Elbert County - Planning Commission - 9/22/2026 transcript

Good evening everybody. Um like to uh open up the meeting, the plan commission meeting for September 22nd, 2026. It's now a few minutes before 6, but we thought we start off with the training. Michael Barry from the Elizabeth Parks and Recre District. Michael. >> And just a reminder to all the um participants in the audience, please turn off your cell phones. But thank you for the opportunity. Jennifer invited me to come and uh just talk with you guys a little bit, explain kind of what we do, who we are, and certainly what we look at as we're doing um as we participate in the in the plan review process.

And so, um we are uh the Elizabeth Park and Recreation District. Uh we are a Colorado special district. So, we are our own elected board. Um, our next elections are coming up in May of 2027. Had a number of members in town for a while. At least a couple will probably be transitioning off. Um, but we do um the we pretty much service the eastern part of the of the county. And so if you think of we go down to 106, County Road 106 to the south.

So not all the way down to Albert, but a little bit further south obviously than Elizabeth. Um, come all the way out to road county road 33 um to the east. That's about the farthest east we go. And then um Connor Road all the way up to Con County Road 194 up to the north. Um there's a little carve out if you take um County Road um what was it? 170 174 to 21. So that northwest corner of the county is kind of not part of the district, but everything else up to 194 and then of course out to Delbert Road out to the west.

So that pretty much comprises the the uh the boundaries of these park and recreation district. Um as you guys know there's about 29,000 people I think estimated to be in the county and we're about probably about 18,000 of those live in in in the park and within the park and recreation district boundaries. And so what we do is we obviously are responsible for managing public parks and resources. Uh we manage Evans Park, Casey Jones Park, and Simmeron Park, Simron open space within the within the Simmeron neighborhood, and we're responsible for managing those properties.

We uh coordinate programs and special events for the community, youth sports, adult sports, um some arts and culture type stuff on on on occasion. And we also within the last couple years started providing child care services out of the schools. And so out of Singing Hills Elementary and Running Creek Elementary, we provide before and after school service. um summer day camps um during the summer and um and some services when when parents are having workshops and typical out of school days when kids aren't in school, we're providing alternative care for families that need that.

[snorts] Um so >> just just out of curiosity, how many participants do you have in the before and after care? Yeah. So we have um right now at Singing Hills we're averaging about 85 kids a week and so that's across five days and so 85 divided by five about that many kids a day be about 15 to 18 15 to 20 depends on the day. Uh at Running Creek we we saw as you guys may be aware there's a significant decrease in the enrollment there.

This year they lost about 70 students from last year. So we're trending a bit lower there. We're averaging between um 7 to 12 kids a day at Running Creek for after school. And right now there's no before school at Running Creek. There just hasn't been a demand for it. Um last year there was quite a bit of demand. We did it particularly with the late starts on Thursdays. There was a big need for that early before school care. >> So but at uh Singing Hills, we average about 25 to 30 kids a week for before school care. >> Okay.

Um so when we you know our our role obviously is in addition to managing park facilities and and lands and resources and running programs and events um we also responsible for certainly the the planning and and uh strategic planning and upkeep of the park system and and certainly working with with the county on plan reviews and the town of Elizabeth on on plan reviews, you know, to try to help ensure that residents maintain a quality of life in terms of parks and recreation amenities and resources.

Um, you know, our big focus now is our board has talked about a recreation center and asking voters to potentially fund a recreation center. We're talking with the town of Elizabeth about potentially combining that with that senior center that they've been proposing and looking at for a while. So, we think there's could be some potential cost savings and sharing a foundation and a roof for those two facilities. And then we're also addressing um developments in the northern part of our district.

And so, we look at everything above County Road 150 is kind of that northern part of the district. Certainly Independence, Spring Valley, um EC West coming on board, um potentially Blue Sky Ranch and some of those other developments. Um the Ridge of Spring Valley and so really trying to plan and accommodate. As you guys know, most of our resources for the district are located in the town of Elizabeth. In fact, almost all of them, well, I say that, but none of them are actually within the town of Elizabeth.

They're all kind of outside the town limits, but essentially located there in Elizabeth area. And so we really recognize the need to start to get some development done for the northern area of this district. Um we've been talking with the county about 150 acre parcel that uh that the county owns. There's currently a fire district on that office. It's just south of Spring Valley and the commissioners have expressed a desire and potentially work with us on developing a park site there to start to serve those residents with similar amenities that we have here closer to town in Elizabeth.

