HomeMy WebLinkAbout20040778 Page 170
1 Statute 25-12-103 .
2 MR. LONG: Is that acceptable to include
3 that , and where would that go?
4 MS . SMITH: On page 38 , it would be No . I .
5 MR. LONG : Let ' s make that a part of the
6 record. I ' ll ask the applicant .
7 You will agree?
8 MR. GRINNELL : Yes .
9 MR. LONG: Okay. Please continue .
10 MR. GRINNELL : Just the last -- I hope the
11 last of the last .
12 As the applicant, I believe we are allowed to
13 respond to any referral . When we understood that the
14 appraisal was being prepared, we employed Mr. Foster to
15 create an appraisal in response to that information.
16 So the reason that it got turned in so late
17 is that we weren ' t aware that that information was
18 being submitted. When we picked it up on the 20th, we
19 were in a bit of a hurry to make sure that we got it
20 done . So that information was not submitted as new
21 information on behalf of the applicant . It was only
22 submitted to the extent that it was in rebut of
23 information provided by referral .
24 MR. LONG : Very well . Thank you .
25 MR. GRINNELL : In final comments, thank you
2004-0778
pLi,65
Page 171
1 for all of your, time on this .
2 MR. LONG: No other questions? -
3 MR. GRINNELL : I have no other questions .
4 MR. LONG: I will ask if you have read
5 through the rest of the development standards and -
6 conditions of approval and find yourself in agreement
7 with those .
8 MR. GRINNELL : Yes . -
9 MR. LONG: Thank you.
10 MR. MORRISON: So your indication is that it
11 was in response to the letter of June 19th from Donald -
12 Hammond?
13 MR. GRINNELL : Yes . We did not order -- as a
14 matter of fact, when I spoke with Mr. Foster, it was -
15 only after we understood that the appraisal was being
16 prepared by Mr . Hammond, and we felt the need as the
17 applicant to respond to referral information that was -
18 going to be submitted to the Board.
19 The conversation that we had with Mr. Foster
20 was just that , in fact, that we felt that there was an -
21 appraisal that was being prepared and that we felt that
22 we needed to have information in addition from somebody
23 that was on our team. Qualified maybe is the word.
24 MR . LONG: Very well .
25 Mr . Jerke .
Page 172
1 MR. JERKE : Just a question for Staff .
2 Hypothetically, would opponents have had the
3 same ability of picking up the packet , if you will , on
4 June 20th to have -- if they had discovered things that
5 the applicant had submitted for new information, would
6 they have had the same opportunity then to have hired
7 or created a new record that could have been submitted
8 to rebut what the applicant may well have been
9 suggesting regarding any portion of this case?
10 That is just a hypothetical question for
11 Counsel or for the Planning Staff .
12 MR. MORRISON: You know, I certainly know
13 where to file things , and I guess you would have to
14 deal with that if the proponents had filed something in
15 response to something that the applicant or the
16 municipal referrals submitted. You know, you have to
17 address it in the same fashion you have to address
18 this .
19 MR. JERKE : Thank you.
20 MR. LONG: Any other questions for the
21 applicant?
22 Thank you.
23 MR. GRINNELL : I just ask that you approve
24 the application.
25 MR. LONG: Counsel .
Page 173
1 MR. MORRISON: I have one other procedural
2 item. _
3 There have been questions raised about the
4 process at the March 18th and April 1st Planning
5 Commission meetings . I asked the Planning Department
6 to provide additional information which would indicate
7 that the -- in the case of the April 1st meeting, the
8 question was : Who ordered or provided for the _
9 continuance? The minutes are ambiguous on that, and I
10 asked the Planning Department to further research that .
11 They have further information on that , as _
12 well as on the March 18th meeting, and I would ask
13 Mr. Ogle to address that .
14 MR. OGLE : Kim Ogle, Department of Planning
15 Services .
16 Staff has provided a tape of the hearing of
17 April 1st . It ' s my understanding that on that tape _
18 there is a verbal vote for the continuance to a
19 date-specific date .
20 I also have a handwritten summary of the
21 Planning Commission meeting signed by Commissioner
22 Folsom dated 3/20/03 of the hearing of 3/18 . It says :
23 "John Folsom called the meeting to order . Roll call
24 was called. Only John Folsom answered present . Since
25 there was not a quorum, the meeting could not proceed. "
Page 174
1 I will submit those for evidence .
2 I also have a typewritten one that Staff
3 prepares as a part of the record, as well , which is a
4 summary of the Folsom minutes .
5 MR . LONG: Any questions for Kim regarding
6 that?
7 Are there any questions from Staff at this
8 time?
9 Maybe prior to -- I see that Mr. Gries is
10 done reviewing the document . I will ask him to come
11 forward, and I ' ll open up the period for public comment
12 one more time for Mr . Gries and Mr. Gries only at this
13 time to reflect on the evidence as presented through
14 the appraisal document of Mr. West Foster .
