HomeMy WebLinkAbout20062520 •
BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by James Welch,that the following resolution be introduced for approval by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
Case: USR-1559
Applicant: Eleanor Fransen Trust
c/o William and Linda Snyder
Planner: Kim Ogle
Legal Description: 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: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for an
airstrip (non-commercial and private) in the A (Agricultural)Zone District.
Location: West of and adjacent to CR 77; approximately 1/2 mile north of CR 16.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 23-2-260 of
the Weld County Code.
2. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services'staff that the applicant has shown compliance
with Section 23-2-220 of the Weld County Code as follows:
A. Section 23-2-220.A.1 -- The proposed use is consistent with Chapter 22 and any other
applicable code provisions or ordinance in effect. Section 22-2-150 B.1 (C.Goal 2) states
"ensure the compatibility of commercial land uses with adjacent land uses."As proposed,the
airstrip shouldn't have an adverse impact on the surrounding properties.
B. Section 23-2-220.A.2--The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the A(Agricultural)
Zone District.Section 23-3-40.F of the Weld County Code provides for Airstrips as a Use by
Special Review in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
C. Section 23-2-220.A.3--The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with the existing
surrounding land uses.The surrounding area is dryland with nine homes in the vicinity.Given
that the airstrip is limited to the private use of the property's owners there should be limited
impact on the surrounding homeowners.
D. Section 23-2-220.A.4 -- The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with future
development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning and with the future
development as projected by Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code and any other applicable
code provisions or ordinances in effect, or the adopted Master Plans of affected
municipalities. The site does not lie within the referral area of a municipality.
E. Section 23-2-220.A.5--The application complies with Section 23-5 of the Weld County Code.
The far western property line associated with the site is within the flood overlay district, as
delineated on the FIRM Community Panel maps,dated 1982. Conditions of approval ensure
that construction of the east west secondary runway addresses flood plain issues. The site
is also currently participating in the CRP, Conservation Reserve Program.
Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to
adhere to the fee structure of the County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11).
Effective August 1, 2005, Building permits issued on the subject site will be required to
adhere to the fee structure of the Capital Expansion Impact Fee and the
Stormwater/Drainage Impact Fee. (Ordinance 2005-8 Section 5-8-40). a`
F. Section 23-2-220.A.6--The applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort to conserve prime I
agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use.The site is designated"High
Potential Dryland, prime if they become irrigated" by the NRCS Soil Conservation Services
and the Important Farmlands of Weld County map dated 1979.. However,no irrigation water
exists.
2006-2520 M00"
Resolution USR-1559
Eleanor Fransen Trust
Page 2
G. Section 23-2-220.A.7 -- The Design Standards (Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code),
Operation Standards (Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code), Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards ensure that there are adequate provisions for the protection of
health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and County.
This recommendation is based,in part,upon a review of the application materials submitted by the applicant,
other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities.
The Planning Commission's recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following:
1. Prior to recording the plat:
1. The plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
1. All pages of the plat shall be labeled USR-1559 (Department of Planning Services)
2. The attached Development Standards. (Department of Planning Services)
3. Primary and Crosswind or Secondary airstrips as indicated in application materials.
(Department of Planning Services)
4. County Road 77 is classified by the County as a local gravel road with a 60 foot right-of-
way, 30 feet each side of section line. The applicant shall verify the existing right-of-way
and the documents creating the right-of-way. If the right-of-way can not be verified, it shall
be dedicated. (Department of Public Works)
2. The applicant shall submit two(2) paper copies of the plat for preliminary approval to the Weld
County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
2. Upon completion of 1.above the applicant shall submit a Mylar plat along with all other documentation
required as Conditions of Approval. The Mylar plat shall be recorded in the office of the Weld County
Clerk and Recorder by Department of Planning Services' Staff. The plat shall be prepared in
accordance with the requirements of Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld County Code. The Mylar plat and
additional requirements shall be submitted within thirty(30)days from the date of the Board of County
Commissioners resolution.The applicant shall be responsible for paying the recording fee.(Department
of Planning Services)
3. The Department of Planning Services respectively requests the surveyor provide a digital copy of this
Use by Special Review. Acceptable CAD formats are .dwg, .dxf, and .dgn (Microstation); acceptable
GIS formats are ArcView shapefiles, Arclnfo Coverages and Arclnfo Export files format type is .e00.
The preferred format for Images is .tif(Group 4). (Group 6 is not acceptable). This digital file may be
sent to maps(&co.weld.co.us. (Department of Planning Services)
D. Prior to operation:
A. The applicant shall submit Form 7480-1 Notice of Landing Proposal to the Federal Aviation
Administration. Written evidence of approval shall to submitted to the Department of Planning
Services for review prior to the release of building permits or operation. (Greeley-Weld Airport
Authority)
E. Prior to the Release of Building Permits:
A. The applicant shall submit a letter of approval from the SE Weld Fire Protection District for the
construction of any new structure. Written evidence of approval shall to submitted to the
Department of Planning Services. (Department of Building Inspection).
