HomeMy WebLinkAbout20031095.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by James Rohn, along with the deletion of#2 C,addition of#3E,deletion of Estate referral,addition
of#1 G,delete sentence in#2 E,that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County
Planning Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE: PZ-1004
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
APPLICANT: LifeBridge Christian Church
REQUEST: PUD Change of Zone from (A)Agricultural to PUD 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
LEGAL: Lot B of Recorded Exemption 1389 and Part of Section 5, T2N, R68W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of& adjacent to Weld County Road 26; north of&adjacent to Hwy
119; west of and adjacent to Fairview Street
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 27-5-30 of
the Weld County Code.
2. The submitted materials are in compliance with Section 27-6-120 of the Weld County Code as
follows:
A. Section 27-6-120.B.6.a The proposal is consistent with any intergovernmental agreement
in effect influencing the PUD and Chapters 19(Coordinated Planning Agreements),Chapter
22(Comprehensive Plan), Chapter 23(Zoning), Chapter 24 (Subdivision)and Chapter 26
(Mixed Use Development) of this Code. The proposed site is presently influenced by an
Inter-Governmental Agreement with the City of Longmont. The proposal is consistent with
the aforementioned documents as follows:
1) Section 22-2-110.B (UGB.Goal 2) states, "Concentrate urban development in or
adjacent to existing municipalities or the 1-25 Mixed Use Development area and
maintain urban growth boundary areas that provide an official designation between
future urban and non-urban uses."The proposed subdivision is located within the
Mixed Use Development(MUD)area, and is within the boundaries of(Ordinance
2002-7,Article XIV,Chapter 19)the Inter-governmental Agreement(IGA)boundary
with the City of Longmont and within the Municipal Referral Area with the Town of
Mead.
2) Section 22-2-230.A (MUD.Goal 1) states "To plan and to manage growth and to
provide for ease of inclusion in the I-25 Mixed Use Development area and urban
development nodes so as to balance relevant fiscal,environmental,aesthetic and
economic components of the area." The proposal assures that new development
occurs in such a manner as to maintain an attractive working and living
environment. Further, all applicable standards and regulations, unless otherwise
modified herein,of Chapter 26,Chapter 27 and Chapter 23, along with Chapter 22
shall be integrated in the design of the Final Plan and will be addressed through the
Site Plan Review process.
3) Ordinance 2002-7, Article XIV, Chapter 19 , the Inter-governmental Agreement
(IGA) boundary with the City of Longmont presently influences this site. The
Department of Planning Services and the County Attorney's office determined that F" T
when the application was submitted and under review there was not an IGA in place m Q
between Weld County and the City of Longmont, therefore, it was determined by
the Weld County Attorney's office that this application would not be subject to n t
Ordinance 2002-7, Article XIV, Chapter 19 , given that Ordinance 2002-7, Article W
2003-1095 r"
Resolution PZ-1004
Lifebridge
Page 2
XIV, Chapter 19 was not adopted prior to the submittal of the Sketch Plan, PK-
1004, application.
4) Goal MUD.C. Goal 1 in Chapter 26, Article 1 Section 26-1-50.B.1.a of the Weld
County Code states,"Establish a sense of community identity within the Mixed Use
Development area by planning and managing residential, commercial, industrial,
environmental, aesthetic and economic components of the area." The land uses
shown on the change of zone plat reflect the uses shown on the MUD Structural
Land Use Map. (Map Number 2.1, dated June 20, 2002)
MUD.C. Goal 3 in Chapter 26,Article 1 Section 26-1-50.B.3.a of the Weld County
Code states, "Community form and identity shall be encouraged through the
enhancement and preservation of natural resources and features." Where feasible,
drainage ways shall be maintained in their natural state to ensure optimal re-charge
(MUD.C.Policy 3.2,Section 26-1-50.B.3.c). Impacts to air quality will be minimized
(MUD.C. Policy 3.3, Section 26-1-50.B.3.d). Disturbed areas will be re-vegetated
immediately following construction. In order to minimize wind and soil erosion,
temporary stabilization measures will be established until permanent cover is in
place. (MUD.C. Policy 3.5, Section 26-1-50.B.3.f). Native species have been
selected for some of the re-vegetation.(MUD.C.Policy 3.6,Section 26-1-50.B.3.g).
5) Section 22-3-140.B TGoal 2. states "A Countywide trail system should be
considered to service transportation and recreation purposes." Several pedestrian
and open space connections are provided to connect the three components of the
development and the surrounding area, including adjacent subdivisions and the
Longmont Open Space area associated with Union Reservoir.
6) Section 22-3-140.A. T.Goal 1. states "Provide a unified and coordinated
countywide street and highway system which moves people and goods in a safe,
economical, and efficient manner. The proposed development will comply with
Sections 22-3-60 through 22-3-140 of the Weld County Code. Access to the
development will preserve the existing and future function of roads and highways
affected by this proposed development. All development circulation systems shall
be designed so that they do not disrupt highway travel. Traffic generated by the
proposed development will conform to the recommendations and requirements of
the Department of Public Works and the Colorado Department of Transportation(T.
Policy 1.1, Section 22-3-140.A.1).
7) Section 26-1-50.B.4.c MUD.C.Policy 4.2 of the Weld County Code states, "All
proposals for commercial, industrial and residential development within the 1-25
Mixed Use Development area and urban development node overlay district should
use the P lanned U nit Development a pplication process and regulations"The
Planned Unit Development process will allow developers flexibility and variety
needed to offer a range of products, services and uses. It will also give the
developer an opportunity to explain the development plans to surrounding land
owners and the County so that important information about land use compatibility
and services, facilities or utilities needed to serve the proposal are determined to
be adequate.
Section 26-1-70.C.3.a, MUD.T. Goal 3 of the Weld County Code states, "New
development within the MUD area shall provide a mechanism for balancing
relevant fiscal and economic components of transportation systems." An overall
traffic impact analysis has been prepared for this development. Cumulative
development impacts, created by this project and appropriate improvements are
identified in the traffic report. (MUD.T. Policy 3.1, Section 26-1-70.3.b).
Section 26-1-70.C.4, MUD.T. Goal 4 of the Weld County Code states, "As
development occurs,the feasibility of a public transit system shall be examined in
the MUD area." The site also has the potential to become a public transportation
Resolution PZ-1004
Lifebridge
Page 3
hub complete with a Park-N-Ride Facility. The proposal states that the
development's design integrates a transportation network,including a public transit
system into the project.
B. Section 27-6-120.8.6.b - The uses which would be allowed in the proposed PUD will
conform with the Performance Standards of the PUD Zone District contained in Article II,
Chapter 27 of this Code.
Section 27-2-20 Access Standards
Access to this PUD will be off of State Highway 119, Weld County Road 3.5, and Weld
County Road 26. State Highway 119 is immediately south of and adjacent to this proposed
development, Weld County Road 26 is immediately north of and adjacent to the property
and Weld County Road 3.5 aligns itself in a north-south direction and divides the Single
Family Residential Component from the Neighborhood Center,Residential,Senior Housing,
Mixed Use Office/Commercial and Church campus site.
Further,the internal roads as proposed shall meet all the requirements of Chapter 24 of the
Weld County Code.
The application is within the Weld County Road Impact Fee Area#3, Ordinance 2002-11,
Section 20-1-10 of the Weld County Code and shall require the payment of road impact fees
at the time a building permit is applied for as addressed through Section 20-1-200.
Section 27-2-30 Buffering and Screening
All proposed uses, except single family residential development within the site will go
through a Site Plan Review application process,and all on-site screening and buffering will
be addressed during the Site Plan Review phase of site development.
The site shall maintain compliance with the Mixed Use Development standards regarding
screening and buffering of the property,per Section 26-2-70,Landscape Regulations of the
Weld County Code.
Section 27-2-40. Bulk Requirements
LifeBridge Christian Church has proposed a deviation of the bulk requirements as set out
in the Weld County Code,Table 23.4 for the residential component, and Section 23-3-250
Performance Standards for the Commercial Zone District. Refer to the Bulk Standards
Summary Table on page 7 of this document. LifeBridge Christian Church is proposing a
maximum building height of sixty feet for the entire church campus,with an additional sixty
feet of height for approximately thirty percent of the building for the fly space area
associated with the theater. Additionally,LifeBridge Christian Church proposes a maximum
building height of thirty-five (35) feet for the residential component; a maximum building
height of forty-five (45)feet for the assisted living village; and a maximum building height
of fifty-five feet for the mixed use office/retail area, commercial center and neighborhood
center. It should be noted that all R-2, R-3, R-4 and Commercial development in a PUD
shall undergo a site plan review process, as defined in Chapter 23, Article II, Division 3 of
the Weld County Code.
Section 27-2-50. Circulation
Development within a PUD Zone District shall be designed and constructed to include
adequate,safe and convenient arrangements for pedestrian and vehicular circulation, off-
street parking and loading space. Pedestrian and vehicular circulation shall relate to the
circulation system external to a PUD Zone District. All streets within the PUD Zone District,
whether private or public shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the
Weld County Public Works Department,Chapter 24(Subdivision) and Chapter 26(MUD),
Resolution PZ-1004
Lifebridge
Page 4
of the Weld County Code and the Colorado Department of Transportation, if applicable,
unless otherwise modified herein.
LifeBridge Christian Church will be responsible for designing the cross sections according
to Section 24-7-20 and Appendix 24-E of the Weld County Code.
Section 27-2-60. Common Open Space
As proposed,the site does meet the open space requirements of Chapter 27 and Chapter
26 (MUD).
LifeBridge Christian Church shall adhere to Section 26-2-70.D regarding landscape
requirements adjacent to Roadway Corridors, specifically State Highway 119.
A trail,adjacent to the Oligarchy ditch,will traverse the site connecting areas to the east and
west of the development.
Section 27-2-70. Compatibility
The proposed site is north of and adjacent to State Highway 119, east of and adjacent to
Weld County Road 3.5,south of and adjacent to the realigned Weld County Road 26. Vista
Commercial Business Park is directly south of this property across State Highway 119. The
Elms at Meadow Vale PUD and Meadow Vale Farms PUD are adjacent to the east, and
Longview PUD is adjacent to the West, across Weld County Road 3.5.
The site location is identified as Neighborhood Center on the 1-25 Mixed Use Development
Area Structural Plan, Map 2.1 Structural Land Use Map date June 20,2002. Section 26-2-
30 in Chapter 2 6 oft he W eld C ounty C ode describes the Neighborhood C enter and
Residential Component.
Two diagrams follow and address:
Bulk Standards Summary: Lifebridge Pud V. Weld County Code
Bulk Standards Massing Diagram for Church Campus
Bulk Standards Graphic Massing Diagram for Church Campus
Neighborhood Centers.
Neighborhood centers are established to provide convenience goods and services
primarily for the residents of a specific neighborhood. These centers should be
accessible via sidewalks, trails or green ways, creating identity for individual
neighborhoods. Neighborhood centers characteristically have few environmental
impacts and rely more upon service-related provisions such as law enforcement
and fire protection. New development within these centers shall therefore mitigate
the impacts associated with its use. Neighborhood centers include, but are not
limited to, the following activities and services:
1. Small Parks
2. Civic uses, such as places of worship, libraries, and community centers
3. Public facilities, such as schools
4. Service businesses, such as smaller offices
5. Residential mix
Resolution PZ-1004
Lifebridge
Page 5
Residential.
Residential districts within the MUD area are encouraged to be cohesive,
identifiable and diverse,while retaining the current agrarian lifestyle of residents in
the area. The County encourages comprehensive and coordinated neighborhood
design efforts in developments, especially with regard to circulation provisions,
conservation of natural features and relationship to established neighborhood
centers. The County also encourages diversity of housing types, including owner-
occupied and rental housing,which serve all economic segments of the population
and match local incomes and age groups. Higher residential densities shall be
situated within close proximity to the designated neighborhood centers. Each
neighborhood shall have an interconnected network of local streets that provide
direct connections to local destinations.
The successful design and development of residential neighborhoods within the
MUD area is essential for it to function efficiently and provide a sense of place and
community identity. Developments are encouraged to incorporate design features
which enhance the quality of the neighborhood and promote safety for its residents.
LifeBridge Christian Church states "The Project LifeBridge plan maximizes the
relationship between compatible uses. The various uses front local roads,using the
street and its associated streetscape as a buffer. A progression of building scale
and level of use from State Highway 119 north into the site reduces the need for
screening and buffering between uses. A neighborhood center,located in the most
visible section of the property, is associated with the assisted living facility,
community center,and neighborhood retail and office facilities. These community
scale uses buffer the neighborhood center from the senior housing portion of the
site. Generous landscaped areas and setbacks help to buffer the surrounding
single family lots from the larger scaled buildings of the church/community facilities.
As a result, the uses within the PUD are compatible."
Additionally, LifeBridge Christian Church states that the proposal is compatible to
the surrounding area as "The uses allowed in the PUD are compatible with land
uses surrounding the PUD Zone District." Proposed residential scale uses and
appropriate setbacks and landscaping are included around the perimeter of the
PUD. Neighborhood retail and commercial uses, sited along State Highway 119
and primary arterial streets within the PUD Zone District, minimize conflicting uses
with adjacent uses by setbacks, perimeter landscape buffers and a proposed
landscaped parkway. Church/community facilities are sited central to the
development with open space and recreational fields surrounding the buildings.
The required parking will be landscaped and screened appropriately from adjacent
neighborhoods.
The Department of Planning Services notes that the site will maintain compliance
with Chapter 26 regarding screening and buffering of the property. The proposed
PUD shall demonstrate compatibility with the surrounding residential properties
specific to a Conceptual Lighting Plan, a Conceptual Landscape Plan with
topographical features delineated,a Conceptual Sign Plan,a Conceptual Phasing
Plan with incremental intervals identified,a Conceptual Phased Parking Plan, and
a Conceptual Master Drainage Plan, at a minimum. LifeBridge Christian Church
shall be compatible with the surrounding residential communities, including any
requirements as determined by the Colorado Department of Transportation and the
Weld County Department of Public Works.
Additional justification provided by LifeBridge Christian Church for the location of
the proposed structures in relation to the surrounding properties follows. The
application materials state"Lower intensity land uses have been designed for the
northernmost portions of the PUD, north of the Great Western Rail Track, in the
area adjacent to City of Longmont open space and recreation facilities.
Resolution PZ-1004
Lifebridge
Page 6
Appropriate setbacks and buffers will be provided between future residences and
adjacent streets that carry significant amounts of traffic. As in other City of
Longmont developments located adjacent to high volume traffic areas, the
residential portion of the PUD adjacent to Weld County Road 26 will face internally
and have limited access to Weld County Road 26."
Consistent with Weld County's Right to Farm Policy, notes regarding agricultural
activities on adjacent properties will be added to all appropriate documents related
to the PUD so that new residents will be aware of the adjacent land uses.
Section 27-2-80. Design Standards and Improvement Agreements
Weld County entered into an Off-Site Improvement Reimbursement Agreement with
Longview Community, LLC on February 6th, 2002, with the intent that Longview be
reimbursed a portion of the cost of constructing the traffic signal at State Highway 119 and
Weld County Road 3.5. Reimbursement agreements such as these are common for public
improvements that are shared as development occurs in a rapidly growing area. The
LifeBridge PUD should be required to reimburse a proportionate share of the signal cost to
Longview within the spirit of the February 6 th, 2002 agreement.
Final Plat recording shall not occur until the required On-Site(Private)and Off-Site(Public)
Improvement Agreements through Weld County Government have been approved and
collateral tendered. This will include any infrastructure requirements determined to be
completed by the Colorado Department of Transportation. A final drainage report(s)must
be stamped, signed and dated by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado
and submitted at final plat for each development phase. Final drainage construction plans,
conforming to the drainage report,shall be submitted with the appropriate phase. LifeBridge
Christian Church must document and reference development phase drainage reports with
respect to an overall drainage plan/report. Should drainage criteria change in the future,
final drainage design must meet standards that are in effect at that time .
Further,final construction drawings for all roads within the proposed PUD and all adjacent
roads as applicable shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and
approval.
Section 27-2-90. Filing
LifeBridge Christian Church has indicated that the development will occur in multiple filings
and phases.
Section 27-2-100. Landscaping Standards
This proposal shall adhere to Section 24-9-10,Section 26-2-70,and Section 27-2-100 of the
Weld County Code. A detailed landscape, berm and screening plan along with a
maintenance and planting schedule shall be submitted with the Final Plan application.
Additionally LifeBridge Christian Church shall provide a detailed sign plan for the entire
development. All signs in the development shall be required to adhere to Section 23-4-80
and Section 26-2-90 of the Weld County Code.
Section 27-2-120. Mixed Use Development Area (MUD)
This proposal is located within the MUD area and adheres to Chapter 26 of the Weld County
Code when the attached conditions are met.
Section 27-2-130. Monuments
Permanent reference monuments shall be set on the Planned Unit Development according
to Chapter 24 of the Weld County Code and Section 30-51-101,et seq.,Colorado Revised
Resolution PZ-1004
Lifebridge
Page 7
Statues.
Section 27-2-150. Parking Requirements
All parking and loading areas shall meet the requirements of Chapter 23,Article IV,Division
I of the Weld County Code. Adequate parking spaces and internal pedestrian circulation
shall be designed to meet requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and shall be
illustrated on the Change of Zone plat.
Site specific parking requirements will be addressed during the Site Plan Review application
process through Chapter 23-2-160 and Appendix 23-A and Appendix 23-B for each of the
lots within the proposed PUD.
Section 27-2-160. Phasing
A Final Plan may develop in phases within a PUD. LifeBridge Christian Church has
indicated that the development will occur in multiple filings and phases. Each Filing shall
adhere to the requirements of the Change of Zone.
Section 27.2-170. Public Water Provisions
Application materials indicate that domestic water service is to be provided by Left Hand
and Long's Peak Water Districts. The Weld County Department of Public Health and
Environment reviewed this case in accordance with this consideration in place. The Weld
County Department of Public Health and Environment states"...water will be provided by
Left Hand Water District and Longs Peak Water District The minimum proposed lot size
has yet to be determined. Letters of intent and ability to serve from all three utility districts
were included in the application materials."
Section 27-2-190. Urban Scale Development
For the purpose of review,this application is considered urban scale and shall adhere to the
requirements of urban type developments.
Section 27-2-200. Uses
LifeBridge Christian Church shall provide a conceptual time frame for the completion of the
project, including future amenities and landscape treatment of adjacent streets and
properties prior to recording the Change of Zone Plat. The Plat shall be amended to reflect
this time frame. The Final Plat application will be heard by the Board of County
Commissioners for final approval and action.
Section 27-2-210 Water and Sewer Provisions
The application materials state"Long's Peak Water District can and will serve everything
within their service territory. LifeBridge Christian Church has discussed Weld County's
comment on the Sketch Plan requiring a commitment agreement approved by the Weld
County Attorney's Office. A draft agreement regarding this requirement and a letter from
the District indicating their confirmation to provide service has been reviewed and approved
as to form by Lee Morrison."
Additionally,the application materials state"Left Hand Water District's consulting engineer
is working on a report regarding service availability in this area. Preliminary information
indicates that there will only be about 20,5/8"taps available(or the equivalent of 400 to 600
gallons per minute of"purchase-able"water service)before a pump station must be built.
Taps (5/8") may be reserved through a type of subdivision agreement with the District by
paying 40%of the plan investment fee,or about$2,040. Kathy Peterson (with the District)
Resolution PZ-1004
Lifebridge
Page 8
indicated that Left Hand Water would probably participate in the cost of the facility. A draft
agreement regarding this requirement and a letter from the District indicating their
confirmation to provide service has been reviewed and approved as to form by Lee
Morrison."
The referral dated January 8,2003 from the Office of the State Engineer, Division of Water
Resources,states"three water service agreements have been provided with this application.
Two agreements are for the Longs Peak Water District and one agreement is used if the
development uses ditch water to irrigate the landscaping, and the other agreement is used
if ditch water is not used. Please be advised that if ditch water is used to irrigate the
landscape within the development, this letter is not offering an opinion on the ditch water
rights of the proposal to use this water to irrigate the landscape."
