HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPRING CREEK FARMS REZONING - 24-00C - REPORTS - FIRST READINGPassed and adopted on final reading on the 6th day of June, A.D. 2006.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
DEGREES 21' 43" W, 122.23 FEET; 4) S 89 DEGREES 21' 13" W, .68 FEET; THENCE
N 00 DEGREES 01' 49" W 219.26 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE
NORTHEASTERLY 23.56 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SE,
SAID ARC HAVING A RADIUS OF 15.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90 DEGREES 00,
0010, AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD THAT BEARS N 44 DEGREES 58' 11" E,
21.21 FEET; THENCE N 89 DEGREES 58' 11" E 219.04 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE;
THENCE EASTERLY 23.78 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE
SOUTH, THE ARC HAVING A RADIUS OF 89.50 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15
DEGREES 13' 22", AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD THAT BEARS S 82 DEGREES
25' 08" E, 23.71 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY
171.33 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NW, SAID ARC HAVING
A RADIUS OF 81.50 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 120 DEGREES 26' 44", AND BEING
SUBTENDED BY A CHORD THAT BEARS N 44 DEGREES 58' 11" E, 141.48 FEET TO
A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE; THENCE NORTHERLY 23. 78 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF
A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE EAST, SAID ARC HAVING A RADIUS OF 89.50 FEET, A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15 DEGREES 13' 22", AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD
THAT BEARS N 07 DEGREES 38' 30" W, 23.71 FEET; THENCE N 00 DEGREES 01' 49"
W, 297.56 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY 23.57 FEET
ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SE, SAID ARC HAVING A RADIUS
OF 15.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90 DEGREES 01' 49", BEING SUBTENDED BY
A CHORD THAT BEARS N 44 DEGREES 59' 05" E, 21.22 FEET; THENCE N 90
DEGREES 00' 00" E, 207.15 FEETTO THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF TIMBERLINE
ROAD; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF TIMBERLINE ROAD PER
THAT DOCUMENT RECORDED AT RECEPTION NO. 2001007023 OF THE RECORDS OF
LARIMER COUNTYTHE FOLLOWING 4 COURSES; 1) S 01 DEGREES 15' 05" E, 124.68
FEET; 2) S 02 DEGREES 10' 36" W, 120.12 FEET; 3) S 05 DEGREES 46' 19" W, 30.56
FEET; 4) S 00 DEGREES 01' 49" E, 345.70 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
EXCEPT THAT PARCEL CONVEYED AT RECEPTION NO. 2001007023.
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 Manager is hereby authorized and directed to amend said Zoning
Map in accordance with this Ordinance.
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 16th day of
May, A.D. 2006, and to be presented for final passage on the 6th day of June, A.D. 2006.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 086, 2006
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 SPRING CREEK FARMS REZONING
WHEREAS, Division 1.3 of the Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "Land Use Code")
establishes the Zoning Map and Zone Districts of the City; and
WHEREAS, Division 2.9 of the Land Use Code establishes procedures and criteria for
reviewing the rezoning of land; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the foregoing, the Council has considered the rezoning of
the property which is the subject of this ordinance, and has determined that the said property should
be rezoned as hereafter provided; and
WHEREAS, the Council has further determined that the proposed rezoning is consistent with
the City's Comprehensive Plan and/or is warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood
surrounding and including the subject property; and
WHEREAS, to the extent applicable, the Council has also analyzed the proposed rezoning
against the considerations as established in Section 2.9.4(H)(3) of the Land Use Code,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS:
Section 1. That the Zoning Map adopted by Division 1.3 of the Land Use Code is hereby
amended by changing the zoning classification from "MMN", Medium Density Mixed -Use
Neighborhood District Zone District, to "NC", Neighborhood Commercial Zone District, for the
following described property in the City known as the Spring Creek Farms Rezoning:
A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SE Y4 OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH,
RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6T" P.M., CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER,
STATE OF COLORADO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE EAST LINE OF THE SE 1/4, ASSUMED TO BEAR N 00
DEGREES 01' 49" W, WITH ALL BEARINGS HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO:
COMMENCING AT THE SE CORNER OF SECTION 19; THENCE N 00 DEGREES 01' 49"
W, 103.75 FEETALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SE 1/4; THENCE 89 DEGREES 58' 11"
W, 56.96 FEET TO THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF TIMBERLINE ROAD PER THAT
DOCUMENT RECORDED AT RECEPTION NO. 2001007023, RECORDS OF LARIMER
COUNTY AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 21.84 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO
THE NW, SAID ARC HAVING A RADIUS OF 14.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 89
DEGREES 22' 16", AND BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD THAT BEARS S 44 DEGREES
40' 01" W, 19.69 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF EAST
DRAKE ROAD PER THAT DOCUMENT RECORDED AT RECEPTION NO. 2001007023 OF
THE RECORDS OF LARIMER COUNTYTHE FOLLOWING 4 COURSES: 1) S 89 DEGREES
21' 51" W, 148.62 FEET; 2) S 84 DEGREES 56' 33" W, 287.40 FEET; 3) S 87
CITY OF FORT COLLINS STRUCTURE PLAN
nt LI l( llan *
i
i Wellington
Fort colli115 -
Woll"i 11 r:11 h6
Separator
r
La Porte
Bellvue 1
Ail
_w
v b �
r CR 54G
au lllYfluL
` W1uog I w, �'.,'Mn...
B
Y dulls _ I
1 - C1r
r"Ts
I
fi 051
ITTTilM,lee
Bo YI1dgril
ort Colima GMA
Dlstrlols
Downtown District
�
_.� " loall Coal
Ed`-�a —
Q.il Community 5oparal.,
Corridom
N Erhamad TreVpI Cmakir(Tmnell)
F�p
1•['y�Ta'�' potemlal WA Elpermin
* Community Carma ldemo
Ne'ohborhoods
,y�4C�
t;y7"' Foothills
� Poutlre Rhor Cluster,r
0Omer City GMA
Commerc al Could., District'va
drum E.leb
10Rural Lpn6
Pouches flNer
l! rPlatumn0 Ara.
�Li—
NeIpMaTaad Commercial Cemor
I.mv Caro lry Momor-Us.
.a,� Gp.n Lands, Forks,
0 so-... contrary
AtljeceM Plants, Area.
CoalDletricd
a.a�.i9 Metllu. Denalty
�v hided
Adnptad
^/City umlb
dqEmployment Dlymct
-Use
May 10, 2006
RESOLUTION 2006-061
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING THE CITY'S STRUCTURE PLAN MAP
WHEREAS, the City has received an application to rezone certain property located
northwest of the intersection of Timberline Road and Drake Road, which propertyis presently zoned
in the "MMN" Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood Zone District, which rezoning request
is known as the "Spring Creek Farms Rezoning"; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that the proposed Spring Creek Farms Rezoning complies
with the Principles and Policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Key Principles of
the City's Structure Plan, but does not comply with the present land use designation shown on the
City's Structure Plan Map for that location; and
WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the proposed Spring Creek Farms Rezoning
is in the best interests of the citizens of the City and comports with the City's Comprehensive Plan
except for the City's Structure Plan Map; and
WHEREAS, the Council has further determined that the City's Structure Plan Map should
be amended as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council finds that the existing City Plan Structure Plan Map is
in need of the amendment requested by the applicant for the Spring Creek Farms Rezoning.
Section 2. That the City Council finds that the proposed amendment will promote the
public welfare and will be consistent with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan and
the elements thereof.
Section 3. That the City Plan Structure Plan Map be, and hereby is, amended so as to
appear as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 16th
day of May, A.D. 2006.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Ll
E
144
m
LJ
11
11
E
11
11
m
11
11
Pi
1
E
�J
M17 clients are proposing a compromise that
protects neighborhood values and insures that there
is enough commercial diversity and critical mass
that private businesses have a chance at making a.
livtng.
YES
Igo in 111 1
Yes
Aft
1w Is # proposed consistent
a City Comp. Plan?
♦ �4 a
PM
a k e t a t 1 i 1 a t j a
TANK YOU
Ll
174
happening.VMM
from is with the Police
Administrationi
de ntial southof
The issue is how-
we make this happen?
In 9 years, n i one 1• has built a commercial
within the MMN'Zoningi of i
Collins.
Rhaxze demonstrated, i' history
proven that the ii does not
No Text
We agree with Staff cii. this: there needs to be
neighborhood commercial uses available to the
existing and future residents and employees
located on the west side of Timberline.
0
11
Since this is an extension of the NC zone resulting in
only a 1 % increase in the existing NC across the
street, it will better meet the Policy of keeping the
surrounding limits of MMN within a 'A mile from the
NC and it is surrounded by MMN. Now tan it not be
compatible? Don't forget, at least 3 acres of
potential retail at Rigden was developed as a care
facility.
5. The proposed rezoning will not result in significantly
adverse impacts on the natural environment.
In fact there will be a reduction in vehicle miles
traveled as a result of this action, which will reduce
. air pollution.
6. The proposed rezoning does not result in a logical and
orderly development pattern.
This is the same response as #4.
Expanding the NC across this busy intersection `on will:
4 Improve both pedestrian and vehicular safety
• Improve pedestrian and. vehicular access to
slia►PPmg
, Expand the choices available to walk-in
customers
u Increase the chances that a viable
• neighborhood retail center will succeed
Help fill the void for commercial demand
Please try to think about crossing a major arterial
intersection that you are familiar with.
It really does influence our shopping patterns.
2. 71he proposed Structure Plan amendment and rezone is
:not supported by the City's Comprehensive Plan policies
land will not promote the public welfare.
I have already addressed this extensively. There are
many points.I would refer to the safety and
convenience issues I brought up earlier. Extending
the NC across a 6-lane arterial adds convenience to
both commuters as well as neighbors to the west
who want to walk to the store. The rezoning brings
the MMN and the 400 employees of the Police
Administration Facility within the "A mile guideline
in the Lend Use Code.
3. There are no changed conditions within the
,neighborhood surrounding and including the subject
property that warrant the rezone.
I hope you agree that the New Police Administration
Facility would change any neighborhood and based
on the criteria for MMN, there would have been no
way to anticipate such a facility.
4. 'The proposed rezoning is not compatible with the existing
and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is
not the appropriate zone district for the land.
Policy MM -3.2 Surrounding Neighborhoods. The
Neighborhood Commercial Center should he integrated
into the surrounding Medium Density Mimed -Use
Neighborhood, contributing to the neighborhood's positive
identity and image. Residents should be able to easily get to
the Center without the need to use an arterial street.
I hope you agree that we DO meet, not gust one of
the rezoning criteria, but BOTH.
Finally, I i,%-rould likee to address "Staff findings of fact"
j. The Structure Flan amendment is not warranted s ncse
the existing ruin of retail and service uses found within.
the Rigden Farm Neighborhood Commercial Center
located directly across Timberline Road provides
sufficient goods and services necessary to sustain nearby
neighborhoods. Further, the Rigden Farm Neighborhood
center has been effectively integrated with an overall
street pattem, design and scale that is compatible with
the surrounding neighborhoods and not segregated from
them, and has been designed in a manner that -fosters
transit service for the Center and surrounding
neighborhoods.
I agree the Rigden Farm Neighborhood Commercial
Center is very well designed. Unfortunately it is not
very accessible to the pedestrians and bicyclist on
the west side of Timberline.
0
t �r
ti ��,
Prin cip►les and Policies:
Neighborhoods
All Neu= Neighborhoods (AN)
New Low, Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods (LMN)
New .tedium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods (MMN)
Existing Neighborhoods (EX- N)
A neighborhood is more than just a housing developmew by
itse . It's about xoo tol6o acres in size -- large enough to
support services and amenities which meet some of the
needs of daily life, but small enough to be definers by
pedestrian corn fort and interest. This general size range is
based on a five-minute walking distance (about a quarter -
mile) from the edge to the center and a ten-minute walk
(about a half -mile) edge to edge.
existingThe RL neighborhood to the west
represents about 800 acres of housing with no
access to existing or planned centers between the
• .
ct/Lemay Center and the Harmony Corridor
0
No Text
Policy T-9,1 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The City will
continual4i strive to reduce the growth rate in vehicle miles
traveled'(VA T) by implementing a VMTreduction program
that strives to meet or exceed the performance of similar
programs irl comparable cities.
Expanding the NC zone across Timberline will
provide conv¢elent access for the ekisting RL
neighborhoods to the vest and easy in -out access
for southbound'traffic tanTi mberline and west
bound traffic on Drake. The net effect will be a
reduction in vehicle miles traveled.
No Text
E
convenience should be established throughout
these destinatimis. Level caf service siandardsfor
bicyclists should be higher within these areas.
Expanding the CSC zone across Timberline will allow
more +gc c is and services to he available t bicyclists
from the west without crossing a major arterial
street.
Policy 7 .x Land Lice. Vie City -Will r«7note a inix of land
uses and activities that will nLaximize the oten ial for
pedestrian ino ilitat thmiallauI the connnunity.
Expanding the NC zone across Timberline will allow
more goods s,servicesto • -availableto
pedestriansa 3..
arterial street.
PRINCIPLE -3. City transportation programs will
promote the reduction of vehicle miles traveled through
strategies that reduce trip generation and lengthand
increase automobile occupancy.
existingThe RL neighborhood s the west
aboutrepresents 800 acres of housing
plannediccess to existing or centers between
Pros o - and -� rCorridor
without s �'= r s •.
Expanding the NC zoneoTimberline will
provide convenient access for the ti RL
neighborhoods to the west and easy in -out
access for southbound traffic on Timberline and
westbound traffic on Drake. The net effect will be a
reduction in vehicle miles traveled.
Policy T = .i Bicycle Facilities. The City will encourage
bicycling} fear transportation through an urban growth
pattern that places niq or activity centers and
neighborhood destinations within a comfortable bicycling
distance, ti a:t assures :safe and convenient access by
bicycle, and that reduces the prominence of motorized
transportation in neighborhoods and ether pedestrian and
bicyclist -oriented districts. Facility design will also plan
for:
shouldb. Bicycle access be s tmajor
activity centers, schools and ne F hborhoods, and
areas to improve
Facilityt _nt, safety and
No Text
E
Policy MMN-a.l Size. A Medium Density Mixed -Use
Neighborhood should extend an average of about
one -quarter (114) of a mite from the edge of the
adjacentNeighborhood Commercial Cen ter,
Community Con-unereiat District, Employment
District, or tin Industrial District, subject to
adjus tnt e ntfor° site -specific ors ire -existing
circumstances sprch as a major street, rnaJor
drainag ulay, or existing developtnent.
The proposed amendment would slightly expand
the physical size of the existing NC zone but it would
bring the MMN zone closer to a 1/4-mile depth on
the northerly boundary. This would result in a more
logical and orderly develop ent pattern.
LI
�'., N111.RAU1tiS
z,�,��:-
a; ��,
1
10
We would respectfully ask you to consider expanding the
NC zone across this intersection. This is not a radical
idea. We. have this exact same configuration in at least four
locations in the City now.
Staff wTitl tell. you that it w oyi't be necessary. The
MNJEN zone allows commercial. uses.
This concept has not worked in subu-rban
neighborhoods.
Finally, i -could like to address-
a.. Is the request consistent Nvith the City's
Co ntprehensive Plan?
No Text
V L
v
0
w M �
Here are Borne diagrams of pedestrian. and
vehicular routes to Ri.gderz and to the proposed
Spring Creek Farm Center.
�J
��
.4k
Here is a conaparison of tli;-� College/Drake and
Timberline/Drake intersection. I know everyone here is
familiar with the College/Drake intersection. You ma},
not haverealized that the Timberline/Drake
intersection is about 40% larger. This is a real
deterrent to pedestrians. h.-nagine yourself walking
across either of these wide, bus-N7 intersections.
I
E
No Text
Here is the .aster street plan for Fort Collins. xis you can.
see; there are only 5 major 6-lane arterials planned.
One of those is Timberline Road, tiThich separates
this MMN neighborhood from the shopping at
Rigden.
0
1-1
No Text
E
If we compare this facility to other large employers; it is
nearly 6o% the size of the, Budweiser Brewery in
terms of the number of employees.
Yet staff wouldtell you "nothing has ebange&I"
This facility will generate from 2 to 3 times the number
of trips per day as lo acres of AMN residential that
it will displace, and, it will operate 24 hours a day every
&Y.
Yet -staff would tell you that since it is allowed in the MMN
Zone, "nothing has changed ...... does it belong here at all?
No Text
Here is a scale footprint of the Police Facility overlaid to give
you some idea of the magnitude of this building.
Today a business with 397 employees would be the
Mothlargest employer in Fort Collins.
0
�5
�
Here is an aeiia] view of the LSI Logic building at Ziegler and
Harmony.
11
0
I Et
1
l
r
�qc Itl
0
The io-acre, 40o employee Police Services Building
serves the ET**71-'IRE community,
It is NOT moderate in intensity.
It is NOT complenieiitar�y to tlie iieigliborhood.
Yet staff will tell yoLi ``nothing has chaDged. I,,
11
11
No Text
(Quoting fron-i the F.C. Land Use Code for MMN
Zoning Purpose)
tor
a neighborhood may also contain other
MODERATE - I , E T1' eompleme tart' and
SUPPORTING land uses tttat-serve the
neighborhood."
El
i
R :. �: t i r'.
Y.
� i _ �
� i+,�
The main objections we heard from the neighbors was NO
BARS or AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE. These are among
the uses that are eliminated by deed restriction. The
Timberline Center to the north is :zoned Industrial
and will provide these kinds of opportunities
however it ga ll not provide neighborhood retail.
e • 4
r I r criteria �` a is I I
a. Is the request consistent with the Cit�y's
ComprehensiN,e Plan 9 arild/or
b. Are there changed conditions within the
neighborhood surrounding and including the subject
Property that warrant the rezone?
Let's start with b,.
Something has changed since aoox. Recently, voters
approved a capitol improvement referendum that included
construction of a io-acre Police Administration Building that
will eventually employ nearly 400 officers and support staff,
operating 24 hours a day. The structure is 56 feet tall, 368
feet by 250 feet and 96,000 square feet in floor area. (That is
more than 2 times the largest building floor area allowed
within the NC zone - 45,000 s.f. grocery store.)
11
i
E
'I'he limited NC zone requested would add the opportunity
for a STANDARD RESTALTRANTas well as a variety of
other retail and services that would help create -the necessary
activity for a successful center.
And many more neighbors will walk instead of drive.
E
0
0
3
l
i
1 lra.r Sri 1„ r orrt..,,r r� :
E t:a urLrni rran:vnn•
i i.,lro4d I '�.,nf �r rx rrr ne Jt'r.r-11. u1r_II (�-,Irk<�r
-
'Lu au•�. ui `r r _....d �lmj,I 'l,
lL�L`srt!IS `ri.fri.l j. y!iafh151,
'llr rni. r. i.rirlaiirrFi«t.
q ipirrr. r u t ta:.=!n: :r r..at Lin.. P n ,ionrt.
J.., A.n
3:� i'I tart xr•'r:��
rr fond tar: r.,. ra.dl; out c-+. 'u^. �:_'•,..
R Vlin re. nf.r innunyira cv.m i.:. ri�ar
i he only MMN retail develop€lent approved (2003) in
the past 9 years was Bella Vista (northeast corner of
Horsetooth and Stanford).
It was sever built.
E
11
0
§ac eseueiesper» rer-r>ntly aazked foe
modibcaf ama to 3,'10 MdVM a4G`w4'd Mlles
Over 1.o years after approval, this building has not been
completed.
11
11
,���
���,
y
j
l
� � ��L
�
a
�. ke
u �.
v48w... _ } rr . _,
. W
Prior to Ule adopticii of the City Plar., our firm designed the
site plan for Poudre Valley Plaza at Horsetooth and Shields.
It incorporates many of the principles that were eventually
incorporated into City Plan including a mixed -use building.
