HomeMy WebLinkAbout20063223.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Chad Auer, that the following resolution be introduced for denial by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE: 3rd AmUSR-894
APPLICANT: Kauffman Land & Development LLC
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-1921; being part SE4 of Section 9, T2N, R67W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for mineral
resource development facilities including oil and gas support and service
facility, contractor's shop for vehicle maintenance, and a helicopter pad in
the A (Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 22; west of and adjacent to CR 19.
be recommended unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners:
Incompatibility with the Weld County Code and the following Sections: 22-2-220A.3., 23-3-40F., and 23-2-
20A.3.
Should the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposal,the Planning Commission recommends the
following conditions:
1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 23-2-260
of the Weld County Code.
2. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services' staff that the applicant has shown
compliance with Section 23-2-220 of the Weld County Code as follows:
A. Section 23-2-220.A.1 --The proposed use is consistent with Chapter 22 and any other
applicable code provisions or ordinance in effect. Section 22-2-60 (A.Goal 4) states,
"Conversion of agricultural land to non-urban residential, commercial and industrial uses
will be accommodated when the subject site is in an area that can support such
development. Such development shall attempt to be compatible with the region." The
property in question operates under 2ndAMUSR-894 for and oil and gas support and
service operation and contractor's shop for vehicle and equipment maintenance relating
to those activities in the Agricultural zone district approved by the Board of County
Commissioners on 9/10/97. The applicant is in the process of amending the existing
USR to include a helicopter pad. Application materials indicate that the site can support
the proposed use. Conditions of Approval and Development Standards ensure that a
reasonable attempt will be made to be compatible with the region.
B. Section 23-2-220.A.2 --The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the A
(Agricultural)Zone District. Section 23-3-40.A.2, Section 23-3-40.R and Section 23-3-
40.F of the Weld County Code provides for a mineral resource development facilities
including an oil and gas support and service facility, a contractor's shop for vehicle
maintenance, and a helicopter pad in the A (Agricultural)Zone District.
C. Section 23-2-220.A.3 --The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with the
existing surrounding land uses. The surrounding property to the south and east is
primarily agricultural which include SUP-64 for a Turkey Farm east of the property. The
property to the north and west has been approved for a Change of Zone from Agricultural
to Planned Unit Development with Estate for 19 residential lots (PZ-521) Gloraloma
EXHIBIT
J 2006-3223
3wf ;,, ,i.,#;rr
Resolution 3rdAmUSR-894
Kauffman Land & Development LLC
Page 2
Estates. The Weld County Department of Planning Services has not received any
comments from the surrounding property owners. The Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval will ensure compatibility with adjacent properties.
D. Section 23-2-220.A.4 -- The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with future
development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning and with the future
development as projected by Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code and any other applicable
code provisions or ordinances in effect, or the adopted Master Plans of affected
municipalities. The subject property lies within the three mile referral area of the Towns of
Firestone, Frederick, and Fort Lupton. The Towns of Frederick and Fort Lupton indicted in
their referrals that they had reviewed the request and found no conflicts with their interests.
The Town of Firestone indicated in their referral dated 6/23/06 they desire to have an
annexation agreement with the property owner. The Town is also requesting that no more
then five landings per day be allowed during daylight hours and that time limits be placed on
the proposed use.
E. Section 23-2-220.A.5--The application complies with Section 23-5 of the Weld County Code.
The site does not lie within any Overlay Districts. Effective January 1,2003, Building Permits
issued on the proposed lots will be required to adhere to the fee structure of the County Road
Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11)
Effective August 1, 2005, Building permits issued on the subject site will be required to
adhere to the fee structure of the Capital Expansion Impact Fee and the
Stormwater/Drainage Impact Fee. (Ordinance 2005-8 Section 5-8-40)
F. Section 23-2-220.A.6--The applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort to conserve prime
agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use. The lot consists of 5.534
acres and is too small to be a viable farming operation in accordance with Section 22-2-60.1
of the Weld County Code.
G. Section 23-2-220.A.7 --The Design Standards (Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code),
Operation Standards (Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code), Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards ensure that there are adequate provisions for the protection of
health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and County.
This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by the
applicant, other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities.
The Planning Commission recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following:
1. Prior to scheduling a Board of County Commissioners hearing:
A. The applicant has not delineated any on-site sign(s). If any on-site sign(s) are desired the
Department of Planning Services shall be notified in writing. If the applicant does not
notified the Department of Planning Services the sign shall adhere to Section 23-4-90.A
and .B of the Weld County Code. Further, the location of the sign, if applicable shall be
delineated on the USR plat. (Department of Planning Services)
B. The applicant shall either submit a copy of an agreement with the property's mineral
owner/operators stipulating that the oil and gas activities have been adequately
incorporated into the design of the site or show evidence that an adequate attempt has
been made to mitigate the concerns of the mineral owner/operators. Drill envelopes can
Resolution 3rdAmUSR-894
Kauffman Land & Development LLC
Page 3
be delineated on the plat in accordance with the State requirements as an attempt to
mitigate concerns. The plat shall be amended to include any possible future drilling sites.
