1. It is now 6-01 on January 18th, the year 2018. And the Adams County Board of Adjustments hearing is now called to order. I wanted to give just a little explanation of how we're going to run the hearings tonight. We'll have the Secretary of the Board do our roll call. We'll stand for the pledge allegiance of the flag. And then I will call down the first case. And if that individual would speak into the microphone, give us your name and your address, and then I'm going to call the staff person to present the case. And we will repeat this on each one of the cases. And I'll spell your names as well. Excuse me. Will the Secretary please take the roll call? Mr. McQuerry. Here. Mr. Garcia. Mr. Nyholm. Mr. Stanfield. Here. Mr. Bush. Here. Ms. Clavity. Here. Mr. Put here. Ms. Clavity. Here. Mr. Puthnam. Here. Thank you. And all that can stand, will we please stand in prejudices that are flagged? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. And our first case tonight is case VSP. Oh, I'm sorry, we have one other thing. Can we have the verification of jurisdiction from our Adams County attorney? The county attorney's office has reviewed portions of the case file in tonight's agenda and finds that all notice requirements have been satisfied and jurisdiction is properly before this board. Thank you. And one last thing, if you would please either turn off your phone or put it on a vibrate only, I would appreciate it. Our first case is case VSP 2017-000042, the halfway variance. And with the applicants, please come up. And again, please, for the record, just state your name, spell your name, and your address. And then we'll have the staff present the case. Make sure they got it. It's Chris Hathaway, CHRIS, H-A-T-H-A-W-A-Y, and the residents of Dres is 14450, Zoonai Street in Brumfield, 80023. My name is Catery Hathaway, K-A-T-E-R-I, last name H-A-T-H-A-W-A-Y. Answer. I'm Douglas Melison, DOUGLAS, M-I-L-I-S-O-N, 144-50s Unized Street, Brumfield 823. And did you get a copy of the report? But I'm going to really hold that off so you hear what the staff says and then see if you report that you receive at this name information. Okay, staff. Okay, so this is the halfway variance. The applicant is requesting a variance from the maximum structure coverage to construct an addition to the home. So the applicant can move in with their family. So the maximum permitted structure coverage to construct an addition to the home, so the applicant can move in with their family. So the maximum permitted structure coverage is 7.5% and the proposed is 8.5%. So the proposed addition is 2,100 square feet. So the site is located on Zunei Street just north of West 144th Avenue. So you can see there's discovery church right across the street and mostly on the west side on the east side of Zunei are single family homes on rural residential properties. The site is currently zoned A1 as are most of the surrounding properties in unincorporated Adams County. A1 as are most of the surrounding properties in unincorporated Adams County. The city and county of Brumfield is directly on the west side of Zunei Street. And then the city of Westminster is south of West 144th. Oh, my way. So the criteria of approval for approving a variance includes there must be a physical hardship of the land or special circumstance that deprives the applicant of rights that are enjoyed by neighboring property owners. It cannot grant a special privilege onto the applicant. The site cannot be reasonably developed without the variance. It's not a voluntary hardship and it's harmonious with the county and not a terminal to the public good. So this is the site plan for what the applicant is proposing. So you can see the single family home. That's currently the main floor is 2,121 square feet with an existing attached garage. And the proposal is for a new master bedroom and then a new attached garage so that total square footage is 2,100 square feet. So more specifically, the addition is for an 820 square foot master bedroom and a 1,280 square foot garage. So the total structure coverage that's allowed on this property by right, so that's the 7.5% maximum structure coverage is 3,750 square feet. So the existing home again is 2,121 square feet. So that allows for an addition of up to 1,629 square feet. That's within our regulations. So that would permit a new master bedroom, a new 820 master bedroom, as well as an 809 square foot attached garage. The applicant is proposing a total structure coverage of 4,221 square feet. So that difference is 471 square feet. So staff has determined that without a variance, the applicant would still be able to construct an addition on the property that could fit a master bedroom as well as an attached garage. And the site can be reasonably developed with both of these things in accordance with the county's regulations. Staff sent the referral to 94 neighboring property owners within 800 feet of the property. We received one comment as of writing the staff report, but I received two phone calls this morning. So that's a total of three neighboring property owners that commented in support of the applicant's request. three neighboring property owners that commented in support of the applicant's request. So this is the view of the property looking east into the site. So there's the home. Here's the view of Zunei Street looking north. Here's the view looking west across Zunei, so this has discovery church is what you the building you can see there. This is the view of Zunei Street looking south. And here's the view of where the addition would go. So it would go right here, but then farther back onto the property. So to go over the criteria once again, a physical hardship or special circumstance needs to be present on the property that deprives the applicant of rights. So staff did not find a physical hardship on this property. The applicants are still able to construct an addition. So this would grant a special privilege onto the applicant by able to exceed their structure coverage. And the lot can be reasonably developed with a master bedroom and attached garage for a total addition of roughly 1600 square feet. And it would not be harmonious with the county as it would grant a special privilege onto the applicant. So therefore, staff is recommending denial with eight findings of fact. And that concludes staff presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Mr. Puppin. In this panel, there are two that exceed. So one is by, let me grab my note. here I'll go back to the aerial. So the property to the north exceeds it has 8.8% structure coverage. They do not have a variance for that. So that would be done illegally. And then there's another property that's just to the east that did receive a variance for 9.99% structure coverage. Which is correct. And that was approved by the government. That was. That was. I like to ask the applicant said you did receive the packet that was presented yesterday. And did you have anything addition to add to it or an additional comment. Yes, I do have a couple of additional comments. Please state your name so that we'll know who's talking. My name is Chris Hathaway. Okay. And I do have a couple of comments. To add. And it is in relation also to hardship of the physical property. According to the Adams County Development Standards and Regulations, Regulation 3-08-07-01, minimum lot size shall be 2.5 acres for an agricultural one lot. The actual square footage of our lot size is 1.14 acres. So by creating a 7.5% limitation on the amount of property we can build for an agricultural one lot size, it's actually restricting us on the amount of property we can build on. Can I ask that you speak into the speaker at all times because somebody's going to record that type this and they won't be able to hear you? Yes, sir. And at this time I think that's all I have to add. Thank you. Are there any other additional questions from the public? The other two may have something. And how about the other two applicants I did ask all of that at the long time. Okay. No, I'll, my name is Catery Hathaway, K-A-T-E-R-I Halfaway, and I just will add on what he was mentioning about the property size itself is. In the zoning that we were granted, the minimum requirements for that zoning are 2.5 acres, which we actually don't fit those zoning requirements. And so 7.5% lot coverage of 2.5 acres is a much larger structure than we would be granted currently because our property is just a little over 1 acre still in that zoning. So our variance then is asking for slightly larger than the allowed property. And also, as was mentioned previously, it matches properties around us. It wouldn't be something that's a variance. That's not harmonious to that area. Thank you. Are there any additional questions from the board members to either the staff or the applicants? Mr. Butler. Is this a commercial face case surrounding by the city and county of Virginia? No, so just the western half is city and county. So west of Zunei Street is City and County of Brunefield. So everything north, south and east, like directly of this property is unincorporated. And then the City of West Minster is on the south side of west 144th. Any additional questions? I have a question. The gross size does sound maybe a little large, but this will make it possible for, are you the older? I am. I am. And that will make this plan will make it so that you could look there with your family rather than some close-ups. That's correct. The house is a two-story house with stairs, bedrooms upstairs. And I'm getting older. My wife is older and we wanted to get a main floor master suite down where we could and then they are gonna move in with us and then it's gonna be a communal, you know, I mean we're all be gonna be living there at that address and that's why we're going for this but we wanted the extra garage space because of parking and storage and everything else because all of my existing buildings, the sheds and stuff have to go away. Any additional questions from the board? I just wanted to ask staff if they had any comments to what they were saying about their lot size. If they had any comments to what they were saying about their lot size being 1.14 compared to the 2.5. Yeah, so that is smaller than our typical lot size. However, they're also allowed 7.5% structure coverage and most A1 lots are on well and septic and are allowed 6%. So they already have a higher lot coverage because they're on public water and an individual septic. And again, to go back to the criteria, staff found that the lot can be reasonably developed in conformance with the 7.5% structure coverage. Any additional questions? Seeing none, I'm going to close it to the public. Excuse me? You get the public to I already asked. Oh, I was out of the room. So I'm requesting a motion from the board. I would suggest that this be allowed. There's other properties in the area that have a similar or higher coverage than this one. And I think it makes sense for this family to be able to do this. So I'm going to vote that it should be allowed to have this next coverage. Is there a second? All second. And seconded by Mr. Aputman. Maybe we have a roll call of the vote please. Mr. McCurry? No. Mr. Bush. I didn't know. His Clavity. Yes. Mr. Puthman. Yes. And I vote no. That's three and two. I'm sorry. Motion to. Seeing that that motion has been not denied but failed. Maybe we have another motion for denial. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that the... Let me get the right number here. VSP 201700402 being denied with eight findings of fact. And do we have a second? A second. And the motion has been made and seconded. Can we have a roll call? Mr. Mercury, yes. Mr. Bush, yes. Mrs. Clarity. No. Mr. Putnam. No. And I vote yes. All right. The vote is final. It has been denied. All right. Thank you very much for coming in tonight. And okay. Okay. All right. Our next case tonight is case. The SP 2017 dash 0 0 0 44. And. Is it scorch? Sure. is it Scorch? Shorregi? Shorregi. Shorregi. Shorregi. If you would do the same as the other applicants, please give us your name and spell it in your address. As the ask. My name is Brechen Sheregi, SSN SAM CHOR EGE. I live at 13182 East 148th Avenue in Brighton, Colorado, 80601. My name is Tom Sheregi. SCHOR-EGE, limit 131-82 East 148th Avenue, Brighton, Caliron. Thank you very much, we appreciate it. All right, let me. Okay, so this is the Suregi variance. So the applicant is requesting a variance from the maximum structure coverage to construct a 2048 square foot pole barn. So the maximum permitted structure coverage is 6% and the applicant is proposing 10.4%. The site is located on East 148th Avenue, just west of Brighton Road in Highway 85. It's currently in the A1 zone district as are most of this rounding properties in unincorporated Adams County. The City of Brighton is just on the east side of Brighton Road and then there's a single family residential development just north that's in the city of Brighton. Again to go over the criteria of approval for approving a variance there needs to be a physical hardship or special circumstance of the land that prohibits development in conformance with the regulations. So this is the site plan. You can see the single family home. That's 2,600 square feet. And the yellow squares are the existing accessory structures. And then the red box is the proposed new barn. So as you can see, there's currently five accessory structures on the property and then you can see the location of the proposed barn. So the existing footprint or the total square footage of the site or structure coverage is 4,128 square feet. So that's about 1,500 square feet in accessory structures. And then the proposed foot print is 6,176 square feet with a total accessory square footage of 3,576 square feet. So staff has found that the site has been reasonably developed with accessory structures, as they're with the home and accessory structures as there are currently five on the property and that the applicant may remove certain existing structures and be able to build in accordance with the county regulations. The referral to 17 neighboring property owners, we received zero comments. Our engineering staff noted that compliance with federal, state, and local water quality construction will be required. So here's the view of the property looking south. So there's a single family home. Here's the view of a 148th Avenue looking east. view of 148th Avenue looking east. So here's a view looking across 148th Avenue and then you can see the single family residential development just behind this vacant piece of land. Here's a view of 148th Avenue looking west and here's the view of where the addition would go, so it would go kind of just to the left of where the existing detached garage is. So again, to go over the criteria, there needs to be a physical, certain hardship or special circumstance on the land. So staff found no physical hardship of the land that deprives the applicant of rights that are enjoyed by others. As the purpose of the A1 zone district is to allow for rural residential living in a desal offer accessory structures, but there are currently five existing on the property. And this site has been reasonably developed with accessory structures. So allowing a variance would grant a special privilege on the applicant that is not enjoyed by others. So therefore, staff is recommending denial with eight findings of fact. And that concludes staff presentation, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions first from the public? Okay. And any questions from the public. Okay, and any any questions from the board? Yes, oh, go ahead. Other properties within the area have they ever had a variance they could went over the