HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 05/01/2001 - HEARING AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 91, 200 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 30
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL DATE: .May i,2001STAFF:
Brian Grubb
SUBJECT:
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 91, 2001, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of
Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the
Ridgewood Hills Rezoning.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. On April 5, 2001, the Planning
and Zoning Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the rezoning request.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The area consists of approximately 14 acres and 50+ parcels of land. The area is located south
and adjacent to Trilby Road and includes properties fronting upon Yuma Court, Yuma Place and
"Yuma Court" extended (private street). The area currently contains a mix of single family
detached homes, duplexes, townhomes, a daycare center and one undeveloped lot. This area was
inadvertently zoned RL in March of 1997 when the City was comprehensively rezoned. This is
a staff initiated request that is viewed as needed to correct an oversight.
Staff and the Planning and Zoning Board have recommended approval on the basis that the
request complies with the comprehensive plan (City Plan) and the City Structure Plan, an
element of the City's comprehensive plan. The most significant issue, from a neighborhood
perspective, has been the impacts of LMN zoning upon the future development of the vacant
tract of land in the southeast corner of Trilby Road and Avondale Road.
ORDINANCE NO. 91, 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 RIDGEWOOD HILLS REZONING
WHEREAS,Division 1.3 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code") of the
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 be, and
the same hereby is, amended by changing the zoning classification from "RL", Low Density
Residential Zone District,to "LMN",Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Zone District,for the
following described property in the City known as the Ridgewood Hills Rezoning:
THAT PORTION OF RIDGEWOOD HILLS, PUD,FIRST FILING AND RIDGEWOOD
HILLS PUD FIRST FILING, FIRST REPLAT LOCATED IN THE NORTH 1/2 OF
SECTION 14,TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH,RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M.AND BEING
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID RIDGEWOOD HILLS PUD
FIRST FILING THENCE SOUTH 88°53'35"WEST,ALONG THE NORTH LINE OFTHE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14,A DISTANCE OF 1249.69 FEET TO
THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 14;THENCE SOUTH 88°55'04"
WEST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 14, A DISTANCE OF 56.77 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 01*0456" EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 300.37 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 15,
RIDGEWOOD HILLS PUD,FIRST FILING.
THENCE SOUTH 88'2702"EAST,ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 15,
A DISTANCE OF 50.94 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 62'07'14" EAST, ALONG THE
SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOT 16, RIDGEWOOD HILLS PUD., FIRST FILING A
DISTANCE OF 47.10 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 48'05'33" EAST, ALONG THE
SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOT 17, RIDGEWOOD HILLS PUD, FIRST FILING A
DISTANCE OF 49.33 FEET.
THENCE SOUTH 35°29'19" EAST, ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOT 18,
RIDGEWOOD HILLS PUD, FIRST FILING, A DISTANCE OF 30.78 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 53*4232" EAST, ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOTS 18 AND 19,
RIDGEWOOD HILLS PUD., FIRST FILING, A DISTANCE OF 64.59 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 83°5407" EAST, ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOTS 19 AND 20,
RIDGEWOOD HILLS PUD, FIRST FILING A DISTANCE OF 54.83 FEET; THENCE
THE FOLLOWING ELEVEN (11) COURSE AROUND THE PERIMETER OF TRACT
K,RIDGEWOOD HILLS S PUD FIRST FILING.
1. THENCE SOUTH 69°23'03" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 32.17 FEET;
2. THENCE SOUTH 63°2545" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 162.45 FEET;
3. THENCE SOUTH 89°4331" EAST A DISTANCE OF 180.91 FEET;
4. THENCE NORTH 00°0000" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 28.00 FEET
5. THENCE SOUTH 89*433 V EAST, A DISTANCE OF 82.55 FEET;
6. THENCE NORTH W0000" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 99.95 FEET
7. THENCE NORTH 45°0000" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 21.21 FEET
8. THENCE NORTH 90°0000" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 49.00 FEET
9. THENCE NORTH 00°0000" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET
10. THENCE NORTH 90°0000" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 138.88 FEET
11. THENCE NORTH 00°16'28" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 432.85 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
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 May,
A.D. 2001, and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of May, A.D. 2001.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 15th day of May, A.D. 2001.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
� ai ■ ��%It
MEN
RUN
♦♦ III.1 �1�1�1�1 ��-���
ITEM NO._3
MEETING DATE 4/5/01
STAFF Brian Grubb
City of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Ridgewood Hills Rezoning - File #4-01
APPLICANT: The Director of the Community Planning and Environmental
Services Service Area c/o Brian Grubb, City Planner
281 North College Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80522
OWNER(S): Approximately 60 Property Owners
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This a recommendation to City Council for a request to rezone Ridgewood Hills P.U.D
First Filing, and Ridgewood Hills P.U.D First Filing First Replat from R-L (Low Density
Residential) to L-M-N (Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood). The subject site
consists of 14.01± acres located south and adjacent to Trilby Road, north of County
Road 32 between College Avenue and Shields Street.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Staff has reviewed the request and determined that the proposal is in compliance with
City Plan and the criteria for approval contained in Section 2.9.4 of the Land Use Code.
The proposed LMN zoning would make all existing uses conforming and allow the
development of the last remaining undeveloped parcel, consistent with previously
approved plans.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N.College Ave. PO.Box 580 Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 (970)23 6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Ridgewood Hills Rezoning, #4-01
April 5, 2001 P & Z Meeting
Page 2
COMMENTS:
1. Background
In March of 1997, as part of the comprehensive rezoning of the City, Ridgewood Hills
was rezoned from P.U.D. to R-L, Low Density Residential. The original basis for the R-
L zone was that Ridgewood Hills Filing 1 was already approved, platted for single family
homes, and substantially complete. As such, Ridgewood Hills was incorrectly
considered an established neighborhood and therefore not eligible for the new L-M-N
zone district. Staff overlooked the fact that the subject area within Ridgewood Hills was
in the process of developing as a mixed-use area (see existing conditions below).
Consequently, staff inadvertently zoned the subject area (14.01± acres) as if it was
already developed or to be developed for single family detached dwellings.
