Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutROHRBACKER PUD - PRELIMINARY & FINAL - 41-89B - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES March 26, 1990 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 6:32 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included: Chairman Sanford Kern, Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, Jan Shepard, Laurie O'Dell, Rex Burns, Lloyd Walker, and Alternate Joe Carroll. Staff members present included Tom Peterson, Ted Shepard, Paul Eckman, Sherry Albertson -Clark, Mike Herzig, Steve Olt, Kerrie Ashbeck and Georgiana Taylor. Board Members present at the March 23, 1990 worksession included: Chairman Sanford Kern, Jim Klataske, Bernie Strom, Laurie O'Dell, Rex Burns and Alternate Joe Carroll. Members absent included Lloyd Walker and Jan Shepard. AGENDA REVIEW Planning Director Tom Peterson reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agenda. The Consent Agenda included: Item 1 - Minutes of the February 26, 1990 meeting; Item 2 - Quail hollow, 4th Filing - Final Subdivision, #46-89B; Item 3 - Orchard at Clarendon Hills - Final Subdivision, #47-89C; Item 4 - Collinshaus PUD - Preliminary & Final, #6-90; Item 5 - Gateway at Harmony Road PUD, 3rd Filing - Amended Preliminary, #1-88E; Item 6 - PZ90-4 Access Easement Vacation, #14-90; Item 7 - Silverplume Estates, 3rd Filing, PUD - Final, #62-89B; Item#8 - PZ90-5 Access Easement Vacation, #15-90; Item 9 - Front Range Baptist Church Annexation and Zoning, #11-90A; Item 10 - Silverplume Estates Rezoning, #62-89C. Staff asked to place item #3, Orchard at Clarendon Hills on the discussion agenda. Member Burns stated that he had a conflict of interest on Item. #2, and would not be voting on it. Chairman Kern pulled item #4, Collinshaus PUD from the consent agenda. Member Klataske moved to approve consent agenda, items 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. Member Strom seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7-0. Member Walker moved to approve consent agenda item 2. Member Klataske seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0, with Alternate Joe Carroll voting. ORCHARD AT CLARENDON HILLS - Final Subdivision, #47-89C Ted Shepard stated that the staff recommended approval of this project with a condition that was not originally included in the board's packet. Mr. Shepard read the condition as follows: "The final utility plans shall demonstrate sufficient casement widths for the conveyance of storm drainage . flows so that there is no detrimental alteration to, or encroachment upon the existing bridlepath easements that are on record and platted along the Applewood Estates subdivision. Member Walker stated one of the items was that this was an example of when something does not quite fit, we can slide into a PUD process here to address something and agreed that where the legal ground was and if this was now a PUD, how do they treat it as a group home. He also questioned the implication that there were twelve people living there before. He stated now we would move them out and put in two senior residents and say there was no change. He stated that it significantly alters the nature of the structure so he questioned that supposition, that in sheer numbers, we were not making any difference. He stated that. he echoed the chairman's comments, and that it was a sensitive issue and when we were looking at something like this that might be considered a variance, you often times have to find good cause for doing this. There did not seem to be a good cause other than we have a spare bedroom. Let's put two more people in there. He did not feel that it addressed the intent. He stated that if the intent of the group home ordinance were being met by this increase and yet the letter of the law was not being met, this perhaps would be a reason, but he did not see anything coming out along those lines. Member Shepard stated that contrary to other comments, she was moving for approval of the Collinshaus PUD. She stated that she did not think that the intent of the group home legislation has been violated by this and she thought that this was a worthwhile service to elderly people. The primary concern of the group home ordinance was to protect neighborhoods, and in this case, there was no difference in the impact in the neighborhood and as far as she knew there was no neighborhood opposition to this project. She stated that the intent of the group home ordinance to protect had not been violated in this case, in her opinion. Member Shepard moved for approval of the Collinshaus PUD. Member Burns seconded the motion. Chairman Kern pointed out that there had not been a neighborhood meeting on this issue. The motion for approval was denied 5-2. Mr. Peterson stated that when the board adopted the consent agenda, Resolution 90-5, the fourth paragraph, it st-ated sixteen feet instead of fourteen and wanted to clarify the note for the public record. Chairman Kern stated that it was understood by the Board. ROHRRACKER PUD - Prgliminary & Final. 