HomeMy WebLinkAbout992678.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Stephan Mokray that the following resolution with the recommendation that Weld County notify the
surrounding property owners in the IGA area, 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: Town of Keenesburg IGA
APPLICANT: Town of Keenesburg/Weld County
PLANNER: Anne Best Johnson
REQUEST: Keenesburg 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 Town of Keenesburg has worked with Weld County in establishing this proposed
Intergovernmental Agreement. Through this agreement, the Town of Keenesburg 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
concentratec in or adjacent to urban growth boundary areas that provide an official designation
between future urban and non-urban uses. These boundaries shall be established through an
intergovernmental agreement between the municipality and the County.
The Town of Keenesburg has delineated their Urban Growth Boundary on the attached map.
Through this Intergovernmental Agreement, the Town of Keenesburg 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. Comprehens ve 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 Town of Keenesburg,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.
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
992678
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
July 20, 1999
Page 4
Stephan Mokray moved that Case Z-526, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Michael Miller seconded
the motion.
The Vice-Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision
Arlan Marrs, yes; Cristie Nickles, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: Town of Keenesburg IGA
APPLICANT: Town of Keenesburg /Weld County
PLANNER: Anne Best Johnson
REQUEST: Keenesburg Intergovernmental Agreement
Bruce Barker, County Attorney, presented the Keenesburg Intergovernmental Agreement. Bruce explained
that the Town of Keenesburg has approved the agreement itself. The agreement does not require annexation,
an agreement for annexation or a letter from the town stating they don't have to annex. This agreement
provides a referral to the Town or to the individual to discuss the right to annex into the Town.
John Quartus, Mayor of the Town of Keenesburg, stated that this agreement helps to define the working
relationship between Weld County and the Town of Keenesburg. He added the reason why the Town of
Keenesburg has never forced anyone to annex into the Town was because of the shortage of their water
supply. They want to make sure they can supply a sufficient amount of water.
Fred Walker asked if any of the surrounding property owners from both the town and the county into discuss
this agreement. Mr. Quartus replied that they held open meetings but they did not properly notify each
surrounding property owner; however, it was published in the paper.
Arlan Marrs asked Mr. Quartus how they determined the size of their urban growth area. Mr. Quartus
answered that the urban growth is defined as a half a mile from the end of their water and sewer lines.
Another two and half mile radius where Weld County will notify the Town with the activities going on and allows
for their input.
Arlan Marrs asked what this agreement will have to offer the county land owners in that area. Mr. Quartus
replied that both the Town and County will be well notified if there is activity taking place.
Bruce stated that the benefit would be the acknowledgment that public water and sewage will be provided
within the urban growth area. He added that another benefit would be that there is flexibility to amend this
agreement to change the map.
Arlan Marrs stated that he has concerns for the surrounding land owner's who will be suddenly included into
this agreement. The land owners should be notified for their approval of this agreement.
Fred Walker commented that he agreed with Arlan that the surrounding property owners should be notified
of this agreement.
The Vice-Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak..
Stephan Mokray moved that the Town of Keenesburg IGA, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners recommending notification of the surrounding property owners by the County, with the
Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
July 20, 1999
Page 5
The Vice-Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision.
Arlan Marrs, yes; Criste Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes; Jack EEpple, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: City of Evans IGA
APPLICANT: City of Evans /Weld County
PLANNER: Anne Best Johnson
REQUEST: Evans Intergovernmental Agreement
Bruce Barker, County Attorney, presented the City of Evans Intergovernmental Agreement. Bruce that this
agreement is essentially the same agreement with a few minor changes. The City of Evans specifically asked
for the definition of development in section 2.1 regarding bulk requirements for non-conforming uses. Bruce
added that there was no notifications of the surrounding land owners on this agreement.
Cristie Nicklas asked why the City of Greeley is allowed to make recommendations on this agreement. Bruce
stated that the referrals that were sent out to adjacent land owners or a municipality, the City of Greeley is an
adjacent municipality.
Earl Smith, Director of Public Works and Planning, City of Evans, commented that this process has been on
going for a couple of years and he is looking forward to finishing this project. He stated that they had concerns
regarding the animal units and wanted to eliminate non-conforming uses. Mr. Smith added that the City of
Evans Planning Commission approved this agreement last Tuesday.
