The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20031636.tiff • " ' ;„ f,1 David Duvall 11706 Montgomery Circle j Longmont, Colorado 80504 (303) 678-7577 Weld County Board of Commissioners do Clerk to the Board 915 Tenth Street P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Re: LifeBridge Christian Church, Case PZ-1004, Docket No. 2003-35 Residential Survey Responses June 20, 2003 Dear Commissioners: Citizens for Sensible Development of Weld County conducted a survey (attached) of the residents of Meadowvale Farms and the Elms at Meadowvale to gauge current opinion on Lifebridge Christian Church's zoning request and associated development plans. As you are aware, the residents of these two pre-existing communities have personally invested over $100,000,000 in their properties and will be most directly affected by your upcoming decision. As of June 19th 2003, we have received a total of 191 responses to the 5 question survey whose results are summarized below: Not No Question Yes No Sure Answer Q1: Do you support the current LifeBridge 6 174 9 2 proposal as it stands? 3.1% 91.1% 4.7% 1.0% Q2: If our counterproposal is accepted, would 66 64 50 11 you drop your opposition? 34.6% 33.5% 26.2% 5.8% Q3: Although LifeBridge has agreed to oppose 188 1 0 2 any road connection between Pearl Howlett and 98.4% .5% 0% I% Blue Mountain and the church campus, the Weld County Public Works staff has asked the County Commissioners to require that the roads be connected. Do you OPPOSE road connectivity with the development? EXHIBIT 2003-1636 ii li`lOO4 Not No Question Yes No Sure Answer Q4: Given that the current LifeBridge proposal 88 35 57 11 will likely decrease the value of our homes by 46.1% 18.3% 29.8% 5.8% thousands of dollars, every dollar invested now is likely to pay off later. We are hiring experts and lawyers to help us protect our property values, would you be willing to contribute $100 or more to our self-defense fund? Q5: If it becomes necessary to challenge the 67 42 54 28 rezoning, will you participate in gathering 3,000 35.1% 22.0% 28.3% 14.7% signatures within 30 days to petition for a referendum to overturn such a decision? I have possession of the signed surveys and can provide them to the Commissioners should that be desired. Four of the respondents requested complete confidentiality of their response, which I would respect by not submitting their survey. It is possible additional surveys will be received between now and the July 9th hearing. I plan to attend that meeting and will be able to provide an update to these results should the Commissioners request it at that time. Respectfully submitted, -t '4" . " David d/7 Citizens for Sensible Development of Weld County Michelle Lynette Sdmeimler STATE OF COLORADO } STATE OF COLORADO } ss. NOTARY PUBLIC COUNTY OF WELD } My Commission Expires FSOnrry 19,2007 Subscribed and sworn before me this 010 day of LiG , 2003 by David Duvall. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires o?- 19XXU'7 7 lcc/6 otary Publi LifeBridge Rezoning Questionnaire TO: Name Address FROM: Your neighbors, Citizens for Sensible Development of Weld County Please read the entire questionnaire before circling your answers and returning it to: CSD 11706 Montgomery Circle Longmont, Colorado 80504 The current LifeBridge application includes a"Church Campus"immediately west of the Elms: • 1.5 million square feet(the size of three Twin Peaks Malls) • 3,300 seat "smaller" auditorium/theater in phase 1 up to 75 ft high(about 325 times the volume of our houses, or 1'/2 times larger than all of the houses presently built in the Elms and Farms combined) • 6,000 seat auditorium in phase 6 up to 75 ft high • Rec center (gymnasium),youth center (skateboarding,etc),university, etc. 45-60 ft high each • 1,500 seat outdoor amphitheater • 125 ft buffer • A stated expansion goal of 15,000 - 20,000 members visiting each week Q1: Do you support the current LifeBridge proposal as it stands? YES NO NOT SURE If you answered no to the above,please answer the following questions . . . if you answered yes, please answer question 3 only Our current counterproposal increases the buffer to 400 ft and reduces their 45-75 ft. heights to 30-50 ft,with a single one-time variance of 72 ft. for the theater scaffolding fly space. It also asks for a single row of houses on the eastern set back line to buffer against noise and light pollution. Q2: If our counterproposal is accepted,would you drop your opposition? YES NO NOT SURE Q3: Although LifeBridge has agreed to oppose any road connection between Pearl Howlett and Blue Mountain and the church campus, the Weld County Public Works staff has asked the County Commissioners to require that the roads be connected. Do you OPPOSE road connectivity with the development? YES NO NOT SURE Q4: Given that the current LifeBridge proposal will likely decrease the value of our homes by thousands of dollars, every dollar invested now is likely to pay off later. We are hiring experts and lawyers to help us protect our property values, would you be willing to contribute $100 or more to our self-defense fund? YES NO NOT SURE Mail donations to: CSD 11706 Montgomery Circle Longmont, Colorado 80504 Q5: If it becomes necessary to challenge the rezoning,will you participate in gathering 3,000 signatures within 30 days to petition for a referendum to overturn such a decision? YES NO NOT SURE Signature Date Phone E-mail Peter and Monica Gries r 11685 Montgomery Cir. Longmont CO 80504 720/494-1794 19 June 2003 Chairman David Long Weld County Board of Commissioners 915 Tenth Street P. O. Box 758 ' '7 Greeley CO 80632 r...� RE: Letter of Percentage Impact Appraisal and Stipulations for re-zoning application#PZ-1004 Dear Commissioner Long, Attached please find the Letter of Percentage Impact Appraisal that Citizens for Sensible Development of Weld County commissioned from Donald G. Hammond of Hammond Appraisals. Mr. Hammond finds that the proposed LifeBridge Development could easily reduce the value of the surrounding properties by "10-15% of the total property value." There are currently 208 inhabited houses in the Elms and Farms at Meadowvale, dozens for sale and under construction, and hundreds yet to be built. At an average price of $450,000 each, the two neighborhoods currently represent an investment of approximately $100 million dollars. Rezoning the LifeBridge development in its current form thus represents a "taking" from these 200+ Weld homeowners and builders of between $10 and $15 million dollars. And that figure will only increase as new homes are built. The reduction in our property values does not just influence District Two taxpayers and their families; it also represents a massive loss to the Weld County tax base that every Weld County taxpayer will have to pay for. Rezoning Agricultural land to PUD-General Commercial will also substantially increase the value of LifeBridge's land, from the $8 million they just paid for it (tax free). The rezoning thus represents a massive "giving" to the applicant. And because LifeBridge claims that even its gymnasiums and other commercial facilities are "worship" centers and thus non- profit, this increase in their property value will not benefit Weld taxpayers. Indeed, the failure to develop this land with taxable uses generates a tremendous burden on Weld County taxpayers. Given that you are thus contemplating "taking" between $10 and $15 million dollars from Weld taxpayers in order to give Commissioner Vaad's special interest many many millions more, Citizens for Sensible Development of Weld County requests that any rezoning mitigate impact by containing the following stipulations written into the language of the resolution: • HEIGHTS (East Property Line — replacing figures from Bulk Standards Massing Diagram for Church Campus from the Recommendation, p. 9. Although Weld Code El. EXHIBIT Ww f #700O/ Appraisal and Stipulations for re-zoning application#PZ-1004 / 2 specifies that heights be compatible with the existing 20-28 ft houses, we are willing to make the following concessions): o 400 ft. open space buffer* o 400-700 ft.: 30 feet o 700-1000 ft.: 40 feet o 1000 ft.+: 50 feet max for entire campus (with a one-time exception of 72 feet that the applicant has indicated is necessary for theater fly space) o Given that the Elms will be confronted by a 1.5 million sq ft. mega- development with a 158,000 sq ft 3,300 seat auditorium/theater in phase 1, the homeowners deserve at least three times as wide a buffer as the Farms, where LifeBridge fundraiser Bob Frederickson lives, which will only be facing 20 ft tall retirement patio homes. The Commissioners need only look to County Road 1 and Hwy 119 for similar buffers where McLean (much smaller than LBCC's plans) is set back from its eastern boundary by at least 400 feet. This buffer does not represent a "taking" from LifeBridge. It is represents, instead, an slight reduction of your "giving" to LifeBridge in order to partially mitigate the "taking" from Weld taxpayers. • LIGHTING: All parking lot lighting must be low, angled down and of the absolute minimum wattage and candlepower necessary to meet legally applicable safety standards. All building windows above the fast floor must be tinted to avoid daytime glare, and shaded to eliminate nighttime light pollution. • BERMS. To reduce noise and light pollution, berms must be located immediately adjacent to their source, roads and parking lots —not simply at the property line. The berms and / or other landscaping features must eliminate any light from parked or moving cars inside of the development from shining into existing homes along the eastern property boundary. • COLOR: All buildings over 30 ft. tall must be in natural earth-tones compatible with the surroundings. • WALLS. No single face of any building can continue uninterrupted for more than 100 ft., and no building may have a north-south profile of more than 200 ft. • BUSES: No transportation buses may be left idling for more than 10 minutes within 700 feet of the eastern property line • CONNECTIVITY: The County agrees not to pursue connecting any part of LBCC's development with the existing neighborhoods of the Elms at Meadowvale or Meadowvale Farms. • BROADCASTING: No radio or television broadcasting of any form for at least 20 years. • NOISE: It shall be unlawful for any person to emit or cause to be emitted any noise which leaves the premises on which it originates, crosses a property line, and enters onto any other premises in excess of 50 decibels. "Noise" shall mean sound that is unwanted and which causes or tends to cause adverse psychological or physiological effects on human beings. • DISPUTES: As there is no municipality to oversee compliance on some of these issues, LBCC and the residents agree to have any disputes settled by binding arbitration with an imposable fine of $5,000 per violation payable to CSDWeld. CSDWeld will be limited to using any monies collected for expenses directly related to protecting the existing community's best interests as determined by the residents. ` Appraisal and Stipulations for re-zoning application#PZ-1004/ 3 CSDWe1d will forward any monies exceeding those amounts to the HOA's of the two communities, pro-rated by the number of homes. Thank you for your consideration of these requests. Sincer Peter s Gries Citizens for Sensible Development of Weld County tea/eat/ate at teraing teornmetiny DONALD G. HAMMOND June 19, 2003 Weld County Commissioners Greeley, Colorado ;w RE: File Number Z-1004, PUD Rezoning 1YI Dear Sirs; We have reviewed the proposed P.U.D. rezoning application for the LifeBridge Christian Center to be located on 313 acres in the Southwest Weld MUD area located on Colorado Highway 119, adjacent to WCR 5 on the east. The acreage is located just west of Meadow Vale Subdivision and The Elms at Meadow Vale Subdivision. The proposed site for this campus is currently zoned A (Agriculture) and the application is for a change to several different zoning categories including Residential and Commercial. We have also reviewed the proposed improvements to the site and the intended usage for this property. The review also included projected traffic flows for the area. As appraisers, we are normally reflecting on losses of value due to external sources with research on existing market data. Although there is available data available on losses of value occurring due to the presence near Commercial Properties and due to heavier traveled traffic arteries, to place an exact value due to a future happening is difficult, if not impossible to prove. Loss of value due to the loss of a view corridor is also difficult, but the fact the existing homeowners paid lot premiums for the "view" lots is not difficult to establish. The impact of value on these homes due to the increased traffic flow and the loss of westerly views is real. Depending on the severity of the external influence, the loss of value could easily be from 10%to 15% of the total property value. The homes on the west side of the subdivisions would be impacted the greatest, and those homes closest to the arterial streets would also be greatly impacted. There is insufficient data available to accurately determine what impact the loss of view or the heavier traffic flow will have on the interior properties in the subdivisions, but there will most definitely be some loss. EXHIBIT xx Pe +/0O9 P.O. BOX 8336 • LONGMONT, CO 80501 • PHONE (303) 772-8561 • FAX (303) 772-9195 The property is in the MUD as a"Limiting Site Factors—Lowest Intensity and Residential". According to the MUD Guidelines, the intent of the MUD Development Standards is to "ensure the compatibility of various land uses, buildings or structures within the MUD Area. These regulations are intended to allow flexibility and encourage creativity in development of the area in regard to density, height of structures, setbacks and common open space. "According to the MUD Guidelines, the proposed land would most likely fit the Definition of a"Neighborhood Center". I am available to discuss the issues further upon request. My appraisal qualifications and a copy of the MUD Structural Land Use map are attached. Sincerely, Donald G. Hammond, CRB, CRS State of Colorado Certified General Appraiser#CGO 1313900 Appraisal Qualifications of DONALD G. HAMMOND Independent Fee Appraiser and Real Estate Consultant State Certified General Appraiser #CG01313900 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS SRA Designation - Senior Residential Member, Appraisal Institute (1983-1997) Real Estate Broker - State of Colorado Member - NAR - National Association of Realtors Member - Longmont Board of Realtors EDUCATION Colorado State University, Bachelor of Science Degree, Business Administration Special Education Courses - Successfully Completed: SREA 101 - Intro. to Appraising Real Property SREA 201 - Principles of Income Property Appraising SREA R-2 Exam - Appraisal of Single Family Residence AIREA Course VI - Investment Analysis Various Seminars by SREA and AIREA EXPERIENCE 1971-1972 Fee Appraiser - Denver, CO 1973- Present - Fee Appraiser Boulder County Colorado Expert Witness : Boulder County District Court Larimer County District Court Denver District Court Colorado Bankruptcy Court Instructor for appraiser courses - University of Colorado Division of Continuing Education (3 years) and for University of Northern Colorado CLIENTS SERVED Relocations Companies : PHH Homequity, Coldwell Banker, Prudential, Travelors, Individual Corporations Mortgage Brokers, Mortgage Companies, PMI Companies Attorneys Local Banks Private Individuals a a \--i / , ^ 1 W .,: �� a'. 