HomeMy WebLinkAbout20052047.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday July 5, 2005
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2005, in the Weld County Department of
Planning Services, Hearing Room,918 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair,Michael
Miller, at p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin Absent
John Folsom
James Welch
James Rohn
Bruce Fitzgerald
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
Tom Holton - a
Also Present: Char Davis, Peter Schei, Don Carroll, Pam Smith, Cindi Etcheverry, Kim Ogle, Sheri Lockman
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on June 22,2005,was approved
as read.
The following items will be on the Consent Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: MF-1056
APPLICANT: Francisco Granados
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2916; being part of the W2NW4 of Section 3, T5N, R64W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Minor Subdivision final Plan for four(4) residential lots. (Pheasant Meadow)
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 60.5 and east of and adjacent to Hwy 37
Doug Ochsner moved to approve the Consent Agenda. James Rohn seconded. Motion approved.
The following items will be heard:
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-729
APPLICANT: Marcum Midstream 1995-2 Business Trust dba Conquest Oil Company
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part SW4SE4 of Section 26, T6N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an Oil and Gas
Support Facility(Brinewater Disposal and allied facilities) in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 64, % mile west of CR 47.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services presented Case AmUSR-729, reading the recommendation and comments
into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the application along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Ogle about the request for a rolling average and who would enforce. Mr. Ogle deferred
comment to Ms. Etcheverry. Ms. Etcheverry, Department of Environmental Health, indicated she inspects the site on
a quarterly basis and does inspect the logs. This site will be consistent with the operation of three other facilities.
Dale Butcher, representative for the applicant, addressed the concerns indicated in the letter received in the packet
from Harold & Patricia Schwalm. Mr. Butcher indicated that the Schwalm's visited the facility and their concerns were
alleviated.
Doug Ochsner asked for a brief summary of the operation. Mr. Butcher indicated that an oil & gas operation
produces three by products, gas, oil and brinewater. The gas is pumped into a line, the oil goes to a tank battery and
ditatirCt x.nc(,,... - I g- afo 2005-2047
the brinewater is placed in a cistern that needs to be taken to a separate facility hence the need for this operation.
This operation places the water in tanks where the water is separated and the oil is skimmed. The water is then
filtered then injected into a 9000 foot well.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Patty Schwalm, neighbor, stated she did take a tour of facility and her concern is still with traffic and the trucks taking up
the entire roadway when turning onto CR 47. There needs to be a turn lane or shoulder or something to alleviate this
possible dangerous situation.
Don Carroll, Public Works, indicated there is a long term maintenance agreement and item#2 on the agreement states
road improvements to the intersection of CR 64 and CR 47 with adequate turning radius. If the radius is not adequate
there will need to be modifications to widen the turning radius to the south. Typically brine tankers are single unit but if
there are double units or pups there will need to be some additional changes.
The Chair closed public portion.
Dale Butcher stated that there are times when the oil truck has a pup. The truck arrives approximately three times a
week. It is understood that the trucks will need to be careful. Mr. Butcher addressed the applicants concerns with item 1.
C.3 that requires an approved retention facility,the applicant does not need one. The storm water can be designed to run
to the trench. Mr. Ogle indicated staff would agree to strike 1.C.3. Mr. Butcher continued with concerns on item 4.G
regarding a vault system for effluent flows. There is a vault system at another facility and the portable toilet is better
maintained. Ms. Etcheverry indicated she does not have the authority to allow portable toilets, it will need to be a Planning
Commission decision.
Dale Butcher stated there are one or two employees with the different drivers on a daily basis so there will not be a lot of
use. Mr. Fitzgerald stated that the vault system was in lieu of the leach field and there needs to be a permanent facility.
Ms. Etcheverry indicated they were looking for something more permanent than a portable toilet.
Michel Miller stated they have required vault systems in the past and this has far too many people for a portable toilet. (2
employees and up to 50 trips per day) Mr. Rohn added that this is permanent facility and an amended facility,he does not
see the increase as much of a problem.
Kim Ogle indicated staff would like to have 5.A deleted and 4.D amended to reflect Eaton Fire District. Mr. Carroll
recommends widening the road radius south on CR 47 since there are some larger trucks using the facility. Mr. Miller
stated that could be addressed in the improvements agreement.
