HomeMy WebLinkAbout20000800.tiff 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 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.
2000-0800
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 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.
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 Nicklas
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 Gimlin,
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 farmability 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 development. 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 anything 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 submitted
_4t .G,�� �) (4,3-0.-A4 — -
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 items were forwarded to the Clerk to the Board's
office. )
n- 1461
Anne Best Johnson
Long Range Planner
STATE OF COLORADO )
COUNTY OF WELD ) n
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS /nitd'/ ay of t�"OO 19 cic/.
SEAL
NOTARY PUBLIC LI
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES IL? - C S "-70?)"L-
eAtti MEMORANDUM
TO: Members Y of the Board of County Commissioners
City Trustees, City of Eaton
COLORADO Bruce Barker, County Attorney
DATE: October 29, 1999
FROM: Anne Best Johnson, Long Range Planner vGni/ T41
SUBJECT: Eaton IGA with Weld County
Department of Planning Services staff have conducted a detailed analysis of existing land use
applications in the two boundaries associated with the Eaton Intergovernmental Agreement with
Weld County, the Eaton Comprehensive Plan boundary and the Urban Growth boundary.
The following land uses have been provided to the Zoning Compliance Officer for further
investigation: welding business, automobile sales, temporarily-permitted mobile home still in
existence, plat needing to be recorded, industrial site clean-up, and a 5th-wheel connected with
extension cords to a principal dwelling. The following land uses have been provided to planners
to request the vacation of the permit: Sheep Operation, Gravel Mine, Mobile Home, Hog
Operation, and a Firewood Business.
Of these uses, the welding business and the automobile cases are located within the Urban
Growth Boundary for the Town of Eaton. The remaining uses are located within the
Comprehensive Plan boundary.
ai MEMORANDUM
W I
TO: Weld County Planning Commission DATE: October 7, 1999
COLORADO FROM: Anne Best Johnson, Long Range Planner
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.Goa/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 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
• lXM1�lT
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."
-1 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
4 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT.3540
FAX (970) 304-6498
1555 N. 17TH AVENUE
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
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. I 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 Johns
Long Range Planner
• EXttiilt
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 • .x I,,i;, ..
Les....
rs t
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT.3540
ID
FAX (970)304-6498
WI p 1555 N. 17TH AVENUE.
C GREELEY, 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.
I
L"*".•,,
Kit
I Weld County Referral
WIAugust 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 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
•MA/eld County Planning Dept. 41555 N. 17th Ave. Greeley, CO.80631 +(970)353-6100 ext.3540 •.•(970)304-6498 fax
a
KitREC'EI VE
tillq 2 71999 ilteid County Referral
' vita legit HEALTH SERVICES C. 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 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
-at"'We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
See attached letter.
Comments:
ty I 7
Signature 1���-fi('-� (Date• q gL1
Agency Ul{C. eimikt at-7Q- lk RI.IL�vI. C\Uly eMLv
+Weld County Planning Dept. +1555 N. 17th Ave.Greeley,CO.80631 +(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +(970)304-6498 fax
MOUT
I
RECEIVED
icrtC50 AUG 311999
WELD COUN'i
PUBLIC WORKS DEPT
Weld County Referral
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 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.
O See attached letter.
Comments:
Signature ,(�k /4' 471-
11 /17 Date �. - 7 EXHIBIT
Agency J2tilti t—c_. (Ai o -ro4s- IB
T 1 I C�-
t•Weld County Planning Dept. •:1555 N. 17th Ave. Greeley,CO. 80631 +(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +(970)304-6498 fa
Planning'Jul.,.
SEP 01 1999'
RECEIVED
t CC
,eld County Planning i al
OCT as 1`999
`,. E L .v
TO: Board of Weld County Commissioner)
FROM: Bruce T. Barker
DATE: October 1, 1999
SUBJECT: Map Attached to Eaton Coordinated Planning
COLORADO 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 _ !�
Mike Geile .�
Dale Hall V
Barb Kirkmeyer
Glenn Vaad _
r _ _
Bruce T. Barker
Weld County Attorney
BTB/db:Memo/B OCC/Eaton
Attachment
pc: Anne Johnson
IXHIRIT
4
Map 5:
PLANNING BOUNDARIES
SH to 'lift I
Comprehensive
I Plan Area
WCR 80
``•J \.` ; Existing Town /\ ' `
wcR 7a ' / /`` \```'.`. Boundaries • • • • • ,, ,. ...'
✓ /• \,\ • , l / •\-
\ \l♦ \\ J •\l\!`/
\'\ •'
`/ . / / J /
♦ \ L ` ' Urban Growth Area
/`! J`!