Fred Walker asked Mr. Smith how they define their urban growth area. Mr. Smith explained that their urban
growth area is in their Comprehensive Plan. He added that in most areas they can provide water. The City
of Greeley provides water to the City of Evans through an agreement. The City of Greeley has to provide
three years on notifical:ion if it decides not to provide the City of Evans with water.
Stephan Mokray asked what alternatives the City of Evans has if the City of Greeley decides not to supply
them with water. Mr. Smith replied that the City of Evans has a number of different alternatives. because the
City of Evans owns their water rights.
Arlan Marrs stated that the IGA extends for 3 to 4 miles outside of the boundaries. He then asked how
realistic is it in the near future, that the City of Evans will be able to provide to that area and control what is
provided to that area. Mr. Smith answered that they could reasonably provide to that area. At the rate of
development, as long as their requests are reasonable, they would be able to control that area.
Arlan Marrs asked what happens when a property three miles out wants to annex in, and all of the property
in between is not ready to annex in yet. With this large IGA area, it prohibits the land owner's options as to
what they can do. Mr. Smith replied that they have what is called Flag Pole Annexation. If they were just to
provide water and sewer service, they could enter into an annexation plea.
Bruce stated that this agreement doesn't require annexation and it doesn't prohibit annexation.
The Vice-Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Fred Walker moved that the City of Evans IGA, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the Conditions of Approval, recommending notification of the surrounding property owners by the County,
with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
Arlan Marrs commented that he felt this particular Urban Growth Boundary was too big in this agreement.
MEMORANDUM
yolkTO: Board of County Commissioners July 21, 1999
COLORADO From: Anne Best Johnson, Long Range Planner/41111>M SUBJECT: Evans and Keenesburg IGA
Evans
You will find a copy of the revised Evans IGA map attached. The map submitted by the City of
Evans for the Planning Commission hearing on July 20, 1999 was incorrect in that the map
illustrated one mile between 71st and 77th Avenues, when in fact, only one-half mile exists. The
City of Evans provided this notice to the Department of Planning Services this morning, July 21,
1999.
The second piece of information for the Evans IGA included in this packet is a referral from
Public Works indicating no conflict with the proposal.
Keenesburg
Two referrals have been provided to you. The first is from Public Works indicating no conflict
with the proposal. The second is from Keenesburg indicating no conflict with the proposal.
This information is provided to you for complete review of the Ordinance files. These changes
will be read into the record at the first reading of this proposed Ordinance to the Board of County
Commissioners.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
KitQ 1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Phone (970) 353-6100, Ext. 3540
Fax (970) 304-6498
111 Cr
COLORADO
June 30, 1999
Town of Keenesburg
do Cheryl Jesser
140 South main Street
Keenesburg, CO 80643
Subject: Intergovermental Agreement between Weld County and the Town of Keenesburg.
Dear Ms. Jesser:
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 July 20, 1999, at 1:30 p.m. This meeting will take
place in Room 210,Weld County Department of Planning Services, 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 of this nature to any town or municipality lying within three
miles of the property in question or if the property under consideration 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 Town of Keenesburg Planning Commission for its review and comments. It is recommended that you
and/or a representative be in attendance at the Town of Keenesburg Planning Commission meeting to answer
any questions the Commission members may have with respect to your application. Please cal the Town of
Keenesburg at(303)732-4281, for further details regarding the date, time, and place of this meeting.
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 me.
Sincerely,
Anne Best Johnson
Long Range Planner
4 MEMORANDUM
Wine FROMTO: : Bruce Barker1d County Planing n County Attorney
DATE: June 2, 1999
COLORADO Anne Best Johnson, Long Range Planner
SUBJECT: Intergovernmental Agreement for Keenesburg and
Weld County
Since 1995, Weld County has been working with communities in establishing Intergovernmental
Agreements. For your consideration, the Keenesburg 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 Town of Keenesburg has worked with Weld County in establishing this proposed
Intergovernmental Agreement. Through this agreement, the Town of Keenesburg 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 Town of Keenesburg has delineated their Urban Growth Boundary on the attached map.
Through this Intergovernmental Agreement, the Town of Keenesburg 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 Town of Keenesburg, 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
SERVICE,TEAMWORK.IN❑ORITY,WALT V
are the impetus for many cr^im -"ities in establishing an Intergoverr 'n' ' Agreement with Weld
County:
1. Growth should pay for itself in terms of initial costs, and in the long range, through good
design and functional efficiency.
