HomeMy WebLinkAbout20143995.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Administration
Building, Hearing Room, 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado. This meeting was called to order by Chair,
Jason Maxey, at 1:30 pm.
Roll Call.
Present: Benjamin Hansford, Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Jason Maxey, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce
Smock, Michael Wailes, Nick Berryman, Terry Cross.
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Chris Gathman, Diana Aungst, and Tom Parka, Department of Planning
Services; Wayne Howard, and Jennifer Petrik, Department of Engineering; Lauren Light and Heather
Barbare, Department of Health; Brad Yatabe, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Motion: Approve the December 2, 2014 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, Moved by Joyce
Smock, Seconded by Bruce Sparrow. Motion passed unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: COZ14-0006
APPLICANT: VICKI LAKE
PLANNER: DIANA AUNGST
REQUEST: CHANGE OF ZONE FROM THE R-2 (DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL) ZONE
DISTRICT TO THE
R-3(MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)ZONE DISTRICT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 14 NORTHWEST ESTATES 1ST FG; PART OF SECTION 29,T7N, R67W
OF THE 6TH P.M.,WELD COUNTY,COLORADO.
LOCATION: NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 76 AND EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO
NORTHWEST DRIVE.
Diana Aungst, Planning Services, presented Case COZ14-0006, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this
application with the attached conditions of approval.
Jennifer Petrik, Engineering, reported on the existing traffic, access and drainage conditions and the
requirements on site.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on-site
dust control,and the Waste Handling Plan.
Commissioner Maxey asked what implications this could have if this is approved for future owners or
adjacent landowners by opening this up to R-3 zoning. Ms. Aungst said that R-3 Zone District allows for
a structure to have 3 dwelling units attached to each other. She added that in this case the structure itself
will not change. If the property is sold in the future the new owner would have the privilege with having 3
homes but it would need to be connected together. Ms. Aungst said that the 1971 zoning does show
triplexes in the area so it is compatible with the surrounding structures and neighborhood. When it was
rezoned in 1981 to R-2 which is a duplex zoning which meant that all the existing triplexes became
nonconforming uses. Therefore this structure will be a conforming use when zoned to the R-3 district.
Vicki Swenson stated that she acquired the property three (3) years ago valued as a triplex. She stated
that this building has been a triplex for 40 years. She added that when she learned that she was not in
compliance with the code, she asked the 3r°tenant to vacate the property and has been in compliance to
date. She has fulfilled the Weld County Code requirements and intends to meet the building codes as
well.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the applicant if she has read through the Conditions of Approval and if she is in
agreement with those. The applicant replied that she is in agreement.
1
COMO -1110
31- 2014
-3995
Motion: Forward Case COZ14-0006 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of
Approval with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval, Moved by Benjamin Hansford,
Seconded by Michael Wailes.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote(summary: Yes=9).
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Jason Maxey, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock,
Michael Wailes, Nick Berryman,Terry Cross.
CASE NUMBER: COZ14-0005
APPLICANT: LAKE ARROWHEAD INC.
PLANNER: CHRIS GATHMAN
REQUEST: CHANGE OF ZONE FROM THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT TO
THE E (ESTATE) ZONE DISTRICT. THIS CASE IS BEING PROCESSED IN
CONJUNCTION WITH RESUBDIVISION RES14-0001.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: TRACT A ARROWHEAD 4TH FILING; LOCATED IN PART OF THE N2 OF
SECTION 27,T5N, R66W OF THE 6TH P.M.,WELD COUNTY,COLORADO.
LOCATION: SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO WEST 37TH STREET AND
APPROXIMATELY 1,500 FEET WEST OF 471"AVENUE.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, presented Case COZ14-0005, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Mr. Gathman noted that the original application request was to change it from
the Agricultural Zone District to the R-1 (Residential) Zone District. However, because the applicant is
proposing on-site septic systems they have revised the application to the Estate Zone District as the R-1
Zone District allows only public water and sewer. He added that the applicants are also applying for a
resubdivision of the property to divide this tract into two equal sizes. According to the Weld County Code,
only one (1) public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners is required for resubdivisions.
Mr. Gathman noted that three (3) phones were received expressing concerns and objections with this
development. One of the callers provided two (2) letters of objection to this application expressing
concern development of Lot A will impact the ability of the lot to handle run-off from the rest of the
subdivision resulting in increased erosion and sedimentation. The Department of Planning Services
recommends approval of this application with the attached conditions of approval.
