HomeMy WebLinkAboutLEGACY AUTO - 1845 N. COLLEGE AVE. - PDP120001 - CORRESPONDENCE - LEGAL COMMUNICATIONwould be no ability to display more than 36 tractors, trailers (including horse trailers), ATV's
and jets skis over the site.
3. UeLel& �mertUs6I
. The Farkases have made it clear throughout the process that,
for economic reasons, they are not able to immediately improve the presently undeveloped site.
They would, however, like to utilize the site in conjunction with the business operations. Mr.
Barnes indicates that a hard surface paving would, at a minimum, be required to allow the WRO
e-:V—.bdir66e s�overations. specifically deThe Code sne fines "hard
the 01�0e�,�KqqJIL Eat c ..........
surface" and excludes gravel or recycled asphalt, but may allow reconstituted, recycled asphalt.
It is my understanding that the use of reconstituted, recycled asphalt needs to be approved by the
Planning Department. The plans submitted by Mr. Shields need to reflect this type of surface
and the location where display and storage will occur prior to completion of structural
improvements on the currently undeveloped property. In addition, the current right to use the
property for display expired as of January 1, 2011, and as a component of the settlement with the
City, this date needs to be extended for a period long enough for the Farkases to obtain
development approvals for the site as outlined above.
JBM/sch
\\sewer\MamhLaw\WPC\JBM\FARKAS, GARY& JANETWorth CollegeWENIO to BARNES WARDLE x SHIELDS FARKAS.dm
Page 8 of 8
i : Iry � �� -,,-•,,_;-vs-� -�
Cisveiw/ proval of',ubmissrno
�i hms�s nwomt tacnrsn@utotsto
p
f 11owi gthep hc,healwg;Aiso
Construction of retention pond by 8/ 15
WwaN IMonsiderraddu g ttie De elop�,u
Construction Pemut�(DCP) es a step
Impervious surface for phase 1 display installed by 9/1
befom ey ate m provemaus can he
zmade.
In order to meet this schedule Farkases ask that the existing stipulated use be
i ^a°s*..mTyq-i^-
extended to [Septemberl�r!1201=1�
e�_.... -.._ ....._._- _-__.---.. ...--.. .... _.__... ...''
Comment [SIgNe ce su` `re this"date
' °
talwa �NoaacwuNihapoteahal �trons
er71s pia; ,fs are reeel�eQ
b.l iHr t•,'fy re
2. Horse Trailers. As the review of the Farkas site (developed and undeveloped
y UJe eF rAe (anJ
p
I
property) progressed, an issue developed relative to what products could be sold within the
at s 10A� as 7"Aese
definition of equipment versus motor vehicles. The Farkases advise that they have always, as a
^ I e s hur e du. i es
component of their business sold horse trailers. Additionally, flatbed trailers are regularly used
c` rr " t fih` c' "Y
,y:ll f_.'tp�d tt+f
as part of the business as an accessory to transport farm equipment and have been offered or sale.
a[ a a d J ; ,,e ,
Concerns were voiced by Mr. Mapes that the size of these trailers was of concern and, as a result,
an agreement was reached that trailers sold from the site could not be more than twenty-five (25)
feet in length (without regard to the tongue). The City is concerned that the 25 foot limit related
not to all trailers but only to transport trailers. The Farkases consented to this limitation. The
Farkases also indicated that, on occasion, they have sold recreational vehicles and camping type
trailers, and the City voiced concern over sales of these items, which the Farkases, agreed to
forego. An issue that apparently was not focused upon was the ability to sell horse trailers. At
my Peter/Emma meeting it was discussed that, while staff was not thrilled about the sale of horse
trailers in conjunction with th in process, if horse trailers had historica been sold, this
needed to be demonstrate It would be the Farkases' position that (a) horse trailers are arm
equipment allowed as part of the non -car truck sales definition of the code, horse trailers are
certainly urban farm equipment and, (b) if the rental of trailers horse would be permitted, then
there should be no greater impact from the sale of horse trailers. Certainly it would be
anticipated that the length of horse trailers that could be sold would be subject to the agreed to
limitations.
a
�ylr BarnesW suggested that a proposal besubmrtted relattve to,horse trailers to address the
-,-���
issue"1 The Farkases would propose that inventory horse trailers would be stored within the -
-------. ------ -------- -------
FCommetrt [ 10]. we snu have not",' ^��..