James Rohn moved to delete 1.C.3 and 4.G. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried.
Chad Auer moved to delete item 5.A and amend 4. D to reflect the Eaton Fire Protection District. James Rohn seconded.
Motion carried.
Dale Butcher agrees with the amended Development Standard and Conditions of Approval.
Tom Holton asked for some clarification. Mr. Miller indicated there were 30 trucks arriving presently and the increase will
be to 50 trucks. Mr. Holton asked why the need for a rolling average per day based on a 30 day average. Mr. Miller
stated there is no operation on Sundays and there is the effect of weather.
Tom Holton asked where the nearest house was located. Mr. Ogle indicated it was approximately 800 feet south where
the Schwalms live. There is a home that belongs to the Lyster family which is located on the property.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case AmUSR-729, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Amended Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom, yes;
James Welch, yes; Michael Miller, yes; James Rohn, no; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton, yes, Doug Ochsner,yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1514
APPLICANT: Eastman Kodak Company
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-1244 being part of the N2NE4 Section 35,T6N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for an oil and gas
production facility(2 oil and gas wells) in the I-1 (Industrial)Zone District
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 23; 3/4 mile south of CR 64.75.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1514, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the application along
with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. When this application was submitted Eastman Kodak
Company owned the surface rights to the property. They have sold out to The Broe Company. You have been
handed copies of a letter from Broe which outlines how the proposal is incompatible with their plans for the property.
You have also been handed a copies of the response from Petro Canada. This is an unusual situation in that we
have contention between surface and mineral rights interest.
Michael Miller asked whether there was any concern with the change of ownership and the transfer of the application.
Ms. Lockman stated that surface rights are not a part of the application. Petro Canada has the mineral rights and
can go forward.
Mike Wosneak, attorney for Petro Canada, provided additional information. Petro Canada has a lease with Eastman
Kodak not the Broe Company. This proposal is for two oil wells to be located on the site. The comments from the
referral agencies are generally positive or have been addressed. Mr. Wosneak addressed some concern for the
directional dwelling. This development is compatible with the surrounding area. The mineral owners have directed
them to develop the additional oil & gas and minerals. There has been neither plat filed nor any surface
development. There are proposed developments but nothing concrete. The Town of Windsor suggests the applicant
take into consideration the extension of O Street and the applicant is willing to do this. The Oil & Gas Conservation
Commission establishes two drilling windows and these are 400 foot by 400 foot square. They are at the southern
edge of the drilling window and can be moved within that 400 foot square. There has been no concrete information
as to where O Street will be located so there is some flexibility within those windows. The applicant is aware of the
setbacks required by the State to be 150 feet from a building. This location is suitable since there are no buildings in
the area and there can be development located in the area. Once the wells are drilled and completed there will
remain a pad 20 feet by 20 feet. This area is industrially zoned and the surface development can be compatible with
the mineral development. The ground is currently being farmed and will remain this way until after harvest when the
drilling will begin. There will be minimal impact on the industrial development that could be in the area. Another issue
raised by the City of Greeley ware to drill one well directional. The nearest pad is the Christianson pad and this would
require both to be drilled directionally approximately 1/4 mile or 1300 feet. To drill directionally is a large expense and
it is not economical to do from any further away. The Broe Company would like to continue this hearing and have
them drill directionally. The wells can be located in the windows that the Oil & Gas Commission suggest. The best
scenario would be for the wells to be done first so there could be development later knowing where the pads are
located. The applicant has no other concerns with the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval. This will
be an industrial site and this is a use by right in that zone district. The windows are defined but there is flexibility
within the windows provided. The applicant does not want the conditions that were set forth by the Broe Company
applied. There are several possible solutions and the applicant is willing to work towards this.
Tom Holton asked where the tank batteries were located. Mr. Wosneak stated they are located to the south.
John Folsom asked if an attempt was made to accommodate the surface developer. He further indicated that the
applicant has the right to drill anywhere within the windows established by the State. Mr. Wosneak stated they do but
they are willing to work with the surface developer.
Tom Holton asked for clarification on the directional drilling. Mr. Wosneak stated that if it was to be directional they
would need to move south off of the site.
