HomeMy WebLinkAbout20002432.tiff /O - .
ORDINANCE NO. 220
IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTING A COORDINATED PLANNING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
COUNTY OF WELD AND THE TOWN OF LASALLE
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF
WELD, STATE OF COLORADO:
WHEREAS,the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Weld, State of Colorado,
pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority
of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and
WHEREAS, Title 29, Article 20, C.R.S., authorizes and encourages local governments to
cooperate and contract with each other for the purpose of planning and regulating the development
of land by the joint and coordinated exercise of planning,zoning,subdivisions,building,and related
regulatory powers, and
WHEREAS, existing and anticipated pressures for growth and development in areas
surrounding the Town of LaSalle indicate that the joint and coordinated exercise by the County of
Weld and said municipality of its respective planning, zoning, subdivision, building arid related
regulatory powers in such areas will best promote the objectives stated in this ordinance, and
WHEREAS, the attached Coordinated Planning Agreement between the Weld County
Board of Commissioners, on behalf of the Department of Planning Services, and the Town of
LaSalle, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, has been
considered and approved by said municipality.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of the
County of Weld, State of Colorado, that the attached Coordinated Planning Agreement between
the Weld County Board of Commissioners, on behalf of the Department of Planning Services, and
the Town of LaSalle be, and hereby is, approved.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED by the Board that the Chair is authorized to sign the attached
Coordinated Planning Agreement.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED by the Board if any section,subsection, paragraph,sentence,
clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held or decided to be unconstitutional, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof. The Board of County
Commissioners hereby declares that it would have enacted this Ordinance in each and every
section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, and phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that
any one or more sections, subsections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases might be
declared to be unconstitutional or invalid.
2000-2432
ORD220
RE: ORDINANCE NO. 220
PAGE 2
The above and foregoing Ordinance No. 220 was, on motion duly made and seconded,
adopted by the following vote on the 6th day of November, A. D., 2000.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST: ---
Barbara J. Kirkmeyer, Chair
Weld County Clerk to the Board
M. J. Geile, Pro-Tem
BY:
Deputy Clerk to the Board ---
George E. Baxter
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ---
Dale K. Hall
County Attorney --_
Glenn Vaad
First Reading: October 9, 2000
Publication: October 12, 2000, in the South Weld Sun
Second Reading: October 23, 2000
Publication: October 26, 2000, in the South Weld Sun
Final Reading: November 6, 2000
Publication: November 9, 2000, in the South Weld Sun
Effective: November 14, 2000
2000-2432
ORD220
5-22-00
COORDINATED PLANNING AGREEMENT
This Coordinated Planning Agreement is made and entered into effective as of the__clay
of, , 2000,A.D. between the County of Weld, State of Colorado,whose address is 915
10th Street, P. O. Box 758, Greeley, CO 80632, hereinafter called the"COUNTY,"and the TOWN
OF LA SALLE, a Colorado Municipal corporation, whose address is 128 N. 2n° Street, La Salle,
CO 80645, hereinafter called the "MUNICIPALITY."
RECITALS
A. The COUNTY exercises governmental authority regulating land use, growth and
development in its unincorporated areas, which areas include lands surrounding the
MUNICIPALITY: and
B. The MUNICIPALITY exercises governmental authority over the same matters within
its municipal boundaries, and annexations, and is able to provide municipal services and facilities
for efficient and desirable urban development; and
C. In Title 29,Article 20, Colorado Revised Statutes,the General Assembly of the State
of Colorado has granted broad authority to local governments to plan for and regulate the
development and use of land within their respective jurisdictions; and
D. In said Title 29, Article 20, Colorado Revised Statutes, the General Assembly has
further authorized and encouraged local governments to cooperate and contract with each other
for the purpose of planning and regulating the development of land by the joint and coordinated
exercise of planning, zoning, subdivisions, building, and related regulatory powers; and
E. Existing and anticipated pressures for growth and development in areas surrounding
the MUNICIPALITY indicate that the joint and coordinated exercise by the COUNTY and the
MUNICIPALITY of their respective planning, zoning, subdivision, building and related regulatory
powers in such areas will best promote the objectives stated in this agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings
herein set forth, the parties agree as follows:
1. PURPOSES AND OBJECTIVES. The purpose of this Agreement 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 the MUNICIPALITY. The objectives 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. However, any action taken
pursuant to this Agreement that pertains to any land within the municipality, for incorporated areas,
and within the County, for unincorporated areas, is subject to final approval by the governing body
of the municipality or county, respectively.
1
2. DEFINITIONS. For the purposes of this Agreement the following terms shall be
defined as set forth herein:
2.1 Development. Any land use requiring regulatory approval by the elected
governing body of the applicable party in the Urban Growth Area except for an amendment
to a plat or a down-zoning, neither of which creates any additional lots and except for a
Recorded Exemption or Subdivision Exemption. Existing agricultural uses,which are lawful
uses, either as uses by right under the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, as amended, or
as legally existing non-conforming uses, are also exempt from the definition of
"Development".
