Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 10/01/2002 - ITEMS RELATING TO CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATI AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 25 A-B DATE: October 1, 2002 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL FROM: Bob Barkeen SUBJECT: Items Relating to Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the Taft Hill/Hull Rezoning. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Board recommends adoption of the Resolution and of the Ordinance by a vote of 4 to 2. Staff recommends the City Council deny the requested Structure Plan Map amendment and rezoning request. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A. Resolution 2002-096 Amending the City's Structure Plan Map. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 148, 2002, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the Taft Hill/Hull Rezoning. This is a request to amend the City Structure Plan and rezone three parcels of land at the northeast corner of the intersection of Taft Hill Road and Hull Street, south of Drake Road. The existing designation is LMN—Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood, the proposed designation is MMN—Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. The three parcels total 15.3 acres. The property is accessed from Hull Street, and each lot has a single-family residence with several outbuildings. Spring Creek traverses the northern portion of the site. The sites are designated as Low Density Mixed Use Residential and Stream Corridor on the City of Fort Collins Structure Plan. APPLICANT: Steve Pfister 225 East Monroe, Suite 4 Fort Collins, CO 80525 OWNERS: Wilber and Barbara Aanes 1926 Hull Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Edward J. Jaerger Revocable Trust 901 Alexa Way Fort Collins, CO 80524 DATE: ITEM NUMBER: BACKGROUND: The Taft Hill/Hull Rezoning was presented to the Planning and Zoning Board on September 19, 2002. The Planning and Zoning Board found the existing Structure Plan designation for this property is in need of change; and the proposed changes would promote the public welfare and be consistent with the vision, goals, principles, and policies of City Plan to the designation of the property. Planning and Zoning Board recommended adoption of the amendment and rezoning to the City Council by a vote of 4—2 (members Craig and Colton dissenting, Carpenter absent). Staff's position differs from that expressed by the majority of the Planning and Zoning Board members. Staff contends that there is not an adequate demonstration of need to change the City Structure Plan. In addition, City Plan policies regarding the MMN designation, on the whole, would not be adequately met by the request. When the Structure Plan was originally developed, the property was not designated MMN, despite being located within 1/4 mile of a supermarket- anchored Neighborhood Commercial Center, which lacks the typical surrounding MMN designation. This was mainly because of disconnections and discontinuity resulting from existing development patterns and the Spring Creek corridor. The same reasons still apply. Staff recommended denial of the Structure Plan Amendment and Rezoning to the Planning and Zoning Board. The Planning and Zoning Board decision was focused primarily on the economic aspects of developing the property and the perceived location next to transit corridors. Staff contends that economic factors associated with developing a particular piece of property should not be a primary reason for approving a rezoning application. Additionally, transit serving the site is not within an enhanced travel corridor, rather it is provided a bus route with limited service. The Property The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: MMN; Undeveloped; Single Family Residential S: FA1 (County); Single Family Residential (estate) E: RL; Single family residential W: POL; Undeveloped The property was annexed in June, 1985 as part of the Springbrook and Springbrook Two Annexations. Context of the Proposed Structure Plan Amendment The City Structure Plan is the primary basis for zoning decisions. An amendment is a prerequisite to this rezoning request. To recommend approval of this proposal, staff and the Planning and Zoning Board must find that: (1) the existing Structure Plan is in need of change; and (2) the proposed changes would promote the public welfare and be consistent with the vision, goals, principles, and policies of City Plan. These are the applicable criteria, contained in Appendix C of City Plan. c o er , 2002, DATE: ITEM NUMBER: The Structure Plan currently shows Spring Creek as a Green Corridor. This Corridor separates MMN designation on the north side from LMN designation on the subject property on the south side. Current designations resulted from the 1997 City Plan adoption. The two different designations across the Creek were based on existing development patterns and the presence of the creek as a corridor to be protected and enhanced. Evaluation of the Proposed Structure Plan Amendment The decisive points in the analysis are: a. As an MMN District, the property would not form "a transition and a link between surrounding neighborhoods and the neighborhood commercial district". Nor would it "function