Commissioner Smock asked if a commercial/industrial business could be located on one of the parcels.
Mr. Gathman said that the only business that is allowed in subdivisions would be an accessory use to the
residence through Zoning Permits for Home Occupations or a USR for home business that would require
approval by the Board of County Commissioners.
Jennifer Petrik, Engineering, reported on the existing traffic, access and drainage conditions and the
requirements on site.
Commissioner Maxey asked who is responsible for the drainage of this subdivision. Ms. Petrik said that
this is an old subdivision and there is not a Master Drainage Plan. She couldn't answer who is
responsible since there is no drainage plan but would do some research and have an answer at the
Board of County Commissioner hearing.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements. She
noted that typically septic envelopes are not included on the plat; however due to all the included
restrictions with setbacks from the floodway and floodplain there is a condition of approval requesting
delineation of a septic envelope.
Eric Wemsman, 16193 Essex Road South, Platteville, stated that he is assisting Elmer Lundvall who lives
at 2201 951°Avenue. Mr. Wernsman said that Mr. Lundvall is requesting to divide Tract A into two(2)lots
approximately 5 acres in size. He added even with the floodplain there appears to be enough space to
build the residences, septic systems and possibly a shop.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Robert Lane, 5141 Pawnee Drive, stated that he has lived there for 25 years. He stated that the run-off is
horrendous. He added that there are landowners upstream from him with a couple horses and the
2
manure constantly runs down onto his property after it rains. When asked how he felt about the change
of zone, Mr. Lane said that he isn't sure about the zoning but is more concerned with subdividing the
parcel into two (2)lots and creating a larger drainage problem.
Albert Peif, 5053 Pawnee Drive, stated that when the road was constructed in 1997 there was discussion
of subdividing Tract A then. He added that the Board of County Commissioners voted it down because of
concerns with the septic systems. He has lived there for 30 years and has worked and worked to keep
this from flooding his house. When this site would develop it would become such a larger problem and
his property gets flooded with water and silt.
Commissioner Maxey asked if he understood that the applicant is currently allowed to build one (1)
residence on this property. Mr. Peif replied yes, but is concerned with the owner and what might be built
next to him and how it affects the drainage on his property. In 1998 when this was under review, the
County Commissioners said that if the house was to be built it would need to be built at the farthest point
north.
Ann Peif, 5053 Pawnee Drive, provided handouts of the Resolution denying the resubdivsion in 1998 by
the Board of County Commissioners. Ms. Peif stated that their main concern is with the drainage and
flooding of their property. She is also concerned with a fire hazard with the large area of cattails in the
area and added that there is no access for fire emergency vehicles. She added that there was a fire
there previously and came extremely close to their house. Additionally, she is concerned with where and
how the utilities will run to the future houses.
Mr. Wernsman said that it is not unusual to have above-ground septic systems. He said that in regard to
flooding, these houses should be looked at specifically on a case by case basis. Mr. Wernsman noted
that these lots they will be a lot less impervious and currently drain directly to the lake. He added that
with the building of these lots they will need to submit a Grading Permit which will require erosion control
to mitigate these issues.
Commissioner Wailes asked what the intended use of the lake is. Mr. Lundvall said that it was designed
as a detention pond and it was also going to be used by the City of Evans for their water supply.
Commissioner Maxey referred to the Resolution provided by Ms. Peif and asked Mr. Lundvall if he was a
landowner in 1998 when this Resolution was passed. Mr. Lundvall replied that he was. Mr. Maxey asked
why it is allowed to come back to be heard if it was denied in the past. Mr. Gathman stated that it has
been more than 10 years since the application was denied.
Mr. Lundvall indicated that he could build an outbuilding on the area of the lot adjacent to Mr. Peif today
without a change of zone or resubdivision.
Commissioner Sparrow clarified if the drainage problems should be entertained in their decision. The
Chair said that we are making a decision for this lot in particular and not the entire subdivision.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Commissioner Wailes requested a recess to allow the Planning Commission time to review the
Resolution provided by Ms. Peif. The Chair called a recess at 2:58 pm and reconvened the hearing at
3:08 pm.
Motion: Forward Case COZ14-0005 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of
Approval with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval, Moved by Michael Wailes,
Seconded by Benjamin Hansford.