15 MR. GRIES : Peter Gries , 11685 Montgomery
16 Circle, Longmont, Colorado 80504 .
17 Before I begin, I will say that -- I will
18 repeat that had we known -- my complaint is not with
19 LifeBridge on this . My complaint is with this notice
20 that told us that there would be no new materials in
21 the previous three weeks . Had we known that there
22 would be new materials , we would have been checking the
23 file . Had we been checking the file, we would have
24 seen this . Had we seen this, we would have asked our
25 appraiser, Don Hammond, to come here and do what you
Page 175
1 are now asking me to do .
2 I am not a registered appraiser. I ' m a -
3 political scientist . I will now, to the best of my
4 ability, respond to your questions .
5 MR. LONG: Thank you. -
6 MR. GRIES : But I will say that at our last
7 Commissioners ' hearing, Commissioner Geile asked me
8 repeatedly about issues about appraisal , and I had to -
9 say I didn ' t know. That is why we hired an appraiser,
10 and he would be here right now if we had known about
11 this . _
12 This notice told us that there would be no
13 new materials after June 20 . So now I 'm being put in
14 the position of doing something that I 'm not fully _
15 qualified to do .
16 However, that said, at a level of basic
17 scientific methodology -- I am a Ph.D . in political _
18 science from the University of California. If this
19 were a report prepared by one of my graduate students
20 at the University of Colorado, it would get an F for
21 the very basic reason that there is not a single word
22 of methodology in here . Instead, Mr . West Foster has
23 what is called chosen on the dependent variable, which
24 is a fundamental error in methodology.
25 He has chosen five cases with no explanation
Page 176
1 for why he chose those five cases except that they fit
2 what LifeBridge asked him to do. If you look on the
3 table that summarizes the work, Exhibit A, you will see
4 that there is not even a column for annual
5 depreciation. The only column says annual
6 appreciation. Every example, all five exhibits and
7 all - - there ' s two properties in four or five examples ,
8 three properties in the fifth example, and all of those
9 are examples of appreciation in property value .
10 what he did is he went out and looked for
11 examples of developments that fit what LifeBridge was
12 paying him to do, which was that he looked for examples
13 that would prove the point that this massive
14 development was going to be good for our property
15 values . That is just fundamentally flawed and gets an
16 F at the level of basic methodology.
17 A more detailed point , but minor in
18 comparison to this basic flaw of selecting on a
19 dependent variable, not providing any rationalization,
20 there ' s no attempt to justify why he chose the five
21 examples that he chose . There ' s also a complete lack
22 of any information about the five properties that
23 justifies comparison to the LifeBridge development .
24 If you look at the first one, Westmoor Self
'� 25 Storage, how is a self storage complex comparable to a
Page 177
1 313-acre mega development with a stated aim of a
2 20 , 000-person congregation, 75-foot tall auditoriums —
3 seating 9300 people, an outdoor amphitheater seating
4 1500 people? How is this comparable?
5 Look at the picture in Exhibit B . You can —
6 see that this thing is tiny. Bring them on. I will
7 take the storage unit . I will take the storage unit .
8 This is like Mars and Venus . This is not comparable to -
9 the LifeBridge development . Just because it fits the
10 example of appreciation, the outcome of appreciation
11 that this appraiser wanted to find, does not justify -
12 comparing a peanut to a watermelon. It ' s totally not
13 comparable . You can go through all of these examples .
14 None of these come even close . -
15 The most telling thing from the oral
16 testimony from Mr. West Foster was that he tried hard.
17 He looked. He looked first in Greeley. All he could -
18 find was this tiny little self-storage and a tiny
19 little apartment complex. Then he looked elsewhere and
20 he still couldn' t find anything comparable .
21 Why is that? I have done this research too .
22 There is no example in the entire country of a mega
23 development of this size inserted into a preexisting
24 residential neighborhood.
25 If you look at the other mega churches that
Page 178
1 have popped up in Texas and Kansas City and elsewhere
-- 2 in this country, you will find that all of those were
3 out in the middle of nowhere . They had the faith in
4 their own ability to attract a congregation, that
5 people would come to them, that people would chose to
6 buy into homes that were built up around them, that
7 they did that . They did not try to force themselves
8 into someplace where they didn ' t belong .
9 That is why this appraiser did -- I think
10 it ' s part of why he did such a sloppy job. It ' s
- 11 because there are no comparables . They simply don' t
12 exist .
13 So that is my five-second response to this,
- 14 but I have a fundamental problem which is : What else
15 is there? What else has gotten into the record in the
16 last three weeks? What else new is being inserted
_ 17 today that you told us would never be inserted? You
18 told us that the record would be complete as of June
19 20 . We paid for a complete file, and we based all of
20 our preparations on that . We did not bring our
21 appraiser here . We are just simply not prepared to
22 deal with the application as it stands .
