The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20062174.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMWASSION MEETING Tuesday, July 18, 2006 A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County Conference Room, 4209 CR 24.5, Longmont, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Bruce Fitzgerald, at 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Absent Chad Auer Paul Branham Erich Ehrlich Tom Holton Michael Miller Doug Ochsner Roy Spitzer James Welch Bruce Fitzgerald Also Present: Cyndy Giauque,County Attorney;Kim Ogle,Jacqueline Hatch,Chris Gathman,Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services; Don Carroll and Dave Bauer, Public Works Department; Char Davis and Phil Brewer, Environmental Health Department. HEARING ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED 1. CASE: USR-1553 APPLICANT: Parker/Dersham - Hall-Irwin Corporation PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Mineral Resource Development facility including Gravel Mining, export& import of materials and a Landscaping Sales Yard in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. LEGAL: SE-656 part SE4; Lot A of RE-2070 part SE4; and Lot B of RE- 1352 part SW4 NE4, all in Section 36, TIN, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: Multiple parcels generally located east of and adjacent to CR 23.5; north of and adjacent to CR 2 (Baseline Road); and south of CR 23.75. Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services, said the applicant was requesting an indefinite continuance of this case and staff was in support of this request. 2. CASE: PZ-1103 APPLICANT: Liberty Properties LLC c/o Kenneth & Connie Williamson PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch LEGAL: NW4 of Section 21, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: Liberty PUD, Change of Zone from the A(Agricultural)Zone District to PUD for one hundred and thirty one (131)lots with (R- 1) Low Density Residential uses, one (1)twenty three (23)acre lot with (C-1) Neighborhood Commercial uses, and approximately thirty(30)acres common open space. LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 32; east of and adjacent to CR 5. 1 2006-2174 Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services, said Planning Staff was requesting a continuance to allow for appropriate notification to the August 1, 2006 meeting, to be held at the Greeley office. 3. CASE: USR-1558 APPLICANT: Lester& Rachel Oliver PLANNER: Chris Gathman LEGAL: Lot A of RE-3012; Pt SE4 of Section 4, T4N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a use by right in the I (Industrial)Zone District(cast-in-place concrete construction business) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 31 and 1/4 mile north of CR 72. Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, said the applicants were requesting a continuance as they were making changes to their application and Planning Staff was recommending continuation of this case to the August 1, 2006 hearing. Doug Ochsner asked if they would receive new material on the cases continued indefinitely. Ms. Hatch said they would receive updated staff comments and the hearings would be rescheduled in the next couple of months. Doug Ochsner moved that Case USR-1553 be continued indefinitely and Cases PZ-1103 and USR-1558 be continued to the August 1, 2006 hearing date. Tom Holton seconded the motion. Motion passed. CONSENT ITEMS The Chair said Case USR-1559 would be pulled from the Consent Agenda at the request of two of the Commissioners and would be heard at the end of the hearing items and Case USR-1561 would also be pulled from the Consent Agenda and would be heard today. 4. CASE: AmUSR-1493 APPLICANT: Stephen Brancucci & Copart Inc PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch REQUEST: An amendment to a Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Use by Special Review in the Industrial Zone District (Commercial Junkyard or Salvage Yard) in the I (Industrial)and A(Agricultural)Zone District. LEGAL: Pt NE4SE4 and Lots A and B of RE-3932; Section 30, T1 N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 27 (Highway 85 Business); approximately 1/4 mile north of CR 4. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak. 5. CASE: AmUSR-256 APPLICANT: Duke Energy Field Services PLANNER: Kim Ogle REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Mineral Resource Development Facility including an Oil and Gas Support and Service Facility(Oil and Gas Processing Facility) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. LEGAL: Part SE4 of Section 28, T1 N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 4; 630 feet west of CR 19. 2 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 ITEMS Specific time for public input has been set aside for discussion on the following items: 6. 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. 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. 3 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 REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Major Facility of a Public Utility(a 72 mile 230 KV transmission line and one new switching station) in the A (Agricultural)Zone District. LEGAL: Parts of Sections 2, 3, 9,10, 16,17, 19, 20, 30 Township 10 North Range 60 West; Parts of Sections 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, 19, 25, 35, 36 Township 10 North Range 61 West; Parts of Sections 24, 25, 36 Township 9 North Range 62 West; Parts of Sections 1,12, 13, 24, 25, 36 Township 8 North Range 62 West; Parts of Sections 1, 12, 13, 24, 25, 36 Township 7 North Range 62 West; Parts of Sections 1, 12, 13, 24, 25, 34, 35, 36 Township 6 North Range 62 West; Parts of Sections 1, 3, 4, 7, 8 Township 5 North Range 62 West; Parts of Sections 12, 13, 14, 15, 22 Township 5 North Range 63 West; Parts of Sections 2, 3, 11, 14, 23, 26, 34, 35 Township 4 North Range 63 West; Parts of Sections 3,10, 15,22, 27,34 Township 3 North Range 63 West; Parts of Sections 3,5, 6 Township 2 North Range 63 West; Parts of Sections 1, 2, 3,4, 10,15, 22, 27 Township 2 North Range 64 West; Part of Section 7 Township 4 North Range 62 West; and Part of Section 13 Township 4 North Range 63 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: Commencing at a point east of CR 105 and North of CR 120 at a proposed substation within the boundary of the Proposed Cedar Creek Wind Farm, traversing in a southwesterly direction to a point in the general vicinity of CR 106 and CR 87, then traversing in a southerly direction to CR 98 and CR 87, then traversing in a southwesterly direction to a point one-half mile west of CR 85.5 then traversing in a southerly direction to CR 62 and CR 85.5 turning west onto CR 62 to CR 79.5 then traversing to a point near the intersection of CR 73 and CR 58; turning to head south onto CR 73 to a point near CR 44 then westerly along CR 58 to CR 69, then south to the northerly right-of-way of Interstate 76, then turning west to CR 65.5 to a point south of Interstate 76 then westerly on CR 24 to CR 55 then south on CR 55 to the proposed Keenesburg Switching Station. James Welch recused himself due to his family involvement with the project. Chris Gathman and Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, presented USR-1562 and USR-1563 in tandem, as the two cases were related. The applications were for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Major Facility of a Public Utility(a 72 mile 230 kV transmission line and one new switching station)and 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. The applicant's were Cedar Creek Wind Energy LLC and Green Light Energy Inc. The representative for this application was Nelson Teague. The sign for today's hearing and for the August 2, 2006 Board of County Commissioners hearing was posted a minimum of ten days prior to the July 18, 2006 Planning Commissioners hearing by planning staff. Cedar Creek Wind Energy LLC and Green Light Energy Inc. proposed to construct approximately 300 wind turbines in the Chalk Bluffs area of Northern Weld County near the Town of Grover, with at least one new substation and a new 72 mile 230kV transmission line with one new switching station sited in southern Weld County near the Town of Kennesburg. The wind farm component was generally described as 