together with surrounding low density neighborhoods and the commercial core" in an integral way. These are fundamental policies for accommodating higher density housing in MMN areas. b. It would not form a "unifying pattern of streets and blocks" due to disconnections in existing development and Spring Creek. In fact, the subject property does not have two points of access. Disconnections due to the creek and existing development will pose constraints on the ability to gain multiple access and connectivity. This works against the idea of upzoning to allow more housing units in an area essentially accessible as a large cul-de-sac only. C. Applicants have cited certain benefits which would result from rezoning to MMN as an expansion of existing MMN zoning on the north side of Spring Creek. The benefits would come from increased ability to assemble both sides of the creek into a single development property. The main tangible benefit cited is that a street bridge would be more feasible to unify the larger MMN area. However, staff's position is that a unified higher density development on the entirety of this property is not necessarily a desirable objective in this particular situation. The creek is deliberately shown as a Green Corridor defining different land use designations. In this location, staff contends that the integrity of the corridor is more important than increasing the feasibility of a street bridge by increasing the need for it with an extension of MMN zoning. A street and bridge would require major disturbance and change the character of the corridor. d. Another problem created by the proposed arrangement is that it leaves the single parcel of LMN zoned land to the east of the site between this parcel (to be zoned MMN) and the adjacent RL zoning, developed as low density, single family residential. This parcel may not be difficult to develop into a land use that provides a connection to both the adjacent MMN and RL zoned land. e. The sloping landlord adds another constraint to an intensive, well-connected neighborhood meeting the minimum density of 12 units per acre with a pattern of streets and blocks. The constraints of the site may make development difficult even under LMN zoning, but MMN zoning would increase the likely conflicts. DATE: ITEM NUMBER: f. General principles and policies supporting infl. and density have been cited and discussed. However, they do not mean that infill in this s en cific area should be under MMN density, rather than LMN density. In other words, those policies can be met with development at LMN density in this case. g. Expanding the zoning to this property in order to prevent a "strip" of MMN development on the north side of the creek has been advocated. However, in reality the north side would develop the same whether or not the south side develops under MMN or LMN zoning, because of the creek corridor. In evaluating the requested Structure Plan amendment, staff has considered and discussed a number of other points that can be made in favor of a need to change the Structure Plan. These are acknowledged below: a. The property is "within a 1/4 mile of NC zone" (quote from City Plan), and arguably "within easy walking distance of transit and a commercial district" (quote from Land Use Code). b. There is no other property meeting these criteria available to accommodate MMN zoning in association with the NC district in this area, and the 14 acres of MMN on the north side of the creek along Drake is less than typically envisioned in a more ideal situation. C. 'Buildings, streets, paths, open spaces, and parks [can] be configured to form an inviting and convenient living environment" (quote from LUC). In particular, walking and bicycling are favored by the Spring Creek trail which weaves through here with 2 crossings. d. As a general principle, higher density infl. is more efficient in the use of land, water, infrastructure, energy, and all other resources. From a broad city-wide perspective, this opportunity for multi-family housing could be captured despite the imperfect fit with MMN policies, if a degree of flexibility in applying the policies can be provided. e. While the property can not achieve the integral, unifying pattern of streets and blocks to thread LMN, MMN, and NC areas together as envisioned, this is not unprecedented where barriers exist. Development review of an actual project would require the developer to come as close as possible. f. While the property can not achieve the integral, unifying pattern of streets and blocks to thread LMN, MMN, and NC areas together as envisioned, this is not unprecedented where barriers exist. Later design of an actual project will be required to come as close as possible given the constraints. Rezoning Request: In order for the City Council to approve this proposal, Council would have to find that the rezoning is: (1) consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; and/or (2) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property." c o er 25 A-B DATE: ITEM NUMBER: The above criteria are found in subsection 2.9.4[H][2] of the Land Use Code, which defines mandatory requirements for quasi-judicial Rezoning. In addition, the following subsection 2.9.4[H][3] lists additional factors that may be considered