HomeMy WebLinkAbout992719.tiff •
- ivy
ORDINANCE NO. 212
IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTING A COORDINATED PLANNING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
COUNTY OF WELD AND THE TOWN OF EATON
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 Eaton indicate that the joint and coordinated exercise by the County of
Weld and said municipality of its respective planning, zoning, subdivision, building and related
regulatory powers n 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
Eaton, 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 Eaton be, and hereby is, approved.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED by the Board that the Chair is authorized to sign the attached
Coordinated Plann ng 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.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that said agreement shall be in effect beginning
January 1, 2000.
992719
ORD212
RE: ORDINANCE NO.212
PAGE 2
The above and foregoing Ordinance No. 207 was, on motion duly made and seconded,
adopted by the following vote on the 10th day of December, A. D., 1999.
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Clerk to the Board WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
By:
Deputy Clerk to the Board Dale K. Hall, Chairman
APPROVED AS TO FORM: Barbara J. Kirkmeyer, Pro-Tem
By: _
County Attorney George E. Baxter
M. J. Geile
Glenn Vaad
First Reading: November 10, 1999
Publication: November 18, 1999, in the South Weld Sun
Second Reading: November 29, 1999
Publication: December 9, 1999, in the South Weld Sun
Final Reading: December 20, 1999
Publication: December 30, 1999, in the south Weld Sun
Effective: January 1, 2000
992719
ORD212
COORDINATED PLANNING AGREEMENT
TOWN OF EATON - WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
This Coordinated Planning Agreement is made and entered into effective as of the
day of, , 1999 A.D. between the Board of County
Commissioners of the County of Weld, State of Colorado, hereinafter called the
"COUNTY, " and the "TOWN OF EATON" A Colorado Municipal corporation
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 Ior the purpose of planning and regulating the development of land by the
joint and coordinated exercise of planning, zoning, subdivisions, buildings, and
related regulatory powers; and
E. Existing and anticipated pressures for growth and development in areas surrounding
the MUNICIPALITY indicated that the joint and coordinated exercise by the
COUNTY, and the MUNICIPALITY of 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.
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 all lands as
designated on the map attached hereto and referred to herein as "Exhibit A, "
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 with 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
2
matter will be considered will be transmitted to the Board of 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 writing.
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.
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 and the construction of new mains and other facilities necessary to
serve 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 August 14, 1989 the MUNICIPALITY shall
exercise its obligations under this agreement consistent with the terns 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 can 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
3
contract for same with the MUNICIPALITY, or water service from North
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.
0 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 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
L rban 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 property. 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 VGA or the
referral Area.
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 which lie within 500 feet of any property in unincorporated Weld
4
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 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 ten (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, (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, or
(III)that the MUNICIPALITY'S anticipated zoning classification of the property
is unreasonable because of existing or planned uses of adjacent property. 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 MUNIC'PALITYis
not obligated to annex any property within a Development approved by the
5
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 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. MISCELL.ANEOUS 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 Agreement 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
6
MUIvCIPALI7Y 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.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement effective as of
the date first above written.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSISONERS
OF THE COUNTY OF
By
, Chair
ATTEST: By:
, Pro Tem
Weld County Clerk to the Board By:
By:
Deputy Clerk to the Board By:
By: T WN OF EATON, C LOI//ADO
By: c=
. ayne stafson, o —'
ATTEST: i v OF e
B Fria C. °
y: O'ee° ��
Erika C. ]Bagley, w Clerk
t (N
I
Map 5:
PLANNING BOUNDARIES
SH 14 I •lilt
Comprehensive
r Plan Area
WCR 80
,`/,`' ' T,,,/, Existing Town ,',,,`
. .
`▪ `•` •e'e•` `
'e'e` e`e`e' `•` Boundaries
WCR 78
, / ,`
\'✓. ,'\',',^NCR 76 \. , v ` . ,
,' ', , . , , , .•, . .
',,,WC:R 74 N•
' ' •
, \ , \ . \
Urban Growth Area
` , ` \ ''\'•� k'5 . (See Comprehensive Plan
`,`,`,`�`•`,',,,',` vs Mao for Details)
.'41-0'.•/•/•,•,‘
,'o //Arc `,C r.`, . ,`,x
'SH 392'/`.`,` '1/• 4/'/‘///‘/\/‘-"‘/""s''''''
• r
Non-Urban
Agncuitural This mac is for lannin
Uses Proposed forp prpo andes.
not intended for ship,'ecal patensares.
the the
Land notteres ed Scale of Miles
Outside ChB Urban generalized and not intended
Growth Boundary for parcel specific accuracy. North 0�
EXHIBIT "A"
BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Jack Epple 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: City of Eaton IGA
APPLICANT: City of Eaton /Weld County
PLANNER: Anne Best Johnson
REQUEST: Eaton Intergovernmental Agreement
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
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 City of Eaton has worked with Weld County in establishing this proposed Intergovernmental
Agreement. Through this agreement, the City of Eaton has indicated their interest in planning for
responsible growth. A direct outcome of a commitment to conserve natural and managed resources while
directing growth and enhancing economic development through efficient use of infrastructure.