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; whereas the transmission line was described as commencing at the wind farm substation near CR 105 and CR 122 and traversing the County in a southwesterly 11 direction to the new switching station near the south 1-76 Frontage Road and CR 55,which would allow the facility to interconnect with the existing transmission system owned and operated by Public Service Company of Colorado at a site west of the Town of Keenesburg. The proposed wind turbines were located on approximately 118 acres of the site (out of a total site area of approximately 31,670 acres). Wind turbines would be set back a minimum of 1,000 feet from adjacent homes and a minimum of 400 feet from existing roads and USR site boundaries. The majority of the wind farm site consisted of grazing lands/open lands with some areas of dry land crop production. The facility would have little impact on agricultural lands within the site. The wind turbines and associated operations as proposed would not interfere with existing oil and gas facilities. The applicants had been working with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) regarding mitigating impacts to wildlife. The applicants were proposing measures such as setting wind turbines a minimum of 150-feet from the edge of the escarpment(a prime bird habitat), conducting pre- construction surveys for habitat and installing up to fifteen bird nests. The applicants had continued to meet with representatives from the CDOW and United States Fish and Wildlife regarding potential wind turbine setbacks from the escarpment edge along the western end of the site. Based on these meetings and site review of these locations, the CDOW recommended in their referral response dated July 12, 2006 that ten of the thirty nine turbine sites visited adjacent to the escarpment be set back at least 220 yards from the current rim edge identified by the applicant. The CDOW indicated no significant impacts with the other twenty nine wind turbine sites. CDOW also indicated that setbacks from Sharp-Tailed Grouse would be less than % mile for three of the turbine sites. These lesser setbacks would be in exchange for the applicant funding and/or conducting research in regards to the impact of turbines on Grouse behavior to guide future development of turbines. CDOW also indicated that the applicants and CDOW have agreed to engage in habitat enhancement projects as well as supplemental Plains Sharp-tailed Grouse transplants. Grover was located to the west of the proposed wind farm facility. The Town of Grover, in their referral letter dated July 7, 2006, indicated their support for the project. The turbines would have an overall height ranging from 327 to 391.5 feet to the tip of the blade and would be spaced approximately 700-800 feet on center. The application indicated that turbines of up to 416.5 feet might be used. In subsequent conversations with the applicant, they had indicated that the 416.5 foot turbines would not be installed. Turbines of up to 327 feet and up to 391.5 feet in height had been specifically identified on the project map. Rows of turbine blades would be set back approximately 1/3 to % mile from other rows. The blades of the turbines rotated at a fixed rate of between 20 and 25 revolutions per minute. The applicants were proposing a permanent operations and maintenance facility that would be staffed by employees. They were in the process of applying for a well permit to provide a permanent water source for these employees. The applicants were also proposing a temporary concrete batching facility and gravel mining facility to support the construction of the concrete foundations for the wind turbines along with the upgrade and support of county roads during construction. These facilities would be reviewed by the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners under separate Use by Special Review permits. The proposed transmission line route included approximately seventy two miles of 230 kV single circuit electric transmission line to transport power generated from the proposed 330 MW Cedar Creek Wind energy Facility near Grover, previously identified as USR-1563. The power would be transported via the 230 kV line to an interconnection point with Public Service of Colorado's (PSCo's) existing transmission system at the Rocky Mountain energy Center(RMEC)to Green Valley 230 kV line near Keenesburg. The proposed switching station and rebuild of a portion of the Fort St. Vrain to Green Valley 230kV line would become part of PSCo's high voltage transmission system, serving customers throughout PSCo's service territory in Colorado. The applicant requested a permit for placement of the 150—foot transmission line right-of-way at a specific location within the corridor determined through final negotiations with landowners and further analysis of 12 environmental resources. In locations where the corridor was bounded by two section lines, an additional three hundred feet was included to allow for potential siting of the transmission line right-of-way on either side of the section line. The portion of the proposed corridor at Crow Creek was two miles in width to allow for flexibility in avoiding the creek and associated riparian corridor, if feasible. The transmission line structures would consist of a two-pole H-frame structure approximately sixty to one hundred feet in height. The two poles of the wood H-frame structure would be nineteen and one half to twenty four feet apart at the base and forty to forty eight feet in width at the top of the structure. At angles of greater than five degrees, or at other locations where engineering needs dictate, guyed three pole steel structures would be used. Guyed H-frame structures would be used at angles of less than five degrees. Structures would have a weathering steel (core-ten)finish. The pole spacing would vary from six hundred to twelve hundred feet depending on terrain, existing obstructions and the type of pole utilized. The maximum ground clearance beneath the conductor was twenty-seven feet and the maximum height of working machinery that may be safely operated under this line was fourteen feet in height. In one location, on lands aligning with CR 55, the applicant was proposing to rebuild a segment of existing 230 kV transmission line to accommodate a date uncertain future PSCo's transmission line. All lines would end at the proposed Switching Station where there was an existing interconnection with the PSCo's Distribution system. The applicant was continuing to work with all of the affected property owners to establish a centerline and pole locations that maintained adequate clearance from residences and outbuildings and did not interfere with the operation and maintenance of pivot irrigation structures and to minimize impacts to farming operations. The preferred line route avoided sensitive areas associated with river corridors, wetlands, riparian edges and playas through the placement of structures and the utilization of large line spans. The preferred transmission line route had been developed in full cooperation with the Towns of Grover and Keenesburg. The Town of Grover did not respond to the referral request indicating a conflict with their interests and the Town of Keenesburg voiced opposition to the Secondary Proposed Transmission Line Route as it was in conflict with their Comprehensive Plan. The preferred transmission route was part of a rebuild of the Fort St. Vrain - Green Valley Line, utilizing an existing transmission line corridor that was in alignment with CR 55 Section Line. The proposed initial alignment was represented in this graphic, as well as the proposed alternate alignments. Additionally, the second graphic delineated the alignment of the transmission taking into consideration the referral agency comments, existing site conditions and concessions brokered with property owners. The proposed line would be close to several residences. However, potential problems resulting from the line's proximity to any of these structures would be minimized or negated by designing the line in accordance with the National Electric Safety Code (NESC)and Rural Utilities Services (RUS) standards. The Cedar Creek Wind Energy, LLC - Greenlight Energy, Inc. presentation would address this issue further in