HomeMy WebLinkAbout20040779 LIFEBRIDGE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
PL 1655
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING- APRIL 22 , 2003
,. 2004-0779
QL 1490`rt A&JDA p
l(P5S 6 3-To -0ei 1Z
MEETING BEFORE THE:
- WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
CASE NO. PZ-1004
-
APPLICANT: LIFEBRIDGE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
Southwest Weld County Office
4209 County Road 24 1/2
— Longmont, Colorado
April 22 , 2003
1 INDEX
2
3 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
—
— 5 Michael Miller, Chairman
6 Bryant Gimlin
7 James Rohn
8 Fred Walker
—
9 John Folsom
— 10 Stephan Mokray
11 John Hutson
—
12 Bernard Ruesgen
13 Bruce Fitzgerald
—
14
— 15
16
17
18
19
— 20
21
-
22
23
24
-
25
3
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 9: 10 a.m.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: -- will add anything they wish to
4 the presentation. After that we will open this hearing up
5 for public comments.
6 Since we are expecting a large amount of public
7 comment, we will be limiting individual speakers to three
8 minutes of time at the podium. If you wish to speak, you
9 have to fill out a speaker's card, which are available out in
10 the lobby. I will call your name to come speak. I will also
11 call the name of the next person who is going to speak, so
12 please be prepared. I would ask that you do not repeat
13 previous testimony. If the testimony becomes repetitious, I
14 will cut you off. We don't need to hear it over and over and
15 over. We've all read the case very thoroughly, and we're
16 well aware of most of the issues in the case.
17 MR. GRIES: May I --
18 THE CHAIRMAN: No, you may not. Please, you' ll
19 have your time.
20 MR. GRIES: This is not about my own personal
21 views. I just want to state for the record an objection to
22 (inaudible) .
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Sir, you' ll have your chance to come
24 to the podium and speak. Please sit down.
_ 25 MR. GRIES: Okay. I have been asked by the
4
1 (inaudible) clerks of Firestone and Frederick to let the
2 Commission know that they did not receive a letter --
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Sir, you' ll have an opportunity
4 to come to the podium and speak. Until that time would
5 you please sit down? I ' ll have to ask you to leave the
6 meeting --
7 MR. GRIES: (inaudible) .
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, and (inaudible) address as
9 Exhibit 225 and Exhibit 226 are letters from both
10 jurisdictions indicating no objection. They're short, so
11 I ' ll read them into the record so we can dispense of this
12 right now.
13 From the mayor of Frederick, Richard Wyatt,
14 addressed to Mr. Ogle. "The town of Frederick is aware of
15 the building plans for LifeBridge Church. We want you to
16 know that Frederick is not opposed to these plans. "
17 And then from Bruce Nickerson (phonetic) , is the
18 planner for Firestone. It' s on the standard form, and that
19 reads, "No comment. "
20 MR. GRIES: I apologize. I was informed by
21 (inaudible) and (inaudible) .
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Sir, first of all, nothing you're
23 saying is on the record because you're not anywhere near a
24 microphone. Secondly, it 's inappropriate to interject at
25 this point. And third, it' s a moot point. Okay?
—
1 Anyone who wishes to speak in the future, please
2 reserve your comments for the time that you're allotted at
3 the microphone. If you choose not to do so, I will ask that
4 you be removed from the room.
— 5 As I was saying, individual speakers will be
6 allowed three minutes at the podium. If you are allotting
7 your time to a designated speaker, that speaker ' s time will
8 be cumulative up to -- we 're hoping to keep it under 15
—
9 minutes for someone representing a group.
— 10 The applicant is LifeBridge Christian Church, c/o
11 of TetraTech Rocky Mountain Consultants, Incorporated. The
—
12 request is a PUD Change of Zone from Agricultural to PUD with
13 Estate; R-1, Low Density Residential; R-2 Duplex Residential;
14 R-3 , Medium Density Residential; R-4 High Density
.- 15 Residential; (C-1) Neighborhood Commercial and C-2 , General
16 Commercial and continuing oil and gas production uses in the
—
17 Mixed Use Development Overlay District. Location, south of
18 and adjacent to Weld County Road 26; north of and adjacent to
19 Highway 119, west of and adjacent to Fairview Street.
— 20 Kim?
21 MR. OGLE: You' ll have to part the (inaudible)
—
22 presentation.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Go ahead.
—
24 MR. OGLE: Thank you.
—
25 Good morning, Kim Ogle, Department of Planning
�' 6
1 Services.
2 This case was continued from March 18 , 2003 , due to
3 lack of adequate legal notice in the county newspaper of
4 record. The March 18 , 2003 , PC hearing was cancelled due to
— 5 weather, and at the April 1, 2003 , hearing, at the Planning
6 Commission hearing, the staff requested to continue the
7 hearing to a date specified as today.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ogle, you' ll need to speak real
—
9 loudly into the microphone. I don't think everybody can hear
.- 10 you.
11 MR. OGLE: The sign for the Planning Commission
—
12 hearing was posted at least 15 days prior to the March 18,
13 2003, hearing in several locations on the site of LifeBridge
14 Community. This application is PZ-1004, a PUD Change of Zone
... 15 from Agriculture to PUD with Estate R-1, Low Density
16 Residential; R-2 , Duplex Residential; R-3 Medium Density
—
17 Residential; R-4, High Density Residential; C-1 Neighborhood
18 Commercial; and C-2 General Commercial, and continuing oil
19 and gas production uses in the Mixed Use Development Overlay
—
20 District.
21 The proposed uses include a church campus, church
—
22 worship and education center, conference center, community
23 center, residential, with up to 368 units, park and
24 recreation units. The applicant is LifeBridge Christian
25 Church.
—
1 The site is located north of and adjacent to State
2 Highway 119, east of and adjacent to Weld County 3 1/2, and
—
3 south of and adjacent to Weld County Road 26, and is within
4 the recognized boundary of the mixed use development area.
— 5 The property slopes generally in the direction of north to
6 south to State Highway 119, with single-family residential
7 property sloping south to southwest to the Front Range. The
8 property has historically been an agricultural production.
9 There are oil and gas production facilities on site.
— 10 Lands directly north of the site are an
11 agricultural production and are a part of the City of
12 Longmont open space to the northwest. These lands are
13 outside of the recognized MUD boundary. Lands to the east
—
14 are residential PUDs. North of and adjacent to State Highway
— 15 119 are the Farms at Meadow Vale, a PUD constructed prior to
16 the inception of the MUD Overlay District, and north of the
17 Farms at Meadow Vale are the Elms at Meadow Vale first,
18 second and third filing. The second and third filings are
—
19 presently under construction for residents.
20 South of the site is the Vista Commercial Business
21 Park, a PUD with commercial and industrial uses.
—
22 To the west is Longview PUD, a modular home park,
23 constructed under the MUD guidelines and designed by
—
24 (inaudible) .
—
25 At this juncture, I would like to provide some
8
1 background information on the MUD Overlay District.
2 The mixed use development area was recognized in
3 1987 in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan as a future urban
4 development corridor with urban density and urban scale
5 development within Weld County. In 1987 there was a minimal
6 amount of development. However, as we are aware in recent
7 years, development has accelerated in the area and in the
8 surrounding communities, particularly the conversion of rural
9 lands to more intensive urban-type land uses. The MUD area,
10 while rural in character, added conception is rapidly
11 changing to an urbanized area in Weld County. The MUD is
12 positioned within 30 miles of all major employment centers
13 and product markets on the northern Front Range. I-25
14 provides convenient access to these cities and gives the MUD
15 area a strategic location for providing retail goods and
16 services to increasing traffic volumes along the interstate.
17 The MUD area occupies a strategic location for
18 commuters. The area is surrounded by larger cities,
19 including the urbanized areas of Longmont. It is also
20 approximately 15 miles from Loveland, 15 miles to Boulder, 15
21 miles to Greeley, and 25 miles from Fort Collins to the north
22 and Denver to the south.
23 Residential developments in the incorporated towns
24 around the area support persons commuting to all of these
25 cities.
.� 9
1 New residential development has occurred in the MUD
2 area in recent years, including Longview Meadow Vale Farms,
—
3 the Elms at Meadow Vale. Other residential developments
4 include Idaho Creek, Life House Cove (phonetic) , and the
— 5 proposed River Dance PUD.
6 In surrounding towns such as Frederick, Firestone,
7 Dacona, Mead and Erie, residential growth has also
8 accelerated, particularly the conversion of rural farmlands
—
9 to more intensive urban-type land uses. In recent years,
— 10 high housing and land costs and protracted development
11 requirements have pushed residential growth from the city of
12 Boulder to nearby municipalities, such as Lafayette and
13 Louisville and Superior. As development has proceeded, some
14 of these communities have responded with growth limitations
— 15 of their own.
16 The Denver area/Boulder area growth has
—
17 increasingly been directed to outlying communities, such as
18 Longmont, northern Broomfield, Erie, Weld County and the MUD
19 area.
20 Given historic and planned trend for development,
21 it is the structural land use plan that provides the
—
22 framework for development in the MUD Overlay District. That
23 map is shown on the screen in front of you.
24 The MUD structural land use plan is intended to
25 provide a foundation and framework to enable the county and
10
1 its citizens to make the appropriate decisions regarding
—
2 future development. Preservation of natural resources,
3 development of quality communities, provision for regional
—
4 services and employment opportunities in maintaining fiscal
— 5 integrity are key factors driving this plan. This will
6 ensure that development is planned in advance, rather than
7 left to chance.
8 The land uses delineated in structural land use map
9 2 . 1 promotes appropriate level of facilities and services in
— 10 the MUD area.
11 It is important to remember that it is the
—
12 (inaudible) of community structure and the quality of the
13 built and natural environment that will determine whether
14 growth in the MUD will represent a positive act of building a
—
15 community or the loss of an identity and diminished character
16 in the region.
—
17 The MUD plan shows a proposed configuration for
18 land uses and street systems, as well as suggested site for
19 community facilities. The plan represents maximum build-out
—
20 of the region, which depending on the rate of the growth in
21 the area may take 25 to 50 years to achieve. As a result,
— 22 the plan will need to change and respond in the future as
23 development patterns, resources and needs of society change.
24 There are a number of principles and themes upon
25 which the plan is based. As the region develops, these
11
1 principles may serve as planning goals and policies today and
2 into the next century.
3 The principle utilized in this plan include the
4 overall development of the MUD area, the major transportation
5 network, the linking of community (inaudible) and the
6 consistency of land use and zoning standards.
7 The structural land use plan evolved out of
8 extensive discussion and analysis. County officials tackled
9 the difficult questions of how to grow, where to grow and how
10 growth can either benefit or distract from the area ' s quality
11 of life.
12 Addressing these questions required balancing
13 complex and often conflicting issues. What has emerged is a
14 set of principles about the stability of the area 's economic
15 base, the structure of the community, appropriate land use
16 classification and the transportation needs of the region.
— 17 The structural land use plan represents the
18 opportunity to intertwine land use with established zoning
19 standards in order to minimize the (inaudible) of the uses.
_ 20 For reference, the land use designations are grouped into
21 five structural land use categories. These are employment
22 centers, regional commercial neighborhood centers,
23 residential neighborhoods and limited site factors. In this
24 case, it's the flood plain.
25 Each structural land use category has a set of land
.. 12
1 use principles that provide a framework for design and
2 development. As (inaudible) , the land use principles are
3 discussed in more detail here.
4 Number one, employment center development. The
5 structural land use plan provides a unique opportunity to
6 create a major center of new employment in the area. The
7 creation of the employment center is located and oriented
8 toward the network of regional and national roadways serving
9 the area. This center needs to be carefully planned to
10 ensure that it will take advantage of the many attributes and
11 opportunities in the area without detracting from the overall
12 image and vital linkages throughout the MUD.
13 Interconnection of community. Livable
14 neighborhoods are critical factors in the future quality of
15 life in the area. Interconnectivity of community nodes and
16 activity centers will aid in the viability of the area.
17 Alternative means of transportation and opportunities for
18 those who seek to walk or ride their bicycles should be
19 increased providing safe and pleasant pathways to
20 interconnect neighborhoods with community facilities and
21 employment centers. New residential growth should be
22 configured as neighborhoods, not as isolated enclaves.
23 The location of the neighborhood centers is
24 residentially designated area, is intended to provide
25 community services within walkable destinations for the
13
1 residents within the MUD area.
2 Three, consistent land use standards. The
3 structural land use plan (inaudible) standards, which are
4 intended to shape and enhance communities within the MUD
— 5 area. These standards are also intended to support and
6 implement land use and development policies in the Weld
7 County Code, the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning
8 Plan, the Subdivision Plan and the (inaudible) Unit
9 Development Plan. In all cases, these chapters should be
10 consulted for clarification of specific requirements.
11 Four, appropriate zoning mixture. The structural
12 land use plan provides a mixture of conceptual land use
13 categories throughout the MUD area. These categories are
14 grouped by the intensity of the land use, with the majority
15 of the high intensity uses being closer within the vicinity
16 of I-25 and State Highway 119 . In contrast, lands with
17 limiting site factors, such as flood plain and wildlife
18 habitat, correlate with the lowest intensity of land uses.
19 Five, planned transportation network. The major
20 roadway corridors, including I-25, State Highway 119, State
21 Highway 66 and Weld County Road 1, are the primary roadway
22 structures for the MUD area. They play an important role in
23 the function image not only of the MUD, but for Weld County
24 as well. For this reason, special attention is given to
25 access controls and design treatment to ensure that the
14
1 roadways will function well over time and that visual quality
2 of all major highway corridors will be improved and enhanced.
3 Today the MUD area is at the center of the growing
4 (inaudible) of the southwest area of the county. Defining
5 and shaping communities within the MUD area not only opens
6 the door for a more functional regional activity, but will
7 improve the sense of place for local residents and business
8 owners.
9 The location of the LifeBridge PUD is near a
10 neighborhood center node. Neighborhood centers are
11 established to provide convenient goods and services
12 primarily for the residents of the specific neighborhood.
13 These centers should be accessible via sidewalks, trails or
14 greenways, creating identity for individual neighborhoods.
15 Neighborhood centers characteristically have few
16 environmental impacts and rely more on service rate of
17 provision, such as law enforcement and fire protection.
18 New development within these centers shall,
19 therefore, mitigate the impacts associated with its use. The
20 Mountain View Fire Protection District and the Weld County
21 Sheriff's Office has indicated their ability to adequately
22 service this plan development. LuAnn Penfold of the Mountain
23 View Fire Protection District and a representative from the
24 Sheriff 's Office, the Weld County Sheriff 's Office, are
25 present and will provide follow-up commentary at the
15
1 conclusion of my comments.
-a.
2 Neighborhood centers include, but are not limited
3 to the following activities and services: One, small parks;
4 two, civic uses, such as places of worship, libraries and
-' 5 community centers; three, public facilities, such as schools;
6 four, service businesses and smaller offices; five, a
7 residential mix.
8 The proposed PUD development plan submitted by
9 LifeBridge Christian Church addresses each of these
10 activities and service components. The plan unit development
11 is intended to allow an alternative method for property
12 owners and developers to apply flexibility in developing
13 land.
14 The objectives of the PUD are to one, encourage
15 innovations in residential, commercial and industrial
16 development so that the growing demands of the population may
17 be met by greater variety in type, design and layout of
18 buildings and by the conservation and more efficient use of
19 open space in the development.
20 Two, provide for well located, clean, safe and
21 pleasant commercial, industrial and residential developments
22 involving a minimal strain on transportation facilities.
23 Three, ensure that the provisions of the zoning
24 laws which direct the uniform treatment of dwelling type,
25 bulk density and open space within each zoning district will
16
1 not be applied to the improvement of land other than by a
2 lot-by-lot development in a manner that would distort the
3 objectives of the zoning laws.
4 Four, encourage a more efficient use of land and
5 economic provisions for public and private services through
6 changes in land development so that results may benefit the
7 community as a whole.
8 Five, provide for necessary services and amenities
9 conveniently located in proximity of other residential
10 developments.
11 Six, conserve the value of the land.
12 Seven, encourage preservation of the site' s natural
13 characteristics and scenic features through development
14 provisions which relate the type, design and layout of
15 residential, commercial and industrial development to a
16 particular site.
17 Eight, encourage flexibility and variety in
18 development, while promoting the most efficient use of the
19 land.
20 Nine, improve the design, character and quality of
21 development while encouraging development to incorporate the
22 best features of modern design.
23 Ten, ensure compatibility with Chapters 23 -- 22,
24 23 , 24 and 26 of this code and any (inaudible) agreement as
25 applicable.
17
1 Eleven, encourage integrated planning in order to
2 achieve the above purposes. It should also be stated that
3 the PUD application process provides for flexibility for all
4 development.
5 The application materials submitted by LifeBridge
6 Christian Church state, "In developing the master plan for
7 project LifeBridge, existing site features and limitations
8 greatly influence the design. The plan response to the
9 property' s boundary conditions, a well-trafficked state
10 highway serving as the southern boundary, residential
11 developments to the east and west and open space to the
12 north. The site topography is generally a gentle slope with
13 the highest point on the northern edge of the site. The
14 Olagarchy (phonetic) Ditch currently bisects the site from
15 east to west, and the railroad track crosses the site from
16 west to northeast, views west of the Front Range to Longs
17 Peak and northwest so the Union Reservoir are retained. The
18 master plan for project LifeBridge is based on the concept of
19 an integrated mixed use neighborhood focused on the church
20 campus. "
21 The PUD will form a neighborhood center and provide
22 education, worship, recreation and shopping opportunities for
23 residence employees in the adjacent developments. The site
24 will be developed in separate filing and multiple phases over
25 a 50-year time frame. (inaudible) on the campus will be set
P.
