The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20053242.tiff LifeBridge Christian - AmPZ-1004 Page 1 of 1 Jacqueline Hatch From: Hice-Idler, Gloria [Gloria.Hice-Idler@DOT.STATE.CO.US] Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 9:40 AM To: Jacqueline Hatch Cc: toddb@dgmllc.com Subject: LifeBridge Christian -AmPZ-1004 Jacqueline, I've had the opportunity to review the submittal and traffic study for the above proposal. The traffic study indicates a desire for a right-in/right-out access off of SH 119. After reviewing the traffic study and based upon the State Highway Access Code standards, CDOT cannot agree to this access. The reasons are as follows: • It would appear that appropriate auxiliary lanes cannot be constructed to the required standards, and CDOT would not be agreeable to a waiver conditon. • This is an EX highway. Any additional access other than the general street system would need to prove that allowance of the access improves the traffic flow on SH 119. It is our opinion that this access will have no significant benefit to the traveling public. The applicant will be responsible for any necessary improvements to the SH 119/CR 3 1/2 intersection. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Gloria Hice-Idler Access Manager CDOT Region 4 1420 2nd Street Greeley CO 80631 (970) 350-2148 EXHIBIT 2005-3242 10/11/2005 SEP.21.2005 2:05PM NO.882 P.2/10 Weld County Referral PLANNING DIVISION August 9, 2005 lungeCOLORADO• �litatip The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review; Applicant _ _ Lifebridge Christian Church Case Number AmPZ-1004 Plea �r . r O.2005 Planner Jacqueline Hatch Project Amended change of designated uses for Lifebridge Pup with E, R-1, R-2, R-3, R- 4, C-1 &C-2 uses and continued cll and gas production, Legal Lot B of RE-1309;and part of Section 5,T2N, R6BW of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Location North of and adjacent to State Hwy 119;south of and adjacent to CR 26; and west and east of CR 3.5. Parcel Number 1313 05 000062 & 1313 05 000066& 1313 05 000067 i The application Is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. if you have any further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please note that new Information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information,please call the Department of Planning Services. Weld County Planning Commission Hearing Of applicable) October 18, 2005 CI We have reviewed the request and find that itdoes/does not comply With our Comprehensive Plan We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our Interests, See attached letter. Comments: • Signature &-W\ 40SCAL(1L Date 9-Z i -oc- Agency CA-1n 0 .fDY1(in ll'I-t +Weld County Planning Dept. +018 10ol Street,Greeley,CO.80631 4(970)353.8100 ext.3540 t(970)304440$fax SEP.21.2005 2 06P N0.882 P.3/10 110,04) Cara DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION Civic Center Complex / Longmont, CO 80501 �' to . N.90 (303) 651.8330 / Fax # (303) 651-8696 E�mafi: /onomontp/anningaaci,/ongmont.eo,us Web site: http://www,cl.lonomont.co.us September 20,2005 Jacqueline Hatch Weld County Planning Department 918 10'h Street Greeley, CO 80631 RE; Lifebridge Christian Church, Change of Designated Uses(Case Number AmPZ-1004) Dear Ms.Hatch, Thank you for sending the referral concerning the Lifebridge planned unit development amended change of designated uses application to the City of Longmont. The City of Longmont has provided comments on this project throughout Weld County's review process, the last of which were provided in February of 2005 on the amended sketch plan. The current referral is for a change of designated uses on the property. The proposal is generally consistent with materials received as part of the amended sketch plan earlier this year. it appears that several of the City's comments from February have been addressed. Thank you. There are a few remaining concerns from the City's perspective. These are outlined below. The City has also been involved in ongoing discussions with the applicant and the County regarding future annexation into the City of Longmont. 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. General Comments The City has provided comments concerning drainage to the County and the applicant, and has also discussed these concerns with several adjacent property owners. These comments, included in correspondence from June 2003, still apply to this project. A copy of this correspondence has been attached for your reference. Some of the maps and plans contained in this packet depict the City limits for Longmont. The City requests that this information be updated to reflect recent annexations. Transportation Many of the comments provided by the City regarding the proposed transportation system have beep addressed. Remaining concerns relate to how bicycle lanes connect on the site. The street section details SEP.21.2005 2:06PM N0.882 P.4/10 included on Sheet 10 indicate that a Collector Parkway Street with no bike lanes will transition from an Arterial Boulevard into a Collector Park-Side Street, which both have bike lanes, back to a Collector Parkway Street without bike lanes. The City requests that bicycle lanes be included along the proposed collector. A five foot bike lane in both directions could be aresommndated by using space currently shown as medians,tree lawns and eight foot sidewalks. Also, the City suggests the applicant reconsider diagonal parking backing into a potential bike lane. This may potentially be accomplished by providing parallel parking or possibly"back-in"diagonal parking as an alternative, Open Space and Wildlife Management Since this development is directly south of an open space agricultural operation, the City would request that Weld County support and require a statement regarding the"right to farm," so that current and future agricultural operations are not adversely impacted by urban development in this area. Several aspects of this proposal have been clarified with respect to the Oligarchy Ditch that runs through the property. It is the City's understanding that an agreement to pipe the ditch through the site has been reached. The City of Longmont's Draft Wildlife Management Plan is intended to assist the City in meeting goals of wildlife protection and habitat preservation. The City has had an opportunity to review comments made by the Colorado Division of Wildlife regarding the Lifebridge project. Based on these factors, the City would recommend that the open irrigation ditch with native vegetation be maintained, along with a setback. This would offer important ecologic benefits to the site, as well as enhancing additional areas for the enjoyment of the site's residents and visitors. This recommendation is consistent with the Colorado Division of Wildlife's recommendations and the City of Longmont's Draft Wildlife Management Plan. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this referral. Should you have any questions, please contact me at(303)651-8336 or erin.fosdick(alci.longmont.co.us. Sincerely, Erin Fosdick Planner Attachment: Storm drainage comments,dated June 10,2003 XC: Lifebridge PUD—Change of Designated Uses(file#2050-5g4) Phil DelVecchio, Community Development Director Brad Schol,Planning and Development Services Director SEP.21.2005 2:06PM N0.882 P.5/10 M City of Longmont Storm Drainage Comments LifeBridge Christian Church PUD June 10,2003 1. The box culvert under State Highway 119 for Spring Gulch No.2 (passes through Sandstone Ranch)was constructed with the capacity to only pass the 50-year storm event,about 2,500 cfs, since this was a rural area in 1977 when the culvert was replaced. The remaining 2,657 cfs does not overtop State Highway 119 but follows the highway on the north side of the mad east to the St.Vrain River. The plans should identify this flow and show how it affects the property. Our estimates show a 500 foot wide floodplain on the north side of State Highway 119 flowing east to St. Voila River. 2. The City of Longmont will be providing the NPD>3S requirements for the urban areas of'Weld County adjacent to the City(by agreement). This property should include water quality ponds and other erosion control best management practices as described in Urban Drainage Volume 3 and CDOT's "Erosion Control and Stormwater Quality Guide." 3. Off-site flows from Concepts Direct and Longview subdivisions must be passed through this property. They are part of this drainage basin that flows to St. Vrain River. 4. Please be aware that CDOT is reluctant to allow drainage channels within their right- of-way and that the release of stormwater from this site to the north right-of-way of State Highway 119 requires approval from CDOT. 5. Oligarchy Ditch is identified as an outfall for some of the storm drainage water. The capacity of the ditch must be checked and approval for the release must be obtained from the ditch comany. 6. This application proposes an urban density development. The drainage improvements such as curb and gutter and storm sewer system should be designed as an urban street section rather than a rural housing development style. 7. City of Longmont Storm Drainage Criteria and Standards should be used for design and construction since County criteria and standards are not designed for urban development. If you have any questions on these comments,please contact David Hollingsworth, Senior Civil Engineer, at 303-651-8328, or e-mail at david.hollingsworth©ci.longmont.co.us Weld County Referral IAugust 9, 2005 11 C. COLORADO The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant Lifebridge Christian Church Case Number AmPZ-1004 Please Reply By September 6, 2005 Planner Jacqueline Hatch Project Amended change of designated uses for Lifebridge PUD with E, R-1, R-2, R-3, R- 4, C-1 &C-2 uses and continued oil and gas production. Legal Lot B of RE-1389; and part of Section 5, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Location North of and adjacent to State Hwy 119; south of and adjacent to CR 26; and west and east of CR 3.5. Parcel Number 1313 05 000062 & 1313 05 000066 & 1313 05 000067 The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please note that new information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of Planning Services. Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) October 18, 2005 ❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan ❑ We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. a See attached letter. Comments: PLaA3 t 5ef *1--f-Acake \� Signature ("JP_________etkDate 8/ 1S/ O'er Agency / 041 c.`62 0) 1 loAk C f1'-( D 1 I C (-1- CO"'I 1401/44 y +Weld County Planning Dept. +918 10th Street,Greeley,CO.80631 +(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +(970)304-6498 fax Weld County Planning Department GREELEY OFFICE AUG 1 6 2005 RECEIVED August 15, 2005 Jacqueline Hatch Weld County Department of Planning Services 918 10`" Street Greeley, Co. 80631 Re.: Lifebridge Christian Church Case Number AmPZ-1004 Dear Mrs. Hatch: The ditch of the Lower Oligarchy Ditch Company runs through the center of the proposed development. The Board of Directors of the Ditch Company respectfully requests a set of specific plans as to how the development will impact the ditch. Thank you for your cooperation with this request. Sincerely, Dan Grant Secretary/Treasurer Lower Oligarchy Ditch Company (303) 678-4179 P.O. Box 1826 Longmont, Co. 80502-1826 • Weld County Referral Weld County Planning Department GREELEY OFFICE August 9, 2005 AUG 2 2 2005 C. RECEIVED COLORADO The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant Lifebridge Christian Church Case Number AmPZ-1004 Please Reply By September 6, 2005 Planner Jacqueline Hatch Project Amended change of designated uses for Lifebridge PUD with E, R-1, R-2, R-3, R- 4, C-1 & C-2 uses and continued oil and gas production. Legal Lot B of RE-1389; and part of Section 5, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Location North of and adjacent to State Hwy 119; south of and adjacent to CR 26; and west and east of CR 3.5. Parcel Number 1313 05 000062 & 1313 05 000066 & 1313 05 000067 The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please note that new information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of Planning Services. Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) October 18, 2005 ❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan ❑ We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. if See attached letter. Comments: Signature M70 Date Arc/cos; £4 aaos- Agency C S +Weld County Planning Dept. 0918 10'^Street,Greeley,CO.80631 6(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +(970)304-6498 fax Weld County Sheriffs Office M e mo To: Jacqueline Hatch From: Ken Poncelow Date: August 22,2005 Re: AmPZ-1004 The Sheriffs Office approves this plan. Please notify the developer/owner that the Sheriffs Office would be willing to assist in the development of a security plan for the site free of charge. If this is of interest, please have them contact me. The Sheriffs Office will also be requesting a special taxing district for this development. 1 SOUTH WELD ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTION 2409 CR 24.5 Longmont , CO 80664 (set Q PHONE (720)652-42100 FAX (720)652-4211 C. COLORADO September 6, 2005 Weld County Department of Planning Services Attention: Jacqueline Hatch Applicant: Lifebridge Christian Church Project: Mixed use development Case: AmPZ: 1004; BCS-??& BCS-???? Legal: Lot B of RE-1389; and part of Section 5, T2N, R68W of the 6`h P.M., Weld County CO.. Location: North of and adjacent to State Hwy 119; South of and adjacent to CR 26; and West and East of CR 3.5. Parcel #: 1313 05 000062, 1313 05 000066 & 1313 05 000067 Based on information provided he following Building Code comments are offered for AmPZ: 1004. 1 Individual building permits will be required for each structure proposed on the campus with applications to include the following: a Two complete sets of building plans to include site,storm drainage,foundation,structural architectural, mechanical, plumbing & electrical. b. A completed code analysis--Weld County Form—reflecting the intended usage within the proposed structure to include: location of any fire areas, fire barrier walls, occupancies and uses within the building,type of construction and sprinklering,as well as a roof data sheet—Weld County Form. c Application shall include a statement and description of the nature and type of intended usage for each building, ie. Single family, multi-family, care facility, assembly, educational/recreational/social, mercantile,office/service and manufacturing or storage. 2 All foundation work shall be engineered and based on a soils report to be included with the permit construction documents. 3 All uses for the building will be classed for there occupancy based upon chapter 3 of 2003 IBC and the 2003 IRC—where applicable--at the time of the building permit submittal. Based on the proposed usages the buildings may be classed anywhere from a R-1, R-2, R-3 or R-4 for the living units. Social religious, recreational and educational may be classed in the appropriate A or E occupancy use. Commercial and services will most likely be classed as a B or M usage. Any storage or light manufacturing will fall in to a F or S occupancy class. 4 Buildings may or not be required to be sprinklered. Determination for sprinklering of building will be determined at plan review subject to building occupancy classification, building size, type of construction and fire areas if used. 5 All portions of the site facility are required to be accessible in accordance with Chapter 11 of the IBC. Individual building will have to meet accessibility requirements based on each building's usage in accordance with Chapter 11 of the2003 IBC. 2 6 Issuance of building permits will be granted based application materials and construction documents showing compliance with the building Code for the occupancy classification and usage, the type of construction and the allowable area and location on property in conjunction with all fire, life, safety and public well being codes of the 2003 ICC family of codes. 7 Prior to the issuance of any building permit approval must be granted from all appropriate agencies involved in the development and building project to include: Planning, Public works, Health Department, Water& Sewer Districts, Fire District and any other governing agency. If there are any questions regarding the above, please feel free to contact me regarding any Building Code Concerns in reference to your project. Respectfully, Dennis Renley, Plans Examiner Weld County Planning & Building Inspection Department m:\denn is\wordfilesvefferals\2005\ampzref.1004.doc Weld County Planning Department GREELEY OFFICE SEP 1 3 2005 MEMORANDUM RECEIVED WI ' TO: Jacqueline Hatch, Planning; rtment DATE: 12-September-2005 l D�• FROM: Peter Schei,P.E., Publ ks Department COLORADO SUBJECT: AmPZ-1004 LifeBridge (Amended Zone Change) Weld County Public Works Department has reviewed this Amended Zone Change plan request. Comments made during this phase of the subdivision process may not be all-inclusive, as other concerns or issues may arise during the remaining application process. Comments ❑ The Department of Public Works has completed referral comments all inclusive for this proposed development. (The referral dated 02-Sep-2005 by Public Works may be discarded as this completed referral includes those comments as well.) ❑ Public Works has reviewed drawings titled: Detailed Change of Zone Plan for Project LifeBridge PUD dated May 13, 2005, by Tetra Tech RMC. External Roadways: ❑ All public roads shall be designed and constructed according to County MUD standards(typically CDOT and AASHTO). o The engineer has agreed to build public roads according to County standards,which is acceptable to Public Works. -- ❑ SH 119 is under the jurisdiction and maintenance of Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) adjacent to this development. The applicant shall verify the existing right-of-way and the documents creating the right-of-way shall be noted on the change of zone plat. If the right-of-way cannot be verified, it will be dedicated on the final plat. o SH 119 is paved. The applicant shall coordinate with CDOT concerning right-of-way and any required roadway improvements with the change of zone application submittal. • CDOT's response dated March 7`", 2005, states that generally no private access (the right-in / right-out access proposed by LifeBridge PUD) is allowed from SH 119, since access is available via the general street system. o Weld County identifies SH 119 as a 6-lane major arterial roadway in the 1-25 Mixed Use Development Area Structural Plan -Map 2.2 Structural Transportation Network. ❑ CR 3.5 is classified by the County as a(4-lane)minor arterial road(1-25 Mixed Use Development Area Structural Plan-Map 2.2 Structural Transportation Network) adjacent to the proposed development requiring a minimum //0-foot right-of-way. The applicant shall verify the existing right-of-way and the documents creating the right-of-way shall be noted on the change of zone plat. If the right-of-way cannot be verified,it will be dedicated on the final plat. o CR 3.5 serving this development is paved(adjacent to Longview PUD) and under the jurisdiction/maintenance of Weld County. o The segment of CR 3.5 north of Longview PUD is gravel and under the jurisdiction/maintenance of Weld County. ❑ CR 26 is classified by the County as a(4-lane)major arterial road(1-25 Mixed Use Development Area Structural Plan-Map 2.2 Structural Transportation Network) adjacent to the proposed development