2. Annexation patterns should directly correlate with municipal service areas.
3. Infill of communities is a far more efficient use of land than urban sprawl.
As outlined on pages 3-1 and 3-2 of the Comprehensive Plan, the county recognizes that when
growth at the muricipal/county level is not coordinated, problems arise. Additionally, when a
municipality and the County enter into an Urban Growth Boundary agreement, the County agrees
to abide by the municipality's vision for future development in the area. Likewise, the municipality
agrees to limit its expansion to the defined areas where it plans to provide municipal services. It is
understood that urban growth is an ongoing process and Urban Growth Boundary agreements will
be subject to revision as needed.
4. The county recognizes that through intergovernmental agreements the municipality agrees to
limit its expansion to the defined areas where it plans to provide municipal services, therefore,
participating in responsible growth.
It is this belief that Weld County and the Town of Keenesburg desire to enter into this
Intergovernmental Agreement.
The purpose of this Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Keenesburg 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 Keenesburg exercises
governmental authority over the same matter within its boundaries; including annexations.
The premise for this Intergovernmental Agreement is similar to the four which this board has
previously approved.
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,IN II;GRITY,QUALITY
a WELD COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
rat,
PHONE: (970) 356-4000, EXT. 4391
FAX: (970) 352-0242
915 TENTH STREET
P.O. BOX 1948
111119 C June 30, 1999
GREELEY, COLORADO 80632
•
COLORADO
Don Hoff
Attorney at Law
1025 9th Avenue, Suite 309
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Coordinated Planning Agreements for Towns of
Keenesburg and Kersey
Dear Don:
On June 18, 1999, I received an e-mail message from Anne Johnson of the Weld County Department of
Planning Services with suggestions for Sections 2.5 and 3.1 of the Coordinated Planning Agreement for
the Town of Keenesburg. A copy of her e-mail message is enclosed. Having just received your cover
letter and the signed Agreements for the Town of Kersey, it makes sense that the same comments apply
to the Kersey Agreement.
Enclosed are the following:
•
A. A "red lined" version of page 2 for both Agreements, showing Ms. Johnson's suggested
changes to Sections 2.5 and 3.1.
B. "Clean" copies of the same pages. I suggest that these "clean" pages be inserted into the
originals.
Please contact me at(970)356-4000, extension 4390,to let me know if these suggested changes are
acceptable. I will be out of town from July 1 through July 11, 1999. Please leave me a voice mail
message. I will be calling in to receive my messages during that time.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sine ely,
f/b2
ce T. Barker
Weld County Attorney
BTB/db:Let/Hoff
Enclosures
pc: Anne Johnson
Dale Hall
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 MIJNICIPALITY'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 simi.ar 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 mater will be considered will be transmitted to the Board or Commission. If the
MUNICIPALITY submits no comment or recommendation the COUNTY may assume it has
no objection to the proposal. If the MUNICIPALITY submits recommendations, the
COUNTY will either include within its written decision the reasons for any action taken
contrary to the same or furnish such reasons to the MUNICIPALITY by a separate writing.
2
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 N1UNICIPALITY'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
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 _ =c;;
to the MUNICIPALITY for its review and recommendation. Such
referral will include at least a copy of the written Development proposal and preliminary
COUNTY staff summary of the case. The COUNTY will allow not less than twenty-one (21)
days for the MUNICIPALITY to review same and furnish its recommendations to COUNTY
staff prior to formulation of the COUNTY staff recommendation. If the MUNICIPALITY does
not respond within such time, COUNTY staff may proceed with its recommendation, but any
MUNICIPALITY comment or recommendation received on or before the Thursday next
preceding the meeting of the Board of County Commissioners or Planning Commission at
which the matter will be considered will be transmitted to the Board or Commission. If the
MUNICIPALITY submits no comment or recommendation the COUNTY may assume it has
no objection to the proposal. If the MUNICIPALITY submits recommendations, the
COUNTY will either include within its written decision the reasons for any action taken
contrary to the same or fumish such reasons to the MUNICIPALITY by a separate writing.
2
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 matter will be considered will be transmitted to the Board or Commission. If the
MUNICIPALITY submits no comment or recommendation the COUNTY may assume it has
no objection to the proposal. If the MUNICIPALITY submits recommendations, the
COUNTY will either include within its written decision the reasons for any action taken
contrary to the same or furnish such reasons to the MUNICIPALITY by a separate 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
2
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
, Ct_=
EXCEPTING those lands located within the MUNICIPALITY's municipal boundaries.