041-89B Sherry Albertson -Clark gave the staff report which recommended approval with six conditions: 1. An 8' solid wooden screen fence be provided along the site's western perimeter, to screen storage from the view of the Lemay Avenue right-of-way. 2. Gates in the fencing along the East Magnolia Court right-of-way be constructed of the same solid wood materials as the fence. • 3. Stacking of automobiles shall not exceed 8, or be visible from the public right-of-way. -3- 4. All outdoor storage shall be screened so that it is not visible from the street right-of-way, nor shall vehicles be stored on the public right-of-way. S. All fluid drainage from vehicles on site shall occur within the confines of the buildings on site and such fluids shall be recycled. 6. The applicant shall be responsible for the installation and maintenance of all landscape improvements, parking areas, fencing and all other site amenities as specified on the site plan. Wayne Specht, applicant, gave a presentation of his proposed project. He stated he and his wife, Mary, operate a business called Auto Salvage. They were presently located at 1405 East Olive Court. He stated that they had planned to relocate to 1400 East Magnolia. He stated Auto Salvage had been in business since 1954, located at the corner of Riverside and Lemay until it made way for a shopping center. He stated Auto Salvage was not a junk yard, they did not buy junk iron or metals and they arc automobile recyclers. He explained that it meant that they bought late model wrecked or damaged vehicles and sell the usable parts off of them, that they did not drain oils, gasoline or anti -freeze on the ground, and they did not release freon into the atmosphere. He stated all of the products were recyclable. He stated that they y concerned about . pollution and intend to do their part in keeping the environment clean. Mr. Specht stated that they talked to County Zoning Staff about 18 months ago, and that they had told him it was a good spot to relocate. He stated five reasons why they moved, it was for sale, they had occupied the storage area for four years, there were no immediate plans for development in that area, there arc automobiles stored to the south and to the north of the property, it is an industrial area. He stated the reason they annexed the property into the City, was because the property to the west was annexed several years before. Mr. Specht stated that because there are some attractive businesses in the area, they felt that the screening and improvements to the property will upgrade the area. Sherry Clark gave a presentation of the surrounding land uses by showing slides taken in the area, and of the subject property. Mr. Harold Fisher, property owner of land to the west, stated there were already two salvage yards -in the area and did not think a third was necessary. He stated his property was zoned for business purposes and was hopeful that a shopping center would locate there. He stated that there were enough junk yards next to his property. He stated he was also concerned about toxic waste getting into the soil. He stated that he was against the project and he would fight it all the way through. Mr. Roger Prenzlow; property owner of land 1-1/2 blocks north, felt that it was an unfortunate situation, because there were already about six illegal junk yards existing, and one of them borders this property to the south. He was amazed that the City was not requiring fencing on the south because of the existing junk yard there. He stated the junk yards were illegal and in low ated violation the authorized esaly salvage yardznortht and tothecast hacross e items of the ruls. Mr. Link Lane. e He supposed -4- stated there was no authority for auto salvage. He stated they did go in for a special review to store cars on that property and were supposed to put the fence up before they stored the cars, unfortunately the fence is stilt not up. He stated that Mr. Specht was in violation existing on East Olive Court property, and there would be no welcome for this project from the property owners in the area. Member Walker questioned the existing salvage yards in violation and what was he referring to. Me Prenzlow pointed out the salvage yards storing cars illegally that have no authorization to do so, and that it is an unauthorized use. Chairman Kern asked Ms. Clark if it was in the County or the City. Ms. Clark replied that it was in the County and the only property with exception to the subject property that has been annexed was Mr. Fisher's property. Mr. Prenzlow stated that the property immediately north was authorized by the County, and the special review took a circuitous route and many of the property owners did not know it was being approved. He stated that the City was in a tough spot and had an annexed piece of ground coming in and has many unauthorized uses around it. Mr. Prenzlow stated it was a County problem and resents giving them legal status. Member Walker questioned Mr. Prenzlow as to the reference that Mr. Spccht • currently was in violation of a regulation, and could he be specific as to what that was. Mr. Prenzlow pointed out Mr. Specht's property and where he has junk cars stacked three and four high that was adjacent to Allen Plumbing that was in violation of County regulations and has been for a long period of time. Mr. Dick DcCook spoke representing Magnolia Investment Partnership, which owns the building at 1418 East Magnolia Court and has three tenants: Plastec, Tooltec, and Perio-Dental who employ about 50 people at the location. Mr. DcCook stated that with the high level of opposition, it was inappropriate for the hearing to be Preliminary and Final. He stated the opposing property