E
E
No Text
The issue is how do you mane that happen? The current
MN zoning is not so liberal with private business
uses as it is with PUBLIC facilities. Since 1997 no one
has been able to successfully create a viable commercial
center within the MMN zoning district. The uses were
expanded recently to allow coffee shops and some other
minor uses, but it didn't go far enough to create the critical
mass for private business to survive in a suburban
environment.
0
E
No Text
Accordlng to his analysis of the market, in a -i,ti-mile radius
of this site there is i r.,eed for i8o,000 sf of additional
retai'l. That is after considering all of the floor area in
Rig en farms. Widle additional -retail has bCCD,
proposed and planned v4fhin this,radlus,
experience has sho-v%m that -%,%7hat has been approved,
is not always built-.
If we don't provide adequate shopping opportunitieslArlithin
each neighborhood, we will be increasing vebicles miles
traveled.
We agree that this MMN neighborhood, should have
a commercial district.
Pj
No Text
Peter Cadlip, is an expert at commercial land
development. He and his colleagues have
successfully completed over $1.5 billion in
commercial development.
E
0
No Text
• As you can see, a. large portion of the existing older
neighborhoods that are located west of Timberline Road are
separated from shopping by Timberline and most of them
are over F!a mile from any of the shopping (NQ
opportunities in this area of Town.
The recently completed ulti-use trail almost perfectly
bisects both neighborhoods. This trail and the new
pedestrian light on Drake make access to the northwest
corner of Timberline and Drake very easy.
By creating a small, viable commercial center on the
northwest corner of Timberline and Drake these
neighborhoods (west of Timberline) would be much better
served.
It is safer for both pedestrians and commuters and it
• will reduce vehicle miles traveled.
The problem is this: the MMN zone allows such a
limited amount of commercial uses that it is difficult to
create enough "critical mass" for a successful center.
Therefore we are asking your approval to expand the NC
(with the specified restrictions) across the intersection..
11
F
F
We are requesting rezoning of 5 acres of the Spring
Creek Farms MMN to NC with deed restrictions. This is
based on feedback we received from individual
meetings with the neighborhood leaders v"Te mailed to
over x,000 homes in the Park -wood and Lake
Sherwood neighborhoods. We met with the
collective H®A's Brice and held the mandatory
neighborhood meeting.
C]
No Text
0
C Group fb.yestni tints, LLC:
Bill Bergman and, Peter Cudlip
Transportation: Gene Cappola
Planning: Jinn Sell, Jim Sell Design., Inc.
AA%y are weo requ,estliag this rezone*9
ere isa, de , - . far t8 o o oo sf of retail
'thin a 1.5 mile radius of this site.
The current zoning does not allow enough
:flexibility of uses to support a successful
center.
Yes ... the Police Administration Building
goes way beyond what anyone could
expect to see in the MMN zone.
Is iyy, proposed,
. 'i. okd
Comp.consistent
im
I
t
i
Jfr.i
OCSIGF%
3 jd� �• i 50��0.
EXHIBIT D
Chirporactic USA
1,000
liquor
2,000
Island Grill
3,000
Photo Image Center
1,000
UPS Store
1,000
Bagel makers
1,000
Arf/, s
1,200
Pizza Hut
1,200
Gems N Gold
1,200
Great Harvest
1.500
Total
51,600
Other Tenants
Location
Flowerama
NWC Timberline Rd & Lemay Ave
2000
Dale's Carpet One
SWC Timberline Rd & Horsetooth
15000
Former Eckerd Drug
13000
Texaco C-Store
1200
McDonald's
NEC Timberline Rd & Horsetooth 1
3000
Taco John's & Good T SEC Timberline Rd & Prospect Rd
3000
Shell C-Store
" "
1200
Conoco C-Store
NEC Lochwood Dr & Horsetooth
1200
Total
39600
Total Square Footage in Market Area 203,651
EXHIBIT D
Center Name
Park Central
Tenants
Moongate Asian Grill
Tastebuds
Sunsation Tanning
Park Central Liquors
Pet Express
Tailor
Venus Nails
Burke Dry Cleaners
TCBY
Citi Financial
Hand Chiropractic
Edward Jones
Allstate Insurance
7-11
Great Clips
Total
Center Name
Rigden Farms
Tenants
King Soopers
cleaner
nail salon
liquor
Genoa Coffee & Wine
CostCutters
Subway
1 stBank
Vacant
Total
Location
SEC Prospect Rd & Lemay Ave
Estimated square feet
3,500
1,100
1,100
2,400
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,200
1,300
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
2,400
1,300
Location
SEC Timberline Rd & Drake Rd
Estimated square feet
66,283
1,200
1,200
1,600
1,512
1,230
1,858
5,468
10,000
Center Name Location
Scotch Pines Village SWC Drake Rd & Lemay Ave
Tenants
Starbuck's
Ladies Workout Expre:
Aspen Wellness Cente
Salon de Chelle
dry cleaner
Sunflower Market
State Farm
martial arts
Estimated square feet
1,500
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
30,000
1,000
1,000
22,100
90,351
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE EXPANDED
1990 - 2000 Census, 2005 Estimates & 2010 Projections
Calculated using Proportional Block Groups
Lat/Lon:40.5525821-105.039232 January2006
RF5
Timberline Rd & Drake Rd
11 mi radius1
mi radius11
mi radius
3.50 mi radius
Ft Collins
Units In Structure
1 Detached Unit (2000)
2.068
68.9%
4,603
61.8%
12,607
54.3%
16,376
53.3%
1 Attached Unit (2000)
269
8.9%
590
7.9%
1,634
7.0%
2,092
6.8%
2 to 4 Units (2000)
117
3.9%
657
9.0%
2,416
10.4%
3,093
10.1%
5 to 9 Units (2000)
131
4.4%
396
5.3%
1,293
5.6%
2,037
6.6%
10 to 19 Units (2000)
261
8.7%
649
8.7%
2,183
9.4%
3,057
10.0%
20 to 49 Units (2000)
87
2.9%
257
3.4%
1,078
4.6%
1,438
4.7%
50 or more Units (2000)
66
2.2%
230
3.1%
1,144
4.9%
1,598
5.2%
Mobile Home or Trailer (2000)
2
0.1%
48
0.6%
867
3.7%
1,000
3.3%
Other Structure (2000)
2
0.1%
4
0.0%
14
0.1%
16
0.1%
Homes Built By Year
Homes Built 1999 to 2000
90
3.0%
146
2.0%
973
4.2%
1,292
4.2%
Homes Built 1995 to 1998
386
12.9%
718
9.6%
2,230
9.6%
3.458
11.3%
Homes Built 1990 to 1994
245
8.2%
582
7.8%
2,260
9.7%
3,209
10.5%
Homes Built 1980 to 1989
1,169
38.9%
2,270
30.5%
5,316
22.9%
7,076
23.0%
Homes Built 1970 to 1979
1,006
33.5%
2,822
37.9%
6,831
29.4%
8,122
26.5%
Homes Built 1960 to 1969
91
3.0%
644
8.7%
2,649
11.4%
3,342
10.9%
Homes Built 1950 to 1959
9
0.3%
1B1
2.4%
1,109
4.8%
1,475
4.B%
Homes Built Before 1949
7
0.2%
80
1.1%
1,869
8.0%
2,733
8.9%
Home Values
Home Values $1,000,000 or More (2000)
0
1
0.0%
8
0.1%
11
0.1%
Home Values $500,000 to $999,999 (2000)
34
1.8%
47
1.2%
140
1.3%
211
1.5%
Home Values $400,000 to $499,999 (2000)
27
1.5%
46
1.1%
132
1.3%
189
1.4%
Home Values $300,000 to $399,999 (2000)
131
7.1%
183
4.5%
467
4.4%
694
5.1%
Home Values $200,000 to $299,999 (2000)
594
32.4%
1,137
28.1%
2,513
23.8%
3,194
23.4%
Home Values $150,000 to $199,999 (2000)
634
34.7%
1,590
39.3%
4,010
37.9%
5,127
37.5%
Home Values $100,000 to $149,999 (2000)
376
20.6%
907
22.5%
2,831
26.8%
3,680
26.9%
Home Values $70,000 to $99,999 (2000)
27
1.5%
109
2.7%
337
3:2%
402
2.9%
Home Values $50,000 to $69,999 (2000)
0
6
0.2%
97
0.9%
115
0.8%
Home Values $25,000 to $49,999 (2000)
0
3
0.1%
10
0.1%
16
0.1%
Home Values $0 to $24,999 (2000)
7
0.4%
12
0.3%
34
0.3%
37
0.3%
Owner Occupied Median Home Value (2000)
$190,655
$182,476
$177,620
$180,134
Renter Occupied Median Rent (2000)
$805
$724
$681
$676
Transportation To Work
Drive to Work Alone (2000)
3,256
78.0%
7,967
78.0%
23,306
75.4%
30,988
753%
Drive to Work in Carpool (2000)
330
7.9%
920
9.0%
2,899
9.4%
3,816
9.3%
Travel to Work - Public Transportation (2000.
25
0.6%
80
0.8%
343
1.1%
505
1.2%
Drive to Work on Motorcycle (2000)
25
0.6%
46
0.4%
69
0.2%
77
0.2%
Walk or Bicycle to Work (2000)
172
4.1%
437
4.3%
2,556
8.3%
3,598
8.7%
Other Means (2000)
14
0.3%
39
0.4%
97
0.3%
129
0.3%
Work at Home (2000)
354
8.5%
720
7.1%
1,632
5.3%
2,014
4.9%
Travel Time
Travel to Work in 14 Minutes or Less (2000)
1,931
50.5%
4,819
50.8%
14,331
49.0%
18,884
48.3%
Travel to Work in 14 to 29 Minutes (2000)
1,307
34.2%
3,282
34.5%
10,459
35.7%
14,428
36.9%
Travel to Work in 30 to 59 Minutes (2000)
390
10.2%
939
9.9%
3,069
10.5%
3,972
10,2%
Travel to Work in 60 Minutes or More (2000)
194
5.1%
449
4.7%
1,411
4.8%
1,828
4.7%
Average Travel Time to Work (2000)
16.3
mins
16.2
mins
16.6
mins
16.6 mins
92006, Sites USA, Chandler, Arizona, 480-491-1112 - 5 of 5 - Demog2phlc Soume: Applied Geographic Solullone / TIGER Geography 07/05
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE EXPANDED
1990 - 2000 Census, 2005 Estimates & 2010 Projections
Calculated using Proportional Block Groups
Lat/Lon: 40.552582/-105.039232 January 2006
RF5
Derline Rd & Drake Rd 1.00 mi radius 1.50 mi radius 3.00 mi radius 3.5C
nllins
Labor Force
Est. Labor: Population Age 16+ (2005)
5,821
14,857
49,029
66,571
Est. Civilian Employed (2005)
4,114
70.7%
10,389
69.9%
32,333
65.9%
43,780
65.8%
Est, Civilian Unemployed (2005)
200
3.4%
569
3.8%
2,421
4.9%
3,409
5.1%
Est. in Armed Forces (2005)
0
6
0.0%
59
0.1%
80
0.1%
Est. not in Labor Force (2005)
1,508
25.9%
3,892
26.2%
14,217
29.0%
19,302
29.0%
Occupation
Occupation: Population Age 16+ (2000)
4,177
10,202
30,849
41,057
Mgmt, Business, & Financial Operations (20C
778
18.6%
1,668
16.4%
4,374
14.2%
5,843
14.2%
Professional and Related (2000)
1,379
33.0%
3.099
30.4%
8,875
28.8%
11,716
28.5%
Service (2000)
383
9.2%
1,173
11.5%
4,430
14.4%
6,147
15.0%
Sales and Office (2000)
1,033
24.7%
2,532
24.8%
7,519
24.4%
10.053
24.5%
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry (2000)
5
0.1%
12
0.1%
99
0.3%
157
0.4%
Construct, Extraction, & Maintenance (2000)
207
4.9%
639
6.3%
2,357
7.6%
3,006
7.3%
Production, Transp. & Material Moving (2000
392
9.4%
1,079
10.6%
3,195
10.4%
4,136
10.1%
Percent White Collar Workers (2000)
76.4%
71.5%
67.3%
67.3%
Percent Blue Collar Workers (2000)
23.6%
28.5910
32.756
32.7%
Consumer Expenditure (in $,000,000s)
Total Household Expenditure (2005)
$204
$481
$1,438
$1,914
Total Nan -Retail Expenditures (2005)
$116
57.0%
$274
56.9%
$815
56.7%
$1,085
56.7%
Total Retail Expenditures (2005)
$88
43.0010
$207
43.1 %
1
$623
43.3%
$829
43.3%
Apparel (2005)
$9
4.4%
$21
4.4%
2
$63
4.4%
$84
4.4%
Contributions (2005)
$8
3.9%
$18
3.6%
$54
3.8%
$72
3.8%
Education (2005)
$5
2.3%
$11
2.2%
2
$31
2.2%
$42
2.2%
Entertainment (2005)
$11
5.5%
$26
5.5%
$79
5.5%
$105
5.5%
Food And Beverages (2005)
$30
14.6%
$71
14.7%
$214
14.9%
$285
14.9%
Furnishings And Equipment (2005)
$9
4.2%
$20
4.2%
$59
4.1 %
$78
4.1 %
Gifts (2005)
$6
2.9%
$14
2.8%
$40
2.8°%
$53
2 8%
Health Care (2005)
$12
5.9%
$29
6.0%
$88
6.1%
$117
6.1%
Household Operations (2005)
$7
3.6%
$17
3.5%
$49
3.4%
$66
3.4%
Miscellaneous Expenses (2005)
$3
1.5%
$7
1.5%
$22
1.6%
$30
1.6%
Personal Care (2005)
$3
1.4%
$7
1.4%
$20
1.4%
$27
1.4%
Personal Insurance (2005)
$2
1.1%
$5
1.1%
$16
1.1%
$21
1.1%
Reading (2005)
$1
0.3%
$2
0.3%
$5
0.3%
$6
0.3%
Shelter (2005)
$41
20.1%
$96
20.1%
$288
20.0%
$383
20.0%
Tobacco (2005)
$1
0.7%
$3
0.7%
$10
0.7%
$14
0.7%
Transportation (2005)
$42
20.6%
$99
20.7%
i
$296
20.6%
$394
20.6%
Utilities (2005)
$14
6.9%
$34
7.0%
$103
7.2%
$138
7.2%
Educational Attainment
Adult Population (25 Years or Older) (2005)
4,975
12,468
38,203
50,496
Elementary (0 to 8) (2005)
23
0.5%
136
1.1%
713
1.9%
862
1.7%
Some High School (9 to 11) (2005)
112
2.2%
413
3.3%
1,702
4.5%
2,159
4.3%
High School Graduate (12) (2005)
682
13.7%
2,107
16.9%
6,774
17.7%
8,578
17.0%
Some College (13 to 16) (2005)
938
18.9%
2,396
19.2%
7,779
20.4%
10,336
20.5%
Associate Degree Only (2005)
336
6.7%
796
6.4%
2,390
6.3%
3,154
6.2%
Bachelor Degree Only (2005)
1,603
32.2%
3,855
30.9%
11,077
29.06%
15,020
29.7%
Graduate Degree (2005)
1,282
25.8%
2,765
22.2%
7,769
20.3%
10,388
20.6%
C2006, Sites USA, Chandler, Arizona, 480-491-1112 - 4 of 5 - Demographic Spume: Applied Geographic Solutions / TIGER Geography 07105
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE EXPANDED
1990 - 2000 Census, 2005 Estimates 8 2010 Projections
Calculated using Proportional Block Groups
LatiLon: 40.552582i-105.039232 January 2006
RF5
Timberline Rd & Drake '
Ft Collins
11 mi radius1
mi radius11
mi radius1
mi radius
Household Income Distribution
HH Income $200,000 or More (2005)
167
5.3%
339
4.2%
943
3.6%
1,218
3.5%
HH Income $150,000 to $199,999 (2005)
159
5.1%
286
3.6%
674
2.6%
887
2.5%
HH Income $100,000 to $149,999 (2005)
535
17.1%
1,166
14.6%
2,902
11.2%
3,916
11.2%
HH Income $75,000 to $99,999 (2005)
549
17.5%
1,274
15.9%
3,318
12.8%
4,503
12.8%
HH income $50,000 to $74,999 (2005)
711
22.7%
1,728
21.6%
5,046
19.4%
6,669
19.0%
HH Income $35,000 to $49,999 (2005)
422
13.5%.
1,237
15.4%
4,126
15.9%
5,375
15.3%
HH Income $25,000 to $34,999 (2005)
183
5.9%
686
8.6%.
2,702
10.4%
3,623
10.3%
HH Income $15,000 to $24,999 (2005)
238
7.6%
643
8.0%
3,032
11.7%
4,099
11.7%
HH Income $0 to $14,999 (2005)
166
5.3%
647
8.1%
3,225
12.4%
4,782
13.6%
HH Income $35,000+ (2005)
2,542
81.2%
6,030
75.3%
17,009
65.5%
22,568
64.3%
HH Income $75,000+ (2005)
1,409
45.00/6
3,065
38.3%
7,837
30.2%
10,525
30.0%.
Housing
Total Housing Units (2005)
3,148
8,052
26,245
35,503
Housing Units, Occupied (2005)
3,129
99.4%
8,006
99.4%
25,968
98.9%
35,072
98.8%
Housing Units, Owner -Occupied (2005)
Z275
72.7%
5,303
66.2%
15,097
58.1%
19,840
56.6%
Housing Units, Renter -Occupied (2005)
853
27.3%
2,704
33.8%
10,871
41.9%
15,232
43.4%
Housing Units, Vacant (2005)
19
0.6%
45
0.6%
277
1.1%
431
1.2%
Median Years in Residence (2005)
4.0 yrs
3.3 yrs
2.8 yrs
2.7 yrs
Marital Status
Never Married (2005)
1,582
26.7%
4,544
30.0%
18,426
36.8%
26,440
38.90/.
Now Married (2005)
3,439 .
57.90/.
8,003
52.9%.
22,105
44.2%.
29,340
43.2%
Separated (2005)
139
2.3%
474
3.1%
2,108
4.2%
2,791
4.1%
Widowed (2005)
552
9.3%.
1,506
10.0%.
4,988
10.0%.
6,436
9.5%
Divorced (2005)
224
3.8%
598
4.00/6
2,416
4.8%
2,984
4.4%
Household Type
Population Family (2005)
6,186
84.0%
15,071
80.4%
42,014
69.9%.
55,204
67.9%.
Population Non -Family (2005)
1,124
15.3%.
3,390
18.1%
14,205
23.6%
20,388
25.1%
Population Group Qtrs (2005)
55
0.7%.
288
1.5%.
3,860
6.4%
5,748
7.1%
Family Households (2005)
2,198
70.2%
5,327
66.5%
15,121
58.2%
19,899
56.7%
Married Couple With Children (2005)
955
27.8%
2,244
28.0%
5,870
26.6%
7,737
26.4%
Average Family Household Size (2005)
2.82
2.83
2.78
2.77
Non -Family Households (2005)
931
29.8%
2,679
33.5%
10,847
41.8%
15,172
43.3%
Household Size
1 Person Household (2005)
648
20.7%
1,843
23.0%.
7,495
28.9%
10,167
29.0°h
2 Person Households (2005)
1,179
37.7%
2,904
36.3%.
9,183
35.4%
12,493
35.6%.
3 Person Households (2005)
525
16.8%
1,331
16.6%.
3,929
15.1%
5,302
15.1%.
4 Person Households (2005)
488
15.6%.
1,188
143%.
3,341
12.9%
4,451
12.7%
5 Person Households (2005)
227
7.2%.
556
6.9%.
1,473
5.7%.
1,957
5.6%.
6+ Person Households (2005)
62
2.0%.
185
2.3°%
547
2.1%
702
2.0%.
