HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 11/17/2020 - PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. Agenda Item 16
Item # 16 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY November 17, 2020
City Council
STAFF
Jason Holland, City Planner
Judy Schmidt, Legal
SUBJECT
Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 145, 2020 Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort
Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Timberline Church
Rezoning.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN REVISED TO UPDATE THE PRESENTATION.
This item is a quasi-judicial matter and if it is considered on the discussion agenda, it will be considered in
accordance with Section 1(f) of the Council’s Rules of Meeting Procedures adopted in Resolution 2019-064.
The purpose of this item is to amend the City’s Zoning Map to change the zoning designation for the
Timberline Church Campus from Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) to Medium Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood (MMN). The area proposed to be rezoned is approximately 32.79 acres. The applicant proposes
the rezoning to support future infill housing on the site and enable higher density housing than would be
allowed with the current LMN zoning. Additional commercial and institutional uses may also be proposed. The
church has been in discussions with CSU regarding a potential land swap to construct an attainable housing
project. CSU would donate their 4.76 acres on Timberline Road, and the church will swap 8-10 acres for the
CSU property.
The rezoning request is subject to the criteria in Section 2.9.4 of the Land Use Code. The rezoning may be
approved, approved with conditions, or denied by Council after receiving a recommendation from the Planning
and Zoning Board, which voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the request with condition that the residential
density be limited to 20 units per gross acre and that an Overall Development Plan (ODP) precede or
accompany the Project Development Plan (PDP). The purpose of the condition of approval is to provide a
density limit to help achieve a compatible transition with the surrounding neighborhood because the MMN zone
district does not have a maximum density requirement. Additionally, the ODP would help identify the general
design parameters for the property – including the general location and nature of proposed uses,
transportation circulation, open space, buffers, and drainage features. A traffic study is also required. The
ODP is required to be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board and would require at least one
neighborhood meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
A. Overview of Main Considerations
Five criteria govern the review and findings for proposed amendments to the zoning map. These criteria can
Agenda Item 16
Item # 16 Page 2
be paraphrased as ‘consistent with the comprehensive plan’; ‘warranted by changed conditions’; ‘compatible
with surrounding uses’; ‘impacts to the natural environment’; and ‘a logical and orderly development pattern’.
These criteria are explained and evaluated in the staff analysis section of this report.
The Timberline Church Campus could be a suitable location for densities that are higher than LMN, while still
maintaining compliance with the Structure Plan and meeting City Plan Principles and Policies. The property’s
close proximity to the Rigden Farm Neighborhood Center meets the purpose of the MMN zone district, which is
intended to locate higher density housing in close proximity and with good multi-modal access to a
Neighborhood Center. The Neighborhood Center also provides access to a transit hub. The MMN zone is
considered a bridging zone district, concentrating density near services and transit by locating MMN
near/adjacent to the Neighborhood Center (NC) zone district, with the MMN zone district providing a transition
and link between these areas and surrounding lower density LMN zone district areas.
Compatibility with surrounding land uses may also be a consideration. There are different land use code
standards for the LMN and MMN zones which could affect the overall size and scale of multifamily buildings,
should these be proposed. The Planning and Zoning Board recommended a condition of approval that the
MMN residential density be limited to 20 dwellings per acre.
The main differences between LMN and MMN zoning is that MMN allows higher density and larger multifamily
buildings than LMN zoning, as shown in the following table.
Code Standard LMN Requirement MMN Requirement
Maximum Density (based on
gross acres of the residential
development)
LMN: 9 units/acre overall, and 12
units maximum per phase; 12
units/acre maximum if affordable
housing
MMN: No maximum per code; P&Z
condition of approval
recommended to limit residential
density to 20 dwellings per acre.
Minimum average density: 7
units/acre minimum for developments
20 acres or less; 12 units/acre
minimum if over 20 acres
Limit on number of units per
building
LMN: Yes - maximum of 12 dwelling
units per building
MMN: No maximum
Maximum Floor Area (of
each building)
LMN: The maximum gross floor
area (excluding garages) shall be
fourteen thousand (14,000) square
feet
MMN: No maximum
Maximum building height of
one, two and three-family
dwellings
LMN: 2.5 stories MMN: 3 stories
Maximum Building Height for
Multi-family
LMN: 3 stories MMN: 3 stories
Maximum height for each
residential story, and
maximum building height to
roof peak
• 12’ 8” maximum for each story, (which equals 38 feet from the finish floor to
ceiling of the 3rd floor) • No maximum, but “Special Review” required if roof
peak is over 40 feet.
B. Site Context and Development History
The 32-acre Timberline Church Campus PUD was first approved in 1999. The approval included two building
phases. The first phase was completed and includes the main church building and related parking on the site.
A second building phase and parking expansion was envisioned, but never constructed, along the east and
southeast portions of the site. The Foothills Channel is located along the south property boundary.
Agenda Item 16
Item # 16 Page 3
Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses
North South East West
Zoning Rigden Farm
Neighborhood
Center (NC)
Pinecone Apartments
PUD (MMN)
The Willow at
Rigden Farm (LMN)
Meadows East (RL)
Land Use Commercial Multi-family Single family
attached and
detached houses
Single family detached
houses
C. Summary of the Review Criteria for Rezoning of Parcels Less Than 640 Acres
Only the Council may, after recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board, adopt an ordinance amending
the Zoning Map in accordance with the provisions of Division 2.9. An amendment to the Zoning Map may be
proposed by Council, the Planning and Zoning Board, the Director or the owners of the property to be rezoned.
To approve a proposed rezoning of 640 acres of land or less (quasi-judicial) the decision maker must find that
it satisfies the following criteria:
The proposed amendment is:
• Criterion 1: consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan (City Plan); and/or
• Criterion 2: warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the
subject property.
The Planning and Zoning Board and Council may consider the following additional factors:
• Criterion 3: whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and
proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone district for the land;
• Criterion 4: whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse
impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water, air, noise, stormwater
management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and natural functioning of the environment;
• Criterion 5: whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly
development pattern.
D. Criterion 1: Consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan
1. Compliance with the City Structure Plan Map
Background:
The Structure Plan map serves as a blueprint for the desired future development pattern of the community,
illustrating how the community will grow and change over time with a focus on the physical form and
development pattern of the community. The Structure Plan Map includes place types-or land use
categories-which provide a framework for the ultimate buildout of Fort Collins. These place types provide a
policy structure that can apply to several specific zone districts within each place type by outlining a ra nge
of desired characteristics. (Attachment 4)
Timberline Church Campus:
The Structure Plan Map includes 13 land use place types, with 5 of the place types considered priority
areas where the full infill or redevelopment of these areas has not been realized. The proposed Timberline
Campus rezoning is within the Mixed-Neighborhood place type, which is one of the five priority land use
areas included in the Structure Plan. The Mixed-Neighborhood place type is the overarching land use
designation for both the LMN and MMN zone districts. Because of this, the proposed rezoning from LMN to
Agenda Item 16
Item # 16 Page 4
MMN is consistent with the Structure Plan Map. Should the rezoning be approved, there is no need to
amend either the Structure Plan Map or Residential Neighborhood Sign District.
2. Compliance with Structure Plan Mixed-Neighborhood Place Type Characteristics
City Plan (p. 98) describes the characteristics and considerations of the Mixed-Neighborhood place type
which applies to both the LMN and MMN zone districts. The intent of the characteristics is to guide infill
and redevelopment, outline the intended types of land uses, and describe development intensities to
encourage within the Mixed-Neighborhood place type.
City Plan characteristics described for the Mixed-Neighborhood place type include:
a) Place-Type Land Uses:
Principal Land Uses in the Mixed-Neighborhood place type: Single-family detached homes, duplexes,
triplexes and townhomes.
Supporting Land Uses in the Mixed-Neighborhood place type: ADUs, small scale multifamily buildings,
small-scale retail, restaurants/cafes, community and public facilities, parks and recreational facilities,
schools, places of worship.
Both LMN and MMN zones allow similar residential and commercial land uses. Supporting land uses
include “small scale multifamily buildings.” There are different land use code standards for the LMN
and MMN zones which could affect the overall size and scale of multifamily buildings, if proposed.
Based on these standards, staff recommended four conditions of approval to the Planning and Zoning
Board to mitigate potential impacts and ensure that all aspects of future development comply with the
principles and policies in City Plan. The Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the
rezoning without the four staff conditions of approval and recommended a different condition of
approval to limit the residential density to 20 dwelling per acre. The four staff conditions outlined in the
staff report focus on the scale of multifamily buildings and achieving compatibility and appropriate
transition within the neighborhood context surrounding the property. (Attachment 9)The discussion
from the Planning and Zoning Board was that these factors could be considered upon submittal of a
Project Development Plan (PDP), rather than with the rezoning. (Attachment 10)
b) Place-Type Density:
Between five and 20 principal dwelling units per acre, typically equates to an average of 7 to 12
dwelling units per acre.
Overall density within the Mixed-Neighborhood place type around the property is as follows:
Projects in the Mixed-
Neighborhood Placetype:
Total acres: Density:
Pinecone Apartments 15 acres 12.89 units/acre
Rigden Farm LMN 215 acres 8.9 units/acre
Rigden Farm MMN 24 acres 21.4 units/acre
Mixed-Neighborhood Totals: 254 14.4 units/acre
Existing development in the area complies with the Land Use Code standards for the LMN and MMN
developments, however some existing development in the area is above the density range and typical
average noted in City Plan for the Mixed Neighborhood place type.
Agenda Item 16
Item # 16 Page 5
c) Place-Type Location:
New development in Mixed-Neighborhood in place type should be located within walking/biking
distance of services and amenities, as well as high-frequency transit, with the Neighborhood Center
providing these services as the focal point within Mixed-Neighborhoods.
• The property is in close proximity to the Rigden Farm Neighborhood Center to the north.
• Timberline Church Campus could be a suitable location for densities that are higher than LMN,
while still maintaining compliance with the Structure Plan and meeting City Plan Principles and
Policies. One of the most important considerations for higher density housing is to be located in
close proximity and with good multi-modal access to a Neighborhood Center. The proposed
Timberline Church housing infill location meets these characteristics, which are described in both
City Plan as well as in the purpose statements for the MMN zone district.
• The neighborhood center provides higher frequency bus service routes along Drake and
Timberline consistent with the Transportation Master Plan.
Location of larger townhome or multifamily developments into existing single-family neighborhoods
should generally be limited to edge or corner parcels that abut and/or are oriented toward arterial
streets or an adjacent Neighborhood Mixed-Use District where transit and other services and
amenities are available.
• The intent of this guideline is to avoid situations where larger scale multifamily developments are
located in the middle of existing single-family neighborhoods and to reinforce the policy to have
higher density housing in close proximity to shopping and services. While MMN is proposed for the
Timberline Church Campus, the location is somewhat unique. The MMN housing area proposed
does not have frontage directly on an arterial street, and it does not directly abut the commercial
Neighborhood Center to the north. However, the proposed MMN housing could be integrated with
and oriented to the Neighborhood Center with a private street and pedestrian connections.
d) Place-Type Transition:
Utilizing “small scale multifamily buildings” as a supporting land use.
Where townhomes or multifamily buildings are proposed in an existing neighborhood context, a
transition in building height, massing and form should be required along the shared property line or
street frontage.
• Because higher LMN densities have been constructed abutting the property to the east, and MMN
exists to the south and north, a rezoning to MMN could be warranted. A comparison of the Land
Use Code requirements for LMN and MMN is provided in Section 5 of the Planning and Zoning
Board staff report. The discussion from the Planning and Zoning Board is that building height,
massing and form could be considered at the time of development review rather than as part of the
rezoning.
3. Compliance with City Plan Principles and Policies
City Plan provides guidance that the Structure Plan is not intended to be used as a stand-alone tool
but should be considered in conjunction with City Plan principles, goals and policies as a tool to guide
future growth and development.
OUTCOME AREA “LIV” -- NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY AND SOCIAL HEALTH - Managing Growth:
These principles help the City to manage growth by encouraging infill and redevelopment, ensuring
this development is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood or area.
Agenda Item 16
Item # 16 Page 6
PRINCIPLE LIV 2: Promote Infill and Redevelopment:
POLICY LIV 2.1 - REVITALIZATION OF UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTIES
Support the use of creative strategies to revitalize vacant, blighted or otherwise underutilized
structures and buildings, including, but not limited to: Infill of existing surface parking lots-particularly in
areas that are currently, or will be, served by bus rapid transit (BRT) and/or high-frequency transit in
the future.
PRINCIPLE LIV 3: Maintain and enhance our unique character and sense of place as the community
grows
POLICY LIV 3.1 - Public Amenities
Design streets and other public spaces with the comfort and enjoyment of pedestrians in mind …such
as plazas, pocket parks, patios, children’s play areas, sidewalks, pathways…
POLICY LIV 3.5 - Distinctive Design
…Development should not consist solely of repetitive design that may be found in other communities.
POLICY LIV 3.6 - Context-Sensitive Development
Ensure that all development contributes to the positive character of the surrounding area. Building
materials, architectural details, color range, building massing, and relationships to streets and
sidewalks should be tailored to the surrounding area.
PRINCIPLE LIV 4 - Enhance neighborhood livability
POLICY LIV 4.2 - Compatibility of Adjacent Development
Ensure that development that occurs in adjacent districts complements and enhances the positive
qualities of existing neighborhoods. Developments that share a property line and/or street frontage
with an existing neighborhood should promote compatibility by: Continuing established block patterns
and streets to improve access to services and amenities from the adjacent neighborhood;
Incorporating context-sensitive buildings and site features (e.g., similar size, scale and materials); and
Locating parking and service areas where impacts on existing neighborhoods-such as noise and
traffic-will be minimized.
Principle LIV 5 - Create more opportunities for housing choices.
POLICY LIV 5.3 - Land for Residential Development
Use density requirements to maximize the use of land for residential development to positively
influence housing supply and expand housing choice.
Staff Comments Related to City Plan Principles and Policies:
• Taken together, these descriptions and policies establish an expectation that development of this
parcel will factor in neighborhood input and achieve compatibility through project design. As
recommended by the Planning and Zoning Board -- policies that encourage compatibility by
considering the context and surrounding characteristics of the site could be considered at the time of
development review.
• City Plan policies could be met with either MMN or LMN zoning. Because higher LMN densities have
been constructed abutting the property to the east, and MMN exists to the south and north, a rezoning
to MMN could be warranted. The proposed MMN rezoning could meet these policies better by allowing
an increase in density at a location near transit and commercial services.
• The MMN zone has long been considered a bridging zone district, concentrating higher density ranges
near services and transit by locating MMN near/adjacent to the NC zone, with the MMN zone providing
a transition and link between these areas and surrounding lower density LMN areas. Higher frequency
Agenda Item 16
Item # 16 Page 7
bus routes are currently provided at the Rigden Farm Neighborhood Center. The proposed rezoning
could support higher density and better leverage the adjacent Neighborhood Mixed Use/Activity Center
Area.
E. Criterion 2: and/or Warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and
including the subject property.
The proposed rezoning is supported by several changed conditions in the area since the Timberline
Church Campus was originally constructed, all of which support a change in zoning to MMN:
• The Rigden Farm Neighborhood Center has been constructed, which provides a mix of commercial
uses that are within walking distance of the Timberline Church Campus.
• Higher density housing has been constructed to the north and east within Rigden Farm -- with higher
densities concentrated on the perimeter of the Neighborhood Center.
o Constructed in 1993, Pinecone Apartments to the south are 12.89 units per acre and are located in
the MMN zone district.
o Approved in 2002, the Willow housing development is located adjacent to the east of the proposed
Timberline Church Campus, within the Rigden Farm LMN zone district.
o Overall density for the Willow is 10.47 dwellings per gross acre.
o Average housing density in the Rigden Farm MMN area to the north of the property is
approximately 21.4 dwellings per gross acre.
• Bus transit routes are provided in the area, with the Neighborhood Center serving as a transit hub.
• The original plan for the Timberline Church Campus, which envisioned a second building phase for a
maximum 3,500-person seating capacity, is no longer proposed. This would have required 875 parking
spaces on the site. Actual peak seating capacity for the church is currently 1,844 seats, with a peak
parking requirement of 461 parking spaces. Currently, the Campus includes vacant land to the east
and surplus parking, with a total of 1,293 parking spaces on the property.
The Timberline Church development plan was first approved in 2000 and opened in 2002. Since that time,
the majority of the 303-acre Rigden Farm development to the north and east of the Timberline Campus
has been developed, with construction beginning in 2000. This includes the 23-acre Neighborhood Center
(N-C) zone district to the north, 24-acres in the Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood (M-M-N) zone
district and 215 acres in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) zone district.
Additionally, Rigden Farm is a phased development plan. LMN areas within phased developments allow to
concentrated densities within portions of the overall plan, provided that the overall density does not exceed
9 units per gross acre, and provided that no phase is greater than 12 units per gross acre. The Rigden
Farm LMN zoning area utilizes this density range by providing lower density phases to the east and higher
density phases to the west. Densities in the east portion of Rigden Farm, near Zeigler Road, a re in the 4
unit per gross acre range.
F. Criterion 3: Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing
and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is the appropriate zone district for the land.
The proposed MMN zoning could be compatible with existing surrounding land uses. There are different
land use code standards for the LMN and MMN zones which could affect the overall size and scale of
multifamily buildings, should these be proposed. The discussion from the Planning and Zoning Board was
that achieving compatibility and appropriate transition within the neighborhood context surrounding the
property could be further considered at the time of development review.
Agenda Item 16
Item # 16 Page 8
1. Existing Uses North of the Property:
The proposed MMN zoning is compatible with the commercial uses and higher density housing located
adjacent to the north. The property is located in close proximity to the existing Neighborhood Center, which
is consistent with the intent of MMN zoning.
2. Existing Uses South of the Property:
The existing Meadows East single-family development to the southeast is buffered by the perimeter storm
drainage and the Foothills Channel. Existing mature trees are located along the edge of the channel near
the rear property lines of the Meadows East homes. Stewart Case Park and Rendezvous Trail are located
in this area, which provide an appropriate buffer and transition to the Meadows East neighborhood. The
existing buffer, drainage areas and existing trees in this area provide a compatible transition from the
proposed MMN zone to these existing uses.
