HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/15/2018 - Planning And Zoning Board - Supplemental Documents - Regular MeetingITEM 4 - CONTINUANCE MEMO (Revised)
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION - FURTHER REVIEW PENDING
3.8.26 - Residential Buffering for Residential and High Occupancy Building Units
(A) Applicability. These standards apply only to applications for that include residential development
uses and high occupancy building units.
(B) Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to provide standards to separate residential land uses and
high occupancy building units 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, air pollutants, hazardous materials or site
contamination, or danger from fires or explosions.
(C) Buffer standards. Buffer yards shall be located on the outer perimeter of a lot or parcel and may be
required along all property lines for buffering purposes and shall meet the standards as provided in
this Section.
(1) Only those structures used for buffering and/or screening purposes shall be located within a
buffer yard. The buffer yard shall not include any paved area, except for pedestrian sidewalks or
paths or vehicular access drives which may intersect the buffer yard at a point which is
perpendicular to the buffer yard and which shall be the minimum width necessary to provide
vehicular or pedestrian access. Fencing and/or walls used for buffer yard purposes shall be
solid, with at least seventy-five (75) percent opacity.
(2) There are four (4) types of buffer yards which are established according to land use intensity as
described in Chart 1 below. Buffer yard distances are established in Chart 2 below and specify
deciduous or coniferous plants required per one hundred (100) linear feet along the affected
property line, on an average basis.
(3) The buffer yard requirements shall not apply to temporary or seasonal uses or to properties
which that are separated by a major collector street, arterial street, or highway.
(4) Additional Standards Applicable to Buffer Yard D. The following requirements shall also apply to
development located in Buffer Yard D:
(a) Measured. For purposes of Buffer Yard D standards, the buffer yard shall be measured as
the distance from the outer edge of an existing oil and gas operation site location to the
nearest wall or corner of any dwelling or high occupancy building unit occupied building
proposed in the residential development. The term existing oil and gas operation site
location shall include the impact area of any well that has received all required permits
prior to submission of the residential development plan, even if drilling has yet to occur on
the site. Buffer Yard D areas may include paved areas, notwithstanding paragraph (1)
above.
(b) Minimum Buffer Distances. The following minimum buffer distances shall apply:
(I) Residential Development. The minimum buffer between a dwelling and any oil and gas
location shall be five hundred (500) feet, or the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission designated setback distance, whichever is greater.
(II) High Occupancy Building Units. The minimum buffer between a high occupancy building
unit and any oil and gas location shall be one thousand (1,000) feet, or the Colorado Oil
and Gas Conservation Commission designated setback distance, whichever is greater.
(c) Alternative compliance buffer reduction from plugged and abandoned wells. Upon applicant
request, the decision maker may approve a reduced buffer distance from a plugged and
abandoned well for which reclamation has been completed, all of the aforementioned in
accordance with Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission regulations, in lieu of the
minimum buffer distances set forth in the immediately preceding Subsection (b), provided
ITEM 3, DRAFT OIL & GAS LUC AMENDMENTS
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION - FURTHER REVIEW PENDING
that the approved reduced buffer is no less than 150 feet from the permanently abandoned
well and meets the requirements specified below.
(i) Procedure. To request alternative compliance, an alternative compliance buffer
reduction plan shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the submittal
requirements established by the Director. At a minimum, the plan:
(A) Shall clearly identify and discuss the proposed buffer reduction and the ways in
which the plan will equally well or better eliminate or minimize the nuisances and
reduce the adverse effects referenced in the purpose of this Section than would a
plan which complies with the separation and spacing standards of this Section.
(B) Shall include information regarding environmental testing for the site. Site
investigation and sampling shall be conducted to demonstrate that the well has
been properly abandoned and that soil, air and water quality have not been
adversely impacted by oil and gas operations or facilities. Director approval of
any sampling plan is required prior to sampling occurring and such plan may be
required to include, but is not limited to, the following:
(1) Site survey and historical research to determine exact location and extent of
oil and gas operations and facilities.
(2) Documentation of plugging activities, abandonment and any subsequent
inspections.
(3) Soil sampling, including soil gas testing.
(4) Groundwater sampling.
(5) Installation of permanent groundwater wells for future site investigations.
(ii) Review Criteria. To approve an alternative compliance buffer reduction plan, the
decision maker must first find that the proposed alternative plan equally well or better
eliminates or minimizes the nuisances and reduces the adverse effects referenced in
the purpose of this Section than would a plan which complies with the separation and
spacing standards of this Section. An approved alternative compliance buffer
reduction plan shall be exempt from the requirements of Chart 2 – Buffer Yard Types
and below Subsection (e) regarding fencing.
(bd) Disclosure. If any residential development or dwelling, or high occupancy building unit is
proposed to be located within one thousand (1,000) feet of an existing oil and gas
operation location, then the following requirements shall apply:
(I) Aat such time as the property to be developed is platted or replatted, the plat shall
show the one-thousand-foot radius on the property from such well oil and gas
location and shall contain a note informing subsequent property owners that certain
lots shown on the plat are in close proximity to an existing oil and gas operation
location.
