The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About992677.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: City of Evans IGA APPLICANT: City of Evans/Weld County PLANNER: Anne Best Johnson REQUEST: Evans 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 Evans has worked with Weld County in establishing this proposed Intergovernmental Agreement. Through this agreement, the City of Evans 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 Evans has delineated their Urban Growth Boundary on the attached map. Through this Intergovernmental Agreement, the City of Evans 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 Evans, 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 tirough 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. 992677 RESOLUTION, City of Evans/Weld County IGA Page 2 As outlined on pages 3-1 and 3-2 of the Comprehensive Plan, the county recognizes that when growth at the municipal/county level is not coordinated, problems arise. Additionally, when a municipality and the County enter into an Urban Growth Boundary agreement, the County agrees to abide by the municipality's vision for future development in the area. Likewise, the municipality agrees to limit its expansion to the defined areas where it plans to provide municipal services. It is understood hat 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 Evans desire to enter into this Intergovernmental Agreement. The purpose of this Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Evans 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 Evans 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. Customized modifications include the following: 1. Purposes and Objectives addition of last sentence: "However, any action taken pursuant to this Agreement that pertains to any land within the municipality, for incorporated areas, and within the County, for unincorporated areas, is subject to final approval by the municipality or county, respectively." 2. Definition of Development to include: "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 which are non-conforming as the result of animal units in excess of the bulk requirements, are also exempt from the definition of"Development." 3. Definition of Urban Development exclusion as follows: "Urban Development does not include resicential areas being planned for individual lots or parcels whose net acreage exceeds tow and one-half(21/2) acres." 4. Definition of Urban Growth Area addition, "The Urban Growth Area is hereby established and shall consist of all lands shown or described in the attached Exhibit"A," EXCEPTING those lands located within the MUNICIPALITY's municipal boundaries. 5. Section 3.2 addition, "Development Outside Urban Growth Area. To the extent legally possible the COUNTY will disapprove proposals for Urban Development in areas of the MUNICIPAL Referral Area outside the Urban Growth Area. In reviewing proposals for Non- Urban Development in such areas, the COUNTY will apply its Comprehensive Plan and zoniig and subdivision ordinances, and, where appropriate, the MUD Plan. 6. Additions to Section 3.3 as follows: 3.3(b) "The Municipality will require extension of sanitary sewer service to property in the Urban Growth Area, subject to its rules and regulations, which include provisions requiring a written contract for extraterritorial service and the construction of new mains and other RESOLUTION, City of Evans/Weld County IGA Page 3 facilities necessary to serve the property with costs assessed in accordance with the MUNICIPALITY's rules and regulations. MUNICIPALITY agrees to give notice of any proposed change in said rules and regulations to COUNTY 21 days prior to adoption. 3.3 (c) "The MUNICIPALITY provides municipal water service to property within its boundaries, subject to its rules and regulations and to an existing contract with the City of Greeley to treat MUNICIPALITY'S raw water supplies. The MUNICIPALITY will provide water to property in the Urban Growth Area under provisions similar to those indicated above for sewer service." 3.3 (d) "In recognition of the availability of public water and sewer service within the Urban Growth Area as indicated in paragraphs (b) and (c) above, the COUNTY will require public water and sewer service as a condition of approval of any subdivision, rezoning or planned unit development and will not approve such Development until the applicant obtains a written contract for same with the MUNICIPALITY. The execution of this Agreement shall be prima facie evidence of the availability of municipal water and sewer service within the meaning of S32-1-203(2.5)(a), C.R.S." 3.3(e) "The COUNTY will not grant any waiver of current Municipal street standards for any Development without the consent of the MUNICIPALITY." 