requirements. So there are no approved variances in this area that there are people over the lot coverage, but they do not receive variances. And I think also like the last case, I think the applicant in their report said that they should have 2.5 acre a lot coverage and they're getting like 1.36 if I read correctly. Yeah, so this lot is smaller than the 2.5 acres. It is, yeah, I believe that's correct. Let me see, I had it written down here. Yeah, 1.36 acres, that's correct. And I guess that would be your guys's hardship is what you're saying. So I was just wondering if staff has any response to that. So I think staff's response would be that the site has been reasonably developed with accessory structures. This lot has more accessory structures than most of the neighboring properties in this area. And so it would not meet that criteria for approving a variance. Yeah, the consent. Please, first of all all did you receive the packet as presented by the B. Greg. Greg. Greg. Greg. You speaking? Yes. And did it include everything that she has brought up tonight? Yes. Okay. And do you have anything addition to add? Yes, Okay. Do you have anything addition to add? Yes, sir. Gretchen's trade you speaking? Yes, sir. I do have some things to add. Please. First of all, I'd like to mention that this property, along with the properties in that subdivision, which is known as Elmwood Acres, was developed back in 1951 and approved by Adams County. And it was approved at this size of the lot that it is in which we bought at 1.36 acres. And I feel that that is our hardship and our inability to meet the criteria that has been put out there by Adams County for a minimum lot of two and a half acres with a 6% lot coverage. And I feel that this 6% is really restricting our ability to do much with the property as it stands. I feel that the percentage should have been, excuse me, the percentage should have been more cohesive with the size of the lot. And 6% takes up quite a bit of our acreage. The accessory buildings that they mentioned that they're saying that our property is developed. Those accessory buildings, if you'll note, the only thing that is really permanent on that lot is the house and the garage. The other accessory buildings can be easily moved or torn down. They are not on any kind of concrete slabs. They sit on dirt and they're just used for storage, minor storage, because they don't have a lot of space. And what we're trying to attempt to do is to clean up that property so that we can put the proper things in that pole barn such as our equipment like our tractor. We have an additional vehicle that needs to be stored instead of in the garage. The garage only holds two cars. And we have feed for the horses. And we also have chickens as well so we take care of them but we'd like to be able to put all of that into that pole barn structure but we aren't able to do that because we don't have it for one and secondly it's not inhibiting we do not feel our neighbors have had no complaints about us wanting to do this. They did actually come personally and speak to us a couple of days ago and said they would be here. I unfortunately don't see them here, but they had no problem whatsoever with us putting that pull bar up. And really, truly, it will clean up that property. And that's what our intent is to do is to get that property cleaned up. So that it's cohesive with the neighborhood and it looks clean and it's nice and it's not run down. If you look at pictures of all the other properties surrounding us, it's pretty sad. They're very dilapidated states. So all our attempt is to just get that property cleaned up. There be a question. She mentioned that she's building this building related to get rid of the other buildings. And I think in your presentation, you had said that if she could get rid of some of the buildings, then that would give her the, what she needed. So, we're not quite. So, this is on okay. So, as you can see, the total accessory that they have now is about 1,500 square feet and what they're proposing is 3,500. So, in the building, the proposing to build is just over 2000. So the building they're proposing to build is does exceed what they currently have or what's currently on the site? Any additional questions? Excuse me, I just have one quick question and that is I'm trying to understand how a decision of having minimum lot sizes of two and a half acres when that actually became the rule and how a 6% can be applied to a very small piece of acreage. I'm not really quite understanding that. And I'm just wanting some clarification because I believe that since this subdivision was approved and established in 1951 and it was acceptable at that point, that I'm not sure I understand why we would be held to that 6%. That's that. If you give us a minute we will look in our GIS and see when the property was actually zone to the current zone in the destination. I don't know if we have GIS on these computers. Can we check on the, um, yes, we want, they don't have historical zoning on the, um, counties internet maps. It's just be on our GIS. We can check, we can check here, we can do some research while if you can give it a few minutes. So. Right. Let me take that short. We're going to take a short recess and research that for you. OK. Because we want to make sure that we make the best decision. All right. OK. We're going to take a five minute recess. So if anyone needed to do anything. I'm going to take a a minute that it's been again, it's been a close fight. I just want everybody to get up and shoot. Oh, no, I'm just going to shoot. I can't do that. You say it's a gun. OK. All right. I think I know which way to go. It comes on by itself. I couldn't get the I always refer back over here so I can see what's going on and they were out of network out of network so they had to find to go get another one that would, because I go back to figure out what they're doing and whatnot, you know. She's a very good, very successful structure. Even the movement of the head of Bristol has a little bit of a kind of a turning against the Los Angeles and the NG. Yes, no. She structures her as a little different than you. Yeah. But I'm just not sure if they're that way. Okay. You're a harsh person. You're throwing that garbage on the right. Yeah. And so that's the thing. Yeah. Yeah. The orange head. Sorry. I'm going to get a little bit of a second. I'm going to have to have a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of me if I can get a little bit of a question. I'm going to ask you to ask me if I can get a little bit of a question. I'm going to ask you to ask me if I can get a little bit of a question. I'm going to ask you to ask me if a mind for it. I'm going to watch the property. I have a mind for it. I have a mind for it. I have a mind for it. I have a mind for it. I have a mind for it. I have a mind for it. I have a mind for it. I have a mind for it. I have a mind for it. I have a mind for it. I have a mind for it. They bought 2006. I'm just trying to be a little bit more comfortable. I'm just trying to be a little bit more comfortable. I'm just trying to be a little bit more comfortable. I'm just trying to be a little bit more comfortable. I'm just trying to be a little bit more comfortable. I'm just trying to be a little bit more comfortable. I'm just trying to be a little bit more comfortable. I'm just trying to be a little bit more comfortable. I'm just trying to be a little bit more comfortable. I Okay. of I can get a picture of it. I'm not sure if I can get a picture of it. I'm not sure if I can get a picture of it. I'm not sure if I can get a picture of it. I'm not sure if I can get a picture of it. to be able to help. Okay. Okay. Hold the stone. Okay. I said we can't fit in there. Okay. Also, I'm going to make a mask. No. I don't know. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Hold the stone. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay I said we can't fit in any of this. I'll show you how many people asked me. No, I don't think that's enough. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry. No. I was just like, I can't fit in any of this. I said we can't fit in any of this. I'll show you how many people asked me. I'll show you how many people asked me. I said we can't fit in any of this. I'll I'm calling it back to order. We did some research to find out the zoning designation back in the 50s and 60s and also when the probe to was the zoning designation on the probe to was actually change. And when and the property was actually changed. And when the regulations actually was also changed, and my recommendation is we are not able to give you the full answer, we wouldn't need time to do extensive research as well. So my recommendation is to continue the case for 30 days. So we can provide you that information, which I think that may guide you in making a decision. Whether the case is continuing up to the board, but if you see fit to do that, we can go ahead and have a motion for that. Okay. Make sure they agree. We currently have a question before us that we don't have the information to answer. And so I'm going to ask the applicants first before we as a board have to make that decision. But would you be open to a continuance for 30 days for us to research that answer. It does not mean that the staff's decision will be changed. It just means that we will have done a more thorough job in answering that question. Gretchen Shuregging, yes, we would be in agreement. Okay. All right, I'm gonna close it to the public and I will be open to a motion from the board for for continuance Do I have a motion? So I propose a motion for VSP 2017 0 0 0 4 4 for continuance of 30 days So staff can research. If I may, I believe the date certain for that would be February 15th. Correct. Correct. So 28 days, but that would be the next time right around 30 days that the Board of Adjustment will be meeting. Okay. Is that 28 days? Okay. Great. And then we have a second. Got it. Mr. Puppman, second. Mr. Secretary, please take the roll call. Mr. McCurry. Yes. Mr. Bush. Yes. Mr. Clavity. Yes. Mr. Puppatnam. Yes. And I vote yes. Right. We have a unanimous vote and your case will be continued until that will worry that's 15. That will worry that 15. Thank you. Thank you. All right. All right, our third case tonight is case number BSP 2017-000047 and the case name Setser variance and the case name sets their variants. Good evening, Board of Adjustment. This is the third case before you tonight. The variance is from the required section line arterial setback, which is a roadway classification. It's also their front property line setback. So in this case, the required front setback is 60 feet from the section line arterial right of way. The applicant is proposing a 30 foot setback. Okay. You can hear me now? Yeah. Okay. Better? Much better. Very good. I feel like the AT&T gentleman, can you hear me now? So this is the area of the site. So it's located at the intersection of 54th Avenue in Lowell Boulevard. So where the property outlined in light blue is. So to the south of the subject property is a charter school and Redis University, which is in the city in County of Denver, but that is the context of the surrounding area. And then further to the north, which is off screen is I-76. And then the property is also located west of federal boulevards. That's kind of the general neighborhood where we're looking. And this is a closer view of the property itself. So again, it is fronted by West 54th Avenue to the south and low-oble ofard to the east. Again, this variance request is specifically from the low-ovalvard right of way. In this area, low-oval is classified as a section line arterial right of way. So the classification of the road is arterial. And that's, of course, one of our higher volume of roadways considering traffic, flow, and volume. And it's also a section line. Those are just kind of the two points to clarify there. So again, the requirement is 60 feet. And the applicant is proposing a 30 foot set back from the east property line. Currently, the property is designated as R2, which allows for single and duplex styles of housing and accessory structures. The surrounding area is also predominantly residential, both a mix of single family and duplex zoning. The federal boulevard corridor is commercial, and then to the north we have some mobile home zoning, industrial and then of course some agricultural areas as well. When looking at the comprehensive plan, the site is designated as urban residential. The goal is there to support a variety of housing types including single or multiple family. So the applicant's request is to redevelop this site and remove the existing structure. And so the proposal for that new development and thus the variance that the requesting, the development is in line with the current zoning as well as the goals of the comprehensive plan. But we will also go through the criteria for approval of a variance. So again, as we've outlined tonight, staff is looking for the physical hardship to the property, whether this would deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by others in the area, and if this would grant them a special privilege not enjoyed by others. We're also looking to determine if the property can reasonably develop in conformance with our regulations and if this request is self-imposed. And again, if this variance were granted, if it would be harmonious and compatible with the surrounding area, create community safety standards and still allow a permitted use. So when we look at, again, the existing site, the property is approximately 127 feet deep, going east and west, by 75 feet north and south. So it's roughly just over 9,000 square feet of lot area. When you apply the 60 foot required setback today, that limits the buildable area on the site to about 26% of their lot. So this representation would include a 20-foot setback from West 54th Avenue. So that's an additional front setback that this property is encumbered with. And this representation also shows a 15-foot setback from the North property line and a five-foot setback from the other side property line. So again, with all required setbacks, this site is limited to about 26% of the lot. When applying the 30-foot setback, this increases the buildable coverage to about 38%. And what's especially important to note here as well is that the 30-foot request is in line with all of the existing homes on lowable of our specifically the homes just to the north, but also on the opposite side of Lowell. Staff reviewed this running area and found that these properties were originally platted in 1916 and the majority were developed in the early 1920s. So of course the roadway classifications and development in the area were different at that time. And these properties all were developed with about a 30 foot existing front sat back. Currently the applicant's home, the covered porch extends about 20 feet. So with the request, you can see a 38% buildable area and it would be in line with existing development and therefore is compatible with the surrounding area. And just for a comparison, the property directly north is not a corner lot. It's an interior lot and only has one front set back. And their developable areas about 53% of their lot. So just in terms of comparing the incumbrances of all the requirements on this lot. And so then these are some views of that site. This is from Louisville, Lovard looking west on 54th Avenue. This is looking south. So the brick building is the charter school. This is looking north. So again, all of these homes that you can see here, those are all set back 30 feet, so that would be the same as what the applicant is requesting. And this angle somewhat hard to see, but