their presentation. There would be some interruption to the use of the land during construction, however, Cedar Creek Wind Energy, LLC - Greenlight Energy, Inc had indicated the owners would be compensated for loss of agricultural crops. All disturbed areas would be re-graded and where appropriate, re-seeded to provide proper drainage, stabilize the soils and prevent erosion. Per the application materials, the project may have mitigated impact on existing park and recreation facilities, known historic or pre-historic sites, threatened or endangered species, significant wildlife habitat or water courses/water bodies. There were no known natural hazards in the area that would affect or be affected by the proposed project. This application was a 1041 regulated USR as the matter of siting, transmission and generation, was a matter of statewide concern. Further, the project was proposed in response to PSCo's need for additional energy resources and desire to purchase wind energy. Electrical demand continued to increase in Colorado, largely as a result of continued growth and development along the Front Range. In December 2004, the Colorado Public Utilities Commission approved PSCo's 2003 Least-Cost Resource Plan, which included plans for a competitive solicitation to procure new energy resources. This Project would help fulfill PSCo's energy needs, as identified in the 2003 Plan. In 2004, Colorado voters passed Amendment 37, the 13 Renewable Energy Requirement. This initiative required that the state's largest utilities obtain a minimum of three percent of their electricity from renewable energy resources by 2007, six percent by 2011, and ten percent by 2015. The ten percent renewable energy standard would reduce about three million metric tons of power plant CO2 emissions per year by 2025,which was a reduction of four and one half percent below businesses - usual levels. This project would help PSCo meet obligations related to the Renewable Energy Requirement. For the wind farm component of this proposal, seventeen referral agencies reviewed this case and eight provided comment. For the transmission line and switching station component of this proposal,fifteen referral agencies reviewed this case and eight provided comment with the US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, providing an un-requested referral on July 12, 2006. In both applications, referral agencies offered comments in favor of the proposal, some with specific conditions should this application be approved. Numerous telephone inquiries and letters were received from surrounding property owners. A majority of the telephone inquiries and letters were related to the alignment of the transmission line relative to their property. The concerns and issues raised in the correspondence received included the alignment of the line, the potential devalue of the property, and the implied loss of view corridors to the front range and surrounding agricultural lands. The Department of Planning Services was recommending approval of USR 1562 and USR-1563, Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Major Facility of a Public Utility including a 72 mile 230 kV transmission line and one new switching station and 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. Don Carroll, Public Works Department and Char Davis, Environmental Health Department were both present. The applicant, Nelson Teague, was present along with his consultants, as were representatives of some of the referral agencies. Nelson Teague, Director of Project Transactions for Greenlight Energy, thanked the Department of Planning Services for their assistance over the past ten months of the application process and gave a brief overview of the project. The primary reason for the project was because Cedar Creek Wind Energy and Public Service Company of Colorado had a "power purchase agreement"to purchase the output (power)of the project and sell it at retail. The wind farm itself would involve over seventy County residents either through the leasing of land or privately negotiated rights-of-way. The project history began with conceptual work more than two years ago and included evaluations in many-areas; including evaluation of • the wind resource, initial evaluation of the appropriateness of the siting with respect to socio-economic reasons, and environmental reasons. They saw a developing market for renewable energy and have four other projects of this type in other counties. Mr. Teague relayed how many turbines (274)would be on the site; discussed access roads for maintenance and emergency response; spacing of turbines (up to seven to eight hundred feet); substation on the site; transmission line (alternate routes and why the present one was chosen, 230kV line with the poles eight hundred feet apart, sixty to one hundred feet in height, nineteen to twenty four foot base and forty to forty eight foot top width where the wires hung down)and connection to Public Service; options for right-of-way easements (roughly forty six landowners of which they have agreements with approximately twenty); sizes of turbines; and landscape screening at the substation. Mr. Teague said they had an option with the landowner to purchase land for the switching station,just west of Keenesburg, and after the station was built they planned to subdivide off the land and sell what they did not need. The construction schedule would begin late October into the first quarter of 2007 and must be in operation by the end of 2007; the project would create a significant tax base for the County; would include a significant amount of temporary employment (up to two hundred people)as well as the permanent employment of up to fifteen people; and during the construction period the County would see considerable economic stimuli in the area. Bruce Fitzgerald asked why this site was chosen. Mr. Teague said it was chosen because the wind blows there almost all of the time; this was a relatively rural area and with respect to development,was a better area for its placement; the residents were interested in generating revenue from their property; and its interconnectivity to the existing transmission grid. 14 Bruce Fitzgerald asked if dry land farming and grazing would still be accessible after the project was complete. Mr. Teague replied they could graze cattle and farm right up to the bases of the turbines. Chad Auer asked about the percentage of renewables for Public Service and did Mr. Teague have any particulars. Mr. Teague replied that he did not know the actual specifics. Mr. Auer asked about dual use for solar energy and were there any technologies available in that area. Mr. Teague said if that opportunity presented itself they would be agreeable. Tom Holton asked why they came all the way to Keenesburg. Mr. Teague said any other lines in the area were too small to support a project of this size. Mr. Holton said the lines seemed to have avoided public lands and wondered where the lines actually would end up. Mr. Teague said it made the most sense to avoid the Federal bureaucracy and their timing requirements and work with individual landowners to avoid undue delays. Doug Ochsner asked why the irregular shape of the project on the maps. Mr. Teague said the holes in the map were lower elevation lands where wind resources were lower, therefore they did not pursue those lands. Roy Spitzer asked if wind energy was really competitive at this point. Mr. Teague replied that it was, because pre-existing fossil fuels were expensive and this was more cost effective. The Chair said he would allow the public agencies to speak next. Larry Rogstad, District Manager with the Colorado Division of Wildlife(CDOW), stepped forward to address: species decline and management, more specifically regarding the millions of dollars spent on wildlife management; their dedication to wildlife preservation; the huge economic resource wildlife was to the State (3.2 billion dollar industry on an annual basis); and he disputed the applicant's claim that wildlife would not be impacted, as a project with this large a footprint would impact the area's resources and essential habitat for numerous plants and animals. Mr. Rogstad listed the animals, plants, riparian corridors and escarpments that would be impacted by this application; said the stakes