The 1997 rezoning made every existing use within the subject area nonconforming,
except the single family detached dwellings. In addition, the rezoning made it
impossible to develop Tract L consistent with the previously approved land use. Tract L
was approved as a "convenience/daycare" site in 1994 as part of the Ridgewood Hills
PUD (see attached plan).
On January 18, 2001 Melody Homes submitted a petition to rezone the subject area -
from RL to LMN. Staff had previously identified the subject area as having been
improperly zoned. Melody Homes' desire to move forward created the need to initiate
action. Since Melody Homes cannot apply to rezone property under other ownership,
staff made the decision to sponsor the rezone request as allowed by Section 2.9.3(A) of
the Code.
2. Existing Conditions
The subject area contains a mix of townhomes, duplexes, approximately 7 single family
detached homes, and a childcare center. Melody Homes is the owner of Tract L located
in the southeast comer of the intersection of Avondale Road and Trilby Road. Tract L is
the only undeveloped site in the subject area and consists of approximately 1.8 acres.
Ridgewood Hills Rezoning, #4-01
April 5, 2001 P & Z Meeting
Page 3
Surrounding Zoning and Existing Land Use
Existing Land Use Existing Zoning
North Good Samaritan Elderly MMN and Larimer
Care Facility County FA
East "Urban Estate" Larimer County FA
Residential
South Single Family RL
West I Single Family RL
In the three years since the City Plan rezoning to R-L, the site has developed out as a
mixed-use residential neighborhood, except for Tract L. The proposed LMN zoning
would make all existing uses conforming. With frontage on Trilby Road, and with
neighborhood access from Avondale there exists a potential for non-residential land
uses on Tract L that would not otherwise be permitted under the existing R-L zone
district.
3. Neighborhood Meeting
Approximately 25 citizens attended the neighborhood meeting (see attached minutes).
There were numerous questions about the effects of the rezoning on the existing
developed properties and the undeveloped parcel. The majority of discussion focused
upon potential development of Tract L. The neighbors expressed concerns about
traffic, noise and other impacts associated with the development of Tract L. Most cited
concerns about undesirable uses such as gas stations, liquor stores and more multi-
family development.
4. Standards — Section 2.9.4 (H):
The request to rezone is considered quasi-judicial since the parcel is less than 640
acres. There are two standards that must be used in evaluating a request for a quasi-
judicial rezoning. These standards and an explanation of how the request complies are
summarized below:
A. Any amendment to the Zoning Map shall be recommended for approval only if
the proposed amendment is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
The City Structure Plan, an element of the City's comprehensive plan, is a map that sets
forth a basic framework, showing how Fort Collins should grow and evolve over the next
20 years. The map designates the parcel as "Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood."
Therefore, the request is in compliance with the City Structure Plan.
Ridgewood Hills Rezoning, #4-01
April 5, 2001 P & Z Meeting
Page 4
It is the opinion of staff that the rezoning is consistent with the following policies of City
Plan.
Policy LMN-2.2 Neighborhood Center-A neighborhood should be planned to include
other neighborhood-serving uses and features in addition to residential uses. At a
minimum, each neighborhood will include a Neighborhood Center that serves as a year-
round gathering place accessible to all residents. A Neighborhood Center will be no
larger than 7 acres and will include some of the following., recreation facility; school,
children's and adults'daycare;place of assembly and worship; small civic facility;
neighborhood-servicing market, shops, small professional offices, clinics, or other small
businesses. Any such uses should have limited needs for signage and limited traffic
attraction into or through the neighborhood. The inclusion of rooms or indoor space for
meetings and neighborhood functions is encouraged, as is a square, plaza, pavilion, or
other outdoor space accessible to all residents.
Policy LMN-2.3 Neighborhood Center Location—A Neighborhood Center should be
encouraged to locate near the center of the neighborhood, but will be permitted to be
located elsewhere such as on an edge.
B. Any amendment to the Zoning Map shall be recommended for approval only if-
the proposed amendment is warranted by changed conditions within the
neighborhood surrounding and including the subject property.
The request is based on an oversight that occurred in March of 1997 during the City
Plan rezoning process, not based on any change in conditions. Therefore, this criterion
is not applicable.
There are 3 standards that may be used by the Planning and Zoning Board and City
Council to make a decision. Those standards are as follows:
C. 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 zoning (L-M-N) is appropriate for the subject site because it is the least
intense zone district that still allows all the existing development as well as the
previously approved land use of the remaining undeveloped site.
D. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited
Ridgewood Hills Rezoning, #4-01
April 5, 2001 P & Z Meeting
Page 5
to, water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation, wetlands and
the natural functioning of the environment.
The proposed zoning L-M-N would not have any adverse impact on the natural
functioning of the environment. Staff finds this criterion to be satisfied.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a
logical and orderly development pattern.
The rezoning would help implement the vision of the walkable, mixed-use
neighborhood. According to City Plan, under"Type of Places," the neighborhood is
described as follows:
"Neighborhoods—As the dominant and most important areas within our city,
neighborhoods will serve as the primary building blocks. Neighborhoods will be
walkable and connected, and will include a mix of housing types. Neighborhoods will
include destinations within walking distance, such as schools, parks, neighborhood and
convenient shopping, and civic uses."
j The proposed rezoning helps implement this vision by allowing a broader mix of land
uses to be located within walking distance of an established neighborhood. In addition,
the rezoning would allow the surrounding residential area to enjoy a wider range of
needs of every day living and the potential for services, conveniences, and gathering
places that can be integrated into streets and sidewalks of the Ridgewood
neighborhood.
Ridgewood Hills Rezoning, #4-01
April 5, 2001 P &Z Meeting
Page 6
FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS:
In evaluating the request for Amendment to the Zoning Map for Ridgewood Hills PUD
from R-L to L-M-N, Staff makes the following findings of fact:
A. The City Plan rezoning in March of 1997 to R-L incorrectly assumed that the
subject area was in the process of developing out as single-family lots. This was
not the case. As a result, an inadvertent down-zoning of the property occurred.