again, the applicant's porch is about 20 feet, and then where that brick building is just to the north is the 30 foot set back. So that's what that would look like from the sidewalk and from the right of way. This is on West 54th Avenue looking north and then this is looking south. So this is a playground area for the school. No concerns were noted during the referral from the external agencies or internal reviewers when notifying property owners with an 800 feet, which were 132 property owners, staff did receive four comments. Two of those comments were in support. Two of those comments were opposed to the requested variance. One comment noted that the proposed development would increase traffic and would have the potential to allow for renting the structure to college students, but with not specific to the actual physical setback that was being requested. It was more in terms of the proposed use of the site. So again, just to review and summarize the analysis and the criteria for approval, the physical hardship particular to this lot is double frontages, which is a unique circumstance that some lots have. But particularly this section line arterial not all properties have that 60 foot front setback applied to their properties. And that limited again the buildable area that we saw for the development on this lot. Other structures are currently developed with a 30 foot similar setback. So this by denying the variance could deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by others. And if approved would be harmonious and compatible with the surrounding area. And the lot cannot be reasonably developed because again we reviewed the dimensions of a buildable area with all setbacks applied. And this request is not self-imposed, as again, the property was legally created in 1916 and developed at a time when regulations were different, and roadways have increased and road classifications have changed. So tonight's staff is recommending approval based on eight findings of fact in one condition. And that condition would be for the applicant to obtain a building permit within a one year period. If they did not obtain that building permit, the variance would be null and void and that will conclude staff presentation. Thank you. All right. Thank you. That the applicants receive a packet of information and was that information similar to what was presented tonight? Yes it was. All right. And we want to give you an opportunity to give us any additional information. I need these James Hours on the architect for the setters. And I think staff did an excellent job. All right. Sorry. But you had to hold it down. Okay. All righty. Do we have any additional comments or questions from the public? Right here. Yes. I was just great. Could be for you. I'm sorry. Would you come on to the podium and state your name and then your relationship to this particular case. Okay, my name is Ibet Romero. The daughter of my father and mother, they live right next door to the owners of this lot. So your address is 5415 low. Okay, thank you. Now what I was wondering is there's a kind of an issue right now because part of the property that they have on the variance was part of my parents' property for over 40 years. Now they're right now in the situation of fighting this. So does this still get approval? All right, we're out in the board of adjustments So does this still get approval? All right. We're in the board of adjustments. And what we do is we make decisions on specific issues. And tonight, our one issue is the variance, not the ownership of the property. So we cannot make any statements here specifically at the board. And the statements from the public should be relevant to the issue- The variants. Yeah, the variants tonight. I do appreciate your situation. But I think it's just probably the wrong venue for it. There's no effectiveness for you making that comment here tonight. I'm sorry. Thank you. All right. Thank you. And if it's just state your name and your address. Joe Romero. I'm 78. That's it. And your address. That's your 54 or 15 low boulevard. Okay, thank you very much. Okay, we got a sewer line and then it's going to be almost on their property. You know, where we had that we had 35 feet of space. Well, I guess it was 35. I never measured it, but they're trying to take about five feet away, you know, illegally. Because, honest to God, this little, when they made a deal with the neighbors, she's a lawyer and she don't like me, I don't know why, but she don't like me. And they were over there. And then when they came out of the neighbor's house, the little kid yelled, we're going to steal your land. And I said, I didn't make no sense of it. I didn't think they were even going to try, you know, but they're trying. Well, I understand. And I could also understand why you would think that this would be the venue to come to since they are asking for the variance to build that property. But there are other legal avenues for you and I can't tell you those now but I'm sure that things like just throwing it out there and injunction and things like that. But you have to go through another venue rather than this one here. I appreciate you coming and voicing your opinion. It's now been recorded. So that's about the best that we can do tonight for you. Okay. Thank you. So thank you very much for coming. I appreciate the time that we can do tonight for you. Okay. Thank you. So thank you very much for coming. I appreciate the time that it takes to come down here. All right. Are there any other comments tonight from the public? Seeing none, I will close it to the public and I will ask for a motion from the board. I have a question. I do too. Okay, well then I open it back up and please state your questions. The 60-foot setback, if all these other properties are at 30-foot setback requirement, when did this 60-foot setback come into play? Again, the existing property as well as the ones adjacent to the site were developed in the 1920s, when setbacks were different. So because the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing structure and put up a new one, any new development on the site must conform with today's requirements. And today's requirement is 60 feet, correct? Mr. Puppin. From staff. Is this what is the use on this property and the surrounding parcels. So this property is developed with a single family dwelling and an accessory detached garage. Adjacent to the site are primarily other single family dwellings. However, in the larger context, which I can show you on the map. So in this area there is a mix of both duplex homes kind of in this area and then primarily it is a single family currently developed but it is zoned to allow for duplex or single family on this property. Did that answer your question, Mr. Puppman? See your eyes are closed. Mr. Chair, I have a question. All right, Mr. Stampio. Ms. Collins, would you go back to the drawing that shows the yellow area? Is this the proposed footprint of the new building? So this would be the approximate building envelope with all of the setbacks applied. But the actual structure has not been proposed so we don't have a specific site plan to that effect. I was gonna ask, how can we have that large of percentage on that size of a lot? I'm not sure that I understand your question. I'm not sure that I understand your question. I'm not sure that I understand your question. I'm not sure that I understand your question. I'm not sure that I understand your question. I'm not sure that I understand your question. I'm not sure that I understand your question. I'm not sure that I understand your question. I'm not sure that I understand your question. I'm not sure that I understand your question. I'm not sure that I understand five feet from the west and 20 feet from the south, that gives you that dimension, which is roughly 38% of the lot. Any additional questions? How close by are the duplexes that you're using as a model for what this should become? Are there a lot of doplexes? Or this area is in somewhat of a transition. Again, when we look at the zoning map, any of the orange areas are permitted to develop either a single family or a doplex. Currently, I would say the majority are developed as single family, but a duplex is a permitted use by right. Duplexes in this area that are developed are primarily along this cul-de-sac. But again, that's just what the zoning would allow for. Either one is a use by right in the zone district. So again, the variance is specific to any structure, whether it is a single family dwelling or a duplex. The structure itself has to be set back currently 60 feet, but they're asking for 30. Yeah, I guess I'm having a hard time finding the harmonious nature of the request here if the setback really is 60 feet now. Any other response? This is working now. James Powers, PowerSquare Design and Architecture. This is working now. Okay James powers power square design and architecture 60 feet if we have 60 feet back from that property line which is you know the lot the whole lot in total is 127 feet deep You know that gives us 67 feet to work with and then we have to subtract setbacks from the back property line from that There's no way we can put a duplex there if that's what they want to do for a use by right, which is zoned use by right for them to be able to do that. I understand that that's an option for them if the lot were different, but since there's so many single family dwellings in the first place, this looks to me like a lot that really is better suited for a single family dwelling? Well, there's another home on me. Like staff said, this area is developing quickly. I think a lot of it is because it's around the college, Registria University. There are a lot of homes going in there, or a lot of developers that are currently going in there, they're purchasing the smaller homes, and they are putting in in duplexes because it is a use by right. Are they doing it at 60 feet setback? Well, they're not all on low above our, that's one of the hardships that we have here. I understand and low, I mean, I've seen, I go to the chapel at Regis and I've seen those houses along there and even getting in and out of our driveway on low a boulevard is pretty tricky business. No, I totally understand that we wouldn't be coming off of low a boulevard with the driver's who would be coming off of 54th. That's Jeff J. E. F. F. S. E. T. Z. E. R. The owner of the 5401 law. Up the street from, let's see, it's past the school from 53rd to 52nd. There were several houses that were redone into duplexes that do not meet the 60 foot, I don't think. How did they get away with it? Did they ask for variance? Wait, do they? I don't know. I think staff had mentioned earlier that there were some, there were in violation. Yeah, so I mean. Also on the other side of that, on Mead, on that same block. That whole block is all duplexes. On both sides of Mead between 53rd and 52nd. Those are all duplexes also. I understand you're trying, in my mind, it's trying to fit at duplex in on a lot that seems more reasonable to have a single family dwelling. So that's my issue. It's not meeting the 60 foot setback and you're trying to fit something in that I think is better suited for a single family dwelling. This is a cloudy. Let me let the staff actually give the specific, when you say the right, there is certain rights that property owners have. So if you could maybe just tell us your basis for the approval again, why the 60 foot. But- Absolutely so again, regardless of the use of the structure, that is not the purpose of the variance request. It's for the structure itself. So that is not up for consideration or part of the staff analysis. So what we were reviewing is that given the 60 foot setback, that is a special physical circumstance to this property that essentially only gives them a very small percentage of their lot to develop at all, which makes it very difficult to develop anything. So even if it's a single family home or duplex, the structure itself would be very limited. Accessory buildings would be limited. The site development becomes much more difficult with the application of all of the required setbacks. And when looking at the proposed 30 foot, it is exactly in line with all of the required setbacks. And when looking at the proposed 30 foot, it is exactly in line with all of the properties developed to the north, as well as the homes adjacent across Lowell. So you can see even up here, this is a 30 foot roughly. So in terms of being harmonious and compatible, the request for 30 foot is common in this area. Lowell Boulevard has, of course, seen an increase in traffic, which is the purpose of the 60 foot. But this is also an older area of the county, and that's why these existing 30 foot homes are where they are today. Ms. Collins, question. In order to use this footprint, that everything else would have to be scrubbed from the site, it would be a build-off, right? Correct. So the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing structures and build something new. That way they would meet the percentage. Correct. Thank you. Okay. All right, seeing no more questions, I will now now close it off and accept a motion from the board. I would make a motion for case VSP 201700047 for approval with eight findings of fact with one condition. And do we have a second? I will second. All right. Secretary, please take a oral call. Mr. McCurray. Yes. Mr. Bush. Yes. Mr. Bush. Yes. Mr. Clavidy. No. Mr. Putnam. Yes. I also vote yes. All right. Seeing that the vote is in favor. It has been approved and congratulations and thank you very much. And I did see that this is your guys that you were scheduled for earlier. So thank you very much for coming back tonight. Thank you. Thank you. All right. All right, our last case tonight is a pills case and I will turn it over to our county attorney. All right. Right. Will the applicants and your, the person that you have with you, will you introduce yourself? And again, please state your name, spell your name, and then give us, if it's the owner, the address, and then also the address of the business. My name is George Eidsness, EIDS, NESS. I live at 27. Who should do that? Is it green? My name is George Eidsness, EIDS, NESS. I live at 2765 County Road 21 for it left in. And I am the owner of the project. All right, thank you. My name is Michelle Berger. I'm the attorney for the applicant, my address, and my name is spelled M-I-C-H-E-L-L-E. Last name is B-E-R-G-E-R, and I'm at 360 South Garfield Street, sweet 600, Denver, Colorado, 80209. And I'd like to approach the podium for my presentation. Yes, absolutely. I'm gonna go ahead and just do a a brief introduction just based on the requirements of the bylaws. So we have an appeal this evening and it involves an appeal regarding the decision from the director of community and economic development with a denial of our request to amend a previously approved administrative relief and landscape plan. And Ms. Berger is correct. The petitioner in this case presents first. The board can ask questions at that time. And then staff have their opportunity to make a presentation. If we end up having a situation where we do need to ask either group of folks questions out of turn, I don't think that's a problem. And we can also have the parties clarify their statements if necessary. Probably also not something will end up dealing with, but for presentations each party is limited to 30 minutes. And I you know, I usually keep time roughly and when it's interrupted by questions, I stop the clock. So thank you. Thank you. So as I mentioned, my name is Michelle Berger. I'm listed as the applicant. I represent Mr. Eidsness as the property owner. And I do have some handouts for the board