1 (1 _ Tho os Lake 'A -1' 1 ' 1 u-....„ — 'j- -:!,_ . . ti .,r \ , \ R RI l Ri R.C.R. Fd't I ',a Fdutkgort _ \ ,4 .Res .P ,, 1, i 18 20 `\ 1 .:. ' �\\\.� y 24 18 11 3� \ '�:» 8B 66 tv,: I A i A.C.R. 60 r F t I 1 I Fos 1�r 80 29 T �Pndby6 o '1 I Reid •t:,,g W ( - ,of+ SS c) 8 R2�S` } 'P i WI 611 R I 40 i r it ss 1 Cote s Coke 93 _ 81 J■ , ��) (Dior; Res) t ti is y,. � t.,_ i. . ti 6, , * , err_ r t- , .� :.,gg� [[� _...� ." __ ---.— ,.: I19 V� �,< <S - a�pPr `VIT RS#w Pi 1 ky 1 r> - W.C.R. fu �. t \ . /) .� .� 11f 1i h < Vfrry- , , m &_ v its e k ' y , __ !M 7 "a v 13, W.C.R. 180.6 `lir 1 _ .� LL 1 L' 0 1500 3000 Fact *� • S., Legend F25 MUD Area Boundary : .,..":I timNng Ste Factors — Lowest intanety \\\\\\ Town/CRY Mmosalieie N i� Fmylopnent Center — High intensity Regional Pane — — County Boundary �)41 sy., p /•mot — Gbtkq Rand + - `'1 eplonal commercial — medium Intensity \CP/ Community Park •--� Pretktgose Road (• Ne Center — Lower lntenetY \P) Neighborhood Park RegionalTrail System Other Community Trail MINI Residential Tregit Ceder __ Section Lase * Nbtark:/Communty Canter /-25 Mixed Use Development Area Structural Plan Map 2.1 Structural Land Use Map ; March 17, 1997 4 Peter and Monica Gries 11685 Montgomery Cir. Longmont CO 80504 - - 720/494-1794 r9, r Chairman David Long Weld County Board of Commissioners 915 Tenth Street P. O. Box 758 Greeley CO 80632 RE: Traffic Study Review and Stipulations for re-zoning application#PZ-1004 19 June 2003 Dear Commissioner Long, Attached please find the Traffic Study Review that Citizens for Sensible Development of Weld County commissioned from David D. Leahy of TDA Colorado (www.tdanet.com/default.htm). A civil/transportation engineer, Leahy has more than 25 years of experience in the field. He finds that in the long term, "Neighborhood traffic intrusion could be a serious safety and quality of life concern." Furthermore, even in the short term, the lack of any assessment of weekend traffic surges is unacceptable. Matt Dellich's study for Lifebridge,inexplicably, only covers weekday traffic. In light of these findings, Citizens for Sensible Development of Weld County requests that any rezoning contain the following stipulations written into the language of the resolution: 1. Pearl Howlett and Blue Mountain Roads remain closed to Lifebridge traffic. 2. Phase 1 construction of the single family residential area near Union Reservoir shall not begin until LifeBridge has connected and paved Fairview Rd. between SH 119 and CR 26. Without Fairview access, the traffic strain on CR 3.5 and Longview residents will be too great 3. Phase 1 construction on the "Church Campus" portion of the development shall not proceed until CR 3.5 has been widened to four lanes to accommodate traffic demands and avoid "boxing in" Longview residents. Thank you for your consideration of these requests. Sinc ly, Peter Hays Gries Citizens for Sensible Development of Weld County . EXHIBIT Y Pe tc09 Transportation Consultants TDA COLORADO INC. June 17, 2003 Peter Cries Citizens for Sensible Development in Weld County 11685 Montgomery Cir. Longmont, CO 80504 Re: Traffic Study Review, LifeBridge Rezoning Application Dear Mr.Gries, As agreed,we have reviewed the traffic impact study documents prepared for this application by Matthew J. Dellich, PE. Specifically,we reviewed: • The LifeBridge Project PUD Traffic Impact Study, June 2002, 36 p. +59 p. of Appendices A thru G • Memo from Matt Dellich to Barb Brunk et. al.,2/17/03 re Filings 1 &2 • Memo from Matt Dellich to Bruce Grinnell et.al., 3/10/03,2 p.,re street connections to the subdivisions east of the project. We also received from you two neighborhood"yellow sheet"fliers re traffic intrusion issues. We spoke briefly with Matt Dellich today on matters of clarification. TDA Scope Our review focused on potential near-and long-term neighborhood impacts associated with the project. Near-Term Impacts (2010) The traffic analysis to date analyzed typical weekday traffic activity associated with Phase I Filings I and 2 of the project site. Apparently,traffic impact assessment of Sunday worship services and activities is deferred to a later date in the PUD review process. The applicant plans to be able to double their current sanctuary space that's now at their State Highway 66 site west of US 287 to accommodate anticipated growth over the ensuing years. Phase 1 is comprised of a mix of conventional residential and community-scale retail and commercial uses. The Dellich analysis employs industry standards and reasonable adjustment practices for determining weekday daily and peak period trip generation rates for these uses. These initial development phases also include a category of"Church Campus". This category includes administrative functions and presumably weekday and evening youth and adult sessions and social activities similar to current weekday activities. In the absence of a published trip database for this category the report used Community College trip generation characteristics as a surrogate. This is reasonable for weekday analysis but of course would not be applicable to Sunday worship services. Trip distribution builds on the established greater Longmont,northern Colorado spread of the current membership. Accordingly,we believe the Filing 1 and 2 impact assessment yields a reasonable expectation of typical weekday traffic activity and needed mitigation measures. 820 16th Street Mall, Suite 424 • Denver, Colorado 80202 • (303) 825-7107 • FAX: 825-6004 • E-Mail: TDAColo@aol.com Peter Gries • 6/17/03 Page 2 teN If we understand the proposal correctly,no east-west street connections to the existing subdivisions east of the project(Genesee, The Elms, The Farms) are planned through Phases 1. Connections west to Longview are shown for the near term but the extension of Fairview north across the RR tracks is not made until after the near term development phase. Signalizing the Fairview/SH 119 intersection is also slated for later development phases. Opinion: The near term (2010)PUD Phase 1 development proposal will generate about 7,000 vehicle trips per day and for the most part will rely on WC Road 26(improved)and WC Road 3%for the bulk of the weekday traffic loads. This volume is not unlike the level that would occur were the area to develop as single and multi family residential and small-scale retail. Since no road connections are assumed east of the development and Fairview does not connect through to WC Road 26 and remains a Stop-signed control at the SH 119 intersection there is little likelihood that project trips will impact adjoining residential neighborhoods. The most noticeable relative change at this stage of development will be the volume of traffic on the collector streets (WCR 26& WCR 3%) on Sunday mornings. This will be a matter of degree, based on actual attendance, that is not addressed in the documents we reviewed. If event traffic management plans are not in place commensurate with actual traffic demand neighbors will experience Sunday travel delays at key collector intersections but won't be seeing traffic cutting through their neighborhoods. Long-term Impacts Phase 2 (by 2010)development(23,700 weekday project vehicle trips)introduces a host of traffic impact concerns that are not addressed in the weekday-only impact analysis. The combination of considerable growth in retail(to 273,000 S.F.)and medical office floor space, almost a doubling of Church-related facilities and a street network that now encompasses the existing local residential streets will markedly change the weekend traffic experience. Opinion: Neighborhood traffic intrusion could be a serious safety and quality of life concern by 2020 if the collector intersections operate over capacity on recurring Saturday afternoons and Sunday mornings. To head off this consequence the applicant should expand the scope of the traffic analysis to include a Saturday afternoon (peak retail traffic and parking demand)and a Sunday spanning the 3-service periods that are now offered. This assessment may dictate the level of arterial and collector street and intersection improvement needed Once a realistic assessment of mitigated traffic performance during these periods is available the applicant should meet jointly with neighborhood and county public works representatives to develop an appropriate street network and event management plan. The plan would ensure that residential streets would be protected from inordinate levels of cut-through traffic should the collector and arterial street system experience short-term capacity deficiencies. A combination of permanent traffic calming measures and event-based lane coning, manual traffic control and traffic signal operation may be needed on Sundays to yield long- term compatibility with the established residential community. I trust this review may help you in your deliberations with others. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, TOAColorado Inc. David D. Leahy, PE Principal r,,! 7 cf, ti. 20 June 2003 Duane J. Leise Iii_` ;, iI 2686 Pearl Howlett Rd. Longmont CO 80504 303/776-9888 Board of County Commissioners do Clerk to the Board Weld County P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Re: LifeBridge Christian Church, Case PZ-1004, Docket No. 2003-35 Dear Commissioners: Although Peter H. Ziemke, Attorney and Counselor at Law, has also submitted a letter to you concerning this issue, I will also present this document as supportive and augmenting to those arguments. I watched and drove the property lines many times both before and after the March 18, 2003, the April22, 2003 and the May 7, 2003 meetings to determine where the postings on the property were provided. I looked for the County Commissioners meeting posting for the May 7, 2003 meeting, I did not see it but I did not walk the property line so I cannot positively testify to the fact that it was missing. I would respectfully request a description of that sign, such as the color, size, and weight of paper used. I further read exhibits P and Q and those documents make reference to a planning commissioners meeting which needed to be posted before April 22, 2003. I know of no planning commissioners' meeting that was held during this time frame pertaining to PZ- 1004. In light of this, I ask for documentation as to what exhibits P and Q refer. There is also a letter referred to in exhibit 152, where the applicant agrees to the continuance. That letter is reported to be dated March 13, 2003. I respectfully request that the letter be entered as an exhibit into this file for PZ-1004. This is being asked in light of the formal complaint Peter Greis entered concerning inappropriate communication between the applicant and the planning depai talent. Peter Greis also asked for 41 EXHIBIT Z - documentation concerning those communications by way of a formal freedom of information request. He received a very small number of communications, was this one of them? Concerning the signage before the March 18`h, 2003 meeting, I never saw the sign up after the 16`h of March. The first that I saw it again was after the snow had pretty well melted. I did not see it sticking out of the snow or above the snow at any time. It was only seen again crumpled and flat on the ground. I checked every day I drove SH 119, since I had to drive past the sign location every day once the roads were clear. The snow storm that hit us started as a rain-sleet storm first. That water was sufficient to weaken any paper product. The wind was gusty more as the front moved through on the 17`h. I never saw any other sign up again after that. For documentation that the Planning Commissioners meeting was continued, apparently Exhibit OO is presented into the record. The first page of that document is attached, SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, Tuesday, April 1, 2003. There is no evidence that the Planning Commissioners actually acted on the continuance and granted the same. However there is evidence in those minutes that votes are recorded in the minutes. The planning department does not chair the Planning Commissioners' Meeting and any official action to continue a meeting must be voted on by the Planning Commissioners. How a meeting that was never convened on March 18th could be "continued"without some official action on March 18th is also questioned. Thank you for considering these comments and information. Respectsu 'tted, cane x-261 ( wane J. Leis STATE OF COLORADO } } ss. COUNTY OF WELD } r Subscribed and sworn before me this(9 day of 'Mite- , 2003 by Duane J. Leise. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires :)i z z/ a ` ENE C.!), 1„,._c_ /rpe�ry� M otary Public r . Tq�fr co Ca .. .. SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, April 1, 2003 A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2003, in the Weld County Public Health/Planning Building, (Room 210), 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Michael Miller , at 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Michael Miller Bryant Gimlin James Rohn - Fred Walker John Folsom Stephan Mokray Bernard Ruesgen Bruce Fitzgerald Also Present: Char Davis, Wendi Inloes, Pam Smith, Peter Schei, Kim Ogle, Don Carroll, CASE: PZ-1004 PLANNER: Kim Ogle APPLICANT: LifeBridge Christian Church REQUEST: PUD Change of Zone from (A) Agricultural to PUD with (E) Estate; (R-1) Low Density Residential; (R-2) Duplex Residential; (R-3) Medium Density Residential; (R-4) High Density Residential; (C-1) Neighborhood Commercial and (C-2) General Commercial LEGAL: Lot B of Recorded Exemption 1389 and Part of Section 5, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: South of& adjacent to Weld County Road 26; north of& adjacent to Hwy 119; west of and adjacent to Fairview Street Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services,read a letter in the record requesting a continuance to a specific date of April 22 at 9:00am at the Southwest Weld Office. The applicant has asked for a pre advertisement with the Board of County Commissioners hearing to be May 7, 2003 John Folsom questioned the ability of the Planning Commission to render a decision by 8:00 pm. Mr. Morrison indicated that was the goal and it would cause a problem if the decision is not made. If a decision could not be made then the Board hearing would be continued to a different date due to notification procedures. Mr. Morrison added it would be beneficial if a decision was made and a schedule was set in an attempt to adhere to. If a decision cannot be reached adequately at that time then it is the Planning Commission decision rather to continue. A decision must be reached based on the evidence presented if this is adequate. CASE NUMBER: USR-1418 APPLICANT: Hall Irwin PLANNER: Kim Ogle LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part S2 Section 12, T5N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for Mineral Resource Development facilities, including open pit mining and materials processing, a Concrete and Asphalt Batch Plant and a concrete recycling plant in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. LOCATION: North of and adjacent to East 18th Street Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting a continuance