Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCHRIST CENTER COMMUNITY CHURCH - REZONING - 29-09 - MINUTES/NOTES - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning & Zoning Board October 15, 2009 Page 9 Member Carpenter asked what the differences are between an NC and a LMN neighborhood center. Shepard said size —a LMN neighborhood center cannot exceed 7 acres. A NC is typically 10-15 acres. An NC can be anchored by a grocery store. An LMN center cannot. The maximum size of the building footprint in the NC is 5,000 square feet. There is no maximum size in an NC. The difference would be the King Soopers at Rigden Farm or Scotch Pines. Those are classic NCs. A good LMN center would be at West Harmony and Seneca just before you get to Taft —four or five businesses. Chair Schmidt asked Shepard to address what it says in the code about parks and where the closest parks are in this area. Shepard said it's technically not a code provision. It's a long held Parks & Recreation Policy that every square mile of the City would have a neighborhood park. • Every four square miles would have a community park. The question came up at the neighborhood meeting —why is there no neighborhood park (from 5-15 acres) in the square mile section bounded by Timberline, Lemay, Drake and Horsetooth. After the meeting, Shepard spoke with the Parks Planning Department. They told him that back when those subdivisions (Lake Sherwood, Nelson Farm & Collindale) were developing; the developers were unwilling or did not want to participate in selling the City a suitable parcel that wasn't a detention pond or wasn't along an arterial street. Shepard said in this area the square mile availability is challenged by Lake Sherwood and the railroad tracks which limit you to what you can do. Failing to obtain the land for a neighborhood park in fulfillment of the policy, the Park Land Development funds that would have gone to the square mile section went into Warren Park. That's why Warren Park (Lemay & Horsetooth) has been enlarged —it's not considered a community park; it's just a really big neighborhood park. It happens to be across the street from the square mile section had it gone according to policy. Chair Schmidt said having said that, parks are allowed in either (RL or LMN) zoning district so if someone came up with the funds and wanted to purchase the land that would be an allowable use. Shepard said yes but practically speaking there are no suitable parcels in the square mile section. He understands the square mile section is pretty well built out --vacant land is railroad right-of-way or storm water detention. He said there's a little piece of vacant land on Horsetooth and Lochwood across the street from the convenience store. Not an ideal location for a park —it's along an arterial. Chair Schmidt said if the neighborhood were able to raise the funds, they could purchase the 11 acres. Shepard said yes —willing seller/willing buyer. Member Carpenter asked Shepard to address the possibilities for access. Shepard said he'd like to start at the intersection of Drake and Lemay and work back south and east of the intersection. Standard engineering practices say that any turn lanes accessing this parcel should not interfere with auxiliary turn lanes or through lanes for the two arterials. The other thing to consider is medians. Medians are a part of an arterial standard but medians can be retrofitted into the system when they were not initially installed at current day standards. When the standard became that medians should be at arterial/arterial intersections; we have to retro fit them in. Medians are not the responsibility of a developer. They are a responsibility of the Street Oversizing Fund because they benefit the entire community. He said applicants and developers who pull building permits pay into the fund and then it's up to the Engineering Department to build the medians. Shepard said the same thing applies to right -turn lanes. Shepard said you're looking at access control, location, proximity to the intersection, and the requirement that you'd have to have a neighborhood meeting and traffic study to determine what the trip generation it. It's probably in a defacto situation that access to this property has to be as far east and as far south of the Lemay/Drake intersection. Chair Schmidt asked if two accesses would be allowed off Drake —one where the church members currently enter and one other. Shepard said he does not want to anticipate that but he did add that if medians are installed, there's a little "more forgiveness" because you are limited to right-in/right-out. It's the actual left out that is the most onerous turn movement. Planning & Zoning Board October 15, 2009 Page 8 with RL. Now we are learning that is no longer the case. In staffs way of thinking, this goes back to being vacant ground. Member Smith said that in order to maintain that logical and orderly development pattern and have compatibility in neighborhoods; you would have the more intensive mixed uses located at the intersections and then step down in intensity