HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 07/23/1990PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES
July 23, 1990
The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:30
p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins,
Colorado. Board members present included: Chairman Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom,
Jan Cottier, Laurie O'Dell, Lloyd Walker, and Joe Carroll.
Staff members present included Joe Frank, Ted Shepard, Paul Eckman, Sherry
Albertson -Clark, Steve Olt, Kerrie Ashbeck, Kirsten Whetstone and Georgian Taylor.
Board Members present at the July 20, 1990 worksession included: Chairman Jim
Klataske, Bernie Strom, Laurie O'Dell, Joe Carroll, and Jan Cottier. Members absent
included Lloyd Walker.
AGENDA REVIEW
Assistant Planning Director Joe Frank reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda.
The Consent Agenda included: Item 2 - Martin Luther Home Adolescent Facility -
Group Home, #24-87A; Item 3 - Wonderland Preschool and Child Care Center PUD -
Preliminary and Final, 026-90; Item 4 - Split Rail Manor Group Home PUD -
Preliminary & Final, #27-90; Item 5 - One Prospect PUD - Final, #17-90; Item 6 -
The Market at Horsetooth Commons PUD, Lot 2 - Amended Final, 096-81N.
Member Strom moved to approve consent agenda items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Member
O'Dell seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7-0.
ROHRBA KER PUD - Preliminary and Final #41-89C
• Member Carroll declared a conflict of Interest on the project and would not be
participating in the discussion or vote.
Sherry Albertson -Clark gave the staff report recommending approval.
Member Walker asked when the landscape goes in if there would be any
communication between the two sites, there was no gate or driveway shown.
Ms. Clark replied that at her request, the applicant had talked about locating two
gates in the fenced area so they could have cross access. Staff did not have a
problem with them crossing from lot to lot across the street. They view it the same
as a person having a driveway backing onto a local street. They felt the cross
traffic from lot to lot would be minimal and create minimal traffic impacts.
Lucia Liley, from the law firm of March and Myatt, representing the applicant,
asked the chairman to consider the opportunity, not only to them but to the
opponents, to do a brief rebuttal.
Chairman Klataske granted the request.
Ms. Liley stated that the project had been turned down in March by the Board on a
5-2 vote.
Ms. Liley stated that the Board's previous concerns were drainage of fluid from
vehicles on the site, the Magnolia Street fencing and the set back and how that was
going to work, the ability to require future improvementp, drainage and flooding
questions that had come up by some of the neighborhood residents, crushing of
vehicles on the site and the noise that would go along with it, confusion over legal
and illegal auto salvage uses and compatibility with the neighborhood especially the
visual impact of an auto salvage use, and the number of conditions (6) that were
recommended by the staff as part of the approval and also the fact that it was a
combined preliminary and final.
Ms. Liley stated that the appeal was filed with the City Council by Gene Fisher and
he had asked her to review it and she looked at the tape and the minutes and the
submission and recommended to the Specht's that they withdraw the appeal. There
were some issues with the appeal. The issues related to the confusion over the illegal
uses. It seemed to her that this was not a clean land use issue, there were a
number of legitimate issues that were confusing on the record and there were issues
that had just not been addressed.
Ms. Liley stated that Specht agreed to withdraw and did so. They wanted to
resubmit because they felt they could work through the system. They talked to the
staff, they talked with their engineers, they reviewed the minutes, they talked about
what the concerns were and they felt they could address the concerns and have a
viable business out there, so they decided the resubmission was a viable route to go.
Ms. Liley stated the goal was to eliminate all of the previous conditions which had
been put on the project and to take the various issues just talked about which were
concerns not only from the Board but from the neighborhood and the staff and try
to deal with it in the revised site plan. Ms. Liley stated that it was important, when
the use is auto salvage. There was an immediate difficulty and that was the stigma
that was associated with an auto salvage use. You could not meaningfully talk
about the project without talking about what an auto salvage use is and what it was
not, and particularly what this proposal was about and what restrictions would be
on this proposal which the City could enforce.
Ms. Liley stated that was important here because you had LDGS criteria which
encompassed a very broad spectrum of uses, that encompass every salvage, every
extraction, every junk use without any distinction in magnitude or type of use
within that category. So broad that it would even cover a gravel mining operation.
Ms. Liley stated that it was important to make the distinction between a junk yard
and an auto salvage use because it would be easy to have the wrong assumptions
about what impact this particular proposal was going to have on the neighboring
properties. It was real blue collar and dirty fingernails and it was not Comlinear
but on the other hand it was not a trashy junk yard area and the comparison was
unfair. What it was, was a useful independent small business that recycles every
small part of a damaged automobile and puts it back into circulation. The ultimate
beneficiaries are the customers that may not be able to afford a new car or a new
part when theirs was damaged.
Ms. Liley went on to say that all of us had seen junk yards around, places where,
without any restrictions, you can submit any kind of material or garbage or
furniture or appliances and basically leave it there to rot. That was not what they
were talking about. Clearly this was a restricted use, restricted just to auto salvage.
It was not going to store appliances, furniture, garbages for rats to feed on which
was a concern that was brought up at a neighborhood meeting. The cars were going
to be recycled and salvaged in a very efficient manner within an enclosed building.
Ms. Liley submitted memos to the board regarding the specific business operation,
the drainage, storage and recycling.
Wayne Specht, owner and operator of Auto Salvage stated his business was selling
recycled automobile parts. The business was an old business, they had owned the
business for five years. They buy late model damaged vehicles from insurance pools
and the cars are then moved into a building from the storage area with a fork lift.
6Z
•
The first step was to run the vehicle to see if the motor was any good and if so,
• the good parts are pulled from the vehicle like the motor, transmission, power
steering pump, heater motor and things that were good selling items. After that all
the fluids were drained and after the vehicle was stripped, if the vehicle was worth
saving, it was taken to the storage lot or loaded on a truck and hauled to a crusher
and the car was crushed. When they take the parts off, the parts are numbered
and they are then put into inventory.
Mr. Specht stated the difference between buying a recycled part compared to a new
part was approximately 1/3 to 1/4 the price in the used part, and in most cases it
is as good as a new part. People depend on the recycled parts to keep their
vehicles running because they cannot afford to buy new parts.
Mr. Specht stated that when they get ready to get rid of a vehicle, when it had
been around too long, they load it on a truck and take it to the crusher. That is
what they call junk, when the car was no longer any value to them. The cars they
have in the storage lot would not be visible behind the eight foot fence they
intended to put up.
Mr. Specht stated all the oil would be drained into a 30 gallon drum and in turn
that would be stored in a 50 gallon drum, so there would be no possible way there
would be any leakage. The same was true for anti -freeze. Freon was pumped out
and recycled. The gasoline was pumped out and used in their vehicles. All that
work was done inside their building.
Mr. Specht stated people would like to down grade his business by calling it a junk
yard. Junk was what he hauled away. He had no use for any junk. They keep an
orderly business, which was needed and respected by many in the area. They had
. met all the City's PUD requirements and sincerely hoped the board would vote for
their approval.
Ms. Liley stated the major difference in the previous plan was that they had a
development agreement. They proposed it as a way to deal with a couple of
concerns. The concerns with the Magnolia Street improvements, both roadway and
streetscape, concerns about drainage and storage of fluids and parts and other
operational issues. With the development first and foremost, they thought that there
was a better treatment on Magnolia Street. The Spechts had agreed to dedicate a 54
foot wide right-of-way on Magnolia so the City would have the option, if they need
it in the future, to extend Magnolia to the west. It may never be needed if the
undeveloped property to the west decides not to take local access from the extension
of Magnolia and if that would happen, the City would again vacate it and it would
be again be owned by the then owners of the Rohrbacker site. But if it was
needed, it was there and the City had it and at that time the development
agreement provides that it would trigger a number of requirements. Those
requirements would be that all storage, which might be in the 40 foot set -back, not
the street right-of-way, but the 40 foot set -back, be removed at the owner's cost, and
that the owner would improve Magnolia Street to City local street standards. That
the owner would put in the streetscape in the 40 foot setback as shown on the site
plan which included turf and a mix of different types of trees and an g foot new
wooded fence that would be behind the setback. This was a substantial
improvement because on the earlier plan, the improvements did not really need to go
in at that point in time and there was a question what to do with them. This way
the roadway, streetscape, set back improvements would not go in unless and until
they were needed, if in fact Magnolia Street is ever extended. In addition, the
. improvements that would go in at that point are clearly defined in both the site
plan and the development agreement and there was a means of enforcing those
requirements. The second advantage, in addition to the Magnolia Street
improvements, was the development agreement which also addresses some very
-3-
specific concerns. All drainage of fluids from vehicles was to occur inside. Nothing
was to be allowed to be drained outside or parts removed outside. The temporary
storage would be limited to two thirty gallon barrels and they would be put into a
50 gallon drum, and that would be further encased with a 3 foot high concrete
barricade. This would also happen inside on a concrete floor. Freon would be
limited to one 25 pound pressure drum until recycled and transmissions and batteries
would be stored inside the building on racks until recycled. The agreement also
provides that there would be full compliance with current City fire code
requirements and state and local hazardous waste regulations. The other issues the
development agreement deals with was the operation.. There would be no car
crushing on the site. When the cars had lost all their value, they would be removed
off the site to a place that did crushing; no stacking of vehicles no higher than 8
feet, so the 8 foot fencing becomes truly an effective screen, and there would be no
storage in the street right-of-way. In addition to the development agreement, there
was some other changes agreed to on the site plan. There would be solid wood
fencing around the entire perimeter of the area instead of the eastern boundary as
formally proposed and the set back. This has been a very substantial and costly
change but one the Spechts thought necessary to address all the concerns raised
about the aesthetic and screening impact of the project. The fence would screen
this use from all adjacent uses and also the adjacent auto storage and auto salvage
uses.
Ms. Liley stated two additional issues had come up. One was the gate, and on the
original site plan submitted there was an indication the gate was optional with the
owner. Mr. Specht needed the gate and wanted the gate to secure the property, and
there would be a solid gate put in to secure the property. The other question that
came up had to do with screening. With visibility into the Rohrbacker site from the
properties on Magnolia, both on the north and south and whether with the width of
the gate you might be able to see into the auto storage area. There are existing
trees right at the Magnolia entrance on the south which do a pretty effective job of
screening of the storage of automobiles, so if you were on the north side of
Magnolia looking onto the other side of the Rohrbacker site, those trees were
already there and existing and would be behind the gate, so if you were at an
angle, they had some effective screening already behind the gate. On the other side
there was no landscaping, but there was no auto storage on the first part of the
area. What there was, was a parking lot and the building. If it was still an issue
with the screening and the board still thought they should do something further,
they were willing to do that, and they had a couple of options in draft form. They
could narrow the gate opening and extend it north so there would be an opening of
about 20 feet and that would further minimize and reduce any impact looking down
through the gate. All existing landscaping had been retained and they added
landscaping both at the entrance and the streetscape. Just to note that it was an
awful lot more than what is there now.
They had agreed to put in a 12 inch earth berm for the irrigation water coming
from the property to the west. This was not a requirement of the City, it was to
retain water that was caused by the adjacent neighbor and it was done strictly to
address the concerns the neighbors had because storm drainage was cited so many
times as an issue, with storm drainage water running down Magnolia. The Spechts
decided to put in the 12 inch berm to keep the irrigation water from running down
Magnolia Street. The 9 inch filter berm was a much more extensive berming system.
The berming goes all the way on the downstream side and the purpose was to
prevent any potential oil or grease or drippings that might not be completely
drained inside the building which were being stored outside from washing onto any
other properties in a storm. Because there was a lot of concern at the earlier
hearing about is this a flooding problem, were there storm drainage issues. This is
not in the 100 year floodplain or floodway. The storm drainage report and update
had been reviewed by the City's Storm Drainage Department and they agreed with
-4-
the conclusions and findings of their engineer that they had met the requirements
• for handling storm drainage on the site, and in fact exceeded the City's
requirements with the berming.