indefinitely to amend the land use application to include more land. CASE NUMBER: PZ-1007 APPLICANT: Lance and Julee Meiners IIaye-1- Preliminary fetrig CHANGE OF ZONE ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATION e. COLORADO CASE NUMBER: PZ-1404 f HEARING DATE: March 18, 2003 Continued to April 1, 2003• 0 Continued to April 22,2003 PLANNER: Kim Ogle APPLICANT: LifeBridge Christian Church : c/o Rocky Mountain Consultants, Inc., 1900 South Sunset Street, Suite 1-F; Longmont, CO 80501 REQUEST: Request for a PUD Change of Zone from(A)Agricultural to PUD with(E)Estate;(R-1)Low Density Residential;(R-2)Duplex Residential;(R-3)Medium Density Residential;(R-4)High Density Residential; (C-1) Neighborhood Commercial and(C-2)General Commercial and continuing Oil and Gas Production Uses in the Mixed Use Development Overlay District LEGAL: Lot B of Recorded Exemption 1389 and Part of Section 5,T2N,R68W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado LOCATION: South of& adjacent to Weld County Road 26;north of&adjacent to Hwy 119;west of and adjacent to Fairview Street ACRES: 313+/- PARCEL#: 1313 05 000054; 1313 05 000060; 1313 05 000062 and 1313 05 000066 THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES' STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS REQUEST BE APPROVED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 27-5-30 of the Weld County Code. 2. The submitted materials are in compliance with Section 27-6-120 of the Weld County Code as follows: A. Section 27-6-120.B.6.a The proposal is consistent with any intergovernmental agreement in effect influencing the PUD and Chapters 19(Coordinated Planning Agreements),Chapter 22(Comprehensive Plan), Chapter 23(Zoning), Chapter 24(Subdivision)and Chapter 26 (Mixed Use Development) of this Code. The proposed site is presently influenced by an Inter-Governmental Agreement with the City of Longmont. The proposal is consistent with the aforementioned documents as follows: 1) Section 22-2-110.8 (UGB.Goal 2) states, "Concentrate urban development in or adjacent to existing municipalities or the 1-25 Mixed Use Development area and maintain urban growth boundary areas that provide an official designation between future urban and non-urban uses."The proposed subdivision is located within the LIFEBRIDGE CHRISTIAN CHURCH PUD,PZ-1004,page 3 AFFIDAVIT Duane Leise, being first duly sworn, states as follows: 1. I am a Weld County citizen and taxpayer. I own property adjacent to the proposf irI feB i`jga: 40 Christian Church development. I travel in the area daily, including the portion of the proposed development that fronts on Highway 119. 2. As an adjacent property owner, I have taken interest in the LifeBridge application and have paid very close attention to the proceedings. 3. I personally observed that there was a sign posted on the LifeBridge property. The sign was facing HW 119 and located approximately 450 yards east of the intersection of CR 3 '/2 immediately against the fence in the road easement. It was of card stock weight paper and mounted on two 2 inches X 3/4 inch 4 foot long pieces of wood. (Black and white picture of the remaining sticks included) 4. The area was hit with a significant snowstorm on March 17, which continued for several days thereafter. News reports stated that the storm was the worst the area has seen for over 90 years. My property and the LifeBridge property received a total of approximately 22 inches of snow. The roads in the vicinity were impassable on March 18. 5. The sign was not visible from the highway after March 17. I did not observe the actual sign again until much of the snow had melted, maybe 4 to 6 days later and then saw the sign crumpled, fla tend and lying on the ground about 10 feet from the sticks it had been mounted on. I returned 0r8/30/03 and took a picture of the sign , the mounting sticks and the last of the snow that was on the ground. I returned again on 04/06/03 and took a more blown up picture of area. Both of those pictures are included by printing them on an accompanying sheet of paper. 6. I later learned that the hearing originally scheduled for March 18 had somehow been"continued" to April 22, 2003. I personally saw that there was no sign posted on the LifeBridge property, which advertised a hearing to be held on April 22, 2003. 7. I have looked through the planning file for this application as it existed following the May 7, 2003 Board of County Commissioners hearing. I have paid attention to newspapers announcements of the LifeBridge application since before March 2003. I have not seen a notice published for a Plann'. i Commission hearing that complies with the published notice requirement of the Weld Cou ty oning regulations. /-el.lCtra /4,7sotto ';11 Duane Leise STATE OF COLORADO } N1'. PUBLIC r8/ ss. OF GO- • COUNTY OF WELD } - .. Subscribed and sworn before me this l7 day of 1. 4,, 2 , 2003 by Duane Leise. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires My fnmmissinn&rp/rn Dec.8,,2000 ll LL hC Gc J EXHIBIT Notary Public A A A Pa #/Cocj 0 `i to RKF'" r i't .1[ y 4 y uNT �I km '' - tyu f4,y s ,,.f -e€s g4 fix t- t , . mss- X`,,.. - i `" +�' 4:7":1''+', Nc..Y.- ? �v,"%"a-i .2 5)., ....„ t Ea�^w'�`, " '` t x-r" 9 f' z e '=1'i i #'«.'":V ' r7i'7.9� "" s , i .rt 'a.y�I''-,V.:3. S �,`„`,fr ' .ac V-- N t ,y-';':;:-. .: T-'47:7,-.4‘41.--;-4"t:�.,,..�. .3:,_. ;.,. _..:.�,..,_..w-:,..,., ,y .:::,_w. :%� �.. "`,�h:. s`:•, -,`. ...,_ :,Y�� w� r�f ,�.: .� ... ^16at•es -,�,.`� � '�^=•x»1 'y `• a� xr+y� rya S ,+ , .. ,. .._ i>. .,,,£ _ vn a o-ng ... e ,}, :. sfsn ' t. .:. -�,`- ,.,.rv.�s.,.�`,:. r :i- y <4: F, r= .. _-u"&t- a - ::: »e, a' e.,.,. µ. 4;.. .. ., ^: . n . �.�„'.. _...: , S f r....a u ! '„ t t •�!. !!♦1`utk �y 1 '�,s r:1;c r . -F H S --,,•, Y ,,,. _ : _ 't � Y" r.',nd' } „f ^ ,xri. , - _ �y: i -. %:..5 ."•'t t, i;,,Y,pry.-,i�.'. xc, y ... ....,.,- ^ - �� -, ₹a.- �;t F : ��i�k'u v��;.'�3*'"^'`Zit*' � ,i".`�' < �,. as . ¢ ;` ' ties "°� 't ., e'7‘141; '� ff. '. '+*};?,^" ' , ':' >; ... §a;.:.,. .an '�' "?>�4� :.r-''` '4.f-rat:, ... " x n a =:S� :... .+ • ...,._ ;;;W:..}."`::':, ;; t - k,,.x>75 ,"1"'" .: z„>f,-s ... vxyr -,-• � ;�az,.: 1a$te"- ,..•«.,. .-r}k S.,a .,:r £ s, :§ ..., -..1. ,.. : ,&A �L M:�..r,. .r.' t S:v:.;- .' ^' , - ,. .;-, . . :s'}4�,,,. +� ..,'fit ^jj.,: ; ,.i. _..y.: .-. i : * d 4k ,. ; x. s. '^..:.,r+ s ;'C.: ` .F�.,t t a> R} , t" i': <."s' ,V> `ct n: „^` tf ,,,,a n, x := :r: vw .. n h y : ,.; ,;,- .),,. . ., t -i a, , y #. wty" , { ' .J,�yyy 'V` w: ,z,yy. >:'Rx..:""+ ,,, ,,,, , ,,, , .;a t 'S <sr,. 'v :�r`a ,..•`• t+o ,,,a.• i t• -. x, .. . ab.: -An. • k, .'e ig' is•.4 y,,.^ :. ...mow 'y '. ,:i ,qx. ,+',1., *. q.,,, ;< .,�y.,,,a. , y^x,.: ,.., .�^S �. F „...,0 vG�_'4 ;4. . .a•,L'.`e m . v . r,- .. ,$,. 4. T, � 1bfi ": ' 'l3 S, df i".,.°.`.t.t is V'i Ax x"_.41.` Atix` Yryt4 f2 S^4i N�'6 , q ' 'i .. t „t r k ,r r,z 3" •'�,}. `t .,4et _,T 8r<" 1s y a. .. ty �...x. .d � . .. i f; f 1 .y' Mitt r :.7.,*.' r"` ,.: y ,r , '?A` - `.. ,K":Sr. r ,.I *y'.. : u : r;�.-y, X > %;s #fir'-• ` * ^•t.'�sa ,-rr.3 r , 4 • .., ,`[[.r_;s{r f' yy: .:: l" r ,3 F^t su, f, j ..' � p _:*,"' } ;.�„y a- ,�::LLyy ,.N1/2,,_ ;7.."S":5‘..:1244.1",,,k. l}}. FP ' :1r 14,,,,,,e),,,,,,,4,---� r„ ./#4. r `s"s::, a '. - " . "`:. "' ' .,. ' a.'. q_,:c,�t, as U fi"'.. q5-r y"- s `?..aq e ': c.^. to .� .S,.. � v �e ,4'a „C.. � :�,,, '-:: - v�*', rS^ t. p- .,:}, - `'. \ .. `- ,s;,,"47"s.- *sc'ro, �. i *! 4F.y,A �. i ,.t'r, � .:;$ 'n:401;;,,..x 4.,,: }' ", .'. -rb y':IiIrt _ 's k ..w '.,; r t r" r 1t .ar. .< i .:Cw.: ..S#� :•§` 'r.i :.._. ` a ^ �`ti ;:,', F 14 ;5„ .'+;;v ;1: .:t 'i�.a roes: • ,a a:,, r' ...>. :� .� ~,. •',.r :: '..-s .._� * 1. �'J' .r"y Ni.:- § 'fai ". 'r.• fir u,� . -t f ¢. a R L 4 �, ` % ,� t t �'.' ;;.�:.IY { � ..i'.✓ / t, - 'S .....d.'" xrM •yCr.' d : R'^ 4.,T'' 1? .... iJG ( .... �,w .-z sp': ,t^ A.Ft,:.^ b a w, •„ -'�\ {: '6 ` t ..g° I: ..a • y.' ,l .',^"A 4 ry.. m, .aat:. r'r - !,`'e` tt:t.. n '� y i -,t4 ,y_ tr -'w 4,,k. ' ' .3;' :§ r.. : �' ',r✓ �- .: � �'„i .,,, „ -, .y ✓zt : x .-.•,- v, \ a"i�, I. 5,: t .: t. :\ 8 �Ar . ty .. n3_33,. a. �''„'•a -fir .-" l { ., ., , .:x'% „ na y. . ; � � ' t +Y - rt , 4s ? �.,4+. \. s 5 y‘',.----,N , < . , 4y .:,, C 't °1 .rr !6 L:- u.,.71''' "`7 - h 7s.`• ,.a .n, i... t • „4,...,....47.011... • is l Ae: :"P.7..::\:;.. ..--.4;;;;;,/...,4-1;: . ::;, ^ , , „ . 1 h 1 " xF s t� , :� ,... • i g N a'• F ,h _ :dii ,:: (' Y . ,, i . . \f " d ✓ 4' t`i. k di -__ .ac 4 ,', "-., .:. X- .✓., 1. :~•° a ,.u!'k'it .'k:. d 'sy ,,.'. . n.'..., sr" '� t. '�41i 'n" 7.5 9. a -e•y r. -JA III a r: + . .. . .r.... - i i`; ., (+ x HYtt f ..n a. r .. 1y .::� W i L }y.'idv. :ef - ntt . 'F^ FtA �.:...�r '.: t.� `:.',�.a .4.4..7'1:: 1:_ C. d3 p .{Ft` ,t ,., i,}Wqy,{ .c t_-} s„ t ''p : .. .s;�4 t y 4�q'se0.4. t I =tw t r:} !,µ T $"y' I r t J A .+,R , '.:1. � �F , Yf ` Seco .A. picture close p taken 04/06/03 : 1 PM 'i 3 _5'HhT i < ' f 4Q 2.1 t''J 4 yP`• ' �*' ` ' * Y �',Y i�,.xY ' a41t b t-3.� 4„,.e.., .:^•,j ltic.„.. Y,.s_ "`' ! .R° " t,. t i 6 ° / J x 'c _ .tr # f y r t«'k " , >4B' r. A ,..,z' � '+c•. .:s ,.., . 'rr t , �., d'I ` ° ti4's • '.1.;,:•. •' 1.,, d' :sr.,;. "IIYR ' Y•, '4 k. .yam$,a-�. uv �. :=n; ., t *)•,. .4.•Ve .. , i 64,i4.�' .^y-rC. { p i1�. r9� .�„T`-T.% .+ 46‘;;'>341‘,„:;:f,-n:'a,_ allit` .- -.': ..- i• .\,� , ,k.1::::, k. ,,: :, .;'.m'+ s '' % 4 Sk 4AAax y Pictur of sign on the ground 3/30/03 1 :39 P.M. :% - 4 • , } �, {( y � L A:.i 1 :P x r'.011/2 liA. (.tia_ Thu/%ME Le (IL T ,:. +i Subscribed and sworn before me this �� day of ,� , 2003 by Duane Leise. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires "+CommiasionEx ExpiresDoc.6.2005 �� `0,; # ` { P P k, . t r t iy � pa /n�I�C�C." /(!.i �2�1��K-Z-L� w: +.}� .'► `,., f '• ' ,} . s," �, - ` +�" i.e.r, Notary Public P�E...eqq,� . � � e igt " C �:' pTARY'+�9 J, " , , �" " .J4i4. 1�'it.�si=r ' : kicr"°.. lvr C� ----411--•-' Blow up of sign on the ground tn : PUBL�c .:°R 4�c LONGt C • DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT E "r' PLANNING DIVISION Civic Center Complex/Longmont,CO 80501 °CLOR $ (303) 651-8330/Fax# (303) 651-8696 E-mail: longmontplanning@ci.longmont.co.us vveld County Planning Department Web site: http://www.ci.longmont.co.us GREELEY OFFICE June 25, 2003 JUN 2 7 2003 Board of County Commissioners RECEIVED Weld County 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Case Number: PZ-1004: LifeBridge Christian Church PUD Change of Zone Dear Commissioners, The City of Longmont has provided several sets of comments on the Li feBridge Christian Church PUD Change of Zone application to the Weld County planning staff. The City is pleased that the applicant has addressed many of the City's concerns. However, the City still has remaining concerns. These include impacts to Longmont's scenic entry corridor, and the need for Weld County to provide for much-needed urban-level services in the I-25 Mixed-Use Development Area. In addition, the City also has some comments regarding drainage, which are attached to this letter. The City would also like to state that Lifebridge voluntarily discontinued processing its annexation application for additional development at its current location because they could not assemble enough property for their new mixed-use development plans. The City has always acknowledged the urban scale of this project and is willing to deal with its impacts as long as it conforms to standards established for our community. Should the County decide to allow development that deviates form those standards, the City would like to discuss an amendment to our Intergovernmental Agreement which currently states that Longmont's standards would apply to urban development in this area. This is why the City respectively requests that the County ensure that the following comments are addressed. Preservation of Longmont's scenic entry corridor The City has concerns about the potential for a 60' tall auditorium with a fly space that would bring the height up to 75'. A structure of this height would alter the scenic quality of the entryway to Longmont. In fact, it could be a visual focal point that would detract from the view of Longs Peak. The City respectfully requests that the Commissioners give serious consideration to the impacts of the height not only on adjacent properties,but on the surrounding area as well. !XI II, Pt #/oo 9 Urban services This application proposes an urban-style development that will add up to 175 dwelling units, a multi-use church campus and commercial uses to Weld County's I-25 Mixed-Use Development Area. People in urban areas tend to want urban-level facilities and services, such as public libraries,parks and other recreational facilities. Longmont's plans for future infrastructure and services do not anticipate meeting all the needs within this area. We therefore request that Weld County increase its level and range of services throughout the 1-25 Mixed-Use Development Area to meet the increasing needs of the community. The City of Longmont cannot be expected to provide them for Weld County residents. If you have any questions,please contact me at 303-651-8336. You also may send e-mail to me at andrea.mimnaugh@ci.longmont.co.us. Sincerely, /14A-(41441444A-(11 ,--- Andrea Minmaugh Senior Planner Attachment: Storm drainage comments, dated June 10, 2003 xc: Phil DelVecchio, Community Development Director Brad Schol, Planning Director Froda Greenberg, Principal Planner City of Longmont Storm Drainage Comments LifeBridge Christian Church PUD June 10, 2003 1. The box culvert under State Highway 119 for Spring Gulch No. 2 (passes through Sandstone Ranch)was constructed with the capacity to only pass the 50-year storm event, about 2,500 cfs, since this was a rural area in 1977 when the culvert was replaced. The remaining 2,657 cfs does not overtop State Highway 119 but follows the highway on the north side of the road east to the St. Vrain River. The plans should identify this flow and show how it affects the property. Our estimates show a 500 foot wide floodplain on the north side of State Highway 119 flowing east to St. Vrain River. 2. The City of Longmont will be providing the NPDES requirements for the urban areas of Weld County adjacent to the City(by agreement). This property should include water quality ponds and other erosion control best management practices as described in Urban Drainage Volume 3 and CDOT's "Erosion Control and Stormwater Quality Guide." 3. Off-site flows from Concepts Direct and Longview subdivisions must be passed through this property. They are part of this drainage basin that flows to St. Vrain River. 4. Please be aware that CDOT is reluctant to allow drainage channels within their right- of-way and that the release of stormwater from this site to the north right-of-way of State Highway 119 requires approval from CDOT. 5. Oligarchy Ditch is identified as an outfall for some of the storm drainage water. The capacity of the ditch must be checked and approval for the release must be obtained from the ditch comany. 6. This application proposes an urban density development. The drainage improvements such as curb and gutter and storm sewer system should be designed as an urban street section rather than a rural housing development style. 