The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20031604.tiff OF £O 3eC - TOWN OF FREDERICK � nl n0 rst-,<r1� P.O. BOX 435 • FREDERICK,CO 80530 • PHONE: (303)833-2388 tit)p FAX: (303)833-3817 Weld ng Department GREELEYPlanni 0FFICE , i County June 12, 2003 JUN 1 6 2003 , RECEIVED Kim Ogle Weld County Planning Department 1555 North 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Formal Referral Response Case No. PZ-1004 PUD Change of zone district classification for LifeBridge Christian Church Dear Kim: Planning staff has reviewed the formal referral for the change of zone district classification for the LifeBridge Christian Church located within Weld County. The proposed project is not located within our IGA boundaries; therefore, comments and/or concerns from the Town is limited in scope. The Town of Frederick concurs with the issues identified by Weld County Planning Staff concerning setbacks and building heights. The Town of Frederick would like to thank you in advance for the opportunity to comment on the development plans for the LifeBridge Christian Church. Sincerely, ,, I \ ,blJlJ1�J 4eCfitCarrie McCool, Tn Planner for the Town of Frederick McCool Development Solutions, LLC Cc: Dick Wyatt, Mayor Town of Frederick 4 EXHIBIT 2003-1604 CAROL Harding - LifeBridge Application Page 1 From: "Donohoo, Michael" <michael.donohoo@thomson.com> To: "'charding@co.weld.co.us"' <charding@co.weld.co.us> Date: 6/18/03 4:29PM Subject: LifeBridge Application please see enclosed letter of comment about the LifeBridge rezoning application (2003-35)to the county commissioners and forward it as needed. =i thanks c Michael Donohoo <<Weld County Commissioners.doc>> Michael Donohoo Software Engineer Public Records michael.donohoo@thomson.com phone: (651) 848-4546 pager: 1-888-640-1736 text page: 8886401736@archwireless.net<mailto:8886401736@archwireless.net> West, a Thomson business, changed its e-mail addresses effective April 5. My new address is Michael.Donohoo@thomson.com. Messages sent to my former address will be routed to my new address. Thank you. I. EXHIBIT ISS Pe*loot' Weld County Commissioners P.O. Box 758 n Greeley, CO 80632 Dear Commissioners I am writing as a homeowner in the ELMs who will be directly impacted by the LifeBridge Campus rezoning request. I believe that the plan currently proposed by LifeBridge Christian Church (LBCC) is not compatible to the surrounding area and would hurt the quality of life and value of homes in surrounding neighborhoods. I think that if some minor changes are made to the plan the church and the surrounding neighborhoods could learn to live together. I hope that you would read this letter and truly consider its contents. My biggest worry(and that of many of my neighbors)about the plan is not something LBCC is asking for but something Weld County Planners are insisting on: Connectivity to the church campus from the surrounding neighborhoods. The traffic engineer(hired by LBCC)claims at full build out there will be about 380 trips (weekdays, not counting large events)through the Pearl Howlett Road connection to the church campus. He claims his numbers are based on LBCC5 current membership. However, if LBCC is to build at the site in questions, they will attract hundreds if not thousands of new members and users of their services from the fast growing communities and neighborhoods east of their campus. People approaching the LBCC campus on state highway 119 from the east will find it easier during times of heavy traffic to shortcut through my neighborhood to get to the church campus. The traffic engineer also did not include traffic numbers at peak levels when thousands of people exiting the church campus may have to wait several light cycles to leave the campus. People tend not to wait well and many will decide to use the intersection of county road 5.5 and highway 119 rather than sit at a light. These people will tend to shortcut through the ELMs. It is my opinion that traffic along Pearl Howlett will increase dramatically at times to perhaps several thousand cars per day. Pearl Howlett is a narrow neighborhood street with a lot of pedestrian traffic along it. It was not designed to handle the heavy traffic the LBCCs campus will create. Due to the increased traffic, connectivity will decrease the home values of dozens of homes along Pearl Howlett and Elmer Linn Drive and endanger the safety of the residents of the ELMs. One of the Planning Commissioners had the right approach for this issue. He said that for now connectivity should not be part of the plan but at a later date, closer to full build out, if the residents of the ELMs feel that they would benefit from connectivity, then the matter can be brought up again later. This is the best approach. Please DO NOT require the connection of Pearl Howlett to the church campus as part of the final rezoning. Let the neighbors and LBCC visit this issue at a later time. I also think that the church should be forced to mitigate some of the light pollution from their massive parking lot. If they keep their parking lot lights on all night this will create a great deal of light pollution, much more pollution than a residential neighborhood would create. The LBCC campus is, in places, a good 20 feet higher in elevation than the western boundary of the ELMs. This means that the lights from LBCCs parking lots will be visible down view corridors from the ELMs and will be painfully visible to the homes on the western edge of the ELMs development. The size of the parking lot for this campus will be as large as a small shopping mall, and if lit all night will become an eyesore for the neighbors. My other problem with the church campus is its sheer size and the mass and height of the buildings. If LBCC is allowed to build a 1.5 million square foot campus with 70+foot tall buildings, then