HomeMy WebLinkAbout20053235.tiff RESOLUTION OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Moved by Michael Miller that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County
Planning Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: 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
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 27-5-30 of the
Weld County Code.
2. The submitted materials are in compliance with Section 27-6-120 of the Weld County Code as
follows:
A. Section 27-6-120.8.6.a-The proposal is consistent with any intergovernmental agreement in
effect influencing the PUD and Chapters 19(Coordinated Planning Agreements), Chapter 22
(Comprehensive Plan), Chapter 23 (Zoning), Chapter 24 (Subdivision) and Chapter 26
(Mixed Use Development) of the Weld County Code. The proposed site is presently
influenced by an Inter-Governmental Agreement with the City of Longmont. The proposal is
consistent with the aforementioned documents as follows:
1. Ordinance 2002-7,Article XIV, Chapter 19,the Intergovernmental Agreement(IGA)
boundary with the City of Longmont presently influences this site. The Department
of Planning Services and the County attorney's Office determined when the
application was submitted and under review there was no IGA in place between
Weld County and the City of Longmont, therefore, it was determined by the Weld
County Attorney's Office that this application would not be subject to Ordinance
2002-7, Article XIV, Chapter 19, because the IGA was not adopted prior to the
submittal and the application for Sketch Plan, PK-1004.
2. Section 22-2-110.8 (UGB. Goal 2)—states, "Concentrate urban development in or
adjacent to existing municipalities or the 1-25 Mixed Use Development area and
maintain urban growth boundary areas that provide an official designation between
future urban and non-urban uses." The proposed PUD is located within the Mixed
Use Development(MUD) area, and is within the boundaries of(Ordinance 2002-7,
Article XIV, Chapter 19)the Intergovernmental Agreement(IGA)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 City is in support of the
Division of Wildlife recommendations for the Oligarchy Ditch. 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
EXHIBIT
2005-3235
kmPa *004
Resolution AmPZ-1004
Lifebridge Christian Church
Page 2
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.
3. Section 22-2-230.A (MUD Goal 1)—states, "To plan and to manage growth and to
provide for ease of inclusion in the 1-25 Mixed Use Development area and urban
development nodes so as to balance relevant fiscal, environmental, aesthetic and
economic components of the area." The proposal assures that new development
occurs in such a manner as to maintain an attractive working a living environment.
Further,all applicable standards and regulations, unless otherwise modified herein,
of Chapters 22, 23, 26, and 27 of the Weld County Code shall be integrated in the
design of the Final Plan and will be addressed through the Site Plan Review process.
The site design integrates residential, neighborhood commercial, environmental,
aesthetic, and economic components into a cohesive unit that is attractive and
compatible with surrounding land uses. Two letters have been received from
surrounding property owners with concerns regarding the height of the proposed
structures,visual obstruction and traffic patterns. The Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval ensure that there are adequate provisions for the protection
of health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and County.
4. Section 26-1-50.B.1.a. (MUD.C.1 Goal 1) states, "Establish a sense of community
identity within the Mixed Use Development area by planning and managing
residential, commercial, industrial, environmental, aesthetic, and economic
components of the area." The land uses shown on the Change of Zone plat reflect
the uses shown on the MUD Structural Land Use Map 2.1, dated September 8,
2004.
5. Section 26-1-50 (MUD.C Goal 4) states, "The coordination of municipal , county
regional and state growth policies an programs which includes the Mixed Use
Development area may be evaluated in order to minimize discrepancies,promote a
better understanding of growth dynamics in the area, avoid duplication of services
and provide economies of scale." The project is compatible with existing
surrounding uses in terms of general uses, building height, scale, density, traffic,
dust and noise. The PUD process allows for flexibility and variety needed to offer a
range of products, services, and uses.
6. Section 26-1-60(MUD.P Goal1)states, "Provide efficient and cost-effective delivery
of adequate public facilities an services which assure the health safety an general
welfare of the present and future residents of the area." The site is located in an
area where infrastructure needs will be provided when construction begins on the
project Lifebridge PUD. The application has signed agreements in place with St.
