The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About952658.tiff COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Final Draft - July 28, 1995 t\Iail4� 95:n3a TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Comprehensive Plan Definition 1- 1 Relationship to Other Documents I- 1 Principle Plan Components 1- 1 Weld County Planning Process 1- 1 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Procedure 1-2 Location 1- 6 DEMOGRAPHICS/ECONOMICS Weld County Population 1 - 7 Weld County Economy 1-12 Existing Land Use 1-15 Future Land Use 1-14 LAND USE CATEGORIES Agriculture 2- 1 Understanding the Agricultural Industry and its Benefits 2 - 1 Concerns of Farming as an Industry 2 -2 Weld County Prime Farmland Definition 2- 3 Weld County Non-Prime Farmland Definition 3 - 1 Urban Development 3 - 1 Unincorporated Communities 3 - 3 Industrial Development 3 -4 Commercial Development 3 - 5 Residential Development 3 -7 Planned Unit Development 3 - 8 1-25 Mixed-Use Development Area and Urban Development Nodes 3-10 LAND USE AMENITIES Public Facilities and Services 3-14 Fire Protection 3-15 Police Protection 3-16 Transportation 4 - 1 Road System Classification 4- 1 Arterial Roads 4 - 1 Collector Roads 4- 3 Local Roads 4 -3 Road Access 4- 3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Paths 4 -3 Scenic Road Bikeways 4 -3 Regional Plans 4- 3 U.S. 85 Corridor 4-4 Air Transportation 4 -4 Rail Transportation 4 - 5 i 952658 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Water 5 - 1 Air 5 - 1 Noise Impacts 5 - 2 Solid Waste 5 -2 Brine Waste 5 -4 Manure 5 -4 Municipal Sludges 5 -4 Septic Tank Pumpings 5 -4 NATURAL RESOURCES Wildlife 6 - I Open Space Parks and Recreation 6 -2 General Resources 6 -4 Commercial and Mineral Deposits 6 - 5 Oil and Gas Mineral Deposits 6 -7 APPENDIX Right to Farm Covenant 7 - 1 Transportation Definitions 7 -2 Arterial Roads 7 - 2 Collector Roads 7 -2 Local Roads 7- 2 ii 952658 URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARIES When a municipality and the County enter into an UGB.Policy 2 urban growth boundary agreement, the County Land use development proposals within an agrees to abide by the municipality's vision for urban growth boundary area will be future development in the area. Likewise, the determined according to the procedure set municipality agrees to limit its expansion to the forth in an intergovernmental agreement defined areas where it plans to provide municipal between the County and the municipality. services. It is understood that urban growth is an In the absence of an intergovernmental ongoing process and urban growth boundary agreement, land use proposals in urban agreements will be subject to revision as needed. growth boundary areas shall be encouraged if they c.,..fi,..n tu uf- tl.,, In the absence of an urban growth boundary w.. t.„4...e.k,d :a its agreement,the County recognizes a standard urban w...Y.U.,,..ei.c phut . Ly its—LanIn.a.. growth boundary. This is a one-half mile perimeter d.,,,i,ien...aking body adhere to the intent from the existing public sanitary sewer facilities. of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan The definition of facilities is limited to public sewer and the referral responses received. lines in place at the time of adoption of this Ordinance. The perimeter will be modified if it is UGB.Policy 2.1 apparent that physical boundaries prevent the Individuals making initial contact with the extension of sewer service. Inside the municipal County regarding land use development service area boundary,urban type uses and services should be informed of the policy of are planned and annexation is encouraged. directing growth to, or adjacent to, municipalities and the I-25 MUD; and Urban Growth Boundaries Goals and Policies UGB.Policy 2.2 UGB.Goal 1 Until intergovernmental agreements are in Weld County will encourage and assist place, urban growth boundaries will be each municipality in establishing an defined as a one half mile perimeter around intergovernmental urban growth the existing public sanitary sewer facilities. boundary agreement. UGB.Goal 3 UGB.Policy 1 The County and municipalities should Weld County recognizes that coordinate land use planning of urban municipalities can and should plan their growth boundary areas, including own futures in terms of the nature and rate development policies and standards, of growth; zoning,street and highway construction, open space, public infrastructure and UGB.Policy 1.1 other matters affecting orderly Revise intergovernmental agreements as development. required by changing conditions. UGB.Policy 3 UGB.Goal 2 The County may consider approving a land Concentrate urban development in or use development within an urban growth adjacent to existing municipalities or the boundary area, in the absence of an I-25 Mixed Use Development area and intergovernmental agreement, if all of the maintain urban growth boundary areas following criteria are met: that provide an official designation between future urban and non-urban uses. 3-2 952658 URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARIES UGB.Policy 3.1 b. A proposal to equitably share The adjacent municipality does not consent these costs among users; and to annex the property or annexation is not c. A time schedule for apportionment legally possible; of the charges among users and reimbursement to the developer. UGB.Policy 3.2 The proposed use,including public facility UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES and service impacts,is compatible with the County's Comprehensive Plan and with Weld County's rural areas contain a number of other urban type uses; small unincorporated residential communities that are surrounded by agricultural districts and UGB.Policy 3.3 agricultural uses. These communities provide The proposed use is consistent compatible housing for those employed in agricultural and with the adjacent municipality's other industries. The communities also serve as comprehensive plan; small commercial centers for surrounding farm areas. UGB.Pulicy 3.4 The finding of the land uac decision With few exceptions, these settlements have had .k:..� 1 ,1y and th,, taw.. L.,..:1 little or no growth since their inception. Substantial wu..cil of ff.,. ulju ..t :ty is population growth is not anticipated in these fa.eradl t„watd the propn„d communities due to the lack of community water and/or sewer facilities and because of their remote UGB.Policy 3.4 locations. These settlements will probably continue Public services are provided to the to function as small rural centers serving the needs proposed site with maximum efficiency of the surrounding rural population. and economy. The applicant must submit financial data and analysis on direct and Unincorporated Community Goals and Policies indirect public service impacts, including those on roads, schools and public safety. UC.Goal 1 Data on public costs and potential revenue, Assure proper location and operation of demonstrate that the proposed use is compatible land uses by maintaining economically neutral or beneficial to the land-use regulations within County; and unincorporated communities. UGB.Policy 3.5 UC.Policy 1 If public facility or service improvements Expansion of existing unincorporated are required by a development,and will not communities will be based on the be provided by the adjacent municipality, following criteria: the developer will pay these costs initially. A method of reimbursement for these costs UC.Policy 1.1 will be determined in the land use Urban growth boundary goals and policies application review process. The method of should apply in reviewing land-use reimbursement will depend upon the applications which are adjacent to or following information, which the propose to expand existing unincorporated developer must supply; communities; and a. Identification of all current and future users of the public facilities or services; 3-3 952658 NATURAL RESOURCES including storage of equipment, steep slopes, holes, ponds, and heavy stockpiled soils and materials from public equipment; view; CM.Policy 4.8 CM.Policy 4.3 Ensuring that all mining operations Requiring that access roads to and within conform to federal, state, and local the site be located in a manner which environmental standards; and minimize traffic impacts on surrounding land uses; CM.R,liey 4.9 Ea-swing that all s CM.Policy 4.4 Requiring the land-use applicant to t o_f demonstrate to the satisfaction of the “,{,.if4.ra td all othefwataways. Board of Commissioners that the street or highway facilities providing access to the CM.Goal 5 mining activity are adequate in functional Provide for timely reclamation and re- classification, width, and structural use of mining sites in accordance with capacity to meet the requirements of the the Comprehensive Plan, Subdivision proposed mining activity. Internal road and Zoning Ordinances. circulation, off street parking, dust abatement,acceleration lanes,deceleration CM.Policy 5 lanes, common access collection points, The County should consider the signalization, and other traffic potentially adverse environmental effects improvements shall be required wherever of mining operations and generally necessary to mitigate traffic impacts require: caused by the mining activity. Applications for mining should also be CM.Policy 5.1 reviewed in accordance with the Disturbance of vegetation and overburden transportation goals and policies; in advance of mining activities should be minimized; CM.Policy 4.5 Requiring, where possible, that batch CM. Policy 5.2 plants and processing equipment be Topsoil should be saved and utilized in buffered from adjacent uses. site reclamation; CM. Policy 4.6 CM.Policy 5.3 Requiring that security fencing be erected All reasonable and practical measures and maintained around extraction sites,as should be taken to protect the habitat of necessary, to minimize the attractive fish and wildlife; nuisance hazards inherent in operations located near urban uses; CM.Policy 5.4 The operation should comply with County CM. Policy 4.7 flood hazard and geological hazard Requiring mining operations to use regulations; warning signs, fences, guards, lighting, and other means to warn and protect people from mine site hazards such as 6-6 952658 • '` JUL 1 7 1995 ,�1, , '. . WELD COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE July 12, 1995 Commissioner George Baxter Commissioner Dale Hall Commissioner Connie Harbert Commissioner Barbara Kirkmeyer