they should at the very least build no closer than 400 feet from the eastern edge of their property. Furthermore, the structures should be required to be lowered on the eastern edge so that they full size and impact of the buildings is minimized. This would give the homeowners of the ELMs some breathing room from these massive buildings. Unless the light pollution from the parking lot is mitigated, the proposed campus is not compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Unless the campus itself is forced to allow a reasonable building buffer and height restriction on its eastern boundary, it is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. I urge you take action to ensure Pearl Howlett does not become a high speed shortcut but remains a quiet residential street. Thank you for your time and consideration Michael Donohoo PETER H . ZIEMKE LLC ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW �. . r6 15 June 2003 Board of County Commissioners c/o Clerk to the Board Via Fax(970)352-0242 Weld County P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Kim Ogle, Planner FAX: 970-304-6498 Weld County Planning Department 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80634 Re: LifeBridge Christian Church, Case PZ-1004, Docket No. 2003-35 Dear Commissioners and Mr. Ogle: I have been asked to assist several hundred of your citizens in connection with your consideration of the LifeBridge rezoning application. My clients reside in the neighborhoods surrounding the proposed development. They have asked me to submit comments to the application on their behalf, for consideration at your July 9, 2003 public hearing. This letter is directed to the evidence in the record regarding the applicant's and County's compliance with required referral and public notice procedures. As you are aware, this case has been plagued with notice irregularities from the start. Exhibit 152 shows that the first Planning Commission hearing—March 18, 2003—was called to order even though there had been no published notice of the hearing as required by County regulations. This is not permitted. The County may not call a public hearing to order and "continue"it unless and until the County has satisfied all jurisdictional notice requirements. The sign posting for that hearing was also flawed. Exhibit 227 certifies that a sign was posted for"fifteen days" for the Planning Commission hearing. This is the only sign posting evidence in the file. There are no photographs of the sign showing when the sign was posted, or that the sign contents satisfied County requirements, or any other evidence of compliance. The second Planning Commission hearing was scheduled for April 22, 2003. Your staff has not made available to my clients any evidence that the published notice occurred in compliance with County requirements. Nor have they been able to locate evidence of compliance with the County's sign posting requirement. The only evidence of posting in the file made available to us is Exhibit 227,but that exhibit shows clearly that the required sign posting EXHIBIT 12600 WEST 32N° AVENUE • WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO • 80033 � PHONE: (303) 462-1663 • FAX: (303) 238-2662 Pa #lcoy '- / ,5S 2_ June 15,2003 did not occur: The certificate of posting is dated April 17, 2003, and attests to the posting of a sign no later than March 3, 2003. That sign could not have advertised the April 22, 2003 hearing, because Exhibit 152 clearly shows that the new hearing date had not been established even by March 13, 2003, the date Exhibit 152 was written. Additional evidence of the posting deficiency is attached. Duane Leise, one of my clients,personally witnessed the fact that the sign was knocked over in the snowstorm which began on March 17, 2003; that the snowfall obliterated the contents of the sign; and, most importantly,that no new sign was ever posted prior to April 22. There are many more citizens who witnessed these events, and who can testify to this. Exhibit 152 is of doubtful reliability,because that exhibit fails to note the fact that the sign did not survive the March 17, 2003 snowstorm. If the sign was posted on March 3, it was not up for more than 13 days. That sign could not satisfy the County's 15-day requirement, even if the contents had correctly advertised the hearing(of which there is no evidence). According to this evidence, on July 9, 2003 the Board will be considering an application that has not been processed in accordance with the County's own regulations. The application is not eligible for approval by the Board of County Commissioners unless and until the matter has been properly considered by the Planning Commission,with proper public notice and after all required referrals have been timely made. See, C.R.S. §30-28-116. The County's own regulations define exactly how that is to occur, and must be complied with before the Board of County Commissioners will have the power to approve the application. Further, the Board of County Commissioners cannot approve an application that has not been processed in accordance with County requirements. There is no evidence of the contents of the sign, and therefore no means for the Board to conclude that the sign complied with the County content requirements. Similarly,there is no evidence of published notices for either Planning Commission hearing. And finally, it is undisputed that there was never a sign posted advertising the April 22 Planning Commission hearing, and the one sign that was posted for the earlier hearing came down on or about March 17, and was never replaced. An approval is not permitted under state law or County regulations under these circumstances. Thank you for considering these comments. Respectfully submitted, PET . IEMKE, LLC • er emke cc: Bruce Barker, Esq., Weld County Attorney,Via Fax (970)352-0242 . ! - AFFIDAVIT Duane Leise, being first duly sworn, states as follows: 1. I am a Weld County citizen and taxpayer. I own property adjacent to the proposed LifeBridge Christian Church development. I travel in the area daily, including the portion of the proposed development that fronts on Highway 119. 