Um so things that we're looking in plan review. I mean, we we we look at NRPA standards and and you know, NRPA is the National Recreation and Park Association, and they certainly put out a, you know, an index that shows, you know, based on a number of residents you have in a community, the the number of uh park and recreation or the square footage of parks and that type of things that that's that's a standard, right, that they've developed.

And so, we certainly consider those when we work with planning and review. Um, you know, we don't have a lot out here, parks and recreation, and it's not uncommon for a lot of rural communities. it's just not it's more of a secondary thought to kind of focus on the essentials and some of the other stuff just doesn't get addressed. And so we're trying to address some of those things, things like bike parks, a rec center, some of the things that we're hearing our residents ask for and saying that they want in the community.

Um and up again up in the northern part of that district, we don't have anything right now. And so um is it realistic to expect all those people to come down to Elizabeth Town Center for for their sports and programs and athletics? Um you know, that's the way it is now. we'd like to give them the opportunity to have that recreation a little bit closer to their homes. Um, you know, we look at, you know, just the homes that were approved in that area so far.

You know, we're looking at maybe between um EC West and um EC East in the future and and Blue Sky Ranch potentially and you know, sub you know, three to 6,000 homes depending on on how you look at that. And um you know, and these developers didn't build any ball fields and we certainly don't fault them for not building ball fields. ball fields in a neighborhood and some of these developments, they just don't fit and they focus on pocket parks and um you know some open space and sometimes some trails.

U but these residents need other amenities. They need soccer fields. They need baseball fields. NRPA recommends that you have a soccer field for every a baseball field for every, you know, 2100 people in your community. So um right now we don't have any up there, you know, similar for a soccer field for about every 3,500 people, we should have a soccer field. And so those are the amenities that we're trying to be focused on including in that 150 acre plan.

And again, we know why developers don't put a soccer field in their development or baseball field. It's it's it's tough programmatically and it's not easy to grow grass. And so um and it costs and so we realize that's our responsibility. And so we try to work with developers, make recommendations on things that we think may be needed. Um we provide that input, participate with the county in the process, and we're fortunate to be able to do that.

Um we've had generally good relations with most of the developers. Um generally um some are more willing to um help develop park and recreation infrastructure than others, but um we're going to continue to ask the same things of the developers and try to make the case for why these things are needed. Um I could answer any questions that you guys may have at this time. If you're looking for more detail on anything, I could provide that. >> Any questions from the group? >> How many folks are on your board?

We have five members on our board and at times we've um had open seats and um many of our you know to be honest we haven't had um since I started with the district in 2016 we haven't had a competitive board election. It's either been one person running for one seat, two people running for two seats or a vacant seat and then the board appoints someone to that vacant seat. We wish we had more participation obviously, but that's what >> Are those seats based on uh regional needs or is it kind of broken up? >> Yeah, absolutely. >> They they are not they are all open seats and so um we don't have regions or districts or anything like that.

They're just all open seats. Anyone in the district Yeah. can run for those seats. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. You're welcome. >> Okay. Um what's your what's your major source of funding? >> Yeah, great question. We so we we generate about half of our revenue comes from taxes. So we have a mill levy of 2.466. So fairly low, but I'm not going to dismiss anything, you know, as far as taxes in this economy, it's tough for everybody.

So um 2.466 466 mill levy and then we which generates about a million dollars for us a year and then we have we generated about another additional million dollars in fees and charges for programs campground all that type of stuff. Um child care was a big boost for us. I mean there's not a lot of money to be made in child care but it certainly boosted our revenues quite a bit. Obviously it raised our expenses but it's been a positive for us so far.

Okay. Um, I wanted to ask a little bit about just uh your process as a district when you get a request um as a referral agency and um input for projects. I know I've seen some of your guys' comments come through, particularly when it's larger developments, and I do appreciate those. So, I just wanted to encourage you to continue to do that because I I see the need that you guys have. And I also see it, you know, when you walk through neighborhoods that the neighborhoods of the past would typically have like a baseball diamond so that neighborhood kids could have a place to go play with their friends.

And we often don't see that. And some of these pocket parks are very, very tiny. And I've read that in some of the metro district's responses to developers and to their projects is this is such a tiny park and and I've walked through some of them even just you know here in Albert County there is a difference between like the traditional size neighborhood park that has like the slides and places to run around versus these pocket parks where I mean it's just it truly is like a tiny postage stamp.

