HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 12/18/2001 - ITEMS RELATING TO THE AMENDMENT OF THE CITYS STRUC AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 34A-B
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL DATE: December 18,2001FROM:
Clark Mapes
SUBJECT :
Items Relating to the Amendment of the City's Structure Plan and the Front Range Rezoning.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and of the Ordinances on First Reading. The Planning
and Zoning Board voted 5-1 to recommend adoption of the request.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A. Resolution 2001-171 Amending the City's Structure Plan Map.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 217, 2001, Amending the Zoning Map of the
City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known
as the Front Range Rezoning.
The request is to amend 43 acres on the City Structure Plan Map, and rezone approximately 39
acres.
The Structure Plan Map amendment is larger than the rezoning because it incorporates a 4-acre
"outparcel"right at the NW comer of Trilby and College,which is not yet annexed. When annexed,
its zoning would match the proposed zoning.
The Planning and Zoning Board did not consider the placing of the subject property into the
Neighborhood Sign District, as explained later.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The current City Structure Plan designation is Commercial Corridor District, current zoning is the
corresponding C —Commercial Zone District.
Proposed Structure Plan designations include 21 acres of Neighborhood Commercial Center(NC)
at the College/Trilby comer,and 22 acres of Medium Density Mixed-Use Residential Neighborhood
(MMN) extending north to Skyway. 14 acres of the subject property would remain in the current
C —Commercial District along south College.
Proposed zoning is the corresponding NC-Neighborhood Commercial District together with MMN
-Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone district. The configurations of these designations
are shown on the attachments.
DATE: December 18,2001 2 I ITEM NUMBER: 34 A-B
The essential issue behind this item is whether the City Structure Plan needs to be changed to
designate a supermarket-anchored Neighborhood Commercial Center, to serve the needs of
surrounding neighborhoods consistent with the Comprehensive Plan(City Plan).
Three main considerations underlie staff support for this request:
(1) the site is relatively well-suited and unsurpassed as a central location for NC
designation,with relatively direct access from surrounding neighborhoods in all four
directions;
(2) the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan to an adequate degree given
physical constraints of existing development in the vicinity;and
(3) changing to the NC designation does not result in a crucial opportunity cost due to
the reduction of the current C Commercial Corridor designation.
Staff believes these considerations adequately justify the conclusion that the Structure Plan needs
to be changed in response to this request, starting with a new NC designation.
Adding the MMN designation then follows logically,based on City Plan policies that interrelate it
with NC.
The remaining questions are: (a) whether the C designation should be eliminated entirely,
presumably to be replaced by NC and MMN; and (b) what the configuration should be. This
proposal reflects thorough examination of these questions over the past 2-1/2 years with site visits,
meetings, and other discussions among staff, applicants, and applicants' consultants.
Staff is also recommending that if this request is approved, the entire 53-acre subject property be
place into the Residential Neighborhood Sign District. A map amendment will be necessary if
approved.
BACKGROUND:
1. Subject Property
The property proposed for rezoning currently has one home and several outbuildings, with the
majority of the site in open fields. The additional parcel included in the Structure Plan Amendment
is a 4-acre lot with a house, sheds and outdoor storage,currently in commercial use. It is expected
to be annexed soon and be incorporated into the overall NC development if this request is approved.
Adjoining existing zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: Larimer County C, FA; suburban subdivision; highway commercial strip
S: Larimer County C, FA; large lot subdivision; 2 lots converted to commercial
E: Larimer County C; highway commercial strip (`Kelmar Strip')
W: Larimer County FA; suburban subdivision; supported living facility
The property was annexed into the City of Fort Collins as part of the Timan First Annexation on
June 7, 1988. It was first placed into the current C—Commercial designation
DATE: December 18, 2001 3 I ITEM NUMBER: 34 A-B
2. Proposed Structure Plan Amendment
10 Requirements for the Amendment. The City Structure Plan is the primary basis for zoning
decisions. This Amendment request is a prerequisite to the rezoning request.
