HomeMy WebLinkAboutFRONT RANGE REZONING & STRUCTURE PLAN AMEND. - 3-00 - CORRESPONDENCE - STRUCTURE PLAN (6)Steve Olt - Re: Timan Rezoning for NC Wage 2
this ... even though all the other dots in the city are like this ... we just don't want THESE to be like
this... because... it's too many dots on College?"
How about everyone reply to this and then see where we stand?
Steve O�Re: Timan Rezoning for N'C - age
From: Ken Waido
To: Clark Mapes, Gregory Byrne, Joe Frank, Steve OI...
Date: Fri, Jun 23, 2000 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: Timan Rezoning for NC
I was not present for the whole GMLT discussion on the Timan rezoning. But, I do recall asking the
question if we really wanted "two dots" on S. College and receiving (I thought) a general consensus that
we don't.
I agree that IF there were to be a grocery store based neighborhood shopping center on S. College, it
wold be better located on the NORTHERN portion of the Timan property, rather than at S. College/Co. Rd.
32.
While "two dots" may have been the third choice for changes, I also did not get the impression that all
three choices were of equal acceptability. That if choice one didn't work then choice two would, and if
choices one and two didn't work, then "two dots" were OK.
I don't think any comparison of this issue to other two dot situations in the community is credible. This is
S. College not Timberline, Shields, Lemay, Taft Hill, etc., etc. I believe we really don't want grocery stores
on S. College if we can avoid them. So when the "market" says that they won't build a grocery store on S.
College and Co. Rd. 32, 1 say GREAT!!!!!! Let that red dot be one of our non -grocery store based
neighborhood centers - I don't have a problem with that. And, let the Timan property stay C and let it
develop as the end to the S. College community commercial strip. If the Timan property gets used
inappropriately for "neighborhood commercial" type uses, where will the displaced "community
commercial" uses go? Harmony Road?
>>> Clark Mapes 06/22 10:31 AM >>>
Steve, before you send official comments, one last check.
So, the proposal on the table is to simply change C zoning between Trilby and Skyway to NC and MMN.
(For those who haven't heard, McCory prefers to keep his NC and MMN. It's part of why he accepted City
Plan and its zoning.)
This would result in two red dots a mile apart.
Ken has commented on behalf of Advance Planning that we don't support that.
Do we all clearly agree that under the circumstances, the current C is better for the City? I still have this
question because:
1. 1 think we all agree with the applicant that the Trilby/Skyway site is as good or better than the CR 32
site for this development. I followed up with Transfort, and sure enough they agree as well, in fact Trilby
is shown as a feeder route.
2. In GMLT we decided that having two red dots was third choice among the 3 options for change, but, I
don't recall being clear about whether this meant that we prefer the status quo C.
3. It's similar to many other red dot situations but perhaps most similar to Timberline/Drake and
Timberline/Horsethooth because one of those dots may not get a grocery store.
If this whole thing dies out, let's have a clear understanding of why. It looks like there's a risk of our
bureaucratic system dragging down a pretty good initiative. i.e. let's be clearer than this:
..we all see that the proposal is a good idea that makes sense, but ... we can't have these red dots like