HomeMy WebLinkAbout20040725.tiff El
fl
F,
F,
F
a
MEETING BEFORE THE:
BOARD OF WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DOCKET NO. 2003-29
MAY 28, 2003
11
I
a
n A 20O4-O725
\// 03 -0,3"-o� r�3 P�o
n
2
0
�E:: 1 I NI Q E X
2 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
3 David E. Long, Chairman
4 Robert D. Masden, Pro-Tem
(" 5 M.J. Geile
6 William H. Jerke
7 Glenn Vaad
8 ALSO. PRESENT:
9 Esther Gesick, Acting Clerk to the Board
10 Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney
I
11 Monica Mika, Planning Department Representative
12 Donald' Carroll, Public Works Representative
13
14
15
16
17
LLJ 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
F
n
3
1 PEOCEEQINGS
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Good morning. It is May 28th, and
3 we will convene as the Board of County Commissioners for the
4 purpose of land use hearings this morning at 10 o'clock.
(! 5 Roll call, please, Esther.
6 THE CLERK: Glenn Vaad?
7 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Here.
8 THE CLERK: Bill Jerke?
11 9 COMMISSIONER JERKE: Here.
10 THE CLERK: Mike Geile?
11 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Here.
12 THE CLERK: ROB MASDEN:
4 13 COMMISSIONER MASDEN: Here.
14 THE CLERK: Dave Long?
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Here.
11S� 16 Let the record show that all five Commissioners are
Q17 present.
18 We have one item on our docket today. It is Docket
[1 19 2003-29, PL-0003 . If you could read this into the record,
20 please, Counsel.
21 MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, Docket No. 2003-29 is
22 a site specific development plan, plan unit development final
�+ 23 plan, PF 1021 for the second filing of Beebe Draw Farms for
24 406 lots in Sections 4 , 5, 8,9, 10 and 17, all in Township 3
25 North, Range 65 West, 6 PM, Weld County, Colorado.
11
n
4
LJ 1 Notice was published April 24, 2003 , in the South
2 Weld Sun, and presumably staff will provide evidence of
3 posting as well.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
(� 5 Planning Department?
J
6 MS. MIKA: Monica Mika, Department of Planning
7 Services.
8 The applicant, c/o of Kristine Hethcott, has asked
9 for a continuance of this case. This case was heard by
10 Planning Commission on November 19, 2002 , and at the time
11 there was a condition that recommended that the applicant
12 work with the mineral owners to address concerns that were
13 presented at this time. It' s my undersatnding that the
14 applicant is still working with oil and gas minerals on the
15 site, and they are requesting -- applicant requests for at
C 16 least a 60-day continuance. The Department of Planning
17 Services is requesting a hearing no sooner than August 6th,
18 which is beyond the 60-day period.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Any questions for Monica?
T 20 Commissioner Vaad?
(l 21 COMMISSIONER VAAD: I know that this Board has been
t 22 I think pretty clear on an adequate amount and maybe no more
l 23 as far as difference to mineral owners in their demands on
24 applicants. And I 'd be interested in any insights on what
25 might or might not -- what might be going on here.
F,
F,
f I '
ti 5
L7 1 MS. MIKA: I can comment a little bit. I know that
2 we do have some representatives from the oil and gas industry
{{''J 3 here that are prepared to speak to the Board as well.
t 4 I think thisi case, because the change of zone
5 happened so many years ago, that now when we're coming into
6 final platting, there's really been a time delay in starting
7 both mineral extraction in some areas and also development.
8 And I think by reviewing this case now, it's giving them the
7 9 opportunity to try to come to terms with what' s going to
10 happen on the site and where are they.
11 And I know that there have been ongoing
12 discussions. I 'm just not sure that there ' s been any
13 resolutions.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Vaad?
15 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Yeah, Monica, this case, we had
16 heard a case which was more or less -- I believe it was the
11 17 second filing that goes back three years ago or thereabouts.
18 Is that what this case is? And then they came back, and they
19 got a substantial -- there was a substantial change
20 presentation; is that correct?
21 MS. MIKA: That 's correct.
22 COMMISSIONER VAAD: And then what are we hearing?
Ci
23 What is this case about? Is it about a substantial change,
24 or is it about the current development, or what is going on
25 here?
p
1 !
ri
n6
�J 1 MS. MIKA: No, this case is about -- is sort of the
2 outcome of the substantial change. So it 's for a -- I 'm
r 3 reluctant to call it the second final platting because
U-' 4 there's been several, but it is for a final platting for an
r
5 additional 406 residential lots that will be in conjunction
6 with the 188 that are already there on site.
fi7 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Thank you.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions of the staff?