Commissioner Bill Webster Weld County Commission 915 Tenth Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Revision to Weld County Comprehensive Plan Dear Commissioners: COGA has reviewed the proposed update to the Weld County Comprehensive Plan and appreciates this opportunity to comment. We applaud this planning effort and the County's apparent desire to use planning as a method for dealing with the issues generated by competing land uses. We ask that the County be aware, however, of the comprehensive statewide rulemaking activity currently taking place at the COGCC, an effort that Weld County and CCI are participating in. We hope that this Plan Update does not signal more regulation of the oil and gas industry by the County. The new COGCC regulations will have a significant impact on oil and gas development, especially in areas of intense surface use, and further County regulation should not be necessary. We are also concerned that the tone of the Plan Update with regard to the oil and gas industry seems to be negative. The presumption that surface uses are "higher" uses of the land could well result in prohibitions on mineral development. COGA has long said that it is open to finding appropriate mechanisms to achieve dual development of the surface and mineral estates so that all parties, including county government, are satisfied with the result. However, resolving irreconcilable differences in the competition for future land use in favor of the surface owner would change the legal relationship between the surface owner and the mineral owner, and is not an acceptable approach. This issue is addressed in more detail in the enclosed brief. Colorado Oil a Gas Association 1776 Lincoln Street, Suite 100E Denver, Colorado B0203 , 952658 303-961-0362/303-B61-0373(FAX) Weld County Commission July 14, 1995 Page 2 COGA wants to be a constructive part of this process of achieving a workable method of resolving surface use conflicts. COGA's Code of Conduct (see attached) is reflective of that desire. We have taken an open view to the new regulatory atmosphere and believe we are cooperating with county governments and the COGCC in putting new rules in place. In return, we ask the County and others to be mindful of the economic contribution of the oil and gas industry at the local level. In particular, this industry generates tens of millions of dollars for the Weld County economy each year, including its contribution through ad valorem tax revenues. The County's policies should reflect this positive contribution by the oil and gas industry. For all of these reasons, COGA asks you to consider the enclosed comprehensive comments and proceed cautiously in this planning process. Sincerely, J n Long 11 resident 94-1995 JGS/kd cc: James Lochhead, Department of Natural Resources Richard Griebling, Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission Gale Norton, Attorney General 952658 Attachment A SPECIFIC COMMENTS A. AGRICULTURE (1) Agricultural Goal 5. The goal provides that a party who extracts minerals must do so in a way which preserves or minimizes impact on prime agricultural land. To the extent that the County would require an oil and gas operator to locate facilities or drill wells or perform mitigation in a way that is contrary to Colorado law and regulations, the provision would be preempted in its application. We also note that the provision appears to favor the owner of the surface estate over the mineral interest owner, contrary to Colorado case law.' The County should instead continue to include in the Proposed Plan a provision identical to the one in the Current Plan as follows: "Extraction of minerals shall be encouraged as long as the mining plan preserves or minimizes the removal of prime farmland." COGA and its member companies strive to achieve this goal as written and to respect the rights and needs of the agricultural community. COGA's Code of Conduct is reflective of this effort as are the COGCC Wattenburg Rules. We feel that our approach is working, and we do not see any need for the County to rewrite this goal. (2) Agricultural Policy 5.1. The policy provides that the County should 'See Frankfort Oil discussed in Attachment D. A-1 952658 encourage an oil and gas operator to coordinate drilling with seasonal production schedules. The schedule for drilling a well is a function of economics, technology, site-specific conditions and provisions in a lease or other agreement. The timing will also depend upon when the operator can obtain a permit from the COGCC and any County permits needed. The Companies object to the policy only to the extent that the County would deny a permit or require an operator to drill at a certain time that would be unduly inconvenient or cause an operator to lose a lease or revenues or incur additional expenses. (3) Reinstate Agricultural Goal. We request that the County include in the Proposed Plan a provision identical to the one in the Current Plan as follows: "Develop policies and regulations to permit development of oil, gas, sand, gravel, and other mineral resources on agricultural land."' B. OIL AND GAS MINERAL RESOURCE DEPOSITS (1) Preamble: Comments for the preamble to the section entitled "Oil and Gas Mineral Deposits" are as follows: (a) The third sentence is not clear with respect to what is meant by "greater" density of drilling. Spacing for various formations has been established by the COGCC based on geological and technical information regarding the amount of acreage that can be drained by one well from the particular formation. (b) We believe that the standard for preemption that is set forth in the fourth sentence is not entirely correct. The preamble refers to a standard of "an 2See Current Plan: Agricultural Goal numbered 5, page 25. A-2 952658 irreconcilable conflict" between a state and County regulation. The Bowen\Edwards case refers to cases that cite this standard as a general proposition; however, the standard that the Court refers to in that part of the decision that specifically discusses the application of the preemption doctrine with respect to statutes that cover oil and gas operations is whether or not there is "an operational conflict" between the state statutes and regulations and the County regulations. For this reason, the words "operational conflict" should be inserted in the place of the words "irreconcilable conflict."' (c) The County acknowledges in the fourth sentence that it may not "directly prohibit drilling." This statement does not go far enough in that the County cannot directly or indirectly prohibit drilling since to do so would frustrate the state purpose to maximize the production of oil and gas. For this reason the word "directly" should be deleted in the sentence. (d) The statement at the end of the preamble that "(s)upport facilities which do not depend on geology for locational decisions are subject to the unattentuated land use authority of the County" is an incorrect statement of the law. The definition of "oil and gas operations" in C.R.S. 34-60-103 (6.5) refers to a variety of support equipment and facilities which are integral to production of oil and gas and essential in order to produce the raw product and take it to market. Such facilities and equipment are subject to the same standard of preemption as oil and gas wells. (2) O.G.Goal 1: The statement in the goal should be clarified to recognize the rights of the mineral interest owner and to reflect the public interest in facilitating the 3See Attachment D, paragraph 2.C. A-3 952658 development of oil and gas resources in the State. Its application should also be limited to foreseeable future surface uses for which the surface owner has made application to the County. We suggest a rewrite as follows: Allow oil and gas exploration and production to occur in a manner which minimizes the impact to agricultural uses and the environment, recognizes the rights of the mineral developer and the public value of mineral developments, and reduces the conflicts between mineral development and current and known future surface uses. (3) O.G.Policy 1: The words "and accommodation" should be deleted in the policy in that Colorado has not adopted the accommodation doctrine by statute or in the case law.' (4) O.G.Policies 1.1 and 1.2: These policies taken together deal with the planning of future oil and gas activities and surface uses and the fact'that surface and mineral owners often do not know what each other's plans are. The State of Texas has dealt with this problem in its Mineral Use of Subdivided Land Act which we offer (Attachment A) for your consideration. That statute adopts the approach of using an independent agency as a type of "clearing house" for this information and we suggest that this approach be considered by the County. If the County policies remain as proposed in this form, we suggest that the word "accommodate" be deleted and the words "take into account" be inserted in its place.' Also, the words "oil and gas " should be inserted before the word "development" for clarification. 