18
1 back and appropriately landscaped to anchor them on the site
2 and provide a transition to the adjacent developments.
3 The applicant is proposing a 125-foot landscape
4 buffer between the adjoining properties and a proposed
5 development on all sides. Building heights will vary within
6 the PUD. Filing 1, Phase 1, which is the map on the screen
7 in front of you, of the church campus development, includes a
8 158 , 000 square foot fellowship hall, a 50, 000 square foot
9 children' s building, a 60, 000 square foot administrative
10 offices for the church and a learning center. Total square
11 ditch to the church campus is 268 , 000 square feet.
12 The residential component includes 56 single-family
13 residential units, which is the middle spine there, is Weld
14 County Road 3 1/2 , and up into the upper left-hand corner is
15 the first phase of the single family, and 102 senior village
16 units, which are those gold-colored rectangles south of the
17 church campus.
18 The anticipated -- oh, next slide.
19 Filing 1, Phase 2 development delineates no new
20 structures in the church campus area. The residential
21 component includes the additional 54 single-family
.- 22 residential units to the north and 30 senior village units
23 down to the south, and the new units are just directly north
24 of that either tank bed or well head on the right hand side
25 of the screen.
19
1 The anticipated time frame for this entire filing
2 to be built out is approximately 10 years.
3 Prior to development occurring on site, the
4 applicant will be required to submit additional design
5 proposals and documentation outlining their intent for the
6 structure under review. The site plan review application
7 process ensures that design, operations and development
8 criteria have been met prior to release of building permits.
9 The site plan review process is applicable to all development
10 involving R-2 ; duplex residential, R-3 , medium-density
11 residential; R-4 , high-density residential; C-1 neighborhood
12 commercial; and C-2 , general commercial uses. The single-
13 family residential component is not required to go through
14 the site plan review process.
15 An unexclusive list of issues that are addressed
16 include parking, on-site circulation, on-site lighting, open
17 space, interconnectivity, building height, setbacks, lot
18 coverage and landscape treatment.
19 Prior to recording the site plan review plat, an
20 improvements agreement and collateral is intended for each
21 filing or phase of the development. The improvements
22 agreement addresses transportation and non-transportation
23 improvements. Collateral is retained by the County until
24 stated improvements have been completed to the satisfaction
25 of Weld County Government personnel.
20
1 The application materials state that Long' s Peak
2 and Left Hand Water Districts will serve the development,
3 although a formal agreement has not been entered into by the
4 applicant. Irrigation water from the Olagarchy Ditch will be
5 utilized for the irrigation of open space in common areas.
6 The applicant has entered into an agreement with the ditch,
7 specifically addressing the use of the ditch and the
8 treatment of the ditch on site.
9 Barry Dykes, General Manager with Long' s Peak Water
10 District, is present and may provide additional comment of
11 the adequacy to serve this development at the conclusion of
12 my comments.
13 Sanitary Sewer is provided by the St. Vrain
14 Sanitation District. Although a formal agreement has not
15 been entered into by the applicant, currently the
16 infrastructure improvements and upgrades have not been
17 installed for this proposed development. Rob Fleck with the
18 St. Vrain Sanitation District is present and may provide
19 comment on the adequacy to serve this development at the
20 conclusion of my comments.
21 A conceptual landscape diagram and a revised
22 conceptual landscape diagram was submitted for review. The
23 framework for the proposed pedestrian spaces, landscape
24 buffers, storm water detention/retention basin, non-program
25 recreational fields, pocket parks and neighborhood park
21
1 includes approximately 93 acres, or approximately 30 percent
2 of the site at full build-out. This amount of open space
3 exceeds the requirement established for the MUD.
4 Twenty-two -- 24 referral agencies have reviewed
5 this case. Twenty offered comments in favor of proposal,
6 some with specific conditions should this change of zone be
7 approved. As of April 21st of this year, 219 letters and
8 petitions from interested parties have been received in
9 addition to the undocumented telephone inquiries from
10 surrounding property owners and interested parties.
11 Topics addressed in these letters have the
12 following list of concerns, and I have two lists. One is the
13 short list, and one is much longer.
14 The short list is increased traffic flow through
15 the Elms Neighborhood, insufficient road infrastructure,
16 insufficient law enforcement, safety of people living in the
17 surrounding neighborhoods, vandalism, noise pollution, light
18 pollution, air pollution, traffic jams, the number of parking
19 spaces, the financial stability of the development, height
20 and size of the buildings, size of the development, length of
21 time to complete the construction of development, degradation
22 of rural and residential areas, destroyed scenery and views,
23 quality of life and decreased values of housing prices in
24 surrounding neighborhoods.
25 It is the opinion of the Department of Planning
22
1 Services based on the referrals received that the applicant
2 has addressed the majority of the issues associated with this
— 3 application. LifeBridge Christian Church has met with many
4 of the referral agencies and has addressed their concerns
5 prior to submitting this change of zone application. It is
6 the understanding of this office that the applicant has met
7 with the Homeowners Association of surrounding developments
8 and has held at least three open houses over the course of
9 this review period, such that interested parties could review
— 10 the proposed development and form their own opinions.
11 One issue that is of concern to all parties
12 associated with this development review is the issue of
13 building height specific to the church campus. The applicant
14 initially proposed an overall building height of 120 feet in
15 the center of the church campus south of the Great Western
16 Rail Track. The single-family residential component proposed
17 a height of 35 feet. The senior village area, 45 feet, and
18 the commercial component, 45 feet with up to 55 feet for
19 ornamentation.
20 The PUD application affords the applicant the
21 flexibility to design a development that is generally not
22 possible under the usual subdivision application process.
23 The Department of Planning Services looks for
24 compatibility of the development to the surrounding land
25 uses, including the view corridors to the front range, the
23
1 view corridor heading west and east on State Highway 119 and
2 the view corridor on Weld County Road 26. This office
3 proposes that the bulk center be limited to the following
4 criteria: Building heights shall be restricted, including
5 the heights of all building ornamentation, including stand-
6 alone elements. The single-family residential component
7 shall be limited to a height of 35 feet. The church campus
8 north of the Great Western Railroad shall be limited to a
9 height of 45 feet. The overall height within the center of
10 the church campus south of the Great Western Rail Track will
11 be restricted to 60 feet, with up to 20 percent of an
12 envelope in the center portion of the campus that may have
13 structure extend up to 90 feet.
14 The senior village component shall be limited to a
15 height of 35 feet, excluding the units directly adjacent to
16 the east property line where these structures are limited to
17 a single story, and the mixed use office, retail and
18 neighborhood center shall be limited to a height of 45 feet,
19 including all ornamentation. All heights are determined
20 utilizing the Uniform Building Code.
21 This standard is included as a note on the change
22 in zone and final plats. On the change in zone plat it is
23 Item 3 . 0 on page 38 of staff comments.
24 What you see before you is a cross section provided
25 by the architect consultant for LifeBridge. It shows a cross
24
1 section of the proposed building envelopes per the standards
2 I just read into the record. The property line to the right
3 is where the Elms at Meadow Vale is, south of Pearl Howlett.
4 Going across to the west is where the single-family
5 residential proposed by Longview will be located. The dark
6 square in the middle is an area that building heights can be
7 up to 90 feet in height. It will not include that entire
8 area.
9 The Department of Planning Services proposed that a
10 landscape buffer sit 120 feet of the perimeter of the parcel,
11 and north and south of the Great Western Rail Track will be
12 required to mitigate the concerns from the surrounding
13 property owners. All other setbacks for buildings as
14 determined by the MUD ordinance and the zoning ordinance
15 shall adhere to these standards and most otherwise modified.
16 That diagram that is on the screen now is the
17 setbacks from all property lines. The right-hand side is
18 east. That' s where the Elms is. I believe it' s 125 feet of
19 landscape buffer, 275 feet of 45 feet in height, and then 100
20 feet of 55, and then the remaining square south of the rail
21 tracks is at 60 feet, with the exception of that rectangle in
22 the middle where they are able to have building heights up to
23 90 feet, 20 percent of that whole area, or 150, 000 square
24 feet.
25 The Department of Planning Services defers comments
25
1 on issues associated with the transportation component, as
2 this will be addressed by the Department of Public Works
3 following the conclusion of my comments. The applicant's
4 traffic engineer, Matt Delich, and Gloria Hice-Idler of CDOT
5 are present, and they offer additional comments, as well of
6 those of other interested parties and referral agencies.
7 The applicants have asked for an administrative
8 review at the final plat stage of this application. The
9 Department of Planning Services is not in support of this
10 request, as there are no formal water and sewer agreements in
11 place. Should the Planning Commission Board have questions
12 specific to this issue, Attorney Morrison, who reviewed the
13 agreement documentation, is able to provide additional
14 comment.
15 The revision to staff comments memorandum, dated
16 April 18 , 2003 , and the staff comments handed out on the
17 April 15th and/or mailed to you on April 16th to the
18 Commissioners not present at that hearing may be considered
19 final.
20 Staff has images of the site should the Planning
21 Commissioners (inaudible) the property. Frank Hempen, Peter
22 Schei, Donald Carroll of Public Works are here, Pam Smith
23 with the Health Department. The applicant, Bruce Grinnell,
24 of LifeBridge is present, and is represented by Barb Brunk of
_ 25 TetraTech Rocky Mountain Consultants, and Todd Hodges of Todd
26
1 Hodges Design, LLC. There are additional consultants to
2 design and planning consultant teams also present.
3 Staff requests indulgence from the board and
4 respectfully requests that the referral agencies be provided
5 the opportunity to provide comment or address questions of
6 the board. Present today are Jeff Reif of the Weld County
7 Department of Building Inspection, someone from the Sheriff 's
8 Office, I hope -- Dave Tuttle is here with the Sheriff's
9 Office. LuAnn Penfold is with the Fire Department, Rob Fleck
10 with the Sanitation District, and Barry Dykes with Long's
11 Peak. There may be others present; I just -- I don't know
12 them.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Kim.
14 Is there any questions for staff? Fred?
15 COMMISSIONER WALKER: Mr. Chairman, having read
16 some of the information, I 'm unclear as to what property
17 within the fixed development is subject to the property tax?
18 I was wondering if I could get -- if there is someone here
19 that could clarify what is taxed and what isn't?
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Kim, who would be referred to there
21 or (inaudible) ?
22 MR. OGLE: Kim Ogle, Department of Planning
23 Services.
24 I think the applicant is going to address that
25 question in their presentation. If you could hold your
27
1 question until then; if not, I can ask Bruce Grinnell. He's
2 one of the representatives of the applicant. He could step
3 up and answer the question.
4 MR. MORRISON: Okay. We' ll reserve that until we
5 get somebody -- I guess the applicant is going to address
6 that.
7 COMMISSIONER WALKER: Well, I understand the
8 applicant is going to, but I would like to hear from the
9 County, what their view is.
10 MR. MORRISON: Okay. Well, I think after the
11 applicant discusses it, I would be happy to discuss the law
12 with you. The County does not make the determination as to
13 what is -- what aspects of this are taxable or non-taxable.
14 That application is made to the state. But I can give you a
15 general background of what the state law is with respect to
16 taxation. I 'm not sure really what the bottom line relevance
17 of that is. There' s major land uses that are non-taxable,
18 you know, including UNC in the county and things like that.
19 So I think it would be better to address that once the
20 applicants described what ' s going to be part of the church
21 per se and what's going to other types of development, if
22 that's acceptable to you?
23 COMMISSIONER WALKER: Well, I 've asked twice. I
24 guess I ' ll drop it at this point.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. We won't forget that request.
—
28
1 That is a significant question.
2 Can all of you hear through the room?
3 (Audience indicates no. )
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Is it possible to turn it up
5 a little bit without getting a lot of feedback?
6 Is that any better?
7 (Audience indicates yes. )
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you.
9 Kim, were you asking that the other referral
10 agencies make a presentation at this point, then?
11 MR. OGLE: Yes. I think Public Works has a
^
12 presentation to make. Pam Smith may have comments. And then
13 I 'd like to have the referral agencies that wish to speak on
14 behalf of the application address the board.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Go ahead.
16 Okay. Well, let's do that now. Before you start,
17 Frank, go ahead, John.
18 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: Kim, in the application
19 materials, there was reference to a decision by Judge West in
_ 20 regard to oil and gas development on the property.
21 23-2-50B-13 in the Code requires an agreement stipulating
^ 22 that oil and gas activities have adequately been incorporated
23 in the design or provide evidence of an attempt.
24 I didn't find that, and it might be there. I just
25 missed it. I didn't find that in the conditions. Is that
29
1 addressed in the conditions?
2 MR. OGLE: No, it 's not. Presently the applicant
3 is in a court proceeding with the oil and gas concern on
4 site. They have designed their developments such that they
5 do not infringe on any of the setbacks for the oil and gas
6 existing operations that are out there or future operations
7 that are known. They set aside 400-by-400 square foot
8 envelopes to address that.
9 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: So in other words, the
10 applicant is appealing that to a higher court over Judge
11 West 's decision?
12 MR. OGLE: That is correct.
13 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: There are many bulk standard
14 variations between what is opposed on the Weld County Code
15 and the change of zone draft. Are we to consider this in
16 determination in our decision on the application? Will the
17 Planning Commission have further opportunity to review the
18 project? In other words, there are certain conditions
19 attached to our consideration approval of this. Now, if the
20 County Commissioners go along with those conditions, are they
21 sort of cast in stone when the applicant actually makes the
22 application materials in detail for the PUD?
23 MR. OGLE: Yes, they are. What staff has proposed
24 is a three-dimensional building envelope for all areas and
25 types of uses on site. And so, you know, the initial
30
1 application came in with 120 feet of building height.
2 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: Yeah.
3 MR. OGLE: And they had a structure that was a
4 clock tower, build tower, that was substantially higher than
5 that.
6 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: Um-hum.
7 MR. OGLE: Staff felt that was not compatible.
8 Some of the referral agencies also stated that concern.
9 Staff is limited to an overall building height of 60 feet
10 with the exception of that little box in the middle --
11 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: Yeah, as described.
12 MR. OGLE: -- as described previously. And that's
13 what we're holding by. That' s the standard that the old
14 build was --
-
15 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: But Planning Services is
16 still recommending bulk requirements that are at variance
17 with those stipulations; is that correct?
18 MR. OGLE: Yes.
19 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: All right. Is there any
20 particular --
21 MR. MORRISON: Can I ask a question about what you
22 mean by a variance. There 's no obligation in the PUD to
23 simply adopt each zone district' s standards. That 's part of
24 the purpose of the PUD, is to have flexibility.
25 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: I see.
-
31
1 MR. MORRISON: Is that what you mean, that it's not
2 consistent --
3 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: Yeah.
—
4 MR. MORRISON: It's not consistent with R-1, R-2 --
- 5 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: Yeah, what is in the Code
6 isn't consistent with it. Now, you're saying that --
7 MR. MORRISON: Well, there's no -- part of the
8 purpose of the PUD is to have the opportunity to vary from
9 having a straight zone district. So I wouldn't call it a
-. 10 variance. It may not be the same as those called out -- the
11 default provisions in each zone district. Then that' s true,
—
12 but that doesn't make it a variance from it. It makes it a
13 part of the design. So you're not obligated to find
14 standards that it's a variance.
15 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: Thank you.
16 In the inventory of items for consideration, I
—
17 didn't see the two water districts mentioned, and I didn't
18 see any response from one of those. Are they going to be
19 addressed at this meeting by representatives of the water
20 districts?
—
21 MR. OGLE: Barry Dykes is here, and he's with
22 Long's Peak.
23 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: Okay.
24 MR. OGLE: Left Hand Water and Long' s Peak did not
25 return a referral. It 's on page 2 of staff comments of
—
32
1 referrals not received.
—
2 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: Yeah.
—
3 MR. OGLE: The applicant is in the process of
4 meeting with all the service providers. That would be
— 5 Sanitary (inaudible) Water. Attorney Morrison has reviewed
6 those agreements. That' s where they're at. But the
—
7 applicant addressed that, and Mr. Dykes is here with Long's
8 Peak, and he can also address it as well.
9 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: So the agreements will have
— 10 to be in effect at the time of the final plat or somewhere
11 along there?
—
12 MR. OGLE: Correct. That 's correct.
13 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: Condition 4C mentions
14 reimbursement for the traffic light to Longview. It doesn't
15 mention The Vista, which I believe also contributed to that
16 traffic light. Is there a particular reason for that? Is it
—
17 because they're on the south side of 119, not adjacent to
18 Road 3 1/2?
19 MR. OGLE: I ' ll defer your question to Public
20 Works.
—
21 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: Okay.
—
22 MR. MORRISON: Mr. Folsom, I don't think that means
23 they didn't contribute. I think that the County -- my
24 recollection is that the two private parties reached a
o.
25 sharing agreement, and then one entered into the agreement
— 33
1 with the County, but they essentially had already dealt with
2 the issue. And so it' s not to mean that the second party
3 wasn't involved in that. It' s that the agreement wasn't
4 directly with them.
— 5 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: I see. So they won't benefit
6 from a rebate on the contribution because they didn't enter
7 into the agreement; is that what you're saying?
8 MR. MORRISON: I ' ll have to review the agreement.
—
9 My recollection is that the rebate goes to one party because
— 10 the other party only put in a proportional share, so they're
11 not --
12 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: Oh, okay.
13 MR. MORRISON: -- didn't take the risk, but then
14 they also don't get the benefit of --
- 15 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: Yeah.
16 MR. MORRISON: -- drawing it back out.
—
17 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: The applicant's street plan,
18 has that been coordinated with Public Works, I-25 Parallel
19 Four-Lane Arterial Study? I have a map of the -- well,
20 actually it' s the Road Impact Fee Study. But it shows an
21 extension of Road 5 on the eastern boundary of the
—
22 development. Has that been taken into consideration?