1! 9 (No response. )
fl10 THE CHAIRMAN: At this time then I ' ll ask for a
11 representative of the applicant, for Beebe Draw, if you want
fl12 to come forward and give any kind of comments you would like
L 13 to in regards to the continuance or to maybe ask some
L14 questions from the Board. If you could state your name and
15 address for the record, please?
16 MR. DICKE: My name is Alan Dicke, representing
17 REI, LLC and Beebe Draw Farms.
18 We requested this continuance in order to continue
I
j P. 19 the work that we're doing with the mineral owners in regards
r 20 to surface use agreements, and we are making progress in that
1 21 regard. And they are directly related to the significant
22 changes and the final agreement of how we will coordinate the
LI
23 use of surface, surface access to those minerals.
El24 THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions of Mr.
25 Dicke?
ri
I 1 7 1
f
P 7
1 (No response. )
U 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
3 MR. DICKE: Thank you.
n4 THE CHAIRMAN: Just so we have the recognition and
r5 other people might want to speak to the continuance of this
6 application, I ' ll open this up to the public. If there' s
ri
7 anybody from the public in regards to like oil and gas
C 8 representatives or anybody else that might like to come
H9 forward and testify as to a continuance, please come forward,
10 if you could, at this time. And please state your name and
0
nn 11 address for the record, please, and welcome.
eg ` 12 MR. GRENEAUX: Good morning, Chris Greneaux, Kerr-
�J 13 McGee Rocky Mountain Corporation. Address is 1999 Broadway,
fl14 Suite 3600, Denver, Colorado 80202 .
15 The question was where do we stand today with the
EJ
16 oil and gas negotiations. As the applicant has said, we are
17 moving forward. This is such a large project that it takes
18 quite a bit of time to sort out all of the existing
Ill " a 19 infrastructure, oil and gas infrastructure that is currently
r 20 in place on the property. We are in the process of doing
`-' 21 that, specifically identifying all of the natural gas
C' 22 pipelines that run through all of the areas. You're dealing
23 with not just one company, but four or five companies who all
fl24 have to go out and identify where their pipelines are on the
25 properties, as well as production facilities and the actual
0
n
f
8
II
1 well head locations.
2 And where we are now is we're awaiting a revised
!r. 3 plat based on new information on located lines. We hope to
t- 5 4 get those relatively soon, this week, so that that's going to
r5 be the next big step to finalizing the surface use agreement.
6 But we are making progress. It's just taking quite a bit of
11 7 time to get that, and we certainly appreciate the applicant
8 requesting the continuance, and we are in support of it.
ii9 And if you have any questions, I 'd be happy to
{ 10 answer them.
1
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jerke?
12 COMMISSIONER JERKE: It' s a question for Monica.
13 He's mentioned the term "revised plat. " I assume
14 that that has to do with negotiations that are going on
15 between the applicant and the oil companies so that they can
16 figure out where lines need to be drawn to try to make things
17 work so that both oil and gas and residential development
18 would actually work.
19 My question would be notification of property
n20 owners again. How does that work then so that if we do
CJ 21 extend this out to past August 6th, do we go ahead and have
22 to have the applicant renotify prior to that as to the
[
23 potential new plat that will be actually proposed then at
11 24 that time, or do they see it for the first time when we do?
25 MS. MIKA: If the Board continues to a date
ii
U
7
II
H
9
1 certain, we're not compelled to do -- to post the sign.
II2 Because this case has gone on for so long, it' s my intent
3 that we will at the continuance notify surrounding property
11 4 owners within 500 feet. And it's my understanding they're
5 not going to make this -- the parcel is not going to become
C
6 any larger. It's still 2 , 307 acres, but it' s internal
[ � 7 changes that we' ll be looking at.
CJ 8 One question that staff has is if this comes back
i n 9 and it' s substantially different than what Planning
10 Commission has looked at, and I don't believe that to be the
El
11 case, but if it was substantially different, we'd have to
El12 make the determination as to whether or not Plannign
13 Commission would need to see this again. But my
14 understanding is they're just revising tweaking the plat to
15 moving some things around. So we will repost, renotify and
j 16 go through the whole public notification process for this
11 17 continuance, which we don't normally do all of those
18 elements.
fl19 COMMISSIONER JERKE: Thank you.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Commissioner Masden?
