The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20053248.tiff September 24, 2005 Weld County Planning Department To: Weld County Planning Commission GREELEY OFFICE Re: Proposed zoning changes for LifeBridge Christian Church OCT X 2005 (Case Number AmPZ-1004) RECEIVED As homeowner(s) within the adjacent property, I/we would like to express to the Planning Commission, for consideration during the approval process, the following concerns of our existing community: 1. Visual Obstruction: One of the primary purposes for purchasing a home within the county, outside of city limits, is for a less densely populated environment that provides an open view of Colorado's Front Range. While a community center and shopping village is attractive to a town environment, it is not consistent with the purpose of our community at Meadow Vale Farm. While we understand that it is likely that the commercial development can not be stopped, we feel strongly that the zoning plan be modified to limit the height of the buildings within the area directly west of our community to an amount of 45 feet, to lessen the impact. 2. Traffic Consideration While it has been discussed within open forums that our community does not want, and the LifeBridge developers have agreed not to have our streets connected to this new development, we kindly request that an understanding be prepared in writing to ensure that as progress and phases are completed and as traffic increases that our neighbourhood streets are not forced to become a thoroughfare. We appreciate your taking the time to understand our position on this matter. Sincerely, Meadow Vale Farm home owner(s) Mr.Pete Noels Name: 1Z- 2040 Jcic PI ( Longmont CO 80504-6259 tUi Name: 7''f G eio Address: Z oy o TCA< r` t- Longmont, CO 80504 EXHIENT rfr 2005-3248 w@/, Gpnnid pountY Planning De GR" � Y Oppicttartntent October 4, 2005 OCT °CT,X 7 T005 REeECEIV To: Weld County Planning Commission ED Re: Proposed zoning changes for LifeBridge Christian Church (Case Number AmPZ-1004) As homeowners within the adjacent property, we would like to express to the Planning Commission, our concerns regarding the development of the LifeBridge Christian Church property. 1. Proposed rezoning heights: This proposed development parcel is surrounded by two subdivisions to the east, one modular home community to the west, and a commercial area to the south. LifeBridge Christian Church is also proposing a subdivision type development on the northern portion of the subject parcel. All of these developments have a much lower height profile than is being proposed for the rezoning of the subject property. The proposed rezoning calls for large areas restricted to a height of 45 feet with exceptions (20%) to 75 feet. This would cause the property to become completely inconsistent and incompatible with surrounding previously approved and zoned developments. According to LifeBridge Christian Church's own architectural view depictions, visibility to the west is TOTALLY and COMPLETELY lost. Structures WOULD reduce the number of sunlight hours we now have available. These structures are proposed to be so high and bulky that they will dominate all surrounding communities. I suggest the Planning Commission work with LifeBridge Christian Church to determine if there is a VALID NEED for the heights requested of if they represent a 'cover all contingencies' position. The planning Commission must also work to determine the bulk requirements of any allowed height exceptions. For the proposed use of FLYSPACE over auditorium or theatre type buildings, it seems that a height exception of LESS THAN 2% should be granted. What is a reasonable bulk requirement for a flyspace? EXHIBIT I v "7 2. Traffic Consideration It has been discussed and agreed within open forums that Meadow Vale Farm, The Elms at Meadow Vale, LifeBridge Christian Church, and Weld County Commissioners do not want to have Pearl Howlett and Blue Mountain Roads interconnected to the LifeBridge Christian Church development. We kindly request that an understanding be prepared in writing to ensure that our neighbourhood streets are not forced to become interconnected with the LifeBridge Christian Church development and consequently become a thoroughfare. We appreciate your taking the time to understand our position on this matter. Sincerely, Meadow Vale Farm home owner(s) Name: William S. Norris: Name: JoyFe E. Norris K iro, 4, 11,-4> -4> Address: 1872 Blue Mountain Road Longmont, CO 80504 Weld Cuu dy GRfE(�f•OFF CEepa-ment e OCT 18 2005 October 10,2005 RECEIVED To: Weld County Planning Commission Re: Proposed Zoning changes for Lifebridge Christian Church (Case Number AmPZ-1004) As homeowners within the Meadowvale Farms Subdivision, we would like to express the following concerns for your consideration on the proposed zoning changes to Lifebridge Church. 1. Building Height - We would request that the maximum height approved for the church property, buildings, steeples and associated development not exceed 45 feet. Heights any higher would have a negative impact on the views and the community. 2. Connecting roads to Meadowvale Farms Subdivision—Although the developer has agreed not connect any of the roads in Meadowvale to the new development, we would kindly request that this agreement be prepared in writing to ensure no r^- confusion or changes in the agreement. We moved to Meadowvale Farms in 1999 to escape the urban sprawl and to enjoy the majestic views of the Colorado front range. We are not opposed to the development of surrounding properties for commercial, community and residential purposes. We would request that the development be done in conjunction with the spirit and purpose of the rural lifestyle of Meadowvale Farms. Weld County should remain grounded in its rural heritage through smart development and planning consistent with the surrounding areas. We appreciate your consideration of our concerns in the matter of the zoning changes for Lifebridge Church Sincerely, John and Carrie Shellenberger Signed: Addre . 224 eadowvale R d Lo ont, Colorado 80504 (303) 776-7218 EXHIBIT 1 September 24, 2005 To: Weld County Planning Commission Re: Proposed zoning changes for LifeBridge Christian Church (Case Number AmPZ-1004) As homeowner(s)within the adjacent property, l/we would like to express to the Planning Commission, for consideration during the approval process, the following concerns of our existing community: 1. Visual Obstruction: Lion: One of the primary purposes for purchasing a home within the county, outside of city limits, is for a less densely populated environment that provides an open view of Colorado's Front Range. While a community center and shopping village is attractive to a town environment, it is not consistent with the purpose of our community at Meadow Vale Farm. While we understand that it is likely that the commercial development can not be stopped, we feel strongly that the zoning plan be modified to limit the height of the buildings within the area directly west of our community to an amount of 45 feet, to lessen the impact. 2. Traffic Consideration While it has been discussed within open forums that our community does not want, and the LifeBridge developers have agreed not to have our streets connected to this new development, we kindly request that an understanding be prepared in writing to ensure that as progress and phases are completed and as traffic increases that our neighbourhood streets we not forced to become a thoroughfare. We appreciate your taking the time to understand our position on this matter. Sincerely, Meadow Vale Farm home owner(s) The Kochs ' // iG5G Dlue Mountain RA Name: S�Ve K�-k ) �ncimont, CO 80504 Name: �.l ru - �.�0 k-.. ,-� Address: t 1559 E Mil\) Longmont, CO 80504 EXHI IT W COUnty Plana!, October 13, 2005 GREELEY OF; Ms. Jacqueline Hatch OCT 1 4 2005 Dept. of Planning Services North • C 918 10t St. CEI V Ec Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Weld County Planning Commission Proposed zoning changes for LifeBridge Christian Church (Case Number AmPZ-1004) Dear Ms. Hatch and Weld County Planning Commission We are homeowners in the Meadow Vale Farm subdivision just east of the future LifeBridge Christian Church development and have major objections to two aspects of this development. We welcome the church as our neighbor, however regarding building heights, we respectfully ask that the Planning Commission consider recommendations to change the percentage currently allowed on two parcels from 20% (up to 75 ft. heights) to 5% or 10% maximum. Church representatives have indicated they do not intend to use all 20%, which is very incompatible with the surrounding developments, including the Vista Commercial Center. This is not about view preservation, but about visual balance and development continuity and compatibility within Southwest Weld County, an important aspect for area appeal and future quality development. It is our understanding that once again, the idea of road connectivity to ease the traffic flow from the church development and emergency vehicle access may be on the table for