(Department of Planning Services)
C. The applicant shall submit an updated drainage report to the Weld County Department of
Public Works for review and approval. (Department of Public Works)
D. There is a pond outlet noted on the plat extending to the west of the site. The applicant
shall submit to the Department of Planning Services a recorded copy of an agreement
between applicant and the property owner to the west stating that they have no objection
to the delivery of storm water onto their property. (Department of Planning Services)
2. Prior to recording the plat:
A. All pages of the plat shall be labeled 3rd AMUSR-894 (Department of Planning Services)
B. The plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
1) The attached Development Standards. (Department of Planning Services)
2) County Road 22 is classified by the County as a local gravel road,which requires
60 feet of right-of-way at full build out. The applicant shall verify the existing right-
of-way and the documents creating the right-of-way. If the right-of-way can not be
verified, it shall be dedicated. The plat shall delineate the existing right-of-way and
the documents which created it along with any additional right-of-way reservation
required. (Department of Public Works)
3) County Road 19 is classified by the County as a collector road, which requires 80
feet of right-of-way at full build out. The applicant shall verify the existing right-of-
way and the documents creating the right-of-way. If the right-of-way can not be
verified, it shall be dedicated. The plat shall delineate the existing right-of-way and
the documents which created it along with any additional right-of-way reservation
required. (Department of Public Works)
4) The parking areas shall have internal circulation signs, wheel stops where
necessary to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the boundaries of spaces
and from coming into contact with other vehicles, walls, fences or plantings.
(Department of Public Works)
5) The applicant shall designate employee and customer parking on the plat.
(Department of Public Works)
6) This facility shall adhere to the number of on-site parking spaces indicated in
Appendix 23-B of the Weld County Code. The total number of on-site parking for
this facility shall be one hundred fifty seven (157) spaces, of which one (1) shall
be a van accessible handicapped parking stall meeting all of the requirements as
set forth in the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Departments of Planning
Services and Public Works)
7) The applicant shall address and adhere to the American with Disabilities Act and
ADA standards for this facility at all times. Non-ambulatory/ambulatory parking
Resolution 3rdAmUSR-894
Kauffman Land & Development LLC
Page 4
spaces shall be identified and shown on the plat. This site will be required to
meet all requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. At least one space
must be van accessible. The parking spaces must be the closest possible to the
entrance. Signing will be required. Curb cuts, ramps and other methods of
providing accessibility shall be required to reasonably attempt to meet the
requirements of this Act. Should the applicant elect to not adhere to the
previously discussed Federal Standards, this office requests that the applicant
outline how their proposed site design mitigates the requirements of the
American's with Disabilities Act. (Department of Planning Services)
8) Any approved signs, if applicable. (Department of Planning Services)
9) The plat shall be prepared in accordance with Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld
County Code. In addition to these requirements, the plat scale shall be 1" =40'.
(Department of Planning Services)
10) The plat shall show a six foot (6')opaque privacy fence around the perimeter of
the property. (Department of Planning Services)
11) The plat shall delineate the types and sizes of the proposed and existing
trees/plants and how they will be irrigated. (Department of Planning Services)
12) All utility lines, topography lines, and dimension lines shall be removed from the
plat. (Department of Planning Services)
13) The plat shall show the dimensions for the equipment/pipe storage area on the
plat. (Department of Planning Services)
14) Section 23-3-360.F of the Weld County Code addresses the issue of on-site
lighting, including security lighting. States "any lighting ... shall be designed,
located and operated in such a manner as to meet the following standards:
sources of light shall be shielded so that beams or rays of light will not shine
directly onto adjacent properties...." (Department of Planning Services)
C. The applicant shall enter into an Improvements Agreement according to policy
regarding collateral for improvements and post adequate collateral for all required
improvements. The agreement and form of collateral shall be reviewed by County Staff
and accepted by the Board of County Commissioners prior to recording the USR plat. The
improvements agreement will not be needed if the necessary improvements are done to
the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works and the Department of Planning
Services. (Department of Planning Services)
D. The applicant shall attempt to contact the Weld County Sheriff's Office regarding a
security plan for the site. (Weld County Sheriff's Office)
E. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements (concerns)of Platteville/Gilcrest
Fire Protection District, as stated in the referral response dated 6/12/06. Evidence of
such shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services.
(Platteville/Gilcrest Fire Protection District)
F. The applicant shall submit written evidence to the Department of Planning Services from
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)that they have been approved for 7480-1 Notice
Resolution 3rdAmUSR-894
Kauffman Land & Development LLC
Page 5
of Landing Proposal. (Department of Planning Services and Greeley-Weld Airport
Authority)
G. The applicant shall submit evidence to the Weld County Department of Public Health and
Environment of an Air Pollution Emission Notice (A.P.E.N.) and Emissions Permit
application from the Air Pollution Control Division (APCD), Colorado Department of Health
and Environment. Alternately, the applicant can provide evidence from the APCD that
they are not subject to these requirements. Evidence of the Department of Public Health
and Environment approval shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
H. Submit a dust abatement plan to the Environmental Health Services, Weld County
Department of Public Health & Environment, for approval prior to operation. Evidence of
their approval shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
1. A spillage retention berm shall be constructed around the fuel storage tanks. The volume
retained by the spillage berm should be greater than the volume of the largest tank inside
the berm. Alternative protective measures may also be allowed. Evidence of the
Department of Public Health and Environment approval shall be submitted to the
Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
J. The applicant shall submit a waste handling plan, for approval, to the Environmental
Health Services Division of the Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment.