(II) For residential developments requiring a declaration pursuant to the Colorado
Common Interest Ownership Act, a statement shall be included in such declaration
specifying the lots within such residential development upon which dwellings may be
constructed that are within one thousand (1,000) feet of an oil and gas location. The
approved plat for such residential development shall be attached to the recorded
declaration. Where no such declaration is required, the property owner shall record a
ITEM 3, DRAFT OIL & GAS LUC AMENDMENTS
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION - FURTHER REVIEW PENDING
statement on the property where the dwelling is located indicating that such property
is located within one thousand feet of an oil and gas location.
(ce) Fencing. If any residential development is proposed to be located within five hundred (500)
feet of an existing oil and gas operation location, and if an existing fence does not surround
the oil and gas operation location, the developer must erect a fence that restricts public
access to the oil and gas location must be erected by the developer along the property
boundary between the oil and gas operation location and the development that restricts
public access to the oil and gas operation.
Chart 1
Land Use Intensity Categories
Land Use Intensity Category Buffer Yard
Airports/airstrips Very High C
Composting facilities High B
Dry cleaning plants Very High C
Feedlots Very High C
Heavy industrial uses Very High C
Light industrial uses High B
Junkyards High B
Outdoor storage facilities High B
Recreation vehicle, boat, truck storage Medium A
Recycling facilities High B
Agricultural research laboratories High B
Resource extraction Very High C
Oil and gas operations, including plugged and abandoned wells Very High D
Transportation terminals (truck, container storage) High B
Warehouse & distribution facilities High B
ITEM 3, DRAFT OIL & GAS LUC AMENDMENTS
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION - FURTHER REVIEW PENDING
Workshops and custom small industry Medium A
Chart 2
Buffer Yard Types
Type - Base Standard (plants per 100 linear
feet along affected property line) *
Option
Width
Plant
Multiplier **
Option: Add
6' Wall
Option: Add 3'
Berm or 6' Fence
Buffer Yard A: 15 feet 1.00
20 feet .90
3 Shade Trees 25 feet .80
2 Ornamental Trees or Type 2 Shrubs *** 30 feet .70 .65 .80
3 Evergreen Trees 35 feet .60
15 Shrubs (33% Type 1, 67% Type 2) 40 feet .50
Buffer Yard B: 15 feet 1.25
20 feet 1.00
25 feet .90
4 Shade Trees 30 feet .80 .75 .85
4 Ornamental Trees or Type 2 Shrubs *** 35 feet .70
3 Evergreen Trees 40 feet .60
25 Shrubs (Type 2) 45 feet .50
Buffer Yard C: 20 feet 1.25
25 feet 1.00
30 feet .90
ITEM 3, DRAFT OIL & GAS LUC AMENDMENTS
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION - FURTHER REVIEW PENDING
5 Shade Trees 35 feet .80 .75 .85
6 Ornamental Trees or Type 2 Shrubs *** 40 feet .70
4 Evergreen Trees 45 feet .60
30 Shrubs (Type 2) 50 feet .50
Buffer Yard D: 350 500
feet 1.25
375 525
feet 1.00
400 550
feet .90
6 Shade Trees 425 575
feet .80 .75 .85
7 Ornamental Trees or Type 2 Shrubs ***
450 600
feet .70
5 Evergreen Trees 475 625
feet .60
35 Shrubs (Type 2)
500 650
feet .50
* "Base standard" for each type of buffer yard is that width which has a plant multiplier.
** "Plant multipliers" are used to increase or decrease the amount of required plants based on providing a
buffer yard of reduced or greater width or by the addition of a wall, berm or fence.
*** Shrub types: Type 1: 4' - 8' High Type 2: Over 8' High
ITEM 3, DRAFT OIL & GAS LUC AMENDMENTS
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION - FURTHER REVIEW PENDING
5.1.2 – Definitions.
Oil and gas facility shall mean equipment or improvements used or installed at an oil and gas location for
the exploration, production, withdrawal, gathering, treatment, or processing of oil or natural gas. This
term shall include equipment or improvements associated with active, inactive, temporarily abandoned,
and plugged and abandoned wells.
Oil and gas location shall mean: (1) the area where the operator of an oil and gas facility has disturbed
the land surface in order to locate an oil and gas facility or conduct oil and gas operations, or both; or (2)
the area where the operator of an oil and gas facility intends to disturb the land surface in order to locate
an oil and gas facility or conduct oil and gas operations, or both, and such facility or operations have
received all required permits prior to submission of a residential development plan for the construction of
dwellings or high occupancy building within one-thousand feet of the permitted oil and gas facility or
operations, even if disturbance of the land surface to locate the oil and gas facility or conduct operations
has yet to occur on the site.
