HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/15/2018 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Regular MeetingPlanning and Zoning Board Page 1 March 15, 2018
Jeffrey Schneider, Chair City Council Chambers
Jeff Hansen, Vice Chair City Hall West
Jennifer Carpenter 300 Laporte Avenue
Emily Heinz Fort Collins, Colorado
Michael Hobbs
Ruth Rollins Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 & Channel 881
William Whitley on the Comcast cable system
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities
and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
Regular Hearing
March 15, 2018
6:00 PM
• ROLL CALL
• AGENDA REVIEW
• CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Individuals may comment on items not specifically scheduled on the hearing agenda, as follows:
• Those who wish to speak are asked to sign in at the podium.
• The presiding officer will determine and announce the length of time allowed for each speaker.
• Each speaker should state their name and address and keep their comments to the allotted time.
• Any written materials should be provided to the Secretary for record-keeping purposes.
• A timer will beep once and the time light will turn to yellow to indicate that 30 seconds of speaking time
remain and will beep again and turn red when a speaker’s time to speak has ended.
• CONSENT AGENDA
The Consent Agenda is intended to allow the Planning and Zoning Board to quickly resolve items that are
non-controversial. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Agenda. Anyone may request that an item
on this agenda be “pulled” for consideration within the Discussion Agenda, which will provide a full
presentation of the item being considered. Items remaining on the Consent Agenda will be approved by the
Planning and Zoning Board with one vote.
The Consent Agenda generally consists of Board Minutes for approval, items with no perceived
controversy, and routine administrative actions.
Planning and Zoning Board
Hearing Agenda
Planning and Zoning Board Page 2 March 15, 2018
• CONSENT AGENDA
1. MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 18, 2018 P&Z HEARING
The purpose of this item is the consideration and approval of the draft minutes of the January 18, 2018
Planning & Zoning Board hearing.
2. MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 15, 2018 P&Z HEARING
The purpose of this item is the consideration and approval of the draft minutes of the February 15, 2018
Planning & Zoning Board hearing.
4. CONTINUANCE FOR HARMONY COMMONS LOT 5 CHILD CARE CENTER
The purpose of this item is for the Board to consider a motion to continue this item to the March 29, 2018
special hearing. This item was previously continued from the February 15, 2017 hearing.
• DISCUSSION AGENDA
3. OIL AND GAS LAND USE CODE CHANGES
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION:
Updates to Land Use Code Sections 3.8.26 (Residential Buffering) and 5.1.2
(Definitions) as they relate to development near existing oil and gas
operations, including updates to setbacks and disclosure requirements.
APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins
STAFF ASSIGNED: Rebecca Everette
• OTHER BUSINESS
• ADJOURNMENT
Agenda Item 1
Item #1 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY March 15, 2018
Planning and Zoning Board
STAFF
Shar Gerber, Customer & Administrative Services Manager
SUBJECT
MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 18, 2018 P&Z HEARING
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is the consideration and approval of the draft minutes of the January 18, 2018
Planning & Zoning Board hearing.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft January 2018 P&Z Minutes (PDF)
Packet Page 3
DRAFT
Jeff Schneider, Chair City Council Chambers
Jeff Hansen, Vice Chair City Hall West
Jennifer Carpenter 300 Laporte Avenue
Emily Heinz Fort Collins, Colorado
Michael Hobbs
Ruth Rollins Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 &
William Whitley Channel 881 on Comcast
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities
and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
Regular Hearing
January 18, 2018
Member Schneider called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Carpenter, Hansen, Rollins, Schneider and Whitley
Absent: Hobbs, Heinz
Staff Present: Gloss, Yatabe, Holland, Kleer, Mounce, Shepard, Frickey, Tuttle, Tatman-Burruss, Wilkinson,
Virata, Cosmas and Gerber
Agenda Review
Chair Schneider provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of
business. He described the following procedures:
• While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen
input is valued and appreciated.
• The Board is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Board once for each item.
• Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with city Land
Use Code.
• Should a citizen wish to address the Board on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be allowed
for that as well.
• This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that
everyone who wishes to speak can be heard.
Planning Director Gloss reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas with no exceptions mentioned.
Chair Schneider asked for clarification on several controversial items on the agenda, general consensus was that
those items should remain on the consent agenda.
Planning and Zoning
Board Minutes
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 4
DRAFT
Planning & Zoning Board
January 18, 2018
Page 2 of 9
Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda:
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, requested the Board to carefully consider all irregularities in the
development review process before approving the projects being presented tonight. He questioned a recent
situation whereby the City Council allowed new evidence to be brought forth during an appeal that ultimately
influenced their decision. He expressed some concerns with this and other inconsistencies in the hearing process.
No staff follow up was presented on citizen participation.
Consent Agenda:
1. Draft Minutes from December 14, 2017, P&Z Hearing
2. Water Treatment Facility Annexation
3. Platte River Power Authority Campus Redevelopment PDP170040
Planning Manager Gloss stated that a correction was made to the zoning on the Water Treatment Facility
Annexation, saying there was an incorrect district that was identified. He also noted that there was a Major
Amendment change to the Platte River Power Authority Campus Redevelopment.
Public Input on Consent Agenda:
None noted.
Chair Schneider reviewed the items that are on consent and reiterated that those items will not have a separate
presentation unless pulled from the consent agenda.
Member Carpenter made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the January 18, 2018,
Consent agenda as originally advertised; Member Whitley seconded the motion. Vote: 5:0.
Discussion Agenda:
4. The Hub on Campus Fort Collins, PDP160038
5. Johnson Drive Apartments, PDP170034
6. Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility PDP160018
7. Nix Farm Natural Areas Facility Major Amendment
Other Business
1. Election of Officers
Project: The Hub on Campus Fort Collins PDP160038
Project Description: This is a request for a Project Development Plan to construct two buildings at 1415 West
Elizabeth Street, parcel numbers 9715442002, 9715431005 and 9715431002. The site includes a total of 1.93
acres and is within the Community Commercial (C-C) Zone District and Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood
(M-M-N) zone district. The site currently contains existing buildings from the CB Potts business, and these existing
buildings and parking areas are proposed to be demolished. Two separate buildings are proposed. The main
building fronts on Elizabeth Street and includes five-stories in the Community Commercial (C-C) zone district. The
main building proposed is mixed-use and includes 12,404 gross square feet of commercial space on the ground
level facing West Elizabeth Street. The second building to the south includes three stories of multi-family dwellings
located in the Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (M-M-N) zone district. The project proposes a total of 142
units of student-oriented housing.
Recommendation: Approval
Secretary Gerber reported that the Board received a copy of the Mineral State notification given to Coe Bank the
item was added 1/17/2018 and updated on 1/18/2018. Traffic analysis letter of operations update. Several citizen
emails and letters were also received: Valerie Hunter Goss opposes the project due to height and mass, Renee
Packet Page 5
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
DRAFT
Planning & Zoning Board
January 18, 2018
Page 3 of 9
Walcup opposes the project due to traffic and parking concerns, Doug Ernest expressed positive feedback but
posed questions reflecting concerns about the project largely related to traffic, Rick Fletcher opposed the project
due to size and traffic concerns, Vicky Hansen does not oppose the project but had concerns about parking and
height, Sally Harris expressed concerns about the height of the project and the impact and influx of students on the
neighborhood, and Megan Balleski opposes the project and has provided four (4) supporting documents and one
video.
Staff and Applicant Presentations 30 minutes
Planner Holland provided a brief overview of this recommendation. Sam Coutts, with Ripley Design and
representative of Core Spaces (Developer), was joined by Wear Maclom the Architect for Kimberly Horn Civil and
Traffic Engineer. Mr. Coutts provided some background on Core Spaces, including their experience as a national
student housing developer. He provided slides on previously completed projects, described site location and layout
of the Hub project, and gave some site history. This is a Round 4 presentation, it will include a proposed site plan
with all recommended changes.
Planner Holland provided an overview of the project, including a description of the West Central Area Plan analysis.
He discussed transit routes, character areas, context diagrams, buffers provided, building heights, zoning and
permitted use, and density standards. He stated that this project meets the shadowing requirements for the three
(3) story building, and the five-story building does not impact adjacent properties.
Staff is recommending a condition of approval for this project related to the trash enclosure. While some of the staff
members have not yet reviewed this additional information, they feel that the general layout and configuration is
workable. Staff recommends keeping this condition of approval so they can continue to finalize the project plan.
Public Input (3 minutes per person)
Vishal Sipan Kapoor, 1005 Ridge West, has concerns about the impacts in relation to the scale of the building and
the amount of people in the area. They are concerned that the casting shadow will cause further expense to them
in terms of snow plowing and the need for new trees, due to the lack of natural light. They do not feel that the
developer is doing enough to mitigate those impacts. They are also conducting their own impact study for
comparison.
Jessica Kasehene, 1054 Montview Rd., continues to have concerns with the project regarding traffic and
community mitigation, stating her belief that concerns for students are taking precedent over the community
concern.
Board Questions and Deliberation
Mr. Coutts responded to the citizen’s concern regarding the shadowing issue, showing how the shadows would be
cast. He offered to work privately with that property owner to mitigate any future costs related to snow and ice
build-up on that parking lot. Mr. Coutts also addressed the landscaping concern, saying that specific shade-tolerant
plants have been proposed. He also discussed the proposed community mitigation that would provide student
housing without using single-family homes in neighborhoods.
Member Rollins inquired about plans for the retail space; Mr. Coutts responded that there are no specific plans yet.
Member Whitley asked about the possibility of small mammals living inside the caged rock system and its proposed
longevity; Architect Grant Brenderburg, with Malcolm Architects, responded that the gabion wall system is an
engineered stone product that has a 50-year warranty.
Chair Schneider asked about whether the Land Use Code defines what story a mezzanine would be; Planner
Holland responded that a mezzanine shall not be more than one third of the floor area for the floor directly below it.
Mr. Coutts added that it is the definition of how to measure building height, rather than a specific provision saying
that a story is defined by a certain square footage. Planner Holland stated that it is found in3.8.17 Article V of the
Land Use Code, and there is no specific definition of mezzanine. Chair Schneider asked the possibility of code
conflicts between the Land Use Code and the International Building Code due to of variances in the definitions; Mr.
Coutts agreed that this is possible. Chair Schneider conceded that the plan meets the definition of the Land Use
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 6
DRAFT
Planning & Zoning Board
January 18, 2018
Page 4 of 9
Code for a five-story building. Chair Schneider also asked about the relative location of the trash chute; Mr.
Coutts showed a diagram of that location. Mr. Brenderburg confirmed that the trash chute is not accessible from
the mezzanine.
Member Rollins inquired about the process for acquiring a parking space; Chad Metazy, with Core Spaces,
described the process, saying it would be difficult for outsiders to lease a parking space. Member Rollins also
asked about the elevator size pertaining to bicycle movement; Mr. Metazy Illustrated that both elevators could
accommodate multiple bikes and occupants at the same time. Member Rollins asked about access to bicycle
parking; Mr. Metazy responded that parking is located in multiple locations on almost every floor. Member Rollins
asked about the location of the four and five-bedroom units Mr. Metazy responded that the five-bedroom units are
all located in the larger building to the north, and the four-bedroom units are located in the building to the south,
adding that all of the amenities are located in the large building.
Member Hansen inquired about the number of bicycle spaces being proposed, which he believes is a total number
of 384. Planner Holland clarified that, when the applicant was submitting their final plans before the hearing there
was a discrepancy of one bicycle parking space, and this will be resolved by adding bicycle parking spaces in
another area of the project. Mr. Metzy added that there are areas that could be used for up to an additional 88
bike storage spaces.
Member Rollins asked what programs does the City have to address spill-over parking or excessive traffic in
neighborhoods. Martina Wilkinson, Traffic Operations, responded that all developers contribute to the
Transportation Capital Expansion fee program, which is assessed based on regional and community transportation
improvements. She added that there is a staff member who is dedicated to working with neighborhoods on traffic
mitigation. Neighborhoods that are concerned about spillover parking can also work toward implementing a zone
which does not allow that.
Chair Schneider asked whether the mitigation plan for the potential shadowing impacts on the parking lot for snow
removal should be a condition of approval; Assistant City Attorney Yatabe responded that this could be imposes as
a condition, explaining, that the advantage of imposing that as a condition of approval is to make it an official part of
the PDP, and the City can potentially become involved with that issue at a future time. There was more discussion
of the pros and cons of imposing such a condition. Mr. Metazy stated that his company has attempted to reach
such an agreement with the neighborhood without success. Vice Chair Hansen asked about parking structure; Mr.
Coutts explained that it will be aesthetically contiguous in appearance. Vice Chair Hansen asked about the amount
of space that will be available to a third-party tenant; Mr. Coutts responded that the retail square footage will be
purely dedicated to third-party retail, which is 12,000 square feet of the 52,000 total. Vice Chair Hansen also asked
about the turn analysis for passenger vehicles; Mr. Coutts responded that multiple turning diagrams were
presented. Vice Chair Hansen asked whether the lowest level in the south building is below the grade point; Mr.
Coutts confirmed this to be true, saying the first level is 50% recessed in the grade, resulting in full-size windows
with plenty of natural light
Planner Holland also responded to some of the concerns related to shadow impacts, saying there are two different
code standards in the MMN code standard. that ensures that an adjacent proposed building does not cast a
shadow onto an adjacent structure. The developer is meeting that specific standard. Regarding the other concern
relating to vegetation, Planner Holland stated standards are being met, but he is willing to work individually with
concerned neighbors
Member Carpenter stated that she believes the Applicant has met the shadowing standards overall, and since it is
not a specific requirement in the LUC, they should be allowed to work it out individually. Member Rollins will support
the project. Member Hansen asked some follow up questions related to traffic, and Ms. Wilkinson reviewed the
conclusions drawn from the Traffic Impact Study.
Member Carpenter made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Hub on
CampusPDP160038, based upon the findings of fact subject to the following condition of approval: the
applicant shall provide no later than final plan approval a detailed trash and recycling enclosure design,
including truck access and circulation, compactor and or dumpster locations in a matter substantially
compliant with the Planning and Zoning Board approval and in accordance with adopted engineering
standards and trash and recycling standards in section 3.2.5 of the Land Use Code. This approval is also
based on the information analysis and findings of fact and conclusions contained in the staff report
included in the agenda materials for the hearing, which are adopted by this Board. Member Rollins
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 7
DRAFT
Planning & Zoning Board
January 18, 2018
Page 5 of 9
seconded. Member Carpenter is in favor of this project, stating her appreciation that this project has no proposed
modifications. Member Hansen agreed, thanking the Applicant for the time and intensity invested. Chair Schneider
also agreed, acknowledging the multiple review iterations that had occurred, saying it will be a benefit to that area
of town. Vote: 5:0.
Project: Johnson Drive Apartments PDP170034
Project Description: This is a request for a Project Development Plan to construct a five-story mixed-use building
at the southwest corner of Johnson Drive and Spring Court. The project proposes a total of 192 units of student
oriented housing. This includes 44 one-bedroom units, 104 two-bedroom units, 16 three-bedroom units, and 28
four-bedroom units, for a total of 412 bedrooms. A total of 265 off-street parking spaces are proposed within a
parking garage located within the first two levels of the building. Amenity and commercial space is provided on the
ground level of the building. Outdoor amenity space is also provided within outdoor courtyards located on the third
floor above the parking garage.
The site includes a total of 2.5 acres and is within the General Commercial (C-G) Zone District and the Transit-
Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone.
Recommendation: Approval
Secretary Gerber confirmed that a citizen email was received from Thomas Scott stating that he generally supports
the project but expressed some concern about parking.
Staff and Applicant Presentations 30 minutes
Planner Holland provided a brief overview of this recommendation. Craig Russell, Planner for Russell + Mills
Studios, gave a detailed presentation of this project, showing slides of the overall layout of the area and
surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. He reminded the Board of an alternative compliance request that has
been reviewed by staff regarding the lighting in the natural area buffer zone. The compromise is to provide motion
sensor lighting along the pedestrian pathway. The Applicant has also requested an increase in occupancy limits.
Finally, he offered several new scenarios that have not yet been reviewed by staff.
Public Input (3 minutes per person)
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, has a concern about the connectivity in terms of pedestrian access to the
commercial properties to the South, saying the two alternatives given by the applicant are insufficient. He also
stated that the park was not meant to be an urban canyon and that this project is impinging on the park.
Paul Patterson, 2936 Eindborough, requested that his time be doubled as he has a signed request from his wife,
who could not be present, to use her time. Chair Schneider allowed four (4) minutes in total. Mr. Patterson
requested that this project be denied, saying that no studies have been performed to allow a transit pass for
students. He stated that parking provided should be based on the number of leased beds, indicating an issue with
spillover parking from the State (they charge for parking). He provided slides to show spillover at different times
and days.
Cathy Pierce, 1348 Stonehenge, stated her concern for her current tenants with regard to where the staging is
going to take place for the construction.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 8
DRAFT
Planning & Zoning Board
January 18, 2018
Page 6 of 9
Board Questions and Deliberation
Planner Holland addressed several of the citizen concerns: connectivity, buffering, redevelopment areas, spillover
parking, and strategies related to TOD Mitigation that do not require alternative compliance. Planner Holland stated
that compliance must be reviewed for connectivity with respect to location (proximity to the MAX), which should
have been covered in the Traffic Impact Study performed by Delich Associates. Joe Delich explained that the area
is termed Transit Corridor because of the location of the Max to the project, which requires connectively level
service C (continuous pedestrian network); however; the sidewalks may need to be altered to meet this standard.
There was more discussion related to distance ratios. Planner Holland confirmed that this project meets the
minimum level of service standards. Member Carpenter asked if there will be fees for parking; Patrick Quinn
responded that fees would be approximately $70 per covered space, which is less than the current market rate by
about $30. Vice Chair Hansen asked if there would be any amenities offered apart from those on the south end;
Mr. Quinn responded that there will be a fitness and gear room, meetings spaces and so forth
Vice Chair Hansen asked if it would be possible for a tenant to put a bicycle in their unit; Mr. Quinn confirmed that is
true, adding that there are additional bike parking spaces and more could be provided. Member Carpenter asked if
there would 24-hour management; Mr.Quinn responded that there will be an office on-site that will be open during
normal business hours and will also have the availability of 24-hour maintenance and management on-call with a
number that will be distributed to all residents. There will not be a manager on-site 24-hours. Mr. Quinn also
confirmed that there will duplex parking for bikes in the form of double level bike racks.
Chair Schneider asked the number of car shares requested; Planner Holland did not have a firm answer, saying it
is potentially less than 6, adding that he doesn’t believe that 6 shares is too many for the size and scope of this
development. Mr. Russell also discussed the on-street parking configuration, saying it will be is the local connector,
not the local residential street; no on-street parking is being considered as part of the total parking provided. In
addition, the parking capacity of the streets will be changing somewhat because of the number of residential
driveways that were there previously along Spring Court.
Member Rollins asked whether the question of construction staging had been resolved; Planner Holland responded
that this is typically addressed later in the development process. He added that, generally, no construction staging
is allowed within the public right of way, unless the applicant requests an encroachment permit, which is then
monitored by Engineering staff.
Vice Chair Hansen asked for a conceptual diagram of the proposed trash enclosure; Mr. Russell provided that
image. There was some discussion about providing frontage views while maximizing rental space/income.
Planner Holland added that there is no minimum size; the Applicant is more concerned with making sure the
amount of space is realistic for being 1,000 square feet in a mixed-use project. Vice Chair Hansen commented on
the analysis of parking usage in similar projects, which is about 50%. He also questioned whether other parking
solutions are available for the neighborhood. He also suggested that a condition be place on the location of the
trash enclosure.
Member Carpenter agreed and requested that this type of parking situation be part of future work session
discussions in order to compare free and fee-based parking. She also requested the 24-hour on-site management
for increased occupancy be given more scrutiny. Overall, she will support the project. Member Whitley will also
support the project.
