HomeMy WebLinkAbout20093276.tiffHEARING CERTIFICATION
DOCKET NO. 2009-63.A
RE: SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT #1709 FOR A MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT FACILITY,
INCLUDING AN OIL AND GAS SUPPORT AND SERVICE FACILITY (CRUDE OIL
TRUCK UNLOADING FACILITY) IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT -
SUNCOR ENERGY (USA) PIPELINE COMPANY
A public hearing was conducted on December 16, 2009, at 10:00 a.m., with the following
present:
Commissioner William F. Garcia, Chair
Commissioner Douglas Rademacher, Pro-Tem
Commissioner Sean P. Conway
Commissioner Barbara Kirkmeyer - EXCUSED
Commissioner David E. Long
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Jennifer VanEgdom
County Attorney, Bruce Barker
Planning Department representative, Chris Gathman
Health Department representative, Lauren Light
Public Works Department representative, Don Carroll
Public Works Department representative, Janet Carter
Public Works Department representative, David Bauer
The following business was transacted:
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated September 18, 2009, and duly published
September 24, 2009, in the Windsor Beacon, a public hearing was conducted on November 4,
2009, to consider the request of Suncor Energy (USA) Pipeline Company for a Site Specific
Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit #1709 for a Mineral Resource
Development Facility, including an Oil and Gas Support and Service Facility (crude oil truck
unloading facility) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. At said hearing, the Board deemed it
advisable to continue the matter to December 16, 2009, to allow adequate time for the applicant
to address concerns presented by surrounding property owners and the Department of Public
Works. At said hearing on December 16, 2009, Bruce Barker, County Attorney, made this a
matter of record. Chair Garcia advised the applicant's representative, Julie Cozad, Tetra Tech,
that she has the option of continuing the matter to a date when the full Board will be present.
However, if she decides to proceed today, the matter will require three affirmative votes, or in
the case of a tie vote, Commissioner Kirkmeyer will review the record and make the determining
vote. Ms. Cozad indicated she would like to proceed today.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, presented a brief summary of the proposal
and entered the favorable recommendation of the Planning Commission into the record as
written. He stated the site is located south of County Road 20, one-half mile east of
U.S. Highway 85, and is 37.3 acres in size. He gave a brief description of the surrounding
property uses, including three Use by Special Review (USR) permits and the Union Pacific
go `. pe, gi /fZ (Lj)
2009-3276
PL2029
o�7as4
HEARING CERTIFICATION - SUNCOR ENERGY (USA) PIPELINE COMPANY
(USR-1709)
PAGE 2
Railroad, all within 1,500 to 1,800 feet west of the site, a single-family residence located
500 feet west of the proposed facility, across County Road 20, and agricultural land surrounding
the site. He indicated fourteen referral agencies reviewed the application materials, with six
providing comments which have been addressed within the Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards. He clarified a referral response was not received from the Colorado
Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, Weld County Code Compliance, Weld County Sheriff's
Office, Colorado Department of Wildlife, Weld County Paramedic Service, Union Pacific
Railroad, or the Platteville Ditch Company. He confirmed several letters and telephone calls
have been received since the Planning Commission hearing, citing concerns regarding traffic
safety, trucks crossing U.S. Highway 85 on County Road 20, the width of the necessary
acceleration/deceleration lanes, the inadequate width of County Road 20, inadequate sight
distance due to a hill east of the site, school buses making stops on County Road 20, the
potential for traffic accidents due to the speeding of trucks, increased dust and damage to
surrounding properties, noise and lighting issues since the site is proposed to be operated
24 hours per day, the use of portable toilets until permanent facilities are constructed, and the
potential for on -site spills and how they will be addressed. He indicated the surrounding
property owners have suggested that County Road 20 be paved farther to the east, screening
be provided on three sides of the proposed facility, a permanent building containing a restroom
facility be constructed on the site immediately, and the speed limit on County Road 20 be
reduced to 40 miles per hour. He clarified the applicant did hold a community meeting on
November 19, 2009, in which these issues and concerns were discussed, and a summary of the
meeting has been provided for the record. He indicated the Department of Planning Services is
requiring a Screening Plan to be submitted, and staff has met with representatives to discuss
the screening options on the site, specifically regarding the circulation of trucks on the site
during night-time hours and utilizing slats within the chain -link fence. He further indicated a
Lighting Plan will be required, to address the lighting on the site for the 24 -hour operations, and
the applicant did choose to move the access so that it will be located 850 feet from the nearest
residence. He confirmed the site is currently unoccupied and the Department of Public Works
will address the required road improvements. He stated the applicant has indicated a well will
provide water for the site; however, he is unsure as to whether the applicant will apply for a new
well permit, or if an agreement has been reached to share the use of the well on the property to
the west, also owned by Suncor. He clarified if the well is proposed to be shared, the applicant
will be required to provide an agreement with the Platteville Ditch Company.
Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, stated County Road 20 is a local gravel road,
requiring 60 feet of right-of-way at full buildout. He clarified the typical road section is 26 feet in
width, and at this location, it will be difficult for larger trucks to make the necessary turns,
therefore, the Department is requesting the road be widened. He stated the applicant will enter
into an Improvements Agreement for the paving requirements, and due to the heavy hauling
activities, the applicant will also enter into a Road Maintenance Agreement for the identified haul
route, which was supported and approved by the members of the Planning Commission. He
confirmed the applicant met with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) in
November, 2008, to discuss improvements to the intersection of County Road 20 and
U.S. Highway 85, in conjunction with the application for USR-1527, which was later withdrawn.
He confirmed the Department received an additional e-mail from CDOT this morning,
concerning utilities within the right-of-way, and Janet Carter, Department of Public Works, will
2009-3276
PL2029
HEARING CERTIFICATION - SUNCOR ENERGY (USA) PIPELINE COMPANY
(USR-1709)
PAGE 3
provide information within her presentation. Mr. Carroll indicated the applicant will be required
to identify the U.S. Highway 85 Access Control Plan on the recorded plat, as well as provide the
construction drawings associated with the paving and widening of the turning radii. He stated
the Department is requesting the applicant pave the site entrance and utilize a tracking pad to
prevent the transfer of debris on the road. He further stated a right -turn deceleration lane into
the facility and a Stop sign are required at the access, and no staging of vehicles will be allowed
on County roads.
At the request of Chair Garcia, Mr. Gathman displayed photographs of the site and the
surrounding area. In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Gathman clarified there is a
private road running adjacent to the ditch, and it is not maintained by the County.
Ms. Carter indicated the site is approximately one-half mile from U.S. Highway 85, and the most
recent traffic count for County Road 20, taken in 2007, indicates approximately 171 vehicles per
day. She further indicated 85 percent of the traffic on County Road 20 travels at a speed of
41 miles per hour, and approximately 11 percent of the overall traffic is trucks. She confirmed
the designated haul route is County Road 20, west to U.S. Highway 85, and she confirmed the
Department is requesting that County Road 20 be paved, between U.S. Highway 85 and the
facility access, because all other similar oil and gas facilities access onto paved roads, including
another facility operated by Suncor on County Road 18.5. She clarified County Road 18.5 was
a gravel road when Suncor first began operations at that site; however, the structural stability of
the road was compromised by the heavy truck traffic associated with the facility, therefore,
recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) was applied to help regain the structural stability of the road.