requiring a minimum /20-foot right-of-way. The applicant shall verify the existing right-of-way and the documents creating the right-of-way shall be noted on the change of zone plat. If the right-of-way cannot be verified, it will be dedicated on the final plat. o CR 26 serving this development is gravel and under partial jurisdiction/maintenance by Weld County and the City of Longmont. ❑ CR 5 is classified by the County as a(2-lane)local road(1-25 Mixed Use Development Area Structural Plan-Map 2.2 Structural Transportation Network)in close proximity to the proposed development requiring a minimum 60-foot right-of-way. o CR 5 serving this development is gravel and under the jurisdiction/maintenance of Weld County. o With the realignment of CR 3.5 to CR 5(at CR 26), Weld County most probably will need to consider upgrading the current (local) road classification, thereby increasing the required right-of-way. Page 1 of 5 ❑ Fairview Street is classified by the City of Longmont as an(4-lane)arterial road in close proximity to the proposed development requiring a minimum /20-foot right-of-way. o Fairview Street serving this development is paved and under the jurisdiction/maintenance of the City of Longmont. ❑ At the final plat stage for all phases of development the county will require road improvements agreements and collateral according to County policy. ❑ All offsite road improvements required by the development (CR 3.5, CR 26 and Fairview Street) shall be shown, with consideration for probable phases, to accommodate the proposed development's traffic generation. Since Public Works does not know when the future final plan(phases)application will be submitted or the extent of the proposed development, future roadway improvements shall be identified based on traffic thresholds and approved by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)prior to recording any final plat. o The railroad crossing at CR 3.5 is proposed to be relocated to Fairview Street, which is acceptable to Weld County and the City of Longmont (letter dated January 26th, 2004). The Fairview Street extension will cross City of Longmont property. Appropriate agreements between the applicant, railroad, Weld County and the City of Longmont must be coordinated with respect to rights-of-way,design and improvements. o CR 3.5 is proposed to be realigned through the LifeBridge development connecting to CR 5 (at CR 26). The applicant shall provide additional information regarding this realignment, since future right-of-way will be needed from an adjacent property owner to the east of the proposed LifeBridge development prior to the Planning Commission Amended Change of Zone Hearing. The intersection cannot be presently constructed within the LifeBridge PUD without creating an offset intersection, which is not acceptable to Public Works. Appropriate agreements between the applicant, railroad, and Weld County must be coordinated with respect to rights-of-way, design and improvements. o CR 26 is proposed to be realigned between CR 5 & CR 1; and entirely designed / constructed (phases) by the applicant as agreed to in a City of Longmont letter dated January 26th, 2004. Appropriate agreements between the applicant, railroad, Weld County and the City of Longmont must be coordinated with respect to rights-of-way, design and improvements. ❑ The LifeBridge PUD has agreed to reimburse a proportionate share of the signal cost to Longview development within the spirit of the February 6th, 2002 agreement. A reimbursement agreement shall be reviewed by Public Works and approved by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)prior to recording any final plat for any development phase. o Weld County entered into an Off-Site Improvement Reimbursement Agreement with Longview Community, LLC on February 6th, 2002, with the intent that Longview be reimbursed a portion of the cost of constructing the traffic signal at SH 119 and CR 3 'A. Reimbursement agreements such as these are common for public improvements that are shared as development occurs in a rapidly growing area. ❑ The applicant's engineer has agreed to coordinate future local /collector roadway connections through the proposed LifeBridge development and consider interconnectivity of all modes of travel in the immediate area (e.g. trails, bikes, etc.) at the final plan stage for each development phase, all of which are acceptable to Public Works. o The St. Vrain School District requests that adequate pedestrian interconnectivity to the east of the proposed development be established for access to the Meadowvale elementary school site. o Connectivity of roadway systems reduces trip lengths between neighborhoods and helps reduce traffic congestion. Neighborhood centers are intended to provide community services for residents within the MUD area. Alternative means of transportation and opportunities for those who seek to walk or ride their bicycles should be provided to connect community facilities and employment centers. ❑ The applicant will be required to work with appropriate emergency response jurisdictions (especially law enforcement and fire protection)for approval of the proposed roadway system and minimum design standards prior to recording any final plat for each development phase. ❑ The LifeBridge Project PUD— Traffic Impact Study— Weld County, Colorado, dated January 2005, by Matthew J. Delich, P.E. (P.E.# 15263) does not graphically match with the proposed land use plan and shall be amended/resubmitted with the final plan application materials for each development phase addressing the following: o The plan shows signalized intersections and differing access points. This must be clarified/revised. o The trip distribution contained within the traffic study shall better address project phases. It must address distribution on CR 3.5,Fairview Street and County Line Road. o The traffic study should provide, in a tabular form, a summary of the baseline(background)traffic data and where it was obtained. The study mentions other sources(e.g. CDOT, previous developments, etc.)but is not specific in the data used from these sources. o The traffic study mentions an existing full-movement access into Longview south of what is shown as "Access A". This intersection must be analyzed to the degree others have been providing a detailed LOS analysis, geometric recommendations,etc. to ensure suitable operation. o Access point"I" is identified in the traffic study as access to the north single family development parcel. However, this access point is not shown on the land use plan. Please clarify. Page 2 of 5 ❑ The development proposes"median controlled"tee intersections at approximately four access points along CR 3.5. o Weld County has concerns surrounding this intersection configuration and will need further design justification. The applicant's engineer shall address: merge lengths(for traveling speeds up to 45 mph), sight distance and overall intersection operation with the final plan application for each development phase. 1 The traffic study(dated January 2005)speaks to road classification and apparent justification of CR 3.5 to be something less than an arterial roadway. The LifeBridge development will not dictate the road classification for the MUD area of Weld County. The road classifications and subsequent right-of-way dedication shall be as follows(corrected from amended sketch plan comments): o CR 3.5=(4-lane)minor arterial(minimum 110-ft of right-of-way)by Weld County o CR 26=(4-lane)major arterial(minimum 120-ft of right-of-way)by Weld County o Fairview Street=(4-lane)arterial(minimum 120-ft of right-of-way)by City of Longmont o Interior Collector=(minimum 80-ft of right-of-way)by Weld County Internal Roadways: ❑ All public roads shall be designed and constructed according to County MUD standards(typically CDOT and AASHTO). o The engineer has agreed to build public roads according to County standards, which is acceptable to Public Works. ❑ Internal roads are required to meet Weld County MUD standards for a PUD. o The internal local roadway right-of-way shall be sixty(60) feet in width including cul-de-sacs with a sixty-five(65) foot radius,and dedicated to the public. o The internal collector roadway right-of-way shall be eighty(80)feet in width and dedicated to the public. Li The proposed road cross sections submitted with the amended zone change materials do not match the MUD standards. o A request for a variance and supporting reasoning shall be required prior to the Planning Commission Amended Change of Zone Hearing,since none was provided in the application materials. ❑ The applicant shall prepare a pavement design prepared by a professional engineer submitted with the final plan materials for each development phase. ❑ Easements shall be shown on the final plat for each development phase in accordance with County standards (Sec.24-7-60)and/ or Utility Board recommendations. ❑ Intersection sight distance triangles at the development entrance(s) will be required. All landscaping within the triangles must be less than 31/2 feet in height at maturity,and noted on the final roadway plans for each development phase. ❑ The applicant shall submit to Public Works stamped,signed and dated final plat drawings and roadway/construction& grading plan drawings for review & approval with the final plan application for each development phase. Construction details must be included. Stop signs and street name signs will be required at all intersections and shown on a signing plan on final roadway plans for each development phase. The current edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) shall govern the signing plan. ❑ The applicant shall submit Improvements Agreements According to Policy Regarding Collateral for(on-site) Improvements with the final plan application for each development phase. These