consideration. We have lived in Meadow Vale Farm for more than six years and adamantly oppose connectivity for any reason. Traffic resulting from many of the church functions, were described by CDOT at.the last zoning hearing as "event traffic". Allowing steady traffic through our very small, quiet neighborhood with very narrow roads would be devastating to our quality of life and more importantly, the safety of our children. If connectivity is approved, it seems the next assault on our neighborhood would be eminent domain to widen our community streets to accommodate the increasing traffic as the church grows. EXHIBIT fce As a real estate appraiser, I know this would cause a significant reduction in our property values. This new LifeBridge development is much larger than their current facility on Hwy 66, and it is well known through public records, this is what occurred to the surrounding homes of their current location. Appreciation of these properties have not kept pace with other comparable properties in near by locations. We understand and can appreciate Weld County Commissioners wish to protect property owner's rights to develop, but what about showing a little more regard for preserving some quality of life for those of us who have already paid and continue to pay our share to Weld County. Let us be clear, we do NOT want connectivity. The only road through traffic would connect to is road 5.5, and as far as emergency vehicles, to my knowledge, no one here has complained about response time. Sincerely, ly ti-Oketuj ,at,_ -J< 6/ Ed and Susan Harbuz 2110 Meadow Vale Rd Longmont, Co 80504 r Weld County Planning Department GREELEY OFFICE 1' October 13, 2005 OCT 14 2005 To: Weld County Planning commission From: John Mark Schroeder RECEIVED 1942 Blue Mountain Rd Longmont, CO 805004 Subject: Lifebridge Christian Church zoning change request, Case number AmPZ-1004 I am a homeowner in the adjacent Meadowvale Farm sub-division, and within 500 ft of the propose development. I have concerns about the proposed development. The overall scale of the development is incompatible with the surrounding residential neighbors, this issue/concept has been widely discussed before. However, the particular problem with the latest form of their proposal is the height variance requests. Both the height variance (70ft)requested and the overall square footage requested for that variance are too large, and are incompatible and inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhoods. This is not just a matter of views; I realize that there is no constitutional right to unobstructed views. However,preservation of SOME view corridors is desirable. The original plan did preserve view corridors, and that was the plan supported by our community in cooperation with the church. It is a also an issue of light, even the 45 height requirement will allow complete blocking of the afternoon sun during winter in our community,the 70 ft variance will make it worse. I strongly ask that you limit all heights directly west of our homes to 45 ft, and limit the allowed square footage of those heights to something resembling the original plan. The second issue is of connectivity, it has been clearly documented for the record that the community does not want road connectivity to the church development, and the Church and developers have stated that they agree with this. I ask that this be committed in writing so that as development proceeds we are not forced to be connected to the development, allowing church traffic through our neigh, rhood. John Mark Schroeder 1942 Blue Mountain Rd Longmont CO 80504 Meadow Vale Farm Homeowner = EXHIBIT September 24, 2005 To: Weld County Planning Commission Re: Proposed zoning changes for LifeBridge Christian Church (Case Number AmPZ-1004) As homeowner(s) within the adjacent property, I/we would like to express to the Planning Commission, for consideration during the approval process, the following concerns of our existing community: 1. Visual Obstruction: One of the primary purposes for purchasing a home within the county, outside of city limits, is for a less densely populated environment that provides an open view of Colorado's Front Range. While a community center and shopping village is attractive to a town environment, it is not consistent with the purpose of our community at Meadow Vale Farm. While we understand that it is likely that the commercial development can not be stopped, we feel strongly that the zoning plan be modified to limit the height of the buildings within the area directly west of our community to an amount of 45 feet, to lessen the impact. 2. Traffic Consideration While it has been discussed within open forums that our community does not want, and the LifeBridge developers have agreed not to have our streets connected to this new development, we kindly request that an understanding be prepared in writing to ensure that as progress and phases are completed and as traffic increases that our neighbourhood streets are not forced to become a thoroughfare. We appreciate your taking the time to understand our position on this matter. Sincerely, Meadow Vale Farm home owner(s) Name: 4{ 4 7%/7 Name: /cv""`�'„"4 C-4' Address: 2010 Rive v4ou4j- j ( ,e&,_ Longmont, CO 80504 EXIT fis & j September 24, 2005 To: Weld County Planning Commission Re: Proposed zoning changes for LifeBridge Christian Church (Case Number AmPZ-1004) As homeowner(s) within the adjacent property, I/we would like to express to the Planning Commission, for consideration during the approval process, the following concerns of our existing community: 1. Visual Obstruction: One of the primary purposes for purchasing a home within the county, outside of city limits, is for a less densely populated environment that provides an open view of Colorado's Front Range. While a community center and shopping village is attractive to a town environment, it is not consistent with the purpose of our community at Meadow Vale Farm. While we understand that it is likely that the commercial development can not be stopped, we feel strongly that the zoning plan be modified to limit the height of the buildings within the area directly west of our community to an amount of 45 feet, to lessen the impact. 2. Traffic Consideration While it has been discussed within open forums that our community does not want, and the LifeBridge developers have agreed not to have our streets connected to this new development, we kindly request that an understanding be prepared in writing to ensure that as progress and phases are completed and as traffic increases that our neighbourhood streets are not forced to become a thoroughfare. We appreciate your taking the time to understand our position on this matter. Sincerely, Meadow Vale eIlIlrFarm home owner(s) Name: � Name: 2,1 "b)o/1.r- Address: .2/I R Clue /1/I4h.J) Longmont, CO 80504 EXHIBIT September 24, 2005 To: Weld County Planning Commission Re: Proposed zoning changes for LifeBridge Christian Church (Case Number AmPZ-1004) As homeowner(s) within the adjacent property, I/we would like to express to the Planning Commission, for consideration during the approval process, the following concerns of our existing community: 1. Visual Obstruction: One of the primary purposes for purchasing a home within the county, outside of city limits, is for a less densely populated environment that provides an open view of Colorado's Front Range. While a community center and shopping village is attractive to a town environment, it is not consistent with the purpose of our community at Meadow Vale Farm. While we understand that it is likely that the commercial development can not be stopped, we feel strongly that the zoning plan be modified to limit the height of the buildings within the area directly west of our community to an amount of 45 feet, to lessen the impact. 