To recommend approval of this request, staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have to 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.
.Neighborhood Commercial Center Designation. As noted previously, NC designation is the
essential issue. NC is a key strategic land use designation integral to the Comprehensive Plan. (It
is also known as the `red dots' on the City Structure Plan). It is to provide essential, frequently
needed commercial services and community focal points for surrounding neighborhoods.
3. Staff Evaluation - Structure Plan Amendment
Neighborhood Commercial Center. The Structure Plan currently acknowledges the need for NC-
type commercial services in this general area with its NC zoning designation at the northwest
quadrant of College and County Road 32, one mile to the south(currently undeveloped).
That designation resulted from the 1997 City Plan adoption and rezoning, which honored the land
use designations in development projects in progress prior to City Plan. Prior to that time,the City
did not have the same expectations for street connectivity to create integrated neighborhoods as
envisioned under City Plan.
As a result of existing development patterns, there are no alternative locations suited to serve this
need off College Avenue.
The subject location offers:(a)a location central to residential development; (b)the opportunity for
good collector street access(Skyway Drive)to and from neighborhoods east and west;and(c)good
non-College Avenue access (Trilby)to and from neighborhoods east and west.
This location for an NC Center at the intersection of two arterials(College and Trilby, with Trilby
classed as a Minor Arterial west of College) has raised questions about Policy MMN-3.2 on page
158 of City Plan,which states that"residents should be able to easily get to the Center without the
need to use an arterial." Direct, integral neighborhood access, as opposed to sole orientation to
Arterial traffic, pervades policy and standards on this key topic.
In this part of the city, the pattern of existing development hinders full realization of the focused,
connected neighborhood pattern envisioned in City Plan.
However, in answer to the questions,this location would be able to capture traffic from numerous
major residential developments, with a large number of homes within as short a radius as possible
given the existing pattern. This location offers the possibility of non-arterial trips on Skyway Drive
for a significant amount of residential development.
Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. If the NC is supported,then some MMN designation
naturally follows. City Plan clearly calls for MMN to be co-located in conjunction with NC. The
DATE: December 18,2001 4 l ITEM NUMBER: 34 A-B
only question appears to be whether to change all of the remaining 37 acres of the subject property.
The proposal is for 22 acres of MMN, with 14 acres of the existing Commercial Corridor
designation to be retained adjacent to South College.
Remaining C designation. After considering the alternatives, staff believes that the remaining C
designation is acceptable on two main grounds. First,because the City has already found this site
to be acceptable as part of the South College Commercial Corridor on the current Structure Plan;
and second,because introducing the new NC and MMN designations doesn't necessarily render the
C incompatible. Policies and standards for C districts adequately address pedestrian scale and the
transition to adjacent neighborhood development.
Loss of a large parcel of C zoning. Besides the remaining Commercial designation under the
proposal, many of the uses permitted in C are also permitted in NC and MMN. If there is any
particular loss of commercial opportunity under this proposal,it is that Large Retail Establishments
will not fit under the proposal.
Staff believes this is not a significant loss,because the site has been found ill-suited to that scale of
development, due to the sloping topography, irrigation canal, wetlands, and condition of access
roads. Partial evidence of this is the Hugh M. Woods PUD, approved in 1996. It was approved
despite pointed debate about its poor adaptability to the sloping site, requiring massive cuts, fills,
and retaining walls including one 18 feet high. Eventually,the project was dropped,apparently due
in large part to millions of dollars in excavation and retaining wall costs, along some other reasons
as well.
After considering the issue,staff is convinced there is no persuasive opportunity cost. Because most
of the permitted uses overlap between the existing and proposed zoning,the particular loss of Large
Retail Establishment opportunity can be considered against the particular opportunity of a
Supermarket added to the uses permitted on the property.
