HomeMy WebLinkAbout20042979.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Stephen Mokray, with the addition of 1A, modify 2G & 2H, delete DS #12, that the following
resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld
County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-991
APPLICANT: Duke Energy
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SE4 SE4 Section 28, T4N, R64W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Mineral
Resource Development Facility including an Oil and Gas Processing
Facility in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 55 and West of and adjacent to WCR 40
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 Planning Commission 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 22-5-100.A(OG.Goal 1. )states
"Oil and gas exploration and production should occur in a manner which minimizes the
impact to agricultural uses and the environment and reduces the conflicts between mineral
development and current and future surface uses." Further, Section 22-5-100.6
(OG.Goal.2) states"The extraction of oil and gas resources should conserve the land and
minimize the impact on surrounding land." The Request for a Site Specific Development
Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Mineral Resource Development Facility including
a Compressor Plant Facility in the A (Agricultural) Zone District is an amendment to an
existing permitted facility. The original USR was applied for by Associated Natural Gas,
Incorporated in 1992. The application was for three compressors with no expansion
delineated. This application addresses the current on-site conditions, and serves as a
baseline for future improvements to the site. Further, the amendment was required by the
Department of Planning Services due to a change in ownership of the facility.
B. Section 23-2-220.A.2 --The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the A(Agricultural)
Zone District. Section 23-3-40.A.2 of the Weld County Code provides for Oil and Gas
Support and Service 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 property is surrounded by agricultural lands in crop production
and related uses. There is a single family dwelling approximately 1/4 mile to the west,with
prairie grassland in all other directions.
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 three mile referral area of any municipality.
E. Section 23-2-220.A.5 -- The application complies with Section 23-5 of the Weld County
Code. The existing site is not within a recognized overlay district, including the Geologic
Hazard,Flood Hazard or Airport Overlay District. The existing site is within the County-wide
Road Impact Fee Area. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on •- •
be required to adhere to the fee structure of Area 4. t 77
2004-2979
Resolution AmUSR-991
Duke Energy
Page 2
r" F. Section 23-2-220.A.6 -- The applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort to conserve
agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use. This facility was acquired
by the Duke Energy Field Services Division in 1995. Previous to this acquisition the facility
was permitted and operated by Amoco Oil Corporation.
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 Scheduling the Board of County Commissioners Hearing:
A. The applicant shall perform a noise study of the property. The study shall take readings 25
feet from the property line per Code and shall submit to the Department of Public Health
and Environment for review.
2. Prior to recording the plat:
A. The plat shall be prepared per Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld County Code. (Department
of Planning Services)
/^ B. The plat shall be labeled AmUSR-991 (Department of Planning Services)
C. The plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
1. The attached Development Standards. (Department of Planning Services)
2. The approved Screening Plan, to address the outdoor storage of materials,
including the fifty-five gallon barrels associated with this facility shall be screened
from adjacent properties, including the public rights-of-way. (Department of
Planning Services)
3. The existing points of ingress and egress. All other access points shall be labeled
as emergency access points.
D. The applicant shall submit an Air Pollution Emission Notice (A.P.E.N.) and Emissions
Permit application to the Air Pollution Control Division, Colorado Department of Health and
Environment for emissions of criteria, hazardous or odorous air pollutants. Evidence of
such shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
E. The applicant shall submit a dust abatement plan to the Environmental Health Services,
Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment, for approval prior to operation.
Evidence of such shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning
Services. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
F. The applicant shall submit a waste handling plan,for approval, to the Environmental Health
Services Division of the Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment. The
plan shall include at a minimum, the following:
1) A list of wastes which are expected to be generated on site (this should include
expected volumes and types of waste generated).
Resolution AmUSR-991
Duke Energy
Page 3
2) A list of the type and volume of chemicals expected to be stored on site.