tonight. So I'm going to go ahead and mark one of these copies. Applicants exhibit number one and enter into the record and I will go in and pass them around. Thank you. I'll wait till everybody gets the packet to really go into my presentation tonight. I just, while the packets are being handed out, I wanted to thank the staff and the county attorney. It's been kind of a long process here. And as the county attorney mentioned, there was a previously approved administrative relief for the landscaping requirements for this project. And one of the reasons we're back here tonight is because the contractor who presented that application for administrative relief really wasn't aware of some of the limitations on the property and submitted it and got it approved without that knowledge that contractor has since been terminated and the work's been completed with another contractor. So I think everybody now has their handout. You know there's this old adage, the more things change, the more they stay the same. And interestingly, if you look at, the first tab in your handout, you'll see that back in September of 2014, a board of adjustment for Adams County. A decision number four, overturned the county's requirement for some landscaping requirements for a property that is actually, it's just south of the subject property. It's south of 62nd Parkway, also owned by Mr. Eidsness, and as you can see, there was a requirement there to donate some equivalent amount of landscaping to the county, but landscaping requirements on the particular property, the property was relieved of those requirements. And also of note, the appeal back in September of 2014, formed the basis for a similar waiver of landscaping requirements for a nearby RTD property. And so here tonight we have a board that has changed. I looked and there's, I don't think there's any members of this board that were here in 2014 and heard this variance or this administrative relief request. And the staff has changed and the county attorney has changed and arguably even though my law firm represented Mr. Eitzness, I was now with the law firm. So a lot of things have changed but what remains the same is the property condition and that's that this property that we're talking about tonight as well as the property that had the prior approval and the RTT property is all underlaid by the PECOS landfill. And if you turn to your second tab, there's two photos there, and you'll see the first photo is looking east on West 62nd Parkway from the intersection of PECOS, and the property is to the left-hand side or the north, and you'll see that that property is totally undeveloped and then if you go to the second photo it's from about the same vantage point as much as you can with Google Earth to get in the same exact spot and you'll see two brand new buildings that Mr. Eidsness built on this property service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, service, property actually consists of three parcels, 1,400 and 1,400 west, 60 second, and then one called 61 55 La Pans Street. And 61 55 La Pans Street was actually owned by a gentleman named Brooke Bambury and for years the property was not only not in compliance with, I'm sure numerous county requirements it was not in compliance with various Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment requirements regarding a landfill. And so Mr. Eisenness purchased that property and redeveloped it. And so as now asking for administrative relief from some of the landscaping requirements because of the condition underlying the property which is it's a closed landfill. So if you go to tab three, that's the code section that basically talks about appeals from administrative decisions. And if you go to the third sheet, which is page 2-125 criteria for approval, in this case the board has all the powers of the administrative official from whom the appeal is taken. So you look at this with a fresh set of eyes. But you do have to find an error in the application of the standards and regulations on the part of the official rendering the order. And what we would present tonight is that there was an error and there was due to the condition of the property and the ability not only to install the landscaping, but to maintain the landscaping in conformance with the code requirements. Because once you install landscaping, you have a continuing obligation to maintain that landscaping. Then tab number four, really goes to the criteria for the administrative relief. And there's starting on page on the first page on 4-237. There's four criteria which we addressed in our appeal. Let me just find that here real quickly. We addressed in our appeal. Let me just find that here real quickly. Here we go. So I believe you received a copy of our appeal as part of your packet with the staff report. One other thing to note is that between the time that the initial request for administrative relief was approved back in October of 2016, there was a, this property is subject to various CDPHE requirements. And there was a compliance order on consent that the owner entered into with CDPHE. And it required that an environmental covenant be placed on the property. And the environmental covenant places restrictions on the property in terms of usage, as well as development in the future. And the one and that environmental coming is part of your packet. And there's several activity restrictions that really are key to this request. And they have to do with activity restrictions that states that activities that may damage the landfill cover are prohibited and those activities could include grazing, digging, drilling, tilling, grading, and excavation. And obviously installation of landscaping would require some of those activities. Now I understand that staff's position and CDPHE position is that there are areas where you could potentially dig and not disturb the landfill cover. However, you then have to irrigate this landscaping on not only a temporary basis to get it established but a permanent basis and the environmental covenant goes on to state that the landfill co irrigation of the landfill cover covers prohibited except as approved by the department after notice to the Spano parties and BFI. And so the Spano parties and BFI have obligations under a post closure plan for the landfill. And I would also note that currently there is an enforcement action ongoing on this property by CDPHE that is directly related to groundwater. And it's our position that requiring landscaping that would require temporary irrigation to establish it, and then permanent irrigation to some sort, even if it's intermittent, it would be permanent in nature because it would be required to maintain the landscaping, could subject the property owners to a continuing enforcement by CDPHE, and would, in accordance with the environmental covenant covenant require a prior approval by the department and notice to these other parties. So the upshot is that if there was a temporary irrigation system installed to establish the landscaping, every time that the landscaping had to be watered, Mr. Iadzness would have to notify those other two property owners and get approval of CDPHE. And if you would just skip tab number five and go to tab number six, you'll see a more recent letter. There was a letter written by CDPHE back in, I think, was October of 2016. And there's been a letter that they sent. It was October 28 of 2016. There was a revised letter sent October 2, 2017. And I will just read an underlying portion in the third paragraph. It says the department has not approved a plan for permanent irrigation at the BGE property, which is the subject property. Therefore under the requirements of the environmental covenant, a permanent irrigation system is prohibited at the BGE property. And so now if we just go through the approval criteria which were in your packet at tab 4, and I'll just highlight a few things from our appeal as well as the staff report. There's three criteria. Strict application of the regulations and question is unreasonable given the development proposal or the measures proposed by the applicant or the property has extraordinary or exceptional physical conditions or unique circumstances which do not generally exist in nearby properties in the same general area and such conditions will not allow a reasonable use of the property and its current zone and absence of relief. The intent of the landscaping section and the specific rigs and question is preserved and the granting of the administrative relief will not result in an adverse impact upon surrounding properties. And we already talked a little bit about one in that it does have very unique physical characteristics and actually so does this entire neighborhood. that it does have very unique physical characteristics and actually, so does this entire neighborhood. And we believe that what we've proposed meets the intent and landscaping section and will not result in an adverse impact upon the surrounding properties. Talked a little bit about irrigation and trees and shrubs. Initially, there had been some proposals by CDPHE there had been some proposals by CDPHE and the county to install shrubs in burrams or planners on top of the property. Again, as I said, there's an ongoing enforcement action that has to do with groundwater and the regrading of the property and the pressure established on the groundwater by the fill that was brought into the property. And so our position would be that even in these planters or berms that theoretically you could water just kind of sporadically, you'd be adding additional weight to the landfill. And I believe that the October 2nd, 2017 letter addresses that it does address that. And I think that CDPHE still maintains that there could be some areas where trees could be planted but again you get to the irrigation piece. So we also talked in our appeal about the intent of the landscaping. The landscaping options that we're proposing will protect the public health safety and welfare by providing undisputed reductions in odor and nuisance to wildlife from the former landfill. We'll also minimize the potential for water pollution associated with irrigation landfill because we're proposing all non irrigated landscaping. And native grasses, native wildflowers, rocks, mulch, and boulders. In the previous approval back in September of 2014, that approval was for all hardscape. So there is no native grasses, native flowers or anything. So this would actually be an improvement above what was previously approved for that adjacent property. Granting of the administrative relief will not result in adverse impact upon the surrounding properties. The BG parcels, as I mentioned, were formally used as parts of several different landfills. And at great expense, BG has brought jobs to the community and invested a lot of money in this particular property as well as Adams County in general. And then there's some policy considerations in the code and I'm just going to read to you what we had to say about policy considerations. In recognition of the fact that the standards and regs do not anticipate all possible landscape situations, Adams County has provided the board the authority to grant requests for administrative relief in situations such as, where the landscape options contained in the revised requests conformed to the purpose intent and objectives. Further, the revised request, it's our position as an appropriate balance of the reasonable use of the parcels where the requirements contained in the standards, given the unique nature of the environmental covenant use restrictions associated with the underlying closed landfill. And in granting this administrative relief, Adams County assigns a high priority to buffering of adjacent residential uses. There are no adjacent residential uses to the BG parcel. And the county prioritizes an attractive appearance of the project from adjacent roads, which is also met by this landscaping option. So then last, I would just like to go through a few items in the staff report just for clarification purposes. There was just a mention in the timeline that the applicant attended a conceptual meeting in April 22nd, 2014. I'm listed as the applicant, so just so everybody understands that was the owner, not the applicant. Reason for the denial on page four of the staff report, the September 13th staff administratively denied the request. The basis for the denial was that the request did not comply with the criteria for approval as the request was mainly to grant relief with no appropriate compensation as required by the county's development standards. And I guess, I would just like to read those development standards. It says in section 4-16-21, the granting of administrative relief should not always mean a requirement is reduced without compensation. It also does not mean that a requirement cannot be reduced without requiring compensation. So you don't always have to require compensation. However, the board has the ability to approve our request with a condition like happened back in September of 2014, that there would be some sort of compensation to the county for this relief that's being granted. Then. being granted. Then on page five in the under staff analysis, there's a statement that the staff made a determination that the environmental covenant does not create a physical circumstance in which landstakes escaping could not be installed. And I just want to be clear, the environmental covenant doesn't create a physical circumstance, but it creates a legal impediment. So we have legal obligations under that environmental covenant. It's an agreement that was part of an order on consent. And so I just wanted to just clarify that while landscaping could, or excuse me, irrigation could physically happen, it would be the environmental government It would be the environmental government creates a legal impediment in that it can't be permanent landscaping or irrigation. And so any irrigation to maintain landscaping would just be a continuous process of getting approval from CDPHE and the various property owners. And the Spano property are parties and BFI are sometimes responsive to these requests, but I think there's like a 15-day requirement that they have an opportunity to weigh in on the request and say no. The at the bottom of that page five, the step makes a statement that appears the inert fill bar to the site would increase the soil thickness and be able to support the landscape and not violate the restrictions. And we talked about that. There are some areas of the property, I think mostly on the northwest corner, where the fill is more than two feet and you could theoretically install landscaping, but then you would have to irrigate it. And unfortunately, that's also right by a cut slope. And if there's going to be any issues with ground water or water that comes into contact with the landfill materials and then expresses to the surface, it's gonna be right there along that cut slope on the north side and the northwest corner. Just a couple more items. On page six, the staff makes a finding that based on the landscape plan and irrigation solutions provided in the original administrative relief request, staff has determined there's no extraordinary exceptional physical condition, which prevents installation of the required landscaping. And again, you know, it's a double edge sword. It's the installation as well as the maintenance. And even the installation, the irrigating of that landscaping during the period when it's being established during the establishment period. While allowed by CDPHE does put the property owner at the risk of a violation of CDPHE regulations regarding it's called leachate water that comes into contact with the land film materials