HomeMy WebLinkAbout20040773 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO
Docket No . 2003 -35
REPORTER ' S TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING
May 7, 2003 ORIGINAL
IN RE : REQUEST OF LIFEBRIDGE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
FOR CHANGE OF ZONE , PZ #1004 , FROM THE A
_ (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT TO THE PUD
(PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) ZONE DISTRICT WITH
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) ZONE USES
The above-entitled matter came on for public
hearing before the Board of County Commissioners of
Weld County on May 7 , 2003 , commencing at 10 : 00 a .m. ,
at the Centennial Building, 915 10th Street , Greeley,
Colorado, before Cheryl A. Palmer, Registered
Professional Reporter and Notary Public of the State
of Colorado .
Wilson George Court Reporters, Inc.
One Old Town Square, Suite 200 B, Ft. Collins, CO 80524 (970) 224-3000
303 E. 17th Avenue, Suite 700, Denver, CO 80203 (303) 861-5000
Greeley, CO (970) 353-0300 (800) 845-3001 o n3
Cth\.Clr fCcHR
U�»
C . - IC - c`f
APPEARANCES :
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS :
David E . Long, Chairman
Robert D . Masden, Pro-Tem
M. J . Geile
William H . Jerke
WELD COUNTY LEGAL ADVISER:
Lee Morrison, Esq.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT :
Kim Ogle
Monica Mika
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT :
Drew Scheltinga
Peter Schei
Donald Carroll
HEALTH DEPARTMENT :
Pam Smith
ALSO PRESENT :
Esther Gesick, Acting Clerk to the Board
Carol Harding, Acting Clerk to the Board
* * * * *
Page 3 1 INDEX
2 SPEAKERS : PAGE OF 1ST REFERENCE —
3 Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services 8
4 Ken Poncelow, Weld County Sheriff ' s Office 34
5 Rob Fleck, St . Vrain Sanitation District 37 —
6 Gloria Hice-Idler, CDOT 39
7 Robert Bram, Encana Energy Resources 41
8 Ursula Morgan, Town of Mead 51 —
9 Drew Scheltinga, Public Works Department 71
10 Pam Smith, Department of Health 91
11 Jeff Reif , Department of Planning Services 99 _
12 Bruce Grinnell , LifeBridge administrator 102
13 Rick Rusaw, LifeBridge senior minister 138
14 Dennis Rubba, Insight Design 144 _
15 Matt Delich, traffic engineer 158
16 Todd Hodges , Todd Hodges Design 173
17 Barb Brunk, Tetra Tech RMC 184 _
18 Peter Gries , manager of www.weldhomeowners . org 196
19 Susan Harbuz , Meadowvale Farms resident 222
20 Vicki Braunagel , Elms at Meadowvale resident 226
21 Michael Donohoo, surrounding property owner 231
22 Frank Pierce, Meadowvale resident 237
23 Rod Schmidt , Meadowvale Farms resident 241
24 Bill Norris , surrounding property owner 255
25 Bill Golliher, Elms resident 258
Page 4
1 INDEX (Cont ' d)
2 SPEAKERS : PAGE OF 1ST REFERENCE
3 Scott Owen, surrounding property owner 262
4 Bob Frederiksen, surrounding property owner 264
5 Michael Stember, surrounding property owner 266
6 Duane Leise, Elms resident 270
7 Lori Miller, surrounding property owner 283
8 Louise Leise, Elms resident 295
9 Jack Fowler, surrounding property owner 300
10 Darryl S . Denius , Elms at Meadowvale resident 305
11 Betty Ann Newby, surrounding property owner 308
12 Danielle Di Donna, Elms at Meadowvale resident 317
13 Richard Salm, Elms at Meadowvale resident 328
14
* * * * *
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 5 1 PROCEEDINGS
2 CHAIRMAN LONG: Good morning . It ' s May 7th, —
3 2003 , here Wednesday. We reconvene as the County
4 Commissioners for the purpose of land use hearings
5 this morning . —
6 It ' s kind of - - to set the stage for this
7 morning, and I ' ll repeat some of these things as I
8 know there will be people coming and going as —
9 proceedings go on, but just to kind of set some rules
10 and some standards from where to go from, we ' ll go by
11 our usual process that we go through concerning land -
12 use hearings .
13 When we get to the public testimony period
14 of the meeting, we will ask that if you ' re speaking -
15 for an individual that you limit your time to five
16 minutes , if you could. If you ' re speaking for a
17 group, you might state that and then you have _
18 whatever time you will need to be able to speak for
19 that group .
20 But we do ask for everybody to be
21 respectful , be professional and respect each other ' s
22 time . If you are in agreement with something that
23 was already said prior, you might just state that _
24 you ' re in agreement with that or in opposition to
25 that instead of rephrasing everything over again and
Page 6
1 through the exercise is the best use of everybody' s
2 time .
3 If you wish to speak, we ask that you sign
4 in. If you thought - - if you haven ' t thought about
5 it yet and you decide later that you would like to
6 speak, we ask that you go back and fill out a card
7 and then you ' ll be heard in the order that that is
8 presented. If you ' re on a card and you decide not to
9 speak, that ' s up to you and just let us know that too
10 at that time .
11 We will be breaking at 10 minutes to noon
12 for lunch, so at 10 minutes of we will be taking a
13 recess and then we ' ll reconvene at 1 : 30 .
14 Should this go on to the evening we ' ll see
15 where we ' re at , but it might be that we might break
16 at 5 : 00 or 5 : 30 for awhile for a short supper or
17 whatever, but we ' ll see where we ' re at within the
18 proceedings at that time and gauge that
19 appropriately.
20 A part of our charge as County
21 Commissioners, it ' s interesting in County Government,
22 is we take on all three areas of government . We are
23 executive, legislative and judicial . This type of a
24 proceeding we take on the quasi judicial stand, and
25 what that means is that we must take on by law an
Page 7
1 unbiased neutral position, which means that we can ' t
2 talk to anybody concerning the application, either in -
3 support of or in opposition of .
4 So I know we ' ve all gotten lots of phone
5 calls and messages left and wishing us to return -
6 calls , and we return calls and sometimes we haven' t
7 been able to or haven ' t been able to connect , but the
8 reason that we are not able to discuss it is because -
9 of the law so that everybody gets due process or is
10 not any kind of biased situation going on, that
11 everybody hears all of the testimony regarding -
12 support or opposition to the application all at the
13 same time so that the spirit of the proceedings are
14 condensed into one area, that it ' s on the record.
15 All of your e-mails have been made a part of
16 the record. Any kind of a transmittal or any kind of
17 information disseminated to the Commissioners has -
18 been made a part of the record, so that your input
19 has been duly noted and will be paid attention to .
20 With that I think I ' ll - - first of all ,
21 we ' ll have roll call , please, Esther .
22 (Roll call was taken by Ms . Gesick. )
23 CHAIRMAN LONG: Let the record show that
24 four Commissioners are present with Commissioner Vaad
25 recusing himself . -
Page 8
1 With that we will now bring up to the docket
2 PL1655 , Docket 2003 -35 , Change of Zone PZ-1004 , and
3 counsel , if you could read that into the record,
4 please .
5 MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, this is the
6 application of LifeBridge Christian Church for a
7 change of zone from the A (agriculture) zone district
8 to the PUD (Planned Unit Development) zone district
9 with E (Estate) , R-i (low density residential) , R-2
10 (duplex residential) , R-3 (medium density
_ 11 residential) , R-4 (high density residential) , C-i
12 (neighborhood commercial) , and C-2 (general
13 commercial) zone uses located in Lot B of recorded
14 exemption 1389 , which is part of Section 5 , Township
15 2 North, Range 68 West of the 6th PM, Weld County,
— 16 Colorado .
17 Notice is published April 17th, 2003 , in the
18 South Weld Sun and in addition posting has been
— 19 verified by affidavit which will be - - three
20 affidavits, which will be included in the record
21 under Exhibits O, P and Q.
22 CHAIRMAN LONG: Thank you . Planning staff
23 presentation?
24 MR . OGLE : Good morning . Kim Ogle,
- 25 Department of Planning Services .
Page 9
1 This application is PZ-1004 , PUD change of
2 zone from A (agricultural) to PUD with R-1 (low -
3 density residential) , R-2 (duplex residential) , R-3
4 (medium density residential) , R-4 (high density
5 residential) , C-1 (neighborhood commercial) , and C-2 -
6 (general commercial) , and continuing oil and gas
7 production uses in the Mixed Use Development overlay
8 district . -
9 Proposed land uses include a church campus ,
10 a community center, a commercial component and a
11 residential component with up to 368 dwelling units , -
12 a park and recreation uses . The applicant is
13 LifeBridge Christian Church.
14 Site is located north of and adjacent to -
15 State Highway 119 , east of and adjacent to Weld
16 County Road 3 . 5 , and south of and adjacent to County
17 Road 26 , and is within the recognized boundary of the _
18 Mixed Use Development area .
19 The property generally slopes north to south
20 to State Highway 119 with single family residential
21 properties east of County Road 3 . 5 sloping
22 south/southwest to the Front Range . The property has
23 historically been in agricultural production. There
24 are oil and gas production facilities on site .
25 Lands directly north of this site are in
Page 10
1 agricultural production with lands to the northwest
2 part of the City of Longmont open space . These lands
3 are outside of the recognized MUD boundary.
4 Lands to the east are residential PUD ' s .
5 North of and adjacent to State Highway 119 are the
6 Farms at Meadowvale, a residential PUD constructed
7 prior to the inception of the MUD overlay district .
8 North of this development are the Elms at
9 Meadowvale, first, second and third filing . The
10 second and third filings are presently under
11 residential construction.
12 South of the site across State Highway 119
13 is the Vista Commercial Business Park, a PUD with
14 business commercial , C-3 , and light industrial uses .
15 To the west is Longview PUD, a modular home park
16 constructed under the MUD guidelines and design
17 criteria .
18 At this juncture I would like to provide
19 some background information regarding the MUD overlay
20 district . A hard copy of this map was provided at
21 your stations prior to my comments .
22 The Mixed Use Development area was
23 recognized in 1987 in the Weld County Comprehensive
24 Plan as a future urban development corridor with
25 urban density and urban scale development within Weld
Page 11
1 County.
2 In 1987 there was a minimal amount of -
3 development . However, as we are aware, in recent
4 years development has accelerated in the area and in
5 the surrounding communities , particularly the
6 conversion of rural agriculture lands to more
7 intensive urban type land uses .
8 The MUD area while rural in character at its -
9 inception is rapidly changing to an urbanized area in
10 Weld County. The MUD is positioned within 30 miles
11 of all major employment centers and product markets -
12 on the Front Range .
13 I-25 provides convenient access to these
14 cities and gives the MUD area a strategic location -
15 providing retail goods and services to increasing
16 traffic volumes along the interstate .
17 The MUD area occupies a strategic location -
18 for commuters . The area, surrounded by larger
19 cities, including the urbanized areas of Longmont , it
20 is also approximately 15 miles from Loveland, Boulder
21 and Greeley, and 25 miles from Fort Collins to the
22 north and Denver to the south.
23 Residential developments in the incorporated
24 towns around the MUD area support persons commuting
25 to all of these cities . -
Page 12
1 New residential development has occurred in
2 the MUD in recent years , including Longview,
3 Meadowvale Farms , and the Elms at Meadowvale PUD.
4 Other residential developments include Idaho Creek,
5 Lighthouse Cove, and the proposed Riverdance PUD .
6 In surrounding towns such as Frederick,
7 Firestone, Dacono, Mead and Erie residential growth
8 has also accelerated, particularly the conversion of
9 farm lands to more intensive type urban uses . The
10 metropolitan Denver/Boulder area growth has
11 increasingly been directed to outlying communities
12 such as Longmont , northern Broomfield, Erie and Weld
13 County, including the MUD area .
_ 14 Given the historic and planned trend for
15 development , it is the structural land use plan that
16 provides the framework for development in the MUD
_ 17 overlay district . The MUD structural land use plan
18 is intended to provide a foundation and framework to
19 enable the County and its citizens to make the
20 appropriate decisions regarding future development .
21 Preservation of natural resources ,
22 development of quality communities , provision for
23 regional services and employment opportunities , and
24 maintaining fiscal integrity are key factors driving
25 this plan. This ensures that development is planned
Page 13
1 in advance rather than left to chance .
2 The land uses delineated in the structural -
3 land use map 2 . 1 promotes appropriate levels of
4 facilities and services in the MUD area . It is
5 important to remember that it is the coherence of -
6 community structure and the quality of the built and
7 natural environment that will determine whether
8 growth in the MUD area will represent a positive act -
9 of building a community or the loss of identity and
10 diminished character of the region.
11 The MUD plan shows a proposed configuration -
12 for land uses and street systems as well as suggested
13 sites for community facilities . The plan represents
14 maximum buildout of the region, which depending on -
15 the rate of growth for this area may take 25 to 50
16 years to achieve . As a result the plan will need to
17 change and respond as the development patterns , -
18 resources and needs of the community change .
19 There are a number of principles and themes
20 upon which the plan is based. As a region develops -
21 these principles may serve as planning goals and
22 policies today and in the future . The principles
23 utilized in this plan include the overall development
24 of the MUD area, the major transportation network,
25 the linking of community nodes, and the consistency
Page 14
1 of land use and zoning standards .
2 The structural land use plan evolved out of
3 extensive discussion and analysis . County officials
4 tackled the difficult questions of how to grow, where
5 to grow, and how growth can either benefit or
6 distract from the area ' s quality of life .
7 Addressing these questions required
8 balancing complex and often conflicting issues . What
9 has emerged is a set of principles about the
10 stability of the area ' s economic base, the structure
11 of the community, appropriate land use
12 classifications , and the transportation needs of the
13 region.
_ 14 The structural land use plan presents the
15 opportunity to intertwine land use with established
16 zoning standards in order to minimize the
17 externalities of the uses .
18 For reference the land use designations are
19 grouped into five structural land use categories .
20 These categories are : Employment centers , regional
21 commercial , neighborhood centers , residential
22 neighborhoods , and limited site factors . Each
23 structural land use category has a set of land use
24 principles that provide a framework for design and
25 development .
Page 15
1 The land use principles are, one, employment
2 center development provides a unique opportunity to -
3 create a major center for new employment in the area .
4 The creation of the employment center is located and
5 oriented toward a network of regional and national -
6 roadways serving the area .
7 This center needs to be carefully planned to
8 ensure that it will take advantage of the many -
9 attributes and opportunities in the area without
10 detracting from the overall image and vital linkages
11 throughout the MUD . -
12 Two, interconnection of community. Livable
13 neighborhoods are critical in the future quality of
14 life in the area . Interconnectivity of community -
15 nodes and activity centers will aid in the viability
16 of the area.
17 Alternative means of transportation and
18 opportunities for those who seek to walk or ride
19 their bicycles should be increased, providing safe
20 and pleasant pathways to interconnect neighborhoods
21 with community facilities and employment centers .
22 New residential growth should be configured
23 as neighborhoods , not isolated enclaves . The
24 location of neighborhood centers in residentially
25 designated areas is intended to provide community -
Page 16
1 services within walkable destinations for the
2 residents within the MUD area .
3 Three, consistent land use standards are
4 intended to shape and enhance communities within the
5 MUD area . These standards are also intended to
6 support and implement the land use and development
7 policies in the Weld County Code, the Weld County
8 Comprehensive Plan, the zoning ordinance, the
9 subdivision ordinance, and the Planned Unit
10 Development ordinance .
_ 11 Four, appropriate zoning mixture . The
12 structural land use plan provides a mixture of
13 conceptual land use categories throughout the MUD
14 area . These categories are grouped by intensity of
15 land use with the majority of high intensity uses
16 being clustered in the vicinity of I-25 and State
17 Highway 119 .
18 In contrast , lands with limiting site
19 factors such as flood plain, wetlands , and wildlife
20 habitat correlate with the lowest intensity land
21 uses .
22 Five, planned transportation network. The
23 major roadway corridors , including Interstate 25 ,
24 State Highway 119 , State Highway 66 and County Road
25 1 , are the primary roadway structures for the MUD
Page 17
1 area . Special attention is given to access controls
2 and design treatment to ensure that these roadways -
3 will function well over time and that the visual
4 quality of the major highway corridors will be
5 improved and enhanced. -
6 Today the MUD area is at the center of
7 growing municipalities in the southwest area of the
8 county. Defining and shaping communities within the -
9 MUD area not only opens the door for more functional
10 regional activity but will improve the sense of place
11 for local residence and business owners . -
12 The location of LifeBridge PUD is near a
13 neighborhood center node . Neighborhood centers are
14 established to provide convenience goods and services -
15 primarily for the residents of a specific
16 neighborhood. These centers should be accessible via
17 sidewalks, trails or greenways, thus creating
18 identity for individual neighborhoods .
19 Neighborhood centers characteristically have
20 few environmental impacts and rely more upon
21 service-related provisions such as law enforcement
22 and fire protection. New development within these
23 centers shall , therefore, mitigate the impacts
24 associated with its use .
25 The Mountain View Fire Protection District
Page 18
1 and the Weld County Sheriff ' s Office have indicated
2 their ability to adequately service this planned
3 development . Louanne Penfold of Mountain View Fire
4 Protection District has provided a referral letter
5 stating their ability to serve in a recent memorandum
6 which is in your packet addressing the
7 interconnectivity. Ken Poncelow of the Sheriff ' s
_ 8 Office is present and will provide follow-up
9 commentary on the sheriff ' s impacts .
10 Neighborhood centers include but are not
11 limited to the following activities and services :
12 One, small parks ; two, civic uses such as places of
13 worship, libraries and community centers ; three,
14 public facilities such as schools ; four, service
15 businesses including smaller offices ; and five, a
16 residential mix.
17 The proposed PUD plan submitted by
18 Lifebridge Christian Church addresses each of these
19 activities and service components . The Planned Unit
20 Development is intended to allow an alternative
21 method for property owners and developers to apply
22 flexibility in developing land.
23 The objectives of a PUD are to, one,
24 encourage innovations in residential , commercial and
25 industrial development so that the growing demands of
Page 19
1 the population may be met by greater variety in type,
2 design and layout of buildings, and for the -
3 conservation and more efficient use of open space in
4 the development .
5 Two, provide for a well-located, clean, safe -
6 and pleasant commercial , industrial and residential
7 developments involving a minimal strain on
8 transportation facilities .
9 Three, ensure that the provisions of the
10 zoning laws which direct the uniform treatment of
11 dwelling type, bulk, density and open space within _
12 each zoning district will not be applied to the
13 improvement of land but other than the lot by lot
14 development in a manner which would not distort the
15 objectives and zoning laws .
16 Four, encourage a more efficient use of land
17 in economic provisions of public and private services
18 to reflect changes in land development so that
19 results may benefit the community as a whole .
