HomeMy WebLinkAbout20050834.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday, October 18, 2005, in the
Weld County Department of Planning Services, Hearing Room, 918 10'"Street, Greeley, Colorado. The
meeting was called to order by Chair, Bruce Fitzgerald, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Erich Ehrlich Absent
Roy Spitzer
James Welch Absent
Bruce Fitzgerald
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
Tom Holton
Paul Branham
Also Present: Jacqueline Hatch, Wendi Inloes, Kim Ogle, Bethany Salzman, Brad Mueller, Monica Mika,
Department of Planning Services; Frank Hempen, Don Carroll, Peter Schei, Department of Public Works;
Char Davis, Pam Smith, Environmental Health Department; Lee Morrison, County Attorney.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on, October 4,
2005, was approved as read.
Cases to be continued:
1. CASE NUMBER: USR-1530
APPLICANT: James & Gail Sutton
PLANNER: Wendi Inloes
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 2, Block 2, Carmacar Ranchettes; located in part of the E2 of
Section 5, TIN, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Use by Special Review Permit and Site Specific Development
Plan for an Office incidental to the operation of the Uses Allowed
by Right as listed in Section 23- 3-20
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Aspen Avenue and north of and
adjacent to Mountain View Street (North of CR 12; west of and
adjacent to CR 5).
Wendi Inloes, Department of Planning Services, said Planning staff, along with the applicants, are
requesting a continuance to the November 1, 2005 meeting as the Suttons are out of town and unable to
attend today's hearing.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this continuance.
No one wished to speak.
Michael Miller moved that Case USR-1530, be continued to the November 1, 2005 hearing. Chad Auer
seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton, yes, Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
2. CASE NUMBER: CZ-1100
APPLICANT: Charles &Teresa Hellmer
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
1
/, laud npruks
%I-7 20os 2005-0834
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-3492; Pt E2NE4 of Section 30, T3N, R68W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from the R-1, (Low Density Residential)Zone
District to A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION:
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, said the applicant is requesting that Case CZ-1100 be
continued indefinitely. The zone change is proposed to allow in part for a landscaping business. The
applicants would like the change of zone and proposed use to be reviewed at the same time. As a result,
the Department of Planning Services is requesting additional information that defines the proposed uses.
This information has not yet been submitted and will need to be reviewed by referral agencies prior to
scheduling a Planning Commission hearing.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this continuance.
No one wished to speak.
Michael Miller moved that Case CZ-1100, be continued indefinitely. Chad Auer seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton, yes, Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Items for Consent:
3. CASE NUMBER: USR-1529
APPLICANT: Asphalt Specialities Co Inc
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: E2 SE4 Section 31, T3N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for
Mineral Resource Development Facilities, including Open Pit
Mining and Materials Processing, including a Concrete Batch
Plant in the A(Agricultural)Zone.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 26;west of and adjacent to CR 15.
Rob Laird, applicant, 10100 Dallas St, Henderson CO 80640, agreed to Case USR-1529 remaining on the
consent agenda.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Michael Miller moved that Case USR-1529, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
4. CASE NUMBER: USR-1528
APPLICANT: Edmundson Land LLC -Arbor Valley Nursery
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part SE4 of Section 30, T1 N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
use by right, an accessory use or a use by special review in the
2
(Business)Commercial Zone District (Wholesale Trade
Establishment for the sale of nursery stock and hardline
products produced and imported to Site) in the A(Agricultural)
Zone District.
LOCATION: West and adjacent to CR 39; north and adjacent to CR 4.
Scott Larson, representing the applicant, 1888 Sherman St, Ste 415, Denver CO 80203, agreed to Case
USR-1528 remaining on the consent agenda.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Chad Auer moved that Case USR-1528, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation
of approval. Roy Spitzer seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
5. CASE NUMBER: USR-1525
APPLICANT: Deborah Lowry
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part S2 SE4 of Section 29, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
kennel (80 dogs including a dog day care) in the A(Agricultural)
Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 5; approximately%mile south of CR
16.5.
Deborah Lowry, applicant, 7019 CR 5, Erie CO 80516, agreed to Case USR-1525 remaining on the
consent agenda.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Michael Miller moved that Case USR-1525, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval. Chad Auer seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Hearing Items:
6. CASE NUMBER: USR-1523
APPLICANT: David & Beverly Heussmann
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 2, 3 & 25 of Dream Acres; part NW4 of Section 25, T2N,
R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
kennel (4000 game birds) and for a home business (concrete
forming business) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 18; approximately 1/2 mile east of
CR 11.
3
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services. David and Beverly Heussmann have applied for
a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a kennel (4000 game birds)and for
a home business (concrete forming business) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. The sign announcing
the Planning Commission hearing was posted October 6, 2005 by staff. The site is located south of and
adjacent to CR 18 and north of CR 16%and approximately/2 mile east of CR 11 on Lots 2, 3 and 25 of
Dream Acres subdivision. The area consists of approximately seven and half acres and is currently being
utilized as a kennel (raising of game birds) and existing improvements for the concrete form business.
The surrounding property consists of residential uses. The site is currently in violation (VI-0500176)for
the operation of a kennel(raising game birds) and the storage of commercial equipment without the
necessary permits. This violation was not yet been presented to the Board of County Commissioners
though the violation hearing process. Twelve referral agencies reviewed this case, five referral
agencies had no comments, five referral agencies included conditions that have been attempted
to be addressed through the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval. No comments
were received from the Town of Firestone or the Commercial Wildlife Park.
Section 23-3-40.H of the Weld County Code provides for a kennel as a Use by Special Review in the
Agricultural Zone District but the concrete business is not permitted as a Use by Special Review.
A concrete business is permitted as a Use by Special Review when it is not located within an
approved or recorded subdivision plat per Section 23-3-40.R of the Weld County Code. The site is
located within the Dream Acres subdivision.
Six letters of support and one letter opposed to the uses on site have been received by the Department
of Planning Services prior to mailing out the Planning Commission packets. The one letter in opposition
states that the game birds are causing health problems. Since the mailing, one packet in opposition
of the application was submitted. The packet is from a surrounding property owner with concerns regarding
health issues (allergies and sinus problems),junkyard appearance, setbacks of structures, and compatibility.
Also included in the packet are photos of the site, a letter from a doctor, and letters from friends of the family
opposed to the application.
The Weld County Department of Planning Services is recommending that this application be denied
based on the concrete business not being allowed as a Use by Special Review in an approved subdivision.
The Chair asked how many birds would be allowed on seven and a half acres. Ms. Hatch replied four
birds per lot for a total of twelve birds. The Chair then asked about waste equivalency. Ms. Hatch said
the Health Department could better address that question. Roy Spitzer asked for the total size of the
property. Ms. Hatch replied that it is a little over seven acres. Michael Miller inquired about setbacks from
existing residences per the County Code. Ms. Hatch replied that setbacks would be addressed in the
building permit process and will look into it.