She further clarified the RAP project was not successful, and eventually the road was paved by
the Department, at the taxpayer's expense. Ms. Carter indicated County Road 18.5 is located
south of the proposed facility, containing 60 feet of right-of-way, with an average daily traffic
count of 92 vehicles, taken in 2008. She further indicated 85 percent of the traffic travels at a
speed of 48 miles per hour, and twelve percent of the overall traffic is trucks. She stated the
applicant's Traffic Study indicates the facility is expected to produce 200 vehicle trips per day,
which will increase the overall traffic count on County Road 20 to 371, which meets warrants for
paving the road.
Ms. Carter indicated representatives of the Department met with the applicant after the Planning
Commission hearing, at which time the applicant requested that the paving requirement for
County Road 20 contain specific triggers, since the buildout of the facility is expected to be
phased. She confirmed the eastbound right -turn deceleration lane into the facility is warranted,
based upon the turning movements described within the traffic study, and based upon the
applicant's request for a specific trigger, it has been determined that when the facility exceeds
25 turning vehicles during a peak hour, the lane must be constructed. She requested the
modification of Condition of Approval #1.F.1.d to state, "Paving of the eastbound right -turn
deceleration lane from County Road 20 into the site.", and the deletion of Condition of Approval
#1.F.2, since the updated traffic study has been provided. Ms. Carter confirmed an e-mail was
received from Gloria Hice-Idler, CDOT, on December 9, 2009, which indicated that the radius
curves at the intersection of County Road 20 and U.S. Highway 85 may need to be improved,
based upon CDOT requirements. She further confirmed she has received another e-mail from
Ms. Hice-Idler this morning, prior to the beginning of the hearing, and she provided a copy of the
2009-3276
PL2029
HEARING CERTIFICATION - SUNCOR ENERGY (USA) PIPELINE COMPANY
(USR-1709)
PAGE 4
e-mail, marked Exhibit R. She stated Ms. Hice-Idler indicated she would also contact the
applicant and the applicant's traffic engineer to make them aware of the information provided
within the e-mail. She explained the e-mail indicates that at the time the applicant previously
worked with CDOT for improvements to the intersection, including an acceleration/deceleration
lane onto U.S. Highway 85, and a left -turn deceleration lane onto County Road 20, CDOT did
not have the adequate right-of-way necessary to incorporate all of the improvements, therefore,
CDOT only requested the construction of the left -turn deceleration lane onto County Road 20.
She further explained CDOT would now like the applicant to move forward with the construction
of the right -turn acceleration/deceleration lane, and would like the requirement to be added as a
Condition of Approval. At the request of the Board, Ms. Carter indicated the approximate
placement of the access on the map provided, at the eastern end of the property. In response
to Commissioner Rademacher, Ms. Carter confirmed the Department believes the
improvements to U.S. Highway 85 are currently warranted, as a safety improvement; however,
the requirement was previously waived by CDOT due to the lack of adequate right-of-way and
the need for relocation of electrical lines. Responding to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Carter
indicated she is not sure if CDOT has already acquired the necessary right-of-way or if the utility
issues have been addressed. Commissioner Conway indicated it is pertinent that the Board
have this information, and Ms. Carter concurred. Further responding to Commissioner
Rademacher, Mr. Gathman indicated the property to the west of the site does contain an older
USR permit; however, he doubts any road improvements were required at the time the permit
was approved. He further indicated Suncor now owns the property; however, the permit was
originally approved for Conoco.
Lauren Light, Department of Public Health and Environment, explained to the Board that prior to
her employment with the Department, she was employed by Tetra Tech, the applicant's
representative, and she did consulting on the application materials for the previous USR-1527;
however, that project was withdrawn, and she has no ties to the current application project.
Chair Garcia expressed his appreciation to Ms. Light for her disclosure. Ms. Light indicated the
applicant will either drill a new well for the facility, or will share the well on the adjacent property
to the west, and Condition of Approval #1.E addresses the applicant's options. She confirmed it
is expected that the office building will not be constructed for several years, therefore, there was
a large amount of discussion at the Planning Commission hearing regarding allowing the facility
to utilize portable toilets. She explained Development Standard #11 allows the use of portable
toilets for a period of six months, and with Board approval, they may be utilized for an additional
twelve-month period, or until the office building is constructed. She confirmed the applicant will
install a septic system within the new office building, and Dust Abatement and Waste Handling
Plans are required to be provided. She explained this facility is a truck unloading facility only,
and the liquids will be transferred directly from the trucks to the pipeline which travels south to
the refinery. She clarified the design for the facility is not complete; however, the applicant has
indicated a sump will be utilized, and in the case of a spill, all matter is processed through the
sump directly to the pipeline. She indicated the applicant may be required to obtain an Air
Pollution Emissions Notice (A.P.E.N.) and a Stormwater Discharge Permit from the State, which
will be required prior to construction activities, if necessary. She further indicated the site will be
required to comply with noise levels allowed in the Industrial Zone District, as addressed within
Development Standard #10.
2009-3276
PL2029
HEARING CERTIFICATION - SUNCOR ENERGY (USA) PIPELINE COMPANY
(USR-1709)
PAGE 5
Chair Garcia issued a short recess
Upon reconvening, Chair Garcia explained he spoke with Ms. Cozad during the recess, and she
indicated her presentation is expected to last approximately 45 minutes. He indicated public
comment will be allowed after Ms. Cozad's presentation, and then the Board will hold discussion
regarding any necessary modifications to the Resolution. Responding to Chair Garcia, the
Board indicated their desire to proceed with the hearing, without the issuance of a lunch break,
so that the hearing may be completed before 2:30 p.m., when the Board is scheduled to attend
another meeting.
Ms. Cozad represented the applicant and stated the proposed facility will be a crude oil truck
unloading facility, and clarified the facility will not be a disposal facility, as it may have been
mistakenly indicated within previous versions of the Resolution. She further clarified the parcel
is a total of 34.568 acres; however, the USR boundary will only encompass 12.3 acres, and the
parcel adjacent to the west, owned by Suncor, is a crude oil storage facility, not a gas
production facility. Ms. Cozad introduced the other representatives in attendance, and she
reviewed her PowerPoint presentation, marked Exhibit S. She gave a brief overview of the
Suncor Company, noting daily production amounts, and highlighting notable aspects of the
refinery and pipeline network. She reviewed the presented vicinity map, and confirmed
representatives did meet with the closest surrounding property owner and agreed to reposition
the access to the facility to mitigate negative impacts. She further reviewed the uses of other
businesses within the immediate area, including other oil and gas facilities, a car sales
business, and a storage unit business, which is currently not operating, but could be replaced
with any other industrial type of business. She confirmed the applicant has an existing
agreement with the Platteville Ditch Company, and the applicant does operate another similar
facility on County Road 18.5. She clarified the Department of Public Works indicated the
County was required to pave County Road 18.5, due to problems with structural stability;
however, Suncor was never contacted by the Department to determine whether the company
was willing to complete additional improvements to the road. She confirmed many other large
trucks traveling within the area utilize County Road 18.5, in addition to the trucks traveling to the
Suncor facility, and the existing facility has varying site -specific conditions which are not found
at the proposed facility. In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Ms. Cozad confirmed there
is no traffic signal at the intersection of U.S. Highway 85 and County Road 18.5. She explained
the applicant worked with the Department of Public Works regarding the turning radius for the
site, which is designed to be 45 feet so that large trucks are able to make an adequate turn.
