Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Staff Report• • • BOCC 5/2/05 MLS PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST Conditional Use Permit to operate an Aircraft Landing Strip (Heliport) APPLICANT (OWNER) Turnberry Ranch, LLP LOCATION Property located approximately 5 miles north of Carbondale in the Upper Cattle Creek area. ACCESS SITE SIZE WATER & SEWER EXISTING ZONING CR. 113 625 acres Well water A/RJRD I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Proposed Request The Applicant requests approval from the Board to allow an Aircraft Landing Strip, specifically helicopter landing pad on their property. The application has two alternative landing sites, due to the need to acquire an amendment to Nationwide Section 404 Permit issued to the applicant.(Helipad A) This structure will consist of a 4 foot high raised circular concrete pad that is 25' in diameter. If the permit amendment is not approved, the applicant will move the landing pad location to another site nearby on the property that is outside of any wetlands. (Helipad B This pad would be a 2 foot high raised square concrete pad, 25' square. Landing at the facility is proposed to be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, but 75% of the activity will occur between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m.. Except for fueling and emergency repairs, all maintenance activities will be conducted off-site at one of the local airports. Fueling will be done by a 500 gallon mobile fuel tank kept on site. B. Site Description The property is located Creek area. The ranch construction barn with at the intersection of County Roads 113 and 115, in the upper Cattle has a main residence, a guest house, 2 older barns and presently under 2 employee housing units built into it. The ranch sits in an open • meadow, in which Cattle Creek runs through it in an east to west direction. There are significant areas of wetlands adjacent to Cattle Creek. The ranch complex sits in a relatively flat open meadow of approximately 40 acres. The remainder of the ranch is fairly small rolling hills, with primarily grassy types of vegetation with very few trees. II. AGENCY and OTHER COMMENTS A. Referral Agencies: The proposed use was referred to these agencies: a. Garfield County Sheriff. The Sheriff's Department has received complaints from residents in the area about the low level of flight over residences in the surrounding area. Exhibit G b. Garfield County Airport Manager: At staff' s request, Brian Condie verbally noted that the FAA has complete jurisdiction over all flying violations. The County should not designate a specific flight path, but can suggest a preferred route. It is possible to bring action against a pilot through the FAA, but the process requires the filing of various forms with documentation over a specified period of time. III.REVIEW STANDARDS A. Zoning: The applicant's property is located in the Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density (A/R/RD) zone district, in which an Aircraft Landing Strip is a Conditional Use. Section 2.02.03 of the Zoning Resolution defines an Aircraft Landing Strip as, "A private facility for accommodation and servicing of aircraft, the use of which shall be limited to the owner or owners of the lot upon which the facility is located." Conditional Uses are subject to the standards in Section 5.03 of the Zoning Resolution. Staff has provided the standards in bold italics below followed by a Staff Response. Section 5.03 Review Standards I) Utilities adequate to provide water and sanitation service based on accepted engineering standards and approved by the Board of County Commissioners shall either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use; Staff Comment: The proposed helipad has been developed to meet the needs of the existing house, guest house and ranch operations. It will not need any additional domestic water or sewer service. This standard has been met There is no emergency plan provided in the application, identifying how water would be provided in case of an emergency. An emergency response plan needs to be developed, to identify the method and materials that will be utilized in the case of an emergency. The property is not within any fire district boundary and as a result, may have deal with their own emergencies. 