Evidence of Department of Public Health and Environment approval shall be submitted to
the Department of Planning Services. The plan shall include at a minimum, the following:
1) A list of wastes which are expected to be generated on site (this should include
expected volumes and types of waste generated).
2) A list of the type and volume of chemicals expected to be stored on site.
3) The waste handler and facility where the waste will be disposed (including the
facility name, address, and phone number). (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
K. The applicant shall address the requirements of the Weld County Department of Building
Inspection, as stated in the referral response dated 7/10/06. Evidence of such shall be
submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Weld County
Department of Building Inspection)
L. The applicant shall submit two (2) paper copies of the plat for preliminary approval to the
Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
M. The applicant shall submit to the Weld County Department of Planning Services a copy
of an annexation agreement with the Town of Firestone. (Town of Firestone)
3. Prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy:
A. A building permit is required for all new structure constructed, the vehicle maintenance
shop will be a S-1 occupancy in the 2003 International Building Code, but may require
Resolution 3rdAmUSR-894
Kauffman Land & Development LLC
Page 6
addition condition after plan review. (Building Department)
B. A plan review is required for all building permits. Plans shall bear the wet stamp of a
Colorado registered architect or engineer. Two complete sets of plans are required when
applying for each permit. (Building Department)
C. Buildings shall conform to the requirements of the various codes adopted at the time of
permit application. Currently the following has been adopted by Weld County: 2003
International Building Code, 2003 International Mechanical Code, 2003 International
Plumbing Code, 2002 National Electrical Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code.
(Building Department)
D. Each building will require an engineered foundation based on a site-specific geotechnical
report or an open hole inspection performed by a Colorado registered engineer.
Engineered foundations shall be designed by a Colorado registered engineer. (Building
Department)
E. Building height, setbacks and offset distance shall be determined by the Zoning
Ordinance and Table 602. Separation of buildings of mixed occupancy classifications
shall be in accordance with Table 302.3.3, 2003 International Building Code.
(Building Department)
F. Plans shall be submitted to Platte Valley Fire District for review and approval . A letter of
approval is required form the Fire District , prior to issue of any Building Permits by Weld
County Building Inspection Dept. (Building Department)
4. Upon completion of 1. and 2. above the applicant shall submit a Mylar plat along with all other
documentation required as Conditions of Approval. The Mylar plat shall be recorded in the office
of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder by Department of Planning Services' Staff. The plat shall
be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld County
Code. The Mylar plat and additional requirements shall be submitted within thirty(30)days from
the date of the Board of County Commissioners resolution. The applicant shall be responsible for
paying the recording fee. (Department of Planning Services)
5. The Department of Planning Services respectively requests the surveyor provide a digital copy of
this Amended Use by Special Review. Acceptable CAD formats are .dwg, .dxf, and .dgn
(Microstation); acceptable GIS formats are ArcView shapefiles, Arclnfo Coverages and Arclnfo
Export files format type is .e00. The preferred format for Images is .tif(Group 4). (Group 6 is not
acceptable). This digital file may be sent to mapst7a,co.weld.co.us. (Department of Planning
Services)
6. The Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on
the property until the Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County
Clerk and Recorder. (Department of Planning Services)
7. In accordance with Weld County Code Ordinance 2005-7 approved June 1, 2005, should the plat
not be recorded within the required sixty(60)days from the date the Board of County
Commissioners resolution was signed a $50.00 recording continuance charge may be added for
each additional 3 month period. (Department of Planning Services)
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Kauffman Land and Development LLC
3rd AMUSR-894
1. A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a mineral resource development
facilities including oil and gas support and service facility,contractor's shop for vehicle maintenance,
and a helicopter pad in the A(Agricultural)Zone District (Department of Planning Services)
2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 23-8-10 of the Weld
County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
3. All liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, 30 20
100.5,C.R.S., as amended)shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects
against surface and groundwater contamination. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
4. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not meant to include those
wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a solid waste in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites
and Facilities Act,30 20 100.5, C.R.S.,as amended. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
5. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust,
fugitive particulate emissions, blowing debris,and other potential nuisance conditions. (Department
of Public Health and Environment)
6. The applicant shall operate in accordance with the approved "waste handling plan". (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
7. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions shall be controlled on this site. The facility shall be
operated in accordance with the approved dust abatement plan at all times. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
8. Adequate handwashing and toilet facilities shall be provided for employees and patrons of the facility.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
9. Sewage disposal for the facility shall be by septic system. Any septic system located on the property
must comply with all provisions of the Weld County Code, pertaining to Individual Sewage Disposal
Systems. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
10. The facility shall utilize the existing public water supply, Central Weld County Water District).
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
11. All potentially hazardous chemicals must be stored and handled in a safe manner in accordance with
product labeling and in a manner that minimizes the release of hazardous air pollutants(HAP's)and
volatile organic compounds (VOC's). (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
12. This facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Industrial Zone as
delineated in 25 12 103 C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
13. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the State and Federal agencies
and Weld County Code. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
14. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to adhere to
the fee structure of the County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11) (Department of Planning
Services)
15. Effective August 1, 2005, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to adhere to
the fee structure of the Capital Expansion Impact Fee and the Stormwater/Drainage Impact Fee.