Judson Hite, representing the Heussmanns, 250 Arapahoe, Ste 301, Boulder CO 80302. Mr. Hite
corrected the information in the legal description that these are blocks not lots and explained the
configuration. Mr. Hite then reviewed the pictures in his handout. The applicants have farmed since 1967
and continue to do so today. In 1981 a home business was begun and in 1984 it was converted to the
current concrete forming specialty business. In 2004, the applicant's son obtained a Division of Wildlife
permit to open a commercial wildlife park that allowed the raise and release of these wild birds into the
environment. In 2004, the applicants conferred with the Building Department regarding the structures they
wanted to build and were told they would be agriculture exempt and did not require a building permit but
would require an electric permit. In April, 2005, the Planning Department Compliance officer informed the
applicants that the game birds were considered household pets and only twelve birds would be allowed on
those three lots/blocks. There was also a complaint regarding the equipment storage. Another zoning
violation was subsequently issued, which the applicants hoped to correct through this application. Mr.
Hite cited several sections in the code as to deficiencies with respect to compliance. He also agreed that
the game bird operation is a kennel and must be approved as a USR. The applicants agree with Ms.
Hatch and feel they have met Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Mr. Hite said again
that the concrete business is a home business, the applicants have been actively engaged in the
business, and it should be allowed in the agriculture zone district, as long as it is not in a platted
4
subdivision. The applicants disagree with Section 23-2-220.A regarding future development. Annexation
into Frederick is not desired by the applicants. The applicants do not agree that the game birds should be
described as and follow the requirements of a kennel. The game bird operation would be more accurately
described as a livestock confinement operation. These are exotic animals raised to be sold usually within
six months, unlike household pets, and need to be approved under a more proper classification. Mr.
Miller asked for the distance on photograph twelve of the bird containment area to the nearest neighbor's
house. Mr. Hite said it was sixty to seventy five feet Mr. Miller asked Ms. Hatch if she had found the
information requested earlier about setbacks on turkey farms. She replied that she had and it is three feet
or one foot for every three feet of building height. Mr. Miller then asked if a turkey farm was required to
meet those requirements, could they have four thousand turkeys fifty feet from a neighbor's property if the
containment building were short enough. Ms. Hatch responded that would be a zoning issue. Mr. Hite
then cited Section 23-4-350 of the code regarding livestock confinement operations and the use
standards applicable to such operations, and said that the applicants would comply fully with those as
appropriate.
The Chair opened the public portion of the hearing.
George Scott Jr, 5451 CR 16.75, Longmont CO 80504. Mr. Scott has lived there nine years and asked
the Planning Commission members, after looking at the pictures, if any of them would live sixty feet from
this operation. He said his wife has developed allergies and she coughs and sneezes. Mr. Scott invited
the Planning Commission to come out and take a look themselves. He moved there prior to the game
bird business and would not have chosen that site had it been there to begin with. He did know about the
concrete business and found no fault with that. The Chair asked Mr. Scott how long he had resided at
that location and he replied nine years. One of the Commissioners asked about a pile of asphalt. Mr.
Scott said it had been hauled off. Mr. Miller inquired how long the game bird operation had been in
existence, to which Mr. Scott replied three years.
Tim Rhoads, 5264 CR 16.75, Longmont CO 80504, lives next to Mr. Scott and has observed excessive
dust on windy days. He is concerned about health issues and why the value of their property is not being
considered. Mr. Rhoads showed the Commissioners on the map where the bird pens are located. Mr.
Holton asked Mr. Rhoads where he lives. Mr. Rhoads said he occupies Block 26 on the south side along
CR 16.75. Mr. Auer asked about how far he thought the applicant's residence is from the bird pens. Mr.
Scott replied about five hundred feet.
Dianne Peterman, 5451 CR 16.75, Longmont CO 80504, submitted a diagram of existing homes and their
proximity to the bird pens.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Mr. Hite, representing the applicants, said Mr. Scott was actually employed to build the first pens and
raise the birds, but that relationship has ended. Wade Heussmann, the applicant's son, 525 Fir Av,
Firestone CO 80520, said in terms of the actual bird pens and setbacks from the canal, the ditch rider
was fine with setbacks. From the feed storage building on the east side it is approximately twenty five to
thirty feet from the fence. David Heussman, property owner, said Char Davis, Health Department, has
been out to inspect the property. He has submitted a waste management plan and she has approved it,
having found no problems with dust or rodents. Mr. Miller asked the elder Mr. Heussman if he resided on
the property and he replied that he does not. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Morrison if the person running the
home business was required to live on the property. Mr. Morrison said it is still an accessory to the
residential use and was not sure if it was on the same parcel as the residence. Ms. Hatch interjected
there is no residence on the parcels containing the birds or the concrete business. Mr. Miller asked how it
can be a family business if they don't live on the property. Mr. Hite said they only have to be actively
engaged in the business and they are. Doug Oschner asked about an explanation of the actual business
activity on the property. Mr. Hite said there is equipment and job scheduling and concrete delivery, which
is primarily done by the son but the parents are actively engaged in the business.
Mr. Auer asked Ms. Hatch about the Division of Wildlife permits and if there is a requirement that the
applicant comply with local land use rules. Ms. Hatch said she is not familiar with the Division of Wildlife
5
regulations but they are licensed through them and said perhaps Ms. Davis could answer his question.