20 Five, provide for necessary services and
21 amenities conveniently located in proximity of
22 residential developments .
23 Six, conserve the value of the land.
24 Seven, encourage preservation of the site ' s
25 natural characteristics and scenic features through -
Page 20
1 development provisions which relate the type, design
— 2 and layout of residential , commercial and industrial
3 development to the particular site .
4 Eight , encourage flexibility and variety in
— 5 development while promoting the most efficient use of
6 the land.
7 Nine, improve the design, character and
8 quality of the development while encouraging
9 development to incorporate the best features of
10 modern design.
— 11 Ten, ensure compatibility with Chapters 22 ,
12 23 , 24 and 26 of the Weld County Code and any
13 intergovernmental agreement as applicable .
14 Eleven, encourage integrated planning in
—
15 order to achieve the above purposes . It should also
16 be stated that the PUD application provides for
17 flexibility in development .
—
18 The application materials state, " In
—
19 developing the master plan for Project LifeBridge
— 20 existing site features and limitations greatly
21 influence the site . The plan responds to the
—
22 property' s boundary conditions, a well trafficked
23 state highway serving as the southern boundary,
—
24 residential developments to the east and west , and
—
25 open space to the north.
Page 21 1 "The site topography is generally a general
2 slope with the highest point on the north edge of the —
3 site . The Oligarchy Ditch currently bisects the site
4 from east to west , and a Great Western rail track
5 crosses the site from west to northeast . Views west -.
6 to the Front Range to Long ' s Peak and northwest over
7 Union Reservoir are retained.
8 "The master plan for Project LifeBridge is —
9 based on a concept of an integrated mixed use
10 neighborhood focused on a church campus . "
11 The PUD will form a neighborhood center and _
12 provide for education, worship, recreation and
13 shopping opportunities for residents and employees in
14 the adjacent developments . The site will develop -- _
15 will be developed in separate filings and multiple
16 phases over a projected 50-year time frame .
17 Buildings on the campus will be set back and _
18 appropriately landscaped to anchor them to the site
19 and provide a transition to the adjacent development .
20 The applicant is proposing a 125-foot landscape
21 buffer between the adjoining properties and the
22 proposed development on all sides . Building heights
23 will vary within this development . _
24 Filing 1 , Phase 1 , church campus development
25 includes a fellowship hall , a children' s building, -
Page 22
1 the administrative offices for the church, and a
2 learning center . Total square footage on the church
3 campus is 268 , 000 square feet .
4 The residential component includes 56 single
5 family residential units, and that ' s on the west side
6 of 3 . 5 , and 102 senior village units .
7 Filing 1, Phase 2 , development delineates no
8 new structures in the church campus area . The
9 residential component includes an additional 54
10 single family residential units west of County Road
11 3 . 5 and 30 senior village units .
12 The anticipated time frame for this entire
13 first filing buildout is approximately 10 years .
14 Prior to development occurring on site the
15 applicant will be required to submit additional
16 design proposals and documentation outlining their
17 intent for the structure and a review.
18 The site plan review application process
19 ensures that the design, operations and development
20 criteria have been met prior to the release of
21 building permits .
22 The site plan review process is applicable
23 to all development involving R-2 (duplex
24 residential) , R-3 (medium density residential) , R-4
25 (high density residential) , C-1 (neighborhood
Page 23 1 commercial) , and C-2 (general commercial) uses . The
2 single family residential component is not required —
3 to go through the site plan review application
4 process .
5 A non-inclusive list of issues that are —
6 addressed through this process includes parking,
7 on-site circulation, on-site lighting, open space,
8 interconnectivity, building height , setbacks , lot —
9 coverage and landscape treatment .
10 Prior to recording the site plan review plat
11 an improvements agreement and collateral was tendered _
12 for each filing or phase of the development . The
13 improvements agreement addresses transportation and
14 non-transportation issues . Collateral is retained by _
15 the County until state improvements have been
16 completed to the satisfaction of Weld County
17 government personnel . _
18 The application materials state that Long ' s
19 Peak and Left Hand Water District will serve the
20 development , although a formal agreement has not been
21 entered into by the applicant .
22 Irrigation water from the Oligarchy Ditch
23 will be utilized for the irrigation of open space and _
24 common areas . The applicant has entered into an
25 agreement with the Ditch specifically addressing the
Page 24
1 use of the ditch and the treatment of the ditch.
2 Barry Dykes , general manager of Long ' s Peak,
3 is present and may provide comment as to the adequacy
_ 4 for service to the development . Kathy Peterson, who
5 is with Left Hand Water District, provided a letter
6 dated May 5th of this year stating that the District
7 has processed a request to serve 358 single family
8 equivalent taps .
9 Sanitary sewer is provided by the St . Vrain
10 Sanitation District , although a formal agreement has
11 not been entered into by the applicant . Rob Fleck
12 with the St . Vrain Sanitation District is present and
13 may provide additional comment to the accuracy to
14 serve this development .
15 Conceptual landscape diagram was submitted
16 with the application. The framework for the proposed
^ 17 pedestrian spaces, landscape buffers, storm water
18 detention and retention basin, non-program
19 recreational fields , pocket parks and a neighborhood
20 park includes approximately 93 acres or approximately
21 30 percent of the site at full buildout .
22 This amount of open space exceeds the
23 requirement established in the MUD . Per the
24 application materials 93 acres or 29 percent of the
25 total site is reserved for open space .
Page 25
1 24 referral agencies have reviewed this
2 case . 20 offered comments in favor of the proposal , _
3 somewhat specific conditions should this change of
4 zone be approved.
5 Staff received two late referrals prior to _
6 the Planning Commission hearing . First was from the
7 Town of Firestone and the second was from the Town of
8 Frederick. Staff contacted both towns to verify if
9 they had any concerns .
10 Bruce Nickerson, planner for the Town of
11 Firestone, responded with a no comment . That ' s
12 Exhibit 225 of your packet .
13 Mayor Richard Wyatt responded with, "The
14 Town of Frederick is aware of the building plans of
15 LifeBridge Church. We want you to know that
16 Frederick is not opposed to these plans . " And that ' s
17 Exhibit 226 .
18 Staff also contacted the Town of Mead after
19 the Planning Commission hearing of April 22nd, 2003 ,
20 regarding their referral dated April 7th of this
21 year. Town administrator Michael Friesen stated his
22 comments stand and there will be no amendments or
23 modifications to the Town ' s referral comments .
24 MS . MORGAN: That ' s a lie .
25 CHAIRMAN LONG: Excuse me . Your opportunity
Page 26
1 will come up later.
2 MS . MORGAN: It will come, yes .
3 MR. OGLE : As of May 6 , 2003 , 224 letters
4 and petitions from interested parties have been
5 received in addition to the undocumented telephone
6 inquiries from surrounding property owners and
7 interested parties . Staff has not received new
8 letters for this case after the April 22nd, 2003 ,
9 special Planning Commission hearing.
10 Topics addressed in these letters have the
11 following list of concerns, and this is in a short
12 list : Increased traffic flow through the
13 neighborhoods , insufficient road infrastructure,
14 insufficient law enforcement , safety of people living
15 in the neighborhood, vandalism, noise pollution,
16 light pollution, air pollution, traffic jams , number
17 of parking spaces allows for more traffic , financial
18 stability of the development, height and size of the
19 buildings , size of the development , length of the
20 ongoing development , degradation of rural and
21 residential areas, destroyed scenery and views ,
22 quality of life, and decreased values of housing
23 prices in neighborhoods .
24 It is the opinion of the Department of
25 Planning Services based on the referrals received
Page 27
1 that the applicant has addressed the majority of the
2 issues associated with this application. LifeBridge -
3 Christian Church has met with many of the referral
4 agencies and has addressed their concerns prior to
5 submitting this change of zone application. -
6 It is the understanding of this office that
7 the applicant has met on numerous occasions with the
8 Homeowners Association and interested persons of the -
9 surrounding developments and has held at least three
10 open houses over the course of the review period such
11 that interested parties can review the proposed -
12 development and form their opinions .
13 One issue that is of concern to all parties
14 associated with this development is the issue of -
15 building heights specific to the church campus . The
16 applicant initially proposed an overall building
17 height of 120 feet in the center of the church campus -
18 south of the Great Western railroad track.
19 The single family residential component
20 proposed a height of 35 feet, the senior village area -
21 45 feet, the commercial component 45 feet with up to
22 55 feet for ornamentation.
23 The PUD application affords the applicant
24 the flexibility to design a development that is
25 generally not possible under the usual subdivision -
Page 28
1 application process . Department of Planning Services
2 looks for compatibility of development to the
3 surrounding land uses , including the view corridors
4 to the Front Range, the view corridor heading west
5 and east on State Highway 119 , and the view corridor
6 in County Road 26 .
7 This office proposes that the bulk standards
8 be limited to the following criteria : Building
9 heights shall be restricted, including the heights of
10 all building ornamentation, including stand-alone
11 elements .
12 The single family residential component
13 shall be limited to a height of 35 feet . The church
14 campus north of the Great Western Railroad shall be
15 limited to a height of 45 feet .
16 The overall height within the center of the
17 church campus south of the Great Western railroad
18 track will be restricted to 60 feet with up to 20
19 percent of the center rectangular envelope within the
20 center portion of the campus providing building
21 heights up to 90 feet .
22 The senior village component shall be
23 limited to a height of 35 feet , excluding the units
24 directly adjacent to the east property line where
25 these structures are limited to a single story and
Page 29
1 the mixed use office, retail and neighborhood center
2 shall be limited to a height of 45 feet including -
3 ornamentation.
4 All heights are determined utilizing the
5 Uniform Building Code . This standard is included as -
6 a note in the change of zone and final plats . On the
7 change of zone plat it is item 3 . 0 on Page 39 of
8 staff comments . -
9 Department of Planning Services proposes
10 that a landscape buffer set at 125 feet at the
11 perimeter of the parcel and north and south of the _
12 Great Western railroad track be required to mitigate
13 the concerns of the surrounding property owners . All
14 other setbacks for buildings as determined by the MUD _
15 ordinance and the zoning ordinance shall adhere to
16 these standards unless otherwise modified.
17 The Department of Planning Services defers _
18 comment on issues associated with the transportation
19 component and this will be addressed by the
20 Department of Public Works at the conclusion of my _
21 comments . The applicant ' s traffic engineer, Matt
-
22 Delich, and Gloria Hice-Idler of CDOT are present and
23 may offer additional comments as well as other
24 interested referral agencies .
-
25 The applicants have asked for an
Page 30
1 administrative review, final plat stage of this
2 application. Department of Planning Services is not
3 in support of this request as there are no formal
4 water and sewer agreements in place . Should the
5 Board of County Commissioners have questions specific
6 to this issue, Attorney Morrison who reviewed the
7 agreement documentation is available and will provide
8 additional comment .
9 The Weld County Planning Commission
10 recommends approval by a vote of eight to one of this
11 application, PZ-1004 , a PUD change of zone from
12 agricultural to PUD with residential and commercial
13 uses and continuing oil and gas production uses in
14 the Mixed Use Development overlay area .
15 Drew Scheltinga, Peter Schei , and Don
16 Carroll are present from Public Works . Pam Smith is
17 here with the Health Department . The applicant ,
18 Bruce Grinnell of LifeBridge Christian Church, is
19 present and is represented by Barb Brunk of Tetra
20 Tech Rocky Mountain Consultants and Todd Hodges of
21 Todd Hodges Design. There are also additional
22 LifeBridge consultants also present .
23 Staff has a variety of photographs that we
24 would like to share with the Board if you would like
25 to see the site . If not then that concludes my
Page 31
1 comments .
2 We do ask for indulgence of the Board. We -
3 would request that the referral agencies that are
4 present be permitted to give testimony at this time .
5 CHAIRMAN LONG: First let ' s go through the -
6 -- is it timely to go through the pictures at this
7 point?
8 MR. OGLE : Certainly. -
9 CHAIRMAN LONG : Let ' s do that right now.
10 MR. OGLE : This is a view west on County
11 Road 26 looking towards the Front Range . The -
12 applicant ' s property is to my left , or to the south.
13 This is looking - - State Highway 119 is
14 behind me . I 'm looking up 3 . 5 . That ' s the Longview -
15 PUD to the left and the LifeBridge component to the
16 right .
17 This is in the other direction looking down _
18 at the intersection of 3 . 5 and 119 . It ' s Vista
19 Commercial . That ' s to the - - in the far distance to
20 the south.
21 This is the entrance into Longview from 3 . 5 .
22 Standing on 3 . 5 I ' m looking back across . In the far
23 right-hand edge of the screen is where the Elms at
24 Meadowvale development is located at . That is second
25 filing. Third filing would be that lone house that ' s
Page 32
1 kind of beyond the first three trees up there .
2 I 'm standing on 3 . 5 and the railroad tracks
3 is up there on the left-hand side about halfway up .
4 There is an irrigation ditch just this side of the
_ 5 ditch. I ' m looking straight across towards the third
6 filing, Elms at Meadowvale .
7 Standing on 3 . 5 and this would be the single
— 8 family residential component that faces the Front
9 Range .
10 On 26 at - - I 'm standing on 26 looking down
11 the road of what County Road 3 . 5 looks like today.
—
12 To the right is where the single family residential
13 component proposed by LifeBridge is located.
14 Longview PUD is off in the distance and then to the
—
15 left would be the church campus .
—
16 Looking on County Road 26 , this is where the
17 railroad tracks come across , to the left is where the
—
18 church campus would be .
—
19 This is the Elms at Meadowvale looking east
20 from the property.
—
21 And then I 'm on the Elms property looking
—
22 back across the site towards the Front Range .
23 CHAIRMAN LONG: Thank you, Kim. Are there
—
24 any questions of Kim?
25 COMMISSIONER GEILE : I have several
Page 33
1 questions but I ' ll defer on this request until he ' s
2 had the opportunity -- unless you ' re prepared to take -
3 a few questions, or did you want to move on - -
4 MEMBER OF AUDIENCE : Can you speak up, sir?
5 Thank you. _
6 COMMISSIONER GEILE : You ' re welcome . I
7 apologize for that . As a matter of fact , when I 'm
8 speaking if anybody can ' t hear me just please raise a _
9 hand, and I appreciate that very much for helping me
10 with that .
11 But Kim, I had a few questions . Did you _
12 want to wait until after those who are here to speak
13 but before the applicant? In other words , is that
14 your intent?
15 MR. OGLE : Yes , that would be fine .
16 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Okay. Thank you, Mr .
17 Chairman.
18 CHAIRMAN LONG : Sure . At this time then
19 I ' ll ask - - I have a list of referral agencies that I
20 have on this list and then I ' ll also ask for anybody
21 else that might not be on this list as a referral
22 agency only to come forward and give some testimony.
23 First I ' ll start with Ken Poncelow from the
24 Weld County Sheriff ' s Office . Ken?
25 MR. PONCELOW: Ken Poncelow with the Weld
Page 34
1 County Sheriff ' s Office .
2 CHAIRMAN LONG: Thank you.
3 MR. PONCELOW: LifeBridge, the LifeBridge
4 folks got together with us prior to even - - the
— 5 LifeBridge people got together with the Sheriff ' s
6 Office prior to even starting development on this
7 site, went over and met with them at Todd Hodges '
8 office over in Longmont .
—
9 They were very receptive to everything that
10 we asked for them to do . One of the things that we
11 asked for was that they do some traffic calming, and
—
12 they changed some of the roadways within their plans
—
13 so that we would not have to go down and do as much
14 traffic enforcement later on.
—
15 They also have been very receptive to doing
—
16 some crime prevention through environmental design,
17 the SepTed project that we work on so that we could
—
18 get more - - build communities that we don ' t have as
—
19 much - - that we ' re not going to have to use as much
20 law enforcement resource for later on.
—
21 We also discussed issues like since they
—
22 will have large assemblies providing security at
23 their assembly and medical personnel . They were very
—
24 receptive to doing that . In fact , they had already
—
25 planned on doing that prior to us meeting with them.
Page 35 —
1 So we had no problem with the plans they' re
2 doing . Like I said, they have worked very well with —
3 us .
4 CHAIRMAN LONG: Is that it?
5 MR. PONCELOW : That ' s it , sir . —
6 CHAIRMAN LONG : Any questions of Ken?
7 Ken, I did have a question.
8 MR. PONCELOW: Yes, sir . —
9 CHAIRMAN LONG: In regards -- and I know
10 this is going to be built in phases and things . What
11 kind of manpower are we talking about to be able to _
12 serve not just that community but the whole area as a
13 whole? What are we looking at as an increase?
14 MR. PONCELOW: We would have to go with the _
15 comprehensive plan that we submitted several years
16 ago. I think we ' re behind that now but --
17 CHAIRMAN LONG: But that ' s in the works so _
18 we ' re looking at that as a progressive motion through
19 the MUD process?
20 MR. PONCELOW: Yes, sir, we are .
21 CHAIRMAN LONG: Very good. Commissioner
22 Geile .
23 COMMISSIONER GEILE : If I may, Mr . Chairman.
24 Ken, along that line are you going to have an
25 intergovernmental agreement or some kind of a mutual
Page 36
1 aid agreement with the City of Longmont?
2 MR. PONCELOW: We already have that , sir.
3 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Can you explain a
4 little bit how that works?
5 MR. PONCELOW: The way that works is - - and
6 it ' s not with just the City of Longmont , it ' s with
7 all law enforcement agencies surrounding the county
8 and within the county. And basically what that is is
9 that if we have an emergency call that happens, say,
10 at this site and they have somebody closer or we need
_ 11 backup, they will go ahead and send someone over to
12 handle that call .
13 It ' s just on emergency calls . They wouldn' t
_ 14 go in on a theft or something like that , but if we
15 had a domestic disturbance going on and we didn ' t
— 16 have a deputy close they would go ahead and send an
_ 17 officer over or back up our officers when they got
18 there .
— 19 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Thank you, Mr.
20 Chairman.
21 CHAIRMAN LONG: Any other questions of Ken?
22 Thank you, sir .
23 MR. PONCELOW: Thank you, gentlemen.
24 CHAIRMAN LONG: Barry Dykes for Long ' s Peak
— 25 Water District, if you ' re available?
Page 37
1 Okay, Rob Fleck from St . Vrain Sanitation
2 District . If you could, give us your name and —
3 address for the record, please, and welcome . Thank
4 you.
5 MR. FLECK: Hi , I ' m Rob Fleck with St . Vrain —
6 Sanitation District, 436 Coffman Street , Longmont ,
7 Colorado .
8 The property is in our 208 boundary and it ' s —
9 the long-range plans of the District to serve the
10 property. No agreements have been set in place yet
11 but we are currently looking at infrastructure and -
12 how the area can be served, and if anybody has any
13 questions I would be happy to answer them.