3. Existing Uses East of the Property:
The Willow at Rigden Farm is located adjacent to the property to the east. The Willow development’s
overall LMN density is near the highest maximum allowable LMN density at 10.47 units per gross acre.
The Willow includes single-family attached buildings, with 12 units per building that are two stories in
height. These buildings face west towards the Timberline Church Campus and are in close proximity to the
property. Conditions of approval were recommended by staff to provide a transition in this area, discussed
in Section 5 of the Planning and Zoning Board staff report.
4. Existing Uses West of the Property:
South Timberline Road is located along the west boundary of the property, which provides an appropriate
buffer and transition to the Meadows East single-family neighborhood to the west.
G. Criterion 4: Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly
adverse impacts on the natural environment.
The proposed rezone to MMN is not anticipated to have significant impacts to the natural environment.
The Foothills Channel represents a significant habitat feature adjacent to the proposed infill housing. This
habitat feature requires protection regardless of whether the development is rezoned. Additionally, code
requirements for stormwater detention and water quality treatment are not affected by the rezoning.
H. Criterion 5: Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and
orderly development pattern.
The proposed MMN infill housing area would represent a logical and orderly development pattern which
reflects the unique context of the site.
• The Rigden Farm neighborhood to the east (zoned LMN), provides a range of LMN densities, with
higher density LMN development provided adjacent to the Timberline Church Campus, serving as a
logical transition to MMN zoning on the subject property. The proposed rezone to MMN provides a
more logical development pattern than the current LMN zoning, provided that conditions of approval
are put in place to provide a compatible transition per City Plan.
• The Foothills Channel, existing drainage and stormwater detention areas to the east and south provide
a buffer transition.
• Because the proposed infill housing area is located within close proximity to the existing Neighborhood
Center, and it can be integrated into the surrounding neighborhoods’ street and pedestrian networks,
Agenda Item 16
Item # 16 Page 9
the proposed infill housing area could achieve a higher density while meeting the purpose of the MMN
zone, as described in Division 4.6(A) of the Land Use Code. The MMN district is intended to:
“…be a setting for concentrated housing within easy walking distance of transit and a commercial
district.”
“…form a transition and a link between surrounding neighborhoods and the commercial core with a
unifying pattern of streets and blocks.”
The MMN zone “is intended to function together with surrounding low density neighborhoods [typically the L-M-
N zone district] and a central commercial core [typically an N-C or C-C zone district]. The intent is for the
component zone districts to form an integral, town-like pattern of development, and not merely a series of
individual development projects in separate zone districts.”
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its September 17, 2020, Planning and Zoning Board meeting, the Board recommended that Council
approve the Timberline Church Rezone with a 6-0 vote, with the condition that the residential density be limited
to 20 units per gross acre and that an Overall Development Plan (ODP) precede or accompany the Project
Development Plan (PDP). (Attachment 10)
PUBLIC OUTREACH
A virtual neighborhood meeting was held on October 22, 2020. Approximately seven residents attended the
virtual meeting. Staff has also received several comment letters from residents.
Discussion of the proposed rezoning centers on concerns that higher density housing which could be proposed
after the rezoning would have negative impacts on the area. Concerns have been expressed related to
increases in traffic, demand on the shopping center, stormwater impacts, and potential compatibility issues
with larger buildings on the church site. (Attachments 11 & 12)
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map (PDF)
2. Aerial Map (PDF)
3. Perspective Map (PDF)
4. Structure Plan Map (PDF)
5. Existing Zoning Map (PDF)
6. Proposed Zoning Map (PDF)
7. Area Land Use Density Map (PDF)
8. Permitted Use Comparison LMN and MMN (PDF)
9. Planning & Zoning Board Staff Report (PDF)
10. Planning & Zoning Board Hearing Minutes (PDF)
11. Neighborhood Meeting Notes (PDF)
12. Resident Comment Letters (PDF)
13. Timberline Church Rezoning Petition (PDF)
14. Petitioner's Justification Narrative (PDF)
15. Timberline Church Rezone Boundary Map (PDF)
16. Powerpoint Presentation (PDF)
Site
ATTACHMENT 1
Illinois
Dr.Stewart CaseParkC.S.U.Custer Dr.Colony at RFRigden Farm O.D.P.Dakota Ridge P.U.D.TimberlineChurch CampusPinecone Apts. P.U.D.Rigden Farm Neighborhood CenterIowa Dr.
S. Timberline Rd.The WillowRendezvous TrailFoothills ChannelBrooklynTownhomesChild CareMed. OfficeBankFoothills ChannelMeadowsEastATTACHMENT 216.2Packet Pg. 326Attachment: Aerial Map (9632 : Timberline Church Rezoning)
E. Drake Rd.Illinois Dr.Stewart CaseParkC.S.U.Custer Dr.Colony at RFRigden Farm O.D.P.Dakota Ridge P.U.D.TimberlineChurch CampusPinecone Apts. P.U.D.Rigden Farm Neighborhood CenterIowa Dr.S. Timberline Rd.The WillowRendezvous TrailFoothills ChannelBrooklynTownhomesChild CareMed. OfficeBankFoothills ChannelATTACHMENT 316.3Packet Pg. 327Attachment: Perspective Map (9632 : Timberline Church Rezoning)
!"`$
I³S College AveS Timberline RdE Mulberry StN County Road 19ECounty Road 56
S Shields StN Shields StCarpenter Rd
W Laurel St NHighway1W Willox Ln
SLemay AveS County Ro
ad1
3N College AveW County Ro
a
d
5
6
S Taft Hill RdN Highwa
y
2
87E Horsetooth RdSCountyRoad23WElizabethStS Overland TrlW Horsetooth Rd
W Harmony Rd
W Mulberry St
E County Road 30
E Harmony Rd
E Trilby RdRemington StE Prospect RdN Overland TrlZieglerRdLaporte Ave
W Drake Rd
S County Road 5NCounty Road11E County Road 50
E Linc
o
l
n A
v
e N Timberline RdRiv
ersid
e
A
ve
S Highway 287Highway 392
W Vine Dr
E Douglas RdW Douglas Rd
A nn apo lisDrNTaftHillRdLindenmeier RdKe chter Rd
Country Club Rd
SCent
enni
al
Dr
W Mountain Ave TurnberryRdE Will
oxLn
Main StE Vine Dr
W Prospect Rd
WCountyRoad38EMountain Vista Dr
E Drake Rd
Bo
a
r
dwal
k
DrE County Road 52Richards Lake Rd
TerryLakeRdW Trilby Rd
G
re
g
ory
RdW County Road 54G
SMasonStC ountyRo a d 4 2 C
E County Road 36N County Road 9N County Road 5S County Road 9Giddings RdStructure Plan Map FORT COLLINSCITY PLAN
PLANNING OUR FUTURE. TOGETHER.
Source: City of Fort Collins; Larimer County
Adopted: April 16, 2019 N 01234
Miles
PLACE TYPES
Districts
Downtown District
Urban Mixed Use District
Suburban Mixed Use District
Neighborhood Mixed Use District
Mixed Employment District
Research and Development/Flex District
Industrial District
Campus District
Neighborhoods
Rural Neighborhood
Suburban Neighborhood
Mixed Neighborhood
Other
Parks and Natural/Protected Lands
Community Separator
Boundaries
City Limits
Growth Management Area (GMA)
Adjacent Planning Areas
Document Path: K:\ArcMapProjects\Advanced_Planning\Structure Plan 2019\Maps\Structure_Plan_11x17.mxd
SITE
ATTACHMENT 4
LMNLMNLMNMMNNCTCSUMMNNCEMMNUELMNRLRLLMNPOLLMNLMNRLERCRCE DRAKE RDS TIMBERLINE RDE HORSETOOTH RDIRCSiteZEIGLER RD.ATTACHMENT 516.5Packet Pg. 329Attachment: Existing Zoning Map (9632 : Timberline Church Rezoning)
LMNLMNLMNMMNNCTCSUMMNNCEMMNUELMNRLRLLMNPOLLMNLMNRLERCRCE DRAKE RDS TIMBERLINE RD
E HORSETOOTH RDIRCSite--proposed MMNZEIGLER RD.ATTACHMENT 616.6Packet Pg. 330Attachment: Proposed Zoning Map (9632 : Timberline Church Rezoning)
9,028
1,504.7
This map is a user generated static output from the City of Fort Collins FCMaps
Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this
map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable.
6,859
City of Fort Collins - GIS
1,143.0
Legend
1:
WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere
Feet01,143.0571.50 Notes
Street Names
Multiuse Trail
Shared-use Trail (paved)
Minor Paved Multiuse Trail
Shared-use Trail (unpaved)
Parcels
Growth Management Area
Parks
Schools
Natural Areas
City Limits
The Willow
15.09
ac/10.47
du/ac gross
Rigden 6th
du/ac
4.25 gross/5.1
net
Parkside
West
3.49 ac
13.75
du/ac
gross; 48
units Parkside
East
3.24 ac
11.75
du/ac
gross
Parkside
East
4.5 ac
8.6 +
du/ac
gross
Rigden 1st
39.26 ac
3.34 du/ac
gross
Colony at Rigden
2.6 ac
18.45 du/ac gross
Rigden 9th
6.75 ac
10.5 du/ga
Rigden 2nd/LaGrange
8.66 ac
11.3 du/ac gross; 98
units total
+/- 4
du/
gross
acre
Brooklyn
TH's
1.73 ac
24.3 du/ac
gross
Rigden 10th
senior living
4.22 ac
29.6 units/ga
Rigden 13th
2.5 ac
19 du/ac
12th Brooklyn
TH's
2.6 ac
24.2 du/ac
gross
Rigden
Flats N-C
zone
4.08 ac
23 du/ac
Pinecone Apts. PUD
15.13 ac/12.89 du/ac
gross; 15.34 net
(12.71 ac net)
Bright
HorizonsMedical /
Office
Bank
ATTACHMENT 7
CITY OF FORT COLLINS LAND USE CODE
ZONING DISTRICT KEY LMN Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood
MMN Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood
REVIEW PROCESS KEY B Basic Development Review
A Administrative Review
P Planning and Zoning Board Review
Ax Administrative Review but use must be combined with at least 1 other use allowed in the Zone to form
a Neighborhood Center
Px Planning and Zoning Board Review but use must be combined with at least 1 other use to form a
Neighborhood Center
LM
MM
RESIDENTIAL USES N N
Extra occupancy rental houses 5 or fewer boarders B
Extra occupancy rental houses more than 5 boarders A
Extra occupancy rental houses 4 or fewer boarders A
Fraternity and sorority houses P
Group homes as per Sec. 3.8.6 P P
Group homes (8 or less develop. disabled & elderly)A A
Mobile home parks P
Single-family detached dwellings A
SF detached (on lot in an approved Site Specific Plan)B B
Single-family detached dwellings (<6,000 sq. ft. lot)A
Single-family attached dwellings A A
Shelter for victims of domestic violence B B
Two-family dwellings A A
Multi-family dwellings (12 units or less/building, 50 du or less
and 75 bdr or less)A
Multi-family dwellings (more than 8 units/building, or more than
50 du, or more than 75 bdr)P
Multi-family dwellings (50 du or less and 75 bdr or less)A
Multi-family dwelling (more than 50 du or more than 75 bdr)P
Mixed-use dwellings A A
LM
MM
INSTITUTIONAL/CIVIC/PUBLIC USES N N
Cemeteries A
Community facilities A A
Golf courses P
Long-term care facility P P
Neighborhood support/recreation facilities Ax
Public/Private schools (elem., interm. & H.S.)P P
Public/Private schools (voc. & tech.)P
Public/Private schools (coll., univ., voc., & tech.)A
P/P schools (coll., univ., voc., & tech.) <500' E. Vine A
Parks, recreation, & open lands (not neighbrhood park)A A
Neighborhood parks B B
Places of worship or assembly A A
Minor public facilities A A
Wildlife rescue and education centers P
LM
MM
COMMERCIAL/RETAIL USES N N
Adult day/respite care center A A
Artisan and photography studios and galleries Px A
Artisan and photography studios/galleries not in neighborhood center P
Bed & breakfast establishments <6 beds A A
Child care centers A A
Convenience retail stores without fuel sales Ax A
Convenience retail stores with fuel (>3/4 mile spacing)Px
Enclosed mini-storage facilities (<500' of E. Vine)P
Limited indoor recreation estab. (<500' of E. Vine)P
LM
MM
COMMERCIAL/RETAIL USES (continued)N N
Neighborhood center A/P
Offices, financial services & clinics P
Offices, financial services & clinics <5000 sq. ft.Ax
Offices, financial services & clinics not in nghbr.center P
Personal and business service shops Ax P
Restaurant (limited mixed-use)A
Restaurants (standard)Px
Restaurants (fast food)Px
Retail stores (<5000 sq. ft.)Ax
Veterinary facilities/small animal clinics or hospitals Ax P
LM
MM
INDUSTRIAL USES N N
Light industrial uses (< 500' of E. Vine)P
Solar energy systems, small- and medium-scale P P
Workshops/custom small industry (< 500' of E. Vine)P
LM
MM
ACCESSORY/MISCELLANEOUS USES N N
Accessory buildings B B
Accessory uses B B
Any legally permissible use which existed on date B B
Any use authorized pursuant to a site specific plan B B
Urban Agriculture B B
Wireless telecommunication equipment P P
Page 1
ATTACHMENT 8
Development Review Staff Report Agenda Item 4
Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing: September 17, 2020
Timberline Church Rezone, #REZ200002
Summary of Request
This is a request for a rezone of Lots 1-5 and Tract A of the
Timberline Church Campus from Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood (L-M-N) to Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood
(M-M-N).The area proposed to be rezoned is approximately 32.79
acres. The applicant proposes the rezoning in order to support future
infill housing on the site and enable higher density housing than
would be allowed with the current L-M-N zoning.
Existing Zoning Map
Next Steps
At the Planning and Zoning Board hearing, the Board will make a
recommendation to City Council. City Council would then consider a
rezoning Ordinance.
Site Location
The Timberline Church Campus is located
approximately 1,275 feet south of the
intersection of Timberline and Drake Roads.
Petitioner
Bradley J. Florin
2908 S. Timberline Rd.
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Owner
Timberline Church
2908 S. Timberline Rd.
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Staff
Jason Holland, City Planner
Contents
1. Project Introduction .................................... 2
2. Land Use Code Article 2 Procedural
Standards .......................................................... 3
3. Article 2 – Rezoning Standards ................. 6
4. Staff Analysis of Compatibility and
Conditions of Approval .................................... 15
5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion .................... 23
6. Recommendation ..................................... 23
7. Attachments ............................................. 24
Recommendation
Approval with Conditions
ATTACHMENT 9
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 4
REZ200002 | Timberline Church Rezone
Thursday, September 17, 2020 | Page 2 of 24
Back to Top
1. Project Introduction
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
As noted in the applicant’s submittal narrative, the rezoning to MMN is proposed in order to support future infill
housing on the site and allow the potential for higher density housing than would be allowed with the current LMN
zoning.
B. BACKGROUND & CONTEXT
The 32-acre Timberline Church Campus PUD was first approved in 1999. The approval included two building
phases. The first phase was completed and includes the main church building and related parking on the site. A
second building phase and parking was envisioned, but never constructed, along the east and southeast portions
of the site. The Foothills Channel is located along the south property boundary.
Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses
North South East West
Zoning Rigden Farm
Neighborhood Center
(NC)
Pinecone Apartments
PUD (MMN)
The Willow at Rigden
Farm (LMN)
Meadows East (RL)
Land Use Commercial Multi-family Single family attached
and detached houses
Single family detached
houses
C. OVERVIEW OF MAIN CONSIDERATIONS
Five criteria govern the review and findings for proposed amendments to the zoning map. These criteria can be
paraphrased as ‘consistent with the comprehensive plan’; ‘warranted by changed conditions’; ‘compatible with
surrounding uses’; ‘impacts to the natural environment’; and ‘a logical and orderly development pattern’. These
criteria are explained and evaluated in the staff analysis section of this report.
The Timberline Church Campus could be a suitable location for densities that are higher than LMN, while still
maintaining compliance with the Structure Plan and meeting City Plan Principles and Policies. The property’s
close proximity to the Rigden Farm Neighborhood Center meets the purpose of the MMN zone district, which is
intended to locate higher density housing in close proximity and with good multi-modal access to a Neighborhood
Center. The neighborhood center also provides access to a high-frequency transit hub. The MMN zone is
considered a bridging zone district, concentrating density near services and transit by locating MMN
near/adjacent to the NC zone, with the MMN zone providing a transition and link between these areas and
surrounding lower density LMN areas.
Compatibility with surrounding land uses is also a main consideration. The proposed MMN zoning could be
compatible with existing surrounding land uses, however there are different land use code standards for the LMN
and MMN zones which would affect the overall size and scale of multifamily buildings. Staff analysis of potential
compatibility concerns and the conditions proposed are discussed in detail in Section 5 of this report. The
proposed MMN rezoning could allow an increase in housing density at a location near transit and services, while
the recommended conditions of approval address policies that encourage compatibility by considering the context
and surrounding characteristics of the site. The conditions focus on the scale of multifamily buildings and
achieving compatibility and appropriate transition within the neighborhood context surrounding the property.
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 4
REZ200002 | Timberline Church Rezone
Thursday, September 17, 2020 | Page 3 of 24
Back to Top
D. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
Neighborhood meetings are not required for amendments to the zoning map but can be held for rezoning
proposals of known controversy and/or significant neighborhood impacts. A neighborhood meeting was not held
for the proposed rezoning because there is no known controversy or significant neighborhood impacts related to
the proposed rezoning.
E. PUBLIC COMMENTS
No public comments have been received. Any comments received prior to the Planning and Zoning Board hearing
will be forwarded to the board for consideration.
2. Land Use Code Article 2 Procedural Standards
1. Conceptual Review – CDR180026
A conceptual review meeting is not required for the rezoning, but is required for a future Project Development
Plan (PDP). A conceptual review meeting was held on May 7, 2018.
2. Petition – REZ200002
The petition was submitted on May 22, 2020.