into the neighborhoods? Shepard said correct -it was based on transit corridors and neighborhood centers. Every neighborhood center would be a "red dot" and it was flanked by transitioning into LMN as you get back to more of the internal square mile section. He said they were trying to build transit lines, nodes (walk ability to the neighborhood center), and that density surrounding the neighborhood center would allow transit to be provided in a cost -benefit fashion. He said Ridgen Farm is a good example of those concepts. The theories were ratified when they did the five year update to City Plan in 2002. Member Smith said throughout the City where you have the NC (Scotch Pines), very often you would find MMN (more intensive than LMN). Shepard said correct. In fact under the previous system, Scotch Pines developed in a way that was very City Plan like with its neighborhood center at the corner and right behind it multi -family. Along Strachan Drive, you've got small lot single family detached. Further into Scotch Pines, you've got a variety of houses. Scotch Pines was a model for both the former Guidance System and City Plan. Member Carpenter said if we rezone this than at the time a Project Development Plan (PDP) comes in, those are the kinds of things that will be looked at --whether it's on the corner then doing the step down into the neighborhood. The one place she sees a problem is where we have single family housing backing right up to Lemay, this site, and the parking lot. If they took that and turned it into a fuel station, we would lose that ability to step down and that would make it MMN with a fuel station. Shepard said it wouldn't be MMN per se; it would probably be a form of density found in the LMN—density provisions that allow townhomes such as a 12-plex. He said hypothetically, going out on a limb, if we found something in the future that appeared to be a little bit of a mismatch, the burden of proof is on the applicant to convince the Board that they've met the land use transition and compatibility standards to your satisfaction. Shepard used as an example the 7-11 near Cunningham Corner. It is literally next to multi- family housing but between the two there is probably 75 feet of the densest evergreen bermed landscaping in the city. You can be in the multi -family housing complex and not see the lights of the canopy of the fueling station. Shepard does not want to put forward a blanket statement that we couldn't put forth an allowable use in a LMN next to an existing RL neighborhood —that's what Article 3 is all about. It looks at those transitions and the compatibility. We work with the applicants, have neighborhood meetings, and bring it to the Board to see if the applicant did the job right. Carpenter said the protection for the RL neighborhood is in the land use transition code. Shepard said yes, Section 3.5.1. Member Lingle asked Shepard to help him remember when we reviewed the proposal for a neighborhood center at the northwest corner of Drake and Timberline. That was denied partially because you could only develop a neighborhood center at one intersection. Lingle said so since we have Scotch Pines Center across the street, would that automatically preclude any of the neighborhood center allowable uses? Shepard said that's a great question —the term neighborhood center can be confusing. The project that was denied requested a NC neighborhood center. It was kitty cornered from King Soopers which was zoned NC. In this case, what we're dealing with is LMN. He said a permitted use in the LMN is a LMN neighborhood center. You can have a neighborhood center in LMN or you can be zoned NC so you don't void an LMN neighborhood center by being across the street from a NC zone. You can avoid another NC if you're across the street from another NC. Planning & Zoning Board October 15, 2009 Page 7 neighborhood meetings to inform you exactly what is being planned. You're not seeing a lot of the detail now —it's all dependent on what would be put there at some later date. Chair Schmidt said with regard to the questions raised about restrictions holding up when these issues come up in review-- if there are restrictions placed on the rezoning by the Board tonight or by the church at the time they sell the property. Those will be considered at time of a detailed review. Schmidt said if someone came to the Board for review, it would be decided at the time of a specific proposal if it was compatible with the neighborhood. Those issues would be reviewed at the point in time when they'd have a lot more information about the property. Chief Planner Shepard said the issue of preserving the integrity of the detention pond will not change with subsequent development because it is the natural low spot of the area. It's where the water wants to go so the detention pond will be preserved. The detention happens to cross the property line —it's on two properties. The detention pond has an outfall and has been sized to handle developed flows based on the church building out as a campus. Member Stockover asked staff if the church