2.2 Non-Urban Development. Land uses which typically do not require
services such as central water and sewer systems, road networks, park and recreation
services, storm drainage, and the like, and which are generally considered to be rural in
nature, expressly including land used or capable of being used for agricultural production
and including developments which combine clustered residential uses and agricultural uses
in a manner that the agricultural lands are suitable for farming and ranching operations for
the next forty years.
2.3 MUNICIPAL Referral Area. The area located outside of but within three
miles of the MUNICIPALITY's municipal boundaries.
2.4 Urban Development. Development which is characterized by development
density typical to urbanized areas and requires support services such as central water and
sewer systems, road networks, park and recreation facilities and programs,storm drainage,
and other similar services which are typically furnished by MUNICIPALITY.
2.5 The Urban Growth Area is hereby established and shall consist of al' lands
within the area designated on the map attached hereto and referred to herein as "Exhibit
A" as "Secondary Growth Boundary," EXCEPTING those lands located within the
MUNICIPALITY's municipal boundaries.
3. PLANNING COORDINATION. This Agreement is intended to be a
Comprehensive Development Plan adopted and implemented pursuant to C.R.S. §29-20-105(2).
Following the execution of this Agreement by both parties, COUNTY Development approvals in
the MUNICIPALITY's Referral area will be processed and determined in accordance wth the
following:
3.1 Referral. The COUNTY will refer all proposals for Development within the
MUNICIPAL Referral Area to the MUNICIPALITY for its review and recommendation Such
referral will include at least a copy of the written Development proposal and preliminary
COUNTY staff summary of the case. The COUNTY will allow not less than twenty-one(21)
days for the MUNICIPALITY to review same and furnish its recommendations to COUNTY
staff prior to formulation of the COUNTY staff recommendation. If the MUNICIPALITY does
not respond within such time, COUNTY staff may proceed with its recommendation, but any
MUNICIPALITY comment or recommendation received on or before the Thursday next
preceding the meeting of the Board of County Commissioners or Planning Commission at
which the matter will be considered will be transmitted to the Board or Commission If the
MUNICIPALITY submits no comment or recommendation the COUNTY may assume it has
no objection to the proposal. If the MUNICIPALITY submits recommendations, the
COUNTY will either include within its written decision the reasons for any action taken
contrary to the same or furnish such reasons to the MUNICIPALITY by a separate writ'ng.
2
3.2 Development Outside Urban Growth Area. To the extent legally possible
the COUNTY will disapprove proposals for Urban Development in areas of the MUNICIPAL
Referral Area outside the Urban Growth Area. In reviewing proposals for Non-Urban
Development in such areas, the COUNTY will apply its Comprehensive Plan and zoning
and subdivision ordinances, and, where appropriate, the MUD Plan.
3.3 Development in Urban Growth Area. The following shall apply to
proposed Development in the Urban Growth Area:
(a) Upon receipt of any proposal for Development of property then
currently eligible for voluntary annexation to the MUNICIPALITY, the COUNTY will,
in writing, notify the proponent of the opportunity for annexation and notify the
MUNICIPALITY of the proposal. The COUNTY will not consider such proposal for
Development unless the applicant or its predecessor has submitted a complete
annexation petition and been denied said annexation by the MUNICIPALITY Board
or electorate for a substantially similar development on the same property within the
preceding 12 months. The COUNTY may consider such a proposal if, after a period
of seven months from the date of filing of a complete annexation petition pursued
in good faith by the applicant or its predecessor, the MUNICIPALITY has failed to
approve or deny such annexation.
(b) The MUNICIPALITY will require extension of sanitary sewer service
to property in the Urban Growth Area, subject to its rules and regulations, which
include provisions requiring a written contract for extraterritorial service aid the
construction of new mains and other facilities necessary to serve the property with
costs assessed in accordance with the MUNICIPALITY'S rules and regulations.
MUNICIPALITY agrees to give notice of any proposed change in said rules and
regulations to COUNTY 21 days prior to adoption
(c) If The MUNICIPALITY provides municipal water service to property
within its boundaries, subject to its rules and regulations, it will provide water under
provisions similar to those indicated above for sewer service. Where water
furnished by the MUNICIPALITY is received in whole or in part from an outside
water provider such as a water district under a Water Service Agreement dated
January 14, 1992, the MUNICIPALITY shall exercise its obligations under this
agreement consistent with the terms of the Water Service Agreement. The
MUNICIPALITY will negotiate in good faith with the water provider to explore ways
in which the extension of water service outside MUNICIPALITY boundaries pan be
coordinated so as to achieve the purposes stated in Section 1 above while still
recognizing the rights and obligations of the water provider and its constituents.