(Ordinance 2005-8 Section 5-8-40) (Department of Planning Services)
16. The landscaping on site shall be maintained in accordance with the approved Landscape/Screening
Plan. (Department of Planning Services)
17. A maximum of five helicopter landings and takes off per day is allowed during the hours of 9:00 am to
5:00 pm Monday- Friday. (Department of Planning Services)
18. The hours of operation for all activities on site will be daylight hours, Monday through Saturday.
(Department of Planning Services)
19. As indicated by the application,the number of employees for the oil and gas support services shall be
limited to one hundred and seven (107). (Department of Planning Services)
20. Should noxious weeds exist on the property or become established as a result of the proposed
development the applicant/landowner shall be responsible for controlling the noxious weeds,pursuant
to Chapter 15, Articles I and II of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
21. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of
Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code.
22. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of
Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code.
23. Personnel from the Weld County Government shall be granted access onto the property at any
reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the
Development Standards stated herein and all applicable Weld County regulations.
24. The Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing
standards and all applicable Weld County regulations. Substantial changes from the plans or
Development Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit
by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans or
Development Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the
Department of Planning Services.
25. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing
Development Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards
may be reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners.
Motion seconded by Tom Holton.
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
Bruce Fitzgerald
Chad Auer
Tom Holton
Doug Ochsner
James Welch
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer
Paul Branham
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this
case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Donita May, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County,
Colorado, adopted on July 18, 2006.
Dated the 18th of July, 2006.
MC7Vj
Donita May �J
Secretary
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Paul Branham moved that Cases AmUSR-1493 and AmUSR-256, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning
Commissions recommendation of approval. Doug Ochsner seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Chad Auer,
yes; Paul Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Roy Spitzer,yes; James
Welch, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
HEARING I'T'EMS
Specific time for public input has been set aside for discussion on the following items:
6. CASE: 3r°AmUSR-894
APPLICANT: Kauffman Land & Development LLC
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-1921; being part SE4 of Section 9, T2N, R67W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for
mineral resource development facilities including oil and gas
support and service facility, contractor's shop for vehicle
maintenance, and a helicopter pad in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 22; west of and adjacent to CR 19.
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services, said the applicants had applied for a Site Specific
Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for mineral resource development facilities including oil
and gas support and service facility, contractor's shop for vehicle maintenance, and a helicopter pad in the
A(Agricultural)Zone District.
The sign announcing the Planning Commission hearing was posted June 29, 2006 by Planning Staff. The
property location was north of and adjacent to CR 22; west of and adjacent to CR 19. The site was within
Firestone's IGA boundary.
The property in question operated under 2ndAMUSR-894 for an oil and gas support and service operation
and contractor's shop for vehicle and equipment maintenance relating to those activities in the Agricultural
zone district approved by the Board of County Commissioners September 10, 1997. The applicant was in
the process of amending the existing USR to include a helicopter pad. Application materials indicated the
site could support the proposed use. Conditions of Approval and Development Standards ensured that a
reasonable attempt would be made to be compatible with the region.
The uses permitted would be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses. The surrounding
property to the south and east was primarily agricultural which included SUP-64 for a Turkey Farm east of
the property. The property to the north and west had been approved for a Change of Zone from
Agricultural to Planned Unit Development with Estate for 19 residential lots (PZ-521) Gloraloma Estates.
The subject property lies within the three mile referral area of the Towns of Firestone, Frederick, and Fort
Lupton.The Towns of Frederick and Fort Lupton indicted in their referrals they had reviewed the request and
found no conflicts with their interests. The Town of Firestone indicated in their referral dated June 23, 2006
they desired an annexation agreement with the property owner. The Town also requested no more than five
landings per day be allowed during daylight hours and time limits be placed on the proposed use.
EXilligr
.• N
� a ,may rtxu"
v+ ,
The Department of Planning Services had not received any letters from surrounding property owners but
had received telephone inquires regarding the proposed development.
Fifteen referral agencies reviewed the application. Fourteen responded favorably or included conditions
that had been addressed through Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.
The Department of Planning Services recommended approval of the application along with the Conditions
of Approval and Development Standards.
The applicant's representative, Todd Hodges was present.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked Ms. Martin when this case was last heard since this was the third amended. Ms.
Martin replied that on September 10, 1997 it was approved for the resolution for the second amended and
it was recorded June 1, 1999 and there had been a BOA hearing last year.
Mr. Fitzgerald asked for clarification on the number of lots within Gloraloma Estates. Ms. Martin said it
was one hundred and four acres and consisted of nineteen estate lots.
Erich Ehrlich asked Ms. Martin if CR 19 was paved and CR 22 was dirt. Ms. Martin replied that was
correct and the entry to the site was on CR 22. Mr. Ehrlich asked Don Carroll, Public Works Department,
about dust abatement. Mr. Carroll replied the applicant was proposing dust abatement back to CR 19.
Tom Holton asked if it was primarily dirt around the helicopter pad. Ms. Martin said it was primarily dirt at
this point.
Roy Spitzer said he noticed that from CR 19 the site distance was very short for trucks entering there and
wondered what concerns Public Works might have. Mr. Carroll said it was a stop condition east and west;
through condition north and south; was five to six hundred feet to the top of the hill; offered to check on
accidents at the location; and said there were eight to nine hundred vehicles north/south on CR 19.