14 COMMISSIONER GEILE : If I may, Mr . Chairman. _
15 Rob, there was - - on the 208 boundary question, as an
16 IGA was being formulated with the County and Longmont
17 there was some agreements made between St . Vrain and _
18 the City of Longmont concerning 208 boundaries and
19 who would serve . Does this interfere with that
20 agreement at all or does it take the agreement into _
21 account? Can you help me with that?
22 MR. FLECK: No, that agreement you ' re
23 speaking of is to the west .
24 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Thank you . So this
25 does not impact that agreement?
Page 38
1 MR. FLECK: No .
2 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Okay, thank you.
3 CHAIRMAN LONG: Any other questions?
4 Commissioner Masden.
5 COMMISSIONER MASDEN: Thank you, Mr .
6 Chairman.
7 Yeah, Rob, in your discussions with
8 LifeBridge on this project what -- the internal
9 system, will it all be your infrastructure that you
10 will handle or will they be coming into yours at a
— 11 certain point , whereas everything will be handled by
12 your company?
13 MR. FLECK: Their internal infrastructure
— 14 will be put in by them and designed to our
15 specifications and then it will hook up to a current
16 trunk line or a future parallel infrastructure to be
— 17 served either by a station or gravity.
18 COMMISSIONER MASDEN: When they do that will
19 they turn that system over to you to handle, I guess ,
,., 20 or to manage?
21 MR. FLECK: Yes , after the warranty is over
22 we would assume the maintenance of the - - anything
23 that ' s eight inches or larger in pipe size diameter.
24 COMMISSIONER MASDEN: And anything that
25 would be like pump stations and things of that nature
Page 39 —
1 you --
2 MR. FLECK: No, that area can be served by —
3 gravity.
4 COMMISSIONER MASDEN: Oh, it will be all
5 gravity feed? All right , thank you . —
6 CHAIRMAN LONG: Any other questions? Thank
7 you, sir.
8 Glen -- and I apologize if I mess up —
9 people ' s names . Glen Segrew from St . Vrain Valley
10 School District?
11 Okay, Scott Tillian from St . Vrain? -
12 Okay, we ' ll move on. Gloria Hice-Idler from
13 CDOT? Good morning . Welcome .
14 MS . RICE-IDLER: I 'm Gloria Hice-Idler with _
15 the Colorado Department of Transportation, 1420 2nd
16 Street , Greeley, 80631 .
17 CDOT has been working closely with Rocky
18 Mountain Tetra Tech on the transportation issues
19 involving State Highway 119 . Those discussions are
20 continuing but CDOT feels that they are handling _
21 those volume questions that we have and we ' re
22 continuing those conversations .
23 Are there any questions?
24 CHAIRMAN LONG : Any questions? Commissioner
25 Geile . ,
Page 40
1 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Gloria, and this
2 question is mainly around the drainage .
3 MS . HICE-IDLER : Our concerns mostly around
4 drainage? We did have concerns but our drainage
5 engineer has met with Rocky Mountain Tetra Tech and
6 has resolved all of our issues .
7 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Okay. Another question
8 that appeared in the resolution had to do with an
9 intersection, that you would not support an
10 interchange . Do you recall that at all? Because I
— 11 couldn ' t understand what that was referencing. Can
12 you help me with that?
13 MS . HICE-IDLER : Well , originally CDOT had
— 14 wondered if an interchange would be appropriate at
15 this site, but after further review we determined
16 that it would not be appropriate at this site and
— 17 instead the traffic volumes could be handled with
18 dual left turns , and we felt that we could handle the
19 traffic on 119 .
— 20 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Thank you.
21 CHAIRMAN LONG: Any other questions?
22 Commissioner Jerke .
23 COMMISSIONER JERKE : Is the site only to be
24 accessed onto 119 off of 3 . 5?
25 MS . HICE-IDLER: Well , from what I
Page 41 —
1 understand, there was some discussion about some
2 connectivity through the neighborhood and then
3 eventually some of that traffic would also go to 5 . 5 ,
4 but our concern was 3 . 5 . We figured that was the
5 principal traffic location that we needed to address . -
6 COMMISSIONER JERKE : Okay, thank you.
7 CHAIRMAN LONG: Any other questions?
8 MS . RICE-IDLER: I would like to add that -
9 one of the Planning Commissioners had a concern about
10 traffic going to State Highway 66 by way of County
11 Line Road and we felt that that issue had also been -
12 resolved, that the traffic would be handled at 66 and
13 County Line adequately.
14 CHAIRMAN LONG: Thank you.
15 MS . RICE-IDLER : You ' re welcome .
16 CHAIRMAN LONG: Robert Bram from Encana Oil
17 & Gas? _
18 MR. BRAM: Thank you. I 'm Robert Bram, land
19 negotiator for Encana Energy Resources, Inc .
20 Since I spoke at the last hearing I have -
21 received copies of the plans and I 've had a chance to
22 review them. The Project LifeBridge layout does give
23 us specific setbacks for future oil and gas drilling . _
24 One of the concerns that was raised
25 concerned being able to get the gas out of these
Page 42
1 locations they have set aside for us, and we have not
2 had an opportunity to share a - - to have a discussion
3 with the principals involved.
4 It appears as though they are setting aside
5 some areas along what is the Great Northern railroad
6 track through the north half there, but again we
7 haven ' t had that discussion, and when you - - when
8 you ' re making bends like that we obviously have some
9 concerns . The other thing is we would probably
10 require an additional tank battery in the future .
- 11 And also in looking at this plat I want to
12 point out we do not control those locations that are
13 in the southern portion. We are strictly in the
- 14 north half of Section 5 . That ' s another company
15 entirely. I believe it ' s Patina Oil & Gas .
16 So just as an update I would like to make --
- 17 I would like to make the request that should you
18 consider this and make approvals one of the things we
19 would request is a further discussion to set aside
20 areas for pipeline and possibly another tank battery.
21 And another concern I had was concerning the
22 existing tank battery and it ' s - - I 'm kind of having
_ 23 trouble from their plans that I have judging exactly
24 what distances we would have from some of the
25 buildings on the existing tank battery site that is
Page 43
1 up there .
2 And hopefully we will have some of those -
3 discussions in the very near future, but at this
4 point in time they have not taken place .
5 CHAIRMAN LONG: Thank you. Are there any -
6 questions of Mr. Bram? Commissioner Jerke .
7 COMMISSIONER JERKE : Thank you, Mr .
8 Chairman. How many existing wells are operating on -
9 the site right now?
10 MR . BRAM : As to our property we only have
11 one . It ' s the Petrock No . 1 well . It is located -- -
12 you can see the concentric circles, kind of bubble
13 shaped in the area northeast , just south of the
14 railroad track. -
15 COMMISSIONER JERKE : But there are other
16 wells that are operating on site now for other
17 companies? -
18 MR. BRAM: I believe that ' s correct , sir.
19 COMMISSIONER JERKE : Okay, I guess I ' ll ask
20 the applicant later on how they ' re going to handle
21 that . How many future potential sites do you have
22 then?
23 MR . BRAM : Potentially, you can see the _
24 circles they have set up, in theory we could drill up
25 to one, two, three, four, five, six, seven more wells
Page 44
1 that are on the site . Current economics and science
2 are being reviewed in the area .
3 As it stands as of last year economically it
4 didn' t justify, but prices are up and technologies
5 are changing very very rapidly, so that ' s why we ' re
6 concerned about preserving our rights in the area .
7 COMMISSIONER JERKE : Are you looking at
8 approximately a 40-acre spacing?
9 MR. BRAM : Spacing is -- if you use the
10 technical terms that the Colorado Oil & Gas
11 Commission uses , spacing, which refers to who shares
12 in the production, is based on 320 acres .
13 What I think you ' re referring to is
14 increased density of drilling and the number of wells
15 you can get in there . You can get in on this
16 specific property exactly what is shown in there, and
17 that would be seven additional wells on the north
18 half of the property.
19 And again, I really don ' t want to speak for
20 the south half , the southern portion. I kind of
21 don ' t want to address that as that has not been
22 reviewed by me as we have no rights in that area.
23 COMMISSIONER JERKE : So the three circles
24 that show up down there are not a part of your
25 potential - -
Page 45 —
1 MR. BRAM : That ' s correct, sir.
2 COMMISSIONER JERKE : Okay. Are you looking —
3 at directional drilling with the applicant?
4 MR. BRAM: Have not had that discussion.
5 COMMISSIONER JERKE : Thank you . —
6 CHAIRMAN LONG: Thank you. Any other
7 questions?
8 MR. MORRISON: So you ' re saying on the north —
9 portion of the property those drill sites that are
10 located are in accordance currently with the density
11 allowances, is that right?
12 MR. BRAM: Right , currently under what ' s
13 known as Rule 318A that is what they have set up
14 there . -
15 MR. MORRISON: Thank you.
16 CHAIRMAN LONG: Commissioner Geile .
17 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Yeah, at the Planning -
18 Commission meeting on April 22nd Planning Commission
19 member John Folsom asked the question about a
20 decision rendered by Judge West . Can you give a
21 little insight as to what that decision is , or is it
22 an ongoing litigation or is it a proceeding or what
23 is the nature or the status of that? _
24 MR. BRAM: It is still currently in
25 litigation. We received a ruling from Judge West
Page 46
1 that is being appealed by plaintiff, being in this
2 case Whitham Farms is how we call it . We are
3 defendant in the case, but the plaintiffs are
4 appealing.
5 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Okay, the plaintiffs in
6 this case again are who?
7 MR . BRAM: Whitham Farms, City of Longmont,
8 and I 'm forgetting somebody off the top of my head.
9 It involves the validity of the oil and gas lease .
10 The initial ruling came in favor of defendant, being
— 11 Encana Energy and our partners . It is , as I say,
12 subject to ongoing litigation, being appealed.
13 COMMISSIONER GEILE : And I understand, sir,
_ 14 that this is in litigation and the proceedings
15 continue, but how does this affect LifeBridge?
16 MR. BRAM: Good question.
_ 17 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Or is it something you
18 can discuss?
19 MR . BRAM: I 'm really not prepared to
20 discuss that , because as much as anything I ' m not - -
21 I 've had so little -- I ' ve had no real discussion
— 22 with LifeBridge until very recently and they appear
- 23 to have made an effort to give - - to allow for oil
24 and gas activity in the area, for continued
25 operations, but how it affects them I wouldn ' t be - -
Page 47 ..
1 COMMISSIONER GEILE : When you say that they
2 seem to have allowed, are you talking about the —
3 courts?
4 MR . BRAM : No, I 'm talking about the fact
5 that they seem to have planned for further oil and -
6 gas activity as shown on the map .
7 COMMISSIONER GEILE : And that could be the
8 basis of the litigation that ' s under way and being -
9 appealed?
10 MR . BRAM : No .
11 MR. MORRISON: No . -
12 COMMISSIONER GEILE : I 'm just trying to
13 figure out , counsel , what position this thing
14 enters - - -
15 MR. BRAM : It ' s a separate issue, I think.
16 MR . MORRISON: My question was I think the
17 same as yours and that is at least on the northern _
18 part of the property are there drill sites preserved
19 under current regulation, and I think the answer was
20 yes .
21 The litigation has to do with whether
22 there ' s any right to continue to drill , but
23 LifeBridge through the application process has been
24 directed that they either need to get agreements or
25 demonstrate that they have preserved those rights ,
Page 48
1 you know, unless and until they get a different
2 adjudication.
3 So the litigation really doesn' t mean
4 anything until and unless there ' s a ruling that
5 changes the playing field.
6 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Thank you.
7 CHAIRMAN LONG: Commissioner Masden.
8 COMMISSIONER MASDEN: Thank you, Mr .
9 Chairman. Robert , on these sites that they have I
10 guess set aside, is that in conjunction with how they
11 would fit in the window of the drilling area?
12 MR. BRAM: It is my understanding that ' s how
13 they have occurred. Again, I just got these plans
14 and I haven' t sat down with my field guys . At first
15 glance it appears that way. That ' s one of the
16 reasons I want to make sure that everyone understands
17 we don ' t have a final agreement in place and that we
18 want to discuss some other things .
19 My initial reaction when I looked at it was
20 I was more concerned about if we do drill wells how
21 are we going to get it out of there and how are we
22 going to process it .
23 At first glance it appears it does conform
24 with the specific what are known as drilling windows
25 under Oil & Gas Conservation Commission regulations ,
Page 49 —
1 current regulations .
2 COMMISSIONER MASDEN: Okay. And also with —
3 the circles that they have I guess duly noted
4 locations or future locations, do they sit in an area
5 that would be accessible for pipeline and flow lines —
6 and tank batteries and do they also - - is there a big
7 enough area there?
8 MR . BRAM : I 'm glad you asked that .
9 Actually that is one of my primary concerns . The
10 other concern I have is if you look at the far
11 northwesterly circle that is surrounded by Filing 2 -
12 of Phase 1 - - actually, pardon me, Filing 1 there,
13 I 'm only concerned about access .
14 I am also concerned that if the houses are -
15 built that becomes a high density area which requires
16 a different setback, which is 350 feet as opposed to
17 150 feet . _
18 But again, without conversation dealing with
19 their timing, it ' s really premature for me to give a
20 proper and full response to the question. _
21 COMMISSIONER MASDEN: Okay. Well , yeah,
22 that was some of my concerns looking at the pictures
23 and some of those locations there .
24 Hypothetically if - - I don' t know if you 've
25 gotten this far in any discussions with them on
Page 50
1 buffering and security --
2 MR. BRAM: We 've had no discussion with them
3 on that . I have yet to meet with them face to face .
4 COMMISSIONER MASDEN: And whose
5 responsibility that would be? Okay. All right ,
6 thank you.
7 CHAIRMAN LONG: Any other questions for Mr .
8 Bram? Thank you.
9 MR. BRAM : Thank you.
10 CHAIRMAN LONG: I ' ll ask if David Seipel
11 from Patina Oil might be here or if another
12 representative from Patina might be here, or if you
13 have something to reflect on that .
_ 14 MR. BRAM : I spoke with Mr . Seipel yesterday
15 afternoon at 2 : 00 o ' clock and faxed over the notice
16 which he had not received, and he groaned rather
_ 17 loudly when I told him what time the hearing was . So
18 he hadn' t received any notice .
19 CHAIRMAN LONG: Thank you. Is there a
20 representative from the City of Longmont who wishes
21 to make any comment? Okay.
22 Ursula Morgan, town trustee - - Ursula, if
23 you would like to give testimony now?
24 MS . MORGAN: Absolutely.
— 25 CHAIRMAN LONG : Thank you. If you could
Page 51
1 please state your name and address for the record,
2 please . —
3 MS . MORGAN: Ursula Morgan, 226 Meadow Lane,
4 Town of Mead. I 'm a trustee . I am also a planning
5 and zoning commissioner for the Town of Mead. —
6 I just got off the phone to my
7 administrator . What Kim Ogle said is not true . He
8 was asked if we wanted to comment on a letter . We —
9 didn' t receive the second letter. We were told by
10 the Planning and Zoning Commission we would receive
11 an updated complete referral . It has not arrived.
12 That ' s the first thing I want to respond to
13 because I 've been working with this with my staff
14 since -- the last 14 days calling every day, is the _
15 referral letter here? Mike Friesen was out of town
16 until a week ago Monday, so he couldn' t have said
17 anything until he talked to Kim Ogle last night at _
18 4 : 15 .
19 I was on the phone with him just now. He
20 did not say the Town wishes not to comment . He said
21 that I would be here .
22 This is very serious . According to your
23 Codes you ' re supposed to notify us . I 'm sorry, I 'm _
24 upset because to have somebody say something when I
25 know it ' s not true just - - I 'm off .
Page 52
1 I 'm not here because we ' re pro or con
2 LifeBridge development . We ' re here because we ' re
3 asking the Planning Department to follow the law, and
4 this is the fourth time I 've asked for the Town to
5 have a complete updated referral .
6 The referral we received was dated December .
7 Based on Longmont ' s referral replies I can tell that
8 they got new ones prior to us receiving the one we
9 received.
10 Everything that Kim Ogle went over today I
.- 11 couldn ' t find in our original one . None of it is the
12 same . How can you make a decision based on replies
13 from referral letters if they' re not accurate or
- 14 complete?
15 I could find in the one packet nine letters
16 or reports that were deleted. They said refer to
- 17 this report , refer to this letter, and they were not
18 there . They were taken out .
19 What is your staff trying to hide? Because
20 it had to be intentional . It had to be removed.
21 (Applause)
22 CHAIRMAN LONG: Excuse me . Thank you.
23 MS . MORGAN: I had a nice - - I was going to
24 quote chapter and verse of the Code where you ' re
25 supposed to notify us, regardless of IGA. Any
Page 53 1 municipality within a three-mile radius is supposed
2 to be notified, and that ' s Section 23-2-2A. That ' s ~�
3 where they' re supposed to notify us , and they didn ' t .
4 I was going over the agenda for a couple
5 weeks . There ' s another one that I see that ' s on Weld —
6 County Road 3 and 32 we weren' t notified on, and
7 that ' s coming before you. And I wouldn ' t have known
8 about it if I hadn ' t come here today. --
9 I wouldn' t know about LifeBridge if it
10 wasn' t for the paper. I 'm not supposed to have to
11 request - - or the Town of Mead, I should say, —
12 shouldn ' t have to request these, and we had to . This
13 is the - - this is the second time since I ' ve been
14 elected, and it ' s only a year. It ' s a very short
15 time .
16 And these are major developments and your
17 staff is giving you false information, incomplete _
18 information, or they don ' t know the information so
19 when a developer gives you false information they
20 can' t contradict it . I sat here and listened to that _
21 on the Riverdance project .
22 I don ' t know what ' s wrong with this because
23 I can ' t - - the Town of Mead hasn ' t seen a complete
24 referral packet . We ' ve been waiting for the last 14
25 days for one . We were told by the Planning
Page 54
1 Commissioners we would receive one .
2 Where is it? All we have is the one that
3 was dated December and it says heights of 200 feet,
4 not 90 or whatever they' re considering now. I mean
5 it is absolutely different and according to Code it
6 says that they - - that you must send a completed
7 application.
8 There ' s agreements that are supposed to be
9 made, like the oil and gas, that ' s supposed to be
10 done prior to you doing this . That ' s what Code
11 states . That ' s the law.
12 All I ' m asking is that you uphold the law.
13 If you don ' t uphold the law LifeBridge may be subject
14 to litigation later, because if this isn ' t done
15 correctly then it gives anybody who ' s against this
16 project an opportunity to take it to court .
17 I 'm asking for that not to happen. I want
18 this done right and complete . Every I and every T
19 should be dotted and crossed, and they haven ' t been.
20 The letters from Frederick and Firestone, to
21 me if I was a Board member and one of my
22 administrators passed on a letter, not an application
23 referral , I would be -- I would want to fire them.
24 The mayor does not speak for the Town
25 Boards . That ' s what the Town Boards are for. You
Page 55 _
1 wouldn' t want any one of you to speak for the rest of
2 you when it comes to a project .