Ms. Davis said the applicants are licensed and subject to inspection at any time. The facility is considered
somewhat of an animal confinement operation and they need to follow best management practices of a
cattle operation. Mr. Miller asked if the cattle operation practices would include significant setbacks from
residential structures. Mr. Morrison said the cattle regulations do not specifically address poultry other
than turkeys, chickens and ducks, and under our code they do not fall under livestock as the definition
mentions livestock, exotic animals and pets. It may not be that relevant as we talk about the special use
permit but would fall under the use by right. The Chair asked about the use by right. Mr. Morrison said if
treated as household pets, they are allowed four pets per lot. Mr. Miller asked how many chickens per lot
in the agriculture zone. Ms. Hatch replied two hundred per acre. Mr. Miller said he sees several
problems—he does not buy the home business claim as the owner of the business does not live on site,
so the son is essentially leasing from his parents. Mr. Miller said he also has a problem with the feeding
operation being sixty feet from neighbor's homes and he believes the health issues are a direct result of
the operation. He does not support this application based on compatibility. The Chair asked about the
waste equivalency for four thousand birds. Ms. Davis said she does not know specifics, but at the time of
her visit she smelled no odor and saw very little manure accumulation. Mr. Morrison said the state
regulations equate fifty five thousand turkeys, thirty thousand laying hens or broilers, or five thousand
ducks with one thousand non-dairy cows when using a liquid manure handling system. If not using a
liquid manure handling system it would be thirty thousand ducks. Mr. Miller said that would be about thirty
ducks to one cow. Mr. Branham asked Mr. Morrison's opinion if the concrete establishment is a
commercial business and would qualify under this Use by Special Review. Mr. Morrison said the real
issue is whether it qualifies as a home business because it requires that the use be conducted primarily in
the dwelling unit or the accessory structure. Ms. Hatch then read the definition of a home business from
Section 23-1-90 of the County Code. Mr. Morrison asked Ms. Hatch if the forms were stored inside or
outside. Ms. Hatch replied that when she visited the site she saw trucks but not forms. Mr. Morrison then
said the applicants may qualify under one of the other categories that a USR could be granted. The Chair
asked if there were any previous USR's for this property and whether she was recommending denial for
both businesses or just one of them. Ms. Hatch said she had found no previous USR's for the property
and that staff was recommending denial for the concrete forming business on the site as it was not
compatible with home business zoning regulations and the owners/operators do not live on site.
Normally, when we have this type of business in the county, it is classified in the code under Section 23-3-
40.R as a commercial business in the agriculture zone district. The Chair asked about any violations. Ms.
Hatch said there was one, and that the concrete violation came as a result of the discovery of the game
birds on site. Mr. Holton asked if we have an Inter-Governmental Agreement with Frederick and why they
responded on their referral as they did if that is the case. Ms. Hatch said that the county does have an
IGA with Frederick and that in their referral they are opposed to the application. Frederick suggested the
applicant proceed through the County but Frederick would like them to seek annexation if they decide to
amend their USR or add any future development. Mr. Ochsner commented on the concrete forming
business and that the definitions they are given may not seem to be able to include that business, but this
is a rural subdivision and a few trucks and fuel tanks do not compromise the integrity of the subdivision
and he would be in favor of approval.
The Chair asked the applicants if they were in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Standards
of Development. Mr. Hite said they were, though they didn't fully understand signage requirements but
would be willing to work that out with planning staff. Mr. Hite said there is a waste management plan in
effect that they feel they have addressed and the issue of whether this property lies in a geological hazard
overlay. Materially they could work through those Conditions of Approval. Mr. Hite added that Section 23-
2-40 V. allows uses by special review that are similar to other listed uses and we believe that storing truck
equipment for a concrete forming business is very similar to truck storage for a public utility which is set
forth in Section 23-2-40 D., so there is another basis for approval if you didn't want to go with the home
business. Mr. Miller asked if they could approve one portion of the application and not the other. Ms.
Hatch said the applicant could withdraw a portion of the application if they wished. Mr. Morrison said
essentially their recommendation would be based on what the applicant is presenting. If the applicant
chose to withdraw a portion you could recommend on that but as it is now they are asking for your
recommendation on both and it would not be appropriate to act on each separately. Mr. Holton asked if
Frederick's complaints from surrounding residents were related to the birds or the concrete business. Ms.
Hatch replied the birds generated the most complaints.
6
Michael Miller moved that Case USR-1523, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
denial. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, no; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried.
7. CASE NUMBER: AmPZ-1004
APPLICANT: Lifebridge Christian Church
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-1389; and part of Section 5, T2N, R68W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of PUD Zone District for the Lifebridge PUD including
changes in designation of the E, R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, C-1 & C-2
zone districts and continued oil and gas production.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Hwy 119; south of and adjacent to
CR 26; and west and east of CR 3.5
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services. Lifebridge Christian Church, c/o Dale Bruns and
Reggie Golden, and represented by Barbara Brunk, have applied for a request of Change of PUD Zone
District for the Lifebridge PUD including changes in designation of the E, R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, C-1 & C-
2 Zone Districts and continued oil and gas production comprising of approximately three hundred thirteen
acres.
Lifebridge PUD is located north of and adjacent to SH 119; south of and adjacent to CR 26; west and east
of CR 3.5. Vista Commercial Business Park is located to the south of the site across SH 119. The Elms
at Meadow Vale PUD and Meadow Vale Farms PUD are located adjacent to the east and Longview PUD
is adjacent to the west, across CR 3.5.
The signs announcing the Planning Commission hearing were posted October 3, 2005 by Planning Staff.
Change of Zone 1004 for Lifebridge was originally approved by the Board of County Commissioners on
July 9, 2003. Staff comments are derived from the referral agencies responses and the application
material. The proposed changes as outlined in the application material are an attempt by the applicant to
address the concerns of the surrounding property owners as discussed at the July 9, 2003 Board of
County Commissioners hearing.
The proposed PUD is located within the Mixed Use Development (MUD) area, and is within the
boundaries of the Intergovernmental Agreement boundary with the City of Longmont and within the
Municipal Referral area with the Towns of Mead, Firestone, Frederick and Boulder County.
The City of Longmont returned their referral indicating that the city would like to reiterate the notion that a
development of this scope would best be served by an incorporated city where a full range of urban
infrastructure and services can be planned and provided. The City of Longmont also has concerns
regarding the drainage on site, parking configurations, bicycle lanes, and the incorporation of the"right to
farm" statement. The Town of Mead requests that this development not be approved as an
unincorporated project and the applicants should be required to petition the City of Longmont for
annexation. In addition, the Town of Mead states that the northbound traffic impacts to the town will likely
be significant without providing the town revenue or control over any of it. The Town of Frederick has
indicated that they have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with their interests. No referrals were
received from the Town of Firestone and Boulder County.
The project offers an opportunity to accommodate significant transportation improvements in the area.
CR 3.5 will connect to CR 5 between Highway 119 and CR 26. CR 26 will be re-aligned north of the site,
as part of the proposed expansion of Union Reservoir. The existing railroad crossing at CR 3.5 will be
moved to Fairview Street to the west. A traffic signal will be installed at the intersection of Highway 119
7
and Fairview Street as part of the Sandstone Ranch (City of Longmont) improvements. The PUD site will
be connected to the re-aligned CR 3.5 and CR 26 at regular intervals, with traffic signals as warranted.
The Colorado Department of Transportation in their referral dated October 6, 2005, state that they are not
in support of a direct access (right-in/right-out) off of SH 119. Further the transportation study indicates all
other related issues have been addressed.
The applicant has proposed to set their own unique standards with respect to certain of the bulk
requirements rather than follow the default requirements as set out in the Weld County Code for the
residential component, and Section 23-3-250 Performance Standard of the Commercial Zone District.