Vrain Sanitation District, Left Hand Water District and Longs Peak Water District.
The Weld County Attorney's Office has indicated that the agreements submitted by
the applicant are adequate.
7. Section 26-1-70 (T. Goal 2) states, "Promote a pedestrian trail system to service
transportation and recreation purposes within the Mixed Use Development area."
Several pedestrian and open space connections are proposed to connect the
components of the development and the surrounding properties and developments.
Resolution AmPZ-1004
Lifebridge Christian Church
Page 3
8. Section 26-1-70.8 (T. Goal 2) states, "New development within the Mixed Use
Development area shall provide a mechanism for balancing relevant fiscal and
economic components of transportation systems."An overall traffic impact analysis
has been prepare for this development,which will address cumulative development
impacts, created by this project and suggest appropriate project mitigation.
9. Section 22-3-50.8.1, (P.Goal 2) "Require adequate facilities and services to assure
the health, safety and general welfare of the present and future residents of the
County." 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. Mountain View Fire Protection District
has reviewed the proposal and does not object to the proposed changes.
B. Section 27-6-120.6.b- The uses which would be allowed in the proposed PUD will conform with
the Performance Standards of the PUD Zone District contained in Article II, Chapter 27 of the
Weld County Code.
Section 27-2-20,Access standards—The site layout will provide a network of local,collector and
arterial classified streets. A greenway / trail system is designed to connect the various
components of the development for pedestrian and bicycle traffic as well as provide recreational
opportunities. The project offers an opportunity to accommodate significant transportation
improvements in the area. County Road 3 '/z will connect to County Road 5 between Highway
119 and County Road 26. County Road 26 will be re-aligned north of the site, as part of the
proposed expansion of Union Reservoir. The existing railroad crossing at County Road 3''A will
be moved to Fairview Street to the west. A traffic signal will be installed at the intersection of
Highway 119 and Fairview Street as part of the Sandstone Ranch (City of Longmont)
improvements. The PUD site will be connected to the re-aligned County Road 3 '/z and 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 State Highway 119.
Section 27-2-40, Bulk requirements — The applicant has proposed a deviation from the bulk
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 County Road 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.
Section 27-2-70, Compatibility— The proposed site is located north of and adjacent to State
Highway 119, east of and adjacent to County Road 3 1/2 and south of and adjacent to the
realigned County Road 26. Vista Commercial Business Park is located to the south of the site
across State Highway 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 County Road 3 1/2.
The site is designated as residential on the 1-25 Mixed Use Development Area Structural Plan,
Resolution AmPZ-1004
Lifebridge Christian Church
Page 4
Map 2.1 Structural Land Use Map dated September 8, 2004. The applicant has met the
remaining performance standards as delineated in Section 27-2-10. The Conditions of Approval
and Development Standards ensure compliance with Sections 27-2-20 through 27-2-220 of the
Weld County Code.
C. Section 27-6-120.6.c - That the uses which would be permitted shall be compatible with the
existing or future development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing Zoning, and
with the future development as projected by Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code or master plans
of affected municipalities. The proposed PUD is located within the Mixed Use Development
(MUD) area, and is within the boundaries of (Ordinance 2002-7, Article XIV, Chapter 19) the
Intergovernmental Agreement(IGA)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 City is in support of the Division of Wildlife
recommendations for the Oligarchy Ditch. 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.
D. Section 27-6-120.6.d-That the PUD Zone District shall be serviced by an adequate water supply
and sewage disposal system in compliance with the Performance Standards in Article II the Weld
County Code. 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. The Weld County Attorney's Office has indicated that the
agreements submitted by the applicant are adequate for the Change of Zone.The Weld County
Department of Public Health and Environment has indicated in a referral response dated
September 12, 2005 that the application has satisfied Chapter 27 of the Weld County Code in
regard to water and sewer service.