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 8, No= 1,Abstain = 0).
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Michael Wailes,
Nick Berryman, Terry Cross.
No: Jason Maxey.
3
Commissioner Berryman commented that he doesn't like hearing the issues of the drainage; however
based on the criteria in the Weld County Code it is probably better addressed in another portion of
development. He encouraged staff to notify the Building Department of these issues.
Commissioner Smock said that the public testimony is disturbing to hear; however the Planning
Commission is only reviewing the Change of Zone request at this time.
Commissioner Johnson said that he feels like we have to put blinders on in this case which is not good
wisdom since we have been told that there will be another element of the same problem that is out there.
However, because of the criteria in the Weld County Code he is voting in favor of the change of zone.
Commissioner Cross agreed with staff recommendations and cautioned the person building on the
bottom lot to what should be allowed on the building permit.
Commissioner Wailes said that he sees this issue as a geography issue and the geography is going to
limit what is going to take place on this property. This was denied in 1998 and has had two good building
booms between then and now and no one has built on this property because he believes geography has
limited that. He doesn't believe construction will happen on this property. However because of the
criteria they need to follow he votes in favor of the change of zone.
Commissioner Maxey cited Section 22-2-120.C R.Goal 3 as his reason for denial which states, in
partiality, "Consider the compatibility with surrounding land uses, natural site features, nearby
municipalities' comprehensive plans "and added that he also took the 1998 ruling on this resubdivision
into consideration.
CASE NUMBER: USR14-0070
APPLICANT: GRASSLAND WATER SOLUTIONS LLC
PLANNER: KIM OGLE
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES, OIL AND
GAS SUPPORT FACILITY INCLUDING A CLASS II OILFIELD WASTE
DISPOSAL FACILITY - SALTWATER INJECTION FACILITY, A WATER
RECYCLING FACILITY, AND A TANKER WASHOUT FACILIITY, OPERATING
24 HOURS A DAY,7 DAYS A WEEK, 365 DAYS PER YEAR WITH UNLIMITED
TRUCK TRIPS TO THE FACILITY IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE
DISTRICT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT A RECX14-0095; W2NW4 SECTION 13, T10N, R61 W OF THE 6TH P.M.
OF THE 6TH P.M.,WELD COUNTY,COLORADO.
LOCATION: EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 95;APPROXIMATELY 1800 FEET SOUTH
OF CR 118 SECTION LINE.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, presented Case USR14-0070, reading the recommendation and comments
into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the
attached conditions of approval and development standards.
Wayne Howard, Engineering, reported on the existing traffic, access and drainage conditions and the
requirements on site.
Commissioner Maxey referred to the application which requests unlimited truck trips and asked Mr.
Howard his opinion if the trucks should be limited or if it will be covered by the road maintenance
agreement. Mr. Howard said these types of facilities have a maximum truck limit even though they ask
for an unlimited amount. He added that there will be an improvements agreement that should suffice and
deal with any potential problems from the truck traffic.
Heather Barbare, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on-
site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Doug White, NGL Water Solutions DJ, 3773 Cherry Creek North Drive, Suite 1000, Denver, stated that
NGL is leasing the 25 acre lot south of the existing water depot and is requesting to operate a saltwater
injection disposal facility. He said that there is a large demand for saltwater injection and added that they
4
will be seeing more requests for this. Mr. White said that the truck trips are limited to the capacity of the
wells.
Additionally, Mr. White noted that they are investing in the area by upgrading the electricity. He added
that there will be a new substation and an 8 mile power line upgrade.
Mr. White stated that they are receiving a large demand from the producers on pipelines. Along with
getting trucks off the roadways and with the recent move downward in oil price, producers are looking for
ways to save money and one quick and easy way to do that is by installing pipelines to decrease costs.
Additionally, Mr. White said that they are also requesting a recycle facility and truck washout. This
washout will be on site and believes that this is the next step to respond to the demand in the area for all
these services.
Commissioner Wailes asked if 3000 barrels is the daily capacity of the well. Mr. White said that there will
be two (2)wells and he expects to have 24,000 to 30,000 barrels per day.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Mr. Ogle noted that the Environmental Health Department is requesting to add a new Condition of
Approval 11 to read "The applicant shall ensure that any vehicle washing area(s)shall capture all effluent
and prevent discharges from the washing of vehicles in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the
Water Quality Control Commission, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Vehicle washing areas
should be designated on the plat."
