Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, we're going to go ahead and begin tonight's meeting. If everyone would please join me in standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. Can we have a roll call? Waldron present. Fryhover here. Tell present. And I would entertain a motion to approve tonight's agenda. I motion to approve um I'm sorry I don't have it. We're good. I motion to approve the agenda. Is there a second? Second it. Um all in favor, please signify by saying I. I I I. Okay. Our next item is going to be approval of our regular meeting minutes from last month on February 4th, 2025 and approval of our special meeting minutes from February 18th, 2025. Um, are there any edits, additions, or motions for approval? I motion to approve uh meeting minutes. uh on date February 4th, 2025 and special meeting minutes from February 18, 2025. I second. And this one we can do an oral vote

also, right? Okay. All in favor, please say I. I. I. I. Okay. So, we will now take um public comment for um anything that is not on tonight's agenda. So, this is just if you have a general comment for the planning commission, um this is the moment for that. If you're here to make a comment about a specific agenda item, there's also public comment for each agenda item. Are there any general public comments? Okay, seeing none, we will move on to the public hearing session of our me section of the meeting with the first uh item resolution number four, which is Siggo Land Group LLC um to convert an existing development into separate forale occupancies and Nancy is going to tell us a little about that. Thank you, Emily, and good evening. So this first request is a fairly simple project. The idea here is to condominium divide into separate ownerships an existing commercial development um located at 111 South Siggo Street. So it's the existing development you can see there that says um I can't point to it. Can you point to it for me? Um, right in there. Um, there are four existing businesses in two existing buildings. Proposal to add one additional building and then create a separate parcel for future development. Um, property zone

commercial, commercial highway for now. Um, and it is bounded on three sides by commercial development. Um actually on the west side it's also also zoned commercially but currently vacant. The project existing development there does meet all the development standards. Um and I'm going to point out to you a little bit of where so there's three existing businesses in the this building here. Um, this is a separate the dentist office right here in that building. The proposal, and you'll see that in a minute, is to have an additional building here and then create a whole separate lot that may or may not in the future be developed. Um, so here's the actual plat that will take those existing buildings, divide them into this one into three separate ownerships. Um the other building will be its ownership and then the future building which will need to be built um will also be a separate ownership. Everything in the hatch colors will be part of what they call general common elements or um in other words all the separate owners will have a um ownership in the that um common area. So they'll all have set up a a association and jointly maintain and take care of that. I did go through all the standards. Um the the project as standing was built to all current requirements. I even added in the new

unpropo, you know, building that's not proposed or that's not built yet. um they actually have more parking than is needed for all five of those businesses plus a few left over. So that if that existing the additional lot is developed in the future, there's probably room without adding more parking on there. Um the landscaping does already exceed the requirement. Um they've got four over 4,000 square feet of landscaping. They're not proposing any changes to that. Um let me just go over the the agency comments. Um GIS had some questions that are all all can actually be met. Um and we will cover the rest of them with the covenants. um sanitation district atmos Energy had a no comment. So basically what you're looking at is the criteria for development is all the criteria for a subdivision but also whether or not everything's adequate and in this ca you know it says street wides away etc. In this case, really it's the easements that's the main applicable criteria. They we gave you a copy of the bylaws and declarations that um they have proposed um and you've seen the plat. It does appear like it can meet all requirements. So with that, staff is recommending approval. We have three conditions. Uh the first one is is our standard. They need to meet all requirements. The the other two are specific to condominium conversions. Uh number two, they will

need to notify all it says residential tenants, but I think we'll put that with all tenants um at least 90 days prior to termination of any tenency. Um and then um they do need to file proof of that. And then the the final one is basically that they need to record this um within six months of city council approval which this project will be heard later this month. If assuming you recommend approval, are there any questions? lot D. Yes. So the the idea is that lot D might be they're not sure how that might be developed. As you can see the proposed unit C they have a footprint for that unit. They don't know about lot D. It will be included in and share in the common elements etc. Okay. Thank you. It may what I was trying to get at is it may be that when lot D develops in the future, it's possible they need to expand their detention pond or expand their parking and at that point revisions might need to be made. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? It is safe to assume that um unit C will be this made in similar structure and as the existing buildings. Correct? Yes. Unit C will actually require a site plan review. So it will come back in front of you. Okay.

Okay. I don't think we have any more questions for staff. Um, is the applicant here to make a presentation? Okay. Will you come up to the podium for us? Yes. My name is Ken Coleman. I live at 6530 Clubhouse Drive in Farmington, New Mexico. Uh, basically Nancy has covered about everything we're going to do. The one question that you ask about the buildings will be similar to the ones that are already there. Anything that we put in when we did this 10 years ago, it was done in two phases, phase one and phase two. Lot D does fall under phase two, which we did no plans for. Lot phase one, we did all three A, B, and C. That was approved at the time. And that uh other than that, do you have any other questions? I don't think so. Thank you. Um, and do we have any public comment on this agenda item? Okay, seeing none, um, I think that we can deliberate or I would entertain a motion. I apologize for that. Um, I move the I move the motion that the commission recommends the city

council approve resolution number 4 series 2025, a resolution recommending approval for the condominium plat for the Siggo Plaza condominium plat on property located on lot 1, block two of the Schwarz minor subdivision as recorded in book 16, page 16 as reception number 53. 34621 in the commercial highway C zone as submitted by Siggo Land Group LLC with the conditions stated in the resolution. I second that. Can we vote? Do you do a roll call for this one? Tao? Yes. Fryhover? Yes. Waldron? Yes. Okay, motion passes. Um, our next agenda item is resolution number seven um from Independent Log Company and Nancy is going to present for us on that too, I believe. Thanks. I'm waiting a little bit. We have the representative of the applicant appearing virtually. And I want to make sure she gets on. No worries.

Okay, here we go. So, this is a request for a conditional use permit and a site plan on a 10acre parcel. It's located at 1050 Lebanon Road. It it may seem like a fairly sim it may seem very similar or to to one you've seen here before, but I'm just going to make note to everybody that has heard a lot of this before. Two of our planning commissioners are new and we're not on the planning commission this fall. So, we're going to have to so we're going to go into some of the basics with this project. So the the use as a primary use um is assembly of log homes, firewood processing, storage of wildland firefighting equipment um as secondary uses. In short, we'll I'll let the applicant explain their business, but Independent Log Company is a wild and firefighting company. Um they are often offsite and have equipment. Um, here's our location with the blue star there. Um, they're often offsite, but um, they also do fire mitigation work in addition to firefighting. Part of that mitigation work, they will collect logs that they then use as man to manufacture log homes. um as a secondary product would be firewood um and um some other commercial uses of the wood. Um as I mentioned before in October of last fall, um the planning commission actually reviewed this project and recommended approval. The applicants after that meeting submitted a revised

site plan that provided some new information and changed some of the proposal. Staff looked at the the new proposal um recommended that the changes were significant and enough that they should come back through to the planning commission. Let me just go over a little bit. So, we've got a closeup here on the site. As you can see, it's fairly well graded out. It has been used in the past for commercial uses. Um, you can almost see on this this area the old drive-in that used to be there. Um, access is at the southern end of the property. We have on the northern end of the pro side of the property is the access road to Carpenter Natural Area. across to the west um is at Independent Log Company operates uh on at 11:07 Lebanon Road and we have some other commercial and industrial uses starting up on Lebanon Road to the north. Um to the south are is one commercial property that's been vacant for quite some time and then over to the south and southeast sort of are residential homes. There is a fairly significant grade difference. The residential homes with the R1 zoning are significantly higher than this parcel. So, they look over the part parcel, but they aren't on the same plane as the proposed uses. Um, I wanted to go over a little bit of the revisions that they they they made since you saw it last. Um, and here's the new site plan in front of you now. Um, essentially the changes that

um at the previous meeting there was some discussion of buffers for the carpenter reserve. though that all that discussion and all proposed buffers have been removed from the proper from the application. Um there is a note on there now that they've added a statement that independent log company will utilize all 10 acres per the project narrative. Um so in other words, this is meant to be somewhat illustrative and that things may move around on the site. Um the band saw and leanto structure which provides some noise mitigation has been moved to the southern property line. Um we've had some removal of any reference to open space on the site. References to landscaping have been removed with the exception of the two small areas of decorative rock and log walls near the entrance. I think I removed that, but they're right in there. Um, the log decks, log storage decks have been moved to the northern property line. Equipment storage areas have been moved from the northern property line. They were kind of where the log storage is, to the southern and eastern property lines. Um, the site plan now shows a smaller area for processed firewood storage, although there is a note on there that says expand as necessary. Um, and and then maybe uh a a pretty large change that I hope people might see as positive is in the southeastern corner. Um, they are not proposing any grading of that hillside um as they were before. Generally, I think we talked about the