"Information from the above agreements indicates that each District plans to supply treated
water to the development, charging fees for the water supply on a per tap basis payable
prior to the activation of the tap. As mentioned in the May 15, 2002 letter, each of the
Districts requires that new developments provide sufficient amount of raw water to satisfy
the needs for residential and commercial use."
"Since formal commitments for service between Districts and the developer have not been
made yet and since the developer is still working on finding the best solution to provide
water service to the site, the comments from the May 15, 2002 letter still apply."
The May 15, 2002 letter states "Pursuant to Section 30-28-136(1)(h)(II), C.R.S., the State
Engineer's office offers the opinion that the proposed water supply will not cause material
injury to existing water rights, and the supply is adequate with Left Hand Water District and
Long's Peak Water District serving this subdivision. However, please note, this opinion is
based on the fact that the District's and the developer will finalize the service agreements."
Formal commitments reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's office demonstrating
that all components of Filing I, Phases 1 and 2 will be serviced by either the Left Hand
Water District and the Long's Peak Water District or both, will be required, prior to
submitting the Final Plat application.
C. Section 27-6-120.6.c-That the uses which would be permitted shall be compatible with the existing
or future development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing Zoning, and with the
future development as projected by Chapter 22 of this Code or master plans of affected
municipalities.
The City of Longmont, in a letter received February 6, 2003, acknowledged that the
proposed development is within Weld County's 1-25 Mixed Use Development Area, is also
located in the St. Vrain Valley Planning area of the Longmont Area Comprehensive Plan
(LACP)and is within the cooperative planning agreement area of the recently adopted Inter-
governmental Area (IGA) between the City and the County. As previously noted the
application was in process prior to the adoption of the Longmont IGA and it was determined
by the Weld County Attorney's office that this application would not be subject to Ordinance
2002-7, Article XIV, Chapter 19 of the Weld County Code, as the Ordinance was not
adopted prior to the submittal of the Sketch Plan application.
The Town of Mead, in their referral dated April 7, 2003 deems this proposal to be an
incompatible land use with the Town of Mead and with the surrounding area. The Town's
position is that the County is considering and/or permitting suburban/ urban scale
development in unincorporated areas that should instead be developed in municipalities.
The proposed PUD does meet the intent and is in compliance with the Weld County MUD
Structural 2.1 Land Use Map. Vista Commercial Business Park is directly south of this
property across State Highway 119. Longview PUD is immediately adjacent to the west of
the Weld County Road 3.5. The Elms at MeadowVale and MeadowVale Farms are adjacent
to the west,with the Union Reservoir,Longmont open space and agricultural lands adjacent
Resolution PZ-1004
Lifebridge
Page 9
to the north across Weld County Road 26.
D. Section 27-6-120.6.d- That the PUD Zone District shall be serviced by an adequate water supply
and sewage disposal system in compliance with the Performance Standards in Article Hof this Code.
Water will be provided by Left Hand Water District and Longs Peak Water District and
sewer service will be provided by St. Vrain Sanitation District. All service providers have
indicated their ability and willingness to service this application. Formal commitments for
service between Districts and the developer have not been made yet since the developer
is still working on finding the best solution to provide water service to the site. St. Vrain
Sanitation District has determined that they have the ability to serve the project. However,
there is a capacity issue at the pump station downstream of the site,and with the force main
(currently 6")and the line running along State Highway 119. The pump station needs to be
upgraded, which is not a huge expense but the District needs to know when to start the
upgrade. Additionally, upgrading the line along State Highway 119 is not a typical line
extension, in this case. It is the District's responsibility to apply a fair contribution from the
developers using the line, to upgrade the line (currently 12").
St. Vrain Sanitation District indicated they are now finalizing the specific infrastructure
requirements for the site and will ensure that the District does not hinder the development's
schedule. A draft agreement regarding this requirement and a letter from the District
indicating their confirmation to provide service was included in the application materials.
The agreement is based on the Districts standard agreement and has been reviewed and
approved as to form by Lee Morrison.
E. Section 27-6-120.6.e-That street or highway facilities providing access to the property are adequate
in functional classification,width,and structural capacity to meet the traffic requirements of the uses
of the proposed PUD Zone District.
The Weld County Public Works Department has reviewed the proposal and has determined
the internal streets meet the requirements of Chapter 24 of the Weld County Code.
Roadway plans will be required at final plat.
All internal road rights-of-way should be dedicated to the public,and the roads designed and
constructed to County standards. At the final plat stage for each development phase,road
construction plans, improvement agreements and collateral will be required in accordance
with County policies.
Extensive improvements to the existing roadway system will be required to provide
adequate access to the LifeBridge PUD. The offsite road improvements should be identified
with each final plat application. This process is expected to take place over a long period
of time. However, it is important to understand the extent and phasing of the roadway
improvements as we review a change of zone application. Because the Department of
Public Works does not know when a future final plat application will take place or the extent
of the proposed development, future roadway improvements must be identified based on
traffic thresholds. LifeBridge Christian Church's traffic engineer shall identify the necessary
future roadway improvements such as realignment, widening, and turn lanes based on
traffic thresholds at all impacted locations, at time of Final Plat and at the time of each Site
Plan Review application.
Weld County Code Section 22-2-220, of the Comprehensive Plan, addresses
interconnection of community. Connectivity of roadway systems between neighborhoods
i-. is critical. I t reduces trip I engths between neighborhoods and helps to reduce traffic
congestion. New development should be configured as neighborhoods, not isolated
enclaves. The location of neighborhood centers are intended to provide community
services for the residents within the MUD area. Alternative means of transportation and
opportunities for those who seek to walk or ride their bicycles should be provided to connect
community facilities and employment centers. The trail systems of Meadowvale and the
Resolution PZ-1004
Lifebridge
Page 10
Elms at Meadowvale should be interconnected with the LifeBridge PUD.
The internal road in Block 3,adjacent to and south of the Great Western Railway,will serve
the Church Worship and Learning Facilities and be connected to both internal and external
road systems. Significant traffic on this road is anticipated. It's intersection with WCR 3%3
is shown adjacent to the railroad crossing. Sufficient separation should be provided
between the internal road and the railroad track for a vehicle to turn right and have sight
distance down the track to the east. This internal road will also form a four-way intersection
at WCR 26 and WCR 5. The intersection cannot be constructed within the LifeBridge site
without creating an offset intersection, which is not acceptable. Acquiring right-of-way from
property to the east or realigning a portion of WCR 5 will be required. Both of these
intersection issues can be addressed in the final design at the final plat application.
Weld County and the City of Longmont propose to realign WCR 26 adjacent to LifeBridge
PUD. Design speeds and road curvatures must be addressed with respect to this
realignment. LifeBridge Christian Church shall coordinate the final roadway design with
Weld County and the City of Longmont at the final plat application.
F. Section 27-6-120.6.f- An off-site road improvements agreement and an on-site improvements
agreement proposal is in compliance with Chapter 24 of the Weld County Code as amended and a
road improvements agreement is complete and has been submitted, if applicable.
Development Standards and Conditions of Approval ensure compliance with Chapter 24,
Article VII, and Sections 24-9-10 and 24-9-20 of this Code.
The Weld County Public Works Department and Department of Planning Services and the
Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT)shall require an Off-Site(Private)and On-
," Site(Public)Improvements Agreement in accordance with Section 27-6-120.6.f of the Weld
County Code at the time of Final Plat application.
G. Section 27-6-120.6.g-That there has been compliance with the applicable requirements contained
in Chapter 23 regarding overlay districts, commercial mineral deposits, and soil conditions on the
subject site.
The Colorado Geological Survey, in their referral letter dated February 11,2003, identified
several areas of concern for the site, including the potential for shallow groundwater, and
collapsible soils and expansive claystone. Their referral states"Geologic and Preliminary
Geo-technical Investigation Reports" prepared by CTLIThompson (August 11, 1998;
November 17, 1998; and September 6, 2002). CTL/Thompson's reports characterize the
site's geology and geologic hazards,and contain appropriate preliminary recommendations
regarding subsurface drainage, grading and surface drainage, and foundation and floor
system design.
The proposed land uses vary for each of the parcels for which separate reports were
prepared,but geological conditions and constraints on development are similar for all three
areas. The main problems that will need to be addressed during design and construction
are:
Shallow Groundwater. Groundwater levels in several areas of the site are too shallow for
basement construction. This condition was addressed in all three of CTL's reports,and will
need to be addressed for all of the project's planned structures with basements,not just the
single-family homes on the northwest parcel.
Collapsible Soils and Expansive Claystone. This site is underlain by eolian sandy clays and
silts and Pierre Shale containing inter-bedded sandstone and claystone. The thickness,
l ithology and engineering properties of these units vary over short distances,so detailed site
specific investigations will be needed, once building locations have been finalized and
grading is complete, to determine engineering parameters such as maximum bearing
pressures, type of subsurface soil or rock individual foundations will terminate on and
Resolution PZ-1004
Lifebridge
Page 11
whether minimum dead loads will be needed, and to design individual foundations, floor
systems and individual perimeter foundations drains."
The Weld County Department of Public Works in their referral dated February 21, 2003,
stated that The Change of Zone Stormwater Report for Project LifeBridge P.U.D. Weld
County, Colorado,September 2002, by Rocky Mountain Consultants, Inc. is acceptable for
the change of zone request. A final drainage plan for each final plat(development phase)
application shall be submitted. Each final drainage plan must address existing LifeBridge
development with respect to the proposed development and downstream mitigation
requirements. Early development phases may require improvements and construction of
downstream mitigation infrastructure external to the phase. In addition, drainage
coordination may be necessary between Weld County, City of Longmont, CDOT, ditch
companies, and/or the railroad.
A Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), Hydraulics Engineer, preformed a site
inspection visit on Thursday March 6, 2003. Based on field conditions and observations,
Samer Alhaj, Hydraulics Engineer, states "Presently, this development is proposing to
release stormwater runoff to the borrow ditch along State Highway 119. This is consistent
with historic runoff patterns from the property. CDOT does not object to this proposed
concept, subject to the following conditions:
The Church may need to make improvements to the borrow ditch not only along its
frontage, but may need to continue east, possibly as far as County 5-1/2, or to the St.Vrain
River. This work may consist of reasonable functional improvements to the borrow ditch
for improved long term performance and resistance to erosion. Specifically, prior to final
plat approval, CDOT will require the Church to analyze the existing capacity of the borrow
ditch. If the capacity analysis indicates the ditch is undersized,then the Church may likely
need to re-grade the borrow ditch to provide the required capacity. Other work could include
installing drop structures in the borrow ditch.
CDOT will continue to work closely with the Church to determine the extent, if any, of the
required improvements by the time of final plat. CDOT reserves the right to approve any
construction plans that show(1)stormwater drainage being released to the borrow ditch,
and/or(2) any other modifications to the borrow ditch."
The September 2002 report states, "Control of the surface water will influence the
performance of foundations, slab-on-grade floors and pavements." LifeBridge Christian
Church shall prepare a final plat(s)construction detail for typical lot grading with respect to
drainage. Front, rear and side slopes around building envelopes must be addressed. In
addition, drainage for rear and side lot line swales shall be considered. Building envelopes
must be planned to avoid storm water flows, while taking into account adjacent drainage
mitigation.
A final drainage report(s) must be stamped, signed and dated by a professional engineer
licensed in the State of Colorado and submitted at final plat for each development phase.
Final drainage construction plans,conforming to the drainage report,shall be submitted with
the appropriate phase. LifeBridge Christian Church must document and reference
development phase drainage reports with respect to an overall drainage plan/report. Should
drainage criteria change in the future, final drainage design must meet standards that are
in effect at that time.
LifeBridge Christian Church will be required to address probable erosion areas at each
final plat stage for each development phase where storm runoff is released and/or there
is an abrupt change of direction with stormwater channels.
LifeBridge Christian Church shall provide evidence of off-site drainage contributions to this
development with the final drainage report(s). The area(s) to the north and northeast of
WCR 26 must be addressed with respect to the 100-year storm. Existing runoff to the
Resolution PZ-1004
Lifebridge
Page 12
Meadow Vale development, adjacent to LifeBridge, must be addressed. The submitted
drainage plan,although adequate,would require the resolving of some minor issues and the
submission of additional documentation as outlined in the memorandum dated February21,
2003 at time of Final Plat application.
The Department of Public Works Public Works in their referral dated February 21, 2003
provides comment on the three investigations comprising the Geotechnical Reports
submitted by LifeBridge Christian Church. Since this is one development, the comments
will be attributed to the entire property.
The Geologic and Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Portion of Whitham Property
(North Half) Southeast of County Road 26 and County Road No. 3 V2 Weld County
Colorado, dated November 17, 1998.
The Geologic and Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Lifebridge Planned Unit
Development Southwest of County Road 26 and County Road No. 3 1/2 Weld County
Colorado, dated September 6, 2002.
The Geologic and Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Portion of Whitham Property
Northeast of County Highway 119 and County Road No.3''A Weld County,Colorado,dated
November 17, 1998.
Groundwater is shallow across most of the proposed development site. The reports state,
"The ground water depth is above typical residence basement depth (measured from
existing grade) over nearly the entire parcel." Full basements may not be feasible, unless
extensive mitigation measures are taken. Mitigation measures shall be addressed by
LifeBridge Christian Church at the time of final plat application.
r
The report indicates that full-depth and/or increases in pavement thickness will be required
as a result of weak subgrade soils (natural clays). Pavement designs in future final plat
applications shall take these soil conditions into consideration. also provides comment on
the Geo-technical Reports submitted by LifeBridge Christian Church.
In the referral response dated January 21, 2003, the Weld County Building Inspection
Department states "Each building will require an engineered foundation based on a
site-specific geotechnical report or an open hole inspection performed by a Colorado
registered engineer. Engineered foundations shall be designed by a Colorado registered
engineer."
H. Section 27-6-120.6.h-Consistency exists between the proposed zone district(s),uses, the
specific or conceptual development guide.
The proposal shall be consistent with the PUD 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 and continuing Oil and Gas
Production Uses in the Mixed Use Development Overlay District. Given the several
outstanding issues regarding the site, specific to water and sewage removal not being
specifically addressed in the Change of Zone application, the Department of Planning
Services' shall recommend that LifeBridge Christian Church have the Board of County
Commissioners hear the Final Plan for this proposed development.
3. The submitted materials are in compliance with Section 27-6-30 of the Weld County Code, as
follows:
Section 27-6-40 Environmental Impacts:
Noise and Dust-The application materials state"The proposed development will not contribute to
problems with excessive noise and vibration after construction is complete. All uses within the PUD
will comply with the appropriate State and County noise requirements at the property line."
Resolution PZ-1004
Lifebridge
Page 13
Smoke, Dust and Odors - The application materials state "The proposed development will not
contribute to problems with smoke, dust and odors when construction is complete. The PUD will
comply with all state and local regulations regarding smoke, dust and odors during each phase of
construction. If required, Air Pollution Emission Notices (APEN) will be filed with the Colorado
Department of Health and the Environment.We do not anticipate that the uses within the PUD will
generate smoke, dust and odors. Single family residential, church campus and office related
activities,senior residential and neighborhood center activities do not typically generate smoke,dust
and odors beyond what is typically found in the adjacent residential and agricultural land uses."
Heat, Light and Glare -The application materials state"the uses within the PUD will not generate
off site heat, light and glare. All lighting will be designed to prevent light pollution on adjacent
properties. Appropriate setbacks and landscaping will limit off site glare from windows on structures
within the PUD."
Visual/Aesthetic Impacts-The application materials state"Covenants will outline design guidelines
within the development to ensure architecture is uniform and aesthetically pleasing. Buildings will
be designed to fit into the context of the PUD and surrounding land use." The architectural character
of the PUD is described by LifeBridge Christian Church and a discussion follows:
CHURCH CAMPUS
The intertwining of buildings and landscapes is the essence of accomplished campus
architecture. The Church campus will include a collection of buildings organized around
carefully composed outdoor spaces. The design goal to break down the scale of the
campus through a series of appropriately scaled structures and carefully orchestrated
people-oriented outdoor spaces.These outdoor spaces will be the organizing element for
the campus.
The buildings will vary in function, size and configuration. The application materials state
that the goal is to create a memorable and lasting place. A strong pedestrian experience
will be created along the edges of the buildings. This will be accomplished by providing
covered walkways, trellises, canopies, and deep overhangs. In addition, pedestrian
circulation between the buildings will be made into amenities on the campus.
Buildings that house large functions,such as assembly and performing arts spaces,may be
tempered with appropriately scaled foreground elements. These smaller scaled elements
will help break down the massing of the dimensionally large structures.
LifeBridge Christian Church proposes to amend the original application to include a 1500
seat outdoor amphitheater in the northwest corner of the church campus subject to a Site
Plan Review in a future phase. LBCC anticipates that this amphitheater will be used for
things like outdoor weddings, community theater, lecture classes and children's events.
LifeBridge Christian Church is on record that all reference to any other amphitheater has
been removed from the plans and is hereby removed from the application.
SENIOR HOUSING
Multi-story assisted living, one and two story duplex and four-plex housing units will
comprise the majority of types of housing for this portion of the development. The housing
will focus around a public park. This large open space will provide a strong identity and
create a center for the neighborhood. Strong build-to lines will make the buildings part of
larger ensembles defining the public realm. The streets created will support a safe
neighborhood by having housing facades with large windows. Front yards will be defined
with low planting's and porches. The housing facades will be in scale with the width of the
street to create a room-like quality that will enhance the sense of community and a place
of shared use. Pedestrian activities will be encouraged with generous sidewalks and
reduced traffic speeds.Adequate parking for the housing will be provided, in order to avoid
large asphalt lots of cars or parking garages. Parking is typically located off of the service
Resolution PZ-1004
Lifebridge
Page 14
alley with parking of vehicles in carports or garages.
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING
Larger custom single-family houses will comprise this portion of the development. Variety
in both the size and massing of the houses will create a unique neighborhood and avoid a
tract housing product.
MIXED-USE RETAIL
The commercial development will be comprised of low scale business, retail and
professional office uses. Commercial streets will be lined with glass-windowed storefronts
promoting friendly streets. Generally,parking will be provided on the street,with secondary
parking adjacent to the buildings, in well-landscaped lots. The mixed-use retail will be the
anchor of the large park to the south, with the housing flanking the park to the east and
west. A type of town-square and main street will be created within this retail zone.
The scale of the mixed-use retail will vary depending on the type of business. For example,
offices could occur above ground floor retail. A community center at the apex of the park
will provide a central feature for the retail zone, as well as, a gathering place for the
residents of the senior housing."
That being stated,LifeBridge Christian Church states"The Neighborhood Center and Mixed
Use Office/Retail portions of the PUD have not been designed. It is LifeBridge Christian
Church's intention to set the bulk requirements with this Change of Zone application.
LifeBridge Christian Church will provide specific information regarding architecture, site
design and character with the Final PUD Plan and Site Plan review as per the requirements
stated in the Weld County Code. "
For this Change of Zone application, LifeBridge Christian Church proposes to provide
definition to their intent for the character of the Neighborhood Center and Mixed Use
Office/Retail portions of the PUD by addressing the floor area ratio(FAR). Floor Area Ratio
is defined as the area of the building footprint relative to the lot that it is located on (i.e. a
.25 FAR means that the footprint of the building will cover 25% of the lot). The floor area
ratios, maximum building heights and gross square footage for each block are designed to
act as maximum limitations. The PUD will limit allowable density, lot coverage and gross
buildable square feet within each block. Buildings may be a combination of one, two and
three stories. Any combination of building height,floor area ratio and gross square footage
will be limited to the bulk requirements listed in the PUD. For example;a taller building will
be within the designated height restriction, have a smaller floor area ratio and will be within
the allowable gross square feet for the block;a one story building will be within the allowable
floor area ratio,shorter than the allowable height and within the allowable gross square feet
for the block.
Market demand will determine phasing within the Neighborhood Center and Mixed Use
Office/ Retail portion of the PUD. A Final PUD Plan and Site Plan review will be submitted
for review and approval for all development within this portion of the PUD.
LifeBridge Christian Church has provided the following discussion for the Phasing of Filing I,Phase
1 and 2 for the LifeBridge Christian Church PUD:
The Phase 1 church campus will include three buildings. LifeBridge Christian Church (LBCC)
estimates that the combined area of the buildings will be approximately 268,000 square feet. The
largest will contain a chapel and fellowship hall, the western most building will contain adult
education classrooms, offices and worship space for young adults, and the third building will be the
children's learning center and will include classrooms and children's worship space. LBCC
anticipates that Phase 1 of the church campus will include 800 parking spaces.The church campus
will be constructed with the Filing I of Phase 1 and remain unchanged until Phase 2 of the PUD.
Resolution PZ-1004
Lifebridge
Page 15
Filing I, Phase 1 will include approximately 1/2 of the large lot single family residential (Block 1 -88
units), a portion of the attached residential units in the senior community (Blocks 5 and 6-43 units),
a portion of the assisted living village (Blocks 10 & 11 - 43 units), and 43 additional single family
units within the senior village (Blocks 8 and 9).
Filing I, Phase 2 will add the remainder of the large lot single family residential (Block 1 —88 units),
and additional single family and attached units in the senior village (Block 12—63 units).
The area designated as agricultural within Filing I will continue to be managed as irrigated farmland
with a crop rotation of beets, barley, sunflowers, corn and alfalfa.
The area designated un-programmed open space within the Church campus will be seeded to
dryland pasture and irrigated to establish the grass.
The 125'wide drainage area adjacent to the eastern boundary of the PUD will include a 4'to 6'tall,
landscaped berm that will act to buffer parking, noise and streets within the PUD from the adjacent
residential development. It will also keep drainage from the property from entering the adjacent
property. Per section 26-2-70.8.4 of the Weld County Code, the landscaped berm will form an
opaque planted screen between the two properties. The screen will moderate the impact of noise,
light, aesthetic concerns and traffic.
Parking for the residents within the senior housing community will meet Weld County standards for
on street and off street parking and allow for visitor parking. Parking within the assisted living village
will occur within the parcel boundaries specified for that use. Parking will meet or exceed
requirements of the Weld County Code for the specified uses as follows:
/'1 Parking will be provided in on site surface lots and include appropriate parking for residents,
employees, visitors and service parking. Specific details regarding parking for each type of unit
will be provided with the Final PUD Plan and will be reviewed at all Site Plan Review applications.
Pocket parks,trail connections and other details regarding the open space will be provided with the
Final PUD Plat per the Weld County Code.
LBCC will proceed with construction of the Filing I, Phase 1 as soon as the Final Plat and Site Plan
Review applications are approved. The Filing I,Phase 2 will follow when there is a demand for more
lots. LBCC anticipates that the residential portion of Filing I will be completed in 3 to 5 years,
depending on market demand for the units."
Electrical Interference-The application materials state"to the best of LifeBridge Christian Church's
knowledge, the proposed development will not produce electrical interference."
Water Pollution -The application materials state"LifeBridge Christian Church does not anticipate
that uses within the PUD will pollute surface or ground water. During each phase of construction,
surface water quality will be managed through an appropriate storm water management plan that
addresses erosion and runoff. LifeBridge Christian Church shall comply with the Proposed Storm
Water Management Plan for Weld County dated March 10, 2003. All uses within the PUD will
comply with local, state and federal water quality regulations."
Wastewater Disposal-The application materials state 'The development site is included in the St.
Vrain Sanitation District's Master Plan."
Air Pollution - The application materials state "All development within the PUD will comply with
Colorado Department of Health and Environment (CDPHE) regulations regarding air quality."
Solid Waste -The application materials state"No solid waste will be disposed of within the PUD.
A waste management contractor will be hired to serve the needs of the development."
Radiation/radioactive material-The application materials state"The proposed site does not contain
Resolution PZ-1004
Lifebridge
Page 16
!"", any known radiation or radioactive material."
Potable Drinking Water Source-The application materials state"Longs Peak and Left Hand Water
Districts are proposed to provide service to the development. The proposed uses for all portions of
the site should have no impacts on any drinking water sources."
The referral response dated January 27, 2003 from the Weld County Department of Public Health
and Environment indicates that the application materials have adequately addressed all of the
potential impacts described in Chapter 27 of the County Code.
Traffic Impacts -The application materials state"All streets within the PUD will be paved."
Wildlife Impacts -A referral dated February 8, 2003 from the Colorado Division of Wildlife stated
that the property provides a known habitat for native predators and t hat the r iparian corridor
associated with the Oligarchy Ditch does provide a certain amount of shelter and cover for
movement of wildlife species. Retention of the existing deciduous and non-deciduous vegetation
is highly recommended.
The application materials provided an additional assessment of the project site. On February 18,
2002 Rocky Mountain C onsultants p erformed a routine delineation o f potentially jurisdictional
wetlands on the site. A site walk to determine the availability of habitat for threatened and
endangered species was a lso completed. A erial photographs, the Weld C ounty S oil S urvey
(Southern Part), USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle map of Longmont and the National Wetlands
Inventory map compiled by the US Fish and Wildlife Service were all consulted prior to and during
the field visit. The National Wetlands Inventory mapping does not depict habitats typically inhabited
by Preble's Jumping Mouse, Ute Ladies'Tresses or the Colorado Butterfly Plant. There could be
r^^ raptor use of nearby cottonwood trees although none were observed during the brief site visit or
mentioned by long time residents. At this time TTRMC have field delineated the wetlands and
determined that although the Oligarchy Ditch appears to be a jurisdictional water feature,there has
been a limit to wetland creation to approximately 0.25 acres on the westernmost corner of the
subject parcel.This minor wetland site is isolated and densely covered with grasses,which are not
preferred by the above-mentioned species.
The project proposal plans to preserve a portion of the corridor along the Oligarchy ditch and
maintain those large cottonwood trees,a licensed arborist deems salvageable and safe,as part of
the buffer and open space requirements.
TTRMC requested that the US Army Corps of Engineers and US Fish and Wildlife Service review
the field information. Letters from the Army Corps of Engineers and US Fish and Wildlife Service,
concurred with the TTRMC evaluation.
The Department of Public Health and Environment in their referral dated January 27, 2003 states
"The initial impact plan submitted in the application materials appears to address all the
environmental impacts of Section 27-6-40. "
Based on the previously discussed criteria and Conditions of Approval, the applicant has
met the standards associated with this Section.
Section 27-6-50 Service Provision Impacts:
Schools - The application materials state "... residential units within the development will be
predominately used for senior housing. LifeBridge Christian Church does not anticipate a large
enough impact to create the need for a public school on the site. LifeBridge Christian Church has
met with the St. Vrain Valley School District regarding this development. The developer of the
single-family residential component, 110 Residential Parcels, will be responsible for the required
school impact fees. However,LifeBridge Christian Church proposes to operate a preschool learning
center on the site as a part of their Church campus.This may include a private school for grades K-
12 and post secondary education. In a referral response from St.Vrain Valley School District dated
Resolution PZ-1004
Lifebridge
Page 17
January 13,2003,the District is opposed to the approval of the residential portion of the application
due to their impact on already overcrowded school facilities. The referral continues on to state,
should the County decide to recommend approval of this development proposal,the School District's
cash-in-lieu would still need to be satisfied. For Single Family Residential structures the cash-in-lieu
fee is $645.00 dollars per residence and $492.00 dollars per Duplex/Triplex residence.
It should be noted that LifeBridge Christian Church states that they are committed to working with
the St Vrain Valley School District to mitigate any impacts to the District related to LifeBridge PUD.
The District has adopted a voluntary mitigation plan that includes a fee structure for residential
development within the system. If the schools that will serve the future residents of the PUD exceed
125% of capacity at the time of Final Plat, LBCC has agreed to pay the appropriate mitigation fee.
Any residential development that is not age restricted will be required to participate in the mitigation
plan. A significant portion of the PUD contains a senior village. LBCC will provide appropriate
documentation for the senior village at the time of final plat. The restriction will clearly demonstrate
that the lots are age restricted for seniors and that there will not be school age children within those
portions of the PUD.
Law Enforcement-The application materials state"Weld County Sheriffs Office will provide Law
Enforcement for the site. Their local office is located approximately 4 miles east of the site at the
Weld County Annex. LifeBridge Christian Church will go through Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design (CPTED)training with the local Community Resource Officer. In addition,
the church has organized a safety and security team,which will meet with the Community Resource
Officer to review the security practices and develop emergency plans for the Church Campus. In
a referral response dated January 6, 2003, the Weld County Sheriffs office "lacks the ability to
absorb any additional service demand without the resources recommended in the multi-year plan
provided to the Board of County Commissioners or as indicated by growth not considered at the time
the plan was developed."
Fire Protection - The application materials state "It is anticipated that the Mountain View Fire
Protection District(MVFPD)will have adequate resources to successfully serve the development.
LifeBridge Christian Church is committed to meeting all of the requirements as outlined by the
District. The Fire District will require review of final designs for the development and structures
within the PUD. LifeBridge Christian Church met with and reviewed the current street configuration
and street cross sections with the District and have added a note to the plat regarding compliance
with all District rules and regulations. A letter regarding compliance with all applicable regulations
and standards will be provided with each Final Plat/Site Plan application as the PUD moves to each
Filing.
The fire flows required to serve this site will be dependent on the building size,whether it is sprinkled
or not,and the type of construction. For the larger buildings on site(125,000 square feet and above)
a combination of fire walls and sprinklers will be required. All of the larger buildings will be sprinkled.
Mountain View Fire Protection District, hereafter identified as Mountain View,states there shall be
two points of ingress and egress to the site, no matter which portion of the development Mountain
View is trying to serve. In order to have two accesses to the single family residential portion of the
development,the Fairview Extension must be completed and/or the re-aligned Weld County Road
26 north of the project site must remain in existence. In the event the Fairview Extension is not built,
Weld County Road 26 will need to continue west to County Line Road. The District supports multiple
connections and inter-connectivity of the street systems.
LifeBridge Christian Church is working with Mountain View Fire Protection District for the design of
a one-way emergency access for the pedestrian mall area on the Church Campus. Mountain View
will review the final design of the campus and pedestrian malls at the time of final site design for
each phase of the development. If required,the emergency access will meet the standards of the
District. Trees will be trimmed to allow the trucks to travel unimpeded.
Roads for the fire trucks will provide a thirty-five (35)foot inside radius and forty-eight (48)foot
Resolution PZ-1004
Lifebridge
Page 18
/", outer radius. In general, Mountain View does not like the idea of gates or medians. If there is an
electric gate, it will be designed so the fail position is open. The District prefers knock key switches,
which only Mountain View would have,as opposed to a box with a key. Additionally,Mountain View
needs twenty (20) foot wide lanes on both sides of the median to negotiate turns and set up
equipment (ie. outriggers which need hard, flat surface). Large trees in the median will have
required clearance from the ground.
Hydrants will be placed at regular intervals along all of the arterial and collector streets. As the pad
sites are developed,individual buildings will likely require additional on-site hydrants. Hydrants will
be used to serve multiple buildings if they are located appropriately. It will take a minimum of three
hydrants to supply the required 2,500 gallons per minute (gpm)fire flow for large buildings.
Ambulance - The PUD will be serviced by Mountain View Fire Protection District. LifeBridge
Christian Church will continue to work with Mountain View to ensure that all development within the
PUD will be accessible and meet all requirements of Mountain View as discussed under the heading
of fire Protection.
Transportation - The application materials state "The site layout will provide a network of local,
collector and arterial streets,all developed according to County standards. A greenway/trail system
is designed to connect the various components of the development for pedestrian and bicycle traffic
as well as provide recreational opportunities. Typical cross sections of the streets within the PUD
will be designed and constructed to the MUD Standards.
Traffic Impact Analysis
The Department of Public Works in their referral dated February 21, 2003 states "Because we do
not know when a future final plat application will take place or the extent of the proposed
development, future roadway improvements must be identified based on traffic thresholds.
LifeBridge Christian Church's traffic engineer should identify the necessary future roadway
improvements such as realignment, widening, and turn lanes based on traffic thresholds at all
impacted locations."
The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)submitted a referral dated March 3,2003 and
March 6, 2003 for the application under review. CDOT states in the March 3, 2003 referral "I've
reviewed the traffic impact study dated June,2002, and the memorandum dated February,2003 for
the LifeBridge Project.
Filings 1 and 2 will require that the developer make improvements to State Highway 119 necessary
to bring it into conformance with the State Highway Access Code and based upon the traffic volumes
projected. It is possible that the lanes have already been constructed adequately. The storage
requirement for the eastbound to northbound left turn lane may have to be improved.
Gloria Hice-Idler of CDOT submitted a second referral providing an explanation to the March 3,2003
referral. It is the Colorado Department of Transportation's position that CDOT would prefer to NOT
have an interchange. It would be the worst case and we[CDOT]would welcome alternatives. The
March 6,2003 referral states"I[Nice-Idler]would encourage all agencies [and the applicant]to meet
and discuss the scenarios. Depending on the necessary improvements, it would be advantageous
to look a possible right-of-way footprints to enable the developer to better plan his property."
Storm Drainage
The Change of Zone Stormwater Report for Project LifeBridge P.U.D. Weld County, Colorado,
September 2002,by Rocky Mountain Consultants, Inc.is acceptable for the change of zone request.
A final drainage plan for each final plat(development phase) application shall be submitted. Each
final drainage plan must address existing LifeBridge development with respect to the proposed
development and downstream mitigation requirements. Early development phases may require
improvements and construction of downstream mitigation infrastructure external to the phase. In
Resolution PZ-1004
Lifebridge
Page 19
addition, drainage coordination may be necessary between Weld County,City of Longmont, CDOT,
ditch companies, and/or the railroad.
LifeBridge Christian Church states that this property has historically drained across the Colorado
Department of Transportation right-of-way into the roadside borrow ditch and east to the St. Vrain
River. Per Weld County requirements,the developed 100-year runoff will be detained and released
at the 5-year historic rate. The post development condition will release a much smaller amount of
water into the right-of-way than has historically occurred.
LifeBridge Christian Church shall adhere to the requirements of the Proposed Storm Water
Management Plan for Weld County dated March 10,2003 developed by Weld County and the City
of Longmont,Colorado for the purposes of addressing the requirements of the new Phase 2,NPDES
regulation for urbanized land in Weld County.
Utility Provisions - United Power, Inc. will provide electrical services, Excel Energy will provide
natural gas services and Qwest will provide telecommunications services to the development.
Representatives of LifeBridge Christian Church have met with the service providers and information
provided is as follows:
United Power - The application materials state "There is ample electrical capacity in the area to
serve the project. As build out occurs, United Power will insure there is adequate service in the
area. There is a heavy underground line on the south side of State Highway 119 to Fairview. On
Weld County Road 3.5 there is an overhead tie line that was rebuilt three years ago to upgrade it
to a three-phase line. United Power indicated they would not need a substation location on this site.
United Power owns all of the electrical infrastructure up to and including the meters. This includes
the wires, transmission lines, and transformers. Beyond the meter is either the Church's
responsibility or whoever owns, resides on, or uses the property to be served. United Power may
need to upgrade further north over a period of time as required.
United Power charges a Plant Investment fee and a meter fee. The plant investment fee covers
existing infrastructure that United Power installed with previous developments and some of the new
offsite infrastructure required to be installed. The plant investment fee is computed based on the
anticipated amps to be served.
United Power's standard easement is fifteen feet wide. United Power will install the tap boxes first,
which are eight feet square boxes. All of the United Power lines in residential and commercial
developments are placed underground."
Qwest Communications-The application materials state"There is adequate capacity in the area for
the residential components of the project. Qwest will analyze line costs and all the additional costs
Qwest would incur to serve the campus portion of the project to determine whether or not it is
economically feasible o r desirable for Qwest t o serve the campus portion oft he project with
technologically advanced telecommunications.
Currently there are fiber optic lines along State Highway 119. There is conduit in place from Weld
County Road 3.5 to Weld County Road 5.5. Conduit is scheduled for installation this spring from
WCR 3.5 to County Line Road. From there, there is conduit all the way to the central office at 6th
and Coffman. A representative from Qwest stated that a 244-fiber cable is to be run along State
Highway 119 as part of Qwest's plan for the area.
Excel Energy- The application materials state "Excel Energy stated that the project site is within
their service area and that Excel Energy will be able to serve the uses within the PUD."
Water Service - The application materials state "water will be provided by Long's Peak and Left
Hand Water Districts. St. Vrain Sanitation District will handle the effluent flow."
Resolution PZ-1004
Lifebridge
Page 20
Based on thepreviously discussed criteria and Conditions of Approval,
the applicant has
met the standards associated with this Section.
Section 27-6-60 Landscaping Elements:
LifeBridge Christian Church shall submit a revised Comprehensive Landscape Plan in accordance
with this Section of the Weld County Code.
LifeBridge Christian Church shall amend the Change of Zone plat to conform to the criteria of
Section 24-9-10,Section 27-2-100,and conceptually Section 26-2-70. A detailed landscape,berm
and screening plan along with a maintenance and planting schedule shall be submitted with the Final
Plan application.
The application materials state "The landscaping on this site will be designed to enhance the
appearance and character of the PUD area. All landscaping will conform to County Landscaping
Regulations set forth in the MUD. Landscaping will incorporate xeriscaping techniques, drought
tolerant and native species and drought-tolerant turf to the maximum extent possible.
The application materials state "The intent of the landscape design for Project LifeBridge is to
complement the variety of proposed land uses and tie the entire site together into one unified
neighborhood. By enhancing the landscape throughout the site, the community will become an
enjoyable and enriching place to live and work.
A series of outdoor rooms or spaces will be created to designate areas for the recreational activities
incorporated into the neighborhood. Areas for playing fields, walking/running trails, bike paths, a
possible swimming pool,tennis courts,and passive recreation activities will all be incorporated into
the design. Providing these amenities close to home or work affords a greater number of people
the opportunity to use and enjoy them.
A trail, parallel to the Great Western Rail Tracks,will run through the site connecting areas to the
east and west of the development. The trail will provide opportunities for activities such as walking,
cycling, and running for both residents of Project LifeBridge as well as neighboring communities.
Connections to Union Reservoir as well as a documented regional recreation trail system along the
Oligarchy Ditch are planned for within this development.
To tie the site together and create a cohesive neighborhood, tree-lined streets with sidewalks will
connect the different areas of the site. As the street trees mature,the canopies will provide shade
along the street corridors, creating a more comfortable experience for pedestrians as well as
providing cooling benefits for the adjacent buildings in the summer months. A diverse assortment
of tree species will be used throughout the entire site to prevent the loss of a significant number of
trees in the event that a disease affects one single species. The variety of tree species used will be
arranged to help define the different land uses within the neighborhood.
As with the street trees,unique planting beds will be incorporated into areas of the neighborhood to
help define land-uses and reinforce a distinction between public and private spaces. Plantings will
be used to enhance signage and various building facades. Other streetscape elements, such as
benches,streetlights,and trash receptacles will also be designed as to unify the neighborhood and
enhance the experience along the streets. The Project LifeBridge will exhibit a well-cared for and
maintained appearance that will generate a sense of pride and ownership for members of the
community."
The application materials state"A homeowners association and/or metro district will be established,
responsible for liability insurance,taxes,maintenance of open space, street(s), private utilities and
other facilities.Open Spaces will be platted with each Phase of the PUD." An aggregate Twenty(20)
percent of open space associated with this PUD will be maintained at all times.
The application materials state"LifeBridge Christian Church owns shares in several irrigation ditches
and a pumping right from Union Reservoir. It is the intention to utilize these water rights to irrigate
Resolution PZ-1004
Lifebridge
Page 21
i^ the common open space within the PUD. Specific details of the raw water supply system will be
provided at the time of final plat/site plan review for each phase within the PUD. Evidence of
adequate water resources to sustain and maintain the proposed landscaping will be submitted to the
Planning Department with final site plans."
Given the complexities, scale and the level of design required for this development,this change of
zone application prevents a detailed Landscape Plan for the 315 more or less acres. Appropriate
plant materials and numbers of specific plant materials will be included in future site plan review
application submittals. A Conceptual Landscape Plan and a Conceptual Site Masterplan submitted
with both the sketch plan and change of zone application illustrates the intent of landscape
improvements within the PUD and will be required for recording with the Change of Zone Plats.
This development will be required to adhere to the guidelines for intersection sight distance triangles.
Buffering and Screening- The application materials state "that there will be strategically placed,
limited screening between uses. Generally, streetscapes and open space provide transitions
between types of uses on site. Where individual properties require additional screening of service
or alley uses, provisions will be made to provide appropriate levels by means of structures
landscape. Transition to adjacent property land uses will be similar to the standards set by the
existing developments. Parkways and park-like edge treatments,using landscape and topographical
land forms, create a friendly perimeter to the development."
LifeBridge Christian Church has delineated the appropriate setbacks for existing and proposed oil
and gas facilities on the plans. LifeBridge Christian Church states that they are continuing to work
through the appeal process regarding the District Court ruling on future development of oil and gas
facilities on this site with a copy of the findings of fact for the court proceeding. Should the appeals
court rule in favor of LifeBridge Christian Church, future drilling and tank battery locations will be
removed from the plans. If the court rules against LifeBridge Christian Church,LifeBridge Christian
Church shall provide evidence of an agreement with the mineral owners or other mitigation as
outlined in the Weld County Code.
LifeBridge Christian Church states that the"appropriate reservations and setbacks for existing and
future oil and gas production facilities have been delineated. LifeBridge Christian Church continues
to pursue a resolution that will eliminate future drilling within the PUD and cap and abandon the
existing facilities. However,LifeBridge Christian Church has provided locations within the Colorado
Oil and Gas Conservation Commission designated locations for future facilities. The sites
designated do not require directional drilling.
All buildings within Phase I of the Church Campus fall outside of the 350' setback from the existing
well. LifeBridge Christian Church has confirmed that the Uniform Fire Code requires a 300'setback
from the wellhead to places of assembly. LifeBridge Christian Church used the more conservative
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission setback of 350' to avoid future conflicts. No
development within the PUD will occur within the reserved drill sites or required setback from the
existing facilities unless LifeBridge Christian Church reaches an agreement with the oil and gas
companies.
Section 27-6-70. Site Design:
The proposal takes into consideration the sites advantages and limitations, as well as the
compatibility of the development with adjacent sites. The application materials note"in developing
the master plan for Project LifeBridge, existing site features and limitations greatly influenced the
design and layout. The site topography is generally a gentle slope with the highest point on the north
edge of the site. The Oligarchy ditch currently bisects the site from east to west and the railway spur
crosses the site to the north. Views west of the Front Range to Longs Peak and northwest over
Union Reservoir are retained and accentuated.
The framework and design intent is to create program uses such as the senior community,
church/education campus, and neighborhood center as an environment of distinct identity and
Resolution PZ-1004
Lifebridge
Page 22
character. Although some of the proposed land uses within the planned unit development are
somewhat unique to the immediate area, t hey are sensitive to the b ordering property uses.
Appropriate setbacks and landscaping have been incorporated into the plan as a transition to the
surrounding land uses.
Scale, density,street design and open space,were considered in the planning. Building location in
relation too ther buildings and streets are d ependant o n building use and street type. C ode
restrictions determine distances between buildings. Setbacks for this PUD Zone district are dictated
by street classification and land use. A series of street classifications within the development help
define both the vehicular and pedestrian circulation. All streets incorporate sidewalks, trees and
street furniture. On street parking,tree lawns and minimized building setbacks create familiar and
functional neighborhood roads. Off-street parking will be landscaped and screened within County
standards at a minimum.
Open space and circulation provide the framework for land uses. A range of open space types and
scales relate to the various residential or community scale uses in the development. Parks offer
green connections from within the development to Union Reservoir and other recreational
opportunities. Recreational fields,gardens and naturalistic parks compliment the church/community
campus. A large central park creates a signature open space for the project,easily accessible from
all areas of the development."
Compatibility of Uses Within the PUD-The various program uses front local roads,using the street
and its associated street scape as a buffer. A progression of building scale and level of use from
State Highway 119 north into the site reduces the need for screening and buffering between uses.
A neighborhood center, located in the most visible section of the property, is associated with the
assisted living facility, community center, and neighborhood retail and office. These community
scale uses buffer the neighborhood center from the senior housing portion of the site. Generous
landscaped areas and setbacks help to buffer the surrounding single family lots from the larger
scaled buildings of the church/community facilities.The program uses and scale of building types
within the development are compatible as proposed.
In a referral response dated January 27, 2003 the Weld County Department of Public Health and
Environment states"The commercial and industrial uses in the development will be subject to the
Site Plan Review process once they are identified. The Department will conduct additional reviews
of those uses at that time.However,a preliminary review of the regulatory needs of the development
(based on the brochure provided in the application materials,with a 50-year vision of the project),
indicate there are several areas that will be governed. They are addressed here for future reference
only:
1. Licenses and/or regulations will govern the following listed activities: assisted living,
classrooms, day care centers, commercial kitchen, theater, restaurants, food services,
maintenance garage, swimming pool, and potentially some types of shops (grocery, dry
cleaner, etcetera);
2. Zoning should accommodate the cemetery area of the development;
3. Special permits may be required for public gatherings at the events area and the outdoor
amphitheater.
The specific regulatory requirements are expected to change over the course of the 50-year build-
out. Each commercial development must comply with all applicable Weld County Department of
Public Health and Environment,Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment,Colorado
Department o f H uman Services, EPA a nd/or Oil and Gas regulations. T his I ist o f regulatory
authorities is not meant to be all-inclusive; LifeBridge Christian Church/developer must contact the
appropriate agency for more information regarding the site-specific requirements of each
development."
Resolution PZ-1004
Lifebridge
Page 23
Compatibility of Uses to Areas Surrounding the PUD-The application materials state"the program
uses allowed in the PUD are compatible with land uses surrounding the project site. Proposed
residential scale uses and appropriate setbacks and landscaping are included around the perimeter
of the PUD. Neighborhood retail and commercial uses,sited along State Highway119 and primary
arterial streets within the P UD Z one District, minimize conflicting uses with a djacent uses b y
setbacks, perimeter landscape buffers and a proposed landscaped parkway. Church/community
facilities are sited central to the development with open space and recreational fields surrounding
the buildings. The required parking will be landscaped and screened appropriately from adjacent
neighborhoods."
Although the Church/community facilities are sited central to the development with open space and
recreational fields surrounding the buildings, the massing and scale of the development's
components may not be entirely in character with the residential neighborhoods to the west and east.
The scale of the proposed structures is not in character with the area and would significantly alter
the scenic quality of the Longmont entry corridor and that of the front range. In the referral received
from the City of Longmont,dated February 5,2003,it is noted that the application states"innovative
sitting and design techniques used ... to preserve the prime visual features", when actually the
proposed one hundred twenty(120)foot tall fly space associated with the auditorium facility would
also significantly alter the visual quality and view corridor to the front range. Adverse visual impacts
caused by building scale, disturbed vegetation, and other activities will be mitigated with buffering,
screening and height restrictions (MUD.C. Policy 2.10, Section 26-1-50.B.2.k).
Solid fencing will not be used adjacent to streets throughout the development(MUD.C. Policy 2.12,
Section 2 6-1-50.B.2.m). It i s strongly suggested t hat L ifeBridge C hristian C hurch investigate
alternative siting for the auditorium structure. One option may be to lower the overall height or to
lower the interior finish floor elevation of the auditorium structure substantially below the finished
landscaped grade.
To be compatible with the surrounding residential and open space properties,the maximum height
of any structure shall be limited to sixty feet for all structures associated with the Church Campus
south the of Great Western Railroad track. One caveat to this bulk requirement: The overall
height within the center of the church campus will be restricted to sixty(60)feet with up to
20% of the envelope in the center portion of the campus may extend up to ninety(90)feet.
Land north of the track shall be limited to an overall height of forty-five feet with all setbacks adhered
to per the Weld County Code. Additionally,all appurtenances,including ornamentation associated
with all buildings in the Church Campus area, north and south of the Great Western railroad shall
not exceed an overall height of sixty feet.
The site design appears to fully integrate the residential,neighborhood commercial,environmental,
aesthetic and economic components into a cohesive unit that is attractive and compatible with
surrounding land uses(MUD.C.Policies 1.1 and 1.2,Section 26-1-50.B.1.b and c). To facilitate the
integration of these components,the maximum height as determined by the Uniform Building code
(UBC)and administered by the Department of Building Inspection for structures shall be thirty-five
(35) feet for the single family residential component and forty-five (45) feet for the commercial
component.
LifeBridge Christian Church has attempted to address the compatibility with the Farms at
MeadowVale PUD immediately adjacent to the east of the proposed senior village housing
component. LifeBridge has stated that the height of the first row of residences along the east side
of the Senior Village shall be a maximum on one-story. Further, LifeBridge has committed to
include detached single family homes in the first row of homes along the eastern boundary of the
residential portion of the senior village instead of attached units. It is anticipated that this action will
reduce the overall density of the development at this location.
Section 26-1-50.2.a,MUD.C.Goal 2 of the Weld County Code states,"New development shall occur
in a manner that assures an attractive working and living environment." Innovative siting and design
techniques are not fully implemented or used within Project LifeBridge PUD to cultivate an attractive
visual appearance and preserve prime visual features(MUD.C. Policy 2.1,Section 26-1-50.B.2.b).
Resolution PZ-1004
Lifebridge
Page 24
Various pedestrian trails will connect the three components of the PUD and the surrounding area
(MUD.C. Policy 2.4,Section 26-1-50.B.2.e). Open Space will be integrated into the design of each
component within the PUD.The architecture of the buildings will be sympathetic with each other and
all will contribute to a strong sense of place. The scale, massing and materials are sensitive to the
location. The configuration of the buildings appears to not respond to opportunities for views,solar
orientation and open space features of the surrounding properties. (MUD.C. Policies 2.6 and 2.7,
Section 26-1-50.B.2.g and h).
All structures south oft he Great Western Railroad track s hall conform to the following three
dimensional building envelope.
From the east property line there is a 125 foot landscape buffer; from this point west 275 feet the
building envelope has a height of forty-five feet;from this point west 100 feet the building envelope
has a height of fifty-five feet; from this point west 200 feet, the building envelope has a height of
sixty feet;depending on location there is a building envelope with a height of ninety feet. Within the
building envelope area, twenty percent of the total area of the building envelope may exceed the
sixty foot height and shall be less than ninety feet in height.
From the west property line there is a 125 foot landscape buffer; from this point east 275 feet the
building envelope has a height of forty-five feet;from this point west 100 feet the building envelope
has a height of fifty-five feet; from this point east the building envelope has a height of sixty feet;
depending on location there is a building envelope with a height of ninety feet. Within the building
envelope area,twenty percent of the total area of the building envelope may exceed the sixty foot
height and shall be less than ninety feet in height.
From the south property line of the church campus there is a 125 foot landscape buffer;from this
point north 175 feet the building envelope has a height of forty-five feet; from this point north 100
feet the building envelope has a height of fifty-five feet; from this point north 400 feet, the building
envelope has a height of sixty feet;depending on location there is a building envelope with a height
of ninety feet. Within the building envelope area, twenty percent of the total area of the building
envelope may exceed the sixty foot height and shall be less than ninety feet in height.
From the north property line of the church campus,there is a 125 foot landscape buffer;from
this point south275 feet the building envelope has a height of forty-five feet; from this point
south three hundred feet the building envelope has a height of fifty-five feet;from this point
south six hundred feet the building envelope has a height of sixty feet; depending on
location there is a building envelope with a h eight of ninety feet. Within the building
envelope area,twenty percent of the total area of the building envelope may exceed the sixty
foot height and shall be less than ninety feet in height.
All structures including elements considered to be ornamentation north of the Great Western
Railroad track shall be limited to a height of forty-five (45) feet, and shall be limited to a building
envelope that is one hundred twenty-five(125)feet from the north,west and east property lines and
one hundred twenty-five (125)feet north of the Great Western Railroad track.
LifeBridge Christian Church states that "all lighting within the PUD will be directional lighting to
minimize off-site glare. In order to meet minimum foot-candles for parking areas LifeBridge
Christian Church will use pole mounted, direct cut-off fixtures as the primary parking lot lighting, and
where necessary additional glare guards will be added. Bollard lighting will be the preferred
alternative for pedestrian walkways through the parking lot and internal to the campus." The
outdoor sports facilities and fields will not be lighted for evening athletic events or other uses.
Section 26-1-50.B.4.a, MUD.C. Goal 4 of the Weld County Code states, "The coordination of
municipal, county, regional and state growth policies and programs which includes the MUD area
shall be evaluated in order to minimize discrepancies, promote a better understanding of growth
dynamics in the area, avoid duplication of services and provide economies of scale." The Project
LifeBridge PUD application as proposed does not demonstrate that the PUD is compatible with
existing surrounding land use in terms of general use,building height,scale,density,traffic,dust and
Resolution PZ-1004
Lifebridge
Page 25
noise (MUD.C. Policy 4.1). Project LifeBridge PUD is using the PUD application process and
regulations as required by MUD.C. Policy 4.2, Section 26-1-50.B.4.b. The PUD process will allow
flexibility and variety needed to offer a range of products services and uses. The Conditions of
Approval for this proposed PUD will ensure compatibility.
To further facilitate compatibility with the residential neighborhoods to the east,at a minimum there
shall be a one hundred twenty-five foot landscaped buffer with a minimum height naturally formed
berm of four to six feet at a slope not to exceed 2.5:1 in an undulating form planted with a variety
of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubbery;and groundcover plant materials. The form of this
landscape buffer shall be reminiscent of a hedgerow. This buffer shall be installed in each Filing and
Phase of development for the entire property.
Hazard Districts-The proposed PUD Zone District is not located within a Flood Hazard, Geologic
Hazard or Airport Overlay District.
Section 27-6-80. Common Open Space Usage:
The application states that 93 acres of open space or 30% of the site is common open space. As
proposed, the site does meet the open space requirements of Chapter 26 and Chapter 27. Each
parcel of the PUD shall adhere to the standards of Chapter 23-2-160 (Site Plan Review). Further,
all R-2, R-3, R-4 and commercial development in a PUD shall undergo a site plan review process,
as defined in Chapter 23, Article II, Division 3 of the Weld County Code.
The application materials further describe the intent of the common open space, and is states as
follows: "The provision of varied, quality and accessible open space remains a priority of Project
LifeBridge. These open spaces are accessible to the pedestrian by sidewalks, provided on every
street type within the PUD Zone District,and by linkages to adjacent green way networks. On-street
and off-street parking bordering the open spaces provide opportunity for visitors arriving by vehicle.
A wide variety of open space types create a series of recreational prospects for users. Naturalistic
landscape and trails within large open areas,smaller intimate gardens,and a large central park help
to organize the site development. The amount of open space required by the County Code as part
of the uses will be met at a minimum. Areas of open space amount to roughly 30% of the total
project area." LifeBridge Christian Church shall provide a lineal landscaped buffer of one hundred
twenty-five(125)feet minimum adjacent to the eastern property line of the proposed development.
In the referral response from the City of Longmont dated February 5, 2003 "the City strongly
encourages LifeBridge Christian Church to provide a trail on both the west and south side of the
single family residential area. These trails,in addition to the trail proposed along the Great Western
Rail Track, could connect to the City's trial system in the future and provide for much needed
community connections to regional trails." It should be noted that the primary greenway that the
LACP has identified is north of State Highway 119 and east of Weld County Road 1 along Spring
Gulch Creek. The City further notes that if there is to be a connection between the LifeBridge PUD
trails and the City's trail system, Weld County Government will need to ensure such a trail
connection happens as adjacent property remains under Weld County's land use control. Weld
County Code Sec.22-2-220, Comprehensive Plan, addresses interconnection of community.
Alternative means of transportation and opportunities for those who seek to walk or ride their
bicycles should be provided to connect community facilities and employment centers. The trail
systems of the City of Longmont, Meadowvale and the Elms at Meadowvale should be
interconnected with the LifeBridge PUD.
In a referral response dated January 27, 2003 the Weld County Department of Public Health and
es-
Environment states "The PUD will create a multi-use neighborhood, which will provide worship,
residential, commercial, recreational, and event areas within the 315-acre site. Residential areas
expect to include assisted living,senior housing,multi-family housing,and residential areas. Active
and passive recreational opportunities will include such things as sports fields, fitness/recreation
center, swimming pool, events area, outdoor amphitheater, trails, bike paths, playgrounds, etc.
These varied recreational opportunities must address the sanitation requirements of any area where
Resolution PZ-1004
Lifebridge
Page 26
people work, live, or congregate. The Department is recommending permanent restroom and
handwashing facilities be provided in close proximity to those public gathering areas."
Section 27-6-90. Proposed Signs:
LifeBridge Christian Church shall be required to submit proposed Sign Plan to the Department of
Planning Services for approval prior to the Final plat being recorded. Approved signs shall be
placed on the Final Rat.
In addition to the Development sign,the issue of sign location will be reviewed for each commercial
lot during the Site Plan Review application process as defined in Chapter 23, Article II, Division 3
of the Weld County Code.
Section 27-6-100. MUD Impacts:
The proposed change of zone does lie within the Mixed Use Development area, and requires
adherence to all criteria outlined in Chapter 26 of the Weld County Code, or as modified in the
application materials.
Section 27-6-110. Intergovernmental Agreement Impacts:
The proposed Change of Zone is within Ordinance 2002-7, Article XIV, Chapter 19 , the
Intergovernmental Agreement)area for the City of Longmont. However,the Weld County Attorney's
office has determined this project will not be bound to adhere to Ordinance 2002-7, Article XIV,
Chapter 19 . See previous comments under Section 27-6-120.6.c, page 6.
r
Based on the previously discussed criteria and Conditions of Approval, the applicant has
met the standards associated with this Section.
This Approval recommendation is based upon compliance with Chapter 27 requirements.
The Change of Zone from (A) Agricultural to PUD 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 uses and continuing Oil and Gas Production Uses in the
Mixed Use Development Overlay District is conditional upon the following:
1. Prior to recording the Change of Zone plat:
A. All proposed street names shall be submitted to the Mountain View Fire Protection District,
the Weld County Sheriff's Office, the Weld County Ambulance Services Department and
the Longmont Post Office for review. (Department of Planning Services)
B. The Change of Zone plat shall meet all requirements of Section 27-9-20 of the Weld County
Code. (Department of Planning Services)
C. LifeBridge Christian Church shall submit a proposed estimate for time of construction of the
PUD, including a conceptual Phasing Plan for the site. (Department of Planning Services)
D. LifeBridge Christian Church shall address the concerns of the Mountain View Fire Protection
District, as stated in a memo dated January 9, 2003 and incorporate remedies for these
concerns. Written evidence of a solution shall be provided to the Department of Planning
Services. (Mountain View Fire Protection District)
E. LifeBridge Christian Church shall address the concerns of the Weld County Sheriffs office,
as stated in a memo dated January 6,2003 and incorporate remedies for these concerns.
Written evidence of a solution shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services.
(Sheriff)
Resolution PZ-1004
Lifebridge
Page 27
F. LifeBridge Christian Church shall submit in writing a request for the vacation of the Change
of Zone case number COZ-430 for the Bayshore PUD,on the grounds that the application
was abandoned. The change of zone was not completed and there was no evidence of the
PUD in the title work. (Department of Planning Services)
G. Evidence of an agreement or evidence that the proposal has accommodated Oil and Gas
concerns shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services.
2. The plat shall be amended to include the following:
A. The proposed locations of the oil and gas drilling envelopes and the existing oil and gas
facilities on site, including all easements associated with these facilities. (Department of
Planning Services)
B. Weld County's Right to Farm note as delineated in Appendix 22-E of the Weld County Code
(Department of Planning Services)
C. The Bulk Area Line Diagram for the Church Campus, including the Bulk Standards Table
located on page 7 of this document. (Department of Planning Services)
D. The Change of Zone plat map shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services'
for recording within Sixty (60) days of approval by the Board of County Commissioners.
With the Change of Zone plat map, LifeBridge Christian Church shall submit a digital file
of all drawings associated with the Change of Zone application. Acceptable CAD formats
are .dwg, .dxf, and .dgn (Microstation); acceptable GIS formats are .shp (Shape Files),
Arclnfo Coverages and Arclnfo Export files format type is .e00. The preferred format for
Images is .tif(Group 4) ... (Group 6 is not acceptable). (Department of Planning Services)
E. The right-of-way for the Great Western Railroad track shall be verified and delineated on
the plat.
3. The C hange o f Z one i s conditional upon the following and t hat each shall be placed o n the
Change of Zone plat as notes prior to recording:
A. The site specific development plan is for a PUD change of zone from (A) Agricultural to
PUD 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 and continuing Oil and Gas Production Uses in the Mixed Use
Development Overlay District as indicated in the application materials on file in the
Department of Planning Services and subject and governed by the Conditions of Approval
stated hereon and all applicable Weld County Regulations. Noncompliance with any of the
foregoing Conditions of Approval may be reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board
of County Commissioners.
B. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Article VIII,Section 23-
8-50 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
C. LifeBridge Christian Church shall obtain water from Long's Peak Water District and/or Left
Hand Water District. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
D. LifeBridge Christian Church shall obtain sewer service from St. Vrain Sanitation District.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
E. Permanent restroom and handwashing facilities shall be provided within easy access of the
public gathering areas
Resolution PZ-1004
Lifebridge
Page 28
F. If required, LifeBridge Christian Church shall obtain a storm water discharge permit from the
Water Quality Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment, if required. Silt fences shall be maintained on the down gradient portion of
the site during all parts of the construction phase of the project. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
G. If land development creates more than a 25 acre contiguous disturbance, or exceeds six(6)
months in duration, the responsible party shall prepare a fugitive dust control plan, submit
an Air Pollution Emissions Notice (A.P.E.N.), and apply for a permit from the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
H. During the development of the site,all land disturbance shall be conducted so that nuisance
conditions are not created. If dust emissions create nuisance conditions, at the request of
the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment, a Fugitive Dust Control
Plan must be submitted. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
In accordance with the Regulations of the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission, any
development that disturbs more than five acres of land must incorporate all available and
practical methods which are technologically feasible and economically reasonable in order
to minimize dust emissions. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
J. Building permits shall be obtained prior to any construction. A separate permit will be
required for each structure. Permits are required for structures such as bus shelters or
entrance gates. (Department of Building Inspection)
/'", K. A plan review will be required for each building. Two complete sets of plans are required
when applying for the permit. (Department of Building Inspection)
L. Buildings shall conform to the requirements of the codes adopted by Weld County at the
time of permit application. Current adopted codes include the 1997 Uniform Building Code;
1998 International Mechanical Code; 1997 International Plumbing Code; 2002 National
Electrical Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Building
Inspection)
M. Each building will require an engineered foundation based on a site-specific geotechnical
report or an open hole inspection performed by a Colorado registered engineer. Engineered
foundations shall be designed by a Colorado registered engineer. (Department of Building
Inspection)
N. Building height shall be limited to the maximum height allowed per UBC Table 5-B. Wall
and opening protection and limitations shall be in accordance with UBC Table 5-A.
Separation of buildings of mixed occupancy classifications shall be in accordance with UBC
Table 3-B and Chapter 3. Setback and offset distances shall be determined by Chapter 23
of the Weld County Code, unless modified per the Bulk Standards Table on page 7 of this
document. (Department of Building Inspection)
O. Building height shall be measured in accordance with the 1997 Uniform Building Code for
the purpose of determining the maximum building size and height for various uses and
types of construction and to determine compliance with the Bulk Requirements from
Chapter 27 of the Weld County Code. Building height shall be measured in accordance with
Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code in order to determine compliance with offset and
setback requirements. Offset and setbacks are measured from the farthest projection from
the building. A n I LC (Improvement Lot Certificate)w ill b e required for each building
showing the building height as measured according to Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code
as well as the offset and setback distances to property lines. The ILC, bearing the stamp
of a Colorado registered engineer or the certification of a Colorado registered surveyor,will
be required prior to the frame inspection . (Department of Building Inspection)
Resolution PZ-1004
Lifebridge
Page 29
P. Building Heights shall be restricted, including the heights of all building ornamentation,
including stand alone elements. The Single Family Residential component shall be limited
to a height of thirty-five (35) feet. The Church Campus area north of the Great Western
railroad shall be limited to a height of forty-five (45)feet. The Church Campus area south
of the Great Western railroad shall be limited to a height of sixty(60)feet or less with twenty
percent of the interior site area is limited to a height of ninety (90) feet. See the bulk
standard diagram as delineated on page 8:Bulk Standards Summary:LifeBridge PUD
v. Weld County Code and page 9: Bulk Standards Massing Diagram for Church
Campus of this document. The graphic on page 10 delineates the spatial building
envelope. The Senior Village component shall be limited to a height of thirty-five (35)feet
excluding the units directly adjacent to the east property line where these structures are
limited to a single story and the mixed use office, retail and neighborhood center shall be
limited to a height of forty-five(45)feet including ornamentation. All heights are determined
utilizing the Uniform Building Code. (Department of Planning Services)
Q. All signs including entrance signs shall require building permits. Signs shall adhere to
Section 26-2-90 and Section 23-4-100 of the Weld County Code. These requirements shall
apply to all temporary and permanent signs. With each Filing, LifeBridge Christian Church
shall follow the approved Sign Plan. (Department of Building Inspection, Department of
Planning Services)
R. All structures shall conform to the Section 29-2-20 of the Weld County Code, Article II
(1997 Uniform Building Code), Section 29-2-30 of the Weld County Code, Article II (1998
International Mechanical Code), Section 29-2-40 of the Weld County Code,Article II(2002
Electrical Code), 29-2-50 of the Weld County Code, Article II(1997 International Plumbing
Code) and Section 29-2-10 of the Weld County Code, Article II, Chapter 29. (Department
of Building Inspection)
S. All buildings or structures shall maintain distances from the property lines and adjacent
structures as outlined in Section 29-3-160 of the Weld County Code or as stated in the Bulk
Standards Table delineated on the Change of Zone plat. (Department of Building
Inspection)
T. At the time a lot is proposed for development, except for the Single Family Residential
component, a Site Plan Review application meeting the criteria of Section 23-2-160 shall
be submitted to the Department of Planning Services for review and approval prior to any
on-site construction commencing. (Department of Planning Services)
U. At the time an application is accepted for a building permit, a plan review will be done. A
complete review of the building or structure by the Weld County Building Inspection
Department or the Mountain View Fire Protection District may reveal other building issues
or areas needing attention. (Department of Building Inspection)
V. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to
adhere to the fee structure of the Weld County Road Impact Program Area 3. (Ordinance
2002-11) (Department of Planning Services)
W. Installation of utilities shall comply with Section 24-9-10 of the Weld County
Code.(Department of Planning Services)
X. The property owner shall be responsible for complying with the Performance Standards of
Chapter 27, Article II, of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
Y. The property owner shall be responsible for complying with Chapter 27, Article VIII, of the
Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
Z. The property owner shall be responsible for complying with the criteria of Chapter 26 of the
Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
Resolution PZ-1004
Lifebridge
Page 30
AA. Personnel from the Weld County Government shall be granted access onto the property at
any reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with
the Development Standards stated herein and all applicable Weld County Regulations.
(Department of Planning Services)
AB. The property owner shall be responsible for maintaining compliance with Section 26-2-100
of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
AC. No development activity shall commence on the property, nor shall any building permits be
issued on the property until the final plan as been approved and recorded. (Department
of Planning Services)
AD. The property owner shall be responsible for maintaining compliance with Section 26-2-90
of the Weld County Code. These requirements shall apply to all temporary and permanent
signs. (Department of Planning Services)
AE. LifeBridge Christian Church shall comply with Section 27-8-50 Weld County Code, as
follows: Failure to submit a Planned Unit Development Final Plan - If a PUD Final Plan
application is not submitted within two(2)years of the date of the approval of the PUD Zone
District, the Board of County Commissioners shall require the landowner to appear before
it and present evidence substantiating that the PUD project has not been abandoned and
that LifeBridge Christian Church possesses the willingness and ability to continue with the
submittal of the PUD Final Plan. The Board may extend the date for the submittal of the
PUD Final Plan application and shall annually require LifeBridge Christian Church to
demonstrate that the PUD has not been abandoned. If the Board determines that conditions
or statements made supporting the original approval of the PUD Zone District have changed
or that the landowner cannot implement the PUD Final Plan, the Board of County
Commissioners may, at a public hearing revoke the PUD Zone District and order the
recorded PUD Zone District reverted to the original Zone District. (Department of Planning
Services)
4. At the time of Final Plan submittal:
A. LifeBridge Christian Church shall submit an agreement with Long's Peak Water District
and/or Left Hand Water District for the potable water requirements for Filing 1, Phase 1 and
Phase 2 of the development, including for fire suppression and irrigation of the PUD open
space areas, if applicable. Evidence of approval by the County Attorney's office shall be
submited to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services,
Department of Public Health & Environment)
B. LifeBridge Christian Church shall submit an agreement with Saint Vrain Sanitation District
for the sewer water requirements for the Filing 1,Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the development.
Evidence of approval by the County Attorney's office shall be submited to the Department
of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services, Department of Public Health &
Environment)
C. Weld County entered into an Off-Site Improvement Reimbursement Agreement with
Longview Community, LLC on February 6th, 2002, with the intent that Longview be
reimbursed a portion of the cost of constructing the traffic signal at State Highway 119 and
Weld County Road 3.5. Reimbursement agreements such as these are common for public
improvements that are shared as development occurs in a rapidly growing area. The
LifeBridge PUD should be required to reimburse a proportionate share of the signal cost to
/'� Longview within the spirit of the February 6th, 2002 agreement. (Department of Public
Works)
D. LifeBridge Christian Church shall submit a drainage report, signed by a Colorado licensed
engineer,to the Department of Public Works for approval. LifeBridge Christian Church shall
supply the Department of Planning Services with written approval from the Department of
Resolution PZ-1004
Lifebridge
Page 31
Public Works at the time of Final Plat application. (Dept. of Planning Services, Dept. of
Public Works)
E. LifeBridge Christian Church shall submit Final design drawings for Phases 1 and 2 and
preliminary road design in sufficient detail to determine future right-of-way requirements at
full buildout. (Department of Public Works)
F. LifeBridge Christian Church shall submit a plan delineating all fire hydrant locations, the
specific size of the water mains, and the projected flow rate for each Filing. (Mountain View
Fire Protection District)
G. LifeBridge Christian Church shall submit Final Roadway Plans for review for all roads within
the proposed PUD. (Department of Public Works)
H. LifeBridge Christian Church shall submit an on-site (Private) and off-site (Public)
Improvements Agreement that addresses all improvements associated with this
development, per compliance with Section 24-9-10 of the Weld County Code. (Department
of Planning Services)
LifeBridge Christian Church shall submit evidence to the Department of Planning Services
that approval was received from the Department of Public Works of an Improvements
Agreement Regarding Collateral for the Transportation and Non-Transportation portion of
the PUD. (Departments of Public Works, Planning Services)
J. A final drainage report(s) must be stamped, signed and dated by a professional engineer
licensed in the State of Colorado and submitted at final plat for each development phase.
Final drainage construction plans,conforming to the drainage report,shall be submitted with
the appropriate phase. LifeBridge Christian Church must document and reference
development phase drainage reports with respect to an overall drainage plan/report. Should
drainage criteria change in the future, final drainage design must meet standards that are
in effect at that time. LifeBridge Christian Church shall supply the Department of Planning
Services with written approval from the Department of Public Works. (Departments of
Public Works, Planning Services)
K. LifeBridge Christian Church will be required to address probable erosion areas at each final
plat stage for each development phase where storm runoff is released and/or there is an
abrupt change of direction with stormwater channels, and as determined in the Proposed
Storm Water Management Plan for Weld County dated March 10, 2003 (Department of
Public Works)
L. LifeBridge Christian Church shall provide evidence of off-site drainage contributions to this
development with the final drainage report(s). The area(s) to the north and northeast of
Weld County Road 26 must be addressed with respect to the 100-year storm. Existing
runoff to the Meadow Vale development, a djacent to L ifeBridge, must b e a ddressed.
(Department of Public Works)
M. LifeBridge Christian Church shall submit a revised road layout for review and approval for
the four-way intersection at Weld County Road 26 and Weld County Road 5. Sufficient
separation should be provided between the internal road and the railroad track for a vehicle
to turn right and have sight distance down the track to the east. This internal road will also
form an intersection at Weld County Road 26 and Weld County Road 5. Acquiring right-of-
way from property to the east or realigning a portion o f Weld County Road 5 will be
r""" required. (Department of Public Works)
N. Weld County and the City of Longmont propose to realign Weld County Road 26 adjacent
to LifeBridge PUD. Design speeds and road curvatures must be addressed with respect to
this realignment. LifeBridge Christian Church shall coordinate the final roadway design with
Weld County at the final plat application. (Department of Public Works)
Resolution PZ-1004
Lifebridge
Page 32
eeN O. LifeBridge Christian Church shall submit pavement designs in the final plat application.
Further, the pavement design shall take the on site soil conditions into consideration.
(Department of Public Works)
P. Service Provision Impacts for ambulance shall be addressed as required by Section 27-6-
50.B.4 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
Q. LifeBridge Christian Church shall submit a Conceptual Landscape Plan with topographical
features delineated in accordance with Section 27-2-100(PUD),and Section 26-2-60(MUD)
of the Weld County Code, for each Filing. (Department of Planning Services)
R. LifeBridge Christian Church shall submit a Conceptual Sign Plan in accordance with Section
23-4-70 (Zoning) and Section 26-2-90 (MUD)of the Weld County Code, for each Filing.
(Department of Planning Services)
S. LifeBridge Christian Church shall submit a Conceptual Phasing Plan with incremental
intervals identified in accordance with Section 27-2-160 (PUD) of the Weld County Code,
for each Filing. (Department of Planning Services)
T. LifeBridge Christian Church shall submit a Conceptual Lighting Plan in accordance with
Section 23-3-100(Zoning);Section 27-6-90(PUD),and Section 26-2-90(MUD)of the Weld
County Code, for each Filing. (Department of Planning Services)
U. LifeBridge Christian Church shall submit a Conceptual Phased Parking Plan in accordance
with Appendix 26-H, 26-I, and 26-J (MUD) of the Weld County Code, for each Filing.
(Department of Planning Services)
V. LifeBridge Christian Church shall submit the final alignment of the connection of the
recreational trail to planned regional trails in the area shall be completed and all land
dedications completed within the PUD. (Department of Planning Services)
W. LifeBridge Christian Church shall submit the final agreement with the St. Vrain School
District for the proposed development. (Department of Public Works, Department of
Planning Services)
X. LifeBridge Christian Church shall submit an agreement with Great Western Railroad for the
pedestrian crossing between the north and south sides of the Church Campus area. Written
evidence of a signed agreement approved by the County Attorney's office shall be submited
to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
Y. LifeBridge Christian Church shall submit three Draft copies of the Homeowners Association
(HOA) and Commercial Association (COA) for review and approval by Weld County
Government. (Department of Planning Services)
Z. The PUD Final Plan shall comply with all regulations and requirements of Section 27 of the
Weld County Code, or as modified in the application materials. (Department of Planning
Services)
AA. LifeBridge Christian Church shall submit a digital file of all drawings associated with the
Final plat application. Acceptable CAD formats are .dwg, .dxf, and .dgn (Microstation);
acceptable GIS formats are .shp(Shape Files),Arclnfo Coverages and Arclnfo Export files
format type is .e00. The preferred format for Images is .tif (Group 4) ... (Group 6 is not
acceptable). (Department of Planning Services)
6. Prior to the release of any building permits:
A. LifeBridge Christian Church shall supply designated street signs and stop signs,as required
by Weld County Public Works, at the appropriate locations. (Department of Public Works)
Resolution PZ-1004
Lifebridge
Page 33
B. Complete drawings shall be submitted for review by the Mountain View Fire Protection
District. (Department of Building Inspection)
C. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to
adhere to the fee structure of the Weld County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11)
(Department of Planning Services)
Motion seconded by Fred Walker
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Fred Walker
Michael Miller
John Folsom
John Hutson
Bryant Gimlin
Stephen Mokray
Bruce Fitzgerald
James Rohn
Bernard Ruesgen
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this
/" case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Voneen Macklin, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
the above and foregoing resolution, is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld
County, Colorado, adopted on April 22, 2003.
D ed the 22nd of April, 2003.
Ja
WILDA
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, April 22, 2003
A Special meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday, April 22, 2003, in the
Southwest Weld County Office, 4209 CR 24 '/2 , Longmont, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by
Chair, Michael Miller, at 9:10 a.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller - present
Bryant Gimlin -present
James Rohn - present
Fred Walker - present
John Folsom - present
Stephan Mokray - present
John Hutson - present
Bernard Ruesgen - present
Bruce Fitzgerald - present
Also Present: Kim Ogle,Wendi Inloes, Donita May,Voneen Macklin, Monica Mika, Department of Planning
Services; Jeff Reif, Weld County Building Department Official; Frank Hempen, Peter Schei, and Donald
Carroll,Weld County Department of Public Works;Pam Smith,Weld County Department of Public Health and
Environment; David Tuttle and Ken Poncelow,Weld County Sheriff Department; Lee Morrison,Weld County
Attorney; applicant Bruce Grinnell, represented by Barb Brunk of TetraTech Rocky Mountain Consultants;
Todd Hodges,Todd Hodges Design LLC; LuAnn Penfold, Mountain View Fire Protection District; Rob Fleck,
St. Vrain Sanitation District; Barry Dykes, Long's Peak Water District; Glen Segrue, St. Vrain Valley School
District; Gloria Hice-Idler, Colorado Department of Transportation; Matt Delich, applicant's Traffic Engineer.
CASE: PZ-1004
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
APPLICANT: LifeBridge Christian Church
REQUEST: 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
LEGAL: Lot B of Recorded Exemption 1389 and Part of Section 5,T2N, R68W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of& adjacent to Weld County Road 26; north of& adjacent to Hwy
119; west of and adjacent to Fairview Street
Michael Miller called the meeting to order read case PZ-1004 into the record.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services stated case PZ-1004 was continued from March 18, 2003 due
to lack of adequate legal notice in the county newspaper of record. The March 18,2003 Planning Commission
hearing was cancelled due to weather,and at the April 1,2003 Planning Commission hearing,staff requested
it be continued to a date specified as April 22,2003. Signs were posted at least fifteen days prior to the March
18, 2003 hearing in several locations on the Lifebridge Community site. This application is a PUD Change
of Zone from agriculture to PUD with Estate R-1 Low Density Residential, R-2 Duplex Residential, R-3
Medium Density Residential, R-4 High Density Residential , C-1 Neighborhood Commercial, C-2 General
Commercial, and continuing oil and gas production uses in the Mixed Use Development Overlay District.
Proposed uses include a church campus, church worship and education center, conference center,
community center, commercial, residential with up to 368 units, park and recreation units. The applicant is
Lifebridge Christian Church. Mr. Ogle also gave an overview of the various uses of the properties adjoining
the proposed site as well as background information on the MUD Overlay District. -/O95
Apr,
Page -1- ?
8,
Mr. Ogle said the Department of Planning Services deferred comments on issues associated with the
transportation component as this will be addressed by the Department of Public Works following the
conclusion of his comments. He said the applicants have also asked for an administrative review at the final
plat stage of this application. The Department of Planning Services was not in support of this request as there
are no formal water and sewer agreements in place. If the board have questions specific to this issue,
Attorney Morrison,who reviewed the agreement documentation would be able to provide additional comment.
Mr. Ogle requested indulgence from the board and respectfully requested referral agencies be given the
opportunity to provide comment or address questions of the board.
Mr. Miller asked the board if there were any questions for the staff?
Fred Walker said he was unclear as to what property within this development was subject to a property tax
and wondered if he could get clarification?
Mr. Ogle said he believed the applicant would address that in his presentation.
Mr. Walker again asked the question and Mr. Morrison responded that the county does not make the
determination as to what aspects of this development are taxable or non-taxable, that application is made
to the state. Mr. Morrison suggested that it might be better to address Mr. Walker's question after the
applicant has made his presentation if that is acceptable?
Mr.Miller assured Mr.Walker that his question would be answered when the applicant made his presentation,
and then asked Mr.Ogle if he wanted the referral agencies to make their presentations at this point? Mr.Ogle
replied in the affirmative.
John Folsom asked Mr. Ogle about a decision in the application materials by Judge West in regard to oil and
gas development on the property? Mr. Folsom cited Section 23-2-50B-13 and asked if this was addressed
in the conditions? Mr.Ogle said no,it was not,that presently the applicant was in a court proceeding in regard
to oil and gas development on the site. Mr. Folsom asked if the applicant was appealing to a higher court over
Judge West"s decision? Mr. Ogle replied that was correct. Mr. Folsom then inquired about the many
variations of the bulk standard in the application and asked if the Planning Commission will have further
opportunity to review the project? Mr. Ogle said yes they will. Mr. Morrison responded to Mr. Folsom that
part of the purpose of the PUD is to have flexibility to vary from having a straight zone district.
Mr. Folsom noticed the water districts were not mentioned in the inventory of items for consideration and
wondered if they will be addressed by representatives of the water districts? Mr. Ogle said the applicant is
in the process of meeting with all service providers. Mr. Folsom asked if the agreements will be in effect at
time of final plat? Mr. Ogle replied yes.
Mr. Folsom then inquired about condition 4C, traffic light reimbursement? Mr. Morrison, County Attorney,
said he didn't think that meant that the second party didn't contribute,just that the agreement was not with
them, and if he recalls correctly, the rebate goes to one party due to proportional shares.
Mr. Folsom inquired whether the applicant's street plan has been coordinated with Public Works? Frank
Hempen, Public Works,said the 1-25 Parrallel Arterial Corridor Study was currently underway,and that Public
Works does not feel it necessary to coordinate with this particular applicant's plan because this development
was too far west to adequately be a part of that arterial corridor study. Mr. Folsom asked if the corridor study
proposed CR 5 be extended south of CR 26 on the eastern boundary of this development? Mr. Hempen
replied that they are still in the preliminary stages of suggesting alignment, and that CR 5 was too far out for
good usage in future development. Mr. Folsom pointed out a possible error on the Structural Land Use Map
2.1 in regard to CR 5 extending from CR 26 to State Hwy 119 and also inquired about the area,excluding the
floodplain, that has been indicated to be proposed for residential construction, low intensity neighborhood
center and a park. Mr. Folsom said the applicant's proposal varied from that substantially, and questioned
if that indicated that map 2.1 was just general and the intent was to permit variances from it? Mr. Folsom felt
his was a substantial variance from what was proposed on the map. Mr. Ogle replied that map 2.1 was a
general framework plan, however the triangle with a circle around it and denotes the neighborhood center,
and within the neighborhood center there was a list of five separate types of uses that were applicable to that
Page-2-
general area on the map,and those uses have been proposed by Lifebridge PUD. Mr. Folsom asked if those
services would be considered low intensity as designated on the map? Mr.Ogle replied that would be correct.
Mr. Hempen stepped forward and covered two areas, drainage and traffic. He said regarding the drainage,
the department has reviewed the applicant's consultants general report on drainage and drainage patterns
and the need for future retention of storm water and find it generally acceptable. The discharge from the
retention pond will drain into the State Hwy 119 right-of-way,and this has been reviewed and approved by the
CDOT Region 4 hydrologist, pending future improvements within the right-of-way. Final drainage, and
engineering and construction plans will be required, and because this is a phased development, it is possible
that those improvements will be phased out. Regarding traffic,we have reviewed the report of the applicant's
traffic engineer Matt Delich and it was acceptable. Traffic has been examined for immediate need for
improvements and long range needs. For phase one filings one and two, residential and church facilities, it
will be necessary to pave CR 3 '/z and CR 26 initially as two lanes. Alignment of CR 26 will need to be dealt
with by the applicant and the City of Longmont as it passes by residential areas and goes around ponds. Long
term improvements of CR 3 '1 and CR 26 may require four lane roads with auxiliary lanes for heavy turning
movement. There have been many questions as to who will pay for all of this? Construction and financing
of internal roadways are the responsibility of the applicant and they will need to submit construction plans for
each phase of the development as those phases create more traffic demands.The applicant must also meet
MUD roadway standards but ultimately will be accepted by the county for maintenance. The applicant will also
be responsible for the majority of the cost of perimeter road upgrades. The county pays for approximately five
percent of the cost. The Department of Public Works is recommending that when the eastern perimeter roads
are built the applicant make connection to Pearl Howlett and Blue Mountain Road to facilitate interconnectivity.
lnterconnectivity is a basic principle of good traffic engineering that connects neighborhoods to communities,
reduces trip lengths and helps eliminate isolated enclaves which traffic must divert around. Lifebridge will
ultimately provide services other adjacent communities may eventually use. Section 22-2-220 of the Weld
County Comprehensive Plan, addressed the importance of connectivity and this is one of the reasons the
Department of Public Works asked for this connection to be done. Interestingly, Section 5, Streets, of the
Change of Zone plat for the Elms at Meadow Vale, addresses the connectivity of Meadow Vale streets. The
Mountain View Fire Protection District has also encouraged connectivity on their referral for this particular
application. The Department of Public Works admits that the applicant does not need these roads for
connection, but we think they are important for the long term viability of communities inter-connecting with
each other. We are aware of the concern of communities to the east about this connectivity. One of the
supplemental reports,furnished by Matt Delich at our request,estimated at ultimate build out in twenty years,
the traffic impact on these eastern roadways could be as much as 380 vehicles per day for Pearl Howlett and
130 vehicles per day for Blue Mountain Road.We think those are conservative estimates, but they are within
local road standards for vehicular traffic. Another issue in making the connection is that both roads in general
are on public rights-of-way. Blue Mountain right-of-way is connected to the edge of their development
immediately adjacent to the applicant's site. Pearl Howlett right-of-way must be extended a short distance
over open space to make that connection. Blue Mountain Road is not maintained by Weld County at this time
as requested by the developer in the original development proposal. If this connection is made in the ultimate
development of this applicant's project, it is clear that the county will have to accept that maintenance. Pearl
Howlett will be maintained by the county as soon as its current warranty period is up. The Department of
Public Works has reviewed the submittals of the geo-technical and drainage reports and the traffic impact
reports,and we are satisfied with those reports at this time. Our issues have been addressed,and submitted
reports are within the conditions of approval for recording the change of zone plat, final plat submittal and
subsequent site plan reviews.
Mr. Walker asked Mr. Hempen if these connections will be made at a later phase when these community
centers are actually developed? Mr. Hempen yes, the connections are based on when the need for this
perimeter road is constructed in some of the later phases.
Mr. Gimlin asked Mr. Hempen to elaborate on the how and why the applicant's pay their proportionate share
of improving Weld County exterior roads directly, as opposed to just paying into the road impact fee? Mr.
Hempen replied that the traffic generated by this development directly impacts those roads and causes a need
for those roads to be paved. Traffic impact fees are a general fee to upgrade particular designated arterial.
This development, because of its traffic needs, has direct impact on those adjacent roads. This is a local
issue,whereas the impact fees are a countywide fee to be paid for major designated arterial. Mr.Gimlin then
Page-3-
inquired if they could the applicant could be subject to both in different areas of the development? Mr.
Hempen said yes,the applicant will have to pay their proportionate cost for the improvements of the adjacent
roads, and as their building permits come in, they will be paying the arterial roadway impact fees.
Mr. Folsom asked Mr. Hempen if he anticipated that increased traffic on CR 66, CR 26, and CR 5 would
necessitate the applicant participate in the cost of improving or paving those three roads? Mr.Hempen replied
that as one of their requirements, the applicant would pay to improve CR 26 and do what is necessary to
correct the alignment around Longmont's reservoir and connect into CR 1. We have not required anything
be done with CR 5. Mr. Folsom then asked if the applicant has withdrawn applying to connect to Pearl
Howlett? Mr.Hempen said the Department of Public Works believes that connection should be made but that
the applicant does not believe it is necessary, though they are prepared to do so if that condition moves
forward.
Pam Smith, Weld County Department of Public Heath and Environment, addressed the board next. She
stated that one of her recommendations for approval was omitted from Planning Comments. It would be 3.
E. which should read "that public permanent restroom and hand washing facilities shall be provided within
easy access of public gathering areas", and then reletter below that and added as plat notes.
Jeff Reif, Weld County Department of Building Inspection, stepped forward next to answer any questions
specific to measurements of building heights. Mr. Gimlin said he would like to hear the applicant's testimony
before he directed any questions to Mr. Reif.
Weld County Sheriff Department representative,Ken Poncelow addressed the board next. He said he worked
with the applicant early on in the process as the applicant had several questions as to how Lifebridge could
make their services safe for the large numbers of people they expect to attract. Mr.Poncelow suggested they
work with the community resource officers to put together security teams,emergency people to be on site for
large gatherings, and also implement Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. The applicant has
agreed to work with the sheriff department to reduce crime via lighting and shrubbery design. The applicant
has been agreeable to what we have requested of them.
Mr. Folsom inquired if the sheriff office is adequately staffed to handle law enforcement issues,and would the
sheriff respond to all calls for assistance or is there an agreement with the City of Longmont? Mr. Poncelow
replied that there are inter-agency agreements with all cities within the county and Longmont,and assistance
could be easily obtained if necessary. David Tuttle, Weld County Sheriff Department, reinforced what Mr.
Poncelow said and added that assistance is readily available throughout the county, not just for this particular
development.
Bruce Fitzgerald a sked M r. P oncelow ifs urrounding cities would respond while the sheriff department
personnel are in route? Mr. Poncelow replied that whoever was closer, depending upon the situation,would
respond to the call for assistance by that Lifebridge has said they will have a security force on site to handle
situations until Weld County Sheriff personnel arrive on scene.
LuAnn Penfold, Mountain View Fire Protection District Fire Marshall, spoke next and addressed questions.
Mr. Folsom inquired about the response time from Mountain View Fire Protection District since it is located
at County Line Road and CR 20 % specifically since they are a partially volunteer fire department? Ms.
Penfold responded that their response time is three to five minutes from CR 1 and CR 20 '/x, CR 13 and CR
24, as well as the Mead station from CR 5. There is a paid crew and ambulance service at most locations.
Barry Dykes,General Manager of Long's Peak Water District,followed and said they have been working with
the engineering firm during development, but no agreement had been reached or contracts signed work
continues on that however. This development is a little bit unusual in that Long's Peak will serve the northern
portion of the project and the southern portion of the project will probably be served by Left Hand Water
District unless some sort of an agreement is worked out between the two districts where one will provide
service to the entire development.
Page-4-
Rob Fleck, St. Vrain Sanitation, said St. Vrain staff had worked with Lifebridge's engineer, but no complete
solution has been reached for capacity concerns they have with their current lift station and the potential line
to run on the north side of the St.Vrain Creek,but they are making progress and looking at alternatives. They
have not reached any definitive conclusions and there was no signed agreement yet. Mr. Folsom asked Mr.
Ogle if all agreements between water and sanitation districts will be required to be finalized prior to final plat?
Mr. Ogle replied that was correct.
Ursala Morgan,Town of Mead Trustee,addressed the board in regard to their comments not being complete
because they had received an incomplete referral packet, and that it also appears that today's submittal is
significantly different than the one being presented. Ms. Morgan said they have not had adequate time to
examine and review information under discussion at the present hearing. Ms. Morgan added that Firestone
did not receive a referral either.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Morrison how this should be addressed? Mr. Morrison replied that it is not uncommon
for a project to be modified after referrals are received,and that is part of the reason why referrals are made.
An application typically had adjustments after referrals were received and this does not invalidate the referral
process. The purpose was to inform you of the process.
Mr.Miller suggested to Ms.Morgan that she have a referral prepared for the Board of County Commissioner's
meeting May 7, 2003. Mr. Morrison directed Planning Staff to provide her with an updated referral.
Mr. Ogle responded that Planning Services did receive a referral from the Town of Mead dated April 7,2003,
from Michael Friesen, Town Administrator, and they had five comments listed:
1.) The Town of Mead would not be interested in annexing the property with the proposed plan as it stands,
so they did do a review.
2.) The referral was incomplete and did not contain all the submittals referred to in various places in the
application, but the Town of Mead did not contact the Department of Planning Services to ask for additional
materials.
3.) The town questions whether or not the application really adheres to the Weld County Comprehensive
Plan.
4.) Any potential traffic impacts on the Town of Mead should be mitigated,including but not limited to paving
and road improvements to CR 5 and CR7. There will be a northen impact because not everyone will access
the site from State Hwy 119.
5.) The town deems this proposal to be incompatible land use with the Town of Mead and with the
surrounding area. The town's position is that the county is considering and/or permitting suburban/urban scale
development in unincorporated areas that should instead be developed into municipalities.
Mr.Miller reminded Ms.Morgan that if she had any changes to their referral,she should prepare it and submit
it, and if she has need for further documentation to please contact Mr. Ogle.
Mr. Folsom told Ms. Morgan that her purpose was not to challenge the legality of the proceedings because
she allegedly had not received adequate information. Ms. Morgan said she was not legally challenging the
proceedings,she just wanted complete information in order to fill out a referral comprehensively. Ms.Morgan
said this was the second time within a year that she had to request information for a major referral, and that
is why she is here.
Glen Segrue, St . Vrain Valley School District, addressed the board saying they had come to an agreement
with the applicant about school impacts and have accepted mitigation,or at least an agreement for mitigation,
and therefore have no conflicts with the proposal.
Page -5-
Mr. Folsom asked Mr. Segrue about a site dedication and wondered then if it would all be cash in lieu as far
as land is concerned? Mr. Segrue replied that there would be cash in lieu and no site dedication on the
property, they would receive cash in lieu and mitigation fees, for which they have a signed agreement.
Mr. Ogle called on Dave Siple, Patina Oil & Gas, but he was not present.
Robert Bram, Encana Oil &Gas Land Negotiator,asked Mr. Miller if he could speak? Mr. Bram said they are
the other oil and gas operator on the property and operate the Petrock number one well located in the N2 of
Section 5 on the property. Mr. Bram said they have had very little notice and no discussion with Lifebridge
and that there has been no direct contact prior to this meeting. Mr. Bram shared that Encana Oil and Gas and
its partners, have extensive oil and gas property rights in the area that have not been addressed to their
knowledge,although Mr. Bram said he did have the opportunity to speak with Ms. Brunk a few minutes before
and she showed him that Lifebridge had designated one hundred fifty foot setbacks for each of the drilling
windows. Mr. Bram thanked Lifebridge for their setbacks along the existing oil and gas production facilities,
then added that Encana Oil & Gas has not had a chance to review them and they would like to see if they
meet health, safety and welfare standards. Mr. Bram said that Encana Oil & Gas is currently reviewing the
area scientifically with geologists and engineers to see if they need to drill additional wells. Should homes and
other buildings be set in the area before they can complete their work, they will need three hundred foot
setbacks because it will then become high density. The zoning changes may interfere with their operations.
They certainly create health, safety and welfare issues that have not been addressed. He encouraged
Lifebridge to contact Encana to consult with them. Mr. Bram added that currently the only contact they have
had with Lifebridge has been through the Lifebridge litigator. He said allowing higher density in the zoning
would be detrimental to Encana's operations and that they are proud of their safety record, but they cannot
speak for situations where they have no control over the actions of others. Encana and its partners, and the
individual citizens owning royalty rights in the area, need to be adequately protected from over development
which destroys their economic rights and opportunities. He reminded the audience that energy development
is a key component of our national strategy, especially now, given worldwide concerns and current events.
Mr. Bram closed by saying that there are up to seven additional sites for drilling on this property and one of
the home sites prevents that opportunity. He also requested face to face dialogue with Lifebridge, rather than
continued contact through litigation.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Ogle if there was reference to drilling envelopes being preserved on the site as well as
provisions for future drilling envelopes? Mr. Ogle said the applicant has identified existing sites on the filing
one, phase two diagram and that he does not know about future drilling envelope designation.
Gloria Hice-Idler, Colorado Department of Transportation, Region Four Assistant Access Manager, said
CDOT has been working with the applicant and Weld County to address traffic concerns on State Hwy 119,
and that process is continuing. The applicant has provided us with everything we have asked for and those
conversations will continue. Mr. Folsom asked if CDOT anticipated any changes on Hwy 66 from CR 5 to this
development? Ms. Hice-Idler said there were none anticipated as a result of this development.
Mr. Miller asked if there were any other referral agencies in the audience wishing to speak? As there were
none the applicant was called to make their presentation.
Bruce Grinnell,Administrator for Lifebridge Christian Church representing the church for the change of zone
application stepped to the podium. Mr. Grinnel said he wanted to begin by addressing the issue of property
taxes. Property taxes are based on non-profit vs profit entities. The single family homes being referred to
would pay taxes, church campus property with non-profit uses would be exempt from those taxes. We have
some uses on the current campus that pay pro-rated taxes based on whether they are a for profit or non-profit
entity. The senior living and neighborhood areas will be paying property taxes. Mr. Grinnell thanked all
involved today for their participation. He then introduced the Church Planning Team of Dale Bruns, Paige
Jacques and Reg Golden; Rick Russaw,Lifebridge senior minister;Consulting teams of Todd Hodges,Todd
Hodges Design LLC,who will address the MUD and compatibility;Matt Delich will address traffic;and Dennis
Rubba of Insite Design will address the master planning.
Page-6-
Mr.Grinnell then presented a brief synopsis of the Lifebridge Visions and Goals. He said some people have
asked why a church would need 313 acres and development projects? They are out of space and need to
relocate because they could not get approval for expansion at present site. This 160 acres plus entitlement
will provide adequately for their church family and their community for fifty plus years. Their building is
primarily used on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. Lifebridge wants to continue to make their
facilities available to the community in whatever capacity necessary.
Lifebridge foresees a seventy acre development for a senior living community;development of a single family
neighborhood to complement the existing and surrounding neighborhoods with homes at density of one per
acre up to three to four homes or more per acre; an area with two to three homes per acre to provide a
different community for the surrounding area; and twenty two acres developed for a neighborhood center;to
include neighborhood commercial, retail and mixed use development.
Mr.Grinnell said that with the patience and willingness of the neighbors in the area,they have produced a final
proposal that provides concessions necessary to allow many of the property owners and Lifebridge to move
forward. It has not been easy for the neighbors or Lifebridge, but he believed a sincere attempt was made
to address everyone's concerns and satisfy a majority of the residents.
Mr. Grinnell then summarized the concessions from the original application: reduced density of church
campus from two million to one and one half million square feet,thus reducing traffic;increased setbacks and
offsets from a few feet to hundreds of feet; reduced maximum building heights from one hundred twenty feet
to a ninety foot maximum on an eighteen acre site at the center of the campus;reduction in noise and lighting
through addition of landscape berms and non-directional lighting; reduced the size of the amphi-theatre from
five thousand to fifteen hundred seats and agreed not to construct it in phase one,as well as locating it to the
northeast corner of the site; senior housing height was limited to single story;and agreed not to construct any
building on the eastern portion of the eighteen acres for up to ten years. Mr. Grinnel emphasized that there
was one issue that both the property owners and Lifebridge were in agreement with; they both opposed
connectivity in the neighborhood streets. Furthermore,the Lifebrige traffic study does not warrant connectivity
to Blue Mountain Road o r P earl H owlett. L ifebridge understood t hat the Department o f Public Works
recommended connectivity as a part of their urban transportation study plan, but Blue Mountain is too narrow
and structurally inadequate to handle any additional traffic. The connectivity might make sense on paper but
not in any other way without a significant investment to the roads in Meadow Vale Farm and would be of
significant detriment to the property owners. If Pearl Howlett or Blue Mountain were connected,there should
be some benefit to the residents and the neighborhoods. Weld County's transportation goal T.1. identifies
the benefit as: to move people in a safe, economical and efficient manner. Mr. Grinnell argued that if nearly
all of the residents opposed the connection for safety, economic and efficiency reasons, then where is the
benefit? He urged the board to act in the best interest of the citizens. The connectivity would not result in
achieving the desired result of the goal. In short,Mr.Grinnell said,please do not connect these neighborhood
streets. Mr. Grinnell then pointed out the two neighborhood petitions in the packet, that were drafted and
signed prior to these concessions, which he said still contained inaccurate information. Mr. Grinnell wanted
to add that Lifebridge had contacted both Narco and Patina but did not receive any return calls, but that
Lifebridge and the oil companies all agreed that there was less than seven thousand dollars worth of reserves
in the ground on either lease. Both Patina and Narca have asked Lifebridge to pay up to one hundred
thousand dollars per drill site to mitigate impact, therefore Lifebridge filed the suit because they felt it was
inappropriate to pay over a half million dollars to either oil company for reserves on the order of seven
thousand dollars.
Mr. Folsom asked Mr. Grinnell if Lifebridge had considered formulating a fiscal impact analysis in regard to
future revenues versus expenses both to the county and the City of Longmont? If we had such an analysis,
it would give us a better picture of what the monetary impacts would be over a period of ten years. Mr.
Grinnell stated they had not been asked to prepare one, but could do so if required to prior to the Board of
County Commissioner's hearing.
Mr. Folsom asked Mr. Grinnell why they are not upgrading their existing facilities rather than relocating? Mr.
Grinnell said they were referred to Longmont because they are in their planning area; it would have been a
three year process in Boulder County;they are currently out of space at their present facility;and this was the
best alternative for their membership, to pursue a church campus that would provide them with a long term
Page-7-
home. This site provides extremely good access from a transportation aspect and it is also located in a rapidly
growing urban area, yet has considerable open space to the north of them, and they are not ready to walk
away from this site at this time.
Todd Hodges, Todd Hodges Design LLC, spoke to the Mixed Use Development area in Weld County.
As you know, the project before you is a PUD Change of Zone application in which we requested approval
for the proposed uses based on the MUD Area guidelines and the PUD application criteria. Throughout the
PUD process there will be additional opportunities for public,referral and County officials input concerning the
project. Additional opportunities for staff and referral review will occur for portions of the project through the
site plan review process. This particular proposal embraces the guiding principles in overall design and
functionality of the site. This proposal has also incorporated uses consistent with the MUD Structural Land
Use map. The uses proposed include a mix of residential, a church campus, a central park and a
neighborhood center. The mixed uses proposed have been located appropriately on the site and provide for
a neighborhood atmosphere that is consistent with the existing and future surrounding land uses located within
the MUD Area.This proposal allows for the development of employment opportunities within the neighborhood
center. The neighborhood center will be accessible via the existing road system and proposed upgrades to
the area. Accessibility will also be available via sidewalks and trail systems to be incorporated into the final
site design. The existing County and State road network and the proposed trail connections provide for
interconnection of community. The proposed uses within this development are consistent with land use
standards listed within the County Code and are also consistent with the intent of the Mixed Use Development
Goals and Policies established to ensure a final development that allows a sense of place, a functional
neighborhood, and high quality design for future generations. The proposed uses are very compatible with
the existing approved urban developments adjacent to and within close proximity of this site. The Longview
Residential Development lies directly west across CR.3. The Elms and Meadow Vale residential development
lie east and adjacent to the site. The Vista Commercial/Industrial Park is located South of this site across
SH119. The Lifebridge Church project is a master planned community offering a mixed zoning which works
in harmony with existing surrounding land uses. The transition zones within the development are consistent
with the existing zone districts adjacent and in close proximity to this proposal . The plan offers significant
buffering and screening where appropriate; Site is located with access to SH119 and future collector streets;
The development will comply with noise,dust and lighting standards;Building heights are regulated to assure
transition to existing homes;The plan offers significant open space and trail network for interconnectivity.This
conscientious proposal has integrated a high standard of design with respect to future transportation planning,
a wide range of residential options, as well as employment and service opportunities for the neighborhood.
This master planned community embraces the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the Mixed
Use Development Area Plan. LifeBridge Christian Church has worked diligently to incorporate the input from
the neighbors and the referral agencies to ensure h armony w ith the surrounding neighborhood, safety
compliance and efficient and orderly development. A"campus-like"atmosphere is encouraged in the MUD
policies for new development. This proposal truly demonstrates compliance with this policy through the
proposed concept. Within the Church campus"shared"facilities are proposed for public use. The facilities
offered can serve the area without a negative impact to the County and it's citizens.This proposal meets the
intent of the Weld County Code as it pertains to the Mixed Use Development area and the criteria for approval
of a PUD Change of Zone and the performance standards for a Planned Unit Development in Weld County.
This proposal provides for necessary upgrades to existing and planned transportation networks. The project
engineers have been working with the Weld County Public Works Department and Colorado Department of
Transportation to ensure transportation needs are met throughout development.
Matt Delich, project traffic engineer, addressed the board and stated that he had prepared the traffic impact
studies for the overall development and phase one for LifeBridge. The traffic impact study for overall
development assumed the following land uses: church campus, two million square feet of floor area; mixed
uses, residential at seven hundred fifty dwelling units; and office and retail at three hundred seventy-two
thousand square feet.The overall development now has changed, therefore the analyses in his overall traffic
study were conservatively high. The church campus has been reduced to one million five hundred thousand
square feet, as was indicated earlier.
Mr. Delich then said that trip generation is a key element in a traffic study and gave the definition of a vehicle
trip as a one way vehicle movement from origin to destination. For example: a family enters the facility to
worship in one vehicle, there would be one trip in and one trip out, equaling two trips. This is referred to as
Page-8-
a trip end. Mis-information has been circulating that at full build-out there will be fifty-six thousand trips
generated at this site,and this was not the case. Total trip generation would be about twenty-eight thousand
one hundred. At full development,with the facility at the size he analyzed, and with improvements at various
intersections and roads,all the street lengths and intersections will operate acceptably meeting Weld County
and Colorado Department of Transportation criteria. With the recent reduction in size of the church campus,
trip generation would be reduced to around twenty-five thousand three hundred fifty vehicle trip ends per day.
The church campus trip generation would drop to about eight thousand two hundred and fifty,from the eleven
thousand that was originally projected, but the mixed uses would stay about the same. The traffic study for
phase one of this development included a church campus at about two hundred sixty-eight thousand square
feet and residential at hundred seventy-four dwelling units. The trip generation for phase one would be four
thousand trip ends per day. Sixty per cent or less would be related to the church campus and forty per cent
or less to the residential areas. With the recommended improvements, all of the key intersections and road
links would operate acceptably. One of the key elements would be paving CR 26 from CR 3'/z to County Line
Road, City of Longmont. This site is located in the Weld County Mixed Use Development area and is served
by State Hwy 119 and various arterial and collectors in the area. It fits in to a balanced, integrated Weld
County transportation network. It will provide connections to planned regional trail systems. The applicant
will build transportation improvements to serve this development at a phased level. At full build-out, this site
can be accommodated by the existing and proposed streets and intersections in the area. The project would
contribute its fair share of improvement costs to the system wide Weld County Transportation Impact Fee.
Mr.Folsom asked Mr.Delich to clarify the traffic studies. Are the trip generation figures you gave,over a week
or a month or will they be exceeded on a Sunday? Mr. Delich replied that the figures presented were for
typical weekday usage.
Mr. Folsom asked if in paving CR 26 from CR 3%to County Line,were there any provisions for three or four
lanes,or for future road improvements in subsequent phases? Mr. Delich replied that two lane paving of CR
26 would be done during the phase one portion of the development. As the development grows,CR 26 would
need to be widened and improved on a phased basis, as traffic demanded that type of improvement. CR 3
%would also be paved and widened as necessary,with appropriate turn lanes at various intersections. Mr.
Folsom inquired as to who would pay for these future improvements in subsequent phases?
Mr.Hempen replied to Mr.Folsom that for all intents and purposes,initial construction and improvement costs
on CR 31/2 and CR 26 are the responsibility of the applicant. Mr. Folsom asked if this would be stipulated
in the document before the final plat. Mr. Hempen replied that yes it would,and as each phase comes forward
they will have a revised traffic study, negotiate the costs, and enter into agreements for the payment of those
costs.
Dennis Rubba,Campus Planner for LifeBridge,addressed the physical attributes of the master plan and gave
an overview of the various uses planned for the property, ie church,residential,commercial,trails,and parks.
The essence of the master plan is that they tried to create a community centered campus, with shared
resources, serving the needs of the neighbors as well as the MUD. LifeBridge is committed to providing
services to fit the needs of the community and this has shaped the master plan more than anything else.
LifeBridge planned on incremental development over a long period of time. Phase one consists of three
buildings encompassing worship, learning and education, and recreation; south of that would be a
neighborhood park;flanking that open space would be the senior living area; immediately south of that would
be the mixed use neighborhood center with amenities serving the local community; east and west would
include green spaces intended to link the various components of the master plan; northwest are the single
family residences linked by more open space; and a regional open space trail system they hoped would
encourage walking and cycling through the campus. Phase two would increase senior housing and
completion of single family residences as the market demanded, He closed by saying that this was obviously
a very large project and LifeBridge planned incremental development over a long period of time that would
create a unified area of beauty, delight and inspiration for all to engage in on a daily basis.
Mr. Folsom inquired about the present school, whether it was K-12, and would the capacity be increased?
Mr. Rubba answered that it was all preschool and that he did not know if the size would be increased in future.
Mr.Gimlin asked Mr. Rubba why LifeBridge proposed a neighborhood center with retail and commercial uses
if they do not want road connectivity? Mr. Rubba responded that they felt there were enough other routes
Page-9-
into the proposed commercial and retail areas.
Rick Russaw, Senior Minister at LifeBridge, gave a brief overview of the mission of LifeBridge, which is to
help people grow in their faith. Mr. Russaw then highlighted some of the programs and activities they
participated in or provided for: scouts, after-school programs, provided local business with meeting rooms,
members have volunteered in the St.Vrain School District,assisted local law enforcement with crisis support
and community service issues, mentored juvenile offenders,transitional issues for half-way house inmates,
provided counseling in emergency settings, provided foster care and mental health services through Boulder
County Health Department, disaster relief, supplied tons of food to community food banks, contributed
supplies to a transitional house in Longmont,and donated over three million dollars to various projects in their
community. LifeBridge looked for ways to be engaged in the community, they did not simply look for ways
to take care of their own needs. Mr. Russaw said he hoped they have been a good neighbor,said he realized
that they have made mistakes, but strived to do better. LifeBridge advocated excellence without
extravagance. They just want to meet the communities needs, current and future. They could have asked
for only facilities that LifeBridge would use, but this is counter productive to their philosophy. LifeBridge
wanted to be part of the community,as they have been for one hundred and twelve years. Mr.Russaw ended
by saying they anticipated a great partnership with the county and looked forward to the difference that would
be made on this campus, and asked the board to make a positive recommendation to the commissioners.
Mr. Folsom asked about financing of the project, and do they anticipate floating bonds over a period of time?
Mr.Russaw said they presently have three sources of revenue:first was eleven million dollars of revenue from
members;second was partnerships created that would generate leases of their facilities for revenue;and third
was the opportunity created on campus for revenue through the sales of senior housing and single family
residences.
Mr.Miller told the board that Pam Smith,Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment,needed
to leave the hearing due to another meeting,and asked if there were any questions for her?There were none
raised.
Mr. Morrison spoke to the religious tax exemption questions raised earlier by the Planning Commission. He
entered into the record the excerpts from the statute, 8 CCR 1304-2, which regulates the state property tax
administrator with respect to religious exemptions. Mr. Morrison said that the applicant for any charitable tax
exemption has to apply and maintain that status. They apply to the state property tax administrator,they don't
apply to the county,so his reluctance to answer Commissioner Walker's earlier question was in part because
he did not think anything they said there was binding on the state property tax administrator. Mr.Morrison said
that the basic rule for the state is that property, real and personal, which is owned and used solely and
exclusively for religious purposes, and not for private gain or corporate profit, shall be exempt from the levy
and collection of property taxes. Mr.Morrison added that he had a copy of the rules that he would submit into
the record.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Morrison if it was safe to say that any homes would be subject to property taxes? Mr.
Morrison responded that anything outside of the immediate church functions or sold or rented to other users
would be subject to taxation, and added that tax exemption does not exempt one from special assessments
or road impact fees.
Mr.Walker asked for clarification on the commercial development of the property. If the church is the owner
of the commercial building and the lease holder, the end user could be taxed, but not the owner of the
property? Mr. Morrison responded that there are incidental use exemptions. Gross rental income is not
exempt, income received by the owner from persons whose activities do not fall within the religious mission
of the owner or are not for religious purposes, strictly charitable purposes or schools, are not exempt and in
some cases the church would be subject to property taxes by leasing to an entity not a part of the church
mission.
Mr. Miller said he had a request from Peter Gries who wished to speak before the lunch break due to a prior
commitment at 1 p.m., so the meeting was opened to public comment for one speaker.
Page-10-
Peter Gries, 11685 Montgomery Circle, Longmont, Colorado. Mr. Gries thanked the Planning Commission
members for their participation in the process,and apologized to Mr.Miller for his morning outburst. Mr.Gries
suggested that LifeBridge made concessions on a series of things they never intended to do anyway. He
added that the East Longmont Citizens for Sensible Development had not intentionally published
misinformation on their website as Mr. Grinnell had charged. He said that he believed Mr. Grinnell had
submitted a shifting target, because the information constantly changed and was difficult to obtain. He also
believed LifeBridge pitched different information to different audiences, citing a LifeBridge letter to their
membership,where they said they had asked for a change of zone from agricultural to residential. Mr. Gries
said that if that is what they were actually applying for, all of the neighbors would be celebrating. The reality
is that they asked for a PUD with seven different zoning components, two of them they believed are totally
in appropriate; the neighborhood commercial and especially the general commercial development. The
bottom line is, according to the Weld County Code, that "new development shall demonstrate compatibility
with existing surrounding land use in terms of general use, building height, scale, density, traffic, dust and
noise". Section 23-2-710B from the Weld County Code also said that " the Planning Commission shall
recommend approval of the request for the change of zone of a PUD district only if it finds that the applicant
had met the applicable requirements. The applicant has the burden of proof to show that the standards and
conditions are met". Mr. Gries argued that the proposal did not meet the compatibility requirements. The
minor changes suggested by Mr. Ogle were not sufficient to overcome the defect in the lack of compatibility
between the proposal and the existing surrounding land use. Mr.Gries then presented a visual demonstration
of his perception of compatibility and asked that this issue be given utmost consideration. He also voiced his
opposition to connectivity due to the expected increased traffic in the neighborhood.
Mr. Miller asked if there were any questions for Mr. Gries. Mr. Rohn expressed his displeasure with one of
Mr. Gries' hand outs
The hearing adjourned until 1:20 p.m. for a lunch break.
The hearing resumed at 1:20 p.m., at which time Mr. Miller opened it for public comment.
Darla Gabbitas, 11627 Victor Drive, Longmont, said she found herself in the unique position of agreeing with
Mr. Grinnell and LifeBridge, and that to her it only represented traffic, and that traffic through Pearl Howlett
and Blue Mountain Road was not appropriate. Ms. Gabbitas said she is not opposed to any other means of
connectivity, except that pertaining to auto traffic. When she reviewed the summer of 2002 traffic study and
update,she found no information about Pearl Howlett or Blue Mountain Road. It did not address connectivity,
nor did it support connectivity. In her opinion, connectivity meant no traffic control for her community. Ms.
Gabbitas cited the code, Section 26-170C.1.c.,that said "access to properties in the PUD shall preserve the
existing and future function of roads and highways affected by the proposed development". In conclusion,
she said it is the duty of the board to require the new traffic uses be compatible with our streets, our homes,
our children's parks, our mail center, and our quality of life. Please say no to connectivity.
Vicki Braunagel, 11677 Montgomery Circle,Longmont,abuts the eastern boundary of LifeBridge property,and
is directly behind the proposed fellowship hall and dinner theatre,a sixty foot building with approximately one
hundred fifty-eight thousand square feet. They are pleased to have a church as a neighbor, but it is the
massive size and towering heights that rendered it incompatible with the area. She asked that all doubts be
resolved in favor of the neighbors. Ms. Braunagel also asked that focus be placed on the heights of the large
buildings that are the most obtrusive and intrusive part of this proposed development. She asked if a building
the size of the Pepsi Center defined compatibility? She said the uses which derived these heights are not
church uses;approving those uses constituted an amendment to the MUD,and how was that compatible with
a 30 foot home? She closed by asking the board to recommend denial of the application.
Myrna Sullivan, 11753 Center Drive, Longmont,said she had seen no environmental studies as to wildlife as
there are geese and other migrating birds in the area. She also asked how moving the ditch will affect the
area? Ms. Sullivan is an active member of a church, but she is at issue with the monster size of the facility,
which she felt would be better suited to an area where there would be less impact on existing small
communities. Ms. Sullivan also preferred two points of egress as the park and mail center are located on
Pearl Howlett.
Page -11-
Kathryn Oliver,2385 Homestead Place,Longmont,said her family had owned property in the area for seventy
years. She spoke of a ruling in February by a judge in the Weld County court who ruled the only way residents
can protect views was to purchase air space over the land. Neither Weld County or the state have a
preservation of view ordinance or law. Ms. Oliver then cited several proposed developments for the area,
none of which proposed any connectivity for the area. She said she supports the application because it is the
best use of the property since the MUD was put in place,even though she would rather have agricultural uses
surrounding her. She applauded Mr.Grinnell because he openly fostered genuine compromise and had been
hospitable in every way. She feels strongly that interconnectivity with Blue Mountain Road is inappropriate
as many of the residents ride horses in their streets, raise chickens, and conduct 4-H projects on their
property. The residents have maintained these streets, and interconnectivity should not be forced on a
neighborhood for which it would not be compatible.
Anda Brenholt, 11689 Montgomery Circle, Longmont,said she chose this community for the geese,coyotes,
and other wildlife surrounding it as well as the views and the open space, not for a church with a major
commercial development around it. This is a safe, rural, pastoral setting, and they chose it for all of those
reasons. She chose her community. She does not wants LifeBridge's community choosing her. Ms.Brenholt
said she welcomed a church as a neighbor but this was not just a church, rather a church with a major
commercial development around it. Our family will sell and move again if this application is granted.
Debra Jenkins, 11723 Pleasant Hill Road, Longmont, read a letter from neighbor, Ken Auer, sent to
Commissioner Glenn Vaad and entered into the record. Ms. Jenkins spoke for herself next, and said her
family moved there to live in a community without this type of development, or they would have stayed in
Boulder County. Her major concern is the safety of the children with regard to traffic. LifeBridge has invited
the neighbors to their community, but Ms.Jenkins said they are happy with things the way they are and that
she particularly wanted to put a face to the heart that is already there in the community.
Paul Hallmark, 1964 Blue Mountain Road, Longmont, spoke to the issue of connectivity and how it affects
much more than Pearl Howlett and Blue Mountain Road. Connectivity will affect the whole development. He
said the county approved the roads at twenty feet wide and he asked that the board go and see how widening
the roads would encroach upon current property owner's land.
Danielle Didonna,11729 Montgomery Circle,Longmont,opposed the application and expressed concern with
traffic issues and quality of life. They looked for many months for a rural setting with easy highway access
and that is why they chose this community. The mail center, park, and bus stop are on Pearl Howlett and
there are safety concerns with streets and homes, not only with the additional cars but with strangers driving
through scoping out the neighborhood. If Blue Mountain Road is opened up, she asked who would pay for
that? In closing,Ms. Didonna pointed out that CR 26 was two blocks from her home and it was not necessary
to open up Pearl Howlett, and she hoped the board would vote against the application.
Mr. Miller replied that expense would fall to the developer.
Kim Kittilson, 11710 Montgomery Circle, Longmont, asked how they would you feel if this came to their
neighborhood? She felt there are many other locations, better suited in Weld County, that would minimize
the impact of a complex this size on the surrounding area.