So, I I do appreciate you guys advocating for that and I know when I see that you're advocating for that, I make sure to have that conversation with the developers, too. So, please continue to do that. But what I wanted to ask is just, you know, I know that there are also projects that come before you that maybe you don't issue a response on one way or the other. Um, and when when you don't do that, it is seen as a there are no objections because we got no response.

So, just wanted to talk through the process for you all as a district. What does it look like when you get that request for a response about a project and how do you decide whether or not you're going to respond or not to certain projects? Because it does matter and I just want you to know that as planning commissioners, we're looking to see what do the referral agencies say about the project that we're looking at today. >> Okay.

Yeah. Yeah. Great, great question. Um so typically when we get the referral from the u from the county I will review it and determine if it has um park any park or recreation implications a lot of the um a lot of the referrals that are sent our way may be a reszone for you know divide a 40 acre into 10 you know four 10acre lots or something like that and for those we typically it just doesn't have a lot to do with parks and recreation and so we typically don't provide comments for that and just say hey we really don't have any comments. ments.

Um we're really trying to look at spaces that will have um more of the planned um unit developments, but certainly anything else where they're recommending or proposing to have trails, pocket parks, anything like that. That's kind of um what we watch for and then we identify those and I share that information. I send the plans to our board members. Um we're fortunate we do have one board member with a former planner and um has worked as a planner for years with different municipalities and so he's kind of our lead and kind of taken that review and then we discuss them at um at a board meeting and then compile the comments and then I submit those. >> Yeah.

And also just wanted to get your feedback in the process. I I imagine that there are times that you're working with county staff. just wanted to get feedback from you on how those interactions are and if there's any ways that we can improve in our response time or um answering questions or addressing concerns that you have as a referral agency. >> Yeah. Yeah. It's it's it's certainly been a mixed bag over the years since 2016 since I've been here.

Um I think currently is the best it's ever been. Um I think the planning staff has been proactive and reaching out. they've been receptive to our requests to participate in different things and and really accommodating for us. And so I think I think the relationship is fantastic right now. Um and I expect it to continue to be that way. I think they um recognize the value that we can bring to some of these referral processes and and um and so we certainly appreciate that opportunity to provide that input. >> Yeah.

Great. Um, and then I was curious because obviously we're in the process of doing our, um, the the redo of our 20-year comprehensive plan. And so, um, amenities and recreational, um, opportunities has come up as an area where, you know, we identify, you know, what our strengths are and then also identify where we don't have um, much out there to offer. Um, and was just curious, and you know, this is probably more of a a question into internal conversations maybe that you guys have had at the district, but has there ever been discussion about broadening those borders of the district to serve maybe some of those more highly um, you know, inhabited areas of our county that you currently don't serve? >> Yeah.

Yeah, there has been some discussions about that. Um, uh, we're certainly open to that. Um, we've had I've had some some discussion with u past commissioners about that. Um, and they they kind of raise that as hey, would you guys be interested in that? Um, we certainly recognize the county doesn't have parks and recreation um, you know, in its in it necessary in its service plan. Certainly takes care of the fair grounds and and and and um and that area and does own some certainly some own some open space parcels um throughout the county, but doesn't necessarily have a direct focus on parks and recreation. and and and again that's not uncommon with with rural counties.

Um so yeah, we we certainly interested in trying to pick up as much slack as we possibly can u with the with with the um development code that's being developed and new standards in subdivision codes. U we would like to and and something I was going to talk to Jennifer about. probably a meeting I think this Thursday or next Thursday. But anyways, we have uh time to set up and kind of just talk a little bit and um and I was going to recommend or suggest or propose u because we recently completed a parks recreation open space trails master plan in coordination with the town of Elizabeth and the school district.

We kind of looked at all of our properties and um and so one of the things we'd like to talk with the county about is is exactly that is submitting some of the guidelines and recommendations that were u developed through that master plan process and see if they can be or adopted at the county level to at least try to help provide you guys some type of guidelines for what you may want to look for in future developments as far as parks and recreation improvements. >> That's great.

Yeah, I was just curious if if the district were to ever expand its district boundaries, what does that process look like? Is that something that you board of directors would vote on? Is that something you have to get approval for from, you know, higher up in your organization? >> It would be a process where um whatever area we were going to try to include within the district, the residents of that area would have to vote to be included within that district. and the corresponding mil levies to go with it. >> Yeah, exactly. >> Okay.

