Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRIDGEWOOD HILLS REZONE - 4-01 - REPORTS - FIRST READINGBrian Grubb -, Rezoning in Ridgewood Hill- 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 Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 8 DRAFT 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. DR Fr 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 April 5, 2001 Page 6 DRAFT 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 101. 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 April 5, 2001 Page 4 ®RAFT 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. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes April 5, 2001 Page 3 DRAF T 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? 2/2/27001 0 0 Mt. Brian Grubb, Cicv Planner Current Planning Deparonent 28I North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins. CO 80522-05250 Dear Mr. Grubb. O O The purpose of this letter is to express concerns from Ridgewood Dav School Administration. Staffing. and Families. We are incredibly concerned about the proposed rezoning of the properr :;R DGEWOOD HILLS REZONE - FILE # 4-0 on the North side of the child care facuirv. I Our concerns srem from the fact chat there are more than children _100 children arriving and departing fmm this facilit daily. If the above mentioned property is rezoned as an "L-M-N District. Low Density• Mixed -Use", it could allow for businesses to be built which direcdv conflict with the interests of -children arrending Ridgewood Day School. With the types of businesses that may be built on property zoned L-M-N, and the entrance we would share, traffic would be likelv to increase immensely, directly influencing the safety of children attending Ridgewood Day School. It is doubrfctl that a child care facilicv would have been built in the location that it has, had the propem been rotted L-M-N. It seems odd that Melody Homes would use our child care facilin as a selling point for the subdivision, then propose that the property nest to is be rezoned as commercial property for businesses char conflict with children and their safer•. We understand char if the propem remains zoned as "R-L", Melody Homes is unable to sell this properly for commercial purposes. and could pose as a financial burden for them. This is unfortunate from a financial perspective for Melody Homes: however, children s safety should not be compromised for the financial benefit of Melody Homes or any other company. Please cake into consideration the validiry of our concerns and the safer• of our children. Please 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 hi s/her signature and address individually. 7-4-Vn 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 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 makeZL 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 BON and EVELYN WELLS 6612 AVONDALE ROAD FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 90525 Home Phone 970.377-IT72 Fnail Eviewells@wLcom February 28, 2001 Mr. Brian Grubb, City Planner Current Planning Department 281 North College Avenue 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 Ivfrxed-Use". I can appreciate Melody Homes' (the requester for this action), interest in changing the zone district to L-M-N, but, as an abutter 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 nature, 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". ply, L& 'kvov� Don E. Wells cc: Mr. Scott Mason, Councilman, District 3 PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 Heather Kittle, Executive HOA Coordinator Antares Property Service 1510 South College Ave Fort Collins, CO 80524 Brian Grubb -Ridgewood Hills Rezone - ""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, I 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 Brian Grubb :Ridgewood Hills Rezone - #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 fl BY NO � 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 Werner 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 gasp cops 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 renter thereW 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. SinRichcerel , C ard and Helen Corl 944P J31510 I 0.r� . 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 corner 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, C,L- �t. - - 4- Donna K. Reinke >z�vv z/z } jo 1 t3cz . 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 if 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 Fort Collins CO 805250� February 26, 2001 Current Planning Department Attn: 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 Hills entrance but also pose many safety concerns as well. Several issues may be categorized below: 1) The entrance is only 4/1Oths of a mile from a 7-11 24 hour store and 6/1Oths 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 1E5G-t 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 ^y, C14 Ric and Nancy Racine 513 Yuma Court Fort Collins, CO 80525 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 a`hang 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 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. Vcerel/ f Wade K. Smith YdreaJ. Smith' 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 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. 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. Neighborhood Meeting Minutes Project: Meeting Location: Date: Staff in Attendance: Applicant/Representatives Ridgewood Hills Rezoning Werner Elementary School February 20, 2001 Brian Grubb, Steve Olt 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? No Text '4� w (STING ZONED: R2 31. RESID CREST. LARIMER COUNTY EbEW& WinSION TRILBY R0A**--w-..: 0 39 AC io DENSITY REST TIAL 3 TV-5 DU/AC± (150 ).U.*) 4W J qo =ago loan f 12 ACa G SS DEINES NEIGHBO HOOD. PARK (ALTERNATE USE. m FA A C COUNTY G AND 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. 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." 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 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 3 Surrounding Zoning and Existing Land Use Existing Land Use Existing Zoning North Good Samaritan Elderly Care Facility MMN and Larimer County FA East "Urban Estate" Residential Larimer County FA South Single Family RL West 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 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 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. W _ ITEM NO. 3 ; � MEETING DATE 4/5/01 STAFF Brian Grubb Citv 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, CO80522-0580 (970) 7:>'.-G750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT VICINITY MAP 04/04/01 N RIDGEWOOD HILLS PUD REZONING 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 RIDGEWOOD HILLS PUD, FIRST FILING. THENCE SOUTH 88°27'02" 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*0533" 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°54'07" 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 PUD FIRST FILING. 1. THENCE SOUTH 69023103" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 32.17 FEET; 2. THENCE SOUTH 6302545" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 162.45 FEET; 3. THENCE SOUTH 8904331" EAST A DISTANCE OF 180.91 FEET; 4. THENCE NORTH 00000100" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 28.00 FEET 5. THENCE SOUTH 8904331" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 82.55 FEET; 6. THENCE NORTH 00°00100" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 99.95 FEET 7. THENCE NORTH 45000100" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 21.21 FEET 8. THENCE NORTH 90000100" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 49.00 FEET 9. THENCE NORTH 00°00100" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET 10. THENCE NORTH 90000'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 138.88 FEET 11. THENCE NORTH 00°1628" 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. 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 88053' 35" WEST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14, A DISTANCE OF 1249.69 FEET TO THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE SOUTH 88"55104" 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, AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY I ITEO NUMBER: 30 DATE: .May 1, 2001 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: 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.