(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 City of Eaton has delineated their Urban Growth Boundary on the attached map. Through this
Intergovernmental Agreement, the City of Eaton 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.
Through this Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Eaton, these principles will be met. 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 Pllan.) 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.
RESOLUTION
City of Eaton/Weld County IGA
Page 2
3. Infill of communities is a far more efficient use of land than urban sprawl.
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 rnunicipallity'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 City of Eaton desire to enter into this Intergovernmental
Agreement.
The purpose of this Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Eaton 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 Eaton exercises governmental authority over the same matter within its
boundaries; including annexations.
The premise for this Intergovernmental Agreement is similar to the six which this board has previously
approved. Customized modifications include the following:
Section 2.2 Non-Urban Development. The addition of the following language at the end of the sentence. "
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." This language is reinforced by State
Statue 30-28-403 which states the following:
"(1) A cluster development is any division of land that creates parcels containing less than thirty-five
acres each, for single-family residential purposes only, where the tract is being divided pursuant to a rural
land use process and reserves at least two-thirds of the total area of the tract for the preservation of
contiguous open space. No rural land use process as authorized by this section shall approve a cluster
development that would exceed two residential units for each thirty-five acre increment.
(2) As a condition of approving a cluster development, a rural land use process shall require that the
cluster development plan to set aside land to preserve open space or to protect wildlife habitat or critical
areas not permit development of such land for at least forty years from the date the plan is approved."
Section 3.2 Development Outside Urban Growth Area. The addition of a reference to the Weld County
"Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances"for development standards that must be adhered to when Non-
Urban Development takes place outside the Urban Growth Area.
Section 3.3 c) This entire sub-section is new and addresses municipal water provision.
RESOLUTION
City of Eaton/Weld County IGA
Page 3
Section 3.3 d) This entire sub-section is new. This sub-section, recognizing the availability of public water
and sewer service within the Urban Growth Boundary, requires the County to stipulate that"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 North Weld County Water District if the MUNICIPALITY cannot
provide water."
Section 4.1 provides stipulations for which the City of Eaton will not annex certain properties within the
Urban Growth Boundary. These stipulations are as follows: "(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." These stipulations provide the community the opportunity to annex in a
pattern that does not leave incorporated 'islands'within unincorporated Weld County. This is a
responsible pattern of growth, one based on coordination in which service provision will not be
fragmented.
Section 5 IMPLEMENTATION OF AGREEMENT provides clarity in the execution of Sections 3: Planning
Coordination and 4: Annexation of this agreement.
Section 6.1 Severability provides clarification in reasons the Intergovernmental Agreement shall be
terminated.
It is important to note that this Intergovernmental Agreement has an amendment process, Section 6.4,
which will negate any future problems experienced by our first Intergovernmental Agreements.
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.
Motion seconded by Stephen Mokray.
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Stephan Mokray Arlan Marrs Cristie Nickles
John Folsum Fred Walker
Jack Epple Michael Miller
Bruce Fitzgerald
Bryant Gimlin
The Chair declared the resolution passed 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 October 19, 1999.
Dated the 19th of October, 1999.
Trisha Swanson
Secretary
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
October 19, 1999
Page 5
Arlan Marrs commented that he doesn't feel this is the best solution, but it is better than doing nothing.
Michael Miller commented that he agrees with Arlan and he feels it may not solve the problem, but there may
not be a solution to the problem.
The applicant is in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and the Development Standards.
Arlan Marrs moved that Case USR-1244 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
added Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation
of approval and the applicant investigate other options that may be more monetarily efficient and to reduce
the noise factor and be prepared to present those findings at the Board of County Commissioners hearing.
Bryant Gimlin seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs , yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Ganlin.
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
PLANNER: Anne Best Johnson
REQUEST: Eaton IGA
Bruce Barker, County Attorney, presented the Eaton Intergovernmental Agreement. Bruce explained that this
IGA was the result of Weld County Commissioners and the Town of Eaton officials desires to work toward
a coordinated planning agreement. Bruce explained that this agreement is identical to Ordinance 207 with
the Town of Keenesburg. The Town of Eaton has approved this agreement. The version presented today
has the complete contents as well as a map to define the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and the
Comprehensive plan area covered. The map is a part of the Eaton IGA and is attached as Exhibit A. The
Comprehensive plan area is fairly close to the referral area. Bruce mentioned that all growth within the UGA
(Urban Growth Area) has to be urban development as defined with the requirement of Board of County
Commissioners and the Planning Commission.