Mr. Ehrlich asked what was different from the present and original application. Bruce Fitzgerald said he
believed the use was the same, there was just an increase in size. Ms. Martin said the original USR in
1989 was for a decorative rock business, the second was for an oil and gas processing facility, and the
third one which they were hearing today was for the helicopter pad.
The Chair called the applicant's representative to the microphone.
Anne Best Johnson, Todd Hodges Design, 1269 N Cleveland Av, Loveland, CO, 80537, said the access
would remain the same onto CR 22; mineral notification was mailed by Bill Crews May 19, 2006 and
evidence was provided to Planning staff; the application was to add a helicopter pad to an existing USR;
the helicopter was for the oil and gas business use on the property; surrounding uses included agricultural,
(special use permits included hog and turkey farms as well as other oil and gas support facilities) and rural
residential; and Weld County previously determined the uses were compatible with the surrounding
property.
Gordon Allott, executive vice president and general counsel of KP Kaufman, gave an overview of the site
and outlined the helicopter pad location. Mr. Allott said KP Kauffman was an oil and gas production
company currently producing both of those products; their business was scattered over two hundred
sixteen square miles; most of the work took place south of the field office; and the use of the helicopter
(no more than five times a day)was necessary to their business, as it allowed them to check their
approximately six hundred miles of pipeline more efficiently. Mr. Allott pointed out they must use a rod
pump for their product which requires more work-overs and on sight supervision, thus the need for the
helicopter and helipad.
James Welch asked how often they inspected their pipeline and did they perform helicopter services for
other companies. Mr. Allott replied they reviewed their pipelines weekly and did about ten percent of their
4
helicopter business with/for other companies.
Erich Ehrlich asked how many times a year they updated their flight plan, did they have to turn one in, and
what were their flight patterns. Mr.Allott said to get a helicopter pad such as this they had to apply for a
permit through the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and it was then on their system, unless the FAA
changed their flight plan at which time they could revoke his permit. Mr. Ehrlich asked about TFR's
(temporary flight restrictions) in the area. Mr.Allott replied there were TFR's in the area but all of their
pilots were commercial pilots and very well trained; their company was allowed to fly for hire; and if they
were to break any FAA rules they could be fined or lose their license.
Paul Branham asked if the helicopter would be based at the site in question. Mr. Allott said it would be
based and maintained out of Centennial Airport and might be at the site in question occasionally, but this
site was basically for refueling and to pick up support and supervisory personnel for site visits.
Tom Holton asked if they would have a specific flight path they used each time. Mr. Allott said they did
and explained where they occurred. Mr. Holton asked what in the Code specifically addressed the
helicopter landing on surrounding properties. Ms. Martin said Section 23-3-40, item F. in the County Code
addressed that.
Ms. Best Johnson, the applicant's representative, said the proposal did meet and exceed the requirements
for a USR through the Weld County Code and requested it be approved and passed on to the Board of
County Commissioners.
The Chair opened up the public portion of the hearing.
Don Jones, McFeeters Appraisal and Management, 221 W Platt, Fort Morgan, CO, property manager for
the property owners, opposed the application as the original reason for the subdivision was not to land
helicopters and that had not changed; residents felt helicopter take-offs and approaches would adversely
affect their quality of life; KP Kauffman's application included ten pages of approved helicopter landing
sites in Weld County and he did not see a need for another; public safety was an issue; he did not see a
need for the helipad, rather the applicant's desire for one; the helicopter pad was already there so it must
have been put there before the application for it was made; and would adversely affect the properties and
their value as well as the livestock operations on the area.
Don Owens, 8585 CR 22, Fort Lupton, CO supported Mr. Jones' concerns; said his property line was very
close to the helipad; the helicopter and pad had been there prior to the application for the helipad; he felt
some of the pilots were borderline negligent and careless, hovering over homes and livestock routinely
under two hundred foot elevations for a quarter mile; and asked who was supervising the pilots.
Ed Pruss, realtor with Coldwell Banker, 2700 Canyon Blvd, Boulder, CO, did not feel a helipad.was
consistent with the use of the surrounding property; the helipad has been in existence for some time prior
to this application; and safety of animals and residents in the area had been adversely affected.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Ms. Best Johnson addressed public concerns and pointed out that: the Board of Adjustment hearing was
to make a determination as to what land use application should be followed for the helipad and was not a
denial situation; regarding their original use, KP Kauffman wanted to offer an opportunity to protect the
citizen's safety, health and welfare, and the environment, and by offering this advanced technology service
they felt the original use would be enhanced; existing land uses were reviewed and the applicant said they
felt land uses were compatible with surrounding land use; proposed landscape buffering and berms would
provide screening along CR 19 from the existing turkey farm and along the boundary of the existing oil
and gas facilities southeast of the development and open spaces would be appropriately landscaped;
there was an eighty foot buffer between the western property boundary and lot four, block four, and a thirty
foot oil and gas easement in the area as well; and a goal of this proposed PUD was to integrate the
inherent qualities of the surrounding area into the Gloraloma final plat.
Doug Ochsner asked about flight patterns over surrounding property. Mr.Allott said they would strictly
5
follow their flight paths and would fly over those properties only in an absolute emergency.
Paul Branham asked how long the pad had been in existence; if they had been using it all of that time; and
if the Planning Commission denied the application,would they continue to fly anyway. Mr.Allott said it had
been there about eighteen months and they had FAA permission to fly, but if the application were denied
they would not be allowed to fly in the area on a permanent basis.