3 They were not given the application to
4 review. It wasn ' t until our Board members read the
5 old one that we got that they understood what a
6 significant deal this is .
7 It ' s not just a church. A church is
8 something that any third grader would draw a picture -
9 of that ' s got a steeple and two front doors . That ' s
10 not what this is .
11 If you ask somebody to comment on a church, _
12 they ' re probably not going to have a problem with
13 that . But that ' s not what this is . This is a huge
14 development plan.
15 And all I ' m asking is a chance for the Town
16 to have - - I stood here, Mr . Long, and said to you,
17 "I 'm here in person because it ' s that important . " _
18 You said a phone call would have sufficed.
19 Well , coming in person wasn ' t even good
20 enough and coming in front of the Planning Commission
21 wasn' t good enough. Where else do I need to go? Who
22 else do I need to take this to?
23 I need you guys to defend the people or _
24 we ' ve got to find somebody else who can. And I 'm not
25 just talking - - and I ' m not just talking recall . I 'm
Page 56
1 talking legally court-wise . We need to figure this
2 out because it needs to be done .
3 The law states you need to do this , and your
4 Planning Commission are making you guys look like
5 you ' re trying to do something wrong and I know you ' re
6 not .
7 CHAIRMAN LONG: Thank you.
8 MS . MORGAN: But that ' s the way it ' s coming
9 off and that ' s why there ' s a lot of rhetoric thrown
10 around there because this is not following the legal
11 way. I 'm sorry, I 'm frustrated. And I 'm sorry, when
12 I heard what Kim said about our administrator I knew
13 that was absolutely wrong because I 've been talking
14 to him every day.
15 This is a major deal to the Town of Mead.
16 We would not pass on this . I was promised - - the
17 Town of Mead was promised a complete referral and we
18 should get 21 days . I agreed to 14 . I made a
19 commitment for the Town of Mead for 14 days and we
20 haven' t been given it, and that ' s all I 'm asking .
21 Time and time again -- like I said, reading
22 your agenda there ' s another one coming up . Now it ' s
23 small and it ' s probably somebody who just wants to do
24 a llama farm, but it should be referred. That ' s what
25 the County Code says, that it ' s supposed to be
Page 57
1 referred, and it hasn' t .
2 CHAIRMAN LONG: Thank you. Excuse me .
3 Counsel?
4 MR. MORRISON: It was referred. There was a
5 question about the adequacy of the referral , not that —
6 it wasn ' t referred.
7 MEMBER OF AUDIENCE : Speak up . We can' t
8 hear you. —
9 MR. MORRISON: It was referred. The
10 question was the adequacy of the packet , not whether
11 it was referred or not, and that was the —
12 representation at the Planning Commission, not
13 whether it was referred. It was a question of
14 whether everything was adequately included in the _
15 referral itself .
16 So I think you need to start at that point
17 and not as if it had not been referred. _
18 MS . MORGAN: Well , the referral that the
19 Town of Mead received is nothing - - there are so many
20 differences that it ' s a completely new application, _
21 and like I said at the Planning Commission we were
22 told we would receive a new complete one so we could
23 respond, and we 've been denied that opportunity. The _
24 packet we received had deleted parts in it and that ' s
25 wrong .
Page 58
1 CHAIRMAN LONG: Mr . Jerke?
2 COMMISSIONER JERKE : Yes, I don' t have a
3 question for Mead. I guess I 've got a question for
~ 4 staff , either Lee or Monica, to be able to go ahead
5 and address directly what the sequence of events
6 would have been for referral and be able to attest
7 here today what they actually did with respect to
8 getting this referral to the Town of Mead following
9 the Planning Commission hearing.
.. 10 And I don' t know if Monica would be prepared
11 to do that or Kim or whoever actually did this , but I
12 would like to hear from somebody on this , if that ' s
13 appropriate, Mr . Chairman.
14 CHAIRMAN LONG: Please, Mr . Jerke, I think
15 now is the time to be able to address that , in that
16 fashion. Thank you .
17 MR. OGLE : Kim Ogle, Department of Planning
18 Services .
19 After the Planning Commission hearing I
20 repeatedly tried to get in touch with Michael
21 Friesen, who is the Town administrator . He was
22 either predisposed or unable to answer the phone .
23 The receptionist would take a message and said that
24 he would get back in touch with me when he was able .
25 I received a call from Mr . Friesen on Monday
Page 59 —
1 afternoon late in the day. We were finally able to
2 connect up . I asked him if he was going to want to —
3 modify his comments based on the referral that was
4 received by County in time for the Planning
5 Commission hearing. —
6 Now, it was an April 7th hearing . I said,
7 "Do you want to modify or change any additional
8 information? " —
9 And he said, "No. "
10 MS . MORGAN: He can' t because he ' s not
11 directed by the Board. _
12 CHAIRMAN LONG : Excuse me, Ursula . Right
13 now the staff has the floor . Thank you.
14 MR. OGLE : He said his comments stand and _
15 that he was not going to make any amendment or
-
16 modification to the comments . I asked him if he was
17 going to come to this hearing today to provide _
18 testimony. He said that he would only do so at the
-
19 direction of the mayor .
20 CHAIRMAN LONG: So what you ' re saying is the _
21 time line was that he was contacted after the
22 Planning Commission hearing where these questions
23 were asked? _
24 MR . OGLE : Correct .
25 CHAIRMAN LONG: And you asked if he wanted
Page 60
1 another referral packet?
2 MR. OGLE : No, I asked him if he needed
3 additional information.
4 CHAIRMAN LONG: And he said no?
5 MR. OGLE : Correct . Michael Friesen is the
6 Town administrator and he ' s the one who wrote the
7 referral , so that was my point of contact .
8 CHAIRMAN LONG : Okay. Monica?
9 MS . MIKA: Monica Mika . Can I comment on
10 the concept of a complete application?
11 CHAIRMAN LONG: Yes .
12 MS . MIKA: According to the way we define
13 complete application, we have a list of criteria
14 that ' s required for initial submittal and that ' s
15 specifically listed in the Code . Once that
16 information is submitted to the Department of
17 Planning Services, we consider that to be a complete
18 application.
19 We then send that application out to
20 referral agencies . What we do not typically include,
21 however, would be geotechnical reports for all
22 agencies to look at . We only send those to agencies
23 that we ' re expecting some type of referral back for
24 geotechnical issues .
25 The same would hold true for transportation
Page 61 1 issues . The complete transportation studies are not
2 given to all of the communities to look at . Instead
3 those complete - - that complete component is given to
4 Weld County.
5 If that information is required through the —
6 process we ' re more than happy to give that to
7 referral agencies , but that is what a complete
8 application is . —
9 CHAIRMAN LONG: Thank you. Commissioner
10 Jerke .
11 COMMISSIONER JERKE : I guess my question, _
12 Monica, would be at this point , is it adequate to
13 simply have a staffer try to go ahead and contact by
14 telephone the contact person that we believe to be in _
15 charge of a referral for a community after a request
16 has been made by another party who obviously has some
17 ability to represent that community? _
18 In other words , these were just phone calls
19 going back and forth. Should we have simply mailed a
20 new referral packet immediately or hand-delivered
21 that immediately instead?
22 MS . MIKA: Monica Mika. That would have
23 been one option and had the case not been _
24 pre-advertised that would have been an option that we
25 would have probably pursued.
Page 62
1 The fact was, is that there wasn ' t a real
2 long period of time between the time the Planning
3 Commission heard this case and the time that the
4 Board heard the case .
5 So generally we know that the elected bodies
6 only meet once or twice a month, and so that was the
7 reason for doing it through the telephone . We
8 figured it would be more expedient, we would get any
9 changes and address any issues .
10 Was that the best way? I 'm not sure if that
— 11 was the best way, but that is the way we chose to do
12 it .
13 MS . MORGAN: But that wasn' t what they were
14 directed by the Planning Commissioners .
15 CHAIRMAN LONG: Commissioner Geile?
16 COMMISSIONER GEILE : How far is the urban
17 growth - - is this in the urban growth boundary, the
18 IGA that we have with the Town of Mead?
— 19 MS . MIKA: It is in their referral boundary.
20 It isn ' t - -
21 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Is it in the urban
22 growth area?
23 MS . MIKA: It ' s not in their urban growth
24 boundary as defined by the IGA.
25 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Is it less than
Page 63
1 one-half mile from their sewage system?
2 MS . MIKA: No, it ' s right on the outskirts . -
3 I believe it ' s about three miles . It ' s two miles .
4 COMMISSIONER GEILE : So what is the basis
5 that we ' re referring to them then? Would you explain -
6 that?
7 MS . MIKA: Sure . Their basis for referral
8 is solely predicated on the fact that this _
9 application is located three miles from their
10 municipal boundary.
11 COMMISSIONER GEILE : So this is the -
12 three-mile rule that we ' re dealing with?
13 MS . MIKA: That ' s correct .
14 COMMISSIONER GEILE : And how far is - - the _
15 town limits, is that what it is in Mead?
16 MS . MIKA: Correct, it ' s based on the town
17 limits . _
18 COMMISSIONER GEILE : And how far is it from
19 this development?
20 MS . MIKA: Two miles? -
21 MS . MORGAN: 2 . 2 by car. It ' s less by the
-
22 bird.
23 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Thank you. I just
24 needed to establish for the record why they were even
25 a part - -
Page 64
1 MS . MIKA: I guess also for the record, I
2 also spoke to Mike Friesen prior to the Planning
3 Commission to ensure that the Town had everything
4 that they wanted and we did discuss municipal
_ 5 boundaries and so forth.
6 I also had a difficult time getting a hold
7 of Mike and we do plan to get together and ensure
_ 8 that we have consistent boundaries for the Town of
9 Mead. It ' s possible that there were some annexations
10 that have been applied for that we don ' t have .
11 CHAIRMAN LONG: Thank you.
12 MS . MORGAN: I have a map if you want it .
13 COMMISSIONER JERKE : I guess Lee or Monica,
14 do we have any established policy to determine who
15 actually speaks for referral entities, whether it be
16 a community or a sewage system or whoever it might
r. 17 be?
18 MS . MIKA: And I think I ' ll defer this one
19 to Lee because I don' t know.
20 MR. MORRISON: It really depends on the
21 setup internally. It depends on the setup within the
22 municipality and I think that ' s one of the problems
23 at work here, is you get a referral from the manager
24 and then hear from a trustee that somehow that was
25 inaccurate .
Page 65
1 But there ' s not a uniform County-imposed way
2 that ' s done because Planning Commissions and planning _
3 -- some have staff that are full time, some have
4 part-time staff , some have Planning Commissions and
5 trustees that overlap, and so you really - - you send _
6 it out and hope that you can rely on the
7 representation of the party responding back that in
8 fact they do have authority to make that _
9 representation to the County.
10 MS . MORGAN: And Mike Friesen doesn' t and
11 that ' s why he can' t . That ' s why I ' m here and not _
12 him. That is why he told Kim that he could not
13 respond, or may not .
14 MR. MORRISON: Then why does -- I guess the
15 question is why --
16 MS . MORGAN: A phone call .
17 MR. MORRISON: I guess the question is, did _
18 he not have the authority to send the written
19 referral?
20 MS . MORGAN: We gave him what we told him to
21 tell on the written referral that we did supply, and
22 No . 2 item was that it was incomplete . Everything
23 that he responds to is by direction of the Board, and
24 the Board was not given the opportunity that we asked
25 for and were promised, both by yourselves and the
Page 66
1 Weld County Planning Commission.
2 He can' t respond to a phone call and change
3 anything that ' s amended on there because the Board
4 hasn ' t directed him to, and all we asked is to follow
5 - - and it says in your Code determine that the
6 application submitted is complete and you have to
7 refer it , not partial , not whatever they think is
_ 8 appropriate . It says the complete referral , a
9 complete application. That ' s what Code says .
10 That ' s the law, and there ' s a lot of things
11 - - I ' m not going to cover all of them but a lot of
12 the agreements are part of a complete packet .
13 They' re not even supposed to be here until they have
14 a lot of agreements , i . e . with the sewage or oil and
15 well . It says complete .
16 (Applause)
17 MR. MORRISON: Mr . Chairman, can I --
18 MS . MORGAN: The agreements should be in
19 place and they' re not . And how can we review those
20 agreements if they' re not in there?
21 CHAIRMAN LONG: I think counsel has a point
22 he would like to make .
23 MR. MORRISON: The Department of Planning
24 Services, not the referral entities , has the
25 responsibility of determining the completeness of the
Page 67
1 application, so it isn' t sent out to be referred to
2 be determined whether it ' s complete . It ' s in the -
3 judgment of the Department of Planning Services they
4 have a complete application, then the next step is to
5 send out the referrals . -
6 It reads , "The Department of Planning
7 Services staff shall have the responsibility of
8 ensuring all application submittal requirements are -
9 met prior to initiating any office recommendation. "
10 And then "Once a complete application is submitted,
11 staff shall send the application to the appropriate -
12 referral agencies . "
13 So it is - - it ' s the planning staff ' s
14 determination and then ultimately if you find that -
15 there ' s insufficient evidence, but you don' t even
16 relook at the completeness , you look at the final
17 decision and see if there ' s evidence to support a -
18 decision in favor of an application.
19 But planning staff made the determination
20 and sent out the referrals . They made the -
21 determination of completeness and that ' s what the
22 Code provides for, not a discussion by the referral
23 agencies whether it ' s complete . -
24 CHAIRMAN LONG: Thank you.
25 MS . MORGAN: Section 23-2-50 defines what is -
Page 68
1 complete . I request that you have your staff learn
�. 2 that .
3 MR. MORRISON: 23 is the zoning portion.
4 MS . MORGAN: We ' re changing the zone .
5 CHAIRMAN LONG : That ' s a different section
6 there . Any further comments regarding that aspect?
7 MS . MORGAN: I don' t know. I feel like I 'm
8 banging a drum and nobody is listening . I 'm dancing
9 by myself here .
10 The other communities I think if they
11 understood what this precedent sets -- if your staff
12 can allow things to be sent to you without sending
13 the proper referrals and notifications , what could
14 happen next? Could it be a noxious weed factory? I
15 don ' t know.
16 Right now it ' s a nice community with a
17 church. Next time it might not be . But the only way
18 I know about these things is through the paper or
19 reading your agendas, and that ' s wrong .
20 CHAIRMAN LONG: Apparently, according to the
21 record, as Kim has stated, those phone calls were
22 made, not that they were right or wrong, but those
23 are the things that took place . So somebody is
24 listening but it appears that there might be some
25 communication bridges that might not be taking place
Page 69 —
1 in different areas that need to be amended and looked
2 at . —
3 MS . MORGAN: Well , I have a question for you
4 then. How can a phone call at 4 : 15 last night be
5 appropriate for a hearing today when they were —
6 directed by yourselves and the Planning Commissioners
7 to do something?
8 That is -- to me that is wrong . How can —
9 that even come close to what was told to them to do?
10 It ' s not at all . It was requested, it was directed,
11 and it was ignored. -
12 MR. MORRISON: You know, I think that ' s one
13 of the issues you need to take into account when you
14 make your decision. You don' t have to - - you don ' t
15 have a decision point every time an argument is made .
16 It ' s in the totality of the argument . If you don ' t
17 find the process is adequate at this point , then you _
18 may, you know, either continue it or take that into a
19 decision.
20 CHAIRMAN LONG: We ' ll take your comments _
21 into effect and it will be a part of our
22 decision-making process .
23 MS . MORGAN: I mean this is a 50-year
24 project . Two more weeks, three more weeks is not
25 that big a deal , just to make sure that everything is
Page 70
1 followed to the letter of the law so these people
2 aren ' t in court later.
3 CHAIRMAN LONG: Right . Appreciate that .
4 Any further comments?
5 MS . MORGAN: Yes , the idea that nobody is
6 going to go north towards 66 , I don' t know how Vaad
7 is planning on getting home unless he ' s going to
8 levitate, because they will go north.
9 CHAIRMAN LONG: Any further questions?
10 Thank you.
11 (Applause)
12 CHAIRMAN LONG: Excuse me . We will not
13 tolerate those kinds of outbursts anymore, please .
14 Thank you. We ' re trying to get on with these things
15 and do it in a manner of decorum, and so please
16 respect for everybody on both sides of the issues .
17 Thank you.
18 In agreement? Thank you.
19 Is there a Bruce Nickerson from the Town of
20 Firestone that wishes to speak?
21 Mayor Dick Wyatt from the Town of Frederick?
22 Thank you.
23 Dan Grant from Oligarchy Ditch Company?
24 Okay. Is there anybody else, any other
25 referral agency that might not be on this list that
Page 71
1 wishes to participate at this time?
2 Seeing none I will turn it over to - - or -
3 back to - - we ' ll go down through Public Works
4 Department for comments .
5 MR. SCHELTINGA: Drew Scheltinga, Department -
6 of Public Works, engineering division. We have
7 reviewed the application in terms of the aspects of
8 soils , drainage and traffic and I will have a few
9 comments , basic comments, and of course the applicant
10 will follow up on several of these aspects .
11 First very briefly drainage, we received a -
12 drainage report from Tetra Tech RMC on September 2nd.
13 It was acceptable by our standards . It outlines the
14 existing and the proposed drainage patterns and it -
15 addresses the need for storm water retention.
16 Mr . Geile, earlier you asked the question
17 regarding drainage with Colorado Department of -
18 Transportation. The drainage report contemplates a
19 major retention pond. Peter has indicated the
20 location of it with the little hand pointer at the
21 lower right-hand part of the LifeBridge property.
22 The drainage report was reviewed by Sam
23 Aljahar of the Colorado Department of Transportation,
24 Region 4 . He is the hydrologist for the region. He
25 also met the applicant ' s consultant on the site . -
Page 72
1 CDOT indicated that this discharge, as long
2 as it was retained by proper facilities , that the
3 discharge into the highway would be approved. He
4 also indicated that improvements on the State Highway
5 119 right-of-way are very likely to be required, so
6 we feel that that has been properly addressed.
7 There is no discharge onto adjacent
-- 8 properties . The water will be transmitted from north
9 to south along the western - - excuse me, along the
10 eastern boundary into this major retention pond.
11 CHAIRMAN LONG: Excuse me . A question,
12 Drew.
13 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Along that line, the
14 reason I was questioning the drainage - - and I
15 apologize to the Commission for interrupting you, but
16 the reason I was questioning it had to do with
17 statements in the application, in the responses that
18 in essence made reference to a 50-year flood and the
19 fact that there was a spring gulch box culvert , and
20 that the second box culvert was included in the
21 Longmont plan, and that all tied back into drainage .
22 Can you maybe -- you ' re referencing there ' s
23 no problem with drainage into CDOT, but what are we
24 talking about with all these culverts? What are they
25 specifically supposed to do and how does that tie
Page 73
1 back into Longmont?