Yeah. Great. Well, thank you. I I appreciate all of that information. >> You're welcome. >> Thanks, folks. >> Yeah. Thank you, Michael, very very much. >> Yeah. >> All right. Right. With that, let's go ahead and call to order uh tonight's planning commission meeting for September 22nd, 2026. The time is now 6:16. And with that, um again, a reminder to turn off your cell phones, but let's go ahead and uh do our prayer and uh and pledge of allegiance.

Father, we're gathered here today with a shared responsibility to serve our community. We ask for your wisdom and guidance as we deliberate on important decisions that will affect the lives of the citizens of Elbert County. May we approach our tasks with integrity and a commitment to doing what's right. help us to listen to uh uh open minds of of diverse perspectives and may our discussions and and and decisions be rooted in fairness, respect and compassion.

Again, we thank you for the opportunity to serve and for the guidance that you offer. We also ask for your protection for those who serve our committee, our community, and our nation. Amen. 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. All right, Wendy, roll call, please. Roll >> call. Dan Guthrie >> present. >> Ken Mudson >> here. >> Dan McCallen.

Dan McCallen absent. Kyle Donardo >> here. >> Nicole Hunt >> here. >> John Gresham. John Gresham absent. DD shot. Grace DD shot. Grace absent. Robert Pulitic >> here. >> Kevin Kirkwood. Kevin Kirkwood absent. Vice Chairman, you have a quorum. >> Thank you very much. Staff, is there any reports? >> Yes, sir. Good or good evening, commissioners. Um, since your last hearing on September 1st, the board of county commissioners heard the Shepard Solar Project, the 1041 and SUR on September 9th.

They did vote to deny that project and the finalization of the resolutions is on the agenda for tomorrow's BOCC meeting. That is the only update I have for you right now. >> All right. Very good. Thank you very much. Um, at this time, uh, we open the floor for any citizens comments that is outside of today's agenda. So, if there's any citizens, and I don't think there are, um, we'll go ahead and close for citizens comments.

Um, next item, approval of meeting minutes for the September 1st, 2026 meeting. Has everybody had a chance to review? Are there any changes, edits, comments? Um, before we approve those minutes since I wasn't here, that's the one I missed, Jennifer. All right, I'll entertain a motion. >> Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the planning commission minutes from September 1st, 2026. >> I'll second. All those in favor? >> I >> opposed.

All right. Thus approved. Um so just a quick reminder for those listening in on tonight's meeting. uh as uh um as the planning commission, we are here to uh hear applications and review those applications. We're a pseudo judiciary committee uh to review it based upon the current rules and regulations that are associated with uh our building process here in the county, our permitting process here in the county. Um with that we'll have a presentation uh from staff about the uh proposed um um application.

We'll also hear comments from um um the citizens, any citizens that are here and then we'll also provide the opportunity for the applicant to answer those questions and or add color uh associated with the actual application itself. So with that, let's go ahead and start off. Danny, are you making the presentation tonight? >> I will be making the presentation tonight. Thank you. >> And then Danny, before you start, just for the record, um, for this Silver Buckle Ranch Tower, um, I am employed in the telecommunications industry, but I have no financial interest in this tower application or the applicant.

I'll review the application solely on the facts presented and within county regulations, remain unbiased and fair and will participate in this hearing. >> Thank you, K. >> So, all right. Well, I will begin here. Uh this will be a presentation for the silver buckle ranch tower special use by review and that is case SUR 2026002. Brief project summary to begin. This site is located on a 74 acre parcel at County Road 29 in Elizabeth, Colorado 80107.

It's the Silverbuckle Ranch. The site is zoned agriculture A and the request here is a telecommunications facility with a 110 ft tall tower and the associated telecommunications equipment on a 2,500 square ft leased area within that larger parcel. The applicant for this application is Mark Paya with Q3 Consulting and another member of their team here to support the application is Herb Contana. A little bit more about this project summary.

This is an Anthemet facility. Again, the applicant is Mark Pays with Q3 Consulting. Uh this application will not have any water or sewer associated with it and it does have very minimal traffic impact. This facility supports the wireless network in the area and emergency 911 services within Elbert County as a whole. A look at our location of this project. It is in the northwest quadrant of the county. It's about 3 and a half miles south of Arapjo County and 7 miles east of Douglas County.

