The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20031171.tiff HEARING CERTIFICATION DOCKET NO. 2003-35 RE: CHANGE OF ZONE, PZ#1004, FROM THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT TO THE PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) ZONE DISTRICT WITH R-1 (LOW- DENSITY RESIDENTIAL), R-2 (DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL), R-3 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL), R-4 (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL), C-1 (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL); AND C-2 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) ZONE USES - LIFEBRIDGE CHRISTIAN CHURCH A public hearing was conducted on July 9, 2003, at 10:00 a.m., with the following present: Commissioner David E. Long, Chair Commissioner Robert D. Masden, Pro-Tern Commissioner M. J. Geile Commissioner William H. Jerke Commissioner Glenn Vaad - RECUSED Also present: Acting Clerk to the Board, Esther Gesick Assistant County Attorney, Lee Morrison Planning Department representative, Kim Ogle Health Department representative, Pam Smith Public Works representative, Drew Scheltinga Public Works representative, Peter Schei Wilson George Court Reporters, Inc., James Rusk The following business was transacted: I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated April 11,2003,and duly published April 17,2003, in the South Weld Sun, a public hearing was conducted on May 7, 2003, to consider the request of LifeBridge Christian Church for Change of Zone, PZ#1004,from the A(Agricultural)Zone District to the PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zone District with R-1 (Low-Density Residential), R-2 (Duplex Residential), R-3 (Medium Density Residential), R-4 (High Density Residential), C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial);and C-2 (General Commercial)zone uses. At said hearing the Board deemed it advisable to continue the matter to July 9, 2003, to allow the Department of Planning Services staff time to resend referral packets to the municipal referral agencies for review, and allow the applicant to submit additional information and investigate further mitigation measures. On July 9,2003, Lee Morrison,Assistant County Attorney, made this a matter of record. He stated the Department of Planning Services did post a sign fifteen days prior to the March 18, 2003, hearing;however,there is no requirement to ensure the sign remains continuously. He stated there was no quorum on March 18, 2003; however, it is appropriate to take continue a hearing under Robert's Rules of Order if there is no quorum. He stated the matter was continued the next Planning Commission meeting scheduled forApril 1,2003,at which time the hearing was continued to April 22,2003,to allow adequate time for publication. Mr. Morrison stated no action or testimony was taken at the two preliminary hearings,and adequate publication was provided for the April22, 2003, hearing at which time the Planning Commission received adequate testimony to make a recommendation. He further stated case law indicates that neighbors to an application do not have 2003-1171 PL1655 00 ': OL A) cep) HEARING CERTIFICATION - LIFEBRIDGE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (PZ#1004) PAGE 2 the same rights in the due process that the property owner has. Mr. Morrison referenced a 1967 case, Grant vs. Board of County Commissioners, which was cited in a recent Court of Appeals case indicating if notice is provided early,the public has the ability to track the proceedings and be aware of when testimony will be taken. Kim Ogle,Department of Planning Services,concurred with Mr. Morrison's comments. In response to Chair Long,Peter Gries,surrounding property owner,stated the neighborhood has hired an attorney who will be present later in the hearing to address the issue of jurisdiction. Mr. Ogle stated complete packets were provided to the City of Longmont and the towns of Mead, Frederick,and Firestone on May 22, 2003,and any additional comments were to be submitted to the Clerk to the Board's Office by June 20, 2003. He stated the Clerk to the Board also provided a courtesy continuation notice to the surrounding property owners. Mr.Ogle stated the Traffic Impact Study was submitted and reviewed as part of the Sketch Plan phase and was, therefore, not forwarded as part of the Change of Zone file; however, it was later included at the request of the Town of Mead. He stated on June 20, 2003, Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig provided a review of the study,marked Exhibit MM,and he reviewed the referral comments from the City of Longmont,Town of Frederick,and Town of Mead. No additional comments were submitted by the Town of Firestone. Drew Scheltinga, Department of Public Works,stated the Town of Mead submitted a letter dated July 3,2003,expressing concern with potential traffic going north on Weld County Roads 5 and 7. He stated the Traffic Impact Study indicates approximately five percent of the traffic generated by the development will go north. He stated currently there are not many uses to the north to attract a significant amount of traffic;however,the children from the residential portion of the development will attend Mead's elementary and middle schools. Mr.Scheltinga stated no school children will live in the senior housing portion of the development and staff feels for the purposes of a Change of Zone request,the findings of the Traffic Impact Study are adequate. He stated the specific impacts will be reviewed further at the Final Plan phase. He further stated the overall traffic impact to the area will be mitigated by the proposed improvements to widen Weld County Road 3.5,and add turn lanes on Weld County Road 26 to the north. He stated the primary consideration for traffic control in this area is the future intersection at State Highway 119 and Weld County Road 3.5. He stated the public has expressed concern regarding the potential traffic impacts following a major church function, and what size of building is adequate for the proposed infrastructure. He stated staff reviewed the level of service at the intersection of State Highway 119 and Weld County Road 3.5. He explained the level of service is determined by the amount of time a vehicle is required to stop or delay at an intersection. He stated a large church event is anticipated to result in a Level of Service E for a short period of time; however,the intersection will be designed for Level of Service D under normal conditions. He stated if State Highway 119 remains at four lanes, the proposed improvements would accommodate a 5,200-seat auditorium at full build out, with a Level of Service E. However, State Highway 119 is anticipated to be upgraded to six lanes, which would accommodate an auditorium with 13,000 seats,at a Lever of Service E. Mr. Scheltinga stated the weekday peak occurs between 4:45 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.,and if a major event releases during that time the intersection will function at a Level of Service F. However,improving State Highway 119 to six lanes will be adequate for large events to release during peak times. Mr. Scheltinga stated with the present four-lane configuration on State Highway 119,the applicant will need to coordinate when special events are released so they do not coincide with peak traffic times. He reiterated the anticipated improvements will adequately address the phased development of this site. Mr. 2003-1171 PL1655 HEARING CERTIFICATION - LIFEBRIDGE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (PZ#1004) PAGE 3 Scheltinga stated the original application amounts have been reduced and staff feels the traffic aspects of this proposal are reasonable. He stated connectivity was also an issue of concern for the applicant and surrounding property owners;however,staff feels this is a basic principal of good planning by reducing congestion, enclaves, etcetera. He stated staff recommends internal connections be made at Pearl Howlett Street and Blue Mountain Road. Mr.Scheltinga stated since the last hearing staff conducted an extensive traffic count which was compared to the applicant's traffic figures,and he reviewed staffs findings for the record. He explained some of the figures may be low because the area north of Pearl Howlett Street has not been developed,and staff estimates the LifeBridge development will likely double the existing traffic levels in the area. Mr. Scheltinga stated Pearl Howlett Street and Blue Mountain Road can handle the anticipated