The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20031121.tiff Ct �ticl alp 2OO3 Weld County Planning Department Mr. Kim Ogle GREELEY OFFICE Weld County Planning Department 1555 N. 17th Avenue APR 2 3 2003 Greeley, CO 80631 RECEIVED Dear Mr. Ogle: RE: LifeBridge Christian Church PUD Change of Zone Application We are writing this letter to express our support for the proposed Change of Zone request for the following reasons: The LifeBridge 313-acre development plan is much more than a church. It will enhance the community by integrating a church, single-family housing, senior housing, mixed-use development, and neighborhood center. The 313-acre LifeBridge development plan appears to be completely consistent within the Weld County PUD code. Weld County planning maps have designated a neighborhood center on the property for several years. Those people who believe that this area will remain rural Weld County are misinformed. The LifeBridge plan will provide the local community with some of the needed cultural, educational, recreational, social, civic, community, commercial, and retail facilities, which are greatly needed to serve the residents in the 1-25 MUD area at this time. Included in this development plan are more than 90 acres for open space. This is not a new plan for LifeBridge; LifeBridge Christian Church has a 110-year history of providing these same benefits to the community. We believe that the traffic data has been grossly over exaggerated and misrepresented by a few people to intentionally create opposition. Those people who indicate the traffic to be in excess of 56,000 cars per day are wrong. The complete traffic study indicates that at final build-out the entire site will generate about 25,000 car trips per day, which equates to about 12,500 cars. Of this total approximately 9,000 car trips (or 4,500 cars) are a result of the church campus. The balance of the traffic, approximately 16,000 car trips per day (or 8,000 cars), is a result of the single-family housing, senior housing, mixed-use, and neighborhood development. The traffic study indicates that in Phase One the traffic is approximately 3,000 car trips per day (or 1,500 cars). Of this total approximately 1,000 car trips per day (or 500 cars) are a result of the church campus. The balance of the traffic, which is approximately 2,000 car trips per day (or 1,000 cars), is a result of the single-family housing and senior housing development. Major transportation corridors, which are roads that are designated as highways, arterials, and collectors, surround the LifeBridge property, allowing for the design of (1 EXHIBIT -1- g 2003-1121 Pt 4a7G?C)ti roads that will accommodate the projected traffic. Weld County had already designated County Roads 3-1/2, 26, 5-1/2, and 7 as "collectors" in their transportation network. We believe that the LifeBridge development plan for building heights is another misrepresented and misunderstood issue that has been used to intentionally create opposition. Most everyone understands that a view of the mountains is not a privilege; your neighbor who owns the property west of you probably has the ability to build and block your view. Yet I understand that together LifeBridge and the residents have worked together to create a plan that has substantially minimized the impact to the view. This plan required both sides to give and meet in the middle in order to compromise on this issue. We understand that during the last 45 days the proposed maximum building height on the 160-acre church campus has been reduced so that on 90 acres the maximum height is 45 feet or less; on 52 acres the maximum height is 60 feet; and only on 18 acres, in the center of the campus, the maximum height is 90 feet. We understand that 1% of the development plan will have buildings over 60 feet and these building will be at the center of the church campus. As a result of the reduced building heights and property line setbacks, the LifeBridge development plan has an overall impact to the view which is less than a single-family housing development plan. Noise and lighting is another area where some misunderstanding has occurred. We understand that LifeBridge has been aware of the Weld County and State of Colorado noise and lighting ordinances and has always intended to meet or exceed the requirements of those ordinances. We believe that LifeBridge Christian Church has been a good neighbor and an important part of our community for over 110 years. LifeBridge has given tens of thousands of volunteers and volunteer hours to the community to hundreds of different organizations. LifeBridge