2 • 2) Street improvements adequate to accommodate traffic volume generated by the proposed use and to provide safe, convenient access to the use shall either be in place or shall be constructed in conjunction with the proposed use; Staff Comment: The applicant has provided information that indicates the proposed use will not encourage or result in any more daily trips than exist at the current time. This standard has been met 3) Design of the proposed use is organized to minimize impact on and from adjacent uses of land through installation of screen fences or landscape materials on the periphery of the lot and by location of intensively utilized areas, access points, lighting and signs in such a manner as to protect established neighborhood character; Staff Comment: The proposed use has been in existence for a while and has generated complaints from neighbors due to low flying aircraft, but not due to the appearance of the property. No amount of screening would hide the helipad from the view of individuals traveling by on the County road. The only lighting proposed would be vertical lighting on the helipad for use during nighttime or inclement weather landings. No signage is proposed. As noted previously, the ranch is located in a fairly wide open valley, with the nearest existing house being 1452 ft. away. There are another five houses within a one (1) mile radius of the site, ranging from 1679 ft. to 4567 ft. away. The complaints received by this office and the Sheriff' s office go more to the flight paths of the helicopter than anything else. This will be discussed further in the next section of the report. A related issue could be the hours in which the landings may occur. Presently, the applicant is proposing to use the pad 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Although they note that 75% of the flights occur between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m.. Staff suggests that the applicant be limited to take -off and landings between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., except in emergencies. This standard has been met Section 5.03.04 Aircraft Landing Strip Such strip may not be in conflict with any reservation, regulation or requireinents of the Federal Aviation Administration. Staff Comment: The applicant has filed FAA Notice of Landing Area Proposal (Form 7480) for a approval pursuant to 14 CFR Part 157. This standard has been met As noted earlier, Brian Condie, Garfield County Airport Manager has stated verbally that all enforcement of FAA regulations should be left with the FAA. The County can suggest a preferred route for landing and taking off, but it should not be an mandated route. If there 3 • • • were and accident as a result of following a prescribed route, the County may have some liability. The applicant' s pilot is required to follow all FAA flight rules and procedures, to which he can be held accountable for any violation. If the Board is inclined to identify a preferred direction for take -off and landing, staff would suggest that all take -off and landing occur from the south or southeast. This is based on the nearest residence being just under a mile away. B. Other Staff Comments. The application includes a letter from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's (ACOE) office regarding a settlement of a violation of Section 404 regulations. The letter indicates that the applicant has entered into a settlement agreement with the ACOE for a restoration project, related to the discharge of dredged or filled material into the waters of the United States. In a follow up with the Grand Junction office of the ACOE, staff was informed that they were not aware of any helipad being located in their jurisdictional area, until April 26t. The individual involved with the project indicated that it would be unlikely that the ACOE would authorize the placement of a helipad in any of their jurisdictional area, particularly if there is an alternative area outside of the jurisdictional area. The conclusion being that any approval given to a helipad, should be based upon the final determination of the ACOE. IV. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. That proper publication and public notice was provided as required by law for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that hearing. 3. That the application is in compliance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. 4. For the above stated and other reasons, the proposed use is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners APPROVE the Conditional Use Permit for an Aircraft Landing Strip with the following conditions. 1. All representations of the applicants contained in the application and made during the public hearing on the application shall be considered conditions of approval, unless they are modified by the Board of County Commissioners. • 2. The helipad will be limited to use by the applicants, unless it is used for emergency purposes by another person. 3. The applicant shall continue to comply with all FAA Notice of Landing Area Proposal (Form 7480) requirements. 