23 I , again, request that you call a continuance
24 of this meeting until we have an opportunity to see the
25 complete record and respond to it professionally.
Page 179
1 Thank you.
2 MR. LONG: Any questions for Mr . Gries?
3 Thank you for your comments . We ' ll take all
4 of those things into consideration.
5 At this point I will ask if there ' s any —
6 questions of Staff .
7 Mr . Geile .
8 MR. GEILE : Kim, when I go to page 34 , it ' s —
9 actually the first full paragraph - - second paragraph,
10 which is that the applicant states all lighting within
11 the PUD will be directional lighting. It goes on to —
12 minimize off-site glare .
13 In order to meet minimum candles for parking
14 areas, LifeBridge Christian Church will use
15 pole-mounted direct cutoff pictures as primary parking
16 lot lighting and, where necessary, additional glare
17 guards will be added - - or shields will be added. The _
18 following lighting will be the preferred alternative to
19 pedestrian walkways through the parking lot and
20 internal to the campus . _
21 The outdoor sports facility and fields will
22 not be lighted for evening athletic events or other
23 uses .
24 How did this paragraph get here?
25 MR . OGLE : It was originally a discussion
— Page 180
1 that I had with LifeBridge during the course of their
2 application.
3 MR. GEILE : As we take this, with your
4 background in architectural sciences , does this in
5 essence solidify our ability to make sure that glare or
6 off-site lighting pollution is minimized, mitigated, or
7 in essence, doesn ' t occur?
8 MR . OGLE : In my opinion, yes , it does . It
9 will also be addressed through the site plan review
10 process . We will , once again, revisit that .
- 11 MR. GEILE : That is the point I wanted to
12 make . So even though this is not specifically stated
13 as a condition of approval , it is the intent and it ' s
- 14 understood that when the application comes to the final
15 review process that these conditions will have to be
16 met .
- 17 MR . OGLE : That ' s correct .
18 MR. GEILE : The other thing is : Is there
19 anything else in here, any other statements as it
20 relates to noise - - and I understand the statute .
21 Is there anything in here that relates to
22 noise in a paragraph such as the lighting?
23 MR. OGLE : No, there ' s not .
24 MR. GEILE : So it would be the statues that
25 would totally dictate the noise levels?
Page 181
1 MR. OGLE : That ' s correct .
2 MR. GEILE : Kim, is there a lawsuit pending -
3 on the oil and gas owing?
4 MR. OGLE : Yes , there is . It ' s one that was
5 inherited by LifeBridge with -- -
6 MR. GEILE : Does that have any bearing into
7 any of the changes that we made today?
8 MR. OGLE : It ' s my understanding that it does -
9 not .
10 MR. GEILE : The other thing I want to make
11 absolute sure is : The decision we made, even though -
12 it ' s in the record, Pearl Howlett and Blue Mountain
13 Road, those connections, is it clear in your mind that
14 if this thing were to proceed today that any future -
15 applications - - as far as final plans, is there any
16 doubt in your mind what the direction of this Board is
17 as far as the connectivity? -
18 MR. OGLE : I 'm very clear on the connectivity
19 issues, yes . Thank you.
20 MR . LONG: Any other questions? -
21 Mr. Masden.
22 MR. MASDEN: Kim, looking at this chart that
23 we were given for the bulk standards summary, -
24 LifeBridge PUD versus Weld County code . Go down on the
25 left-hand side to maximum building height . The top - -
Page 182
1 the light numbers are their request . The bottom
2 numbers are our code or what Staff has put down for
3 what our requirements are . Some of our numbers were
4 higher . Some of their numbers were higher.
5 Do you feel that our numbers are just on
6 this , and that is our code and what Staff recommends?
7 MR. OGLE : Yes, the numbers that are in the
8 lower - - the two sets of numbers on the lower ones come
9 directly from the code .
10 MR . MASDEN: Okay. That is what your
11 recommendation is?
12 MR . OGLE : No .
13 MR. LONG : For clarification, the lower case
14 and the bold print is code . But in the MUD you are
15 offered flexibility. So the upper one that is in the
16 lighter print is the one that has been accepted by
17 Staff .
18 MR. MASDEN: Okay.
19 MR. OGLE : The PUD offers the flexibility.
20 So what the applicant has proposed, which is the upper
21 number, is what we 've agreed to.
22 MR. MASDEN: That ' s what I was trying to make
23 sure of and clarify in my mind.
24 MR. LONG: The only three that are in bold
25 print are the - -
Page 183
1 MR. MASDEN: The 20 feet . All right .
2 MR. LONG: I had a question.
3 What is bollard lighting?
4 MR. OGLE : A bollard is like a pipe . It sits
5 about 4 feet tall . One side will have a reflector and -
6 the light will cast down on a pathway. So it limits
7 the amount of light pollution in the common areas . It
8 points specifically at the path. _
9 MR. LONG: Very well . Thank you. I didn' t
10 know that is what they are called.