has proven its commitment to make its facilities available for many other organizations and the community, thus reducing the amount of dollars spent on public facilities in the community. By making the facilities available to social, civic, and community organizations, whether they are profit or non-profit, whether they are faith-based or non faith-based, the community receives the benefit Thank you for your consideration and please represent my support for this plan that will result in a benefit to our entire community. Respectfully, S (Jut to huh KI vd . FrCCt-¢ri Ck-1 es) V SOLI -2- Peter and Monica Gries 11685 Montgomery Cir. Longmont CO 80504 720/494-1794 Chairman David Long Weld County Board of Commissioners 915 Tenth Street P. O. Box 758 Greeley CO 80632 RE: Formal Complaint against Weld Planner Kim Ogle 24 April 2003 Dear Commissioner Long, I write to file a formal complaint against Weld County planner Kim Ogle. I have already written his boss Monica Daniels-Mika on this subject, and have failed to receive a satisfactory answer. Susan Elton,Ass. Director of Personnel, has advised me to write you directly. Mr. Ogle's handling of re-zoning application #PZ-1004 has exhibited a consistent pattern of contempt for the taxpayers of Weld County and partisanship in favor of the applicant. As a result, he has created the appearance that the Weld County Planning Department works for special interests and not for the taxpayers of this county. Obstructing taxpayers and homeowners: • When the taxpayers of District 2 first contacted Mr. Ogle to gather basic information about the application, he repeatedly warned us not to "bother him." Given that he is the Weld employee responsible for drafting the County's recommendation on the application (and hence the future safety of our children),we took the threat seriously, and did not ask him for anything except that he send us his final recommendation when he was finished. • Mr. Ogle failed, as he had promised, to send us the recommendation when he finished it. It was only after several days, a phone call to his boss Monica Daniels- Mika, and a personal trip to Greeley that we were able to secure copies. • Mr. Ogle overturned a colleague's decision to deny the taxpayers of District 2 access to the SW Weld Conference Room to prepare for the Planning Commissioner's meeting originally scheduled for last March. • Mr. Ogle devotes over 30 pages of his Recommendation to quotes and paraphrases from the LifeBridge application, but does not even mention—let alone consider— the arguments contained in the seven page legal brief composed and signed by over 100 Weld County taxpayers. • Mr. Ogle does not cite or even mention any of the over 200? letters that County taxpayers sent to Weld County. (4. EXHIBIT RE #, Formal Complaint against Weld Planner Kim Ogle/ 2 Partisanship in favor of the applicant: • Mr. Ogle generated the appearance that he reports directly to Bruce Grinnell, the applicant. • The letter that my wife and I submitted to Weld County was on Bruce Grinnell's desk in Longmont just two days after I had mailed it from the Longmont Post Office to Kim Ogle in Greeley. • The letter that I sent to Weld County on behalf of Elsie and Gill Brebehoft (who lived behind LifeBridge's current location for six years but now live in the Regent retirement community, 303/485-5484) was on Bruce Grinnell's desk in Longmont just two days after I had mailed it from the Longmont Post Office to Kim Ogle in Greeley. • 800/o of Mr. Ogle's Recommendation reads directly from the LifeBridge application. • Mr. Ogle frequently quotes the Lifebridge application without bothering to utilize quotation marks. It is thus impossible to know what is Mr. Ogle's view and what is the applicant's view. Weld County and LifeBridge become indistinguishable. Irregularities in Mr. Ogle's treatment of surrounding townships: • Failure to send the Town of Mead a complete and up-to-date file. • Failure to address Mead's legitimate objection that development of an urban scale is incompatible land use with a rural/residential area. • Failure to send referral materials to the towns of Firestone and Frederick, despite requests from Town Administrators. Lax preferential enforcement of Zoning Codes for Application PZ-1004: • Weld County Code Sec. 23-2-20 Part A: "The Department shall also have the responsibility of ensuring that all application submittal requirements pm met.prior to initiating any official action as listed below." • Weld County Code Sec. 23-2-20 Part B 2: "Arrange for legal notice of said hearing." Such notice was not performed and a continuance