The applicant has proposed a maximum building height of sixty(60)feet for the entire church campus,
with an additional seventy five (75)feet of height for approximately twenty percent of the building.
Additionally, the applicant proposed a maximum building height of thirty(30)feet for the residential
component along the eastern side of the property; a maximum building height of thirty five (35)feet for the
residential component located south of CR 26; and a maximum height requirement of forty five (45)feet
for the mixed use commercial and mixed residential areas. All R-2, R-3, R-4, C-1 and C-2 development
in a PUD require a Site Plan Review application as defined in Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code. The
building height will be determined by Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code if not specifically called out
differently through the PUD process.
The proposed PUD will be serviced by Left Hand Water District and Longs Peak Water District for potable
water and fire protection requirements and St. Vrain Sanitation District will handle the effluent flow.
Sixteen referral agencies reviewed this case, two referral agencies had no comments, and eight
responded favorably or included conditions that have been addressed through Development Standards
and Conditions of Approval and two referral agencies request that the applicants annex into their
municipalities.
Two letters were received prior to mailing out the Planning Commission packets from surrounding
properties. Since the mailing, an additional twenty-five letters have been received and you have been
provided copies. Some of the concerns outlined in the letters pertain to future road connectivity through
their existing subdivisions, the proposed building height, and obstructed views.
The Department of Planning Services request that the following changes be made to the staff comments
as outlined in the memo provided to you.
W. on Page 12 be removed -W. No development activity shall commence on the property, nor shall any
building permits be issued on the property until the final plan has been approved and recorded.
#4 on Page 12 add the words "may be" so it reads, "In accordance with Weld County Code Ordinance
2005-7 approved June 1, 2005, should the plat not be recorded within the required thirty(30) days from
the date the Board of County Commissioners resolution a $50.00 recording continuance charge shall may
be added for each additional 3 month period."
#6 on Page 14 add a new B stating, "Stormwater best management practices shall be in place in
accordance with the Weld County Code and Urban Drainage Standards. Silt fences shall be maintained
on the down gradient portion of the site during all phases of the site construction."
The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of AMPZ-1004 for Lifebridge Christian
Church.
The applicants have been approved by the Board of County Commissioners on September 19, 2005 for a
pre-advertisement of the Board of County Commissioners hearing which has been scheduled for
November 9, 2005, 10:00am.
The Chair asked the Commission members if they had any questions. Mr. Holton asked for clarification
as to where Pearl Howlett Road Road is located. Mr. Miller inquired if the standards for height are any
different than what the Commission had approved in 2003. Ms. Hatch replied that heights have not been
8
changed but locations have been changed to better address neighbor's concerns. Mr. Miller asked if
there will still be no connectivity with Pearl Howlett Road Road into this subdivision. Ms. Hatch said that it
was her understanding that there would not be any connectivity but the Department of Public Works could
answer that. Mr. Schei, Department of Public Works, said there will be no connection to Pearl Howlett
Road Road but the chart is only a concept, not the final plat. Mr. Miller reiterated that this is merely a
Change of Zone application, not the final plan. Mr. Schei said that was correct. Mr. Morrison responded
to Mr. Miller that what the Planning Commission reviewed and approved was subject to further
refinements before the Board of County Commissioners with respect to heights and densities. Mr.
Branham asked if heights of buildings are controlled by Chapter 23 of the County Code, does it allow the
requested heights or restrict some of those. Ms. Hatch said if they are not called out in the PUD process
they refer to Chapter 23.
Dave Williams, applicant's representative, DGJ Design, 1881 Ninth St, Boulder CO, introduced himself
and the others that accompanied him.
Reggie Golden, 2602 Clover Basin Dr, Longmont CO 80504, said that Lifebridge has been a part of the
Longmont community since 1981. It has been the Lifebridge mission to be a part of that community
through positive community impact and provide tools where people can live, learn, shop, play and
worship. Lifebridge believes they provide needed services for south Weld County residents, their
members are heavily involved in the community through volunteerism, and they believe their project is
one the community will be proud of. They are not simply looking for bigger facilities, but more
opportunities to partner with various groups and agencies to make the community the best it can be.
Project Lifebridge meets the development plans and needs of the county but provides much needed
community space and provides resources for people of all ages. The revised plan is a culmination of
hours of work on the part of many people incorporating transportation, planning changes, neighborhood
concerns, and other revisions that more accurately reflect the vision and the mission of the project. We
believe this is a project the community will be proud of and that God will be honored as we build.
Dave Williams, applicant's representative, approached the microphone again and said he is here to go
through the changes since the 2003 approval; the transportation network; highlights of the project as it is
currently envisioned; and phasing of the over three hundred acre area. Lifebridge, through this process,
has gone through and addressed adjacent neighbor's concerns coupled with Longmont's plans for
expansion of Union Reservoir, as well as some transportation issues. As part of the Union Reservoir
expansion, a change in the dam and spillway will be required and impact the alignment of CR 26. Their
expectation is that CR 26 will move off of the dam. There is also a Great Western railroad track with two
crossings, one at CR 3.5 and one at CR 26 adjacent to CR 5. The first change associated with the Union
Reservoir expansion realigns CR 26 to swing up a little north of the existing alignment and then south of
the dam, with the opportunity to connect to the existing Fairview Street. Longmont's plan will ultimately
connect this with the county road all the way to Ninth Avenue. The Fairview Street connection will also
provide a secondary emergency access to the Concept's Direct property in Longmont that has been an
issue for them for some time. This will require the addition of another railroad crossing. What is being
proposed as part of the overall transportation network is to take CR 3.5 and bend it through the Lifebridge
property to connect to CR 5, take the existing Great Western Railroad crossing and replace it at Fairview.