Mr. Holton asked Mr. Allott why they had not chosen another airport to fly out of. Mr. Allott said they could
fly from another location but this pad was needed to get their personnel from one site to another in a more
timely fashion when problems arose.
Paul Branham asked how often they predicted they would need to fly personnel around for the spills and
where else they could refuel if this application was denied. Mr. Allott said maybe one or two spills a month
and they would have to refuel out of the Weld County/Greeley Airport which was thirty two miles from their
location.
Roy Spitzer asked how often they would fly after dark. Mr. Allott said the application would deny that but
they would fly at night for emergencies only.
Erich Ehrlich asked what other airports could facilitate refueling. Mr. Allott said the Weld County/Greeley
airport was probably the only one as they have jet fuel, which their helicopters use, and the other facilities
do not.
Ms. Best Johnson went over Planning Staffs deleted items 1.A., B., C., page five and items 2.D., F., H.,
page seven said they had been met and could be deleted.
Chad Auer asked if the condition was in there and had been met,why were they wasting time deleting it.
Ms. Best Johnson said they desired a smooth transition to the Board of County Commissioners with the
Planning Commission's support. James Welch agreed with Mr.Auer this was a waste of time. Ms.
Martin, Planning Department, requested they go through each item.
Dave Bauer, Public Works Department, cited item 1.C., page five regarding drainage criteria and said
according to Colorado drainage law, there must be provision for historic pathways and the Kauffman site
pathways would be blocked by the proposed berms on the Gloraloma PUD. He recommended the
proposed berming be adjusted or a drainage swale developed on the Kauffman site and brought around
through the Gloraloma site. The detention pond outlet structure could be re-configured on the Kauffman
site to tie back into the Gloraloma swale and they would all have to be in drainage easements.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if this was new information, beyond what the applicant had been prepared for. Mr.
Bauer replied that it was new information that morning that the applicant would have to address prior to
approval of their application. Ms. Best Johnson asked Mr. Bauer for a copy of the memo he had referred
to and said they would be happy to work with Public Works for a resolution.
Ms. Best Johnson continued with item 2.F., page seven and asked for its deletion. Ms. Martin said
Planning Staff would not agree because they had not received evidence from the FAA regarding approval
of 74801 Notice of Landing Proposal. The Weld County Airport had received notification but the
Department of Planning Services had not.
Ms. Best Johnson said items 2.H. and 2.J. on page 8 had been met. Char Davis, Environmental Health
Department, asked to speak and referred to a letter regarding the seeding area around the helipad and
said site visits had shown excessive weed growth rather than grass, therefore she was not in favor of
removing the dust abatement requirement until there was evidence of seeding and grass growth. Tom
Holton said this time of year there probably would not be grass. Ms. Best Johnson said they were trying to
maintain and establish grass but would keep item 2.H. on and continue to meet the condition. Ms. Davis
agreed that item 2.J had been met and could be deleted.
Ms. Best Johnson requested item 1.D., page 5 be moved to "prior to recording the plat"so they are not
held back from proceeding to the Board of County Commissioner's hearing. Ms. Martin said Staff
recommended it remain as it was due to the relationship between items 1.C. and 1.D.
6
Ms. Best Johnson cited items 1.E. page five and item D. page two regarding the IGA(Inter-governmental
Agreement)and the definition of development which stated "any land use requiring regulatory approval by
the elected governing body of the applicable party in the UGA(Urban Growth Area), except for an
amendment to a plat or a down zoning, neither of which creates any additional lots and except for a
subdivision exemption". Ms. Best Johnson said this indicated they did not meet the definition of
development, and as the application was for an amendment to an existing USR, it therefore does not meet
definition criteria for development or require an annexation agreement. The Board of County
Commissioners resolution for the 2ndAmUSR-894, conditions of approval noted that section of the IGA
was not intended to apply to applications for the expansion of an existing use. They had provided the
town an opportunity for response but had not received anything until Monday afternoon and did not want
their request to be held up because of this. Should the Planning Commission be unable to make a
determination on that portion of the Code, Ms. Best Johnson asked that the Board of County
Commissioners make the determination. Therefore she requested they move that condition to"prior to
recording the plat", and would like it be amended to read "The applicant shall provide evidence to the
Department of Planning Services that an adequate attempt has been made to reach an annexation
agreement with the Town of Firestone". Ms. Martin replied that Staff was in support of moving item 1.E. to
"prior to recording the plat", but was not in support of the amended language and recommended the Board
of County Commissioners make the determination of what an adequate attempt was.
Doug Oschner asked Ms. Martin if they were not in favor of allowing an adequate attempt and wanted to
see a copy of an agreement. She replied if that condition were removed, Staff wanted the Board of
County Commissioners to make that determination, as it was not clearly stated in the Code as to what an
adequate attempt was.
Paul Branham asked the County attorney about an interpretation of the Code, and could they legally
require an annexation agreement be in place for an amendment or it could be interpreted that they could
not require an annexation agreement as this application was for an amendment. Ms. Giauque said
perhaps a recess was necessary to discuss this further. The Chair called for a short recess at 3:05 p.m.
The meeting was called back to order at 3:15 p.m. Ms. Giauque had looked at Section 19-2-40 which did
speak of exceptions and one was an amendment to the plat. Because this was an amendment to a USR,
she said it was not clear if that would be an exception or not and in speaking with the parties involved,
there was no disagreement that it would be appropriate, at least at this time, to include a requirement for
an annexation agreement.