Here's a zoning map for the project. Uh directly to the south is Sunount Meadows. It is north of that. Um and south about a half mile of Outback Estates. Directly to the north is a larger agricultural parcel. Uh here's another look an aerial of the property. You can see that 320 acre agricultural property to the north that has no structures. You have Sunount Meadows out to the east and south again and Outback Estates can be seen at the top of the picture there.

And one final aerial. This is the 74 acre parcel. Uh we'll move in uh with some different views of it from the ground, but this is a closer look of that 74 acre property. Uh named Silverbuckle Ranch. It has six non-residential buildings and a home. Uh look at the property. This is looking east towards the tower location. The tower would be located approximately 1,600 ft east of this location. So, uh somewhere just in front of that red barn.

You can picture uh it's a little bit difficult to see. Uh here's a the entrance to the Silver Buckle Ranch. Uh this is where the um driveway for the tower would be located. Also, the tower would be located approximately a third of a mile southeast of this gate. And then finally, the northwest corner of the property, looking southeast, again, a little over a third of a mile to the tower location. Moving into the site plan, uh we have some details here for you.

Again, it's a 50 by 50 premises that would be leased uh with telecom, excuse me, telecommunications equipment and the tower. Uh you can see the setback. So to the nearest property line on the west, it's 1,022 ft. Uh and then it's approximately another 500 ft to the road. That's where your uh 1 1600 ft measurement was given. um 425 ft north of Sun Country. There's that uh setback shown there. 1,047 also to Sunount and then 910 ft from that agricultural parcel.

You can see the road which would serve this tower uh marked in black there uh to highlight that. And then the uh least facility is shown in that red box in the middle. So a bit of project timeline. Uh this began with a pre-application meeting on January 21st that was followed by a community meeting April 28th of this year. And this project had two main review cycles. uh the first from June 11th to July 2nd and then a second review period to address some exhibit uh revisions from August 10th to the 24th.

Uh this project did meet all uh regulations for notice requirements with a mailed notice sent with a halfmile radius on September 9th, a public notice sign posted September 9th and newspaper notification in Elbert County News September 3rd. Here we are tonight, September 22nd, for the planning commission with the board of county commissioners public hearing scheduled on October 14th. All uh comments have been addressed by these review agencies.

Uh the main revisions included changes to the exhibit to meet county regulations and an agreement with core during the second review cycle. Core approves this su but the applicant will be required to provide core easements by separate document at the electric design. Uh pretty standard requirement from core there. In terms of public comment, again, there was that community meeting on April 28th. We did receive one letter on April 18th that expressed concerns about potential health effects of long-term close proximity to radio frequency RF and electromagnetic field exposure.

Uh that letter also expressed concerns about the visual and character impact on the rural community effect on surrounding property values and whether alternative sites or colllocation on existing structures was genuinely explored before selecting this location close to Sunountry Meadows. The applicant uh was asked to submit something with um electromagnetic uh emissions and they uh submitted a report on this radio frequency EM report as part of the application and that is included in your packet.

Um there was also a discussion during that meeting about the need for additional service in the area. It sounds like maybe uh some people did not have great sell service in the area at that meeting. Um from the notes I see um for approval criteria for all special use by review. We have eight criteria. I'm not going to read each one here to you today. Uh but these were included in your staff report. uh the first is that it is in harmony and compatible with the surrounding area.

The second is that no undue burden on infrastructure uh will be caused from this application. The third is C that it will not unduly increase traffic burden the existing road system. D it will not cause air odor, water noise or light pollution. E, whether all sanitation requirements have been met. F, that it is adequately landscape buffered or screened. G, that it is not detrimental to health, safety, and welfare of Elbert County residents.

And H, that all supplemental standards have been met. Uh we do have supplemental standards for uh basically antenna support structures which this is considered uh self-support antenna structure and uh they comply with those supplemental standards as well. So some considerations for your decision tonight. The first is that there are no outstanding objections from any referral agencies. The second is that uh it will not have any water usage and minimal traffic impacts are expected with this proposal.

Basically once a month uh maintenance visits from their staff. Uh third is that the proposed tower does greatly exceed required setbacks. Generally three to four times at least the required setbacks have been met. We have our basic agricultural set setbacks as well as tower falling setbacks. So it would have to be at least 110 ft from property lines. As you saw it is much greater than that. Um the third is that Sunountry Meadows residential sub subdivision is within relatively close proximity uh just about 500 ft to residences there to the south.

