HomeMy WebLinkAbout20131296.tiffSUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
D A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County
Administration Building, Hearing Room, 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado. This meeting was called to
order by Chair, Jason Maxey, at 1:30 pm.
D Roll Call.
Present: Bill Hall, Bret Elliott, Jason Maxey, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Mark Lawley, Nick Berryman,
Robert Grand.
Absent/Excused: Benjamin Hansford.
Also Present: Kim Ogle and Tiffane Johnson, Department of Planning Services; Jennifer Petrik and Heidi
Hansen, Department of Public Works; Lauren Light and Mary Evett, Department of Health; Brad Yatabe,
County Attorney, and Tonya Johnson, Secretary.
D Motion: Approve the May 7, 2013 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, Moved by Robert
Grand, Seconded by Bill Hall. Motion passed unanimously.
D CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
USR13-0008
ANNA LEE ZIMBELMAN, C/O ANADARKO E&P ONSHORE LP
KIM OGLE
A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND A SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
FOR A MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING OIL AND GAS
SUPPORT AND SERVICE (WATER PUMP STATION AND WATER SUPPLY &
STORAGE) AND ONE (1) LESS THAN SEVENTY-FOOT IN HEIGHT [65 FOOT]
COMMUNICATIONS TOWER IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
E2SE4 SECTION 22, T2N, R63W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY,
COLORADO
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, presented Case USR13-0008, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Mr. Ogle stated one letter was submitted from a surrounding property owner,
Rosemary Bonds, stating her concern is she would like to see the mountains from her property not tanks.
He further stated representatives from Anadarko Petroleum have met with the concerned property owner
and her concerns have been addressed, stated the position of the water tanks will not restrict her view of
the front range and mountains. Mr. Ogle stated the South East Weld Fire District responded with a
comment on the referral requesting Anadarko work with the Fire District to install fire hydrants in specific
locations along the their pipeline. Mr. Ogle stated Anadarko has submitted a letter back to the fire district
speaking on this issue. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application
with the attached conditions of approval and development standards.
D Jennifer Petrik, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access and drainage conditions and
the requirements on site.
D Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -
site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan. Ms. Light stated Development Standard number eight (8)
can be deleted due to the standard not applying to this case and Development Standard number five (5)
there needs to be an additional sentence added stating "The applicant shall operate in accordance with
the approved Waste Handling Plan at all times".
D Motion: Amend Development Standard number 5 to include additional sentence and to Delete
Development Standard number 8 as per staff recommendation, Action: Approve, Moved by Robert
Grand, Seconded by Bill Hall. Motion passed unanimously.
COMMILIdeahaio
5/a11/15
1
2t13- om4°
Nathan Keiser, Anadarko Petroleum, 1099 18th Street, Ste 1800, Denver Colorado 80202, stated he
would like to give a brief overview of the water pumping station facility and how it fits in with Andarko's
water network in Weld County. This facility is considered the greater overall network in Weld County,
which one of the primary goals of the water network is to get truck off the roads. Mr. Keiser stated this
facility specifically supports and will support the existing and future completions and drilling operations by
allowing Anadarko to pump water to various locations throughout Weld County. The hope of this water
network is to reduce truck 500-900 round trip truck trips per individual well. Mr. Keiser stated the water will
be pumped and stored at the facility in above ground tanks, and will then be pumped on an as needed
basis to the Gobbler Water Storage Facility (USR12-0051) which is 18 mile away. This is also part of the
20 mile underground water piping network. The site is zoned for Agricultural use, and based on the needs
and demands Anadarko feels two above ground water tanks each with the capacity of 10,000 barrels or
42 gallons will be sufficient. There will also be a pump building which will contain four electric pumps, the
building will be insulated for noise control, there will also be a communications tower that is connected to
the building which will allow Anadarko to operate the site remotely. Mr. Keiser stated the site will operate
24/7 hours a day, will be fenced in for security with gated access, and will have security lights that will be
down cast and shield to reduce the impact to surrounding property owners.
In response to Commissioner Grand, Mr. Keiser stated the request by Chief Beach, Southeast Weld Fire
Protection District, to install fire hydrants at said locations along the pipeline is difficult to accommodate
for multiple reasons; first, being due to the water running intermittently and on an as needed basis the
water wouldn't always be available with hydrants; secondly, Anadarko feels because of the fact the water
wouldn't always be available there is a greater liability that they are not willing to take on and accept. He
further stated Anadarko is willing to meet with Chief Beach to explore options of storage of other chemical
or retardants of some sort.