Larimer County Health Department as well as the City had given the opinion that
given the proposed operation, operated in accordance with the development
agreement and with the conditions talked about, that this would pose no more of an
environmental hazard than any normal parking lot runoff after a rain or snow
storm.
They have had a number of discussions with the fire department and with the
health department. The present auto salvage operation had periodic fire inspections
and never had a problem complying and those would obviously continue. They
would have to comply with the full range of applicable fire code provisions and
health department hazardous material provisions. The fire code has a lot of
regulations that deal with the same subjects they have been talking about, storage of
gasoline, what operations could be handled inside and outside of a building, so the
board would also have that layer of enforcement in addition to what was being
offered there. There was obviously different kinds of enforcement depending on
what regulations are talked about. With regard to the site plan improvements going
in now, those being fencing, landscaping, filter berms, the concrete encasements for
the fluids, all of those would have to go in now before a C.O. would be issued or
the use could not be maintained on the site. So they either will do it or they won't
be able to use the site at the very beginning. With regard to the possible future
site plan improvements, the Magnolia Street improvements and the setback and
streetscape, those are both on the site plan as conditions and they are also in the
development agreement, so they had the full range of contractual and zoning
remedies. With regard to the prohibitions on crushing and stacking and no storage
• in the right-of-way, those are all easily observable items and if they are complied
with that was fine and if not there were the same range of remedies, both civil,
criminal and contractual.
In summary, with regard to the specific changes that they were talking about, the
Spechts had made a great effort to address the concerns that were raised by the
board and by the neighborhood and by the staff and had come back with a plan
and also a development agreement and site plan controls to deal with the concerns
and they do have a clean plan. They had made a great attempt to establish through
the evidence that this would be a safe operation without any significant
environmental impact on the neighborhood as proposed and mitigated.
That brings us to the land use compatibility issue, which was clearly something the
Board wrestled with last time. Can this use be a compatible use, given what was
there now, the zoning, and the existing use. To talk about the existing land use in
the area, it was necessary to have a sense of what was legal and what was illegal
because the issue had dominated the discussion both at the hearing and at the
neighborhood meetings. The City staff, in the packet, had given the board a
summary of the uses that were there and thought it was an accurate summary based
on what they had found out from the County, but would like to make a couple of
comments. In addition to Wayne Specht's existing auto salvage use on Olive Court,
there were two auto salvage operations in the general vicinity, both legal and both
in compliance with the conditions of approval that the County put on them. The
Slatten-Collier auto salvage, had a condition by the County to fence the operation
entirely with an eight foot fence. They had now complied with that as of late June
and you could not see anything on the site. The Schaulin was the other approved
auto salvage site and the land use of auto salvage was established in the review in
1980 not in 1989. It was reaffirmed in 1989 through a special review and the
conditions on fencing and landscaping were changed. Those have now been met and
a fence had now been erected to the west that screened the undeveloped property.
-5-
There was no fencing approved on the south, which was the portion adjacent to the
Rohrbacker site, so it was totally unscreened auto salvage directly north of the site.
There were two other uses in the general area that were not auto salvage, Ditus
Auto Body and North Colorado Insurance Pool which have their businesses fronting
on Mulberry and have back lots which are used for storage of damaged automobiles
as an accessory use. Those uses are pretty deep and wrap around the property. The
Rohrbacker site is then behind that and to the north and there had been some
confusion about whose cars were the ones stored on the Rohrbacker site. The stored
cars on the Rohrbacker site were not visible from Mulberry, the stored autos from
Ditus Auto Body and Rocky Mountain Insurance Pool were. Those were the uses
which are along the entire southern boundary of the Rohrbacker PUD. They were
unscreened permanent storage of damaged automobiles.
As noted in the staff comment, it was true that the present storage of vehicles on
the Rohrbacker site was not approved by the County, and it was not a legal
non -conforming use, and that was because it was zoned O-Open before it was
brought into the City. Both auto -salvage and auto -storage were permitted in that
zone upon a special review, and there was not a special review. Wayne first leased
the property three to four years ago, and when leased there were already autos
being stored on the site and had been for a period of six years before that. There
was also Sipes concrete, an existing legal non -conforming use which is still out there
on the same property, a concrete/construction business with a lot of outdoor
unscreened storage and because all those uses were existing, his assumption was at
the time as a lessee, that all those uses were permitted. When the County contacted
him and told him those were not permitted uses, he became involved in the long
two year process of going through the annexation to try to get the site annexed and
approved so he could relocate the auto salvage from Olive Court to this site.
When talking about compatibility, you obviously had to define what was the
neighborhood and overall if you look at the existing zoning and look at what is
existing in place now, you would see a heavily industrial and commercial area with
virtually every type of use allowed in that area from heavy industrial, light
industrial, to commercial having outdoor unscreened storage. Most of it is fairly
unattractive. The other point was that if there was a single predominant use in the
area, it , was clearly auto -related, meaning directly auto or a business that services
autos. Mrs. Specht went out and did a survey of the general neighborhood from
Riverside heading north and east, a pretty large area, but encompasses this site and
there were approximately 72 auto -related uses in the area. (A red -dot map was
presented to the board to show the uses in the area). Note that the point was that it
had to be an auto related use, but clearly that was a predominant use, not only in
this particular area, but in the general area. This site was in the center of an area
bounded by Lemay, Mulberry, Link and Lincoln and the storage of automobiles was
not visible, even with out the 8 foot fence either from Lemay or from Mulberry.
Ms. Liley showed slides of the existing uses surrounding the Rohrbacker site, citing
the outdoor storage of all the surrounding businesses.
Ms. Liley added that the Land Development Guidance System has a section called
Social Compatibility, and it talks about looking to a neighborhood and involving
them in the process so they may help define the goals and values of the
neighborhood. The point they wanted to leave the board with, in talking about this
and in the letters and petitions that were sent and being introduced tonight, is that
there is much more of a mixed feeling that was there, in fact there were a lot of
uses of all types of businesses, light industrial, commercial, heavy industrial, that
support the use as mitigated with the fencing and the landscaping improvements. (A
map was introduced that identifies the area in a better fashion than what had been
shown, the different uses that were around and they had keyed in the people that
had given them letters of support, what the use was, whether it was an owner or a
-6-
tenant. They had not included anyone that had signed the petition, just those who
had sent letters. They did not include anyone who was in support that did not
want to sign a letter and there were a number of people who were contacted that
said they did not care). (Letters that came in late were introduced, some in
response to the Triangle Review article that were volunteered and for the record,
the names of the business who wrote letters were read). These letters do represent a
pretty good cross segment of uses, both uses immediately in the area and in the
general area. For example, there was one from Seder Plastics, who runs a light
industrial plastic molding injection operation, very similar to Plastec. They have a
very nice facility on Link Lane with very nice landscaping and they were very
supportive of the use as proposed. There were letters from owners on Olive Ct. and
other owners who lease to any number of different businesses who feel that this use
would be very compatible and would not be detrimental to continued leasing of the
property. There are many auto related uses that depend upon this kind of auto
salvage in their area so they do not need to make trips across town but can use
what was a natural kind of use to their operations. In sum, with regards to the
letters and petitions, they were trying to petitions, they were trying to demonstrate
that this was not the incompatible eyesore which some would have you believe, but
is deemed by a good many owners in the neighborhood to be a compatible use with
uses that already exist there. With the mitigation that was being proposed, the
fencing, the landscaping, this use would screen itself from Ditus, from Rocky
Mountain, from Schaulin and it would screen the outdoor storage which was
unscreened on the Magnolia uses. This use would be, in that area, probably the
most totally screened and least visually impacting use in the entire area and it was
difficult to say when you see the mitigation and see the existing uses that it was
not effective mitigation.
There had been an allegation made with regard to the gateways, that if the board
approved this use that it would be a severe blow to the gateways, or would
denigrate the gateways, presumably Lemay and Mulberry. Ms. Liley asked them to
consider that the visibility from the site, particularly with the 8 foot wooden fence
would not be a problem from either Lemay or Mulberry. Secondly, with regard to
extending Magnolia, Magnolia is a local street and could never be and was never
intended to be a major thoroughfare between Lemay and Link Lane, it was not
going to be that kind of street.
The last comment about the compatibility issue was that approving this would also
be an upgrade in terms of the Sipes Concrete use, which again was a legal
non -conforming use presently there and it had a lot of unscreened storage on the
site which would continue. With the eight foot fence it would screen that use as
well, from both the undeveloped property to the north and the Magnolia properties
to the east.
Ms. Liley added that they were left then with the argument, which may be the real
opposition, in that was they just don't want an auto salvage yard and mitigation
was irrelevant. It was the use itself, per se, which was the problem. That was a
difficult issue. It was difficult if you look at the annexation history of the
property, if you look at what the Land Development Guidance System had to say
about the property. This property was annexed, but it did not legally compel the
City to approve an auto salvage use, but it was also clear that when it was annexed,
the comments were clearly stated to both the Planning and Zoning Board and the
City Council that the intention was to put an auto salvage yard there. Not to say
that when they approved that, they approved an auto salvage, but the reasonable
expectation was particularly where it was an annexation compelled by the
. intergovernmental agreement between the City and County, the reasonable
expectation was that the use was not inappropriate for that site. They still had to
submit a PUD plan, they still had to meet conditions, but it was not, per se, an
illegitimate or improper use.
-7-
To sum up, they had a user that had tried very hard through the system. They had
two hearings, two neighborhood meetings, and a lot of effort put in to mitigating
what would be any potential impact on surrounding neighborhoods. They had a
specific use with controls on both the site plan and on the development agreement,
which would talk about how that use could be operated and what impact it could
have on the surrounding properties. They had a use that was supported by many in
the neighborhood. For all of these reasons they would ask the board to approve the
Rohrbacker PUD.
Assistant City Attorney Paul Eckman stated there was some mention about the old
record, the minutes and all the pictures and so on from the old record being made a
part of this record tonight. His concern was that with respect to both the record
made by the applicant or the record made by the opponents at the last hearing.
This was a new hearing. In order to keep the record clean for the purpose of this
hearing, in the event of an appeal, that the record made tonight should be the
record that was presented to the board tonight either in oral form or through the
visual presentation or documents. That way both the applicant and the opponents
could have a chance to hear and review the documents and all be operating from
the same base of information.
Ms. Liley stated her purpose in asking that the documents be put in the record was
not to use the old record for making a new decision, but simply to show where they
had been and where they had come tonight in the resubmission so that it could
clearly show the substantial steps that had been taken. She would not have any
objection to incorporating only those portions that talked about the concerns that the
Planning and Zoning Board had and the issues that had come up at the last hearing
just in an effort to show the attempt to mitigate and deal with the issues.
Mr. Eckman stated that if they knew what portions they were, they could read those
sections of the minutes to the board so everyone would know what they said.
Chairman Klataske stated that his feeling was that they explained what the issues
were and went on to explain how they mitigated those.
Ms. Clark added a clarification about references made about the filter berm, and
presented a copy of the utility plan to the board so it was also in the record.
Member Strom asked if the gate was wooden or how was the proposed gate defined.
Ms. Liley stated they were willing to do a solid wooden gate that fit the wood on
the 8 foot high fence.
Member Strom asked about the signage.
Ms. Liley replied they would be using the existing sign
Mr. Specht replied that the sign would be located right in front of the blue building
right above the entrance.
Member Strom asked if it was on the east face of the building.
Mr. Specht replied it would be on the south face of the building.
Ms. Clark showed slides of the sign on the building.
Chairman Klataske asked if the existing signs on the building would come down.
-8-
Ms. Clark replied that was correct.
. Ross Rinker, 1908 Crestmore Place stated he would like to go on record as opposing
the salvage yard within our choice City of Fort Collins. Salvage yards did not add
anything to it and there was a lot of space around the surrounding areas for this
type of business. He agreed that it was a necessary business in the auto salvage
end of it. He was also there as a representative of the Moose Lodge on East
Mulberry Street, 1424 East Mulberry. They would be a very close neighbor of his.