3.3(f) "To the extent legally possible, as determined by the COUNTY, the COUNTY will deny proposals for Non-Urban Development in the Urban Growth Area. Nothing in this subsection shall restrict the COUNTY from approving, by means of a process such as recorded exemption or subdivision exemption, the isolated partition of ownership parcels located in the Urban Growth Area having existing residential improvements served by septic systems, regardless of the size of resulting lots. Nevertheless, the COUNTY will not permit such a concentration of such divisions in any particular area as will frustrate or materially hinder the evolution of genuine Urban Development, as defined in S2.4 of this Agreement, in the Urban Growth Area. Furthermore, the COUNTY shall not be restricted from allowing the expansion of legally existing non-urban uses provided adequate protection for future urban uses is included in any such approval." 3.3(h) "The parties anticipate that Paragraphs 3.3(e)-(g)will be addressed in more detail if a Mutually Acceptable Plan is considered and adopted for the UGA or the Municipal Referral Area." 7. Deletion of items pertaining to Oil and Gas regulations. 8. Section 4.1, addition of last line, "and its annexation would result in disconnected municipal sate lites." 9. Section 4.5 "Nothing in this Section 4 shall be construed to limit the MUNICIPALITY from annexing any land within the Urban Growth Area, regardless whether such annexations are involuntary or result in disconnected municipal satellites." 10. Language addition to Section 6.3 provides an annual review opportunity. 11. Language addition to Section 6.4 provides descriptive language for amendment. Motion seconded by Bruce Fitzgerald. RESOLUTION, City of Evans/Weld County IGA Page 4 VOTE: For Passage Against Passage Cristie Nicklas Arlan Marrs Fred Walker Stephan Mok:ray Jack Epple Bruce Fitzge-ald Michael Miller 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, Jennifer Mehring, 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, acopted on July 20, 1999. Dated the 20th,of July, 1999. , JenC�/1121 ,} y( ---- nifer Meh-ring / Secretary / 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; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously. CASE NUMBER: City of Evans IGA APPLICANT: City of Evans/Weld County PLANNER: Anne 3est 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 notification 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. S-nith 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 owners 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. SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION July 20, 1999 Page 6 The Vice-Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Arlan Marrs, no; Cristie Nicklas,yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried. CASE NUMBER: Amuse-859 APPLICANT: AT&T Communication Corporation (Ben Lough) PLANNER: Julie Chester LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Section 35, T4N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for an expansion of a Telecommunications Facility. LOCATION: East of and adjacent to the East Access Road, half way between Weld County Road 36 and Weld County Road 38. Julie Chester, Department of Planning Services, presented Case Amuse-859 and noted that the location of the property is actually between Weld County Road 38 and Weld County Road 40. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of this application along with the Conditions of Aporoval and Development Standards. Julie then read the recommendation into the record. John Chainey, representative was present and had no comments. Cristie Nicklas asked wf at is being done to address the Mountain View Fire Protection District water concerns. Mr. Chainey replied that they have two different options. The first is to tap into a 42 inch line that they are proposing which is a timing issue. The final option would be to have on site storage. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak. The Vice-Chairman asked Mr. Chainey if he was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Chainey stated he was in agreement. Bryant Gimlin moved l:hat Case AmUSR-859, be approved along with the Conditions of approval and Development Standards. 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 Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously. CASE NUMBER: USR-1234 APPLICANT: Nextel Communications PLANNER: Julie Chester LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW4 of Section 9, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Major Facility of a Public Jtility (Cell tower site). LOCATION: East of Weld County Road 5 %and south of State Highway 119. Julie Chester, Department of Planning Services, presented Case USR-1234. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Julie then read the recommendation into the record. Fred Walker asked Julie how far the tower would be from the County line, Development Standard#5, states that the tower shall be painted an earth tone color which shall be approved by the City of Longmont. Julie 4( MEMORANDUM ' TO: Board of County Commissioners July 21, 1999 COLORADO From: Anne Best Johnson, Long Range Planner�j 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 oetween 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. ‘4&tfitMEMORANDUM WITO: Weld County Planning Commission DATE: June 2, 1999 COLORADO FROM: Bruce Barker, County Attorney Anne Best Johnson, Long Range Planner SUBJECT: Intergovernmental Agreement for Evans and Weld County Since 1995, Weld County has been working with communities in establishing Intergovernmental Agreements. For your consideration, the Evans 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 Evans has worked with Weld County in establishing this proposed Intergovernmental Agreement. Through this agreement, the City of Evans 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 Evans has delineated their Urban Growth Boundary on the attached map. Through this Intergovernmental Agreement, the City of Evans 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 Evans,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 1. Growth should pay for itself in terms of initial costs, and in thr lone, range, through good design and functic a iency. 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 Evans desire to enter into this Intergovernmental Agreement. The purpose of this Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Evans 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 Evans 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. Customized modifications include the following: 1. Purposes and Objectives addition of last sentence: "However, any action taken pursuant to this Agreement that pertains to any land within the municipality, for incorporated areas, and within the County, for unincorporated areas, is subject to final approval by the municipality or county, respectively." 2. Definition of Development to include: "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 which are non-conforming as the result of animal units in excess of the bulk requirements, are also exempt from the definition of "Development." 3. Definition of Urban Development exclusion as follows: "Urban Development does not include residential areas being planned for individual lots or parcels whose net acreage exceeds tow and one-half (21/2) acres." 4. Definition of Urban Growth Area addition, "The Urban Growth Area is hereby established and shall consist of all lands shown or described in the attached Exhibit "A," EXCEPTING those lands located within the MUNICIPALITY's municipal boundaries. 5. Section 3.2 addition, "Development Outside Urban Growth Area. To the extent legally possible the COUNTY will disapprove proposals for Urban Development in areas of the MUNICIPAL Referral Area outside the Urban Growth Area. In reviewing proposals for Non-Urban Development in such areas, the COUNTY will apply its Comprehensive Plan and zoning and subdivision ordinances, and, SERVICE,TEAMWORK,INTEGRITY,QUALI IFY where appropriate, the MUn PI: 6. Additions to Section 3.3 as follows: 3.3(b) "The Municipality will require extension of sanitary sewer service to property in the Urban Growth Area, subject to its rules and regulations, which include provisions requiring a written contract for extraterritorial service and the construction of new mains and other facilities necessary to serve the property with costs assessed in accordance with the MUNICIPALITY's rules and regulations. MUNICIPALITY agrees to give notice of any proposed change in said rules and regulations to COUNTY 21 days prior to adoption. 3.3 (c) "The MUNICIPALITY provides municipal water service to property within its boundaries, subject to its rules and regulations and to an existing contract with the City of Greeley to treat MUNICIPALITY'S raw water supplies. The MUNICIPALITY will provide water to property in the Urban Growth Area under provisions similar to those indicated above for sewer service." 3.3 (d) "In recognition of the availability of public water and sewer service within the Urban Growth Area as indicated in paragraphs (b) and (c) above, the COUNTY will require public water and sewer service as a condition of approval of any subdivision, rezoning or planned unit development and will not approve such Development until the applicant obtains a written contract for same with the MUNICIPALITY. The execution of this Agreement shall be prima facie evidence of the availability of municipal water and sewer service within the meaning of S32-1-203(2.5)(a), C.R S." 3.3(e) "The COUNTY will not grant any waiver of current Municipal street standards for any Development without the consent of the MUNICIPALITY." 3.3(f) "To the extent legally possible, as determined by the COUNTY, the COUNTY will deny proposals for Non-Llrban Development in the Urban Growth Area. Nothing in this subsection shall restrict the COUNTY from approving, by means of a process such as recorded exemption or subdivision exemption, the isolated partition of ownership parcels located in the Urban Growth Area having existing residential improvements served by septic systems, regardless of the size of resulting lots. Nevertheless, the COUNTY will not permit such a concentration of such divisions in any particular area as will frustrate or materially hinder the evolution of genuine Urban Development, as defined in S2.4 cf this Agreement, in the Urban Growth Area. Furthermore, the COUNTY shall not be restricted from allowing the expansion of legally existing non-urban uses provided adequate protection for future urban uses is included in any such approval." 