owners desired first that the application be turned down and if it was not, then they must be given the right to respond to the Board's findings. • Mr. DcCook stated that his intent was to strongly protest and to call for the P & Z Board to deny the City of Fort Collins' recommendation to place a third junk yard within two blocks of their building in the last year. He stated he was calling for plain common sense judgement in a situation that did not seem to make sense to him or most of the land owners in the area. He stated that the site for the proposed junk yard is within several hundred feet of Plastcc's front door. He stated it was also visible looking north from Mulberry. He stated that people driving west or east on Mulberry can look between the buildings and see the site. -5- Mr. DeCook stated that Fort Collins has four what may be called eastern gateway entrances to Port Collins and without a doubt, Mulberry had the most traffic. He stated that over the last 12 to 18 months there had been a very disturbing trend in types of businesses allowed along the busy gateway corridor: Debbie Duz Donuts, The Hunt Club, and two junk yards, Slatten's Automotive, and Schuellin Auto Salvage. Mr. DeCook asked the question, with these types of businesses coming into the area, has this made it easier for Ed Stoner and Ft. Collins, Inc., and Mike Hauser of the Chamber of Commerce to bring in the clean industries and associated jobs to the City of Fort Collins? He asked what does this say about our Choice City to visiting companies? He stated that the P & Z Board had the opportunity to make the right choice, and it was not to add this proposed junk yard. He stated that Magnolia Investments opposed the junk yard for the following reasons: 1. Aesthetics. He stated that they were told that the applicant had even stated "it ain't pretty" when he talked with the Chief Planner for the City, he agreed 100%. 2. Luke warm recommendation. He stated the City's recommendation for approval was barely lukewarm. He stated when he talked to Sherry Albertson -Clark, Chief Planner, on Thursday, March 22, she had stated "I could have gone either way on this project" and yet for some unknown reason she recommended approval when there were already two junk yards in the area. He stated that she had told the applicant, "You have an uphill battle" when she talked to him about the request and why did she say that if she had thought it was a good thing for the City of Fort Collins. 3. illegal. He stated the site and the consideration was known to the surrounding property owners, including himself, was illegally storing 40-50 salvaged vehicles for the last few years. He stated that even after annexation, they still were being stored illegally. He called for their immediate removal. He stated the City's recommendation is an attempt to legitimatize an ongoing illegal activity. 4. Environmcnt. He quoted from the point chart which was used when evaluating junk yards that. "junk, scrap or salvage yards and all extraction uses, are uses that create major disruptions to the areas environment, even when carefully regulated. He stated dust, dirt, noise and unsightly conditions could be anticipated." He stated that this was already proving true at the two existing junk yards in the area. 5. Contamination. He stated that soil and ground water were already being contaminated from the spillage of oil and gasoline fluids dripping off the motors and transmissions of the vehicles already being stored there, illegally. He stated that irrigation that flowed in the field just west of the site was being contaminated and contaminated rain and snow melt would run down and has been running down Magnolia toward Link Lane for some time now. He stated the proposed 6" dirt berm was totally inadequate as it was not permanent and would not keep the site from contamination. 6. Appearance. He stated when vehicles are stacked three, four, five, or six high to save space, or a high profile vehicle was stored, such as a bus or van, the proposed 8' wooden fence will not come close to concealing them from -6- Mulberry, Lemay, or Link Lane or Magnolia Court. He stated that in addition, there had been no means of enforcing or maintaining a fence requirement. 7. Traffic. He stated neither the City or the County have accepted responsibility for maintenance of East Magnolia Court, that it was up to the land owners. He stated neighbors had spent thousands of dollars on top of their normal property taxes .to repair Magnolia Court. He stated the City or the applicant must agree to bring the current street up to standards and maintain it. 8. Hi -Tech image. He stated that his three tenants had a hi -tech image, that they had customers ranging from Japan to West Germany. He stated Hewlett Packard, IBM, Digital Equipment, AT & T were all blue chip customers of theirs that visited the premises weekly. He stated that their hi -tech image would be seriously damaged by a junk yard within several hundred feet of their front door. 9. Change of fundamental use of the area. He stated a junk yard would change the historical and fundamental usage of the area causing property values to go down. He stated their property was valued at around $400,000 and was in excellent condition. He stated Sherry Clark said it was the best looking on the block, however to take note no picture of their building was shown on her slide presentation and that all the buildings around them were shown but they were Ieft out. He asked what would a near by junk yard do to that value. 