.\,````/``` `,`,•;, \\/\'.',. (See Comprehensive Plan
• ♦'.'.'. •\,`.,%,% \�\`\/✓� Mao for Details)
N. ,
l```.WG�P 72 J %),‘,.`‘); \,\ \,.,\ \'\,\'\',
'\ \'\ \''N N. `
/ / / J
CV C, JLll
Q Q ./..V.• ,`/Pc %.,‘,1',... /Q
/ ! Al \l\▪ !' /CI `!` \ `!V /\/ i/`Ja Cr
CC
3 3 '`,`,`,`;3 WC▪ A 7o ,`,`3-`,` `;3 .,\'\'.,\/3 ``' .,3 O
♦ \• `,SH 392'/ ``` '•'`'`'``▪ '♦' N.Y.,‘...‘;',/ `/`/ .' `/`l`/♦``/
Non-Uroan
Agricultural
Uses Proposed for This mac is for planning use and
p not Mended for legal purposes.
the Area Land ownershippatterns are Scale of Miles
Outside the Urban generalized and not wended
Growth Boundary for parcel specaic accuracy. North o�
TO: Anne Best-Johnson, Planning Department
FROM: Bruce T. Barker, Weld County Attorney
wipe 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. Eaton 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.
'
ru T. Barker
eld County Attorney
BTB/db:Memo/Carsten
.1.
El EXHIBIT
5
THAL of
arm _, . ,
223 1ST STREET
EATON, CO 80615
COLORADO [,r_, .. 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.
42_
Sincerely
{Thrirefs
Gary A. Carsten
Town Administrator
Enclosure - , plan,. rifle ,
GAC:cv
At IG 0 1999
s- t ' / •:
•inec`itrrrr/erl /8,92
WELD COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
PHONE: (970) 356-4000, EXT. 4391
s FAX: (970) 352-0242
915 TENTH STREET
P.O. BOX 1948
W I Is GREELEY, COLORADO 80632
Ci 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,
1 Bruce T. Barker
Weld County Attorney
BTB/db:Let/Carsten Manning Dept.
pc: Dale Hall
Anne Best-Johnson AUG 24 1999
RECEIVED nx !
I
09/15/99 09:55 MD. 972 702
61:a.
Weld County Referral
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 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
rye
tt We have reviewed the request and find that it does L,dclunet comply with our Comprehensive Plan
O We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
❑ See attached letter
Comments:
Signature eilyseaac Date 4, 99
Agency i. � 1f
*Weld County Planning Dept *1555 N.17th Ave.Greeley,CO.80631 0(970)353-6100 ext.3540 0(970)304-8498 fax yy
I
I
I
1 Map 5:
PLANNING BOUNDARIES
SH 14 Ult
IComprehensive
/00 Plan Area
1 WCR 80
.".'.',.',.',/,'.,,,'.'.'., , , ,t ' ' ' ✓`, N , , `,,``,;_'.".".1.'.'• , ,�'i,✓✓`,
',iii ` ' , , , ,' 02 , ' - - - - - - •`,�`,, , , ,
, e,,,✓:✓ , `�,, , Existing Town J:
✓'' ' . . . '
I WCR 78 ,,'.,'✓6✓''' ' . 'i i, `i. ' Boundaries ',",',/,'‘',',
, , , , t,, , , , , i
•,•,•,•,•,-,,,,-,,,,•,,,, ` •••••••\
�`i i i i,`,
•
',','','WCR76-` � ` ,J:,`:,',`
%`'`'`'''WCR 74 .s.,,,,,,•„.• Urban Growth Area
'.'✓✓.'''' .• •,•,%,%,%1
.'. %''S k'✓' . .' (See Comprehensive Plan
' '. '''✓.'.' '.�'.': Map for Details)
i,',',' .5 .' ',;;`;`,`,%) , �, ✓
I ,`,‘.'.‘.N.‘
✓`,'iii ✓ ` •„•,•v•,•,•§
\ , , ` ` `
` 114.:E(72� �.• „'.',/,',',",
'`"ti"1'232}2 IP "lilt., , , , ,
, , , ,,N '✓. . . .','. ' '✓✓,
' `,`el , , , , ! , ,
N CC
0 (9 ,CC , , , , ,'m `e, ,, , ,,,,,,,.co ‘1%'%1, , ` i,i,,,Q f✓✓✓✓cei in
::,`.`,`P' WeR 70 \.`,`,`,,`3.`'✓✓. ..3 ,';',`A,`:::, , PM
, ,1, V. ,'///,'/// � .»».
I ✓✓✓✓✓' ' :,V, ✓'✓. . . .
i✓
,T ' ' ' ' ' ' % \'✓.�.SH 392',\‘,`,•...`," •,`,`,`, , `iii,` ,`i
Non-Urban
Agricultural This map is for planning use and
I Uses Proposed for not intended for legal purposes.
the Area land ownershippatterns are Scale of Miles
Outside the Urban generalized and not intended Dial
Growth Boundary for parcel specific accuracy. North
I
I
' r IxM1r1111
I8
Hello