B. The subject area is designated on City Structure Plan as "Low Density Mixed-
Use Neighborhood". The request is therefore consistent with the City Structure
Plan.
C. If Tract L is developed as single-family detached residential, which is the only
option today, such development will be in direct conflict with the goals and
policies of City Plan. The rezoning must take place for the property to be
developed in conformance with City Plan.
D. The request to rezone satisfies the applicable review criteria of the Section 2.9.4
(H) of the Land Use Code.
In conclusion, Staff agrees that the 1997 City Plan rezoning to R-L overlooked the fact
that the site was in the process of developing as a mixed-use neighborhood. Staff
believes that this was a simple oversight. Had the facts been known at the time, the
parcel would not have been rezoned to R-L. The request, therefore, represents a
corrective measure.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the request to amend the zoning map from R-L to L-M-N
for a portion of Ridgewood Hills P.U.D First Filing, and Ridgewood Hills P.U.D First
Filing First Replat, containing 14.01± acres; File #4-01.
�- - . :. .. 1. t sy'."`.Y •{-.s...; �-
PISA
P'P��
ISTING ZONED R2 Col Ei[ltAfloN , DUSTING
LARIMER COUNTY
t[l CREST. RESID ..SKYYIEW'ACRES�LL
om510N TRILBY ROAit
r A-2 I
3. A .f 0
U 7 A/PAT[ H C DA NIEN /
TOSD
U.*
n I
TO
1
39 AC
J W DENSITY IAL
3 TOMS DU/ACt
(1s0 xa)
. ZONE : t C
I.ARI R COUNTY
i _ f MING AND
n CO MERCIA`,
..{ I
Omni
E
www
c12 AC.f 0 SS
DEINES NEIGHBO HOODPARK
11 H
(ALTERNATE USE. .. 1 I I . I
rid:��i�►,�;�
_ � k " •'Sri�� :�:�'
•
1 ��_ glow i .
Neighborhood Meeting Minutes
Project: Ridgewood Hills Rezoning
Meeting Location: Werner Elementary School
Date: February 20, 2001
Staff in Attendance: Brian Grubb, Steve Olt
Applicant/Representatives: Kim Straw of Citiscape Urban Design
The meeting began at 7:05 p.m. Brian Grubb followed the standard agenda
format including introductions, description of the purpose of the meeting,
description of the planning process and then turned over the meeting to Kim
Straw (representative of applicant) to describe the request. After Ms.
Straw completed her presentation the meeting was opened for comments
and questions by the public.
Comments, Questions, Answers
Q: Who is the Developer of this property?
A: Melody Homes
C: In 1997 there may have been some misrepresentation to some
homeowners regarding what the vacant site could be used for and developed
for. When citizens called the city to find out the zoning, the answer given
was RL.
C: With all the planned development in the area, it would seem that the
traffic would be more than the area can bear.
C: This undeveloped site should be kept as a visually pleasing entry to
Ridgewood Hills.
Q: How many DU's could occur on this site?
A: Up to 8 units per acre. A 2-acre site would allow 16 units.
Q: Will I be able to attend future meetings that are public and can we
participate?
A: Mr. Grubb reiterated the planning process and indicated that there
would be 3 more public meetings. The public will be notified and
participation is welcomed.
Q: If we do not agree with what the applicant is proposing what do we have
to do to make our concerns known.
A: Write a letter or attend the upcoming meetings.
Q: Is there a holding pond on this site?
A: No, the detention pond is to the east of the undeveloped site.
Q: Dos this site include the sign and entry feature?
A: The 14 acres includes the sign and entry feature.
Q: How do I get information on what is being planned for the property
further south on Avondale?
A: Come to or call the Current Planning office.
Q: Where are the setbacks for this development set forth?
A: In the Land Use Code, section on LMN.
Q: Will this meeting conceivably give permission for a convenience store?
A: No. The actual development will have to be reviewed and approved in
another process.
Q: Is there another zoning option? It is strange to put commercial and
residential in such a small area.
A: The LMN zoning is the best option based upon the direction given in City
Plan and on the City Structure Plan.
Q: What is the maximum building height?
A: 2-1/2 Stories in the LMN zone district.
Q: What about signage?
A: Signs are subject to the sign code and there are more stringent
standards that signs in residential areas need to meet.
Q: Where are the traffic and roads people. 16 dwelling units will create a
lot of traffic.
A: Any proposed development will be required to submit a Traffic Study.
C: This site should be kept undeveloped or possibly as a park.
C: Concern about locating a convenience store next to a daycare.
Q: Is there a reason why this site has not sold or has not been developed.
A: Typically commercial properties do not develop until there is enough
residential around to support them.
C: I do not see the growth of our streets being able to accommodate
growth in the area.
C: Why should we be supportive of a rezoning of this property if we do not
want commercial in the area?
Q: Is there truly another option for a zoning district on this property? We
want to stay away from commercial.
A: LMN is the only zone district that would allow all the existing uses and
the previously approved use of the neighborhood center.
Q: How did the duplex homes in the area get built in 1998 if it was a
nonconforming use?
A: The project was vested due to the fact that it was substantially
complete.
Q: Is it the City or Melody Homes that is behind this and wants to correct
the nonconforming uses?
A: Both.
Q: If Melody Homes had not brought this tot the City, would we be here
tonight?
A: No. The proposal would have been brought forward at a later date.
C: I would be supportive of a small-scale professional office complex that is
well landscaped.
C: We feel that we have to object to the rezoning through whatever means
we have.
C: We could maybe support the rezoning to LMN if we could be assured of
the land uses and prohibit uses such as commercial.
Q: If we oppose, what is our next step?
A: Write letters. Attend the PZ meeting.
Meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:45
Wade K. Smith
Andrea J. Smith
500 Idalia Court
Fort Collins, CO 80525
(970)206-0818
February 28, 2001
Attn: Brian Grubb
Current Planning Department
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Re: Ridgewood Hills Rezone-File#4-01
Dear Mr. Grubb:
We are writing to voice our concern over the proposed L-M-N rezoning in the Ridgewood Hills
subdivision. Our understanding is that this rezoning would permit approximately 1 acre of undeveloped
land near the corner of Avondale Road and Trilby Road to be developed by a convenience store/filling
station or liquor store.
We do not feel this is appropriate in a residential area. The lot is not situated well for the high volume of
quick in and out traffic this would create. In addition, the increase in noise, litter and bright lights are of
concern to us.
We are not opposed to some of the other proposed developments,such as an office, clinic,or even a
church. We feel that these would not have such a negative impact on the neighborhood and would be
considerably safer for children at the existing daycare center.
Thank you for allowing us to voice our concerns.
VSincerely ;
Wade K. Smith
drea J. Smith
TO: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Re: RIDGEWOOD HILLS REZONE-file#4-01
ATTN: Brian Grubb
Current planning Department
281 North College Ave.
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO. 80522-0580
Dear Sir:
I seriously object to a convenience store on the vacant property just north of the Day
Care Centre. My reasons being:
1. Avondale and Trilby is a very busy intersection, especially
during rush hours. Also school buses stop there during school
days. I live on Yuma Court and traffic noise would increase
day and night.
2. It would be Aang out'place for children, litter would increase
and possibly a danger to the children in the day care centre.
3. I live only 4/10 miles from a gas station and 7-eleven
convenience store at Trilby and College(US 287) and I would
not like to see an example of the above on my doorstep. Our
neighborhood is very very pleasant now.
Thank you very much for your attention . Sincerely
Rheta Cook
512 Yuma Court
Fort Collins, Co. 80525
?.'GVD
February 26, 2001
Current Planning Department
Attn: Brian Grubb
281 North College Avenue
P.O.Box 580
Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580
Re:RIDGEWOOD HILLS REZONE-FILE#4-01
Dear Mr. Grubb:
I am a resident of 513 Yuma Court,in the Ridgewood Hills subdivision and am writing this letter to let
you know of my protest of the rezoning of the lot north of the Ridgewood Hills Daycare Center. It is my
understanding that the rezoning would allow the lot to be developed into a place of business that could
include and most likely result in the location of a convenience store.
Ridgewood Hills is a family neighborhood with nice quiet streets and at the moment a quiet neighborhood
entrance. The location of a convenience store would not only detract from the street appeal of the
Ridgewood Hills entrance but also pose many safety concerns as well. Several issues may be categorized
below:
1)The entrance is only 4/10ths of a mile from a 7-11 24 hour store and 6/10ths of a mile from
the proposed convenience store at Trilby and Shields.
2) Close proximity to the Ridgewood Hills Daycare Center.
3) Increased lights at night in the backyard of many young families and elderly retirees.
4)Undesirable view for the residents.
5)Increased traffic and noise.
6)Increased litter.
Thank you in advance for your attention to the Ridgewood Hills Rezone-File#4-01. The concerned
residents of Ridgewood Hills sincerely appreciate your attention to the preservation of the Ridgewood
Hills entrance.
Sin ly,
-ZcLa az4d Nancy Racine
513 Yuma Court
Fort Collins, CO 90525
February 26,2001
Current Planning Department
Attu: Brian Grubb
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580
Re:RMGEWOOD HILLS REZONE-FILE#4-01
Dear Mr. Grubb:
I am a resident of 507 Yuma Court, in the Ridgewood Hills subdivision and am writing this letter to let
you know of my protest of the rezoning of the lot north of the Ridgewood Hills Daycare Center. It is my
understanding that the rezoning would allow the lot to be developed into a place of business that could
include and most likely result in the location of a convenience store.
Ridgewood Hills is a family neighborhood with nice quiet streets and at the moment a quiet neighborhood
entrance. The location of a convenience store would not only detract from the street appeal of the
Ridgewood Mills entrance but also pose many safety concerns as well. Several issues may be categorized
below:
1)The entrance is only 4/10ths of a mile from a 7-11 24 hour store and 6/10ths of a mile from
the proposed convenience store at Trilby and Shields.
2) Close proximity to the Ridgewood Hills Daycare Center.
3) Increased lights at night in the backyard of many young families and elderly retirees.
4)Undesirable view for the residents.
5)Increased traffic and noise.
6)Increased litter.
Thank you in advance for your attention to the Ridgewood Hills Rezone-File#4-01. The concerned
residents of Ridgewood Hills sincerely appreciate your attention to the preservation of the Ridgewood
Hills entrance.
Sincerely,
Florence Beardmore
507 Yuma Court
Fort Collins, CO 80525
RGV>7 Z�Z �'1 o I
February 24, 2001
Mr. Brian Grubb
City of Fort Collins Planning Department
281 North College Ave
PO Box 580
Fort Collins CO 80522-0580
RE: Ridgewood Hills Rezone - File#4-01
Dear Mr. Grubb:
This letter is to express my strong objection to the rezoning request for a portion of the
Ridgewood Hills subdivision. I am a resident of the area that would be affected by this
rezone.
My concern is that the rezone would allow for a convenience store to be built on the
designated site, which would be detrimental to the nearby residents.
I would object to the increased traffic, especially since any building on this site would share a
driveway with a day care center, thereby putting children at risk. The traffic on Avondale
Road in front of the day care center is already busy at times as is the intersection of
Avondale and Trilby.
I would also object to the increased noise and lighting as well as undesirable views. How
would you like your bedroom to be adjacent to a 7-11? This would be the situation for
several of the townhomes and patio homes.
I would not object to other commercial uses for this property such as a retail store, office
building, or clinic. Those uses would not have the degree of impact of a convenience store.
However, it appears that a convenience store would be the most likely use for the property
f the rezone is granted.
Please do not allow the developer to do this. Profit for the developer should not come at
the expense of existing residents' enjoyment of their homes and decreased property
values.
I appreciate your consideration in making a decision.