Chad Auer asked why not directional drill from one site and direct drill the other. Mr. Wosneak stated that could be a
possibility but would need to be worked out. Mr. Wosneak added the only suggestion was to do the wells directionally
but the applicant would like to have the USR proceed and continue to work with the Broe Company as well as the
future location of O Street. There are presently no developments under consideration for this location and the
applicant believes it would be best to have these wells completed prior to the future development.
Michael Miller indicated it was zoned industrial Ms. Lockman stated it was not a use by right there was a need for
the special use permit. Mr. Miller indicates that this is not an agricultural piece of property which puts a different
impression with regards to compatibility. This development will contain more than just a well head, there will be flow
lines and other supporting factors that can be a deterrent to possible development. Mr. Miller stated the window
indicates the bottom hole drill location the drill location does not have to be within the window. Mr. Wosneak stated
that the bottom hole location needs to be at the same location when there is absent surface owner consent. Mr.
Miller indicates that the surface owner can suggest moving the location of the drill sites to the south to the windows
containing the bottom hole drill location. The applicant believes that the State would prevail in the location of the well
locations. The applicant is unwilling to accept the need for directional drilling. If there is an agreement in the future
addressing this it will be acceptable. Mr. Miller stated that an approval would put them in an advantageous situation.
Mr. Wosneak stated the applicant is agreeable to working with the Broe Company.
John Folsom stated that when the mineral rights were sold there was no industrial development but there will be
development with the new owners. It should have been the Broe Company's responsibility to have looked at the
agreement which was in place. Mr. Wosneak stated the oil & gas lease was done but the applicant will still work with
the surface owners. He further emphasizes the applicants need to move forward with the case.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Alex Yeros, Broe Company representative indicated their concerns. They have no objection to the mineral owners
accessing their minerals. The Broe Company owns parcels of ground,one where wells are being proposed and south of
the proposed site. The issue is location of the wells being in the proposed O Street location. The well location is in the
way of the proposed O Street re-alignment. Mr. Yarros indicated that directional drilling is feasible and could be a
reasonable as $60,000. Some of the alignment for O Street is set in this development area already. The 1300 feet
needed for direction drilling would take them out of the way of O Street and still be able to have the bottom drill hole within
the windows delineated. Mr.Yeros indicated that approving this would prove to be a disadvantage to future development
and especially with O Street. The Broe Company would like to see this case continued since they are not recommending
either denial or approval. The Broe Company would like to see new locations for the wells.
Michael Miller asked where they could be located. Mr.Yeros stated they could consolidate at the Christianson site. Mr.
Miller stated that directional from the Christianson site would be too expensive and a closer leg would be less costly and
more reliable. Mr. Miller added that it was the responsibility of the Planning Commission to balance the needs for
everyone.
Doug Ochsner asked who really owns the mineral rights. Mr.Yeros stated the Broe Company owns the percentage that
Kodak previously owned. The Broe Company is asking for time to wrap up discussions to make sure the location is
adequate for all.
James Rohn indicated that this is a premature application and he would recommend continuing this until the agreements
have been done.
Greg Thompson, City of Greeley,stated that the City believes the oil&gas should precede the surface agreement. The
City of Greeley has continued a similar case until all are in agreement. The City of Greeley would like to see them
directionally drill at least one of the wells.
The Chair closed the public portion.
Michael Miller asked if the cases were continued for 30 days could there be an agreement reached. Mr.Wosneak stated
they have been working on the agreement for approximately a year. He is concerned that a continuance will accomplish
nothing. The applicant is willing to work to get this resolved and there are a lot of possible solutions.
Sheri Lockman stated language could be added that states"the applicant shall submit evidence that an agreement has
been reached that addresses the surface and mineral concerns or the applicant shall submit evidence that a reasonable
accommodations have been made to address the surface owners concerns." This could be added as a Condition of
Approval. This would allow for middle ground but would still allow the application to go forward.
James Rohn stated that the way the applicant and the Broe Company have communicated in the past indicates the
possibility that there will be no agreement. Mr. Rohn believes they should take the time and come to an agreement.
Doug Ochsner asked how long before a Board of County Commissioners meeting could be set. Ms.Lockman indicated it
was typically a month. Mr. Ochsner stated it would be a month before the Board of County Commissioners even with a
Planning Commission approval. Mr. Morrison stated it would be a month at the quickest. Mr. Miller indicated he would
favor placing the language in the Conditions with the understanding that a serious attempt needs to be made at reaching
an agreement.