along with the mandatory requirements for this type of quasi-judicial rezoning, as follows: "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, storm water management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and the natural environment; and C. whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern." Staff Analysis - Rezoning Request Is the request consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan? No, for the reasons explained above in the evaluation of the Structure Plan amendment. Have conditions changed in the neighborhood to warrant the rezoning? The applicant contends that recent expansions of Drake and Taft Hill Roads, extension of the Spring Creek Trail, and the expansion of anchor tenants in the nearby shopping center, are changed conditions warranting revised land use designations for higher density housing. Staff disagrees with the contention that these are changed conditions that create a need to change the zoning. Street widens and the trail are not changed conditions -- City Plan was based on these things happening. In other words, these are simply incremental build-out of the Structure Plan. Nor do tenant changes in the Safeway Center create a need to change the zoning to higher density on the subject property. To illustrate, those tenants could change their minds — would the Structure Plan then need to be changed back again? Is the rezoning request compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and is it the appropriate zoning district for the land? Not to an adequate degree, for the reasons explained above in the evaluation of the Structure Plan amendment. Will the rezoning have adverse effects on the natural environment? Potentially yes. Part of the cited need for the change has been to create a larger unified MMN area covering both sides of Spring Creek, to facilitate a larger development plan with a street and DATE: October 1, 2002 1 6 ITEM NUMBER: bridge over the creek. The increased intensity, partly justified by a more likely street and bridge, could create more impacts on the creek corridor. Will the rezoning result in a logical and orderly development pattern? No. The disconnections and discontinuity explained above in the evaluation of the Stricture Plan amendment outweigh any benefits of the higher density. FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS After reviewing the Taft Hill/Hull Rezoning and Amendment to the Structure Plan, File #31-02, staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions as explained above: 1. This request for a Structure Plan amendment does not adequately demonstrate a need to change the designation. Such a change would not be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. This rezoning request is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, based on the Structure Plan designation and the policies for MMN designation. 3. The proposed rezoning will not result in adverse impacts on the natural environment — specifically the Spring Creek corridor. 4. The proposed rezoning would result in a logical and orderly pattern. Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation The Planning and Zoning Board recommends that City Council approve the Taft Hill/Hull Rezoning and Structure Plan Amendment, File #31-02, Amendment to the Zoning Map from LMN — Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood to MMN — Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood District. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council deny the requested Structure Plan Map amendment and rezoning request. • RESOLUTION 2002-096 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING THE CITY'S STRUCTURE PLAN MAP WHEREAS, the City has received an application to rezone certain property located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Taft Hill Road and Hull Street,south of Drake Road, which property is presently zoned in the "LMN" Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood Zone District, which rezoning request is known as the "Taft Hill/Hull Rezoning"; and WHEREAS,the Council finds that the proposed Taft Hill/Hull Rezoning complies with the Principles and Policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan,as well as the Key Principles of the City's Structure Plan, but does not comply with the present land use designation shown on the City's Structure Plan Map for that location; and WHEREAS,the Council has determined that the proposed Taft Hill/Hull rezoning is in the best interests of the citizens of the City and comports with the City's Comprehensive Plan except for the City's Structure Plan Map; and WHEREAS,the Council has further determined that the City's Structure Plan Map should be amended as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, as follows: Section 1. That the City Council finds that the existing City Plan Structure Plan Map is in need of the amendment requested by the applicant for the Taft Hill/Hull Rezoning. Section 2. That the City Council finds that the proposed amendment will promote the public welfare and will be consistent with the visions, goals,principals and policies of City Plan and the elements thereof. Section 3. That the City Plan Structure Plan Map is hereby amended so as to appear as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 1st day of October, A. D. 2002. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk • . ORDINANCE NO. 148, 2002 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 TAFT HILL/HULL 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 Council has considered the rezoning of the property which is the subject of this ordinance,and has determined that the said property should be rezoned as hereafter provided; and WHEREAS,the Council has further determined that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and/or is warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property; and WHEREAS, to the extent applicable, the Council has also analyzed the proposed rezoning against the considerations as established in Section 2.9.4(H)(3) of the Land Use Code. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: Section 1. That the Zoning Map adopted by Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code, and the same hereby is, amended by changing the zoning classification from "LMN", Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood Zone District, to "MMN", Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Zone District, for the following described property in the City known as the Taft Hill/Hull Rezoning: All of Lot 2, all of Lot 3 and Lot 4 (excluding that portion of Lot 4 that was taken for the widening of Taft Hill Road), according to the Plat thereof as filed under File Number 244742 on November 8, 1922 in Book 4, Page 55, in the public records of Larimer County, Colorado Section 2. That the Sign District Map adopted pursuant to Section 3.8.7(E)of the Land Use Code be, and the same hereby is, changed and amended by showing that the above-described property is included in the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. Section 3. The City Engineer 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 1 st day of October, A.D. 2002, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of October, A.D. 2002. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Passed and adopted on final reading this 15th day of October, A.D. 2002. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk PIP ��� �. .• •� XM �♦ ® sue �� �. � 1 -. _. ; „ �.. - • '- � � � .� �� .� �. �• • III �i■■■►r its � ♦♦♦�°�����■ I��I��. ■It■�■■■■i■■111: ��■i�■r s��� •♦♦ •�■■■■. �•1■■/I,�� ■■■soon■■■■■■■■•■ tW.�►ram ��■■�► �� .. p��■■■■■■■now 1111111 � � � i �� •• �� \■■■I�� ,v '��l���IIIt• ' ��®•.■�' aeo @aortae.= �R� ♦� �� - 'l�el.3� :34e ZaePIDA���� ' Ewa— � �■ � ■111111■ �111111111� �®. �•1� \ i111 �11�111� ■III■i51 �IIIIII■ • �': /� ►cam 111111111111 INS ' /` / ►111111■���tla•���� �� J11■11111■ ��®��v'\ oil 1111111 .�■ iC' _� :9•QCSSOSO93- aai..�aal;5��•♦,' ♦ ..`' � � �I���� �iiiiiii ��• !1111: 11111111: : uiD1���IDaLsS: �as.•a-..eevr,. • � I Taft Hill/Hull Rezoning Legal Description All of Lot 2, all of Lot 3 and Lot 4 (excluding that portion of Lot 4 that was taken for the widening of Taft Hill Road), according to the Plat thereof as filed under File Number 244742 on November 8, 1922 in Book 4, Page 55, in the public records of Larimer County, Colorado • DRAKE ROAD • 6 69 41 E 636.00 GEORGETOWN e.oa. . OEOROETOWN awo. TOWNHOUSE 17 0l CONDIMINIUMS T�9�1 alga. z 10 uoo. , Ol 8Lo0. a O m z °z ��_ .m a ® TO 15 '� IB r ro .. ® uw o w 00 -< m c ® z; ® m 0001 4 `a GEORGETOWNTOWNHOUSE o is AD =„ CONDIMINIUM G� 15 D =a s eSUPP. NO. 0 =_ _ 14 p• zD G OpEi 0].06 O o 322.5 339.0 N 390.4_ 6].° 62.0 O \O° N _ P �sT y LOT 3 LOT It 62.° = 1190 v 2 62. 3 )II z W 0 0 ® 129.6 66.9 62.0 yyQ w w 159.2 62.1 O(MD 0® 06 0 jQ � a.a 62.0 00.0 0 aa I FREMON" H SUBDIVIS ON-pF PART OF + _ p� THE WEST 1 /2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1 /4 ® a \yab ,T o EI OF SECTION 27 © 05 a 0 160.0 67.3 66.0 56. 0 E4 6.] 66.0 66.0 1 66.0 322.5App.6 309.0 "' 0 ° 00 m�0� n 004 00 w gas.■�,�_ .�u'- _. . F Drake Road r Q. PC��I��: ■1111■�■�11111� �EM■IL WIN, Ir son WMA WER NO III n �n m MME ■�■■■■■■ C _.... ■�■■■■■■�■. milli ILU MO �■�■■��II►` II --IM IN IMME gn - IN IMIN IN IN So IMIN I�rL�E1U• �■ :■ �1 IN ME ■�■■■ r���i%IIII� 1111111: �IIIIIIII IIII - ■■��■��■ IIMIIIII 111�■■ ��■■■■■■■���j� __ 11■■■■■■■■��� I\ ������i�.►�: I��I��: �1111�■■�111111 �■��IIr 111111�� l� ������� ii ii \■■■■�� �� �� son one lllll ��1�j °.1►*0 11111 1111■IIIIIIIIU���_� � :� all ■111111■ =1111=� _ _ �= i111 ■111111■ .. � ■��II �IIIIII■ � _ __r-.. �111111�1�� ■�1�� �1111111 : l� ►i�11111■ �� �� �� �� /11111■ �� �� pC � � 11111111■ ,�. '1��11111■ �� �� , = m■IImilli U■rj� � ♦�� �11111111 111/� Elm������■ MA WE Ron.� �i�I►•�� ■■i j jliiii■iii �`i 111111� �����i� ii ii /■■■■�� ��: III � �■ . � �I ■/1 1 1 IIIIIIIID���_� �� � :� r - ■111111■ ■111111■ � o ��\IIIII■ ■111■11111. ■1111 111111111►` Pol wxMEN �� r ►■11111■ �/ CC �/ /i � ■1111111■ CC p� ■� SM 1��III11■ �� �� � I��Li5�10. •• •• ®-�� ��11111■ III ■111111� ��IImill � ��j N Proposed Zoning A0 350 700 1,4T eet no �� /■ii/� OEM EEO . .s�, �. aim■■ ■i I�� iiiiiNNiiiiN ���1A infffufff� � .: � ■ � . lfuu■ ��iiiiii• � ��iiii���liiii� �+.