traffic amounts caused when large events release and traffic detours through the surrounding neighborhoods. He stated if the Board decides to require connectivity,a Condition of Approval will need to be added. In response to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Scheltinga stated based on the projected growth in this area, upgrading State Highway 119 to six lanes are almost certain, whether this application is approved or not. Commissioner Geile commented he has toured the neighboring developments and he is concerned with the safety of the residents based on the slope and configuration of the internal roads. Responding to CommissionerJerke, Mr.Scheltinga stated the roads adjacent to the permit boundary will be paved by the applicant. He stated Weld County Road 26 will be paved and tied into the paving which was done for the Meadowvale development;however,no paving is proposed north of Weld County Road 26 toward the Town of Mead. He concurred Weld County Road 26 will likely be a secondary carrier to connect to Weld County Road 7 which is planned as a major arterial. He stated until there is further development to the north, there will not be much traffic other than transporting the children who will attend school in Mead. In response to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Scheltinga stated Weld County Road 3.5 is not in the plans for upgrades beyond what is proposed in this development, and the alignment for Weld County Road 7 is currently under review. Pam Smith,Department of Public Health and Environment,stated this development will be serviced by public water and sewer. Peter Gries,surrounding property owner,stated the neighborhood attorney is present and would like to address the jurisdictional issues regarding notification on this matter. Pete Ziemke, attorney, stated the notice for the March 18, 2003, hearing was not published, therefore,it is unclear how the hearing was continued when jurisdiction had not been established. He stated a sign was not posted for either hearing conducted in April, and the sign posted for the March hearing was not posted in accordance with Weld County's requirements,which require the sign be up continuously prior to the hearing. He stated the applicant is obligated to ensure the sign remains in place and evidence of such should be provided before this matter proceeds. He further stated the Board of Commissioners cannot act affirmatively on this application because jurisdiction was never established. He cited the case of Holly Development versus Arapaho County, which states jurisdiction is not established without a published notice and the hearing cannot proceed. Mr. Morrison stated schedule of the Planning Commission was previously adopted which set the March 18, 2003, meeting. He stated this application was the only matter scheduled for consideration and an Agenda was posted. He stated the meeting did take place;however,the items were continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting due to a lack of a quorum. Mr. Morrison stated the rules require a sign be posted prior to the hearing; however, they do not specifically require continuous posting. He stated because there was no quorum, there was no action other 2003-1171 PL1655 HEARING CERTIFICATION - LIFEBRIDGE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (PZ#1004) PAGE 4 than to continue to the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting on April 1, 2003, which is appropriate under Robert's Rules of Order. He further stated a notice was published prior to the April 22, 2003, hearing, at which time business was conducted and testimony was received. He stated there is no evidence that anyone was denied an opportunity to testify, rather, the record indicates there was ample testimony from the surrounding neighborhoods. He further stated the Holly Development case dealt with the statutory requirement of publication,which did occur prior to any testimony being taken for this case. Mr.Ziemke stated the regulation must be interpreted that the sign is to be posted continuously for a minimum of 10 days prior to the hearing. Bruce Grinnell, LifeBridge Christian Church administrator,stated the referral responses received since the last meeting indicate concern regarding traffic,oil and gas issues,and building heights and offsets. He stated the City of Longmont expressed concern with the scenic corridor leading into Longmont, stormwater and drainage, and the demand for urban services. He submitted photographs of the entryway into the City of Longmont,marked Exhibit LLL,and stated the buildings will be located three-quarters of a mile north of State Highway 119, so they will not affect the view corridor. Mr.Grinnell stated this development is designed to provide urban level parks;recreational, educational, and performing arts activities;and neighborhood, retail,commercial services which will benefit the residents in the area. He stated the Towns of Firestone and Frederick proposed no new issues, and the Town of Mead questioned the anticipated level of traffic on Weld County Roads 5 and 7. Matt Delich, Traffic Engineer, stated he prepared the Traffic Impact Study for this project. He concurred with the testimony provided by Mr.Scheltinga addressing the comments provided by the Town of Mead. Mr. Delich stated there may be a new high school constructed along either Weld County Road 5 or 7, which will draw additional traffic; however, the LifeBridge development is proposing 115 single family dwelling units, which will generate a small amount of children,and there is a large elderly housing development that will have no children residents. He further stated this study indicates approximatelyfive percent of the short range traffic generated by this development will travel north,and that amount will increase to fifteen percent for the long range plans. Mr.Delich stated as the roads to the north are paved,they will be able to handle the additional future traffic. He stated the traffic amounts generated by Sunday events during the peak times equals approximately 20 percent of the weekday traffic amounts. He further stated the traffic generated by special events will be higher; however, he feels the upgrades and signalization on State Highway 119 will be adequate and provide a Level of Service C for traffic during weekday and Sunday peak times. Responding to Commissioner Geile, Mr.Grinnell stated there will be 115 single family dwelling units located on the 57-acre area located in the northwest corner of the property, and the area to the south will have senior housing and the neighborhood center,with a total density of 300 units. He stated the Longs Peak Water District has committed to provide 358 water taps to serve the development. Mr.Grinnell referred to documents regarding oil and gas issues,marked ExhibitJJJ. He stated the agreements identify the drilling envelopes,which will be designated on the Site Plan. He further stated the draft agreements are under review by Patina Oil and Gas and Encana, therefore, he requested Conditions of Approval #1.B, #2.A, and #1.G be deleted. Mr. Grinnell reviewed a Power Point presentation, marked Exhibit MMM, which explained the applicant's proposed building heights and offset distances. He clarified there will be no building activities for ten years in the eastern 400 feet of the area designated for 75-foot maximum building heights. He 2003-1171 PL1655 HEARING CERTIFICATION - LIFEBRIDGE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (PZ#1004) PAGE 5 further stated there will be a 125-foot offset surrounding the entire property which will have no buildings. Mr. Grinnell stated the proposed offset distances from the eastern property line are five times greater than the County's minimum bulk standard. He stated the applicant has made numerous considerations to the initial plans to accommodate the requests of the surrounding property owners and Weld County,and the changes provide view corridors on the eastern portion of the campus. He further stated they mailed a letter on June 27, 2003, to residents in the immediate area, and met with leadership of the Elms development on July 3, 2003, to review application changes. He stated they discussed the alternative of constructing residential homes on the eastern edge of the property to block views of the church campus; however,they did not come to an agreement. Commissioner Geile compared this proposal to the North Ridge High School and Greeley West High School campuses. He stated those uses did not impede the value of area