3. Neighborhood Meeting
Neighborhood meetings are not applicable for amendments to the zoning map, except that, with respect to a
quasi-judicial map amendments only (rezonings under 640 acres), the Director may convene a neighborhood
meeting to present and discuss a proposal of known controversy and/or significant neighborhood impacts. No
neighborhood meeting was held for this rezone.
4. Notice (Posted, Written and Published)
Posted Notice: June 10, 2020, Sign # 547
Note: According to Section 2.2.6(B) of the Land Use Code, a posted development review sign shall be posted
within fourteen (14) days following the submittal of a development application. The deadline for this proposal to
meet the fourteen (14) day requirement was June 5, 2020. The posted notice was not posted within the fourteen
(14) day timeframe due to staff oversight. Once staff identified the development review sign had not been posted,
the issue was corrected, and the sign was posted as soon as possible. Given that the written and published notice
were provided in accordance with the standards outlined in Article 2, and the sign has been posted since June 10,
2020, staff finds that the affected property owners have received adequate notice.
Written Hearing Notice: September 3, 2020, 529 addresses mailed.
Published Hearing Notice: September 6, 2020, Coloradoan Confirmation #0004363413
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 4
REZ200002 | Timberline Church Rezone
Thursday, September 17, 2020 | Page 4 of 24
Back to Top
Existing Zoning Map:
Proposed Zoning Map:
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 4
REZ200002 | Timberline Church Rezone
Thursday, September 17, 2020 | Page 5 of 24
Back to Top
Site Context – Proposed 10-acre Housing Infill Area
The original plan for the 32.79-acre Timberline Church Campus, which envisioned a second building phase for a
maximum 3,500-person seating capacity, is no longer proposed. Currently, the campus includes vacant land to the east
and surplus parking, with a total of 1,293 parking spaces on the property. The image above indicates the infill area,
hatched in red, which is approximately 10.2 acres. This is the area of the site which would likely be redeveloped for infill
housing.
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 4
REZ200002 | Timberline Church Rezone
Thursday, September 17, 2020 | Page 6 of 24
Back to Top
3. Article 2 – Rezoning Standards
A. DIVISION 2.9 – AMENDMENT TO ZONING MAP
Applicable Code
Standard
Summary of Code Requirement and Analysis Staff Findings
2.9.2 – Applicability Only the Council may, after recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board,
adopt an ordinance amending the Zoning Map in accordance with the provisions of
Division 2.9.
Complies
2.9.3 – Initiation An amendment to the Zoning Map may be proposed by the Council, the Planning
and Zoning Board, the Director or the owners of the property to be rezoned.
Complies
2.9.4 – Text and Map
Amendment Review
Procedures
In order to approve a proposed rezoning of 640 acres of land or less (quasi-judicial)
the decision maker must find that it satisfies the following criteria:
The proposed amendment is:
Criterion 1: consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan (City Plan); and/or
Criterion 2: warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding
and including the subject property.
The Planning and Zoning Board and City Council may consider the following
additional factors:
Criterion 3: whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible
with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the
appropriate zone district for the land;
Criterion 4: whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result
in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited
to, water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and
natural functioning of the environment;
Criterion 5: whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result
in a logical and orderly development pattern.
Complies, with
Conditions of
Approval
Recommended
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 4
REZ200002 | Timberline Church Rezone
Thursday, September 17, 2020 | Page 7 of 24
Back to Top
B. Criterion 1: Consistency of the proposed rezoning to MMN with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan (City Plan)
City Plan provides guidance that principles and policies contained in City Plan—together with the Structure Plan—
are used to guide future growth and development. The Structure Plan map is used to help implement the
principles and policies in City Plan, guiding where and how growth occurs.
1. Compliance with the City Structure Plan Map:
Background:
The Structure Plan map serves as a blueprint for the desired future development pattern of the community,
illustrating how the community will grow and change over time with a focus on the physical form and
development pattern of the community.
The Structure Plan Map includes place types—or land use categories—which provide a framework for the
ultimate buildout of Fort Collins. These place types provide a policy structure that can apply to several specific
zone districts within each place type by outlining a range of desired characteristics. Thus, staff analysis of this
rezoning considers the compliance of the proposal with the characteristics of the Structure Plan place type in
addition to an analysis of the specific zone district proposed (MMN).
Timberline Church Campus:
The Structure Plan Map includes 13 land use place types, with 5 of the place types considered priority areas
where the full infill or redevelopment of these areas has not been realized. The proposed Timberline Campus
rezoning is within the Mixed-Neighborhood place type, which is one of the five priority land use areas
included in the Structure Plan. The Mixed-Neighborhood place type is the overlying land use designation for
both the LMN and MMN zone districts. Because of this, the proposed rezoning from LMN to MMN is
consistent with the Structure Plan Map.
Development Review Staff Report Agenda Item 4
Planning Services Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 p. 970-416-4311 f. 970.224.6134 www.fcgov.com
2. Compliance with Structure Plan Mixed-Neighborhood Place Type Characteristics:
Page 98 of City Plan describes the characteristics and considerations of the Mixed-Neighborhood place type
which applies to both the LMN and MMN zone districts. The intent of the characteristics is to guide growth of
infill and redevelopment, describe the intended types of land uses, and describe development intensities to
encourage within the Mixed-Neighborhood place type. The list of characteristics and guidelines noted in City
Plan for the Mixed-Neighborhood place type are provided below along with staff comments:
a) Mixed-Neighborhood Land Uses:
Principal Land Uses in the Mixed-Neighborhood place type: Single-family detached homes, duplexes,
triplexes and townhomes.
Supporting Land Uses in the Mixed-Neighborhood place type: ADUs, small scale multifamily buildings,
small-scale retail, restaurants/cafes, community and public facilities, parks and recreational facilities,
schools, places of worship.
• Supporting land uses include “small scale multifamily buildings.” There are different land use code
standards for the LMN and MMN zones which would affect the overall size and scale of multifamily
buildings. Because of this, the conditions of approval included with this staff report focus on the scale
of multifamily buildings and achieving compatibility and appropriate transition within the neighborhood
context surrounding the property.
b) Mixed-Neighborhood Density:
Between five and 20 principal dwelling units per acre, typically equates to an average of seven to 12
dwelling units per acre.
Overall density within the Mixed-Neighborhood place type around the property is as follows:
Projects in the Mixed-
Neighborhood Placetype: Total acres: Maximum Density:
Pinecone Apartments 15 acres 12.89 units/acre
Rigden Farm LMN 215 acres 8.9 units/acre
Rigden Farm MMN 24 acres 21.4 units/acre
Mixed-Neighborhood
Totals: 254 14.4 units/acre
• Existing development in the area complies with the Land Use Code standards for the LMN and MMN
developments, however some existing development in the area is above the density range and typical
average noted in City Plan for the Mixed Neighborhood place type.
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 4
REZ200002 | Timberline Church Rezone
Thursday, September 17, 2020 | Page 9 of 24
Back to Top
c) Mixed-Neighborhood Place type – Location, Integration and Transition for Multifamily in
Existing Neighborhoods:
Location of larger townhome or multifamily developments into existing single-family neighborhoods should
generally be limited to edge or corner parcels that abut and/or are oriented toward arterial streets or an
adjacent Neighborhood Mixed-Use District where transit and other services and amenities are available.
• The intent of this guideline is to avoid situations where larger scale multifamily developments are
located in the middle of existing single-family neighborhoods and to reinforce the policy to have
higher density housing in close proximity to shopping and services. While MMN is proposed for the
Timberline Church Campus, the location is somewhat unique. The MMN housing area proposed
doesn’t have frontage directly on an arterial street, and it does not directly abut the commercial
Neighborhood Center to the north. However, the proposed MMN housing could be integrated with
and oriented to the Neighborhood Center with a private street and pedestrian connections.
d) Mixed-Neighborhood Place type -- Access and Proximity to a Neighborhood Center:
New development in Mixed-Neighborhood in place type should be located within walking/biking distance
of services and amenities, as well as high-frequency transit, with the Neighborhood Center providing
these services as the focal point within Mixed-Neighborhoods.
• The property is located in close proximity to the Rigden Farm Neighborhood Center to the north.
• Timberline Church Campus could be a suitable location for densities that are higher than LMN, while
still maintaining compliance with the Structure Plan and meeting City Plan Principles and Policies.
One of the most important considerations for higher density housing is to be located in close proximity
and with good multi-modal access to a Neighborhood Center. The proposed Timberline Church
housing infill location meets these characteristics, which are described in both City Plan as well as in
the purpose statements for the MMN zone district.
• The neighborhood center provides higher frequency bus service routes along Drake and Timberline
consistent with the Transportation Master Plan.
e) Mixed-Neighborhood Place type considerations:
Utilizing “small scale multifamily buildings” as a supporting land use.
Where townhomes or multifamily buildings are proposed in an existing neighborhood context, a transition
in building height, massing and form should be required along the shared property line or street frontage.
• Because higher LMN densities have been constructed abutting the property to the east, and MMN
exists to the south, a rezoning to MMN could be warranted, with conditions of approval recommended
to address this guideline. An analysis of the Land Use Code requirements for LMN and MMN is
provided Section 5 of the staff report, along with recommended conditions of approval, with a focus
on the two considerations described above for the Mixed Neighborhood place type.
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 4
REZ200002 | Timberline Church Rezone
Thursday, September 17, 2020 | Page 10 of 24
Back to Top
3. Compliance with City Plan Principles and Policies:
City Plan provides guidance that the Structure Plan is not intended to be used as a stand-alone tool; rather, it
should be considered in conjunction with the accompanying principles, goals and policies contained in City Plan
as a tool to guide future growth and development.
OUTCOME AREA “LIV” -- NEIGHBORHOOD LIVABILITY AND SOCIAL HEALTH – Managing Growth: These
principles help the City to manage growth by encouraging infill and redevelopment, ensuring this development is
compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood or area.
PRINCIPLE LIV 2: Promote Infill and Redevelopment:
POLICY LIV 2.1 - REVITALIZATION OF UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTIES
Support the use of creative strategies to revitalize vacant, blighted or otherwise underutilized structures and
buildings, including, but not limited to: Infill of existing surface parking lots—particularly in areas that are currently,
or will be, served by bus rapid transit (BRT) and/or high-frequency transit in the future.
PRINCIPLE LIV 3: Maintain and enhance our unique character and sense of place as the
community grows:
POLICY LIV 3.1 - PUBLIC AMENITIES
Design streets and other public spaces with the comfort and enjoyment of pedestrians in mind …such as plazas,
pocket parks, patios, children’s play areas, sidewalks, pathways…
POLICY LIV 3.5 - DISTINCTIVE DESIGN
…Development should not consist solely of repetitive design that may be found in other communities.
POLICY LIV 3.6 - CONTEXT-SENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT
Ensure that all development contributes to the positive character of the surrounding area. Building materials,
architectural details, color range, building massing, and relationships to streets and sidewalks should be tailored
to the surrounding area.
PRINCIPLE LIV 4 – Enhance neighborhood livability
POLICY LIV 4.2 - COMPATIBILITY OF ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT
Ensure that development that occurs in adjacent districts complements and enhances the positive qualities of
existing neighborhoods. Developments that share a property line and/or street frontage with an existing
neighborhood should promote compatibility by: Continuing established block patterns and streets to improve
access to services and amenities from the adjacent neighborhood; Incorporating context-sensitive buildings and
site features (e.g., similar size, scale and materials); and Locating parking and service areas where impacts on
existing neighborhoods—such as noise and traffic—will be minimized.
Principle LIV 5 – Create more opportunities for housing choices.
POLICY LIV 5.3 - LAND FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Use density requirements to maximize the use of land for residential development to positively influence housing
supply and expand housing choice.
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 4
REZ200002 | Timberline Church Rezone
Thursday, September 17, 2020 | Page 11 of 24
Back to Top
Staff Comments Related to City Plan Principles and Policies:
• The proposed rezoning of the Timberline Campus to the MMN zone district is requested in order to
provide higher density infill housing than what is permitted with the property’s current LMN zoning.
• The MMN zone has long been considered a bridging zone district, concentrating density near
services and transit by locating MMN near/adjacent to the NC zone, with the MMN zone providing a
transition and link between these areas and surrounding lower density LMN areas. High frequency
bus routes are currently provided at the Rigden Farm Neighborhood Center. The proposed rezoning
could support higher density and better leverage the adjacent Neighborhood Mixed Use/Activity
Center Area, with conditions recommended to address City Plan principles and policies.
• City Plan policies could be met with either MMN or LMN zoning. The proposed MMN rezoning, with
the recommended conditions of approval would meet these policies better by allowing an increase in
density at a location near transit and services, while the recommended conditions of approval
address policies that encourage compatibility by considering the context and surrounding
characteristics of the site.
• Because higher LMN densities have been constructed abutting the property to the east, and MMN
exists to the south, a rezoning to MMN could be warranted, with conditions of approval recommended
to address City Plan policies.
C. Criterion 2: and/or Warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood
surrounding and including the subject property.
• The proposed rezoning is supported by changed conditions, within the subject property as well as the
surrounding neighborhood.
• The Timberline Church development plan was first approved in 2000 and opened in 2002. Since that
time, the majority of the 303-acre Rigden Farm development to the north and east of the Timberline
Campus has been developed, with construction beginning in 2000. This includes all of the 23-acre
Neighborhood Center (N-C) zone district to the north, 24-acres in the Medium Density Mixed Use
Neighborhood (M-M-N) zone district and 215 acres in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N)
zone district.
o Constructed in 1993, Pinecone Apartments to the south are 12.89 units per acre and are located
in the MMN zone district.
o Average housing density in the Rigden Farm MMN area is approximately 21.4 dwellings per
gross acre. There is no maximum permitted density in the land use code for the MMN zone
district.
o Average housing density in the Rigden Farm LMN area is approximately 9 dwellings per gross
acre. The maximum permitted density in the LMN zone district is 9 dwellings per gross acre and
12 dwellings per gross acre for affordable housing developments.
• Additionally, Rigden Farm is a phased development plan. LMN areas within phased developments are
allowed to concentrate densities within portions of the overall plan, provided that the overall density does
not exceed 9 units per gross acre, and provided that no phase is greater than 12 units per gross acre.
The Rigden Farm LMN zoning area utilizes this density range by providing lower density phases to the
east and higher density phases to the west. Densities in the east portion of Rigden Farm, near Zeigler
Road are in the 4 unit per gross acre range.
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 4
REZ200002 | Timberline Church Rezone
Thursday, September 17, 2020 | Page 12 of 24
Back to Top
• Approved in 2002, the Willow housing development is located adjacent to the east of the proposed
Timberline Church Campus, within the Rigden Farm LMN zone district. Overall density for the Willow is
10.47 dwellings per gross acre.
• Five notable conditions have changed in the area since the Timberline Church Campus was originally
constructed, all of which support a change in zoning to MMN:
1) The Rigden Farm Neighborhood Center has been constructed which provides a mix of commercial
uses that are within walking distance of the Timberline Church Campus.
2) Higher density housing has been constructed to the north and east within Rigden Farm -- with higher
densities concentrated on the perimeter of the Neighborhood Center.
3) High Frequency bus transit is provided in the area, with the Neighborhood Center serving as a transit
hub.
4) Improvements to the Drake/Timberline intersection have been constructed.
5) The original plan for the Timberline Church Campus, which envisioned a second building phase for a
maximum 3,500-person seating capacity, is no longer proposed. This would have required 875
parking spaces on the site. Actual peak seating capacity for the church is currently 1,844 seats, with a
peak parking requirement of 461 parking spaces. Currently, the Campus includes vacant land to the
east and surplus parking, with a total of 1,293 parking spaces on the property.
D. Criterion 3: Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible
with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is the appropriate
zone district for the land.
The proposed MMN zoning could be compatible with existing surrounding land uses. Staff is proposing conditions
of approval to further ensure compatibility. Staff analysis of potential compatibility concerns and the conditions
proposed are discussed in detail in Section 5 of this report.
1. Existing Uses North of the Property:
The proposed MMN zoning is compatible with the commercial uses and higher density housing located
adjacent to the north. The property is located in close proximity to the existing Neighborhood Center, which is
consistent with the intent of MMN zoning.
2. Existing Uses South of the Property:
The existing Meadows East single-family development to the southeast is buffered by the perimeter storm
drainage and the Foothills Channel. Existing mature trees are located along the edge of the channel near the
rear property lines of the Meadows East homes. Stewart Case Park and Rendezvous Trail are located in this
area, which provide an appropriate buffer and transition to the Meadows East neighborhood. The existing
buffer, drainage areas and existing trees in this are provide a compatible transition from the proposed MMN
zone to these existing uses.
3. Existing Uses East of the Property:
The Willow at Rigden Farm is located adjacent to the property to the east. The Willow development’s overall
LMN density is near the highest maximum allowable LMN density at 10.47 units per gross acre. The Willow
includes single-family attached buildings, with 12 units per building that are two stories in height. These
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 4
REZ200002 | Timberline Church Rezone
Thursday, September 17, 2020 | Page 13 of 24
Back to Top
buildings face west towards the Timberline Church Campus and are in close proximity to the property.
Conditions of approval are recommended to provide a transition in this area, discussed in Section 5 of the
staff report.
4. Existing Uses West of the Property:
South Timberline Road is located along the west boundary of the property, which provides an appropriate
buffer and transition to the Meadows East single-family neighborhood to the west.
E. Criterion 4: Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
• The proposed rezone to MMN is not anticipated to have significant impacts to the natural environment.
• The Foothills Channel represents a significant habitat feature adjacent to the proposed infill housing. This
habitat feature requires protection regardless of whether the development is rezoned. Additionally, code
requirements for stormwater detention and water quality treatment are not affected by the rezoning.
F. Criterion 5: Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a
logical and orderly development pattern.
The proposed MMN infill housing area would represent a logical and orderly development pattern which reflects
the unique context of the site:
• The Rigden Farm neighborhood to the east (zoned LMN), provides a range of LMN densities, with higher
density LMN development provided adjacent to the Timberline Church Campus, serving as a logical transition
to MMN zoning on the subject property. The proposed MMN zoning provide a more logical development
pattern than the LMN zoning, provided that the conditions of approval are put in place to provide a compatible
transition per City Plan.
