HomeMy WebLinkAbout20003293 <i'"°` iierkt ai4a Sate. &tada
�F TOWN HALL
.r. ./ • ' 128 N.SECOND St LASALLE, CO 80645
1.0: „flaw,. • / (970)284-6931 FAX (970)284-6843
pQPORAE�° Weld County Planning Dept.
SEP 01 2000 a
,? .!
August 28, 2000 RECEIVED v AUG s o 2000
WELD COUNTY
ORNEY'S OFFICE
Mr. Bruce Barker
Weld County Attorney
P.O. Box 1948
Greeley, CO 80632
Dear Mr. Barker;
Enclosed are the two originals of the Coordinated Planning Agreement signed by Mayor
Wardell. We did accept the Agreement by Resolution on August 22, 2000, which I also
enclosed for your records. The Town does have a new mailing address (128 N. Second
Street) and wondered if you could have the records updated at Weld County.
Please let us know when the Commission and the Board of County Commissioners
accept the Agreement. Thanks for all your help and please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
6:01 a1/114
Anna M. Fallis,
Town Clerk
2000-3293
TOWN OF LASALLE, COLORADO
RESOLUTION T-2000
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL PLANNING
AGREEMENT WITH WELD COUNTY
WHEREAS,the purpose of the Agreement is to establish procedures and standards
pursuant to which the parties will move toward greater coordination in the exercise of their land
use policies and related regulatory powers within unincorporated areas surrounding the City; and
WHEREAS, the Town of LaSalle and Weld County now desire to enter into an
Agreement whereby the objective of such efforts are to accomplish the type of development in
such areas which best protects the health, safety, prosperity, and general welfare of the
inhabitants thereof by reducing the waste of physical, financial, and human resources which
result from either excessive congestion or excessive scattering of population, and to achieve
maximum efficiency and economy in the process of development; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF LASALLE, COLORADO:
The Board of Trustees hereby accepts the terms and conditions contained in the
Intergovernmental Agreement regarding the Comprehensive Development Plan, attached hereto
as "Exhibit A" and incorporated herein by this reference.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 22nd day of August
2000.
TOWN OF LASALLE, COLORADO
Gary L. ardell, Mayor
ATTEST:
/
(yiitgC
Anna M. Fallis, Town Clerk
BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Stephen Mokray that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County
Planning Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the app(icatiO5 for:
CASE NUMBER: Ordinance 2XX
APPLICANT: Town of LaSalle/Weld County
PLANNER: Anne Best Johnson
REQUEST: Intergovernmental Agreement.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
Since 1995, Weld County has been working with communities in establishing Intergovernmental
Agreements. For your consideration,the LaSalle and Weld County agreement has been prepared. It is the
Planning Commission's recommendation that this Intergovernmental Agreement meets the intent of the
Weld County Comprehensive Plan as follows:
1. Comprehensive Plan UGB.Goal 1 states that Weld County will encourage and assist each
municipality in establishing an intergovernmental urban growth boundary agreement. The following
UGB.Policy 1 states, Weld County recognizes that municipalities can and should plan their own
futures in terms of the nature and rate of growth.
The Town of LaSalle has worked with Weld County in establishing this proposed Intergovernmental
Agreement and indicated their interest in planning for responsible growth.(Comprehensive Plan,page 3-1).
2. Comprehensive Plan UGB.Goal 2 and UGB.Policy 2 indicate that Urban development shall be
concentrated in or adjacent to urban growth boundary areas that provide an official designation
between future urban and non-urban uses. These boundaries shall be established through an
intergovernmental agreement between the municipality and the County.
The Town of LaSalle has delineated their Urban Growth Boundary on the attached map. Through this
Intergovernmental Agreement, the Town of LaSalle has specified the future growth of their community.
Further, it is noted that Weld County recognizes that it is appropriate for its municipalities to plan for growth
at their current boundaries and in the surrounding areas. (Comprehensive Plan, page 3-1).
3. Comprehensive Plan UGB.Goal 3 states that the County and municipalities should coordinate land
use planning in urban growth boundary areas, including development policies and standards,
zoning, street and highway construction, open space, public infrastructure and other matters
affecting orderly development.
The county recognizes that an intergovernmental urban growth boundary agreement is by far the best tool
for coordinating development for municipal/county interface. (Page 3-1, Comprehensive Plan.) It is further
noted that the County Commissioners imparted the following criteria to guide the municipalities in developing
their urban growth boundaries. These guidelines are the impetus for many communities in establishing an
Intergovernmental Agreement with Weld County:
1. Growth should pay for itself in terms of initial costs, and in the long range, through good
design and functional efficiency.
