HomeMy WebLinkAbout20062113 BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Paul Branham,that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1467
APPLICANT: Petro Canada Resources (USA) Inc.
PLANNER: Brad Mueller
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portions of Section 26, 27 34, 35, T6N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for a Oil & Gas
Production Facility (21 oil and gas wells & 5 tank batteries) in the I-1
(Industrial)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to State Highway 257; west of CR 23 and north of
Cache La Poudre River
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
Section 23-2-230.B 1. That the proposal is consistent with in Chapter 22 and any other applicable code
provisions or ordinances in effect.
Section 23-2-230.6 2. That the proposal is consistent with the intent of the district in which the USE is
located.
Section 23-2-230.B 3. That the USES which would be permitted will be compatible with the existing
surrounding land USES.
Section 23-2-230.B 4. That the USES which would be permitted will be compatible with the future
DEVELOPMENT of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zone and with future DEVELOPMENT
as projected by Chapter 22 of this Code and any other applicable code provisions or ordinances in effect, or
the adopted MASTER PLANS of affected municipalities.
Section 23-2-230.B 7. That there is adequate provision for the protection of the health,safety and welfare of
the inhabitants of the NEIGHBORHOOD and the COUNTY.
The Planning Commission recommends that such proposal be conditional upon the following:
1. Prior to recording the plat:
A. This application encompasses land that is subject to other land that is outside the limits of the
current USR-1467. The plat shall be amended (AmUSR-1467) and expanded to include
remaining elements of USR-1467, in addition to those elements proposed by this application.
(Department of Planning Services)
B. County Road 23 is designated on the Weld County Road Classification Plan as a local gravel
road, which requires 60 feet of right-of-way at full build out. There is presently 60 feet of right-of-
way. All setbacks shall be measured from the edge of future right-of-way. The applicant shall
verify the existing right-of-way and the documents creating the right-of-way. This road is
maintained by Weld County. A total of 30 feet from the centerline of County Road 23 shall be
delineated right-of-way on the plat. (Department of Public Works)
C. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has jurisdiction over all accesses to the
state highways. (State Highway 257) Please contact Gloria Hice-Idler at the Greeley office to
verify the access permit or for any additional requirements that may be needed to obtain or
upgrade the permit and provide evidence of such to the Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Public Works)
D. The applicant shall submit evidence of an Air Pollution Emission Notice(A.P.E.N.)and Emissions
Permit application from the Air Pollution Control Division(APCD),Colorado Department of Health
and Environment. A deferment of 45 days for this requirement will be allowed to give the
applicant time to file their first production report. Alternately, the applicant can provide evidence
from the APCD that they are not subject to these requirements. (Department of Public Health
and Environment)
2006-2113
Resolution AmUSR-1467
Petro Canada Resources
Page 2
E. The applicant shall attempt to address the conditions(concerns)of the Windsor-Severance Fire
Protection District as indicated in a referral response dated May 11, 2006. Written evidence of
such shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. (Windsor-Severance Fire
Protection District)
F. The Special Review Permit Plan Map shall be amended to delineate the following:
1) All sheets shall be labeled AmUSR-1467. (Department of Planning Services)
2) The attached Development Standards shall be added. (Department of Planning Services)
3) All remaining elements of both USR-1462(which is to be vacated)and USR-1467 shall be
incorporated into the Plan Map, with all Development Standards merged into the Map.