3) The waste handler and facility where the waste will be disposed (including the
facility name, address, and phone number). Evidence of such shall be submitted
in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
G. The Environmental Health Services Division was unable to locate a septic permit for the
existing office buildings (2). A portable adequate sewage disposal system and hand
washing system shall be provided for drinking purposes. Evidence of approval shall be
submitted to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
H. A adequate water supply, such as bottled water, shall be provided for drinking and sanitary
purposes. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
The applicant shall provide evidence of approval by the Department of Public Works
concerning the on-site access, circulation and storm water drainage as addressed in their
memorandum dated January 27, 2003. Evidence of approval by the Department of Public
Works shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Public Works)
J. Permits will be required for the installation of all new equipment and all electrical work, but
not for the replacement of equipment on existing foundations, including the piping and
electrical connections to that equipment, nor for the addition of minor equipment such as
filters and coolers, however electrical permits are required for any new electrical circuits
provided to added equipment. Permits are not required for process piping for liquids or gas.
Evidence of compliance with all of the requirements of the Department of Building
Inspection shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning
Services. (Department of Building Inspection, Department of Planning Services)
K. The applicant shall provide evidence of compliance with the Department of Code
Compliance, Zoning Division and Building Inspection Division. Evidence of such shall be
submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of
Planning Services, Code Compliance, Department of Building Inspection, Code
Compliance)
L. The applicant shall provide evidence of compliance with the setbacks of all structures
specific to the future rights-of-way to Weld County Road 40 and 55. Evidence of such shall
be submitted in writing to the Weld County Departments of Public Works and Planning
Services. (Departments of Public Works and Planning Services)
M. The Weld County Public Works Department and Department of Planning Services shall
require an Improvements Agreement for all on-site improvements to the AmUSR-991 Marla
Site. (Department of Planning Services, Public Works Department)
N. 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)
3. Upon completion of 1. and 2. above the applicant shall submit a Mylar plat along with all other
documentation required as Conditions of Approval. The Mylar plat shall be recorded in the office of
the Weld County Clerk and Recorder by Department of Planning Services' Staff. The plat shall be
prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld County Code. The
Mylar plat and additional requirements shall be submitted within thirty(30)days from the date of the
, .% Board of County Commissioners resolution. The applicant shall be responsible for paying the
recording fee. (Department of Planning Services)
4. 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
Resolution AmUSR-991
Duke Energy
Page 4
type is .e00. The preferred format for Images is .tif(Group 4). (Group 6 is not acceptable). This
digital file may be sent to mapsa,,co.weld.co.us. (Department of Planning Services)
5. Prior to Operation:
The applicant shall contact the office of the Weld County Sheriff to schedule a walk-through of the
site for the purposes of implementing the program "Crime Prevention through Environmental
Design". This program reduces the likelihood of criminal activity at a specific location by"hardening"
it to crime. Evidence of such shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of
Planning Services. (Sheriff's Office)
6. The Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on
the property until the Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County
Clerk and Recorder. (Department of Planning Services)
r'^
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
DUKE ENERGY- MARLA COMPRESSOR PLANT
AMUSR-991
1. The Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit is for a Mineral Resource Development
Facility including a Compressor Facility 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)
2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 23-8-10 of the Weld
County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
3. All liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act,
30-20-100.5, C.R.S.)shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects against
surface and groundwater contamination. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
4. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not meant to include those
wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a"solid waste"in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites
and Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5, C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
5. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust,
blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
6. Fugitive dust shall be controlled on this site. The facility shall be operated in accordance with the
approved dust abatement plans at all times. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
7. The facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the (Light Industrial)
Zone District as delineated in 25-12-103, C.R.S. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
8. All potentially hazardous chemicals must be stored and handled in a safe manner in accordance with
product labeling. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
9. The applicant shall operate in accordance with the approved "waste handling plan". (Department
of Public Health and Environment)
10. Adequate hand washing and toilet facilities shall be provided for employees of the facility.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
11. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the lot will be required to adhere to the fee
structure of the County wide Road Impact Fee Program, Area 4.(Department of Planning Services)
12. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of
Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
13. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of
Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
14. Personnel from Weld County Government shall be granted access onto the property at any
reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the
Development Standards stated herein and all applicable Weld County regulations. (Department of
Planning Services)
15. 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. (Department of Planning Services)
16. 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. (Department of Planning
Services)
Motion seconded by Bernie Ruesgen
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Fred Walker
Michael Miller
John Folsom
Bryant Gimlin
Stephen Mokray
Bruce Fitzgerald
James Rohn
Bernard Ruesgen
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,Voneen Macklin, 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 April 1, 2003.