23 MR. HEMPEN: Mr. Folsom, if I might?
24 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: Yes, please.
25 MR. HEMPEN: I 'm Frank Hempen, and I 'm with the
34
1 Department of Public Works. As you probably know, the I-25
2 Parallel Arterial Corridor Study is currently underway. I do
3 not believe it 's necessary to coordinate with this particular
4 applicant' s plan because it 's my opinion, and it ' s the
5 opinion that the Department, that this development probably
6 is too far west to adequately deal with or be a part of that
7 Arterial Corridor Study.
8 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: In other words, if I
9 understand correctly, the present corridor study, which,
10 unfortunately, I don't have a detailed map of, doesn't
11 propose Road 5 being extended south of Road 26, which would
12 be on the eastern boundary of this development?
13 MR. HEMPEN: I think that's generally correct,
14 Commissioner Folsom. The reason you don't have a detailed
15 drawing is that we're still in the preliminary stages of
16 selecting alignments. However, the need -- the alignments
17 that we are looking at in general -- in general -- have to
18 provide an alternative access for people who might normally
19 use I-25 and the development corridors on either side of
20 I-25. And 5, in our judgment, is probably too far out to get
21 good usage by the future development that will parallel I-25.
22 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: Kim, I refer to the MUD Map
23 2 . 1. Now, I realize that that map is just very general in
24 scope, but it does indicate on the map Road 5 extending from
25 Road 26 to Road -- to Highway 119 . So can I assume that that
—
35
1 has been eliminated or the intent is to eliminate it from Map
2 2 . 1?
3 MR. OGLE: Mr. Folsom, are you speaking of County
—
4 Road 5 or the road that goes --
- 5 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: County Road 5 .
6 MR. OGLE: It dead ends at Road 26 presently.
7 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: Correct. But Map --
8 Structural Land Use Map 2 . 1 indicates it being extended to
9 State Highway 119 . Is that just an error in the map being
10 drawn up or the intent is changed?
11 MR. OGLE: I don't believe the intent has changed.
—
12 I think it is an error on the map.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Error on the map. Also, in regard
—
14 to that same map, the whole entire area, except for what's in
— 15 the flood plain, has been indicated to be, or to be proposed
16 for residential construction; also, with a low intensity
—
17 neighborhood center and a neighborhood park. And, of course,
18 the applicant's proposal varies from that substantially.
19 Does this indicate, again, that Map 2 . 1 is just general and
20 the intent to permit variances from it? And this is a
21 substantial variance from what' s proposed on the map.
22 MR. OGLE: Map 2 . 1 is a general framework plan.
23 However, that triangle with a circle around it denotes the
24 neighborhood center. Within the neighborhood center there is
—
25 a list of five separate types of uses that are applicable to
—
36
1 that general area on the map, and those uses would have been
2 proposed by LifeBridge PUD.
—
3 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: And those services proposed
4 would be considered low intensity, as it' s designated on the
5 map?
6 MR. OGLE: That would be correct.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Is that all, John?
8 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: All right. For the present,
—
9 yes. Thank you.
— 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Are there any other
11 questions for the staff?
—
12 Okay. Frank, go ahead.
13 MR. HEMPEN: Good morning, again. My name is Frank
14 Hempen, and I 'm with the Department of Public Works. Can you
— 15 all hear me sufficiently? Great.
16 My remarks will cover two areas this morning. I
—
17 will talk for just a second about drainage for this site, and
18 then spend most of my time on comments about traffic.
19 So let's start with Plate 1, Peter, if we could.
— 20 I 'm going to go ahead and start while we're drawing
21 or getting up a picture.
—
22 Regarding drainage, the Department has reviewed the
23 applicant' s consultant' s general report on drainage and
24 drainage patterns and the need for future retention of storm
—
25 water and find it generally acceptable.
37
1 The discharge from the retention pond will go --
2 will drain into the State Highway 119 right-of-way. The CDOT
3 Region 4 hydrologist has reviewed the drainage report also,
4 and has approved discharge of that water into their right-of-
- 5 way pending future improvements within the right-of-way.
6 As always, final drainage and engineering and
7 construction plans will be required, and because this is a
8 phased development, it is possible that those improvements
9 will be phased out, though.
10 Regarding traffic, we had reviewed the traffic
11 engineer's report. The traffic engineer is Matthew Delich,
12 and he has provided a couple supplementals on particular
13 issues that we asked for more definition on. We've also
14 asked our consultant who reviews our transportation plans,
15 Delburke (phonetic) (inaudible) , to review their study,
16 Delich's study, and it is acceptable. There have been
17 several meetings to coordinate those comments and those
18 reviews between Mr. Delich, Rocky Mountain Consultant staff,
19 (inaudible) from the Public Works staff, and representatives
20 from CDOT.
21 I want to get right to traffic issues and not take
22 very much time on this so we can get to comments.
23 We've looked at this from two particular areas.
24 One is the immediate need for improvements and some of the
25 long range needs.
38
1 For Phase 1, Filings 1 and 2 , there ' s a need for
2 residential. There will be residential and church facilities
3 constructed. It will be necessary as a part of those to pave
4 -- and excuse me if I hit somebody with this -- Weld County
5 Road 3 1/2 and up to the top is 26, which you can't see.
6 Initially there will be two lanes.
^
7 There are some problems with the alignment of 26,
8 which the applicant will have to deal with in this area as it
9 goes by the residential and around the pond, the dam that
10 Longmont owns. There 's a -- they have a plan for expanding
11 that facility, raising the dam, and that may require some
12 redesignation of alignment of the road. And that will be the
13 applicant's responsibility to deal with Longmont on where
14 that road should ultimately be and then pave what is
15 necessary to give us at least two lanes of improvements.
16 Over the long term, there will need to be
17 additional phased improvements for 3 1/2 and Weld County Road
18 26. Ultimately, it's possible that those will both have to
19 be four-lane roads with auxiliary lanes for heavy turning
20 movements.
21 There have been several questions of the Department
22 regarding, well, who really pays for all of this. So I want
23 to just take a moment to comment on that.
24 Construction and financing of the internal roadways
25 are the responsibility of the applicant. The applicant will
39
1 have to submit construction plans for each phase of the
2 development as those phases create more traffic demands. The
3 applicant is responsible, as I said, for construction of all
4 internal roads and public roads, right-of-ways. Those roads
5 will be designed ultimately to meet MUD roadway standards,
6 and ultimately they will be accepted by the County for
7 maintenance.
8 Regarding perimeter roads, such as 3 1/2 and 26,
9 the applicant will be responsible for upgrading those roads
.- 10 and paying their appropriate cost for those roads. And in
11 this case, given the existing traffic demands, that means
12 essentially that LifeBridge at this point in time will be
13 paying for most of those improvements. I think I saw in one
14 point in the report where the background traffic, which would
15 be our responsibility, is like 5 percent. So for intents and
16 purposes, most of this construction work on the exterior
17 roads, perimeter roads, will be the responsibility of
18 LifeBridge.
19 You're going to hear some extensive comments this
20 morning about a Department' s recommendation, and that
21 recommendation is about connectivity. We are recommending
22 that when the roads are built, when these eastern perimeter
23 roads are built, that the applicant make connection to Pearl
24 Howlett, which I believe is in this vicinity in the Elms at
25 Meadow Vale, and Blue Mountain Road -- I will get lost here.
40
1 If I may finish, please, I believe it's in this area -- to
2 facilitate interconnectivity. Interconnectivity is a basic
3 principle of good traffic engineering. It connects
4 neighborhoods and communities, reduces trip lengths, and it
5 helps eliminate isolated enclaves which traffic must divert
6 around.
7 LifeBridge, this development, this applicant,
8 ultimately will provide services which other communities,
9 adjacent communities, may use.
10 Section 22-2-220 of the Weld County Comprehensive
11 Plan addresses the importance of connectivity, and this is
12 one of the reasons for which we are asking for this to be
13 done, this connection to be done.
14 Interestingly, Section 5, Streets, of the change of
15 zone plat for the Elms at Meadow Vale addresses the
16 connectivity of Meadow Vale streets. And for some reason my
17 little machine now doesn't work, but it' s that southerly
18 connection.
19 The Mountain View Fire District encourages -- has
20 encouraged connection or interconnectivity on their referral
21 on this particular application. We admit that the applicant
22 does not need these roads for connection. We think they're
23 important for the long-term viability of communities of
24 interconnecting with each other.
25 As you've already heard, we -- and we've heard that
41
1 there' s a concern with the communities to the east about this
2 interconnectivity. One of the supplemental reports furnished
3 by Matt Elich at our request estimated at ultimate build-out
4 what the impacts of traffic on these eastern roadways would
5 be. Ultimate build-out is when -- of course, when everything
6 is done.
7 For Pearl Howlett, at ultimate build-out, 20 years,
8 the increase in traffic would be about 380 vehicles per day.
9 For Blue Mountain --
-
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Please restrict your comments to
11 when you're at the microphone. Thank you.
12 MR. HEMPEN: I ' ll repeat what I just -- for Pearl
13 Howlett, at ultimate build-out, the increase in traffic could
14 be as much as 380 vehicles per day. For Blue Mountain, it is
15 130 vehicles per day. We think those are conservative
16 estimates, but they are within local road standards for
'- 17 vehicular traffic.
18 Other issues in making the connection are both
19 roads in general are on public rights-of-way. Blue Mountain
20 right-of-way is connected to the edge of their development
21 immediately adjacent to the applicant' s site. Pearl Howlett
22 right-of-way must be extended a short distance over open
23 space to make that connection.
24 Maintenance of these roads. Blue Mountain Road is
25 not maintained by Weld County at this time, and that was a
— 42
1 part of the original development proposal, that the developer
2 ask that there be local maintenance. If this connection is
3 made in the ultimate development of this applicant 's project,
—
4 it's clear that the County will have to accept that
— 5 maintenance on that particular road. We don't argue that.
6 Pearl Howlett will be maintained by the County as soon as
7 it' s current warranty period is up.
8 Again, I want to repeat, we're talking about these
—
9 connections being made when that perimeter road is done, and
— 10 that's, as we understand it, in one of the later phases.
11 We have reviewed the submittals of the geotechnical
—
12 reports, drainage reports and traffic impact reports. We 're
13 satisfied with those reports at this time. Our issues have
14 been addressed in submitted reports and are within the
— 15 conditions of approval for recording the change of zone plat,
16 final plat submittal and subsequent site plan reviews.
—
17 And I stand for questions.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Are there any questions
—
19 for Frank? Fred?
— 20 COMMISSIONER WALKER: Mr. Chairman, yeah.
21 Frank, did I hear you say that these connections
—
22 will be made at a later phase, like when the community
23 centers are actually developed? Is that what I heard you
24 say?
25 MR. HEMPEN: That' s correct. The connections are
43
1 based on when the need for this perimeter road -- and I
2 finally found out where this -- when this perimeter road is
3 constructed, and I believe that' s in some of the later
4 phases.
5 COMMISSIONER WALKER: Thank you.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Bryant?
7 COMMISSIONER GIMLIN: Frank, could you elaborate a
8 little bit on the how and the why they pay their
9 proportionate share of improving Weld County roads, exterior
10 roads, directly, as opposed to just paying into the road
11 impact fee?
12 MR. HEMPEN: Well, yeah, I 'd be happy to try to do
13 that. Their traffic is -- the traffic generated by this
14 development directly impacts those roads and causes those
15 roads to -- they need to be paved. Traffic impact fees are a
16 general fee that' s paid to upgrade particular designated
17 arterials. The impact fee actually designates a specific
18 group of roads, which those impact -- which those fees will
19 be used to upgrade. This development, because of its traffic
20 needs, requires -- its impact -- it has direct impact on
21 these adjacent roads. So there is a significant -- this is a
22 local issue where the impact fees are a county-wide type fee
23 to be paid for major designated arterials.
24 COMMISSIONER GIMLIN: Could they be subject to both
25 in different areas of the development?
44
1 MR. HEMPEN: Absolutely. Absolutely. The
2 developer -- or the applicant here, in my judgment, will have
3 to pay their portion of cost for the improvement of these
4 adjacent roads, and as their building permits come in, they
5 will be paying into the arterial roadway improvement impact
6 fee, also.
7 COMMISSIONER GIMLIN: Thank you.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: John?
9 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: Frank, do you anticipate --
-
10 this comes from one of the neighbors ' letters, actually, that
11 we've been really discussing traffic going to Highway 119
12 basically. But there is -- I assume that some of the traffic
13 from this development will be directed north ultimately to 66
14 along Road 26, over to County Line Road or Road 5 north to
15 66. Do you anticipate that the applicant would be required
16 to improve or pave those roads in any respect or participate
17 in the cost of doing that?
18 MR. HEMPEN: Well, as far as 26 goes, if I didn't
19 make myself plain, I apologize, we intend for them to improve
20 26 and do what ' s necessary to correct the alignment around
21 Longmont' s Union Rservoir and connect into Weld County Road
22 1. And that is one of their requirements.
23 We have not made a requirement for them to do
24 anything with Weld County Road 5. We just have not. It
25 seems to be a bit in (inaudible) and it was too much of a
45
1 stretch, and we couldn't support that based on the traffic
2 engineering reports that we viewed.
3 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: One more thing, if I may?
4 Do I understand at this juncture that the applicant
^ 5 has withdrawn applying to connect to Pearl -- what is that,
6 Howlett Road? And so there's a difference of opinion between
7 Public Works and the applicant in that regard?
8 MR. HEMPEN: Well, the applicant should probably
9 make sure we understand their direct viewpoint. It ' s my --
-
10 we believe that that connection should be made. I believe
11 the applicant is prepared to do that if that condition moves
12 forward. There probably will be some need for some
13 cooperation. We' ll have to help with getting some right-of-
-
14 way across that little short section of open space. It' s my
15 understanding if this condition continues, that they ' re
16 prepared to do it. They don't feel -- well, it ' s not
17 necessary for them, from their traffic viewpoint. We think
18 it's necessary because of interconnectivity.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
20 Any other questions for Frank?
21 (No response. )
^ 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Frank.
23 MR. HEMPEN: Thank you.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Kim, who would you have come up
25 next?
46
1 MS. SMITH: Good morning, Pam Smith, Weld County
2 Department of Public Health and Environment.
—
3 I don't have any comments at this time. They're
4 proposing water and sewer, and so that has been addressed.
— 5 I do have one comment. One of my recommendations
6 for approval was omitted on the comments that Planning has,
—
7 and I would like to add that. It would be 3E, and that
8 should read that "Public permanent restroom and hand washing
—
9 facilities shall be provided within easy access of public
— 10 gathering areas, " and then renumber below that.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: You're proposing that as 3E in the
—
12 development center?
13 MS. SMITH: Yes, if they would be plat notes.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Plat notes.
— 15 MS. SMITH: Right.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
—
17 MS. SMITH: And then renumber below that.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Are there any questions for
19 the Health Department?
— 20 (No response. )
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.
22 MR. OGLE: Jeff Reif is here with Building
23 Inspection.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Jeff?
—
25 MR. REIF: I am Jeff Reif, Building official. I am
—
47
1 here to answer any questions you might have on building
2 height issues, particularly how they're measured.
—
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Does anyone have any
4 questions for Jeff? Bryant?
— 5 COMMISSIONER GIMLIN: Mr. Chair, I understand from
6 the letter that we got this morning, there may be some
—
7 differences in what the building heights currently are. So I
8 think I 'd like to hear applicant's testimony before we ask
—
9 Jeff.
— 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Will you be available after
11 the applicant submits his application?
12 MR. REIF: Yes, I will.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.
14 MR. OGLE: Ken Poncelow and Dave Tuttle are here
15 with the Sheriff 's Office, if they'd like to provide comment,
16 please.
—
17 MR. PONCELOW: Ken Poncelow, with the Weld County
18 Sheriff's Office.
19 I worked with LifeBridge early on in the process,
—
20 and part of what they did is they asked us several questions
21 on what they could do to make their services more safe being
—
22 that they were going to have such a large group there. We
23 have suggested that they work with our community resource
24 officers for the area to put together security teams,
25 emergency people to be on site when they have their large
48
1 gatherings, and also that we would do something called CPTED,
2 which I 'm sure you're all aware of, Crime Prevention Through
3 Environmental Design. And they had said they would work with
4 us to do their buildings and their lighting and their
5 shrubbery, all of those things, to reduce the amount of crime
6 that could occur in this housing development and on the
7 campus itself. So basically they've done pretty much
8 everything that we ask in our typical things. Any questions?
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Are there any questions for
10 Ken? John?
11 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: Do you consider that the
12 Sheriff ' s Office is adequately staffed currently in this area
13 to handle -- I realize this is over 10 years or 50 years, or
14 whatever they're proposing -- to handle any law enforcement
15 issues?
16 And if I may, a second question? Would the
17 Sheriff 's Office respond to all calls for assistance or does
18 the Sheriff ' s Office have an agreement with the City of
19 Longmont for backup, or whatever you would call it, or to
20 answer if the deputies weren't able to immediately respond?
21 MR. PONCELOW: We have inter-agency agreements with
22 all cities within the County and Longmont. What we would do
23 if we were not able to respond in some sort of a situation,
24 of course, we would call Longmont or one of the tri-towns to
25 come out, or State Patrol, whichever it would take, as to
.� 49
1 whether we were well enough staffed. We're never well enough
2 staffed. And that particular agreement is throughout the
3 County, not just in a particular area. So it' s not something
4 that 's (inaudible) this development.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Bruce?
6 COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD: Ken, that ' s a two-way
7 street, also. The cities ask for your help at times, too,
8 right?
9 MR. PONCELOW: Exactly. We interact between one
10 another, whoever would be closer, depending on the situation.