4See Attachment D, paragraph 2.A. 5See Attachment D paragraph 2.A. A-4 952658 • Finally, in Policy 1.2 the first sentence of the policy should be rewritten as follows: Oil and gas drilling activities should be planned to take into account current and known and planned future surface land uses unless such coordination would prohibit or have a significant cost impact on production. In addition, the last sentence of the policy should be deleted and the following sentence could be inserted in its place: Surface owners and mineral'owners should be encouraged to enter into agreements among themselves to work out a mutually acceptable plan for the development or disposition of the other estate at the time one or the other proposes development where the development might affect the right or ability of the other party to develop his estate. (5) O.G.Policy 1.3: If this means that the County will work directly with other agencies to develop these protective measures, then we agree. This is how the process should work. We do ask that the word "avoid" be changed to "minimize" since some impact, albeit minor, is inevitable. (6) 0.G.Policv 1.4: The policy statement does not include a definition of what the County includes in "oil and gas support facilities"; however, to the extent that the County would include oil and gas production facilities or facilities and equipment that are identified in the Act under the definition of "oil and gas operations" or that are necessary to produce the product and bring it to market, the County is preempted by State law to the same extent that it is preempted from the regulation of oil and gas drill sites and operations to produce oil A-5 952658 and gas. (7) O.G.Policy 1.5: Comments for the policy statement are as follows: (a) An operator should not be required to minimize interference with future land uses unless such uses are known and planned and have been identified by the surface owner to the County prior to the time that oil and gas operations are to commence. The Texas approach referenced above is relevant. An operator should not be forced to locate a drillsite or production related facilities based on surface development which may or may not take place in the future. Such a requirement could impair the vested property and contractual rights of both the surface owner and the owner of the mineral estate.' Also, to the extent that the County would deny an application for an operator to drill at a legal location or would require an operator to incur additional expenses to drill a well, the County would be preempted by State law which has as one of its goals to maximize the production of oil and gas within the State. (b) The second sentence of the policy statement with respect to the reclamation of well sites is preempted by State law and COGCC regulations which extensively cover the method and manner by which well sites are to be reclaimed. (c) The second to the last sentence of the policy statement which makes the failure to relocate pipelines and flowlines an unreasonable interference may be contrary to the wishes of the surface owner and may thereby be an impairment by the County of a contract between the surface owner and the mineral owner. Further, the County has no authority to elevate the matter to a nuisance or to create any right or legal cause of action in 'See Attachment D paragraph 2.A. A-6 952658 the event that an operator does not locate or remove pipelines or flowlines. (d) The requirement that an operator record the location of pipelines and flowlines is onerous, impractical and not necessary. It creates unnecessary administrative expense for an operator. The County should require at most, that an operator include future pipeline installations in the one-call locate system. We also suggest that the detail included in the policy is more appropriately included in a County regulation than in the Comprehensive Plan. (e) The County should adopt as a policy that it will in all cases recognize the private property rights of both the surface owner and mineral owner and their right to enter into agreements with respect to those property rights which will in all cases supersede any regulation or policy of the County. A-7 952658 ATTACHMENT B �T'-.. „gyre Is p ito '-, d O #ors• W t=E, W ,, -,, ..„, U A �� , U O tol - .� _ O U T Y U b C C d N . E c O U N y E N OU to •"' -C "a O -c ". -..! O Zs �` cCi a Q' �+ e.., U 'C o 0oc to C 3 C •� C o c; �, is O o "� p U •.. G U C .y O .. C O U• U y ¢l C r }► N 00 ,� p ti Z. U .....4 y E ° y O U O C V :r or -C O GS�S O CA U s • o c ° e o o o U 44 Q ~ m os O m S. ° E c •E c,"lbss to 0o U Q .N U ,� .0 c ° v 'Cs o `1V o'• _,E E • U 0 C t 01 C d -O U Ol y -- �: vj ° E E to o c C Zs v i 0 a y U U° o f y 4 O -a o y i oo y v C o rrC�D H y " y . U O C -C ^ 0 y '' V > Sa ''`6 o -¢ .a U ° o� o� s 3 c- h c E U F. is • cu cs y-he szt ... „zs CS U O +. U ,. y C C O "O Ca C C b. h 'CS U zz .O �. U U y h. 'CS ° y Q is E o Q c c y c E C m o cs n ° Q et) u ° • °p V ' O co o� E o t Q y E °. v .a > v .b '� E ct ' ° oa E o' o 0 3 > 'ts v o o t O UO y h 4 O 0 OU y tl - to q E Q, .- F+ W • • OO tio, ° '3 O',me ° . o 'OC 0 'a C U OrU ti -.0 E b CI O O y N .0 •-. °U •CS to r ZS .. O v Oyi >. C C O E.O ti h. 0 B-1 952658 0 F y ro 4 O 0 o a) co b -ro m a oer °ap o aa >71 o a m q y 0 b o F m O 0 o g p F°i •� U ro ••? C.) ro 0 ,°.+ C.) 0 •ate.+ ° 04-i raj O 0 Li Cli E A 'd .0 a) b re r >, N a a C.) o p �. mba ro CO o a o w 3 ° ° q N a) o >-, > m E - 0 a) •E g 0 o .b 0 8 ro Cl) y - a) a) C U b a) p o -d A U a C F g up p U cn F o C.) F " °' 3 a ° 'o o a ro - n " aoi -40 ° U ca ro O 00 O : ° � cF. N 'Y CD CO • c0 O •O O 4- ro ° hi a ° o end ro ° o ro rob a s g ro in N d p p 'd a ni 3 > °' -d C) ° ai p g..,--. 0 ro 0 a) 0 ro cnUU ao ° 3 ° 0 cD c6 m ri cn 78 .J b OD° aCC' 0 a F r-. 4.� ..... ° F VIV- U F co F+ q aj a) 3 O •F d o .a+ay g •� C" •O O ro 0 ° 0 `a > 'O CD •0 a) u) 0 Ct al C coC oci _ 'O y M in et.,) 4 *4 m ob O G O di Fi c00 ro CO c-+ . ,-+ O 0 a ro A +% 00 ^- o LI b ro w > a CD .� 'p a cn c�0 F a) 0 g v3,4 o ° > b r, 0 ° .b o co " to a) ,g a ro fed F • 44 42 -0 41 O ° ° ro b 0 4-0 ° ..G '-' a) F C- O o a o -p y 0 2 m E r.aa) w a% _, Go•°y..°,•. 0, � ° F q y a) o 0 o G ° a o (.4 o b ro -• H E ° •o Q Pd �. La oC7 Ca 0 t o G ob oa'b ro rt . ° ° a a)ca y a o G ..p o cn d • .9 E o.o o - ' +• a.. a, '�• i .4 0 a r. ,. 'J z a, 0 0 CO a > ° - H ao CD �' 'i0 ° •.. ro 0 °Ci CIO.F C O Q ti b .� W R c° C..) o alU ala ° •�, O N m B-2 952658 Attachment A SPECIFIC COMMENTS A. AGRICULTURE (1) Agricultural Goal 5. The goal provides that a party who extracts minerals must do so in a way which preserves or minimizes impact on prime agricultural land. To the extent that the County would require an oil and gas operator to locate facilities or drill wells or perform mitigation in a way that is contrary to Colorado law and regulations, the provision would be preempted in its application. We also note that the provision appears to favor the owner of the surface estate over the mineral interest owner, contrary to Colorado case law.' The County should instead continue to include in the Proposed Plan a provision identical to the one in the Current Plan as follows: "Extraction of minerals shall be encouraged as long as the mining plan preserves or minimizes the removal of prime farmland." COGA and its member companies strive to achieve this goal as written and to respect . the rights and needs of the agricultural community. COGA's Code of Conduct is reflective of this effort as are the COGCC Wattenburg Rules. We feel that our approach is working, and we do not see any need for the County to rewrite this goal. (2) Agricultural Policy 5.1. The policy provides that the County should 'See Frankfort Oil discussed in Attachment D. A-1 952658 encourage an oil and gas operator to coordinate drilling with seasonal production schedules. The schedule for drilling a well is a function of economics, technology, site-specific conditions and provisions in a lease or other agreement. The timing will also depend upon when the operator can obtain a permit from the COGCC and any County permits needed. The Companies object to the policy only to the extent that the County would deny a permit or require an operator to drill at a certain time that would be unduly inconvenient or cause an operator to lose a lease or revenues or incur additional expenses. (3) Reinstate Agricultural Goal. We request that the County include in the Proposed Plan a provision identical to the one in the Current Plan as follows: "Develop policies and regulations to permit development of oil, gas, sand, gravel, and other mineral resources on agricultural land."' B. OIL AND GAS MINERAL RESOURCE DEPOSITS (1) Preamble: Comments for the preamble to the section entitled "Oil and Gas Mineral Deposits" are as follows: (a) The third sentence is not clear with respect to what is meant by "greater" density of drilling. Spacing for various formations has been established by the COGCC based on geological and technical information regarding the amount of acreage that can be drained by one well from the particular formation. (b) We believe that the standard for preemption that is set forth in the fourth sentence is not entirely correct. The preamble refers to a standard of "an 2See Current Plan: Agricultural Goal numbered 5, page 25. A-2 • 952658 irreconcilable conflict" between a state and County regulation. The Bowen\Edwards case refers to cases that cite this standard as a general proposition; however, the standard that the Court refers to in that part of the decision that specifically discusses the application of the preemption doctrine with respect to statutes that cover oil and gas operations is whether or not there is "an operational conflict" between the state statutes and regulations and the County regulations. For this reason, the words "operational conflict" should be inserted in the place of the words "irreconcilable conflict."' (c) The County acknowledges in the fourth sentence that it may not "directly prohibit drilling." This statement does not go far enough in that the County cannot directly or indirectly prohibit drilling since to do so would frustrate the state purpose to maximize the production of oil and gas. For this reason the word "directly" should be deleted in the sentence. (d) The statement at the end of the preamble that "(s)upport facilities which do not depend on geology for locational decisions are subject to the unattentuated land use authority of the County" is an incorrect statement of the law. The definition of "oil and gas operations" in C.R.S. 34-60-103 (6.5) refers to a variety of support equipment and facilities which are integral to production of oil and gas and essential in order to produce the raw product and take it to market. Such facilities and equipment are subject to the same standard of preemption as oil and gas wells. (2) O.G.Goal 1: The statement in the goal should be clarified to recognize the rights of the mineral interest owner and to reflect the public interest in facilitating the 'See Attachment D, paragraph 2.C. A-3 952658 development of oil and gas resources in the State. Its application should also be limited to foreseeable future surface uses for which the surface owner has made application to the County. We suggest a rewrite as follows: Allow oil and gas exploration and production to occur in a manner which minimizes the impact to agricultural uses and the environment, recognizes the rights of the mineral developer and the public value of mineral developments, and reduces the conflicts between mineral development and current and known future surface uses. (3) O.G.Policv 1: The words "and accommodation" should be deleted in the policy in that Colorado has not adopted the accommodation doctrine by statute or in the case law.' (4) O.G.Policies 1.1 and 1.2: These policies taken together deal with the planning of future oil and gas activities and surface uses and the fact that surface and mineral owners often do not know what each other's plans are. The State of Texas has dealt with this problem in its Mineral Use of Subdivided Land Act which we offer (Attachment A) for your consideration. That statute adopts the approach of using an independent agency as a type of "clearing house" for this information and we suggest that this approach be considered by the County. If the County policies remain as proposed in this form, we suggest that the word "accommodate" be deleted and the words "take into account" be inserted in its place.5 Also, the words "oil and gas " should be inserted before the word "development" for clarification. 