4. Prior to approval of the Conditional Use permit, the applicant shall get a final determination from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding the placement of the helipad in the jurisdictional area of the Corp. If the approval for Helipad A cannot be accomplished, the applicant shall use Helipad B.. 5. The applicant be -limited to take -off -and -landings b .ween 7 a.m. and-lpme l emergencies. - \aj 6. The preferred direction fortake=of€-and landing-s1-ese--ffr m the -south err southeast. ��'� 7. Prior to issuance of the permit, an emergency response plan will be provided to the County, identifying methods and techniques to be utilized in dealing with a helicopter related accident and the source of accessible fire protection water. g. lam- 0! °� t-�n^y e, 1 4)a (4..ti , Ar per/ - oix �' , �� - s tiff -t -e ,� • �, A. ., `477it,z_ A,e7f,t/ti-z-/ fr- '''V'ia-zi-47 • 3. � Ayn/le-/' - r--•;9 -P-z7:s2 5 Lou 'allario Sheriff of Garfield County April 22, 2005 Garfield County Planning Department RECEIVED APR 2 2 2005 Gi+Kr icLU COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING Re: Turnberry Ranch LLC Conditional Use Permit 1078th St. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Tefepfiane 970-945-0453 rFaz• 970-945-6430 EXHIBIT 4 Comments to 15. APPROACH AND DEPARTURE ROUTE, 8(3) Design of the proposed use is organized to minimize impact on and from adjacent uses of land..... in such a manner as to protect established neighborhood character. Response: Applicant submits that the sze and remote location of its property effectively eliminates any and all adjacent property impacts that could be presented by operation of the proposed heliport. Comment: The Sheriff's Office has received numerous complaints from adjacent neighbors concerning the operation of the helicopter from the applicant's property. Specifically, the complaints have centered around the low level of flight over residential houses in the area. July 29, 2004: I initially contacted Steve Hackett, Garfield County Planning Department Code Enforcement Officer on complaints from home owners at Homestead Estates and surrounding individual homesites concerning low flights over their residences. September 1, 2004: I was contacted by Turnberry Ranch pilot Scott Google concerning the complaints of the helicopter flying at low levels over residences in the area. He advised that they were receiving the same complaints in Pitkin County and that he was trying to work with the owner of the helicopter on the problem. March 1, 2005: I was contacted by Turnberry Ranch pilot Jim Balman(Sp) who advised that they were buying a larger helicopter with twin engines and he understood there had been complaints of low flying from neighbors. He wanted to set up a time, once the helicopter was delivered, that someone from the County could fly with him and point out the problems. To date, that has not been done. I have observed the Turnberry Ranch helicopter flying at house top level in front of , and over my residence on several occasions since the summer of 2004. As the helicopter flies, my residence is approximately 1 1/2 miles from the proposed heliport. James H. Sears Emergency Operations Commander Garfield County Sheriff's Office EXHIBIT N Federal Aviation Regulations Part 91: General Operating & Flight Rules § 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command. (a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft. (b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency. (c) Each pilot in command who deviates from a rule under paragraph (b) of this section shall, upon the request of the Administrator, send a written report of that deviation to the Administrator. § 91.13 Careless or reckless operation. (a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another. (b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another. § 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General. Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: (a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface. (b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft. (c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. (d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator. FYI: Mark below is a case study on this topic. T. 19, 1976 MR. GEORGE CHAVATEL Dear Mr. Chavatel: This is in response to your letter of June 28, 1976, regarding the activity of a helicopter which lands and takes off from an area 300 to 400 yards behind your residence in Abingdon, Virginia. You state that this operation occurs daily, carrying a mining engineer to the Clinchfield section of nearby Russell County, and that the aircraft ascends directly over your house which is located in a residential area. You also point out that an airport is located just four miles west of Abingdon. In addition, you state that you recently observed a helicopter landing in the parking plaza of a nearby motel. With respect to what Federal regulations apply to the helicopter operations you describe, Part 91, General Operating and Flight Rules, of the Federal Aviation Regulations prescribes general rules governing the operation of certain aircraft, including helicopters. Specifically, Sec. 91.79 prescribes the following minimum safe altitudes: Sec. 91.79 Minimum safe altitudes: general. Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: (a)Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit, fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface. (b)Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft. (c)Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In that case, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. (d)Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator. In addition, Sec. 91.13 prohibits the operation of an aircraft "in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another." The taking off and landing of a helicopter over a residential area is not, in and of itself, an unsafe operation, nor is it necessarily unsafe to land at a location not publicly designated as an airport. With respect to the specific operations you describe, we are unable to determine from the information you have provided whether the aircraft you describe were being operated so as to cause a hazard to persons or property on the surface. If you wish to explore this matter further, we suggest that you contact the FAA General Aviation District Office 16, Byrd Field, Sandston, Virginia 23150 (703-222- 7494). You ask whether local authorities, including state police and town and city police, have been left the discretion to determine policy on the use of helicopters. Congress, by enacting the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, has vested authority for the safety regulation of civil aviation in the Federal Aviation Administrator, to the exclusion of state and local authorities. However, we would expect that State and local authorities are generally aware of the air safety responsibility of the FAA and would bring any suspected violations of the Federal Aviation Regulations to the attention of the FAA. We hope that the information we have provided will be helpful to you. Sincerely, NEIL R. EISNER Assistant Chief Counsel Regulations and Enforcement Division Office of the Chief Counsel RPR.28.2005 6:4DRM ASPEN EARTH MOVING L Carol Koris Samuel L. Neth 630 Foster Ridge Road Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 928-8665(home) April 27, 2005 Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 NO,377 P.2 EXHIBIT � y Re: Conditional. Use Permit for Tumberry Ranch, LLC We have received a copy of Mr. Soffer's, a/k/a Tumberry Ranch, LLC, application for conditional use permit and have more than a few concerns about his request to add yet another helipad to his property. We would like to respond to question number three in that Mr. Soffer's ranch is within 1 mile of County Road 115. County Road 133 would not be the only road affected by the flight path of his helicopter. His response to question number eight is the most disturbing to our property as well as our peace and serenity. Mr. Soffer responds that his flight pattern will be "directed away from such structures" and more importantly, "will be at an altitude to be relatively imperceptible". We own property in Homestead Ranch which is on County Road 115 adjacent to High Aspen Ranch (formerly known as Buck Point Ranch). In the fall of 2004, Mr. Soffer, on more than 3 occasions, flew directly over our house. In one particular "buzzing" of our house, Mr. Soffer's helicopter was so close to our house that we could see the person in the pilot's side back passenger seat was wearing a white sweater. That is entirely too close to our house. Also, during one of these occasions, Mr. Soffer's helicopter was seen behind our property, flying over the property known as "Spring Valley Ranch" and the upper meadows of the "Gould Ranch". What we witnessed that day was his helicopter hovering in one spot, descending straight down and ascending at the other end of the pasture, below tree line. He would then repeat the same thing and ascend at the opposite end of the pasture. This continued for about 3-4 passes. The meadow's he was "buzzing" is the summer range for an elk herd. We contacted both Jim Sears — Garfield County Sheriffs Office, Larry Gepfert - DOW and the FAA in Denver to report these incidences of low level flying, and our concern he was chasing the elk herd with his helicopter. So we hope you can understand our apprehension and uneasiness in the planning department's consideration of Mr. Soffer's application. We hope that you will take the extra time needed to research the impact that his one helicopter has had on the houses surrounding his helipad and what further impact a' second helipad will inflict on our community. Thank you for your time and consideration in reading our letter. Sincerely, Samuel L. Neth L. Carol Koris April 29, 2005 Garfield County Commissioners Garfield County, Colorado GARFIELD COUNTY RE: Turnberry Ranch LLC Conditional Use Permit -Heliport BUDDING & PLANNING EXHIBIT a RECEIVED APR 2 9 2005 Dear Garfield County Commissioners: I would like to raise some concerns about the "Turnberry Ranch LLC Conditional Use Permit for a Heliport" to be located on that property. Being one of the adjacent properties directly North of the