(d) In recognition of the availability of public water and sewer service
within the Urban Growth Area as indicated in paragraphs (b) and (c) above, the
COUNTY will require public water and sewer service as a condition of approval of
any subdivision, rezoning or planned unit development and will not approve such
Development until the applicant obtains a written contract for same with the
MUNICIPALITY, or water service from Central Weld County Water District, if the
MUNICIPALITY cannot provide water. This Agreement shall be prima facie
evidence of the availability of municipal water and sewer service within the meaning
of§32-1-203(2.5)(a), C.R.S.
(e) The COUNTY will not grant any waiver of current Municipal street
standards for any Development without the consent of the MUNICIPALITY and will
3
consider identifiable impacts on the MUNICIPALITY'S road system resulting from
such Development on the same basis as in-COUNTY impacts.
(f) To the extent legally possible, as determined by the COUNTY, the
COUNTY will deny proposals for Non-Urban Development in the Urban Growth
Area. Nothing in this subsection shall restrict the COUNTY from approving, by
means of a process such as recorded exemption or subdivision exemption, the
isolated partition or division of ownership parcels located in the Urban Growth Area
having existing residential improvements served by septic systems, regardless of
the size of resulting lots. Nevertheless, the COUNTY will not permit such a
concentration of such divisions in any particular area as will frustrate or materially
hinder the evolution of genuine Urban Development, as defined in § 2.4 of this
Agreement, in the Urban Growth Area. Furthermore, the County shall not be
restricted from allowing the expansion of legally existing non-urban uses provided
adequate protection for future urban uses is included in any such approval.
(g) If any MUNICIPALITY recommendation of disapproval of a
Development proposal is based upon a conflict or incompatibility between proposed
uses in the Development and anticipated MUNICIPALITY zoning classification for
the property,the COUNTY will not approve same unless the applicant demonstrates
(i) that no such conflict or incompatibility will reasonably occur, (ii) that suitable
mitigation measures to be imposed by the COUNTY as conditions of approval will
eliminate or adequately mitigate adverse consequences of incompatibility or conflict,
or (iii)that the MUNICIPALITY'S anticipated zoning classification of the property is
unreasonable because of existing or planned uses of adjacent properly. The
MUNICIPALITY shall be given notice of, and may appear and be heard at any
hearing or other proceeding at which the COUNTY will consider such issues.
(h) The parties anticipate that ¶ 3.3 (e)-(g) will be addressed in more
detail if a Mutually Acceptable Plan is considered and adopted for the UGA or the
referral Area.
(i) The COUNTY shall require that all storm water detention facilities
in subdivisions approved within the UGA shall be designed to detain the storrr water
runoff from the fully developed subdivision from a 100-year storm and release the
detained water at a quantity and rate not to exceed the quantity and rate of a 5-year
storm falling on the undeveloped site.
3.4 Mutuality of Impact Consideration. The parties recognize that decisions
by one party regarding development may impact property outside of each particular
jurisdiction. The parties agree that those jurisdictional boundaries will not be the basis for
giving any greater or lesser weight to those impacts during the course of deliberations.
3.5 Referrals to County. The MUNICIPALITY will refer proposals for
Development (except any Development considered to be a use-by-right pursuant to
MUNICIPALITY'S planning documents) which lie within 500 feet of any property in
unincorporated Weld County to the COUNTY for its review and recommendation. Such
referral will include at least a copy of the written Development proposal. The
MUNICIPALITY will allow not less than twenty-one (21) days for the COUNTY to review
same and furnish its recommendations to MUNICIPALITY. If the COUNTY submits no
comment or recommendation the MUNICIPALITY may assume it has no objection to the
proposal. If the COUNTY submits recommendations,the MUNICIPALITY will either include
4
within its written decision the reasons for any action taken contrary to the same or furnish
such reasons to the COUNTY by a separate writing. Where the Development is proposed
as part of an annexation of more than 10 acres, the provisions of this section shall be
deemed satisfied by compliance by the MUNICIPALITY with the Notice and impact
statement provisions of the most current version of the Municipal Annexation Act then in
effect. If any COUNTY recommendation of disapproval of a Development proposal within
500 feet of any property in unincorporated Weld County is based upon a conflict or
incompatibility between proposed uses in the Development and existing or anticipated
zoning classification for the property, to the extent legally possible the MUNICIPALITY will
not approve same unless the applicant demonstrates (i) that no such conflict or
incompatibility will reasonably occur, or(ii)that suitable mitigation measures to be imposed
by the MUNICIPALITY as conditions of approval will eliminate or adequately mitigate
adverse consequences of incompatibility or conflict. The COUNTY shall be given notice
of, and may appear and be heard at any hearing or other proceeding at which the
MUNICIPALITY will consider such issues.