Karen Scott
6618 Yuma Place �nJ
Fort Collins CO 80525aV
9"'P X3/s161
95A
Donna K Reinke
6707 Holyoke Ct.
Fort Collins,CO 80525
March 2, 2001
Current Planning Department
281 North College Avenue
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Ref: Ridgewood Hills Rezone-File#4-01
Attn: Brian Grubb,
I am writing as a resident of Ridgewood Hills subdivision. I am strongly opposed to the
proposed rezoning of the 14 acres to L-M-N designation. I understand that the land could
be developed as a business with that designation. It is my understanding that a
convenience store is one of the businesses being considered for that location. I am very
strongly opposed to having a convenience store located within our residential
neighborhood.
It is not needed at this location. We have such a store just 4/10 of a mile away at the
comer of Trilby and College It is also my understanding that another convenience store
is projected for the comer of Trilby and Shield streets.
The increased traffic is a concern to me both for residents of the neighborhood as well as
the safety of the children using the day care next door. I understand that the day care
could share a common entrance with whatever business goes in there. This increased
traffic would be a significant impact to the neighborhood due to fact that the lot is next to
Avondale Road, the main entrance to the subdivision and access would be from that
street.
The noise, bright lights, litter and clientele associated with such a 24-hour business are
also concerns. I strongly feel that locating a 24-hour convenience store in a residential
neighborhood next to a day care center is unwise. Is there anyway this can be zoned so
as not to allow that type of commercial enterprise in the location?
Sincerely,
Donna K. Reinke
P44cp $!Slot
THE CORLS
500 Yuma Court
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525-7033
(970) 229-9501
March 1, 2001
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
RE: Ridgewood Hills Rezone- File#4 - 01
Dear Commissioner,
We live in the 14 acre area which is being considered for rezoning to L-M-N. We
are strongly opposed to the L-M-N zoning because it would permit, among other things,
the building of a convenience store on the vacant property just north of the Day Care
Center. It is the convenience store that we are opposed to.
The City Planning Department held an informational meeting at Warner
Elementary School, February 20, 2001. The image we, and most of the other attendees,
have of a convenience store is a twenty-four hour business with gas pumps alcohol
sales, brightly lit parking lot and a high volume of vehicles stopping in for a few minutes
for the drivers to spend a few dollars on tobacco. soft drinks alcohol and snacks,
We are strongly opposed to the rezoning of our residential area to L-M-N for the
following reasons:
1. A large area (approximately two acres) across Avondale from our home would
be brightly lit all night long
2. Increased nighttime traffic noise
3. Increased neighborhood litter
4. Increased traffic on Avondale, especially at the common entrance to the
convenience store AND the existing Day Care Center, thereby creating
increased hazards for the children at the Day Care Center
5. Undesirable view for residents of the townhouses and the patio homes on
Yuma Court
6. We don't need another convenience store only 4/10 miles from the 7-Eleven
convenience store at the comer of Trilby and US 287 and 6/10 miles from the
planned convenience store at the comer of Trilby and Shields
We respectfully request that you deny the proposed rezoning to L-M-N.
Sincere
Richard and Helen Corl
Brian Grubb-Ridgewood Hills Rezone-F°-#4-01 Page 1
From: <FSKRBC@aol.com>
To: FC8.CPES(BGrubb)
Date: Mon, Feb 26, 2001 7:51 AM
Subject: Ridgewood Hills Rezone-File#4-01
Brian,
I am opposed to the rezoning of the 14 acres in Ridgewood Hills.
My objection is that I do not know what will be built in the vacant lot after
the area is rezoned. There are too many undesirable outcomes. Having any
kind of commercial development on that property will be detrimental to the
existing houses. The possibility of bright parking lot lights, 24 hour
operation, increased traffic, increased litter, and an undesirable view
are among my objections. Not only will this have a negative effect for the
homeowners, it would also impose a safety hazard for the existing day care
center on Avondale. In summary, there is no commercial enterprise that the
area needs and it would only ugly up the neighborhood and it could even be a
safety hazard.
In addition to rezoning this specific property, I believe that Fort Collins
is not being fair to its citizens by not having a "high density residential
only"zoning category that excludes commercial development. Just because
there are townhomes and duplexes in an area should not be a license for
commercial stores to be built in that same area.
Thank you,
Frank Skerbetz
fskrbc@aol.com
Brian Grubb-Ridgewood Hills Rezone-F°I-#4-01. Page 1
From: <Eviewells@aol.com>
To: FC8.CPES(BGrubb)
Date: Mon, Feb 26, 2001 10:25 AM
Subject: Ridgewood Hills Rezone-File#4-01.
Brian,
1 will be following this email up with a letter once I receive the minutes
from the February neighborhood information meeting; however, I did want to go
on record in opposing the rezoning from"RL"to"LMN". I understand why this
has been proposed, but the options in"LMN"allow for construction of
buildings which I believe are not in the best interests of the property
owners both in the Ridgewood Hill Village and on Yuma Court.
Please make sure I am informed of future meeting so I may attend a represent
my best interests.
Thank you,
Don E. Wells
6612 Avondale Road, Unit#6D
Ft. Collins, CO 80525
(970) 377-1772
i
nMur�ranwEua
6612 AVONDALE ROAD
. UNrr
FORT COLLINS,ODIARADO 8052323
Home PEme 970-377-1772
Email Eviewefie@aol.o
February 28,2001
Mr.Brian Grubb,City Planner
Current Planning Department
281 North College Avemre
PO Box 580
Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580
Dear Mr. Grubb,
The purpose for writing this letter is to express my concerns about the proposed rezoning in Ridgewood Hills-
RIDGEWOOD HILLS REZONE-FILE#4-01,
I attended the two hour long neighborhood information meeting you held on February 20th,2001 and commend
YOU on the fine presentation. As I am sure you will recall,those attending expressed strong reservations to the
rezoning,Primarily because of the many commercial and retail uses permitted under the proposed new zone,
"L-M-N District,Low Density Mixed-Use". I can appreciate Melody Homes' (the requester for this action),
interest in changing the zone district to L-M-N,but,as an abetter who lives less than 100 feet from the two acre
parcel where any new construction could take Place,I am STRONGLY opposed to building a gas station or a
convenience store or a liquor store or anything else of that mature,all of which are allowed under L-M-NI It is my
understanding,based on your explanation of the zoning codes,that no other district designation is applicable and
that the site either remains"RL"or is changed to"L-M-N". I also understand that if it remains"RL", Melody
Homes could not use this property to construct a commercial activity. While this is financially unfortunate for
them,the designation"RL"was in place at the time they purchased the property and proper due-diligence on their
part would have made this fact known to them.