Turnberry Ranch("Ranch"), we are between the Aspen Airport and the Ranch, and if this is the destination for flights originating from the Ranch, those helicopter flights would possibly be over our property. Although we deal with small -plane flight training over our property when the weather is good, those flights are usually at a higher altitude and create less noise that helicopter flights approaching and departing a heliport. I have spent 4 years as a Air Force jet fighter mechanic, so am familiar with the noise a helicopter can make, and over the last few years have dealt with both military and fire -fighting helicopters in our area. Although we do not outright object to the Turnberry Ranch LLC's ability to have a helicopter on-site, we did not purchase mountain property to have to deal with with this level of noise potential. These are the questions I would like answered, if possible, by the applicant and/or the Commissioners: 1. Number of possible flights per -week, weekday vs. weekend?; 2. General time of day/night of these flights?; 3. Would these flights be seasonal, or focused around holiday weekends?; 4. Would the flight paths be varied over the adjacent properties?; 5. What are the qualifications of the helicopter pilot, since "mountain flying" in any aircraft, is hazardous at best, and the weather and winds in our area change quickly?; 6. Would the helicopter pilot be doing "practice flights" over the area?; 7. Who would be providing "maintenance" on the helicopter, locally, or would the helicopter be flown to a maintenance facility?( I raise this issue, since next to "pilot error", "maintenance errors" are the highest listed reasons for helicopter crashes, generally.). Thank you for your consideration of our concerns as adjacent property owners to this Conditional Use Permit Application. Sincerely, Dave & Sue Faulkner, 745 C.R. #170, Carbondale, CO 81623 970-963-6810 Mark Bean From: Kris Wilson [kris@softridge.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 2:25 PM To: tim@balcombgreen.com Cc: roger@softridge.com; Mark Bean Subject: Neighborhood interest in Turnberry helicopter pad Hi Tim, Thanks for calling yesterday. I have a partial list of people who are interested in meeting with you and Mr. Soffer regarding his helicopter pad and flights. Some have not responded to date so there may be many others. I'll do what I can to coordinate efforts and again, I'm a very concerned resident of our peaceful and extremely quiet neighborhood area. I don't represent any formal group. The affected neighborhood area spans the mesa region north of the Roaring Fork Valley, west of Basalt Mountain, and east of Lookout Mountain and includes Upper Cattle Creek, Missouri Heights, Coulter Creek, Fisher Creek, and Spring Valley areas. Thank you for your assistance. I look forward to hearing from you regarding a date and time when we can meet and discuss our concerns. Kris Wilson 9205 County Road 115 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Kris and Roger Wilson - 384-2581 Jim Sears and Andrea Holland Sears - Neighbor 379-4202 Max MacDonell- Ranch Manager Gould Ranch 379-4301 (cell) Michelle Savage, Office Manager High Aspen Ranch, Pat Sessions, HOA President and developer, Brian Soucie - Ranch Manager all can be reached at 384-1213 Mark and Mimi Kistner - 963-0876 neighbor in High Aspen Ranch Ron Hughes - neighbor 945-0764 Carter Budwell - Roaring Fork Land CO - 927-8080 Mike Sullivan - neighbor in Spring Valley 945-2599 Joe Enzer Snowmass Land Co, Owner, Coulter Creek Ranch, 26 lots. 923-2880 Tony and Carolyn Scheer, Aspen Real Estate 920-2006 Chet Garling - Pres. HOA Homstead Homeowners Assoc. 945-8027 1 May 21, 2005 Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th St Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 REC I VED MAY 2 5 2005 GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING Patrick Sessions \ I anagi77g Director Gentlemen, As a homeowner residing at 1649 High Aspen Drive, Glenwood Springs, CO, President of the High Aspen Ranch Homeowner's Association at 9495 CR 115, Glenwood Springs, CO, and the Developer of High Aspen Ranch, I have the following comments regarding the conditional permit for a helicopter landing pad at 8076 CR113, Glenwood Springs, CO. We have no objection to the approval of this application subject to the inclusion of the following restrictions and conditions: 1. Restrict the hours of operation to 8am to 6pm, 7 days a week. 2. Restrict the usage to the Owner's helicopter only. 3. Allow unrestricted use for Government agency emergency helicopter access including EMS and Firefighting uses. 4. Approach and Departure routes should be over the least populated areas and should not over -fly the High Aspen Ranch or Homestead subdivisions. If these conditions are not part of the approval, we strongly object to the approval of this application. Sincerely, Patrick Sessions President High Aspen Ranch Homeowner's Association