were high for all involved and a poorly planned facility would impact the wildlife in the area; asked the applicant to honor the landowners concerns; and preferred site avoidance to mitigation in resolving potential wildlife conflicts. Mr. Rogstad requested modification by the Planning Department for USR-1563 on page seven, items 3.C. and 3.D. which read, "The applicant shall demonstrate attempted compliance with the Colorado Division of Wildlife as stated in their referral"and requested the word "attempted" be removed as it was ambiguous and suggested "significant compliance"as an alternative. On page fifteen of the USR-1563 application, Mr. Rogstad requested the opportunity to review all building permits and comment on the application's locations. He summarized by saying that he felt the CDOW and Cedar Creek had established a good relationship as both were committed to working towards development of this needed resource but it was imperative to protect those species valuable to the state and its residents. Chad Auer asked Mr. Rogstad if in his view this was a poorly planned project. Mr. Rogstad replied that the CDOW has no problems with the number of turbines except for those located on the escarpment (approximately ten)which would affect plants, animals and views significantly and wanted that impact minimized. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. Charles"Jim"Sturrock, self-proclaimed "Don Quixote of the Pawnee Bluffs", 50001 CR 122, Grover, CO 80729, Manager/owner of Lonesome Pines land and cattle company on the Pawnee Grasslands, in a hand-out to the Planning Commission, compared himself to Don Quixote; said he was fighting dragons that were arrogant, dictatorial, single minded and lacked respect for the eco-system and property rights; realized he lived in a society willing to spend millions of dollars and gallons of water of money on fairway oysters (Rocky Mountain Oysters); he was merely trying to live in harmony with his environment and make the least amount of impact; not requesting denial but requesting the Commissioners minimize the impact on the Bluffs; a portion of his two and a half mile water line would need to be moved; he refused to sign the lease as it was not financially smart;was advised by his lawyer that he would need a minimum of fifty 15 thousand dollars to fight the application; said society revolves around the making of money and he was fine with that; not against progress; more to life than the almighty dollar when it comes to the diminishing landscape; did not oppose the transmission lines but had not signed the lease for that yet as he wanted to see less impact on the raptors and minimize the impact on the pasture lands; showed a "winter fat" plant and said they were none on his property when he first came there in 1995 but with his grazing procedures he had brought them back to what they were two hundred years ago before man was present in the area; and he closed by asking that towers 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 2, 38, 36, and 35 not be placed any closer than mile from the escarpment on his property. Tom Holton asked if those were the ten turbines under discussion with the CDOW now. Mr. Sturrock replied they may be, but he did now know for sure. Matthew Ososky, 223 Chatoga Av, Grover, CO 80729, Mayor of Grover, said there was a majority of support in the town for the application; they saw it as a chance for development; major concern was for dirt roads and maintenance of them during and after the project and requested some sort of agreement for their maintenance to their current levels; one hundred fifty residents in town and the potential for two hundred additional workers made road maintenance critical; the impact on grasslands and wildlife is obvious but the financial impact of those wildlife viewing opportunities affects the small communities out there. Tom Holton asked the Mr. Ososky if he had an agreement for road maintenance. Mr. Ososky said just a verbal agreement with the applicant. Erich Ehrlich thanked Mr. Ososky for attending and asked if the Union Pacific Railroad was operating in the area. Mr. Ososky said the line had been abandoned so rail was not a viable way to get supplies to the area. Kevin Hahn, 55655 CR 124, Grover CO 80729, thanked the Commissioners for their diligence and read an article about the benefits to the drought stricken economy of the area with the addition of the wind farm; emphasized the increased dollars to area business and landowners; said this could bring more residents and students in their schools; and that Greenlight Energy had been a top company to work with from day one and supported their application. Jay McCarthy, 5108 Stetson Creek Ct, Fort Collins, CO, a landowner in the Crow Creek area; concerned that information to him could have been improved; power of eminent domain needed to be clarified to the landowners in order to understand their options; impact on his property was two -fold, environmental and diminished value of the property; he bought property to protect it under an environmental easement; concerned about the path of the transmission line; asked what the incremental cost was of altering the path versus the incremental benefit; and requested re-evaluation of the area for an amenable solution that would work for everyone. Bob Sanderson, no address given, landowner of two parcels directly affected by the transmission line in the Crow Creek area; said it would cross his property about four times; his intent when he purchased the property was to preserve the property; would like an alternate route be considered; cited diminished value to his property; addressed impact to wildlife in the area; and agreed with the nature of the wind farm but the specific impact to his property was too high. Erich Ehrlich asked about the route of the transmission line on Mr. Sanderson's land and clarification of that route. Mr. Sanderson replied the property currently affected runs south of CR 100 on the west side and the corner of CR 89. Beth Humphrey, Wildlife Biologist for Pawnee National Grasslands, 660"O" Street, Greeley, CO 80631, gave a background on Pawnee Grasslands; 193 thousand acres in northeast Weld County; wind farm would be in NW corner of their east block and goes around some of the smaller parcels in the Pawnee Grasslands; have four specific concerns—wildlife (and gave a list of those affected), visual effects, roads and migration impacts; area with greatest impact related to raptors; turbines close proximity to bluffs; must be able to maintain viability of the species in the area; support CDOW recommendations and are in alignment with that; migratory birds corridor not identified in any books but have over three hundred species identified that migrated through the area each spring; bats were impacted by wind turbines; fragmentation of the roads for species that must move through the area; Pawnee National Grasslands stressed the importance of Pawnee Buttes to the area; effects to Pawnee Trails Scenic Bi-way; turbines on the bluffs would forever alter the view; transmission lines were also a concern regarding wildlife and the visuals that would be altered; overall they supported the economic benefit to the residents; supported alternative sources of energy but do have these specific concerns. 