B. The applicant shall submit a letter from the SE Weld Fire Protection District stipulating the Fire
District has reviewed and approved the proposed plans for fuel storage and containment
associated with this proposed facility. Written evidence of approval shall to submitted to the
Resolution USR-1559
Eleanor Fransen Trust
Page 3
Department of Planning Services. (SE Weld Fire Protection District)
C. The applicant shall submit written evidence of compliance with the Weld County Farm Service
Agency for all lands associated with this parcel that are within the Conservation Reserve
Program. (Department of Planning Services)
F. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy:
A. An individual Sewage Disposal System(I.S.D.S.)Is required for the proposed residence and shall
be installed according to the Weld County individual Sewage Disposal regulations. (Department
of Public Health and Environment)
B. The septic system is required to be designed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer
according to the Weld County individual Sewage Disposal regulations. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
G. The Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the
property until the Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and
Recorder. (Department of Planning Services)
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
William & Linda Snyder
USR-1559
A. The Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit is for an airstrip (non-commercial and
private) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District,as indicated in the application materials on file and subject
to the Development Standards stated hereon. (Department of Planning Services)
B. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 23-8-10 of the Weld County
Code. (Department of Planning Services)
C. All liquid and solid wastes(as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act,30 20 100.5,
C.R.S., as amended)shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects against
surface and groundwater contamination. (Department of Public Health & Environment)
D. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not meant to include those
wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a solid waste in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and
Facilities Act, 30 20 100.5, C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public Health & Environment)
E. Waste materials shall be handled,stored,and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust,fugitive
particulate emissions, blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions. (Department of Public
Health & Environment)
F. The applicant shall operate in accordance with the approved "waste handling plan". (Department of
Public Health & Environment)
G. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of the Underground and Above Ground Storage Tank
Regulations (7 CCR 1101-14). (Department of Public Health & Environment)
H. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the Federal Aviation
Administration. (Department of Planning Services)
I. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions shall be controlled on this site. The facility shall be
operated in accordance with the approved dust abatement plan at all times. (Department of Public
Health & Environment)
J. This facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Commercial Zone as
delineated in 25 12 103 C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public Health & Environment)
K. Adequate handwashing and toilet facilities shall be provided.(Department of Public Health &
Environment)
L. Sewage disposal shall be septic system. Any septic system located on the property must comply with
all provisions of the Weld County Code,pertaining to Individual Sewage Disposal Systems.(Department
of Public Health & Environment)
M. A permanent,adequate water supply shall be provided for drinking and sanitary purposes.(Department
of Public Health & Environment)
N. All potentially hazardous chemicals must be stored and handled in a safe manner in accordance with
product labeling and in a manner that minimizes the release of hazardous air pollutants (HAP's) and
volatile organic compounds (VOC's). (Department of Public Health & Environment)
O. If applicable, the applicant shall obtain a stormwater discharge permit from the Colorado Department
of Public Health & Environment, Water Quality Control Division. (Department of Public Works)
P. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the State and Federal agencies
and the Weld County Code. (Department of Public Health & Environment)
Q. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the lot will be required to adhere to the fee
structure of the County Road Impact Program.(Ordinance 2002-11)(Department of Planning Services)
R. The operation shall be limited to daylight hours. (Department of Planning Services)
•
S. The facility is limited to two aircraft per lot,for private use of the property's owner(s). (Department of
Planning Services)
T. A plan review is required for each building for which a building permit is required. Two complete sets
of plans are required when applying for each permit. Drawings for the hanger shall bear the wet stamp
of a registered architect or engineer. Plans shall include a floor plan. (Department of Building
Inspection)
U. Buildings shall conform to the requirements of the various codes adopted at the time of permit
application. Currently the following has been adopted by Weld County: 2003 International Building
Code;2003 International Mechanical Code;2003 International Plumbing Code;2003 International Fuel
Gas Code; and the 2002 National Electrical Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code.
(Department of Building Inspection)
V. The hanger will probably be classified a S-1 (Hanger), fire resistance of walls and openings,
construction requirements, maximum building height and allowable areas will be reviewed at the plan
review. Setback and offset distances shall be determined by Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code.
(Department of Building Inspection)
W. Building height shall be measured in accordance with the 2003 International Building Code for the
purpose of determining the maximum building size and height for various uses and types of construction
and to determine compliance with the Bulk Requirements from Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code.
Building height shall be measured in accordance with Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code in order to
determine compliance with offset and setback requirements. Offset and setback requirements are
measured to the farthest projection from the building. (Department of Building Inspection)
X. A very small portion of the western property of the site lies within the flood overlay district.Application
materials indicate that the east/west secondary runway will be located over this area. All construction
or improvements occurring in the flood plain as delineated on Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIRM Community Panel Map 080266 0925 C dated September 28, 1982, shall comply with the Flood
Hazard Overlay District requirements of Chapter 23, Article V, Division 3 of the Weld County Code.
(Department of Planning Services)
Y. The property owner shall allow any mineral owner the right of ingress or egress for the purposes of
exploration development,completion, recompletion, re-entry, production and maintenance operations
associated with existing or future operations located on these lands. (Department of Planning Services)
Z. Any change in name, ownership, owner's address or other substantial change will require notification
of the Federal Aviation Administration, NFDC on Form 5010-5. (Department of Planning Services)
AA. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of Section
23-2-240, Weld County Code.
BB. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of
Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code.
CC. Weld County personnel shall be granted access onto the property at any reasonable time in order to
ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the Development Standards stated herein
and all applicable Weld County regulations.
DD. The Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing
standards and all applicable Weld County regulations. Substantial changes from the plans or
Development Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit
by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans or
Development Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the Department
of Planning Services.
EE. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing Development
Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards may be reason for
revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners.
Motion seconded by Doug Ochsner.
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
Bruce Fitzgerald
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
James Welch
Tom Holton
Paul Branham
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this
case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Donita May, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County,
Colorado, adopted on July 18, 2006.
Dated the 18th of July, 2006.
)1Ck.,IAAtci. (v1
Donita May
Secretary
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 1/2 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. l
The sign for today's hearing was posted at least ten days prior to the hearing by Staff and was evidenced �4
2 k;2
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 (FAA). 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 right's 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