Sheridan Planning Commission Denies Developer's Request

The City of Sheridan Planning Commission followed suit with last week's recommendation by the Design Review Board to deny further construction of a building at 1981 Double Eagle Drive. Ron Patterson is owner of Double Eagle LLC, the company that's constructing the facility, and his explanations fell on deaf ears as the Commission unanimously voted to deny the developer's request to continue construction.

Commissioner Kay Pearson explains why the denial was such a simple decision.

City junction corridor regulations state that, roof lines over 50 feet in length should be broken with gables or other modulations that would prevent long expanses of roof lines. Patterson stated after the meeting that he will appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the Sheridan City Council. It was not immediately known how soon Patterson's appeal will come before the Council.

Wyo Theater
view counter

Wonderful Developer

Who is to say that Mr. Patterson has refused to do this modulation? Im positive that he will do what is needed to cotinue this project. I also do beleive that if he dosen't follow through with the modiation our Mayor will give him the go ahead. Just for the records if he just 'Didn't get it" there would be much less housing for Sheridan,less office space & one less beautiful hotel. He is a wonderful developer and I hope to see him continue with this project real soon.

Sheridan wouldn't notice a

Sheridan wouldn't notice a thing if this developer never showed up. In fact we'd be money ahead.

[A portion of this post was edited due to unverified facts that violated the forum policies. Sheridan Media.]

That's not even counting all the extra infrastructure costs that are now the responsibility of the city.

Just what we needed,was another motel.Sheridan is just so short on them.

As one of the Johnson County Commissioners stated "The general public doesn't realize development,in particular subdivisions bring very little money,but they drain money out very quickly and the majority of this money is never recouped it's simply passed on to the tax payer".

It's well documented that

It's well documented that Ron Patterson had numerous issues with both the city and DEQ over Holly Ponds.Maybe sheridanmedia should do some research before deleting posts that they haven't a clue about.

Something else that is

Something else that is factual about Ron Patterson,is these violations that he continues to be a part of cost all of us,in that the city has to waste staff time not to mention outside legal advice has to consulted in dealing with him.

I think it would be helpful

I think it would be helpful if you include sources to verify your claims when making statements such as these. The burden of proof lies with you.

Anyone can make an accusation and state it as fact by saying it is "well documented." However, that does not necessarily make what you are saying true. I personally have read countless "well documented" statements when debating 9/11 conspiracies online, but in those cases it often turns out that the documentation is taken out of context, completely misrepresented or sometimes doesn't exist at all.

If you know that your information is documented, then presumably you know the specific document or documents in which it is contained. Therefore, why not provide a reference to the specific text in the specific documents to verify your statement?

Because we cannot possibly know the validity of every statement made by people posting on this site, we must treat unverified claims as merely opinions, and if those opinions could be considered libel we will remove them.

Steve I cut and pasted a

Steve I cut and pasted a sheridanmedia article on ron patterson that you still haven't posted.Is there something wrong with this source also?

No, I had just left for the

No, I had just left for the day and nobody went through the approval queue until this morning. When you post text from a news story, you can help the approval go faster if you would please cite the source or include a link to the story if possible.

Forward Sheridan asked the

Forward Sheridan asked the Sheridan City Council to sponsor a grant to the Wyoming Business Council for a new facility to help start-up businesses. The proposed 9,000-square-foot building would house the Forward Sheridan offices, but the rest of the space could be used to provide a temporary location for new businesses. Developer Ron Patterson says he is willing to contribute to the project.

Forward Sheridan Board Chairman Dick Weber says the facility will give a break to start-up companies on their rent.

The City of Sheridan, as the sponsor of the grant application, would own the facility once it’s constructed. The value of donated land would count as the match required for the $1.5 million grant from the state.

The construction plans allow for a possible expansion up to an additional 3,600 square feet if necessary sometime in the future.

Patterson says he’s starting construction now, whether the grant is approved or not. The facility should be ready by the first of the year.

Here's a little documentation.Ron wasn't lying when he said he was starting construction now,and grants weren't the only thing not approved.

On top of this the city stands to own this building so you know full well that council and kinskey aren't going to stop patterson from building "there" building".