that the property is commercially zoned. The uses that are proposed here um we have identified as contractor storage and equipment yards and manufacturing of wood products. Under our current land use code, manufacturing wood products definition does uh specifically refer to log home construction, which is what they're proposing here. Um, both manufacturing of wood products and equipment storage yards are considered contractor storage yards are considered conditional uses in the commercial zone. Um, so they're in front of you with a conditional use permit. Um, let's see what else. So, I've got the definitions there for you. Now, you want to remember that the purpose of conditional use permits are to help mitigate concerns um, with uses that may have slightly more impact than other uses in that zone. You go to the next one. Yeah. Um and the the intent here is to impose those conditions to make sure that the proposed use is compatible with adjacent existing uses um other uses in the zoning. And then you the code goes on to talk about how um the compatibility might be expressed in appearance, architectural scale features, site design, scope, landscaping and more maybe most importantly the control of adverse impacts including noise, vibration, smoke, fumes, gas, dust, odor,

lightning, lighting, glare, traffic, parking, etc. any other undesirable or hazardous conditions. Um, in this case, they are not proposing any permanent structures. This is all storage, outdoor storage, things that could move around on the site. [Music] Um the there um the proposed the second criteria is that they have incorporated design features sufficient to protect adjacent uses. Um and and it gives you some examples with ways to do that with buffering fencing. Um generally we would think buff um open space buffers, landscaping etc. In this case the applicants are not proposing any landscaping or buffering with open space. Um they believe that the adjacent to the residential properties the difference in elevation really will serve as the best buffer that that that you could have on the west and on the western side. The uses are fairly similar and buffering for those probably wouldn't be necessarily or appropriate. And we've had a lot of discussion in the past on how to buffer or if you should buffer from the natural area adjacent. Um uh here's three third criteria that they must de any proposed accessory uses must demonstrate that they are necessary and desirable.

um the comply with the requirements of the code and mitigate any undesirable impacts. In this case, I think we've talked quite a bit about the firewood storage and processing. Um we would see that as an accessory use. The applicants have discussed in detail in their narrative why they believe that firewood is necessary and desirable. Um, essentially it fills a need. It also makes sure that they're not having a waste product. They're using all the product that's on the site. Um, condition criteria number four is fairly easily mount with this with this proposal. Um, it's whether or not adequate public services such as streets, electricity, power, etc. are available um without affecting other existing users. In this case, really all they need pro is the access um without any permanent uh facilities on the site. They really don't need water, sewer, um gas, electricity, none of that. Of course, police and fire protection may be a problem. And there were some conditions about they'll need to meet fire code for posting of the property for emergency response um and safe operation of the site. Criteria number five um they need to keep maintaining the property etc. Move on. Six. Um, they also need to conform with any adopted plans, hours of operation, policies, um, and requirements for parking, loading, etc.

Um, and any other regulations. That's why we've asked for a detailed narrative from them. Um, hours of operation are something that is important to neighbors as far as noise generation, etc. Possible noise generation. Um, and so we wanted to make it clear that they needed to propose that and that the city would then be enforcing that as a condition of approval. Um, all right. And then so I wanted to talk a little bit about a couple of the specific criteria that um they may or may not be meeting and why uh they felt that it wasn't appropriate to meet those um criteria up on the board here about surfacing. Uh the code does require that access driveways have a durable dust-free all-weather surface. Um, and it goes on to say how you can do that. In this case, the site was paved at one time. There is asphalt on it. It's fairly deteriorated, but the applicants feel that it's adequate for their use. Um, and that with all the storage and heavy trucks coming and going and equipment and sawing, etc., that paving of any of that site would not be appropriate. um wouldn't work um and would be difficult to maintain. So they are asking to not do any additional paving other than the the what's already on the site there. Go to the next one. Um current code has a very a somewhat difficult to to interpret definition of open storage. Um the

current the current code disallows open storage of commodities which is the firewood from our definitions. Um previous discussions have been about whether or not it's open if it were fenced or not. Um, essentially the applicants say that fencing, screening, none of that really works with the way they operate and they're asking to store the firewood in the open without any fencing on the site. Just suggesting that if you believe that that's an appropriate interpretation or need on this site that that you make us make statements as to why you feel like that's appropriate for this use. Um I gave you the criteria, our current criteria for landscaping and buffering. Um it does require that a minimum of 10% of the commercial area to be developed must be landscaped. Um the applicants are proposing two small I've got uh a little detail of that on there. two small sort of zeroscaped um with log walls basically decorative. Um their concern being that the way they will be operating this site there really isn't a spot for landscaping and also because there's no water source on site they have concerns about how they would maintain in any landscaping. So basically, they're they're not going to meet the 10% requirement unless you consider that existing vegetation on the site not being disturbed is adequate and they're just proposing these small areas of landscaping. Go to the next

one. So I think that was most of the issues I wanted to hit on. Um with that staff is recommending approval. We have another number of conditions. Um I guess I should have made note that we at the time that we reviewed this application due to the fact that we we'd lost our city engineer and we're going through some changes there. It took us a while to get engineering comments and we didn't have them in place yet. We do now have them included them in your packet. Um those are the comments from SGM. Um so just to go over what I'm re suggesting as possible conditions would be our first one which meet all requirements. Um second would be to meet the requirements of the sanitation district regarding protection of the manholes in existing sewer line. Uh essentially what they want is that any items that are placed over the easement must be easily moved in the event of an emergency. Um the address must be clearly marked for emergency response. The applicant shall comply with submitted project narrative at all times including but not limited to operation of the business noise levels and hours of operation. Um, here's my exception to the paving requirement. The applicant shall control dust on the property by either paving, other surfacing, vegetation, watering, or chemical means. Um the next one would be the applicant shall comply with that's Colorado revised statute 2512103 which is maximum permissible

noise levels at all times. Those noise levels I think I had them in the staff report. They vary a little bit for night and daytime operations and whether or not you're the receiving land use is residential, commercial or industrial. they have all of those uh surrounding their property. Um and then um if we could add one that says applicant shall comply with the additional requirements of the city engineer as noted in their review dated um I'll get to it. um the SGM comments. Um in this case, because there's no building permits involved and they've already moved some equipment onto the site, we should probably say prior to initiation of operation or issuance of the land use permit. Um they should comply with those requirements. That's it. Are there any questions? Um, can you put the site plan back up for a sec? Um, and so this is looking at the engineering comments. Um, two of them stood out to me. comment number three talking about the storing of the temporary log decks within the special flood hazard area. Um, and I noticed that you didn't mention anything about that in your presentation and I didn't know if that is is the engineering comment correct like does staff agree with that? Yes, the the comments came in I mean last night basically.

Um, and then the other comment, um, that it didn't have an engineer's seal and signature. Um, and I'm just kind of wondering, is that something that we don't always have engineer stamped plans come before us? Is there a reason in this case we might want one? The comments from SDM are basically following our lane use code. Okay. Um, do either of you guys have any questions for staff? I have a couple couple of questions. One is there's only one is this is there only one fire hydrant in that area. And I know there are g there are fuel tanks over here on the west side that have been there for years. Um, I don't know what the potential is for fire, but I know that you're working with wood and chainsaws and uh they do put off sparks, you are going to have fuel. Um, what happens if there's a fire in any of these and there's not an adequate enough water to put it? Do do you want to address that to the applicant after their presentation? And uh the other is C DOT said anything. Have they made any recommendations on the traffic because they're going to have logging trucks coming in and out of there or all day long? I would assume. Yeah, I'll have to go back, but I believe the first time around C do said that they did not have any concerns with it. There are full turn lanes at that intersection. So with C dot yeah that's my recollection as well from the previous hearing.

I did limit the comments when we resent this out to agencies. We I limited to the agencies that had expressed comments at the last site plan. So I did not send it back out to CD. I I don't know if this is an appropriate question, but has parks and recck said anything about being uh that they have access into the preserve there and that that is kind of a quiet area. We did have some back and forth with parks and wreck um at the earlier site plan. Their last set of comments were that they had no comments. And these no comments from Empire and Atmos, are they our latest reply from them or was that from the previous? Those would be the latest. And you did state that none of these structures are on a permanent foundation. They can be removed or switched around. None of them are. There's really only one structure which would be the in lean to around the band saw mill or the band mill. Um I was reminded that it does require a building permit for that structure. Okay. Thank you. But it's not a permanent structure. It could be moved. Was there any uh the sound issues with the decibb? Uh, have there been any experimental trials with running chainsaws or uh the saws, you know, the noise that might be down there and and monitoring the decibb to see if they

fall with I I'm not sure, but I think it's 55. Is that correct? Depending on the time of day and what the receiving land use is. That sounds right. Um what that'd be another good question to direct to the applicant. I believe they have done some testing. We've set the condition as you've got to meet that state st statute and I believe they they think that they can do that based on their test but I'm going to let them. And so is it a possibility that they could run some testing to see what the sound I believe they have done that. Um, we have not gone out to verify with noise meters or anything like that. So, because I I know that the traffic from the highway runs right straight up that canyon and will will go as far as the hospital. Any other questions for staff? Any other questions for staff? No. Okay. Um, does the applicant want to present? I'm not sure if this is through [Music] Zoom. Are are you all presenting? Okay. Okay. Hello We can hear you loud and clear. Oh, good. Um, I don't know if Mary and Tony I assume they're there. I don't know if they want to go first or if they want me to go. Could somebody there just let me know? Okay.