4. ANNEXATION.
4.1 The MUNICIPALITY will give serious consideration to all petitions for
annexation of lands within the Urban Growth Area and will consider, in any determination
to annex such properties, without limitation, the following factors: (i) the extension of one
or more municipal services to the area would place an unreasonable economic burden on
the existing users of such services or upon the future residents or owners of property in the
area itself; (ii)the area is not reasonably contiguous in fact to the MUNICIPALITY's existing
boundaries, and its annexation would result in disconnected municipal satellites.
4.2 The MUNICIPALITY will not annex properties located outside the Urban
Growth Area unless such property is both eligible for annexation and is necessary to the
MUNICIPALITY for municipal purposes such as utilities.
4.3 To the extent legally possible the MUNICIPALITY will annex the full width of
each COUNTY road right of way contiguous to newly annexed property unless such road
serves primarily COUNTY properties rather than existing or newly annexed Municipal
properties, in which case the MUNICIPALITY will annex none of such COUNTY road right
of way.
4.4 Notwithstanding any provision hereof to the contrary, the MUNICIPALITY is
not obligated to annex any property within a Development approved by the County after
the execution of this Agreement by both parties which does not conform to the County
Urban Growth Standards, unless a waiver or modification of such standards was granted
by the COUNTY and approved by the MUNICIPALITY.
4.5 Nothing in this Section 4 shall be construed to limit the MUNICIPALITY from
annexing any land within the Urban Growth Area, regardless whether such annexations are
involuntary or result in disconnected municipal satellites.
4.6 In determining off-site improvements to be constructed by proponents of
in-MUNICIPALITY Development, the MUNICIPALITY will consider identifiable impacts on
the COUNTY road system resulting from such Development on the same basis as in-
MUNICIPALITY impacts.
5. IMPLEMENTATION OF AGREEMENT. Following the mutual execution of this
Agreement each party will promptly enact and implement such amendments to its existing
5
regulations as may be necessary to give effect to the provisions of Sections 3, and 4. Each
party shall have sole and exclusive discretion to determine such measures and any new
ones enabling it to perform this Agreement. Each party's land use regulations as referred
to herein are ordinances whose amendment requires certain formalities, including notice
and public hearings. The mutual covenants in this section and elsewhere to implement this
Agreement promptly are given and received with mutual recognition and understanding of
the legislative processes involved, and such covenants will be liberally construed in light
thereof.
6. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
6.1 Severability. Should any one or more sections or paragraphs of this
Agreement be judicially determined invalid or unenforceable,such judgment shall not affect,
impair or invalidate the remaining provisions of this Agreement, the intention being that the
various sections and paragraphs are severable; provided, however, that the parties shall
then review the remaining provisions to determine if the Agreement should continue, as
modified, or if the Agreement should be terminated.
6.2 Enforcement. Either party may seek specific performance or enforcement
of this Agreement in a Court of competent jurisdiction, but neither party shall have any claim
or remedy for damages arising from an alleged breach hereof against the other, nor shall
this agreement confer on either part standing to contest a land use decision or action of the
other except as a breach of this agreement. This agreement is not intended to modify the
standing the parties may possess independent of this agreement. This Agreemem is
between the MUNICIPALITY and the COUNTY and no third party rights or beneficiaries
exist or are created hereby.
6.3 Termination. This Agreement will continue in effect until June 30, 2002.
The parties shall review the Agreement in June, 2002, and in June of each succeeding
year to determine if the Agreement should continue in effect for the period of a year
thereafter. The parties may terminate this Agreement at any time if a mutually acceptable
Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the MUNICIPALITY referral area or growth area is
developed and implemented by both parties
6.4 Amendment. Upon the request of either party, this Agreement shall
be subject to amendment according to the same procedures as the original adoption
(requiring the written consent of the amendment by both parties); provided, however, that
changes in the Urban Growth Area defined in ¶ 2.5 herein may occur by resolution of the
MUNICIPALITY concurred in by the COUNTY when the change is a deletion to the UGA
or an addition of property which (a) was in common ownership and contained within a
common legal description with property previously included in the UGA; or (b) directly
adjacent to and contiguous with property previously contained within the UGA and capable
of being served by MUNICIPAL services, including water or sewer, within a reasonable
period of time.
6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement effective as of the
date first above written.
COUNTY OF WELD, by and through the
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF THE COUNTY OF WELD
By:
Barbara J. Kirkmeyer, Chairman
ATTEST:
Weld County Clerk to the Board By:
M. J. Geile, Pro Tem
By:
Deputy Clerk to the Board By:
George E. Baxter
By:
Dale K. Hall
By:
Glenn Vaad
TOWN OF A SALLE, C LORADO
By:
Gayy a , Mayor
ATTEST:
Bye Huila-a( 24)2;
Anna Fallis, Town Clerk
7
Legend:
„/';'''i// �'6/;j;�r;/jf �/'�/1 /�/%/;;ii/:%1i;;;;;;/iii%!iii1 _ - ; — TOWN LIMITS
I. .. _ i // ,d/ /riff //i ji/j/ /; EYIsnNG MM1pR ARTERIAL
i ' .� /ii/3ii// A /1/ iyyf• fv///._, , //, �, i (ARTERIAL IN CODE)
_p- N/.. /f/// ,//✓ II, • A P.' / QI� ♦ A .:>e .. .. rxw:x EXS11NG MINOR ARTERIAL
/,/�,%// ,�,',/// ///j//,/ // /,/l/J�/ //%/ //////////,//,/ // �wI ^, '„ iiii/, / _ '� / (MVIXi IN CODE)
i;/ii////i�i//iifi: fffi�/iiii/%l�ii/ll/ 1i ��/�1/�����i�/iii//// i�ji��%iiii/ii��i/i' ///////////////;/://///1511, �%/ •f L. O �/ „.