2. Traffic Consideration While it has been discussed within open forums that our community does not want, and the LifeBridge developers have agreed not to have our streets connected to this new development, we kindly request that an understanding be prepared in writing to ensure that as progress and phases are completed and as traffic increases that our neighbourhood streets are not forced to become a thoroughfare. We appreciate your taking the time to understand our position on this matter. Sincerely, Meadow Vale Farm home owner(s) Name: 5k,r,.nn�L. CcasA-t r Name: 6\04.4ra-.CSt& Address: Vfl% t(l take to lfa l4 -4 Longmont, CO 80504 = EXHIBIT S September 24, 2005 To: Weld County Planning Commission Re: Proposed zoning changes for LifeBridge Christian Church (Case Number AmPZ-1004) As homeowner(s)within the adjacent property, I/we would like to express to the Planning Commission, for consideration during the approval process, the following concerns of our existing community: 1. Visual Obstruction: One of the primary purposes for purchasing a home within the county, outside of city limits, is for a less densely populated environment that provides an open view of Colorado's Front Range. While a community center and shopping village is attractive to a town environment, it is not consistent with the purpose of our community at Meadow Vale Farm. While we understand that it is likely that the commercial development can not be stopped, we feel strongly that the zoning plan be modified to limit the height of the buildings within the area directly west of our community to an amount of 45 feet, to lessen the impact. r 2. Traffic Consideration While it has been discussed within open forums that our community does not want, and the LifeBridge developers have agreed not to have our streets connected to this new development, we kindly request that an understanding be prepared in writing to ensure that as progress and phases are completed and as traffic increases that our neighbourhood streets are not forced to become a thoroughfare. We appreciate your taking the time to understand our position on this matter. Sincerely, Meadow Vale Farm home owner(s) Name: v i incur w. (*Reh Name: —7fr,,�, ,1 W• Air, Address: I 9p M2ADaw VAa6RD. Longmont, CO 80504 = EXHIBIT September 24, 2005 To: Weld County Planning Commission Re: Proposed zoning changes for LifeBridge Christian Church (Case Number AmPZ-1004) As homeowner(s) within the adjacent property, Uwe would like to express to the Planning Commission, for consideration during the approval process, the following concerns of our existing community: 1. Visual Obstruction: One of the primary purposes for purchasing a home within the county, outside of city limits, is for a less densely populated environment that provides an open view of Colorado's Front Range. While a community center and shopping village is attractive to a town environment, it is not consistent with the purpose of our community at Meadow Vale Farm. While we understand that it is likely that the commercial development can not be stopped, we feel strongly that the zoning plan be modified to limit the height of the buildings within the area directly west of our community to an amount of 45 feet, to lessen the impact. 2. Traffic Consideration While it has been discussed within open forums that our community does not want, and the LifeBridge developers have agreed not to have our streets connected to this new development, we kindly request that an understanding be prepared in writing to ensure that as progress and phases are completed and as traffic increases that our neighbourhood streets are not forced to become a thoroughfare. We appreciate your taking the time to understand our position on this matter. Sincerely, £- j. ( "4m Meadow Vale Farm home owner(s) Name: .Linda E. dirty Name: N Rood eft Address: /998 Bloc Maunicin EX Longmont, CO 80504 September 24, 2005 To: Weld County Planning Commission Re: Proposed zoning changes for LifeBridge Christian Church (Case Number AmPZ-1004) As homeowner(s) within the adjacent property, I/we would like to express to the Planning Commission, for consideration during the approval process, the following concerns of our existing community: 1. Visual Obstruction: One of the primary purposes for purchasing a home within the county, outside of city limits, is for a less densely populated environment that provides an open view of Colorado's Front Range. While a community center and shopping village is attractive to a town environment, it is not consistent with the purpose of our community at Meadow Vale Farm. While we understand that it is likely that the commercial development can not be stopped, we feel strongly that the zoning plan be modified to limit the height of the buildings within the area directly west of our community to an amount of 45 feet, to r lessen the impact. 2. Traffic Consideration While it has been discussed within open forums that our community does not want, and the LifeBridge developers have agreed not to have our streets connected to this new development, we kindly request that an understanding be prepared in writing to ensure that as progress and phases are completed F and as traffic increases that our neighbourhood streets are not forced to become a thoroughfare. We appreciate your taking the time to understand our position on this matter. Sincerely, �� C Meadow Vale Farm home owner(s) Name: D C . C42(p Name: Address: / S Se azOt t l0cm,7/9)N /zowle Longmont, CO 80504 EXHIBIT September 24, 2005 To: Weld County Planning Commission Re: Proposed zoning changes for LifeBridge Christian Church (Case Number AmPZ-1004) As homeowner(s) within the adjacent property, I/we would like to express to the Planning Commission, for consideration during the approval process, the following concerns of our existing community: 1. Visual Obstruction: One of the primary purposes for purchasing a home within the county, outside of city limits, is for a less densely populated environment that provides an open view of Colorado's Front Range. While a community center and shopping village is attractive to a town environment, it is not consistent with the purpose of our community at Meadow Vale Farm. While we understand that it is likely that the commercial development can not be stopped, we feel strongly that the zoning plan be modified to limit the height of the buildings within the area directly west of our community to an amount of 45 feet, to r lessen the impact. 2. Traffic Consideration While it has been discussed within open forums that our community does not want, and the LifeBridge developers have agreed not to have our streets connected to this new development, we kindly request that an understanding be prepared in writing to ensure that as progress and phases are completed and as traffic increases that our neighbourhood streets are not forced to become a thoroughfare. We appreciate your takin the time to understand our position on this matter. Sincer I�y—, Meadow Vale Farm home owner(s) �� Name: 9/1-14( rn K I' 'AG0(Lol a Skc_\ Name: Address: 2-01(3 22i-.0 ©ckl-rA.W',&D Longmont, CO 80504 EXHIBIT September 24, 2005 To: Weld County Planning Commission Re: Proposed zoning changes for LifeBridge Christian Church (Case Number AmPZ-1004) As homeowner(s) within the adjacent property, I/we would like to express to the Planning Commission, for consideration during the approval process, the following concerns of our existing community: 1. Visual Obstruction: One of the primary purposes for purchasing a home within the county, outside of city limits, is for a less densely populated environment that provides an open view of Colorado's Front Range. While a community center and shopping village is attractive to a town environment, it is not consistent with the purpose of our community at Meadow Vale Farm. While we understand that it is likely that the commercial development can not be stopped, we feel strongly that the zoning plan be modified to limit the height of th b ildings within the area directly west of our community to an amount of et, to lessen the impact. 2. Traffic Consideration While it has been discussed within open forums that our community does not want, and the LifeBridge developers have agreed not to have our streets connected to this new development, we kindly request that an understanding be prepared in writing to ensure that as progress and phases are completed and as traffic increases that our neighbourhood streets are not forced to become a thoroughfare. We appreciate y•ur =king the ' e to u and our position on this matter. r _ Sincerely, ' Meadow Vale Farm home owner(s) Name: ‘ p Name: /1 !- Address: 1tor A1thhd) ll kr.-4. Pea , Longmont, CO 80504 EXHIBIT September 24, 2005 To: Weld County Planning Commission Re: Proposed zoning changes for LifeBridge Christian Church (Case Number AmPZ-1004) As homeowner(s) within the adjacent property, I/we would like to express to the Planning Commission, for consideration during the approval process, the following concerns of our existing community: 1. Visual Obstruction: One of the primary purposes for purchasing a home within the county, outside of city limits, is for a less densely populated environment that provides an open view of Colorado's Front Range. While a community center and shopping village is attractive to a town environment, it is not consistent with the purpose of our community at Meadow Vale Farm. While we understand that it is likely that the commercial development can not be stopped, we feel strongly that the zoning plan be modified to limit the height of the buildings within the area directly west of our community to an amount of(feet, to lessen the impact. ,30 2. Traffic Consideration While it has been discussed within open forums that our community does not want, and the LifeBridge developers have agreed not to have our streets connected to this new development, we kindly request that an understanding be prepared in writing to ensure that as progress and phases are completed and as traffic increases that our neighbourhood streets are not forced to become a thoroughfare. We appreciate your taking the time to understand our position on this matter. Sincerely, Meadow Vale Farm home owner(s) Name: Name: t r N3 t A edS/}2t) Address: 190 c t' `E Da-co Pr lie- Longmont, CO 80504 j EXHIBIT September 24, 2005 r To: Weld County Planning Commission Re: Proposed zoning changes for LifeBridge Christian Church (Case Number AmPZ-1004) As homeowner(s) within the adjacent property, I/we would like to express to the Planning Commission, for consideration during the approval process, the following concerns of our existing community: 1. Visual Obstruction: One of the primary purposes for purchasing a home within the county, outside of city limits, is for a less densely populated environment that provides an open view of Colorado's Front Range. While a community center and shopping village is attractive to a town environment, it is not consistent with the purpose of our community at Meadow Vale Farm. While we understand that it is likely that the commercial development can not be stopped, we feel strongly that the zoning plan be modified to limit the height of the buildings within the area directly west of our community to an amount of 45 feet, to lessen the impact. 