(Department of Planning Services)
4) All formatting and elements indicated in Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld County Code shall
be incorporated into the Special Review Permit Plan Map. (Department of Planning
Services)
5) The applicant shall delineate chain link fencing around facilities that within 60 feet of the
public trail
G. The applicant shall submit two (2) paper copies of the plat for preliminary approval to the Weld
County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
2. Prior to Construction:
A. An amended Flood Hazard Permit shall be submitted in conformance with Section 23-2-450 of
the Weld County Code prior to construction of any facilities within the floodplain/floodway,
including zero-rise certifications as required. (Department of Building Inspection)
B. All required building permits, as described on the Department of Building Inspection referral
response, dated May 12, 2006, shall be obtained. (Department of Building Inspection)
C. A letter of approval from the Windsor-Severance Fire Protection District shall be submitted to the
Department of Building Inspection prior to release of building permits at the site. (Department of
Planning Services)
3. Upon completion of#1 above,the applicant shall submit a Mylar plat along with all other documentation
required as Conditions of Approval. The Mylar plat shall be recorded in the office of the Weld County
Clerk and Recorder by Department of Planning Services' Staff. The plat shall be prepared in
accordance with the requirements of Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld County Code. The Mylar plat and
additional requirements shall be submitted within thirty(30)days from the date of the Board of County
Commissioners resolution.The applicant shall be responsible for paying the recording fee.(Department
of Planning Services)
4. In accordance with Weld County Code Ordinance 2005-7 approved June 1,2005,should the plat not be
recorded within the required thirty (30) days from the date of the Board of County Commissioners
resolution a $50.00 recording continuance charge shall be added for each additional 3 month period.
(Department of Planning Services)
5. The Department of Planning Services respectively requests the surveyor provide a digital copy of this
Use by Special Review. Acceptable CAD formats are .dwg, .dxf, and .dgn (Microstation); acceptable
GIS formats are ArcView shapefiles, Arclnfo Coverages and Arclnfo Export files format type is .e00.
The preferred format for Images is .tif(Group 4). (Group 6 is not acceptable). This digital file may be
sent to mapsco.weld.co.us. (Department of Planning Services)
6. The Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the
property until the Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and
Recorder. (Department of Planning Services)
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Petro-Canada Resources (USA) Inc.
AmUSR-1467
1. The Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit is for an Oil&Gas Production Facility(21
oil and gas wells &6 tank batteries) in the I-1 (Industrial)Zone District, as indicated in the application
materials on file and subject to the Development Standards stated hereon. (Department of Planning
Services)
2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 23-8-10 of the Weld County
Code. (Department of Planning Services)
3. All construction or improvements occurring in the floodplain and floodway as delineated on Federal
Emergency Management Agency FIRM Community Panel Map 0802660605E & Map 0802661503E,
both dated June 10, 2005 ("Preliminary"), shall comply with the Flood Hazard Overlay District
requirements of Chapter 23,Article V, Division 3 of the Weld County Code,which shall also include the
submittal of a zero-rise certificate. The Department of Public Works shall verify the date and
applicability of the Panel and Panel Maps, as needed. (Department of Planning Services)
4. All liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, 30-20-
100.5, C.R.S., as amended) shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects
against surface and groundwater contamination. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
5. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not meant to include those
wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a solid waste in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and
Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5, C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
6. Waste materials shall be handled,stored,and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust,fugitive
particulate emissions, blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
7. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions shall be controlled on this site. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
8. This facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Industrial Zone as
delineated in 25-12-103 C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
9. Adequate toilet facilities (part-a-potty) shall be provided during the construction of the facility.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
10. Bottled water shall be utilized for drinking and hand washing during drilling/construction.(Department of
Public Health and Environment)
11. All potentially hazardous chemicals must be stored and handled in a safe manner in accordance with
product labeling and in a manner that minimizes the release of hazardous air pollutants (HAP's) and
volatile organic compounds (VOC's). (Department of Public Health and Environment)
12. The oil and gas service road shall be graded and drained to provide an all-weather access.(Department
of Public Works)
13. Prior to construction on the site, including moving and drilling rigs, the applicant shall obtain all
necessary County transportation permits for overweight and over width vehicles. Please contact the
Department of Public Works at 356-4000, extension 3750 to obtain such permits.(Department of Public
Works)
14. The applicant shall conform to all State and Federal regulations concerning storm water drainage.
(Department of Public Works)
15. Effective January 1,2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to adhere to the
fee structure of the County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11) (Department of Planning
Services)
Resolution Am USR-1467
Petro Canada Resources
Page 2
16. Effective August 1,2005, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to adhere to the
fee structure of the Capital Expansion Impact Fee and the Stormwater/Drainage Impact Fee.