2. Annexation patterns should directly correlate with municipal service areas.
3. Infill of communities is a far more efficient use of land than urban sprawl.
}n.n 4/ l
RESOLUTION, Town of La Salle/Weld County IGA
Page 2
As outlined on pages 3-1 and 3-2 of the Comprehensive Plan, the county recognizes that when growth at
the municipal/county level is not coordinated, problems arise. Additionally, when a municipality and the
County enter into an Urban Growth Boundary agreement,the County agrees to abide by the municipality's
vision for future development in the area. Likewise, the municipality agrees to limit its expansion to the
defined areas where it plans to provide municipal services. It is understood that urban growth is an ongoing
process and Urban Growth Boundary agreements will be subject to revision as needed.
4. The county recognizes that through intergovernmental agreements the municipality agrees to limit
its expansion to the defined areas where it plans to provide municipal services, therefore,
participating in responsible growth.
It is this belief that Weld County and the Town of LaSalle desire to enter into this Intergovernmental
Agreement.
The purpose of this Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of LaSalle and Weld County is to
establish procedures and standards pursuant to which the parties will move toward greater coordination in
the exercise of their land use and related regulatory powers within unincorporated areas surrounding each
municipality. The community of LaSalle exercises governmental authority over the same matter within its
boundaries; including annexations.
The premise for this Intergovernmental Agreement is similar to the agreement for the nine previous
agreements this board has approved. Customized modifications include the following:
1. Section 2.4 Definition of Urban Growth Boundary Area is noted as the Secondary Boundary on
the attached map.
2. Section 3.3 (e) The last sentence was modified to include, "and will consider identifiable impacts
on the MUNICIPAL road system resulting from such Development on the same basis as in-
COUNTY impacts."
3. Section 3.3(i) This is a new section to include reference to the storm water detention facilities and
subdivision design.
This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by the
applicant, other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities.
Motion seconded by Jack Epple.
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Jack Epple Cristie Nicklas Fred Walker
Stephen Mokray Arlan Marrs
John Folsom
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin
Cathy Clamp
RESOLUTION, Town of La Salle/Weld County IGA
Page 3
The Chair declared the resolution failed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this
case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Trisha Swanson, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
the above and foregoing resolution, is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld
County, Colorado, adopted on September 19, 2000.
Dated the 19' of September, 2000.
Trisha Swanson
Secretary
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
September 19, 2000
Page 4
CASE NUMBER: Ordinance 2XX
APPLICANT: City of Fort Lupton /Weld County
PLANNER: Anne Best Johnson
REQUEST: Intergovernmental Agreement
Anne Best Johnson,Long Range Planner,presented the Fort Lupton Intergovernmental Agreement(IGA)and
noted that there are two changes from previous IGA's concerning impacts to county roads and infrastructure
as well as storm water detention facilities. Anne noted that the Department of Planning Services is
recommending approval of this IGA.
Paul Rayl, Planner for the City of Fort Lupton, stated that the City of Fort Lupton based their Urban Growth
Boundary (UGB) on their 2020 study and plan. Mr. Rayl noted that there were public hearings and citizen
input for this study. Mr. Rayl also noted that they UGB marks the line where the city could feasibly provide
services. Paul Rayl stated that the plan was adopted at a public hearing in July of this year.
Arlan Marrs asked about the open space involved in the layout. Mr. Rayl explained that the plan identified
three separate time frames for annexation in order to have a smoother progression of services, but that they
would be able to provide services to anyone within the UGB. Arlan Marrs asked about agricultural lands being
allowed to annex. Mr. Rayl noted that they did not plan to annex these lands, but that they were within the
proposed UGB. Bryant Gimlin asked how these meetings were advertised. Paul Rayl noted that there were
articles in the local paper as well as the local cable access station. John Folsom asked if the water and sewer
could serve everyone within the area or even beyond into Aristocrat. Mr. Rayl noted that they could serve
everyone within the UGB,but that bringing sewer and especially water beyond these lines could be a problem.
John Folsom asked what determination the City of Fort Lupton uses to define contiguity. Mr. Rayl noted they
use the State's definition. Michael Miller noted he would prefer this plan gave anyone within the area the right
to annex in if they were going to lose some property rights by being inside the UGB.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Glenn Teets of Roggen noted that he is concerned with the growth, especially in southeast Weld County as
there will not be enough water to support all the growth that is being approved.
Cathy Clamp asked Mr. Rayl if the City of Fort Lupton would be able to bring in the water without the help of
Hudson, in case the deal that is currently being worked on fell through. Paul Rayl noted that the City of Fort
Lupton will be able to bring in the water even without Hudson, if the need arose.
Arlan Marrs commented that before this meeting he would have voted in favor of this application as the UGB
was conservative and seemed realistic, but after seeing the possibility of agricultural land not being allowed
to annex and the open space plans, he is concerned.
Michael Miller noted that the City of Fort Lupton did present a conservative UGB, but would like to see the
surrounding property owners outside of the city notified by mail. Mr. Miller noted that he would be upset if his
right to develop was taken from him without being allowed to have a voice about it.
