HomeMy WebLinkAbout20053250.tiff HEARING CERTIFICATION
DOCKET NO. 2005-72
RE: CHANGE OF DESIGNATED ZONE DISTRICTS, AMPZ#1004, FOR LIFEBRIDGE PUD
WITH E(ESTATE),R-1 (LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL),R-2(DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL),
R-3 (MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTI AL), R-4 (HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL), C-1
(NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL)AND C-2 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) USES, AND
CONTINUED OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION -LIFEBRIDGE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, C/O
4 C CORPORATION
A public hearing was conducted on November 9, 2005, at 10:00 a.m., with the following present:
Commissioner William H. Jerke, Chair
Commissioner M. J. Geile, Pro-Tem
Commissioner David E. Long
Commissioner Robert D. Masden
Commissioner Glenn Vaad - RECUSED
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Esther Gesick
Assistant County Attorney, Lee Morrison
Planning Department representative, Jacqueline Hatch
Health Department representative, Pam Smith
Public Works representative, Peter Schei and Robert Jacobs
The following business was transacted:
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated October 14, 2005, and duly published October 19,
2005, in the Fort Lupton Press,a public hearing was conducted to consider the request of Life Bridge
Christian Church,do 4 C Corporation,fora Change of designated Zone Districts,AMPZ#1004,for
LifeBridge PUD with E (Estate), R-1 (Low-Density Residential), R-2 (Duplex Residential), R-3
(Medium-Density Residential),R-4(High-Density Residential),C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial)and
C-2 (General Commercial) uses, and continued oil and gas production. Lee Morrison,Assistant
County Attorney, made this a matter of record. Chair Jerke advised the applicant that because
Commissioner Vaad has recused himself from this hearing, it will require three affirmative votes,
or the matter will be deemed denied.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services,presented a brief summary of the proposal and
entered the favorable recommendation of the Planning Commission into the record as written. She
gave a brief description of the location of the site and surrounding land uses,and stated the original
Change of Zone was approved on July 9, 2003. She explained the proposed changes in this
application are the applicant's attempt to address concerns expressed by surrounding property
owners, as discussed at the original hearing. She stated the property is located within the Mixed
Use Development(MUD)Area,the Longmont Intergovernmental Agreement area,and the three-mile
referral areas for the Towns of Mead, Firestone, and Frederick and Boulder County. Ms. Hatch
stated the City of Longmont recommends the site be served by the urban services of a municipality,
and it also supports the comments of the Colorado Division of Wildlife regarding the Oligarchy Ditch.
She stated the Town of Mead recommends the applicant be directed to annex into the City of
2005-3250
PL1655
HEARING CERTIFICATION - LIFEBRIDGE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (AMPZ#1004)
PAGE 2
Longmont, and it also has concerns that the Town will not be receiving revenue to offset the
potential negative impacts of northbound traffic. Ms. Hatch stated the Town of Frederick indicated
no concern, and staff did not receive a response from the Town of Firestone or Boulder County.
She stated Weld County Road 26 will be realigned on the north as part of the proposed expansion
of Union Reservoir,and the railroad crossing will be relocated to the southwest at Fairview Street.
In response to the Board, Ms. Hatch displayed a Land Use Comparison slide,which she reviewed
for the record. Responding to Commissioner Geile,Ms. Hatch stated there will be more residential
area in the northern portion due to the reconfiguration of Weld County Road 3.5, as well as along
the eastern edge to address the height concerns of neighbors. She stated the applicant is
proposing a deviation from the MUD Bulk Standards to allow a maximum building height of 60 feet
for the entire church campus,with the exception of a 75-foot maximum for approximately 20 percent
of the buildings. She further stated there will be a maximum of 30 feet for the residential component
along the eastern side of the property. Ms. Hatch displayed a slide showing the heights allowed in
each type of use,and stated the site will receive water and sewer service from the Left Hand Water
District, Longs Peak Water District,and Saint Vrain Sanitation District. She stated sixteen referral
agencies reviewed this proposal, two had no comment, eight responded favorably or provided
comments that have been addressed in the Conditions of Approval,and two requested the applicant
be required to annex into a municipal boundary. She further stated staff did receive various letters
from surrounding property owners expressing concern with connectivity, building heights, and
obstructed views.