It would be nice to see what the final price tag to the citizens of sheridan will be.And what kind of money the city will be paying ron.

Fair enough steve,the

Fair enough steve,the sheridan press would be the source.They've followed Patterson,including the violations on Holly ponds.

That's pretty vague. Which

That's pretty vague. Which articles in which issues are you using to base your accusation? As I said before, unless you provide the specific text that verifies your claim, we have to treat it as opinion only.

Why edit opionions? it is just that, opinion, nothing else.

An opinion is a belief that cannot be proved with evidence. It is a subjective statement and may be the result of an emotion or an interpretation of facts; people may draw opposing opinions from the same facts.

This is where hidden agenda's come into play. An accustion without facts is opinion. Why not let the poster or posters comment without censoring them. Other can then can refute the comment or comments with facts of thier own. That is debate. Then the public can draw thier own conclusion.

Censorship can only be used to hide the truth, not reveal it. Of course, This is my opinion.

The problem arises when the

The problem is with opinions that could be libel. These are not permissible.

You guys are a media

You guys are a media source.Don't you have access to the same info the press has.

The burden of proof

The burden of proof lies with you. We do not have the time to investigate the validity of posts made to this site. Potentially libelous comments are against our usage agreement and will be removed.

There's no way Mayor Kinskey

There's no way Mayor Kinskey should, or ever would, over-rule the Planning Committee to allow a developer to build something against the rules! He has repeatedly confirmed the value of the Planning, Zoning and Design ideas that our community has chosen to adopt. These oversights protect the welfare of our City and all of us regular citizens. Shame on developers that flagrantly flaunt those rules to increase their personal profit.

Wow sounds like you

Wow sounds like you obviously have never attended a city meeting where kinskey does whatever he wants and council stands by and lets him.Which is all of the meetings.The standard response from council is always the same "we take our direction from the recommendations of staff" or equally pathetic "I've got a full time job outside of council,i can't be up on all issues".

Kinskey WILL OK RONS BUILDING.Bank on it.Kinskey is mayor to the developers and has gone out of his way to cater to their every whim.

Addressing Kay Pearson's comment to the media

Kay Pearson
City Planning Department
City Council Members

Re: Response to the Planning Commission meeting – November 9, 2009

Dear Ms. Pearson,

I am most respectfully writing a letter to you in response to the verbal comments you made to Sheridan Media following the City Planning Commission meeting on November 9, 2009. As an employee and a working partner on the proposed Double Eagle Tech Park Lot 6 building I have been involved in most of the planning, design work and DRB meetings that involve the design review of the building. To my knowledge you have only attended one DRB meeting (November 4, 2009) that have involved the ongoing discussions of Mr. Patterson and the DRB in regards to this specific building. Given this fact I found it personally very inflammatory that you chose to tell the media that Mr. Patterson “refuses to modulate the roofline”, followed by the response that he “doesn’t seem to get it.” My letter to you is not a personal attack of your character but an opportunity for you to reevaluate your statements. At this time I wish to ask 3 questions of you. (1) What specifically does modulation mean in regards to roofline? We have looked this word up in several dictionaries, internet, etc….and it refers to waveforms and vocal variations with no terminology that refers to building structures. I am confused as to what word might be best used to replace “modulation”. (2) How can you personally say that Mr. Patterson has refused to do this modulation? We have not determined what it means exactly but in simple terms if we were to basically state that he needs to alter, vary, modify, etc….then I would vehemently oppose that statement. I HAVE firsthand knowledge that Mr. Patterson has spent numerous hours, days and months to design, redesign, modify, talk with DRB and resubmit several building and roofline variations that should satisfy all city codes, ordinances, and gateway enhancements. This statement, followed by “he doesn’t get it” really signifies that you personally must not get it since you are misinformed as a Planning Commission member. (3) Finally, I would like to address the term “Entryway” (or gateway) and its description. The term gateway means “Entry, doorway, first step, entryway…” The DETP Lot 6 building cannot be seen from the interstate’s entrance. It resides on East Ridge road (also referred to as Dump Road), located behind the Wingate Inn and is best viewed after turning onto East Ridge road. Many of us believe that the term “entryway” usage has been stretched beyond the true meaning of its’ original intent in order to satisfy personal /subjective interpretations. I understand the purpose of regulations, City ordinances and codes in order to have written verbage to follow. At one particular DRB meeting, Laurie Sheeley (DRB member), made the following statement “Mr. Patterson knows the ordinances”….and she was right. Mr. Patterson knows the ordinances and codes almost verbatim. Unfortunately, some of these have also become skewed, making it next to impossible to interpret.