7. City of Longmont Storm Drainage Criteria and Standards should be used for design and construction since County criteria and standards are not designed for urban development. If you have any questions on these comments, please contact David Hollingsworth, Senior Civil Engineer, at 303-651-8328, or e-mail at david.hollingsworth@ci.longmont.co.us ESTHER Gesick- Life Bridge Proposed Development Page 1 From: "Judy franca" <francojudy@hotmail.com> To: <kogle@co.weld.co.us> Date: 7/2/03 7:55AM Subject: Life Bridge Proposed Development After reading the newspaper, I have become increasingly concerned that the only voices you hear regarding Life Bridge's proposed plans for the property west of Meadow Vale Farm, are those against the development. Please note that there is a whole group of us who see the church as a desirable neighbor. Their plan, along with Weld County's plan seems to provide a well-balanced community. Reference has been made to the fact that 90% of people surveyed opposed the plan. Let it be known for the record that only certain people were given surveys and some refused to return them because they were offensive and threatened to tear apart the close knit community we love. The "Committee for Responsible Development"consists of a few people voicing opinions,not the majority. For comparison, 90%of 10 is 9, out of a community of a couple of hundred. There is one squeaky wheel so to speak, but the other three wheels feel things are going fine. Thank you, Ron and Judy Franco Meadow Vale Farm The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail EXHIBIT 31Cc pe #too 4 ESTHER Gesick- RE: meeting Page 1 From: "Bruce Grinnell" <bgrinnell@lbcc.org> To: "'Rich Salm'" <rich.salm@CSDweld.org>, "'Rich Salm (E-mail)" <rich.salm@eastlongmontcsd.com>, "'Duane Braunagel (E-mail)"' <duane_braunagel@kindermorgan.com>, "'Duane Braunagel (E-mail 2)"' <v-dbraun@ecentral.com>, "'Danielle DiDonna (E-mail)" <ddidonna@hotmail.com>, <bgrinnell@Ibcc.org>, "'Rich Salm"' <rsalm@peakwheelchairs.com> Date: 7/2/03 10:15AM Subject: RE: meeting Hi Rich, Great. Dale Bruns and I are both available; see you tomorrow at LifeBridge at 7pm. Punchin'holes in the darkness, Bruce Original Message From: Rich Salm [mailto:rich.salm@CSDweld.org] Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 7:18 AM To: 'Rich Salm (E-mail)'; 'Duane Braunagel (E-mail)'; 'Duane Braunagel (E-mail 2)'; 'Danielle DiDonna (E-mail)'; bgrinnell@lbcc.org; Rich Salm Cc: Kim Ogle (E-mail); 'Rod Schmidt (Cindy) (E-mail)'; 'Bill Norris (E-mail)'; 'Reggie Golden (Diamond) (E-mail)' Subject: Re: meeting Thanks Bruce, Are you available tomorrow(Thursday)night? Say around 7 at LBCC? We can be there. Rich Original Message From: Bruce Grinnell <mailto:bgrinnell@Ibcc.org> To: 'Rich Salm' <mailto:rich.salm@CSDweld.org> ; 'Danielle DiDonna (E-mail)' <mailto:ddidonna@hotmail.com> ; 'Duane Braunagel (E-mail 2)' <mailto:v-dbraun@ecentral.com> ; 'Duane Braunagel (E-mail)' <mailto:duane_braunagel@kindermorgan.com> ; 'Rich Salm (E-mail)' <mailto:rich.salm @eastlongmontcsd.com> Cc: 'Reggie Golden (Diamond) (E-mail)' <mailto:reggieg@diamondglllp.com> ; 'Bill Norris (E-mail)' <mailto:BillNorris15@msn.com> ; 'Rod Schmidt (Cindy) (E-mail)' <mailto:rschmidt@acosta.com> ; Kim Ogle (E-mail) <mailto:kogle@co.weld.co.us> Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 7:28 PM Subject: RE: meeting Hi Rich, We can be available most evenings this week; let me know when and where it is convenient for your group. I have attached our response letter to Weld County submitted June 20th it outlines our thoughts on the issues of heights and setback/offset. Since your group was not available prior to the 20th, we are willing and open to further discuss the height and setback/offset issues and if appropriate EXHIBIT ESTHER Gesick - RE: meeting Page 2 amend our application prior to July 9th. We have copies of some of the other submittals from last week and some information regarding Freedom, CO. We want to steer clear of speculative conclusions, but it seems from some of those submittals, editorials, implications of referendums/recalls, and proposed legal action that the only intent of some of the people might be to derail, postpone or otherwise stop our church campus development process at all cost. I am not suggesting that this is your intent, but if possible at the same meeting,we believe it would be appropriate and beneficial to discuss the issues and proposals in these other submittals prior to July 9th. We are still interested in working towards a solution with everyone, hopefully a solution that is fair, and a solution that allows us all to move forward. Punchin' holes in the darkness, Bruce Original Message From: Rich Salm [mailto:rich.salm@CSDweld.org] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 7:04 PM To: Danielle DiDonna (E-mail); Duane Braunagel (E-mail 2); Duane Braunagel (E-mail); Rich Salm (E-mail); bgrinnell@Ibcc.org Cc: Reggie Golden (Diamond) (E-mail); Bill Norris (E-mail); Rod Schmidt (Cindy) (E-mail) Subject: Re: meeting Hi Bruce, Yes,we're anxious to meet with you. Can you share your thoughts about heights and setback issues? As you know, these are two key issues for us. Anything new? We'd like to have something to mull over before we meet next week. Thanks Rich Original Message From: Bruce Grinnell <mailto:bgrinnell@Ibcc.org> To: Rich Salm (E-mail) <mailto:rich.salm@eastlongmontcsd.com> ; Duane Braunagel (E-mail) <mailto:duane_braunagel@kindermorgan.com> ; Duane Braunagel (E-mail 2) <mailto:v-dbraun@ecentral.com> ; Danielle DiDonna (E-mail) <mailto:ddidonna@hotmail.com> Cc: Rod Schmidt (Cindy) (E-mail) <mailto:rschmidt@acosta.com> ; Bill Norris (E-mail) <mailto:BillNorris15@msn.com> ; Reggie Golden (Diamond) (E-mail) <m ailto:reggieg@diamondglllp.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 7:05 PM Subject: meeting Hi Rich, Is there any opportunity to meet next week? I'm out of the office for the weekend, if you would like to set up a time to meet, please contact Reg Golden at reggieg@diamondgIllp.com <mailto:reggieg@diamondglllp.com> . Thanks. ESTHER Gesick- RE: meeting Page 3 Punchin'holes in the darkness, Bruce Original Message From: Bruce Grinnell [mailto:bgrinnell@Ibcc.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 2:09 PM To: Rich Salm (E-mail); 'ddidonna@hotmail.com' <mailto:'ddidonna@hotmail.com'> ; Duane Braunagel (E-mail); Duane Braunagel (E-mail 2) Cc: Bill Norris (E-mail); Rod Schmidt (Cindy) (E-mail); Reggie Golden (Diamond) (E-mail) Subject: FW: buffer Hi Rich, Our idea for the meeting was: 1.)We would like to have some conversation regarding Peter's comments in his email of Thursday May 15th,which said... "I hope that we can reopen dialogue, and I thought I'd start by throwing back out an idea that Bruce first raised a few months ago during a meeting at LifeBridge: a row of houses west of the buffer but east of the perimeter road as a buffer. Several of us have been discussing this recently and see it as helping to mitigate many of our concerns." 2.)We would like to have some conversation regarding the LifeBridge Rezoning Questionnaire, dated approximately May 23rd, which we're assuming that your leadership has distributed. We understand many people have responded and we assume that you would share the results with us. 3.)We would like to have some conversation regarding question #1 of the LifeBridge Rezoning Questionnaire that makes reference to a counterproposal that you have made to us which indicates that you have asked us for... "A single row of houses on the eastern set back line to buffer against noise and light pollution." 4.)We would like to have some conversation regarding question #4 of the LifeBridge Rezoning Questionnaire. 5.)We would like to share with you some concept pictures and ideas we have regarding the architectural character of the proposed church campus. We are willing to meet with you are your earliest availability, thanks, Punchin'holes in the darkness, Bruce Original Message From: Rich Salm [mailto:rich.salm@CSDweld.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 8:14 AM To: Duane Braunagel (E-mail); Rich Salm (E-mail); bgrinnell@lbcc.org Cc: ddidonna@hotmail.com; Braunagel, Vicki - DIA; Reggie Golden (Diamond) (E-mail) Subject: Re: buffer ESTHER Gesick- RE: meeting Page 4 Hi Bruce, Thanks for following up and I'm sorry I haven't gotten back to you. We've been kind of tied up lately. Can you send over what your idea is so we can review it before we get together? Please let me know. Take Care, Rich ----Original Message From: Bruce Grinnell <mailto:bgrinnell@Ibcc.org> To: Rich Salm (E-mail) <mailto:rich.salm@eastlongmontcsd.com> ; Duane Braunagel (E-mail) <mailto:duane_braunagel@kindermorgan.com> Cc: Reggie Golden (Diamond) (E-mail) <mailto:reggieg@diamondglllp.com> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 5:24 PM Subject: FW: buffer Hi Rich, Any date/time set yet? Punchin' holes in the darkness, Bruce Original Message From: Bruce Grinnell [mailto:bgrinnell@Ibcc.org] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 9:17 AM To: 'Rich Salm' Cc: Dale Bruns (E-mail); 'Paige Jaques (E-mail 2)'; Reggie Golden (Diamond) (E-mail) Subject: RE: buffer Tuesday evening works for us let me know what time and place works for you. Punchin' holes in the darkness, Bruce Original Message From: Rich Salm [mailto:rich.salm@CSDweld.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 6:31 PM To: bgrinnell@lbcc.org; 'Rich Salm' Cc: Duane Braunagel (E-mail); Duane Braunagel (E-mail 2); Danielle DiDonna (E-mail); Reggie Golden (Diamond) (E-mail) Subject: Re: buffer Hi Bruce, Thanks for checkin' in again. Yes, we are interested in meeting with you. I'm running it past Danielle and Vicki to see what their availability is. Possibly next week, Monday or Tuesday eve?Would either of those work for ESTHER Gesick- RE: meeting Page 5 you? Please let me know and I'll follow up with you as well when I hear from the others. Regards, Rich Salm Original Message From: Bruce Grinnell <mailto:bgrinnell@Ibcc.org> To: 'Rich Salm' <mailto:rich.salm@eastlongmontcsd.com> Cc: Duane Braunagel (E-mail) <mailto:duane_braunagel@kindermorgan.com> Duane Braunagel (E-mail 2) <mailto:v-dbraun@ecentral.com> ; Danielle DiDonna (E-mail) <mailto:ddidonna@hotmail.com> ; Reggie Golden (Diamond) (E-mail) <mailto:reggieg@diamondglllp.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 9:27 AM Subject: RE: buffer Hi Rich, Are you interested in meeting again? We have some thoughts based on Pete's last email regarding the residential lot buffer. Let me know where and when is convenient for all of you. Thanks. Punchin' holes in the darkness, Bruce Original Message From: Rich Salm [mailto:rich.salm@eastlongmontcsd.com] Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 6:50 AM To: bgrinnell@lbcc.org <mailto:bgrinnell@Ibcc.org> Cc: Reggie Golden (Diamond) (E-mail) Subject: Re: buffer Hi Bruce, Thanks for your email. I am certainly open to meeting with you. I would also like to include Vicki Braunagel and Danielle Didonna in any future discussions. Is that okay with you? I'm leaving town on business for few days so I'll get back in touch with you next week. If something urgent comes up, you can reach me on my mobile phone: 303-517-3276. Have a good Memorial Day. Rich Salm Original Message From: Bruce Grinnell <mailto:bgrinnell@Ibcc.org> ESTHER Gesick - RE: meeting Page 6 To: Rich Salm (E-mail) <mailto:rich.salm@eastlongmontcsd.com> Cc: Reggie Golden (Diamond) (E-mail) <mailto:reggieg@diamondglllp.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 9:29 AM Subject: FW: buffer Hi Rich, Peter has indicated that you are now the primary liaison and that he would like to reopen communications. How can we help you? Would you like to meet? If so, when and where? Punchin' holes in the darkness, Bruce Original Message From: Peter.Gries@colorado.edu <mailto:Peter.Gries@colorado.edu> [mailto:Peter.Gries@colorado.edu] u] Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 9:32 AM To: bgrinnell@lbcc.org <mailto:bgrinnell@Ibcc.org> ; reggieg@diamondglllp.com <mailto:reggieg@diamondglllp.com> Cc: Duane Braunagel (E-mail 2); Duane Braunagel (E-mail); Danielle DiDonna (E-mail); Duane J Leise; David; Rich Salm Subject: buffer Dear Bruce and Reg, Now that we've all had a chance to cool down, I thought it'd be a good idea to reopen communications. Rich Salm will be our new primary liaison, but I wanted to clear the air and throw out an idea. First, I think it was very unfortunate how Bruce and I left things with our final phone conversation Tuesday night before the hearing. I was left with a strong feeling of injustice that Lifebridge had decided not to negotiate at all with us after negotiating with Rod. As it turns out, you did lower your max heights to 75 ft on Wed morning, and I want you to know that I acknowledge that as effort on your part. I hope that you will also acknowledge that we at Elms still feel that compared to what you've done for Rod, you have done very little for us. That said, I hope that we can reopen dialogue, and I thought I'd start by throwing back out an idea that Bruce first raised a few months ago during a meeting at LifeBridge: a row of houses west of the buffer but east of the perimeter road as a buffer. Several of us have been discussing this recently and see it as helping to mitigate many of our concerns. 1. They could help buffer noise and light pollution, both from the church campus buildings, and from the cars and buses using the perimeter road and parking lots. The idea of rows of buses parked or idling along the perimeter road or in parking lots in the evenings during events, frankly terrifies us. Houses could help mitigate their impact. 2. Houses could help mitigate the visual and emotional impact of a 1.5 million sq. ft development. Instead of looking directly at a wall of 45 + ft buildings (rec center, youth centers, auditoriums, etc), houses and back ESTHER Gesick - RE: meeting Page 7 yards would soften the impact. 3. A row of houses between your perimeter road and the property line would ensure that Pearl Howlett Rd. would not be opened up. 4. Additional perk: These houses would benefit from the large amount of open space behind their back yards. best, Pete http://www.weldhomeowners.org/index.htm CC: "'Kim Ogle (E-mail)"' <kogle@co.weld.co.us>, "'Rod Schmidt (Cindy) (E-mail)"' <rschmidt@acosta.com>, "'Bill Norris (E-mail)"' <BillNorris15@msn.com>, "'Reggie Golden (Diamond) (E-mail)"' <reggieg@diamondglllp.com>, "Dale Bruns (E-mail)" <dalebruns@earthlink.net> Ginsimiling LIFEBRIDGE CHRISTIAN CHURCH Connecting People With God 10345 Ute Highway Longmont, CO 80504 303-776-2927 June 27, 2003 Homeowner: • Elms at Meadow Vale • Meadow Vale Farms • Longview Dear Neighbor: As you might be aware, the LifeBridge Christian Church proposed development plan continues to change as a result of recommendations provided by you, other members of the community,Weld County, other municipalities,referral agencies,and church members. Due to the variety of information available on the project we want to provide you a summary of current information. Additionally, we would like your recommendation on a church campus development option that is being considered. We have included a prepaid,preaddressed postcard for your response. We ask that you return this postcard with your recommendation as soon as possible; we would like to have your recommendation prior to July 9, 2003. The Board of Weld County Commissioners will consider the proposed application, which includes the information in this correspondence, on July 9, 2003, during the County Commissioners' hearing. Please understand that the Board of Commissioners has the authority to change or modify the information as presented in this correspondence. 