Question of Conflict Between Existing NC Designation at County Road 32/S. College Avenue
and the Subject Property. This has been a consideration since the original Structure Plan
designations were assigned as part of the City Plan process. The two sites were closely debated as
candidates for the needed NC designation in this area, and ongoing discussion has been nearly
continuous since then.
At this point,staff has concluded that the subject request is supportable on its own merits regardless
of comparisons of the two sites. A case can be made in favor of both sites. Neither site is ideal.
Comparisons have not yielded a clear or quantitative answer.
Concerns have been discussed regarding the two `red dots' a mile apart on south College Avenue.
One is that for years, City Planning has generally encouraged non-College locations for grocery
stores for a number of reasons. (Granted it has not been a hard and fast rule given the exceptions.)
In answer, staff believes that no off-College locations are feasible in this particular case given
existing development.
Another concern is the question of undermining the viability of the existing NC designation with
this new one. In answer, staff believes that if: (1) the existing designation was clearly the better
location to fulfill the Comprehensive Plan Principles and Policies;and(2)it was clear that the better
DATE: December 18, 2001 5 l ITEM NUMBER: 34 A-B
location needed to be protected from competing sites to protect its viability, then this proposal
should indeed be opposed as the concern suggests.
However, at this point, staff believes this location is at least as well suited for the NC designation
as the existing site; and the applicants claim that market evaluation indicates that both sites may be
viable within the foreseeable future.
4. Rezoning Request
The applicant initially filed a rezoning petition with the City on January 14, 2000. The current
request is to rezone a 39-acre portion of a larger, 53-acre parcel, from C—Commercial to 17 acres
of NC — Neighborhood Commercial and 22 acres of MMN — Medium Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood, leaving about 14 acres in C - Commercial.
In order to recommend approval of this proposal, staff and the Planning and Zoning Board would
have to find that the rezoning 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.
The above criteria are found in subsection 2.9.4[H][2] of the Land Use Code outlines mandatory
requirements for quasi-judicial rezonings. 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:
(1) 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;
(2) 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 environment'; and
(3) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a
logical and orderly development pattern."
Purpose Statements of the Zone Districts. For convenient reference, the purpose statements of
the three zone districts in question are listed below.
• Purpose of the NC—Neighborhood Commercial District:
The purpose of the NC District (Section 4.19 of the Land Use Code) is to be "a mixed-use
commercial core area anchored by a supermarket or grocery store and transit stop. The main
DATE: December 18, 2001 6 I ITEM NUMBER: 34 A-B
purpose of this District is to meet consumer demands for frequently needed goods and services,with
an emphasis on serving the surrounding residential neighborhoods typically including a Medium
Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. In addition to retail and service uses,the District may include
neighborhood-oriented uses such as schools,employment,day care,parks,small civic facilities,as
well as residential uses.
This District is intended to function together with a surrounding Medium Density Mixed-Use
Neighborhood, which in turn serves as a transition and a link to larger surrounding low-density
neighborhoods. The intent is for the component zone districts to form an integral,town-like pattern
of development with this District as a center and focal point; and not merely a series of individual
development projects in separate zone districts."
• Purpose of the MMN—Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District:
The purpose of the MMN District (Section 4.5 of the Land Use Code) is to be "a setting for
concentrated housing within easy walking distance of transit and a commercial district. Secondarily,
a neighborhood may also contain other moderate-intensity complementary and supporting land uses
that serve the neighborhood. , These neighborhoods will form a transition and a link between
surrounding neighborhoods and the commercial core with a unifying pattern of streets and blocks.
Buildings, streets, bike and walking paths, open spaces and parks will be configured to create an
inviting and convenient living environment."
• Purpose of the C—Commercial District:
The purpose of the C District (Section 4.17 of the Land Use Code) is to be "a setting for
development, redevelopment and infill of a wide range of community and regional retail uses,
offices and personal and business services. Secondarily, it can accommodate a wide range of other
uses including creative forms of housing.
While some Commercial District areas may continue to meet the need for auto-related and other
auto-oriented uses,it is the City's intent that the Commercial District emphasize safe and convenient
personal mobility in many forms, with planning and design that accommodates pedestrians."