E. Section 27-6-120.6.e - That street or highway facilities providing access to the property are
adequate in functional classification, width, and structural capacity to meet the traffic
requirements of the uses of the proposed PUD Zone District. The Weld County Public Works
Department has reviewed the proposal and is in support of this application with the conditions
outlined in their referral dated September 12,2005. Stop signs and street names will be required
at all intersections.
F. Section 27-6-120.6.f-An off-site road improvements agreement and an on-site improvements
agreement proposal is in compliance with Chapter 24 of the Weld County Code as amended and
a road improvements agreement is complete and has been submitted, if applicable. The Weld
County Public Works Department and Department of Planning Services shall require an
Improvements Agreement in accordance with Section 27-6-120.6.f of the Weld County Code for
improvements to Lifebridge PUD and all on-site and off-site improvements at the time of Final
Plat.
G. Section 27-6-120.6.g - That there has been compliance with the applicable requirements
contained in Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code regarding overlay districts, commercial mineral
deposits, and soil conditions on the subject site. The Weld County Department of Public Works
stated that an amended final drainage report and construction plans,conforming to the drainage
Resolution AmPZ-1004
Lifebridge Christian Church
Page 5
report,shall be approved prior to recording the Final Plat. The final drainage report shall research
and document FIRM Community Panel Maps to determine if a flood hazard exists.
H. Section 27-6-120.6.h - Consistency exists between the proposed zone district(s), uses, the
specific or conceptual development guide. The submitted Specific Development Guide does
accurately reflect the performance standards and allowed uses described in the proposed zone
district, as described previously. The applicant is requesting that the Final Plan be
administratively reviewed. The Department of Planning Services'staff concurs with this request.
This approval recommendation is based upon compliance with Chapter 27 requirements.
The 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 is conditional upon the following:
1. Prior to recording the Change of Zone plat:
A. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements (concerns) of Weld County Sheriff's
Office, as stated in the referral response dated August 22, 2005. Evidence of such shall be
submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of
Planning Services)
B. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements(concerns)of the Lower Oligarchy Ditch
Company, as stated in the referral response dated August 15, 2005. Evidence of such shall be
submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of
Planning Services)
C. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements (concerns)of the City of Longmont, as
stated in the referral response dated September 21,2005. Evidence of such shall be submitted
in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning
Services)
D. The applicant shall address the requirements(concerns)of the St.Vrain Valley School District,as
stated in the referral response dated September 6,2005. Evidence of such shall be submitted in
writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
E. The applicant shall address the requirements (concerns)of the St. Vrain Sanitation District, as
stated in the referral response dated September 8,2005. Evidence of such shall be submitted in
writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
F. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements (concerns) of the Town of Mead, as
stated in the referral response dated September 6,2005. Evidence of such shall be submitted in
writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
G. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements (concerns) of Omni/Trax — Great
Western Railroad, as stated in the referral response dated August 22, 2005. Evidence of such
shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department
of Planning Services)
H. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements (concerns) of the State of Colorado
Division of Wildlife, as stated in the referral response dated August 18, 2005. Evidence of such
shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department
of Planning Services)
Resolution AmPZ-1004
Lifebridge Christian Church
Page 6
I. The applicant shall address the requirements (concerns) of Department of Public Works, as
stated in the referral response dated September 12, 2005. Evidence of such shall be submitted
in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning
Services)
J. The applicant shall address the requirements (concerns) of Department of Public Health and
Environment, as stated in the referral response dated September 12, 2005. Evidence of such
shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department
of Planning Services)
K. The applicant shall address the requirements(concerns)of Department of Building Inspection,as
stated in the referral response dated September 6,2005. Evidence of such shall be submitted in
writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
L. The applicant shall be required to provide written and graphic evidence from the school district
and post office that the proposed mailbox location and bus shelter plan meets their design
standards and delivery requirements for the mailbox facility and the proposed school drop off/
pick up location shall be approved by the School District. Written evidence of compliance with
their standards and requirements shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services.