Jack Epple moved that the Fort Lupton IGA be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the
Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Arlan Marrs,no; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,no;Jack Epple,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes;
Cathy Clamp, no; Cristie Nickles, yes. Motion carried.
— CASE NUMBER: Ordinance 2XX
APPLICANT: Town of LaSalle/Weld County
PLANNER: Anne Best Johnson
REQUEST: Intergovernmental Agreement.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
September 19, 2000
Page 5
Anne Best Johnson, Long Range Planner, presented the LaSalle IGA and read the Department of Planning
Services recommendation of approval into the record. Anne noted that there are three differences from the
previous IGA's brought before the Planning Commission. These differences include using the secondary
Urban Growth Boundary line, the language concerning the county roads and infrastructure, and language
concerning storm water detention.
Discussion concerning the two boundary lines followed. Bruce Barker noted that the Town of Kersey used
the inner boundary line.
Gary Waddell, Mayor of LaSalle, noted that these boundary lines are from a comprehensive plan from 1999
with a series of hearings that included participation from outside landowners. Mr.Waddell noted that the water
•and sewer system is capable of double the current population of LaSalle. Gary Waddell corrected Bruce
Barker and noted that the Town of LaSalle intended the secondary, outside line to be the Urban Growth
Boundary.
Gristle asked how surrounding property owners were notified. Mr.Waddell noted that there was not a mailing
outside of city limits, but that some outside property owners were at the meetings. Mr.Waddell noted that the
reason they chose to have such a large UGB is that they are not sure in which direction the growth of LaSalle
will occur. Bryant Gimlin noted that he feels the purpose of the IGA's is to plan where the future growth of a
town will occur. Mr. Waddell stated that the town did not want to be too inclusive or exclusive when setting
the UGB. Arlan Marrs noted that within the UGB line,the town would have a lot of control over development
and that an area this large is too much for a town the size of LaSalle to provide services throughout the entire
area. John Folsom noted that this large of an Urban Growth Area (UGA)could possibly encourage flagpole
annexations.
Michael Miller asked for a percentage of surrounding property owners who had any say in the drawing of the
UGB line. Mr.Waddell noted that almost all of the surrounding property owners within the inner UGB line were
at the meetings or discussed the line with the town. Carl Harvey, another representative of the town also
noted the landowners associated with the meetings. Mr. Waddell did note that not as many inside the outer
boundary were informed or at the meetings.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Glenn Teets of Roggen noted that he is concerned with the growth and noted that population density is never
discussed, that the type of homes affects the city as much as the land amount being considered. Mr. Teets
was also concerned with water availability in the town.
Gary Waddell noted that very little multiple family housing is available or planned in LaSalle and said that the
town's regulations allow the town to ask for 2 units of water for each residence if necessary. Mr.Waddell and
Mr. Harvey noted that they don't plan on any residential development within the flood plain.
Stephen Mokray moved that the LaSalle IGA be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the
Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Jack Epple seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, no; Arlan Marrs, no; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller, no; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin, no;
Cathy Clamp, no; Cristie Nickles, no. Motion failed.
Michael Miller commented that he is concerned with the effect this large of a UGB will have on adjacent
landowners, noting that the town had done a great job of informing those landowners within the inner UGB,
but that not enough effort had been made for the outside landowners. Michael also noted that this agreement
allows too much freedom for the town to control surrounding property owners.
John Folsom commented that he agrees with Michael Miller.
Cathy Clamp commented that she agrees with Michael Miller.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
September 19, 2000
Page 6
Bryant Gimlin noted that he feels the IGA process is to overcome the idea that you can't know what will
happen in the future. He noted that he feels the purpose is to avoid problems in the future and he feels the
Town of LaSalle failed to study the infrastructure and adjacent landowners well enough.
Cristie Nicklas commented that she would have agreed with the inner UGB, but the lack of information to the
landowners in the second UGB is the reason she is voting against this application.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1284
APPLICANT: Laurie Buffington
PLANNER: Robert Anderson
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-1997, Part of the NE4 of Section 29, Township 4 North, Range
68 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for the Boarding and Training
of 8 to 10 Service Dogs, and their Owners, in the Agricultural Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 40.5 and 1/2 mile East of WCR 3.
Robert Anderson, Planner, presented USR-1284 and read the Department of Planning Services is
recommending approval of this application.
Michael Miller asked if there would be any people boarded at the site. Robert noted that only dogs will be
boarded at the site when they are there for training. Cathy Clamp asked if a traffic study would be required
for the site. Don Carroll noted that,according to a count in 1996,there were only 79 cars in 24 hours and that
a traffic study would not be necessary.