Member Hansen made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Johnson Drive
Apartments PDP170034, based upon the findings of fact and the two following conditions of approval
included in the staff report:
Conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide no later than final plan approval a detailed trash and recycling
enclosure design, including truck access and circulation, and compactor and dumpster locations,
in a manner substantially compliant with the Planning and Zoning Board approval and in
accordance with adopted engineering standards and trash and recycling standards in section 3.2.5
of the Land Use Code.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 9
DRAFT
Planning & Zoning Board
January 18, 2018
Page 7 of 9
2. The applicant shall provide not later than final plan approval the materials, samples and colors to
ensure compliance with section 3.10.5(c) of the Land Use Code.
This approval and the conditions are based on the agenda materials, the information and materials
presented during the work session and this hearing, and the Board discussion on this items with the
following findings: the PDP complies with all applicable Land Use Code requirements as stated in the
staff report prepared for this hearing and contained in the agenda materials, the information analysis,
finding of fact and conclusions contained in the staff report included in the agenda materials for this
hearing that are adopted by this Board. Member Carpenter seconded, suggesting an additional
amendment. After some discussion, Member Carpenter retracted her amendment. Chair Schneider stated
that he will reluctantly support this project, based on his concern that this project is only meeting the bare
minimums as far as amenities and parking. Vice Chair Hansen agreed, acknowledging that the standards are
met only minimally. Vote: 5:0.
Executive Session started at 9:35 pm; the Board reconvened at 10:10 pm.
Project: Long Pond Wireless Telecommunication Facility PDP160018
Project Description: This is a request for a Project Development Plan to build a telecommunications tower housed
within a 2,500-sq. ft. wireless facility. This facility will house wireless telecommunications equipment to provide
wireless service to the surrounding area. No wireless equipment is proposed at this time. The proposed tower
would be 45 feet tall and disguised as a silo. This tower and facility will be used for structural support of up to three
wireless providers. Each provider will install antennas and on-the-ground base station equipment. The site is
located in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone district and, as such, the wireless
telecommunication facility use is subject to the review and approval by the City Council. On January 16, 2018, City
Council will consider second reading of an ordinance approving the Addition of Permitted Use for this project.
Chair Schneider acknowledged that several last-minute communications were received on the date of the hearing.
Several of the Board members were unable to review these documents in preparation for the hearing. Chair
Schneider asked the Applicant representatives if they would like to continue with the hearing and strike those
documents from the record or withdrawal the documents completely. Chair Schneider reviewed the items that were
received. Planner Frickey addressed one document in question, saying it is a consolidated staff report to City Council
from Council proceedings last December along with supporting documents. Chair Schneider confirmed that the items
had been received by Gretchen Schiager, Staff Liaison to the Board. After much discussion and advice from counsel,
the Applicant representative agreed to continue the item to the February hearing in order to retain all documents
submitted as part of the official record.
Member Carpenter moved that the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board continue the Long Pond
Wireless Telecommunications Facility PDP160018 to a date certain of February 15, 2018; Member Rollins
seconded the motion. Chair Schneider asked whether discussion was required’ Assistant City Attorney. Yatabe
stated that normally on a continuance you would take public comment but only as to the continuance and not the
substance of the application. Public comment should consist of someone commenting or opposing the continuance.
Chair Schneider asking if anyone wanted to address the board about the continuance; none noted. Vote: 5.0
Public Input:
Debbie Cory lives across the street from the proposed tower location. She feels that the applicant is not prepared,
adding that due diligence has not been accomplished. She cited continuous late submittals and feels that the
Applicant isn’t following the rules of proposal.
Nancy Easton agrees, saying that the last-minute tactics are inappropriate. She supports the Board’s motion to
continue this project and asked if there was any time limit; the answer supplied indicated there was none.
Chair Schneider stated that the goal was to make sure that we have a fair hearing, that everyone can be heard, and
that all the evidence can be presented, especially if an appeal is imminent
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 10
DRAFT
Planning & Zoning Board
January 18, 2018
Page 8 of 9
Project: Nix Farm Natural Areas Facility Major Amendment
Project Description: This is a request for consideration of a Major Amendment to the Nix Farm Natural Areas
Facility for a phased expansion of vehicle storage and maintenance space, office buildings, and improvements to
site landscaping, stormwater infrastructure, and internal walkways and driveways. The first phase of improvements
will include a 1,200-square foot expansion of an existing vehicle maintenance building, a new 5,000 square foot
vehicle storage garage, a modular office building, and expansion of a fenced yard where work vehicles are stored,
fueled, and maintained. Future phases indicate the potential for additional expansion to vehicle storage and
maintenance garages, as well as two new office buildings. The Nix Farm facility is located on 27 acres at the
eastern terminus of Hoffman Mill Road in the Public Open Lands (POL) zoning district, surrounded by the
Kingfisher Point Natural Area.
Recommendation: Approval
Secretary Gerber confirmed that there were no additional items received since the work session.
Staff and Applicant Presentations 30 minutes
Planner Mounce provided a brief overview of this recommendation. Mark Sears, Natural Areas Manager for the
City of Fort Collins, gave a detailed presentation of this project, showing slides of the area and expansion plans.
He discussed the restoration that has been completed and that they have previously sought designation from
Historic Preservation. To accommodate the growing office needs, they are requesting the approval of a modular
office building: a five-year old house that was purchased as part of a land conservation deal. They are proposing to
move it onto the site to temporarily house staff for the next 10 years until justification can be made for a new office
building. There was some discussion about consistency with other similar situations, which were not identified.
There are five (5) other similar office locations that either have caretaker homes or small maintenance facilities.
There was also some discussion pertaining to public restrooms to be made available to trail users, which was
confirmed to be correct. There was also discussion of the activities offered onsite, which would involve field
operations equipment and maintenance storage, as well as office and meeting use. In addition, the site would host
indoor and outdoor ecological education classes and programs. Steve Steinbicker, Architect with Architecture West,
presented additional slides to illustrate this.
Planner Mounce provided a brief analysis of the proposal, recommending approval with one condition.
Public Input (3 minutes per person)
None noted.
Board Questions and Deliberation
Planner Mounce showed some slides to clarify the building uses and placement of new office.
Member Rollins asked about the house that was acquired as part of land acquisition; Mr. Sears described the
proposed modular building and that it would be painted white and green.
Member Whitley is in favor of the project.
Member Carpenter made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Nix Farm Natural Areas
Facility Major Amendment MJA160004, based upon the findings of fact on pg. 8 of the staff report with the
following condition, including the information analysis, findings of fact and conclusions contained in the
staff report and the agenda materials for this hearing to be adopted by this board: the applicant shall
receive a final report of acceptability from the Landmark Preservation Commission for Phase 1
improvements in a manner substantially compliant with the Planning and Zoning Boards decision prior to
final plan approval. . Member Whitley seconded. Chair Schneider stated that he appreciated that the team
came together and did not have to come back multiple times. Vote: 5:0.
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 11
DRAFT
Planning & Zoning Board
January 18, 2018
Page 9 of 9
Other Business
Election of Officers
Nominations: Member Hansen nominated Jeff Schneider as Chair for 2018; Member Whitley seconded.
Vote: 5:0.
Nomination: Member Carpenter nominate Jeff Hansen as Vice Chair for 2018; Member Rollins seconded.
Vote: 5:0
Member Carpenter reiterated that her request for work session topics was promptly scheduled. Regarding parking
mitigation within the TOD, Planning Manager Gloss stated that this topic will be discussed as part of the Land Use
Code amendments over the next few work sessions.
Member Whitley also requested that the Board revisit the cut-off time for record documents to be received;
Planning Manager Gloss agreed to discuss this at the next work session.
Chair Schneider moved to adjourn the P&Z Board hearing at 11:01 pm.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Gerber.
Cameron Gloss, Planning Director Jeff Schneider, Chair
ITEM 1, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 12
Agenda Item 2
Item #2 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY March 15, 2018
Planning and Zoning Board
STAFF
Shar Gerber, Customer & Administrative Services Manager
SUBJECT
MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 15, 2018 P&Z HEARING
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is the consideration and approval of the draft minutes of the February 15, 2018
Planning & Zoning Board hearing.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft February 2018 P&Z Minutes (PDF)
Packet Page 13
DRAFT
Jeff Schneider, Chair City Council Chambers
Jeff Hansen, Vice Chair City Hall West
Jennifer Carpenter 300 Laporte Avenue
Emily Heinz Fort Collins, Colorado
Michael Hobbs
Ruth Rollins Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 &
William Whitley Channel 881 on Comcast
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities
and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
Regular Hearing
February 15, 2018
Chair Schneider called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.
Roll Call: Carpenter, Hansen, Heinz, Hobbs, Rollins, Schneider and Whitley
Absent: None
Staff Present: Leeson, Yatabe, Prassas, Frickey, and Gerber
Chair Schneider provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of
business. He described the following procedures:
• While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen input
is valued and appreciated.
• The Board is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Board once for each item.
• Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with city Land
Use Code.
• Should a citizen wish to address the Board on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be allowed
for that as well.
• This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that everyone
who wishes to speak can be heard.
Agenda Review
CDNS Director Leeson reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, stating that all items will be
heard as originally advertised. With the exception of Harmony Common Lot 5 Major Amendment which was pulled
and postponed until March 15P
th
P.
Planning and Zoning
Board Minutes
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 14
DRAFT
Planning & Zoning Board
February 15, 2018
Page 2 of 6
Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda:
Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Current, presented comments to provoke though about the need for the development
review process to evolve and improve. Mr. Sutherland feels the situation is disparate situation with numerous
deficiencies. He would like to see review requests by City Planning and Zoning Board of decisions of hearing Type
1 cases.
Colleen Hoffman, 1804 Wallenberg Dr., has concerns over the changing development review process. Expressed
that citizens are not involved or mentioned in the change process. Feels that there needs to be a level playing field
between developers and citizens. Feels as though citizens are at a disadvantage with no one to talk to.
Staff Follow-Up
Director Leeson addressed both Mr. Sutherland and Mrs. Hoffman about their concerns raised regarding the
development review process changes. The community will be seeing a fair amount of changes and that he
appreciates the comments about the neighborhoods and citizens wanting input on the changes.
Chair Schneider asked Director Leeson if he could attend the next work session with updates on the Development
Review improvement process. Director Leeson stated he would be happy to attend.
Member Carpenter stated that we have a liaison available and asked for Director Leeson’s input. Director Leeson
gave Sylvia Tatum-Burruss’s name and department information, and explained what her position entails.
Member Hobbs stated that the process is daunting to both citizens and developers especially on the legal side. He
would like to see access to someone in the City Attorney’s office on a conservative basis. Mr. Yatabe clarified that
he could give legal advice to Council, staff and the different Boards of the City and that consideration must be given
to who the client is in terms of professional role. He cannot give legal advice in terms of citizen inquiries.
UConsent Agenda:
1. Harmony Commons Lot 5 Major Amendment, FDP170036
NOTE: THIS ITEM HAS BEEN POSTPONED TO MARCH 15, 2018
UDiscussion Agenda:
2. Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility, PDP160018
Project Description: This is a request for a Project Development Plan to build a telecommunications tower housed
within a 2,500sq. ft. wireless facility. This facility will house wireless telecommunications equipment to provide
wireless service to the surrounding area. No wireless equipment is proposed at this time. The proposed tower would
be 45 feet tall and disguised as a silo. This tower and facility will be used for structural support of up to three wireless
providers. Each provider will install antennas and on-the-ground base station equipment. The site is located in the
Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone district and, as such, the wireless telecommunication facility use
is subject to the review and approval by the City Council. On January 16, 2018, City Council will consider second
reading of an ordinance approving the Addition of Permitted Use for this project.
Recommendation: Approval
Secretary Gerber reported that no additional information has been received since the work session.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 15
DRAFT
Planning & Zoning Board
February 15, 2018
Page 3 of 6
Staff and Applicant Presentations
Planner Frickey gave a brief overview of this project. Explained that this has project has gone before Council for
approval of the use of the property and that Council did approve with conditions.
Christian Hendrickson, Attorney with Sherman and Howard representing the applicant Verizon Wireless, provided a
presentation via PowerPoint slides to support his presentation. Commented that the hearing is limited to code review
and whether the proposal is consistent with the Fort Collins City code and commended Planner Frickey’s expert staff
review. Board was asked to approve PDP.
Mr. Michael Powers of Atlas Tower touched on standards of review. Setbacks will be maintained and architectural
style has been met. The equipment will be color matched to the existing surrounding buildings. Mounting of
equipment, this is a stealth site, meaning it is hidden within a silo. Fencing is compliant (wood). Landscaping plan
was not required. Lighting requirements will be met if there will be lighting involved on the site. A road will be built to
support emergency equipment. Asked board for approval.
Member Rollins asked for clarification on height, in presentation, stated 40’, Mr. Powers clarified 45’.
Member Hansen requested clarification on colors of structure. Mr. Powers clarified that the material is a fiberglass
material that would match and blend existing structures.
Member Rollins asked Planner Frickey if the 180 consecutive days was accurate. Planner Frickey responded that it
had been revised to be 270 days as a condition of approval by Council.
Public Input (3 minutes per person)
Eric Sutherland – Wanted to know how a 270-day inoperable condition of removal would be enforceable. Mr.
Sutherland commented on distinction between Qazi judicial and Qazi legislative actions of a public body and what
happens after a decision is made in terms of rights of an appeal to a superior court as they are viewed differently.
He agreed with Member Hansen as to the need for legal advice, and disagreed that it needed to come from the City
Attorney.
Debbie Cory – Objects to the project as she feels she has not been heard nor has she had due process during this
portion of the project. She had asked many questions of Atlas and Verizon that have gone unanswered. She feels
that this has not been handled properly and is concerned for other neighborhoods and the fact that better service is
not guarantee. She also believes that since Verizon is not listed as a co-applicant as they say, she agrees with the
Center for Municipal Solutions that the requirements of the Telecommunication Act of 1996 does not apply. Mrs.
Cory would like a commitment to get communication if any changes will happen with the tower, ahead of the changes
happening and not from the newspaper.
Nancy Eason – Provided objection documentation and presented slides to the board. Asked the board various
questions. Is there an appeal process? Who can make an appeal? Can a citizen make an appeal? What happens
if they (applicant) want to make changes, like height, etc.?
Ted Wolf – Is opposed to the project as it is not designed for this type of activity, residential area. Numerous projects
of this type have been denied, why approved now?
Kevin Forbes – Is in favor of the project. His parents own the property and he feels that no one would deny the need
for the cell tower in the area. Commended Atlas Tower for their communication.
Jessica McMillian – Is in favor of the project. Has not had good cell service ever in the neighborhood. Feels that this
is an infrastructure issue and that you have to be able to support the community and their communication needs.
Tanya Andres – Not opposed to better cell coverage, but would like to know if this project is viewed as a public utility.
Objects to the project on grounds that cell towers do not belong in neighborhoods. There are better solutions. Asked
the Board to please deny this structure.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 16
DRAFT
Planning & Zoning Board
February 15, 2018
Page 4 of 6
Andrew Saks – Is opposed to the project based on lack of consultation to the neighborhood and that there is possibly
no real need as other means are widely available.
Applicant/Staff Response
Christian Hendrickson, Verizon Wireless – They respect the many opinions, but the Board’s responsibility is code
compliance, and everything that was just heard was about use. They are here to serve and improve and keep Ft.
Collins competitive and to ensure this communication. This is a needed facility and Mr. Hendrickson hopes that the
Board approves. Planner Frickey responded with a brief overview of timeline of project review and scope.
Board Questions
Member Hansen asked Mr. Hendrickson if there was a reason why Verizon was not listed as a co-applicant. Mr.
Powers responded that they agreed to add their name as a co-applicant early on in the process and that they
communicated that with the City, but does not know if there are forms that need to be filled out. Mr. Powers
commented that as they started the process, Atlas Town was the original applicant but that as the project went on it
became clear that as the dialogue with the City moved forward, and trying to be code compliant with the requirements
of the process, that they needed to bring in their partner Verizon in order to answer the many questions that needed
to be answered.
Planner Frickey addressed the 270-day inactivity period raised by Mr. Sutherland. Inactivity can be measured and
enforced by the utility bill, if there is no power being sent to the facility, then it is not being powered on. There is a
lapse provision for not only approvals but also two nonconforming uses in the land use code so there is a precedent
for doing something like that and removing a use after a certain period of inactivity in the land use code. The second
issue Planner Frickey addressed is the process that would be followed if the facility were to be altered. If items like
height were to be changed then it would go through a Major Amendment process which go through the same process
as original approval. In this case the Major Amendment would need to go through Council. If the change was an
antenna swap out, this would be considered a Minor Amendment and staff would not notify. In response to the appeal
period question, Planner Frickey stated that since this decision is going before the Planning and Zoning Board this
decision would be appealable to City Council.
Member Rollins asked Planner Frickey to give information on sizes of silos previously researched. Planner Frickey
shared that staff visited two sites within a 2-mile radius from the project and they found two silos on Legacy Farm lots
and both silos were in the range of 40 to 45’ which was staff’s reasoning for proposing that condition for approval.
Member Hansen asked about the process of photo simulation program used. What software was used to ensure
that it is believable? Mr. Powers explained the process and did state that the photos of the balloon testing which did
not exactly mimic the later photo sim and that he cannot speak to that as he does not have personal experience with
that. There were different members of staff working on the project during the duration of the project. Photo sims are
difficult and may not be an accurate representation. This photo sim is based on a 60’ silo and are not relevant as we
are down to a 45’ facility. Member Hansen asked if the photo sims were completed in-house or third party? Mr.
Powers responded that is was completed in-house.
Member Hansen commented to Planner Frickey that the staff report was very thorough in stepping through the
standards in the land use code addressing how the proposed project meets that, but he did not see anything
addressing section 3.8.13 (b). Planner Frickey responded that it would be difficult to co-locate for other carriers on
this site and it is difficult to say, at this point, that it meets the standard, and it is also difficult to say whether it would
apply given the conditions of approval by City Council. If the Planning and Zoning Board was concerned about co-
location ability the Planning and Zoning Board would have to recommend denial of the application.
Member Hobbs asked Mr. Powers about co-location ability. Explain to us whether co-location is still possible and
just not as desirable because the other antennas would be lower than this, in the 35’ to 40’ range, do you feel you
still have the ability to co-locate on this tower? Mr. Powers disagreed with Planner Frickey regarding co-location
possibly not being possible. It is absolutely possible. Mr. Powers explained industry standards and trending. It is
intended to co-locate with this tower.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 17
DRAFT
Planning & Zoning Board
February 15, 2018
Page 5 of 6
Member Hansen asked about capacity without or before seeing another structure going up. Mr. Powers felt two
carriers could be carried at a full array. This structure is not just for phones, could be used for emergency services
and first responders.
Member Carpenter asked for clarification regarding number of carriers. Mr. Powers – two arrays could be added and
possibly a third, depending on antenna type. Member Carpenter, so in practicality it would be Verizon and one other.
Mr. Powers, without employing an antenna size that is not typically used.
Member Carpenter to staff – if someone else wanted to come in and put up another tower, is it possible to use existing
tower with different technology, or would we require them to build a different tower? Planner Frickey responded that
there is nothing in the Land Use Code that states you must use a different technology or a certain technology.
Member Carpenter, so if another company wants to come in with another tower because they want to use the
standard equipment, that we have no way to require that they go into and co-locate with this one? Planner Frickey
responded that staff would push toward co-location on the existing tower, and since this was an APU would likely
require them to go on that tower to serve the same population rather than build another tower. Mr. Powers stated that
co-location is written into your code and encouraged and required.
Deliberation
Chair Schneider reminded the Board that this is about the land use code and not about the use because that was
previously taken care of and approved.
Member Hobbs views this as different from the APU. Questions were raised for him in regard to whether this was
the best site or whether everything had been investigated and now that it has been approved for use in a residential
neighborhood, that is not ours to judge at this point. Member Hobbs will be supporting the project.
Member Heinz stated that she will be supporting the project.