High occupancy building unit shall mean any building type listed in the Colorado Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission definition of a High Occupancy Building Unit.
ITEM 3, DRAFT OIL & GAS LUC AMENDMENTS
1
Rebecca Everette
From: harv.teitelbaum@gmail.com on behalf of Harv Teitelbaum
<harv.teitelbaum@rmc.sierraclub.org>
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 3:28 PM
To: Rebecca Everette
Subject: Re: Oil & Gas Code Changes | Update and Opportunity for Input
Good afternoon Rebecca,
Thank you for including me in this morning's email on the above topic. Yes, in my position as state lead for Sierra Club Colorado's Beyond
Oil & Gas Campaign, I have some additional input which I would request be shared with City Council.
There have been many peer-reviewed studies finding statistically relevant health effects at distances up to 10 miles or more from fracking
operations. Examples would be childhood leukemia at up to 10 miles (McKenzie et al, CU), and asthma at up to 12 miles from fracking
operations (Rasmussen et al, JAMA). However, the bulk of independent, peer-reviewed research seems to be coalescing around the distance
of most significant health impact being approximately 1/2 mile, or 2500 feet.
The industry will no doubt discount all non-supportive studies. They may also point to the now discredited CDPHE small-scale meta survey
of a few dozen research studies, in which the agency head largely dismissed research showing health harm. However, the best meta study
done to date was conducted by Hays and Shonkoff, and published in the Public Library of Science (PLOS) in 2016. It concluded the
following:
"84% of public health studies contain findings that indicate public health hazards, elevated risks, or adverse health
outcomes; 69% of water quality studies contain findings that indicate potential, positive association, or actual incidence of
water contamination; and 87% of air quality studies contain findings that indicate elevated air pollutant emissions and/or
atmospheric concentrations. This paper demonstrates that the weight of the findings in the scientific literature indicates
hazards and elevated risks to human health as well as possible adverse health outcomes associated with UNGD."
(unconventional natural gas drilling, i.e. fracking operations)
There is also the not insignificant risk of explosion, as we've seen from Firestone and Windsor. Various studies have been and are being
conducted as to the actual blast radius potential vis a vs the predicted blast radius. While there are no conclusive studies, much of the data I've
seen suggest that actual blast radii are approximately twice the predicted distances. There are many variables, of course, such as chemical
mix, volumes and pressures, but a good starting initial real-world expected blast radius would be approximately 1,000 feet, with an
evacuation zone many times larger.
These are just some of the risks and hazards I hope you will consider as you face the expected pressure and threats from the industry to
compromise health and safety. The best supported setback distance, supported by the best available peer-reviewed research, would start at
2500'.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Harv Teitelbaum
Lead, Beyond Oil and Gas Campaign
Sierra Club, Colorado Chapter
303-877-1870
ITEM 3, PUBLIC COMMENT, H. TEITELBAUM
1
Rebecca Everette
From: Kevin Krause <kevkrause@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 9:31 AM
To: Rebecca Everette
Cc: Bob Overbeck; Ray Martinez; Adrian Krause
Subject: Re: Response to Proposed Oil & Gas Related Land Use Changes Survey (Council SAR#
42517)
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Rebecca - we wanted to make sure that staff and council members had seen this as next steps are taken in
Fort Collins: Old well that spilled near Berthoud was improperly plugged, report finds. It is understood that the
concept around the changes being put forth is to ensure wells are plugged to standards and monitored
adequately but the concern remains: what if that doesn't happen as intended for one reason or another and how
are residents impacted?
Thanks again,
Kevin & Adrian
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:19 AM, Kevin Krause <kevkrause@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks, Rebecca!
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:11 AM, Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com> wrote:
Hi Kevin,
Yes, I will add you to the list. Here is our upcoming schedule for boards and City Council (this will be added to the
website and an email will be sent this week).
March 15 – Planning & Zoning Board Hearing (6pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers)
March 19 – Air Quality Advisory Board (5:30pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room)
March 21 – Natural Resources Advisory Board (6pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room)
April 3 – City Council Hearing (6pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers)
Thanks,
Rebecca
ITEM 3, PUBLIC COMMENT, K. KRAUSE
2
Rebecca Everette
Senior Environmental Planner
Planning Services | City of Fort Collins
reverette@fcgov.com | 970.416.2625 direct
From: Kevin Krause [mailto:kevkrause@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2018 6:55 AM
To: Rebecca Everette
Subject: Re: Response to Proposed Oil & Gas Related Land Use Changes Survey (Council SAR#42517)
Thank you, Rebecca. Appreciate the reply and details. We'd definitely like to stay in the loop on any updates
and particularly the details of what it will take for certain wells to achieve the proposed 150 ft buffer as that is
the critical one. Is there a mailing list we can be a part of?
Regards,
Kevin
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Evangeline Ramirez <eramirez@fcgov.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. Krause,
Thank you for your recent inquiry in regards to the survey input for proposed oil and gas related land use
changes. Please see the following response provided by Senior Environmental Planner, Rebecca Everette on
behalf of Councilmember Overbeck and City Manager Atteberry.