He represented a membership of about 1500 people that belong to the lodge. They
would this weekend be having a state convention and showing their choice city to
approximately 500 people coming into Fort Collins. The salvage did not add to that.
You could call a salvage yard a salvage yard, but if you wanted to look over their
fence to the west that was a salvage yard, but it sure looks like a junk yard. He
would like to go on record as opposing the approval of a salvage yard there.
Russ Stanford, attorney with Allen, Rogers, Metcalf and Vahrenwald, representing
Allen Plumbing and Heating, owners of lots 11, 17, 20 and 21 of the East Mulberry
Subdivision. First point to make was whether this was a respected business as
suggested by the applicant, was immaterial. He would like to note that it was a
non -conforming use under County regulations and City regulations for quite some
time. They had no personality conflicts with the applicant but the use was not a
conforming use with the neighborhood as suggested by the applicant's counsel. The
suggestion that this was not a junk yard flies in the face of the LDGS point chart
G which did not seem to create that distinguishing characteristic. The two were
lumped together in salvage yards and junk yards. He would note that there was no
significant change in the prior plan that was presented to the board and noted that
strategically the applicant had stressed six points of contention strategically listing
non-conformance with the neighborhood near the bottom of the list. His task was
. to raise that concern back up to the top like it was at the prior hearing.
He stated Ms. Liley talked about the stigma of junk yards and he suggested that in
some cases it might be an over -generalization. Generally the stigma associated with
junk yards was the reality. The property value in the area had to be affected
detrimentally. The board would hear from realtors, tenants and other business
owners in the area that there was an absolute consensus in the area that property
values would not go up, they would not stay status quo, they had to go down and
that was a significant concern. One of the points used as a precedent in the case
was the Collier/Slatten property over on Link Lane as a neighboring use. He
thought someone needed to read the County's findings in the case and that they had
specifically denied auto salvage in that case. The tenant of the Collier property
stated that he was going to be on the property for about one year and was already
involved in non -conforming auto salvage use. He was going to buy his own
business. At the hearing the County specifically stated that they did not want to
set a precedent for this type of use to be in the area but because of the tenant's
intent to only be there for one year. They granted him the right to store vehicles
for a one year period. Thereafter, that use was to be revoked. He felt it was up to
the citizens and the board to increase the appearance of that corridor, not create a
8 foot wall fortress at one of the major entrances of the City of Fort Collins.
Rosalie Rohrbacker, 430 West Mrytle, long time owner of the property at 1400 East
Magnolia, stated that she had a contract with Wayne Specht to buy the property
before annexation. In fact she had no idea at that time that annexation would be
involved. She did agree to voluntary annexation of her property into the City with
the understanding that the auto salvage would be approved. She had put much
• thought in the type of business and the type of people that she would like to buy
her property. As she became better acquainted with Wayne and his wife Mary she
found them to be exceptionally reliable and dependable business people. Wayne
always paid his rent promptly and exactly on time and did more than his share of
keeping the property neat. In fact he talked at length about the many
improvements he would like to make to improve the appearance of the property.
She would like to point out that Wayne would not be starting a new business, he
merely would be moving his established and successful business to a new location.
She had remained patient throughout the whole ordeal because she believed in
Wayne and his wife Mary and believed they would be an asset to the neighborhood.
Jim Welty, owner of property at 1405 East Olive Court, directly north of the
proposed salvage site said he supported Wayne and Mary Specht's proposal. He felt
that they had made all of the sacrifices that you could to make a business
successful and he was sure they would continue to do that. They were coming
forth with a proposal to beautify the area and upgrade it from what it presently is
and he felt that a lot of the other businesses, whether they are of automotive
concern or not, could use his example and update their properties. He would like to
express his support.
Bill Wyatt, representing the Bassetts who own property at 1411 East Magnolia Street,
stated that in the slide presentation, that their property was not shown. it was
adjacent to the property, it was a reverse L and the back part of it was adjacent to
the subject property of the Rohrbackers. The Bassett property was developed and
understandably why it was not shown in the slide presentation because it was
developed as an office enclosed light manufacturing facility. He thought the key
issue that the board had to deal with was not the issue that was raised by counsel
in regard to the County having put certain time restrictions on uses, but what they
were doing was making a decision that was going to impact the entrance to Ft.
Collins, which he thought remained to be the primary entrance to the city, for their
lifetime and his lifetime. There was no reservation on this. This was a permanent
thing that they were being asked to do. They were being asked to change a land
use and he thought when you do that, you have to say this is a permanent change
because most likely and probably in our lifetimes, it would be a permanent change.
The thing that concerned him was when we talk about Magnolia Street, was the
impact putting Magnolia through would have. He wrote them a letter on June 15th
that was enclosed in their packet and he tried to raise some points in the letter that
he wanted to emphasize and that was when we take and develop a street through,
which was being talked about possibly doing here, and would be done in the future,
most assurably as Mr. Fisher develops his property to the west. As we do that,
putting Magnolia through, we tend to create amalgamation of all of the uses on
Magnolia Street because now Magnolia Street comes down in front of the Bassetts
property and comes to the Rohrbacker property and it stops. By it stopping they
did not get the flow, the movement through there. Consequently, at least the
Rohrbackers property as it currently relates to other properties on Magnolia on out
to Link Lane, they did not get the amalgamation of those uses. Once you take and
move Magnolia Street through and join it to Lemay Avenue, then the visual and
impact amalgamations take place and begin to move one to the other and regretfully
when this happens was that those uses that were the most devaluing uses that would
impact it the most were the uses such as the one we had proposed here and that
was for an auto salvage.
He knows that we all like to say that this was a different auto salvage, this one is
different, the people are different. Well regretfully the Rohrbackers and himself
were not going to be around for the total use of that property as an auto salvage.
What we do have is a permanent change in the zoning use of a piece of property
that was at the entrance to our City and regretfully the people looking at our City
and people coming to our City tend to be more impacted by uses that were
downgrading than possibly the more upgrading uses. It takes 250 years to create the
social change but regretfully it only takes overnight to increase or cause a visual,
physical change. What we are doing is creating a visible, physical change but it
will not leave overnight. He stated he had be around here for 28 years and
happens to be the one who authored Latimer County's Comprehensive Zoning
Resolution. When he came here there were 21 different zoning districts, and 21
• separate zoning resolutions and his first job was to do away with them and create
one comprehensive zoning resolution. He takes notice of the things good and bad
created and wants to hide when he drives to LaPorte and sees a metal building with
a bunch of junk cars around it and it was absolutely sickening and horrible. He
sat there for the Larimer County Planning Commission as that was zoned and
listened to the people object and he sat there and listened to the people tell them
what they would do and how nice this auto place was going to be. They did not
listen to what the neighbors said. They zoned it and permitted the use to come in
there and he tried to advise them in all of this and now looks back at it 25 years
later and fortunately, we have by-passed it with a new by-pass that somewhat
cleaned up that entrance to Ft. Collins. He wanted the board to read his letter,
read the impact, read about the City of Ft. Collins, read about what was going to
happen and he hoped 25 years from now they did not drive around and say I wish
I could pull it back.
Alan Wilson, 636 Cheyenne Drive, president of Plastec, stated there seemed to be a
prevailing kind of feeling that because that area was kind of junky and has a lot
of junk cars, lets just go all the way with ii and put in junk yards and permit the
use. That was an industrial section out there and it was responsible for incubating
and starting out many new businesses in Ft. Collins. It offers a reasonable
alternative to some of the high end very expensive start up areas. It was varied in
terms of its building. There were a lot of opportunities for start ups. Had he been
aware that junk yards were permitted or desirable in that location, he would not
have made a quarter of a million dollar investment in that property. He had
appeared at all the previous hearings, Schaulin, Collier, Slatten, and the attorney was
correct that it was a deviation permitted for only one year for the term of the
lease, so he promised to leave when his lease expired and move his operation
somewhere else. He felt that the environmental hazard issues had not been
adequately dealt with and there were lots of things to mitigate and lessen the
hazards that occur from various kinds of occupations . The fact is that if you
have an unsuitable occupation in a floodplain area, when an accident happens there
was not a whole lot there could be done about it. There was plenty of suitable
area for this. He did not know why there was such a tremendous desire to put in a
junk yard at this location. We did have an entry way here that was not very
attractive, and the property owners would prefer to have more attractive occupancies
out there and would like to try to do something to upgrade it. Why was the board
telling them they had to accept a junk yard out there and why were they
advocating it? If this same application came before them for the Harmony Road
Corridor, 200 feet off of Harmony Road, would it be given the same consideration.
He thought not. Everybody would like to have an attractive area, they certainly
would. They did not think a salvage operation in that area was going to improve
the neighborhood. The idea of having a salvage operation on two sides of a road,
going back and forth, was absolutely silly. Why was such a plan even being
considered? He did not know. The statement was made that the Rohrbacker autos
were not visible. He was sorry but they are. Not only that but Mulberry was
elevated above that area and an 8 foot fence would not block that area. Deal with
the O-Open issue because when they tried to get a building permit out there, they
discovered that this area was zoned O-Open and fully intended to be industrial out
there and the lack of having industrial zoning out there was simply an oversight.
They went through massive work to try and get it changed from O to Industrial.
They did all the work surveying everything for the property out there and got it
changed to what the occupancy was intended to be, industrial. The east Magnolia
• street had never been accepted into the County, and the point he wanted to keep
making was considering the only access through the salvage yard operation was
privately maintained all along, he had never seen any proposal to assist with it or
upgrade the access. They had put a lot of money into that and now someone plops
-11-
in at the end of the road. They too have visitors from out of town from high tech
businesses, very desirable firms, and they come up and see where they are located.
They have a stake in trying to make that as attractive as possible. Directing them
to come up here and when they get to the junk yard they are there and that was
not an acceptable way to try to continue to do business.
John Wilox, co-owner and vice president of Wilox Wrecking, Inc., also an officer of
the Colorado Auto Recyclers Association, and State Chairman for the Automotive
Dismantelers Recyclers of America spoke. He stated they represent the auto
recycling industry, the fourth largest industry in the United States last year
generating 4.5 billion in revenues. He also represents somebody in direct competition
with Mr. Specht and his business, even though he was there to speak for Mr. Specht.
His past business practices show that Wayne runs a nice clean operation. The old
adage junk yard had been pretty well beat over the head tonight. Everyone knows
that was a phrase from the twenties. Today's auto recycling centers were not junk
yards. He did not know what Wayne spends a year on cars, but they spend up to
$225,000 on cars. That's not junk. They buy cars directly from insurance pools.
They buy cars directly from State Farm Insurance, one of their biggest customers.
Auto salvage does not only help those who cannot afford a new part, auto salvage
helps those driving a 69 LTD and can't but a new wheel for it. Auto salvage helps
you all. It helps him, if auto salvage was not running today, our insurance premiums
would be right along with New York state at about $3,000 a year for just liability.
The only reason we keep our insurance rates down in Colorado was because of the
auto salvage industry. State Farm quotes now that they are using 7% used parts on
their claims, just a minute portion of what they want to use. They want to use
40-45% used parts in their claims. They had recently taken part in a program
called ADP, Automated Data Processing. They do the claim bills for State Farm.
State Farm looks at a car and describes it to the computer and the computer returns
back a bid of this is what it was going to take to fix this car and the basis of
whether they were going to total or fix the car. The new company, ADP, had also
come up with an automatic insertion of used parts. The used parts were pulled out
of their computer inventory of parts nightly, so they are updated and present.