Household Vehicles
Total Vehicles Available (2005)
6,457
16,371
51,750
71,180
Household: 0 Vehicles Available (2005)
40
1.3%
227
2.8%
1,243
4.8%
1,664
4.7%
Household: 1 Vehicles Available (2005)
808
25.8%
2,166
27.0%.
8,242
31.7%.
11,313
32.3%
Household: 2+ Vehicles Available (2005)
2,281
72.9%
5,614
70.1%.
16,482
63.5%
22,095
63.0%.
Average Vehicles Per Household (2005)
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
02006, Sitea USA, Chandler, Arizona, 460-491-1112 - 3 of 5 - Demographic Source: Applied Geographic S.Iuti.m ITGER Geography 07105
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE EXPANDED
1990 - 2000 Census, 2005 Estimates & 2010 Projections
Calculated using Proportional Block Groups
Lat/Lon: 40.5525821-105.039232 January 2006
RF5
Race 8r Ethnicity
White (2005)
6.815
92.5%
17,112
91.3%
53,903
89.7%
72,822
89.5%
Black or African American (2005)
48
0.6%
169
0.9%
636
1.1%
877
1.1%
American Indian & Alaska Native (2005)
23
0.3%
90
0.5%
359
0.6%
477
0.6%
Asian (2005)
226
3.1%
463
2.5%
1,549
2.6%
2,183
2.7%
Hawiian & Pacific Islander (2005)
10
0.1%
23
0.1%
82
0.1%
109
0.1%
Other Race (2005)
144
1.9%
506
2.7%
2,161
3.6%
2,905
3.6%
Two or More Races (2005)
100
1.4%
387
2.1%
1,390
2.3%
1,966
2.4%
Not Hispanic or Latino Population (2005)
6,911
93.8%
17,311
92.3%
54,313
90.4%
73,565
90.4%
Hispanic or Latino Population (2005)
454
6.2%
1,439
7.7%
5,767
9.6%
7,774
9.6%
Not of Hispanic Origin Population (1990)
5,833
96.2%
14,584
95.1%
44,266
94.1%
57,171
94.0%
Hispanic Origin Population (1990)
228
3.8%
756
4.9%
2,775
5.9%
3,656
6.0%
Not Hispanic or Latino Population (2000)
7,125
94.6%
17,206
93.2%
52,304
91.6%
69,399
91.6%
Hispanic or Latino Population (2000)
409
5.4%
1,264
6.8%
4,826
8.4%
6,386
8.4%
Not Hispanic or Latino Population (2010)
6,784
93.2%
17,559
91.7%
56,300
89.5%
77,413
89.5%
Hispanic or Latino Population (2010)
494
6.8%
1,599
B.3%
6,611
10.5%
9,041
10.5%
Hist. Hispanic Ann Growth (1990 to 2005)
227
6.6%
683
6.0%
2,991
7.2%
4,119
7.5%
Proj. Hispanic Ann Growth (2005 to 2010)
40
1.7%
160
2.2%
845
2.9%
1,266
3.3%
Age Distribution
Age 0 to 4 yrs (2005)
427
5.8%
1,129
6.0%
3,314
5.5%
4,467
5.5%
Age 5 to 9 yrs (2005)
468
6.4%
1,184
6.3%
3,235
5.4%
4,322
5.3%
Age 10 to 14 yrs (2005)
534
7.3%
1,312
7.0%
3,489
5.8%
4,559
5.6%
Age 15 to 19 yrs (2005)
510
6.9%
1,255
6.7%
5,299
8.8%
7,576
9.3%
Age 20 to 24 yrs (2005)
450
6.1%
1,402
7.5%
6,540
10.9%
9,920
12.2°/p
Age 25 to 29 yrs (2005)
640
8.7%
1,740
9.3%
6,573
10.9%
9,081
11.20h
Age 30 to 34 yrs (2005)
577
7.8%
1,515
8.1%
4,985
8.3%
6,805
8.4%
Age 35 to 39 yrs (2005)
468
6.4%
1,267
6.8%
3,763
6.3%
4,997
6.1%
Age 40 to 44 yrs (2005)
598
8.1%
1,442
7.7%
3,923
6.5%
5,188
6.4%
Age 45 to 49 yrs (2005)
740
10.1%
1,641
8.8%
4,330
7.2%
5,655
7.0%
Age 50 to 54 yrs (2005)
638
8.7%
1,424
7.6%
3,911
6.5%
5,011
6.2%
Age 55 to 59 yes (2005)
434-5.9°�987-
5.3%
2 802-
4.7%
3,660
4.5%
Age 60 to 64 yrs (2005)
261
3.5%
649
3.5%
1,933
3.2%
2,486
3.1%
Age 65 to 74 yrs (2005)
324
4.4%
B94
4.8%
2,730
4.5%
3,536
4.3%
Age 75 to 84 yrs (2005)
236
3.2%
643
3.4%
2,138
3.6%
2,743
3.4%
Age 85 yrs plus (2005)
59
0.8%
265
1.4%
1,115
1.9%
1,334
1.6%
Median Age (2005)
36.1
yrs
34.8 yrs
32.9 yrs
32A
yrs
Gender Age Distribution
Female Population (2005)
3,637
49.4%
9,351
49.9%
30,010
49.9%
40,491
49.8%
Age 0 to 19 yrs (2005)
905
24.9%
2,349
25.1%
7,553
25.2%
10,357
25.6%
Age 20 to 64 yrs (2005)
2,387
65.6%
5,968
63.8%
18,819
62.7%
25,540
63.1 %
Age 65 yrs plus (2005)
345
9.5%
1,034
11.1%
3,637
12.1%
4,594
11.3%
Female Median Age (2005)
37.3
yrs
36.4
yrs
35.0
yrs
33.9
yrs
Male Population (2005)
3,728
50.6%
9,399
50.1%
30,070
50.1%
40,849
50.2%
Age 0 to 19 yrs (2005)
1,034
277%
2,531
26.9%
7,783
25.9%
10,567
25.9%
Age 20 to 64 yrs (2005)
2,420
64.9%
6,099
64.9%
19,941
66.3%
27,263
66.7%
Age 65 yrs plus (2005)
274
7.3%
769
8.2%
2,346
7.8%
3,019
7.4%
Male Median Age (2005)
34.7
yrs
33.4
yrs
31.4
yrs
30.9
yrs
02006, Sites USA, Chandler, Arizona. 480-491-1112 - 2 of 5 - 0amographlc Source: Applied Geographic Solutions / TIGER Geography ml05
EXHIBIT C
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE EXPANDED
1990 - 2000 Census, 2005 Estimates 6 2010 Projections
Calculated using Proportional Block Groups
Lat/Lon:40.552582/-105.039232 January 2006
RF5
Timberline- • & Drake Rd
Ft Collins
11 mi radius1
mi radius11
mi radius1
mi radius
Population
Estimated Population (2005)
7,365
18,750
60,080
81,339
Census Population (1990)
6,061
15,340
47,041
60,827
Census Population (2000)
7,534
18,471
57,130
75,785
Projected Population (2010)
7,278
19,159
62,911
86,454
Forecasted Population (2015)
7,134
19,535
66,103
92,358
Historical Annual Growth (1990 to 2000)
1,473
2.4%
3,131 2.0%
10,089
2.1%
14,958 2.5%
Historical Annual Growth (2000 to 2005)
-168
-0.4%
279 0.3%
2.950
1.0%
5,555 1.5%
Projected Annual Growth (2005 to 2010)
-87
-0.2%
409 0.4%
2.831
0.9%
5,115 1.3%
Est Population Density (2005)
2,410.85
psm
2,701.34 psm
2,161.46
psm
2,142.43 psm
Trade Area Size
3.06
sq mi
6.94 sq mi
27.80
sq mi
37.97 sq mi
Households
Estimated Households (2005)
3,129
8,006
25,968
35,072
Census Households (1990)
2,245
5,923
18,114
23,269
Census Households (2000)
2,908
7,209
22,384
29,540
Projected Households (2010)
3,300
8,682
29,055
39,923
Forecasted Households (2015)
3,515
9,492
32,740
45,665
Households with Children (2005)
1,194
38.2%
2,944 36.8%
8,042
31.0%
10,616 30.3%
Average Household Size (2005)
2.34
2.31
2.16
2.16
Average Household Income
Est. Average Household Income (2005)
$89,296
$80,540
$71,899
$70,575
Proj. Average Household Income (2010)
$97,060
$88,742
$77,685
$76,205
Average Family Income (2005)
$100,857
$96,243
$92,465
$92,459
Median Household Income
Est. Median Household Income (2005)
$69,545
$62,481
$52,907
$52,109
Proj. Median Household Income (2010)
$78,597
$70,889
$59,337
$58,398
Median Family Income (2005)
$76,323
$72,792
$67,646
$68,073
__Per Capita lncome
Est. Per Capita Income (2005)
$37,989
$34,797
$31,990
$31,355
Proj. Per Capita Income (2010)
$44,072
$40,673
$36,888
$36,197
Per Capita Income Est. 5 year change
$6,084
16.0%
$5,877 16.9%
$4,898
15.3%
$4,842 15.4%
Other Income
Est. Median Disposable Income (2005)
$56,564
$51.263
$44,057
$43,429
Est. Median Disposable Income (2010)
$62,702
$57,267
$48,760
$48,029
Disposable Income Est. 5 year change
$6,138
10.9%
$6,005 11.7%
$4,703
10.7%
$4,600 10.6%
Est. Median Household Net Worth (2005)
$47,878
$43,740
$38,015
$37,084
Daytime Demos
Total Number of Businesses (2005)
183
788
4,438
6,009
Total Number of Employees (2005)
1,475
8,931 3
53,670
68,599
Company Headqtrs: Businesses (2005)
1
0.3%
2 0.3%
12
0.3%
15 02%
Company Headqtrs: Employees (2005)
243
16.5%
1,051 11.8%
2,797
5.2%
3,237 4.7%
Unemployment Rate (2005)
3.40%
3.80%
4.90%
5.10%
Employee Population per Business
8.0 to 1
11.3 to 1
12.1
to 1
11.4 to 1
Residential Population per Business
40.2 to 1
23.8 to 1
13.5 to 1
13.5 to 1
02006, Sites USA, Chandler, Arizona, 480-491-1112 - 1 of 5 - Demographic source: Applied Geographic solutions / TIGER Geography 07/05
EXHIBIT B
MM 1H[ 1(tC 1h�5
SPRING CREEK
MARKET ANALYSIS
1.5 MILE RADIUS
CONSUMER EXPENDITURES (1) $207,000,000
EXPEDTURES SATISFIED OUTSIDE TRADE AREA
(APPAREL,EDUCAT ION,TRANSPORTATION) (2)-$131,000,000
EXPENTURES BY EMPLOYEES (3) $20,362,680
TOTAL EXPENDITURES IN TRADE AREA $96,362,680
REQUIRD RETAIL SQUARE FOOTAGE AT $250/SQ FT.(4) 385,450
RETAIL SQUARE FOOTAGE IN MARKET 203,651
NEEDED RETAIL 181,780
PROPOSED RETAIL 38,000
Footnotes,
(1) Please see page 4 of the Demographic Profile Attached
(2) We have deducted these categories as they are satified outside the trade area
(3) Please see page 1 of Demographic Profile. This assumes that each employee spends 20% of dsipo&
the trade area of the workplace. Assumption based on studies by International Council of Shopping
(4) Average sales per square foot nationally.
DAVID/HICKS BROKERAGE, INC. 7800 E. ORCHARD ROAD, SUITE 150, GREENWOOD VILLAGE COLORADO 80111 PHONE 303-694-6092 FAX: 303-793-0994
The planned and existing neighborhoods west of Timberline will be much
better served if there are NC uses also on the west side of Timberline.
PRINCIPLE MMN-2: The layout and design of a Medium Density
Mixed -Use Neighborhood will form a transition and a link between
surrounding neighborhoods and the Neighborhood Commercial
Center, Community Commercial District, Employment District, or
Industrial District
Policy MMN-2.1 Size. A Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood should extend an
average of about one -quarter (114) of a mile from the edge of the adjacent
Neighborhood Commercial Center, Community Commercial District, Employment
District, or an Industrial District, subject to adjustment for site -specific or pre-existing
circumstances such as a major street, major drainageway, or existing development
The current MMN zoning on the west side of Timberline extends north
nearly a half -mile from Drake. This would be brought more in line with this
Policy if the subject property were rezoned to NC.
PRINCIPLE MMN-3: A Neighborhood Commercial Center will provide uses to meet
consumer demands from surrounding Residential Districts for everyday goods and
services, and will be a pedestrian oriented place that serves as a focal point for the
surrounding neighborhoods.
Policy MMN-3.2 Surrounding Neighborhoods The Neighborhood Commercial
Center should be integrated into the surrounding Medium Density Mixed -Use
Neighborhood, contributing to the neighborhood's positive identity and image.
Residents should be able to easily get to the Center without the need to use an arterial
street
The existing RL neighborhood and the currently MMN district to the west,
have no access to the existing Rigden Center without crossing Timberline.
program that strives to meet or exceed the performance of similar programs in
comparable cities.
Expanding the NC zone across Timberline will provide convenient access
for the existing RL neighborhoods to the west and easy in -out
access for south bound traffic on Timberline and west bound
traffic on Drake. The net effect will be a reduction in vehicle miles traveled.
Principles and Policies:
Neighborhoods
All New Neighborhoods (AN)
New Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods (LMN)
New Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods (MMN)
Existing Neighborhoods (EXN)
A neighborhood is more than just a housing development by itself. It's about 100 to
160 acres in size — large enough to support services and amenities which meet some of
the needs of daily life, but small enough to be defined by pedestrian comfort and
interest This general size range is based on a five-minute walking distance (about a
quarter -mile) from the edge to the center and a ten-minute walk (about a half -mile)
edge to edge.
The existing RL neighborhood, to the west, represents about 800 acres of
housing with no access to existing or planned centers between the
Prospect/Lemay Center and the Harmony Corridor without crossing a
major north -south arterial street.
New Medium Density
Mixed -Use Neighborhoods
A new Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood is a place for denser, attached, small
lot, and multiple family housing built around a Neighborhood Commercial Center,
Community Commercial District, Employment District, or an Industrial District
Secondarily, these neighborhoods may also contain other moderate intensity uses
which can help to form a transition and a link between surrounding Low Density
Mixed -Use Neighborhoods and the commercial area.
Policy MMN-1.3 Non -Residential Uses. Secondary uses can fit this transitional,
higher -activity location including the following:
a. Parks and recreation
b. Places of worship and assembly
c. Civic uses
d Day care (adult and child)
e. Offices and clinics
f. Small businesses with low traffic and visibility needs such as service shops,
studios, workshops, bed -and -breakfasts, and uses of similar intensity
g. Neighborhood -serving retail uses
b. Bicycle access should be improved to major activity centers, schools and
neighborhoods, and barriers removed in these areas to improve circulation. Facility
development, safety and convenience should be established throughout these
destinations. Level of service standards for bicyclists should be higher within these
areas.
Expanding the NC zone across Timberline will allow more goods and services to
be available to bicyclists from the west without crossing a major arterial
street.
PRINCIPLE T-5: The City will acknowledge pedestrian travel as a
practical transportation mode and elevate it in importance to be in
balance with all other mode& Direct pedestrian connections will be
provided from places of residence to transit, schools, activity centers,
work and public facilities.
Policy T-5.1 Land Use. The City will promote a mix of land uses and activities that
will maximize the potential for pedestrian mobility throughout the community.
Policy T-5.2 Connections. Pedestrian connections will be clearly visible and
accessible, incorporating markings, signage, lighting and paving materials. Other
importantpedestrian considerations include.
a. Building entries as viewed from the street should be clearly marked
Buildings should be sited in ways to make their entries or intended uses clear
to and convenient for pedestrians.
b. The location and pattern of streets, buildings and open spaces must facilitate
direct pedestrian access Commercial buildings should provide direct access
from street corners to improve access to bus stop facilities. Shopping areas
should provide for pedestrian and bicycle connections to adjoining neighborhoods.
c. Creating barriers which separate commercial developments from residential
areas and transit should be avoided Lot patterns should be provide safe and
direct pedestrian connections from residential areas to schools, parks, transit,
employment centers, and other neighborhood uses
d Direct sidewalk access should be provided between cul-de-sacs and nearby
transit facilities.
Expanding the NC zone across Timberline will allow more goods and
services to be available to pedestrians from the west without crossing a
major arterial street.
PRINCIPLE T-9. Private automobiles will continue to be an important
means of transportation.
Transportation Principles and Policies
102 May 4, 2004
Policy T-9.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The City will continually strive to reduce
the growth rate in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by implementing a VMT reduction
EXHIBIT A
PRINCIPLE MMN-2: The layout and design of a Medium Density
Mixed -Use Neighborhood will form a transition and a link between
surrounding neighborhoods and the Neighborhood Commercial
Center, Community Commercial District, Employment District, or
Industrial District.
Policy MMN-2.1 Size. A Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood should extend an
average of about one -quarter (1/4) of a mile from the edge of the adjacent
Neighborhood Commercial Center, Community Commercial District, Employment
District, or an Industrial District, subject to adjustment for site -specific or pre-existing
circumstances such as a major street, major drainageway, or existing development.
The proposed amendment would slightly expand the physical size of
the existing NC zone and bring the MMN zone closer to a 114-mile
depth on the northerly boundary. This would result in a more logical
and orderly development pattern.
The following will demonstrate consistency with City Plan Principals
and Policies:
PRINCIPLE T-3: City transportation programs will promote the
reduction of vehicle miles traveled through strategies that reduce trip
generation and length and increase automobile occupancy.
The existing RL neighborhood to the west represents about 800 acres of
housing with no access to existing or planned centers between the
Prospect/Lemay Center and the Harmony Corridor without crossing a
major north -south arterial street.
Expanding the NC zone across Timberline will provide convenient access
for the existing RL neighborhoods to the west and easy in -out
access for south bound traffic on Timberline and west bound
traffic on Drake. The net effect will be a reduction in vehicle miles traveled.
PRINCIPLE T-4: Bicycling will serve as a practical alternative to
automobile use for all trip purposes.
Policy T-4.1 Bicycle Facilities. The City will encourage bicycling for transportation
through an urban growth pattern that places major activity centers and neighborhood
destinations within a comfortable bicycling distance, that assures safe and convenient
access by bicycle, and that reduces the prominence of motorized transportation in
neighborhoods and other pedestrian and bicyclist -oriented districts. Facility design will
also plan for:
It
N
O
0
M
N
a
of
M
Lo
0
0
N
N
N
O3
T
O
J
0)
3
"O
N
H
d
w
U
z
0
0
I
0
v
N
U'
3
0
'o
m
E
0
Y
0
rn
c
a
N
O
t0
N
z
Z
Q
/
J
w
0
ry
a
LEGEND
PROPOSED SPRING CREEK COMMERCIAL
RETAIL DEVELOPMENT SITE (± 5 AC., NC
PROPOSED ZONING)
- EXISTING WEST FRONTAGE COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENTS LOCATED ALONG TIMBERLINE
RD. BETWEEN PROSPECT RD & HARMONY RD.
ANTICIPATED RESIDENTIAL AREA TO BE
SERVICED BY SPRING CREEK COMMERCIAL
RETAIL (+860 AC.)
------------ ZONING BOUNDARIES
--------- FORT COLLINS CITY LIMITS
MULTI -USE TRAIL
EXISTING ZONING
CSL - COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY
E -EMPLOYMENT
HC -HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
LMN - LOW -DENSITY MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD
MMN - MEDIUM -DENSITY MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD
NC -NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
POL -PUBLIC OPEN LANDS
RL - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
T -TRANSITION DISTRICT
UE -URBAN ESTATE
TRAi FIC INFORMATION -
DRAKE & TIMBERLINE INTERSECTION
SPRING CREEK
COMMERCIAL
RETAIL SITE
n
<
�r
\I I n
TRIF
I/ DRAKE RD.
