Placer County denies height variance for Auburn riding arena cover

The Placer County Zoning Administrator declined a variance Thursday requesting the approval for an existing horse arena cover to exceed the 36-foot structure height maximum within the farm zone district it is located. The zoning administrator welcomed comments from the representative of property owner Gary Matranga and the public during a public hearing. The structure is located on Wise Road in Auburn on a 10-acre site with two residential units, an outbuilding, a pasture, horse barn and round pen. According to county officials, the 20,000-square-foot cover was installed over the existing arena in the south-central portion of the site in February and is 44 feet, 2 inches in height. A complaint was filed with Code Compliance on Feb. 13, and county staff completed an inspection of the property March 9. An application for variance was then filed May 27. During the hearing, Associate Planner Bennett Smithhart shared that relocating the arena would cause it to be more visible, as it would be moved to an area of higher elevation and a significant amount of grading would be needed to maintain a flat arena floor. The arena is currently located on the flattest and lowest elevation of the property. Based on the findings, Smithhart said, county staff recommended approval of the variance. Before the hearing, staff received 13 letters in opposition and 10 letters in support of the variance. According to Placer County Principal Planner George Rosasco, comments ranged from some saying the structure is beneficial to others stating the structure is too big and obtrusive due to its color and lighting. "It is important to understand that the height is the issue here, not the color of the structure, not the materials used for the structure and not the lighting of the structure," George Phillips said, representing the Matrangas. "Those do not require individual approvals by county so we are talking about the height, and as is pointed out in the staff report from the vantage point and the distances of the homes that are adjacent to this parcel, we don't believe that lowering the facility to meet that height limitation would modify in any significant way the visibility of this cover. Certainly, there is no requirement that it be invisible." Nine additional public comments were also provided during the hearing, with six in support and three in opposition of the variance. "Obtrusive, ugly, it looks like a big circus tent," commenter Clive Delany said. "… I am outraged that this was done without any permits. You say the color is not an issue, it is an issue. This thing is white. It glares, the sun reflects off of this structure all day long, morning till night. It is totally out of place. Inconsistent with where we live, we've been here 15 years … so it is an issue. The height is an issue, the color is an issue, the whole thing is an issue." "I've ridden at many, many facilities through the years and many of them have arena covers with heights that are well over 36 feet and a lot of this, speaking to the benefit of a larger, higher roof line on an arena cover, a big part of that is circulation," commenter Lanae Langley said. "Anybody who comes out to the property on a hot day will notice that inside of that arena it is at least 10 degrees cooler and it's because of the height and open air shape of that arena cover that allows for maximum ventilation and air flow. It keeps the riders, and the kids and horses comfortable enough to work even though it may be 90-plus degrees outside. And even in the winter time when we get a lot of rain and a lot of wind, because of that cover, it protects the arena footing enough that we can still continue to ride in inclement weather." Rosasco said the comments regarding the structure's appearance had no bearing on his decision, a special circumstance was not found for the need to have the structure exceed the 36-foot height maximum and approving the variance would be granting special privileges to the property owner. As a result, Rosasco announced the decision to decline the variance. Anyone who does not agree has 10 calendar days to appeal the decision, with an appeal fee of $621. If an appeal is filed, the decision will be set aside until the Planning Commission renders a new decision, which could take between six and eight weeks, Rosasco said.