Member Hansen stated he has been in support of the project all along and is more comfortable knowing that the
tower can support multiple carriers. Will be supporting the project.
Member Carpenter stated she is in support of the project. It meets the requirements and the APU was approved.
Member Whitley stated she is in support of the project and is glad that it will be 45’ as opposed to 60’.
Mr. Yatabe mentioned his advisement at the previous meeting that any motion would potentially include a mention of
the ordinance adopted by Council. This was due to the ordinance not being in effect at the time of the last meeting.
The ordinance is now in effect and there is no need if there is a motion to approve to make any mention of that. Chair
Schneider received clarification that there is no need to make mention.
Member Schneider appreciates the citizens’ concerns because this is not a use conversation and the Board is limited
to what we can and cannot talk about and what our decision needs to be based on.
Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Long Pond Wireless
Telecommunications Facility, PDP160018 based on the following findings of fact:
A. The Project Development Plan complies with the process located in Division 2.2 - Common
Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 - Administration.
B. The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards of Article 3 - General
Development Standards.
C. The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.5, Low
Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) of Article 4 - Districts
Member Whitley seconded. Mr. Yatabe suggested that the board make a finding that incorporates the staff report
as well, if that is the Boards desire. This was accepted by the motion maker and seconded. Vote: 7:0.
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 18
DRAFT
Planning & Zoning Board
February 15, 2018
Page 6 of 6
Other Business
None
Adjournment
Chair Schneider moved to adjourn the P&Z Board hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 pm.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Gerber.
Cameron Gloss, Planning Director Jeff Schneider, Chair
ITEM 2, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 19
Agenda Item 3
Item #3 Page 1
STAFF REPORT March 15, 2018
Planning and Zoning Board
PROJECT NAME
OIL AND GAS LAND USE CODE CHANGES
STAFF
Rebecca Everette, Senior Environmental Planner
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Updates to Land Use Code Sections 3.8.26 (Residential Buffering) and 5.1.2
(Definitions) as they relate to development near existing oil and gas operations,
including updates to setbacks and disclosure requirements.
APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins
RECOMMENDATION: Approval
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Goals of Land Use Code Updates
Staff initiated a review of the current Land Use Code requirements with the following goals:
1. Continue to protect the health and safety of residents near oil and gas operations
2. Provide greater predictability for property owners, residents and developers during the development review
process
3. Improve consistency with the State of Colorado’s requirements for new wells
4. Create an incentive for land developers to permanently plug and abandon active oil and gas wells, rather
than keeping wells in operation near residential development
Summary of Proposed Changes
The following Land Use Code changes are proposed. The full set of changes are included in Attachment 1.
LUC Section Current Code Proposed Change
3.8.26(C)(4)(b)
Minimum Buffer
Distances.
Minimum buffer is 350 ft, as listed
in Chart 2, Buffer Yard Types
• Minimum buffer of 500 ft for general residential
development and 1000 ft for “high occupancy
uses.”
• Alternative compliance option if environ-mental
testing is completed, minimum buffer of 150 ft.
Packet Page 20
Agenda Item 3
Item #3 Page 2
3.8.26(C)(4)(c)
Disclosure.
Notification to all properties within
1000 ft on the subdivision plat
Notification to all properties within 1000 ft on the
subdivision plat Requirement for covenant to be
created for all properties within 1000 ft
3.8.26 - Chart 2,
Buffer Yard Types
350 ft minimum for Buffer Yard D 500 ft minimum for Buffer Yard D
5.1.2 - Definitions. Current definitions Add and update definitions for various terms
Community Outreach
Feedback was gathered on the proposed code changes through the following outreach activities (see Attachments
3-6 for the public engagement materials and a complete record of comments):
• Direct mailing to property owners within 1000 feet of existing oil and gas wells with information on
proposed code changes (1110 letters mailed)
• Online questionnaire for community members to provide feedback on proposed changes, advertised
through direct mailing, social media, news release, and Nextdoor website (228 completed responses)
• Online recorded video presentation with background information and explanation of the proposed code
changes: 28TU<https://youtu.be/QUCAkpeUHgo>U28T
• Email notification to all members of the public and land developers who have expressed a specific interest
in these code changes
• Four designated drop-in times to meet with staff to discuss comments and concerns (16 attendees total)
• Presentations at Planning & Zoning Board, Natural Resources Advisory Board, and Air Quality Advisory
Board work sessions
• Individual phone calls and emails to discuss questions and concerns as needed
In addition to broad community outreach, staff also consulted with the following groups:
• Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) staff
• Representative of Prospect Energy (local oil and gas operator)
• Representatives for the Country Club Reserve and Montava development projects
• City of Longmont staff to discuss their program related to plugged and abandoned wells
• Terracon (private consultant) to discuss investigation methods and costs for plugged and abandoned wells
Background
LUC Section 3.8.26 - Residential Buffering
The purpose of Land Use Code Section 3.8.26 is to, “provide standards to separate residential land uses from
existing industrial uses, in order to eliminate or minimize potential nuisances such as dirt, litter, noise, glare of
lights and unsightly buildings or parking areas, or to provide spacing to reduce adverse impacts of noise, odor or
danger from fires or explosions.” More specifically, Buffer Yard D is designated for the highest intensity land use
categories, and is applicable only to oil and gas operations, including plugged and abandoned wells.
Oil and Gas Buffers
The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) regulates setbacks, or buffers, for new oil and gas
wells near existing buildings but does not regulate the reverse situation: new development near existing oil and gas
infrastructure. The Land Use Code currently requires a buffer of at least 350 feet between existing oil and gas
wells (both active and abandoned) and new residential development.
The previously adopted buffer requirements were specifically intended to match the COGCC setback requirements
for new wells, which were 350 feet at the time of adoption. Since then, COGCC has updated its setbacks for new
oil and gas wells to 500 feet. COGCC further distinguishes between general residential development and land
Packet Page 21
Agenda Item 3
Item #3 Page 3
uses deemed to be “high occupancy,” which includes schools, hospitals, nursing homes, correctional facilities, and
daycare centers. The state requires a setback of 1,000 feet between these uses and new wells.
Updating the City’s buffer requirements to 500 feet for residential development and 1,000 feet for high occupancy
uses would be consistent with state-level regulation and City Council’s previous direction.
Plugged and Abandoned Wells
Plugged and abandoned wells have been permanently removed from production and filled with concrete plugs,
slurries, and other materials. Many of the older wells in Fort Collins were plugged and/or abandoned prior to
current regulations and state oversight. As such, there is uncertainty about if, when, and how the wells were
plugged. It is possible that some of these wells would not meet the current COGCC standards. It is also possible
that the integrity of wells plugged many decades ago has changed as they have aged. There have been
documented safety incidents related to old, improperly plugged wells in other Colorado communities. It is in the
community’s interest to understand the existing conditions of the various active and inactive wells throughout the
city.
The Land Use Code does not currently distinguish between operational (active) wells and wells that have been
permanently plugged and abandoned. However, wells that have been abandoned to current state standards have
a much lower potential for environmental contamination, public health impacts, and public safety incidents. As
such, a reduced setback may be appropriate in situations where the City can verify that wells have been properly
plugged and no leaks or contamination have occurred.
In addition, a reduced setback for properly abandoned wells would create a stronger incentive for land developers
to coordinate the abandonment of active wells on development sites, rather than keeping wells in operation as new
development occurs. Allowing a reduced setback would encourage the developer to work with an oil and gas
operator to remove the well from operation, therefore significantly reducing public health and safety risks near
future residential properties.
The recently approved Water’s Edge development project received approval for reduced setbacks around existing
wells (100 and 150 feet) in exchange for the plugging and abandonment of those wells in accordance with current
COGCC standards. In that instance, the Planning and Zoning Board determined that the reduced setbacks would
advance the purpose of the standard equally well or better than a 350-foot setback.
Staff proposes an alternative compliance option that would allow for a reduced buffer (150 feet minimum) if a
developer can verify that plugging and abandonment have occurred in accordance with current COGCC standards
and no contamination is present on a site. A buffer of 150 feet would protect adjacent property owners as well as
provide adequate space for equipment to re-plug or maintain a permanently plugged well in the future, if needed.
Disclosure
The Land Use Code currently requires notification about oil and gas wells to be placed on the plat for a new
subdivision. Based on feedback from boards and the public, staff determined that this method of notification may
be easily overlooked by a future homebuyer, so an additional method of notification is appropriate. Staff proposes
a requirement that developers include information about any existing oil and gas wells as a covenant for all
properties within 1000 feet of any wells. This information would be more readily available to all future property
owners.
Definitions
Staff proposes a number of updates and additions to definitions in LUC section 5.1.2 in conjunction with the
chances in LUC section 3.8.26.
Packet Page 22
Agenda Item 3
Item #3 Page 4
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed Code Updates
2. Map of Oil and Gas Wells in Northeast Fort Collins
3. Public Engagement Summary
4. Notification Letter to Affected Property Owners
5. Online Questionnaire Results
6. Public Comments Received To-Date
Packet Page 23
Attachment 1 – Proposed Code Revisions
PLEASE SEE "ITEM 3, DRAFT OIL & GAS LUC AMENDMENTS" UNDER
SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS FOR THE MARCH 15, 2018 MEETING AT THIS LINK:
https://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/planning-zoning.php
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 24
Attachment 1 – Proposed Code Revisions
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 25
https://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/planning-zoning.php
PLEASE SEE "ITEM 3, DRAFT OIL & GAS LUC AMENDMENTS" UNDER
SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS FOR THE MARCH 15, 2018 MEETING AT THIS LINK:
Attachment 1 – Proposed Code Revisions
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 26
https://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/planning-zoning.php
PLEASE SEE "ITEM 3, DRAFT OIL & GAS LUC AMENDMENTS" UNDER
SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS FOR THE MARCH 15, 2018 MEETING AT THIS LINK:
jk
jk
jk
jk
jk
jk
jkjkjkjkjk
jk jk
jk jkjk
jk
jk
jk
jkjk jk
jk jk
jk
jk jk jk jk
jk jk jk
jkjkjkjk
jk
E
Willox Ln
E Vine Dr
9th St
Country Club Rd
Richards Lake Rd
Tu
r
nberry Rd
N Lemay Ave
Mountain Vista Dr
N Timberline Rd
E Lincol
n
Ave
E Suni
g
a Rd
S
Ti
m
berline
Rd
E Douglas Rd
Giddings Rd
N County Road 9
S Lemay Ave
Gregory Rd
!"`$
Oil & Gas Wells in Northeast Fort Collins
±
0 0.5 1 Miles
³I
³I
ÕZYXW
ôZYXW
ÉZYXW
!"`$
Legend
Major Streets
Railroad
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
PROJECT TITLE: UPDATES TO OIL AND GAS REGULATIONS
OVERALL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT LEVEL: INVOLVE
BOTTOM LINE QUESTION: Should the City’s Land Use Code regulations related to reciprocal setbacks
(distance between new development and existing oil and gas operations) to reflect current state
standards and incentivize the decommissioning of active wells?
KEY STAKEHOLDERS:
• Residents living in close proximity to existing and past oil and gas operations, primarily in
northeast Fort Collins
• Landowners with existing and past oil and gas operations on their properties
• Oil and gas operator (Prospect Energy)
• Environmental protection advocates
• Land developers and development review applicants, particularly in northeast Fort Collins
• General public
TIMELINE:
Phase 1: Community Engagement
Timeframe: December 2017 to January 2018
Key Messages:
• Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) regulations include setbacks for new
oil and gas wells near existing buildings, but they do not regulate new development near existing
oil and gas infrastructure (reciprocal setbacks). The Land Use Code currently requires a reciprocal
setback of at least 350 feet from all oil and gas wells (both active and plugged/abandoned).
• The previously adopted reciprocal setback requirements were specifically intended to match the
COGCC setback requirements for new wells, which were 350 feet at the time. Since then,
COGCC has updated its setbacks for new oil and gas wells to 500 feet. Updating the City’s
reciprocal setback requirements to 500 feet would be consistent with City Council’s previous
direction.
• The Land Use Code does not distinguish between operational (active) wells and wells that have
been permanently plugged and abandoned. However, a reduced buffer for wells that have been
plugged and abandoned to current state standards may be appropriate. A reduced setback for
these wells would create a stronger incentive for land developers to coordinate the plugging and
abandonment of wells on development sites, rather than keeping the wells in operation as new
development occurs.
• The recently approved Water’s Edge development project received approval for reduced
setbacks from plugged and abandoned wells (100 and 150 feet). The Planning and Zoning
Board determined that the reduced setbacks would advance the purpose of the standard equally
well or better than a 350-foot setback.
Tools and Techniques:
• Direct mailing to property owners and residents near existing oil and gas wells with information
on proposed code changes.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 28
• Online recorded video presentation with background information and explanation of the
proposed code changes.
• Online survey for community members to provide feedback on proposed changes, advertised
through direct mailing, social media, news release, and Nextdoor website.
• Designated drop-in times to meet with staff to discuss comments and concerns.
• Staff attendance at City Councilmembers’ regular listening sessions, as requested.
PHASE 2: Board & Commission Engagement
Timeframe: December 2018
Key Messages: See above.
Tools and Techniques:
• Planning & Zoning Board – Dec 8
• Air Quality Advisory Board – Dec 18
• Natural Resources Advisory Board – Dec 20
• Chamber of Commerce LLAC (by request)
• Other community groups (by request)
PHASE 3: Public Hearings
Timeframe: February to April 2018
Key Messages: See above.
Tools and Techniques:
• Planning & Zoning Board Work Session – TBD, February/March
• Planning & Zoning Board Hearing – TBD, February/March
• City Council Hearings (first and second readings) – TBD, March/April
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 29
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
281 North College Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
970-416-2625
fcgov.com/oilandgas
«Name»
«Name2»
«Address»
«City», «State» «Zipcode»
100.803100.549110
NOTICE OF LAND USE CODE
CHANGES
December 11, 2017
Dear Property Owner or Resident:
You are receiving this letter because our records indicate you own
property within 1000 feet of an active, inactive, or abandoned oil or gas
well. The City of Fort Collins is considering code changes related to
the buffers between oil and gas operations and new residential or
commercial development. Specific information about the proposed
code changes is to the right.
The City would like to hear your thoughts on these code changes. An
online survey is currently available to collect questions and comments
from residents, property owners and other stakeholders. The survey
will be available until January 11, 2018. Please visit the following
website to complete the survey: http://fcgov.com/oilandgas.
The City will also host a series of drop-in times for one-on-one
conversations with City staff. All drop-in sessions will be held at 215
N. Mason St., Conference Room 2B (second floor):
• Tuesday, December 19, 1-4 pm
• Tuesday, January 2, 1-4 pm
• Tuesday, January 9, 1-4 pm
• Additional meeting times available upon request
Following the online survey and drop-in sessions, these code changes
will be considered by the Planning & Zoning Board and City Council.
Each hearing will include an opportunity for additional public
participation and comment.
Because of the lag time in recordkeeping, or because of rental
situations, some neighbors may be missed. Please feel free to share this
notice with your neighbors or tenants. If you own or manage an
apartment building, please post this notice in a common area so your
residents can participate.
PROPOSED CODE CHANGE #1: ACTIVE OIL
& GAS WELLS
Current Code Standard: New development
must be at least 350 feet from existing active
oil and gas wells.
Proposed Code Update: New development
must be at least 500 feet from existing active
oil and gas wells.
Rationale: The State of Colorado now
requires new oil and gas wells to be setback
at least 500 feet from existing
neighborhoods. This change would match
the updated state requirements for new
residential and commercial development
near existing oil and gas operations.
PROPOSED CODE CHANGE #2: PLUGGED &
ABANDONED WELLS
Current Code Standard: New development
2
More information about oil and gas operations within the City of Fort
Collins is available at http://fcgov.com/oilandgas. If you would like
more information on the location and status of oil and gas wells
throughout Colorado, please
visit: https://cogccmap.state.co.us/cogcc_gis_online/.
We welcome and encourage your participation, as your input is an
important part of the Land Use Code update process. Please do not
hesitate to contact me with questions, comments or concerns.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Everette | Senior Environmental Planner
Community Development & Neighborhood Services
970.416.2625
reverette@fcgov.com
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services,
programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with
disabilities. Auxiliary aids and services are available for persons with disabilities. V/TDD: Dial
711 for Relay Colorado.
Esta es una notificación sobre un proyecto que afecta propiedades cerca de donde usted es el dueño
de propiedad. Si usted desea que esta notificación sea traducida al español sin costo
alguno, favor enviar un correo electrónico en español a la siguiente dirección
electrónica: translate@fcgov.com.
HELPFUL RESOURCES
Fort Collins Land Use
Code: fcgov.com/landusecode
Oil and Gas Website:
fcgov.com/oilandgas
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission: cogcc.state.co.us
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 31
Oil and Gas Land Use Code Updates - Survey Results
Completion Rate: 76.8%
Complete 228
Partial 69
Totals: 297
Response Counts
1
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 32
1. This code change protects the health and safety of those who live near oil and gas operations.
14% 14%Disagree Strongly Disagree
10%Disagree 10% Disagree
8%Neutral 8% Neutral
28% 28%Agree Agree
39% 39%Agree Strongly Agree
2%Sure 2% No Opinion/Not Sure
Value Percent Responses
Strongly Disagree 14.0% 35
Disagree 9.6% 24
Neutral 7.6% 19
Agree 28.0% 70
Strongly Agree 39.2% 98
No Opinion/Not Sure 1.6% 4
Totals: 250
2
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 33
2. This code change minimizes the potential negative impacts of oil and gas operations.
18% 18%Disagree Strongly Disagree
17%Disagree 17% Disagree
13% 13%Neutral Neutral
28% 28%Agree Agree
22% 22%Agree Strongly Agree
4%Sure 4% No Opinion/Not Sure
Value Percent Responses
Strongly Disagree 17.5% 43
Disagree 17.1% 42
Neutral 12.6% 31
Agree 27.6% 68
Strongly Agree 21.5% 53
No Opinion/Not Sure 3.7% 9
Totals: 246
3
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 34
3. This code change considers the rights of property owners and land developers.
9% 9%Disagree Strongly Disagree
10%Disagree 10% Disagree
19%Neutral 19% Neutral
37% 37%Agree Agree
19% 19%Agree Strongly Agree
5%Sure 5% No Opinion/Not Sure
Value Percent Responses
Strongly Disagree 9.3% 23
Disagree 9.7% 24
Neutral 19.4% 48
Agree 36.8% 91
Strongly Agree 19.4% 48
No Opinion/Not Sure 5.3% 13
Totals: 247
4
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 35
4. This code change is likely to encourage developers to plug and abandon active wells.
13% 13%Disagree Strongly Disagree
20%Disagree 20% Disagree
20% 20%Neutral Neutral
24% 24%Agree Agree
7% 7%Agree Strongly Agree
17%Sure 17% No Opinion/Not Sure
Value Percent Responses
Strongly Disagree 12.6% 31
Disagree 20.3% 50
Neutral 19.9% 49
Agree 23.6% 58
Strongly Agree 6.9% 17
No Opinion/Not Sure 16.7% 41
Totals: 246
5
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 36
5. This code change aligns with my own personal values or priorities.
15% 15%Disagree Strongly Disagree
15%Disagree 15% Disagree
10% 10%Neutral Neutral
31% 31%Agree Agree
27% 27%Agree Strongly Agree
2%Sure 2% No Opinion/Not Sure
Value Percent Responses
Strongly Disagree 14.7% 36
Disagree 15.1% 37
Neutral 9.8% 24
Agree 31.0% 76
Strongly Agree 27.3% 67
No Opinion/Not Sure 2.0% 5
Totals: 245
6
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 37
Count Response
2 No
1 1) At 12/11 COGCC meeting, the board talked about oil and gas companies walking away and leaving tax payer with bill to plug/cleanup
site. Codes changes should minimize this behavior within city limits. 2) Feet is not the right issue. What really matters is how much
poisons leaving pad to adjacent properties. Maybe scrubbers on site A allow a setup back of 10'. Maybe number of wells times poisons
means 1000' for a another site. Size/number of tanks tells us max impact of explosions. Code change should try to protect property
rights of both sides using data, you can do it so long as it explosion won't take out neighbor and poisons won't make neighbor sick. As
soon as the oil and gas says, but we have the right to kill and injury, then we can shut them down as a clear and present danger.