housing, rather they provide uses which benefit the area. Mr. Grinnell and Commissioner Geile discussed the proposed maximum floor area ratios of the LifeBridge development in relation to the high school comparisons. CommissionerJerke commented in this instance one million square feet could be located on a quarter acre of land because some of the buildings will have multiple levels. David Padgett,Patina Oil and Gas consultant,stated they provided the applicant with a draft surface use agreement regarding drilling locations; however,the agreement is still under negotiation. He requested the Board not delete the Condition of Approval requiring the agreement because the agreement has not been completed or executed. In response to CommissionerJerke,Mr. Padgett stated Patina wants to ensure the drill spaces are allocated as legally required by Colorado Oil and Gas Rules and Regulations. He stated the applicant's map does appear accurate;however,the drill spaces have not been provided to scale for final review by Patina. In response to Commissioner Masden, Mr. Padgett stated under the Colorado Oil and Gas Rules and Regulations, Patina is entitled to four 400-square-foot windows in the center of each 40-acre track, as well as an 800- square-foot window in the center of the 160-acre tract. He stated Encana has a leasehold on the northern portion of the property,and his comments only relate to Patina's leasehold on the southern 160-acre portion of the property,which results in five drilling windows. He stated two of the drilling windows have been compromised by existing development, so the applicant has indicated three drilling windows, which appears to be adequate according to State statute. Ursela Morgan,Town of Mead representative,stated the applicant indicated five percent of the short range traffic and fifteen percent of the long range traffic generated by this development would travel north. She questioned what total traffic amounts are anticipated to figure the percentages. Mr. Scheltinga stated the five percent was based on the total traffic on Weld County Road 26,which is anticipated to increase to fifteen percent of the commercial traffic at full build out. Mr. Delich stated he estimates five percent of the traffic generated by Phase One,which includes the church campus and single family dwelling portion,will go to the northeast. His long range study estimates fifteen percent of the commercially-generated traffic would go in that direction. Chair Long recessed the hearing until 1:00p.m. He stated public testimony will be taken at that time which will be restricted to new evidence provided since the last hearing. Upon reconvening,Peter Gries spoke representing the Citizens for Sensible Development of Weld County. He stated his testimony relates to documentation provided under Exhibits UU,WW,YY, and ZZ, and requested this matter be referred back to the Planning Commission based on the evidence of a jurisdictional defect. Mr. Gries stated there is also an election matter pending 2003-1171 PL1655 HEARING CERTIFICATION - LIFEBRIDGE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (PZ#1004) PAGE 6 regarding the incorporation of the Town of Freedom,Colorado,therefore,if the matter is not referred back to the Planning Commission, it should be continued long enough to allow adequate time to receive a decision regarding the incorporation issue. Mr.Gries stated the election commission met last night and an election has been scheduled for August 26, 2003. Chair Long stated the comments related to Freedom, Colorado, do not pertain to this application and cannot be considered by the Board. Mr.Gries stated this testimony is relevant to this application because forty acres of the property will be effected by the incorporation of the Town of Freedom, Colorado. Mr. Morrison stated as of Monday,July7,2003,the courts had not scheduled hearings of the opportunity for objection to the petition, and there was no final order in the case. He further stated the date scheduled does not coincide with the TABOR election process,which would require the matter to be considered during a general election. In response to CommissionerJerke,Mr.Morrison stated a third party can make a proposal which may constitute a substantial change to an application; however, the incorporation has not taken place at this time. Mr. Gries stated the Board does not have the authority to take action on this matter because the jurisdiction was not established,and he feels the case should be referred back to the Planning Commission to ensure the rules and regulations are followed completely. He referenced Exhibit ZZ,and stated a formal complaint will be submitted to the courts tomorrow if the Board proceeds with this hearing today. He stated the surrounding neighborhoods are in support of a change of zone to residential, which would be compatible with the surrounding area; however, this application requests six different zoning classifications, including commercial, and this property is designated as residential on the Weld County Mixed Use Development map. Mr.Gries stated the applicant has made no changes to the building heights since the last hearing,nor an attempt to compromise with the neighbors. He stated the applicant did make one minor change;however,the amount is not significant because it relates to the area for the perimeter road. He stated there is no need for such tall buildings regardless of the number people inside, and Weld County will not be able to adequately service the proposed urban scale development. He further stated the issue of floor area ratio(FAR)cannot be compared to a residential FAR due to the significantly different amounts of people residing in a home versus a large auditorium. He stated the volume of the smaller auditorium will be greater than all of the surrounding homes combined. Mr. Gries referred to Exhibits WW and W regarding traffic. He stated the neighborhood hired David Leahy of TDA Colorado to conduct a traffic study,and review the applicant's Traffic Impact Study. He stated Mr. Leahy found the study did not assess the weekend traffic surges and disregarded the potential traffic generated by the larger auditoriums and amphitheater. Mr.Gries stated he supports the concept of connectivity;however,it should not apply in this case because the neighboring uses will be so different. He stated the children already living in the Elms and Meadowvale developments will be impacted by the additional traffic coming through their neighborhoods. Mr.Gries also expressed concern with the meeting scheduled for this evening regarding the 1-25 Corridor four-lane arterial proposal,which overlaps with this meeting and prevents many from attending. He stated Weld County Road 5.5 will be impacted by this application if it becomes a four-lane highway,and he displayed slides of the 1-25 Corridor Study. He explained the State of Colorado is opposed to the County's plans for Weld County Road 7,therefore,Weld County Road 5.5 is the next option for improvements in this area. Mr. Gries expressed concern for the safety of children living in the area, and decreased property values. He stated the applicant purchased property which is zoned agricultural, and they have no guarantees that the change of zone request will be granted. He also expressed concern with noise,lighting,traffic,and inadequate landscaping to buffer the negative impacts. He stated the comments provided by the Department of Planning Services staff indicate this proposal is not compatible with the existing surrounding land uses, and he referred to a questionnaire in opposition to the proposal and connectivity, marked 2003-1171 PL1655 HEARING CERTIFICATION - LIFEBRIDGE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (PZ#1004) PAGE 7 Exhibit UU. He further stated Mr.Grinnell's testimony regarding who initiated the meetings,as well as the neighborhood's request for an additional row of houses on the eastern property boundary is false. Mr. Gries stated he proposed a row of houses be constructed west of the buffer; it was not his intent to eliminate the buffer, and the applicant has made no changes to the building heights since the previous hearing. In response to Commissioner Geile,Mr.Gries stated he placed an add in the Greeley Tribune indicating the LifeBridge Christian Church would like its congregation to grow to more than 15,000 people. Mr.Gries further stated the circumstances involving this case give the appearance that the Board is rushing this matter for personal gain. Duane Leise,surrounding property