2 MR. SCHELTINGA: I am unsure enough -- am -
3 not sure enough of the details, I should say, that I
4 think I 'm going to ask the applicant to respond to
5 some of those . -
6 The drainage that ' s discharged to the site
7 is directed down to the retention pond and would be
8 handled through the retention pond. There are other -
9 regional issues regarding drainage that the Town of
10 Longmont has that would affect State Highway 119 .
11 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Thank you. Thank you, _
12 Mr. Chairman.
13 CHAIRMAN LONG: Thank you. Please proceed.
14 MR. SCHELTINGA: At each individual stage of -
15 development there will be required additional
16 detailed engineering design as each segment of the
17 development comes along, and detailed drainage plan
18 is required with each phase . So I think the drainage
19 in accordance with the overall study is appropriate
20 and the approach is correct . -
21 In terms of traffic, a very large issue . A
22 traffic impact study was performed by Matthew Delich
23 in June of 2000 . Mr . Delich will have more comments,
24 of course, regarding his study. There were
25 supplemental reports by Mr . Delich on February 17th, -
Page 74
1 2003 , and March 10th, 2003 .
2 This study was referred to Weld County' s
3 traffic consultant , Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig . The
4 study was basically acceptable by FHU. All the
5 questions that were requested by FHU have been
6 addressed subsequently by Mr. Delich in the
7 supplements and subsequent meetings .
8 There were subsequent meetings held with
9 both Mr . Delich, myself and Gloria Hice-Idler of the
10 Colorado Department of Transportation, and the
11 traffic analysis is basically in two components .
12 There is traffic that would be generated from the
13 site and also there is growth projections of the
14 surrounding roadways in terms of the existing or the
15 background traffic .
16 Basically over a 20-year period we would
17 anticipate the background traffic to double . This
18 study and the recommendations are a combination of
19 both the site trips and the increased traffic -- the
20 anticipated growth over periods of time .
21 Peter, go to Slide 2 here . The immediate
22 impacts of LifeBridge on the existing system would
23 come from the first phase, Filings 1 and 2 . They
24 include the residential development and the initial
25 church facilities .
Page 75
1 The initial improvements would require the
2 paving of Weld County Road 3 . 5 and Weld County Road -
3 26 . There would be two lanes and intersection
4 improvements at the locations of the entrances to the
5 LifeBridge facility and improvements that would be -
6 required at the intersection of State Highway 119 and
7 3 . 5 .
8 There are questions yet regarding the final -
9 alignment of Weld County Road 26 , which is located
10 along the north end of the site and would be located
11 along the residential development at the northwest -
12 corner.
13 We have had meetings with the Town of
14 Longmont to discuss these issues and discuss what the -
15 final alignment would be . It is not determined yet
16 and we have required that prior to approval of the
17 first phases that we would have to make this _
18 determination with Longmont .
19 The next aspect is the long-range impact .
20 Peter, if you would go to the third slide . We asked _
21 the applicant to give us an indication at total
22 buildout of LifeBridge and future anticipated traffic
23 what the impacts might be .
24 Basically we ' re looking at Road 3 . 5 and Road
25 26 as four through lanes , two in each direction. At
Page 76
1 State Highway 119 we ' re looking at some major
2 improvements .
3 This is a schematic that shows the
4 intersection of State Highway 119 , State Highway 119
5 on the bottom and Road 3 . 5 running north/south. As
6 you can see, Road 3 . 5 running north/south would have
7 two through lanes and then there would be turn lane
8 improvements at the intersections and at the
9 entrances to the LifeBridge development .
10 On State Highway 119 there would be six
11 through lanes , three in each direction. There would
12 be double left-hand turn lanes off of State Highway
13 119 going north onto Weld County Road 3 . 5 . There
14 would also be turn lanes, both acceleration and
15 deceleration lanes .
16 This has been reviewed by CDOT and it ' s
17 determined that that would be buildable, it would be
18 conceivable and it would handle the traffic that is
19 projected, both for the LifeBridge development and
20 for projected traffic growth in the area .
21 There have been questions regarding the
22 construction and the financing of the roadways .
23 There would be several construction phases over a
24 long period of time . That timing is going to be
25 based on the development demands at LifeBridge .
Page 77 ...
1 LifeBridge again will be required to
2 complete detailed engineering and construction plans -
3 at each phase of these developments . They would be
4 required to construct improvements that is consistent
5 with the zoning plan that would be approved and the -
6 PUD plan.
7 There would be a traffic analysis required
8 for each individual stage and then detailed roadway -
9 construction plans for each individual stage .
10 LifeBridge would pay for the construction of
11 all of the internal roadways . They would all be on -
12 public roadways . They would be constructed to County
13 and MUD standards and would eventually be accepted
14 for maintenance by the County. -
15 In terms of the financing of how these roads
16 would be built , LifeBridge would be required to pay
17 proportional costs in terms of the same policies that
18 the Board has used for similar developments .
19 In the first stages, the first impact on the
20 roadways , LifeBridge would be for all practical _
21 purposes responsible for almost all the initial
22 impact . So they would have to pay the cost for Road
23 3 . 5 and Road 26 to do the initial paving .
24 As time would go on, traffic would increase
25 and there are requirements to widen, increase lanes,
Page 78
1 increase turn lanes, we would look at an application
2 in the future, maybe five, 10 , 15 , possibly 20 years
3 out . There would be more background traffic .
4 The principles that we use today would
5 likely be applied and that is they would have to pay
6 their proportional share of the cost based on the
7 traffic that they would be adding to the system in
8 relation to the background traffic . That is how I
9 would see the improvements being paid for in the
10 future .
11 The last item to discuss is the connectivity
12 of the roadway system. It ' s the recommendation of
13 the Public Works Department that roadways be
14 connected from the residential communities to the
15 east .
16 The big blue arrow on the upper right-hand
17 portion is where the existing roadway, Pearl Howlett
18 in the Elms of Meadowvale, is near the eastern
19 boundary of the project . The lower blue arrow is
20 Blue Mountain Road, is in the Meadowvale Farms
21 development , is adjacent to the southern portion.
22 The Commissioners are going to hear
23 extensive testimony opposing the connection because
24 of the neighborhoods concerned about increased
25 traffic . As there is development we just - - we do
Page 79
1 anticipate that there would be some increased traffic
2 on those residential streets . -
3 But interconnectivity of roadway systems is
4 a basic principle of good traffic engineering and
5 planning . It connects neighborhoods and communities . -
6 It reduces trip lengths . It reduces congestion on
7 collectors .
8 If every development that comes in is a -
9 separate enclave and there is no connections between
10 them, all the trips that are generated inside those
11 enclaves have to go outside onto the collector system
12 and to the services or whatever those trips are going
13 to, wherever they ' re headed to, whether it be
14 employment , shopping, services, whatever . -
15 LifeBridge development eventually will
16 provide services to the community and to the area .
17 Section 22-2-220 of the Weld County Comprehensive -
18 Plan addresses the importance of connectivity. The
19 Mountain View Fire Department in their referrals have
20 encouraged connections for emergency response -
21 purposes .
22 The connections to the adjacent roadway
23 systems are not needed to serve the LifeBridge
24 development . We want to make that clear . The
25 internal roadway systems and their connections to the -
Page 80
1 adjacent roads , Road 26 , Road 3 . 5 , are adequate to
2 serve LifeBridge . The connections to the neighboring
3 communities to the east are for interconnectivity of
4 those neighborhoods .
5 So I just want to make that clear, that that
6 interconnectivity - - if that connection isn' t made it
7 doesn ' t mean. LifeBridge can' t function. It just
8 means that traffic trips in the future as they go
9 east and west in and out of the communities would
10 have to go all the way around.
11 Peter, can we go to that - - let ' s go to
12 Slide 6 . One thing I wanted to point out is that - -
13 go back to the phase development slide .
14 Okay, one thing I want to point out is that
15 in Phase 1 , the initial phase, all the internal
16 roadways aren' t intended to be constructed. The
17 connection to the adjacent streets would not be made
18 for some time .
19 I don' t know what that period of time might
20 be . This initial phase is expected to serve for many
21 years . Maybe the applicant can address that .
22 But until the internal - - until all the
23 internal roadway systems are completed, the
24 connections wouldn' t be made, so it ' s sometime out in
25 the future .
Page 81
1 Peter, if you could -- well , about where the
2 pointer is right now is where the connection would be —
3 made into Meadowvale . First phase street doesn' t
4 come down yet . And the same thing is true up where
5 Peter is pointing to where the connection would be —
6 made with Pearl Howlett .
7 We understood the neighborhood ' s concern
8 about the increased traffic and we asked LifeBridge —
9 engineer, Matt Delich, to make some projections ,
10 which he did in a supplement in February, 2003 .
11 Matt projected that Pearl Howlett would get —
12 an additional 380 trips per day and that Blue
13 Mountain would get an additional 130 trips a day. We
14 concurred with Matt ' s estimate . I believe it is very _
15 conservative, frankly.
16 One of the reasons that we think that the
17 traffic isn ' t - - there isn ' t going to be a lot of
18 pass-through traffic is that because east of the
19 residential developments, next to road 5 . 5 , is the
20 river corridor .
21 Development and services are going to be
22 very limited to the east of the Meadowvale Farms , so
23 we don ' t -- I do not anticipate, Matt did not _
24 anticipate -- does not think there will be a
25 tremendous amount of pass-through traffic .
Page 82
1 Peter, go on to Slide 7 , if you would. Go
2 on to the last slide . There it is .
3 This is a picture that gives the total
4 buildout of LifeBridge, and again the two arrows show
5 the connection - - where we are recommending that the
6 connections be made . You can see how the internal
7 roadway system would eventually be completed and the
8 connections would be made to the internal
9 subdivision. It shows the roadways and the lot
10 configurations .
11 Should the Commissioners determine that
12 connections to Pearl Howlett and Blue Mountain should
13 be made, we would have to add a paragraph to the
14 conditions of approval .
15 The Public Works Department has reviewed all
16 the submittal material , the geotechnical report , the
17 drainage report and the traffic impact reports . We
18 are confident that all the Department ' s issues have
19 been addressed in the submitted reports or will be
20 addressed in the conditions of approval for the
21 filing of the zoning plat , the final plan submittals ,
22 for subsequent submittals and subsequent site plan
23 reviews .
24 Do the Commissioners have any questions for
25 me?
Page 83 1 CHAIRMAN LONG: Commissioner Geile .
2 COMMISSIONER GEILE : First of all , on Weld —
3 County Road 26 , Drew - - can you all hear me? I ' m not
4 grouchy. I ' m just trying to talk loud enough for
5 everybody. —
6 But you go onto Weld County Road 26 and you
7 come to the intersection of 5 and then as you proceed
8 to go east it seems like there ' s a part in there —
9 that ' s gravel road until you come to the pavement .
10 Is that correct?
11 MR. SCHELTINGA: Yes . —
12 COMMISSIONER GEILE : So as this development
13 - - if this development were to move ahead what does
14 that mean on that unpaved road? What would happen, -
15 that part of that unpaved road which is probably in
16 my estimation a quarter of a mile, a third of a mile
17 or something like that? _
18 MR . SCHELTINGA: Peter, can you bring up
19 that slide so we make sure we know which stretch
20 we ' re talking about? -
21 COMMISSIONER GEILE : As you go to the
22 intersection of Weld County Road 5 and 26 and then
23 you go east , there ' s a section probably in about _
24 maybe a quarter of a mile or maybe less , thereabouts,
25 that would be gravel . Is that due to be paved or
Page 84
1 would that be on the County' s paving plan or how
2 would that work, Drew?
3 MR. SCHELTINGA: Where Peter is pointing
4 with the arrow is the segment that you ' re talking
5 about?
6 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Yes .
7 MR. SCHELTINGA: I want to check real quick
8 with Don Carroll to see if those improvements are a
9 part of what - - if there is any -- if completion of
10 that link is a part of the Meadowvale or if it ' s all
11 complete as part of our requirements .
12 MR. CARROLL : Don Carroll , Weld County
13 Public Works Department .
14 I believe the section you' re talking about,
15 there ' s an offset intersection there, then there ' s
16 probably a quarter mile to the next road.
17 Meadowvale Farms -- the Elms at Meadowvale
18 have improved half the typical cross-section adjacent
19 to their property. There is a little section right
20 before the railroad tracks going west that could
21 possibly be an outparcel before the church property
22 starts .
23 MR. SCHELTINGA: It would be my thinking as
24 part of our requirements that the impacts that would
25 be done in Phase 1 would have to complete all that
Page 85
1 paving, so if they have to go to a portion to connect
2 to what has been completed by Meadowvale that they -
3 would have to do that .
4 So it would complete the paving all - -
5 connecting to the Meadowvale improvements , which is -
6 about where the pointer is , all the way around and
7 adjacent to the proposed residential property.
8 COMMISSIONER GEILE : And then as far as -
9 purchasing additional right-of-way at the
10 intersection of 26 and 5 , is that a condition of
11 approval? -
12 MR . SCHELTINGA: The intersection of 26 and
13 5 is an offset intersection. It is problematic .
14 What we said in our referral was that they will have -
15 to design that intersection and make any
16 improvements, whether they have to - -
17 COMMISSIONER GEILE : That would be their -
18 responsibility?
19 MR . SCHELTINGA: Yes , whether they would
20 have to construct to the north or however it would be
21 resolved.
22 COMMISSIONER GEILE : The other question,
23 when we talk about connectivity of - - excuse me, let
24 me get back to my notes here -- of Pearl Howlett and
25 Blue Mountain Road, as you drive those roads through
Page 86
1 the Elms at Mountainvale, through the Elms at - - let
2 me get back to my notes .
3 The Elms at Meadowvale or at Genesee, as you
4 drive those roads they' re not exactly straight roads
5 to 5 . 5 , they do wind through the subdivision, and
6 then as you approach 5 . 5 it is a pretty good slope
7 down to 5 . 5 , and even as you come down to 5 . 5 there
8 are some questions on how you come onto 5 . 5 safely.
9 Was all of that taken into consideration
10 when you made the determination of the connectivity
11 of the two subdivisions, both roads going from this
12 development into the Elms and also Meadowvale Farms?
13 MR. SCHELTINGA: Blue Mountain is the road
14 on the southern - - the southern road. There we go.
15 The bottom blue arrow, that road is curved, it is a
16 residential narrow road, but it doesn ' t -- I do not
17 anticipate a major increase in traffic for through
18 traffic .
19 It serves the lower area, which is -- I 'm
20 not sure what all the uses are down there, but
21 there ' s services , residential in the southern part .
22 Mr . Delich estimated 130 additional vehicles a day,
23 which is pretty small really.
24 I don ' t anticipate that that increase in
25 traffic is going to be that large . I don ' t think it
Page 87
—
1 would be a major impact . I think the eventual
2 benefits are outweighed by the extra 130 cars a day. -
3 Now, Pearl Howlett on the north end Mr.
4 Delich anticipated more traffic . I think that ' s
5 correct . That is a road that is straight and goes -
6 out onto 5 . 5 . That would take an extra 380 vehicles
7 a day by his estimation and I think that road would
8 -- again, that ' s not a very large amount . I think -
9 that road would accept that increase geometrically
10 without a problem at all .
11 COMMISSIONER GEILE : One last question, if I _
12 may, Mr. Chairman.
13 CHAIRMAN LONG: Yes .
14 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Can you give me the _
15 traffic counts at 119 and 3 . 5? Do you know what the
16 traffic counts on 119 are and what the traffic counts
17 at 3 . 5 at 119 are? _
18 MR . SCHELTINGA: Let us look in the report
19 and maybe answer you later . It might take a second
20 to find them. Mr. Delich I know will give a _
21 presentation and he may know them quickly off the
22 top . We ' ll get you that information.
23 CHAIRMAN LONG: Yeah, it ' s time for a break
24 pretty much anyway. Commissioner Jerke .
25 COMMISSIONER JERKE : Yeah, just briefly,
Page 88
1 other than interior roads the applicant is being
2 required to pave what then exactly that isn' t paved
3 today?
4 MR. SCHELTINGA: Correct .
5 COMMISSIONER JERKE : Pardon?
6 MR. SCHELTINGA: Correct . The applicant in
7 the initial phase would be required to pave two
— 8 lanes, one lane each direction, for everything that
9 isn' t paved today, plus --
10 COMMISSIONER JERKE : And that ' s on what,
— 11 3 . 5?
12 MR. SCHELTINGA: That would be on 3 . 5 .
13 COMMISSIONER JERKE : And 26?
- 14 MR. SCHELTINGA: And 26 , plus any
15 intersection improvements that may be required.— 16 COMMISSIONER JERKE : Okay. And -- well ,
- 17 maybe the applicant would help later, but since I 've
18 got you up there, and you might need to use the
19 pointer, but it seems like there ' s a little hunk of
- 20 ground that is not in the applicant ' s proposal on 26 .
21 Can you move the pointer? Right to there,
22 yeah. And that is not in the proposal , is that
23 correct?
24 MR. SCHELTINGA: Yes .
— 25 COMMISSIONER JERKE : And 26 would still be a
Page 89 1 straight line there, and so there would be that
2 nearly an in-holding that ' s owned by some other —
3 party?
4 MR. SCHELTINGA: We would require them to
5 pave that because of the traffic that is being —
6 generated out of the residential development that
7 would impact Road 26 and 3 , so that would be required
8 for them to pave initially. _
9 COMMISSIONER JERKE : Thank you.
10 CHAIRMAN LONG: Thank you. And we ' ll come
11 back with you right after - - or Commissioner Masden? -
12 COMMISSIONER MASDEN: No, we can come back.
13 CHAIRMAN LONG: We can come back then, okay.
14 It ' s 10 to 12 : 00 now. We ' ll recess until 1 : 30 .
15 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Or if you wanted to
16 make it 1 : 15 , that would be fine .
17 CHAIRMAN LONG: We ' ll recess until 1 : 15 . _
18 Thank you.
19 (Recess was taken from 11 : 50 a.m. to 1 : 15
20 p .m. ) _
21 CHAIRMAN LONG : Good afternoon. We ' ll
22 reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners .
23 Just to make a little announcement , we will
24 always try to speak up and use the microphone and
25 sound equipment as well as we can, but if there ' s
Page 90
1 somebody that ' s truly hard of hearing we do have some
2 hearing aid devices that have new batteries in them
3 and at your request the staff, Carol or Esther,
4 they ' ll be able to help you get those devices . So
5 just let them know if you ' re in need of those, but
6 we ' ll always try to speak up.
7 We ' ll continue back where we were with
8 Public Works and Drew.
9 MR. SCHELTINGA: I don' t have any further
r. 10 comments . Ready for questions and I think the
11 questions that remained were traffic counts and
12 something on the drainage, and Matt will take care of
13 that in his presentation on the traffic counts .