would be to move their parking lot to the back and sell the space that fronts Lemay. Shepard said yes. Stockover said his concern is that a subsequent owner might say the land closest to Lemay and Drake might be the more valuable piece of the parcel'and want to put a convenience store or gas station there. Shepard said we have the checks and balances needed thanks to Land Use Code (LUC) Article 3 standards. He said Article 3.5 is the most flexible section of the LUC. It talks about land use transition, it talks about height, and it talks about compatibility. The Board will review all those on a site specific basis. Shepard said further if you look around at the mixed use projects in the community. There's a pretty good looking convenience center on Horsetooth Road next to Collindale Golf Course. There is a 7-11 in Four Seasons by Cunningham Corner. Most zones, even under the previous Land Use Guidance System and the LUC are mixed use. Director Dush said in terms of fast food, it does not include a drive through —it would not be permitted. Additionally, with respect to fuel sales, a convenience retail store would be allowed within a neighborhood center but not one with fuel sales. Shepard added there's a separation requirement. If you are within % of a mile of an existing fuel facility, you cannot duplicate that in the LMN zone. In this particular case, there is no fuel facility within % of a mile. So there is a potential for a fuel facility. Member Lingle asked if the fuel center at Scotch Pines no longer there. Shepard said correct. Lingle said that does open it up to that potential use in this rezoning. Member Stockover said the reason he brought that out is the Board is making a decision that affects people for some time and we may not be on this Board when whatever goes in there gets reviewed. He's looking at the far reaching impact of what can be done this evening. Member Smith asked Shepard to provide background on how in 1997 with City Plan the existing neighborhoods were preserved as RL and that this property was zoned RL rather than what he thinks would have been LMN. Shepard said when City Plan (CP) was adopted; they put the new CP zone districts on vacant land. There was sort of a push/pull situation where a policy decision was made not to put LMN districts in existing neighborhoods. Examples include Stonehenge, Parkwood Estates, Parkwood East, Lake Sherwood and Nelson Farm — all residential neighborhoods on the east side of Lemay Avenue between Stuart Street on the north, Horsetooth Road on the south and the U.P. railroad tracks on the east. First Christian Church, now Christ Center Community Church, was included in the category of an established neighborhood. Vacant pieces of ground in neighborhoods were given LMN zoning. Areas where they wanted to see redevelopment such as West Mulberry and East Prospect — knowing those parcels would also redevelop were also given a LMN designation. Back then the church desired to build a campus and they didn't believe they'd benefit from the LMN zoning —they were fine Planning & Zoning Board October 15, 2009 Page 6 Milewski said she would prefer the Board interpret the nature of the statement made as the church is acknowledging they will be the closest neighbor so they want to- insure they direct the development with the sale of the land. She said the compatibility such as neighborhood scale, traffic issues, and storm drainage, will be addressed at the time of a site specific development plan. Limiting the rezoning would limit their ability to develop the land or look at some of the uses that could be done in a compatible way. Member Lingle asked if it would be their intention that everything that shows up on the comparison chart as allowable uses within LMN would remain as viable alternatives. Milewski said they'd prefer that. He said he was just unclear by what the church intended by that comment. Is there something listed on the chart that they don't intend to pursue and could be removed. It may be they would not be allowed on this site but they would be allowed in other LMN zones. Milewski said correct. She said they had not gotten to the level of sitting down to make a list of things they'd never consider on this site. They'd like to change the zoning then talk to potential developers to make sure they have a use that is compatible to both the church and the neighborhood. Public Input: 1 Wendy Wilbur said she lives at 2801 Fauborough Ct. Her property backs up to the parking lot right where it becomes the field. She said RL gives them a lot of different options. They can have single family detached dwellings, parks, public facilities, places of worship, group homes, public and private schools, community facilities, wildlife rescue, child care centers, and adult day care/respite centers. To rezone to LMN would allow fast-food, convenience stores, and gas stations and that is of concern to the neighborhood. What's available is a very small piece of property and not all of it is buildable because of the detention basin on the south end. The church hasn't really advertised/put