She gave a brief description of the site circulation and confirmed the unloading bay will be
constructed of concrete. She clarified the gate access location was modified, due to anticipated
issues concerning the stacking of trucks, and an alternate access has been identified, and will
be utilized as necessary, to prevent stacking on the site. She confirmed a Stop sign will be
installed at the access, and a sign containing contact information will also be located near the
access. She indicated the location of the detention pond, confirming it will be reseeded with a
dryland seed mix, and the location of the grind -out shack, which is where the oil is tested for
quality and sediments. She further indicated the placement of the future office building, and
stated the site has been designed to contain gravel, including crushed gravel road base for the
parking areas on the site. Ms. Cozad confirmed the facility will be fenced with a six-foot chain
link fence, which meets security requirements, with the addition of twelve -inch barbed wire on
2009-3276
PL2029
HEARING CERTIFICATION - SUNCOR ENERGY (USA) PIPELINE COMPANY
(USR-1709)
PAGE 6
top of the fence. She reiterated an additional meeting with staff was held, following the Planning
Commission hearing, regarding the screening requirements for the site, at which time it as
proposed that a high -quality slat product be placed within the chain link fence. She clarified the
opaque material is durable and will be placed in the fence along the front of the facility, and for
200 feet along each side fence of the facility, to help mitigate light impacts. She further clarified
a light pole will be installed at the entrance to the site, motion sensor lights will be mounted on
the buildings, for security reasons, and the applicant will provide all necessary details within the
Lighting Plan.
Ms. Cozad reviewed the project schedule and phasing, including the initial construction plans,
confirming it is expected that only 20 to 40 trucks will travel to the site on a daily basis within the
beginning phase, and she further reviewed the plans for the full buildout of the facility. She
reiterated the facility will either apply for a new well permit, or will enter into an agreement with
the Platteville Ditch Company for the use of the existing well containing an adequate water
supply on the adjacent property. Ms. Cozad briefly reviewed the goals of the Weld County
Comprehensive Plan, confirmed the application materials meet all requirements listed within the
Weld County Code, and she reviewed the Conditions of Approval which have already been
satisfied. She confirmed the applicant has met with CDOT on numerous occasions to discuss
the necessary road improvements, and does not concur with the interpretation of the e-mail
from Ms. Hice-Idler presented by Ms. Carter. She clarified within the discussions held with
CDOT, the traffic study was reviewed, which indicated a turn lane was warranted; however,
CDOT indicated to Suncor that a right-hand turn lane would not be required. In response to
Commissioner Conway, Ms. Cozad confirmed it was interpreted by Suncor's representatives
that the turn lane would not be required, due to the issues concerning the lack of available
right-of-way and because of the expense to make modifications to the existing utilities. She
clarified Suncor representatives met with CDOT in the year 2007, in good faith, before the first
project was initiated. She clarified CDOT has made substantial improvements along
U.S. Highway 85 in the meantime, and Suncor has sent a response to the Department of Public
Works, indicating several of the road improvement requirements presented are not agreed
upon.
Ms. Cozad reviewed the neighborhood map, indicating the neighbors within 500 feet of the site,
and depicting the property owners who voiced concerns. She clarified only one person provided
comments during the Planning Commission hearing; therefore, it was surprising to receive so
many comments after the hearing. She confirmed representatives met with several neighbors,
at which time good discussion was held; however, additional letters of concern were received,
therefore, the applicant requested a continuance for the original hearing scheduled on
November 4, 2009, so that a neighborhood meeting could be conducted. She further confirmed
the meeting was well -attended, and a copy of the sign -in sheet and a summary of the meeting
were provided for the record. She summarized the concerns presented by neighbors, which
included the safety of the intersection of U.S. Highway 85 and County Road, the current
condition and maintenance of County Road 20, especially at the hill one mile east of the facility,
and overall general traffic concerns within the surrounding area. She indicated the neighbors
were promised that the intersection would be reviewed, and a survey was completed, which
determined the intersection is of adequate size to accommodate turning trucks; however, it is
tight fit. Ms. Cozad stated concerns regarding screening on the site were also mentioned by the
2009-3276
PL2029
HEARING CERTIFICATION - SUNCOR ENERGY (USA) PIPELINE COMPANY
(USR-1709)
PAGE 7
neighbors, and it has been determined that the addition of the slats within the chain -link fence
will provide adequate screening. She further stated the lights on the site will be shielded, or
controlled by a motion detection system, and the applicant intends to comply with the noise
restrictions within the Industrial Zone District. She clarified the truck drivers are not employees
of Suncor; however, it is intended that the trucking contractors will adhere to the preferred haul
route, and Suncor will work with the individual drivers to ensure that any traffic concerns are
resolved. She confirmed truck traffic east of the site will be minimal, and it is expected that a
majority of the truck traffic will come from the north, through the weigh station at Platteville on
U.S. Highway 85, and then turn onto County Road 20 to access the site. She further confirmed
Suncor encourages the reduction of the speed limit on County Road 20, especially since many
of the intersections within the surrounding area are not controlled with Stop signs. She clarified
there is no speed limit sign posted for this stretch of road, therefore, the default speed limit is
assumed to be 55 miles per hour.
Ms. Cozad further reviewed her presentation, providing an explanation of the economic
importance of oil and gas operations within Weld County. She stated transporting the crude oil
through a pipeline does reduce the overall amount of truck traffic on roads, and the severance
taxes paid by oil and gas companies help to pay for necessary improvements to roads within the
County. She reviewed the economics of oil and gas operations in Colorado, indicating there are
significant reserves within Weld County, and there are currently problems experienced with
overcapacity and limited storage. She confirmed Suncor is committed to ensuring safety within
its operations at the facility, and is willing to pay a proportional share of improvements, when
warranted. She reviewed the timeline provided, giving a brief summary of the history of the
application process. She confirmed she has received two additional e -mails from CDOT, since
the November 6, 2008, meeting, which did not indicate that any additional requirements would
be necessary. She clarified at the meeting with the Department of Public Works on November
6, 2008, the improvements for County Road 20 were discussed with staff, and it was determined
that the Improvements Agreement could contain triggered requirements for the paving of the
road, which was complimentary to Suncor's plans for the phased buildout of the facility. She
further clarified Suncor representatives were told during that meeting that a total of 500 vehicle
trips per day would enact the need for County Road 20 to be paved; however, the referral
provided by the Department of Public Works on August 13, 2009, was the first time it was
mentioned that it would be required for County Road 20 to be paved from U.S. Highway 85 to
the entrance of the facility, and that the facility itself would be required to be paved. She
confirmed representatives were caught off -guard, since the improvements appeared to be
substantially different that what was discussed during the previous meeting. She stated another
meeting was set for August 24, 2009, to discuss the comments within the referral, at which time
the Department requested Suncor's representatives to draft a memo outlining the outstanding
issues. She indicated a phone call from the Department, two days after Suncor's memo was
submitted to staff, confirmed the comments previously provided in the referral drafted by the
Department would stand, and the requirements would not be modified. She further indicated
another response was sent to the Department on October 5, 2009, outlining Suncor's concerns
in regards to the Improvements Agreement, in preparation for the Planning Commission hearing
scheduled for October 6, 2009. She clarified the Planning Commission recommended
unanimous approval of the application, with the instruction for Suncor representatives to meet
again with staff from the Department of Public Works before the Commissioners hearing, in
2009-3276
PL2029
HEARING CERTIFICATION - SUNCOR ENERGY (USA) PIPELINE COMPANY
(USR-1709)
PAGE 8
order to work through any outstanding issues. She indicated a meeting was scheduled on
October 26, 2009, at which time a large amount of discussion took place, and it was Suncor's
understanding that an agreement was reached regarding which improvements were necessary,
and the timing in which the improvements would be completed. She further indicated it was the
understanding of the Suncor representatives present that the comments provided by the
Department would be revised, and submitted for the record prior to the Commissioners hearing,
and that an Improvements Agreement would be drafted containing the agreements made during
the meeting. She stated another letter was sent to the Department on November 18, 2009,
regarding the Final Drainage Report, and at that time, no revised comments had been provided
by the Department. She confirmed David Bauer, Department of Public Works, responded to an
e-mail sent to Mr. Carroll and Ms. Carter on November 23, 2009, and she re -iterated Suncor's
position on the required improvements. She stated a draft Improvements Agreement was
provided on November 30, 2009; however, it still did not address the specifics of the discussion
within the meeting held on October 26, 2009.