Laurie Buffington, Applicant, stated that her business is to train service dogs for the disabled and to make
aggressive dogs less aggressive. She stated that she has the correct credentials to do this business and
often gets referrals from law officials as well as many veterinarians. Ms. Buffington read a letter to the
surrounding property owners into the record. Ms. Buffington further stated that she has already cleaned the
property up, that she has to go through the USR process because she is placing handicapped accessible
restrooms at her site, making the site a commercial business. Laurie Buffington noted that there will be 8-10
dogs at her site for training with an additional 8-10 dogs on the site during some days for training classes, but
that these dogs will not be boarded at the site. Ms. Buffington noted that she has run this business in Boulder
county and that neighbors near her have never had a problem before.
John Folsom asked if she met the requirements of Boulder county. Ms. Buffington noted that she did meet
the requirements. Cathy Clamp asked if the classes would be any larger than the 4-8 dogs Ms. Buffington
applied for. Ms. Buffington noted that there would not be more than 8 dogs in each class. Michael Miller
asked if Ms. Buffington trained police dogs as well as service dogs. Laurie Buffington noted that she does
not train dogs to become aggressive,that she trains them to be better companions to the people that own and
need them.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Sharon Rowe, a surrounding property owner, noted that does not have a problem with Ms. Buffington
personally,she does not want to have to deal with the change to the neighborhood. Ms. Rowe noted that she
does not like that the word"boarding"will be down the road from her house as she feels this lowers the value
of her home, which she is trying to sell. Ms. Rowe also noted a dislike for the lights being on at all hours.
LuAnn Halverson,a nearby property owner, noted that although she hear the previous property owners dogs
barking, she is not disturbed by any barking from Ms. Buffington's dogs. Ms. Halverson also noted that Ms.
Buffington has indeed fenced the property and cleaned it up from the previous owners.
Janet Bayless, who works with the dogs that Ms. Buffington trains, noted that Laurie Buffington is a very
responsible person and does not doubt that this will be run in the most respectable way.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT.3540
' FAX (970)304-6498
111 D 1555 N. 17TH AVENUE
C• GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
COLORADO
September 11, 2000
The Honorable Gary Wardell
Town of LaSalle
128 North 2nd Street
•
LaSalle, Colorado 80645
RE: IGA with Weld County
. Dear Mayor Wardell:
The process of establishing an Intergovernmental Agreementwith Weld County includes four-hearings. The
first hearing is established for the Planning Commission on Tuesday, September 19 at 1:30 p.m. This
hearing shall occur in the second floor hearing room of the Planning Department, located at 1555 North 17th
Avenue in Greeley. The next three hearings are in front of the Board of County Commissioners and shall
occur at 9:00 a.m. on October 9, October 23, and November 6. The Board of County Commissioner's
hearing room is located at 915 10'" Street in Greeley. Please note the Board of County Commissioner
hearing dates are tentative and shall be permanently established after the Planning Commission hearing.
A representative from your community should attend each hearing and be prepared to discuss how the
Urban Growth Boundary was established. Please feel free to contact me with further questions regarding
these four hearings.
Weld County is in the process of codifying all County Ordinances into one document to be titled the Weld
County Code. The County Code will include all Intergovernmental Agreements. The process of reproducing
maps has been brought to the attention of the Department of Planning Services. In our Intergovernmental
Agreement with your community, a color map was submitted with the signed originals of the
Intergovernmental Agreement. Due to the expense of reproducing color maps in the County Code, we
would like to modify this color map into a black and white map for the County Code. Please refer to the
enclosed map for accuracy and notify me of any necessary modifications.
I look forward to working with your community in establishing this Intergovernmental Agreement.
Respectfully,
A hootodoofimito........
Anne Best Johnson
Long Range Planner
electronic copy: B. Barker, M. Daniels Mika
•
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
•
•
AGREEMENT MAP
La Salle
ORDINANCE 2xx
APPROVED x-x-2000
° !- , A--
✓
�
Legend:
-e MEM T�� (ARTERIAL Ncacg
1 .)� .
dI/.R - 31 EMOTES COLLECTOR
i
1 a
3 ''. ... ► W.C.R. 0 FUTURE TRAM
••• ...,... •.,,, �E� PRRMRYERCWIH ECURCORY
�flt1 717(4)-,i+ 7 �Ru
- pi } 1 �j PRI MA Y V SECOND PRY AR
E f ' •3 BOUNDARY 3 v .
• /. 100 YEAR PLCOCPINR
4
a' 01 i • CRY WELL
n' ,: PLCOORNIe9vuAnalProre�er
a SECONDARY
• Jr re 4 • GROWTH 4 PER►I.MII REM1Y#V93.NO.mos one c,
I V BOUNDARY airlme�naeels 1�
% % g
BMW oorwant
h pr.1 • 1wan 4 itcernRe'FIE wiearwRtIR ICT
N "a, . UeWLE PIl PIIOIE6110R OR11eCf
[ waDeaemealooLORrncrR3.1
-L M S y' waDoaumlERrRroRlncr
t
'C I.