�--.- EwsnNO ariEcraR
f,/011 /iii/i%/ii/ji/ii ;;; ffiiii/ %!ii/ / / /;:/5 \ i /i//i/f///// //, /i (COLLECTOR IN CODE)
:1;:/i<i//, /=;;O;1% fi /// i/f/iii% / iiii A \\ AV��,:ii i%i%, iiii/ d / f
.. ., PunnE ca.LEcroR
,/ i//,/if/ /! ;;<; i//,/// / f!;;/iii te' \\\\\\\''',c:\,'AvV- vA\��A\� /if/ii/ifi// // '�
/i/iiii//,�� i / / ;k;;;;;/%1/. :-t� Y "‘" \� AA \ '`, A v , _ , j !
.(//11/1/////
iii, f i/ f/,/ /i/; / //�////A I AV AV \\\ �r� PRIMARY GROWTH BOUNDARY
/iii iiii / //f//, ////i //
v'-A. vV A
/ ,iii,/,,/ / ///iiii/,/ / 'aA1 \�Ay�-�
6 �6nI SECONDARY GROWTH BOUNDARY
//iiiiiiiiiii/, /i,/iiii�iiiii / I /
///i///z/, /,/i// /f„f/,,//„// ./ rovEw rinwxux
�ii/i
E=1 SOD YEAR FLOODPLAIN
Off.;//g,iii%/111111//f/i/ //0;f11/15;/ 4 ( OPEN SPACE
;/),//////,/,(;</j,////// //i%iiii f///„//i
//i%ifiiiiiiiii/////:X1%ii/// 1Or /) 6p .mac LOW Own REeGurtlu
/f//,///////////,///,/ /// ///,�fir //,/ � /
;i/jii/jii//// /,///////// / / /,/✓///7 . I Z'S • MLnLw DENSITY REnceNnu
/1111,/// ,///,//f,//// /1,,,/.;/1„/1,//1 /// & "f y HIGH DENSITY RF9Genw
�/ �/ / /1 i/ i/ ..1 V . .6 talBUSINESS d5iR.C (�D)
70,/,',•,//5//,.////,'"/,. ,, / ;
i1f%1if�fili/i /1�i / / / ..... .._ .ca.w .. _ - dVi cowEMiu
//,///,///„//////,///„//„ // • o
i/ i// 1 /// 4 . -* .k₹.e� � ".� MIIIMIIY
///1i/1ii/1ii/1ii/7,07,1///%1/ 7%S I H ■ I WYINnsnw
1%1/UUP1c
11%1: /f/1/i/1//i/ i/ BOUNDARY 7
f{ -,T #. 1 ��rn • j t It'6 6/� 9 -'irk r P„em EAaurEs
/1/i/ii1/1ii//i A U 0,10
- A=Paonw.TEwraM roa
_� d' tta - a AHEN3NRp1XPM PAPot iO BE
J. ! Y' DESIGNED AND DEVELOPED WITH
f / � [ FUTURE NEIGHBORHOOD.
_ — „ - L q, µ IN ADDITION,POCKET PARKS TO
J eE w eGw eo l rtD u
RFSNIENIMLNEBIBCMICIXAS
e
6 O O "" r 'r 9' SECONDARY° BEcoHny FLOODPLAIN INFORMATION PROVIDED BY:
�� �F j T GROWTH FEMA MAP COMMUNITY-PANELS NO.080266 0775 C,
• L BOUNDARY 080266 0638 C AND 080265 0639 C,ALL DATED
9 II I
6 , SEPTEMBER 28.1982
, I ti rcE Aar. • - j / 6 i r a ow[ ALL PROPERTY WITHIN LASALLE'S SECONDARY URBAN
B BVY i GROWTH BOUNDARY IS LOCATED IN THE FOLLOWING
" It�BBBBBB�rBBBBr�r�. 7��BBBBBB�.BBBBBBBBBB
-!. j SPECIAL DISTRICTS:
6 J . _ •CENTRAL WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
/j •LASALLE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
/ •
I •WELD COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT RE-1
,e 1 ) 6 •WELD COUNTY LIBRARY DISTRICT
Y
F •
HIGHWAY 65 HAS BEEN DESIGNATED AS A HAZARDOUS
"�[ era ma i.. j / MATERIALS ROUTE BY THE STATE OF COLORADO.