16 Mark Cross, 7233 Whitworth Ct, Fort Collins CO 80528, owner of property on transmission route line and also one adjacent to Crow Creek; primary concern was for Crow Creek habitat and wildlife that lived there; had a conservation easement on one of his parcels and was attempting to put the same on his other property; transmission lines crossed the creek twice on his property; economic concern for impact on his property; no compensation or benefit given to those who are the closest to the transmission line; ability of Greenlight Energy not to touch Crow Creek would not impact their application even if they went as little as two miles north of proposed path and would bypass four miles of some pretty special property; would like to see best efforts made to minimize impacts. Janice Harms, 62500 CR 119, Grover, CO 80729, said the wind farm would be on their property; applicants had walked the area on many occasions and thought Greenlight Energy had done their homework as far as wildlife awareness; felt the project would help the community and would not impact her view; her closest neighbor was two and a half miles away and anyway residents were not all piled up out there like you were here. Kim Ehmke, 56348 CR 384, Grover, CO 80729, said the gentlemen from Fort Collins who owned property in the area were probably more concerned about potential development on their property than the transmission lines or saving Crow Creek, but that was her personal opinion; she would benefit greatly from the project as she would realize income from this project; had seen hawks perched on moving wind mills and did not feel they would be negatively impacted; wildlife in the area was very resilient; and residents in the area needed the economic benefits the project would bring. Tom Holton asked how much of the land up there was Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) but Ms. Ehmke did not know the answer. Bonnie McIntosh, 8335 CR 55, Keenesburg, CO, sent a letter and after looking at the applicant's map asked why the transmission line couldn't follow 1-76 rather than turn west on CR 24 and then go south through the full length of their farm. Fawnda Stately, 43001 CR 76, Briggsdale, CO 80611, said Cedar Creek had worked on this for many years yet she had only heard from them very recently; applicant approached her with an alternate route but company did not have a real feel for the landowner, seem more interested in their own gain; and asked the applicant not threaten her with eminent domain and be prepared to pay what the land is actually worth. Kevin Malovich, 42949 CR 76, Briggsdale, CO 80611, asked about the possibility of alternate routes for the line; concerned for the value of his property and did not want power lines running two hundred feet from his property lines; asked they be informed of plans more regularly. The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting and asked Mr. Teague to respond to citizen concerns. Mr. Teague's responses to Mr. Sanderson and Mr. McCarthy was that their property was owned by someone else so Greenlight Energy had to wait to see who the new owners were before they could notify them of proposed route; that his company did have some latitude within the proposed pathway; that most of the land was already under option; that it was not their intent to go through residential areas; they were cautiously optimistic they could satisfy the majority of the landowners; there would be no new power lines, they would use existing easements; there was a landowner in segment fifteen they had reached agreement with but did not intend to permit anything in the old segment fifteen as it was not their intention to permit anything other than the proposed line that was under review today(they wanted to withdraw anything in the grey area or segment fifteen on the older maps); and then asked to have their environmental expert address wildlife concerns. Bruce Fitzgerald said he would like to see a road maintenance agreement with Grover. Mr. Teague said he would have no problem with that and the Planning Department could add that as a Development Standard. Doug Oschner asked what their options were if a landowner refused them. Mr. Teague said the option they had been pursuing most actively was to work with the landowner but they did have the right of eminent domain, but were confident they would not need to do so. Mr. Ochsner asked about moving Mr. Sturrock's water line and if they were willing to work with him on resolving that issue. Kevin Davis, 17 Greenlight Energy, Director of Site Development, said they were in the process of trying to accommodate for this water line, that they could move the water line or move a turbine and it was easier to move a turbine. Erich Ehrlich asked how the soil impacted the turbine placement and also what impact would the yellow proposed line have on any cost or profit sharing with Morgan County. Mr. Teague said they had alternative paths but were pursuing the set path, as the line by Morgan County had a lot of issues with respect to appropriateness to siting, and it was only included as an alternative route. Tom Holton asked if the route shown was accurate except for a few small deviations and applicant answered yes. Paul Branham asked about the CDOW request to change"attempt" to"significant" ("applicant shall demonstrate attempted compliance with the CDOW as stated in their referral"and requested the word "attempted" be removed as it was ambiguous and suggested "significant compliance"as an alternative) and Development Standard Thirteen where CDOW asked for an additional sentence asking for the ability to review building permits. Mr. Teague said he did not know how appropriate it was to allow other entities to review their permit once it had been issued by the County and he would not be in support of that request. Tom Holton asked if Greenlight Energy was still working with the CDOW on the ten turbines that might be moved. Mr. Teague deferred to Kevin Davis who addressed the rim edge and escarpment edge and the reason why they were building a hundred fifty feet back from the edge, and why they were building a seventy two mile power line; locations were extremely critical for their production as they needed to be as high as possible on those rim edges for maximum wind speed and power generation; they considered themselves environmentalists and wanted to work with the CDOW and had hired a company from Wyoming, Western Ecosystems Technologies, to guide them; and they would have the Pawnee National Grasslands trail head moved to lessen impacts on grasslands. Rhett Good, Western Ecosystems Technologies, a wildlife consulting firm hired by Greenlight Energy; said they had worked with the CDOW regarding wildlife preservation and minimization of impacts on wildlife; had conducted studies on specific wildlife impacts; spoke about setbacks as recommended by the CDOW, specifically a minimum of four hundred meters from all inactive raptor nests and hawk nests and this was the first project they were aware of that had suggested a buffer for inactive nests and avoided turbines in those areas and he credited Greenlight Energy with being pro-active; established a minimum setback of fifty meters from the rim edge as the majority of raptor use occurs in that area; a half mile setback from shark-tailed grouse areas; Greenlight Energy had agreed to fund an extensive study on the effect of wind turbines on the shark-tailed grouse; Mountain plover surveys would be conducted prior to turbine placement; fox den site surveys were done so their burrows would not be disturbed; and they found no major prairie dog towns in the area. Tom Holton asked if many raptors were injured or killed by turbines. Mr. Good, Western Ecosystems Technologies, replied that it had happened in the past but developers had gotten smarter and they had seen lower mortality rates since then. Mr. Teague thanked Mr. Gathman and Mr. Ogle, Department of Planning, and said he felt Greenlight Energy had crossed their"t's" and dotted their"i's" and then some, and asked for a recommendation of approval. Doug Ochsner asked Don Carroll, Public Works Department, about the road agreement. Mr. Carroll said the first thing missing was the USR questionnaire containing key items he used to complete his referral. He added that: he needed to get a handle on what would happen with truck traffic; he requested the applicant identify a haul route so as not to impact roads as much; that they address heavy truck traffic; and they institute dust abatement. Mr. Carroll asked the applicant to be aware of road damage beyond normal wear and tear and bring them back to standards or beyond standards. He said the Grover road maintenance agreement was great but the County did maintain roads in the area. Mr. Carroll was also missing and wanted to add a Road Maintenance Improvements Agreement with the County and still needed information and agreement from the applicant, and if they used County rights-of-way, Greenlight 18 Energy would need appropriate documentation. Mr. Carroll said he would draft a paragraph and consult with Grover. Tom Holton and Erich Ehrlich asked if they needed to add a development standard regarding the roads. Chris Gathman said typically improvements agreements were done as conditions of approval prior to recording