PES: ms 9495 Red Canyon Rd., Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.384.1213 • fax: 970.384.1214 www.highaspenranch.com STATE OF COLORADO Bill Owens, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Bruce McCloskey, Director 6060 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80216 Telephone: (303) 297-1192 June 13, 2005 Mark Bean Garfield County Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 201 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RECEIVED JUN 1 5 2005 GARFELD COUNTY BUILDING & PLANNING' SOF For TVildlife- For People RE: Turnberry Ranch LLC, Conditional Use Permit Dear Mr. Bean: The Colorado Division of Wildlife staff has reviewed the plan for a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed operation of a private use heliport on the Applicant's property. The CDOW is concerned about the impacts of low flying aircraft may have on the local wildlife. We would recommend that aircraft avoid flights that may disrupt big game animals during regular rifle seasons, winter concentration areas from flights from November until May, and closures to avoid calving areas. We would recommend flights at higher elevations during these periods which should preclude conflicts. The river corridors should be avoided during the nesting periods for eagles, herons, and raptors. In the past, the Division has received complaints from adjacent neighbors and hunters concerning the applicant's low flying helicopter. The Division has talked to the owner about this and advised him about the laws pertaining to harassment of wildlife by humans. However, given this application, it is important to note these past problems. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. If you need additional information, please contact DWM Kelly Wood at 963-6523. Sincerely, i Pat Tucker Area Wildlife Manager Cc: DOW — J.Bredehoft, R.Velarde, K.Wood, file DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Russell George, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, Jeffrey Crawford, Chair • Tom Burke, Vice Chair • Ken Torres, Secretary Members, Robert Bray • Rick Enstrom • Philip James • Claire O'Neal • Richard Ray • Robert Shoemaker Ex Officio Members, Russell George and Don Ament On June 04, 2005 at the CMC Campus, Jeffery Soffer, owner and manager of Turnberry Ranch, LLC ("Applicant"), together with his consultants and pilots met with neighboring property owners for the purpose addressing: a) the impacts presented by helicopter flight operations in and out of the Turnberry Ranch property as proposed under Applicant's present application for Conditional Use Permit to Operate an Aircraft Landing Strip (Heliport); and b) measures which could be taken to mitigate such impacts. During the course of this meeting it was agreed that Applicant's implementation of the following measures would adequately mitigate flight impacts upon the neighboring properties: • Flights to and from the helipad shall occur only during daylight hours (dawn to dusk). This is consistent with the VFR operations proposed. • The helipad shall be limited to Applicant's single helicopter use; provided that other helicopters may make use of the helipad in emergency situations. • The minimum flight elevation to be maintained over residences shall be 1000' above ground level ("AGL"), provided that Applicant shall be allowed a lower AGL in times of inclement weather. Hovering operations over any of the surrounding properties or residences shall not be allowed. • Flight paths shall be varied to minimize the impacts to any single property or neighborhood. • Applicant shall provide neighboring property owners with current contact information for the purpose of lodging with Applicant, complaints relating to flight operations. • Applicant shall develop in consultation with Garfield County Planning Staff and Emergency Preparedness Director an emergency plan for helipad operations. Consideration of Applicant's Conditional Use Permit by the Garfield County Board of Commissioners is scheduled to occur June 20th, 2005 at 1:15 p.m. During this public hearing , Applicant has agreed to enter the above representations into the record as binding commitments on its behalf. Exhibits for Turnberry Ranch, LLP, CUP Public Hearing held on May 2, 2005. Exhibit Letter (A to Z) Exhibit A Mail Return -Receipts B Proof of Publication C Garfield County Zoning Regulations of 1978, as amended. D Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000 E Project Information and Staff Comments F Turnberry Ranch, LLP, CUP Application G Letter from the Garfield County Sheriff's Department dated 4/22/05 H FAA Regulations and Case Study I Letter from L. Carol Koris and Samuel L. Neth dated 4/27/05 J Letter from Dave a d Sue Faulkner dated 4/29/05 K �d ex)L -e-At c•- - l�77/0(5--- L a),./744.41 rn�• 071' Ca /1111.1 61i71 14 m . Air '70.5...- 7Dr M M N O P Q R S T U V X Y Z AA BB CC DD EE FF GG HH II JJ KK LL MM NN 00 PP