Bruce mentioned subparagraph F in Section 3.3 on page 4 which states "To the extent legally possible as
determined by the County, the County will deny proposals for non-urban developments in the UGA.", Section
3.2 page 3 states"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." Section 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 and 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 facet to the Municipality's existing boundaries, and its annexation would result in
disconnected municipal satellites."
Arlan Marrs questioned Section 3.3 as the denial of different uses such as Special Review Permits. Bruce
stated that those permits would be subject to review on the definition of Non-Urban Development, and that
each application would be different. Arlan stated his concern with the reduced flexibility of county residents
in the Urban Growth Area to utilize their property because this property is adjoining a city. Fred Walker
questioned if Recorded' Exemptions are going to be affected. Bruce mentioned that the definition of
development in Section 2.1 states that recorded exemptions and subdivision exemptions are not considered
development. Fred asked if these two processes would not be required to have sewer as the other
developments would be required to have within this UGA. Bruce stated that they would not have to have
sewer pursuant to this agreement, that it is not subject to the same rules as it is not considered a development
in this agreement.
Arlan asked what type of development would be subject to the last few lines in the definition of development,
if this included 5-Lot minor subdivisions. Bruce stated that he and Anne Best Johnson had decided that would
cover an Agricultural PUD due to a state statute concerning water. Fred asked if this would apply to Weld
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
October 19, 1999
Page 6
County as Weld County is home rule, not statutory rule. Bruce stated that a home rule county has no greater
powers than statutory municipalities in land use, that the distinction could be made that home rule deals with
the structure of the county itself.
Anne stated that the Planning Department had discussed this and agreed that the PUD would be the only
development that would allow flexibility for an agricultural outlot. The Planning Department is entertaining an
additional definition of formability for the IGA agreements, working with the Soil Conservation District Board
of Directors. This definition will include soil capacity to support either crops or agricultural uses, the availability
of water, the functionality of water delivery, as well as the size of the property. Fred asked if this ag PUD
would apply to all devellopment. Anne stated that this would apply outside the Urban Growth Area, that the
town only wants urban growth within this UGA, and would like to see enforcement of no Urban Growth in the
area outlined in the Comprehensive plan area.
Fred noted that people with property within the UGA must be tied to water and sewer, as well as needing to
be contiguous with other development, in order to develop their land. The land owners outside the UGA but
within the Comprehensive plan area will not be able to develop their land as other county land owners are
able to develop. Fred states that he feels this is unjust without notifying the property owners who will be
affected by the Eaton IGA and that this creates an urban reserve that cuts the land value out from under the
owner. Fred also noted that even landowners within the UGA who are not contiguous cannot develop until
land adjacent to the town between their property and the town is developed.
Fred stated that if a developer were to have land in this area and enough funds to develop it, but the town
decides not to go with the plan, this IGA leaves them no recourse to go to the County Commissioners, they
are out of options with their land. He stated that the county is very careful to notify surrounding property
owners in USR cases, but that no one in the area was being notified of this change.
Arlan Marrs asked if there was any follow up by the Board of County Commissioners with the Keenesburg and
Evans IGA's concerning the notification of surrounding property owners. Bruce said that there had not been
any change with the Board of County Commissioners. Arlan stated that he did not feel that this lack of
notification was right.
John Folsom noted with the municipal annexation act the preferred method is to have urban growth within the
bounds of the municipality. He stated that this land could be annexed then developed. Bryant Gimlin noted
this land must be contiguous. John stated it could be done by a flagpole annexation. Fred feels Section 4.1
that if the land is not contiguous they can't flagpole and this allows no flexibility for adjoining land owners. He
feels the contiguous part of the IGA is too binding.
Arlan questioned how,with the ever changing agricultural economic scene in this county, this agreement could
place a 40 year time frame for this change. He feels this is a long time to be stuck in an agreement with the
quickly changing face of agriculture. Arlan is concerned with this part of the IGA. Fred noted that if a farmer
cannot sell the land for a good enough price, the first thing he is going to sell is the water. Flexible land and
water sell together, yet when land is restricted, the water will sell. This prime irrigated land will start to go dry
and Fred feels this plan does not look far enough into the future for the state of the land.
Bruce noted that the development is restricted by economics and that it will cost too much to run public
services to the far reaching subdivisions. This will restrict growth in all of these towns. Fred noted that if the
developers and landowners want to spend extra to develop the land that is not contiguous, they should be
allowed that option.