In response to Commissioner Lawley, Mr. Keiser stated Anadarko has not met with Chief Beach at this
time; however, they have sent a written response in regards to his letter stating they are unable to
accommodate the liability of the hydrants.
Commissioner Hall asked if it is common to require fire hydrants in an area where there are only tanks.
Commissioner Lawley stated he cannot speak for Chief Beach, but looking at the letter Commissioner
Lawley thinks maybe Chief Beach thinks this may be an opportunity to address some other fire protection
concerns along the pipeline due to the length of the route. Commissioner Lawley stated he is not sure if
this a common request; however, for this project he believes the applicant needs to address public safety
issues relevant to their project.
Commissioner Grand asked if it would be unreasonable to suggest to the applicant before the Board of
County Commissioner hearing subject to what is approved that a discussion be held with Chief Beach so
that Chief Beach can respond appropriately at the BOCC hearing. Commissioner Lawley stated he
believes the Planning Commission Board has always encouraged the applicant to take the steps
necessary to work with public concerns and does believe the applicant in this case is willing to have the
conversations needed.
In response to Chair Maxey, Mr. Keiser stated the water tanks are coned shaped at the top, with a height
between 18 and 22 feet and the base being 50 feet. He further stated Anadarko's Surface Land group
has met with the owner of the property that had the concern of the obstructed view and looked at where
the water tanks will be and measured out the area and confirmed they would be beyond her view of the
mountains.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application. No one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and Conditions
of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
2
D Motion: Forward Case USR13-0008 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, Moved by Jordan Jemiola, Seconded by Bill Hall.
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 7, No = 1, Abstain = 0).
Yes: Bill Hall, Bret Elliott, Jason Maxey, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Mark Lawley, Nick Berryman.
No: Robert Grand.
Comment: Commissioner Berryman and Chair Maxey stated they would advise the applicant to have a
discussion with Chief Beach before the Board of County Commissioners hearing so this concern can be
finalized at that time.
Comment: Commissioner Grand stated he is voting no due to the participation of Fire Chief Beach and
the SEWFD should have received a little more attention from the applicant.
CASE NUMBER
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOCATION:
USR13-0009
RICHMARK ENERGY PARTNERS, LLC
TIFFANE JOHNSON
A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR OIL OR GAS PRODUCTION FACILITIES (32 WELLS, 16 OIL
TANKS, 2 WATER TANKS, 10 SEPARATORS) IN THE R-1 (LOW -DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
PT SW4SE4 SECTION 36, T6N, R66W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY,
COLORADO.
NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO C STREET; EAST OF 35TH AVENUE.
Tiffane Johnson, Planning Services, presented Case USR13-0009, reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this
application with the attached conditions of approval and development standards. Ms. Johnson stated this
site is surrounded by the R1 Zoning area as well as the City of Greeley. She further stated there is a 250
foot telecommunications tower on the adjacent property to the west that is owned by Greeley
Broadcasting, who has also provided a setback waiver with this application. The applicant also has a land
lease agreement on the Greeley Broadcasting property.
In response to Commissioner Berryman, Ms. Johnson stated the new setback rules do not come into
effect until later in the year and if the project stays on tract they will meet the current setback rules. The
applicant has also gone through the permitting process with the COGCC and have acquired some special
setback waivers with a reduced setback. Ms. Johnson further stated the property owner has also signed
off on these waivers and are agreeable to these terms.
D Heidi Hansen, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access and drainage conditions and the
requirements on site. Ms. Hansen stated C Street is under the City of Greeley's jurisdiction and the
applicant has been working with the City on access requirements and has revised the access to include a
paved approach for traffic control. Ms. Hansen stated the City of Greeley does not have an access permit,
so the Condition 1.D requires a right of way permit from the City and is intended to allow the City to make
access requirements. These requirements seem to have been worked out; however, if there is road
maintenance that would need to be completed the County is intending for the applicant to do it in
accordance with the City of Greeley's access requirements. Ms. Hansen stated per an email exchange
this morning the City of Greeley is wanting to alter this language a little to say, "Vehicular Access onto C
Street is subject to the City of Greeley approval", this will accomplish what the County was trying to do
with the right of way permit. Public works would be supportive of this language. Much of this property is in
the 100 year flood plain and the applicant has acquired a Flood Hazard Development Permit. This was
approved with 818 and is conditionally approved. The site is located in a state designated MS4 area;
which is a state designated are for a higher population. There are a few of these sites scattered around
the County in the tri-towns and in Greeley, this is where the state is concerned about water quality. Ms.