Tom Holton asked if they were removing that requirement or leaving it in. The Chair said that had not
been decided yet.
Ms. Best Johnson cited development standard number twelve and wanted it amended to include"except
for helicopter use as permitted"at the end of the sentence. Char Davis, Environmental Health
Department, said regarding permissible noise levels, Colorado did not exempt helicopters from noise
standards, therefore they followed industrial zone standards for a gas processing facility and thought that
was acceptable. Her concern was they could not meet that level, which was an eighty decibel level and
suggested they hear from Phil Brewer, Environmental Health Department, who said the noise study he
had done took place about a year and a half ago on April 4, 2005, and the maximum noise level was
determined to be 94.1 from a helicopter in operation at that time. Bruce Fitzgerald asked Ms. Davis what
the maximum permissible decibel noise levels were for an industrial property. Ms. Davis replied that
eighty decibels were permissible. After talking to her Director, and because Colorado statutes exempt
helicopters from the statues, it was difficult to reach a standard and she did not know if the applicant would
be able to meet that requirement.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked Mr. Brewer if the 94.1 reading was for one occurrence only. Mr. Brewer
responded he had recorded an 80.5, 89.3 and the 94.1 noise measurement. Paul Branham asked Mr.
Brewer how far away he was from the helicopter at the time of his readings. Mr. Brewer replied he was
directly under one and the others were off to the side, approximately twenty five feet off the property line.
Mr. Branham then asked if state law specifically exempts helicopter noise from restriction, then how can
the County put a restriction on it. Ms. Giauque, County Attorney, said if the state had exempted it, she
was not aware of anything in the Code that contradicted the state statute, that they needed to be read
7
together and if they were, then they were exempt. Ms. Davis said the noise from the helicopters was what
concerned her. Bruce Fitzgerald asked Ms. Martin about item twelve, page twelve and when it had to be
satisfied. Ms. Martin replied it must be satisfied once the application was approved and included the
entire site, except for the helicopters, if they included the language Ms. Best Johnson had suggested.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked the attorney her opinion regarding the issue and she replied helicopter noise was
exempt based on her interpretation of the information.
Ms. Martin added that operational standards in the industrial zone district regarding noise standards
followed those established in Section 25-12-101 in the Colorado revised state statutes.
Chad Auer said they had a helicopter application and a standard for noise levels in the industrial zone, and
if they were pre-empted by state law, they needed to remove that requirement. Ms. Best Johnson asked to
amend development standard seventeen to read, " a maximum of five helicopter landings and take-offs
per day is allowed with the exception of emergency uses." Ms. Martin replied Staff suggested it read, "A
maximum of five helicopter landings and take-offs per day is allowed during the hours of 9 a.m. -5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, with the exception of emergency situations, including life and safety, and there are
to be no Saturday and Sunday take-offs and landings, unless for an emergency." Mr. Allott responded
that unfortunately drilling rigs run twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week and to restrict them to
commercial hours would be difficult;wells keep pumping and leaks occur and making them shut down
increased risk as they needed to get people in the field when they were needed and they would object to
that restriction. Bruce Fitzgerald asked how they arrived at the operation hours and Ms. Martin said
several things were taken into consideration: residential development; compatibility with land uses; hours
of operation; and Firestone also had submitted requests for the helicopter's hours of operation. Ms. Best
Johnson then requested these changes: amend development standard eighteen to read, "The hours of
operation shall be 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., seven days a week,with the exception of special circumstances."
Tom Holton asked about the hours of operation typical for gravel pits. Ms. Martin replied it was either
Monday through Friday or Monday through Saturday, during daylight hours,with no operations on Sunday.
James Welch asked what hours of operation the applicant was currently approved for. Ms. Martin replied
there did not appear to be any hours of operation on the plat. Ms. Best Johnson asked the record to show
that on plat note B.6., they would work with Planning and Public Works to reflect an appropriate number of
parking spaces based on the use of the property, so the condition was not mandated with a particular
number going to the Board of County Commissioners, and they requested some flexibility per the use.
Ms. Martin responded Staff was willing to review any information regarding parking but the Board of
County Commissioners would make the final determination.
Doug Ochsner said regarding deletions, those were between Staff and the applicant and he did not feel
they needed to vote on any except for those moved prior to recording the plat. Roy Spitzer agreed with
Mr. Ochsner. Chad Auer said he saw the items as a checklist for accountability for the citizens. Bruce
Fitzgerald agreed and said they should not consider requests for deletion, rather work on the ones that
made sense.
Ms. Martin requested item 1.D., page five remain prior to scheduling the Board of County Commission
hearing and that 1.E., page five be renumbered to 2.M., page eight.
Doug Ochsner moved that 1.E., page five be renumbered to 2.M., page eight. Tom Holton seconded.
Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner moved that Development Standard 12, page 12, be amended to read include, "except for
helicopter use." Roy Spitzer seconded. Motion carried.
The Chair reviewed Development Standard 17, to amend to read, "for a maximum five helicopter take-offs
and landings per day, with the exception of emergency and safety." Erich Ehrlich asked who would be the
safety manager to monitor these flights, felt they were micro-managing the situation, and wished they had
gotten feedback from Firestone. Mr. Ehrlich suggested helicopter landings and take-offs during normal
business hours including emergency and safety landings.