Pam Smith, Department of Public Health and Environment,stated the site will receive water service
from the Left Hand Water District and the Longs Peak Water District,as well as sewer service from
the Saint Vrain Sanitation District. She stated the applicant is proposing commercial and industrial
zoning which will be reviewed, in detail, at the Site Plan Review process, at which time additional
regulatory requirements may be imposed. She stated although the specific uses have not been
designated at this time,there are plans for trails and open space,neighborhood parks,sports fields,
and a fitness center,which are standard accessories for a development of this size. Responding
to Chair Jerke, Ms. Smith clarified the plans do not include industrial, just commercial.
Peter Schei, Department of Public Works, stated the applicant, Weld County staff, and the Great
Western Railroad Company are currently working on the relocation of the railroad crossing. He
stated the project is being undertaken in conjunction with this application; however, they need to
complete the Public Utilities Commission application. He explained staff previously required
interconnectivity;however,at the Planning Commission hearing,staff stated due to the new design
they are no longer requiring interconnectivity,other than pedestrian and bike trails. Mr.Schei stated
the applicant is asking for a waiver of the MUD standards for a typical roadway cross section. He
stated following discussions, staff still supports the implementation of the current MUD cross
section for consistency. He further stated the stormwater issues have been addressed, the
Oligarchy Ditch will be piped through the property,and historical drainage rates will be maintained
through the Stormwater Management Plan which incorporates Best Management Practices.
Responding to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Schei stated Weld County Road 3.5 is proposed to be
realigned to join Weld County Road 5 at Weld County Road 26, and the railroad crossing will be
relocated to cross at Fairview Street instead of Weld County Road 3.5. He stated the Great
Western Railroad Company is in agreement with the relocation,and staff has no concerns with the
proposal. Commissioner Geile requested comments from residents in the existing development
2005-3250
PL1655
HEARING CERTIFICATION - LIFEBRIDGE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (AMPZ#1004)
PAGE 3
and the applicant regarding the issue of interconnectivity. He reiterated the current application does
not include conditions requiring interconnectivityforvehicles. Responding to ChairJerke,Mr.Schei
stated the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT)would make the determination for a Stop
light on Highway 119,and the County would determine if a traffic signal is warranted within the PUD.
ChairJerke requested clarification as to which entity will be responsible for funding and installation
of traffic control devices within the development.
Rick Rusaw, Senior Minister at LifeBridge Christian Church, stated LifeBridge has been a part of
the community since 1891, and he has been the Senior Minister since 1991. He stated they
anticipate continued partnerships with government/public agencies, non-profit agencies, and the
surrounding community. He stated they intend for the facilities to be used throughout the week,they
want to provide services and facilities that meet the County needs,and they are striving to meet the
requests of the existing community. Mr. Rusaw stated one of their key programs is called"A Time
to Serve" in which they partner with 46 public and non-public agencies, providing approximately
16,000 hours of community service. He stated they recognize this is a large campus;however,they
have tried to address a majority of the concerns,and they want to provide a facility that honors God,
is useful and beneficial to the community,and provides resources for the County. Mr.Rusaw stated
they hope to find ways to continue meeting the growing demands in Southwest Weld County by
supporting various programs of the County and other non-profit agencies. He further stated they
want to create a church in and among the community,rather than above and apart from the people,
and he submitted a quarterly publication of"The Bridge," marked Exhibit I .
Dave Williams, DTJ Design, submitted a packet regarding the proposed street cross sections,
marked Exhibit K,and displayed a PowerPoint presentation,marked Exhibit L,which he reviewed
for the record. In addition to the information included in the presentation,Mr.Williams stated the City
of Longmont plans to expand Union Reservoir,which necessitates the realignment of Weld County
Road 26 to connect to Fairview Street and County Line Road. He stated the applicant also plans
to realign Weld County Road 3.5 to connect to WCR 5, which will create a strong north/south
connection and relocate the railroad crossing to Fairview Street. He further stated, based on the
land use changes in the area,and directions from the Board to address concerns of the neighbors,
the new design locates the church and commercial uses along Weld County Road 3.5 and situates
residential uses along the north and east property lines. Mr. Williams stated they previously
proposed vehicular interconnectivity;however,that is not proposed in the current plan. He stated
the applicant feels this project addresses the goals and expectations of the MUD for neighborhood
development,and they intend to eliminate the typical barriers of church and community by providing
both spiritual and civic activities. He further stated the trails will be designed to the standards and
designs currently recognized by the City of Longmont and the needs of neighborhood. Mr.Williams
reviewed the site design,which includes a neighborhood park, buffers with enhanced landscaping,
as well as a buffer area that will provide drainage and incorporate landscaping similar to the
neighboring communities. He stated the Church and Civic activities along Weld County Road 3.5
will consist of smaller components connected with pedestrian-friendly walkways, the Mixed Use
Village Center will have shops with upper levels, and a Central Chapel will serve as a reminder of
the church's presence in the community. He stated the Mixed Residential Area will include active
adult, senior, and assisted living uses, and they have proposed local streets that deviate from the
County Bulk Standards with the primary goal of keeping the neighborhoods pedestrian-friendly by
slowing vehicular traffic. He stated the Single Family Attached Districtwill have single family or row
2005-3250
PL1655
HEARING CERTIFICATION - LIFEBRIDGE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (AMPZ#1004)
PAGE 4
homes that are age restricted for residents, and the Residential areas will consist of houses that
are the same size and character as the Elms at Meadow Vale and Meadow Vale Farms as a
transition to the senior neighborhood. Mr.Williams stated the area north of the railroad tracks will
be semi-custom and custom homes. He displayed plans for the anticipated phases, with Phase
One anticipated to be completed in seven years. He stated Phase Two will include some church
facilities and commercial uses, and Phase Three will complete the larger church facilities and full
buildout. Mr.Williams stated they will be required to do a Traffic Analysis for each phase, and if a
traffic signal is warranted,the development generating the traffic will be responsible for installing the
light. He reiterated this project realizes the vision of the MUD,accommodates modifications to the
regional and local transportation network, provides for the growth of the church as part of the
community, and is designed to grow in phases.