of the first meeting was required. This was an extreme hardship on the citizens organized against PZ-1004, having to arrange time off from work to attend, and strategically a very beneficial situation for the applicant. The applicant is asking Weld County to rezone more land than it can use, and plans to lease or sell the unused acres at a hefty profit after rezoning. This will help pay for the construction of their church campus. Given that the County will thus in effect be subsidizing the construction of a church to the tune of several million dollars, it is imperative that the rezoning process be squeaky clean. Applicant Bruce Grinnell has personally purchased land adjacent to the LifeBridge parcel, and has submitted an application for a change of zone from agricultural to a residential PUD. The value of his property will thus greatly increase as a result of the Lifebridge rezoning. Given how much money Bruce Grinnell personally stands to gain from these rezonings, the nature of his relationship with Mr. Ogle must be clarified. There cannot be the appearance of collusion. As a start, the phone records of conversations between Mr. Ogle and Grinnell should be made public to clarify the quantity of their interaction. Formal Complaint against Weld Planner Kim Ogle / 3 I write to request that Weld County convene a public hearing to clarify this matter of grave consequence to the integrity of democracy and the zoning process in Weld County. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sinner ' et 'Hays Gries cc. Monica Daniels-Mika,Weld Planning Susan Elton,Ass. Director of Personnel Ken Arnold, State Senator for District 23 in Weld Dale Hall, State Representative for District 48 in Weld Peter and Monica Gries 11685 Montgomery Circle Longmont CO 80504 Ms. Monica Daniels-Mika Weld County Palnning Dept. 1555 N. 17"Ave Greeley CO 80631 RE: Kim Ogle and LifeBridge re-zoning application#PZ-1004 11 March 2003 Dear Ms. Monica Daniels-Mika, Greetings from District 2! I write concerning two distressing developments regarding Kim Ogle's involvement in the LifeBridge re- zoning application (#PZ-1004) process. First,Mr. Ogle has apparently intervened to prevent the residents of the Elms at Meadowvale, the Farms and Meadowvale,and Longview from utilizing the Conference Room in the SW Weld location to prepare for the March 18 rezoning hearing. I asked Robin at the SW Weld location about a month ago for permission to utilize the room on March 11 to practice for the March 18 meeting. She approved and gave me the name and number of the Weld rooms scheduler,who I then called. She then told me to have Robin call her directly,and when I called Robin again, I was forced to leave a message asking her to call the scheduler and to let me know if I needed to do anything else to finalize the room scheduling. Having not heard back from her, over a week later I called Robin again,and she informed me that Kim Ogle had intervened,but that she would call him and sort things out in the next hour. I never heard from her. It is now March 11 and it is now too late for us to organize a practice session. LifeBridge, with its full-time attorneys,real estate developers,and PR firms,will thus be at a serious advantage on Mrach 18 facing a group of homeowners who were denied even the opportunity to prepare for the meeting. Q:Why did Mr. Ogle deny us the right to use the SW Conference Room? We are taxpayers paying over two million dollars a year to Weld in property taxes. Don't we have a right to use Weld facilities? Second,Mr. Ogle told friends over a month ago that he had already decided to approve the LifeBridge rezoning request. Q:Aren't Weld planners supposed to wait to receive all materials before making a decision on their recommendation to the planning commission? LifeBridge had not even submitted their"addendum"at that time, and Weld certainly had not received all the letters from neighbors like myself. Mr. Ogle is creating the appearance of corruption: that the Weld Planners work for Lifebridge,rather than Weld taxpayers. Thank you for your time and attention to this disturbing matter. Sincerely, Peter Hays Gries I From: <Peter.Gries@colorado.edu> To: <dlong@co.weld.co.us> Date: 4/28/03 1:53PM ' rr j 1!: Subject: Today's GREELEY TRIBUNE -`= From today's Greeley Tribune. Will run all week courtesy r' - t www.weldhomeowners.org. 147cfb04.jpg Please support your constituents' property rights! CC: <bjerke@co.weld.co.us>, <rmasden@co.weld.co.us>, <gvaad@co.weld.co.us>, <mgeile@co.weld.co.us> r EXHIBIT[21 Pt #1009 Protect Weld Homeowner's Rights! • Last week Weld's state legislators£)wc Owen,Ken Arnold, Dale Hall,Kevin L_undl.