agreements must be reviewed by Public Works and shall be approved by the Board of County Commissioners(BOCC)prior to recording any final plat for each development phase. Geotechnical/ Pavement: ❑ The applicant prepared three geotechnical investigations /reports exclusively for the development of LifeBridge property, which were submitted with the amended sketch plan materials(comments will be attributed to the entire property): o Geologic and Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation — Portion of Whitham Property — Northeast of Colorado Highway 119 and County Road 3 %2 - Weld County, Colorado by CTL/Thompson, Inc. Consulting Engineers(Job No. FC-1044)dated August 11, 1998,sealed by Frank J.Holliday,P.E. (#6785); o Geologic and Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation—Portion of Whitham Property (North Hall) —Southeast of County Road 26 and County Road 3 %2 - Weld County, Colorado by CTL / Thompson, Inc. Consulting Engineers (Job No.FC-1107)dated November 17, 1998,sealed by Frank J. Holliday,P.E. (#6785); o Geologic and Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation — LifeBridge Planned Urban Development — Southwest of County Road 26 and County Road 3 %2 - Weld County, Colorado by CTL / Thompson, Inc. Consulting Engineers (Job No.FC-2442)dated September 6,2002, sealed by Thomas A.Chapel,P.E. (#33848). • Soil borings and analyses were not prepared for the future road alignments. • The report indicates that full-depth and/or increases in pavement thickness will be required as a result of weak subgrade soils(natural clays). Pavement designs in future final plat applications shall take these soil conditions into consideration. • The applicant has agreed to provide Public Works with a revised final geotechnical / pavements design report at the final plat application for each development phase, which is acceptable. This report may be prepared after overlot grading and utility installation has been completed. • The report must evaluate subgrade soils associated with construction of the roadways. Page 3 of 5 _ • • Final recommendations for pavement and base course thicknesses shall be included in the report. • Public Works will not accept full-depth asphalt pavement design alternatives. ❑ Groundwater is shallow across most of the proposed development site. The reports state, "The ground water depth is above typical residence basement depth(measured from existing grade)over nearly the entire parcel." o Full basements may not be feasible,unless extensive mitigation measures are taken. o Mitigation measures shall be addressed by the applicant at the time of final plat application for each phase. Storm Drainaee: ❑ The Amended Sketch Plan and Detailed Change of Zone—Storm water Drainage Report for Project LifeBridge P.U.D. — Weld County, Colorado, January 10, 2005, by Tetra Tech RMC (Job No. 80-4270.001.00) sealed by Todd J. Borger, P.E. (#32993) is acceptable for the change of zone request. o The engineer has indicated that the Oligarchy Ditch is to be piped across the entire LifeBridge PUD and it will connect to another piped section to the east(the Elms & CR 26). The drainage report addresses the capacity of the Oligarchy Ditch assuming a typical irrigation flow capacity and the historic/developed flows routed to the ditch. o The engineer states that the water quality capture volume will be incorporated into each detention pond and presented with the final drainage plan along with the final plat application materials. • The volume must be calculated as the 2-yr storm with a 24-hr drain time and must be in addition to all 5, 10 and 100-yr calculated detention volumes. Please refer to Urban Drainage,Volume 3,Section 4.4.2. o The engineer suggests that the realignment of CR 26 occurs at a region high point and the re-alignment would have minimal impact to historic drainage patterns. Storm drainage improvements may include preserving the existing borrow ditch along CR 26, installation of storm drainage inlets&piping, and possibly connect stormwater runoff to the storm drain system of the single family area of the development—which are acceptable to Public Works. o All hydraulic cross sections shown in the report for Spring Gulch overflows must be represented on a map(11480 to 10085)in the final drainage report to be submitted with the final plat application materials. o A final drainage plan for each final plat (development phase) application shall be submitted stamped, signed and dated by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado. The final drainage report shall include a flood hazard review documenting any FEMA defined floodways. The engineer shall reference the specific map panel number, including date. The development site shall be located on the copy of the FEMA map. Each final drainage plan must address existing LifeBridge development with respect to the proposed development and downstream mitigation requirements. • The engineer has agreed to submit a detailed overall (final) drainage plan with the final plat application materials, to include a phase one drainage plan,which is acceptable to Public Works. • Public works shall approve the overall/final drainage report prior to recording any final plat. • Subsequent phases must show how they incorporate flows into the overall plan. • If necessary,as-built information may be required to update the hydraulic models. o Early development phases may require improvements and construction of downstream mitigation infrastructure external to the phase in consideration. o In addition, drainage coordination may be necessary between Weld County, City of Longmont, CDOT, ditch companies,and/or the railroad. ❑ The engineer has agreed to a final drainage report detailing road overtopping issues by stormwater and incorporates this consideration into the final design to be submitted with the final plat application materials—which is acceptable to Public Works. o Fairview, WCR 26 and WCR 3.5 are all classified as arterial roadways. This requires two lanes of travel open in a major event (one in each direction) with no curb overtopping (Urban Drainage, Vol. 1, Section 2.2). Here, Weld County defines the "major" event as the 50-yr storm and the "minor" event as the 10-yr storm. However, this standard was intended for more rural subdivision development. Considering the potential for flooding in this area, it is prudent to examine the 100-yr event to determine affects on the arterial road system. This may require improvements to existing pipe crossings such as the 24"CMP under WCR 3.5. o The interior collector should allow for one lane of travel open in a major storm event with no curb overtopping. ❑ The applicant shall provide conceptual solutions to the 100-yr flood flows along the north side of SH 119 with the (amended change of zone)drainage stormwater report prior to the Planning Commission Hearing for the proposed development. o The two options presented are 1) designing proper drainage facilities or 2)eliminating development within the 100- yr Spring Gulch floodplain. Public Works recommends a combination of both alternatives to develop a sound solution. Whatever scenario is developed it must be consistent with the City of Longmont master drainage plan for the area. ❑ The UDSWM model prepared for the LifeBridge PUD development site does not extend downstream of the LifeBridge property. o The engineer's response in the amended change of zone submittal materials states the purpose of the modeling was to only identify the impacts of the Spring Gulch overtopping on the LifeBridge site, which Public Works does not fully agree with. Page 4 of 5 _ • The modeling of stormwaters must insure the proposed site does not inundate any on-site structures (proposed) and cause no harm(or increased flows)to downstream property resulting from development of the (upstream) site. Although quantity of stormwater flow may be one factor indicating downstream impact,the timing of such stormwater events must also be considered in such engineering analysis. • The applicant has not provided accepted evidence to ensure the timing of stormwaters does not negatively impact downstream properties. The timing of stormwater events shall be included in a resubmitted (amended change of zone) drainage stormwater report, prior to the Planning Commission Hearing. The routing of all flows through this model must extend to their ultimate drainage way(e.g. St.Vrain River). ❑ The engineer has indicated in the amended change of zone drainage report that flooding of existing homes from Spring Gulch may occur based on modeling analysis presented. The drainage report did not have foundation elevations of these homes located within Weld County. As part of public notice, the Weld County Engineer will be provided a copy of this memorandum should any further action being required. ❑ The engineer must submit a conceptual stormwater management plan to be included with the(amended change of zone) drainage stormwater report prior to the Planning Commission Hearing. The scale of the proposed development presented shall address potential stormwater concerns and the plans to manage them. o Structural and non-structural BMP's must be identified with appropriate management plans. ❑ The applicant shall prepare a construction detail for typical lot grading with respect to drainage for the final plan application. Front, rear and side slopes around building envelopes must be addressed. In addition, drainage for rear and side lot line swales shall be considered. Building envelopes must be planned to avoid storm water flows, while taking into account adjacent drainage mitigation. U 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 shall be submitted with each final plan (phase) application. These plans (stormwater management plans)may be based on Urban Drainage methodology. Recommendation ❑ The Public Works