•
4 43 ti.'' SCALE: 1•.10001
3 1• t
u .E. - r aisi iY G 'Ee11 'Tiii ➢ii iiE"iaiY alias iY 'YiEi"r :seen:iii' AMA
• I•
Weld County Planning Dept
FUSS N IT M. Cosby CO. SOW
fWfl!: 9—s-2000 I mann RAD
MEMORANDUM
WICTO: Weld County Planning Commission DATE: September 5, 2000
COLORADO FROM: Anne Best Johnson, Long Range Planner
SUBJECT: Intergovernmental Agreement for LaSalle
Since 1995, Weld County has been working with communities in establishing Intergovernmental
Agreements. For your consideration,the LaSalle and Weld County agreement has been prepared.
It is the Department of Planning Services recommendation that this Intergovernmental Agreement
meets the intent of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan as follows:
1. Comprehensive Plan UGB.Goal 1 states that Weld County will encourage and assist each
municipality in establishing an intergovernmental urban growth boundary agreement. The following
UGB.Policy 1 states, Weld County recognizes that municipalities can and should plan their own
futures in terms of the nature and rate of growth.
The Town of LaSalle has worked with Weld County in establishing this proposed Intergovernmental
Agreement and indicated their interest in planning for responsible growth. (Comprehensive Plan,
page 3-1).
2. Comprehensive Plan UGB.Goal 2 and UGB.Policy 2 indicate that Urban development shall
be concentrated in or adjacent to urban growth boundary areas that provide an official designation
between future urban and non-urban uses. These boundaries shall be established through an
intergovernmental agreement between the municipality and the County.
The Town of LaSalle has delineated their Urban Growth Boundary on the attached map. Through
this Intergovernmental Agreement, the Town of LaSalle has specified the future growth of their
community. Further, it is noted that Weld County recognizes that it is appropriate for its
municipalities to plan for growth at their current boundaries and in the surrounding areas.
(Comprehensive Plan, page 3-1).
3. Comprehensive Plan UGB.Goal 3 states that the County and municipalities should coordinate
land use planning in urban growth boundary areas, including development policies and standards,
zoning, street and highway construction, open space, public infrastructure and other matters
affecting orderly development.
The county recognizes that an intergovernmental urban growth boundary agreement is by far the
best tool for coordinating development for municipal/county interface. (Page 3-1, Comprehensive
Plan.) It is further noted that the County Commissioners imparted the following criteria to guide the
municipalities in developing their urban growth boundaries. These guidelines are the impetus for
many communities in establishing an Intergovernmental Agreement with Weld County:
1. Growth should pay for itself in terms of initial costs, and in the long range, through good
design and functional efficiency.
2. Annexation patterns should directly correlate with municipal service areas.
3. Infill of communities is a far more efficient use of land than urban sprawl.
SERVICE,TEAMWORK,INTEGRITY,QUALITY
As outlined on pages 3-1 - 1 3-2 of the Comprehensive Plan, the minty recognizes that when
growth at the municipal/county level is not coordinated, problems arise. Additionally, when a
municipality and the County enter into an Urban Growth Boundary agreement, the County agrees
to abide by the municipality's vision for future development in the area. Likewise, the municipality
agrees to limit its expansion to the defined areas where it plans to provide municipal services. It
is understood that urban growth is an ongoing process and Urban Growth Boundary agreements
will be subject to revision as needed.
4. The county recognizes that through intergovernmental agreements the municipality agrees
to limit its expansion to the defined areas where it plans to provide municipal services, therefore,
participating in responsible growth.
It is this belief that Weld County and the Town of LaSalle desire to enter into this Intergovernmental
Agreement.
The purpose of this Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of LaSalle and Weld County
is to establish procedures and standards pursuant to which the parties will move toward greater
coordination in the exercise of their land use and related regulatory powers within unincorporated
areas surrounding each municipality. The community of LaSalle exercises governmental authority
over the same matter within its boundaries; including annexations.
The premise for this Intergovernmental Agreement is similar to the agreement for the nine previous
agreements this board has approved. Customized modifications include the following:
1. Section 2.4 Definition of Urban Growth Boundary Area is noted as the Secondary
Boundary on the attached map.
2. Section 3.3 (e) The last sentence was modified to include, "and will consider identifiable
impacts on the MUNICIPAL road system resulting from such Development
on the same basis as in-COUNTY impacts."
3. Section 3.3 (i) This is a new section to include reference to the storm water detention
facilities and subdivision design.
It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services staff and at the direction of the County
Attorney that this Intergovernmental Agreement be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners with favorable recommendation.
This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by the
applicant, other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities.
SERVICE,TEAMWORK,INTEGRITY,QUALITY
The premise for this Intergovernmental Agreement is similar to the agreement for the nine previous agreements this
board has approved. Customized modifications include the following:
1. Section 2.4 Definition of Urban Growth Boundary Area is noted as the Secondary Boundary on the attached
map.