That will allow for a fairly convenient north/south direct connection from 119 to Hwy 66. It also allows for a
connection back to Fairview and a traffic light implemented at the Sandstone Ranch property and in the
future, ultimate connectivity and alignment with Ninth Avenue. As this project evolves and grows, there
will be some larger and more intensive kinds of uses particularly associated with the church sanctuary
and some educational facilities. We have tried to cluster those more to the west side of the site closer to
the new transportation corridor of CR 3.5 to CR 5 to allow for better traffic distribution to the new
transportation route. This site is an integral part of the 1-25 Mixed Use Development area (MUD). The
MUD is intended to create more urban scale development, create mixed uses and neighborhood centers
with creative and innovative designs. The goals of Lifebridge are actually very much in alignment and
compatible with the intent of the MUD. Some of the goals of Lifebridge are to eliminate those barriers
between church and community that are often perceived; to create an integrated and mixed use
neighborhood that would include civic, spiritual, educational, recreational, employment and shopping
opportunities all in one small village that has a tremendous sense of place that could be a center for
community services and activities. Lifebridge is committed to having a trail network connected to all
9
regional trails in the area. Mr. Williams addressed the concept plan and the sub-districts which include: a
neighborhood gathering place; a central park space geared towards major open space; a civic and
religious district; residential dwellings; a mixed use village center which will include some sections of the
church; areas for community events; and smaller meeting rooms. Along re-aligned CR 3.5 Lifebridge is
committed to taking responsibility for all additional widening that might be required on our side of the
property and on the Longview side will add to and enhance the landscape buffer to mitigate any impacts
that roadway may have on the neighborhood. The landscape elements in the buffer will mirror those of
the surrounding subdivisions. The church itself will grow and evolve over a long period of time and
facilities will grow as needed. The heart of the project will be a mixed use village at the intersection of CR
3.5 and 119 that will be compact and walkable by the residents and will include shops, offices, a small
chapel, recreational facilities, residences, etc. Residential areas will consist of three different kinds:
adults and senior citizens; single family, including patio homes, cottages, duplexes and triplexes, row
homes with a community center; and lots for single family dwellings north of the railroad tracks. The
project will develop over many years and as time goes by, additions will be made in all of these areas. In
the first five to seven years it is expected that the neighborhood to the north will develop first; then the
village center; some of the senior, age-restricted housing will be initiated; and finally the specialized,
church related facilities. Buildout on the northwest campus is reserved for the very last. Lifebridge
believes that this project does realize the vision for the MUD and is a tremendous opportunity to contribute
to the regional transportation network in this area and solve some long standing issues there. For the
church it provides for long term growth opportunity but also to be an integrated part of the community. It
allows for and necessitates a phased implementation which will happen over a long period of time. Mr.
Auer asked about the time line- phase one, two etc. Mr. Williams said they expect the first phase to be 5
to 7 years and it gets fuzzier after that depending on market conditions, church growth, funding etc. Mr.
Branham asked Mr. Williams to explain the exact changes they were requesting today as opposed to the
application of July, 2003. Mr. Williams responded that the transportation network changes were
significant on CR 3.5 and CR 5 as well as the realignment of CR 26 and the connection to Fairview. The
original church site was to the north and is now on the west side of site adjacent to realigned CR 3.5 and
CR 5.
Barb Brunk, Resource Conservation Partners, 2602 Clover Basin Drive, Longmont CO 80502, said the
only other significant change was that they now plan for homes of similar character next to existing
homes.
The Chair opened the public portion of the hearing.
Janice Bodley, 11803 North Beasley Road, Longmont CO 80504 said she is against the rezoning. She
chose to live at the Elms subdivision because of easy access to 1-25 and because Weld County provides
more individual freedom, because it is more agricultural, and because she felt her rights would be
protected here. Her realtor told her Lifebridge was a good neighbor but she no longer believes that.
Lifebridge has their own grand vision and is willing to do whatever necessary to achieve that vision.
Realignment of roads is a concern to her and she suggested the Planning Commissioners drive Hwy 66
when church is getting out before making their decision.
Brandon Fuller, 11691 Montgomery Circle, Longmont CO 80504, president of the HOA , Elms at
Meadowvale, restated their desire for no connectivity of Pearl Howlett Road Road and would not be a
good thing for the neighborhood.
Anda Brenholt, 11689 Montgomery Circle, Longmont CO 80504, objected to the time of the hearing and
the difficulty she encountered in making arrangements to attend an afternoon meeting. She had several
concerns: Lifebridge was not sensitive to her schedule in regards to the short notification she received
regarding meetings; because CR 3.5 north to HWY 66 is presently a dirt road, she feels the majority of
people will use CR 5 as it is paved; and lastly, does it make sense to change a road based on the needs
of one church.
Rick Archer, 11961 Victor Drive, Longmont CO 80504, Elms at Meadowvale, brought his daughter to
make the point that children have no input with decisions made today. He has traffic concerns for
neighborhood children as interconnectivity cuts the neighborhood in half. In his experience as a Thornton
10
police officer, interconnected subdivisions are negative because: auto/pedestrian accidents increase;
response times increase; burglaries, vehicle break-ins and sexual assaults increase because
interconnectivity avails the criminal element to get in and out easier. Increased traffic also makes it
difficult for homeowners to identify who is in their neighborhood.
Elizabeth Bauer, 11673 Montgomery Circle, Longmont CO 80504, said Lifebridge is concerned about
preserving their quality of life as they should be, but connectivity would affect the safety of the families in
the area, would ruin the complete structure and nature of the community, would go through green spaces,
and ruin their quality of life at present.
Roger Schmidt, 1873 Blue Mountain Road, Longmont CO 80504, prior to appearing before the Planning
Commission and the Board of County Commissioners, Lifebridge met with area property owners to
mitigate issues satisfactorily for both sides, but the new plan has changed the standards. He asks that
they go back to the original terms regarding buffers, height restrictions and building envelopes, and if they
could return to those terms, he would support the application. Mr. Schmidt also expressed concern about
development in the area and its long term effects. He encouraged the Planning Commission and the
Board of County Commissioners to make tough decisions, take hard steps as to future growth and
development, and to look carefully at transportation and long term traffic management.
Rita Rawson, 11753 Ashton Road, Longmont CO 80504, commends Lifebridge and their goals but not in
her backyard. She said she understood that the City of Longmont had originally planned this area for
open space and did not have the money so apparently money speaks. She resides within five hundred
feet of the proposed four lane highway and even with the addition of berms, that will not mitigate noise
and lights and everything else going on there. She said she is very much against this application.
Bill Morris, 1872 Blue Mountain Road, Longmont CO 80504, Meadowvale Farms, wanted to address
interconnectivity for Blue Mountain Road, which is a very narrow road and would be extremely congested
were it made a through road. In regard to the MUD plan, Mr. Morris cited the County Code, Section 26-1-
50 regarding goals and policies and said he does not believe the applicant is in compliance. He
addressed building height and the sixty six thousand feet of buildings that are allowed to be seventy five
feet high. He suggested the Planning Department require a reasonable exemption on the amount of
buildings that can be so high. Mr. Morris provided some pictures that were entered by Mr. Morrison as
evidence. The Chair asked Mr. Morris where he resided per the map. Mr. Auer asked Mr. Morris in terms
of subdivision build-out, is he one of the first or last. Mr. Morris said he was one of the first twenty five
percent.
Michael Donohoo, 11669 Montgomery Circle, Longmont CO 80504, said Pearl Howlett Road is a straight
shot, east/west road with no stop signs or speed bumps and creates a freeway to CR 5. Prior to approval
paving was required on CR 5 and is wondering what the status is on that. If it is not paved, people will
find other alternatives to get to their destination. He is against connectivity and would like the Planning
Commission to vote against it as well.