(Ordinance 2005-8 Section 5-8-40)
17. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the State and Federal agencies
and the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
18. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of Section
23-2-240, Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
19. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of
Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
20. Weld County Government personnel shall be granted access onto the property at any reasonable time
in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the Development Standards
stated herein and all applicable Weld County regulations. (Department of Planning Services)
21. The Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing
standards and all applicable Weld County regulations. Substantial changes from the plans or
Development Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit
by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans or
Development Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the Department
of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
22. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing Development
Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards may be reason for
revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners. (Department of Planning Services)
Motion seconded by Tom Holton
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Bruce Fitzgerald
Chad Auer
Tom Holton
Doug Ochsner
James Welch
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer
Paul Branham
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this
case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I,Voneen Macklin, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission,do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution, is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County,
Colorado, adopted on June 6, 2006.
Dated the 6th of June, 2006.
-\;11 '�
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Further discussion ensued on rather the county should take maintenance of an internal roadway on a
subdivision that is not adjacent to a paved roadway.
Roy Spitzer added that if the internal road is paved the maintenance will be limited. There will not be much
work to be done. Mr. Schei stated that would be the goal.
Michael Miller indicated he is not in favor of the county taking the maintenance of this internal road due to
location and it not being beneficial for the county. The transition from a paved road to a gravel road is a
concern, if a corner of the pavement gets torn off then a county employee is required to go fix the situation.
This does not seem to be appropriate for a nine lot subdivision. Mr. Branham agrees that if the applicant
wants to pave the roadway they should be able to but the county should not be required to maintain it. The
Public Works would be the one that has the final decision on whether they want to take it over. Public Works
should review very closely before agreeing to take the maintenance over. Mr. Schei added that Public Works
could not say no due to the language in the code.
Michael Miller moved that Case MF-1081, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton, yes, Doug Ochsner, yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Erich Ehrlich commented he emphasized Section 24.3.60.1.8
Paul Branham commented he does not think the county should take over the maintenance of the paved road
until such time as the adjacent county road has been paved.
Tom Holton commented the applicant has done a good job working with the neighbors to get the issues
resolved.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1467
APPLICANT: Petro Canada Resources (USA) Inc.
PLANNER: Brad Mueller
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portions of Section 26, 27 34, 35, T6N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for a Oil & Gas
Production Facility (21 oil and gas wells &6 tank batteries) in the 1-1
(Industrial) Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to State Highway 257; west of CR 23 and north of
Cache La Poudre River
Brad Mueller, Department of Planning Services presented Case AmUSR-1467, reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of the
application based solely upon the code interpretation of no development within the floodplain.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if the floodway was based on a 100 year flood. There have been 500 year floods but
we are presently in a drought situation. If the well heads were a foot above flood stage would they be allowed
with regards to the criteria for approval? Mr. Mueller stated the criteria states there can be no development in
floodway except for agricultural exempt buildings. Oil and Gas production facilities are not agricultural exempt
buildings. In minutes from the original USR application it was noted that FEMA did not have concern with such
structures being in the floodway or floodplain. If this was approved any structure in flood plain or way would
need to get a Flood Hazard Permit.
Michael Miller indicated he is presently in negotiations with Broe Company on a piece of property and this
presents a potential for conflict of interest. Broe Company is the land owners of this property. Mr. Barker
stated there are close connections and asked who would stand to benefit from your vote. Mr. Miller stated he
may not benefit from approval of the land use application but the appearance is there that he might. Mr.