Dated the 1s' of April, 2003.
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
-1 - 03
difference of opinion that the standard county language indicates that they make an attempt to come to an
agreement of provide proof that an attempt has been made. The condition is not harmful if left in the
comments.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case MF-589, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation
of approval. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion. -
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan M okray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant G imlin, yes; F red Walker, yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-991
APPLICANT: Duke Energy
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SE4 SE4 Section 28,T4N, R64W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Mineral
Resource Development Facility including an Oil and Gas Processing
Facility in the A(Agricultural) Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 55 and West of and adjacent to WCR 40
Kim Ogle,Department of Planning Services presented Case AmUSR-991,reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and DevelopmentStandards.
James Rohn asked Char Davis, Weld County Department of Health and Environment, about a letter from
a Phil Brewer. It is unclear who he is and what his knowledge base is. Ms. Davis stated that Phil Brewer
is an employee and is the Air Quality Specialist. Mr. Brewer has been involved with this because of the
amount of previous complaint calls. Mr. Brewer has visited the site but did not take a sound meter with him
at the time.
John Folsom asked Mr. Ogle for clarification on the compressors at the site now. Mr. Ogle indicated that
there were three compressors originally there. The amendment is for three additional compressors for a total
of six. Mr. Folsom asked if this application included adding mufflers to the present compressors to reduce
the noise level. Mr. Ogle indicted that the drawings do not delineate, on the building plans, any type of
structure to muffle the noise. Mr. Ogle stated that the applicant and his representatives are here and can
address those issues.
Michael Miller asked for clarification on the installation of the new compressors. Mr. Ogle indicated that the
new compressors are installed and on site but not within a structure for noise reduction. Mr. Miller asked if
they are already installed why is the process necessary. Mr.Ogle indicted that the original was for only three
compressors therefore, the need to modify the USR to increase the number to six. Ms. Mika granted an
early release for building permits so Duke Energy could get online to get running. They have been able to
make the operation run with higher efficiency with the added compressors operating and the upgraded
equipment. Duke Energy did not have site originally they acquired it in 1995.
James Rohn asked for clarification on the number of operating compressors on site. Mr.Ogle stated three
compressors that are operational at this time that were part of original USR. There were three added for
a total of six on site and they are all being used presently.
Fred Walker asked Mr. Morrison if the Planning Commission has the ability to request noise mitigation on
the site as a whole orjust the new area. There have been amended projects that the whole site was required
to adhere to the recommended standards. Mr. Morrison indicated that the ability to deal with the existing
ones is limited and if the project is denied the first three compressors will still exist. The other problem is
that if sound cannot be measured at the site and the new ones cannot be differentiated from the old ones
it creates an issue with mitigation. Mr. Miller asked for clarification with regard to the entire site falling under
the new standards. Mr. Morrison stated that if the permit is denied the old compressors do not have to
adhere to the new standards. If the permit is approved then they all have to adhere to the new standards.
MOW
Page -4-
Mr. Morrison indicated that there may be more testimony that will address some of the issues.
John Folsom indicated thata situation might arise that approval of the USR could be conditional upon certain
parameters including the noise levels. The parameters could only be met by making modifications to the
original three compressors. Mr. Morrison stated that the applicant will have a say with regards to the
amendments. Mr. Folsom asked Ms. Davis about the recommendation for a septic system on site. Ms.
Davis indicated that there will not be full time employees but there will be five mechanics on site. It is a large
facility and very remote.
Tim Clancy, representative for the applicant, provided further clarification with regard to the project. The
applicant is attempting to address the sound issues with the surrounding neighbors. A consultant was hired
to attempt to address the neighbor concerns. The consultant reported that it was in compliance with the code
but there are some possible fixes. Mitigating sound is complicated and technical. There is no one size fits
all to the facility. The best thing is to know the standard and adhere to it. The applicant would ask that any
sort of limitation will allow them to work with the consultant and come up with something that will work. The
solution will not create more problems than it fixes. The applicant would prefer not to have the septic system
requirement rather have something that would comply with the standard but not limited to the septic. The
number of employees is very limited and they will not be there on a permanent basis. The system would be
expensive and really not used. The new compressors have mufflers on them. The compressors are state
of the art and farther along in technology. Buildings will be proposed in the offering for mitigation once the
consultant has the standards and limitations required. The site has been upgraded and is monitored twenty
four hours a day from a remote location. This location can isolate and shut off gas supply to the site. A
vapor recovery unit has been installed. This eliminates air pollution emission.