+cnt,TaitiN&Wjlliams and])iann j-loppc vote!against Weld homeowners and for big business,limiting our right to farce shoddy builders to fix construction defects. • Next week our Weld County Commissioners Davkill4ng(970/437.5383),Rob Malden(303/536.4250), Dill letkq(970/284-6061),and Mite Cede(970/352-6290) will likely rote to allow 3,000+ seat,90 ft. tall auditoriums in the middle of our residential neighborhoods. Our elected officials should represent us, not special interests!! We can vote to overturn their decisions now--and elect pro-homeowner candidates next year. Paid for by Weld homeowners like you,www.weldhomeowners.org. Mike Geile- Controversial Longmont area development Page 1 j --- From: <JMcCar1938@aol.com> To: <dlong@co.weld.co.us>, <gvaad@co.weld.co.us>, <rmasden@co.weld.co.us>, <bjerke@co.weld.co.us>, <mgeile@co.weld.co.us> Date: 4/25/03 12:20PM Subject: Controversial Longmont area development I am a former resident of Broken Arrow, Oklahoma which had a very large .--� t _ institution (Rhema Bible Institute) similar to the proposed development in Southwest Weld County. ? If you want to examine the pro's and con's regarding such developments, I suggest that you contact the City Council in Broken Arrow. r✓; My personal opinion is that while it was a a fine institution, it also y brought problems to the community. The attendees at its Bible school impacted the schools, the City Council and Property taxes. Their children in school all qualified for free books, services and meals. (Separation of church and State went by the wayside.) The adults voted religiously and had a large impact on the city/county elections. The institute bought property in selected locations around the city and could therefore stop development of business it did not like using a proximity clause in the city zoning codes. No bars or restaurants serving liquor etc. I truly feel sorry for the people in the immediate vicinity of this planned development. I also believe that the objectors are at a particular disadvantage because the Commissioner conflict leaves them without representation. No reflection on the present Commissioner but I see his only option as resignation and appointment/election of a new Commissioner. Incidentally, I am a Greeley resident. Regards, Joe McCarthy = EXHIBIT LIH Oz H Mike Geile- Part.001 Page 1 • Dear Sir; You need to be made aware of the problems in the planning process for LifeBridge rezgn]ng. In Weld County Code: Sec.23-2-20 part 6.a a. The planning commission or governing body of any town and county whose boundaries are within a three-mile radius of the parcel under consideration for a Change of Zone. Mead, Firestone and Frederick are all within 3 miles of the LifeBridge 9 rezoning application. None received complete referral packages from the planning department.This is unacceptable. I also know from direct observation that there were irregularities in the Frederick and Firestone replies. Either there is gross incompetence in the planning department or corruption in the county government.Why is this rezoning application being done in secret?You are responsible. Non action on this issue by you will lead to the beginnings of recall action on you.This is serious and YOU NEED TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS!!! The townships in South West Weld DEMAND to be made aware of what is being done in unincorporated Weld county near their borders. I am part of a larger organized group weldhomeowners.org.We mean what we say!!! Duane Leise 2686 Pearl Howlett Rd. Longmont CO 80504 (2. EXHIBIT cp3- nai From: <Peter.Gries@colorado.edu> - - To: <bgrinnell@Ibcc.org> Date: 5/1/03 7:40PM ", --I , •( 'jc fin Subject: LifeBridge/WeldHomeowners.org meeting pi 'r Dear Bruce, `--t Li ii Thank you for agreeing to meet with us. I have long thought it unfair to the County Commissioners that your position was not to negotiate with us but to"let the Commissioners decide,"as you told the Greeley Tribune. I believe that this is something that we should resolve-- not put on the Commissioners. Below is what we plan to ask the Commissioners for next Wednesday. If you are willing to negotiate,we would be happy to meet with you at LifeBridge Monday at 5pm. 1. HEIGHTS (East Property Line-- replacing figures from Bulk Standards Massing Diagram for Church Campus from the Recommendation, p. 9. Although Weld Code specifies that heights be compatible with the existing 20-28 ft houses,we are willing to make the following concessions): *400 ft. open space buffer* *400-700 ft.: 30 feet * 700-1000 ft.: 40 feet * 1000 ft.