owner,expressed concern with his residence being located on a street which could potentially be connected to a 6,000-car parking lot. He stated the applicant has not provided the actual traffic amounts which are anticipated to travel north,and the weekend traffic counts do not address amounts from the church campus. Mr. Gries stated the Planning Commission minutes for April 1,2003,were added to the record as Exhibit OO,at his request. He stated the minutes indicate staff requested a continuance; however, there was no vote on the matter. He questioned how the continuance was granted if the Planning Commission did not vote, and stated if the rules and policies of the County are not enforced or followed, they have little meaning for the public. Mr. Leise stated the surrounding property owners have not been represented in this matter, and the application does not take future uses into account in an area already that is already restricted with Union Reservoir. Chris Ragwort, surrounding property owner, stated the applicant's property is currently zoned agricultural,and the Mixed Use Development plan designates the area as residential. He expressed concern with the proposed commercial uses,excessive building heights,lack of architectural plans, and limits noise abatement near an existing residential development. Mr. Ragwort stated this proposal will not generate much taxable income for Weld County. He stated the development will be phased over the next 50 years,therefore, he proposed the commercial portion of the property not be developed until it is demanded by future growth in the area. Vicky Braunagel,surrounding property owner, stated her home is adjacent to the eastern edge of the subject property. She stated the buildings constructed in Phase One will eliminate her views of the mountains; however, she is adamantly opposed to constructing additional home within the 125-foot buffer which would further obstruct her views to the west. She stated the issues regarding the perimeter road and the amount of traffic to be generated are yet to be resolved. She stated there needs to be a berm around the parking lots to mitigate noise and light,and the berm on the eastern edge of the property will be built with the perimeter road during the later phases of the project. Joanna Bennett,surrounding property owner,expressed concern with the notification process and the anticipated surrounding uses which continue to change. She stated the proposal is not consistent with the area and will likely continue to decrease her property value. She stated many do not want to purchase property next to the anticipated church campus or the large homes in the area which block the views. She expressed concern with the potential impacts of the surrounding uses,the 125-foot buffers are not adequate,and this location is not appropriate for this type of use. In response to Commissioner Geile, Ms. Bennett stated she does not live on either of the roads proposed for connectivity;however,she does live at the southeast corner of the proposed site which is only a short distance from the internal road. 2003-1171 PL1655 HEARING CERTIFICATION - LIFEBRIDGE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (PZ#1004) PAGE 8 Mr. Liese stated the surrounding property owners requested the applicant provide a 400-foot buffer, which is consistent with the McClain property that has a 400-foot buffer from State Highway 119 and from the eastern property line. There being no further comments, Chair Long closed public testimony. Chair Long called for a five-minute recess. Upon reconvening,Mr.Grinnell stated they did provide an appraisal, previously submitted as Exhibit FFF. West Foster, Foster Valuation Company, LLC, stated he was hired by the applicant to review whether this proposal would result in property value damages. He reviewed the report for the record which referenced proposals that were constructed after residences already existed and provided examples of real estate that appreciated in value. In response to Commissioner Geile,Mr. Foster stated if the connectivity were approved the decreased property values would be minor. In response to Commissioner Masden,Mr. Foster stated Exhibit F of his report shows buildings that are tall enough to block views from surrounding properties. Mr. Delich stated he was contacted by David LeahyofTDA Colorado,who provided comments on the Traffic Impact Study. He stated Mr. Leahy concurred with the type of analysis used; however, he did raise issues regarding safety and the quality of life as it relates to the proposed connectivity. Mr. Delich stated the church service traffic will have short-term peaks and cannot be related to normal weekday traffic. He stated the study tries to address the potential impact of this development, so the amount of traffic generated by the surrounding developments was not taken into account as it relates to the amount of school children who live in the area. He reviewed the anticipated traffic amounts in 2010 for Filings One and Two on Weld County Roads 5 and 7,as well as the anticipated amounts at full build out. He stated his calculations are small in relation to the anticipated traffic which will be generated by future development in the surrounding area. In response to Commissioner Jerke, Mr. Delich stated his June 2002 Traffic Impact Study did focus primarily on the weekday traffic amounts; however, he estimates the Sunday traffic to average 20 percent of weekday counts. (Switched to Tape#2003-26.) He stated the roads and intersections will operate well,and the current configuration is adequate for anticipated traffic amounts in 2010; however, it will be even better once the intersections are redesigned and upgraded, and the surrounding roads are paved. Mr. Grinnell referenced his E-mail correspondence with Rich Salm, marked Exhibit DDD, which shows the various attempts he made to coordinate a meeting with the new neighborhood representative. He stated the applicant has committed to constructing berms around the parking lots, as referenced by Ms. Braunagel,as well as on the eastern side of the development to shield Elms residents. He stated approval of this request provides LifeBridge Christian Church with an entitlement for this property. He stated each of the remaining phases are subject to further review and additional conditions through the final plans. Mr. Grinnell referenced the Land Density Comparison slide from the power point presentation made in May, marked Exhibit R, which he reviewed for the record. He also reviewed the Lot Coverage Comparison slide which shows very similar density percentages to the Elms development. In response to Chair Long,Mr.Grinnell stated the numbers are related to the 160-acre portion of the site,which includes the church campus,and 30 percent of that area will be open space. He further clarified the Lot Coverage Comparison indicates there are 392 homes in the Elms. He stated there are not actually that many homes, but that density would fit on 160 acres, which provides a good comparison. In response to Commissioner Geile,Mr.Grinnell stated Phase One will consist of the single family dwellings,senior housing, the 12-acre community park, and three buildings on the church campus, with the 2003-1171 PL1655 HEARING CERTIFICATION - LIFEBRIDGE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (PZ#1004) PAGE 9 remainder fo the site continuing in agricultural production. He further stated the single family dwelling units will be constructed over a seven-year period; the senior housing will take approximately five years to build out based on demand; and the first three of the church campus buildings should be completed in approximately two years. He stated approximately five years after the congregation has moved to the new site,they will consider further expansion and fund raising for Phase Two. He stated the anticipated build out times may be extended depending on the real estate market and church growth. Responding further to Commissioner Geile,Mr. Grinnell stated a recent study done by the Goodrich Group indicates demand for retail in this area is at least 15 years away;however,there may be some demand in the near future based on the current uses and how the remainder of the area develops. He stated the commercial and retail buildings will not be operated by the church,rather,they will be sold or leased. Mr.Grinnell stated the lot coverage table reflects the church campus only;the southern portion of the development will have a higher density. He stated the area north of the railroad