11 If it' s a minor theft, of course, that can wait. If it 's an
.. 12 assault in progress, we're going to call for anybody that we
13 can get. What they have done with the church is that they
14 said they would have a security staff on site, so that if
15 something were to happen, we had a heart attack out there
16 during one of their church services, they would have people
17 available to help take care of that until we could get there.
18 COMMISSIONER FITZGERALD: Okay. Thank you.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions for the Sheriff?
20 (No response. )
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Kim?
22 MR. OGLE: LuAnn Penfold with the Mountain View
23 Fire Protection District. LuAnn?
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Please come up to the podium and
25 give us your name and address.
50
1 MS. PENFOLD: I 'm LuAnn Penfold, the Fire Marshall
2 for Mountain View Fire Protection District.
3 I don't really have much to add to our written
4 comments, but if you have any questions, I ' ll be glad to try
5 and offer an answer for you.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Do we have any
7 questions? John?
8 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: Am I correct in saying that
9 your nearest station is at County Line Road and Road 20 1/2?
10 What would be the response time, seeing that you're, I
11 understand, a partially voluntary department?
12 MS. PENFOLD: That --
13 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: Would that be within the
14 acceptable limits?
15 MS. PENFOLD: Yes. We have response from the
16 station at Road 1 and 20 1/2 , 13 and 24 , and from the Mead
17 station that we could come down Road 5. Our response time to
18 that location is three to five minutes. Yes, we do have
19 volunteer crews in the Mead station. The Station 1, which is
20 where I 'm out of, on Road 1, is a paid crew seven days a
21 week, 24 hours a day. We have paid ambulance service, paid
22 crew on the ambulance service at 13 and 24 currently.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any other questions?
24 (No response. )
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Kim?
51
1 MR. OGLE: Barry Dykes with Long' s Peak.
2 MR. DYKES: I 'm Barry Dykes, the General Manager of
3 Long' s Peak Water District.
4 We 've been working with the engineering firm doing
5 the development on this project. We have not reached any
6 sort of an agreement or have any contracts signed between us
7 and them at this time. We continue to work on that, however.
8 This development is a little bit unusual in that
9 Long' s Peak will serve the northern portion of the project.
10 The southern portion of the project will be served probably
11 by Left Hand unless some sort of an agreement is worked out
12 between the two districts where one provides service to the
13 entire development.
14 I don't really have any other comments. I could
15 certainly answer questions if anyone has --
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Are there any questions?
17 (No response. )
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Kim?
19 MR. OGLE: Rob Fleck with St. Vrain Sanitation.
20 MR. FLECK: (inaudible) . Could everybody hear me
21 that wants to hear me? Okay.
'- 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Speak loud, if you could, please.
23 MR. FLECK: All right.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Do we have a portable microphone?
25 Good. If we don't, I ' ll tell you what -- here she comes.
52
1 MR. FLECK: All right. I 'm good. Can everyone
2 hear me? No? Better?
3 St. Vrain staff has worked with LifeBridge' s
4 engineer, and we have not come up with a total solution for
5 capacity concerns we have with our current lift station and
6 the potential line to run on the north side of the St. Vrain
7 Creek, but we are making progress, and we are looking at all
8 the alternatives, but we have not come up with any
9 conclusions yet. We also do not have any signed agreements
10 with them yet. I 'd be happy to answer any questions about
11 the Sanitation service.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: John?
13 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: All these agreements between
14 the Water District and the Sanitation District, they would be
15 required to be finalized before the final plat; is that the
16 understanding?
17 MR. OGLE: That is correct, yes.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
19 And if you would please, bear with me. I need to
20 take about a five-minute break.
21 (Whereupon, a break was taken. )
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. We' ll call this meeting back
23 to order.
24 Kim, did you have any other --
25 MR. OGLE: Yes, I do. Ursala Morgan, she' s with
—
53
1 the Town of Mead, would like to speak.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Please give us your name.
—
3 MS. MORGAN: Ursala Morgan, Town of Mead --
4 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Can't hear you.
— 5 MS. MORGAN: How's that?
6 THE CHAIRMAN: There you go.
—
7 MS. MORGAN: Okay. Trustee for the Town of Mead.
8 I have a couple of things on the referral letter
9 that we received. It wasn't complete. So our comments can't
— 10 be complete because we were missing some key letters from the
11 Division of Wildlife and Army Corp. of Engineers.
—
12 Also, it looks like this submittal is significantly
13 different than the referral letter that we were given. If it
14 isn't required by our IGA, it sure goes to the spirit of our
— 15 IGA with Mead to let us, you know, review these things and
16 comment on them in a timely manner. We haven't had the
—
17 opportunity to do this with this packet that you see today.
18 Those are some of the things I 'd like to discuss, and that's
19 why I 'm here. I had to ask for this referral.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anything in particular that
21 you'd like to address at this time?
—
22 MS. MORGAN: Well, like I said, it was kind of hard
23 because the packet was incomplete, and it is significantly
24 different than what you're looking at now. The one we have
—
25 is dated December, and it' s changed a lot. I mean, ours
—
54
1 still says the height is 200 feet. That' s the one we had to
2 review, and this one is 60 feet. I mean, that 's one thing
—
3 that I could take out sitting here. Like I said, I haven't
4 seen this one.
— 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
6 MS. MORGAN: And that's why I 'm here, and I know
7 that along with us, that there were other municipalities.
8 Firestone is in that same radius, and they have the same IGA,
—
9 and they haven't been -- they didn't get a referral letter.
— 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
11 MS. MORGAN: And so that 's why I would -- I 'd like
—
12 to have the opportunity to review this. Like I said, if it's
13 not a requirement by our IGA, at least it addresses to, you
14 know, the spirit of the IGA.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Lee, how do we handle that?
16 MR. MORRISON: Well, it' s not uncommon for the
—
17 project to be modified after referral comments come back.
18 That' s part of the reason the referrals are made. So the
19 fact that the application has had some adjustments after the
—
20 referral, you know, doesn't make the initial referral
21 invalid.
—
22 MS. MORGAN: Well, but what about the referral not
23 being complete?
24 MR. MORRISON: Well, I think the purpose is to let
—
25 you know what is going on. You know, I don't know what
55
1 contacts were made to try and fill in the blanks. I don't
2 think it invalidates the referral process because there may
3 be some -- I mean, some of those things you refer to are
4 referral letters themselves that probably weren't available
5 at the time. I don't know.
6 MS. MORGAN: Well, it said "See attached copy. "
7 MR. MORRISON: Well, then why didn't someone call
8 the Planning Department and say we didn't get --
9 MS. MORGAN: Well, that ' s on our referral, that we
10 said it wasn't, and we never got them sent to us again.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Would the referral be available for
12 the County Commissioner' s hearing? Would you have --
13 MS. MORGAN: When is the Commissioner' s? We meet
14 twice a month.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: On May 7th.
16 MS. MORGAN: Yes, we would have time.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. I would suggest that you
18 -- if you have an amendment to your referral, to make it
19 available.
20 MS. MORGAN: Well, the original referral said that
21 it was incomplete, and we still haven't received --
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Can you have a referral prepared for
23 the meeting on the 7th?
24 MS. MORGAN: Absolutely. We can do that on the
25 28th.
56
1 THE CHAIRMAN: That would be a good alternative.
2 There isn't really much we can do about it today. Like Mr.
3 Morrison said, the plan changed based on the referral that we
4 received back, and it 's tough to keep that process up to
5 date. So if you have significant changes to your referral. I
6 would suggest preparing them and having them available for
7 the County Commissioners.
8 MS. MORGAN: Well, and like I said, I would, but we
9 need to --
- 10 MR. MORRISON: Okay. Okay. We ' ll direct Planning
11 Staff to provide you an updated --
-
12 MS. MORGAN: Or at least complete the original, if
13 anything.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. Kim?
15 MR. OGLE: The Department of Planning Services did
16 receive a referral from the Town of Mead dated April 7th.
17 It' s from Michael Freeson (phonetic) , who's the town
18 administrator, and they have five comments on that referral.
19 Comment No. 1 is "The Town would not be interested
20 in annexing the property with the proposed plan as it
21 stands. " So they did do a review.
— 22 It says, "The referral is incomplete. It does not
23 contain all the submittals that are referred to in various
24 places in the application material. The Town did not contact
25 the Department of Planning Services to ask for additional
57
1 materials. "
2 MS. MORGAN: Well, I think that's --
3—
THE CHAIRMAN: Please, let him finish.
4 MR. OGLE: Three, "The Town questions whether or
— 5 not this application really adheres to the Weld County
6 Comprehensive Plan. "
7 Four, "Any potential traffic impacts on the Town of
8 Mead should be mitigated, including, but not limited to,
—
9 paving and road improvements to Weld County Road 5 and Weld
— 10 County Road 7. There will be a northern impact because not
11 everyone will access the site from State Highway 119. "
—
12 No. 5, "The Town deems this proposal to be
13 incompatible land use with the Town of Mead and with the
14 surrounding area. The Town's position is that the County is
15 considering and/or permitting suburban/urban scale
16 development in unincorporated areas that should instead be
—
17 developed into municipalities.
18 "If you have any questions, please let me know.
19 Sincerely, Michael D. Freeson, Town Administrator. "
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Well as I said, if you
21 have a change to your referral, please prepare it and submit
—
22 it, and if you have any need for any documentation at all,
23 contact Mr. Ogle at Planning Services, and I 'm sure we' ll
24 provide it for you.
25 MS. MORGAN: Okay.
58
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Do we have any questions? John?
2 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: Your purpose isn't to
3 challenge these proceedings because you haven't --
4 MS. MORGAN: No, but --
- 5 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: -- allegedly haven't received
6 adequate information.
—
7 MS. MORGAN: Well, I 'm not legally challenging
8 them. I want to have the information so when you send a
9 referral letter, we can fill it out completely. How can we
10 make a comprehensive referral, you know, if it 's not filled
11 out completely? And it' s not our job to request the
12 information. It' s their job to provide it.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Any other questions?
14 MS. MORGAN: This is the second time it' s happened
— 15 in less than a year, that I had to request the referral for
16 major development in this area. That 's why I 'm here because
—
17 I 've had to request it twice now.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: I would suggest if --
19 MS. MORGAN: And I 've brought that up with the
—
20 Commissioners, also.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Very good, thank you.
22 MS. MORGAN: But I want you to be aware of it,
23 also, and that is why I 'm here.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.
25 MS. MORGAN: Thank you.
- 59
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Kim, is there anyone else?
2 MR. OGLE: Glen Segrue. He ' s with the St. Vrain
3 Valley School Districts.
4 MR. SEGRUE: Glen Segrue with St. Vrain Valley
— 5 Schools.
6 I don't really have a lot to add to our referral
—
7 comments that should be in the packet. We did come to an
8 agreement with the developer about school impacts and have
—
9 accepted mitigation, or at least an agreement for mitigation,
— 10 and, therefore, don't have any conflicts with the proposal.
11 Other than that, I 'm mostly here just to answer any
—
12 questions that you have.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Are there any questions?
—
14 John?
15 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: Glen, I didn't see any site
16 dedication. It will all be cash in lieu as far as land is
—
17 concerned?
18 MR. SEGRUE: Well, there will be cash in lieu.
19 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: Yeah, but no site dedication?
20 MR. SEGRUE: Oh, no site dedication on this
—
21 property. We're okay otherwise. We're getting cash in lieu
22 and mitigation fees.
23 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: Yeah, and it' s a signed
—
24 agreement for the mitigation?
25 MR. SEGRUE: Yes.
60
1 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: Yes, thank you.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else? Any other
3 questions?
4 (No response. )
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
6 MR. OGLE: Dave Siple. He' s with Patina Oil & Gas
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Is the representative from Patina in
8 the audience? Please come forward.
9 MR. BRAM: Let me clarify, the gentleman from
10 Patina just left.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
12 MR. BRAM: My name is Robert Bram. I 'm with
13 Encana, the other oil and gas company.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Please speak a little louder,
15 please.
16 MR. BRAM: The gentleman for Patina just had to
17 leave for another meeting. I 'm with Encana, the other oil
18 and gas operator on the property.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
20 MR. BRAM: If it ' s appropriate, I would like to --
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Please go ahead.
22 MR. BRAM: Thank you. Good morning. First of all,
23 thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today. My
24 name is Robert Bram. I 'm a land negotiator for Encana
25 Energy. We are the operator of Petrock No. 1 well that's
61
1 located in the north half of Section 5 on the property.
2 We have had very little notice and absolutely no
3 discussion with LifeBridge Church. We are -- there has been
4 no direct contact other than the notice of this meeting. We
5 and our partners have extensive oil and gas property rights
6 in the area that have not been addressed to our knowledge,
7 although I had a conversation with Ms. Brunk a few minutes
8 ago, and she showed me that they had 150-foot setbacks for
9 each of the drilling windows. And I 'm assuming, being Weld
10 County Planning Commissioners, you know what I 'm referring to
11 in this case when I say drilling windows. We thank them for
12 their setbacks along the existing oil and gas production
13 facilities, but we haven't had a chance to review them, and
14 we'd sure like to see what they are to see if they meet
15 health, safety and welfare standards.
16 We currently are reviewing the area scientifically.
17 I have geologists and engineers reviewing the area in advance
18 of this to see if we need to drill additional wells. The
19 setbacks that I saw are, again 150 feet. Should homes and
20 other buildings be set in the area before we get a chance to
21 get our work completed, we're going to need 350-foot setbacks
22 because it will be high density, as you are well aware.
23 The zoning changes may interfere with our
24 operations. They certainly create health, safety and welfare
25 issues that have not been addressed. We would encourage
62
1 LifeBridge to contact us and to consult with us on this.
2 Currently, the only contact we've had has been through their
3 litigator.
4 The allowing of higher density in the zoning would
5 be detrimental to our operations. We are proud of our safety
6 record, but we cannot speak for situations where we have no
7 control over what others are doing in their actions.
8 Encana and its partners and the individual citizens
9 owning royalty rights in the area need to be adequately
10 protected from overdevelopment. It destroys their economic
11 rights and our economic opportunities, such as they may
12 exist.
13 Currently, science and technology and pricing are
14 changing as we speak here, and what was not economic a year
15 or two ago is rapidly becoming economic. We have all seen
16 the price of the utility bills go up lately, and these things
'- 17 drive many decisions.
18 Further, I don't need to remind you that energy
19 development is a pretty key component of our national
20 strategy these days, given current events on other parts of
21 the world. There are a lot of people who are fighting and
22 defending our country, and we would like to see less of that
23 done so we can develop our opportunities here at home.
24 There are up to seven additional places where we
25 can drill on the property. Phase 1 of one of the homes seals
63
1 off one of the locations right from the start. If you want
2 to speak of preserving the value and the efficient use of the
3 land, energy production utilizes the subsurface resources
4 while allowing for surrounding multiple use surface
5 development when it's planned properly. We would have no
6 problem with that if they would come forth and talk to us.
7 That' s all we ask, instead of doing things through
8 litigation.
9 That is really all I had to say. If you have any
10 questions, I 'm certain available.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Are there any questions
12 for him?
13 (No response. )
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Kim, wasn't the reference to
15 drilling envelopes being preserved on the site?
16 MR. OGLE: Yes. In the Filing 2 , Phase 2 -- or
17 Filing 1, Phase 2 diagram, there' s a bunch of circles out
18 there that shows where the existing sites are, and the
19 applicant has identified all of those areas on property.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: But as far as for future drilling,
21 there's no provisions for drilling envelopes?
22 MR. OGLE: The maps that I have seen has addressed
23 the drilling sites. Whether or not there 's something there
24 or not there, I can't answer that. I 'd have to --
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. We' ll have to ask the
64
1 applicant on that one.
2 MR. BRAM: Actually, I just had a conversation with
3 Ms. Brunk about that. It was the first time I have ever seen
4 those. We have not had an opportunity to adequately review
5 them. It was 10 minutes ago.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.
7 MR. BRAM: Thank you.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Kim?
9 MR. OGLE: Gloria Hice-Idler. She' s with CDOT.
10 MS. HICE-IDLER: I 'm Gloria Hice-Idler. I 'm the
11 Region 4 Assistant Access Manager.
12 CDOT has been working with the applicant and Weld
13 County to address traffic concerns on State Highway 119 .
14 Those --
-
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Could you speak up, please?
16 MS. HICE-IDLER: That process is continuing. They
17 have provided us with everything we've asked thus far, and we
18 will continue those conversations.
19 Are there any questions?
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have any questions for Ms.
21 Idler? John?
22 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: Do you anticipate any changes
23 on Highway 66 from say Road 5 from this development?
24 MS. HICE-IDLER: No, not as a result of this
25 development.
65
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.
2 Anyone else, Kim?
3 MR. OGLE: That' s the end of my list, unless
—
4 there' s someone else that 's a referral agent in the audience
5 that wishes to speak.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any other referral
7 agencies in the audience that might have something to add?
8 (No response. )
—
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.
— 10 At this time, would the applicant care to come
11 forward and give us your presentation?
—
12 MR. GRINNELL: Good morning, Chairman Miller and
13 Planning Commission members. My name is Bruce Grinnell. I
—
14 am the Administrator of LifeBridge Christian Church, and I
— 15 represent the church for the change of zone application. Our
16 office is 10345 Ute Highway in Longmont, and I ' ll be leading
—
17 our presentation today.
18 Before I start, I 'd like to address a couple of
19 issues that were brought up earlier just since they were
— 20 open. One is on the issue of property taxes.
21 Property taxes are based on non-profit versus
22 profit entities. The single-family homes that are being
23 referred to in that area would be -- property taxes would be
24 paid on that area. On the church campus, to the extent that
25 there are non-profit uses on the campus, they would be exempt
66
1 from those property taxes. We currently have uses on our
2 existing campus that pay property taxes, and they are
3 prorated based on whether it' s a for-profit or not-for-profit
4 entity. Some of our uses that we -- or some of the people
5 who come to use our facility are profits, and, therefore,
6 create, like a book store, create a situation where the taxes
7 are prorated on the property based on use.