In response to a previous question by Commissioner Conway, Gene Coppola, Traffic Engineer,
confirmed the neighbors are concerned regarding the speed limit within the surrounding area,
and he further reviewed the PowerPoint presentation, marked Exhibit S. He summarized the
rules within the Colorado Driver Handbook for roads without a posted speed limit, and the speed
limit for this stretch of County Road 20 could be limited to 30 miles per hour, as the area is
comparable to the residential district. He reiterated the 85th percentile of speed is traveling
41 miles per hour, therefore a speed limit of 35 or 40 miles per hour is reasonable, especially
since it is a gravel road, and there are railroad tracks in close proximity. He confirmed it is good
traffic engineering practice that the speed limit be posted in close proximity to the
85th percentile of traffic speed. Mr. Coppola indicated another issue of contention is the
requirement of a righ-turn lane on County Road 20, for eastbound traffic turning into the site.
He explained the criteria of 25 turning vehicles per hour is generally utilized for roadways with a
higher classification, and for this road, the criteria of 50 vehicles per hour should apply. He
indicated if it is determined that a reduction of speed is appropriate, due to the characteristics of
the surrounding area, then it is appropriate to set the criteria for the necessity of a turn lane at
50 vehicles per hour. He clarified even at the eventual full buildout of the facility, containing ten
truck bays, it is projected that a maximum of 23 vehicles per hour will be turning into the site,
which is still below the stricter criteria limit of 25 vehicles. He confirmed the general need for
turn lanes is also prompted by differing speeds between vehicles on a specific road; however,
the criteria on a low volume roadway requires more than 150 vehicles an hour utilizing the
affected lane of the roadway before a separate turn lane is required, therefore, the potential for
conflict is non-existent, even when this facility achieves full buildout. In response to Chair
Garcia, Mr. Coppola clarified the slowing of traffic created by turning vehicles is better described
as not a significant measurable source of conflict, therefore, a turn lane should not be required.
He clarified the existing traffic volume on County Road 20 would have to increase 1,000 percent
before the need for a turn lane would be warranted.
Ms. Cozad clarified she understands that the Improvements Agreement will be approved by the
Board at a later date; however, Suncor still has outstanding questions regarding the content of
the agreement, and she would like staff to receive proper direction from the Board. She
2009-3276
PL2029
HEARING CERTIFICATION - SUNCOR ENERGY (USA) PIPELINE COMPANY
(USR-1709)
PAGE 9
reiterated the draft version of the agreement did not contain the expected revisions; therefore,
the applicant would like a chance to review some additional recommendations.
Jim Borgel, Attorney, represented the applicant and confirmed the substance of the
Improvements Agreement and the required Conditions of Approval requested by the
Department of Public Works are the primary concern of Suncor. He requested the Board
provide direction regarding the necessary negotiations, and he continued the review of the
PowerPoint presentation, clarifying there have not been any substantial changes to the draft
Improvements Agreement, despite previous discussions with staff. He indicated staff is
requesting Suncor pay for the full cost of paving County Road 20, from U.S. Highway 85 to the
site entrance, install a right-hand turn lane into the facility from County Road 20, which is not
warranted or necessary, and oversee the construction of the improvements. He clarified Suncor
is willing to pay a proportional share of the costs, based upon the percentage of overall traffic
the facility contributes, which is a fair and equitable allocation. He further stated the required
timing for the improvements to be completed is also an issue because the obligations, as they
are currently written, are immediate, before the issuance of a grading permit. He explained
Suncor believes the improvements should be completed in phases, to coincide with the actual
impacts created by the facility, including the requirement of dust treatment in the beginning
phases, and then providing an appropriate proportional share for paving costs once the facility
achieves full buildout. He indicated some of the language within the agreement appears to
indicate that the County will be able to unilaterally determine if impacts are occurring on other
road sections, and that Suncor could be required to fund the maintenance or improvements to
those roads. Mr. Borgel confirmed it appears to be unfair to require an unconditional obligation,
and he clarified Suncor would like to have some certainty that any required improvements will
be based upon recognized traffic counts, or, in the event of disagreement, that some sort of
reasonable dispute process may be enacted. He confirmed Suncor will work with the
contracted trucking companies regarding the haul route for the facility, and will take whatever
reasonable steps necessary to limit trucks to County Road 20. He stated the current language
in the agreement is requiring Suncor to fund maintenance on County Road 20, and Suncor is
prepared to pay a proportional share of any necessary maintenance or improvements; however,
a specific process needs to be in place for the determination of road failure. He confirmed the
most recent draft of the agreement contains additional language which indicates the County will
not take responsibility or incur liability for any off -site improvements completed, and Suncor is
hoping to receive direction from the Board on the issues of contention within the agreement. In
response to Mr. Borger, Chair Garcia indicated the matter will be opened for public comment,
and then the suggested modifications to the Conditions of Approval may be reviewed by the
applicant.
Ms. Cozad expressed her appreciation to the Board for their patience, since it appears this
hearing will be longer than most hearings, and she formally requested approval of the USR
permit, since all goals and policies have been met. She confirmed the proposed facility will
create important economic impacts, and she expressed her appreciation to staff for their
dedication and attendance in the many meetings held prior to this hearing.
Sherry Parker, surrounding property owner, provided photographs depicting County Road 20,
marked Exhibit T, and expressed her concern regarding the width of the road. She clarified the
2009-3276
PL2029
HEARING CERTIFICATION - SUNCOR ENERGY (USA) PIPELINE COMPANY
(USR-1709)
PAGE 10
road becomes very narrow the railroad crossing, and the large trucks will be required to utilize
the space of both lanes in order to make the necessary turns. She further clarified the turning
radius on U.S. Highway 85 is also very narrow, and a truck driver she personally knows has
indicated that it will be impossible for a large truck to make the turn, without improvements to
the road. Ms. Parker indicated she has lived on County Road 20 for over 30 years, and she has
never experienced any significant road problems up to this point; however, she is sure the
anticipated amount of truck traffic will cause problems if the road is not required to be paved.