When a bid goes to a body shop the used parts are already inserted and body shop
has the right to use those parts. If you had an 89 Ford that needs a cab assembly,
because it was rolled over or had hail damage, and Ford wants $4,900 for a cab and
you could buy the same cab from an 89 Ford that only has 4,000 miles on it for
$600, your insurance company will appreciate that. You might remember a while
back, the EPA declared used batteries as hazardous waster, then all of a sudden
they could not collect them any more because they were not licensed for hazardous
waste. In a couple of months, Ft. Collins had batteries in borrow pits, in the land
fill and every dumpster in town and all of a sudden the EPA said nation wide this
happened and maybe they made a mistake here and maybe we do need to have
these collection centers. So now they can handle batteries again. They are being
recycled as they should be. They are carried by a licensed carries, they are safe,
they are clean. The same thing could happen to cars, if the auto salvage industry
is pushed out, and Wayne is just one example of it. Its coming from every direction.
If it was pushed out the same thing will happen with cars, and the cars are a lot
bigger than batteries. They will show up a lot quicker. The City would be full of
scrapped vehicles if it was not for operations like Wayne's. They handled a little
better than 640 cars last year and it made a considerable impact on the streets of
Ft. Collins, and if they want to make Ft. Collins a choice City just kill the auto
salvage and let the cars build up and try to bring new customers in try to bring
new customers in that way. He understands that Wayne will be required to totally
fence in the cars as to not be seen from any direction. He did not understand the
objections of his neighbors. If you cannot see them without climbing over the fence,
what was the problem with it. These vehicles are not junk and he understands
there are operations in Wayne's area that are not complying now but it goes on, and
everyone knows Wayne has an 8 foot fence and cannot bring cars above that 8 foot
-12-
9
fence. The rules are there, they just need to be practiced. , If a company is allowed
to go with those stipulations and rules on it and it is not practiced, then the
• company should be come down on hard. He had been past lots of places that are
not exactly acceptable to our industry, let alone legal and there are one or two of
them right up there in Wayne's area and believe his association would not have any
sympathy for either of those operations. Upright businesses are the either of those
operations. Upright businesses are the only ones who are going to make it now days
and the old days of the junk yard are gone, not only because people don't like
them, but economically they cannot function. Twenty years ago he had no problem
with people walking out into the yard and finding their own part and now they can
come out on their lunch hour for their parts. They are computer located, computer
sold, computer tracked, computer inventoried. They don't have to touch them, they
take them off the shelve, walk them out the door. The industry has made a lot of
changes in the last few years. Wayne has made a lot of changes, Wayne's made a lot
of changes in his PUD plan. All he asked is that the board look at this business the
same as any other business, it was not a blight on their city it was a help to their
city. It was not a blight to any community, it was a help to the community. Who
of us here did not drive a car? It has to go somewhere, it cannot just disappear and
why not let it help your insurance premiums and economy and give the man a
chance? If they tell him he has to go in and live by these laws and he does not
do it, then come down on him, that's the law, but at least give him a shot at it in
the first place. He is no more than any other business and to shut a person down
without giving him a fair shot at it was wrong.
Harold Fisher, owner of property to the west, stated that he would love to develop
into something decent, a shopping center something of that order. He has had people
come to him thinking of putting in a shopping center. He had a contract a few
years ago and they look across the fence at what exists now and Ditus and the
• Insurance Pool. Some of those cars had been there for about fifty years. They
looked like it. They talked about Mr. Specht keeping his cleaned up and only
stacked cars two high. That was great but he stacks them on top of vans and
everything else. Even with the eight foot fence you can still see the cars if they
are stacked two high. On top of that they talk about Magnolia Street coming
through. That would be stupid as the devil. If he would allow Magnolia Street onto
his property, you would have to come through the junk yard to get it. What ever it
is, it is an unsightly mess and he cannot honestly say that they take all the good
parts out of them. He for one is dead set against any more salvage or junk yards
in that area. His family has been a land owner since 1933 and the more of this
that comes in, the tougher it is on them to get anything done.
Ron Bauer, 3400 Warwick Drive, manager of Loos Electric Supply, next door to the
proposed site and was there representing Don Loos the owner. He stated they had
no objection to an auto salvage being a part of the economic growth of Ft. Collins,
they just did not want it next door to their property simply because of what it
would do to property values. If anything is ever developed on the Fisher property,
on the Magnolia investment property, on the Ferguson property, any future
development would be hampered by having an auto salvage yard in this location.
The policing of such an auto salvage business was another factor that had to be
looked at in many respects. They see the one behind Ditus, the one behind
Albertson's on Riverside. When that salvage yard went in, they had the intention
that it would be a very nice location and kept up. If you have driven behind the
Albertson's store lately, you'll see trees growing up through the cars. It has not been
active for many years and no one has policed it. Their thought in the matter is, if
someone buys it, let them haul them off. Mr. Specht does do a fine job with what
he has done so far, but what if he sells the business in 8 or 10 years? What is that
• going to do for the area? This was something that needed to be looked at. You
have to look at what the future was going to bring. It was easy to make the
decisions now but think about the future. Policing of the area now, if he would
-13-
see a zoning infraction he would have to make out a zoning investigation request,
therefore, he is the one responsible for policing that type of an area and that was
wrong. It should be just like the fire department coming to his business every three
months. They walk through it and check things. He thought this was the same
thing that should be done or thought of when we put in the businesses such as an
auto salvage yard. Right now there are junk yards in the area that have not been
policed and therefore they have gone to waste. The other concern was that the 12"
berm would not stop any water runoff. The water flows across that property from
the north to the south approximately 4 to 5" deep at times especially in large
runoffs, so a 12" berm along the west side of the property was not going to stop the
irrigation water. There were several factors that he saw holes in and he hoped the
board would see the holes and vote against the proposal.
Dick DeCook, 3131 Longhorn Court, stated he represented the Magnolia Investment
Partnership that owns the building at 1418 Magnolia Court. Plastec one of their
three tenants and his largest tenant had grown from two employees in 1977 to sixty
currently and is one of the larger employers in that industrial area. They occupy 2
buildings and over 17,000 square feet and have been in the same location for 13
years, which is just a stones throw from the junk yard proposal. The situation has
not changed, the issues had not changed, but the opposition has grown. Since the
issues are the same as in March he would again call for the Planning and Zoning
Board to deny the City's recommendation to place a third junk yard within two
blocks of their building in the last year. He was calling for just plain common
sense in a situation that did not make sense to him or the land owners in the area.
Over the last 12 to 18 months there had been a very disturbing trend in types of
businesses allowed along Mulberry which is the busiest gateway into Ft. Collins.
Debbie Duz Donuts was introduced at the intersection of Mulberry and I-25, then
the Hunt Club which went in just off of Mulberry and Link Lane and the two junk
yards, Slatten Automotive and Schaulin Auto Salvage just off of Link Lane. These
actions were the results of Larimer County Planning, but within the Urban Growth
Area. According to the City's fall 1989 traffic count, Mulberry had a two direction
traffic count of 19,900 vehicles, while Harmony Road had 14,700 traffic count,
Mulberry has 35% more traffic than Harmony Road. The City has spent much time
and effort on the Harmony Corridor Plan and even last week there was talk about
purchasing wet lands along the corridor to maintain the current environment. Now
what was the City proposing for Mulberry which is the highest traffic gateway to
Ft. Collins, another junk yard. Little contrast there. There is totally inconsistent
thinking on the part of the City. There is no common sense. These establishments
and the associated negative publicity had not made it easier for Ed Stoner of Ft.
Collins, Inc. of Mike Hauser of the Chamber of Commerce to bring clean industries
and their associated jobs to Ft. Collins. What did this say about the Choice City?
What did it say to businessmen looking to relocate here in the Choice City? What
did it say to tourists, 35% more traffic coming in on Mulberry than Harmony? The
board has the opportunity to stop this downward trend and take preventive action
tonight to benefit the City for years to come and also the land owners in the area.
Mr. DeCook added that Magnolia Investments opposed the junk yard for the
following reasons:
1. Questionable recommendation. He had to question the judgement of the City
staff. Sometimes people ask, what is wrong with this picture. How many cities in
Colorado had annexed land for the sole purpose of putting a junk yard within the
city limits?
2. Illegal. The site under consideration unbeknownst to surrounding property owners
was illegally storing 50 to 75 salvaged vehicles for a number of years. Now even
after annexation they are being stored illegally and he called for their removal.
Since the Rohrbacker PUD was defeated at the March 2fth Planning and Zoning
-14-
meeting, he has doubled the number of junk cars at the site to between 100 and
150. They have been towed right up Magnolia Court into the illegal site. The City's
• attempt to legitimatize an on -going an illegal activity.
3. From the point G Chart, "junk, scrap, or salvage yards and all extraction uses."
These are uses which create major disruptions to the area's environment, even when
carefully regulated. Dust, dirt, noise and unsightly conditions can be anticipated".
This was already proving true at the two existing junk yards in the area.
4. Contamination. Soil and
ground water will be
contaminated from
the spillage of
oil and petroleum products
dripping off the junk
vehicles. Irrigation
water flowing
in the field just west of
the site becomes contaminated and the contaminated rain
and snow melt run down
Magnolia toward Link
Lane and into the
Poudre River.
The proposed berm was
totally inadequate as
it will not keep
the site from
contamination as Mr. Bauer just mentioned.
5. Appearance. When vehicles are stacked 3, 4, 5, or 6 high to save space or a high
profile vehicle is stored such as a used school bus or van, the proposed 8 foot fence
would not conceal them from Mulberry, Lemay or Magnolia Court. Contrary to
what Mr. Specht's counsel indicated, they live in that area and they have lived there
for thirteen years. Mulberry and Lemay are elevated and you can see currently and
even over a 8 or 10 foot fence, the vehicles stored behind those fences. There also
seemed to be no means of enforcing or maintaining a fence.
6. Neither the City or the County has taken responsibility for street maintenance of
that little street and ourselves and neighbors have spent thousands of dollars on top
of their normal property taxes to repair Magnolia Court. The City or the applicant
must agree to bring the street up to current standards and maintain it.
. 7. Plastec, Tooltec and Periodental's high tech image. Those are the three tenants
that Magnolia Investments have. The three tenants have customers located from
Japan to West Germany. Customers visit the facility weekly. Our tenants high tech
image would be severely damaged by a junk yard virtually at their front door.
8. A change in
fundamental usage. A junk yard would change the
historical and
fundamental usage
of the area causing
property values to decline and
a subsequent
loss of property taxes.
Their property
is valued in the neighborhood of
$300,000 to
400,000 and is in
excellent condition.
Some people say it is the best
looking on the
block. A near by
junk yard would do
nothing but lower the property
value.
9. The area is becoming no longer attractive. The changes he had mentioned over
the last 10 to 18 months causing the area to become unattractive to clean small
business and these are the ones who had incubated a number of new businesses in
Ft. Collins.
He predicted another junk yard would produce a net loss in employment and a net
increase in building vacancy in a short time. Plastec and its employees would have
to look to Windsor, Loveland or Berthoud for a new location. These cities may be
more appreciative than Ft. Collins for the jobs and the tax base of Plastec.
10. Mixed messages. They were led to understand that Ft. Collins was truly
interested in attracting clean light industry that offered attractive employment in
our community. The message that they get is that if they approve this deviation is
that they really don't want their kind of business, but would rather have junk
yards.
-15-
What value would it have adding a junk yard to the area? Plastec along with its
sixty employees would have to move to a more compatible location. He asks the
board is that what they want, a relocation to another city of the type of business
Ft. Collins says it wants to attract? Would it make Ed Stoner and Mike Hauser's
job of bringing new clean industry to Ft. Collins easier? The only common sense
conclusion one could arrive at would be to disapprove the application. He would
like to bring the board's attention to an article that is entitled "Harmony Road
needs Center" that was in the Coloradoan Tuesday, July 17th. In the article there
was already a question mark in the community, especially by the person who wrote
the article, "One only has to look at east Mulberry Street to see uncontrolled,
unattractive strip development" Over the last six weeks he has had the opportunity
to attend a meeting with Hank Brown and also a ground breaking with Governor
Romer for Otsuka Electronics. The two things that both of those gentlemen said
that he remembered was, "ask yourself this when you are planning for your
community. Think fifty years down the road and do what you should do for your
community to look that way in fifty years." Did adding a major junk yard to the
major gateway of the City of Fort Collins say we are planning for fifty years down
the road?