Looks like they're going first. Okay. My name is Tony Moore. Uh 11:07 Lebanon Road. So yeah, the we did do a noise test out there. I've done it twice. I did it two years ago. Presented it to the city. Did it I don't remember the date, but just a couple weeks ago. had numerous carpenter trail people at the noise level test and two years ago I got up here and stated that yes, the highway is the worst noise level. That's 60 to 80 dB that comes across into that residence. During our noise level test, you know, I can I only have to be below 60 dB. We were way below that. Way below that. It's a non-issue. It's been debunked. Period. We ran chainsaw. We ran a the mill. We ran the truck. We ran the front end loader. We couldn't get nothing to and we did it at different stations. The residents up there went up and had stations set up up into the residence. They couldn't even hear us. They did a uh what was that called, Terry? You know, a ballot thing that they filled out, you know, and they all it is it's debunked. You know, one thing that meeting with the trail people, they're up there. A lot of the residents actually said, "Well, on the weekends and the weekdays, we're running our law lawnmowers." So, they're only limited to, I think it's 55 decimals. They're

making more noise up there just with their lawn mower. So, it's never been it's been a non-issue all along. Just nobody ever recognized it but me because I already did test two years ago. And so, you know, I don't know what more to say about that. You know, it's I've beat that dead horse many of times already. It is a non-issue. So, with the lean to around the mill and I assume that that's to to sound buffer that is that correct? That's two. Yes. So, the so in the lean to and Nancy wasn't correct on there's not one of them proposed. There's two of them proposed. Go back through the narrative, read the narrative. One is over the firewood processor and one of them is over the LT40 woodmiser. And so what that would do is help in any noise and it's going to it's already a non-issue, but it's really going to take the noise away then. But it's also as what NY's always wanted is is buffers or I mean a screening screen the work site right there. Don't screen the whole 10 acres of the property and create a fence. So I I fought that for two years. I could have been through this approval a long time ago, but I wasn't going to lock out the animals and it made no sense. But you definitely could do some screening right around the the uh operation right there at the mill and right there at the firewood processor. So that's proposed in your packet if you look at them structures and they're temporary structures and we will be fighting the um permits. They're not a structure, it's a shed or a lean to, you know, they

don't have to be engineered and designed. So, we're also asking planning and zoning do away with this with this headache. We need to move forward and get get this moving. It's been four years of the same repetitive stuff over and over and over. Um when I leave the property, I will take the structures down. It's just it's just some temporary lean to structures and um in that it that will act as a as a a screening and then it will make the area more desirable. It will help in noise. you know, it sheds it protects us from the weather. And again, they are temporary. It's not a it's not a structure. It's more like a leanto shed. Um Mr. Moore, did you want to just answer questions or did you want to um have a presentation? I just want to make sure because if you have a presentation, we should do that first and then go back to answering questions. That's kind of what I was on the moving forward on my presentation. That's part of my whole Okay. presentation right here. But if you have any questions, we'll we'll hold our questions till the end of the presentation. The what? We'll hold all questions till the end of the presentation. Okay. So, um the dust issue. So that wasn't correct as far as um staff's report. The property used to be what would was the drive-in and it already had a lot of gravel previously down before I ever bought the property. And so the whole area has been

graveled. Then I bought the property and I've put fresh gravel over half of the property. Right now, I' I've spent $35,000 on gravel. So, we intend on putting more gravel down, but also in our narrative, it states that we own several water tenders and and with them water tenders, if there is any dust, go right up the hill to the city water place. I have a card. You put water and take it down right down the hill. very accessible and put a little water down. So that's a again this has been went over and went over and went over. Um also in the graveling staff stated that we weren't proposing any landscaping. The gravel is landscaping. We've been told that by the city attorney many a times. Boulders, gravel, any of that is is is part of landscaping. So we have the property right now halfway landscaped you know and uh so um so in the now to go over you had already asked these questions but these are already on my um my proposal here here is you asked about hydrants or if there was any fires. So, there's a hydrant at the northwest corner and there's a hydrant at the southwest corner. We have 10,000galon capacity. I'm a wildland firefighter. I'm the biggest resource Cortez has. Cortez just had a fire the other day down south of town. Me and my

crew stopped the head of the fire. We we was we was there before Cortez Fire Department got there. I stopped the head. Independent log company stopped the head of that fire south of town just the other day. Cortez staff and Cortez has not recognized the resource I am yet, but they better start getting used to it. That's was just what when was that Mary? Just three or four days ago. If you guys seen the smoke, man, it was a big column. That was a big fire. And and and only resource that that put the head of the fire out was me and my crew. No other resources. It was just about ready to cross over the the road and get into the mesa. So, I have 10,000 gallons capacity of of water. I have numerous apparatuses, fire engines, tactical tenders. I think I can handle a fire if something happens over there. Don't you? So um now I yeah that's pretty much uh that's a and and the hydrants itself you know if you know anything about fighting fire them are situated in such an ideal area that I also have about probably 8,000 ft of inch and a half hose that you just do a big hose lay right there. You just I can go right over there and tap into the hydrant and just lay hose right right over there. I mean, water is endless for a fire. It's the it's it's what I've said all along. It's the best

location there is. you know, as far as just the the compatibility as far as the neighborhood, you know, again, that that natural um hill and the distance. Once we got up on the the hill, uh me and a guy named Brandon Hill measured the the noise levels. You couldn't even hear anything I was doing down there. you we'd turn off everything we were doing and here was the highway noise still the decimal reader stayed the same. It never went up when I made the when we made our noise. So, it's a again that's been debunked. So, if you guys have any other questions, I sure would answer them. Okay. Um, yeah, since we're doing questions, um, thank you for your service and helping with the wildfires or the fire that happened a few days ago. I do appreciate that. Um, as a resident here in Cortez, um, I'm curious if you could shed some light. I sure hope you're not making your employees work 24 hours, but it says here, "The property is surrounded by 24-hour uses. There is no need for hours of operation to be limited. However, log manufacturing and firewood processing will occur during the hours of 7 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Um, can you shed some some light in um what hours of operation? Um because I don't want to assume Monday through Friday 7 to 7, but um what are the hours of your operation? It doesn't state here in your presentation. Well, so the the log home stuff and the firewood will be from 7 to 7, but if if we are dispatched or there

is a fire, I'm going to go into that yard whatever time of the day or night. Yeah, that's an essential service. Yeah. And um and so that's what it that's how it's showing in the proposal. Okay. And um I guess I was just uh the log man. Let's let's not the firefighting, but the log manufacturing and the firewood. What are your hours of operation? Are you planning to do? Um because it's not stated here, and I'm I'm just curious to know. That's from 7 to 7. 7 days a week. No, 7 a.m. to 700 p.m. And then we put it uh Monday through Saturday. Thank you. That was in the proposal. It's in your two-page document. Yeah, the two-page document. Okay, thank you. Um, really quickly, Rachel, did I mix it up? Should we do public comment and then questions for the applicant? Hold on. Um, the applicant's presentation isn't finished. I have I'm there repres Yeah. Okay. So, you have two people, two representatives presenting and now it's your turn, Miss Danish. Is that what you're saying? Sorry, I said Yeah. Will you tell me how to say your last name? It's Donish. Doneish. Okay. Yeah. So, do you want me to go ahead or Oh, yeah. Sorry. Go ahead. Um, so I'm Shelley Donish. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Duffford Walde in Grand Junction, Colorado. I represent uh the applicant independent law company, Mary and Tony. Um, just wanted to give you a little background. Um, ILC or Independent Log Company, I'll refer to them kind of either way. Um,

they have, um, 35 years of experience. Uh, maybe 36 now because I did this this presentation about a year ago. Um, operating a log home manufacturing, wildland fire suppression and mitigation, and a firewood processing business. Uh Anthony Moore is a master log crafter, wildland firefighter and uh firefighting task force leader. So he trains other uh wildland fire fighters. Um ILC has had 54 contracts with the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service Division for wildland firefighting and that includes experience firefighting and um mitigating fires in uh Montazuma County where you all are. um they've operated a a very clean and um compliant uh site for these same activities in Alamosa for many years and have been looking to move here and trying to do so for about four years now. Uh trying to get through this land use process and they're very anxious to to start work on this site. They they lose money every day that this site is not operational. Um the proposed land use uh has um some public and community benefits. Uh firefighting and mitigation which you've already talked about. Um firewood uh is an important commodity especially for those on limited or fixed incomes as an alternative to other more expensive heating sources. And the log homes that they manufacture are attractive and provide an important option for home buyers. Um, someone mentioned earlier that um, logging trucks would be going in and out all day long. Um, that's not quite accurate. Um, they they deliver the logs to the site and then they they put a