2. As an adjacent property owner, I have taken interest in the LifeBridge application and have paid very close attention to the proceedings. 3. I personally observed that there was a sign posted on the LifeBridge property. The sign was facing HW 119 and located approximately 450 yards east of the intersection of CR 3 '/2 immediately against the fence in the road easement. It was of card stock weight paper and mounted on two 2 inches X 3/4 inch 4 foot long pieces of wood. (Black and white picture of the remaining sticks included) 4. The area was hit with a significant snowstorm on March I7, which continued for several days thereafter. News reports stated that the storm was the worst the area has seen for over 90 years. My property and the LifeBridge property received a total of approximately 22 inches of snow. The roads in the vicinity were impassable on March 18. 5. The sign was not visible from the highway after March 17. I did not observe the actual sign again until much of the snow had melted, maybe 4 to 6 days later and then saw the sign crumpled, flattened and lying on the ground about 10 feet from the sticks it had been mounted on. I returned on34/30/03 and took a picture of the sign , the mounting k and the last of the snow that was on the ground. I returned again on 04/06/03 and took a more blown up picture of area. Both of those pictures are included by printing them on an accompanying sheet of paper. 6. I later learned that the hearing originally scheduled for March 18 had somehow been"continued" to April 22, 2003. I personally saw that there was no sign posted on the LifeBridge property, which advertised a hearing to be held on April 22, 2003. 7. I have looked through the planning file for this application as it existed following the May 7, 2003 Board of County Commissioners hearing. I have paid attention to newspapers announcements of the LifeBridge application since before March 2003. I have not seen a notice published for a Plan 'rig Commission hearing that complies with the published notice requirement of the Weld C zoning regulations. LEE.81,,,;---k f` it tkOTARJ \ wane Leise ti):••..PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO } y�..•• .,•.:,,p } ss. OF CO\-O,'-. COUNTY OF WELD } Subscribed and sworn before me this /7 day of u,, rte' , 2003 by Duane Leise. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires Dec.6,2/106 PALL) / .6 -gA— Notary'Public ,-;`-;,'",,,+ AY. ,_� 4 � ro =cf a r a k rr«C ` q,d£ ..•'P• �n - e to * � r" 4 ',..474 � ss FY..�a , s'� t Y,a w .:'-.& ,`dm r.:fr I s,`.: ' �'A'.+ - 'd" "ia!_'d! " ,+ r--' t«bfit g tY • }{,• +"' fhu .-k"3 rtxrr'•..._... _ .. .--, r_`.ry::y, .c-.,. ry. tom - '�i.g}A '"i-: , .4-i/c� ate',`u,.:. + y .. a aat'i xY�` ., . :' _ ,..w x ... ..: +C ;r- 'wmt r '' n .�. se '^::{ ',A J UHF' ° ^'zir4 x",. , '.;4} ,cv 3ix ¢c; <: a ,� •vt�' .. a .E �.,'r'. �` - r. . '`"' . _...w.s + ,,-!"N-k..14::,- , at ._ at w :, �.,: i�-g'� 1 , s�"' �_'q-' t � .w . ,} 1-r .� .r .-a +` :,.: Yt43Y36�� .r ,:i': t F'.C.+.e t'Y �q, ' ��k_ '� ; r,; =+a'`s.> ,::,` + akl Y:. t ...,a t'Nr;.. . .::..;. '4+' a .f,,,, , . ' '"I „z „ ".«. iCC _ "":` $,f i• :�R k ' y' .t ` `;.�.�r< -3: ,.... a . ..... •• kk :..:. ,ms's"a '�t . � : •.. - 4 :a 3F -.a�.x ., "a "t{i to ; i k':.._. �s„is . .. .-:.--.r,. ..:� a,.M..". '&.:� •� ., :.. I--.3�.o f-v�� ..'�._.. .. �fi+s�snv".�ia�'kS=;`4"'�`., �� ;m�. ..,;. .'; :<, v;•� :x;3 ..,'_ � , ' ,��.. ,:,` �.::,„..T �s.;,¢;n*,:::,.sA" ,'W''•-.' ''''c....->3^ _JJ R' :.s.. I2 e § 'Y .I =+ c�3"c: }':• S + :ti .._ '.t a . t". y -Y t ^' .' wr."..., , { SS t ;ml .x0,,,,,,,,,1114.44,- ,.."•-",..,.:', i 'k' .. - * '' v s,.s.,r+, - s ,'. t2 ." h ' t.w -.. .,�:"' .» ., g . "r'' '," ; ,.-E!G,zw w _ .sa• „, r.. a. m � .^ 7 •...: .sx^ �.�ryg�:s: F Y/{�Y'L+'i'u +'+ ,,,,..;.A,,/-:',",;O;:',4:::"{,-':.. :'.'-.. '::. A. 4 �..' '. .An:"_ F . ^:", �y yn' ..a.'V" - i.� a.. , .: I` Y. , •�..:r: • atr. Mn - ii 4Y r. T�:. l'„E' e � .s::.r ,�' Y ..^S LL � Z-, .'y-`4,.t.. -n � �.�.+.. 'r: 'Tk S` :. 7t�-y''. a ' � cM1y -- 'va, _ ,._ �FJ ,ids .,. # yq; �-P ...:e ;.: � . .. .'#:.ta 4 . �`9 .. �i.'i:. `L'. ..:'c�� >.- ,--L4;,..1;'1,-:'-'t,:-'7', ,�.. _, ,� .', e>'t... '.} _ ,yf � .5Y",. a ' :�i+,.,s Y \�.:s "FT x��T.5 +:,�:�. v'Y .• ... D:Cfq . ...�+a+ •1,. it - ir: tt r . h ... .t-,n} t J.. y'n..¢ 4 ' �� . , .j ,. . . k, .,. .. r. y,4A` ,..."..,,a.:r :g . ' Y �. '"y.. 4.�•.. .:'+.. ,{y GR.:A'. r ,:•y„yr_ I{I,.. :r .:-. .q ;; f, A F4 . .'y p `ry D- § r�rtiY*.' 5" f:'N? ^``.''7; . '1 :�: q is ,S.,. ti _ .. , s. 'm'. ?.-i' ..;'G'`' ., ,q;.w., y .:^C-4.;:, '!N4K au"":� .u- .':SM+.? ,:k:k;' .a. .r. ""* t .r...t'+.*1"a.;i E'* },'n:. h . „,424:' :.a _A� 'i .�` . . . 'k".• f n',: .. r ..P AS �,x... .. hr `+.'Yv., +ei' .i "'§-s w .. `bfi , u."'^=. :C -:.,t�;„i`"- ztaw H.�''p ,.r`s, 1 'Y�.'. _ �'°`ia�:':. ;. ","..;1`.. to: 1 7 cAY K ' r w z st4a". ,;r" ''�F. t + .� �',{+� " t "Y ' ' '�' :i>. ' ' v-r,.;; ors�; V' :'., .•W. t,,pi's'' ` :i C'-:`;. � x a� , i - «�` � ''-:, 'w'a.ga€'i'i *•': 'Z,,y, ,.-y's ,,. .. r• •.•••-'. a. , ,1 . 7t • m "t ..:`fie' .r' n' a { - ,_xt.e.w :tike^#'` _`��; M..• '." s i, >"r• yP �S;c H,.", ' N E y, rz �t . 1 j,: ..2� r e .z .`�r..� +,c \.�•t ,is'1s .� 't: 't '^ " ,+""r, i .?yv1A+S i•;� �. ' ♦ N, � �.r, .0,'„,,:::4017,2V 4,a�5��.art `� �� t �. :,v g1� 1,)- h� >t +4 • .r• g, a �� r� �: �' , � ��', frn t :l" i'ly .4 °�� ;ttl'- / `x k..._ �. +. J`., 2 - . r y, :_,,,,at-:-.: :�:u r., `... e. ..\ k' = rr j `` i�; aink _ ." ... �. � S -rteJ, 1 ,. 14T '', lA : . :. ,≥1' Y !-k. ' ..