one. And then. And then exhibit 86 snuck in right before the hearing it was another public comment, and I was able to capture it in my next slide, and you'll send it to me. I did. Do you want to check really quick to see if you've gotten it. I sent it right before we got started here so if you haven't seen it come through. Okay, perfect.

28:46 Okay, so let's see for project issues. I wanted to just highlight the public comments we got most of these were addressed in the staff report couple of them were not. So, William blazer submitted exhibit 25. He submitted comments, addressing concerns regarding loss of wildlife, deer, birds, beavers due to the development. He mentioned stormwater runoff and flood hazard concerns and then concerns regarding the small lot sizes of the proposed cluster lots. And how the smaller lot sizes will undermine the urban rural balance in the area of the development. And then Steve Hansen submitted exhibit 26. He had some questions about where construction activities can occur. So those were answered in the staff report.

29:40 Let's see clocks in lieu submitted exhibit 72 highlighting concerns about the narrow road. I assumed it was north the northeast john nelson road, they were speaking about, I'm not sure if they actually specifically called out that road. And then inadequate vehicle turning movements had light intrusion privacy loss and the effect of the on the quiet enjoyment and marketability of their rental property. So, those were some of the comments again those were addressed in the staff report. And then the ones that haven't been because they came in afterward were a few from Donna England. So exhibits 82 and 83.

30:25 And then there was a written request from Donna to preserve the 200 foot riparian habitat buffer to protect Morgan Creek, and and she mentioned, you know the fish and the other animals who depend on the creek, salmon, trout, and the other animals that rely on on it for food, owls and woodpeckers and herons and everything so Donna, and then Donna mentioned some site distance concerns too so mostly about wildlife, some site distance, and then Donna submitted at three exhibit at three so that's actually a video of co host salmon spawning and Morgan Creek, which I thought was pretty neat. And let's see, exhibit at four from Steve Hansen with additional concerns about just more environmental, you know impacts and the request for the county to ensure that avoidance and minimization will be utilized as much as possible to preserve those

31:24 critical areas. And then, let's see, yeah so Donna England submitted 86, so that is the last one so I didn't get it on my slide but I have a note here about it. So, yeah, I didn't, I didn't have a chance to read through 86 it looks like it was more environmental concerns but I haven't been able to dig through. And I would ask if when Keith Radcliffe is here if he could give a, if he has he seen the comments that deal with natural resources and preservation. It's my impression that the county has pretty elaborate ordinances that were adopted pursuant to state law that address the protection of these sorts of resources so he might give kind of a kind of a quick response to these comments if he has them in hand.

32:17 Yeah, and I haven't sent the newest ones to him specifically so I can shoot those over or grab them out of the file either way but yeah there there are maybe one or two that he hasn't seen the earlier ones. Okay, so for SAS recommendation. Ultimately staff recommends that this application be approved subject to conditions of approval identified in the staff report, also known as exhibit 74. And here is a just another copy of the plans that we can have it pulled up as we move forward with the hearing. But that concludes my presentation so I will remain available for any questions. Okay, thank you. So this this site has public water but not public sewer so each of these loss will be served with on site, septic right.

33:15 Okay. And that's those also those septic systems have to stay outside of the, these boundaries, the red boundaries that show the habitat, wetland and riparian habitat boundaries buffer boundaries, as well, and also in the building envelopes. Is that true. Yeah, you're so you're talking still the red dashed line. Yes, slash critical area buffers yeah that's my understanding. Okay, so this, this, this plan which is the revised plan exhibit 32 is critical to understanding how this development proposal is going to comply with the critical areas and habitat, habitat and wetland ordinance, which is chapter 40 dash or four or five I think. Yes. Yeah. Okay, absolutely.

34:14 Let's see. Okay. All right, I think that's it for the planning issues, or what one other thing is, this was a traffic study was not required here because with a total grand total of six developable lots it didn't meet the threshold to trigger the need for traffic study right which I think is 10 pm peak trips. Correct. Okay. So concurrency was easy. And I guess I have some questions. Let me turn first. I want to call for land use I have a couple questions, Mr Decker, on forestry hunter there. Yeah. Okay, great. And this is probably a question I should have asked years ago.

35:14 I have your recommendation your staff report it's exhibits 60s, 76, and you have proposed findings that address the forestry requirements and a set of conditions.