and then expresses to the surface. We talked about the surrounding properties. It's really another one of properties that Mr. Eisenhower owns and RTD, I-76s to the north, paicoses to the west. And I would like to point out that staff, did reach the conclusion that on the middle of page 6, that while there's a minimum 10% lot landscape, and we are asking for relief from certain landscaper increments, the landscaping we're proposing is actually 37% of the total property. So we're proposing 27% more than what's required. We're just asking that it be non irrigated landscaping. And then on page seven, staff talks a little bit about, you know, the reasons behind having landscaping and purpose of landscaping is to enhance and promote a unique image for Adams County as well as to minimize noise air, water and visual pollution and provides screening from wind and ensure landscaping is an integral part of the site design and development process. And our landscaping is an integral part and it's very compatible with the landscaping or an excess of the landscaping that's been approved by the county on nearby properties. And then I think that's it for my primary presentation and just some things I wanted to address that were in the staff report. But if you have any questions, I'm happy to stay up here. I don't know how I'm doing on my 30 minutes, but. All right. Are there any questions from the board? I have a question. Okay. First of all, to build the buildings, obviously you had to dig. Correct. So there was already that disruption to, and you had to dig. Correct. So there was already that disruption, and you're saying that the reason, the project was approved based on showing that these landscape requirements by Adam's County would be enforced, and then that was put forth by a contractor who you're kind of disavowing now, is that the idea? a contractor who you're kind of disavowing now, is that the idea? So there's two questions in there. First of all, we did not have to dig to build the buildings. We actually had to bring in additional fill dirt. I think the staff report says 50,000 cubic yards of fill. So the elevation of the top of the landfill was at one elevation and to build the buildings such that we could have access to them from West 62nd Parkway and to provide the appropriate amount of cover on a portion of the property where additional illegal dumping had happened by a previous owner. We had to bring in two feet of clay soil and had to be compacted to a certain amount of compaction. So we didn't, I mean, there's a couple of areas where we had to excavate into the existing landfill materials, but that was done under the oversight of CDPHE and a regrading plan. So anything that we've previously done that disturbed the landfill or potentially added water to the landfill was under this Regrating plan and brought us up to the current elevation and The regrating plan was approved by CDPHE certainly Adams County Saw it as a referral agency the The landscaping plan was put forth after the building plans were approved, I believe, and it was initially approved in October of 2016. And again, we take responsibility for our contractor, we hired them. They did put forth this initial request for administrative relief, not knowing about the, well, the adjoining property to the south, and what had been approved by the county there. And it was also before the environmental covenant was in place. So the initial administrative relief was approved in October of 2016, I think. And then the following spring of 2017, we entered into this environmental covenant that permanently and further restricted the activities it could take place on the property. And so then in August of 2017, we came back to staff and to see if we could make an amendment to that initial approval of administrative relief, which did have as a part of it a temporary irrigation system. And the idea, I suppose, was that that irrigation system would be removed. But I just think no thought was given to how that landscaping was gonna be maintained. If you water a tree for a year, and then you don't water it again in Colorado. It has a high likelihood of not surviving. And then we would not be in compliance with the landscaping maintenance requirements that are part of the county code. I'm just asking that the reason you got the project approved in the first place was because it had some landscaping requirements involved in it, didn't it? Or the building was separate and then the landscaping came afterwards. Usually, landscape requirements come with the site plan and construction in the first place. I'm not sure what the timeline was for the. Yes, I will be addressing that in my presentation, but you are correct that our code requires a landscape plan to be approved at the time of building permits of middle. And prior to approval of that permit. Okay. Yeah. document. Okay yeah. Any additional questions at this time I don't let's hear Emily's presentation and okay All right, Jane. Good question, the staff. As the Department of Health looked at the landscaping plan that they submitted. So this will also be addressed during my presentation, but yes, the state has reviewed the original landscape plan, as well as the one proposed today by the applicant. the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of I don't mind want to put this. Is there going to be a way of making sure that the native grass that will be put down will be maintained even through a drought. There's just only been a couple of years and we had a pretty severe drought and all the native grass, buffalo grasses and stuff died. How are you going to make sure that landscaping survives? Well, we would have to make sure that we go through the process of getting approval for that minimal sort of irrigation that would be required during a drought season. And again, you know, under the environmental covenant, it's not impossible. It's a process. It requires CDPHE approval. It requires notice to the adjoining property owners. I wouldn't anticipate that it would be as frequent a need for irrigation as what was the requirement to maintain the landscaping that was initially approved in the initial administrative relief request. But certainly, you know, the county has the right to and we would comply with the maintenance requirements even for the limited amount of landscaping that we're proposing. And in terms of how you do that, you know, I mean, you could have a water truck that comes by. I mean, there's a variety of more transient ways to irrigate in that kind of a situation. All right, thank you. Ms. Collins. So, I will present to you tonight some of this information will be a little bit repetitive, but it is important to get all of the facts and the story for this request before you tonight. So the appeal, again, as Christine has stated, is an appeal of the Community and Economic Development Department's decision to deny a request for administrative relief from our landscaping regulations. And specifically, as mentioned tonight, it was to amend a previously approved administrative relief request. And the amendment was denied and is the subject of this appeal. So there are two different landscape plans under discussion tonight. One landscape plan shows some above ground shrubs and grasses and then there's a proposed plan. It does not have any above ground vegetation and is just the grass and decorative boulders. So those are kind of the differences, but I will also review that more specifically later in the presentation. So my presentation tonight is going to outline a brief history of the site as well as the county regulations and then the staff analysis as well as our conclusion. So to orient ourselves where this site is, excuse me, it is south of I-76 and east of Peko Street. It has multiple frontages around the property, but as you can see, it is also west of Broadway and I-25. And just to the south directly across the street is the new RTD PAKO station which will be a parking ride for the new light rail. As mentioned, the property tonight is proposed of three different parcels. So approximately 2.5 acres, 3.84 in the middle and then 4 acres. And this site is highly visible from several major corridors throughout the county. And also important to note that with redevelopment in this area due to the fast track stations coming online, it will be a much more heavily trafficked area by both vehicles and pedestrians in the future. So just to show you a little bit of what this looks like in real life. This is from the entrance of the RTD site on West 60 Second Parkway. So as you can see, one of the buildings has been constructed and is currently open and has received a certificate of occupancy. And then it's just another view showing what the pedestrian experience would look like along the sidewalk on West 60 Second Parkway. So there is a wide area that could be providing landscape, visual mitigation and enhancement along the right of way. This is looking West. So this is towards the intersection of Paco's and West 60 Second. And again, you can see the other building. So both of the end parcels have been developed. And this is from PAKO Street looking north. So you can see the frontage road and then I-76 in the background. And so yes, there's quite a bit of topography in this area. But again, this is highly visible from all of the surrounding public ride-of-ways and the traveling public. This is looking from the I-76 embankment down into the site, so again, you can see the frontage road, the two buildings that have been developed, and then the middle parcels currently being used for vehicle display area for the applicant's business. This is looking west from LePan Street. So again, this area could be vegetated to provide visual mitigation enhancement along the right of voice. And then this is another view from the east end of the property looking west on West 60 Second Parkway. So again, this is in the vicinity of the RTD light rail station. So it is important to note that this property is owned industrially and that does allow for a variety of uses commercial and industrial and as you can see from the site pictures it has been developed with both administrative office building as well as an auto leasing and sales building. So the expected development in this area would provide for employment uses, retail uses, generating a lot of activity and visits to this area. The Comprings and Plan designation is mixed use employment. So again, the goals there are to support specific types of retail and employment centers. And especially in areas that have excellent transportation access and particularly important visibility for those businesses. And as you've seen from the site plans as well as the areas, this site is surrounded by multiple frontages that are heavily trafficked and are significant corridors within the county. So Pego Street, I-76, and then West 60 Second Parkway is being developed along that area as those fast track stations come online. So again, a brief review of this site. It was previously mined for Sandoong Ravel. And after that was completed, it was what we know today is the Pekos landfill, which operated roughly from 1979 to 2002. That landfill, according to records, accepted munits poised and construction and demolition debris. When the landfill closed in 2002, there is what is known as a post closure plan, which is essentially the maintenance responsibilities ongoing for that property. And so the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment is part of that and they approve those plans. of that and they approve those plans. Spano, as has been mentioned tonight, was one of the landfill operators and is one of the responsible parties for that ongoing maintenance. So yes, this site does have some complicating factors of multiple interests and ownership and state involvement. And as noted previously, activities that may impact the protective cover on the landfill had to first be reviewed and approved by the state. And in about 2005, there were some ongoing issues with the Leachate, which is the contaminated water from the landfill leaking to the surface. And so a regrading plan was approved by the state to allow additional fill material to cover that to prevent that contaminated water from surfacing. So the state approved that in July of 2015 and subsequently the property owner obtained a temporary use permit from the county to allow approximately 50,000 cubic yards of fill material to address that problem and regrade the site. In addition to their work with the state, the applicant always intended to redevelop the site and had attended several conceptual review meetings with staff at the county and essentially what those entail is the applicant presenting a proposal, a sketch site plan and proposed uses, and then staff will review that and inform the applicant of the required county regulations that pertain to that type of development. And those specifically would include building permit requirements, landscaping requirements. And so it is important to note that multiple times whether through the formal conceptual review meeting or through informal meetings with the applicant and his team, landscaping and development requirements were always discussed, and they were particularly reviewed and noted at those meetings as a requirement. In October of 2016, as mentioned, our department did approve the administrative relief request from certain landscaping requirements. As mentioned, that plan did include a temporary irrigation system for one growing season to establish that vegetation. That temporary irrigation system was approved by CDPHE. And particularly that plan, and I will show you a comparison of those images, reduced some of the tree requirements for the site, and it was compensated by providing additional shrubs. Part of the rationale for the reduction in certain trees and compensating by adding shrubs, is that trees may have a root system that is longer or deeper that potentially could pose a risk to penetrating the landfill cap, and that by providing shrubs, decorative boulders and other vegetation that had smaller root systems, they could still meet the intent of the landscape requirements, while lessening the possibility of those root systems penetrating the landfill cap. So again, as we previously reviewed, a landscape plan is required with a building permit. And so the administrative relief was approved in October and subsequently in November of 2016, those two building permits were approved and the applicant clearly constructed and finalized those two buildings and they are currently open for operation. So in August of 2017, as mentioned, the applicant did submit a new request to amend that and those could include excavating, grading, tilling, etc. And again, I think as some of you noted the site, those activities did occur on site in order to construct those buildings. And staff determined that the likelihood of those activities for landscaping purposes, damaging the cover was not impactful in the ways that the applicant was alleging. Again, with the prohibited irrigation as alleged in the or as stated in the environmental covenant, it's prohibited unless approved by CDPHE and the Spano property owner or the landfill operator. So that was a request in 2017 and it was denied in September and the applicant is appealing that decision. Staff would also like to note that the letter submitted by the applicant from CDPHE, which is dated October 2nd of 2017, which provides additional information. According to the timeline staff obviously did not review that information prior to our decision making, so just to clarify some of those timelines there. So again, when we're reviewing the regulations in particularly criteria of approval for administrative relief, we