„±„,- .1::-.,Y fr► T ti we,�' .� �'\, t.:1 4..5 ,'{3c.r i,f rj ' k .a. ..'� Tr :2S#^ w ..ff Y'r✓M1 .�n' .,�'-C' ..5 F ;r� �} 5+ �' .. ',\ t K. • "..."; •,.`- , 5` ba. ` r% r � �?... ' \. : i '1,-:•''''''''1 < M1t {E.'y Id ` .z �'h"at a } t ".' y i.;it: ,v,"•:,_••• s t 4 4 'G ^l rTwY ` r k} ^'..' ht • t''"' A, t'�/ �..• � ' eir Y Y, i'`f` -. F Na > f:}. g Jiet" r `rp (,• x - A • ..... ..z', Sw 4� r •c u,. .xa j i" fit` !e5 qr,,s. r .. h ...... ` .4Yx'�'e^..X,fi3u.. .,- h. ., �" ` ",-', `,{.. t .<• 44 :' l Frv. L T i J /a 4i! Y AL (tk;;4,: e1< - t �µ i` I fLi. -5 ,7'. '.;: x f i:' # a '.:' . (.7. '.4f; } 4;�k kv �" ,� Seco picture close p taken 04/06/03 : 1 PM z *"�11* • �, k s+(�n,1 .at 3'n.� 5 t l 9•4'.,..d.,-,,;:,xr Y''' , —. d a, , .r :i ter.^ :i of fi�:1 f +'"5 ,+}�rr nN /r ,°t �An'ut'AA?"r•-17; r raS \ .,.Y k` ': K�" gz'.. Y - •t: 'i ai � - `' �' r �I � r yt,,�; tF y;"HSX.�, .,n ':: �.L ' -:':::.-•... y S d i a { e R "a44`: „ T 'z ' -x° r ,Crr r ''''•-•‘- .5" -1/4:tit-, e ‘•• '+'' ,3 444 4;* y" ,5, 'bed. "..'nP•` '�i '{R � ri �, Al'� � y6w ��y�, ; '� .Fri +"� � ".� �' �`�z .. " . w S.+�m�ixLT+.:s �4 .. 1 a�,+{\4?-14:, [... may,". - Picture of sign the round 3/30/03 1 :39 P M. ,iY \ ��,' � k4 ` "9 9 � 1rM x j � , :, 14>j %.%.* it- Subscribed and sworn before me this i day of �� i , 2003 by Duane Leise. :� ' Witne ss my hand and official seal. My commission expires MyCommissionEs ir.esDec.6,2006 " •,..,. .�`' s I•' % J/ J pit P"�Lt �G2C�� : EE Bq „ Al t.- t'! ► `r * re' M Syr" `4 Notary Public l. 4%.tr\ P ........ ...'Q.ftc i t .%'t.,.,< ,,: wr�-'- :All 9py4 ,,. t?9; P[JBLI :g Blow up of sign on the ground lit TETRA TECH RMC efil .. RI v 0 June 20, 2003 (-lc . ,, Mr. Kim Ogle Weld County Department of Planning Services Weld County Administrative Offices 1555 North 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Information Requested by Board of County Commissioners Dear Kim: We have prepared some additional information to clarify questions raised by the Board of County Commissioners at the May 7, 2003 hearing. • Oil and Gas—We met with Dave Siple (Patina Oils and Gas Corporation) and Robert Bram (EnCana Oil and Gas USA Inc.) regarding accommodation of existing and future oil and gas operations. We have drafted a surface use agreement and are continuing to negotiate regarding appropriate locations for wells,production facilities,pipelines and access. We believe that we have complied with the requirement related to Oil and Gas for Change of Zone at this time and we will keep you informed as additional progress is made on the issue of Oil and Gas. • Building Height and Setback: o The attached table and graphics clarify LBCC's latest revisions and current request regarding building heights and setbacks within the church campus portion of the PUD. o In order to minimize the impact of the buildings on the church campus, we propose some additional restrictions on the eastern 500 feet of the church campus. The following restrictions only apply to the eastern 500 feet of the area defined as church campus. • The footprint of the buildings in eastern 500 feet of the area defined as church campus will cover a maximum of 25%of the land. • The maximum north-south length of any building in the eastern 500 feet of the area defined as church campus will be 250 feet. • The minimum separation between buildings in the eastern 500 feet of the area defined as church campus will be 75 feet. 4 EXHIBIT 900 5Suoset Sheet Su to -F.Loegnont.CO 8050 Tel 3037723 82 Fax 303.665.6959 ew'v✓.tt me;o'-� O� loot' Mr. Kim Ogle TETRA TECH RMC June 20, 2003 Page 2 of 4 o We would like to provide some additional clarification to the issue of height and setback. • The Weld County planning code allows for a typical residential structure with a height of 30' to be constructed at a 25' setback from the property line. In this instance there is less than one foot of setback for one foot of building height. The actual ratio is 25:30, or 5:6. • In alternative A of the Church Campus (no homes adjacent to the Elms), we are proposing that the 30' tall church structures will be setback a minimum of 125' from the property line. In this instance there is more than four feet of setback for each one foot of building height. The actual ration is 125:30, or 25:6. In comparison, the setback to height ratio we are proposing ,is 5 times greater than the Weld County minimum residential requirement. We believe we have satisfied the intent of the height and setback requirement for a PUD. • In our attempt to further provide clarification of our intent to construct a church campus that is attractive and an asset to Weld County and the neighborhood community, we have included a packet of church campus and landscape character images to convey the overall character and quality of construction of the proposed church campus. • Adjacent Property Owners: At the email request of a group of neighbors within the Elms at Meadowvale, we have proposed a modification to the church campus portion of the PUD. A copy of the email suggesting this change by a neighbor within the Elms, Peter Gries, is attached. We have also attached a survey distributed by the neighbors within the Elms making reference to a counterproposal requesting a single row of homes on the eastern setback line. We believe that the survey and the email are by the same group of neighbors within the Elms at Meadowvale. As a result of this email request we have attached a drawing proposing a single row of homes on the eastern property line adjacent to the existing homes and available lots on the western side of the Elms at Meadowvale. These homes have been sited so that they back up to the existing homes and take access from the internal road serving the church campus. This will provide a buffer of similar development between the homes and the proposed uses on the church