2. Traffic Consideration While it has been discussed within open forums that our community does not want, and the LifeBridge developers have agreed not to have our streets connected to this new development, we kindly request that an understanding be prepared in writing to ensure that as progress and phases are completed and as traffic increases that our neighbourhood streets are not forced to become a thoroughfare. We appreciate your taking the time to understand our position on this matter. Sincerely, Meadow Vale Farm home owner(s) Name: Name: C vynD,L, & U M Address: Zo l o Ol ue 040unitok DW. EXHIBR Longmont, CO 80504 September 24, 2005 To: Weld County Planning Commission Re: Proposed zoning changes for LifeBridge Christian Church (Case Number AmPZ-1004) As homeowner(s) within the adjacent property, I/we would like to express to the Planning Commission, for consideration during the approval process, the following concerns of our existing community: 1. Visual Obstruction: One of the primary purposes for purchasing a home within the county, outside of city limits, is for a less densely populated environment that provides an open view of Colorado's Front Range. While a community center and shopping village is attractive to a town environment, it is not consistent with the purpose of our community at Meadow Vale Farm. While we understand that it is likely that the commercial development can not be stopped, we feel strongly that the zoning plan be modified to limit the height of the buildings within the area directly west of our community to an amount of 45 feet, to lessen the impact. 2. Traffic Consideration While it has been discussed within open forums that our community does not want, and the LifeBridge developers have agreed not to have our streets connected to this new development, we kindly request that an understanding be prepared in writing to ensure that as progress and phases are completed and as traffic increases that our neighbourhood streets are not forced to become a thoroughfare. We appreciate your taking the time to understand our position on this matter. Sincerely, Meadow Vale Farm home owner(s) Name: K10723- .v723 F rA'e Name: �/ GGf/ a of/ Address: /7 Longmont, CO 8 504 EXHIBIT sa September 24, 2005 r To: Weld County Planning Commission Re: Proposed zoning changes for LifeBridge Christian Church (Case Number AmPZ-1004) As homeowner(s) within the adjacent property, I/we would like to express to the Planning Commission, for consideration during the approval process, the following concerns of our existing community: 1. Visual Obstruction: One of the primary purposes for purchasing a home within the county, outside of city limits, is for a less densely populated environment that provides an open view of Colorado's Front Range. While a community center and shopping village is attractive to a town environment, it is not consistent with the purpose of our community at Meadow Vale Farm. While we understand that it is likely that the commercial development can not be stopped, we feel strongly that the zoning plan be modified to limit the height of the buildings within the area directly west of our community to an amount of 45 feet, to r lessen the impact. 2. Traffic Consideration While it has been discussed within open forums that our community does not want, and the LifeBridge developers have agreed not to have our streets connected to this new development, we kindly request that an understanding be prepared in writing to ensure that as progress and phases are completed and as traffic increases that our neighbourhood streets are not forced to become a thoroughfare. We appreciate your taking the time to understand our position on this matter. Sincerely, Meadow Vale Farm home owner(s) Name: III 1.. `/0 r Name: r (� Address: '-I P k ro Longmont, CO 80504 [1. EXHIBIT September 24, 2005 r To: Weld County Planning Commission Re: Proposed zoning changes for LifeBridge Christian Church (Case Number AmPZ-1004) As homeowner(s) within the adjacent property, I/we would like to express to the Planning Commission, for consideration during the approval process, the following concerns of our existing community: 1. Visual Obstruction: One of the primary purposes for purchasing a home within the county, outside of city limits, is for a less densely populated environment that provides an open view of Colorado's Front Range. While a community center and shopping village is attractive to a town environment, it is not consistent with the purpose of our community at Meadow Vale Farm. While we understand that it is likely that the commercial development can not be stopped, we feel strongly that the zoning plan be modified to limit the height of the buildings within the area directly west of our community to an amount of 45 feet, to lessen the impact. 2. Traffic Consideration While it has been discussed within open forums that our community does not want, and the LifeBridge developers have agreed not to have our streets connected to this new development, we kindly request that an understanding be prepared in writing to ensure that as progress and phases are completed and as traffic increases that our neighbourhood streets are not forced to become a thoroughfare. We appreciate your taking the time to understand our position on this matter. Sincerely, Meadow Vale Farm home owner(s) Name: t Name:Address: 990 ) '/ V _ IBIT nt. Longmont, CO 80504 September 24, 2005 r1 To: Weld County Planning Commission Re: Proposed zoning changes for LifeBridge Christian Church (Case Number AmPZ-1004) As homeowner(s) within the adjacent property, I/we would like to express to the Planning Commission, for consideration during the approval process, the following concerns of our existing community: 1. Visual Obstruction: One of the primary purposes for purchasing a home within the county, outside of city limits, is for a less densely populated environment that provides an open view of Colorado's Front Range. While a community center and shopping village is attractive to a town environment, it is not consistent with the purpose of our community at Meadow Vale Farm. While we understand that it is likely that the commercial development can not be stopped, we feel strongly that the zoning plan be modified to limit the height of the buildings within the area directly west of our community to an amount of 45 feet, to lessen the impact. r-, 2. Traffic Consideration While it has been discussed within open forums that our community does not want, and the LifeBridge developers have agreed not to have our streets connected to this new development, we kindly request that an understanding be prepared in writing to ensure that as progress and phases are completed and as traffic increases that our neighbourhood streets are not forced to become a thoroughfare. We appreciate your taking the time to understand our position on this matter. ' I Sincere) a.