I21 COMMISSIONER MASDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
El22 Monica, one question I have is, do you think August
23 6th is too soon or is going to be a long enough time to get
t1 1 24 all this worked out? It sounds like -- it sounds like
25 they've got a lot of work ahead of them.
lJ
n
1_l
I I
f
n
10
11
1 MS. MIKA: I bumped it a couple weeks beyond the
2 request for the applicant. I mean, we certainly can do an
3 indefinite continuance, which an indefinite continuance would
4 require exactly what I said to go through the whole
(� 5 notification process. That may be the more conservative way
� l 6 of doing it.
7 My concern is, is that because there's a new plat
8 coming in, and I think the plats are what, 20 pages of plats,
( ; 9 I want to make sure that Public Works has plenty of time to
10 really look at those elements.
11 So I don't know, I 'm real conflicted on do we set a
12 date certaon on this or go with a continuance. My hope is,
13 is that that date would become a realistic target and
14 everybody would shoot for it. And if it' s an indefintite
15 continuance, those seem to linger on.
16 COMMISSIONER MASDEN: Okay. All right. Thank you.
E17 MR. GRENEAUX: Thank you.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. There isn't any other
19 questions?
20 (No response. )11 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else in
1 22 the public that wish to testify in regards to the continuance
23 factor? Please come forward, if you would.
24 MS. SOMMERVILLE: Good morning. My name is Molly
25 Sommerville. I 'm an attorney with the law firm of Krug and
n
[ 1
11
11 11
1 Soble. My address for business is 1700 Broadway, Suite 508,
11 2 Denver, Colorado 80290, and I 'm here today to represent
t[^, 3 Anadarko EMP Company, which was formerly known as Union
`i 4 Pacific Resources Company and also Anadarko Land Corp, which
11 5 was formerly known as Union Pacific Land Resources
6 Corporation.
11 7 The Anadarko entities together own all of the
11 8 minerals under three sections that are included in this
9 application, Sections 5, 9 and 17 .
n 10 The Anadarko entities or their predecessors have
Li
11 given oil and gas leases to either Kerr-McGee Rocky Mountain
] 12 Corporation, Patina Oil & Gas Corporation 'and United States
1'C�J7 13 Exploration, Inc. , for all or portions of those three
tI 14 sections of property. And those three companies operate
15 approximately 60 wells on the three sections. So that shows
16 you kind of the enormity of what we're dealing with ehre in
17 terms of the number of oil and gas facilities on just the
f3
18 three sections of land where Anadarko owns the minerals.
19 And as Mr. Greneaux has indicated, there are
20 multiple pipelines that run through the property that are
5 21 operated by Duke Energy and others, and there are other
[, 22 sections where other oil companies have oil and gas wells who
23 did not derive mineral interests through Anadarko.
ri24 We have been working very closely with the
25 development over the last few months, since November 19th
l
'n
of
i 1 I '
41
1-1
�j 12
1 when the matter was heard before the Planning Corporation. I
t 2 think there are two components. One is the actual surface
3 use agreement, and the other is the plat, which will be
F4 attached to the surface use agreement. The plats are
5 continually being updated to include more and more
6 information as it becomes available to REI to include on the
31 fl 7 plat and with respect to the negotiations of setbacks and lot
8 lines and those kinds of things.
11 9 In addition, we've exchanged multiple drafts of the
E10 surface use agreement, and Anadarko would certainly support a
11 continuance in this matter to try to reach an agreement with
fl12 the developer, and we feel like we're moving in the right
13 direction.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions for Ms.
15 Sommerville? Commissioner Vaad?
16 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Maybe it was more of an
[J t9 17 appropriate question for Chris than Molly, but are the gas 1
18 lines -- and I haven't thought about that -- criss-crossing
II19 the property, are they all in place via easements, recorded
20 easements?
El21 MS. SOMMERVILLE: I think that is a better question
22 to ask Chris.
il
23 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Please.
El24 THE CHAIRMAN: Please.
25 MR. GRENEAUX: It' s a great question. A majority
E
fl
fl
i - , I 1
n
1 13
� � 1 of the existing infrastructure pipelines specifically are
ll 2 covered by easements. Whether they're specific meets and
3 bounds descriptions for those easements or they're sort of
e % 4 general blanket easements that define just the pipeline
5 right-of-way, they're mixed, and that's part of our
6 negotiations and ongoing of sorting all this out. And what
i7 we're going to propose to do is to clarify each one of those
[j 8 easements, the more blanket easements, to specific meets and
(] 9 bounds easements. So that certainly is an issue that we're
0 10 working on today in sorting that out.