a for -sale sign to indicate a property available within the RL zone. Their concern is if they do get the LMN rezoning, she doesn't know how many restrictions you can put on it when you sell it. She doesn't know if that would really hold up. She thinks they should pursue the sale in RL and if there is a big problem with someone taking that property; maybe they/we could consider it again. Paul DuChateau lives at 2713 Brookwood Drive. The back of his house is on the eastern border of the church property. The neighbors wonder whose responsible for the detention area. The parking lot of the church drains into that detention area. If that detention area belongs to someone other than the church, are they obligated to keep it as a detention area so the houses behind the detention area are not flooded when there's a big rain storm? 3 David Jorissen, 2801 Fauborough Court, said they would like to continue to use the area as a park. There is a City ordinance that says that for every square mile there's a neighborhood park. They found out there weren't funds to buy that property for a park. Some of the funds had been diverted into Warren Park. Another concern is at the time of the public meeting there was some discussion on how the church would like the land used. Why didn't they "come clean" at the public meeting and give them a list of what they'd like to have built there and more important what they wouldn't want there. He thinks the public would rest a lot easier if they know what they definitely have in mind. Once you sell a property, how do you know what they're going to do with it? Public Input Closed Board Questions and additional response to Public Input concerns: Chair Schmidt said this is a hearing on a rezoning issue. If the property is rezoned and someone does buy part of it and wants to develop it, they will have to go through a totally different procedure whereby they work with staff to present plans. All those things (such as where the storm water runoff goes and what kind of access there will be) will be addressed as those plans are reviewed. There would be more Planning & Zoning Board October 15, 2009. Page 5 Project: Christ Center Community Church Rezoning, # 29-09 Project Description: This is a request to rezone 23.5 acres, located at the southeast corner of South Lemay Avenue and Drake Road, from R-L, Low Density Residential, to L-M-N, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. The site is home of the Christ Center Community Church but was originally developed in the early 1980's by the First Christian Church. The existing church is flanked by vacant land that was originally set aside for future expansion for a variety of church -related functions and activities in a campus setting. Christ Center Community Church has now scaled back these future expansion plans and the vacant land is no longer needed for a campus. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Christ Center Community Church, Rezoning from R-L, to L-M-N, and #29-09. Hearina Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Senior City Planner Ted Shepard reported this request is less than 640 acres and, therefore, is considered quasi-judicial. The rezoning satisfies the criteria of Section 2.9.4(H) in that the request is consistent with the Structure Plan Map and warranted by the changing conditions of the subject property. A neighborhood meeting was held on August 24, 2009 with a summary available in the Board's agenda packet. Staff recommends approval of Christ Center Community Church, Rezoning from R-L, to L-M-N, and #29-09. Angie Milewski of BHA Design, Inc. represents the Christ Center Church. She said there are no pending development plans; they are simply asking for a rezoning of the property. This 23 acre parcel no longer fits into their future plans as a large church campus. The change is that First Christian Church has become the Christ Community Christian Church with a significantly scaled -back mission. Consequently, the land reserved for future expansion is no longer needed as originally conceived. The target is the 11 acre parcel to the east of the church building/parking lot. It is an open piece of land that has been maintained by the church as an irrigated turf area and used by the neighborhood as a small neighborhood park. They are interested in attaining all the uses allowed in the LMN District. She believes it's a great transition from the MMN District uses near the intersection of the nearby arterials (Lemay & Drake) to the RL District nearby. It would simply be a change in allowable uses for an interested party wanting to develop the 11 acre parcel. They want to make that parcel more marketable and developable on its own right in a use that would be compatible for both the church and the neighborhood. Board Questions: Member Lingle said in the minutes of the neighborhood meeting there was a comment made by the church that they intended to have a contingency placed on the sale of the property that would limit uses. He asked if the church was willing to agree to remove those allowable uses as a condition of