home together. Um, they notch the logs and fit it together. Then they disassemble it and take it off site and build the house on the on the location where the the home is going to be. Um, and this doesn't entail logging trucks coming and going every day. There's a limited number of, um, homes that they can build. They generally build one at a time on the site. And so, um, I just didn't want you to have the wrong impression about the traffic that's going to be coming and going from there. And I think, you know, maybe Tony can speak in more detail about that if you have any questions. I had some pictures of the um the the beautiful log homes, but I'm having trouble um showing those here from my location. So, but I think you have seen them before. And there are also some pictures in our project narrative that you have. Um but I did send this PowerPoint presentation to Drew uh Saunders earlier today. So, if um if you want to see those images, they're I think they're available there. um want to talk about the site plan a little bit. The site plan that you've looked at is in the process of being modified to comply with the engineers's comments. Um those unfortunately we didn't get those comments until late last week. So the engineer needs a little time to modify the drawing, but it will show um that the that the entry point there. It'll show the dimensions of that and that they're adequate for the trucks that are coming and going. It will show the culvert dimensions which are also um exceed what's required for that drainage. Um the drainage plan will also be revised to show the engineer stamp and um the drainage at the north uh property line what that will what

that will be like. Um, also it will show that the the the the log deck that is in a little bit into the 100red-year flood plane, that log deck will be moved out of the 100red-year flood plane. So there's not not going to be any any storage in the flood plane there. Um so in in some all those all the engineers comments are going to be um addressed and um the the the plans will be revised and submitted hopefully before the city council uh hearing um next week. Um the use of the site I think it's important that there are no permanent structures proposed uh only the the leanto type um pole barns over the miser and the processor. Um the open work area is kind of crucial for the operations. Uh as you can see um in some of the images the um they there's a lot of moving around things that happens during that processing um um sorry during the um log home manufacturing. So they need that space to move around. Um um it's also important, I think, to note that land uses that are allowed by right in the commercial zone would actually have more long-term impacts than than independent log companies proposed use of the site because that would involve construction of a building and other permanent improvements um that would limit that site's use uh into the far into the foreseeable future. Um whereas this site when when um independent log ceases operations here or moves um the site will just return to to its vacant status and be ready for um

another use and I think that's important for the um for your considerations here. Um, so as I said earlier, logs are delivered to the site by tractor trailer. They're unloaded for assembly and then they're just temporarily stored on site long enough for the the home to be the logs to be notched and fit together and then moved off site. There's no long-term storage on the site. Um the logs are from beetlekill and other forest um fire mitigation and forest uh stewardship and management programs. So that's a great benefit um as well. Um there's actually kind of minimal processing of the logs. They're notched and kind of minimally cut and they're um and then the the parts of the log that can't be used in the log home are processed for firewood and sawdust is also um contained and then hauled off site for use in animal bedding and and landscaping and things like that. So all the products that um are brought to the site are used. Um they don't they aren't, you know, carted off to a landfill. They aren't they don't accumulate on the site. Um so it'll be a very clean and neat um operation. I wanted to talk a little bit about some misconceptions I think that have been sort of plaguing this um this project for the last several years. Um Independent Log Company is not a logging company. Um the the timber cutting activities of Independent Log are

limited to forest fire fuel reduction such as removal of beetle kill. Um uh the proposed use of the site here is not a lumber mill. A lot of people have sort of characterized it in that way. It's it's nothing like that. They they build log Well, we I've talked significantly about what they do, but it's not a lumber mill. Um the um there won't be any uh access uh from the site directly onto the Carpenter Trail Road. I think there's been some confusion about that. that all access to the site will be on and off of Lebanon Road. Um there's been some confusion about whether hazardous materials have or will be stored on the site. They haven't and won't. Um uh they've never stored hazardous materials on site and and this these uses don't entail that. Um, as uh Tony said, the noise levels were tested on the various activities that they're going to do on this site and all of the noise levels were below the decibel level limit um per the state statute and per local land use code at the property line. Um, also uh independent log has um added an enhanced muffler uh on the firewood processor to make it quieter for the neighbors. Um, also as Tony said, there's not much dust potential. The property already has a good gravel base from prior use and that's been enhanced um and will be more so probably over time. Um, and they'll they'll if during dry conditions they will they will water the site to prevent dust. Um, let's see. Um, Um, you can probably hear the

frustration in in Tony's voice. They've been kind of in this land use application process since about early 2022. Um, they were first required by city staff to apply for a reszone to industrial and to withdraw their conditional use permit application. Um, uh, there's been a quite a bit of misdirection and confusion in what the use entails. Uh and um um they they really think this is a good use. They've done some outreach to the neighbors. Um they've tried very hard to work with uh city staff and uh really want to get get moving on this as soon as they possibly can. Um I want to talk a little bit about the open storage that um planner mentioned earlier. Um the independent log is asking for a cup for the uses described. Those uses are allowed in this zone district with the cup and they all all those uses entail open storage. So open storage is inherent in these uses. So the issue is not how open storage is or isn't defined in the code. It isn't whether or not open storage is allowed in a particular zone district. The important thing to focus on is that these land uses are allowed but with a cup in this zone district. And um there in other words the calculation about whether or not open storage is allowed is already inherently within the fact that these uses are allowed in the zone district. So I don't I hope you don't get very sidetracked by that. It's not really a relevant consideration legally speaking. Um similarly, um because you're making a recommendation here today on a on a conditional use permit application, the

issue is not whether an industrial use should or should not be next door to residential property. That has already been addressed in your code by the fact that these uses are allowed with the cup. The issue before you today is, as the planner said, whether or not this meets the criteria for the for a cup that the code um lays out. And we of course believe that ILC has demonstrated compliance with those criteria. I want to talk a little bit about buffers since that's come up. As stated in the project narrative, um buffers are not um necessary or required by the land use code here. the natural features of the site and the surrounding sites, the elevation differences um make buffering unnecessary and probably also impractical. It's very it's going to be very difficult to buffer something that sits 100 ft above the site. Um the surrounding also it would be unfair to require this um property owner to um provide buffering for the carpenter trail area. All that carpenter trail area is surrounded by industrial and heavy commercial uses, none of which have any buffering at all. You can see from the carpenter trail area, they're all looking right out onto industrial uses and vice versa. Um, one land use um has, you know, equipment right up next to the the carpenter trail. um portaotties and all you know all kinds of uh activity goes on there that isn't buffered in any way. So to require this um uh this property honor to buffer would be um inconsistent with what you've required of other uh land uses. Also the fact that it's not buffered doesn't impact the use of the Carpenter

Trail. It's still used and enjoyed by people. So, um there's no impact um that needs to be mitigated from this land use for the Carpenter Trail. Um one of you mentioned that this is a quiet area. Um u my visits there don't indicate that. Um it's not particularly quiet. It's right on a highway. There's a lot of highway noise. There are a couple of 24-hour a day land uses there. Um there's a lot of industrial use around there. So, um, to call this area quiet isn't isn't doesn't really characterize this the area or the land uses in the area. Um, let's see. We talked about that. Um I wanted to mention the um the paving um the the condition that um is in the staff report uh is acceptable in that the dust will be mitigated by if there is any there won't probably be much but if there is they'll mitigate it with with wetting um using the equipment that they have on site um they they don't want to be required to pave and I think it'd be an undue burden on this applicant to be required to pave any of the site. Um any more impervious area is a problem I think. Um the area drains really well as it is. The site does anyway. Um impervious surfaces make that more challenging. Um also the the trucks that come and go are pretty heavy. uh and it would be a constant uh maintenance battle. Um and also just as it is, it already meets the code. The code requires a um a durable all-weather

surface and that's what that that's what is already there. Um, let's see. I want to also talk about the 10% landscaping requirement that those requirements uh if you look at your land use code are related to commercial uses. This is an industrial use and as I'm sure you know as planning commissioners um and and your land use code as well acknowledges that industrial sites um should don't need to be landscaped the same way a commercial site does. They're they're totally different uses. landscaping is appropriate for commercial uses where you have people coming in and out of buildings and people coming to park and um you know going in and out. You want nice landscaping, nice parking for them and shade and um things like that. But industrial uses um to require 10% of landscaping would be sort of antithetical to um industrial use. Um, let's see. I think that was just looking through my notes. Thanks for bearing with me. We talked about the tribers. So, in some uh we would request um approval respectfully u of the conditional use permit that you you send a recommendation of approval on to the

to the city council. Um I think they're committed to being good neighbors. They've um worked with neighbors to ensure that the neighbors understand what's going to go on in the site. Um they've, you know, as Tony said, debunked some of the the concerns that that were um being band-aid around earlier that really um ar don't have any basis like uh noise and um hazardous materials and um and so thank you very much. We appreciate your time. Thank you. Um, now we're going to do public comment then questions. Okay. So, if there are people who would like to make a public comment on this proposal, um, please come up and state your name and address at whatever microphone height suits you. Um, and each person will have three minutes. You, if you have extra time, you cannot yield your time. So, um, three minutes is what you get and you can't give that away to your friends. Um, so if there's anyone who wants to comment, please step forward. And if not, then we will go ahead and ask the applicants questions. I'm Gayla Pac. Um, and one thing about this application that bothers me is um, it says multiple times in the application, uh, the two, Madam Chair, I don't I don't believe her microphone is on. Oh, can you make sure the green button is on on the mic? The green light is on. Okay. Am I not speaking loud enough? Yeah, maybe just bring it a little closer to you.