11 Any other questions of Staff?
12 Questions of Counsel?
13 MR. GEILE : When we talked about what is
14 permitted in an R-1 zone and what is permitted all of
15 the way to an industrial zone, I would like to just get
16 your interpretation. Let ' s say, to start with, the R-1
17 zone . A lot of this stuff keeps flowing through as far
18 as what ' s permitted.
19 If we take a look at the R-1 zone, R-1 , low
20 density, residential zone district, what is permitted
21 as public parks and public recreation, public schools
22 and public school extension classes, police and fire
23 station facilities , utility service facilities? As we
24 go on down through it , we get to the area where there ' s
25 uses by special review.
Page 184
1 One of those uses by special review if, in
2 fact, somebody wanted to put a hospital , preschool ,
3 private school , church, private recreation facility,
4 gas or gas production facilities, they would need to
5 come and obtain a use by special review.
6 Carrying that forward in the PUD process, I
7 think, at least in my interpretation of the PUD
8 process, one of the uses permitted in the PUD process
9 are schools , churches -- I think facilities of worship
10 I think is the way they were termed.
- 11 The reason I 'm broaching the question is
12 because it was mentioned today that churches or places
13 of worship are not permitted to occur in residential
- 14 areas . I wanted to go back to this zoning area and get
15 your interpretation.
16 MR . MORRISON: The R-1 , what is allowed in
17 the R-1 zone, is only relevant to the extent it is
18 incorporated into the plan of this PUD . You do see
19 some PUDs that shortcut the uses by simply referring to
_ 20 established zone districts . But, in fact , it ' s -- you
21 know, you could create a PUD for landfill , you know,
22 and a ballet studio next to each other if you chose .
23 You can create your own allowed uses within a district .
24 You can even create a PUD that called out that certain
25 uses would be allowed only with a special use permit .
Page 185
1 But basically in the development plan you can
2 create your own zoning code if you choose not to simply -
3 refer to each zone district . So the answer is : They
4 do have the flexibility to propose a church in this
5 without requiring a special use permit . -
6 That reference to R-1 zoning is only useful
7 for comparison to a straight zoning .
8 MR. GEILE : Okay. I wanted to make sure that -
9 that was clear.
10 MR. LONG: Any other questions for Counsel?
11 Okay. With that , I ' ll bring it back to the _
12 Board to discuss .
13 MR. GEILE : No . I have a few more questions
14 of Counsel , please . -
15 MR. LONG: Okay. Sure .
16 MR . GEILE : I would like to get back to some
17 of the questions that talked about the integrity of -
18 this case, simply because of the questions about
19 notification, especially in view of the fact that it ' s
20 been mentioned that litigation would or could be filed. _
21 I would like to make sure, in your opinion or
22 interpretation, that as far as what we 've done and the
23 way it has been handled is something that is
24 defensible .
25 MR. MORRISON: I believe it is .
Page 186
1 MR. GEILE : I also want to make it clear in
2 my own mind, going back one more time and not rehashing
3 again, but I want to make sure I 'm clear.
4 As it relates to the appraisal of the
5 plotting by Mr. Foster, the fact that that was brought
6 in after the deadline date, I wonder if you could go
7 through that one more time, as far as clarity, to make
8 sure that it is appropriate to these proceedings and
9 nothing less than that .
10 MR. MORRISON: I think ultimately your Board
11 has to decide whether the timing of that would require
12 an additional continuance to address it .
13 Basically the applicants indicated that they
14 filed that report in response to a report filed June
15 19th. The neighborhood, having filed that report , the
16 applicant ' s position is that they were responding to
17 that .
18 The notice itself does -- you know, it does
19 ask that all of that information be submitted from the
20 applicant and the referral entities by June 20th. I
21 think in the discussion by the Board that the intent of
22 that was that that round of documents be available so
23 that that would provide the opportunity for people to
24 address the new evidence . That was the new evidence
25 that needed to be in place by June 20th.
Page 187
1 I don ' t think you limited necessarily the
2 scope of the time - - you didn' t prohibit someone -
3 bringing in testimony. You would have had to address
4 each of those, or you could address those as to whether
5 it related to new evidence, if it ' s not one of the -
6 applicant ' s presentations or the referrals .
7 I think you have to decide whether, given
8 that notice, that ' s basically fair to close the -
9 testimony and allow no further opportunity at this
10 point .
11 I think the applicant has , you know, reached _
12 a plausible argument for why they feel it should be
13 allowed. Sometimes the safest thing is to allow
14 additional testimony and then the issue goes away. _
15 I think you have to weigh the fairness of it ,
16 to close testimony without any further opportunity.