4See Attachment D, paragraph 2.A. 5See Attachment D paragraph 2.A. A-4 952658 Finally, in Policy 1.2 the first sentence of the policy should be rewritten as follows: Oil and gas drilling activities should be planned to take into account current and known and planned future surface land uses unless such coordination would prohibit or have a significant cost impact on production. In addition, the last sentence of the policy should be deleted and the following sentence could be inserted in its place: Surface owners and mineral owners should be encouraged to enter into agreements among themselves to work out a mutually acceptable plan for the development or disposition of the other estate at the time one or the other proposes development where the development might affect the right or ability of the other party to develop his estate. (5) O.G.Policy 1.3: If this means that the County will work directly with other agencies to develop these protective measures, then we agree. This is how the process should work. We do ask that the word "avoid" be changed to "minimize" since some impact, albeit minor, is inevitable. (6) O.G.Policy 1.4: The policy statement does not include a definition of what the County includes in "oil and gas support facilities"; however, to the extent that the County would include oil and gas production facilities or facilities and equipment that are identified in the Act under the definition of "oil and gas operations" or that are necessary to produce the product and bring it to market, the County is preempted by State law to the same extent that it is preempted from the regulation of oil and gas drill sites and operations to produce oil A-5 952658 and gas. (7) O.G.Policv 1.5: Comments for the policy statement are as follows: (a) An operator should not be required to minimize interference with future land uses unless such uses are known and planned and have been identified by the surface owner to the County prior to the time that oil and gas operations are to commence. The Texas approach referenced above is relevant. An operator should not be forced to locate a drillsite or production related facilities based on surface development which may or may not take place in the future. Such a requirement could impair the vested property and contractual rights of both the surface owner and the owner of the mineral estate.6 Also, to the extent that the County would deny an application for an operator to drill at a legal location or would require an operator to incur additional expenses to drill a well, the County would be preempted by State law which has as one of its goals to maximize the production of oil and gas within the State. (b) The second sentence of the policy statement with respect to the reclamation of well sites is preempted by State law and COGCC regulations which extensively cover the method and manner by which well sites are to be reclaimed. (c) The second to the last sentence of the policy statement which makes the failure to relocate pipelines and flowlines an unreasonable interference may be contrary to the wishes of the surface owner and may thereby be an impairment by the County of a contract between the surface owner and the mineral owner. Further, the County has no authority to elevate the matter to a nuisance or to create any right or legal cause of action in 6See Attachment D paragraph 2.A. A-6 952658 the event that an operator does not locate or remove pipelines or flowlines. (d) The requirement that an operator record the location of pipelines and flowlines is onerous, impractical and not necessary. It creates unnecessary administrative expense for an operator. The County should require at most, that an operator include future pipeline installations in the one-call locate system. We also suggest that the detail included in the policy is more appropriately included in a County regulation than in the Comprehensive Plan. (e) The County should adopt as a policy that it will in all cases recognize the private property rights of both the surface owner and mineral owner and their right to enter into agreements with respect to those property rights which will in all cases supersede any regulation or policy of the County. A-7 • 952658 11-? 4S° PRIMA OIL & GAS COMPANY Trinity Place 1801 Broadway, Suite 500 Denver, Colorado 80202 303-297-2300 Board of County Commissioners do Department of Planning Services Weld County Administrative Offices 1400 North 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 Attention: Monica Daniels-Mika Dear Commissioners: Prima Oil & Gas Companyhas received a copy of the proposed changes to the County's Comprehensive Plan and would like to offer the following comments. As you may be aware Prima is, and has been, one of the more active natural gas and oil operators in Weld County for a number of years. As such, Prima has poured tens of millions of dollars into the local economy and continues to do so, employing several dozen county residents either directly or indirectly. In addition, over the years Prima has paid the County millions of dollars in taxes which are used to support essential services--especially schools. During this time we have continually striven to be a good neighbor by being responsive to the needs of the owners of the various surface estates upon which we were operating while attempting to employ creative and innovative methods to minimize conflicts between competing rights. As a result, we believe that we have developed a reputation for reasonableness and fairness in dealing with other residents of the County. It is therefore a matter of some considerable concern to us that the tone of the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plans seems to be a significant shift away from the previous supportive, partnership type attitude to one of a more confrontational nature. Far from improving and better defining the relationships between the various real property estates, we firmly believe that the changes in the Comprehensive Plan as proposed will further confuse the issues facing all parties and simply exacerbate what has recently been a steadily improving situation between surface and mineral interest owners. In light of the foregoing, we are submitting this letter in support of the comments prepared by Molly Summerville of the law firm of Welborn, Sulivan, Meck & Tooley, P.C. on behalf of a 952658 number of companies who are active in the County. We believe these comments to be accurate, well thought out and representative of a more reasoned approach to any proposed changes in the Comprehensive Plan. We urge you incorporate these comments into any revision of the Comprehensive Plan which may be adopted. Sincerely, PRIMA OIL& GAS COMPANY G. Walter Lunsford Vice President, Land 952658 ATTACHMENT C CHAPTER 92. MINERAL USE OF SUBDIVIDED LAND Section 92.001. Purpose. 92.002. Definitions. j :. 92.003. Creation of Subdivision. 92.004. Hearing and Order by Railroad Commission. 92.005. Use of Operations Site. 92.006. Amendment, Replat, or Abandonment F 92.007. Municipal Authority. • t: ' Law Review Commentaries Predesignation of surface sites under chapter 92. Scott Lansdowne 48 Texas Bar L 400 (1985). WF_STIAW Electronic Research See WESTLAW Electronic Research Guide following the ?reface. . § 92.001. Purpose It is the finding of the legislature that the rapidly expanding population anti development of the cities and towns of this state and the concomitant nrcd fur adequate and affordable housing and suitable job opportunities call fcr iui'. and efficient utilization and development of all the land resources 3f th:, state, as well as the full development of all the minerals of this state. in cic. of that finding, it is the intent of the legislature that the mineral resources this state be fully and effectively exploited and that all land in this sta c be maintained and utilized to its fullest and most efficient use. It is the fleet r finding of this legislature that it is nececaary to exercise the authority tnc legislature pursuant to Article XVI, Section 59, of the Constitution of the Sri:: of Texas to assure proper and orderly development of both the mineral land resources of this state and that the enactment of this chapter will prote: the rights and welfare of the citizens of this crate Added by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 4009, ch. 624, § 1. eff. Aug. 29, 1983. , • Law Review Commentaries What to do about those pesky mineral inter- `:. ests. David K. Brooks, 48 Texas Bar J. 1262 (1985). Library References Mines and Minerals 2=+86. WESTLAW Topic No. 260. C.J.S.• • Mines and Minerals § 229 et seq. § 92.002. Definitions CHANGING CONCEPTS IN THE In this chapter. DOMINANCE OF THE MINERAL ESTATE John F. Welborn Paper 3 C-1 952658 SUBDIVIDED LAND § 92.003 Ch. 92 (1) "Operations site" means a surface area of two or more acres located in whole or in part within a qualified subdivision, designated on the subdivision plat, that an owner of a possessory mineral interest may use to explore for and produce minerals. (2) "Possessory mineral interest" means a mineral interest that includes the right to use the land surface for exploration and production of minerals (3) "Qualified subdivision" means a tract of land of not more than 640 acres: (A) that is Iocated in a county having a population in excess of 400,000, • or in a county having a population in excess of 140,000 that borders a county having a population in excess of 400,000 or located on a barrier t island; (B) that has been subdivided in a manner authorized by law by the I surface owners for residential, commercial, or industrial use; and i+ (C) that contains an operations site for each separate 80 acres within i the 640-acre tract and provisions for road and pipeline easements to allow use of the operations site. (4) "Barrier island" means an island bordering on the Gulf of Mexico and ;•c:tirely surrounded by water. A ..:ad by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 4009, ch. 624, § 1, eff. Aug. 29, 1983. Amended by a :::: 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 274, § 1, eff. June 11, 1987. 