go first to the purpose of that section of the regulations. Specifically landscaping is there to promote and enhance the county and provide a unique image. Protect public health safety and welfare, particularly by minimizing air, water, and visual pollution, reducing glare and heat absorption, breaking up large expanses of parking lot and promoting water conservation. And as you can see on the site visit pictures, there are large expanses of parking lot on these sites and it is surrounded by multiple frontages that are highly visible to the public. So we do have minimum requirements for each development. As we noted, the landscape plan is required with that building permit and is reviewed subsequently and concurrent with that permit. The minimum required lot landscape for any property is 10%. Half of that requirement must then be installed along the right of way. We also have additional requirements dictating the minimum amount of living material and the maximum amount of non-living material. And by non-living material that would include rocks, mulch, or other again non-living vegetation. So the purpose is to again provide for a majority of living landscape ground cover. And again, as noted, we have irrigation requirements and survival standards in our code. When looking at the administrative relief section, this does allow flexibility based on the specific site circumstances. However, it specifically states that requirements are not to be reduced without compensation. And that's why we have these criteria to see if the strict application is unreasonable. If the property has extraordinary physical circumstances, and if the proposed administrative relief request is still in keeping with the intent of our landscape regulations. In addition to our criteria of approval, we have three policies and priorities of the county when reviewing administrative relief requests. And as noted, the number one is buffering adjacent residential with this site does not have. Number two is maintaining an attractive appearance along right-of-ways and softening visual appearance of parking areas and buildings. And again, these are particularly important to this site and relevant to the request. and the public health care and the public health care and the public health care and the public health care and the public health care and the public health care and the public health care and the public health care and the public health care and the public health care and the public health care and the public health care and the public health care and the public health care and the public health care and the public health care and the public health care and the public health care and So this is the westernmost parcel. So as you can see, there was clustering of the shrubs in particular locations. And then on West 60 Second Parkway, there was some contouring of the land to provide for visual enhancement without providing trees. But there is other options available in terms of the landscape design. So the applicant, as provided in their analysis, says that the property has extraordinary physical circumstances due to the previous use of the properties of landfill and the environmental covenant. And particularly with restricted activities in irrigation, that the strict application of the regulations is unreasonable in this case and that the proposed plan does preserve the intent of the regulations by providing non-irrigated grass and boulders and that this type of landscape would not adversely impact a data property. So this is the applicants now, so this has provided to you. So again, when staff received their request to amend their plans, looking at the physical circumstances, it has been noted that the site was extensively graded prior to development, and I'll show you the grading plan next. But throughout the site, there was a range of coverage between two feet to 15 feet in depth. So staff determined that there is adequate additional fill material on top of the protective landfill cover that could support landscaping. In addition, CDPHE had requested the updated site plan showing soil thickness. According to the October letter that had been provided but prior to that it was not provided to staff for review. The materials that we did receive as part of the amended requests were unclear in terms of the soil thickness. During several of the conversations and meetings with the applicant to discuss required landscape and the particular circumstances of the site, alternatives were often discussed, such as Birmingham, above ground planters. However, the applicant has rejected all of those proposals, even stating that the weight of the planters would overburden the landfill. Given that the site is developed with two buildings of over 20,000 square feet a piece, as well as parking, staff determined that. Above ground planters would not pose an additional physical hardship or risk to the property. And again, with the irrigation CDPHE initially approved the temporary irrigation plan, and although irrigation according to the covenant would also require approval from the landfill operators, staff has not seen any correspondence to date that would suggest those other property owners or parties involved in this case would deny or not allow irrigation. We have not seen that. It has only been alleged to date. Second, when reviewing the intent of our regulations, of course the proposed plan with only native grass and really nothing above ground does not provide visual enhancement or mitigation. As we've seen from some of the pictures this area is going to be heavily trafficked by both vehicles and pedestrians and it is very important to provide a pleasant pedestrian experience to create an environment where people will use multimodal transportation, walk to these sites and businesses that will be developed in the area, especially with RTD coming online. We've seen from the previous landscape plan that the site can be adequately landscaped with alternative design options. Draw tolerance species are another option as well. Irrigation can be provided, as we've mentioned, through various approval mechanisms, as well as specialty systems, such as the one initially proposed in 2016. There are systems that can monitor precipitation so that they do not turn on and add additional moisture to the soil. So there are options as well for irrigation. And again, particularly ensuring that with any administrative relief plan that is approved, that it supports our policies and goals of creating attractive appearances in the county and softening the visual appearance of parking areas and buildings which this site is primarily consisting of. So this is the grading plan that was approved in 2015. So this is the grading plan that was approved in 2015. So as you can see, there is a range of coverage and soil thickness added to the site. So on the western end, two to three feet, as you move into the middle, 8, 10, 15 feet, and then on the eastern side, that was actually where some of the material was taken out. So again, staff does understand that all areas of the site may not be appropriate or eligible for landscaping, but there are areas that can accommodate for landscaping. And so again, just to look at a few other site pictures, this is from West 60 Second Parkway, looking northeast, so this is on the RTD side. So essentially this is almost what the site would look like in the spring with maybe this brown area looking a little greener but really not much more visual mitigation or enhancement would be provided per the proposed plan. And this is looking west on 62nd Parkway towards the Pecos intersection. And again, from the pedestrian sidewalk into the site. So yes, there is quite a bit of grade that could help with some of these visual mitigation elements. And so this is looking east directly into the property. So as you can even see from this vantage point, your primary view is of the parking lot. And then this is as you're traveling on pay ghosts towards the frontage road. And again as we start to view the property from I-76. So the middle parcel which is the largest of the three, has zero landscape improvements and would primarily be a parking lot with a variety of storage options that are part of the applicant's business. And then this is looking south at the property as well. And this is from the front-end road, so this is just another perspective a little bit closer to the property as well. And this is from the front-edge road, so this is just another perspective a little bit closer to the property. So there are some topography changes in the area, but again, this essentially would almost be the original approval versus the proposed, a minimum of 10% is required. So on this property, that'd be roughly 45,000 square feet, and they had proposed over that up to 37%. And they had chosen their buffering option, the width of their buffer yards, and within the code, it also specifies how many trees and shrubs would be provided, and that buffer. So as you can see, additional shrubs were provided to compensate, and so you can see just above that, how many trees and shrubs are required, and how many they provided in addition. And so this was part of staff's original analysis that they were still providing above ground vegetation that would meet the intent and purpose of our landscape regulations. This is the same table of the proposed landscape plan. So while it contains the same area, square footage of raw land. There's absolutely zero trees and or shrubs provided. And so I have several images of the, again, the approved plan just for comparison and then the proposed. So really the proposed plan, there isn't really anything to view as it's just native grass. But this is what it could look like, and this is with staff's denial and upholding the decision, this is the landscape plan that would be required, and this is what it would look like from these different vantage points. Again, from that lapan, not one of the major corridors, so there was less shrubs provided on this side of the plan. But then as you moved, especially along West 60 Second Parkway, which is the main corridor and entrance into the site, that was again part of the clustering, the flexibility of that landscape site plan to create the most visual enhancement along these particular areas. And then the proposed plan would have no trees or shrubs here. So again, just to quickly review that in order to approve administrative relief or particularly looking to ensure that the requirement being requested for reduction is also being compensated and that the strict application is not unreasonable and the intent of our landscaping regulations is preserved with the proposed plan. So tonight there are staff recommendation but also options available to the Board of Adjustment. Staff would recommend that the Board denies the applicant's request. Essentially, this would uphold the staff determination and enforce the previously approved landscape plan, which included the shrubs and temporary irrigation. Alternatively, the board tonight may approve the applicant's request, which would overturn the staff determination and approve their proposed landscape plan with the non-irrigated native grass. So that will conclude my presentation. I will be happy to answer any questions. and approve their proposed landscape plan with the non irrigated native grass. So that will conclude my presentation. I will be happy to answer any questions. If you do have anything specific to the landfill or anything related to the state's approval or involvement, there is a member of CDPHE also here tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any additional comment from the public? Does anyone out? All right. So I'm open from a motion from the board. I close it now to the public Well, I'd like to I'd like to ask the person who's in charge of the call the public health I didn't know if I was a part of the public or not. My name is Kurt Stovall, C-U-R-T-S-T-O-V-A-L-L. I'm an engineer in the permitting unit in the solid waste unit at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. I've been involved with this landfill for many, many years, but at the state I've been involved with this landfill since 2009. I did have a couple of comments that I thought might be helpful to maybe clarify some of the testimony that I heard tonight and then obviously I'm available for questions as well. So if you'd like me to run through a few of those, I'd be happy to do that. So I would like to just point out that the question with trees and shrubs is not a pertinent issue to the state. It's not required by our regulations. Our regulations require vegetation primarily to prevent erosion, erosion control. So I'd like to make sure that that's clear on the record. We don't have a strong opinion about the trees or shrubs. We have reviewed a couple landscaping plans and have provided our comments and approval on those and we're not opposed to the trees and shrubs in certain areas. I would like to speak to the environmental covenant. I believe if I understood correctly, Miss Berger said that irrigation can't be permanent. And the environmental covenant doesn't speak to the permanency of the irrigation. It just speaks to irrigation plans and plans for irrigation need to be approved by CDPHE, which would be as part of a written plan. We've spoken to permanency of irrigation in some of our correspondence. And that was more related to the proposal set forth by the applicant. They had talked about temporary irrigation in terms of installing underground pipes and having the irrigation in place for one year. And then removing those underground pipes after the vegetation is established. and then removing those underground pipes after the vegetation is established. So our approval of their original application contemplated their application and not the state's application which was installing underground pipes and removing it after a year. Our more, when we have spoken towards permanent irrigation, our thought on that was buried pipelines where you couldn't see leakage very readily. Irrigation on a timer system that would operate during rain and that sort of thing. And I think Miss Berger mentioned and Miss Collins may have as well, transient type of irrigation such as water trucks or maybe above ground piping, where you could monitor leakage that could last many years could be part of a plan and it could be applied as needed. And I think that would get to one of your comments and questions as how do you maintain the vegetation in drought periods. areas. There was mention of enforcement action. We do have ongoing enforcement action. It is related to groundwater. And it's a serious issue. We don't view properly operated temporary irrigation as being consequential to the groundwater issues. And so again, our written letters that we've provided up to now still apply in terms of the temporary irrigation. Ms. Berger, if again if I understood her correctly, suggested that every time the owner desired to do some irrigation that they would have to notify the Spano Parties and the State and BFI. And we wouldn't view that as needed. Under the covenant we approve plans. And so the covenant could have a plan that would account for some intermittent properly run irrigation that could last over a significant amount of time. And again, we can't speak to the Spano Party, so in BFI they would have to review those that plan and approve it. But as Ms. Collins stated, neither BFI nor Spanoes has opposed the current plans. I believe there was a comment made at one point that there were proposals by CDPHE for landscaping berms. We didn't propose landscaping berms. Those were proposed by the applicant and we approved those minor detail. I think there was a comment made