Further, evidence shall be provided that each facility meets the intent of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) for access. The Department of Building Inspection shall review the
proposed structure for compliance with all applicable codes as warranted. Evidence of approval
shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
M. The applicant shall provide the Department of Planning Services with a sign plan that conforms
with Chapters 23, 26 and 27 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
N. The applicant shall address the requirements (concerns) of Colorado Department of
Transportation,as stated in the referral response dated October 6,2005. Evidence of such shall
be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of
Planning Services and the Colorado Department of Transportation)
O. The applicant shall provide the Department of Planning Services with a request to vacate a
portion of County Road 3 '/: north of the railroad and south of County Road 26 for review and
approval by the Board of County Commissioners. (Department of Planning Services)
P. The applicant shall provide the Department of Planning Services with written evidence of a right-
of-way dedication for the property located in the southeast corner (parcel number 1313 04
000057 legal description of part NW4NW4 Section 4, T2N, R68W Lot A RE-2540) for the re-
alignment of County Road 3 '/2 with County Road 26 and County Road 5. (Department of
Planning Services)
Q. The applicant shall submit to the Department of Planning Services evidence of an agreement or
PUC application between the Great Western/Omni Trax Railroad, Department of Public Works,
and the City of Longmont regarding the railroad crossing and re-alignment. (Department of
Planning Services)
R. The applicant shall contact the Colorado Department of Transportation and provide written
documentation indicating that their concerns have been addressed. (Department of Planning
Services)
Resolution AmPZ-1004
Lifebridge Christian Church
Page 7
S. The plat shall be amended to include the following:
1. All pages of the plat shall be labeled AMPZ-1004. (Department of Planning Services)
2. The applicant shall adhere to the plat requirements in preparation of the Change of Zone
plat per Section 23-2-690 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
3. The Weld County's Right to Farm shall be placed on the plat,Appendix 22-E of the Weld
County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
4. The applicant shall contact the Department of Transportation regarding the future right-of-
way for State Highway 119 and delineated it as existing and future right-of-way for future
expansion of State Highway 119. (Department of Planning Services)
5. County Road 3 /2 is designated on the Weld County Road Classification Plan as a 4-lane
minor arterial road, which requires 110 feet of right-of-way at full build out. The applicant
shall verify the existing right-of-way and the documents creating the right-of-way. If the
right-of-way cannot be verified, it shall be dedicated. This road is maintained by Weld
County. (Department of Public Works)
6. County Road 26 is designated on the Weld County Road Classification Plan as a 4-lane
major arterial road, which requires 120 feet of right-of-way at full build out. The applicant
shall verify the existing right-of-way and the documents creating the right-of-way. If the
right-of-way cannot be verified, it shall be dedicated. This road is maintained by Weld
County. (Department of Public Works)
7. County Road 5 is designated on the Weld County Road Classification Plan as a 2-lane
local road,which requires 60 feet of right-of-way at full build out. The applicant shall verify
the existing right-of-way and the documents creating the right-of-way. If the right-of-way
cannot be verified, it shall be dedicated. This road is maintained by Weld County.