campus. r Mr. Kim Ogle f TETRA TECH RMC June 20, 2003 Page 3 of 4 At this time we have been unable to set up a meeting between the neighbors with the Elm at Meadowvale and LifeBridge to discuss this proposal. Therefore, although this option remains an alternative,we do not consider it as our preferred development plan and it only exists as an alternative for discussion. We will continue our efforts to arrange a meeting and have a conversation prior to the July 9`h hearing. Please feel free to contact me if you have nay questions. Sincerely, TETRA TECH RMC, INC. Barb Brunk Landscape Architect Attachments r Mr. Kim Ogle lt TETRA TECH RMC June 20, 2003 Page 4 of 4 BUILDING HEIGHT—within the Church Campus Church Campus Off Set from Maximum Building Maximum Building perimeter of the 160 Height—with Height—with out acre Church residential units residential units Campus adjacent to the adjacent to the Elms along the east Elms along the east property line property line East Property Line 0- 125 ' 30' 0' 125' -250 ` 0' 30' 250' - 375' 45' 45' 375'- 500' 55' 55' 500' - 700' 60' 60' 700'+ 60'** 60'** West Property Line 125'—400' 45' 45' (WCR 3 %) 400' - 500' 55' 55' 500'+ 60'** 60'** North Property Line 125' - 400' 45' 45' (WCR 26) 400' -600' 55' 55' 600'- 800' 60' 60' 800'+ 60'** 60'** South Property Line 125' — 300' 45' 45' 300-400 55' 55' 400 - 800 60' 60' 800'+ 60'** 60'** ** Up to 20 percent of the buildings in the center portion of the of the campus may extend up to 75"tall H:\4270_001\changeofzone\Response toCCcomments.doc �1 "Het4014eVit t-t 43 \ 3 {0'iOen. w �k� 1 Nere�.rw.tie t4w n ice• , 1�,,,��_ I no in l in l in j in O 3 00 `► ? 5DO = •, RJH ♦ i a r . f (O//��l 1�0� Alternative A - No Residential Units Adjacent to the Elms 60 to w IOMM..~Oka IS 1 4S t de+ml.anpean' SS' .1 •• m a im j NO 14S I in 19S j iS - -,,J , 0 L 4 7 , A _ Is O e : _ u +� s o _4 3 1 • 4 — , 0.010 _ _ J ,___,, I1 Oh II 1 r Ao� Alternative B - Residential Lots Adjacent to the Elms w iseot is. m' Hesht .t Kht 5P`Ibw,mww2vj7S d it the a„a alww�iMe to ' SS'Henn 1 gyp,`;" �.,'.-' '..__.- li 1• 1! 1 2W I 12S' I 12S' I 125' I IIS t �� I 2 v ......./, 7 i (l. . . 9,_ . • t 3 ,� .4,,,,.. ,:14(tg fift et icfilin b-,„740,2 HO__\cpik% 'i i -t 60'Hcplx.rxth.GwNXd '� WIN\ 3 she am aY.aw�Ge uo-75'� 5S `B�� C '40*.taar44)4teseiteta, I 204' j 125' I 125 I us I 125' . Thes) i ) 2 ♦ 1,(IS r �, kEN. a Y a.. 5,,,,,,* �11l�. — X11 Set,na , .. 'F. �ww ` 9 rte'=' tcr �� %:_ing--1 i { +ate I inY ! ! _- | • | ! 4 , ■ 2 \\\ f | \ %\ ! � 2 / \\ & «wv ■ I . �\ ') H { . } + \ } { d ! yam r \ \ lye} � 3 »Q . a {; 7 ! } ! __a _A_ _,a $ © _, f ! : . $ 22« ■ is , I. . �� per} } / • : , �y } ; ;Id:. LifeBridge Rezoning Questionnaire TO: FROM: Your neighbors, Citizens for Sensible Development of Weld County Please read the entire questionnaire before circling your answers and returning it to: CSD 11706 Montgomery Circle Longmont, Colorado 80504 The current LifeBridge application includes a "Church Campus" immediately west of the Elms: • 1.5 million square feet (the size of three Twin Peaks Malls) • 3,300 seat "smaller" auditorium/theater in phase 1 up to 75 ft high (about 325 times the volume of our houses, or 1%2 times larger than all of the houses presently built in the Elms and Farms combined) • 6,000 seat auditorium in phase 6 up to 75 ft high • Rec center (gymnasium), youth center (skateboarding, etc), university, etc. 45-60 ft high each • 1,500 seat outdoor amphitheater • 125 ft buffer(same as next to Farms, which faces 20 - 35 ft retirement community) • A stated expansion goal of 15,000 - 20,000 members visiting each week Ql: Do you support the current LifeBridge proposal as it stands? YES NO NOT SURE If you answered no to the above, please answer the following questions . . . if you answered yes, please answer question 3 only Our current counterproposal increases the buffer to 400 ft and reduces their 45-75 ft. heights to 30-50 ft, with a single one-time variance of 72 ft. for the theater scaffolding fly space. It also asks for a single row of houses on the eastern set back line to buffer against noise and light pollution. Q2: If our counterproposal is accepted, would you drop your opposition? YES NO NOT SURE Q3: Although LifeBridge has agreed to oppose any road connection between Pearl Howlett and Blue Mountain and the church campus, the Weld County Public Works staff has asked the County Commissioners to require that the roads be connected. Do you OPPOSE road connectivity with the development? YES NO NOT SURE Q4: Given that the current LifeBridge proposal will likely decrease the value of our homes by thousands of dollars, every dollar invested now is likely to pay off later. We are hiring experts and lawyers to help us protect our property values, would you be willing to contribute $100 or more to our self-defense fund? YES NO NOT SURE Mail donations to: CSD 11706 Montgomery Circle Longmont, Colorado 80504 Q5: If it becomes necessary to challenge the rezoning, will you participate in gathering 3,000 signatures within 30 days to petition for a referendum to overturn such a decision? YES NO NOT SURE Signature Date Phone E-mail LifeBridge Development al '44V. f"I ; ' `,��, � ( 1,500 Seat "•� t� 4. ,' '_ am iN11 3� �71I�� 1 Amphitheater -Alt a E ....,2,e,,,, ,,- ,a Ou r k y L . . rff f ;., The Elms I Isairag I, 1 z514.1 All X f rt " " ;� 4. Homes �� { v ' ! E r ® „ Community \ \\ rs' act-,1MS i'�g'l ,�,r�a�'tile ct-,,7 .. zy <� ;5 i,8,� ME _ ' Park 1\ n .. • Ifs of NWT.- > i 7 r gIt "Y '41. —AL .0.v PE'xN+aq y, b 4, „'- ti .g - J - tJIIf' ' Pearl Howlett Rd k •y 'Falkp � .`,4).(1.- r � ,sw,: Y - .c � i, ' r �' J'�� L 8 0�seat : - �` �,)' _ The Elms I i X300 at T Ater a V as Y. s �. has r„ I°'"eyyk ✓'kyd3 , 3 AC: - ,, L ° at ar ..a' s'� '44-"k- - at -a tl � � , ter-• d vaT' _f 11 J .