And the last is that the SUR does conform to our supplemental standards. We do have a few potential conditions of approval here. The first is that the applicant will be required to remove public hearing signs within 7 days of a decision by the board of county commissioners. The second is that the SUR will not become effective until all fees are paid, conditions of approval are met and the exhibit is recorded. Third is that recordation of all appropriate documents is to occur within 180 days of board of county commissioner approval.

The fourth is that a cost of construction statement shall be provided by the applicant to our department CDS within 45 days of board approval or before work begins whichever comes first. And that number five is that cost of construction fees which is 2% of all construction fees shall be paid following the board approval and prior to any work taking place or within 6 months of board approval whichever comes first. So a member of the applicant team is also present to speak and answer questions.

Uh I'm also available for questions. Thank you. Thank you, Danny. Would the applicant like to come up and add to that? >> Good evening. My name is Herb Quintana. I'm here on behalf of Anthemet. Uh I'm thank Danny for his thorough report. I don't necessarily have anything to add to that. Um so I'm losing my voice a little bit. Uh but I I will ask uh ask in answer any questions you ask. Sorry, it's the cold night. >> Yeah.

No, no worries. No worries. Thank you very much. Um, at this point I would normally open it up for public comment, but there is no public here. So, we'll go ahead and close public comment and open it up for board only discussion. So, we'll start with Nicole. >> G. Thanks. Um, I do have a couple questions. Um, but I'm really interested to hear if Kyle has any questions since he is an expert in this area. Um, but I guess my first question was just for staff.

I noticed um a discrepancy in the name of the application. On the agenda, it says 004, but um in the staff report it's 0002. So, just wanted to clarify what the name of the project is. The name of the project is Silverbuckle Ranch Tower and it is SUR 20260002. >> Thank you. Okay, great. Um so one question I have um is that the application says that the tower is designed for it could carry more than just you know the one carrier and that it could have like four additional wireless carriers.

And so one question I had is like once this is approved, assuming it's approved, what um would the process be by which new uh carriers are added to it or equipment is added to it or antennas? Um is there going to be is that going to happen without any more public hearing even if potentially it makes it taller or the footprint bigger? Can you speak to that? I think that's a better directive to the staff. >> Okay. >> So, colllocation on towers is possible.

Yes, it does not require any additional public hearing. Uh we have applications for colllocation. Uh you can find them on our website. It does require require engineer drawings and it does require staff review. Uh collocation generally does not make the tower taller. Uh, but there are additional antennas that can be placed on the tower if it's structurally sound. >> So, I know you were saying a staff review. Does that is it like a staff review and approval type of situation or is it they're just simply informing the county of what they're planning on doing? >> It's like it's a review and approval uh with an application fee. >> Okay.

So it is still getting reviewed um just internally at that point and four carriers would be fairly standard like that's not too much for a tower >> if it's nodding his head that >> was structurally designed. >> Yeah. If it's structurally able to support that weight >> and it wouldn't go any taller just potentially more stuff on the existing tower. That's correct. >> Okay. >> Part of the reason we asked for the height that we did was to accommodate the additional carriers.

Um, doesn't really do any carrier service to have their antennas, you know, at 30 feet or 40 feet. >> And does it does it change the footprint at the bottom of the tower? >> It does not. >> Okay. >> That's the reason for the 50 by 50. It's quite large. So, it can accommodate the ground equipment for the other carriers. >> Great. Great. Um, another question I had just had to do with the um the fire district not responding rattlesnake and wanted to ask um before staff can you clarify whether or not we have like reviewed that the that there's like good fire access and you know any hazards that could be addressed just because since we didn't have a response from fire department.

Yes. Yes. Has staff reviewed the hazardous potential issues? >> So, they were contacted twice. Um, there is a Tshaped turnaround that allows looks like uh based on the comments that the driveway would need to be able to handle the heavier vehicles was a comment from public works. and that uh there is a T-shaped turnaround at the uh basically the least area entrance. So there's a 50x50 lease area and then there's additional easements around it for access.

So there's one of those kind of hammerhead T turnaround spots for fire at the location. Uh it seems sufficient to me, but I'm not in the fire district, so I I can't give a definitive answer. Okay. And I wonder I wonder what the thoughts are. I mean, I would really love to have the fire department give feedback that it's safe and it works and it's good. So, I just wonder if that might even be worth having as an added condition to our potential approval or recommendation for approval that um that we get feedback from our fire department that everything is a-ok.