She reiterated the road currently contains eleven percent truck traffic, and the addition of the
trucks generated by this facility will prompt the need for the road to be paved up to the entrance
of the facility. She clarified there are three residences within a one -mile radius where the school
bus stops to pick up children, which presents a concern with a large amount of truck traffic. She
further expressed her concern regarding the structural stability of the road, especially since the
applicant operates a facility on County Road 18.5, and that road was declared to be structurally
unstable. Ms. Parker indicated she is concerned with the applicant's proposal regarding the
need for improvements to the road to be triggered, since the necessary improvements may not
be completed within a timely manner. She indicated passenger vehicles utilizing the road may
be ruined by driving over large pot holes created by the trucks, which do not get fixed in a timely
manner, and an annual inspection of the road by the Department of Public Works is not
adequate to determine damage. She clarified portions of the road currently receive magnesium
chloride treatments, and the road does not get graded within these areas. She indicated it is
necessary for County Road 20 to contain at least three lanes at the intersection with
U.S. Highway 85, and the applicant should be required to construct all improvements with the
assumption that the facility will operate at full capacity. She further indicated the County needs
to document exactly which improvements will be required, and who will be required to pay for
them, which should be Suncor, not the general taxpayers, and she confirmed the idea of phased
improvements is logical. She expressed her concerns regarding traffic traveling to the facility
from the east, in front of her residence, even though Suncor has dedicated a preferred route for
the traffic. She explained the road currently contains soft shoulders, which could become a
liability issue, and there are also several blind spots in the road. She indicated many of her
neighbors walk on the road, and it will be dangerous to do so if a large number of trucks are
utilizing the road. She further expressed concerns regarding vehicles veering off the side of the
road, and the potential for large potholes and other damage to the road, which will negatively
affect the property owners within the surrounding area. Ms. Parker confirmed the
representatives of Suncor did address many of the traffic concerns presented within the
neighborhood meeting, and she is pleased that a specific haul route has been identified;
however, the drivers will be contracted, and Suncor will not be able to totally control the driving
patterns. She indicated many of the truck drivers may use alternate routes, in order to avoid the
weigh station on U.S. Highway 85. She clarified, despite her concerns, Suncor has been a
great company to work with, and in response to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Parker confirmed
her main concerns are trucks traveling from the east, in front of her residence, and the
inadequate width of the intersection of U.S. Highway 85 and County Road 20. There being no
further testimony, the Chair closed the public input portion of the hearing.
Ms. Cozad clarified Suncor was required to apply for an Access Permit for this facility through
USR-1527, and at the time of negotiation with CDOT and subsequent approval, the intended
facility was larger with more truck traffic, and this new proposed facility is scaled back in size.
2009-3276
PL2029
HEARING CERTIFICATION - SUNCOR ENERGY (USA) PIPELINE COMPANY
(USR-1709)
PAGE 11
She indicated the proposed drawing proves the turn lanes are tight for the large trucks;
however, they are adequate, and the trucks are able to complete the turn and stay within one
lane. She stated Ms. Parker presented concerns regarding the condition of the road, and site
distance issues with the hill; however, this area is over one mile away from the facility, to the
east, and is an existing condition, therefore, Suncor does not have any further comments. She
reiterated Suncor will take whatever action possible to limit truck traffic to the specified haul
route, and due to the type of materials hauled, the trucks are required to travel through the
weigh station on U.S. Highway 85. She confirmed it is possible that a small amount of traffic
may travel to the site from the east; however, it will be difficult to determine if the traffic is
directly related to Suncor's facility.
In response to Commissioner Conway, Blaine Ayers, Project Manager, Suncor Energy,
confirmed the trucking companies enter into a contract for hauling operations, and because the
substance hauled is considered to be a hazardous material, the Department of Transportation is
also involved. He clarified the haul route will be specified within the contract documents, and
language concerning the ability for the company to be penalized if the route is not adhered to,
will also be included within the contract. He further clarified Suncor is not able to guarantee that
100 percent of trucks will follow the haul route all of the time; and on those occasions, a
representative from the port of entry may be called to the site to conduct an inspection on the
truck. Further responding to Commissioner Conway, Mr. Ayers indicated if a trucking company
ignores the haul route on multiple occasions, Suncor will push for the ability to be able to lock
certain truckers out of the site. He confirmed there have been instances in the past, at similar
facilities, were truckers have been restricted from entering the facility, and kicked off of the
premises.
Responding to Commissioner Conway, Jamie Jost, Attorney, confirmed Suncor has the ability to
enforce a breach of contract by terminating the contract, locking truckers out of the site, or
preventing a specific driver from a specific company from accessing Suncor's facility. She
confirmed these actions have been utilized in the past at other facilities within the State.
In response to Chair Garcia, Ms. Carter clarified if the speed limit is not posted along a County
Road, the default speed limit is 55 miles per hour, and this specific area is not a residential
district, rather it is agricultural in nature. She further clarified Weld County does not categorize
County Roads as non -rural arterials, which was the designation utilized by Mr. Coppola in his
analysis. She indicated County Roads are typically high-speed and low -volume, and provide for
local travel needs, therefore, the warrant for a right -turn lane is 25 vehicles in a peak hour. She
confirmed the Department is requesting the installation of the proposed turn lane when the
facility meets that warrant, therefore, it is a mute requirement at this point. Ms. Carter stated
CDOT will conduct a site inspection to determine if the turning radii are adequate, as indicated
by the applicant, and CDOT has clarified that the proper right-of-way width has not been
acquired at this time, and the width will need to take side slopes and utility locates into
consideration. She further stated CDOT clarified that they do not have the ability to require the
applicant to purchase the necessary right-of-way. In response to Commissioner Conway,
Ms. Carter clarified the Board has the ability to make a requirement that the applicant purchase
the necessary right-of-way for the required improvements. She confirmed it is CDOT's
intention, through the e-mail provided by Ms. Hice-Idler, that the applicant be required to install
2009-3276
PL2029
HEARING CERTIFICATION - SUNCOR ENERGY (USA) PIPELINE COMPANY
(USR-1709)
PAGE 12
a right -turn acceleration/deceleration lane, since it is warranted, in addition to the proposed
left -turn lane. She stated the e-mail from Ms. Hice-Idler also indicates the original waiver "does
not dismiss anything — it is more of an acknowledgement that the condition exists and will need
to be handled in the future." Chair Garcia requested that Ms. Carter provide a copy of the
e-mail for the record, which was marked as Exhibit U. Responding to Chair Garcia, Mr. Borger
indicated he has been involved in numerous land use hearings; however, he cannot remember
being actively involved within a hearing when new information has been presented to staff,
through e-mail, regarding one of the issues of contention, and he requested he be allowed to
review the comments provided by Ms. Hice-Idler.
In response to Chair Garcia, Mr. Barker read Condition of Approval #1.F into the record, and
indicated Condition of Approval #1.G contains the requirement for an Improvements Agreement;
however, the Board typically does not specifically state the improvements an applicant shall
complete within the language of the Resolution. He clarified the applicant has proposed a
proportional share for the required improvements, and Colorado law indicates a proportional
share is appropriate, therefore, he cautioned the Board to be mindful in their considerations. He
further clarified the Improvements Agreement may contain language regarding the phasing of
the necessary improvements, and he is reluctant for the Board to be in a position where e -mails
are being received at the last minute with new information, which the applicant has not been
allowed the proper time to review. He confirmed the Board should give direction to staff,
through the Conditions of Approval, that an Improvements Agreement must be completed,
which addresses specific improvements; however, the details of the Improvements Agreement
do not have to be finalized at today's hearing. Chair Garcia indicated it appears the Board has
been invited by staff to make comments and suggestions on the specific language of the draft
Improvements Agreement; however, it appears that it is within the best interests of the Board to
not accept that invitation. Mr. Barker clarified staff is suggesting that as a Condition of Approval,
that paving of the roadway will be required, as detailed within the memo dated August 13, 2009.