'use was'done previously on the srteF °S„'1,a f
screened area or would be included within the 36 unit restriction presented above, i.e. there
I; kt th c Fe
rr;or }u CmrS�rier;,,r�
Wkth,t✓ &'R 0" plat
tl'Wse 1r`9:12 ✓'S C0.N lye
Page 7 of 8
��1
cvs'ls"deveN 'Arbay. Ca,m
Pt(ut `iw�ev.
were not. It was understood that screened non -display storage areas could be gravel
surfaced. We need to confirm these understandings. The phase I and phase 2
improvements as subsequently described could not be carried on absent paving.
.................... . ..... ..................
Before adding additional paving, which obviously adds to impervious surface, it is
necessary to address storm drainage issues. A storm pond is proposed west of the
existing building. The Farkases planner suggested that the pond could likely be
constructed as a retention pond to address the phase I (and possibly 2) uses and would
have to be piped to the City storm water outlet before the phase 3 or 4 improvements
could be undertaken. I have confirmed this with Glen Schlueter that that until 50% of the
property is paved, there is no need for detention on site and that a retention pond is
sufficient. He also advised that graveled areas would not pose issues relative to storm
drainage. Water quality treatment issues will need to be addressed by extended retention
or otherwise., ....... ........... .... .....
I----------------- ------------------------------------- --------------------------
I would suggest that the plan submission would envision development in 5 phases.
1) Completion of display areas
2) Completion of auto/truck sale use area
3) 1' existing building addition
4) 2rd exiting building addition
5) New building
It was discussed with Peter that the ability to continue the current stipulated/agreed use
would be extended beyond the now past I/1/11 deadline pending approval of what
hopefully is laid out by this memo as what all parties believe to conceptually be an
acceptable useT, a iffiejii"neriTwoul&be expected . . . . . . .
NU ss! 0 ey6lopmerivapproVals'bi,73�1
I Milll"9_ �- 4 11116Yq�P1q_Y09P!R9j 11 41. 1 , , � ''
Review of submission and comments by City by 4/1
Address comments by owner by 4/15
Page 6 of 8
VKµs t 1 ;$ t jkt 9rLej
qov' U-Se5 as sf.'P6tej
tier historically having leased and used the adjoining property, whether continuation of
that use and the extent of the use is allowed without further approvals.
lion -car and truck sale displg4storage.__ rronnatted: underline
I spoke with the Farkases and their planner and it would be proposed that in
addition to giving up arguable rights to display for sell RV's, boats (excluding jet ski's
similar small craft), larger trailers allowed under the Vehicle sales and leasing for farm
equipment, mobile homes, recreational vehicles, large trucks and boats with outdoor
storage definition they would limit the display areas for Urban Tractors, ATVs, and 25'
of less trailers to 36 display models on the entire tract (both the current PUD site and the
undeveloped site).
The Farkases would agree that if there was non-car/truck inventory on site in
excess of the 36 vehicl s the inventory would need to be maintained in a screened area, ..
_m." ............... .
the location of which would be shown on the plan submission. The planner would
propose as part of Phase I of the project that if the number of these inventory items
exceed 36, the Farkases would be required to sore the inventory in a screened storage
area shielding non -display inventory from view from the street.
Car and truck sale display/storage.
As part of the phasing proposal, the Farkeses plan will propose relocating the car
and truck sales component of the business to a 200' frontage area on the northerly non-
PUD site. The immediate relocation is problematic for various reasons, including costs,
storm drainage impacts of adding additional impervious surface and for reasons involving
security of the vehicles. It would be proposed that at such time as Farkases are able to
install sufficient storm drainage facilities to meet the requirements of the impervious
surface needs for the auto/truck display use they could so advise the City and relocate
that use (I have identified this as phase 2 of the project)
Comment [.1]: We can't commit to a "
number of display models withom seeing
how this impacts a plan.