- Meadow Vale Farm home owner(s) Name: YAnl.O.4l`cCiffilt7r4 Name: Address: 'Longmont, CO 80504 EXHIBIT September 24, 2005 To: Weld County Planning Commission Re: Proposed zoning changes for LifeBridge Christian Church (Case Number AmPZ-1004) As homeowner(s) within the adjacent property, I/we would like to express to the Planning Commission, for consideration during the approval process, the following concerns of our existing community: 1. Visual Obstruction: One of the primary purposes for purchasing a home within the county, outside of city limits, is for a less densely populated environment that provides an open view of Colorado's Front Range. While a community center and shopping village is attractive to a town environment, it is not consistent with the purpose of our community at Meadow Vale Farm. While we understand that it is likely that the commercial development can not be stopped, we feel strongly that the zoning plan be modified to limit the height of the buildings within the area directly west of our community to an amount of 45 feet, to lessen the impact. r 2. Traffic Consideration While it has been discussed within open forums that our community does not want, and the LifeBridge developers have agreed not to have our streets connected to this new development, we kindly request that an understanding be prepared in writing to ensure that as progress and phases are completed and as traffic increases that our neighbourhood streets are not forced to become a thoroughfare. We appreciate your taking the time t understand our position on this matter. Sincerely, Mead ale Farm home owner(s) Name: .L2P 4 �///1 Name: p/� Address: X7'62 4/se 4 a,tp%,r Z Longmont, CO 80504 EXHIBIT September 24, 2005 To: Weld County Planning Commission Re: Proposed zoning changes for LifeBridge Christian Church (Case Number AmPZ-1004) As homeowner(s) within the adjacent property, I/we would like to express to the Planning Commission, for consideration during the approval process, the following concerns of our existing community: 1. Visual Obstruction: One of the primary purposes for purchasing a home within the county, outside of city limits, is for a less densely populated environment that provides an open view of Colorado's Front Range. While a community center and shopping village is attractive to a town environment, it is not consistent with the purpose of our community at Meadow Vale Farm. While we understand that it is likely that the commercial development can not be stopped, we feel strongly that the zoning plan be modified to limit the height of the buildings within the area directly west of our community to an amount of 45 feet, to r-- lessen the impact. 2. Traffic Consideration While it has been discussed within open forums that our community does not want, and the LifeBridge developers have agreed not to have our streets connected to this new development, we kindly request that an understanding be prepared in writing to ensure that as progress and phases are completed F and as traffic increases that our neighbourhood streets are not forced to become a thoroughfare. We appreciate your taking the time to understand our position on this matter. Sincerely, Meadow Vale Farm home owner(s) Name: t_-- Name: \I\Ic'r-Nr 111K Address: 9bIcE2 \\aQ \-\\f)l- Longmont, CO 80504 if EXHIBIT September 24, 2005 r To: Weld County Planning Commission Re: Proposed zoning changes for LifeBridge Christian Church (Case Number AmPZ-1004) As homeowner(s) within the adjacent property, I/we would like to express to the Planning Commission, for consideration during the approval process, the following concerns of our existing community: 1. Visual Obstruction: One of the primary purposes for purchasing a home within the county, outside of city limits, is for a less densely populated environment that provides an open view of Colorado's Front Range. While a community center and shopping village is attractive to a town environment, it is not consistent with the purpose of our community at Meadow Vale Farm. While we understand that it is likely that the commercial development can not be stopped, we feel strongly that the zoning plan be modified to limit the height of the buildings within the area directly west of our community to an amount of 45 feet, to lessen the impact. 2. Traffic Consideration While it has been discussed within open forums that our community does not want, and the LifeBridge developers have agreed not to have our streets connected to this new development, we kindly request that an understanding be prepared in writing to ensure that as progress and phases are completed and as traffic increases that our neighbourhood streets are not forced to become a thoroughfare. We appreciate your taking the time to understand our position on this matter. Sincerely, Meadow Vale Farm home owner(s) Name: A ibel aLi`rv' Name: �1 Address: /7 2 /27eW it) eeO. Longmont, CO 80504 = EXHIBIT N,/ September 24, 2005 To: Weld County Planning Commission Re: Proposed zoning changes for LifeBridge Christian Church (Case Number AmPZ-1004) As homeowner(s) within the adjacent property, I/we would like to express to the Planning Commission, for consideration during the approval process, the following concerns of our existing community: 1. Visual Obstruction: One of the primary purposes for purchasing a home within the county, outside of city limits, is for a less densely populated environment that provides an open view of Colorado's Front Range. While a community center and shopping village is attractive to a town environment, it is not consistent with the purpose of our community at Meadow Vale Farm. While we understand that it is likely that the commercial development can not be stopped, we feel strongly that the zoning plan be modified to limit the height of the buildings within the area directly west of our community to an amount of 45 feet, to r lessen the impact. 2. Traffic Consideration While it has been discussed within open forums that our community does not want, and the LifeBridge developers have agreed not to have our streets connected to this new development, we kindly request that an understanding be prepared in writing to ensure that as progress and phases are completed and as traffic increases that our neighbourhood streets are not forced to become a thoroughfare. We appreciate your taking the time to understand our position on this matter. Sincerely, Meadow Vale Farm home owner(s) Name: Name: /Lc = EXHIBIT Address: / ! �`C Longmont, CO 504 S `1( September 24, 2005 To: Weld County Planning Commission Re: Proposed zoning changes for LifeBridge Christian Church (Case Number AmPZ-1004) As homeowner(s) within the adjacent property, I/we would like to express to the Planning Commission, for consideration during the approval process, the following concerns of our existing community: 1. Visual Obstruction: One of the primary purposes for purchasing a home within the county, outside of city limits, is for a less densely populated environment that provides an open view of Colorado's Front Range. While a community center and shopping village is attractive to a town environment, it is not consistent with the purpose of our community at Meadow Vale Farm. While we understand that it is likely that the commercial development can not be stopped, we feel strongly that the zoning plan be modified to limit the height of the buildings within the area directly west of our community to an amount of 45 feet, to lessen the impact. 2. Traffic Consideration While it has been discussed within open forums that our community does not want, and the LifeBridge developers have agreed not to have our streets F connected to this new development, we kindly request that an understanding be prepared in writing to ensure that as progress and phases are completed and as traffic increases that our neighbourhood streets are not forced to become a thoroughfare. We appreciate your taking the time to understand our position on this matter. Sincere)Meadow Vale Fa home owner(s) Name: 44 FE-Le M q ni Name: 6ICEC.I�TE P HEK1 S Address: 2O410 H EA&A&I VA-Le- A Longmont, CO 80504 EXHIBIT September 24, 2005 To: Weld County Planning Commission Re: Proposed zoning changes for LifeBridge Christian Church (Case Number AmPZ-1004) As homeowner(s) within the adjacent property, I/we would like to express to the Planning Commission, for consideration during the approval process, the following concerns of our existing community: 1. Visual Obstruction: One of the primary purposes for purchasing a home within the county, outside of city limits, is for a less densely populated environment that provides an open view of Colorado's Front Range. While a community center and shopping village is attractive to a town environment, it is not consistent with the purpose of our community at Meadow Vale Farm. While we understand that it is likely that the commercial development can not be stopped, we feel strongly that the zoning plan be modified to limit the height of the buildings within the area directly west of our community to an amount of 45 feet, to lessen the impact. 