Um, it says the two the the application copy that we've got says the two abuting residences are already naturally buffered from the proposed land use by the height difference of the existing bluff or uh hill on the south property line. Um, this is stated several times in the application. Um, Mr. Moore is correct that up uh on the top of the hill um it appears that uh there is no sound carrying up there but there's two properties whose backyards go down and join uh the independent log property and um that's their backyard and the noise levels as measured uh on that I believe it was Sunday a week and a half ago or something like that. Um actually exceeded uh state standards. Um and this is people's backyard. It may not be landscaped but it is people's backyard. Um and to uh allocate that their backyard as a buffer is uh using other people's land without permission or without compensation. Um and that is not proper. uh the noise level according to uh Colorado standards at their property line, their backyard property line should not exceed what Colorado standards are. Um so and and Cliff uh

Gford uh one of those property owners did measure uh during that uh tour we had u that the sound level was quite a bit bigger higher than uh what the Colorado standards are. So do remember that that bluff is not a buffer. That's two people's backyards and they have full use, full right to use it uh whenever they choose without having to uh deal with excess noise. Thanks. Thank you. Are there any other public comments? Lana Waters Cortez. Um, I've been watching Tony and Mary fight this from the very beginning and they have went above and beyond trying to do the right thing, trying to do whatever the city has asked them. And in my opinion, they have been asked to do more than most applicants that I have seen in the last 30ome years that I've been coming to these meetings. And I feel that there's been times that they've been held to a higher standard. For what purpose? I have no idea. They've done tests that no one else has ever had to do before. Um, I believe that they would be a great benefit to the community and I heard their attorney speak about misconceptions and confusion surrounding ILC and that's because I believe that they have been held to a different standard than any other applicant. And I would just like

to say I would love to see them in the community. I think they'd be a great benefit and thank you for your time. Thank you. Any other commenters? Okay, I'm going to close the public comment period now. Um, now is the point um where we can go ahead and ask questions of the applicant. I think my question is uh more so for the council. Um I don't see here that we are requiring or are we requiring 10% landscaping? No. Okay. So and now uh the question to you sir uh I see here you guys are are you guys have added the entry with landscaping is that like volunteer or is that just to mitigate the 10% landscaping? Are you are you asking me? It's just to make the entry way look nice. It is landscaping. Yes. But yeah. Okay. Um it's also to mark the entrance to the site to provide some security so that uh um people don't you know drive vehicles into the site who don't belong there you know those kinds of things. Okay. So is that gated gated or is that just going to be like two fence posts there? It's gated. It's going to be gated. Yes.

And that's the only place that you guys are going to drive the log homes through. Um is that entrance, right? Exit and entrance. Enter. Yes, that's our only entrance that we have to that property. We are not proposing anything along the Carpenter Trail Road. Okay. Was I I could have sworn there was a Was there a tree in that area vicinity at the entrance? No, it's just all gravel, right? It's what? It's just all gravel in that entrance. There's no trees or shrubs around there, is there? Um, yeah, there's some grass and stuff as you come down the driveway. Okay. Yep. Some trees. There's some grass, you know, natural vegetation. Okay. I was just curious about that because it's a new addition. So, I just wanted to make some clarification. Thank you. Um, my question is for Miss Donish. Um, you stated in your presentation that the site plan was going to be updated to include the engineers requests from um I believe it was dated March 26th. Shouldn't So, what we're reviewing tonight is not the actual finalized plan that would potentially be included when this goes to the council because I think you mentioned um moving a storage area, including the engineers stamp. There were a few other things and so I'm just wondering those feel like like not just sort of clerical changes. Uh they feel substantial. Yes. When I um talked with city staff about this, uh they indicated that those were going to be tonight just because we didn't get the we didn't get the comments soon enough to address them before this hearing, but they so they

were going to be made conditions of approval. So, um the th those will be the the the only changes on the staff report. I think we can maybe show where some of that will I mean really the only change to the site plan other than adding information like most of those is just going to be adding dimensions and things that were asked for. The only change is to the site plan that entails a different location for something is the log deck uh to the north that will be moved uh a few feet and maybe Tony can tell you exactly how many feet just out of the flood plane. So it'll just move south and nothing else moves. So I think you should be able to to visualize that. But it's my understanding that staff was making those a condition of recommending making those a condition of approval and that those would be addressed either before city council sees this or um before the permit issues depending on how fast we can get the engineers to jump on this. Okay. Thanks. Um and then my second question uh Mr. more is you mentioned uh earlier that there was actually going to be two lean twos toss and there's only one on the site plan. Um so I guess I'm wondering are there going to be two and if yes is that an update that's going to be included in the site plan that we don't have in front of us tonight. So if you look through the narrative um I'm just asking like on the plan though it's in there you know. So, can you show me where? Um, go show her, mayor. What we proposed is a lean to over the

Yeah. So, so right here it's it's showing right there to the south. And again, to correct Nancy, that was always in the south. You know, every the other site plan that we had before. Yeah, that bandmill was at the south. It was right there. But yes, the the firewood processor is also has a lean to over it and that's the the firewood processor area, but we'll put we'll identify that better on this iPad, but it's in the narrative. It's there's pictures. I mean, you know, we've been doing this for four years. It's, you know, I don't each other a few times. Yeah. I had one more question. You mentioned that there were a lot of pictures in the narrative. It seems like those are a lot of pictures of your neighbors and I'm wondering did I just miss a picture of requirements or was that not included? Um that's in there. Shelly maybe can go over that. But no, there's nothing. We had an engineer look at the driveway. Nancy's using the wrong wording. She's not an expert as far as driveway. He looked at it. It's good. It's um very durable. You know, we're going to meet the requirements as far as the whole thing. I've already got an engineer that looked at it. We will It's we above code. It was like um Okay. But so, but there are no pictures or statement from that engineer in the narrative. Well, he's getting them now, you know, because this is just a again Shelley just covered it. This is another, you know, thing that has been back minute thing from staff. Okay. And that's what it's been four years of is four years of um we get right to the punchline and then here's this grocery list. Bam. You know, you get we we me and Mary get the grocery list done and

then there's another grocery list. You know, that's that's been my four years. My poor wife has has been through the ringer of getting paperwork into the city and everything. And um the driveway was already looked at way back. I mean, this this thing was looked at two years ago. It was it was it was looked at through from the city engineer at that time. There's a report about it from the previous engineer that worked for the city here. We've we've covered this stuff. I mean, we're covering the the same stuff. Okay, those are my only questions. There there is a there is a photo of the access driveway um that was in the PowerPoint presentation that we presented to you guys the last time we were here. Uh and it's still in the PowerPoint. I just can't figure out how to It's on page 43 of that PowerPoint, but um Okay. So, so it was included in that. You can that it's well graveled u and that at the entrance it's asphalt. So okay. So that will that Okay. So we have we have that photo in your application materials. It's just not I'm just having trouble figuring out how to how to put it up on the screen for you here today. Okay. Thank you. Um are there any other questions from my fellow commissioners? I'd like to clarify. So, uh, one of the public got up and cllayed it and and claimed that there was a test done there at Cliff's house. So, if you're not careful, you're reading the traffic noise. So, I also done numerous tests there. And so, me and Brandon Hill done

a test there behind Cliff's house. my property line runs quite a ways up if you looked at the map. So, in his backyard in the two homes there at the um at the bluff, you are going to stand out there with a decimal reader and you're going to get 60 to 80 decimals if not higher throughout the day. We had spikes even up in the high 80s, but it was from the the road. It was not from ILC. So you shut everything off down at my place and me and Brandon were sitting there testing it and we had high80 tests there behind Cliff's house, but a Harley mo Harley was going by and I noted to Brandon Hill, the eyewitness that was with me there that lives up on the neighborhood. I said, "Well, you're going to have them peaks throughout the day as a truck comes and it doesn't have a muffler or a he has his Jake brakes on." But we I I had my fire radios and I I called down to my crew and I said, "Fire up everything you got." And we both sit there and the noise level was in that 60 to 80 range. And when they fired all five things up, it never even moved the decimal reader. It's a non-issue. They're not going to hear me at all. The the highway is their worst enemy, not ILC. And that has been done a lot of tests, a lot of tests, a lot of tests on that. You cannot hear me up that hill. Period. I've already proved it, you know. So folks get there was another guy that put a put a uh because I went up there after the the noise test