Comment 1.2]: Repeat ofComment
It - : • ..� Comment [.3]: Yes, reconstituted
IPavine requirements'— — _— ___—_ ___--- —_ , asphalt is acceptable for a hardsurface
end screened areas may be gmveL
was discussed that all display parking must be on hard surfaces. Peter suggested that
recycled, reconstituted asphalt might be acceptable but that gravel and recycled asphalt
Page 5 of 8
the frontage associated with the prior PUD approved parcel). The Farkases have been willing
to discuss limitations on the prior approved lot if required by the City but the limitations
apparently needed to be further defined.
In my review of the planning file, it appeared that there were three issues that needed to
be discussed or were still up in the air and that these would require some tweaking or at least
confirmation that the submission would address particular issues. Peter and Emma requested
proposals in relation to the issues which I have tried to set forth below. The City's Conceptual
Review_. letter_ subm ttcdtqtlleapplicantandrepresentativesdoesst<ate,_„hpwever,,,__tbat
'.modifications and additions to these comments may be made at the time of formal review of
this proiect.'
1. Displays. The City has agreed that display of products can occur along the
College Avenue frontage. This display would largely consist of not multiple types of the same
tractor but illustrative types of the goods sold. This raised a question surrounding the nature of
the Farkases' business. Tractor sales are regularly tied to the types of implements which are
attached to the tractor; for example, the tractor can be equipped with a bucket, an auger, a scraper
blade, cab (no cab), spreader, sprayers, tillers, front or rear plows and scrapers, bushog to show
on display, tractors configured with different accessories. Relative to ATV's, attachments might
include a dump bed or a cage bed, cabbed/no cab, trailers. All makes include different models
including engines and equipment made by different manufactures. Mr. Barnes made the analogy
that this was similar to displaying a red car, a blue car, a green car, or, perhaps, a car with radial
tires or a car without radials, all of the same make and model. A suggestion was made that there
needed to be some ability to regulate the number of tractors that could be presented for display
and the variations as to those tractors of ATV's and the like. Tractors and similar equipment,
including Bobcats, not on display would need to be stored in screened areas.
After discussions with the City, the Farkases and their planner I would venture the
following proposal:
PROPOSAL
Based on their historical business activities there appears to be no dispute that the
Farkases are currently able to store, repair and sell inventory that has historically been
sold from the site on the 200' exiting Legacy Auto lot. There is dispute, notwithstanding
Page 4 of 8
of motor vehicles. He also wished to see further restrictions on other sales activities, including
large trailers, RV's and boats.
In conjunction with the condemnation proceedings, a Stipulation for Possession was
entered into by the parties granting the City the right to use the property until the condemnation
issues could be resolved. It was envisioned that the Farkases would pursue conceptual review,
that the uses the Farkases were carrying on on the property were allowed and that the sales of
equipment, particularly tractors, would be allowed on the undeveloped portions of the property.
Generally, the Farkases were entitled to continue selling motor vehicles and to carry on activities
that they had historically carried on from the existing site and there was an understanding that
other permitted sales (particularly "urban tractors" and accessories) which were related to the
Farkases' business could be carried on on the balance of the site. The Stipulation for Possession
provided that the Farkases could use the adjoining property for display purposes through January
1, 2011. It was envisioned that, by that time, the Farkases would have approvals to use the
undeveloped portions of the property and that this matter would have proceeded through the
process.
Unfortunately, nothing is ever as easy as it should be and, perhaps, there was dalliance on
the part of the Farkases' representatives. Regardless, Planning seems to agree that conceptual
plans have beenreviewed, and that Jlie next step in the Development Review Process is formal Deleted: submitted and appmmed
...... -_...: ---" D21E[fd: oNy limited holes exist within
submittal of a Pr<jcci,i)ey;clphntept..Pl ap, that step or the pianNng poxes
The City Attorney's Office has advised us of the need to finalize the condemnation
proceedings and they would like to pay out the condemnation proceeds and conclude the issues
related to the condemnation matter, notwithstanding the fact that the planning process
undertaken by the Farkases has not been completed. The City sent out an offer early this month.