After due deliberation,I find that I cannot support this request for zone change because the options in"L-M-N"
allow for construction of buildings which I believe are not in the best interest of property owners in Ridgewood
Hills Village. Accordingly, I wish to be listed as a neighbor who is APPOSED to rezoning the district to"L-M-N".
fincerely,
Don E. Wells
cc: Mr. Scott Mason,Councilman,District 3
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Heather Kittle,Executive BOA Coordinator
Antares Property Service
1510 South College Ave
Fort Collins,CO 80524
February 27, 2001
Current Planning Dept.
Att: Brian Grubb
281 N. College Ave.
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collis, CO 80522-0580
Re: Ridgewood Hills Rezone
File #4-01
Dear Mr. Grubb:
It is my understanding there is pressure to rezone approximately 14
acres in Ridgewood Hills to L-M-N, (Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood);
thus enabling Melody Homes, owner of the vacant property to develop it
for such things as retail store, business service shop, offices, a clinic
or convenience store.
As a home owner, it is my opinion, to rezone this area would be degrading
to the community. To change a residential area to commercial makes;. no
sense to me.
There is no need for such as a convenience store, we already have
access to one on the south-east corner of College and Trilby.
The hustle and bustle of excess traffic would be detrimental to our
community.
When I purchased my home, it was because I was attracted to the view and
serenity it offered me. Never would I have purchased a home in this
particular area had I been aware a part of it would be given to
commercial use. As I see it, the re-sale value of homes in this area
would be greatly diminished.
Please understand my objection to the rezoning of this particular area.
Sincerely,
Helen E. Toth
506 Yuma Ct.
Fort Collins, CO 80525
$A .
524 Yuma Court
Fort Collins, CO 80525
March 14, 2001
Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission
281 North College Avenue
Post Office Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
Dear Committee Members:
I would like to take this opportunity to voice my strong objection to the proposed Ridgewood Hills
Rezone, File Number 4-01.
In addition to an increase in the noise and lighting that would accompany any commercial enterprise that
would be built on this two acre tract,there are serious traffic and safety concerns. As you have seen from
the plan, the entrance to the area proposed for development would be off of Avondale Road. I invite you
to come down to this area on any weekday and see for yourself that there are already too many cars that
park on both sides of the street by this entrance. It is already too crowded there and the additional traffic
would only add to an existing problem that we are dealing with. Most of these vehicles belong to the staff
and parents of the students at the Day Care Facility that shares this entrance. They are constantly walking
their children back and forth during hours of operation. Those of us who live in area know to slow down
whenever we drive through this area and be very vigilant for the kids running around. In addition to this,
the intersection of Trilby and Avondale is a bus stop for our local high schoolers and there is a large group
of them that have to transit this area every,school day..The transient traffic that would be attracted to the
new commercial establishment would not be aware of the presence of these children and young people
and could present a serious threat to their well-being.
In addition to the above concerns, I worry that the quality of life for those of us who call Ridgewood Hills
our home would be seriously degraded. It is my_belief that one of the few viable options for a successful
business in that spot would be a convenience store/gas station. We all know that this would inevitably
bring with it bright neon lights and signage, increased traffic and noise, litter, and a natural congregation
point for young people and teens. We do not need another convenience center when there is already a 7-
11 less than a half mile away on College and another planned for the intersection of Trilby and Shields.
I ask you, as a taxpaper and fellow citizen, to help us preserve some of the beauty, spirit, and sense of
neighborhood that make Fort Collins such a special place to live. When given the opportunity, please vote
against the proposed rezoning of Ridgewood Hills.
Thank you for your consideration and for taking the time to get to know the concerns and wishes of the
people most effected by the decision you will make.
Sincerely;
Brian P. Flynn
Note
103 copies of the
following letter from
Ridgewood Day School
administration , staff, and
families were submitted .
The letter text was
identical with each
citizen attaching his/her
signature and address
individually.
O2/2-/2001
U
v �
Mr.Brian Grubb,Ciry Planner
Current Planning Deparmmt
P North College Avenue
O P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580
Dear .Nfr.Grubb,
The purpose of this letter is to express concerns from Ridgewood Div School Administration,
Sci mg and Families. We are incredibly concerned about the proposed rezoning of the
properr -RIDGEWOOD HILLS REZONE-FILE#4-0 on the North side of the child
�bJ0 care Ca du-.
IJ�J Our concerns stem from the fact duc there are more than children 200 children arriving and
• departing From this faciliry daily. If the above mentioned property is rezoned as an"L iM-N
Durncc.Low Density Mixed-Usc",is could allow for businesses m be built which dimcdv
conilict with the interests of children attending Ridgewood Day School. Wich the types of
businesses that may be built on property zoned L-M-N,and the entrance we would share.
craffic would be likdv to increase immensely,directly influencing the safety of children
atcerhding Ridgewood Day School.
It is doubtful that a child cart facility would have been built in the location that it has,had the
prepern-been zoned L-M-N. It seems odd that Melody Homes would use our child care
facilia-as a selling point for the subdivision,then propose that the property next to it be
conned as commercial property for businesses that conflict with children and their safety.
We understand that if the property remsuns zoned as"R-L",Melody Homes is unable to sell
this property for commercial purposes,and could pose a a fmanaal burden for them. This is
unfortunate from a financial perspective for Melody Homes;however, children's safety should
not be compromised for the fmancial benefit of Melody Homes or any other company.