1' Historical and Statutory Notes e 1987 amendment in subd. (3) in the par. (C) substituted "an" for "two or more", ir.::'cnuctory language increased the maximum substituted "site" for "sites" in two places. and i act..age from 160 to 640 acres, in par. (A) inserted "for each separate 80 acres within the :1 acdcd"or located on a barrier island", and in 640-acre tract", and added subd. (4). ,, 1 Library References F: Mines and Minerals 4=86. WESTLAW Topic No. 260. CJS. Mines and Minerals § 229 et seq. 1 I § 92.003. Creation of Subdivision The surface owners of a parcel of land may create a qualified subdivision - on the land if a plat of the subdivision has been approved by the railroad - commission and filed with the clerk of the county in which the subdivision is ` to be located. Added by Acts 1983, 68th J'g., p. 4009, ch. 624, § 1 eff. Aug. 29, 1983. P Law Review Commentaries Annual survey of Texas law: Oil. gas, and minerals Eric T. Laity, 38 Southwestern LJ. (Tex.) 195 (1984). C-2 . • 952658 _ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. cis § 92.111.13 OIL AND bas Library References Mines and Minerals 4=92.23. WIFSTLAW Topic No. 260. C.JS. Mines and Minerals § 230. § 92-004. Hearing and Order by Railroad Commission (a) The railroad commission shall adopt rules governing the contents of application for a qualified subdivision. An application must be accomp by a plat of the subdivision showing the applicant's proposed location d operations sites and road and pipeline easements. (b) The railroad commission shall, on notice to the applicant and owners d possessory mineral interests, hold a hearing on the application at which tSc commission sh211 consider the adequacy of the number and location ci operations sites and road and pipeline easements. At the hearing on tiv application, evidence may be presented by the applicant and the owners c possessory mineral interests. After considering the evidence, the commis (r. shall approve, reject, or amend the application to ensure that the mine resources of the subdivision are fully and effectively exploited. The appii‘ari or the owner of the possessory mineral interest may appeal the order of t railroad commission as provided by law. Added by 70s 1983, Leg.,68th 2 eg§p. 00 4009, ch.e 1987.624, , eft Aug. 29, 1983. Amender: A2 Historical and Statutory Notes The 1987 amendment in the third sentence of sabsec. (b) substituted "shall' for "may". § 92.005. Use of Operations Site (a) An owner of a possessory mineral interest within a qualified stir: sion may use only the surface contained in designated operations sites exploration, development, and production of minerals and the designar_ easements only as nececv ry to adequately use the operations sites. (b) The owner of the possessory mineral interest may drill wells or ex:.:- well bores from an operations site or from a site outside of the qua! subdivision under the surface of other parts of the qualified subdivision :- operations do not unreasonably interfere with the use of the surface o; :- qualified subdivision outside the operations site. the third anniver : (c) This section ceases to apply to a subdivision if, by of the date on which the order of the commission becomes final: (1) the surface owner has not commenced actual construction of roan_ utilities within the qualified subdivision; and (2) a lot within the qualified subdivision has not been sold to a t;:- Added by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 4009, ch. 624, § 1, eff. Aug. 29, 1983. Amender - Acts, 1987, 70th Leg.. ch. 274, § 3, eff. June 11, 1987. C-3 952658 SUBDIVIDED LAND § 92_007 Ch. 92 Historical and Statutory Notes The 1987 amendment in salaam. (b) inserted "unreasonably. Law Review Commentaries Aar.ual survey of Terms law: Oil, gas, and an:writs. Eric T. Laity, 38 Southwestern LJ. ,Tex.) 195 (1984). Library References \r: and Minerals e=92.16. ._.:'.AW Topic No. 260. u...s. Mines and Minerals § 229. § 92.(i06, Amendment, Replat, or Abandonment .\ti or any portion of a qualified subdivision may be amended, replotted, or abandoned by the surface owner. An amendment or replat, however, may ::ot ,:r•'r, diminish, or impair the usefulness of an operations site or appurte- nant road or pipeline easement unless the amendment or replat is approved by the commission in accordance with Section 92.003 of this code. tided by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 4009, ch. 624, § 1, eff. Aug. 29, 1983. Amended by Ads t9v7, 70th li-g, di. 274, § 4, eff. June 11, 1987. Historical and Statutory Notes ^.r tag7 amendment insetted the require- impair the usefulness of a site, road, or ease- art that an amendment or replat may not ment. Library References Mines and Minerals ega9212. A I tiTL.W Topic No. 260. C 1 S. Mines and Minerals § 229. 92.007. Municipal Authority This chapter does not affect the authority of a municipality to require P09roval of subdivision plats or the authority of a home-rule city to regulate s proration and development of mineral interests within its boundaries. red by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 4009, ch. 624, § 1, eff. Aug. 29, 1983. library References '•seen and Minerals 4=92.8. N n�Topic No. 260. ‘; and Minerals § 229 et seq. C-4 • 952658 Attachment D LEGAL COMMENTS A. In Colorado, the mineral owner owns the right to use as much of the surface estate as is reasonably necessary to extract the minerals. Colorado has not adopted the accommodation doctrine either by statute or in its case law. The rule of law in Colorado is that a mineral owner or lessee owns the right, without further payment, to use as much of the surface estate as may be reasonably necessary for his operations.' A mineral owner may also be liable to the surface owner for damages to the extent that he has used the surface estate in an unreasonable manner.' Taking these two principles together, a mineral owner may use the surface without paying compensation, but only the amount of the surface which he reasonably requires, and if he is negligent in the manner in which he conducts his operations, he is liable to the surface owner for damages. Some states have adopted a rule (sometimes called the "accommodation doctrine") that a mineral owner must not only make only reasonable use of the surface estate, but he must also implement an operating plan for the use of the surface that makes reasonable accommodation, so far as economically and technologically feasible, for all surface uses and • improvements that exist at the time of the proposed development.' Colorado, however, has adhered to the common law and has not adopted the accommodation doctrine either by statute or as a part of its case law. 'See Frankfort Oil Company v. Abrams, 413 P.2d 190 (Colo. 1966). See also Gerrity Oil & Gas Corporation v. Magness, Case No. 92CV808, Division IV, Weld County District Court. 2Supra. 3See Martz, Clyde O., The New Model Surface Use and Mineral Development Accommodation Act D-1 • 952658 B. The County is preempted by State law from regulating or limiting oil and Ras operations based on the potential that the surface estate may or may not be used in some fashion at some time in the future. Certain specific goals and policies in the Proposed Plan that we have identified in the Specific Comments require the County to take into consideration what is described as "future surface land uses" when it evaluates the location of oil and gas facilities. We believe that the County can not deny an oil and gas operator a permit or require an operator to incur additional costs to install facilities based on future surface development that the County or the surface owner believes may occur. 1. The County is preempted by State law from either refusing to allow an operator to locate a drillsite in a legal location approved by the COGCC or imposing additional burdensome obligations on an operator because of potential future land uses. The issue of whether the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Act ("Act") preempts all regulation of oil and gas operations by local governments was decided, at least, in part, by the Colorado Supreme Court in Lundvall Bros., Inc. v. Voss' involving the home rule city of Greeley and in Bowen/Edwards Assoc.. Inc. v. Board of County Comm'rs.5 involving regulations by La Plata County. In the Voss case, the Court held that a home rule city may enact local land use regulations applicable to oil and gas operations within the city; however, the local jurisdiction was preempted from adopting regulations that were in conflict with state 4Lundvall Bros., Inc. v. Voss, 812 P.2d 693 (16 Colo.App. 1990), affd. Voss v. Lundvall Bros.. Inc., 831 P.2d 1061 (Colo. 1992). 5Bowen/Edwards Assoc., Inc. v. Board of County Comm'rs., 812 P.2d 656 (Colo.App. 1990), affd in part and rev'd in part, 831 P.2d 1045 (Colo. 1992). D-2 952658 law and regulations or that frustrated the state goal of efficient and fair development of production as set forth in the Act. In the Bowen/Edwards case, the Court held that there is a state interest in the uniform regulation of oil and gas operations, but that there is not necessarily an implied legislative intent to totally preempt all aspects of a county's statutory authority to regulate land use within its jurisdiction. The Court was not precise in either case in articulating the extent to which local land use regulations could apply to oil and gas activities, and it did not in either case establish precise guidelines to determine questions of preemption with respect to land use matters. It is clear from the cases, however, that there can be no local regulation of the technical aspects of oil and gas operations since the Court in Bowen/Edwards expressly approved such a reading of an earlier case, Obome v. Board of County Commissioners.' The Court in the Oborne case further found that the Board of County Commissioners of Douglas County could not impose conditions to grant a permit for oil and gas operations with respect to matters for which the Act had granted specific jurisdiction to the COGCC. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission ("COGCC") is charged by statute to establish drilling units for pools of oil and gas from a common source of supply.' Thus, where a particular drillsite is to be located is determined by rules promulgated by the COGCC for the spacing for the particular formation into which the well is targeted. The COGCC promulgates spacing orders in order to fulfill its statutory charge to safeguard and protect the correlative rights of owners and producers in a common pool of oil and gas and 6764 P.2d 397 (Colo.App. 1981). See Bowen/Edwards Assoc. v. Board of County Comm'rs., supra, at 1060. 'See C.R.S. 34-60-116. D-3 • 952658 i to protect public and private interests against waste.' The Act also indicates an intent to allow each oil and gas pool to produce up to the maximum efficient rate of production.' Where a legal drill site is not drilled, waste may occur within the meaning of the Act since recoverable oil and gas may be left in the ground. Correlative rights of owners of the oil and gas for the undrilled acreage could also be affected because adjacent wells may drain product in which they have an ownership interest. Any attempt by the County to require an operator to forgo the drilling of a well at a legal location or to drill outside a particular drilling window is, thus, preempted by state law because spacing and well location is a technical matter over which the COGCC has exclusive jurisdiction and because the state has granted specific statutory authority to the COGCC with respect to the location of wells.' The County also may not impose additional costly burdens on an operator to drill a well or with respect to the location of oil and gas production facilities since the result could be that the operator may be forced to not drill a particular well. In such a case, product would be left in the ground, correlative rights could be affected, and the goal of the state to maximize the production of oil and gas would be defeated. 2. The County is prohibited from impairing contractual rights and obligations between the mineral owner and the surface owner and cannot impose requirements on an operator based on its separate view of the compatibility of oil and gas operations sSee C.R.S. 34-60-102. 'See C.R.S. 34-60-102(1). 10See Oborne v. Board of County Commissioners, supra; and Bowen/Edwards Assoc.. Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners, supra. D-4 952658 and future surface development and its vision of development that should occur on the surface estate in the future. Both the Colorado and United States Constitutions prohibit states from passing laws that impair contracts. Article II, Section 11 of the Colorado Constitution says: No ex post facto law, nor law impairing the obligation of contracts, or retrospective in is operation, or making any irrevocable grant of special privileges. . . shall be passed by the general assembly. Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution says: No State shall. . . pass any. . . law impairing the obligations of contracts,. . . Case law provides, however, that the prohibition against the impairment of contracts is not absolute and that private contracts may be modified through a legitimate exercise of the police power to protect the public welfare. The Montana Supreme Court in the case Western Energy Company v. Genie Land Company" cited the United States Supreme Court case, Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co.," for the test to apply to determine whether a state law impermissibly impaired private contract rights. The Court considered whether a state law substantially impaired the contractual relationship, whether there was a significant and legitimate public purpose for the statute, and whether the adjustment in rights between the 11737 P.2d 478 (1987). 12459 U.S. 400, 412, 413; 102 S.Ct. 697, 704-705, 74 L.Ed.2d 569, 581-582 (1983). D-5 952658 contracting parties was based upon reasonable conditions that were appropriate in light of the public purpose. We believe that the County cannot show an overriding public purpose that would allow it to interfere with a contractual agreement between the mineral owner and the owner of the surface estate with respect to the location of oil and gas facilities." Instead, the location of oil and gas facilities is a matter that must be left exclusively to any agreement that can be reached between the operator and the party who owns the surface at the time that the operations are proposed. The County would impair the contractual rights of both the mineral owner and the surface owner to the extent it would require an operator to locate facilities in a specific area or that it would refuses to allow facilities to be located in a legal location because of what the County plans for the surface estate at some time in the future. C. The Proposed Plan references an incorrect standard tb apply to determine whether there is a conflict between a State regulation and a County regulation. The standard for preemption set forth in the Proposed Plan in the preamble to the section of the Plan entitled "Oil and Gas Mineral Resource Deposits" is that the conflict between a state and a county regulation must be "irreconcilable" before the county regulation is preempted by state law. This is not a correct statement of applicable law. The Bowen/Edwards case refers to cases that cite this standard as a general proposition; however, the standard that the Court refers to in that part of the decision that specifically discusses the application of the preemption doctrine with respect to statutes that cover oil and gas operations is whether there is "an operational conflict" between the state statutes and the 13See Martz, Clyde 0., The New Model Surface Use and Mineral Development Accommodation Act, supra. D-6 952658 county regulations.14 Industry has consistently taken the position that local regulations are preempted by state law (including the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Act and COGCC regulations) for matters in which 1) the Act and the COGCC have comprehensively regulated the field; 2) the local regulations are more stringent than COGCC regulations on the same subject; and 3) the local jurisdiction has adopted a regulation which is identical to the state regulation at least to the extent that the regulation would be enforced by the two jurisdictions in a different manner. 14See Bowen/Edwards Assoc., Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners, pp. 1059, 1060. D-7 952658 1-25 MIXLU USL Di: vl- Lk ii tAU \I 1 r . IIL. CONCEPTUAL LAND USE PLAN • in N MULLIGAN � 1. 8• IKE ACJW111 A LDR—Low Denali), Residential . MDR—Medium Density Residential \:• \�.., .1 MDR—High Density Realdenllal LLL `� MH —Mobile Homes LDR / XL-y ) '• �i Y1�11J () C —Commercial • R —Rica. �4 ,U 1tYPU • I —Industrial JCOLO 66 RT —Race Track -� in OS —Open Space t , Yi C(ZOrD�E O U fbk. d •i '1. i r X, I X a rc 3' SANROR 6 �� PES ) • WCR 28 taP2 LDR • ' RT Ilf\ x � LDR CALKINS 1 • 3 ' LDR I•• •"?‘„....•• I��I ' / 05 CC •_ • .—Jt C C WCR 24 • • I 7 OS 1= ^, C �'�r OS ��" ',DR ) MDR i 1 !., LDR MH r J . s ` `' 2 1 LDR/ j oI LDR I '/ LDR � `- r 1 WCR 22 I n 9 r a . . W :> 2. 1 1� 3 N _I \: �t �Gw`�IC�I f a000 2000 0 4000 •��IIIII 952658 CC Al r at rcr1 �t. (Main cS'anitation 7 )is.t'tlat 515 Kimbark Street (cSaint cSan,) Suite 109 (7 Pp np xxxxxii5Oedcixmxec (303)lion£ _Courant,CD8050, 303 776-957a May 1, 1995 Board of County Commissioners Weld County P. 0. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Re: Proposal for the Elimination of Area North of WCR-28 from the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area Dear County Commissioners: Approximately ten years ago, Weld County and The Colorado Department of Health advised landowners that there would be no further development along the I-25 and Highway 119 corridors without a municipal type wastewater collection and treatment system to assure protection of the surface and groundwater resources in the area. There followed a series of landowner meetings leading to the organization of St. Vrain Sanitation District to address this requirement. A Service Plan was submitted to and approved by Weld County as part of the Section 32, C.R.S. , Special District creation process. This Service Plan defined a "service area" which was and is the basis for capacity and financial planning. The District thereupon issued General Obligation Bonds, Series 1987, for $3,545,000.00 to construct the core collection and treatment facilities. About this same time, the landowners of the area proposed and Weld County adopted the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area in its Comprehensive Plan. This debt was then refinanced in 1991 in the amount of $4,465,000.00. The I-25 Mixed Use Development Area provided the St. Vrain Sanitation District a thoughtful long-range land use plan which would allow reasonable development while protecting the environment. The District's long-range plan and investment were made with the understanding and expectation that the Comrehensive Plan would be followed. Landowners in the area relied and planned similarly. This District's public investment is secured by the full faith and credit of all property within the District. Debt repayment is predicated upon the collection of connection fees throughout the service area, with property tax revenues providing coverage for periods of too little development. Debt payments extend over twenty years, increasing each year from $340,938.00 to $497,970.00 in the anticipation of increasing development over time. A total of $9,314,926.00 is to be paid in interest and principal . 