Kind Regards,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gigi Ramirez | Administrative Support II
ITEM 3, PUBLIC COMMENT, K. KRAUSE
3
City of Fort Collins
970-221-6505 office
eramirez@fcgov.com
Mr. Krause,
Thank you for your email, as well as your comments at the December Natural Resources Advisory Board
meeting. Although the survey has closed, it is certainly not too late for input, so I appreciate your questions and
comments.
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, however, 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. We agree that regulatory decisions
should be based on good data and should err on the side of protecting public health and safety.
The minimum setback that could be allowed around properly plugged wells would be 150 ft. After discussions
with the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, the local oil and gas operator, consultants, and staff
in other communities, 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 gas companies to
permanently take wells out of operation, thus reducing the amount of oil and gas activity in the community.
ITEM 3, PUBLIC COMMENT, K. KRAUSE
4
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 your comments further.
Thank you,
Rebecca Everette
Rebecca Everette
Senior Environmental Planner
Planning Services | City of Fort Collins
reverette@fcgov.com | 970.416.2625 direct
Original Request
From: Bob Overbeck
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 9:52 AM
To: Kevin Krause <kevkrause@gmail.com>
Cc: Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com>; Ray Martinez <raymartinez@fcgov.com>; Darin Atteberry
<DATTEBERRY@fcgov.com>; SAR Admin Team <SAR-Admin-Team@fcgov.com>; Carrie Daggett
<CDAGGETT@fcgov.com>
Subject: Re: Proposed Oil & Gas Related Land Use Changes
Kevin,
Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback, concerns and questions on LUC changes related to
abandoned / plugged wells. Let me ask staff to follow up with your inquiry.
Darin,
Please respond to Kevin's concerns and questions.
Regards,
Bob
Sent from my iPhone
ITEM 3, PUBLIC COMMENT, K. KRAUSE
5
----------
Bob Overbeck
City Councilmember
District 1
City of Fort Collins
(970) 817-1411
boverbeck@fcgov.com
---
With limited exceptions, emails and any files transmitted with them are subject to public disclosure under the
Colorado Open Records Act (CORA). To promote transparency, emails will be visible in an online archive,
unless the sender puts #PRIVATE in the subject line of the email. However, the City of Fort Collins can’t
guarantee that any email to or from Council will remain private under CORA.
On Feb 13, 2018, at 8:14 AM, Kevin Krause <kevkrause@gmail.com> wrote:
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
ITEM 3, PUBLIC COMMENT, K. KRAUSE
6
(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
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, PUBLIC COMMENT, K. KRAUSE
3/13/2018 www.reporterherald.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=31721005&siteId=47
http://www.reporterherald.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=31721005&siteId=47 1/1
Old well that spilled near Berthoud was improperly plugged, report finds
New well 3,200 feet away also might have contributed to spill
By Pamela Johnson
Reporter-Herald Staff Writer
Loveland Reporter-Herald
Posted:Thu Mar 08 10:29:33 MST 2018
Pressure caused by new drilling coupled with an improperly plugged well is suspected to have caused drilling mud to bubble out of an
old well near Berthoud in late October.
"The cement and abandonment did not happen correctly," Stuart Ellsworth, engineering manager for Colorado Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission, said this week. "The records that we found were paper records that said the cement was there."
But after digging up the well site to investigate the spill, officials learned that the required amount of cement plugs were, in fact, not
installed. In a previous interview, Ellsworth explained that the general process of capping a well requires at least four layers of cement
plugs at strategic locations.
"There was the top cement, and we believe that was all that was there," Ellsworth said. "It was inadequate."
Records, however, falsely indicated that the well, which was capped and abandoned in 1984, had the correct amount of cement plugs,
according to the report. While it is unclear how this happened 34 years ago, the commission has changed its rules in the intervening
years to prevent this type of occurrence.
"Today, what we do different is ask for documentation, third-party vendor verification," said Ellsworth. "We ask for the contractor's
invoice. We don't care about the dollars, we are about the volume ... for how much cement was delivered and how much cement was
placed."
That documentation started in the 1990s, and the commission also does unannounced random inspections of wells that are being
plugged and abandoned.
But it wasn't the improper plugging alone that caused the drilling mud and small amounts of oil and gas to seep through holes in the
welded cap on private property in the 2500 block of Colo. 60. The old well was apparently disturbed by new drilling into the same
formation, resulting in the pressure needed to cause the drilling mud to bubble to the surface.
Oddly enough, several wells drilled into the Niobrara Formation within a few hundred feet of this old well, including one that was only 98
feet away did not cause the pressure, Ellsworth said. Authorities believe the culprit was a well drilled in April 2017 that was much farther
away and, unlike the closer wells, was perpendicular to the 1984, he reported.