• The Foothills Channel, existing drainage and stormwater detention areas to the east and south provide a
buffer transition.
• Because the proposed infill housing area is located within close proximity to the existing Neighborhood
Center, and it can be integrated into the surrounding neighborhoods’ street and pedestrian networks, the
proposed infill housing area could achieve a higher density while meeting the purpose of the MMN zone, as
described in Division 4.6(A) of the Land Use Code. The MMN district is intended to:
“…be a setting for concentrated housing within easy walking distance of transit and a commercial district.”
“…form a transition and a link between surrounding neighborhoods and the commercial core with a
unifying pattern of streets and blocks.”
The MMN zone “is intended to function together with surrounding low density neighborhoods [typically the
L-M-N zone district] and a central commercial core [typically an N-C or C-C zone district]. The intent is for
the component zone districts to form an integral, town-like pattern of development, and not merely a
series of individual development projects in separate zone districts.”
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 4
REZ200002 | Timberline Church Rezone
Thursday, September 17, 2020 | Page 14 of 24
Back to Top
Aerial Context Map
The image below indicates the housing infill area, hatched in red, which is approximately 10.2 acres. Although the entire
32.79-acre property is proposed to be rezoned, the 10.2-acre area is the portion of the site which would likely be
redeveloped for infill housing. Conditions of approval are proposed for this area.
The original plan for the Timberline Church Campus envisioned a second building phase north of the existing church
building. This church phase is no longer proposed. Peak seating capacity for the church is currently 1,844 seats, with a
peak parking minimum requirement of 461 parking spaces. Currently, the Campus includes vacant land to the east and
surplus parking, with a total of 1,293 parking spaces on the property. The parking lot’s outer perimeter drive aisle is shown
below with a dashed blue line. This drive aisle could be converted to a private street with sidewalks and street trees.
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 4
REZ200002 | Timberline Church Rezone
Thursday, September 17, 2020 | Page 15 of 24
Back to Top
4. Staff Analysis of Compatibility and Conditions of Approval
A. Overview
The redevelopment area for the Timberline Church Campus is likely to be higher density housing located along
the east and southeast portion of the property, which is approximately 10.2 areas. This area is shown on Exhibit
A. The shape and orientation of this redevelopment area could allow large 3-story building footprints to be placed
end-to-end along the outer edge of the existing church parking lot. This could lead to an inappropriate size and
scale of the redevelopment in comparison to the surrounding developments.
1. Characteristics of the subject property which could lead to compatibility issues with MMN
buildings:
• Long, linear shape of the redevelopment area;
• Lack of public streets surrounding the redevelopment area;
• Open, unrestricted views towards the property from the Willow development to the east and;
• Existing size and scale of nearby buildings in comparison to the MMN zone, which has few restrictions to
limit the overall size of multifamily buildings.
2. Characteristics of the subject property and surrounding area which support MMN zoning:
• The property abuts existing MMN developments to the north and south of the church property, including
the Pinecone Apartments to the south and Brooklyn Townhomes to the north.
• LMN housing to the east in Rigden Farm is near the highest permitted density in the LMN zone (12 units
per acre is permitted within a phased development). The Willow development adjacent to the east is
10.47 dwellings per acre.
• The Foothills Channel and stormwater detention areas to the south and southeast help provide a buffer
transition.
• Recognizing these characteristics should allow a greater opportunity to meet City Plan housing objectives
with a density greater than what would be allowed with LMN, while providing limitations to achieve an
appropriate transition to surrounding properties.
B. Summary of Compatibility Topics Discussed in City Plan and the Land Use Code
1. The following strategies promote compatibility by addressing City Plan Mixed Neighborhood
Placetype Characteristics:
a. Utilizing “small scale multifamily buildings” per the per the Mixed Neighborhood place type
b. Where townhomes or multifamily buildings are proposed in an existing neighborhood context, a
transition in building height, massing and form should be required along the shared property line or
street frontage.
2. The following strategies promote compatibility by addressing City Plan Principles and
Policies:
a. Utilize building materials, architectural details, color range, building massing, and relationships to
streets and sidewalks that are tailored to the surrounding area.
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 4
REZ200002 | Timberline Church Rezone
Thursday, September 17, 2020 | Page 16 of 24
Back to Top
b. Incorporate context-sensitive buildings and site features (e.g., similar size, scale and materials);
c. Continue established block patterns and streets to improve access to services and amenities from the
adjacent neighborhood;
d. Locate parking and service areas where impacts on existing neighborhoods—such as noise and
traffic—will be minimized.
e. Design streets as public amenities with the comfort and enjoyment of pedestrians in mind.
f. Design the development to distinctive, not consisting solely of repetitive design.
3. Elements of Compatibility Discussed in the Land Use Code
The Land Use Code includes a definition of compatibility:
Compatibility shall mean the characteristics of different uses or activities or design which allow them to be located
near or adjacent to each other in harmony. Some elements affecting compatibility include height, scale, mass and
bulk of structures. Other characteristics include pedestrian or vehicular traffic, circulation, access and parking
impacts. Other important characteristics that affect compatibility are landscaping, lighting, noise, odor and
architecture. Compatibility does not mean "the same as." Rather, compatibility refers to the sensitivity of
development proposals in maintaining the character of existing development.
C. Analysis of Development Characteristics Related to Compatibility
When considering compatibility topics, the following tables focus on elements of size and scale for multifamily
buildings, both near the property as well as examples of larger multifamily developments.
1. Multi-family and Attached Housing Located Around the Property:
Name and
distance
from
property
Building
length Stories
Height
to roof
peak
Height
to
eave
Dwellings
per
building
Housing type
Max.
Density
DU/gross
acre
Zone
Brooklyn
Rowhouses
20 ft.
234 ft 2 35 ft 25 ft 11 max multifamily 24.3 M-M-N
The Willow
at Rigden,
30 ft.
150 ft 2 30’ – 3” 20 ft 12 max Single family
attached 10.47 L-M-N
Pinecone
Apartments
100 ft.
150 ft,
106 ft,
80 ft
3 33 ft 26 ft
24,
15,
12
multifamily 12.89 M-M-N
The Colony
at Rigden
90 ft.
174 ft 3 40 ft 29 ft 24 multifamily 18.5 M-M-N
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 4
REZ200002 | Timberline Church Rezone
Thursday, September 17, 2020 | Page 17 of 24
Back to Top
2. Examples of Larger-scale MMN Multi-family Developments with Blocks of Streets:
A typical MMN multifamily development with larger scale buildings includes a network of public streets
surrounding the multifamily buildings, creating blocks surrounded by streets which provide separation and a
land use transition. Example characteristics of MMN developments with larger building footprints generally
contained within a network of streets are provided in the table below.
Name and
distance
from
property
Building
length Stories
Height
to roof
peak
Height
to
eave
Dwellings
per
building
Housing type
Max.
Density
DU/gross
acre
Zone
Sidehill,
1,600 ft. 182 ft
3/ with
step-
down
at ends
50 ft,
38 ft at
ends
28 ft,
19 ft at
ends
20 multifamily
9.56
(includes
some SF)
M-M-N
Trails at
Timberline,
1,900 ft.
222 ft,
209 ft,
150 ft,
89 ft
3 46 ft 29 ft
24,
18,
12
multifamily 17.5 M-M-N
Caribou
Apartments,
5,500 ft.
315 ft,
250 ft,
187 ft
3/ with
2 story
at ends
40 ft,
29 ft at
ends
30 ft,
19 ft at
ends
44,
32,
20
multifamily 17.9 M-M-N
Harmony 23
12,500 ft.
268 ft,
222 ft,
187 ft
3 39’ – 5” 30 ft
36,
36,
24
multifamily 14.7 H-C
D. Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1) Within the Infill Area shown on Exhibit A, the maximum allowable building height shall be 40 feet to the roof
peak, and the maximum allowable eave height shall be 30 feet as measured to the face of the soffit.
2) Within the Infill Area shown on Exhibit A, the maximum allowable building length shall not be more than 200
feet. For any building longer than 150 feet, all end units shall step down to two stories and shall have a
maximum eave height of 22 feet and a maximum height to the roof peak of 29 feet, as measured to face of
the soffit.
3) Within the Infill Area shown on Exhibit A, at least two east/west pedestrian connections shall be provided, and
one of these connections shall be to the Rendezvous Trail.
4) Within the Infill Area shown on Exhibit A, a building and parking setback, not less than 30-feet in width, shall
be provided along the east property line bordering the Willow development.
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 4
REZ200002 | Timberline Church Rezone
Thursday, September 17, 2020 | Page 18 of 24
Back to Top
E. Comparison of LMN and MMN Code Requirements, and related Conditions of Approval
• The proposed MMN zoning could be compatible with the nearby LMN and RL uses subject to the
conditions of approval recommended to tailor the MMN zoning of the property to the context. These
conditions focus on the size and scale of multifamily buildings because the MMN zone has no specific
limitations that regulate the size and overall coverage of a multifamily building footprint.
• When considering the Land Use Code differences between what is allowable in the LMN zone compared
to the MMN zone, a comparison of standards related to compatibility are summarized with the following
table. Conditions of approval are summarized in the table which relate to compatibility characteristics
noted in City Plan.
• These standards relate to:
1) Building coverage; building size, height, bulk, mass and scale
2) Pattern of streets, outdoor spaces, and pedestrian circulation
3) Parking and buffer transitions along shared property lines
Code Standard LMN Requirement MMN Requirement
Recommended
Condition of
Approval
Compatibility Topic
Addressed
Maximum Density
(based on gross
acres of the
residential
development)
LMN:
9 units/acre overall,
and 12 units
maximum per
phase;
12 units/acre if
affordable housing
MMN:
No maximum
Minimum average
density:
7 units/acre for
developments 20
aces or less;
12 units/acre if over
20 acres
None. Addressed with conditions
1 and 2 that limit the
overall length and height
of the buildings.
Limit on number of
units per building
LMN:
Yes – maximum of
12 dwelling units per
building
MMN:
No maximum
None.
Maximum building
height of one, two
and three-family
dwellings
LMN:
2.5 stories
MMN:
3 stories
None.
Maximum Building
Height for Multi-
family
LMN:
3 stories
MMN:
3 stories
None.
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 4
REZ200002 | Timberline Church Rezone
Thursday, September 17, 2020 | Page 19 of 24
Back to Top
Code Standard LMN Requirement MMN Requirement
Recommended
Condition of
Approval
Compatibility Topic
Addressed
Maximum height
for each residential
story, and
maximum building
height to roof peak
• 12’ – 8” for each story, which equals 38
feet from the finish floor to ceiling of the
3rd floor
• No maximum, but “Special Review”
required if roof peak is over 40 feet.
Condition 1:
40 feet maximum
building height to
roof peak. Maximum
eave height of 30
feet.
Provides a height
transition from the 2-story
Willow homes to the east,
which are 30’-3” max
height to the roof peak
and 20’ eave height.
Per City Plan Mixed
Neighborhood place type,
provides transition in
building height, massing
and form.
Special Building
Height Restrictions
LMN:
Multifamily buildings
with a setback of
less than 50 feet
facing a street or
single- or two-family
dwellings shall
minimize the impact
on the adjacent
single- or two-family
dwelling property by
reducing the number
of stories and
terracing the roof
lines over the
occupied space.
None.
Special Height
Review
Both LMN and MMN:
Yes – required for buildings that exceed 40
feet in height to roof peak. Criteria addresses
light/shadow, privacy, and neighborhood
scale
Maximum Floor
Area
LMN:
The maximum gross
floor area (excluding
garages) shall be
fourteen thousand
(14,000) square feet
MMN:
No maximum
None. Provides smaller scale
buildings, however limiting
the length and height of
the building is
recommended, rather than
limiting the overall building
floor area
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 4
REZ200002 | Timberline Church Rezone
Thursday, September 17, 2020 | Page 20 of 24
Back to Top
Code Standard LMN Requirement MMN Requirement
Recommended
Condition of
Approval
Compatibility Topic
Addressed
Building Length LMN:
No limit, however,
block lengths are
limited to 700 feet.
MMN:
No limit maximum
Condition 2:
Maximum building
length not more than
200 feet. For any
building longer than
150 feet, all end
units shall step down
to two story and
shall have a
maximum eave
height of 22 feet and
a maximum height to
the roof to the peak
of 29 feet.
The adjacent Willow
townhome buildings are
150’ wide total.
Per City Plan Mixed
Neighborhood place type,
provides transition in
building height, massing
and form and helps
ensure smaller scale
multi-family buildings.
Per City Plan Policy LIV
4.2 -- Incorporates
context-sensitive buildings
and site features (e.g.,
similar size, scale and
materials).
Block size and
length;
LMN:
An interconnected
network of streets
with blocks of
developed land
bounded by
connecting streets
no greater than 12
acres in size; block
face is over 700 feet
long, then walkways
connecting to other
streets shall be
provided at
approximately mid-
block or at intervals
of at least every 650
feet
MMN:
All blocks shall be
limited to a maximum
size of seven (7)
acres, rest is same;
streets shall be
spaced at intervals
not to exceed six
hundred sixty (660)
feet between
Condition 3:
At least two
east/west pedestrian
connections shall be
provided. One of
these connections
shall be to the
Rendezvous Trail.
This condition reinforces a
town-like urban pattern,
per City connectivity
standards -- where
buildings are oriented
towards public streets,
street trees and public
sidewalks, with a spacing
that provides a relatively
fined-grained network of
pedestrian connections.
Street
Requirements
Both LMN and MMN:
Requires that buildings face and connect to a
public or private street.
None. This requirement
recommended to be
reviewed with the specific
development plan, and not
with the rezoning
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 4
REZ200002 | Timberline Church Rezone
Thursday, September 17, 2020 | Page 21 of 24
Back to Top
Code Standard LMN Requirement MMN Requirement
Recommended
Condition of
Approval
Compatibility Topic
Addressed
Parking setbacks Both LMN and MMN:
Minimum 5’ along a lot line.
*Setbacks along lot lines for vehicular use
areas may be increased by the decision
maker in order to enhance compatibility with
the abutting use or to match the contextual
relationship of adjacent or abutting vehicular
use areas.
Condition 4:
30’ minimum
building and parking
setback along the
east property line
bordering the
Willow.
This reflects the Willow
setback, which is 30’ and
also helps preserve the
storm drainage feature
along the east boundary
of the Church Campus.
Provides transition space
for change in building
height. Building setbacks Both LMN and MMN:
• 9’ along a nonarterial street, 5’ side, 8’
rear
• Setbacks from the property line of
abutting property containing single- and
two-family dwellings shall be twenty-five
(25) feet.
Neighborhood
Park / Open Space
LMN:
Must be at least one
acre, either public or
private. Can be
located off property
in a neighborhood
park or a privately
owned park, located
within a 1/3 mile of
at least ninety (90)
percent of the
proposed dwellings;
applies to projects
10-acres or larger.
MMN:
Must be at least
10,000 square feet if
a private park or can
be a public park if
located within a 1/3
mile of at least ninety
(90) percent of the
proposed dwellings;
applies to projects
10-acres or larger.
None.
Recommended to be
addressed at the
time of development
review
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 4
REZ200002 | Timberline Church Rezone
Thursday, September 17, 2020 | Page 22 of 24
Back to Top
Code Standard LMN Requirement MMN Requirement
Recommended
Condition of
Approval
Compatibility Topic
Addressed
Mix of Housing
Types
Examples:
Two-family
dwellings, Single-
family attached
dwellings, Single-
family detached,
Multi-family
buildings with 5 to
7 units, Multi-
family buildings
with 7 to 12 units,
12 or more
LMN:
0-15 acres –
1 housing type
15-20 acres –
2 housing types
20-30 acres –
3 housing types
30 or more –
4 housing types
MMN:
0-16 acres –
1 housing type
16-30 acres –
2 housing types
30 or more –
3 housing types
None. Multifamily housing is the
most likely housing type
that will be proposed for
the site. A variety of
housing types already
exist in the area, and the
residential development
area is under the 16-acre
threshold. Additionally,
because building variation
is required (see below) no
conditions are proposed to
provide multiple housing
types.
Building
Articulation
Both LMN and MMN:
Building facades shall be articulated with
horizontal and/or vertical elements that break
up blank walls of 40 feet or longer. Facade
articulation may be accomplished by
offsetting the floor plan, recessing or
projection of design elements, change in
materials and/or change in contrasting
colors. Projections shall fall within setback
requirements.
None. Building standards are the
same for LMN and MMN,
and are recommended to
be considered at the time
of development review
and not with the rezoning.
Building Variation
LMN:
5-7 buildings:
at least 2 distinctly
different building
designs required.
More than 7
buildings:
at least 3 distinctly
different building
designs required.
MMN:
3-5 buildings at least
2 distinctly different
building designs
required.
More than 5
buildings:
at least 3 distinctly
different building
designs required.
None. The development area will
likely include more than 5
buildings, and at least 3
distinctly different building
designs are appropriate.
Setbacks from
single- and two-
family dwellings
Both LMN and MMN:
Multi-family buildings shall provide buffer a
25’ minimum buffer yard along the property
line of abutting existing single- and two-
family dwellings
N/A A 30’ buffer is
recommended to provide
a walkway within a green
courtyard space between
the proposed Church Infill
area and the Willow
housing entrances to the
east. This would also
preserve existing drainage
features. This continues
the “town-like” pattern by
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 4
REZ200002 | Timberline Church Rezone
Thursday, September 17, 2020 | Page 23 of 24
Back to Top
Code Standard LMN Requirement MMN Requirement
Recommended
Condition of
Approval
Compatibility Topic
Addressed
providing a green court
and walkways in lieu of a
street network.
Natural Habitat
Buffer for Foothills
Channel
Both LMN and MMN:
50’ buffer from top of bank.
None. Because this standard
applies to both LMN and
MMN, no conditions are
recommended.
5. Findings of Fact/Conclusion
In evaluating the petition for the proposed Timberline Church Rezoning, #REZ200002, staff makes the following
findings of fact:
A. The Rezoning complies with the process located in Division 2.2 – Common Development Review Procedures for
Development Applications of Article 2 – Administration and Division 2.9.4 – Quasi-Judicial Rezonings
B. The Rezoning complies with the applicable review criteria for quasi-judicial requests in that:
1) The amendment is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan (City Plan);
2) The amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and provides an
appropriate zone district for the land;
3) The amendment would not result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment, including, but not
limited to, water, air, noise, stormwater, management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and natural functioning of the
environment; and
4) The amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern.
6. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board approve a motion to recommend that City Council approve the
Timberline Church Rezoning, #REZ200002, based on the Findings of Fact in the Staff Report, subject to the following
conditions:
1) Within the Infill Area shown on Exhibit A, the maximum allowable building height shall be 40 feet to the roof
peak, and the maximum allowable eave height shall be 30 feet as measured to the face of the soffit.
2) Within the Infill Area shown on Exhibit A, the maximum allowable building length shall not be more than 200
feet. For any building longer than 150 feet, all end units shall step down to two stories and shall have a
maximum eave height of 22 feet and a maximum height to the roof peak of 29 feet, as measured to face of
the soffit.
3) Within the Infill Area shown on Exhibit A, at least two east/west pedestrian connections shall be provided, and
one of these connections shall be to the Rendezvous Trail.
4) Within the Infill Area shown on Exhibit A, a building and parking setback, not less than 30-feet in width, shall
be provided along the east property line bordering the Willow development.
Planning and Zoning Board Hearing - Agenda Item 4
REZ200002 | Timberline Church Rezone
Thursday, September 17, 2020 | Page 24 of 24
Back to Top
7. Attachments
1. Zoning Petition
2. Petitioner’s Justification Narrative
3. Existing Zoning Map
4. Proposed Zoning Map
5. Perspective Map
6. Context Map
7. Structure Plan Map
8. Land Use Density Map
9. Exhibit A – Infill Area
10. Petitioner’s Rezoning Map
11. The Willow – Approved Plans
12. The Willow – Approved Elevations
Jeff Hansen, Chair
Hybrid Hearing
Michelle Haefele, Vice Chair City Council Chambers
Per Hogestad 300 Laporte Avenue
David Katz Fort Collins, Colorado
Jeff Schneider
Ted Shepard Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 &
William Whitley Channel 881 on Comcast
The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities
and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224-
6001) for assistance.
Regular Hearing
September 17, 2020
Chair Hansen called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Haefele, Hansen, Hogestad, Katz, Schneider, Shepard, Whitley
Absent: None
Staff Present: Stephens, Everette, Sizemore, Beals, Hahn, Bzdek, Kleer, Mapes, Yatabe, Spencer, Virata,
Holland, Stroud, Smith, Smith and Manno
Chair Hansen provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of
business. He described the following procedures:
• While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen
input is valued and appreciated.
• The Board is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Board once for each item.
• Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with city Land
Use Code.
• Should a citizen wish to address the Board on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be allowed
for that as well.
• This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that
everyone who wishes to speak can be heard.
Agenda Review
CDNS Interim Director Sizemore reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, stating that all items
will be heard as originally advertised.
Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda:
Planning and Zoning
Board Minutes
ATTACHMENT 10
Planning & Zoning Board
September 17, 2020
Page 2 of 10
None noted
Consent Agenda:
1. Draft Minutes from August 20, 2020, P&Z Hearing
2. Mountain View Community Church
Chair Hansen did a final review of the items that are on consent agenda and reiterated that those items will not
have a separate presentation unless pulled from the consent agenda.
Member Whitley made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Consent agenda which
consist of the draft minutes of the August 2020 Planning and Zoning hearing and the Mountain View
Community Church PDP 200008. This approval is based on the agenda materials and information
presented during the work session, this hearing and discussion. It also includes information, analysis and
finding of fact and conclusion contained in the staff report including the agenda materials and the hear that
are adopted by this Board. Member Katz seconded the motion. Vote: 7:0.
Discussion Agenda:
3. Brothers BBQ PDP 200005
Project Description: This is a proposed Project Development Plan to redevelop an existing abandoned gas
station for a barbeque restaurant. The property is within the Low-Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (LMN).
Recommendation: Approval
Secretary Manno reported that there were no citizen emails or letters received for this item.
Staff and Applicant Presentations
Planner Mapes gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this project.
Applicants Nick O’Sullivan, Chris O’Sullivan, and Nathan Hall (Architect), Jess Deal (Accountant and other) also
provided a brief verbal/visual overview of this project.
Public Input (3 minutes per person)
Jeff, via Zoom, is in favor of the project and asked what was going to happen with contamination and underground
tanks.
Staff Response
Planner Mapes reviewed what the four modifications entailed. Parking dimensions: Standard parking stall
dimensions are 19’ long, for this project they would be 18’. Standard parking lot isle is 24’ wide, for this project it
would be 20’. Landscaping: This was gone over in the presentation. Walkways: Standards require that there be a
walkway to the building that does not require a person walking to walk across any vehicle use area. This project
will use marked or separated pedestrian access to the building. There is not a clear route to mark in this small lot,
everyone will have to watch out for each other. Neighborhood Centers: This was included in the project review
and staff report. To meet the standards the neighborhood center must have access to the neighborhood with local
streets such that arterial street access is not required. They are required to be part of a neighborhood and have an
outdoor gathering space. This modification was questioned, but staff felt the the type of use should be reported on.
Applicant Chris O’Sullivan responded that the tanks have been removed and testing was completed as well as four
(4) monitoring wells. The site is fully clean with a letter of compliance received.
Board Questions / Deliberation
Planning & Zoning Board
September 17, 2020
Page 3 of 10
Chair Hansen asked for clarification of the four modifications.
Member Hogestad asked about 3.4.7 and if preservation staff had been involved and if not, why not? Planner
Mapes responded that because of previous changes/alterations, the project no longer requires preservation
oversite. Planner Bzdek responded that 3.4.7(c) details the process for determining eligibility. In this case this
building is more than 50 years old, but without documentation. A third party was hired to complete and intensive
level survey. The survey was completed, it was found that due to extensive alterations, the building no longer
required input by preservation staff.
Member Hogestad quested the 20’ drive isle and asked if Poudre Fire Authority was ok with it. Planner Mapes
responded yes.
Member Hogestad questioned 3.2.2(b)(c)(d), he is concerned with the lack of safety with pedestrians walking
through the lot. He is also concerned that it does not support the bicycle or pedestrian plans. Chair Hansen asked
if Member Hogestad saw any alternate means for getting pedestrians off the site where they do not cross the drive
isle. Member Hogestad was not sure, but felt it is contrary to pedestrian safety to not offer any sort of demarcation
or separation of the walkway. Member Hafele wanted understanding of the modification. Is it possible to remove
one or two parking space to create a walkway? Member Hogestad commented that those that come on bike or foot
need better safety. Member Hogestad commented that the issue also is people coming in other modes of
transportation, bike, and foot. Chair Hansen asked where the bicycle parking will be located. Mr. O’Sullivan
responded that on the the North East of the building, a bicycle rack will be installed. Due to the site being such a
small location, when you do park, it is such a small walk. Mr. O’Sullivan responded that there has not been a
problem at other locations within the past 20 years. Member Haefele commented that the site is small and normally
would not have so many parking spaces. Would it be better to remove two parking spaces to make a walkway on
one or the other sides? This would facilitate walking there even if people come out to one of the arterials and
around. Member Shepard wondered if pavement stripping would work to satisfy this issue. Multiple board
members agreed. Chair Hansen asked if there was enough space for someone to safely access the site without
having to cross the drive isle? Chair Hansen also asked about vehicle access. Are both the curb cuts full access
and are they right in, right out only? Planner Mapes responded they are right in, right out. He felt that it could be
stripped if the Board felt it should be. Chris felt that these are great ideas, and they can work with Planner Mapes.
Chair Hansen wants to make sure that it is well thought out in terms of thinking where people will walk, and not just
striping for the sake of striping. Member Haefele commented that people will walk where they are going to walk
and those that are concerned will see that there is a designated area for them. She hopes that motorists will see
that there might be pedestrians.
Member Hogestad is concerned about the lack of landscape. He feels there need to be attention paid, whether that
is losing parking space or what have you. He feels that “not detrimental to the public good” is completely wrong. It
is a loss of canopy cover, stormwater control, lack of water conservation, an increase in air pollution, increase in
glare and increase in heat island. Chair Hansen asked if all the trees in green were currently on the site. Planner
Mapes responded that the trees on the West and South side are existing. All the street trees are new. Located in
the Northeast corner is a planter. Member Shepard recalled that this is where the monitoring well is located and
that they built the planter to disguise the monitoring well. Planner Mapes did not know. Chris responded that the
monitoring well is located on the Northwest corner not where the planters are. All will be irrigated. Planner Mapes
added that losing a couple parking spots would allow for extra landscaping and pedestrian stripping. Chris
questioned if the patio landscaping counts as interior landscaping. Planner Mapes responded it does not meet the
requirement. Chair Hansen commented that per the LUC it is clear the alternate ideas would not work on the site.
Member Haefele asked if more trees on the South side would be workable. Is it possible to make the parking lot
porous pavers? Member Shepard asked if their plan was not already a greater amount of landscaping than what is
there presently. Planner Mapes explained that the big change is the street trees. Other than that, it is pretty much
all paved currently. Member Whitley is sorry that we are going to lose the perimeter of green, and he is also
concerned about the heat affect. Member Katz asked if there was any way to fit some planters between the curbs
and sidewalk. Nathan responded that to get to a 10’ wide sidewalk they condensed the parking to 56’ which is
comfortable. It is not possible to shrink the parking more than 56’. Tree health is better if it is closer to the interior
of the lot, but for pedestrian safety the trees need to be closer to the street to create a buffer. As far as adding
more trees, there are specific City rules for engineering for how close to the street trees can be placed. After
working with everyone, the number originally proposed is what will work. Member Shepard asked Member
Planning & Zoning Board
September 17, 2020
Page 4 of 10
Hogestad, what if the trees were upsized increase the caliper size? Planning Manager Everette responded that
Forestry staff are experiencing issues with upsized trees. Sourcing is more difficult, and the survival rate is lower.
Member Hansen asked about the parking spaces and the requirements. Planner Mapes responded the minimum
required is 12.
Member Schneider commented that stormwater is involved in the process and there must have been conversation
in that area. Planner Mapes did not recall what the discussion has been, but there are no remaining outstanding
issues with stormwater. The site is already 100% paved. Member Hogestad commented that it is about the
purpose. Member Schneider responded that there are no changes or increases in the existing condition of
impervious surface on the site, and this is the reason stormwater has no concerns. Chair Hansen asked if the
Board were to include a condition on the modification that they add some landscaping, positioning it in such a
location that water flowing off the site happened through it would be a good recommendation.
Member Shepard made a motion to approve modification 3.2.2(L) Parking Stall Dimensions, to allow
reduced drive by width from 24’ to 20’ and 19’ to 18’, the justification of 2.8.2 is due to the exceptional
physical conditions and peculiar uniqueness of the site. This is based on the findings of fact in the staff
report, materials that have been presented in the staff packet, at the work session, throughout this hearing
and Board discussion. Member Schneider seconded. Vote: 7:0.
Member Schneider made a motion to approve modification of standard 4.5(D)(3) Neighborhood Centers that
the subject property does not comply to the standards. The neighborhood centers in the LMN, the
modification of the standard is not detrimental to the public good and complies with Section 2.8(2)(H). This
is based on the findings of fact in the staff report, materials that have been presented in the staff packet, at
the work session, throughout this hearing and Board discussion. Member Katz seconded. Vote 7:0
Member Schneider made a motion to approve modification of standard 3.2.2 Access and Circulation
around parking. This modification will not be detrimental to public good and satisfies 2.8.2(H) along with
the condition of approval that there be two pedestrian stripped access point, one off the northern property
line and one off of the eastern property line for access to the building. This is based on the findings of fact
in the staff report, materials that have been presented in the staff packet, at the work session, throughout
this hearing and Board discussion. Member Hogestad is somewhat concerned that the Board is tinkering with
the design rather than allowing the architect to work out what this all should be. He would have liked to table this
and let them design it and come back. He will support this, so the project moves on. Chair Hansen commented
that Member Hogestad could make an amendment to the motion. Member Shepard agreed with Member
Hogestad. Member Haefele asked if the condition of approval for the modification says, “to pedestrian access
points within the parking lot separated from each other so they provide multiple entrances”. Member Schneider
prefers to leave the motion as is. Chair Hansen feels the motion is good as it stands. Member Katz seconded.
Vote: 7:0
Member Shepard made a motion to approve modification of standard to the maximum extent feasible
increasing the amount of landscaping on the side subject to the requirements of the departments such as
Poudre Fire Authority, Utilities, Engineering, and Stormwater. This is based on the findings of fact in the
staff report, 3.2.1(E)(4), 3.2.1(E)(5), recorded by 2.8.2 due to the exceptional physical nature and conditions
of the site, materials that have been presented in the staff packet, at the work session, throughout this
hearing and Board discussion. Member Schneider finds it interesting that a requirement is never placed on the
“not feasible” other than what is proposed. He would like the applicant team and staff do everything possible to try
and increase the landscaping to the best of their ability without doing major changes to the overall plan. Member
Whitley wished there were more green space and barriers. He will be supporting the project. Member Katz would
like to see more landscaping but acknowledge that this is a big improvement in this space. He will be supporting
the modification. Chair Hansen would like the applicant to find other ways to increase the landscaping. Member
Haefele feels this will be an improvement on the corner and will be supporting the project. Member Haefele
seconded. Vote 7:0
Member Schneider made a motion that the Fort Colins Planning and Zoning Board approve the Brother’s
BBQ PDP 200005. This is based on the findings of fact in supporting explanation of the primary staff
report, along with the two conditions that should be addressed in the final plans. For the final plans, the
Planning & Zoning Board
September 17, 2020
Page 5 of 10
details and mulch around raised planter at the street corner and along with the 6’ fence on the South
property line. This is all based on the information provided to us in the staff report, the discussion in the
work session and the tonight’s hearing. Member Schneider is happy to see that the corner is being
redeveloped and cleaned up. Member Shepard is supporting the recommendations and conditions of approval as
well. Member Hogestad believes in good design; he hopes this is an opportunity to step up and so something
extraordinary. Member Whitley acknowledges that the plan is an improvement. Member Haefele appreciates the
effort to bring the building back to its original design. Chair Schneider is excited to see this site redeveloped.
Member Katz seconded. Vote: 7:0
4. Timberline Church Rezone
Project Description: This is a request for a rezone of Lots 1-5 and Tract A of the Timberline Church Campus from
Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (L-M-N) to Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (M-M-N).
Recommendation: Approval
Secretary Manno reported that the following was received:
• Email was received from Brad Florin commenting that the recommended Conditions of Approval are the
spirit of the intended development, but they would prefer a rezone.
• Email received from Julius Medgyesy stating opposition to the project.
• Email received from Olivia Moench stating opposition to the project.
Staff and Applicant Presentations
Planner Holland and Planning Manager Everette gave a brief verbal/visual overview of the project.
Brad Florin, applicant, also provided a brief verbal/visual presentation.
Public Input (3 minutes per person)
Amber Kelly, she is thankful there was thought into buffers. She wanted to know if this could only be a multi-family
project and that there should be a neighborhood meeting.
Kim Schwindt, 2400 Pinecone, she wants to know how the City will address the drainage and is unhappy with traffic
on the bike trail and on the street.
Brian Kelly, he is concerned with adequate facilities to allow this medium density. He is also concerned with the
traffic and safety of the traffic. He feels the drainage should be kept the way that it is.
Randy Schwindt, 2400 Pinecone, he feels there should be a maximum per acre. He wanted to know if some of the
parking lot for Timberline Church was going to go away. He is opposed to this project.
Randy Munzt, via Zoom, Kansas Dr., he has seen flooding and the ponds fill. He feels the area is overwhelmed
with people and new building. He wanted to know if the open space requirement is being met.
Diane Benta, via Zoom, Iowa Dr., she is concerned with drainage and traffic. She is wondering if a traffic study
could even be done during this pandemic, pre-pandemic people were driving over driveways. It is very unsafe.
Udea, via Zoom, she wonders why CSU is looking for housing away from campus and she feels Fort Collins is
losing its character. She is tired of the same issues being raised on every project, such as traffic, drainage, etc.
Elda Hopkins, via Zoom, is concerned with the traffic on Timberline. There is no consideration for the people trying
to turn off Timberline when leaving the church. She is not in favor of any houses being built.
Staff Response
Planning & Zoning Board
September 17, 2020
Page 6 of 10
Planner Holland responded to citizen comment. He spoke to buffering to the South and the East and what is
possible in that area. The channel will be looked at when a site-specific plan is received. Overall drainage will be
looked at when submitting the overall development plan. Regarding traffic, both foot and vehicular, all comments
and questions will be forwarded to Parks staff so that they are aware of the concern. Vehicular traffic will be
addressed when they submit a specific site-plan. Regarding drainage, Planner Holland cannot confirm whether or
not it fits within the 30” buffer separation at this time. Additional park space could be looked into when the time
comes. Other uses allowed in the MMN zone is residential uses like multi-family, townhomes, two-family dwellings,
mixed-use, institutional use, parks, and a handful of commercial uses. Maintenance of right-of-way frontages within
Rigden Farm and who is responsible. Development and impact fees would be collected to help contribute to the
maintenance. The property owner is the one who must maintain the right-of-way frontage.
Mr. Florin responded that with the new zoning, an affordable housing standard could be achieved. This is not a
CSU development, but would offer CSU employees an affordable option for housing.
Board Questions / Deliberation
Member Hafele wanted clarification on the trail and buffer, that they are not developable? Planner Holland
responded yes, that is correct. Member Hafele; is the 30’ setback a mirrored section? Planner Holland commented
that it is normal and reasonable and allows some separation of buildings.
Member Schneider requested clarification from the applicants. What acreage are you trying to rezone? Mr. Florin
responded that the whole property is what is being requested with the rezone, 33 acres. Density will follow what is
allowed, looking at 17-20 units, this is what will make the project viable. It is based on the area of use and gross
acreage.
Chair Hansen asked about the first condition that is regarding max height. The first is to reduce max height, in the
MMN zone what is the max height without the condition? Planner Holland; 3-stories with max height of each story
at 12’8”. Required pedestrian connections are being reinforced. The setback is a matter of building code.