1 500 feet doesn't seem enough. Fort Collins should strongly enforce safety concerns both from the danger of improperly capped wells
along with the overall danger of drilling beneath an individual's property. Seismic shifting from drilling is a real danger and Colorado
needs to hold drillers accountable for future damage homeowners may suffer such as cracked foundations or walls.
1 500 feet from existing wells for development is definitely not enough distance. It should be a minimum of 2,000 feet. Peoples' health is
affected by less than that. Asthma and cancer are two effects of being closer. And, birth defects, such as spina bifida are increased by
being as close as 10 miles. We need to keep development away from drilling. Let us never forget Firestone.
1 500 feet is an improvement over 350 feet, but it isn't enough to protect developers and land owners. I wish the City of FC would go
farther.
1 500 feet is not a significantly greater distance than 350 ft, when we're talking about the risks associated with O&G development. It
needs to stop already. And furthermore, COGCC is an absolute useless commission and a farce, as demonstrated by their apathy and
disinterest in promoting public health, safety and environmental and wildlife impacts over the profits of the O&G industry. The agency
does not represent the citizens of Colorado, it represents the financial interests of the oil and gas industry. In fact, recently, the
COGCC and its lawyer, State Attorney General Cynthia Coffman, argued to the State Supreme Court that the COGCC should not have
the authority to put the health and safety of the people of Colorado above the interests of oil and gas developers. What??
1 500 feet is not enough. We are more than 500 feet from a active well and the chemical odors are horrible. I wonder what they are doing
to the environment and health of this neighborhood.
1 500 feet lessens the impacts of O&G minimally, but every increment helps, though this is woefully inadequate. Developers should
absolutely locate and have the old and abandoned wells sealed. Since cement is what they use to seal it and it is guaranteed to crack
down the line, these plugged wells are but a temporary fix. But standards, in general, are very low and short-sighted for the safety of
humans and life in general when it comes to the O&G industry. Though our state's standards may be touted as the best, they are all
absurdly inadequate.
1 500 feet setbacks are not enough to protect our community. I recommend that City staff attend COGCC hearings in person or
remotely to experience first hand the concerns of local communities and individuals impacted by oil and gas industrial operations in
their neighborhoods. These communities' health and safety are negatively impacted by these industrial operations. Fort Collins has the
opportunity to show it's commitment to it's residents' health and safety and mandate a setback of at least 2500 ft. from homes and
schools.
1 500 ft from homes and schools is a joke and dose nothing to portect those living near wells .we need a buffer of at least 1000ft on ALL
wells and much stricter regulations on protecting air and water.This 100ft perposeal on capped wells is a slap in the face of what the
residents of ft Collins want and have voiced loudly against ..This perposel dose absolutely nothing to safeguard the heath and safety of
residents and once again shows our voices matter less to the city council then oil and gas CEOS who line your pockets ..
1 500 ft is better than 350. The best option would be to opt out of oil and gas extraction and invest, heavily, in renewable energy
infrastructure.
1 500 ft is still too close
1 500' is not really a sufficient distance. Significant negative health impacts have been shown to within half a mile of active wells.
6. Do you have any questions or comments about this proposed code change?
7
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 38
1 500ft still seems arbitrarily small. Reducing the setback for plugged wells also seems like a "setback".
1 A setback of 5000 feet may not be adequate to protect city residents from the harmful effects of VOC's. Noise and odors from such
activities are not compatible with residential living in Colorado
1 Alignment with State law is a necessity. Requiring an even greater setback would be wise but impractical.
1 Answering this on the day following the fire near the graveyard in Windsor at the Oil Well site there. It occurs to me that the science
isn't fully developed to the point where we know exactly what is safe in terms of distance from neighborhoods. There is also science
that indicates there is more air pollution due to the fracking and a increased amount of earthquakes, minor for sure but a concern.
1 Ban all oil and gas. There is no such thing as clean oil and gas or safe Oil and Gas. The excuse that we will lose jobs is a pathetic
distraction. Stop letting our politicians get bought out by oil and gas. Our politicians do not represent us they represent oil and gas.
When will we learn that we can not eat our money? Will it be after everything is dead in the water is poisoned? Will it be after we cannot
breathe because the air is poison? All for what? Jobs? Money? You literally have to be paid by some evil piece of shit to believe that oil
and gas is necessary. I believe good people are swept up by fat paychecks and ignoring the facts
1 Ban wells all together. When a well is abondoned it should become a solar panel field instead. Also the question saying it would
motivate gas and oil companies to plug abandoned wells, does that mean they are not required to? That seems unsafe and unhealthy
for everyone that lives near there.
1 Based on studies in other states, the 500 feet is still too conservative a set back. My responses above were influenced by that.
1 COGCC standards are minimums that are based only on political agreements with the oil & gas industry. These standards are not based
on best available science and do not give priority to protecting public health and safety. Based on science, setback distance should be
minimum 1500' and to ensure safety 2500'. The City of Fort Collins should give highest priority to protecting public health and safety,
and the burden of proving that public health and safety are adequately protected should be on the industry. Any operator who operate
in proximity to habitation areas should be required to post a substantial financial bond to ensure that any costs from accidents or other
events will be fully compensated.
1 Can we not make the buffer bigger? Im glad it is being increased, but "the University of Maryland's School of Public Health
recommended that state [Colorado] set a distance of 2,000 feet from any well. "
http://phpa.dhmh.maryland.gov/OEHFP/EH/Shared%20Documents/Reports/MDMarcellusShalePublicHealthFinalReport08.15.2014.pdf
1 Colorado health studies have shown that there are health impacts within a 1/2 mile of an oil and gas well. The original setback
standards had no basis in public health, according an admission of the Director of the COGCC when I worked on this issue in 2012.
500' is better than the puny setback of 100', which is certainly not adequate. This view is the basis of my answers to this survey.
1 Doesn't go far enough and health and safety issues should outweigh property-owner and land-developer "rights" to monetary gains.
1 Even 500 feet is not enough.
1 Even a 500 ft buffer does not protect property values. If a well is sited 500 ft from my back fence, that's essentially in my backyard and as
a result, I will likely lose all the equity in my house as well as lose the value it had when I bought it!
1 Fort Collins must address reciprocal "takings" that are granted to frackers. That is to say the loss of homeowner property value that
happens when nearby fracking degrades the neighborhood because of noise, stench, danger (that is mitigated slightly in this proposed
change), air pollution, etc. This issue is ignored by the state, the Governor, and the City. The frackers are held harmless while they cry
instantly about their rights to frack if denied the ability to develop their "rights." The frackers accept no reciprocal responsibility. They
must be held fiscally responsible for property value takings.
1 Fracking is dangerous to people's health & safety with this being supported by more & more studies. Neither proposed change is good
or far enough to protect people's health & safety.
1 Given our image as a champion of green energy and climate friendly policies, Fort Collins should ideally not allow oil and gas
development within city limits, but to the extent that we continue to do so, we should make all possible changes to increase the health
and safety of those in our community.
1 How long will they have to comply? Who will enforce the new regulations?
Count Response
8
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 39
1 I agree it makes sense to have the same requirements as the State. I am for incentive to cap and stop active wells. Greater distance is
better but I am unsure if it is actually still safe enough for the nearby residents or schools.
1 I am in favor of limiting fracking within city limits as much as possible. I am also in favor of having fracking operations as far away as
possible from water sources (rivers, reservoirs).
1 I believe some reports suggest 1000 feet or more setbacks. I will send them in if I can find them again. Thanks.
1 I believe the setback should be at least 1,000 feet.
1 I disagreed with question 2 because I feel that this code change would reduce the potential negative impacts of O&G operations, but
certainly would not minimize them.
1 I do not feel this set back is far enough considering what happened in Firestone earlier this year. Why put people's lives and property in
danger?
1 I do support overall this change to increase setbacks and will be important to development in the rest of the GMA. Would it possible to
integrate natural/open space, as the increased setback will likely (I assume) render some areas undevelopable?
1 I don't know why you are asking me this. I don't know anything about this stuff.
1 I don't think the a setback of 500 feet is adequate. 1000 feet would be more appropriate
1 I like the increase to 500 feet, but I see no need to reduce setback of new development from plugged and abandoned wells from 350.
1 I really do not want this code change I'm ok with 350 feet.
1 I still find it hard to believe that oil and gas companies can set up wells/drills what have you in the middle of residential areas. This fact
hugely impacted where I bought my house and why I live in Fort Collins as appose to Windsor for example. Having oil and gas
operations close to homes negatively impacts the property value of those homes and could potentially negatively impact the health of
those residents.
1 I suggest that the setback distance of new homes, subdivisions and schools should be 1,000 feet. As for plugged and abandoned wells,
are you sure they won't be brought back into use in the event that oil and gas prices rise? If so, then I'd suggest that they also have a
1,000 foot buffer. A very detailed study was released yesterday with evidence that babies born to women living near fracking sites
were found to be below weight. The science is still out on some of the impacts of fracking and we should be as conservative about the
public health impacts. Finally, in the future when fossil fuels are entirely phased out, the buffered lands could be developed so the land
use code should take that into consideration in the layout of streets and land uses.
1 I support any effort to increase the setback from residences. I live near a well and the constant strong toxic odors emanating from the
well are horrible. I worry about the impact on my family's health from inhaling these toxic odors.
1 I support the increase in off set from 350 to 500 feet for existing active oil and gas wells. However I do not believe this is large enough.
Any explosion could impact homes within 500 feet. Recent explosions around the country are evidence of this. Also fumes and other
toxic compounds can easily travel 500 feet negatively impacting residential health.
1 I think FC should wait for the CDPHE report to be out in 2018 on the health & environmental impacts of fracking and wells. New
scientific data is constantly being discovered on long term & far reaching impacts (i.e. air contamination). Ergo the vote for the
moratorium-to give more time for scientific research. CSU has done some studies. 150 additional feet is a start but may not be enough
to keep families safe. Plugging abandoned wells should be required and not an option. The overall process of what goes on
underground will come to back to haunt everyone. Mother Nature does not like being messed with and she will let us know in not so
subtle ways. Money can be better spent on alternative fuel sources. Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts.
1 I think at the very least, 500 ft setbacks to match State Law is needed
1 I think it should be more than 500 feet.
1 I think the setback for active well should be far greater than 500 feet.
Count Response
9
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 40
1 I think the setback should be even farther away. That is why I disagreed with many of the statements!
1 I think the setback should be much more. We need to protect our city, residents, children, pregnant women, and animals from the toxic
materials and fumes! Please protect us!!
1 I want to say strongly disagree but I think my statistics can be viewed incorrectly in bar charts. I strongly disagree with all of these
because I think any housing and development should be FAR more than 500 ft in distance. If we are truly a "green" city we will say NO to
fracking, the city will pay landowners to plug and discontinue fracking sites. More information is needed to educate ALL Fort Collins
residents -public and politics alike- on the impacts of fracking, and living in proximity to fracking sites.
1 I want whatever reduces the number of active wells and protects the population. Renewable energy!
1 I wish the set back was even further!
1 I would honestly like it to be even more - even 500 feet from where my kids sleep seems too close.
1 I would like to see a greater set back from new and abandoned wells. At least 1,000 feet, and preferably more. No new wells would be
most preferable.
1 I would like to see this increased even more, to at least 1000 feet and perhaps the proposed 2500 foot setback. I know municipalities
currently have little power to do so, though.
1 I would offer to make the setback even further. Fort Collins has one of the worst air qualities in the country, most likely due to the
booming oil and gas industry. While I understand we all need and use natural gas, we need to focus on clean energy and and avoid
archaic forms of fuel altogether in order to protect our health today and in the future.
1 I would prefer a larger setback than 500 feet.
1 I would propose 1000 feet from wells.
1 I would strongly prefer no drilling in City limits, and encourage the Council to put pressure on our elected representatives in Denver to
ensure the safety of all coloradoans. Do we need energy sources? Absolutely. Do oil and gas operations pose multiple health,
environmental, and safety risks? They do.
1 I'd like the state to require even larger buffers.
1 I'd like to see the setback increased to 2,500 feet.
1 I'm glad the distance is being increased to 500 feet but I would prefer 1000 feet. I have seen too many reports of oil and gas leakages
underground.
1 If the intent is to match the State O/G setback standards, would the setback be reduced if the state setbacks are reduced?
1 In general, people should be able to do what they want with their property. Putting a burden on developers to plug nearby gas wells is
likely to favor the most wealthy and connected developers over upstarts. Really, drillers should have to escrow the funds to plug their
well properly, and some portion of severance tax revenue should go to keeping old wells From blowing up people's houses.
1 Increasing the set-back is an unnecessary and excessive change and doesn't respect the land rights of the oil rights established far
before the pressure to build houses. We live across the street from two rigs. We don't like it but the builder knew it when he built and
we knew it when we bought. Decreasing the setback for plugged wells is a good idea. It's not being used anymore so it makes sense... if
the oil company is willing to cap it knowing it won't ever be able to be used again.
1 It is just and much needed in our city. One only has to look at the map of existing wells, active or not to see that it is a siege encroaching
on our beautiful land. The noise, pollution and risk for tax-paying residents needs to be protected.
1 It is not sufficiently protective of public health and safety, or groundwater protection.
1 It is still an inadequate buffer distance for the protection of public health and safety. Whether or not this provides an incentive for
developers to plug active wells will depend on who owns the wells and makes the most money, not on public safety.
Count Response
10
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 41
1 Keep them out of town
1 Laws should be considered to stop gas, oil, coal, and mineral extraction as far from human habitation as possible so as to mitigate
potential health and safety concerns.
1 Looks good!
1 Mirroring state codes and regs will keep FC and Larimer county out of court and save tax monies.
1 My only question is "where is the data that suggests that either 350 feet or 500 feet is sufficient to protect the health and safety of
residents?" This seems somewhat arbitrary and capricious, but may serve to satisfy some who are looking for any increase to make
them "feel better" about this subject. Lets see the data....
1 My personal priority is to have not fracking at all.
1 My preference would be for the minimum setback to be more than 500 feet. However, I prefer the 500 feet setback regulation to the
350 feet setback regulation.
1 Needs to protect people and property mor5
1 New development should be MORE than 500 feet, at least 1000, and should certainly be more than that for schools.
1 Not a big enough buffer! Somewhere between 1,000 and 2,500 feet would be better.
1 Oil & gas operators do not protect residents' needs; they only protect their own bottom line. These codes are still too easy on them.
1 Oil & gas producers should have to plug old wells if not in use regardless if they are to be reopened.
1 Oil and gas development is dangerous and dirty. It hurts wildlife and our air quality. It adds dirty trucks to our roads. Oil and gas
development has no business growing anywhere near our large city.
1 Oil and gas operations should not be allowed within the City limits. Horizontal drilling techniques give access to mineral rights owners
while protecting the health and safety of surface rights owners and residents. Increased cost to mineral right owners should not be
taken into consideration.
1 Overall, I would like to see oil and gas operations more, and not less regulated, considering the serious risks regarding safety and public
health. I don't have much trust in the industry, which is highly profit-driven, spends a lot of money to try and influence policies to work
on their behalf, and appears to want to milk every last dime of profits from what can be extracted. I'd hate to see Fort Collins becoming
anything like neighboring Weld County, which is oil and gas crazy, and consequently has some of the worst air quality and other related
issues in the region, and which unfortunately influences the air quality in the Fort Collins area.
1 Please make it 10,000 feet
1 Safety and a larger buffer should be a priority
1 Safety first!!!! There have been too many accidents. One is two many. We need to protect people and the environment first and
foremost!
1 Seems like good idea to conform with the state.
1 Setback distance should be doubled to 1000 ft for new wells; no development should be permitted within 1000 ft of non-productive
or abandoned wells.
1 Setbacks from active wells should be even greater.
1 Slant drilling allows oil and gas companies to drill long distances. Increase the setback to 1/2 mile.
Count Response
11
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 42
1 Stop coddling the oil and gas industry. They are exporting record amounts of our oil and gas, not paying enough taxes, and not working
in the interest of our communities, or our country. We get stuck with the mess, and pay higher prices at the pump.
1 The code changes appear to be an attempt to move oil and gas further away from residential areas, but in my opinion areas zoned
residential should not have ANY oil and gas production.
1 The contribution of fracking to overall pollution in this region is obvious, documented and frightening. MUCH more needs to be done.
The setbacks are a 2% solution in my opinion.
1 The energy companies are raping Colorado!! No one in the industry can be trusted with the public's welfare-they have proven that
over & over again!!! All I have to do is drive into Weld County to see the disgusting results of how much they care about the public!!
ALL THEY CARE ABOUT IS MONEY!
1 The further the better.
1 The oil and gas industry has proven time and time again that its only real interest is making profits. Certainly not being environmental
stewards for the community and certainly not invested in the health interests of the people living around work areas. The laws in this
state allow oil and gas companies to hide the toxic chemicals that they are using from the public because the frack fluid mixtures are
"proprietary information". I have zero interest in having an industry regulated by laughable laws anywhere near where I live. Especially
considering that most of these companies have enough money to buy the city of Fort Collins outright.
1 The proposed change is not consistent with the State standards related to new residential next to existing wells. The proposed
changes do not respect the property owner in any way.
1 The set backs are woefully inadequate to protect public health and safety.
1 The setback should be more like 1000 or 2000 ft, but also instead of punishing real estate developers, new oil and gas wells should be
set back 1 mile from existing development!
1 The way to get developers to plug and abandon active wells is to make penalties for problems that arise so severe that developers
have to protect themselves financially against that happening or face possible bankruptcy .
1 There are numerous studies linking proximity to wells and increased risk of neurological and congenital defects. One study showed
increased risk of negative health effects for people living closer than half a mile away. I believe that even 500 foot setbacks are not
sufficient, and that the setback should be increased to 2,500 feet to reduce risk to residents in a meaningful way.
1 There should be a public meeting/hearing about these proposed changes and how they will affect the entire community; especially
those nearer wells
1 This code change aligns with my own personal values because it is preventing the toxic health detriments that oil is known to cause,
but by how much? I am certainly in favor of this but wondering if there's a way to make sure each well is even farther from
neighborhoods. Can we isolate wells and make a regulation not to develop anywhere near, to a distance of 2000-5000 ft? Can we
regulate how many new wells are built? Is there a safer way to plug them? Studies show that 10% of plugged oil wells leak. I would also
like to urge city council to set up a very well publicized meeting to talk about this, as this is a matter of severe health repercussions.
1 This code change does not address the issue of unmarked flowlines, contamination of water sources and increased set-backs for
schools.
1 This code change does not specifically address visual impact, noise and/or air quality. Distance may not mitigate all of those, depending
on terrain and other characteristics.
1 This code change will likely drive the cost of new homes up. Reducing a developers investment and interest. There needs to be a
better way to insulate nearby residents from industrial equipment without hogging up all this land.
1 This code seems fairly clearly targeted at reducing oil and gas production. The science behind it is questionable at best. Even as the city
is discussing energy subsidies for low income households, this policy will directly lead to higher energy prices. This is just bad policy,
plain and simple.
Count Response
12
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 43
1 This is not a well-designed survey. It is simply an opinion poll, but asks for no information about the respondent to contextualize the
results. How much does s/he know about fracking? What demographic does s/he come from? Further, when s/he disagrees with the
first statement, does it mean s/he doesn't think the code goes far enough or, rather, that the code change is unnecessary to protect
public health? Your results will be equivocal and could be interpreted to support different agendas. I suggest you go back to the
drawing board and hire a nonpartisan survey firm.
1 This is taking away from the rights of the landowners near Oil & Gas wells. State Law requires O & G development to be at least 500
feet from residential units, true. What you're doing here is requiring that residential development be 500 feet from existing O & G units.