'LJ
SPRING
DECEMBER 15, ZU0'5
CREEK COMMERCIAL
APPROX. 860 AC.
EXISTING RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT
FUTURE POLICE STATION
PROPOSED SPRING
CREEK COMMERCIAL
RETAIL SITE
EXISTING RETAIL &
CONVENIENCE CENTER
(TEXACO, JIFFY LOBE)
0^ �1-
RETAIL
n
$cum b ..1 N.
i/• .i s. 1
SITE INFORMATION
EXISTING ZONING = MMN
PARCEL TO BE REZONED = +5 AC. PROPOSED NC ZONING
EX STINGIIIAN
1
S
EXI8TIN \
1 ` 'ZONING I
\
PROPOSED NC
ZONING
+ 5 AC. \t i
s- ............
� ie4r
"f'iMBgRLINE RD. -
ma
Load 1 AmJrihetme,
lala.nlr la. ! P4m+riry
�a �w Ysweue w.w
1111 aM+aa4 m Ian•
n0 W 1pl
IA011a W 110
CALL UMW NOVN.A
CE m Di COLONADO
1-800-=-1987
a 534-6700 �
OCWWM
114
CM Fit,
¢�-ee
2460-DVa"
E Itss�aees
Designed
SOS
CAecked
DS
Oate
12-14-06
Revision
� o
Psgjeat /
2♦BO
SCALE 1' = 100'
OF
C�
#24-OOC Spring Creek Farms Rezoning 12/20/05 N
Type II
1 inch equals 300 feet
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 20, 2006
Page 17
U
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 20, 2006
Page 16
cons he feels that he has an obligation to remain in favor of supporting City Plan
as it stands and not amending the Structure Plan.
Member Fries moved to recommend approval to City Council the Spring
Creek Farms Rezoning Structure Plan Amendment. He thinks that the
proposed Plan amendment would promote the public welfare and will be
consistent with the Visions, Goals and Policies of City Plan.
Member Schmidt seconded the motion.
Member Stockover would not be supporting the motion. He was not convinced
that another center across the street would really enhance anything except for
the people who are very close. Of the 1,000 people that they polled he has not
been able to see what they told them. Sometimes it is easy to sell someone on
an idea, but we still have the vision of City Plan that we need to let play out. If
you tell one property owner that this is what we are going to do and the first time
somebody says we can enhance that a little bit across the street at his expense
the vision is not playing out. He did not feel that the applicant has given him
enough of a pitch to tip him away from that thinking.
Member Schmidt commented that she has a concern about Timberline being a
large arterial to cross but on the other hand she feels that we did approve the
project north on Timberline which was not a rezone but uses that are allowed in
the zone they did have. She did feel that will serve some of the area and if
people want to bike on the Power Trail then they will be able to get that area as
close as they can get to this one. She thinks that she would be more in favor of
this project if we had not already approved the other one.
The motion was denied 4-1 with Members Rollins, Schmidt, Stockover and
Lingle voting in the negative.
Member Schmidt moved to recommend denial of the Spring Creek Farms
Rezone and Structure Plan Amendment based on the Findings in the Staff
Report starting on Page 7.
Member Stockover seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-1
with Member Fries voting in the negative.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 20, 2006
Page 15
zone is intended to support employment uses and he would argue that the Police
Facility is an employment type use even though it is a community facility.
Member Fries commented that Tuesday night there was a major overturn of a
zoning situation based on what the neighborhood wanted. There are compelling
arguments both on the city's side and on the applicant's side. The fact that we
did provide adequate public notice and a lot of the concerns that seem to be
spelled out in the staff report are not being spelled out by the public. He would
tend to lean toward approving this rezoning.
Member Schmidt commented that she thought the direction they were talking
about on Tuesday night was the predictability and that is what we have in this
case. This is also been zoned through the Structure Plan as MMN and is there a
real need to change that if everyone has assumed in the whole Rigden Farm and
it was designed based on what the structure is.
Member Fries responded that City Plan does provide predictability and in a
setting like this there is ample time and notice for people to be opposed to it. In
this case we have not had one person come in front of them from the
neighborhood saying they don't like this idea. To him it says they do like the
idea.
Chairperson Lingle added that if they don't feel directly impacted they are not
likely to come out and defend City Plan. He thought what staffs obligation is and
this Board to a certain extent is to support, defend the planning policies in the
Structure Plan we have adopted community wide unless there is a compelling
reason not to. He has no doubt that the design of this center would be
exemplarily, but he is just concerned about what rezoning this would mean into
the future with other similar types of situations where we really are trying to
establish a Neighborhood Center based neighborhood plan and part of the
applicant's presentation was that this has not been demonstrated in an MMN
zone in a suburban type of density. He would contend that the intent behind this
is that it is going to become an urban level density where the intensification
where it needs to be supported by higher density housing and it feathers out as it
goes away and he thinks the Police Facility is only going to reinforce that whole
concept providing a strong employment base in this general area to support all
the kinds of activities that are going to occur.
Where he comes down is that he is nervous about diluting what we have going
with Rigden Farm by allowing it to creep across the intersection. He thinks that
the applicant has made some compelling arguments but if it an even pros and
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 20, 2006
Page 14
we make these large arterials if we don't need to look at supplying some other
alternatives for people on the other side.
Member Stockover thought that people will not walk that far to go to a restaurant
and if you can cross Drake you can cross Timberline. He did not see the
compelling offer that one comer is better than the other cornet. He sees most
everybody getting in their car and driving there and once you are In that
intersection you can go to any corner.
Mr. Sell responded that they sent out 1,000 invitations to the neighbors and only
one lady objected and she came here tonight and rescinded her objection. This
is not something that the neighbors are in disagreement about.
Member Stockover did not see a compelling argument on either side and so if he
does not see either one convincing him to change he is going to stick with let's
not change anything.
Member Schmidt asked if it came down to basically that staff truly feels that
changing to zoning on the other side would negatively impact the Rigden Farm
Development and the applicant feels that there is enough need that that would
not happen.
Director Gloss replied that it is a combination of factors as the staff report
indicated. It is the diminished value there potentially at Rigden Farm which is
important. But just as important as that is that we set up City Plan to have a
different pattern of commercial development that is more concentrated. It maybe
escaping some folks because it is based somewhat on urban theory, but on the
other hand we have an L shaped parcel where the objective of the applicant
appears to just be capturing drive by traffic on two arterial streets as much as
anything when we already have a viable center that provides the essential
services needed for the area and from staffs perspective in showing those
service areas to the north, those neighborhoods are served, to the west and to
the south are served with Rigden Farm, the Scotch Pines center to the west and
other centers to the north and south. From staffs perspective the plan does not
need to be changed.
We satisfy the demand today and we heard from the applicant that they provided
a market study that says that the service area should be bigger and that was the
conclusion that they drew and staff does not necessarily agree with that. The
other thing is that there is another commercial center that has been approved just
a few hundred feet from the Police Facility that does have a restaurant use
permitted and that does have other types of services uses. The E, Employment
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 20, 2006
Page 13
The other point that was not made in the presentation was that Timberline is
being increased to a six land arterial. That is a huge change and the Police
Administration building is a huge change even from when Rigden Farms was
approved.
Member Rollins asked if the Police Facility were not going in there and homes or
apartment building were built instead would that be similar and would the needs
be met.
Director Gloss replied that he did not run those numbers but his observation
would be that you have different needs for residential development versus an
employment area.
Member Rollins asked in the Neighborhood Commercial were the high turn over
sit down restaurants and some of the uses they are seeking, were those
specifically put in Neighborhood Commercial to generate a bigger area of interest
and this community flavor versus some of the restaurants that are allowed in the
MMN which are smaller lower scale. You have a bigger mass there so you
create that Activity Center.
Director Gloss replied that was absolutely right. When you look at what the
intention of what the NC, Neighborhood Commercial District is it is to provide a
focal point for a neighborhood and to provide those essential services. That
dictates the size, in this case 15 to 20 acres because you have to have the
critical mass. It speaks to having a grocery store or supermarket as the anchor
because that is the type of service that people use on a weekly or daily basis.
That is why it is 15 to 20 acres and not 5 like an LMN center or even 10 because
you have to have that critical mass. You have to have the intensity of the
development to generate the kind of uses that you need and to afford some of
those other amenities that we are talking about in these projects that go above
and beyond other commercial development. The quality of the pedestrian
environment within the NC district, the community gathering space which is a
required element. In the case of Rigden Farms more of a main street retail type
of atmosphere. We really don't have that in any other Neighborhood Center to
that degree as what has been accomplished at Rigden Farm.
Member Schmidt understand the idea behind Rigden Farm and all the work that
has gone into it and the benefits of it, but she is having some trouble with the
commitment in City Plan to encourage the pedestrian and bicycle uses because
if she were in any.of those RL zones on the other side of Timberline, she would
not want to cross Timberline without driving to get there. She was wondering as
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 20, 2006
Page 12
Member Fries asked about the policy that is in City Plan and was it based strictly
on economics or is it a safety issue. For example so what there is overlap is staff
contending that you have traffic and pedestrian problems or are we trying to
protect other economic concerns.
Director Gloss replied that we are trying to protect other economic concerns as
he mentioned in his presentation and also within his staff report is that the Shops
at Rigden Farm has a fair amount of vacant ground. They also have committed
to an incredible amenity package that goes above and beyond most
Neighborhood Centers in Fort Collins. Go to that center and look at the quality of
the architecture, the quality of this evolution of Illinois Drive as a pedestrian
oriented street and that happened in part because the developer had some
assurance that this was the Neighborhood Center that the city was going to.focus
on. Council Members have questioned staff about using economics as a
criterion for evaluation of a project. In this case this is not a development plan
per sea, this is a legislative action. From staffs perspective the viability of the
Neighborhood Center across the street does matter and by approving
development near by will diminish the viability of that center and that is a
negative for the community.
Member Schmidt thought that with the addition of the Police Facility with 400
employees is definitely a substantial change but talking about viability we
approved the Timberline Center so that will add some more commercial and
some more restaurants. She wondered that in the point of time that staff was
considering this was that project already approved? She was wondering in
looking at the whole need for the area, if you take those additional retail and
restaurants into consideration if you don't feel the area is well served.
Peter Cudlip, representing the applicant replied that the reason they did the one
and a half mile ring and they really look at the one and a half mile ring for
Neighborhood type centers. That is based on guidelines that are nationally
recognized. He knows that City Plan uses a one mile ring. They used the one
and a half mile ring to come up with their study of the required based on national
standards, based on the amount of income, based on the amount of people of
the required retail. To answer the question directly, there is still if you look at
their study 180,000 s.f. of unserved retail demand in the market area. The
Timberline Center will take up some of it. The project is in an industrial zone and
it is not an NC zone and that project will be more automotive related. Yes there
will be some restaurants in there, but they won't be the type of upscale
community restaurants that they are looking at putting in and the other type of
retailers they are looking at. A gathering place where people where people want
to come from the neighborhood and gather.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 20, 2006
Page 11
neighborhood meeting would be held before they actually put in some of these
streets.
A lot of things got "ram rodded" when they approved the Police Facility. It
happened very quickly and it is a very large and elaborate building and she thinks
what we have done with this neighborhood has changed when they added this
Police Services building. Knowing what it is like to get to the King Sooper's
building and knowing what it is like to try and do anything on this corner, she
thinks that moving the NC on across makes more sense than trying to scatter
little pockets of commercial all the way through this residential neighborhood.
PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED
Chairperson Lingle asked if the one mile service area that staff is using is
supported by certain City Plan policies.
Director Gloss replied that if you go to the City Plan document, there is a graphic
that's referenced about the neighborhood structure and in that graphic it shows a
template of how the LMN Neighborhood Centers function and how both the CC,
Community Commercial and the NC, Neighborhood Commercial Centers
function. In that graphic it depicts this one mile radius from center to the edge.
Member Fries stated that the applicant addressed that scenario as one size fits
all for the entire city and could staff elaborate on that. He agreed with the
applicants comment that that may be a fine plan for one section of town but not
necessarily for others.
Director Gloss responded that he understands the comment and appreciates
what the applicant is saying, but if you go back to the graphic he showed that had
the various circles and the overlap of those areas. As Mr. Sell stated if you go to
the north, there is an existing restaurant that is within walking distance; if you go
to the west there is Scotch Pines where there a lot of essential services provided
in that center. They are within that one mile service area. There is a pretty
consistent overlap once you get outside the College corridor. Clearly on College
there is some anomalies. Take Whole Foods Market, which is a destination and
they are doing very well in part because it's almost in the geographic center of
the community. When you get outside of College Avenue and you look at this
ring where densities are similar to the neighborhoods that are within this service
area and you will see this pattern that is created. That is really the premise of the
Neighborhood Commercial Centers both in City Plan and previously in the Land
Development Guidance System. This policy has been around for many years.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 20, 2006
Page 10
piece of it and the larger restaurants are the missing uses here that they wish to
go forward with that would not be permissible in the MMN even as a secondary
use.
Member Schmidt asked if this particular acreage gets rezoned, then are they still
allowed 15% of the rest of the MMN zone for secondary uses.
Mr. Sell replied yes.
PUBLIC INPUT
Peggy Greiss, 2254 Eastwood Drive stated that she originally opposed the
change in zoning for the Spring Creek Farms at the northwest comer of
Timberline and Drake. She now believes it would be more advantageous to have
commercial development at that location. Having to look at what the city allowed
to be built at Side Hill Development just north of Drake on the east side of
Timberline she is convinced that local property values would be better preserved
by commercial development on this comer. If the renderings presented at the
neighborhood meeting are the true representations of what is to be built on this
property, she feels that it would be an asset to the neighborhood. Considering
what the city has let be built along Side Hill it would definitely add to the property
values and it would add to the looks and it would keep that comer very upscale.
Right now we have the back of King Sooper's which they did an excellent job of
walling off and setting up so you don't hear or see the trucks coming in and the
building itself along with the First National Bank building are very good looking
buildings.
You look at the condos that have been built on the northeast comer of Timberline
and Drake; they are condominiums but they look like lodge type building and they
are very good looking buildings and well done and the landscape is good. You
go further north and they are building houses that look like the disaster they built
on Horsetooth just west of the tracks at Mason Street. Tall skinny two feet
between the buildings with detached garages, and just not a good looking
development in her opinion. She is afraid that if we leave this corner the way it is
we are going to have more of that and she would rather see what they showed
her this comer rather than having tall skinny buildings that are two feet wide
and 10 feet high. She knows that bringing that concentration of commercial to
that comer probably seems in conflict with what is going on in the neighborhood
but she does know that walking across Timberline is basically taking your life in
your hands. She is also concerned with traffic planning for this corner and it is
her understanding that no matter what is built on this corner that the traffic plan is
already set but she would hope that further study would be done and.a
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 20, 2006
Page 9
Is there a demand for significantly more retail than Rigden Farm; yes. Does the
rezone meet the criteria; yes. Does the proposed rezone meet the
Comprehensive Plan; yes. Mr. Sell asked the Board to keep in mind that it does
not have to meet both of the last two points.
Mr. Sells' presentation was concluded.
Member Schmidt asked if the recently approved Timberline Center was directly
north of the Police Facility.
Director Gloss replied that for all intensive purposes it is, there is an intervening
small out lot that is a possible detention area and is about 250 feet wide.
Member Schmidt asked if the Timberline Center had restaurants.
Director Gloss replied that it does have provisions for restaurants.
Member Schmidt asked if there were restaurants in the Rigden Farm.
Director Gloss replied that there are two at the present time and a potential for
more as the project builds out.
Member Schmidt asked how on the Power Trail do you get across Drake.
Mr. Sell replied that there is a red flashing light and cars stop.
Chairperson Lingle asked if 7.5 acres of MMN secondary uses of the total
acreage is not enough of what they are looking for.
Mr. Sell replied that it is not the acreage it is the uses that are allowed. It is
extremely limited as to what you can do in MMN commercial. You can have a
restaurant of about 1,400 s.f. and it has to be part of a mixed -use building. It
can't be a stand alone restaurant which is about 3,000 to 4,000 s.f.
Director Gloss wanted to expand on Mr. Sells' comment. His stated objection
was the list of permitted uses. If you go into the Land Use Code under the MMN
zone district and look at the list of permitted uses and as an Administrative
Review it is quite limited. When you get into a Planning and Zoning Board
Review you are allowed to have personal and business service shops, offices,
financial services, clinics, small veterinary clinics as well as a small restaurant
that was mentioned. There are some commercial uses that are permitted and
there is a wide range of services that could be provided. It sounds like the retail
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 20, 2006
Page 8
Second, "The proposed Structure Plan amendment and rezone is not supported
by the City's Comprehensive Plan policies and will not promote the public
welfare."
Mr. Sell thinks that their application does meet those policies. His experience
has been that you can go to those Policies and you can find things to support you
and you can find things that don't support you. Clearly, there are things that do.
Three, "There are no changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding
and including the subject property that warrant the rezone." Mr. Sell once again
referred to the Police Facility.
Four, "The proposed rezoning is not compatible with the existing and proposed
uses surrounding the subject land, and is not the appropriate zone district for the
land." Since this is an extension of the NC zone resulting in only a 16% increase
in the existing NC, and keep in mind that there are 3 acres of the original Rigden
Farm NC that was not developed as NC retail, he thinks is now elderly care. This
is not a stretch of the imagination to pickup that three acres and insure the
remaining two that will viable uses by these recommendations that they are
making.
Five, 'The proposed rezoning will not result in significantly adverse impacts on
the natural environment." Mr. Sell thought it would not and they think it will
reduce vehicle miles traveled and it would be an improvement.
Six. "The proposed rezoning does not result in a logical and orderly development
pattern." He thinks that is the same answer as number four.
Mr. Sell addressed the concerns about strip development. There Is no possible
way this can be strip development like College Avenue (see Exhibit 1) and the
entire area is already existing residential development. The area is already being
built as LMN and the Rigden area surrounded by MMN.
What they are talking about is a compromise and they have made a lot of effort
to talk to the neighbors and it is a compromise that protects the neighborhood
and serves the neighborhood and reduces the vehicle miles traveled'and
increases the likelihood that people will walk to shopping and recreation.
Mr. Sell believes that in nine years there has been no acceptance that the MMN
Commercial has not worked in 9 years and there is no evidence that is does in
the suburban neighborhoods.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 20, 2006
Page 7
Mr. Sell skipped through some of the Policies (see Exhibit 1) and stated that if
when looked at you can see that they do comply. Mr. Sell stated that they do not
have to comply with both of these policies, and they really just have to address
the first one which the Police Facility is clearly something that has changed and
he thinks they do comply.
Policy T-9.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and he thinks he made the point clear
earlier and that it is going to be much more attractive to walk. Think about the
people who work in the Police Facility when they go to lunch if they could walk to
this area after being at a desk all day, would they do that if there is no opportunity
to eat here or would they get in their car and drive to Rigden or would they walk
and cross the interchange?
This general size range is based on a five-minute walking distance (about a
quarter -mile) from the edge to the center and a ten-minute walk (about a half -
mile) edge to edge. There are 800 acres that do not have anything in the center,
so he is trying to bring something closer to take advantage of an existing trail
system so people will walk on it. The other point is that it brings all of the MMN
and all of the 400 employees at the Police Facility within a quarter -mile of NC.
Expanding the NC across the busy intersection will 1) improve both pedestrian
and vehicular safety; 2) improve pedestrian and vehicular access to shopping; 3)
expand the choices available to walk-in customers; 4) increase the chances that
a viable neighborhood retail center will succeed; 5) help fill the void for
commercial demand.