Member Katz requested clarification on condition four and if they wanted the Board to drop this condition or all four
of the conditions. Mr. Florin responded that they feel all four conditions are overly prescriptive and would like all
four dropped. Currently this is conceptual and would like to wait until they come forward with a submittal.
Member Hogestad feels that since there are conditions, that there is a level of detail required. Have they
considered, as one of the conditions, a maximum floor area or a number of units? Planner Holland has thought
about this, they are focused on a rectangular building but there are options and ways to approach this.
Member Schneider questioned if the applicant had a conversation with staff regarding increasing the density
between the two zone districts making this all obtainable housing or looking at doing an 80% AMI or some sort of
justification for the increased density? Mr. Florin responded that there were conversations with staff and
developers, and it became obvious that LMN density would not work without extra density. This is the reason for
this request. A MMN master plan for the whole 33 acres is the direction as opposed to just the 10 acres.
Member Haefele is frustrated that there is a plan for obtainable housing, but it is attached to the the land. Find a
builder, willing to build on the land. Mr. Florin responded that Timberline Church will be giving (donating) 6 of the
10 acres to CSU. The church does not have the finances to subsidize construction of a project. CSU is donating
the land to the developer, this is for the obtainable housing, even with the MMN. This is how we can get to an 80%
AMI goal.
Chair Hansen asked about the access point to Custer Dr. and if there is capacity to improve this intersection? Mrs.
Hahn Hahn responded that, if and when, a submittal comes in, they would look at intersection improvements and
making the traffic pieces function. There is capacity to facilitate the volumes with this development.
Member Hogestad asked if Timberline is constrained? Mr. Virata explained that there is capacity with the right-of-
way to add a third lane on Timberline, making a total of 6 lanes.
Planning & Zoning Board
September 17, 2020
Page 7 of 10
Member Katz is not a fan of rezones as they may cause issues down the road. He would like to see a PDP come
in and the land be built organically. Member Haefele feels that the property owners do not have a right to rezone,
they have a right to request a rezone and only if it can be done in a way that does not negatively impact all the
other property owners adjacent who have rights as well. She will not support this rezone unless the conditions are
retained.
Member Shepard wanted to know if flexibility could be added to the prescriptiveness. Chair Hansen feels there are
already provisions in the Land Use Code that would address bulk and mass. This may hurt as opposed to help.
Member Schneider is in the middle and can understand both sides. He is most concerned with overall density on
the property. May be a cap of 20.
Member Shepard feels the conditions are of the middle ground. He would like a little flexibility of prescriptiveness
of the standards.
Member Haefele feels it makes sense to limit the density to something more than LMN but less than unlimited and
matching the 21, 12, 13 of the existing current MMN neighborhoods.
Member Schneider questioned changing the density over part of the parcel as opposed to all of the parcel or would
the Board leave it all MMN but with a cap for the whole parcel? Member Katz asked what the highest density was
in MMN in the City? Member Shepard responded within the 14-20 range.
Member Katz made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board recommend to City Council
the following recommendation for the Timberline Church Campus Rezone REZ-200002 with the following
condition:
• Maximum gross unit per acre density of 20 units and that an overall development plan precedes or
accompany the PDP
This recommendation is based upon the agenda materials, the information presented during the work
session, this hearing, and the Board discussion on this item. Member Schneider feels this is a happy
compromise. Member Hogestad agrees with Member Schneider, 20 is a bit high, but he supports the motion.
Member Whitley feels this is a good compromise, 20 is a bit on the high side, but will support the motion. Member
Hafele feels this is a good compromise. Chair Hansen agrees that dropping the previous conditions and creating
their own is a good idea. Member Schneider seconded. Vote: 7:0.
5. Ridgewood Hills Fifth Filing
Project Description: This is a proposed Project Development Plan (PDP) for residential development comprising
362 units in a combination of multi-family buildings, townhomes, and duplexes distributed across the 34-acre site.
The project is located on the west side of S. College Avenue/US Hwy 287 between Triangle Drive and Long View
Farm Open Space where Avondale Road/Carpenter Road define the southern edge of the City.
Recommendation: Approval
Secretary Manno reported that the following was received:
• Email received from Scott Hollingsworth stating their concerns for the project.
• Email received from Dave and Hilary Snyder stating some preferences they would like to have noted for the
project.
Staff and Applicant Presentations
Planner Kleer gave a brief verbal/visual overview of this project.
Member Shepard disclosed that he walked the sight this morning, but no ex parte contact with any person.
Bri Kneep, Mrs. Hahn Renner, Donald Cecil, Chris Walla, and John Beggs also provided a brief verbal/visual
presentation.
Planning & Zoning Board
September 17, 2020
Page 8 of 10
Public Input (3 minutes per person)
Jeff, via Zoom, feels there will be traffic issues, pedestrian issues and wants the Board to deny this project as is.
He feels their requests have been ignored.
Varah, via Zoom, disagrees with the project, does not want people just shoved in every open space, and no
mention of sustainability.
Scott, via Zoom, he is concerned with neighborhood safety with traffic that will cripple current roads. He is against
the project.
Bill Cobb, via Zoom, would like to know more about the traffic impact within the neighborhood, what commitment is
there for the safety of the children? Speeds limits are not obeyed, there has been a death.
Hilary Frazer, via Zoom, she does not agree with this project. The traffic is a tremendous issue. She would like to
see specific entries and exits, a couple of sound barriers, access to the entrance closet to College Ave., trail
access, every tree they take out needs to be replaced with 10 trees, separate park, clashing cross walk sign in front
of house, round-about installed, security guards etc. House values will drop because of the rentals.
Bill, via Zoom, he is concerned with the traffic. Will there be another school?
Ben, via Zoom, would like to know how this filing meshes with the fourth filing. He is concerned with traffic and
density.
Debbie, via Zoom, does not approve of this project. She is concerned with traffic issues that will arise.
Staff Response
Planner Kleer and Mr. Delich responded to questions brought forth from public input relating to the traffic impact
survey.
Chair Hansen asked about schools in relation safety and capacity. Planner Kleer responded that discussions were
had with Thompson School District. They have capacity for 385 students and indicated that there is capacity if this
moves forward.
Chair Hansen asked about design fit. Mr. Beggs responded that they have looked at documents from the
Carpenter Gateway plan which is considered or part of the Southern Gateway.
Chair Hansen spoke of concerns that this project may not be meeting the City’s more innovate, sustainability goals.
Planner Kleer responded that the building code has a higher standard of building in relation to energy code and
providing conduit for EV’s. The solar orientation is sufficient and lend to efficiency. The Land Use Code does not
require a higher level of energy efficiency beyond what the building code does.
Mr. Beggs gave response to the trail system.
Chair Hansen requested clarification regarding the tree mitigation of 10:1. Mr. Beggs responded that they have
completed extensive walk-abouts with Forestry. Documentation has been completed and recommendations
followed.
Member Schneider asked if staff could reach out to existing residents regarding traffic calming and what can be
done to help. Mr. Delich responded that the neighborhood has extensive traffic calming in place currently. Speed
studies have been conducted and found that there has been a reduction in speed.
Planner Kleer responded to visual and sound buffering commenting that this is not applicable. There is not much
other than landscaping that could offer a visual buffer.
Board Questions / Deliberation
Planning & Zoning Board
September 17, 2020
Page 9 of 10
Member Shepard asked how far the backs of the garages that face College Ave. and the terrace wall. Mr. Beggs
responded that some of them abut the wall and others are offset. Is the area for parking a street like private drive
or a private parking lot drive isle? Mr. Beggs responded that the street like private drive is in the northwest corner
of the project. Are the two-family dwellings manufactured housing? Mr. Beggs responded no. Are the single-
family attached on individual lots? Mr. Beggs, yes.
Member Haefele asked if the intention was to rent the cottages and duplexes. Mr. Beggs, rental. Is any of the
development expected to be owner occupied. Mr. Beggs, the single-family attached is intended to be owned, along
with the townhomes in the southwest.
Member Shepard, along Longmont Street there are five buildings that face the wetlands area, but no walkways
between the buildings, how the emergency personnel get to the front door? Mr. Beggs, there is a front door on
both sides of the building.
Member Shepard asked about access, connect and right-of-way. Mrs. Hahn responded that they could meet the
level of service without making additional connection. It would be a meaningful connection for the neighborhood
and Kroger. Mr. Beggs responded that attempts have been made to contact Kroger but have been unsuccessful.
Member Katz questioned if Goodwin, Knight ever pursued acquisition of the Kroger site. Mr. Beggs responded that
not at this time, they are not interested.
Member Shepard feels there is a site distance issue. Mrs. Hahn responded that it is a consideration when installing
traffic signals. In this case, there have not been a lot of crashes of vehicles exiting either direction. Installing a
signal could cause crashes.
Chair Hansen asked about pedestrian crossing for the trail. Mr. Beggs responded that they could bring it down to
cross at Avondale only once.
Chair Hansen asked if there were 8 conditions. Planner Kleer responded yes, describing the difference between a
couple of them.
Chair Hansen asked if the color was in the Land Use Code or more of a preference. Planner Kleer responded that
in the code is states to not have those colors be vibrant and selected from the surrounding neighborhood, and in
character or aligned with surrounding natural environment.
Member Shepard commented that maybe a metro district could be sought in the future. Chair Hansen commented
he was getting at a similar thing. Member Schneider commented that metro districts are currently on hold.
Member Shepard asked if the street trees could be at 35’ center as opposed to 40’, also could the parkway strip
could be widened by 1’. He approves the first modification if this could be added.
Modification #1 – On-street Parking
Member Shepard made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve modification
number one to 3.2.2(K)(1)(B) to consider Strasburg an internal street for multi-family parking and to allow
the on-street parking as proposed. This complies with 2.8.2(H) and is not detrimental to public good and is
equal to or better than. This is subject to the condition that the street trees along the multi-family section
of the project are 35’ center. This approval is based upon the agenda materials, the information presented
during the work session, the findings of fact, the staff report, this hearing, and the Board discussion on
this item. Member Schneider seconded. Vote: 6:1.
Modification #2 – Dwelling Fronting Streets or Walkway Spines
Member Schneider made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve modification
number two to 3.5.2(D) regarding the relationship with dwellings to street parking to allow three duplex
buildings not to front either street, a connection walkway or major walkway. This modification will not be
Planning & Zoning Board
September 17, 2020
Page 10 of 10
detrimental to public good and qualifies with section 2.8.2(H). This is based on the finding of fact, staff
report, the work session, and this hearing tonight. Member Katz seconded. Vote 7:0
Modification #3 – Building Variations
Member Shepard made a motion to deny this modification to 3.8.30 regarding footprint size and shape.
Attorney Yatabe requested specificity as to why this is being denied. Member Shepard responded that the
footprints are strikingly similar. The standard contains the word significant. Attorney Yatabe commented that the
applicant’s justification is that this is equal-to or better-than. Based on the standards, what part of the modification
of standard is not being satisfied? Member Shepard stated that it does not meet 2.8.2 in terms of being equal to or
better than, it appears to be self-imposed, there is no hardship, and it is not equal to or better than. Member
Schneider commented that it is hard for him to tell the difference in architecture from what is normally seen. He
agrees that it looks repetitious and looks like mirror imaging. Member Haefele agrees that the buildings are
substantially similar. In this case there is not a benefit, it is not equal or better. Chair Hansen disagrees in that they
are asking for the modification for the subtle changes and the building end caps help to make them look different.
Member Haefele seconded. Vote 5:2
Condition #9 – To Clean up Modification Denied
Member Shepard made a motion for approval that Condition #9 read as follows: Applicant will work with
staff and the design team meeting 3.8.30(F)(2) to comply with the standard to the maximum extent feasible.
Member Schneider seconded. Vote 7:0
Member Schneider made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approve Ridgewood
Hills Fifth Filing – PDP-190018 subject to the eight (8) conditions that were included in the staff report with
the additional condition tonight. This approval is based upon the agenda materials, the information
presented during the work session, the findings of fact, the staff report, this hearing, and the Board
discussion on this item. Member Schneider feels this is a good project. Chair Hansen likes the natural areas
and the layering. Member Katz seconded. Vote 7:0
For more complete details on this hearing, please view our video recording located here:
https://www.fcgov.com/fctv/video-archive.php?search=PLANNING%20ZONING
Other Business
None noted
Adjournment
Chair Hansen moved to adjourn the P&Z Board hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 2:13 am September 18,
2020.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Manno.
Minutes approved by a vote of the Board on: ____________.
Paul Sizemore, Interim Director, CDNS Jeff Hansen, Chair
Timberline Church Rezoning
Neighborhood Meeting Summary
Neighborhood Meeting Date: October 22, 2020
A video of the neighborhood meeting is available at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iZ6zPv0sqk&feature=youtu.be
City Staff – Attendees:
Alyssa Stephens – Neighborhood Development Liaison
Jason Holland – City Planner
Nicole Hahn – Interim City Traffic Engineer
Marc Virata – Civil Engineer
Applicant Contact:
Brad Florin - bflorin@55resort.com
Information Presented:
• Alyssa Stephens provided an overview of the meeting process and ground rules.
• City Planner Jason Holland provided an overview of the area context, rezoning criteria, and the steps in
the rezoning review process.
• The applicant presented information about the church property, which was purchased in 1993, opened
in 2002, and an addition added in 2008. Mr. Florin explained that, since that time, a huge amount of
development has occurred in the area surrounding the property.
• Mr. Florin explained that the church campus has become an inadvertent land bank, and they have been
exploring infill development for attainable housing. They have been meeting with partners/developers.
City fees and construction costs are substantial, the only way to achieve attainable housing is with
higher density; economic reality has prompted the request for the rezoning.
• The church campus is considered a resource for entire community; over 200 events per week; does not
charge for these events; church has a track record of partnering with the community.
Community Development and
Neighborhood Services
Planning Services
281 North College Ave.
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6750
970.224.6134 - fax
fcgov.com/developmentreview
ATTACHMENT 11
Neighborhood Meeting Notes – Timberline Church Rezoning
Page 2
• Mr. Florin explained that the church has been in discussions with CSU regarding a potential land swap to
construct an attainable housing project. CSU would donate their 4.76 acres on Timberline Road, and the
church will swap 8-10 acres for the CSU property. The goal is to target housing rents for 80% average
median income, with 30% of units available to CSU staff and faculty and 70% of units available to the
public. Mr. Florin explained that additional density is required beyond LMN zoning in order to get to a
feasible project.
• Timberline Church is considering an Overall Development Plan (ODP) for the entire 37 acres, which
would be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board -- looking at the property as a significant infill
asset and how it can be better leveraged for the benefit of the community.
Questions/Comments and Answers:
• Comment: It seems like CSU is trying to make money on both sides of the deal by having their
employees live together and pay rent. It seems like CSU should just pay their employees better, so that
they can chose where to live. Also, the land by Timberline Road is more valuable because there’s more
visibility there, so it’s not clear why the church is swapping for that land?
Applicant response: We’re not looking for retail frontage so for us it’s a wash as far as the frontage
value of the CSU property, and in order to make it work for CSU and the church, it would need to be a
land swap. We certainly need to look and the land values for both areas, and because there is limited
infill land available in the city, the church looks at this as a significant contribution to infill housing.
• Comment: I think traffic in and out of the property should be looked at closely and that there should be
another traffic signal along Timberline, so that that less traffic goes north through the King Soopers
center.
City staff response: At this point a traffic study hasn’t been modeled because there are not specific uses
proposed. Until a specific use is nailed down, we can’t analyze the traffic operations piece, but we will
take a close look at the operations and functions with a future development plan.
Timberline Road is slated to be a major arterial, and south of Timberline we have the right-of-way, but
the lanes have not yet been built out as they have along Timberline north of Drake. Current volumes
north of Drake are at about 38,000 vehicles per day, and in this section of Timberline south of Drake
we’re right at about 30,000 trips per day with current traffic volumes.
• Comment: I worry about the drainage impacts the most and I worry about the noise from new
development affecting my quality of life – if they can’t get enough employees to live there then maybe it
will just become student housing. I border the property, and the drainage goes through the property
along the east, and when it rains really hard the swale fills with water. This swale is very much needed,
and I’m a little worried about water coming onto my property (to the east).
• Applicant response: The drainage along the east side was designed for the entire campus property, so
our view is to retain that and reuse it rather than try to rebuild it. The Planning and Zoning Board asked
us to come with an Overall Development Plan (ODP) with the first Project Development Plan (PDP) so
we’re committed to that process to look at this holistically as an overall plan for the property.
Neighborhood Meeting Notes – Timberline Church Rezoning
Page 3
• Question: I was at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing, there were ideas presented by Jason Holland
about how tall buildings were and places for trees and the church explained that they didn’t want those
restrictions because they didn’t have a plan yet, but it seems like they do have a plan, so I’m wanting to
understand why there’s not a benefit to having a plan and those restrictions?
Applicant response: Part of what’s happened over the past several years is that we initially were looking
at ideas to provide infill housing on a portion of the property. Now we are taking a broader view and
looking at the entire property. We may even re-evaluate and look at bringing through a public street
which may help with traffic flows. It’s still very early and conceptual right now. We asked that the Board
remove the restrictions because they were too prescriptive, and we agreed that the density limit of 20
units per acre was appropriate.
• Question: They want to whole property rezoned, does that mean that they can do 20 units per acre
across the entire property?
City staff response: No, they would be required to net out the portions of the property that are not used
for proposed residential uses – including commercial and institutional uses (such as the area for the
existing church).
• Question: The King Soopers is somewhat really packed there. It seems like another grocery store in the
area would really help. I appreciate that you all are considering commercial uses and not just residential.
My concern is Custer Road. We currently pay through the HOA for median maintenance. Also, it would
be nice if there are trees buffering the two properties along the east. Also, is some of the existing
parking lot being removed to accommodate drainage, I’m still worried about drainage once we get
additional roofs and parking lots?
Applicant Response: We appreciate your input and hear your concerns. We going to adhere to the city’s
requirements, and we think the church has proven itself to be a good citizen in the community for a very
long time and it will continue to do so.