This is not the same thing. Allow developers to develop at 350 from existing O & G, if they choose to do so. If Buyers won't buy the
homes at that distance, the developer will learn quickly. It's called personal choice, as in, the Buyer can choose to live that close, or not.
Making this change will do nothing to encourage developers to plug and abandon active wells. Making the second change may do so.
1 This is way too close to neighborhoods to give a buffer from potential hazards. Why can't our city be proactive in setting tough
standards to avoid cases like the explosion in Frederick that killed 2 unsuspecting people in their home.
1 This new regulation would protect the health and safety everyone involved. People over profit.
1 Though any setback is better than none, this is extremely minimal. I support this and any incremental setback, and encourage keeping
up with the state standards ONLY if they put buildings and people farther away from fracking wells, active or inactive. My own personal
values would see us shutting down wells within 10 miles of any people. Since this only addresses new wells, I doubt it would impact
whether or not developers did anything to address abandoned wells.
1 To change the setback by 150 feet is hardly going to make a difference in the safety of nearby residents. The operators of these wells
use undisclosed materials, many of which are likely to be carcinogenic. They don't dispose of fracking wastewater responsibly, either. I
am completely against fracking in Larimer county.
1 We don't know that even 500 ft is enough for safety. These wells are leaking methane into our air which we all share....the industry
needs to be shut down because we are destroying the ozone layer and the future of the planet's ecosystem, as well as the human
species.
1 We need to be dramatically stepping aeat from all fossil fuel develipment. ESPECIALLY FRACKING.
1 We should do anything we can to protect the safety of people living in Ft. Collins. With so much development occurring in our city we
need to protect the health and safety of people who live or will live here. The State does little to protect us from oil and gas operations
and the people of Ft. Collins have made it clear that we don't want oil and gas operations in backyard so anything the city can do to
protect people living in new developments is a great thing.
1 We should not be encouraging plugging and abandoning of active oil and gas wells.
1 What we know about VOC's from oil and gas operations is that they are very toxic. It would be better to increase setbacks even more
than 500' for public health, but an increase is better than nothing.
1 Whatever we can do to maintain public health and safety, we should do. We should be the leader.
1 Where is this idea coming from? Do we want the city to look like and have the same issues as the towns and cities in Weld County?
1 While I agree that increasing the distance from wells for new (I assume housing) will have an effect on protecting those who might move
into these new developments, it really does nothing to protect existing property owners whose homes are closer to wells. I also am
not confident that plugged and abandoned wells are necessarily safe. There are apparently no standards for those or requirements that
any standards be followed.
1 Who will be inspecting plugged and abandoned Wells to ensure they are safe? After the home exploded in Firestone, we all know the
existing system for safety inspections isn't working.
1 Why are we not making the rules more stringent and request even more distance between wells and developments in the city limits?
My experience is that plugging a well (even according to current regs) doesn't always adequately protect against blowouts over time.
1 Why would anyone want to plug a production well when our country needs all forms of energy and yes that includes fossil fuels
Count Response
13
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 44
1 Without a clearer statement on the safety requirements for "plugged" wells the safety of residents is still at risk. Repeats of the
Firestone event are possible. The safety requirements for developers/operators for plugging wells need to be clearly stated and
should have been included in this questionnaire. Placing Colorado residents in harms way should never be permitted.
1 Would support this part of proposal.
1 safety first
1 the city rules should match the state rules. the rights of the mineral rights owner should also be respected and considered. be clear that
the rules would apply to the surface location and not the bottom hole location. subsurface production could be safely performed under
developments.
1 this is insufficiently protective of public health and safety and our water resources.
Count Response
14
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 45
7. This code change protects the health and safety of those who live near oil and gas operations.
46% 46%Disagree Strongly Disagree
20% 20%Disagree Disagree
9% 9%Neutral Neutral
15%Agree 15% Agree
7%Agree 7% Strongly Agree
3%Sure 3% No Opinion/Not Sure
Value Percent Responses
Strongly Disagree 45.6% 103
Disagree 19.9% 45
Neutral 9.3% 21
Agree 15.0% 34
Strongly Agree 7.1% 16
No Opinion/Not Sure 3.1% 7
Totals: 226
15
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 46
8. This code change minimizes the potential negative impacts of oil and gas operations.
42% 42%Disagree Strongly Disagree
23% 23%Disagree Disagree
8% 8%Neutral Neutral
16%Agree 16% Agree
7%Agree 7% Strongly Agree
4%Sure 4% No Opinion/Not Sure
Value Percent Responses
Strongly Disagree 42.4% 95
Disagree 23.2% 52
Neutral 7.6% 17
Agree 16.1% 36
Strongly Agree 6.7% 15
No Opinion/Not Sure 4.0% 9
Totals: 224
16
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 47
9. This code change considers the rights of property owners and land developers.
29% 29%Disagree Strongly Disagree
15% 15%Disagree Disagree
20% 20%Neutral Neutral
25% 25%Agree Agree
7%Agree 7% Strongly Agree
5%Sure 5% No Opinion/Not Sure
Value Percent Responses
Strongly Disagree 28.6% 64
Disagree 14.7% 33
Neutral 19.6% 44
Agree 25.4% 57
Strongly Agree 7.1% 16
No Opinion/Not Sure 4.5% 10
Totals: 224
17
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 48
10. This code change is likely to encourage developers to plug and abandon active wells.
19% 19%Disagree Strongly Disagree
18%Disagree 18% Disagree
17% 17%Neutral Neutral
24% 24%Agree Agree
9% 9%Agree Strongly Agree
12%Sure 12% No Opinion/Not Sure
Value Percent Responses
Strongly Disagree 18.7% 42
Disagree 18.2% 41
Neutral 17.3% 39
Agree 24.0% 54
Strongly Agree 9.3% 21
No Opinion/Not Sure 12.4% 28
Totals: 225
18
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 49
11. This code change aligns with my own personal values or priorities.
43% 43%Disagree Strongly Disagree
24% 24%Disagree Disagree
9% 9%Neutral Neutral
12%Agree 12% Agree
9%Agree 9% Strongly Agree
3%Sure 3% No Opinion/Not Sure
Value Percent Responses
Strongly Disagree 43.1% 97
Disagree 23.6% 53
Neutral 8.9% 20
Agree 12.0% 27
Strongly Agree 9.3% 21
No Opinion/Not Sure 3.1% 7
Totals: 225
19
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 50
Count Response
1 100 feet don't make a fucking difference when you poison the water table and the air. How is this so complicated? In this
bullshit. Don't add another fucking hundred feet. Stop poisoning us stop poisoning us stop poisoning us stop poisoning us to
stop poisoning us to stop poisoning us to stop poisoning us. You're getting poison to. Your family is getting poisoned. We're
all getting poisoned. What is a hundred feet ? what is 500 ft when we are all getting poisoned?
1 100 feet is much too close!
1 100 feet is not enough. This would be terrible for the environment and our health.
1 100 ft is even more ridiculous than 500 ft!
1 100 ft. setbacks are not adequate to protect the health and safety of Fort Collins residents. I recommend that the City engage
with the City of Longmont to learn more about their efforts to study plugged and abandoned (P&A) wells within their city limits.
Before Fort Collins can make any determination re setbacks from (P&A) wells, the City must study soil samples, air samples and
water samples near P&A wells. The City at this point does not have enough evidence to arbitrarily set a 100 ft. setback from
P&A wells. This proposed code update should be tabled until the City has adequately studied the P&A wells sites within City
limits.
1 Again, safety first. Keep the current 350 ft set back.
1 All wells, whether abandoned or active, should require the 500 foot minimum setback. This would make landowners think twice
before allowing drilling operations on their land, as it would be permanently condemned for future use.
1 Any effort to increase the distance between residences and well is a positive move. I live very close to a well in Hearthfire and
the toxic odors that emanate daily are frightening. I am very worried about the health and welfare of my family.
1 Any person who votes in favor of reducing offsets to such a low distance risks personal liability for any injuries or deaths
resulting from such negligent disregard for the risks. The lesson from the Firestone explosion (similar but not identical
circumstances) should make clear how incredibly irresponsible it would be to decrease any existing setback from new
development.
1 Any reduction of setbacks for abandoned wells is a move in the wrong direction.
1 As long as the plugs are inspected by someone other than the developer or oil&gas company!
1 As we've seen in other cases, I'm concerned that even if wells are abandoned, they could still pose a rise to ground water and
other environmental issues. I prefer the existing 350 foot setback.
1 Changing the code to 100 feet puts residents at greater risk for their health and safety. "Fraccidents" are happening on a regular
basis. the pockets of oil and gas are so deep they routinely avoid putting extra safety precautions in place because the amounts
they pay out for accidents are a drop in the bucket for them. We must place more accountability on their shoulders.
1 Considering the explosion in Firestone I think it's a dangerous idea to decrease this distance. It should be kept the same or
increased.
1 Ditto my comments in previous section
1 Do we have enough science to know that current plugging is adequate to increase health and safety. I would agree with
stronger setbacks.
1 Don't trust O&G operators to adequately plug their facilities after abandonment, nor will a developer do it. Both are greedy pigs
motivated by their money, and neither will voluntarily invest in a money-losing venture.
12. Do you have any questions or comments about this proposed code change?
20
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 51
1 Even a plugged well can pose a hazard, and is an eyesore. I do not think the setback should be reduced to 100 feet, perhaps a
compromise of 200 feet would be reasonable to still provide some incentive, but reduce the visual blight.
1 Even after watching the video, I really don't know what is best regarding safety for nearby residents, i.e., should we be much
stricter about proximity to active and closed wells. And is the State strict enough?
1 Fort Collins traditionally DOES NOT LOWER environmental protections! Did Pruit and Trump assume leadership positions in
FC?
1 Fracking is dangerous to people's health & safety with this being supported by more & more studies. Neither proposed change
is nearly far enough to protect people's health & safety.
1 From my research, I can find no state or city data that reveals all abandoned wells or their pipelines. We've had one house blow
up in our state. Again, we are taxpayers. Stop siding with big oil and gas with these weak code changes.
1 Given the danger from plugged and abandoned wells as seen in the Firestone explosion, we should not be placing more homes
next to abandoned wells by reducing the distance allowed
1 Housing should not be developed within 5000 feet of an abandoned petroleum or gas well. The harmful effects of such wells
are not fully understood.
1 How can a mineral right holder re-use a plugged and abandoned well?
1 How can allowing closer proximity to potentially dangerous conditions be safer??
1 How long will be given to comply with new regulations? Who will enforce the new regulations?
1 How were these abandoned and plugged wells inspected in 2017?
1 I DO NOT support reducing the off set from 350 to 100 feet for plugged or abandoned wells. First this assumes that the
company properly plugged the well. Secondly if they have not then the health and safety risks posed to residential homes is
increased. In addition this may have negative impacts on property values. Face it no one wants to live next to oil and gas.
1 I am concerned about having plugged and abandoned wells so close to homes. There are so many wells, and so few safety
inspectors, so how do we insure that a well that was plugged or abandoned is still safe even years later?
1 I am not clear why a REDUCED setback for abandoned wells would create a stronger incentive to plug them.
1 I believe the setback should remain the same. Even though the wells are inactive and capped, they might still pose a hazard to
nearby development if periodic air sampling at the cap is not done to ensure no slow build-up of gas fumes is occurring inside
the well. Allowing defunct wells to be much closer increases the potential hazard of the density and speed of gas fumes
impacting nearby dwellings. This testing may already be required, but I didn't find any information readily seen in the links
provided. I also believe there should be codes requiring all new developments to have these wells capped within the existing
plats and setback zones, instead of just incentives.
1 I do not favor relaxing the existing required setback.
1 I do not want this distance to be reduced.
1 I presume that "Development" means buildings occupied by people, e.g., housing. If not, my answers could change.
1 I think FC should wait for the CDPHE report to be out in 2018 on the health & environmental impacts of fracking and wells. New
scientific data is constantly being discovered on long term & far reaching impacts (i.e. air contamination). Ergo the vote for the
moratorium-to give more time for scientific research. CSU has done some studies. 150 additional feet is a start but may not be
enough to keep families safe. Plugging abandoned wells should be required and not an option. The overall process of what
goes on underground will come to back to haunt everyone. Mother Nature does not like being messed with and she will let us
know in not so subtle ways. Money can be better spent on alternative fuel sources. Thank you for the opportunity to share my
thoughts.
Count Response
21
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 52
1 I think this proposed change will drive up the cost of land for future development, perhaps contrary to the City's desire for more
affordable housing.
1 I would prefer the setback to be larger. I don't think 100ft incurs compliance on the part of the industry or safety on the part of
the civilians.
1 I'm not sure I trust that the "plugging" will last or be safe long term after recent explosions.
1 I'm not sure the data is completely in on this issue. Why change the distance if we do not 100% know what the results will be for
our children. No.
1 If a well is legally plugged, then I'm ok building there.
1 If people want to build closer to a well, they should be allowed to do so. Let the market assess the risks.
1 If we are truly a "green" city we will say NO to fracking, the city will pay landowners to plug and discontinue fracking sites. More
information is needed to educate ALL Fort Collins residents -public and politics alike- on the impacts of fracking, and living in
proximity to fracking sites.
1 In no way should the set back be reduced!
1 Inactive wells should be required to be plugged according to the highest standards, with no counterpart of incentives.
1 It seems unlikely that a developer would incur the cost and liability of plugging a well so that construction of houses could occur
nearby.
1 It'll be easier to just leave that probably. What can be done realistically with 250 feet? A bike trail?
1 It's nice to say that the abandoned wells need to meet state standards, but who will ensure this? I don't believe the state is
enforcing it's standards effectively. Until I have more confidence that plugged wells are really safe I can't support a reduced
setback.
1 Just because you gave one variance does not make it right to give any more. Talk to Jason Elkins at the City of Longmont for
their experience and work on P&A wells.
1 KEEP THE SETBACK AT 350'!!!
1 Keep the drillers out of Fort Collins. Force drilled wells to be properly capped. Hold drillers liable for future damage by requiring
insurance policies from the drillers that will pay for property and human damage.
1 Laws should be considered to stop gas, oil, coal, and mineral extraction as far from human habitation as possible so as to
mitigate potential health and safety concerns.
1 Leave at 350' for plugged and abandoned well.
1 Makes it worse by bringing homes and wells closer.
1 Mirroring state regs will be a benefit to FC and Larimer county
1 Mistakes can still be made, just like the fatal home explosion in Firestone.
1 No
1 No way would I support this.
1 Not enough information
1 On its face, it looks like this proposed move is based on money, rather than public health.
Count Response
22
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 53
1 Perhaps things have tightened up since the tragic explosion in Firestone, but I am skeptical. I would want to know more about
what the City, and for that matter Larimer County and the State would be doing to be sure abandoned wells and pipelines have
been properly capped and sealed before I would favor any reduction in the safety zone around any development, existing or
new.
1 Pipeline infrastructure deteriorates with time. This merely pushes the problem into the future. The responsibility for plugging
active wells and monitoring the integrity of all pipelines should reside with O&G extraction companies, not housing developers
(language in #10 is unclear as to whom is being referred to by use of the word "developers").
1 Please address frackers fiscal responsibility for their 'takings" from private property owners.
1 Please make it 10,000 feet.
1 Please see my first comment
1 Reducing the setback for a capped well makes sense. Since there is no industrial equipment and the well heads are properly
Capped. It makes no sense to enforce a large setback when that land could be useful to nearby residents.
1 Reducing these distances will greatly increase the risk of communities being affected by leaking, plugged oil wells. Stanford's
research demonstrated that plugged gas wells had a high likelihood of leaking. This is dangerous for communities living near
these wells.
1 Same as before. And, plugged and abandoned wells will fail over time. I know. I'm an environmental scientist. You're just kicking
the can down the road so that future generations will have to contend with the destruction we've caused.
1 Same comments as first part.
1 See my above answer. 500 feet is not enough distance from wells for development. It needs to be much further. 2,00 feet would
be a minimum.
1 Setback should be at least 1000 ft for abandoned/plugged wells; development of these areas should not be permitted.
1 Since Firestone's "oops" which left 2 people dead, there have been a dozen more, with other lives lost. They didn't make the
headlines, however. This is a morally bankrupt play by developers, putting the lives of anyone building within at least 150 feet at
risk. When wells are plugged they use concrete, which cracks. Not if, but when, it happens they can cause explosions like we've
seen recently. We should not be playing Russian Roulette with our citizens' lives just so developers can build more homes over
these time bombs!
1 Stanford has studied plugged wells and shown that about 10% of these leak. Therefore I personally would treat them in a similar
fashion as active wells. There are numerous studies linking proximity to wells and increased risk of neurological and congenital
defects. One study showed increased risk of negative health effects for people living closer than half a mile away. I believe that
even 500 foot setbacks are not sufficient, and that the setback should be increased to 2,500 feet
1 Still not convinced this will achieve the goals stated but it's better than nothing.
1 Suggested language for a new rule: "New development must be at least **500 feet** from plugged and abandoned oil and gas
wells. Wells would need to be plugged and abandoned to current state standards, and additional safety or monitoring
requirements may apply."
1 The 100 ft. not far enough. Again consider what happened in Firestone. Oil company thought well was abandoned and plugged.
A house blew up and lives were lost.
1 The argument in favor seems like a "best guess" which may be wishful thinking. There have been a number of reports of poorly
plugged wells. I doubt the state has the staff to confirm that abandoned wells are adequately plugged, nor the ability to check
these wells in succeeding years. I also question whether the 100 foot separation is adequate for safety.
1 The current code should be left as is, or made more stringent.
Count Response
23
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 54
1 The energy companies are raping Colorado!! No one in the industry can be trusted with the public's welfare-they have proven
that over & over again!!! All I have to do is drive into Weld County to see the disgusting results of how much they care about
the public!! ALL THEY CARE ABOUT IS MONEY!
1 The set backs undermine public health and safety and should be at least 2,000 feet.
1 There have been problems monitoring the quality of other aspects of the safety of inactive wells, therefore I have no confidence
in the resources and discipline being available to ensure safety whiLe reducing buffers.
1 There is no meaningful advantage provided by reducing the setback other than to benefit of developers. This perennial power
move is tiresome for all of us who are not developers. Surveys and public notices feel like a technicality and minor speed bump
to the inevitable. Sigh.
1 This allows developers and O & G operations owners to decide if they want to plug underperforming wells, because it opens up
more development potential. It allows the landowner to make decisions that benefit his/her wants and needs.
1 This code change does not address set-backs from flow-lines, whether active or not. All flow-lines need to be mapped /
disconnected at the source and removed before allowing less set-back. Soil testing for escaping hydrocarbons should be
mandatory for at least 5 years prior to reducing the set-backs.
1 This code change would make it impossible for an unused well to ever be used again if a development is built closer than the
500 feet as currently required. This proposed rule is a underhanded way to limit oil and gas industry and mineral rights owners
from exercising their rights. City Council should be ashamed of themselves for proposing this underhanded proposed code
change.
1 This is a morally bankrupt proposal. Since Firestone's "oops" that took two lives, there have been a dozen other accidents and
others have lost their lives. O&G intends to frack every square mile of our state, according to an aside of an industry rep, and
this just gives the developers more to work with while endangering lives needlessly. Recent research in "Science Advances"
shows a causal relationship between proximity to all fracking wells, producing, and non-producing, within a 10-mile radius, on
newborns' health and mortality with a sampling of over 1,125,000 cases! The closer one lives to the wells, the higher the
impacts. I sent this data to our city council last week. We should not be playing Russian roulette with our citizens' lives so we can
build more homes.
1 This is crazy! Why do these companies get to ruin our groundwater?
1 This is insane....are you all on the payroll of the oil and gas industry and developers....there is no way that you are considering
the health and safety of the citizens of Ft. Collins.
1 This is not a well-designed survey. It is simply an opinion poll, but asks for no information about the respondent to contextualize
the results. How much does s/he know about fracking? What demographic does s/he come from? Further, when s/he disagrees
with the first statement, does it mean s/he doesn't think the code goes far enough or, rather, that the code change is
unnecessary to protect public health? Your results will be equivocal and could be interpreted to support different agendas. I
suggest you go back to the drawing board and hire a nonpartisan survey firm.