Doug Ochsner stated they have incentives to make an agreement with Broe having several options. They are both on
equal ground. Mr. Miller stated he believes Petro Canada has an advantage since the windows are approved.
James Rohn asked Ms. Lockman where this condition would be located. Ms. Lockman suggests placing this prior to
scheduling the Board of County Commissioners hearing. This gives them incentive to get this done. Ms. Lockman
indicated the language shall consist of"the applicant shall submit evidence that an agreement has been reached that
addresses the surface and mineral owners concerns or the applicant shall submit evidence that a reasonable
accommodation has been made to address the surface owners concerns."
James Rohn moved to accept the language suggested by staff and locate as 1 A and renumber. Bruce Fitzgerald
seconded.
Doug Ochsner stated that since this is prior to scheduling what would be considered a reasonable amount of time for the
parties to work this out. Ms. Lockman stated she usually gets the information back within a good time frame. Mr.
Morrison stated it is not just the effort but it is also a demonstration from the applicant and the surface owner.
Mike Wosneak indicated they should give due regard to surface owners and will attempt to reasonably accommodate
those needs. They will also attempt to do this in a timely fashion.
Alex Yeros added that they are just asking for some time to deliberate and work through the issues.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom, yes;
James Welch,yes; Michael Miller,yes;James Rohn,yes; Chad Auer,yes;Tom Holton,yes, Doug Ochsner,yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Mike Wosneak stated they are in agreement with the Development Standard and Conditions of Approval.
James Rohn moved that Case USR-1514, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions
of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Doug Ochsner
seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom, yes;
James Welch,yes; Michael Miller,yes;James Rohn,yes; Chad Auer,yes;Tom Holton,yes, Doug Ochsner,yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
James Rohn commented that he hopes an agreement is reached quickly so everyone is satisfied.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1515
APPLICANT: Nextel Communications
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part E2SW4 and W2SE4 and E2NW4 and W2NE4 of Section 34, T6N, R66W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Public Utilities
facility including a Major Facility of a Public Utility or Public Agencies (Nextel West
Corporation - 110 foot Telecommunications Tower) in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to F Street and % mile east of 59th Ave.
Please note the Planning Commission has final determination on this proposal.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1515, reading the recommendation and comments
into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the application along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Stacey Mathis, representative for Nextel, provided clarification on the proposal. This location is one of six sites that
were approached to co-locate or place a monopole. This location was satisfactory to all involved parties. There is
also the potential for others to co-locate onto this site.
James Rohn asked if there was a way to mediate the color and attempt to make the tower blend in more with the
surrounding area. Mr. Ogle stated the application has indicated it will be painted a neutral color and there has been
no referral received from the Division of Wildlife indicating a conflict with their interest.
Michael Miller stated it seems odd to place the pole at the lowest point in the valley. Mr. Mathis indicated this was not
the first choice but it is the best choice. The area is flat and the signal will reach the areas where there are existing
facilities.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Greg Thompson, City of Greeley Planning Department, indicated the City's concerns. This proposal does not meet
Greeley Comprehensive Plan development code criteria. The site is located within an enclave and the City would like this
denied because there are other options for the location. There are towers at Northridge that are a possibility. The City
believes this does not make sense at this location. The top hat configuration is obnoxious to look at but there could be
other options. The City prefers nothing taller than 60 foot in height at this location. This would be slightly above the tree
canopy. This site will need a flood permit. The City has two main points of concern: this is not a logical location and the
design is inadequate. Mr.Thompson provided an overhead of the possible alternative locations. There has already been
a co-location at 23rd Ave and 10"Street.
Doug Ochsner asked Mr.Thompson if there were any other options from this location. Mr.Thompson stated the City of
Greeley could have parks adjacent to this area as deemed in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr.Thompson stated there would
be parks adjacent to this area. This area is in a floodway and floodplain so there is a possibility of sand and gravel
operations in the future. This area is river bottom land and will not be attractive for the City of Greeley development.