+: 50 feet max for entire campus (+ a single one time variance of 72 ft. for theater scaffolding fly space ONLY) *Given that the Elms will be confronted by a 1.5 million sq ft. mega-development with a 158,000 sq ft auditorium in phase 1, the homeowners deserve at least three times as wide a buffer as the Farms, where LifeBridge fundraiser Bob Frederickson lives,which will only be facing 20 ft tall retirement patio homes. McLean is set back from its eastern boundary by 400 feet. 2. TRAFFIC Secure a pledge from the Commissioners that there will never be Pearl Howlett or Blue Mountain connectivity. Not now, not later-- unless the homeowners and landowners choose to have it. 3. SELL/LEASE No rezoning of the lower 90? odd acres that LifeBridge plans to sell or lease to fund construction of the main church campus. This is unfair to other Weld churches. We are delighted to have LifeBridge as a neighbor--as long as LifeBridge abides by the law like everyone else. Sincerely, Peter Gries & concerned citizens of Weld County,www.weldhomeowners.org Assistant Professor Department of Political Science University of Colorado Boulder, CO 80309-0333 tel. (303)492-8601; fax(303)492-0978 http://socsci.colorado.edu/-gries/ 4 EXHIBIT J Pe #root" Co-Director Sino-American Security Dialogue http://socsci.colorado.eduFgries/SASD/index.htm CHINA'S NEW NATIONALISM: Pride, Politics, and Diplomacy http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9662.html#bio CC: <dlong@co.weld.co.us>, <rmasden@co.weld.co.us>, <gvaad@co.weld.co.us>, <bjerke@co.weld.co.us>, <mgeile@co.weld.co.us> From: Myrna Folsom <myrna_f_2000@yahoo.com> - To: Carol Harding <charding@co.weld.co.us> Date: 5/4/03 9:09AM ,I, E,, n.'n. Subject: lifebridge church development To: Weld Board of County Commissioners: Subject: docket: 2003-35, Case: PZ1004 Lifebridge Church Dear Commissioners: The presentation made by the applicant lacked a crucial element relating to its effect on the welfare of the citizens of Weld County and the City of Longmont. This was the absence of a fiscal impact report for this development, projecting the relation of expenses to revenues over a sufficient period until the relationship became stabilized in all of the projects phases. Such reports are mandatory in many jurisdictions so that they will not find themselves encumbered by expenses that must be borne by all citizens for the benefit of developers and only those occupying the developments. These reports go far beyond the road impact fees now required by the County. The Board might consider requiring the applicant to provide such a report so that it might be better able to determine the merits of the subject project. Since, the project has been proposed to be developed over many years in phases, revised reports might be required in the case of phasing changes. It is unfortunate that the Comprehensive Plan Revue Committee did not propose that this issue be addressed as a part of enhancing the economic prosperity of the County and protection of welfare of its citizens in Section 22-1-120, E & F. Fiscal impacts on the City of Longmont are relevant in this case, as [1] Lifebridge and its residents will be using many Longmont services without providing revenue for their funding, and [2] although the County is not legally responsible for effects on Longmont services, there are many state statutes promoting cooperation between jurisdictions in such instances as this. John Folsom Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. CC: Froda Greenberg <foda.greenberg@ci.longmont.co.us>, phil delvecchio <phil.delvecchio@ci.longmont.co.us>, Lee Morrison <Imorrison@co.weld.co.us>, Bruce Barker <bbarker@co.weld.co.us> 4 EXHIBIT K I Pa#[oOy 05/05/03 12:56 FAX 970 304 6498 WELD PLANNING a 002 May 05 03 10:45a P- 1 MOUNTAIN VIEW FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Administrative Office: :�f+ 9119 County Uric Road•Longmont,CO 80601 * (303)772-0710•FAX(303)651-7702 ■i vire May 5,2003 Mr.Kim Ogle 970-304-6498 Weld County Planning Department 1555 North 151b Street Greeley,CO 80631 Dear Mr.Ogle: This letter is written with regard to the Life Bridge Christian Cburch PUD for the purpose of sharing information with the Commissioners. The property named is within the territorial boundaries and currently receives service from the Fire District. Out initial response is from our career station located at 9119 East County Line Road in Boulder County, which is approximately 3 rules away from the property. Mountain View Fire District provides service from seven stations located throughout the District's territorial boundaries. The