Finally, he would like to leave the board with this question, is this best use for this
land, and would you be able to tell your families that they kept a junk yard from
being built and preserved this Choice City?
Reginold Thornburg, owns the property at 316 Link Lane, owns and operates Seder
Plastics Corporation. He stated Seder Plastics is a light industrial use it is the same
kind of use as Plastec. Cedar Plastic's site it a very attractive building with
substantial landscape berming at the entrance. Seder Plastics Corp. was started in
1934 at 300 North College Avenue and was moved to 316 North Link Lane in 1963.
They were the second business located on Link Lane. They employ approximately 30
employees. They own and lease the property to the east of them to Slatten Auto
Salvage. There has been no problems with that salvage business adjacent to their
light industrial use nor Wayne Specht's proposed auto salvage. Absolutely no
problems with customers or employees or leases with that kind of use next to their
facility. They would not lease to a use if it were a problem for their business in
any way. Auto salvage has been in business since at least the 1950's. This is an
industrial and largely auto related area, these are compatible uses. He hopes they
see this and vote to approve the Rohrbacker PUD.
Art Salas, owner of properties at 228 and 319 Link Lane, both within the area of
the Rohrbacker PUD. He stated he would like to express his opposition to the junk
yard. One of their major tenants was the Rainbow Building. The business has been
there for over 12 years and was concerned of losing that tenant. He was concerned
about the fact that they have had a lot of violations that are not being addressed
and that did not exactly set a precedent for trying to continue to attract the kind
of businesses that would jeopardize his property values.
John Jervis, 3567 Tradition Drive, president of Peiodental, Inc., stated that his
company rents space at 1418 East Magnolia. He opposes the application since it
would force him to relocate his business. He believed that Wayne Specht's intentions
were good but a salvage recycling yard is a euphemism as much as we would like to
think otherwise. A junk yard is a junk yard is a junk yard. If they approve this
application you will condemn this area for the future. What would it Zook like in
five years? What would it look like in ten years when Mr. Specht might not be
running this business? What kind of businesses would be compatible with this
business at those times?
Chairman Klataske gave both sides a chance for rebuttal.
-16-
Ms. Liley stated that if there were any questions by the board about any of the
• issues raised, particularly the technical issues about storm drainage and whether this
had or had not been dealt with, they did have their engineer there and had
submitted information and would like the record to accurately reflect what evidence
that was and how it had been addressed.
Member O'Dell asked about the comment that the runoff came from the north and
not the west. How did it compare to what they found in the area?
Phil Robinson, engineer with Steward & Associates, stated that the water that runs
off from the west that they were talking about is an overflow from irrigation. It
did come from a field that was wet of the property and it may come around to the
north and swing down and cross the property draining to the southeast, but that
could be solved by placing the berm along the north line as well as the west line.
Member Cottier asked Ms. Clark about plans for east Magnolia with respect to the
City taking responsibility for that street. This would be the furthest property east
that would be within the city limits so the city would not take responsibility for
that street until the rest of the properties annex.
Ms. Clark replied that was correct and at this point the city had requested
right-of-way dedication by the applicant and that gave the city the opportunity to
have the right-of-way dedicated and should there be a need to put the street
through in the future they would not have to acquire that right-of-way through
purchase at some later point. Whether that street goes through or it and when it
goes through was a matter of the development of the Fisher property to the west.
Larimer County was not maintaining that street and they do not maintain public
streets and roads in the county unless they are brought up and maintained to a
certain level and then if the county is petitioned to accept that maintenance and
accepts that maintenance at that point, then they would take over the maintenance
both short and long term.
Member Walker stated that the mitigation efforts that were being put forth on the
plan and in the development agreement seemed to be something that they could look
to for dealing with these types of uses. It made sense that a high fence around it
certainly would provide that kind of mitigation so in that sense perhaps this was a
way that 11 of these facilities should be dealt with. He would like to further say
that in the LDGS one of the things that concerns him was nature of the site and
how it could potentially be split by Magnolia Street, He was looking at the elements
of the site plan, building circulation, etc., so the activities were integrated into the
organizational scheme of the area. Are the elements designed to produce an efficient
functionally organized cohesive PUD and had a question that a question that if you
had a facility that really was being bisected by a street and questions the
cohesiveness and the functional organization of such an operation of this nature
where the street becomes an impediment for the use of the site and happens to be
there because of the fact that the street potentially going to go through and the site
straddles it. He questions the use in that particular situation.
Member Strom asked Ms. Clark with regard to the possible leakage of fluids on the
site, was he correct in assuming that the City did not have anything to do with that
and that it was the County Health Department.
Ms. Clark replied that there was some involvement from the perspective of PFA for
the spillage of oils and the PFA did routinely make inspections of all business
. regardless of the land use, as well as this type of use. The majority of the
enforcement would lie with the Latimer County Environmental Health Department.
Member Strom asked if either or both of those agencies reviewed the proposal.
-17-
Ms. Clark replied that PFA was on their list of reviewing agencies and they had
responded basically with concerns about being able to access the rows of parked cars
on the site. The Health Department stated that in terms of the amounts of fluids
that might leak and drain out of the vehicles on site, assuming that the drainage of
fluid occurred inside and in an enclosed structure as was proposed here, the amounts
of fluid that might be retained in cars and could leak onto the site might be
comparable with what you might experience in a public parking lot. Therefore, the
request from staffs point of view to get the 9" filter berm installed.
Member Strom asked if there should be a problem with leakage of materials from
the cars off the site or into the ground water or anything of that nature.
Ms. Clark replied that they were not anticipating this based upon the commitments
the applicant had made on a the proposal.
Member Cottier asked if there were any other auto salvage businesses located within
the city limits at this point.
Ms. Clark replied that one was previously located on the corner of Riverside and
Lincoln Avenue and that was relocated to the north side of east Lincoln, near the
intersection of Willow that would be just west of Ranchway Feeds. That was the
only one she was aware of at this time in the city limits.
Member Walker made a motion to deny the request citing the elements in the LDGS
#27 and #26.
Motion failed for lack of a second.
Member Cottier moved to approve the Rohrbacker PUD, Preliminary and Final.
Member Cottier stated this type of use was hard to locate anywhere. No one thinks
it is a legitimate use in the city and she thinks that it is. It was not their right to
say that we would not accept this type of use in the city. She thinks that problems
with East Magnolia may possibly occur with respect to the functioning of the
operation on both sides of the street. It was logically unlikely that East Magnolia
would go through and that was part of the reason she was not overly concerned
with possible problems there.
Member Strom seconded the motion.
Member O'Dell stated this was a difficult decision to make and last time she cited
the fact that she felt this type of use and particularly the way it was laid out and
the proposal that was made last time was incompatible with the changing area. She
thought that this type of use needs to be somewhere and was concerned about the
people on East Magnolia Court and looking at the site plan that even though there
are those elm trees there, they are deciduous trees and that cars would be visible in
the winter time. She also believes that the angle and the width of the street and the
right-of-way was such that the cars parked even further into the site past the elm
trees would also be visible and she did not believe that those kind of considerations
had been made on this particular site plan. She would prefer to see some better
screening for those people at this time and did not want to wait until East Magnolia
Court was put through or not put through to make those kinds of changes and those
kinds of accommodations to the companies that are already in existence and
functioning on East Magnolia.
-18-
Member Walker stated that he agreed that there was an important role for this type
of business in the city and he did not deny that if they were responsible as citizens
• of Fort Collins, they had to be responsible for recycling their products that they
discard, including automobiles. He had no problem with the fact that this was a
suitable use within the city and it was something that they should accommodate and
the attempt here to do this had gone quite a ways towards setting some sort of
standard by which the city would find salvage yards to be acceptable. He was
talking about the fact that they were making an effort to do screening and so forth.
He felt that the way the site is paid out and the potential that it would create
problems in terms of making Magnolia functional street through there, and as a
PUD this just did not work on this particular site. The area could accept something
like this through proper mitigation measures and that attempts were made to do. He
did not feel that this particular plan on this site was very workable.
Member Strom proposed an amendment to the motion that stacking be disallowed on
the property and also the applicant work with staff to improve the visual screening
of vehicles within the property from East Magnolia at this time.
Member Collier stated that was fine.
Member
O'Dell stated
she
was
pleased that
Mr. Specht had done
away with the
crushing
of vehicles.
She
would
feel better
if they would vote on a preliminary
approval
only and that
way
they
could review
the screening that was
proposed.
Member Strom stated he would be more comfortable with a preliminary only. He
felt the use was appropriate and a needed use in the history of the automotive
industry. He felt with mitigation going on, it was not detrimental to the property
values in the area and that was the reason that he was supporting it. He felt that
• the environmental concerns have been taken care of and that it was an acceptable
use on the site.
Member Cottier stated that she was withdrawing her motion and moved for
preliminary approval only with the conditions previously stated by Member Strom on
screening and stacking of cars.
Member Walker stated that when the project comes back he would like to see on the
landscape plan how the two sides of the project would communicate.
Member O'Dell added a condition that the drainage from the west property be
looked at and determination of where the berm should be built.
Member Strom seconded the motion.
The motion passed 3-2 with Klataske and Walker In the negative.
BUILDERS SQUARE AT HARMONY MARKET FILING TWO FINAL #54-87D
Ted Shepard gave the staff report recommending approval with one condition.
Tony Fiest, of Fiest-Meager out of Denver, gave a history of Builders Square
and a description of the proposed store in Ft. Collins, the hours of operation,
the traffic flow, the layout of the building, parking, and that they had
committed through the process to put in Oakridge Drive, the portion that was
not complete in the first phase of the Pace Development. They would now
• complete Oakridge Drive all the way to Lemay.
-19-
Frank Vaught, of Vaught -Frye Architects, talked on access, signage,
landscaping, circulation, lighting, pedestrian connections, architecture of the
building, elevations, and changes that were made since the plan was first
submitted, set -backs, and frontage.
Member Walker asked about the chain -link fencing along the east side and if
there was a reason there was not a solid fence there.
Mr. Vaught replied that there was a desire for a visual connection, and
circulation of air.
Member Walker asked what areas the fence covered.
Mr. Vaught replied the chain fence goes from the passenger doors and wraps
around the east side of the building and is broken up with the concrete
column approach.
Member Walker stated that they had a garden shop in front of it and a ►umber
staging area in the back and assumed that it would be pallets of 2 x 4's and
why did that have to have some visual connection to the street.
Mr. Vaught replied that there was some outdoor lumber storage there and also
things there that related back to landscaping, timbers and things of that
nature.
Member Walker stated with that as an entry coming off of Oakridge and they
kind of have a back door appearance if they have a chain link fence with
views to pallets of lumber and so forth.
Mr. Vaught replied that the landscaping that had been added and the type of
landscaping would in fairly short order would certainly screen that area
significantly.
Member Carroll asked if a contractor comes in and buys a pallet of 2 x 4's
how was that loaded onto his truck.
Mr. Fiest replied that they had the ability to pull up front and load the 2 x
4's out of the two doors in front that were 8 feet high and that lumber would
be able to come out front and load up.
Member Carroll asked if a fork lift would go to the back and pick up the
lumber and go through the garden section and then load in front.
Mr. Fiest replied that it would go through the front but a fork lift would not
go through there. It would be loaded by hand.
Mr. Fiest replied this was not a typical lumber yard where people buy trusses,
this was more of a home improvement center.
Member Carroll asked if there was any loading out of the entire fenced area
except the front.
Mr. Vaught replied that there was loading a loading dock in the back but that
was for supplies delivered to the store.
Member Carroll asked if it was partially or all covered with a roof.
-20-
9
Mr. Vaught replied that the total lumber area was covered with a roof and a
trellis area over the garden shop.
Member Klataske asked if Builders Square have its own delivery trucks.
Mr. Vaught replied no.