10. Areas becoming no longer attractive. He stated that the changes he had mentioned over the last 12 to 18 months were causing the area to become unattractive to clean small business, and he predicted another junk yard would produce two things (1) a net loss in employment in that area and (2) net increase in building vacancy in a short time. II. Trust. He stated people make choices in community, neighborhood and affiliations based upon their perceptions of existing services as well as their expectations of future benefits. He. stated when expectations were violated, disappointment, distrust and suspicion are the result and that people were no longer willing to make an investment of time, money or effort in improvement and betterment to their community. He stated they had made significant investment in the last thirteen in the area and believed that they were investing in commercial and industrial area and that future development would be compatible. 12. Mixed Messages. He stated that they were lead to understand that Fort Collins was truly interested in attracting clean light industry that offered attractive employment in our community and the message that they got was if they were to approve this deviation, was that they really didn't want their kind of business, but would rather have junk yards. He stated he did not know how many legitimate objections must be raised, that he had just brought up twelve, to overturn the application, and that the basic question still remained. What did this proposed third junk yard say about the Choice City? Would it make Ed Stoner and Mike Hauser's job of bringing new and clean industry to Fort Collins easier and that the only common sense conclusion one could arrive at would be to disapprove this application. -7- Member O'Dell stated that it was the Planning Staff's obligation to present a clear and unbiased proposal to them and that was the reason that they were there and they were there to make a decision. She stated that it was appropriate that Sherry recommended approval of the project and she thought stressed that the Board all go out and visit the site. The implication that it was a conspiracy on the part of the Planning Staff is inappropriate and did not want to let it continue. Chairman Kern seconded the remarks, and stated no matter what the Planning Staff recommends, it is up to the Planning and Zoning Board to make the decision. Mr. Alan Wilson, president of Plastec stated they had been operating in the area for about thirteen years and were a hi -tech company. He stated he had attended two other hearings on the Schuellin and the Slatten Automotive junk yard application and would like to address them because the are pertinent. He stated in the Schuellin case, he purchased the property with a very old deviation permit to' have salvage operation there. He appeared before the County Planning and Zoning Board to renew the application, that it had lapsed almost 10 years, he had been advised by both his real estate agent and an attorney that the statutes had lapsed and would have to be reconsidered. He stated he pleaded with the board to acknowledge his request because it had already been permitted in the application. He stated that significantly he had used the Rohrbacker PUD filing as justification for putting in that junk yard, and now we are using that junk yard's existence as rationalization for putting in this one. Mr. Wilson stated that he attended the hearing for Slatten's Automotive as well and showed some slides and stated that he represented that it was strictly a repair operation and all he was requesting permission was to use some land for storage for vehicles he was working on and some antique and special interest automobiles. Mr. Wilson showed slides of the existing junk yards in the area and the existing problems with fencing, street maintenance, illegal storage of vehicles, and environmental issues. Mr. Ron Bauer, spoke as representative of Loos Electric Supply that has property just due east of the proposed site for the junk yard•He value. a dressed e sed the aesthetics of the proposal and the issue of the property lso stated the issue of running a junk yard on two sides of a street. He stated that water has run through the street as high as 10-12 inches, not only from irrigation of Mr. Fisher's property, but from rain and snow runoff issue that a 6" berm is not going to hold anything in the area. He stated that on the staff report under hazardous waste it stated not applicable, iand nd f eon that it drained high stated rom the cars was very d trimen al to gasoline, o , our environment and would like to have that issue addressed. Ms. Nancy Benson, representative of employees of Plastec, presented the Board with a petition signed by employees stating they did not want a junk yard next to their company, -8- Mr. John Jervis, president of Perio-Dental, stated his major point would be a junk yard located 100 feet from his business. This would be highly detrimental to his image in the market and would make that location to him much less desirable. Member Walker asked Ms. Clark to clarify that the two salvage yards in the area are in conformance with County regulations. Ms. Clark replied that they were