Additionally, a new Development Standard 20 is requested to read "Any vehicle or equipment washing
areas shall capture all effluent and prevent discharges in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of
the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Water Quality Control Commission, and the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Motion: Add Condition of Approval 11 as stated by staff, Moved by Nick Berryman, Seconded by
Benjamin Hansford. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion: Add Development Standard 20 as stated by staff, Moved by Benjamin Hansford, Seconded by
Nick Berryman. Motion carried unanimously.
In response to the Chair's inquiry, Mr. White stated that he is in agreement with the amended conditions
of approval and development standards.
Motion: Forward Case USR14-0070 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the amended
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, Moved by Jordan Jemiola, Seconded by Nick Berryman.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote(summary: Yes= 9).
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Jason Maxey, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock,
Michael Wailes, Nick Berryman,Terry Cross.
CASE NUMBER: USR14-0066
APPLICANT: TRI-STATE GENERATION&TRANSMISSION ASSOCIATION INC.
PLANNER: KIM OGLE
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR A NON-1041 PERMIT, MAJOR FACILITY OF A PUBLIC UTILITY
WHICH WILL INCLUDE A 115 KV SIX BREAKER RING BUS, AND TWO
115/69-KV 100 MEGAVOLT AMPERE (MVA) TRANSFORMERS AND
ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT ALL LOCATED INSIDE OF A SECURED FENCED
ENCLOSURE, A CONSTRUCTION LAY DOWN YARD, AND THE ADDITION
5
OF AN ACCESS TO THE REDBOX ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION SITE IN THE
(A) AGRICULTURAL ZONE DISTRICT - TRI-STATE GENERATION AND
TRANSMISSION ASSOCIATION, INC.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: S2NW4 SECTION 1, T9N, R59W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY,
COLORADO.
LOCATION: APPROXIMATELY 1320 FEET SOUTH OF CR 110; EAST OF AND ADJACENT
TO CR 119.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, presented Case USR14-0066, reading the recommendation and comments
into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the
attached conditions of approval and development standards.
Jennifer Petrik, Engineering, reported on the existing traffic, access and drainage conditions and the
requirements on site.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on-site
dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Selina Koler, Tri-State Generation and Transmission, 1100 West 116th Avenue, Westminster, Colorado
stated that staff did a very job of explaining the project and was available to answer any questions.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Motion: Approve Case USR14-0066 along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards,
Moved by Jordan Jemiola, Seconded by Joyce Smock.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes=9).
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Jason Maxey, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock,
Michael Wailes, Nick Berryman,Terry Cross.
CASE NUMBER: USR14-0061
APPLICANT: RICHARD CARLSON
PLANNER: KIM OGLE
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR A USE PERMITTED AS A USE BY RIGHT, AN ACCESSORY
USE, OR A USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW IN THE COMMERCIAL OR
INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICTS (STORAGE OF COMMERCIAL MATERIALS-
DOORS, TRIM, CARPET, TOILETS AND CABINETS) FOR RENTAL
PROPERTIES IN A STRUCTURE AND THE PARKING AND STORAGE OF
FIVE (5) COMMERCIAL VEHICLES PROVIDED THAT THE PROPERTY IS
NOT A LOT IN AN APPROVED OR RECORDED SUBDIVISION PLAT OR
LOTS PART OF A MAP OR PLAN FILED PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF ANY
REGULATIONS CONTROLLING SUBDIVISIONS IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL)
ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT B REC EXEMPT RE-3228; PART E2 SECTION 15, T1 N, R65W OF THE
6TH P.M.,WELD COUNTY,COLORADO.
LOCATION: SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 10;0.25 MILES WEST OF CR 45.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, presented Case USR14-0061, reading the recommendation and comments
into the record. Mr. Ogle noted that three (3) letters were received in opposition to this request
concerning the non-commercial junkyard, visual pollution of the site, and the storage of materials on site.
The letters expressed the desire for screening of the outside storage. Mr. Ogle stated that staff is
requiring landscape or screening of the outdoor material. The Department of Planning Services
recommends approval of this application with the attached conditions of approval and development
standards.
Jennifer Petrik, Engineering, reported on the existing traffic, access and drainage conditions and the
requirements on site.
6
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on-site
dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Richard Carlson, 21450 CR 10, stated that he can remove the existing trailer on site and all of the items
outdoors that he has collected over the years will be screened.