Responding to Commissioner Geile,Mr.Williams stated Phase One will include the initial temporary
home for the church and a multi-purpose facility, which will allow the church activities to be
relocated from the Longmont facility. In response to Commissioner Masden, Mr. Schei stated the
internal roads are different from a typical cross section roadway in the MUD. Mr.Williams stated
Exhibit K includes the road plans,spread sheet comparison,and graphics explaining the variations.
He stated the rights-of-way are very similar;however,the primary difference is the narrower widths
of the travel lanes to reduce vehicular speeds and allow more pedestrian-friendly walkways.
Responding to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Williams stated Phase One will be completed in five to
seven years;however,beyond that it is very difficult to predict the completion times of Phases Two
and Three, which will depend on church growth and economic demand.
Todd Borger represented the applicant and stated much of the design is intended to be consistent
with Longmont's standards;the narrower street sections will be more pedestrian friendly and create
a feel of community. Responding to ChairJerke, Mr.Williams stated there will be a 20-foot setback
from the property line to the front of the houses, and the sidewalk will be part of the public
right-of-way. Mr. Williams referred to page 27 of Exhibit K, and stated in areas with alleys and
rear-facing garages,the applicant is requesting a reduced distance between the front of the house
and the street. Responding to Chair Jerke, Mr.Williams stated the typical lot size will be the same
as in the Elms Subdivision(approximately 12,000 square feet), the active adult/senior homes will
be smaller further to the west, and the lots to the north will range from 10,000 square feet to 0.5
acres. In response to Commissioner Masden, Mr.Williams stated the applicant is consulting with
a specialist in senior housing to determine the specific needs and design an appropriate house
layout. Responding further to Commissioner Masden, Ms. Hatch stated the PUD process allows
for variations from the MUD Bulk Standards,and patio homes are not addressed in the Weld County
Code. In response to Chair Jerke, Ms. Hatch stated if the existing proposal is approved, the
applicant will be required to come back before the Board if they plan to make any changes.
Responding to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Schei stated there is some difference in rights-of-way
widths, which allows more building space. He further stated the applicant has asked for County
maintenance of the internal roads,which is why staff is seeking the standard MUD cross sections.
He stated the effectiveness of narrower road cross sections as a traffic control measure is a matter
of opinion; however, staff uses the MUD standards for consistency because deviation opens the
opportunity to have various interpretations of what should be enforced. Commissioner Masden
stated the Board typically requires compliance with the MUD standards and has required a Special
Improvement District or Metropolitan District to pay for the maintenance of large developments of
2005-3250
PL1655
HEARING CERTIFICATION - LIFEBRIDGE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (AMPZ#1004)
PAGE 5
this nature. Mr. Morrison stated there is no mechanism for maintenance through a Special
Improvement District,and although a Metropolitan District may be able to function in that capacity,
the County has not done that in the past. He stated if the roads are constructed to County
standards and accepted as public roads, the County has not set up a separate mechanism for
operation and maintenance financing. Mr. Williams suggested taking some time to review the
differences between the street section and why the deviations are being requested.