3.3(h) "The parties anticipate that Paragraphs 3.3(e)-(g) will be addressed in more detail if a Mutually Acceptable Plan is considered and adopted for the UGA or the Municipal Referral Area." 7. Deletion of items pertaining to Oil and Gas regulations. 8. Section 4.1, addition of last line, "and its annexation would result in disconnected municipal satellites." 9. Section 4.5 "Nothing in this Section 4 shall be construed to limit the MUNICIPALITY from annexing any land within the Urban Growth Area, regardless whether such annexations are involuntary or result in disconnected municipal satellites." 10. Language addition to Section 6.3 provides an annual review opportunity. 11. Language addition to Section 6.4 provides descriptive language for amendment. 9 RVICE,TEAMWORK,INTEGRITY,QUALITY It is the opinion of the Dep-rtmr ' of Planning Services staff and a` 'he d'rection of the County Attorney that this Intery 3n.. ante' Agreement be forwarder. .o . 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 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES t.1,wa 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Phone (970) 353-6100, Ext. 3540 Fax (970) 304-6498 111 C.. COLORADO June 30, 1999 City of Evans do Michael Smith 1100 37th St. Evans, CO 80620 Subject: Intergoverm3ntal Agreement between Weld County and the City of Evans. Dear Mr. Smith: 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 City of Evans, Town of Gaden City, City of Greeley, and the Town of LaSalle Planning Commission for their review and comments. It is recommended that you and/or a representative be in attendance at the City of Evans, Town of Gaden City, City of Greeley, and the Town of LaSalle Planning Commission meeting to answer any questions the Commission members may have with respect to your application. Please call the City of Evans at(970)339-5344, Town of Garden City at (970)352-0041, City of Greeley at(970)350-9780, and the Town of LaSalle at (970)284-6931, 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 PRESS RELEASE Intergovernmental Agreement between Weld County and the City of Evans. On July 20, 1999 at 1:30 p.m., the Weld County Planning Commission will consider the Intergovernmental Agreement between'JVeld County and the City of Evans. 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. EVAILED/,FAXED 1n/7 REFERRAL LIST NAME: City of Evans/Weld County CASE NUMBER: REFERRALS SENT: June 29, 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 _X_Evans Airport Authority Firestone Building Inspection Fort Lupton Frederick STATE _X_Garden City Division of Water Resources Gilcrest Geological Survey _X_Greeley Department of Health Grover Department of Transportation Hudson Historical Society Johnstown Water Conservation Board Keenesburg Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Kersey Division of Wildlife: X_LaSalle West of I-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 Cob. Water Conservancy Dist. Greeley Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. Longmont School District_ West Adams Ginny Shaw(MUD) Ditch Company COMMISSION/BOARD MEMBER tiv. ‘„ii Weld County Referral O June 29, 1999 COLORADO The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review, Applicant City of Evans/Weld County Please Reply By ,July 13, 1999 Project ntergovernmental 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. ❑ W aye 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 c o fa 9 Agency "��j{�� - Date 1 +Weld County Planning Dept. +1555 N. 17th Ave.Greeley,CO.80631 ++(970)353-6100 ext.3540 4(970)304-6498 fax ��1 VE T a 4410# 1999 H f999 Nfi Weld County Referral Weld County Planning Dept. June 29, 1999 Mc P COLORADO JUL 12 1999 RECEIVED The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review. Applicant City of Evans/Weld County i Please Reply By July 13, 1999 Project ntergovernmental 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. ❑ See attached letter Comments: Signature (115 ( 7 i- A . 7 p-et Agency �� fi, n t /1404 !�k G�1Sf ate ❖Weld County Planning Dept. 5-1 55 N. 17th Ave. Greeley,CO.80631 4(970)353-6100 ext.3540 ••x(970)304-6498 fax 4 RECEIVED tf & D JUN 3 01999 1'''*' WELD COUNT/ Weld County Referral PUBLIC WORKS DEPT 0 June 29, 1999 JVcld County Planning Dept. • COLORADO JUL 15 1999 The Weld County Department of Planning Services has r iiCEiL\ g'ffeDor review: Applicant City of Evans/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. ❑ We have reviewee 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 ti 1- 14 - Agency Pu,l1 i (�tc q�su i 1 Date +Weld County Planning Dept. +1555 N. 17th Ave.Greeley, CO. 80631 +(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +(970)304-6498 fax JUL- 6-99 TUE 15:49 CITY OF EVANS FAX NO. 3033395344 P. 01 P4.7r-M; J Weld County Referral ferral O June 29, 1999 COLORADO' The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant City of Evans/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 We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. • 0 See attached letter. Comments: WI, ma bG +tt wl ►IIis bc-Arc, our Vet. th Ctnium .sneai-t D7-t Un.t 13Ek. 44 (Jill otit tw #otk . A-t i Gnus_ wait vs Signature ur /. 