Contractors urge Polk County to require erosion and landscape plans, site reviews before shoreland permits

Contractors, landscapers and county staff at a Polk County Environmental Services Committee meeting debated how to reduce shoreline erosion and post-construction runoff while keeping permitting feasible for property owners and builders.

John Hall, president and project manager/designer at Folsom Lake Prolon, told the committee his company handled dozens of waterfront projects and that the lack of consistent pre-permit review has contributed to on-site erosion problems. "Until recently, I felt I had a pretty good grasp of those topics and not anymore," Hall said, describing conflicting language and colored edits in the draft packet that left professionals uncertain what will be required.

Why it matters: Contractors said shoreland development is increasingly complex and that late discovery of steep slopes, shared setbacks and drainage features often forces after-the-fact fixes that are costlier and more environmentally damaging than planned mitigation.

Main points from public comment and staff discussion

- Require landscape/erosion plans before land-use permits: Multiple speakers, including Hall and Lakeside Landscaping owner Nick Strelzyk, urged the county to require a landscape plan, erosion-control plan and mitigation plan for projects that involve grading, accessory structures, or building footprints near the ordinary high-water mark. Contractors said the plans would identify needed retaining or wing walls, drainage features and revegetation measures ahead of construction.

- Define thresholds for review: Staff and the committee discussed setting objective triggers for Land & Water review (examples discussed included slope percentage, area disturbed, or impervious-surface thresholds). Eric (Land & Water staff) and others said existing stormwater/erosion-control rules typically apply to commercial projects and that residential thresholds are less consistently enforced.

- Role of retaining walls and "wing walls": Landscapers argued a blanket ban on retaining walls would be impractical; several urged a definition that distinguishes engineered retaining walls from small landscape borders and outcropping stones. One commenter suggested a "wing wall" option as a technical solution for tight sites where traditional retaining walls are infeasible.

- Coordination, timing and enforcement: Contractors asked that pre-permit reviews be timely; staff noted capacity constraints and that adding Land & Water reviews could extend turnaround times. Committee members and staff discussed permit lengths and mitigation timelines; staff pointed out land-use permits are commonly issued for two years and that mitigation compliance windows and inspection capacity need alignment.

What the committee directed

Committee members asked staff to draft a mitigation checklist and a set of objective thresholds (slope, disturbed area, impervious-surface percentage) that would require Land & Water review or an on-site meeting involving builder, landscaper and county staff. Staff flagged capacity questions but said templates and clearer permit application requirements could reduce repeated site visits and after-the-fact fixes.

Ending

Contractors pressed the committee for a transparent, predictable process and for county staff to work with local landscapers and Land & Water to create usable checklists and educational materials before changes are finalized. The committee asked staff to return with draft guidance and the proposed checklist at the next committee meeting.