Okay. Um, the only other questions I had really had to do with kind of what happens at the end of the life of this tower, like if it no, if it becomes abandoned or is no longer in use, do we have any in place for how that would be basically decommissioned or who's responsible for it? Is that I didn't I don't think I saw anything like that in the application. So, I was wondering if maybe we could speak to that. Maybe it's not technically in our zoning rags for this type of a tower, but is that something that should be a condition?

Can I get some feedback? >> Uh, so it is a private lease. Uh, we don't have any decommissioning plan. So if the person, you know, Anthemet moves on and they take their equipment or abandon it, um, we don't have any decommissioning plan for this. um that the applicant might have something with the land owner in place, but we do not have a decommissioning plan for this project or a requirement. >> Is that something that's in the lease agreement? >> It is.

It's a long-term lease agreement and there is provision that when the lease expires that we will remove the tower. >> Okay. And is that the kind of thing that would travel if if this tower if your company sold it to someone else? >> Yes. All of those responsibilities would transfer to whoever the the owner is. >> Okay. And how just out of curiosity, how long is your you said it's a long-term lease, but is it >> 50 50 years? >> 50 years.

Okay. All right. Um that's that's all the questions that I have for right now. I'm going to pass it on to my colleague here. >> Hey, how are you? Just so Commissioner Hunts in form two on your height question. Technically, this tower can go up 20 feet in height and it's not considered a substantial change. So, just so you're fully aware that it does have the option to go 20 feet at a later date, which it I don't believe is a substantial change, but >> just colllocated. >> Yep.

Yes. >> Um, so that leads my first question. Why the windmill? >> Uh, it was for aesthetics. We're happy to remove it if you'd like. I think it's kind of >> Is that a staff requirement? No, I think it was just their plan that they thought the windmill looked good up there and it adds 10 feet to the tower. >> So, if we were if you wanted to remove that, would you do the towers 110 foot? Because that's how your that's how your application reads, right? >> Um Okay.

Because I just the ones off 470 just look terrible. >> Yeah, we're happy to. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Um so, for this I have two questions on your on the plans. One of them shows a Verizon microwave collocating onto the tower. Is that happening? Because someone another portion on your on your elevation sheet just showed it for future collocation. Didn't show. >> Yeah. So we don't have a need to deal with Verizon. However, they are the carrier right now and it's interested in locating on the tower. >> Okay.

So then are you guys planning to build the tower if there's not a collocation? >> Yes. >> So the tower will stand even without collocation. Then basically ready ready to ready to rent. Okay. >> Um so you guys are are you as a you guys are a tower company, correct? >> Correct. Are you guys proposing to already have the shelter or cabinet in place for that carrier? >> No. So most of the carriers now are just having outdoor equipment cabinets. >> So no no real shelters. >> Okay.

You guys providing any generator or anything like that? >> Uh no. The carriers would >> So you're just faux fence, faux wood fencing, and then uh the tower. Okay. Perfect. >> Right. So raid the compound, you know, rocket. >> Yep. >> Bring the power in, put it on the H frame, >> wait for the >> Okay. So you guys are going to work with the with the car company have that ready to go. >> That's right. Awesome. >> That is the part of the core easements that Tanny mentioned. >> Perfect.

And then who did your structural analysis? Was it T? >> That's a good question. I don't know the answer to that. It might be tower engineering. >> Who did a structural analysis? >> It might be tower engineering professional. >> Yeah, Trual. And is that for four macro carriers or was it? It is. >> It is. And then does that include a microwave or do you guys have plans to bring five to the top? believe it was run with one microwave at teeny tiny print like 80 ft. >> Okay, >> that was the Verizon one that was interested, right?

Okay. Is there fiber near the site? >> No, >> there's not. Okay. >> Um, how many alternative sites did you guys look at before finding this prospect? >> We looked at several, but this was the only one that really came to fruition. It's a good site. So, it's probably a good thing for you, right? >> It's a great site actually. I was going to say line of sight from that location. >> And it really is there to prevent coverage for all those new neighborhoods. >> No, I mean the placement.