Hansen stated because of this the department has asked the applicant to do a water control design for
this site which is not little out of the ordinary for drilling; however, this made the site meet the State water
quality requirements. The applicant will also do a grading permit for the construction of the site.
3
In response to Commissioner Lawley, Ms. Hansen stated normally when the department gets a referral
from a neighboring community staff will say, "attempt to address their comments" and the applicant then
has to work with that particular jurisdiction; however, with this particular right of way, C Street is under the
City of Greeley's jurisdiction therefore, the normal language is "an approved access permit"; however, the
City of Greeley doesn't actually do an "access permit" thus changing the language to "a right of way
permit". Ms. Hansen stated the language City of Greeley is proposing, "vehicular access to C Street is
subject to City of Greeley approval", is a little stronger than what the County would consider and does
agree with Commissioner Lawley that it might sound like the access could be denied to the applicant if
the City of Greeley was so inclined. Commissioner Lawley suggested that staff use the standard
language, stating "the applicant should attempt to reach an agreement for access onto C Street".
Commissioner Grand agrees with this language, so the County isn't turning over the responsibility of the
ultimate decision of authority to the City of Greeley. Ms. Hansen agreed with Commissioner Grand. Ms.
Johnson stated this condition is part of the administrative review and suggested eliminating the more
specific ones and leave in the general conditions if the Board would like to. Commissioner Lawley stated
this language is new to the Board and they haven't seen it in other applications, and have allowed the
exchange to occur with the applicant and whomever jurisdiction it falls into, and it is his experience that
the county hasn't typically made these requirements for an applicant. Ms. Hansen suggested deleting 1.D
of the staff recommendations and leaving 1.C which is the attempt to address language. Chair Maxey
stated he would like to hear what the City of Greeley representatives have to say before the Board makes
any decisions on this matter. Commissioner Hall stated he agrees with Commissioner Lawley to have the
word "attempt" in the recommendation. Commissioner Hall further stated rather than holding this issue up
as the Planning Commission level that the City of Greeley has the opportunity to attend the Board of
County Commissioner meeting and voice any concerns to them and have them make the final decision.
D Mary Evett, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -
site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan. Ms. Evett stated the applicant has obtained a field wide
water discharge permit from the state; and the Condition of Approval 2.A on page six (6) addressing this
matter has been met. Ms. Evett stated the staff is not requiring a septic system for this proposal;
therefore, Condition of Approval 1.1 on page five (5) can be removed from the conditions.
D Motion: Delete Condition of Approval 1.1 and re -letter the Condition of Approval, Moved by Bill Hall,
Seconded by Nick Berryman.
Motion passed unanimously.
D Erin Matthews, 4715 Innovation Drive, Ft Collins, Colorado, Lamp Rynearson & Associates, Inc.,
Engineer and Surveyor for Mineral Resources, and Colin Richardson, 5200 W 20th Street, Greeley,
Colorado, Mineral Resources, Applicant. Ms. Matthews thanked the Board for hearing this case today.
This site is a multiple well oil and gas well pad and is locally owned by Richmark Energy Partners who is
a sister company for Mineral Resources. Ms. Matthews went through a brief overview of the property
which was also presented by Ms. Johnson. She further stated Mineral Resources has obtained a setback
waiver through the COGCC process. The site has been permitted through the State for 32 wells and will
be horizontally drilled. Ms. Matthews stated the current drilling plan is to be phased of which phase one
will consist of only two wells to be drilled. The tank battery will also be built which includes the 16 oil
tanks, two (2) water tanks, and the separator. The applicant has agreed to do 300 feet of paving as
requested by the City of Greeley. Mr. Richardson stated by using the fire hydrant for water access and
the above ground water storage tank they feel they can reduce the amount of trucks coming in and out of
the site by approximately 1,000 round trip truck traffic. In conclusion thanked everyone and asked the
Board they would uphold the approval of staffs recommendation.
In response to Commissioner Berryman, Ms. Matthews stated she has had some communication with
Justin Shulles, Engineer, City of Greeley, to address the questions the City has and feels they are
meeting the requirements the County has required and is working with the City to meet their requirements
as well.
In response to Commissioner Smock, Mr. Richardson pointed out where the wells would be located and
stated that yes, these would be done in phase and there is a possibility that they would drill maybe ten
(10) and no more.
4
In response to Chair Maxey, Ms. Matthews stated with the initial USR application they did submit a
screening plan which included C Street and the residences as well; however, to date they have not
address permanent screening, and during the drilling process there will be some sort of noise mitigation.
D The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application.