Peter Gries, 11685 Montgomery Circle, Longmont CO 80504, supported Rick Archer and his views
regarding the safety of their children and the livelihood of a lot of people in the subdivision. He also
requested no interconnectivity as Pearl Howlett Road divides his community in half. He also asked how
this amended PZ is less detailed than the original PZ applications. It is clear from the records that each
time Public Works said they favored interconnectivity and now they are saying they don't know, they don't
have enough detail. He then addressed legal issues and said the Planning Commission is being asked to
approve a request that clearly violates County and State laws. Mr. Gries asked that this application be
sent back for revision so that the violations of the law are corrected. Title 24, Article 6 is the Sunshine
Law to insure public participation. Mr. Gries expressed displeasure with the meeting being moved north
rather than re-scheduled at the south office where more people could attend. He brought up the lawsuit
regarding the previous hearing and the county not posting notice of the hearing. Mr. Gries quoted Mr.
Morrison from a newspaper article regarding this issue, as well as Debra Colish, attorney for Lifebridge,
who both said that because the hearing was well attended, there was no jurisdictional defect. To me they
are saying that since there was mass public participation, posting of signs doesn't matter. There are
barely two dozen people here today and this clearly does fulfill the intent of the State Sunshine Law. Weld
11
County is a democracy. It encourages public participation in these matters and therefore we need to re-
schedule this in southwest Weld where the landowners, the people who live down there, can participate in
the process. Finally, there is not just State law at issue here, but County Code. Chapter 26 is extremely
clear in the MUD with a map, which was not shown here, that clearly designates this area as residential.
Chapter 26 of the code told me that I could expect houses next to me. There was nothing in the code
telling me that massive seventy five foot auditoriums seating six or more thousand people would be
allowed,which will obviously have a massive property value impact, safety impact, and traffic impact
which is a blatant violation of the code. Mr. Gries said Monica Mika pointed out, to either the Greeley
Tribune or the Longmont Times Call after the last hearing, that by allowing rezoning to seventy five feet in
an area that the County Code specifies for residential development, will set a precedent for future
applicants. He said this will set a precedent for how residential zoning is defined and threatens every
Weld County property owner and is also a severe challenge to Weld County taxpayers. Lifebridge says in
their application that this will not represent a financil burden to the taxpayers of Weld County and it sights
the code, Section 2-22-150C., which says all new commercial development must pays its own way. They
do not provide any evidence at all to support their claim that this will not cost Weld County taxpayers. Mr.
Gries spoke about how Lifebridge has agreed to pay for paving only those roads immediately adjacent to
their neighborhood or accessing the Fairview development which is being developed by five Lifebridge
administrators. They have not agreed to pay for paving of CR 26 to the east or west of their development
and they have not paid for the most important one, CR 5 north of this newly realigned CR 3.5. This is
what Mead objected to, what I object to, and you as a Weld County taxpayer should object to. Lifebridge
has not agreed, specified or committed to pay for public infrastructure that will necessarily be part of an
urban development of this scale. All they are committing to pay for is infrastructure within their own
space. He concluded by saying to the Planning Commissioners that in the end these are ethical issues.
Please do not pass on to the county something that you do not believe is right and to vote with your
conscience.
Duane Leise, 2686 Pearl Howlett Road, Longmont CO 80504, said the original lawsuit is still in appeal
and asked why are we going through this particular exercise since we don't know the outcome of that
lawsuit. He thanked the commissioners for their service to the Planning Commission. He spoke about
the railroad crossing that will be moved from CR 3.5 over to Fairview and that it is virtually impossible to
get a new railroad crossing in Colorado, or anywhere in the United States. You can move them a mile or
so. Lifebridge now owns property around the Concepts Direct building and is moving the railroad crossing
and that is a big change as well as the continued oil and gas. In looking at sheet three of the overall plan,
there are two circles representing drilling sites, one under a proposed road. How will deeding of the
property be done underneath the new CR 3.5. Will it be deeded to county, and if so, doesn't this align the
county in overturning or trying to take away the mineral rights at that point, thereby solving some of the
problems Lifebridge is having with mineral rights on this site. The Oligarchy Ditch passes under CR 3.5
twice and runs close to the railroad. How will the deeding be done along and underneath the road and
between the tracks and the county road and who will pay the bill to service the Oligarchy Ditch. Also that
particular track is slated to be turned into light rail in the next fifteen years to service the Denver corridor,
so they want to go ahead and build houses very quickly and sell them so that in ten to fifteen years when
the railroad trains whistle every half hour, they will have sold their houses out. There is another important
point in regards to CR 3.5 and that is that nobody seems to care about Longview residents because face
it, they are the poor. They will have a heck of a time getting in and out of their property and they are just
flat not represented here today. Another interesting little detail of the application is that is has no traffic
studies for Sunday traffic. They will have parking, on the last rezoning, for five thousand cars. That's
seventeen miles of cars, and if they are going twenty miles per hour, that same column becomes fifty
miles long. The connectivity issue is not a matter of whether it's done or not, but that this entire
application will from now until forever have the pressure of connectivity through my neighborhood. I live
forty feet from this street which has a partition down the center of it which could easily convert it into a four
lane connector. Mr. Leise closed by again expressing his displeasure about not having a traffic study in
the application for Sundays, and said he guessed we lived in OZ.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Leise about Longview access and if this same thing were proposed for a subdivision,
wouldn't it be the same problem. Mr. Leise said no because there would be a large focused concentration
of usage. Mr. Miller asked it there wasn't the same concentration morning and night of people coming
and going to work. Mr. Leise agreed that there would be.
12
Chris Reigert, 11705 Pleasant Hill Road, Longmont CO 80504, told the commission that the church is
several miles away from Longmont and their assertion that they are part of the community would be
questionable. Surrounding areas contain one to two story buildings and five to seven story buildings do
not lend themselves to a residential community even if they attempt to mitigate this by the location of one
row of homes directly to the west of the Elms and Meadowvale Farms. He does not see how one row of
homes will mitigate a seven story building. How are we going to pay for the road paving, infrastructure,
fire and police, etc. when the largest part of the buildings will be church related and not generating tax
income for the county. Where we will get that large outlay of money. Connectivity shows Pearl Howlett
Road and Blue Mountain Road come to the same points even though they claim they will not go through.
That seems to indicate making those two roads go through. Mr. Miller said he does not condone the
connectivity of Pearl Howlett Road but the structure of Pearl Howlett, if he remembers correctly, that
street goes tight up to the end of the subdivision property line and was designed with connectivity in mind.
Mr. Reigert said it currently ends at Montgomery Circle and there is an open lot at that spot. Mr. Miller
asked if it was designed with connectivity in mind. Mr. Reigert said he could not vouch for what it was
designed for. Mr. Miller asked if there was a north/south street where Pearl Howlett continued from the
west. Mr. Reigert said yes.