�� � CNN uNiam�al+�l_J " - LAgww1111 � ilinii! �1111111�s CZONE i1i1i11t ��'- s f� IONICi� �ni1il� i■1ii ■Bill 1111ccI■� MCCNMCL ffnin111111� ►�11111/ M Cc MCN McSu ME �lIIi1� �� C� pC 1f1 i d Isms i■i �� ��j 4�J� HHCMN i MEND% IIENC �ii■■� .,� �lUfn■■� - 11 .. i in■ii '. LI ■ E � .s sib • IMENO INNIRD sI►� /■n■■ =RFI ♦1 ■pNiU q INu�i��lrr ���► 1 �'� a C - NET irfi�■ r■nn�I� �iiu ��u�������1ii ��� • Taft Hill / Hull Rezoning Reasons for Request The applicant is requesting an amendment to the City Zoning Map and to Structure Plan, to the extent deemed necessary. The 15.3 acre parcel is lot 2, lot 3 and lot 4 of a 1922 platted subdivision known simply as "Plat of Subdivision of part of West half of Northwest Quarter Section 27, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 66 P.M., Larimer County, Colorado". This area was platted into approximately 5 acre lots in 1922 and has retained its"country" atmosphere as higher density single family subdivisions have developed to the east and south of this 1922 "country" subdivision. The existing zoning , which is LMN, would allow a continuation of similar single family development as exists to the east and south.. Since existing zoning was established, expansion of Drake Road and Taft Hill Road (including the new pedestrian trails,tunnels and bridges along Spring Creek) AND expansion of the Drake Crossing shopping Center have changed the Character of the area. We believe it is in the best interest of the community to recognize these changes and establish a new framework that is more compatible with recent developments. This area is directly accessible by pedestrian trail to Rollin Moore Park to the northeast and across Taft Hill/Drake intersection from the Drake Crossing shopping center. These connections to the park and to retail services and employment are well suited to higher density land uses as prescribed in the MMN zoning classification. If approved this rezoning would result in the enlargement of an already existing MMN zoned area that is • across the intersection from an NC zoned area. We believe the level of existing development in the surrounding area warrants that the subject property be viewed as an"in-fill"project in an area that is highly urbanized and needs higher density to benefit from the advantages of being adjacent to multimodal forms of transportation, shopping, employment, parks,open space, schools, churches, day care and other amenities that are within a short walking distance. In addition to the above activity centers the subject property is relatively close to the South College Avenue commercial corridor,to Colorado State University and to the Centre for Advanced Technology. We believe it would be a missed opportunity for the subject property to remain in the LMN zoning category. The proposed rezoning of Taft Hill/Hull does not create any adverse impacts on the natural environment. Spring Creek runs along the north boundary of the subject property and City Parks and Recreation has completed designs to construct trails and bridges along the north edge of the property that would be compatible with higher density land uses. Please refer to the attached legal descriptions, map of the area, and comments regarding Article II Section 2.9.4 of the City's land use code. Article II Section 2.9.4 "Text and Map Amendment Review Procedures" states that a rezoning map amendment change must meet the following criteria: ■ "must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan" and/or City's Comprehensive Plan views this general area of the City as a suitable area for higher density projects. The subject property is immediately adjacent to land already zoned MMN. Rezoning the subject property to MMN would enlarge the MMN existing zoning area to make it more compatiable. Expanding the existing MMN zoned area presents the opportunity for an approximately 20 acre area instead of an approximately 6 acre area to allow a size and scale of project consistent with the intersection of two arterial streets (eg Drake and Taft Hill) ■ warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property. o Loss of ROW has made the property, and adjoining property to the north, unsuitable as a Single family. Specifically: ■ ROW acquisition on Drake (adjacent to property already zoned MMN) ■ ROW acquisition on Taft Hill ■ Trail easement for Spring Creek Trail and shoulder grading on Taft Hill • Size of property is ideally suited to higher density residential and not to single family e.g. The Preserve Apartments 16 acres ■ Single family properties are not appropriate at this location adjacent to the intersection of two arterials. Widening and expansion of Taft Hill and Drake has changed the character and suitability by adding noise, and cars In addition to these criteria the code indicates the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council may consider the following additional criteria: • "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." o Proposal for higher densities is compatible, there are intervening arterials or open space on all side sides of the property which eliminate issues associated with adjacent residential incompatibility o Because of adjacent services at DRAKE CENTER a grocery store anchored shopping center higher density zone district is compatible ■ "Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment... ..." o No additional impacts different than would occur with single family ■ " Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern." o An infill project, makes sense to allow as development. i