legal, but Slattens Automotive had not complied with the screening requirements to date. Member Walkcr asked that in addition to the two that have been legally established by the County is there some other illegal storage to the south. Ms. Clark replied that was correct and also pointed out that the autos presently stored on the subject site are stored illegal in Larimer County and with the City's annexation of the property, the storage of autos on this property is not a non -conforming use. Member Walker asked Ms. Clark about the not -applicable under the storage of Hazardous Waste. He felt that it was a good point and that there were storage of hazardous materials here and would like a clarification of her interpretation of that particular item. Ms. Clark replied that it was marked not -applicable because the criteria stated "will hazardous materials be stored in a safe manner". She stated that based on her discussions with the applicant, he indicated to her that they would not be any storage of any fluid on the site that the fluids are drained from the vehicles inside and the fluids are then recycled. That was the basis of staff recommending that condition as well. Member Walker questioned Mr. Specht as to when they receive a automobile into the site, whether the first thing is to drain the fluid out of the vehicle. Mr. Specht replied that was true and that they store the oil in 50 gallon drums and when a drum is full they have a company they give it to come and pick it up and there would not be more than 50 gallons. He stated as far as gasoline, they had very little gasoline stored in the building and that most of it was in the equipment that they use. He stated freon is stored in 30 gallon drums and the drums were just like what you would buy it in and that they are 100% safe, and they are tested at about 20,000 pounds of pressure. He stated the Freon is not stored because they sell it as soon as they get it and that there was a big demand for freon and they can sell it a lot cheaper than they could buy new freon for. Member Walker asked Mr. Specht if the fluids were stored inside a locked facility and if it was a concrete floor. Mr. Specht replied yes it was stored inside the building and yes it does have a concrete floor. Member Walker asked Mr. Specht if there were a leak of fluid, would it be contained on an impervious surface. 52 Mr. Spccht replied that it was set in a corner of the building and that they did not keep that much of the fluid. He offered to put a container around the bottom of the container but it was doubtful that there would be a spill. Member Walkcr asked Mr. Spccht about transmission and power steering fluids. Mr. Specht replied that it was considered oil to them and it all goes into the same container. Member Shepard asked that when the property was zoned C in the City there were there existing junk cars stored on the property, and why was the C zoning requested as opposed to I? Ms. Clark replied that there was a PUD condition attached to the zoning and so in terms of zoning, whether they ultimately ended up Commercial or Industrial, there was probably not a whole lot of difference. She stated that the property in Larimer County was previously zoned O-Open. The zoning in that surrounding area is known as heavy industrial I-1, to the south is C-Commercial zoning and that may be the rationale. To the east is industrial zoning and to the west is the Planned Business zoning in the City. Member Shepard asked if there would be a 8' fence on the total western side? Ms. Clark replied that it was the staff recommended condition. Member Shepard asked about the eastern side. Ms. Clark replied correct, that it was reflected on the site plan. Member Shepard askcd about the north and south sides, and if the fence was 40' back from the right-of-way? Ms. Clark replied that no it was not, that the fencing was outside or beyond the right -of way and the applicants way of addressing the criteria on point chart G which states "is the outdoor display and storage of vehicles at least 40' from any street right-of-way" was to delineate an area inside the fencing th n the site plan. She stated that this particular criteria does not specify fencing or any type of screening be used and did not clarify whether the intent was to have a 40' buffer strip and then some kind of screening, or whether the 40' actually occurs inside the screened area as the applicant is proposing at this time. Member Shepard asked whether the only way they would know if this was being complied with was to peck over the fence. Ms. Clark replied yes. Membcr Shepard asked how far back from the fence would be required to comply with the 40' set back. Ms. Clark replied about 40' and that the fence was located or proposed to be located fairly close to the right -of way. Member Shepard asked why they would not require the fence to be at the 40' line then? -to- Ms. Clark replied that was an option they could require through a condition. Mcmbcr Klataske asked Ms. Clark on criteria #1 "was the outdoor display on storage of vehicles at least 40' from any street right-of-way". He asked whether it meant an entire vehicle or any part of a vehicle? Ms. Clark replied that she assumed that would be interpreted as any part of a vehicle and one of the staff recommendations included the prohibition of any storage of autos visible from the public right-of-way