Commissioner Berryman asked the applicant if he will be confining the storage area and fencing it. Mr.
Carlson replied that he has agreed to install a fence.
Commissioner Maxey asked if there is a designated area for storage or if it will be expanded to other
areas of the property. Mr. Ogle stated that screening is required to surround all outdoor storage.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR14-0061 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval,
Moved by Benjamin Hansford, Seconded by Bruce Sparrow.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote(summary: Yes= 9).
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Jason Maxey, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock,
Michael Wailes, Nick Berryman,Terry Cross.
The Chair called a recess at 4:32 pm and reconvened the hearing at 4:44 pm.
CASE NUMBER: USR14-0069
APPLICANT: COLORADO STATE LAND BOARD,C/O BILL BARRETT CORPORATION
PLANNER: KIM OGLE
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
FOR MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES, OIL AND GAS
SUPPORT FACILITY INCLUDING A CLASS II OILFIELD WASTE DISPOSAL
FACILITY - SALTWATER INJECTION FACILITY IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL)
ZONE DISTRICT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SUBX14-0015 BEING PART OF THE W2 SECTION 36, T5N, R62W OF THE
6TH P.M.,WELD COUNTY,COLORADO.
LOCATION: NORTH OF CR 50 SECTION LINE; EAST OF CR 83 SECTION LINE.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, presented Case USR14-0069, reading the recommendation and comments
into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the
attached conditions of approval and development standards.
Wayne Howard, Engineering, reported on the existing traffic, access and drainage conditions and the
requirements on site.
Heather Barbare, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on-
site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Doug Dennison, Bill Barrett Corporation, 33105 CR 33, stated that they are requesting a Class II
underground injection well and storage yard. In response to Commissioner Sparrow's question, Mr.
Dennison stated that there will be a generator on site for power.
Commissioner Smock asked how the facility works if it is unmanned. Mr. Dennison said that it is remotely
monitored from the Greeley or Denver offices. Ms. Smock inquired what the process is if there is any spill
since it will be monitored remotely. Mr. Dennison said that there will be sensors inside the secondary
containment around the tanks so if there is a spill it shuts down automatically. He added that there will be
monitoring wells as well.
7
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR14-0069 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval,
Moved by Bruce Sparrow, Seconded by Bruce Johnson.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote(summary: Yes= 9).
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Jason Maxey, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock,
Michael Wailes, Nick Berryman, Terry Cross.
PRESENTED BY: TOM PARK()
REQUEST: CONSIDER THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION BY THE WELD COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE SITE SELECTION AND
CONSTRUCTION OF THOSE MAJOR FACILITIES OF A PUBLIC UTILITY
CONSISTING OF PIPELINES AND STORAGE AREAS OF UTILITIES
PROVIDING WATER AND NATURAL GAS OR OTHER PETROLEUM
DERIVATIVES AS A MATTER OF STATE INTEREST PURSUANT TO § 24-
65.1-401,C.R.S.,AND WELD COUNTY CODE§21-1-210(B).
Tom Parko, Planning Services, stated that this consideration is to look at whether or not the County
should designate certain pipelines and water facilities under Chapter 21 of the Weld County Code. The
County Commissioners have concerns with the way some of the companies have treated some of the
constituents in Weld County during the process of constructing a pipeline. These concems include but
are not limited to siting issues, noise issues, and overall communication with the public. The pipelines
that the Commissioners are referring to are the large interstate pipelines typically greater than 10 inches
and carry high pressure natural gas and crude oil. In addition to pipelines the Commissioners also want
to review water projects and facilities that transfer water outside the County. Under current code
interstate pipelines that are federally regulated are exempt from our local regulation. The federal
agencies that typically regulate pipelines are FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) and DOT
(Department of Transportation).
Mr. Parko stated that the County has received more complaints over the last 2 years concerning these
large pipelines than in the past 10 years. Therefore it has been a question of whether the County should
be reviewing these pipelines more on a local level. If so, one possible approach is to designate these
activities under Chapter 21 of the Weld County Code.
Mr. Parko outlined Section 21-1-230 and briefly explained the how the criteria is reviewed to be
considered for designation.