1. No Connectivity of Pearl Howlett or Blue Mountain Road to the LifeBridge Campus • LifeBridge has opposed the connection of Pearl Howlett and Blue Mountain Road at both the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners' hearings. • All references to these connections have been removed from the maps. • LifeBridge will continue to oppose these connections. 2. Building Heights • We have included a drawing that shows the maximum building height areas on the site. • The maximum building heights in all residential areas of the plan are 30-35 feet. • The maximum building heights in the mixed use, assisted living, and neighborhood center of the plan(the 22 acres along Highway 119) are 45 feet. [4 1 EXHIBIT rig Page 1 of 4—LifeBridge Letter to Homeowners )Z.4NOCW • The maximum building heights in the church campus area range from 30 to 75 feet. • The maximum building heights on the church campus are lower on the outer areas of the campus and taller in the center of the campus. As a result: o Approx. 30 acres around the outside edge have no buildings. o Approx. 10 acres could have buildings with a maximum height of 30 feet. o Approx. 50 acres could have buildings with a maximum height of 45 feet. o Approx. 15 acres could have buildings with a maximum height of 55 feet. o Approx. 37 acres could have buildings with a maximum height of 60 feet. o On the approx. 18 acres at the center of the campus, 14.4 acres could have buildings with a maximum height of 60 feet and approximately 3.6 acres could have buildings with a maximum height of 75 feet. 3. Additional Restrictions on the Church Campus • No buildings can be constructed on the eastern 30%of the 18-acre area, identified with 75- foot maximum building heights, for 10 years (see drawing). • The overall square footage of the church campus has been reduced from 2.0M square feet to 1.5M square feet. This is a 25%reduction in the overall size of the development within the church campus. This 25%reduction includes buildings,traffic, and parking. • The following three restrictions additionally affect the eastern most 500 feet of the church campus area. The eastern 500 feet of the church campus is approximately the 60 acres on the east side of the campus. o The footprint area of all of the buildings in the eastern 500 feet of the church campus area will not cover more than 20%of the land. At least 80% of this area will not have any buildings. o The maximum north-south length of any building in the eastern 500 feet of the church campus area is 250 feet. No building could have a north-south length greater than 250 feet. o The minimum separation between buildings in the eastern 500 feet of the church campus will be 75 feet. All buildings in this area will be at least 75 feet apart. 4. Church Campus Building Offsets from the Property Line • No building will be constructed less than 125 feet from the property line on the church campus. • All church campus buildings proposed in Phases 1, 2, and 3 are on the western half of the church campus.The eastern half of the church campus is proposed agricultural in Phases 1, 2, and 3. • The Weld County planning code allows for a structure with a height of 30 feet to be constructed at a 25-foot offset from the property line. In this instance the ratio of offset to height is 25:30, or 5:6. • At the east side of the church campus area we are proposing buildings,with a maximum height of 30 feet, at a minimum offset of 125 feet from the property line. In this instance the ratio of offset to height is 125:30,or 25:6. This offset restriction is five times greater than the Weld County requirement. • The following table describes the proposed maximum building height, east property line offset,ratio of offset to building height, and relation to the Weld County standard requirement. Page 2 of 4—LifeBridge Letter to Homeowners East Property Line Maximum Building Ratio of Offset to Relation to Weld County Offset Height Building Height Minimum Standard 125 30 25 to 6 5 times greater 250 45 33 to 6 6 times greater 375 55 41 to 6 8 times greater 500 60 50 to 6 10 times greater 700 75 56 to 6 11 times greater • Building setbacks from other property lines on the church campus are similar to these described setbacks. 5. Lighting and Noise • All sports field lighting has been removed from the application. • All parking and street lighting within the entire site will be directional cutoff lighting to minimize offsite glare. • Landscaped berms will be constructed along the eastern property line to reflect noise and screen vehicle lights and parking areas. 6. Amphitheatre • The amphitheatre has been removed from Phase 1 development plan. • The maximum size of a future amphitheatre has been reduced from 5,000 seats to 1,500 seats. • The location of a future amphitheatre is restricted to the northwest corner of the church campus. • All references and plans for a 5,000-seat prayer garden and/or amphitheatre have been removed from the application. 7. Traffic and Road Improvements • The traffic study, which has been reviewed by Weld County Public Works, City of Longmont Public Works, and CDOT, indicates a Phase 1 (2005-2008)traffic level of approximately 3,000 car trips per day,which is equal to 1,500 cars each making one trip on and one trip off the site. This traffic level is further described as: o 1,000 car trips (500 cars)per day to/from the church campus o 2,000 car trips (1,000 cars)per day to/from the single-family housing, senior living residential, and the mixed-use, commercial,retail area. • If all proposed developments occur which are expected to take 50 years,the traffic study indicates a maximum traffic level of approximately 25,000 car trips per day,which is equal to 12,500 cars each making one trip on and one trip off the site. This traffic level is further described as: o 9,000 car trips(4,500 cars)per day to/from the church campus. o 16,000 car trips (8,000 cars)per day to/from the single-family housing, senior living residential, and the mixed-use, commercial,retail area. • LifeBridge will pay for the improvement of roads, as required by Weld County and CDOT. • Improvement of roads will coincide with the level of traffic as required by Weld County and CDOT. Page 3 of 4—LifeBridge Letter to Homeowners 8. Timing of Development • There are three areas of development included in the overall site plan; each area will be developed at a different rate. The development in some areas will be determined by market conditions; the development of the church campus will likely be a function of church attendance. o The single family housing residential area will be developed as market conditions allow and it is expected to take 3-6 years. o The senior living village residential and neighborhood center areas will be developed as market conditions allow and it is expected to take 10-15 years. o The church campus area will be developed in many phases as church attendance increases; it is expected to take 50+years.The expected time between construction phases is at least 3 years and could be as long as 12 years. • We expect that the undeveloped areas of the site will remain in agriculture until it is developed. • A drawing is included that shows the anticipated phasing of development on the site. 9. Church Campus Development Option—Please return postcard. • There has been a request from residents within the Elms at Meadow Vale for a single row of residential housing along the eastern edge of the church campus. • As a result of this request we have attached a drawing proposing a single row of homes on the eastern property line adjacent to the existing homes and lots on the western side of the Elms at Meadow Vale. • These proposed residential lots have been sited so that they back up to the existing homes in the Elms at Meadow Vale with access from a road serving the church campus. • As proposed these homes will provide a noise and view buffer between the Elms at Meadow Vale and the proposed church campus. • We have enclosed a postage paid, self-addressed postcard. We ask that you please return this postcard to us with your recommendation as soon as possible; we would like to have your recommendation prior to July 9, 2003. • You may also email recommendations to me at bgrinnell@lbcc.org. If you would like to arrange a time to meet and/or discuss any issue,please contact me by email or at 303-776-2927, ext. 260.Thank you for your time and comment. Sincerely, Bruce ' nell LifeBridge Christian Chur copy: Weld County Planning Department Enclosures: Return Postcard Drawings Page 4 of 4—LifeBridge Letter to Homeowners ESTHER Gesick - Church campus with landscape berm2.jpg Page 1 w-. "..,1 3 W r.., I,WN.-\ \0 phasing ar—, �„.,,,T i ter-_ ., s ,. - jrot I us a I m j m Cross section with maximum heights i ,,�" a-, lk 4'i 2 p y� � 1 L%, , $2,1*-4 : rt., tu ,,e— , i.. � ? a S jb�c.a ✓ maw\ a Ill a �t l X11 ©�a► - A y,!Pi "tWI sit f � 1�1 L '� a r� '!, , ,O° IIIIIIi , ,_.,1, ,_„ - LifeBridge church campus with landscaped berm (without residential lots) ESTHER Gesick- Church Campus with residential2.jpg Page 1 ,1 1"�MA phasinggligra _ i Jm I .,, I ,2, I .0 I .?, Cross section with maximum heights ''`ef",,:ecro: 3. ' , , , '' , , 4,:e ,ee „07 reillC 1 Jt :a14I O' o . mil r, t t CO i NN "'•'>*7z > 1 N Rd 1N1de :` . I� Err— .(-- !I —P.- \ ji©A 11 H iii: Y7 LifeBridge LifeBridge church campus with residential lots along east side r LifeBridge Project Adjacent Homeowners (Recipients of June 30, 2003, Mailing) r A B C 1 Resident Street Address Subdivision 2 Nanette & James Anderson 11614 Victor Dr. Elms 3 Ian & Darla Gabbitas 11627 Victor Dr. Elms 4 Michael & Lisa Donohoo 11669 Montgomery Cr. Elms 5 Kenneth & Rebecca Auer 11671 Montgomery Cr. Elms 6 Duane&Vicki Braunagel 11677 Montgomery Cr. Elms 7 Randall & Carrie McKie 11683 Montgomery Cr. Elms 8 Jerry& Margaret Schneider 11684 Montgomery Cr. Elms 9 Peter& Monica Gries 11685 Montgomery Cr. Elms 10 Peter& Bridget Lambert 11686 Montgomery Cr. Elms 11 Tony& Linda Mollohan 11686 Victor Drive Elms 12 William & Cathie Swafford 11687 Montgomery Cr. Elms 13 John &Anda Brenholt 11689 Montgomery Cir. Elms 14 Patrick &Anne Conway 11690 Montgomery Cir. Elms 15 Brandon & Kimberly Fuller 11691 Montgomery Cr. Elms 16 Richard & Kisa Archer 11691 Victor Dr. Elms 17 Corey&Amy Johnson 11693 Montgomery Cr. Elms 18 J. Michael & Marie Oster 11694 Montgomery Cr. Elms 19 Todd & Nancy Galloway 11695 Montgomery Cr. Elms 20 Robert & Diane Harrison 11696 Montgomery Cr. Elms 21 Joseph & Mary Orlandino 11697 Montgomery Cr. Elms 22 Kathryn &William Lynch 11698 Montgomery Cr. Elms r 23 Michael Rabensteine 11699 Montgomery Cr. Elms 24 Kenneth & Ellen Golliher 11700 Montgomery Cr. Elms 25 Bryan & Kathleen Bren 11701 Montgomery Cir. Elms 26 Frances Esterbrook 11702 Montgomery Cr. Elms 27 Ryland Homes Construction 11702 Pleasant Hill Elms 28 James Kriege & Carol Linn Mayrer 11702 Victor Dr. Elms 29 Corey& Tami Wozny 11703 Montgomery Cr. Elms 30 Mark & Jennifer Hargrove 11703 Pleasant Hill Road Elms 31 James E. Mueller 11704 Montgomery Cr. Elms 32 Shannon M. Kemp 11705 Montgomery Cr. Elms 33 Shirley A. Mulholland 11705 Pleasant Hill Road Elms 34 David C. Duvall 11706 Montgomery Cr. Elms 35 Christopher&Wendi Stodden 11708 Beasley Road Elms 36 Ty& Kim Tran 11708 Montgomery Cr. Elms 37 Ivan & Rachel Maxwell 11709 Elmer Linn Drive Elms 38 Ervin & Jill Vallad 11710 Beasley Road Elms 39 Gregory& Kimberly Kittilson 11710 Montgomery Cr. Elms 40 Gerald &Julie McVicker 11711 Beasley Road Elms 41 Victor& Cheryl Hoisington 11711 Elmer Linn Drive Elms 42 James &Julie Newlin 11711 Montgomery Cr. Elms 43 Michael &Stacy Kamigaki 11712 Beasley Road Elms 44 Thomas P. Middlen 11712 Montgomery Cr. Elms 45 Lawrence & Kathleen Trubell 11713 Elmer Linn Drive Elms 46 Richard D. Salm &Janet D. Russell 11713 Montgomery Cr. Elms 47 Scott & Gretchen Pratt 11713 Victor Drive Elms 48 Erik &Wendy Wahlin 11714 Beasley Road Elms 49 Jerry& Marian Curry 11714 Elmer Linn Dr. Elms LifeBridge Project Adjacent Homeowners (Recipients of June 30, 2003, Mailing) r A B C 1 Resident Street Address Subdivision 50 John & Sarah Fanton 11714 Montgomery Cr. Elms 51 Gary&Gayle Wren 11715 Beasley Road Elms 52 Terry Lee& Joanne Braun 11715 Elmer Linn Drive Elms 53 Christopher& Brenda Bowlby 11715 Montgomery Circle Elms 54 Steve& Diane Lam 11716 Beasley Road Elms 55 Paul & Melissa Vandenbos 11716 Elmer Linn Drive Elms 56 Frank& Renee Svejda 11716 Montgomery Cr. Elms 57 Eugene & Jacqueline Merrill 11717 Elmer Linn Dr. Elms 58 Robert& Jane Sanders 11717 Montgomery Cr. Elms 59 Randy& Linda Heil 11717 Pleasant Hill Road Elms 60 Phil & Ihn Leigh 11718 Beasley Road Elms 61 Thomas & Mary Cairy 11718 Elmer Linn Dr. Elms 62 Kenneth & Lenise Jacobs 11718 Montgomery Cr. Elms 63 Darryl Samuel Denius 11719 Beasley Road Elms 64 Brian & Lindsey Heil 11719 Elmer Linn Dr. Elms 65 Stephen & Shauna Libsack 11719 Montgomery Cr. Elms 66 Tav& D'Anne Koblick 11719 Pleasant Hill Road Elms 67 Larry&Alna Heil 11720 Beasley Road Elms 68 Robert& Marion Lostroh 11720 Elmer Linn Drive Elms 69 Paul &Carol Zuber 11720 Montgomery Cr. Elms 70 Joseph & Beth Barkoviak 11721 Beasley Road Elms '^ 71 Robert & Kayla Smith 11721 Elmer Linn Drive Elms 72 Robert & Karin Sims 11721 Montgomery Cr. Elms 73 Pat & Christine Hains 11721 Pleasant Hill Road Elms 74 Gerald & Nancy Falconer 11722 Beasley Road Elms 75 William &Carole Auf-Der Heyde 11722 Elmer Linn Drive Elms 76 Ronald &Jenifer Olsen 11722 Montgomery Cr. Elms 77 James & Linda Hess 11722 Pleasant Hill Road Elms 78 Robert &Victoria Schnepp 11723 Beasley Road Elms 79 Jeffrey&Jodean Sanders 11723 Elmer Linn Drive Elms 80 Mondul &Joy Dul 11723 Montgomery Cr. Elms 81 David & Debbora Jenkins 11723 Pleasant Hill Road Elms 82 William & Lisa Isom 11724 Beasley Road Elms 83 Duane & Darlene Lenz 11724 Elmer Linn Dr. Elms 84 Timothy&Jenny Lindberg 11724 Montgomery Cr. Elms 85 Quentin & Patricia Mendenhall 11724 Pleasant Hill Road Elms 86 Randy& Joan Branham 11725 Beasley Road Elms 87 William & Christine Trochman 11725 Elmer Linn Drive Elms 88 Michael Papillo& Pamela Bendell 11725 Montgomery Cr. Elms 89 Thomas &Audra Geldmacher 11725 Pleasant Hill Rd. Elms 90 Paul & Karol Markle 11726 Beasley Road Elms 91 Gary& Janice Fisher 11726 Elmer Linn Dr. Elms 92 David & Deborah Rice 11726 Montgomery Cr. Elms 93 Fred & Meryl Collins 11726 Pleasant Hill Road Elms r 94 Larry& Donna Schroeder 11727 Beasley Road Elms 95 Roger& Mary Olsen 11727 Elmer Linn Road Elms 96 Thomas & Patricia Lemming 11727 Montgomery Cr. Elms 97 Michael &Janis Whisman 11727 Pleasant Hill Road Elms LifeBridge Project Adjacent Homeowners (Recipients of June 30, 2003, Mailing) ,••—• A B C 1 Resident Street Address Subdivision 98 David & Mary Lu 11728 Beasley Road Elms 99 Jonathan & Kimberly Engard 11728 Elmer Linn Dr. Elms 100 Jong J. Lim &Young S. Lim 11728 Montgomery Cr. Elms 101 John & Kathleen Sargent 11728 Pleasant Hill Road Elms 102 Marty&Cyndy Okland 11729 Beasley Road Elms 103 K.R. Srinivasan & Indu S. Cidambi 11729 Elmer Linn Dr. Elms 104 Thomas Nevin & Danielle Didonna 11729 Montgomery Cr. Elms 105 Richard &Susan Jetley 11729 Pleasant Hill Road Elms 106 Mark & Nikki Archuleta 11730 Beasley Road Elms 107 Maurice&Celeta Jones 11730 Elmer Linn Drive Elms 108 Anthony& Kriston Maglia 11730 Montgomery Cr. Elms 109 Leslie J.