2. Traffic Consideration While it has been discussed within open forums that our community does not • want, and the LifeBridge developers have agreed not to have our streets connected to this new development, we kindly request that an understanding be prepared in writing to ensure that as progress and phases are completed and as traffic increases that our neighbourhood streets are not forced to become a thoroughfare. We appreciate your taking the time to understand our position on this matter. Sincerely, Meadow Vale Farm home owner(s) Name: !' : i`J�•6^1 " Name: • Address: ‘;7,) A-) c %% L11 v �f Longmont, CO 80504 EXHIBIT S2 Oct 17 05 01 : 51a Ziyax 303-484-7936 p. 1 LISA BLACK 2055 ICK PLACE LONGMONT, CO 80504 WELD COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN REGARDS TO: AmPZ-1®04 I WOULD LIKE TO VOICE MY CONCERN IN WRITING. I HAVE BEEN TO SEVERAL MEETINGS ABOUT LIFEBRIDGE CHURCH. ONE OF MY GREAT CONCERNS IS THAT THE FACT THAT WELD COUNTY IS PUSHING TO HAVE OUR ROADS CONNECTED. I MOVED OUT HERE TO GET AWAY FROM TRAFFIC SO MY KIDS COULD ACTUALLY RIDE THEIR BIKES WITHOUT THE FEAR OF GETTING RUN OVER BY A CAR. I DO NOT WANT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TURNED INTO A THOROUGH FARE. THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC JUST FROM THE.ELMS NEIGHBORHOOD AT LEAST DOUBLED THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC GOING THROUGH MEADOWVALE FARMS. NOW YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT TRIPPLING THE TRAFFIC WE ALREADY HAVE. NOT TO MENTION THAT WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN OUR OWN ROADS. HAVE ANY OF YOU SAT AT COUNTY RD 5 'h? IT ALREADY TAKES A WHILE TO TURN EAST OUT OF THERE. PLEASE DO NOT CONNECT THE ROADS THE PROPERTIES TO THE EAST ARE NOT IN FAVOR AND NEITHER IS LIFEBRIDGE. MY SECOND CONCERN IS THE AMOUNT OF SPACE THAT THE CHURCH IS ALLOWED A 75 FT HEIGHT EXCEPTION. IF I UNDERSTAND CORECTLY THEY WOULD HAVE ABOUT AN ACRE THAT COULD BE IN THE EXCEPTION. I FEEL THAT THIS IS TOO MUCH. THAT WOULD BE LIKE A 6 STORY APARTMENT BUILDING WOULD IT NOT. I THINK IT WOULD BE WISE TO LOOK AT HOW MUCH SPACE YOU ARE REALLY TALKING ABOUT. DOES IT REALLY NEED TO BE THAT LARGE AND THAT TALL. AGAIN PLEASE DO NOT CONNECT THE ROADS TO OUR NEIGHBORHOODS I WANT MY KIDS TO BE SAFE WHILE PLAYING. LISA BLACK art_ Weld County Planning Department GREELEY OFFICE OCT 17 2005 October 11, 2005 RECEIVED To: Weld County Planning Commission Re: Proposed zoning changes for LifeBridge Christian Church (Case Number AmPZ-1004) As homeowners in the Meadow Vale Farm subdivision,which is directly south of the proposed LifeBridge site, we would like to express to the Planning Commission,the following concerns: 1. Rural vs. Urban Incompatibility One of the primary reasons we purchased a home in this location was the lack of urban development. We are zoned for livestock(i.e. horses, cows, chickens, goats, etc.) in a sort of rural setting. The proposed LifeBridge site is directly behind our property. Skyscrapers and amphitheaters are NOT consistent with this environment. While we understand that since the proposed development will not affect the majority of Weld County, our concerns of this incompatibility will probably be ignored and the change in zoning will be approved. However,we feel strongly that the zoning plan should be modified to limit the height of the buildings to 45 feet, to lessen the impact of this"city" in the middle of farmland. 2.Traffic Considerations While it has been discussed at great length that the cul-de-sacs in Meadow Vale Farm should not be opened to allow through traffic into the proposed LifeBridge development, it seems that the Weld County Planning Commission feels this is a necessary evil of the proposed development. Many of us selected our building sites precisely because they are located on a cul-de-sac! Our children's safety is at risk! We would like to request that an understanding be prepared in writing to ensure that as progress and phases of LifeBridge are completed, our neighborhood streets will NOT be turned in to a thoroughfare. We appreciate your taking time to understand our position on this matter. Snnetely, Ted& C Cif 1921 Blu ountain Road Longmont, CO 80504 303-774-8638 Uri B 1� Page 1 of 1 Jacqueline Hatch From: D'Anne C. Koblick [DCKoblick@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 1:24 PM To: Jacqueline Hatch Subject: Road Proposition to Connect Pearl Howlett to LifeBridge Development Dear Weld County Representatives, I am a resident of the Elms at Meadowvale and am very concerned about the proposition to connect Pearl Howlett to the newly proposed LifeBridge Development. As I am already in opposition to the mega development that is being proposed, I am equally concerned about the potentially high volume of thru traffic that this will indeed create if Pearl Howlett is opened up to this new development. There are countless neighborhoods in the area that do not have thru ways just to accommodate extra traffic. Neighborhoods should be a place where families can enjoy walking, riding, playing without the extra worry that is caused by car traffic. We are already inundated with traffic at every turn, why do we need it in our neighborhoods. We would like to keep our neighborhood safe for children to play and enjoy the great Colorado outdoors. We do a great job of protecting our green space and welfare of animals, what about the humans? Do we not deserve a quiet place to live and play? Regards, D'Anne C. Koblick 11719 Pleasant Hill Road EXHIBIT te 10/18/2005 • Page 1 of 2 r Jacqueline Hatch From: Archer, Rick [rarcher@spike.dor.state.co.usj Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 10:14 AM To: Jacqueline Hatch Good morning, My intent is to keep this brief so I will just jump right into our concerns. My family and I do not oppose a Lifebridge campus,and are even excited about some of their plans. We are not wild about the height of the buildings,but are resigned to that occurring. We invite pedestrian and bicycle inner-connectivity through green belts and parks. We moved to the Elms primarily because the safety the neighborhood offered our children, Joshua 6 years and Cailey 4 years. We moved from an affluent Thornton neighborhood which was subjected to inner-connectivity with an adjacent development. As a resident of the neighborhood we experienced immediate difficulties with the connecting roadway. Vehicle traffic easily tripled,speeds(posted 25 mph)increased significantly,and neighborhood problems developed as a result of residents yelling at speeding vehicles,and in some cases even throwing things at the speeding cars. At the time we were Thornton residents I was also a Thornton Police officer. As a police department we experienced a marked increase in calls for service in the inner-connected neighborhoods. We experienced increased traffic complaints, hit and run accidents,vehicle and auto pedestrian accidents and criminal mischief reports where citizens'lawns and landscapes were driven over by vehicles from adjacent neighborhoods. We also experienced an increase of neighborhood disputes which were caused by the residents yelling and throwing things at cars speeding through the neighborhood. As a department we saw what appeared to be rational adults engaging in criminal behavior due to the increased risks to their children,way of life,and property,caused by cars speeding through one development to get to another. We had data to indicate an increase in property crimes as well. Subsequent to the inner-connectivity we experienced significant increases in burglaries,vehicle thefts,car break-ins, and even sexual assaults. This is not to say the inner connected roadway directly caused these increases,but officers are familiar with the fact that areas that have multiple entrances and exits are more appealing to criminal elements because they are not as easily noticed because of increased "transient" traffic,as well as suspects having more than one way to flee. The neighborhood we lived in was not unique to these incidents. Anytime we opened an established development up to inner-connectivity with a new development we experienced similar problems. Another striking effect of the inner-connectivity in our old neighborhood was the lack of"community". Children did not play in the front yards, families did not go for walks, and neighbors did not socialize across the streets as we had become accustom to. Our children, as well as most others were relegated to playing in our fenced in back yard so we didn't have to worry about them running out into a dangerous street,thus creating an isolating effect. In the Elms,the community feeling exists today. At any time through out the day or night families can be seen walking the neighborhoods with children on bikes,razor scooters, skate boards,and skates. Children play hide and seek, street hockey, and all sorts of neighborhood games. Neighbors stop on the sidewalks, streets,and green belts and actually talk to one another. During the summer there are constantly family and children oriented block parties. This is a safe neighborhood where my children are allowed to go "stop sign to stop sign" and even"around the block" without concern for traffic. In my professional experiences as a police officer as well as in my personal experiences living in a neighborhood subjected to inner-connectivity I have experienced the negative effects of utilizing roadways to inner-connect developments. I implore you,please look at the negative effects to 261 homes,most with children that will result from connecting Pearl Howlett or any other roadway. This proposition will negate the positive community feeling that exists today in the Elms. On my block alone, Victor Dr.,there are 12 children that would be forced to change their way of life if the roadway is connected. Now children walk home from the bus stops, across Pearl Howlett in safety. If inner-connectivity occurs. will be the most dangerous area in the entire neighborhood,and it would cut our development in half. = EXHIBI 10/18/2005 Page 2 of 2 Again,I ask for our entire development that inner-connectivity not be allowed. Sincerely, Rick, Lisa, Joshua, and Cailey Archer 11691 Victor Dr. Longmont,CO 80504 720 652-6517 archers4@att.net 10/18/2005 Jacqueline Hatch "-ram: MATT DEVRIES [msdevries@msn.com] ,ent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 11:06 AM To: Jacqueline Hatch To Whom It May Concern, I live is this wonderful, quiet community. The