Lastly Mr. Sell wants to address the staffs "Findings of Fact." Mr. Sell stated that
they,don't necessarily think that those are the "Facts." The first one has to do
with "The Structure Plan amendment is not warranted since the existing mix of
retail and service uses found within the Rigden Farm Neighborhood Commercial
Center located directly across Timberline Road provides sufficient goods and
services necessary to sustain nearby neighborhoods. Further, the Rigden Farm
Neighborhood Center has been effectively integrated with an overall street
pattern, design and scale that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods
and not segregated from them, and has been designed in a manner that fosters
transit service for the Center and surrounding neighborhoods." He agrees with
that except that it is not very assessable to the pedestrians and bicyclists on the
west side of Timberline because there is a five -fold chance of getting hit by a car
if you walk to this center to the one they are proposing and that is one way. Mr.
Sell asked the Board to think about crossing a major arterial intersection.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 20, 2006
Page 6
Next Mr. Sell went through a series of slides and stated that one thing that is not
being considered here is as density increases what side of the street you are on
becomes more and more critical. Mr. Sell discussed potential traffic and
pedestrian conflict scenarios with the existing retail at Rigden Farm and if the
proposed NC zoning would exist (See Exhibit 1).
They are just asking to move or expand the NC across the street a little. This is
not a new idea and we have done it in at least 4 areas, Elizabeth and Taft Hill
Road, Stuart and Shields, Glen Haven and Shields and Horsetooth and Shields.
All of those locations the NC crosses the interchange. It makes sense to have it
cross the interchange when you look at commuter traffic and how people shop on
the way home. It saves a lot of conflicts and cuts down on the potential for
accidents and it also makes it more of an incentive for people to walk if they can
get there easily and safely.
Finally they would like to address if this request is consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan. Staff says it is not and we think it easily is.
The first two slides (see Exhibit 1) shows the distance from the edge of the NC
one -quarter mile, which is what we are typically willing to walk easily. The Policy
is 2.1 in the MMN is that, "a Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood should
extend an average of about one -quarter mile from the edge of the adjacent
Neighborhood Commercial Center to the edge of the MMN zone. All of the
Police Facility 10 acres is outside of that. If we extend the NC across the
intersection it easily captures all of the Police Facility and the combination of the
two capture all of the MMN that has been zoned on all three quadrants of that
interchange.
Principle T-3 states "City transportation programs will promote the reduction of
vehicle miles traveled through strategies that reduce trip generation and length
and increase automobile occupancy." The residences highlighted in red (see
Exhibit 1) are most likely to watk to this Center because the Power Trail goes
right through the center. There is a one mile radius the Scotch Pines and a one
mile radius around the Lemay and Prospect Centers and that leaves a big area
outside of the.Rigden Farm one mile radius. Because someone was wise
enough to put the trail in, it makes it convenient in an evening to step outside
your back door and get on the trail and walk to a Neighborhood Center. This is
an area that would be "pock -marked" with little shopping opportunities had this
been LMN zoning and developed today because it would be required. What he
is trying to do is try to explain why it would help bring this more in -line with City
Plans intent.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 20, 2006
Page 5
of the new urbanism philosophy of City Plan where we don't have any services
within quarter mile radiuses like we do new LMN developments and is that is the
heart of their proposal.
With the meetings they have had they have tried to suggest that the uses that the
neighborhood did not want, they would take out and the uses they did want they
would leave in. A big one would be a site down restaurant within walking
distance would be very desirable. Mr. Sell showed a slide of the expanded uses
they would want to retain and the uses that would be eliminated. What they
would propose would be deed restrictions or some kind of restriction at the
zoning level and according to the City Attorney's office that is something that can
be done even though it is not desirable.
Mr. Sell addressed the issue of has anything changed since 2001. The very first
paragraph in the MMN zone in the Land Use Code talking about the purpose
states, "a neighborhood may also contain other moderate intensity
complementary and supporting land uses that serve the neighborhood." He was
referring to the Police Administrative Facility which is a huge project and
suspects that 1,000 residents were not notified about it. He showed a
comparison of a 2-story house and the Administration Building and stated it is
twice the size of the largest building allowed in the NC zone at 96,000 and is 250
feet x 368 feet in dimensions and has up to 397 employees.
Next he showed an aerial view of the LSI Logic building at the comer of Ziegler
and Harmony. Next he showed a scale footprint of the Police Facility overlaid on
top of it and stated that they were both 3 story buildings. Next he showed
Budweiser and stated that with 400 employees it would make you the 10'" largest
employers in Fort Collins right now, Budweiser has 700 which makes it 60% the
size of Budweiser and it is located in the MMN zone. He did think something did
change and he does not think anyone could have anticipated it and he does not
really understand how it got approved.
There are 5 six lane arterials planned in Fort Collins, two are north/south and one
of those is Timberline Road and it separates this comer we are talking about
from the Rigden Center. Mr. Sell showed a comparison the College and Drake
and Timberline and Drake intersection and he stated that you won't find many
pedestrians walking across that intersection. He stated that the intersection at
Timberline and Drake before any more expansion happens is 40% larger than
Drake and College Avenue. Of course you can walk across those intersections
and yes there is an island in the middle but you would not do it if you had an
alternative.
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 20, 2006
Page 4
and Lemay which has a very nice neighborhood restaurant in it, but there are no
retail store services or anything inside that 800 acres. Today if you follow City
Plan and bring an LMN project over 40 acres you have to have some kind of
activity center like what is being proposed at Side Hill. By City Plan standards
this 800 acres would have about 8 of those at least. Pretty much an accepted
standard is a quarter mile distance that we are willing to walk and walking to the
Rigden Farm project is very daunting crossing that intersection.
Peter Cudlip and piers in his office have developed 1.5 billion dollars in
commercial development in their careers. They don't look at these things in light
hearted fashion and not willing to risk their money if they don't feel there is an
opportunity there. He is available if the Board has questions or comments.
Mr. Sell pointed out on his aerial photo that the red circle is the mile and a half
radius that he used in this study to determine that need. The 180,000 s.f. is
based on full build out of the Rigden Farm Center. It does not take into account
the other two projects that Director Gloss mentioned at Side Hill and Timberline
Center which is an industrial site that does not offer the same kind of amenities
you could have in an NC development.
The issue that they are trying to make is that the current MMN zoning for
commercial uses does not offer the opportunities to create the level of activity
necessary for a successful commercial development. He highlighted the
commercial uses in the existing MMN zoning district and stated that they were
very limited.
Prior to City Plan their firm did the site planning and landscape design for Poudre
Valley Plaza. That project employed a lot of the new urbanistic concepts that
were used in City Plan. It is a project that he is proud of but in 10 years since
that project was approved the one mixed -use building still remains to be built.
Since City Plan was adopted in a period of about nine years, so far in the MMN
zone commercial use there has been one project approved and that was in 2003
and that is at the comer of Stanford and Hosetooth Road and it has still not been
built.
He thinks that if you look at the evidence in that period of time that we have had
no activity to speak of and certainly nothing built in that zone in a commercial
way. He is not saying that it does not work to have mixed use projects and he
thought that mixed use projects work well in the downtown area. This is the crux
of what they are about is dealing with this issue. They disagree, they think there
is a great deal of demand and the fact that the 800 acres was developed outside
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 20, 2006
Page 3
several major arterials, College Avenue being the most prominent, but we are
trying to set a different pattern where the focus is on centers not on development
along our arterials. From the staffs standpoint the Neighborhood Center at
Rigden Farm provides that focal point so it is not necessary to make the rezone
come forward at this point. Staff is recommending that the Board recommend
that City Council deny the request to amend the Structure Plan. In conclusion
Director Gloss pointed out that the Board received a letter from a neighborhood
resident, Peggy Greiss dated March 2nd and since wants to retract that letter from
the record. She had objected to the rezone request and now wants to change
her position and wanted him to make that statement for the record. She is here
this evening and wanted to address the Board on that issue. That concludes his
agenda report.
The applicant handed to the Board a copy of his presentation (Exhibit 1) for the
record.
Jim Sell, Jim Sell Design, representing the SC Investment Group, LLC gave the
applicant presentation. The first question is why are they requesting this rezone.
He would use the expert he brought with him who uses a mile and a half radius
around these commercial centers in order to determine what the demand is. A
very in depth study was don't that there was a need for 180,000 s.f. of retail
within that mile and a half radius around Rigden Farm Center. The current
zoning does not allow enough flexibility of uses to support a successful center.
Does the rezone they are requesting meet the criteria? Yes they think it does on
a couple of counts but one particular is the Police Administration Building goes
way beyond what anyone could expect in the MMN zone. is the proposed zone
consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan? Yes they think it is.
They are requesting a rezoning of approximately 5 acres of the 55 acre Spring
Creek Farms MMN development. Their proposal is based feedback that they got
from the neighborhood. They sent out approximately 1,000 letters to the
neighbors to illicit their response. There was one negative letter and that
resident is here tonight to rescind that letter. They met at a regular neighborhood
meeting and there were also multiple meetings with neighborhood leaders as
well.
What is not being considered is that the city is not a homogeneous mixture from
one edge to the other. Some areas of the city have all kinds of commercial and
retail opportunities in them and others don't. There are about 800 acres that is
bound by Lemay, Timberline, Horsetooth Road and Prospect Road. In that 800
acres within those arterials with the exception of a commercial. center at Prospect
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 20, 2006
Page 2
is a marketing analysis where the applicant contends that there is additional
market that needs to be served by NC zoned land within this area, including the
subject property. The aerial photograph graphic that is provided shows a mile
and a one and a half mile radius.
The applicant has provided a fair amount of information so the Board
understands the rationale that has been provided. The one area that staff has
struggled with is that there is a policy in City Plan that is an MMN policy that says
essentially that the Neighborhood Center should serve an area where residents
don't have to cross an arterial street. This was cited by the applicant as part of
their justification for the rezone.
Director Gloss showed the aerial photograph again and wanted to discuss the
applicant's justification and the staffs analysis. Staffs position is that the
Neighborhood Center for King Sooper's is sized at the appropriate scale between
15 and 20 acres which is that targeted under City Plan to provide essential
services to up to four neighborhoods. That Center has the prime ingredient
which is a supermarket, and it provides for daily needs and is clearly a situation
where neighbors within close proximity can take a short trip by vehicle, by bicycle
or as a pedestrian., The applicant contends that it is a very difficult crossing at
Timberline and also at Drake. Staff would concur that because it is an arterial
street with high volumes of traffic and it is going to continue to increase on
Timberline over time that that is an impediment, but does not override the fact
that we already have an NC designated center that is fulfilling those needs and
there is vacant land within the NC center that is still necessary to build out and be
part of the economic viability of that center. By allowing this use essentially
reduces the viability of the Neighborhood Center at Rigden Farm.
There have been a couple of change of conditions since 2001 and the Board
received a memorandum from Greg Byrne, Director of Community Planning and
Environmental Services acknowledging those change in conditions due to the.
Police Services Building that is being built on the north end of the site. Also
since the time that the 2001 rezoning other critical amenities have been built, the
aforementioned King Sooper's site, the Side Hill LMN Center, although small
provides some of the convenience goods for people to the east of Timberline and
also the Timberline Center which will provide some of the services for others .
west of Timberline.
There are also other City Plan policies that apply to this rezoning application.
When we talk about commercial zoning there are very specific statements in City
Plan that we are not going to repeat the pattern of strip commercial development
that we see on major arterials. We have considerable development along
ATTACHMENT 6
Planning and Zoning Board Minutes
April 20, 2006
Project: Spring Creek Farms Rezoning and Structure
Plan Amendment, #24-OOC
Project Description: Request to rezone approximately 5.05 acres of
property located on the northwest corner of
Timberline Road and Drake Road from MMN,
Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood to
NC, Neighborhood Commercial. The applicant
is proposing to amend the Structure Plan to
correspond to the requested zoning.
Recommendation; Denial
Hearing Testimony Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Cameron Gloss, Director of Current Planning gave the staff presentation
recommending denial of the request. Director Gloss reported that in 2001 the
larger property, 55 acres and known as Spring Creek Farms was rezoned from T,
Transition to three different zone districts; E — Employment on the north end of
the site, which is now the site of the new Police Administration Building; a
balance on the site on the west side zoned LMN, Low Density Mixed -Use
Neighborhood and on the east and south part of the site, MMN, Medium Density
Mixed -Use Neighborhood. The portion being talked about this evening is a piece
of the MMN zoned portion. He stated that the Parkwood and Parkwood East
neighborhoods to the west, the Meadows East neighborhood to the south, the
developing Side Hill mixed density immediately to the east and to the south east
is the Rigden Farm development. A predominant element is a Neighborhood
Center that the Board approved that is anchored by a King Sooper's grocery
store. Director Gloss showed site shots of the immediate area and discussed the
Neighborhood Centers within the area and uses approved within those Centers.
Director Gloss noted that an important part of the staffs analysis is that the NC
Center is not yet complete for Rigden Farm. He showed a slide of the center and
discussed retail opportunities that have yet to locate in that center. This was an
important amenity that staff worked with the developer on at the time Rigden
Farm Center was Master Planned. This creates a neighborhood amenity and
staff feels that this is part of the focal point that is necessary for a Neighborhood
Center to be successful.
The applicant is making a case that the service area for this area is,actually
larger than one mile, that it is actually one and a half miles. In the Board's packet
Cameron Gloss - S ring Creek Farms rezoning #24-00C Psge i
From:
<sisakson@larimer.org>
To:
<cplanning@fcgov.com>
Date:
03/07/2006 10:58:32 AM
Subject:
Spring Creek Farms Rezoning #24-OOC
I am unable to attend the March 16 meeting but I am in favor of this rezoning and believe that ease cf
access should be taken into consideration. I live in Parkwood East, work on Midpoint Drive and shop at
the Drake & Timberline King Soopers. While itYs true there are 2 gas stations/convenience stores within
this area, neither are on the north or west sides of the busy streets (Prospect & Timperline). For me to
access either of the current neighborhood centers on my way home, I must cross traffic either entering or
exiting (or both) and as traffic in this area continues to increase, crossing traffic will add additional danger
and could impede traffic flow.
Thanks for soliciting input and accepting written comments.
Sonja J. Isakson
1730 Sagewood Dr.
282.3831 home
2555 Midpoint Dr
498.5902 work
Cameron Gloss FW re zoning requE irNW corner Drake & Timberline page 2.
Soopers there would other commercial businesses and service within walking
distance of our homes. At present the commercial space in the King Sooper
plaza is not completely occupied. Anyone wanting to open a business in the
neighborhood could easily find space within the King Sooper plaza or within
1 '/z miles or less from the King Soopers. Timberline Road from Drake south to
Caribou is lined on both sides with brand new commercial space, most
buildings appear to have plenty of vacancies, and with more commercial
buildings currently under construction.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment on the rezoning request.
Sincerely,
Janet Kurman
2827 Chase Drive
Fort Collins, CO 80525
493-0875
Cameron Gloss - FW re -zoning re q. or NW corner Draberline Page 1
From: "Janet Kurman" <jkurman@igc.org>
To: <cgloss@fcgov.com>
Date: 03/12/2006 6:28:23 PM
Subject: FW: re -zoning request for NW comer Drake & Timberline
From: Janet Kurman [mailto:jkurman@igc.org]
Sent: Saturday, 11 March, 2006 17:39
To: 'cgloss@fc.gov.coin'
Subject: re -zoning request for NW corner Drake & Timberline
Hi Cameron, Thank you for returning my call late Friday afternoon. As I
described on the telephone, here are my concerns about changing the
currently zoned "MD" acreage on the NW corner of Timberline & Drake to
"Commercial Neighborhood"; based on the information you gave me I assume
that an L-shaped parcel would be used to site something along the lines of a
gas station/mini-market or the like.
1 am opposed to this re -zoning proposal because:
1. Over the past 5 years the traffic on Timberline north/south has grown and
will continue to grow once the project of widening the last segment of
Timberline from Drake to Prospect is completed. As it is now, traffic on
Timberline needs to be controlled when there are services & events at
Timberline Church. Making a left-hand turn from southbound Timberline can be
difficult and time-consuming as the church traffic streams in/out. With the
completion of the King Soopers and other commercial businesses on the SE
comer of Timberline & Drake, traffic turning off of Timberline or Drake to
enter the shopping center & gas station has increased. Even tho the
approaches to the shopping center are "set back" from the intersection it
still makes entering Timberline from Custer or vice versa difficult. The T &
D intersection is congested and will be more so once the widening project is
complete and the Sidehill development is finished. The larger the
intersection becomes the less pedestrian- & bike -friendly it becomes.
2. Most of the traffic well exceeds the 40 mph speed limit at present making
entering/exiting the Rigden Farm development challenging. I suspect the same
will be true for the Sidehill development residents. I can only imagine the
challenge of entering/exiting a commercial establishment on the NW corner of
Timberline & Drake once Timberline widening is completed. I only hope by
having the police services building in to the neighborhood soon that it will
cause knowing drivers to slow down on Timberline.
3. Most importantly I fail to see the need for additional commercial
establishments/business at the Timberline/Drake Intersection. Along with the
planning effort made to give an Old Town/neighborhood feel to Rigden Farm,
most of us who chose to live there understood that in addition to a King
Cameron Gloss -zoning change requi y Bergman/Sell Page 2:
I understand the impulse to increase density to avoid sprawl (though Fort Collins is certainly sprawling out
in all directions anyway), but I think the planning and zoning board needs to consider more seriously the
factors of human and environmental health. The closer people are jammed together, the more stresses,
both physical and emotional, are put upon them, as well as on the environment and natural resources that
are used to support them. Kids would be healthier and more constructively involved if they had safe space
to play and roam in, a clubhouse, or a tennis court to play on, rather than yet another McDonald's or
Walgreen's to hang out in. One of the reasons I chose Fort Collins to move to In1984 (besides CSU that I
would attend), was the presence of parks and lakes and trails, and the closeness to the open farm fields
and the mountains that surrounded the city. It seemed the ideal place to settle down and raise my
children. I hope we don't completely.iose to developers' ambitions what was, to me, the best of what Fort
Collins and the Front Range had to offer. City planning should be, I think, planning for a quality of life. To
me, that doesn't mean more and more street corners full of shopping options.
Thank you for your consideration,
Patricia E. Vaeth, President/Landscape Committee, PPOA
CC: "Gretchen Jorgensen" <gretchen@frii.com>, "Scott Gordon" <abbyl99@comcast. net>,
"Paul Tanguay" <Paul.tang uay@avagotech.com>, 'Tony Bonanno" <anthonybonanno@hotmail.com>,
"ML Johnson" <mjohnson@lamar.colostate.edu>, "Gayle Hemenway" <gaylehemenway@excite.com>
Cameron Gloss -zoning change requt.ry Ber man/Sell Page 1
ATTACHMENT
From: "Patricia Vaeth" <pevaeth@earthlink.net>
To: <cgloss@fcgov.com>
Date: 03/15/2006 1:38:48 PM
Subject: zoning change request by Bergman/Sell
Mr. Gloss,
I'm the president of the board of directors of the Parkwood Property Owners Association. I spoke with you
briefly at the open house held with Mr. Bergman and Mr. Sell on March 2. 1 wanted to communicate with
you further after consulting with the rest of my board members and trying to get a feel from other
Parkwood homeowners as to how they would vote on this issue.
Mr. Bergman has been requesting a letter of support from my board for the upcoming meeting with the
Planning and Zoning board tomorrow evening. I have told him that I'm unable to give him such a letter, as
most of my board members are either not supportive or remain skeptical of the plans requiring a zoning
change for the five acre parcel on the corner of the Spring Creek Farm property. While the building plans
appear attractive enough to us on paper, they don't specify the types of commercial enterprises that would
eventually occupy them, nor can they project the ultimate impact on our neighboring communities of
Parkwood and Parkwood East.
I've not heard from any non -board members other than the few who attended the open house, and I don't
know if anyone will attend tomorrow evening. I myself will not be attending, but please accept this e-mail
communication as conveying the PPOA board position as I know it. This matter will be brought for
discussion at our annual board meeting on March 21st, but by then I assume your board will have made a
decision on the zoning change matter.