Bryant feels the difference between this area and the Keenesburg/Evans IGA's is the type of land, this being
very good farm land. He would like to see a public meeting to allow the public and landowners speak their
piece, that in not doing this, the county is being less than diligent in their duties. Arlan feels the county and
municipality should not do this IGA just because they can. Why not just a statement to the towns concerning
referrals in these areas, while some problems with existing uses wanting to expand in earlier IGA's and not
being allowed to do so because of the IGA's. He feels the notification should take place, even if no one
responds, in order to do the right thing for these landowners.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
October 19, 1999
Page 7
Fred noted that he has no problems with the coordinated effort, his problem is with the lack of notification and
input to those possibly affected. He feels they sent a message to the commissioners, but nothing happened
before.
Jack Epple noted that the towns feel Weld County does what they want. He feels that the towns should have
to right to make the changes in areas that affect them. He stated that he feels the lack of municipality control
in the south is leading to the lack of adequate water. Bryant stated he is basically in agreement with the idea
of the plan, he just feels the people who are going to be affected by this are the only ones who have not been
notified, the landowners. He feels the land owners need to be notified and that make this IGA easier to
accept.
Discussion ensued on placing this request to notify as a motion or if this could be reworked. Bruce stated that
this would not be viable, as this is just a recommendation. Once it is passed on by the Planning Commission,
it is in the Board of County Commissioners. Bruce stated that the best way to do anyl:hing is to place a
recommendation on the approval. Bruce noted that the Board felt that the publication process was notification
enough to allow public input. It was noted that in a legal sense, this is adequate, but asked how many land
owners in the area have access to the Ft. Lupton publications. Bruce noted that as this was a legislative
action, the members of the Planning Commission can contact the Commissioners to state their feelings on
this subject.
Michael Miller noted again that the large number of people being affected by this are not being notified while
neighboring landowners of a USR kennel operation are being notified. He feels the landowners should be
notified of what is being proposed in their area.
Jack Epple moved that the Town of Eaton IGA be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners
recommending notification of the surrounding property owners in the Urban Growth Area by the County. 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;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Fred Walker, no. Motion carries.
Meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
Respectfully er ---: submitted
Trisha Swanson
Secretary
INVENTORY OF ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
Applicant City of Eaton/Weld County Case Number Ordinance -
Submitted or Prepared
Prior to At Hearing
Hearing
1 Staff Comments (3 pages) X
2 Public Hearing Notification X
3 Press Release X
4 Map Approval Memo, dated 10.1.99 from Board of County X
Commissioners and County Attorney (2 pages)
5 Memo from County Attorney X
6 Application (9 pages) X
7 Town of Ault referral received 9.14.99 X
8 Map provided by City of Eaton X
9 Referral List and Letter(2 pages) X
10 Letter to the City of Eaton X
11 Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment, X
referral received 9.8.99
12 Weld County Department of Public Works, referral received X
9.8.99
13 Affidavit of Publication, Ft. Lupton Press X
14
Item submitted at planning commission
I hereby certify that the 20 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 iitttemss were forwarded to the Clerk t
to the Board's
office. (zvv�G'G'Gil �lf
Anne Best Johnson
Long Range Planner
STATE OF COLORADO )
COUNTY OF WELD ) n
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS /_/ lkday of 116f6:b+1 19 `N..
SEAL
NOTARY PUBLIC
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES -
rto MEMORANDUM
W I FROM
Besld County PtJohnsonlanning CLonglRange Plannerssion DATE: October 7, 1999
COLORADO Bruce Barker, County Attorney
SUBJECT: Intergovernmental Agreement for Eaton and
Weld County
Since 1995, Weld County has been working with communities in establishing Intergovernmental
Agreements. For your consideration, the Eaton and Weld County agreement has been prepared.
It is the Department of Planning Services recommendation that the above mentioned
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 City of Eaton has worked with Weld County in establishing this proposed Intergovernmental
Agreement. Through this agreement, the City of Eaton has indicated their interest in planning for
responsible growth. A direct outcome of a commitment to conserve natural and managed resources
while directing growth and enhancing economic development through efficient use of infrastructure.
(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 City of Eaton has delineated their Urban Growth Boundary on the attached map. Through this
Intergovernmental Agreement, the City of Eaton 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.Goal3 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.
Through this Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Eaton, these principles will be met. 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:
SERVICE,TEAMWORK,INTEGRITY,QUALITY
MUM
I I
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.
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 City of Eaton desire to enter into this Intergovernmental
Agreement.
The purpose of this Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Eaton 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 Eaton exercises governmental authority
over the same matter within its boundaries; including annexations.