that there wasn't, there didn't have to be excavating to construct the buildings and there was a substantial amount of excavation to get utilities in and the light. But that was under our oversight and done in accordance with a CDPHE approved plan. There was a question raised which I think I already addressed is how do we ensure vegetation survives. That's one of the things that CDPHE during its inspections reviews and if vegetation does die out there's a requirement for re-vegetation and continued maintenance of that vegetation. Ms. Collins mentioned that there was a substantial amount of fill imported to the site, but it was for site regrading. It wasn't necessarily to cover the leachate. Miss Berger mentioned the illegal dumping that had gone on the BANBerry property. And CDPHE's position was if that illegal dumping was removed from the site, the leachate problems would mostly be mitigated. And so our preference was not for a lot of fill to be imported, but we approve the fill. But I just want to make that subtle clarification that the soil import was not to mitigate the leachate problems. And so those were some of the observations that I made listening to the testimony and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. My question, for instance, something like drip irrigation wouldn't add a lot and can be a permanent solution for at least shrubs and trees, correct? We would agree with that. There, with one limitation, there are parts of the site We would agree with that. There, with one limitation, there are parts of the site that only have two feet of soil cover over the waste material. And those areas are primarily along 60 second parkway. On the north side of the site, and the north side of the site and the west side of the site there's substantial cover which would accommodate trees and shrubs and long term drip irrigation. And then I just wanted to clarify. So in terms of the irrigation, you were saying to the permanency of it, you guys aren't necessarily against the deep, unmonitored type irrigations of pipes and stuff being very deep in, but one that would be kind of above ground intermittent, you would be in support of. Yes. Did I get that right? You know, we wouldn't be a post to it. You know, we've gone on record that we, you know, permanent irrigation is not something that we're supportive of. But when we think of permanent and as we spoke to permanency that was more related to exactly what you're talking about. Buried sprinkler systems on a timer, over time they leak, you get valves leaking and sprinklers going off during rainstorms, you get the ground oversaturated that sort of thing. I think a perfect, a better solution for us would be something like a water truck because then even a drip above ground drip irrigation system, you know, potentially could be running during a rain storm, but you're not going to be running a water truck in times where the trees and shrubs don't need water. And of course, I'll just circle back around to the very beginning from the state health department regulatory perspective. Native grasses meet our regulations. But our regulations typically don't contemplate redevelopment. But our regulations, you know, typically don't contemplate redevelopment. All right. Now, as far as the board, we do understand that we have, this is the state's regulation and then we have the counties. So I just don't want them to be mixed up. All right. Any additional questions or comments? Yeah, could we make a few comments in response to Mr. Stovol's test to me? Sure. And as the owner would also like to make a couple comments. The attorney mentioned initially at this particular point, you know, the questions can go back and forth. Okay. Thank you. who's going to go back and forth. Okay. Thank you. So Mr. Stovall covered quite a bit of ground there, so I'll try to make my comments follow his and also wanted to comment a couple of things that Ms. Collins brought up. So I think we need to keep in mind what is the board is looking at here tonight. And Mr. Stovall talked a lot about what could happen and what couldn't happen and some proposals out there. But you know as I understand there's really this proposal before the board that contemplates something that we think meets the requirements. And, you know, if the board wants us to go back and work with staff on something different, I think that is within your authority. But I just want to be careful that we don't get too far a field of what could happen as opposed to the consideration of what's before the board. So one of the things that Ms. Collins talked about was the soil thickness. And I think that information was eventually provided. There was some as-built drawings being prepared. And as Mr. Stovall indicated, and as I testified to the soil thickness along 62nd, there is the area I believe that has just a little over two feet of fill. And so those would be the areas where any sort of plantings that could potentially penetrate the cover, that would be the riskiest place where those would be planted. As far as the overburdened, I know it sounds kind of counterintuitive to think that a planter could add more overburden to the property when we're already put these buildings on there. I would just tell you that everything about this site has been very highly monitored in terms of fill being brought in. There's various ground water monitoring wells on site, pizometers that measure the ground water level under the site. And one of the requirements of the regrading plan was that if the groundwater level reached a certain height, certain elevation, that the redevelopment would stop. And so the addition of those planters or berms, while it might not seem like an awful lot of weight. You know, it does run the risk of adding additional burden to the property that could trigger some of these groundwater monitoring well requirements that we currently have under a regrating plan which we're hoping to close out soon. And then the specialty system, I just want to talk a little bit about what exactly the environmental covenant says. And so I'm just going to read it to you again and this is recorded in the county records and it says, irrigation of the landfill cover is prohibited. Except as approved by the department after notice to the Spano parties and BFI. Now Mr. Stovall talked about well, there could be a plan. We could do this, we could do that. I will just tell you as we stand here tonight, there is no plan. There is no this and that. There is only a letter from CDPHE which says the department has not approved a plan for permanent irrigation at the BGE property. Therefore, under the requirements of the environmental covenant, a permanent irrigation system is prohibited at the BGE property and the irrigation system that was proposed in the initial request for administrative relief was to be removed after one year. And our position is after that one year, any additional irrigation of the landfill cover would be prohibited without the approval of CDPHE. Now, I mean, if that entails a long term plan, I don't know. All I know is that's not what's before us here tonight. Right now, there is no plan that's been approved by CDPHE beyond this specialty temporary irrigation system that is to be removed after one year. I think Mr. Eisenness wanted to make a few comments as well. I think that concludes my comments right now. Unless do you have any more questions? Okay, thank you. My question is, I mean, maybe there is no plan with Colorado Public Health now, but I mean, couldn't you, to meet Adam's county's requirements, couldn't you create such a plan and have them approve it? Well you could certainly make that a condition of your approval that we enter into some sort of negotiations with CDPHE for long-term irrigation. My question would be if we can't reach and something that's agreeable to the Spanel parties who have closure requirement obligations that we don't have, and that we feel puts the property too much at risk for a potential notice of violation, then we're in a position of having landscaping that was watered and established. And now we don't have an approved long term irrigation plan that would allow us to maintain that landscaping in accordance with the county's landscaping requirements. I understand that, but I mean, it doesn't sound as from what I'm hearing. It doesn't sound as though Spano and the other former property owner might even have a problem with it. It sounds like you have the problem, but did you even ask them about this long term plan for potential irrigation irrigation and the Spano parties were provided copies as they're required to be provided as was BFI. Mr. Spano died in September. I'm not sure who is responding to those sorts of requests at his office, but we have not received any input from them. Just seems like that could be pushed a bit to get there and put and allow you to do that. Let me look, Mr. the applicant speak. Again, my name is George Einsness. If I had to do this over, I would never try to develop a landfill. We bought this site, as many you know, it had the palladium on it. It was a disaster. We've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to redevelop this landfill. And I think the biggest problem I have today is we've been put between a rock and a hard spot where we're asked to plant vegetation and take water away from it and we all know that it will die. and take water away from it and we all know that it will die. I can't agree to something that upfront that I know I can't perform on. I can't keep trying trees or grass alive without water. When we look at this temporary thing that was approved at one point, a lot of things have happened during the construction in the last several months that really have, I guess, changed my mind on how we can work with this data development. There have us in a lawsuit right now where they're threatening to charge us $10,000 a day for water that is leaked out of this landfill. And yet when we build this thing, we're required to put certain covers on the site. We've got to put clay in and concrete and they're all worried about water running off a slope and penetrating the fill. And we spent lots of dollars to prevent that from happening. And yet depending on which way the wind is blowing, Mr. Stovall comes in here and says, oh, yeah, you can water right now. At the same time, he's in a lawsuit against me for water. I mean, I've never been in a position like this in my life. We've developed real estate all over this county, several other counties. Do we like trees and landscaping? We've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on landscaping. That's not the point here. We would love to have grass and trees and do everything that the county wants here. But we can't. We can't do that and be able to guarantee that it will survive and guarantee that we're not going to put water into this landfill. We're measuring these wells today and they're measuring them by the tenth of an inch of water goes up or down. You know, you talk about people coming into this site, where are they going to come to? They're going to come to the RTD site right across the street from us, which has, in my opinion, not very nice rock landscaping. They have rock in there, but no irrigated landscaping. What we're proposing to do, and if you looked at any of our properties, and what we would do with rock is substantially better looking than that. So I say, we're in a just a terrible position here. You look at trees on a landfill, if we do get them to grow, once they penetrate the landfill, they get into methane, and then they die. There was trees all along 62nd Avenue when we bought this property that had been there for six, seven years. Every one of them died. Every tree died. And they were mature trees, but once they wrote it into the, into the methane they died, we talk about watering this stuff with a water truck. If you guys have ever tried to take care of landscaping, can you imagine trying to water this development with a water truck in a sprinkler home? I mean, it would be, I get hired, you know, three landscapers full time and they might not get it done. I mean, it's not, I could hire three landscapers full time and they might not get it done. I mean, it's not even reasonable. So, I mean, we want to make this a good look inside. I think we can do that with what we're proposing. We can do it with some non-irrogated bushes. I just came from an annual meeting down in that lease building and everybody said, it wouldn't be nice if we could have some trees here I see that would be but we can't I mean it's it's not feasible So we're looking at other types of landscaping that that would be appeasing to the public and I think can make the site look good, but I mean the site is what it is. It's a landfill. I can't change that I mean, the site is what it is. It's a landfill. I can't change that. So I guess I would ask your consideration here tonight to look at the position that we're in today. And it's not a fun position. It's not about money. It's not about how much it's gonna cost. We'll spend more money hauling large moss rock in from the mountains, and we can plant grass or trees from. So it's not a financial situation. It's basically, what can we do on this site that will conform with what we have to do with CDHP, and what can we keep alive, and what can we make good for the county? And I say a lot of that has changed my opinion in the last several months with what's went on between us and in the health department and just the final construction of this project. So that's my position and I hope you would consider where we're at in this. But we appreciate you making a comment and we definitely will take it into consideration. I think Mr. Puppman, you had a question. The biggest problem I have is on that northern side, that's where the prevailing wind comes in. And if you don't have vegetation to keep the soil in place, you're going to have a lot of dust, especially when it gets to the point where we're in a drought standpoint. And then the health department is going to be coming in going all your violating PM 10 requirements or PM 2.5. It's like you're in a rock in a hard place. There's got to be a solution to this that can be made that everybody is happy, just denying this and not giving some ideas of what to do. I don't think is a good solution. I think there needs to be a solution where the public's health is looked at. The visibility of everybody driving on I-76 and Pecos doesn't have to look at dead grass everywhere. Something has to be done and there are people out there like up at CSU who can give you ideas or plants species that will take very little water and survive. And I think there's just something needs to be done. Right. This is an appeal. And right now what I see is that the board has two alternatives. The other first is the denial. And there's a, in our paper work, there is a, what happens on that denial. And then there's also the approval. And then what happens on that denial and then there's also the approval and then what happens there. But I will request from the attorney if there is other alternatives beside those. Mr. Bush, you're correct and so we're looking at page 7 of the staff report which I hope makes it pretty straightforward. So number one, the option if the applicant's request is denied, then the previously approved landscape plan that Ms. Collins has outlined remains in effect. And then if applicants request is granted, then the applicant's currently proposed landscape plan is what is in effect. Right, and it's my understanding that with the approval, our biggest hang up there is that there's no guarantee that the grass that he's going to put there will be there because there's no permanent irrigation system. Is that