Some of my board members would prefer to have no commercial development on the Spring Creek Farm
property, or to have development of less density, but given the present zoning status, we understand that
is not feasible. Given the choices, the consensus seems to be that we are asked to choose the lesser of
two evils, with the developers advocating for their plan and the city planners settled on theirs.
The largest concern of Parkwood residents is the increased traffic along the Drake corridor, along with
increased congestion and safety concerns at the intersections of both Drake and Lemay and Drake and
Timberline. Those of us who live on Rollingwood Drive are especially concerned about increased "cut -
through" traffic. It seems inevitable that traffic (and with it, noise and air pollution) will increase with any
development option, and so l would ask that the city consider ways to minimize the impact and
inconvenience that will ensue for Parkwood and Parkwood East residents.
Beyond that concern, the neighbors I spoke with seem to feel that we are already adequately serviced by.
the businesses at Scotch Pines and the recently -built stores and supermarket at the corner of Drake and
Timberline. To add more of the same sort of commercial services at the corner diagonally opposite from
the King Soopers site would invite unnecessary competition and repetition of services that are already
established and convenient to Parkwood residents. Some of my neighbors are concerned about this
proposed commercial area becoming a gathering spot for teens from FCH, which again, would aggravate
traffic congestion problems and further increase the potential for accidents and/or vandalism in this area.
On a more personal note, I feel that since this property is to be developed, it would be preferable to have
another residential housing development similar to Parkwood - one which would incorporate landscaped
commons areas and amenities - possibly a pond or water feature, a playing field or park area, or perhaps
even a communal gardening space. As a Master Gardener with the Larimer County Cooperative
Extension, and a strong environmentalist, I would make a plea for an increased area of landscaping or
xeriscaping, with perhaps a barrier of trees or maybe a naturalized area of grasses and wildflowers along
the street -sides and between the railroad tracks and any future residential construction to the east - a
scenic view - something that would make living near a railroad track and a police complex somewhat
inviting for future residents. This approach would also help maintain or improve property values for
homeowners in Parkwood, Parkwood East, and neighborhoods to the south - something that Is also a
concern to most of the neighbors I've spoken with.
Q: What uses are desired by the applicant that are not allowed within the
MMN zone?
A: A full range of retail; restaurants greater than 1,100 square feet.
C: A Drake Road access point to the site which aligns with Sagebrush
Drive will create a safety issue for motorists.
C: Some neighbors perceive that traffic safety problems will increase if
commercial development occurs as planned under the rezoning.
C: The Parkwood/Parkwood East neighborhoods don't have access to a
commercial center without crossing an arterial street.
3
Q = Question
A = Answer
C = Comment
Q: Who owns the property requested for rezoning?
A: The Cumberland Companies. The applicant has an option to purchase
the property from the Cumberland Companies and has been given the
right to apply for the rezoning.
Q: How will site lighting be designed?
A: No lighting plans have been designed yet. Detailed lighting plans are
submitted and evaluated at the time that the development plans are
reviewed. Lighting is subject to stringent standards found in the
City's Land Use Code that require shielding of light fixtures, and
other means to reduce glare and light spillover to surrounding areas.
Q: What type of tenants could the neighborhood expect to be within the
Center?
A: Financial institutions, restaurants, personal services. a deli, and a
range of general retail.
Q: How will the site be accessed from adjacent streets?
A: The City's Traffic Operations Department has stated that they will
limit access directly to the site from Timberline to a right-in/right-out
movement. 3/4 and potentially, full -movement access will be provided
from Drake Road.
Q: When will construction being on the NC -zoned site?
A: Later this year.
C: Once the "door is open", adding NC uses, it could set a precedent for
other commercial uses along Timberline Road.
2
ATTACHMENT 4
Spring Creek Farms Rezoning Neighborhood Meeting
DATE:
TIME:
MEETING LOCATION:
CITY STAFF PRESENT:
March 2, 2006
7:00- 8:10 pm
Timberline Church, Room 202
Cameron Gloss, Current Planning Director
QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS, RESPONSES
10 Neighborhood residents and interested parties attended the advertised
neighborhood meeting. The meeting was structured both in an open house
format and as a facilitated discussion. The meeting began roughly at 7:00
pm and concluded at approximately 8:10 pm.
The meeting began with an open house where parties could view several
graphics depicting the rezoning application, lists comparing permitted uses
within the NC and MMN zone districts, as well as conceptual site plans,
architectural elevations and renderings depicting potential future
development scenarios on the property.
Following introductory remarks and the introduction of individuals
representing City staff and the applicant, Cameron Gloss provided an
overview of the requested rezoning and a summary of the public review
process. The applicant presented a series of displays associated with the
rezone application and potential conceptual development plans, entertaining
questions from attendees. It was acknowledged by the applicant and City
staff that the conceptual development plans would not be entered into the
public record for consideration by the City's Planning and Zoning Board or
the City Council.
Neighborhood residents generated the following questions, comments and
concerns. Responses were -provided by staff and the applicant at the meeting.
M. '
sa
EXHIBIT D
Chirporactic USA
1,000
liquor
2,000
Island Grill
3,000
Photo Image Center
1,000
UPS Store
1,000
Bagel makers
1,000
Arfy's
1,200
Pizza Hut
1,200
Gems N Gold
1,200
Great Harvest
1.500 51,600
Total
Other Tenants
Flowerama
Locaftn
NWC Timberline Rd & Lemay Ave
000
2000
Dale's Carpet One
SWC Timberline Rd & Horsetooth
1
Former Eckerd Drug
13000
1200
Texaco CStore
McDonald's
NEC Timberline Rd & Horsetooth 1
3000
Taco John's & Good T SEC Timberline Rd & Prospect Rd
3000
" "
1200
Shell C-Store
Conoco C-Store
NEC Lochwood Dr & Horsetooth
1200
39600
Total
Total Square Footage in Market Area 203,651
EXHIBIT D
Center Name
Park Central
Tenants
Moongate Asian Grill
Tastebuds
Sunsation Tanning
Park Central Liquors
Pet Express
Tailor
Venus Nails
Burke Dry Cleaners
TCBY
Citi Financial
Hand Chiropractic
Edward Jones
Allstate Insurance
7-11
Great Clips
Total
Center Name
Rigden Farms
Tenants
King Soopers
cleaner
nail salon
liquor
Genoa Coffee & Wine
CostCutters
Subway
1stBank
Vacant
Total
Location
SEC Prospect Rd & Lemay Ave
Estimated square feet
3,500
1,100
1,100
2,400
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,200
1,300
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
2,400
1.300
Location
SEC Timberline Rd & Drake Rd
Estimated square feet
66,283
1,200
1,200
1,600
1,512
1,230
1,858
5,468
10,000
Center Name Location
Scotch Pines Village SWC Drake Rd & Lemay Ave
Tenants
Starbuck's
Ladies Workout Expre!
Aspen Wellness Cente
Salon de Cheile
dry cleaner
Sunflower Market
State Farm
martial arts
Estimated square feet
1,500
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
30,000
1,000
1,000
22,100
90,351
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE EXPANDED
1990 - 2000 Census, 2005 EsUmstss & 2010 ProJectfons
Cakulated using pmpmftW Book Groups
LattLon: 40.5525821-105.039232 January 2006
Tirnberline Rd & Drake Rd i TniLW,1
Ft Collins
Units In Structure
1 Detached Unit (2000) 2,068 68.946
1 Attached Unit (2000) 269 82%
2 to 4 Units (2000) 117 3.9%
5 to 9 Units (2000) 131 4.4%
10 to 19 Units (2000) 261 8.7%
20 to 49 Units (20 00) 87 2.9%
50 or more Units 00) 66 22%
Mobile Home or Trailer (2000) 2 0.1%
Other Structure (2000) 2 0.1%
mi raditis 3.00
4,603 61.8%
590 7.9%
667 9.0%
396 5.3%
649 8.7%
257 3.4%
230 3.1%
48 0.6%
4 0.0%
mi racliLls 3.50
12,607 54.3%
1,634 7.0%
2,416 10.4%
1,293 5.6%
2.183 9.4%
1,078 4.6%
1,144 4.9%
867 3.7%
14 0.1%
AFs
mi radius
16,376 53.3%
2,092 6.8%
3,093 10.1%
2,037 8.896 8
3,057 10.0%
1,438 4.7%
1,598 5.2%
1,000 3.3Y°
16 0.1%
Homes Built By Year
90
4.6%
1,458
Homes Built 1999 to 2000
2.9%
182%
718
9.6%
230
2,230
9.7%
3,209
1.3%
11.3%
Homes Built 1995 to 1998
245
245
82%
582
582
7.8%
7.8%
2,280
9.7%
3,209
10.5% m
Homes built 1990 to 1994
1,169
38.9%
2,270
30.5%
5,316
22.9%
7,076
23.0%
Homes Built 1990 to 1994
1,006
33.5%
2,822
37.9%
6,831
29.4%
8,122
28.5%
Homes Built 1980 to 1989
91
3.0%
644
8.7%
2,649
11.4%
3,342
10.9%
Homes Built 1970 to 1979
9
0.3%
181
2.4%
1,109
4.6%
1,475
4.8%
1959
Homes Built 1960 to 19
7
0.2%
80
1.1%
1,859
8.0%
2,733
8.9%
Homes Built Before 9
Home Values
0
1
0.0%
8
0.1%
11
0.1%
Home Values $1,000,000 or More (2000)
1.
47
1.
1
1.3%
211
1.2
Home Values $500,000to $999.999 (2000)
34
48
1.11% %
132
1,3%
189
1,4%% B
Home Values $400,000 to $499,999 (2000)
21
15% %
183
4.5%
467
4.4%
694
5.1%
Home Values $300,000 to $399,899 (2000)
131
7,1%
32.4%
1,590
2,013
3,127
Home Values $200,000 to $299,999 (2000)
834
634
34.7%
1,590
39.1%
39.3%
4,010
37.9%
37.9%
5,127
37.4%
37.5%
Home Values $150,000 to $199,999 (2000)
376
20.6%
907
22.5%
2,831
26.8%
3,680
26.946
Home Values $100,000 to $149,999 (2000)
10
2.7%
3
32%
402
29%
Home Values $70,Q00 to $99,999 (2000)
27
1.5%
8
8
0.2%
97
7
0.
115
0. %
Home Values $50,000 to $69,999 (2000)
0
3
0.1%
10
0.11% %
18
0.11%
Home Values $25.000 to $49,999 (2000)
0
12
0.3%
34
0.3%
37
0.3%
Home Values $0 to $24,999 (2000)
Owner Occupied Median Home Value (2000)
7
$190,655
0.4%
$182,476
$177,620
$180,134
$676
r Oocupled Median Rent(2000)
$805
$724
$681
portation To Work
3,256
78.0%
7,967
78.0%
23,30fi
75.4°h
30,988
75.3%
to Work Alone (2000)
330
7.8%
920
9.0%
2,899
9.4%
3,818
9.3%
to Work In Carpool (2000)
r
25
0.6%
80
0.8%
343
1.1%
505
1.2%
l to Work - Public Transportation (2000;
25
0.8%
46
0.4%
69
0.2%
77
02%'
to Work on Motorcycle (2000)
172
4.1%
437
4.3%
2.556
8.3%
3.598
8.7%
or Bicycle to Work (2000)
14
0.3%
39
0.4%
97
0.3%
129
0,3%
r Means (2000)
354
6.5%
720
7.1%
1.632
5.3%
2,014
4.9%, ,
Work at Home (2000)
Travel -Time
Travel to Work in 14 Minutes or Less (2000)
50.5%
10 459
35.7%
14,428
38 9%, .
Travel to Work In 14 to 29 Minutes (2000)
1931
3,282
34 8%
3
14
14.7/0
Travel to Work In 30 to 59 Minutes (2000)
1194
449
47°h
489
B%
1,828
Travel to Work in B0 Minutes or More (2000)
5.1%
16.2
mins
16.8
mins
16.8
mins
Average Travel Time to W ork (2000)
18 3 mins
02006, S11e8 USA. Chandler, Anyone, 480-491.1112
- 6 of
5 - Dwogwt ° Sm": A00104 G"MP °C Sdu"au I TMER. G909mPhy 07105
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE EXPANDED
1990 - 2000 Census, 2005 Estimates & 2010 Projections
Calculated usslg Proponbna/Bbek Groups
LatlLon: 40,5525821-105.039232
January 2006
RF5
Timberline ' • : Drake '
Ft Collins
11 rni tadius
3.00
mi radius1
ini radius
Labor Force
Est. Labor: Population Age 16+ (2005)
5,821
14,857
49,029
66,671
Est. Civilian Employed (2005)
4,114
70.7%
10,389
60.9%
32,333
65.9%
43,780
85.8%
Est. Civilian Unemployed (2005)
200
3.4%
569
3.8%
2,421
4.9%
3,409
5.1%
Est. in Armed Forces (2005)
0
6
0.0%
59
0.1%
80
0.1%
li
Est. not In Labor Force (2005)
1,508
25.9%
3,892
28.2%
14,217
29.0%
19,302
29.0%
Occupation
Occupation: Population Aga 16+(2000)
4,177
10,202
30,849
41,057
Mgmt, Business, & Financial Operations(20C
778
18.6% '
1,668
16.4%
4,374
14.2%
5,843
142%
Professional and Related (2000)
1,379
33.0%
3,099
30A%
8,875
28.8%
11,716
28.5%
Service (2000)
383
9.2%
1,173
11.5%
4,430
14.4%
6,147
15.0ek
Sales and Office (2000)
1,033
24.7%
2,532
24.8%
7,519
24.4%
10.053
24.5%
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry (2000)
5
0.1%
12
0.1%
99
0.3%
157
0:4%
Construct, E#raction, & Maintenance (2000)
207
4.9%
639
6.3%
2,357
7.6%
3,006
7.3%
Production, Transp. & Material Moving (2000
392
9.4%
1,079
10.8%
3,195
10.4%
4,136
10.1%
Percent While Cofter Workers (2000)
76.4%
71.5%
67.3%
67.3%
Percent Blue Co/7ar Workers (2000)
216%
28.5%
32.7%
32.7%
.(kx Nkil9tr: 1tY1i (bl %000,0008)
s
TotalHous"dExpenditum(2005)
$204
$481
$1,438
$1,914
Total Non-Reta#Expendltures(2005)
$fib
57.0%
$274
56.9%
$815
5G7%
$1,085
56.7%
TotelRatalf EVwditww (2005)
$88
410%
SW7
43.1% 1
$623
43.3%
$829
43.3%
Apparel (2005)
$9
4.4%
$21
4.4% 27
$63
4.4%
$84
4.4%
B
Contributions (2005)
$8
3.9%
$18
3.8%
$54
3.8%
$72
3.8%
e
Education (2005)
$5
Z3%
$11
22% 2
$31
Z2%
$42
.22%
Entertainment (2005)
$11
5.5%
$26
5,5%
$79
5.5%
$105
5.5%
Food And Beverages (2005)
$30
14.6%
$71
14.7%
$214
14.9%
$285
14.9%
Furnishings And Equipment (2005)
$9
4.2%
$20
4.2%
$59
4.1%
$78
4.1%
Gifts (2005)
$6
29%
$14
Z8%
$40
2.8%
$53
Z8%
Health Care (2005)
$12
5.9%
$29
6.0%
$88
6.1%
$117
6.1%
Household Operations (2005)
$7
.16%
$17
3.5%
$49
3.4%
$66
. 3.4%
Miscetlaneous'Expenses (2005)
$3
1.5%
$7
1.5%
$22
1.6%
$30
1.6%
Personal Care (2005)
$3
f.4%
$7
f.4%
$20
1.4%
$27
1.4%
Personal Insurance (2005)
$2
1.1%
$5
1.1%
$16
1.1%
$21
1.1%
Reading (2005)
$1
0.3%
$2
0.3%
$5
0.3%
$6
0.3%
Shelter (2005)
$41
20.1%
$96
20.1%
$288
20.0%
$383
20.0%
Tobacco (2005)
$1
0.7%
$3
0.7%
$10
0.7%
$14
0.7%
Transportation (2005)
$42
20.6%
$99
20.7% 2
$296
20.6%
$394
20.6%
Utilities (2005)
$14
6.9%
$34
7.0%
$103
7.2%
$138
7.2%
E
3
Educational Attainment
F
Adult Population (25 Years or Older) (2005)
4,975
12,468
38,203
50,496
�3
Elementary (0 to 8) (2005)
23
0.5%
136
1.1%
713
1.9%
862
1.7%
Some High School (9 to 11) (2005)
112
2.2%
413
3.3%
1,702
4.5%
2,159
4.3%
High School Graduate (12) (2005) .
682
13.7%
2,107
16.9%
6,774
17.7%
8,578
17.0"/•
Some College (13 to 16) (2005)
938
18.9%
2,396
19.2%
7,779
20.4%
10,336
20.5%
Associate Degree Only (2005)
336
6.7%
796
6.4%
2,390
6.3%
3,154
6.2%
:1
Bachelor Degree Only (2005)
1,603
32.2%
3,855
30.9%
11,077
29.0%
15,020
29.7%
Graduate Degree (2005)
1,282
25.8%
2,765
22.2%
7,769
20.3%
10,388
20.6%
C2006, Sites USA, Chandler, Arlmna, 480-491-1112 - 4 of 5 • Demepnpdp swore: Applied e•opnpNC Sdutlw rTIGER o•oonphy o7105
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE EXPANDED
1990 - 2000 Census, 2005 Estimates 6 2010 Projections
Calculated using P+vpo7ilon8/8ftk Groups
LatiLon: 40.5525821-105.039232 January 2006
RFS
Household Income Distribution
167
6.3%
339
42%
943
3.6%
1,218
3.5%
HH Income $200.000 or More (2005)
286
3.6%
674
2.8%
887
2.5%
HH Income $150,000 to $199,999 (2005)
159
535
5.1%
17.1%
1,166
14.6%
2,902
11.2%
3,916
112%
HH Income $100,000 to $149,999 (2005)
549
17.5%
1,274
15.9%
3,318
12.5%
4,503
118%
HH income $75,000 to $99,999 (2005)
711
22.7%
1,728
21.6%
5,046
19.4%
6,669
19.0%
b
HH Income $50,000 to $74,989 (2005)
422
13.5%
1,237
15.4%
4,126
15.9%
5,375
15.3%
HH income $60,000 to $74,999 (2005)
183
5.8%
643
8.0% '
2,032
11.4%
3,099
1D.3%
HH Income $25,D00 to $34,999 (2005)
238
7.6%
643
8.1%
3,225
11.4%%
4,782
11.6%
HH Income $15,000 to $24,999 (2005)
166
6.3%
647
8.1%
3,009
HH Income $0 to $14,999 (2005)
2,542
81.2%
6,030
75.3%
17,D09
62.5%
85.5%
22,568
2,568
64.3%
HH Income $35,000+ (2005)
1,409
45.0%
3,065
38.3%
7,837
30.2%
10,525
30.3%
30.0%
HH Income.$75.000+(2DD5)
Housing
Total Housing Units (2005)
348
8,89,4% 8,0052 52
89,4%
26,245
25,96%
98.9%
35,503
35,072
98.8%
s
Housing Units, occupied (2005)
3.1148
Z275
727%
5,303
662%
15,097
58.1%
19,840
58.6%
Housing Units, Owner -Occupied (2005)
853
27.3%
Z704
33.8%
10, 871
41.9%
15,232
43.4%
Housing Units, Renter Occupied (2005)
0.8%
45
O.fi%
277
1.1%
427
Housing Units, Vacant(20D5)
19
4.0
yrs
3.3
yrs
2.8 yn;
1�.2%
Median Years In Residence (2005)
Marital Status
1,582
28.7%
4,544
30.0%
18,428
36b%
26,440
38.8%
Never Married (2005)
3.439
. 57.9%
8,003
52.9%
22,105
44.2%
29,340
43.2%
8
Now Marred (2005)
139
13%
474
3.1%
2,108
42%
4.1%
s
Separated (2005)
552
9.3%
1,506
10.00h
4,988
10.0%
6.436
Widowed (2005)
224
3.8%
598
4.0%
2,416
4.8%
2,984
2,9-
4.5%
4.4°6
Divorced (2005)
Household Type
6,186
84.0%
15,071
80.4%
42,014
69.9%
55,204
679%
Population Family (2005)
1,124
15.3%
3,390
181%
14 205
23.8%
20,388
25.1%
population Non Family (2005)
55
0.7%
288
1.5%
3,860
6.4%
5,748
7.1%
population Group Qtrs (2005)
2,198
70.2%
5,327
66.5%
15,121
58.2%
19,899
56.7%
Family Households (2005)
Married Couple With Children (2005)
27.8%
2,244
26.0%
5,870
26.6%
7.737
28.4%
Average Family Household Size (2005)
.82
2.82
931
29.8%
2,679
33,5%
10,847
41.6%
15,172
43.3%
Non -Family Households (2005)
Household Size
64g
2p.7%
1,843
23.0%
7,495
28.9%
10,167
29.0%
1 Person Household (2005)
1,52
35.4%
12,302
35.1%
2 Person Households (2005)
525
. 16.6%
15.6%
1.331
1,188
16.3%
14.8%
3,929
3,341
15.1%
5,451
12.1%
3 Person Households (2005)
288
15.2%
1,556
14.9%
3,341
12.7%
15.6%
gg
4 Person Households (2005)
227
7.2%
556
6.9%
1,473
5.7%
1,451
1,702
5.0%
5 Person Households (2006)
62
2.0%
185
2.3%
547
2.1%
702
2.0%
6+ Person Households (2005)
Household Vehicles
8,457
16,371
51,750
71,180
Total Vehicles Available (2005)
40 1.3%
227 2.8%
1.243
4.8%
1,664
4.7%
9
Household; 0 Vehicles Available (2005)
808 25.8%
2,188 27.0%
8,242 31.7%
11,313
32.3%
F
Household: 1 Vehicles Available (2005)
2+Vehicles Available (2005)
2,281
72.9%
5.614070.1%
18,42620 83.5%
22,250
83.0%
Household:
Average Vehicles Per Household (2005)
2.1
4D2006, Sees USA. Chardlw. Aron., 480-491.1112
• 3 of 5 -
Ds WZPWC Sara: MWiw Oso°r°PNO SdVWM ! TGER GeogmPhY 07105
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE EXPANDED
1990.2000 Census, 2005 Estimates d 2010 Protections
Calculated using Proporfiortal Bbak Groups
Lat/Lon: 40.5525821-105.039232 January 2006
RF5
Race & Ethnicity
White (2005)
6,815
92.5%
17,112_
91.3%
53,903
89.7%
72.822
89.5%
Black or African American (2005)
48
0.6%
169
0.9%
636
1.1%
877
1.1%
American Indian & Alaska Native (2005)
23
0.3%
90
0.5%
359
0.6%
477.