and met with a lot of folks. There was a there was another gentleman that lived way down Empire and he was out there you know and also note that you know they were using so the iPhones I found out that was about like four to six decimals lower than my actual decimal reader. It was weird. Like you put up them iPhones, but also it's the way that you hold them. If you're holding your iPhone and you're putting your hand over the speaker, I sit there on a few people and it was 10 decimals lower than mine. And jokingly around, I said, "Hey, let's use your guys' readings, you know, but I was already I was only 44 decimals the property line right there." Well, you know, so we wrote it down accurate and everything. This got very exhaustively tested that day. I mean, there was a lot of people. They put people out all over the the different areas and everything. And so, the gentleman that was reading all the way down the street, he was way too far to hear any of my noise. He was picking up other noise. He was picking up other noise levels. questions. Oh, I'd like to clarify the traffic. Okay. So, there ain't going to be I'm going to beat on this a little bit where everybody gets a bird's eye view. It's not like you're So, in the proposal, we proposed, you know, we're we're saying that, you know, we do one to three log cabin kits a year because mostly we're out on the fires. anymore. I spent about six to eight months doing fires. When we come off the fires in the fall, we'll bring some loads in there and we'll notch a cabin kit. Well, a cabin kit only takes three loads of

logs. That's it. Well, then you go to start building the load of logs and you're busy on that. You're not hauling logs in. and you get done with the kit, then you move the kit off site. So, now you're offsite building the house and you're tied up for four to six months completing the house. So, this property is actually going to be not actually this property is going to be used very very little. I tried to I all along for four years I tried to get staff to see it and they never seen it. They they think that this is something like ironwood out there or mangus or aspen wall. Constantly I kept trying to rein them in saying this is a family-owned business. This is a simple simple project and we're gone all the time. So even I even meeting with the with the homeowners up there, it got to be very pleasant to meet them because they had a different narrative in their mind too. And I said, and so as we met and I said, and I told him and explained the narrative, I said, "We're going to be gone all the time. So this is this application is going to be the best for you because you're going to have your natural trail there to walk and I'm not even going to be here." It's really simple math. I mean, it's been blowed way out of proportion. So I kind of gave him the example that day. I had the the pamphlet of what you can do as far as a use by right. That's that's that's already permissible permitted. And I said, "Well, what what about a bar? You want a bar here? You want a you want a uh mechanic shop, welding shop? There's all kinds of stuff

I can do with this prop property, folks. I'm not going to sell it. I'm not quitting. I'm not going away. you know, it's just getting worse and worse for the city in the due process part of it. So, it's like make make it simple. So, that's what I was saying earlier. You don't I'm asking planning and zoning and I'm definitely going to be asking council quit making it so complicated. It's a lean-to- structure. I don't need a full-blown engineer to design this little lead to structure that's going to be token down. I want that off the books. You know, I've had enough. I've had enough of a grocery list. It's time to let's approve this. And if not, I'm going to plan B and I'm going for the bar. And then the the the the homeowners will will hear real noise. two o'clock in the morning. Have any other statements about the application? Well, this is all about the application, Emily. This is all about the application. This been this has been four years that the city of Cortez has ran me around. So, you know, that's that's where that conveys um there. So all the the engineering stuff we are working on that with the engineer now and for example one of them was swalls. We never proposed swalls. There's no swalls in this in this packet. He comes back and says explain swalls. All we proposed is a little drainage ditch.

um compatibility. You know, you look around the other properties I own right across the street. It's the same similar use. What what I have all my equipment across the street. Um you look at the you look at the granite guy. Look at how much open space storage he's got. So when I was run down these these rabbit holes, I'm like, why would I fence the property? That calls for graffiti, weeds blowing up against the property, a huge, you want to talk about a fire hazard, a whole bunch of tumble weeds against a fence. Um, this has just been way too too much. See, there any more questions? No more questions. Thank you. Okay. So, now we're going to close the public portion of the hearing. Thank you to our applicants for speaking, our public commenters. Um, and now we will go ahead and discuss and deliberate. Any thoughts from my fellow commissioners? Uh, none. Thank you. Thank you guys for your time. Um, I think we just need to put it to a vote and I think plans to go to the city. Um yeah, I actually feel a little bit uncomfortable um simply including all of the engineers comments as a condition of approval. Um

my understanding of the discussion tonight was to clarify the site plan modifications that had been made from the October meeting. I do not feel that the presentation that we were given tonight and the discussion that we've had adds any clarity to it. Um we're we don't we're not seeing the actual site plan. We're seeing a site plan and being told that it is again going to be modified. Um, my inclination would be to table this and be able to review it with the actual site plan that will be going to the city council. Um, and I don't know, I I mean, I would entertain discussion on that. I would happily make a motion on that and we can vote on it. Um, that's just sort of my understanding of the discussion tonight is the site plan we're looking at isn't actually the site plan that's going to be the final one. Um, we're done with the public comment part of the hearing. No, I know, but we're we're done with the discussion part. Now we're deliberating. I do think you make a a really great comment in regards to the engineers comment and um yeah, honestly that's true. What's given here is not the final. And can I ask council a question? Can I ask you guys a question? Um, if they have if I guess what I'm asking is uh if this is not the final um description and they have to revise it, do they have to come through here

again with that update? Well, it it's it's rarely the case that the on a complicated application that what is presented is what gets finally approved because different conditions are imposed, different requirements, changes. I mean, I've seen them make changes in the meeting that would require some modification to the application. uh especially at the planning commission level going forward to the city council. So, it's it's not uncommon. You rarely do you have a clean version. I mean it it happens and we just witnessed one uh the previous application but it's not uncommon for the uh discussion that occurs at the planning commission to impose conditions or changes to a site plan or a plat uh that are required prior to final approval. And in fact, city council often will impose an additional condition and it it may be that you move the entrance 20 feet or things like that are are frequently done on the fly at the public hearings and so it it's made a condition of the approval but they don't come back through the process. Now, what happened previously and the reason you're there before you today rather than ha having it completed back in October is there was a mixup in the version of the site plan that was reviewed and approved at the planning commission or recommended

for approval at the planning commission and the version that the applicant wanted to go forward with in front of city council and it it wasn't some minor tweaking here and there. It it the staff reviewed it and decided that it it was substantial enough and it wasn't that the applicant took what was approved and dramatically changed it. I think there was some confusion as to what had actually been submitted for planning commission review was different than what the applicant had wanted to have reviewed. And so they they looked at a different plan than what the applicant wanted. and rather than just uh push it on through city council, the idea was that that the the changes were significant enough that additional uh review by staff uh was warranted and then additional a a second review by the planning commission was warranted. Um in this case, you've got recommendations from the engineer that as I understand it came in just a day or two ago uh that have asked for some changes. I'm not aware that those changes are significant. Uh but certainly that would be up to the planning commission to determine if if if you felt that uh further review was warranted. It wouldn't be review by staff or or the contract engineer because they've done their review. Uh so it would be you know the applicant's engineer

uh would would be putting items changing the the plan before hopefully before it got to city council. But again, I've seen city councils and and county commissioners approve site plans with conditions that required a building to be moved or light poles to be rearranged or, you know, things like that that didn't significantly alter the overall scope of what was being proposed. But they were and and oftentimes they were just discussed and presented at the meeting, not even a day or two before. Uh but the the applicant obviously didn't have the opportunity to make the changes uh at the meeting. So the a a an approval was voted on at the meeting with a condition that the the changes that were discussed either recommended by staff prior to the meeting or at the meeting by by the planning commission or or council uh need to be made before it could be uh the before the site plan would be signed and recorded. So, uh, you you you rarely will approve I won't say rarely, but it's it's not uncommon to approve a site plan with conditions that slightly alter the site plan and uh those are not generally brought back before the approval body. uh staff reviews the changes to make sure they comply with what was recommended as a condition by the

planning commission. Uh but the the planning commission and the city council even further down the road don't usually bring it back for another review unless the changes are really significant. and uh it's it's essentially a different application. Yeah. And I guess the point that I was making is that this already feels a little unusual and that we are here discussing changes to a site plan that we've already me recommended approval of the application. Um, and that's why it feels not great to not have that actual fully updated site plan in front of us. Um Emily uh just if I could I I know I don't want to beat the dead horse but it is very common for engineering comments the the last step of the engineers to be not done until it we often say prior to building permit on that. um engineers never stamp their plans until um it's all approved because they don't want to stamp multiple versions. That would be confusing. The only change I see here that will be visually apparent uh would be the log decks. And we did get testimony from the applicant's attorney that it's not going to be a huge change. So, they're not going to pick them up and put them in someone's backyard. They're going to slide them to the south a little bit is what I heard and what I expect to see going forward. Yeah, I mean we review permits all the time at work with stamped engineers plans months sometimes years before they get approved. So, um I guess

that's just a difference of type of engineering plans. Um yeah, I mean I'm happy to entertain a motion from my fellow commissioners. Um this is just deliberations and I'm just sharing my thoughts. Yeah, upon reviewing um just the engineers's comments, I don't think any of this will be such a drastic change to what is existing. Um as far as like driveway entrance, um the drainage plan, I think that that was there in the previous one. Um it does not state that here. Um but Yeah, I don't see any kind of drastic changes that would affect what's what's presented here today. So, any comments? Make a motion. Thank you. So, I make a motion that the planning and zoning commission recommends that council approve the requested conditional use permit and site plan for the property located at 1050 Lebanon Road, Cortez, as amended by Anthony Moore and Mary Lancaster through PNZ's resolution number 7 series 2024 with the conditions stated in the resolution. I second that. Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Can we take a vote? Ta. Yes. Ryhovver, yes. Waldron, no. Okay, motion passes. Um, let's go ahead and take a five minute recess before we um resume with our last item of the evening, which

is resolution number six. Um, so let's plan to come back in here at 8:27. Okay. [Music]