U 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Jerks?
11 12 COMMISSIONER JERKE: Yeah, this is a question for '
13 Molly. I just wanted to I guess get for the record how
( 14 possible do you think August 6th is?
15 MS. SOMMERVILLE: Well, I think it will be -- it's
16 a stretch. Obviously, if that' s the deadline that the Board
fl17 gives us, that' s the one we're going to have to work against.
18 And I think actually the party that can best answer that as
Q19 being the deadline would probably be REI since they're the
20 ones that are puting the plats together.
O21 COMMISSIONER JERKE: Thank you.
El22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I guess I ' ll ask the
23 same question of Mr. Greneaux. What do you think the
24 applicability of August 6th would be?
25 MR. GRENEAUX: I really -- in my opinion, I think
0
i
J {'\
L. .I .. .... .
I
14
fl
1 the key to this is to getting the (inaudible) correct,
2 identified with all the existing infrastructure that' s out
3 there. We're working -- just to let you guys know, that
1+ 4 Kerr-McGee went out and actually located all of our
p5 infrastructure, and that has now been surveyed in by the
J
6 applicant and shown in their plat. My understanding is what
7 we're waiting on now is the third parties, the Duke Energies,
8 to do the same thing and get their lines on the plats. And
11 9 once that happens, we've already, as Ms. Sommerville said,
10 we've already started working towards the issues with the lot
ri 11 lines and setbacks. And those are continuing to progress,
12 and that's why we'r'e awaiting the new revised plats.
J
13 As far as the August 6th date, I think it' s kind of
11 14 the same answer. If that' s the date the Board setes, we will
15 make every effort to meet that. But it' s really driven upon
16 how quickly we can update the information and get the plats
1
fl 17 correct so that we can attach it to the surface use
18 agreement.
a19 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Any other questions for
20 either one?
11 II 21 (No response. )
II
) 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anybody else in
23 the audience who wishes to testify in regards to this l.[. 24 continuance?
25 (No response. )
E
1 I 1 '
.
a
a 15
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing none, I ' ll close the public
2 hearing part of this hearing and bring it back to the
3 applicant.
a4 If I might ask you, Mr. Dicke, if you'd come back
r 5 up? And what's your thoughts on the August 6th target
j 6 recommendation or --
C7 MR. DICKE: REI had originally requested
8 continuance of approximately 60 days, and so we believe
1 ri
C; 9 that' s adequate time to complete the surface use agreements
10 and to add to the plat the information that REI is receiving
1i
'" 11 from the individual oil and gas companies. So we're working
tr
12 toward the completion of those two elements, and so Monica's
l
13 additional two weeks will be helpful, and that should be
II14 adequate time.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Any questions for Mr. Dicke?
16 (No response. )
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
i
18 Any other questions for staff, or bring it back to
{ El 19 the Board for discussion? Commissioner Jerke?
El 20 COMMISSIONER JERKE: Mr. Chairman, I would just
21 move to continue this case until August 6th.
El22 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Second.
23 (Motion seconded. )
a24 THE CHAIRMAN: It's been moved by Commissioner
a25 Jerke and seconded by Commissioner Geile to continue Case
a
I lI I
I
16
1 PL-0003 , site specific development plan and planned unit
2 development final plan, PF 1021 for the second filing of
3 Beebe Draw Farms to August 6th. Any further discussion?
Fr,1
4 (No response. )
l 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing none, all those in favor say
�+ 6 aye.
F 7 (Voting. )
1��f 8 THE CHAIRMAN: All those opposed, same sign.
U 9 (Voting. )
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion carries unanimous. This case
if J! 11 will be continued until August 6, 2003 .
12 Thank you very much. That concludes the business
13 of the Board at this time. We are adjourned.
14 (Whereupon, at 10: 30 a.m. , the meeting before the
15 Board of Weld County Commissioners was adjourned. )
16
17
18
19
20
J 21
11 22
23
24
25
l.!
El 17
1 CERTIFICATE
2
!Rs 3 I, Nancy Wehrheim, do hereby certify that the
4 foregoing recorded hearing before the Board of Weld County
5 Commissioners is a true and correct transcript to the best of
6 my ability and understanding; that I am not counsel, not
i
7 related to counsel or the parties hereto, and not in any way
8 interested in the outcome of this matter.
9
10
11 Nancy Wehrheim
12 '
13 1 I FA/NJ/4 4)
14 Date
a 15
16
17
18
19
ci 20
21
i
(� 22
tJ 23
24
25
Hello