0.6%
Asian (2005)
226
3.1%
463
2.5%
1,549
2.6%
2,183
27%
Hawilan & Pacific Islander (2005)
10
0.1%
23
0.1%
82
0.1%
109
0.1%
Other Race (2005)
144
1.9%
506
2.7%
2,161
3.6%
2,905
3.6%
Two or More Races (2005)
100
1.4%
387
2.1%
1,390
2.3%
1,966
2.4%
Not Hispanic or Latino Population (2005)
6,911
93.8%
17,311
92.3%
54,313
90.4%
73,565
90.4%
Hispanic or Latino Population (2005)
454
6.2%
1,439
7.7%
5,767
9.8%
7,774
9.6%
Not of Hispanic Origin Population (1990)
5,833
95.2%
14,584
95.1%
44,266
94.1%
67,171
94.0%
Hispanic Origin Population (1990)
228
3.8%
756
4.9%
2,775
5.9%
3,656
8.0%
Not Hispanic or Latino Population (2000)
7,125
94.6%
17,206
93.2%
52,304
91.6%
69,399
91.6%
Hispanic or Latino Population (2000)
409
5.4%
1,284
6.8%
4,826
8.4%
6,386
8.4%
Not Hispanic or Latino Population (2010)
6,784
93.2%
17,559
91.7%
56,300
89.5%
77,413
89.5%
Hispanic or Latino Population (2010)
494
6.8%
1,599
8.3%
6,611
10.5%
9,041
10.5%
Hist. Hispanic Ann Growth (1990 to 2005)
227
6.6%
683
6.0%
2,991
7.2%
4,119
7.5%
Pro). Hispanic Ann Growth (2005 to 2010)
40
1.7%
160
2.2%
845
2.9%
1,266
3.3%
Age Distribution
Age 0 to 4 yrs (2005)
427
5.8%
1,129
6.0%
3,314
5.5%
4,467
5.5%
Age 5 to 9 yrs (2005)
468
6.4%
1,184
6.3%
3,235
5.4%
4.322
5.3%
Age 10 to 14 yrs (2005)
534
7.3%
1,312
7.0%
3,489
5.8%
4,559
5.6%
Age 15 to 19 yrs (2005)
510
6.91/9 _
1,255
6.7°/a
5,299
8.8%
7,576
9.30/6
Age 20 to 24 yrs (2005)
450
0.1%
1,402
7.5%
6,540
10.9%
9,920
122%
Age 25 to 29 yrs (2005)
640
8,7%
1,740
9.3%
6,573
10.9%
9,081
11.2%
Age 30 to 34 yrs (2005)
577
7.8%
1,515
6.1%
4,985
8.3%
6.805
8.4%
Age 35 to 39 yrs (2005)
468
6.4%
1,267
6.8%
3,763
0.3%
4,997
6.1%
Age 40 to 44 yrs (2005)
598
8.1%
1,442
7.7%
3,923
6.5%
5,188
6.4%
Age 45 to 49 yrs (2005)
740
10.1%
1,641
8.8%
4,330
7.2%
5,655
7.0%
Age 50 to 54 yrs (2005)
638
8.7%
1,424
7.6%
3,911
6.5%
5,011
6.2%
�Cge 5b o 59 yrs (20155)
43�-5
8°J6--987-53%-"02
4:730
-3-,660-4:5%
Age 60 to 64 yrs (2005)
261
3.5%
649
3.5a/o
1,933
3.2%
2,486
3.1%
Age 65 to 74 yrs (2005)
324
4.4%
894
4.8%
2.730
4.5%
3,536
4.3%
Age 75 to 84 yrs (2006)
236
3.2%
643
3.4%
2,138
3.6%
2,743
3.4%
Age 85 yrs plus (2005)
59
0.8%
265
1.4%
1,115
1.9%
1,334
1.6%
Median Age (2005)
36.1
yrs
34.8
yrs
32.9
yrs
32.1
yrs
Gender Age Distribution
Female Population (2005)
3,637
49.4%
9,351
49.9%
30,010
49.9%
40,491
49.8%
Age 0 to 19 yrs (2005)
905
24.9%
Z349
25.1%
7,553
25.2%
10,357
25.6%
Age 20 to 64 yrs (2006)
Z387
65.6%
5,968
63.8%
18,619
62.7%
26,540
63.1%
Age 65yrs plus (2006)
345
9.5%
1,034
11.1%
3,637
12.1%
4,594
11.3%
Female Median Age (2005)
37.3
yrs
35.4
yrs
35.0
yrs
33.9'
yrs
Male Population (2005)
3,728
50.6%
9,399
50.1%
30,070
50.1%
40,849
50.2%
Age 0 to 19 yrs (2005)
1,034
27.7%
Z631
28.9%
7,783
25.9%
10,567
25.9%
Age 20 to 64 yrs (2005)
Z420
64.9%
6,099
84.9%
19,941
66.3%
27,263
66.7%
Age 65 yrs plus (2005)
274
7.3%
769
8.2%
2,346 .
7.8%
3,019
7.4%
Male Median Age (2005)
34.7
yrs
33.4
yrs
31.4
yrs
30.9
yrs
02008; Sltea USA, Chandler, Arizona. 480-491-1112 -2 of 5- Ueaogrephlp Sam: APPUed Geogrephk aduauna 1TK3EA Geography o7ro3
EXHIBIT C
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE EXPANDED
1990 - 2000 Census, 2005 Estimates 8 2010 Projections
Cabulelad uskr9 Proporrbnal Bbck Groups
LaULon: 40.552589J-105.039232 January 2006
Population
Estimated Population (2005)
7,366
18,750
60,080
47,041
81,339
60,827
Census Population (1990)
6,061
7,534
15.340
18,471
57,130
75,785
Census Population (2000)
7.278
19,159
62,911
86,454
Projected Population (2010)
Forecasted Population (2015)
7,134
19,535
66.103
2.1%
92,358
14,958 2.5%
Historical Annual Growth (1990 to 2000)
1,473 2.4%
3,131 2.0%
0.3%
10,089
2,950 1.0%
5,555 1.5%
Historical Annual Growth (2000 to 2005)
-168 -0.4%
279
409 0.4%
2.831 0.9%
5,115 1.3%
Projected Annual Growth (2005 to 2010)
.87 -0.2%
2,142.43 psm
Est Population Density (2005)
2,410.85 pain
3.06 sq ml
2,701.34 psm
6.94 sq ml
2,161.46 psm
27.80 sq ml
37.97 sq ml
Trade Area Size
Households
Estimated Households (2005)
3,129
8,006
25,968
18,114
35,072
23,269
Census Households (1990)
2,245
5,923
7,209
22,384
29,640
Census Households (2000)
2,908
3,300
8,682
29,055
39,923
projected Households (2010)
3,515
9,492
32,740
45,665
Forecasted Households (2015)
Children (2005)
1,194 38.2%
2,944 36.8%
8,042 31.0%
10,m6 30.3%
Households with
Average Household Size (2006)
2 34
2.31
2.16
2.18
Average Household Income
Est Average Household Income (2005)
$89,298
$80,540
$71,899
$70,576
$76,205
Proj. Average Household Income (2010)
$97,060
$88,742
$77,685
Average Family income (2005)
$100,857
$96,243
$92,465
$92,459
Median Household Income
Est. Median Household income (2005)
$69,545
$82,481
$52,907
$52,109
$58,398
proj. Median Household Income (2010)
$78,697
$70.889
$59,337
Median Family income (2005)
$76,323
$72,792
$67,646
$66,073
aF5
Est. P7Cpl�tslncomeome (2005)
Pcome (2010)
Per Cae Est. 5 year change
$37,989
$44,072
$6,084
16.0%
$40,673
40,Pro]_
$5,877
16.9%
$36,888
$4,898 15.3%
$36,197
$4,842 15.4%
Other Est Msable Income (2005)
$56,664
$51.263
$44,057
$43,429
$48,029
Est Msable Income (2010)
$62,702
$57,267
$6,005
11.7%
$48,760
$4,703 10.7%
$4,600 10.6%
Disposable Incoe Eat. 5 year change
$6,138
10.9%
Est. Median Household Net Worth (2005)
$47,878
$43,740
$38,015
$37,084
Daytime Demos
Total Number of Businesses (2005)
183
78
78B
3•
4436
,
53,438
6,009
68,599
Total Number of Employees (2005)
1,475
g
Company Headqtrs: Businesses (2005)
243
165
1,051
11.6%
2,797 52%
3,237 4.79'e
Company Headgtrs: Employ ( )
3., 01'e
4.,797
6.10%
Unemployment Rate (2005)
3.40%
to 1
11.3
to 1
12.1 to 1
11.4 to 1
Employee Population per Business
.
40.2 to 1
23.8 to 1
13.5 to 1
13.5 to 1
Residential Population per Business
C2006. Sits USA Chandler, Arizona. 494491-1112 -1 cf 5 - o mogmpnuc source: Apptleo Geoarephlo aal°0°ru f IMA GsoVghy 07M
EXHIBIT B
SPRING CREEK
MARKET ANALYSIS
1.5 MILE RADIUS
CONSUMER EXPENDITURES (1)
I EXPEDTURES SATISFIED OUTSIDE TRADE AREA
(APPAREL, EDUCATION,TRANSPORTATION) (2)
EXPENTURES BY EMPLOYEES (3)
TOTAL EXPENDITURES IN TRADE AREA
REQUIRD RETAIL SQUARE FOOTAGE AT $250/SQ. FT.(4)
RETAIL SQUARE FOOTAGE IN MARKET
NEEDED RETAIL
PROPOSED RETAIL
Footnotes;
$207,000,000
4131,000,000
$20,362,680
$96,362,680
385,450
203,651
181,780
38,000
3
(1) Please see page 4 of the Demographic Profile Attached
(2) We have deducted these categories as they are sati ied outside the trade area
(3) Please see page 1 of Demographic Profile. This assumes that each employee spends 20% of dsiposs
the trade area of the workplace, Assumption based on studies by International Council of Shopping
(4) Average sales per square foot nationally.
DAVID/HICKS BROKERAGE. INC. 7900 E. ORCHARD ROAD. SUITE 150. GREENWOOD VILLAGE COLORADO 80111 PHONPI 503-046033 PAX: 303.79"94
The planned and existing neighborhoods west of Timberline will be much
better served if there are NC uses also on the west side of Timberline.
PRINCIPLE MMN-2: The layout and design of a Medium Density
Mixed -Use Neighborhood will form a transition and a link between
surrounding neighborhoods and the Neighborhood Commercial
Center, Community Commercial District, Employment District, or
Industrial District
Policy MMN-2.I Size. A Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood should extend an
average of about one -quarter (114) of a mile from the edge of the adjacent
Neighborhood Commercial Center, Community Commercial District, Employment
District, or an Industrial District, subject to adjustment for site -specific or pre-existing
circumstances such as a major street, major drainageway, or existing development
The current MMN zoning on the west side of Timberline extends north
nearly a half -mile from Drake. This would be brought more in line with this
Policy if the subject property were rezoned to NC.
PRINCIPLE MMN-3: A Neighborhood Commercial Center will provide uses to meet
consumer demands from surrounding Residential Districts for everyday goods and
services, and will be a pedestrian oriented place that serves as a focal point for the
surrounding neighborhoods
Policy MMN-3.2 Surrounding Neighborhoods. The Neighborhood Commercial
Center should be integrated into the surrounding Medium Density Mixed -Use
Neighborhood, contributing to the neighborhood's positive identity and image.
Residents should be able to easily get to the Center without the need to use an arterial
street
The existing RL neighborhood and the currently MMN district to the west,
have no access to the existing Rigden Center without crossing Timberline.
program that strives to meet or exceed the performance of similar programs in
comparable cities.
Expanding the NC zone across Timberline will provide convenient access
for the existing RL neighborhoods to the west and easy In -out
access for south bound traffic on Timberline and west bound
traffic on Drake. The net effect will be a reduction in vehicle miles traveled.
Principles and Policies:
Neighborhoods
All New Neighborhoods (AN)
New Low Density Mired -Use Neighborhoods (LMN)
New Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhoods (MMN)
Existing Neighborhoods (EXN)
A neighborhood is more than just a housing development by itself. It's about 100 to
160 acres in size — large enough to support services and amenities which meet some of
the needs of daily life, but small enough to be defined by pedestrian comfort and
interest This general size range is based on a five-minute walking distance (about a
quarter -mile) from the edge to the center and a ten-minute walk (about a half -mile)
edge to edge.
The existing RL neighborhood, to the west, represents about 800 acres of
housing with no access to existing or planned centers between the
Prospect/Lemay Center and the Harmony Corridor without crossing a
major north -south arterial street.
New Medium Density
Mixed -Use Neighborhoods
A new Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood is a place for denser, attached, small
lot, and multiple family housing built around a Neighborhood Commercial Center,
Community Commercial District, Employment District, or an Industrial District
Secondarily, these neighborhoods may also contain other moderate intensity uses
which can help to form a transition and a link between surrounding Low Density
Mixed -Use Neighborhoods and the commercial area.
Policy MMN-L3 Non -Residential Uses. Secondary uses can fit this transitional,
higher -activity location including the following:
a. Parks and recreation
b. Places of worship and assembly
c. Civic uses
d Day care (adult and child)
e. Offices and clinics
f. Small businesses with low traffic and visibility needs such as service shops,
studios, workshops, bed -and -breakfasts, and uses of similar intensity
g,_Neighborhood serving retail uses
b. Bicycle access should be improved to major activity centers, schools and
neighborhoods, and barriers removed in these areas to improve circulation. Facility
development, safety and convenience should be established throughout these
destinations. Level of service standards for bicyclists should be higher within these
areas.
Expanding the NC zone across Timberline will allow more goods and services to
be available to bicyclists from the west without crossing a major arterial
street.
PRINCIPLE T-5: The City will acknowledge pedestrian travel as a
practical transportation mode and elevate it in importance to be in
balance with all other modes Direct pedestrian connections will be
provided from places of residence to transit, schools, activity centers,
work and public facilities.
Policy T-5.1 Land Use. The City will promote a mix of land uses and activities that
will maximize the potential for pedestrian mobility throughout the community.
Policy T-5.2 Connections Pedestrian connections will be clearly visible and
accessible, incorporating markings, signage, lighting and paving materials Other
important pedestrian considerations include:
a. Building entries as viewed from the street should be clearly marked.
Buildings should be sited in ways to make their entries or intended uses clear
to and convenient for pedestrians
b. The location and pattern of streets, buildings and open spaces must facilitate
direct pedestrian access Commercial buildings should provide direct access
from street corners to improve access to bus stop facilities. Shopping areas
should provide for pedestrian and bicycle connections to adjoining neighborhoods
c. Creating barriers, which separate commercial developments from residential
areas and transit should be avoided Lot patterns should be provide safe and
direct pedestrian connections from residential areas to schools, parks, transit,
employment centers, and other neighborhood uses
d Direct sidewalk access should be provided between cul-de-sacs and nearby
transit facilities.
Expanding the NC zone across Timberline will allow more goods and
services to be available to pedestrians from the west without crossing a
major arterial street.
PRINCIPLE T-9. Private automobiles will continue to be an important
means of transportation.
Transportadon Principles and Policies
102 May 4, 2004
Policy T-9.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The City will continually strive to reduce
the growth rate in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by implementing a VMT reduction
ATTACHMENT 3
EXHIBIT A
PRINCIPLE MMN-2: The layout and design of a Medium Density
Mixed -Use Neighborhood will form a transition and a link between
surrounding neighborhoods and the Neighborhood Commercial
Center, Community Commercial District, Employment District, or
Industrial District.
Policy MMN-2.1 Size. A Medium Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood should extend an
average of about one -quarter (1/4) of a mile from the edge of the adjacent
Neighborhood Commercial Center, Community Commercial District, Employment
District, or an Industrial District, subject to adjustment for site -specific or pre-existing
circumstances such as a major street, major drainageway, or existing development.
The proposed amendment would slightly expand the physical size of
the existing NC zone and bring the MMN zone closer to a 114-mile
depth on the northerly boundary. This would result in a more logical
and orderly development pattern.
The following will demonstrate consistency with City Plan Principals
and Policies:
PRINCIPLE T 3: City transportation programs will promote the
reduction of vehicle miles traveled through strategies that reduce trip
generation and length and increase automobile occupancy.
The existing RL neighborhood to the west represents about 800 acres of
housing with no access to existing or planned centers between the
Prospect/Lemay Center and the Harmony Corridor without crossing a
major north -south arterial street.
Expanding the NC zone across Timberline will provide convenient access
for the existing RL neighborhoods to the west and easy In -out
access for south bound traffic on Timberline and west bound
traffic on Drake. The net effect will be a reduction in vehicle miles traveled.
PRINCIPLE T-4: Bicycling will serve as a practical alternative to
automobile use for all trip purposes.