1 This is not based on public health and safety interests, but rather development interests.
1 This is ridiculous to reduce the setback to 100 feet, given the recent home explosion in Firestone and other similar systemic
problems. This needs to be INCREASED NOT DECREASED!
1 This small a setback is pretty much terrible for public health and the preservation of property rights. I consider the heavy hand
the COGCC uses against Front Range towns and cities a violation of civil rights.
1 We need to maintain a safe distance from plugged wells. The recent explosions are clear evidence of this. If you let this happen, I
think the location of the wells need to be disclosed to any future buyer. You also need to be ready and willing to take
responsibility for any damages and loss of life if the wells explode. I think this is incredibly irresponsible and shows your lack of
care for the residents of our community!
1 We should not be encouraging the plugging and abandoning of active oil and gas wells.
Count Response
24
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 55
1 What evidence do you base the assumption that the change will encourage OG developers to plug their abandoned wells? The
well owners are almost never the same as the surface owners (who are the ones who would benefit by being able to build more
housing under this rule change). There is no incentive for operators to do anything. What are the reasons OG operators leave
abandoned wells improperly plugged? I'm sure there is some financial or regulatory incentive and if they are not surface owners
they have no stake in surface development.
1 What is the evidence that the code change and the reduction in proximity to plugged and abandoned wells will encourage
developers to plug and abandon active wells? Is that coming from oil and gas developers themselves? How has this affected
new development?
1 What makes you think you can rely on industry to abide by the capping regs? (How silly!)
1 While plugging and abandonment for today's standards may work, locations of historical wells or their P&A process is not
always known. In addition, it is the infrastructure that would be an issue and that is the area that needs to be fully evaluated for
construction activities. In addition, poorly constructed and then poorly P&A'd wells could lead to conduits for contamination.
There are variables here that need further evaluation before reducing the setback.
1 While the idea that plugged wells are better than active ones is sound, plugged wells are known to be environmental hazards,
and can be unplugged easily. Given this, maintaining a distance of 350 feet from these wells is more likely to protect people now
and into the future.
1 Who will plug these wells for developers? Will Fort Collins suggest a professional company and will the city then have an
inspection process?
1 Why do they need an incentive to develop closer if they plug? They should be required to do this.
1 You are putting your voting citizens at risk for health issues and underweight births.
1 You know whether this would encourage developers to plug Wells which are no longer active, one would need to know what
the cost was and if it was cost-effective for those Developers and landowners to do so
1 plug the wells
Count Response
25
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 56
Count Response
3 No
2 no
1 A 500 foot setback is not enough to be healthy for those who live in the area. One half mile from a well is the distance
considered safe for home owners and for water supplies. Certainly lowering the already low standards we have for setbacks
from homes, either those in existence or those that are to be built, is a bad idea. The city has an obligation to protect the
homeowner's health and the value of that home. Thank you.
1 "Orphan wells" were a pretty noxious problem offshore and onshore in Louisiana, where I lived for eight years prior to coming
to Fort Collins. The city is increasing the safety margin for new development around active wells. I think we take the inactive
status a little too much at face value if we reduce the safety zone for development near supposedly inactive wells.
1 Again, the proposed changes and the existing policy is dramatically more harmful to the property owner than the State
standards. Property owners should be able to choose to build closer to existing wells.
1 Aligning the City's codes with the State's makes sense, however I remain curious as to why this movement continues to shut
down energy production?
1 Although conflicts of public safety with O&G development are minor in Fort Collins now, changes in energy pricing require
stringent regulation now to protect citizens in the future
1 An increased bond for oil companies would be nice, though that may be at the state level. If, as they say, there isn't much chance
of them exceeding the current bond, then a higher amount shouldn't be much more expensive. Let the insurance companies
take the risk, not the public.
1 Anything that can be done to limit O&G development, especially fracking, should be done.
1 As a toxicologist and as someone who's dealt with oil and gas exploration and extraction in NV, I know exactly what is involved
and what kind of mess it leaves on the landscape. That should NOT be happening in residential areas at all!
1 As an environmental scientist, I strongly suggest we terminate with oil and agas development in this state as soon as possible.
1 As long as the City of Fort Collins gets their money, they really don't care about this. These changes are meant to benefit the
land developers and the City. Rich get richer and City collects permit $
1 Better maintained wells and citizen education is needed. Setbacks do very little to increase "safety". Large setbacks drive up the
cost of homes and development and occupy land that could otherwise be useful to a neighborhood.
1 COGCC has not even come close to doing its job of protecting citizens from oil and gas development. Instead they have
basically become a propaganda group promoting fossil fuels. They have put a little lipstick on the pig to try to keep Colorado
citizens from banning fracking as many cities including Fort Collins did several years ago before the state sued us. Fort Collins
should do everything in its power to fight back and create the strictest limits possible on oil and gas if they truly want to protect
their citizens.
1 Can you please notify those impacted of the location of wells that are within 1000 feet of their home? People have the right to
know where they are.
1 For me, the most important aspect of the reduced setback for plugged wells is the thorough inspection to ensure that it was
plugged properly
1 Fracked oil and gas is a lot cleaner than other fossil fuels and can sustain us for the time being. Let's use it while it's useful and
build the solar future at the same time.
13. Do you have any additional comments on the proposed Land Use Code changes or other oil and gas topics?
26
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 57
1 Fracking this close to adults & kids is extreme energy development which is isn't safe & shouldn't be allowed. Studies show the
closer you live to fracking the more serious health consequences there are. These proposals don't protect the publics health &
safety!
1 Given the recent explosions in Weld county, we must be very careful to protect our residents.
1 Health studies and recent explosions and fires have shown that the set backs favor O&G companies not residents.
1 Health, safety and environmental sustainability should have priority over property rights. Colorado's dual estate system is
outmoded; mineral extraction and urban development don't belong in the same neighborhood.
1 How did you go from voting to prevent oil and gas development within the city to these proposed changes?
1 How do these impact real estate? Our realtors and buyers made aware of all plugged, active or proposed wells? I might think this
to be an important piece of buying decision... like the way radon tests are suggested. Full transparency.
1 I also am not in favor of removing language related to the fracking moratorium. I still think we should limit or prohibit oil and gas
development within City limits.
1 I am a resident of south Fort Collins for 24 years. I strongly oppose oil and gas development near residential areas and feel our
state has overriden the views of the majority on this issue.
1 I appreciate the opportunity to fill out a survey, it helps me feel like I am in the loop
1 I believe that fractured wells must be handled separately from non-fractured wells as the risk of hydrocarbon escape and
contamination of the surrounding area is greater and these sites needs monitoring long after the well-head is capped.
1 I can't see any reason for reducing the setbacks other than a give away to developers.
1 I do not believe it is appropriate to develop new neighborhoods around or near either active or inactive wells.
1 I feel the distanves between existing wells and new wells should be increased. Also, we need more funding to have stricter
safety guidelines for Oil amd Gas development. Also, it us the concern of everyone living in the front range that HYDRAULIC
FRACTURING STOP ASAP.
1 I hope that the City chooses to protect our lovely city! Protect our health, our aesthetic, our air, our water, and our property
values! We need to invest in clean energy!! We want to continue to attract high quality people and businesses to our area!
Let's keep foco great! ...and clean!
1 I think FC should wait for the CDPHE report to be out in 2018 on the health & environmental impacts of fracking and wells. New
scientific data is constantly being discovered on long term & far reaching impacts (i.e. air contamination). Ergo the vote for the
moratorium-to give more time for scientific research. CSU has done some studies. 150 additional feet is a start but may not be
enough to keep families safe. Plugging abandoned wells should be required and not an option. The overall process of what
goes on underground will come to back to haunt everyone. Mother Nature does not like being messed with and she will let us
know in not so subtle ways. Money can be better spent on alternative fuel sources. Thank you for the opportunity to share my
thoughts.
1 I think the type of operations in an area should be included in the determination of setbacks. Some low-flow operations may not
be as critical as high volume operations.
1 I think there should be widely publicized public hearings on this proposal. Maps should be available showing the locations and
well log information of all active and abandoned wells (plugged, not plugged and whether they are just temporarily abandoned
or not), monitoring status and findings, well permit applications, and underlying pipelines, and all of this information in relation to
current and planned development, hydrogeology, and surface waters. Information on well locations, pipelines and their status,
and mineral rights ownership should also be readily available to the public and individuals to consider prior to real estate
transactions. Also, locations of abandoned wells are supposed to be marked under CO law, but we have a couple even in my
neighborhood that are not marked. One of them, drilled in 1999 and abandoned in 2000, is not even designated as plugged on
COGCC publicly available information. A local recent news story cited a homeowner in south Fort Collins who recent
Count Response
27
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 58
1 I was on the water board years ago and endorsed the regulations adopted by council which exceeded State standards at that
time. I apparently missed an opportunity to input earlier in this new consideration of proposed changes and am doing now
1 I would like better protection for citizens/residents over oil& gas companies.
1 I would like to keep a Timnath like situation, of fracking near homes and schools, from happening in Fort Collins. Any weakening
of regulations would cause alarm.
1 I would like to see Fort Collins pursue some stronger regulations or another moratorium (like other cities on the Front Range
have done). That map showing the wells does not imply that Fort Collins won't soon see development. Fracked wells often have
shorter production lives, fracking allows expansion into areas previously not economic to develop and OG resources are
usually found in contiguous areas. We need to get in front of this once more and not cave in to the arguments that there isn't
much development here. There wasn't much development anywhere on the Front Range 10 years ago.
1 I would like to think the 100-foot provision would work, but I would like to see reports indicating success from other areas
where it has been tried. At present it may be wishful thinking.
1 I would really like to see the City take a VERY strong stance on this issue rather than compromising yet more of the health and
safety of City residents and our environment in the interest of energy development.
1 I would suggest that the developers of houses and schools be required to install permanent air quality monitoring equipment
within range of active fracking sites and that the data be continuously available to the residents and parents of students.
1 I'd like to see our leaders agressively protecting our environment, especially our water and air. Thanks!
1 I'm just lucky I live in an area of fort Collins without any of these issues but looking out of your back yard to see a lit up tower
pumping oil or gas 24/7 seems like a nightmare. I really hope groundwater is not being ruined for people who need it and
suddenly earthquakes start happening.
1 I'm not against fracking. I very much want to see these areas of town developed.
1 Intensive development of oil and gas in this area has resulted in the harmful leakage of methane and ethane, contributing to the
formation of dangerous ozone levels and global warming.
1 It is a start in the right direction, but it is not significant enough. We can do better.
1 It is not a question of IF the P&A wells will leak; it is a question of when. They all leak sometime down the line, and they need to
be monitored continuously.
1 It's a shame that fort collins' moratorium on fracking was repealed. Fracking produces hazardous waste and above all irreversibly
continates our ground water. If there is opportunity to reduce fracking.in our area i hope the city governmemt will take action.
1 It's critically important for the City to pursue all means necessary to assess the risks associated with oil and gas development
and adjust the code to address them. Risks should include public health, environment, economic, social and ethical dimensions.
1 Its time for the city of Fort Collins to advocate for the plugging and abandoning of all wells within city limits, and for us to move
toward a 100% renewable energy goal.
1 Keep the drillers out of Fort Collins. No oil exploration! Close the wells that currently exist. Require drillers to prove they have
properly capped wells. Hold drillers accountable for improperly capped wells by requiring up front insurance policies that protect
property owners from drilling activity.
1 Keep the oil and gas industry out of our city. Much of our local economy and tourist appeal is based on the cleanliness of our
water, o&g will ruin that and bleed the town dry only to scurry away from their mess once the viable product is consumed in the
ground. O&g as an industry is equivalent to the people who go through the trouble of taking shopping carts only to realize that
once they deposit their purchases in their vehicle that they no longer have interest in returning the cart to an area that isn't
threatening to other vehicles in the parking lot.
Count Response
28
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 59
1 Keep the original 350' setback when building ANYTHING near land previously used for oil & gas purposes!!! Tell the
Developers to stop being so damn greedy!
1 Keep them out of town
1 Laws should be considered to stop gas, oil, coal, and mineral extraction as far from human habitation as possible so as to
mitigate potential health and safety concerns.
1 Let's limit oil and gas out of Fort Collins as much as possible. Please do more to stimulate growth of the solar industry. I'd like the
Earth to not have melted when my kids are grown.
1 None
1 Not aggressive enough to protect health & safety of citizens. Question: can they drill for oil & gas on city open space? Who
owns the mineral rights under city parks and open spaces?
1 Note earlier comments.
1 Of course increasing setbacks from oil and gas industrial operations from 350 to 500 ft. is an improvement but is not enough of
a setback to address the health and safety concerns of Fort Collins residents. A seemingly arbitrary setback of 100 ft for
plugged ad abandoned wells can not be considered until the safety of P&A wells is studied. I don't see how the 100 ft setback
encourages developers to properly plug wells. What evidence does the City have for this theory? Endangering city residents on
a theory is reckless. Again, this proposed change should be abandoned until safety studies have been conducted and more than
a theory can be relied on for developers plugging wells.
1 Oil and Gas companies are given too much control. Citizens need to have more protection to maintain a quality of life and safe
living environment.
1 Oil and Gas operations are industrial operations which pose health and safety hazards to those around them. They have no
place in populated or residential areas. Setbacks of 500 feet are not enough, I believe they should be closer to 1000 feet.
1 Oil and gas operators are less trustworthy than developers. Don't let either of them off the hook by reducing any standards; if
you do, you are just pandering to the money at the expense of our City's residents.
1 Please do not pander to the anti-oil and gas constituency.
1 Please make ALL setbacks as far as possible from homes. Though the state Supreme Court rode over us, the people of Fort
Collins have clearly voted to not have oil and gas production in our city limits. And the home explosions in Firestone and other
cities highlight the need for more stringent, not less strict, setbacks from abandoned or plugged oil/gas wells. Thanks for asking
for our input!
1 Please make sure you do the research to see what the state requires now for a distance that development must be away from
existing O & G operations. The way you're justifying the first suggestion is not valid.
1 Please please protect people and the environment not the oil companies. They are making plenty of money.
1 Please stop worrying so much about the oil and gas community and pay attention to the safety of your citizens.
1 Please think about the environment. I live next to these wells and it is terrible. We had no idea that we would be smelling these
chemicals when we moved in here.
1 Set back to 500 ft. is a good idea. 100 ft for capped wells is not sufficient, at least until there is far better verification that energy
companies are really following the rules for capping & sealing. (To date, this has not been demonstrated.)
1 Thank you for including the thoughts of residents in your decision.
1 Thanks for paying attention to safety & concerns of our residents. Fort Collins has a history of considering our input and I
appreciate it. More evidence should be presented on whether the code changes improve safety.
Count Response
29
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 60
1 The City has jurisdiction on surface operations. This should be used fully. I would NOT, as a future property owner, purchase a
house where oil or gas operations had previously occurred. The proposed changes, notably the 150 foot setback from
previous wells, does not protect residents. Land used for oil and gas operations should not be developed.
1 The City should consider applying a Municipal Carbon Tax, not a severance tax that is the purview of the State, but carbon
pollution tax.
1 The citizens of Colorado deserve full disclosure from COCG on the locations of all oil and gas infrastructure.
1 The city council needs to enact much stricter regulations on all future wells and operaters.. And start putting the voices of the
residents and citizens they work for over the needs of oil and gas company CEOS ..Our air quality is horrid due to the operations
and unchecked negligence of companies like Extraction...The council needs to do much more to protect our air and water and
there needs to be much more transparently on campaign donations to members of the city council from oil and gas companies..
1 The city needs to do everything possible to minimize oil and gas impact on people and property. This industry has too much
power
1 The city should fight strongly against all oil and gas drilling in city limits.
1 The proposed change is going in the right direction, but I would like to see even greater setbacks than what COGA is
supporting.
1 The second part of these changes seems to go against any voice I've seen from various voted on proposals. They would seem
to come from a few deep pockets and not the many voices of the community.
1 This is a violation of the rights of the public and homeowners to satisfy an industry that shouldn't continue to operate. They are
jeopardizing the future of the nation's children through their denial and fraud around climate change
1 This issue, like so many, is a complex intersection of understanding the structure and operation of oil and gas, social concerns,
and financial benefit (environment, people, profit). Despite the complexity, here's hoping that the profit of a few carries much
less weight to the potential well-being of many.
1 This seems to preserve the interests of the oil and gas industry and land developers, but creates grave health concerns for
residents and potential residents.
1 Too little, too late!
1 We as a city need to divest from fossil fuels. Banning fracking is not enough if we are benefitting from exploiting our neighboring
county. There must be incentives from the city to stop our dependence on oil and gas and turn to TRULY green options IF we
want to be a truly green city, which clearly we are not. (And should stop glorifying ourselves as such)
1 We can do even better than state standards. 500 feet is not a great distance. I challenge the city to go above and beyond with
more proactive measures separating oil and gas from development.
1 We need even more regulation of current wells. I don't think we should have to live with the toxic odors that we experience
daily.
1 We need to encourage the oil & gas industry.
1 We should be investing in renewable sources of energy that have little to no impact on the environment or human health and
safety.
1 We were informed we are within 1,000 feet of an abandoned or plugged oil or gas well. We would like to know the exact
location of that well. Heard horror stories of supposed plugged wells exploding, etc. How confident is the city that that would
not happen in Fort Collins?
1 What happened to the unfortunate homeowners in Firestone should never happen again!
Count Response
30
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 61
1 When is it enough? Where are the impact studies by non-biased groups on our natural environment and quality of life? Who is
doing that homework? As a Colorado native who's family has resided in this state for 120 years, I can hardly believe the
welcome mat we have laid out for gas and oil. Within reason, we can accommodate new industry but we are far beyond that
now. It feels Orwellian when I drive around NE Colorado or browse satellite views of our state.
1 Where exactly are new proposed wells planned for? I specifically moved to Fort Collins/Larimer County to avoid living anywhere
near a fracking operation for the health and safety of my family. All of this fracking is highly irresponsible, with very little
transparency, accountability or public knowledge of what substances they are using. The almighty dollar is given top
consideration for short term gain over the long term health and safety of residents and wildlife. I knew Weld county was a joke
when it comes to "regulation" of oil and gas operations but I really had hoped for better from Fort Collins and Larimer county
officials.
1 Would like the City to continue doing what it can to eliminate fracking in the city and surrounding as much as possible.
1 Yes - I think we need to always speak out against fracking. It is very dangerous.
1 Yes stop poisoning the natural areas. What is this insane war on dandelions and mullein? Land Management doesn't even
quantify if what they do is effective. They just get their new ATVs every couple years and their poison from Monsanto and spray
it in our natural areas. They're trying to control things that have seeds in the soil for over a hundred fifty years and they're not
quantifying if they're even effective. This is a disgusting abuse of money and power and it's poisoning our natural areas, our
Rivers, and us. We live in High chaparrel desert and everyone thinks they need green grass Lawns. How insane. how many times
are you going to poison your yard, mow it, waste drinking water, and get no food from it? And native plants are noxious weeds?
You have to be insane or paid by chemical companies to think that this is a good idea. Larimer County goes 2 hours into the
mountains to poison shit the white man brought here with no proof what they are doing is working. And call them natura
1 Yes, recent studies published in Science Advances, shows a causal relationship between fracking, and infant mortality/birth
weights. In a study using over 1,125,000 mothers, it was shown that fracking negatively affects newborns, the most vulnerable
to the effects of this toxic way to acquire energy. I sent a copy of this study to our council last week. Since so many
underground wells have yet to be located, we are seeing what is called "frack hits," wherein different O&G companies
accidentally drill into old wells put, presumably by a competitor (if they are even still in business) causing chaos and leeching into
the ground and nearby water. The way we plug old wells is temporary at best. We need to be very careful how we approach
these issues. This is pretty clearly something to help developers build more homes, which wouldn't be bad if it weren't for the
O&G issues in CO.