Brandon Gossard, Planner, City of Greeley, 911 10th Street, Ste 202, Greeley, Colorado, stated
feels the City has been fairly successful when communicating the various needs and requests from the
City and giving the County the difficult task of balancing the transition between Urban and Rural land
uses. Mr. Gossard stated most of the concerns/items the City of Greeley have had have been addressed,
such as noise mitigation (straw bails); however, they would like to ask there is some type of landscaping
on the west side to provide some kind of visual impact mitigation for the existing single family homes, and
on the south side have some kind of supplemental screening beyond what is already in place.
D Justin Shults, City of Greeley Engineering Development Review, stated there has been access
approval through the City of Greeley, which considers Oil and Gas a development activity as outlined in
the City code. This code requires the applicant to widen and complete the street improvement, this would
include widening the street, curb, gutter and sidewalk which would be consistent with the street section
that is west of the sight that is in front of Clover Creek Subdivision. Mr. Shults stated as it is not logical at
this time to complete these improvements, the City would request the Board to consider a Conditions of
Approval for the request of Access Approval through the City of Greeley. Mr. Shults stated the City would
like the applicant to sign a Development Agreement stating they will commit to the improvements to C
Street when the project is to be completed (participating in the funding of the improvements). He further
stated the City of Greeley is willing to sell water to the Applicant as they have done in the past with other
oil & gas projects, however, at this point the City has not seen a plan from the applicant and would like to
see the proposed water plan that has been provided to the County and work to get the water to the sight
for the applicant.
In response to Chair Maxey, Mr. Shults stated the City would like to be able to have the opportunity to be
able to approve the access on C Street; however, that is something the Board has to approve. He further
stated he understands where the Board is coming from as far as deleting 1.D and keep 1.C which is the
standard language from the County.
Commissioner Lawley stated he as well as the rest of the Board understands this project will have an
impact on the City of Greeley and want to encourage the applicant to work with the City of Greeley to
mitigate the Cities issues as much as possible; however, ultimately that agreement is with the City and
the Applicant.
D Motion: Condition of Approval 1.D, Moved by Robert Grand, Seconded by Jordan Jemiola.
D The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and Conditions
of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Mr. Richardson stated they were not aware of the Development Agreement with the City of Greeley but
would be willing to meet and work with the City on this.
In response to Chair Maxey, Mr. Richardson stated they will be willing to work with the adjacent property
owner on the west side for screening further stating they do have a landscaping plan for the south side of
the property. Ms. Johnson stated the County would need an updated landscaping plan from the applicant.
5
Motion: Forward Case USR13-0009 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, Moved by Robed Grand, Seconded by Bill Hall.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8).
Yes: Bill Hall, Bret Elliott, Jason Maxey, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Mark Lawley, Nick
Berryman, Robert Grand.
Commissioner Grand stated he is encouraged to see the continual focus of reducing traffic and the
County appreciates it.
Chair Maxey stated he agrees with Commissioner Grand, the reduced traffic does not only help the
County but the City as well. He further stated he appreciates the City of Greeley for coming to the hearing
today and stating that the applicant has been cooperative up to this point and is confident the applicant
will continue to do so in the future.
The Chair asked the public if there were other items of business that they would like to discuss. No
one wished to speak.
D The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss. No
one wished to speak.
Tom Parko, Department of Planning Services, stated the first reading for the impact fees has gone before
the Board of County Commissioners and they are on board for it, this would be an increase of 2% (two)
inflation adjustment.
Mr. Parko further stated staff is looking at implementing a small business incentive program to help small
business with entitlement process. This would target impact three areas; land use fees, impact fees, and
road improvement fees which could help the small business owner who may just be starting up and not
have the funding to pay for these fees up front. He further stated staff has been talking about this
internally and will be meeting with BOCC to see if this may be something they are willing to look into.
In response to Chair Maxey, Mr. Parko stated they have had some input from smaller businesses and will
continue to ask for input to determine the needs. In response to Commissioner Berryman, Mr. Parko
stated they will be looking at this as employee size and at this point staff has decided to top it out at the
max of 25 employees. He further stated staff hasn't worked out a lot of the details; however, they are
moving forward and working through the details. Mr. Parka stated this will not be exclusionary to any
business as long as the business falls within the guidelines set forth by staff.
Mr. Parko stated it was his understanding that someone would be looking into the difference between
Infra State -vs- Inter State with the mobile refinery and Brad Yatabe stated he would be able to look into
this matter.
Meeting adjourned at 2:45 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Date: 2013.05.30
07:47:10 -06'00'
Tonya Johnson
Secretary
6
Hello