Policy T-4.1 Bicycle Facilities. The City will encourage bicycling for transportation
through an urban growth pattern that places major activity centers and neighborhood
destinations within a comfortable bicycling distance, that assures safe and convenient
access by bicycle, and that reduces the prominence of motorized transportation in
neighborhoods and other pedestrian and bicyclist -oriented districts. Facility design will
also plan for:
Attachment 3
APPLICANT'S WRITTEN STATEMENT
AND
FINANCIAL ANALYSES
No Text
No Text
ATTACHMENT]
LMN
LMN
MMN
l
A
LI-
0
0
NC O
z
R
i
CUSTER DR _
#24-OOC Spring Creek Farms Rezoning ""°/°t) N
T inII'
yp1 inch equals 300 feet
May 16, 2006 -10. Item No. 29 A-B
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Board, at its regular monthly meeting on April 20, 2006, voted 4-1 (Fries
opposed; Stockover and Meyer absent) to recommend denial to the City Council of the change to
the City Plan Structure Plan map and denial of the requested rezoning. The rezoning request was
originally scheduled for the March 16, 2006 hearing, but was continued for one month at the request
of the applicant.
Public testimony was limited to that provided by one resident of the Parkwood neighborhood who
expressed support for the applicant's request.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Site Vicinity Map
2. Zoning exhibit 8-1/2" x 14" plan set
3. Applicant's written statement and financial analyses
4. Neighborhood Information meeting summary
5. Correspondence Received
6. Minutes from Planning and Zoning Board meeting of April 20, 2006.
May 16, 2006 -9- Item No. 29 A-B
integrated with an overall street pattern, design and scale that is compatible with the
surrounding neighborhoods and not segregated from them, and has been designed in a
manner that fosters transit service for the Center and surrounding neighborhoods.
B. The proposed Structure Plan amendment and rezone is not supported by the City's
Comprehensive Plan policies and will not promote the public welfare.
C. There are no changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and including the
subject property that warrant the rezone.
D. The proposed rezoning is not compatible with the existing and proposed uses surrounding
the subject land, and is not the appropriate zone district for the land.
E. The proposed rezoning will not result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
F. The proposed rezoning does not result in a logical and orderly development pattern.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING
Although quasi-judicial rezone applications are exempt from the neighborhood meeting
requirements, a neighborhood meeting was held to discuss the rezoning and structure plan
amendment on March 2, 2006. A summary of this meeting is attached. In general, area residents
provided a mixed response to the applicant's request. Some residents expressed support for
providing retail and restaurant uses closer to their neighborhood, allowing convenient access to
services without negotiating the Drake and Timberline intersection. Others questioned the need for
additional retail uses along the Timberline frontage and expressed a fear that the minor rezoning
request would "open the door" for future commercial rezonings within the area. In the opinion of
some residents, the rezoning might increase the intensity of traffic and decrease the level of safety.
During the course of the meeting, there was considerable discussion about the anticipated increase
in traffic volumes along Timberline Road in the future, particularly in light of the upcoming road
widening project, and a fear that associated safety and congestion issues will be exacerbated as the
area becomes more developed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the following:
A. Denial of the requested Structure Plan Map amendment from Medium Density Mixed Use
Neighborhood to Neighborhood Commercial Center on a 5.05 acre parcel located at the
northwest corner of Timberline and Drake Roads.
B. Denial of the requested rezoning from MMN, Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood
to NC, Neighborhood Commercial on a 5.05 acre parcel located at the northwest corner of
Timberline and Drake Roads.
May 16, 2006 -8- Item No. 29 A-B
to serve multiple neighborhoods located within a reasonable distance.
Tenants of this Center include a King Soopers supermarket with a pharmacy,
a freestanding bank, gas station, and several existing and future inline
retailers providing a range of goods and services. Further, the Timberline
Center, which was approved in December 2005 for property just north of the
Police Services Administration Building, provides additional services within
the Timberline Road corridor.
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.
As mentioned, the proposed NC zone district is not an appropriate zone
district given the property's proximity to the NC district in place cater-
cornered from the site and the other opportunities for non-residential
opportunities already afforded within the MMN zone district.
D. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not
limited to, water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation,
wetlands and the natural functioning of the environment.
There is no evidence that the rezoning will result in significant adverse
impacts to the natural environment.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a
logical and orderly development pattern.
The rezoning is inconsistent with the development pattern envisioned under
the City's Structure Plan. This City Structure Plan configuration for
Neighborhood Centers is a different approach to commercial area design than
the past. Structure Plan limitations have been a response to proliferation of
commercial developments along arterial streets. The limits focus
commercial services in a way that best address the aesthetic and urban form
implications, as well as traffic impacts, brought about by strip development
oriented to arterial streets.
Findings of Fact/Conclusion:
In evaluating the request to amend the Spring Creek Farms Structure Plan minor amendment and
rezone, Staff makes the following findings of fact:
A. The Structure Plan amendment is not warranted since the existing mix of retail and service
uses found within .the Rigden Farm Neighborhood Commercial Center located directly
across Timberline Road provides sufficient goods and services necessary to sustain nearby
neighborhoods. Further, the Rigden Farm Neighborhood Center has been effectively
May 16, 2006 -7- Item No. 29 A-B
If the applicant desires to provide truly secondary and supportive commercial uses within the MMN
zone district, the existing zoning provides additional opportunities. First, the Code allows up to 15%
of the MMN zoned property for "secondary uses", including Personal and Business Service Shops.
Such uses are defined as "shops engaged in providing services generally involving the care of the
person or such person's apparel or rendering services to business establishments such as laundry or
dry cleaning retail outlets, portrait/photographic studios, beauty or barber shops, employment
service, or mailing or copy shops". Second, the Land Use Code was amended this past year to make
provision for small-scale restaurants, deli's, coffee shops, and similar uses to be incorporated into
mixed -use buildings within the MMN zone under specific size and operational limits.
The segment of Timberline Road between Harmony Road to Conifer (extended) has also been
designated as an Enhanced Travel Corridor (ETC) within the Comprehensive Plan. An ETC
provides high frequency /high efficiency travel opportunities, including transit services that link
activity centers within the City. The Rigden Farm Neighborhood Center provides special design
opportunities, including a future bus stop and a site plan with enhanced pedestrian access to and
from the future bus stop located along Timberline Road.
Since there is no adopted Subarea or Corridor Plan for the Timberline road frontage, staff relies on
the Structure Plan and zone district designations to provide guidance. The direction of these two
documents points to a concentration of retail rather than along street frontages, i.e., the area is not
zoned C, Commercial because the community is trying to avoid replication of the pattern of
commercial development along major arterial streets.
Request to rezone from Medium Density Mixed Neighborhood, M-M-N to Neighborhood
Commercial, NC— Section 2.9.4(H):
The request to rezone from MMN to the NC zone district is considered quasi-judicial (versus
legislative) since the parcel is less than 640 acres. There are five standards that may be used in
evaluating a request for a quasi-judicial rezoning. These standards, and how the request complies,
are summarized below:
A. Any amendment to the Zoning Map shall be recommended for approval only
iftheproposed amendment is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan;
and/or.
As stated above under the Structure Plan amendment analysis, staff has
concluded that the proposal is inconsistent with the principles and policies
of City Plan.
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.
Changes to the immediate area since 2001, when the property was zoned
MMN, including improvements to Timberline Road and anticipated Police
Services building, do not trigger the need to rezone the property. The
recently constructed Shops at Rigden Farm, located diagonally across the
intersection from the property, fulfills the basic consumer demands needed
May 16, 2006 -6- Item No. 29 A-B
district "should extend an average of about one -quarter (1/4) of a mile from the edge of the adjacent
Neighborhood Commercial Center..." While the applicant accurately states that the MMN district
extends beyond 1/4 mile (actually 1/3 mile where the applicant has incorrectly stated 1 /2 mile) north
of the NC district on Drake Road, the impact of the new Police Services building has not been
accounted for. The Police Services building, which is defined as a "community facility', is located
within the MMN zone district. If the Police Services site were netted out of the district, since it is
not a residential use, the resulting MMN district is almost exactly 1/4 mile in length.
The applicant has submitted a market analysis, demographic profile and current retail inventory
(documents attached) contending the existing NC zoning at Rigden Farm does not satisfy
commercial demand within a 1.5 mile radius trade area. The market analysis concludes that a need
exists for an additional 182,000 square feet of commercial space. In part, the Applicant attributes
this to the transfer of three (3) acres of the Rigden Farm development zoned NC as a senior housing
development that will not be developed for commercial uses, and that no other additional land within
the trade area is available to satisfy commercial demand.
While the applicant has made a good point about the challenges to bicycle and pedestrian access to
existing neighborhood centers, other fundamental City Plan polices outweigh and override this
particular concern.
Staff contends a change in the Structure Plan is not warranted primarily given the existence of the
Shops at Rigden Farm. This new commercial center, located diagonally across the intersection from
the property, fulfills the basic consumer demands needed to serve multiple neighborhoods located
within a one mile radius. The center provides the land development pattern and uses described in
City Plan. Tenants include a King Soopers supermarket with a pharmacy, a freestanding bank, gas
station, restaurants, and several existing and future inline retailers providing a range of goods and
services.
In fact, the applicant's submitted Market Conditions Map (labeled Exhibit E in Attachment 3) quite
clearly substantiates staff s position. The map shows how Neighborhood Commercial Centers have
been strategically placed to capture the market within a short vehicle commute and can also readily
allow for alternative travel methods, while limiting their location so as to enhance the economic
strength of NC districts so they are able to provide high quality amenities, and site and architectural
design, as envisioned under City Plan.
The submitted market analysis is flawed with respect to use of a 1.5 mile trade area radius versus
a one -mile trade area radius, and the lack of attention given to other potential non-residential uses
within the immediate area. If a one -mile trade radius is utilized for Neighborhood Commercial
centers within this quadrant of the community, area residents are clearly served by existing and
planned neighborhood scale commercial centers. Those residing closer to Lemay Avenue, for
example, are conveniently located near the Scotch Pines Shopping Center, which is anchored by the
Sunflower Market and provides several other essential services. Similarly, the approved (but not
constructed) Harmony School Shops at the northeast corner of Timberline and Harmony will
provide a full range of services to neighborhoods south of Horsetooth Road. The study failed to
incorporate planned retail, restaurant and service uses provided within the recently approved
Timberline Center, located 1/4 mile north of the subject property, and within the approved Sidehill
neighborhood center planned across the street and approximately 1 /2 mile to the north.
May 16, 2006 -5- Item No. 29 A-B
Review Criteria for Structure Plan Minor Amendments
Appendix C of City Plan outlines mandatory requirements for public notice, review process and
evaluation criteria for minor amendments to City Plan, including Structure Plan map amendments.
The Plan text states:
"A plan amendment will be approved if the City Council makes specific findings
that:
The existing City Plan and/or related element thereof is in need of the proposed
amendment; and
The proposed plan amendment will promote the public welfare and will be consistent
with the vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan and the elements thereof. "
Relevant Principles and Policies of City Plan:
PRINCIPLEMMN-3: ANeighborhood Commercial Center will provide uses to meet
consumer demands from surrounding Residential Districts for everyday goods and
services, and will be pedestrian -oriented places as' a focal pointfor the surrounding
neighborhoods.
Policy MMN-3.1 Land Uses/Grocery Store Anchor. A grocery store, supermarket,
or other type of anchor (e.g., drugstore) should be the primary functional offering
of these Centers. A mix of retail, professional office, and other services oriented to
serve surrounding neighborhoods are the secondary offerings. The Neighborhood
Commercial Center will provide locations for some limited auto -related uses.
Policy MMN-3.2 Surrounding Neighborhoods. The Neighborhood Commercial
Center should be integrated in the surrounding Medium Density Mixed -Use
Neighborhood, contributing to the neighborhood's positive identity and image.
Residents should be able to easily get to the Center without the need to use an
arterial street.
The strength of the applicant's justification for rezoning lies in City Plan's emphasis on bicycle and
pedestrian mobility. Policy MMN-3.2 clearly states that "(r)esidents should be able to easily get to
the Center without the need to use an arterial street". The applicant correctly points out that
residents of the surrounding Parkwood, Parkwood East and Meadows East neighborhoods must
cross 'either Timberline Road or Lemay, Avenue to access the neighborhood -scale commercial
centers that serve their neighborhoods: The Shops at Rigden Farm and Scotch Pines Shopping
Center. It is acknowledged that recent Timberline Road improvements include enhanced
crosswalks, but the relatively high existing traffic speeds and volumes, makes the pedestrian and
bicycle crossing experience safe, but not particularly desirable. With Timberline potentially widened
to 6 lanes in the future, crossing Timberline on foot or by bike will become more challenging.
The applicant also makes a case that the rezoning will bring the development pattern more in line
with the policy regarding the size of the MMN district. Policy MMN-2.1: stipulates that an MMN
May 16, 2006 -4- Item No. 29 A-B
A summary of the applicant's reasons for the request is captured below. The applicant's more
detailed written statement, along with corresponding City Plan policies and financial analyses, are
attached.
• The proposed amendment would slightly expand the physical size of the
existing NC zone and bring the MMN zone closer to a 1/4 mile depth on the
northerly boundary. This would result in a more logical and orderly
development pattern.
• The existing RL neighborhood to the west represents 800 acres of housing
with no access to existing or planned centers between the Prospect/Lemay
Center and the Harmony Corridor without crossing a major north -south
arterial street.
• Expanding the NC zone across Timberline will provide convenient access for
the existing RL neighborhoods to the west and easy in -out access for south
bound traffic on Timberline and west bound traffic on Drake. The net effect
will be a reduction in vehicle miles traveled.
• Expanding the NC zone across Timberline will allow more goods and
services to be available to bicyclists from the west without crossing a major
arterial street.
• Expanding the NC zone across Timberline will allow more goods and
services to be available to pedestrians from the west without crossing a major
arterial street.
• The planned and existing neighborhoods west of Timberline will be much
better served if there are NC uses also on the west side of Timberline.
• The current MMN zoning on the west side of Timberline extends north
nearly a half -mile from Drake. This would be brought more in line with this
Policy if the subject property were rezoned to NC.
• The existing RL neighborhood and the currently MMN district to the west,
have no access to the existing Rigden Center without crossing Timberline.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
City Plan Structure Plan Map Minor Amendment:
The City Structure Plan, an element of the City's comprehensive plan, is a map that sets forth a
basic pattern of development, showing how Fort Collins should grow and evolve over the next 20
years. The map designates the L-shaped subject parcel at the northwest corner of Drake and
Timberline Roads as Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood.
The applicant's request is to redesignate the property as "Neighborhood Commercial Center".
May 16, 2006 -3. Item No. 29 A-B
The Planning and Zoning Board approved the Timberline Center Project Development Plan in
December 2005, a mixed use project located just north of the proposed Police Services
Administration Building and within the I -Industrial zone district. Specific non-residential and non-
industrial uses within the Timberline Center include a convenience shopping center, general office,
bank, and standard and fast food restaurants. Total gross leasable square footage within the entire
development is 179,200 square feet.
Land Use Code:
The regulations covering rezonings in the City of Fort Collins are contained in Division 2.9 of the
Land Use Code. Section 2.9.4 (H) (2) indicates the following:
Mandatory Requirements for Quasi -Judicial Rezonings. Any amendment to the
Zoning Map involving the zoning or rezoning of six hundred forty (640) acres of
land or less (a quasi-judicial rezoning) shall be recommended for approval by the
Planning and Zoning Board or approved by the City Council only if the proposed
amendment is:
(a) consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan; and/or
(b) warranted by changed conditions within the neighborhood surrounding and
including the subject property.
Section 2.9.4 (H) (3) of the Land Use Code indicates the following:
Additional Considerationsfor Quasi -Judicial Rezonings. In determining whether to
recommend approval of any such proposed amendment, the City Council may
consider the following additional factors:
(a) 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;
(b) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including, but not
limited to, water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife, vegetation,
wetlands and natural functioning of the environment;
(c) whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a
logical and orderly development pattern.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST AND JUSTIFICATION:
Dave Shoup of Jim Sell Design, Inc., an authorized representative of the property owner, has
submitted a rezoning petition and corresponding request to amend the Structure Plan.
May 16, 2006 -2- Item No. 29 A-B
BACKGROUND
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: MMN and E; Vacant. Planned and approved City Police Administration Building
I;
Recently approved retail and industrial (Timberline Center) and existing
industrial uses
S:
RL;
Meadows East Neighborhood (single family housing),
SE:
NC;
The Shops at Rigden Farm Neighborhood Commercial Center
MMN;
Rigden Farm multifamily housing
LMN;
Rigden Farm multifamily and single family housing, Timberline Church
E:
MMN:
Multi -family and single family housing (Sidehill), Cargil seedresearch
facility
W:
RL;
Existing Parkwood East neighborhood, UP/SP Railroad
tracks, city trail running adjacent (west of) the railroad tracks
NW:
MMN;
Parkwood East Apartments,
POL;
Edora Pool and Ice Center, Edora Park, Spring Creek Trail.
The property was annexed in November 1997 as a portion of the "Timberline Annexation."
The property was later zoned in 2001, as part of the larger 55-acre Johnson Farm Rezone at the
northwest comer of Timberline Road and Drake Road. This larger property was rezoned from T-
Transition to a combination of MMN (30 acres), LMN (18.6 acres) and E-Employment (7.2 acres).
The present 5-acre Spring Creek rezone request represents a portion of the Johnson Farm property
included within the 2001 rezoning.
In the 2001 rezoning, a market analysis of the site based on (then) current and future land use
inventory and absorption rates was submitted as one of a number of considerations. The market
analysis concluded that "this location is at a competitive disadvantage for retail or employment uses
because it has.no direct connection to I-25" and that "nearby retail development in Rigden Farm will
provide an attractive convenience to prospective residents within walking distance of this site".
During the review of the 2001 rezone request, when the subject property received MMN zoning, the
staff and. Planning and Zoning Board concluded that:
• the location of MMN is appropriate given the close proximity to the Neighborhood
Commercial Center in Rigden Farm with the MMN neighborhood supporting the
commercial uses and vice versa;
• the site is well suited for MMN uses because it is on a designated future high
frequency transit route; and
• the location is well suited for MMN uses because of the close proximity to
employment centers along Prospect, further south on Timberline, and along
Harmony Road.
Recently, a request for a 93,000 square foot City police services facility was approved on 7.53 acres
located approximately 250 feet north of the requested rezoning area on a parcel located at the
southwest corner of Timberline Road and Nancy Gray Drive.
ITEM NUMBER: 29 A-B
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: May 16, 2006
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Cameron Gloss
SUBJECT
Items Relating to Spring Creek Farms Rezoning and Amendment to the Structure Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial ofthe amendment to the Structure Plan and denial of the request to rezone
from MMN, Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood, to NC, Neighborhood Commercial, a 5.05
acre parcel located at the northwest comer of Timberline and Drake Roads. The Planning and
Zoning Board voted 4-1 on April 20, 2006, to recommend denial of the plan amendment and
requested rezoning.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 2006-061 Amending the City's Structure Plan Map.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 086, 2006, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort
Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for That Certain Property Known as the
Spring Creek Farms Rezoning.
APPLICANT: Jim Sell Design, Inc.
c/o Dave Shoup
153 West Mountain Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
OWNER: SC Group Investments, LLC
6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 293
Englewood, CO 80111
This is a request to amend the City Plan Structure Plan map and a concurrent request for a
corresponding rezoning. Staff finds the amendment to the Structure Plan to be inconsistent with the
vision, goals, principles and policies of City Plan. The Structure Plan amendment is not warranted
since the existing mix of retail and service uses found within the Rigden Farm Neighborhood
Commercial Center located directly across Timberline Road provides sufficient goods and services
necessary to sustain nearby neighborhoods. The rezoning fails to satisfy the criteria of Section 2.9.4
of the Land Use Code.