952658 Board of County Commissioners May 1, 1995 Page 2 Certain locations within the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area have the potential for early development to meet the needs of early year debt repayment, while other areas will not develop for years. One of these early development areas is the northern tier of the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area. It needs to remain in the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area to contribute to the financial viability of the District. Portions of this area have already been annexed by the Town of Mead and permitted to develop utilizing septic systems. This has already been a significant deviation from the long-range plan and detrimental to the District and its property owners. We believe that when public investment has been made based on the County's approval of the District's Service Plan, including its financial plan and corresponding service area, the plan needs to be carried out. Accordingly, to help ensure the financial integritx of St. Vrain Sanitation District, as well as ensure the highest standards of public health and environmental stewardship, it is strongly urged and requested that the northern tier of the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area be maintained in its present configuration. Very truly yours, ST. VRAIN SANITATION, DISTRICTrWA By GR llace . Grant resident 952658 ANDERSON. • F A R M S" AND CATTLE COMPANY 3042 Weld County Rd. 28 Home(303)772-8509 Longmont,CO 80504 James E. Anderson Office(303)776-8628 May 9, 1995 Board of County Ccmnissioners Weld County P. O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Re: Proposed Amendment to the Weld County Comprehensive Plan Deleting Territory North of WCR-28 from the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area Dear County Coanissicners: My family has farmed and raised cattle directly west of Interstate 25 an both sides of Weld County Road 28 since 1911. Our property is presently within the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area. We have also supported the creation of St. Vrain Sanitation District as we want any future development to be of the highest quality, including being served by a proper wastewater collection and treatment system. • We are particularly concerned about Section 27, which lies north of WCR-28, of which we own the south half, and Foster Reservoir. It is an especially beautiful area with its south and west facing slopes and magnificent view of the Rockies and Foster Reservoir. We do not want to see the area developed in an environmentally unsound manner. We are concerned that development on septic systems night occur, as allowed by the Town of Mead around Mulligan Reservoir directly to the North. This practice will certainly lead to the future pollution of the reservoir and degradation of the area. We feel that Weld County will require a much higher standard of land planning and control, and therefore wish that the area remain in the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area. At such tine as a high quality and proper land development opportunity presents itself, and at such time as the character of the area changes to the degree that continued farming no longer makes sense, we want to be able to see this land develop in a high quality and responsible manner. We prefer to remain within the jurisdiction of Weld County rather than be forced to annex to Mead in order to accomplish that. Removing our property, and that north of it, from the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area would deny us that option. Choice Colorado Beef 952658 Board of County Commissioners May 9, 1995 Page 2 Accordingly, we hereby request that the northern tier of the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area be retained in its present configuration. This does not deny Mead fran annexing into the area with willing landowners, as it has done, but it provides the alternative for responsible land owners to develop within the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area under the land use stewardship of Weld County. Very truly yours, S/ .lantt: E. AWelPrson James E. Anderson • • 952658 ' cRogett 1 cSLe9tist =LD COU`,<TY 6999 'oa csttaet �crzvcs, eolp otado 80229 ., a ,, 9: 32 CLEF„? TI' ,. May 30, 1995 Weld County Commissioners Mr. George E. Baxter, District 1 Ms. Constance L. Harbert, District 2 WELD COUNTY PLANNING Ms. Barbara J. Kirkmeyer, District 3 Mr. Dale K. HallrS JUN 9 1995 Mr. W.H. "Bill" WebsterIF.lnl�t 1p r 'i " 915 Tenth Street Greeley, CO 80631 Ladies and Gentleman; The St. Vrain Sanitation District came into being because of the vision of a number of local land owners who realized a first-class business and industrial community could not continue to grow unless a sanitation district was put in place. Many, many hours of time have been spent in developing the district, funding the district, and managing the district. I happen to be one of those people who have been involved in the district since it's inception and am well aware of the hardships that the district and its members have had to accept because of growing pains indicative to such a district. We are making tremendous headway and look forward to a financially sound district being able to provide adequate service to the community. It is my understanding that the county is considering a revision to the Weld County Comprehensive plan which encompasses a portion of the district. Such action may greatly affect the economics of the district which I feel is not appropriate. I feel the future of the area is predicated on an economically viable sanitation district which needs the continuing growth of the Del Camino area in order to survive. I have a fiduciary responsibility to the St. Vrain Sanitation District to express my concern. Additionally, I am a land owner in the area. The relationship with Weld county has been very positive. I therefore ask that you give this matter your full consideration. Sincerely, ii/e/ rt " eg-1 file:weldcoun. pg4 " copy: Lee Lawson 952658 coax-,.e.:-). Oi ,--n uupt REES & COMPANY 925 W. KENVON AVE., UNIT 17 • P.O. Box 1764 . 'yra ENGLEWOOO, CO 801 50-1 764 ) fr:; (303) 762-1254 • FAX (303) 762-8226 • July 7, 1995 Mr. Bill Webster Weld County Commissioner P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO. 80632 RE: 1-25 Mixed Use Development Area Dear Mr. Webster, It has come to my attention that the Weld County Planning Department has presented a program to delete land north of WCR 28 from the 1-25 Mixed Use Development Area. As a land owner in the area, I feel this is a mistake. It will deter growth and add additional costs to development in the area. Water and sewer lines have to be extended to the area now for development to occur. If the area is excluded from the Mixed Use Development Area, who would be willing to extend the utilities needed for growth and/or development. If it is the County's intention to control development in the area, this can best be done by you and the other commissioners. The county will not allow any development now in this area without sewer. This in itself has deterred development, because the sewer is presently a million dollars away. The only other alternative is to annex land into Mead and it appears the Town recently adopted a no growth posture. I am against the exclusions of the subject land from the 1-25 Mixed Use Development Area and would appreciate it if you would make my thoughts known to the other commissioners. My land is in the Town of Mead. I feel that for it and the surrounding land to develop it has to be available. Deleted from the Mixed Use Area would make it all but impossible to get back in the MUA and therefore difficult to develop. R rds ette„ Jim Re s General Partner 25-66, Ltd. Land Owner in SWC of 1-25 and Cob. Highway 66 Commercial, Industrial & Investment Real Estate 952658 Welborn Sullivan Meek & Tooley, P.C. Attorneys at Law 1775 Sherman Street Suite 1800 Denver,Colorado 80203 Telephone 303-830-2500 Facsimile 303-832-2366 July 14, 1995 John F.Welborn Stephen J.Sullivan John F.Meck Keith D.Tooley *Kander P.Jones Monica Daniels-Mika Molly Sommerville Board of County Commissioners Karen Ostrander-Krug Marla E.Valdez c/o Department of Planning Services Brian S.Tooley Scott L.sells Weld County Administrative Offices Tamara Barnes 1400 North 17th Avenue Of Counsel Greeley, Colorado 80631 Herbert F.Welborn Special Counsel Hugh V.Schaefer COMMENTS ON WELD COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE "Admitted in New York and Texas Only (Proposed Draft Dated May 2, 1995) These comments are submitted for consideration by the members of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County in response to the June 28, 1995 letter from Monica Daniels- Mika concerning the proposed update of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan dated May 2, 1995 (" Proposed Plan Update"). These comments are directed at those provisions which apply to oil and gas operations in Weld County, and they constitute the response of certain oil and gas companies and trade organizations that include Amoco Production Company, Associated Natural Gas, Inc., Basin Exploration, Inc., Freedom Energy, Inc., HS Resources, Inc., North American Resources Company, Prima Energy Corporation, Snyder Oil Corporation and Vessels Oil & Gas Company (the "Companies") and the Colorado Oil and Gas Association ("COGA"). 926 <..t• infer/on recycled paper - ' 1. INTRODUCTION The County has statutory authority' to adopt a master plan for the physical development of unincorporated lands within the County. Since the Comprehensive Plan is the model according to which the County is directed to make future land use decisions, the Companies and COGA are especially concerned about the tenor and substance of some of the goals and policies in the Proposed Plan Update that would affect oil and gas operations in the County. A comparison between the current Comprehensive Plan dated March 24, 1992 ("Current Plan") and the Proposed Plan Update seems to reflect a shift by the County away from support for oil and gas operations anf from a recognition of the benefits that the oil and gas industry has provided to the County. While the Proposed Plan Update demonstrates a tolerance for oil and gas operations, the interests of the mineral owner seem to be secondary to development of the surface, particularly with respect to agricultural lands. For example, the agricultural goals in the Current Plan encourage the County to "(d)evelop policies and regulations to permit" the development of oil and gas on agricultural land. The Proposed Plan Update, however, includes a requirement that mineral resources may only be extracted in a way that preserves or minimizes the impact on prime agricultural land. It also eliminates the policy that the County will develop regulations to permit the development of oil and gas resources on agricultural lands. If this apparent shift in the attitude of the County concerning oil and gas operations is implemented, it will be in derogation of the vested rights of mineral owners in the County. Legally, there is no justification for such a step. Practically and politically it is without basis as well. The oil and gas industry generates significant revenues from ad valorem taxes alone. 1C.R.S. 30-28-106. 