& Patricia McDaniel 11730 Pleasant Hill Road Elms 110 Gregg A. Koldenhoven 11744 River View Road Elms 111 Wesley& Myrna Sullivan 11753 Center Drive Elms 112 Dan & Bobbie Jensen 11826 N. Beasley Road Elms 113 David Meyer 11829 North Beasley Road Elms 114 Gallery Homes, Inc. 171 Salina Street Elms 115 Franklin & Suezan Johnson 2078 Bryant Dr. Elms 116 Lizanna Homes 2080 Meadow Vale Road Elms 117 Daniel &Amy Jo Rice 2094 Bryant Dr. Elms 118 Dale & Natalie Tenny 2112 Bryant Drive Elms 119 Scott& Sharon McGonigal 2126 Byrant Dr. Elms 120 Albert&Sarah Wolff 2142 Bryant Drive Elms 121 Ryland Homes (#1 Show Home) 2675 Elmer Linn Drive Elms 122 Ryland Homes (#2 Show Home) 2677 Elmer Linn Drive Elms 123 Ryland Homes (#3 Show Home) 2679 Elmer Linn Drive Elms 124 Duane & Louise Leise 2686 Pearl Howlett Road Elms 125 Sam Barnett 2702 Pearl Howlett Road Elms 126 Scott Oaks 3026 SW 6th Street Elms 127 High Mark Construction Co. 5146 East 123rd. Court Elms 128 Goscha Construction, Inc. 530 Mayo Court Elms 129 The Genesee Company 603 Park Point Dr., Suite 201 Elms 130 Michael Bower 6343 W. 120th Ave., Suite 100 Elms 131 Ryland Homes 8100 E. Maplewood Ave., Suite 100 Elms 132 Andy&Jean Abendschein 2020 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale 133 Todd & Stacy Mariott 1774 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale 134 Vince Greb 1798 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale 135 George &Virginia Rinard 1805 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale 136 Bob & Linda Fredericksen 1820 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale 137 Kris &Steve Sodja 1842 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale 138 Eugene &Anne Schiferl 1868 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale 139 William &Joyce Norris 1872 Blue Mountain Road Meadow Vale 140 Rod &Cindy Schmidt 1873 Blue Mountain Road Meadow Vale 141 Paul & Carol King 1877 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale r 142 Ray&Teresa Luthye 1886 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale 143 Gordon Miller 1896 Blue Mountain Road Meadow Vale 144 Lane & Denise Butler 1897 Blue Mountain Road Meadow Vale 145 Greg & Hiclalea Robles 1908 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale LifeBridge Project Adjacent Homeowners (Recipients of June 30, 2003, Mailing) ,,1 A B C 1 Resident Street Address Subdivision 146 Jud Hanks 1915 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale 147 Ted & Cecelia Schultz 1921 Blue Mountain Road Meadow Vale 148 Darren & Kim Lasko 1926 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale 149 Albino & Caoline Bustillos 1935 Blue Mountain Road Meadow Vale 150 Mark R. Faivre & Lori J. Hoffecker 1940 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale 151 John Schroeder 1942 Blue Mountain Road Meadow Vale 152 Randall Stanton 1957 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale 153 Steven & Leianne Koch 1959 Blue Mountain Road Meadow Vale 154 Carl & Linda Erlinger 1962 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale 155 Alejandra Halmark 1964 Blue Mountain Road Meadow Vale 156 Alan &Alice Swanson 1971 Blue Mountain Road Meadow Vale 157 Vivian Mega 1982 Blue Mountain Road Meadow Vale 158 Mike Blossom 1990 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale 159 Curtis & Tonya Bean 1993 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale 160 Frank & Jana Pierce 1998 Blue Mountain Road Meadow Vale 161 Scott Dirschl 2000 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale 162 Keith &Salley Jean Meier 2004 Blue Mountain Road Meadow Vale 163 Jay&Annette Seaver 2010 Blue Mountain Road Meadow Vale 164 Bill &Jane Ewer 2016 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale 165 Gale & Connie Powers 2031 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale 166 John White 2032 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale r- 167 Cindy& Jim Stennette 2034 JCK Place Meadow Vale 168 Jim & Cindy Stennette 2040 JCK Place Meadow Vale 169 David Maciorowski 2043 Blue Mountain Road Meadow Vale 170 Steven & Cindi Mason 2046 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale 171 Steven R. Bennett 2047 JCK Place Meadow Vale 172 Lisa & Russell Black 2055 JCK Place Meadow Vale 173 Rueben Martinez 2056 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale 174 Ramon & Flora Robles 2060 JCK Pl. Meadow Vale 175 Jim & Yvonne Eyk 2062 Blue Mountain Road Meadow Vale 176 Kevin & Jana Sunberg 2067 JCK Pl. Meadow Vale 177 Mark& Wendy Quintana 2068 Meadow Vale Road' Meadow Vale 178 John Smith 2080 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale 179 Ruth Mitchell 2087 Blue Mountain Road Meadow Vale 180 Ruben &Cindy Gonzales 2090 Blue Mountain Road Meadow Vale 181 Ed & Sue Harbuz 2110 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale 182 Max Martinez 2111 Blue Mountain Road Meadow Vale 183 Ronnie &Judy Franco 2118 Blue Mountain Road Meadow Vale 184 Juanita Putman 2130 Meadow Vale Road 'Meadow Vale 185 Eugene&Judy Parnell 2132 Meadowlark Place Meadow Vale 186 Robert S. Weathers & Colleen Shibao 2133 Blue Mountain Road Meadow Vale 187 Gregory W. Vinton 2135 Meadow Lark Pl. Meadow Vale 188 Mary& Karen Hulbert 2138 Blue Mountain Road Meadow Vale 189 Marisa Burt& Mark Flood 2141 Meadowlark Pl. Meadow Vale '---, 190 Denny& Kelly Farnsworth 2143 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale 191 Bill & Lauren Malesenka 2150 Meadowlark Pl. Meadow Vale 192 Karen Wagner 2154 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale 193 John & Sue Stippich 2155 Meadowlark Pl. Meadow Vale LifeBridge Project Adjacent Homeowners (Recipients of June 30, 2003, Mailing) A B C 1 Resident Street Address Subdivision 194 Heinz& Deborah Abram 2157 Blue Mountain Road Meadow Vale 195 Bob & Linda Donner 2168 Meadowlark PI. Meadow Vale 196 David & Cynthia Tryc 2171 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale 197 Jim &Cheryl Haflich 2173 Meadowlark PI. Meadow Vale 198 Rex & Karen Deitesfled 2174 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale 199 Brian Dodd 2178 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale 200 Charlie & Lynda Robertson 2186 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale 201 Bob & Deb Fitzpatrick 2189 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale 202 Charles &Teresa Hellmer 2190 Meadowlark Pl. Meadow Vale 203 Robert& Karen Bush 2197 Meadowlark PI. Meadow Vale 204 Robert& Cheryl Stevens 2204 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale 205 Forrest Fleming 2208 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale 206 Todd & Barbara Feaster 2211 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale 207 Jerry& Darlene Schlagel 2220 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale 208 Michael & Barbara Stember 2232 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale 209 John Shellenberger 2243 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale 210 Gregory&Tracy Dyer 2250 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale 211 Dennis Adler 2262 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale 212 Bernard & Donna Messineo 2274 Meadow Vale Road Meadow Vale 213 Jim Golden 2359 Homestead Pl. Meadow Vale 214 Rod & Lorraine Ward 2366 Homestead PI. Meadow Vale 215 Jerry and Florence Landbloom 2371 Homestead Pl. Meadow Vale 216 Larry&Jane Penney 2378 Homestead PI. Meadow Vale 217 Floyd & Kathy Oliver 2385 Homestead PI. Meadow Vale 218 Mark & Pat Mc Dowell 2390 Homestead PI. Meadow Vale 219 Resident 3341Big Bend Longview 220 Resident 3350Big Bend Longview 221 Resident 3362Big Bend Longview 222 Resident 3374Big Bend Longview 223 Resident 3377Big Bend Longview 224 Resident 3386Big Bend Longview 225 Resident 11268Big Bend Longview 226 Resident 11273Big Bend Longview 227 Resident 11280Big Bend Longview 228 Resident 11294Big Bend Longview 229 Resident 11295Big Bend Longview 230 Resident 11297Big Bend Longview 231 Resident 11304Big Bend Longview 232 Resident 11306Big Bend Longview 233 Resident 11309Big Bend Longview 234 Resident 11311 Big Bend Longview 235 Shannon Chavez, Marissa, Mike Pacheco 11316Big Bend Longview 236 Resident 11318Big Bend Longview 237 Resident 11320Big Bend Longview 238 Asleigh, Bob, Ayotte 11321 Big Bend Longview 239 Resident 11323Big Bend Longview 240 Resident 11330Big Bend Longview 241 Resident 11332Big Bend Longview LifeBridge Project Adjacent Homeowners (Recipients of June 30, 2003, Mailing) ,0--, A B C 1 Resident Street Address Subdivision 242 Resident 11344Big Bend Longview 243 Resident 11354Big Bend Longview 244 Resident 11356Big Bend Longview 245 Resident 11359Big Bend Longview 246 Resident 11368Big Bend Longview 247 Resident 11369Big Bend Longview 248 Resident 11370Big Bend Longview 249 Resident 11380Big Bend Longview 250 Zulmar Salomon 11382Big Bend Longview 251 Resident 11383Big Bend Longview 252 Resident 11394Big Bend Longview 253 Resident 11406Big Bend Longview 254 Resident 11409Big Bend Longview 255 Amy Foster 11411 Big Bend Longview 256 Resident 11418Big Bend Longview 257 Resident 11420Big Bend Longview 258 Resident 11423Big Bend Longview 259 Austin, James, Tammy, Trevor Woods 11432Big Bend Longview 260 Resident 11435Big Bend Longview 261 Resident 11444Big Bend Longview 262 Resident 11447Big Bend Longview 263 Resident 11456Big Bend Longview 264 Resident 3370BIack Hills Longview 265 Resident 3373Black Hills Longview 266 Resident 3382Black Hills Longview 267 Resident 3385Black Hills Longview 268 Elouise Willer 3394Black Hills Longview 269 Resident 3397Black Hills Longview 270 Resident 3406Black Hills Longview 271 Resident 3409Black Hills Longview 272 Resident 3411Black Hills Longview 273 Resident 3418Black Hills Longview 274 Resident 3420Black Hills Longview 275 Resident 3423Black Hills Longview 276 Resident 3432Black Hills Longview 277 Resident 11121Bluff Lodge Longview 278 Antonio, Nancy Griego 11128BIuff Lodge Longview 279 Resident 11130BIuff Lodge Longview 280 Resident 11133Bluff Lodge Longview 281 Resident 11142Bluff Lodge Longview 282 Resident 11145Bluff Lodge Longview 283 Steve Morales 11154Bluff Lodge Longview 284 Resident 11157Bluff Lodge Longview 285 Resident 11166Bluff Lodge Longview r-. 286 Resident 11169Bluff Lodge Longview 287 Mariann DeStefano 11171 Bluff Lodge Longview 288 Resident 11178Bluff Lodge Longview 289 Resident 3450Bright Angel Longview LifeBridge Project Adjacent Homeowners (Recipients of June 30, 2003, Mailing) "--, A B C 1 Resident Street Address Subdivision 290 Resident 3453Bright Angel Longview 291 Resident 34628right Angel Longview 292 Resident 3465Bright Angel Longview 293 Resident 3474Bright Angel Longview 294 Resident 3477Bright Angel Longview 295 Resident 3486Bright Angel Longview 296 Resident 3489Bright Angel Longview 297 Resident 3491 Bright Angel Longview 298 Resident 3498Bright Angel Longview 299 Resident 11281 Bryce Longview 300 Bruce, Mary Ellsworth 11290Bryce Longview 301 Resident 11293Bryce Longview 302 Bobbie Evert 11302Bryce Longview 303 Resident 11305Bryce Longview 304 Resident 11314Bryce Longview 305 Resident 11317Bryce Longview 306 Resident 11230Canyon Creek Longview 307 Resident 11233Canyon Creek Longview 308 Resident 11242Canyon Creek Longview 309 Resident 11245Canyon Creek Longview 310 Susan, William Davis, Jon Tsengouras 11254Canyon Creek Longview ea 311 Faith Parker 11257Canyon Creek Longview 312 Resident 11266Canyon Creek Longview 313 Donald Hebein 11271Canyon Creek Longview 314 Resident 11278Canyon Creek Longview 315 Resident 3266Far View Longview 316 Resident 3273Far View Longview 317 Resident 3278Far View Longview 318 Resident 3280Far View Longview 319 Resident 3282Far View Longview 320 Resident 3285Far View Longview 321 Resident 3292Far View Longview 322 Resident 3294Far View Longview 323 Resident 3295Far View Longview 324 Resident 3297Far View Longview 325 Resident 3304Far View Longview 326 Resident 3306Far View Longview 327 Resident 3307Far View Longview 328 Resident 3309Far View Longview 329 Resident 3311 Far View Longview 330 Resident 3318Far View Longview 331 Austin, Charles, Savannah, Starr Edson 3319Far View Longview 332 Resident 3320Far View Longview 333 Resident 3323Far View Longview 334 Resident 3335Far View Longview 335 Resident 3341 Far View Longview 336 Resident 3344Far View Longview 337 Resident 3347Far View Longview LifeBridge Project Adjacent Homeowners (Recipients of June 30, 2003, Mailing) r A B C 1 Resident Street Address Subdivision 338 Resident 3359Far View Longview 339 Resident 11400Far View Longview 340 Resident 11403Far View Longview 341 Resident 11412Far View Longview 342 Resident 11415Far View Longview 343 Resident 11427Far View Longview 344 Resident 11433Far View Longview 345 Resident 11439Far View Longview 346 Resident 11441 Far View Longview 347 Resident 11442Far View Longview 348 Resident 11445Far View Longview 349 Resident 11446Far View Longview 350 Resident 11450Far View Longview 351 Resident 11453Far View Longview 352 Resident 11454Far View Longview 353 Resident 11457Far View Longview 354 Resident 11465Far View Longview 355 Resident 11466Far View Longview 356 Resident 11477Far View Longview 357 Kris, Ryan, Derek, Gina McDaniel 11478Far View Longview 358 Resident 11489Far View Longview r— 359 Resident 3402Forest Canyon Longview 360 Resident 3405Forest Canyon Longview 361 Resident 3414Forest Canyon Longview 362 Resident 3417Forest Canyon Longview 363 Jessica, Chris, Laurie, Mallory Botsch 3426Forest Canyon Longview 364 Nancy DeBaere 3429Forest Canyon Longview 365 Resident 3431 Forest Canyon Longview 366 Resident 3438Forest Canyon Longview 367 Mescal Poole 3440Forest Canyon Longview 368 Resident 3443Forest Canyon Longview 369 Resident 3443Forest Canyon Longview 370 Raymond, Donna Hall 3452Forest Canyon Longview 371 Resident 3455Forest Canyon Longview 372 Resident 3422Gallatin Longview 373 Tony McDonald 3425Gallatin Longview 374 Resident 3434Gallatin Longview 375 Resident 3437Gallatin Longview 376 Resident 3446Gallatin Longview 377 Resident 3449Gallatin Longview 378 Heather Lee 3451 Gallatin Longview 379 Resident 3452Gallatin Longview 380 Resident 3458Gallatin Longview 381 Clinton McKinney 3460Gallatin Longview 382 Paula, Richard, Paige, Ryan Fagre 11432GIacier Point Longview 383 Resident 11444GIacier Point Longview 384 Resident 11447Glacier Point Longview 385 Resident 11456GIacier Point Longview LifeBridge Project Adjacent Homeowners (Recipients of June 30, 2003, Mailing) es, A B C 1 Resident Street Address Subdivision 386 Resident 11459GIacier Point Longview 387 Resident 11461Glacier Point Longview 388 Resident 11468GIacier Point Longview 389 Resident 11470Glacier Point Longview 390 Resident 11473Glacier Point Longview 391 Resident 11482Glacier Point Longview 392 Resident 11485GIacier Point Longview 393 Resident 11494GIacier Point Longview 394 Sara Gonzales 11497Glacier Point Longview 395 Resident 11443Hot Springs Longview 396 Roxy Banner 11452Hot Springs Longview 397 Resident 11455Hot Springs Longview 398 Resident 11464Hot Springs Longview 399 Michelle Floriolli 11467Hot Springs Longview 400 Mae Deane Macklberg 11476Hot Springs Longview 401 Resident 11479Hot Springs Longview 402 Resident 11481 Hot Springs Longview 403 Resident 11488Hot Springs Longview 404 Resident 11490Hot Springs Longview 405 Resident 11493Hot Springs Longview 406 Resident 11434Jackson Longview '' 407 Resident 11437Jackson Longview 408 Resident 11449Jackson Longview 409 Emerald, Hannah, Michael, Rochelle Colburn 11451Jackson Longview 410 Resident 11458Jackson