Member Cottier asked at customer service pickup at the northeast corner, was
there room there or would there be a situation of blocking traffic that might
be accessing off of Oakridge right at the corner.
Mr. Vaught replied that there was a pull out of about 12 feet deep and 90
feet long and that area was intended to handle the customer with a big order.
Member Cottier asked about the note on the site plan with respect to signage.
Mr. Vaught replied that there was only one tenant.
Member Strom asked about the dense tree area near the farm house and if we
were losing any trees at all.
Mr. Vaught replied there were some trash siberian elms that the City Forester
looked at. There were some trees that were not good trees and the City
Forester suggested they take them out.
Member Cottier asked about the sign near Harmony.
Mr. Vaught replied that Builders Square would be on the point perpendicular
• to Harmony and would be on both sides of the facade and Harmony Market
would be on the other two wings of the sign.
Member Cottier asked if there would be another of those signs down east with
the other major tenant.
Mr. Vaught replied that the other sign would be down at Harmony and Lemay
and would be the same configuration.
Member Carroll asked that if the five foot berm was continued around the
south section of the vinyl area where the lumber is. What would have to
happen, did it shrink the traffic lane down to much to put that berm in there.
Mr. Vaught replied that anything that you would do landscape -wise, whether it
was a berm or a flat surface, would certainly shrink the area. If you did a
sloped surface you would be looking a needing some kind of retaining wall up
at the height where the berm would die into.
Member Carroll stated he did not mean a berm but a landscape strip.
Mr. Vaught replied that they had a 45 foot wide lane there and did not think
that five feet would necessarily hurt that. There was also a 20 foot gate area
that was the loading gate and matches a door on the side of the building that
material was moved in and out of, so they could not wrap it all the way
around the gate area.
. Member Carroll stated his concern was that they mentioned the set back of the
building was 220 feet from the street but the corner of the garden center was
more in the tune of 175 feet and unlike some of the large commercial
buildings that have their backs on the railroad tracks, this accurately has an
-21-
entrance off of Oakridge and thinks there would be a number of people
entering the site from that location. He was concerned with the treatment of
that particular corner.
Member Strom stated he also was concerned with the chain -link fence and
what was essentially outdoor storage and sales area. He would be more
comfortable with this if a resolution of the aesthetic effect on the east side.
Mr. Vaught replied that
fence came prior to the
suggestion that perhaps
screen and then as the t
handle on what to do.
suggested the addition of
the evolution of the ideas and the moving of the Pace
addition of the landscape strip. The came up with the
they could relocate the Pace fence as a temporary
hird or fourth phase develops they would have a better
That did not satisfy staff and they came back and
the landscaping in front of the fence.
Mr. Fiest replied that what they were planning on having here was that they
really felt that in the not too distant future that there would be buildings that
would be retail and that the only time the fence would be seen from any side
was when you were turning in and coming in a back entrance and they feel if
they come in and landscape this. Behind the fence was also a lot of planting
and a lot of trees and it was not just looking at a fence and seeing a fence,
you are going to see a lot of planting and a lot of shrubs and material behind
the fence and they were thinking by moving the Pace fence over, what they
were doing was putting a temporary fence in lieu of the buildings that they
eventually see in there.
Member Strom stated that at the present time they had a preliminary that
shows it as open space. Which gives you a direct line of site for some 500 or
1,000 feet or more.
Mr. Fiest replied that was why they planned on taking the Pace fence that was
there now and use it as a temporary screen until the buildings would fill that
five acre site up.
Member Strom stated that the preliminary plan approved for that area did not
show any buildings there and the problem he had was that if they put it in as
just a chain link fence and if it did not fill up with buildings or even if it
did the buildings would be 75 or 100 feet from the fence and they would have
quite a perspective on the chain link fence. He was not convinced that they
needed a chain link fence or that much outdoor display space but if they feel
they do, they needed to do something with it to make it more attractive to the
people that were going to be driving on that street and the ones that were
going to live down the road.
Mr. Fiest asked if the chain link was not acceptable even if they vinyl clad it
and put it in a dark color.
Member Strom stated that what they had here something on the order of 266
feet of fence on the east side plus wrapping around 90 feet to the south.
They had done a fairly nice job on the north side of making it look good
there and what he was suggesting was that they do something comparable or
better than what they have on the east and south.
Mr. Fiest replied that they certainly could take a look at that. They were
trying to address it through landscaping and put a landscape buffer, planting
bed in front of it.
-22-
9
Member Walker stated that within that 266 feet they had the south most 97 of
the open lumber staging. To him you could argue that maybe looking through
• a chain link fence would have some marketing value and he failed to see
looking at the backside of a lumber staging area through chain link fence had
any aesthetic quality to it.
Mr. Fiest replied they were willing to work with staff to do some other things.
He felt if they came in and put the columns and landscaping the feeling was
that this was an outdoor area of a patio type area and they wanted to be able
to see from the outside and be able to display their wares as they had done in
every city. They had some 120 of these around the country and this was their
prototype store and they had done it and been successful with it.
Mr. Vaught replied in talking with the contractors representatives, perhaps
instead of going to the effort of building the fence as a temporary screen,
they could apply some of the same dollars toward necking this down and
actually creating a large enough area that they could get some significant
evergreen type landscaping in the corner and that would embellish the whole
view as you were driving in from the curb cut.
Member Carroll asked Mr. Shepard if they would approve this on a final, what
would be their alternatives in regard to the lumber/garden shop fencing area
so that the applicant could move on with his planning and they could still
have some say on this.
Mr. Shepard replied that it would be the boards prerogative and it was within
the power
of the
board
to consider a
final approval with conditions reflecting
the upgrades that
they desire. Unless
they specifically ask for the project to
• come back
to the
board,
it would be handled administratively.
Chairman
Klataske asked
Mr. Vaught
to describe for him what kind materials
and detail
would
consist
in the garden
shop.
Mr. Vaught replied all they were doing was building it out of a precast
concrete panel and have openings in areas that would be the clad chain link
fence. They had highlighted one of the entrance with the same brick column
and trellis treatment that they had used on the Pace store. In addition, they
had added a significant landscape bed in front of the panel of chain -link.
Chairman Klataske asked if the materials stored in the area would be higher
than the top.
Mr. Vaught replied no unless it was a tree.
Member O'Dell asked when people were entering the store could they just come
in that section of the store and go back out.
Mr. Fiest replied that it was a controlled area and all the purchases that occur
inside the store and when there was a bulk item purchased, there was a person
that controls gate and allows them to wheel their cart outside.
Member O'Dell asked if they anticipated having Christmas trees and things
stored and would it be used year round.
. Mr. Vaught replied that they use it in the spring and fall and that they had
not sold Christmas trees out of there in the past.
-23-
Member Cottier asked if they intended to have any access to the store through
the fenced and who was going to be on this side of the store to see in the
fence.
Mr. Vaught replied the pedestrians off of Oakridge Drive and that they did
anticipate some traffic people that live in Oakridge and Southridge, perhaps
that were coming to Builders Square coming in from that direction.
Member O'Dell stated that she had shopped in similar types of fencing areas
and it was actually rather pleasant to be inside there because it was an open
feeling and buying plants and things like that, but from the outside it did not
look terrific. It would be great if there could be some landscaping or other
treatments that would help it.
Mr. Vaught asked if the addition of some corner treatment begin to satisfy
some of the earlier concerns, because with the 45 feet they could even pop
that out 10 feet in that area and get it large enough so they could do some
significant evergreen trees at the corner.
Chairman Klataske stated if the retail was shown as site C was going to be
facing the west he would think it would be an argument to have some
architectural treatment there on the east side of Builders Square as opposed to
just chain link or landscaping. If you could do something so they did not have
the long expanse of chain link and continue the architectural flavor around
the corner, not to the extent as to the north but definitely more than just an
expanse of chain link with a few pillars on it.
Chairman Klataske asked how the exterior elevations differ from what was
done on the Pace building.
Mr. Vaught replied that the brick veneer at the lower level was at 4 feet
which was identical to Pace. Pace, being a taller building, they had a little
different mass to work with, it was more of a horizontal building. Pace had
another 6 feet above that brick that was a painted, fluted concrete material
and then a small band of brick. They had elected to go with a 4 foot coat of
brick, the brick columns the trellis and two horizontal painted strips that run
all the way around the entire building. There are also some tile accent panels.
Mr. Fiest stated that one thing they could do would be to come along and
build something more like a 3 foot structure that would be behind the
landscaping that the fence could rest upon it and do it in a concrete panel.
He felt as though he wanted to paint the panel in a brick color and put the
fence above it and it would look very permanent at that point in time.
Charles Butler, speaking for Fairway Estates Homeowners' Association stated
that he was there to ask for their help. Handed out a copy of some material
he wanted to share to the board.
Mr. Butler stated that he and other residents were involved in a recent Pace
review and the approval of that time of Harmony Market. He himself did not
object or oppose the Pace development during the June 1989 review by P & Z.
They came in front of the board tonight to ask for their help. He did not
want to read all of this but just give the points. These quotes were from the
P & Z meeting of June 1989 and if there was a typo or if the transcript not
full verbiage it was an attempt to expedite the points. The first point was,
Mr. Fiest stated in his June 1989 presentation, "He thought the end result we
-24-
were showing here was a test of the results of this how this process works".
. There was a lot of neighborhood activity and discussion on that particular
review and Mr. Fiest felt very good about what came out of the discussion.
Frankly, it was an important part of the approval process. Just this past May,
at an LDGS audit meeting, Sandy Kern and a number of the board was there
and talked about the angry attitude of the number of public people that came
before the board and in that discussion it centered around the accountability
of people. Lastly, there was an article in the Coloradoan in which Tom
Peterson said developers would be held accountable for certain actions.
Frankly, they came in front of the board tonight to try to secure some help in
something that was pertinent in the review at that time called a deed
restriction.
There was a chronology associated with a deed restriction, in the beginning Mr.
Fiest offered as a means of mitigating a language conflict between Fairway
Estates and the Pace development. It was reviewed by the homeowners' board
and basically approved it, the association did not like it and, to make a long
story short, the association did not oppose the Pace approval process at that
point in time. Some key verbiage that came out of the Pace review P & Z
meeting with the footage notation in front of them and would like to point to
the key footage beginning at 670, Mr. Fiest: "GT Land, as owner of this parcel
I-G also owner of this parcel 1-B, agreed to put zoning on that parcel I-G R-L
which is the most restrictive zoning in the City of Fort Collins for residential."
"When we ask for an amendment to the Master Plan, we are changing that
designation on 1-G so that is carries an RL zoning which is the most
restrictive." Later in that discussion Eldon Ward was asked to speak in regard
to the deed restriction. Eldon Ward made a reference to the fact that Mike
Byrne and Peter Kast were involved in this negotiation and fully aware of the
discussions that were carried on. Mr. Ward, "In addition to that (Language on
the Master Plan), the property owner has stated that if Harmony Market is
approved and, therefore, there is something to buffer the neighborhood from,
then a deed restriction will be imposed using the same language on the Master
Plan. That is their response that the land owner (G.T. Land) has agreed to."
Later Mr. Ward stated, "We don't think that it is appropriate or even
manageable for the City to get into the middle of a deed restriction," Lloyd
Walker asked about the deed restriction and then he said, "This meeting then
that G.T. Land has made some commitment to this type of deed restriction on
development of that parcel. Is that a fair statement? I want to be sure we
have it correctly stated."
"Yes" was Mr. Ward's response.
Ms. Shepard asked, "Does that (deed restriction) apply to Parcel I-H as well as
1-G?
Eldon Ward stated, "Yes. According to the language in the note that you have,
1-G, we"II treat just like it is zoned RL. On 1-H, which is patio homes on the
Master Plan, we are saying we"ll treat as it's zoned as RLM. Also, on I-G,
consistent with correspondence that's gone on back and forth between the
owner, developer, and Homeowners' Association„ part of this deed restriction is
we are giving up the right to come back and amend the Master Plan."