(Department of Public Works)
8. Fairview Road is designated on the Weld County Road Classification Plan as a 4-lane
arterial road, which requires 120 feet of right-of-way at full build out. The applicant shall
verify the existing right-of-way and the documents creating the right-of-way with the City of
Longmont. This road is maintained by Longmont. (Department of Public Works)
9. Intersection sight distance triangles at the development entrance will be required to be
shown on the plat. All landscaping within the triangles must be less then 3%feet in height
a maturity. (Department of Public Works)
10. The Road Cross Section shall be amended to show a 15-inch diameter Corrugated Metal
Pipe (CMP)culvert as per Weld County Code. (Department of Public Works)
11. The internal local roadway right-of-way shall be 60-feet in width including cul-de-sacs with a
65-foot radius and dedicated to the public. The internal collector roadway right-of-way shall
be 80-feet in width and dedicated to the public. (Department of Public Works)
12. The Lower Oligarchy ditch must be appropriately labeled and dimensioned including
setbacks. (Department of Public Works)
Resolution AmPZ-1004
Lifebridge Christian Church
Page 7
13. The plat shall delineate the 400'x 400'and the 800'x 800'drilling envelope locations per
state statute. (Department of Planning Services)
2. The Change of Zone is conditional upon the following and that each shall be placed on the Change of
Zone plat as notes prior to recording:
A. The site specific development plan is for a 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 as indicated in the application materials on file in the
Department of Planning Services and subject and governed by the Conditions of Approval stated
hereon and all applicable Weld County Regulations. (Department of Planning Services)
B. The Open Space and Agricultural Lots are non-buildable for residential structures or structures
providing habitable space. (Department of Planning Services)
C. Water service shall be obtained from the Left Hand Water District and Longs Peak Water District.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
D. Sewer service shall be obtained from the St. Vrain Sanitation District. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
E. Permanent restroom and handwashing facilities shall be provided within easy access of the
public gathering areas. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
F. If required, the applicant shall obtain a storm water discharge permit from the Water Quality
Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment. Silt fences
shall be maintained on the down gradient portion of the site during all parts of the construction
phase of the project. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
G. During development of the site, all land disturbances shall be conducted so that nuisance
conditions are not created. If dust emissions create nuisance conditions, at the request of the
Weld County Health Department,a fugitive dust control plan must be submitted. (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
H. In accordance with the Regulations of the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission any
development that disturbs more than 5 acres of land must incorporate all available and practical
methods that are technologically feasible and economically reasonable in order to minimize dust
emissions. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
I. If land development creates more than a 25-acre contiguous disturbance, or exceeds 6
months in duration,the responsible party shall prepare a fugitive dust control plan,submit an air
pollution emissions notice,and apply for a permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
J. A Homeowner's Association shall be established prior to the sale of any lot. Membership in
the Association is mandatory for each parcel owner. The Association is responsible for liability
insurance, taxes and maintenance of open space, streets, private utilities and other facilities.
Open space restrictions are permanent. (Department of Planning Services)
K. Weld County's Right to Farm as delineated on this plat shall be recognized at all times.
(Department of Planning Services & Department of Public Health and Environment)
L. Intersection sight distance triangles at the development entrance will be required. All landscaping
within the triangles must be less then 3'/z feet in height a maturity. (Department of Public Works)
Resolution AmPZ-1004
Lifebridge Christian Church
Page 9
M. All signs including entrance signs shall require building permits. Signs shall adhere to the
approved sign plan. (Department of Planning Services)
N. Installation of utilities shall comply with Section 24-9-10 of the Weld County Code.(Department of
Planning Services)
O. Building permits shall be obtained prior to grading or the construction of any building or structure.
Building permits are also required for signs and structures such as bus shelters if provided.
(Department of Building Inspection)
P. A plan review is required for each building. Plans shall bear the wet stamp of a Colorado
registered architect or engineer. Two complete sets of plans are required when applying for each
permit. (Department of Building Inspection)
Q. Buildings shall conform to the requirements of the codes adopted by Weld County at the time of
permit application. Current adopted codes include the 2003 International Building Code, 2003
International Residential Code,2003 International Mechanical Code,2003 International Plumbing
Code, 2002 National Electrical Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code. (Department of
Building Inspection)
R. Each building will require an engineered foundation based on a site-specific geotechnical report
or an open hole inspection performed by a Colorado registered engineer. Engineered
foundations shall be designed by a Colorado registered engineer. (Department of Building
Inspection)
S. Building height shall be measured in accordance with the applicable Building Code for the
purpose of determining the maximum building size and height for various uses and types of
construction and to determine compliance with the Bulk Requirements from Chapter 23 of the
Weld County Code. Building height shall be measured in accordance with Chapter 23 of the
Weld County Code in order to determine compliance with offset and setback requirements. Off-
set and setback requirements are measured to the farthest projection from the building.