8 Where the senior living and neighborhood center is
9 concerned, we anticipate those areas paying property taxes.
10 Back to the presentation, I guess. I want to thank
11 you guys for coming today and attending this special meeting.
12 I also want to thank the Weld County Planning Staff and the
13 referral agencies and all the surrounding property owners for
14 all the time and energy they've spent in preparing for
15 today's meeting.
16 I 'm joined here today by three other members of the
17 church planning team, Dale Bruns, Reg Golden and Paige
18 Jacques. I 'm also joined by the Senior Administrator of
19 LifeBridge, Rick Russaw, who will address the mission of the
20 church during this presentation.
21 Here today is our consulting team who has assisted
22 in the preparation of our application. All of this team is
23 available to answer questions, but only three are part of the
24 presentation. They are Todd Hodges of Todd Hodges Design.
25 Todd will address the MUD and compatibility. Matt Delich
—
67
1 will address our traffic. And Dennis Rubba of Insite Design
2 will address the master planning.
3 Other members of the consulting team are on the
—
4 slide. They're planners, engineers, architects, land use
— 5 attorneys, consultants and project management.
6 LifeBridge visions and goal, is LifeBridge Church
7 is over 110 years old. Our mission is to lead people in a
8 growth relationship with Jesus. Some people have asked why a
—
9 church would need 313 acres and why a church is proposing a
— 10 development project. Let me explain.
11 Our church family moved to our current location in
12 1991. In 1999 we were nearly out of space, and we tried to
13 expand. Reg Golden and I were asked by the elders to
—
14 evaluate our options at our current locations. We still have
— 15 plenty of property, but after several attempts, we were
16 unsuccessful in getting the approval or entitlement to
17 construct additional buildings.
18 In 2001 our elders and congregation made a decision
19 to relocate. We began a search for property, and we had a
20 goal to construct a facility for LifeBridge Christian Church
21 that it' s in a location that has the entitlement to
—
22 accommodate the church family and our community for 50-plus
23 years.
24 We feel like the 160-acre portion of this site we
25 have identified as the church campus and the entitlement we
—
68
1 are asking for today will provide the church family with a
2 home for more than 50 years. We also wanted to locate the
_ 3 LifeBridge facility in an urban community growth area.
4 You've heard from Mr. Ogle, the site is located in the 1-25
— 5 MUD, which is forecast to be the home of many people. I
6 believe if you look in the MUD document, it will indicate
7 roughly 60, 000 people over the next 25 to 50 years.
8 As a church, we anticipate that we will continue to
—
9 meet the needs of our church family and the community, and as
— 10 a result, we believe that we will continue to grow, but only
11 as the community grows.
12 In 2001 we purchased the parcels of land that are
13 part of this application. We began to master plan the site
—
14 and evaluate the building requirements, and we wanted to
— 15 construct a facility that could be utilized by the community,
16 providing places of worship, live, work and play. The I-25
—
17 MUD is a community that is currently in need of a heart.
18 There are homes, and there are industrial buildings, but
19 there are no schools, libraries, athletic facilities,
— 20 activity centers, daycares or educational facilities in the
21 MUD.
—
22 We are a church. We have a building that is
23 primarily utilized on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings.
24 We have historically provided our facilities for others to
25 use during weekdays, weekends and evenings. Over the years,
69
1 we've been able to share our facility with profits,
2 non-profits, faith-based, and non-faith based entities. Many
3 people use our building. We encourage people to use our
—
4 building. In the future we want to continue to make
— 5 available our classroom space for education and meetings by
6 the community, our children space for daycares and preschool,
7 our athletic and recreation space for families, teams, clubs,
8 sports, our auditoriums for meetings and performing arts.
9 Our building is used by Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, blood
— 10 drives. We're currently set up with Boulder County for
11 smallpox inoculations. They're used by home-schooled kids.
—
12 They're used by community college. We've currently had
13 discussions with Aimes Community College about using our
14 facility, people for birthday parties, and we're set up as an
.-- 15 emergency shelter.
16 If you look in our documents we provided, there's a
17 whole list of entities that continue to use our facility.
18 Our elders have asked us to be good stewards and
19 good neighbors with the resources that we have been provided.
— 20 After setting aside the 160 acres of the church campus, we' ll
21 look for other ways to provide benefit. As a result, we
—
22 wanted to create a quality senior village living community
23 that includes a variety of housing life care amenities. We
24 have identified approximately 70 acres to be developed into a
25 senior community. We also want to develop a single-family
70
1 neighborhood to compliment the existing and surrounding
2 neighborhoods. Surrounding the site are housing developments
3 with homes at densities of one acre, and that jumps to three
4 or four houses per acre and higher. We are proposing a
5 development at a density of two to three homes per acre to
6 provide a housing product in the area that is different and
7 complimentary to the existing neighborhoods.
8 The site was identified as a neighborhood center in
9 the I-25 MUD plan. To be consistent with this provision, we
10 have identified 22 acres to be developed into a neighborhood
11 center in the MUD. This area is proposed with neighborhood
12 commercial, retail and mixed use development.
13 Earlier I thanked the neighbors for their time and
14 energy. I also want to thank them for their patience and
15 willingness to work together. Together we have produced a
16 final proposal that provides concessions necessary to allow
17 many of the property owners and LifeBridge to move forward.
18 It has not been easy, and it has not been easy for the
19 neighbors as well. It has taken many meetings with many
20 individuals, with the leadership groups, associations, with
21 open houses and et cetera.
22 Unfortunately, not everyone will be satisfied, but
23 I believe that together we have made a sincere attempt to
24 address everyone' s concerns and satisfy a majority of the
25 residents. I come here today having met with every person
— 71
1 who has ever asked to meet with me.
2 We have a summary of concessions, and I believe Kim
3 has that or -- okay -- to distribute to the Planning
—
4 Commission which supports some of the -- which includes to
-- 5 support some of the property owners who have previously
6 opposed this application. Some of these issues have been
7 addressed, some of them will continue to be, but I would like
8 to quickly review the concessions.
pa
9 From our initial application, we reduced the
— 10 density of the church campus from 2 million to 1 1/2 million
11 square feet. That's a 25 percent reduction in the size of
—
12 the campus, 1/2 million square feet reduction. The reason we
13 did that was that we looked at the 640-acre church campus --
14 I 'm sorry 160-acre church campus and looked at what could be
15 done if it was purely residential. And at four homes per
16 acre, that makes 640 homes. At a home size that averages
—
17 2 , 500 square feet, that would total 1. 6 million square feet.
18 We feel like the reduction we made is to make it consistent
19 with the number of square feet that would be on the 160 acres
20 in the event that it was developed residentially.
—
21 There are several issues that Mr. Ogle covered in
—
22 his presentation, which were very significant to the property
23 owners and the church as well. We increased setbacks and
24 offsets from a few feet to hundreds of feet. We reduced the
25 maximum building heights from 120 feet. They never were
— 72
1 higher than 120 feet, but we reduced them from 120 feet to
2 90-foot maximum on an 18-acre portion at the very center of
3 the campus.
—
4 The restriction in placement of buildings is also
— 5 in the center of the campus. The maps that you saw earlier
6 from Mr. Ogle, the church is in complete agreement of; the
7 setbacks and the reduction in height, the 45-foot area, 55-
8 foot area, 60-foot areas, and then the 18-acre portion in the
—
9 center of the campus is all in agreement with LifeBridge.
— 10 There is one issue where the property owners and
11 LifeBridge are both in agreement. We both oppose
—
12 connectivity in the neighborhood streets. You have heard
13 from Public Works, and I want to be clear that the LifeBridge
14 traffic study does not warrant the connectivity to Blue
15 Mountain Drive or Pearl Howlett. We understand the
16 connectivity is recommended by Public Works as a part of
—
17 their urban transportation plan.
18 In our position I 'd like to point out that Blue
—
19 Mountain Road is too narrow and structurally inadequate to
— 20 handle any additional traffic. The connectivity might make
21 sense on paper, but not in any other way without significant
— 22 investments to the roads in Meadow Vale Farms and a
23 significant detriment to the property owners there.
24 Next, if Pearl Howlett or Blue Mountain were
25 connected, there should be some benefit to the residents.
— 73
1 There should be some benefit to the neighborhoods. Weld
2 County' s transportation goal T. 1 identifies the objective,
3 the benefit in this way, to move people in a safe, economical
—
4 and efficient manner. I argue that if nearly all the
— 5 residents on both sides of the connection did not believe
6 that the connection is safe, then where is the benefit?
7 Who's a better judge of safe, the residents or somebody else?
8 I urge you to act in the best interest, in our best interest.
—
9 In respect to the other two issues of economical or
— 10 efficient, the benefit is once again for the residents. If
11 nearly 100 percent of the residents on both sides of the
—
12 connection find no benefit, find that it is not economical or
13 efficient to have the connectivity, then why comply with the
14 goal? Clearly, the goal is a good one in most cases, but in
— 15 this case, the connectivity will not result in achieving the
16 desired goal. In short, please do not connect these
—
17 neighborhood streets.
18 There are other concessions. One is the mitigation
19 to view corridor traffic noise and lighting. We believe and
— 20 we feel we can demonstrate that currently with the setbacks
21 and with the restrictions on placing the buildings, that we
—
22 currently have a much less impact on the view corridor to the
23 residents of the Elms at Meadow Vale than any proposed
24 housing development. We have mitigated traffic by reducing
25 the campus size by 25 percent. We have reduced noise and
— 74
1 lighting with the addition of landscape berms and non-
2 directional lighting. We have conceded with the elimination
3 of elements from our initial development program. We
4 eliminated 25 percent of the church campus. We removed
— 5 outdoor ball field lighting. We removed a significant
6 architectural element and agreed not to build any buildings
7 on a 35-acre -- on about 35 acres of the campus due to the
8 setbacks around the outside.
9 Some additional restrictions. Much of the area
— 10 that is restricted to buildings has heights of 45 to 50 feet
11 -- 55 feet. We reduced the size of the amphitheater from
.. 12 5, 000 to 1, 500. We agreed not to construct it in Phase 1.
13 We restricted the amphitheater to the northeast corner of the
14 site.
15 We agreed to reduce the height of the senior
16 housing on the eastern edge of the property to single story,
_. 17 and we agreed not to construct any building on the eastern
18 one-third portion of that 18 acres for up to 10 years.
19 In final comment regarding neighborhood petitions
— 20 and concessions, I 'd like to point out that there are two
21 neighborhood petitions in your packet opposing the
—
22 application that were drafted and signed prior to these
23 concessions. You' ll see signature dates of December,
24 February and March. We are sure that many of the residents
25 continue to get their information from sources that were or
75
1 are inaccurate, Citizens for Sensible Development' s web site,
2 which as of yesterday still contained much information in
3 spite of the efforts of our staff and many property owners to
4 correct it.
5 I want to make one quick comment about oil and gas.
6 We have contacted both Narco and Patina. We did not get any
7 return calls.
8 As part of the technical aspects to our suit,
9 you' ll find that both the applicant, LifeBridge, and Patina
10 and Narco have an agreement -- or have one thing that we do
11 agree upon, and that is that there are less than $7 , 000 worth
12 of reserves in the ground on either lease. Both Patina and
13 Narco have asked us to pay up to $100, 000 per drill site to
14 mitigate impact. Therefore, we filed the suit. We felt that
15 it was inappropriate to pay in excess of 1/2 million dollars
16 to either oil company for reserves that are in the order of
17 $7 , 000.
18 In closing, I want to thank you for your time, and
19 I want to introduce to you Mr. Todd Hodges of Todd Hodges
20 Design, who will provide information on the MUD and
21 compatibility.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions for Bruce?
23 John?
24 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: Have you considered
25 formulating a fiscal impact analysis, and this would be in
— 76
1 regard to future revenues versus expenses both to the County
2 and the City of Longmont? Let me say that, for instance, the
3 Town of Firestone does require on any development for such an
—
4 analysis to be submitted, and then we could get a better
— 5 picture of what the monetary impacts, and this would be over
6 a period of 10 years, because usually there's a positive
7 revenue over expense when the project is being built, but
8 later on this can be reversed.
9 MR. GRINNELL: No, we have not prepared one. Have
— 10 we been asked to know, I 'm not aware of it. Based on a
11 requirement, I guess we could look to satisfy the requirement
12 prior to the Board of Commissioners hearing.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions for Bruce?
—
14 John?
15 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: I don't know if this is
16 relevant, but it was mentioned that application had been made
—
17 to Boulder County to expand your facilities and it had been
18 denied. But the situation is sort of changed now somewhat,
19 since the City of Longmont and the new Comprehensive Plan I
20 believe has included your sites in an area that could be an
21 extent to the city.
—
22 Now, I realize that the site you presently have is
23 much smaller than the site of your proposal, but is any sort
24 -- or have you gone past the point of no return in effect of
..
25 reconsidering? You know, in my mind, monetarily it would
77
1 make sense to use the existing facilities rather than start
2 from scratch. So would you care to comment on that at all?
3 MR. GRINNELL: The property is currently -- to go
—
4 back, Boulder County was not willing to work with us because
— 5 we were in the City of Longmont planning area. So it wasn't
6 a complete reluctance by Boulder County; it was that they
7 referred us to the City of Longmont because we were in their
8 planning area.
—
9 The City of Longmont at the time we started this
— 10 was not interested in annexation. Since then, you're right,
11 there is some interest in annexation, but we understand it
—
12 will be now to at least August or September before the City
13 makes up their mind.
—
14 We have not had great experiences so far in
— 15 pursuing those avenues. Additionally, we understand that it
16 is a three-year process roughly to make that occur.
—
17 Currently, we're out of space, and it' s not that
18 we're completely against pursuing that. It' s just that at
19 this time we need to do something, and it' s in our elders'
— 20 and our congregation' s desire at this point in time that we
21 continue to pursue a church campus that will provide us with
—
22 a long-term home. One of the things that this site provides
23 is extremely good access from a transportation perspective,
24 built along arterials and collectors where currently our
25 current site is pretty restricted from transportation.
78
1 Additionally, this is located in a fairly high and
2 currently rapidly growing urban area. We're at the fringe of
3 the growth area because to the north of us we 're fairly
4 surrounded by open space from the County.
5 I can't say that it's out of our mind. I know the
6 elders have indicated a need for us to continue to pursue
7 some activity up north, but I believe it would -- but we're
8 not ready to walk away from this site at this time.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Any other questions for
10 Bruce?
11 (No response. )
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.
13 MR. GRINNELL: Okay.
14 MR. HODGES: Good morning, Chairman Miller and
15 Planning Commission members. I 'm Todd Hodges of Todd Hodges
16 Design, 1269 North Cleveland Avenue, Loveland, Colorado
17 80537.
18 As you know, the project before you is for a
19 planned unit development change of zone application in which
20 we are requesting approval for the proposed uses based on the
21 mixed use development area guidelines and the PUD application
22 criteria.
23 Throughout the PUD process, there will be
24 additional opportunities for the public, referral agencies
25 and officials of Weld County for review of this project. As
—
79
1 well, there will be additional opportunities for staff and
2 referral agencies in the site plan review portion on portions
3 of this project, also.
4 During my employment with Weld County Planning
5 Department in the mid-to-late 90s, the Department of Planning
6 Services staff, the Planning Commission and the Board of
7 County Commissioners worked with surrounding property owners
8 to create goals and policies for the mixed use development
—
9 area. At that point in time urban level infrastructure and
— 10 services were available to serve portions of this area. This
11 fact, coupled with the location of the area in close
—
12 proximity to the growing communities and the existing
13 infrastructure, road infrastructure, it was understood that
14 this area would develop to an urban level very quickly.
15 Surrounding communities were and continue to experience
16 growth in this area.
—
17 Luckily, a vision for the MUD area was solidified
18 through the MUD plan. Cohesive development, high quality
19 design and a (inaudible) place were goals to achieve for this
20 rapidly changing corridor.
21 The Weld County Code stipulates the MUD area
—
22 provides for unique and challenging opportunity to establish
23 cohesion in an area experiencing increased growth and
24 development. The LifeBridge Christian Church project offers
25 an opportunity for mixed use to develop under one unified
80
1 master plan.
2 The overriding goal of those visionary officials,
3 participating citizens, land owners and staff members was to
4 create guidelines that allowed for creative and innovative
5 design. These goals of high quality were balanced with the
6 need to encourage mixed uses, to provide for quality
7 neighborhoods and a sense of community.
8 This particular proposal embraces the guiding
9 principles and overall design and functionality of the site.
10 This proposal has also incorporated uses consistent with the
11 MUD structural land use map. The uses proposed include a mix
12 of residential, a church campus, a central park and a
13 neighborhood center. The mixed uses proposed have been
14 located appropriately on the site and provide for
15 neighborhood atmosphere that is consistent with the existing
16 and future surrounding land uses located within the mixed use
17 development area.
18 This proposal allows for the development of
19 employment opportunities within the neighborhood center. The
20 neighborhood center will be accessible via the existing road
21 system and proposed upgrade to the area. Accessibility will
22 also be available via sidewalks and trail systems be
23 incorporated into the final site design. The existing County
24 and State road network and the proposed rail connections
25 provide for interconnection of community.
—
81
1 The proposed uses within this development are
2 consistent with land use standards listed within the County
3 Code, and are also consistent with the intent of the mixed
—
4 use development goals and policies established to ensure a
— 5 final development that allows a sense of place, a functional
6 neighborhood and high quality designs for future generations.