the plat, and they could be added on USR-1562 as 3.M., page thirteen and on USR- 1563 as 3.P., page eight. Doug Ochsner moved they add item 3.P., page eight to USR-1563. Erich Ehrlich seconded. Motion carried. Doug Ochsner moved they add item 3.M., page thirteen to USR-1562. Erich Ehrlich seconded. Motion carried. Chris Gathman, Planning Department, addressed language changes in items 3.C. and 3.D. and Staffs comment was the Board of County Commissioners would need to determine if they replaced "attempted" with "significant", how would they define "attempted". Staff recommended leaving the language as it was regarding compliance and that the CDOW could bring it up at the Board of County Commissioner's hearing. Mr. Gathman said regarding Development Standard thirty and the CDOW request to review building permit applications, a potential solution would be to ask for a designated building envelope on the plat to show where the operation maintenance facility would be built and because there were Department of Defense facilities in the area, they should be informed of the construction. Recommendation for the turbine site locations would be covered under the condition "prior to recording the plat". Paul Branham asked if that would be a new condition and Mr. Gathman replied they already had that as a condition, an "attempt to address"and recommended leaving it as it was. The Chair asked the applicant if he had read and agreed with the changes. Mr. Teague said they accepted the revised Development Standards and Conditions of Approval. Roy Spitzer asked if there were other alternate, reasonable routes they were pursuing that would impact Crow Creek less. Mr. Teague replied there was flexibility but they were continuing to pursue the proposed route that allowed them to connect the wind farm with the transmission system. Doug Oschner said this was a huge project with far reaching benefits for many residents and he believed the applicants had really tried to satisfy everyone involved and he supported the project. Erich Ehrlich applauded Greenlight Energy's open house and was glad to see the project in Weld County as well as property owners that supported the application. He asked Greenlight Energy to continue the education of and resolution with the property owners, and gave his support to the project. Paul Branham also supported the project as development of wind energy was needed; said the applicant was to be commended for their effort and work with the property owners; and was optimistic Greenlight Energy would come to agreement with all of the property owners. Chad Auer congratulated the applicant and the landowners for their positive work on this enormous project; gave his support to the project; and applauded the large number of people in the audience that gave their time and attention to the hearing today. Roy Spitzer echoed the other Commissioner's views; said he had several questions prior to.the hearing but they had been answered to his satisfaction; appreciated the property owners that had attended the hearing; and supported the project. Tom Holton strongly suggested the applicant continue to work with the property owners in order to prevent use of eminent domain and he supported the project. Doug Ochsner moved to send USR-1562 to the Board of County Commissioners with the amended Development Standards and Conditions of Approval with their recommendation of approval. Chad Auer seconded the motion. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Chad Auer, 19 yes; Paul Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; James Welch, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried. Doug Ochsner moved to send USR-1563 to the Board of County Commissioners with the amended Development Standards and Conditions of Approval with their recommendation of approval. Chad Auer 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. 9. CASE: USR-1561 APPLICANT: Duke Energy Field Services PLANNER: Kim Ogle REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Mineral Resource Development Facility including an Oil and Gas Support and Service Facility(Oil and Gas Processing Facility) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. LEGAL: Part SE4 SE4 of Section 10, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 22;400 feet west of CR 21 Section Line. Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, said USR-1561,was an application for a Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Mineral Resource Development Facility including an Oil and Gas Support and Service Facility(Oil and Gas Processing Facility) located on approximately one acre in the agricultural zone district. The applicant was represented by Tim Clancy of Witwer, Oldenburg, Barry&Johnson, LLP,Attorneys. This site was located north of and adjacent to CR 22; four hundred feet more or less west of CR 21 Section Line. The site was located within the three mile referral area of the Towns of Frederick and Firestone and the City of Fort Lupton. The City of Fort Lupton and Town of Frederick stated they had reviewed the request and found no conflicts with their interests. The Town of Firestone did not respond to the referral request. Surrounding lands were in dry land crop production. There were several residences in the immediate vicinity, predominately to the north and south. The facility was located on higher ground, north of CR 22 on ground sloping north from a two lane gravel road. The high point was associated with lands to the south of the facility. Primary access was from CR 22, a local gravel road. The site was fenced with compressor components and two locked and gated access points. The service yard was graveled and graded with overhead lighting directed at specific equipment locations.There were two compressors with a baffle-sound wall to the northwest of the service yard. There was no visual outside storage. There was a dumpster that would require screening from adjacent properties and road right-of-way. The sign for today's hearing was posted at least ten days prior to the hearing by staff and was evidenced by photograph. Fifteen referral agencies had reviewed the case and nine offered comments, some with specific conditions. There had been one letter received from a surrounding property owner, and one person reviewed the case file. Two telephone inquiries were received from adjacent property owners who had questions regarding the application and had also raised concerns. The Planning Department recommended approval of this application with the attached Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. 20 Char Davis, Environmental Health Department and Don Carroll, Public Works Department were present. Mr. Clancy was present on behalf of Duke Energy Field Services. Tim Clancy, the applicant's representative, of Witwer, Oldenburg, Barry&Johnson LLP, 822 7th St, Ste 760, Greeley, CO, 80631, and Joe Kuchinski, Duke Energy Field Services LP, 1324 N 7 Av, Greeley CO, 80631, addressed the major concerns; the amount of noise the site generated and said they had hired a sound consultant to mitigate the neighbor's concerns and would continue to pursue satisfactory resolution; and a neighboring property owned by a Duke Energy affiliate and said they would take steps to secure it and look into the prairie dog issues on the site. Mr. Clancy said they had read and agreed with the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval. Linda Gardner, 10103 CR 22, Fort Lupton, CO 80621, said there had been more noise since Duke Energy made a change to their site and they have not had their bedroom windows open since October of 1998; she had an ongoing request to mitigate noise levels and had no luck with Duke Energy; there was no noise abatement material inside the fence; and she feared this would never be rectified; the facility was zoned industrial and Duke Energy was within acceptable noise levels and her only recourse was litigation; the new regime had guaranteed to improve conditions but she was still concerned that the registered level of noise was industrial and she felt is should be less than that. Kim Jones, 10000 CR 22, Fort Lupton, CO 80621, said there was a flat metal sound wall that reflected sound back to them and made normal conversation on her front porch impossible and she was pleased with the current responses