Daniel Rice, 2094 Bryant Drive, Longmont CO 80504, said he has kids and connectivity will affect the
safety and change the whole feel of the neighborhood.
Ann Harton, 2080 Pearl Howlett Road, Longmont CO 80504, is also concerned for the safety of the
children. She asked the Commissioners to dig deep to look at what they can do for the neighborhood so
that Lifebridge can be a great community partner/neighbor so that the impact is minimized for her
neighborhood.
Ken Morey, 5415 Cedar Valley Drive, Loveland CO, owns property on Union Reservoir that is residential.
CR 26, if relocated, will cost him access to his property and building sites.
Jack Fowler, 5501 Jay Road, Boulder CO, a local real estate developer, owns forty plus acres surrounded
by Lifebridge. He believes that whenever there is development there is controversy but the stability of a
church contributes to the stability of the residential area and can only add to value of area, especially with
the church campus on one side of CR 3.5 and nicer homes on the other.
Gary Abussey, 201 Ridge Road, Boulder CO, agent for Sherrelwood Development, a residential
subdivision, which will be the closest neighbor to the largest of the proposed Lifebridge buildings and feels
Lifebridge has been an acceptable development neighbor. Though they have not agreed with everything
Lifebridge proposed, he feels they have been listened to and considered. It takes cooperation to do any
of these projects. Mr. Auer asked about the prospective time line for his development. Mr.Abussey said
he was presently working on concepts and has not yet made application so there is no timeline at the
present.
Janice Mosey, 11799 North Beasley Road, Longmont CO, has the last house next to the empty lot. When
she purchased her home, she knew the church was going in, but no mention was ever made regarding
connectivity. She works at home and does not want to look out her window at a four lane highway and
asks what this will do to her resale value.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting and asked the applicant if they had anything else they
wanted to add.
Dave Williams, the applicant's representative, came forward and said one thing he was supposed to
mention in his opening remarks and neglected to do so, was that Lifebridge absolutely supports the
neighbor's desire to not have Pearl Howlett Road connect through. Their plan reflects that and they have
no intention to do that from their perspective and would do so only if the county absolutely required it.
The Chair asked Mr. Schei about connectivity. Mr. Schei said connection of neighborhoods is the
premise and concept of inter-connectivity. Public Works has reviewed the concept plan, and inter-
13
connectivity for Pearl Howlett Road is not a requirement for this development to function and exist. The
Chair asked Mr. Schei if the Department of Public Works is recommending any connectivity. Mr. Schei
replied that they had not recommended any connectivity to the east. Mr. Morrison asked if others forms
of connectivit are still being recommended. Mr. Schei replied that the school district is requesting
connectivity for pedestrians. Mr. Williams said Lifebridge has planned their development to function
without connectivity and has no objection to working with bicycle and pedestrian connectivity in locations
that the neighbors feel is appropriate. Lifebridge does not intend physical connection for vehicles at Blue
Mountain Road. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Schei what he envisioned as the road improvements agreement
respective to this application and what would it encompass. Mr. Schei responded that Lifebridge will be
participating in improvements for CR 26 and improvements will also be implemented around re-designed
CR 3.5 making it an arterial status roadway with a traffic light installed on SH 119. Mr. Schei said Public
Works is thoroughly investigating and looking after the public's interest with respect to outside roadway
improvements for this subdivision. Mr. Miller asked Ms. Hatch to address the comment earlier about the
MUD maps the area that is currently being proposed as commercial was designated as residential. Ms.
Hatch replied there is a small red triangle in the yellow area which denotes a commercial area, so it is in
compliance with the structural plan. Mr. Miller asked if there is an area in the code which allows for
churches in the residential zone. Ms. Hatch replied that it is through the USR process. Mr. Auer
commented about traffic impacts and access to SH 119, that some impact will be in corridors on 66, and
asked Public Works for clarification on the impacts. Mr. Schei replied there will be a smaller proportion
coming and going from the north and those impacts will be assessed to the applicant or the developer
and could extend beyond the borders of the development. Mr. Holton asked about the conceptual plan
and what it means to the Planning Commission and will it come to them with a final plat or is it approved
by the Planning staff. Mr. Schei responded that it is anticipated the applicant will submit a final plat
application and probably a phase one portion. Public Works will review that for drainage and traffic
improvement requirements. At that time infrastructure agreements will be put together and requirements
made prior to the plat's recording. The applicant will submit in phases. Mr. Holton asked if the final plat
will be reviewed by staff. Ms. Hatch said the applicant is requesting the final plat be approved by staff but
the board has to approve that. Mr. Ochsner asked that the applicant address building height and the
relocation of some of the buildings. Barb Brunk showed the previous fly space and the change to the
maps and stressed that only one percent of the entire area (3.4 acres of a 314 acre site) is allowed to be
seventy five feet high and that these higher building areas are to be focused in the center of the site.
Other areas designate building heights at thirty, forty-five, fifty and sixty feet maximums. They have taken
a lot of consideration to step the heights away from the adjacent residential structures so that they are
focused in the center of the site and surrounded by the other buildings. Mr. Oschner asked for
clarification on where those tallest developments could occur and if this 3.14 acres could all be building.
Ms. Brunk replied that it is not the intention for this to be a three acre building. Mr. Williams said his
expectation is that they will not use all of that area for those heights but wanted to provide for some
flexibility as to where that can occur on the site. Mr. Branham asked if Chapter 23 of the code permits the
construction at these heights in those various areas. Ms. Hatch replied that because it is a PUD, it can
call out heights and give flexibility. In C-1 and C-2, the height is in the building code and is influenced by
overall building construction. In the R-1, R-2, and R-3 areas, Chapter 23 provides for a building height of
thirty feet. The R-4 district allows for a building height of forty-five feet and the estate district allows a
height of forty feet. Mr. Banham then asked if seventy-five feet was allowed. Ms. Hatch said the PUD
allows that height but buildings must also comply with the building code. Mr. Miller commented to Mr.
Williams about the percentage of the area above seventy-five feet, and that even though today's intent
may be that only architectural structures be up to seventy-five feet high, there could still be three acres of
seventy-five foot buildings. Mr. Miller would like that reduced to three or four percent of the area which
would still allow Lifebridge enough square footage to do what they wanted but would also alleviate the
concerns of the neighbors with regards to skyscrapers on the horizon. Mr. Williams said the plan was to
allow for flexibility to occur in the future and that he would have to consult with the other members of the
team to see if that is possible. Mr. Miller still wanted a significant reduction from the twenty percent
Lifebridge was asking for. He also said that this was still to be addressed with the final plan but the
concept needs to be addressed now to alleviate concerns. Mr. Spitzer asked about continued oil and gas
production and if they had made provisions to accommodate that. Ms. Brunk said there are two overlying
mineral lease holders on the property. Lifebridge now owns lease hold rights and mineral rights on the
north half of section five that is owned by the church. Encana will continue to operate the existing well on
the site and will cap and abandon it per state statute at such time the church needs the land for future
14
development. On the south side, Lifebridge owns the mineral rights and Patina owns the lease.