ChairJerke recessed the hearing for lunch until 1:30 p.m. Upon reconvening, Mr.Williams referred
to page three of Exhibit K and reviewed the comparisons for the record. He stated the applicant
feels the narrower travel lanes will slow traffic, the five-foot detached sidewalk will create a
pedestrian-friendly environment, and it is very similar to Weld County's standards. He stated this
cross section is the same as what was supported by staff in the 2003 application, alleys would be
20 feet wide,with no parking,and the setback would include the utility easements. He stated if need
be, the applicant may be agreeable to making the road maintenance a responsibility of the
Homeowners'Association. He stated the collector streets will meet MUD standards, parking will
be restricted,and there will be landscaped medians. He further stated the collector streets adjacent
to the park will allow some parking spaces adjacent to the park;however,the applicant is agreeable
to locating the parking within the park area, rather than the right-of-way,if necessary. Mr.Williams
stated Weld County Roads 3.5 and 26 are arterial roads,and the proposal allows more right-of-way
than is required by the MUD to allow for future expansion. He explained the additional right-of-way
will be landscaped in the event the space is not needed, and the proposed design results in less
pavement to be maintained by the County. He stated a majority of the proposed cross sections are
very similar to what was approved in 2003, and the landscaping in the right-of-way will be the
responsibility of the property owner or Homeowners' Association.
In response to Commissioner Geile, Frank Hempen,Jr., Director of Department of Public Works,
stated staff feels allowing the reduced widths will create a precedent for adjustments in other
developments. He stated there are other feasible traffic calming features that would be effective
without reducing the lane widths. Mr.Morrison stated this type of land use case does not establish
a precedent, and in this instance the applicant is seeking a variance from a standard, which is
allowed under the PUD process. He stated the issue of precedence is not an adequate basis for
denial of the request; however, the Board may consider the engineering concerns and determine
what is appropriate. Mr. Hempen stated his comments were founded in engineering practices.
Responding to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Williams stated the garages will only face alleys or local
roads, not arterial or collector roads. He reiterated the setback for local streets is 20 feet, and the
reduced front setbacks are for those lots that do not have a front-facing garage. Responding to
Commissioner Masden, Mr. Morrison stated the applicant is not proposing a Metropolitan District,
and the construction mechanism and costs are typically addressed through an Improvements
Agreement. Responding to Commissioner Geile,Mr.Morrison stated there is no legal reason why
the Board has to accept the local roads for public maintenance;however,a development of this size
may not function very well by relying on a Homeowners'Association for maintenance. He stated
private maintenance of public roads typically only works in closed communities. Barb Brunk
represented the applicant and stated following many discussions with the Department of Public
Works, it was the applicant's understanding that the public roads would be presented for County
maintenance, and the local roads would be the responsibility of the Homeowners' Association.
Responding to Commissioner Masden,Mr.Morrison stated road maintenance may have been the
2005-3250
PL1655
HEARING CERTIFICATION - LIFEBRIDGE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (AMPZ#1004)
PAGE 6
responsibility of the Homeowners'Association under the original Change of Zone; however, he is
very skeptical of that arrangement. Responding to Commissioner Long, Mr. Hempen stated staff
does not have an Improvements Agreement; however, if it was submitted, he does not feel it was
appropriate because the roads need to be built to County standards before being accepted for
maintenance.
Bill Norris, surrounding property owner, stated interconnectivity would be disastrous for both
developments. He explained Blue Mountain Road is insufficient for additional traffic,and making the
necessary improvements would be cost prohibitive. He stated interconnectivity for pedestrians and
bikes needs to be discussed in detail, as well as whether horses will be allowed. Mr. Norris stated
the previous concerns with lighting have not been addressed, view corridors will be negatively
impacted, and the plat needs to designate which areas will be restricted to"senior" housing. He
expressed concern with traffic counts taken Monday through Friday,without taking the weekend
traffic into consideration, which will be the primary days of use. Chair Jerke suggested
interconnectivity may be a benefit for current residents to access the proposed commercial uses.
Mr. Norris stated, as proposed, the roads in the LifeBridge development will be narrow and not
conducive to through traffic and, conversely, allowing traffic from LifeBridge through the Elms
development will create a traffic hazard for the neighborhood children.