tracks is 40.5 acres with 124,000 square feet of development,and the area south of the railroad tracks is 88.5 acres with 1,376,000 square feet of development,which is equivalent to 60 percent lot coverage. Mr.Grinnell stated the uses they are proposing are consistent with the uses allowed in the Mixed Use Development area. He stated building heights will be mitigated by open space and building setback offset, the density is compatible with the adjacent uses,traffic levels will be addressed,and noise levels will be regulated by the State. Dennis Rubba,Campus Master Planner,stated although the buildings have not been designed,he displayed various photographs of what the applicant envisions for the site, marked Exhibit UU. Mr.Grinnell stated the applicant has complied with Conditions of Approval#1.D and#1.E,therefore, he requested those items be deleted. Mr.Ogle stated the Mountain View Fire Protection District and the Weld County Sheriff's Office has both indicated their concerns have been addressed by the applicant,therefore,staff concurs with the deletion request. Mr.Grinnell also requested the second sentence of Condition#4.M be deleted. Mr. Scheltinga explained the intent of the paragraph is to deal with the four-way intersection that will be created at Weld County Road 26 and 5. He stated the sentence does not apply to this condition and should be eliminated. Mr. Grinnell clarified his earlier request to delete Condition#1.B was incorrect and that language should remain; however, the applicant would like to delete Condition#1.G regarding the oil and gas concerns. Commissioner Jerke commented he does not want to allow the oil and gas companies the ability to hold up this project;however, he would prefer to see evidence that the applicant is making an effort to come to an agreement. Commissioner Masden concurred. Mr.Grinnell stated three draftagreements have been provided. Commissioner Jerke clarified he wants to see evidence that the concerns are addressed. Mr. Morrison stated the applicant is contending that they have provided adequate evidence for the Change of Zone,and he suggested the requirement be made part of the final plan requirements when the surface uses are more defined. He further stated the Board can require that finalized agreements or evidence of satisfied concerns be provided as part of the Final Plan application. CommissionerJerke moved to find that the applicant has provided adequate evidence to satisfy Condition #1.G for the Change of Zone purposes and the condition can be deleted; however,the applicant must provide completed agreements prior to the Board hearing the Final Plan application. Commissioner Masden seconded the motion,which carried unanimously. Mr.Grinnell stated the applicant has completed Condition#2.A,therefore,he requested the item be deleted. Mr. Ogle stated this item has been addressed in the application materials;however,Patina Oil and Gas has requested accurate drawings be provided. Commissioner Jerke commented this issue is no 2003-1171 PL1655 HEARING CERTIFICATION - LIFEBRIDGE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (PZ#1004) PAGE 10 longer relevant since Condition#1.G was deleted. Mr.Morrison stated providing a detailed map is part of the accommodation, and Commissioner Masden stated he would like the language to remain because these are proposed locations that are subject to change once the future surface uses are determined. In response to CommissionerJerke,Mr.Grinnell stated at this time the applicant remains opposed to the issue of connectivity because the church campus does not require access to the neighboring developments. He stated there may be some benefit to the neighboring developments; however, the residents are opposed. Commissioner Geile concurred and expressed concern with the health, safety,and welfare of the residents based on the current design of the streets. Mr.Morrison stated connectivity was proposed by the Department of Public Works. Mr.Scheltinga stated the Planning Commission did not concur with staffs recommendation for connectivity and deleted the condition of approval requiring that feature. He stated if the Board is opposed to the concept,then no action is necessary;however,if the Board desires to require connectivity,then a Condition of Approval will need to be added. Chair Long stated he feels the connectivity is unnecessary in this situation. Responding to Chair Long, Pam Smith,Department of Public Health and Environment,referenced Section 25-12-103, C.R.S., which determines the maximum permissible noise levels. Mr. Ogle stated the amphitheater will not part of Phases One or Two, and would be addressed during the Final Plan phase. Mr.Grinnell stated the applicant will comply with the noise requirements for each development area as determined by State statute,and the specifics will be addressed through the final plans. He referenced Exhibit A of the Draft Resolution,titled Bulk Standards Summary. Mr. Ogle stated there is another version of numbers under Exhibit UU. Mr.Grinnell stated the applicant is requesting the minimum setback for retail, commercial, and neighborhood center be reduced from 25 feet to 20 feet. Commissioner Geile requested the applicant's previous changes discussed in the Power Point presentation, marked Exhibit MMM, also be included. In response to Commissioner Jerke, Mr. Grinnel stated the minimum setbacks are from the internal streets. Mr. Ogle clarified bolded items are minimum requirements established by the Weld County Code,and the other set of numbers is what is being proposed by the applicant. Mr. Ogle stated Condition of Approval #3.O provides text as to how the amounts were determined. Commissioner Geile commented Condition#3.O and Exhibit B of the Draft Resolution need to be amended to reflect all of the changes proposed by the applicant today. Mr.Ogle stated the applicant has provided a letter, marked Exhibit UU,which has a similar building height table with the current amounts. He stated Exhibit UU does need some slight modification. Chair Long called a ten minute recess to allow the applicant and Planning staff time to compile all of the currently proposed numbers on one document for final discussion of the Board. Upon reconvening,Mr.Morrison stated the applicant submitted the Real Estate Counseling Report, dated July 3,2003,following the June 20,2003,deadline. Chair Long stated the content of the report has already been heard by the Board;however,during the recess Mr.Gries expressed concern with the late submittal which did not provide the public an opportunity for review. Mr.Morrison stated the report and testimony provided by Mr. Foster was provided in response to testimony given by the surrounding neighborhood representatives. Mr. Gries stated the continuation notice states all comments must be received by June 20, 2003. He stated the applicant has provided additional information since that time which was not available in the copy they purchased. He requested a continuance to allow the neighborhood adequate time to review any documentation provided since June 20, 2003. 2003-1171 PL1655 HEARING CERTIFICATION - LIFEBRIDGE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (PZ#1004) PAGE 11 Mr. Grinnell submitted a table which clarifying the proposed changes to the building heights, a summary of additional restrictions on the church campus, and the modified Bulk Standards Summary,all marked Exhibit QQQ. In response to Chair Long, Mr. Ogle clarified the Weld County Code requires a minimum setback of 25 feet; however,the intent of a Planned Unit Development is to allow for flexibility. He stated staff concurs with the remaining amounts as proposed by the applicant. Ms. Smith stated the applicant has to comply with noise levels as determined by State statute regardless of whether the amounts are identified in this Resolution. However, for further clarification,she proposed a new Condition of Approval#3.1 be inserted to state,"The applicant shall comply with the maximum permissible noise levels in each representative zone district, in accordance with Section 25-12-103, C.R.S." and reletter as appropriate. She stated this modification has been discussed with the applicant and they concur with the language. Mr.Grinnell stated Mr. Foster was hired to do the real estate appraisal in response to testimony provided by the surrounding property owners at the last hearing. Responding to Chair Long,Mr.Grinnel stated they have reviewed and agree with the Conditions of Approval as proposed and modified. In response to Mr. Morrison, Mr. Grinnell stated the applicant requested the appraisal report as a rebuttal measure in response to evidence provided by Donald Hammond,marked ExhibitXX. Responding to Commissioner Jerke, Mr. Morrison stated the Board has the ability to determine what will or will not be admitted as evidence for consideration regarding the amount of rebuttal testimony provided in the file subsequent to June 20, 2003. Mr. Morrison stated the public has raised questions regarding the procedures used at the Planning Commission hearings of March 18,and April 1,2003. Mr.Ogle provided a cassette tape of the proceedings from the April 1,2003,Planning Commission hearing,marked Exhibit NNN,which provides a verbal vote fora continuance to a date specific. He also submitted staff's minutes, and Planning Commissioner John Folsom's summary of the March 18, 2003, Planning Commission hearing, marked Exhibit OOO. Mr.Gries stated if they had known rebuttal materials would be provided,they would have had their hired consultant present to answer questions and respond to Mr. Foster's report. He stated Mr. Foster's report does not reference his methodology, nor is there is an allowance for an annual depreciation. He stated the report does not provide justification for the selections,and the sample uses are not comparable because there is nothing similar to this proposal anywhere in the state. Mr.Gries stated other major churches across the country have developed in open areas,unlike this situation where the residential uses are already established. He reiterated it is unclear what other items may have been submitted since June 20,2003,and he requested the hearing be continued to allow the public adequate time to review the additional materials. In response to CommissionerGeile,Mr.Ogle stated the second paragraph regarding lighting within the Planned Unit Development on page 34 of the Draft Resolution was included based on discussions with the applicant in compiling this case. He stated this language is adequate to ensure glare and off-site lighting pollution is mitigated or prevented. He further stated the issue of lighting will be further addressed during the Site Plan Review and Final Plan processes. He stated there are no other references in the resolution regarding noise,and noise levels will be entirely subject to State statute. He further stated there is a law suite pending with Encana, which the applicant inherited when they purchased the property. Responding further to Commissioner Geile,Mr.Ogle stated staff is very clear on the issue of connectivity and that it will not be required or pursued. Responding to Commissioner Masden,Mr.Ogle stated the bolded numbers of Exhibit A to the Draft Resolution come directly from the Weld County Code; however, the intent of a Planned Unit Development is to allow flexibility, and staff has agreed to the amounts provided by the applicant, 2003-1171 PL1655 HEARING CERTIFICATION - LIFEBRIDGE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (PZ#1004) PAGE 12 with the three additional changes to minimum setback distances. In response to Chair Long, Mr. Ogle gave a brief description of the bollard lighting which will be used along the development pathways. Responding to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Morrison stated the uses allowed under the R-1 (Low-Density Residential)zoning will be restricted to what has been proposed in the Planned Unit Development application materials. He further stated they do have the flexibility to propose a church without requiring a Use by Special Review Permit, and he feels the notification and publication throughout this process is defensible in court. Mr. Morrison stated the Board must decide whether the submittal of items after the June 20, 2003, should require a continuance. He stated the notice does request all information be submitted by June 20,2003,to provide staff and the applicant an opportunity to address new evidence. He stated additional testimony was not prohibited, therefore, the Board must determine whether the questions raised by Mr. Gries are central to the Board's deliberations and decisions. Commissioner Geile commented this has been difficult and complicated issue,with valid concerns raised by the surrounding property owners regarding their real estate investments. He stated this has been quasi judicial process so he did not discuss the matter outside the confines of the hearing room; however, he did visit the site and do a significant amount of research. Commissioner Geile stated he has attended more than 400 land use cases during his term as a commissioner,and has found the conduct of Mr. Ogle as a County Planner to be very professional. He commended Mr. Scheltinga for his review of the Traffic Impact Study and how the proposal will impact the transportation features in this area. Commissioner Geile stated the concerns regarding setback distances have been addressed,and may be addressed further as the development progresses to the Final Plan phase. He stated it is to the advantage of the applicant to continue working with the surrounding property owners in an attempt to address their concerns as they relate to the Final Plan. Commissioner Geile stated the applicant has agreed to decreased structure sizes and increased setbacks, and he is comfortable that future development phases will be required to go through a similar review process. He stated the issue of connectivity has been addressed and will not be pursued due to health,safety,and welfare concerns of the surrounding property owners. Based on those findings, and his opinion that the property values will not be significantly impacted by this development,he is in support of this application. Commissioner Geile reviewed Section 26-2-30.C of the Weld County Code regarding neighborhood centers, and referenced the allowed uses indicated on the Mixed Use Development Structural Land Use Map. He stated the issue of what constitutes a church is debatable, so his primary consideration regarding the use relates to the proposed sizes. He stated his questions have been answered, the issues raised by the City of Longmont have been addressed, and the design of Weld County Road 26 will continue to be reviewed as development continues around Union Reservoir. Commissioner Jerke stated the applicant has made a lot of effort to address the concerns of the surrounding neighborhoods. He stated there has been concern regarding notification issues; however,he feels the County has made many attempts to notify people. He stated although there will be occasional high traffic fluctuations related to special events,he feels the proposed uses will provide a nice balance to the existing communities and be an asset to the area. Commissioner Masden stated throughout this process the applicant has worked to provide mitigation measures regarding the various issues of concern. He commended staff for its expertise in evaluating the various traffic studies, and working to balance the needs and desires of the applicant, referral agencies, and surrounding property owners. He stated staff has done a 2003-1171 PL1655 HEARING CERTIFICATION - LIFEBRIDGE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (PZ#1004) PAGE 13 tremendous job in preparing this hearing given the large amount of documentation. Commissioner Masden stated the evidence and testimony provided adequately address the health, safety, and welfare of Weld County residents, and the applicant has also adjusted their proposed building heights and setbacks to address the concerns of the neighborhood. He stated noise will be mitigated, according to professional testimony the property values will be adversely effected. He further stated his comments relate only to the Change of Zone, and final plans will still have to go through the additional review. Commissioner Masden stated it will be a lengthy process to develop this site to full build out,so there will not be an immediate impact to the community and he feels the proposed uses will be an asset for the entire area. Chair Long thanked staff for their efforts in processing this case,as well as each of the participants who either opposed or supported the proposal. He stated all of the evidence and testimony was valuable in assisting the Board in making an informed decision. He stated he lives in northeastern Weld County;however,as a Weld County Commissioner he strives to represent the best interests the County as a whole, not just District One. He stated he has studied the application to consider what the potential impacts maybe,and