(Department of Building Inspection)
T. The property owner shall be responsible for compiling with the Performance Standards of
Chapter 27, Article II and Article VIII, of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning
Services)
U. Personnel from Weld County Government shall be granted access onto the property at any
reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the
Development Standards stated herein and all applicable Weld County regulations.(Department of
Planning Services)
V. The site shall maintain compliance at all times with the requirements of the Weld County
Departments of Public Works, Public Health and the Environment, and Planning Services, and
adopted Weld County Code and Policies. (Department of Planning Services)
W. The applicant shall comply with Section 27-8-50 Weld County Code,as follows: Failure to submit
a Planned Unit Development Final Plan- If a PUD Final Plan application is not submitted within
two (2) years of the date of the approval of the PUD Zone District, the Board of County
Commissioners shall require the landowner to appear before it and present evidence
substantiating that the PUD project has not been abandoned and that the applicant possesses
the willingness and ability to continue with the submission of the PUD Final Plan. The Board may
Resolution AmPZ-1004
Lifebridge Christian Church
Page 10
extend the date for the submission of the PUD Final Plan application and shall annually require
the applicant to demonstrate that the PUD has not been abandoned. If the Board determines that
conditions or statements made supporting the original approval of the PUD Zone District have
changed or that the landowner cannot implement the PUD Final Plan, the Board of County
Commissioners may, at a public hearing revoke the PUD Zone District and order the recorded
PUD Zone District reverted to the original Zone District. (Department of Planning Services)
X. The PUD Final Plan shall comply with all regulations and requirements of Chapter 27 of the Weld
County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
3. The Change of Zone plat map shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services'for recording
within thirty(30)days of approval by the Board of County Commissioners.With the Change of Zone plat
map, the applicant shall submit a digital file of all drawings associated with the Change of Zone
application. Acceptable CAD formats are .dwg, .dxf,and .dgn (Microstation); acceptable GIS formats
are .shp (Shape Files),Arclnfo Coverages and Arclnfo Export files format type is .e00. The preferred
format for Images is .tif(Group 4) ... (Group 6 is not acceptable). (Department of Planning Services)
4. 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.
5. At the time of Final Plan submission:
A. Easements shall be shown in accordance with County standards and/or Utility Board
recommendations, and dimensioned on the final plat. Easements shall follow rear and side lot
lines and shall have minimum total width of twenty (20) feet apportioned equally on abutting
properties. Where front line easements are required, a minimum of fifteen (15) feet shall be
allocated as a utility easement. (Department of Planning Services)
B. The applicant shall submit to the Department of Planning Services a copy of the Restrictive
Covenants and Home Owners Association Incorporation paperwork for Project Lifebridge
Christian Church PUD for review by the Weld County Attorney's Office. Any changes requested
by the Weld County Attorney's Office shall be incorporated. (Department of Planning Services)
C. The applicant shall provide an Improvements Agreement according to Policy Regarding Collateral
for Improvements. This agreement must be reviewed by the Department of Public Works, the
Department of Planning Services and shall be approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
(Departments of Planning Services and Public Works)
D. The applicant shall submit to Public Works a stamped, signed and dated final plat drawings
and roadway/construction and grading plan drawings for review. Construction details must be
included. (Department of Public Works)
E. The applicant shall submit to Public Works an amended traffic impact study. The traffic
impact stuffy conducted by Matthew J. Delich P.E. dated January 2005 does not graphically
match with the proposed land use plan. (Department of Public Works)
F. Stop signs and street name signs will be required at all intersections and shown on the final
roadway construction plans. (Department of Public Works)
Resolution AmPZ-1004
Lifebridge Christian Church
Page 11
G. The applicant shall submit a final drainage report stamped, signed and dated by a professional
engineer licensed in the State Colorado. The 5-year storm and 100-year storm drainage studies
shall take into consideration off-site flows both entering and leaving the development. Increased
runoff due to development will require detention of the 100-year storm developed condition while
releasing the 5-year storm existing condition. (Department of Public Works)
H. The final drainage report shall include a flood hazard review documenting any FEMA defined
floodways. The engineer shall reference the specific FIRM Community Panel Map panel number,
including date. The development site shall be located on the copy of the FEMA map.