The premise for this Intergovernmental Agreement is similar to the six which this board has
previously approved. Customized modifications include the following:
Section 2.2 Non-Urban Development. The addition of the following language at the end of the
sentence. " 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." This
language is reinforced by State Statue 30-28-403 which states the following:
"(1) A cluster development is any division of land that creates parcels containing less than
thirty-five acres each, for single-family residential purposes only, where the tract is being divided
pursuant to a rural land use process and reserves at least two-thirds of the total area of the tract for
the preservation of contiguous open space. No rural land use process as authorized by this section
shall approve a cluster development that would exceed two residential units for each thirty-five acre
increment.
(2) As a condition of approving a cluster development, a rural land use process shall require
that the cluster development plan to set aside land to preserve open space or to protect wildlife
habitat or critical areas not permit development of such land for at least forty years from the date the
plan is approved.'
Section 3.2 Development Outside Urban Growth Area. The addition of a reference to the Weld
County "Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances" for development standards that must be adhered to
when Non-Urban Development takes place outside the Urban Growth Area.
Section 3.3 c) This entire sub-section is new and addresses municipal water provision.
SERVICE,TEAMWORK,INTEGRITY,QUALITY
Section 3.3 d)This entire sub-section is new. This sub-section, recognizing the availability of public
water and sewer service within the Urban Growth Boundary, requires the County to stipulate that
"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 North Weld County Water District
if the MUNICIPALITY cannot provide water."
Section 4.1 provides stipulations for which the City of Eaton will not annex certain properties within
the Urban Growth Boundary. These stipulations are as follows: "(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." These stipulations provide the community the
opportunity to annex in a pattern that does not leave incorporated 'islands' within unincorporated
Weld County. This is a responsible pattern of growth, one based on coordination in which service
provision will not be fragmented.
Section 5 IMPLEMENTATION OF AGREEMENT provides clarity in the execution of Sections 3:
Planning Coordination and 4: Annexation of this agreement.
Section 6.1 Severability provides clarification in reasons the Intergovernmental Agreement shall
be terminated.
It is important to note that this Intergovernmental Agreement has an amendment process, Section
6.4, which will negate any future problems experienced by our first Intergovernmental Agreements.
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
44rit iiiii4eD DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT.3540
FAX (970) 304-6498
17TH AV
ENUE
N. 17TH AVENUE
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
wilk
COLORADO
August 27, 1999
Gary Carsten
Town Administrator
Town of Eaton
223 1st Street
Eaton, CO 80615
Subject - Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Eaton and Weld County.
Dear Mr. Carsten:
Your application and related materials for the request described above are being processed. II have scheduled
a meeting with the Weld County Planning Commission for October 19, 1999, at 1:30 p.m. This meeting will
take place in Room 210,Weld County Planning Department, 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. It is
recommended that you and/or a representative be in attendance to answer any questions the Planning
Commission members may have.
It is the policy of Weld County to refer an application to any town or municipality lying within three miles of the
property or if the property is located within the comprehensive planning area of a town or municipality.
Therefore, our office has forwarded a copy of the submitted materials to the Ault Planning Commission for its
review and comments. Please call the Town of Ault at 970-834-2844 for further details regarding the date,
time, and place of this meeting. It is recommended that you and/or a representative be in attendance at the
Ault Planning Commission meeting to answer any questions the Commission members may have with respect
to your application.
The Department of Planning Services' staff will make a recommendation concerning this application to the
Weld County Planning Commission. This recommendation will be available twenty-four(24) hours before the
scheduled hearing. It is the responsibility of the applicant to call the Department of Planning Services' office
before the Planning Commission hearing to make arrangements to obtain the recommendation.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please call.
Respectfully,
Anne Best
Long Range Planner
1 IXHIlIT
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Weld County Planning Commission
will hold a public hearing on Tuesday,
October 19, 1999, at 1:30 p.m. for the
purpose of considering a
Intergovernmental Agreement described
below. Approval of the request may
create a vested property right pursuant to
Colorado Law.
APPLICANT: Town of Eaton / Weld
County
TYPE AND INTENSITY OF PROPOSED
USE: Intergovernmental Agreement
between the Town of Eaton and Weld
County.
The public hearing will be held in Room
210, Weld County Planning Department,
1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado.
Comments or objectons related to the
above request should be submitted in
writing 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 October 19, 1999.
Copies of the application are available
for public inspection in the Department of
Planning Services, 1555 N. 17th Avenue,
Greeley, Colorado 8D631. 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 cal 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.
Fred Walker, Chair
Weld County Planning Commission
To be published in the Fort Lupton Press.
To be published one (1) time by
September 22, 1999.
E-MAILED/FAXED
Lqiitifqg
I Ellin
Affidavit of Publication
STATE OF COLORADO
County of Weld SS.