I would not suggest that you have a personal vendetta against Mr. Patterson but would propose that you might be better informed about specifics before opting to express such inflammatory remarks to the press about anyone. You may possibly view this as a means to stifle Mr. Patterson’s endeavors but you are also affecting many others that are involved in this project that is not only helping but also enhancing the City of Sheridan. In closing, I would like to include a reminder as an attempt to reinform you of the purpose of this building. Mr. Patterson offered a very significant donation matching a State grant in order to create a building that would house Forward Sheridan and offer the opportunity to promote a location for higher paying jobs.

Most Respectfully,

Dana Barton
Progressive Development

“rooflines over 50 feet

“rooflines over 50
feet long shall be broken with
gables, cupolas or other modulation
to avoid long, unbroken expanses
of rooflines.”
Pearson provided examples of
modulation such as staggered
building heights, gables and dormers.
“I have real problems with a
building that is 206 feet long not
being modulated,” Pearson said.
“Sticking something up there that
is 1 foot high doesn’t do it.”

Well Dana in reading your long letter,I didn't refer to a dictionary for the definition of Modulation.However,it seems that the sheridan press provided the definition for you in the quotes taken from the meeting in question.

Seems fairly simple to me.On top of that,you guys were only cleared to do cement work,so you pretty much got yourself into this situation because you decided to go against not only ridgeline requirements but framing requirements also.I haven't heard anything about "Beating the weather"lately either and I'd give that excuse for breaking code a two thumbs up for originality.

This planning board outcome

This planning board outcome seems rather convienant in that it coincides rather nicely with this weeks Poll question.Obviously ron knew going into this meeting that he was going to be shut down.

The final outcome of this going to city council,will be very interesting to say the least.Kinskey in the past has used the planning commissions vote on issues such as subdivisions etc.as an excuse for council to vote the same way.Because in Kinskeys own words"planning will lose faith in us,if we don't back their decisions.Now in this case you have planning telling ron,one of kinskeys developer friends NO.I'm betting money that Kinskey will still give it a yes.

simple decision

I listened to the 'simple decision' and am trying to figure out what, exactly, it is that Mr. Patterson doesn't get.
Can anybody tell me why a roof line has to have gables, modulation, etc.? Is this a simple matter of esthetics or does a building now require these roof-line breaks to be stronger and/or safer?
I truly am curious.

Fairly simple,code requires

Fairly simple,code requires any ridgeline over 50 foot to have some kind of a break in the ridgeline such as a gable.Obviously ron doesn't get it.

Ron didn't get it when it came to Holly Ponds either.He had violations there also.

Will any of this keep Ron from doing exactly what he wants in the end?

Planning Commission Meeting

The action by the planning commission effectively puts a stop to the construction of the building the developer is working on, based on what they view as non-compliance with the design review board's regulations for construction in an entryway corridor. Before the developer can continue with construction his building permit must be approved through the planning commission. The permit on which the developer started construction allowed for foundation and footings only.

The design review board's regulations for entryway corridors are strictly aesthetic. There is no structural reason for the roof gables. The City design regulations state that structures in entryway corridors with rooflines longer than 50 feet must include some modulation in the roofline, such as a gable or cupola.

Now, the building was supposed to be funded by a grant from the Wyoming Business Council and has been slated for use by Forward Sheridan. The developer was building at a risk since Forward Sheridan has not been awarded the grant at this time. I would have to wonder whether the grant would cover the cost of adding unnecessary gables to the roof based on an aesthetic appraisal by the City's design review board. I don't know if that would be an issue or consideration at all.

I have not personally seen the plans so I don't know how long the roofline is. It will be interesting to see what comes out in the developer's appeal.

planning meeting

Thank you for your response. The info is greatly appreciated.

Good luck with that.Kinskey

Good luck with that.Kinskey will approve it in an instant.