17 Part of that has to do with how central that is to _
18 your --
19 MR. LONG: Any other questions of Counsel or
20 Staff? _
21 With that , I will bring it back to the Board
-
22 for discussion.
23 MR. GEILE : I ' ll go ahead and start the
24 discussion.
-
25 There are several areas . Before I get to it
Page 188
1 though, I would like to make a couple of comments .
2 This has been an extremely complicated and
3 difficult case for everybody who has participated in
4 these proceedings and the other hearings . It has been
5 very difficult . I recognize that .
6 I also recognize that real estate is probably
7 one of the most emotional things - - one of the most
8 emotional things you can ever do in your life . There ' s
9 a lot that rides on it when you make those decisions,
10 especially as you are trying to look down the future
11 and see exactly what kind of investment you have and
12 how that would materialize .
13 I also realize that things can be said and
14 things can be done . However, when I sit in this
15 position, I sit in it as quasi judicial , which means I
16 do not speak about the case .
17 Along that line, I can tell you that I did a
18 tremendous amount of research. This is probably over
19 400 land use cases that I have had the privilege of
20 hearing since I have been a County Commissioner .
21 Along that line, I have been involved with
22 Kim on several of those cases . I need to tell you
23 that, in my opinion, and it ' s not something that is
24 anything that I think is substantiated and substantial ,
25 but Mr . Ogle always presents himself in an unbiased
Page 189
1 manner, in a professional manner.
2 This thing has been so complicated. There -
3 have been issues that have come up which, in essence,
4 resulted in this continuance that I think could have
5 been defended one way or another . -
6 Kim, I ' d just like to thank you for your
7 perseverance and professionalism as we move through
8 this . I know it has been very, very hard and very, -
9 very difficult .
10 I also would like to thank Drew for the work
11 you did on the transportation study. That was critical -
12 in trying to figure out the evolution of anything that
13 goes in there, whether it ' s this or it ' s an 800 or
14 900-unit subdivision. We need to be able to not only -
15 analyze what exists today, but we also need to be able
16 to make some conclusions as it relates to future
17 impact , and I 'm talking about future way down the road, -
18 which brings me to some thoughts .
19 I think that with LifeBridge, some of my
20 concerns -- one is the setbacks . I think the setbacks -
21 have been dealt with. I know that there ' s still going
22 to be concerns about the setbacks as time goes on.
23 However, as has been stated by the applicant , has been -
24 stated by everybody involved in this process , they
25 still have to go through a final review. They still
Page 190
1 have to go through a final plan which, in essence, has
2 to come to this Board. So many issues can be worked
3 out .
4 Not only that , it ' s to the best interest of
5 the applicant , if this were approved and moved ahead,
6 to continue to negotiate with the people in the area .
7 It would be to your advantage if , in fact , this is
8 moved ahead, because you are going to have other things
9 that will have to come to us for our approval and
10 review.
11 I had a huge concern about density. My
12 concern was - - and I used the word boxes . One of the
13 major issues that we are facing, Mr. Foster, or if your
14 appraiser were here today, would be that once the boxes
15 are built , that is what they are called now, and they
16 are abandoned because of financial or economic reasons,
17 they become a real hindrance to the community.
18 Consequently, that has caused an attitude towards what
19 I would call the box-type of construction that is going
20 on.
21 My concern was that by taking all of this and
22 packing it into 160 acres , would that , in effect , have
23 a significant current and future negative impact on
24 this area? I used Northridge High School extensively.
25 I also brought it down to the square footage per acre .
Page 191
1 I 've now got a better view of how - - and I 'm talking
2 about the actual building construction that will sit -
3 there, not the walkways, but the actual construction
4 that will sit there .
5 This is significantly less than even the -
6 1 , 050 , 000 square foot . It ' s less than the 900 , 000
7 square foot . But at any length, the first phase will
8 be 258 , 000 square feet . At any length, it will be -
9 258 , 000 square feet , and as future additions are made,
10 they will have to come back to this Board for final
11 approval . So I ' m comfortable that this could be worked -
12 out now and into the future .
13 I was thinking that in 50 years I will be 111
14 years old. -
15 As far as the traffic, I think it is actually
16 critical that Pearl Howlett and Blue Mountain, that
17 that connectivity be resolved. Due respect to our -
18 Public Works Department . I felt there was a safety
19 issue there, and that has been resolved. I think,
20 consequently, that that should resolve at least that
21 one, because I know that has been on the minds of many,
22 many people . -
23 As far as the appraisal is concerned, I
24 think -- and I ' m going to set aside, respectfully, what
25 Mr. Foster did. I ' m going to set that aside . The
Page 192
1 thing that concerns me about the appraisal that was
— 2 brought before us today would be the statement that the
3 appraiser did a traffic adjustment . That is , in
4 essence, how he determined the 10 to 15 percent - - at
_ 5 least that is what I saw up here .