11 J r11 Agency liU rbitm7 Date 1 4-Weld County Planning Dept. 01555 N. 17th Ave.Greeley,CO. 80631 0(970)353-8100 ext.3540 4(970)304-ti498 fax _ \ -� illi �,: I �.�kiSit, �I J► D epnc 1 [ 1 eC'e = woL--�c . , 1._ �r i Penn „11s et AP' ge urn 1 nri• - II fl •' [[0 ui a� Si n lila a aaI 11 �t i I Di• '©II • I Iiil•41+II.1 ti Orr.t IIilIi iii I.k.Ei 1' 1 ■ ` 1 }5 , .i:0 � • :. -. I f`•�� • III i •.:•,:•:.= I I .11;iii I,. C: -c I I ♦ 7-. 1 a _2 From: BRUCE BARKER To: NORTHDOMAIN.NORTHPOST(AJOHNSON) Subject: Evans and Keenesburg IGA -Reply I will send a hand copy of each, including the letter from Keenesburg and to Evans. Understand that Evans has not been signed and returned yet. Bruce. >>> ANNE JOHNSON 06/14/99 10:2Bam >>> I am making packets for referral agencies and do not have the most current copy of each IGA. Would you mind sending both via e-mail? Thanks. F Weld County Planning Dept. JUN 17 1999 RECEIVED , � ) Cef hr,AG7,t k, i)(1/L /) 6' �, r 1lrr ti � � q�l �� r�� r��.e � � :� 'i �,� . 1�. . NodL lilt if, e i_r, in.ti Lite4-1. ( ( JLCLt4i. ��_�i. ',i r. `� y�,�. --I �..Cl Weld County Planning Dept. WELD COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE eeee."------f---N\m‘p PHONE: (970) 356-4000, EXT. 4391 rJUN 07 1999 FAX: (970) 352-0242 915 TENTH STREET RECEIVED P.O. BOX 1948 WIND �C.. GREELEY, COLORADO 80632 June 7, 1999 COLORADO Earl H. Smith, PE Director of Public Works/Planning City of Evans, Colorado 1 100 37"' Street Evans, CO 80620-2C36 RE: Coordinated Planning Agreement Dear Earl: This letter is in response to your May 6, 1999, letter regarding the proposed Evans/Weld County Coordinated Planning Agreement("the Agreement"). Enclosed is a copy of the Agreement which includes some of your proposed changes. 1 made the changes you requested to Sections 3.3(c) and (d). I also made a slight change to Section 6.4 to make the fifth line (first sentence) read better. That Section requires the concurrence by Weld County in changes to the boundaries of'the Urban Growth Area. I have not made your suggested changes to Section 3.5. [ understand that the Section is lengthy; however, it does, in my opinion, adequately state the duties and responsibilities to which Weld County will agree. If you should have any questions or comments regarding this letter or the enclosed, please feel free to call me at(970) 356-4000, extension 4390. I respectfully request that you contact me if the enclosed is satisfactory. If Evans is agreeable to the language, Weld County will begin the ordinance process for the adoption of the Agreement. We have tentatively set a Planning Commission hearing date on this Agreement for July 20, 1999, but that date could be delayed to accommodate further discussions of the language in the Agreement, if necessary. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, .—. Aruce T. Barker Weld County Attorney BTB/db:Let/Earlsm ith Enclosure pc: Dale Hall Barbara Kirkmeyer Monica Daniels-Mika Weld County Planning Dept. The city of -r 1999 COL.ORADO RECEIVEDPARKS AND RECREATION May 13, 1999 Monica Daniels-Mika, AICP Director of Weld County Planning Department Weld County Administrative Offices NTT A, 140G N. 17th:1t'i.nue Greeley, CO 806:31 Dear Ms. Daniels-Mika; I hear from our own city planner, Beth Relford, that you are expecting - congratulations! I hope everything goes well for you. We met briefly last fall when I was soliciting support for a grant that the City of Evans was pursuing from Great Outdoors Colorado for a Parks and Recreation Master Plan in Evans. I appreciate the coordinated effort but,unfortunately,we did not receive any funding during that particular round. I would like to resubmit the project during GOGO's next grant cycle in June of this year and would again ask or your support. This time, however, I would like to ask for support in a slightly different manner. One of the main reasons we did not receive funding was a lack of contributions of cash or in-kind resources from partners ancVor project supporters. Would it be possible for me to ask the County to contribute a small portion of it's share of Conservation Trust Funds towards the funding of our master plan? I believe that the master plan we develop,particularly for trails and trail connections, will include impacts to surrounding County areas as well as adjacent communities such as Greeley, LaSalle, Kersey and,Milliken. Although there are numerous ways to calculate a proposed contribution, I would, as an example, propose that the County contribute $0.25 for each resident in Evans as per the 1998 population calculations used by the Colorado Division of Local Government. This would amount to 7586 (Evans population)x $0.25 = $1896.50. (another method could be to use the counties population vs. Evans pop. = County is 156,530 total, Evans is 7586 or 4%. 