applicant has been very cooperative and responsive to the Fire District questions and/or concerns regarding the project. Representatives of the applicant have met with the Fire District on several occasions to discuss the project with regard to building construction,fire department access and water supply for fire protection. As we discussed on the telephone,the access proposed to the Life Bridge subdivision currently meets the requirements of the Fire District, as does the access to the Meadow Vale and Longview Subdivisions. Interconnectivity(with actual roads)between subdivisions is always a plus for response time,however is not required by the Fire District. When emergency access is provided,it is usually only used if there is no other access available. The problem with emergency access roads is that they are usually blocked off with chains, bollards, and gates, etc. These obstructions can delay response time to the extent that the emergency arcacs provided may not help the response time significantly. Additionally, these roads arc sometimes provided with road base or grass pavers instead of asphalt making the road not easily negotiable in snowy weather conditions because the roads are not usually plowed. Again,these types of roads are a must when there is no other access available because of the loss of a primary road. As always we appreciate being involved in the planning process, should you have any questions, please contact me at 303-772-0710. Sincerely, �l J Q J\cLuAnn Penfold Fire Marshal LMP/lp cc: project file isolator Sao 1310100 61.9313 aleaon• Sikhs ar9Nl6 Staten] 9119 cry LM N6 Ian wen 13 P.O.Bu 5Th P.O.Ball 10911 Dobbin RIO 50 Dona Or. P.O.909 40 nnnpaat.CO Laq,an•CO 239 Panty An. MOO NSA Rood ltlar.a••CO Eft CO 100 So.Font 9. NAM 30104 Mead.CO 305.2 NMOI.CO 805•• 90036 00813 OSCOM CO 30514 EX1 1117 (fit *tong 05/06/03 06:27 FAX 970 304 6498 WELD PLANNING 1002 05/05/03 NON 14:37 FAX 3035305252 Left Hand Water District 11001 • LEFT HAND WATER DISTRICT May 5, 2003 Kim Ogle,Planner 111 Weld County Dept.of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Ave. Greeley, CO 80631 Re: LifeBridge Christian Church Case Number PZ-1004 Dear Kim: The Left Hand Water District has processed a request for service to 358 single family equivalent (SFS)taps from the LifeBridge Church for the above referenced development. A copy of the tap review reply is attached for your information. In summary, 358 SFE taps could be served on the property,subject to standard service contracts and fees,and subject to the construction of standard on-site improvements and to the construction of a booster pumping station or of a water line in County Line Road,at applicant's expense, if there is additional information which the District can provide regarding conditions of service to the development,please let me know. It is not our practice to attend hearings regarding potential developments in either Boulder or Weld County. Our staff is limited,and we prefer to let the appropriate officials determine the levels of development that are appropriate for any given area,then we can address the means of service. Sincerely, Kathy Peterson General Manager P.O.Box 210•Niwot CO. 80544•(303)530-4200•Fax(303)530-5252 4 EXHIBIT x/004 05/08/03 06:28 FAX 970 304 6498 WELD PLANNING 2003 05/05/03 ION 14:37 FAX 3035305252 Left Hand Water District CI 002 LEFT HAND WATER DISTRICT October 16,2002 RE:Lifebddge PUD Tap Request#2161 Todd Borgct Rocky Mountain Consultants 825 Delaware#500 Longmont,CO 80501 Dear Mr.Borger Attached is a copy of the analysis of this sap request prepared by Joel Spencer of Integra Fore•'ieg Additional comments and recommendations by Terri Magnuson are incorporated into this letter of response. The request for 356 tap equivalents is approved,subject to the following conditions: 1. 20 tap equivalents are approved with no off-site improvements required,but the EZT line parddpadon fee of$2,500 per tsp equivalent is required, 2. An additional 338 tap equivalents are approved subject to the EZT line fee of 52,500 ad the construction,at Applicant's expense,of a booster pumping station,to be located near fxway 119 and WCR 7. Estimated cost is$342,000. 