1 amend code to align with state code and leave the rest alone.
1 http://www.lpdirect.net/casb/crs/34-60-103.html See section 5.5 State law says corporate life is more important that human
and wild life. This should be part of legislative agenda to fix.
1 no, seems logical to adopt what the state already has approved
1 please respect the rights of all parties and not just the views of just vocal activists or folks with an agenda
Count Response
31
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 62
14. What part of the city do you live in (by quadrant)?
32% East of College & North of
Drake
32% East of College & North of
Drake
23% East of College & South of
Drake
23% East of College & South of
Drake
24% West of College & North of
Drake
24% West of College & North of
Drake
17% West of College & South of
Drake
17% West of College & South of
Drake
4%city 4% Don't live in the city
Value Percent Responses
East of College & North of Drake 31.5% 70
East of College & South of Drake 23.4% 52
West of College & North of Drake 24.3% 54
West of College & South of Drake 17.1% 38
Don't live in the city 3.6% 8
Totals: 222
32
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 63
15. What part of the city do you work in?
11% East of College & North of
Drake
11% East of College & North of
Drake
13% East of College & South of
Drake
13% East of College & South of
Drake
25% West of College & North of
Drake
25% West of College & North of
Drake
8% West of College & South of
Drake
8% West of College & South of
Drake
13% 13%Collins Work outside Fort Collins
29% Don’t currently work/am
retired
29% Don’t currently work/am
retired
1%student 1% Am a student
Value Percent Responses
East of College & North of Drake 11.1% 24
East of College & South of Drake 13.0% 28
West of College & North of Drake 25.0% 54
West of College & South of Drake 8.3% 18
Work outside Fort Collins 13.4% 29
Don’t currently work/am retired 28.7% 62
Am a student 0.5% 1
Totals: 216
33
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 64
16. Do you own or rent your residence?
86% 86%Own Own
11% 11%Rent Rent
3% 3%answer Prefer not to answer
Value Percent Responses
Own 86.0% 185
Rent 10.7% 23
Prefer not to answer 3.3% 7
Totals: 215
34
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 65
17. What is your gender?
44% Male
45% 45%Female Female
1%binary 1% Non-binary
1%Other 1% Other
9% 9%answer Prefer not to answer
Value Percent Responses
Male 44.2% 95
Female 45.1% 97
Non-binary 0.5% 1
Other 0.9% 2
Prefer not to answer 9.3% 20
Totals: 215
35
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 66
18. What is your race or ethnicity?
Percent
American
Indian or
Alaska Native
Asian White Hispanic,
Latinx, or
Spanish origin
Native
Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
Islander
Another race
or ethnicity
Prefer not to
answer
0
20
40
60
80
Value Percent Responses
American Indian or Alaska Native 0.5% 1
Asian 1.9% 4
White 79.5% 167
Hispanic, Latinx, or Spanish origin 2.9% 6
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0.5% 1
Another race or ethnicity 1.0% 2
Prefer not to answer 16.7% 35
36
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 67
19. What is your annual household income?
5% $24,999 or less
9% $25,000-49,999
13% $50,000-74,999
14% $75,000-99,999
18% $100,000-149,999
8% $150,000-199,999
8% 8%more $200,000 or more
26%answer 26% Prefer not to answer
Value Percent Responses
$24,999 or less 5.2% 11
$25,000-49,999 8.5% 18
$50,000-74,999 12.8% 27
$75,000-99,999 14.2% 30
$100,000-149,999 18.0% 38
$150,000-199,999 8.1% 17
$200,000 or more 7.6% 16
Prefer not to answer 25.6% 54
Totals: 211
37
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 68
20. What is your age?
1% 18-24
15% 25-34
19% 35-44
15% 45-54
22% 55-64
19% 65-74
2% 75+
8% 8%answer Prefer not to answer
Value Percent Responses
18-24 0.9% 2
25-34 14.7% 31
35-44 19.4% 41
45-54 14.7% 31
55-64 21.8% 46
65-74 18.5% 39
75+ 2.4% 5
Prefer not to answer 7.6% 16
Totals: 211
38
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 5
Packet Page 69
1
Rebecca Everette
From: Jacqueline Kozak-Thiel
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 10:41 AM
To: Lucinda Smith; Cassie Archuleta; Rebecca Everette
Subject: FW: Latest research for fracking setback deliberations
Fyi
From: harv.teitelbaum@gmail.com [mailto:harv.teitelbaum@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Harv Teitelbaum
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 10:29 AM
To: City Leaders <CityLeaders@fcgov.com>
Subject: Latest research for fracking setback deliberations
Dear City Council Member,
As you debate the safe distance for setbacks between developments and fracking operations, this just released,
peer-reviewed research from Princeton University may be helpful in your deliberations. Thank you.
-Harv Teitelbaum
December 13, 2017
Source:
Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs
Summary:
Health risks increase for infants born to mothers living within 2 miles of a hydraulic fracturing site, according
to a new study.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/1712131
43703.htm
Hydraulic fracturing negatively
impacts infant health -- ScienceDaily
Health risks increase for infants born to
mothers living within 2 miles of a hydraulic
fracturing site, according to a study published
Dec. 13 in Science Advances. The research
team found that infants born within a half a
mile from a fracking site were 25 percent
more likely to be born at low birth weights,
leaving them at greater risk of infant
mortality, ADHD, asthma, lower test scores,
lower schooling attainment and lower lifetime
earnings.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Page 70
2
"Given the growing evidence that pollution
affects babies in utero, it should not be
surprising that fracking, which is a heavy
industrial activity, has negative effects on
infants," said co-author Janet M. Currie, the
Henry Putnam Professor of Economics and
Public Affairs at Princeton University. "As
local and state policymakers decide whether
to allow hydraulic fracturing in their
communities, it is crucial that they carefully
examine the costs and benefits, including the
potential impacts from pollution," said study
co-author Michael Greenstone, the Milton
Friedman Professor in Economics and
director of the Energy Policy Institute at the
University of Chicago. "This study provides
the strongest large-scale evidence of a link
between the pollution that stems from
hydraulic fracturing activities and our health,
specifically the health of babies."
Using records from more than 1.1 million
births across Pennsylvania from 2004 to
2013, the researchers compared infants born
to mothers living near a drilling site to those
living farther away from a site, before and
after fracking began at that site.
The most significant impacts were seen
among babies born within .6 miles of a site, as
those babies were 25 percent more likely to be
low birth weight, that is born under 5.5
pounds.
Infants born to mothers living between half a
mile and 2 miles saw their risk of low birth
weight decrease by about a half to a third.
Infants born to mothers living beyond 2 miles
experienced little to no impact to their health.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Page 71
3
"These results suggest that hydraulic
fracturing does have an impact on our health,
though the good news is that this is only at a
highly localized level," said Currie, who
directs the Center for Health and Wellbeing at
Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public
and International Affairs. "Out of the nearly 4
million babies born in the United States each
year, about 29,000 of them are born within
about a half mile of a fracking site."
"While we know pollution from hydraulic
fracturing impacts our health, we do not yet
know where that pollution is coming from --
from the air or water, from chemicals onsite,
or an increase in traffic," said co-author
Katherine Meckel, assistant professor at the
University of California, Los Angeles. "Until
we can determine the source of this pollution
and contain it, local lawmakers will be forced
to continue to make the difficult decision of
whether to allow fracking in order to boost
their local economies -- despite the health
implications -- or ban it altogether, missing
out on the jobs and revenue it would bring."
This study follows previous work by Currie,
Greenstone and others on the local economic
benefits, which found the average household
living near a hydraulic fracturing site benefits
by as much as $1,900 per year. This was
because of a 7 percent increase in average
income, driven by rises in wages and royalty
payments, a 10 percent increase in
employment, and a 6 percent increase in
housing prices. However, the authors
cautioned that the housing prices could
change if further information about the
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Page 72
4
environmental and health impacts of
hydraulic fracturing were revealed.
"Housing prices are not fixed; they are based
on many factors including how well the job
market is and how safe the area is to live in,"
Currie said. "As these results and others on
the health impacts from hydraulic fracturing
become mainstreamed into the consciousness
of homeowners and home buyers, the local
economic benefits could decrease."
Materials provided by Princeton
University, Woodrow Wilson School of
Public and International Affairs.
Original written by B. Rose Kelly. Note:
Content may be edited for style and length.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Page 73
1
Rebecca Everette
From: DanaDeb <danadeb@nance.cc>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 8:25 PM
To: Rebecca Everette
Subject: Gas and Oil Setbacks
Hi,
Let me see if I got this right.
If I own mineral rights on a parcel. The new recommended rules would allow someone to build a structure on their
property close enough to my property that when I want to exercise my mineral rights in the future I would not be able to
do so due to other setbacks. Despicable and deceitful.
No need to contact me any further, I am disgusted with Fort Collins’ management and planning and your progressive,
social engineering policies.
Dana Nance
Right-click here to download pictures. To help p ro tect your privacy,
Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the
Internet. Virus-free. www.avast.com
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Page 74
1
Rebecca Everette
From: Gayla Martinez <gmaxwellmartinez@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 9:43 AM
To: Rebecca Everette
Subject: Re: Oil and Gas Setbacks | Follow Up from Online Survey
Follow Up Flag: FollowUp
Due By: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 9:00 AM
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Rebecca,
I hesitated to respond because I'm not sure exactly where the process is at or if decisions have already been
made. I did take the time to look at some of the other information presented on the city website including the
video for the Technical Air Quality Reports from last November.
I would like to know by what criteria were the proposed set-backs established?
Research that indicates that the health impacts for VOCs are particularly significant within half a mile of a
fracking operation: "The assessment concluded that residents living less than a half mile away (2640 feet) are at
greater risk for health effects than those living more than a half mile from wells." (Health Impacts of Fracking).
The same report cites a study conducted in Garfield County that showed at 30% increase in congenital birth
defects for children born within a 10 miles radius of oil and gas operations.
Hours before the December 22nd explosion near Windsor, the NCAR Boulder Reservoir station recorded
extremely high levels of carcinogenic VOC's 25 miles away from the source. These emission levels were high
enough to have merited an evacuation of the surrounding neighborhoods in Windsor, but this, of course, did not
happen.
And, as to the safety of placing homes within 100' of "properly" capped and sealed abandoned wells and
pipelines. I don't know how we can assume that the same human error that led to the Firestone incident couldn't
happen again. As Joel Dyer stated in his May 2017 article published in the Boulder Weekly Turning Point:What
to do about theoil and gas industry’s 60,000 miles of pipe bombs under our communities and homes. :“Pipe is pipe.
According to the industry’s own literature, a small percentage of wellbores will fail shortly after the well is drilled. Over
the next 20 years, 60 percent of all wellbores will fail, and over time all wellbores will eventually fail.”
This is just a small sampling of the data that would indicate that the proposed 100' and 500' set‐backs are grossly
inadequate for maintaining public health and safety.
Thank you for your efforts to solicit citizen input.
Sincerely,
Gayla Maxwell Martinez
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com> wrote:
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Page 75
1
Rebecca Everette
From: Jan M <jannieski84@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 8:54 PM
To: Rebecca Everette
Subject: Re: Oil and Gas Setbacks | Follow Up from Online Survey
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Thanks for contacting me. I would support what you are trying to do, increase set backs from wells. Do we
have evidence that plugged wells will not create the same issues.
I work in public health and would be interested in any efforts that protect clean air and avoid contaminating our
water. People live in Fort Collins for the quality of life that it offers, not the quality of its oil & gas!
Thanks.
Jan
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com> wrote:
Good afternoon,
I am contacting you because you recently completed an online survey on potential changes to the setbacks
between oil and gas facilities and new residential development in the City of Fort Collins. Thank you for taking
the time to review the information and share your thoughts. Because you requested follow-up from City staff, I
am reaching out to see if you would like to chat directly about your questions or comments. We are currently
working to revise the code changes based on the feedback we’ve received so far, so I want to be sure we are not
missing out on any important questions, ideas or perspectives.
I would be happy to discuss your questions or comments over the phone, via email, or in person at a time that is
convenient for you; my contact information is below. More information on various oil and gas topics can be
found at http://fcgov.com/oilandgas. I look forward to hearing from you!
Thank you,
Rebecca
Rebecca Everette, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Page 76
1
Rebecca Everette
From: Joseph Horan <joho7218@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 6:58 AM
To: Rebecca Everette
Subject: Re: Oil and Gas Setbacks | Follow Up from Online Survey
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Thanks very much for your reply Rebecca.
My only issue was with the fact that without the needed information about how a well is plugged, answers to the
questionnaire pertaining to plugged wells are moot to some degree.
Residents are unaware of the mechanisms for plugging, and as wells vary from "played out" to fairly active, from more
water than hydrocarbons, from more gaseous to more liquid, etc., simply referring to a well as "plugged" could be very
misleading.
I am happy to visit the sites of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and review their recommendations.
However, I still fell the public should be made aware about the potential risks involved with a "plugged" well. And those
risks clearly will vary from well to well depending on specific production variables of the individual well as well as its age,
lateral collection systems etc..
As I said in my comments in the questionnaire, a repeat of the Firestone event should be avoided at all costs. Public
safety, NOT developer wishes and tax revenues generated by developing land closer to existing wells, should be the
driver in this discussion.
Thanks and Merry Christmas!
Joe Horan
-----Original Message-----
From: Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com>
To: joho7218 <joho7218@aol.com>
Sent: Wed, Dec 20, 2017 3:47 pm
Subject: Oil and Gas Setbacks | Follow Up from Online Survey
Good afternoon,
I am contacting you because you recently completed an online survey related to potential oil and gas code changes in
the City of Fort Collins. Thank you for taking the time to review the information and share your thoughts! Because you
requested follow‐up from City staff, I am reaching out directly about your questions and comments. We received the
following responses in your survey:
“Without a clearer statement on the safety requirements for "plugged" wells the safety of residents is still at risk.
Repeats of the Firestone event are possible. The safety requirements for developers/operators for plugging wells
need to be clearly stated and should have been included in this questionnaire. Placing Colorado residents in
harms way should never be permitted.”
More information on the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission’s regulations can be found here:
http://cogcc.state.co.us/reg.html#/overview. Specific requirements for plugged and abandoned wells are in section 319
of the COGCC rules, available here: http://cogcc.state.co.us/documents/reg/Rules/LATEST/300Series.pdf.
I would be happy to discuss your questions or comments over the phone, via email, or in person at a time that is
convenient for you; my contact information is below. I would also like to make you aware of additional opportunities to
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Page 77
1
Rebecca Everette
From: Joseph Horan <joho7218@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 8:45 PM
To: Rebecca Everette
Subject: Oil and gas setbacks
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Rebecca,
Sorry, I’ve been out of town for the past 2 weeks.
I’m not sure if there is anything further to discuss.
Many citizens are concerned about the safety of living near oil and gas wells. Particularly those which are
capped are of concern as it’s unclear how much they are monitored and exactly how they are if they are.
That said, we actually live very close to an active well and have experienced little to no problems.
But I worry that relaxing setbacks may be asking for problems down the road.
Joe Horan
Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Page 78
1
Rebecca Everette
From: Kevin Krause <kevkrause@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 8:14 AM
To: Rebecca Everette
Cc: Bob Overbeck; Ray Martinez
Subject: Proposed Oil & Gas Related Land Use Changes
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Hi Rebecca - It looks like I missed the scheduled sessions on this subject and that the survey is no longer open
for responses. However, I did want to provide feedback and hope it will be taken into account in the decision-
making process.
Specifically, related to the abandoned wells, moving from 350 ft. to 100 ft. is literally and figuratively going in
the wrong direction. This proposed change makes some assumptions that should not be taken lightly which put
in jeopardy the health & safety of Fort Collins residents (current or future). Particularly, the notion that
plugging is "permanent" without any opportunity for change in condition or failure over time is troubling. To
my knowledge, the methods and materials used for plugging today are what are known and available without
significant historical data to show how they withstand time, environmental, or geological factors. The
"permanence" is further not enforced or monitored by (a lacking number of State) inspectors over 5, 10, 20, 50
years.
The City is known to be data-driven; however, this proposed change is arguably not data-driven. In another
subject area, the conclusion would likely be we don't have the data to know if, long-term, this is the right thing
to do or not, and such a change would therefore not be made. Without this decision revolving around absolute
data, known long-term facts, it is a potential risk to human health, safety and piece of mind for those who
knowingly or unknowingly end up 100 ft from an abandoned well. In an extreme case, this change could cause
direct injury or loss of human life. It could certainly reduce City residents' property values in the immediate area
of an abandoned well that experiences any issue over time.
Consider the language used in the following excerpts from an article related to plugged/plugging wells:
When companies cease production, they are supposed to plug wells with cement to reduce the risk of
leaks, and to restore vegetation and wildlife habitat aboveground.
["reducing the risk" of leaks is different than eliminating leaks or expecting no leaks to occur]
Orphaned wells are more likely than properly plugged “abandoned” wells to leak pollutants, including
methane gas, which can contaminate groundwater and even trigger explosions.
[orphaned wells are "more likely" to leak - i.e. properly plugged wells can leak too]
I would like to understand why the City feels as though plugging is in fact "permanent" and what data shows
this to be the case, including in an age of natural disasters which are increasing in magnitude and scope
(including USGS documented human-caused seismic activity in areas of increased oil & gas activity). More
importantly, if there is no risk over time, I'd like to understand why there is a setback at all. Why is it 350 ft. at
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Page 79
2
the state level and why must it even be 100 ft. if there is no risk? Why not 10 ft.? I'd suggest it is because there
is an implied ongoing level of risk but would appreciate the confirmation of such.
Regards,
Kevin Krause
3100 Rockwood Dr,
813 E. Elizabeth
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Page 80
1
Rebecca Everette
From: rmhhome11@comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 8:16 AM
To: Rebecca Everette
Subject: RE: Oil and Gas Setbacks | Follow Up from Online Survey
Good morning Rebecca, after thinking about what the City is trying to do with setbacks, I think it is the right thing to do,
i.e. align the City’s regulatory policies with those of the State.
I spent 42 years in the electric utility industry, both at the retail (distribution) and wholesale (generation/transmission)
levels. Twenty eight of those were as a CEO and I learned regulatory policies are the most beneficial when they are
applied and enforced consistently across the board. As a result of my background, I serve as the liaison between our
HOA and Prospect Energy here in Hearthfire. As a result of my association with Prospect, I am aware of the events
surrounding the Waters Edge well closure events.
My position has always been, if our country is to have a growing economy to support and provide for it’s citizens, we
need all forms of energy to meet the demands of that economy. Don’t disadvantage one over the other! Having said
that, I have determined my views in this instance, while honorable and just, simply do not fit with the City’s view of the
world. Thank you for agreeing to meet with me, but I see no value in taking of your time.
Sincerely,
Ron
From: Rebecca Everette [mailto:reverette@fcgov.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 4:17 PM
To: rmhhome11@comcast.net
Subject: RE: Oil and Gas Setbacks | Follow Up from Online Survey
Hi Ron,
Yes, I am available that week. There are two drop in sessions (1/9, 1‐4pm and 1/10, 3‐6pm) if either of those windows
work for you. I am also available on Thursday, 1/11 from 10‐noon or 1‐4pm. Let me know if any of those timeframes will
work.
Thanks,
Rebecca
Rebecca Everette
Senior Environmental Planner
Planning Services | City of Fort Collins
reverette@fcgov.com | 970.416.2625 direct
From: rmhhome11@comcast.net [mailto:rmhhome11@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 7:27 AM
To: Rebecca Everette
Subject: RE: Oil and Gas Setbacks | Follow Up from Online Survey
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Page 81
2
Good morning Rebecca, thank you for responding to my comments. With this being the busy time of the year, I would
look forward to meeting with you after the first of the year, to listen and learn. Would you be available the week of the
8th of January?