Department recommends approval of this change of zone plan based on the above comment conditions and at the appropriate submittal timing indicated herein. Public Works requires reasonable and adequate time to review materials submitted to this office. The applicant shall address the comments listed above at the specific step of the review process stated. The review process will continue only when all appropriate elements have been submitted. Any issues of concern must be resolved with the Public Works Department prior to recording the change of zone and final plat? PC: AmPZ-1004 LifeBridge PUD (Amended Zone Change) Email&Original: Planner:Jacqueline Hatch -- PC by Post: Applicant: LifeBridge Christian Church:Bruce Grinnell PC by Post: Engineer: TJB Consulting Group, LLC: Todd Borger, P.E. Email& PC: Weld County Engineer: Frank Hempen,Jr., P.E. Page 5 of 5 • Weld County Planning Department GREELEY OFFICE SEP 1 3 2005 rat Memorand1VED TO: Jacqueline Hatch, W.C. Planning DATE: September 12, 2005 C. FROM: Pam Smith, W.C. Department of Public COLORADO Health and Environment CASE NO.: PZ-1004 NAME: Life Bridge Christian Church The Weld County Health Department has reviewed this proposal. The application has satisfied Chapter 27 of the Weld County Code in regard to water and sewer service. Water will be provided by Left Hand Water District and Longs Peak Water District and sewer service will be provided by St. Vrain Sanitation District. The minimum proposed lot size has yet to be determined. Letters of intent from all three utility districts were included in the application material. The PUD will create a multi-use neighborhood, which will provide worship, residential, commercial, recreational, and event areas within the 315-acre site. Residential areas expect to include assisted living, senior housing, multi-family housing, and residential areas. Active and passive recreational opportunities will include such things as sports fields, fitness/recreation center, events area, trails, bike paths, playgrounds, etc. If a swimming pool is to be part of any recreation center, the facility may be subject to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Swimming Pool and Mineral Baths (Swimming Pool) regulations, depending on the intended population use (i.e. selling memberships to the public or strictly for the residents/guests of the subdivision. These varied recreational opportunities must address the sanitation requirements of any area where people work, live, or congregate. The Department is recommending permanent restroom and handwashing facilities be provided in close proximity to those public gathering areas(ball fields, tot lots and pocket parks), including the ball field designated near the railroad tracks in the northeast portion of the property. The commercial and industrial uses in the development will be subject to the Site Plan Review process once they are identified. The Department will conduct additional reviews of those uses at that time. However, a preliminary review of the regulatory needs of the development (based on the brochure provided in the application materials, with a 50-year vision of the project), indicate there are several areas that will be governed. They are addressed here for future reference only: 1. Licenses and/or regulations will govern the following listed activities: assisted living, classrooms, day care centers, commercial kitchen, theater, restaurants, food services, maintenance garage, swimming pool, and potentially some types of shops (grocery, dry cleaner, etc.); The specific regulatory requirements are expected to change over the course of the 50-year build-out. Each commercial development must comply with all applicable Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment, Colorado Department of Public Health and CASE NO.: AMPZ-1004 NAME: Life Bridge Christian Church Environment, Colorado Department of Human Services, EPA and/or Oil and Gas regulations. This list of regulatory authorities is not meant to be all-inclusive; the applicant/developer must contact the appropriate agency for more information regarding the site-specific requirements of each development. The initial impact plan submitted in the application materials appears to address all the environmental impacts of Section 27-6-40. The Department recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. Water service shall be obtained from the Left Hand Water District and Longs Peak Water District 2. Sewer service shall be obtained from the St. Vrain Sanitation District. 3. Permanent restroom and handwashing facilities shall be provided within easy access of the public gathering areas. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. "Weld County's Right to Farm" as provided in Appendix 22-E of the Weld County Code shall be placed on any recorded plat. O:\PAM\PLANNING\CHZONE AMPZ1004 LIFE BRIDGE.RTF 2 Le Veld aunty Referral on l traa August 9, 2005 in -es • C. ms `s 0m L � \,)_\05 COLORADO 4 The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant Lifebridge Christian Church Case Number AmPZ-1004 Please Reply By September 6, 2005 Planner Jacqueline Hatch Project Amended change of designated uses for Lifebridge PUD with E, R-1, R-2, R-3, R- 4, C-1 &C-2 uses and continued oil and gas production. Legal Lot B of RE-1389; and part of Section 5, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Location North of and adjacent to State Hwy 119; south of and adjacent to CR 26; and west and east of CR 3.5. Parcel Number 1313 05 000062 & 1313 05 000066 & 1313 05 000067 The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please note that new information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of Planning Services. Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) October 18, 2005 ❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan gi We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. -0 See attached letter. Comments: Signature �jai Date �I `` Agency +Weld County Planning Dept. +918 10"Street,Greeley,CO.80631 +(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +(970)304-6498 fax MouNrq,N MOUNTAIN VIEW FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT • �. � a Administrative Office: 9119 County Line Road • Longmont, CO 80501 Fl S e (303) 772-0710• FAX (303) 651-7702 view August 24, 2005 Ms. Jacqueline Hatch Weld County Planning Department 918 10"' Street Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Ms. Hatch: I have reviewed the submitted material pertaining to the change of zone for the Lifebridge Christian Church (Case Number: AmPZ-1004). The Fire District does not object to the proposed zone change. We appreciate being involved in the planning process. Should you have any questions, please contact me at(303) 772-0710. Sincerely, 1)‘c--7 _ LuAnn Penfold Fire Marshal LMP/lp cc: project file Ip08.29.05 Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Station 4 Station 5 Station 6 Station 7 9119 Cnty Line Rd. 14308 Mead St,Unit B P.O.Box 575 P.O.Box 11 10911 Dobbin Run 50 Bonanza Dr. P.O.Box 40 Longmont,CO Longmont,CO 299 Palmer Ave. 8500 Niwot Road Lafayette,CO Erie,CO 100 So.Forest St. 80501 80504 Mead,CO 80542 Niwot,CO 80544 80026 80516 Dacono,CO 80514 St. v ram Valley School District Weld County Planning Department GREELEY OFFICE September 6, 2005 SEP - 8 2005 Jacqueline Hatch Weld County Planning Department RECEIVED 918 10`"St. Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Project LifeBridge PUD Detailed Change of Zone (Situate in Section 5, T2N, R68W) Dear Jacqueline: Thank you for referring the Project LifeBridge PUD Detailed Change of Zone to the School District. The District has reviewed the development proposal in terms of (1) available school capacity, (2) required land dedications and/or cash-in-lieu fees and (3) transportation considerations. After reviewing the above proposal, the School District has noted comments below. Generally, the District finds that, although there will be a shortfall in available school capacity for this area, the applicant has agreed to mitigate their impact on District facilities. The principal findings of this review are as follows: • Mead Elementary will exceed the 125% capacity benchmark within 5 years with the expected contribution of students from this development. However, the applicant has agreed to mitigate their impact on District facilities, and the School District will, therefore, not oppose future plat applications from this proposal. • The capacity determination above includes the addition High School 5 to be built in this area from the 2002 Bond fund. However, this facility has not yet been scheduled for construction and Skyline High School may experience crowding in the short-term until this facility is completed. Should this development be approved, the options for managing the short term overcrowding while the new schools are under construction may include adding modular classrooms and implementing split or staggered schedules as needed. Other options may include but not be limited to implementing year-round schools or asking voters to approve new bonds for additional school facilities or a mill levy for additional operating funds. It should be noted that a lack of operating funds may be a factor in delaying construction and occupancy of new school facilities in this area. Detailed information on the specific capacity issues, the cash-in-lieu/land dedication requirements and transportation impacts for this proposal follow in Attachment A. The recommendation of the District noted above applies to the attendance boundaries current as of the date of this letter. These attendance boundaries may change in the future as the new facilities are constructed and opened. If you have any further questions or concerns regarding this referral, please feel free to contact me via e-mail at segrue alen@stvrain.k12.co.us or