from Duke Energy, but if these new measures were not satisfactory, she would take further action. The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing. Bruce Fitzgerald asked Char Davis, Environmental Health Department, about noise levels and the zoning for the property. Ms. Davis replied the zoning was agricultural but noise levels were regulated by the Oil and Gas Commission and could not be higher than eighty decibels within twenty five feet of the property line. If the site were to go beyond that level and did not comply with regulations, the County could revoke the application. Doug Ochsner asked if Mr. Brewer had been to the site to take measurements. Ms. Davis said Phil Brewer, Environmental Health Department, had received several complaints from area residents, had addressed noise issues in the area, and was investigating. Ms. Davis said they had problems with noise levels at Duke Energy, but they had been very cooperative in the past with noise mitigation. Kim Ogle, Department of Planning, said he had one modification to Development Standard number nine, page six, to strike that item at the request of the Department of Public Health and Environment as it was not applicable to the site. Tom Holton moved to delete Development Standard number nine, page six. Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion carried. Tim Clancy, the applicant's representative, said in regard to the noise; they would continue to work with the surrounding property owners; would put up the sound baffling; and would engineer sound to a lower level than required as their intent was to come below acceptable levels. Joe Kuchinski said he was committed to taking measures to mitigate noise levels; he was not an expert on sound but they were trying to be good corporate neighbors; the equipment they operate was noisy by its nature; and he appreciated Ms. Gardner's concerns. The Chair asked the applicant if they were in agreement with the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval. Mr. Clancy said they were. Tom Holton asked if the sound engineering consultant Duke Energy planned to hire would address all sides of the enclosure. Mr. Kuchinski said they had not hired an engineering consultant at this time but they had taken the first step in installing the sound baffling material and if that was not satisfactory they 21 would take the additional steps necessary to meet the conditions of the application. Mr. Holton asked Mr. Kuchinski if they owned the eighty acres next to the site with the prairie dogs. He replied that another division of Duke Energy, Duke Energy Gas Transmission Company, owned the property, but he assumed Duke Energy Gas Transmission would respond to the necessity to resolve the noise issue and be responsible for the management of the prairie dogs. Erich Ehrlich asked Ms. Davis, Environmental Health Department, if on page three, section 23-2-20 regarding prairie dogs, could the County do anything to eliminate prairie dogs. Ms. Davis said they monitored the prairie dogs for plague but did not advocate the termination of the colonies. Paul Branham said it was apparent that Duke Energy was well on their way to satisfying the concerns of the neighbors. Paul Branham moved that Case USR-1561, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and amended Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval. Tom Holton 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. Tom Holton commented that he would encourage Duke Energy to work with the neighbors to do what was necessary to resolve the prairie dog issue. Doug Ochsner commented this case was removed from the consent agenda so the applicant and neighbors could communicate. This has shown the system worked the way it was supposed too and he hoped the issues would be resolved favorably for all concerned. 10. CASE: USR-1559 APPLICANT: Eleanor Fransen Trust PLANNER: Kim Ogle LEGAL Lots A& B of RE-3865, part of the S2 NE4 of Section 29, T2N, R62W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for an Airstrip in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 77; approximately %mile north of CR 16. Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, said USR-1559 was an application for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for an airstrip (non-commercial and private) in the A (Agricultural)Zone District located on an eighty acre tract in the agricultural zone district, more specifically described as Lots A& B of RE-3865. The applicants were William and Linda Snyder. This site was located west of and adjacent to CR 77; approximately% mile north of CR 16, and was not located within the three mile referral area for any municipality. Surrounding lands were in dry land crop production. There were several residences in the immediate vicinity in all directions. The proposed facility was located on level ground, west of CR 77 that was presently vacant. There were existing oil and gas encumbrances on site including a battery,wellhead and separator. Staff had received no telephone calls or letters of concerns from the oil and gas entity. The applicant was proposing one primary airstrip runway adjacent to the south property line and two auxiliary runways, one located from the south runway area to a point to the northwest and a crosswind runway located on the north south axis. A total of three runways were proposed. The sign for today's hearing was posted at least ten days prior to the hearing by Staff and was evidenced 22 by photograph and affidavit. Thirteen referral agencies had reviewed this case and ten offered comments, some with specific conditions. There had been several letters received from surrounding property owners, and one person reviewed the case file. Two telephone inquiries were received from adjacent property owners who had questions regarding the application. Primary concerns raised from the letters included issues of noise and safety, disruptive to the country way of life, and devaluing of property values, Mr. Ogle said the Planning Department recommended approval of this application. For the edification of the Planning Commission, he gave a definition of an AIRSTRIP: Any locality, situated on either water or land which is adapted for the landing and taking off of aircraft, operated by the owner or lessee of the land USED as an AIRSTRIP. An AIRSTRIP may be USED only for private aircraft owned or leased by the operator of the AIRSTRIP. (Section 23-1-90 of the Weld County Code) Char Davis, Environmental Health Department and Don Carroll, Public Works Department were present. The applicant, Linda Snyder, was also present. Paul Branham cited Section 2.A., Chapter 22 of the Code regarding compatibility with commercial land uses and adjacent land uses and asked if this was commercial. Mr. Ogle said it was private and would be only for the property owner of record's personal use, as defined by County Code, Section 23-1-90, but he would check further and make modifications if required. James Welch asked if the airstrip use was for the owner only, and if potential buyers wanted to split the land, who would have use/ownership of the airstrip. Mr. Ogle replied the planes and the airstrip had to be under the property ownership of the property owner and if they subdivided and split off another parcel of land, the new land owners would not have use of the property associated with the airstrip. Doug Ochsner asked if the property could be owned by ten individual people. Mr. Ogle said not unless they created some type of a homeowner's association for the maintenance of the property but that would be through the PUD process. Today's application addressed two lots created through the recorded exemption process and when people apply, they are directed to apply for more than they could possibly ever want on their property, thus reducing the need to reapply in the future. That is why we directed the applicant to apply for three airstrips, though their application had originally been submitted for one airstrip. Linda Snyder, 7104 W 12th St, Greeley, CO 80634, applicant, said her husband was a pilot for the Forest Service; they both had obtained their private pilot licenses in 1968; and currently rent hangar space at the Greeley Airport but would like to have their planes on their property when Mr. Snyder retires. Five of seven