correct, Ms. Collins? So that is one of the concerns that was part of staff's analysis, yes. Okay. Yes, sir. Good grass on the slopes on the other side of 60 second partway on those slopes and we did a variety of native grass that was drought resistance and that grass has been in there now for probably four years I guess and it has survived well. So we put proper top soil in and we use the mat and the seed to get it started. We have not had a problem with that living. Now, if we get a two year drought, there's going to be a lot of other things that isn't living besides that. And of grass, I guess. But so far it's grown and we've maintained it. Thank you, that's important, I think. I've got a, I just want to ask the county attorney for clarification so Miss burger is referencing that in terms of compensation That there may or may not need to be compensation however staff said that there does need to be compensation And just wanted to get some clarification in terms of does there need to be compensation with these things or is there an option? Sure. And actually I'd like to clarify what I had just September of 2014, the board modified the suggestion of the staff. So that is something that could be discussed. Emily, can you remind us of where the regulation is that discusses? In terms of administrative relief, I'm just asking about. Yes. Let me pull that up one second. It's section 416-21. So in that paragraph, which is specific to administrative relief, it states that administrative relief is provided to our flexibility in the application of our landscape regulations when a standard is in applicable or inappropriate that a requirement is reduced without compensation. For example, granting a reduced buffer yard depth should be compensated by planting additional trees, shrubs, or other plants. So, again, when reviewing and specific language should not always mean specific to the applicant's proposal and the relief that had already been granted, which was a reduction of trees and shrubs that should have been installed to the amended proposal. Their request was to ultimately provide no landscaping and not have any compensation. So yes, the code says should not always mean, but a previous relief was granted and so in looking at that. And it does mean like eliminate. Right. Okay. Yeah, it sounds like legal lease to me. So I just wanted to clarification. So it sounds like there does need to be some compensation, but we can just have none. Right, and again, reviewing the intent and purpose of our regulations against what they're proposing. So it does always have to be considered in the context of what they are asking for. What is the requirement? What is being reduced? What is being compensated? What's the context of the area? The context of the site? So there are definitely a lot of factors, but yes, ultimately we would like to see compensation to still meet the intent of our regulations. Mr. Chair, if I may add to that, go ahead. So further to the criteria for the director to make or to grant an administrative relief. The code has three requirements. That is what the director also used evaluate in making his or her decision. And one of them is number two, which says the intent of the landscape in section and the specific regulations in question is preserved. So those are the requirements that we, the director have to use to make sure that they make, or heal him make a decision based on a specific criteria. So in addition to the first section that Emily described, which is a general criteria for grant and administrative relief, there are also three specific criteria that the Director has to use as well. Mr. Irons, I've been where you are between the rock and hard place, between County, City, and State Governments as a senior project manager and trying to solve these things. Is there no way that your group can't work with a county and come up with something reasonable? I personally don't like a one year put the irrigation in and then pull it out. That, just like you said, that doesn't accomplish anything and doesn't make the overall look of your property. Is there no way that we can come to some kind of an agreement here? Because if you could put, you approved at one time and a vegetation plant and now you're coming back with no vegetation and zero escape. Is there not something we can do? Well, there is vegetation. There's there would be a lot of native grass, tremendous amount of native grass and we would we looked at putting in non-earguided desert type shrubs and that you know that would survive without water cactus and so far. Yeah And and I will say I'm not opposed to some Compensation or something for this. It's not a financial deal. It's It's I can't do something that doesn't I don't I don't want to agree with something with you or anybody else that I can't move up to in it while I don't know that we are in a position to other than compensation by providing. It doesn't tell you whether it's monetary or, but it indicates its additional vegetation in other areas to compensate for what was gonna be. I would be happy to buy a tree that'll live someplace. I really feel like there's got to be something that you can sit down with staff and work out something now. The state has said basically we've kind of given our guidelines and everybody's going with them. So it sounds like for right now the state's approving whatever's going on here and that you two can get together and work something out. We'd certainly like to try and do that. I mean, that's, that to me sounds like the efficient thing to do. I mean, logically, we shouldn't need to be here. You guys can work this out. All right. Mr. Stanfield, what we're going to do now is we will, if there's additional clarification needed, but with Mr. Stanfield's statement, I would think that it might be good that the board at least may be craft of motion, but if you are not in agreement with that and you want to make another comment, please do. I certainly support the board making a motion in response to Mr. Stanfield's statement. I just wanted to clarify that in 2014 the compensation, I believe was a donation of landscaping to the county to be used at other sites. But I don't know if that's an option that the county still would consider at this point. Is there a possibility of the areas they're talking about needing the most landscaping is the two foot cover? Is there a possibility of, you know, burming some of those areas so that there's four feet in some areas and one foot in another and maybe putting some of the shrubs there and native grass? And I mean, it is a little concerning to have just native grass. But if some of the topography could be adjusted with the same amount of fill and put shrubs on the higher part where there'd be greater fill. I mean, is that a possibility? Something like that? So I can't really answer that question specifically because it would require CDPHE to approve a change to our regrading plan. So the grades that you see out there right now is what's been approved by CDPHE, but to get back to Mr. Stanfield's comment, you know, if the board wants to craft a motion to send us back and consider those options, we're certainly willing to do that. My question is, it seems as though staff has suggested things like the above ground planters, drought tolerant trees, and your response to that is you guys are more worried about the weight that it might put on the soil. Staff also mentioned that given the two buildings that are there along with parking, I mean, you know, that's adding a significant amount of weight there. Could there not be specific drought tolerant trees or some kind that could accommodate the vegetation needed to be placed there. Because I mean this is going to be a pretty high traffic area given the RTD, parking ride and such. And so I mean like many of my colleagues have suggested I mean it can't just be barren and rock and grass. I mean I feel as though that's the easiest thing to do because you kind of just put it there and you kind of don't have to maintain it. And although, Mr. Ayesis, I'm sympathetic that you are in such a position that trying to redevelop a landfill has caused a great deal of stress to you. Unfortunately, I think that's just the nature of that beast given its history. But I don't see at least right now anything wrong with the previous approval that you guys had, along with staff's recommendation of using above ground planters and specific species of trees or shrubs or some kind as opposed to just having nothing. So I think two things just to clarify, there's not nothing there, but I understand that there's not trees proposed along 60 second And I think some of the other comments that you made you know hearken back to mr. Stanfield's comments about you know Could there be some sort of motion to have us go back and try again? And and we're open to that so and we're open to that. You open the door. I'm not sure if I may jump in. So the specific code requirements for an appeal of administrative decision is the board has make a decision whether staff interpretation of the code was made in an arrow or the board can modify our decision. It's not up to the board to design the site and how the landscaping can be arranged. So that's what I recommend the board stick to. Okay. Very good. I will accept the motion from the board. I will close it to the public and then we will accept the motion from the board. I will close it to the public and then we will accept the motion. Yeah, the question is that correct? We've got one more question. Are we discussing a continuance? I think it's fine if we have some sort of emotion. I just want to understand and have everyone understand what we're actually contemplating. We can be back here. And what the options are. I wanted it to understand really what we're trying to get to. I know we want the vegetation, but it seems as though the staff and the applicant have discussed this. So by us putting a continuance on it, by us, a crafting emotion that says they have to get back together what's the end result that we are looking for as a board? We don't wanna come back. I think it goes back. I think not a hit it on the head. I mean, we're here to decide did staff error in their interpretation and I think if we can bring it back to that in regardless of You know plans and whatnot. I mean today is about did staff error plain and simple? There's no air in interpretation then I, unless we just want to continue to discuss it without having a real in, I will really entertain a motion. And then we can have a discussion after that motion. We have a motion. Mr. Mr. I have a motion to look we've done in one other case. No, this is an appeal. So remember that this is different than just a hearing. To have it tabled. Go back to staff and they have to look at it and work it out. And I got one rather, I'm going to say a unique idea. Trees have a tendency to get roots that go down into the waste area. This is going to sound real strange. Up in the mountain in other area, I've seen fake trees. For telephone service, I've seen it in California with palm trees. Could that occur to reduce some of the feelings of having trees? Okay. I think we were given some specifics. I really would like to for us to stick with those. Here's our two required. Mr. Stanton, please. So I really would like for us to stick to those guidelines that have been given to us. So if you we don't understand the guidelines please ask the question and then I'm sure that you can answer it. Otherwise, I really would appreciate a motion from someone on the board. So I don't have their case number, but I would make a motion to deny applicants request. And that is Mr. McEury for your benefit, VSP 2017-0040045. Thank you. We have a motion before the board. Do we have a second? I will second that motion and it's open for discussion. I think the biggest thing is so say, of a permanent irrigation system. Staff has recommended that they have their alternatives, they've worked with you guys in the previous approval and that there's no need to amend your request. And so therefore, I don't think that their interpretation of this process is an error and hence why I've made the motion to deny. I think there are feasible alternatives that they have recommended. I don't see an issue with weights given that the two structures and whatnot way probably a considerable amount. And in terms of shrubs or trees, I mean I'm sure there are some species out there that can accommodate the county's requirements and see no need to amend this appeal. Which is my comment. Any other comments or discussion? Mr. Stanfield. On the question. Ms. Collins, is there some way that you guys can work with them to get this done? So we have tried to work with the applicant several times through the course of their development and ultimately. So if we, if we deny this and, and you have agreed to a tree shrub and, and temporary irrigation formula, you guys can work this out. Miss, my, my, let me answer my question, but such a, so yes, your denial tonight doesn't stop the applicant from submitting a new site plan tomorrow of asking for a new administrative relief. And so your decision tonight is just based on the decision, the determination, but then there is still a cause for the applicant by my understanding from staff. It's been a little bit difficult coming to kind of an agreement, but I believe that So a cause for the applicant by my understanding from staff is it's been a little bit difficult coming to kind of an agreement. But I believe that the applicant seems willing to work with staff to find a solution that actually needs a code requirement and also media intent. So your decision tonight doesn't stop them from applying for something to my comment to my fellow board members is that if we approve the applicants request I'm not happy with the zero escape and I think that they can work this out. So I'm gonna I'm gonna vote to to deny this out so I'm going to I'm going to vote to deny. Seeing there no other discussion I would like to have a roll call on the vote. Mr. Stamford. Mr. McCurry. Yes. Mr. Bush. Yes. Mr. Clavidy. Yes. Mr. Putnam. Yes. And I vote yes. is calamity. Yes. Mr. Putnam. Yes. And I vote yes. We have a unanimous vote. Your application has been denied. And as mentioned, you do have that right to resubmit with a different landscape idea. All right. Thank you very much for for your time tonight. We have a great experience and we have a great experience and we have a great experience and we have a great experience and we have a great experience and we have a great experience and we have a great experience and we have a great experience and we have a great experience and we have a great experience and we have a great experience and we have a great experience and we have a great experience and we have a great experience and we have a great experience and we have a great experience and we have a great experience and we have a great experience and we have a great experience and we have minutes apparently okay I will accept the motion on the minutes it that's okay Thank you. What was the date of the minutes? I'll make a motion minutes the last meeting be approved Was that close enough that works? December 7th. Thank you. All right. All in favor? Yes. Yes. All right. All right unanimous that do It is a minister or approve. And then we have one last issue and that is the approval of the bylaws. Did everyone have an opportunity to read through the bylaws and I found nothing that bothered me. All right. I will accept the motion to approve. I'll also move. Second. And second by Mr. Puffman. And do we have any nays? All yeas, it is approved. All right, thank you very much. The hearing for today is adjourned. I heard this meeting closed. That's right. Thank you.