-. �. retirement Mit Jam_ z •_ Community Blue Mlirountain Rd. 7 • ►r Longview I m - a . 72 e� In �"00 ==.=I=I:1,‘„:„..?.„:„....1 a, .... 'lir' . p The Farms f .,\ \-1 _ -_gam- _ � �'. i �' a'*44a• ,"c. '..,? i � -( ,x Asa A '��$ la 4 i• -- -. t }fir, F - tn.. 1' QE Ic JJ. T_"k Etl ;. �r, p,t` �`"•+°,�1 1 J r � b Pretty it I ,• muchI� �t�, unknown�, wi. 4404 ph ' as kid Traffic - 15,000 -20,000 membership This is an email from May 15th to June 17th between neighbors within the Elms at Meadowvale and LifeBridge. Original Message From: Bruce Grinnell [mailto:bgrinnell@lbcc.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 2:09 PM To: Rich Salm (E-mail); 'ddidonna@hotmail.com'; Duane Braunagel (E-mail); Duane Braunagel (E-mail 2) Cc: Bill Norris (E-mail); Rod Schmidt (Cindy) (E-mail); Reggie Golden (Diamond) (E-mail) Subject: FW: buffer Hi Rich, Our idea for the meeting was: 1.)We would like to have some conversation regarding Peter's comments in his email of Thursday May 15th, which said... "I hope that we can reopen dialogue, and I thought I'd start by throwing back out an idea that Bruce first raised a few months ago during a meeting at LifeBridge: a row of houses west of the buffer but east of the perimeter road as a buffer. Several of us have been discussing this recently and see it as helping to mitigate many of our concerns." 2.)We would like to have some conversation regarding the LifeBridge Rezoning Questionnaire, dated approximately May 23rd, which we're assuming that your leadership has distributed. We understand many people have responded and we assume that you would share the results with us. 3.)We would like to have some conversation regarding question #1 of the LifeBridge Rezoning Questionnaire that makes reference to a counterproposal that you have made to us which indicates that you have asked us for... "A single row of houses on the eastern set back line to buffer against noise and light pollution." 4.)We would like to have some conversation regarding question#4 of the LifeBridge Rezoning Questionnaire. 5.)We would like to share with you some concept pictures and ideas we have regarding the architectural character of the proposed church campus. We are willing to meet with you are your earliest availability, thanks, Punchin' holes in the darkness, Bruce Original Message From: Rich Salm [mailto:rich.salm@CSDweld.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 8:14 AM To: Duane Braunagel (E-mail); Rich Salm (E-mail); bgrinnell@lbcc.org Cc: ddidonna@hotmail.com; Braunagel, Vicki - DIA; Reggie Golden (Diamond) (E-mail) Subject: Re: buffer Hi Bruce, Thanks for following up and I'm sorry I haven't gotten back to you. We've been kind of tied up lately. Can you send over what your idea is so we can review it before we get together? Please let me know. Take Care, Rich ---- Original Message From: Bruce Grinnell To: Rich Salm (E-mail) ; Duane Braunagel (E-mail) Cc: Reggie Golden (Diamond) (E-mail) Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 5:24 PM Subject: FW: buffer Hi Rich, Any date/time set yet? Punchin' holes in the darkness, Bruce Original Message From: Bruce Grinnell [mailto:bgrinnell@lbcc.org] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 9:17 AM To: 'Rich Salm' Cc: Dale Bruns (E-mail); 'Paige Jaques (E-mail 2)'; Reggie Golden (Diamond) (E-mail) Subject: RE: buffer Tuesday evening works for us let me know what time and place works for you. Punchin' holes in the darkness, Bruce Original Message From: Rich Salm [mailto:rich.salm@CSDweld.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 6:31 PM To: bgrinnell@lbcc.org; 'Rich Salm' Cc: Duane Braunagel (E-mail); Duane Braunagel (E-mail 2); Danielle DiDonna (E-mail); Reggie Golden (Diamond) (E-mail) Subject: Re: buffer Hi Bruce, r - Thanks for checkin'in again. Yes, we are interested in meeting with you. I'm running it past Danielle and Vicki to see what their availability is. Possibly next week, Monday or Tuesday eve?Would either of those work for you? Please let me know and I'll follow up with you as well when I hear from the others. Regards, Rich Salm Original Message From: Bruce Grinnell To: 'Rich Salm' Cc: Duane Braunaciel (E-mail) ; Duane Braunagel (E-mail 2) ; Danielle DiDonna (E-mail) ; Reggie Golden (Diamond) (E-mail) Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 9:27 AM Subject: RE: buffer Hi Rich, Are you interested in meeting again? We have some thoughts based on Pete's last email regarding the residential lot buffer. Let me know where and when is convenient for all of you. Thanks. Punchin' holes in the darkness, Bruce Original Message From: Bruce Grinnell [mailto:bgrinnell@lbcc.org] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 10:45 AM To: 'Rich Salm' Cc: Reggie Golden (Diamond) (E-mail) Subject: RE: buffer Hi Rich, Great idea to include Vicki and Danielle. Let me know when and where it is convenient for you. Thanks. Punchin' holes in the darkness, Bruce Original Message From: Rich Salm [mailto:rich.salm@eastlongmontcsd.com] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 6:50 AM To: bgrinnell@Ibcc.org Cc: Reggie Golden (Diamond) (E-mail) Subject: Re: buffer Hi Bruce, Thanks for your email. I am certainly open to meeting with you. I would also like to include Vicki Braunagel and Danielle Didonna in any future discussions. Is that okay with you? I'm leaving town on business for few days so I'll get back in touch with you next week. If something urgent comes up, you can reach me on my mobile phone: 303-517-3276. Have a good Memorial Day. Rich Salm Original Message From: Bruce Grinnell To: Rich Salm (E-mail) Cc: Reggie Golden (Diamond) (E-mail) Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 9:29 AM Subject: FW: buffer Hi Rich, Peter has indicated that you are now the primary liaison and that he would like to reopen communications. How can we help you? Would you like to