5. Staff Evaluation -Rezoning Request
Is the request consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan?
Yes, if the Structure Plan Amendment is supported,then the zoning logically follows.
Have conditions changed in the neighborhood to warrant the rezoning?
This is not a factor in staff s evaluation.
Is the rezoning request compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land and
is it the appropriate zoning district for the land?
Yes, as covered by evaluation of the Structure Plan Amendment.
Will the rezoning have adverse effects on the natural environment?
DATE: December 18, 2001 7 ITEM NUMBER: 34 A-B
No. Under either existing or proposed zoning, the same standards for protecting the natural
environment will apply. The"loss"of a large-format retail opportunity as explained above may be
seen as a positive effect.
Will the rezoning result in a logical and orderly development pattern?
Yes. As explained under the Structure Plan amendment, the rezoning will result in a logical and
orderly development pattern.
6. Explanation—Neighborhood Sign District Recommendation by Staff
Concurrent with the rezoning request, staff is recommending that this property be included in the
Residential Neighborhood Sign District. This designation was established to reduce visual impacts
of commercial signage in neighborhood areas where size, amount, and lighting of commercial
signage could create excessive impacts.
This is an issue that arose after the Planning and Zoning Board Hearing on this request. Staff is
confident that this Sign District designation is fully consistent with the overall nature of the request
and consistent with the Planning and Zoning Board's discussion and action on the request.
Attachments
1. Site Map with existing zoning
2. Existing Structure Plan Map (site specific)
lip 3. Proposed Structure Plan Map (site specific)
4. Proposed zoning of property
RESOLUTION 2001-171
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
northwest of the intersection of College Avenue and Trilby Road,which property is presently zoned
in the "C" Commercial Zone District, which rezoning request is known as the "Front Range
Rezoning"; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that the proposed Front Range 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 Front Range 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 Front Range Rezoning.
Section 2. That the City Council finds that the proposed amendment will promote the
public welfare and will be consistent with the vision,goals,principles and policies of City Plan and
the elements thereof.
Section 3. That the City Plan Structure Plan Map be, and hereby is, 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 18th day of December,
A. D. 2001.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 217, 2001
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 FRONT RANGE 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"C",Commercial Zone District,
to"NC",Neighborhood Commercial District Zone District,and"MMN", Medium Density Mixed-
Use Neighborhood Zone District for the following described property in the City known as the Front
Range Rezoning:
Proposed Neighborhood Commercial District(NC) Zone
A PARCEL LYING WITHIN THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION
11, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF
COLORADO, BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BASIS OF BEARING: THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 11, BEING MONUMENTED AT THE WEST
END BY A 21/2"BRASS CAP MARKED"PLS 14825"IN A RANGE BOX,AND
AT THE EAST END BY A 3 1/4" BRASS CAP MARKED "COLO DEPT OF
HIGHWAYS" (PLS NUMBER IS ILLEGIBLE), IS ASSUMED TO BEAR
S88`36'42"W, WITH A DISTANCE OF 2563.01 FEET BETWEEN SAID
MONUMENTS.
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 11,
THENCE ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER, A
DISTANCE OF 408.71 FEET; THENCE NO1*23'18"W, A DISTANCE OF 30.00
FEET, TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF COUNTY ROAD #34
(TRILBY ROAD), AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE S88`36'42"W, ON SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A
DISTANCE OF 550.99 FEET;
THENCE NO1°57'21"W, A DISTANCE OF 576.89 FEET;
THENCE N88`15'56"E, A DISTANCE OF 136.42 FEET;
THENCE N24'I T54"E, A DISTANCE OF 554.49 FEET;
THENCE NOl°16'22"W, A DISTANCE OF 112.81 FEET;
THENCE N89`48'18"E,A DISTANCE OF 204.33 FEET;
THENCE S59°15'13"E, A DISTANCE OF 227.41 FEET;
THENCE N90°00'00"E,A DISTANCE OF 161.70 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT-
OF-WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 287 (COLLEGE AVENUE);
THENCE S00°21'52"E,ON SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE,A DISTANCE
OF 605.69 FEET;
THENCE S88°07'19"W, A DISTANCE OF 360.46 FEET;
THENCE S00°30'37"E, A DISTANCE OF 452.71 FEET, TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
CONTAINING A CALCULATED AREA OF 733,738 SQUARE FEET OR 16.844
ACRES.