Brad Yatabe, County Attorney, provided a handout of Colorado State Statute 24-65.1-203 and added that
this statute talks about activities of state interest and this is actually more to the point of the proposed
regulations. He added that there are only certain enumerated categories that under the 1041 powers that
the County can elect to designate and regulate and that is why we are looking at major facilities of a
public utility.
Commissioner Jemiola asked if the threats of condemnation relate to inter-or intra-state. Mr. Parko said
those were related to interstate pipelines. He added that they haven't had many issues with intrastate
pipelines.
Mr. Yatabe said that there is an ability for the Board of County Commissioners to refer a proposed
designation of an area or activity of state interest under the 1041 powers to the Planning Commission for
recommendation. He stated that the Planning Commission will not see specific guidelines related to that
area or activity of state interest until a later date. He emphasized that tonight the Planning Commission
would not see the specific code changes that will be the guidelines for those regulations at this hearing.
Rather, he added that the Planning Commission is looking at the general picture in making a
recommendation for this designation.
8
Mr. Parko said that the proposed designation will not include flow lines or gathering lines and pipelines
that are used to carry produced or flow back water. In response to Commissioner Maxey's inquiry, Mr.
Parko said that interstate pipelines would be included in this designation. He added that domestic water
lines that are utilized by special districts to provide water to residential subdivisions, commercial or
industrial uses, or agricultural uses would not be included. Mr. Parko said that any water transferred in a
pipeline that leaves Weld County and goes to another area will be included in this designation. He added
that we will not regulate the temporary pipelines used by the industry and private companies to transfer
water from a water source(water ponds, wells or hydrants)to frack sites.
Mr. Yatabe outlined the considerations that the Board of County Commissioners will be making. The
factors that 21-1-230 that Mr. Parko provided is what the Planning Commission need to use to make their
determination. Under the state statute there is one (1) required consideration which is the intensity of
current and foreseeable development pressures. When making a designation there needs to be a
statement of reasons why the particular area or activity if of state interest, the dangers that would result
from the uncontrolled development of any such area and the advantages of development in such an area.
Additionally, in Mr. Parko's staff report under Section 21-1-230 Items A and D are the major focuses in
making that designation. He added that if the Planning Commission wishes to separate the water
transmission lines from the transmission of natural gas and petroleum derivatives they may do so.
Mr. Parko said that there is a meeting scheduled for January 6, 2015 to present proposed code changes
for Chapter 21 and Chapter 23 to the Planning Commission. The Board of County Commissioners will
hear the proposed code changes on January 19, 2015, February 9,2015 and finally on March 2, 2015.
Commissioner Sparrow asked if other counties have done anything similar to this. Mr. Parko said that
after talking with other counties in Colorado, some counties take companies through a 1041 process and
other counties have a hybrid approach.
Commissioner Berryman understands the concept for potential issues with landowners. He asked if there
is way to quantify the number of complaints or understand how big of an issue this is. Mr. Parko said that
he has received a dozen complaints over the last 6 months. He cannot speak to the number of
complaints made to the Board of County Commissioners on an individual basis.
Commissioner Maxey asked where these interstate pipelines are that have generated these complaints.
Mr. Parko said there is one pipeline running down Highway 85 from Wyoming to Commerce City. He
added that there are a couple other proposed pipelines that go from Weld County out to Cushing,
Oklahoma.
Commissioner Johnson said that we are in a philosophy fight with the situation. He said that a pipeline is
a pipeline, in his opinion, and that causes an impact to landowners whether it is water or oil and gas. He
doesn't believe we can differentiate between water and oil and gas pipelines. He said that he wonders if
we are walking into a snakes nest. Mr. Parko said that with respect to water lines that the water districts
put in,the only thing we currently permit is access or right-of-way crossings.
Commissioner Sparrow asked if after receiving the complaints are they resolved or how is it left. Mr.
Parko said that he will try to contact the company if he knows who they are and express the concerns.
He added that often time that gets satisfied; however sometimes he does hear back from the landowner
that the negations didn't work out.
Commissioner Berryman asked if there is a process to appeal the decision if we would deny an interstate
pipeline. Mr. Parko said that the appeal process has yet to be worked out.
Commissioner Maxey said that in the news there has been a large debate of moratoriums and restrictions
on fracking and bringing it back to local control because there are the state regulations and the local
communities can't infringe on those rights. He asked if by approving this designation is this similar to that
debate. Mr. Yatabe said that there may be legal challenges to this but the 1041 powers are specific
statutory grant allowing us the ability to regulate in certain enumerated situations. In this situation when
looking at bans or long-term moratoriums you are looking at different issues. The issue is more that
pipelines are a different matter in terms of regulation. One of the other issues that may come up is issue
9
of potential pre-emption and is an undecided issue at this point through federal regulation and where local
regulation fit into that.