7 The proposed uses are compatible with the existing
8 approved urban developments adjacent to and within close
—
9 proximity to the site. The Longview residential development
— 10 lies west across Weld County Road 3 . The Elms and Meadow
11 Vale developments, residential developments, lie east and
—
12 adjacent to the site. The Vista Commercial Industrial Park
13 is located south of the site across State Highway 119.
14 The LifeBridge Church project is a master plan
— 15 community, offering a mixed zoning which works in harmony
16 with existing surrounding land uses.
17 The transition zones within the development are
18 consistent with the existing zone districts adjacent and in
19 close proximity to this proposal. The plan offers
— 20 significant buffering and screening. The site is located
21 with good access to State Highway 119 and future collectors
—
22 of this area. The development will comply with noise, dust
23 and lighting standards. The building heights that have been
24 discussed greatly are regulated to assure transition to the
25 existing homes, and the plan offers a significant amount of
— 82
1 open space and trail network for interconnectivity of these
2 communities.
3 This conscientious proposal has integrated a high
—
4 standard of design with respect to future transportation
— 5 planning, a wide range of residential options, as well as
6 employment and service opportunities for the neighborhood.
7 This master plan community embraces the goals and policies of
8 the Comprehensive Plan and the Mixed Use Development Area
—
9 Plan.
— 10 LifeBridge Christian Church has worked diligently
11 to incorporate input from the neighbors and the referral
—
12 agencies to ensure harmony with the surrounding neighborhood,
13 safety compliance and efficient and orderly development of
14 this area. A campus-like atmosphere is encouraged in the
— 15 mixed use development policies for new development. This
16 proposal truly demonstrates compliance with this policy
—
17 through the proposed concept. With the church campus, shared
18 facilities are proposed for public use. The facilities
19 offered conserve the area without a negative impact to the
— 20 County and its citizens.
21 This proposal truly meets the intent of the Weld
—
22 County Code as it pertains to the mixed use development area
23 and the criteria for approval of the PUD change of zone
24 application and the performance standard for a plan of
25 development in Weld County. This proposal provides for
83
1 necessary upgrades to existing and planned transportation
2 networks. The project engineers have been working with Weld
— 3 County Public Works Department and Colorado Department of
4 Transportation to ensure needs are met throughout the
5 project.
6 Matt Delich, the project traffic engineer, is here
7 also to discuss transportation of the project.
8 I ' ll be more than happy to entertain any questions
9 you have at this time.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Todd.
11 Are there any questions for Todd?
12 (No response. )
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Hearing none, thank you.
14 MR. HODGES: Thank you.
15 MR. DELICH: Good morning, members of the Weld
16 County Planning Commission. My name is Matt Delich. My
17 address is 2272 Glen Haven Drive, Loveland, 80538 .
18 I 've prepared the traffic impact studies for
19 project LifeBridge PUD. Two levels of traffic impact study
20 were performed; one, for the overall development, full
21 development if you will, and two, for Phase 1 .
22 The traffic impact study for the overall
23 development assumed the following land uses: church campus,
24 two million square feet of floor area; mixed uses,
25 residential at 750 dwelling units; and office and retail at
84
1 372 , 000 square feet.
2 The overall development now has changed.
3 Therefore, the analyses I had in my overall traffic study
4 were conservatively high, and I think it' s important to point
5 that out. The church campus has been reduced to 1, 500, 000
6 square feet, as was indicated earlier.
7 Trip generation is a key element when preparing a
8 traffic impact study. First, let me define what a vehicle
9 trip is. A vehicle trip is defined as a one way vehicle
10 movement from origin to destination. In the case of project
11 LifeBridge, each vehicle trip has either an origin or a
12 destination within the site. An example may be appropriate.
13 A family comes to this facility to worship in one
14 vehicle. There would be one trip in and one trip out.
15 That's two trips. Traffic engineer often refer to this as a
16 trip end. So there would be two trip ends at the site.
17 I wanted to spend a little time explaining this
18 because it has come to my attention that there has been some
19 misinformation circulating that at full build-out, there
20 would be 56, 000 vehicle trips generated at this site. This
21 is not the case. As you can see from the graphic, that the
22 total trip generation would be 28 -- about 28 , 100. About 40
23 percent of these would be church campus related trips and 60
24 percent would be related to the mixed uses on the site.
25 At full development at the size of the facility
— 85
1 that I analyzed, with improvements at various intersections
2 and roads, some of which that Frank talked about earlier, all
3 the street lengths and intersections will operate acceptably,
—
4 meeting Weld County criteria and Colorado Department of
— 5 Transportation criteria.
6 With the reduction in the church campus size, the
7 overall trip generation would be reduced to about 25, 350 or
8 so vehicle trip ends per day. So the 28, 000 that you see on
—
9 this screen would drop down to around say 25, 000, 25, 300.
— 10 The church campus trip generation would drop. The
11 mixed use area would stay the same, but the church area trip
—
12 generation would drop to about 8 , 250 from the 11, 000 you see
13 up there. So a net of approximately 3 , 000 trip end drop.
14 And under that circumstance, the contribution of traffic from
— 15 the church would be about 33 percent, as opposed to the 40
16 percent that you see on the screen there.
—
17 As with most developments, construction generally
18 occurs in phases, so I 've prepared a traffic study for Phase
19 1 of this development. And Phase 1 would be a church campus
— 20 at about 268 , 000 square feet, and residential at about 274
21 dwelling units. The trip generation for Phase 1 would be
—
22 4, 000 trip ends per day. Sixty percent of these would be
23 related to the church campus -- well, approximately 60
24 percent, a little less, and about 40 percent, a little more,
25 to the residential development.
86
1 With the recommended improvements, all the key
2 intersections and street lengths, road lengths, were to
3 operate acceptably.
4 And as Frank mentioned also earlier, one of the key
5 elements is paving County Road 26 from essentially Weld
6 County Road 3 1/2 to County Line Road, City of Longmont.
7 In summary then, this site is located in the Weld
8 County mixed use development area and is served by State
9 Highway 119 and various arterials and collectors in the area.
10 It fits in to a balanced, integrated Weld County
11 transportation network. It will connect -- it will provide
12 connections to planned regional trail systems. The applicant
13 will build transportation improvements to serve this
14 development at various development levels. That is,
15 everything won't be put in at one time, but it will be put in
16 on a phased level. And that' s appropriate; that' s the way
17 things are done.
18 At full build-out this site can be accommodated by
19 the existing and the proposed streets and intersections in
20 the area. The project will contribute its fair share, and
21 we're talking dollars here, to the system-wide improvements
22 through the Weld County Transportation Impact Fee.
23 Thank you for your attention. I 'm available for
24 questions throughout the course of this hearing, as well as
25 now, and I will eventually pass this presentation on to
—
87
1 Dennis Rubba. But questions, if you have any.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. John?
3 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: Maybe you can clarify for me.
—
4 I 'm not that familiar with traffic studies. This is a little
5 unusual in my mind because of it being a church will generate
6 quite a bit of the traffic. Is the figures you put up there
7 an average over a week or over a month, or does it take into
8 account that perhaps on a Sunday, that the number of trips
—
9 you present would be exceeded substantially?
— 10 MR. DELICH: The numbers that were on the screen
11 were for typical weekday traffic. Sunday traffic was
12 analyzed based on the increase in the size of the church
13 facility here compared to the existing church facility. And
14 on a Sunday, and I did traffic counts and forecasts for
15 Sunday traffic, the intersections and streets would operate
16 acceptably. But the figures that I presented earlier were
17 typically for a weekday condition. And they reflect some of
18 what Bruce talked about, that this campus would be open to
19 community facilities of Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, et cetera.
_ 20 So that' s what is reflected in those numbers.
21 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: You mentioned paving Road 26
— 22 from 3 1/2 to County Line. Is there any provision for the
23 traffic, and I really don't know whether you made a traffic
24 study of that road, but is there any provision for three
25 laning or four laning that for any future traffic loads that
88
1 might be generated? In my mind, people in this development,
2 for shopping and whatnot, might use 26 to get to County and
3 then through 9th Avenue to shop in Longmont, rather than
4 going to 119 . So there might be quite a bit of traffic on
5 26, exceeding the capacity of a two-lane road, and
6 particularly the intersection at County Line Road. County
7 Line Road doesn't have shoulders. It has ditches running
8 alongside of it, especially at 9th Avenue there. Is there
9 any provision for that, for that intersection?
10 MR. DELICH: The two-lane paving of Weld County
11 Road 26 would be done with the Phase 1 portion of the
12 development, and that's 4 , 000 trip ends per day, as you
13 recall. As the development grows and we reach levels of say
14 approaching the 25, 000 trip ends per day that I talked about,
15 would Weld County Road 26 need to be widened? Yes, it would
16 have to be improved, and this would be done on a phase basis
17 when the traffic demanded that type of improvement.
18 In addition to dealing with Weld County 26, 3 1/2
19 would also be paved and would be widened as necessary, with
20 appropriate turn lanes at various intersections.
21 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: The developer would
22 participate in the course of those improvements? Do I
23 understand that?
24 MR. DELICH: It's my understanding, and maybe Frank
25 can correct me, I think the development would basically do
89
1 all of 3 1/2 and a fair portion, if not all, of 26 .
2 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: For any future improvements
3 that were required down the subsequent phases?
4 MR. DELICH: That' s my understanding. Maybe Frank
5 can elaborate on it.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Frank, would you care to elaborate
7 on it?
8 MR. HEMPEN: I certainly would. Frank Hempen with
9 the Department of Public Works. And if you can't hear me,
10 please speak up.
11 The initial construction and improvements on 3 1/2
12 and 26 will be the responsibility of the applicant. I think
13 what I said earlier, especially on 26, is background traffic.
14 There will be some background traffic, maybe a little
15 background traffic on 3 1/2 , and we will work out those
16 costs, associated costs, most of which, though, I believe
— 17 will be with the applicant.
18 I think earlier I used an example on 26, that there
19 could be a -- the applicant would probably be responsible for
20 as much as 95 percent of the cost of the ultimate
21 improvements, and the County will be responsible in some way,
22 shape for that 5 percent. But we've also taken the position
23 that if there' s already existing traffic there, then it' s
24 equitable for the County to deal with that.
�, 25 For all intents and purposes, the applicant will be
90
1 responsible for the cost.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.
3 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: And if I may?
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Go ahead.
5 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: And this will be stipulated
6 in the document before the final plat, all the
7 responsibilities of the applicant?
8 MR. HEMPEN: Yeah. It will be -- as each phase
9 comes forward, we will look -- we will have a revised traffic
10 study to determine what those increases are, what the need is
11 for the improvements, an extra lane, or whatever, widening.
12 And then we will negotiate. Based on background traffic and
13 their traffic, we will establish the costs, and we' ll enter
14 into agreements for those payments of those costs.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Bryant?
16 COMMISSIONER GIMLIN: I don't --
-
17 THE CHAIRMAN: He covered it? Are there any other
18 questions?
19 (No response. )
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.
21 MR. DELICH: Thank you. Dennis Rubba is going to
22 come up and finish up the presentation, I think.
23 MR. RUBBA: Good morning. Can everyone hear me?
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Yeah, speak into the microphone.
25 MR. RUBBA: Is this better? My name is Dennis
91
1 Rubba. I 'm the principal campus planner for the project. My
—
2 address is 2401 15th Street, Suite 10, Denver, Colorado
3 80202 . And I 'm also a resident of Weld County.
—
4 Well, we've heard a lot this morning about the
5 issues, the goals and the vision for the campus, but what we
6 haven't heard are what are the physical attributes of the
—
7 master plan.
8 If we were to take everything we've heard and all
9 the drawings and all the issues and put it in a pot and
10 boiled it down, I think the essence of the master plan is
11 that we're trying to create a community-centered campus with
—
12 shared resources, serving the needs of the neighbors, as well
13 as the MUD.
14 And I must go back about two, two-and-a-half years
15 ago when I had my first meeting with the leadership of
—
16 LifeBridge. And the very first question that was asked was,
17 not what were the needs of the congregation, but, in fact,
18 what are the needs and how can we provide services to our
19 community? And that statement has shaped the master plan
20 more so than anything else. It has defined the land uses, as
—
21 well as the patterning and arrangements of buildings on the
— 22 site.
23 To quickly orient you, I may end up putting a dot
24 on your head, sir. 119 to the south, 3 1/2 that runs along
25 the western boundary, 26 to the north. We have the Elms,
92
1 Meadow Vale, Longview here, Union Reservoir in this general
2 location, and I-25 approximately two-and-a-half miles due
3 east of the site.
—
4 What we've asked, or actually done on this graph,
— 5 is simply to overlay the conceptual landscape plan over the
6 land use plan in order to give some of the structuring or to
7 vision for the overall development.
8 If we were to begin to look at some of the
9 organizing devices, we basically have a north/south, as well
10 as a series of east/west conditions. Starting to the north
11 we have a chapel campus with -- in a park-like setting. To
—
12 the south of that would be the main part of the church
13 campus, which would be composed of worship, learning,
14 education and recreation facilities, that together that
15 creates the heart, the spiritual center of the overall
—
16 campus.
17 Directly to the south of that is a neighborhood
18 park. It's what we're calling principally the Great Lawn or
19 the Central Park. This is an amenity that we 're hoping that
20 all of the neighbors take advantage of.
—
21 Flanking this open space is a series of senior
— 22 housing, senior villages, to accommodate active seniors, as
23 well as seniors who need assisted living services.
24 And then immediately to the south of that is really
25 the mixed use neighborhood center. This is destination
—
93
1 retail uses, commercial uses, perhaps things like grocery
2 offices, (inaudible) offices. It could be a dry cleaner,
3 those kinds of amenities that serve the local neighbors, as
—
4 well as become part of the community resource.
5 The other orientation east/west, is about a series
6 of outdoor spaces, green spaces that link various components
—
7 of the master plan. Starting to the north, northwest, is the
8 single-family residences that is linked by an open space
—
9 green back to the center of the church campus. The center of
— 10 the church itself is part of a regional open space trail
11 system to encourage those that might be cycling or walking
12 from different outlying regions to actually come and be
13 passed through the campus, welcome to be part of the overall
—
14 campus development.
—
15 Within the senior village is a series of small
16 parks. Buildings will shape these small outdoor pocket areas
—
17 to encourage the seniors to be outside, to be engaged in the
18 landscaping of the environment. And those parks will be
19 linked back to the Central Park. Ultimately, it would be
20 wonderful through a series of trails and sidewalks to link
—
21 back to the adjacent neighbors to encourage families to
— 22 actually walk and stroll and be part of the overall church
23 campus or the overall development itself.
24 So those are part of the initial components of the
25 organizing elements.
94
1 Barb, next slide?
2 As far as phasing, this is obviously a very large
3 project. LifeBridge plans on incremental development over a
4 very long period of time. As far as Phase 1, Filing 1, the
5 initial phasing of that would include three church buildings,
6 a fellowship hall, which would have the main worship center
7 or worship space for the church. There would be a children' s
8 facility that would have classroom, perhaps a cafeteria and a
9 gymnasium and a learning center, which would have the
10 classrooms, as well as administrative space for the church
11 itself.
12 Immediately to the south of that would be a portion
13 of the senior housing for the seniors to be part of the
14 overall development. Included in that would be the full
15 roadway landscaping lighting, including the Central Park
16 development as part of the initial phase.
17 And then to the northwest would be principally a
18 path of the single-family lot development. As Bruce has
19 mentioned, the proposed density is about two to three houses
20 per acre, which is equivalent to the size of lots that we
21 have in the Elms and in Meadow Vale, as a general comparison.
22 Filing 2 as part of the initial phase, LifeBridge,
23 as far as church facilities, is not planning on any
24 additional facilities beyond the fellowship hall, the
25 learning center and the children' s. But depending on market
95
1 demand, would be an increase in potential senior housing, as
2 well as the market demand for the complete construction of
3 the single-family residence.
4 That gives the overall character.
5 Lastly, what I want to leave you with, is the
6 impression of what we envision the campus being like, what it
7 might feel like to be in this environment.
8 I feel that it's very important that there's an
9 intertwining of architecture and landscape to create that
10 inviting campus environment. Buildings will be arranged in
11 such a fashion to create these outdoor spaces to encourage
12 social interaction and just the enjoyment of being outside.
13 The scaling of the buildings will be such that
14 they're inviting; the introduction of arbors, arcades,
15 trellises, four courts and gardens to create that wonderful
16 sense of inviting into the buildings.
17 There will be a unified architectural style and
18 materials, not only to the church campus, but those standards
19 will be applied throughout the entire development to ensure
20 consistency and to give the image of campus environment.
21 And lastly, what we're intending to do, is create a
22 place of beauty, of delight and of inspiration that all of us
23 in this room will be proud to be part of and to engage in on
24 a daily basis.
25 With that, I would just like to open it up for
96
1 questions, or I can turn it over to Rick Russaw.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Any question for Dennis?
3 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: The present school, is that
4 K-12 , kindergarten through 12th grade?
5 MR. RUBBA: I just want to clarify, and my children
6 go there, but it 's all preschool.
7 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: Oh, it' s all preschool?
8 MR. RUBBA: Yes, sir.
9 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: And I don't know if you're
10 the proper person to ask the question, but I 'm going to
11 anyhow. Will the capacity be increased with the school
12 buildings that are proposed here?
13 MR. RUBBA: At its outsource we have no commitment
14 to the provider to the size of the enrollment.
15 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: Okay. Thank you.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions?
17 COMMISSIONER GIMLIN: I have one.
18 MR. RUBBA: Yes.
19 COMMISSIONER GIMLIN: We heard testimony from your
20 group that you didn't -- you were opposed to the
21 connectivity, you didn't want to be -- have the road
22 infrastructure hooked up to the other neighborhoods; yet you
23 proposed a neighborhood center that has retail office space
24 and stores and that kind of things in them. It goes to, in
25 my mind, don't make sense. Why wouldn't you want to connect
97
1 the other neighborhoods if you're going to have some of those
2 kind of activities going on?