"That's one of the oddities about this situation," said Ellsworth. "There was a well less than 100 feet away that did not cause this to
happen, but there's a well more than 3,000 feet away that may have caused this event."
The Colorado Oil and Gas Commission reviews requests to drill within 1,500 feet of an old well to make sure this sort of situation does
not happen. That review occurred in this case, though officials were relying on the records that indicated the 1984 well had been
plugged properly.
The landowner noticed the sludge discharging into his pasture and onto his driveway and ditch, heading toward the road, and called the
fire department about 9 a.m. Sunday, Oct. 29. Emergency crews arrived and created dirt berms to contain the spill, and were soon
joined by a drilling company with wells nearby and the company's special vacuum trucks to stop the flow.
The company, Extraction Oil and Gas, remained onsite after the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission responded throughout the more
than 12 days it took to properly replug the well.
Because this well was abandoned and the original company no longer exists, the commission took charge of plugging the well. Initial
estimates were that 300 barrels of drilling mud, containing some oil, spilled from the well.
Pamela Johnson: 970-699-5405, johnsonp@reporter-herald.com, www.twitter.com/RHPamelaJ.
Close Window Send To Printer
ITEM 3, PUBLIC COMMENT, K. KRAUSE
1
Rebecca Everette
From: Laura Shaffer <laura.shaffer@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 3:16 PM
To: Rebecca Everette
Subject: Re: Oil & Gas Code Changes | Update and Opportunity for Input
Dear Rebecca
Thanks for the unexpected update (I realize I signed up, but I still didn't expect much!). I really appreciate
hearing from the city on this issue. It's just great that Fort Collins city government is so responsive.
I really like the proposed Land Use Code changes. I think those changes better reflect what folks in Fort Collins
rightly believe to be safe. I'm so glad to live in a city committed to its residents' safety and willing to make these
changes -- and in particular doing so in response to feedback that the city sought out itself.
Thank you
Laura Shaffer
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 10:05 AM, Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com> wrote:
Good morning,
You are receiving this email because you have expressed an interest in the proposed changes to the required
buffers around oil and gas wells. Currently, the City’s Land Use Code requires a buffer of 350 feet between all
new residential development and oil and gas operations (including both active and abandoned wells).
Based on community outreach conducted between December 2017 and February 2018, staff has revised the
code changes that were initially proposed. The following Land Use Code changes will be presented to City
Council in April 2018:
1. Increase the buffer between new development and existing oil and gas operations from 350 feet to 500 feet.
This would apply to both active and permanently abandoned wells.
2. Increase the buffer between “High Occupancy Uses” and existing oil and gas operations from 350 feet to
1,000 feet. High Occupancy Uses include schools, hospitals, nursing homes, correctional facilities and daycare
centers.
3. Allow an option of a reduced setback around plugged and abandoned wells if additional investigation, soil
sampling and groundwater testing are completed and accepted by the City. The minimum setback that could be
obtained would be 150 feet from the plugged well.
ITEM 3, PUBLIC COMMENT, L. SHAFFER
2
4. Require an additional method of notification to future property owners about the presence of nearby oil and
gas operations.
City staff will present the proposed code changes for discussion at the following upcoming meetings:
• March 15 – Planning & Zoning Board Hearing (6:00 pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers)
• March 19 – Air Quality Advisory Board (5:30 pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room)
• March 21 – Natural Resources Advisory Board (6:00 pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room)
• April 3 – City Council Hearing (6:00 pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers)
If you would like to provide additional input on the proposed code changes, I encourage you to attend any of the
meetings above or send your comments directly to me. All written comments will be shared with City Council,
who will ultimately decide whether to approve the proposed changes.
The input we have received to-date has been extremely valuable and we appreciate your continued involvement.
For more information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Please feel free to forward this email to any friends,
colleagues, or neighbors we may have missed.
Thanks,
Rebecca Everette, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
City of Fort Collins
reverette@fcgov.com
970.416.2625 direct
http://fcgov.com/oilandgas
ITEM 3, PUBLIC COMMENT, L. SHAFFER
1
Rebecca Everette
From: Marsha Lotz <marshallotz3@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 1:46 PM
To: Rebecca Everette
Subject: Re: Oil & Gas Code Changes | Update and Opportunity for Input
Thank you for your email. I think it's important to hear from the actual oil company out here, I think it is called
Prospect Energy: and a representative from them about soil testing and ground water testing. I heard initially
that they had their own people , "Talon", trying to locate an unused well site on the 80 acres east of us for the
information of the proposed development. Some how we heard that some kind of agreement was made between
the developers and the city planners to not use them. They know more than anyone about this oil field. Marsha
Lotz
On Mar 2, 2018 10:05 AM, "Rebecca Everette" <reverette@fcgov.com> wrote:
Good morning,
You are receiving this email because you have expressed an interest in the proposed changes to the required
buffers around oil and gas wells. Currently, the City’s Land Use Code requires a buffer of 350 feet between all
new residential development and oil and gas operations (including both active and abandoned wells).