14 CHAIRMAN LONG: Very well . Are there any
15 more questions for Drew? Commissioner Masden.
16 COMMISSIONER MASDEN: Thank you, Mr .
17 Chairman. Yeah, I have one question.
18 That top road, I can ' t remember which one it
19 was, if that was Pearl Howlett , now is that going to
20 be going out up through a neighborhood? Is that
21 going to be a connectivity road there?
22 MR . SCHELTINGA: We are recommending that
23 that road be connected to the internal roadway system
24 of LifeBridge . It would then run directly east
25 through the subdivision and T into road 5 . 5 . Then
Page 91
1 west of that there is no development . Traffic would
2 then have an opportunity to go north and south on -
3 5 . 5 .
4 COMMISSIONER MASDEN: All right , thank you.
5 CHAIRMAN LONG: Any other questions for -
6 Public Works?
7 Environmental health. Pam?
8 MS . SMITH : Good afternoon. Pam Smith, Weld _
9 County Department of Public Health and Environment .
10 I don' t have any - - well , I have a few brief
11 comments . -
12 They' re proposing water and sewer for the
13 entire development , so those take care of the
14 majority of the public health issues that we would -
15 have .
16 They are projecting a 50-year buildout with
17 - - and you 've heard comments about various commercial -
18 areas and those kinds of things, and in my referral I
19 made a recommendation on future regulations or
20 licensure that would be affected by those activities . -
21 But most of those will be addressed when you
22 go through the site approval process as those are
23 being - - as those are being ready to be developed,
24 and so we would more specifically address those
25 comments at that time . -
Page 92
1 CHAIRMAN LONG: Any questions for Pam?
2 Commissioner Geile .
3 COMMISSIONER GEILE : The only question I
4 had, Pam, I noticed that there was talk of what
5 seemed to be like -- seemed to be a dual system. Do
6 you have anything to do with that as far as what
7 they' re doing, the safeguards they put into that, a
8 dual system being that the irrigation would be off of
9 raw water and that would in essence be obtained
10 through some source like a ditch company and then it
11 would be ran into a system, and that ' s in essence how
12 they would irrigate land or houses and things of that
13 nature?
14 MS . SMITH: Right . I 'm not - - I don ' t
15 remember that specifically in the application. Those
16 types of situations we 've seen with other
17 developments , other subdivisions where they provide
18 raw water for outside irrigation purposes . That ' s
19 not intended for human consumption and so I don ' t
20 normally address that .
21 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Okay, that answers the
22 question. Thank you.
23 CHAIRMAN LONG: Any other questions of Pam?
24 Seeing none - - building inspection, did Jeff
25 have any comments that he needed to make? Let the
Page 93
1 record reflect that Jeff didn ' t have any comments
2 regarding - - -
3 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Well , I had some
4 questions on the building inspections .
5 MS . SMITH: He ' s going to be right back. -
6 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Okay, if we could maybe
7 wait , but I also did have some questions that , Kim,
8 if you ' re ready - - -
9 CHAIRMAN LONG: We will , and then when Jeff
10 comes back then after Kim we ' ll talk to Jeff .
11 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Kim, a couple -
12 questions . The first one refers to - - some of this
13 is -- this is going to be kind of all over the place,
14 so kind of follow me a little bit if you wouldn ' t -
15 mind. Kind of follow me if you don' t mind, okay?
16 As I go back to -- well , it ' s several years
17 ago, maybe three or four years ago, and in looking at _
18 this site we had an application come in that was for
19 about 800 units , not an application but there were
20 some developers that approached us to put in I _
21 believe it was 800 units of some sort into this site,
22 is that correct?
23 MR. OGLE : Kim Ogle, Department of Planning
24 Services . That ' s correct , it ' s called the Pultey
25 Homes Development . It ' s 867 units and five acres of
Page 94
1 open space .
_ 2 COMMISSIONER GEILE : 867 units and five
3 acres of open space . The developer, the people
4 associated with that have nothing to do with this
5 application as far as you know?
6 MR. OGLE : That is correct .
7 COMMISSIONER GEILE : The other question I
8 had has to do with - - and what I 'm looking for in
9 this one would be consistency and also creating
10 precedence, and what I would like to do for a minute
11 is to take you over to the I-25 corridor and then I
12 would like to bring that back to this particular
13 subdivision because I want to make sure that there
- 14 isn' t something precedent-setting out there that
15 deals with height or issues associated with height .
— 16 And that has to do with - - I should have had
17 this open, Kim. Excuse me . Bear with me if you
18 would, Mr. Chairman.
— 19 CHAIRMAN LONG: Absolutely.
20 COMMISSIONER GEILE : If we could go to --
21 and what I 'm in is I 'm in the coordinating planning
— 22 agreements, Section 19 , specifically Page 19-13 , and
23 specifically Section 19-3-210 and specifically B, and
24 if you take a look at the building heights around the
— 25 I-25 interchange we talk about a systematic approach
Page 95
1 to building heights , and in effect if this project --
2 the way I read this, building within 1 , 500 feet of -
3 I-25 interchange right-of-way as shown in - - shall be
4 permitted the following rights .
5 So as you take a look at this, Zone A, which _
6 would be in essence close to the 1, 500 feet, the
7 building height would be 100 feet , Zone B, 75 feet,
8 Zone C, 50 feet . _
9 And the reason why I want to bring it back
10 to this site even though I know -- these are
11 development standards that apply to 1-25 , but 1-25 is _
12 also in the MUD, these areas that we ' re applying this
13 to .
14 So bringing it back to 119 and moving it on _
15 down to where this site is located, does this
16 particular section have any relevance to this
17 particular piece of property?
18 And let me explain to you why I 'm asking the
19 question. First of all , if we were to go 1 , 500 feet
20 into the property where would it be? Where would
21 that point be?
22 MR. OGLE : From I-25 or from the property?
23 COMMISSIONER GEILE : From 119 .
24 MR. OGLE : State Highway 119 runs east/west ,
25 so 1 , 500 feet in - - "'
Page 96
1 COMMISSIONER GEILE : I know, Kim, but I 'm
2 bringing it back to this site . If you take a look at
3 119 and then go 1 , 500 feet into this property where
4 would it be?
.. 5 MR. MORRISON: From the corner or from the
6 edge?
7 COMMISSIONER GEILE : From the property line .
., 8 CHAIRMAN LONG: From the south line .
9 COMMISSIONER GEILE : From the south line .
10 MR . OGLE : Just a little bit north of the
- 11 senior housing area .
12 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Could you put that up
13 so I can kind of see what we ' re talking about? I
14 have a point to make as soon as we - - in case you' re
15 wondering where I 'm heading .
16 MR. OGLE : It ' s approximately where the pink
17 area is on that diagram on the left-hand side of the
18 image on the screen.
19 COMMISSIONER GEILE : So it would be just
20 south of --
21 MR. OGLE : It ' s just south of where the - -
-
22 COMMISSIONER GEILE : The yellow?
23 MR. OGLE : Correct .
24 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Okay, thank you. Is
-. 25 there any other - - and I ' ll get to this other part in
Page 97 —
1 a minute, but is there anything else that we have in
2 any of our Code ordinances that talks about height —
3 limitation of commercial and industrial?
4 MR . OGLE : No, it ' s based on the UBC .
5 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Well , and I understand -
6 the Uniform Building Code . So the Uniform Building
7 Code specifically relates or can relate to commercial
8 and industrial . Is there a formula that in essence —
9 deals with height?
10 MR. OGLE : It ' s one foot for every three
11 feet of building height off of the property line . -
12 That ' s the only requirement .
13 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Okay. So if you were
14 to take that approach and apply it here and apply it _
15 to the envelope that they ' re talking about , can you
16 tell me where that line would fall , where that point
17 would fall?
18 MR. OGLE : Approximately, for the main part
19 of the campus , 700 feet off of the eastern property
20 line .
21 COMMISSIONER GEILE : 700 feet off - -
22 MR. OGLE : For the maximum height of the
23 buildings . _
24 COMMISSIONER GEILE : And if you were to run
25 that formula out what would be the height , the total
Page 98
1 height limitation?
2 MR. OGLE : It sounds like it ' s 500 feet ,
3 unless I 'm not understanding your question.
4 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Well , I think you are .
5 I think that answers it . Would it be more than 120
6 feet ; would it be more than 90 feet?
7 MR. OGLE : Yes .
8 COMMISSIONER GEILE : The next question I had
9 was -- and it has to do with the soil and it has to
10 do with the geological survey and also response to
11 your referral process where they came back and said
12 there are some issues with the soil . It ' s expansive,
13 collapsible, and any basement foundation will have to
14 be engineered.
15 MR. OGLE : Correct .
16 COMMISSIONER GEILE : My question is , if we
17 - - we ' re getting into some questions of if in fact
18 there was a basement that was engineered and then the
19 basement were to collapse later on down the road and
20 we don ' t recognize this some way, and I ' ll ask you to
21 explain it a little bit later maybe, but I would like
22 to know what kind of conditions there are to protect
23 the home buyer of any of these homes to ensure that
24 they don ' t get into a foundation which could have
— 25 serious issues and problems down the road.
Page 99
1 MR. OGLE : I would say there would be a note
2 on both the change of zone plat and the final plat . -
3 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Okay, when we talk
4 about an engineered foundation, Ken, what would you
5 require for this kind of soil , these kind of soil -
6 conditions?
7 MR . REIF : Good afternoon. Jeff Reif ,
8 Department of Planning Services . -
9 COMMISSIONER GEILE : I mean Jeff . Excuse
10 me .
11 MR. REIF : Any of the buildings built, -
12 whether they' re residential or commercial , would
13 require an engineer foundation and that foundation
14 would be designed by the engineer depending on - -
15 based on the soil .
16 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Well , another question
17 I had is the -- does the same kind of soil conditions _
18 exist in the subdivisions to the east?
19 MR. REIF : That I 'm not aware of . I don' t
20 know. _
21 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Because I can' t
22 remember when we heard that case of anything being
23 out there as it relates to problems with the soil .
24 MR . REIF : Regardless of the type of soil
25 the engineer would take into consideration how to
Page 100
1 construct the buildings, so that would be the
2 engineer ' s responsibility.
3 COMMISSIONER GEILE : The last question, Kim,
4 when I read the letter from the Left Hand Water
5 District they made reference to 358 units . When you
6 were talking about Phase 1 , what I had written down
7 looking through the case is Phase 1 would be 268 , 000
8 square foot , and I assume that would be the church?
9 MR. OGLE : Correct , that ' s the buildings in
10 the church campus .
— 11 COMMISSIONER GEILE : 174 units, is that
12 correct?
13 MR. OGLE : That ' s correct . Originally the
14 application came in as written for 368 total dwelling
15 units that would be on site . That number has
16 changed.
17 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Would one senior unit
18 be a water tap?
— 19 MR. OGLE : Yes .
20 COMMISSIONER GEILE : When we talk about the
21 368 , 000 square foot , is that ground space or is that
22 total footage within the buildings?
23 MR. OGLE : I believe that ' s footprint .
24 COMMISSIONER GEILE : That ' s footprint , which
— 25 it would be ground?
Page 101
1 MR. OGLE : Yes .
2 COMMISSIONER GEILE : That answered my —
3 question.
4 CHAIRMAN LONG: Thank you. Is that number
5 still at 368 , 000 square feet , or has that changed? —
6 MR. OGLE : The number in the center campus
7 is - - I believe it ' s 268 , 000 square feet . The number
8 that Commissioner Geile referred to was 368 dwelling —
9 units , but that number is less than per updates in
10 the application.
11 CHAIRMAN LONG : Okay. Any other questions? -
12 Oh, continue .
13 MR. OGLE : I have something else if there is
14 no more questions from the Board.
15 Ms . Morgan when she was here referred to two
16 cases that the Town had not had an opportunity to
17 respond to . I have a referral for USR-1419 for
18 Melvin and Jacqueline Schubert . It ' s a case that has
19 not come before this Board yet , and it ' s signed by
20 Michael Friesen, Town administrator . _
21 And then I have a case USR-1421 , which is a
22 case that she referenced, for Corine Lewis and Troy
23 and Christy Miller, also a case that has not come
24 before this Board, signed by Michael Friesen that
25 says , "We have reviewed the requests and find no
Page 102
—
1 conflicts with our interest . "
2 We would like to introduce that into
3 evidence .
4 CHAIRMAN LONG : Very well . Any questions of
5 Kim, or other staff at this point?
6 Okay, at this time I would like to ask the
7 applicant or representative of the applicant to
8 please come forward. And I know you probably have a
9 number of people that will be presenting material and
10 if each time you might change if you - - the first
- 11 time that you might speak please give your name and
12 address for the record and then each subsequent time
13 that you come back to the microphone to speak if you
- 14 could just restate your name again for the record.
15 Thank you and welcome .
16 MR . GRINNELL : You bet .
17 CHAIRMAN LONG: And good luck with that
18 microphone .
19 MR . GRINNELL : Good morning, Chairman Long
_ 20 and Commissioners . My name is Bruce Grinnell . I am
21 the administrator at LifeBridge and I 'm the lead
22 member of the campus planning team at the church. I
23 represent the applicant in this change of zone
24 application. Our office is at 10345 Ute Highway in
25 Longmont , 80504 .
Page 103
1 I want to thank each of you today, plus the
2 Weld County Planning staff , County Planning —
3 Commission members and all the referral agencies ,
4 surrounding property owners for all their time and
5 energy in preparation for today' s meeting. —
6 I 'm joined by several other members of our
7 campus planning team. I 'm also joined by Rick Rusaw,
8 the senior minister of LifeBridge, who will speak to _
9 the mission of the church later during our
10 presentation.
11 Also here today is our consulting team, who —
12 has assisted in the preparation of our application.
13 All this team is available to answer questions . Only
14 three are part of the presentation. _
15 Mr . Todd Hodges of Todd Hodges Design will
16 address the MUD, the PUD, urbanization and how our
17 plan is consistent with what we believe Weld County _
18 intends in the MUD.
19 Matt Delich will address our traffic study
20 and traffic compatibility. Dennis Rubba will address _
21 the master site plan, site design, character and the
22 phasing of the plan. The other members of the team
23 are on the slide .
24 I want to stop for a minute . You all asked
25 some questions during the other proceedings and I
Page 104
1 don ' t know what your normal order of process is . We
2 could try to attempt to answer those questions now or
3 we could go ahead with the presentation and have you
4 bring them back up again. Which would you prefer?
5 CHAIRMAN LONG : Your presentation right now
6 because it might kind of cover some different
7 questions that might come up later .
8 MR . GRINNELL: One of the things that we
9 won ' t address that was just recently discussed was
10 the issue of water service on the property. Left
11 Hand Water serves the southern half ; Long ' s Peak
12 Water serves the northern half .
13 So when you see the slide of the senior
14 village and the neighborhood center, that ' s being
15 served by Left Hand. The northern half , which is the
16 church campus and the single family housing, is
17 served by Long ' s Peak, just for clarification.
18 LifeBridge Christian Church is over 112
19 years old. Our mission is to lead people in a
20 growing relationship with Jesus . Some people have
21 asked what we ' re doing with 313 acres and proposing a
22 development project , so I would like to give you some
23 background information.
24 Since the late 1800 ' s LifeBridge has grown
25 with the community. We ' re a church family of
Page 105 —
1 approximately 2 , 500 families . In 1991 we moved from
2 our downtown Longmont facility to our current —
3 facility on Highway 66 .
4 By 1999 we were nearly at capacity on the
5 weekends and I was asked by the elders to look for a —
6 way to increase the facility size . By 2000 our
7 church family had outgrown our current 100 , 000 square
8 foot facility, and although we still had plenty of _
9 undeveloped property we had been unsuccessful in
10 getting the approval or the entitlement to construct
11 any additional facilities . _
12 So since we didn ' t ask in 1991 for the
13 entitlement , we ' re at a position today where we don ' t
14 want that to happen again in the future . That ' s the
15 reason that today we ' re asking for an entitlement to
16 develop the property beyond the Phase 1 plan.
17 Where are we in the world, so to speak? In _
18 2001 LifeBridge began a search for a new site and
19 later that year we purchased the 313 acres that are a
20 part of the application. _
21 This diagram shows our 300 -- the parcel .
22 This picture shows the boundaries of the I-25 MUD on
23 the right side, an area that ' s intended for _
24 urbanization and according to the MUD the home of
25 nearly 60 , 000 people .
Page 106
1 The picture also shows the city of Longmont,
2 another area that ' s about the same size and also
3 intended for urbanization. Also identified, the
4 towns of Mead and Firestone, Frederick and Erie,
5 which are other surrounding areas that are identified
6 for urban scale growth.
7 As we evaluated the property we found that
8 two of our most basic requirements were very
9 consistent with the intent to the MUD . Our first
10 goal was to own property where we could locate the
11 church facility in an urban growth area . This area
12 has been designated as that for over a decade .
13 We anticipate that this site will continue
14 to meet the needs of our church family, satisfy our
15 desire to be part of the community, and provide a
16 location where we can grow as the community grows .
17 Our second goal was to be located near or
18 surrounded by arterial and collector level
19 transportation corridors . This site meets that
20 requirement . It has the arterial of 119 to the south
21 and collector level transportation corridors of 3 . 5 ,
22 26 and 5 . 5 to the west, north and east .
23 There were some additional goals . In
24 addition LifeBridge was in the search for a home for
25 today, tomorrow and the future . We wanted to
Page 107 —
1 construct a facility in a location that has the
2 entitlements to accommodate this church for more than -
3 50 years . We feel that the 160 acres of this site
4 and the entitlement we are requesting will provide
5 that home . -
6 So we began to master plan the site and
7 evaluate the building requirements . We wanted to
8 construct a facility where it could be utilized by -
9 the community in addition to the church, providing
10 places for people to worship, live, work and play.
11 We wanted a site where we could add value to -
12 the surrounding community by allowing neighbors to
13 use our facility, the parks and trails , for meetings ,
14 recreation, arts or community activities . -
15 We believe that this portion of the 1-25 MUD
16 is an area that is in need of a community center, a
17 heart . Currently there are homes and there are _
18 industrial buildings, but there ' s a lack of schools,
19 libraries , athletic facilities , activity centers, day
20 cares and educational facilities . _
21 Urbanized areas typically contain middle,
22 high school and -- elementary, middle and high
23 schools , community rec centers, libraries, community
24 theaters like Union Colony, activity centers ,
25 community meeting areas , higher education campuses,
Page 108
1 parks, trails and churches .
2 LifeBridge is a church that desires to
3 construct enough building space to satisfy our peak
4 use times of Sunday morning and Wednesday evenings,
5 but during the other times of the week our facility
6 is not at capacity.
7 Historically we 've been able to share our
8 facility with profits and non-profits , faith based
9 and non-faith based entities . Many people in the
10 community use our building .