2. Section 3.3 (e) The last sentence was modified to include, "and will consider identifiable impacts on the
MUNICIPAL road system resulting from such Development on the same basis as in-COUNTY
impacts."
3. Section 3.3(i) This is a new section to include reference to the storm water detention facilities and subdivision
design.
REFERRAL LIST
NAME:Town of LaSalle/Weld County CASE NUMBER: Ordinance 2XX
REFERRALS SENT: September 11, 2000 REFERRALS TO BE RECEIVED BY: September 15, 2000
COUNTY TOWNS and CITIES
_X Attorney _Ault
_X Health Department Brighton
Extension Service _Broomfield
Emergency Management Office _Dacono
_Sheriffs Office Eaton
_
_X_Public Works _Erie
_Housing Authority _X_Evans
Airport Authority Firestone
_Building Inspection Fort Lupton
_Code Enforcement _Frederick
STATE _Garden City
_Division of Water Resources Gilcrest
_Geological Survey _X_Greeley
Department of Health Grover
Department of Transportation _Hudson
_Historical Society Johnstown
Water Conservation Board Keenesburg
Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Kersey
Division of Wildlife: _LaSalle
_Loveland Lochbuie
_Greeley Longmont
_Division of Minerals/Geology Mead
FIRE DISTRICTS Milliken
_Ault F-1 _New Raymer
_Berthoud F-2 Northglenn
Briggsdale F-24 Nunn
Brighton F-3 _Pierce
_Eaton F-4 _Platteville
Fort Lupton F-5 Severance
Galeton F-6 _Thornton
Hudson F-7 Windsor
_Johnstown F-8
_X_La Salle F-9
_Mountain View F-10 COUNTIES
_Milliken F-11 Adams
_
_Nunn F-12 Boulder
_Pawnee F-22 _Pawnee
_Platteville F-13
_Platte Valley F-14 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Poudre Valley F-15 US Army Corps of Engineers
Raymer F-2 _USDA-APHIS Veterinary Service
Southeast Weld F-16 _Federal Aviation Administration
Windsor/Severance F-17 Federal Communication Commission
Wiggins F-18
Union Colony F-20 SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
Brighton
OTHER Fort Collins
X_School District RE-1 _X_Greeley
_2X_Ditch Companies: Farmer's Independent,Western Mutual, Longmont
& Union Ditch West Adams
X_Union Pacific Railroad
COMMISSION/BOARD MEMBER
_X_John Folsom
09/14/2000 13: 50 9703510392 •
USDA SERVICE CENTER PAGE 01/01
•
August 30, 2000
O
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Town of LaSalle/Weld
Case Number Ordinance 2)O(County
Please Reply By September 15, 2000
Planner Anne Best Johnson
Project Intergovernmental Agreement,
•
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation
you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated, Please reply by the above listed date so that
we may dive full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date
may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further
questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) September 19, 2000
•
Cl We have reviewed the request and find that it does does no omply with our Comprehensive Plan
❑ We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
Cl See attached letter.
Comments: 1\ I
P5T V reLt\e` nt S n"\ CUr\hQchin\ '.off �tt.„\\
nor� uaG a� i 1
ar V o\.1S..v-��
Signature \
Date q`—,�' _00
Agency \r.J (9 6 Op
+Weld County Planning Dept. ♦1555 N.17th Ave.Greeley,CO.00631 +(970)353-6100 ext.3540 4(970)304-6498 fax
a ilif,:t/S-ER:Cyl:
Weld County Referral
' August 30, 2000
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Town of LaSalle/Weld Case Number Ordinance 2XX
County
Please Reply By September 15, 2000 Planner Anne Best Johnson
Project Intergovernmental Agreement.
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation
you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that
we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date
may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further
questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) September 19, 2000
❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
•arWe have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
❑ See attached letter.
Comments:
Signature � Date 4/4/p D
Agency ( IG t`l-c�.b4 6111( [[[
+Weld County Planning Dept. 01555 N. 17th Ave.Greeley,CO.80631 ❖(970)353-6100 ext.3540 O(970)304-6498 fax
Weld County Planning Dept.
SEP 08 2000
RECEIVED
Weld County Referral
August 30, 2000
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Town of LaSalle/Weld Case Number Ordinance 2XX
County
Please Reply By September 15, 2000 Planner Anne Best Johnson
Project Intergovernmental Agreement.
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation
you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that
we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date
may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further
questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) September 19, 2000
❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
❑ We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
2 See attached letter.
Comments:
Signature [C' Date 9�.�/ vd
Agency 7/.4Q%' 5c6,7 fa/ri S/
+Weld County Planning Dept. +1555 N. 17th Ave.Greeley, CO.80631 +(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +(970)304-6498 fax
Weld County Planning Dept.