Based on community outreach conducted between December 2017 and February 2018, staff has revised the
code changes that were initially proposed. The following Land Use Code changes will be presented to City
Council in April 2018:
1. Increase the buffer between new development and existing oil and gas operations from 350 feet to 500 feet.
This would apply to both active and permanently abandoned wells.
2. Increase the buffer between “High Occupancy Uses” and existing oil and gas operations from 350 feet to
1,000 feet. High Occupancy Uses include schools, hospitals, nursing homes, correctional facilities and daycare
centers.
3. Allow an option of a reduced setback around plugged and abandoned wells if additional investigation, soil
sampling and groundwater testing are completed and accepted by the City. The minimum setback that could be
obtained would be 150 feet from the plugged well.
4. Require an additional method of notification to future property owners about the presence of nearby oil and
gas operations.
City staff will present the proposed code changes for discussion at the following upcoming meetings:
ITEM 3, PUBLIC COMMENT, M. LOTZ
2
• March 15 – Planning & Zoning Board Hearing (6:00 pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers)
• March 19 – Air Quality Advisory Board (5:30 pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room)
• March 21 – Natural Resources Advisory Board (6:00 pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room)
• April 3 – City Council Hearing (6:00 pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers)
If you would like to provide additional input on the proposed code changes, I encourage you to attend any of the
meetings above or send your comments directly to me. All written comments will be shared with City Council,
who will ultimately decide whether to approve the proposed changes.
The input we have received to-date has been extremely valuable and we appreciate your continued involvement.
For more information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Please feel free to forward this email to any friends,
colleagues, or neighbors we may have missed.
Thanks,
Rebecca Everette, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
City of Fort Collins
reverette@fcgov.com
970.416.2625 direct
http://fcgov.com/oilandgas
ITEM 3, PUBLIC COMMENT, M. LOTZ
1
Rebecca Everette
From: Angela Milewski <amilewski@bhadesign.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 9:18 AM
To: 'Max Moss'
Cc: Rebecca Everette
Subject: RE: Oil & Gas Code Changes | Update and Opportunity for Input
Attachments: Potential OG well setbacks 11x17.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Rebecca,
Here is the diagram showing the wells nearby Montava.
Thanks,
Angie
Angela K. Milewski | BHA Design Incorporated
970.223.7577
From: Max Moss <Max@hf2m.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 9:11 AM
To: Angela Milewski <amilewski@bhadesign.com>
Cc: Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com>
Subject: Re: Oil & Gas Code Changes | Update and Opportunity for Input
Thanks Angie,
Rebecca, there are two main concerns we have.
1. How it impacts the two abandoned/capped wells on our property.
2. How it impacts the same type well on Tom Moores land as it relates to this setback which encroaches across our
property line and could impair the school districts ability to use the site we are considering swapping with them for the
high school site. Angie will share maps with you, we might as well be very direct about this, because it has huge
implications on the development plan for Montava and the entire mountain vista sub area.
Max Moss
President | HF2M Colorado
430 N College Ave. Suite 410
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Cell# 512‐507‐5570
www.montava.com
On Mar 13, 2018, at 10:01 AM, Angela Milewski <amilewski@bhadesign.com> wrote:
Rebecca,
Do the buffers apply to new buildings/structures within these distances? Or simply the lot or property
associated with a new development?
ITEM 3, PUBLIC COMMENT, MOSS & MILEWSKI
2
It seems that the buffer is increasing for both active and abandoned wells, with potential but no
certainty for setback reductions. Since the PDT has been working hard to make the Development Review
process more predictable, this seems to add to the uncertainty of the potential for setback reductions.
I’m planning to send you a letter shortly with some specific concerns for the proposed language. I am
leaving town later today so unfortunately cannot attend the P&Z hearing, but hope that you can include
our comments for the hearing and for future board/commission/council hearings.
Thanks,
Angie
Angela K. Milewski | BHA Design Incorporated
970.223.7577
From: Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com>
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 10:05 AM
Cc: recipient list not shown:
Subject: Oil & Gas Code Changes | Update and Opportunity for Input
Good morning,
You are receiving this email because you have expressed an interest in the proposed changes to the
required buffers around oil and gas wells. Currently, the City’s Land Use Code requires a buffer of 350
feet between all new residential development and oil and gas operations (including both active and
abandoned wells).
Based on community outreach conducted between December 2017 and February 2018, staff has revised
the code changes that were initially proposed. The following Land Use Code changes will be presented
to City Council in April 2018:
1. Increase the buffer between new development and existing oil and gas operations from 350 feet
to 500 feet. This would apply to both active and permanently abandoned wells.
2. Increase the buffer between “High Occupancy Uses” and existing oil and gas operations from
350 feet to 1,000 feet. High Occupancy Uses include schools, hospitals, nursing homes,
correctional facilities and daycare centers.