I just wasn't sure. I mean, typically if you find a site like that, it's hard to find alternatives. >> Yeah. >> So, um >> I know someone who lives in Sun, >> they need it. >> Have you guys already done your NEPA section 106? >> No, we've not done that. >> Are you guys planning to do that after? Yes, after approval. >> And how about your FAA filing? >> It's after approval. >> Yeah, both those. >> Yeah. >> Um, the only other question I have is Nicole answered, but no, I think it's you guys found a great location.

So, >> thank you. >> Okay, your turn. >> Yeah. >> Go for it, Dan. >> Have to be smarter tonight. Thank you for coming to speak to us today. I missed part of the question about the generator. Is this planned to have a backup source and do we have any idea what kind of noise? >> So the backup generator >> concerns there might be Sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. >> No, just my concern is noise concerns for the generator. >> Backup generators would be carrier specific.

So if Verizon locates their antennas there, they would have the option to put the generator on. They're diesel generators uh that cycle I think once a week for about 15 minutes just to keep it going. You can set that cycle period for any time of day each, you know, so it's not bothersome. They're typically not very loud. It's not like a big rig truck engine. Um I I don't know the exact decel measurement, but they're not loud. not not letting up to bother somebody on the south side that's 450 ft away. >> You know, we probably cycle it during the middle of the day when the kids are at school. >> Understood. >> Um >> the other question I had was previously answered.

Thank you, Kyle. And do you plan to put lights on this tower? >> Uh we don't, but that is ultimately determined when we file with the FDA. >> So we have to understand. Okay. I don't think that would be a requirement for them, but >> it's not within. >> It would be an annoyance to me as a neighbor if I were there. That's why I'm asking. >> Thank you. >> Yes. I got no additional questions. >> Yeah, I don't I don't have any additional questions.

All the all the questions and answers have been provided already. So, all right. I have an additional question for staff. The applications for 110 ft tower. So the it's the actual so we if I didn't want to propose not having the windmill cuz they're they're ugly and they rust and they fall apart. Um do we need to do anything different in that or is it just condition to not add the windmill? >> I think a request to remove the windmill would be sufficient.

Say we recommend approval with a condition that >> Okay. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't a 100ft tower with a 10ft windmill at the top >> and you weren't wed to the idea applicant. >> The Well, the tower is shown as a 100 ft tower with a 10ft windmill, >> but the narrative in there is 110 ft for the for the SU, right? Okay, perfect. I just want to make sure we weren't changing anything there. >> Yeah. Okay. >> The request is 110 ft. >> Thank you. >> All right.

Any other questions? All right. With that, I'll entertain a motion based upon the discussion then. >> Yeah, chair. I'd like to make a motion that the planning commission recommend approval of the silver buckle ranch tower s-226-00002 with the re with the conditions recommended by staff along with the recommendation that the windmill be removed. >> Second. Well, can I add to that with one more condition that prior to uh issuance of construction permits that all applicable fire requirements and life safety requirements are satisfied as determined by the appropriate reviewing authorities.

And in this case, I'm thinking of the fire district, Rattlesnake Fire District. >> And that would be accepted in my motion. >> All right. Any additional A second then >> I'll second that. >> Roll call vote, please. >> Roll call vote. Silver Buckle Ranch Tower Sur. Robert Polk. >> I >> Nicole Hunt. >> I >> Kyle Jonardo. >> I >> Ken Madson. I >> Dan Guthrie >> I >> vice chairman zero nays five I eyes >> very good motion pass or applicant passed >> all right very good thank you very much >> all right with that do we have any additional agenda items Danny >> so there is a note for the msuncus trust reszone phone.

Uh the reason that one is not happening tonight was the applicant sent out notification that was it was unclear which of the two 40 acre parcels was being reszoned. So, uh staff with that discrepancy uh basically the applicant chose to reschedu because of that discrepancy. the the property also was not clearly marked on their vicinity map in the mailer. Uh so these were small discrepancies but with those the applicant chose to reschedu and the hearing for that will be October 20th for planning commission in the agriculture building at 6:00 p.m. and the board of county commissioners date for the msuncus reszone will be November 10th in the agriculture building at 900 a.m. >> All right, very good.

Thank you for that update. Any additional items? >> I'll just remind the planning commission that you all have a work session next Tuesday evening on the 29th of September here in this building and that will be on the comprehensive plan and future land use map. >> Very good. Thank you. Thank you. Well, with that entertain a motion to adjurnn. I would move to adjurnn. >> I'll second that. >> All those in favor? >> I >> opposed.