Proposed Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN) Zone
A PARCEL LYING WITHIN THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION
11, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF
COLORADO, BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BASIS OF BEARING: THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 11, BEING MONUMENTED AT THE WEST
END BY A 2" ALUMINUM CAP MARKED "PLS 23513" IN A RANGE BOX,
AND AT THE EAST END BY A 31/4"BRASS CAP MARKED"COLD DEPT OF
HIGHWAYS" (PLS NUMBER IS ILLEGIBLE), IS ASSUMED TO BEAR
N89°37'42"E, WITH A DISTANCE OF 2574.18 FEET BETWEEN SAID
MONUMENTS.
COMMENCING AT THE EAST ONE-QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION
11,THENCE S89°3T42"W,ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 11, A DISTANCE OF 335.62 FEET; THENCE
S00-44'52"E,A DISTANCE OF 33.31 FEET,TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE OF SKYWAY DRIVE, AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE S00'26'39"E, A DISTANCE OF 767.38 FEET;
THENCE S62°12'57"W, A DISTANCE OF 311.55 FEET;
THENCE S01'18'45"E, A DISTANCE OF 605.10 FEET;
THENCE S24°13'54"W, A DISTANCE OF 554.49 FEET;
THENCE S88°15'56"W, A DISTANCE OF 136.42 FEET;
THENCE NO1°57'21"W,A DISTANCE OF 2037.48 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID SKYWAY DRIVE;
THENCE ON SAID SOUTHERLY LINE,S89°15'08"E,A DISTANCE OF 689.35
FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING A CALCULATED AREA OF 964,716 SQUARE FEET OR 22.147
ACRES.
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 18th day of
December,A.D.,2001,and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of January,A.D.2002.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 15th day of January, A.D. 2002.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
�'_ irrrr•••••rr �+ ,++'tires��null••p � � �
�� �� �� �� �'��i �� IIIIIillll►i� 1111111/!�
_ �� r a ♦ _ �7 looses•11WE
111■� �
��f ������ ��� .� '� ': •Ii1 ■�� �s 1 II►�� 11111111/► �
an
an
rem ME ggso ;g-
LUM
in
i�'��1rr■I u���u�iahL•I� i IIIIIP
/jA nr1 +rilr
�i� VIA •nrgrl ON
�`i•i!riuiii 1=_i_-tt= ���
on
■■■■■AI C�:► in 1►ji
■gprrS �: ri0
r
7
1
oil
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -
ATTACHMENT
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
PROPOSED STRUCTURE PLAN
6Lvd Fu4(blly
1
I
I
1
1
y
Y
gEN5ON
�b
NeiWit"I mods Districts Corridors
Ddsvr L Dow Wm District Pou&e Rncr Corridor
Low-Dandy Mmd-Use Rmodit i l Community Commercial District pbudre River Study Corridor
MediuruDenxy Wed-Use Residential Employment District 0` 1-25 Study Corridor
Edger
Campus District Enhanced Trasei Cwridor(Trans7U
Rural/Open Lands and Stream Corridors Industrial District --• High frequency Transit
® City Owned Natural Areas(as of 612Gl%)
Commercial Corridor District --- feeder Transit
Existing Neighborhood Commercial Center ® Patential Pass Rail/Muft-Modal Corridor
Neighbo hood Cornmesclal Center
I
ATTACHMENT 4
H '
��J,
-------------
INN
yyyy� i
I11
✓C'
4