meet? If so, when and where? Punchin' holes in the darkness, Bruce Original Message From: Peter.Gries@colorado.edu [mailto:Peter.Gries@colorado.edu] Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 9:32 AM To: bgrinnell@lbcc.orq; reggieg@diamondglllp.com Cc: Duane Braunagel (E-mail 2); Duane Braunagel (E-mail); Danielle DiDonna (E- mail); Duane J Leise; David; Rich Salm Subject: buffer Dear Bruce and Reg, Now that we've all had a chance to cool down, I thought it'd be a good idea to reopen communications. Rich Salm will be our new primary liaison, but I wanted to clear the air and throw out an idea. First, I think it was very unfortunate how Bruce and I left things with our final phone conversation Tuesday night before the hearing. I was left with a strong feeling of injustice that Lifebridge had decided not to negotiate at all with us after negotiating with Rod. As it turns out, you did lower your max heights to 75 ft on Wed morning, and I want you to know that I acknowledge that as effort on your part. I hope that you will also acknowledge that we at Elms still feel that compared to what you've done for Rod, you have done very little for us. That said, I hope that we can reopen dialogue, and I thought I'd start by throwing back out an idea that Bruce first raised a few months ago during a meeting at LifeBridge: a row of houses west of the buffer but east of the perimeter road as a buffer. Several of us have been discussing this recently and see it as helping to mitigate many of our concerns. 1. They could help buffer noise and light pollution, both from the church campus buildings, and from the cars and buses using the perimeter road and parking lots. The idea of rows of buses parked or idling along the perimeter road or in parking lots in the evenings during events, frankly terrifies us. Houses could help mitigate their impact. 2. Houses could help mitigate the visual and emotional impact of a 1.5 million sq. ft development. Instead of looking directly at a wall of 45 + ft buildings (rec center, youth centers, auditoriums, etc), houses and back yards would soften the impact. 3. A row of houses between your perimeter road and the property line would ensure that Pearl Howlett Rd. would not be opened up. 4. Additional perk: These houses would benefit from the large amount of open space behind their back yards. best, Pete http://www.weldhomeowners.org/index.htm ^ U)Lu tIs.., w .a s` . ,T Q / ... • w W H U Q!• " IN Q '11iryt W a- :'"fir' Z Z „1 g� it/- �cc r r 'of Q • s, � U U i D U ; Z Iii tr?. (/) �' LL X14 a 2C U , LIJ V cs ;d;Yia 0 `' - R - -0 0 M: ' W 4,. 1.11 I 1 r ap i i i am NI a as ma a a s a lb a ■ Ill"11 Plie : �• ` .oaf"! ` R !1-[P �•' LifeBridge Christian Church — t The following images are for the purpose of conveying an overall architectural character. quality of construction. use of various materials and general personality that the new proposed campus could become. No single image portrays a specific building. massing or appearance. rather the collection of photos. in their entirety: speak to the broad possibilities of how the LifeBridge campus can be developed. Although the architectural design is in its infancy. the intent of the design for the campus is to create a unified architectural language throughout all the buildings, while allowing each structure to be identified with its function and use Overall building massing will be broken down into smaller compositions, adding to the character and visual interest of the building ensemble. The use of different appropriate materials. on the same building. will also contribute to breaking down the scale and massing of the various structures. The spaces between the buildings will be carefully composed outdoor rooms that support social spaces, gardens and abundant landscaping. Careful integration of signage and lighting will be included in the overall composition. The campus will be a place that people will want to be in and be part of; pedestrian paths, trails. and circulation through the campus will encourage engagement while allowing restitution from our busy daily lives. r The collection of buildings will create an asset for the nearby residents. by creating an anchor for their 1 surrounding neighborhood. The architecture. landscape and overall campus will be high quality, while/; d r adding richness and permanence to the visual environment / d •rei . `p . ' ` P ` + y,,t"��{ r lr ., r . 1 AN 4, +fir /./�\ Y INTRODUCTION a, - a'S -- t ar � ''' III ) _ � A � � • i •- - • , t 2 r b . ti:• .6 BUILDING CHARACTER - 02 • 1 . .n.J .. '.1 .' r ..+, 'ti . gyp. �` / • ♦ k- , 'r1,O. ___ .._ / E +il1t� ! 1 • I � . t • ! S: .� 'fir t ��y`�t S.1. , in r I JI's L v.1 - I IiTt ' '� 1 At\w'% PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION ON CAMPUS 03 i .0 4 f 4 , , r , , , i i aili iiii ' Tl ll�iiritir4 �(1, . , ji it1 �. ill/I taut 14 , ,.„ . , „:„- It � s I ev, . � � :No ,Fgo d i•I -I �- I II L, I r ,t Ullaillik r- s _: � i w _ � . � � 1� Mr ARCADES 04 ...,J _• -.... .,.. ....,__ :±i • + .. .. . �� ,. . > _ _ 1 � t xgie -MSS rr � - . - ri r M � «: kcipply Y.•LrP�p-. ,� mr, j Milli t 11111 1!m `' , iii _-- , -.0..„ ,. .. N ' i tijj �= 1 � � � ail eY . . hiu . lit r tilli , • I 4 ,ti, � � - ' Y;,_1* n 4S°WEE CAMPUS QUALITY CS i TM ta•. ter, i' i :' y r �, pt4 • t GA toff 4 ,1f . +". t`ye �:��t, y , 1 ta� 1161 .. i.K.-'. �i. r. ,; ,. ri .4 '• ISM , , ...yr, : . , ,. ..: ,.. • . „ ... _ __. ith , ,.. , . .,. ......._ _ _ ...... _ , ,., i , _ , , w_ w_ . ......., ,_ ,.,_._ . I . _ . ._ . __ ._ . . `►; i L • • s•V •• _ - .1 ...),.,\w/...c. ARTICULATION WITH MATERIALS c5 LO ONISSVIN ONIO1If S a t:: t4 fWit • a x.. y P' ' . �, Slit:. . N e k e, • r a 1 fl> txt� ?'� # ` s • Y#. o ,ecy � .t . • !v' Y" st s. r 1.1% •�lie Vf ,�• ,I; • r 1 y v gerr• • • ,t .40,4 poi • • • __.... 7 � � �s.ai L& a - q .