The Farkases are willing to settle out the condemnation, but are concerned about the impact on
their business if they cannot use the adjoining property. This impact would clearly cause
negative impacts to their business if they were precluded from use of the adjoining property for
storage and display of farm equipment including tractors and accessories, as has historically been
done, and is all the more necessary as a result of the condemnation having downsized the prior
existing lot. They are willing to voluntarily forgo other arguably permitted uses including sales
of mobile homes, recreational vehicles, large trucks and boats on the previously vacant property
(although these uses have been discussed over a portion of the property in an area equivalent to
Page 3 of 8
District"). The Farkases, in addition to selling automobiles, have predominantly focused their
business operations on the sale of small tractors and farm equipment. While car and truck motor
vehicle (a term specifically defined by the Code) sales are restricted by the Code, equipment
sales are allowed by § 4.22(I3)(2)(c)(10) (retail establishments), (11) Retail stores with vehicle
- - .' Deleted: 12 '
servicing and (ZO Retail and su 1 yard establishments with outdoor stora e. The definitional
section of the Code continues to differentiate between Vehicle sales and leasing for cars and
light trucks, which is defined as the use of any building, land area or other premises for the
display and sale or lease of any new or used cars or light trucks, and may include outside storage
of inventory, any warranty repair work or other repair service conducted as an accessory use; as
opposed to Vehicle sales and leasing for farm equipment, mobile homes, recreational vehicles,
large trucks and boats with outdoor storage defined as the use of any building, land area or
other premises for the display and sale or lease of new or used large trucks, trailers, farm
equipment, mobile homes, recreational vehicles, boats and watercraft, and may include the
outside storage of inventory, any warranty repair work or other repair service conducted as an
accessory use. It would continue to be our position that the sale of farm equipment (and other
boats, trailers, mobile homes, recreational vehicles and watercraft) continues to be outside of
precluded activities related to car/truck motor vehicles and sales are therefore simply a retail sale
falling in allowed categories in the CS Zoning District. In addition to allowing specific uses,
§4.22(I3)(2)(c) allows the leasing of trucks and trailers. Generally, concerns were voiced by the
landowner that trailers are not motorized and therefore fall outside the car and light truck _
concern. It is asserted by the Farkases' and their representatives that trailers fall under the
definition of equipment/farm equipment, the sale of which was generally allowed and the lease
of which was specifically allowed, and that there was little difference between impact the of the
leasing of trailers versus the sale of trailers.
Various a -mails were exchanged related to allowed uses of the additional Farkases'
property and there was general discussion that what Paul Eckman referred to as "urban tractors",
that being small tractors, could be allowed. Clark Mapes became involved in this process and
voiced concern that a failure to identify a small tractor as a motor vehicle in the Code, was an
oversight and the intent had always been to include equipment of this nature within the definition
Page 2 of 8
-1 Deleted:
Memorandum
TO:
Peter Barnes, Fort Collins Zoning
Emma McArdle, Current Planning
FROM:
Brad March
CC:
Don Shields
Gary Farkas
RE:
Legacy Auto / Farkas Condemnation
North College Avenue, Fort Collins
DATE:
February 16, 2011
This memorandum is intended to follow up a meeting which I had with Emma McArdle
and Peter Barnes relative to the referenced development project. At the time of our meeting, I
explained to Mr. Bames and Ms. McArdle that I had originally been involved in the project but
had somewhat fallen out of the loop, having been replaced in large part by the Farkases' planner,
Don Shields. My initial involvement in the project was tied to the condemnation action, which
the City filed in conjunction with the re -work of North College Avenue. The Farkases had
concern relative to the condemnation that the taking of the property involved would have a
negative impact on their ability to display trucks, trailer, tractors and vehicles sold by Legacy
Auto. The Farkases had leased the adjoining property which was used in their operations and
.: Deleted: MW
purchased the property adjoining the business , tes a few years ago with the expectation that that
property could be integrated into the business, largely to offset the impacts of the projected
condemnation. At the inception of the condemnation proceedings, the Farkases, Mr. Barnes, Mr.
Eckman and I met and we discussed the concerning nuance related to the City's Land Use Code
(the "Code").
At § 4.22(B)(2)(c)(14) the C-S zone limits areas which can be devoted to vehicle sales
and leasing establishments for car and light truck/sales along North College (the "CS Zoning
Pagel of 8