this rezoning. If so, what would those be? Milewski said the church would be open to removing those allowable uses as a condition of this rezoning. The things they are thinking of adding are residential uses —single and multi -family uses and long-term care facilities. There are some additional commercial and retail uses such as day-care, small clinics, or small offices but even those are limited by being located near a neighborhood center and the size of the available parcel. She said the higher intensity/some industrial uses allowed in LMN would not be suitable/allowed on this property. Planning & Zoning Board October 15, 2009 Page 13 those concerns. She said once something comes back from the applicant, that they take a look at and get your neighbors involved. Member Carpenter said she'd like to make plain that she is not against multi -family and townhomes. Probably the RL density is not what belongs on this particular piece of property but because of the promises we made, this falls between RL and LMN. There are some uses in LMN that would be, for her, a little too intensive and not what we should be doing in this spot. It's not raw land so she would be more comfortable and would appreciate the applicant coming back and putting stricter parameters on it than just rezoning the whole site LMN. Chair Schmidt said she knows the church would like to remain flexible but she thinks that's part of their concern. We want to have more of an idea of a plan and a commitment —"this is what we really see happening." She believes that would give a comfort level to the Board members. Chair Schmidt asked if its tabled does it require the applicant to return in 30 days. Director Dush said you could continue to a date specific unless that's not enough time for the applicant. He said if it is not date specific, we'd need to re -notice. Milewski said not having everyone from this side present to speak, they'd rather have some flexibility with the date (be sure they're ready) and would prefer to re -notice. Deputy City Attorney Eckman said we can just withdraw it from the agenda and re -notice it. (The neighbors would be renotified when it comes up again.) Other Business: None Meeting adjoumedbat 7:40 p.m. Steve Dush, Current Planning Director Brfg'itte �r idt,-Chair Planning & Zoning Board October 15, 2009 Page 12 you are going to have a place with higher densities, this is going to be it. It makes more sense than an area like Mountain Vista area with all its vacant land. That's not to set aside the need for compatibility and buffering. When things get demolished in the downtown area and are rebuilt, it's not the same as it was. She said we're going to look for opportunities to redevelop. Neighborhoods have to understand that portion of it —things are going to change and based on our land use policies, higher density is going to be supported. That doesn't mean that it'll be supported to the point where it's not compatible. Milewski said they d be very happy to table this discussion. She's heard a lot tonight about some specific land uses the Board thinks may be extremely inappropriate. Maybe they can come back with a specific list of land uses they would request with this rezoning. Maybe that would make this discussion a bit easier. They are willing to do that. If you have any direction, other than they've heard already about specific land uses they would welcome them. Chair Schmidt said if they would like, Board members can share their specific concerns. Is the idea that we would table it and you would bring it back at another point in time? Milewski said yes, with a limitation to land uses in LMN or an approach similar to that. Member Lingle asked why the church would not just subdivide the northwest corner and the eastern section where different uses could then be applied to each of them. Milewski said they could consider that. She said like Shepard mentioned they started with senior housing, considered a permitted use application, and then finally a rezoning request as it seemed most appropriate without an end user. They didn't think it would be a very controversial issue. Clearly there are some other strategies they could look at including subdividing and breaking the zoning into a smaller piece. Milewski said she's hearing some of these things for the first time tonight. She appreciates the comments and learning the things that are concerning to the Board. Chair Schmidt agrees with Shepard that when you have 23 acres, it gives you a lot more to work with. The orientation the Board is coming from is its 23 acres and if we allow all the uses, where will things go and how will they impact the neighborhood. If the church wants to make a commitment for areas that are closer to the neighborhoods that would make people feel a little better. Member Smith said before we have that discussion, we need to see the whole neighborhood including the nearby employment, NC, and the fulfillment of City Plan. We're talking about compatibility looking both forward and backward. If we look like at page 4 of the staff report, if the entire 23 acres were to