responses from neighbors expressed no problem with their application. The seventh property owner was against it due to airplane noise, safety, and the possible effect on their horses. Mrs. Snyder had contacted five families with horses who lived near airports that said airplane noise had not disturbed their animals. She also presented information from a noise study done by Phil Brewer, Environmental Health Department, which addressed decibel noise and relationships to everyday sounds. Mrs. Snyder said the reason for requesting three runways was that Planning Staff had advised them to ask for anything they might ever want with this application. They had requested a diagonal runway,which would not go over houses, to align with northwest winds. The primary runway would run east to west on the property and would be used the majority of the time as they take off over vacant property with that runway. The cross wind runway would only be used if the winds were strong and directly out of the north and did not anticipate using it often. The flight patterns would all be left hand and would go over the neighbor's property, but not their houses. Altitude on down wind would be about one thousand feet above ground and altitude turning to final to a runway would be about six to seven hundred feet. They estimated ten take-offs and landings per month in their application to the Federal Aviation Administration (FM). Mrs. Snyder addressed the possible future development on their property of three more lots and those owners having access to the runways and said they were requested for family members that might like to settle on the family property. At no time did they consider marketing the lots to pilots only. Mrs. Snyder said their research for water wells for future lots could be an issue. She closed be saying that she and her husband were nice people, were safety conscious pilots that support the rural atmosphere, and would bend over 23 backward to be good and considerate neighbors. Doug Ochsner asked how many lots they were talking about. Mr. Ogle responded there were two lots, A and B of the recorded exemption. The applicants had opted to include all eighty acres in their application, so as long as they own both lots, there would be no more than four planes on the property. Tom Holton asked Mrs. Snyder where they would build their house. Mrs. Snyder said on Lot B between the primary and the gas well. Paul Branham asked how many planes they presently owned or leased. She said they own two and they thought it only fair for the other property owner to have two planes as well. Bruce Fitzgerald addressed the applicant and said if they were to do further subdividing they would have to go through a change of zone and a PUD. Mr. Ogle said the applicant was allowed to create lots through a recorded exemption but under this USR, planes were restricted to the property owner only. Carol Wilson, no address given except CR 77, said she lost a home by Barr Lake to eminent domain for DIA; would never have purchased her property had she known about the airstrip; was against the airstrip; believed this was a strong negative impact and would restrict the neighbor's use of their property; felt the runways belonged in a less developed area; low flying aircraft would affect her horses; and did not want the applicant flying over her property, even though the applicant's might be very capable and safety conscious, accidents happened. Tom Holton asked Ms. Wilson to point out her residence on the map. Lauri Klausner,7501 CR 77, Roggen, CO, said she hired crop dusters and when they flew over her property at 5 a.m., it got her out of bed;felt an airstrip with two planes and the possible development of five houses and ten planes is not limited use; it would make a considerable impact; not compatible with adjacent land uses; too many planes and too many runways; has a problem with directions the planes will go on take-off and landing; and suggested other more appropriate areas for an airstrip; asked the USR duration be restricted to the Snyders only and any change in ownership would void the USR; cited the egg laying facility and feedlot in the area; and did not feel it was a case of"not in my backyard" but rather it should be a case of"not in anyone's back yard". Tom Holton asked Ms. Klausner where her residence was on the map. Doug Ochsner asked Ms. Klausner if she realized the application was no longer for five lots and ten airplanes; it would be for the Snyder's personal use only. Ms. Klausner replied she understood but still opposed the application. Brad Peterson, resided at 14475 CR 386, and owned property at 34555 CR 50, Kersey CO 80644, where they were building a house they planned to move into this fall; said an airstrip was not consistent with the uses of the surrounding area (equestrian arena, CRP, dry land farming, residential) and he would not have purchased the property had he known this would occur; CRP was designed to promote wildlife habitat and an airstrip was not compatible; and felt property values would be lowered. Mike Klausner, 2862 Fifth Street, Castle Rock, CO, opposed the application as it was not consistent with the area; land in the area should be used for agriculture; what were the rights of longtime residents who opposed this airstrip; read from Chapter 22 of the Code Comprehensive Plan and said residential and commercial development was gobbling up property; said there was a name for what the Snyders wanted to do and it was called an airpark; proposed application would have a negative impact on the value of his property; not acceptable for the area. Robert Klausner, 210 N 59 Av Ct , Greeley, CO, 80634, said in two years the applicants could do another recorded exemption and the ideal location would be straight east of the airstrip but it would still affect the value of their property as well as impact the wildlife. The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing. 24 Mrs. Snyder responded to neighbor's concerns; she described a touch and go; said they would not circle around over their neighbor's property as often as was represented; agricultural planes were much louder than the planes they flew; safety was always a concern to them and her husband received extensive training yearly and was evaluated twice a year as well; and they had investigated an airpark location but the cost was prohibitive for them. Tom Holton mentioned the three runways, said the cross wind runway was the most problematic as far as going over homes in the area, and asked if the applicant's could adjust the flight patterns to avoid homes in the area. He also said the airstrips were more complex than what he had seen in the area. Mrs. Snyder replied they would adjust flight patterns but would still need to use the circle pattern, if only rarely; felt the diagonal runway was the worst offender; and the cross wind strip was not close enough to the neighbor's property to be a safety concern. Chad Auer asked Tom Holton if the path pattern had to be that tight. Mr. Holton answered no, they could use straight in approaches or make the pattern real wide, and there were no specific distances you had to be from the airstrip. The Chair asked about the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Ogle said page four, item 4.A. could be stricken as it had been met by the applicants. Mr. Ogle added there were also three other airstrips in the area of this application. The Chair asked the applicant if she agreed with the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval. Mrs. Snyder said yes. James Welch said he felt better about this application after hearing the case and that was why he asked it be removed from the consent agenda. He also did not see ten take-offs and landings as a highly intensive use. Bruce Fitzgerald said he was concerned with the look of the subdivision but agreed with Mr. Welch that landings and take-offs were not excessive and supported the application. Tom Holton said he still had issues with the multiple landing strips. James Welch moved that Case USR-1559, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's 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, no; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; James Welch, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Donita Secretary 25 Hello