John Folsom asked if the compressors are operated by fuel. James Wakely, Asset Supervisor for Duke
Energy,indicated the compressors burn natural gas which is pulled from the facility. Mr.Folsom asked about
mitigating noise and if different structures with insulation or anything has been proposed or evaluated. Mr.
Wakely stated that vibration is not the source of noise. The company will use the consultant to obtain better
information with regard to the noise, mitigation and location.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if a study was done with the three original compressors. Mr.Clancy stated that it had
not been done on the three original compressors. This study was done with all compressors running. The
consultant is a third party and is independent from the company. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if the new three are
quieter. Russ True, Duke Energy, stated that the engine noise is different at different areas of the facility.
The east has more noise because of the size,the cooler sections to the south are quieter. They are a three
section cooler. The old compressors are a little noisier due to some fan noise. Mr. Ruesgen asked if the
compressors run continuously. Mr.True indicated that the run continuously and are not on a particular cycle.
Michael Miller asked Ms.Davis about the decibel noise levels and if the standards are less than 75 decibels
25 feet from the property line. Ms. Davis indicated that was correct. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Clancy why the
report indicates all the tests were done at the residences. Mr.Clancy indicated that there are two standards.
There is a statutory standard and the Colorado Oil &Conservation Commission Standard. The consultant
ran from the Oil & Conservation standard. That standard indicates that if there are no occupied building
impacted use the 25 foot standard. Sound levels at occupied building units shall be measured at the nearest
practical to the edge of the occupied building. Since there were occupied building impacted, residences,
they measured from the residences. Mr. Miller indicated that the code required it to be measured from 25
feet from the property line and there is no report for that. Mr. Clancy stated that Ms. Davis suggested the
Light Industrial level and they are willing to tell the consultant to bring the site into that standard. It will be
retested to make sure it applies to the standard. This way the applicant can do what is most efficient
dependent on the equipment that is on site. The applicant is willing to live within the limits that are proposed.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Michael Hanshaw,neighbor,provided information with regard to the noise. Most of the noise is coming from
the compressors. The new compressors are two to three times the size of the old ones. There was a small
amount of background noise when the homes were built but nothing was heard from inside the house. The
State of Colorado indicated that it was upwards of 50 decibels at his house and 90 decibels at the facility.
The State and the County regulations indicated that it should not be over 70 decibels at 7:00pm and they
are over 90 decibels. These noise levels have been running since December. Duke Energy have been
cooperative in the last month but this has gone on for quite a few months. The site has many different
Page-5-
sources of sound and a metal building will not address the issues. A barrier around the facility would be
preferred by the surrounding neighbors. Another concern is the road conditions are deteriorating rapidly.
The Chair closed the public portion
Mr. Clancy stated that the applicant wants to be a good neighbor and do something about the sound. Mr.
Miller asked about the venting of pressure and if any of the measurements were taken at this time. Mr.
Clancy stated that there was a time in which the study was done while the venting was occurring. The
regulations allow the exceedence of 10 decibels for a short period of time. Mr. Miller indicated that the
venting are not short periods of time. Mr. Clancy stated that the Oil & Gas Commission rules gives 15
minutes to go 10 decibels over in one hour. It is not an unlimited spike it can only be 10 decibels. Mr.
Morrison stated that this is a statutory standard that is incorporated in the code. There is a 15 minute per
hour exceedence of the 10 decibels. It is 10 decibels over what is applicable at the time. This would apply
if it was during the day or night. Mr. Walker asked about the three new compressors and what difference
in then. The new ones are 1600 horsepower and the old ones are 1476 horsepower. Mr. Miller asked if the
size is comparative to the running of it. Mr. Wakely indicated that the cooler units are larger on the new
compressors. The older units do not have the cooler units they are fan driven coolers. The fans have more
noise on the old units. The newer fans are quieter than the old technology.