The Chair closed public portion
Scott Schneider, engineer for Nextel, indicated that the Northridge site is located to far to the west. This site sits low but
fills the area for possible new development better. The applicant is trying to accomplish coverage to 72"d to the west,
north to 10'", east to 35'"and north past"O"Street. The height of the pole is needed due to the tree canopy and there is
the possibility of co-location. Mr. Mathis indicated the height of 60 feet will not work in the area since they need to link with
what is existing. This would require another site. Mr. Schneider stated they could paint the pole any color. If the pole is
smaller there will be a need for another site to gain the same thing that a taller pole will attain.
Michael Miller asked for clarification on the suggestions from the City of Greeley. Mr.Ogle stated those suggestions were
addressed in the staff comments.
James Rohn indicated his concern is the area needs to be served but still has a problem with height and contrast to the
area.
Doug Ochsner asked Mr. Carroll about the traffic and what the nearest road would be with the traffic counts. Mr. Carroll
stated it is the designated haul route for Lafarge and Bucklin operations. These will be heavy haulers that utilize the area
and Public Works has replaced sections in the road due to damage. Mr. Miller indicated it was a busy street with truck
traffic. Mr. Ochsner asked about the scenic view. Mr. Miller stated that the homes to the north would look down on the
river valley,there will be no housing in the area since it is in the flood zone. Mr. Carroll stated this is identified as arterial
status having a 140 foot right-of-way reservation.
James Rohn added he would like to see the pole designed in some way to camouflage it better with the surrounding area.
Mr. Rohn discussed the evergreen option sited near the Cottonwood development in the City of Greeley.
Michael Miller stated he does not believe this will be highly obtrusive since the area is mostly gravel operations.
Bruce Fitzgerald stated the tower that can have multiple users.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Case USR-1515, be approved along with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom, yes;
James Welch,yes; Michael Miller, yes;James Rohn,yes; Chad Auer,yes;Tom Holton,yes, Doug Ochsner,yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Doug Ochsner needed to be excused prior to the next item:
CASE NUMBER: MF-547
APPLICANT: Olando Ltd. Liability
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2016; being part of the SE4 of Section 16, T6N, R64W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Minor Subdivision Final Plan for nine (9) residential lots. (Owl Creek Estates)
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Highway 392; % mile east of CR 53
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case MF-547, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the application along
with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Todd Hodges, representative for Olando LLC, provided clarification to the proposal. This is the final stage and is
consistent with the criteria with a final plat. The applicant will continue to work with CDOT regarding the access. There is
a turn around provided for the school district. The lots sizes vary significantly.
Michael Miller asked about the letter from school and it stating the turn out was denied by the county and CDOT. Mr.
Hodges stated the pull out initially proposed was denied therefore the applicant has provided a complete turn around area.
Shane Boil,engineer for the project,added that the school district preferred something completely off the highway for the
safety of the students. CDOT did not want the pull-off in their right-of-way due to maintenance concerns.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Terry Enwright, representative for Kerr McGee, indicated concerns with the oil and gas interest. There is a surface
agreement that has expired and they are working with Olando Ltd Liability to obtain another agreement. At this time there
is no agreement. Kerr McGee would like to have an agreement prior to recording the final plat. There should be areas
available for future drilling sites. There are two points of contention,one being there should be a portion of Lots 6 and 7
that are no build areas to protect the possible future drilling sites, second the access road does not meet their required
standards. (Owl Creek Lane)
Michael Miller asked if the standard language was included addressing the surface use agreements. Ms.Lockman stated
that was included at the change of zone. The applicant mitigated the concerns at the change of zone by placing the drill
windows on the plat. Mr. Morrison stated the drill windows are simply and area designated for possible location of wells.
The drill sites would need to adhere to the setbacks from adjacent buildings. Mr. Miller asked if the windows precluded
the building of structures in it. Mr. Morrison stated this was the concern since the mineral owners and surface owners are
in a race to see who can get built first and where. Mr. Morrison stated that the lots are substantial in size so there should
be room to work around. Mr. Miller asked if the Planning Commission has the authority to say those building envelopes
are non buildable. Mr. Morrison stated it may not be necessary,the drill windows mean the oil&gas development can be
anywhere in the window without further consent from the State Oil &Gas Commission. Mr. Morrison added it would be
nice to have an agreement so the County would not need to mitigate. Ms. Lockman stated the condition was addressed
at the change of zone with the addition of the windows. Kerr-McGee has presented additional requests that were not
brought forward in the previous process. Ms. Lockman stated this was something that needs to be considered.