Weld County School District RE-1
Gilcrest•LaSalle • Platteville SEP 12 2000
PO Box 157
RECEIVED s7 WCR 42
80623
Gilcrest, CO
Jo Barbie-Redmond, Superintendent Phone 970-737-2403
David H. Seiler, Superintendent Emeritus Fax 970-737-2516
Bj Stone,Director of Curriculum and Staff Development Metro 303-629-9337
September 8, 2000
Weld County Planning Dept.
1555 N. 17th Ave.
Greeley, CO 80631
Attn: Anne Best Johnson
Dear Ms. Johnson,
I have reviewed the information and attended the worksession and La Salle Town Board meeting regarding the
Intergovernmental Agreement. Weld RE-1 does not have any conflicts with the agreement. I applaud the
cooperation between governmental entities.
Thank you for sharing the information.
Sincerely,
David Seiler
Superintendent Emeritus
cc: Jo Barbie-Redmond, Superintendent
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Jack Baier Cynthia Hochmiller Larry A.Ewing Karl Yamaguchi Grant Ritchey Audrey Gabel
President Vice President Secretary Treasurer Director Director
SEP-18-00 MON 12:49 CITY OF EVANS FAX Na 3033395344 P. 02
•
ittot\(4trou
� Weld County Referral
August 30, 2000
VI I p
C _--
COLORADO v
Thee W&I.I Cour I Ly Depa,LI IICI IL of Pico uui,,u 3ei viuea I Ieeeived Lie fuliuwinJ lieiu fur review.
Applicant Town of LaSalle/Weld Case Number Ordinance 2XX
County
Please Reply By September 15, 2000 Planner Anne Best Johnson
Project Intergovernmental Agreement.
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation
you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that
we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date
may be doomed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you hove any further
questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request.
Weld County Planning Commlealon Hearing (If applicable) September 19,2000
k❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
Y411 We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
❑ See attached letter-
Comments:
•
•
Signature t e f A y Date _q r /�r CD
Agency Ce t�'J" r
+Wold County Planning['opt. +1666 N. 17th Ave.Greeley,CO. 80631 +(070)353-6100 ext.3510 0(070)304-8408 fax
RECEIVED
SEP 11 2000
11404:44:y WELD COUTYPUBLIC WORKS DEPT
Weld County RefCOUNTYral
August 30, 2000
1111k
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Town of LaSalle/Weld Case Number Ordinance 2XX
County
Please Reply By September 15, 2000 Planner Anne Best Johnson
Project Intergovernmental Agreement.
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation
you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that
we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date
may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further
questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) September 19, 200O
❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
O We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
❑ See attached letter.
Comments:
Signature f ` Date
-7(Agency 1,OC_P
+Weld County Planning Dept. +1555 N. 17th Ave.Greeley,CO. 80631 +(970)353-6100 ext3540 ❖(970)304-6498 fax
EXHISIT
Weld County Planning Dept.
OCT 03 2000
rcitke , RECEIVED
fas 41.11 Weld County Referral
CAugust 30, 2000
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant .Town of LaSalle/Weld Case Number Ordinance 2XX
County
Please Reply By September 15, 2000 Planner Anne Best Johnson
Project Intergovernmental Agreement.
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation
you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that
we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date
may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further
questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) September 19, 2000
❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
❑ We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
MI See2ttachgtte#Sx comments below.
Comments:
Because there will be future developments in the Town of LaSalle, we
want to be advised of these developments and involved in approving
the plans to alleviate concerns of protecting our right of way, our
increased difficulty of maintaining the ditch, and our increased
liability because of development�� �� along the ditch. ,, �'
Signature (axon.
Rua . Date �?✓ , a 1/ ,2oao
Agency 7/1/1!-cn+�+ icLeati
+Weld County Planning Dept. +1555 N. 17th Ave.Greeley,CO.80631 +(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +(970)304-6498 fax
4 EXHIBIT
j-% .
I
Legend:
- ` --rQ tc v J 0' iii"'�'i,/,0 _ _ — — TOWN LAIRS
1 ,e;;;;;/' - nNG Nwx)a
I' - .. T �� uarea�Noon
/ Erea
snxcMINOR.�meauL
r / ///// lr J'ii////j1.//;/'0;:i;51/;///;//45/;//;;J11Y ft '12.l/illl o ^^_ EXISTING xl
!// ''/;///////%///%//,./////,' / / J , , I m ica c*ow`r`,EcwE1
i/ rr/rr /, Ar����„S FUTURE COLLECTOR
' %%/J i/J,Ji//r I ....FUTURE TRAILS
'. ,/J%„i/ //////%/%;//////r v,/%//j//;5//çØii
BOUNDARY
`� O,;;;.r/,/.N/// // S )
CE
',%,%/;;;;2/r "'" LOW DENS TYRESIDENPA
e�V. y, M�BraESNNu%, %; /,,,p;,,4;,,,,~%;,;; :off. `, �`'j E :,� BUSINESS
�NeEx w
,,, ;;;//;,/;,; J �. , �/ ma.BU NESSDIR,aNTIC.I
J;' ��� DON.Na�TRAL
No�asII
PRIWIRY
ate. 1 BOUNDARY
OW pIN �x
d- _ .f
1 may I cu�rvv,�
111111
'' ///J ' f a,
_ /
// ///%///%//c%//%/// ,. ✓ t s�
J /// „ L.• o �';;: *■O
a To
— RE IN,D o N w
' 0 ' x INaaax ED INTO 1
g o.