throughout this process the continuances have allowed an opportunity for all involved to present a better application which mitigates as many concerns as possible. He stated the process allows for changes as the area develops, and there will be additional opportunities for public input as this project proceeds. He urged the applicant to continue working with the neighborhood to address the issues as they progress through the development process. Based on those comments Chair Long stated he supports the application which will provide a long term asset for the future. Commissioner Jerke moved to approve the request of LifeBridge Christian Church for Change of Zone,PZ#1004,from the A(Agricultural)Zone District to the PUD(Planned Unit Development)Zone District with R-1 (Low-Density Residential), R-2 (Duplex Residential), R-3 (Medium Density Residential), R-4(High Density Residential), C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial);and C-2(General Commercial) zone uses, based on the recommendations of the Planning staff and the Planning Commission,with the Conditions of Approval as entered into the record. His motion also included deleting Conditions of Approval#1.D,#1.E,#1.G,and the second sentence of#4.M,inserting a new Condition of Approval#3.1 to state,"The applicant shall comply with the maximum permissible noise levels in each representative zone district, in accordance with Section 25-12-103, C.R.S." and relettering as appropriate,and amending Condition#3.P to reflect that 20 percent of the interior site area is limited to a height of 75 feet. (Clerk'Note:All references to the E(Estate)Zone District were eliminated from the Draft Resolution and Exhibits Aand B were modified to reflect the building height and offset changes submitted by the applicant in Exhibit QQQ.) The motion was seconded by Commissioner Geile. He stated the applicant has met the Mixed Use Development goals and policies listed under Sections 26-1-50.B.2.a through 26-1-50.B.2.i, and Sections 26-1-50.B.3.a through 26-1-50.B.3.h. He stated the applicant has shown compliance with Sections 26-1.50.B.4.b and 27-2-70 regarding compatibility in terms of general use,building height,scale,density,traffic, dust,and noise. Commissioners Geile,Long and Masden commended and thanked Mr.Leise and Mr. Gries, as well as many of the other area residents,for their efforts regarding this case,which made the application better. There being no further discussion,upon a call for the vote,the motion carried unanimously, and the hearing was completed at 5:00 p.m. 2003-1171 PL1655 HEARING CERTIFICATION - LIFEBRIDGE CHRISTIAN CHURCH (PZ#1004) PAGE 14 This Certification was approved on the 14th day of July 2003. APPROVED: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS � / ,� W CO NTY, COLORADO ATTEST: L� �`f ,�y vi E. on , C it Weld County Clerk to the Board Robert D. as en, Pro-Tem �� f �►erk to the Board J. Geile '1661 - . and #2003-26 ' hl/ ®/W 4,I William H. Jerke � y►�2003-35 RECUSED Glenn Vaad 2003-1171 PL1655 ATTENDANCE RECORD HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS ON THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2003: DOCKET#2003-35 - LIFEBRIDGE CHRISTIAN CHURCH PLEASE legibly write or print your name and complete address. NAME ADDRESS John Doe 123 Nowhere Street, City, State, Zip Tom,to k. T( L I l OD 5okIli Su,vw-f+ tarn &Sao/ ` f /,As /2/2. f". S/� n1,-- � ( 'e%, " /6, Sos7j' n O it m '?),y3I, jY\ ,2-Ilo tu,%0 5i- U- flu rincnv Co co.3zbr. 1.1-NN LS PF3k3A 24x1 iS cif. ' is OCAii/t1Z ( O eutc2-- ' t 1 'itOR d2-1 e(-)6OLJA' rZ9MU -- cc ebo ?pt''J(�f�, . J?LQ.1ES pW ZC --Cat `1ci: 1 �S� iii d- 1 LON\( 'nTI (o (� Ft-y-50[ Mi,1kye�r,�?,��-Lvdt-^15O V CCU E. Tit,,-k•cs1. }t & Sk,... i A-Z F.,-,0) 10 WUC't (°n . 1So I I( - t1 l►IC// k-e. E: eve hce �I ` :r4P k-t- Ek c ')u oa/ &D P-01// I c -,... ro4 os faN R- z ?SO /7t4 J /del!, veir, CO a,a7-.. tl,0h-Q_ CfinivA7( X39 �irztt Ln� ;11vCn\ a �C05Ur 1R 0 k 1� �I 6�, (`\N-a� / er" Pi-, 4—hlCemr- C-)J fifl:1--G 1 )tuck 11f\hQl I 9 Q ft t 1\W 'iv)6\1\ C CO -O�OI DiaUlll 1 iv/Ati ' hat/ rfloNtsamer-j t.G ,An vi- CQ s05 +?ti Laura c j man 1 1706 iv)cycketnarL(C,vr 12 i pncit ,-,A+ , C`o 8'6c O q c---„can \Ant\o w� c)-11OrnD0rint\ \!e 2d Lavt rY,gA, e SOS-04 PAuif PAt EW 7g33 SU, 4/9030ZN Cr2C- � eItio* Co kt)a/b 8 MI est ca 5f{K /7 Co - 7 .114 4si f/t 2 ,Y G-<e.../1;/ -Ct f06..ry ATTENDANCE RECORD HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS ON THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2003: DOCKET#2003-35 - LIFEBRIDGE CHRISTIAN CHURCH PLEASE legibly write or print your name and complete address. NAME ADDRESS John Doe 123 Nowhere Street, City, State, Zip Ivy CoverO/4. 4 - i<CZ(F /833 /Z1 47 Iva i cre.e6 y , Ce . 23.0673i Al1 Pia aAet Jvu-P,) (1720 15L-AA Eft L-&i4J1 l) 2(V: 1-6/4 OA 0',if C0 so dos CeLeiA- -Joae.. 1 , c c , , ( , a , .,. � , V 6v `040(e)3 t - 3v ici e-&f ci-- av r Co 'os-co3 IleiAML LE-+5E z'e' -?Eft a L I+Di tb • toNGMoACT- 8oc a, vt it; t�rauv: a� //re 77 !Y) r-vl4 mar CO do it mw") krxnf< ,ts ce. i�k vvCOs Pie -.Sc-l4 l� ,( 7v24 , /_C�5Mth,� Co 4so5()C ( J�L!/;5 let r ©i y4 ii p? G6 `7 /i o c(' c ) /cn e , !/l�'Por.� / (!9 sosc e* B&L L e d Tyrol 0, 2 '6 17 j4�G &6&i /off e / I 9CC,/ (1CJ ros Z€.C le._ ©f n 66 '7 /7i,da,2rnw line/ f.�ga, /69 .2-`vj- U. ATTENDANCE RECORD HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS ON THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2003: DOCKET#2003-35 - LIFEBRIDGE CHRISTIAN CHURCH PLEASE legibly write or print your name and complete address. NAME ADDRESS John Doe 123 Nowhere Street, City, State, Zip ., si,,i— t !O.r\o�� _ " WNW,, Arn \l O)1/4.t_ 2r lrr.A ,r c� Cc Sc-cH oPthigA RENIUETT c)b(i---i Jqc PL I nAi _"VYDN7, CD 6QQ) - rti-c2c LIR Ii5 D azti LEisE Q11� (e E T yL�wc D4 tJ J � ' L1to-11 W6\IN i\ li/1c.4 EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET Case PZ #1004 - LIFEBRIDGE CHRISTIAN CHURCH Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description A. Planning Staff Inventory of Item Submitted B. Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation C. Planning Commission Summary of Hearing (Minutes 04/01/2003 and 04/22/2003) D. Clerk to the Board Notice of Hearing E. Tom and Carolyn Bowen Letter of Support, received 4/23/2003 F. Peter and Monica Gries Letter of Complaint, received 4/29/2003 G. Peter Gries E-mail re: Property rights, received 4/28/2003 H. Joe McCarthy E-mail of Concern received 4/30/2003 Duane Leise E-mail of Opposition received 5/5/2003 J. Peter Gries E-mail to Applicant re: Meeting received 5/5/2003 K. John Folsom E-mail of Concern received 5/5/2003 L. Mountain View Fire Protection District Referral Response received 5/5/2003 M. Left Hand Water District Letter re: Tap Service received 5/5/2003 N. Applicant Letter re: Bulk Standards received 5/6/2003 O. Planning Staff Certificate of Sign Posting P. Planning Staff Certificate of Sign Posting Q. Planning Staff Certificate of Sign Posting R. Applicant Copies of Consultant's Power Point Presentation S. Planning Staff Referral Response signed by Michael Friesen, Town of Mead re: USR #1419 T. Planning Staff Referral Response signed by Michael Friesen, Town of Mead re: USR #1421 GG3 - h17( U. Applicant Mitigation Agreement with St. Vrain Valley School District (03/10/2003) V. Robert and Victoria Schnepp Letter of Opposition (5/7/2003) W. Duane Liese Four 11X17" pages (maps, referrals, comparison photo) X. Duane Liese Preliminary Draft #6, Evidence of Referral Responses Y. Louise Leise Orange County Register News Article (04/23/2003) Z. Louise Leise Pearl Howlett Community Park AA. Health Staff State statute provisions re: Maximum Permissible Noise Levels BB. Peter Gries Proposed changes to Bulk Standards Massing Diagram for Church Campus CC. Planning Staff Evidence of Referral receipt by Town of Mead on 3/13/2003 es, DD. Applicant Letter from Matt Delich re: Trip Generation Comparison (5/5/2003) EE. Peter Gries Photo taken by Longmont Times-Call of pop can size comparison FF. Planning Staff Attendance list from Planning Commission hearing and Speaker cards GG. Mark Olsen E-mail of Support received 5/6/2003 HH. Public Works Staff Power Point Presentation, new images since 4/22/2003 PC hearing (5/7/2003) I I. Mountain View Fire Protection District Referral Response received 5/13/2003 JJ. Clerk to the Board Continuance Notice and Certification of Mailing (Filed under Legals) KK. Del Lukasiewicz/Westec Letter of Support (05/30/2003) LL. Sheriff's Office Evidence of Delivery (05/30/2003) MM. Planning Staff Letter, FHU Review