/ ,I �' ♦ l ,� 6 THE TOWN IS AND WILL REMAIN IN COMPLIANCE WITH
4.atiaQt / .''y• THIS DESIGNATION.Il •
�/ p• , el cr., - - / • ' North
710N 7Q . •
'�: �Br..1 S
REU 4 ,LD• IMO'
/ .. �.__. ._ Imes-� ____ .
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT MAP
La Salle
ORDINANCE 2xx
� APPROVED x-x-2000
------
109 al !
(ARTERIAL II COM
iARTERIAL
' 'i �' / (MAJOR IN CODE)
! tr.,:
32
C'' BOMB COLLECTOR
�'r e, :41
:ip ( (COLLECTOR IN COCq
Oki ,•,,,P z- I\ •t, W.C.R. 50 rnius
I�' Al�� _ ce ci I on B IN PRIMARY GROWN BOUNDARY
"^ �j PRIMARY C7: �u� BEOOIOANY GROWTH BOUNDARY
tJ 6 // wa 5 •3 ' BOUNDARY 3I
„ _ Y�/7% 100 YEAR FLOOOPADN
_ .__,—/� M ■ . ORY WELL
INFORINCION RENDS BY
\ e a e • SECONDARYI ll1PLOOLIPLM001BA22TYRAlIl NO OOr10►IBq
_\,..,
of I aOBNDARY �; omm�TTLreR: 1!
■ W. 48 31 1 ALL PROPIOYWNI�L •au LLFIrCIOIIRYU MAN
r �' — PEC&BMNICIR LO01Ot9 w71l POl1DWPO
• BPErJALOWI1tlCIR
�(� f ' CCR MWILD COWRY WATOROURRICT
/,/ U1WL!PR PIOIBCIION OtBIOCT
A / M 1 - WUD OgwlYla11MYSCNOCIL 01/INB,T�
4P / ri r
CI Y
lirCIr IOW
\ /i fn w�LC: r.,000
�' BLE e O
. J• aro
I 1 °� __ YJ.CR. 46 s
—ice." sc�= . _ec- ova�ao�. . .�ea 7e__ _ _ = ev=or ', �I Vii '• w `i.�I
If
OVW
I II
Weld County Planning Dept.
i1858 N 77 An. Greeley CO. 8083'
VPAIfP: 9-x-2000 I MIATfm RAD
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 application 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 tree
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.
RESOLUTION, Town of La Salle/Weld County IGA
Page 2
As outlined on pages 3A 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 Bogyndary 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 Nickles 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
Arne Best Johnson,Long Range Planner,presented the Fort Lupton Intergovernmental Agreement(I GA)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 For. 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 icentified
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 ;he
proposed UGB. Bryant Gimlin asked now 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 problen i.
John Folsom asked what determination the City of Fort Lupton uses to define contiguity. Mr. Rayl acted they
use the State's definition. Michael Miller noted he would prefer this plan gave anyone within the area the rigl it
to annex in if they were going to lose some property rights by being insice 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 b-ing in the water without :he help of
Hudson, in case the deal that is currently being worked on fell through. Paul Rayl noted that the City of Fct
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'avor 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. Mille-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 Gin-lin,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 F'lann•ng
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 lerguege
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 fror , a comprehensive plan from 1599
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 LaSafe. Gary Waddell corrected Bruce
Barker and noted that the Town of LaSalle intended the secondary, outside line to be the Urban Growth
Boundary.
Cristie asked how surrounding property owners were notified. Mr.Wadded 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 Lasall 3
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 nclusive 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 encr
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 densty is never
discussed, that the type of homes affects the city as much as the land amount being considered. Mr. Teens
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 Gi nlin, 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 Nickles 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 Vz 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 cogs wil 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 ,hat
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'Ni I be£s—•0
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 E3ouider
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 acid
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 notec 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, nosed that Laurie Buffington is a very
responsible person and does not doubt that this will be run in the most respectable way.
INVENTORY OF ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
Applicant Town of LaSalle &Weld County Case Number Ordinance 2XX
Submitted or Prepared
Prior to At Hearing
Hearing
1 Staff Comments (2 pages) X
2 Coordinated Planning Agreement, Application (7 pages) X
3 Notice of Public Hearing/Press Release X
4 Map submitted by Town X
5 Letter to Mayor Wardell from Weld County Planning dated X
9/11/2000
6 Referral List(2 pages) X
7 Overhead of changes to language in Ordinance X
8 Map prepared by Weld County Planning X
9 Affidavit of Publication X
10 West Greeley Soil Conservation District, referral received 9/14/00 X
11 Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment, X
referral received 9/8/2000
12 Weld County School District RE-1, referral received 9/12/2000 (2 X
pages)
13 City of Evans, referral received 9/18/00 X
Item submitted at planning commission
I hereby certify that the 13 items identified herein were submitted to the Department of Planning Services at
or prior to the scheduled Planning Commission hearing. I further certify that these items were forwarded to
the Clerk to the Board's office.