3 MR. RUBBA: The general location is destination
—
4 retail uses that would be coming attractions from I-25, also,
— 5 the components that would serve the users of the campus
6 environment; a medical office building, office uses, live,
—
7 work and educate in those facilities. We feel that the
8 general layout of the roadway accommodates access and
9 multiple points of access to the campus, but more
10 importantly, the encouragement of people walking as
11 alternative modes of transportation to go from the
12 neighborhoods into the campus site itself.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions?
14 (No response. )
—
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else that 's going to
16 comment from your group?
—
17 MR. RUBBA: Yes, Rick Russaw.
18 MR. RUSSAW: My name is Rick Russaw. I 'm the
19 Senior Administrator at LifeBridge. Our address is 10345 Ute
20 Highway, Longmont 80504 .
—
21 Since 1891 LifeBridge has an important part of the
22 fabric of our community, and our mission has been pretty
23 simple and pretty clear, and that's to help people grow in
24 their faith, and in the process, hopefully becoming better
25 citizens. Today that mission statement is stated very simply
98
1 to lead people in a growing relationship with Jesus. We've
2 never tried to be anything other than a faith community.
3 That's what we are. We're a church. We have a lot of
4 activity and a lot of programs, but out goal is to help
5 people grow in their faith.
6 I didn't grow up in the church, so for me, there's
7 a lot about organized religion I 'm not a fan of. There are a
8 lot of things that I think have been abuses. I see our job
9 at LifeBridge pretty simply, and that ' s to point people to a
10 growing faith, to point people to God, and in the hope that
11 they' ll deal with whatever issues may be going on for them;
12 that people's lives are improved, that the community
13 benefits. Whether that' s repairing broken relationships, we
14 get lots of folks like that. You would know that. Assisting
_ 15 people in trouble or crisis, or to be a place where they can
16 learn, where their kids can engage and get connected and be
17 involved, where people can create new and positive
18 relationships.
19 For me, it' s a pretty simple philosophy that drives
20 us. It' s how do we take the biblical message of faith that
21 doesn't ever change to a world that is never going to be the
^ 22 same? And I do think that churches are seeing how others
23 reach out into their community different. Our involvement in
24 our community has shown that all the stats that are national
25 about what's going on in the world are very much a part of
99
1 Boulder County and Weld County residents ' lives. Whether
2 that's 1, 300 blended families created every day in America
3 and all the struggle of relationships that occur after that,
4 or the 1 in 13 people who abuse alcohol, or the nine million
5 people who are substance abuse issue, we may not agree on the
6 cause or the cure in this room. But we can agree that
7 there's a cost to our community, and there are issues out
8 there that we want to simply be a part of assisting at
9 LifeBridge. And that' s kind of what ' s been driving this
10 whole thing as we've moved toward this campus, is an
11 opportunity to engage people on an everyday basis and simply
12 point them towards faith and be an active part of the
13 community.
14 But we've been doing that for a long time, and that
15 happens in relationship, how we do your people that come on
16 our campus. Currently, we have 3 , 000 people that attend our
17 weekend services, one of our five regular services, and
18 during the week about another two to three thousand people
19 that engage in counseling or classes or sports activities,
20 youth events, children's events or community events that
21 occur.
22 But we don't see the church as simply one hour on
23 Sunday, which is why we're proposing what we 're proposing,
24 that there is an opportunity to engage people on a regular
25 basis.
-
100
1 In addition, every year, we have 350-plus, we've
r. 2 averaged this for over 10 years now, of non-LifeBridge
3 community events on our campus that bring about 15, 000 people
—
4 into our facility. And those don't have anything to do with
— 5 the church. That may be Scouts, or the School District or
6 Boulder County, the City of Longmont, local businesses,
—
7 after-school programs. We've had a lot of folks involved.
8 But it's not for us about opening our doors and
—
9 saying, here we are; if you need us, come and get us. We've
10 looked for ways to engage in the community, to help other
11 people do what they do. We have people in our community that
12 serve those with issues, and we've simply said, how do we
13 come alongside that rather than creating a parallel universe?
14 So as a result over the years, we've partnered with St. Vrain
15 School District to provide nearly 400 volunteers who tutor,
—
16 clean, coach, rake track pits or assist the 428 homeless
17 students in our district. We assist the local law
18 enforcement with crisis support and community service issues.
~ 19 mentors to juvenile offenders, transitional issues for
20 halfway house inmates, and providing counseling in emergency
—
21 settings.
22 We work with Boulder County Social Services and the
23 Health Department to provide foster care and mental health
24 services or even larger things, like the smallpox
25 vaccination, things that are going on, and, of course, any
101
1 disaster relief. We've worked with local emergency staff on
2 those issues.
3 We supply over 10 tons of food annually to
—
4 community food share, to the Hour Center. We supply a
5 quarter' s worth of supplies to the In-Between, which is a
6 transitional housing unit in Longmont.
7 Since 1991, LifeBridge has given over three million
8 dollars to projects in our community. We look for ways to be
—
9 engaged. We're not simply looking to take care of our needs.
—
10 Jesus tells a story about being a good neighbor, so
11 we've encouraged our people to do that. And while it ' s
in 12 difficult to track, we've had last year 1, 700 people give
13 over 25, 000 hours of community service away from our facility
14 that the church helped facilitate with those volunteer
15 organizations.
—
16 I hope LifeBridge has been a good neighbor. Have
17 we been a perfect neighbor? I can tell you with certainty
18 that we haven't been. We 've had issues. When we moved out
19 to Highway 66, we disrupted the views of 10 homes adjacent to
20 our property, and without intent on either side, that created
21 issues for us and some conflict. We've certainly made our
22 mistakes. Our Christmas event, which some of you may have
23 attended, got to be too big, and it created traffic and noise
—
24 issues. That was one of the reasons we stopped because we
25 recognized we couldn't deal with it adequately with one
102
1 driveway in and out of our current facility.
2 We've had volunteers who've stacked props and
3 chairs behind the building, and we've worked at trying to
4 mitigate those issues, but we haven't always done those as
5 timely as we could have.
6 Our current facilities are in Boulder County. I
7 hope that alone would explain our difficulties, some of the
8 issues we've had through the years, but there have been times
9 we haven't pulled permits; sometimes because we were told we
10 didn't need to and found out later we did. But whatever
11 those issues are, I ' ll accept responsibility that at times
12 the church made some mistakes in those issues.
13 It's no surprise, however, to us or to Boulder
14 County that since one neighbor moved several years ago, we
15 haven't had a single issue or citation, nor have they
16 received any complaint calls. The truth be told,
17 unintentionally. There have been times we haven't been a
18 good neighbor, but I think our record demonstrates that we
19 have been a good neighbor in the community.
20 LifeBridge already serves the needs of many Weld
21 County residents, and we have for a long, long time through
22 our programs. And we 're looking forward to a campus where
23 people can connect and play, where they're engaged. One of
24 the things that we try to do is to do things where that' s
25 excellence without extravagance. We're not looking to have
103
1 an extravagant campus; we are looking to do it well. And so
2 some of the things that you're seeing and some of the plans
3 in the hopes are to provide a place that meets the
4 community' s needs.
5 I realize we're asking for a large campus, and
6 we 're doing that because of the entitlements we're hoping to
7 gain here to provide for our current needs and the future
8 needs of the church. I 'd love to say I ' ll be around 50 years
9 from now, but that 's not likely, but we want to be in a
10 position where we're not stuck like we are right now with the
11 inability to accommodate even our own issues and our own
12 needs with our own people.
13 I suppose we could ask for facilities that only
14 LifeBridge members would use. I think that would be
15 appropriate. I don't think we'd be without precedent in
16 doing that. That would, however, break 112-year history for
17 our church. We have been engaged in the community. We look
18 for ways to be plugged into the community, and we would look
19 for ways to be of benefit to the County in that process.
20 We anticipate a great partnership, and we're
21 looking forward to the difference that can be made on this
'- 22 campus. And so we're asking for you to make a positive
23 recommendation to the Commissioners. And that will end our
24 portion of the presentation. I 'd be glad to entertain any
25 questions for me.
104
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Are there any questions?
2 John?
3 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: I don't know if this is a
4 proper question to address to you. I don't know if it' s
5 relevant, but I 'm sure the County Attorney will let me know
6 if it isn't.
7 As far as financing this project over time, do you
8 anticipate floating bonds of any sort? And why I ask this
9 question is just really a personal thing. I don 't know if
10 you recall, and I can't remember the name of the pastor, he
11 was well known in Denver, that wanted to expand his facility.
12 And I remember my wife got about 50 cents on a dollar back on
13 the bonds when the whole thing fell through.
14 MR. RUSSAW: That would be some of my earlier
15 comments about where I think there have been times there have
16 been abuses made, and I don't know if we could go ahead with
17 the question, but our answer would be fairly simple. We see
18 three sources of revenue. One is giving from our own folks,
19 and they've already committed $11 million to the initial part
20 of this project, have already given over half of that to help
21 purchase the ground and do this first portion we're in right
22 now.
23 The second aspect is to create partnerships with
24 others. Aimes Community College and some other places like
25 that are talking about leasing some of our facilities. That
105
1 would provide revenue. And the third source would be as we
2 create opportunities on that campus for the residential
3 development, the senior housing, that would obviously provide
4 revenue back to the church to help do its mission.
5 One of the things that' s frustrated me about
6 churches as they grow and get large, and some people consider
7 our church to be large, some people don't, I suppose it
8 depends on how you look at those numbers, is that we build
9 weekend facilities to accommodate our needs. Currently,
10 LifeBridge has close to enough space to accommodate our
11 weekday needs, but we certainly don't have enough space to
12 accommodate our weekend needs.
13 And so when we sat down, we said if we just build
14 large buildings that sit empty during the week, that surely
— 15 seems to be one poor stewardship, which we're more
16 accountable to God than anyone else on that. And secondly,
17 what a poor use of a facility that is right in a neighborhood
18 or a community. Why not figure out ways to make them of
19 benefit. And so that's been part of what's been driving this
20 for us.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions?
22 (No response. )
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Is that the
24 end of your presentation, then? Okay.
25 I 've been notified that Pam Smith has another
106
1 engagement she has to be at at noon, so if the Board has any
2 questions of the Health Department regarding this project,
3 now would be the good time to address them. If we don't,
—
4 then, Pam, you're free to go.
_. 5 At this time normally we would start the public
6 comment portion of the hearing. We are approaching the lunch
—
7 hour, and I need to get the speaker's cards from staff. So
8 it would probably be appropriate to go ahead and take our
—
9 lunch break now and start at quarter to 1: 00.
10 Lee?
11 MR. MORRISON: I 'm at a --
-
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Quiet, please.
13 MR. MORRISON: I can address the religious tax
14 exempt, if you would like, at this point.
—
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Go ahead.
16 MR. MORRISON: I will put in the record the
17 excerpts from the statute, 8 CCR 1304-2 , which is the
18 regulations of state property tax administrator with respect
19 to religious exemptions.
20 My comment earlier is the applicant for any
21 charitable tax exemption has to apply and maintain that
22 status. They applied to the State Property Tax
23 Administrator. They don't apply to any County agency. So my
24 reluctance to answer Commissioner Walker' s question was in
25 part because I don't think anything we say here is binding on
— 107
1 the State Property Tax Administrator.
2 What I ' ll tell you is the basic rule for the State
3 is property, real and personal, which is owned and used
—
4 solely and exclusively for religious purposes and not for
— 5 private gain or corporate profit, shall be exempt from the
6 levy and collection of property taxes. So for instance,
—
7 residential units that have been sold, those are no longer
8 religious purposes. Facilities that have been sold for
9 commercial purposes, those are no longer. If they are
10 leased, the lessee would be responsible for paying property
11 taxes on the leasehold interest. Whether the church would be
— 12 a matter of determining whether it' s an incidental use or a
13 primary use, and there are regulations on that; you know, if
14 they had a full scale store, those would be also a taxable
15 use of the church, not an exempt use.
—
16 So I mean, there's a lot of different
— 17 possibilities. I think the administrator' s summary I think
18 was accurate, that commercial uses per se are not exempt,
.-
19 even though the landlord might be a religious entity.
20 So what I propose to do is, I have a couple copies
—
21 of the rules, make those available to the Planning Commission
— 22 members and put one in the record. And then if you have
23 questions later with respect to those, I ' ll attempt to
24 address them.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: It would be safe to say, though,
108
1 that any of the homes or personal properties would be subject
2 to property tax? You know, if they're talking about single-
3 family residences?
4 MR. MORRISON: Certainly.
.. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: So that would all be subject to
6 property tax?
7 MR. MORRISON: Well, there might be some that are
8 related, like a rectory or something like that, that may fall
9 within the exemption, but any of the those outside the
10 immediate church functions. Any of those that are sold or
11 rented to other users, I mean, just because it starts out as
12 a proposal from a tax-exempt entity does not mean that
13 everything they do then forever retains that.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Right.
15 MR. MORRISON: In fact, they have to annually prove
16 what property and what purposes they are claiming as
17 exemptions.
18 The other comment I guess is that there are a lot
19 of tax-exempt entities in Weld County, governmental entities,
20 educational entities, medical facilities, all of which fit
21 somewhere in the statutory and constitutional scheme in some
22 cases for tax exemption. And the last thing is tax exemption
23 does not exempt you from special assessments, nor would it be
24 our position that they are exempt from the Road Impact Fee.
25 I have not heard that they claim to be. But to make it
- 109
1 clear, the tax exemption does not go to special assessments
2 or impact fees or things like that. So those would still be
3 collected.
—
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.
— 5 Fred?
6 COMMISSIONER WALKER: I 'd like a little
7 clarification, as best you can, Lee.
8 I 'd like to focus on the commercial portions of
—
9 this property. If the church is the owner of the commercial
— 10 building, and the lease holder, the end user of that thing,
11 you said he could be taxed, but potentially not the holder of
—
12 the property? Is that what you're telling me.
13 MR. MORRISON: There's some incidental use
14 exemptions that are unrelated purposes, and they relate to a
— 15 gross rental income. What is not exempt -- and gross rental
16 does not make exempt. Income received by the owner from
—
17 persons whose activities do not fall within the religious
18 mission of the owner are not for religious purposes, strictly
19 charitable purposes or schools, or are for strictly
20 charitable purposes or schools, but the agreement between the
—
21 owner and the user does not meet the requirements of a
22 particular statutory provision. And the religious mission
23 means a ministry commissioned by a church or some other
24 religious organization for the purpose of promulgating its
25 faith or (inaudible) on humanitary work.
110
1 So in fact, in some cases the church would also be
2 subject to property tax by leasing to a non -- an entity
3 that's not part of the church mission.
4 COMMISSIONER WALKER: Thank you.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: For the Board to consider, I have a
6 request here from Peter Gries. It says that he needs to
7 leave at 1: 00 p.m. to a prior commitment, and he wishes to
8 speak before we break for lunch. Is that -- Mr. Gries, how
9 long do you anticipate needing?
10 MR. CRIES: (inaudible) .
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I think we should grant that.
12 If you -- at this time we' ll open this meeting up to public
13 comment for one speaker.
14 Please come to the podium and give us your name and
15 address.
16 MR. CRIES: Peter Gries, 11685 Montgomery Circle,
17 Weld County District 2 , Glen Bodd's (phonetic) district.
18 First of all, I want to thank the Commissioners for
19 allowing me to speak prior to the lunch break. One of my
20 master students at CU will be very thankful that I can make
21 his master's oral defense.
22 I also want to thank the Planning Commissioners for
23 taking the time and bearing this very heavy burden of
24 arbitrating on a decision that is going to have an influence
25 of thousands of -- an impact on thousands of people. This is
—
111
1 a very heavy burden, and I thank you for agreeing to shoulder
2 that burden.
3 I also want to apologize about earlier, especially
—
4 to Commissioner Mike Miller. I certainly did not intend to
— 5 offend anybody by raising the formal objection to proceeding
6 with the hearing. The legal advice that I received yesterday
7 was that the most appropriate time to raise such a formal
8 objection would be at the beginning of the hearing. That
—
9 made sense to me personally because it essentially gave you
— 10 the option of deciding of whether you wish to proceed or not.
11 I did not intend any disrespect.
—
12 With that said, the people I would really like to
13 thank, and I am very impressed by such a large turnout from
14 my neighbors on a weekday morning, and I hope that they will
— 15 be able to stay through the afternoon. I want to thank them
16 for taking the time out of their own private, individual
17 business activities, individual and business activities to
18 come and attend today and show that they care about the
19 future of their neighborhood.
— 20 Okay. With that said, before I begin, I do want to
21 speak to two issues that Bruce Grinnell raised. The first is
—
22 his argument that LifeBridge made a series of concessions to
23 the neighbors. My understanding of the word concessions is a
24 concession is when you give up something that you hold dear
25 or something that you actually wanted, you had plans to
112
1 actually achieve. To my knowledge, there were never any
2 concrete plans for buildings with architectural elements.
3 The original request was for architectural elements up to 200
4 feet. I have never seen any information that showed that
5 LifeBridge Christian Church had any plans for buildings up to
6 200 feet with architectural elements. Instead, what I have
7 heard is that this was a negotiating strategy that their PR
8 firm recommended to them, and so that they could then later
9 say that they have made substantial concessions. I find that
10 disingenuous, and, frankly, I find it offensive to the
11 intelligence of the Planning Commissioners.
12 I think what the Planning Commissioners need to
13 address is the state of the current proposal, and you need to
14 decide whether the heights, the scale, the density, all of
15 these things are reasonable or non.