7-C:\WP60\WELD\WELDCOMP 2 July 14, 1995(3:37pm) 952658 More importantly, the Companies and COGA respect the rights of surface owners and continually strive to go beyond minimum legal requirements in dealing with conflicting surface uses. We attach Specific Comments on some of the goals in the Proposed Plan Update (Attachment A), the COGA Code of Conduct (Attachment B) and a copy of the Texas Mineral Use of Subdivided Land Statute (Attachment C) which we feel is relevant, and a brief of some of the more key legal issues (Attachment D). We ask you to consider as well our comments on the March 3, 1994 and the August 25, 1994 Drafts of Oil and Gas Regulations proposed by the County. Thank you for our efforts and for this opportunity to comment. Welborn Sullivan Meck & Tooley, P.C. By. � - ��1�1ti— John F. Welborn Molly Sommerville Attorneys for the Companies and COGA 7-C:\WP60\WELD\WELDCOMP 3 July l4, 1995(3:47pm) 952658 ' PRIMA OIL & GAS COMPANY Trinity Place 1801 Broadway,Suite 500 Denver, Colorado 80202 303-297-2300 Board of County Commissioners c/o Department of Planning Services Weld County Administrative Offices 1400 North 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 Attention: Monica Daniels-Mika Dear Commissioners: Prima Oil& Gas Company has received a copy of the proposed changes to the County's Comprehensive Plan and would like to offer the following comments. As you may be aware Prima is, and has been, one of the more active natural gas and oil operators in Weld County for a number of years. As such, Prima has poured tens of millions of dollars into the local economy and continues to do so, employing several dozen county residents either directly or indirectly. In addition, over the years Prima has paid the County millions of dollars in taxes which are used to support essential services--especially schools. During this time we have continually striven to be a good neighbor by being responsive to the needs of the owners of the various surface estates upon which we were operating while attempting to employ creative and innovative methods to minimize conflicts between competing rights. As a result, we believe that we have developed a reputation for reasonableness and fairness in dealing with other residents of the County. It is therefore a matter of some considerable concern to us that the tone of the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plans seems to be a significant shift away from the previous supportive, partnership type attitude to one of a more confrontational nature. Far from improving and better defining the relationships between the various real property estates, we firmly believe that the changes in the Comprehensive Plan as proposed will further confuse the issues facing all parties and simply exacerbate what has recently been a steadily improving situation between surface and mineral interest owners. In light of the foregoing, we are submitting this letter in support of the comments prepared by Molly Summerville of the law firm of Welborn, Sulivan, Meck& Tooley, P.C. on behalf of a 952658 number of companies who are active in the County. We believe these comments to be accurate, well thought out and representative of a more reasoned approach to any proposed changes in the Comprehensive Plan. We urge you incorporate these comments into any revision of the Comprehensive Plan which may be adopted. Sincerely, PRIMA OIL& GAS COMPANY G. Walter Lunsford Vice President, Land 952655 REES & COMPANY 925 W. KENVON AVE., UNIT 17 • P.O. Box 1764 ENGLEWOOD, CO 80 1 50-1 764 _ 13 (303) 762-1254 • FAx (303) 762-8226 ' - li . I July 7, 1995 Mr. Bill Webster Weld County Commissioner P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO. 80632 RE: 1-25 Mixed Use Development Area Dear Mr. Webster, It has come to my attention that the Weld County Planning Department has presented a program to delete land north of WCR 28 from the 1-25 Mixed Use Development Area. As a land owner in the area, I feel this is a mistake. It will deter growth and add additional costs to development in the area. Water and sewer lines have to be extended to the area now for development to occur. If the area is excluded from the Mixed Use Development Area, who would be willing to extend the utilities needed for growth and/or development. If it is the County's intention to control development in the area, this can best be done by you and the other commissioners. The county will not allow any development now in this area without sewer. This in itself has deterred development, because the sewer is presently a million dollars away. The only other alternative is to annex land into Mead and it appears the Town recently adopted a no growth posture. I am against the exclusions of the subject land from the 1-25 Mixed Use Development Area and would appreciate it if you would make my thoughts known to the other commissioners. My land is in the Town of Mead. I feel that for it and the surrounding land to develop it has to be available. Deleted from the Mixed Use Area would make it all but impossible to get back in the MUA and therefore difficult to develop. R7rds Jim Re s General Partner 25-66, Ltd. Land Owner in SWC of 1-25 and Colo. Highway 66 Commercial, Industrial & Investment Real Estate 952658 (C ; /36ccc5 AL ) a/R 71uttleApplegate,inc. Consultants for Land, Mineral and Water Development May 24, 1995 Ms. Monica D. Mika Weld County Department of Planning Services 1400 North 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Comprehensive Plan Dear Monica: Thank you for sending me the draft copy of the May 5, 1995 update of the Comprehensive Plan. Recently, I had time to review the Commercial Mineral Resource Section starting on page 6-5. Generally it looks good and I think most members of our industry would agree with it. I have several comments which I hope will be a benefit to you and the County Commissioners in your deliberation. Policy 4.5 talks about the location of batch plants and processing equipment. I think this policy is too specific and cannot take into account the shape or the physical features of the property. I think it is much better to use a performance standard for the location of this equipment, similar to Policy 4.1. In fact, I think Policy 4.5 can be eliminated because it is adequately covered in 4.1. Policies 4.8 and 4.9 require the County to ensure and enforce federal and state standards. A federal standard could be on wetland law and a state standard could be on water rights. I believe it is imprudent for the County to get involved in the identification and enforcement of federal and state laws. Weld County has neither the expertise nor the staff to properly analyze, monitor, and enforce all of these standards from the state and federal level. From counties we often find poorly worded conditions on permits regarding federal and state standards which are in fact in conflict with federal and state law. I strongly suggest the words federal and state be eliminated from these two policies. WELD COUNTY PLHraid;:u MAY 2 5 1995 ECEIVE 11990 Grant Street, Suite 410• Denver, Colorado 80233• (303) 452-6611 • Fax (303) 452-275952658 Ms. Monica D. Mika Weld County Department of Planning Services May 24, 1995 Page 2 Policies 5.2 and 5.6 appear to be lifted from the Division of Minerals & Geology Rules and Regulations for mining. By State law the DMG has absolute authority to regulate reclamation. Paraphrasing and double regulating reclamation will only introduce confusion into the review process. Therefore, I suggest 5.2 and 5.6 be eliminated. I would also like to further review other sections of the Comprehensive Plan. Cordially, TUTTLE APPLEGATE, INC. Ga J. uttle GJ sjr cc: File #92-214 B:1911741morcica3.!!r 952658 L-&W Partnership 1011 WCR 7 - '-` `LoPgtnibnt, Colorado 80504 Phone 535-0727 May 19, 1995 CLEFT; Mr. Dale K. Hall AT-LARGE P/O Box 758 Greely, Colorado 80631 SUBJECT PROPERTY: SW CORNER of 1-25 FRONTAGE RD. & WCR 28 Dear Mr. Hall, The purpose of this letter is to ask why there is a proposal for the elimination of property north of WCR 28 from the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area. We are confused as to why, and urge you to reconsider this proposal. We learned on May 18, 1995, that our property was being eliminated from the Mixed Use Development Area in the proposed revision to the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. We were never contacted regarding the elimination of our land; therefore, we did not have the opportunity to voice our opinion regarding this matter. The elimination of land north of WCR 28 puts land owners at a considerable disadvantage for development of their property. In our case, our property was purchased with the intent of development. At the time this property was purchased, it was more desirable because it was located in the 1-25 Mixed Use Development Plan. Our property is located at an area that we believe would make development more desirable (near 1-25/Highway 66 junction). Our assurances that this land would be developed responsibly, without the cost and time associated with amending the WeldCounty Comprehensive Plan, is that it is already in this plan. We want our property to remain in the 1-25 Mixed Use Development Area. Proceeding with this action would be a financial detriment to us because developers would have less incentive or motivation to purchase or develop our property without the tax incentive currently available in the MUD and Enterprise Zone. Subsequently, this places a financial loss on our investment for commercial/industrial sales purposes. Additionally, this poses as a potential loss of revenue for Weld County from any income that may be generated in the future. We would strongly urge that no land be deleted from the 1-25 Mixed Use Development Area without the land owner petitioning for exclusion. This would be the reverse of requirements necessary for inclusion into the Comprehensive Plan. A second, but definitely less desirable alternative would be to hold hearings before both the Planning and Zoning Commissions on the single issue alone, of elimination of property north of WCR 28. This would require notification to the land owners and any other affected parties so that they could present their views. Again, we want our property to remain the in the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area. I would deeply appreciate you reconsideration of deleting our property from the 1-25 Mixed Use Development Area. Sincerely, Sincerely, � jai PI ANNINIG LeRoy Louwagie, Mgr. Partner Michael OF:Wlliams,'Gen: 'Partner '. /AY 2 5 1995 �� nte«� 952658 Hello