that is not screened, and that they might want to expand the terminology to also include parts of automobiles. Member Carroll asked Assistant City .Attorney Eckman whether the City of Fort Collins had any authority to require the existing salvage yards outside the limits to comply with regulations that were placed upon them by the County. Mr. Eckman replied no. Member Carroll asked whether we placed requirements upon this piece of property and later find that they .were not being complied with, what were the alternatives as far as the City of Fort Collins goes toward the property owner. Mr. Eckman replied that there were several alternatives available that were set forth in the code. He stated the method of enforcement of that section of the code arc through the building permit and certificate of occupancy requirements and we may also inspect and order removal of violations. We also may pursue criminal action in the Municipal Court for zoning violation or a code violation and also use the court procedure to obtain an injunction against an action that is in violation of the code, Member Carroll asked that we could shut this use down if the owner refused or would not comply with one of the conditions? Mr. Eckman replied that we could prosecute in Municipal Court or we could obtain an injunction into the extent the judge would allow a shut down of the business. Member Carroll questioned Mr. Specht as to his concern of the environmental hazards and what the procedures are for draining fluids from the vehicles. Mr. Specht replied that the first thing they did to a vehicle is pull the motor and that the motors are not left in the vehicles that are stored in the storage area. He stated the transmissions are removed at the same time. Mr. Specht invited an inspection by City officials at any time. Member Carroll asked what they did with the engines and transmissions? Mr. Specht replied that they stacked the engines and transmissions in the building on racks. Member Carroll asked about the radiators. Mr. Specht replied that they also were stacked in the building until they are sold. -11- Member Carroll asked what would be left in the car chassis that could drip onto the ground? Mr. Specht replied really nothing, unless they did not get all the grease drained out of the rear end and that would only be a couple of drips. Member Carroll asked about the brake lines. Mr. Spccht replied that all fluid is drained and is put in with the oils and it is recycled. Member Carroll asked Mr. Specht if he understood that with the dedication he could not leave vehicles on a public street. Mr. Specht replied that he understood that. Member Carroll questioned Ms. Clark about not requiring fencing on the south line of the property and that he did scc a slide looking through the U-Store It where you could look right through. What is the justification on not requiring fencing along" the southern and northern boundaries of the property or requesting a condition. Ms. Clark replied that from both of those areas as viewed from the site looking to the north and from the site looking to the south, the proposed auto storage are would not be visible from the public right-of-way. She stated she did not go to the mini storage area and view that particular area to the north and that her recommendations were based on standing on the subject property looking both directions and she felt there was not a lot of logic behind requiring fencing from screening one auto storage area from another auto storage area. She stated that they could not give any credence to the fact there are automobiles being stored to the south, and that is apparently not something that is permitted by Larimer County Zoning which is the storage of the autos by the auto body shop. Member Strom asked if it was a current public right of way. Ms. Clark replied that it was dedicated. as a public right of way to the east property line of the subject property. Member Strom asked if they were asking for dedication for the 54 feet through the property. Ms. Clark replied that it was 54 feet from east property line to west property line. Member Strom asked at what point the City would take over maintenance of the street or should there be an annexation of the rest of Magnolia Court. Mike Herzig, Development Coordinator for the City, replied that we would not take over maintenance of a street until it is fully improved and at this point we were just asking for the dedication. He said when the street is necessary for serving property to the west, then the street would be improved to city standards and then we would take over maintenance. -12- 9 0 Member Strom asked was there an agreement being obtained a this time or . would the property owner be responsible for bringing the street to city standards. Mr. Herzig replicd that no development agreement was being obtained and that is done at the time of public improvements. Member Strom asked whether there would be some kind of improvement district set up and what would be the surfacing of the roadway in the meantime. Mr. Herzig replied it would be as it is existing now, there was no public need for it in terms of serving the general public, only private land owners use it. Member Strom asked where the floodplain runs through. Glen Schlueter, engineer with the Storm Drainage Department, replied that the floodplain on the property is at the end of