REsDENT.NEGHB0RH0O.
1 Y e .6,:_.s y .. •
�j 1 o
o
e O'. * SECONDARY FLOODPLAIN INFORMATION PROVIDED BY
V I W�' //1/;'
� % ■ . GROWTH FEMA MAP COMMUNITY PANELSNO 080268 07/5 C,
f ■ ■ BOUNDARY 080266 0638 C AND 080266 0639 C,ALL DATED
■ ■ ♦�. ,� : , ■• ■■ SEPTEMBER 28,1992
• ■ ■.
R •s■.• . _ • - /. ■ ,.*.a3
/42 1' ALL PROPERTY WITHIN I ALAI LE'S SECONDARY URBAN
q ■ . . . .Imo■■ .-•�Tl�■ . ■ . e ew GROWTH BOUNDARY IS LOCATED IN THE FOLLOWING
IISPECIAL DISTRICTS.
T *'•
•CENTRAL WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
I ; I •LASALLE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
I
1 •WELD COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-1
I
•WELD COUNTY LIBRARY DISTRICT
1 x
I HIGHWAY 85 HAS BEEN DESIGNATED AS A HAZARDOUS
.fW.s� r 1, 5:3; MATERIALS ROUTE BY THE STATE OF COLORADO.
••,... - THE TOWN IS AND WILL REMAIN IN COMPLIANCE WITH I
v"..e*•0/ ♦* • THIS DESIGNATION.
''. 0" a .�,•' ■ North
:.1 I.44 a
■• TON TOREUXATE .•. v O
I--,_,,
SWITCHING/ ♦ +� I
STATION . • ■ SCALE.1•=1000
o sm
IO �
0,F
GROWTH BOUNDARY MAP
La Salle Comprehensive Plan
COLORADO
OCTOBER 1999
EXHIBIT "A11 Prepared By:
ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONSULTA c 11.11'
825 DELAWARE AVE.,SUITE 500, LONGMONT, EXHIBIT
(303)772-5282 METRO(303)665-6283 FAX:(
9 ,f,
%-(1%;4.',, INTERG0VERNME AGREEMENTMAP NTAL,,,,iiii,,,:,/,,,,,,,it:1;;;:::ix,itl�� La Salle
ORDINANCE 2xx
APPROVED x-x-2000
NMI all
,i rte, ,/ r ..�.
,,,,,,............7.7..i.„,
� r � ✓�" Legend:
Eons wuoRARTE ML
• (ARTERIAL IN COME
III
g;/;',.;—.. ; _ __.,.�.,. INN E)
ARTERIAL
+ 7MINOR
g - r* s, I . -
sft. ,/ 32
/ ,<• „ mum=IN WOEj
FUTURE THAI!
TIf •
•
T�•dI I ._. Ir.
PRIMARY U ■ �n� aEcarowiraRowrHEawARr
GROWTH
ii // t 5 BOUNDARY
/ ri/'- '� P_____,------.----- _.—��i % +��,.. ° ° ,._... �..' r' 1OO YEAR FLOOOPLNN
.. _. ORY YA91
ISECONDARY 'eO"1"710NPA0"°m°''
• IY • GGROWTH •
R9RARRArmENINNr�ARnNaa10Ee9rnG
rJ j BOUNDARY—Mk., �� �' ��
• ,_ W 48 _ 3i 1 I— ALL RIOPl3OYIMRE/LAMUwEICdGNNUIMN
�� — OIRDINTN BOURONF,•LOWE:IN TIEIPIXAAL WWI*
N7LLONRq
wD
4)4 N _ I .. L7RTNAL a aOU aN TYWATERMCT
•
n_nm I VI'•RR FNorea 9NIaT
wa .
nCONTYREIMiNp .,RIM
A M a WED a9UNY LIMA"Dina
NO" _ € ii. •
ea I—ii
r Q
< SGLLE: 1'=1000'
•
AELOCA E ccr
WHIM••
41 6 Did
,k .s•aan
Weld Covnty Planning Deyt.l
'555 N H Iaf. Gn.w �• IW■I
UP9aYa 9-¢-P90U n
Hello