3. Review and approval of detailed on-site water system plans, 4. Service through a Standard Suhdivision/Water Tap Pumbue Agreement,including payment of all then-cusent tap fees and dedication of required water rights as zegrrire d. 5. Approval by the Hoard of Directors. An alternative to the pump station would be the construction of approximately 6 miles of pipeline along County Line Road and Highway 119,as discussed in the Integra memorandum The estimated cost of$2.2 M was fora 12"line,but a 16"line is recommended,at an estimated cost of$2.7 M. A 16"line would provide capacity for not only the 358 taps currently requested,but also for the 200 additional tape on the south side of Highway 119 that the Church is considering It may also provide the capacity and pressure necessary to serve the portion of the project located in the Long's Peek Water District. Of course,an Agreement between the two Districts regarding service would need to wonted out. We have nor yet determined whether taps served by such a new pipeline would be subject to the EZT line fees,or a pardon of those fees. Line fee reimbursement agreements would be available to reimburse rim applicant from additional development,if any, benefiting from the County Line pipeline The proposed pump station,on the other hand,could not serve mote than the 358 total taps requested,and all taps would be subject to the EZT line fee. Additional development would likely require construction of the pipeline as described LO. Box 210•Ntwot CO. 80544•(303)530-4200 •Fax(303)530-5252 05/06/03 06:28 FAX 970 304 6498 WELD PLANNING a 004 05/05/03 NON 14:37 PAS 3035305252 Left Rand Water District lig 003 October 16,2002 LEFT HAND WATER DISTRICT Responding specifically to questions you naked in your letter of April 5,2002 L On-sits and off-site infrastructure requirements for an assumed flee flow of apprwtitnately 2500 gpm are as given above,although the Integra analysis indicates thin the available fire flow may be slightly less than 2500 gpm. 2. If firs flaw requirements are raised to 3500 gpm,construction of a 16"line from County Line and Highway 52 would almost certainly be required. 3. The maximum number of tap equivalents available without major improvements is 20. 4. Water requirements for the 12.2 acre park were not included in this analysis Given the current drought situation and irrigation watering restrictions,it did not seem appropriate to include the park in the review However,inclusion of the parkwatering demands would require the construction of the 16"water line from County Line and Highway 52. All service is provided one first-come,first-served basis,and any commitments to serve will be contingent upon completion all requirements as stated above including payment of all required fees.Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Kathy Peterson General Manager 05/06/03 12:33 FAX 970 304 6498 WELD PLANNING 1 002 Milt TETRA TECH RMC Apri121,2003 Mr.Kim Ogle Weld County Department of Planning Services Weld County Administrative Offices 1555 North 17th Avenue Greeley,Colorado 80631 Re:Bulk Standards Dear Kim: On behalf of LifeBridge Christian Church,we request that the Planning Commission review the staff recommendation regarding bulk requirements within the PUD. We are in agreement with staff with a few exceptions: • Minimum Lot size within the senior community for single family residential. We request that the Commission consider adding a condition that will allow the minimum lot size to be determined at the time of Final PUD,with the requirement that the applicant must demonstrate that the homes as designed will fit on the lots as proposed. We anticipate that the lot size will be somewhere between 4000 and 6000 square feet. • We request that the minimum lot area per unit be determined based on the design of the units at final plan—we anticipate that this will range from 1500 to 2500 square feet. • We request that the lot coverage in the assisted living village be adjusted to 70%- this will allow for 30%open space which is typical of multifamily development. • We request that the setback within the commercial center,mixed use/office and retail and neighborhood center be reduced to allow for buildings to front directly only the streets creating a"Math Street" setting with additional parking and loading located behind the buildings. Thank you for you consideration. Sincerely TETRA �� TTE�C�H:RMC Barbara Brunk Landscape Architect r 1900 S.Sunset Street,Suite 1-F Longmont,CO 80501 Tel:303.7725282 Fa 303.665.6959 wwwttrmt.com 4 -. iXHIlIT `. N P lflo©y BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' SIGN POSTING CERTIFICATE THE LAST DAY TO POST THE SIGN IS APRIL 22, 2003 THE SIGN SHALL BE POSTED ADJACENT TO AND VISIBLE FROM A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. IN THE EVENT THE PROPERTY BEING CONSIDERED FOR A SPECIAL REVIEW IS NOT ADJACENT TO A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES SHALL POST ONE SIGN IN THE MOST PROMINENT PLACE ON THE PROPERTY AND POST A SECOND SIGN AT THE