- 11 In the future we want to continue to make
12 available our classroom space, for education, for day
13 care or preschools, for athletic and rec space for
- 14 families , teams and club sports , auditoriums for
15 meetings and performing arts, whether it ' s Girl
16 Scouts or Boy Scouts, blood drives , smallpox
17 inoculation centers , home school kids, community
18 college classes, birthday parties , or even as
19 emergency shelter.
20 In our application we provided a list of
21 many many community uses that occurred in our
22 facility during the past year .
23 Our elders have also asked us to be good
24 stewards and good neighbors with the resources that
25 we 've been provided. We 've identified about 160
Page 109 —
1 acres for the church campus and we also looked for
2 other ways to use the rest of the property to benefit —
3 the community. We believe our site plan will
4 demonstrate that .
5 Our site plan includes a 59-acre single —
6 family development . Surrounding our 313 -acre site
7 are other housing developments . Some have homes at
8 densities of one per acre or three or four per acre
9 or higher .
10 We are proposing a 59-acre single family
11 housing development at two homes per acre to provide _
12 a housing alternative that will complement the
13 existing neighborhoods . Our plan requests a total of
14 176 units, although we anticipate that there will be _
15 only 110 units on this property.
16 Ultimately this property will not be owned
17 by the church but will be owned by individual _
18 homeowners .
19 Also there ' s a 72-acre senior village .
20 There are several densities within this area to
21 provide the ability to construct several senior
22 housing products from patio homes , duplexes ,
23 townhomes , apartments , assisted living and full-care
24 living . The total number of density units on these
25 parcels is about 500 .
Page 110
1 This area also includes an 80 , 000 square
2 foot senior community center . The center of this
3 development is a 12-acre community park.
4 There ' s also a 22-acre neighborhood center
5 for local stores and offices . This is a Mixed Use
6 Development area, includes retail , commercial and
7 residential . The total amount of square feet in this
8 site is 372 , 000 .
9 And then the 160-acre church campus , we
r
10 expect that that church campus will include five to
11 17 buildings that could be 1 . 5 million square feet in
12 total . We anticipate that these buildings will be
13 constructed in phases over the next 50 plus years .
14 Overall the entire 313-acre plan includes 30
15 percent open space, parks , trails and - - parks and
16 interconnected trails .
17 At this time I would like to talk about the
18 bulk standards . Included in the Weld County Planning
19 staff recommendation is a table summarizing the bulk
20 standards on the application. We are in agreement
21 with this table except for four items , and I believe
22 that table is Exhibit A of the resolution draft that
23 was provided today by staff .
24 One is that we would ask for the minimum lot
25 size in the assisted living village be changed from
Page 111 —
1 6 , 000 square feet to 4 , 000 . And we had some
2 discussion with staff prior to this meeting today —
3 about these four issues .
4 Two is that we ask that the minimum lot area
5 per unit in the assisted living village be changed
6 from 3 , 000 to a range of 1 , 500 to 2 , 000 .
7 We also ask that the maximum lot coverage in
8 the assisted living village be changed from 60 to 70 -
9 percent .
10 And then finally we ask that the minimum
11 setback in three areas , mixed use office/retail , -
12 commercial center and neighborhood center, be changed
13 from 25 feet to 15 feet .
14 We also want to amend our application on the -
15 bulk standard massing diagram for the church campus .
16 This is Exhibit B .
17 These changes are a result of conversations _
18 on Monday evening and Tuesday of this week with
19 surrounding property owners . These changes have been
20 discussed with Mr . Ogle this morning.
21 We ask to add a 35-foot maximum building
22 height envelope around the east and south portions of
23 the church campus, and we will have a diagram on that _
24 a little later . This envelope will have a setback of
25 125 to 250 feet from the property line .
Page 112
1 And second we ask that the maximum building
2 height on the church campus be reduced from 90 feet
3 to 75 feet .
4 I would like to add that this is our desire
5 to make the church site a home for many many years .
6 The entitlements we have requested reflect the
7 unknown and our need for flexibility in developing
.- 8 buildings in the future, buildings which we cannot
9 anticipate today.
10 We have previously requested a 90-foot high
11 building height to provide the flexibility to
12 construct a worship auditorium well into the future
13 that could seat a growing congregation, but we also
14 believe that we have been called to be a good
15 neighbor in this community and it is for this reason
16 in response to neighbor conversations that we now ask
17 to reduce the maximum height from 90 feet to 75 feet .
18 There are other bulk issues that I would
19 like to take a moment to describe . There have been
20 questions regarding the reasoning behind some of
21 these bulk issues on the church campus . One is land
22 density comparison.
23 We initially requested entitlement of up to
24 two million square feet on the church campus .
25 Several weeks ago we reduced that density to a
Page 113
1 million and a half square feet in order to be more
2 consistent and compatible with what a typical -
3 residential land intensity is .
4 This chart you ' ve been looking at shows the
5 potential densities at three homes per acre or six -
6 homes per acre on 160 units, which would result in
7 either 480 or 960 homes .
8 Using an average residential home size -
9 consistent with these densities the total square
10 footages is shown, and you see that the million and a
11 half square feet that the church is requesting is in -
12 between those two ranges .
13 And our point here is that a million and a
14 half square feet on 160 acres is a reasonable request -
15 based on other types of -- based on residential use
16 that could be on that same ground.
17 The next graph compares the total lot -
18 coverage on the church campus at full buildout with
19 the total lot coverage of a residential neighborhood.
20 In this case we used the Elms at full buildout . -
21 What you ' ll find is that for buildings,
22 drives and walks on the church campus we have about
23 70 percent of our square footage on the first floor,
24 plus the walks, makes the square footage of 1 , 115 , 000
25 square feet , which is 25 . 6 acres , which is 16 percent
Page 114
1 of the site .
- 2 Continuing on the church campus with our
3 4 , 800 parking spaces, drives and streets , that totals
4 another 29 percent of the total site . So our total
- 5 lot coverage at full buildout on this site is
6 projected to be 45 percent .
7 We had a conversation with a developer of
8 the Elms and we found that in a typical home 60
9 percent of their square footage is on the first
10 floor, so by the time you include the garage,
11 driveway and walk with the 392 homes you get
12 1, 255 , 000 square feet , which is 22 . 8 acres or 18
13 percent of the site . Streets are 25 percent and so
14 the total lot coverage of a typical residential
15 neighborhood is 43 percent .
16 Our point, once again, is that lot coverage
17 for the two is comparable .
18 Building heights offset and setbacks , we
19 recognize the need because we 've requested tall
20 and/or wide buildings in the future and it ' s this
21 reason we purchased the 313 acres and choose to
22 locate the church campus on this quarter section of
23 land. It ' s not often that you have that much land to
24 allow you to mitigate height with offset and setback.
25 Our intent is to limit the impact to the
Page 115 —
1 view at the property line to something less than what
2 a residential development would also have at the —
3 property line .
4 So the point is if you were standing at the
5 property line looking into a residential development —
6 the impact to view would be greater than the impact
7 to the view if you were standing at the property line
8 looking back at the church campus . The reason for —
9 that is that even though the buildings are taller,
10 the offsets and setbacks mitigate the building
11 heights . —
12 Let ' s see, do we have the graph of the
13 cross-sections? This graph is now in error because
14 it was created with a 90-foot building height -
15 maximum, so the center portion is taller than it will
16 ultimately be at this point .
17 Our point is if there was a house on the -
18 property line right here and people from the other
19 property line were looking towards the property, they
20 would have to look over that house and any other
21 subsequent houses , and that has a certain impact to
22 view.
23 Our intent is to create an impact to view
24 which is much less than that by offsetting it - - by
25 creating building envelopes that are stepped up from
Page 116
1 the edge of the property.
2 This is a diagram of the bulk where the
3 first 125 foot right here has no buildings on it .
4 The pink is a 35-foot building zone, it ' s the one we
5 just added; next is a 45-foot building zone; the
6 light green is a 55-foot building zone; the light
7 blue is a 60-foot building zone .
8 The whole rectangle there is an 18-acre
9 section where at this point we ' re suggesting that the
10 buildings would be 60 feet in height with the
11 allowance that up to 20 percent of that space have
12 buildings up to 75 feet .
13 The very dark blue on the end is an
14 allowance we made to not build on that particular
15 site for 10 years . It was an allowance with the
16 neighbors to the east, a reconciliation that we made
17 to help mitigate impact to their view.
18 These are some pictures of buildings with
19 70 , 75-foot heights in the surrounding area, and what
20 we wanted to do is show you what the impact - - or
21 what the ultimate net impact was with a certain
22 amount of setback.
23 This is Monfort Concert Hall , also called
24 Union Colony building, and there it is in this
25 diagram here, here and here, and you can see the
Page 117
1 setbacks and the impact that it has to the view based
2 on those setbacks . -
3 This is a picture of the University of
4 Colorado campus in a residential area where there are
5 big buildings nestled in in certain areas . It ' s -
6 completely surrounded by neighborhoods .
7 This is the State Farm building just outside
8 Greeley that has a 75-foot-high height with no
9 development around it , and even with no development
10 around it from 1 , 100 feet even 75 feet high is
11 mitigated.
12 This is Fort Collins High School , a building
13 that ' s 75 feet high as well , at 1 , 100 feet here, here
14 and a view from the east . This is from a -
15 neighborhood area as well .
16 This is a wireline diagram. We asked our
17 architects to put together through the CAD system and -
18 whatever other technologies are available, I guess,
19 to marry a picture with the CAD system that has full
20 topo and also CAD development of the church campus .
21 What we 've done in the upper photo is shown
22 Phase 1 of the church campus and the impact it would
23 have to the view from -- this is a picture taken from
24 the Elms . In the lower picture is a residential
25 development set back from the property line equal
Page 118
1 distance from the property line as the Elms is on the
2 other side of the property line and the impact that
3 those structures would have on the view.
4 The overall point here is that our goal was
5 to mitigate or was to use separation distance of the
6 building from the property line and mitigate the
7 impact to the taller buildings from the property
8 line . We spent a tremendous amount of time working
9 with staff and working with the neighbors to
10 accomplish this .
11 One of the things that we don' t have the
12 ability to do is to go into the ground. Our soils
13 report shows that shale is very shallow, so bedrock
14 is shallow and also there are issues of water that
15 would make it nearly - - make it completely
16 impractical to push the buildings any into the
17 ground.
18 Screening, per PUD Code 27-2-30 it indicates
19 about screening, "The uses, buildings or structures
20 within and adjacent to a PUD zone district shall be
21 adequately buffered and screened to make their
22 appearance and operation harmonious to surrounding
23 uses . "
24 Staff has required in our plan screening and
25 buffering with berms and et cetera to ensure the
Page 119 —
1 harmonious operation between the surrounding uses .
2 Another issue that ' s been raised is property —
3 taxes . Some questions have been raised regarding the
4 ownership of the property. We expect that the single
5 family residential , the senior residential and the —
6 Mixed Use Development would be paying property taxes .
7 Most of the church campus would be exempt
8 from property taxes . The exceptions are based on —
9 activities in the facility on the church campus .
10 Certain uses of our facility generate what ' s
11 called UBI or unrelated business income . Currently
12 we have a day care and a bookstore that create UBI .
13 These activities require a prorated property tax to
14 be paid based on the square footage and the
15 percentage of use of that space .
16 So as a quick example, if a bookstore was
17 operated in the space full time, 2 , 000 square feet, _
18 that 2 , 000 square feet would pay property taxes .
19 Oil and gas , there were some discussions
20 earlier about oil and gas and just for the record
21 Dave Seipel with Patina was contacted by a person on
22 our team and we received an e-mail from them
23 yesterday regarding the fact that they couldn' t make
24 the meeting today.
25 What this diagram shows is Rule 313A and
„ Page 120
1 Rule 603 . 313A indicates that four 400-foot boxes be
2 put on each quarter section. As far as our site is
3 concerned those are the four 400-foot boxes in each
4 corner, one here and one here, and then here and
5 here . In the center of each quarter section there ' s
6 an 800-foot box.
7 Inside those boxes it ' s required that we put
8 either -- well , in the 400-foot boxes site a 150-foot
9 diameter wellsite and in the 800-foot box a 200-foot
10 wellsite, and the intent here is to show that we ' ve
— 11 complied with both of those rules with the placement
12 of the oil and gas sites .
13 Connectivity, there ' s one issue where the
14 property owners and LifeBridge are both in agreement .
15 We both agree to oppose connectivity of the streets
16 in the neighborhoods , to the adjacent neighborhoods .
17 You ' re going to hear later in the
18 presentation that the LifeBridge traffic study does
19 not warrant the connectivity to Blue Mountain or
20 Pearl Howlett . We understand that the connectivity
21 is recommended by Public Works .
22 In opposition we would like to point out
23 that Blue Mountain Road is too narrow and
24 structurally inadequate to handle any additional
25 traffic . It might make sense on paper but not in
Page 121 —
1 most any other way.
2 Next , if Pearl Howlett or Blue Mountain were -
3 connected as proposed the benefit would be to the
4 residents of the neighborhoods, not to LifeBridge .
5 Since 5 . 5 borders the neighborhoods to the west there -
6 is no greater connectivity beyond the benefit of the
7 neighborhoods of the Elms at Meadowvale or Meadowvale
8 Farm. -
9 We believe that the transportation goal
10 reads that the intent is to move people in a safe,
11 economical and efficient manner. Clearly the _
12 proposed benefit is to the residents , not to the
13 church, and argue that if nearly all of the residents
14 oppose the connection where is the benefit? -
15 And that you must act in their best
16 interests . In this case who is the better judge of
17 safe, the residents or someone else?
18 In respect to the issues of economical or
19 efficient , the benefit is once again for the
20 residents . If nearly 100 percent of the residents on
21 both sides of the connection find no benefit , why
22 comply?
23 I might point out that the low number of _
24 trips per day doesn ' t generate that much economic
25 benefit and probably wouldn' t offset the cost in any
Page 122
1 ROI study to actually construct the connection.
— 2 We also want to recap the changes based on
3 staff and neighbors . We 've made a lot of effort to
4 change our application since we first submitted back
5 in December, and I want to thank the neighbors once
6 again for their time and energy and I also want to
7 thank the Weld County Planning staff for their
8 patience, time and willingness to work together to
9 create a proposal that was acceptable and supported.
10 I want to review some of the changes that
11 have been made . We reduced the density on the church
12 campus from two million to one and a half million
13 square feet , a 25 percent reduction. We 've
14 drastically increased building setbacks and offsets .
15 We 've had huge reductions in building heights , even
16 as of today. We ' ve restricted the placements of
17 buildings .
18 We 've had mitigations to view corridors ,
19 traffic, noise and lighting . We believe that we have
20 demonstrated that we currently have less impact on
21 the view corridor than a housing development would
22 otherwise have .
23 We have mitigated traffic by reducing the
24 campus size by 25 percent . We 've reduced noise and
25 lighting with the addition of landscapes , berms and
Page 123 —
1 nondirectional lighting.
2 We 've also eliminated many elements from the -
3 initial development plan. In addition to eliminating
4 25 percent of the campus , we removed outdoor ball
5 field lighting, we removed a significant -
6 architectural element and agreed to not build any
7 building on about 37 acres in total of the church
8 campus forever . -
9 There are additional restrictions . We
10 reduced the size of the amphitheater from 5 , 000 to
11 1 , 500 seats . We agreed not to construct it in Phase _
12 1 and restricted it to the northeast corner of the
13 site .
14 We agreed to reduce the height of the senior _
15 housing on the eastern edge to single story and
16 agreed not to build any building on a portion of the
17 center of the campus for up to 10 years . _
18 We believe at this time that with all the
19 changes we ' ve made this property is compatible with
20 the surrounding land uses . _
21 I want to thank you for your time, and
22 Dennis Rubba is the next part of our presentation,
23 unless you have questions . _
24 CHAIRMAN LONG: Any questions for Mr .
25 Grinnell? Commissioner Geile .
Page 124
1 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Thank you . Going back
2 to your presentation, you showed that you had reduced
3 -- it almost showed that you had reduced a 1 . 5
4 million square feet to 1 . 1 million square feet when
5 you take a look at - -
6 MR. GRINNELL : That ' s the first floor . Only
7 70 percent of the 1 . 5 million square feet is on the
8 first floor, so when you ' re looking at lot coverage
9 what you ' re really looking at - -
10 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Is 1 . 1?
— 11 MR . GRINNELL : Is 1 . 15 and actually it ' s
12 less than that . Actually 70 percent of 1 . 5 million I
13 believe is 1, 050 , 000 square feet , so there ' s about
— 14 105 , 000 square feet of walks included in that number .
15 COMMISSIONER GEILE : The other question, and
16 this of course -- as you know, this is all going into
17 the record.
18 MR. GRINNELL : Right .
19 COMMISSIONER GEILE : When we talk about your
20 taxing situation which you just described, which is
21 consistent from what you said at the Planning
22 Commission too, when we talk about senior housing
23 units they can either be assisted or even greater
24 than that , which would be more care, or they can be
25 totally independent .
Page 125
1 If I heard you right, all of the units would
2 in essence be on the tax rolls , or are you planning -
3 some assisted living units that would not be on the
4 tax rolls?
5 MR. GRINNELL : Yeah, that I would have -
6 misspoken out of ignorance because I don' t know that
7 that ' s the case . I know that - - the point that I
8 guess people have asked is, is the church going to -
9 own all that stuff and therefore it be exempt from a
10 church purpose? If in fact the assisted living is
11 exempt by the fact that it is - - _
12 COMMISSIONER GEILE : But do you have plans
13 for an assisted living center, assisted living being
14 where they need some kind of accredited help, such as
15 nursing support --
16 MR. GRINNELL : Currently in the long-term
17 plan there is . Yeah, there ' s a lot of uses in that -
18 plan. That whole senior village is being evaluated
19 at this time to figure out what products are
20 economic .
21 COMMISSIONER GEILE : What I 'm getting at is,
22 one number we heard from the water district was 358
23 units . You then mentioned 500 units .
24 MR . GRINNELL : Yeah, the difference is that
25 there ' s 115 , 000 square feet or so of assisted living
Page 126
1 I think on the site plan and in the traffic study
2 you' ll see as well that some of that density was
3 created to housing units where some of it is handled
4 as bulk, so if you actually look on the -- and this
5 is not to be confusing but it ' s just the different
6 ways to look at it .
7 If you look on the bulk - - on the side of
8 the -- on the drawing, I believe that there ' s 368
9 units and something like 2 . 2 million square feet
10 total on the whole 313-acre site . You can evaluate
11 it in different ways and one of the ways is to -- in
12 that description of the 368 units and the 2 . 2 million
13 square feet , all the assisted living is in square
— 14 feet so it ' s in that unit .
15 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Is it included in the
16 1 . 2 million?
— 17 MR. GRINNELL : It ' s part of the 2 . 2 million,
18 yeah.