Barker stated that in this instance it is an individual decision. Mr. Miller chose to rekuse himself from the
proceedings at this time.
y
f r r,. +fix
Erich Ehrlich asked about the Windsor referral and their plan showing the area as heavy industrial on a portion
of the land use map. Mr. Mueller stated he is not familiar with the specifics of the Windsor growth area and
the County does not recognize the boundary in any formal or legal fashion. It is different than the IGA
boundary. There is nothing formal that the County needs to acknowledge in those terms. The referral is
simply acknowledging that this is consistent with what Windsor is planning for the area. Mr. Ehrlich stated that
what the town is envisioning and what is happening are two different things. The area was slated for
commercial but has since been changed to residential.
Roy Spitzer asked for clarification with regards to construction in the floodway and the exceptions for
agricultural exempt buildings. FEMA would approve this construction in the floodway. Mr. Mueller added that
FEMA was not contacted as a part of this process, per past minutes it was not an issue.
Dave Bauer, Public Works provided some clarification on the floodway. This is considered a split estate
between the mineral and surface owners as being separate. The mineral interest owners cannot be denied
access to extract the resource. There are requirements that bottom hole locations be 450 feet apart and the
surface locations be offset by 400 feet where possible. Denying access to drill the wells will impact the mineral
and royalty interest owners as well as have an economic impact on Petro Canada. The flood way should not
be developed and most of FEMA's regulations are based on what are insurable structures. The wells and tank
batteries are not insurable structures. FEMA does not insure those,their regulations are based on the uses.
The agricultural exempt buildings, in most situations,are not insurable structures. This is an acceptable use in
the floodway and plain.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked what would happen in an event of a 500 year flood. Mr. Bauer stated flows are large
but due to snow melt as opposed to rain fall. The definition of a 100 year flood in the area is approximate.
This area is not as well defined and may not even be reflective of the current topography. The 100 year storm
is equivalent to a 1%chance in one year whereas a 500 year flood is a 0.2%chance in a year. This does not
mean it will not happen but the chances are limited. Typically tank batteries are anchored and well heads are
sealed. They could be under water but the pipe is underground. There are possible vents on the tanks. A
flood is a short term event and there is the potential but the safeguards in place.
Erich Ehrlich asked about the Flood Hazard Permit and whether it addresses when the ground is being
^ disturbed and if there is any compromise. Mr. Bauer stated there are requirements for an insurable structure
to be raised with fill and this will divert flow around and the structure will be an island. These facilities have
fences if needed to keep cattle out and berming around tanks for spill.
Susan Alderidge, representative for Petro Canada, provided clarification with regards to the proposal. The
original USR had 9 wells and 5 were in the floodplain. This will add 12 wells, 6 in the floodway and 4 in the
floodplain. The actual drill dates have not been determined. Four wells have been applied for to the Colorado
Oil & Gas Commission. The surface use belongs to Broe & Company, Kodak and Great Western. Some
wells will be directionally drilled to minimize the surface impact. The main issue for denial seems to be the
floodway issue. The applicant has submitted the request for a Flood Hazard Permit and there is a letter from
Mr. Bauer conditionally approving that permit. The original nine wells have been drilled within this area. There
has been a consulting firm hired to do an analysis of the floodplain and they found that there should not be any
problems. The wells are 10 x 10 and approximately 5 feet high and have casing at the top of the well head so
no water can enter or gas to escape. Typically the 100 year flood statistic is what is addressed. Petro Canada
agrees to the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. An application for air pollution has been
submitted.
Doug Ochsner asked if there will be any new wells or tank batteries near the Poudre Trail or will affect it. Beau
Fritz, representative from Petro Canada, indicated there will be wells closer. The three directional wells will go
north and south but the path is south of this. Eastman Kodak is agreeable to these locations and the wells will
not be impacting the path in any way.
Roy Spitzer asked if there are provisions for batteries,well heads and permanent facility that will be there after
the drilling. Ms. Alderidge stated that the only facility in the area is one tank battery in the floodway and the
size is 140 ft x 50ft. FEMA does not indicate these structures would be impacted in floodway or plain. Dave
Gibson, supervisor for Petro Canada, added the tanks are anchored along with a berm to prevent leaching.