Duane Leise,surrounding property owner,expressed opposition to the proposed amount of parking
for up to 5,000 vehicles, and stated the current facility in Longmont requires State Highway patrol
officers to direct traffic following Sunday services. Mr. Leise stated he is concerned with the
intensity of the use proposed in the area designated as Religious/Civic, since there will be two or
three services on Sundays,and he questioned the traffic study which is lacking data for Saturday
and Sundays. He stated he fears interconnectivity may become a requirement once the
development is completed and Weld County Road 5.5 becomes a part of the Weld County strategic
plan. He stated there were many surrounding property owners present at the Planning Commission
hearing to discuss their opposition to interconnectivity. He explained there is still an appeal pending
in the Court regarding the original Change of Zone from the Agricultural Zone District to the Planned
Unit Development Zone District, and many of the neighbors did not come to this hearing because
the redesign of the PUD does not address many of their issues. Mr. Leise stated under the current
proposal,20 percent of 23.7 acres,which equals 4.7 acres,will be allowed to build up to 75 feet tall,
and the only justification for the height is for fly space. He stated this will permit the construction of
buildings for both profit and not-for-profit uses, and they can be sold and used in a variety of ways.
He stated the current residents moved to the area for a rural setting and invested significant
amounts into their community, and they have property rights. He further stated the applicant is
moving in 900 feet away, rather than locating in a rural area and letting the growth move in. Mr.
Leise stated the mineral rights need to be verified since the road will go right through a drilling area,
and he noted none of the surrounding areas are allowed to construct buildings above 50 feet without
a special variance. He stated the surrounding communities are very opposed and this use should
not be allowed.
Peter Gries,surrounding property owner,concurred with the previous comments of his neighbors
regarding opposition to interconnectivity,and stated he is not aware of one community member who
supports this request. He stated two years ago there was a clear consensus of not allowing
interconnectivity, and he expressed concern with reopening the matter. Mr. Gries submitted a
2005-3250
PL1655
HEARING CERTIFICATION - LIFEBRIDGE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (AMPZ#1004)
PAGE 7
packet of information, marked Exhibit J,including a letter from Reggie Golden which was sent to the
entire 80504 zip code. Mr.Cries stated the letter indicates the information in the case file is not an
accurate representation of the project, and because the notice for this meeting refers to the case
file,which the applicant has indicated is in accurate, he feels the Board does not have jurisdiction.
In response to Mr.Morrison,Mr.Cries stated he prepared and circulated page two(2)of his packet
which summarizes the five core facts taken directly from the twenty-page application. Mr. Morrison
stated the letter from the applicant disputes the portions that were excerpted from the complete file
and included in the neighborhood letter and requests the public to review the entire application held
by the County. Therefore,he does not see that it disturbs the validity of the public notice sent by the
County, nor is there an argument for jurisdiction. Responding to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Cries
reviewed the five key facts included in his circulation,which were taken from pages two(2)through
four(4)of the application. He also expressed concern regarding the irregularities in actions taken
by the Department of Planning Services. He explained this matter was originally placed on the
Planning Commission's Consent Agenda,which was later corrected by the Planning Director. He
further stated staff denied him access to the Planning offices to use the restroom facilities during
the Planning Commission hearing, yet the applicant's representatives were ushered through the
office. He stated the applicant is a member of the public and should not be given special treatment.
Mr. Cries referred to Section 3-3-100 of the Weld County Code, which addresses conflicts of
interests,and recommended the situation be put before the County Council for investigation in an
effort to clear the County's reputation. He also expressed concern with relocating the Planning
Commission hearing from the Southwest Weld County Administration Building to the Greeley office.
He stated moving the meeting led to a significant decrease in the number of people who could
participate,which is a direct violation of Weld County's Mission Statement which encourages citizen
involvement, as well as the spirit of the Colorado Sunshine law. Mr.Cries referred to a news article,
included as page four(4)of ExhibitJ,and stated CommissionerVaad publically communicated his
position to the other Commissioners,although he had recused himself from the hearing. He stated
his public statements compromised the neutrality of the remaining Board members,therefore, Mr.
Cries recommended the remaining Board members recuse themselves and appoint the County
Council to vote on the manner. (Switched to Tape#2005-43.) He also requested each member
address whether they have received public or private communications with Commissioner Vaad
regarding this matter.
GaryAboussie,the Colorado Group,stated he represents Sherwood, Inc.,which owns the triangular
property located in the corner of Weld County Road 3.5 and the Great Western Railroad. He stated
the property has historically grown crops, and the realignment of Weld County Road 3.5 resulted
in losing 50 percent of the public right-of-way frontage. He further stated they agreed to the change
because they feel the realignment will result in less congestion in the area,and they feel connectivity
should be allowed for non-motorized bicycles and pedestrians. Mr. Aboussie stated land
development is a process of compromise, and as a property owner, they feel the applicant has
listened to their concerns and both sides have made compromises. He stated a master planned
community should be required to have public streets since they will be accessed by the general
public. He further stated Weld County needs to keep control of the public streets, although
variations will be the Board's decision. He stated his property is surrounded by development and
he appreciates that during this process both sides have been able to sit down and discuss the
issues and come to a compromise. There being no further comments, Chair Jerke closed public
testimony.