Commissioner Cross gets the feeling that we are heavily regulated already and that another level of
government regulation piled on top of everything that they already have to go through could be counter-
productive. He doesn't want to feel like we are enjoying this boom and then add another level of
regulation to it.
Commissioner Jemiola said that he would like to know more about the full scope of changes that we are
looking at.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Jeannette Jones, 1437 Venice Lane, Longmont, stated that she is employed by the oil and gas industry
but does not speak on behalf of her employer. Her employer does not operate any interstate pipelines.
She is here as a concerned citizen. She referred to a document by stakeholders titled "Pipelines and
Informed Planning Alliance (PIPA)" on the PHMSA website. Commissioner Maxey asked if it has been
adopted by agencies that regulate these industries. Ms. Jones said it is reference but not adopted by
code. She added that it is a tool to help communities and stakeholders work through these issues.
Ms. Jones echoed comments from the Planning Commission that what is put forth is very vague. She
said that we want to target interstate pipelines but from what she reads it is mentioning drilling activity and
drilling activity is not part of interstate pipelines. She also asked the Planning Commission to consider not
only the perspective of the landowner and how they are dealing with these issues from the pipeline
operators but also from the industry's similar issues. She added that a developer may come in and put in
some kind of new land use over their pipeline easement and they don't have much of a voice when it
comes to that and asked to consider how the proposed changes might take into account those impacts as
well. She is referring not to what might develop on top of the easement but rather what might be
adjacent to the easement, such as a school. Landowners will have concerns whether it is intrastate or
interstate and confused on why the 1041 process doesn't encompass the intrastate pipelines as well.
The Chair closed the public portion
Commissioner Sparrow said that we criticize for cities for meddling in certain regulations and hopes that
we are not going down the same road. He asked if it would it be better to be addressed to the Oil and
Gas Commission and have them put pressure on the pipeline companies to do the right thing. Mr. Parko
said that the COGCC doesn't have jurisdiction over interstate pipelines since they are more concerned
with down-hole operations.
Motion: Forward the proposed designation to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Planning Commission's recommendation of denial, Moved by Jordan Jemiola. In Mr. Jemiola's motion
he stated that the reason for his recommendation is that he does not feel comfortable stepping into this
realm without fully knowing what it is being considered and what the long term ramifications could be.
Benjamin Hansford seconded the motion and added that the information if very vague.
Commissioner Johnson believes that they need to have some parameters or issues of what the problem
is. He doesn't feel that this is an emergency type thing that we need to address without having some
more of these questions answered.
Commissioner Smock said that she doesn't feel comfortable at this point recommending approval and
added that she needs some more clarification on this.
Commissioner Berryman understands the potential need for some greater scrutiny on siting of these
pipelines but he thinks that we face so few of them that he is having a hard time grasping the need for
this.
Commissioner Cross echoed that he is not convinced that we need to do anything because it is still a little
vague.
10
Commissioner Maxey agrees with certain aspects that the Planning Commission has said. However
under Section 21-21-230.D he thinks there are more reasons especially where there are companies
threatening condemnation and it is a concern. He said that there may be sections in here that would be
advantageous to have in county code but can't agree with the entire thing.
Commissioner Jemiola made a motion to call for the vote, seconded by Benjamin Hansford.
The Chair asked the Secretary to call for the vote.
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes=8, No= 1, Abstain =0).
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Michael Wailes,
Nick Berryman, Terry Cross.
No: Jason Maxey.
Commissioner Wailes understands and believe in the ability for preparedness; however a fair argument
has been made that there is too much unclarity with this right now to vote yes.
Commissioner Sparrow said that if this would be the only way to protect the landowners he would vote for
approval but he is not convinced yet.
Commissioner Jemiola believes in protecting private property owners; however he would like to see
specifics on what these changes are and what areas they would affect.
Commissioner Maxey said that this is opening up the conversation and we are not voting on specific code
changes right now. He believes that this conversation should be continued.
The Chair asked the public if there were other items of business that they would like to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
Meeting adjourned at 6:37 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
11
Hello