4% x total county funding - $323,913 =$12,956.52. This option, however, seems to me to be too large of a request). A separate issue that is a potential in the next few years is the concept of an additional regional park in Weld County. Great Outdoors Colorado is currently researching an option of funding a 1100 37th Street • Evans, Colorado 80620-2036 • (970) 339-5344 • Fax: (970) 330-3472 competitive state wide grant cycle that would be for parks cooperatively planned and managed by multiple partners. I have spoken with the City of Greeley(Ron Williams and Joe Loehnes) and they are interested. Would the County be interested in becoming a partner? Initially, my thought is a park that would facilitate the tremendous demand for soccer fields - most likely a forty acre or larger park with approximately 10 soccer fields (about 2 aces each). I would also be nice to have something like this that would serve as a community separator. I would appreciate you thoughts on these matters and would be happy to discuss either or both of these issues with you further. I look forward to your response. In addition, I would be happy to pose these questions with the County Commissioners and attend a work session if necessary. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, 6L-./ M<,c*- Andrew McRoberts, CLP Director of Parks and Recreation File: f:/parks/general/lottery/cntyctfltr The City of COLORADO May 6, 1999 weld County Planning Dept. �h.AY 13 1°c;:� Mr.Bruce T.Barker RECEIVED Weld County Attorney Weld County Attorney's Office P.O.Box 1948 Greeley,CO 80632 Re:Coordinated Planning Agreement Dear Bruce: Enclosed please fund a copy of the most recent version of the Evans/Weld County Coordinated Planning Agreement. We have reviewed the document and offer a number of suggestions. They are summarized as follows: • Paragraph 3.3 (c)should be modified to show that Evans provides its own water service. We do not contract with another entity. However,the City does contract with the City of Greeley for treatment of our raw water supplies and this agreement may need to reflect that arrangement. • Paragraph 3.3 (d)should be modified similar to 3.3 (c). • Paragraph 3.5 should be reworded as most of the proposed language is very lengthy and difficult to understand. • There are a number of miscellaneous comments as provided in the attached redline version of the Agreement. If you have any questions,or wish to discuss the City's comments,please call me at 339-5344(ext. 110). Sincerely, Earl H. Smith,P.E. Director of Public Works/Planning enc. pc:Monica Daniels,Mika 1100 37th Street • Evans, Colorado 80620-2036 • (970) 339-5344 • Fax: (970) 330-3472 WELD COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE /7-..est PHONE: (970) 356-4000, EXT. 4391 r f FAX: (970) 352-0242 915 TENTH STREET f P.O. BOX 1948 GREELEY, COLORADO 80632 O April 6, 1999 COLORADO Weld County Planning Dept, Russ Anson City Attorney APR n7 1999 City of Evans y' Street G e l e RECEIVED Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Coordinated Planning Agreement Between the City of Evans and Weld County Dear Russ: At a meeting which I attended on the evening of Wednesday, March 24, 1999, the City Council for the City of Evans and the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County discussed some proposed changes to the Coordinated Planning Agreement between Evans and Weld County. Enclosed is a copy of the proposed Agreement. It includes the version which is attached to Earl Smith's Memo dated March 18, 1999. A copy of 1Mr. Smith's Memo is enclosed. The changes are "red lined." The substantive changes are found in paragraphs 2.1, 6.3 and 6.4. The change in paragraph 2.1 was suggested by Lee Morrison in response to concerns expressed by Earl Smith in his Memo. The changes to paragraph 6.3 and the addition of paragraph 6.4 make this Agreement consistent with that which is proposed for the Towns of Lochbuie, Keenesburg and Hudson. The remaining changes are grammatical and form related. Please review the changes and let me know if they are satisfactory. Please feel free to call me at(970) 356-4000, extension 4390, at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, --Bruce T. Barker Weld County Attorney BTB db:Let/Evansplan Enclosures pc: Michael Smith Lee Morrison Monica Daniels-Mika Board of County Commissioners MEMO To: His Honor the Mayor, and Members of City Coun From: Earl H. Smith, P.E.,Director of Public Works Subject: Coordinated Planning Agreement Date: March 18, 1999 Attached is the draft Coordinated Planning Agreement between the City and Weld County. This Agreement is the primary subject matter for the upcoming joint meeting with the Weld County Commissioners. The purpose of the Agreement is to establish procedures and standards pursuant to which the parties will move toward greater coordination in the exercise of their land use and related regulatory powers within unincorporated areas surrounding the City. Staff has been working with the County staff for over two years in development of the final agreement. We feel comfortable with the proposed Agreement except for one remaining issue. Staff accepts the County's perspective requesting the expansion of agricultural uses within the Urban Growth Area(UGA) to be exempt from this Agreement, however, it is not apparent why non-conforming uses should receive the same status. It is our understanding the County's proposed language