[Music] these songs. Well, I'm just taking something. I can't see. Check it out. Yeah, tickets are

Hi. Uh, Laurel, can you hear us? Can you hear me? Looks like she's unmuted. Are do you guys Oh, cool. Oh, okay. We're just testing. Can you hear us? Okay, I can hear you. Can you hear me? Okay. Yes, we can hear you. I I think if you guys are ready with tech, we're ready to resume. Okay. We're going to continue our um commission meeting with our final item of the evening which is resolution number six um a lew site application Nancy. So our next request here is a little bit further down the road and at 1880 Industrial Road. The request is for a site plan for a 4,000 square foot office shop building. It look um it's zoned industrial in the industrial park. The property is adjacent to the existing Lew Porter John office and storage yard located 200 two industrial road. However, the properties are separate um and the re review should be conducted as a standalone property. This site was initially issued a building permit and construction mostly completed before it was noted that a site plan review by the planning commission and city council was required and not completed. Um, do you did you keep going to the next one? Yeah. Um, go back one. I just wanted to point. Do you have

the So, I'm probably not going to be able to do this. What? It's moving funny. But this is the property in question. You can see the building on the aerial photo. Um, no. Uh, and then adjacent that little notch out is their other property. So, that is separate um and not part of this. They are currently operating on the site with a temporary certificate of occupancy. We have required that they go through the process here um before they can get a final. A property is surrounded on three sides by industrial zone properties and developed properties. To the east is Carpenter Reserve heard about. So here's the site plan there. As far as development standards, the the proposed use, I went through um lot areas, setbacks, etc. It does meet all or great greatly exceed all of the minimum lot areas, setbacks, etc. lot coverage, floor area, um parking. They're actually providing the 10 spaces as required um paved and they do have a lot of additional parking areas on the site that are unpaired paved. As far as landscaping, they are proposing 400 square feet which is up near the entrance to the road consisting of essentially boulders and um uh some zero zerocape. Um the applicants are have stated that they believe they

meet the the landscaping requirement of 10%. Um it is required in industrial areas by the way and I can read you the code on that. Um by um providing four 10% of the actual building pad building footprint. Um the code currently though however does say 10% of the commercial area to be developed. Um, as far as issues, um, as I said, it seems to meet all the the code requirements with the exception of of perhaps landscaping. Um, the other issue would be as far as paving. The code requires paving of access drives. They are proposing not to pave that. It's already in. It's gravel. the apron is paved as required or will be um but however they do not want to meet that paving requirement. They did pave the apron in front of the building which serves as the parking. So they're meeting that requirement. It's really the driveway that's um they're not proposing. As far as comments, um, we do have comments from the Cortez from a different contract city engineer on the plans. I they didn't provide them in a narrative format. So, I provided those for you. They do have significant number of comments that should be addressed. Again, we were recommending that they be addressed prior to building permit. Well, final finaling of the building permit in this case. Um, other agencies, no other agencies have

expressed any other concerns. Uh, Billy, with that staff's recommending approval, you talked about that already. Oh, there's your criteria. I went through all that. I wasn't even looking up. Sorry, I forgot to put it on the screen. Um you want to go to the recommendation? Um staff is recommending approval. We have three conditions. Um that they meet all requirements of the code. Um number two, the appropriate construction drawings and reports for the project revised as required by the city engineer be signed and stamped um on onward etc. Um and that also the there has been a big issue with drainage on this. Um the adjacent land owners have express significant concerns. I think they're here tonight. Um we're the the third recommen recommendation or condition would be that the drainage report meeting all requirements of CDP um be submitted and approved by the city engineer prior to issuance of the final building permit for the property. Any questions? I have none. I don't think we have any. Um, thank you, Nancy. Did the applicant have a presentation? I was just going to give a little a bit of an overview and then the applicants will give a discussion or answer any questions. This is Laurel talking. Okay, go ahead, Laurel.

Okay. So, as staff went over, um 1880 Industrial Road was purchased in November 15th, 2022. And in December 19th, 2022, they applied for a grading permit that was issued. A day later, they paid the $40 fee and provided a $1,000 bond. In May of 2023, they had a geotechnical report prepared by a professional engineer. in June 20 in on June 28th, 2023, they had a site plan prepared by that same professional engineer. Um July 11th, 2023, they had a drainage study prepared on the property. And then July 13th, 2023, they applied for the building permit with all of that above material um submitted to the city. that building permit was issued and 1880 industrial paid um a fee of $2,837 to the city and then a $7,000 950 use tax. Um they've constructed this property in compliance with all of those plans, drainage studies that were submitted to the city prior to getting their building permit. um they relied on that building permit in doing all this construction and they were not told to go through this site plan review process until there were issues between the city and the neighboring property. Um so 1880s doing everything they can to meet the city's requirements but um imposing additional requirements on them is causing a huge financial burden um as they're trying to open their business. So, um, in terms of what the staff is recommending, 1880 is happy to move forward with those recommended

conditions so long as we can clarify with number one that they will not be required to do additional landscaping or paving. Um, the applicant's engineer, Mr. Pistler is there tonight and he can discuss further why paving is a poor idea on this site given that drainage is already a concern. Um and then with landscaping, although as Miss um the staff points out that um landscaping is applicable for industrial properties, there are no commercial properties or residential properties in this area. Um so the condition for landscaping to provide beautifification for um visitors to the property is not really applicable here. Um and in addition with keeping landscaping watered is also a problem on this property. Um that is it from me. Um but the applicants are happy to answer any additional questions. Okay, thank you. Um, now we will go ahead and open the public comment period on this um, agenda item. Is there anyone who wishes to make a public comment and even though you already spoke, just please restate your name and address. Same rules apply. Three minutes per person. Lana dudad storage the land use code was put into place I'm sorry we need to ask for extra time

the screen first I don't know that's it I've I have been damaged by the applicant so we would like a little bit extra time to speak. So I I'll make it as quick as I can and then he can speak. Perfect. Okay. The land use code was put into place in 1996 to protect health, welfare, and safety of the community. It is my belief that if 1880 LLC had followed the proper procedures, this protection could have been ensured. However, rather than engaging in the planning process before development, they have, in my opinion, violated these regulations. As a result, my adjacent property has been damaged and the safety of the community has been compromised. It should be noted that Lew is here tonight seeking forgiveness rather than permission. Mr. Thompson served on the planning and zoning commission for 13 years, including which he was chairman for six and a half, during which he played a key role in shaping and adopting this land use code. He voted in favor of regulations such as dust-free driveways, access, and off- streetet parking, as well as landscaping requirements. Now, after years of these regulations being imposed on others, he's requesting his exemptions for his own project are an undue burden for himself, but seeming seemingly not for the community. Additionally, when we first met Mrs. Thompson in 1987, she was working for public works at a time when planning fell under its jurisdiction. It wasn't until

approximately 2010 that the planning department became an independent entity. Given their extensive experience and deep familiarity with the code, the Thompson should be well aware of the proper procedures and requirements. Why have the agency review comments not been updated? The comments from the sand district and Empire were made by individuals who have not worked at these agencies for months. Additionally, why were there no comments from Atmas, which Atmas' line is being eroded at this time? they have been directly affected or from parks and wreck which played a significant role in the ILC process in the past. Lew borders the same open space making parks and wrecks input highly relevant to this project. There are also serious concerns regarding procedural missteps by staff. According to section 6.14C5 of the LUC, a grading permit cannot be issued without prior site plan approval by the PNZ. Furthermore, section 6.14H states that it is unlawful to issue a building. That's the end of your time. Thank you for your comment. Is there anyone else who would like to make a public comment? Please state your name and address before you start. Graham Nielson, 27 221, County Road P3 Dolores. There are also serious concerns regarding the procedural missteps by staff. According to section 6.41 41 PN C PN 5 of the LU a grading pernet cannot be issued without a prior site

plan approval of PNZ. Furthermore, section 6.414H states that it is unlawful to issue a building permit before the site plan approval. Despite these clear regulations, there appear to have been a failure to adhere to the proper process. Additionally, it is unclear why Mr. Chambers of BHI was tasked with reviewing all the plans instead of the city's contract engineering firm, SGM. BHI was reported under the was reportedly under the impression that it was a proposed development and not provided with all relevant information. Given these procedural discrepancies and the embarrassment of this situation has caused the city, I would respectfully request that this be tabled and the site plan and updated drainage plan prepared by Earth undergo thorough and careful review by SGM before any further action is taken. Thank you for your consideration and your time. Thank you. My name is Dave Waters. First, I'd like to ask for extra time because as I told you before, our property's been damaged. Our life has been impacted and there's some serious safety, public safety issues that need to be addressed. and 3 minutes doesn't really give us that time to address everything that is deficient on this. I think you received a pretty lengthy submitt from us. I don't know if you've had a chance to but I respectfully ask that we get extra time. Um, everyone gets three minutes for public comment, so go ahead and start.