proposals of expanding county road 5 1/2 to 4 lanes and extending Pearl Howellet through to Life Bridge would not only change the dynamics of this area for the worse but would also compromise the safety of my 4 young children. I strongly urge Weld County to consider the negative impacts of such expansions. Extending Pearl Howellet would divide this community in half and allow a heavy stream of traffic through the middle of the community. Nobody would want a divided community. Thanks for your consideration and I am confident that you will do what is right. Matt DeVries 2668 Elmer Linn Dr. Longmont, CO 80504 EXHIBIT 1 Jacqueline Hatch -prom: MATT DEVRIES [msdevries@msn.com] ent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 12:40 PM To: Jacqueline Hatch Subject: Connection to Lifebridge development! To whom it may concern, I beg you to reconcider your plan to connect Pearl Howlet to the LifeBridge development. We moved to this neighborhood and payed a lot of money for the quite and secluded area. We love it here and we love that our kids can play safley. This would change the whole neighborhood and it just isn't fair to us, who have to put up with this . Would you like it and plan it, if you would live here??? LifeBridge can have their own access from 119 and doesn't need to destroy our beautiful neighborhood! Sincerly, Simone DeVries one of most concerned neighbors EXH an k 1 Page 1 of 1 Jacqueline Hatch From: Meighan [meighankerr@excite.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 11:23 AM To: Jacqueline Hatch Subject: Lifebridge meeting To Whom it May Concern, I am writing in reference to the meeting today regarding the Lifebridge development in SW Weld County. I am unable to attend the meeting,but would like to let you know how my family feels. As far as the development itself is concerned,we do not necessarily like the idea of the large development that they are planning in addition to the church itself,but we are not fighting it. The issue that concerns us greatly is the consideration of connecting Pearl Howlett Rd to the development, giving access to the development through the Elms at Meadowvale. We live I house removed from Pearl Howlett Rd on North Beasly Rd, and are extremely concerned about this possibility. Our main reason for moving into the Elms neighborhood was for safety for our two young children. Our previous house was on a neighborhood road that had a large amount of through traffic, and due to that our kids were unable to ride bikes or play in the front yard. This was not a matter of adult supervision-they have that regardless of what neighborhood we're in,this was a matter of too many cars.driving too fast and carelessly on our street. Because of the large amount of traffic, it was also more difficult to get acquainted with our neighbors, as everyone stayed inside or in the back yard to avoid this traffic. If Pearl Howlett is connected,we will be in that same situation again. Numerous vehicles will be driving past our house that have no neighborhood connection, and therefore tend to drive faster and more carelessly. Our children will be stuck, once again, in the back yard, unable to walk or ride their bikes in front of our house or to other friends'houses within the neighborhood. There is also a main neighborhood school bus stop on Pearl Howlett which serves elementary,middle school, and high school aged children. This,to me, seems like an unneccessary risk to our neighborhood children. This road connecting through would also cause some significant decreases in our home's value. This, however, is not my underlying concern with regards to the connection of Pearl Howlett. The most important issue to me is my children's safety and their chance to grow up connected to the people surrounding us in the neighborhood. If it is so important to Weld County to have an entrance on the east into the Lifebridge development, then I would like to suggest an alternative. Approximately 2 blocks north of Pearl Howlett is CR 26. This road would bring the traffic in on the outside of our neighborhood, instead of right through the middle. It would protect the neighborhood roads that mean so much to our children. And, as far as I can tell, it would do this at a comparable cost, as it is finished from CR 5 1/2 through the end of the neighborhood, the same distance of finished road that is found on Pearl Howlett. Thank you for your attention to our opinions on this matter. Chris and Meighan Kerr 11783 N Beasly Rd Longmont,CO 80504 (303) 776-2961 meighankerr@excite.com Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! EXHIBIT te 10/18/2005 Page 1 of 1 Jacqueline Hatch From: The Hartons Ithehartons@msn.coml Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 11:27 AM To: Jacqueline Hatch Subject: Pearl Howlett To whom it may concern: We are writing in regards to the road connection of Pearl Howlett and the Life Bridge Project. We have been supportive of this project and we attend church at LifeBridge. It is my understanding it is the county who is proposing to connect the west end of Pearl Howlett to the Life Bridge Project. This would be devastating to our quality of life! We purchased this home because it was a quiet neighborhood where our children could safely play and ride their bikes. We were told this road was not going through. Our home directly faces Pearl Howlett at the west end. We have three children under seven, who love a safe place to play! Putting a road through this neighborhood at that magnitude would instantly increase danger and decrease all our of property values. What is the county thinking? Do you not want a better life for those who live in your county? Or would you rather residents move out of Weld County? We know there are alternate solutions to route traffic around our beautiful, quiet neighborhood. We have every confidence there is an agreeable solution. Patrick &Ann Harton 303-684-0933 EXNnnl ₹- f 10/18/2005 MEMORANDUM • ; TO: Planning Commission Commi i n wokDATE: October 17, 2005 COLORADO FROM: Jacqueline Hatch, Planner SUBJECT: Correction AMPZ-1004 Lifebridge Christian Church The Department of Planning Services requests that the following items be changed On page 12 delete W W. No development activity shall commence on the property, nor shall any building permits be issued on the property until the final plan has boen approved and-recorded: (Department of Planning Sorvices) On page 12 changes to #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 chaN may be added for each additional 3 month period. On page 14 under#6 add a new B stating 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. * EXHIBIT J/ FIELD CHECK CASE NUMBER: AmPZ-1004 DATE OF INSPECTION: ell/(- 6: / APPLICANT'S NAME: Lifebridge Christian Church PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch REQUEST: 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 DESCRIPTION: 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. LAND USE: -----7-7 N �- � E ?aG�Z �fG 0c.^1,4067 / • W a1"--ilA/ei9 ��.�.l-vi-S ZONING: N A(Agricultural) & City of Longmont E R-1 S C-3 & I-1 W R-5, R-1, R-2 & City of Longmont COMMENT -lie 447 "tad Az_e,te t A-1AS 1 to ' . 1.1./.... ., 5, 14 i' "-telt el-a/2 -0-filfe-#.)yL____ .7"cita-4-- / -, -71--ett 1 -?-(0--sititt111/0---iti i ld'att:-O- /la A-C,.,e_ , a _,,,,4e77,-_-,:d., 6A7 P.C. Member EXHIBIT I c7 J,1 r to- i. x of N 1 6 CIC NOF i 41 y� Q Y %T- 3d� c• 3r 6 in t A, a ,fir w ' • � Z -f+,� - N_�, r I. Fir ,• a„ d x //r Ce aY a 1 'sg _M i w PI N 14 u ry g; N p '" iX �,A ; r� s " -�P ; - C C its s: b r yyx 1 N' Y � �wSw 4, :1;114'N i #»� %' -w r �} _ 'P St`, 1 , Mau, ' ' n r"n rn nx § ' 'It . s �1 1 al y T t Aye. A � 1 Lc.,3, C 4 40 � .,. C � n ". T. .fir. < a .- 4 1 b - - �94+f�N"+ It i 44;4)4342, ' lfFrf r. DL 1 a Yj " '? , , „ c, �'o A. , F• -�. .� i k _ _ �" E _m . ' .„. "".iii.. W ;wr auua(eg-pypN3d 10/17/2005 17:58 Sunset 18:19 . EXHIBIT I 3 "' TETRA TECH RMC EXHIBIT Mr. Kim Ogle Weld County Department of Planning Services Weld County Administrative Offices 1555 North 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Mitigation Dear Kim: LifeBridge planning staff has continued to meet with the surrounding property owners within Longview, Elms, and Meadow Vale Farm. Their goal remains to listen to the concerns of the area neighbors and to work together in order to reach reasonable and sensible solutions to the issues that are presented. To date many issues have been discussed and as a result LifeBridge has made additional allowances. As a result of the recent allowances they have received the support of several homeowners who have previously opposed the application. The purpose of this letter is to identify the additional allowances and homeowners, who as a result of these allowances now support the LifeBridge Change of Zone Application. Some of these allowances have been discussed and included in prior transmissions to the Weld County Planning Staff Some of the allowances are required by Weld County Code, yet included as an assurance of clarity to the property owners. The allowances for inclusion in the LifeBridge Change of Zone application are as follows: 1. A 125' setback on the eastern perimeter of the development. (An allowance in our letter dated Feb 27, 2003.) 