at the number below. Sincerely, Gle�rue/AICP Planning Specialist Enc: Exhibit A- Specific Project Analysis Cash-in-lieu Chart ST.VRAIN VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING DEPARTMENT.395 SOUTH PRATT PARKWAY, LONGMONT,CO 80501. SCOTT TOILLION,DIRECTOR.PHONE 303-682-7229. FAX 303-682-7344. ATTACHMENT A-Specific Prolect Analysis PROJECT: LlfeBridge PUD Detailed Change of Zone (1) SCHOOL CAPACITY The Board of Education has established a District-wide policy of reviewing new development projects in terms of the impact on existing and approved school facilities within the applicable feeder system. Any residential project within the applicable feeder that causes the 125% school benchmark capacity to be exceeded within 5 years would not be supported. This determination includes both existing facilities and planned facilities from a voter-approved bond. The building capacity, including existing and new facilities, along with the impact of this proposal and all other approved development projects for this feeder is noted in the chart below. CAPACITY INFORMATION CAPACITY BENCHMARK (includes projected students,plus developments student impact) School Building Stdts. Stdt. 2005.2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 Level Capacity Oct-04 Impact Stdts Cap. Stdts Cap. Stdts Cap. Stdts Cap. stdts cap. Elementary 504 451 64 459 91% 573 114% 595 118% 621 123% 645 128% Middle 360 531 25 360 100% 366 102% 375 104% 413 115% 435 121% High School' 2073 1446 31 1469 71% 1575 76% 1635 79% 1707 82% 1769 85% Total 4272 120 2288 2514 2605 2741 2849 `combines capacities of existing schools and those approved in the 2002 bond that will alleviate this feeder Specific comments conceming this proposal regarding School Capacity are as follows: • Specific Impact- This application will add 182 new single-family dwelling units with an impact of 120 students in the Mead Elementary Mead Middle and Skyline High School Feeder. In addition, this application includes approximately 120 single-family detached and attached units intended for seniors. Although, these units are not counted in the capacity calculations here, the applicant will need to demonstrate to the District that these units will be permanently restricted to senior in order to be exempt from District capacity calculations, cash-in-lieu fees, and voluntary mitigation payments. • Benchmark Determination-The applicant has agreed to the contribution of voluntary mitigation payments which,when combined with other such payments within this feeder, will assist in providing permanent and/or temporary classroom space in this area.The School District,therefore,considers any potential shortfall in available capacity resolved for this proposal. Without this assistance, it appears that this proposal would impact Mead Elementary above the 125% benchmark. • Additional Capacity Impacts—A new high school has been approved in the 2002 Bond and is expected to be open within the next 5 years. However, the exact date of completion for this facility remains to be determined and will depend on the rate of residential growth in this feeder and the availability of operating funds. • Phasing-The District would appreciate a phasing plan for the non-senior residential component of this proposal from the developer to better determine enrollment and capacity impacts on the affected schools. (2) LAND DEDICATIONS AND CASH IN-LIEU FEES The implementation of the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) Concerning Fair Contributions for Public School Sites by Weld County requires that the applicant either dedicate land directly to the School District along with provision of the adjacent infrastructure and/or pay cash-in-lieu (CIL) fees based on the student yield of the development. CIL fees only provide funds for land acquisition, which is only a small component of providing additional school capacity for a feeder. Specific comments regarding land dedications and CIL fees for this referral are as follows: • Dedication and/or Cash-in-lieu Requirements-The District does not anticipate the need for another school site in this area. Since no land dedication is required, CIL fees will be assessed per the attached chart. • Number of Units covered by dedication/cash-in-lieu—All residential units not permanently restricted to senior citizens will be subject to CIL fees. • Dedication/Cash-in-lieu Procedures - Cash-in-lieu payments are to be made to the St Vrain Valley School District Business Office—395 S. Pratt Pathway, Longmont, CO. 3)TRANSPORTATION/ACCESS Transportation considerations for a project deal with busing and pedestrian access to and from the subdivision. Pedestrian access, in particular, is an important goal of the School District in order to facilitate community connection to schools and to minimize transportation costs.Specific comments for this application are as follows: • Provision of Transportation- Busing, under current boundaries,would likely be provided. • Pedestrian and Access Issues—The District requests that adequate pedestrian linkages to the east be specified so that future students from the single-family portion of this development can access the Meadowvale elementary school site in the future. ST.VRAIN VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING DEPARTMENT.395 SOUTH PRATT PARKWAY, LONGMONT,CO 80501. SCOTT TOILLION,DIRECTOR.PHONE 303-682-7229. FAX 303-682-7344. Exhibit A School . Sinning 1...c)Bridge Standards And Detailed Change of Zone Calculation of Weld County Land Dedication Requirements Single Family School Planning Standards Number Projected Student Site Size Acres of Developed Of Student Facility Standard Land Land Cash-in-lieu Units Yield Standard Acres Contribution Value Contribution Elementary 100 0.35 525 10 0.67 $35,000 35 Number of Students = No. of Units *Student Yield Equation: (Number of Students/Elem. Student Facility Size) *Bern. Site Size Standard=Acres of Land Contribution Middle Level 100 0.14 750 25 0.47 $35,000 14 Number of Students = No. of Units *Student Yield Equaton: (Number of Students/Middle Student Facility Size) *Middle Site Size Standard= Acres of Land Contribution High School 100 0.17 1200 50 0.71 $35,000 17 Number of Students = No. of Units *Student Yield Equation: (Number of Students/High School Student Facility Size) *High School Site Size Standard=Acres of Land Contribution Total 100 66 1.84 $35,000 $64,458 _ Equation: Elem.Acreage+Middle Acreage+High School Acreage=Total Acres of Land Contribution Single Family Student Yield is .66 $645 Per Unit 7 2/25/03 Planning Department Exhibit A School . .�nning L„c)Bridge Standards And Detailed Change of Zone Calculation of Weld County Land Dedication Requirements Duplex/Triplex School Planning Standards Number Projected Student Site Size Acres of Developed Of Student Facility Standard Land Land Cash-in-lieu Units Yield Standard Acres Contribution Value Contribution Elementary 100 0.37 525 10 0.70 535,000 37 Number of Students = No. of Units *Student Yield Equation: (Number of Students/Elem. Student Facility Size) *Hem. Site Size Standard=Acres of Land Contribution Middle Level 100 0.11 750 25 0.37 $35,000 _ 11 Number of Students= No. of Units *Student Yield Equation: (Number of Students/Middle Student Facility Size) *Middle Site Size Standard=Acres of Land Contribution High School 100 0.08 1200 50 0.33 $35,000 8 Number of Students = No. of Units *Student Yieid Equation: (Number of Students/High School Student Facility Size) *High School Site Size Standard= Acres of Land Contribution Total I00 56 1.40 $35,000 $49,167 Equation: Elem.Acreage+Middle Acreage+High School Acreage= Total Acres of Land Contribution $492 Duplex/Triplex Student Yield is .56 Per Unit 2/25/03 Planning Department Exhibit A School r inning Li.c)Bridge Standards And Detailed Change of Zone Calculation of Weld County Land Dedication Requirements Multi-Family School Planning Standards Number Projected Student Site Size Acres of Developed Of Student Facility Standard Land Land Cash-in-lieu Units Yield Standard Acres Contribution Value Contribution Elementary 100 0.15 525 10 0.29 $35,000 15 Number of Students = No. of Units *Student Yield Equation: (Number of Students/Elem. Student Facility Size) *Elem. Site Size Standard=Acres of Land Contribution Middle Level 100 0.08 750 25 0.27 $35,000 8 Number of Students = No. of Units *Student Yield Equation: (Number of Students/Middle Student Facility Size) *Middle Site Size Standard= Acres of Land Contribution High School 100 0.02 1200 50 0.08 $35,000 _ 2 Number of Students = No. of Units *Student Yield Equation: (Number of Students/High School Student Facility Size) *High School Site Size Standard=Acres of Land Contribution $35,000 $22,250 Total 100 25 0.64 Equation: Elem.Acreage+Middle Acreage+High School Acreage= Total Acres of Ls $223 Per Unit Multi-Family Student Yield is .25 2/25/03 Planning Department Exhibit A School . inning Lie Bridge Standards And Detailed Change of Zone Calculation of Weld County Land Dedication Requirements Condo/Townhouse School Planning Standards Number Projected Student Site Size Acres of Developed Of Student Facility Standard Land Land Cash-in-lieu Units Yield Standard Acres Contribution Value Contribution Elementary 100 0.13 525 10 0.25 535,000 13 —Number of Students= No. of Units *Student Yield Equation: (Number of Students/Elem. Student Facility Size) *Elem. Site Size Standard= Acres of Land Contribution Middle Level 100 0.11 750 25 0.37 $35,000 11 Number of Students = No. of Units *Student Yield Equation: (Number of Students/Middle Student Facility Size) *Middle Site Size Standard= Acres of Land Contribution High School 100 0.05 1200 50 0.21 $35,000 5 Number of Students = No. of Units *Student Yield (Number of Students/High School Student Facility Size) *High School Site Size Standard= Acres of Land Contribution Total 100 29 0.82 $35,000 $28,792 Equation: Elem.Acreage+Middle Acreage+High School Acreage= Total Acres of Land Contribution $288 Condo/Townhouse Student Yield is .29 Per Unit 2/25/03 Planning Department Exhibit A School . tinning L„e)Bridge Standards And Detailed Change of Zone Calculation of Weld County Land Dedication Requirements Mobile Home School Planning Standards Number Projected Student Site Size Acres of _ Developed Of Student Facility Standard Land Land Cash-in-lieu Units Yield Standard Acres Contribution Value Contribution Elementary 100 0.26 525 10 0.50 $35,000 26 Number of Students= No. of Units *Student Yield Equation: (Number of Students/Elem. Student Facility Size) *Elem. Site Size Standard= Acres of Land Contribution Middle Level 100 0.07 750 25 0.23 $35,000 7 Number of Students = No. of Units *Student Yield Equation: (Number of Students/Middle Student Facility Size) *Middle Site Size Standard= Acres of Land Contribudon High School 100 0.09 1200 50 0.38 $35,000 9 Number of Students = No. of Units *Student Yield Equation: (Number of Students/High School Student Facility Size) *High School Site Size Standard= Acres of Land Contribution Total 100 42 1.10 $35,000 $38,625 Equation: Elem.Acreage+Middle Acreage+High School Acreage= Total Acres of Land Contribution $386 Mobile Home Student Yield is .42 Per Unit 2/25/03 Planning Department . 