2005-3250
PL1655
HEARING CERTIFICATION - LIFEBRIDGE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (AMPZ#1004)
PAGE 8
Upon reconvening,Mr.Williams stated he has reviewed and concurs with the Conditions ofApproval
as proposed. In response to Commissioner Geile, Mr.Williams stated the applicant maintains the
position that there should not be interconnectivity,thus,it is not included in the design. Responding
further to Commissioner Geile, Ms. Brunk stated Encana owned the mineral rights on the north half
of Section 5, and the applicant has purchased the lease-hold right. She stated there is an
agreement with Encana which states they will continue to operate the existing well, which will be
capped and abandoned at the time requested by LifeBridge, per State statute. She further stated
there is a Letter Agreement with Noble Energy,which was later purchased by Patina,regarding the
southern portion. Ms. Brunk stated the agreement has been signed by both parties and states the
applicant will either accommodate the oil and gas operations, purchase the ability to directional drill,
or buy the mineral interests. She stated the applicant would prefer to purchase the mineral
interests;however, Patina has not suggested a purchase price,therefore,the drilling windows have
been included on the Change of Zone plat. Responding further to Commissioner Geile,Mr.Williams
stated the 75-foot building height has been requested and will be used for performing arts-type
spaces such as fly space, substantial mechanical equipment, as well as ensuring audience sight
lines to the stage. He stated the facilities on the two areas designated for structures up to 75 feet
have not been designed; however,the height will allow for uses as described, as well as steeples
and towers as part of the architecture. He indicated the north site is two(2)acres,and the southern
site is 1.5 acres,and noted they will not likely need all of that space;however,they want to allow for
flexibility since the buildings are not yet designed. He further stated the amount of area allowing
buildings up to 75 feet is the same; however, it was split into two locations.
In response to Mr. Morrison regarding Condition of Approval#2.J, Ms. Hatch stated the County will
not maintain alleys or side streets. Mr.Morrison stated the maintenance responsibilities need to be
clarified in the Resolution text. Mr.Hempen stated the original Change of Zone was approved with
the understanding that public streets would be maintained by Weld County, which remains
consistent in this application; however, he reiterated Weld County will not maintain alleys.
Commissioner Masden commented the Draft Resolution does include language requiring the
Homeowners'Association to maintain the streets. Mr.Morrison stated in some instances the Board
has made the determination that a Homeowners'Association be responsible for snow removal;
however,it is not intended that they be the principal party responsible for general maintenance. Mr.
Hempen concurred. ChairJerke commented the Board has generally taken the position of not being
in the business of maintaining urban streets.
ChairJerke apologized on behalf of the Department of Planning Services if in fact staff did not treat
the applicant or public equally. He explained changing the location of the Planning Commission
hearing was necessary because the Southwest hearing room was being used as an election polling
site. He further stated his conversations with Commissioner Vaad regarding LifeBridge have dealt
only with its civic service and mission. He stated the County Council does not have the ability to
vote on land use matters, and he does not intend to recuse himself since he had no former
discussions regarding this matter.
Mr. Morrison noted only one page of the article was included for the record, and Commissioner
Vaad's comments were consistent with the previous findings of the Board. He stated at the time
of the interview,the court case was not pending,and his comments were not directed to the Board.
He further stated in the event the entire Board had a conflict of interest,they would not be deprived
2005-3250
PL1655
HEARING CERTIFICATION - LIFEBRIDGE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (AMPZ#1004)
PAGE 9
of their role, and each member would still have to vote following disclosure of the conflict, because
the Weld County Home Rule Charter does not allow for delegating the Commissioner functions to
any other entity.
Commissioner Masden stated today is the first time he has seen the article presented by Mr.Gries,
and the only time he discussed the matter was following the original hearing. He stated although
Commissioner Vaad is recused from the hearing, he does not give up his First Amendment Right
to speak on matters. He further stated Land Use hearings are totally out of the scope of the duties
of the County Counsel; pursuant to the Weld County Home Rule Charter,that role is the function
of an elected Board of Commissioners. Commissioner Geile commented the applicant
satisfactorily explained the reason for requesting a deviation from the Bulk Standards for roadway
cross sections,and the County Attorney has clearly stated that land use matters are considered on
a case-by-case basis and deviating from the Bulk Standards under a PUD application will not set
a precedent. ChairJerke stated the cross sections proposed for the local neighborhood areas are
for traffic mitigation purposes and the public areas are consistent with MUD Bulk Standards.