Lifegridge has a letter that we have agreed with Patina that either we will accommodate them for the three
envelopes they are allowed to have or will come to some agreement for directional drilling and there will
be some compensation involved, or we will purchase their lease hold. We are still waiting to hear from
Patina regarding a value. We will accommodate them or agree to purchase their rights. Mr. Spitzer
asked about building sites on CR 26 on Union Reservoir and will Longmont have to work out access
agreements. Ms. Brunk said Lifebridge must accommodate and maintain access if they relocate a county
road. If Longmont changes access, maintenance would fall to Longmont. Mr. Schei stated that
adequate access would be provided for parcel owners in that area.
The Chair asked Ms. Hatch to enter changes to the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.
Item W. on Page 12 be removed.
Number 4 on Page 12 add the words "may be" so it reads, "In accordance with Weld County Code
Ordinance 2005-7 approved June 1, 2005, should the plat not be recorded within the required thirty(30)
days from the date the Board of County Commissioners resolution a $50.00 recording continuance
charge may be added for each additional 3 month period."
Number 6 on Page 14 add a new item B stating, "Stormwater best management practices shall be in
place in accordance with the Weld County Code and Urban Drainage Standards. Silt fences shall be
maintained on the down gradient portion of the site during all phases of the site construction."
Michael Miller moved to accept staff changes to item W., page 12; number 4, page 12; and number 6,
page 14. Motion seconded and carried unanimously.
Michael Miller moved that a new item L be added to page 11 and re-letter accordingly, to read that'There
shall be no motor vehicle connectivity between the Lifebridge subdivision and the one to the east to
include Pearl Howlett Road and Blue Mountain Road." Chad Auer seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried.
Doug Oschner requested that a comment be included regarding the twenty per cent building height
envelope be reconsidered. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Morrision if it would be appropriate to request that the
final plat be reviewed by the Planning Commission or is it up to the Board of County Commissioners to
determine that. Mr. Morrison said it goes to the County Commissioners at the final plan or in the case of
a specific change of zone, it would be a planning staff decision.
Chad Auer asked if there would be future opportunity for public input on the final plan at the Board of
County Commissioner's hearing. Mr. Morrison said yes for the final plan for each of the phases. Site
plans in the commercial areas will be required in addition to that when specific users of commercial areas
are identified-that will be a staff process. Mr. Auer asked if a motion was needed to address Mr.
Oschner's concern. Mr. Morrison said if Mr. Oschner is that concerned, he may need to recommend
denial. The Planning Commission must take the application as it is presented and can't force the
applicant to change the nature of the application.
Mr. Miller said their concerns can be addressed through comments and the Board of County
Commissioners will see them. Mr. Morrison agreed that was proper procedure.
Mr. Schei asked the commissioners to change one word on page nine, item q, strike "a finalized"replace
with "an agreement".
Michael Miller motioned to change one word on page nine, item q, to strike "a finalized" replace with "an
agreement". Roy Spitzer seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
15
Mr. Morrison asked the Chair if he wants clarification on legal issues raised earlier. The Chair said he did.
The District Court upheld the decision of the County Commissioners. As things stand, pending the court
of appeals, the county decision has been upheld. Secondly, the challenge was not bought under the
Sunshine Act, therefore it has no relevance as to where you choose to conduct a public hearing. It had to
do with specific provisions of the code that were asserted were inadequately complied with. There was no
requirement that hearings be held close to the site under state statute or the county code. It is within your
discretion to continue it to a date where use of the southwest site could occur. Lastly, there is no
constitutional provision in the law for neighbors to have vested property rights in the zoning of adjacent
property. There is no constitutional or property interest in maintaining your neighbor's zoning as it exists
when you first acquire your property. That simply is not an accurate statement of the law. Nor is there a
vested or constitutional right in the process. What does exist is that it is correct that this process is
supposed to be part of public process and open meetings, duly noticed, but that is not a property interest
but rather a procedural opportunity to express someone's views and you do have to follow the rules when
changing the zoning on a property. That is as far as the neighborhood's legal interest goes in the
process.
Peter Gries spoke out of turn and said Mr. Morrison had challenged his honor. The Chair reminded Mr.
Gries that the public portion of the hearing was closed.
Ms. Hatch, clarifying an earlier question, said that in C-1 and C-2 there is no height limit so it falls back
onto the building code as to requirements.
The Chair asked applicant if he agrees with the changes made to the Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval. Mr. Williams replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Miller said he participated in the first go around of this application and he sees significant changes
which indicate Lifebridge has tried to alleviate the neighbor's concern, though all concerns will never be
alleviated. All we can do is listen to reasonable arguments and do what we can to mitigate concerns.
This is a large project and if were to have been presented in three different phases, there would not be so
many complaints. Bringing it in as one huge project scared a lot of people. He thought the application
had been well done, the Planning Commission has mitigated concerns, and he hoped it works out for
everyone.
Mr. Auer commended Public Works, pointed out the legitimate concerns regarding traffic, and
complemented their mitigation of these growth impacts. Mr. Auer appreciates the applicant's work on the
connectivity issue and their restriction to pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
The Chair said he thinks it is a good project, have considered neighbor's concerns, and it will definitely be
a major impact to area.
Mr. Spitzer said there has been a lot of hard work done on this project, many attempts made to consider
the overall neighborhood and existing development that surrounds it, and echoed Mr. Miller's and Mr.
Auer's comments.
Michael Miller moved that Case AmPZ-1004, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Chad Auer seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Tom Holton commented that he thinks something needs to be done with the seventy-five foot building
height limit to make sure that they don't put up a three acre skyscraper that is seventy feet high, and
hopes that the Board of County Commissioners look at that very hard.
Michael Miller said he would like to echo Mr. Holton's comment regarding building height that they can
16
significantly reduce that twenty percent they are requesting and still allow for the architectural elements
they are requesting.
Paul Branham commented that Lifebridge has proposed seventy-five feet of height for twenty per cent of
their main building. He concurs with the other Planning Commission members that based on the
concerns expressed by the citizens here today, Lifebridge consider reducing that percentage down to the
five or ten percent range if possible.
Meeting adjourned at 6:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
11)^t,Jh ` `lam
Donita May
Secretary
17
Hello