16 The second thing that Bruce Grinnell said that I am
'- 17 very concerned about and I feel obligated to respond to was
18 his very serious charge that our neighbors group, East
19 Longmont Citizens for Sensible Development, our web site has
20 intentionally put out misinformation. This is an extremely
21 serious charge, and I will send all of the Planning
22 Commissioners, if they will give me any kind of contact
23 information, an E-mail that I sent to Bruce Grinnell last
24 week, in which I gave him a list of basic facts, as I
25 understood them, of the application up to that date.
— 113
1 We have a fact sheet that I was starting to put
2 together last week for the sake of all the audience members,
3 and I wanted to ensure that those facts were as up to date as
—
4 possible before I completed that fact sheet. I E-mailed
5 Bruce Grinnell. He did not respond. Instead, he ordered me
6 into his office. And, frankly, that' s the kind of arrogance
._ 7 that has (inaudible) his dealings with us.
8 Annie Hundley (phonetic) , reporter for the Greeley
9 Tribune, Bruce Grinnell told Annie directly that he doesn't
— 10 need to negotiate with the neighbors on vital issues like
11 building heights. That issue, he feels confident, will be
—
12 resolved to his favor by the Weld County Commissioners.
13 You can get the direct quote from the Greeley
14 Tribune, that clearly Bruce Grinnell feels that the opinions
— 15 of the people seated in this room, and, frankly, the opinions
16 of the people seated in front of me, the Planning
17 Commissioners, don't make any difference. It's all going to
18 be decided in Greeley; what we say and think doesn't matter.
19 In response to this misinformation charge, I would
20 also like in self-defense to point out that first of all, it
21 has been a shifting target. LifeBridge has constantly been
— 22 changing the application, as Ursala said from Mead. The
23 information has constantly been changing, and it ' s been
24 extremely difficult for us to find out what the latest
25 information is, which is why I sent an E-mail to Bruce
— 114
1 Grinnell last week.
2 The second point is that Bruce Grinnell has
3 consistently pitched different information to different
—
4 audiences.
— 5 If you read on the fact sheet, Bruce Grinnell wrote
6 in the LifeBridge newsletter directed at the LifeBridge
7 congregation the quote, "We have filed our application for
8 change of zone with Weld County from agricultural to
9 residential. " Agricultural and residential were italicized
— 10 in that original letter in the LifeBridge newsletter.
11 If that's what they were actually applying for, all
—
12 of us would be celebrating. The reality, as you know, is
13 that they are asking for a PUD with seven different zoning
14 components. Two of them we believe are totally
— 15 inappropriate, and that is the neighborhood commercial, and
16 especially the general commercial.
—
17 Now, the neighborhood commercial sections might be
18 appropriate for that small 22-acre corner at the intersection
19 of County Route 3 1/2 and 119 where the MUD clearly
20 designates a neighborhood center.
—
21 But Kim Ogle' s response to the question about
— 22 whether this is in accordance with the MUD plan, that because
23 there is a small neighborhood center located on one tiny
24 corner of this lot, that it is appropriate to grant general
25 commercial zoning for an area way to the north of that, to
— 115
1 me, is not satisfactory.
2 Okay. Well that's my -- let me get on to the
3 bottom line here. I don't know if people can see that. The
—
4 most applicable element of the Weld County Code, the law that
— 5 we are here to uphold is that "New development shall
6 demonstrate compatibility with existing surrounding land use
7 in terms of general use, building height, scale, density,
8 traffic, dust and noise. "
9 Hidden in the back, I think it ' s page 32 , of Kim
— 10 Ogle's report, he clearly states that the project as proposed
11 does not demonstrate that the PUD is compatible with existing
—
12 surrounding land use.
13 A third and final quotation, also from the law, the
14 Weld County Code, Section 23-2-710B, which gets at your
15 duties as Planning Commissioners, "The Planning Commission
—
16 shall recommend approval of the request for the change of
17 zone of a PUD district only if it finds that the applicant
18 has met the applicable requirements. The applicant has the
19 burden of proof to show that the standards and conditions are
20 met. "
—
21 I am now going to present an argument to you that
— 22 the proposal does not meet the compatibility requirement, but
23 my point in starting here is that Kim Ogle himself does not
—
24 believe that the proposal meets the planning requirements,
25 the requirements of the law. And I would further argue that
116
1 the minor changes that he suggests to the proposal are not
2 sufficient to overcome the defects in the lack of
3 compatibility between the proposal and the existing
4 surrounding land use.
5 Could you bring that bag over, the shopping bag?
6 Forgive me, I teach 200 students on a regular basis, and so I
7 always need props.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cries?
9 MR. GRIES: Yes.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: You need to be aware that anything
11 you present here becomes part of the record and will have to
12 remain.
13 MR. CRIES: Yes. Yes, you can have -- you can have
14 my props, these various items.
15 Anyway, so my point is, is that it boils down to
16 compatibility, and it really is a question of what do we mean
17 when we say something is compatible with something else.
18 That, I believe, is the bottom line that you all need to make
19 your decision about.
20 So what do we mean when we say that something is
21 compatible with something else? Well, I 'm going to make an
22 argument to you, is that what we mean is not that two things
23 are exactly the same, but it ' s also not that one thing is
24 twice as big, three times as big, or 50 times as big as the
25 other thing. When two things are compatible, they are
117
1 roughly the same as each other.
2 So if we take this example of a lime, which I
3 donate to Weld County, does the proposed development need to
4 be another lime? Absolutely not. Okay, that' s why we have
5 the PUD process. We can create some diversity. The law does
6 not require that you put in 20-to-30-foot single-family
7 homes. It doesn't need to be exactly the same. You don't
8 need to have two limes.
9 How about a lemon? I think a lemon -- a lemon is
10 clearly bigger than a lime, but I think it' s close enough, if
11 not twice as big. It' s about 150 percent as big, and that' s
12 my bottom punch line. I 'm asking you to think about
13 compatibility with 150 percent compatibility standard.
14 That' s how I want to quantify roughly the same as. So a
15 lemon, even though it' s bigger than a lime, is compatible.
16 A grapefruit is not. A grapefruit is at least
17 twice as big as a lime. I apologize to Weld County, to whom
18 I 'm donating the seedless watermelon. I was actually looking
19 forward to eating it, but this is only half in jest.
20 Clearly, the watermelon is not just two or three times the
21 size of the lime in terms of height. And what they are
22 proposing is two or three times the height of the same
23 building. The surrounding buildings are 20 to 30 feet high,
24 and they are proposing 60 to 90-foot structures.
25 So that' s more like the height is more compatible
— 118
1 to the grapefruit, which is too big, too tall, but it' s not
2 outrageous.
3 How is the watermelon comparable to what' s going on
—
4 here? When you think about the bulk of what' s being
— 5 proposed. It was mentioned earlier today during the
6 presentation that the first building to go up, Phase 1, to
—
7 start building in a year or sooner, the theater auditorium
8 that will seat 33 , 000 people. Sorry, 3 , 330; 2 , 500 in the
—
9 auditorium, 800 in the theater. That building is going to
— 10 be, I think it was 158, 000 square feet in three dimensions.
11 Well, what does a typical house have? Let's go generous,
—
12 3 , 000 square feet. We're talking 50 times the bulk size.
13 And that is only one of the buildings in the first phase.
14 This is their auditorium theater, setback I think 700 feet
— 15 from the property line. But even that, with reducing it by
16 the distance in the background, you see how it just humbles
—
17 the surrounding residential area. Absolutely humbles it.
18 The second image shows a 70-foot building currently
19 under construction down close to Lafayette, but the intention
20 there is to give you a sense of what the size of the houses
—
21 in Longview, which are currently 20-foot houses, the houses
— 22 in Elms and Farms at Meadow Vale, under 30 feet by law,
23 compared to a 70-foot building. 75? And they're asking for
24 larger than that. They're asking for buildings that will
25 range between 60 and 90 feet high. To me, this is just
—
119
1 patently incompatible. This is not comparing limes and
2 lemons. This is comparing limes and watermelons, and it is
3 just patently, on the face of it, incompatible. And,
4 therefore, according to the law, as laid out in the MUD, as I
5 pointed out earlier, I believe you are required to reject
6 this rezoning application.
7 I 'd like to go through some of the different
8 compatibility issues laid out in the law. The law requires
9 compatibility in general use, building height, scale,
10 density, traffic. Just very briefly, I 've already said that
11 the general commercial zoning is totally inappropriate to the
12 middle of the one residential area set out in the MUD plan.
13 Commissioner John --
14 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: Folsom.
15 MR. GRIES: Sorry?
16 COMMISSIONER FOLSOM: Folsom.
17 MR. CRIES: Folsom, excuse me, was completely
18 right. I agree with the Commissioner completely, that when
19 you look at the MUD plan, which is all that we as homeowners
20 have to base our investment decisions on -- when you're
21 thinking about buying a house in an agricultural area, you
22 know that that agricultural area is going to be developed.
23 So you see information for, well, how is it going to be
24 developed? And for those of us who went up to Weld County
25 and looked at the mixed use development plan, which is part
120
1 of the Weld County Code, it clearly shows that that farm is
2 designated for residential development. But we all had an
3 expectation that it would be something like residential.
4 Now, if you dug further and into the Code and we
5 looked at what it said about the PUDs as allowing for
6 variance, it doesn't need to be exactly residential, but it
7 does say it needs to be compatible. And I want to argue
8 forcibly that general commercial development is not
9 compatible with the existing residential land use. This is
10 not an urban area. What is being proposed here is to create
11 an urban center right in the middle of the only residential
12 -- three residential neighborhoods in this corner of Weld
13 County. It completely undermines the intent of the MUD.
14 Building heights, there is -- it ' s not necessary --
-
15 first of all, I 'm not going to make a legal argument here.
16 It's not necessary to have buildings 90 feet tall. The
17 (inaudible) Regional Event Center outside of Greeley seats at
18 full 6, 000 people, but ranges in height between 25 and 45
19 feet tall. There is nothing on the scale of 60 to 90 feet in
20 Weld County currently.
21 Indeed, the Pepsi Center, downtown Denver, is 100
22 feet tall.
23 Scale. There' s this claim that there is a
24 concession in reducing square footage from two million to 1. 5
25 million. 1. 5 million is three times the size of the retail
121
1 floor area available in Longmont's Twin Peaks mall. So they
2 are asking essentially to put three Twin Peaks malls
3 immediately adjacent to the Elms at Meadow Vale and to the
4 two other neighborhoods.
5 Density. LifeBridge, according to Bruce Grinnell,
6 seeks a 2 percent market share or to have 15 to 20, 000 church
7 members. Currently, the largest church in Colorado is the
8 New Life Church in Colorado Springs, with only 6, 000 members.
9 Traffic issues. I strongly urge the Planning
10 Commissioners not to allow interconnectivity between the two
11 neighborhoods mentioned. The fact that Bruce Grinnell
12 brought up the interconnectivity issue as an example of a
13 concession that LifeBridge was making only reinforces the
14 point I made earlier. The initial application that
15 LifeBridge submitted to Weld County did not ask for
16 interconnectivity. How can you make a concession on
17 something that you don't want in the first place?
18 Traffic. I appreciate the sheriffs coming out and
19 speaking with us, and I think the sheriffs are overworked and
_ 20 underpaid. I know that this past Friday there was an
21 accident near County Route 7 and 119 . It took 45 minutes
— 22 before there was any police there. They are already over
23 strained, and there is no provision for helping them out in
24 any manner on this issue.
25 The traffic, the assertion that the traffic
122
1 generated on Pearl Howlett and Blue Mountain will range
—. 2 between 1 and 300 on full build-out, if that were true, why
3 would connectivity be necessary, if it was so low? I would
—
4 argue that that is patently absurd. The Phase 1
— 5 auditorium/theater with 3 , 300 seats, that is right at the top
6 of Pearl Howlett Road. Okay, how do you fill so many seats
7 with only -- say every seat was filled by someone who drove
8 in Pearl Howlett. I don't know, there's some pretty good
—
9 jokes about how many Frenchmen you fit in a car, but I don't
— 10 know how you get -- you know, even after two or three years
11 if they opened that up. But they are planning another 6, 000-
-
12 person auditorium in say six or seven, right in front of the
13 3 , 300 seat one. So we're talking about close to 10, 000
14 seats, right at the top of Pearl Howlett Road. If you have
15 connectivity, you're only going to have 300 odd cars. In
16 addition, I find that absurd, just absurd.
—
17 Okay. Consequences. What happens if you go ahead
18 and rezone this either as it is or with the very minor
19 changes that Kim Ogle suggests? I would argue that there are
20 two major consequences. The first has to do with property
21 rights and our free-market system here in Weld County.
"- 22 Adam Smith, champion of the free market. The idea
23 is an invisible hand, that the State should play a minimal
24 role, was also forceful in arguing that we state to act, as
25 he called it, constable. But when he described it, what he
123
1 talked about was upholding justice. The State needs to
2 protect us from each other and make sure that nobody believes
3 anyone else in the free market, otherwise the free market
4 falls apart.
5 If you approve this, even if say one-quarter the
6 size of what they're asking for, the very phrase
7 compatibility will have lost any meaning, and pretty much
8 anything will go. The MUD will have no more relevance for
9 development in Weld County.
10 And I think that this is not just an issue that
11 will upset homeowners, the bulk of the taxpayers in this
12 County. This will upset developers. Developers like to have
13 security in property rights. They need to know that the
14 rules are clear. But if we totally undermine the meaning of
15 the law, even developers are going to worry about the
16 security of their investments. And I really worry about the
17 Weld County economy once people start to worry about the
18 security of their investments here.
19 Second reason, second possible consequence if this
20 is rezoned in an approximate form as it 's been (inaudible) .
21 Federal law. We will be opening the door to federal lawsuits
22 by any individual or group that claims religion. Federal law
23 defines religion extremely expansively. All you need to do
24 to say you have religion is I say I have an organized set of
25 beliefs. You don't need a group. You don't need a lot of
—
124
1 money. You just need to say, I have an organized set of
2 beliefs.
3 The U. S. Constitution has something called the
—
4 Establishment Clause, which disallows any aspect of our
— 5 government to set one religion above other religions. In
6 practice, this is translated into a sort of norm of fair
—
7 play, that any (inaudible) granted to one religion must be
8 granted to other religions.
—
9 Okay. So imagine your neighbor has a vision and
— 10 decides that they now have religion, or imagine that someone
11 from the KKK, which is a declared religion, moves in next
—
12 door. If they apply for you to Weld County to have whatever
13 you give LifeBridge, whether it's a watermelon or a
—
14 grapefruit, whether it' s 60-foot heights or the equivalent of
15 two Twin Peaks malls, whatever you give LifeBridge, you have
16 to give to every subsequent applicant. Now, you can deny
17 them, but then they're going to take you to Federal Court,
18 and Weld County will be opening itself up to these kinds of
19 lawsuits, and this is going to lead to a dramatic (inaudible)
20 of the property rights of all taxpayers in Weld County.
21 So that's it. My plea to you is to (inaudible) .
—
22 The application does not meet the standards of the law, does
23 not meet the compatibility requirement, and by law, you are
24 required to reject it. However, should you want to avoid
25 having another meeting and you want to rezone this, I ask you
's 125
1 to dramatically limit the basic bulk requirements of height,
2 density, applying 150 percent standard maximum so that the
3 buildings can be no more than 45 feet high in the most remote
4 corners of the development, not up against the property
5 lines.
6 One more picture. This is the picture of MacClain
7 (phonetic) , which is on the corner of County Route 1 and 119.
8 It' s a 45-foot building. The current application asks for
9 the right to build two such buildings within 125 feet of the
10 eastern property line of the development. It's absurd. It's
11 absolutely absurd, that kind of staggering size. We're not
12 just talking about 45 feet high; we're talking about --
13 they're asking about a youth center and a recreation center,
14 one slightly behind the other, just like these two walls, but
15 in effect it would form a wall probably about 150 degrees
16 looking from Elms at Meadow Vale. And these buildings could
17 be between 125 and (inaudible) feet back. This picture is
18 very conservative in that it's taken from a distance, but
19 according to the application, they could bring those
20 buildings up much closer.
21 The application also fails to address (inaudible)
22 lighting. All gymnasiums have, to save electricity, have
23 windows up near the top to light the gyms and save
24 electricity. Well, if you have that 125 feet from you,
25 you're going to have light where the stars used to be. So my
126
1 request to you is that you apply 150 percent compatibility
2 standard on bulk and height and that you not allow even --
3 you not allow the biggest buildings like these 45-foot
4 buildings to be so close to the property lines. They should
5 be moved. As Kim Ogle also suggests, he says that this
6 (inaudible) big massive building, the 300 seat auditorium
7 theater is completely inappropriate in the location that it
8 exists. This is on pages 30 to 32 , and he strongly
9 recommends that that building be completely moved elsewhere.
10 Thank you for your time and consideration, and
11 thank everyone for coming.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Are there any questions
13 for Peter? Jim?
14 COMMISSIONER ROHN: I appreciate this a lot. I
15 didn't appreciate that.
16 MR. GRIES: I 'm sorry, I apologize.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any other question?
18 MR. GRIES: I wasn't originally intending to give
19 exactly those sheets to the Planning Commissioners.
20 Originally, those sheets were intended only for my neighbors.
21 I apologize.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions for
23 Peter?
24 (No response. )
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.
127
1 MR. CRIES: Thank you.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: We 've taken a picture of your fruit,
3 so you can take that to the master's defense, if you'd like.
4 MR. CRIES: Thank you. I willingly donate my
5 seedless watermelon.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. At this time we' ll
7 adjourn for lunch. We' ll come back at 20 minutes after 1: 00.
8 (Whereupon, a lunch recess was taken. )
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Hello