2. A landscaped berm within the 125' setback, along the eastern perimeter of the development, for buffering and screening. See Weld County Code Section 27.2.30 (An allowance identified in our letter dated Feb 27, 2003.) 3. All lighting within the PUD will be directional lighting to minimize off site glare. In order to meet minimum foot-candles for parking areas we will use pole mounted, direct cut-off fixtures as the primary parking lot lighting, and where necessary additional glare guards will be added. Bollard lighting will be the preferred alternative for pedestrian walkways through the parking lot and internal to the campus. (An allowance identified in our letter dated Feb 27, 2003.) 4. The requirement for Open Space will meet the 20% requirement of Weld County Code Section 27.2.60 and Appendix 26E. 5. The proposed LifeBridge PUD development plan does not request connectivity of streets to the adjacent neighborhoods. LifeBridge supports the adjacent neighborhoods and is opposed to the connectivity of the streets in the development plan to both Pearl Howlett in the Elms at Meadowvale, and Blue Mountain Road in Meadow Vale Farms. 6. The amphitheatre has been removed from phase one of the church campus. (An allowance identified in our letter dated Feb 27, 2003.) 1900 5.Sunset Street,Suite 1-F Longmont,CO 80501 Tel:303.772.5282 Fax:303.665.6959 Www.ttrmc.com TETRATECH RMC 7. The size of a future phase amphitheatre has been reduced from 5000 seats to 1500 seats and has been restricted to the northwest corner of the church campus. (An allowance identified in our letter dated Feb 27, 2003.) 8. All references and plans for a 5000-seat prayer garden and/or amphitheatre have been removed from the application. (An allowance identified in our letter dated Feb 27, 2003.) 9. At the time of final plat, LifeBridge Christian Church will execute a deed restriction on the area designated as senior living to limit the use of the property for the development of a senior community. 10. The following table establishes the maximum building heights on the 160-acre church campus; this table replaces all other definitions. Off Set from perimeter Maximum Church Campus only of the 160 acre Church Building Height Campus West Property Line 125 `—400' 45' (Quarter section line on section 5) 400' - 500' 60' (Approximately WCR3-1/2) 500'+ 90' North Property Line 125' - 400' 45' (Section line on section 5) 400' —700' 55' (Approximately WCR26) 700'- 1300' 60' 1300'+ 90' East Property Line 125 `—400' 45' (Section line on section 5) 400' - 500' 55' (Approximately Elms property line) 500'-700' 60' 700'+ 90' South Property Line 125' —300' 45' (Quarter Section line on Section 5) 300' —400' 55' 400' — 800' 60' 800'+ 90' Added restriction: North of the Great Western Railroad 45' elTETRATECH RMC 11. LifeBridge Christian Church proposes to restrict an area, as defined by the setbacks below, from any building development through 2013. Church Campus only Off Set from perimeter of the 160 acre Church Campus West Property Line 1500' North Property Line 1300' East Property Line 700' South Property Line 800' The property owners, who previously opposed but now support the LifeBridge Change of Zone application, are as follows: 1. (This is where the names, addresses, signatures? of the property owners would be listed.) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. The church will continue to work with the neighbors to mitigate their concerns and will keep you informed of their progress. Please call if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance Sincerely, TETRA TECH RMC Barb Brunk Landscape Architect Jacqueline Hatch -prom: Pratt, Gretchen [gpratt@amgen.com] :nt: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 8:16 AM lo: Jacqueline Hatch Subject: LifeBridge development Due to my work schedule, I am unable to attend the meeting today in Greeley concerning the rezoning request submitted by LifeBridge. As a resident of the Elms neighborhood that adjoins the proposed development site, I have serious concerns . Please forward this email to those considering the request. The LifeBridge development in the location they propose is a bad idea for several reasons. The primary concern to me is the level of traffic, and the increase in crime that will necessarily be associated. The roads that surround the proposed development are not constructed or mapped to handle the level of traffic that will occur with a development of that size and composition. Commercial traffic in a residential area also travels much faster than neighborhood traffic, creating a safety hazard for our children. Compounding that problem is the proposal to connect Pearl Howlett, which runs through the Elms. It is a residential street, where our mail center is located, and where the bus stop for our children is also located. Having traffic on that street 24 hours a day is ridiculous. It also does nothing effective to alleviate the traffic problem from the proposed commercial development since CR 5.5 is also residential, and connects to Hwy 119 as a neighborhood street rather than as a major intersection. I 'm sure from Greeley, any development looks good. Adding a neighborhood of residences that contains a church to that area is not a problem. But a major commercial development, bigger than the Twin Peaks mall, with an outdoor amphitheater, 24/7 businesses, and a college campus is not the description of a neighborhood or of a church. ^lease vote NO on this development, and vote NO on the connection of Pearl Howlett street. Sincerely, Gretchen Pratt EXHIBIT 1 1 59: Page 1 of 1 Jacqueline Hatch From: Julie Olson Uahoop@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 2:47 PM To: Jacqueline Hatch Subject: Pearl Howlett connection As a homeowner in the Elms at Meadowvale subdivision in southwestern Weld County, I am very concerned about the possibility that the county would allow a direct connection to the new Lifebridge project via the extension of Pearl Howlett Road. I live on the corner of Pearl Howlett Road and Victor Drive and enjoy the peaceful and safe atmosphere of this neighborhood. The potential to open Pearl Howlett to hundreds of cars every hour of every day is an outrage. Currently, I would guess that there are only a few cars that use this road in an hour. Many children (mine included) live within a few feet of this road and ride bikes and play without any concerns. Pearl Howlett is a neighborhood road and should never be allowed to turn into a thoroughfare for the hundreds or thousands of Lifebridge members that would readily use it as an alternative to the main roads, which would be congested after every service or activity. Please keep the safety and security of the residents in the existing neighborhood in mind when making decisions regarding the new Lifebridge development. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Julie Olson 11732 Victor Drive Longmont, CO 80504 EXHIBIT 10/19/2005 Page 1 of 2 Jacqueline Hatch From: Troy Anderson [TAnderson@webroot.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 2:11 PM To: Jacqueline Hatch Subject: FW: county meeting today I was not aware that there were plans to connect Pearl Hewlett on the west end. As a resident of Elms at Meadowvale I strongly oppose this action. Can you please send me further information on this issue? Troy Anderson 11725 Montgomery Cir Longmont, CO 80504 From: Tip-arpar Anderson [mailto:tiparpar@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 11:03 AM To: Troy Anderson Subject: FW: county meeting today Do you want to send them some emails? It's about the ground at the end of Pearl Hewlett that we thought they'll use as a playground. Well, the country wants to cut through it to pave a road to ease the traffic. From: hleighan"<meighankerr@excite.com> Reply-To: meighankerr@excite.com To: thehartons@msn.com, DCKoblick@hatmail.com, msdevries@msn.com,darla33@hotmail.com,gretchenpratt@hotmail.com, leeann@reigrut.netmervi tuominen@hotmail.com, dddjw@juno.com,jahoop@hotmail.com,tiparpar@hotmail.com, belUennifer@hotmail.com, mkami60999@juno.com,shelamarchus@msn.com, wendy@co/utron.com Subject: county meeting today Date: Tue, 18 Oct 200512:34:21 -0400(EDT) Hi all- I just spoke to Rick Archer,and he asked me to email everyone.The meeting with Weld County is today,and so he's hoping to get everyone to send an email to the county prior to the meeting regarding the connecting of Pearl Howlett to the Lifebridge Development,as the county told him that they have received basically no comments from our neighborhood regarding this issue.The email to send to is JHatch@co.weld.co.us . If we can get these emails sent ASAP, they should have them before the meeting starts this afternoon. Please,please,please email them to let them know our neighborhood will fight connecting that road. If you can be in touch with any others in the neighborhood,please pass this on to them as well,so we can get as many emails as possible. Thanks- Meighan EXHIBIT 10/19/2005 Hello