09/08/2005 13:41 303-485-1968 ST VRAIN SANITATIO PAGE 01/02 Weld County Referral ' August;9, 2005 fttCBIvED COLORADO AUG 2 2°6 The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant Lifebridge Christian Church Case Number AmPZ-1004 Please Reply By September 6,2005 Planner Jacqueline Hatch Project Amended change of designated uses for Lifebridge PUD with E, R-1, R-2, R-3, R- 4, C-1 &C-2 uses and continued oil and gas production. Legal Lot B of RE-1389;and part of Section 5, T2N, P68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Location North of and adjacent to State Hwy 119; south of and adjacent to CR 26; and west and east of CR 3.5. Parcel Number 1313 05 000062& 1313 05 000066& 1313 05 000067 The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions regarding the application, please cell the Planner associated with the request. Please note that new Information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information,please call the Department of Planning Services. Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) October 18, 2005 O We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan C) We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. 4-See attached letter. Comments: Signature eWla Date we S ._.. Agency S Vc5 p y +Weld County Planning Dept. 4918 10"Street Greeley.CO.80631 4(970)353-8100 04.3540 +(970)304-6498 fax 09/08/2005 13:41 303-485-1968 ST VRAIN SANITATIO PAGE 02/02 St. Vr. ain SANI TATI ON DISTRICT August 25,2005,resend Ms. Jacqueline Hatch Weld County Planner Weld County Planning Department 918 W. 10th • Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Lifebridge Christian Church referral Dear Mr. Hatch, St. Vrain Sanitation District(SVSD) would like to state that since the last referral letter dated February 28, 2005, the Liberty Gulch line extension has been in design. This line extension will serve most of the Northwest area of our service area. At this time, Lifebridge and other land parcels in that area of the District will be served by a liftstation. The current SVSD liftstation is limited to the amount of wastewater it can safely pump within design limits of the infrastructure. Therefore, when capacity dictates the need, a new lift station, gravity and force main will need to be constructed. Cost sharing among entities is expected. There has been no engineering performed by SVSD in regards to this project for costs or sizing, other than a preliminary overview. All details must be worked out. Please call or write with any question or concerns you may have. Sinai Robert Fleck District Engineer St. Vrain Sanitation District 11307 Business Park Circle Firestone, CO 80504 Phone (303)776-9570 Fax: (303) 485-1968 RECEIVED AUG 1 2 2005 laWeld County Referral ill Weld County Planning Department GREELEY OFFICE August 9, 2005 WI I SEP - 9 2005 C. RECEIVED COLORADO The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant Lifebridge Christian Church Case Number AmPZ-1004 Please Reply By September 6, 2005 Planner Jacqueline Hatch Project Amended change of designated uses for Lifebridge PUD with E, R-1, R-2, R-3, R- 4, C-1 & C-2 uses and continued oil and gas production. Legal Lot B of RE-1389; and part of Section 5, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Location North of and adjacent to State Hwy 119; south of and adjacent to CR 26; and west and east of CR 3.5. Parcel Number 1313 05 000062 & 1313 05 000066 & 1313 05 000067 The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please note that new information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of Planning Services. Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) October 18, 2005 ❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan ❑ We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. See Goy wws-wts hclBur. Comments::Q� a c f d wet' be 614, an. a dl 0.1"cH aA,,y2. (-43-91, AtA.Amt 4.Crune 14A-a f cvttn. 41r (-c�+-0C11 114-1 ( 4.44.h,,K a:ffm, I. add.cf,`ot, JAL wa,.-I-L,.bo-w�.a.. act 4t, 414-e_ fora uA f (jlt,/.7 .Pig s; tw.uC w Hcowt kit sr Signature AA, - -- ac i ta.... , _ Date / as Agency (entivt. �l "� / Gn tro{ trw1 +Weld County Planning Dept. 4918 lot Street,Greeley,CO.80631 +(970)353-6100 ext.3540 4(970)304-6498 fax STATE OF COLORADO " OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER Division of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources �R August 30, 2005 I 1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 Denver,Colorado 80203 weld Count e7s r*/ phone(303)866-3581 Y Planning De FAX(303)866-3589 GREELEY OFFICEpartment Bill Owens www.watecstate.co.us Governor Ms. Jacqueline Hatch SEP _ 1 2005 Russell George Weld County Planning Department Executive Dire or 918 10th Street RECEiV ED Hal D.Simpson,P.E. State Engineer Greeley CO 80631 Re: Lifebridge PUD SE1/4, NE1/4 and NW1/4 of Sec. 5, T2N, R68W, 6th P.M. Water Division 1, Water District 5 Dear Ms. Hatch: We have previously reviewed the above referenced proposal to subdivide a 313.5- acre parcel into three primary activity centers, including: a senior community, a church campus with church related uses and a single family residential development by our letters dated May 15, 2002, January 8, 2003, and February 8, 2005. Information in this referral material indicates that this is an amendment to the designated uses for the Lifebridge PUD. The proposed designated uses at the site include six primary land uses as follows: single-family residential(98 acres, 182 units), single-family and attached residential(19.7 acres, 90 units), mixed use residential(27.8 acres, 30 units for senior assisted living, nursing care, senior multifamily housing and associated accessory uses), civic/religious (69.6 acres that will include the primary worship, fellowship, education, recreation and support facilities for the Church), mixed use (43.2 acres that will include a mix of commercial, retail office, education, civic, church and recreation uses), and open space ( minimum 30 percent of the site that will include a central park, trails, storm water detention facilities and landscape areas through out the site). The proposed water sources for this development are still listed as the Left Hand Water District and Longs Peak Water District. The referral materials indicate that copies of service agreements with both Districts were provided with the referral material; however, service agreements from the Districts were not attached. Based on previous information submitted on this project, each District intends to provide water to the area located within each District's boundaries. Each District will supply treated water to the development, charging fees for the water supply on a per tap basis payable prior to the activation of the tap. Based on current information on file in this office, the Longs Peak Water District will require the developer to purchase and transfer to the District, 1.4 units of Colorado Big Thompson water per residential unit to satisfy the needs of the development prior to tap activation. Based on information on file in this office, the Left Hand Water District requires the developer to purchase and transfer to the District, 1.325 acre-feet of raw water per residential unit prior to tap activation. The submittal information indicates the applicant owns shares in the Oligarchy Ditch Company and Union Reservoir and it is the applicant's intent to utilize these water rights to irrigate common open space within the development. This letter is not offering an opinion on the irrigation water for this development. r - - Weld County Planning Department Lifebridge PUD August 30, 2005 Pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1)(h)(II), C.R.S., the State Engineer's office offers the opinion, that contingent upon water service being provided by the Left Hand Water District and Longs Peak Water District, the proposed water supply will not cause material injury to existing water rights and the supply is expected to be adequate. We recommend that the County obtain signed copies of the water service agreements from the Districts prior to final approval of the Subdivision. As indicated above, the State Engineer's opinion is only in regard to the domestic water supplied by the Districts. The irrigation water adequacy and injury assessment was not reviewed. If you have any question in this matter please contact loana Comaniciu of this office. Sincerely, D 6-6-2 Dick Wolfe, P.E. Assistant State Engineer cc: Jim Hall, Division Engineer Scott Edgar, Water Commissioner, District 5 Water Supply Branch Subdivision File File DW/IC/Lifebridge PUD Weld County Referral I Weld County Planning Department August 9, 2005 GREELEY OFFICE C. AUG 3 0 2005 COLORADO RECEIVED The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant Lifebridge Christian Church Case Number AmPZ-1004 Please Reply By September 6, 2005 Planner Jacqueline Hatch Project Amended change of designated uses for Lifebridge PUD with E, R-1, R-2, R-3, R- 4, C-1 &C-2 uses and continued oil and gas production. Legal Lot B of RE-1389; and part of Section 5, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Location North of and adjacent to State Hwy 119; south of and adjacent to CR 26; and west and east of CR 3.5. Parcel Number 1313 05 000062 & 1313 05 000066 & 1313 05 000067 The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please note that new information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of Planning Services. Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) October 18, 2005 ❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan ❑ We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. ;)a—See attached letter. Comments: Signature e '✓ // ,,( 7� Date 1-z Z- a 3 Agency Ginn.. z; /kt- /C-4W7 LPY/ern llfz +Weld County Planning Dept. +918 10t Street,Greeley,CO.80631 4(970)353-6100 ext.3540 4(970)304-6498 fax OmniTRAX, INC. 50 South Steele Street, #250 Denver, Colorado 80209 Telephone 303-398-4500 Facsimile 303-398-4540 - , A® Omnrr www.o mm trax.corn August 22, 2005 Mr. Peter Schei, P.E. Public Works Department Weld County 1111—H Street Greeley, CO 80632 RE: Lifebridge Complex at C.R. 3.5 and Fairview This confirms our discussions regarding the Great Western Railway of Colorado's support for the Fairview Street at-grade crossing of the railroad with the closure of County Road 3.5 near Longmont. The new installation of Fairview Street will require the installation of the road crossing surface and warning lights and gates as the Public Utility Commission warrants. This would be at the expense of the developer or designated party. This crossing relocation will maintain the number of public crossings of the Great Western Railway of Colorado. Sincerely, Chris Dodge Vice President Engineering OmniTRAX For the Great Western Railway of Colorado cc: C. Hollowell - Loveland STATE OF COLORADO Bill Owens,Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCE, it? DIVISION OF WILDLP4'F ~4 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER G y ' s-' /0\9 OF Bruce McCloskey, Director �FFie 44� For Wildlife- 6060 eene Broadway do 80216 4U�'i 2 dFF/Ce'i% For People Telephone:(303)297-1192 ^ Z�Os BOf August 18, 2005 `v/'/^ Jacqueline Hatch Weld County Planning Dept. 918 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Subject: Life Bridge Christian Church, case number AmPZ-1004 Dear Jacqueline: I have checked and reviewed the subject property and proposed development as to potential impacts on wildlife. The area generally cannot be considered as critical habitat for any wildlife species. The parcel is currently agricultural land. According to the Colorado Division of Wildlife Natural Diversity Information Source Map for Weld County,the area provides winter range for bald eagles and is within close proximity to Union Reservoir which provides winter foraging range for bald eagles and is within close proximity to an eagle roosting area at the confluence of the St. Vrain and Boulder Creek, a foraging area for ducks,winter range and foraging area and winter concentration area for geese, is within overall range for mule deer and pheasant and white-tailed deer. Coyote,fox, raccoon, skunk, songbirds, raptors and herptofauna may also frequent this area The trees along the irrigation ditch provide perching and nesting areas for birds and habitat for other wildlife in the area. Existing trees, including dead or downed trees and any native vegetation should be maintained to continue providing habitat for wildlife. A buffer should also be maintained along the sides of the Oligarchy Ditch. All tall grasses and other vegetation that currently exists along the ditch provide a contingency of shelter and cover for wildlife species. By retaining a buffer along the Oligarchy Ditch, a corridor for wildlife movement may be maintained. The use of native grasses and other native landscaping may also benefit wildlife in the area. Upon disturbance of any areas,noxious weeds should be monitored and controlled. Homeowners should also be aware that planting trees,shrubs and other herbaceous plants may attract wildlife. Subsequently,ornamental landscaping may be damaged by wildlife. Homeowners will need to be responsible for damages incurred and will not be eligible for any reimbursement by the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Homeowners should be made aware of the presence of native predators. Pets should not be allowed to roam free. All domesticated livestock and farm animals should be secured with wildlife proof fencing appropriate for the species being raised. Pets as well may negatively interact with wildlife even on the home-sites and homeowners will be responsible for handling these problems. Homeowners should secure pet and animal feeds,trash containers,and charcoal/gas grills. Pets should have current shots. All control of nuisance wildlife will be the homeowner's responsibility with the possible exception of bears and mountain lions. Homeowners and potential homeowners will find additional recommendations and information in the following Colorado Division of Wildlife DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,Russell George,Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION,Jeffrey Crawford,Chair•Tom Burke,Vice Chair•Ken Torres, Secretary Members,Robert Bray•Rick Ensirom•Philip James•Claire O'Neal•Richard Ray•Robert Shoemaker Ex Officio Members,Russell George and Don Ament Brochures: "Living With Wildlife In Coyote Country","Living With Wildlife Canada Geese", and"Too Close For Comfort". Homeowners should also be aware that hunting would be an ongoing fall and winter activity on lands nearby. Shooting will occur normally in the early mornings until dark on these areas. The sounds of gunfire may be somewhat distracting,yet should be noted to the potential owners. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact District Wildlife Manager Suzanne Kloster at 303-485-0593. Sincerely, 7 Aal, 4,'<<, 4 L l {c /L 4-Z 43 Scott Hoover Northeast Regional Manager Cc: Suzanne Kloster Rug 19 05 03: 51p Left Hand Water District 3035305252 p. 1 46/(1 ‘*1:' Weld County Referral lllDç: August 9, 2005 COLORAD VVRIFJt Ul$11L4, The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant Lifebridge Christian Church Case Number AmPZ-1004 Please Reply By September 6, 2005 Planner Jacqueline Hatch Project Amended change of designated uses for Lifebridge PUD with E, R-1, R-2, R-3, R- 4, C-1 & C-2 uses and continued oil and gas production. Legal Lot B of RE-1389; and part of Section 5,T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Location North of and adjacent to State Hwy 119;south of and adjacent to CR 26; and west and east of CR 3.5. Parcel Number 1313 05 000062 & 1313 05 000066& 1313 05 000067 44 The application Is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please note that new information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of Planning Services. Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if appii ble) October 18, 2005 14 We have reviewed the request and find the it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan ❑ We have reviewed the request and t7nd no nil' with our interests. O See attached letter. Comments: i I_ L Il&`\ in Q� _ t• '�2 t l J -/�c� tt-PeW.-a-�, t k� 1(r�o Cr- S-ev tl'e iL4≥ �n ez:>Ci A 1 S v. 4-C j e r? 't-© 1 37 rbnu,ai`j'‘ QrA, s ouiIrks..eJ 'it to "-at Veel Signature 'hG 1, P-CersciA Date — I c, — O 1 S Agency � j�Ci �.r) L)G le,' ; .STV i cc +Weld County Planning Dept +918 10'"Street,Greeley,CO.80631 +(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +(970)304-6498 fax ,Thea6t, Weld County Referral 111k. August 9, 2005 COLORADO The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant Lifebridge Christian Church Case Number AmPZ-1004 Please Reply By September 6, 2005 Planner Jacqueline Hatch Project Amended change of designated uses for Lifebridge PUD with E, R-1, R-2, R-3, R- 4, C-1 & C-2 uses and continued oil and gas production. Legal Lot B of RE-1389; and part of Section 5, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Location North of and adjacent to State Hwy 119; south of and adjacent to CR 26; and west and east of CR 3.5. Parcel Number 1313 05 000062 & 1313 05 000066 & 1313 05 000067 The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please note that new information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of Planning Services. Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) October 18, 2005 ❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan ❑ We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. XSee attached letter. Comments: Signature y ��A- Date Agency We ,S,/�'`�'"'�J +Weld County Planning Dept. +918 10th Street,Greeley,CO.80631 +(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +(970)304-6498 fax /tOt DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES BUILDING INSPECTION - // NORTH OFFICE 918 10T" STREET GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 I PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT.3540 FAX (970) 304-6498 COLORADO September 1, 2005 TO: Jacqueline Hatch, Planner FROM: Lin Dodge, Building/Addressing Tech RE: Lifebridge Christian Church —AMPZ-1004 After reviewing the referral packet, I defer any addressing until the development has progressed further along in the process and a plat is submitted with actual lots and streets laid out. Hello