Commissioner Long stated in older neighborhoods throughout the country there are narrower
streets, with sidewalks separated by a seven-foot landscape strip. He stated that design has
always been adequate, and the collector and arterial status sections are consistent with County
standards.
Commissioner Geile stated alleys should not be maintained by the County; however, the County
should be responsible for the general maintenance of public roads, with snow removal being the
responsibility of the Homeowners'Association. Commissioner Masden stated,as proposed,Weld
County will be responsible for maintenance of Weld County Roads 3.5 and 26 and local public
roads; however,he fears the public will eventually begin to expect County snow removal services
on the local roads if the Homeowners' Association does not do a satisfactory job. Chair Jerke
concurred with Commissioner Masden, and stated he feels this is a good development to begin
implementing the policy that the County maintain County roads and the Homeowners'Association
maintain internal local streets. He further stated the combination of various types of property taxes
generated by this site will be adequate to cover the costs rather than placing the burden of
maintenance costs on the general public. Commissioners Long and Geile agreed. Chair Jerke
clarified the maintenance and snow removal for alleys and interior streets will by the responsibility
of the Homeowners' Association, and the current County roads will remain the County's
responsibility. Mr. Hempen suggested the language be specific to clarify that the County will be
responsible for"arterial"roads, such as Weld County Roads 3.5 and 26, because there are some
local collector roads that tie into the arterial roads. In response to the acting Deputy Clerk to the
Board, the Board agreed that the word "streets" be removed from Condition#2.J and add a new
Condition of Approval#2.K to state, "The maintenance and snow removal for alleys and interior
streets will by the responsibility of the Homeowners'Association, and the current County arterial
roads, such as Weld County Roads 3.5 and 26, will remain the responsibility of Weld County."
Responding to Commissioner Geile, Mr.Morrison stated an Improvements Agreement would refer
to the local interior roads as public right-of-way with private maintenance by the Homeowners'
Association.
Ms. Hatch stated language from the original Change of Zone was inadvertently omitted from this
Resolution and she requested it be included as Condition#5.R to state,"Weld County entered into
2005-3250
PL1655
HEARING CERTIFICATION - LIFEBRIDGE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (AMPZ#1004)
PAGE 10
an Off-Site Improvement Reimbursement Agreement with Longview Community, LLC, on
February 6,2002,with the intent that Longview be reimbursed a portion of the cost of constructing
the traffic signal at the intersection of State Highway 119 and Weld County Road 3.5.
Reimbursement agreements such as these are common for public improvements that are shared
as development occurs in a rapidly growing area. The applicant shall be required to reimburse a
proportionate share of the signal cost to Longview within the spirit of the February 6, 2002,
agreement." Responding to Chair Jerke, Ms. Hatch stated Longview did pay the entire cost for
installation of the traffic light.
Responding to Chair Jerke, Mr.Williams stated the applicant is agreeable with both conditions as
proposed, discussed, and modified.
Commissioner Masden moved to approve the request of LifeBridge Christian Church, do 4 C
Corporation, for a Change of designated Zone Districts,AMPZ#1004, for LifeBridge PUD with E
(Estate), R-1 (Low-Density Residential), R-2 (Duplex Residential), R-3 (Medium-Density
Residential), R-4 (High-Density Residential), C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) and C-2(General
Commercial) uses, and continued oil and gas production, based on the recommendations of the
Planning staff and the Planning Commission, with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards as entered into the record. His motion also included deleting "streets"from Condition
#2.J, adding a new Condition of Approval#2.K to state, "The maintenance and snow removal for
alleys and interior streets will by the responsibility of the Homeowners'Association,and the current
County arterial roads,such as Weld County Roads 3.5 and 26,will remain the responsibility of Weld
County," adding a new Condition#5.R to state,"Weld County entered into an Off-Site Improvement
Reimbursement Agreement with Longview Community, LLC, on February 6,2002,with the intent
that Longview be reimbursed a portion of the cost of constructing the traffic signal at the intersection
of State Highway 119 and Weld County Road 3.5. Reimbursement agreements such as these are
common for public improvements that are shared as development occurs in a rapidly growing area.
