Title
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NATURAL GAS TRANSMISSION PIPELINE AS PART OF THE CHEROKEE PIPELINE PROJECT
Body
Summary and Background Information:
Public Service Company is proposing to construct the Cherokee Natural Gas Pipeline Project, an approximately 34-mile long, 24-inch diameter steel natural gas transmission pipeline. The proposed project would be constructed between a new gas metering facility in Fort Lupton (Fort Lupton facility) and the Cherokee Generating Station (Cherokee Station) north of Denver in unincorporated Adams County, Colorado.
The project area for the natural gas pipeline was defined based on the location of the pipeline endpoints. The routing process consisted of an opportunities and constraints analysis, route refinement, preferred and alternative route selection, and public outreach. The input received during the public outreach was used to broaden or narrow the scope of the evaluation criteria by Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo) in the opportunities and constraints and comparative analysis.
The proposed pipeline route through Commerce City is significant at approximately 12 miles in length. This length is due to the unique shape of Commerce City, the location of the Wildlife Refuge, and the end point terminus. Permanent right-of-way (ROW) that would be required for the proposed project is 50 feet (25 feet on each side of the pipeline). An additional 50 feet of temporary ROW would be required for pipeline construction. These numbers seem to be standard and customary for pipeline projects of this nature. After construction, no new permanent buildings or structures will be allowed directly over the pipeline. Roadways, sidewalks, trails, grasses, and shrubs will all be allowed over the pipeline.
The proposed pipeline route crosses the Commerce City Agricultural District (AG), Light Intensity Industrial District (I-1), Medium Intensity Industrial District (I-2), Heavy Intensity Industrial District (I-3), General Commercial District (C-2), and Planned Unit Development (PUD) zone districts in Commerce City. Under the Land Use Table, found within Article V of the LDC, a public utility installation is allowed with a Conditional Use Permit in all Commerce City zone districts. In addition, support activities for oil and gas operations, including pipelines, are allowed in all Commerce City zone districts with a Conditional use Permit - hence, the need for this application and review.
The Planning Commission has evaluated all of the information contained within the applicant's proposal, request, and application materials, referral and agency comments, and public input associated with this request. In addition, the Planning Commission has reviewed the project against the Comprehensive Plan and City's Land Development Code, specifically as it relates to findings for the granting or denial of a Conditional Use Permit. In Planning Commission's assessment, the proposed location and alignment may be supported. In particular, as it relates to the corridor distinctions between East 96th Avenue and East 104th Avenue, the Planning Commission is supportive of the East 104th Avenue alignment.
UPDATE FROM 10/1 MEETING:
• City Council determined public notice was adequately posted (on a 6-2 vote) for the public hearing to occur. A motion to continue the public hearing to a future date failed on a 5-3 vote.
• Xcel Energy and staff presented information on the public hearing, with numerous questions from city council members. Four public comments were received from the community against the issue and city council had extensive discussion on the topic.
• City Council voted 5-3 to not accept the findings of the planning commission. A vote to approve the pipeline alignment along 96th Avenue failed on a 4-4 vote.
• At 11:50 p.m., council voted to reopen the public hearing by a vote of 7-1and continue the item until Oct. 15.
Staff Responsible (Department Head): Chris Cramer, Interim Community Development Director
Staff Member Presenting: Steve Timms, Interim Planning Manager
Staff Recommendation:
Approval with Conditions, per Planning Commission recommendation
Alternative:
One option would be for City Council to approve the request as submitted by the applicant; a second option would be to approve the request subject to conditions or modifications; a third option would be for City Council to deny the request.