Longview 411 Resident 11460Jackson Longview 412 Resident 11463Jackson Longview 413 Resident 11472Jackson Longview 414 Resident 11475Jackson Longview 415 Resident 11484Jackson Longview 416 Resident 11487Jackson Longview __ 417 Resident 11496Jackson Longview 418 Resident 11499Jackson Longview 419 Resident 3294Longview Blvd Longview 420 Resident 3296Longview Blvd Longview 421 Resident 3297Longview Blvd Longview 422 Troy Schroeder 3299Longview Blvd Longview 423 Resident 3306Longview Blvd Longview 424 Resident 3309Longview Blvd Longview 425 Resident 3311 Longview Blvd Longview 426 Resident 3313Longview Blvd Longview 427 Shannon Hose 3318Longview Blvd Longview 428 Resident 3320Longview Blvd Longview 429 Resident 3323Longview Blvd Longview 430 Resident 3332Longview Blvd Longview 431 Anna, Edward, Lydia Delgado 3335Longview Blvd ILongview 432 Resident 3338Longview Blvd Longview 433 Dawna French, Cindy York 3340Longview Blvd Longview LifeBridge Project Adjacent Homeowners (Recipients of June 30, 2003, Mailing) A B C 1 Resident Street Address Subdivision 434 Resident 3343Longview Blvd Longview 435 Resident 3347Longview Blvd Longview 436 Resident 3352Longview Blvd Longview 437 Resident 3355Longview Blvd Longview 438 Resident 3364Longview Blvd Longview 439 Resident 3368Longview Blvd Longview 440 Resident 3376Longview Blvd Longview 441 Resident 3380Longview Blvd Longview 442 Resident 3388Longview Blvd Longview 443 Resident 3390Longview Blvd Longview 444 Resident 3393Longview Blvd Longview 445 Resident 3399Longview Blvd Longview 446 Resident 3402Longview Blvd Longview 447 Resident 11136Longview Blvd Longview 448 Resident 11139Longview Blvd Longview 449 Resident 11141 Longview Blvd Longview 450 Resident 11148Longview Blvd Longview 451 Resident 11150Longview Blvd Longview 452 Resident 11153Longview Blvd Longview 453 Resident 11160Longview Blvd Longview 454 Resident 11162Longview Blvd Longview ea" 455 Resident 11165Longview Blvd Longview 456 Resident 11174Longview Blvd Longview 457 Resident 11177Longview Blvd Longview 458 Resident 11178Longview Blvd Longview 459 Resident 11186Longview Blvd Longview 460 Resident 11189Longview Blvd Longview 461 Resident 11191 Longview Blvd Longview 462 Resident 11203Longview Blvd Longview 463 Resident 11212Longview Blvd Longview 464 Resident 11214Longview Blvd Longview 465 Resident 11226Longview Drive Longview 466 Richard, Leslie Northcott 11236Longview Drive Longview 467 Resident 11238Longview Drive Longview 468 Leslie, Ronnie Bolinger 11239Longview Drive Longview 469 Resident 11241 Longview Drive Longview 470 Resident 11243Longview Drive Longview 471 Resident 11248Longview Drive Longview 472 Resident 11250Longview Drive Longview 473 Resident 11252Longview Drive Longview 474 Kevin, Kris Hunt 11253Longview Drive Longview 475 Resident 11262Longview Drive Longview 476 Eva Johnson 3286Mammoth Longview 477 Resident 3291Mammoth Longview n 478 Resident 3298Mammoth Longview 479 Resident 3300Mammoth Longview 480 Resident 3303Mammoth Longview 481 Resident 3315Mammoth Longview LifeBridge Project Adjacent Homeowners (Recipients of June 30, 2003, Mailing) r., A B C 1 Resident Street Address Subdivision 482 Resident 3327Mammoth Longview 483 Resident 3330Mesa Verde Longview 484 Resident 3345Mesa Verde Longview 485 Resident 3354Mesa Verde Longview 486 Resident 3357Mesa Verde Longview 487 Joanne, Vincient Wilson 3366Mesa Verde Longview 488 Resident 3369Mesa Verde Longview 489 Beulah, George, Raymond Dever 3371 Mesa Verde Longview 490 Resident 3378Mesa Verde Longview 491 Resident 3251 North Rim Longview 492 Gerald, Sharon Nation 3258North Rim Longview 493 Resident 3260North Rim Longview 494 Resident 3263North Rim Longview 495 Resident 3272North Rim Longview 496 Resident 3273North Rim Longview 497 Resident 3275North Rim Longview 498 Resident 3284North Rim Longview 499 Resident 3287North Rim Longview 500 Resident 3296North Rim Longview 501 Resident 3299North Rim Longview 502 Resident 3301North Rim Longview t 503 Resident 3308North Rim Longview 504 Resident 3310North Rim Longview 505 Resident 3346Rushmore Longview 506 Chris Ryan 3349Rushmore Longview 507 Resident 3351 Rushmore Longview 508 Jeff, Kelly, Rachel Parsons, Tia Ruesch 3358Rushmore Longview 509 Resident 3360Rushmore Longview 510 Resident 3363Rushmore Longview 511 Resident 3372Rushmore Longview 512 Resident 3375Rushmore Longview 513 Resident 11284Shoshone Longview 514 Resident 11299Shoshone Longview 515 Resident 11301Shoshone Longview 516 Resident 11308Shoshone Longview 517 Resident 11265South Rim Longview 518 Christopher, Ester, Monique Green 11277South Rim Longview 519 Resident 11286South Rim Longview 520 Resident 11289South Rim Longview 521 Resident 11291South Rim Longview 522 Resident 11298South Rim Longview 523 Resident 11300South Rim Longview 524 Resident 11303South Rim Longview 525 Resident 11312South Rim Longview 526 Larry, Levi, Maudie Adams 11315South Rim Longview 527 Resident 11324South Rim Longview 528 Kay, Lauren, Mark Gallegos 11327South Rim Longview 529 Resident 3290Sylvan Lane Longview LifeBridge Project Adjacent Homeowners (Recipients of June 30, 2003, Mailing) n A B C 1 Resident Street Address Subdivision 530 Resident 3293Sylvan Lane Longview 531 Resident 3302Sylvan Lane Longview 532 Resident 3305Sylvan Lane Longview 533 Resident 3284Teton Longview 534 Resident 3299Teton Longview 535 Resident 3301Teton Longview 536 Resident 3308Teton Longview 537 Resident 3310Teton Longview 538 Resident 3313Teton Longview 539 Resident 3322Teton Longview 540 Resident 3325Teton Longview 541 Resident 3334Teton Longview 542 Resident 3337Teton Longview 543 Resident 3346Teton Longview 544 Resident 3349Teton Longview 545 Resident 11036Thunderbird Longview 546 Resident 11039Thunderbird Longview 547 Resident 11041 Thunderbird Longview 548 Resident 11048Thunderbird Longview 549 Resident 11050Thunderbird Longview 550 Resident 11053Thunderbird Longview 551 Resident 11062Thunderbird Longview 552 Resident 11065Thunderbird Longview 553 Resident 11074Thunderbird Longview 554 Resident 11077Thunderbird Longview 555 Resident 11086Thunderbird Longview 556 Resident 11089Thunderbird Longview 557 Raymond, Donna Jamieson 11091Thunderbird Longview 558 Resident 11100Thunderbird Longview 559 Resident 11103Thunderbird Longview 560 Resident 11115Thunderbird Longview 561 Resident 3288Trailridge Longview 562 Resident 3293Trailridge Longview 563 Resident 3302Trailridge Longview 564 Resident 3305Trailridge Longview 565 Resident 3314Trailridge Longview 566 Resident 3317Trailridge Longview 567 Resident 3326Trailridge Longview 568 Resident 3329Trailridge Longview 569 Resident 3331Trailridge Longview 570 Resident 3338Trailridge (Longview 571 Resident 3340Trailridge Longview 572 Resident 3343Trailridge Longview 573 Resident 11042WiId Basin Longview 574 Resident 11045WiId Basin Longview 575 Resident 11054Wild Basin Longview 576 Resident 11057WiId Basin Longview 577 Resident 11066WiId Basin Longview LifeBridge Project Adjacent Homeowners (Recipients of June 30, 2003, Mailing) ,•.. A B C 1 Resident Street Address Subdivision 578 Resident 11069Wild Basin Longview 579 Resident 11071 Wild Basin Longview 580 Resident 11078Wild Basin Longview 581 Resident 11080Wild Basin Longview 582 Resident 11083Wild Basin Longview 583 Resident 11092Wild Basin Longview 584 Resident 11107Wild Basin Longview 585 Karen Koster, Dan Murphy 11021Yellowstone Longview 586 Resident 11046Yellowstone Longview 587 Resident 11049Yellowstone Longview 588 Resident 11051Yellowstone Longview 589 Resident 11058Yellowstone Longview 590 Resident 11060Yellowstone Longview 591 Resident 11063Yellowstone Longview 592 Resident 11072Yellowstone Longview 593 Resident 11075Yellowstone Longview 594 Resident 11084Yellowstone Longview 595 Resident 11087Yellowstone Longview 596 Resident 11096Yellowstone Longview 597 Resident 11101Yellowstone Longview 598 Resident 11126Yosemite Longview "—^. 599 Resident 11129Yosemite Longview 600 Resident 11131 Yosemite Longview 601 Peter Keieger Jr 11140Yosemite Longview 602 Resident 11143Yosemite Longview 603 Resident 11152Yosemite Longview 604 Resident 11155Yosemite Longview 605 Resident 11164Yosemite Longview 606 Resident 11167Yosemite Longview 607 Resident 11176Yosemite Longview 608 Resident 11179Yosemite Longview 609 Resident 11040Zion Longview 610 Resident 11043Zion Longview 611 Resident 11052Zion Longview 612 Resident 11055Zion Longview 613 Resident 11064Zion Longview 614 Resident 11067Zion Longview 615 Resident 11076Zion Longview 616 Resident 11079Zion Longview 617 Resident 11081Zion Longview 618 Resident 11088Zion Longview 619 Resident 11090Zion Longview 620 Resident 11102Zion Longview c 621 Resident 11105Zion Longview Real Estate Counseling Report Regarding the LifeBridge PUD Rezoning Weld County, Colorado For Mr. Bruce Grinnell Administrator LifeBridge Christian Church 10345 Ute Highway Longmont, CO 80501 Date of Value: July 3 2003 Date of Report: July 3, 2003 By W. West Foster, MAI, CRE and Jon M. Vaughan, Associate Foster Valuation Company LLC _ Cottonwood Commons Offices 1750 25th Avenue, Suite 204 Greeley, Colorado 80634 Federal Tax ID# 84-1157920 = EXHIBIT f : F #rkr4 FOSTER VALUATION COMPANY LLC July 2, 2003 Mr. Bruce Grinnell Administrator LifeBridge Christian Church 10345 Ute Highway Longmont, Colorado 80501 RE: LifeBridge Christian Church-PUD Rezoning Dear Mr. Grinnell: We have concluded the research necessary to evaluate the potential effects on real property value with respect to homes in subdivisions that adjoin the site for the proposed Lifebridge Christian Church campus. "An opinion of market value must be based on objective observation of the collective actions of the market." In layman's terms, sales must be examined to —— determine the opinion of the market regarding any specific feature or event that may have an impact on the market value of a particular parcel. The opinion is supported by market facts. During this consulting assignment, numerous sales were analyzed in several markets throughout Weld, Larimer, and Douglas Counties. An attempt was made find single-family residential properties contiguous to newly constructed buildings that would potentially be a detriment to the value of the existing residential properties. Please refer to the spreadsheet included as Exhibit A that tabulates the data analyzed. Weld County Westmoor Self Storage - This facility was built in 1995, adjoining the residential neighborhood of Westmoor West in Greeley. The facility was constructed contiguous to single-family residences that existed prior to the date the facility was built. Only two of the contiguous residential properties to the north sold both shortly before and shortly after _ the self-storage facility was built. Please refer to Exhibit B to visualize the site and the locations of the sales. Property No. 1 sold on August 10, 1993 at a price of$114,700 and resold on July 22, 1998 at a price of$138,500, reflecting a compound annual appreciation rate of 3.84 percent. Property No. 2 sold on November 16, 1989 at a price of$79,000 The Appraisal of Real Estate, Twelfth Edition (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2001), p. 21. W. West Foster, MAI, CRE • Sue Anne Foster, MAI, SRA • Michael J. Keefe, SRA Real Estate Appraisers &Counselors Cottonwood Commons Offices • 1750 25th Avenue, Suite 204. Greeley,Colorado 80634 Phone(970) 352-1117 • FAX (970) 353-2753 Mr. Bruce Grinnell Page 2 July 2, 2003 and resold on September 24, 1997 at a price of$118,500, reflecting a compound annual appreciation rate of 5.20 percent. These sales clearly show that no loss of value occurred due to the construction of the Westmoor Self Storage facility, which borders the south side of both parcels. The Arlington Park Apartments - This complex was built in 2002 for students at the University of Northern Colorado on a parcel that was previously occupied by Arlington Elementary School. While Arlington Elementary only covered the northeast corner, the new apartments fill the entire block, leaving minimal on-site space for the apartment residents to park. This has caused serious parking congestion in the surrounding neighborhood, so the residences in the surrounding neighborhood were examined to determine the impact on property values. Only two of the contiguous residential properties sold both before and after the construction of the Arlington Park Apartments. Please refer to Exhibit C to visualize the site and the locations of the sales. Property No. 3 sold on June 7, 1996 at a price of $70,000 and resold on February 28, 2002 at a price of $126,000, reflecting a compound annual appreciation rate of 10.29 percent. Property No. 4 sold on December 30, 1999 at a price of$102,000 and resold on -- April 15, 2002 at a price of$133,000, reflecting a compound annual appreciation rate of 3.37 percent. These sales demonstrate that no loss of value occurred due to the construction of the Arlington Park Apartments, even when parking congestion created new hassles for the owners of surrounding residential properties. Larimer County After examining pertinent data in Weld County, we searched for recent construction in Larimer County that was built adjoining residential properties to determine if any loss of value occurred due to such construction. Harmony Village PUD - This is a large commercial center that was built in 1999 at the southwest corner of the intersection of Harmony Road and Timberline Road. This _ development includes a Cinemark Theater, a gas station, some professional offices, and several restaurants. A residential neighborhood contiguous to the site existed prior to the date the center was built, as well as a residential development that was built concurrently _ with Harmony Village PUD. Only two of the pre-existing residential properties adjoining the site sold both before and after the construction of the commercial center. Please refer to Exhibit D to visualize the site and the locations of the sales. Property No. 5 sold on March 1, 1996 at a price of$142,900 and resold on May 22, 2000 at a price of $170,000, reflecting a compound annual appreciation rate of 4.44 percent. Property No. 6 sold on June 1, 1996 at a price of$143,500, and it resold three more times over the next four years. It resold on May 1, 1998 at a price of$144,900, reflecting a compound Mr. Bruce Grinnell Page 3 July 2, 2003 annual appreciation rate of 0.49 percent, and again resold on April 29, 1999 at a price of $161,500, reflecting a compound annual appreciation rate of 11.46 percent. Another resale of this property occurred on February 25, 2000 at a price of$174,500, reflecting a compound annual appreciation rate of 8.81 percent. These sales provide evidence that no loss of value occurred due to the construction of the Harmony Village PUD, even with the increased traffic caused by a major commercial center. Harmony Safeway Marketplace PUD - This Safeway-anchored shopping center was built in 1997 on East Harmony Road, with in-line stores being added to the center through the spring of 2000. Only three of the contiguous residential properties to the north sold both shortly before and shortly after the grocery-anchored retail center was built. Please refer to Exhibit E to visualize the site and the locations of the sales. Property No. 7 sold on September 11, 1992 at a price of $138,900 and resold on September 17, 2001 at a price of $244,900, reflecting a compound annual appreciation rate of 6.50 percent. Property No. 8 sold on April 9, 1992 at a price of$124,500 