�'. • ! �lJe�r • *W. •ts • i. ' 4 tZtj°i Fr .XJ�L i 1rtit.-:PL-7--47. +A y tar' .. rs-x F , ,_ - r C""s m37s C"-- it , . 1 ur � C • •"" �J trlj}+T t 1 - _ z PG\ BUILDING MASSING Cs 711 g Awe.. •,....f.:(5 . I [. , ;:� ors a'. ' � k " : :4t i ; s.:. 5 Y 44. � ., :c 4 ItY y yOgj A f . ,_ n*,,.. ...Nit--' '. z„ itib4ipor. . t -4' ,.% tit Cit L twF ,•,+� „~ � .n` }` trwt C .'rY tits ' c; l• . af' j 2 • ) - rY�Y M . j G. j 4 •1Yil t� fr t 4L, •15 O', ` a � ' V y f I [i, ' OUTDOOR ROOM ON CAMPUS 09 i ii ii N Cr� , �� M a. - \�I fII� 1 V Y � ��, .. ", �� 1 . ; ,� v\ j��f(r .,......,.., 7, . ,,...L. ,„1/4 . , . .. , . \\ :.\‘‘.; ,. Ir,, 7' 11\; , , , , % I _ 4 iii•(,.14e•- >i ,r.; ir• • Ir. ; r ., IA, , , Acti.-y,. .- e '.,_ , tv.k,.. 0 ,4 a c�Fcis h`,jN , . t, , 111 f� •� .... . i ,,,,, ._-_-2-\ - : , . d "� L :j}� r \2 4 1Ikl t } , „, .,,,iii E I _ ! , • -- - f jy___ CAMPUS ENTRY 0 • et L 4 %• ".t '. .i p• 15., , 1 I. .r • ff-- 'i, .� - � ve. • `" 4, . I ..Y , „ M FT. px. arP.y w 1 rill4 .a.Mi. fl trees (� uamum ,,,• II it � BUILDING MASSING r. -,v • ,y ,I,•., .tedelelA.- '' .- ..' ........iiira....................Th 1 t --- --- , , „ { - 1 ._.ice-� •_ SIt.-___ j"Y;; p +3,. µ'rg, BREAKDOWN OF MASSING 12 if r i • ... . . F � r I` .. / • 1 -• , :4 '-II �.._ _ -- I i X0 I■ ,cs a jt ; inl i• R/Sr..... i: : , 'Pc"' I _. ----- ____- -•'fr-;',,I'O'r .--- ,_,.:4 . 4.4 7::F.. gge. I t a ;MI I i. BREAKDOWN OF MASSING 3 �!L. . ... _ . 1/14 .f. - .::2::: • a r_ 4110 \`\ !�I a CAMPUS QUADS 1 y x , ; . i iii. •3 ^, s n:: r f f 1 ' . ,ru ``r as ; .. , y . ^-% :x 1 r' ,1^ - % aya. - t. — t �+w' Y 1 �e X i _ l _ �_,ter' .i = 1 �> ;,.&L'.7.,..-, CAMPUS QUADS •s 2 _a` k - 0 • #. !i - _.,,m, t I 1. av - r 3 .. !IPSO"k ' i� , rt, _�•� ,� I II • 1 r 1 , • :.�]('� - w T'Ofp . CAMPUS QUADS 16 . `: J. 4, t ri t o g� i r T• -"'r: '34 l' .4 k f --.. J^ G {4I $y . mfr , • ..�y. :y ±Wks PLAZA AREAS n eft f/ P ,1; • fr. ws, . ge,•,(?Iv., %flit L'- V. r ig ' ' ," .! - ice' St: lA j. ! Ac; : • �Xtil 1 0'� l� • i. �� y 1 ' e 2 r ii. • •# _ � : v *� ` ' — ��° F ' "` .ter ► "� C, $ - � "r' _ - ` , • It _R •-� may bNi -. ._ yak --. : 1 �! ` -. jy___ NATURAL WALKS 8 F �� , ,f 4, ..4 • 4 / rte y vy ! ' :' .: + 111 `[� y5/,` • 'i' , �'.�.��S1' t t ,II '.w•, -t*" �JY silk ?;r. ,..„ .0,04 • JC _ yyi F�C1 •� �y�•��lge •S Y. % N i? 4, . teqY "11 L U1 ?tom l I 451 tr tk ',. ' • 1 ti Pk . ti iii I !) ' ' ' . • 4tr > • • ' .:VT.:1,': : fi ' 4 -'''"'" - r • ;≥ a P. • ci > N F' • 4 r r .5 n-� ,.�S mil'..) YIM�' ;1 � ,�‘Y`Y,a _•/ ._A`v� is-._:.:1y'x.•,uss,'.' si'3$!'�.;..� ...u•� y ±W.6 NATURAL WALKS e S ,4 ri. xL�, y �,• a : : a / 1. t -_,-.).4v. r4isaf C .b• / Cl N. �pN it I. D Fes- r F` /I. V; E1T*4 .4j* Litit,.' ; s:. _ -- tv 17 J� i ' � jii^i1� r _ Y c • D - ice/iii; i Z . ._ate., . �ti: , sa t. . wo.. 'L.' Key R x ., •gk'A- q . ,. / i _mss ° • .1 .40 '� .rte "�'" r• y • r,if •ori ! • �:. t 'k'TC; ,,. r . .. x o� k i 1 I tytr ' � Ati F • \ 1 y g t� a� . I. •, Ft't�oSir 1 4 }H:V l{C-',. i L �" ¢ -. E ` { � A w • 1. �� 4st HEALING OR LEARNING GARDENS - 21 • r . 10_ _ , _ . . X' 'TrV r - ' ...ar -ate` 3y HEALING OR LEARNING GARDENS - 22 M nt h x *r .a et • `\k• �y� CO ,.y.> ./•(;--(i. O. a'"J�-:: L' t ib +tCt yZ 7 �. .1F(t l '' •�� `,. W Y 1, l -"e¢s4!; •yrT ` j ([t•� • JJyy . • t 37 6 t i ,\ Fw 9 1 +14 4t. '. t yt..t 1.. :g•rit: 1a - prii .. a.s. . x % .1 ,,q , .. . .. .11.ill!.iteArd ir"PI trill ::: ,t): .,..% . 1 r . {I31K' . • • � ' % l•':. 4 ' 7 tit y. J F it Wn �2 a i _ .rte 74‘ Aie ..tti.' . �• ?:' �"` .. �.- . Y. -. P y . e Y A • l .- --me.- .' C.A. ;Sjl11 L - - INTIMATE AREAS 24 tL '1 ,, , , • •� �.z-^4. .A 111 ./w. -...-.•-.- ;� • . •1 ��i a�i� • _ ti g . •. i. 1 V. t, .. �\®_!F COLORADO LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS 25 I. / fir . A. y ;r fir, M' '... .. f 5 •. w . /hj� .rte• •w`o '•I • /�• • '`� J 1 • •, •. _ tom/ ••• tilt*. • / Ali, V ` �A 4 .'Y ‘ .t, .r �• ; ; � . t 11:4C q ... ••i. jam ,`'r .: �' ` ., ' 4.. , \g• • it. ti t.1 3/ S34 * • c . jy�_E COLORADO LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS 25 + � ter,. !^ r� > > t� .'.T r -. 4 J M b A ),h I . p . . • �M ".• h. > 1 ,.y 3 r j • it r {A , ♦ . ° . lk 1 4' er L. r ,*tj i4 1 +r ht4 S ', Yp 4: all\, r-- ...14$0, b : ,,, • •cf tallinli .1 wr • r ' '_"' , in s. e '„, �•,. _.. �'. . .. Via.t. '`S. ,P ''"'B;:;-. IIlEOuG� ie.,ti CHILDREN'S PLAY AREAS 27 it' c - . ,yam I t w WryII ,iniv:„. 4 . - . • \\ y took v 1 ca^ _ I -. . '� 11.• 3 ' ' 1. p; f, r �% rfr 11, ii r "r ��a r t r� f ii 1 t f �+, ' ctisr . Y I ., y d /,s T' , ;Mi • CHILDREN'S PLAY AREAS 28 ~ te a oe4' y `. \' ,. { - y � •X. .\ 1.i W- ` „tea .... P z • c I / � I .........k VI i NI- IA• �� 't hoc- 's& •` b. gosh # F II :.a, Y - s! --,yam` ` r. l C a A nt. cLia r . b * ' clams w� CHILDREN'S PLAY AREAS 29 J ti\ 1 \W L • „ ,N \ ` Y ...,:.:.::;";:c7../...z � - K. :a % T: M: A', ,.- • .. . ',- Arb,':'4;k..,:t t ��'y�\mss � � � �; jip r • rti :� ✓y .�, 4 • AQI \ • ,Y• • • • • "'"`P" � ' ��(',.� BERM / PARKING LOT SCREENING VSC ` f ~, w, z - ,. ex.:,.. •.,„ ..ii i_ ::::14 1 ...l rte , *. '� ' � 1 :it• :. � • • � • _ • dit- • ( ,: _! , 1 . V , '4. • �. •,.m.4..• •�-lir ..z,per A \ in • ! 4 <' -- iS�tft of hv • ' Jett BERM / PARKING LOT SCREENING ' 31 Q It � N (�qa�`� j1�a tl t� . 1 �� C `? -� ., N.t ,\ t `•�\ fir' U.1 , r, , tie�Y )�Ar 1\ _, .- ;NI,r I ff "�a 1. Aj W • Wii_i r ! '51:\4944 ^ (/ t ` .T tt . 1 .. . - n . ill sue'. � . 1 iii r c, n 1 T li �, ) /�i. I, fir♦ i 7 "t �R�� .La r S tit:" � ,s, A 1 I!I I ✓ i li-G" .Y �' 1 � A ,4 A ,� } 'F. 7t Ilv/^ f' �a a'�, I I r. f:�(' 1. Sr i.:' M' i ( �` lr�4/ r�• rl i rf�, " ,M 'I 7 II O / IJrj .i . '4110, 7 >' V ,..' ....• J 1� 1^ I/ .// a Y«•' •4fo� - :s I� A t; x \ d At.44 A P4 11,11 ii ., sus -- 3 __ _ Z=" — F }�"t �' '-� ---mot < 1 � � l 4i I J. .,7701 / .4 f V�cl' d A 3 4,�'i *A�II 4, } µ', CAMPUS CHARACTER Hello