City staff response: We will look at Custer and the area intersections with the traffic analysis, and
pedestrian connectivity across those. The function of Custer and Timberline is one that we’ll look at
closely. It is correct that the Custer median is not maintained by the city. The city only maintains
medians that are part of arterials such as Timberline, but not collector streets such as Custer. The
original developer did elect to put in those medians, but with the understanding that they would be
maintained by a future HOA. If there are future developments that want to contribute to the
maintenance that is an option, but it wouldn’t be a part of the city’s requirements.
• Question: If you do a development with CSU, do you actually get to make the decisions to respect your
neighbors? What say would you have in how they build out the property?
Applicant Response: We have worked very closely with CSU, and the church essentially has a veto voice
in the matter here, so we absolutely want to build something that works in the neighborhood here. The
church has veto power over anything that CSU wants to do on the church land, and it is really important
because this is a part of the church, and it’s going to look and feel like part of the church.
With no additional questions or comments, the meeting was adjourned.
From:Julius Medgyesy
To:Development Review Comments
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Timberline Church Rezone REZ200002 opposition
Date:Tuesday, September 15, 2020 4:21:12 PM
Hello Alyssa Stephens,
Unfortunately I can not attend the September 17th hearing, Our family is against the rezoning for this site to MMN
use, the area is already overcrowded enough, it reminds me my childhood when I lived in the communist era
apartment complex.
Thanks for your consideration.
Julius Medgyesy
ATTACHMENT 12
From:O.C. Moench
To:Development Review Comments
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Zoning Behind Timberline Church - Comments
Date:Wednesday, September 16, 2020 4:00:44 PM
Good afternoon,
My name is Olivia Moench, I am a senior at Fort Collins High School, and a Fort Collins
Native. I'm living at 2851 Kansas Drive Unit D, which is directly behind the lot that is being
considered for multi-family housing owned by Timberline Church (and CSU).
I may not be able to attend the virtual meeting on Thursday, so I wanted to offer my
perspective now and ahead of time. Thank you much for giving us the chance to speak our
minds about something that will affect my home, and allowing me to fulfill my duty as a
citizen with a voice.
I have also sent this email to the city council, and my representative for District 2, Julie
Pignataro, who will be making the decision on the zoning of this property.
Therefore, I'm against the development of this field for the following reasons and ask the
council to deny the proposal.
1) Climate Change and Sustainability:
The City of Fort Collins has specifically created a plan to battle Climate Change here in our
community, and one of the struggles we face is the ongoing construction of new homes and
population increase. In the "Our Climate Future Program", which I have participated in, more
homes for more people to move into our town would not only increase emissions but require
more resources to provide for this new development which may see a decline as our climate
worsens. This new complex requires more waste management that is already at an
unmanageable level not just in Fort Collins, but around the world. We do not need to fill every
acre of space in this town, we have to allow open spaces in as many available areas as
possible. The population of this town is already growing to an unsustainable level, which ruins
the quality of life. The city has to consider my generation and this town's future, with an
increase of people it will make this situation so much more unmanageable, and if this
development proposal was declined, it would make a massive impact.
2) Religious Aspects and The Sense of Community That Is Created by This Empty Field:
While this is just a field behind the Timberline Church, it serves as many of our backyards.
We (this neighborhood of townhomes) are not fortunate enough to have our own backyards, so
we rely on this open space to do so. People walk their dogs, allow their children to play, and in
the winter, it serves as a sledding hill and space for young families in this neighborhood.
Without this, all they would have are small patches of grass that would make us feel confined
in our space, and make the yard/lawn distribution in this neighborhood unequal. Since
Timberline Church owns this property, they should know how vital it is to have a sense of
belonging and community in a church, this is what we could lose if this field was developed
for monetary gain.
If this message will be shown to the pastor or whoever will be present at the council hearing
advocating for the church, I would like for them to hear what I have to say.
In Leviticus 25:23, the bible quotes, "The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is
mine. For you are strangers and sojourners with me." The selling of this land for monetary
gain, greed, and housing purposes goes against this quote in the bible. If it is God's land than it
is not the Church's to sell for purposes that would not benefit his people.
The church needs to address the concerns of the neighborhood living in this area, this would
not benefit us, and would make our experience at our home so much worse. We are all living
in one community, and need to think of each other.
3) The Logistics of This Development and Re-Zoning:
Our town prides itself on the stunning views of our mountains, Horsetooth Rock, and natural
areas which are vital to our local environment and economy. I love looking out my window
and porch and seeing these stunning sights and would be appalled to look out into someone
else's room, who could be staring right back. Not only would this ruin our neighborhood's
privacy, but take away the charm of this neighborhood that we are lucky and grateful to have.
As well as when the church is in session, without the pressures of a global pandemic, there are
already unmanageable amounts of traffic that this causes and potentially sparks safety issues.
With the addition of neighborhoods directly in this traffic flow, it could make this situation
much worse and would also be unfair of the potential homeowners to have to deal with all the
traffic.
With housing or any other developments, construction is extremely loud and makes life
difficult for many. No one is guaranteed to want to hear loud machines and other construction
going on when we could be enjoying the peace of our home, which we will lose if this
development is allowed.
I understand this housing is for low-density purposes. It is such a small area that it would not
be fair to put communities in here, where they would be living in cramped quarters, regardless
of the designated density. Families deserve a better lot than behind Timberline Church, where
it would just lead to congestion.
I would be heartbroken to see this field that is full of life ruined.
Thank you so much for allowing me to express my concerns about the zoning of this land.
Please consider my words and let those who will decide on the zoning to hear this.
If you have any questions about my thoughts, please feel free to email me back.
Sincerely,
Olivia C Moench
(970) 231-3752
2851 Kansas Drive Unit D
Fort Collins, CO 80525
From:Megan Lusk
To:mr_peters795@hotmail.com; Darin Atteberry; Julie Pignataro
Cc:SAR Admin Team; Jason Holland; Gretchen Schiager; Kelly DiMartino; Dean Klingner; Paul S. Sizemore; Caryn M.
Champine
Subject:RE: Response to: Housing Development between Timberline Church and CSU (Council SAR #58038)
Date:Tuesday, October 13, 2020 2:44:09 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Dear Matt Peters,
Thank you for the recent email regarding the housing development between Timberline Church and
CSU. Please see the following response provided by City Planner, Jason Holland, on behalf of
Councilmember Julie Pignataro and City Manager Darin Atteberry.
Kind Regards,
Megan Lusk
Business Support II
City Manager’s Office
City of Fort Collins
PO Box 580
300 Laporte Avenue, Building A
970-221-6266 office
mlusk@fcgov.com
COVID19 Resources
For all residents: https://www.fcgov.com/eps/coronavirus
For businesses: https://www.fcgov.com/business/
Want to help: https://www.fcgov.com/volunteer/
Dear Mr. Peters,
Thank you for taking the time to write and share your comments. We will ensure that your email is
included in the packet of materials when City Council considers this rezoning proposal, which is
currently scheduled for the November 17 Council meeting.
For the Timberline Church rezoning proposal, the church is petitioning for the rezoning, and not CSU.
Staff’s role is to review development based on City standards and guidelines. A land transaction
between CSU and the church could occur and would be independent of a City development review
process.
You also have questions about the type and nature of housing that may be proposed. The applicant
has not provided a concept site plan with their rezoning request. They are not required to submit a
site plan at this time, so we don’t yet know exactly what they will propose, or how the site will be
configured to meet the City's development standards. The applicant’s petition for rezoning says that
“Timberline has been exploring the potential of adding residential components to the Timberline
Campus. These housing additions could include multifamily dwellings, an active adult community,
and/or senior living facilities”.
You also have a question for how "affordable/attainable" housing is being defined in the case being
proposed. The Church’s petition for rezoning says that “Timberline would like to support the City’s
goal of bringing attainable housing (30% or less of monthly income) to residents”. While this is
stated as a goal, their application is not specifying that any affordable housing dwellings will be
available for sale or rent with a future development project. Should this be proposed with future
development on the property, the affordable housing would, at a minimum, need to meet the City’s
requirements:
Affordable housing unit for rent shall mean a dwelling unit which is available for rent on
terms that would be affordable to households earning eighty (80) percent or less of the
median income of city residents, as adjusted for family size, and paying less than thirty (30)
percent of their gross income for housing, including rent and utilities. The unit must be
occupied by and affordable to such low-income household(s) for a period of not less than
twenty (20) years.
Affordable housing unit for sale shall mean a dwelling unit which is available for purchase on
terms that would be affordable to households earning eighty (80) percent or less of the
median income of city residents, as adjusted for family size, and paying less than thirty-eight
(38) percent of their gross income for housing, including principal, interest, taxes, insurance,
utilities and homeowners' association fees. The unit must be occupied by and affordable to
such low-income household(s) for a period of not less than twenty (20) years.
Again, thank you for sharing your comments and questions. We will ensure that your email is
included in the packet of materials when City Council considers this rezoning proposal.
Best,
Jason Holland, PLA
City Planner
jholland@fcgov.com
970.224.6126
Original Request
From: Matthew Peters <mr_peters795@hotmail.com>
Date: Saturday, October 10, 2020 at 11:16 PM
To: Julie Pignataro <jpignataro@fcgov.com>, Darin Atteberry <DATTEBERRY@fcgov.com>, Rebecca
Everitt <reverette@fcgov.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Housing development proposed between Timberline Church and CSU
property
Great, thank you!
Regards,
Matt Peters
________________________________________
From: Julie Pignataro <jpignataro@fcgov.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 2:32 PM
To: Matthew Peters <mr_peters795@hotmail.com>; Darin Atteberry <DATTEBERRY@fcgov.com>;
Rebecca Everette <reverette@fcgov.com>
Subject: Re: Housing development proposed between Timberline Church and CSU property
Mr. Peters,
Thank you so much for reaching out with your feelings and questions about this area. I have included
two people on this response -- Rebecca can get your comments included in the official record for the
Planning & Zoning Board and Darin can help get your questions answered.
Darin: can you please create a Service Area Report to answer Mr. Peters questions below?
Julie Pignataro
City of Fort Collins
Councilmember, District 2
The City of Fort Collins is an organization that supports equity for all, leading with race. We
acknowledge the role of local government in helping create systems of oppression and racism and
are committed to dismantling those same systems in pursuit of racial justice. Learn more.
With limited exceptions, emails and any files transmitted with them are subject to public disclosure
under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA). To promote transparency, emails will be visible in an
online archive, unless the sender puts #PRIVATE in the subject line of the email. However, the City of
Fort Collins can’t guarantee that any email to or from Council will remain private under CORA.
________________________________________
From: Matthew Peters <mr_peters795@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 10:07 PM
To: Julie Pignataro <jpignataro@fcgov.com>
Subject: Housing development proposed between Timberline Church and CSU property
Hi Julie,
I know you're busy so I'll try to keep this brief. I understand that the land swap being pursued
between Timberline Church and CSU will likely go before city council. With my townhome in your
district, I thought I'd write and share my quick perspective + some questions that might be worth
looking into:
My perspective:
* I (along with many others) purchased my property with the knowledge of the current zoning.
Naturally, we're not too thrilled about the potential of this changing to the very high density
proposed and the loss of open space as it will change the quality, value, mountain views, noise, and
traffic of the area.
Questions:
* Should CSU continue to be in the business (referring somewhat to the Hughes debate as well) of
selling land to developers? If they aren't going to use land, shouldn't it be returned to the tax payers
since they're a public institution? Maybe the residents can vote to bail them out of their financial
woes instead of them selling the land away?
* Rigden Farm already has tons of multi-family housing in the area. If this is potentially
affordable/attainable housing, are more high density apartments/condos really going to be what we
need and what these folks desire? Maybe some habitat homes would be a more desirable solution
to those seeking affordable housing and a place to raise their families? Low income seniors with
accessibility seems like it is also something needed.
* How is "affordable/attainable" housing being defined in the case being proposed? If the numbers
are requiring very high density, then maybe we should be looking for a different solution?
Thank you for reading and for your consideration. I think you'll find that many in the area are not in
favor of this project and would like to see the city continue to promote a good balance of natural
areas, open space, and promoting the high quality that has made Fort Collins a desirable place to
live. My hope is that we'll keep those values that can make us stand out and find solutions that align
rather than over-devleoping like so many other communities.
Regards,
Matt Peters
ATTACHMENT 13 16.13
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Timberline Church Rezoning Petition (9632 : Timberline Church Rezoning)
Updated June 21, 2020 Page 1 of 12
Timberline Church Rezoning to MMN
Project Overview
Original Submittal May 19, 2020
Updated July 21, 2020
Timberline Church – 2908 South Timberline Road, Fort Collins, Colorado
ATTACHMENT 14
TIMBERLINE CHURCH REZONE REQUEST
Updated June 21, 2020 Page 2 of 12
SUPPLEMENT – JULY 21, 2020
The original Timberline Church PUD planned for a second main sanctuary to the north of the
main sanctuary, anticipating total seating of 3,500 which would require 875 spaces.
A Major Amendment to the Timberline Church PUD was filed in 2007 for a further building
addition called the “South Auditorium” at which time it was anticipated that a total of 1,724
parking spaces when all planned structures were built.
The north sanctuary and other outbuildings envisioned by the Timberline Church PUD filed in
2002 and Major Amendment filed in 2007 were never constructed, nor was all of the parking
envisioned in the Major Amendment constructed.
In addition, actual seating used by Timberline Church is significantly less than the originally
planned seating capacity for each auditorium. The current weekly configuration is 1,210 seats in
the main auditorium and 342 seats in the south auditorium for a total of 1,552 seats, which would
dictate a parking requirement of 388 parking spaces at the required 4 to 1 ratio.
Maximum seating at Christmas & Easter is about 10% higher in the main auditorium (1,331
seats) and 50% higher in the south auditorium (513 seats) for a total of 1,844 seats, which would
anticipate a peak parking requirement of 461 spaces.
Maximum occupancy load for fire is a total of 2,870 people including 1,820 in the main
auditorium and 1,050 in the south auditorium. Getting that many people in each auditorium
would require removing all of the chairs, which is not a typical use of the facility. At the fire
occupancy load the required parking would be 718 spaces.
Today there are approximately 1,293 parking spaces on the Timberline property, far in excess of
the parking that would be required by any measure.
Providing the rezone to MMN is approved, as Timberline Church proceeds with development
plans, we will re-plan and re-plat the parking spaces in conjunction with a future amendment to
the Timberline Church PUD in order to ensure ongoing compliance with the City of Fort Collins
parking standards.
TIMBERLINE CHURCH REZONE REQUEST
Updated June 21, 2020 Page 3 of 12
PROJECT: Timberline Church Rezoning to MMN
BACKGROUND
Timberline Church (“Timberline”) acquired the property at 2908 S Timberline Road in 1993, a
plat was filed in 2000, the main church building was opened in 2002 and an addition was made
to the building in 2008. The original Planned Unit Development envisioned that additional
buildings would be constructed on the site and Timberline has funded significant infrastructure
to support future development of the property. Collectively this property represents the
“Timberline Campus”.
With 115,640 square feet and numerous rooms that support gatherings of 10 to 1,200 people, the
Timberline Campus is a hub of community activity with over 220 meetings and events in a
typical week. Timberline provides space at no cost to dozens of municipal and non-profit
partners including the Fort Collins Police Department, Larimer County Department of Human
Services, Larimer County Sheriff’s Department, Girl Scouts, Fort Collins Symphony, and Poudre
School District. See Exhibit B for a list of example events.
Over the last 20 years large scale retail and residential development has occurred near the
Timberline Campus. The City of Fort Collins has also experienced a housing shortage resulting
in a significant increase in housing costs for residents.
Since 2018 Timberline has been exploring the potential of adding residential components to the
Timberline Campus. These housing additions could include multifamily dwellings, an active
adult community, and/or senior living facilities. Residential uses of the Timberline Campus
would leverage the City’s designated Community Activity Center at Timberline & Drake of
which Timberline is a part of.
Further, Timberline would like to support the City’s goal of bringing attainable housing (30% or
less of monthly income) to residents. Working with prospective development partners it has
become clear that with today’s high costs of construction, achieving that goal requires higher
density than allowed by the current LMN zoning.
In order to support these future uses Timberline Church is requesting a rezone of its property on
South Timberline Road to MMN which would assure potential developer partners they can
confidently invest in architecture, engineering & design of prospective projects that are aligned
with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and help fulfill Timberline’s vision of leveraging its infill
property for the benefit of City of Fort Collins residents.
The total land area is 32.79 acres and the legal description of the “Timberline Property” is:
Lots 1-5 and Tract A of the Timberline Church PUD, FTC (2000052648).
Parcels included in this request include 8729225901, 8729225902, 8729225903, 8729225904,
8729225905, and 8729226901.
TIMBERLINE CHURCH REZONE REQUEST
Updated June 21, 2020 Page 4 of 12
CITY OF FORT COLLINS REZONING REQUIREMENTS
The City of Fort Collins Land Use Code relating to the rezoning of property under 640 acres
reads as follows (bold added for emphasis):
2.9.4(H)
(2) Mandatory Requirements for Quasi-judicial Zonings or Rezonings. Any amendment to
the Zoning Map involving the zoning or rezoning of six hundred forty (640) acres of land
or less (a quasi-judicial rezoning) shall be recommended for approval by the Planning
and Zoning Board or approved by the City Council only if the proposed amendment is:
(a) consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; and/or
(b) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood
surrounding and including the subject property.
This project overview documents how this request meets both of these requirements.
Further, the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code relating to the rezoning of property defines
additional considerations for rezoning:
2.9.4(H)
(3) Additional Considerations for Quasi-Judicial Zonings or Rezonings. In determining
whether to recommend approval of any such proposed amendment, the Planning and
Zoning Board and City Council may consider the following additional factors:
(a) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with
existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is the appropriate
zone district for the land;
(b) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including, but not
limited to, water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation,
wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment;
(c) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a
logical and orderly development pattern.
This project overview documents how this request is compatible with all of these additional
factors.
TIMBERLINE CHURCH REZONE REQUEST
Updated June 21, 2020 Page 5 of 12
CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
This request is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, in accordance with Section
2.9.4(H)(2)(a) of the Land Use Code, in many aspects. See below for a list of CCP goals and an
explanation of how Timberline’s use is consistent with that goal.
Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan Goal
Timberline Use Consistent with the Goal
INTRODUCTION
“…reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
by 80% below 2005 levels by 2030…”
As an infill project the rezone to MMN will
facilitate more residents living closer to their
work and thereby reducing their GHG
emissions.
CORE VALUES / LIVABILITY
“Attainable housing options”
Higher density allowed with MMN zoning
will facilitate development of attainable
housing that cannot be achieved under LMN
zoning.
VISION AND VALUES
“Making the most of the land we have left”
Adding residential use to the Timberline
Campus is an excellent example of infill
making the most of the land we have left.
POLICY LIV 1.6 - ADEQUATE PUBLIC
FACILITIES
“Direct development to locations where it
can be adequately served by critical public
facilities and services such as water, sewer,
police, transportation, schools, fire,
stormwater management and parks, in
accordance with adopted levels of service for
public facilities and services.”
The Timberline Campus is already well
served by public facilities and services.
TIMBERLINE CHURCH REZONE REQUEST
Updated June 21, 2020 Page 6 of 12
POLICY LIV 1.6 - ADEQUATE PUBLIC
FACILITIES
“Give preferential consideration to the
extension and augmentation of public services
and facilities to accommodate infill and
redevelopment before new growth areas are
prepared for development.”
Rezoning the Timberline Property to MMN
accommodates infill and redevelopment.
POLICY LIV 2.1 - REVITALIZATION
OF UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTIES
“Support the use of creative strategies to
revitalize vacant, blighted or otherwise
underutilized structures and buildings…”
The addition of residential uses on the
Timberline Campus is a creative strategy to
revitalize an otherwise underutilized property.
POLICY LIV 2.3 - TRANSIT-ORIENTED
DEVELOPMENT
“Require higher-density housing and mixed-
use development in locations that are
currently, or will be, served by BRT and/or
high-frequency transit in the future as infill
and redevelopment occurs.”
The Timberline Campus is well served by
Transfort Route 7 with a bus stop at Custer &
Illinois (Stop 1328).
POLICY LIV 3.6 - CONTEXT-
SENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT
“Ensure that all development contributes to
the positive character of the surrounding
area.”
Development of the Timberline Campus with
MMN density is in context with the
surrounding Timberline/Drake Community
Activity Center.
TIMBERLINE CHURCH REZONE REQUEST
Updated June 21, 2020 Page 7 of 12
POLICY LIV 4.2 - COMPATIBILITY OF
ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT
“Ensure that development that occurs in
adjacent districts complements and enhances
the positive qualities of existing
neighborhoods. Developments that share a
property line and/or street frontage with an
existing neighborhood should promote
compatibility by:
o » Continuing established
block patterns and streets to
improve access to services and
amenities from the adjacent
neighborhood;
o » Incorporating context-
sensitive buildings and site
features (e.g., similar size,
scale and materials); and
» Locating parking and service areas where
impacts on existing neighborhoods—such as
noise and traffic—will be minimized.”
Timberline will steward the development of
its property to ensure compatibility with
adjacent developments which include two
story multifamily condominiums, two story
townhomes / row homes, and three story
multifamily communities.
POLICY LIV 5.2 - SUPPLY OF
ATTAINABLE HOUSING
“Encourage public and private sectors to
maintain and develop a diverse range of
housing options, including housing that is
attainable (30% or less of monthly income) to
residents earning the median income. Options
could include ADUs, duplexes, townhomes,
mobile homes, manufactured housing and
other ‘missing middle’ housing types.”
The primary goal of the rezone to MMN is to
support the development of attainable
housing, including residents with 80% of the
Fort Collins Area Median Income (AMI).
TIMBERLINE CHURCH REZONE REQUEST
Updated June 21, 2020 Page 8 of 12
WARRANTED BY CHANGED CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
This request is warranted by changed conditions in the neighborhood surrounding and including
the subject property, in accordance with Section 2.9.4(H)(2)(b) of the Land Use Code.
After the Timberline Property was platted in August 2000, the following nearby projects were
approved with MMN zoning:
Sidehill Condominiums June 2005
Rigden Farms Townhomes December 2005
Colony at Rigden Farm February 2006
East Village at Rigden Farm Condos March 2006
Trails at Timberline Apartments November 2012
Another significant change to the neighborhood has occurred with the development of
neighborhood commercial (NC) at The Shops at Rigden Farms which was platted in November
2004. The primary anchor is King Soopers with grocery, pharmacy and fuel service. Many retail
and commercial uses have been added over the years including:
FirstBank
Subway
Krazy Karl’s Pizza
Timberline Animal Hospital
Cost Cutters
Mail & Copy Fort Collins
Genoa Coffee & Wine
Eileen’s Colossal Cookies
Meraki Yoga Studio
Grease Monkey
QDOBA
Bright Horizons (daycare)
Chase Bank
Fabby’s Wine and Spirits
William Oliver’s Publick House
Kung Fu Tea
Blue Federal Credit Union
OrangeTheory Fitness
Harbor Dental
Farmer’s Insurance
Mountain View Eye Specialists
Caring Smiles
The extensive nearby and immediately adjacent development that has occurred since the subject
was platted in 2000 meets the requirement for changed conditions within the neighborhood
surrounding and including the subject property.
COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING USES SURROUNDING THE SUBJECT LAND
Section 2.9.4(H)(3)(a) of the Land Use Code encourages rezoning that is “compatible with
existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land.”
There are adjoining and nearby properties that were zoned MMN prior to the Timberline plat
being filed in 2000:
TIMBERLINE CHURCH REZONE REQUEST
Updated June 21, 2020 Page 9 of 12
Pinecone Apartments June 1993
Rigden Farms October 1999
These uses which were in existence prior to the Timberline PUD, combined with the MMN and
NC uses that were approved and developed subsequently, have resulted in the creation of the
Fort Collins Timberline/Drake Community Activity Center. Being sited between that
Community Activity Center and MMN property to the south that is even further from
Timberline/Drake, this request for the subject property is compatible with existing uses
surrounding the subject land.
WOULD NOT HAVE ADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE NATURAL ENVIROMENT
Section 2.9.4(H)(3)(b) of the Land Use Code discourages a rezone that “would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to,
water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural
functioning of the environment.”
Adding residential use to the Timberline Campus would not have significantly adverse impacts
on the natural environment. In fact, we would expect this infill development to reduce impacts to
the natural environment by allowing residents that work in the City of Fort Collins to live closer
to their workplace. For many it could mean being able to walk to work or commute using a bike,
Transfort or a combination of both.
Future residents of the Timberline Campus would also be able to access retail and commercial
amenities that are within walking distance, eliminating the need to drive for many errands
including grocery shopping, a haircut or stopping into their bank. With a Walk Score of 49 and a
Bike Score of 87, the subject property will facilitate a lower carbon footprint lifestyle than most
suburban neighborhoods in Fort Collins.
These changes in habits would mean a reduction in vehicle miles travelled within the city and a
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions with a positive impact on the natural environment.
MMN IS THE APPROPRIATE ZONE DISTRICT FOR THE TIMBERLINE CAMPUS
AND WOULD RESULT IN A LOGICAL AND ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT PATTERN
Section 2.9.4(H)(3)(a) of the Land Use Code encourages rezoning that is “the appropriate zone
district for the land.”
Further, Section 2.9.4(H)(3)(c) of the Land Use Code encourages rezoning that “would result in
a logical and orderly development pattern.”
The development pattern surrounding the Timberline/Drake Community Activity Center is
primarily MMN and NC:
TIMBERLINE CHURCH REZONE REQUEST
Updated June 21, 2020 Page 10 of 12
1. The NE corner of Timberline/Drake is zoned MMN
2. The NW corner of Timberline/Drake is zoned MMN
3. The SE corner of Timberline/Drake is zoned NC
4. Properties immediately north of the subject are zoned NC and MMN
5. The property immediate south of the subject is zoned MMN
Nearby properties with density compatible with this rezone request include:
a) The Colony at Rigden Farm, 2.6 acres gross and 18.45 du/acre
b) Rigden 10th filing (Senior Living), 4.22 acres gross and 29.6 du/acre
c) Rigden 13th filing, 2.5 acres gross and 19 du/acre
d) Rigden Flats, 4.08 acres gross and 23 du/acre
e) Brooklyn Townhomes, 1.73 acres gross and 24.3 du/acre
f) Rigden 12th filing (Brooklyn Townhomes), 2.6 acres gross and 24.2 du/acre
g) Pinecone Apartments, 15.13 acres gross (12.71 acres net), 12.89 du/acre, 15.34 du/acre
(net)
Current LMN zoning envisions places of worship of up to 25,000 square feet as typical. At
115,640 square feet the Timberline Church facility is more compatible with MMN, making
MMN the appropriate zone district for the land.
Based on the immediately adjacent and surrounding properties in the Timberline/Drake
Community Activity Center that are zoned MMN and NC, as well as the primary use of MMN
zoning along the Timberline Road corridor in the nearby area, MMN is the appropriate zone
district for the land and approval of this request would result in a logical and orderly
development pattern.
SUMMARY
Timberline’s MMN Rezone Request fully meets the rezoning requirements of the Land Use
Code and has the potential to bring new residential uses to an almost 33-acre campus whose
previous Planned Unit Development contemplated a large-scale church facility. The City will
have a limited number of infill opportunities that are so well suited to support the City
Comprehensive Plan and therefore this request should be approved.
TIMBERLINE CHURCH REZONE REQUEST
Updated June 21, 2020 Page 11 of 12
EXHIBIT A
TIMBERLINE CHURCH PROPERTY MAP
[ See Separately Submitted Parcel Map ]
TIMBERLINE CHURCH REZONE REQUEST
Updated June 21, 2020 Page 12 of 12
EXHIBIT B
TIMBERLINE CAMPUS – EXAMPLE USERS
Organization Event Attendees
9 News
Health Fair
1,000
Centennial Children's Choir
Holiday Concert 1,200
Colorado State University Science Fair
1,200
Girl Scouts
Cookie Sales Training 150-200
Fort Collins Symphony
YES Concert PSD Students
(multiple events)
4,300
Fort Collins Symphony
Community Concerts
1,000
Front Range Nursing
Pinning Ceremony 400-450
Larimer County Dept of Human Services
Awards Ceremony 150
Larimer County Sheriff's Office
Awards Ceremony 200-300
Night To Shine
Special Needs Prom Night 1,000+
Poudre School District
Various 35-350
ATTACHMENT 15
1Timberline Church Rezoning
November 17, 2020
ATTACHMENT 16
2
•Rezoning request
for the Ti mberline
Church Campus
•1,275 feet south of
the intersection of
Ti mberline and
Drake Roads
3
Existing
Zoning
Low Density
Mixed-Use
Neighborhood
(L-M-N)
4
Proposed
Zoning
Medium
Density
Mixed-Use
Neighborhood
(M-M-N)
5
•32.79-acre
Campus
•First approved in
1999
•Surrounding uses
and features
6
Existing Campus
Plan
•Tw o building
phases. First
phase completed,
includes main
church parking on
the site.
•Second building
phase and parking
was envisioned,
but never
constructedS. TIMBERLINE RD.
Rezoning Review Process
7
Rezoning
Petition
P&Z
Board
Review
City
Council
Hearing
City
Council
2nd
Reading
May 22, 2020 Sept. 17, 2020 Nov. 17, 2020Oct. 22, 2020
Neighbor-
hood
Meeting
Neighborhood Meeting
Resident Comments
8
Resident Comments:
•Increase in residential density in area
•Tr affic/congestion increase
•King Soopers Neighborhood Center already too
busy
•Potential for larger multi-family buildings
•Flooding and drainage
9
Planning and Zoning Board --
Approval recommended with one condition:
The residential density shall be limited 20
units per gross acre and an Overall
Development Plan (ODP) precedes or
accompany the Project Development Plan
(PDP).
P&Z Recommendation
Rezoning Review Criteria
Division 2.9 –Amendment to Zoning Map
10
Review governed by 5 criteria:
Is the proposed Amendment:
1.Consistent with the comprehensive plan (City Plan);
2.and/or warranted by changed conditions.
Additional factors:
3.Compatible with surrounding uses;
4.Impacts to the natural environment; and
5.A logical and orderly development pattern
11
Structure Plan Map
12
Criterion 1 --Consistency with the Structure Plan
City Structure Plan Proposed Zoning
Criterion 1 --Consistency with
the City’s Comprehensive Plan (City Plan)
13
•Consistent with City
Plan Principles and
Policies
•Consistent with Mixed-
Neighborhood place
type
Criterion 1
Primary City Plan Policies
14
PRINCIPLE LIV 2: Promote Infill and Redevelopment:
Policy LIV 2.1 –Revitalization of Underutilized Properties
Policy LIV 5.1 –Housing Options
Policy LIV 5.2 –Supply of Attainable Housing
Policy LIV 5.3 –Land for Residential Development
15
Place Types–Mixed Neighborhoods
16
Existing and Planned Transit Routes
Current Routes Tr ansit Vision Network
SITE
SITE
Criterion 1
Consistency with the Mixed-Neighborhood Place Type
17
Location meets the purpose of
the Mixed-Neighborhood
place type and MMN zone:
•Access to a Neighborhood
Center --within
walking/biking distance of
services, amenities, and
high-frequency transit;
•Becomes important with
higher densities
Criterion 2
and/or Warranted by Changed Conditions
18
Notable conditions have changed in
the area since the Timberline Church
was originally constructed:
1.The Rigden Farm Neighborhood
Center has been constructed.
2.Higher density housing to the north
and east within Rigden Farm;
higher densities concentrated near
the Neighborhood Center.
3.Bus transit provided with the
neighborhood center
Criterion 3
Compatible with Existing and Proposed Uses
19
Characteristics of the subject property
and surrounding area which support
MMN zoning:
•Property abuts existing MMN
developments to the north and south of
the church property --Pinecone
Apartments and Brooklyn Townhomes
•LMN housing to east --near the highest
permitted density in the LMN zone
•The Foothills Channel and stormwater
detention areas to the south and
southeast help provide a buffer transition.
Criterion 4
Adverse impacts on the natural environment
20
Criterion 4: Whether and the extent to w hich
the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
•The proposed rezone to MMN is not anticipated
to have significant impacts to the natural
environment.
•The Foothills Channel represents a significant
habitat feature adjacent to the proposed infill
housing. This habitat feature requires protection
regardless of whether the development is
rezoned. Additionally, code requirements for
stormwater detention and water quality
treatment are not affected by the rezoning.Foothills Channel
21
Criterion 5:
Logical and Orderly
Development Pattern
Criterion 5: Whether and the
extent to which the proposed
amendment would result in a
logical and orderly development
pattern.
Logical and orderly development
pattern which reflects the unique
context of the site:
•Continues the range of densities
from east to west, serving as a
logical transition to MMN zoning
on the subject property, with
conditions to provide a design
transition.
22
23
Reflects the unique context of
the site:
•East and south buffer
provided --Existing
drainage and stormwater
detention areas and
Foothills Channel.
•Close to the existing
Neighborhood Center,
integration into the
surrounding neighborhoods’
street and pedestrian
networks, meets purpose of
the MMN zone.
Criterion 5:
Logical and Orderly
Development Pattern
24
The rezoning complies with the applicable review criteria for quasi-judicial requests in that:
1)The amendment is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan (City Plan);
2)The amendment is warranted by changed conditions in the area;
3)The amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject
land, and provides an appropriate zone district for the land;
4)The amendment would not result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment,
including, but not limited to, water, air, noise, stormwater, management, wildlife, vegetation,
wetlands and natural functioning of the environment; and
5)The amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern.
With One Condition: The residential density shall be limited 20 units per gross acre and an
Overall Development Plan (ODP) shall precede or accompany the Project Development Plan
(PDP).
P&Z Recommendation
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 145, 2020
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE
CITY OF FORT COLLINS BY CHANGING THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION FOR THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY KNOWN
AS THE TIMBERLINE CHURCH REZONING
WHEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the “Land Use Code”)
establishes the Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and
WHEREAS, Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code establishes procedures and criteria for
reviewing the rezoning of land; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the foregoing, the City Council has conducted a public
hearing, considered the Staff Report, the Planning and Zoning Board recommendation and
findings, and the evidence from the public hearing and has determined that the property that is
the subject of this Ordinance should be rezoned as hereinafter provided; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has further determined that the proposed rezoning is
consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and is warranted by changed conditions within the
neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property as established in Section
2.9.4(H)(2) of the Land Use Code; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the condition included below is to provide a density limit that
will help achieve a compatible transition within the context of the existing surrounding
neighborhood since the proposed Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (“M-M-N”) Zone
District does not include a maximum density and to require an Overall Development Plan to help
identify the general design parameters for the subject property as it proceeds toward
development; and
WHEREAS, to the extent applicable, the City Council has also analyzed the proposed
rezoning against the considerations as established in Section 2.9.4(H)(3) of the Land Use Code
and determined that the proposed MMN zoning: (a) is compatible with existing and proposed
uses surrounding the subject property and is an appropriate zone district for the property; (b) is
not anticipated to have significant impacts to the natural environment; and (c) represents a
logical and orderly development pattern that reflects the unique context of the site.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That the Zoning Map adopted by Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code is
hereby amended by changing the zoning classification from Low Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood (“L-M-N”) Zone District, to Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (“M-M-
-2-
N”) Zone District, for the following described property in the City known as the Timberline
Church Rezoning:
Lots 1-5 and Tract A of the Timberline Church PUD, containing 32.79 acres, more or
less.
Section 3. That the following condition is hereby imposed upon the Timberline
Church Rezoning as permitted by Section 2.9.4(I) of the Land Use Code:
that the residential density will be limited 20 units per gross acre and that an
Overall Development Plan (ODP) will precede or accompany the Project
Development Plan (PDP).
Section 4. That the property subject to the Timberline Church rezoning shall continue
to be included in the Residential Sign District adopted pursuant to Section 3.8.7.1(M) of the
Land Use Code.
Section 5. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to amend said Zoning
Map in accordance with this Ordinance.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 17th day of
November, A.D. 2020, and to be presented for final passage on the 1st day of December, A.D.
2020.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on this 1st day of December, A.D. 2020.
__________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
-3-