be developed as an RL project, the following design parameters would be required: maximum density of 3.0 dwelling units per acre, minimum of 6,000 square foot logs, minimum lot width of 60 feet, and no duplexes, multi -family, or mixed -use dwellings allowed. That type of a project flies in the face of the type of transit orientated mixed use community that City Plan calls for. He wants to caution the Board that when they're talking about the intent of mixed use development and redevelopment near the intersection of two arterials; he thinks that's what the Board is supposed to do. He said he just doesn't want, without seeing an actual Project Development Plan, by its nature commercial or mixed -use be right out of the gates incompatible with the residential. He doesn't think it is. He said we have examples throughout the community where we've done a very good thing building City Plan logical and orderly development. Member Lingle said he doesn't disagree with Smith. He's just looking at a potential 3:3 vote —regardless of how the motion is made, it would fail. He thinks tabling would be in the best interest of the applicant to be able to come back and tighten down what they would like to do to get enough support. Milewski said she agrees. Member Rollins wanted to make a comment to the neighborhood. When the applicant does come back, if you have neighbors that have concerns that perhaps you should encourage them to come and express Planning & Zoning Board October 15, 2009 Page 11 senior housing or long term care, multi family or child care and they believe those uses are compatible. Her guess is that the church is willing to move forward with conditions that would restrict the specific uses the Board thinks would be inappropriate. Member Smith wants to think about MMN and LMN and how they approach the more intense NC. If the church were to sell and leave the entire 23 acres sitting vacant, how would the City respond to a developer who would come in with a proposal? Shepard said if this were raw ground, we would probably zone this MMN to get the density along a transit corridor to support alternative modes. Smith said he's not trying to diminish what the Board's heard from neighbors this evening but he doesn't have the sense this is a big neighborhood opposition where's it's organized like the Safeway at Harmony & Shields where he would need to weigh in over the larger objectives of City Plan. Member Stockover said he has great faith in the City planning process. He's 90% sure that if we rezoned it everything would turn out right but it's that 10% that's holding him back. As far as neighborhood opposition, as a citizen he relies on the City to make the choices that are right for him as a property owner. There may not be opposition; they may just have faith in the fact that we're making the right decision. His concern is the church would sell that piece of property to a developer who acts in good faith with everything going right but then goes bankrupt due to market conditions. It would be a fire sale to the highest bidder and we'd have no control over what the church desired. He said the citizens look to us to protect them with zoning --knowing what that use is going to be, He does look at it as a developed site, not a raw piece of ground. He thinks we should err on the side of caution and that is why he does not feel comfortable supporting the rezoning request. What he'd possibly feel comfortable with is tabling this discussion and looking at another proposal at an upcoming work session. Member Rollins asked Shepard if what Milewski just described (senior housing, child care, etc.) wouldn't have been been addressed as a special use permit. Couldn't we approach it from an entirely different perspective —RL with higher intensity uses appropriate for this specific location. Shepard said that was their original conversation —primarily because Mr. Stroud (Realtec) thought this was the perfect candidate for the addition of a permitted use. In the past, staff had only brought forth those with a known end user —evaluating, analyzing, and mitigating any impacts that were discovered through the neighborhood meeting process. The church responded that they were not ready to bring a proposal forward with a particularly end use but they were ready to rezone the property. Chair Schmidt asked if at the time it was planned for a campus; if the church had decided to run along - term care facility, wouldn't that have already been approved as a part of the campus package. Shepard he does not recall the details of the master plan but it clearly would have had to be an accessory use to the church. Schmidt said then if the church owned and operated it, it would have been allowed. Shepard said correct. Member Carpenter said then a fast food facility would not have been allowed. Shepard said correct. Carpenter said an accessory use is very different from rezoning this property. She said the other problem she's having is they speak of the development of the 11 acres but we're actually rezoning this whole area. Shepard said that staff thought about