The applicant shall be required to reimburse a proportionate share of the signal cost to Longview
within the spirit of the February 6, 2002, agreement,"and relettering accordingly. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Geile who stated the application is also consistent with the criteria cited
in Section 23-2-230 and Chapter 27 of the Weld County Code regarding compatibility,transportation,
etcetera. Chair Jerke stated this application has continued to evolve into a better application,
including a village concept where people can live and work using the pedestrian-friendly walkways,
while remaining consistent with the intent of the MUD and Weld County Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Masden added through the evolution of this process it has become a better
development that will be compatible with the neighborhood and surrounding area. Commissioner
Long stated what was good is now better. Ms. Hatch stated the applicant has requested
administrative review of the Final Plan. The Board members concurred that they wish to hear the
Final Plan due to the sensitive nature of the case. Mr. Williams stated it was the applicant's
understanding that an administrative review would be allowed if the submitted Final Plan application
is in compliance with the approved Change of Zone requirements, and they are discouraged by the
sudden change in the process. Chair Jerke stated it does happen frequently where there is public
concern or volatility regarding a matter. Upon a roll call vote,the motion carried unanimously. There
being no further discussion, the hearing was completed at 3:45 p.m.
2005-3250
PL1655
HEARING CERTIFICATION - LIFEBRIDGE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (AMPZ#1004)
PAGE 11
This Certification was approved on the 14th day of November 2005.
APPROVED:
4, I,IIl 11 Jc
7 ♦ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Art +° /� WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
:- (tv
�
ATTEST: jated,
'l� A� �� r
William Jerke, Chair
Weld County Clerk to the
7
1i 1 Ain d M. J. ile -T JT
BY: �r
D uty CI rk to the Bowl
D iidd E( Locnngg
TAPE #2005-42 and #2005-43cy
Robert D. Masden
DOCKET#2005-72 RECUSED
Glenn Vaad
2005-3250
PL1655
EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
Case AMPZ#1004 - LIFEBRIDGE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description
A. Planning Staff Inventory of Items Submitted
B. Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation
C. Planning Commission Summary of Hearing (Minutes 10/18/2005)
D. Clerk to the Board Notice of Hearing
E. Rick Archer E-mail of Concern, dated 10/18/2005
F. Planning Staff Three-page attendance list
G. Clerk to the Board Copy of Open Records Request from Peter
Gries, dated 11/07/2005
H. Planning Staff Certification and photo of sign posting
Applicant "The Bridge" publication for Fall 2005
J. Peter Gries Packet of correspondence distributed
regarding application (5 pages)
K. Applicant Packet re: Street Cross Sections, dated
10/04/2005
L. Applicant PowerPoint Presentation
M.
N.
O.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
U.
i
ATTENDANCE RECORD
HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS ON THIS ()Di- DAY OF '110tWm..b"rti, , 204: n/,
ITEM OF BUSINESS: CIS /5/!o - /..¢v and ,4rn #/Q1f� - 1.: �/�,, c-/l4olnJ o
PLEASE legibly write or print your name and complete address.
NAME ADDRESS
John Doe 123 Nowhere Street, City, State, Zip
f C ( oar? 1n(c_A (8 tA1- l i s p C°,1 8cxo7/
l s 15,0 -7 (8 Jr j4, (,t. CC Fsn(/)?1
4 /15-0a7 G)C Cii i/.da,ep c, do- ,cC6a./
avQ,3 RgUn1a Q \ 1 I on '(\o ts\- ow &2i G`2c\sl_ k 0 t bv4,0 tsOs o4
/I C Az?ni/�(! ,c(74.2. 6L 41 ituwia1 im a0 / ,,c/62-7c,-7-Tyo tea/
Al--; tk hi5 garw,,"� ( 4Q soSvY
re 45t - 24oz c la- t b k C Yost-7
7
,_ l(c Kush , 1?7 s..cw 22/4. naj /&rji2ot -uJ tYv;�3
b .°se "' Sfe .. /7C0- 75'11 .(A, 10� Ga.a_0(7 / eo cco63y.
�e�set
3c0 -refry 9. w4MoAf do So ( (��,o,3µs,-1-1��iy <<Mes -6G<)
-co yo ,fi Vic,, c/�,, . . <-a., be 4 ,usu,:. �/gv5)3 i
0frti✓ Jo r� S / Liz_ c ONYy cf./L-6 C.6 � 7 0vce"/
DAMP 5 • W IU.(41.5 ISM 11.5 5t. u(XX-'J, /h So,0-2
vw4- . (t)63-CGAUer ,b ft1 ST an CO EXE03
*--- 4,1-i)
�55(6- .5/31e y sty ' 22c) v -.e- als,4i'0 •$o�/
I U/iME .5 Lets 2656 1 EA4 (- /, QLee / a tow 6tiro.ui co 6, os6y
Hello