6 Perhaps by dealing with the connectivity, and
7 that was the reason that I asked Mr. Foster to -- but
— 8 I 'm going to, like I say, put that aside .
9 I do have some experience in living on a
10 very, very highly traveled road, and the fact that
— 11 there are adjustments that are made to traffic,
12 especially as it relates to health and safety.
13 So I guess in taking a look at all of the
14 things that I have looked at, I feel that as this
15 project is designed to move down into the future that
16 the appraisal -- or that the values of the area would
—
17 not be as significantly impacted as was stated by the
18 appraiser.
—
19 The other thing I wanted to do was to make a
20 direct parallel . The direct parallel I have is with a
—
21 huge area with a shopping center, with a major high
—
22 school , with a major church, with a major Christian
23 school , and with another major church.
—
24 I have had the opportunity of seeing that
25 issue brought to referendum on the major shopping
Page 193
1 center . I have also seen that progress through a very,
2 very difficult and complicated debate in the community. —
3 I have seen it built, and I have seen all of this come
4 together to work together.
5 There were houses there when all of this —
6 happened, and there have been houses built since this
7 has happened. I do know for a fact, having been in the
8 real estate business, that the residential units in -
9 those areas, and some of them are very, very - - some of
10 them are half a million and over $1 million, at least
11 in one area . It ' s a very diverse area as far as _
12 prices, but I 've seen them progress as far as values
13 just like any other place in the community.
14 So that ' s my analysis of the appraisal and _
15 trying to tie it into what is going on down here in
16 this area .
17 I also go to Section 26-2-30-C of the MUD,
18 and we talked about the neighborhood center . What is
19 permitted in the neighborhood center -- I think if you
20 all take a look at that map that we put up, there was a _
21 P that was right in the middle of this thing of the
22 land that we are looking at . In the bottom part of it
23 the was a P . _
24 In a neighborhood center is small parks,
25 civic uses such as places of worship, libraries ,
Page 194
1 community centers, schools , service businesses , in
2 other words , small offices , residential mixes , and so
3 forth. So I think as far as the spirit of the MUD and
4 the fact that I asked Counsel the question about what
5 is permitted in various zoning - - at various zoning
6 levels, and that kind of brings that together.
7 The question then becomes what is a church?
8 And I ' m not in a position as a lawyer - - and I 'm not a
9 lawyer, but I 'm not in a position where I can debate
10 that , simply because I do know that that has been
11 debated in the courts . Consequently, there are certain
12 rights that churches have as far as building and
13 developing facilities . I understand that .
14 So really the question comes down to size .
15 And as I have said, the questions I have had I think
16 have been answered. The questions of Longmont, I think
17 the applicant did a good job in explaining that . I
18 know that 26 is an issue, and 26 will have to be dealt
19 with as this develops , but not only as other
20 developments on and around Union Reservoir .
21 Consequently, Mr . Chairman, those are my
22 comments .
23 MR. LONG: Thank you.
24 Mr. Jerke .
25 MR. JERKE : Thank you, Mr . Chairman. I won' t
Page 195
1 say a lot because I think Commissioner Geile said a
2 good deal for me at this point . —
3 I guess I 'm finding that there ' s an awful lot
4 of effort that has been made obviously by the applicant
5 to do the kind of job that - - and I think their feet —
6 have been held to the fire dramatically by the
7 neighbors , as it should have been.
8 I think that there has been a good deal of -
9 give and take in the entire process, issues of timing
10 notwithstanding . They are very difficult to achieve .
11 I think it ' s a tough thing when you go into these -
12 situations .
13 You 've got the fact that I think we 've tried
14 to bend over backwards with respect to notification _
15 types of issues . I know that people can always
16 continue to raise them, but I am to the point of making
17 a decision today on this . I have not found reason or _
18 rationale to oppose it at this time .
19 My background in real estate, as Commissioner
20 Geile has a background in real estate, leads me to _
21 believe that this could be a tremendous community
22 resource and community asset rather than being
23 something that is negative . I see it, frankly, as a _
24 very positive type of thing in the future .
25 We deal weekly with land use cases that have
Page 196
1 very different applications , very different desires by
2 the landowners , and we see dairies regularly. We see
3 feed lots and junk yards, if you will , and industrial
4 sites and such.
5 From my perspective, this is a very positive
6 type of land use in a relatively quickly urbanizing
7 area to have the kind density that you actually have,
8 as far as the number of people who live there or will
9 live there in the future, being a positive . It will
10 not have an awful lot of urban use from my perspective .
11 It certainly will have high use on occasion,
12 and it would be used very heavily. Obviously, on
13 Sunday mornings and different events, you are going to
14 wind up having a good number of people there . I think
15 that it winds up balancing out very nicely with the
16 kind of community resource that it is .
17 At this point , when we get to the point of
18 decision on it, I will be supportive of the
19 application.