He confirmed the proper process is for the submission of an Improvements Agreement, for
review by the Board at a later date, prior to recording the plat, which allows for a period of time
to negotiate the specific language within the document. He indicated he is reluctant for the
Board, at today's hearing, to dictate the specific road improvements which must be completed,
because the applicant has the ability to not agree with the requirements, which leaves the Board
in a position of not knowing how to proceed with the USR permit.
In response to Commissioner Conway, Mr. Borger stated the newest e-mail indicates CDOT
does not have the ability to require Suncor to purchase the necessary right-of-way, and he
reiterated an access permit already exists for this facility. He confirmed CDOT has consistently
told Suncor that all of the necessary requirements have been met. Mr. Borger referenced the
document containing the proposed modifications to the Conditions of Approval, and provided a
copy for the record, marked Exhibit V. He requested the language within Condition of Approval
#1.C.4 be modified from the reference that turn lanes "are required' to "may be required', so
that the applicant may contact CDOT to clarify any outstanding issues. In response to
Commissioner Conway, Mr. Borger stated the requested modifications will not amend the
Access Control Plan, approved by CDOT. He further requested the word "on -site" be added to
Condition of Approval #1.C.6, to indicate Weld County will not be responsible for the
maintenance of drainage structures located on Suncor's site. He suggested that Condition of
2009-3276
PL2029
HEARING CERTIFICATION - SUNCOR ENERGY (USA) PIPELINE COMPANY
(USR-1709)
PAGE 13
Approval #1.E, in its entirety, be relocated under the heading of "Prior of release of building
permits." In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Ms. Light confirmed proof of water must
be presented before a building permit may be released, therefore, she is comfortable with the
requested modification. Upon clarification from the Acting Clerk to the Board, Ms. Light
indicated the language could become new Condition of Approval #5.F. Mr. Borger further
requested that Condition of Approval #1.F be relocated to become new Condition of Approval
#5.A, so that it is required prior to the release of building permits. He indicated the requested
modifications within the text of the Condition are consistent with the testimony provided during
the hearing. He clarified Suncor is requesting to not be required to pave the entire interior of the
site, and only be required to pave the entrance to the site at the time County Road 20 is paved.
He further clarified Suncor proposes to widen the access radii to 45 feet, and is requesting that
Suncor only be required to provide a proportional share for the costs for Weld County to acquire
right-of-way and design and construct the necessary improvements at the intersection of County
Road 20, based upon actual traffic counts. He requested the deletion of the requirement to
provide an updated traffic study, since it has already been submitted; the deletion of the
requirement to pave County Road 20; and the requirement to provide an off -site Geotechnical
Report, since it is required for off -site improvements associated with paving County Road 20.
He further requested Condition of Approval #1.G be relocated to the category of "Prior to the
release of building permits," and Conditions of Approval #1.A., #1.B, #1.C, with the approval of
the proposed modified language, #1.D, #1.H, and #1.1, have all been completed, and could be
deleted from the Resolution.
Ms. Carter requested a short recess so that staff may review and discuss the proposed
modifications, and Chair Garcia issued a brief recess of the matter.
Upon reconvening, Ms. Carter indicated staff supports the applicant's request to modify
Condition of Approval #1.C.4, since the road is under the jurisdiction of CDOT. Commissioner
Long questioned why the language is even necessary at all, and in response, Ms. Carter
clarified Commissioner Kirkmeyer had requested within previous hearings that Resolutions
mention of the Access Control Plan. The Board concurred with the modification to Conditions of
Approval #1.C.4 and #1.C.6, as previously requested, and the relocation of Condition of
Approval #1.E to become Condition of Approval #5.F.
In response to Chair Garcia, Ms. Carter clarified the applicant has requested that the reference
of the referral from August 13, 2009, be removed; however, there are several items within that
memorandum which will become notes on the plat, therefore, it is important to keep the
reference, and it is important to keep the Condition under the heading of "Prior to recording the
plat." Further responding to Chair Garcia, Mr. Borger indicated he is uncomfortable with a
memo being held as a Condition of Approval, and if the memo contains specific requirements to
be met, the requirements should be referenced within the Resolution, or on the plat. He clarified
he does not have any significant objections to the content of the memo, as most of the
requirements are administrative. Commissioner Rademacher indicated Mr. Borger has
presented a legitimate concern, and in response, Ms. Carter indicated it is a standard process to
refer to a Departmental memorandum within a Condition of Approval. Mr. Gathman clarified
there are numerous memorandums provided, therefore, it is standard practice to call out a
specific memorandum by date. He indicated a large amount of information is usually included
2009-3276
PL2029
HEARING CERTIFICATION - SUNCOR ENERGY (USA) PIPELINE COMPANY
(USR-1709)
PAGE 14
within the referral memorandum, and to itemize all of the items from the memo within the
Resolution would be laborious. In response to Chair Garcia, Mr. Gathman indicated he is
concerned that the requirements may become confused if the specific referral is not defined. In
response to Chair Garcia, Mr. Borger indicated Suncor is proposing different language than
what is contained within the named memorandum, and within the entire Resolution, this
Condition is the only one which refers to an extraneous document. He indicated the
Department of Public Works has continually changed requirements throughout this application
process, and the applicant would like a firm explanation of what will be required if this USR
permit is approved.
Mr. Barker clarified comments are typically provided by the Department of Public Works, and
are incorporated as a Condition of Approval, and it is typical for an Improvements Agreement to
be approved by the Board, at a later date. He further clarified the applicant is seeking certainty
as to whether they will be required to complete the improvements detailed in the memorandum,
and that is outside of the Board's land use process. He suggested the modification of Condition
of Approval #1.F to state, "By and through the Improvements Agreement, required in Condition
of Approval #1. G, the applicant and the County shall come to mutual agreement regarding the
responsibility of the applicant, as to the requirements and concerns of the Department of Public
Works, as stated in the referral dated August 13, 2009." He clarified the proposed language
indicates the Board does not have to make a determination of exactly what will be required in
the agreement within this hearing, rather, the applicant will be required to complete an
Improvements Agreement, prior to recording the plat, and discussion may take place at a later
date. In response to Mr. Barker, Mr. Borger indicated Suncor is comfortable with the deferral of
the process of negotiating the Improvements Agreement at a later date; however, the main
concern is that Suncor is hoping the Board will provide direction to staff concerning a broad
outline of the agreement, especially concerning the elements of a proportional share and the
required timing of the construction of the necessary improvements. He stated the language
currently located within Conditions of Approval #1.F.1 through #1.F.5 could be incorporated into
a separate Condition of Approval, or the Resolution could clarify that this language is
direction/guidance from the Board concerning the items which need to be addressed within the
Improvements Agreement. Chair Garcia expressed his concern regarding the request made by
Mr. Borger, because the Board would essentially be negotiating terms of the Improvements
Agreement during today's hearing, which Mr. Barker confirmed is not typical practice.