that and how the east and south property lines are adjoining existing neighborhoods. Those areas will clearly need set -backs, buffering, mitigation, and landscaping. He said the larger the parcel, the more generous the buffering can be; the smaller the parcel, the more squeezed everything gets. He said 23 acres gives a site the maximum amount of flexibility to develop the site and provide the necessary buffering. Chair Schmidt said there is one comment she'd like to make: Mayor Azari once said the people say they want a city but they don't really want a city. I agree with your commitments to the neighborhood but we also talk about redevelopment and infill. This piece of property is pretty much in the center of town. If Planning & Zoning Board October 15, 2009 Page 10 Member Stockover thinks that RL gives ample opportunity to develop the property. He thinks his responsibility as a citizen board member is to look at it from a citizen's perspective first. He does not think the city has a shortage of zones that we couldn't put some of these uses other places in the city so in short he thinks the RL is the proper zone for this location. He said rezoning it opens it up to too many opportunities that he doesn't think he can support it. Member Rollins said she agrees with Stockover. She said she probably could have supported something had there been some restrictions to uses that the applicant felt comfortable taking off the list. Short of that, without knowing how this is going to be parceled, she's not comfortable rezoning it. It's zoned RL and to change that is a "big, big, big" jump without the applicant being willing to say specifically what totally compatible use they have in mind. She will not be supporting this rezoning. Member Smith said he'd like to disagree. He is fully in support of this request by just the logic that it actually does fulfill the vision of City Plan. He thinks if they were looking at "raw dirt" around the intersection, they'd obviously be looking at MMN. The church had the opportunity to go from RL to LMN twelve years ago. They're plans then were different to what they'd like to do today. He said LMN is a pretty logical buffer from the NC across the street over to the existing RL (Sherwood neighborhood.) In order to support the vision and the implementation of City Plan and the Structure Plan, he absolutely supports this. This is actually the best way to achieve that logical and orderly development pattern around that intersection. Member Carpenter tends to agree with Smith, on the other hand she goes back to when they made the promises to the neighborhoods at the time of City Plan zoning changes. One of the promises made land already there would be RL. She doesn't see this as a vacant piece of land --if somebody moves and has a vacant piece of land behind them, they're going to expect that something is going to go there. When they've already been promised this would be RL (a church and a campus center); she has trouble with changing that at this point. She agrees if we had limitations on what can put here then LMN might be the right zoning. She would have a hard time supporting this as well. Member Lingle said he is glad to hear this discussion because he's also struggling with all the same things. On the one hand, the neighborhood makes a very compelling argument that they would like to have some consistency applied (like Carpenter said) and some of their expectations fulfilled in terms of what they thought would happen with this land. On the other hand, he thinks Shepard makes a very good argument from a land use perspective and overall master planning that LMN would have been the logical zone to place this property in 1997 had it not been sustained in RL at the request of the church. He said he would be more comfortable if the church said "we don't want all the allowable uses in LMN-- we would like to have the residential uses expanded to allow two family dwellings, multi -family, townhouses; but we're willing to not look at some of the commercial uses." He thinks that would make the Board feel more comfortable. He thinks it would probably make the neighborhood feel more comfortable. He honestly doesn't know which way he can go because he can see a good argument both directions. Milewski said they'd like to offer limitation of uses before the motion is made. She thinks they're talking about compatibility of individual land uses. She said Shepard makes a case that it really depends on how they are developed. They really would like to have the zoning happen very simply to make it easier for its development to move forward. The discussion that has happened so far has not been about the land near Drake and Lemay--it's about the 11 acres east of the church. They have not put a sign out there to advertise its sale but what they have done is talk with Larry Stroud, a local broker with Realtec, about possibilities. It they were to do something on the 11 acres, it would be what they would be allowed to do and what sort of market is out there. Although there is not a single buyer, the market interest is for