the cul-de-sac on Magnolia Court, from there east. He stated the extension of Lemay has blocked off the floodplain of the Poudre River, so the Fisher property sets basically by itself, that it was not in the flood plain, and the subject property is in the 100 year floodplain backwater. Member Strom asked Mr. Specht if he was illegally storing vehicles. Mr. Specht replied that was correct. He talked to the people at the County when they thought it would be through them and found out he had to annex through the City. He stated the County was aware of the vehicles and the County told him to do nothing because he was trying to purchase the property. He stated they would go along with him as long as they were trying to purchase the property. Member Strom asked Mr. Spccht what would happen when he becomes too large for this site, and what would keep him from parking in the right-of-way. Mr. Specht replied that would not happen and when he agreed to do something that is what he stood by. He stated he .never intended to park on the right-of- way and he had plenty of storage for his business and that his business would never be that large. It was a small business and did not see a need for any room more than on the Rohrbacker property. Member O'Dell asked 'Mr. Spccht how many cars arrive . a day or week? Mr. Spccht replied that they try to strip one or two cars per week on the average. Some months they go without buying any vehicles, at the most three or four vehicles and sometimes there are several weeks where they do not pick up any vehicles. Member O'Dell asked how the cars arrive? Mr. Specht replied he had a wrecker and he picks up the vehicles. Member O'Dell asked how the cars were transported from one side of the street to the other? -13- Mr. Specht replied either by the wrecker or by a fork lift. Member Walker asked -staff whether. Magnolia would at some point service the property to the west of the site. Ms. Clark replied that was correct and the reason they had asked for the right of way dedication is that adjacent property, the Fisher property, obviously had frontage on both Highway 14 and Lemay Avenue. She stated both of those streets would provide some constraints in terms of accessing the property, because Highway 14 is the frontage of the State Department facility and Lemay Avenue was an arterial street and that they would have certain restrictions in terms of accessing the property. She stated it was logical and made sense to have an extension at least planned for East Magnolia Court although we would not see a need for it until we saw some site planning for the Fisher Property. Member Walker asked why we would want to put a fence on the either side of Magnolia which exists only in conceptual terms at this point and if the fence was put there now, when the street goes through are they going to require something else of the streetscape. He stated that at this point, the streetscape as it was proposed would be unacceptable, to have an 8' fence right up to the right of way going through there. He asked why the 8' fence now and what is the future provision for Mulberry if this were to go through. Ms. Clark replied that staff felt that it was important to get some level of screening established. She stated they had used the public right of way as the rationale for establishing where the fencing and screening should be provided. She stated that they needed to plan for the present use of the property and the long term, with the street going through. She said that it would be difficult for them to go in later and require additional improvements of right- of-way and dedications in terms of streetscape material, unless we had specific language in a development agreement to require that at some later point. . Member Walkcr asked if it was conceivable that the 8' fence as shown would meet City street standards some time in the future. Ms. Clark replied that on a local street they did have areas where there is solid fencing. They did not typically have 8' high fencing, but have looked at 8' because of the nature of the use and with stacking that might occur that there be adequate fence in terms of height to screen it. She stated they have worked with the applicant to get some landscaping to improve the appearance along the fencing. She said that if they would put the landscaping in now it would not benefit anyone but the applicant himself who was actually on that portion of the site. Member Walker asked Mr. Specht what he proposed to do with the 40' of right of way that is inside his ,fence? Mr. Specht replied that he would do nothing with it, he had enough room and it would be quite a few years before any cars would be stacked. Member Walker questioned Mr. Specht as to how merchandise moves through the facility. He asked after the engine and transmission are pulled out and then the car goes on the lot, at which point it is picked over for parts, and at some point did he send it to a crusher to get it off of his lot. -14- Mr. Specht replied that when there is no value to the vehicle they immediately take it to a crusher. He stated when the car had been around for six to eight months they crushed them also. Member O'Dell asked Mr. Spccht when they crushed a car, did they do it on the site? Mr. Specht replied that sometimes, but normally he had a truck that he hauled them off two at a time. Member O'Dell asked what kind