Ron Harper
From: Rebecca Everette [mailto:reverette@fcgov.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 4:00 PM
To: rmhhome11@comcast.net
Subject: Oil and Gas Setbacks | Follow Up from Online Survey
Good afternoon,
I am contacting you because you recently completed an online survey related to potential oil and gas code changes in
the City of Fort Collins. Thank you for taking the time to review the information and share your thoughts! Because you
requested follow‐up from City staff, I am reaching out directly about your questions and comments. We received the
following responses in your survey:
Why would anyone want to plug a production well when our country needs all forms of energy and yes that
includes fossil fuels
Aligning the City's codes with the State's makes sense, however I remain curious as to why this movement
continues to shut down energy production?
I would be happy to discuss your questions or comments over the phone, via email, or in person at a time that is
convenient for you; my contact information is below. I would also like to make you aware of additional opportunities to
learn more and provide input on the proposed code changes. The upcoming “drop‐in” times allow for individual
conversations with City staff. All drop‐in sessions will be held at 215 N. Mason St., Conference Room 2B (second floor):
Tuesday, January 2, 1‐4 pm
Tuesday, January 9, 1‐4 pm
Wednesday, January 10, 3‐6pm
More information on various oil and gas topics can be found at http://fcgov.com/oilandgas. I look forward to hearing
from you!
Thank you,
Rebecca
Rebecca Everette, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
Planning Services | City of Fort Collins
reverette@fcgov.com | 970.416.2625 direct
Click here to tell us about our service, we want to know!
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Page 82
1
Rebecca Everette
From: Vadim <vbmalkov@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2017 3:29 PM
To: Cassie Archuleta; Rebecca Everette
Cc: 'Galiya Malkov'; reneedoak@aol.com; Rebecca.Kubala@uchealth.org;
sabbailey@aol.com; mlreed45@gmail.com; tinateresa63@gmail.com
Subject: RE: notice of land use code changes
Attachments: Capture.jpg
Thank you, Cassie,
It was very helpful. I have attached the map I was able to create with this tool – mostly for all
my neighbors.
Guys, check out if there is anything else close to your houses.
Best,
Vadim
From: Cassie Archuleta [mailto:carchuleta@fcgov.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2017 2:01 PM
To: Vadim; Rebecca Everette
Cc: 'Galiya Malkov'; reneedoak@aol.com; Rebecca.Kubala@uchealth.org; sabbailey@aol.com; mlreed45@gmail.com;
tinateresa63@gmail.com
Subject: RE: notice of land use code changes
Hi Vadim‐
Thanks for your email.
According to records from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC), there appears to be a plugged
and abandoned well in your neighborhood. The records that I see on the COGCC website appear to indicate that the
area around the well was reclaimed (the plugging and abandonment process) around 1985.
Per the exact location, the COGCC has indicated that the locations they provide for older wells are only estimates based
on what could be determined from old records. You can view the approximate location, as estimated by the COGCC,
using their maps by following the links below:
http://cogcc.state.co.us/#/home
Click “Maps” in top menu bar
Use the link that says “Click HERE to access interactive map”
One of the selections at the top of the map says “Address Search”
The COGCC ID used for the well is API # 05‐069‐06152. It’s possible there is some sort of marker on the ground
indicating the location, but the wells are plugged and cut off below the surface. The map does not show any active wells
in the area.
Also, while the COGCC regulates the location of oil and gas wells, the new proposed code updates are for future
development near existing oil and gas wells. I’ve copied Rebecca Everett, who is the lead staff for the proposed code
changes.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Page 83
2
Let me know if you have any troubles with the map, and I can help navigate. If you have any concerns about the well,
the COGCC would probably be the best resource. Easiest way to contact them might be to use the “Complaints” link on
their home page.
Let me know if there is anything else I can help with.
Regards,
Cassie
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CASSIE ARCHULETA
Environmental Program Manager – Air Quality
City of Fort Collins
970-416-2648 office
From: Vadim [mailto:vbmalkov@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 25, 2017 12:39 PM
To: Cassie Archuleta <carchuleta@fcgov.com>
Cc: 'Galiya Malkov' <gsmalkov@gmail.com>; reneedoak@aol.com; Rebecca.Kubala@uchealth.org; sabbailey@aol.com;
mlreed45@gmail.com; tinateresa63@gmail.com
Subject: notice of land use code changes
Importance: High
Dear Cassie,
We received a letter from the City (see the attached), asking for a feedback on suggested land use
code changes, because our property is within 1000 ft of a well.
I would love to provide a feedback using the web site you suggested and it would be very
beneficial for us to know where exactly the well is located in relation to our house (526 Jansen
Dr, Ft. Collins).
Also, before providing the feedback, we, all the neighbors copied, would like to know the status of
the well(s) in question – what type (oil or gas), active or plugged/abandoned.
Please reply to this email (you can reply all) at your earliest convenience with answers to the
above questions.
Best,
Vadim Malkov
526 Jansen Dr.
Ft.Collins, CO 80525
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Page 84
1
Rebecca Everette
From: Vicky McLane <vmhmclane@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 2:32 PM
To: Rebecca Everette
Subject: Re: Oil and Gas Setbacks | Follow Up from Online Survey
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Rebecca - thank you for letting me, and others, know about the proposed changes to the
setbacks for P&A wells. What an improvement from the original proposal, and I am so
glad that you have been in touch with Jason Elkins. I think Longmont has used common
sense in their approach to P&A wells, along with a basic concern about health and safety
effects.
I would appreciate knowing when you are making presentations to the various Boards so
that I could sit in on one as a member of the public.
Keep up the good work.
Vicky
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com> wrote:
Hi Vicky,
Based on what we heard from the online survey and other outreach activities, we are currently revising the proposed
code changes to better reflect the priorities and concerns of the Fort Collins community. There was broad support for
increasing the setback around active wells to 500 feet, so that proposal has not changed.
In regard to plugged and abandoned wells, staff is now proposing a different code change. We heard concerns, including
your own, about the uncertainty and potential risk associated with abandoned wells. We are now proposing an
increased setback around plugged and abandoned wells that would match the setback for active wells (500 ft), with the
option for a reduced setback only if additional testing and monitoring is conducted to eliminate uncertainty and identify
any leaks or contamination.
The minimum setback that could be allowed around properly plugged wells would be 150 ft. After discussions with the
COGCC, the local oil and gas operator, consultants, and Jason Elkins in Longmont, we have determined that this buffer
distance would provide adequate space for equipment to re‐plug or maintain a plugged well in the future (if needed)
and the installation of long‐term monitoring equipment. This is also consistent with the setbacks required by the City of
Longmont. By allowing a reduced setback in some cases, it would create an incentive for developers to work with oil and
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Page 85
2
gas companies to permanently take wells out of operation, thus reducing the amount of oil and gas activity in the
community.
We are also exploring better ways to notify future property owners of their proximity to a plugged and abandoned well.
Currently, the City requires disclosure on the subdivision plat to all properties within a 1000‐ft radius, but there may be
better methods to ensure residents are properly notified.
These proposed changes will be presented to various boards in March and to City Council in April. Please let me know if
you have additional questions or if you would like to discuss further. I appreciate your ongoing involvement in these
code changes!
Thanks,
Rebecca
Rebecca Everette
Senior Environmental Planner
Planning Services | City of Fort Collins
reverette@fcgov.com | 970.416.2625 direct
From: Vicky McLane [mailto:vmhmclane@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 4:30 PM
To: Rebecca Everette
Subject: Re: Oil and Gas Setbacks | Follow Up from Online Survey
Rebecca - I appreciate the email. Can you be specific about what revisions are being
considered since I may want to meet with you again if I am still uncomfortable with
them?
Thanks, Vicky
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Page 86
2
Cassie
From: Vicky McLane [mailto:vmhmclane@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 11:28 AM
To: Cassie Archuleta <carchuleta@fcgov.com>
Subject: Several items
Cassie - what an interesting meeting last night, though it was discouraging in terms of
several Council members. My partner Bob thought that Ken Summers said there were
three injection wells, you thought he meant three producing wells, but he failed to
mention the other active wells and the plugged and abandoned.
I think it is important to distinguish between injection wells, producing wells, active
wells, and whatever other types there are. And then we have the plugged and
abandoned - no problem... Let me quote from an email I received about the well in
Berthoud that spouted:
"Also, REGARDING THE LARIMER ISSUES......... I did ask Ellsworth about the Berhthoud
spill on October 29. LOTS OF OILY MESS!!! I suggested that it was a frack hit from
Extraction and or Synergy as they are horizontally drilling just east of that OLD well
that leaked like a Jed Clampett episode. By the way, he NEVER denied it was a frack
hit.
As you may recall, Extraction and Synergy showed up to the incident (on a Sunday
morning) to help build a BERM around the spill. Really Good Samaritans!! From what I
heard it got over the road and was estimated at up to 300 barrel spill. I asked
Ellsworth the API # for that well. He said that the well was not in their system. It was
one that just was not recorded. REALLY??? How many others are "not recorded". He did
say it was from 1930 and just missed getting in their files. I don't really believe that but
either way, there is a PROBLEM with COGCC recording and reporting."
My point in sharing with you is that the plugged and abandoned wells are potentially
quite dangerous, and until Fort Collins gets a handle on their accurate location and does
some monitoring, we are all in the dark.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Page 87
3
Last, when is staff going to start the public involvement process on potential updates on
oil and gas regulations? Specifically, on the reduced setback for P&A wells. It seems to
me that if anything were to change, the setback should be increased, not reduced.
Hope you have a good Thanksgiving. I am in no rush for a response to this email.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Page 88
1
Rebecca Everette
From: jim@tbgroup.us
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 9:24 AM
To: Rebecca Everette
Cc: Cody Snowdon; Dan Mogen
Subject: Re: Country Club Reserve Wetland
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Rebecca,
It appears that the well may indeed be on our site. Ouch! We are working to confirm this with the State.
In regard to the upcoming potential policy change related to oil and gas facilities, here would be our
perspective.
The existing policy/code treats each type of well in the same way. In our opinion and experience a plugged and
abandoned well, compared to a water injection well, compared to a producing well are very different and should
be treated differently.
In our case we bought this property prior to the new City oil and gas setbacks. These setbacks greatly affect our
ability to plan and develop our property. It is my understanding that the policy was written to impact the oil and
gas developer and not to unfairly burden the property owner. Especially if the mineral estate was severed from
the property ownership. However that is exactly what is happening in our case. We do not own the minerals
and we do not get any revenue from the wells. The City requirements are not a burden on the mineral estate in
any way and are only a burden on us.
I remember a comment from a City staff member in the past, that the value of the land when we bought was
reduced because of the existing wells and the associated City buffers, so we have not been harmed by the City
setback and buffer requirements. That is not true in our case. When we bought the property the City followed
the State setbacks. The new City setback requirements and buffer requirements create a huge burden on our
property. We are getting no benefit from the wells. The owner of the wells does not have to participate in the
cost of the buffering. The burden falls entirely on us as the property owner.
We would suggest to the City that the buffer to plugged and abandoned wells would follow State required
setbacks. I have attached the standard that we received from the State. Especially in our case, where we would
only need to be this close on about half of the well. The other half would be open and accessible for any future
testing/remediation work.
In our circumstance, with Urban Estate zoning with the cluster option, if this buffer to plugged and abandoned
wells could be reduced it would create at least some semblance of fairness to us as the property owner.
As always, I appreciate your assistance and willingness to discuss our property. If you have any questions
please don’t hesitate to let us know.
Thanks,
Jim Birdsall
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Page 89
BHA Design Incorporated
1603 Oakridge Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Page 1 of 1 voice: 970.223.7577
landscape architecture | planning | urban design www.bhadesign.com
January 5, 2018
Ms. Rebecca Everette, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner, Planning Services
City of Fort Collins
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
RE: Proposed Changes to Oil and Gas Regulations
Dear Rebecca,
Thank you for inviting the public to share their thoughts on the potential Land Use Code
updates related to new residential and commercial development near oil and gas
operations. On behalf of HF2M and the Montava Development team, we would like to offer
the following comments for your consideration.
We have been working closely with city staff and other stakeholders over the past several
months to create a master plan for the nearly 850-acre development parcel west of the
Anheuser-Busch brewery. The master plan envisions a true traditional neighborhood
development with an integrated mix of uses including housing, employment, schools, parks,
natural areas and agriculture.
While the master plan is an outstanding opportunity to fulfill the visions and goals of the
Mountain Vista Subarea plan, the land carries many constraints on development which will
make it difficult to achieve every goal fully. We have a creative and visionary developer and
design team to deliver a balanced and successful outcome for the community.
As we continue through the master planning process, we are encouraged by the City’s
consideration of updates to the Land Use Code to align with the state standards. We
support both updates being considered:
1. Increasing the setback for new development from existing, active oil and gas
wells from 350 feet to 500 feet to match the state standard for new wells, and
2. Reducing the setback for new development from permanently plugged and
abandoned wells from 350 feet to 100 feet if the wells are plugged to current
state standards.
We hope that city staff will support and recommend these changes for City Council approval.
Sincerely,
Angela K. Milewski
BHA Design, Inc.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Page 90
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Page 91
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Page 92
1
Oil & Gas Land Use Code Changes –
Listening Sessions
Background
As part of the effort to update sections of the Land Use Code related to the buffers around oil and gas
wells, four public listening sessions were held on December 19, January 2, January 9 and January 10.
There were 16 attendees in total at the four sessions. The following notes summarize the questions and
comments received by staff during those conversations.
Summary
Listening Session #1 – December 19, 2017
• Attendee #1
o Concerned that the locations and conditions of plugged and abandoned wells are
uncertain
o Jason Elkins, City of Longmont, recently presented to the League of Women Voters
about Longmont’s efforts to inventory and evaluate plugged and abandoned wells in
their city, including locating the wells, groundwater monitoring and other site
investigations. He has determined that 150 ft is a more appropriate buffer around
plugged and abandoned wells than 100 feet, and that all wells will eventually leak over
time.
o Recommended contacting Mr. Elkins to understand Longmont’s program; use as a
model for identifying and monitoring plugged and abandoned wells [Note: staff
subsequently followed up with Longmont staff with questions and discussion]
o Noted that this topic is of great interest in the local League of Women Voters chapter
• Attendee #2
o Health, economic and financial concerns about the proposed changes
o We should not be doing any favors for the oil and gas industry, they aren’t doing us any
favors, supports any way to restrict oil and gas development
o Less than 1% of Colorado jobs are in oil and gas; one of the smallest economic sectors
but wields the most power
o Colorado has very low severance taxes for oil and gas; is it possible for the City to charge
an additional tax for drilling in the city?
o Increase setbacks to at least 2500 feet; can’t trust the oil and gas industry to protect the
health and wellbeing of residents
o Concerns about potential explosions, leaks and spills
o Recommend copying Boulder’s new regulations for Fort Collins
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Page 93
2
o Concern that drilling might be possible on Fort Collins parks and open spaces, especially
Soapstone Natural Area – recommended notifying the public about any possibility for oil
and gas development on City lands
o Material disposal
Where is frac water disposed? Where is the nearest disposal facility?
Disposal of dirt from well excavation is unregulated and being dumped into
landfills, despite containing uranium and other toxic materials
o Concerned about impacts of aquifer migration and contamination on future water
sources; nobody knows what’s happening underground
o Notification for new homeowners near wells and flowlines needs to be improved
• Attendee #3
o Received letter, questions about location and status of wells near property (near
Lindenmeier Lake)
• Attendees #4 and #5
o Received letter, questions about location and status of wells near property (near Dean
Acres)
Listening Session #2 – January 2, 2018
• Attendees #1 and #2
o Received letter, questions about location and status of wells near property (near
Lindenmeier Lake)
• Attendee #3
o Representing some friends as well
o Supportive of changes and anything to reduce oil and gas activity in Fort Collins
o Why not just keep the setbacks for plugged and abandoned wells the same as they are
now (350’)? Accomplishes the same goal in a similar way
o Moratorium – how can the City recognize all the work that citizens put into that? A lot
of people worked hard to make that happen
• Attendee #4
o Concerned about leaks and failure of plugged wells over time, possible explosions in the
future
o Concerned about frac hits – when an operator hits an unknown abandoned well when
drilling horizontally for a new well, which compromises the old well and can cause
leaks/contamination
o Concerned about impacts to air quality, water quality, public health, accidents and
deaths from explosions
o What impact do water injection wells have on aquifers?
o Shared articles with more information (attached)
Listening Session #3 – January 9, 2018
• Attendee #1 – City Councilmember Bob Overbeck
• Attendee #2
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Page 94
3
o Don’t need to worry about active wells, they will go away eventually; more concerned
about plugged and abandoned wells
o Don’t want new wells to be permitted in the City
o Discourage landowners to allow new wells due to future potential buffers that would
apply
o If property values reflected “condemnation” of a 500’ buffer, then a potential buyer
would think twice
o Concern about contamination, cave-ins and other potential risks with abandoned wells
o Future landowners should be aware of risks, need to better notify property owners –
similar to floodplain alerts?
o Adopt rules in a way that does not encourage future oil and gas development
o If we have doubts about a well and whether it meets standards, then a narrower buffer
should not be allowed
• Attendee #2
o How is science being used to help make these decisions?
o Where is more research needed?
o Testing and analysis – does the City have the expertise in-house to review that type of
information, e.g., and on-staff inspector?
o Post all available oil and gas data on the City’s online GIS maps
Highlight wells with more uncertainty about location and condition
Be as transparent as possible
o Double check the number of abandoned wells in Fort Collins
o When did horizontal drilling and fracking become a viable production method?
o There is a CSU faculty member (Jeffrey Collett) researching leaked methane from wells
at a distance using a handheld device capable of triangulation
Could be used to pinpoint problem areas
Monitoring technology is rapidly enhancing
• Attendee #3
o What about monitoring of wells after a development goes in?
Do methane testing once a year on all plugged wells, including the wells that
were recently abandoned in Water’s Edge
Put burden on developer to fund annual monitoring
o Long-term studies of plugged and abandoned wells in Pennsylvania show a 5% failure
rate, odorless gas migrating upward from plugged wells
o Change measurement of buffer to the nearest lot line rather than the nearest building
o Where is produced water taken and disposed of? Can it be injected back into wells?
o Greeley is experiencing basement flooding issues – is it from water injection wells
driving groundwater upward?
Listening Session #4 – January 10, 2018
• Attendees #1 and #2
o We all share the same groundwater and public natural resources
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Page 95
4
o Don’t want any oil and gas development in Colorado
o Support the first change (increase buffer around active wells)
o Concerns about second change (reduce buffer around abandoned wells)
o Concerns about long term durability of concrete in wells, leaks in the long term
o Fracking has so many unforeseen issues and environmental and public health concerns
o Concerned about the toxicity of the chemicals used in fracking, and potential impacts to
water quality
o Question the motives and influence of the oil and gas industry
o Still interested in another moratorium and outright ban of fracking; would set a
precedent for other communities
• Attendee #3
o Property values should go up if a well is abandoned rather than active, which should be
enough financial incentive for developers
o A narrower setback does not take the mineral rights off the table; only allow a narrower
setback if the mineral rights have been purchased; that’s the only permanent fix
o Health and environment info – we don’t have the full picture and all the information
o Do not reduced setbacks
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Page 96
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Page 97
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Page 98
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Page 99
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Page 100
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Page 101
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 6
Packet Page 102
must be at least 350 feet from plugged and
abandoned oil and gas wells.
Proposed Code Update: New development
must be at least 100 feet from plugged and
abandoned oil and gas wells. Wells would
need to be plugged and abandoned to
current state standards, and additional
safety or monitoring requirements may
apply.
Rationale: The Land Use Code does not
distinguish between active wells and wells
that have been permanently plugged and
abandoned. A reduced setback for these
wells would create a stronger incentive to
plug and abandon wells on development
sites, rather than keeping the wells in
operation as new development occurs.
Similar reduced setbacks were recently
approved for the Water’s Edge development
project in northeast Fort Collins.
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 4
Packet Page 30
Parks
Schools
jk Well
Growth Management Area
City Limits
ITEM 3, ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Page 27