Please rake into consideration the validiry of our concerns and the safeev of our children. Please
leave the property zoned i you. .
c 6m Rid ood Dav School
�j9
�� Cbi; , Cosa
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes 'DRAFT
April 5, 2001
Page 3
Project: Ridgewood Hills Rezoning, #4-01
Project Description: Request to rezone Ridgewood Hills PUD, First
Filing, and Ridgewood Hills PUD, First Filing
Replat from RL, Low Density Residential to
LMN, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood.
The site is 14.01 acres and located south and
adjacent to Trilby Road, north of County Road
32 between College Avenue and Shields
Street.
Recommendation: Approval
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Brian Grubb, City Planner gave the staff presentation. Planner Grubb handed out
minutes from the neighborhood meeting. He stated that the property was a mixed-use
neighborhood that is almost developed out except for one tract on the site, which is at
the southeast corner of Trilby and Avondale Roads. He stated that staff initiated the
request that involves about 60 property owners. The reason for the request is that in
1997, when the citywide rezoning process went on, there was an oversight that
occurred. This parcel was developing as mixed-use and should have been zoned LMN,
Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood. What the RL, Low Density Residential zoning
did was create some non-conforming uses and limited the existing permitted uses.
Planner Grubb stated the purpose of this request was to eliminate the non-conforming
uses and allow the undeveloped parcel at the southeast corner of Trilby and Avondale
Roads to develop according to a PUD plan that was approved in 1994. Planner Grubb
stated that there was a neighborhood meeting which about 25 neighbors attended. The
majority of the discussion was how the undeveloped tract may or could develop in the
future under the LMN zoning. He stated that the neighborhood was supportive of the
rezoning, but hesitant about the rezoning to LMN of the undeveloped parcel because of
the uses that could go on that property under the LMN. He stated that there were
several letters received and the major concerns were compatibility with the daycare,
lighting of the site and traffic. He stated that staff was recommending approval based
on the compliance with City Plan and the criteria for approval contained in Section 2.9.4
of the Land Use Code.
Member Craig asked if the property were left in the RL, what would be the
consequences of the people living there now?
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes DRAFT
April 5, 2001
Page 4
Planner Grubb replied that there might be some things that may just be an
inconvenience and some things that may cause problems. For example if the daycare
were to go out of business and remain unoccupied for one year, it would have to
become a single family dwelling to be occupied by one family.
Member Colton asked to see site shots.
Planner Grubb reviewed the site shots for the Board.
Member Craig asked who put up the white fence that she noticed in the site shots.
Planner Grubb replied the developer, but the Homeowner's Association owns the
parcel.
Member Craig asked if the HOA Association was maintaining the fence, trees and the
berm.
Planner Grubb replied he assumed so.
Member Carpenter asked for review of the dates that the dwellings were built and what
a potential homeowner would have found had they come to the city and asked what that
piece of land could have been at the different dates.
Planner Grubb replied there were only a hand full of Certificate of Occupancies issued
prior to the rezoning in March of 1997. The bulk of the properties were issued CO's
after the rezoning took place. Prior to 1997 an inquiry would have been told that the
parcel would be a neighborhood convenience site. After the zoning map was adopted
in March of 1997, people would have been told RL, because that was the zoning. If the
question were what would be allowed there, the answer would have been single family
homes.
Member Meyer asked if there was anywhere in the community where a daycare and a
convenience store co-exist happily.
Planner Shepard replied that one example would be across from the Collindale Golf
Course on Horsetooth Road.
Member Torgerson asked if the original approved PUD showed a convenience store on
the site.
Planner Grubb replied it did.
DRAFT
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 5, 2001
Page 5
Chairperson Gavaldon asked if the rezoning did anything to the approved Overall
Development Plan or approved preliminary plan.
Planner Grubb replied that they expired in January of 2000.
PUBLIC INPUT
Lloyd Rowe, representing the Ridgewood Hills Village Homeowner's Association, which
oversees the townhomes clarified that the Master Association maintained the trees in
the entry area. Ridgewood Hills Village HOA pays a fee to the Master Association
yearly to maintain the greenbelt area and the entryway. He stated that the members in
the townhome area don't really have an issue with the rezoning, but do have an issue
with is what may go in there. Most concerns are with traffic in the area. He stated that
another convenience center is planned at Trilby and Shields and there is currently
another one at Trilby and College and at County Road 32. He stated that County Road
32 would eventually be extended west to connect to Avondale, which will feed into
Trilby. Mr. Rowe stated that most residents felt that we do not need a convenience
store or gas station and felt that it would ruin the aesthetic beauty of their entryway into
their community.
Don Wells, homeowner in Ridgewood Hills Village Townhomes asked if the RL zone
allowed childcare centers. He did not feel that a rezoning should be done to just allow
the childcare center when from what he read in the code, a childcare center would be
allowed in the RL zone. He stated that the information he received at the neighborhood
meeting was that if Melody Homes did not request the rezoning at this time, this
rezoning request would not be processed at this time by the city. He stated that Melody
Homes told him that they had no plans to develop the parcel at this time. He was
strongly opposed to putting a convenience store there, but is not opposed to a low
density professional building. He stated that there are so many things that could be
built under the LMN zone that would not be good for their community.
Dick Coral, lives immediately west of the childcare center concurred with his neighbors.
He stated that they did not need a rezoning and he was also opposed to a convenience
store.
Frank Skurbetz, homeowner, also agreed with his neighbors. He supported the
previous speaker's reasons not to rezone.
Kim Straw, Cityscape Urban Design, representing Melody Homes stated that they
concurred with staffs recommendation for approval. She stated that the concerns
raised about a gas station or convenience store were not the reason they were there
tonight, it was for the rezoning. While a convenience center is a potential use in the
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
DRAFT
April 5, 2001
Page 6
LMN zone, at this time Melody Homes does not have a potential use for the site. She
would not be surprised if the traffic study would not allow it anyway. She clarified that at
this time they are not proposing a convenience center.
Ray Schultz, homeowner, stated that he supported low profile buildings on the site or
even additional townhomes which would fit into the surrounding neighborhood. The
issue is the broad spectrum of the zoning that they are asking for. He was not sure if
there could be limitations. He agreed with his neighbors with what has occurred in the
neighborhood to now have a convenience store in place. He saw the need for the
rezoning, but did not see a need for a convenience store on that site.