Anne Best John'.n
Long Range Plan -
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT.3'i40
FAX (970)304-6.198
1555 N 17TH AVENUE
€ GREELEY COLORADO 80'131
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 Agreement with 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 1 7"
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 Commissiorer's
hearing room is located at 915 101° Street in Greeley. Please note the Board of County Commissioner
hearing dates are tentative and shall be permanently established after the Planning Commission hearir g.
A representative from your community should attend each hearing and be prepared to discuss how me
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 Orcinances 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 tc 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,
tvisto......
Anne Best Johnson
Long Range Planner
electronic copy: B. Barker, M. Daniels Mika
( al MEMORANDUM
Wi`l C. TO: 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.INTE'RITY.QUALITY
As outlined on pages 3-1 1 3-2 of the Comprehensive Plan, the inty 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
wi l 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.I EAMWORK,INTEL IRITY.QUA(ITY
The premise for this Intergovernmental Agreement is similar to the agreement for the nine previous agreement! 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 att ached
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 subcf vision
design.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Tie Weld County Planning Commission
will hold a public hearing on Tuesday,
September 19, 2000, at 1:30 p.m. for the
purpose of considering an
Intergovernmental Agreement for the
property described below. Approval of the
request may create a vested property right
pursuant to Colorado Law.
CASE NUMBER: Ordinance 2XX
APPLICANT: Town of LaSalle / Weld
County
PLANNER: Anne Best Johnson
TYPE AND INTENSITY OF PROPOSED
USE: Intergovernmental Agreement.
The public hearing will be held in Room
21 D, Weld County Planning Department,
1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado.
Comments or objections related to the
above request should be submitted in
wrting to the Weld County Department of
Planning Services, 1555 N. 17th Avenue,
Greeley, Colorado 80631, before the
above date or presented at the public
hearing on September 19, 2000.
Copies of the application are available
for public inspection in the Department of
Planning Services, 1555 N. 17th Avenue,
Greeley, Colorado 80631. Please call
Trisha Swanson at (970) 353-6100, Ext.
3540, or Fax # (970) 304-6498, prior to
the day of the hearing so that reasonable
accommodations can be made if, in
accordance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act, you require special
accommodations in order to participate in
this hearing as a result of a disability.
Cristie Nickles, Chair
Weld County Planning Commission
Tc be published in the South Weld Sun.
Tc be published one (1) time by
September 7, 2000.
E-I11IMIL _DIFtiD
1 `1C 1
STATE OF COLORADO )
s.s.
COUNTY OF WELD )
Ruth Pelton-Roby, as manager of Pelton
Publishing Company LLC, being duly
sworn, states that it is publisher of the
South Weld Sun, a weekly newspaper .
published in Keenesburg in said County
and State; that said newspaper has a
general circulation in said County and has NOTICE OF PUBLIC
been continuously and uninterruptedly NEARING
published therein, during a period of at The Weld County
least fifty-two consecutive weeks prior to Planning Commission will
hold a public hewing on
the first publication of the annexed notice; Tuesday. September ts,
that said newspaper is a newspaper 2000,at 1:20 p.m for the
within the meaning of the act of the purpose
srndeeringa. B
General Assembly of the State of Aawnen for the property
Colorado, entitled An Act to regulate the described below.Approval
ade a
printing of legal notices and of
request may
right
vested property Lew.
advertisements," and amendments pursu.rd to Colorado Law.
thereto; that the notice of which the CASE NUMBER:
Ordinance 2XX
annexed is a printed copy taken from said APPLICANT: Town of
newspaper, was published in said LaSMa/Wad County
newspaper, and in the regular and entire PAWNER: Anne Best
Johnson
issue of every number thereof, once a TYPE AND INTENSITY OF
week for / successive weeks; that said PROPOSED USE:
notice was so published in said Intergovernmental
Agreement
newspaper proper and no in any The public lining*II be
supplement thereof, and that the first held in Room 210, Weld
publication of said notic as a resold, County Department Planning
N. 17th
was on the 7�77 day of i, ri '-ei __ Avenue, Greeley,
2000 and the last on th day of COWS°. Con.wn or
, 2000. objection related to the
above novel laved be
submitted in wiling to the
PEI_TON PUBLISHING COMPANY LLC oWeld County Clepartment
f Pluming Seneca
___ N. 17th Avows, Grainy,
/ 7 Colorad e31,bilor.BN
By: K 1t 1 -: P� above ar.o presented*
Ruth Helton-Ro y, Manager geptthe ebp,s,20[0.
Copies °n
Cwtes of the applicaU-.