3. Allow an option of a reduced setback around plugged and abandoned wells if additional
investigation, soil sampling and groundwater testing are completed and accepted by the City.
The minimum setback that could be obtained would be 150 feet from the plugged well.
4. Require an additional method of notification to future property owners about the presence of
nearby oil and gas operations.
City staff will present the proposed code changes for discussion at the following upcoming meetings:
March 15 – Planning & Zoning Board Hearing (6:00 pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers)
March 19 – Air Quality Advisory Board (5:30 pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room)
March 21 – Natural Resources Advisory Board (6:00 pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference
Room)
April 3 – City Council Hearing (6:00 pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers)
If you would like to provide additional input on the proposed code changes, I encourage you to attend
any of the meetings above or send your comments directly to me. All written comments will be shared
with City Council, who will ultimately decide whether to approve the proposed changes.
ITEM 3, PUBLIC COMMENT, MOSS & MILEWSKI
3
The input we have received to‐date has been extremely valuable and we appreciate your continued
involvement. For more information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Please feel free to forward
this email to any friends, colleagues, or neighbors we may have missed.
Thanks,
Rebecca Everette, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
City of Fort Collins
reverette@fcgov.com
970.416.2625 direct
http://fcgov.com/oilandgas
ITEM 3, PUBLIC COMMENT, MOSS & MILEWSKI
1
Rebecca Everette
From: Angela Milewski <amilewski@bhadesign.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 8:14 AM
To: Rebecca Everette
Cc: Cameron Gloss; Max Moss
Subject: RE: Oil & Gas Code Changes | Update and Opportunity for Input
Attachments: O-G Setback Letter to Boards.pdf
Rebecca,
Thanks again for sharing the updated information with us and allowing us to make comment. I would like to share this
letter with our comments, similar to those shared during the public and community outreach phase. I hope that this can
be shared with the Planning and Zoning Board for their review this week.
Thank you,
Angie
Angela K. Milewski | BHA Design Incorporated
970.223.7577
From: Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com>
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 10:05 AM
Cc: recipient list not shown:
Subject: Oil & Gas Code Changes | Update and Opportunity for Input
Good morning,
You are receiving this email because you have expressed an interest in the proposed changes to the required buffers
around oil and gas wells. Currently, the City’s Land Use Code requires a buffer of 350 feet between all new residential
development and oil and gas operations (including both active and abandoned wells).
Based on community outreach conducted between December 2017 and February 2018, staff has revised the code
changes that were initially proposed. The following Land Use Code changes will be presented to City Council in April
2018:
1. Increase the buffer between new development and existing oil and gas operations from 350 feet to 500 feet.
This would apply to both active and permanently abandoned wells.
2. Increase the buffer between “High Occupancy Uses” and existing oil and gas operations from 350 feet to 1,000
feet. High Occupancy Uses include schools, hospitals, nursing homes, correctional facilities and daycare centers.
3. Allow an option of a reduced setback around plugged and abandoned wells if additional investigation, soil
sampling and groundwater testing are completed and accepted by the City. The minimum setback that could be
obtained would be 150 feet from the plugged well.
4. Require an additional method of notification to future property owners about the presence of nearby oil and gas
operations.
City staff will present the proposed code changes for discussion at the following upcoming meetings:
March 15 – Planning & Zoning Board Hearing (6:00 pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers)
March 19 – Air Quality Advisory Board (5:30 pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room)
ITEM 3, PUBLIC COMMENT, MOSS & MILEWSKI
2
March 21 – Natural Resources Advisory Board (6:00 pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room)
April 3 – City Council Hearing (6:00 pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers)
If you would like to provide additional input on the proposed code changes, I encourage you to attend any of the
meetings above or send your comments directly to me. All written comments will be shared with City Council, who will
ultimately decide whether to approve the proposed changes.
The input we have received to‐date has been extremely valuable and we appreciate your continued involvement. For
more information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Please feel free to forward this email to any friends, colleagues,
or neighbors we may have missed.
Thanks,
Rebecca Everette, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
City of Fort Collins
reverette@fcgov.com
970.416.2625 direct
http://fcgov.com/oilandgas
ITEM 3, PUBLIC COMMENT, MOSS & MILEWSKI
BHA Design Incorporated
1603 Oakridge Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Page 1 of 2 voice: 970.223.7577
landscape architecture | planning | urban design www.bhadesign.com
March 12, 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 sharing the latest recommendations under consideration regarding required
buffers around oil and gas wells. We support the city’s considerations to make changes to
the setbacks that take into consideration the status of the wells and the potential
surrounding uses – increased setbacks from active wells and decreased setbacks from
permanently abandoned wells.
These changes to the code have the potential to provide both better protections for the
community, but also more certainty and predictability for property owners who wish to
develop their lands in areas where wells are present.