Shortly after the approval of the Pace proposal, GT Land requested several
modifications to the position stated at the P & Z Meeting.
. Generally the Association rejected all of those proposals.
-25-
Later in November he personally called Mr. Fiest and informed him that no
deed restriction had been filed. From that time roughly for five months, the
Association heard little or nothing, until one week before the neighborhood
meeting for Builders Square.
At that time, a copy of the filed deed restriction was mailed to the
Association. The Association had not been asked to comment on its content
and it did not review the deed restriction prior to filing.
A key deed restriction statement is, "Amendable at any time by requesting
change through the P & Z Board."
Accountability, Conclusions, Facts, the key essence of the deed restriction
directly contradicts statements by Mr. Fiest at the P & Z meeting as well as
those stated in writing by Mr. Eldon Ward through Cityscape to the
Association. Fairway Estates is not involved at any time from this point in
time regarding the deed restriction itself. The City is involved directly, as a
matter of fact, at that meeting, to the best of his knowledge he was sort of
paraphrasing, Ted Shepard said at that meeting, "a deed restriction was not an
action that the City gets involved in, we view it primarily as an action
between the landowner and the residents."
The process, as far as they are concerned, did not work and, as a matter of
fact, there had been no accountability, and, quite frankly, a little disappointed
in Mr. Fiest in trying to make sure that this particular issue be resolved
accordingly. That was the primary reason he was there tonight. The second
reason was less vague and less factual but still comes back to the concept of
Harmony Market and again would like to allude to statements that were made
not only at the LDGS meetings but some of those that were made at the P &
Z meeting.
At the 1989 P & Z Meeting Mr. Fiest discussing the site plan stated, " we have
reduced the size of the development to 190,000 square feet including this two
story office building. This leaves 166,000 square feet for retail shops." In this
particular concept in the review, including what Ms. Shepard said, they should
be willing to accept what was expected at that location. He attended every
worksession, went to every neighborhood meeting except for those that were
specific neighborhood meetings and there were never any discussion about any
buildings as large as Pace. This building is 88,000 square feet almost as large
as the Pace building and once this building is completed and if he understood
correctly, Steele's would go in a 55,000 square feet, that would leave about
20,000 for retail shops.
Facts, in regard to conclusions, the language used by Mr. Fiest and his
development team and the P & Z Board constantly refers to shops, retail shops,
not another 88,000 square foot retail shop. Nothing is being proposed for the
remaining, except now he understands there is a grocery store that is 55,000
square feet. But at that time we were cited in Fairway Estates as polluting
the area because they had to go shop somewhere, but the fact is, once the
building goes in it is very unlikely this will be a shopping center, it will never
exist as a shopping center. If retail shops this size are approved we only need
one more to finish the entire site. A shopping center cannot be built, there is
not space for it at that point in time. It really goes back to Ms. Cottier's
statements on expectations, after Pace, and all the discussions they were
involved with at that point in time, he believed that every resident that was
-26-
involved felt that the future business services would provide shops and have a
variety of shopping associated with them. Including as it is in the definition,
. general merchandise, apparel, home furnishings, and not just another 88,000
square foot building.
In summary, he asked the board to not approve Builders Square. He asked
them to charge Mr. Fiest to amend the deed restriction, the remove the P & Z
Board as a concerned party. To inform Mr. Fiest that no development would
be supported until the original agreement, which was a factor in approval of
the master plan amendment, is filed. Ask Mr. Fiest to develop in compliance
with the preliminary expectations associated with all the reviews that took
place last year.
Mark Thomas, homeowner in Fairway Estates, stated he came this evening to
plead as well. All of them do something else than this for a living, he had
never been involved in a process jike this his entire life. He had become
interested in the system since Pace was proposed. All of us are asked in our
daily business to conduct ourselves in some kind of manner that deemed itself
acceptable to society. One of those things is contracts. He has a contract with
Mr. Fiest, the contract was made over the telephone and the contract was that
if he would agree to come to the original hearing on the Pace project and not
make himself as vocal as he was at the neighborhood meeting, which had about
250 screaming people at it, that he would make sure the deed restriction would
be carried out in terms that were agreeable to Fairway Estates. Well, as the
board has seen the evidence from Mr. Butler, that had not happened. They
had planned that this would never involve the P & Z, because G T Land,
Peter Kast, had promised him personally, that they (Fairway Estates) would be
involved in the process. The several times he tried to communicate with Peter
• on this issue, he refused to take his phone calls and refused to return his.
This process has generated a very serious feeling of animosity in his
neighborhood against this development. Thirty of Fairway's homes would fit
into the Pace building, it did not fit into the neighborhood, they had made
that point, they all made points, through land buffers, transitional land uses, in
the description of a transitional land use on page 17 in the Land Use Policies
Plan of 79, "land uses which act as buffers between incompatible land uses are
the traditional hierarchy of industrial uses, commercial uses to office uses to
high density residential, to medium residential to low density residential. He
would like to ask them if they had a picture in their mind of this Master
Plan, if you could picture how they were going to get this transitional
hierarchy between the corner of Pace and what is a very substantial residential
area about some 300 feet away, how we were going to cram all that into that
transition. One of the things they asked the deed restriction for was to
guarantee themselves some transition. Since from the very beginning of 1987
when the Master Plan was approved, the City guaranteed them that all what
was going to go in over there was a neighborhood shopping center with
residential uses, that is what all the neighbors had been told. As they had
seen today that is not what had turned out. The process, and he did not find
terrible fault with the LDGS, except very good people, like Mr. Fiest, he was a
very high quality folk, he was extremely good at manipulating the process and
what they had done is come along with a series of events from 1987 to 1990
and brought us a warehouse shopping area. The Wall Street Journal had an
article in it recently that these types of developments are now turning around
the other way on the East Coast. We are going back to small retail shops. Ft.
Collins is behind so we are just getting a warehouse shopping areas. Those
• warehouse shopping areas in Denver are all on major interstate highways.
Harmony Road did not fit the picture. Through a series of very carefully
manipulated processes from Eldon Ward's office to Peter Kast's to Tony Fiest,
they now have this development in their neighborhood. He could do nothing
-27-
about that. He was opposed, they had questions, they've made changes, they
had come true on some of the issues, but he had to ask the board tonight that
they consider the fact that one of the major issues was buffering for Fairway
Estates.
The parcels are 1-G and 1-H, they are not parcel I and parcel 2 as in Peter
Kast's letter for the deed restriction. They had now come up with another set
of descriptions, and they do not match parcel H and parcel G of the original
agreement. They had changed them as well. None of this agreement is in
accordance with what they were guaranteed in public asked by Ted Shepard,
agreed to by Mr. Fiest and Mr. Peter Kast. They were their last line of
defense, they (P&Z Board) are citizens like they are, were concerned, they were
not overly emotional about this process but they need help. They had come
there tonight to ask them to please help them get what they were promised in
the original meeting. There was only one way to do it and that was to not
approve the final tonight and to force these gentlenen to bring them a copy
of a document they could accept. They (Fairway Estates) were not
unreasonable people. They asked for very simple procedures, they were in
writing and yet today, a copy of that agreement did not resemble anything like
those agreements. A quote from the letter from G T Land, "the church had
requested the ability to do some multi -family housing for their school
employees on the eastern portion of their option parcel. To accommodate this
request, they had simply run the eastern boundary of area 1, directly north
and south to provide for that request." That was not in the agreement, they
(GT Land) had never brought it to them (Fairway Estates) it had never been
mentioned. Because their (GT Land) commitment to provide these areas was
with the Ft. Collins Planning and Zoning Board, they (GT Land) had provided
for the board to participate in any decision to alternate these decisions. In a
bolder time that would be called a lie. Today we have to say that it is a
mis-quote or a mis-understanding. These people (Tony Feist, Eldon Ward) told
them that Fort Collins City would not be involved in this. Ted Shepard said
the same thing, they wouldn't, they couldn't be. The City Attorney said they
did not have the ability to control this issue, and now we have the P & Z
Board involved in a deed restriction. Why did they (GT Land) do that, so
they could come back later through very careful manipulation, guys that do
good work, they come back and they get it changed to something else. It was
up to the board to do something tonight that would straighten out this
problem. It was not an unreasonable request. Everyone has had attorney's
involved and had written letters back and forth, they refused to discuss these
issues. They (GT Land) simply bullied them (Fairway Estates), their bigger,
their tougher, they have more money, but the one thing he hoped they didn't
count on was that the board would listen to this story and believe some
portion would listen to this story and believe some portion of it and find it
legitimate and help them out of this problem.
Chairman Klataske asked Assistant City Attorney Eckman how the Planning
and Zoning Board became involved in this and what was their involvement.
Mr. Eckman replied he did not recall the comments made the night of the
meeting so he would assume what was shown on the screen was correct. He
remembered that Mr. Kast had proposed some deed restriction language to the
City and he remembered having to look at it and Mr. Kast felt that the board
was involved in the language for the deed restriction and it was G T's position
that they wanted to have some permanent body that would be involved in any
future amendment to the deed restriction. He did not recall how the language
came out with respect to Fairway Estates, whether they to were included in
the approval for any amendment to the deed restriction or not.
s.I:11
Mr. Kast, vice president of G T Land stated they were the people that were
• selling the site to Mr. Fiest and own the surrounding area all the way between
Fairway Estates and Lemay Ave with exception of the Front Range Baptist
Church which happened to be a parcel to the east of Fairway Estates that is
in between the Fairway Estates boundary and Boardwalk Drive. He stated that
he was a little surprised by all of this, he did not know that they had any
such problems. He stated that he always . returns his phone calls and that if he
would have received phone calls then he would have returned them. Even
before Pace was involved they (GT Land) were discussing and enlarging the
site for the Front Range Baptist Church which happened to be fronting on
Harmony Road and they (church) wanted to expand and it was to expensive
for them to expand on Harmony Road and the Highway Department wanted to
mess with their (church) access, they had a full movement access off of
Harmony Road but because of the distance between that access point and
Boardwalk Drive that would eventually become a right -in right -out and they
(church) needed another access. Boardwalk was the obvious, logical connection.
They (church) wanted an opportunity to do two things, one was to expand
their site and two was they needed a different access point and they wanted
to hook into City sewer. They (GT Land) began discussions with the church
and eventually we came to an agreement where we traded about a 4 acre site
which duplicates their parcel on the south side of their boundary. The church
traded for a strip of land which put more depth to the site between Boardwalk
and the church boundary. That area was in the deed restriction area that had
been alluded to and was going to be residential anyway because a church is a
compatible use in a residential zone.
In addition to that, the church also wanted an opportunity to expand an
additional 5 acres to the south for an expanded school and to do a larger
• production than they currently do. The church asked GT Land for an option
on some land which was another 5 acres to the south, this parcel not only
went along the Fairway Estates boundary but extends out to Boardwalk Drive
past the intersection at Oakridge. As part of the three year option to do that
the church and GT Land had the deed restriction to deal with. They are two
parcels, 1-H and 1-G, and the smaller one allows for some kind of
multi -family, small office buildings which would be between Boardwalk Drive
and where the boundary for the church would extend to the south. The other
parcel, I-H, essentially is about a 300 foot strip which runs adjacent to the
boundary of Fairway Estates, except for a bubble that comes to the
intersection of Oakridge and Boardwalk. The part the church has an option on
was essentially the part where 1-G sticks out over to the street and goes a
little past that and then is a perpendicular line that goes over and squares off
with the Fairway Estates boundary. The church has a long term goal of
providing some housing for their teachers on the site and that was how the
discussion came that this did not quite fit with our deed restriction. He had
some discussions with Ted Shepard and Tom Peterson and then the church had
some discussion with Fairway Estates and nobody really thought that the little
bubble was a big issue because essentially they had 300 feet of boundary that
was dedicated to single family residential over against Fairway Estates, that
was a change from what happened at the final Pace meeting. Fairway Estates
is more concerned that some how the City got involved in the process. Finally, .