Tom Holton asked for clarification with regards to the location of the windows and the size. Mr. Enwright indicated the
window was 800 feet square and they have suggested shrinking the larger window from 13 acres down to 3 acres to try
and mitigate. Mr. Enwright indicated the contention is the area be designated as no build and access be provided. The
access could be by dirt road. The preferential site would be on the west side of Owl Creek since there are existing
facilities. Mr. Miller stated the road requirements requested are not something the County enforces. Mr. Enwright
indicated they would be agreeable to dirt roads as long as there is a designated access.
Ed Orr, applicant, stated "we would have been here a year ago talking about this, had it not been for Kerr McGees
attempts to extort things from the surface owner and try and exercise rights beyond what is reasonable." The letter from
Kerr McGee,which appeared after three years,addresses concerns for a surface use agreement. Mr.Orr stated the plat
does not preclude them from surveying for future drill sites. The drill windows are four times the size of what is needed.
Mr. Orr asked about the"rights of my successors" should the wells not be drilled. Mr. Orr stated that Kerr McGee does
not need a specific agreement today to show where flow lines could possibly be drilled. Mr. Orr stated that the
agreements should be worked out with the nine individual land owners that buy the property. Mr. Orr stated"it would be a
travesty to make the surface owners build roads to the oil company standards, if they want to use the road and improve it
to their standard,they are welcome to it and there is nothing I can do about it." The mineral company has the right to the
land but they do not need an agreement now they may work it out with the future land owners. The owners would
appreciate the fact that they get to work it out with the Oil companies adverse to one individual. Mr. Orr encourages the
need to go forward. Mr. Orr added "you cannot make us agree and I don't think you should be put in a spot by Kerr
McGee to try and make us agree and allow them to further extort money out of the surface owner."
Michael Miller stated there is a need to address this so there are no issues in the future. There is a need to access Lot 6-
7 so as to not tear up the asphalt road. Mr. Orr stated that the mineral owners can exercise their rights no matter what.
Mr. Miller stated they could bring a truck down the road and pay for any damages. Mr. Miller clarified that this only creates
a large legal mess and it would be better to mitigate the situation now adverse to the future. Mr.Orr believes it should be
up to the individual lot owners to determine where the oil company should have access on their individual lots. Mr. Miller
stated that if they could come off Hwy 392 to access the drill site it would be the best so as to not tear up the roads. Mr.
Miller would like to see some type of agreement. Mr. Morrison stated that the entire purpose for this is to not leave the
issues of easement and access to the future,the point is to get this resolved now. The worst possible thing is to expect
nine individual lot owners to resolve this. Mr. Orr stated that"we have been trying for two years with Kerr McGee, man I
tell you what they have worn me down, beaten me up, I am nothing but dust." Mr. Miller stated that a conclusion needs to
be addressed.
Discussion ensued with regards to the access roadway to the oil & gas window.
Michael Miller stated that language needs to be added to address the access before the Board of County Commissioners.
Mr. Miller stated the two parties need to get together and come to an agreement.
The Chair closed public portion.
Sheri Lockman provided language for an additional condition to be placed in 1.A and the language shall consist of the
following: "The applicant shall submit evidence that an agreement has been reached which addresses the issues raised
by Kerr McGee Rocky Mountain in a letter dated June 29, 2005 or the applicant shall submit evidence that a reasonable
attempt has been made to address those issues."
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to accept the proposed language. James Rohn seconded. Motion carried with Tom Holton
voting No.
Todd Hodges indicated they were in agreement with the Development Standard and Conditions of Approval but would like
to make note that the condition is repetitive and it took approximately one year to get movement from Kerr McGee for the
first agreements, hence the reason the case has taken so long. Mr. Miller stated the key is they make an attempt.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Case MF-547, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Chad
Auer seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom, yes;
James Welch, yes; Michael Miller, yes; James Rohn, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton, yes, Bruce Fitzgerald, yes.
Motion carried unanimously.
John Folsom commented that should an agreement not be made it might fall to the individual lot owners to resolve this.
Michael Miller commented it will be up to the Board of County Commissioners at to where the access would go. It would
be irresponsible of both parties to leave the issue unresolved.
Meeting adjourned at 430
Re\\Tectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello