HomeMy WebLinkAbout20031118.tiff •
Weld County Planning Gel• .
GREELEY OFFICE
I I 1 APR 10 2003
Mr. Kim Ogle RECEIVED
Weld County Planning Department 1
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Dear Mr. Ogle:
RE: LifeBridge Christian Church PUD Change of Zone Application
We are writing this letter to express our support for the proposed Change of Zone
request for the following reasons:
The LifeBridge 313-acre development plan is much more than a church. It will enhance
the community by integrating a church, single-family housing, senior housing, mixed-use
development, and neighborhood center. The 313-acre LifeBridge development plan
appears to be completely consistent within the Weld County PUD code. Weld County
planning maps have designated a neighborhood center on the property for several
years. Those people who believe that this area will remain rural Weld County are
misinformed.
The LifeBridge plan will provide the local community with some of the needed cultural,
educational, recreational, social, civic, community, commercial, and retail facilities, which
are greatly needed to serve the residents in the 1-25 MUD area at this time. Included in
this development plan are more than 90 acres for open space. This is not a new plan for
LifeBridge; LifeBridge Christian Church has a 110-year history of providing these same
benefits to the community.
We believe that the traffic data has been grossly over exaggerated and misrepresented
by a few people to intentionally create opposition. Those people who indicate the traffic
to be in excess of 56,000 cars per day are wrong.
The complete traffic study indicates that at final build-out the entire site will generate
about 25,000 car trips per day, which equates to about 12,500 cars. Of this total
approximately 9,000 car trips (or 4,500 cars) are a result of the church campus. The
balance of the traffic, approximately 16,000 car trips per day (or 8,000 cars), is a result
of the single-family housing, senior housing, mixed-use, and neighborhood development.
The traffic study indicates that in Phase One the traffic is approximately 3,000 car trips
per day (or 1,500 cars). Of this total approximately 1,000 car trips per day (or 500 cars)
are a result of the church campus. The balance of the traffic, which is approximately
2,000 car trips per day (or 1,000 cars), is a result of the single-family housing and senior
housing development.
Major transportation corridors, which are roads that are designated as highways,
arterials, and collectors, surround the LifeBridge property, allowing for the design of
i
nXHl$tt
-1- a�4
2003-1118
roads that will accommodate the projected traffic. Weld County had already designated
County Roads 3-1/2, 26, 5-1/2, and 7 as "collectors" in their transportation network.
We believe that the LifeBridge development plan for building heights is another
misrepresented and misunderstood issue that has been used to intentionally create
opposition. Most everyone understands that a view of the mountains is not a privilege;
your neighbor who owns the property west of you probably has the ability to build and
block your view. Yet I understand that together LifeBridge and the residents have
worked together to create a plan that has substantially minimized the impact to the view.
This plan required both sides to give and meet in the middle in order to compromise on
this issue.
We understand that during the last 45 days the proposed maximum building height on
the 160-acre church campus has been reduced so that on 90 acres the maximum height
is 45 feet or less; on 52 acres the maximum height is 60 feet; and only on 18 acres, in
the center of the campus, the maximum height is 90 feet. We understand that 1% of the
development plan will have buildings over 60 feet and these building will be at the center
of the church campus. As a result of the reduced building heights and property line
setbacks, the LifeBridge development plan has an overall impact to the view which is
less than a single-family housing development plan.
Noise and lighting is another area where some misunderstanding has occurred. We
understand that LifeBridge has been aware of the Weld County and State of Colorado
noise and lighting ordinances and has always intended to meet or exceed the
requirements of those ordinances.
We believe that LifeBridge Christian Church has been a good neighbor and an important
part of our community for over 110 years. LifeBridge has given tens of thousands of
volunteers and volunteer hours to the community to hundreds of different organizations.
LifeBridge has proven its commitment to make its facilities available for many other
organizations and the community, thus reducing the amount of dollars spent on public
facilities in the community.
By making the facilities available to social, civic, and community organizations, whether
they are profit or non-profit, whether they are faith-based or non faith-based, the
community receives the benefit
Thank you for your consideration and please represent my support for this plan that will
result in a benefit to our entire community.
Respectfully,
_.
-2- 3 ) / 5---f SA,
eaJ (0 coSSt2_
-2-
Weld County Play ing DOFFICepartment
APR 11 2003
k RECEIVED
(f1 \
'
Weld County Referral
"ligCDecember 23, 2002
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Life Bridge Christian Church Case Number PZ-1004 3
i
Please Reply By January 17, 2003 Planner Kim Ogle
Project 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 ,
s`
Legal Lot B of Recorded Exemption 1389 and Part of Section 5, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
i
Location South of&adjacent to Weld County Road 26; north of&adjacent to Hwy 119;west of and i
adjacent to Fairview Street i
Parcel Number 1313 05 000054; 1313 05 000060; 1313 05 000062 and 1313 05 000066 I
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider
relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may give full
consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be deemed to be a
positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions regarding the application,
please call the Planner associated with the request.
Weld County Planning Department Design Review Meeting:
❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
O We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
See attached letter.
Comments:
Signature Ai ✓e F/taittC I 00 n441 Date 42.4re 7 2 cos
Agency �Hti74 p2 ,
/" +Weld County Planning Dept. •:1555 N. 17th Ave.Greeley,CO.80631 t(970)353-6100 ext.3540 •'(970)304-6498 fax
J
+ EXHIBIT II Ab /.7,
i
ead Town of Mead
P.O. Box 626
441 Third Street
Mead-"A Little Toxn Mead,Colorado 80542-0626
N ith a Big Future"
(970)535-4477
a
Apri17, 2003
Mr. Kim Ogle
Weld County Planning Department
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Case No. PZ-1004
Dear Mr. Ogle:
The Town Board has reviewed the Weld County Referral of March 13, 2003 concerning the
PUD Change of Zone application of the LifeBridge Christian Church, and accordingly, the Town
has the following comments to submit concerning this proposal.
1. The Town would not be interested in annexing the property with the proposed plan as it
stands.
2. The referral was incomplete. It does not contain all of the submittals that are referred to
in various places in the application material, such as letters, traffic studies, County staff
comments, and so forth. The Town believes that referrals should contain copies of the
entire application package so that it is not necessary for its staff to solicit additional
information from the County or to have to come to Greeley to review it.
3. The Town questions whether or not this 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 WCR 5 and WCR 7, since the site plan
depicts a northern exit from the site at WCR 5 and WCR 26. There will be a northern
impact because not everyone will access the site from SH 119 or from the west.
5. The Town 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.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
�-� Sincerely,
Michael D. Friesen
Town Administrator
Weld County EYning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
LIFEBRIDGE APR 11 2003
71 . VI fij 3: I S CHRISTIAN CHURCH RECEIVED
Connecting People With God
R`;
April 9, 2003
Mr. Kim Ogle
Weld County Planning
1555 North 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Dear Mr. Ogle:
Would you please add these supportive documents to the LifeBridge Christian Church
packet.
Thank you,
44-eC.n/
Barbara Smith
LifeBridge Christian Church •10345 Ute Highway • Longmont, CO 80504 ' EXHIBIT
phone: 303.776.2927 •fax: 303.776.2902 • website: www.lbcc.org I 070a
LIFEBRIDGE
CHRISTIAN CHURCH
Connecting People With God
NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION FOR SUPPORT
We,the undersigned, fully support the LifeBridge Christian Church's proposed plan to develop, over time, a
313-acre PUD, which contains a campus style community church with cultural, educational and recreational
facilities; a single-family residential neighborhood; a senior living village; and a neighborhood center near
Longmont.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER
Please Print
C�, pQ��r��s"-c L& /17/7 earn/ct- Can' __TX'3- F'51-a%_.Z/
'PHA
Q Salad') 10727 Fleasuh` 14 ll 3b3 -lo&a- b(o)lo
� k �- v tn�ro �.> 1 r�za p( t }.k t aoL
s iDLsw Lit-45- ,cc $o y- 303- bit- 01o2--Co
A II7216ea &
-(rnk71r 5ch, thr Z o inw 69 00501/ 82z(
rka Mev'de (k ' 1177-1 T easley kd ;-,c3- 6V-4 -g-zz-i
So 304
1 a 4,Aees4 -740 liq iaid
4N3.404,U, '°3e(
Lisa_ -1-So 11724 - -12-0-6-9E-A7-4- 1 a -`i9cf-l4Lc7
/ARR. �QN �' Olattat e`A� /7727 Seas /er £oli 7�c Sao -s -6
IYnc 4 , / l`�it, >civ, l / 117O9 &/nle,- L-% nn -220 -5177- ) 871
) / t /4 j //7}e' t3 a s 4 /?, Iry 3 7 7 6 . 7 - e
vii.La_ 117/7 Pp g e OaMyas-'PWer
ells ,� (20-3) 45--5yyil
LIFEBRIDGE
CHRISTIAN CHURCH
Connecting People With God
NEIGHBORHOOD PETITION FOR SUPPORT
We, the undersigned, fully support the LifeBridge Christian Church's proposed plan to develop, over time, a
313-acre PUD, which contains a campus style community church with cultural, educational and recreational
facilities; a single-family residential neighborhood; a senior living village; and a neighborhood center near
Longmont.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER
Please Print
C1v\N IoYK. &A0 Lar Uiet.J 30t 50(n LON
Lig04q>0_1) 3352 <UA) vi e4-4) 9q 933,2
•
LIFEBRIDGE ,, ,
CHRISTIAN CHURCH �q I,/7
Connecting People With God 1{
PETITION FOR SUPPORT
�fcd
We, the undersigned, fully support the LifeBridge Christian Church's proposed plan to develop, over time, a
313-acre PUD, which contains a campus style community church with cultural, educational and recreational
facilities; a single-family residential neighborhood; a senior living village; and a neighborhood center near
Longmont.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER
Please Print
sit 61 nm skic4 Ace z te417 .4-4- o 3 - c_s - („_,
�E]d &�RRutthh Lehman
]
— — "— Weld County Planning Department
LONGMONT ® GREELEY OFFICE
APR 1 1 2003
it
RECEIVED
March 12, 2003
Kim ClIgff
Weld County Planning Services
Weld County Administration Office
1555 N. 17th Ave.
Greeley, CO 80631
Dear Kim O :
I am writing this letter on behalf of LifeBridge Christian Church. Last year during our
construction renovation we were without a gym for 3 months, which prevented us from
offering several of our programs. LifeBridge Christian Church was kind enough to offer
their facility at no cost. We were able to continue to offer Yoga twice a week,
Cheerleading on Saturdays and Silversneakers (Active Older Adult)three times per week.
This impacted approximately 100-150 YMCA members. If LifeBridge Christian Church
were unavailable to accommodate our needs we would not have been able to offer these
programs. We had exhausted all other facility possibilities within our community.
We were very appreciative and grateful to LifeBridge Christian Church accommodating
the YMCA. We tried very hard to have little impact in our programs for our members
during construction. LifeBridge Christian Church was a lifesaver for us.
Si cerely,
)1 (1.)51-xtniA -i
VP of Community Development
Ed &Ruth Lehman YMCA
Ed & Ruth Lehman YMCA • 950 Lashley Street • Longmont, CO 80501
303-776-0370 • fax 303-682-2301 4
EXHIBIT
YMCA Mission: To put Christian values into practice through programs that build healthy spirit, mind and body for all. 203
Weld County Planning Department
3/17/03 GREELEY OFFICE
IL: ;` ! o APR 11 2003
Kim im Ogle
Weld County Department of Planning
Weld County Administration Offices
155 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Dear Kim:
This letter is to explain my extreme pleasure with Lifebridge Christian Church in
Longmont. I am an assistant coach for the Longmont High School girl's basketball team.
I recently got a phone call from a fellow coach from Roaring Fork High School in
Carbondale. They were playing a district tournament in Plate Valley and needed a place
to hold a practice before their games. I called J.R. at Lifebridge and explained that I
would like to use the gym at the church. He immediately went out of his way to
accommodate our request and allowed us to use the facilities at the church.
The corporation of Lifebridge was outstanding and made our coaching staff look good to
the visiting team. We appreciated all their efforts.
r
Since
ay A. Darien
Assistant Coach
Girls Basketball
Longmont High School
303-775-3460
r II EXHIBIT
II 020`1
1)
_LD 1 ~_. i\ / Weld County Planning Department
� ,',.,, _ . , _ . GREELEY OFFICE
: IR H ri ?: f 6 APR 1 1 2003
'/ ,ice ,�11-.i
/-1.5)“J " � • ':Lo- I -Lo-,)I
i / C i "
Jrte'+,>) 7 G.O,G..
.. -� -_. . /
, t i 6i.„/ :.::1 7 ..:U Yirv1 `✓
/ 5( -
wv J -"d4)--(---1-) .
_74_1 -0-
---;,_ t-' c
/ /
.t,/ZL. G.i: °2-7,-:..... L L ,/ �t1 C L x. , it
t ✓
Il 7A v
, / 1y/
/` (fit J/ c «( It Kr"� % '� irr-e ,- _,
c-1 ��-u f C = "ems
, a ,./,/,4 /c' ) / 1-e ft' .:l/ ` t.--
L z fi, 71,Z.,!/1 7 ! F r.L 2/ /e1--1---/-2-4.....(_,,'
rL `� ��-Z. Gc ctE., .,
/ -� tij.y r-G ..
L� L F l' ♦/
:'
./..+/1,__22) %, `/C,`,. --(--C..12 .j .-s�,,.� ,., r ,Lam.,%
,rte„ / -- / / ) __.,
Weld County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
March 9, 2003 APR 1 1 2003
Hi RECEIVED
Kim Ogel
Weld County Department of Planning Services
Weld Adminstrative Offices
1555 N. 17 Avenue
Greely, CO 80631
Dear Kim,
My daughter has been attending Sonshine Pre-school at Lifebridge for a little more than
two years now and my experience with them has been overwhelming positive. When my
daughter first starting attending Sonshine Pre-school she was very shy and was
recovering from a negative experience with another pre-school program in Longmont.
Kathy who is the Supervisor of the Pre-school program at Lifebridge was understanding
and very loving to my daughter and welcomed her with love. My daughter has
blossomed so much and has developed such wonderful friendships with other children
and the staff. I highly recommend Sonshine Pre-school and know without a shadow of a
doubt that if we would not have had Sonshine Pre-school, my daughter would have
missed a wonderful two years experience in her pre-school life.
I am not a member of Lifebridge but very thankful for their program, belief's, concerns
and loving hearts. My family has had two set backs within the 2 years that we have been
with Lifebridge and we have needed to pay less than the original agreement in order to
live and they were very helpful and understanding. Their main concern was that my
daughter had a place to go and that my husband and I did not have to worry that we
would not have a spot for our daughter during these trying times. Their love was greatly
appreciated and they showed so much support and concern and helped in anyway
possible. There are not a lot of places of childcare services that would put the care of the
child and family first before the financial obligations.
I feel that Lifebridge has a lot to offer the community in such a positive way and there
would be a void that would be present if they were not given the opportunity to grow and
expand. The visions and the hearts are for the people and the community. I fully support
the growth and believe the plans that have been laid out are an answer to a lot of
problems that the community in a whole have been dealing with. Open doors and loving
heart can help heal in many ways and Lifebridge has both.
Sincerely,
/,�
$12407(/L Op i&
Stephanie Spetter
• EXHIBIT
-7A a \ Post Office Box 471 • Boulder,Colorado 80306
Boulder a Housing Authority
Coun ly Housing Authority Office • 3482 N. Broadway • Boulder,Colorado 80304 . 1303)441-3929
Housing Management Office • 400 E Simpson Sheet. Suite 202 • Lafayette Colorado 80026 • )303)665-9244
T0D Colorado Relay 1-800-659-2656
http://www.co,boulder co us/cs/ho
March 25, 2003
Lew Stancer
Life Bridge Christian Church Weld County Planning Departmer
10345 Ute Hwy. GREELEY OFFICE
Longmont, CO 80504 APR 11 2003
Dear Lew: RECEIVED
I am enclosing our monthly newsletter for the month of January for your review. Please
note the article on page 3 acknowledging your church's generosity. For over a couple of years, we
have been able to collaborate with Life Bridge to bring much needed resources and activities to our
community. The holiday crafts are a nice treat for the youth and allows them to enjoy the season's
Christmas spirit. The donation of lights and Christmas decorations also impact the community
allowing the children and families a chance to experience the holiday atmosphere.
As a non-profit organization, we are very limited in funding and depend on donations, in-
kind contributions and volunteer effort to continue providing a quality program. Tony Williamson
and his family have especially made a great impact with their never-ending generosity and interest
in our community. The community was able to truly enjoy a great Christmas annual party with the
many gift donations for the children. Life Bridge Christian Church's participation is crucial to our
continuing success in bringing resources and activities to our families. Many of our families cannot
afford to give their children any gifts for Christmas. They would have to sacrifice money that
should be spent on the basics of shelter and food. Many of the families asked for clothing for their
children since they could not afford to buy them what they need. We often receive donations of
used clothing and the families welcome it. There are over a dozen toddlers and babies in our
community this year and those children especially needed clothing, diapers and food.
Many of our families experienced a loss of employment when the greenhouse they worked
at relocated to Colorado Springs. This left approximately a dozen families unemployed right before
Christmas 2002. Some are still looking for a job and some have had to start again at a new job. One
man is now receiving only $5.40 an hour, a dollar less than he earned before he was laid off. The
realities and hardships of our low-income families are such that it is a daily struggle to acquire the
basics needed for survival. I truly encourage your church members to continue to support our
program in bringing much needed resources to this community. The prosperity of our community
depends on the generosity of kind and compassionate families such as the Williamsons. I strongly
encourage you and your congregation to make a further impact with monthly activities through your
youth group and with regular volunteering. This will allow our community more opportunities--to a
brighter future, and the impact will be fantastic. -- -
Most gratef ly,
�� I J.::
Carlota Loya Hernandez
El EXHIBIT
EQUAL
HOUSING
GPPE'S-WM^'
Weld County Planning Department
)- GREELEY OFFICE
T April 6, 2003
16 APR 1 1 2003
Mr. Kim Ogle
Weld County Planning Department RECEIVED
1555 N. 17th Avenue �'
Greeley, CO 80631
Dear Mr. Ogle:
RE: LifeBridge Christian Church PUD Change of Zone Application.
As a resident and property owner in Weld County, I am writing this letter to express my support
for the proposed Change of Zone request for the following reasons:
_____ 11,..Iio.K�,IhnI lh,LL G Rzids,c niap �u r hr � ,the mtnmunitv,some,oftile mu,Th ne=eded
cultural, education, recreational, social, civic, community, commercial, and retail facilities,
which are much needed to serve the residents in the 1-25 MUD area. Included in this
development plan, as I understand, are more than 90 acres for open space. LifeBridge Christian
Church has a 110 year history of providing these same benefits to the community.
I believe the LifeBridge 313-acre development plan is much more than a church. I feel it will
benefit the community by combining a church, single-family housing, senior housing, mixed-
use development, and a neighborhood center. The 313-acre LifeBridge development plan
appears to be completely consistent within the Weld County PUD code. Weld County planning
maps have designated a neighborhood center on the property for several years. The people who
believe that this area will remain rural Weld County are misinformed.
I believe that the traffic data has been entirely exaggerated and misrepresented by a few people
to specifically create opposition. The people who indicate the traffic to be in excess of 56,000
cars per day are incorrect.
The total traffic study indicates that the final build-out the entire site will produce about 25,000
car trips per day, which comes to about 12,500 cars. Of this total approximately 9,000 car trips
(or 4,500 cars) are a result of the church campus. The balance of the traffic, approximately
16,000 car trips per day (or 8,000 cars), is a result of the single-family housing, senior housing,
mixed use, and neighborhood development.
The traffic study also indicates that in Phase One the traffic is approximately 3,000 car trips per
day(or 1,500 cars). Of this total approximately 1,000 car trips per day(or 500 cars) are a result
of the church campus. The balance of the traffic, which is approximately 2,000 car trips per day
(or 1,000 cars), is a result of the single-family housing and senior housing development.
Major transportation corridors, which are roads that are designated as highways, arterials, and
collectors, surround the LifeBridge property, allowing for the design of roads that will
accommodate the projected traffic. Weld County had already designated County Roads 3-1/2,
EXHIBIT
26, 5-1/2, and 7 as "collectors" in their transportation network.
I believe that the LifeBridge development plan for building heights is another misrepresented
and misunderstood issue,that has been used to intentionally create opposition. Most people
understand that a view of the mountains is not a privilege; my neighbor who owns property west
of me or you, probably has the ability to build and block your view. Yet, I understand that
together LifeBridge and the residents have worked together to create a plan that has substantially
minimized the impact to the view. This plan required both sides to give and meet in the middle
in order to compromise on this issue.
I understand that during the last 45 days the proposed maximum building height on the 160-acre
church campus has been reduced so that on 90 acres,the maximum height is 45 feet or less; on
52 acres the maximum height is 60 feet; and only on 18 acres, in the center of the campus, the
maximum height is 90 feet. We understand that 1% of the development plan will have buildings
�.�a. over ou lee an s t t will v., -the-center of the-church campus. Asa-Tr`utt `fit`
reduced building heights and property line setbacks, the LifeBridge development plan has an
overall impact to the view which is less than a single-family housing development plan.
Noise and lighting is another area where there seems to be some misunderstanding. I understand that LifeBrid ordinances, and hhas always intended to meet s been aware of the Weld County
or exceed the requirements of the ordinances.
lighting
I believe that LifeBridge Christian Church has been a good neighbor and an important part of the
community, for over 110 years. LifeBridge has given tens of thousands of volunteers and
volunteer hours to the community, to hundreds of different organizations. LifeBridge has proven
its commitment to make its facilities available for many other organizations and the community,
thus reducing the amount of dollars spent on public facilities in the community.
By making the facilities available to social, civic, and community organizations,whether they
are profit or non-profit, whether they are faith-based or non faith-based,the community gets the
benefit.
Thank you for your consideration and please represent my support for this plan that will result in
a benefit to our entire community.
S
Shari L. Wittkom
20727 Catclaw Court
Johnstown, CO 80534
Weld County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
APR 1 1 2003
,•., Dear Mr. Ogle, pp ��
For the past few months I have watched with interest the"upset" shown by ihb,ECEJ V E D
in several developments close to the proposed new campus for LifeBridge Church.
Having taken the time to find out what the true facts are, I find myself dismayed with the
exaggerated claims that they are making with respect to traffic, noise, and building
heights. Had they taken the time also to get the true facts,they could have saved
themselves a lot of agitation. Many of their claims are not only inflated,but laughable.
We have repeatedly heard their claims that this Church will bring in excess of 56,000 cars
per day. Do they know something that the experts don't? Traffic studies done by these
experts show that when the entire project is completed,which is many years away,that
the number of cars even at that time will be closer to 12,500 cars.
It has also become obvious to us that LifeBridge has worked long and hard to
compromise on building heights and lighting and noise issues with these neighbors,but to
little avail. They still continue to cling to their inflammatory statistics concerning them.
The fact is that at this time only 1%of the church buildings will be over 60 feet in height.
This church has always worked within the confines of Weld County's and the State of
Colorado's noise and lighting ordinances. What else would we ask them to do?
And of course,there is the issue of views and the loss of the"rural" feeling to their living
spaces. Did these homeowners really think that this land to the west of them would
forever remain undeveloped? Not likely, with the amount of growth going that direction.
It was inevitable that something would be constructed there. Frankly, I would prefer a
church as my neighbor rather than warehouse space, etc.
Although I am not a member of this church, I have frequently taken advantage of many
of the programs that it has offered. I have watched their work in their community; it is
tireless and extensive. We should feel it a great honor to welcome LifeBridge to Weld
County. They have proven themselves to be a real asset to the City of Longmont and to
Boulder County. We ask you to support this Change of Zone request.
Sincerely,
l :u
mitttiktitketSeetin
214 Becker Cir. --
Johnstown, CO 80534
0-
r� Yyp yii
Weld County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
APR 11 2003
1} ,r; I"•
RECEIVED
Mr. Kim Ogle
Weld County Planning Department nr
1555 N. 17t Avenue REC
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: LifeBridge Christian Church PUD Change of Zone Application
Dear Mr. Kim Ogle,
I am submitting this letter to you requesting that you please consider my support of the
zone changes submitted by LifeBridge Christian Church.
The acreage purchased by LifeBridge Christian Church and its potential plans of
development go far beyond creating a private church campus. It is intended to reach out
to the community while creating multiple opportunities for the surrounding area to be a
part of and to also make use of This is to include of course a church, single-family
housing, housing for seniors and providing a center, which can bodiey the
s for the areas of
neighboring areas. This focus is directly targeted at creating opp
cultural, educational,recreational, social, civic, community, commercial needs of the
area.
I believe that the traffic concerns have been falsely reported and a bit exaggerated
when being reported that traffic volume will be in excess of 56,000 cars per day. The
studies have indicated differently. The study also indicates that in the first phase the
traffic will be approximately 3,000 cars passing thru daily. The corridors that surround
the property mentioned will allow for such traffic from the church as a whole.
I believe that the plan submitted by LifeBridge regarding height has also been
inaccurately relayed to the area residents. The maximum height will be 60 feet or less and
in the center of the campus. LifeBridge has made significant reductions in this area.
I believe that LifeBridge has been a compliment to the community and has also
been a good neighbor to those in the past area locations. They have been a significant
resource for the community as well as to organizations that have had facility needs. By
opening the doors of this campus in this community it will have great impact in the area
of facility availabilities for social, civic and community events, meetings etc.
I appreciate you time in reading my letter to you and want to let you know that I am in
support of this project and its mission, which I believe will bring great benefit to the
community it will be in as well as surrounding areas.
Si erely, -
Qa1 66tQ ac)N.,c�
Nadine Zaragoza J a 1 x(yt$l l T
Weld County Planning Department
- - GREELEY OFFICE
APR 1 1 2003
n + ' 1 ' RECEIVED
Mr. Kim Ogle
Weld County Planning Department fCi. __,'`'., vD
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Dear Mr. Ogle:
RE: LifeBridge Christian Church PUD Change of Zone Application
We are writing this letter to express our support for the proposed Change of Zone
request for the following reasons:
The LifeBridge 313-acre development plan is much more than a church. It will enhance
the community by integrating a church, single-family housing, senior housing, mixed-use
development, and neighborhood center. The 313-acre LifeBridge development plan
appears to be completely consistent within the Weld County PUD code. Weld County
planning maps have designated a neighborhood center on the property for several
years. Those people who believe that this area will remain rural Weld County are
misinformed.
The LifeBridge plan will provide the local community with some of the needed cultural,
educational, recreational, social, civic, community, commercial, and retail facilities, which
are greatly needed to serve the residents in the 1-25 MUD area at this time. Included in
this development plan are more than 90 acres for open space. This is not a new plan for
LifeBridge; LifeBridge Christian Church has a 110-year history of providing these same
benefits to the community.
We believe that the traffic data has been grossly over exaggerated and misrepresented
by a few people to intentionally create opposition. Those people who indicate the traffic
to be in excess of 56,000 cars per day are wrong.
The complete traffic study indicates that at final build-out the entire site will generate
about 25,000 car trips per day, which equates to about 12,500 cars. Of this total
approximately 9,000 car trips (or 4,500 cars) are a result of the church campus. The
balance of the traffic, approximately 16,000 car trips per day (or 8,000 cars), is a result
of the single-family housing, senior housing, mixed-use, and neighborhood development.
The traffic study indicates that in Phase One the traffic is approximately 3,000 car trips
per day (or 1,500 cars). Of this total approximately 1,000 car trips per day (or 500 cars)
are a result of the church campus. The balance of the traffic, which is approximately
2,000 car trips per day (or 1,000 cars), is a result of the single-family housing and senior
housing development.
Major transportation corridors, which are roads that are designated as highways,
arterials, and collectors, surround the LifeBridge property, allowing for the design of
r
-1-
r
r
roads that will accommodate the projected traffic. Weld County had already designated
County Roads 3-1/2, 26, 5-1/2, and 7 as "collectors" in their transportation network.
We believe that the LifeBridge development plan for building heights is another
misrepresented and misunderstood issue that has been used to intentionally create
opposition. Most everyone understands that a view of the mountains is not a privilege;
your neighbor who owns the property west of you probably has the ability to build and
block your view. Yet I understand that together LifeBridge and the residents have
worked together to create a plan that has substantially minimized the impact to the view.
This plan required both sides to give and meet in the middle in order to compromise on
this issue.
We understand that during the last 45 days the proposed maximum building height on
the 160-acre church campus has been reduced so that on 90 acres the maximum height
is 45 feet or less; on 52 acres the maximum height is 60 feet; and only on 18 acres, in
the center of the campus, the maximum height is 90 feet. We understand that 1% of the
development plan will have buildings over 60 feet and these building will be at the center
of the church campus. As a result of the reduced building heights and property line
setbacks, the LifeBridge development plan has an overall impact to the view which is
less than a single-family housing development plan.
Noise and lighting is another area where some misunderstanding has occurred. We
understand that LifeBridge has been aware of the Weld County and State of Colorado
noise and lighting ordinances and has always intended to meet or exceed the
requirements of those ordinances.
We believe that LifeBridge Christian Church has been a good neighbor and an important
part of our community for over 110 years. LifeBridge has given tens of thousands of
volunteers and volunteer hours to the community to hundreds of different organizations.
LifeBridge has proven its commitment to make its facilities available for many other
organizations and the community, thus reducing the amount of dollars spent on public
facilities in the community.
By making the facilities available to social, civic, and community organizations, whether
they are profit or non-profit, whether they are faith-based or non faith-based, the
community receives the benefit
Thank you for your consideration and please represent my support for this plan that will
result in a benefit to our entire community.
Respectfully,
Cen1/473414,20....
407 souk-�, t�;m,1. V;cw Commua%kj
c nsnav,4 Co 5o6-0Y
Q 96 owner akntAk `�
�2_ J
Weld County Planning Department
C) IT� GREELEY OFFICE
APR 1 1 2003
n .13 j 4 F„ 3: 17 RECEIVED
Mr. Kim Ogle
Weld County Planning Department REL- '—" L Lam/
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Dear Mr. Ogle:
RE: LifeBridge Christian Church PUD Change of Zone Application
We are writing this letter to express our support for the proposed Change of Zone
request for the following reasons:
The LifeBridge 313-acre development plan is much more than a church. It will enhance
the community by integrating a church, single-family housing, senior housing, mixed-use
development, and neighborhood center. The 313-acre LifeBridge development plan
appears to be completely consistent within the Weld County PUD code. Weld County
planning maps have designated a neighborhood center on the property for several
years. Those people who believe that this area will remain rural Weld County are
misinformed.
The LifeBridge plan will provide the local community with some of the needed cultural,
educational, recreational, social, civic, community, commercial, and retail facilities, which
are greatly needed to serve the residents in the 1-25 MUD area at this time. Included in
this development plan are more than 90 acres for open space. This is not a new plan for
LifeBridge; LifeBridge Christian Church has a 110-year history of providing these same
benefits to the community.
We believe that the traffic data has been grossly over exaggerated and misrepresented
by a few people to intentionally create opposition. Those people who indicate the traffic
to be in excess of 56,000 cars per day are wrong.
The complete traffic study indicates that at final build-out the entire site will generate
about 25,000 car trips per day, which equates to about 12,500 cars. Of this total
approximately 9,000 car trips (or 4,500 cars) are a result of the church campus. The
balance of the traffic, approximately 16,000 car trips per day (or 8,000 cars), is a result
of the single-family housing, senior housing, mixed-use, and neighborhood development.
The traffic study indicates that in Phase One the traffic is approximately 3,000 car trips
per day (or 1,500 cars). Of this total approximately 1,000 car trips per day (or 500 cars)
are a result of the church campus. The balance of the traffic, which is approximately
2,000 car trips per day (or 1,000 cars), is a result of the single-family housing and senior
housing development.
Major transportation corridors, which are roads that are designated as highways,
arterials, and collectors, surround the LifeBridge property, allowing for the design of
Ewen
1 ova
roads that will accommodate the projected traffic. Weld County had already designated
County Roads 3-1/2, 26, 5-1/2, and 7 as "collectors" in their transportation network.
We believe that the LifeBridge development plan for building heights is another
misrepresented and misunderstood issue that has been used to intentionally create
opposition. Most everyone understands that a view of the mountains is not a privilege;
your neighbor who owns the property west of you probably has the ability to build and
block your view. Yet I understand that together LifeBridge and the residents have
worked together to create a plan that has substantially minimized the impact to the view.
This plan required both sides to give and meet in the middle in order to compromise on
this issue.
We understand that during the last 45 days the proposed maximum building height on
the 160-acre church campus has been reduced so that on 90 acres the maximum height
is 45 feet or less; on 52 acres the maximum height is 60 feet; and only on 18 acres, in
the center of the campus, the maximum height is 90 feet. We understand that 1% of the
development plan will have buildings over 60 feet and these building will be at the center
of the church campus. As a result of the reduced building heights and property line
setbacks, the LifeBridge development plan has an overall impact to the view which is
less than a single-family housing development plan.
Noise and lighting is another area where some misunderstanding has occurred. We
understand that LifeBridge has been aware of the Weld County and State of Colorado
noise and lighting ordinances and has always intended to meet or exceed the
requirements of those ordinances.
We believe that LifeBridge Christian Church has been a good neighbor and an important
part of our community for over 110 years. LifeBridge has given tens of thousands of
volunteers and volunteer hours to the community to hundreds of different organizations.
LifeBridge has proven its commitment to make its facilities available for many other
organizations and the community, thus reducing the amount of dollars spent on public
facilities in the community.
By making the facilities available to social, civic, and community organizations, whether
they are profit or non-profit, whether they are faith-based or non faith-based, the
community receives the benefit
Thank you for your consideration and please represent my support for this plan that will
result in a benefit to our entire community.
Respectfully,
�/ean�.t��l 7�e�at.efok,�j ��V-cu;rl�t�9"uJ�
-2-
Weld County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
r r,` APR 1 1 2003
April 9, 2003
22 1 # PH 3: ! 7 RECEIVED
Mr. Kim Ogle
Weld County Planning Department �-
1555 N. 17th Avenue RCC t.
Greeley, CO 80631
Dear Mr. Ogle:
RE: LifeBridge Christian Church PUD Change of Zone Application
As a Weld County resident, please accept this letter to express the support my family
gives to the proposed Change of Zone request outlined as follows:
The LifeBridge 313 acre development plan is much more than a church. The church
integrating, single-family housing, mixed-use development, senior housing and a
neighborhood center will enhance the community. The people who believe that this area
will remain rural Weld County have been misinformed. The county planning maps have
for several years designated a neighborhood center on this property. The LifeBridge
development plan appears to be completely consistent within the Weld County PUD
code.
The LifeBridge plan will provide the community with some needed recreational, social,
civic, educational, cultural, community, commercial and retail facilities, which are
greatly needed to serve the residents in the I-25 MUD area. More than 90 acres of open
space are included in this plan. LifeBridge Christian Church has a 110-year history of
providing these same benefits to the community.
The opposition has grossly over exaggerated and misrepresented the traffic data. Traffic
being in excess of 56,000 cars per day is wrong.
The complete traffic study indicates that at final build-out the entire site will generate
around 25,000 car trips per day, which equates to about 12,500 cars per day. Of this total
approximately 9,000 car trips (or 4,500 cars) are a result of the church campus. The
balance of traffic, approximately 16,000 car trips per day, is a result of the single-family
housing, senior housing, mixed-use and neighborhood development.
The traffic study indicates that in Phase One the traffic is approximately 3,000 car trips
per day. Of this total approximately 1,000 car trips per day are a result of the church
campus. The balance of the traffic, which is approximately 2,000 car trips per day (or
1,000 cars), is a result of the single-family housing and senior housing development.
The LifeBridge property is surrounded by major transportation corridors designated as
highways, arterials, and collectors, allowing for the design of roads that will easily
accommodate the projected traffic. Weld County has already designated County Roads 3
'A, 26, 5 '/2, and 7 as `collectors' in their transportation network.
it Sian
�� d
•
•
Page 2
Another misrepresented and misunderstood issue for the Life Bridge development plan is
building height. This misrepresented issue has been used to intentionally create
opposition. The view of the mountains is not a privilege as the neighbor who owns
property to the west of you may have the ability to build and block your view. However,
LifeBridge and the neighboring communities have worked together to create a plan that
has substantially minimized the impact of the view.
We understand that during the last 45 days the proposed maximum building height on the
160-acre church campus has been reduced so that on 90 acres the maximum height is 45
feet or less; on 52 acres the maximum height is 60 feet; and on only 18 acres in the
middle of the campus,the maximum height is 90 feet. We know that 1% of the
development plan will have buildings over 60 feet and these buildings will be at the
center of the church campus. As a result of the reduced building heights and property
line setbacks, the LifeBridge development plan has an overall impact to the view, which
is less than a single-family development plan.
Another area where misunderstand has occurred is noise and lighting. LifeBridge
Christian Church is aware of Weld County and State of Colorado noise and lighting
ordinances and intends to meet or exceed the requirements of these ordinances.
For more than 110 years LifeBridge Christian Church has been a good neighbor and
important part of our community. LifeBridge has given tens of thousands of volunteers
and volunteer hours to the community to hundreds of different organizations. Life Bridge
has proven its commitment to make its facilities available for many other organizations
and the community, thus reducing the amount of dollars spent on public facilities in the
community.
By making these facilities available to social, civic, and community organizations,
whether they are profit or non-profit, whether they are faith-based or non faith-based. the
community receives the benefit.
Thank you for your providing me an opportunity to express my views on this plan, and
please represent me and my family in supporting the Change of Zone request.
Sincerely, at-JD
Barbara Desch
3803 Hummingbird Ct.
Mead, CO 80542
r" From: "Dale Tenny" <safetyrxguy@peakpeak.com>
To: <charding@co.weld.co.us>
Date: 4/17/03 10:19AM
Subject: Docket#2003-35, LifeBridge Christian Church
The fact that this issue drags on indicates that the County Commissioners ^'
have seemingly been corrupted by undue influence of the LifeBridge Church -i-j '-
and its special agent of corruption --Commissioner Vlad. We hope all rj i -`;
current commissioners are out of office next election, and will work towards C' _' ' r
that end.. -' "C.7
Dale and Natalie Tenny
r 2112 Bryant Drive ti .9 _'
Longmont, CO 80504
720/494-8556 up
r
ISallt�'
From: 'Weathers, Steve"<Steve.Weathers@XCELENERGY.COM>
To: <mgeile@co.weld.co.us>, <gvaad@co.weld.co.us>, <dlong@co.weld.co.us>,
<wjerke@co.weld.co.us>, <rmasden@co.weld.co.us>, <vsprague@co.weld.co.us>
Date: 4/17/03 1:23PM
Subject: Proposed LifeBridge Church Development
Commissioners,
We live at 2133 Blue Mountain Rd in the Meadow Vale Subdivision and are writing you in regard to the
proposed LifeBridge Church development which is scheduled to be built to the west of our community.
While we have a number of concerns with the scope of the development, such as increased traffic and
noise, additional strain on water and sewer systems as well as police and fire protection, we are most
concerned with the proposed interconnection of our community's roads with the new development.
We purchased our home a year ago and one of the main reasons we were attracted to Meadow Vale was
the fact that it is a small, quiet, close-knit community in the country with very little traffic, and its associated
noise. Traffic for the most part is limited to those that live in the area. Residents are free to walk around
the neighborhood without fear of speeding cars driving through the area. Because traffic is mainly limited
to residents we also believe it increases the overall security of the area because you become familiar with
people and cars from the neighborhood; it makes it much easier to spot those that don't belong.
The streets in our sub-division also were designed to support local traffic and won't support the increased
traffic from the new development without being upgraded. I'm sure any upgrade would include a widening
of the street, which would obviously impact my front yard as well as my neighbors that also border Blue
Mountain. The overall impact of these changes we feel will adversely impact our property values and the
overall quality of life that brought us here in the first place.
We respectfully request that you do not require the interconnection of our community's roads with that of
the development for LifeBridge Church.
Sincerely,
Steve Weathers n '
Colleen Shibao
2133 Blue Mountain Rd. Ti
Meadow Vale Farms �� -
303-772-7241 ; c;o
CC: "Shibao, Colleen" <Colleen.Shibao@XCELENERGY.COM>
1-n
Weld County Planning Department
r :_r; ;'f GREELEY OFFICE
APR 14 2003
Paul and Susan Entzel 10 rii 3: ?
360 Hunters Ridge Drive REC .
Mead, CO 80542 C
April 9, 2003
Weld County Planning
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Attn: Mr. Kim Ogle
Subject: Lifebridge Christian Church PUD Change of Zone Application
Dear Mr. Ogle:
We are residents and property owners in Mead and members of Lifebridge Christian. We would
like to express our support for the new church plans.
1. The Development Plan
We live in a rural area and drive to Longmont for the activities that are available now at
LifeBridge. We are looking forward to the new church being located closer to our home. There
have been many functions that we, teenagers included, would like to have attended, but due to
the drive we missed them.
There are several new home building projects that have been completed and that are planned in
this area. We are overloaded with children in the schools, since we cannot plan for the additional
attendance in a timely manner. LifeBridge is attempting to plan for the additional services need
when so many new people will be living in this area.
The positive aspects especially for this church far outweigh any disturbances due to noise, traffic,
lights, etc. The programs for teens, preteens, children, adults, and the elderly are tuned into that
age level, with positive influences, and concerns with the specific age for the participants.
We know several families that drive to Rocky Mountain Christian Church, because they attended
that church before they moved to Mead. We believe that new residents will want to attend
LifeBridge Church once they have attended a service.
2. Traffic
There is additional traffic due to the two Sunday morning services at LifeBridge. Most people
whom are out on Sunday mornings are usually on their way to or from a service. The traffic on
Hwy. 66 is regulated by a policeman at the street and volunteers inside the parking lot. The = -9
traffic is due to the 2-lane highway without a right or left turn lane. The traffic planning for a
church can't possibly be a limiting factor, since most of the traffic if from surrounding
neighborhoods. Our home is on Hunters Ridge Drive and Co. Rd. 7, one of the collectors in the
transportation network. If the traffic on Hwy. 66 is objectionable now, it will be a much larger
problem as the church grows. We believe that the traffic can be adequately predicted,
considering present traffic on Hwy. 66, and planned for.
3. Building Heights
We believe that the church has employed architects with good taste, backgrounds in architectural
compositions that are pleasing to the public. The general public usually has disdain for
commercial buildings lumped together by several owners and several architects with varying
tastes and pocketbooks.
4. Noise and Lighting
The church planners have already addressed these issues at large. The lighting for parking lots
and site lighting with ASHRAE 90.1 is overkill. We would prefer to be able to see our cars at
night in the parking lots. Hopefully the parking can be positioned and landscaped such that the
neighboring homes are not affected.
5. Exceptional Benefit
Lifebridge has been an exceptional benefit to our family and to the community. We have
participated in many community services sponsored by various groups at the church. We
especially enjoy taking our children and their friends to LifeBridge. We usually get phone calls
on Saturday from friends who need rides. My teenager would go to every teen function at
LifeBridge if she could. She has many friends who feel the same way about LifeBridge. We are
definitely looking forward to a closer facility.
Respectfully,
9aul Entzel,
Sue Entzel, PE
2
Weld County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
APR 14 2003
Kim Ogle
Weld County Planning Department RECEIVED
Dear Mr. Ogle,
My wife and I are residents of Weld County, and are writing this letter to inform you of
our support of the Change of Zone Application that LifeBridge Christian Church has
submitted. We are not members of the church but have taken advantage of many of the
community outreach activities sponsored by the church. We have appreciated it's
willingness to reach out to the community with such a spirit of giving.
As we read the newspaper accounts of neighbors and their complaints against the Church
moving out to the 119 property, we have been saddened by the misinformation that is
being purported as fact. Specifically with respect to the traffic issue,these neighbors
have reported that there will be 56,000 cars per day associated with the church. This is
simply not true, and we feel has been passed around as fact and designed to further
inflame the issue. Traffic studies show that when everything is said and done, years
down the road, true numbers will be closer to 12,500 cars. We resent these neighbors'
inflating the facts in this way.
We also have knowledge that LifeBridge has made many concessions concerning
building heights in the last several months, that there will be a small portion of the
development that will have buildings over 90 feet, in fact only 1%of the plan will have
buildings over 60 feet. LifeBridge has also worked extensively with these neighbors on
issues of noise and lighting, having scaled back considerably from their original plans. In
our opinion the church has been extremely generous in their offers and efforts to work
with the neighbors.
I suppose that we too would be saddened to lose the rural land around us and the views of
the front range if we were in their shoes. However, this land will be developed, if not by
LifeBridge,then by someone else. Their views and quiet rural living were never
guaranteed to remain forever.
We feel that Weld County is lucky to have LifeBridge within it's boundaries. They have
shown themselves to be good neighbors, unselfish with the use of their facilities, and
generous with their volunteer hours within the community. We welcome them and hope
that you will do the same.
Respectfullly,
ciduL
�.�C�.���VO i \ )RQ L L� I`0\Vf
s \
IC\1 1�t\� )1 � S EXHIBIT
v? 11
�Cl31
0-t- -e i y am3
Weld County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
Mr. Ken Ogle
Weld County Planning -1. I R APR 1 7 2003
1555 N. 17th Ave
Greeley, Co 80631 RECEIVED
Dear Mr. Ogle,
We are writing this letter to show our support for the proposed zoning changes for the
Lifebridge Christian Church campus on Hwy 119.
We feel that the proposed 113 acre plan will be a good improvment and much needed community
facility. We feel that the plan is consistent with
the Weld County PUD plans and fits the future development of this area.
We also believe that Lifebridge church has a 110 year history of help and support to this
community. Their future plans have been very well
prepared and thought out, and fits into the Weld County guidelines.
Traffic will not be a problem, and opponents to this development have greatly
exaggerated their figures. Studies are showing that there will
only be about 3000 car trips daily, and these include church and residential use.
We also feel that concems over building heights have been way overstated. Lifebridge
and local resident groups have worked together on a
plan that will not unneccesarily block mountain views for the neighbors.Only 1% of the
development would have heights over 60 ft. and that is in the
center of the campus.
Concerns over noise and lighting are also unfounded. Lifebridge has always been very
careful not to exceed what is allowed by the ordinances.
We strongly feel that Lifebridge has been an outstanding member of this community for
over a century. Thousand of volunteers have given of
their time and resources to help improve the lives of community members. The new facility would
be a benefit and would be used by many community
groups for gatherings, reducing the need for other monies to be spent on such facilities.
Thanks for all your effort and time spent on this project,
Jeff and Janet Sill
4908 Weld County Rd 34
Platteville, CO 80651
(970)535-0521
I I
11-0-4,13 I I
.xunsit
Weld County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
APR 17 2003
I u r : 15 RECEIVED
Mr. Kim Ogle nr =-h
Weld County Planning Department n --
1555 N. 1rh Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Dear Mr. Ogle:
RE: LifeBridge Christian Church PUD Change of Zone Application
We are writing this letter to express our support for the proposed Change of Zone
request for the following reasons:
The LifeBridge 313-acre development plan is much more than a church. It will enhance
the community by integrating a church, single-family housing, senior housing, mixed-use
development, and neighborhood center. The 313-acre LifeBridge development plan
appears to be completely consistent within the Weld County PUD code. Weld County
planning maps have designated a neighborhood center on the property for several
years. Those people who believe that this area will remain rural Weld County are
misinformed.
The LifeBridge plan will provide the local community with some of the needed cultural,
educational, recreational, social, civic, community, commercial, and retail facilities, which
are greatly needed to serve the residents in the 1-25 MUD area at this time. Included in
this development plan are more than 90 acres for open space. This is not a new plan for
LifeBridge; LifeBridge Christian Church has a 110-year history of providing these same
benefits to the community.
We believe that the traffic data has been grossly over exaggerated and misrepresented
by a few people to intentionally create opposition. Those people who indicate the traffic
to be in excess of 56,000 cars per day are wrong.
The complete traffic study indicates that at final build-out the entire site will generate
about 25,000 car trips per day, which equates to about 12,500 cars. Of this total
approximately 9,000 car trips (or 4,500 cars) are a result of the church campus. The
balance of the traffic, approximately 16,000 car trips per day (or 8,000 cars), is a result
of the single-family housing, senior housing, mixed-use, and neighborhood development.
The traffic study indicates that in Phase One the traffic is approximately 3,000 car trips
per day (or 1,500 cars). Of this total approximately 1,000 car trips per day (or 500 cars)
are a result of the church campus. The balance of the traffic, which is approximately
2,000 car trips per day (or 1,000 cars), is a result of the single-family housing and senior
housing development.
Major transportation corridors, which are roads that are designated as highways,
arterials, and collectors, surround the LifeBridge property, allowing for the design of
�I#It IT
-1-
4 c
roads that will accommodate the projected traffic. Weld County had already designated
County Roads 3-1/2, 26, 5-1/2, and 7 as "collectors" in their transportation network.
We believe that the LifeBridge development plan for building heights is another
misrepresented and misunderstood issue that has been used to intentionally create
opposition. Most everyone understands that a view of the mountains is not a privilege;
your neighbor who owns the property west of you probably has the ability to build and
block your view. Yet I understand that together LifeBridge and the residents have
worked together to create a plan that has substantially minimized the impact to the view.
This plan required both sides to give and meet in the middle in order to compromise on
this issue.
We understand that during the last 45 days the proposed maximum building height on
the 160-acre church campus has been reduced so that on 90 acres the maximum height
is 45 feet or less; on 52 acres the maximum height is 60 feet; and only on 18 acres, in
the center of the campus, the maximum height is 90 feet. We understand that 1% of the
development plan will have buildings over 60 feet and these building will be at the center
of the church campus. As a result of the reduced building heights and property line
setbacks, the LifeBridge development plan has an overall impact to the view which is
less than a single-family housing development plan.
Noise and lighting is another area where some misunderstanding has occurred. We
understand that LifeBridge has been aware of the Weld County and State of Colorado
noise and lighting ordinances and has always intended to meet or exceed the
requirements of those ordinances.
We believe that LifeBridge Christian Church has been a good neighbor and an important
part of our community for over 110 years. LifeBridge has given tens of thousands of
volunteers and volunteer hours to the community to hundreds of different organizations.
LifeBridge has proven its commitment to make its facilities available for many other
organizations and the community, thus reducing the amount of dollars spent on public
facilities in the community.
By making the facilities available to social, civic, and community organizations, whether
they are profit or non-profit, whether they are faith-based or non faith-based, the
community receives the benefit
Thank you for your consideration and please represent my support for this plan that will
result in a benefit to our entire community.- GcC
Respectfully, �,t� ✓� G��(r L LAA-5‘ /�
c
W `
1c� U t t
-2-
r Weld County Planning Department
v LI = GREELEY OFFICE
APR 1 7 2003
t,.N
Dennis J. Nevins
109 Mallard Ct. N6 Ai
t-"i C+... Mead,CO 80542
970-535-4094
(email: Dennis.Nevins r(D,Merant.com )
April 9, 2003
Mr. Kim Ogle
Weld County Planning Department
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Dear Mr. Ogle:
RE: LifeBridge Christian Church PUD Change of Zone Application
I'd first like you to know that I am a resident of Weld County and a member LifeBridge
Christian Church. I am writing this letter to express my support for the proposed Change
of Zone request for the following reasons:
The LifeBridge 313-acre development plan is much more than a church. It will enhance
the community by integrating a church, single-family housing, senior housing, mixed-use
development, and neighborhood center. The 313-acre LifeBridge development plan
appears to be completely consistent within the Weld County PUD code. Weld County
planning maps have designated a neighborhood center on the property for several
years. Those people who believe that this area will remain rural Weld County are
misinformed.
The LifeBridge plan will provide the local community with some of the needed cultural,
educational, recreational, social, civic, community, commercial, and retail facilities, which
are greatly needed to serve the residents in the 1-25 MUD area at this time. Included in
this development plan are more than 90 acres for open space. This is not a new plan for
LifeBridge; LifeBridge Christian Church has a 110-year history of providing these same
benefits to the community.
I and our church members believe that the traffic data has been grossly over
exaggerated and misrepresented by a few people to intentionally create opposition.
Those people who indicate the traffic to be in excess of 56,000 cars per day are wrong.
The complete traffic study indicates that at final build-out the entire site will generate
about 25,000 car trips per day, which equates to about 12,500 cars. Of this total
approximately 9,000 car trips (or 4,500 cars) are a result of the church campus. The
balance of the traffic, approximately 16,000 car trips per day (or 8,000 cars), is a result
of the single-family housing, senior housing, mixed-use, and neighborhood development.
t ,
-1
The traffic study indicates that in Phase One the traffic is approximately 3,000 car trips
per day (or 1,500 cars). Of this total approximately 1,000 car trips per day (or 500 cars)
are a result of the church campus. The balance of the traffic, which is approximately
2,000 car trips per day (or 1,000 cars), is a result of the single-family housing and senior
housing development.
Major transportation corridors, which are roads that are designated as highways,
arterials, and collectors, surround the LifeBridge property, allowing for the design of
roads that will accommodate the projected traffic. Weld County had already designated
County Roads 3-1/2, 26, 5-1/2, and 7 as "collectors" in their transportation network.
I and our church members believe that the LifeBridge development plan for building
heights is another misrepresented and misunderstood issue that has been used to
intentionally create opposition. Most everyone understands that a view of the mountains
is not a privilege; your neighbor who owns the property west of you probably has the
ability to build and block your view. Yet I understand that together LifeBridge and the
residents have worked together to create a plan that has substantially minimized the
impact to the view. This plan required both sides to give and meet in the middle in order
to compromise on this issue.
I and our church members understand that during the last 45 days the proposed
maximum building height on the 160-acre church campus has been reduced so that on
90 acres the maximum height is 45 feet or less; on 52 acres the maximum height is 60
feet; and only on 18 acres, in the center of the campus, the maximum height is 90 feet. I
and our church members understand that 1% of the development plan will have
buildings over 60 feet and these building will be at the center of the church campus. As a
result of the reduced building heights and property line setbacks, the LifeBridge
development plan has an overall impact to the view which is less than a single-family
housing development plan.
Noise and lighting is another area where some misunderstanding has occurred. I and
our church members understand that LifeBridge has been aware of the Weld County
and State of Colorado noise and lighting ordinances and has always intended to meet or
exceed the requirements of those ordinances.
I and our church members believe that LifeBridge Christian Church has been a good
neighbor and an important part of our community for over 110 years. LifeBridge has
given tens of thousands of volunteers and volunteer hours to the community to hundreds
of different organizations. LifeBridge has proven its commitment to make its facilities
available for many other organizations and the community, thus reducing the amount of
dollars spent on public facilities in the community.
By making the facilities available to social, civic, and community organizations, whether
they are profit or non-profit, whether they are faith-based or non faith-based, the
community receives the benefit
-2-
In summary, the Weld County Planning Department is a very important part of our
application. Our LifeBridge Christian Church PUD application is approved or opposed
by the vote of elected officials and relies on how your voice being heard. I am strongly
requesting that you participate in this process. If you have any questions, please contact
Bruce Grinell, Administrator of Life Bridge Christian Church @ 303-776-2927 or myself
@ 970-381-0083 (cell).
Thank you for your consideration and please represent my support for this plan that will
result in a benefit to our entire community
Respectfully,
967-afritt
- Dennis
Dennis Nevins
Account Manager
MERANT Inc.
970-535-4690 (office)
970-381-0083 (cell)
503-629-0186 (fax)
email: dennis.nevins@merant.com
http://www.merant.com
-3-
ESTHER Gesick LifeBridge Application Page 1 E
111:71 n
From: Rod Schmidt <rschmidt@Acosta.com>
To: 'Weld Cty- Kim Ogle' <kogle@co.weld.co.us>
Date: 4/21/03 1:15PM 7r:. rnn 2 j PRi 3` h?
Subject: LifeBridge Application
Dear Kim,
I'm writing this letter to appraise yourself and the County Commissioners of
my decision to reverse my opposition to LifeBridge's planned annexation of
the property that borders our development (Meadowvale Farms), and support
the application.
This reversal is the result of a significant number of meetings a small
group of homeowners from both Meadowvale Farms and the Elms has had with
representatives of LifeBridge (Bruce Grinnell and Reg Golden) in an attempt
to mitigate issues that have been both publicly and privately aired.
LifeBridge has shown a great deal of willingness to mitigate those concerns,
and in fact is bringing a final proposition to you that I believe grants all
parties concessions, and still keeps the development well within the
targeted goals and objectives of the church.
I do however, have a major issue that centers around the potential of the
county recommending interconnectivity between the LifeBridge subdivision and
the MeadowVale properties (both the Farms and the Elms). While I do
understand Weld county's intent on all future developments in suburban areas
is to promote interconnectivity, due to the substantial differences in the
community"types" (Commercial applications versus Medium Density
r residential in the Elms, and Retirement Village versus low density
residential "Ag"development in the Farms), I see potential conflict arising
in the communities, with no real perceived benefit to any of the
communities.
Personally, I would hate to see any retirement village connected to a
development that has a large number of children. It seems we open up
subtstantial issues for conflict by opening up the potential for young
people driving vehicles and recreation vehicles through a retirement
village. In fact, it would seem to me this could potentially create a
negative in terms of LifeBridge's marketing efforts to sell property to
retirees.
In closing, I would personally like to commend Bruce Grinnell and Reg Golden
for their willingness to work with the homeowners in our developments to
mitigate the issues residents in our subdivisions. I believe the result is
a development the will add value to our developments, and ultimately create
a community that we, as well as Weld County, will be proud of.
Sincerely
Rod
Rod Schmidt
Acosta Sales &Marketing - Director of Client Services
3045 S Parker Road
Denver, Co. 80014
303-923-6076
g
t _
ESTHER Gesick LifeBridge Application Page 2
909-720-8827 (cell)
CC: 'Weld Cty-MJ Geile' <mgeile@co.weld.co.us>, 'Weld Cty- David Long'
<dlong@co.weld.co.us>, 'Weld Cty-Glenn Vaad' <gvaad@co.weld.co.us>, 'Weld Cty- Robert Masden'
<rmasden@co.weld.co.us>, 'Weld Cty-William Jerke' <wjerke@co.weld.co.us>
PATANA
OIL&GAS CORPORATION
1625 Broadway, Suite 2000
April 21 , .r ,,1;,i Denver, Colorado 80202
200 ' ;' ! }. (303) 389-3600
(303) 389-3680 Fax
Via Fax(970)352-0242,
/ JJ
e-mail"charding@co.weld.co.us"& U.S. Mail
Board of County Commissioners of Weld County,Colorado
Weld County Centennial Center
915 10th Street, 1st Floor
Greeley,CO 80631
Re: Docket#2003-35,Change of Zone
Township 2 North,Range 68 West,6th P.M.
Section 5: W1/2SE1/4, Wl/2E1/2SE1/4
Weld County, Colorado
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Patina Oil & Gas Corporation ("Patina") has received notice from the Board of County Commissioners of
Weld County regarding the proposed request for a Change of Zone of the captioned property ("Property").
Patina owns oil and gas leasehold rights and has rights to drill oil and gas wells on the Property. Patina is
concerned about the impact the proposed development will have on Patina's ability to drill, produce, operate
and maintain wells, pipelines, access roads and production facilities on the Property. To date, Patina has
r-. received no confirmation from the Applicant that Patina's real property rights to use a reasonable portion of
the surface for oil and gas operations and development are being preserved.
Patina requests assurance from the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County that the proposed
development will not preclude Patina from drilling,producing, operating and maintaining oil and gas wells and
their related facilities on the Property. Until this matter is resolved by agreement with the Applicant, Patina is
not waiving its rights as a leasehold owner. Any approval of the proposed development should be conditioned
upon the preservation of Patina's real property rights that allow it to make reasonable use of the surface of the
lands for oil and gas operations. The proposed development must take into account and provide adequate
setbacks from Patina's future well sites, pipelines and production facilities as well as continuous access to
these facilities.
Patina requests that these comments be entered into the record for this matter and that we continue to be
provided with advance notice of all other hearings affecting the Property. If you have any questions, please feel
free to contact the undersigned at(303)389-3600.
Sincerely,
PA
OIL AS CORPORAITON
avid W. iple
Vice President
cc: Lifebridge Christian Church
/ Laurel Zabel,Astrella&Rice
SI/16
YSA I Express
1517 Main St. #D2 __ 2 I El 3 0"
Weld County Planning Department
Longmont, CO 80501
r-� _ GREELEY OFFICE
Mr. Kim Ogle REC."_',
APR 1 S 2003
Weld County Department of Planning Services
Weld County Administration Office RECEIVED
1555 N. 17th
Greeley, CO 80631
April 10, 2003
Dear Mr. Ogle;
We are writing this letter in support of the LifeBridge Christian Church development off of
Highway 119 and Weld County Rd 1. The St. Vrain Youth Soccer Association (SVYSA) is a
not-for-profit 501 (c) 3 organization that supports youth in our community to engage in the sport
of soccer at both a recreational and competitive level. We were established in 1981 and provided
soccer to a handful of teams. Today we currently have in excess of 2,100 soccer players, (210
teams) in our leagues between the ages of four and 18.
The SVYSA has the opportunity to work with numerous individuals, families, and organizations
in the community of Longmont and surrounding areas. LifeBridge Christian Church is another
local organization that also promotes youth sports for their members as well as the community at
large. For many years, LifeBridge has sponsored numerous teams, provided coaches, and been
an active partner to the SVYSA in promoting a positive environments for kids. Through the
combined scholarship efforts of both LifeBridge and the SVYSA, many underprivileged children
who would not have been able to play soccer have been able to enjoy the benefits of playing
organized youth soccer.
This proposed development will certainly allow for the growing needs of LifeBridge, yet also
fulfills the growing community need for facilities. The plans include a sports center, senior
housing center, and parks. Development seems inevitable in this world of ours but if the growth
can be positive and beneficial to the community, we support it. This project promises to be both.
It would seem that if you had the opportunity to choose a neighbor for development in your
backyard LifeBridge, and this project would be chosen.
Please accept the support of the SVYSA including our Recreational and Competitive Councils.
We can be reached at (303) 651-3109, or by e-mail at stvrainyouthsocc@gwest.net in the event
you would like to discuss this matter further. If there is anything we can do to assist with this
project, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely, Sincerely, Sincerely, fly
/12-44 041eerleeelgad J
114-
a y o Mike DiGiallonardo Eileen Maddox
SVYSA-President Director-Recreational Soccer Director-Fields y
eXHIBI f
04/21/03 17:30 FAX 970 304 6488 WELD PLANNING 002
60geki,
Weld County Referral
WIND
April 21, 2003
C
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Life Bddge Christian Church Case Number PZ-1004
Please Reply By NEED NOT RESPOND AGAIN, Planner Kim Ogle
JUST NOTE NEW HEARING
DATE
Project RID 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 RE-1389 and pert of Section 5,T2N,R68W of the 8th P.M.,Weld County,
Colorado.
Location South of and adjacent to WCR 26;North of and adjacent to Hwy 119;West of and adjacent
to Fairview Street
Parcel Number 1313 05 000054,1313 05 000060, 1313 05 000082, 1313 05 000006
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. My comments or recommendation you consider
relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may give full
consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be deemed to be a
positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions regarding the application,
please call the Planner associated with the request.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (II April 22,2003 at 9:00 a.m.,
applicable) Southwest Weld Complex
4209 WCR 24 t/,
Longmont, CO 80504
CI We have reviewed the request end find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
O We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
U See attached letter.
Comments: /Q CO Min Ear C
Signature ')2Vc?;,1244_, (,� QN Date Y z U
Agency Y'Tr;tPtS r w"
c-Weld County Planning Dept. +1555 N.17th Ave.Creelay,CO.80631 +(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +u(970 "EXHIBR
225
04/22/03 08:13 FAX 970 304 6498 WELD PLANNING Lit on
11/04/:4 46:11 FREDERICK TOWN GOUT 4 970 304 6496 NO.107 D01
,`0.4-24
a., TOWN OF FREDERICK
401 LOCUST STREET• P. BOX 435 • FREDERICK,CO 80530
170-r.---4i; O.PHONE: (303)833-2388 • FAX: (303)8333817
1,4� r.f.1,ti1
"1.7 4i
April22,2003
RE:Life Bridge Church
Dear Mr.Ogle;
The Town of Frederick is aware of the building plane for the Life Bridge Church. We want
you to know that Frederick is not opposed to these plans.
Sincerely,
radjej 0,#‘7___
Richard P.Wyatt
Mayor
EXHIBIT
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' SIGN POSTING CERTIFICATE
THE LAST DAY TO POST THE SIGN IS MARCH 3, 2003 THE SIGN SHALL BE POSTED
ADJACENT TO AND VISIBLE FROM A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
IN THE EVENT THE PROPERTY BEING CONSIDERED FOR A SPECIAL REVIEW IS NOT
ADJACENT TO A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE DEPARTMENT
OF PLANNING SERVICES SHALL POST ONE SIGN IN THE MOST PROMINENT PLACE ON
THE PROPERTY AND POST A SECOND SIGN AT THE POINT AT WHICH THE DRIVEWAY
(ACCESS DRIVE) INTERSECTS A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
I, KIM OGLE, HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE SIGN WAS
POSTED ON THE PROPERTY AT LEAST FIFTEEN DAYS BEFORE THE PLANNING
COMMISSIONERS HEARING FOR PZ-1004, A PUD CHANGE OF ZONE FROM (A)
AGRICULTURAL TO PUD WITH (E) ESTATE; (R-1) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; (R-2)
DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL; (R-3) MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; (R-4) HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL; (C-1) NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND (C-2) GENERAL COMMERCIAL
IN THE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT
KIM OGLE
Name of Person Posting Sign
Sign erson Posting Sign
STATE OF COLORADO
) ss.
COUNTY OF WELD
}} it
The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to me this ! 1 day of I / , 2003.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
1}4LIth
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:_� l
f
FIELD CHECK
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1004 DATE OF INSPECTION: /may/ -a7
APPLICANT'S NAME: LIFE BRIDGE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
PLANNER: KIM OGLE
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.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of Recorded Exemption 1389 and Part of Section 5, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado 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.
LAND USE. � -es>i�
N !.•�1�'L+ic:�LLG14' r ate� ./��C2G:�zL<!_°��'e2_`-
E xf22ZerC ( 2WC° e> 51ec a\ '
W ,/Le'alicitVre L (ce'dey eze'ect) l Cy l ,-G'/i c2eNc_
ZONING: N A(Agricultural)
E A(Agricultural)
S A(Agricultural)
W A(Agricultural)
COMMENTS:
Cir 2L't,?i/ite&e tez'4� e 9.-4..ca /1 6atzee;
sU
P.C. Member
.4+" T
%
APR-21-2003 MON 11 : 11 AM FAX NO. P. 01
TETRATECH RMC
1900 S.Sunset Street,Suite l-F Longmont,CO 80501
Tel:303.7725282 Fate 303.665.6959
TRANSMITTAL
TO: _1) lal ('e.1 Ptrxrn“, t[r .1 .b`1t , FROM: l?race- �
LtiC,c-J ty. CItk A' e . DATE: 4'Zl— 02-Th
teg\ 5OGl1 _
ATTN: Kv Oq‘£ PROJECT: Li e. &ger & C fl iS[lcth 611X0
PHONE: Cr* 3'53 Co 1 D O JOB NO: go-- 42')O . QC)) . CO
Fax Number: 9rl o " 3O ft - Co`-(1 g if you do not receive all pages, or if
7t, Number of pages sent(including this cover): I Z+ pages. transmission is not clear please call
Tetra Tech RMC at(303)772-5282.
Messenger - Delivery _ Pickup _ Other _
Standard Mail
FedEx Overnight
WE ARE SENDING YOU:
Copies Description 1 Le4c€ tp My . 1rvt O 1\C_ re : rvarit (1r' 7Jv.e Ak\PL.uartE
_ Lr4Gr 'to onicc:Lcw,lelv. rs? ' }ii*l'grtlt'o✓1 Agvgc e✓d
If enclosures are not as noted,please notify ue promptly.
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED:
For Approval As Requested
For Your Use For Review and Comment
REMARKS:
COPY TO:
MOW
Document?
CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING• PLANNING• SURVEYING
• TETRATECH RMC
Mr. Kim Ogle
Weld County Department of Planning Services
Weld County Administrative Offices
1555 North 17th Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Re: LifeBridge Change of Zone Application Allowances, April 14, 2003
Dear Kim:
LifeBridge planning staff has continued to meet with the surrounding property owners
within Longview, Elms, and Meadow Vale Farm. Their goal remains to listen to the concerns of
the area neighbors and to work together in order to reach reasonable and sensible solutions to the
issues that are presented. To date many issues have been discussed and as a result LifeBridge has
made additional allowances. As a result of the recent allowances LifeBridge Christian Church has
received the support of homeowners who have previously opposed the application.
The purpose of this letter is twofold. First, in this transmittal we will identify the
allowances that have been negotiated as a result of several meetings between five representatives of
the property owners and/or residents within Meadow Vale Farms and the Elms at Meadowvale
(Rod Schmidt, Rick Archer, Vicki Braunagel, Duane Braunagel, and Bill Norris), and two
representatives of LifeBridge Christian Church (Bruce Grinnell and Reg Golden).
Second, as an addendum to this transmittal, we will provide a list of property owners and/or
residents who, as a result of these allowances, now are either neutral or in support the LifeBridge
Change of Zone Application.
Please understand that some of these allowances have been previously discussed and
included in prior transmissions to the Weld County Planning Staff. Additionally some of the
allowances are required by Weld County Code, yet they are included as an assurance and as an
item of clarity to the property owners.
The allowances for inclusion in the LifeBridge Change of Zone application are as follows:
1. A 125' setback on the eastern perimeter of the development. (An allowance in our letter
dated Feb 27, 2003.)
2. A landscaped berm within the 125' setback, along the eastern perimeter of the development,
for buffering and screening. See Weld County Code Section 27.2.30 (An allowance
identified in our letter dated Feb 27, 2003.)
3. All lighting within the PUD will be directional lighting to minimize off site glare. In order
to meet minimum foot-candles for parking areas we 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. (An allowance identified in our letter
dated Feb 27, 2003.)
4. The requirement for Open Space will meet the 20%requirement of Weld County Code
Section 27.2.60 and Appendix 26E.
5. The proposed LifeBridge PUD development plan does not request connectivity of streets to
the adjacent neighborhoods. LifeBridge supports the property owners and/or residents who
1900 S.Sunset Street,Suite 1-F Longmont,CO 80501
Tel:303.7725282 Fax:303.665.6959
www.ttrmc.com
TETRATECH RMC
are opposed to the connectivity of the streets in the development plan to both Pearl Howlett
in the Elms at Meadowvale, and Blue Mountain Road in Meadow Vale Farms.
6. The amphitheatre has been removed from phase one of the church campus. (An allowance
identified in our letter dated Feb 27, 2003.)
7. The size of a future phase amphitheatre has been reduced from 5000 seats to 1500 seats and
has been restricted to the northwest corner of the church campus. (An allowance identified
in our letter dated Feb 27, 2003.)
8. All references and plans for a 5000-seat prayer garden and/or amphitheatre have been
removed from the application. (An allowance identified in our letter dated Feb 27, 2003.)
9. At the time of final plat, LifeBridge Christian Church will execute a deed restriction on the
area designated as senior living to limit the use of the property for the development of a
senior community.
10. The following table establishes the maximum building heights on the 160-acre church
campus; this table replaces all other definitions. (An allowance identified in our letter dated
Apr 8, 2003.)
Church Campus only Off Set from perimeter of the 160 Maximum
acre Church Campus Building Height
West Property Line 125 `—400' 45'
(Quarter section line on section 5) 400' - 500' of 155'
(Approximately WCR3-1/2) 500'+ 90'**
North Property Line 125' - 400' 45'
(Section line on section 5) 400' — 700' 55'
(Approximately WCR26) 700'- 1300' 60'
1300'+ 60' (90'**)
East Property Line 125 `—400' 45'
(Section line on section 5) 400' - 500' 55'
(Approximately Elms property line) 500'-700' 60'
700'+ 60' (90'**)
South Property Line 125' —300' 45'
(Quarter Section line on Section 5) 300' —400' 55'
400' — 800' 60'
800'+ 60' (90'**)
Added restriction: North of the Great Western RR 45'
North and South of RR 125'
(90'** ) The overall height within the center of the church campus will be restricted to 60'
with up to 150,000 total square feet of building footprint within this area that may extend up to 90'.
• TETRATECH RMC
11. The building height restrictions as identified in item 10 above, set the following restriction
on the 160-acre portion of the development plan identified as the church campus.
a. Approximately 30 acres of the church campus will have no buildings.
b. Approximately 60 acres of the church campus will be allowed to have buildings
with a maximum of 45 feet in height.
c. Approximately 15 acres of the church campus will be allowed to have buildings
with a maximum of 55 feet in height.
d. Approximately 37 acres of the church campus will be allowed to have buildings
with a maximum of 60 feet in height.
e. Approximately 18 acres, near the center of the church campus, will be allowed to
have buildings up to 60 feet in height. Additionally, up to 150,000 sqft of the
building footprint within this area may extend up to a maximum of 90 feet in height.
12. LifeBridge Christian Church proposes to restrict an area from any building development
through year 2013. This restricted area is defined as the area inside of the setbacks as
listed in the table below. This area is approximately the eastern 30% of the area referred to
in item 11 e above.
Church Campus only Off Set from perimeter of the 160 acre
Church Campus
West Property Line 1500'
North Property Line 1300'
East Property Line 700'
South Property Line 800'
The church will continue to work with the neighbors to mitigate their concerns and will keep you
informed of their progress. Please call if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
TETRA TECH RMCticulo Barb Brunk
Landscape Architect
TETRA TECH RMC
Addendum to the LifeBridge Change of Zone Application Allowances dated April 14, 2003.
The following is a list of property owners and/or residents who have previously opposed the
LifeBridge Change of Zone application, but as a result of the allowances specifically identified in
the transmittal of Barb Brunk of TetraTech RMC to Kim Ogle of Weld County Department of
Planning Services dated April 14, 2003, are now either neutral or in support of the application.
1. Rod& Cindy Schmidt 1873 Blue Mountain Road, Meadow Vale Farm
2. Bill&Joyce Norris 1872 Blue Mountain Road, Meadow Vale Farm
3. Gordon&Lori Miller 1896 Blue Mountain Road, Meadow Vale Farm
4. Denise&Lane Butler 1897 Blue Mountain Road, Meadow Vale Farm
5. Ted &Cecilia Schultz 1921Blue Mountain Road, Meadow Vale Farm
6. Leianne& Steve Koch 1959 Blue Mountain Road, Meadow Vale Farm
7. Caroline Bustillos 1935 Blue Mountain Road, Meadow Vale Farm
8. John M. Schroeder 1942 Blue Mountain Road, Meadow Vale Farm
9. Paul M. Hallmark 1964 Blue Mountain Road, Meadow Vale Farm
10. Carrie Shellenberger 2343 Meadow Vale Road, Meadow Vale Farm
11. Rick Archer 11691 Victor Drive, The Elms at Meadow Vale
12. Joe Willis 11654 Victor Dr, The Elms at Meadow Vale
13. Matt&Julie Olson 11732 Victor Dr, The Elms at Meadow Vale
14. Scott & Gretchen Pratt 11713 Victor Dr,The Elms at Meadow Vale
15. Rick& Lisa Archer 11691 Victor Dr, The Elms at Meadow Vale
16. Tony&Linda Mollohan 11686 Victor Dr, The Elms at Meadow Vale
17. Jim&Carol Kriege 11702 Victor Dr, The Elms at Meadow Vale
18. Ian&Darla Gabbitas 11627 Victor Dr, The Elms at Meadow Vale
19. Anthony&Kristen Maglia 11730 Montgomery Circle, The Ehns at Meadow Vale
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Sincerely, Sincerely,
kct
Rod Schmidt Rick Archer
1873 Blue Mountain Road 11691 Victor Drive
Meadow Vale Farms The Elms at Meadowvale
^
1900 S.Sunset Street,Sults 14 Longmont,CO 80501
Tel:303.7723282 Fu 303.665.6959
APR-21-2003 MON 11 13 AM FAX NO, P. 06
i" St#CA3/4.4\44"••---
t.. Vr�Valley
School District
March 10, 2003 X
Monica Daniels-Mika,MCP
Weld County Planning Department
1555 N. 17th Ave.
Greeley,CO 80631
RE: Mitigation Agreement with LifeBridge Christian Church Change of Zone {Situate in Section 5,T2N,
R68 W)
}
Dear Monica:
Pending approval of the above application by Weld County,this will confirm that the St. Vrain Valley School
District has reached an agreement with Lifebridge Christian Church,evidenced by the signatures below, in
regard to the donation of mitigation funds to address the lack of school capacity for the Lifebridge PUD
subdivision. Lifebridge Christian Church has voluntarily offered to mitigate the impacts on the capacity of the
Skyline feeder secondary schools with a$1466 per unit payment on all single-family units. In addition,should
the senior housing not be restricted to eliminate future students this housing as well would be subject to the
mitigation fee volunteered by LifeBridge per the attached schedule. This mitigation essentially solves the
issue of exceeding the school benchmark by providing the funding necessary to add classroom space or help
construct new schools to accommodate the expected student yield from this project. In reliance upon the
expected receipt of'these funds prior to or at the time of the recording of each final plat for units within the
subdivision,the School District will not recommend denial of the project at this time.This agreement
therefore, supercedes any previous recommendations of denial made by the School District. The cash-in-lieu of
land dedication fee of$645 per unit shall also be provided in conformance with the school land dedication
policy already established between the County and the School District.
As indicated above,the mitigation payments shall be provided for all units in each final plat or filing of the
LifeBridge PUD subdivision prior to the release of any individual final plat for recording by the County. Any
future changes or variations requested by the developer on the standard mitigation calculation and payment
schedule would need to be considered by the School District Staff and/or the Board of Education. This could
include evaluating the possibility,but with no obligation,of the District deferring future payments by the
developer if the necessary additional school capacity is completed prior to construction of the first unit in this
project. Any changes, determined to be acceptable by the District,would be communicated to the County
Commissioners and Staff in writing.
Thanks for your assistance in this matter. Any further questions can be directed to the contacts and phone
numbers below.
Sincerely,
School District: Developer:
LifeBridge Christian Church
Sc t Totllian A'ICP y me Gn 1
Director of Planning Admi ' trator,
St.Vrain Valley School District LifeBridge Christian Ch h
303-682-7229 303-776-2927
Fax 303-682-7344 Fax 303-776-2902
ST,VRAIN VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING DEPARTMENT.395 SOUTH PRATT PARKWAY,LONGMONT,CO
80501. SCOTT TOILLION,DIRECTOR. PHONE 303.682-7229. FAX 303-682-7344,
APR-21-2003 M0N 11 : 13 AM FAX NO. P. 07
File: FOB
VOLUNTARY CAPITAL MITIGATION
New residential development has an impact on the capacity of existing school facilities
within the district due to the predictable increase in students who will reside in the
development. Without an additional source of capital funding, the ability of the district to
provide adequate education facilities and opportunities for these students, concurrent
with the need for capacity, is severely hampered. The Board of Education recognizes
that the primary source for funding new school construction necessarily must be through
a bond election. However, the Board shall consider other options for obtaining funding
assistance and providing capacity, concurrent with the need, including the mitigation
efforts of developers through voluntary gifts, donations, and agreements.
Benchmark Review
Each school has a programmed student capacity number that is dependent primarily
upon the number of classrooms in the building and the staffing ratio of teachers to
students. For purposes of determining the availability of capacity that will provide
adequate educational opportunity for students of the school district, a benchmark of
125% of the building's capacity is used. The enrollment of students beyond this
benchmark imposes a significant strain on the core facilities and the daily schedule for a
school facility, thus negatively affecting the quality of education that can be provided.
The District has determined that once a school reaches 125% of capacity, based upon
enrollment and projections expected within the next five-year planning period, a referral
response recommending denial of any residential project will be forwarded to the
appropriate local governmental entity.
Benchmark Mitigation
A developer may voluntarily propose mitigation through a gift, donation, or other means
to alleviate the impact on school capacity generated by students who will reside in the
new residential units. Acceptance of the mitigation proposal shall be within the
discretion of the district, in consultation with the affected local governmental entity, and
shall be guided by the methodology contained in the regulations accompanying this
policy.
Adopted: July 31, 2002
LEGAL REFS.: C.R.S. 22-54-102
.-. St. Vrain Valley School District RE-1J, Longmont, Colorado 64 intlat
APR-21-2003 M0N 11 : 14 AM FAX NO, P. 08
File: FDB-R
�-. VOLUNTARY CAPITAL MITIGATION
Definition
Voluntary capital mitigation is the voluntary contribution of funds or other in-kind gifts,
donations or agreements by a developer of proposed residential units that would assist
the district in constructing additional classroom capacity. By definition, voluntary capital
mitigation funds will be used for capital improvements or projects and not on operating
expenditures.
Method of Evaluating Voluntary Capital Mitigation Proposals
Once a school has been determined to exceed the benchmark capacity and the district
has commenced writing letters recommending the denial of developments in response
to local governmental entity referrals, the district may review possible mitigation options
from developers to determine whether a positive recommendation to the referral may be
provided.
The following voluntary capital mitigation proposals shall be considered by the district in
determining whether a positive referral letter may be provided.
1. Construction of a new school facility or classroom space to serve the students of
the proposed new residential subdivision.
�• 2. Donation of funds that could be used toward the construction of new facilities or
classroom space to serve the students of the proposed new residential
subdivision.
Acceptance of the mitigation proposal shall be within the discretion of the district based
on an evaluation of student impacts on core facilities and the liming of the potential
capacity relief. Any cash-in-lieu of land payment or land dedication requirement based
on IGA's with the cities, towns and counties shall not be considered to be a capital
mitigation for purposes of this regulation.
Guidelines for Determining Appropriate Capital Mitigation Donations
The calculation of the voluntary capital mitigation amount shall take into consideration
the following components:
1. The cost of the classroom — Standard classroom size times the construction cost
per square feet, including common space.
2. Students in classroom — Standards for the number of students per classroom at
elementary, middle, or high school (staffing ratio) times the 125% benchmark
capacity.
3. Cost per student—Total cost of the classroom divided by the number of students
in the classroom at 125% of capacity.
4. Cost per dwelling unit— Cost per student times the student yield per type of unit.
Calculations would be made for each school level within the applicable school feeder
area with the mitigation amount considered only for those schools exceeding the
1 of 2
APR-21-2003 M0N 11 : 14 AM FAX NO. P. 09
File: FDB-R
benchmark capacity. Any variation from this standard calculation proposed by a
'S builder/developer must be reviewed by the Board of Education. Approval would only be
granted if it was determined that there was an exceptional benefit to the district.
Timing of the Voluntary Capital Mitigation Funds
Voluntary capital mitigation funds, if accepted by the school district, shall be provided
prior to or at the time of the recording of each final plat for units proposed within the
subdivision. This would allow for the use of the funds to begin construction of
classroom space concurrent with the construction of new residential dwelling units.
Other methods of staging the voluntary contribution would need to be reviewed by the
district on a case-by-case basis. If a sufficient revenue stream is provided for and
assured through an agreement with the developer that allows the district to fund
necessary capital improvements up front, the district would consider forwarding a
positive referral letter.
Use of Voluntary Capital Mitigation Funds
The district will use voluntary capital mitigation funds that it has received as follows:
1. If funds donated will allow for the complete construction of classroom space to
bring the capacity of a school up to the facility size standards per policy, the
district will commence with the design and construction of the project as soon as
possible, pending coordination with other building additions scheduled for the
school.
2. If funds are not adequate to complete the construction of the classroom space to
bring the capacity of a school up to the facility size standards, the district shall
deposit the funds in a capital construction account for the applicable school
feeder area. Design and construction will commence as soon as sufficient funds
can be obtained either through additional developer donations or other funding
efforts.
3. If the school is already at the facility size standards, the funds shall be deposited
in a capital construction account for the applicable school feeder area for use in
the construction of a new school to relieve the overcrowding at the existing
school. Donations provided under this circumstance could be used to reduce the
amount to be requested in future bond elections.
4. Funds may also be used to provide temporary capacity on a short-term basis
until the completion of the necessary permanent classroom capacity can be
provided.
5. If development causes enrollment to exceed the benchmark at one or more
schools in a community that does not have a self-contained feeder system (i.e.
elementary, middle and high school all in the same community), the funds
allocated to the school level(s) within that community shall be used only for
capital construction within the attendance boundary of each individual school that
serves the community.
Approved: July 31, 2002
St. Vrain Valley School District RE-1J, Longmont, Colorado
2 of 2
)
x.
MITIGATION OF IMPACTS ON SCHOOLS -COST FOR ADDITIONAL CLASSROOM SPACE .^_
MOBILE HOME ND
CAST OF CLA8SROOM i _ _ o
STANDARD CLASSROOM SIZE SQ.FT. 1000 �Ilncludes classroom area and associated hallways)
CONSTRUCTION COST PER SQ. FT.' $ 129.00 z
TOTAL COST Of CLASSROOM $ 129,000.00
a
SJUDEI{Tq N CLASSROOM I '
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL •• 3
100%OF CAPACITY 24 i •
STUDENTS @ 125%OF CAPACITY 30
I- ..
MIDDLE SCHOOL
10O%OF CAPACITY. 22
STUDENTS 0 125%OF CAPACITY 27.5 r I
HIGH SCHOOL •
. . .. ..._
100°/u OF CAPACITY 24.5 i i
STUDENTS @ 125%OF CAPACITY; 30.625 ;
i I
COST PER STUpENT T
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL : $ 4,300.00
i -
MIDDLE SCHOOL .. ... $ 4,690.91 __.-. i , •
HIGH SCHOOL $ 4,212.24 f
SJUDENT YIELD PER DWEW IO UNIT I- �_.....- ._._-. .._ ;. - - x
ELEMENTARY STUDENTS PER UNIT 0.26
MIDDLE STUDENTS PER UNIT 0.07 1 - ! - - } - _- --- oz
i -
HIGH STUDENTS PER UNIT 0.09 � � i I
1 f ; T i
post PER Mir CLASSROOM SPACE i
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL • $ 1 118.00 t _
MIDDLE SCHOOL $ 328.36
HIGH SCHOOL I $ 379.10 I s
1$ _ 1.825.7 L._ --- —--t---_ _ . — '_ _---- —
It-Classroom sq. IL cost estimated for a 5 classroom addition with architectural lees and construction costs ! r 1 11
O Im
(Si T
a
P
m
0
) ) ) ,
m.
xi
MITIGATION OF IMPACTS ON SCHOOLS -COST FOR ADDITIONAL CLASSROOM SPACE 'N'
MULTI-FAMILY No
COST OF CLASSROOM 13
IZE-SO.FT._ 1000 z(Inductee classroom area and associated hallways) �
STANDARD CLASSROOM S3
CONSTRUCTION COST PER sd. FT.' $ 129.00 0
z
TOTAL COST OF CLASSROOM $ 129,000.00
cn
STUDENTS W C.I.MSEpptill '
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL a
100%OF CAPACITY 24 .
STUDENTS @ 125%OF CAPACITY 30
MIDDLE SCHOOL
100%OF CAPACITY 22 • '
STUDENTS O 125%OF CAPACITY 27.5 I
HIGH SCHOOL
100%OF CAPACITY 24.5
STUDENTS tt#125%OF CAPACITY 30.625 ; i 1 '
t
COST PER STUDENT I
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL $ 4,300.00I
MIDDLE SCHOOL : $ 4,690 91 I _. .. j. __
HIGH SCHOOL $ 4,212.24 I
I { •
!
DT�P�NT YIELD PEg DWJ LIN UNIT ! } I I X
ELEMENTARY STUDENTS PER UNIT 0.15
MIDDLE STUDENTS PER UNIT 0.08 I I i I o
HIGH STUDENTS PER UNIT 0.02
CORN"'piing fly;CIAS1ROOMJP)CE _._..- -1-.--- _--- _ -_
_ .._....._.-_.. . ._ 1
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - $ 645.00
MILE SCHOOL .... $ 375.27 .- _ '. .
HIGH SCHOOL $ 84.24 I ! '
$ 1,104.52 I . . L_
N) Classroom sq. cost estimated fora 5 classroom addition with architectural fees and construction costaII
11 fl.
o ��
o
GI -n
a
m
m
-o
i
..) •
-o
pc
MITIGATION OF IMPACTS ON SCHOOLS - COST FOR ADDITIONAL CLASSROOM SPACE ,^_.
QONOO?H N
COST OF CLASSROOM ! o
STANDARD CLASSROOM SIZE SO. FT. 1000 j(Inciudes classroom area and associated hallway -
s) 3
CONSTRUCTION COST PER SO Ft.' $ 129.00 ' ' o
1 • z
-
TOTAL COST OF CLASSROOM $ 129,000.00
. Cl
STUDENTS IN CLASSROOM . . 3
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
' 100%OF CAPACITY 24
STUDENTS(x3125%OF CAPACITY 30 '
MIDDLE SCHOOL
100%OF CAPACITY 22 _
STUDENTS Q 125%OF CAPACITY 27.5
HIGH SCHOOL_
-
100%OFCAPACITY 24.5
STUDENTS @ 125%OF CAPACITY 30.625 ;
CAST PER STUDENT
1 j I
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL $ 4,300.00
-
MIDDLE SCHOOL $ 4,690.91 ' i I- __._ -
HIGH SCHOOL - ; $ 4,212.24
STUDENT YIELD PERDWELLING UNIT_ _ I f a
ELEMENTARY STUDENTS PER UNIT 0.13 _ _
MIDDLE STUDENTS PER UNIT 0.11 i o
HIGH STUDENTS PER UNIT 0.05 I
1 .
CO$TpER UNIT FOR CLA,SROOM FACE
g
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL $ 559.00 ;
MIDDLE SCHOOL ' $ 516.00
HIGH SCHOOL -$ 210.61 ,
$ 1,265.611 i I.
'Classroom sq.ft.cost estimated for a 5 classroom addition with architectural fees and construction coals l . _T1
2.
oi -n
O
cli
-o
N
•
I ) )
MITIGATION OF IMPACTS ON SCHOOLS - COST FOR ADDITIONAL CLASSROOM SPACE
7/4-P7 cX
COST OF CLASSQOOM • .
C ; • _
STANDARD CLASSROOM SIZE-SO. FT. . 1600 l(Includes classroom area and associated hallways) -
CONSTRUCTION COST PER SQ FT.1 . $ 129.00 : ,
TOTAL COST OF CLASSROOM $ 129,000.00
STUREMIis is QIASSRQOM _,. _
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
100%OF CAPACITY 24
STUDENTS O 125%OF CAPACITY 30
MIDDLE SCHOOL
10D%OF CAPACITY 22
STUDENTS @ 125%OF CAPACITY 77.5
HIGH SCHOOL I
100%OF CAPACITY 24.5
STUDENTS @ 125% OF CAPACITY: 30.625 r. 1 4
COpT7ER STUDENT j ' '
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ! $ 4,300.00
I. ,
MIDDLE SCHOOL ' $ 4,690.91 , r
.
HIGH SCHOOL , $ 4,212.24_i_E [ -I -_.
1
§TIRO€NT YIELD PJR DWELLING UNIT . (- ;
ELEMENTARY STUDENTS PER UNIT 0-37 i _.-. .. . - _ _- --
•
MIDDLE STUDENTS PER UNIT -_ _ 0.11 !
MOH STUDENTS PER UNIT 0.06
cos!P�.uWIT FOR C&ASSRO s?A f 1
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL I $ 1,591 00
MIDDLE SCHOOL I $ 51600 ,
HIGH-SCHOOL $ 330 98 i , `- .__.. . _
2,443.90 , E i
-Classroom sq.ft.cost estimated for a 5 classroom addilion with architectural fees and construction costs . i IT
o t�
m
aD
ni
MITIGATION OF IMPACTS ON SCHOOLS -COST FOR ADDITIONAL CLASSROOM SPACE
SINGLE-FAMILY
CAST OF CLASSROOM
STANDARD CLASSROOM SIZE-SO.FT. 1000 (Includes classroom area and associated hallways)
CONSTRUCTION COST PER SQ.FT.' t $ 129.00 1
TOTAL COST OF CLASSROOM ; $ 129.000.00
•
STUDENTS IN CLASSRDOM .
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
100%OF CAPACITY 24 • •
STUDENTS @125%OF CAPACITY 30
MIDDLE SCHOOL
-- . _ ..
100%OF CAPACITY 22
STUDENTS. 125%OF CAPACITY' 27.5 •
HIGH SCHOOL
100%OF CAPACITY 24.5 •
•
STUDENTS F, 125%OF CAPACITY 30.625 i
COST PEg§T�JO£ fE i
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL �$ 4.300.00 ` _ -- - --- --
MIDDLE SCHOOL - - { $ 4,690.91 1
HIGH SCHOOL I $ 4.21224 1 ... t
I i I
swpgtir YIELD P€RQWELLINO UNIT_1 I ... -. i -
ELEMENTARY STUDENTS PER UNIT 0.3 i
MIDDLE STUDENTS PER UNIT 016
HIGH STUDENTS PER UNIT 0-17
COST.�ER UtIj7JOS C1 AS1ROOM PPCE .. - .. � I- I_ .
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL f $ 1,290.00 I
MIDDLE SCHOOL T$_ 750.55 I i
_ i $ $756.63 HIGH SCHOOL r. $ 716.09 01
'Classroom sq. ft.cost estimated for a 5 classroom addilloni wnh architectural fees and construction costs 1
o I !
cn
0
9'
Ill
_ i
�+ .P r at t .y f 5. C� 4z
,
.. .,. ..' -, ....
i^
�.. .....rrr.r-......... �..NXYdc:c < ....... f f ••i�f/f ff�f••••••• ••••• •••••••••• f•f .'
•JIMMY r'1•�T'f••�1 T-.•• f•fl6frw��+�. ,ter. ...r.
k .fri w ' ..........r,..r..w.....•..r w— .e• wry �......_... .... `i
1
a,
' ‘66.•••••san•Wan.tt i ! 4S 1
I
t' if
\k, ,,,,..„,„,,,..",ir ,,
' ?\,............ i 1 1 . ,
\ ,
y _�- yr« �' WIN,. _- � . ≥ .0I ; :
•
rto ! -.0.°°- 'il''-' 15 t 0
4
. ;., •'ter trf.ir..,: a.......u... r-..,‘E 11... ...
60
iy II E f 1
`I f a • I
ti
),;i ' I
s•t.......e14.....zz..............) <:
II
-
1 re\ �' i
, . .. 4
rl r '• .. •�.•` ....rte tl'f! `.., •r�nr_ r.w
I lir Snf „our
Bulk Plane Diagram - Phase I
Hello