I A. Winkler Riesel of said County of Adams being duly
sworn,say that 1 am publisher of
NOTICE OF runic:
NEARING
FORT LUPTON PRESS
that the same is a weekly newspaper of general circulation The Weld County Planning
Commission will hold a public
was printed and published in the town of hearing on Tuesday,October
19,1999.at 1:30 p.m.for the
FORT LUPTON purpose or considerng a
in said county and state that the notice of advertisement,of Intergovernmental
which the annexed is a true copy has been published in Agreement described
said weekly newspaper for below, Approval of the
request may create a vested
property right pursuant to
ONE consecutive weeks: that the notice was Colorodo Law,
published in the regular and entire issue of every number APPLICANT:Town of Eaton/
of said newspaper during the period and time of , Weld County
publication of said notice and in the newspaper proper and _TYPE AND INTENSITY OF
not in a supplement thereof: that the first publication of PROPOSED USE:
said notice was contained in the issue of said newspaper Intergovernmental
bearing the date of Agreement between the
SEPTEMBER 22. A.D. 1999 and the last Town of Eaton and Weld
publication thereof,in the issue of said newspaper,bearin County.
B The public hearing will be
date, held in Room 210. Weld
County • Planning
the 22nd day of SEPTEMBER 1999 Department, 1555 N. nth
Avenue,Greeley,Colorado.
that the aid Comments or objections
relate d to the above epoch
FORT LUPTON PRESS shouldbesubmttedin wilting
has been published continuously and uninterruptedly to the Weld County
duriv the eriod of at least fik two consecutive weeks Department of Planning
8 P y- Services, 1555 N.Colorado
next dvert tose the t first issue theferred containing said notice Avenue,Greeley,Colorado
or advertisement at above referred and ts said
newspaper aid was at the time e o ha of the within of
8063', before the a the
ed notice duly qualified for that purpose within the presented at the
meaning of an act entitled. "An Act Concerning Legal public hearing on October
19,1999.
Notices, Advertisements and Publications and the Fees of
Printers and Publishers thereof,and to Repeal all Acts and Copies or the applicot on
P are available for public
t
Parts vofe Acts in , 1921,1 with the Provisions of this Act"
Inspection lnihe Da
approved April and all amendments thereof, and of Planning Services,11555 N
particularly as amended by an act approved, March 30, 17th Avenue, Greeley
1 3/ynd an act approved May 13, 1931. Color ado 80631, Please coil
��' Trisha Swanson at(970)353
r / / 6100,Ext.3540,or Fax t(9%0)
U3046498,prior to the day of
the hearing so ih al
r e a s o n a b l e
Publisher accommodations can be
mooed in accordance with
Subscribed and sworn to before roe this 22nd day of me Amaneans wire
SEPTEMBER A D. 1999 Disabilities Act. you require
special accommodations m
_ order to participate in this
hearilit as a result of a
disability.
.___� yi1, •ii1 ) ____,
Fred Walker,Chair
Notary P tic Wetd County Planning
//P.O.BOX 125 " Published In the Fort Lupton
Press September 22.1999
FT. LUPTON. CO 80421
^AIE 1
',RRA
C i
MOOT
I 1,43
#A,tf6k \r
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT.3540
FAX (970)304-6498
WI lip 1555 N. 17TH AVENUE
Co GREEELEY, COLORADO 80631
COLORADO
PRESS RELEASE
Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Eaton and Weld County.
On Tuesday, October 19, 1999, at 1:30 P.M., the Weld County Planning Commission will consider a request
for an Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Eaton and Weld County. This meeting will take
place at 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Room 210, Greeley, Colorado.
If you should have any questions concerning this agreement, please contact Bruce Barker, County Attorney,
at 970-356-4000, ext. 4391.
iZ1##11
REFERRAL LIST
NAME: Town of Eaton/Weld County CASE NUMBER:
REFERRALS SENT: August 27, 1999 REFERRALS TO BE RECEIVED BY: September 17, 1999
COUNTY TOWNS and CITIES
_X_ Attorney _X_Ault
_X Health Department __Brighton
Extension Service __Broomfield
Emergency Management Office __Dacono
Sheriffs Office Eaton
Public Works:_X_Don Carroll Ron Broda __Erie
Housing Authority __Evans
Airport Authority _ Firestone
Building Inspection __Fort Lupton
Frederick
STATE Garden City
Division of Water Resources Gilcrest
Geological Survey 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
_West of 1-25 (Loveland) Lochbuie
East of 1-25 (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
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
Western Hills F-20 SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
Brighton
OTHER __Fort Collins
Central Colo.Water Conservancy Dist. __Greeley
Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. __Longmont
School District __West Adams
Ginny Shaw(MUD)
Ditch Company COMMISSION/BOARD MEMBER
Weld County Referral
August 27, 1999
C:
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Town of Eaton /Weld County Case Number N/A
Please Reply By September 17, 1999 Planner Anne Best Johnson
Project Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Eaton and Weld County.