The berming is designed to hold the capacity of tanks. Mr. Spitzer asked how. Mr. Gibson stated it would be
a dead man and cable design. Mr. Spitzer questioned whether the tanks would float away if they were ever
empty. Mr. Gibson stated the tanks are never completely empty. The have 25-30 barrels in them at all times
so not float away.
5
Doug Ochsner asked if what would happen if the well heads were under water. Mr. Gibson stated the units
are completely sealed.
Chad Auer asked if there was a Development Standards for fencing around any facility given the proximity to
the trail. Mr. Mueller stated there was not but language could be added under Conditions of Approval 1.F. Mr.
Auer asked if there were any typical standards for this. Mr. Mueller added that the Oil&Gas Commission may
have standards that the applicant can better address. Ms. Alderidge added that typically they put chain link
fences around high density areas. In the previous minutes it was also debated as to whether fencing would be
necessary. The thought was FEMA might not approve of this an interrupting the flow. Petro Canada will put
fencing if needed.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Brad Mueller added that it has come to staff attention that one tank battery is on a separate section therefore,
the number of tank batteries on the application should be at five. This needs to be amended throughout the
staff comments.
Paul Branham moved to change the number of tank batteries from six to five. Roy Spitzer seconded. Motion
carried.
Susan Alderidge clarified that the amendment only applies to two of the tank batteries. The other three were a
part of the previously approved USR.
Chad Auer would like to add an item 1.F.5 to delineate fencing around the facilities that are within 60 feet of
the public trail. Mr. Barker asked if there was still an issue with fencing with FEMA. Would the fencing cause
any problems with any debris coming down and damming the flow? The County has an emergency plan with
the City of Greeley so the fencing can be taken down. Mr. Auer stated his intent with the motion was to
address the public nuisance and public safety concerns. Mr. Bauer added the obstruction of flow in the flood
way can be an issue. The applicant's original photos show something similar to cattle gates around the well
heads. The fencing is more chain link in design to not obstruct the flow.
r
Brad Mueller added that if part of the goal was aesthetic the Planning Commission might want to consider
opaque fencing.
Chad Auer withdrew the previous motion and moved to add a 1.F.5 with language consisting of"The applicant
shall delineate chain link fencing around facilities that within 60 feet of the public trail." Tom Holton seconded.
Motion carried.
Brad Mueller added that all references to USR-1462 need to be removed from the staff comments since staff
corrected a mapping error and determined that no element of that US R where within the scope of this one.
Doug Ochsner moved to delete any reference to USR-1462. Roy Spitzer seconded. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner commented that it is hard as Planning Commission member,who are told to uphold the code
that states nothing should be built in floodway when there are other staff members that state it was allowed.
As a Planning Commission member it is harder to vote with two versions;one from staff and the other from a
previous decision by the Board of County Commissioners members. This needs to be clarified better and
defined more. If FEMA has control then the County regulations should be consistent.
Paul Branham added it is hard to get a code to cover everything. The intent and interpretation needs to be
reviewed.
Paul Branham added"he thinks for a number of reasons this request shall be approved. The Board of County
Commissioners approved the original one with some of the same existing concerns with wells in the
floodplain. There is probably thousands of these oil and gas wells in floodplains in Weld County. FEMA,
Colorado Oil and Gas had no concerns with this because this is not an insured structure. We have Conditions
of Approval that will be met by the applicant. The Flood Hazard Permits will be obtained for any structures.
The other concern with the actual flooding to occur, I think because of the way that the wells are constructed
and sealed and the height of the wells that there is very little to no threat to the surrounding community."
Paul Branham moved that Case AmUSR-1467, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
6
with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation
of approval. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer,yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Chad Auer, yes;Tom Holton, yes, Doug Ochsner, no; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;
Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner commented that he believes all is good with the presentation and he does not believe there a
public safety issue nor any problems that cannot be mitigated but he has to go back to what was
recommended by staff and stated in Section 23.5.250.B. No development shall occur in the floodway. With
this one criterion he must vote no.
Meeting adjourned at 345
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
7
Hello