Subscribed and sworn to' efore me this in a"""ble for putt
'l day of inspection In the
�vu ,/r-(r, Se.vS of
N.
ning
Services, 7506 N. 17th
Awns.Greeley,Colorado
/ 4' B06TI. Phase cell Thew
,
_.----�o ary / JC/L f �i—/C_( [-1-. 61w.E at 0. of e S
NOtafV U IC 8100,Ea 1Ma,or Fps•
my . mission expires: e /-..,...?"/ (' ✓ (970)304-64603,odorthat
day. adsoYneblle
r e a s o n a b l e
accommodations accordance
an be
the if.In ca th
the Americans ou with
spacial
4*WM
opeoel pe k4de in
aie
order tog w aAres in i•
Mang . a neat of a
disab
ility.
Weld•NkA County
Chair
urea santy Planning
Commission
To be Weld
in the
South Wbl Sue.
To be published one (l)
time by September T,2000.
Weld County Planning D pt,
5) P 1 2 2000
RECEIVED
REFERRAL LIST
NAME: Town of LaSalle/Weld County CASE NUMBER: Ordinance 2X2
REFERRALS SENT: September 11, 2000 REFERRALS TO BE RECEIVED BY: September 1!`„ 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 Northglein
E3riggsdale F-24 Nunn
_ Brighton F-3 Pierce
Eaton F-4 Platteville
Fort Lupton F-5 Severance
Galeton F-6 Thorntor
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 Larimer
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_Jitch Companies: Farmer's Independent, Western Mutual, Longmont
& Union Ditch West Acams
X Union Pacific Railroad
COMMISSION/BOARD MEMBER
X John Folsom
Weld County Referral
IDSeptember 11,
C. 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 01 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.
U See attached letter.
Comments:
Signature Date
Agency
+\Veld County Plann ng Dept. +1555 N. 17th Ave. Greeley, CO. 80631 4(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +(970)304-649u fa;
09/14/2400 13: 50 9703510392 USDA SERVICE CENTER /ill
• &
rat
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
U We have reviewed the request and find that it does does no amply with our Comprehens;ve Plan
0 We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
Cl See attached letter.
Comments: hE
\ I nV
ergs\ / 5 D\ C„unSQ,Ja\--..o+N. t,.-,\AV<
0dh5
Signature V \H>r �(1
L ZNN----N• Date �� - C-
Agency \rd (7 6 cO
+Weld County Planning Dept. +1555 N. 17th Ave.Greeley,CO. 60631 t-(970)353.6100 ext.3540 t(970)3046498 fa;
•
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 c n 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
,B'We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
❑ See attached letter.
Comments:
S gnature r t (i Date /jj/�f Q
Agency W b e 44.1. �/i4 d Fog/ (((
+Weld County Planning Dept. +1555 N. 17th Ave. Greeley,CO. 8063' +(970)353-6100 ext.3540 (970)304-649E fax
Weld County Flann nE Dept.
08 20(10
RECEIVED
' Weld County Referral
1 August 30, 2000
C.
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 i
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 cate so that
we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or an this date
may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have an"further
questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) September 19, 2000
O We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
J We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
See attached letter.
Comments:
Signature Date .�w,
Agency . t/ {�. //u4� �.�•ti -- % /'
•:-Weld County Planning Dept. +1555 N. 17th Ave.Greeley,CO.80631 +(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +(970)304-6498 fa)
Weld County Planning Dept.
Weld County School District RE- 1
Gilcrest • LaSalle • Platteville SEP 12 2000
PO Bo 157
RECEIVED14X2742
Gilcrest, CO 81623
Jo Barhie-Redmond, Superintendent Phone 970-73--2403
David B. Seiler. Superintendent Emeritus Fax 970-7-1--2516
Bj Stone,Director of Curriculum and Staff Development f Icuo 103-6; ynt7
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 th
Intergovernmental Agreement. Weld RE-1 does not have any conflicts with the agreement. l applaud the
cooperation between governmental entities.
Thank yeti for sharing the information.
Sincerely,
David Seiler
Superintendent Emeritus
cc: Jo Barbie-Redmond, Superintendent
BOARD OF EDUCATION
.tack Baier ('ynnda Hod-unifier 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 NO. ;033395344 '. 02
ttkWeld County Referral __111
I II
C. August 30, 201_1000LORADO
TI cr VVelil Cuui ily Drhni di lei it of Plat iniiiu Set vi!ra I ias i.nec vcd Ll ie rulluwiuu iLt;ni rut tevicw.
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 sc that
we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date
may be deemed to bee 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
O We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Compreher sive Plan
We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
❑ See attached letter.
Ccrnments:
Signature it;��H,,}}W��frh(L eL Date / CD
Agency It gat
+wcid County Planning Dept. +1666 N_ 17th Ave.Greeley,CO. 80631 +0370)353-6100 6x1.3510 O(970)304-64C B tax
Hello