Legal N/A
Location N/A
Parcel Number N/A
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) October 19, 1999
❑ 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.
❑ See attached letter.
Comments:
Signature Date
Agency
+Weld County Planning Dept. +1555 N. 17th Ave.Greeley,CO.80631 +(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +(970)304-6498 fax
ti--;;;:, RECEIVE
All(; 2 7 Iggg LWeld County Referral
Wow NEALIN SERVICES
August 27, 1999
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Town of Eaton /Weld County Case Number N/A
Please Reply By September 17, 1999 Planner Anne Best Johnson
Project Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Eaton and Weld County.
Legal N/A •
Location N/A
Parcel Number N/A
•
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 lo 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) October 19, 1999
❑ 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:
�/7lr
Signatures-�kl� Date q4
Agency �C )r e ,halt' Att (l < G CL'J�C en wt -
+Weld County Planning Dept. +1555 N. 17th Ave.Greeley, CO. 80631 •x(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +(970)304-6498 fax
EXHIBIT
RECEIVE[
(it a AUG 311999
WELD COUN-i Y
PUBLIC WORKS DEP1
Weld County Referral
IIID€ August 27, 1999
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Town of Eaton/Weld County Case Number N/A
Please Reply By September 17, 1999 Planner Anne Best Johnson •
Project Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Eaton and Weld County.
•
Legal N/A
Location NI/A •
Parcel Number N/A
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) October 19, 1999
❑ 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.
❑ See attached letter.
Comments:
Signature 44k/di
e /teil1/ Date / - o - 9 - EXHIBIT
Agency pu j_ 1.1 O-,a a_ 1 I Z
:•Weld County Planning Dept. c 1555 N. 17th Ave. Greeley,CO. 80631 •'x(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +(970) 304-6498 fa
Planning uep
SEP 01 1999
RECEIVED
geld County Planning ( �1
0CT. 0F: 1999
✓//// �` H4WD TO: Board of Weld County Cornmissio�err' � t t Y
FROM: Bruce T. Barker
gime DATE: October 1, 1999
COLORADO SUBJECT: Map Attached to Eaton Coordinated Planning
Agreement
Attached is a copy of the map proposed by the Town of Eaton to be attached to the Weld
County/Eaton Coordinated Planning Agreement. The Agreement is in the form which we have.
derived over time. Commissioner Hall suggested that I send the map to the Board for your review
prior to beginning the process for approval of the Planning Agreement Ordinance. You may recall
that the process includes first submitting it to the Planning Commission, for recommendation.
Although I would have liked for the map to show the three mile referral area, the Agreement only
requires that the Urban Growth Area be shown.
I recommend that the Board approve the attached map along with the Eaton Coordinated Planning
Agreement through the ordinance process.
Approve Map Set Work Session Other
George Baxter 1� _
Mike Geile _
Dale Hall
Barb Kirkmeyer
Glenn Vaad
-
Brace T. Barker
Weld County Attorney
BTB/db:Memo/B OCC/Eaton
Attachment
pc: Anne Johnson
11 EXHIBIT
rs TO: Anne Best:Johnson, Planning Department
FROM: Bruce T. Barker, Weld County Attorney
DATE: August 23, 1999
COLORADO SUBJECT: Coordinated Planning Agreement. 'Town of Eaton and
Weld County
Attached to this Memorandum is an original letter from Gary A. Carsten, Town Administrator, Town of
Eaton, Colorado, and two originals of the Coordinated Planning Agreement between the Town of Eaton
and Weld County. E aton has approved and signed the two originals. It is my understanding that you
will begin the process for approval of the Agreement in the same fashion which we followed for the
IGA's with the Town of Keenesburg and the City of Evans.
If you should have any questions or comments, please feel free to call me at extension 4390.
7
Tin. T. PT. Barker
e1VY d County Attorney
BTB/db:Memo/Carsten
EXHIBIT
j . 5
71St OF
NioN
223 1ST STREET
EATON, CO 80615
COLORADO IDE PHONE. (970) 454-3338
I IL. -- - --- FAX: (970) 454-3339
July 28, 1999
Weld County Commissioners
915 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80632
Dear Commissioners,
Enclosed are two copies of a planning agreement approved by the Eaton Town
Board. If it meets with your approval, please return one copy to us.
If you have any questions, or need more information, please give me a call.