19 COMMISSIONER GEILE : I mean the 1 . 2 million.
20 So you reduced from two million to 1 . 5 and then we
21 were talking about 70 percent would be on the
22 first --
23 MR . GRINNELL : Oh, this wasn' t on the church
24 campus . So maybe we need to try one more time
— 25 because I 'm getting lost too . Go ahead, I ' ll listen
Page 127
1 hard.
2 CHAIRMAN LONG: You ' re lumping the assisted
3 living and the church campus together and they' re
4 separate .
5 MR. GRINNELL : Yeah, if you look on the ..
6 change of zone plan, on this column, you ' ll see that
7 the two totals at the bottom are 368 units and 2 . 283 ,
8 so 2 , 283 , 000 square feet . That ' s on the entire _
9 313-acre plan.
10 The 2 , 283 , 000 square feet are a sum of the
11 1 . 5 million square feet on the campus, plus 230 , 000 -
12 square feet of assisted living, plus 81 , 000 square
13 feet for a community center, plus 49, 000 square feet
14 of mixed use, 100 , 000 square feet of neighborhood -
15 center, 173 , 000 square feet of mixed use
16 office/retail , 73 , 000 square feet of mixed use
17 office/retail . So those altogether totaled 2 , 283 , 000 -
18 square feet .
19 Now, in some analysis some of that bulk
20 square footage, which is dealt with in an FAR on the -
21 site plan, is converted to density units, to housing
22 units . In some cases it ' s left in square footage, in
23 other cases some of that is converted to tap, so to
24 speak.
25 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Okay. If you would go
Page 128
1 down through that same list again and tell us which
2 ones would be taxed and which ones would not be
3 taxed.
4 MR. GRINNELL : Well , the one and a half
5 million square feet of the church campus we don' t
6 expect to be taxed except for certain uses that
7 are --
- 8 COMMISSIONER GEILE : That are resident
9 related?
10 MR. GRINNELL : Right .
11 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Business related I
12 mean.
13 MR. GRINNELL : I 'm assuming that assisted
_ 14 living is taxed and I don' t know that to be true, but
15 any of the rest of these I guess my point was that
16 they may or may not be owned by the church and at
17 this point to that extent the activity that ' s
18 occurring in there is what ' s important .
19 So whether they ' re owned by the church or
20 not doesn ' t determine property tax; it ' s the activity
21 of the use that determines property tax. I don ' t
— 22 know whether assisted living as a use creates
23 property tax or not . I ' m assuming it does .
24 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Well , and I think what
25 counsel will tell us is that you 've got to in essence
Page 129 —
1 make an application with the State to be able to
2 determine what is taxed. Have you had any reason to —
3 -- I ' ll just turn that over to you, counsel .
4 MR . MORRISON: You correctly anticipated.
5 It ' s not the County' s decision. Assisted living _
6 conceivably - - I mean I don' t know the level of
7 assistance that this would apply, but certain medical
8 uses are tax exempt , regardless of whether they are —
9 affiliated with a religious institution or not .
10 Certain medical uses are, and so to the extent the
11 assisted living would qualify for that then there may _
12 be an exemption, but that ' s independent of who ' s the
13 operator.
14 COMMISSIONER GEILE : What I 'm really getting _
15 down to is, and I don' t know if you 've done a
16 financial analysis --
17 MR. GRINNELL : No, we haven ' t . It was asked _
18 during the Planning Commission if we needed to
19 generate one and we never -- nobody ever affirmed
20 that request , so we didn ' t . We understand that a _
21 fiscal impact analysis is required at the time of
22 final plan.
23 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Fiscal impact analysis .
24 What I 'm looking for is a bottom line as far as taxes
25 that the County could anticipate to receive and I
Page 130
1 don' t know how that falls into your financial
2 scenario .
3 MR . GRINNELL : Well , certainly - - you know,
4 the only thing we have for sure at the moment,
5 Commissioner, is Phase 1 and to that extent this area
6 would create - - this area would create property tax
7 and it ' s scheduled to be developed in Phase 1 . This
8 area would create property tax and it ' s scheduled to
9 be developed in Phase 1 .
10 At this time we have proposed uses and
11 proposed future dates of development for the rest of
12 this . Until something is a little bit more firm than
13 that I don ' t know. Right now based on what ' s
14 proposed, you know, this portion in here would
15 because it would be retail commercial and the rest of
16 it I ' m not sure .
17 CHAIRMAN LONG: Any other questions of Mr .
18 Grinnell? Commissioner Jerke .
19 COMMISSIONER JERKE : Thank you, Mr .
20 Chairman.
21 Mr . Grinnell , I had a couple of questions .
22 I guess the first one would be oil and gas concerns .
23 We have a statement in here that you ' re going to have
24 to take care of those concerns prior to recording of
25 the final plat .
Page 131
1 What we heard earlier in testimony was that
2 you really aren ' t too heavily in discussions yet with —
3 the kinds of things that are going to need to happen.
4 I guess I 'm just curious where you ' re at on those
5 discussions and what your plans are . —
6 MR. GRINNELL : We knew at this point we
7 needed to accommodate them based on the wellsite
8 envelopes and to indicate drilling sites and that in -
9 order to make it through change of zone that was the
10 requirement that we had. We also know that in order
11 to make it through final plan we need a surface use -
12 agreement .
13 We have as part of a team a person who is an
14 attorney for Phillips Petroleum that has contacted _
15 both Patina and Encana to begin to work on surface
16 use agreement . Our expectation is based on her
17 expectation, is that we have plenty of time to get _
18 that worked out .
19 The other option is the lawsuit . It ' s one
20 we inherited. Whitham Farms initiated the suit _
21 against what then was Narco prior to our ownership of
22 the ground. It was the City of Longmont and Whitham
23 Farms that initiated the suit against Narco
24 Petroleum, and Encana has purchased Narco since then
25 and we 've picked up the ground from Whitham Farms .
Page 132
1 There isn' t any dispute between the two
2 sides based on the facts , technical facts, and the
3 prime technical fact is that on the two quarter
4 sections to the north - - on the two quarter sections
5 to the north up here, and it ' s not just the drill
6 sites here and here but it ' s all of the ground on the
7 two quarter sections , there is slightly over $7 , 000
8 worth of reserves in the ground.
9 I 'm not sure what the price of oil would
10 have to get to so it ' s viable to go get it , but it
11 would have to get pretty high.
12 COMMISSIONER JERKE : And whose number is
13 that , that $7 , 000?
14 MR. GRINNELL : Those were done by technical
15 experts, one that we had prepared on our behalf and
16 the one that was prepared on behalf of Narco at that
17 time .
18 The way this suit has been done, both sides
19 had to share information prior to the first ruling by
20 Judge West . It ' s being appealed at this point, but
21 there have been no changes in the facts, technical
22 facts .
23 The second thing is , Patina owns those two
24 sections and it ' s our understanding that the
25 economics are roughly the same, that on those two
Page 133 _
1 quarter sections there ' s approximately $7 , 000 worth
2 of reserves as well . —
3 The suit was based on the fact that it
4 seemed unreasonable to pay 50 , 000 to $100 , 000 per
5 each one of those five on that section drill sites -
6 and then the two on the others and the three down
7 below when in fact there was only $7 , 000 in total of
8 reserves in the ground. So that ' s the basis of the -
9 suit .
10 Our understanding is that a ruling will be
11 made in August . There could be another appeal . This -
12 is to the Colorado Appellate Court . It could be
13 appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court , so this could
14 take awhile .
15 So it ' s our intention at this point in time
16 that without knowing the outcome of that trial to go
17 ahead and work with both Narco and Patina to satisfy
18 the requirements on a surface use .
19 Other option is to buy out the sites . We -
20 had a standing offer for quite awhile with Narco
21 before Encana purchased them that they pulled off the
22 table when - - but in any event , there ' s been
23 discussions back and forth and there ' s also been
24 contact recently with Patina . We haven ' t entered
25 into any negotiation with Patina . We were waiting
Page 134
1 for the outcome of the trial .
2 COMMISSIONER JERKE : Does the church own any
3 portion of the mineral rights?
4 MR. GRINNELL : No.
- 5 COMMISSIONER JERKE : My next question
6 related to homeowners . You ' re going to have 110 or
7 so single family homes . I ' m curious as to who will
.- 8 own the homes .
9 MR. GRINNELL : The property owners , the
10 homeowners will own the homes .
— 11 COMMISSIONER JERKE : And how will you
12 determine who gets to be a property owner?
13 MR . GRINNELL: You know, at this point
— 14 there ' s been a lot of interest in it and we 've talked
15 about all kinds of things . There ' s no intent that
16 the church membership will be . I mean it ' s open to
- 17 the public .
18 There ' s been a lot of interest . If I had to
19 do it today I would do it via lottery, I think.
- 20 There ' s a lot of interest in those sites .
21 COMMISSIONER JERKE : Okay, thank you.
— 22 Another question, the Oligarchy Ditch, it refers to
23 it in here and suggests that there ' s a trail system
24 already existing on that . I was curious whether or
25 not that that ' s fact .
Page 135
1 MR. GRINNELL : There ' s no existing trail
2 system. There ' s a ditch road. -
3 COMMISSIONER JERKE : Whose trail system is
4 it then?
5 MR. GRINNELL : There ' s a -- I think the City -
6 of Longmont Trails might indicate that there ' s
7 potentially a future trail system through there, but
8 I think it ' s -- there is no trail system at this -
9 point in time . I think it ' s an indication on a map
10 from somebody' s long-range planning.
11 COMMISSIONER JERKE : I ' ll ask others along
12 the way, but I guess I would be concerned about the
13 Oligarchy Ditch and the property owner having the
14 ability to determine whether or not they want a trail _
15 through there or not .
16 MR. GRINNELL : We have an agreement right
17 now with the Oligarchy to do something else with the
18 ditch and bury it .
19 COMMISSIONER JERKE : Okay. One other
20 question - - two other questions , I guess . Pumping _
21 right from the Union Reservoir, what is that all
22 about?
23 MR. GRINNELL : And I 'm not sure of the
24 timing but it was about the same time the church got
25 started, the late 1800 ' s , the City wanted to expand
Page 136
1 Union Reservoir . The guy that owned the ground
.- 2 traded the ground to the City for the right to pump
3 out of that reservoir at his discretion, forever.
4 And that right went with the ground, so
.. 5 right now there is an unrestricted pumping right out
6 of the bottom of Union Reservoir and the only
7 restriction is that the water be used for irrigation.
8 Understanding so far is that the ability is to allow
9 us to use it for residential parks irrigation as
10 well , thus the desire to put a split system in.
11 It ' s a great pumping right . It can ' t be
12 transferred and the City is not interested in buying
13 it back.
14 COMMISSIONER JERKE : Thank you. That is
15 very interesting .
16 MR. GRINNELL : I 'm corrected here,
17 Commissioner Jerke . We own some portion of the
18 mineral rights . I 'm not sure what that is .
19 COMMISSIONER JERKE : Okay. Final odd
20 question for you. Cemetery zoning, do you need to
21 come back to us at some point to rezone your cemetery
22 if you have one?
23 MR . GRINNELL: I think it ' s a use by right
24 for a church, but I ' m not sure .
.. 25 COMMISSIONER JERKE : I see in here that
Page 137
1 there ' s a - -
2 MR . GRINNELL : We put that on the laundry -
3 list?
4 COMMISSIONER JERKE : Yeah, regarding whether
5 or not that has to be rezoned if you actually have a -
6 cemetery.
7 MR. GRINNELL : I don' t know.
8 COMMISSIONER JERKE : Anyway, that ' s enough -
9 of my odd questions . Thank you.
10 CHAIRMAN LONG: Commissioner Geile .
11 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Thank you, Commissioner -
12 Jerke . I forgot to ask the question on the ditch.
13 I just have one more question and it has to
14 do with as I was reading through some of the
15 testimony of the Planning Commission I noticed that
16 there was evidently some complaints of your current
17 facility in Boulder County with - - I don' t know if it -
18 was weed issues or - - but there were complaints and
19 it was almost -- well , maybe I could just ask you
20 about that . -
21 Could you explain to us what ' s going on with
22 the complaints in Boulder County? And I don ' t know
23 where that came from. Did it come from their Health
24 Department , did it come from the weed control
25 division, or where did it come from? -
Page 138
1 MR . GRINNELL : Rick Rusaw, our senior
2 minister - - I 've only officially been on board for
3 about a year and a half . He was there at the time,
4 so he might be able to explain to you.
_. 5 CHAIRMAN LONG: Please come forward if you
6 could. If you could state your name and address for
7 the record, please . Thank you.
8 MR. RUSAW: Rick Rusaw, the senior minister
9 at LifeBridge, 10345 Ute Highway, Longmont , 80504 .
10 I was going to share that our goal is to be
11 a good neighbor but at times we haven' t been a
12 perfect neighbor and some of our issues have been
13 with Boulder County.
14 As I stated to the Planning Commission, they
15 haven' t necessarily been easy to work with but we ' ll
16 take full responsibility for the issues that have
17 happened. We were cited twice on noxious weeds , once
18 I believe in ' 99 and I believe again in 2000 , or ' 98
19 and ' 99 .
20 We have eradicated those weeds . It is a
21 process of getting rid of them, and they weren ' t
22 actually from our property. They were from property
23 two properties over that had made their way to our
24 property, and so we were working with four property
25 owners to eradicate those weeds .
Page 139
1 We also had an issue with them on our day
2 care, and we started a day care I believe in ' 92 or -
3 ' 93 and we went to the Health Department and got
4 their application, got the application from the
5 State, received approval from the Health Department , -
6 Fire & Safety. We received approval from building
7 plan as far as use . We got State approval for our
8 day care and preschool . -
9 What we didn' t realize we had to have, and
10 we ' ll own this one, although there is a lot of
11 conversation about how many conversations occurred, -
12 is that planning also wanted to weigh in on that and
13 they didn ' t . We had to go back after the day care
14 actually opened to get that taken care of . -
15 We have had some cites for issues, things
16 along the line of - - sometimes we wanted to store
17 some things and we weren ' t allowed to store them in a -
18 building because we couldn ' t build small storage
19 buildings . Planning Department wouldn' t allow us to
20 do that . And we did have inadvertent times when
21 we 've had stuff stacked behind our building.
22 We ' ve taken care of those issues . Those
23 were simply mistakes on our part on not doing that .
24 We had a volleyball pit that we built for
25 our high school students . We didn' t realize at the -
Page 140
1 time that - - we didn ' t put up lights for that . We
2 weren ' t going to do anything but use it a couple
3 times a week for high school students, and didn ' t
4 realize we had according to the County moved more
.- 5 dirt than was allowed.
6 We ' re not in agreement with them over the
7 amount of dirt , but interestingly we 've not been able
8 to fill the hole back in. We haven ' t used that site .
9 We used it for two months and it was shut down. And
10 that ' s been eight years . We haven ' t been able to
11 move that back in.
12 There ' s a fire road that Fire & Safety
13 requested behind our facility and Fire Department
14 came in and said, "You need to improve that road.
15 You need to make it passable . "
16 So we were grading the road down a little
17 bit . We had planned to put some gravel on that road.
18 One of the neighbors called and complained. Planning
19 stepped up and said, "We ' re not allowing you to do
20 that without going through special use review. "
21 And so every year the Fire Department cites
22 us for that road; every year the Planning Department
23 says we can' t fix the road. So we do have an issue
24 with them on that . We recognize that .
25 So we ' ve had some issues and again we ' ll own
Page 141
1 some of the issues . We made some mistakes . We 've
2 created more traffic out there at times on Highway 66
3 and we ' ve had to hire Police Department , State
4 Highway comes every week to direct our traffic and
5 mitigate some of those issues . -
6 But there have been some issues .
7 Interestingly, both the County and we would agree
8 that since 1999 and one neighbor relocating we 've not -
9 had a single complaint filed against us nor a
10 citation that we haven ' t had to deal with.
11 COMMISSIONER GEILE : If I may just a -
12 follow-up question, your day care and preschool , is
13 that open to just people associated with your church?
14 MR. RUSAW: No, it ' s open to the public . -
15 And I would suppose -- I don' t know the exact numbers
16 but last year half of the young people in that day
17 care and preschool were a part of the church and half
18 weren' t .
19 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Then I guess my
20 question then, as far as the structure of it is it a -
21 501C3 or part of your church designation or is it out
22 there as a separate property?
23 MR. RUSAW: It is a separate nonprofit, like
24 any school would be . It would be set up as a
25 nonprofit , but it is separate from the church.
Page 142
1 COMMISSIONER GEILE : So it would be
2 non-taxable?
3 MR. RUSAW: Right . However, as Bruce was
4 saying if they sell things in there, if the day care
5 does for-profit items , we end up -- they end up, not
6 we the church, but the day care has to like any
7 nonprofit institution pay for those proceeds on UBT.
8 CHAIRMAN LONG: Mr. Jerke .
9 COMMISSIONER JERKE : Just one follow-up on
10 the day care . Just out of curiosity, do you take
_ 11 kids that wind up being subsidized then by County
12 government , I guess it would be Boulder County at
13 that point then, through their Social Services?
- 14 MR. RUSAW: We have had - - yeah, we ' re open
15 to that and have had that happen.
— 16 COMMISSIONER JERKE : Okay, thank you .
17 CHAIRMAN LONG: Commissioner Masden.
18 COMMISSIONER MASDEN: Thank you, Mr.
19 Chairman. I just had a few questions here myself on
20 the commercial zoning, and when you start to
21 implement that and get that going is that going to be
22 in Phase 1 you said?
23 MR. GRINNELL : The commercial zoning would
24 be down in here and that ' s at a subsequent phase .
— 25 COMMISSIONER MASDEN: Okay. Any plans
Page 143
1 specifically for that area?
2 MR. GRINNELL : No . Do we have plans right -
3 now?
4 COMMISSIONER MASDEN: Yeah, that ' s what I
5 was looking for. -
6 MR. GRINNELL : None . There ' s a density, you
7 know, FAR in the site plan, but that ' s it .
8 COMMISSIONER MASDEN: Okay. Are you aware -
9 the St . Vrain Legacy Trail program and with Barbara
10 Bonds - - it ' s no longer Barbara Bonds , it ' s St . Vrain
11 State Parks , the name of Barbara Bonds has changed, _
12 and Weld County and Longmont and tri-town area have
13 all gone together, we just got about a 12 million
14 dollar grant to do some work, bought some of the _
15 property there?
16 MR. GRINNELL : Yeah, I saw that .
17 COMMISSIONER MASDEN: I was wondering if you _
18 had any -- you were looking at any connectivity, if
19 you have internal trail system and doing any work
20 there .
21 MR. GRINNELL : Dennis Rubba could speak to
22 that . Would you like for him to now?
23 CHAIRMAN LONG: Yes, sure . Please come
24 forward, Dennis . If you could state your name and
25 address for the record, please, and welcome . "'
Hello