and 6/2002 Traffic Study (06/12/2003) -/i7/ NN. Lori Miller E-mail of Concern (6/12/2003) OO. Planning Commission Summary of Hearing (Minutes for 4/1/2003) PP. Planning Staff Filtered Electronic Mail Correspondence requested by Peter Gries QQ. Planning Staff Phone Log and Electronic Mail Correspondence requested by Peter Gries RR. Town of Frederick Referral response received 6/18/2003 SS. Michael Donohoo E-mail of Concern received 6/18/2003 TT. Peter Ziemke, LLC Letter re: Publication and sign posting received 6/20/2003 UU. Applicant Response to 5/7/2003 hearing questions (6/20/2003) VV. David Duvall Letter re: Residential Survey Responses (3 pages) received 6/20/2003 WW. Peter and Monica Gries Letter re: Percentage Impact Appraisal and Stipulations for re-zoning application (3 pages) received 6/20/2003 XX. Donald Hammond Letter and Appraisal Qualifications (4 pages) received 6/20/2003 YY. Peter and Monica Gries Letter re: Traffic Study Review and Stipulations for re-zoning application (3 pages) received 6/20/2003 ZZ. Duane Leise Letter re: Jurisdictional defects (4 pages) received 6/20/2003 AAA. Duane Leise Affidavit signed June 17, 2003 (received 6/20/2003) BBB. City of Longmont Referral response received 06/30/2003 CCC. Ron and Judy Franco E-mail of concern received 07/02/2003 DDD. Applicant E-mail correspondence with Rich Salm received 07/02/2003 EEE. Applicant Letter and maps to surrounding property owners and mailing list (06/27/2003) FFF. Applicant Real Estate Counseling Report GGG. Applicant E-mail Letter to the Editor received 07/07/2003 HHH. Town of Mead Referral response received 07/08/2003 III. Westec Letter of Support received 07/08/2003 JJJ. Applicant's Attorney Documents addressing Oil and Gas Conditions of Approval received 07/08/2003 KKK. Planning Staff Note to File dated 6/13/2003 LLL. Applicant Panorama Photographs (17 sets) (Colored photos available in original file) MMM. Applicant Copy of Power Point presentation NNN. Planning Staff Transcript and Cassette Tape of Planning Commission Hearing of 04/01/2003 OOO. Planning Staff Planning Commission Minutes for 03/18/2003 and Summary of Meeting signed by John Folsom, dated 03/20/2003 PPP. Planning Staff Summary of Municipal referral responses dated July 9, 2003 QQQ. Applicant Proposed Building Height and Setback changes RRR. Public Works Staff Table and Map for Traffic Counts SSS. Peter Ories Power Point presentation TTT. UUU. VVV. WWW. XXX. YYY. ZZZ. WA. BBBB. CCCC. ATTENDANCE RECORD HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS ON THIS 7th DAY OF MAY, 2003: DOCKET #2003-35, PL1655 -Change of Zone, PZ#1004, LifeBridge Christian Church, c/o Tetra Tech, RMC PLEASE legibly write or print your name and complete address. NAME ADDRESS John Doe 123 Nowhere Street, City, State, Zip N, 1 Ill se A k i)ti i Onnt, )11 aG f1 c n4 C r-oQ d- n 'h.r Co �'oS641 N 2 R Qin Sq. /l 7/3 /1?3J P 4r y C�� (O,44/rye, ct Co ?cis-0Q3 ckeAs- ) r-0w r7 arced Td1 0ri& .6(33 / N 4 Kit L-Cuth.errc 1I(01(0 W1/4O1 C2, Lou8 »oW�, Co ��9 \ 5 fad ,\astrz. 'ierc2 l9q$ Rlt�¢U Rd @o 8050 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 pluz,kkv Cld-.rol h - 5- 7-a603 Tdre_r- 6--r- ec s. I ret t cA & - cSncork lotcz cF- hi _ mr,(4)0?Li r L Q �� yarn0 --tiC )3. (-22oy 27/f s'1 �3°/V 7 -7 /O WO/ I/4/4K ci Michtjel StPptber -DuAmE Ti LE / sE LY.l Ui5e_.. Fr he i s n rot rr Gil ivc 2e�Y �`v ez,„ Ca.v.:27"_< '32113 -,ARw he“.) bi9 ef/ So, I �oK � • abse � r EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET Case PZ#1004 - LIFEBRIDGE CHRISTIAN CHURCH Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description A. Planning Staff Inventory of Item Submitted B. Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation C. Planning Commission Summary of Hearing (Minutes 04/22/2003) D. Clerk to the Board Notice of Hearing E. Tom and Carolyn Bowen Letter of Support, received 4/23/2003 F. Peter and Monica Gries Letter of Complaint, received 4/29/2003 G. Peter Gries E-mail re: Property rights, received 4/28/2003 H. Joe McCarthy E-mail of Concern received 4/30/2003 Duane Leise E-mail of Opposition received 5/5/2003 J. Peter Gries E-mail to Applicant re: Meeting received 5/5/2003 K. John Folsom E-mail of Concern received 5/5/2003 L. Mountain View Fire Protection District Referral Response received 5/5/2003 M. Left Hand Water District Letter re: Tap Service received 5/5/2003 N. Applicant Letter re: Bulk Standards received 5/6/2003 O. Planning Staff Certificate of Sign Posting P. Planning Staff Certificate of Sign Posting Q. Planning Staff Certificate of Sign Posting R. Applicant Copies of Consultant's Power Point Presentation S. Planning Staff Referral Response signed by Michael Friesen, Town of Mead re: USR #1419 -^ T. Planning Staff Referral Response signed by Michael Friesen, Town of Mead re: USR #1421 . U. Applicant Mitigation Agreement with St. Vrain Valley School District (03/10/2003) V. Robert and Victoria Schnepp Letter of Opposition (5/7/2003) W. Duane Liese Four 11X17" pages (maps, referrals, comparison photo) X. Duane Liese Preliminary Draft#6, Evidence of Referral Responses Y. Louise Leise Orange County Register News Article (04/23/2003) Z. Louise Leise Pearl Howlett Community Park AA. Health Staff State statute provisions re: Maximum Permissible Noise Levels BB. Peter Gries Proposed changes to Bulk Standards Massing Diagram for Church Campus CC. Planning Staff Evidence of Referral receipt by Town of Mead on 3/13/2003 DD. Applicant Letter from Matt Delich re: Trip Generation Comparison (5/5/2003) EE. Peter Gries Photo taken by Longmont Times-Call of pop can size comparison FF. Planning Staff Attendance list from Planning Commission hearing and Speaker cards GG. Mark Olsen E-mail of Support received 5/6/2003 HH. Public Works Staff Power Point Presentation, new images since 4/22/2003 PC hearing (5/7/2003) I I. Mountain View Fire Protection District Referral Response received 5/13/2003 JJ. Clerk to the Board Continuance Notice and Certification of Mailing (Filed under Legals) KK. Del Lukasiewicz/Westec Letter of Support (05/30/2003) LL. Sheriff's Office Evidence of Delivery (05/30/2003) MM. Planning Staff Letter, FHU Review and 6/2002 Traffic Study (06/12/2003) NN. Lori Miller E-mail of Concern (6/12/2003) r OO. Planning Commission Summary of Hearing (Minutes for 4/1/2003) PP. Planning Staff Filtered Electronic Mail Correspondence requested by Peter Gries QQ. Planning Staff Phone Log and Electronic Mail Correspondence requested by Peter Gries RR. Town of Frederick Referral response received 6/18/2003 SS. Michael Donohoo E-mail of Concern received 6/18/2003 TT. Peter Ziemke, LLC Letter re: Publication and sign posting received 6/20/2003 UU. Applicant Response to 5/7/2003 hearing questions (6/20/2003) W. David Duvall Letter re: Residential Survey Responses (3 pages) received 6/20/2003 WW. Peter and Monica Gries Letter re: Percentage Impact Appraisal and Stipulations for re-zoning application (3 pages) received 6/20/2003 XX. Donald Hammond Letter and Appraisal Qualifications (4 pages) received 6/20/2003 W. Peter and Monica Gries Letter re: Traffic Study Review and Stipulations for re-zoning application (3 pages) received 6/20/2003 ZZ. Duane Leise Letter re: Jurisdictional defects (4 pages) received 6/20/2003 AAA. Duane Leise Affidavit signed June 17, 2003 (received 6/20/2003) BBB. City of Longmont Referral response received 06/30/2003 CCC. Ron and Judy Franco E-mail of concern received 07/02/2003 DDD. Applicant E-mail correspondence with Rich Salm received 07/02/2003 EEE. Applicant Letter and maps to surrounding property owners and mailing list (06/27/2003) FFF. Applicant Real Estate Counseling Report GGG. Applicant E-mail Letter to the Editor received 07/07/2003 HHH. Town of Mead Referral response received 07/08/2003 III. Westec Letter of Support received 07/08/2003 JJJ. Applicant's Attorney Documents addressing Oil and Gas Conditions of Approval received 07/08/2003 KKK. Planning Staff Note to File dated 6/13/2003 LLL. Applicant Panorama Photographs (17 sets) MMM. Applicant Copy of Power Point presentation NNN. Planning Staff Cassette Tape of Planning Commission Hearing of 04/01/2003 OOO. Planning Staff Planning Commission Minutes for 03/18/2003 and Summary of Meeting signed by John Folsom, dated 03/20/2003 PPP. Planning Staff Summary of Municipal referral responses dated July 9, 2003 QQQ. Applicant Proposed Building Height and Setback changes RRR. Public Works Staff Table and Map for Traffic Counts SSS. Peter Gries Power Point presentation TTT. UUU. WV. WWW. XXX. YYY. ZZZ. WA. BBBB. CCCC. Hello