GT Land came to terms with the church, we had the deeded pieces, the church
had the option piece, we had come to the point where they were going to
write down the language to the deed restrictions. Part of the reason for the
delay was dealing with the church issue because they thought it would make a
• great buffer against Fairway Estates. The church wants to put fields out there
for athletic things, they are not going to put any buildings in those areas they
are going to keep their buildings essentially where the buildings already are,
on the north part of the site and do parking in fields and GT Land thought it
-29-
was a good match. It came down to write the deed restriction and they came
into some questions, had some discussions with Tom Peterson and Paul
Eckman on how this was going to be done. GT Land's agreement at the
meeting was not with the Fairway Estates Homeowners' meeting, in fact, not
all the people on the board would have agreed to agree to what we were
talking about at the time of the approval on the Pace project. The question
was we didn't have a unified body at that point from the homeowners' side
and the agreement was to do something that involved the Planning and Zoning
Board, the agreement was essentially with the board to do this for them.
There was never any intention of changing it but the issue came up, who were
we dealing with and how should we legally do it. I sent a draft over to Paul
Eckman and Paul made some comments and, after rummaging through the
comments, we came up with the language that was in the documents that Mr.
Butler had. I sent that out May 25 and it had been two months and I had not
heard from Mr. Butler or Mr. Thomas that there was a problem. This was the
first I had heard that they had any kind of an issue.
Mr. Butler stated that his lawyer did respond to him directly.
Mr. Kast stated that he had not seen anything.
Mr. Kast stated that was the process that went on and he did not think that
they were doing anything irrational or despicable at the time and they did not
mean to appear that way, they meant through the whole process to be good
neighbors and make this a compatible use. GT Land is in" the process not of
negotiation for the sale of this area that will be single family residential.
They never had any intent to or in their darkest heart of hearts to put an
industrial use over there. From his side, it may not of gone along as smoothly
as it could have but didn't have any idea they were acting in bad faith and
he was sorry they felt that way.
Member Cottier asked Mr. Eckman for clarification. The deed restrictions that
were to be placed on parcels I-G and I-H, were they to be done before any
more development could take place or what was the link between that deed
restriction and this particular proposal.
Mr. Eckman replied that the deed restriction was linked to. the Pace proposal
and not to this proposal and it was supposed to be generated as a result of
that. Tom was involved in the negotiation of the deed restrictions and that
was why I did not receive a copy of the May 25th letter because Tom was
noted as the first person to receive it. Nevertheless, Peter and I did work on
the language of the deed restriction with Tom and it was Tom's feeling from
the discussions before the board that the deed restrictions should not be
amended at all and only if the board approved it and that was what I agreed
to as well. Tom Peterson and I did agree to put that language in the deed
restriction although the City was not a signator to the deed restriction. The
minutes Mr. Butler presented were unclear as to how the deed restriction might
ever be amended at all. That did not seem to come up before the discussion
with the board.
Member Cottier stated that she was trying to get at whether these were two
separate issues or was the deed restriction rightly tied to the Builders Square
proposal. Her recollection of the purpose of the deed restriction was to
maintain some guarantees of a buffer between Boardwalk and Fairway Estates.
She did not understand what that had to do with Builders Square.
Mr. Eckman agreed that the deed restriction was connected to the Pace project.
-30-
Member Walker stated there had been some disagreement as to the deed
restrictions content how would he suggest that have to be resolved since there
was a public record that said it was tied to this and the discussion of the
deed restriction was a separate issue and he did not know what body that
would be before and wanted some suggestions.
Mr. Eckman stated he would have to look at the actual minutes of the tape
before the board because at this point he was relying on the minutes submitted
tonight and it was difficult to see in a way that the City could dictate what
the deed restriction contained from the language he was reading now. It
talked about a deed restriction that would match the master plan and was in
fairly vague terms. His concern was that the owner of the land has some
latitude in how to draft up the deed restriction as long as it meets the
promises made to the board which were not that specific and at this point,
how to amend the deed restriction or how to get the board out of the deed
restriction.
Member Walker stated his question was that if there was
an issue here he
was
certain willing to. There was
an agreement as part
of the master
plan,
although vaguely stated but it
was in the public record that the
deed
restriction be part of it. What it
would say in it was never
clarified and
now
there seemed to be a dispute as
the content of it. He
agreed it was tied to
Pace and not Builders Square issue
but would like to see
some resolution.
Member Cottier stated the deed restriction was a problem that they had not
been kept up to date on. She was concerned about what that deed restriction
says but her concern was only that 1-G and I-H be maintained as a buffer
between Boardwalk and Fairway Estates, that had nothing to do with Builders
• Square. She acknowledged that this was an issue based on what the neighbors
had said and what commitments were the made. This was not the time to be
dealing with it and suggested that staff inform the board more about what is
going on with respect to the deed restriction and they could respond to it in
the future.
Mr. Eckman stated he agreed that this was not the project to deal with the
deed restriction.
Member
O'Dell asked Mr.
Eckman
to be an intermediary
to Mr. Kast and
Fairway
Estates and anyone
else that
needed to be involved
in this and come
up with
something that was
acceptable
and report back to the
board.
Member Walker asked Mr. Shepard to respond to the questions brought up
about the total square footage. How did this fit with the Master Plan and the
issues associated with it.
Mr. Shepard replied the Harmony Market was approved for 332,550 square feet
of commercial, retail and a small office component for G T Land's office
building. It was the massing and the bulking versus the square footage. They
had looked
at this and it was staffs opinion
that the proposed
Builders Square
was in substantial conformance with the
preliminary. It
is retail, it is
commercial,
it is not a membership warehouse. It will have
contractor sales,
but it will
have a retail flavor. It will
probably be used more than a
membership
warehouse. Staff felt that the
issue of the massing and the
bulking and
the large part of the building
would lend itself
to architectural
landscaping
and those kinds of mitigation
measures which
was what they
focused on
.
at staff review and tonight. It
was staffs feeling
that it was in
substantial conformance with the preliminary,
it was within the
square footage
-31-
that was allowed and there would be more that 20,000 square feet left after
the Steele's for additional retail and pad sites which, by definition, would be
more neighborhood serving.
Member Cottier asked when the Harmony Market PUD was approved and
defined as a community and regional shopping center, not as a neighborhood
shopping center.
Mr. Shepard replied that was correct. The community and regional shopping
center point chart was used and that was why the master plan was amended.
The master plan was amended was because Pace Warehouse came in as anchor
tenant and was 100,000 square feet and that was not a neighborhood type
shopping center. A neighborhood shopping center like a Scotch Pines or a
Drake Crossing could have gone in the Oak Farm Cottonwood Master Plan
without a master plan amendment but that was not what was submitted to
them last April. That was why they amended the Oak Farm Cottonwood
Master Plan for community/regional shopping center.
Member Carroll stated he did have a concern with the deed restriction as well
and hopefully there would be some clarity in the language as opposed to
something that says that a deed restriction would be produced that would be
agreeable to all parties and would be interested to see the results. If there
was some violation by anybody as to what was agreed to with the City, not
private agreements and he would assume the City of Fort Collins would take
the appropriate action to force what was agreed to. As far as Builders Square
was concerned this was approved as a regional/community shopping area. He
felt that this particular retail use did fit the master plan and what had been
approved in the past. His concern was the fenced area and one possibility was
to table the matter till next month to allow the applicant to come up with a
proposal which would satisfy the board. He was aware of the applicant time
concerns and did believe the chain link fenced area was not a major area of
the project.
Member Carroll moved for approval with the condition that the signs be
deleted as recommended and secondly that the applicant work with the staff to
Improve this area and bring this back to the board In August meeting to make
sure that the condition of final that it meet with the boards satisfaction.
Member O'Dell asked what he meant by coming back next month with this.
Member Carroll replied that it was his understanding that they could approve
this as a final with one of the conditions being that the applicant submit to
the staff a revised treatment of the garden/chain-link area and that this be
brought back to them again in August.
Mr. Shepard stated the staff was prepared to review any revised landscape
plan, architectural elevation and site plan necessary to accommodate the
condition of the board. What staff needs was for them to set the level of
expectation for that. As a condition of final their action was voted for action
of approval then they would have the ability after the documents are filed to
begin construction. He stated a slight benefit in the fact that the area in
question was a fence and landscaping which typically would go in last. They
were looking at February or March before that component goes in and would
ask that they give a very strict, clear deadline such as the August Planning
and Zoning Board meeting for this issue to be resolved so when they do go
forward everyone knows what was expected.
-32-
Member Strom stated that it seemed to him that if they were uncomfortable
. with this issue that they needed to see it again and could not be specific
enough to the staff as how it needed to be dealt with and let them handle it
then they should be thinking more of tabling and considering it at the next
meeting. He did not have any problem with condition on finals such as
deleting signage but when they were talking about coming back to the board to
review an issue that is basically delegated to the staff to do, then they were
muddling up the conditions. He was suggesting that they be specific about the
expectations and was not comfortable with looking at it again if they be
specific.
Member Walker stated there should have been enough said along those lines.
They had indicated that the large expanse of chain link fence was not
acceptable. Some softening with landscaping including wrapping around the
south side was what they were looking at.
Member Carroll stated the condition of approval besides the condition of
eliminating the signage as the recommendation was that the applicant provide
to staff additional landscaping plans and softening of the chain link area In
the garden area to provide a softening aspect, not necessarily to delete the
chain link but perhaps to include the wall that was mentioned by the
applicant, and extend the landscaping zone around to the south side up to the
chain link fence. The matter be approved by staff and not come back to the
board.
Member Walker seconded the motion.
Member Carroll stated that this be done by the August meeting.
• Member Strom stated that the applicant suggested the possible wall was a
possibility and thinks at a minimum it needed extensive landscape treatment
along the east side. 'Suggested considering something more structural at the end
or part way down the east side to break up the fencing.
Chairman Klataske stated it was a good plan and was in general conformance
with what was at Pace except for height. He appreciated Mr. Butler's and Mr.
Thomas' concerns about the deed restrictions. His understanding all along on
this development as part of the master plan and Pace was that there were deed
restrictions in place and would like to see it resolved.
Motion was approved 6-0.
#33 90 AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 29 OF THE CODE "ZONING
ANNEXATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND"
Peter Barnes gave the staff report recommending approval.
Mr. Barnes gave a slide presentation to the Board on off premise signs and
billboards.
Chairman Klataske asked what the dimensions were on signage, height, and on
height was it the overall height of the sign or the ad copy that was included
in the total square footage.
• Mr. Barnes replied that on a monument sign or a ground sign, you measure the
area of the sign face and then any portion of the sign structure that exceeded
one and one half times the area of the sign face.
-33-
Chairman Klataske asked about the total square footage allowed on the sign
face.
Mr. Barnes replied that it depended on the sign allowance for a given property,
every property based upon either the size of the building that is there or the
length of the lot frontage had a certain sign allowance and on free standing or
ground signs you count all of the sign faces, add them together and that was
the amount of signage that the sign was displaying.
Member Strom asked if they were on solid constitutional ground by banning,
even though we could not amortize them.
Mr. Barnes replied that the City Attorney's office had done considerable
research on recent case law and court rulings regarding this and they felt we
were on solid ground in prohibiting construction of new off premise signs as
long as we make provisions to allow ideological signs. Where you run into
trouble is when a city or any agency tries to prohibit off premise signs and by
doing so they also do not allow ideological signs.
Member Strom asked how an ideological sign was defined.
Mr. Barnes replied a sign conveying a philosophical, religious, political,
charitable, or other similar non-commercial message.
Member Walker asked why we allow bus bench signs.
Mr. Barnes replied it had been about 10 years that the City Council entered
into an agreement to allow advertising on bus benches and that it was
administered by Transfort and the only mention of it in the sign code was
that a bus bench was not considered a sign.
Member Strom moved to recommend to City Council approval of amendments to
Chapter 29 of the Code.
Member O'Dell seconded the motion.
The motion passed 6-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
The meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m
-34-