of noise did it put out? Mr. Specht replied that it was noisy on site, but normally they haul them off two at a time. Chairman Kern asked Ms. Clark if it was a legal use in a C zone. Ms. Clark replied that it was zoned C-Commercial with a PUD condition. She stated that no use was "legal" until there is an approved PUD. In terms of an auto salvage yard in our C-Commercial zone she did not think it was permitted in the City as a use by right, I-G would be the only zoning district that would permit use -by -right of an auto salvage yard in the City. Chairman Kern asked for any differentiation between a junk yard and a auto recycling place and what other land uses can there be if this is approved. Ms. Clark stated in terms of the City differentiation, she did not believe there was any between whether something was considered a junk yard or an auto salvage yard or a auto recycling type of use. She stated the PUD process was a use specific review and approval, and if approval is given on the project, is to that specific use and in this case auto salvage yard. Chairman Kern asked in what way would the traffic impede the operation of the yard or how would the operation of this yard impede traffic. Ms. Clark replied as stated before and in the condition, that the applicant would not be able to store any equipment or vehicles in the right-of-way. The gates that he proposed, one on the north and one on the south side in the fencing, would function as a drive way like on a local street. She stated that the applicant might experience some delays in moving from one portion of the storage area to the other based on traffic on the local street and the inverse of that was the applicant may somewhat impede traffic on the local street as well, with crossing the street with equipment or automobiles in -transit. Member O'Dell moved for denial of the Rohrbacker PUD, Preliminary and Final request based on all development criteria number 1, 2. She stated that even though there are other auto salvage yards in the area that we were seeing a change in the area and an improvement In the area. She stated that the companies that were there were trying to improve the area mostly visually and that those two criteria were not met. Member Walker seconded the motion stating that first of all it was a commercial zone as was stated that in a commercial zone this is not a use -by - right as it would be in an I-G zone. He stated when looking at a PUD condition, it was looked at for an obligation to recognize compatibility of the -15- surrounding area. He cited the fencing setback and the fact of having an auto salvage yard on two sides of the street and that does not address the compatibility and sensitivity of the surrounding area. Member Shepard supported the motion for denial but commented that it was not an inappropriate use because auto salvage operations have to go somewhere. She stated that giving the surrounding environment, that it is an inappropriate use. She stated that she did not think it had been properly screened and mitigated and thought there were a lot of outstanding questions with respect to environmental issues. She said she would reconsider it as a preliminary at a Future point and would not like to see the fence along Magnolia but would rather sec a fence along the north and south property lines, so at such time if the neighborhood might change, future neighbors would be screened from the auto salvage operation. Chairman Kern stated questions he asked himself were was this an appropriate use for this area and following that, was this intensity of use appropriate for that area. He stated that there being other similar uses in the area made him lean toward it; however, he thought both the intensity of use and approval of the item might preclude other kinds of development appropriate to our current zoning and what City plans are, would that allow this kind of development to occur. He stated approval here might be inhibitory to that process. He said considering the use what guarantees do we have to guarantee the safety of the public, namely floodplain, environmental standards. Those have been partially met to his satisfaction but the preponderance of concern would lead him to support the motion for denial. The motion for denial was approved 5-2. SPRTNGBROOK PUD - Preliminary - #7-90 Sherry Aiberston-Clark gave the staff report on the project recommended approval with several conditions. Dick Rutherford, Engineer with Stewart and Associates, gave a presentation on the project, agreeing to all the conditions staff had put on the project. Member Walker asked Mr. Rutherford if he was proposing to change the existing 100-year floodplain line on lots 21-24. Mr. Rutheford replied no that was not correct and he pointed out the floodplain and floodway lines. Member Carroll asked Mr. Rutherford about the three lots that were in the floodplain and that plantings would be restricted in that area of any type of vegetation that would impede water flow. Would there be any notification of homeowners in the future of that restriction. Mr. Rutherford replied that one of the conditions placed upon them was the deed restriction or notes on a subdivision plat, but stated that this was no different than any other property restrictions put on by ordinance or conditions of approval. Member Carroll asked whether there would be a homeowners' association. -16-