Mr. Barker clarified the memorandum from August 13, 2009, speaks for itself, and is included as
a part of the record, therefore, the details do not need to be reiterated within the Condition of
Approval. He reiterated the applicant is suggesting that the Board give direction to staff as to
the content of the Improvements Agreement, and he cautioned that is outside of the Board's
practice and procedure at this stage of the land use process.
In response to Commissioner Long, David Bauer, Department of Public Works, clarified at the
meeting on October 26, 2009, staff heard the applicant's request to consider a proportional
share for the cost of the paving costs for County Road 20, and the Department's request for the
paving of the road was due to the fact that all similar facilities are located on a paved County
Road, or were required to provide paving for the heavy truck use as a Condition of Approval.
He confirmed the Department has determined that this type of road will not be able to withstand
the heavy hauling operations, in its current state, and the magnesium chloride applied to the
2009-3276
PL2029
HEARING CERTIFICATION - SUNCOR ENERGY (USA) PIPELINE COMPANY
(USR-1709)
PAGE 15
road does not provide any type of structural support. He indicated the need for the paving is
immediate, and it is solely prompted as a result of the operation of this proposed facility.
Further responding to Commissioner Long, Mr. Bauer indicated the facility will contribute
approximately 50 percent of the overall traffic count, at full buildout; however, it is the use of the
heavy trucks which requires the need to pave the road up to the entrance of the facility.
Commissioner Long indicated previous facilities have been allowed to only provide a
proportional share of the required paving improvements, and he would like for the County to
remain consistent with past decisions. In response, Ms. Carter clarified staff did not propose a
proportional share in this instance because the road does not meet the criteria for pavement on
its own; however, the addition of this facility pushes the warranted need for paving the road.
Commissioner Long indicated as new development occurs along County Road 20, the new
developments could be included within the share of the costs of improvements to the road, and
he would like the contributions to the improvement of the road to be fair and equitable over time.
He clarified he understands that the applicant would like some reassurance that they will not be
solely paying for road improvements which will also benefit others. Mr. Bauer indicated he
concurs and the idea may be incorporated within the Improvements Agreement. In response to
Chair Garcia, Mr. Barker clarified the discussion on the record gives direction to staff, and does
follow what the applicant has been requesting regarding the allowance of a proportional share.
Mr. Borger clarified specific issues have been identified within the referenced memorandum,
concerning paving requirements and the required timing of the improvements, and the applicant
respectfully disagreed within staff's recommendation within the memorandum. He clarified he
was instructed by staff that the specific requirements of the Improvements Agreement could be
considered within today's hearing, since the Board has the final authority on what will be
required.
In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Ms. Carter confirmed the need for paving a County
Road is prompted when the average daily traffic count exceeds 300 vehicles. She confirmed
staff is willing to move forward with the requirement that the applicant be required to provide a
proportional share of the paving costs when the traffic count exceeds 300 vehicles per day.
Commissioner Long indicated another facility located on County Road 49 contained similar
requirements within the Resolution; however, the facility completed the paving requirements
right away, in order to prevent road damage caused by the heavy trucks. He suggested it is
prudent for County Road 20 to be paved after the construction of the facility is complete, but
before operations begin at the facility. He confirmed improving the road before operations occur
will help to prevent degradation of the road, and he does not believe the applicant should be
required to pave the entire interior of the site. Commissioner Rademacher indicated the trigger
of 300 vehicles per day might be met before the construction of the facility is completed, and he
agrees the improvements should be completed following the construction of the facility.
Commissioner Long explained that if the road is required to be fixed, as a result of damage from
the construction activities, the taxpayers will be required to pay for the improvements, which is
why it makes sense for the applicant to complete the improvements after construction of the
facility.
Mr. Barker clarified if the Board is wanting to dictate what will be required within the
Improvements Agreement during today's hearing, it will be necessary for the Board to go
through the draft agreement provided, point by point, and clarify on the record what the
2009-3276
PL2029
HEARING CERTIFICATION - SUNCOR ENERGY (USA) PIPELINE COMPANY
(USR-1709)
PAGE 16
applicant will be required to do. He reiterated the content of the Improvements Agreement
should be negotiated at a later date, since the Improvements Agreement is not a part of the
quasi-judicial hearing process. He clarified the applicant has the opportunity to discuss
specifics of the Improvements Agreement within a work session with the Board, especially when
there is disagreement with the recommendations made by staff. He confirmed the
Improvements Agreement was specifically removed from the land use hearing process so that
the Board was not expected to review every single detail of the agreement within a public
hearing. He expressed his concern that several requirements may be missed if the final
decision is made today, due to the lack of time to review specifics of the agreement.
Commissioner Rademacher concurred with Mr. Barker. Commissioner Long explained to the
applicant that an appeal may be made concerning the Improvements Agreement, and the
differences of opinion may be remedied by the Board during a future work session, and
Mr. Barker concurred. Mr. Barker indicated the applicant has met all of the criteria for approval
of the USR permit, and the remaining issues may be negotiated and addressed within the
Improvements Agreement. He clarified if the applicant is saying that the negotiation of the
Improvements Agreement at a later date is not sufficient, the Board needs to take that
statement into consideration for the approval of the USR permit.
In response to Chair Garcia, Mr. Borger requested a brief recess for discussion with other
representatives. Chair Garcia issued a brief recess.
Upon reconvening, Mr. Borger indicated Mr. Barker discussed a proposed modification to
Condition of Approval #1.F with the representatives of Suncor. Mr. Barker read the proposed
modification into the record to state, "By and through the Improvements Agreement, required in
Condition of Approval #1.G, below, the applicant and the County shall come to a mutual
agreement regarding the proportionate responsibility of the applicant, as to the requirements
and concerns of the Weld County Department of Public Works, as stated in the referral
response dated August 13, 2009. Evidence of such shall be submitted, in writing, to the Weld
County Department of Planning Services." He recommended the deletion of the remaining
language within the Condition, as it is simply a reiteration of the language contained within the
memorandum. Mr. Borger confirmed the applicant concurs with the proposed modification, as
described by Mr. Barker, and the Board concurred with the modification of Condition of
Approval #1.F, including the deletion of #1.F.1 through #1.F.5. In response to the Acting Clerk
to the Board, Mr. Barker confirmed the language should remain as Condition of Approval #1.F,
and not be relocated to the heading of "Prior to the release of building permits." The Board
concurred with Mr. Barker.
Responding to Chair Garcia, Mr. Borger confirmed, at the recommendation of Mr. Barker, the
applicant agrees that Condition of Approval #1.G may remain in its current location. Further
responding to Chair Garcia, Ms. Cozad indicated it is her understanding that the proposed
Screening Plan was approved by staff; however, if there are still concerns, the applicant is
willing to work with staff to come to an agreement. She confirmed it was decided that Suncor
will install the slat material within the fence, and the fence has already been indicated on the
plat. Mr. Gathman clarified he has received a copy of the draft plat; however, the language
needs to remain in the Resolution so that staff can verify the completion of the requirement.
Ms. Cozad confirmed she does not have any concerns, and she clarified Condition of
2009-3276
PL2029
HEARING CERTIFICATION - SUNCOR ENERGY (USA) PIPELINE COMPANY
(USR-1709)
PAGE 17
Approval #1.1 has been met through the identification of drill envelopes on the plat. Mr. Borger
requested an extension of the timing requirement for submittal of the plat from 120 days to 180
days, in light of the fact that a large amount of negotiation will take place regarding the
Improvements Agreement. The Board concurred with the modification of Condition of Approval
#3 to indicate one hundred eighty (180) days. Mr. Gathman requested the deletion of the last
sentence of Condition of Approval #5.E, since the plat will have already been recorded at the
time the building permits are released. The Board concurred with the proposed deletion.