John Folsom asked about methods of noise abatement. Mr. Folsom would like the applicant to state for the
record specifically what measures are going to be taken as far as enclosures, insulation or mounting pads.
Mr. Clancy stated they would like to avoid stating specifics due to the limitations on the information of what
will work for the site specifically. The consultant will be the besi source of information. If at any time a
change of equipment needs to be done this may cause more harm then good with the mitigation of the noise
involved. The applicant would like the standard and make accommodation according to that. They want
to comply with the regulations. -
James Rohn asked about the road conditions. Mr.Carroll stated that during construction there will be more
traffic but once this is complete the traffic will return to normal. The county has been grading the area. They
are on the very edge of the road system with a lot of sugar sand and the area is tough to maintain all the
time Once all the construction is complete the road conditions will improve and go back to normal. Th'.s
site does not create traffic.
Mr. Clancy indicated that the applicant does not want a septic system. There is no independent source of
water to the site. What is brought in is taken off. A Port of pot arrangement would be preferred.
Stephen Mokray asked Ms. Davis that if something new is being imposed on an existing facility. Ms. Davis
stated that the facility has two offices so this would require a sanitary toilet. Portable toilets are viewed as
temporary and no longer than six months. There will be three to four people including mechanics and an
oil field operator according to a conversation made. Mr. Miller added,that he believes they will come and
go as needed for repairs. Ms. Davis indicated that a vault system can be done without water. Its like a
permanent port o pot. Mr. Gimlin added that a port o pot will get serviced. This could even give them a
source of hand washing water.
Bryant Gimlin moved to modify 1G to state, "...a portable adequate sewage disposal and hand washing
system shall be provided for sanitary purposes." James Rohn seconded. Motion carried.
Bryant Gimlin moved to modify 1H to state, "A adequate water supply, such as bottled water shall be
provided for drinking purposes." Mr. Gimlin included the deletion of Development Standard #11. James
Rohn seconded. Motion carried.
Fred Walker indicted he was concerned about the noise issues. The consistency is the question with regard
to providing a plan similar to a previous project. This plan should indicate what is going to be done to adhere
to the standards. Mr. Gimlin indicated that the applicant is more than willing to comply with the standard.
They are not prepared to state how they will but are willing to do so. Mr. Miller indicated that a condition
could be added to Prior to Scheduling a Board of County Commissioners hearing they come in with a plan
for review. Mr. Fitzgerald indicated that the graph showing the decibels are above the requirement of the
code. Mr. Miller indicated that a standard will be set and if they do not meet it then they will have to make
accommodations to meet the standards. Mr.Mokray indicated that nothing has been addressed with regard
to safety on this site. Mr. Miller indicated that this is a remote site and the neighbors have not indicated a
Page -6-
concern with regard to safety. They have addressed the noise issue.
Bryant Gimlin asked what decibel level is considered loud. Ms.Davis stated that the Health Department will
be willing to do a comparison with the consultant information and the County. This can be done from the
25 feet from the property line.
Fred Walker indicated that there will be time between now and the hearing to present more testimony and
do the testing to determine the best way to mitigate the noise. Ms. Davis indicated that Mr. Brewer has not
been back to the site. The sound meter has been repaired. Mr. Miller would lean towards having the study
done and a plan in place before the scheduling of the Board of County Commissioners hearing.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to add 1A and renumber accordingly to state: Prior to the scheduling Board of
County Commissioners hearing the applicant will conduct a sound study including a test within 25 feet from
the property line and present a plan to the Department of Public Health and Environment for review to abate
the sound and insure they will come into compliance with County Standards.". Mr.Miller indicated that would
not give much time to review the plan. Mr. Miller asked for clarification with regard to the time frame. Mr.
Ogle indicated it was 30-45 days interim from scheduling to the meeting time. Mr. Ogle indicated that it
would take the applicant two months to get the study done. This will then be placed in a new#1 Condition
and renumbered. Stephen Mokray seconded.
Lee Morrison indicated that nuisance conditions could violate background noise. The study will need to
address statutory requirement and other acoustic nuisance conditions.