Chairperson Gavaldon asked for the question about the daycare center be addressed.
Planner Grubb stated that if the childcare center is zoned RL; the childcare center would
be a use that would have to be approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. In the
LMN zone, it would be a use that would be approved administratively. The other
question was that if this request would be processed if it were not for Melody Homes.
His answer would be no, not at this time. This site has already been identified as one
where there was a mistake made in 1997. The request would have come forward
sooner or later. Melody's desire to have this request heard, expedited the process.
Member Carpenter asked if there were a zoning district that could restrict this to a low
profile use.
Planner Shepard reviewed the LMN District zoning and how it restricted convenience
stores with gas or fueling facilities. They cannot be located within % of a mile of another
gas station. This site is within % mile of an existing gas station at the corner of College
and Trilby. Therefore, there could be no gas at this site if it were rezoned LMN.
Member Colton asked what traffic process would be done for this site.
Planner Grubb stated that a traffic study would be required at the time of PDP, and staff
would review it at that time. His opinion was that this was not a site that would draw a
lot of traffic from other areas. There were just not enough trips per day, right now, to
warrant that type of a use. It was not going to be a destination use; it really is a use that
will benefit the neighborhood.
Member Craig asked if the property were made LMN, and Melody Homes came in with
a proposal for multi-family housing, detached or attached single family, would the
Overall Development Plan have to be amended.
Planner Grubb replied that the ODP expired January 17, 2000, under Ordinance 161.
°RAFT
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 5, 2001
Page 7
Member Colton felt that the LMN zoning district was consistent with what we want out of
City Plan with having a mixture of uses. He felt that this was an appropriate zoning in
that we need to rely on the neighborhood compatibility and traffic studies to not get too
intense of a use there.
Member Meyer agreed with Member Colton and felt LMN was an appropriate zone.
Member Carpenter agreed, but with information given out that this would be single
family and she felt that we had an obligation to the homeowner's in the area. She
asked if rezoning could be done after a use has been determined.
Kim Straw, Cityscape Urban Design stated that technically they could, but that would be
asking Melody Homes to take a fairly large risk. There would be expenses incurred for
anyone. Also, the way the city process is set up, as far as review goes, that is usually
not the way it goes. You can only come in twice a year for a rezoning, and if you miss
that date, you have to wait 6 more months. She felt it just did not seem realistic.
Planner Shepard added that we have standards in the code that would deal with issues
such as traffic, lighting, hours of operation, etc. He asked to keep in mind when the
code was written, we took all the LDGS performance standards, and added a whole
bunch more.
Member Craig agreed with Member Carpenter about the predictability here. If the
neighbors had come in tonight and asked that the zoning be left RL, but she did not
hear that from them. She got from them that they did not care about rezoning, but was
more concerned about what would go in there. She felt that the next step would be the
PDP, where there is a criterion for neighborhood compatibility.
Member Bernth asked Mr. Rowe if his primary concern was the gas.
Mr. Rowe replied that he is not only speaking as an individual, but on behalf of his HOA.
He realized that development is inevitable, but firmly believes that it has to be sensitive
to the people within the community. He has seen three maps for Ridgewood Hills and
has heard Realtors tell people that the parcel would be single family homes or a
greenbelt area. When he bought his townhome, the builder produced a map that
showed a convenience store and some professional office buildings and the daycare
site. He bought anyway because he assumed that the city would address it and felt that
it would be done tastefully. He felt that people made decisions to invest in that property
based on what they were told and that there was three different zoning maps that
people could have seen. That is where he thinks the confusion lies.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes DRAFT
April 5, 2001
Page 8
Member Colton moved to recommend to City Council approval of the Ridgewood
Hills Rezoning, #4-01 based on the criteria that the amendment to the zoning map
is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. That the amendment to the
zoning map was warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood
surrounding and including the subject property because of the oversight. Also,
that the zoning proposed amendment was compatible with existing and proposed
uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone district for the
land; and that the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly
development pattern.
Member Bernth seconded the motion.
Member Craig thanked the neighbors for coming tonight and she hoped the Board
addressed their concerns. She encouraged them to stay in touch with the process
when a PDP does come in. She would like their concerns to be addressed, but that
could not happen until a development proposal comes in.
Member Carpenter would support the motion, and encouraged the neighbors to
continue to participate at the PDP level.
Member Colton also did not like when erroneous information or multiple types of
information goes out when people rely on that to make a decision. He does believe that
this was best for the community and does fit with what we are trying to do with City
Plan.
The motion was approved 7-0.
Brian Grubb-Rezoning in Ridgewood Hills Page 1
From: Debra Sullivan <sullivan@info2000.net>
To: FC8.CPES(cplanning)
Date: Thu, Apr 5, 2001 10:38 AM
Subject: Rezoning in Ridgewood Hills
Attn: Brian Grubb
Dear Mr. Grubb,
I spoke with you a few weeks ago in regard to the rezoning request for
14 acres at the comer of Trilby and Avondale. I understand this was
redesignated residential in 1997 which does not take into account the
multifamily housing and daycare center. I also believe that this
property was"lumped"together at the time.
I do not mind this being zoned low density mixed to take care of the
dwellings already in existence, however, there already is a commercial
business here with the daycare center. I DO NOT want to see a
commercial piece designated at the entrance to our subdivision. I don't
believe this presents an attractive entrance. In addition, it seems the
entrance to this property must be made from Avondale instead of Trilby.
Maybe, since it seems the city can "lump" pieces together or take them
apart, it would be better to group some of the acres separately and
rezone them. However a solution is reached, my biggest concern is
keeping a commercial property off the subdivision entrance. Across the
street is fine, but not at the entrance.
Please express my opinion at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting
tonight. I would really appreciate it. Also, please reply to this
email just to let me know you received it. Thank you for your time and
help.
Sincerely,
Debby Sullivan