In response to Chair Garcia, Ms. Cozad indicated she has reviewed, and concurs with, the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards, as modified.
Commissioner Rademacher expressed his appreciation to those who attended today's hearing,
and he appreciates that the applicant did make an effort to work with the surrounding property
owners. He confirmed he supports approval of the application. Commissioner Long concurred
and confirmed oil and gas operations are an important activity within Weld County. He clarified
this facility will provide a better alternative for the delivery of crude oil to the necessary refinery,
and will reduce the amount of time that the trucks hauling the oil travel on County Roads. He
further clarified he is sure the applicant will conduct safe hauling operations, and will be able to
work with staff to iron out the remaining requirements. Commissioner Conway indicated he
concurs with the comments provided, and he expressed his appreciation to Ms. Parker for
providing her comments at today's hearing. Chair Garcia indicated he concurs with the
comments provided by Commissioner Long and he also appreciates the public testimony
provided at today's hearing. He praised the applicant for taking the time to host a neighborhood
meeting before seeking approval from the Board.
Commissioner Conway moved to approve the request of Suncor Energy (USA) Pipeline
Company for a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit #1709 for a
Mineral Resource Development Facility, including an Oil and Gas Support and Service Facility
(crude oil truck unloading facility) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District, based on the
recommendations of Planning staff and the Planning Commission, with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards as entered into the record, and modified. His motion
included the modification of the fourth sentence of Condition of Approval #1.C.4 to state, "Left
turn/right turn improved acceleration/deceleration lanes (medium priority) may be required."; the
modification of Condition of Approval #1.C.6 to state, "The addition of a note to state, 'Weld
County is not responsible for maintenance of on -site drainage related structures. ' (Clerk's Note:
Development Standard #34 was also modified to add the word "on -site," so that the language
matches Condition of Approval #1.C.6); the deletion of Condition of Approval #1.E, to be
reinserted as Condition of Approval #5.F; the modification of Condition of Approval #1.F to state,
"By and through the Improvements Agreement, required in Condition of Approval #1. G, below,
the applicant and the County shall come to a mutual agreement regarding the proportionate
responsibility of the applicant, as to the requirements and concerns of the Weld County
Department of Public Works, as stated in the referral response dated August 13, 2009.
Evidence of such shall be submitted, in writing, to the Weld County Department of Planning
Services." (Clerk's Note: Because Condition of Approval #1.E was relocated, this language
becomes Condition of Approval #1.E, and the Improvements Agreement will be addressed
within Condition of Approval #1.F.); the modification of the fourth sentence of Condition of
2009-3276
PL2029
HEARING CERTIFICATION - SUNCOR ENERGY (USA) PIPELINE COMPANY
(USR-1709)
PAGE 18
Approval #3 to state, "The Mylar plat and additional requirements shall be submitted within one
hundred eighty (180) days from the date of the Board of County Commissioners Resolution.";
and the deletion of the last sentence of Condition of Approval #5.E, which states, "Further, the
approved Lighting Plan shall be indicated on the plat." The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Rademacher, and it carried unanimously. There being no further discussion, the
hearing was completed at 3:05 p.m.
This Certification was approved on the 21st day of December, 2009.
ATTEST:
Weld County Clerk to the Boa
BY:.
Dep
J
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
D CCOLORADO
m F. Garcia, Chair
0<Slk vla_A
r:DouglaRadem ache, Pro-Tem
s/
Sea . onway
FXCt ISFD
Barbra Kirkmeyer
David E. Long
Eot
2009-3276
PL2029
EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
Case USR-1709 - SUNCOR ENERGY (USA) PIPELINE COMPANY
Exhibit Submitted By Description
A. Planning Staff Inventory of Items Submitted
Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation
C. Planning Commission Summary of Hearing (Minutes dated 10/06/2009)
D. Applicant Letter re: Request for Continuance, dated 10/27/2009
E. Various SPO's Letter of Concern w/ attachments, dated 10/16/2009
F. Sherry Parker E-mail of Concern, dated 10/18/2009
G. Justin and Julie Ratliff E-mail of Concern, received 10/21/2009
H. Esther McCrumb E-mail of Concern, received 10/22/2009
Darrel/SuzAnn/Victoria
I. McCrumb Letter of Concern, dated 10/25/09
Letter of Concern, w/ attached photos, dated
J. Unnamed SPO 10/27/2009
Sherry Parker E-mail re: Additional Concerns, dated 10/29/2009
L. Applicant Summary of Neighborhood Meeting, dated 11/19/2009
M. Planning Staff E-mail correspondence w/CDOT re: Access Permit
Information regarding materials for privacy fences,
N. Applicant dated 10/13/2009
O. Planning Staff Draft Improvements Agreement,
E-mail w/ attached Letter from Legal Counsel, dated
P. Applicant 10/22/2009
E-mail w/ attached Updated Draft Improvements
Q. Planning Staff Agreement, dated 12/15/2009
R. Public Works Staff E-mail from CDOT, dated 12/16/2009
S. Applicant Copy of PowerPoint Presentation (with attached CD)
Pictures and comments re: County Road 20, dated
T. Sherry Parker 12/16/2009
U. Public Works Staff Updated E-mail from CDOT, dated 12/16/2009
V. Applicant Suggested modifications to Conditions of Approval
E-mail re: Modified language for Condition of Approval
W. County Attorney #1.F
k
ATTENDANCE RECORD
HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS ON THIS 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009:
k»
oO.
(G
0. 0)
/U
co
»I
00
-c
§j\
CD CD CD
CD CD CD
CD CD CD
C4 C4
000
000
PLEASE legibly write or print your name and complete address.
ADDRESS
123 Nowhere Street, City, State, Zip
\9
\
e\
\
R.
R\
9
\
41
r
4
>cv,
3
\-
\
\
/
0
x
/
/
'r
/
}
®
\
\
d
/
\
rrr /7 r5 Gj` w, /O PaLOC
c
,
k
%
/
Z
®�
��
---_.,
�\\
\
~
.��\
}\
ciNt(
4S3
Q
\
\
§
\
}-
]
\.
)
W,
\
-
*
`
`
—
.
\
'.
/
M
\
/
%
cq
'-;-•
}
cii
CC
cc
\
®
o
o
�
NAME
John Doe
%�\
\{\};
2
}��
<\
{
*
t
C
$
h
\
>
»
_
\
�I\
I
\
rta
}
ce2'�
L
c3�
•
•
•
ATTENDANCE RECORD
HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS ON THIS 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009:
a
C
Cif
C
a
F
N T
IV C
OD a
G
ca E U
d
.D
M N
Co.
m
ca
ti)
N 7(j
,•F
• T J
N t'
N
C 0
Cu Ls
a
• `o
O C Ts
c
.C up
u7 to J
N M e}
co cn m
it it
F—
LU L
O 00
O OO
PLEASE legibly write or print your name and complete address.
ADDRESS
123 Nowhere Street, City, State, Zip
Pc -2) [—F" //•l0A9 ii -tun ( S
C.
r
NAME
John Doe
1
co
J
O:b/
Hello