Sincerely
/7-34,
id‘z
Gary A. Carsten
Town Administrator
Enclosure . "lam,- ^ '? ,,,,
GAC:cv ptlr. h 1999
L. ;'
WELD COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
•
1 t. rilir6
PHONE: (970) 356-4000, EXT. 4391
V FAX: (970) 352-0242
915 T'ENTH STREET
P.O. BOX 1948
GREELEY, COLORADO 80632
C.. August 23, 1999
COLORADO
Gary A. Carsten
Town Administrator
Town of Eaton
223 First Street
Eaton, CO 80615
RE: Coordinated Planning Agreement
Dear Gary:
This letter is to confirm that Weld County, Colorado has received with your letter of July 28,
1999, the two originals of the Coordinated Planning Agreement between the Town of Eaton and
Weld County, Colorado. The Town of Eaton has approved and signed the Agreement.
Please be advised that I have forwarded the two originals to the Weld County Department of
Planning and Zoning for the Department to begin proceedings for approval by Weld County.
That process will include creating a new ordinance to approve the Agreement, which will need to
be heard by the Planning Commission and then read three times before the Board of County
Commissioners.
If you should have any questions with respect to the process to be followed by Weld County,
please feel free to call me at (970) 356-4000, extension 4390.
Sincerely,
Bruce T. Barker
Weld County Attorney
BTB/db:Let/Carsten Planning Der
pc: Dale Hall 1999
Anne Best-Johnson AUG z,..
RECEIVED : axiom!
09/15/99 09:55 NCI. 972 8112
•(le;tfWeld County Referral
WII'Dt
August 27, 1999
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Town of Eaton /Weld County Case Number N/A
Please Reply By September 17, 1999 Planner Anne Best Johnson
Project Inl:ergovemmental Agreement between the Town of Eaton and Weld County.
Legal NIA
Location N/'A
Parcel Number NIA
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) October 19, 1999
ifF
44 We have reviewed the request and find that it does ldon-Ret comply with our Comprehensive Plan
❑ We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
O See attached letter.
Comments:
Signature .„...---1196244411/1 Date Tr'4r 19
Agency 0-4-1-4.
+Weld County Planning Dept +1555 N. 17th Ave.Greeley,CO. 80631 +(970)3538100 ex1.3540 +(970)304-8498 fax
I
$
I
IMap 5:
PLANNING BOUNDARIES
SH14 'ult I
IComprehensive
100 Plan Area
1 WCR 80
„• % % •., ` „ , ,,` `,, 0•,,+,,1"
i,•,•,•„%,‘,•,•,•,\,•,•,•,•„•„•
•,•,•,•,•,•,`,•,•,•,•,‘ ii` 05..2., ` • ♦ ♦ ♦ .•.• •,‘,.,„•,•,‘,. i`
♦ �. Existing Town , , , ,
,%,`,',•,`,•,',`,•,•,•,`, :,,',,`:
IwcR 7a ,',',',/,',',',',/,','„1,/,'• • • • '• . Boundaries
• :';.'•:::.':. ,
I ::.' ♦,',`::,,', �x�
• ,`, \,�`,`,;;`,`,. ,
• .▪ ',1NCR 76. \.''.'♦':..".'.',
, , . ♦ .. . ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ „
N.,`i,%• ` `,`!'WCR 74'` .‘e./• ././•'%,•"•'•
' ' • ` ♦ % ♦ � ,/,..1,/
Urban Growth Area
. , .
.'": \'.':. , (See Comprehensive Plan
' ',''♦',', ,'"'♦ \' '✓% Map for Details)
' ♦ '♦ ♦'/ / / / /" , • 'k ",,,.'.
■ i,♦i, , ''WCR 72, •
`; •'\ , ,`, ,
• ♦ ♦,` ,913 '\ •♦ • , , •
2j,. ♦I f•,•,
♦ 'xr ‘/‘...‘/‘/‘.CC' , ♦ ' ♦ ♦ ./'♦
C `,• ,`,^,`CC `, , , ,O ,/15 ,¢ , ,^, ,`,Q , , ,`.CL' Cr
U U ‘;‘,‘,‘,‘O �e ` `,3 %././..‘,‘O ‘/‘,.../ ♦,U '..‘...‘,",(3/♦ ♦ ♦.V O
, t,; ,'r,~»» »»% i ; -
./ /I ' ',A ,`, , , ,▪/✓,
• `• '♦'".`.SH 392. `i i,`' " '�',� ,:','',''✓''-'. '5
Non-Urban
Agricultural This map is for planning use and
I Uses Proposed for not intended for legal purposes.
the Area land ownership pasterns are Scale of Miles
Outside the Urban generalized and not intended ear
Growth Boundary for parcel specific accuracy North IMMINIMI 2
I
I
I
I • fxwrII,t
' # 8
Hello