Michael Miller provided clarification with regard to the motion. Mr. Ogle indicated that staff will commit to
a one week review turn around time. The case will then be scheduled for the BOCC
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Fred Walker, no; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes. Motion carried.
Kim Ogle indicated that Development Standard #12 is not longer applicable to the case.
Bryant Gimlin moved to delete Development Standard #12. Stephen Mokray Seconded. Motion carried.
Michael Miller indicated that the issue of nuisance noise had been brought up and there being a possible
need to mitigate it for consistency reasons. The mitigation was required in a previous case.
Bruce Fitzgerald indicated that there has been no public input therefor,it is a mute point. Mr.Miller indicated
that they receive input from Mr. Hanshaw stating there were times it woke him up in the evenings. This was
and issue in the other care specifically addressing the quality of life. Mr. Rohn asked Ms. Davis what 40
decibel is comparable with. Ms. Davis indicated a bird call or noise levels associated with the living room
or bedroom. At 50 decibels is light auto traffic at 100 feet. Mr. Folsom asked how to establish nuisance
noise. It seems to be in the eye of the beholder. Mr. Miller added that it comes to a judgement call whether
it effects the health, safety and welfare of the county residents. Mr. Gimlin indicated that this could be
development standard. The nuisance could be indicated by neighborhood complaints. Mr.Miller asked how
it could be enforced. Mr. Ruesgen added that the concern is if the Planning Commission tried to define this
at this point and put it in the development standards the applicant will be trying to guess what irritates
residences within an approximate area. It is to subjective. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Morrison if this was passed
based on the noise standard and over the period of the next year every neighbor complained about the noise
do they have any recourse if the operation falls with in the guidelines. Mr.Morrison stated that the possibility
is there if they can show substantial interference from use and enjoyment of there property as a result of the
operation. The neighbors may have a cause for action. The concern would be that if a study was done and
the acoustics were fine but there is a certain rumble that might be perceived as noise,the opportunity has
not been denied specifically at the board level. The neighbors have a cause for action it would be an uphill
battle but if there is something not measured by this statute. The concept of nuisance predates statutory
provisions.
James Rohn asked Mr. Ogle with regard to these compressors already being in production and does the
Planning Commission have an option to deny or are "we being strong armed into having to approve this."
Mr.Morrison indicted that if there are reasons they have not met standards then a recommendation for denial
Page -7-
can be made. Staff presents in a way to address issues not force one way or another.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case AmUSR-991, along with the amendments, be forwarded to the Board of
County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning
Commissions recommendation of approval. Bernie Ruesgen seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to pull the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; S tephan M okray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant G imlin, yes; F red Walker, yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
John Folsom commented that he has a friend that lives next to one of these installations and they can be
very disturbing. They can be psychological disturbing to the neighbors. It varies from person to person but
the hope is the applicant will make an effort to mitigate this nuisance over and beyond the statutory
requirements.
Other business:
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Morrison about the submission of a letter from the Town of Eaton by Commissioner
Rohn and whether or not it is appropriate for a Planning Commission member to submit evidence in a case?
Mr. Morrison replied that the letter was first presented to Mr. Rohn and then made available to everyone,
which is the appropriate action for information provided to a Planning Commission member.
Mr. Miller indicated that was not his understanding and that he felt it was inappropriate for a Planning
Commission member to provide evidence against a case. -
Mr. Morrison stated that if someone obtains information they think is relevant, it is prudent to enter it into the
record for debate and possible rebuttal.Keeping information to themselves could create the appearance that
they based their vote on information not in the record. Mr. Morrison said that Planning Commission
members are not encouraged to gather evidence, but if it does come to them, it should be entered into the
record, thereby making it available to the public.
Mr. Rohn indicated that the letter was given to Ms.Lockman 1 'A hours before the meeting,allowing her time
to research the information. Mr. Rohn brought this up because Ms.Lockman knew about the letter and the
question pertaining to the water. Mr. Rohn said he did not formulate a decision,but thought the letter might
raise relevant questions. Mr. Rohn said he did not intend to cause a major issue.
Mr. Miller reiterated his concern that the appearance to the public was questionable.
Meeting adjourned at 3:30pm
Respectfully submitted
)
i -LO2a —a� lC�C L
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Page -8-
Hello