20 MR. LONG: Mr. Masden.
21 MR. MASDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
22 In reviewing everything that we have heard in
23 the past and what we 've heard today, and looking at the
24 facts and what has been done to mitigate the traffic,
25 the traffic studies that have been done, what has been
Page 197
1 done by Staff , I have to concur with Commissioner Geile
2 in that I think everybody here has done a tremendous -
3 job.
4 This has been a very intense case . It ' s been
5 very complex in dealing with the applicant and everyone -
6 else, the issues with municipalities , the referrals . I
7 think Mr . Ogle has done a great job. Peter Schei and
8 Drew have done a great job, Pam, Don, all of you. -
9 Monica and her group have done -- I know originally it
10 was over 1500 pages of documentation. After today, who
11 knows what it is . That is a lot to try and keep -
12 straight and to deal with the issues that come up .
13 I believe with the traffic, the health,
14 safety, and welfare has been looked at and dealt with
15 for the people .
16 The building heights and the setbacks I think
17 are -- the applicant has been very willing to work with -
18 everybody and it makes the compatibility in the area
19 where the setbacks, especially on the east side and the
20 residential areas that are existing there, are very
21 beneficial .
22 Noise, I think the noise mitigation -- I
23 don' t see where that is going to be a problem.
24 Property values, in listening to the
25 testimony that we ' ve heard today, and going on what my
Page 198
1 own feeling is of knowing some real estate, I don ' t
2 think the property values will be affected in an
3 adverse condition.
4 Also on this, this is a - - this would be an
5 approval to rezone . The final review will still have
6 to come before our Planning Department , the Planning
7 Commission and this Board. So there is a lot that the
8 applicant will have to jump through before anything
9 happens yet .
10 Time for the build-out , that sounds like the
11 time frame is going to be a long time, and I don ' t
12 think it will be a real fast impact on the community.
13 I think everybody can kind of grow with it , and I
14 believe in the final it will be an asset for the entire
15 area .
16 So I would be supportive of this .
17 MR. LONG: Thank you.
18 My comments , I would like to thank Staff,
19 having full faith in the direction and capabilities and
20 what it has gone through and what Staff is able to do .
21 I also would like to thank all of the
22 participants either in support of or in opposition to,
23 because you are the ones that make the difference . You
24 give us the input to be able to do - - I won ' t call it a
25 balancing act , but the right thing in regards to give
Page 199
1 and take in all land use applications .
2 I 'm from northeast Weld County. I 've lived -
3 up there 23 years . I represent District 1 as far as
4 the election goes . Do I have knowledge of the area
5 that we are talking about? I have heard reference to -
6 that I don' t know anybody there, that I haven ' t been
7 down there . Well , I want to assure you that I have
8 lived in Longmont . I know the area very extremely -
9 well . I have a lot of good friends down there .
10 Bigger than that though, when we are elected,
11 and I think I speak for the whole Board here, we _
12 represent all of Weld County. I certainly do in my
13 deliberations on everything that I do, whether it ' s in
14 Weld County or outside of Weld County when I ' m working -
15 with other commissioners . I think about Weld County as
16 a whole, and not just the people that live here . I
17 think about the people that drive through here because
18 they have an expectation to be safe and cared for, just
19 the same as whatever county that they were going to be
20 driving through or visiting . I take that very -
21 seriously and responsibly.
22 As I have studied through this application,
23 as I do all of them, I take that into account . You
24 know, these are my neighbors . I might not know
25 everybody, but I know a lot of people . I know the
Page 200
1 impacts . With my background, I look at those impacts .
2 As a previous mayor, I know the ramifications of these
3 kinds of land use changes . So I look at these things
4 very seriously.
5 As this application has gone through, and I
6 think appropriately so with the - - we 've had a few
7 continuances in the past , and the idea for those
8 continuances are for things to work better, and I
9 think, again, this case has also brought that to bear.
10 There has been some movement in regards to some of the
11 changes that have occurred. I don' t know if it created
12 a substantial change but things that have helped
13 mitigate the concerns that have been brought up by
14 public comment and by Staff and by Commissioners . So I
15 think it ' s a good, intact process .
16 With that , through the process, I find in
17 concurrence with the citings of Commissioner Geile and
18 as Commissioner Masden cited with the safety, health,
19 and welfare . I think the process - - and again, this
20 process isn ' t just done on today' s vote, whether it ' s
21 approved or denied. It can go on in either direction.
22 Changes can happen or whatever.
— 23 The area will be developed in some way, in
24 some regard, through the future . So there is a process
25 that is intact . If this were to go ahead on approval ,
Page 201
1 there are chances for more public input for more
2 concerns to be mitigated. This is a Change of Zone, as —
3 it ' s been cited before . We can' t state that more
4 loudly.