Can you start the clock over, please, so I can start my comments? I think that would be fine. All right, I just have some bullet points. I'm going to have to go through this real quick. First of all, public safety Atmas Energy has not been notified that the drainage problem that Lew subdiving out a 2-in gas mane buried on our property and it's a serious public hazard. They also have fall hazards on their property because they've cut slopes, vertical slopes approximately 20 feet high that aren't shown on their plan. There's sediment problems going into Mckelmo Creek, the Gear Natural Area, storing chemicals next to the drainage area that they created, which could, if there was a spill, could flow into the pond and gear natural area and continue into the carpenter natural area. This was all allowed to happen under the city's noses. The development is 600 ft from the engineer's office. the same engineer who happens to be Lew's private engineer now who seems to have developed amnesia as to the comments he made before which weren't added to your packet. In my opinion, you are the number one defense. If you don't want to hold them to the design standards in the LUC, then I will contact the appropriate agencies such as CDPHE, Division of Water Resources, Army Corps of Engineers, and anybody else. Also, we were required to have a bond when we didn't pay, when we

couldn't pay because of COVID. These people have no bond to continue with their temporary permit. They're giving special favors because of who they are. The 10% landscaping and the paving are not only in the land use design or land use code, they are also in the design standards. I don't know if you can wave the land use code standards, but I don't think you can wave the design standards. Let's see. The engineer that the engineer that did the comments on this project was unfamiliar with the fact that this project is already been built. as he refers to everything as proposed. And I don't understand why it wasn't the city's engineer, SGM, who the city hired before this to make comments that have been ignored and not put in this packet either. Can you please answer these questions for me? Thank you. Thank you. Tony Moore 11:07 11 on road. So the problem I have is the double standards. You know, I was doing dirt work at the same time that Lew was exact same time and and city staff came and g shut me down, you know, give me a cease and assist. Um, I asked them why. They they told me that it was dumping concrete on my property. They come by and inspected it.

It wasn't concrete. Later on, they come and shut me down for hazardous material, dirt. That ended up not being true. The whole time I'm looking up there, I don't even know the leuse or I don't know them. But I go up there and I seen that they're going doing dirt work. Well, you want to talk about a financial burden? What about ILC financial burden? Um, the the city come down. So, I I I get my I get going again. I have my grading permit. I get I'm going and they come down, shut me down, you know, referring to wetlands. There's not even a wetland on my property. It's it's it's there's a 500year flood plane and there's a hundredyear flood plane. I can put as much dirt as I want in the 500year flood plane. I already talked with a state guy. The main thing that I'm trying to get across is is what the city needs to do is get a hold of these double standards. You know, this creates a lot of a lot of um animoxity. You know, a lot of trouble. you know, they need to get their rules and stick with their code books. Quit coming up with all these shenanigans. That's what I've dealt with. So, as I compare again to other people that has gotten approved, you know, ultimately they need to get to work just like me. But how do we fix these problems that has taken place? Well, I know how to fix them. quit coming up with more shenanigans. So, I'm going to be real interesting to see what council votes tonight. I'm be really listening and watching in all the trouble I've had. Thank

you. Mary Lancaster, 1107 Lebanon Road. I too would just like to state that I don't appreciate the unfair treatment. Um, Lew was allowed to operate with a temporary occupancy permit. We asked for the same thing and the city told us that there is no such thing. They have been favored human immensely. And so at this point, I'm in agreeance with Lana. I think that this needs to be tabled and I think you need to get a better drainage plan and you need to look at what they're presenting and it is inadequate. We got shut down for very minor things and we can't even hardly build a temporary lean to and they were allowed to build a building and change drainage that they have chemicals on the side of their property and it's draining into the Greer natural area pond. Thank you. Are there any other public comments? Okay, this is your last chance. Public comment period is now closed. Thank you everyone for your participation. [Music] Um, do my fellow commissioners have any questions um either for the applicant or for staff? Um I think my question is regarding that gravel um or the no pavement um council we are requiring a 10% landscaping and are we also requiring pavement to that driveway? I think that's a question for you

tonight. Oh okay. Um, I Okay, I It's really hard to determine where that There's so many pictures. Okay. Um, I was wondering staff. Um, there's a lot of photos in the staff report and it's not totally clear which photos are of the um location that we're reviewing the application, the site plan for and which are kind of surrounding areas. And so I didn't know if you could kind of clarify why or I'm sorry, not in the um ah in the packet. Yeah, the packet. Yeah. I want did want to clarify that. Um the let's go with the first set of photos. Yeah. So I guess I was looking at the application is from Yeah. The first set of photos which is talking about paving and not paving is from the applicant and part of their application. And then I believe you got a new in the packet comments from Um, see how those are the the dod dad pictures? Yes. Okay. Um, those came from the neighboring property owner. Okay. Thank you. And of those pictures in the application, are they just showing us verification of everybody else's driveway? Is that what it's going on? We can also ask the applicant questions, too. Okay, that I would maybe ask the applicant that question. What what the pictures in your

packet are trying to illustrate. They they have a chart attachment B, the paving apron pictures that lists what they all are. It's right before the photos. So, these are all neighboring um businesses, other businesses in the industrial park for the most part. Okay, thanks. That clears up um my confusion about that. Do we have any other questions? I think I'd like go into an executive session with council. I would agree with that. I will give you the appropriate motion to be sure that we comply with the um statute. I think I have it here. Patrick Cheryl just gave me the language. Seeing what she gave you. I was just going to update the date, but I will here.

I think we have to four signatures. Oh, okay. I'll go ahead and take it. I think we figured it out. Actually, if you you can fix your handouts. That's fine. Is this the same stuff you sent electronically, too? Okay. Okay. Um, I'm going to make a motion to enter into executive session. It is April 1st, 2025 at 8:58 p.m. and we are here at a regular meeting of the Cortez Planning and Zoning Commission, which has been properly noticed. I move that the commission enter into an executive session for the purpose of conferring the city attorney to receive legal advice pursuant to Colorado revised statutes section 24-6-402 parenthesis 4 parenthesis little b is there can we have a vote Ryhover. Yes.

Ta. Yes. Waldron. Yes. Okay. Motion passes. I don't know where executive session happens.

Okay. It is April 1st, 2025 and the time is 9:36 um p.m. The executive executive session has concluded and commission has reconvened into open session. Those persons participating in the executive session were myself, Emily Waldrin, um commission members Richard Fryhoff and Nina Tao. and um city attorney um Patrick Coleman, city planner Nancy Doddell, and city economic and community development person Rachel Marbanks. No adoption of any proposed policy position, resolution, rule, regulation, or formal action occurred at this executive session. If any member of the commission or a member of the public believes that the subject matter of the executive session was not statutoily authorized or that the discussions that occurred in executive session strayed from the announced subject matter, please speak up now. Okay, seeing none, we will resume um the agenda item. Um I believe we entered into executive session during um deliberations and discussion. Did did we have any further um discussion or deliberation? I would also entertain any motions. Okay. Seeing no more discussion, um I am happy to make a

motion. Um so I would like to make a motion to recommend that the planning and zoning commission Oh, actually before I make a motion, I did want to make a statement or ask staff. Um it was brought up that this um situation of a building permit being issued and then having the site plan um that there may be processes that could be revised. And I wanted to ask staff um if those process revisions had occurred or would be occurring. [Music] Yes, we um we've made some significant changes to our processes to prevent um something like this happening again as far as issuing prematurely issuing a grading permit and then a building permit without formal review. Thank you. Um, okay. Now, I would like to make a motion um to recommend that the planning and zoning commission approve PNZ resolution number 7 series 2025, a resolution recommending that the Cortez City Council approve the site development plan for a building located on property located at 1880 Industrial Road, Cortez, Colorado, in the industrial zone with the conditions stated in the resolution. Um and I just want to highlight those conditions so that everyone understands them. Um we have three of them. First is the standard all requirements of utility providers, city department, seed dot and affected districts must be satisfied. And the second two um are asking for appropriate construction drawings and reports for the project and a drainage

report meeting CDPHE requirements um to be submitted and approved by the city engineer. And so those are the conditions included in the motion that I just made. Um, is there a second? I second. May we take a vote? Fryover, yes. Ta, yes. Waldron, yes. Um, the motion passes. That concludes our agenda for the evening. Um, yes, that's correct. That concludes our Did we need to look at the permits? Cheryl, just read them. Okay. Um, okay. I think that we are now adjourned. All in favor of adjournment, say I. I. I. Thank you everyone for your time and patience. considering the addition, I think. Didn't they do some work for you guys property? Okay. Okay. Well, I wanted to tell you too, I'm doing um a one woman show at the sunflower. Oh, I did tell you. Okay. Um on Friday. What time? Seven. Seven. Okay.

Yeah. I'll be done with that guard. How well I'm not up for