Unfortunately, the most recent code changes do not achieve this potential for both
protections and predictability. The proposed code changes create greater restrictions,
increased uncertainty and little predictability for property owners who wish to develop their
properties in a manner that is otherwise compliant with the Land Use Code. For a property
owner with permanently capped and abandoned wells who provides investigations, soil
sampling and groundwater testing to demonstrate that the lands adjacent to the wells are
safe, the setback for development would be automatically increased from 350 feet to either
500 or 1,000 feet depending on their planned land uses. While these costly investigations
and testing activities may allow the setback to be reduced, the proposed code changes leave
this as a discretionary reduction acceptance by the City.
The City of Fort Collins Planning, Development and Transportation Department has been
working diligently over the last several months to take specific measures to create a
development review process that is predictable, timely, logical, accountable and customer-
focused. These setback changes as currently written would have the opposite effect creating
increased cost and less certainty for property owners even with permanently abandoned
well sites.
Please consider revising the planned code changes to align with the state standards by:
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.
ITEM 3, PUBLIC COMMENT, MOSS & MILEWSKI
BHA Design Incorporated
1603 Oakridge Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Page 2 of 2 voice: 970.223.7577
landscape architecture | planning | urban design www.bhadesign.com
We provided this input during your community outreach period and continue to offer this as
a logical approach to provide both better protection for the community and predictability
for property owners who wish to develop their land otherwise meeting the requirements of
the Land Use Code and goals of City Plan.
We hope that you will share this input with the boards and commissions that are currently
reviewing these changes and with City Council for their consideration.
Sincerely,
Angela K. Milewski
BHA Design, Inc.
ITEM 3, PUBLIC COMMENT, MOSS & MILEWSKI
ITEM 3, PUBLIC COMMENT, MOSS & MILEWSKI
1
Rebecca Everette
From: Doug and Nancy <dnmatkin@netzero.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2018 9:39 AM
To: Rebecca Everette
Subject: Re: Oil & Gas Code Changes | Update and Opportunity for Input
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
The original notice that we received stated that we live within 1,000 feet of an abandoned or plugged gas/oil
well. We live at the intersection of Precision Drive and Northern Lights Drive in Morningside Village. We
would like you to pinpoint the location of that gas/oil well for us.
I think the proposed buffers are sufficient, except for the setback around plugged or abandoned wells. I don’t
think there should be a reduced setback for these. The current buffer should remain in place regardless of any
further investigation.
Thank you.
Nancy Matkin
From: Rebecca Everette
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 10:05 AM
To: Undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: Oil & Gas Code Changes | Update and Opportunity for Input
Good morning,
You are receiving this email because you have expressed an interest in the proposed changes to the required buffers
around oil and gas wells. Currently, the City’s Land Use Code requires a buffer of 350 feet between all new residential
development and oil and gas operations (including both active and abandoned wells).
Based on community outreach conducted between December 2017 and February 2018, staff has revised the code
changes that were initially proposed. The following Land Use Code changes will be presented to City Council in April
2018:
1. Increase the buffer between new development and existing oil and gas operations from 350 feet to 500 feet.
This would apply to both active and permanently abandoned wells.
2. Increase the buffer between “High Occupancy Uses” and existing oil and gas operations from 350 feet to 1,000
feet. High Occupancy Uses include schools, hospitals, nursing homes, correctional facilities and daycare centers.
3. Allow an option of a reduced setback around plugged and abandoned wells if additional investigation, soil
sampling and groundwater testing are completed and accepted by the City. The minimum setback that could be
obtained would be 150 feet from the plugged well.
4. Require an additional method of notification to future property owners about the presence of nearby oil and gas
operations.
City staff will present the proposed code changes for discussion at the following upcoming meetings:
ITEM 3, PUBLIC COMMENT, N. MATKIN
2
• March 15 – Planning & Zoning Board Hearing (6:00 pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers)
• March 19 – Air Quality Advisory Board (5:30 pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room)
• March 21 – Natural Resources Advisory Board (6:00 pm, 222 Laporte, Colorado River Conference Room)
• April 3 – City Council Hearing (6:00 pm, 300 Laporte, City Council Chambers)
If you would like to provide additional input on the proposed code changes, I encourage you to attend any of the
meetings above or send your comments directly to me. All written comments will be shared with City Council, who will
ultimately decide whether to approve the proposed changes.
The input we have received to‐date has been extremely valuable and we appreciate your continued involvement. For
more information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Please feel free to forward this email to any friends, colleagues,
or neighbors we may have missed.
Thanks,
Rebecca Everette, AICP
Senior Environmental Planner
City of Fort Collins
reverette@fcgov.com
970.416.2625 direct
http://fcgov.com/oilandgas
____________________________________________________________
New Rule in Your City, Your State Leaves Drivers Fuming
Better Finances
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3242/5aa54da736e04da51695st04vuc
Right-click here to download
pictures. To help protect your
privacy, Outlook prevented
automatic download o f this
picture from the Internet.
SponsoredBy Content.Ad
ITEM 3, PUBLIC COMMENT, N. MATKIN