3. PLANNING COORDINATION. This Agreement is intended to be a
Comprehensive Deve opment 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 J.,4
to the MUNICIPALITY for its review and recommendation. Such
referral will include at least a copy of the written Development proposal and preliminary
COUNTY staff summary of the case. The COUNTY will allow not less than twenty-one (21)
days for the MUNICIPALITY to review same and furnish its recommendations to COUNTY
staff prior to formulation of the COUNTY staff recommendation. If the MUNICIPALITY does
not respond within such time, COUNTY staff may proceed with its recommendation, but any
MUNICIPALITY comment or recommendation received on or before the Thursday next
preceding the meeting of the Board of County Commissioners or Planning Commission at
which the matter will be considered will be transmitted to the Board or Commission. If the
MUNICIPALITY submits no comment or recommendation the COUNTY may assume it has
no objection to the proposal. If the MUNICIPALITY submits recommendations, the
COUNTY will either include within its written decision the reasons for any action taken
contrary to the same or furnish such reasons to the MUNICIPALITY by a separate 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
2
From: BRUCE BARKER
To: NORTHDOMAIN.NORTHPOST(AJOHNSON)
Date: 6/28/99 4 :37pm
Subject: Keenesburg IGA -Reply
I am sending a new page 2 to Don Hoff. It incorporates the changes you
suggest. See the attached. Bruce.
>>> ANNE JOHNSON 06/18/99 01: 02pm >>>
Please add the following:
Section 2 .5 Please make reference to the map contained in Appendix A. or
Attachment A or whatever you want to call it.
Section 3 . 1 The COUNTY will refer all proposals for Development withi:a the
predefined referral area to the MUNICIPALITY for its review and
recommendation.
Please send the final version to me via e-mainext week so that I can get the
packets out on time for you. Thanks.
From: BRUCE BARKER
To: NDRTHDOMAIN.NORTHPOST.MMIKA, NORTHDOMAIN.NORTHPOST. . .
Subject: Ordinance for Keenesburg IGA
Attached is the ordinance for the Keenesburg IGA. It is my understanding that
it will be heard by the Planning Commission July 20, 1999. I will send copies
of the IGA to you by interoffice mail, with originals staying with Carol. Let
me know if you see the need for changes to the ordinance. Thanks. Bruce.
CC: LMORRISON, CHARDING, GBAXTER, BKIRKMEYER, MGEILE, . . .
O3A13D311
6661 A b VV
'Idea 2uluuPid f4uno3 PI°M
Of Lt ti;; V)Y , LC. It))Li W l U
() �I r '�, \r .;:z .V l a_%t11.1�1� r y�..� K_Lti b s)t CAiy, ',F i . ,t J I
H '1(. I,t)( � prr2Er ?/ I t r l7(k. k, .
a I
DON J . H O F F 1025 9TH AVENUE, SUITE 309 • GREEL.EY, COLORADO 80631
ATTORNEY AT LAW TELEPHONE 970-356-6767 • TELECOPIER 970-353-75G4
May 5, 1999 -+-
1
1r
Bruce Barker
Office of tae County Attorney 1_t~ :7', L9:9:91,
P.O. Box 1948 j"�+m=r„ 2NE
Greeley, Colorado 80632
RE : COORDINATED PLANNING AGREEMENT/TOWN OF KEENESBURG
Dear Bruce :
Enclosed please find two original Coordinated Planning
Agreements signed by the Mayor and the Clerk of the Town of
Keenesburg.
After the Board of Commissioners has approved the Agreement,
please send at least one fully executed copy of the Agreement to
me . If you feel the need to send one directly to Keenesburg, you
are certainly free to do so, but I ' ll be happy to provide them to
the Town if you provide copies to me .
Sincerely,
Don H 447/
DJH: th
Enclosure
PRESS RELEASE
Intergovernmental Agreement between Weld County and the Town of Keenesburg.
On July 20, 1999 at 1:30 p.m., the Weld County Planning Commission will consider the Intergovernmental
Agreement between Weld County and the Town of Keenesburg. The hearing will be held in the hearing room
of the Department of Planning Services, room 210, 1555 North 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado.