POINT AT WHICH THE DRIVEWAY (ACCESS DRIVE) INTERSECTS A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. I, KIM OGLE, HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE SIGN WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY AT LEAST FIFTEEN DAYS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS HEARING FOR PZ-1004, A PUD CHANGE OF ZONE FROM (A) AGRICULTURAL TO PUD WITH (E) ESTATE; (R-1) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; (R-2) DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL; (R-3) MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; (R-4) HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; (C-1) NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND (C-2) GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND CONTINUING OIL & GAS PRODUCTION USES IN THE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT LANCE UNVERZAGT Name of Person Posting Sign Signature of Person Posting Sign STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF WELD �/J� N/ �/ The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to me this 23 2)day of Y f p LL , 2003. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public CP My Commission Expires: ' 0O-1/. .V O(0(3 r 4. EXHIBIT Pa�# ►00i, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' SIGN POSTING CERTIFICATE THE LAST DAY TO POST THE SIGN IS APRIL 22, 2003 THE SIGN SHALL BE POSTED ADJACENT TO AND VISIBLE FROM A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. IN THE EVENT THE PROPERTY BEING CONSIDERED FOR A SPECIAL REVIEW IS NOT ADJACENT TO A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES SHALL POST ONE SIGN IN THE MOST PROMINENT PLACE ON THE PROPERTY AND POST A SECOND SIGN AT THE POINT AT WHICH THE DRIVEWAY (ACCESS DRIVE) INTERSECTS A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. I, KIM OGLE, HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE SIGN WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY AT LEAST FIFTEEN DAYS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS HEARING FOR PZ-1004, A PUD CHANGE OF ZONE FROM (A) AGRICULTURAL TO PUD WITH (E) ESTATE; (R-1) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; (R-2) DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL; (R-3) MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; (R-4) HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; (C-1) NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND (C-2) GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND CONTINUING OIL & GAS PRODUCTION USES IN THE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT CHRIS GATHMAN Name of Person Posting Sign CJ is Signature of Person Posting Sign STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss. COUNTY OF WELD ) The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to me this- day of ( id'l,LL , 2003. WITNESS my hand and official seal.1 Ndry Public My Commission Expires: /-e).9` 0 c 1-4 EXHIBIT IPa*COY V BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' SIGN POSTING CERTIFICATE THE LAST DAY TO POST THE SIGN IS APRIL 22, 2003 THE SIGN SHALL BE POSTED ADJACENT TO AND VISIBLE FROM A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. IN THE EVENT THE PROPERTY BEING CONSIDERED FOR A SPECIAL REVIEW IS NOT ADJACENT TO A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES SHALL POST ONE SIGN IN THE MOST PROMINENT PLACE ON THE PROPERTY AND POST A SECOND SIGN AT THE POINT AT WHICH THE DRIVEWAY (ACCESS DRIVE) INTERSECTS A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. I, KIM OGLE, HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE SIGN WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY AT LEAST FIFTEEN DAYS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS HEARING FOR PZ-1004, A PUD CHANGE OF ZONE FROM (A) AGRICULTURAL TO PUD WITH (E) ESTATE; (R-1) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; (R-2) DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL; (R-3) MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; (R-4) HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; (C-1) NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND (C-2) GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND CONTINUING OIL & GAS PRODUCTION USES IN THE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT KIM OGLE Name of Person Posting Sign � e Signatu of rson Posting Sign STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF WELD The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to me this3.../ day of AP i 1 , 2003. WITNESS my hand and official seal. uU2RA Notary Public My Commission Expires: LP10j 11 EXHIBIT Q t*Ito4 Hello