Frank Pierce, 1998 Blue Mountain Road, Longmont, moved to the area in 1998, and said he found the area
to be just as attractive now as it was when he and his family first moved in. He said he felt the area would be
even more attractive with the addition of LifeBridge to the community. His family and others will benefit from
this development. His house is presently for sale but he will relocate in the same area,just a larger home,
and he supported the development, welcomed them as neighbors, and asked the board to look upon it
favorably.
Bill Golliner, 11700 Montgomery Circle, Longmont,a native Coloradan said he assumed the area to the west
would be residential. He said he would welcome two or three churches but campuses are typically built in
open areas and people can voluntarily chose their homes or move their businesses into the area, not the
reverse. Mr.Golliner also addressed traffic pattern issues of CR 7 and CR 5 V2 that have not been adequately
addressed and are very important.
Page-12-
Lori Miller, 1896 Blue Mountain Road, Longmont, located to the area five years ago and bought for the rural
setting, not the view. They previously lived four blocks away from the present site of LifeBridge, where they
dealt with the horrendous traffic and were concerned for the safety of their children. She expressed great
concern for the connectivity issues for same reasons as others who spoke to it. It would be a detriment for
all concerned if connectivity were allowed.She also expressed concern with building height. She asked how
a dinner theatre constituted a church?She stated that a business should be called a business. She had no
problem with the residential development, but LifeBridge doesn't guarantee the type of commercial
development that would occur. She also addressed the tax issues that may short-change the St.Vrain Valley
School District.
Jack Hay, 2006 Ridgeview Drive, Longmont, spoke about LifeBridge as a community partner that provided
many services within the community: space for children, meetings, and athletic events;volunteer programs
for kids; partnered with the school district to resolve underage drinking in the community; and provided
counselors within the schools to meet various needs. LifeBridge has focused on service to the community
through supporting children and families in the community, and Mr. Hay said he had first hand knowledge of
this as a former school superintendent in the St. Vrain Valley
School District, and now as a member of the LifeBridge community.
Michael Stember, 2232 Meadow Vale Road, Longmont, spoke to the architectural features and more
specifically the height of the buildings. He asked what ninety feet meant. Mr. Ogle replied that in the center
of the campus, LifeBridge may have buildings that extend up to ninety feet.
Jack Fowler, 5501 Jay Road, said his parcel is surrounded on two sides by LifeBridge and he supported
LifeBridge largely because of the benefits and services they have provided to children. As a real estate agent,
he felt the LifeBridge campus would enhance the value of the surrounding property and suggested give and
take between the parties involved to get this done.
Peter Koclanes,21411 CR 3,Berthoud,said LifeBridge is a wonderful place to worship and spoke to the many
benefits to members and the programs they provided for children and youth. He urged the people to look at
the benefits this development could provide in the economic development of the area. He closed by saying
that selecting a place for Sunday worship that offers more than just that is very important and should be an
integral part of the decision making process, and urged the board to consider approval of the project..
Mariann DeStefano, 11171 Bluff Lodge, Longmont, supported the church and especially liked the idea of the
retirement village.
Donna Schroeder, 11727 Beasly Road, Longmont, resides one house from Pearl Howlett, lives in the area,
and is employed by LifeBridge. She stated she is opposed to the connectivity, but had faith that the Planning
Commission and LifeBridge would do what is right and best for all.
Daniel Rice, 2094 Bryant Drive, Longmont, was concerned as a homeowner about the scale of the
development and suggested that it would be in the long-term interest of the church to seek hard to establish
a good-neighbor policy with the people they are building around. As physicist,he spoke about fluid dynamics,
or traffic, and said he felt the numbers were incorrect in regard to traffic and needs to be re-examined.
Michael Donohoo, 11669 Montgomery Circle, Longmont, addressed the connectivity of Pearl Howlett, the
traffic light at CR 3 and State Hwy 119, and the heavy traffic that would be caused by people cutting through
Pearl Howlett. He also expressed concern about the building height,said he was not naive enough to believe
his view would last forever, but that the scope of the church is not compatible with the area. He also believed
home values would be affected as well as the tax base of the county.
Scott Pratt, 1 1713 Victor D rive, L ongmont s aid a II t he extraneous s tuff with the development i s w hat
concerned the neighbors:transient traffic through the neighborhood and noise associated with it;emergency
vehicle access and how it would be accomplished;street lights; height issues;and all of the extras that would
affect the neighbors.
Page-13-
Edwina Salazar, 303 Atwood, Longmont Outreach Coordinator, spoke to the LifeBridge programs that have
contributed to the quality of life in the St.Vrain Valley. LifeBridge has helped form a safety net through cash
donations, in-kind goods, food donations totaling two tons, contributed labor and materials to our child care
center,staffed soup kitchens and have helped through family outreach programs. LifeBridge has been a very
good neighbor, has honored all of their commitments to the community, and are to be trusted in what they
have promised to the community.
Rich Salm, 11713 Montgomery Circle, Longmont, said he does not oppose LifeBridge and their mission, but
was concerned about the size and scope of the development. He acknowledged LifeBridge coming together
with the community to resolve issues. Mr. Salm provided historical information from the public record which
pertained to complaints from neighbors and code violations in Boulder County and the fact that there were
noxious weed problems. He felt there had been a pattern of behavior showing lack of respect for zoning
codes and compelled Weld County to err on the side of conservancy if they err at all.
Mr. Walker stated he resented Mr. Salm's implication. As a farmer, he dealt with noxious weeds, and it was
not a black and white issue. Noxious weeds cannot be eradicated in one year. It takes a number of years
to be resolved.
Duane Leise,2686 Pearl Howlett,Longmont,entered into the record three hundred signatures on two petitions
that were circulated prior to the height changes. He said it has been extremely difficult to determine exactly
what has been said about the what, when, where, and how of case. Mr. Leise said he personally, was
responsible for noticing that certain referrals were not notified. People in the area need to be notified as to
what is going on in their area, that was a matter of functioning for the county. Mr. Leise said he had gone
around the county looking at various building heights. He cited the Promontory in Greeley as an example of
a building that is seventy-five to eighty feet high. The difference was though,that Promontory came first and
the people in those houses chose to live there. LifeBridge is the reverse, as the houses came first, then the
huge buildings. M r. L eise also expressed concern because h e had found not opology maps with the
LifeBridge application. The site of the first phase one building is approximately a forty foot grade change down
to State Hwy 119,and it was about a one hundred foot grade down into the St.Vrain Valley about a mile down
the road. He presented petitions signed almost exclusively by people who live in the area. Mr. Leise asked
the Planning Commission to stand behind the MUD document. He asked what does residential mean? Was
it ninety foot high buildings? Buildings without precedent in the area? If you would allow a five thousand
space parking lot, then what does residential mean? We have a responsibility to uphold the law and he
charged the Planning Commission with the responsibility of preserving the language and preserving the law.
Pat Mc Dowell, 2390 Homestead Place, Longmont, has been an active LifeBridge member for over twenty
years and said LifeBridge had always stepped up to the plate to offer assistance in the community. She
expressed concern about connectivity with regard to the children's safety. She was also concerned about
something other than LifeBridge locating there and said she felt crime would rise significantly in the area if
eight hundred homes were to go in there instead.
Pat Hains, 11721 Pleasant Hill Road, Longmont, took issue with the commercial development attached to
the church, as well as the increased traffic and possible increase in the crime rate. He said the addition of a
new high school, which no one has addressed today, would also contribute to the overall increase in traffic
and he asked if CR 7 would be opened up? Would the only access from State Hwy 119 to the high school
be CR 5 'A?
Matt Ellison, 11732 Victor Drive, Longmont,felt compelled to make comment that he did not feel there was
an issue with LifeBridge church. He said he felt they would be a wonderful asset to the neighborhood but they
need to develop a quality plan for the surrounding communities. His biggest concern was the poor quality of
the traffic study. He said they are clearly dealing with inconsistencies in weekday versus weekend traffic and
car trips,and that there is a huge problem on Pearl Howlett with Sunday and Wednesday evening traffic. He
asked that consideration be given to making Pearl Howlett an emergency access only. He said there is
nothing in Weld County on this scale and that he had difficulty believing this project was compatible with the
area.He also mentioned"NIMBY"-the not in my back yard syndrome and asked the planners and developers
not to use that as excuse for why they were all there. We are all very concerned about what will happen here
and we just wanted to be a part of the process
Page -14-
Mr. Miller closed the public portion,then asked the applicant if they wished to respond or if they had anything
further to add to their presentation?
Mr. Grinnell, representing LifeBridge,said that LifeBridge is not a corporation. It is there to share its facilities
as well as use them itself. Their intentions are altruistic and they share their facilities, which benefits the
county by providing facilities they would otherwise have to fund.
The height issue was addressed often today and LifeBridge spent the most time on the building height issue.
If one hundred sixty acres were built out with four homes per acre, with an average of twenty-five hundred
square feet, that equaled one million six hundred thousand square feet. That is why the size of the campus
was reduced, to get some sort of compatibility. Offsets and setbacks, with respect to the heights and the
building, now have much less impact to the view corridor, as the topography also figured into the view. Mr.
Grinnell presented actual photos with enhancement to represent future church buildings and said the view
impact to the west was no longer what was represented in earlier presentations.
Barb Brunk, TetraTech RMC, 1900 South Sunset, Suite 1F, Longmont, narrated pictures of similar height
buildings in surrounding areas. She pointed out that the additional setback made the view impact less to the
adjacent homes. Even though these buildings were bigger than the thirty foot tall homes in the area, they
were set far enough away that you saw around them and through them, so the intention was to consider the
neighborhood and use increased setbacks, to make it clear that LifeBridge tried to be a good neighbor and
provided additional setback to ensure compatibility. She addressed the height issue next and said that there
were places inside the campus where buildings might be up to ninety feet tall, but it will vary from building to
building. There will not be a ninety foot wall.
Mr.Walker inquired about the height of a church north of Ft. Collins High School and asked Ms. Brunk if she
knew how tall it was? She did not.
Mr. Morrison asked Ms. Brunk if she had a condensed version of the line of sight images? Ms. Brunk replied
she believed it was in one if the packets submitted to Mr. Ogle and that she would locate it for Mr. Morrison.
Todd Hodges, Todd Hodges Design, in closing, made a general comment regarding the commercial uses
within the campus. The commercial component would be located where appropriate and had been planned
for the corner of the neighborhood center. The intent of the MUD allowed for creative design and planning
of this area. It was not intended to be homogeneous, just commercial or just residential districts. The master
plan provided the opportunity to allow for mixed uses that were very compatible uses. LifeBridge has made
every effort to insure increased compatibility through setbacks, buffering, and other concession items. The
structural plan was created as a guideline that offered flexibility and creativity within the MUD. When the site
was established as MUD,the open space and rural area uses went away. Mr. Hodges said the proposal was
compatible. They presented evidence that it was truly compatible with the area and asked the Planning
Commission for a positive recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.
Mr. Walker commented about the structural use map, and reinforced what Mr. Hodges had said about its
origination, that planners simply asked community members what kind of zoning they wanted for the area.
The planners did not insist on anything specific.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Hodges if the southwest corner will have commercial uses? Mr. Hodges replied that the
general commercial uses will be located in the southwest corner to stay within the neighborhood center. The
church campus itself is not proposing any general commercial uses on the site.
Mr, Gimlin asked if LifeBridge planned to sell off the south portion and have commercial developers handle
that property? Mr.Grinnell said they intend to sell the single family residential section but not the lower ninety-
two acres. Currently they have been looking for a partner for the senior living villages to help with
development, as they were not in the development business when it came to senior living villages. They
intend to have continued ownership at that site and are interested in maintaining the integrity of the property.
They have no intention of selling it off at this time.
Mr. Gimlin inquired about the building height and asked why a building would need to be ninety feet tall? Mr.
Page -15-
Grinnell said the maximum height of the phase one building would be seventy-five feet. Mr.Grinnell said they
have also been asked why a church needs a theatre for their productions? They would like to have a theatre
for their productions and they need seventy-five feet of fly space for the screen. Mr. Grinnell said they don't
know what the future will hold but are asking for the entitlement. There are twelve thousand square feet above
sixty feet, at seventy five feet in phase one. Mr. Grinnell said he believed that less than one percent of the
campus would be at ninety feet and that they tried to isolate the impact to a fairly small area on the campus.
Mr. Rohn asked if anyone had a size and height comparison to the Union Colony Civic Center in Greeley?
Mr. Grinnell said he did not.
Mr.Walker addressed Sunday service and traffic problems it might create and asked if LifeBridge had done
anything to mitigate this through staggered entrance and exit and would you consider something like that?
Mr. Grinnell said Sunday traffic is currently somewhat staggered and that they have used the Colorado State
Patrol officer to direct traffic. The time between services has been lengthened somewhat to accommodate
the traffic flow. On the new campus they hope to have activities in place to keep people on site, thus aiding
in the traffic flow, plus there will be more access points that are also wider than those they have at their
present facility.
Mr.Miller inquired about demographics and what percentage of their congregation lives north,south,east and
west? Mr. Grinnell said they do have information, he did not have it with him, but most people seemed to
come from the west.
Mr. Grinnell spoke to traffic compatibility and deferred to Matt Delich,traffic engineer,who recounted the trip
generation information he had given at the beginning of the hearing.
Mr. Rohn questioned Mr. Ogle about the Union Reservoir expansion and how close it was to the property?
Mr. Ogle did not have an exact number, however the reservoir expansion would be somewhere between the
realigned CR 26 and the existing edge.
Bryant Gimlin asked Mr. Hempen about the connectivity of Pearl Howlett and Blue Mountain Road. Mr.
Hempen indicated it was the opinion of the Department of Public Works that there be east west connectivity
between the subdivisions. There are going to be uses in the development that surrounding neighbors will
utilize. The southwest corner of the project will contain commercial uses in which the surrounding residents
will use. T he emergency vehicles was a n a dditional element. M r. G imlin stated t hat the surrounding
neighbors as well as Lifebrige do not want the connectivity. Mr.Hempen asked if Planning Commission would
let Mr. Delich explain the additional traffic report that was asked for by Public Works.
Matt Delich provided further clarification with regard to the connectivity in regard to traffic. The population is
centered mostly to west . Information was gathered as to the home locations of the existing members of the
church. The locations were all over Northern Colorado and some even in South Denver. There was a small
number of people who would likely cut through those two streets. In Mr. Delich's judgement the numbers of
trips will be fairly small. The study was done with a minimum distance minimum time methodology that is
widely accepted.
Mr. Gimlin stated that people in cars are like water they will take the path of least resistance. The idea of the
development is to acquire people from Weld County for expansion. At the end of church service there will be
only two exits and when those become clogged there will be traffic that will utilize the smaller streets for exits.
The concern is if the roads were connected there would be people that zip through the residential streets when
there are children present.
Mr. Hempen stated that traffic orientation will go around subdivision utilizing the northbound road. There is
a northbound road that enters onto CR 26 that will divert traffic around the subdivision.
Fred Walker agreed with Mr.Gimlin about traffic in the residential areas. The connectivity of the subdivisions
with motorized vehicles is not a good idea. There is a possibility of connection in phase three if the community
would like to see that.
Page -16-
Bruce Fitzgerald agrees that connectivity is not good at this time. Mr. Miller added that the roads are not
designed for the amount of traffic that it will possibly contain.
Michael Miller asked if there was only one place that made reference to the connectivity of the roads. Mr.Ogle
indicated it was located in two areas. Page 16 subsection E and Page 34 section 2 C.
James Rohn moved to remove a portion of the fourth paragraph under heading Section 27-6-120.6.e. page
16 and page 34 2C regarding connectivity between subdivisions. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Fred Walker, yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes; John Hutson, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
James Rohn indicated that the building height does not seem to be a problem as indicated on the visual view
points provided. Mr. Miller agrees with Mr. Rohn as to sight lines and is hesitant to try and change sight lines.
Mr. Folsom asked for clarification with regard to the Bulk Standard Summary and if the items in red are what
is being voted on. Mr. Ogle stated that the items in red are modifications to staff comments from the April
mailing. The building heights are spelled out on page 36 item 3 O. Mr. Mokray would like to restrict the height
to 75 feet. Mr. Mokray made his request as a motion. There was no second to height.
John Hutson moved to add the language from Department of Health and Environment regarding public
restrooms and public hand washing in common areas outside in 3 E. James Rohn seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Fred Walker, yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes; James Hutson, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Kim Ogle added that staff would like to strike any reference to the Estate zoning. Also under heading "The
plat shall be amended to include the following" add item E and reletter. Mr. Gimlin moved to accept staff
language. James Rohn seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Fred Walker, yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes; John Hutson, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Bryant Gimlin asked Mr. Ogle if the interest of the mineral owners is addressed. Mr. Ogle stated that the
language is located on Page 34 item 2 A condition of approval prior to recording the plat. Mr. Ogle indicated
that this is standard language before a Board of County Commissioners hearing.
Bernie Ruesgen moved to add language in 1 A under prior to recording the Change of Zone Plat to state
"Evidence of an agreement or evidence that the proposal has accommodated Oil and Gas concerns shall be
submitted to the Department of Planning Services." Mr.Morrison stated that evidence must be presented that
they have accommodated or have an agreement in place. Bruce Fitzgerald.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Fred Walker, yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes; John Hutson, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Barbara Brunk, indicated that the applicant is requesting one change that deals with the bulk standards in
senior community. The senior community is unique and has smaller lots therefore if the setbacks cpuld be
deferred to the final plan this will allow the applicant time to design structures that will fit on the lot and
accommodate the requirements. The only other item is the setbacks of 25 feet in neighborhood commercial
and mixed use areas. The idea is to have a main street feeling with the buildings approaching the common
area in the front. Mr. Ogle provided clarification with regard to the road width and setback final decision be
deferred to final plat and not limited. Mr. Morrison added that if the Change of Zone plat is adopted that limits
the thing the final plan must conform to the change of zone. It may be safer to consider this now.
Page-17-
Kim Ogle asked Ms. Brunk to comment on the main street comment and if the width of the road is under
question or the setback. Ms. Brunk indicated it was a plaza type that includes benches and things of this
nature to give a community feel. The request is to be somewhere in the 15-20 foot setback area. Planning
Commission will defer action on that request but will speak to LuAnn Penfold of the Fire Protection District
first.
James Rohn moved that Case PZ-1004, along with amendments, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning
Commissions recommendation of approval. Fred Walker seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,no;Stephan Mokray,yes;Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;Fred Walker,yes;Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes; James Rohn, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes; John Hutson, yes. Motion carried.
John Folsom indicated that he refers to Section 23.2.30.2 as being not compatible with the surrounding land
uses and 23.2.770.C as the uses not being compatible with the surrounding areas. The surrounding area are
Longview and Elms. The MUD map is not to determine zoning but must be used to determine land use and
the land use on the map is residential and the application is radically different.
Bryant Gimlin stated this was a compatible development by definition within the MUD and within the
restrictions of the PUD. The restrictions of the PUD this will mitigate the impact on surrounding neighbors.
Meeting adjourned at 5:10
Respectfully submitted
u
Donita May
Secretary
Page -18-
Kim Ogle asked Ms. Brunk to comment on the main street comment and if the width of the road is under
question or the setback. Ms. Brunk indicated it was a plaza type that includes benches and things of this
nature to give a community feel. The request is to be somewhere in the 15-20 foot setback area. Planning
Commission will defer action on that request but will speak to LuAnn Penfold of the Fire Protection District
first.
James Rohn moved that Case PZ-1004, along with amendments, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning
Commissions recommendation of approval. Fred Walker seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,no;Stephan Mokray,yes;Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes; Fred Walker,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes; James Rohn, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes; John Hutson, yes. Motion carried.
John Folsom indicated that he refers to Section 23.2.30.2 as being not compatible with the surrounding land
uses and 23.2.770.C as the uses not being compatible with the surrounding areas. The surrounding area are
Longview and Elms. The MUD map is not to determine zoning but must be used to determine land use and
the land use on the map is residential and the application is radically different.
Bryant Gimlin stated this was a compatible development by definition within the MUD and within the
restrictions of the PUD. The restrictions of the PUD this will mitigate the impact on surrounding neighbors.
Meeting adjourned at 5:10
Respectfully submitted
Donita May
Secretary
T
Page-18-
Hello