(Department of Public Works)
I. Final drainage construction and erosion control plans (conforming to the drainage report)
stamped, signed and dated by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado.
(Department of Public Works)
J. The applicant shall submit a deed for recording with the Final Plat to the Department of Planning
Services that the open space and mineral rights are deeded to the Home Owners Association.
(Department of Planning Services)
K. The applicant shall provide an Open Space/Landscape Plan per Section 24-3-50.G of the Weld
County Code for review and approval. (Department of Planning Services)
L. The applicant shall provide additional information pertaining to the plant materials, including
common, botanical and species names, size at installation and any additional information
deemed necessary, if any. (Department of Planning Services)
M. The applicant shall address the on-site landscape treatment, including the proposed uses
associated with the agricultural outlot. (Department of Planning Services)
N. The applicant shall submit a re-vegetation plan of all disturbed areas disturbed areas during
construction. The plan shall include information regarding plant type, installation methods and
maintenance. (Department of Planning Services)
O. The applicant shall demonstrate how the proposed plant material will be watered. Further,
the applicant shall provide evidence that the tap from Left Hand Water District and Longs Peak
Water District is permitted to provide irrigation water to the landscaped areas. (Department of
Planning Services)
P. The applicant shall submit a time frame for construction in accordance to Section 27-2-200 of the
Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
Q. The Weld County Building Technician will provide addresses at the time of Final Plat. The
subdivision street name and lot addresses shall be submitted to the Mountain View Fire
Protection District,the Weld County Sheriffs Office,Ambulance provider,and the Post Office for
review. Written evidence of approval shall be submitted to the Weld County Department of
Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
Resolution AmPZ-1004
Lifebridge Christian Church
Page 12
R. Prior to recording the Final Plat the applicant shall present a unanimous petition of all landowners
and residents registered to vote in the State of Colorado thus qualifying the Development
for inclusion into the Southwest Weld County Law Enforcement Authority (SWCLEA) (if it has
been created) or for creation of a separate Law Enforcement Authority (LEA) (if it was not
created). A LEA is a taxing unit with a maximum mill levy of 7 mills created for the purpose of
providing additional law enforcement by the county sheriff to the residents of the developed or
developing unincorporated Weld County. The revenues would be available initially to provide
directed patrols and eventually to provide additional deputies to carry out those activities within
the LEA. This is intended to offset the demand for law enforcement generated by increased
population densities. (Department of Planning Services)
S. The applicant shall submit a digital file of all drawings associated with the Final Plan application.
Acceptable CAD formats are.dwg, .dxf,and .dgn(Microstation);acceptable GIS formats are.shp
(Shape Files), Arclnfo Coverages and Arclnfo Export files format type is .e00. The preferred
format for Images is .tif(Group 4) ... (Group 6 is not acceptable). (Dept. of Planning Services)
6. Prior to construction:
A. Stop signs and street name signs will be required at all intersections. (Department of Public
Works)
B. 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.
Motion seconded by Chad Auer.
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
Bruce Fitzgerald
Doug Ochsner
Chad Auer
James Welch
Tom Holton
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer
Paul Branham
The Chair declares the resolution passed and orders that a certified copy be placed in the file of this case
to serve as a permanent record of these proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Donita May, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the
above mentioned and foregoing resolution, is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of
Weld County, Colorado, adopted on October 18, 2005.
Dated the 18th of October, 2005.
AAD(NDonita May
Secretary
1G /8
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:
APPLICANT: _•'� -
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, do 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
EXHIBIT
C
p• #1004
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,
Donita May •
Secretary
17
Hello