5 That wasn ' t the appropriate way to say that , —
6 but I guess what I 'm saying is -- I think it was -- I
7 can ' t remember if one of my colleagues said it , but
8 continue to keep talking between neighbors and —
9 everybody, and not just the neighbors that you are
_
10 arguing with today in support of or in opposition, but
11 with everybody. We have to learn to live together . _
12 There is always concerns . You have to look towards the
13 future in whatever regard, and I offer that as a
14 pipeline for opportunity as opposed to a dam that cuts _
15 off all communication.
16 I find myself overall in support of the
17 application. I think for the long-term future, of not _
18 just the area but of Weld County, the front range, that
19 I see this as a positive asset as it goes on through
20 time and as more public input is interjected. I think _
21 the possibilities here present a potential that is
22 positive for the area .
23 With that, unless there are any other _
24 discussion points , I ' ll bring it back to the Board for
25 a motion.
Page 202
1 Mr. Jerke .
— 2 MR. JERKE : Mr. Chairman, I would move to
3 approve Change of Zone PZ1004 from the A agricultural
4 zone to the PUD planned unit development zone district
5 with R-1 , low density residential , R-2 , duplex
6 residential , R-3 , medium density residential , R-4 , high
7 density residential , C-1 , neighborhood commercial , and
8 C-2 , general commercial , zone uses for LifeBridge
9 Christian Church, together with all development
10 standards and conditions of approval as we have amended
11 them through the process .
12 MR. LONG: Mr. Geile .
13 MR. GEILE : Mr . Chairman, I will second that
14 motion. I would like to preface it by adding that the
15 applicant has met the policies A through I , and has
16 also met the conditions associated with 26-1-53 A
17 through H. Specifically, I would like to deal with
18 26-1-50 , which is 4B, which is compatibility, and that
— 19 I 'm satisfied in the finding of the testimony in these
20 proceedings that the compatibility with existing
21 surrounding land use and terms and generally used
— 22 building land scale and density, traffic, dust, and
23 noise have been satisfied. That also relates to POD
24 27-2-70 , which is compatibility. That is the basis for
25 my statement .
Page 203 —
1 MR . LONG: Very well . It has been moved by
2 Commissioner Jerke and seconded by Commissioner Geile —
3 to grant the Change of Zone PZ1004 as cited by
4 Commissioner Jerke, along with all of the amended
5 development standards and conditions of approval . —
6 Any further discussion?
7 Mr . Geile .
8 MR. GEILE : I would just like to say one —
9 other thing to Mr . Gries and Mr . Leise . I know that
10 this is extremely difficult , especially for the two of
11 you . What you have been through has been very -
12 difficult , but I would also like to personally thank
13 you for all of the work and effort that you have put
14 into this case .
15 I know that might be hard for you to
16 understand, but I 'm very sincere when I say that . I
17 would sincerely hope that whatever avenue you take, _
18 whatever you feel you must do, that we can continue to
19 work together with your endeavors, whatever they might
20 be . I just wanted to say that before we concluded _
21 these proceedings .
22 MR. LONG: I would like to, too, because it
23 makes the process better. So I appreciate the work you
24 have put forward.
25 Mr . Masden.
Page 204
1 MR. MASDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
2 I would concur with that for you and the
3 people in your neighborhood and the people who were
4 here at the first hearing and at the Planning
5 Commission and have interjected your comments and
6 everything, and I think the applicant has responded to
7 a lot of those issues . I think a lot of changes have
8 come about because of what you guys have wanted and
9 asked for. So I appreciate all of your input .
10 I guess the final thing is that I would like
11 to thank Lee Morrison and the legal staff for all of
12 the work that they have done too.
13 MR . LONG: Any further comments?
14 Roll call , please, Esther .
15 (Whereupon, roll was called. )
16 MR. LONG: Let the record show that the
17 motion passes unanimously.
18 Thank you . We are adjourned. That concludes
19 the business . Everybody be safe .
20 (Proceedings concluded 4 : 58 p.m. )
21 * * * * *
22
23
24
25
Page 205
1 CERTIFICATE
2 I , JAMES T. RUSK, a Registered Professional
3 Reporter and a Notary Public of the State of Colorado,
4 do hereby certify that the proceedings were taken by me
5 at the Weld County Commissioners ' Meeting, Greeley,
6 Colorado, on July 9 , 2003 ; that the proceedings were
7 thereafter reduced to typewritten form by means of
8 computer-aided transcription; that the foregoing is an
9 accurate transcript of the proceedings to the best of
10 my ability.
11 I further certify that I am not related to
12 any party herein or their counsel and have no interest
— 13 in the result of this litigation.
14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
15 hand and affixed my Notarial Seal this 10th day of
— 16 November, 2003 .
17
18
19 rn•
JAMES T. USK
20 Registered Professional Reporter
21
— 22 My Commission Expires 12/16/2006
23
24
25
Hello