Should you have questions concerning this agreement, please call Bruce Barker, County Attorney, at(970)
356-4000, X4391.
REFERRAL LIST
NAME:Town of Keenesburg/Weld County CASE NUMBER:
REFERRALS SENT:June 30, 1999 REFERRALS TO BE RECEIVED BY: July 13, 1999
COUNTY TOWNS and CITIES
_X_Attorney 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 X_Keenesburg
Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Kersey
Division of Wildlife: _X_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
YVe d County Planning Dept.
JUL 1 2 1999
RECEIVED Weld County Referral
RECEIVED
0 June 29, 1999
JUN 3Q1999
•
COLORADO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Town of Keenesburg/Weld County
— s
Please Reply By July 13, 1999
Project Intergovernmental Agreement
Planner Anne Best Johnson
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.
❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
,, We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
U See attached letter.
Comments:
I ;i � t7
Signature �I ‘,k,1
17 r � �N Agency (119,(119, ul yfr �1Ua� �r R �� ate
•.•Weld County Planning Dept. +1555 N. 17th Ave.Greeley, CO. 80631 4(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +(970)304-6498 fax
0 '-'
a
VII Weld County Referral
0 June 29, 1999
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
•
Applicant Town of Keenesburg /Weld County
Please Reply By July 13, 1999
Project Intergovernmental Agreement
Planner Anne Best Johnson
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.
i
❑ e 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.
D See attached letter.
Comments:
Signature f` _ _ ( . - d.aaAgency 1)1 Date
+Weld County Planning Dept. 4.1555 N. 17th Ave.Greeley, CO.80631 +(970)353-6100 ext.3540 •}(970)304-6498 fax
a RECEIVED
1.1 JUN 3 01999
rt Cfi
WELD COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS DEPT Weld County Referral
0 ,nlr' Co:' - ,, Planning Dept.. June 29, 1999
•
COLORADO JUL 15 1999
RECEIVED
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Town of Keenesburg /Weld County
Please Reply By July 13, 1999
Project Intergovernmental Agreement •
Planner Anne Best Johnson _,.
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.
U We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
cia We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
U See attached letter.
Comments:
Signature /,[/ r Atka,
p fJ } `7
Agency 111,11/
:��f C&)r2L� Date
+Weld County Planning Dept. +1555 N. 17th Ave.Greeley,CO. 80631 +(970)353-6100 ext.3540 :•(970)304-6498 fax
FROM : TOWN OF KEENESBURG PHONE NO. : 3037320599 Jul. 15 1999 1.1.:72F11 F1
6
f ttitt lewpial
Weld County Referral
O June 29, 1999
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review.
Applicant Town of Keenesburg I Weld County
Please Reply By July 13, 1989 _
Project Intergovernmental Agreement
Planner Anne Best Johnson _ ..
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.
a_/Yv/a have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
y/
We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
•
❑ See attached letter.
Comments: •
Signature
c-( 7 - 1J-
Agency ! ii dl A, tgtiz 0 _
Date
+Weld County Planning Dept. +i 58/.J 17th Ave.Greeley, CO. +.63 0(970)353-6100 ext.3540 '*(976)304.6498 fax
Fth
N
L —
i.....r.. ...e.si
W � I F-
NINO z 3 f7-1
ri
p in m —I m < Z
r
r m _< co .Tl rri G rn r1 —J
D
D r cn G
:* f- 3: W CO
XI m. 717". O zi
m› a o L> o
3 0 n r co
g
C [E J D m
Z J m.
n: u]
ril v _ru
SI.. O
trim C
U J
44, 03a
c _. o
L4 a N CO
U) a cis
Crit
Z
G
4 J Oi O i m m
tri V
N VI t� -04 i J
w
O Oz I,I W
< a I W I k m
Yhi tl. ..., ..- ._ ... .... _. _. ....)1. ... .. _ .. .,
O1 0
o W LI p 9 I N in
Cl'
.I
I
--4 _ I N
CO IIIII L... .�Nw, ... � ......'I SI + W
n
I n m
r� nt r J I �!m
r" !9 ,� w .... ... .... ..�....... .. ...I.,.. ...y'L. N\
c.) Y C3
I, co N N CD I TO
D J'
::) m 0 w a i I
h * w
Ell m o % rn w o h3
A
Cl MI Z NZ Z
u
Hello