would exempt non-conforming uses from complying with the IGA and allow them to expand through the Use by Special Review permit process. Staff does not support the expansion of non-conforming uses and they should not be exempt from complying with the IGA. Non-conforming uses are typically land uses that do not comply with the provisions of adopted codes, and thus probably do not conform with the surrounding land uses. We feel legal non-conforming uses should be permitted to continue until such a time that changes or abandonment of the use occurs. It is our intent to reduce the number of legal non-conforming uses by bringing them into compliance with existing codes. Legal non- conforming uses should be permitted to continue within the UGA, however, these uses should not be permitted to expand and be exempt from the IGA process. As stated above, staff feels comfortable with the verbiage for expansion of agricultural uses, but does not support tl:e continuation of non-conforming uses. We suggest the following changes: Existing agricultural uses, which are lawful uses, either by compliance with the Weld County Zordng Ordinance, as amended, lit by uac Status, are exempt from adhet t.ttce troth tyre l ntergoven mentat Agreement and nre tstrdtng baaetne standatxls,a.nd may applyfor t xpa tsto q `fhat rise w ihaexlce,to Lire agreernerits' pc: Planning Commission 5The City December 10, 1993 h / � Ir COLORADO Weld County Planning Department gVeld County Planning — Attn: Ms. Monica Daniels-Mika 1400 N. 17th Avenue DEC 1 4 1998 Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Evans/Weld County IGA RECEIVED Dear Monica: After reviewing the County's recently suggested verbiage for the expansion of agricultural uses in the UGB for the IGA, staff has only one concern. Evans accepts the County's perspective requesting the expansion of agricultural uses within the Urban Growth Boundary to be exempt from the IGA process; however, it is not apparent why non-conforming uses should receive the same status? It is Evans' understanding the County's proposed amendment would exempt non-conforming uses from complying with the IGA and allow them to expand through the USR permit process. The City of Evans does not support the expansion of non-conforming uses being exempt from complying with the IGA. Evans' perceives non-conforming uses to be land uses which do not comply with the provisions of the adopted codes, and thus probably do not conform with the surrounding land uses. We feel legal non-conforming uses should be permitted to continue until such a time that changes or abandonment of the use exist. It is Evans intent to reduce the number of legal non-conforming uses by bringing them into compliance with existing codes. Legal non- conforming uses should be permitted to continue within the UGB, however, these uses should not be permitted to expand and be exempt from the IGA process. Evans feels comfortable with the verbiage for expansion of agricultural uses, but does not support non-conforming uses. We suggest the following changes: Existing agricultural uses, which are lawful uses, either by compliance with the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, as amended, in by N.,u-wufin„1iug uSc Status, are exempt from adherence with the Intergovernmental Agreement and corresponding baseline standards, and may apply for expansion of that use without adherence to the agreements. I am available to discuss this issue further, please contact me at 339-5344 ext. 112. I look forward to hearing from you and continuing the IGA agreement process. Respectfully, jr Eliza eth Relford Planner 1100 37th Street • Evans, Colorado 80620-2036 • (970) 339-5344 • Fax: (970) 330-3472 FROM : CITY OF GREELEY -AX NO . : 9703509800 07-19-99 04 : 16P P .0_' r OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of 1100 10TH STREET,GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 (970)350-9780 FAX (970)350-980M Greeley July 15, 1999 Anne Best Johnson Weld County Department of Planning Services 1400 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Subject: City of Evans/Weld County Intergovernmental Agreement Dear Anne: The City of Greeley Planning Commission informally reviewed the information contained within the proposed City of Evans/Weld County Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). The review was informal because of the short referral time and the relatively quick Weld County Planning Commission date- The Greeley Planning Commission recommended the following comments be forwarded: 1. Express concern about animal unit non-conforming land uses being granted special status (see definition of development). Rather than specifically exempting these uses, the Commission felt they should be amortized. 2. Suggest setbacks which meet state standards for oil and gas development be incorporated. 3. Suggest the map used to delineate the future land use map be corrected to accurately reflect streets in the western part of Evan's growth area. As usual, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on land use issues near the City of Greeley. Sincerely, (J Gre hot pson Pla ng Manager Hello