8
Tom Holton asked for the definition of safety and was it if the company's pipeline went down or was it
-- getting the CEO to the jobsite; or was it a real safety issue or an emergency, which should be considered
life threatening. Ms. Best Johnson replied their definition of an emergency was anything life threatening.
Doug Ochsner suggested five takeoffs and landings per day, Monday through Saturday.
Paul Branham asked how many refueling stops they made per day. Mr. Allott said no fuel was on the site
at present but they anticipated no more than five a day. Based on that answer, Mr. Branham suggested
they leave the wording as it was except for life threatening emergencies.
Chad Auer said that created a loophole when they added the emergencies and who was counting—
probably the residents.
Roy Spitzer said if it got to be a problem they would look at it again and that five times a day was
reasonable with the emergency stipulation.
Roy Spitzer moved that a maximum of five helicopter take-offs and landings per day from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
be allowed with the exception of emergency uses involving life and safety. There was no second.
Doug Ochsner moved that a maximum of five helicopter take-offs and landings per day during daylight
hours, Monday through Saturday, with the emergency exemption. Roy Spitzer seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Chad
Auer, no; Paul Branham, no; Erich Ehrlich, no; Tom Holton, no; Doug Ochsner, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes;
James Welch, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, no. Motion failed 5-4.
Erich Ehrlich motioned that Development Standard 18, page twelve, read,"The hours of operation for all
activities on the site will be daylight hours, Monday through Saturday". Tom Holton seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Chad
Auer, yes; Paul Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes;
James Welch, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, no. Motion carried.
James Welch commented that currently they were not bound for their operations and he did not see how
adding five flights a day would change the number of man hours and they were putting a major restriction
on the operation. Bruce Fitzgerald agreed.
The Chair asked the applicant if they were in agreement with the current list of Development Standards
and Conditions of Approval. They replied they were, but wanted to have further discussions with Staff.
Erich Ehrlich said he was confused regarding the Code and Section 23-3-40 F. He expressed concern
that no concrete was required for the helipad and maybe they needed to look at changing the Code;
hydro-fuels only needed to be separated by fifty feet from any existing improvement and he felt that was
not enough; and the close proximity to the proposed Gloraloma development.
Paul Branham said some citizens in opposition mentioned safety, specifically crashes and distractions by
the helicopters, but he was not convinced there was a real safety concern and was inclined to support the
application.
Chad Auer said that as a resident of Firestone, he felt this was an issue of compatibility and cited Section
23-2-220A.3.
Tom Holton saw this as more of a convenience, not a special need; said it was a smart business move by
KP Kauffman; but basically the Planning Commission was approving an airport on the outskirts of town
and he saw no reason why the applicant couldn't operate from the Erie airport as it had jet fuel.
James Welch said this was not a real intensive use and supported the application even though he could
see concerns regarding compatibility.
9
Roy Spitzer said he had just realized the site was less than one half mile from his house and as there was
no existing development in close proximity to the site, he would support the application even though there
might be questions as to compatibility in the future.
Bruce Fitzgerald felt it was incompatible with Gloraloma and would not support the application.
Chad Auer moved to forward Case 3rd AmUSR-894, as amended with the Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for denial.
Second by Tom Holton.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Chad
Auer, yes; Paul Branham, no; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, no; Roy Spitzer, no;
James Welch, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion tied 4-4, therefore no recommendation was made to the
Board of County Commissioners.
Chad Auer cited Section 22-2-220A.3., regarding incompatibility with the surrounding area.
Erich Ehrlich cited Section 23-3-40F. and Section 23-2-20A.3.
Tom Holton cited Section 23-3-220A.3.
Doug Ochsner cited Section 23-2-220A.3., and believed it was compatible as he did not see the area ever
becoming high density residential due to the turkey farms and the oil and gas production, and that fact that
Commissioner Spitzer had lived there for some time and just became aware of the helicopter activity in
the past three days.
Roy Spitzer said that based on living in the area, his lifestyle was more disturbed by traffic accidents and
their emergency equipment than he had been by the helicopter.
Bruce Fitzgerald cited incompatibility.
7. CASE: USR-1563
APPLICANT: Cedar Creek Wind Energy LLC; Green Light Energy Inc
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for
a Major Facility of a Public Utility(Up to 300 individual three-
bladed wind turbine generators and up to three electrical
substations and associated power lines) in the A(Agricultural)
Zone District.
LEGAL: Parts of Sections 19, 30, 31, 34 Township 11 North, Range 58
West; Parts of Sections 6, 7, Township 10 North, Range 59
West; Parts of Sections 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25,26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
31, 32, 34, 36 Township 11 North, Range 59 West; Parts of
Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 28,
29,Township 10 North, Range 60 West; Parts of Sections 1, 2,
3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 14,15, 16, 17,20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,
29, 33, 34, 35, 36 Township 11 North, Range 60 West; Parts of
Sections 25, 36,Township 12 North, Range 60 West of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: Generally located in an irregularly shaped area south of and
adjacent to CR 138; North of and adjacent to CR 114, East of
and adjacent to CR 99 and west of CR 123.
•
8. CASE: USR-1562
APPLICANT: Cedar Creek Wind Energy LLC; Green Light Energy Inc
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
10
Hello