and resold on October 15, 1999 at a price of $190,000, reflecting a compound annual appreciation rate of 6.22 percent. Property No. 9 sold on October 1, 1991 at a price of $121,600 and resold on September 13, 2000 at a price of $195,000, reflecting a compound annual appreciation rate of 5.39 percent. These sales clearly show that no loss of value occurred due to the construction of the Harmony Safeway Marketplace, even with the added noise of delivery trucks late at night. Faith Evangelical Free Church - In addition to examining residential properties adjoining newly constructed commercial sites, we also examined residences that are contiguous to large church campuses similar to the proposed construction of Lifebridge. The Faith Evangelical Free Church broke ground for a new campus on South Shields Street in Fort Collins in April of 2002 and finished the construction in June of 2003. Prior to the church breaking ground on this site, it was vacant land adjoining the existing neighborhood of Four Seasons PUD. Only two of the contiguous residential properties sold both before and concurrently with the construction of the Faith Evangelical Free Church. Please refer to Exhibit F to visualize the site and the locations of the sales. Property No. 10 sold on November 11, 1992 at a price of $134,400 and resold on December 18, 2002 at a price of $253,000, reflecting a compound annual appreciation rate of 6.53 percent. Property No. 11 sold on August 1, 1996 at a price of$164,000 and resold on May 16, 2002 at a price of $238,500, reflecting a compound annual appreciation rate of 6.44 percent. These sales clearly demonstrate that no loss of value occurred due to the construction of the Faith Evangelical Free Church, even when mountain views are partially blocked. Numerous examples were found where residential subdivisions were built adjacent to recently constructed church campuses. Rigden Farms, First Filing, which is a Mr. Bruce Grinnell Page 4 July 2, 2003 residential subdivision currently under development in Fort Collins, adjoins the north side of Timberline Christian Church and demonstrates that residential properties are harmonious with church properties. Douglas County Further examples where residential subdivisions were built adjacent to recently constructed church campuses include Challenger Park Estates, which was developed in 1999. It borders the east side Southeast Christian Church in the City of Parker, Douglas County, which was built in 1998. Mother example is the Cherry Hills Community Church in Highlands Ranch, Douglas County. The main building was constructed in 1995, with additions made in 1996, 1999, and 2001. Highlands Ranch Filings 122B and 122D were subsequently developed adjacent to the church campus bordering its east and west sides. Plats for Highlands Ranch Filings 122B and 122D were recorded on July 28, 1998 and November 25, 1997, respectively. These developments should offer further evidence of the compatibility of single family and church land uses. Conclusion In conclusion, some of the data analyzed involved properties that are not as compatible with single-family dwellings as are church properties; and they do not demonstrate a negative impact on surrounding residential property values. No evidence could be located to indicate that houses of worship have a detrimental impact on bordering residential properties. In fact, market evidence suggests that church properties are compatible with surrounding single-family residential uses. If there is any additional information needed, please let us know. Respectfully mitted, W. West Foster, MAI CRE CO Certification G00001795 Jon M. Vaughan, Associate QUALIFICATIONS OF W. WEST FOSTER Education M.S. Degree in Regional Economics, Colorado State University, 1968. B.S. Degree in General Business, Colorado State University, 1964. All of the basic courses required for the MAI designation given by the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers; Course III(Rural Properties); Course IV (Litigation Valuation); Course VI(Real Estate Investment Analysis); Course VII(Industrial Valuation); Course 520(Highest and Best Use and Market Analysis); and Course 550(Advanced Applications); all given by the Appraisal Institute or its predecessor organizations. Principles of Real Estate Engineering, The Appraisal of Partial Acquisitions, and several relocation courses, given by the International Right of Way Association. Management and Leasing of Shopping Centers,by the Institute of Real Estate Management. Advanced Ranch Appraisal,by the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers. Seminars: Fair Lending and the Appraiser,Understanding Limited Appraisals &Appraisal Reporting Options, plus numerous additional real estate seminars given by the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers and later by the Appraisal Institute. Memberships and Designations Appraisal Institute: Designated Member(MAI) 1982 to 1986 -National Division of Curriculum 1986 to 1987 -National committee to write The Appraisal of Real Estate, 9th Edition 1987 to 1991 -Board of Examiners,General Demonstration Appraisal Reports 1987 to 1994 -Regional Member,Review and Counseling Division 1991 to 1994 -Regional Representative,Region II 1992 to 2000 -Contributor to The Appraisal of Real Estate, 101°, 11th, & 12th Editions 1995 -National Vice Chair,Review and Counseling Division 1995 -Vice Chair,Region II and National Board of Directors 1996 to 1997 -Chair, Region II and National Board of Directors 1996 -National Chair,Ethics Administration Division 1997 to 2003 -National Chair,Ethics and Counseling Committee American Society of Real Estate Counselors: Counselor of Real Estate (CRE) 1994 -Vice Chair, Colorado Chapter 1995 -Chair,Colorado Chapter International Right of Way Association Greeley Board of Realtors Certified General Real Estate Appraiser: State of Colorado,#CG00001795 Professional Experience Foster Valuation Company: Fee Appraiser,April 1981 to present, specializing in valuation and counseling with respect to a variety of nonresidential properties. Robert J. Mitchell,MAI, &Associates: Fee Appraiser,March 1976 to March 1981, specializing in rural and income property valuation. Licensed Real Estate Broker: State of Colorado. Qualified in District and Federal Courts as an Expert Valuation Witness. QUALIFICATIONS OF JON M VAUGHAN Education B.S. Degree in Business Administration with concentrations in Finance and Real Estate, Colorado State University, 2003. Professional Experience Foster Valuation Company: Fee Appraiser, May 2003 to present Western Investments Exchange: Bookkeeper, March 2000 to May 2003 EXHIBIT A I I ' , 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I w se 4yv.hH Purchaser Date of Reception # Sale Annual Sale Price Appreciation Westmoor Self-Storage Built in 1995 Property 1 Sale Thomas & Karen Hankey August-93 2345819 $114,700 4818 W 9th St Rd Resale Michael &Jennifer Bates July-98 2628081 $138,500 3.84% Property 2 Sale Donna Christiansen November-89 2197654 $79,000 4742 W 9th St Rd Resale Steven & Cheryl Spurgeon September-97 2570914 $118,500 5.20% Arlington Park Apartments Built in 2002 Property 3 Sale Larry, Susan, & Robert Tomlinson June-96 2495296 $70,000 911 23rd St Resale Daniel Flanagan February-02 2930399 $126,000 10.29% Property 4 Sale Shawn Rehurek&Amy Luster December-99 2741612 $102,000 2320 9th Ave Resale Rene Waters April-02 2943258 $133,000 3.37% Harmony Village PUD Built in 1999 Property 5 Sale Mimi Bernhardt March-96 96018431 $142,900 2001 Rockport Ct. Resale Earnest& Sue Baker May-00 2000034039 $170,000 4.44% Property 6 Sale Mitchel &Therese Vincent June-96 96038797 $143,500 2006 Rockport Ct. Resale Todd Sledge May-98 98041673 $144,900 0.49% I Resale Diane Ruth Zuger April-99 99038163 $161,500 11.46% Resale Jeffrey Gurney February-00 2000013410 $174,500 8.81% Harmony Safeway Marketplace PUD Built in 1997 Property 7 Sale Philip& Laura King September-92 92056072 $138,900 4413 San Remo Cir Resale Ronald Greco September-01 2001082911 $244,900 6.50% Property 8 Sale Robert& Peggy Sue Jesson April-92 92018991 $124,500 1367 Iva Ct Resale Sam & Anna Haverluk October-99 99091854 $190,000 6.22% Property 9 Sale Dominic & Helen Narciso October-91 91047584 $121,600 1355 Iva Ct Resale Milton & Marilyn Krogh September-00 2000064557 $195,000 5.39% Faith Evangelical Free Church Built in 2002 Property 10 Sale William & Margo Fickenscher November-92 92075908 $134,400 3915 Century Dr. Resale Michael &Joni Freeman December-02 2002139350 $253,000 6.53% Property 11 Sale Patrick& Kathleen Quinn August-96 96061629 $164,000 3909 Century Dr. Resale Francisco & Gina Gonzales May-02 2002054459 $238,500 6.44% -- EXHIBIT B Aerial photograph of the Westmoor Self-Storage Taken in September 1998•.ql: .� rA. TV.�I� 1L..♦ i..rnny am z ;Ieab1 • L �jy. N -- " .t . •iY ,� r .. •-.46,. . ,e..,2.2-.4 �y� Y 1 S ice - , ,` / v. r 7'•• d a,'71-... yj•• „ ¢'v 1 .... \\\_ A northerly view of the Westmoor Self-Storage and the contiguous residential neighborhood of Westmoor West. ..:t4-- i 1 .—. fi � ;� .a 4 ' Vii' i.T�Nj ----.-----, ) r — 'Y.rs�'ti `Ta.: i -. 4. I r�L s•.R GREELEY.._ .,-- „1" 9. It II t‘ • • Ott _ — -.s * _ r ..'v,: .... __ �� t.♦t tit l . . �. • `WeW Cou nty.ColoradoI _ I 0 d �` 25�f „;;3/4,., r" r� EXHIBIT C 1 - Y •, IIKK.N. �`r� _- _t 1 rj- F_ r _ iii' yam. I 'f - -i = . ..L _ "=t. v. . _ ;.: �`:' - _ , f .i k � ,40. * jilt -- • - . .:11 db_i ... I -111..i " .r `� i.°'. 1 y� i__T , ` . :.\...s — — "'•-•'-- :1— -^amp 'crmm w, F .` III it 1 y . "� r lilt Al, 1. 1 -b y If �. , w , I , o _ y GREELEY �`F'Pt• I_ • { r lag ' is !-„ l , p4 , :t,,,t,..,,,„,,,,,,, _i-ety,i21LA ) :-.F41,,,t;-•I � T f' r+ a 1�? r Li± r : ' • L`I f. 1^ fi a — a -Wekcounty.Cobrado GS• a.. : ., ' „ r 350ft ,i' ---•,-.1.- r EXHIBIT D r I i , I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 ) IE II ------_______6 �, - r i / -r-- E 4t / \ r- f - 1 I f l r + f: 11 NI -,[7.----- +r ' ' r r + z f j 73 1--____,T:'i;I--..--)'+ u r+ rw f s i -------1--- c i _ I �� -t' ' ii_i a • ,l r • WILMINGTON O ---•1 —-::.. .1 1 ----IrEl.1 li I I f--r r rCiiTY I T � ......��. Y QIS sad 1�Ipp1 � J SKYE C! . 17177FR ; � . ,. - r EXHIBIT E Aerial Photograph of the Harmony Safeway Marketplace PUD Taken in September 1998 • •r♦a , ir\-6,a; c.. t ✓- ♦� '.. v "1 - 1 4L it e II a•v k o— . rcale A • -4 'r'• r"y� 37 IWO OF • et' • Imo:« 1 trek ... yam• ( �' v • r .666 ♦ A northwesterly view of the Harmony Safeway Marketplace PUD and the contiguous residential neighborhood of Golden Meadows. r I. \-- \\:./. ,'ii f MCMURRY AVE • • "'MONTE CARLO P • di — i ' MONACOPL • 7 ,--_ L te { AANRE • - ` E 1 -Property#7 __... w M .. ..._ O - /.RCADA Ch,_,Propertylits I.`. I -- p . _ t WHEATON DR ` ----- g - pL c —k - _ - a 1S W31Ng-- - -I -—-a a • I E E■ 3 as�anes`aei�r' B - !�— ^ —r _. .. � � 1 EXHIBIT F —"ledSst�ritl�•.�_.r- --w7:dubd a s , �.u1�1� a� �der, .J� i I i I + �"I.� •4 ••'•��• :L_l L1 i �''1'�1 i I_ _....<��:�' -�'.:;,.try wi � _1 •:-%(--1 . , 1 , -. lll„ , , 1 1 i/7,....,:;..,..\.:)_) I: ---'..:- -- - .,..:"'.- :Y..,...,....::...'...41.----f }..:-..... -.-?..._. . -1 , f,:: -1_� -- 1Z4:''''.1;14.?/- - t f_ '- LPi f I----, -'f E.. ''`,,•�,.._ ._._ �.. \--• -c':�'• .: ''!..r l ---1-1 ITT-if- ___ 1.---. i--- ._-___...-r;-.1..-1 .-----: ---- 1---.,!--- LI I p rilii3u Toop. L.:-__:._..... ..._itzrt__ _._17_.-. L. .. - -3 jit_______ --�-�'3 - + i�' r- �.`_ ,� '"� �- �. -'�?` _ '\ `' �c,.a JL ❑ Ur I 111 - • nip nn .y,i S'7 °, '.1 _'y..11..:r `:+t - I I I ;�1. �.=1,. 1•f` .`'L �J�Lf�IJL..f Iti�� _.............._- -----------.. . ��,t / i I ri a •1-13-1..:7, 14_1_ I —7:7 T --f-1-- tji :' ' i . ., .,:..1-1 . .__ _, i _--1-1 Y 1 ` .1] - 1 _I „,..! 4---, p•• ' ..—"?' Y.—L.1,— -gl N -.4 - -- 1).•-:!3 't•-*".1,r-T-1 -a -1., ,-.7:•;"c 7.----7'_:i.\—.-2, TIc.:::1. '';:.-si,D [ID 211 , el--i i... „::: Ls..11..1... _I t:- ..1..... -- `:. •'Ti' r r.l_r `!;p ,( Wi lt_. c- ('^1 - _._- ----- GU iilftal'C Ulu* :.---,,,,-...._ -1 1 t • ,;- ..s...., i (---7-•-Y. • • r i r I i r______. T . .1 , II •-.} sf----;--j,.....1 : • . t-- p r-e, .-\--_d r - , I t - - ' ( ( ( I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i 1 I ESTHER Gesick- FW: Letter to Editor&Weld County Commissioners Page 1 From: "Bruce Grinnell" <bgrinnell@Ibcc.org> To: "Kim Ogle (E-mail)" <kogle@co.weld.co.us> Date: 7/3/03 4:04PM Subject: FW: Letter to Editor&Weld County Commissioners Original Message From: McDowell, Mark [mailto:MMcDowel@USChamber.com] Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 11:22 AM To: 'dlong@co.weld.co.us'; 'gvaad@co.weld.co.us'; 'rmasden@co.weld.co.us'; 'bjerke@co.weld.co.us'; 'mgeile@co.weld.co.us'; 'opinion@times-call.com' Subject: Letter to Editor&Weld County Commissioners July 3, 2003 Dear Editor/Commissioners: As a resident of Meadow Vale Farms, a Weld County resident and a member of LifeBridge Christian Church, I need to express my thanks and appreciation to our County Commissioners for their often difficult and seldom praised work. I'd like to encourage the Times-Call staff to interview the residents of Meadow Vale Farms and the Elms communities who both support and are enthusiastic about the LifeBridge development coming to our area. If you'd like, I could provide you with a long list of area residents and business owners who'd be glad to talk to you. This will provide some balance to the articles like today's (July 3)"Freedom"front page article. r It's important, also, to counter some of the wilder charges that have been made in recent flyers, brochures, and newspaper articles. "The Freedom Team" recently distributed literature in the neighborhood that claimed: 1. "Greeley"could condemn our land and open up Pearl Howlett and Blue Mountain Roads into the LifeBridge development. (The church has continually emphasized that it does not want to open those streets and that it will have plenty of access from several directions without going through our neighborhood.) 2. The future expansion of WCR 5.5 to four lanes will reduce the value of our homes from $35,000-$75,000 each. (My home is directly on WCR 5.5, and I've always thought better access to a neighborhood will increase the value of my home.) 3. Quote: "If we do nothing, we will be annexed by Longmont and our property taxes will more than double!" (That's just an unfounded scare tactic, and I don't believe either premise.) 4. Annexing the truck stops, motels, fast food restaurants, and Vista Commercial Center will (and, I quote)"provide us with a significantly better sales tax base than larger towns like Mead and Firestone! And this is the best kind of tax-the kind that other people pay!" (If for no other reason, I'd oppose a town called Freedom based on a philosophy that other people's taxes are the best kind.) The list goes on. I guess the important thing to me is that I have a chance to say how much I love our neighborhood in spite of its flaws. I like living in Weld County; I think I've gotten great services from the county since we built here in 2000; and I like the fact that we will have a church in our area. Please call me if I can help get some balance in this discussion. EXHIBIT gGG Pe nog ESTHER Gesick- FW: Letter to Editor&Weld County Commissioners Page 2 Mark McDowell Asst.Vice President, Field Sales Home address: 2390 Homestead Place United States Chamber of Commerce Longmont CO 80504 Office DC: (202)463-5817; Office Home: (303)678-0988 cell: 303-589-7084; home: 303-774-9256 Hello